A THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL
TREATISE
Hampshire:202-3,
203-5,
205-9
(Published 1670
anonymously)
Benedict de Spinoza
1632
- 1677
Part 3 - Chapters XI to XV
Part 1 , Part
2 , Part 3 , Part 4
Metaphors,
Metaphor of Commandment
of G-D, Referred
to G-D, G:Bk.XI:42.
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
| Part 1 | I | II | III | IV | V |
| Part 2 | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X |
| Part 3 | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV |
| Part 4 | XVI | XVII | XVIII | XIX | XX |
Author's Notes to Theologico-Political
Treatise - Part 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS: BkII
Page Numbers
| Chap. XI.—An
Inquiry whether the Apostles wrote their Epistles as Apostles and Prophets, or merely as Teachers, and an Explanation of what is meant by an Apostle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157 |
|
| The epistles not in the prophetic style. | 157 |
| The Apostles not commanded to write or preach in particular places. | 159 |
| Different methods of teaching adopted by the Apostles. |
163 |
| 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 G-D, it has come down to us uncorrupted . . . 165 |
|
| CHAPTER XIII.- It is shown, that
Scripture teaches only very Simple Doctrines, such as suffice for right conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 |
|
| Error in speculative
doctrine not impious—nor knowledge pious. Piety consists in obedience. |
180 |
| CHAPTER XIV.—Definitions
of Faith, the True Faith, and the Foundations of Faith, which is once for all separated from Philosophy. TTP1:Divine Law ]Bk.XIII:341377[ ..... 182 |
|
| Danger resulting from the vulgar idea of faith. | 182 |
| The only test of faith; obedience and good works. | 184 |
| As different men are disposed to obedience by different
opinions, universal faith can contain only the simplest doctrines. |
186 |
| Fundamental distinction between faith
and philosophy—the key- stone of the present treatise. |
189 |
| CHAPTER
XV.- Theology is shown not to be subservient to Reason, nor Reason to Theology: a Definition of the reason which enables us to accept the Authority of the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . 190 |
|
| Theory that Scripture must be accommodated to Reason—maintained
by Maimonides—already refuted in Chapter vii. |
190 |
| Theory that Reason must be accommodated to Scripture—maintained
by Alpakhar—examined. |
191 |
| And refuted. | 194 |
| Scriptur{al Theology} and Reason independent of one another. | 195 |
| Certainty of fundamental faith not mathematical but moral. | 196 |
| Great utility of Revelation. | 198 |
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