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！
order that men may dwell together in peace and concord； and how many and how
great causes of disturbance and crime are thereby cut off； I leave everyone
to judge for himself！
（70） Before we go further； I may remark that we can； by means of what we
have just proved； easily answer the objections raised in Chap。 I。； when we
were discussing God's speaking with the Israelites on Mount Sinai。 （71） For；
though the voice heard by the Israelites could not give those men any
philosophical or mathematical certitude of God's existence； it was yet
sufficient to thrill them with admiration for God； as they already knew Him；
and to stir them up to obedience： and such was the object of the display。
（72） God did not wish to teach the Israelites the absolute attributes of His
essence （none of which He then revealed）； but to break down their hardness
of heart； and to draw them to obedience： therefore He did not appeal to them
with reasons； but with the sound of trumpets； thunder； and lightnings。
（73） It remains for me to show that between faith or theology； and
philosophy； there is no connection； nor affinity。 （74） I think no one will
dispute the fact who has knowledge of the aim and foundations of the two
subjects； for they are as wide apart as the poles。
（75） Philosophy has no end in view save truth： faith； as we have abundantly
proved； looks for nothing but obedience and piety。 （76） Again； philosophy is
based on axioms which must be sought from nature alone： faith is based on
history and language； and must be sought for only in Scripture and
revelation； as we showed in Chap。 VII。 （77） Faith； therefore； allows the
greatest latitude in philosophic speculation； allowing us without blame to
think what we like about anything； and only condemning； as heretics and
schismatics； those who teach opinions which tend to produce obstinacy；
hatred； strife； and anger； while； on the other hand； only considering
as faithful those who persuade us； as far as their reason and faculties will
permit； to follow justice and charity。
（78） Lastly； as what we are now setting forth are the most important
subjects of my treatise； I would most urgently beg the reader； before I
proceed； to read these two chapters with especial attention； and to take the
trouble to weigh them well in his mind： let him take for granted that I
have not written with a view to introducing novelties； but in order to do
away with abuses； such as I hope I may； at some future time； at last see
reformed。
CHAPTER XV … THEOLOGY IS SHOWN NOT TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO REASON；
NOR REASON TO THEOLOGY： A DEFINITION OF THE REASON WHICH
ENABLES US TO ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE。
（1） Those who know not that philosophy and reason are distinct； dispute
whether Scripture should be made subservient to reason； or reason to
Scripture： that is； whether the meaning of Scripture should be made to
agreed with reason； or whether reason should be made to agree with
Scripture： the latter position is assumed by the sceptics who deny the
certitude of reason； the former by the dogmatists。 （2） Both parties are； as
I have shown； utterly in the wrong； for either doctrine would require us to
tamper with reason or with Scripture。
（3） We have shown that Scripture does not teach philosophy； but merely
obedience； and that all it contains has been adapted to the understanding
and established opinions of the multitude。 （4） Those； therefore； who wish to
adapt it to philosophy； must needs ascribe to the prophets many ideas which
they never even dreamed of； and give an extremely forced interpretation to
their words： those on the other hand； who would make reason and philosophy
subservient to theology； will be forced to accept as Divine utterances the
prejudices of the ancient Jews； and to fill and confuse their mind
therewith。 （5） In short； one party will run wild with the aid of reason；
and the other will run wild without the aid of reason。
（6） The first among the Pharisees who openly maintained that Scripture
should be made to agree with reason； was Maimonides； whose opinion we
reviewed； and abundantly refuted in Chap。 VIII。： now； although this writer
had much authority among his contemporaries； he was deserted on this
question by almost all； and the majority went straight over to the
opinion of a certain R。 Jehuda Alpakhar； who； in his anxiety to avoid the
error of Maimonides； fell into another； which was its exact contrary。 （7） He
held that reason should be made subservient； and entirely give way to
Scripture。 （8） He thought that a passage should not be interpreted
metaphorically； simply because it was repugnant to reason； but only in the
cases when it is inconsistent with Scripture itself … that is； with its
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 c