And on the other side, Maimonides could not have laboured to turn Judaism into a pure philosophy without the help of the national sentiment. We can understand the religious philosopher who tries to effect a compromise between religion and philosophy. The impelling force is his religious feeling: anxious to save religion from the danger threatened by rationalism, he adopts the familiar expedient of dressing religion in the trappings of philosophy, so as to safeguard its essential meaning. But when a philosopher starts, as Maimonides did, with the conviction that there is no room for compromise, but that religion is compelled, willy-nilly, to teach only what reason approves and when he labours indefatigably to purify religious belief of all super-rational elements, and to turn its essential content into a pure philosophical system, and all this by long and devious methods, which reason cannot always approve: then we are bound to ask what emotion it was that gave him the strength and the will-power required for so difficult a task. Religious emotion certainly gained nothing from a process by which religion was driven from its own throne and deprived of its letters patent as a guide to eternal happiness along a private road of its own. Philosophical emotion—if the term may be used—might have gained more if Maimonides had accepted and prescribed the method adopted by free-thinkers before and after him—that of leaving faith to the believing masses and being satisfied for his own part with reason alone. But the national sentiment did gain a great deal by the transformation of the Jewish religion—the only national inheritance which had survived to unite our scattered people in exile—into philosophical truth, firmly based on rational and (as Maimonides sincerely believed) irrefragable proofs, and consequently secure for all time against assault. So we come finally to the conclusion that Maimonides, too, like the other Jewish thinkers, had as the ultimate aim of his great work (though perhaps he did not realise it clearly) the shaping of the content and form of Judaism into a fortress on which the nation could depend for its continuance in exile. There is only this difference: that whereas his predecessors held Judaism secure because it was _above_ reason, Maimonides came and said: “No! Judaism is secure because it _is_ reason.” Footnote 86: [Maimonides died on the 13th December, 1204.] Footnote 87: [Jewish Law.] Footnote 88: [Allusion to well-known speeches at Zionist Congresses.] Footnote 89: _Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Law_, chaps. i.-iv. Footnote 90: _Ibid._, chap. iv. 1. Footnote 91: _Guide_, Part I., chap. i. [In rendering quotations from the _Moreh Nebuchim_ (_Guide for the Perplexed_) the translator has used Dr. Friedländer’s English version so far as possible.] Footnote 92: _Foundations of the Law_, _ibid._, 7. Footnote 93: