Faith: Definitions, Foundations, and Permanent Separation from Philosophy

For a true knowledge of faith it is above all things necessary to understand that the Bible was adapted to the intelligence, not only of the prophets, but also of the diverse and fickle Jewish multitude. This will be recognized by all who give any thought to the subject, for they will see that a person who accepted promiscuously everything in Scripture as being the universal and absolute teaching of God, without accurately defining what was adapted to the popular intelligence, would find it impossible to escape confounding the opinions of the masses with the Divine doctrines, praising the judgments and comments of man as the teaching of God, and making a wrong use of Scriptural authority. Who, I say, does not perceive that this is the chief reason why so many sectaries teach contradictory opinions as Divine documents, and support their contentions with numerous Scriptural texts, till it has passed in Belgium into a proverb, geen ketter sonder letter - no heretic without a text? The sacred books were not written by one man, nor for the people of a single period, but by many authors of different temperaments, at times extending from first to last over nearly two thousand years, and perhaps much longer. We will not, however, accuse the sectaries of impiety because they have adapted the words of Scripture to their own opinions; it is thus that these words were adapted to the understanding of the masses originally, and everyone is at liberty so to treat them if he sees that he can thus obey God in matters relating to justice and charity with a more full consent: but we do accuse those who will not grant this freedom to their fellows, but who persecute all who differ from them, as God's enemies, however honourable and virtuous be their lives; while, on the other hand, they cherish those who agree with them, however foolish they may be, as God's elect. Such conduct is as wicked and dangerous to the state as any that can be conceived.

To understand faith truly, we must first recognize that the Bible was adapted to its audience’s understanding. That audience included not only the prophets but also the diverse and fickle Jewish masses. Everyone who gives the subject any thought will recognize this. Suppose someone accepted everything in Scripture indiscriminately as God’s universal and absolute teaching. Suppose they failed to identify precisely what had been adapted to popular understanding. They would inevitably confuse the opinions of the masses with divine teachings. They would praise human judgments and comments as God’s teaching and misuse Scripture’s authority. Who, I ask, does not see that this is the chief reason so many sectarians teach contradictory opinions as divine teachings? They support their arguments with so many scriptural passages that a proverb has arisen in Belgium: geen ketter sonder letter, no heretic without a text. The sacred books were not written by one person or for the people of a single age. They were written by many authors with different temperaments. Their writing spanned nearly two thousand years from first to last, and perhaps much longer. Yet we will not accuse sectarians of impiety because they have adapted Scripture’s words to their own opinions. After all, those words were originally adapted to the understanding of the masses in just this way. Everyone is free to interpret them this way under the same condition. They must see that doing so lets them obey God more wholeheartedly in matters of justice and charity. But we do condemn those who deny this freedom to others. They persecute everyone who disagrees with them as God’s enemies, however honorable and virtuous those people’s lives may be. At the same time, they cherish those who agree with them as God’s chosen, however foolish those people may be. Such conduct is as wicked and dangerous to the state as any conduct imaginable.

In order, therefore, to establish the limits to which individual freedom should extend, and to decide what persons, in spite of the diversity of their opinions, are to be looked upon as the faithful, we must define faith and its essentials. This task I hope to accomplish in the present chapter, and also to separate faith from philosophy, which is the chief aim of the whole treatise.

We must therefore define faith and its essentials to determine how far individual freedom should extend. We must also define them to decide who should count as faithful despite differences in opinion. I hope to do so in this chapter, and also to separate faith from philosophy. Separating faith from philosophy is the main aim of this whole treatise.

In order to proceed duly to the demonstration let us recapitulate the chief aim and object of Scripture; this will indicate a standard by which we may define faith.

To proceed properly with the proof, let us review Scripture’s main aim and purpose. This review will give us a standard by which we may define faith.

We have said in a former chapter that the aim and object of Scripture is only to teach obedience. Thus much, I think, no one can question. Who does not see that both Testaments are nothing else but schools for this object, and have neither of them any aim beyond inspiring mankind with a voluntary obedience? For (not to repeat what I said in the last chapter) I will remark that Moses did not seek to convince the Jews by reason, but bound them by a covenant, by oaths, and by conferring benefits; further, he threatened the people with punishment if they should infringe the law, and promised rewards if they should obey it. All these are not means for teaching knowledge, but for inspiring obedience. The doctrine of the Gospels enjoins nothing but simple faith, namely, to believe in God and to honour Him, which is the same thing as to obey him. There is no occasion for me to throw further light on a question so plain by citing Scriptural texts commending obedience, such as may be found in great numbers in both Testaments. Moreover, the Bible teaches very clearly in a great many passages what everyone ought to do in order to obey God; the whole duty is summed up in love to one's neighbour. It cannot, therefore, be denied that he who by God's command loves his neighbour as himself is truly obedient and blessed according to the law, whereas he who hates his neighbour or neglects him is rebellious and obstinate.

We said in an earlier chapter that Scripture’s only purpose is to teach obedience. I think no one can question this. Who can fail to see that both Testaments are simply schools for obedience? Neither has any purpose beyond inspiring people to obey willingly. Without repeating what I said in the last chapter, I will point out that Moses did not use reason to persuade the Jews. Instead, he bound them through a covenant, oaths, and benefits he granted them. He also threatened the people with punishment if they broke the law and promised rewards if they obeyed. None of these methods teaches knowledge. They inspire obedience. The teaching of the Gospels requires nothing but simple faith: believing in God and honoring him. Believing in God and honoring him amount to obeying him. There is no need to clarify so plain a matter by quoting passages from Scripture that praise obedience. Such passages appear in great numbers in both Testaments. Moreover, many passages in the Bible teach very clearly what everyone must do to obey God. The whole duty comes down to loving your neighbor. So no one can deny that whoever follows God’s command to love their neighbor as themselves is truly obedient. Such a person is also blessed according to the law. But whoever hates or neglects their neighbor is rebellious and stubborn.

Lastly, it is plain to everyone that the Bible was not written and disseminated only for the learned, but for men of every age and race; wherefore we may rest assured that we are not bound by Scriptural command to believe anything beyond what is absolutely necessary for fulfilling its main precept.

Finally, everyone can see that the Bible was not written and spread only for the learned. It was meant for people of every age and race. So we can be certain that Scripture requires us to believe only what is absolutely necessary to follow its main command.

This precept, then, is the only standard of the whole Catholic faith, and by it alone all the dogmas needful to be believed should be determined. So much being abundantly manifest, as is also the fact that all other doctrines of the faith can be legitimately deduced therefrom by reason alone, I leave it to every man to decide for himself how it comes to pass that so many divisions have arisen in the Church: can it be from any other cause than those suggested at the beginning of Chap. VIII.? It is these same causes which compel me to explain the method of determining the dogmas of the faith from the foundation we have discovered, for if I neglected to do so, and put the question on a regular basis, I might justly be said to have promised too lavishly, for that anyone might, by my showing, introduce any doctrine he liked into religion, under the pretext that it was a necessary means to obedience: especially would this be the case in questions respecting the Divine attributes.

This principle, then, is the only standard for the whole Catholic faith. It alone should determine all the doctrines that must be believed. All this is abundantly clear. So too is the fact that all other doctrines of the faith can legitimately be derived from this principle through reason alone. I therefore leave everyone to decide for themselves how so many divisions have arisen in the Church. Can they have any cause other than those suggested at the beginning of Chapter VIII? Those same causes compel me to explain how to determine the doctrines of faith from the foundation we have discovered. For if I failed to explain this method and establish a systematic approach, I could rightly be accused of promising too much. My account would then allow anyone to introduce any doctrine they liked into religion. They would need only claim that the doctrine was a necessary means to obedience. This would be especially true of questions concerning God's attributes.

In order, therefore, to set forth the whole matter methodically, I will begin with a definition of faith, which on the principle above given, should be as follows:-

So, to explain the whole matter systematically, I will begin by defining faith. Based on the principle given above, the definition should be as follows:

Faith consists in a knowledge of God, without which obedience to Him would be impossible, and which the mere fact of obedience to Him implies. This definition is so clear, and follows so plainly from what we have already proved, that it needs no explanation. The consequences involved therein I will now briefly show.

Faith consists in knowing God. Without this knowledge, obedience to him would be impossible, and obedience to him itself implies this knowledge. This definition is so clear and follows so plainly from what we have already proved that it needs no explanation. I will now briefly show the consequences of this definition.

(I.) Faith is not salutary in itself, but only in respect to the obedience it implies, or as James puts it in his Epistle, ii:17, "Faith without works is dead" (see the whole of the chapter quoted).

(I.) Faith does not bring salvation by itself, but only through the obedience it involves. As James puts it in his Epistle, 2:17, "Faith without works is dead" (see the whole chapter).

(II.) He who is truly obedient necessarily possesses true and saving faith; for if obedience be granted, faith must be granted also, as the same Apostle expressly says in these words (ii:18), "Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works." So also John, I Ep. iv:7: "Everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God: he that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love." From these texts, I repeat, it follows that we can only judge a man faithful or unfaithful by his works. If his works be good, he is faithful, however much his doctrines may differ from those of the rest of the faithful: if his works be evil, though he may verbally conform, he is unfaithful. For obedience implies faith, and faith without works is dead.

(II.) Anyone who is truly obedient necessarily has true and saving faith. For if we acknowledge someone's obedience, we must also acknowledge their faith. As the same Apostle explicitly says (ii:18), "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." John says the same in I Ep. iv:7: "Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." From these texts, I repeat, it follows that we can judge someone faithful or unfaithful only by their actions. If their actions are good, they are faithful, however much their doctrines differ from those of other faithful people. If their actions are evil, they are unfaithful, even if they profess the same beliefs as the faithful. For obedience implies faith, and faith without works is dead.

John, in the 13th verse of the chapter above quoted, expressly teaches the same doctrine: "Hereby," he says, "know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit," i.e. love. He had said before that God is love, and therefore he concludes (on his own received principles), that whoso possesses love possesses truly the Spirit of God. As no one has beheld God he infers that no one has knowledge or consciousness of God, except from love towards his neighbour, and also that no one can have knowledge of any of God's attributes, except this of love, in so far as we participate therein.

John explicitly teaches the same doctrine in verse 13 of the chapter quoted above. "We know," he says, "that we live in him and he in us because he has given us his Spirit." By his Spirit, John means love. John had already said that God is love. He therefore concludes, on his own accepted principles, that anyone who has love truly has the Spirit of God. Since no one has seen God, John concludes that no one knows or is aware of God except through loving their neighbour. He also concludes that no one can know any of God's attributes except love, insofar as we share in love.

If these arguments are not conclusive, they, at any rate, show the Apostle's meaning, but the words in chap. ii:3, 4, of the same Epistle are much clearer, for they state in so many words our precise contention: "And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

If these arguments are not conclusive, they at least show what the Apostle means. But chapter 2, verses 3 and 4, of the same Epistle are much clearer. These verses state exactly what we are arguing: "We know that we know him if we keep his commandments. Anyone who says, 'I know him,' but does not keep his commandments is a liar. The truth is not in that person."

From all this, I repeat, it follows that they are the true enemies of Christ who persecute honourable and justice-loving men because they differ from them, and do not uphold the same religious dogmas as themselves: for whosoever loves justice and charity we know, by that very fact, to be faithful: whosoever persecutes the faithful, is an enemy to Christ.

From all this, I repeat, it follows that Christ’s true enemies are those who persecute honorable, justice-loving people. They persecute these people because their views differ and they do not share the persecutors’ religious beliefs. For we know that anyone who loves justice and charity is faithful for that very reason. Anyone who persecutes the faithful is an enemy of Christ.

Lastly, it follows that faith does not demand that dogmas should be true as that they should be pious - that is, such as will stir up the heart to obey; though there be many such which contain not a shadow of truth, so long as they be held in good faith, otherwise their adherents are disobedient, for how can anyone, desirous of loving justice and obeying God, adore as Divine what he knows to be alien from the Divine nature? However, men may err from simplicity of mind, and Scripture, as we have seen, does not condemn ignorance, but obstinacy. This is the necessary result of our definition of faith, and all its branches should spring from the universal rule above given, and from the evident aim and object of the Bible, unless we choose to mix our own inventions therewith. Thus it is not true doctrines which are expressly required by the Bible, so much as doctrines necessary for obedience, and to confirm in our hearts the love of our neighbour, wherein (to adopt the words of John) we are in God, and God in us.

Finally, faith requires doctrines to be pious rather than true. That is, doctrines must move the heart to obey. Many such doctrines contain no trace of truth, but are acceptable as long as people hold them in good faith. Otherwise, those who hold them are disobedient. For how can anyone who wants to love justice and obey God worship something as divine while knowing it contradicts God's nature? However, people may make mistakes through simple-mindedness. And Scripture, as we have seen, condemns not ignorance but stubbornness. This conclusion follows necessarily from our definition of faith. Every aspect of faith should follow from the universal rule given above and the Bible's clear aim and purpose. Otherwise, we are mixing our own inventions into faith. Thus, the Bible expressly requires not so much true doctrines as doctrines necessary for obedience. These doctrines must strengthen our love for our neighbour. Through this love, to use John's words, we are in God, and God is in us.

As, then, each man's faith must be judged pious or impious only in respect of its producing obedience or obstinacy, and not in respect of its truth; and as no one will dispute that men's dispositions are exceedingly varied, that all do not acquiesce in the same things, but are ruled some by one opinion some by another, so that what moves one to devotion moves another to laughter and contempt, it follows that there can be no doctrines in the Catholic, or universal, religion, which can give rise to controversy among good men. Such doctrines might be pious to some and impious to others, whereas they should be judged solely by their fruits.

Each person's faith, then, must be judged as pious or impious only by whether it produces obedience or stubborn resistance. The truth of that faith is not the basis for judgment. And no one will deny that people's temperaments vary greatly. Not everyone accepts the same things. Some are guided by one opinion, others by another. So what inspires devotion in one person makes another laugh and feel contempt. It follows that the Catholic, or universal, religion can contain no doctrines that cause controversy among good people. Such doctrines might be pious for some and impious for others. Yet doctrines should be judged only by their results.

To the universal religion, then, belong only such dogmas as are absolutely required in order to attain obedience to God, and without which such obedience would be impossible; as for the rest, each man—seeing that he is the best judge of his own character—should adopt whatever he thinks best adapted to strengthen his love of justice. If this were so, I think there would be no further occasion for controversies in the Church.

Universal religion, then, includes only those beliefs absolutely necessary for obedience to God, without which such obedience would be impossible. As for other beliefs, each person knows his own character best. So each should adopt whatever he thinks will best strengthen his love of justice. If everyone followed this approach, I think there would be no further reason for disputes in the Church.

I have now no further fear in enumerating the dogmas of universal faith or the fundamental dogmas of the whole of Scripture, inasmuch as they all tend (as may be seen from what has been said) to this one doctrine, namely, that there exists a God, that is, a Supreme Being, Who loves justice and charity, and Who must be obeyed by whosoever would be saved; that the worship of this Being consists in the practice of justice and love towards one's neighbour, and that they contain nothing beyond the following doctrines:-

I no longer hesitate to list the doctrines of universal faith, or the fundamental doctrines of all Scripture. As may be seen from what has been said, they all lead to one teaching. God exists, a Supreme Being who loves justice and charity, and anyone who wishes to be saved must obey him. Worship of God consists in practicing justice and loving one's neighbor. These fundamental teachings contain nothing beyond the following doctrines:

I. That God or a Supreme Being exists, sovereignly just and merciful, the Exemplar of the true life; that whosoever is ignorant of or disbelieves in His existence cannot obey Him or know Him as a Judge.

I. God or a Supreme Being exists and is supremely just and merciful, the model of a true life. Anyone who does not know or believe that God exists cannot obey him or know him as a judge.

II. That He is One. Nobody will dispute that this doctrine is absolutely necessary for entire devotion, admiration, and love towards God. For devotion, admiration, and love spring from the superiority of one over all else.

II. That God is one. No one will dispute that this belief is absolutely necessary for complete devotion, admiration, and love toward God. For devotion, admiration, and love arise from the superiority of one over everything else.

III. That He is omnipresent, or that all things are open to Him, for if anything could be supposed to be concealed from Him, or to be unnoticed by, Him, we might doubt or be ignorant of the equity of His judgment as directing all things.

III. That he is present everywhere, or that all things are known to him. For if anything could be hidden from him or escape his notice, we might doubt his judgment's fairness in governing all things. Or we might not know whether his judgment is fair.

IV. That He has supreme right and dominion over all things, and that He does nothing under compulsion, but by His absolute fiat and grace. All things are bound to obey Him, He is not bound to obey any.

IV. He has supreme authority and power over all things. He does nothing under compulsion, but acts by his absolute command and grace. All things must obey him, but he is not bound to obey anyone.

V. That the worship of God consists only in justice and charity, or love towards one's neighbour.

V. Worshiping God consists only of justice and charity, or love for one's neighbor.

VI. That all those, and those only, who obey God by their manner of life are saved; the rest of mankind, who live under the sway of their pleasures, are lost. If we did not believe this, there would be no reason for obeying God rather than pleasure.

VI. All who obey God through the way they live are saved, and only they are saved. The rest of humanity, who live under the control of their pleasures, are lost. If we did not believe this, we would have no reason to obey God rather than follow pleasure.

VII. Lastly, that God forgives the sins of those who repent. No one is free from sin, so that without this belief all would despair of salvation, and there would be no reason for believing in the mercy of God. He who firmly believes that God, out of the mercy and grace with which He directs all things, forgives the sins of men, and who feels his love of God kindled thereby, he, I say, does really know Christ according to the Spirit, and Christ is in him.

VII. Finally, God forgives the sins of those who repent. No one is free from sin, so without this belief everyone would despair of salvation. And there would be no reason to believe in God's mercy. Anyone who firmly believes that God forgives people's sins believes God acts from the mercy and grace guiding all things. If this belief also kindles their love of God, then, I say, they truly know Christ according to the Spirit. And Christ is in them.

No one can deny that all these doctrines are before all things necessary to be believed, in order that every man, without exception, may be able to obey God according to the bidding of the Law above explained, for if one of these precepts be disregarded obedience is destroyed. But as to what God, or the Exemplar of the true life, may be, whether fire, or spirit, or light, or thought, or what not, this, I say, has nothing to do with faith any more than has the question how He comes to be the Exemplar of the true life, whether it be because He has a just and merciful mind, or because all things exist and act through Him, and consequently that we understand through Him, and through Him see what is truly just and good. Everyone may think on such questions as he likes.

No one can deny that belief in all these doctrines is necessary above all else. Everyone, without exception, must believe them to obey God as required by the Law explained above. For if any one of these commands is disregarded, obedience is destroyed. But what God, or the model of the true life, may be has nothing to do with faith. He may be fire, spirit, light, thought, or something else. Nor, I say, does faith concern how he comes to be the model of the true life. Is it because he has a just and merciful mind? Or is it because all things exist and act through him? And consequently, is it because we understand through him and through him see what is truly just and good? Everyone may think as they please about such questions.

Furthermore, faith is not affected, whether we hold that God is omnipresent essentially or potentially; that He directs all things by absolute fiat, or by the necessity of His nature; that He dictates laws like a prince, or that He sets them forth as eternal truths; that man obeys Him by virtue of free will, or by virtue of the necessity of the Divine decree; lastly, that the reward of the good and the punishment of the wicked is natural or supernatural: these and such like questions have no bearing on faith, except in so far as they are used as means to give us license to sin more, or to obey God less. I will go further, and maintain that every man is bound to adapt these dogmas to his own way of thinking, and to interpret them according as he feels that he can give them his fullest and most unhesitating assent, so that he may the more easily obey God with his whole heart.

Furthermore, faith is unaffected by whether we believe God is present everywhere in his essence or through his power. Nor does faith depend on whether God directs everything by absolute command or by the necessity of his nature. The same holds whether he issues laws like a prince or presents them as eternal truths. It also holds whether people obey him through free will or through the necessity of God's decree. Finally, faith is unaffected by whether rewards for the good and punishments for the wicked are natural or supernatural. These and similar questions have no bearing on faith, except when used to justify sinning more or obeying God less. I will go further. Everyone is bound to adapt these doctrines to their own way of thinking. Everyone must interpret these doctrines in whatever way they feel allows their fullest and most unhesitating agreement. The purpose is to make it easier for them to obey God with their whole heart.

Such was the manner, as we have already pointed out, in which the faith was in old time revealed and written, in accordance with the understanding and opinions of the prophets and people of the period; so, in like fashion, every man is bound to adapt it to his own opinions, so that he may accept it without any hesitation or mental repugnance. We have shown that faith does not so much require truth as piety, and that it is only quickening and pious through obedience, consequently no one is faithful save by obedience alone. The best faith is not necessarily possessed by him who displays the best reasons, but by him who displays the best fruits of justice and charity. How salutary and necessary this doctrine is for a state, in order that men may dwell together in peace and concord; and how many and how great causes of disturbance and crime are thereby cut off, I leave everyone to judge for himself!

As we have already shown, faith was revealed and written according to the understanding and opinions of people and prophets of the time. In the same way, everyone must adapt faith to their own opinions. This allows them to accept faith without hesitation or inner resistance. We have shown that faith requires not so much truth as devotion. Faith is living and devout only through obedience, so obedience alone makes a person faithful. The strongest faith does not necessarily belong to the person who offers the best arguments. Rather, it belongs to the person whose actions show the greatest justice and charity. I leave everyone to judge how beneficial and necessary this teaching is for a state. Consider how it enables people to live together in peace and harmony, and how many great causes of unrest and crime it removes!

Before we go further, I may remark that we can, by means of what we have just proved, easily answer the objections raised in Chap. I., when we were discussing God's speaking with the Israelites on Mount Sinai. For, though the voice heard by the Israelites could not give those men any philosophical or mathematical certitude of God's existence, it was yet sufficient to thrill them with admiration for God, as they already knew Him, and to stir them up to obedience: and such was the object of the display. God did not wish to teach the Israelites the absolute attributes of His essence (none of which He then revealed), but to break down their hardness of heart, and to draw them to obedience: therefore He did not appeal to them with reasons, but with the sound of trumpets, thunder, and lightnings.

Before we go further, I should note that what we have just proved easily answers the objections raised in Chapter I. Those objections concerned God's speaking with the Israelites on Mount Sinai. Although the voice the Israelites heard could not give them philosophical or mathematical certainty of God's existence, it served another purpose. It was enough to fill them with awe for God, whom they already knew, and move them to obey him. That was the purpose of the display. God did not intend to teach the Israelites the absolute attributes of his essence. He revealed none of those attributes then. Instead, he intended to overcome their stubbornness and lead them to obedience. So he appealed to them not with reasons, but with the sound of trumpets, thunder, and lightning.

It remains for me to show that between faith or theology, and philosophy, there is no connection, nor affinity. I think no one will dispute the fact who has knowledge of the aim and foundations of the two subjects, for they are as wide apart as the poles.

I still need to show that faith, or theology, has no connection or similarity to philosophy. I think anyone who understands the aims and foundations of these two subjects will agree. For the two subjects are as far apart as the poles.

Philosophy has no end in view save truth: faith, as we have abundantly proved, looks for nothing but obedience and piety. Again, philosophy is based on axioms which must be sought from nature alone: faith is based on history and language, and must be sought for only in Scripture and revelation, as we showed in Chap. VII. Faith, therefore, allows the greatest latitude in philosophic speculation, allowing us without blame to think what we like about anything, and only condemning, as heretics and schismatics, those who teach opinions which tend to produce obstinacy, hatred, strife, and anger; while, on the other hand, only considering as faithful those who persuade us, as far as their reason and faculties will permit, to follow justice and charity.

Philosophy seeks nothing but truth. Faith, as we have amply proved, seeks nothing but obedience and piety. Philosophy rests on basic principles drawn from nature alone. Faith rests on history and language and must be drawn only from Scripture and revelation, as we showed in Chapter VII. Faith therefore allows the greatest freedom in philosophical thought. We may think whatever we like about anything without blame. Faith condemns as heretics and schismatics only those who teach opinions that encourage stubbornness, hatred, conflict, and anger. On the other hand, faith recognizes as faithful only those who urge us to practice justice and charity. They must do so as far as their reason and abilities allow.

Lastly, as what we are now setting forth are the most important subjects of my treatise, I would most urgently beg the reader, before I proceed, to read these two chapters with especial attention, and to take the trouble to weigh them well in his mind: let him take for granted that I have not written with a view to introducing novelties, but in order to do away with abuses, such as I hope I may, at some future time, at last see reformed.

Finally, the subjects we are now discussing are the most important in my treatise. So before I proceed, I urge the reader as strongly as possible to read these two chapters with special attention. I also ask the reader to take the time to think them through carefully. The reader should assume that I have written not to introduce new ideas, but to put an end to abuses. I hope I may one day finally see these abuses corrected.