Divine Law

The word law, taken in the abstract, means that by which an individual, or all things, or as many things as belong to a particular species, act in one and the same fixed and definite manner, which manner depends either on natural necessity or on human decree. A law which depends on natural necessity is one which necessarily follows from the nature, or from the definition of the thing in question; a law which depends on human decree, and which is more correctly called an ordinance, is one which men have laid down for themselves and others in order to live more safely or conveniently, or from some similar reason.

In the abstract, the word law means what makes things act in a fixed and definite way. A law may apply to an individual, to all things, or to all things belonging to a particular species. This fixed way of acting depends either on natural necessity or on human decree. A law based on natural necessity follows necessarily from the nature or definition of the thing in question. A law based on human decree is more accurately called an ordinance. People establish such laws for themselves and others to live more safely or conveniently, or for some similar reason.

For example, the law that all bodies impinging on lesser bodies, lose as much of their own motion as they communicate to the latter is a universal law of all bodies, and depends on natural necessity. So, too, the law that a man in remembering one thing, straightway remembers another either like it, or which he had perceived simultaneously with it, is a law which necessarily follows from the nature of man. But the law that men must yield, or be compelled to yield, somewhat of their natural right, and that they bind themselves to live in a certain way, depends on human decree. Now, though I freely admit that all things are predetermined by universal natural laws to exist and operate in a given, fixed, and definite manner, I still assert that the laws I have just mentioned depend on human decree.

For example, all bodies that collide with smaller bodies lose as much of their own motion as they transfer. This is a universal law of all bodies and follows from natural necessity. Similarly, when a person remembers one thing, they immediately remember another thing resembling it or perceived at the same time. This law follows necessarily from human nature. But human decisions determine that people must give up, or be forced to give up, some of their natural right. Human decisions also determine that people commit themselves to living in a certain way. Now, I freely admit that universal natural laws predetermine everything to exist and act in a fixed and definite way. Even so, I maintain that the laws I have just mentioned depend on human decisions.

(1.) Because man, in so far as he is a part of nature, constitutes a part of the power of nature. Whatever, therefore, follows necessarily from the necessity of human nature (that is, from nature herself, in so far as we conceive of her as acting through man) follows, even though it be necessarily, from human power. Hence the sanction of such laws may very well be said to depend on man's decree, for it principally depends on the power of the human mind; so that the human mind in respect to its perception of things as true and false, can readily be conceived as without such laws, but not without necessary law as we have just defined it.

(1.) Because humans are part of nature, their power is part of nature's power. Therefore, whatever follows necessarily from human nature also follows from human power, even though it follows necessarily. By human nature, we mean nature itself, understood as acting through humans. Thus, the authority of such laws may very well be said to depend on human decisions. For their authority depends mainly on the power of the human mind. So we can readily conceive of the human mind, as it perceives things as true or false, without such laws. But we cannot conceive of the mind without necessary law, as we have just defined it.

(2.) I have stated that these laws depend on human decree because it is well to define and explain things by their proximate causes. The general consideration of fate and the concatenation of causes would aid us very little in forming and arranging our ideas concerning particular questions. Let us add that as to the actual coordination and concatenation of things, that is how things are ordained and linked together, we are obviously ignorant; therefore, it is more profitable for right living, nay, it is necessary for us to consider things as contingent. So much about law in the abstract.

(2.) I have said that these laws depend on human decisions because things are best defined and explained by their immediate causes. General reflections on fate and the chain of causes would help us very little in organizing our ideas about particular questions. We should also add that we clearly do not know how things are actually ordered and linked together. Therefore, to live rightly, we benefit from treating things as contingent, rather than necessary. Indeed, doing so is essential. So much for law in the abstract.

Now the word law seems to be only applied to natural phenomena by analogy, and is commonly taken to signify a command which men can either obey or neglect, inasmuch as it restrains human nature within certain originally exceeded limits, and therefore lays down no rule beyond human strength. Thus it is expedient to define law more particularly as a plan of life laid down by man for himself or others with a certain object.

The word law seems to apply to natural phenomena only by analogy. Law is commonly understood as a command that people can either obey or ignore. Such a command keeps human nature within limits that human nature would otherwise exceed. It therefore sets no rule beyond human ability. So a more precise definition of law is useful: a plan of life someone sets for themselves or others with a particular goal.

However, as the true object of legislation is only perceived by a few, and most men are almost incapable of grasping it, though they live under its conditions, legislators, with a view to exacting general obedience, have wisely put forward another object, very different from that which necessarily follows from the nature of law: they promise to the observers of the law that which the masses chiefly desire, and threaten its violators with that which they chiefly fear: thus endeavouring to restrain the masses, as far as may be, like a horse with a curb; whence it follows that the word law is chiefly applied to the modes of life enjoined on men by the sway of others; hence those who obey the law are said to live under it and to be under compulsion. In truth, a man who renders everyone their due because he fears the gallows, acts under the sway and compulsion of others, and cannot be called just. But a man who does the same from a knowledge of the true reason for laws and their necessity, acts from a firm purpose and of his own accord, and is therefore properly called just. This, I take it, is Paul's meaning when he says, that those who live under the law cannot be justified through the law, for justice, as commonly defined, is the constant and perpetual will to render every man his due. Thus Solomon says (Prov. xxi:15), "It is a joy to the just to do judgment," but the wicked fear.

However, only a few people understand the true purpose of legislation. Most people are almost incapable of grasping that purpose, even though they live under the law. So, to secure general obedience, lawmakers have wisely presented a different purpose. This purpose differs greatly from the one that necessarily follows from the nature of law. Lawmakers promise those who obey the law what the masses most desire. They threaten those who break the law with what the masses most fear. In this way, lawmakers try to restrain the masses as much as possible, like a horse controlled by a bit. As a result, the word law mainly refers to ways of life imposed on people by others. Those who obey the law are therefore said to live under it and to be under compulsion. In truth, someone who gives everyone their due out of fear of the gallows acts under others' control and compulsion. Such a person cannot be called just. But someone may give everyone their due because they understand the true reason for laws and their necessity. Such a person acts with firm resolve and of their own free will, and is therefore rightly called just. I take this to be Paul's meaning when he says that those living under the law cannot be justified through it. For justice, as commonly defined, is the constant and lasting will to give everyone their due. Thus Solomon says (Prov. 21:15), "It is a joy to the just to do justice," but the wicked fear.

Law, then, being a plan of living which men have for a certain object laid down for themselves or others, may, as it seems, be divided into human law and Divine law.

Law, then, is a way of living that people establish for themselves or others to serve a particular purpose. It seems that law may be divided into human law and divine law.

By human law I mean a plan of living which serves only to render life and the state secure. By Divine law I mean that which only regards the highest good, in other words, the true knowledge of God and love.

By human law, I mean a way of life aimed only at keeping life and the state secure. By Divine law, I mean a way of life concerned only with the highest good. In other words, the highest good is true knowledge of God and love.

I call this law Divine because of the nature of the highest good, which I will here shortly explain as clearly as I can.

I call this law divine because of the nature of the highest good. I will now briefly explain the highest good as clearly as I can.

Inasmuch as the intellect is the best part of our being, it is evident that we should make every effort to perfect it as far as possible if we desire to search for what is really profitable to us. For in intellectual perfection the highest good should consist. Now, since all our knowledge, and the certainty which removes every doubt, depend solely on the knowledge of God;- firstly, because without God nothing can exist or be conceived; secondly, because so long as we have no clear and distinct idea of God we may remain in universal doubt - it follows that our highest good and perfection also depend solely on the knowledge of God. Further, since without God nothing can exist or be conceived, it is evident that all natural phenomena involve and express the conception of God as far as their essence and perfection extend, so that we have greater and more perfect knowledge of God in proportion to our knowledge of natural phenomena: conversely (since the knowledge of an effect through its cause is the same thing as the knowledge of a particular property of a cause) the greater our knowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect is our knowledge of the essence of God (which is the cause of all things). So, then, our highest good not only depends on the knowledge of God, but wholly consists therein; and it further follows that man is perfect or the reverse in proportion to the nature and perfection of the object of his special desire; hence the most perfect and the chief sharer in the highest blessedness is he who prizes above all else, and takes especial delight in, the intellectual knowledge of God, the most perfect Being.

The intellect is the best part of our being. So, if we want to discover what truly benefits us, we should make every effort to perfect our intellect. For our highest good must consist in intellectual perfection. Now, all our knowledge, and the certainty that removes every doubt, depend solely on knowing God. There are two reasons for this. First, without God nothing can exist or be conceived. Second, as long as we lack a clear and distinct idea of God, we may doubt everything. So our highest good and perfection also depend solely on knowing God. Further, since without God nothing can exist or be conceived, all natural phenomena involve and express the concept of God. Each phenomenon does so to the extent of its essence and perfection. So the more we know about natural phenomena, the greater and more perfect our knowledge of God becomes. Conversely, knowing an effect through its cause is the same as knowing a particular property of that cause. So the greater our knowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect our knowledge of God's essence becomes. God is the cause of all things. Our highest good, then, not only depends on knowing God but consists entirely in that knowledge. A person's degree of perfection also depends on the nature and perfection of the object they especially desire. Therefore, the most perfect person is the one who values intellectual knowledge of God above everything else and especially delights in it. That person also shares most fully in the highest blessedness, for God is the most perfect Being.

Hither, then, our highest good and our highest blessedness aim - namely, to the knowledge and love of God; therefore the means demanded by this aim of all human actions, that is, by God in so far as the idea of him is in us, may be called the commands of God, because they proceed, as it were, from God Himself, inasmuch as He exists in our minds, and the plan of life which has regard to this aim may be fitly called the law of God.

Our highest good and greatest happiness, then, lie in knowing and loving God. This is the goal of all human actions. The means required by this goal may therefore be called God's commands. In other words, these means are required by God insofar as the idea of him exists in us. For these means come, as it were, from God himself insofar as he exists in our minds. And a way of life directed toward this goal may rightly be called God's law.

The nature of the means, and the plan of life which this aim demands, how the foundations of the best states follow its lines, and how men's life is conducted, are questions pertaining to general ethics. Here I only proceed to treat of the Divine law in a particular application.

What means and way of life does this aim require? How are the best states founded on this approach? How do people conduct their lives? These questions belong to general ethics. Here I will discuss only a particular application of Divine law.

As the love of God is man's highest happiness and blessedness, and the ultimate end and aim of all human actions, it follows that he alone lives by the Divine law who loves God not from fear of punishment, or from love of any other object, such as sensual pleasure, fame, or the like; but solely because he has knowledge of God, or is convinced that the knowledge and love of God is the highest good. The sum and chief precept, then, of the Divine law is to love God as the highest good, namely, as we have said, not from fear of any pains and penalties, or from the love of any other object in which we desire to take pleasure. The idea of God lays down the rule that God is our highest good - in other words, that the knowledge and love of God is the ultimate aim to which all our actions should be directed. The worldling cannot understand these things, they appear foolishness to him, because he has too meager a knowledge of God, and also because in this highest good he can discover nothing which he can handle or eat, or which affects the fleshly appetites wherein he chiefly delights, for it consists solely in thought and the pure reason. They, on the other hand, who know that they possess no greater gift than intellect and sound reason, will doubtless accept what I have said without question.

Love of God is humanity’s greatest happiness and blessedness, and the ultimate purpose and goal of all human actions. It follows that only those who love God for his own sake live by divine law. They do not love God from fear of punishment or love of anything else, such as sensual pleasure or fame. Instead, they love God solely because they know him, or believe that knowing and loving God is the highest good. The central command of divine law, then, is to love God as the highest good. As we have said, this love must not come from fear of pain or punishment. Nor must it come from love of anything else in which we seek pleasure. The idea of God establishes that God is our highest good. In other words, knowing and loving God is the ultimate goal toward which all our actions should be directed. A worldly person cannot understand these ideas and finds them foolish, because he knows too little about God. He also finds nothing in this highest good that he can touch or eat, or that satisfies his bodily appetites. Those appetites are his chief delight, while the highest good consists solely in thought and pure reason. By contrast, some people know that they possess no greater gift than intellect and sound reason. They will undoubtedly accept what I have said without question.

We have now explained that wherein the Divine law chiefly consists, and what are human laws, namely, all those which have a different aim unless they have been ratified by revelation, for in this respect also things are referred to God (as we have shown above) and in this sense the law of Moses, although it was not universal, but entirely adapted to the disposition and particular preservation of a single people, may yet be called a law of God or Divine law, inasmuch as we believe that it was ratified by prophetic insight. If we consider the nature of natural Divine law as we have just explained it, we shall see:

We have now explained what Divine law mainly consists of and what human laws are. Human laws are all laws with a different aim, unless revelation has confirmed them. For laws confirmed by revelation are also attributed to God, as we have shown above. In this sense, the law of Moses may still be called a law of God or Divine law. Although not universal, the law of Moses was entirely suited to the character and particular preservation of a single people. Yet we may call it Divine law insofar as we believe prophetic insight confirmed it. If we consider the nature of natural Divine law as we have just explained it, we shall see:

I.- That it is universal or common to all men, for we have deduced it from universal human nature.

I.- It is universal, or shared by all people, because we have derived it from universal human nature.

II. That it does not depend on the truth of any historical narrative whatsoever, for inasmuch as this natural Divine law is comprehended solely by the consideration of human nature, it is plain that we can conceive it as existing as well in Adam as in any other man, as well in a man living among his fellows, as in a man who lives by himself.

II. This natural Divine law does not depend on the truth of any historical account. For this law is understood solely through the study of human nature. So clearly, we can conceive of this law as existing in Adam just as in any other person. The law can exist equally in someone living among others and in someone living alone.

The truth of a historical narrative, however assured, cannot give us the knowledge nor consequently the love of God, for love of God springs from knowledge of Him, and knowledge of Him should be derived from general ideas, in themselves certain and known, so that the truth of a historical narrative is very far from being a necessary requisite for our attaining our highest good.

However certain its truth, a historical account cannot give us knowledge of God and therefore cannot give us love of God. For love of God comes from knowing him. And knowledge of God should come from general ideas that are certain and known in themselves. So the truth of a historical account is far from necessary for us to attain our highest good.

Still, though the truth of histories cannot give us the knowledge and love of God, I do not deny that reading them is very useful with a view to life in the world, for the more we have observed and known of men's customs and circumstances, which are best revealed by their actions, the more warily we shall be able to order our lives among them, and so far as reason dictates to adapt our actions to their dispositions.

Still, although historical truths cannot give us knowledge and love of God, I do not deny their practical value. Reading history is very useful for living in the world. People's actions best reveal their customs and circumstances. The more we observe and understand these customs and circumstances, the more carefully we can manage our lives among others. And we can adapt our actions to their temperaments, as far as reason directs.

III. We see that this natural Divine law does not demand the performance of ceremonies - that is, actions in themselves indifferent, which are called good from the fact of their institution, or actions symbolizing something profitable for salvation, or (if one prefers this definition) actions of which the meaning surpasses human understanding. The natural light of reason does not demand anything which it is itself unable to supply, but only such as it can very clearly show to be good, or a means to our blessedness. Such things as are good simply because they have been commanded or instituted, or as being symbols of something good, are mere shadows which cannot be reckoned among actions that are the offsprings as it were, or fruit of a sound mind and of intellect. There is no need for me to go into this now in more detail.

III. We see that this natural Divine law does not require ceremonies. Ceremonies are actions neither good nor bad in themselves, called good only because they have been established as rules. Or they are actions symbolizing something helpful for salvation. Or, if one prefers this definition, they are actions whose meaning lies beyond human understanding. The natural light of reason requires nothing that reason itself cannot supply. Reason requires only what it can clearly show to be good or a means to our blessedness. Some actions are good simply because they have been commanded or established, or because they symbolize something good. Such actions are mere shadows. They cannot be counted among the actions that are, so to speak, the offspring or fruit of sound judgment and understanding. I need not discuss this further now.

IV. Lastly, we see that the highest reward of the Divine law is the law itself, namely, to know God and to love Him of our free choice, and with an undivided and fruitful spirit; while its penalty is the absence of these things, and being in bondage to the flesh - that is, having an inconstant and wavering spirit.

IV. Finally, we see that the highest reward of divine law is the law itself. This means knowing God and freely choosing to love him with an undivided and fruitful spirit. By contrast, the penalty is lacking this knowledge and love and being enslaved to the flesh. Being enslaved to the flesh means having an unstable and wavering spirit.

These points being noted, I must now inquire:

With these points in mind, I must now ask:

I. Whether by the natural light of reason we can conceive of God as a law-giver or potentate ordaining laws for men?

I. Can we, through natural reason alone, conceive of God as a lawgiver or ruler who establishes laws for humans?

II. What is the teaching of Holy Writ concerning this natural light of reason and natural law?

II. What does Scripture teach about this natural light of reason and natural law?

III. With what objects were ceremonies formerly instituted?

III. For what purposes were ceremonies originally established?

IV. Lastly, what is the good gained by knowing the sacred histories and believing them?

IV. Finally, what benefit comes from knowing the sacred histories and believing them?

Of the first two I will treat in this chapter, of the remaining two in the following one.

I will discuss the first two in this chapter. I will discuss the remaining two in the next chapter.

Our conclusion about the first is easily deduced from the nature of God's will, which is only distinguished from His understanding in relation to our intellect - that is, the will and the understanding of God are in reality one and the same, and are only distinguished in relation to our thoughts which we form concerning God's understanding. For instance, if we are only looking to the fact that the nature of a triangle is from eternity contained in the Divine nature as an eternal verity, we say that God possesses the idea of a triangle, or that He understands the nature of a triangle; but if afterwards we look to the fact that the nature of a triangle is thus contained in the Divine nature, solely by the necessity of the Divine nature, and not by the necessity of the nature and essence of a triangle - in fact, that the necessity of a triangle's essence and nature, in so far as they are conceived of as eternal verities, depends solely on the necessity of the Divine nature and intellect, we then style God's will or decree, that which before we styled His intellect. Wherefore we make one and the same affirmation concerning God when we say that He has from eternity decreed that three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, as when we say that He has understood it.

Our conclusion about the first follows easily from the nature of God's will. God's will differs from his understanding only from the perspective of our own intellect. In reality, God's will and understanding are one and the same. We distinguish them only in the thoughts we form about God's understanding. For example, suppose we consider only that a triangle's nature is eternally contained in the divine nature as an eternal truth. We then say that God has the idea of a triangle, or that he understands a triangle's nature. But suppose we then consider why a triangle's nature is contained in the divine nature. It is contained there solely through the necessity of the divine nature, not through the necessity of the triangle's own nature and essence. In fact, consider a triangle's essence and nature insofar as we conceive them as eternal truths. Their necessity depends solely on the necessity of the divine nature and intellect. When we consider this dependence, we call God's will or decree what we previously called his intellect. So we make the same claim about God when we say that he has eternally decreed a triangle's three angles equal two right angles. We say the same thing when we say that he has understood this equality.

Hence the affirmations and the negations of God always involve necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and would therefore have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. But since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such evil would of necessity come to pass. Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed, but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and potentate. From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law, for since they knew not the existence of God as an eternal truth, they must have taken as a law that which was revealed to them in the Decalogue, namely, that God exists, and that God only should be worshipped. But if God had spoken to them without the intervention of any bodily means, immediately they would have perceived it not as a law, but as an eternal truth.

Therefore, whatever God affirms or denies always involves necessity or truth. Suppose, for example, that God told Adam he did not want him to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Then Adam’s ability to eat from that tree would have involved a contradiction. Eating from it would therefore have been impossible, because God’s command would have involved eternal necessity and truth. Yet Scripture tells us that God gave Adam this command, and that Adam nevertheless ate from the tree. We must therefore say that God revealed to Adam the evil that would surely follow if he ate from it. But God did not reveal that this evil would follow by necessity. So Adam understood the revelation not as an eternal and necessary truth, but as a law. He understood a law as a command followed by gain or loss. That gain or loss did not depend necessarily on the nature of the act performed. Instead, it depended solely on the will and absolute power of some ruler. Thus, this revelation was a law only in relation to Adam, and only because of his lack of knowledge. God was, so to speak, a lawgiver and ruler. For the same reason, namely lack of knowledge, the Decalogue was a law in relation to the Hebrews. They did not know God’s existence as an eternal truth. So they must have understood what the Decalogue revealed to them as a law. That revelation was that God exists and that God alone should be worshipped. But if God had spoken to them without any physical means, they would immediately have understood the revelation differently. They would have perceived it not as a law, but as an eternal truth.

What we have said about the Israelites and Adam, applies also to all the prophets who wrote laws in God's name - they did not adequately conceive God's decrees as eternal truths. For instance, we must say of Moses that from revelation, from the basis of what was revealed to him, he perceived the method by which the Israelitish nation could best be united in a particular territory, and could form a body politic or state, and further that he perceived the method by which that nation could best be constrained to obedience; but he did not perceive, nor was it revealed to him, that this method was absolutely the best, nor that the obedience of the people in a certain strip of territory would necessarily imply the end he had in view. Wherefore he perceived these things not as eternal truths, but as precepts and ordinances, and he ordained them as laws of God, and thus it came to be that he conceived God as a ruler, a legislator, a king, as merciful, just, &c., whereas such qualities are simply attributes of human nature, and utterly alien from the nature of the Deity. Thus much we may affirm of the prophets who wrote laws in the name of God; but we must not affirm it of Christ, for Christ, although He too seems to have written laws in the name of God, must be taken to have had a clear and adequate perception, for Christ was not so much a prophet as the mouthpiece of God. For God made revelations to mankind through Christ as He had before done through angels - that is, a created voice, visions, &c. It would be as unreasonable to say that God had accommodated his revelations to the opinions of Christ as that He had before accommodated them to the opinions of angels (that is, of a created voice or visions) as matters to be revealed to the prophets, a wholly absurd hypothesis. Moreover, Christ was sent to teach not only the Jews but the whole human race, and therefore it was not enough that His mind should be accommodated to the opinions the Jews alone, but also to the opinion and fundamental teaching common to the whole human race - in other words, to ideas universal and true. Inasmuch as God revealed Himself to Christ, or to Christ's mind immediately, and not as to the prophets through words and symbols, we must needs suppose that Christ perceived truly what was revealed, in other words, He understood it, for a matter is understood when it is perceived simply by the mind without words or symbols.

What we have said about the Israelites and Adam also applies to all prophets who wrote laws in God's name. They did not adequately understand God's decrees as eternal truths. For example, we must say that revelation showed Moses how best to unite the Israelite nation in a particular territory. From what was revealed to him, he understood how the nation could form a political community or state. He also understood how best to compel that nation to obey. But he did not understand, nor was it revealed to him, that this method was absolutely the best. Nor did he understand that the people's obedience within a particular territory would necessarily achieve his intended goal. So Moses understood these things not as eternal truths, but as commands and ordinances. He established them as God's laws. As a result, he conceived of God as a ruler, lawgiver, and king, as merciful, just, and so on. Yet these qualities are merely attributes of human nature and entirely foreign to God's nature. We may say this much about the prophets who wrote laws in God's name. But we must not say the same about Christ, although he too seems to have written laws in God's name. We must understand Christ to have perceived things clearly and adequately. For Christ was not so much a prophet as God's mouthpiece. God revealed things to humanity through Christ, just as he had previously done through angels. By angels, I mean a created voice, visions, and so on. It would be unreasonable to say that God adapted his revelations to Christ's opinions. It would be just as unreasonable to say that God had adapted earlier revelations to the opinions of angels. That would mean adapting the content revealed to prophets to the opinions of a created voice or visions. Such a suggestion is wholly absurd. Moreover, Christ was sent to teach not only the Jews but the whole human race. So it was not enough for his mind to be adapted to the opinions of the Jews alone. His mind also had to be adapted to the beliefs and fundamental teaching common to the whole human race. In other words, his mind had to be adapted to universal and true ideas. God revealed himself directly to Christ, or to Christ's mind. He did not reveal himself through words and symbols, as he did to the prophets. We must therefore suppose that Christ truly perceived what was revealed. In other words, he understood it. For we understand something when the mind alone perceives it, without words or symbols.

Christ, then, perceived (truly and adequately) what was revealed, and if He ever proclaimed such revelations as laws, He did so because of the ignorance and obstinacy of the people, acting in this respect the part of God; inasmuch as He accommodated Himself to the comprehension of the people, and though He spoke somewhat more clearly than the other prophets, yet He taught what was revealed obscurely, and generally through parables, especially when He was speaking to those to whom it was not yet given to understand the kingdom of heaven. (See Matt. xiii:10, &c.) To those to whom it was given to understand the mysteries of heaven, He doubtless taught His doctrines as eternal truths, and did not lay them down as laws, thus freeing the minds of His hearers from the bondage of that law which He further confirmed and established. Paul apparently points to this more than once (e.g. Rom. vii:6, and iii:28), though he never himself seems to wish to speak openly, but, to quote his own words (Rom. iii:6, and vi:19), "merely humanly." This he expressly states when he calls God just, and it was doubtless in concession to human weakness that he attributes mercy, grace, anger, and similar qualities to God, adapting his language to the popular mind, or, as he puts it (1 Cor. iii:1, 2), to carnal men. In Rom. ix:18, he teaches undisguisedly that God's auger and mercy depend not on the actions of men, but on God's own nature or will; further, that no one is justified by the works of the law, but only by faith, which he seems to identify with the full assent of the soul; lastly, that no one is blessed unless he have in him the mind of Christ (Rom. viii:9), whereby he perceives the laws of God as eternal truths. We conclude, therefore, that God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, &c., merely in concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity. So much for the first point which I wished to explain and demonstrate.

Christ, then, understood what was revealed truly and fully. If he ever proclaimed these revelations as laws, he did so because of the people's ignorance and stubbornness. In this respect, he acted as God does, adapting himself to the people's understanding. Although he spoke somewhat more clearly than the other prophets, he still taught revealed truths obscurely, usually through parables. He did so especially when speaking to those not yet granted an understanding of the kingdom of heaven. (See Matt. 13:10 and following.) To those granted an understanding of the mysteries of heaven, he undoubtedly taught his doctrines as eternal truths. He did not present them as laws. In this way, he freed his listeners' minds from bondage to the very law he further confirmed and established. Paul apparently points to this distinction more than once (for example, Rom. 7:6 and 3:28). Yet he himself never seems willing to speak openly. Instead, to quote his own words (Rom. 3:6 and 6:19), he speaks "merely humanly." He expressly says so when he calls God just. Undoubtedly, he also accommodates human weakness when he attributes mercy, grace, anger, and similar qualities to God. He adapts his language to ordinary people's understanding, or, as he puts it (1 Cor. 3:1, 2), to fleshly people. In Rom. 9:18, he teaches openly that God's anger and mercy do not depend on human actions. Rather, they depend on God's own nature or will. He further teaches that no one is justified by works of the law, but only by faith. He seems to identify faith with the soul's complete assent. Finally, he teaches that no one is blessed without having the mind of Christ within them (Rom. 8:9). Through the mind of Christ, a person perceives God's laws as eternal truths. We therefore conclude that God is described as a lawgiver or ruler, and called just, merciful, and so on. Such descriptions merely accommodate ordinary people's understanding and the limits of their knowledge. In reality, God acts and directs all things solely through the necessity of his nature and perfection. His decrees and acts of will are eternal truths and always involve necessity. This completes the first point I wished to explain and demonstrate.

Passing on to the second point, let us search the sacred pages for their teaching concerning the light of nature and this Divine law. The first doctrine we find in the history of the first man, where it is narrated that God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; this seems to mean that God commanded Adam to do and to seek after righteousness because it was good, not because the contrary was evil: that is, to seek the good for its own sake, not from fear of evil. We have seen that he who acts rightly from the true knowledge and love of right, acts with freedom and constancy, whereas he who acts from fear of evil, is under the constraint of evil, and acts in bondage under external control. So that this commandment of God to Adam comprehends the whole Divine natural law, and absolutely agrees with the dictates of the light of nature; nay, it would be easy to explain on this basis the whole history or allegory of the first man. But I prefer to pass over the subject in silence, because, in the first place, I cannot be absolutely certain that my explanation would be in accordance with the intention of the sacred writer; and, secondly, because many do not admit that this history is an allegory, maintaining it to be a simple narrative of facts. It will be better, therefore, to adduce other passages of Scripture, especially such as were written by him, who speaks with all the strength of his natural understanding, in which he surpassed all his contemporaries, and whose sayings are accepted by the people as of equal weight with those of the prophets. I mean Solomon, whose prudence and wisdom are commended in Scripture rather than his piety and gift of prophecy. Life being taken to mean the true life (as is evident from Deut. xxx:19), the fruit of the understanding consists only in the true life, and its absence constitutes punishment. All this absolutely agrees with what was set out in our fourth point concerning natural law. Moreover our position that it is the well-spring of life, and that the intellect alone lays down laws for the wise, is plainly taught by, the sage, for he says (Prov. xiii:14): "The law of the wise is a fountain of life" - that is, as we gather from the preceding text, the understanding. In chap. iii:13, he expressly teaches that the understanding renders man blessed and happy, and gives him true peace of mind. "Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding," for "Wisdom gives length of days, and riches and honour; her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths peace" (xiiii:6, 17). According to Solomon, therefore, it is only, the wise who live in peace and equanimity, not like the wicked whose minds drift hither and thither, and (as Isaiah says, chap. lvii:20) "are like the troubled sea, for them there is no peace."

Turning to the second point, let us examine what Scripture teaches about the light of natural reason and this Divine law. We find the first teaching in the story of the first man. There, God commands Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This seems to mean that God commanded Adam to pursue and practice righteousness because righteousness was good. Adam was not to do so because the opposite was evil. In other words, he was to seek good for its own sake, not from fear of evil. We have seen that someone who acts rightly from true knowledge and love of right acts freely and consistently. But someone who acts from fear of evil is constrained by evil and lives in bondage under external control. So God's commandment to Adam contains the whole Divine natural law and agrees completely with the guidance of natural reason. Indeed, we could easily explain the whole story or allegory of the first man on this basis. But I prefer not to discuss the subject, for two reasons. First, I cannot be absolutely certain that my explanation would match the sacred writer's intention. Second, many people deny that this story is an allegory and maintain that it is simply an account of facts. So it will be better to cite other passages of Scripture. In particular, I will turn to a writer who speaks with the full strength of his natural understanding. In this understanding, he surpassed all his contemporaries. The people also accept his sayings as carrying equal weight with those of the prophets. I mean Solomon, whom Scripture praises for his judgment and wisdom rather than his piety and gift of prophecy. Here, life means true life, as is clear from Deut. 30:19. The fruit of understanding consists only in true life, and the absence of understanding constitutes punishment. All this agrees completely with what we explained in our fourth point about natural law. The wise man also plainly teaches our claim that understanding is the source of life. He likewise teaches that the intellect alone lays down laws for the wise. For he says (Prov. 13:14): "The law of the wise is a fountain of life". From the preceding text, we understand this law to mean understanding. In chapter 3:13, he explicitly teaches that understanding makes people blessed and happy and gives them true peace of mind. "Happy is the person who finds wisdom, and the person who gains understanding," for "Wisdom gives long life, riches and honor. Her ways are pleasant, and all her paths are peace" (14:6, 17). According to Solomon, therefore, only the wise live in peace and calm. They are unlike the wicked, whose minds drift back and forth. As Isaiah says (chapter 57:20), the wicked "are like the troubled sea, for them there is no peace."

Lastly, we should especially note the passage in chap. ii. of Solomon's proverbs which most clearly confirms our contention: "If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding . . . then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God; for the Lord giveth wisdom; out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding." These words clearly enunciate (1), that wisdom or intellect alone teaches us to fear God wisely - that is, to worship Him truly; (2), that wisdom and knowledge flow from God's mouth, and that God bestows on us this gift; this we have already shown in proving that our understanding and our knowledge depend on, spring from, and are perfected by the idea or knowledge of God, and nothing else. Solomon goes on to say in so many words that this knowledge contains and involves the true principles of ethics and politics: "When wisdom entereth into thy heart, and knowledge is pleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee, then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity, yea every good path." All of which is in obvious agreement with natural knowledge: for after we have come to the understanding of things, and have tasted the excellence of knowledge, she teaches us ethics and true virtue.

Finally, we should pay special attention to this passage in chapter 2 of Solomon's Proverbs. It confirms our argument most clearly: "If you cry out for knowledge and raise your voice for understanding . . . then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord gives wisdom. From his mouth come knowledge and understanding." These words clearly state (1), that wisdom or intellect alone teaches us to fear God wisely, meaning to worship him truly. They also state (2), that wisdom and knowledge flow from God's mouth, and that God gives us this gift. We have already shown this by proving that our understanding and knowledge depend on the idea or knowledge of God alone. They arise from that idea or knowledge alone and are perfected by it alone. Solomon goes on to say explicitly that this knowledge contains and includes the true principles of ethics and politics: "When wisdom enters your heart and knowledge is pleasant to your soul, good judgment will protect you. Understanding will keep you safe. Then you will understand righteousness, justice, fairness, and every good path." All of this clearly agrees with natural knowledge. For once we have come to understand things and experienced the excellence of knowledge, knowledge teaches us ethics and true virtue.

Thus the happiness and the peace of him who cultivates his natural understanding lies, according to Solomon also, not so much under the dominion of fortune (or God's external aid) as in inward personal virtue (or God's internal aid), for the latter can to a great extent be preserved by vigilance, right action, and thought.

Thus, according to Solomon too, happiness and peace for someone who develops their natural understanding depend less on fortune (or God's external aid). They depend more on personal inner virtue (or God's internal aid). For such virtue can largely be preserved through vigilance, right action, and thought.

Lastly, we must by no means pass over the passage in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, i:20, in which he says: "For the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse, because, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were they thankful." These words clearly show that everyone can by the light of nature clearly understand the goodness and the eternal divinity of God, and can thence know and deduce what they should seek for and what avoid; wherefore the Apostle says that they are without excuse and cannot plead ignorance, as they certainly might if it were a question of supernatural light and the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Christ. "Wherefore," he goes on to say (ib. 24), "God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts;" and so on, through the rest of the chapter, he describes the vices of ignorance, and sets them forth as the punishment of ignorance. This obviously agrees with the verse of Solomon, already quoted, "The instruction of fools is folly," so that it is easy to understand why Paul says that the wicked are without excuse. As every man sows so shall he reap: out of evil, evils necessarily spring, unless they be wisely counteracted.

Finally, we must not overlook the passage in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1:20, where he says: "For God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen since the creation of the world. They are understood through the things he has made, including his eternal power and divinity. So people have no excuse, because although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or thank him." These words clearly show that everyone can clearly understand God's goodness and eternal divinity through natural reason. From this understanding, everyone can know and work out what to seek and what to avoid. That is why the Apostle says they have no excuse and cannot claim ignorance. They certainly could claim ignorance if the matter required supernatural illumination and knowledge of Christ's incarnation, suffering, and resurrection. "Therefore," he goes on to say (Romans 1:24), "God gave them over to impurity through the desires of their own hearts." Throughout the rest of the chapter, Paul describes the vices that arise from ignorance and presents them as punishment for ignorance. This clearly agrees with Solomon's verse, quoted earlier: "The instruction of fools is folly." So it is easy to understand why Paul says that the wicked have no excuse. Everyone reaps what they sow. Evil necessarily produces further evils unless those evils are wisely counteracted.

Thus we see that Scripture literally approves of the light of natural reason and the natural Divine law, and I have fulfilled the promises made at the beginning of this chapter.

So we see that Scripture explicitly approves of the light of natural reason and the natural divine law. I have therefore fulfilled the promises I made at the beginning of this chapter.