Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Theologico-Political Treatise, Benedict de Spinoza.pdf

Theologico-Political Treatise, Benedict de Spinoza.pdf

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by paulsaint68
philosophy
philosophy

More info:

Published by: paulsaint68 on Nov 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
A Theologico-Political Treatise
 By Benedict De Spinoza
Translated by R. H. M. Elwes
TABLE OF CONTENTS:PREFACE.Origin and consequences of superstition.Causes that hae !ed the author to "rite.Course of his inestigation.For "hat readers the treatise is designed. Su#$ission of author to the ru!ers of his countr%.C&APTER ' ( Of Prophec%.)efinition of prophec%.)istinction #et"een ree!ation to *oses and to the other prophets.Bet"een Christ and other recipients of ree!ation.A$#iguit% of the "ord +Spirit.+The different senses in "hich things $a% #e referred to ,od.)ifferent senses of +Spirit of ,od.+Prophets perceied ree!ation #% i$agination.C&APTER '' ( Of Prophets.A $ista-e to suppose that prophec% can gie -no"!edge of pheno$enaCertaint% of prophec% #ased on: iidness of i$agination/ A Sign/ ,oodness of the Prophet.ariation of prophec% "ith the te$pera$ent and opinions of the indiidua!.0
 
C&APTER ''' ( Of the ocation of the &e#re"s/ and "hether the ,ift of Prophec% "as  pecu!iar to the$.&appiness of &e#re"s did not consist in the inferiorit% of the ,enti!e. Nor in phi!osophic -no"!edge or irtue.But in their conduct of affairs of state and escape fro$ po!itica! dangers.Een this )istinction did not e1ist in the ti$e of A#raha$.Testi$on% fro$ the O!d Testa$ent itse!f to the share of the ,enti!es in the !a" and faour of ,od.E1p!anation of apparent discrepanc% of the Epist!e to the Ro$ans.Ans"er to the argu$ents for the eterna! e!ection of the 2e"s.C&APTER ' ( Of the )iine La".La"s either depend on natura! necessit% or on hu$an decree. The e1istence of the !atter not inconsistent "ith the for$er c!ass of !a"s.)iine !a" a -ind of !a" founded on hu$an decree:ca!!ed )iine fro$ its o#3ect.)iine !a": uniersa!4 independent of the truth of an% historica! narratie4 independent of rites and cere$onies4 its o"n re"ard.Reason does not present ,od as a !a"(gier for $en.Such a conception a proof of ignorance ( in Ada$ ( in the 'srae!ites ( in Christians.Testi$on% of the Scriptures in faour of reason and therationa! ie" of the )iine.C&APTER . ( Of the Cere$onia! La".Cere$onia! !a" of the O!d Testa$ent no part of the )iine uniersa! !a"/ #ut partia! and te$porar%. Testi$on% of the prophets the$se!es to this Testi$on% of the Ne" Testa$ent.&o" the cere$onia! !a" tended to presere the &e#re" -ingdo$.Christian rites on a si$i!ar footing.5hat part of the Scripture narraties is one #ound to #e!iee6Authors Endnotes to the Treatise.C&APTER ' ( Of *irac!es.7
 
Confused ideas of the u!gar on the su#3ect.A $irac!e in the sense of a contraention of natura! !a"s an a#surdit%.'n the sense of an eent/ "hose cause is un-no"n/!ess edif%ing than an eent #etter understood.,od8s proidence identica! "ith the course of nature.&o" Scripture $irac!es $a% #e interpreted.C&APTER '' ( Of the 'nterpretation of Scripture.Current s%ste$s of interpretation erroneous.On!% true s%ste$ to interpret it #% itse!f.Reasons "h% this s%ste$ cannot no" #e carried out in its entiret%.9et these difficu!ties do not interfere "ith our understanding the p!ainest and $ost i$portant  passages.Ria! s%ste$s e1a$ined ( that of a supernatura!facu!t% #eing necessar% ( refuted.That of *ai$onides.Refuted.Traditions of the Pharisees and the Papists re3ected.C&APTER '''. ( Of the authorship of the Pentateuch/and the other historica! #oo-s of the O!d Testa$ent.The Pentateuch not "ritten #% *oses.&is actua! "ritings distinct.Traces of !ate authorship in the other historica! #oo-s.A!! the historica! #oo-s the "or- of one $an.Pro#a#!% Era.5ho co$pi!ed first the #oo- of )euterono$%.And then a histor%/ distinguishing the #oo-s #% the na$es of their su#3ects.C&APTER ';. ( Other questions a#out these #oo-s.That these #oo-s hae not #een thorough!% reised and $ade to agree.That there are $an% dou#tfu! readings.That the e1isting $argina! notes are often such.The other e1p!anations of these notes refuted.The hiatus.<

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->