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！
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 be asked； Why； then； should we believe it？ （63） If we do so
without the aid of reason； we accept it blindly； and act foolishly and
injudiciously； if； on the other hand； we settle that it can be proved by
reason； theology becomes a part of philosophy； and inseparable therefrom。
（64） But I make answer that I have absolutely established that this basis of
theology cannot be investigated by the natural light of reason； or； at any
rate； that no one ever has proved it by such means； and； therefore；
revelation was necessary。 （65） We should； however； make use of our reason；
in order to grasp with moral certainty what is revealed … I say； with moral
certainty； for we cannot hope to attain greater certainty； than the
prophets： yet their certainty was only； moral； as I showed in Chap。 II。
（66） Those； therefore； who attempt to set forth the authority of Scripture
with mathematical demonstrations are wholly in error： for the authority； of
the Bible is dependent on the authority of the prophets； and can be
supported by no stronger arguments than those employed in old time by the
prophets for convincing the people of their own authority。 （67） Our
certainty on the same subject can be founded on no other basis than that
which served as foundation for the certainty of the prophets。
（68） Now the certainty of the prophets consisted （as we pointed out） in these elements：…
（69） （I。） A distinct and vivid imagination。
（70） （II。） A sign。
（71） （III。） Lastly； and chiefly； a mind turned to what is just and good。 It was based on no other
reasons than these； and consequently they cannot prove their authority by any other reasons； either
to the multitude whom they addressed orally； nor to us whom they address in writing。
（72） The first of these reasons； namely； the vivid imagination； could be
valid only for the prophets； therefore； our certainty concerning revelation
must； and ought to be； based on the re