theologico-political treatise p3(神学与政治专题研究3)-第11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！
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
34
… Page 35…
A Theologico…Political Treatise
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
35
… Page 36…
A Theologico…Political Treatise
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。
36
… Page 37…
A Theologico…Political Treatise
（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 t
