a theologico-political treatise [part ii]-第10部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！









（171）　Further；　the　truth　of　this　theory　would　involve　that　the　masses；



having　generally　no　comprehension　of；　nor　leisure　for；　detailed　proofs；



would　be　reduced　to　receiving　all　their　knowledge　of　Scripture　on　the



authority　and　testimony　of　philosophers；　and；　consequently；　would　be



compelled　to　suppose　that　the　interpretations　given　by　philosophers　were



infallible。







（172）　Truly　this　would　be　a　new　form　of　ecclesiastical　authority；　and　a　new



sort　of　priests　or　pontiffs；　more　likely　to　excite　men's　ridicule　than　their



veneration。　（173）　Certainly　our　method　demands　a　knowledge　of　Hebrew　for



which　the　masses　have　no　leisure；　but　no　such　objection　as　the　foregoing　can



be　brought　against　us。　（174）　For　the　ordinary　Jews　or　Gentiles；　to　whom　the



prophets　and　apostles　preached　and　wrote；　understood　the　language；　and；



consequently；　the　intention　of　the　prophet　or　apostle　addressing　them；　but



they　did　not　grasp　the　intrinsic　reason　of　what　was　preached；　which；



according　to　Maimonides；　would　be　necessary　for　an　understanding　of　it。







（175）　There　is　nothing；　then；　in　our　method　which　renders　it　necessary　that



the　masses　should　follow　the　testimony　of　commentators；　for　I　point　to　a　set



of　unlearned　people　who　understood　the　language　of　the　prophets　and



apostles；　whereas　Maimonides　could　not　point　to　any　such　who　could　arrive　at



the　prophetic　or　apostolic　meaning　through　their　knowledge　of　the　causes



of　things。







（176）　As　to　the　multitude　of　our　own　time；　we　have　shown　that　whatsoever　is



necessary　to　salvation；　though　its　reasons　may　be　unknown；　can　easily　be



understood　in　any　language；　because　it　is　thoroughly　ordinary　and　usual；　it



is　in　such　understanding　as　this　that　the　masses　acquiesce；　not　in　the



testimony　of　commentators；　with　regard　to　other　questions；　the　ignorant　and



the　learned　fare　alike。







（177）　But　let　us　return　to　the　opinion　of　Maimonides；　and　examine　it　more



closely。　In　the　first　place；　he　supposes　that　the　prophets　were　in　entire



agreement　one　with　another；　and　that　they　were　consummate　philosophers　and



theologians；　for　he　would　have　them　to　have　based　their　conclusions　on　the



absolute　truth。　（178）　Further；　he　supposes　that　the　sense　of　Scripture



cannot　be　made　plain　from　Scripture　itself；　for　the　truth　of　things　is　not



made　plain　therein　（in　that　it　does　not　prove　any　thing；　nor　teach　the



matters　of　which　it　speaks　through　their　definitions　and　first　causes）；



therefore；　according　to　Maimonides；　the　true　sense　of　Scripture　cannot　be



made　plain　from　itself；　and　must　not　be　there　sought。







（179）　The　falsity　of　such　a　doctrine　is　shown　in　this　very　chapter；　for　we



have　shown　both　by　reason　and　examples　that　the　meaning　of　Scripture　is　only



made　plain　through　Scripture　itself；　and　even　in　questions　deducible　from



ordinary　knowledge　should　be　looked　for　from　no　other　source。







（180）　Lastly；　such　a　theory　supposes　that　we　may　explain　the　words　of



Scripture　according　to　our　preconceived　opinions；　twisting　them　about；　and



reversing　or　completely　changing　the　literal　sense；　however　plain　it　may　be。



（181）　Such　licence　is　utterly　opposed　to　the　teaching　of　this　and　the



preceding　chapters；　and；　moreover；　will　be　evident　to　everyone　as　rash　and



excessive。







（182）　But　if　we　grant　all　this　licence；　what　can　it　effect　after　all？



Absolutely　nothing。　（183）　Those　things　which　cannot　be　demonstrated；　and



which　make　up　the　greater　part　of　Scripture；　cannot　be　examined　by　reason；



and　cannot　therefore　be　explained　or　interpreted　by　this　rule；　whereas；



on　the　contrary；　by　following　our　own　method；　we　can　explain　many　questions



of　this　nature；　and　discuss　them　on　a　sure　basis；　as　we　have　already　shown；



by　reason　and　example。　（184）　Those　matters　which　are　by　their　nature



comprehensible　we　can　easily　explain；　as　has　been　pointed　out；　simply　by



means　of　the　context。







（185）　Therefore；　the　method　of　Maimonides　is　clearly　useless：　to　which　we



may　add；　that　it　does　away　with　all　the　certainty　which　the　masses　acquire



by　candid　reading；　or　which　is　gained　by　any　other　persons　in　any　other　way。



（186）　In　conclusion；　then；　we　dismiss　Maimonides'　theory　as　harmful；



useless；　and　absurd。







（187）　As　to　the　tradition　of　the　Pharisees；　we　have　already　shown　that　it　is



not　consistent；　while　the　authority　of　the　popes　of　Rome　stands　in　need　of



more　credible　evidence；　the　latter；　indeed；　I　reject　simply　on　this　ground；



for　if　the　popes　could　point　out　to　us　the　meaning　of　Scripture　as　surely　as



did　the　high　priests　of　the　Jews；　I　should　not　be　deterred　by　the　fact　that



there　have　been　heretic　and　impious　Roman　pontiffs；　for　among　the　Hebrew



high…priests　of　old　there　were　also　heretics　and　impious　men　who　gained　the



high…　priesthood　by　improper　means；　but　who；　nevertheless；　had　Scriptural



sanction　for　their　supreme　power　of　interpreting　the　law。　（See



Deut。　xvii：11；　12；　and　xxxiii：10；　also　Malachi　ii：8。）







（188）　However；　as　the　popes　can　show　no　such　sanction；　their　authority



remains　open　to　very　grave　doubt；　nor　should　anyone　be　deceived　by　the



example　of　the　Jewish　high…priests　and　think　that　the　Catholic　religion　also



stands　in　need　of　a　pontiff；　he　should　bear　in　mind　that　the　laws　of　Moses



being　also　the　ordinary　laws　of　the　country；　necessarily　required　some



public　authority　to　insure　their　observance；　for；　if　everyone　were　free　to



interpret　the　laws　of　his　country　as　he　pleased；　no　state　could　stand；　but



would　for　that　very　reason　be　dissolved　at　once；　and　public　rights　would



become　private　rights。







（189）　With　religion　the　case　is　widely　different。　Inasmuch　as　it　consists



not　so　much　in　outward　actions　as　in　simplicity　and　truth　of　character；　it



stands　outside　the　sphere　of　law　and　public　authority。　（190）　Simplicity　and



truth　of　character　are　not　produced　by　the　constraint　of　laws；　nor　by



the　authority　of　the　state；　no　one　the　whole　world　over　can　be　forced　or



legislated　into　a　state　of　blessedness；　the　means　required　for　such　a



consummation　are　faithful　and　brotherly　admonition；　sound　education；　and；



above　all；　free　use　of　the　individual　judgment。







（191）　Therefore；　as　the　supreme　right　of　free　thinking；　even　on　religion；　is



in　every　man's　power；　and　as　it　is　inconceivable　that　such　power　could　be



alienated；　it　is　also　in　every　man's　power　to　wield　the　supreme　right　and



authority　of　free　judgment　in　this　behalf；　and　to　explain　and　interpret



religion　for　himself。　（192）　The　only　reason　for　vesting　the　supreme



authority　in　the　interpretation　of　law；　and　judgment　on　public　affairs　in



the　hands　of　the　magistrates；　is　that　it　concerns　questions　of　public　right。



（193）　Similarly　the　supreme　authority　in　explaining　religion；　and　in　passing



judgment　thereon；　is　lodged　with　the　individual　because　it　concerns



questions　of　individual　right。　（194）　So　far；　then；　from　the　authority　of　the



Hebrew　high…priests　telling　in　confirmation　of　the　authority　of　the　Roman



pontiffs　to　interpret　religion；　it　would　rather　tend　to　establish　individual



freedom　of　judgment。　（195）　Thus　in　this　way　also；　we　have　shown　that　our



method　of　interpreting　Scripture　is　the　best。　（196）　For　as　the　highest　power



of　Scriptural　interpretation　belongs　to　every　man；　the　rule　for　such



interpretation　should　be　nothing　but　the　natural　light　of　reason　which　is



common　to　all　…　not　any　supernatural　light　nor　any　external　authority；



moreover；　such　a　rule　ought　not　to　be　so　difficult　that　it　can　only　be



applied　by　very　skilful　philosophers；　but　should　be　adapted　to　the　natural



and　ordinary　faculties　and　capacity　of　mankind。　（197）　And　such　I　have　shown



our　method　to　be；　for　such　difficulties　as　it　has　arise　from　men's



carelessness；　and　are　no　part　of　its　nature。























CHAPTER　VIII。　　…　　OF　THE　AUTHORSHIP　OF　THE　PENTATEUCH　AND　THE　OTHER



HISTORICAL　BOOKS　OF　THE　OLD　TESTAMENT







（1）　In　the　former　chapter　we　treated　of　the　foundations　and　principles　of



Scriptural　knowledge；　and　showed　that　it　consists　solely　in　a　trustworthy



history　of　the　sacred　writings；　such　a　history；　in　spite　of　its



indispensability；　the　ancients　neglected；　or　at　any　rate；　whatever　they　may



have　written　or　handed　down　has　perished　in　the　lapse　of　time；　consequently



the　groundwork　for　such　an　investigation　is　to　a　great　extent；　cut　from



under　us。　（2）　This　might　be　put　up　with　if　succeeding　generations　had



confined　themselves　within　the　limits　of　truth；　and　had　handed　down



conscientiously　what　few　particulars　they　had　received　or　discovered　without



any　additions　from　their　own　brains：　as　it　is；　the　history　of　the　Bible　is



not　so　much　imperfect　as　untrustworthy：　the　foundations　are　not　only　too



scanty　for　building　upon；　but　are　also　unsound。　（3）　It　is　part　of　my　purpose



to　remedy　these　defects；　and　to　remove　common　theological　prejudices。　（4）



But　I　fear　that　I　am　attempting　my　task　too　late；　for　men　have　arrived　at



the　pitch　of　not　suffering　contradiction；　but　defending　obstinately　whatever



they　have　adopted　under　the　name　of　religion。　（5）　So　widely　have　these



prejudices　taken　possession　of　men's　minds；　that　very　few；　comparatively



speaking；　will　listen　to　reason。　（6）　However；　I　will　make　the　attempt；　and



spare　no　efforts；　for　there　is　no　positive　reason　for　despairing　of　success。







（7）　In　order　to　treat　the　subject　methodically；　I　will　begin　with　the



received　opinions　concerning　the　true　authors　of　the　sacred　books；　and　in



th