JBY Notes:

1.  Text was scanned from Book II and is a translation from 
     Bruder's 1843  Latin  text  by  R.H.M.  Elwes  (1883). 
     JBY  added  sentence  numbers.  

2.  (y:xx):  y = Chapter Number, if given;  xx = Sentence Number.
 
3.  Page numbers are those of Book II.
 
4.  Citation abbreviations.
 
5.  ( Spinoza's Footnote or the Latin word ), 
     ] Shirley's Bk. XI (or XIII) translation variance or note [ , 
     { JBY comment, emendation, or endnote }.    LINKS 
 
6.  Please  e-mail  errors,  clarification  requests,  disagreement,
     or  suggestions  to  josephb@yesselman.com. 

7.  TEXT version without links and without commentary.
     Latin version on a CD. 
 
8.  There  is  much  in  this  work  that you will not agree with or even         Graetz's Censure  
     think  nonsense—although  keep  in mind that Spinoza was under 
     the constraints of religious  intolerance.    Spinoza was born in the 
     very year (1632) that  the inquisitorial denunciation of Galileo took 
     place.  However,  partake  of  the work (and my commentaries) as 
     you  would  a  pomegranate; relish  the  flesh,  but spit-out the pits. 

9.  EL:[7]:viii, EL:[11]:xi, EL:[17]:xiii, EL:[22]:xvi, EL:[64]:xxxi, EL:xxxiii:J6,
     L19:296, L20:297, L23:301, L49:364,  old vocabulary in new bottles.    
                                                             {Scriptural Theology}              Hampshire:205      
10. The  chief  aim  of  the whole treatise is to separate  faith ^ {Religion}          Smith:Divine Law
      from philosophy.  ]Shirley:37—What emerges in the TTP, as far as is Spinoza           Hampshire:203 & 205
      concerned, is the possibility of a this-worldly blessedness for both the rational person               TL:L36(23):345
       (through philosophy) and the common person (through purified religion),[                    EL:L21:(73):298
      {By my defining Religion as an hypothesis, the two are synthesized.}                     Philosophy / Religion

11. Links - To differentiate links from quotations (both blue text) set your
                  browser options to show links underlined. 
 
12.  Suggestion:  Do  not  read this Spinoza electronic text consecutively        Durant's Story
       as  you  would a novel, but rather follow a thread  by following all its          Schorsch
       links  in  turn.   You will then be putting hypertexting to its fullest and           EL:[3]:vi
       best advantage—the fuller discussion of a thread.  If you do not stick 
       to one thread (idea) at a time,  this Web Site will be very convoluted,         Tickle the Fancy
       confusing, and an annoying maze. 

       If you prefer to read linearly, read these plain vanilla text versions,
       abridged versions, e-book versions, or best, study the printed book—
       book page numbers are given for most scanned books.

Table of Contents

Preface (at beginning of Part I)

   Part                   Chapters

Author's Notes to Theologico-Political Treatise - Part 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS:                                     BkII Page Numbers

Author's Notes to the Theologico-Political Treatise

Page 157
CHAPTER XI.


(11:1)   No  reader  of  the New Testament can doubt that the Apostles

were  prophets;  but  as a prophet does not always speak by revela-

tion,  but  only at rare intervals, as we showed at the end of Chap. I.,

we  may  fairly  inquire  whether  the Apostles wrote their Epistles as

prophets,  by  revelation and express mandate, as Moses, Jeremiah,
                                                                                            Bk.XIX:2916.
and  others  did,  or  whether only as private individuals or teachers,

especially   as   Paul,  in  Corinthians  xiv:6,  mentions  two  sorts  of

preaching.



(11:2)  If  we  examine  the  style  of  the Epistles, we shall find it totally

different from that employed by the prophets.



(11:3)  The  prophets  are  continually  asserting that they speak by the

command  of  G-D: "Thus saith the Lord,"  "The Lord of hosts saith,"               Metaphors 

"The command of the Lord,"  &c.;  and  this  was  their habit not only       Chain of Natural Events 

in  assemblies  of  the  prophets, but also in their epistles containing

revelations,   as   appears   from  the  epistle  of  Elijah  to  Jehoram,

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



(11:4)   In  the  Apostolic  Epistles  we  find  nothing  of the sort.  (5) Con-

trariwise,  in  I Cor. vii:40  Paul  speaks according to his own opinion

and  in  many  passages  we  come  across  doubtful  and perplexed

phrase;  such  as,  "We  think,  therefore,"  Rom. iii:28;  "Now I think,"

(24)  Rom. viii:18,  and so on.  (11:6)  Besides these, other expressions

are met with very different from those used by the prophets.  (11:7)  For

instance,  1 Cor. vii:6,  "But  I  speak  this by permission, not by com-

mandment;"  "I  give  my  judgment  as one that hath obtained mercy

of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful"  (1 Cor. vii:25), and so on in many other

passages.   (11:8)  We  must  also  remark  that in the  page 158  aforesaid

chapter  the  Apostle  says  that  when  he  states that he has or has

not  the  precept  or  commandment  of  G-D,  he does not mean the

precept  or  commandment  of  G-D revealed to himself, but only the              Metaphors 
                                                           Mat 5:3-12
words  uttered  by  Christ in His Sermon on the Mount.  (11:9)  Further-

more,  if  we  examine  the  manner  in  which  the  Apostles give out

evangelical  doctrine,  we  shall  see that it differs materially from the

method  adopted  by  the prophets.  (11:10)  The  Apostles  everywhere

reason as  if  they were arguing rather than prophesying; the proph-

ecies,  on  the  other  hand,  contain  only  dogmas  and  commands.             Smith:108135 

(11:11)  G-D  is  therein  introduced  not  as  speaking to reason, but as               Metaphors 

issuing  decrees  by  His  absolute  fiat.   (11:12)  The  authority  of  the

prophets  does  not submit  to  discussion,  for whosoever wishes to

find  rational  ground  for  his  arguments,  by  that very wish submits

them  to  everyone's  private  judgment.  (6:13)  This Paul, inasmuch as

he  uses  reason,  appears  to have done, for he says in 1 Cor. x:15,

"I  speak  as  to  wise  men, judge ye what I say."  (11:14) The prophets,

as  we  showed  at  the end of Chapter I., did not perceive what was

revealed  by  virtue  of  their  natural  reason,  and  though there are

certain  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  which seem to be appeals to

induction,  they  turn  out,  on  nearer examination, to be nothing but

peremptory   commands.    (11:15)   For  instance,   when  Moses  says,

Deut. xxxi:27,  "Behold,  while  I  am  yet  alive  with  you, this day ye

have  been  rebellious  against  the  Lord; and how much more after

my  death,"  we  must  by  no means conclude that Moses wished to

convince  the  Israelites  by  reason  that  they would necessarily fall

away  from  the worship of the Lord after his death; for the argument

would  have  been  false,  as  Scripture  itself  shows:  the  Israelites

continued  faithful  during  the  lives  of  Joshua  and the elders, and

afterwards   during   the   time   of   Samuel,   David,   and  Solomon.

(11:16)  Therefore  the  words  of  Moses  are merely a moral injunction,

in  which he predicts rhetorically the future backsliding of the people

so as to impress it vividly on their imagination.  (11:17)  I say that Moses

spoke  of himself in order to lend likelihood to his prediction, and not

as  a  prophet  by revelation, because in verse 21 of the same chap-

ter  we  are told that G-D revealed the same thing to Moses in differ-              Metaphors 

ent  words,  and  there was no need to make Moses certain by argu-

ment  of  G-D's prediction and decree;   page159  it was only necessary

that it should be vividly impressed on his imagination, and this could

not  be  better  accomplished  than  by  imagining the existing contu-

macy  of  the  people,  of  which he had had frequent experience, as

likely to extend into the future.



(11:18)  All  the  arguments employed by Moses in the five books are to

be understood in a similar manner; they are not drawn from the arm-

oury  of reason,  but  are  merely  modes of expression calculated to

instil   with   efficacy,   and   present  vividly  to  the  imagination  the             Smith:108138

commands of G-D.                                                                                            Metaphors 



(11:19)  However,  I  do  not  wish  absolutely  to deny that the prophets

ever  argued from revelation;  I only maintain that the prophets made

more  legitimate  use  of  argument  in proportion as their knowledge

approached  more  nearly  to  ordinary  knowledge,  and  by  this we

know  that  they  possessed  a  knowledge above the ordinary, inas-

much  as  they  proclaimed absolute dogmas, decrees, or judgments.

(11:20)  Thus  Moses,  the  chief  of the prophets, never used legitimate

argument,  and,  on  the  other  hand, the long deductions and argu-

ments  of  Paul, such as we find in the Epistle to the Romans, are in

nowise written from supernatural revelation.



(11:21)  The  modes  of expression and discourse adopted by the Apos-

tles  in the Epistles, show very clearly that the latter were not written

by   revelation   and  Divine  command,  but  merely  by  the  natural

powers and judgment of the authors.  (11:22)  They consist in brotherly             Smith:108137

admonitions  and  courteous  expressions  such  as  would never be

employed  in  prophecy,  as  for  instance, Paul's excuse in Romans

xv:15,   "I   have   written  the  more  boldly  unto  you  in  some  sort,            Smith:108136

my brethren."



(11:23) We  may  arrive at the same conclusion from observing that we

never  read  that  the  Apostles  were  commanded to write, but only

that  they  went  everywhere  preaching,  and  confirmed their words

with signs.  (11:24) Their personal presence and signs were absolutely

necessary  for  the  conversion  and  establishment in religion of the

Gentiles;  as  Paul  himself expressly states in Rom. i:11, "But I long

to  see  you,  that  I  may impart to you some spiritual gift, to the end

that ye may be established."



(11:25)  It  may  be objected  that  we might prove in similar fashion that

the  Apostles  did  not preach as prophets, for they did not go to par-

ticular  places,  as  the prophets did, by the  page 160 command of G-D.            Metaphors 

(11:26)  We  read  in  the {Hebrew Bible} that Jonah went to Nineveh to

preach,  and at the same time that he was expressly sent there, and

told  that  he  must preach.  (11:27)  So also it is related, at great length,

of  Moses  that he went to Egypt as the messenger of G-D, and was              Metaphors 

told  at  the  same  time  what  he should say to the children of Israel

and  to  king  Pharaoh,  and  what  wonders  he  should work before

them to give credit to his words.   (11:28)  Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel

were expressly commanded to preach to the Israelites.



(11:29)  Lastly,  the  prophets  only  preached  what  we are assured by

Scripture  they  had  received from God, whereas this is hardly ever

said  of  the  Apostles  in the New Testament when they went about

to   preach.   (11:29a)   On  the  contrary,  we  find  passages  expressly

implying  that  the  Apostles  chose  the  places  where  they  should

preach   on   their   own  responsibility,  for  there  was  a  difference             Smith109142

amounting  to  a quarrel between Paul and Barnabas on the subject

(Acts  xv:37, 38).   (11:30)   Often  they  wished  to  go  to  a  place,  but

were  prevented,  as  Paul writes, Rom. i:13, "Oftentimes I purposed

to  come  to you, but was let hitherto;" and in I Cor. xvi:12, "As touch-

ing  our  brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with

the  brethren,  but  his  will was not at all to come at this time: but he

will come when he shall have convenient time."



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

Apostles,  and  also  from the fact that Scripture nowhere testifies of

them,  as of the ancient prophets, that they went by the command of             Metaphors 

G-D,  one  might  conclude  that  they  preached  as well as wrote in

their  capacity  of  teachers, and not as prophets: but the question is

easily  solved  if  we  observe the difference between the mission of

an  Apostle  and  that  of an {Hebrew Bible} prophet.  (11:32)  The latter

were  not called to preach and prophesy to all nations, but to certain

specified ones, and therefore an express and peculiar mandate was              Constitution 

required  for  each of  them;  the  Apostles,  on the other hand, were

called to preach to all men absolutely, and to turn all men to religion.

(11:33) Therefore,  whithersoever they went, they were fulfilling Christ's

commandment;  there  was  no  need  to  reveal to them beforehand

what  they  should  preach,  for  they  were  the disciples of Christ to

whom their Master Himself said (Matt. X:19, 20): "But, when  page161

they  deliver  you  up,  take  no  thought how or what ye shall speak,

for  shall  be  given  you  in  that  same  hour  what  ye  shall speak."

(11:34)  We  therefore  conclude  that  the  Apostles were only indebted

to  special  revelation  in  what  they  orally preached and confirmed

by  signs (see the beginning of Chap. 11.); that which they taught in

speaking  or  writing  without  any  confirmatory  signs  and wonders

they taught from their natural knowledge.  (See I Cor. xiv:6.)   (35)  We

need  not  be deterred by the fact that all the Epistles begin by citing

the  imprimatur  of  the  Apostleship, for the Apostles, as I will shortly

show,  were  granted,  not  only the faculty of prophecy, but also the

authority  to  teach.  (11:36)  We  may  therefore  admit  that  they wrote

their  Epistles  as  Apostles,  and  for  this  cause every one of  them

began by citing the Apostolic imprimatur, possibly with a view to  the

attention of the reader by asserting that they were the persons  who

had made such mark among the faithful by their preaching,  and had

shown   by  many  marvelous  works  that  they  were  teaching  true

religion and the way of salvation.  (11:37)  I observe that what is said in

the Epistles with regard to the Apostolic vocation and the Holy Spirit

of God which inspired them, has reference to their former preaching,

except  in  those  passages  where  the  expressions  of the Spirit of

God  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  used  to  signify a mind pure, upright,

and  devoted  to  God.  (11:38)  For instance, in 1 Cor. vii:40, Paul says:

"But  she  is  happier  if  she so abide, after my judgment, and I think

also  that  I  have  the Spirit  of  God."  (11:39)  By  the Spirit of God the

Apostle  here  refers  to  his  mind,  as  we may see from the context:

his meaning is as follows:  "I account blessed a widow who does not

wish  to  marry  a second  husband;  such  is  my  opinion, for I have

settled  to  live unmarried, and I think that I am blessed."  (11:40)  There

are other similar passages which I need not now quote.



(11:41)  As  we  have  seen  that the Apostles wrote their Epistles solely

by  the  light  of  natural  reason,  we  must  inquire  how  they  were

enabled  to  teach  by  natural  knowledge  matters outside its scope.

(11:42)   However,  if  we  bear in mind what we said in Chap. VII. of this

treatise  our  difficulty  will  vanish:  for  although  the contents of the

Bible  entirely  surpass  our understanding, we may safely discourse

of  them,   provided       page 162   we  assume  nothing  not  told  us  in

Scripture:  by  the  same  method  the  Apostles, from what they saw

and  heard,  and  from  what was revealed to them, were enabled to

form  and  elicit  many conclusions which they would have been able

to teach to men had it been permissible.



(11:43)  Further,  although  religion,  as preached by the Apostles, does

not  come  within  the sphere of reason, in so far as it consists in the

narration  of  the life of Christ, yet its essence, which is chiefly moral,

like  the  whole  of  Christ's doctrine, can readily be apprehended by

the natural faculties of all.



(11:44)  Lastly, the Apostles had no lack of supernatural illumination for

the  purpose  of  adapting  the religion they had attested by signs to

the  understanding  of  everyone so that it might be readily received;

nor for exhortations on the subject:  in fact, the object of the Epistles

is  to teach and exhort men to lead that manner of life which each of

the  Apostles  judged  best  for  confirming them in religion.  (11:45)  We

may  here  repeat our former remark, that the Apostles had received

not  only  the  faculty  of  preaching the history of Christ as prophets,

and  confirming  it  with signs, but also authority for teaching and ex-

horting  according  as  each  thought  best.  (11:46)   Paul  (2 Tim. i:11),           Smith:110149

"Whereunto  I  am  appointed  a  preacher,  and  an  apostle,  and a

teacher  of  the  Gentiles;"  and  again (I Tim. ii:7),  "Whereunto I am

ordained a  preacher  and an apostle (I speak the truth in Christ and

lie  not),  a  teacher  of  the Gentiles in faith and verity."  (11:47)  These

passages, I say, show clearly the stamp both of the apostleship and

the  teachership:  the  authority  for  admonishing  whomsoever  and

wheresoever  he  pleased is asserted by Paul in the Epistle to Phile-

mon,  1:8: "Wherefore,  though  I might be much bold in Christ to en-

join  thee  that  which is convenient, yet," &c., where we may remark

that  if  Paul  had received from God as a prophet what he wished to

enjoin  Philemon,  and  had  been  bound  to  speak  in his prophetic

capacity,  he  would  not have been able to change the command of

God  into  entreaties.   (11:48)  We  must  therefore  understand  him  to

refer  to  the  permission  to  admonish  which  he had received as a

teacher,  and  not  as a prophet.  (11:49)  We have not yet made it quite

clear  that  the  Apostles  might  each  choose his own  page163  way of             Smith:110

teaching,  but  only  that  by  virtue  of  their  Apostleship  they  were

teachers  as  well  as prophets; however, if we call reason to our aid

we  shall  clearly  see  that  an authority to teach implies authority to

choose the method.  (11:50)  It will nevertheless be, perhaps, more sat-

isfactory  to  draw  all our proofs from Scripture; we are there plainly

told  that  each  Apostle  chose  his  particular method (Rom. xv: 20):

"Yea,  so  have  I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was

named,  lest  I  should build upon another man's foundation."  (11:51)  If

all  the Apostles had adopted the same method of teaching, and had

all built up the Christian religion on the same foundation, Paul would

have  had  no  reason  to  call  the work of a fellow-Apostle "another

man's  foundation,"  inasmuch  as  it  would have been identical with

his  own:  his  calling  it another man's proved that each Apostle built

up  his religious instruction on different foundations, thus resembling

other  teachers  who  have  each  their  own  method,  and prefer in-

structing  quite  ignorant people who have never learnt under anoth-

er  master,  whether  the subject be science, languages, or even the

indisputable   truths   of   mathematics.  (11:52)  Furthermore,  if  we  go

through the Epistles at all attentively, we shall see that the Apostles,

while agreeing about religion itself, are at variance as to the founda-

tions  it  rests  on.  (11:53)  Paul,  in  order  to strengthen men's religion,

and  show  them  that salvation depends solely on the grace of God,

teaches  that  no  one  can boast of works, but only of faith, and that

no one can be justified by works (Rom. iii:27,28); in fact, he preach-             Smith:110150.

es  the  complete doctrine of predestination {the foreordination by God of 

whatever comes to pass, esp. the salvation and damnation of souls.}. (11:54)  James,  

on  the other  hand,  states  that  man  is justified by works, and not

by faith only (see his Epistle, ii:24), and omitting all the disputations              Smith:110150.

of Paul, confines religion to a very few elements.



(11:55)  Lastly,  it  is  indisputable  that  from  these different ground; for

religion  selected  by  the  Apostles, many quarrels and schisms dis-

tracted  the  Church,  even  in the earliest times, and doubtless they

will  continue  so  to distract it for ever, or at least till religion is sepa-

rated   from  philosophical  speculations,   and  reduced  to  the  few

simple  doctrines  taught  by Christ to His disciples; such a task was            Smith:110151.

impossible for the Apostles, because the Gospel was then unknown

to  mankind,  and lest its novelty should offend  page 164  men's ears it

had  to  be  adapted  to  the  disposition  of  contemporaries  (2 Cor.

ix:19, 20),  and built up on the groundwork most familiar and accept-

ed  at  the time.  (11:56)  Thus none of the Apostles philosophized more

than did Paul, who was called to preach to the Gentiles; other Apos-
                                                           disdained
tles   preaching  to  the  Jews,  who  despised  philosophy,  similarly             Smith:109143 

adapted  themselves  to  the temper of their hearers (see Gal. ii. 11),

and  preached  a  religion  free  from  all  philosophical  speculations.

(11:57)   How  blest  would  our  age  be  if  it  could  witness  a  religion

freed  also  from  all  the trammels of superstition  { any blindly accepted              Smith:109144

belief or notion }.!   

Page 165
CHAPTER XII.

OF THE TRUE ORIGINAL OF THE DIVINE LAW,
AND WHEREFORE SCRIPTURE IS CALLED SACRED, 
AND THE WORD OF G-D.  HOW THAT, IN SO FAR 
AS IT CONTAINS THE WORD OF GOD, IT HAS COME 
DOWN TO US UNCORRUPTED. 
 

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

God  from  Heaven to men, will doubtless cry out that I have commit-

ted  the sin against the Holy Ghost because I have asserted that the
  Bk.XIX:57b, 575.
Word  of  God  is  faulty,  mutilated, tampered with, and inconsistent;             Metaphors

that  we  possess  it  only  in  fragments,  and  that the original of the

covenant  which  God  made with the Jews has been lost.  (12:2)  How-

ever,  I  have no doubt that a little reflection will cause them to desist

from  their  uproar: for not only reason but the expressed opinions of

prophets  and apostles openly proclaim that G-D's eternal Word and

hearts, that is, in the human mind, and that this is the true original of            Smith:109139

G-D's  covenant,  stamped  with  His  own  seal,  namely, the idea of

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



(12:3)  Religion  was  imparted  to  the  early  Hebrews as a law written            Constitution

down,  because  they  were  at  that  time in the condition of children,

but afterwards Moses (Deut. xxx:6) and Jeremiah (xxxi:33) predicted

a  time  coming  when  the  Lord should  write His law in their hearts.             Evolution

(12:4)  Thus  only  the Jews, and amongst them chiefly the Sadducees,

struggled  for  the  law written on tablets; least of all need those who            Smith:108139

bear  it  inscribed  on  their  hearts  join  in  the  contest.  (12:5)  Those,

therefore,  who  reflect, will find nothing in what I have written repug-

nant  either to the Word of God or to true religion and faith, or calcu-

lated  to  weaken  either  one or the other: contrariwise, they will see

that  I  have  strengthened  religion, as I showed at the end of Chap-

ter X.;  indeed,   page 166  had  it  not  been  so,  I should certainly have

decided  to  hold  my  peace,  nay,  I would even have asserted as a

way  out  of  all  difficulties that the Bible contains the most profound

hidden  mysteries;  however, as this doctrine has given rise to gross

superstition  and other pernicious results spoken of at the beginning

of  Chapter V., I have thought such a course unnecessary, especial-

ly as religion stands in no need of superstitious adornments, but is,

on   the   contrary,   deprived   by   such  trappings  of  some  of  her

splendour.



(12:6)  Still,  it will be said, though the law of G-D is written in the heart,          Yovel's Mtaphors 

the  Bible  is none the less the Word of G-D, and it is no more lawful

to  say  of  Scripture  than  of G-Ds Word that it is mutilated and cor-

rupted.  (12:7)   I  fear  that  such  objectors are too anxious to be pious,

and  that  they are in danger of turning religion into superstition, and
                        Bk.XX:27284. 
worshipping paper and ink in place of G-D's Word.



(12:8)  I  am  certified  of  thus  much:  I  have  said nothing unworthy of

Scripture  or  God's  Word,  and  I  have  made no assertions which I            pejorative

could  not prove by most plain argument to be true.  (12:9)  I can, there-

fore,  rest  assured that I have advanced nothing which is impious or

even savours of impiety.



(12:10)   I confess that some profane men, to whom religion is a burden,

may,  from  what  I  have  said,  assume a licence to sin, and without

any  reason,  at the simple dictates of their lusts conclude that Scrip-

ture  is  everywhere faulty and falsified, and that therefore its author-

ity  is  null;  but  such men are beyond the reach of help, for nothing,

as  the  proverb  has  it, can be said so rightly that it cannot be twist-

ed into wrong.  (12:11)  Those who wish to give rein to their lusts are at

no  loss  for  an  excuse,  nor were those men of old who possessed

the  original  Scriptures,  the  ark  of the covenant, nay, the prophets

and  apostles  in  person among them, any better than the people of

to-day.   (12:12)  Human  nature,  Jew  as  well  as  Gentile, has always

been  the  same,  and in every age virtue has been exceedingly rare.



(12:13)  Nevertheless,  to remove every scruple, I will here show in what
                                                                                          {Infinity}
sense  the  Bible or any inanimate thing should be called sacred and                I-thee 

Divine;  also  wherein  the law of G-D consists, and how it cannot be

contained  in  a  certain  number of books; and, lastly, I will show that

Scripture,  in  so  far    page 167   as  it  teaches  what  is  necessary  for

obedience  and  salvation cannot  have  been corrupted.  (12:14)  From

these  considerations  everyone  will  be  able  to  judge  that  I  have

neither   said   anything   against  the  Word  of  God  nor  given  any

foothold to impiety.



(12:15)   A  thing is called sacred and Divine when it is designed for pro-

moting  piety,  and  continues sacred so long as it is religiously used:

if  the users cease to be pious, the thing ceases to be sacred: if it be

turned  to  base  uses,  that which was formerly sacred becomes un-

clean  and profane.  (12:16)  For instance, a certain spot was named by

the  patriarch Jacob the house of God, because he worshipped God

there revealed to him: by the prophets the same spot was called the

house of iniquity (see Amos v:5, and Hosea x:5), because the Israel-

ites  were  wont,  at  the instigation of Jeroboam, to sacrifice there to

idols.  (12:17)   Another  example  puts  the  matter  in  the  plainest light.

(12:18)  Words  gain  their  meaning  solely from their usage, and if they

are  arranged according to their accepted signification so as to move

those  who  read them to devotion, they will become sacred, and the

book  so  written  will  be  sacred  also.  (12:19)  But  if their usage after-

wards  dies  out  so  that  the  words  have  no meaning, or the book

becomes   utterly   neglected,  whether  from  unworthy  motives,  or

because  it  is  no  longer  needed,  then the words and the book will

lose  both  their use and their sanctity: lastly, if these same words be

otherwise  arranged, or if their customary meaning becomes pervert-

ed  into  its  opposite,  then  both the words and the book containing

them become, instead of sacred, impure and profane.



(12:20)  From  this it follows that nothing is in itself absolutely sacred, or              JBYnote1 

profane, and unclean, apart from the mind, but only relatively thereto.

(12:21)  Thus  much is clear from many passages in the Bible.  (12:22)  Jer-

emiah  (to  select  one  case  out of many) says (chap. vii:4), that the

Jews  of  his time were wrong in calling Solomon's Temple, the Tem-

ple  of  God,  for,  as  he  goes  on to say in the same chapter, God's

name  would only be given to the Temple so long as it was frequent-

ed  by  men who worshipped Him, and defended justice, but that, if it

became the resort of murderers, thieves, idolaters, and other wicked

persons, it would be turned into a den of malefactors.

PAGE 168

(12:23)  Scripture,  curiously  enough,  nowhere tells us what became of

the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  though there is no doubt that it was des-

troyed,  or  burnt  together  with  the  Temple;  yet there was nothing

which  the  Hebrews  considered  more  sacred,  or  held  in  greater

reverence.   (12:24)  Thus  Scripture  is  sacred,  and  its  words  Divine

so  long   as  it  stirs  mankind  to  devotion  towards  G-D:   but  if  it

be   utterly  neglected,  as  it  formerly  was by the Jews, it becomes

nothing  but paper and ink, and is left to be desecrated or corrupted:

still,  though  Scripture  be thus corrupted or destroyed, we must not

say  that  the Word of God has suffered in like manner, else we shall

be  like  the  Jews,  who  said  that  the Temple which would then be

the  Temple  of  God had perished in the flames.  (12:25)  Jeremiah tells

us  this  in  respect  to  the law, for he thus chides the ungodly of his
               Jer 8:8
time,  "Wherefore,  say  you we are masters, and the law of the Lord

is  with  us?   (12:26)  Surely  it  has  been given in vain, it is in vain that

the  pen  of  the  scribes" (has been made)—that is,  you say falsely

that  the  Scripture is in your power, and that you possess the law of

God; for ye have made it of none effect.



(12:27)  So  also,  when  Moses  broke  the first tables of the law, he did

not  by  any  means  cast  the  Word  of God from his hands in anger

and  shatter  it—such  an  action  would  be  inconceivable, either of

Moses  or  of God's Word—he only broke the tables of stone, which,

though  they  had  before  been  holy  from  containing  the covenant

wherewith  the  Jews  had  bound  themselves  in obedience to God,

had entirely lost their sanctity when the covenant had been violated

by the worship of the calf, and were, therefore, as liable to perish as

the  ark  of  the covenant.  (12:28)  It is thus scarcely to be wondered at,

that  the  original documents of Moses are no longer extant, nor that

the  books  we  possess  met with the fate we have described, when

we  consider  that  the  true original of the Divine covenant, the most

sacred object of all, has totally perished.



(12:29)  Let them cease, therefore, who accuse us of impiety, inasmuch

as  we  have said nothing against the Word of God, neither have we

corrupted  it,  but  let  them  keep  their  anger, if they would wreak it

justly,   for   the   ancients   whose  malice  desecrated  the  Ark,  the

Temple,  and  the Law of God, and all that was held sacred, subject-         Yovels's Metaphors

ing  them  to  corruption.  (12:30)  Furthermore,   page 169  if,  according  to

the  saying  of the Apostle in 2 Cor. iii:3, they possessed "the Epistle

of  Christ,  written  not  with  ink,  but with the Spirit of the living God,

not  in  tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart," let them

cease   to   worship   the  letter,  and  be  so  anxious  concerning  it.



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

should  be  accounted  sacred  and  Divine;  we  may  now see what
                                                                                          Bk.XIX:57b, 575.
should  rightly  be  understood  by  the  expression,  the  Word of the 

Lord; debar  (the Hebrew original),  {daw-vawr'—Strong:1697},  signifies         Chain of natural events

word,  speech,  command,  and  thing.   (12:32)  The causes for which a

thing  is  in  Hebrew  said  to  be  of  G-D, or is referred to Him, have

been  already  detailed  in  Chap. I.,   and  we  can  therefrom  easily

gather  what  meaning  Scripture  attaches  to the phrases, the word,

the  speech,  the  command,  or  the  thing  of  God.  (12:33)  I need not,

therefore,  repeat  what  I  there said, nor what was shown under the

third  head  in  the chapter on miracles.   (12:34)  It is enough to mention

the  repetition  for  the  better  understanding  of  what  I am about to

say—viz., that the Word of the Lord when it has reference to anyone

but  G-D  Himself,  signifies that Divine law treated of in Chap. IV.; in

other  words,  religion,  universal  and  catholic  to  the whole human

race,   as  Isaiah  describes  it  (chap. i:17),  teaching  that  the  true

way  of  life  consists,  not  in  ceremonies,  but in charity, and a true

heart,   and   calling   it   indifferently  G-D's  Law  and  G-D's  Word.



(12:35)  The  expression  is  also  used  metaphorically  for  the order of

nature  and  destiny (which, indeed, actually depend and follow from

the  eternal  mandate  of  the  Divine nature), and especially for such

parts  of such order as were foreseen by the prophets, for the proph-

ets  did  not  perceive  future  events  as the result of natural causes,

but  as  the fiats  and decrees of God.  (12:36)   Lastly, it is employed for

the  command of any prophet, in so far as he had perceived it by his

peculiar  faculty  or  prophetic  gift,  and  not  by  the  natural  light of

reason;  this use springs chiefly from the usual prophetic conception

of God as a legislator, which we remarked in Chap. IV.   (12:36a)  There

are, then, three causes for the Bible's being called the Word of God:

because   it   teaches   true   religion,  of  which  God  is  the  eternal

Founder;  because it narrates predictions of future events as though

they  were   page 170  decrees of God;  because  its actual authors gen-

erally  perceived  things not by their ordinary natural faculties, but by

a  power  peculiar  to  themselves,  and  introduced these things per-

ceived, as told them by G-D.



(12:37)  Although  Scripture  contains  much that is merely historical and

can be perceived by natural reason, yet its name is acquired from its

chief subject matter.



(12:38)  We  can  thus  easily see how God can be said to be the Author

of  the  Bible: it is because of the true religion therein contained, and

not  because He wished to communicate to men a certain number of

books.    (12:39)   We  can  also  learn  from  hence  the  reason  for  the

division into {Christian and Hebrew Bibles}. (12:40) It was made because

the  prophets  who  preached religion before Christ, preached it as a
                                                 { Exo 2:24 }
national  law  in  virtue  of  the  covenant  entered  into under Moses;

while  the  Apostles  who came after Christ, preached it to all men as

a  universal  religion solely in virtue of Christ's Passion: the cause for        TTP3:Bk.XIA:106116.

the   division   is   not  that  the  two  parts  are  different  in  doctrine,

nor  that  they  were  written  as  originals of the covenant, nor, lastly,

that  the catholic religion (which is in entire harmony with our nature)

was  new  except in relation to those who had not known it: "it was in
 
the world,"  as John the Evangelist says, "and the world knew it not."
  {NKJ (1982) John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him,
                                     and the world did not know Him.}

                                                                  {Hebrew Bible,}
(12:41) Thus,  even  if we had fewer books of the ^ Old, and New Testa-

ment  than  we  have,  we  should still not be deprived of the Word of          Yovel's Metaphors
                                                                           { EL:[64]:xxxi. }
God  (which, as we have said, is identical with true religion), even as

we  do  not  now  hold ourselves to be deprived of it, though we lack

many  cardinal  writings  such  as  the  Book  of  the Law, which was

religiously  guarded  in  the  Temple  as the original of the Covenant,

also  the  Book  of  Wars,  the  Book of Chronicles, and many others,

from  whence  the  extant  {Hebrew Bible}  was  taken and compiled.

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



I.   (12:43)   Because  the  books  of both Testaments were not written by

express  command  at  one  place  for  all  ages,  but  are a fortuitous

collection  of the works of men, writing each as his period and dispo-

sition  dictated.  (12:44)  So  much  is  clearly  shown  by  the  call of the

prophets  who  were bade to admonish the ungodly of their time, and

also by the Apostolic Epistles.



II.  (12:45)  Because it is one thing to understand the meaning of  page 171

Scripture  and  the  prophets,  and quite another thing to understand

the  meaning of G-D, or the actual truth.  (12:46)  This follows from what           G-D sive Natura

we  said  in Chap. II.  (12:47)  We showed, in Chap. VI., that it applied to

historic  narratives,  and  to  miracles:  but  it by no means applies to

questions concerning true religion and virtue.



III.   (12:48)  Because  the  books  of  the  {Hebrew Bible} were selected

from  many,  and  were  collected and sanctioned by a council of the

Pharisees, as we showed  in Chap. X.  (12:49)  The books of the {Christ-

ian Bible} were  also chosen from many by councils which rejected

as   spurious  other  books  held  sacred  by many.    (12:50)   But  these

councils,   both   Pharisee   and  Christian,  were  not  composed  of

prophets,  but  only of learned men and teachers.  (1251)  Still, we must

grant  that  they  were  guided  in  their  choice  by  a  regard  for the

Word of God; and they must, therefore, have known what the law of

God was.



IV.   (12:52)   Because  the Apostles wrote not as prophets, but as teach-

ers  (see  last  Chapter),  and  chose  whatever method they thought

best  adapted  for  those  whom  they  addressed: and consequently,

there  are  many  things  in the Epistles (as we showed at the end of

the last Chapter) which are not necessary to salvation.



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

ament,  and  it  is  scarcely  credible  that  God can have designed to

narrate  the  life of Christ four times over, and to communicate it thus

to  mankind.  (12:54)   For  though  there are some details related in one

Gospel  which  are  not  in another, and one often helps us to under-

stand  another,  we  cannot thence conclude that all that is set down

is  of vital importance to us, and that God chose the four Evangelists

in  order  that  the  life of Christ  might be better understood; for each

one  preached  his  Gospel in a separate locality, each wrote it down

as  he  preached  it,  in  simple  language, in order that the history of

Christ  might  be  clearly  told,  not  with  any  view  of  explaining his

fellow-Evangelists.



(12:55)  If  there  are  some  passages  which  can  be  better, and more

easily  understood  by  comparing  the various versions, they are the

result of chance, and are not numerous: their continuance in obscur-

ity  would  have  impaired  neither  the clearness of the narrative nor

the blessedness of mankind.



(12:56)   We have now shown that Scripture can only be called   page 172 

the  Word of God in so far as it affects religion, or the Divine law; we             metaphors

must  now  point  out  that, in respect to these questions, it is neither

faulty,  tampered  with,  nor  corrupt.  (12:57)  By  faulty,  tampered with,

and  corrupt,  I  here  mean  written  so  incorrectly  that the meaning

cannot be arrived at by a study of the language, nor from the author-

ity  of  Scripture.   (12:58)   I will not go to such lengths as to say that the

Bible,  in  so  far  as it contains the Divine law, has always preserved

the  same  vowel-points, the same letters, or the same words (I leave

this  to  be  proved  by  the Massoretes and other worshippers of the

letter),  I only maintain that the meaning by which alone an utterance

is  entitled  to  be  called  Divine,  has come down to us uncorrupted,

even   though   the   original   wording  may  have  been  more  often

changed  than  we  suppose.  (12:59)  Such  alterations,  as  I have said

above,  detract  nothing  from  the  Divinity  of the Bible, for the Bible

would  have  been  no  less  Divine  had  it  been  written in different

words  or  a  different language.  (12:60)  That the Divine law has in this

sense  come  down  to  us uncorrupted, is an assertion which admits

of  no  dispute.  (12:61)  For  from  the  Bible  itself  we learn, without the

smallest   difficulty   or   ambiguity,   that  its cardinal  precept  is:  To

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

(12:62)  This  cannot  be  a  spurious  passage,  nor  due to a hasty and

mistaken scribe, for if the Bible had ever put forth a different doctrine

it  would  have had to change the whole of its teaching, for this is the

corner-stone  of  religion,  without  which  the  whole fabric would fall

headlong  to  the ground.  (12:63)  The  Bible  would not be the work we
                                                               Bk.XIA:81133. 
have been examining, but something quite different.



(12:64)  We  remain,  then,  unshaken  in  our belief that this has always

been  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and,  consequently,  that  no error

sufficient   to   vitiate  it  can  have  crept  in  without  being  instantly

observed  by  all; nor can anyone have succeeded in tampering with

it and escaped the discovery of his malice.



(12:65)  As  this corner-stone is intact, we must perforce admit the same

of  whatever  other  passages  are indisputably dependent on it, and

are  also  fundamental,  as,  for instance,  that  a God exists, that He

foresees  all things,  that He is Almighty, that by His decree the good

prosper  and  the  wicked  page 173  come  to  naug