a theologico-political treatise [part ii]-第7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！





He　especially　loves　those　who　adore　Him　and　love　their　neighbour　as



themselves；　&c。　（52）　These　and　similar　doctrines；　I　repeat；　Scripture



everywhere　so　clearly　and　expressly　teaches；　that　no　one　was　ever　in　doubt



of　its　meaning　concerning　them。







（53）　The　nature　of　God；　His　manner　of　regarding　and　providing　for　things；



and　similar　doctrines；　Scripture　nowhere　teaches　professedly；　and　as　eternal



doctrine；　on　the　contrary；　we　have　shown　that　the　prophets　themselves　did



not　agree　on　the　subject；　therefore；　we　must　not　lay　down　any　doctrine　as



Scriptural　on　such　subjects；　though　it　may　appear　perfectly　clear　on



rational　grounds。







（54）　From　a　proper　knowledge　of　this　universal　doctrine　of　Scripture；　we



must　then　proceed　to　other　doctrines　less　universal；　but　which；



nevertheless；　have　regard　to　the　general　conduct　of　life；　and　flow　from　the



universal　doctrine　like　rivulets　from　a　source；　such　are　all　particular



external　manifestations　of　true　virtue；　which　need　a　given　occasion　for



their　exercise；　whatever　is　obscure　or　ambiguous　on　such　points　in　Scripture



must　be　explained　and　defined　by　its　universal　doctrine；　with　regard　to



contradictory　instances；　we　must　observe　the　occasion　and　the　time　in　which



they　were　written。　（55）　For　instance；　when　Christ　says；　〃Blessed　are　they



that　mourn；　for　they　shall　be　comforted〃　we　do　not　know；　from　the　actual



passage；　what　sort　of　mourners　are　meant；　as；　however；　Christ　afterwards



teaches　that　we　should　have　care　for　nothing；　save　only　for　the　kingdom　of



God　and　His　righteousness；　which　is　commended　as　the　highest　good　（see



Matt。　vi；33）；　it　follows　that　by　mourners　He　only　meant　those　who　mourn　for



the　kingdom　of　God　and　righteousness　neglected　by　man：　for　this　would　be　the



only　cause　of　mourning　to　those　who　love　nothing　but　the　Divine　kingdom　and



justice；　and　who　evidently　despise　the　gifts　of　fortune。　（56）　So；　too；　when



Christ　says：　〃But　if　a　man　strike　you　on　the　right　cheek；　turn　to　him　the



left　also；〃　and　the　words　which　follow。







（57）　If　He　had　given　such　a　command；　as　a　lawgiver；　to　judges；　He　would



thereby　have　abrogated　the　law　of　Moses；　but　this　He　expressly　says　He　did



not　do　（Matt。　v：17）。　（58）　Wherefore　we　must　consider　who　was　the　speaker；



what　was　the　occasion；　and　to　whom　were　the　words　addressed。　（59）　Now　Christ



said　that　He　did　not　ordain　laws　as　a　legislator；　but　inculcated　precepts　as



a　teacher：　inasmuch　as　He　did　not　aim　at　correcting　outward　actions　so



much　as　the　frame　of　mind。　（60）　Further；　these　words　were　spoken　to　men　who



were　oppressed；　who　lived　in　a　corrupt　commonwealth　on　the　brink　of　ruin；



where　justice　was　utterly　neglected。　（61）　The　very　doctrine　inculcated　here



by　Christ　just　before　the　destruction　of　the　city　was　also　taught　by



Jeremiah　before　the　first　destruction　of　Jerusalem；　that　is；　in　similar



circumstances；　as　we　see　from　Lamentations　iii：25…30。







（62）　Now　as　such　teaching　was　only　set　forth　by　the　prophets　in　times　of



oppression；　and　was　even　then　never　laid　down　as　a　law；　and　as；　on　the　other



hand；　Moses　（who　did　not　write　in　times　of　oppression；　but　…　mark　this　…



strove　to　found　a　well…ordered　commonwealth）；　while　condemning　envy　and



hatred　of　one's　neighbour；　yet　ordained　that　an　eye　should　be　given　for



an　eye；　it　follows　most　clearly　from　these　purely　Scriptural　grounds　that



this　precept　of　Christ　and　Jeremiah　concerning　submission　to　injuries　was



only　valid　in　places　where　justice　is　neglected；　and　in　a　time　of



oppression；　but　does　not　hold　good　in　a　well…ordered　state。







（63）　In　a　well…ordered　state　where　justice　is　administered　every　one　is



bound；　if　he　would　be　accounted　just；　to　demand　penalties　before　the　judge



（see　Lev：1）；　not　for　the　sake　of　vengeance　（Lev。　xix：17；　18）；　but　in　order



to　defend　justice　and　his　country's　laws；　and　to　prevent　the　wicked



rejoicing　in　their　wickedness。　（64）　All　this　is　plainly　in　accordance　with



reason。　（65）　I　might　cite　many　other　examples　in　the　same　manner；　but　I



think　the　foregoing　are　sufficient　to　explain　my　meaning　and　the　utility　of



this　method；　and　this　is　all　my　present　purpose。　（66）　Hitherto　we　have　only



shown　how　to　investigate　those　passages　of　Scripture　which　treat　of



practical　conduct；　and　which；　therefore；　are　more　easily　examined；　for　on



such　subjects　there　was　never　really　any　controversy　among　the　writers　of



the　Bible。







（67）　The　purely　speculative　passages　cannot　be　so　easily；　traced　to　their



real　meaning：　the　way　becomes　narrower；　for　as　the　prophets　differed　in



matters　speculative　among　themselves；　and　the　narratives　are　in　great



measure　adapted　to　the　prejudices　of　each　age；　we　must　not；　on　any；　account



infer　the　intention　of　one　prophet　from　clearer　passages　in　the　writings　of



another；　nor　must　we　so　explain　his　meaning；　unless　it　is　perfectly　plain



that　the　two　prophets　were　at　one　in　the　matter。







（68）　How　we　are　to　arrive　at　the　intention　of　the　prophets　in　such　cases　I



will　briefly　explain。　（69）　Here；　too；　we　must　begin　from　the　most　universal



proposition；　inquiring　first　from　the　most　clear　Scriptural　statements　what



is　the　nature　of　prophecy　or　revelation；　and　wherein　does　it　consist；　then



we　must　proceed　to　miracles；　and　so　on　to　whatever　is　most　general　till　we



come　to　the　opinions　of　a　particular　prophet；　and；　at　last；　to　the　meaning



of　a　particular　revelation；　prophecy；　history；　or　miracle。　（70）　We　have



already　pointed　out　that　great　caution　is　necessary　not　to　confound　the　mind



of　a　prophet　or　historian　with　the　mind　of　the　Holy　Spirit　and　the　truth



of　the　matter；　therefore　I　need　not　dwell　further　on　the　subject。　（71）　I



would；　however；　here　remark　concerning　the　meaning　of　revelation；　that　the



present　method　only　teaches　us　what　the　prophets　really　saw　or　heard；　not



what　they　desired　to　signify　or　represent　by　symbols。　（72）　The　latter　may　be



guessed　at　but　cannot　be　inferred　with　certainty　from　Scriptural　premises。







（73）　We　have　thus　shown　the　plan　for　interpreting　Scripture；　and　have；　at



the　same　time；　demonstrated　that　it　is　the　one　and　surest　way　of



investigating　its　true　meaning。　（74）　I　am　willing　indeed　to　admit　that　those



persons　（if　any　such　there　be）　would　be　more　absolutely　certainly　right；　who



have　received　either　a　trustworthy　tradition　or　an　assurance　from　the



prophets　themselves；　such　as　is　claimed　by　the　Pharisees；　or　who　have　a



pontiff　gifted　with　infallibility　in　the　interpretation　of　Scripture；　such



as　the　Roman　Catholics　boast。　（75）　But　as　we　can　never　be　perfectly　sure；



either　of　such　a　tradition　or　of　the　authority　of　the　pontiff；　we　cannot



found　any　certain　conclusion　on　either：　the　one　is　denied　by　the　oldest　sect



of　Christians；　the　other　by　the　oldest　sect　of　Jews。　（76）　Indeed；　if　we



consider　the　series　of　years　（to　mention　no　other　point）　accepted　by　the



Pharisees　from　their　Rabbis；　during　which　time　they　say　they　have　handed



down　the　tradition　from　Moses；　we　shall　find　that　it　is　not　correct；　as　I



show　elsewhere。　（77）　Therefore　such　a　tradition　should　be　received　with



extreme　suspicion；　and　although；　according　to　our　method；　we　are　bound　to



consider　as　uncorrupted　the　tradition　of　the　Jews；　namely；　the　meaning　of



the　Hebrew　words　which　we　received　from　them；　we　may　accept　the　latter　while



retaining　our　doubts　about　the　former。







（78）　No　one　has　ever　been　able　to　change　the　meaning　of　a　word　in　ordinary



use；　though　many　have　changed　the　meaning　of　a　particular　sentence。　（79）



Such　a　proceeding　would　be　most　difficult；　for　whoever　attempted　to　change



the　meaning　of　a　word；　would　be　compelled；　at　the　same　time；　to　explain　all



the　authors　who　employed　it；　each　according　to　his　temperament　and



intention；　or　else；　with　consummate　cunning；　to　falsify　them。







（80）　Further；　the　masses　and　the　learned　alike　preserve　language；　but　it　is



only　the　learned　who　preserve　the　meaning　of　particular　sentences　and　books：



thus；　we　may　easily　imagine　that　the　learned　having　a　very　rare　book　in



their　power；　might　change　or　corrupt　the　meaning　of　a　sentence　in　it；　but



they　could　not　alter　the　signification　of　the　words；　moreover；　if　anyone



wanted　to　change　the　meaning　of　a　common　word　he　would　not　be　able　to　keep



up　the　change　among　posterity；　or　in　common　parlance　or　writing。







（81）　For　these　and　such…like　reasons　we　may　readily　conclude　that　it　would



never　enter　into　the　mind　of　anyone　to　corrupt　a　language；　though　the



intention　of　a　writer　may　often　have　been　falsified　by　changing　his　phrases



or　interpreting　them　amiss。　（82）　As　then　our　method　（based　on　the　principle



that　the　knowledge　of　Scripture　must　be　sought　from　itself　alone）　is　the



sole　true　one；　we　must　evidently　renounce　any　knowledge　which　it　cannot



furnish　for　the　complete　understanding　of　Scripture。　（83）　I　will　now　point



out　its　difficulties　and　shortcomings；　which　prevent　our　gaining　a　complete



and　assured　knowledge　of　the　Sacred　Text。







（84）　Its　first　great　difficulty　consists　in　its　requiring　a　thorough



knowledge　of　the　Hebrew　language。　（85）　Where　is　such　knowledge　to　be



obtained？　（86）　The　men　of　old　who　employed　the　Hebrew　tongue　have　left　none



of　the　principles　and　bases　of　their　language　to　posterity；　we　have　from



them　absolutely　nothing　in　the　way　of　dictionary；　grammar；　or　rhetoric。







（87）　Now　the　Hebrew　nation　has　lost　all　its　grace　and　beauty　（as　one　would



expect　after　the　defeats　and　persecutions　it　has　gone　through）；　and　has　only



reta