order　that　men　may　dwell　together　in　peace　and　concord；　and　how　many　and　how
  great　causes　of　disturbance　and　crime　are　thereby　cut　off；　I　leave　everyone
  to　judge　for　himself！
  （70）　Before　we　go　further；　I　may　remark　that　we　can；　by　means　of　what　we
  have　just　proved；　easily　answer　the　objections　raised　in　Chap。　I。；　when　we
  were　discussing　God's　speaking　with　the　Israelites　on　Mount　Sinai。　（71）　For；
  though　the　voice　heard　by　the　Israelites　could　not　give　those　men　any
  philosophical　or　mathematical　certitude　of　God's　existence；　it　was　yet
  sufficient　to　thrill　them　with　admiration　for　God；　as　they　already　knew　Him；
  and　to　stir　them　up　to　obedience：　and　such　was　the　object　of　the　display。
  （72）　God　did　not　wish　to　teach　the　Israelites　the　absolute　attributes　of　His
  essence　（none　of　which　He　then　revealed）；　but　to　break　down　their　hardness
  of　heart；　and　to　draw　them　to　obedience：　therefore　He　did　not　appeal　to　them
  with　reasons；　but　with　the　sound　of　trumpets；　thunder；　and　lightnings。
  （73）　It　remains　for　me　to　show　that　between　faith　or　theology；　and
  philosophy；　there　is　no　connection；　nor　affinity。　（74）　I　think　no　one　will
  dispute　the　fact　who　has　knowledge　of　the　aim　and　foundations　of　the　two
  subjects；　for　they　are　as　wide　apart　as　the　poles。
  （75）　Philosophy　has　no　end　in　view　save　truth：　faith；　as　we　have　abundantly
  proved；　looks　for　nothing　but　obedience　and　piety。　（76）　Again；　philosophy　is
  based　on　axioms　which　must　be　sought　from　nature　alone：　faith　is　based　on
  history　and　language；　and　must　be　sought　for　only　in　Scripture　and
  revelation；　as　we　showed　in　Chap。　VII。　（77）　Faith；　therefore；　allows　the
  greatest　latitude　in　philosophic　speculation；　allowing　us　without　blame　to
  think　what　we　like　about　anything；　and　only　condemning；　as　heretics　and
  schismatics；　those　who　teach　opinions　which　tend　to　produce　obstinacy；
  hatred；　strife；　and　anger；　while；　on　the　other　hand；　only　considering
  as　faithful　those　who　persuade　us；　as　far　as　their　reason　and　faculties　will
  permit；　to　follow　justice　and　charity。
  （78）　Lastly；　as　what　we　are　now　setting　forth　are　the　most　important
  subjects　of　my　treatise；　I　would　most　urgently　beg　the　reader；　before　I
  proceed；　to　read　these　two　chapters　with　especial　attention；　and　to　take　the
  trouble　to　weigh　them　well　in　his　mind：　let　him　take　for　granted　that　I
  have　not　written　with　a　view　to　introducing　novelties；　but　in　order　to　do
  away　with　abuses；　such　as　I　hope　I　may；　at　some　future　time；　at　last　see
  reformed。
  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
  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　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　c