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　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　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。
  （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　that　man　may　be
  saved　by　obedience　alone　…　cannot　be　proved　by　reason　whether　it　be　true　or
  false；　we　may　be　asked；　Why；　then；　should　we　believe　it？　（63）　If　we　do　so
  without　the　aid　of　reason；　we　accept　it　blindly；　and　act　foolishly　and
  injudiciously；　if；　on　the　other　hand；　we　settle　that　it　can　be　proved　by
  reason；　theology　becomes　a　part　of　philosophy；　and　inseparable　therefrom。
  （64）　But　I　make　answer　that　I　have　absolutely　established　that　this　basis　of
  theology　cannot　be　investigated　by　the　natural　light　of　reason；　or；　at　any
  rate；　that　no　one　ever　has　proved　it　by　such　means；　and；　therefore；
  revelation　was　necessary。　（65）　We　should；　however；　make　use　of　our　reason；
  in　order　to　grasp　with　moral　certainty　what　is　revealed　…　I　say；　with　moral
  certainty；　for　we　cannot　hope　to　attain　greater　certainty；　than　the
  prophets：　yet　their　certainty　was　only；　moral；　as　I　showed　in　Chap。　II。
  （66）　Those；　therefore；　who　attempt　to　set　forth　the　authority　of　Scripture
  with　mathematical　demonstrations　are　wholly　in　error：　for　the　authority；　of
  the　Bible　is　dependent　on　the　authority　of　the　prophets；　and　can　be
  supported　by　no　stronger　arguments　than　those　employed　in　old　time　by　the
  prophets　for　convincing　the　people　of　their　own　authority。　（67）　Our
  certainty　on　the　same　subject　can　be　founded　on　no　other　basis　than　that
  which　served　as　foundation　for　the　certainty　of　the　prophets。
  （68）　Now　the　certainty　of　the　prophets　consisted　（as　we　pointed　out）　in　these　elements：…
  （69）　（I。）　A　distinct　and　vivid　imagination。
  （70）　（II。）　A　sign。
  （71）　（III。）　Lastly；　and　chiefly；　a　mind　turned　to　what　is　just　and　good。　It　was　based　on　no　other
  reasons　than　these；　and　consequently　they　cannot　prove　their　authority　by　any　other　reasons；　either
  to　the　multitude　whom　they　addressed　orally；　nor　to　us　whom　they　address　in　writing。
  （72）　The　first　of　these　reasons；　namely；　the　vivid　imagination；　could　be
  valid　only　for　the　prophets；　therefore；　our　certainty　concerning　revelation
  must；　and　ought　to　be；　based　on　the　re