is not only despised, but by many even execrated as a source of
impiety, that human commentaries are accepted as divine records,
and that credulity is extolled as faith; as I marked the fierce
controversies of philosophers raging in Church and State, the 
source of bitter hatred and dissension, the ready instruments
of sedition and other ills innumerable, I determined to examine
the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit,
making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no
doctrines, which I do not find clearly therein set down.  
(36) With these precautions I constructed a method of Scriptural
interpretation, and thus equipped proceeded to inquire - what
is prophecy?  (37) In what sense did God reveal himself to the
prophets, and why were these particular men - chosen by him?
(P:38) Was it on account of the sublimity of their thoughts about
the Deity and nature, or was it solely on account of their piety?
(39) These questions being answered, I was easily able to conclude,
that the authority of the prophets has weight only in matters of
morality, and that their speculative doctrines affect us little.

(P:40) Next I inquired, why the Hebrews were called God's chosen
people, and discovering that it was only because God had chosen
for them a certain strip of territory, where they might live
peaceably and at ease, I learnt that the Law revealed by God to
Moses was merely the law of the individual Hebrew state, therefore
that it was binding on none but Hebrews, and not even on Hebrews
after the downfall of their nation.  (P:41) Further, in order to
ascertain, whether it could be concluded from Scripture, that
the human understanding standing is naturally corrupt, I inquired
whether the Universal Religion, the Divine Law revealed through
the Prophets and Apostles to the whole human race, differs from
that which is taught by the light of natural reason, whether
miracles can take place in violation of the laws of nature, and
if so, whether they imply the existence of God more surely and
clearly than events, which we understand plainly and distinctly
through their immediate natural causes.

(P:42) Now, as in the whole course of my investigation I found
nothing taught expressly by Scripture, which does not agree with
our understanding, or which is repugnant thereto, and as I saw
that the prophets taught nothing, which is not very simple and
easily to be grasped by all, and further, that they clothed
their leaching in the style, and confirmed it with the reasons,
which would most deeply move the mind of the masses to devotion
towards God, I became thoroughly convinced, that the Bible
leaves reason absolutely free, that it has nothing in common with
philosophy, in fact, that Revelation and Philosophy stand on
different footings. In order to set this forth categorically and
exhaust the whole question, I point out the way in which the Bible
should be interpreted, and show that all of spiritual questions
should be sought from it alone, and not from the objects of
ordinary knowledge.  (P:43) Thence I pass on to indicate the
false notions, which have from the fact that the multitude -
ever prone to superstition, and caring more for the shreds of
antiquity for eternal truths - pays homage to the Books of the
Bible, rather than to the Word of God.  (P:44) I show that the
Word of God has not been revealed as a certain number of books,
was displayed to the prophets as a simple idea of the mind,
namely, obedience to God in singleness of heart, and in the
practice of justice and charity; and I further point out, that
this doctrine is set forth in Scripture in accordance with the
opinions and understandings of those, among whom the Apostles
and Prophets preached, to the end that men might receive it
willingly, and with their whole heart.

(P:45) Having thus laid bare the bases of belief, I draw the
conclusion that Revelation has obedience for its sole object,
therefore, in purpose no less than in foundation and method,
stands entirely aloof from ordinary knowledge; each has its
separate province, neither can be called the handmaid of the other.

(P:46) Furthermore, as men's habits of mind differ, so that some
more readily embrace one form of faith, some another, for what
moves one to pray may move another only to scoff, I conclude,
in accordance with what has gone before, that everyone should
be free to choose for himself the foundations of his creed, and
that faith should be judged only by its fruits; each would then
obey God freely with his whole heart, while nothing would be
publicly honoured save justice and charity.

(P:47) Having thus drawn attention to the liberty conceded to
everyone by the revealed law of God, I pass on to another part
of my subject, and prove that this same liberty can and should
be accorded with safety to the state and the magisterial
authority - in fact, that it cannot be withheld without great
danger to peace and detriment to the community.

(P:48) In order to establish my point, I start from the natural
rights of the individual, which are co-extensive with his desires
and power, and from the fact that no one is bound to live as
another pleases, but is the guardian of his own liberty.  (49) I
show that these rights can only be transferred to those whom we
depute to defend us, who acquire with the duties of defence the
power of ordering our lives, and I thence infer that rulers
possess rights only limited by their power, that they are the
sole guardians of justice and liberty, and that their subjects
should act in all things as they dictate: nevertheless, since no
one can so utterly abdicate his own power of self-defence as to
cease to be a man, I conclude that no one can be deprived of his
natural rights absolutely, but that subjects, either by tacit
agreement, or by social contract, retain a certain number, which