OF THE CEREMONIAL LAW[8]
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.
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 Chapter IV), 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., verse 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.
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
honors, 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 no wise 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.
None of the prophets puts the point more clearly than Isaiah. After
condemning hypocrisy, he commends liberty and charity towards oneself
and one's neighbors, 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.
... 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.
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 labor. 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 plow, 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.
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 endeavoring 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.
From these considerations it follows, firstly, that authority should
either be vested in the hands of the whole state in common, so that
every one 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 every one will do
his 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.
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., verse 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 valor 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 any one may see for
himself, especially if he remarks the number of circumstances necessary
in order to procure the conviction of 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 plow, 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 doorposts, on their hands, and between
their eyes to admonish them to perpetual obedience.
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.
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.
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 practice 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:
If any one 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.
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 any one 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 endeavor 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.
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 honorably, 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.
It is not, 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 shows 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 nations, 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 lead
thereto by reason, is not counted as a dweller among the pious, nor
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 every one
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.[9]
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.
FOOTNOTES:
[8] From the _Tr. Th.-P._, ch. v, same title.
[9] The Jews were not, of course, alone in holding this point of view.
Dante consigned the ancient philosophers--including Aristotle--and even
Vergil to Limbo, agreeing thus in doctrine with Maimonides and R.
Joseph, the son of Shem Job.--ED.