The Correspondence of Thomas Jefferson
By Subject
MORAL PRINCIPLES / STUDY OF
To compare the morals of the Old, with those of the New Testament,
would require an attentive study of the former, a search through all
its books for its precepts, and through all its history for its
practices, and the principles they prove. As commentaries, too, on
these, the philosophy of the Hebrews must be inquired into, their
Mishna, their Gemara, Cabbala, Jezirah, Sohar, Cosri, and their
Talmud, must be examined and understood, in order to do them full
justice. Brucker, it would seem, has gone deeply into these
repositories of their ethics, and Enfield his epitomizer, concludes in
these words: "Ethics were so little understood among the Jews,
that in their whole compilation called the Talmud, there is only one
treatise on moral subjects. Their books of morals chiefly consisted in
a minute enumeration of duties. From the law of Moses were deduced six
hundred and thirteen precepts, which were divided into two classes,
affirmative and negative, two hundred and forty-eight in the former,
and three hundred and sixty-five in the latter. It may serve to give
the reader some idea of the low state of moral philosophy among the
Jews in the middle age, to add that of the two hundred and forty-eight
affirmative precepts, only three were considered as obligatory upon
women, and that in order to obtain salvation, it was judged sufficient
to fulfill any one single law in the hour of death; the observance of
the rest being deemed necessary, only to increase the felicity of the
future life. What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must
have prevailed, before such corrupt maxims could have obtained credit
It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of
moral doctrine." . . . It was the reformation of this "wretched
depravity" of morals which Jesus undertook. In extracting the
pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the
artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who
have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and
power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists,
the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and
Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurgos,
aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of
or,
shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the
simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of
Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by
forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by
giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing
unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves.
There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of
morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this
operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed
book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as
easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an
octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such
as were professed and acted on by the
unlettered Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Christians
of the first century. Their Platonizing successors, indeed, in after
times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they had
incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to
disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from
the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers
contemporary with them. They excommunicated their followers as
heretics, branding them with the opprobrious name of Ebionites or
Beggars.
For a comparison of the Grecian philosophy with that of Jesus,
materials might be largely drawn from the same source. Enfield gives a
history and detailed account of the opinions and principles of the
different sects. These relate to the Gods, their natures, grades,
places and powers; the demi-Gods and daemons, and their agency with
man; the universe, its structure, extent and duration; the origin of
things from the elements of fire, water, air and earth; the human
soul, its essence and derivation; the summum bonum and finis
bonorum; with a thousand idle dreams and fancies on these and
other subjects, the knowledge of which is withheld from man; leaving
but a short chapter for his moral duties, and the principal section of
that given to what he owes himself, to precepts for rendering him
impassible, and unassailable by the evils of life, and for preserving
his mind in a state of constant serenity.
Such a canvas is too broad for the age of seventy, and especially of
one whose chief occupations have been in the practical business of
life. We must leave, therefore, to others, younger and more learned
than we are, to prepare this euthanasia for Platonic Christianity, and
its restoration to the primitive simplicity of its founder. I think
you give a just outline of the theism of the three religions, when you
say that the principle of the Hebrew was the fear, of the Gentile the
honor, and of the Christian the love of God.
An expression in your letter of September the 14th, that "the
human understanding is a revelation from its maker," gives the
best solution that I believe can be given of the question, "what
did Socrates mean by his Daemon?" He was too wise to believe, and
too honest to pretend, that he had real and familiar converse with a
superior and invisible being. He probably considered the suggestions
of his conscience, or reason, as revelations or inspirations from the
Supreme mind, bestowed, on important occasions, by a special
superintending Providence.
to John Adams, 13 October 1813
|