The notion of the existence of God, of an invisible power which exercises its influence in everything that is going on in nature, is widespread, and common to almost the whole human race. It is found among all civilised nations and many uncivilised tribes. The existence of God may be regarded as an innate idea, which we possess from our earliest days. This is the origin of Natural Religion. Thinkers of all ages and nations have attempted to confirm this innate idea by convincing arguments. Prophets and divine poets [23]have frequently directed the attention of those whom they addressed to the marvels of nature in order to inspire them with the idea of an All-wise and All-powerful Creator.

“Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these? Who is He who bringeth them forth by number? All of them He calleth by name, by the greatness of His might, and for that He is strong in power, not one is lacking” (Isa. xl. 26). “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork” (Ps. xix. 2).

The regularity in the rising and setting of the heavenly bodies, which enables us to foretell the exact time and duration of an eclipse of the sun or the moon, is certainly a strong argument for the belief that there is a mighty and wise Creator who fixed the laws in accordance with which these luminaries move.

“Beautiful are the luminaries which our God has created. He has formed them with knowledge, reason, and understanding; He endowed them with power and strength to rule in the midst of the world. Full of splendour and beaming with light, they illumine the whole world; they rejoice when they rise, they are glad when they set, doing in reverence the will of their Master” (Sabbath Morning Service).

A similar regularity we notice when looking on the face of the earth. The various seasons of the year, each with its peculiar aspect and influence, the sequence of day and night at regular intervals, the gradual and systematic development of vegetable and animal life—all point forcibly to the fact that these [24]things do not owe their existence to chance, but to the will of an Almighty and All-wise Creator.

Again, if we consider the structure of a single plant, or of a single animal, we find that every one of the members and parts of which it is composed has its peculiar function or purpose in the economy of the whole plant or the whole animal. Let one of these component parts refuse its function or cease to fulfil its purpose and the whole is disorganised. Certainly there must be a Being who makes the different members of an organism co-operate for the development and advantage of the whole. The idea of purpose which regulates this co-operation cannot have originated in the parts nor in the whole, but in the conception of Him by whose Will these were created.

“The finger of God” is further recognised in the important events of the life of the individual as well as in the history of whole nations. We are frequently reminded of the lesson, “The heart of man deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his step” (Prov. xvi. 9). “Salvation is the Lord’s, and on Thy people it is incumbent to bless Thee” (Ps. iii. 9).

Another argument in support of the belief in the existence of God is taken from the moral consciousness which every human being possesses. This points to the existence of a higher Being, perfect in goodness, as the origin and cause of the moral consciousness in our own heart.

These and similar arguments are employed to strengthen and purify our belief in God. The question, however, arises, are these arguments alone sufficient [25]to convince us? Are they strong enough to resist the attacks of scepticism?

On examining them thoroughly we shall find them of excellent service to the believer. His belief is strengthened against many doubts by which he may be assailed; and scepticism will be kept at bay by these arguments. But of themselves and unsupported they may not always suffice to establish belief in God; and if they carry conviction with them for the moment, we are not sure whether fresh arguments of opponents might not again unsettle the mind. Another method was therefore chosen by the Almighty, by which certainty is attained, and a sure guide is given for our moral and religious life. It is Revelation. Of this we shall speak later on.

The principal forms of religion or worship that sprang from the natural belief in God are Polytheism, Pantheism, Atheism, Theism, and Deism.

1. The first form of Divine worship of which history and archæology give us information is Polytheism. The creating and ruling power of some invisible Being was noticed everywhere. Every manifestation of such influence was ascribed to its peculiar deity, which was worshipped according to the peculiar conception of the deity in the mind of the individual person, family, or nation. This is chiefly the kind of idolatry mentioned in the Bible and combated by the prophets.

A very general object of worship were the stars. Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi, in Kuzari iv. 1, in trying to explain the origin of this practice, says as follows:—“The spheres of the sun and the moon do not move in the same way. A separate cause or god was therefore [26]assumed for each, and people did not think that there was a higher force on which all these causes depended.” The ancient monuments and the treasures stored up in our museums show how great was the variety of forms which idolatry took, and to how great an extent people adhered, and still adhere, to this kind of worship. But there have been thinkers and philosophers even among the idolatrous nations who sought a unity in the construction and working of the universe, and early arrived at the idea of a First Cause as the sole source of all that exists.

2. The fact that the influence of the Divine power makes itself perceptible to the observing eye of man everywhere produced another kind of human error: Pantheism (All-God). Modern Pantheism dates from Spinoza; but long before Spinoza, when the secret forces at work in the changes noticed by us in all material objects were recognised as properties inherent in the substance of things, these forces were considered as the sole independent causes of the existing universe, and the combination of these forces, called Nature, was considered to be the First Cause, or God. A modification of this theory is contained in the philosophy of Spinoza. According to this great philosopher’s system, the universe in its entirety has the attributes of the Deity: there exists nothing but the Substance (God), its attributes, and the various ways in which these attributes become perceptible to man. Spinoza tried to defend himself from the reproach of describing God as corporeal, but he did not succeed. The attribute of extension or space which God possesses, according to Spinoza, is only conceivable [27]in relation to corporeal things. The philosophy of Spinoza is in this dilemma: either God is corporeal, or the corporeal world does not exist. Both assumptions are equally absurd. It is true, in one of his letters he complains that he has been misrepresented, as if he believed God to consist of a certain corporeal mass. But we cannot help assuming the existence of a certain corporeal mass, and if this is not God, we must distinguish in our mind God and something that is not God, contrary to the fundamental doctrine of Pantheism. Besides, there are many incongruities and improbabilities involved in this theory. It has no foundation for a moral consciousness. The wicked and the good are alike inseparable from God. They both result with necessity from the attributes of God, and they cannot be otherwise than they actually are. If we, by the consideration that injury done to us by our fellow-man was not done by that person alone, but by a series of predetermined necessary causes, may be induced to conquer hatred against the apparent cause of our injury, we may equally be induced by the same reasoning to consider the kindness and benefits of our friends not worthy of gratitude, believing that they were compelled to act in this manner, and could not act otherwise.

3. Pantheism, by teaching All in One and One in All, is opposed to the theory of man’s responsibility to a higher Being, denies the existence of God in the ordinary sense of the word, and is, in its relation to true religion, equal to atheism.

In the Bible atheism is stigmatised as the source of all evils. Thus the patriarch Abraham suspected the [28]people of Gerar, that there was “no fear of God” in the place, and was afraid “they might slay him” (Gen. xx. 11); whilst Joseph persuaded his brothers to have confidence in him by the assertion, “I fear God” (Ib. xlii. 18). The first instance of an atheist we meet in Pharaoh, king of Egypt, when he defiantly said, “I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go” (Exod. v. 2). Another form of atheism is warned against in the words of Moses: “Lest thou sayest in thine heart, My strength and the power of my hand has got for me all this wealth” (Deut. viii. 17); and “Lest they say, Our hand is high, and it is not the Lord that hath done all this” (Ib. xxxii. 27). The prophets likewise rebuke the people for want of belief in God. In the Psalms, the crimes and evil designs of oppressors are traced to godlessness. “The wicked says in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. xiv. 1). But this atheism of the Bible is not a theoretical or dogmatic one; it is not the result of thought, or of deep inquiry into the causes of things, but merely the voice of an evil inclination which tempts man to act contrary to the command of God, and assures him of immunity, under the impression that his actions are not watched by a higher authority. In post-Biblical literature we meet with the phrase, ‏לית דִּין ולית דַּיָּן‎ “There is no judgment, and there is no judge,” as the basis of atheism.

4. Although the conviction of man’s responsibility to a higher authority is the essential element in the belief in God, yet the notion of godlessness was so intimately connected with crime and wickedness, that those who rejected the authority and mastership of the [29]Deity refused to be called godless or atheists. Many philosophers retained the name “God” (theos, deus) for their “First Cause” of the universe, although it is deprived of the chief attributes of God. Thus we have as the principal religious theories resulting from philosophical investigations, Theism and Deism. Literally these two terms denote, Theory of God, or Belief in God; the one word being derived from the Greek theos, the other from the Latin deus, both meaning “God.”

There is, however, an essential difference between the two theories. Theism and Deism have this in common, that both assume a spiritual power, a divine being, as the cause and source of everything that exists. They differ in this: to Theism this power is immanent in us and the things round us; Deism considers this power as separate from the things. Revelation or prophecy is altogether denied by the Deists, whilst the Theists would accept it after their own fashion and rationalise it.

All these various systems of religion have this in common, that they attempt to remove from religion everything that cannot be comprehended by human reason. But all attempts to substitute human reason for Divine authority have failed. A limit has been set to human reason, and that cannot be overcome. In every system of religion—the natural and the rational included—there is a mystic element, which may be enveloped in a mist of phrases, but remains unexplained. Whether we call the Creator and Ruler of the universe God, Deus, or Theos, His relation to the universe, and to man in particular, cannot be [30]determined by the laws which determine the natural phenomena in the universe, created by His Will.

What is our conception of the Deity? The fundamental idea, from which all our notions concerning God are derived, and which we have in common with all other believers in God, is that He is the First Cause, the Creator of the universe. This idea expressed in the term ‏הבורא יתברך שמו‎ forms the basis of our creed. It is the Creator that is described in it. Seven of the articles begin, “I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name,” &c.

We do not use the term “First Cause,” because it is too narrow; it only expresses part of the truth, not the whole of it. By “First Cause” some understand the cause of the gradual development of the primitive matter into the innumerable variety of things contained in the universe; the development of the original chaos into system and order. It is true that the Creator is the cause of all this; but He is more than this: He is the cause of the primitive matter, and of the original chaos. For He has created the world out of nothing. The first verse of the Bible teaches us creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo): “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. i. 1); that is, the whole universe. It is true that there were men who explained the meaning of the Hebrew root ‏ברא‎ in a different manner, and desired to assign to it the meaning: cutting out, forming out of a given material. But they certainly misunderstood the spirit of the Scriptures. The eternal coexistence of God and matter would imply a dualism utterly incompatible with the teaching of the Bible. The frequently repeated declaration, “He is our God; there [31]is none besides” (‏אין עוד‎), clearly excludes every form of dualism. Those who assert that the universe could not come from nothing belong to the class of people of whom the Psalmist says, “And they returned and tempted God, and set limits to the Holy One of Israel” (Ps. lxxviii. 41).

If we cannot understand the act of the Creation, it is our own intellect that is limited; and if we were to persuade ourselves that we understand better the eternity of matter, we should deceive ourselves. We cannot conceive matter without form as existing in reality, nor can we have a clear notion of anything infinite. We are human beings, endowed by the will and wisdom of the Creator with limited physical and intellectual faculties, and in things that surpass our powers we cannot do better than follow the guidance of the Divine Word. If we do so we may be sure that we shall be on the right way to truth.

The first principle declared in our creed is this: God is not only the Creator of the heavens and the earth, with all their hosts; He is also the constant ruler of all created beings; He is ‏בורא ומנהיג‎. We therefore praise Him in our daily Morning prayer as “Doing wonders; renewing in His goodness the work of the creation every day.” When we observe the ordinary phenomena in nature, occurring in accordance with certain fixed laws which have been discovered and described by man, we see in them the greatness of the Creator by whose will these laws are still in force, and by whose will any or all of these laws may one day cease to continue.

It has been asserted that any interruption or change [32]of these fixed laws would indicate a weakness and want of foresight on the part of the Creator, and a fault in the plan of the Creation. This notion has led people either to deny the truth of the Biblical accounts concerning the miracles wrought by the Almighty, or to admit the correctness of the facts while denying their miraculous character, or to consider the fixed laws of nature, together with their exceptions, as designed in the original plan of the Creation. How short-sighted is man! He cannot even fully comprehend his own short-sightedness! God made him ruler over the works of His hands, and he presumes to be the ruler of God Himself! When we learn from numerous observations and experiments the law that seems to regulate certain recurring phenomena, have we then fathomed the infinite wisdom of God in the Creation? Do we know the reason which led Him to produce certain things according to certain laws, and not otherwise? Have we in discovering a law of nature obtained the power of prescribing the same law to God, and disallowing Him to deviate therefrom? Far be it from us human beings, dust and ashes, to arrogate to ourselves such a right! It may even be one of the objects with which miracles were wrought to teach us that we do not yet know all things, that events may happen which we are unable to foresee, that phenomena may appear which we are unable to explain according to the laws hitherto discovered; in short, that our knowledge and wisdom are limited.

The fact that God has created the universe ex nihilo has been expressed by Jewish philosophers as follows:—God is the only Being who demands no cause for His existence; the very idea of God implies existence, [33]and cannot be conceived without it. All other beings owe their existence to certain causes, in the absence of which they would not exist. God alone is therefore only active, without ever being passive, only cause without ever being effect, whilst every other being is both active and passive, cause and effect; it has been produced by certain causes, and is in its turn the cause of the existence of other beings. In the first article a phrase expressing this idea has been added: “And He alone is the active cause of all things, whether past, present, or future.” By the addition of this sentence it was intended to deny the Eternity of matter (‏קדמות העולם‎). The reference to past, present, and future is to emphasise the constant action of the Creator, and the dependence of the natural forces on His Will. The first principle has, therefore, the following form:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is both Creator and Ruler of all created beings, and that He alone is the active cause of ALL things, whether past, present, or future.”1

Before passing on to the second principle concerning God, let us briefly answer a question that has frequently been asked: What is the relation between the theory of evolution, or in general the results of modern science, and the history of the creation as related in the Bible? In the Biblical account of the creation the various kinds of plants and animals are described as the result or different and distinct acts of the Creator, whilst according to the theory of Evolution one creative act sufficed, and the great variety of creatures is the result [34]of gradual development according to certain laws inherent in the things created. The Bible tells us of six days of the creation, whilst according to the theory of evolution it must have taken millions of years before the various species could have developed the one from the other. Whilst the Biblical account describes the earth as the centre of the universe, astronomy shows that the earth is one of the most insignificant of the bodies that fill the infinite space of the universe. According to astronomy and geology, the age of the earth numbers millions of years; from the Biblical account we infer that the earth is comparatively young. In the Bible man is described as the aim and end of the whole creation; natural history and the theory of evolution consider man simply as one of the forms resulting from a natural development of the animal world. What shall be our decision in this discrepancy? Shall we shut our eyes to the results of modern science in our firm belief in the truth of the Bible? Or shall we accept the former and abandon the latter?

We should adopt neither of these alternatives. We have great confidence in our reasoning power, and in the results of science based on reason, but we have still greater confidence in the truthfulness of Divine teaching. The conflict is not a modern product; it existed in former times as well. When the Jews first became acquainted with Greek literature and philosophy, faith was shaken in the heart of many a Jew that was led away by the attractive language and the persuasive arguments of the Greek. Such was the case with the Jews in Alexandria, who were almost [35]more Greek than Jewish. Feeling that their faith in their old traditions was beginning to give way, they looked about them for the means of reconciling faith and philosophy. Where the literal sense of Holy Writ was awkward, the allegorical interpretation was substituted for it; but the authority of the Bible was recognised. Later on, in the Middle Ages, when Aristotle, as understood and interpreted in the Arabic schools, was infallible, perplexity again became general, among the educated and learned, as to the course to be pursued in case of a conflict; whether to remain true to the Bible or to join the banner of Aristotle. The most prominent amongst the Jewish theologians who sought the way of reconciliation was Moses Maimonides. This philosopher wrote his famous work, “Guide of the Perplexed,” expressly for those scholars who, whilst firmly adhering to the inherited faith, had been trained in the study of philosophy, and were unwilling to abandon either. Maimonides shows the way how to explain Biblical passages implying statements contrary to philosophical teachings, and how to reconcile theology and philosophy. A similar task was undertaken in modern times by Moses Mendelssohn in his “Jerusalem” and “Morgenstunden,” in order to show that strict adherence to the Jewish religion is quite compatible with the teaching of philosophy. The various systems of philosophy in Alexandria, in the Mohammedan countries in the Middle Ages, and in Germany in the last century, which threatened to endanger our religion, have lived their time and have gone to their fathers, giving way to new systems and new ideas, whilst the authority of the Word of God [36]has maintained its place. This having been the case in former days, there is no reason why we should not in the present conflict assume, primâ facie, that the scientific and philosophical dogmas now in favour, alike with Jews and non-Jews, will have their time, and will ultimately give way to other theories, and the present conflict will then likewise terminate, dying a natural death. This reflection should put us on our guard lest we be persuaded by the plausibility of the modern philosophical and scientific dogmas, and throw aside our religious faith and traditions. We ought to bear in mind that, however correct the conclusions of modern science may appear that can be tested by our senses, theories which are not subject to such tests are in reality nothing but hypotheses to which a greater or lesser degree of probability attaches.

Suppose now—always bearing in mind the imperfect character of our powers of observation—we were to observe that certain plants or species of animals developed by training and circumstances into new species, or to see plants being transformed into animals, or even to notice literally “the foal of a wild ass born a man,” what would all this prove? That the Creator endowed the species of plants and animals with such properties as would enable them to transform into new species, or into any other of the species already in existence; but it does not follow that the Creator must have adopted the same method in the act of creation. He created as many species as His wisdom determined, although they might all have been able to develop from one single species. Suppose the problem which the Alchymists of the Middle Ages proposed [37]to themselves, viz., to produce an animal being by mere chemical combination, had actually been solved, would any one have believed that all animals had been produced in that way? Or does the success of artificial hatching of eggs convince any person that all birds have sprung from artificially hatched eggs? The same argument applies to the geological formation of the earth. We notice changes brought about through natural forces, and mark the amount of change effected in a certain period; we are then able to calculate what time would be required for such or such a change—provided that only those laws be in force which we have noticed in our calculation. Is it reasonable or logical to apply to the act of creation the laws which have been brought into force through this very act? “He said, and it was: He commanded, and they were created” (Ps. xxxiii. 9). The word of God produced in a moment what the natural forces established by the Creator would effect by gradual development in millions of years.

It is true that the earth is one of the most insignificant bodies in the universe, and man is a small portion of the creatures on earth, and yet it is neither impossible nor unreasonable to believe that the benefits which man derives from the various parts of the creation, from the sun, the moon, and the stars, were essential elements in the scheme of the All-wise Creator.

Attempts have frequently been made to interpret the Biblical account of the creation in such a manner as to reconcile it with the scientific theories of the time. Thus it has been argued that the period between the [38]creation of “heaven and earth” and the creation of “the light” is not described in the Bible, and may have been millions of millions of years. It has likewise been suggested that the term “day” is to be understood in the sense of “period.” It has further been pointed out that the account of the creation of animals indicates a process of development rather than a creatio ex nihilo; for it says, “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly living beings,” &c. (Gen. i. 20). “Let the earth bring forth living beings,” &c. (Ibid. 24). These interpretations may be true, and may suffice temporarily to check sceptical ideas that rise in our mind; but without the firm belief in the Word of God, and the consciousness of the insufficiency of human reason thoroughly to understand the plans and ways of God, our faith can never be safe. Supported by this belief we shall always be able to brave the ever-recurring billows of scepticism.

2. The next principle contained in our Creed concerning God is the Unity of God.

“I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exod. xx. 2–3). This is the first lesson the Israelites were taught when God revealed Himself to them on Mount Sinai. The words, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deut. vi. 4), are proclaimed by us thrice every day; we recite them when we rise; keep them in memory during the day, and repeat them in the evening before we go to rest; they form our watchword throughout our life, and with these [39]words upon our lips we end our earthly existence. The Unity of God is the doctrine that distinguishes the Jews from other religious sects, in so far as the Jews were the first nation of Monotheists. From them Monotheism has spread among other peoples, who, however, did not always receive or preserve it in its original purity. We not only proclaim God as One, refusing to recognise as divine any power beside Him, but refrain also from attributing to God anything that might directly or indirectly involve any notion contrary to the Unity of God.

For this reason certain Jewish philosophers considered it unlawful to assign to God any positive attribute. They feared this might lead to dualism, to believe in God and in His attribute as two distinct beings, because attributes are so easily personified and addressed as separate deities. Some theologians even were of opinion that the admission of God’s attributes is itself a form of dualism which must be excluded from our faith. Nevertheless, attributes are assigned to God both in the Scriptures and in our Prayers. We must not, however, forget that such attributes do not describe anything inherent in the Divine Being, but only God’s relation to man and His actions in such terms as are intelligible to human beings. Most of the attributes are interpreted as being of a negative character, indicating what we must not say of God. When we speak of the Will, Wisdom, and Spirit of God, we do not speak of anything separate from the Divine Being, but of the Divine Being Himself. The Jewish doctrine of the Unity of God does not admit any kind of dualism in the Divine Being, and therefore rejects [40]the existence of Divine Attributes as distinct from God Himself. He is One, simple and indivisible. Even this property of being One seemed to some theologians to be contrary to strict unity, and we are therefore taught that we must not understand it in the sense of a numerical unit, in which sense the term is used when applied to created beings. The second article therefore declares: “The Creator is One, and there is no Oneness like His in any way.”

The Unity of God is the creed which the Jews have always proclaimed by word of mouth, to which they have given expression throughout their literature, and for which they have willingly sacrificed their lives as martyrs. When persecuted by Mohammedans or Christians the Jews were frequently forced to break the Sabbath, to ignore the dietary laws, and to neglect Divine worship. They bore all this patiently when under pressure of persecution, but when they were asked to renounce the belief in God’s Unity they did not doubt for a moment as to what their duty was; they adhered firmly to ‏יחוד השם‎ “the belief in God’s Unity,” and sacrificed their lives for ‏קדוש השם‎ “the sanctification of God’s name.”

The Jews have been victorious. In spite of persecution and oppression they have maintained their faith. The doctrine of the Unity of God, for which they had to suffer so much in past centuries, is now admitted as true by most of their former persecutors.

In order to make clear what we mean by unity, and to express that God could not be conceived as existing at any time in a double form, we add the words: “And [41]He alone was, is, and will be our God.” The second article runs therefore as follows:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is One; that there is no Oneness like His, in any way, and that He alone was, is, and will be our God.”

3. The strict Unity of God, in the sense explained above, implies His Incorporeality, which forms the subject of the third article. Corporeality implies substance and form, a dualism which must be rigidly excluded from God. It would not have been necessary to formulate a special article for the exclusion of corporeality from the idea of God but for the fact that many erroneous notions have been entertained on the subject. Besides the fact that the corporeality of God was assumed by certain religious sects, there have been scholars among the Jews who defended the literal sense of anthropomorphic phrases in the Scriptures.

In the Bible anthropomorphic expressions are employed in order to illustrate the different acts of Divine Providence in such a way as to render them more intelligible to us human beings. We consist of body and soul, and we produce an impression or exercise an influence on others by means of our body and by the activity of our bodily organs. How an incorporeal being acts upon the corporeal world we are unable fully to comprehend, much less to describe. If we desire to picture to ourselves or to others the fact that through Divine Providence something has been produced on earth, we must employ the same phrases which we use in describing human acts which effect [42]a similar result. In reality, however, there is no comparison or similarity between God and corporeal beings, between His actions and ours.

When we therefore speak of the house of God we mean the house which we devote to our prayers, in which we feel the omnipresence of the Almighty more than in any other place. The heaven is called the throne of God and the earth His footstool only to express the idea that the majesty of God is far beyond comparison with that of any earthly ruler, and that the house of God built by human hands is not intended to satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Being but those of man. We call Him our Father and He calls us His children, because we love Him as we love our father, and He loves us as a father loves his children. In the same sense the Psalmist (ii. 7) repeats the words of God to him, “Thou art my son; I have this day begotten thee.” Such expressions as these are anthropomorphic.

The Bible frequently exhorts us not to imagine or ascribe to God any form or likeness. Comp. Deut. iv. 15, “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of fire.” In the same sense the prophet asks in the name of God (Isa. xl. 18), “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness will you compare unto Him?” “To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal to Him? saith the Holy One” (Ibid. 25).

We declare therefore in the third article:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His [43]name, is not a body, that corporeal relations do not apply to Him, and that there exists nothing that is in any way similar to Him.”

4. The next property we declare of God in the Creed is the eternity of God. As He is the cause of everything in existence, and requires no cause for His existence, and as it is impossible to separate the idea of existence from the idea of God, it follows that God is always in existence, and that neither beginning nor end can be fixed to His existence. Maimonides, in expressing his belief in the eternity of God, lays stress only on God being without a beginning, and in this sense he interprets the phrase Dip ‏אלהי קדם‎ (Deut. xxxiii. 27), “the eternal God” who is without a beginning. That God is without end is equally true, but Maimonides did not desire to introduce this idea into the fourth article as a distinguishing characteristic, as it is not necessary to believe that the universe will once come to an end. If it please the Almighty to give the universe existence for ever, it will continue for ever. Following, however, the example of the prophets, who told us in the name of God, “I am the first, and I am the last,” we express this idea in our Creed, and understand it thus: If, by the will of the Almighty, the entire universe should come to an end, God’s existence would still continue. Thus the Psalmist says, “Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment: as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed: but Thou [44]art the same, and Thy years shall have no end” (Ps. cii. 26–28).

The fourth article is:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, was the first, and will be the last.”

6. After having declared our faith in God as the sole Ruler of the universe, who is One, incorporeal and eternal, we proclaim Him as our Supreme Master, who alone is capable of granting our petitions. All existing things are under His control; all forces in nature only work at His will and by His command. No other being possesses the power and independence to fulfil our wishes of its own accord, if it were approached by us with our prayers. It is, therefore, to Him alone that we can reasonably address our petitions, and in doing so we have confidence in the efficacy of our prayers, for “the Lord is nigh to all those who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth” (Ps. cxlv. 18).

This article, although expressly directed against idolatry, and primarily against the worship of “the angels, the stars, and the spheres,” implies our belief in God as the Omnipotent, who can do everything, and can help us when we have not any prospect of relief.

We therefore declare in the fifth article:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, alone is worthy of being worshipped, and that no other being is worthy of our worship.”

The Omnipotence of God is also implied in the first article, which declares Him the Creator and the Ruler of the universe. That Maimonides does not directly [45]make omnipotence, like unity, incorporeality, &c., the subject of a separate article has its good reason, and is not “the result of mere chance.” Silly questions were frequently asked; e.g., how far the omnipotence of God extended, whether it implied the power of making twice two equal to three, or the whole of a magnitude larger than the sum of its parts, and similar logical impossibilities. To avoid misunderstanding, Maimonides did not express our belief in the omnipotence of God in a separate article, but the first and the fifth articles imply it.

We believe of God that He is immutable or unchangeable. It is, however, not necessary to express this in a separate article. By declaring the Unity of God we proclaim also His Immutability, since unity, in the sense in which we conceive it, is incompatible with any kind of change. Whatever the change might be that we assumed in God, it would destroy the idea of His unity.

There are other qualities which we ascribe to God. We call Him perfect, all-wise, good, kind, merciful, long-suffering, and the like; in short, whatever we find in our own person good and noble we believe to be present in God in a higher degree, in the most perfect form. But these attributes approach very closely anthropomorphisms, which Maimonides rigidly excludes from the Creed. They express rather the impressions produced in our soul by the different acts of God’s Providence, and do not describe God Himself.

Of this class of attributes are the thirteen divine attributes, ‏שלש עשרה מדות‎ (Exod. xxxiv. 6). They [46]describe in thirteen terms the goodness and mercy of God towards man in his various conditions of innocence, guilt, and repentance. These are not distinctly mentioned in our Creed, but when we declare that He is the only Being whom we can address in our prayers, we are certainly conscious and convinced that He, being good, kind, and merciful, listens to our supplications.