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！
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
32
… Page 33…
A Theologico…Political Treatise
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
33
… Page 34…
A Theologico…Political Treatise
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