,sentence ,numbers1 shown thus 7#a71 have been added by volunteer4 ,a ,theologico-,political ,treatise ,part ,,iii - ,chapters ,,xi to ,,xv by ,baruch ,spinoza ,,table ,,of ,,contents3 ,,chapter ,,xi - ,an ,inquiry whether the ,apostles wrote their ,epistles as ,apostles and ,prophets1 or merely as ,teachers1 and an ,explanation of what is meant by ,apostle4 ,the epistles not in the prophetic style4 ,the ,apostles not commanded to write or preach in particular places4 ,different methods of teaching adopted by the ,apostles4 ,,chapter ,,xii - ,of the true ,original of the ,divine ,law1 and wherefore ,scripture is called ,sacred1 and the ,word of ,god4 ,how that1 in so far as it contains the ,word of ,god1 it has come down to us uncorrupted4 ,,chapter ,,xiii - ,it is shown1 that ,scripture teaches only very ,simple ,doctrines1 such as suffice for right conduct4 ,error in speculative doctrine not impious - nor knowledge pious4 ,piety consists in obedience4 ,,chapter ,,xiv - ,definitions of ,faith1 the ,true ,faith1 and the ,foundations of ,faith1 which is once for all separated from ,philosophy4 ,danger resulting from the vulgar idea of faith4 ,the only test of faith obedience and good works4 ,as different men are disposed to obedience by different opinions1 universal faith can contain only the simplest doctrines4 ,fundamental distinction between faith and philosophy - the key-stone of the present treatise4 ,,chapter ,,xv - ,theology is shown not to be subservient to ,reason1 nor ,reason to ,theology3 a ,definition of the reason which enables us to accept the ,authority of the ,bible4 ,theory that ,scripture must be accommodated to ,reason - maintained by ,maimonides - already refuted in ,chapter vii4 ,theory that ,reason must be accommodated to ,scripture - maintained by ,alpakhar - examined4 ,and refuted4 ,scripture and ,reason independent of one another4 ,certainty1 of fundamental faith not mathematical but moral4 ,great utility of ,revelation4 ,author's ,endnotes to the ,treatise4 ,,chapter ,,xi - ,,an ,,inquiry ,,whether ,,the ,,apostles ,,wrote ,,their ,,epistles ,,as ,,apostles ,,and ,,prophets1 ,,or ,,merely ,,as ,,teachers2 ,,and ,,an ,,explanation ,,of ,,what ,,is ,,meant ,,by ,,an ,,apostle4 7#a7 ,no reader of the ,new ,testament can doubt that the ,apostles were prophets2 but as a prophet does not always speak by revelation1 but only at rare intervals1 as we showed at the end of ,chap4 ,i41 we may fairly inquire whether the ,apostles wrote their ,epistles as prophets1 by revelation and express mandate1 as ,moses1 ,jeremiah1 and others did1 or whether only as private individuals or teachers1 especially as ,paul1 in ,corinthians xiv3#f1 mentions two sorts of preaching4 7#b7 ,if we examine the style of the ,epistles1 we shall find it totally different from that employed by the prophets4 7#c7 ,the prophets are continually asserting that they speak by the command of ,god3 ,thus saith the ,lord1 ,the ,lord of hosts saith1 ,the command of the ,lord1 c42 and this was their habit not only in assemblies of the prophets1 but also in their epistles containing revelations1 as appears from the epistle of ,elijah to ,jehoram1 #b ,chron4 xxi3#ab1 which begins1 ,thus saith the ,lord4 7#d7 ,in the ,apostolic ,epistles we find nothing of the sort4 7#e7 ,contrariwise1 in ,i ,cor4 vii3#dj ,paul speaks according to his own opinion and in many passages we come across doubtful and perplexed phrase2 such as1 ,we think1 therefore1 ,rom4 iii3#bh2 ,now ,i think1 ,endnote #bd1 ,rom4 viii3#ah1 and so on4 7#f7 ,besides these1 other expressions are met with very different from those used by the prophets4 7#g7 ,for instance1 #a ,cor4 vii3#f1 ,but ,i speak this by permission1 not by commandment2 ,i give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the ,lord to be faithful 7#a ,cor4 vii3#be71 and so on in many other passages4 7#h7 ,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 ,god1 he does not mean the precept or commandment of ,god revealed to himself1 but only the words uttered by ,christ in ,his ,sermon on the ,mount4 7#i7 ,furthermore1 if we examine the manner in which the ,apostles give out evangelical doctrine1 we shall see that it differs materially from the method adopted by the prophets4 7#aj7 ,the ,apostles everywhere reason as if they were arguing rather than prophesying2 the prophecies1 on the other hand1 contain only dogmas and commands4 7#aa7 ,god is therein introduced not as speaking to reason1 but as issuing decrees by ,his absolute fiat4 7#ab7 ,the authority of the prophets does not submit to discussion1 for whosoever wishes to find rational ground for his arguments1 by that very wish submits them to everyone's private judgment4 7#ac7 ,this ,paul1 inasmuch as he uses reason1 appears to have done1 for he says in #a ,cor4 x3#ae1 ,i speak as to wise men1 judge ye what ,i say4 7#ad7 ,the prophets1 as we showed at the end of ,chapter ,i41 did not perceive what was revealed by virtue of their natural reason1 and though there are certain passages in the ,pentateuch which seem to be appeals to induction1 they turn out1 on nearer examination1 to be nothing but peremptory commands4 7#ae7 ,for instance1 when ,moses says1 ,deut4 xxxi3#bg1 ,behold1 while ,i am yet alive with you1 this day ye have been rebellious against the ,lord2 and how much more after my death1 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 death2 for the argument would have been false1 as ,scripture itself shows3 the ,israelites continued faithful during the lives of ,joshua and the elders1 and afterwards during the time of ,samuel1 ,david1 and ,solomon4 7#af7 ,therefore the words of ,moses are merely a moral injunction1 in which he predicts rhetorically the future backsliding of the people so as to impress it vividly on their imagination4 7#ag7 ,i say that ,moses spoke of himself in order to lend likelihood to his prediction1 and not as a prophet by revelation1 because in verse #ba of the same chapter we are told that ,god revealed the same thing to ,moses in different words1 and there was no need to make ,moses certain by argument of ,god's prediction and decree2 it was only necessary that it should be vividly impressed on his imagination1 and this could not be better accomplished than by imagining the existing contumacy of the people1 of which he had had frequent experience1 as likely to extend into the future4 7#ah7 ,all the arguments employed by ,moses in the five books are to be understood in a similar manner2 they are not drawn from the armoury of reason1 but are merely modes of expression calculated to instil with efficacy1 and present vividly to the imagination the commands of ,god4 7#ai7 ,however1 ,i do not wish absolutely to deny that the prophets ever argued from revelation2 ,i only maintain that the prophets made more legitimate use of argument in proportion as their knowledge approached more nearly to ordinary knowledge1 and by this we know that they possessed a knowledge above the ordinary1 inasmuch as they proclaimed absolute dogmas1 decrees1 or judgments4 7#bj7 ,thus ,moses1 the chief of the prophets1 never used legitimate argument1 and1 on the other hand1 the long deductions and arguments of ,paul1 such as we find in the ,epistle to the ,romans1 are in nowise written from supernatural revelation4 7#ba7 ,the modes of expression and discourse adopted by the ,apostles in the ,epistles1 show very clearly that the latter were not written by revelation and ,divine command1 but merely by the natural powers and judgment of the authors4 7#bb7 ,they consist in brotherly admonitions and courteous expressions such as would never be employed in prophecy1 as for instance1 ,paul's excuse in ,romans xv3#ae1 ,i have written the more boldly unto you in some sort1 my brethren4 7#bc7 ,we may arrive at the same conclusion from observing that we never read that the ,apostles were commanded to write1 but only that they went everywhere preaching1 and confirmed their words with signs4 7#bd7 ,their personal presence and signs were absolutely necessary for the conversion and establishment in religion of the ,gentiles2 as ,paul himself expressly states in ,rom4 i3#aa1 ,but ,i long to see you1 that ,i may impart to you some spiritual gift1 to the end that ye may be established4 7#be7 ,it may be objected that we might prove in similar fashion that the ,apostles did not preach as prophets1 for they did not go to particular places1 as the prophets did1 by the command of ,god4 7#bf7 ,we read in the ,old ,testament that ,jonah went to ,nineveh to preach1 and at the same time that he was expressly sent there1 and told that he most preach4 7#bg7 ,so also it is related1 at great length1 of ,moses that he went to ,egypt as the messenger of ,god1 and was told at the same time what he should say to the children of ,israel and to king ,pharaoh1 and what wonders he should work before them to give credit to his words4 7#bh7 ,isaiah1 ,jeremiah1 and ,ezekiel were expressly commanded to preach to the ,israelites4 ,lastly1 the prophets only preached what we are assured by ,scripture they had received from ,god1 whereas this is hardly ever said of the ,apostles in the ,new ,testament1 when they went about to preach4 7#bi7 ,on the contrary1 we find passages expressly implying that the ,apostles chose the places where they should preach on their own responsibility1 for there was a difference amounting to a quarrel between ,paul and ,barnabas on the subject 7,acts xv3#cg1 #ch74 7#cj7 ,often they wished to go to a place1 but were prevented1 as ,paul writes1 ,rom4 i3#ac1 ,oftentimes ,i purposed to come to you1 but was let hitherto2 and in ,i ,cor4 xvi3#ab1 ,as touching our brother ,apollos1 ,i greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren1 but his will was not at all to come at this time3 but he will come when he shall have convenient time4 7#ca7 ,from these expressions and differences of opinion among the ,apostles1 and also from the fact that ,scripture nowhere testifies of them1 as of the ancient prophets1 that they went by the command of ,god1 one might conclude that they preached as well as wrote in their capacity of teachers1 and not as prophets3 but the question is easily solved if we observe the difference between the mission of an ,apostle and that of an ,old ,testament prophet4 7#cb7 ,the latter were not called to preach and prophesy to all nations1 but to certain specified ones1 and therefore an express and peculiar mandate was required for each of them2 the ,apostles1 on the other hand1 were called to preach to all men absolutely1 and to turn all men to religion4 7#cc7 ,therefore1 whithersoever they went1 they were fulfilling ,christ's commandment2 there was no need to reveal to them beforehand what they should preach1 for they were the disciples of ,christ to whom their ,master ,himself said 7,matt4 ,x3#ai1 #bj73 ,but1 when they deliver you up1 take no thought how or what ye shall speak1 for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak4 7#cd7 ,we therefore conclude that the ,apostles were only indebted to special revelation in what they orally preached and confirmed by signs 7see the beginning of ,chap4 #aa472 that which they taught in speaking or writing without any confirmatory signs and wonders they taught from their natural knowledge4 7,see ,i ,cor4 xiv3#f47 7#ce7 ,we need not be deterred by the fact that all the ,epistles begin by citing the imprimatur of the ,apostleship1 for the ,apostles1 as ,i will shortly show1 were granted1 not only the faculty of prophecy1 but also the authority to teach4 7#cf7 ,we may therefore admit that they wrote their ,epistles as ,apostles1 and for this cause every one of them began by citing the ,apostolic imprimatur1 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 preaching1 and had shown by many marvelous works that they were teaching true religion and the way of salvation4 7#cg7 ,i observe that what is said in the ,epistles with regard to the ,apostolic vocation and the ,holy ,spirit of ,god which inspired them1 has reference to their former preaching1 except in those passages where the expressions of the ,spirit of ,god and the ,holy ,spirit are used to signify a mind pure1 upright1 and devoted to ,god4 7#ch7 ,for instance1 in #a ,cor4 vii3#dj1 ,paul says3 ,but she is happier if she so abide1 after my judgment1 and ,i think also that ,i have the ,spirit of ,god4 7#ci7 ,by the ,spirit of ,god the ,apostle here refers to his mind1 as we may see from the context3 his meaning is as follows3 ,i account blessed a widow who does not wish to marry a second husband2 such is my opinion1 for ,i have settled to live unmarried1 and ,i think that ,i am blessed4 7#dj7 ,there are other similar passages which ,i need not now quote4 7#da7 ,as we have seen that the ,apostles wrote their ,epistles solely by the light of natural reason1 we must inquire how they were enabled to teach by natural knowledge matters outside its scope4 7#db7 ,however1 if we bear in mind what we said in ,chap4 ,,vii4 of this treatise our difficulty will vanish3 for although the contents of the ,bible entirely surpass our understanding1 we may safely discourse of them1 provided we assume nothing not told us in ,scripture3 by the same method the ,apostles1 from what they saw and heard1 and from what was revealed to them1 were enabled to form and elicit many conclusions which they would have been able to teach to men had it been permissible4 7#dc7 ,further1 although religion1 as preached by the ,apostles1 does not come within the sphere of reason1 in so far as it consists in the narration of the life of ,christ1 yet its essence1 which is chiefly moral1 like the whole of ,christ's doctrine1 can readily be apprehended by the natural faculties of all4 7#dd7 ,lastly1 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 received2 nor for exhortations on the subject3 in fact1 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 religion4 7#de7 ,we may here repeat our former remark1 that the ,apostles had received not only the faculty of preaching the history1 of ,christ as prophets1 and confirming it with signs1 but also authority for teaching and exhorting according as each thought best4 7#df7 ,paul 7#b ,tim4 i3#aa71 ,whereunto ,i am appointed a preacher1 and an apostle1 and a teacher of the ,gentiles2 and again 7,i ,tim4 ii3#g71 ,whereunto ,i am ordained a preacher and an apostle 7,i speak the truth in ,christ and lie not71 a teacher of the ,gentiles in faith and verity4 7#dg7 ,these passages1 ,i say1 show clearly the stamp both of the apostleship and the teachership3 the authority for admonishing whomsoever and wheresoever he pleased is asserted by ,paul in the ,epistle to ,philemon1 v3#h3 ,wherefore1 though ,i might be much bold in ,christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient1 yet1 c41 where we may remark that if ,paul had received from ,god as a prophet what he wished to enjoin ,philemon1 and had been bound to speak in his prophetic capacity1 he would not have been able to change the command of ,god into entreaties4 7#dh7 ,we must therefore understand him to refer to the permission to admonish which he had received as a teacher1 and not as a prophet4 7#di7 ,we have not yet made it quite clear that the ,apostles might each choose his own way of teaching1 but only that by virtue of their ,apostleship they were teachers as well as prophets2 however1 if we call reason to our aid we shall clearly see that an authority to teach implies authority to choose the method4 7#ej7 ,it will nevertheless be1 perhaps1 more satisfactory to draw all our proofs from ,scripture2 we are there plainly told that each ,apostle chose his particular method 7,rom4 xv3 #bj73 ,yea1 so have ,i strived to preach the gospel1 not where ,christ was named1 lest ,i should build upon another man's foundation4 7#ea7 ,if all the ,apostles had adopted the same method of teaching1 and had all built up the ,christian religion on the same foundation1 ,paul would have had no reason to call the work of a fellow-,apostle another man's foundation1 inasmuch as it would have been identical with his own3 his calling it another man's proved that each ,apostle built up his religious instruction on different foundations1 thus resembling other teachers who have each their own method1 and prefer instructing quite ignorant people who have never learnt under another master1 whether the subject be science1 languages1 or even the indisputable truths of mathematics4 7#eb7 ,furthermore1 if we go through the ,epistles at all attentively1 we shall see that the ,apostles1 while agreeing about religion itself1 are at variance as to the foundations it rests on4 7#ec7 ,paul1 in order to strengthen men's religion1 and show them that salvation depends solely on the grace of ,god1 teaches that no one can boast of works1 but only of faith1 and that no one can be justified by works 7,rom4 iii3#bg1bh72 in fact1 he preaches the complete doctrine of predestination4 7#ed7 ,james1 on the other hand1 states that man is justified by works1 and not by faith only 7see his ,epistle1 ii3#bd71 and omitting all the disputations of ,paul1 confines religion to a very few elements4 7#ee7 ,lastly1 it is indisputable that from these different grounds for religion selected by the ,apostles1 many quarrels and schisms distracted the ,church1 even in the earliest times1 and doubtless they will continue so to distract it for ever1 or at least till religion is separated from philosophical speculations1 and reduced to the few simple doctrines taught by ,christ to ,his disciples2 such a task was impossible for the ,apostles1 because the ,gospel was then unknown to mankind1 and lest its novelty should offend men's ears it had to be adapted to the disposition of contemporaries 7#b ,cor4 ix3#ai1 #bj71 and built up on the groundwork most familiar and accepted at the time4 7#ef7 ,thus none of the ,apostles philosophized more than did ,paul1 who was called to preach to the ,gentiles2 other ,apostles preaching to the ,jews1 who despised philosophy1 similarly1 adapted themselves to the temper of their hearers 7see ,gal4 ii4 #aa71 and preached a religion free from all philosophical speculations4 7#eg7 ,how blest would our age be if it could witness a religion freed also from all the trammels of superstition6 ,,chapter ,,xii - ,,of ,,the ,,true ,,original ,,of ,,the ,,divine ,,law1 ,,and ,,wherefore ,,scripture ,,is ,,called ,,sacred1 ,,and ,,the ,,word ,,of ,,god4 ,,how ,,that1 ,,in ,,so ,,far ,,as ,,it ,,contains ,,the ,,word ,,of ,,god1 ,,it ,,has ,,come ,,down ,,to ,,us ,,uncorrupted4 7#a7 ,those who look upon the ,bible as a message sent down by ,god from ,heaven to men1 will doubtless cry out that ,i have committed the sin against the ,holy ,ghost because ,i have asserted that the ,word of ,god is faulty1 mutilated1 tampered with1 and inconsistent2 that we possess it only in fragments1 and that the original of the covenant which ,god made with the ,jews has been lost4 7#b7 ,however1 ,i have no doubt that a little reflection will cause them to desist from their uproar3 for not only reason but the expressed opinions of prophets and apostles openly proclaim that ,god's eternal ,word and covenant1 no less than true religion1 is ,divinely inscribed in human hearts1 that is1 in the human mind1 and that this is the true original of ,god's covenant1 stamped with ,his own seal1 namely1 the idea of ,himself1 as it were1 with the image of ,his ,godhood4 7#c7 ,religion was imparted to the early ,hebrews as a law written down1 because they were at that time in the condition of children1 but afterwards ,moses 7,deut4 xxx3#f7 and ,jeremiah 7xxxi3#cc7 predicted a time coming when the ,lord should write ,his law in their hearts4 7#d7 ,thus only the ,jews1 and amongst them chiefly the ,sadducees1 struggled for the law written on tablets2 least of all need those who bear it inscribed on their hearts join in the contest4 7#e7 ,those1 therefore1 who reflect1 will find nothing in what ,i have written repugnant either to the ,word of ,god or to true religion and faith1 or calculated to weaken either one or the other3 contrariwise1 they will see that ,i have strengthened religion1 as ,i showed at the end of ,chapter ,x42 indeed1 had it not been so1 ,i should certainly have decided to hold my peace1 nay1 ,i would even have asserted as a way out of all difficulties that the ,bible contains the most profound hidden mysteries2 however1 as this doctrine has given rise to gross superstition and other pernicious results spoken of at the beginning of ,chapter ,v41 ,i have thought such a course unnecessary1 especially as religion stands in no need of superstitious adornments1 but is1 on the contrary1 deprived by such trappings of some of her splendour4 7#f7 ,still1 it will be said1 though the law of ,god is written in the heart1 the ,bible is none the less the ,word of ,god1 and it is no more lawful to say of ,scripture than of ,god's ,word that it is mutilated and corrupted4 7#g7 ,i fear that such objectors are too anxious to be pious1 and that they are in danger of turning religion into superstition1 and worshipping paper and ink in place of ,god's ,word4 7#h7 ,i am certified of thus much3 ,i have said nothing unworthy of ,scripture or ,god's ,word1 and ,i have made no assertions which ,i could not prove by most plain argument to be true4 7#i7 ,i can1 therefore1 rest assured that ,i have advanced nothing which is impious or even savours of impiety4 7#aj7 ,i confess that some profane men1 to whom religion is a burden1 may1 from what ,i have said1 assume a licence to sin1 and without any reason1 at the simple dictates of their lusts conclude that ,scripture is everywhere faulty and falsified1 and that therefore its authority is null2 but such men are beyond the reach of help1 for nothing1 as the proverb has it1 can be said so rightly that it cannot be twisted into wrong4 7#aa7 ,those who wish to give rein to their lusts are at no loss for an excuse1 nor were those men of old who possessed the original ,scriptures1 the ark of the covenant1 nay1 the prophets and apostles in person among them1 any better than the people of to-day4 7#ab7 ,human nature1 ,jew as well as ,gentile1 has always been the same1 and in every age virtue has been exceedingly rare4 7#ac7 ,nevertheless1 to remove every scruple1 ,i will here show in what sense the ,bible or any inanimate thing should be called sacred and ,divine2 also wherein the law of ,god consists1 and how it cannot be contained in a certain number of books2 and1 lastly1 ,i will show that ,scripture1 in so far as it teaches what is necessary for obedience and salvation1 cannot have been corrupted4 7#ad7 ,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 impiety4 7#ae7 ,a thing is called sacred and ,divine when it is designed for promoting piety1 and continues sacred so long as it is religiously used3 if the users cease to be pious1 the thing ceases to be sacred3 if it be turned to base uses1 that which was formerly sacred becomes unclean and profane4 7#af7 ,for instance1 a certain spot was named by the patriarch ,jacob the house of ,god1 because he worshipped ,god there revealed to him3 by the prophets the same spot was called the house of iniquity 7see ,amos v3#e1 and ,hosea x3#e71 because the ,israelites were wont1 at the instigation of ,jeroboam1 to sacrifice there to idols4 7#ag7 ,another example puts the matter in the plainest light4 7#ah7 ,words gain their meaning solely from their usage1 and if they are arranged according to their accepted signification so as to move those who read them to devotion1 they will become sacred1 and the book so written will be sacred also4 7#ai7 ,but if their usage afterwards dies out so that the words have no meaning1 or the book becomes utterly neglected1 whether from unworthy motives1 or because it is no longer needed1 then the words and the book will lose both their use and their sanctity3 lastly1 if these same words be otherwise arranged1 or if their customary meaning becomes perverted into its opposite1 then both the words and the book containing them become1 instead of sacred1 impure and profane4 7#bj7 ,from this it follows that nothing is in itself absolutely sacred1 or profane1 and unclean1 apart from the mind1 but only relatively thereto4 7#ba7 ,thus much is clear from many passages in the ,bible4 7#bb7 ,jeremiah 7to select one case out of many7 says 7chap4 vii3#d71 that the ,jews of his time were wrong in calling ,solomon's ,temple1 the ,temple of ,god1 for1 as he goes on to say in the same chapter1 ,god's name would only be given to the ,temple so long as it was frequented by men who worshipped ,him1 and defended justice1 but that1 if it became the resort of murderers1 thieves1 idolaters1 and other wicked persons1 it would be turned into a den of malefactors4 7#bc7 ,scripture1 curiously enough1 nowhere tells us what became of the ,ark of the ,covenant1 though there is no doubt that it was destroyed1 or burnt together with the ,temple2 yet there was nothing which the ,hebrews considered more sacred1 or held in greater reverence4 7#bd7 ,thus ,scripture is sacred1 and its words ,divine so long as it stirs mankind to devotion towards ,god3 but if it be utterly neglected1 as it formerly was by the ,jews1 it becomes nothing but paper and ink1 and is left to be desecrated or corrupted3 still1 though ,scripture be thus corrupted or destroyed1 we must not say that the ,word of ,god has suffered in like manner1 else we shall be like the ,jews1 who said that the ,temple which would then be the ,temple of ,god had perished in the flames4 7#be7 ,jeremiah tells us this in respect to the law1 for he thus chides the ungodly of his time1 ,wherefore1 say you we are masters1 and the law of the ,lord is with us8 7#bf7 ,surely it has been given in vain1 it is in vain that the pen of the scribes 7has been made7 - that is1 you say falsely that the ,scripture is in your power1 and that you possess the law of ,god2 for ye have made it of none effect4 7#bg7 ,so also1 when ,moses broke the first tables of the law1 he did not by any means cast the ,word of ,god from his hands in anger and shatter it - such an action would be inconceivable1 either of ,moses or of ,god's ,word - he only broke the tables of stone1 which1 though they had before been holy from containing the covenant wherewith the ,jews had bound themselves in obedience to ,god1 had entirely lost their sanctity when the covenant had been violated by the worship of the calf1 and were1 therefore1 as liable to perish as the ark of the covenant4 7#bh7 ,it is thus scarcely to be wondered at1 that the original documents of ,moses are no longer extant1 nor that the books we possess met with the fate we have described1 when we consider that the true original of the ,divine covenant1 the most sacred object of all1 has totally perished4 7#bi7 ,let them cease1 therefore1 who accuse us of impiety1 inasmuch as we have said nothing against the ,word of ,god1 neither have we corrupted it1 but let them keep their anger1 if they would wreak it justly1 for the ancients whose malice desecrated the ,ark1 the ,temple1 and the ,law of ,god1 and all that was held sacred1 subjecting them to corruption4 7#cj7 ,furthermore1 if1 according to the saying of the ,apostle in #b ,cor4 iii3#c1 they possessed the ,epistle of ,christ1 written not with ink1 but with the ,spirit of the living ,god1 not in tables of stone1 but in the fleshy tables of the heart1 let them cease to worship the letter1 and be so anxious concerning it4 7#ca7 ,i think ,i have now sufficiently shown in what respect ,scripture should be accounted sacred and ,divine2 we may now see what should rightly be understood by the expression1 the ,word of the ,lord2 debar 7the ,hebrew original7 signifies word1 speech1 command1 and thing4 7#cb7 ,the causes for which a thing is in ,hebrew said to be of ,god1 or is referred to ,him1 have been already detailed in ,chap4 ,i41 and we can therefrom easily gather what meaning ,scripture attaches to the phrases1 the word1 the speech1 the command1 or the thing of ,god4 7#cc7 ,i need not1 therefore1 repeat what ,i there said1 nor what was shown under the third head in the chapter on miracles4 7#cd7 ,it is enough to mention the repetition for the better understanding of what ,i am about to say - viz41 that the ,word of the ,lord when it has reference to anyone but ,god ,himself1 signifies that ,divine law treated of in ,chap4 ,,iv42 in other words1 religion1 universal and catholic to the whole human race1 as ,isaiah describes it 7chap4 i3#aj71 teaching that the true way of life consists1 not in ceremonies1 but in charity1 and a true heart1 and calling it indifferently ,god's ,law and ,god's ,word4 7#ce7 ,the expression is also used metaphorically for the order of nature and destiny 7which1 indeed1 actually depend and follow from the eternal mandate of the ,divine nature71 and especially for such parts of such order as were foreseen by the prophets1 for the prophets did not perceive future events as the result of natural causes1 but as the fiats and decrees of ,god4 7#cf7 ,lastly1 it is employed for the command of any prophet1 in so far as he had perceived it by his peculiar faculty or prophetic gift1 and not by the natural light of reason2 this use springs chiefly from the usual prophetic conception of ,god as a legislator1 which we remarked in ,chap4 ,,iv4 7#cg7 ,there are1 then1 three causes for the ,bible's being called the ,word of ,god3 because it teaches true religion1 of which ,god is the eternal ,founder2 because it narrates predictions of future events as though they were decrees of ,god2 because its actual authors generally perceived things not by their ordinary natural faculties1 but by a power peculiar to themselves1 and introduced these things perceived1 as told them by ,god4 7#cg7 ,although ,scripture contains much that is merely historical and can be perceived by natural reason1 yet its name is acquired from its chief subject matter4 7#ch7 ,we can thus easily see how ,god can be said to be the ,author of the ,bible3 it is because of the true religion therein contained1 and not because ,he wished to communicate to men a certain number of books4 7#ci7 ,we can also learn from hence the reason for the division into ,old and ,new ,testament4 7#dj7 ,it was made because the prophets who preached religion before ,christ1 preached it as a national law in virtue of the covenant entered into under ,moses2 while the ,apostles who came after ,christ1 preached it to all men as a universal religion solely in virtue of ,christ's ,passion3 the cause for the division is not that the two parts are different in doctrine1 nor that they were written as originals of the covenant1 nor1 lastly1 that the catholic religion 7which is in entire harmony with our nature7 was new except in relation to those who had not known it3 it was in the world1 as ,john the ,evangelist says1 and the world knew it not4 7#da7 ,thus1 even if we had fewer books of the ,old and ,new ,testament than we have1 we should still not be deprived of the ,word of ,god 7which1 as we have said1 is identical with true religion71 even as we do not now hold ourselves to be deprived of it1 though we lack many cardinal writings such as the ,book of the ,law1 which was religiously guarded in the ,temple as the original of the ,covenant1 also the ,book of ,wars1 the ,book of ,chronicles1 and many others1 from whence the extant ,old ,testament was taken and compiled4 7#db7 ,the above conclusion may be supported by many reasons4 7#dc7 ,i4 ,because the books of both ,testaments were not written by express command at one place for all ages1 but are a fortuitous collection of the works of men1 writing each as his period and disposition dictated4 7#dd7 ,so much is clearly shown by the call of the prophets who were bade to admonish the ungodly of their time1 and also by the ,apostolic ,epistles4 7#de7 ,,ii4 ,because it is one thing to understand the meaning of ,scripture and the prophets1 and quite another thing to understand the meaning of ,god1 or the actual truth4 7#df7 ,this follows from what we said in ,chap4 ,,ii4 7#dg7 ,we showed1 in ,chap4 ,,vi41 that it applied to historic narratives1 and to miracles3 but it by no means applies to questions concerning true religion and virtue4 7#dh7 ,,iii4 ,because the books of the ,old ,testament were selected from many1 and were collected and sanctioned by a council of the ,pharisees1 as we showed in ,chap4 ,x4 7#di7 ,the books of the ,new ,testament were also chosen from many by councils which rejected as spurious other books held sacred by many4 7#ej7 ,but these councils1 both ,pharisee and ,christian1 were not composed of prophets1 but only of learned men and teachers4 7#ea7 ,still1 we must grant that they were guided in their choice by a regard for the ,word of ,god2 and they must1 therefore1 have known what the law of ,god was4 7#eb7 ,,iv4 ,because the ,apostles wrote not as prophets1 but as teachers 7see last ,chapter71 and chose whatever method they thought best adapted for those whom they addressed3 and consequently1 there are many things in the ,epistles 7as we showed at the end of the last ,chapter7 which are not necessary to salvation4 7#ec7 ,v4 ,lastly1 because there are four ,evangelists in the ,new ,testament1 and it is scarcely credible that ,god can have designed to narrate the life of ,christ four times over1 and to communicate it thus to mankind4 7#ed7 ,for though there are some details related in one ,gospel which are not in another1 and one often helps us to understand another1 we cannot thence conclude that all that is set down is of vital importance to us1 and that ,god chose the four ,evangelists in order that the life of ,christ might be better understood2 for each one preached his ,gospel in a separate locality1 each wrote it down as he preached it1 in simple language1 in order that the history of ,christ might be clearly told1 not with any view of explaining his fellow-,evangelists4 7#ee7 ,if there are some passages which can be better1 and more easily understood by comparing the various versions1 they are the result of chance1 and are not numerous3 their continuance in obscurity would have impaired neither the clearness of the narrative nor the blessedness of mankind4 7#ef7 ,we have now shown that ,scripture can only be called the ,word of ,god in so far as it affects religion1 or the ,divine law2 we must now point out that1 in respect to these questions1 it is neither faulty1 tampered with1 nor corrupt4 7#eg7 ,by faulty1 tampered with1 and corrupt1 ,i here mean written so incorrectly1 that the meaning cannot be arrived at by a study of the language1 nor from the authority of ,scripture4 7#eh7 ,i will not go to such lengths as to say that the ,bible1 in so far as it contains the ,divine law1 has always preserved the same vowel-points1 the same letters1 or the same words 7,i leave this to be proved by the ,massoretes and other worshippers of the letter71 ,i only1 maintain that the meaning by which alone an utterance is entitled to be called ,divine1 has come down to us uncorrupted1 even though the original wording may have been more often changed than we suppose4 7#ei7 ,such alterations1 as ,i have said above1 detract nothing from the ,divinity of the ,bible1 for the ,bible would have been no less ,divine had it been written in different words or a different language4 7#fj7 ,that the ,divine law has in this sense come down to us uncorrupted1 is an assertion which admits of no dispute4 7#fa7 ,for from the ,bible itself we learn1 without the smallest difficulty or ambiguity1 that its cardinal precept is3 ,to love ,god above all things1 and one's neighbour as one's self4 7#fb7 ,this cannot be a spurious passage1 nor due to a hasty and mistaken scribe1 for if the ,bible had ever put forth a different doctrine it would have had to change the whole of its teaching1 for this is the corner-stone of religion1 without which the whole fabric would fall headlong to the ground4 7#fc7 ,the ,bible would not be the work we have been examining1 but something quite different4 7#fd7 ,we remain1 then1 unshaken in our belief that this has always been the doctrine of ,scripture1 and1 consequently1 that no error sufficient to vitiate it can have crept in without being instantly1 observed by all2 nor can anyone have succeeded in tampering with it and escaped the discovery of his malice4 7#fe7 ,as this corner-stone is intact1 we must perforce admit the same of whatever other passages are indisputably dependent on it1 and are also fundamental1 as1 for instance1 that a ,god exists1 that ,he foresees all things1 that ,he is ,almighty1 that by ,his decree the good prosper and the wicked come to naught1 and1 finally1 that our salvation depends solely on ,his grace4 7#ff7 ,these are doctrines which ,scripture plainly teaches throughout1 and which it is bound to teach1 else all the rest would be empty and baseless2 nor can we be less positive about other moral doctrines1 which plainly are built upon this universal foundation - for instance1 to uphold justice1 to aid the weak1 to do no murder1 to covet no man's goods1 c4 7#fg7 ,precepts1 ,i repeat1 such as these1 human malice and the lapse of ages are alike powerless to destroy1 for if any part of them perished1 its loss would immediately be supplied from the fundamental principle1 especially the doctrine of charity1 which is everywhere in both ,testaments extolled above all others4 7#fh7 ,moreover1 though it be true that there is no conceivable crime so heinous that it has never been committed1 still there is no one who would attempt in excuse for his crimes to destroy the law1 or introduce an impious doctrine in the place of what is eternal and salutary2 men's nature is so constituted that everyone 7be he king or subject7 who has committed a base action1 tries to deck out his conduct with spurious excuses1 till he seems to have done nothing but what is just and right4 7#fi7 ,we may conclude1 therefore1 that the whole ,divine law1 as taught by ,scripture1 has come down to us uncorrupted4 7#gj7 ,besides this there are certain facts which we may be sure have been transmitted in good faith4 7#ga7 ,for instance1 the main facts of ,hebrew history1 which were perfectly well known to everyone4 7#gb7 ,the ,jewish people were accustomed in former times to chant the ancient history of their nation in psalms4 7#gc7 ,the main facts1 also1 of ,christ's life and passion were immediately spread abroad through the whole ,roman empire4 7#gd7 ,it is therefore scarcely credible1 unless nearly everybody consented thereto1 which we cannot suppose1 that successive generations have handed down the broad outline of the ,gospel narrative otherwise than as they received it4 7#gd7 ,whatsoever1 therefore1 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 devotion2 or in some miracle1 with a view of confounding philosophers2 or1 lastly1 in speculative matters after they had become mixed up with religion1 so that some individual might prop up his own inventions with a pretext of ,divine authority4 7#ge7 ,but such matters have little to do with salvation1 whether they be corrupted little or much1 as ,i will show in detail in the next chapter1 though ,i think the question sufficiently plain from what ,i have said already1 especially in ,chapter ,,ii4 ,,chapter ,,xiii - ,,it ,,is ,,shown ,,that ,,scripture ,,teaches ,,only ,,very ,,simple ,,doctrines1 ,,such ,,as ,,suffice ,,for ,,right ,,conduct4 7#a7 ,in the second chapter of this treatise we pointed out that the prophets were gifted with extraordinary powers of imagination1 but not of understanding2 also that ,god only revealed to them such things as are very simple - not philosophic mysteries1 - and that ,he adapted ,his communications to their previous opinions4 7#b7 ,we further showed in ,chap4 ,v4 that ,scripture only transmits and teaches truths which can readily be comprehended by all2 not deducing and concatenating its conclusions from definitions and axioms1 but narrating quite simply1 and confirming its statements1 with a view to inspiring belief1 by an appeal to experience as exemplified in miracles and history1 and setting forth its truths in the style and phraseology which would most appeal to the popular mind 7cf4 ,chap4 ,,vi41 third division74 7#c7 ,lastly1 we demonstrated in ,chap4 ,,viii4 that the difficulty of understanding ,scripture lies in the language only1 and not in the abstruseness of the argument4 7#d7 ,to these considerations we may add that the ,prophets did not preach only to the learned1 but to all ,jews1 without exception1 while the ,apostles were wont to teach the gospel doctrine in churches where there were public meetings2 whence it follows that ,scriptural doctrine contains no lofty speculations nor philosophic reasoning1 but only very simple matters1 such as could be understood by the slowest intelligence4 7#e7 ,i am consequently lost in wonder at the ingenuity of those whom ,i have already mentioned1 who detect in the ,bible mysteries so profound that they cannot be explained in human language1 and who have introduced so many philosophic speculations into religion that the ,church seems like an academy1 and religion like a science1 or rather a dispute4 7#f7 ,it is not to be wondered at that men1 who boast of possessing supernatural intelligence1 should be unwilling to yield the palm of knowledge to philosophers who have only their ordinary faculties2 still ,i should be surprised if ,i found them teaching any new speculative doctrine1 which was not a commonplace to those ,gentile philosophers whom1 in spite of all1 they stigmatize as blind2 for1 if one inquires what these mysteries lurking in ,scripture may be1 one is confronted with nothing but the reflections of ,plato or ,aristotle1 or the like1 which it would often be easier for an ignorant man to dream than for the most accomplished scholar to wrest out of the ,bible4 7#g7 ,however1 ,i do not wish to affirm absolutely that ,scripture contains no doctrines in the sphere of philosophy1 for in the last chapter ,i pointed out some of the kind1 as fundamental principles2 but ,i go so far as to say that such doctrines are very few and very simple4 7#h7 ,their precise nature and definition ,i will now set forth4 7#i7 ,the task will be easy1 for we know that ,scripture does not aim at imparting scientific knowledge1 and1 therefore1 it demands from men nothing but obedience1 and censures obstinacy1 but not ignorance4 7#aj7 ,furthermore1 as obedience to ,god consists solely in love to our neighbour - for whosoever loveth his neighbour1 as a means of obeying ,god1 hath1 as ,st4 ,paul says 7,rom4 xiii3#h71 fulfilled the law1 - 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 stated1 and without which they would become rebellious1 or without the discipline of obedience4 7#aa7 ,other speculative questions1 which have no direct bearing on this object1 or are concerned with the knowledge of natural events1 do not affect ,scripture1 and should be entirely separated from religion4 7#ab7 ,now1 though everyone1 as we have said1 is now quite able to see this truth for himself1 ,i should nevertheless wish1 considering that the whole of ,religion depends thereon1 to explain the entire question more accurately and clearly4 7#ac7 ,to this end ,i must first prove that the intellectual or accurate knowledge of ,god is not a gift1 bestowed upon all good men like obedience2 and1 further1 that the knowledge of ,god1 required by ,him through ,his prophets from everyone without exception1 as needful to be known1 is simply a knowledge of ,his ,divine justice and charity4 7#ad7 ,both these points are easily proved from ,scripture4 7#ae7 ,the first plainly follows from ,exodus vi3#b1 where ,god1 in order to show the singular grace bestowed upon ,moses1 says to him3 ,and ,i appeared unto ,abraham1 unto ,isaac1 and unto ,jacob by the name of ,el ,sadai 7,a4 ,v4 ,god ,almighty72 but by my name ,jehovah was ,i not known to them - for the better understanding of which passage ,i may remark that ,el ,sadai1 in ,hebrew1 signifies the ,god who suffices1 in that ,he gives to every man that which suffices for him2 and1 although ,sadai is often used by itself1 to signify ,god1 we cannot doubt that the word ,el 7,god1 power1 might7 is everywhere understood4 7#af7 ,furthermore1 we must note that ,jehovah is the only word found in ,scripture with the meaning of the absolute essence of ,god1 without reference to created things4 7#ag7 ,the ,jews maintain1 for this reason1 that this is1 strictly speaking1 the only name of ,god2 that the rest of the words used are merely titles2 and1 in truth1 the other names of ,god1 whether they be substantives or adjectives1 are merely attributive1 and belong to ,him1 in so far as ,he is conceived of in relation to created things1 or manifested through them4 7#ah7 ,thus ,el1 or ,eloah1 signifies powerful1 as is well known1 and only applies to ,god in respect to ,his supremacy1 as when we call ,paul an apostle2 the faculties of his power are set forth in an accompanying adjective1 as ,el1 great1 awful1 just1 merciful1 c41 or else all are understood at once by the use of ,el in the plural number1 with a singular signification1 an expression frequently adopted in ,scripture4 7#ai7 ,now1 as ,god tells ,moses that ,he was not known to the patriarchs by the name of ,jehovah1 it follows that they were not cognizant of any attribute of ,god which expresses ,his absolute essence1 but only of ,his deeds and promises that is1 of ,his power1 as manifested in visible things4 7#bj7 ,god does not thus speak to ,moses in order to accuse the patriarchs of infidelity1 but1 on the contrary1 as a means of extolling their belief and faith1 inasmuch as1 though they possessed no extraordinary knowledge of ,god 7such as ,moses had71 they yet accepted ,his promises as fixed and certain2 whereas ,moses1 though his thoughts about ,god were more exalted1 nevertheless doubted about the ,divine promises1 and complained to ,god that1 instead of the promised deliverance1 the prospects of the ,israelites had darkened4 7#ba7 ,as the patriarchs did not know the distinctive name of ,god1 and as ,god mentions the fact to ,moses1 in praise of their faith and single-heartedness1 and in contrast to the extraordinary grace granted to ,moses1 it follows1 as we stated at first1 that men are not bound by1 decree to have knowledge of the attributes of ,god1 such knowledge being only granted to a few of the faithful3 it is hardly worth while to quote further examples from ,scripture1 for everyone must recognize that knowledge of ,god is not equal among all good men4 7#bb7 ,moreover1 a man cannot be ordered to be wise any more than he can be ordered to live and exist4 7#bc7 ,men1 women1 and children are all alike able to obey by commandment1 but not to be wise4 ,if any tell us that it is not necessary to understand the ,divine attributes1 but that we must believe them simply1 without proof1 he is plainly trifling4 7#bd7 ,for what is invisible and can only be perceived by the mind1 cannot be apprehended by any other means than proofs2 if these are absent the object remains ungrasped2 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 signification4 7#be7 ,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 ,jehovah1 this being in plain contradiction to the text above quoted4 7#bf7 ,a reference to what was said in ,chap4 ,,viii4 will readily explain the difficulty4 7#bg7 ,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 writing1 but by the names best known to his contemporaries4 7#bh7 ,god is thus said in the ,pentateuch to have been preached by the patriarchs under the name of ,jehovah1 not because such was the name by which the patriarchs knew ,him1 but because this name was the one most reverenced by the ,jews4 7#bi7 ,this point1 ,i say1 must necessarily be noticed1 for in ,exodus it is expressly stated that ,god was not known to the patriarchs by this name2 and in chap4 iii3#ac1 it is said that ,moses desired to know the name of ,god4 7#cj7 ,now1 if this name had been already known it would have been known to ,moses4 7#ca7 ,we must therefore draw the conclusion indicated1 namely1 that the faithful patriarchs did not know this name of ,god1 and that the knowledge of ,god is bestowed and not commanded by the ,deity4 7#cb7 ,it is now time to pass on to our second point1 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 is1 of attributes which a certain manner of life will enable men to imitate4 7#cc7 ,jeremiah states this in so many words 7xxii3#ae1 #af73 ,did not thy father eat1 and drink1 and do judgment and justice8 and then it was well with him4 7#cd7 ,he judged the cause of the poor and needy2 then it was well with him3 was not this to know ,me8 saith the ,lord4 7#ce7 ,the words in chap4 ix3#bd of the same book are equally1 clear4 7#cf7 ,but let him that glorieth glory in this1 that he understandeth and knoweth ,me1 that ,i am the ,lord which exercise loving-kindness1 judgment1 and righteousness in the earth2 for in these things ,i delight1 saith the ,lord4 7#cg7 ,the same doctrine maybe gathered from ,exod4 xxxiv3#f1 where ,god revealed to ,moses only those of ,his attributes which display the ,divine justice and charity4 7#ch7 ,lastly1 we may call attention to a passage in ,john which we shall discuss at more length hereafter2 the ,apostle explains the nature of ,god 7inasmuch as no one has beheld ,him7 through charity only1 and concludes that he who possesses charity possesses1 and in very truth knows ,god4 7#ci7 ,we have thus seen that ,moses1 ,jeremiah1 and ,john sum up in a very short compass the knowledge of ,god needful for all1 and that they state it to consist in exactly what we said1 namely1 that ,god is supremely just1 and supremely merciful - in other words1 the one perfect pattern of the true life4 7#dj7 ,we may add that ,scripture nowhere gives an express definition of ,god1 and does not point out any other of ,his attributes which should be apprehended save these1 nor does it in set terms praise any others4 7#da7 ,wherefore we may draw the general conclusion that an intellectual knowledge of ,god1 which takes cognizance of ,his nature in so far as it actually is1 and which cannot by any manner of living be imitated by mankind or followed as an example1 has no bearing whatever on true rules of conduct1 on faith1 or on revealed religion2 consequently that men may be in complete error on the subject without incurring the charge of sinfulness4 7#db7 ,we need now no longer wonder that ,god adapted ,himself to the existing opinions and imaginations of the prophets1 or that the faithful held different ideas of ,god1 as we showed in ,chap4 ,,ii42 or1 again1 that the sacred books speak very inaccurately of ,god1 attributing to ,him hands1 feet1 eyes1 ears1 a mind1 and motion from one place to another2 or that they ascribe to ,him emotions1 such as jealousy1 mercy1 c41 or1 lastly1 that they describe ,him as a ,judge in heaven sitting on a royal throne with ,christ on ,his right hand4 7#dc7 ,such expressions are adapted to the understanding of the multitude1 it being the object of the ,bible to make men not learned but obedient4 7#dd7 ,in spite of this the general run of theologians1 when they come upon any of these phrases which they cannot rationally harmonize with the ,divine nature1 maintain that they should be interpreted metaphorically1 passages they cannot understand they say should be interpreted literally4 7#de7 ,but if every expression of this kind in the ,bible is necessarily to be interpreted and understood metaphorically1 ,scripture must have been written1 not for the people and the unlearned masses1 but chiefly for accomplished experts and philosophers4 7#df7 ,if it were indeed a sin to hold piously and simply the ideas about ,god we have just quoted1 the prophets ought to have been strictly on their guard against the use of such expressions1 seeing the weak-mindedness of the people1 and ought1 on the other hand1 to have set forth first of all1 duly and clearly1 those attributes of ,god which are needful to be understood4 7#dg7 ,this they have nowhere done2 we cannot1 therefore1 think that opinions taken in themselves without respect to actions are either pious or impious1 but must maintain that a man is pious or impious in his beliefs only in so far as he is thereby incited to obedience1 or derives from them license to sin and rebel4 7#dh7 ,if a man1 by believing what is true1 becomes rebellious1 his creed is impious2 if by believing what is false he becomes obedient1 his creed is pious2 for the true knowledge of ,god comes not by commandment1 but by ,divine gift4 7#di7 ,god has required nothing from man but a knowledge of ,his ,divine justice and charity1 and that not as necessary to scientific accuracy1 but to obedience4 ,,chapter ,,xiv - ,,definitions ,,of ,,faith1 ,,the ,,faith1 ,,and ,,the ,,foundations ,,of ,,faith1 ,,which ,,is ,,once ,,for ,,all ,,separated ,,from ,,philosophy4 7#a7 ,for a true knowledge of faith it is above all things necessary to understand that the ,bible was adapted to the intelligence1 not only of the prophets1 but also of the diverse and fickle ,jewish multitude4 7#b7 ,this will be recognized by all who give any thought to the subject1 for they will see that a person who accepted promiscuously everything in ,scripture as being the universal and absolute teaching of ,god1 without accurately defining what was adapted to the popular intelligence1 would find it impossible to escape confounding the opinions of the masses with the ,divine doctrines1 praising the judgments and comments of man as the teaching of ,god1 and making a wrong use of ,scriptural authority4 7#c7 ,who1 ,i say1 does not perceive that this is the chief reason why so many sectaries teach contradictory opinions as ,divine documents1 and support their contentions with numerous ,scriptural texts1 till it has passed in ,belgium into a proverb1 geen ketter sonder letter - no heretic without a text8 7#d7 ,the sacred books were not written by one man1 nor for the people of a single period1 but by many authors of different temperaments1 at times extending from first to last over nearly two thousand years1 and perhaps much longer4 7#e7 ,we will not1 however1 accuse the sectaries of impiety because they have adapted the words of ,scripture to their own opinions2 it is thus that these words were adapted to the understanding of the masses originally1 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 consent3 but we do accuse those who will not grant this freedom to their fellows1 but who persecute all who differ from them1 as ,god's enemies1 however honourable and virtuous be their lives2 while1 on the other hand1 they cherish those who agree with them1 however foolish they may be1 as ,god's elect4 7#f7 ,such conduct is as wicked and dangerous to the state as any that can be conceived4 7#g7 ,in order1 therefore1 to establish the limits to which individual freedom should extend1 and to decide what persons1 in spite of the diversity of their opinions1 are to be looked upon as the faithful1 we must define faith and its essentials4 7#h7 ,this task ,i hope to accomplish in the present chapter1 and also to separate faith from philosophy1 which is the chief aim of the whole treatise4 7#i7 ,in order to proceed duly to the demonstration let us recapitulate the chief aim and object of ,scripture2 this will indicate a standard by which we may define faith4 7#aj7 ,we have said in a former chapter that the aim and object of ,scripture is only to teach obedience4 7#aa7 ,thus much1 ,i think1 no one can question4 7#ab7 ,who does not see that both ,testaments are nothing else but schools for this object1 and have neither of them any aim beyond inspiring mankind with a voluntary obedience8 7#ac7 ,for 7not to repeat what ,i said in the last chapter7 ,i will remark that ,moses did not seek to convince the ,jews by reason1 but bound them by a covenant1 by oaths1 and by conferring benefits2 further1 he threatened the people with punishment if they should infringe the law1 and promised rewards if they should obey it4 7#ad7 ,all these are not means for teaching knowledge1 but for inspiring obedience4 7#ae7 ,the doctrine of the ,gospels enjoins nothing but simple faith1 namely1 to believe in ,god and to honour ,him1 which is the same thing as to obey him4 7#af7 ,there is no occasion for me to throw further light on a question so plain by citing ,scriptural texts commending obedience1 such as may be found in great numbers in both ,testaments4 7#ag7 ,moreover1 the ,bible teaches very clearly in a great many passages what everyone ought to do in order to obey ,god2 the whole duty is summed up in love to one's neighbour4 7#ah7 ,it cannot1 therefore1 be denied that he who by ,god's command loves his neighbour as himself is truly obedient and blessed according to the law1 whereas he who hates his neighbour or neglects him is rebellious and obstinate4 7#ai7 ,lastly1 it is plain to everyone that the ,bible was not written and disseminated only for the learned1 but for men of every age and race2 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 precept4 7#bj7 ,this precept1 then1 is the only standard of the whole ,catholic faith1 and by it alone all the dogmas needful to be believed should be determined4 7#ba7 ,so much being abundantly manifest1 as is also the fact that all other doctrines of the faith can be legitimately deduced therefrom by reason alone1 ,i leave it to every man to decide for himself how it comes to pass that so many divisions have arisen in the ,church3 can it be from any other cause than those suggested at the beginning of ,chap4 ,,viii48 7#bb7 ,it is these same causes which compel me to explain the method of determining the dogmas of the faith from the foundation we have discovered1 for if ,i neglected to do so1 and put the question on a regular basis1 ,i might justly be said to have promised too lavishly1 for that anyone might1 by my showing1 introduce any doctrine he liked into religion1 under the pretext that it was a necessary means to obedience3 especially would this be the case in questions respecting the ,divine attributes4 7#bc7 ,in order1 therefore1 to set forth the whole matter methodically1 ,i will begin with a definition of faith1 which on the principle above given1 should be as follows3- 7#bd7 ,faith consists in a knowledge of ,god1 without which obedience to ,him would be impossible1 and which the mere fact of obedience to ,him implies4 7#be7 ,this definition is so clear1 and follows so plainly from what we have already proved1 that it needs no explanation4 7#bf7 ,the consequences involved therein ,i will now briefly show4 7#bg7 7,i47 ,faith is not salutary in itself1 but only in respect to the obedience it implies1 or as ,james puts it in his ,epistle1 ii3#ag1 ,faith without works is dead 7see the whole of the chapter quoted74 7#bh7 7,,ii47 ,he who is truly obedient necessarily possesses true and saving faith2 for if obedience be granted1 faith must be granted also1 as the same ,apostle expressly says in these words 7ii3#ah71 ,show me thy faith without thy works1 and ,i will show thee my faith by my works4 7#bi7 ,so also ,john1 ,i ,ep4 iv3#g3 ,everyone that loveth is born of ,god1 and knoweth ,god3 he that loveth not1 knoweth not ,god2 for ,god is love4 7#cj7 ,from these texts1 ,i repeat1 it follows that we can only judge a man faithful or unfaithful by his works4 7#ca7 ,if his works be good1 he is faithful1 however much his doctrines may differ from those of the rest of the faithful3 if his works be evil1 though he may verbally conform1 he is unfaithful4 7#cb7 ,for obedience implies faith1 and faith without works is dead4 7#cc7 ,john1 in the #acth verse of the chapter above quoted1 expressly teaches the same doctrine3 ,hereby1 he says1 know we that we dwell in ,him and ,he in us1 because ,he hath given us of ,his ,spirit1 i4e4 love4 7#cd7 ,he had said before that ,god is love1 and therefore he concludes 7on his own received principles71 that whoso possesses love possesses truly the ,spirit of ,god4 7#ce7 ,as no one has beheld ,god he infers that no one has knowledge or consciousness of ,god1 except from love towards his neighbour1 and also that no one can have knowledge of any of ,god's attributes1 except this of love1 in so far as we participate therein4 7#cf7 ,if these arguments are not conclusive1 they1 at any rate1 show the ,apostle's meaning1 but the words in chap4 ii3#c1 #d1 of the same ,epistle are much clearer1 for they state in so many words our precise contention3 ,and hereby we do know that we know ,him1 if we keep ,his commandments4 7#cg7 ,he that saith1 ,i know ,him1 and keepeth not ,his commandments1 is a liar1 and the truth is not in him4 7#ch7 ,from all this1 ,i repeat1 it follows that they are the true enemies of ,christ who persecute honourable and justice-loving men because they differ from them1 and do not uphold the same religious dogmas as themselves3 for whosoever loves justice and charity we know1 by that very fact1 to be faithful3 whosoever persecutes the faithful1 is an enemy to ,christ4 7#ci7 ,lastly1 it follows that faith does not demand that dogmas should be true as that they should be pious - that is1 such as will stir up the heart to obey2 though there be many such which contain not a shadow of truth1 so long as they be held in good faith1 otherwise their adherents are disobedient1 for how can anyone1 desirous of loving justice and obeying ,god1 adore as ,divine what he knows to be alien from the ,divine nature8 7#dj7 ,however1 men may err from simplicity of mind1 and ,scripture1 as we have seen1 does not condemn ignorance1 but obstinacy4 7#da7 ,this is the necessary result of our definition of faith1 and all its branches should spring from the universal rule above given1 and from the evident aim and object of the ,bible1 unless we choose to mix our own inventions therewith4 7#db7 ,thus it is not true doctrines which are expressly required by the ,bible1 so much as doctrines necessary for obedience1 and to confirm in our hearts the love of our neighbour1 wherein 7to adopt the words of ,john7 we are in ,god1 and ,god in us4 7#dc7 ,as1 then1 each man's faith must be judged pious or impious only in respect of its producing obedience or obstinacy1 and not in respect of its truth2 and as no one will dispute that men's dispositions are exceedingly varied1 that all do not acquiesce in the same things1 but are ruled some by one opinion some by another1 so that what moves one to devotion moves another to laughter and contempt1 it follows that there can be no doctrines in the ,catholic1 or universal1 religion1 which can give rise to controversy among good men4 7#dd7 ,such doctrines might be pious to some and impious to others1 whereas they should be judged solely by their fruits4 7#de7 ,to the universal religion1 then1 belong only such dogmas as are absolutely required in order to attain obedience to ,god1 and without which such obedience would be impossible2 as for the rest1 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 justice4 7#df7 ,if this were so1 ,i think there would be no further occasion for controversies in the ,church4 7#dg7 ,i have now no further fear in enumerating the dogmas of universal faith or the fundamental dogmas of the whole of ,scripture1 inasmuch as they all tend 7as may be seen from what has been said7 to this one doctrine1 namely1 that there exists a ,god1 that is1 a ,supreme ,being1 ,who loves justice and charity1 and ,who must be obeyed by whosoever would be saved2 that the worship of this ,being consists in the practice of justice and love towards one's neighbour1 and that they contain nothing beyond the following doctrines3- 7#dh7 ,i4 ,that ,god or a ,supreme ,being exists1 sovereignly just and merciful1 the ,exemplar of the true life2 that whosoever is ignorant of or disbelieves in ,his existence cannot obey ,him or know ,him as a ,judge4 7#di7 ,,ii4 ,that ,he is ,one4 7#ej7 ,nobody will dispute that this doctrine is absolutely necessary for entire devotion1 admiration1 and love towards ,god4 7#ea7 ,for devotion1 admiration1 and love spring from the superiority of one over all else4 7#eb7 ,,iii4 ,that ,he is omnipresent1 or that all things are open to ,him1 for if anything could be supposed to be concealed from ,him1 or to be unnoticed by1 ,him1 we might doubt or be ignorant of the equity of ,his judgment as directing all things4 7#ec7 ,,iv4 ,that ,he has supreme right and dominion over all things1 and that ,he does nothing under compulsion1 but by ,his absolute fiat and grace4 7#ed7 ,all things are bound to obey ,him1 ,he is not bound to obey any4 7#ee7 ,v4 ,that the worship of ,god consists only in justice and charity1 or love towards one's neighbour4 7#ef7 ,,vi4 ,that all those1 and those only1 who obey ,god by their manner of life are saved2 the rest of mankind1 who live under the sway of their pleasures1 are lost4 7#eg7 ,if we did not believe this1 there would be no reason for obeying ,god rather than pleasure4 7#eh7 ,,vii4 ,lastly1 that ,god forgives the sins of those who repent4 7#ei7 ,no one is free from sin1 so that without this belief all would despair of salvation1 and there would be no reason for believing in the mercy of ,god4 7#fj7 ,he who firmly believes that ,god1 out of the mercy and grace with which ,he directs all things1 forgives the sins of men1 and who feels his love of ,god kindled thereby1 he1 ,i say1 does really know ,christ according to the ,spirit1 and ,christ is in him4 7#fa7 ,no one can deny that all these doctrines are before all things necessary to be believed1 in order that every man1 without exception1 may be able to obey ,god according to the bidding of the ,law above explained1 for if one of these precepts be disregarded obedience is destroyed4 7#fb7 ,but as to what ,god1 or the ,exemplar of the true life1 may be1 whether fire1 or spirit1 or light1 or thought1 or what not1 this1 ,i say1 has nothing to do with faith any more than has the question how ,he comes to be the ,exemplar of the true life1 whether it be because ,he has a just and merciful mind1 or because all things exist and act through ,him1 and consequently that we understand through ,him1 and through ,him see what is truly just and good4 7#fc7 ,everyone may think on such questions as he likes4 7#fd7 ,furthermore1 faith is not affected1 whether we hold that ,god is omnipresent essentially or potentially2 that ,he directs all things by absolute fiat1 or by the necessity of ,his nature2 that ,he dictates laws like a prince1 or that ,he sets them forth as eternal truths2 that man obeys ,him by virtue of free will1 or by virtue of the necessity of the ,divine decree2 lastly1 that the reward of the good and the punishment of the wicked is natural or supernatural3 these and such like questions have no bearing on faith1 except in so far as they are used as means to give us license to sin more1 or to obey ,god less4 7#fe7 ,i will go further1 and maintain that every man is bound to adapt these dogmas to his own way of thinking1 and to interpret them according as he feels that he can give them his fullest and most unhesitating assent1 so that he may the more easily obey ,god with his whole heart4 7#ff7 ,such was the manner1 as we have already pointed out1 in which the faith was in old time revealed and written1 in accordance with the understanding and opinions of the prophets and people of the period2 so1 in like fashion1 every man is bound to adapt it to his own opinions1 so that he may accept it without any hesitation or mental repugnance4 7#fg7 ,we have shown that faith does not so much require truth as piety1 and that it is only quickening and pious through obedience1 consequently no one is faithful save by obedience alone4 7#fh7 ,the best faith is not necessarily possessed by him who displays the best reasons1 but by him who displays the best fruits of justice and charity4 7#fi7 ,how salutary and necessary this doctrine is for a state1 in order that men may dwell together in peace and concord2 and how many and how great causes of disturbance and crime are thereby cut off1 ,i leave everyone to judge for himself6 7#gj7 ,before we go further1 ,i may remark that we can1 by means of what we have just proved1 easily answer the objections raised in ,chap4 ,i41 when we were discussing ,god's speaking with the ,israelites on ,mount ,sinai4 7#ga7 ,for1 though the voice heard by the ,israelites could not give those men any philosophical or mathematical certitude of ,god's existence1 it was yet sufficient to thrill them with admiration for ,god1 as they already knew ,him1 and to stir them up to obedience3 and such was the object of the display4 7#gb7 ,god did not wish to teach the ,israelites the absolute attributes of ,his essence 7none of which ,he then revealed71 but to break down their hardness of heart1 and to draw them to obedience3 therefore ,he did not appeal to them with reasons1 but with the sound of trumpets1 thunder1 and lightnings4 7#gc7 ,it remains for me to show that between faith or theology1 and philosophy1 there is no connection1 nor affinity4 7#gd7 ,i think no one will dispute the fact who has knowledge of the aim and foundations of the two subjects1 for they are as wide apart as the poles4 7#ge7 ,philosophy has no end in view save truth3 faith1 as we have abundantly proved1 looks for nothing but obedience and piety4 7#gf7 ,again1 philosophy is based on axioms which must be sought from nature alone3 faith is based on history and language1 and must be sought for only in ,scripture and revelation1 as we showed in ,chap4 ,,vii4 7#gg7 ,faith1 therefore1 allows the greatest latitude in philosophic speculation1 allowing us without blame to think what we like about anything1 and only condemning1 as heretics and schismatics1 those who teach opinions which tend to produce obstinacy1 hatred1 strife1 and anger2 while1 on the other hand1 only considering as faithful those who persuade us1 as far as their reason and faculties will permit1 to follow justice and charity4 7#gh7 ,lastly1 as what we are now setting forth are the most important subjects of my treatise1 ,i would most urgently beg the reader1 before ,i proceed1 to read these two chapters with especial attention1 and to take the trouble to weigh them well in his mind3 let him take for granted that ,i have not written with a view to introducing novelties1 but in order to do away with abuses1 such as ,i hope ,i may1 at some future time1 at last see reformed4 ,,chapter ,,xv - ,,theology ,,is ,,shown ,,not ,,to ,,be ,,subservient ,,to ,,reason1 ,,nor ,,reason ,,to ,,theology3 ,a ,,definition ,,of ,,the ,,reason ,,which ,,enables ,,us ,,to ,,accept ,,the ,,authority ,,of ,,the ,,bible4 7#a7 ,those who know not that philosophy and reason are distinct1 dispute whether ,scripture should be made subservient to reason1 or reason to ,scripture3 that is1 whether the meaning of ,scripture should be made to agreed with reason2 or whether reason should be made to agree with ,scripture3 the latter position is assumed by the sceptics who deny the certitude of reason1 the former by the dogmatists4 7#b7 ,both parties are1 as ,i have shown1 utterly in the wrong1 for either doctrine would require us to tamper with reason or with ,scripture4 7#c7 ,we have shown that ,scripture does not teach philosophy1 but merely obedience1 and that all it contains has been adapted to the understanding and established opinions of the multitude4 7#d7 ,those1 therefore1 who wish to adapt it to philosophy1 must needs ascribe to the prophets many ideas which they never even dreamed of1 and give an extremely forced interpretation to their words3 those on the other hand1 who would make reason and philosophy subservient to theology1 will be forced to accept as ,divine utterances the prejudices of the ancient ,jews1 and to fill and confuse their mind therewith4 7#e7 ,in short1 one party will run wild with the aid of reason1 and the other will run wild without the aid of reason4 7#f7 ,the first among the ,pharisees who openly maintained that ,scripture should be made to agree with reason1 was ,maimonides1 whose opinion we reviewed1 and abundantly refuted in ,chap4 ,,viii43 now1 although this writer had much authority among his contemporaries1 he was deserted on this question by almost all1 and the majority went straight over to the opinion of a certain ,r4 ,jehuda ,alpakhar1 who1 in his anxiety to avoid the error of ,maimonides1 fell into another1 which was its exact contrary4 7#g7 ,he held that reason should be made subservient1 and entirely give way to ,scripture4 7#h7 ,he thought that a passage should not be interpreted metaphorically1 simply because it was repugnant to reason1 but only in the cases when it is inconsistent with ,scripture itself - that is1 with its clear doctrines4 7#i7 ,therefore he laid down the universal rule1 that whatsoever ,scripture teaches dogmatically1 and affirms expressly1 must on its own sole authority be admitted as absolutely true3 that there is no doctrine in the ,bible which directly contradicts the general tenour of the whole3 but only some which appear to involve a difference1 for the phrases of ,scripture often seem to imply something contrary to what has been expressly taught4 7#aj7 ,such phrases1 and such phrases only1 we may interpret metaphorically4 7#aa7 ,for instance1 ,scripture clearly teaches the unity of ,god 7see ,deut4 vi3#d71 nor is there any text distinctly asserting a plurality of gods2 but in several passages ,god speaks of ,himself1 and the prophets speak of ,him1 in the plural number2 such phrases are simply a manner of speaking1 and do not mean that there actually are several gods3 they are to be explained metaphorically1 not because a plurality of gods is repugnant to reason1 but because ,scripture distinctly asserts that there is only one4 7#ab7 ,so1 again1 as ,scripture asserts 7as ,alpakhar thinks7 in ,deut4 iv3#ae1 that ,god is incorporeal1 we are bound1 solely by the authority of this text1 and not by reason1 to believe that ,god has no body3 consequently we must explain metaphorically1 on the sole authority of ,scripture1 all those passages which attribute to ,god hands1 feet1 c41 and take them merely as figures of speech4 7#ac7 ,such is the opinion of ,alpakhar4 ,in so far as he seeks to explain ,scripture by ,scripture1 ,i praise him1 but ,i marvel that a man gifted with reason should wish to debase that faculty4 7#ad7 ,it is true that ,scripture should be explained by ,scripture1 so long as we are in difficulties about the meaning and intention of the prophets1 but when we have elicited the true meaning1 we must of necessity make use of our judgment and reason in order to assent thereto4 7#ae7 ,if reason1 however1 much as she rebels1 is to be entirely subjected to ,scripture1 ,i ask1 are we to effect her submission by her own aid1 or without her1 and blindly8 7#af7 ,if the latter1 we shall surely act foolishly and injudiciously2 if the former1 we assent to ,scripture under the dominion of reason1 and should not assent to it without her4 7#ag7 ,moreover1 ,i may ask now1 is a man to assent to anything against his reason8 7#ah7 ,what is denial if it be not reason's refusal to assent8 7#ai7 ,in short1 ,i am astonished that anyone should wish to subject reason1 the greatest of gifts and a light from on high1 to the dead letter which may have been corrupted by human malice2 that it should be thought no crime to speak with contempt of mind1 the true handwriting of ,god's ,word1 calling it corrupt1 blind1 and lost1 while it is considered the greatest of crimes to say the same of the letter1 which is merely the reflection and image of ,god's ,word4 7#bj7 ,men think it pious to trust nothing to reason and their own judgment1 and impious to doubt the faith of those who have transmitted to us the sacred books4 7#ba7 ,such conduct is not piety1 but mere folly4 ,and1 after all1 why are they so anxious8 ,what are they afraid of8 7#bb7 ,do they think that faith and religion cannot be upheld unless men purposely keep themselves in ignorance1 and turn their backs on reason8 7#bc7 ,if this be so1 they have but a timid trust in ,scripture4 7#bc7 ,however1 be it far from me to say that religion should seek to enslave reason1 or reason religion1 or that both should not be able to keep their sovereignity in perfect harmony4 7#bd7 ,i will revert to this question presently1 for ,i wish now to discuss ,alpakhar's rule4 7#bf7 ,he requires1 as we have stated1 that we should accept as true1 or reject as false1 everything asserted or denied by ,scripture1 and he further states that ,scripture never expressly asserts or denies anything which contradicts its assertions or negations elsewhere4 7#bg7 ,the rashness of such a requirement and statement can escape no one4 7#bh7 ,for 7passing over the fact that he does not notice that ,scripture consists of different books1 written at different times1 for different people1 by different authors3 and also that his requirement is made on his own authority without any corroboration from reason or ,scripture7 he would be bound to show that all passages which are indirectly contradictory of the rest1 can be satisfactorily explained metaphorically through the nature of the language and the context3 further1 that ,scripture has come down to us untampered with4 7#bi7 ,however1 we will go into the matter at length4 7#cj7 ,firstly1 ,i ask what shall we do if reason prove recalcitrant8 7#ca7 ,shall we still be bound to affirm whatever ,scripture affirms1 and to deny whatever ,scripture denies8 7#cb7 ,perhaps it will be answered that ,scripture contains nothing repugnant to reason4 7#cc7 ,but ,i insist that it expressly affirms and teaches that ,god is jealous 7namely1 in the decalogue itself1 and in ,exod4 xxxiv3#ad1 and in ,deut4 iv3#bd1 and in many other places71 and ,i assert that such a doctrine is repugnant to reason4 7#cd7 ,it must1 ,i suppose1 in spite of all1 be accepted as true4 ,if there are any passages in ,scripture which imply that ,god is not jealous1 they must be taken metaphorically as meaning nothing of the kind4 7#ce7 ,so1 also1 ,scripture expressly states 7,exod4 xix3#bj1 c47 that ,god came down to ,mount ,sinai1 and it attributes to ,him other movements from place to place1 nowhere directly stating that ,god does not so move4 7#cf7 ,wherefore1 we must take the passage literally1 and ,solomon's words 7,i ,kings viii3#bg71 ,but will ,god dwell on the earth8 7#cg7 ,behold the heavens and earth cannot contain thee1 inasmuch as they do not expressly state that ,god does not move from place to place1 but only imply it1 must be explained away till they have no further semblance of denying locomotion to the ,deity4 7#ch7 ,so also we must believe that the sky is the habitation and throne of ,god1 for ,scripture expressly says so2 and similarly many passages expressing the opinions of the prophets or the multitude1 which reason and philosophy1 but not ,scripture1 tell us to be false1 must be taken as true if we are to follow the guidance of our author1 for according to him1 reason has nothing to do with the matter4 7#ci7 ,further1 it is untrue that ,scripture never contradicts itself directly1 but only by implication4 7#dj7 ,for ,moses says1 in so many words 7,deut4 iv3#bd71 ,the ,lord thy ,god is a consuming fire1 and elsewhere expressly denies that ,god has any likeness to visible things4 7,deut4 iv4 #ab47 7#da7 ,if it be decided that the latter passage only contradicts the former by implication1 and must be adapted thereto1 lest it seem to negative it1 let us grant that ,god is a fire2 or rather1 lest we should seem to have taken leave of our senses1 let us pass the matter over and take another example4 7#db7 ,samuel expressly denies that ,god ever repents1 for he is not a man that he should repent 7,i ,sam4 xv3#bi74 7#dc7 ,jeremiah1 on the other hand1 asserts that ,god does repent1 both of the evil and of the good which ,he had intended to do 7,jer4 xviii3#h-aj74 7#dd7 ,what8 7#de7 ,are not these two texts directly contradictory8 7#df7 ,which of the two1 then1 would our author want to explain metaphorically8 7#dg7 ,both statements are general1 and each is the opposite of the other - what one flatly affirms1 the other flatly1 denies4 7#dh7 ,so1 by his own rule1 he would be obliged at once to reject them as false1 and to accept them as true4 7#di7 ,again1 what is the point of one passage1 not being contradicted by another directly1 but only by implication1 if the implication is clear1 and the nature and context of the passage preclude metaphorical interpretation8 7#ej7 ,there are many such instances in the ,bible1 as we saw in ,chap4 ,,ii4 7where we pointed out that the prophets held different and contradictory opinions71 and also in ,chaps4 ,,ix4 and ,x41 where we drew attention to the contradictions in the historical narratives4 7#ea7 ,there is no need for me to go through them all again1 for what ,i have said sufficiently exposes the absurdities which would follow from an opinion and rule such as we are discussing1 and shows the hastiness of its propounder4 7#eb7 ,we may1 therefore1 put this theory1 as well as that of ,maimonides1 entirely out of court2 and we may take it for indisputable that theology is not bound to serve reason1 nor reason theology1 but that each has her own domain4 7#ec7 ,the sphere of reason is1 as we have said1 truth and wisdom2 the sphere of theology1 is piety and obedience4 7#ed7 ,the power of reason does not extend so far as to determine for us that men may be blessed through simple obedience1 without understanding4 7#ee7 ,theology1 tells us nothing else1 enjoins on us no command save obedience1 and has neither the will nor the power to oppose reason3 she defines the dogmas of faith 7as we pointed out in the last chapter7 only in so far as they may be necessary for obedience1 and leaves reason to determine their precise truth3 for reason is the light of the mind1 and without her all things are dreams and phantoms4 7#ef7 ,by theology1 ,i here mean1 strictly speaking1 revelation1 in so far as it indicates the object aimed at by ,scripture namely1 the scheme and manner of obedience1 or the true dogmas of piety and faith4 7#eg7 ,this may truly be called the ,word of ,god1 which does not consist in a certain number of books 7see ,chap4 ,,xii474 7#eh7 ,theology thus understood1 if we regard its precepts or rules of life1 will be found in accordance with reason2 and1 if we look to its aim and object1 will be seen to be in nowise repugnant thereto1 wherefore it is universal to all men4 7#ei7 ,as for its bearing on ,scripture1 we have shown in ,chap4 ,,vii4 that the meaning of ,scripture should be gathered from its own history1 and not from the history of nature in general1 which is the basis of philosophy4 7#fj7 ,we ought not to be hindered if we find that our investigation of the meaning of ,scripture thus conducted shows us that it is here and there repugnant to reason2 for whatever we may find of this sort in the ,bible1 which men may be in ignorance of1 without injury to their charity1 has1 we may be sure1 no bearing on theology or the ,word of ,god1 and may1 therefore1 without blame1 be viewed by every one as he pleases4 7#fa7 ,to sum up1 we may draw the absolute conclusion that the ,bible must not be accommodated to reason1 nor reason to the ,bible4 7#fb7 ,now1 inasmuch as the basis of theology - the doctrine that man may be saved by obedience alone - cannot be proved by reason whether it be true or false1 we may be asked1 ,why1 then1 should we believe it8 7#fc7 ,if we do so without the aid of reason1 we accept it blindly1 and act foolishly and injudiciously2 if1 on the other hand1 we settle that it can be proved by reason1 theology becomes a part of philosophy1 and inseparable therefrom4 7#fd7 ,but ,i make answer that ,i have absolutely established that this basis of theology cannot be investigated by the natural light of reason1 or1 at any rate1 that no one ever has proved it by such means1 and1 therefore1 revelation was necessary4 7#fe7 ,we should1 however1 make use of our reason1 in order to grasp with moral certainty what is revealed - ,i say1 with moral certainty1 for we cannot hope to attain greater certainty than the prophets3 yet their certainty was only1 moral1 as ,i showed in ,chap4 ,,ii4 7#ff7 ,those1 therefore1 who attempt to set forth the authority of ,scripture with mathematical demonstrations are wholly in error3 for the authority of the ,bible is dependent on the authority of the prophets1 and can be supported by no stronger arguments than those employed in old time by the prophets for convincing the people of their own authority4 7#fg7 ,our certainty on the same subject can be founded on no other basis than that which served as foundation for the certainty of the prophets4 7#fh7 ,now the certainty of the prophets consisted 7as we pointed out7 in these elements3- 7#fi7 7,i47 ,a distinct and vivid imagination4 7#gj7 7,,ii47 ,a sign4 7#ga7 7,,iii47 ,lastly1 and chiefly1 a mind turned to what is just and good4 ,it was based on no other reasons than these1 and consequently they cannot prove their authority by any other reasons1 either to the multitude whom they addressed orally1 nor to us whom they address in writing4 7#gb7 ,the first of these reasons1 namely1 the vivid imagination1 could be valid only for the prophets2 therefore1 our certainty concerning revelation must1 and ought to be1 based on the remaining two - namely1 the sign and the teaching4 7#gc7 ,such is the express doctrine of ,moses1 for 7in ,deut4 xviii47 he bids the people obey the prophet who should give a true sign in the name of the ,lord1 but if he should predict falsely1 even though it were in the name of the ,lord1 he should be put to death1 as should also he who strives to lead away the people from the true religion1 though he confirm his authority with signs and portents4 7#gd7 ,we may compare with the above ,deut4 xiii4 7#ge7 ,whence it follows that a true prophet could be distinguished from a false one1 both by his doctrine and by the miracles he wrought1 for ,moses declares such an one to be a true prophet1 and bids the people trust him without fear of deceit4 7#gf7 ,he condemns as false1 and worthy of death1 those who predict anything falsely even in the name of the ,lord1 or who preach false gods1 even though their miracles be real4 7#gg7 ,the only reason1 then1 which we have for belief in ,scripture or the writings of the prophets1 is the doctrine we find therein1 and the signs by which it is confirmed4 7#gh7 ,for as we see that the prophets extol charity and justice above all things1 and have no other object1 we conclude that they did not write from unworthy motives1 but because they really thought that men might become blessed through obedience and faith3 further1 as we see that they confirmed their teaching with signs and wonders1 we become persuaded that they did not speak at random1 nor run riot in their prophecies4 7#gi7 ,we are further strengthened in our conclusion by the fact that the morality they teach is in evident agreement with reason1 for it is no accidental coincidence that the ,word of ,god which we find in the prophets coincides with the ,word of ,god written in our hearts4 7#hj7 ,we may1 ,i say1 conclude this from the sacred books as certainly as did the ,jews of old from the living voice of the prophets3 for we showed in ,chap4 ,,xii4 that ,scripture has come down to us intact in respect to its doctrine and main narratives4 7#ha7 ,therefore this whole basis of theology and ,scripture1 though it does not admit of mathematical proof1 may yet be accepted with the approval of our judgment4 7#hb7 ,it would be folly to refuse to accept what is confirmed by such ample prophetic testimony1 and what has proved such a comfort to those whose reason is comparatively weak1 and such a benefit to the state2 a doctrine1 moreover1 which we may believe in without the slightest peril or hurt1 and should reject simply because it cannot be mathematically proved3 it is as though we should admit nothing as true1 or as a wise rule of life1 which could ever1 in any possible way1 be called in question2 or as though most of our actions were not full of uncertainty and hazards4 7#hc7 ,i admit that those who believe that theology and philosophy are mutually contradictory1 and that therefore either one or the other must be thrust from its throne - ,i admit1 ,i say1 that such persons are not unreasonable in attempting to put theology on a firm basis1 and to demonstrate its truth mathematically4 7#hd7 ,who1 unless he were desperate or mad1 would wish to bid an incontinent farewell to reason1 or to despise the arts and sciences1 or to deny reason's certitude8 7#he7 ,but1 in the meanwhile1 we cannot wholly absolve them from blame1 inasmuch as they invoke the aid of reason for her own defeat1 and attempt infallibly to prove her fallible4 7#hf7 ,while they are trying to prove mathematically the authority and truth of theology1 and to take away the authority of natural reason1 they are in reality only bringing theology under reason's dominion1 and proving that her authority has no weight unless natural reason be at the back of it4 7#hg7 ,if they boast that they themselves assent because of the inward testimony of the ,holy ,spirit1 and that they only invoke the aid of reason because of unbelievers1 in order to convince them1 not even so can this meet with our approval1 for we can easily show that they have spoken either from emotion or vain-glory4 7#hh7 ,it most clearly follows from the last chapter that the ,holy ,spirit only gives its testimony in favour of works1 called by ,paul 7in ,gal4 v3#bb7 the fruits of the ,spirit1 and is in itself really nothing but the mental acquiescence which follows a good action in our souls4 7#hi7 ,no spirit gives testimony concerning the certitude of matters within the sphere of speculation1 save only reason1 who is mistress1 as we have shown1 of the whole realm of truth4 7#ij7 ,if then they assert that they possess this ,spirit which makes them certain of truth1 they speak falsely1 and according to the prejudices of the emotions1 or else they are in great dread lest they should be vanquished by philosophers and exposed to public ridicule1 and therefore they flee1 as it were1 to the altar2 but their refuge is vain1 for what altar will shelter a man who has outraged reason8 7#ia7 ,however1 ,i pass such persons over1 for ,i think ,i have fulfilled my purpose1 and shown how philosophy should be separated from theology1 and wherein each consists2 that neither should be subservient to the other1 but that each should keep her unopposed dominion4 7#ib7 ,lastly1 as occasion offered1 ,i have pointed out the absurdities1 the inconveniences1 and the evils following from the extraordinary confusion which has hitherto prevailed between the two subjects1 owing to their not being properly distinguished and separated4 7#ic7 ,before ,i go further ,i would expressly state 7though ,i have said it before7 that ,i consider the utility and the need for ,holy ,scripture or ,revelation to be very great4 7#id7 ,for as we cannot perceive by the natural light of reason that simple obedience is the path of salvation ,endnote #be1 and are taught by revelation only that it is so by the special grace of ,god1 which our reason cannot attain1 it follows that the ,bible has brought a very great consolation to mankind4 7#ie7 ,all are able to obey1 whereas there are but very few1 compared with the aggregate of humanity1 who can acquire the habit of virtue under the unaided guidance of reason4 7#if7 ,thus if we had not the testimony of ,scripture1 we should doubt of the salvation of nearly all men4 ,end of ,part #c - ,chapters ,,xi to ,,xv4 ,,author',s ,,endnotes ,,to ,,the ,,theologico-,,political ,,treatise ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,endnote #bd4 7#a7 ,now ,i think4 7#b7 ,the translators render the ,greek word ,i infer1 and assert that ,paul uses it as synonymous with a ,greek word4 7#c7 ,but the former word has1 in ,greek1 the same meaning as the ,hebrew word rendered to think1 to esteem1 to judge4 7#d7 ,and this signification would be in entire agreement with the ,syriac translation4 7#e7 ,this ,syriac translation 7if it be a translation1 which is very doubtful1 for we know neither the time of its appearance1 nor the translators and ,syriac was the vernacular of the ,apostles7 renders the text before us in a way well explained by ,tremellius as we think1 therefore4 ,,chapter ,,xv4 ,endnote #be4 7#a7 ,that simple obedience is the path of salvation4 7#b7 ,in other words1 it is enough for salvation or blessedness1 that we should embrace the ,divine decrees as laws or commands2 there is no need to conceive them as eternal truths4 7#c7 ,this can be taught us by ,revelation1 not ,reason1 as appears from the demonstrations given in ,chapter ,,iv4 ,end of ,part ,,iii - ,chapters ,,xi to ,,xv4