Prophets

It follows from the last chapter that, as I have said, the prophets were endowed with unusually vivid imaginations, and not with unusually perfect minds. This conclusion is amply sustained by Scripture, for we are told that Solomon was the wisest of men, but had no special faculty of prophecy. Heman, Calcol, and Dara, though men of great talent, were not prophets, whereas uneducated countrymen, nay, even women, such as Hagar, Abraham's handmaid, were thus gifted. Nor is this contrary to ordinary experience and reason. Men of great imaginative power are less fitted for abstract reasoning, whereas those who excel in intellect and its use keep their imagination more restrained and controlled, holding it in subjection, so to speak, lest it should usurp the place of reason.

As I have said, the last chapter shows that the prophets had unusually vivid imaginations, not unusually perfect minds. Scripture strongly supports this conclusion. We are told that Solomon was the wisest of men, but had no special gift for prophecy. Heman, Calcol, and Dara were highly talented, but they were not prophets. Yet uneducated country people, and even women such as Hagar, Abraham's servant, had this gift. Nor does this contrast conflict with ordinary experience and reason. People with powerful imaginations are less suited to abstract reasoning. By contrast, people who excel in intellect and reasoning keep their imaginations more restrained and controlled. They keep their imaginations in check, so to speak, to prevent imagination from taking the place of reason.

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

So it is utterly mistaken to suppose that knowledge of natural and spiritual phenomena can come from the prophetic books. I will try to expose this mistake, as I think philosophy, our age, and the question itself demand. I do not care about superstition’s taunts, because superstition is the bitter enemy of all true knowledge and true morality. Yes, things have come to this! Men openly admit they can form no idea of God and know him only through created things. They do not know the causes of those things, yet they shamelessly accuse philosophers of atheism.

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

I will examine the question methodically, showing how prophecies varied with each prophet’s imagination and physical temperament. Prophecies also varied with each prophet’s particular opinions. I will further show that prophecy never made a prophet wiser than he was before. But first I will discuss the assurance the prophets received that their prophecies were true. This assurance relates to the subject of this chapter and will help clarify the point we are now considering.

Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any certainty of truth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires some extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence prophecy cannot afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's revelation by some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham, who, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not because he did not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it was God Who made the promise. The fact is still more evident in the case of Gideon: "Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, that I may know that it is Thou that talkest with me." God also says to Moses: "And let this be a sign that I have sent thee." Hezekiah, though he had long known Isaiah to be a prophet, none the less demanded a sign of the cure which he predicted. It is thus quite evident that the prophets always received some sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings; and for this reason Moses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets a sign, namely, the prediction of some coming event. In this respect, prophetic knowledge is inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign, and in itself implies certitude. Moreover, Scripture warrants the statement that the certitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but moral. Moses lays down the punishment of death for the prophet who preaches new gods, even though he confirm his doctrine by signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he says, "the Lord also worketh signs and wonders to try His people." And Jesus Christ warns His disciples of the same thing (Matt. xxiv:24). Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives men with false revelations; and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of the prophets of Ahab.

Imagination does not, by its nature, provide any certainty of truth, unlike every clear and distinct idea. Instead, imagination requires some outside reason to assure us that what we imagine is real. So prophecy cannot provide certainty on its own. The prophets were assured of God's revelation by some sign, not by the revelation itself. We can see this in Abraham, who asked for a sign after hearing God's promise. Abraham asked not because he disbelieved God, but because he wanted to be sure that God had made the promise. The point is even clearer in Gideon's case: "Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, so I may know that you are speaking to me." God also says to Moses: "And let this be a sign that I have sent you." Although Hezekiah had long known Isaiah to be a prophet, he still demanded a sign confirming Isaiah's predicted cure. Clearly, then, the prophets always received some sign to assure them that their prophetic visions were genuine. For this reason, Moses tells the Jews (Deuteronomy 18) to ask prophets for a sign, namely, a prediction of some future event. In this respect, prophetic knowledge is inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign and carries certainty within itself. Moreover, Scripture supports the claim that the prophets' certainty was moral, not mathematical. Moses prescribes death for any prophet who preaches new gods, even if signs and wonders confirm the prophet's teaching (Deuteronomy 13). "For," he says, "the Lord also performs signs and wonders to test his people." And Jesus Christ gives his disciples the same warning (Matthew 24:24). Furthermore, Ezekiel (14:9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives people with false revelations. Micaiah gives similar testimony about Ahab's prophets.

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

Although these examples show that revelation is open to doubt, revelation still contains considerable certainty, as we have said. For God never deceives the good or his chosen people. Instead, God uses the good to do good and the wicked to carry out his wrath. This is expressed in the ancient proverb and shown in the story of Abigail and her speech. The case of Micaiah, cited above, illustrates the same point. For although God had decided to deceive Ahab through prophets, he used lying prophets. He revealed the truth to the good prophet and did not forbid him from proclaiming it.

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

Still, as I have said, the certainty of prophecy remains merely moral. For no one can claim to be righteous before God or boast of being an instrument of God's goodness. Scripture itself teaches and shows that God led David astray by leading him to count the people. Yet Scripture also gives ample evidence of David's piety.

The whole question of the certitude of prophecy, was based on these three considerations:

The entire question of how certain prophecy was rested on these three considerations:

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

1. The prophets imagined the things revealed so vividly that these things affected them just like things seen while awake.

2. The presence of a sign;

2. The presence of a sign.

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

3. Finally, and most importantly, the prophet’s mind was devoted entirely to what was right and good.

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

Although Scripture does not always mention a sign, we must still assume that a sign was always given. For Scripture does not always describe every condition and circumstance, as many have noted. Instead, Scripture takes these details for granted. We may, however, accept that no sign was needed when a prophecy said only what the law of Moses already contained. This was because that law confirmed the prophecy. For example, Jeremiah's prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction was confirmed by other prophets' prophecies and by the threats in the law. Therefore, Jeremiah's prophecy needed no sign. By contrast, Hananiah predicted the state's swift restoration, contrary to all the prophets. Hananiah needed a sign, or he would have doubted his prophecy's truth until events confirmed it. "When a prophet predicts peace, only when the prediction comes true will people know that the Lord truly sent him."

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

The certainty that signs gave a prophet, then, was not mathematical. That is, certainty did not necessarily follow from perceiving or seeing something. Instead, the certainty was only moral, and the signs were given only to convince the prophet. It follows that the signs were suited to each prophet’s opinions and ability to understand. So a sign that convinced one prophet would fall far short of convincing another whose opinions were different. Therefore, the signs varied from prophet to prophet.

So also did the revelation vary, as we have stated, according to individual disposition and temperament, and according to the opinions previously held.

As we have said, revelation likewise varied with each person's disposition and temperament. Revelation also varied with the opinions each person already held.

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

It varied with the prophet’s temperament in the following way. If a prophet was cheerful, victories, peace, and events that make people happy were revealed to him. This was because he was naturally more likely to imagine such things. If, on the other hand, he was gloomy, wars, massacres, and disasters were revealed to him. So, depending on whether a prophet was merciful, gentle, quick to anger, or stern, he was better suited to one kind of revelation than another. It also varied with the character of his imagination. If a prophet was cultured, he understood the mind of God in a cultured way. If he was confused, he understood it in a confused way. The same applied to revelations received through visions. If a prophet was a farmer, he saw visions of oxen, cows, and similar things. If he was a soldier, he saw generals and armies. If he was a courtier, he saw a royal throne, and so on.

Lastly, prophecy varied according to the opinions held by the prophets; for instance, to the Magi, who believed in the follies of astrology, the birth of Christ was revealed through the vision of a star in the East. To the augurs of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem was revealed through entrails, whereas the king himself inferred it from oracles and the direction of arrows which he shot into the air. To prophets who believed that man acts from free choice and by his own power, God was revealed as standing apart from and ignorant of future human actions. All of which we will illustrate from Scripture.

Finally, prophecy varied according to the prophets’ beliefs. For example, the Magi believed in the foolishness of astrology. So Christ’s birth was revealed to them through a vision of a star in the East. Nebuchadnezzar’s augurs learned of Jerusalem’s destruction by examining entrails. The king himself, however, inferred Jerusalem’s destruction from oracles and the direction of arrows he shot into the air. Some prophets believed that people act by free choice and through their own power. To these prophets, God appeared as separate from human actions and unaware of what people would do in the future. We will illustrate all these points from Scripture.

The first point is proved from the case of Elisha, who, in order to prophecy to Jehoram, asked for a harp, and was unable to perceive the Divine purpose till he had been recreated by its music; then, indeed, he prophesied to Jehoram and to his allies glad tidings, which previously he had been unable to attain to because he was angry with the king, and these who are angry with anyone can imagine evil of him, but not good. The theory that God does not reveal Himself to the angry or the sad, is a mere dream: for God revealed to Moses while angry, the terrible slaughter of the firstborn, and did so without the intervention of a harp. To Cain in his rage, God was revealed, and to Ezekiel, impatient with anger, was revealed the contumacy and wretchedness of the Jews. Jeremiah, miserable and weary of life, prophesied the disasters of the Hebrews, so that Josiah would not consult him, but inquired of a woman, inasmuch as it was more in accordance with womanly nature that God should reveal His mercy thereto. So, Micaiah never prophesied good to Ahab, though other true prophets had done so, but invariably evil. Thus we see that individual prophets were by temperament more fitted for one sort of revelation than another.

The first point is proved by the case of Elisha, who asked for a harp so he could prophesy to Jehoram. Elisha could not perceive God’s purpose until the music had refreshed him. Then he prophesied good news to Jehoram and his allies. Earlier, Elisha had been unable to receive this news because he was angry with the king. People who are angry with someone can imagine evil for that person, but not good. The theory that God does not reveal himself to the angry or the sad is pure fantasy. For God revealed the terrible slaughter of the firstborn to Moses while Moses was angry, without the help of a harp. God revealed himself to Cain in his rage. And to Ezekiel, impatient with anger, God revealed the Jews’ defiance and misery. Jeremiah, miserable and weary of life, prophesied the disasters of the Hebrews. So Josiah would not consult Jeremiah, but instead consulted a woman. For it was more in keeping with a woman’s nature that God should reveal his mercy to her. Likewise, Micaiah never prophesied good to Ahab, though other true prophets had done so. Micaiah invariably prophesied evil. Thus we see that individual prophets were, by temperament, better suited to one kind of revelation than another.

The style of the prophecy also varied according to the eloquence of the individual prophet. The prophecies of Ezekiel and Amos are not written in a cultivated style like those of Isaiah and Nahum, but more rudely. Any Hebrew scholar who wishes to inquire into this point more closely, and compares chapters of the different prophets treating of the same subject, will find great dissimilarity of style. Compare, for instance, chap. i. of the courtly Isaiah, verse 11 to verse 20, with chap. v. of the countryman Amos, verses 21-24. Compare also the order and reasoning of the prophecies of Jeremiah, written in Idumaea (chap. xlix.), with the order and reasoning of Obadiah. Compare, lastly, Isa. xl:19, 20, and xliv:8, with Hosea viii:6, and xiii:2. And so on.

The style of prophecy also varied with each prophet’s eloquence. The prophecies of Ezekiel and Amos have a rougher, less polished style than those of Isaiah and Nahum. Any Hebrew scholar wishing to examine this point more closely can compare different prophets’ chapters on the same subject. Such a comparison will reveal great differences in style. Compare, for example, Isaiah 1:11 to 20 with Amos 5:21 to 24. Isaiah was a man of the court, Amos a man of the countryside. Also compare the structure and reasoning of Jeremiah’s prophecies written in Idumaea (chapter 49) with those of Obadiah. Finally, compare Isaiah 40:19, 20 and 44:8 with Hosea 8:6 and 13:2. And so on.

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

Careful consideration of these passages clearly shows that God has no particular style of speaking. Instead, his speech varies according to the prophet’s education and abilities. It can be polished, concise, stern, unpolished, long-winded, or obscure.

There was, moreover, a certain variation in the visions vouchsafed to the prophets, and in the symbols by which they expressed them, for Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord departing from the Temple in a different form from that presented to Ezekiel. The Rabbis, indeed, maintain that both visions were really the same, but that Ezekiel, being a countryman, was above measure impressed by it, and therefore set it forth in full detail; but unless there is a trustworthy tradition on the subject, which I do not for a moment believe, this theory is plainly an invention. Isaiah saw seraphim with six wings, Ezekiel beasts with four wings; Isaiah saw God clothed and sitting on a royal throne, Ezekiel saw Him in the likeness of a fire; each doubtless saw God under the form in which he usually imagined Him.

Moreover, the visions granted to the prophets varied, as did the symbols they used to express those visions. Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord departing from the Temple in a different form from the one Ezekiel saw. The Rabbis maintain that both visions were really the same. But they say Ezekiel, being a countryman, was excessively impressed by the vision and therefore described it in full detail. Unless there is a trustworthy tradition on the subject, however, this theory is plainly an invention. I do not believe for a moment that any such tradition exists. Isaiah saw seraphim with six wings, while Ezekiel saw beasts with four wings. Isaiah saw God clothed and seated on a royal throne, while Ezekiel saw him in the form of fire. Each prophet undoubtedly saw God in the form in which he usually imagined him.

Further, the visions varied in clearness as well as in details; for the revelations of Zechariah were too obscure to be understood by the prophet without explanation, as appears from his narration of them; the visions of Daniel could not be understood by him even after they had been explained, and this obscurity did not arise from the difficulty of the matter revealed (for being merely human affairs, these only transcended human capacity in being future), but solely in the fact that Daniel's imagination was not so capable for prophecy while he was awake as while he was asleep; and this is further evident from the fact that at the very beginning of the vision he was so terrified that he almost despaired of his strength. Thus, on account of the inadequacy of his imagination and his strength, the things revealed were so obscure to him that he could not understand them even after they had been explained. Here we may note that the words heard by Daniel, were, as we have shown above, simply imaginary, so that it is hardly wonderful that in his frightened state he imagined them so confusedly and obscurely that afterwards he could make nothing of them. Those who say that God did not wish to make a clear revelation, do not seem to have read the words of the angel, who expressly says that he came to make the prophet understand what should befall his people in the latter days (Dan. x:14).

The visions also varied in clarity as well as detail. Zechariah’s revelations were too obscure for him to understand without explanation, as his account of them shows. Daniel could not understand his visions even after they had been explained. This obscurity did not come from the difficulty of what was revealed. The revelations concerned only human affairs, which exceeded human understanding only because they lay in the future. Rather, the obscurity came solely from Daniel’s imagination, which was less capable of prophecy while awake than while asleep. Further evidence appears at the very beginning of the vision. Daniel was so terrified that he almost lost hope that his strength would hold out. Thus, because his imagination and strength were inadequate, the revelations remained too obscure for him to understand, even after explanation. Here we may note that, as we have shown above, the words Daniel heard existed only in his imagination. So it is hardly surprising that, in his frightened state, he imagined the words so confusedly and obscurely. As a result, he could make nothing of them afterward. Some say that God did not wish to make a clear revelation. But those who say so do not seem to have read the angel’s words. The angel expressly says he came to help the prophet understand what would happen to his people in the latter days (Dan. 10:14).

The revelation remained obscure because no one was found, at that time, with imagination sufficiently strong to conceive it more clearly. Lastly, the prophets, to whom it was revealed that God would take away Elijah, wished to persuade Elisha that he had been taken somewhere where they would find him; showing sufficiently clearly that they had not understood God's revelation aright.

The revelation remained unclear because no one at that time had an imagination strong enough to picture it more clearly. Finally, God revealed to the prophets that he would take Elijah away. The prophets wanted to convince Elisha that Elijah had been taken somewhere they could find him. This showed clearly enough that the prophets had not correctly understood God's revelation.

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

There is no need to explain this further. Nothing in the Bible is clearer than that God gave some prophets far greater prophetic gifts than others. But I will explain the next point in greater detail and at greater length, because I consider it more important. Prophecies varied according to the opinions the prophets already held. The prophets also held differing and even contradictory opinions and prejudices. (I am speaking only of theoretical matters. The situation is very different when it comes to upright conduct and morality.) From this I will conclude that prophecy never made the prophets more knowledgeable, but left their previous opinions unchanged. We are therefore under no obligation at all to trust them on intellectual matters.

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

Everyone has been strangely quick to claim that the prophets knew everything the human mind could grasp. Yet some passages of Scripture plainly state that the prophets were ignorant in certain respects. Even so, these people would rather say they do not understand those passages than admit the prophets lacked any knowledge. Or else they try to twist the words of Scripture away from their obvious meaning.

If either of these proceedings is allowable we may as well shut our Bibles, for vainly shall we attempt to prove anything from them if their plainest passages may be classed among obscure and impenetrable mysteries, or if we may put any interpretation on them which we fancy. For instance, nothing is more clear in the Bible than that Joshua, and perhaps also the author who wrote his history, thought that the sun revolves round the earth, and that the earth is fixed, and further that the sun for a certain period remained still. Many, who will not admit any movement in the heavenly bodies, explain away the passage till it seems to mean something quite different; others, who have learned to philosophize more correctly, and understand that the earth moves while the sun is still, or at any rate does not revolve round the earth, try with all their might to wrest this meaning from Scripture, though plainly nothing of the sort is intended. Such quibblers excite my wonder! Are we, forsooth, bound to believe that Joshua the Soldier was a learned astronomer? or that a miracle could not be revealed to him, or that the light of the sun could not remain longer than usual above the horizon, without his knowing the cause? To me both alternatives appear ridiculous, and therefore I would rather say, that Joshua was ignorant of the true cause of the lengthened day, and that he and the whole host with him thought that the sun moved round the earth every day, and that on that particular occasion it stood still for a time, thus causing the light to remain longer; and I would say, that they did not conjecture that, from the amount of snow in the air (see Josh. x:11), the refraction may have been greater than usual, or that there may have been some other cause which we will not now inquire into.

If either of these approaches is allowed, we might as well close our Bibles. We cannot hope to prove anything from them if their clearest passages can be treated as obscure, unfathomable mysteries. Nor can we if we may interpret them however we please. For example, nothing in the Bible is clearer than Joshua’s belief that the sun revolves around a motionless earth. Perhaps the author who wrote Joshua’s history shared that belief. Joshua also believed that the sun stood still for a time. Many people who refuse to accept any movement in the heavenly bodies explain away the passage until its meaning changes completely. Others have learned to reason more soundly about nature. They understand that the earth moves while the sun remains still, or at least does not revolve around the earth. Yet they try with all their strength to force this meaning out of Scripture, though plainly no such meaning is intended. These quibblers astonish me! Are we really required to believe that Joshua the soldier was a learned astronomer? Or that a miracle could not be revealed to him without his knowing its cause? Or that sunlight could not remain above the horizon longer than usual unless he knew why? Both alternatives seem ridiculous to me. So I would rather say that Joshua did not know the true cause of the longer day. He and his entire army thought that the sun moved around the earth every day. They thought that, on this particular occasion, the sun stood still for a time, causing the daylight to last longer. And I would say they did not suspect that the amount of snow in the air might have increased refraction. See Josh. x:11. Nor did they suspect some other possible cause, which we will not investigate now.

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

Likewise, the sign of the shadow moving backward was revealed to Isaiah in a way that matched his understanding. He understood the sign as caused by the sun moving backward. For he too thought the sun moved and the earth stood still. Perhaps he had never even imagined parhelia, or mock suns. We may reach this conclusion without hesitation. For the sign could really have occurred, and Isaiah could have predicted it to the king without knowing its true cause.

With regard to the building of the Temple by Solomon, if it was really dictated by God we must maintain the same doctrine: namely, that all the measurements were revealed according to the opinions and understanding of the king; for as we are not bound to believe that Solomon was a mathematician, we may affirm that he was ignorant of the true ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a circle, and that, like the generality of workmen, he thought that it was as three to one. But if it is allowable to declare that we do not understand the passage, in good sooth I know nothing in the Bible that we can understand; for the process of building is there narrated simply and as a mere matter of history. If, again, it is permitted to pretend that the passage has another meaning, and was written as it is from some reason unknown to us, this is no less than a complete subversal of the Bible; for every absurd and evil invention of human perversity could thus, without detriment to Scriptural authority, be defended and fostered. Our conclusion is in no wise impious, for though Solomon, Isaiah, Joshua, &c. were prophets, they were none the less men, and as such not exempt from human shortcomings.

If God really directed Solomon’s building of the Temple, we must hold to the same principle. All the measurements were revealed in terms of the king’s opinions and understanding. We are not required to believe that Solomon was a mathematician. So we may say he did not know the true ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. Like most workmen, he thought the ratio was three to one. But if we are allowed to say we do not understand this passage, I honestly know nothing in the Bible we can understand. For the building process is described plainly, simply as a matter of history. Or suppose we are allowed to claim the passage means something else and was written this way for some unknown reason. Such a claim completely undermines the Bible. For then every absurd and evil invention of human perversity could be defended and encouraged without compromising the Bible’s authority. Our conclusion is not at all impious. Although Solomon, Isaiah, Joshua, and others were prophets, they were still human and therefore not free from human shortcomings.

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

As Noah understood the revelation, God was about to destroy the entire human race. This was because Noah believed no one lived beyond the borders of Palestine.

Not only in matters of this kind, but in others more important, the prophets could be, and in fact were, ignorant; for they taught nothing special about the Divine attributes, but held quite ordinary notions about God, and to these notions their revelations were adapted, as I will demonstrate by ample Scriptural testimony; from all which one may easily see that they were praised and commended, not so much for the sublimity and eminence of their intellect as for their piety and faithfulness.

The prophets could be ignorant not only in matters like these, but also in more important ones. In fact, they were. For they taught nothing special about God's attributes, but held quite ordinary ideas about God. Their revelations were adapted to these ideas, as I will show with abundant evidence from Scripture. From all this, we can easily see why the prophets were praised and commended. It was not so much for their lofty and outstanding intellect as for their devotion and faithfulness.

Adam, the first man to whom God was revealed, did not know that He is omnipotent and omniscient; for he hid himself from Him, and attempted to make excuses for his fault before God, as though he had had to do with a man; therefore to him also was God revealed according to his understanding - that is, as being unaware of his situation or his sin, for Adam heard, or seemed to hear, the Lord walking in the garden, calling him and asking him where he was; and then, on seeing his shamefacedness, asking him whether he had eaten of the forbidden fruit. Adam evidently only knew the Deity as the Creator of all things. To Cain also God was revealed, according to his understanding, as ignorant of human affairs, nor was a higher conception of the Deity required for repentance of his sin.

Adam, the first man to whom God revealed himself, did not know that God was all-powerful and all-knowing. For Adam hid from God and tried to excuse his wrongdoing before him, as though dealing with a man. So God revealed himself to Adam in a way that matched Adam’s understanding. That is, God appeared unaware of Adam’s situation or his sin. For Adam heard, or seemed to hear, the Lord walking in the garden, calling him and asking where he was. Then, seeing Adam’s shame, God asked whether he had eaten the forbidden fruit. Adam evidently knew God only as the Creator of all things. God also revealed himself to Cain in a way that matched Cain’s understanding, as ignorant of human affairs. Nor did Cain need a higher understanding of God to repent of his sin.

To Laban the Lord revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, because Laban believed that each nation had its own special divinity (see Gen. xxxi:29). Abraham also knew not that God is omnipresent, and has foreknowledge of all things; for when he heard the sentence against the inhabitants of Sodom, he prayed that the Lord should not execute it till He had ascertained whether they all merited such punishment; for he said (see Gen. xviii:24), "Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city," and in accordance with this belief God was revealed to him; as Abraham imagined, He spake thus: "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto Me; and, if not, I will know." Further, the Divine testimony concerning Abraham asserts nothing but that he was obedient, and that he "commanded his household after him that they should keep the way of the Lord" (Gen. xviii:19); it does not state that he held sublime conceptions of the Deity.

The Lord revealed himself to Laban as the God of Abraham because Laban believed each nation had its own god (see Gen. 31:29). Abraham also did not know that God is everywhere and knows all things in advance. When Abraham heard the judgment against Sodom’s inhabitants, he prayed that the Lord would not carry it out immediately. He asked God first to find out whether all the inhabitants deserved such punishment. For Abraham said (see Gen. 18:24), "Perhaps there are fifty righteous people in the city." God revealed himself to Abraham in keeping with this belief. As Abraham imagined him, God said: "I will now go down and see whether their actions fully match the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." Further, God’s testimony about Abraham says only that Abraham was obedient. It also says that he "commanded his household after him to keep the way of the Lord" (Gen. 18:19). It does not say that Abraham had lofty ideas about God.

Moses, also, was not sufficiently aware that God is omniscient, and directs human actions by His sole decree, for although God Himself says that the Israelites should hearken to Him, Moses still considered the matter doubtful and repeated, "But if they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice." To him in like manner God was revealed as taking no part in, and as being ignorant of, future human actions: the Lord gave him two signs and said, "And it shall come to pass that if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign; but if not, thou shalt take of the water of the river," &c. Indeed, if any one considers without prejudice the recorded opinions of Moses, he will plainly see that Moses conceived the Deity as a Being Who has always existed, does exist, and always will exist, and for this cause he calls Him by the name Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies these three phases of existence: as to His nature, Moses only taught that He is merciful, gracious, and exceeding jealous, as appears from many passages in the Pentateuch. Lastly, he believed and taught that this Being was so different from all other beings, that He could not be expressed by the image of any visible thing; also, that He could not be looked upon, and that not so much from inherent impossibility as from human infirmity; further, that by reason of His power He was without equal and unique. Moses admitted, indeed, that there were beings (doubtless by the plan and command of the Lord) who acted as God's vicegerents - that is, beings to whom God had given the right, authority, and power to direct nations, and to provide and care for them; but he taught that this Being Whom they were bound to obey was the highest and Supreme God, or (to use the Hebrew phrase) God of gods, and thus in the song (Exod. xv:11) he exclaims, "Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods?" and Jethro says (Exod. xviii:11), "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods." That is to say, "I am at length compelled to admit to Moses that Jehovah is greater than all gods, and that His power is unrivalled." We must remain in doubt whether Moses thought that these beings who acted as God's vicegerents were created by Him, for he has stated nothing, so far as we know, about their creation and origin. He further taught that this Being had brought the visible world into order from Chaos, and had given Nature her germs, and therefore that He possesses supreme right and power over all things; further, that by reason of this supreme right and power He had chosen for Himself alone the Hebrew nation and a certain strip of territory, and had handed over to the care of other gods substituted by Himself the rest of the nations and territories, and that therefore He was called the God of Israel and the God of Jerusalem, whereas the other gods were called the gods of the Gentiles. For this reason the Jews believed that the strip of territory which God had chosen for Himself, demanded a Divine worship quite apart and different from the worship which obtained elsewhere, and that the Lord would not suffer the worship of other gods adapted to other countries. Thus they thought that the people whom the king of Assyria had brought into Judaea were torn in pieces by lions because they knew not the worship of the National Divinity (2 Kings xvii:25).

Moses, too, did not fully understand that God knows everything and directs human actions by his decree alone. Although God himself said the Israelites would listen to him, Moses still doubted this and repeated, "But if they will not believe me or listen to my voice." Likewise, God was revealed to Moses as neither taking part in nor knowing future human actions. The Lord gave Moses two signs and said, "If they do not believe you or heed the first sign, they will believe the second sign. But if they do not, you shall take water from the river," and so on. Indeed, anyone who considers Moses’ recorded opinions without prejudice will clearly see how Moses understood God. Moses conceived of God as a Being who has always existed, exists now, and always will exist. For this reason, Moses calls him Jehovah, a name that expresses these three stages of existence in Hebrew. As for God’s nature, Moses taught only that he is merciful, gracious, and extremely jealous. Many passages in the Pentateuch show this. Finally, Moses believed and taught that this Being differed so greatly from all others that no visible image could represent him. Moses also taught that God could not be looked upon. This was not so much because seeing God was inherently impossible as because of human weakness. Moses further taught that God’s power made him unequaled and unique. Moses did admit that some beings acted as God’s deputies, doubtless by the Lord’s plan and command. God had given these beings the right, authority, and power to govern nations and provide and care for them. But Moses taught that the Being whom the Israelites were bound to obey was the highest and Supreme God. In the Hebrew phrase, he was the God of gods. Thus, in the song (Exodus 15:11), Moses exclaims, "Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?" And Jethro says (Exodus 18:11), "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods." That is to say, "I am finally compelled to admit to Moses that Jehovah is greater than all gods. His power is unrivaled." We must remain uncertain whether Moses thought God had created these beings who acted as his deputies. As far as we know, Moses said nothing about their creation or origin. Moses further taught that this Being had brought the visible world into order from Chaos and given Nature her seeds. Therefore, God has supreme right and power over all things. Moses also taught that, through this supreme right and power, God had chosen the Hebrew nation and a certain strip of territory for himself alone. God had placed all other nations and territories in the care of other gods appointed by him. Therefore, he was called the God of Israel and the God of Jerusalem. The other gods were called the gods of the Gentiles. For this reason, the Jews believed that the territory God had chosen for himself required its own distinct form of worship. They believed the Lord would not tolerate the worship of other gods suited to other countries. Thus, they believed lions had torn apart the people whom the king of Assyria had brought into Judaea. They thought this happened because those people did not know how to worship the nation’s God (2 Kings 17:25).

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

According to Aben Ezra, Jacob therefore warned his sons when he wanted them to seek a new country. He told them to prepare for a new form of worship and stop worshiping foreign gods. These were the gods of the land where they were living (Gen. 35:2, 3).

David, in telling Saul that he was compelled by the king's persecution to live away from his country, said that he was driven out from the heritage of the Lord, and sent to worship other gods (1 Sam. xxvi:19). Lastly, he believed that this Being or Deity had His habitation in the heavens (Deut. xxxiii:27), an opinion very common among the Gentiles.

David told Saul that the king’s persecution had forced him to live outside his country. He said he had been driven from the Lord’s inheritance and sent to worship other gods (1 Sam. xxvi:19). Finally, he believed that this Being or Deity lived in heaven (Deut. xxxiii:27). This belief was very common among the Gentiles.

If we now examine the revelations to Moses, we shall find that they were accommodated to these opinions; as he believed that the Divine Nature was subject to the conditions of mercy, graciousness, &c., so God was revealed to him in accordance with his idea and under these attributes (see Exodus xxxiv:6, 7, and the second commandment). Further it is related (Ex. xxxiii:18) that Moses asked of God that he might behold Him, but as Moses (as we have said) had formed no mental image of God, and God (as I have shown) only revealed Himself to the prophets in accordance with the disposition of their imagination, He did not reveal Himself in any form. This, I repeat, was because the imagination of Moses was unsuitable, for other prophets bear witness that they saw the Lord; for instance, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, &c. For this reason God answered Moses, "Thou canst not see My face;" and inasmuch as Moses believed that God can be looked upon - that is, that no contradiction of the Divine nature is therein involved (for otherwise he would never have preferred his request) - it is added, "For no one shall look on Me and live," thus giving a reason in accordance with Moses' idea, for it is not stated that a contradiction of the Divine nature would be involved, as was really the case, but that the thing would not come to pass because of human infirmity.

If we now examine the revelations to Moses, we will find that they were adapted to these opinions. Moses believed that the Divine Nature had qualities such as mercy and graciousness. So God revealed himself to Moses according to Moses’ understanding and with these qualities (see Exodus 34:6, 7, and the second commandment). We are also told (Exodus 33:18) that Moses asked God to let him see him. But Moses, as we have said, had formed no mental image of God. And God, as I have shown, revealed himself to prophets only according to the way their imaginations worked. So God did not reveal himself to Moses in any form. Again, this was because Moses’ imagination was unsuited to such a vision. Other prophets, including Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others, testify that they saw the Lord. For this reason, God answered Moses, "You cannot see my face." Yet Moses believed that God could be seen, meaning that seeing God did not contradict the Divine Nature. Otherwise, Moses would never have made his request. So God added, "For no one shall look at me and live," giving a reason consistent with Moses’ understanding. God did not say that seeing him would contradict the Divine Nature, although that was really the case. Instead, he said that seeing him would not be possible because of human weakness.

When God would reveal to Moses that the Israelites, because they worshipped the calf, were to be placed in the same category as other nations, He said (ch. xxxiii:2, 3), that He would send an angel (that is, a being who should have charge of the Israelites, instead of the Supreme Being), and that He Himself would no longer remain among them; thus leaving Moses no ground for supposing that the Israelites were more beloved by God than the other nations whose guardianship He had entrusted to other beings or angels (vide verse 16).

God wanted to reveal to Moses that the Israelites would be treated like other nations because they had worshipped the calf. So God said (chapter 33:2, 3) that he would send an angel. This angel would be a being responsible for the Israelites in place of the Supreme Being. God himself would no longer remain among them. Moses therefore had no reason to suppose that God loved the Israelites more than other nations. God had entrusted the care of those other nations to other beings or angels (see verse 16).

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

Finally, because Moses believed that God lived in heaven, God appeared to him descending from heaven onto a mountain. Moses went up the mountain to speak with the Lord. He certainly would not have needed to climb if he could have conceived of God as present everywhere.

The Israelites knew scarcely anything of God, although He was revealed to them; and this is abundantly evident from their transferring, a few days afterwards, the honour and worship due to Him to a calf, which they believed to be the god who had brought them out of Egypt. In truth, it is hardly likely that men accustomed to the superstitions of Egypt, uncultivated and sunk in most abject slavery, should have held any sound notions about the Deity, or that Moses should have taught them anything beyond a rule of right living; inculcating it not like a philosopher, as the result of freedom, but like a lawgiver compelling them to be moral by legal authority. Thus the rule of right living, the worship and love of God, was to them rather a bondage than the true liberty, the gift and grace of the Deity. Moses bid them love God and keep His law, because they had in the past received benefits from Him (such as the deliverance from slavery in Egypt), and further terrified them with threats if they transgressed His commands, holding out many promises of good if they should observe them; thus treating them as parents treat irrational children. It is, therefore, certain that they knew not the excellence of virtue and the true happiness.

The Israelites knew almost nothing about God, although he had revealed himself to them. Their actions a few days later make this abundantly clear. They gave a calf the honor and worship owed to God, believing it had brought them out of Egypt. In truth, they were used to Egyptian superstitions, lacked education, and had lived in the most degrading slavery. It is hardly likely that such people had any sound understanding of God. Nor is it likely that Moses taught them anything beyond a guide to right living. He taught this not as a philosopher, presenting right living as the result of freedom. Instead, he acted as a lawgiver, using legal authority to compel them to behave morally. Thus, right living, the worship and love of God, was more a form of slavery to them than true freedom. Yet true freedom is God's gift and grace. Moses told them to love God and keep his law because they had received benefits from him in the past. These benefits included their release from slavery in Egypt. He also frightened them with threats if they broke God's commands, and promised many good things if they obeyed. In this way, he treated them as parents treat children who cannot reason. It is therefore certain that they did not understand the excellence of virtue or true happiness.

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

Jonah thought he was fleeing from God's sight. This seems to show that Jonah too believed God had entrusted nations outside Judaea to other powers acting in his place. No one in the whole Old Testament speaks more rationally about God than Solomon. In fact, Solomon surpassed all the men of his time in natural ability. Yet he considered himself above the law. He believed the law was given only for people who lacked rational and intellectual grounds for their actions. He paid little attention to the laws concerning kings, of which there are three main ones. Indeed, he openly violated them. (By indulging in sensual pleasure, he did wrong and acted in a way unworthy of a philosopher.) He also taught that all Fortune's gifts to humanity are empty. He taught that humanity has no nobler gift than wisdom, and no greater punishment than folly. See Proverbs 16:22, 23.

But let us return to the prophets whose conflicting opinions we have undertaken to note.

But let us return to the prophets whose conflicting opinions we set out to examine.

The expressed ideas of Ezekiel seemed so diverse from those of Moses to the Rabbis who have left us the extant prophetic books (as is told in the treatise of Sabbathus, i:13, 2), that they had serious thoughts of omitting his prophecy from the canon, and would doubtless have thus excluded it if a certain Hananiah had not undertaken to explain it; a task which (as is there narrated) he with great zeal and labour accomplished. How he did so does not sufficiently appear, whether it was by writing a commentary which has now perished, or by altering Ezekiel's words and audaciously striking out phrases according to his fancy. However this may be, chapter xviii. certainly does not seem to agree with Exodus xxxiv:7, Jeremiah xxxii:18, &c.

Ezekiel’s stated ideas seemed very different from those of Moses to the Rabbis who preserved the prophetic books we have today. As the treatise of Sabbathus (i:13, 2) tells us, these Rabbis seriously considered leaving Ezekiel’s prophecy out of the canon. They would undoubtedly have excluded the prophecy if a certain Hananiah had not undertaken to explain it. According to the same account, Hananiah completed this task with great zeal and effort. How he did so is not clear enough. He may have written a commentary that is now lost. Or he may have changed Ezekiel’s words and boldly cut out phrases as he pleased. Whatever the case, chapter 18 certainly does not seem to agree with Exodus 34:7, Jeremiah 32:18, and other passages.

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

(117 ) Samuel believed that the Lord never changed his mind about anything he had decreed (1 Sam. 15:29). For when Saul regretted his sin and wanted to worship God and ask for forgiveness, Samuel reaffirmed this belief. Samuel said that the Lord would not reverse his decree.

To Jeremiah, on the other hand, it was revealed that, "If that nation against whom I (the Lord) have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them" (Jer. xviii:8-10). Joel (ii:13) taught that the Lord repented Him only of evil. Lastly, it is clear from Gen iv: 7 that a man can overcome the temptations of sin, and act righteously; for this doctrine is told to Cain, though, as we learn from Josephus and the Scriptures, he never did so overcome them. And this agrees with the chapter of Jeremiah just cited, for it is there said that the Lord repents of the good or the evil pronounced, if the men in question change their ways and manner of life. But, on the other hand, Paul (Rom.ix:10) teaches as plainly as possible that men have no control over the temptations of the flesh save by the special vocation and grace of God. And when (Rom. iii:5 and vi:19) he attributes righteousness to man, he corrects himself as speaking merely humanly and through the infirmity of the flesh.

To Jeremiah, on the other hand, it was revealed that, "If the nation I (the Lord) have condemned turns from its evil, I will reconsider the harm I planned for it. If it does evil in my sight and disobeys my voice, I will reconsider the good I promised it" (Jer. xviii:8-10). Joel (ii:13) taught that the Lord reconsidered only the harm he intended. Finally, Gen. iv:7 clearly shows that a person can overcome the temptations of sin and act rightly. For Cain is taught this lesson, although he never overcame those temptations, as Josephus and the Scriptures tell us. This teaching agrees with the chapter of Jeremiah just cited. For Jeremiah says that the Lord reconsiders the good or evil he has announced if people change their ways of life. But Paul (Rom. ix:10) teaches as clearly as possible that people cannot control the temptations of the flesh without God's special calling and grace. And when Paul (Rom. iii:5 and vi:19) attributes righteousness to people, he corrects himself. He says he is speaking merely in human terms because of the weakness of the flesh.

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

We have now proved more than enough that God adapted revelations to the prophets’ understanding and opinions. On theoretical matters unrelated to charity or morality, the prophets could be ignorant and hold conflicting opinions. In fact, they were ignorant and did hold conflicting opinions on such matters. It follows that we must never turn to the prophets for knowledge of either natural or spiritual phenomena.

We have determined, then, that we are only bound to believe in the prophetic writings, the object and substance of the revelation; with regard to the details, every one may believe or not, as he likes.

We have concluded, then, that we are only required to believe the purpose and substance of revelation in prophetic writings. As for the details, everyone may choose whether or not to believe them.

For instance, the revelation to Cain only teaches us that God admonished him to lead the true life, for such alone is the object and substance of the revelation, not doctrines concerning free will and philosophy. Hence, though the freedom of the will is clearly implied in the words of the admonition, we are at liberty to hold a contrary opinion, since the words and reasons were adapted to the understanding of Cain.

For example, the revelation to Cain teaches us only that God urged him to live rightly. That alone is the revelation’s purpose and substance, not teachings about free will or philosophy. So although the warning clearly implies free will, we are free to hold the opposite view. This is because the words and reasons were adapted to Cain’s understanding.

So, too, the revelation to Micaiah would only teach that God revealed to him the true issue of the battle between Ahab and Aram; and this is all we are bound to believe. Whatever else is contained in the revelation concerning the true and the false Spirit of God, the army of heaven standing on the right hand and on the left, and all the other details, does not affect us at all. Everyone may believe as much of it as his reason allows.

Likewise, Micaiah’s revelation would teach only that God showed him the true outcome of the battle between Ahab and Aram. That outcome is all we are required to believe. The revelation’s other details do not concern us at all. These include the true and false Spirit of God, heaven’s army standing on the right and left, and everything else. Everyone may believe as much of those details as their reason allows.

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

The arguments by which the Lord showed his power to Job would fall into the same category. This assumes the arguments really were a revelation, and the author is reporting what happened. Some suppose instead that the author is merely dressing up his own ideas with elaborate language. If the arguments were a revelation, they were tailored to Job’s understanding to convince him. They were not universal arguments intended to convince everyone.

We can come to no different conclusion with respect to the reasonings of Christ, by which He convicted the Pharisees of pride and ignorance, and exhorted His disciples to lead the true life. He adapted them to each man's opinions and principles. For instance, when He said to the Pharisees (Matt. xii:26), "And if Satan cast out devils, his house is divided against itself, how then shall his kingdom stand?" He only wished to convince the Pharisees according, to their own principles, not to teach that there are devils, or any kingdom of devils. So, too, when He said to His disciples (Matt. viii:10), "See that ye despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you that their angels," &c., He merely desired to warn them against pride and despising any of their fellows, not to insist on the actual reason given, which was simply adopted in order to persuade them more easily.

We can reach no different conclusion about Christ’s arguments. Through these arguments, he exposed the Pharisees’ pride and ignorance and urged his disciples to live the true life. He adapted his arguments to each person’s opinions and principles. For example, he said to the Pharisees (Matt. xii:26), "If Satan casts out devils, his house is divided against itself. How, then, can his kingdom stand?" He only wanted to convince the Pharisees on their own terms. He was not teaching that devils or a kingdom of devils exist. Similarly, he said to his disciples (Matt. viii:10), "Be careful not to despise any of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels," and so on. He only wanted to warn them against pride and against despising any of their fellow human beings. He was not insisting that the reason he gave was actually true. He simply used that reason to persuade them more easily.

Lastly, we should say exactly the same of the apostolic signs and reasonings, but there is no need to go further into the subject. If I were to enumerate all the passages of Scripture addressed only to individuals, or to a particular man's understanding, and which cannot, without great danger to philosophy, be defended as Divine doctrines, I should go far beyond the brevity at which I aim. Let it suffice, then, to have indicated a few instances of general application, and let the curious reader consider others by himself. Although the points we have just raised concerning prophets and prophecy are the only ones which have any direct bearing on the end in view, namely, the separation of Philosophy from Theology, still, as I have touched on the general question, I may here inquire whether the gift of prophecy was peculiar to the Hebrews, or whether it was common to all nations. I must then come to a conclusion about the vocation of the Hebrews, all of which I shall do in the ensuing chapter.

Finally, we should say exactly the same about the apostles’ signs and arguments, but we need not explore this further. Some passages of Scripture address only individuals or are suited to a particular person’s understanding. Such passages cannot be defended as divine teachings without seriously endangering philosophy. If I listed all these passages, I would go far beyond the brief account I intend. A few examples with broad relevance must therefore suffice. Curious readers can consider other examples for themselves. The points just raised about prophets and prophecy alone directly serve my purpose: separating Philosophy from Theology. Still, since I have touched on the broader question, I may also ask whether prophecy was a gift unique to the Hebrews. Or was the gift common to all nations? I must then reach a conclusion about the calling of the Hebrews. I shall address all these questions in the next chapter.