a theologico-political treatise [part iii]-第9节

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