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！
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 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 ma