The Philosophy of Spinoza Part 5

As to the mult.i.tude of our own time [we shall show] that whatsoever is necessary to salvation, though its reasons may be unknown, can easily be understood in any language, because it is thoroughly ordinary and usual; it is in such understanding as this that the ma.s.ses acquiesce, not in the testimony of commentators; with regard to other questions, the ignorant and the learned fare alike.

But let us return to the opinion of Maimonides, and examine it more closely. In the first place, he supposes that the prophets were in entire agreement one with another, and that they were consummate philosophers and theologians; for he would have them to have based their conclusions on the absolute truth. Further, he supposes that the sense of Scripture cannot be made plain from Scripture itself, for the truth of things is not made plain therein (in that it does not prove anything, nor teach the matters of which it speaks through their definitions and first causes), therefore, according to Maimonides, the true sense of Scripture cannot be made plain from itself, and must not be there sought.

The falsity of such a doctrine is shown in this very chapter, for we have shown both by reason and examples that the meaning of Scripture is only made plain through Scripture itself, and even in questions deducible from ordinary knowledge should be looked for from no other source.

Lastly, such a theory supposes that we may explain the words of Scripture according to our preconceived opinions, twisting them about, and reversing or completely changing the literal sense, however plain it may be. Such license is utterly opposed to the teaching of this and the [succeeding] chapters, and moreover, will be evident to every one as rash and excessive.

But if we grant all this license, what can it effect after all?

Absolutely nothing. Those things which cannot be demonstrated, and which make up the greater part of Scripture, cannot be examined by reason, and cannot therefore be explained or interpreted by this rule; whereas, on the contrary, by following our own method, we can explain many questions of this nature, and discuss them on a sure basis, as we have already shown, by reason and example. Those matters which are by their nature comprehensible we can easily explain, as has been pointed out, simply by means of the context.

Therefore, the method of Maimonides is clearly useless: to which we may add, that it does away with all the certainty which the ma.s.ses acquire by candid reading, or which is gained by any other persons in any other way. In conclusion, then, we dismiss Maimonides' theory as harmful, useless, and absurd.

As to the tradition of the Pharisees, we have already shown[3] that it is not consistent, while the authority of the popes of Rome stands in need of more credible evidence; the latter, indeed, I reject simply on this ground, for if the popes could point out to us the meaning of Scripture as surely as did the high priests of the Jews, I should not be deterred by the fact that there have been heretic and impious Roman pontiffs; for among the Hebrew high-priests of old there were also heretics and impious men who gained the high-priesthood by improper means, but who, nevertheless, had Scriptural sanction for their supreme power of interpreting the law. (See Deut. xvii. 11, 12, and x.x.xviii. 10, also Malachi ii. 8).

However, as the popes can show no such sanction, their authority remains open to very grave doubt, nor should any one be deceived by the example of the Jewish high-priests and think that the Catholic religion also stands in need of a pontiff; he should bear in mind that the laws of Moses being also the ordinary laws of the country, necessarily required some public authority to insure their observance; for, if everyone were free to interpret the laws of his country as he pleased, no state could stand, but would for that very reason be dissolved at once, and public rights would become private rights.

With religion the case is widely different. Inasmuch as it consists not so much in outward actions as in simplicity and truth of character, it stands outside the sphere of law and public authority. Simplicity and truth of character are not produced by the constraint of laws, nor by the authority of the state, no one the whole world over can be forced or legislated into a state of blessedness; the means required for such a consummation are faithful and brotherly admonition, sound education, and above all, free use of the individual judgment.

Therefore, as the supreme right of free thinking, even on religion, is in every man's power, and as it is inconceivable that such power could be alienated, it is also in every man's power to wield the supreme right and authority of free judgment in this behalf, and to explain and interpret religion for himself. The only reason for vesting the supreme authority in the interpretation of law, and judgment on public affairs in the hands of the magistrates, is that it concerns questions of public right. Similarly the supreme authority in explaining religion, and in pa.s.sing judgment thereon, is lodged with the individual because it concerns questions of individual right. So far, then, from the authority of the Hebrew high-priests telling in confirmation of the authority of the Roman pontiffs to interpret religion, it would rather tend to establish individual freedom of judgment. Thus in this way, also, we have shown that our method of interpreting Scripture is the best. For as the highest power of Scriptural interpretation belongs to every man, the rule for such interpretation should be nothing but the natural light of reason which is common to all--not any supernatural light nor any external authority; moreover, such a rule ought not to be so difficult that it can only be applied by very skillful philosophers, but should be adapted to the natural and ordinary faculties and capacity of mankind.

And such I have shown our method to be, for such difficulties as it has arise from men's carelessness, and are no part of its nature.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] From the _Tr. Th.-P._, ch. vii, same t.i.tle.

[3] The detailed discussion of this point has been omitted.--ED.

CHAPTER III

OF PROPHETS AND PROPHECY[4]

I

Prophecy, or revelation, is sure knowledge revealed by G.o.d to man. A prophet is one who interprets the revelations of G.o.d to those who are unable to attain to sure knowledge of the matters revealed, and therefore can only apprehend them by simple faith.

The Hebrew word for prophet is "_nabi_," _i.e._, speaker or interpreter, but in Scripture its meaning is restricted to interpreter of G.o.d, as we may learn from Exodus vii. 1, where G.o.d says to Moses, "See, I have made thee a G.o.d to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet;"

implying that, since in interpreting Moses' words to Pharaoh, Aaron acted the part of a prophet, Moses would be to Pharaoh as a G.o.d, or in the att.i.tude of a G.o.d....

Now it is evident, from the definition above given, that prophecy really includes ordinary knowledge; for the knowledge which we acquire by our natural faculties depends on our knowledge of G.o.d and His eternal laws; but ordinary knowledge is common to all men as men, and rests on foundations which all share, whereas the mult.i.tude always strains after rarities and exceptions, and thinks little of the gifts of nature; so that, when prophecy is talked of, ordinary knowledge is not supposed to be included. Nevertheless it has as much right as any other to be called Divine, for G.o.d's nature, in so far as we share therein, and G.o.d's laws, dictate it to us; nor does it suffer from that to which we give the preeminence, except in so far as the latter transcends its limits and cannot be accounted for by natural laws taken in themselves. In respect to the certainty it involves, and the source from which it is derived, _i.e._, G.o.d, ordinary knowledge is no whit inferior to prophetic, unless indeed we believe, or rather dream, that the prophets had human bodies but superhuman minds, and therefore that their sensations and consciousness were entirely different from our own.

But, although ordinary knowledge is Divine, its professors cannot be called prophets, for they teach what the rest of mankind could perceive and apprehend, not merely by simple faith, but as surely and honorably as themselves.

Seeing then that our mind subjectively contains in itself and partakes of the nature of G.o.d, and solely from this cause is enabled to form notions explaining natural phenomena and inculcating morality, it follows that we may rightly a.s.sert the nature of the human mind (in so far as it is thus conceived) to be a primary cause of Divine revelation.

All that we clearly and distinctly understand is dictated to us, as I have just pointed out, by the idea and nature of G.o.d; not indeed through words, but in a way far more excellent and agreeing perfectly with the nature of the mind, as all who have enjoyed intellectual certainty will doubtless attest. Here, however, my chief purpose is to speak of matters having reference to Scripture, so these few words on the light of reason will suffice.

I will now pa.s.s on to, and treat more fully, the other ways and means by which G.o.d makes revelations to mankind, both of that which transcends ordinary knowledge and of that within its scope; for there is no reason why G.o.d should not employ other means to communicate what we know already by the power of reason.

Our conclusions on the subject must be drawn solely from Scripture; for what can we affirm about matters transcending our knowledge except what is told us by the words or writings of prophets? And since there are, so far as I know, no prophets now alive, we have no alternative but to read the books of prophets departed, taking care the while not to reason from metaphor or to ascribe anything to our authors which they do not themselves distinctly state. I must further premise that the Jews never make any mention or account of secondary, or particular causes, but in a spirit of religion, piety, and what is commonly called G.o.dliness, refer all things directly to the Deity. For instance, if they make money by a transaction, they say G.o.d gave it to them; if they desire anything, they say G.o.d has disposed their hearts towards it; if they think anything, they say G.o.d told them. Hence we must not suppose that everything is prophecy or revelation which is described in Scripture as told by G.o.d to any one, but only such things as are expressly announced as prophecy or revelation, or are plainly pointed to as such by the context.

A perusal of the sacred books will show us that all G.o.d's revelations to the prophets were made through words or appearances, or a combination of the two. These words and appearances were of two kinds; (1) _real_ when external to the mind of the prophet who heard or saw them, (2) _imaginary_ when the imagination of the prophet was in a state which led him distinctly to suppose that he heard or saw them.

With a real voice G.o.d revealed to Moses the laws which He wished to be transmitted to the Hebrews, as we may see from Exodus xxv. 22, where G.o.d says, "And there I will meet with thee and I will commune with thee from the mercy seat which is between the Cherubim." Some sort of real voice must necessarily have been employed, for Moses found G.o.d ready to commune with him at any time. This is the only instance of a real voice.

... Some of the Jews believe that the actual words of the Decalogue were not spoken by G.o.d, but that the Israelites heard a noise only, without any distinct words, and during its continuance apprehend the Ten Commandments by pure intuition; to this opinion I myself once inclined, seeing that the words of the Decalogue in Exodus are different from the words of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy, for the discrepancy seemed to imply (since G.o.d only spoke once) that the Ten Commandments were not intended to convey the actual words of the Lord, but only His meaning.

However, unless we would do violence to Scripture, we must certainly admit that the Israelites heard a real voice, for Scripture expressly says (Deut. v. 4), "G.o.d spake with you face to face," _i.e._, as two men ordinarily interchange ideas through the instrumentality of their two bodies; and therefore it seems more consonant with Holy Writ to suppose that G.o.d really did create a voice of some kind with which the Decalogue was revealed....

Yet not even thus is all difficulty removed, for it seems scarcely reasonable to affirm that a created thing, depending on G.o.d in the same manner as other created things, would be able to express or explain the nature of G.o.d either verbally or really by means of its individual organism: for instance, by declaring in the first person, "I am the Lord your G.o.d."

Certainly when any one says his mouth, "I understand," we do not attribute the understanding to the mouth, but to the mind of the speaker; yet this is because the mouth is the natural organ of a man speaking, and the hearer, knowing what understanding is, easily comprehends, by a comparison with himself, that the speaker's mind is meant; but if we knew nothing of G.o.d beyond the mere name and wished to commune with Him, and be a.s.sured of His existence, I fail to see how our wish would be satisfied by the declaration of a created thing (depending on G.o.d neither more nor less than ourselves), "I am the Lord." If G.o.d contorted the lips of Moses, or, I will not say Moses, but some beast, till they p.r.o.nounced the words, "I am the Lord," should we apprehend the Lord's existence therefrom?

Scripture seems clearly to point to the belief that G.o.d spoke Himself, having descended from heaven to Mount Sinai for the purpose--and not only that the Israelites heard Him speaking, but that their chief men beheld Him (Ex. xxiv.). Further, the laws of Moses which might neither be added to nor curtailed, and which was set up as a national standard of right, nowhere prescribed the belief that G.o.d is without body, or even without form or figure, but only ordained that the Jews should believe in His existence and wors.h.i.+p Him alone: it forbade them to invent or fas.h.i.+on any likeness of the Deity, but this was to insure purity of service; because, never having seen G.o.d, they could not by means of images recall the likeness of G.o.d, but only the likeness of some created thing which might thus gradually take the place of G.o.d as the object of their adoration. Nevertheless, the Bible clearly implies that G.o.d has a form, and that Moses when he heard G.o.d speaking was permitted to behold it, or at least its hinder parts.

Doubtless some mystery lurks in this question which we will discuss more fully below. For the present I will call attention to the pa.s.sages in Scripture indicating the means by which G.o.d has revealed His laws to man.

Revelation may be through figures only (as in 1 Chron. xxii.), where G.o.d displays his anger to David by means of an angel bearing a sword, and also in the story of Balaam.

Maimonides and others do indeed maintain that these and every other instance of angelic apparitions (_e.g._, to Manoah and to Abraham offering up Isaac) occurred during sleep, for that no one with his eyes open ever could see an angel, but this is mere nonsense. The sole object of such commentators seemed to be to extort from Scripture confirmations of Aristotelian quibbles and their own inventions, a proceeding which I regard as the acme of absurdity.

In figures, not real but existing only in the prophet's imagination, G.o.d revealed to Joseph his future lords.h.i.+p, and in words and figures He revealed to Joshua that He would fight for the Hebrews, causing to appear an angel, as it were the captain of the Lord's host, bearing a sword, and by this means communicating verbally. The forsaking of Israel by Providence was portrayed to Isaiah by a vision of the Lord, the thrice Holy, sitting on a very lofty throne, and the Hebrews, stained with the mire of their sins, sunk, as it were, in uncleanness, and thus as far as possible distant from G.o.d. The wretchedness of the people at the time was thus revealed, while future calamities were foretold in words. I could cite from Holy Writ many similar examples, but I think they are sufficiently well known already....

We may be able quite to comprehend that G.o.d can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of G.o.d leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that G.o.d manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of G.o.d, and it may be said that the wisdom of G.o.d (_i.e._, wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation. I must at this juncture declare that those doctrines which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them. What I have just stated I gather from Scripture, where I never read that G.o.d appeared to Christ, or spoke to Christ, but that G.o.d was revealed to the Apostles through Christ; that Christ was the Way of Life, and that the old law was given through an angel, and not immediately by G.o.d; whence it follows that if Moses spoke with G.o.d face to face as a man speaks with his friend (_i.e._, by means of their two bodies) Christ communed with G.o.d mind to mind.[5]

Thus we may conclude that no one except Christ received the revelations of G.o.d without the aid of imagination, whether in words or vision.

Therefore the power of prophecy implies not a peculiarly perfect mind, but a peculiarly vivid imagination....

If the Jews were at a loss to understand any phenomenon, or were ignorant of its cause, they referred it to G.o.d. Thus a storm was termed the chiding of G.o.d, thunder and lightning the arrows of G.o.d, for it was thought that G.o.d kept the winds confined in caves, His treasuries; thus differing merely in name from the Greek wind-G.o.d Eolus. In like manner miracles were called works of G.o.d, as being especially marvelous; though in reality, of course, all natural events are the works of G.o.d, and take place solely by His power. The Psalmist calls the miracles in Egypt the works of G.o.d, because the Hebrews found in them a way of safety which they had not looked for, and therefore especially marveled at.

As, then, unusual natural phenomena are called works of G.o.d, and trees of unusual size are called trees of G.o.d, we cannot wonder that very strong and tall men, though impious robbers and wh.o.r.emongers, are in Genesis called sons of G.o.d.

This reference of things wonderful to G.o.d was not peculiar to the Jews.

Pharaoh, on hearing the interpretation of his dream, exclaimed that the mind of the G.o.ds was in Joseph. Nebuchadnezzar told Daniel that he possessed the mind of the holy G.o.ds; so also in Latin anything well made is often said to be wrought with Divine hands, which is equivalent to the Hebrew phrase, wrought with the hand of G.o.d.

... We find that the Scriptural phrases, "The Spirit of the Lord was upon a prophet," "The Lord breathed His Spirit into men," "Men were filled with the Spirit of G.o.d, with the Holy Spirit," etc., are quite clear to us, and mean that the prophets were endowed with a peculiar and extraordinary power, and devoted themselves to piety with especial constancy; that thus they perceived the mind or the thought of G.o.d, for we have shown [elsewhere] that G.o.d's spirit signifies in Hebrew G.o.d's mind or thought, and that the law which shows His mind and thought is called His Spirit; hence that the imagination of the prophets, inasmuch as through it were revealed the decrees of G.o.d, may equally be called the mind of G.o.d, and the prophets be said to have possessed the mind of G.o.d. On our minds also the mind of G.o.d and His eternal thoughts are impressed; but this being the same for all men is less taken into account, especially by the Hebrews, who claimed a preeminence, and despised other men and other men's knowledge.

[Also] the prophets were said to possess the Spirit of G.o.d because men knew not the cause of prophetic knowledge, and in their wonder referred it with other marvels directly to the Deity, styling it Divine knowledge.

We need no longer scruple to affirm that the prophets only perceived G.o.d's revelation by the aid of imagination, that is, by words and figures either real or imaginary. We find no other means mentioned in Scripture, and therefore must not invent any. As to the particular law of Nature by which the communications took place, I confess my ignorance. I might, indeed, say as others do, that they took place by the power of G.o.d; but this would be mere trifling, and no better than explaining some unique specimen by a transcendental term. Everything takes place by the power of G.o.d. Nature herself is the power of G.o.d under another name, and our ignorance of the power of G.o.d is co-extensive with our ignorance of Nature. It is absolutely folly, therefore, to ascribe an event to the power of G.o.d when we know not its natural cause, which is the power of G.o.d.

However, we are not now inquiring into the causes of prophetic knowledge. We are only attempting, as I have said, to examine the Scriptural doc.u.ments, and to draw our conclusions from them as from ultimate natural facts; the causes of the doc.u.ments do not concern us.

As the prophets perceived the revelations of G.o.d by the aid of imagination, they could indisputably perceive much that is beyond the boundary of the intellect, for many more ideas can be constructed from words and figures than from the principles and notions on which the whole fabric of reasoned knowledge is reared.

Thus we have a clue to the fact that the prophets perceived nearly everything in parables and allegories, and clothed spiritual truths in bodily forms, for such is the usual method of imagination. We need no longer wonder that Scripture and the prophets speak so strangely and obscurely of G.o.d's Spirit or Mind (cf. Numbers xi. 17, 1 Kings xxii, 21, etc.), that the Lord was seen by Micah as sitting, by Daniel as an old man clothed in white, by Ezekiel as a fire, that the Holy Spirit appeared to those with Christ as a descending dove, to the apostles as fiery tongues, to Paul on his conversion as a great light. All these expressions are plainly in harmony with the current ideas of G.o.d and spirits.

Inasmuch as imagination is fleeting and inconstant, we find that the power of prophecy did not remain with a prophet for long, nor manifest itself frequently, but was very rare; manifesting itself only in a few men, and in them not often.