Theologico-Political Treatise 1862/Chapter 14
OF FAITH, THE GROUNDS OF FAITH, AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY.
To have a right conception of the nature of faith, it is especially necessary to know that Scripture was adapted to the capacity, not of the prophets only, but of the thoughtless and inconstant Jewish people, no one of whom with the slightest attention could misunderstand it. Whoever accepts indiscriminately as the universal and absolute doctrine of God all that is comprised in the Scriptures, however, does not exactly know what is adapted to common apprehension; neither can he escape confounding vulgar opinion with divine doctrine, or producing the comments and conceits of man for sacred commands, and abusing the authority of Scripture. Who does not see this as the grand cause why sectarians urge so many conflicting opinions as articles of faith, which they never fail to confirm by texts of Scripture? Whence indeed it has passed into a proverb in the Low Countries, "that there is never a heretic but he quotes Scripture for his views: geen ketter sonder letter." For the sacred books of the Jews were not written by one hand, nor even in the same age; but by several men of diverse genius and in different centuries; between the first and last of whom almost two thousand, and perchance many more, years intervened. We would not however accuse those sectaries of impiety because they accommodate Scripture to their views, inasmuch as Scripture itself in former times was accommodated to the common apprehension; every one therefore may be held free to adapt it' to his opinions [provided he change nothing of its spirit], if by doing so he sees that he can give a more entire consent, and yield a more full obedience, to all that regards God's justice and mercy. We, however, charge those with violating the great law of charity who refuse to concede the same liberty to others which they arrogate to themselves, who condemn and persecute as enemies to God all, though leading most peaceable and virtuous lives, who do not think as they do themselves, and, on the contrary, exalt those as the elect of God who are of their opinion, though they be [often of doubtful lives and] always of weak understanding. Nothing, as I believe, can be more wicked than such conduct, nothing conceived more detrimental to the general weal.
With a view to determine the limits within which each member of the community may be held at liberty to think as he chooses in matters of faith, and, though thinking differently from others, may still be reckoned among the number of the faithful, I shall now proceed to inquire concerning faith, and essay to determine the grounds on which it rests. This will be the business of the present chapter, and I shall at the same time be careful to distinguish between faith and philosophy, which indeed is the main purpose of my whole work. To proceed with order, then, let us recur to the grand intent of the Scriptures at large, which will give us a true standard of faith. Now we have seen that the purpose of Scripture was solely to teach obedience. This I hold to be undeniable. For who does not see that either Testament is nothing from beginning to end but a doctrine and discipline of obedience? and that all the Scripture teaching has no other end but to induce mankind to obey of their own free will? Moses did not attempt to convince the Israelites by reasoning, he bound them by covenants, by oaths, by benefits conferred; and then lie constrained the people to respect the laws by threatening pains and penalties for their infraction, whilst he held out the prospect of reward for their faithful observance. All such means are plainly not means of knowledge or instruction, but only of obedience. The Gospel doctrine, again, makes mention of nothing but simple faith, viz. to believe in God, and to worship him in sincerity and truth; in other words, to obey and to serve him. I do not think it necessary here to heap together texts from Scripture to demonstrate so plain a proposition. As to what every one is to do in order that he may obey God, this is most clearly set forth in many parts of Scripture; and indeed it is comprised in very brief terms, he is to love God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself. In this is comprehended the whole of the law; and it is unquestionable that he who loves God and his neighbour is obedient indeed, and blessed according to the law, whilst he who neglects this divine precept is rebellious and in sin. Lastly, it is admitted by all that Scripture was written and published for the behoof, not of the learned alone, but of all kinds and degrees of men; not for this age or for that, but for all times, whence it follows most assuredly that we are bound by the Scriptures to believe nothing more than is necessary to carry out the divine command of Godly and Neighbourly love. This command, therefore, is the sole rule and measure of a catholic faith; by this alone are the dogmas which all must embrace to be determined.
But this being so obvious, and all else resting on, or flowing legitimately from, so plain a principle, it may well be asked how it has happened that so many dissensions have arisen in the Church? and whether there may not be other causes for these besides those which have been mentioned in the beginning of Chapter VII.? These same causes, in fact, oblige me in this place to discuss the mode and principle of determining the dogmas of a catholic faith on the foundation assumed; for unless I did so, and established the matter in conformity with certain rules, I should deservedly be held to have advanced my subject but little, inasmuch as every one, under pretext of something needful to obedience, might then assert the liberty of introducing what he pleased, especially when there was any question concerning the divine attributes. That I may present the whole subject in order, I shall therefore begin with a definition of faith. Now faith, on the grounds assigned, is nothing but this, — To entertain such thoughts of God as, if wanting, obedience to him is withheld; and, obedience given, adequate thoughts of God are implied.[1] This definition follows so plainly from what has been already demonstrated, that it seems to require no explanation. Nevertheless, I shall enlarge upon a few particulars which follow from it. 1. Faith of itself is not salutary, it is only so in respect of the obedience it implies; or, as James says (Epist. Gen. ii. 17), "faith being alone, if it hath not works is dead." It follows that he who is truly obedient necessarily has a true and saving faith; for obedience conceded, faith, as we have said, is necessarily conceded also. This the apostle just quoted goes on to declare (Ib. 18), where he says, "Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works." John also writes (1st Epist. iv. 7, 8), "Every one that loveth (God and his neighbour) is born of God, and knoweth God; he that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love." From which it follows again that we can adjudge no one faithful or unfaithful except by his works. That is to say, if his works be good, although he differs in the articles of his creed from other believers, he is to be accounted faithful; as, on the contrary, if his deeds be evil, though he may assent to the words of the truly pious, still is he an infidel. For obedience given, faith is necessarily given, and faith without works is dead, as John also expressly teaches (Ib.13), where he says, "Hereby know we that we dwell in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his spirit," by spirit, here, charity or love being understood; for he had just said that God was love; and plainly concludes from his adopted principles that he who has the spirit of God truly within him has also charity. John, indeed, as he says that no man hath seen God, concludes that no man knows or conceives God save through the feeling of love towards his neighbour, that no one can appreciate any other attribute of God but this of love, in so far as man is capable of the sentiment. These views, though not peremptorily or dogmatically announced, nevertheless exhibit the ideas of this apostle with sufficient clearness. But we learn more of them when we go back to his 2nd chapter (3, 4), where we find these words, "And hereby do we 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." From these texts, yet again, it follows that they are Antichrists indeed who persecute honest men, men who love justice and charity, because they differ from them in speculative opinions, and hold not the same articles of a dogmatic creed with themselves. They who love justice and mercy thereby show themselves true believers, as we know from Scripture, and he who persecutes the true believer is Antichrist. It follows, in conclusion, that to faith, absolutely true are less indispensable than pious dogmas, that is to say, dogmas or precepts that move the mind and heart to obedience. And although among these there may be many which have not a shadow of truth, provided that he who accepts them is unconscious of this, he does not rebel against them, as he would necessarily do were he better informed; for how were it possible that one who studies justice and mercy should go on adoring God as a conjuror, were he aware that such a practice was absurd in connection with reasonable ideas of the divine nature? Men, however, may err through simplicity of mind; and Scripture, as we have seen, condemns not ignorance but disobedience only — indeed, this follows from the mere definition we have given of faith, all the elements of which must be sought in the broad foundation we have adopted, and in the whole purpose of the Scriptures, unless we would mix up our own imaginations with the sacred teachings. Now these do not require dogmas that are absolutely true, but such only as are needful to obedience and to strengthen the mind in neighbourly love, in which sense alone can any man be said to be in God, and God in him, as the Apostle John has it.
Since, therefore, the faith of every man is to be held good and profitable, or the contrary, as it conduces to obedience or to disobedience, and not as it is in itself either true or false, and no one questions the great diversities that occur in the general dispositions of men, — that all cannot by their nature alike agree in all things; that opinions affect men in different ways, what moves one to piety and devotion moving another to laughter and contempt, — it follows that into the constitution of a catholic or universal faith no dogma must enter which can be the subject of controversy among reasonable and just men. As in the nature of things, then, that dogma which to one is pious and profitable is to another impious and profitless, therefore are all dogmas to be judged by their effects, by the works they produce, by the lives and conversation to which they lead.[2]
To the universal faith, therefore, belong those dogmas alone which obedience to God absolutely demands, and which, neglected, obedience is absolutely impossible. Of all other articles of faith, every one as he best knows himself, and as he finds these calculated to confirm him or otherwise in godly and neighbourly love, may be allowed to think as be pleases. Were such a course followed, there were no room left, me thinks, for controversy within the bosom of the Church. Nor shall I now shrink from specifying the heads of An Universal Faith, which are also the fundamental dogmas of Scripture. They are these: There is a Supreme Being, who delights in Justice and Mercy, whom all who would be saved are bound to obey, and whose worship consists in the practice of justice and charity towards our neighbour. All else that enters into the religious conception is readily deduced from these grand principles. In a more extended shape, the Elements of the Universal Faith may be presented thus: —
1. God, the Supreme Being, the just, the merciful, exists, and is the example of the true life. He who knows not God, or believes not that God exists, cannot obey him, nor know him as his judge.
2. God is one. No one doubts but this belief is absolutely necessary to the highest devotion, admiration, and love of God; for devotion, reverence, and love arise from the idea of supreme excellence in one over all.
3. God is omnipresent, and all things lie open before him. "Were aught believed to be hidden from God, or he were held not to see all, doubts might arise of the impartiality of his justice, which governs all, or his justice might even be denied.
4. God has sole dominion and right in all things. Uninfluenced by aught beyond himself, he acts and wills of his own sovereign pleasure and peculiar grace; for all are bound to obey him, he to obey none.
5. The worship of God consists, and obedience to him is shown, in justice and charity alone, in other words, in the love of our neighbour.
6. All who obey and worship God in this way are saved; whilst they who live under the empire of sensuality are lost. If this be not firmly believed by men, there is no reason why they should prefer obedience to God to indulgence in sensual pleasures.
7. Lastly, God forgives those who repent of their transgressions. There is no man who has not sinned; were not God clement and forgiving, therefore, all might despair of their salvation; nor were there else any sense in believing that God is merciful. He, however, who believes that God in the plenitude of his grace and mercy forgives erring man, and who is moved thereby to greater love and reverence towards the Supreme, he indeed knows Christ according to the spirit, and Christ is in him.
Now no one can deny that all these things are indispensably necessary to be known, in order that men may without exception obey God, in conformity with the prescription of the law already explained; for were anything taken from, them, obedience were also taken away. As to what God is, — God the divine exemplar of the true life to man — whether he be spirit, fire, light, mind, &c., has nothing to do with faith, nothing with the reason why and way in which God is the pattern of the true life to man, nothing with our conception of him as just and merciful, nothing with the question as to how all things are and act by him, and we consequently have understanding through him, and through him know what things are truly just and good. On such points every one is at full liberty to think for himself. Again, it is of no moment, as regards faith, whether God is believed to be Omnipresent according to his essence or according to his power, whether he governs all things of his free will or by natural necessity, whether he prescribes laws in the manner of a sovereign prince, or decrees them as eternal truths; whether man yields obedience to God of free will, or by the necessity of a divine command; lastly, whether the reward of the good and the punishment of the bad are natural or supernatural in kind. It matters not as respects faith, I Say, how these and other such questions are understood and answered; provided always that no conclusion be come to which gives a greater licence to sin, or lessens the sense of obedience due. to God. Wherefore every one must be held at liberty to accommodate such dogmas to his natural capacity, and to interpret them unhesitatingly in such wise as to him seems good, but ever so as that he can embrace them willingly, and obey God with his whole heart and understanding. For as we have already seen that in former times the principles of faith were revealed and written in harmony with the capacities and opinions of prophets and people, so now is every; one held bound to accommodate his faith with his opinions, in order that he may cleave to it without mental repugnance, without hesitation or reserve; for we have shown that faith required, not so much absolute truth, as piety or submissiveness, and that it is only good and salutary by reason of the obedience it secures; consequently, that no one is really in the ranks of the faithful, save and except he be found among the obedient. It is not the man, therefore, who shows the best reasons for his faith who necessarily has the best faith, but he who shows the noblest works of justice and charity. And here I leave it to the decision of every one to say how salutary is such a doctrine, how necessary to the common weal, that men may live in peace and unity together, and that the causes of crime and disorder may be taken away.
But before proceeding further, I have to take up the objections that were incidentally alluded to in Chapter I., and of which the consideration was deferred, when speaking of the intercourse of God with the Israelites on Mount Sinai. Now although the voice which the Israelites heard could give these men no philosophical or mathematical assurance of the existence of God, it was sufficient to excite them to reverence God as they had already conceived him, and to induce them to obey his commandments; which indeed was the end and aim of the manifestation. For God willed not to teach the Israelites the absolute attributes of his essence (he revealed none of these on the occasion), but to soften the hardness of their hearts and lead them to obedience. He therefore assailed them not with reasons, but with the din of a tempest, and spoke to them in thunder and lightning (vide Exodus xx. 20).
It now only remains for me to show that between faith and science, or between theology and philosophy, there is no affinity and nothing in common. This, I think, no one will deny who considers for a moment the scope and foundations of these two departments of human knowledge, which indeed differ toto cælo; the scope of philosophy being nothing but truth, that of faith again, as we have abundantly shown, nothing but piety and obedience. And then, the foundations of philosophy are common ideas, and must be sought for in nature alone. Of faith, however, the foundations are laid in history, in language, and must be sought in Scripture and revelation only, as has been already shown in Chapter VII. Faith therefore accords to every one the fullest liberty of philosophizing, and of coming to what conclusions he pleases about the nature of things and ideas, without any charge of sin; accounting him only as heretical and schismatic who teaches views that lead to hatred, anger, strife, and disobedience; and, on the other hand, regarding him only as among the number of the faithful who, according to the measure of his powers and purposes, persuades to and practises justice and charity.
To conclude, as the subject with which I have just been engaged is the main part of all I proposed to myself in this treatise, I am anxious before proceeding further to entreat the reader most earnestly to read over the two last chapters again, and again and again to weigh and ponder their contents. I trust he will then be convinced that I have not written with any purpose of producing novelties, but with a wish to correct imperfections, and to amend erroneous views, in which I venture further to hope he will allow I have sometimes been successful.
_________________________
One of the remarkable differences between the Old and the New Testament dispensations is the different emphasis that is laid in each on the principle of Faith or Belief. In the Old Testament the words belief and believe occur but very rarely, and are scarcely used to mark a principle. — Belief indeed is scarcely once enjoined as a duty in its pages. In the New Testament, on the contrary, we have belief, believe, believing, among the words of most frequent occurrence.
Belief and unbelief, however, are wholly general and relative terms, and the mental acts they indicate have neither merit nor demerit in themselves — there may be as much demerit in belief as merit in unbelief, and vice versa. In the modern world of science especially, we know or we do not know as regards things positive, we believe or disbelieve in reference to things doubtful. — Ed.
Notes[edit]
- ↑ Nempe nihil aliud sit (fides) quam a Deo talia sentire quibus ignoratis tollitur erga Deum obedientia, et hac obedientia posita, necessario ponuntur. The reader may possibly make a translation of this definition which he likes better than the one given above. For our own part, and without circumlocution, we should define Faith to be: such conceptions of the power and wisdom of God as insure obedience to his will declared in his eternal laws. — Ed.
- ↑ To find a standard of moral and religious truth has long been a desideratum. Spurzheim, the most philosophical of the phrenologists, proposed the following, — "The absolutely true in morals and religion is that which is in harmony with all the faculties proper to man, the faculties he has in common with the lower animals being in subjection." This we apprehend is unimpeachable. Vide Essai philosophique sur la nature morale et intellectuelle de l'homme, par G. Spurzheim. Paris, 1845. An admirable work. — Ed.