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 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 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