Scripture Teaches Only Very Simple Principles Sufficient for Right Conduct

In the second chapter of this treatise we pointed out that the prophets were gifted with extraordinary powers of imagination, but not of understanding; also that God only revealed to them such things as are very simple - not philosophic mysteries, - and that He adapted His communications to their previous opinions. We further showed in Chap. V. that Scripture only transmits and teaches truths which can readily be comprehended by all; not deducing and concatenating its conclusions from definitions and axioms, but narrating quite simply, and confirming its statements, with a view to inspiring belief, by an appeal to experience as exemplified in miracles and history, and setting forth its truths in the style and phraseology which would most appeal to the popular mind (cf. Chap. VI., third division).

In the second chapter of this treatise, we showed that the prophets had extraordinary powers of imagination, but not understanding. We also showed that God revealed to them only very simple things, not philosophical mysteries. He adapted his messages to the prophets’ existing opinions. We further showed in Chapter V that Scripture conveys and teaches only truths that all people can readily understand. Scripture does not derive its conclusions from definitions and axioms or link those conclusions into a chain of reasoning. Instead, Scripture tells its stories simply. To inspire belief, Scripture supports its statements by appealing to experience, as illustrated by miracles and history. Scripture also presents its truths in the style and language most likely to appeal to ordinary people (see Chapter VI, third section).

Lastly, we demonstrated in Chap. VIII. that the difficulty of understanding Scripture lies in the language only, and not in the abstruseness of the argument.

Finally, we showed in Chapter VIII that Scripture is difficult to understand only because of its language. The reasoning itself is not difficult to grasp.

To these considerations we may add that the Prophets did not preach only to the learned, but to all Jews, without exception, while the Apostles were wont to teach the gospel doctrine in churches where there were public meetings; whence it follows that Scriptural doctrine contains no lofty speculations nor philosophic reasoning, but only very simple matters, such as could be understood by the slowest intelligence.

We may add another point to these considerations. The Prophets preached not only to the learned, but to all Jews, without exception. And the Apostles regularly taught the gospel in churches where people gathered publicly. So the teachings of Scripture contain no lofty speculation or philosophical reasoning. They contain only very simple matters that even the slowest minds could understand.

I am consequently lost in wonder at the ingenuity of those whom I have already mentioned, who detect in the Bible mysteries so profound that they cannot be explained in human language, and who have introduced so many philosophic speculations into religion that the Church seems like an academy, and religion like a science, or rather a dispute.

So I am amazed at the ingenuity of the people I mentioned earlier. They find mysteries in the Bible so deep that human language cannot explain them. And they have brought so much philosophical speculation into religion that the Church seems like an academy. Religion seems like a science, or rather an argument.

It is not to be wondered at that men, who boast of possessing supernatural intelligence, should be unwilling to yield the palm of knowledge to philosophers who have only their ordinary faculties; still I should be surprised if I found them teaching any new speculative doctrine, which was not a commonplace to those Gentile philosophers whom, in spite of all, they stigmatize as blind; for, if one inquires what these mysteries lurking in Scripture may be, one is confronted with nothing but the reflections of Plato or Aristotle, or the like, which it would often be easier for an ignorant man to dream than for the most accomplished scholar to wrest out of the Bible.

It is no surprise that men who boast of supernatural understanding refuse to concede greater knowledge to philosophers. Those philosophers rely only on their ordinary abilities. Still, I would be surprised if these men taught any new theoretical doctrine unfamiliar to the Gentile philosophers. Despite everything, these men brand those philosophers as blind. For if we ask what mysteries supposedly lie hidden in Scripture, we find only the ideas of Plato or Aristotle, or others like them. Often, an ignorant person could dream up those ideas more easily than the most learned scholar could extract them from the Bible.

However, I do not wish to affirm absolutely that Scripture contains no doctrines in the sphere of philosophy, for in the last chapter I pointed out some of the kind, as fundamental principles; but I go so far as to say that such doctrines are very few and very simple. Their precise nature and definition I will now set forth. The task will be easy, for we know that Scripture does not aim at imparting scientific knowledge, and, therefore, it demands from men nothing but obedience, and censures obstinacy, but not ignorance.

However, I do not wish to claim outright that Scripture contains no philosophical teachings. In the last chapter, I identified some such teachings as fundamental principles. But I do say that these teachings are very few and very simple. I will now explain exactly what these teachings are and how they are defined. The task will be easy, because we know that Scripture does not aim to teach scientific knowledge. Scripture therefore demands nothing from people but obedience, and condemns stubbornness, not ignorance.

Furthermore, as obedience to God consists solely in love to our neighbour - for whosoever loveth his neighbour, as a means of obeying God, hath, as St. Paul says (Rom. xiii:8), fulfilled the law, - it follows that no knowledge is commended in the Bible save that which is necessary for enabling all men to obey God in the manner stated, and without which they would become rebellious, or without the discipline of obedience.

Furthermore, obeying God consists solely in loving our neighbour. For anyone who loves their neighbour as a way of obeying God has fulfilled the law. St. Paul says this in Romans 13:8. It follows that the Bible commends only the knowledge necessary for everyone to obey God in this way. Without that knowledge, people would become rebellious or lack the discipline of obedience.

Other speculative questions, which have no direct bearing on this object, or are concerned with the knowledge of natural events, do not affect Scripture, and should be entirely separated from religion.

Other theoretical questions either have no direct bearing on this goal or concern knowledge of natural events. Such questions do not affect Scripture and should be kept entirely separate from religion.

Now, though everyone, as we have said, is now quite able to see this truth for himself, I should nevertheless wish, considering that the whole of Religion depends thereon, to explain the entire question more accurately and clearly. To this end I must first prove that the intellectual or accurate knowledge of God is not a gift, bestowed upon all good men like obedience; and, further, that the knowledge of God, required by Him through His prophets from everyone without exception, as needful to be known, is simply a knowledge of His Divine justice and charity. Both these points are easily proved from Scripture. The first plainly follows from Exodus vi:2, where God, in order to show the singular grace bestowed upon Moses, says to him: "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of El Sadai (A. V. God Almighty); but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them" - for the better understanding of which passage I may remark that El Sadai, in Hebrew, signifies the God who suffices, in that He gives to every man that which suffices for him; and, although Sadai is often used by itself, to signify God, we cannot doubt that the word El (God, {power, might}) is everywhere understood. Furthermore, we must note that Jehovah is the only word found in Scripture with the meaning of the absolute essence of God, without reference to created things. The Jews maintain, for this reason, that this is, strictly speaking, the only name of God; that the rest of the words used are merely titles; and, in truth, the other names of God, whether they be substantives or adjectives, are merely attributive, and belong to Him, in so far as He is conceived of in relation to created things, or manifested through them. Thus El, or Eloah, signifies powerful, as is well known, and only applies to God in respect to His supremacy, as when we call Paul an apostle; the faculties of his power are set forth in an accompanying adjective, as El, great, awful, just, merciful, &c., or else all are understood at once by the use of El in the plural number, with a singular signification, an expression frequently adopted in Scripture.

As we have said, everyone can now see this truth for themselves. Still, since the whole of Religion depends on this truth, I would like to explain the question more precisely and clearly. First, I must prove that intellectual or precise knowledge of God is not a gift given to all good people, as obedience is. I must also prove what knowledge God requires from everyone, without exception, through his prophets. This required knowledge is simply knowledge of his divine justice and charity. Both points are easily proved from Scripture. The first point follows clearly from Exodus vi:2. There, God speaks to Moses to show the special favor he has granted him: "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of El Sadai (A. V. God Almighty); but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them". To help explain this passage, I should note that El Sadai means, in Hebrew, the God who provides enough. He gives every person enough for their needs. Although Sadai often appears alone as a name for God, we cannot doubt that El (God, {power, might}) is always implied. We must also note that Jehovah is the only word in Scripture that means God's absolute essence, without reference to created things. For this reason, the Jews maintain that Jehovah is, strictly speaking, God's only name. They hold that the other words used for God are merely titles. Indeed, God's other names, whether nouns or adjectives, merely describe his attributes. These names apply to him insofar as he is understood in relation to created things or revealed through them. Thus El, or Eloah, means powerful, as is well known. The term applies to God only with respect to his supremacy, just as we call Paul an apostle. An accompanying adjective describes the particular powers he exercises, as when El is called great, fearsome, just, merciful, and so on. Alternatively, all these powers are implied together when El is used in the plural with a singular meaning. Scripture frequently uses this expression.

Now, as God tells Moses that He was not known to the patriarchs by the name of Jehovah, it follows that they were not cognizant of any attribute of God which expresses His absolute essence, but only of His deeds and promises that is, of His power, as manifested in visible things. God does not thus speak to Moses in order to accuse the patriarchs of infidelity, but, on the contrary, as a means of extolling their belief and faith, inasmuch as, though they possessed no extraordinary knowledge of God (such as Moses had), they yet accepted His promises as fixed and certain; whereas Moses, though his thoughts about God were more exalted, nevertheless doubted about the Divine promises, and complained to God that, instead of the promised deliverance, the prospects of the Israelites had darkened.

Now, God tells Moses that the patriarchs did not know him by the name Jehovah. It follows that the patriarchs knew no attribute of God that expresses his absolute essence. They knew only his deeds and promises, that is, his power as shown in visible things. God does not say this to Moses to accuse the patriarchs of lacking faith. On the contrary, God means to praise their belief and faith. Although the patriarchs lacked the extraordinary knowledge of God that Moses had, they accepted God's promises as firm and certain. Moses, however, doubted God's promises, even though his understanding of God was more elevated. He complained to God that, instead of the promised deliverance, the Israelites' prospects had grown darker.

As the patriarchs did not know the distinctive name of God, and as God mentions the fact to Moses, in praise of their faith and single-heartedness, and in contrast to the extraordinary grace granted to Moses, it follows, as we stated at first, that men are not bound by, decree to have knowledge of the attributes of God, such knowledge being only granted to a few of the faithful: it is hardly worth while to quote further examples from Scripture, for everyone must recognize that knowledge of God is not equal among all good men. Moreover, a man cannot be ordered to be wise any more than he can be ordered to live and exist. Men, women, and children are all alike able to obey by commandment, but not to be wise. If any tell us that it is not necessary to understand the Divine attributes, but that we must believe them simply, without proof, he is plainly trifling. For what is invisible and can only be perceived by the mind, cannot be apprehended by any other means than proofs; if these are absent the object remains ungrasped; the repetition of what has been heard on such subjects no more indicates or attains to their meaning than the words of a parrot or a puppet speaking without sense or signification.

The patriarchs did not know God’s distinctive name. God mentions this to Moses to praise their faith and wholehearted devotion. He also contrasts their lack of knowledge with the extraordinary grace granted to Moses. So, as we said at first, no decree requires people to know God’s attributes. Such knowledge is granted only to a few of the faithful. Further examples from Scripture are hardly worth quoting. Everyone must recognize that not all good people have equal knowledge of God. Moreover, a person can no more be commanded to be wise than to live and exist. Men, women, and children can all obey a command, but they cannot all be wise. If anyone says we need not understand God’s attributes but must simply believe them without proof, they are plainly being frivolous. For something invisible, perceptible only to the mind, can be grasped only through proofs. Without proofs, the thing remains beyond our grasp. Repeating what we have heard about such matters neither shows nor achieves any more understanding than a parrot’s words. The same is true of a puppet speaking without sense or meaning.

Before I proceed I ought to explain how it comes that we are often told in Genesis that the patriarchs preached in the name of Jehovah, this being in plain contradiction to the text above quoted. A reference to what was said in Chap. VIII. will readily explain the difficulty. It was there shown that the writer of the Pentateuch did not always speak of things and places by the names they bore in the times of which he was writing, but by the names best known to his contemporaries. God is thus said in the Pentateuch to have been preached by the patriarchs under the name of Jehovah, not because such was the name by which the patriarchs knew Him, but because this name was the one most reverenced by the Jews. This point, I say, must necessarily be noticed, for in Exodus it is expressly stated that God was not known to the patriarchs by this name; and in chap. iii:13, it is said that Moses desired to know the name of God. Now, if this name had been already known it would have been known to Moses. We must therefore draw the conclusion indicated, namely, that the faithful patriarchs did not know this name of God, and that the knowledge of God is bestowed and not commanded by the Deity.

Before I go on, I should explain why Genesis often says that the patriarchs preached in the name of Jehovah. These statements directly contradict the passage quoted above. What I said in Chapter VIII readily explains the difficulty. There I showed that the writer of the Pentateuch did not always use names current during the events he described. Instead, he used the names of things and places best known to his own contemporaries. Thus, the Pentateuch says that the patriarchs preached about God under the name Jehovah. This was not because the patriarchs knew God by that name, but because the Jews revered that name most. I insist that we must recognize this use of names. Exodus explicitly states that the patriarchs did not know God by that name. And Chapter III:13 says that Moses wanted to know God's name. Now, if the name had already been known, Moses would have known it. We must therefore reach the conclusion already indicated. The faithful patriarchs did not know this name of God, and God grants knowledge of himself rather than commanding it.

It is now time to pass on to our second point, and show that God through His prophets required from men no other knowledge of Himself than is contained in a knowledge of His justice and charity - that is, of attributes which a certain manner of life will enable men to imitate. Jeremiah states this in so many words (xxii:15, 16): "Did not thy father eat, and drink, and do judgment and justice? and then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know Me? saith the Lord." The words in chap. ix:24 of the same book are equally, clear. "But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth; for in these things I delight, saith the Lord." The same doctrine maybe gathered from Exod. xxxiv:6, where God revealed to Moses only those of His attributes which display the Divine justice and charity. Lastly, we may call attention to a passage in John which we shall discuss at more length hereafter; the Apostle explains the nature of God (inasmuch as no one has beheld Him) through charity only, and concludes that he who possesses charity possesses, and in very truth knows God.

It is now time to turn to our second point. God, through his prophets, required people to know nothing about him beyond his justice and love. These are qualities people can imitate by living in a certain way. Jeremiah states this directly (22:15, 16): "Did your father not eat and drink, and act justly and rightly? Then all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy. Then all went well with him. Was this not what it means to know me? says the Lord." The words in chapter 9:24 of the same book are equally clear. "But let anyone who boasts boast about this: that they understand and know me. I am the Lord, who shows loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness on earth. For I delight in these things, says the Lord." The same teaching can be drawn from Exod. 34:6. There, God revealed to Moses only those qualities of his that show divine justice and love. Finally, we may note a passage in John that we will discuss at greater length later. Since no one has seen God, the Apostle explains God's nature through love alone. He concludes that whoever has love has God and truly knows him.

We have thus seen that Moses, Jeremiah, and John sum up in a very short compass the knowledge of God needful for all, and that they state it to consist in exactly what we said, namely, that God is supremely just, and supremely merciful - in other words, the one perfect pattern of the true life. We may add that Scripture nowhere gives an express definition of God, and does not point out any other of His attributes which should be apprehended save these, nor does it in set terms praise any others. Wherefore we may draw the general conclusion that an intellectual knowledge of God, which takes cognizance of His nature in so far as it actually is, and which cannot by any manner of living be imitated by mankind or followed as an example, has no bearing whatever on true rules of conduct, on faith, or on revealed religion; consequently that men may be in complete error on the subject without incurring the charge of sinfulness. We need now no longer wonder that God adapted Himself to the existing opinions and imaginations of the prophets, or that the faithful held different ideas of God, as we showed in Chap. II.; or, again, that the sacred books speak very inaccurately of God, attributing to Him hands, feet, eyes, ears, a mind, and motion from one place to another; or that they ascribe to Him emotions, such as jealousy, mercy, &c., or, lastly, that they describe Him as a Judge in heaven sitting on a royal throne with Christ on His right hand. Such expressions are adapted to the understanding of the multitude, it being the object of the Bible to make men not learned but obedient.

We have now seen how briefly Moses, Jeremiah, and John summarize the knowledge of God that everyone needs. They describe this knowledge exactly as we did: God is supremely just and supremely merciful. In other words, God is the one perfect model of a truly good life. We may add that Scripture nowhere explicitly defines God. Nor does Scripture identify any other attributes of God that people should understand, or explicitly praise any others. So we may draw a general conclusion about intellectual knowledge of God as he actually is. Such knowledge cannot be imitated or followed as an example in any human way of life. It therefore has no bearing whatsoever on true rules of conduct, faith, or revealed religion. Consequently, people may be completely mistaken about God's nature without being guilty of sin. We need no longer wonder, then, that God adapted himself to the prophets' existing opinions and imaginings. Nor need we wonder that the faithful had different ideas about God, as we showed in Chapter II. The same explains why the sacred books speak very inaccurately about God. They attribute hands, feet, eyes, ears, and a mind to him, and describe him moving from place to place. They also attribute emotions to him, such as jealousy, mercy, and so on. Finally, they describe him as a Judge in heaven, seated on a royal throne with Christ at his right hand. Such expressions are suited to ordinary people's understanding, because the Bible aims to make people obedient, not learned.

In spite of this the general run of theologians, when they come upon any of these phrases which they cannot rationally harmonize with the Divine nature, maintain that they should be interpreted metaphorically, passages they cannot understand they say should be interpreted literally. But if every expression of this kind in the Bible is necessarily to be interpreted and understood metaphorically, Scripture must have been written, not for the people and the unlearned masses, but chiefly for accomplished experts and philosophers.

Despite this, most theologians treat certain phrases as metaphors when they cannot reasonably reconcile those phrases with God’s nature. Passages they cannot understand, they say, should be read literally. But suppose every expression of this kind in the Bible must be read and understood as a metaphor. Then Scripture must have been written not for ordinary people and the uneducated, but chiefly for trained experts and philosophers.

If it were indeed a sin to hold piously and simply the ideas about God we have just quoted, the prophets ought to have been strictly on their guard against the use of such expressions, seeing the weak-mindedness of the people, and ought, on the other hand, to have set forth first of all, duly and clearly, those attributes of God which are needful to be understood.

Suppose it really were a sin to hold the ideas about God just quoted with simple devotion. Then the prophets should have taken great care to avoid such expressions, given the people's limited understanding. Instead, the prophets should first have clearly and properly explained the attributes of God that people need to understand.

This they have nowhere done; we cannot, therefore, think that opinions taken in themselves without respect to actions are either pious or impious, but must maintain that a man is pious or impious in his beliefs only in so far as he is thereby incited to obedience, or derives from them license to sin and rebel. If a man, by believing what is true, becomes rebellious, his creed is impious; if by believing what is false he becomes obedient, his creed is pious; for the true knowledge of God comes not by commandment, but by Divine gift. God has required nothing from man but a knowledge of His Divine justice and charity, and that not as necessary to scientific accuracy, but to obedience.

They have nowhere done this. So we cannot regard beliefs as pious or impious in themselves, apart from actions. Instead, we must judge a person's beliefs only by whether they encourage obedience or justify sin and rebellion. If believing the truth makes someone rebellious, that person's creed is impious. If believing something false makes someone obedient, that person's creed is pious. For true knowledge of God comes not through a command, but as a divine gift. God has required nothing from humanity except knowledge of his divine justice and love. He requires this knowledge not for scientific accuracy, but for obedience.