Ceremonial Law

In the foregoing chapter we have shown that the Divine law, which renders men truly blessed, and teaches them the true life, is universal to all men; nay, we have so intimately deduced it from human nature that it must be esteemed innate, and, as it were, ingrained in the human mind.

In the previous chapter, we showed that divine law makes people truly blessed and teaches them how to live truly. This law applies to all people. Indeed, we traced this law so closely to human nature that we must consider it innate. It is, so to speak, ingrained in the human mind.

But with regard to the ceremonial observances which were ordained in the Old Testament for the Hebrews only, and were so adapted to their state that they could for the most part only be observed by the society as a whole and not by each individual, it is evident that they formed no part of the Divine law, and had nothing to do with blessedness and virtue, but had reference only to the election of the Hebrews, that is (as I have shown in Chap. II.), to their temporal bodily happiness and the tranquillity of their kingdom, and that therefore they were only valid while that kingdom lasted. If in the Old Testament they are spoken of as the law of God, it is only because they were founded on revelation, or a basis of revelation. Still as reason, however sound, has little weight with ordinary theologians, I will adduce the authority of Scripture for what I here assert, and will further show, for the sake of greater clearness, why and how these ceremonials served to establish and preserve the Jewish kingdom. Isaiah teaches most plainly that the Divine law in its strict sense signifies that universal law which consists in a true manner of life, and does not signify ceremonial observances. In chapter i:10, the prophet calls on his countrymen to hearken to the Divine law as he delivers it, and first excluding all kinds of sacrifices and all feasts, he at length sums up the law in these few words, "Cease to do evil, learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed." Not less striking testimony is given in Psalm xl:7- 9, where the Psalmist addresses God: "Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast Thou opened; burnt offering and sin-offering hast Thou not required; I delight to do Thy will, O my God; yea, Thy law is within my heart." Here the Psalmist reckons as the law of God only that which is inscribed in his heart, and excludes ceremonies therefrom, for the latter are good and inscribed on the heart only from the fact of their institution, and not because of their intrinsic value.

But the ceremonial observances prescribed in the Old Testament were intended only for the Hebrews and suited to their state. For the most part, these observances could only be practiced by the community as a whole, not by individuals. Clearly, these observances formed no part of the Divine law and had nothing to do with blessedness or virtue. They concerned only the election of the Hebrews, that is, their earthly bodily well-being and the peace of their kingdom. I have explained this meaning of election in Chapter II. These observances were therefore binding only as long as that kingdom lasted. If the Old Testament calls them the law of God, this is only because they rested on revelation. They were either directly revealed or based on revelation. Still, reason, however sound, carries little weight with ordinary theologians. So I will support my claims with the authority of Scripture. To make the matter clearer, I will also explain why and how these ceremonies helped establish and preserve the Jewish kingdom. Isaiah teaches very clearly that the Divine law, strictly understood, means the universal law consisting in a right way of life. It does not mean ceremonial observances. In chapter 1:10, the prophet calls on his countrymen to listen to the Divine law as he presents it. First, he rules out all kinds of sacrifices and all feasts. Then he sums up the law in these few words: "Stop doing evil, learn to do good: seek justice, help the oppressed." Psalm 40:7-9 gives equally striking testimony, as the Psalmist addresses God: "You did not desire sacrifice and offering. You have opened my ears. You have not required burnt offerings or sin offerings. I delight to do your will, O my God. Your law is within my heart." Here the Psalmist counts only what is written in his heart as the law of God, excluding ceremonies. For ceremonies are good and written in the heart only because they were instituted, not because of their inherent value.

Other passages of Scripture testify to the same truth, but these two will suffice. We may also learn from the Bible that ceremonies are no aid to blessedness, but only have reference to the temporal prosperity of the kingdom; for the rewards promised for their observance are merely temporal advantages and delights, blessedness being reserved for the universal Divine law. In all the five books commonly attributed to Moses nothing is promised, as I have said, beyond temporal benefits, such as honours, fame, victories, riches, enjoyments, and health. Though many moral precepts besides ceremonies are contained in these five books, they appear not as moral doctrines universal to all men, but as commands especially adapted to the understanding and character of the Hebrew people, and as having reference only to the welfare of the kingdom. For instance, Moses does not teach the Jews as a prophet not to kill or to steal, but gives these commandments solely as a lawgiver and judge; he does not reason out the doctrine, but affixes for its non-observance a penalty which may and very properly does vary in different nations. So, too, the command not to commit adultery is given merely with reference to the welfare of the state; for if the moral doctrine had been intended, with reference not only to the welfare of the state, but also to the tranquillity and blessedness of the individual, Moses would have condemned not merely the outward act, but also the mental acquiescence, as is done by Christ, Who taught only universal moral precepts, and for this cause promises a spiritual instead of a temporal reward. Christ, as I have said, was sent into the world, not to preserve the state nor to lay down laws, but solely to teach the universal moral law, so we can easily understand that He wished in nowise to do away with the law of Moses, inasmuch as He introduced no new laws of His own - His sole care was to teach moral doctrines, and distinguish them from the laws of the state; for the Pharisees, in their ignorance, thought that the observance of the state law and the Mosaic law was the sum total of morality; whereas such laws merely had reference to the public welfare, and aimed not so much at instructing the Jews as at keeping them under constraint. But let us return to our subject, and cite other passages of Scripture which set forth temporal benefits as rewards for observing the ceremonial law, and blessedness as reward for the universal law.

Other passages of Scripture confirm the same truth, but these two will suffice. We may also learn from the Bible that ceremonies do not help us achieve blessedness. They concern only the kingdom’s worldly prosperity. The rewards promised for observing ceremonies are only worldly benefits and pleasures. Blessedness, by contrast, is reserved for the universal Divine law. As I have said, the five books commonly attributed to Moses promise nothing beyond worldly benefits. These include honors, fame, victories, riches, pleasures, and health. Although these five books contain many moral commands alongside ceremonies, the commands are not presented as moral teachings for all humanity. Instead, they are commands specifically suited to the understanding and character of the Hebrew people. They concern only the welfare of the kingdom. For example, Moses does not teach the Jews not to kill or steal in his role as a prophet. He gives these commands solely as a lawgiver and judge. He does not explain the reasoning behind the teaching, but sets a penalty for disobedience. Such a penalty may vary between nations, and quite properly does. Likewise, the command against adultery concerns only the welfare of the state. Suppose Moses had intended a moral teaching concerning not only the state’s welfare, but also the individual’s peace and blessedness. He would then have condemned not merely the outward act, but also inward consent to it. Christ does condemn inward consent. He taught only universal moral principles, and therefore promises a spiritual reward rather than a worldly one. As I have said, Christ was not sent into the world to preserve the state or establish laws. He was sent solely to teach the universal moral law. So we can easily understand that he had no wish to abolish the law of Moses. After all, he introduced no new laws of his own. His sole concern was to teach moral principles and distinguish them from the laws of the state. For the Pharisees, in their ignorance, thought obeying state law and Mosaic law amounted to the whole of morality. Yet those laws concerned only public welfare. Their purpose was less to instruct the Jews than to keep them under control. But let us return to our subject and cite other passages of Scripture. These passages present worldly benefits as rewards for observing ceremonial law, and blessedness as the reward for following universal law.

None of the prophets puts the point more clearly than Isaiah. (18.) After condemning hypocrisy he commends liberty and charity towards one's self and one's neighbours, and promises as a reward: "Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy health shall spring forth speedily, thy righteousness shall go before thee, and the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward" (chap. lviii:8). Shortly afterwards he commends the Sabbath, and for a due observance of it, promises: "Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it." Thus the prophet for liberty bestowed, and charitable works, promises a healthy mind in a healthy body, and the glory of the Lord even after death; whereas, for ceremonial exactitude, he only promises security of rule, prosperity, and temporal happiness.

None of the prophets makes the point more clearly than Isaiah. (18.) After condemning hypocrisy, he praises freedom and charity toward oneself and one's neighbors. He promises this reward: "Then your light will break forth like the morning, and your health will quickly improve. Your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your reward" (chapter 58:8). Shortly afterward, he praises the Sabbath and promises those who observe it properly: "Then you will delight in the Lord. I will make you ride on the heights of the earth and feed you with your father Jacob's inheritance. For the mouth of the Lord has spoken." Thus, for granting freedom and doing charitable works, the prophet promises a healthy mind in a healthy body. He also promises the glory of the Lord even after death. But for strict observance of ceremonies, he promises only secure rule, prosperity, and happiness in this life.

In Psalms xv. and xxiv. no mention is made of ceremonies, but only of moral doctrines, inasmuch as there is no question of anything but blessedness, and blessedness is symbolically promised: it is quite certain that the expressions, "the hill of God," and "His tents and the dwellers therein," refer to blessedness and security of soul, not to the actual mount of Jerusalem and the tabernacle of Moses, for these latter were not dwelt in by anyone, and only the sons of Levi ministered there. Further, all those sentences of Solomon to which I referred in the last chapter, for the cultivation of the intellect and wisdom, promise true blessedness, for by wisdom is the fear of God at length understood, and the knowledge of God found.

Psalms xv. and xxiv. mention no ceremonies, only moral teachings, because they deal only with blessedness, promised through symbols. The expressions "the hill of God," and "His tents and the dwellers therein," certainly refer to blessedness and spiritual security. They do not refer to the actual mount of Jerusalem or the tabernacle of Moses. For no one lived in those places, and only the sons of Levi served there. Furthermore, all the sayings of Solomon I cited in the last chapter encourage the development of intellect and wisdom. These sayings promise true blessedness, for through wisdom we finally understand the fear of God and find knowledge of God.

That the Jews themselves were not bound to practise their ceremonial observances after the destruction of their kingdom is evident from Jeremiah. For when the prophet saw and foretold that the desolation of the city was at hand, he said that God only delights in those who know and understand that He exercises loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth, and that such persons only are worthy of praise. (Jer. ix:23.) As though God had said that, after the desolation of the city, He would require nothing special from the Jews beyond the natural law by which all men are bound.

Jeremiah makes it clear that even the Jews were not required to observe their ceremonies after their kingdom was destroyed. The prophet saw and foretold that the city would soon be devastated. He therefore said that God delights only in those who know and understand his loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness on earth. Only such people, he said, deserve praise. (Jer. ix:23.) It was as though God had said that, after the city's devastation, he would require nothing special from the Jews. They would be bound only by the natural law that binds all people.

The New Testament also confirms this view, for only moral doctrines are therein taught, and the kingdom of heaven is promised as a reward, whereas ceremonial observances are not touched on by the Apostles, after they began to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Pharisees certainly continued to practise these rites after the destruction of the kingdom, but more with a view of opposing the Christians than of pleasing God: for after the first destruction of the city, when they were led captive to Babylon, not being then, so far as I am aware, split up into sects, they straightway neglected their rites, bid farewell to the Mosaic law, buried their national customs in oblivion as being plainly superfluous, and began to mingle with other nations, as we may abundantly learn from Ezra and Nehemiah. We cannot, therefore, doubt that they were no more bound by the law of Moses, after the destruction of their kingdom, than they had been before it had been begun, while they were still living among other peoples before the exodus from Egypt, and were subject to no special law beyond the natural law, and also, doubtless, the law of the state in which they were living, in so far as it was consonant with the Divine natural law.

The New Testament also confirms this view, for it teaches only moral doctrines and promises the kingdom of heaven as a reward. By contrast, once the Apostles began preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, they did not address ceremonial observances. The Pharisees certainly continued practicing these rites after the destruction of the kingdom. But they did so more to oppose the Christians than to please God. For after the first destruction of the city, when the Jews were taken captive to Babylon, they immediately neglected their rites. As far as I know, they had not yet split into sects at that time. They abandoned the Mosaic law and let their national customs fall into oblivion, since those customs were clearly unnecessary. They also began mixing with other nations, as Ezra and Nehemiah amply show. We therefore cannot doubt that, after their kingdom was destroyed, they were no longer bound by the law of Moses. They were no more bound by that law than before their kingdom began. Before the exodus from Egypt, they had still lived among other peoples. They were then subject to no special law beyond natural law. They were also, doubtless, subject to the law of the state where they lived, insofar as it agreed with divine natural law.

As to the fact that the patriarchs offered sacrifices, I think they did so for the purpose of stimulating their piety, for their minds had been accustomed from childhood to the idea of sacrifice, which we know had been universal from the time of Enoch; and thus they found in sacrifice their most powerful incentive. The patriarchs, then, did not sacrifice to God at the bidding of a Divine right, or as taught by the basis of the Divine law, but simply in accordance with the custom of the time; and, if in so doing they followed any ordinance, it was simply the ordinance of the country they were living in, by which (as we have seen before in the case of Melchisedek) they were bound.

I think the patriarchs offered sacrifices to strengthen their devotion. From childhood, they had been accustomed to the idea of sacrifice. We know that sacrifice had been universal since the time of Enoch. So sacrifice gave them their strongest incentive to devotion. The patriarchs, then, did not sacrifice to God because of a divine command or the basic teachings of divine law. Instead, they simply followed the custom of their time. And if they followed any rule in offering sacrifices, it was simply the law of the country where they lived. They were bound by that law, as we have already seen in the case of Melchisedek.

I think that I have now given Scriptural authority for my view: it remains to show why and how the ceremonial observances tended to preserve and confirm the Hebrew kingdom; and this I can very briefly do on grounds universally accepted.

I think I have now shown that Scripture supports my view. It remains to explain why and how ceremonial practices helped preserve and strengthen the Hebrew kingdom. I can explain this very briefly using reasons everyone accepts.

The formation of society serves not only for defensive purposes, but is also very useful, and, indeed, absolutely necessary, as rendering possible the division of labour. If men did not render mutual assistance to each other, no one would have either the skill or the time to provide for his own sustenance and preservation: for all men are not equally apt for all work, and no one would be capable of preparing all that he individually stood in need of. Strength and time, I repeat, would fail, if every one had in person to plough, to sow, to reap, to grind corn, to cook, to weave, to stitch, and perform the other numerous functions required to keep life going; to say nothing of the arts and sciences which are also entirely necessary to the perfection and blessedness of human nature. We see that peoples living, in uncivilized barbarism lead a wretched and almost animal life, and even they would not be able to acquire their few rude necessaries without assisting one another to a certain extent.

Society is formed not only for defense. It is also very useful, indeed absolutely necessary, because it makes the division of labor possible. Without mutual help, no one would have either the skills or the time to sustain and protect themselves. For not everyone is equally suited to every task, and no one could produce everything they needed. Again, people would lack the strength and time if everyone had to plow, sow, harvest, grind grain, cook, weave, and sew. They would also have to perform the many other tasks needed to keep life going. This is to say nothing of the arts and sciences, also absolutely necessary for human nature’s perfection and blessedness. We see that peoples living in uncivilized barbarism lead miserable lives, almost like those of animals. Yet even these peoples could not obtain their few basic necessities without helping one another to some extent.

Now if men were so constituted by nature that they desired nothing but what is designated by true reason, society would obviously have no need of laws: it would be sufficient to inculcate true moral doctrines; and men would freely, without hesitation, act in accordance with their true interests. But human nature is framed in a different fashion: every one, indeed, seeks his own interest, but does not do so in accordance with the dictates of sound reason, for most men's ideas of desirability and usefulness are guided by their fleshly instincts and emotions, which take no thought beyond the present and the immediate object. Therefore, no society can exist without government, and force, and laws to restrain and repress men's desires and immoderate impulses. Still human nature will not submit to absolute repression. Violent governments, as Seneca says, never last long; the moderate governments endure. So long as men act simply from fear they act contrary to their inclinations, taking no thought for the advantages or necessity of their actions, but simply endeavouring to escape punishment or loss of life. They must needs rejoice in any evil which befalls their ruler, even if it should involve themselves; and must long for and bring about such evil by every means in their power. Again, men are especially intolerant of serving and being ruled by their equals. Lastly, it is exceedingly difficult to revoke liberties once granted.

Now, if people naturally desired only what sound reason recommends, society would clearly have no need for laws. Teaching true moral principles would be enough. People would freely act in their own true interests, without hesitation. But human nature works differently. Everyone seeks their own interests, but not according to sound reason. Most people judge what is desirable and useful by their bodily instincts and emotions. These instincts and emotions look no further than the present and the immediate object of desire. Therefore, no society can exist without government, force, and laws to restrain and suppress people's desires and excessive impulses. Still, human nature will not submit to total repression. As Seneca says, violent governments never last long, while moderate governments endure. As long as people act solely out of fear, they act against their inclinations. They give no thought to the benefits or necessity of their actions. They simply try to escape punishment or death. They are bound to rejoice at any misfortune that strikes their ruler, even if that misfortune also harms them. They are also bound to wish for such misfortune and bring it about by every means in their power. Moreover, people find serving and being ruled by their equals especially intolerable. Finally, it is extremely difficult to take back freedoms once granted.

From these considerations it follows, firstly, that authority should either be vested in the hands of the whole state in common, so that everyone should be bound to serve, and yet not be in subjection to his equals; or else, if power be in the hands of a few, or one man, that one man should be something above average humanity, or should strive to get himself accepted as such. Secondly, laws should in every government be so arranged that people should be kept in bounds by the hope of some greatly desired good, rather than by fear, for then everyone will do his duty willingly.

Two conclusions follow from these considerations. First, authority should belong either to the whole state collectively or to a few people or one man. If authority belongs to everyone, everyone should be required to serve, yet no one should be subject to their equals. If power belongs to a few people or one man, that man should be above ordinary humanity. Or he should try to have himself accepted as such. Second, every government should arrange its laws to restrain people through hope of some deeply desired good rather than fear. For then everyone will do their duty willingly.

Lastly, as obedience consists in acting at the bidding of external authority, it would have no place in a state where the government is vested in the whole people, and where laws are made by common consent. In such a society the people would remain free, whether the laws were added to or diminished, inasmuch as it would not be done on external authority, but their own free consent. The reverse happens when the sovereign power is vested in one man, for all act at his bidding; and, therefore, unless they had been trained from the first to depend on the words of their ruler, the latter would find it difficult, in case of need, to abrogate liberties once conceded, and impose new laws.

Finally, obedience means acting on orders from an outside authority. So obedience would have no place where government belongs to the whole people and laws are made by common consent. In such a society, the people would remain free whether laws were added or removed. For these changes would come not from an outside authority, but from the people’s own free consent. The opposite happens when one man holds supreme power, because everyone acts on his orders. So unless the people had been trained from the start to rely on their ruler’s word, he would face difficulties. If the need arose, he would find it hard to withdraw freedoms already granted and impose new laws.

From these universal considerations, let us pass on to the kingdom of the Jews. The Jews when they first came out of Egypt were not bound by any national laws, and were therefore free to ratify any laws they liked, or to make new ones, and were at liberty to set up a government and occupy a territory wherever they chose. However, they, were entirely unfit to frame a wise code of laws and to keep the sovereign power vested in the community; they were all uncultivated and sunk in a wretched slavery, therefore the sovereignty was bound to remain vested in the hands of one man who would rule the rest and keep them under constraint, make laws and interpret them. This sovereignty was easily retained by Moses, because he surpassed the rest in virtue and persuaded the people of the fact, proving it by many testimonies (see Exod. chap. xiv., last verse, and chap. xix:9). He then, by the Divine virtue he possessed, made laws and ordained them for the people, taking the greatest care that they should be obeyed willingly and not through fear, being specially induced to adopt this course by the obstinate nature of the Jews, who would not have submitted to be ruled solely by constraint; and also by the imminence of war, for it is always better to inspire soldiers with a thirst for glory than to terrify them with threats; each man will then strive to distinguish himself by valour and courage, instead of merely trying to escape punishment. Moses, therefore, by his virtue and the Divine command, introduced a religion, so that the people might do their duty from devotion rather than fear. Further, he bound them over by benefits, and prophesied many advantages in the future; nor were his laws very severe, as anyone may see for himself, especially if he remarks the number of circumstances necessary in order to procure the conviction of an accused person.

From these general considerations, let us turn to the kingdom of the Jews. When the Jews first left Egypt, they were not bound by any national laws. They were therefore free to approve any laws they liked or to make new ones. They could also establish a government and occupy territory wherever they chose. However, they were entirely unfit to draw up wise laws or keep supreme power in the community’s hands. They were all uneducated and had been reduced to miserable slavery. Supreme power therefore had to remain with one man. He would rule the others, keep them under control, make laws, and interpret them. Moses easily retained this power because he surpassed the others in virtue and convinced the people of his superiority. He proved his superiority through many demonstrations (see Exodus 14, last verse, and 19:9). Then, through the divine virtue he possessed, Moses made laws and established them for the people. He took the greatest care to ensure that they obeyed willingly rather than out of fear. He chose this approach especially because of the Jews’ stubborn nature. They would not have accepted rule based on force alone. The threat of imminent war was another reason. It is always better to inspire soldiers with a thirst for glory than to frighten them with threats. Each man will then strive to distinguish himself through bravery and courage, rather than merely trying to escape punishment. Therefore, through his virtue and at God’s command, Moses introduced a religion. His purpose was to make the people do their duty out of devotion rather than fear. He also secured their loyalty through benefits and foretold many advantages to come. Nor were his laws very severe, as anyone can see for themselves. This is especially clear when we consider how many conditions had to be met to convict an accused person.

Lastly, in order that the people which could not govern itself should be entirely dependent on its ruler, he left nothing to the free choice of individuals (who had hitherto been slaves); the people could do nothing but remember the law, and follow the ordinances laid down at the good pleasure of their ruler; they were not allowed to plough, to sow, to reap, nor even to eat; to clothe themselves, to shave, to rejoice, or in fact to do anything whatever as they liked, but were bound to follow the directions given in the law; and not only this, but they were obliged to have marks on their door-posts, on their hands, and between their eyes to admonish them to perpetual obedience.

Finally, to make a people unable to govern themselves entirely dependent on their ruler, he left individuals no freedom of choice. These people had until then been slaves. They could do nothing but remember the law and follow the rules laid down as their ruler pleased. They were not allowed to plow, sow, reap, or even eat as they liked. Nor could they dress, shave, celebrate, or do anything else as they liked. Instead, they had to follow the instructions in the law. Beyond this, they had to place marks on their doorposts, on their hands, and between their eyes. These marks were to remind them to obey at all times.

This, then, was the object of the ceremonial law, that men should do nothing of their own free will, but should always act under external authority, and should continually confess by their actions and thoughts that they were not their own masters, but were entirely under the control of others.

This, then, was the purpose of the ceremonial law: people should do nothing of their own free will. Instead, they should always act under outside authority. Their actions and thoughts should constantly acknowledge that they were not their own masters, but entirely under others’ control.

From all these considerations it is clearer than day that ceremonies have nothing to do with a state of blessedness, and that those mentioned in the Old Testament, i.e. the whole Mosaic Law, had reference merely to the government of the Jews, and merely temporal advantages.

All these considerations make it clear as day that ceremonies have nothing to do with a state of blessedness. The ceremonies mentioned in the Old Testament, meaning the whole Mosaic Law, concerned only the government of the Jews. They served only to provide worldly benefits.

As for the Christian rites, such as baptism, the Lord's Supper, festivals, public prayers, and any other observances which are, and always have been, common to all Christendom, if they were instituted by Christ or His Apostles (which is open to doubt), they were instituted as external signs of the universal church, and not as having anything to do with blessedness, or possessing any sanctity in themselves. Therefore, though such ceremonies were not ordained for the sake of upholding a government, they were ordained for the preservation of a society, and accordingly he who lives alone is not bound by them: nay, those who live in a country where the Christian religion is forbidden, are bound to abstain from such rites, and can none the less live in a state of blessedness. We have an example of this in Japan, where the Christian religion is forbidden, and the Dutch who live there are enjoined by their East India Company not to practise any outward rites of religion. I need not cite other examples, though it would be easy to prove my point from the fundamental principles of the New Testament, and to adduce many confirmatory instances; but I pass on the more willingly, as I am anxious to proceed to my next proposition. I will now, therefore, pass on to what I proposed to treat of in the second part of this chapter, namely, what persons are bound to believe in the narratives contained in Scripture, and how far they are so bound. Examining this question by the aid of natural reason, I will proceed as follows.

Christian rites include baptism, the Lord's Supper, festivals, public prayers, and other observances common throughout Christendom, now and always. If Christ or his Apostles established these rites, they did so as outward signs of the universal church. Whether Christ or his Apostles established them is open to doubt. These rites were not established as having any connection with blessedness or any holiness in themselves. So although these ceremonies were not established to uphold a government, they were established to preserve a community. Anyone who lives alone is therefore not bound to observe them. Indeed, people living in a country where Christianity is forbidden must abstain from these rites. Even so, they can still live in a state of blessedness. Japan provides an example, since Christianity is forbidden there. The Dutch living there are ordered by their East India Company not to practice any outward religious rites. I need not give other examples. It would be easy to prove my point from the New Testament's basic principles and offer many supporting examples. But I am all the more willing to move on because I am eager to reach my next proposition. I will therefore turn to the subject I proposed for the second part of this chapter. That subject is who must believe the narratives in Scripture, and how far that obligation extends. I will examine this question through natural reason, proceeding as follows.

If anyone wishes to persuade his fellows for or against anything which is not self-evident, he must deduce his contention from their admissions, and convince them either by experience or by ratiocination; either by appealing to facts of natural experience, or to self-evident intellectual axioms. Now unless the experience be of such a kind as to be clearly and distinctly understood, though it may convince a man, it will not have the same effect on his mind and disperse the clouds of his doubt so completely as when the doctrine taught is deduced entirely from intellectual axioms - that is, by the mere power of the understanding and logical order, and this is especially the case in spiritual matters which have nothing to do with the senses.

Anyone wishing to persuade others for or against something that is not self-evident must reason from what those people accept. They must convince their listeners either through experience or through reasoning. They must appeal either to facts from natural experience or to self-evident principles of reason. Now, unless the experience can be clearly and distinctly understood, it may convince someone without having the same effect. It will not clear away their doubts as completely as a teaching derived entirely from principles of reason. Such a teaching relies only on the power of understanding and a logical sequence of ideas. This difference is especially important in spiritual matters, which have nothing to do with the senses.

But the deduction of conclusions from general truths a priori, usually requires a long chain of arguments, and, moreover, very great caution, acuteness, and self-restraint - qualities which are not often met with; therefore people prefer to be taught by experience rather than deduce their conclusion from a few axioms, and set them out in logical order. Whence it follows, that if anyone wishes to teach a doctrine to a whole nation (not to speak of the whole human race), and to be understood by all men in every particular, he will seek to support his teaching with experience, and will endeavour to suit his reasonings and the definitions of his doctrines as far as possible to the understanding of the common people, who form the majority of mankind, and he will not set them forth in logical sequence nor adduce the definitions which serve to establish them. Otherwise he writes only for the learned - that is, he will be understood by only a small proportion of the human race.

But drawing conclusions from general truths without relying on experience usually requires a long chain of reasoning. It also requires great care, sharp judgment, and self-restraint, qualities rarely found together. So people prefer to learn from experience rather than draw conclusions from a few basic principles and arrange them logically. It follows that anyone wishing to teach a doctrine to an entire nation must appeal to experience. This is all the more true of anyone wishing to teach the whole human race. If such teachers want everyone to understand every detail, they will support their teaching with experience. They will also adapt their reasoning and definitions as much as possible to ordinary people's understanding. Ordinary people make up the majority of humanity. These teachers will not present their doctrines in logical order or provide the definitions needed to establish them. Otherwise, they write only for the learned. In other words, only a small part of humanity will understand them.

All Scripture was written primarily for an entire people, and secondarily for the whole human race; therefore its contents must necessarily be adapted as far as possible to the understanding of the masses, and proved only by examples drawn from experience. We will explain ourselves more clearly. The chief speculative doctrines taught in Scripture are the existence of God, or a Being Who made all things, and Who directs and sustains the world with consummate wisdom; furthermore, that God takes the greatest thought for men, or such of them as live piously and honourably, while He punishes, with various penalties, those who do evil, separating them from the good. All this is proved in Scripture entirely through experience-that is, through the narratives there related. No definitions of doctrine are given, but all the sayings and reasonings are adapted to the understanding of the masses. Although experience can give no clear knowledge of these things, nor explain the nature of God, nor how He directs and sustains all things, it can nevertheless teach and enlighten men sufficiently to impress obedience and devotion on their minds.

All Scripture was written primarily for an entire people, and secondarily for the whole human race. Its contents must therefore suit ordinary people's understanding as closely as possible. Its teachings must be supported only by examples drawn from experience. Let us explain more clearly. The main theoretical teachings in Scripture concern the existence of God, a Being who made all things. God also directs and sustains the world with perfect wisdom. Scripture further teaches that God takes the greatest care of people, or those who live devoutly and honorably. But he punishes those who do evil with various penalties, separating them from the good. Scripture supports all these teachings entirely through experience, that is, through the stories it tells. It gives no definitions of these teachings. Instead, all its statements and arguments are suited to ordinary people's understanding. Although experience cannot give clear knowledge of these matters, it can still teach and enlighten people enough to inspire obedience and devotion. Nor can experience explain God's nature or how he directs and sustains all things.

It is now, I think, sufficiently clear what persons are bound to believe in the Scripture narratives, and in what degree they are so bound, for it evidently follows from what has been said that the knowledge of and belief in them is particularly necessary to the masses whose intellect is not capable of perceiving things clearly and distinctly. Further, he who denies them because he does not believe that God exists or takes thought for men and the world, may be accounted impious; but a man who is ignorant of them, and nevertheless knows by natural reason that God exists, as we have said, and has a true plan of life, is altogether blessed - yes, more blessed than the common herd of believers, because besides true opinions he possesses also a true and distinct conception. Lastly, he who is ignorant of the Scriptures and knows nothing by the light of reason, though he may not be impious or rebellious, is yet less than human and almost brutal, having none of God's gifts.

I think it is now clear enough who must believe the narratives in Scripture, and to what extent. For what we have said clearly shows that knowing and believing these narratives is especially necessary for the masses. Their minds cannot grasp things clearly and distinctly. Further, someone may be considered impious for denying these narratives because they do not believe God exists or cares for humanity and the world. But someone unfamiliar with these narratives may nevertheless know through natural reason that God exists, as we have said. If that person also has a true guide to life, they are entirely blessed. Indeed, they are more blessed than the common herd of believers. For besides holding true opinions, they also have a true and distinct understanding. Finally, consider someone who knows neither the Scriptures nor anything through the light of reason. Although such a person may not be impious or rebellious, they are still less than human and almost beastlike. They have none of God's gifts.

We must here remark that when we say that the knowledge of the sacred narrative is particularly necessary to the masses, we do not mean the knowledge of absolutely all the narratives in the Bible, but only of the principal ones, those which, taken by themselves, plainly display the doctrine we have just stated, and have most effect over men's minds.

We should clarify what we mean when we say that knowledge of sacred stories is especially necessary for ordinary people. We do not mean knowledge of every story in the Bible, but only the main ones. These stories, on their own, clearly show the teaching we have just stated and have the greatest influence on people's minds.

If all the narratives in Scripture were necessary for the proof of this doctrine, and if no conclusion could be drawn without the general consideration of every one of the histories contained in the sacred writings, truly the conclusion and demonstration of such doctrine would overtask the understanding and strength not only of the masses, but of humanity; who is there who could give attention to all the narratives at once, and to all the circumstances, and all the scraps of doctrine to be elicited from such a host of diverse histories? I cannot believe that the men who have left us the Bible as we have it were so abounding in talent that they attempted setting about such a method of demonstration, still less can I suppose that we cannot understand Scriptural doctrine till we have given heed to the quarrels of Isaac, the advice of Achitophel to Absalom, the civil war between Jews and Israelites, and other similar chronicles; nor can I think that it was more difficult to teach such doctrine by means of history to the Jews of early times, the contemporaries of Moses, than it was to the contemporaries of Esdras. But more will be said on this point hereafter, we may now only note that the masses are only bound to know those histories which can most powerfully dispose their mind to obedience and devotion. However, the masses are not sufficiently skilled to draw conclusions from what they read, they take more delight in the actual stories, and in the strange and unlooked-for issues of events than in the doctrines implied; therefore, besides reading these narratives, they are always in need of pastors or church ministers to explain them to their feeble intelligence.

If all the narratives in Scripture were necessary to prove this doctrine, every history in the sacred writings would need consideration. If no conclusion could be drawn without considering them all, proving the doctrine would exceed human understanding and strength. The task would overwhelm not only the masses, but humanity itself. Who could consider all the narratives at once, along with every circumstance and every teaching drawn from so many different histories? I cannot believe that the men who left us the Bible as we have it possessed such extraordinary talent. I cannot believe they attempted to prove the doctrine by such a method. Still less can I suppose that understanding Scriptural doctrine requires us to study Isaac’s quarrels or Achitophel’s advice to Absalom. Nor could it require studying the civil war between Jews and Israelites, or other similar chronicles. Nor can I think that teaching this doctrine through history was harder for the Jews who lived alongside Moses. It cannot have been harder for them than for those who lived alongside Esdras. But more will be said about this later. For now, we need only note that the masses are required to know only certain histories. These are the histories most capable of moving their minds toward obedience and devotion. However, the masses lack the skill to draw conclusions from their reading. They enjoy the stories themselves, and the strange and unexpected outcomes of events, more than the teachings those stories imply. Therefore, besides reading these narratives, they always need pastors or church ministers to explain them to their weak understanding.

But not to wander from our point, let us conclude with what has been our principal object - namely, that the truth of narratives, be they what they may, has nothing to do with the Divine law, and serves for nothing except in respect of doctrine, the sole element which makes one history better than another. The narratives in the Old and New Testaments surpass profane history, and differ among themselves in merit simply by reason of the salutary doctrines which they inculcate. Therefore, if a man were to read the Scripture narratives believing the whole of them, but were to give no heed to the doctrines they contain, and make no amendment in his life, he might employ himself just as profitably in reading the Koran or the poetic drama, or ordinary chronicles, with the attention usually given to such writings; on the other hand, if a man is absolutely ignorant of the Scriptures, and none the less has right opinions and a true plan of life, he is absolutely blessed and truly possesses in himself the spirit of Christ.

But let us stay on the subject and conclude with our main point. Whether narratives are true, whatever those narratives may be, has nothing to do with Divine law. Narratives serve no purpose except to convey teachings, and those teachings alone make one history better than another. The narratives in the Old and New Testaments surpass secular history because of the beneficial teachings they convey. Those narratives also differ in merit from one another solely because of their teachings. Therefore, suppose a man reads the Scripture narratives and believes them all, but ignores their teachings and never improves his life. He could spend his time just as profitably reading the Koran, poetic drama, or ordinary chronicles. He would only need to give those writings the attention they usually receive. On the other hand, suppose a man knows nothing at all of the Scriptures. If he nevertheless holds right beliefs and follows a true way of life, he is completely blessed. He truly possesses the spirit of Christ within himself.

The Jews are of a directly contrary way of thinking, for they hold that true opinions and a true plan of life are of no service in attaining blessedness, if their possessors have arrived at them by the light of reason only, and not like the documents prophetically revealed to Moses. Maimonides ventures openly to make this assertion: "Every man who takes to heart the seven precepts and diligently follows them, is counted with the pious among the nation, and an heir of the world to come; that is to say, if he takes to heart and follows them because God ordained them in the law, and revealed them to us by Moses, because they were of aforetime precepts to the sons of Noah: but he who follows them as led thereto by reason, is not counted as a dweller among the pious or among the wise of the nations." Such are the words Of Maimonides, to which R. Joseph, the son of Shem Job, adds in his book which he calls "Kebod Elohim, or God's Glory," that although Aristotle (whom he considers to have written the best ethics and to be above everyone else) has not omitted anything that concerns true ethics, and which he has adopted in his own book, carefully following the lines laid down, yet this was not able to suffice for his salvation, inasmuch as he embraced his doctrines in accordance with the dictates of reason and not as Divine documents prophetically revealed.

The Jews take the exact opposite view. They hold that true beliefs and a sound way of life do nothing to bring blessedness if reached through reason alone. These must instead come through prophetic revelation, like the teachings revealed to Moses. Maimonides openly dares to assert this: "Anyone who takes the seven precepts to heart and carefully follows them is counted among the pious of the nations. He is also an heir to the world to come. This is so if he accepts and follows them because God commanded them in the law and revealed them through Moses. They had already been given as precepts to the sons of Noah. But anyone who follows them because reason leads him to do so is not counted among the pious or wise of the nations." These are Maimonides' words. R. Joseph, the son of Shem Job, adds to them in his book called "Kebod Elohim, or God's Glory." He considers Aristotle to have written the best ethics and to stand above everyone else. He says that Aristotle left out nothing concerning true ethics. He adopted Aristotle's ethical teachings in his own book, carefully following the approach Aristotle laid down. Yet, he adds, Aristotle's ethics could not secure Aristotle's salvation. This was because Aristotle accepted his doctrines through reason, not as divine teachings revealed through prophecy.

However, that these are mere figments, and are not supported by Scriptural authority will, I think, be sufficiently evident to the attentive reader, so that an examination of the theory will be sufficient for its refutation. It is not my purpose here to refute the assertions of those who assert that the natural light of reason can teach nothing, of any value concerning the true way of salvation. People who lay no claims to reason for themselves, are not able to prove by reason this their assertion; and if they hawk about something superior to reason, it is a mere figment, and far below reason, as their general method of life sufficiently shows. But there is no need to dwell upon such persons. I will merely add that we can only judge of a man by his works. If a man abounds in the fruits of the Spirit, charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, chastity, against which, as Paul says (Gal. v:22), there is no law, such an one, whether he be taught by reason only or by the Scripture only, has been in very truth taught by God, and is altogether blessed. Thus have I said all that I undertook to say concerning Divine law.

However, I think attentive readers will see clearly enough that these ideas are mere inventions, unsupported by Scripture. Simply examining the theory will therefore be enough to refute it. My purpose here is not to refute those who deny that natural reason teaches anything valuable about the true path to salvation. People who claim no capacity for reason cannot prove their claim through reason. And if they peddle something supposedly superior to reason, it is merely an invention, far beneath reason. Their general way of life makes this clear enough. But there is no need to dwell on such people. I will only add that we can judge a person only by their actions. Suppose someone shows abundant fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and chastity. As Paul says (Gal. v:22), there is no law against these qualities. Whether that person has learned through reason alone or Scripture alone, they have truly been taught by God. They are wholly blessed. I have now said all I set out to say about divine law.