a theologico-political treatise [part iii]-第8章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




clear　doctrines。　（9）　Therefore　he　laid　down　the　universal　rule；　that



whatsoever　Scripture　teaches　dogmatically；　and　affirms　expressly；　must　on



its　own　sole　authority　be　admitted　as　absolutely　true：　that　there　is　no



doctrine　in　the　Bible　which　directly　contradicts　the　general　tenour　of



the　whole：　but　only　some　which　appear　to　involve　a　difference；　for　the



phrases　of　Scripture　often　seem　to　imply　something　contrary　to　what　has　been



expressly　taught。　（10）　Such　phrases；　and　such　phrases　only；　we　may　interpret



metaphorically。







（11）　For　instance；　Scripture　clearly　teaches　the　unity　of　God　（see　Deut。



vi：4）；　nor　is　there　any　text　distinctly　asserting　a　plurality　of　gods；　but



in　several　passages　God　speaks　of　Himself；　and　the　prophets　speak　of　Him；　in



the　plural　number；　such　phrases　are　simply　a　manner　of　speaking；　and　do　not



mean　that　there　actually　are　several　gods：　they　are　to　be　explained



metaphorically；　not　because　a　plurality　of　gods　is　repugnant　to　reason；　but



because　Scripture　distinctly　asserts　that　there　is　only　one。







（12）　So；　again；　as　Scripture　asserts　（as　Alpakhar　thinks）　in　Deut。　iv：15；



that　God　is　incorporeal；　we　are　bound；　solely　by　the　authority　of　this　text；



and　not　by　reason；　to　believe　that　God　has　no　body：　consequently　we　must



explain　metaphorically；　on　the　sole　authority　of　Scripture；　all　those



passages　which　attribute　to　God　hands；　feet；　&c。；　and　take　them　merely　as



figures　of　speech。　（13）　Such　is　the　opinion　of　Alpakhar。　In　so　far　as　he



seeks　to　explain　Scripture　by　Scripture；　I　praise　him；　but　I　marvel　that　a



man　gifted　with　reason　should　wish　to　debase　that　faculty。　（14）　It　is



true　that　Scripture　should　be　explained　by　Scripture；　so　long　as　we　are　in



difficulties　about　the　meaning　and　intention　of　the　prophets；　but　when　we



have　elicited　the　true　meaning；　we　must　of　necessity　make　use　of　our



judgment　and　reason　in　order　to　assent　thereto。　（15）　If　reason；　however；



much　as　she　rebels；　is　to　be　entirely　subjected　to　Scripture；　I　ask；



are　we　to　effect　her　submission　by　her　own　aid；　or　without　her；　and



blindly？　（16）　If　the　latter；　we　shall　surely　act　foolishly　and



injudiciously；　if　the　former；　we　assent　to　Scripture　under　the　dominion　of



reason；　and　should　not　assent　to　it　without　her。　（17）　Moreover；　I　may　ask



now；　is　a　man　to　assent　to　anything　against　his　reason？　（18）　What　is　denial



if　it　be　not　reason's　refusal　to　assent？　（19）　In　short；　I　am　astonished　that



anyone　should　wish　to　subject　reason；　the　greatest　of　gifts　and　a　light　from



on　high；　to　the　dead　letter　which　may　have　been　corrupted　by　human　malice；



that　it　should　be　thought　no　crime　to　speak　with　contempt　of　mind；　the　true



handwriting　of　God's　Word；　calling　it　corrupt；　blind；　and　lost；　while　it　is



considered　the　greatest　of　crimes　to　say　the　same　of　the　letter；　which　is



merely　the　reflection　and　image　of　God's　Word。　（20）　Men　think　it　pious



to　trust　nothing　to　reason　and　their　own　judgment；　and　impious　to　doubt　the



faith　of　those　who　have　transmitted　to　us　the　sacred　books。　（21）　Such



conduct　is　not　piety；　but　mere　folly。　And；　after　all；　why　are　they　so



anxious？　What　are　they　afraid　of？　（22）　Do　they　think　that　faith　and　religion



cannot　be　upheld　unless　…　men　purposely　keep　themselves　in　ignorance；　and



turn　their　backs　on　reason？　（23）　If　this　be　so；　they　have　but　a　timid　trust



in　Scripture。







（23）　However；　be　it　far　from　me　to　say　that　religion　should　seek　to　enslave



reason；　or　reason　religion；　or　that　both　should　not　be　able　to　keep　their



sovereignity　in　perfect　harmony。　（24）　I　will　revert　to　this　question



presently；　for　I　wish　now　to　discuss　Alpakhar's　rule。







（26）　He　requires；　as　we　have　stated；　that　we　should　accept　as　true；　or



reject　as　false；　everything　asserted　or　denied　by　Scripture；　and　he　further



states　that　Scripture　never　expressly　asserts　or　denies　anything　which



contradicts　its　assertions　or　negations　elsewhere。　（27）　The　rashness　of



such　a　requirement　and　statement　can　escape　no　one。　（28）　For　（passing　over



the　fact　that　he　does　not　notice　that　Scripture　consists　of　different　books；



written　at　different　times；　for　different　people；　by　different　authors：　and



also　that　his　requirement　is　made　on　his　own　authority　without



any　corroboration　from　reason　or　Scripture）　he　would　be　bound　to　show　that



all　passages　which　are　indirectly　contradictory　of　the　rest；　can　be



satisfactorily　explained　metaphorically　through　the　nature　of　the　language



and　the　context：　further；　that　Scripture　has　come　down　to　us　untampered



with。　（29）　However；　we　will　go　into　the　matter　at　length。







（30）　Firstly；　I　ask　what　shall　we　do　if　reason　prove　recalcitrant？　（31）



Shall　we　still　be　bound　to　affirm　whatever　Scripture　affirms；　and　to　deny



whatever　Scripture　denies？　（32）　Perhaps　it　will　be　answered　that　Scripture



contains　nothing　repugnant　to　reason。　（33）　But　I　insist　！hat　it　expressly



affirms　and　teaches　that　God　is　jealous　（namely；　in　the　decalogue　itself；



and　in　Exod。　xxxiv：14；　and　in　Deut。　iv：24；　and　in　many　other　places）；　and　I



assert　that　such　a　doctrine　is　repugnant　to　reason。　（34）　It　must；　I　suppose；



in　spite　of　all；　be　accepted　as　true。　If　there　are　any　passages　in



Scripture　which　imply　that　God　is　not　jealous；　they　must　be　taken



metaphorically　as　meaning　nothing　of　the　kind。　（35）　So；　also；　Scripture



expressly　states　（Exod。　xix：20；　&c。）　that　God　came　down　to　Mount　Sinai；　and



it　attributes　to　Him　other　movements　from　place　to　place；　nowhere



directly　stating　that　God　does　not　so　move。　（36）　Wherefore；　we　must　take　the



passage　literally；　and　Solomon's　words　（I　Kings　viii：27）；　〃But　will　God



dwell　on　the　earth？　（37）　Behold　the　heavens　and　earth　cannot　contain　thee；〃



inasmuch　as　they　do　not　expressly　state　that　God　does　not　move　from　place　to



place；　but　only　imply　it；　must　be　explained　away　till　they　have　no　further



semblance　of　denying　locomotion　to　the　Deity。　（38）　So　also　we　must　believe



that　the　sky　is　the　habitation　and　throne　of　God；　for　Scripture　expressly



says　so；　and　similarly　many　passages　expressing　the　opinions　of　the　prophets



or　the　multitude；　which　reason　and　philosophy；　but　not　Scripture；　tell　us　to



be　false；　must　be　taken　as　true　if　we　are　io　follow　the　guidance　of　our



author；　for　according　to　him；　reason　has　nothing　to　do　with　the　matter。　（39）



Further；　it　is　untrue　that　Scripture　never　contradicts　itself　directly；　but



only　by　implication。　（40）　For　Moses　says；　in　so　many　words　（Deut。　iv：24）；



〃The　Lord　thy　God　is　a　consuming　fire；〃　and　elsewhere　expressly　denies　that



God　has　any　likeness　to　visible　things。　（Deut。　iv。　12。）　（41）　If　it　be



decided　that　the　latter　passage　only　contradicts　the　former　by　implication；



and　must　be　adapted　thereto；　lest　it　seem　to　negative　it；　let　us　grant　that



God　is　a　fire；　or　rather；　lest　we　should　seem　to　have　taken　leave



of　our　senses；　let　us　pass　the　matter　over　and　take　another　example。







（42）　Samuel　expressly　denies　that　God　ever　repents；　〃for　he　is　not　a　man



that　he　should　repent〃　（I　Sam。　xv：29）。　（43）　Jeremiah；　on　the　other　hand；



asserts　that　God　does　repent；　both　of　the　evil　and　of　the　good　which　He　had



intended　to　do　（Jer。　xviii：8…10）。　（44）　What？　（45）　Are　not　these　two



texts　directly　contradictory？　（46）　Which　of　the　two；　then；　would　our　author



want　to　explain　metaphorically？　（47）　Both　statements　are　general；　and　each



is　the　opposite　of　the　other　…　what　one　flatly　affirms；　the　other　flatly；



denies。　（48）　So；　by　his　own　rule；　he　would　be　obliged　at　once　to　reject　them



as　false；　and　to　accept　them　as　true。







（49）　Again；　what　is　the　point　of　one　passage；　not　being　contradicted　by



another　directly；　but　only　by　implication；　if　the　implication　is　clear；　and



the　nature　and　context　of　the　passage　preclude　metaphorical　interpretation？



（50）　There　are　many　such　instances　in　the　Bible；　as　we　saw　in　Chap。　II。



（where　we　pointed　out　that　the　prophets　held　different　and　contradictory



opinions）；　and　also　in　Chaps。　IX。　and　X。；　where　we　drew　attention　to　the



contradictions　in　the　historical　narratives。　（51）　There　is　no　need　for　me　to



go　through　them　all　again；　for　what　I　have　said　sufficiently　exposes　the



absurdities　which　would　follow　from　an　opinion　and　rule　such　as　we　are



discussing；　and　shows　the　hastiness　of　its　propounder。







（52）　We　may；　therefore；　put　this　theory；　as　well　as　that　of　Maimonides；



entirely　out　of　court；　and　we　may；　take　it　for　indisputable　that　theology　is



not　bound　to　serve　reason；　nor　reason　theology；　but　that　each　has　her　own



domain。







（53）　The　sphere　of　reason　is；　as　we　have　said；　truth　and　wisdom；　the　sphere



of　theology；　is　piety　and　obedience。　（54）　The　power　of　reason　does　not



extend　so　far　as　to　determine　for　us　that　men　may　be　blessed　through　simple



obedience；　without　understanding。　（55）　Theology；　tells　us　nothing　else；



enjoins　on　us　no　command　save　obedience；　and　has　neither　the　will　nor　the



power　to　oppose　reason：　she　defines　the　dogmas　of　faith　（as　we　pointed　out



in　the　last　chapter）　only　in　so　far　as　they　may　be　necessary；　for　obedience；



and　leaves　reason　to　determine　their　precise　truth：　for　reason　is　the



light　of　the　mind；　and　without　her　all　things　are　dreams　and　phantoms。







（56）　By　theology；　I　here　mean；　strictly　speaking；　revelation；　in　so　far　as



it　indicates　the　object　aimed　at　by　Scripture　namely；　the　scheme　and　manner



of　obedience；　or　the　true　dogmas　of　piety　and　faith。　（57）　This　may　truly　be



called　the　Word　of　God；　which　does　not　consist　in　a　certain　number　of　books



（see　Chap。　XII。）。　（58）　Theology　thus　understood；　if　we　regard　its　precepts



or　rules　of　life；　will　be　found　in　accordance　with　reason；　and；　if　we　look



to　its　aim　and　object；　will　be　seen　to　be　in　nowise　repugnant　thereto；



wherefore　it　is　universal　to　all　men。







（59）　As　for　its　bearing　on　Scripture；　we　have　shown　in　Chap。　VII。　that　the



meaning　of　Scripture　should　be　gathered　from　its　own　history；　and　not　from



the　history　of　nature　in　general；　which　is　the　basis　of　philosophy。







（60）　We　ought　not　to　be　hindered　if　we　find　that　our　investigation　of　the



meaning　of　Scripture　thus　conducted　shows　us　that　it　is　here　and　there



repugnant　to　reason；　for　whatever　we　may　find　of　this　sort　in　the　Bible；



which　men　may　be　in　ignorance　of；　without　injury　to　their　charity；　has；　we



may　be　sure；　no　bearing　on　theology　or　the　Word　of　God；　and　may；　therefore；



without　blame；　be　viewed　by　every　one　as　he　pleases。







（61）　To　sum　up；　we　may　draw　the　absolute　conclusion　that　the　Bible　must　not



be　accommodated　to　reason；　nor　reason　to　the　Bible。







（62）　Now；　inasmuch　as　the　basis　of　theology　…　the　doctrine　that　man　may　be



saved　by　obedience　alone　…　cannot　be　proved　by　reason　whether　it　be　true　or



false；　we　may