201# 四、主通过祂的天命，将整个人类的情感编织成一个整体的形式，这一形式就是“人”的形象。这一点作为天命的普遍原则，将在接下来的段落中进一步说明。
那些把一切归因于自然的人，也会把一切归因于人的智慧。因为，凡是把一切归于自然的人，内心实际上是否认上帝的；而凡是把一切归于人的智慧的人，内心实际上是否认天命。这两者是不可分割的。
然而，这两类人，出于维护自己名声的考虑，或因害怕失去名声，口头上仍然会说天命是普遍存在的，并且也说天命的细节在人身上起作用；但他们所理解的这些细节，其实总体上都归结为人的智慧。
【2】但请你自己思考一下，如果没有具体的细节，所谓“普遍的天命”究竟意味着什么？它难道不只是一个空洞的词语吗？因为所谓“普遍”，其实是由所有具体细节共同构成的，就像“整体”是由各个部分组成的一样。如果你把所有细节都分离开来，那么所谓“普遍”还能剩下什么呢？它就像一个空心的外壳，里面什么也没有，或者像一个没有任何内容的集合体。如果有人说，天命只是普遍的管理，而并不实际管理任何具体的事物，只是把一切维系在一起，而那些具体的管理事务则由他人来安排，那么这种管理还配称为“普遍的管理”吗？这样的管理根本称不上是管理。就好比如果一位国王把国家的一切事务都交给臣民去管理，他就不再是真正的国王，只是名义上的国王而已；他拥有的只有国王这个头衔，而没有任何实际的权威。在这样的君主之下，根本谈不上什么管理，更谈不上什么普遍的管理。
【3】上帝的安排叫做“天命”，而人在自身层面上的安排则叫做“聪明”或“智谋”。正如不能说一位国王只是保留了“国王”这个名号，却把一切实权都交了出去，仅仅为了让国家还能被称作“国家”并得以维系，这样就拥有了“普遍的统治”一样；如果人类凭借自身的聪明或智谋安排一切，也不能称之为上帝的“普遍的天命”。同样的道理，当人们谈论“普遍的天命”或“普遍的治理”时，如果只是认为上帝创造了宇宙，并赋予自然以自身生成万物的能力，那么这样的“普遍的天命”也不过是一个形而上的空洞名词，除了声音之外，毫无实体。事实上，许多人把一切生成归因于自然，把一切成就归因于人的聪明或智谋，嘴上却又说是上帝创造了自然；但他们对于“天命”的看法，其实和对一个空洞名词的看法无异。实际上，事实的真相是：天命存在于自然界每一个最细微之处，也存在于人类聪明与智谋的每一个细节之中，正是通过这些细节，才有了所谓的“普遍的天命”。
201．⑷主通过祂的圣治将整个人类的情感整合为一个单一形式，该形式是一个人的形式。下一节我们会看到，这是圣治的普遍目的。那些将一切归于自然界的人也将一切归于人类的谨慎，因为那些将一切归于自然界的人心里否认神；那些将一切归于人类谨慎的人心里否认圣治；这两者是无法分开的。然而，这两种人为了自己的好名声，出于失去它的恐惧，口头上都声称圣治是普遍的，其细节取决于人，这些细节的总和就是所谓的人类谨慎。
但请认真想想：当细节被拿走时，普遍的圣治算什么呢？它不就成了纯粹的一个词语吗？因为我们所说的普遍，是由最小的细节一起构成的，就像总体由它的具体部分产生一样。所以，如果你拿走细节，那么普遍算什么呢？不就成了里面是真空的某种东西，因而就像里面什么东西也没有的一个表面，或没有任何组成部分的一个复合物吗？如果我们说，圣治是一个普遍政府，而事物却得不到管理，仅仅保持联系，政府事务由他人打理，这怎能叫一个普遍政府？没有哪个国王有这样的政府，因为如果有国王真的允许他的臣民去管理他王国的一切，他就不再是一个国王，只是叫做国王。因此，他只是拥有头衔的尊严，没有任何实质的尊严。政府不能指望这样一个国王，更不说普遍政府了。
在神方面被称为圣治的，在人方面被称为谨慎。正如当一个国王除了头衔之外，没有为自己保留任何东西时，我们不能说他拥有普遍的谨慎，以便他的王国被称为一个王国，因而被凝聚在一起，同样，当人靠自己的谨慎提供一切事物时，我们无法谈论什么普遍圣治。这同样适用于当我们谈论自然界，断言神创造宇宙，并赋予自然界凭自己产生万物的能力时，所采用的普遍圣治和普遍政府这些词语。在这种情况下，普遍圣治不就是一个形而上学的术语吗？这样的术语仅仅是一个术语，没有任何实际的东西。在那些将所产生的一切都归于自然界，将所行的一切都归于人类谨慎，口头上却仍声称神创造自然界的人当中，有许多人仅仅把圣治视为一个空洞的术语。而事实上，圣治包括自然界的最小细节和人类谨慎的最小细节，这就是为何它是普遍的。
201. (4) By His Divine providence the Lord composes the affections of the whole human race into a single form, which is a human one. That this is the universal endeavor of Divine providence will be seen in the discussion that follows next.
Those who ascribe everything to nature also ascribe everything to human prudence. For people who ascribe everything to nature, at heart deny God, and people who ascribe everything to human prudence, at heart deny Divine providence. One is inseparable from the other.
But still, for the sake of their reputation and good name, and for fear of losing it, both classes of people give lip service to the idea that Divine providence is universal, but say that its particulars lie with mankind, and that these particulars as a whole are what is meant by human prudence.
[2] Yet think to yourself what a universal providence would be divorced from particulars - whether it would be anything other than just an expression. For that is called universal which is formed at the same time of particulars, as a whole is the product of its parts. If you divorce the particulars, therefore, what then is the universal other than like something empty within, thus like a casing with nothing inside, or a whole that contains nothing in its compass?
If you should say that Divine providence is a universal government, with nothing being governed but only held together, and matters requiring government being directed by others, can it be called a universal government?
This is not the kind of government any king has. For if a king were to allow his subjects to govern everything in his kingdom, he would no longer be a king, but only someone called king, thus having simply the honor of the title, but no position of any importance. No government can be said to rest in such a king, much less a universal government.
[3] What is in God called providence is in man called prudence. Just as one cannot call it a universal prudence in the case of a king who reserves for himself no more than the title in order that his kingdom may be called a kingdom and so be held together, so one cannot call it a universal providence if people provide for everything out of their own prudence.
The case is the same with the terms universal providence and universal government when said of nature, when they are used to mean that God created the universe and gave nature the power to produce everything of itself. What then is universal providence but a metaphysical term, which beyond the term has no reality?
Of those people who attribute to nature everything that it produces, and to human prudence everything that it accomplishes, and yet with the lips say that God created nature, there are also many who think of Divine providence only as an empty term.
But the case in itself is this, that Divine providence is present in the least particulars of nature and in the least particulars of human prudence, and because of its presence in these it is universal.
201. 4. By his divine providence the Lord gathers the impulses of the whole human race into a single form, which is a human form. We will see in the next section that this is a pervasive feature of the Lord's providence. People who credit everything to the material world also credit everything to human prudence. This is because people who credit everything to the material world are at heart denying God, and people who credit everything to human prudence are at heart denying divine providence: the two are inseparable.
Still, for the sake of their good name and out of a fear of losing it, both kinds of person will claim verbally that divine providence is universal and that we are responsible for the details, the aggregate of these details being what we mean by our prudence.
[2] But think seriously: what is "universal providence" when the details are taken away? Is it anything but a mere word? By "universal" we mean something that comes from details taken together, as a generality arises from specific instances. If you take the details away, then, what is the "universal" but something with a vacuum inside, like a surface with nothing inside it, or like a compound with no components?
If we say that divine providence is a universal government and that things are not governed but just kept connected and that the activities of government are managed by others, could this be called a universal government? No king has this kind of government, because if some king were to give his subjects control over everything in his kingdom he would no longer be a king, he would simply be called a king. He would have only the honor of the name, and no honor of real substance. We could not credit such a king with any government at all, let alone a universal government.
[3] Providence on God's part is called prudence on our level. If we cannot speak of universal prudence in the case of a king who has not kept anything for himself but the name, so that the kingdom can be called a kingdom and thereby held together, by the same token we cannot speak of a universal providence if we are taking care of everything with our own prudence.
Much the same holds for the terms "universal providence" and "universal government" when we talk about the material world, if we assert that God created the universe and then provided the material world with the ability to manage everything on its own. What is "universal providence" in this case but a metaphysical term that apart from being a term has no reality whatever?
Many of the people who give the material world credit for everything that is brought forth and give our own prudence credit for everything that happens, but who still say that God created the material world, think of divine providence only as an empty phrase. As things really are, though, divine providence includes the smallest details of the material world and the smallest details of our prudence, which is why it is universal.
201. IV. THE LORD BY MEANS OF HIS DIVINE PROVIDENCE ARRANGES THE AFFECTIONS [OF THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE] INTO ONE FORM, WHICH IS THE HUMAN FORM. It will be seen in the following number that this is the universal end of the Divine Providence. Those who ascribe all things to nature also ascribe all things to human prudence; for those who ascribe all things to nature deny God in their heart, and those who ascribe all things to human prudence deny the Divine Providence in their heart; the two are inseparable. Yet both classes, for the sake of their good name and from fear of losing it, profess in words that the Divine Providence is universal, and that its individual things rest with man, and that these universal things in their complex are understood by human prudence.
[2] But reflect within yourself what universal providence is when the individual things are taken away. Is it anything more than a mere word? For that is said to be universal which is constituted of individual things taken together just as that is said to be general which exists from particulars. If therefore, you take away the individual things what then is the universal but like something empty within, thus like a surface with nothing beneath, or like a complex that includes nothing? If it should be said that the Divine Providence is a universal government, while nothing is governed, but things are merely maintained in connection, and matters pertaining to government are disposed by others, can this be called a universal government? No king has such a government as this; for if any king were to grant to his subjects to govern everything in his kingdom, he would no longer be a king, but would only be called king; and thus he would have only a nominal and not a real dignity. With such a king there cannot be predicated government, still less universal government.
[3] Providence with God is called prudence with men. As there cannot be said to be universal prudence with a king who has reserved to himself no more than the name in order that his kingdom may be called a kingdom and thus held together, so there cannot be said to be a universal providence if men from their own prudence were to provide all things. It is the same with the terms universal providence and universal government when used of nature, when it is understood that God created the universe and endowed nature with the power of producing all things from herself. What then is universal providence but a metaphysical term, a term and nothing more? Of those who attribute to nature everything that is produced and to human prudence everything that is done, and who nevertheless declare with the lips that God created nature, there are many who think of the Divine Providence only as an empty term. But the case really is that the Divine Providence is in the most individual things of nature and in the most individual things of human prudence, and from these it is universal.
201. (4) By means of His Divine Providence the Lord collects the affections [of the whole human race] into one form, which is the human form. That this is the universal [end] of the Divine providence will be seen in the next section. Those who ascribe all things to nature also ascribe all things to human prudence; for those who ascribe all things to nature deny God in heart; and those who ascribe all things to human prudence deny in heart the Divine providence; the two are inseparable. And yet both, for the sake of their good name and from fear of losing it, admit in words that the Divine providence is universal, and that its particulars rest with man, and that these particulars in the aggregate are what are meant by human prudence.
[2] But reflect within yourself what a universal providence is when the particulars are taken away. Is it anything more than a mere phrase? For that is called universal which is made up of the most particular things taken together, like any general thing that exists from its particulars. So if the most particular things are taken away what is the universal but like a something empty within, thus like a surface with nothing inside, or an aggregate that includes nothing? If it is claimed that the Divine providence is a universal government, while nothing is governed, but things are merely held in connection, and the matters pertaining to the government are conducted by others, how can this be called a universal government? There is no king with such a government; for if any king should permit his subjects to govern all things of his kingdom he would no longer be a king, but would be merely so called; thus he would have the dignity of the mere title, but not of any reality. Government cannot be predicated of such a king, still less universal government.
[3] That which is called providence in God is called prudence in a man; and as a king cannot be said to have universal prudence when he has reserved nothing but the title, in order that his kingdom may be called a kingdom and thus be held together, so there cannot be said to be a universal providence when all things are provided by men from their own prudence. The same is true of the terms universal providence and universal government when applied to nature, with the understanding that God created the universe and endowed nature with the power of producing all things from itself. In this case, what else is universal providence than a metaphysical term, which, except as a term, is a nonentity? Of those who attribute all that is produced to nature and all that is done to human prudence, but who still say with the lips that God created nature, there are many who never think about the Divine providence except as an empty term. But the real truth is, that the Divine providence is in the minutest particulars of nature, and in the minutest particulars of human prudence, and that it is from these that it is universal.
201. IV. Quod Dominus per Divinam suam Providentiam componat affectiones [totius generis humani] 1in unam formam, quae est humana. Quod hoc sit universale Divinae Providentiae, in subsequenti paragrapho videbitur; illi qui omnia naturae adscribunt, etiam omnia prudentiae humanae adscribunt; nam qui omnia naturae adscribunt negant corde Deum, et qui omnia prudentiae humanae, negant corde Divinam Providentiam; non separatur unum ab altero. Sed usque hi et illi propter nominis sui famam, et timorem jacturae ejus, ore ferunt, quod Divina Providentia sit universalis, et quod singularia ejus sint apud hominem; et quod haec singularia in complexu intelligantur per Humanam prudentiam.
[2] Sed cogita tecum, quid universalis Providentia, cum singularia separata sunt, num sit aliud quam sola vox; universale enim dicitur id quod a singularibus simul fit, sicut commune quod a particularibus existit: si 2itaque singularia separas, quid tunc universale, nisi sicut quoddam quod intus vacuum est, ita sicut superficies intra quam nihil est, aut complexus in quo non aliquid. Si diceretur, quod Divina Providentia sit Regimen universale, et non aliquid regitur, sed modo continetur in nexu, et illa quae regiminis sunt disponuntur ab aliis, num hoc potest vocari universale regimen: tale regimen non est ulli regi; nam si rex quidam daret subditis regere omnia sui regni, is non amplius rex foret, sed modo vocaretur rex, ita solum dignitatem nominis, et non dignitatem alicujus rei haberet: apud talem regem non potest praedicari regimen, minus universale regimen.
[3] Providentia apud Deum vocatur prudentia apud hominem; sicut non dici potest universalis prudentia apud regem, qui sibi non plus reservavit quam nomen propterea ut regnum dicatur regnum, et sic contineatur, 3ita non potest dici universalis Providentia, si homines ex propria prudentia providerent omnia. Simile est cum nomine universalis Providentiae ac universalis regiminis cum dicitur de natura, quando intelligitur quod Deus creaverit universum, ac indiderit naturae ut illa ex se produceret omnia: quid tunc universalis Providentia, quam vox methaphysica, quae praeter vocem est non ens. Sunt quoque multi ex illis qui tribuunt naturae omne quod producitur, et prudentiae humanae omne quod fit, et tamen ore dicunt quod Deus creaverit naturam, qui nec aliter de Divina Providentia, quam sicut de voce inani, cogitant. Sed res in se talis est, quod Divina Providentia sit in singularissimis naturae, ac in singularissimis Prudentiae humanae, et quod ex illis sit universalis.
Footnotes:
1 Prima editio: sic n. 192 supra
2 Prima editio: si (ut videtur)
3 Prima editio: contineatur;