第十四节 无圣言，则无以认识主与永恒之事
273# 若无圣言，则无人能知上帝、天堂与地狱、死后生命，更不能知主。有些人主张，并已在自身中确认：人即使没有圣言，也能知道上帝的存在，并且知道天堂与地狱，以及圣言所教导的其余诸事。既然如此，就不可凭圣言与他们论辩，而须凭理性的自然之光；因为他们并不信圣言，而是信自己。
你若从理性之光加以考察，便会发现：在人里面有两种生命的能力，称为理智与意志；并且理智服从意志，而非意志服从理智；因为理智不过教导并指示：应当从意志去行什么。由此可知，许多人虽有敏锐才智，且较他人更明白生命的道德准则，却仍不照此而生活；若他们愿意这些准则，情形便会不同。
你再加考察，便会发现：人的意志乃其自身所有；而此自身所有自出生起便是恶的；由此，在理智中便产生伪谬。你既发现这些，便会看见：人出于自己，并不愿理解别的，只愿理解那出于其意志之自身所有的东西；并且，若没有别处可以使他由之知道这些事，人出于其意志之自身所有，便不愿理解别的，只愿理解关乎自己与世界之事；凡在其上者，皆在幽暗之中。
譬如，当他看见太阳、月亮与众星，若偶然想到它们的起源，便只能思想它们是由自己而有。难道他能高过世上许多博学之士吗？这些人虽由圣言知道万物由上帝创造，却仍承认自然为本源；那么，若他们丝毫未从圣言知道这些事，又将如何？你岂信古代贤哲，如亚里士多德、西塞罗、塞涅卡及其他论及上帝与灵魂不朽者，是首先从自己的理智取得这些知识的吗？并非如此；他们乃是从别人那里承传而来，而这些别人又出自那些最初由古圣言知道这些事的人；此古圣言前文已经论及。
自然神学的作者也并不从自己汲取任何此类知识，只是用理性论证来确认他们从有圣言之教会中所知道的事；而在他们中间，或许也有确认这些事、却并不信这些事的人。
273# 有些人坚信，没有圣言，人也可以知道神、天堂、地狱和圣言所教导的其它东西的存在。因此，由于这些人不相信圣言，而是相信自己，所以从圣言与他们争论是不可能的，只能从属世理性的光来与他们争论。那么，从理性之光来探究，你会发现，人里面有两种生命官能，被称为理解力和意愿；理解力受制于意愿，而不是意愿受制于理解力；因为理解力只教导并指出人当出于意愿做什么。这就是为何许多人具有敏锐的天赋，对生活的道德原则理解得比其他人更清晰，却不照之生活；如果他们意愿这些事，情况就不会是这样了。进一步探究一下，你会发现，人的意愿就是他的自我，自出生起就是邪恶的，并产生理解力中的虚假。
当发现这些事时，你会看到，人凭自己只想理解来自其意愿的自我的东西；如果这是他知识的唯一源头，那么他出于其意愿的自我就只想理解属于自我和世界的东西；在此之上的一切都将陷入幽暗。例如，在看到太阳、月亮和众星时，他若思想它们的起源，不能不认为它们是自我起源，或自行存在的。这种思考不比世界上那些虽从圣言中知道神创造万物，却只承认自然的学者更高深。如果他们没有从圣言中知道任何东西，他们会怎么想呢？难道你以为古代的智者，如亚里士多德、西塞罗、塞涅卡，以及写过神和灵魂不朽的其他智者，最初是从他们自己的理解力中获得这种知识的吗？不！他们是从其他人那里获得这种知识的，而其他人最初是从前面（TCR 264-266节）提到的那本古圣言中获知它的。属世神学的作家也不是从他们自己那里获得这种知识的；他们只是通过理性推论确认了他们从拥有圣言的教会那里学到的东西；可能其中一些人虽确认了真理，却不相信它们。
273. 14. If the Word Did Not Exist, No One Would Know about God, Heaven, Hell,
or Life after Death, Still Less about the Lord
There are people who put forward the idea (something they have become inwardly adamant about) that without the Word people would still know of the existence of God and of heaven and hell, as well as the other things the Word teaches about. You cannot deal with such people on the basis of the Word; you have to use the earthly light of reason, because they believe in themselves, not the Word.
Investigate by using the light of your reason and you will find that there are two faculties of life in us. They are called the intellect and the will. The intellect is subject to the will, but the will is not subject to the intellect. The intellect only teaches and points out what we should be wanting and doing. As a result, many people have sharp minds and understand life's morality better than others, and yet do not live by it. Things would be different if these people wanted to be moral. Investigate further and you will find that we identify with our will. From the day we are born, our will is evil, and that produces falsity in our intellect.
When you have found this out, you will see another thing: left on our own, we do not want to understand anything that does not come from the self that we experience in our own will. And if there were no other source of knowledge, we would have no desire to understand anything unrelated to ourselves or our world; everything beyond our world would be in pitch darkness. For example, when we saw the sun, the moon, and the stars, if we happened to think about their origin, we could not help thinking they originated from us. This thinking is no deeper than that of scholars in our world who acknowledge the existence of nature alone even though they know from the Word that all things were created by God. What would they be thinking if they had known nothing from the Word?
Did the classical philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and the others, who wrote about God and the immortality of the soul, originally derive those concepts from their own intellects? No, they derived them from others who passed them on from still others who first learned them from the ancient Word that we mentioned earlier [264-266]. The writers of natural theology, too, derive none of this type of thought from themselves; they merely use their rationality to establish concepts they learned from their church, which has the Word. There may even be some among them who defend spiritual concepts and yet do not believe them themselves.
273. XIV. If the Word did not exist, no one would know of the existence of God, heaven and hell, and life after death, even less of the Lord.
As for those who decide and have proved to themselves that without the Word a person could know of the existence of God, and also of heaven and hell, as well as all the other things the Word teaches, it is not possible to argue with them from the Word, but only from the natural enlightenment of reason, since they do not believe the Word, but only themselves. Use the enlightenment of reason to enquire into it, and you will find that a person has two life-faculties, called the understanding and the will, and that the understanding is subject to the will, and not the will to the understanding. For the understanding merely shows and indicates what the will decides must be done. That is why many people with keen minds excel others in their grasp of moral issues, yet do not follow these principles in the way they live; it would be otherwise, if these were what they willed. Enquire again and you will find that a person's will is his self 1 , and the self is evil from birth, and the source of false ideas in the understanding.
[2] When you have reached these conclusions, you will see that a person left to himself is unwilling to grasp intellectually anything that is not from the self in his will; and that if there were no other source for that knowledge, the self in his will would be unwilling to grasp anything intellectually other than selfish and worldly interests. Anything above this level is shrouded in darkness. For instance, when he looks upon the sun, the moon and the stars, if he happens to think about their origin, he can only suppose that they arose by themselves. Is this thinking any deeper than that of many experts in the world, who despite knowing from the Word that all things were created by God, still attribute their origin to nature? What then would these same people think, if they had learned nothing from the Word? Do you believe that the ancient sages, such as Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca and others, who wrote about God and the immortality of the soul, got this idea first from their own understanding? No, they derived it by borrowing from others, who learned it first from the ancient Word, which I mentioned above. Nor do the writers on natural theology draw any such ideas from themselves; they merely support by rational arguments what they learn from the church, which possesses the Word. There may too be those among them who support these ideas without actually believing them.
Footnotes:
1. Latin proprium.
273. XIV. IF THERE WERE NO WORD THERE WOULD BE NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, OF HEAVEN AND HELL, OR OF A LIFE AFTER DEATH, STILL LESS OF THE LORD.
As there are some who hold, and who have thoroughly convinced themselves, that man may know without the Word of the existence of God, and of heaven and hell, and of other things taught by the Word; such cannot properly be appealed to from the Word, but only from the light of natural reason, since they do not believe in the Word, but only in themselves. Inquire then, from the light of reason, and you will find that there are in man two faculties of life, which are called understanding and will, and that the understanding is subject to the will, but not the will to the understanding; for the understanding merely teaches and points out what ought to be done from the will; and for this reason many who are of an acute genius, and who understand better than others the moral principles of life, still do not live according to them; but if their will favored them it would be otherwise. Inquire further, and you will find that man's will is his selfhood [proprium] and that this is evil from birth, and that from this comes the falsity in the understanding. When you have found out these things, you will see that man of himself has no wish to understand anything except what is from the selfhood of his will, and if this were his only source of knowledge, he would have no wish from his will's selfhood to understand anything but what pertains to self and the world; and everything above this would be in thick darkness. For instance, in looking at the sun, moon, and stars, if he should think about their origin, he could not think otherwise than that they exist from themselves. Could he raise his thoughts higher than many of the learned in the world, who while knowing from the Word that all things were created by God, yet acknowledge nature? If these had known nothing from the Word what would they have thought? Do you suppose that the ancient wise men, such as Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and others, who wrote about God and the immortality of the soul, obtained this knowledge primarily from their own understanding? No; they obtained it from others by its having been handed down from those who first knew of it from the ancient Word, of which above. Neither do the writers on Natural Theology derive any such knowledge from themselves; they merely confirm by rational deductions what they knew from the church where the Word is, and possibly some among them confirm and yet do not believe.
273. XIV. WITHOUT THE WORD NO ONE WOULD HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, OF HEAVEN AND HELL, OF A LIFE AFTER DEATH, AND STILL LESS OF THE LORD.
There are some men who maintain from firm conviction that without the Word a man can know of the existence of God, heaven and hell, and of all else taught by the Word. Therefore, as they do not believe in the Word, but in themselves, one may not argue with them from the Word, but from the light (lumen) of natural reason. Inquire then, by the light of reason, and you will find that there are two faculties of life in man, called the understanding and the will; and that the understanding is subject to the will, and not the will to the understanding; for the understanding merely teaches and points out what ought to be done from the will. This is why many men of bright natural genius, who have a particularly clear understanding of the moral principles of life, yet do not live according to them; it would be otherwise if they willed these things. Inquire further, and you will find that man's will is his proprium, which is evil from birth; and in consequence of this, that falsity pervades his understanding. Having learned these things, you will perceive that a man of himself does not desire to understand anything but what comes from the proprium of his will; and that unless there were some other source of knowledge, man from the proprium of his will would not desire to understand anything but what related to himself and the world; anything beyond this would be in darkness. For instance, if, when looking at the sun, moon and stars, he should reflect on their origin, he could not but think that they are self-originated. He could not think any more profoundly than many of the learned men in the world who, although they know from the Word that God created all things, yet acknowledge nature as their creator. Still more would they do so had they known nothing from the Word. Is it credible that Aristotle, 1 Cicero, 2 Seneca 3 and other ancient sages who have written about God and the immortality of the soul first derived their knowledge from their own understanding? No, they obtained it by tradition from others who first learned it from the ancient Word, which has been mentioned above. Nor do writers on natural religion derive their knowledge from themselves: they only confirm by rational deduction what they learn from the Church which has the Word; and it is possible that some of those who confirm truths do not believe them.
Footnotes:
1. Aristotle, Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C.; born at Stagiros, so called The Stagirite. He took all knowledge for his province, but had little appreciation of mathematics. He created the science of logic.
2. Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 106-43 B.C. He was one of the greatest orators, men of letters, and statesmen of the Roman Republic.
3. Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, 5 B.C.-A.D. 65, a Stoic philosopher, rhetorician, dramatist, and chief minister to Nero.
273. XIV. Quod nisi Verbum foret, nemo sciret Deum, Coelum et Infernum, et Vitam post mortem, et minus Dominum.
Quoniam illi, qui statuunt, et apud se confirmaverunt, quod homo absque Verbo scire posset existentiam Dei, et quoque Coeli et Inferni, tum reliqua, quae Verbum docet, ideo non licet cum illis ex Verbo agere, sed ex naturali rationis lumine; nam non credunt Verbo, sed sibi. Ex lumine rationis inquire et invenies quod duae Facultates vitae sint apud hominem, quae vocantur Intellectus et Voluntas, et quod Intellectus subjectus sit Voluntati, et non Voluntas Intellectui, Intellectus enim modo docet et monstrat quid ex Voluntate faciendum est: inde est, quod multi qui acuto ingenio sunt, et prae aliis intelligunt vitae moralia, et tamen non vivunt secundum illa; aliter foret, si vellent illa. Inquire etiam, et invenies, quod Voluntas hominis sit ejus proprium, et quod hoc a nativitate sit malum, et quod inde sit falsum in intellectu.
[2] Quum haec inveneris, videbis, quod homo ex se non velit aliud intelligere, quam quod est ex proprio voluntatis ejus, et quod nisi alibi sit, unde id sciat, homo ex proprio voluntatis suae non velit aliud intelligere, quam quod sui et mundi est; quicquid supra est, in caligine est; ut dum videt Solem, Lunam, et Stellas, si tunc forte cogitaret de ortu illorum, non aliter posset cogitare, quam quod a se sint; num altius quam plures Docti in Mundo, qui tametsi sciunt ex Verbo Creationem omnium a Deo, usque agnoscunt Naturam; quid tunc iidem, si nihil ex Verbo scivissent. Numeri credis, quod Veteres Sophi, ut Aristoteles, Cicero, Seneca, et alii, qui de Deo, et de Immortalitate animae scripserunt, id primum ex proprio intellectu sumserint; non, sed ex aliis per traducem ex illis, qui id primum sciverunt ex Verbo Vetusto, de quo supra. Scriptores Theologiae naturalis, nec hauriunt quicquam tale ex se, sed modo confirmant illa, quae sciunt ab Ecclesia, in qua est Verbum, per rationalia; et possunt dari inter illos, qui confirmant, et tamen non credunt.