SS115.但这时有些人打算证明，没有一部圣言，一个人也有可能知道神的存在，知道天堂与地狱，以及圣言所教导的其它事。由于当时他们利用这种假设削弱圣言的权威和神圣，即便嘴上没有，心里却是这样，所以基于圣言论述它们是行不通的，必须诉诸理性之光，因为他们不信圣言，只信自己。用理性之光探究这个问题，你就会发现，人里面有两种生命官能，被称为理解力和意愿，理解力服从于意愿，而不是意愿服从于理解力，因为理解力仅仅教导并指明道路。再进一步探究一下，你就会发现，人的意愿就是他自己的自我，或说他自己的自我重要感，这种自我或自我重要就本身而言，无非是邪恶；理解力中的虚假便源于此，或说它产生了理解力中的虚假。
一旦发现这些事实，你就会看出：人凭自己只想理解来自其意愿自我的东西，而且若非有某个他能从中知道的其它源头，或说，没有这种知道的某个其它源头，他将不能理解其它任何东西。出于其意愿的自我，人只想理解涉及他自己和世界的东西；在此之上的一切对他来说都在黑暗之中。所以当他看见日月星辰，碰巧思想它们的起源时，除了它们自行存在之外，他怎么可能想到别的呢？他能将自己的思维提升高过世上许多即便从圣言知道神创造一切，仍只承认自然界的学者吗？那么，这些人若没有从圣言知道点什么，又会怎么想呢？
难道你以为古代的智者，包括亚里士多德、西塞罗、塞涅卡，以及其他写过神和灵魂不朽的人，先是从他们的自我那里获得这种知识的吗？不是，这种知识来自其他人，这些其他人是从那些首先从（古）圣言知道它的人那里把它传到他们这里的。属世神学的作家们也不是从自己获得任何这类东西的。他们只是利用理性论据来支持他们早已从圣言所在的教会那里所获知的东西；他们当中有些人可能只是口头上支持，却不相信。
115. But then there are people who propose and then prove to themselves that without the Word we could know about the existence of God, about heaven and hell, too, and something about other things that the Word teaches. They then use this assumption to undermine the authority and holiness of the Word, if not out loud, then in their hearts. There is no dealing with them on the basis of the Word. We must appeal to the light of reason because they do not believe the Word, only themselves.
If you look into it with the light of reason you will discover that human beings possess two faculties of life, called will and understanding, and that our understanding is subject to our will, while our will is not subject to our understanding. All our understanding does is teach and show us the way.
Look further, and you will discover that our will involves a sense of our own self-importance; that in and of itself, this self-importance is nothing but evil; and that it gives rise to falsity in our understanding.
[2] Once you have discovered this, you will see that on our own we do not want to understand anything except what follows from our will, and that we would not be able to understand anything else if there were no external basis of our knowing. On the basis of the self-importance associated with our will, we do not want to understand anything that does not focus on ourselves and the world. Anything higher is in darkness for us. When we see the sun, the moon, and the stars, for example, and we happen to think about their origin, can we come up with any thought but that they brought themselves into being? Can we raise our thoughts higher than those of many of this world’s scholars, who believe that nature created itself even though they know from the Word that God created everything? What would they think, then, if they knew nothing from the Word?
[3] Do you think that the ancient sages including Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and others who wrote about God and the immortality of the soul picked this up first from themselves? No, it was from others, who had it handed down to them from still others who first learned it from the Word.
Writers of natural theology, too, do not get anything like this from themselves. They are only using rational means to support what they have learned from the church, where the Word is found - and there may be some among them who vocally support it but nevertheless do not believe.
115. However, because there are some people who assert and have confirmed in themselves that people could have known of the existence of God without the Word, and also of heaven and hell, as well as something of whatever else the Word teaches, and because they consequently weaken the authority and sanctity of the Word, if not by what they say, still at heart, therefore we cannot deal with them from the Word, but in accord with their rational sight. For they do not believe in the Word, but in themselves.
Inquire in accord with your rational sight and you will find that everyone has in him two faculties of life, called his intellect and his will. You will also find that the intellect is subject to the will, and not the will to the intellect. For the intellect only informs and shows the way.
Inquire further and you will find that a person’s will is his native self, that regarded in itself it is nothing but evil, and that it produces falsity in the intellect.
[2] When you discover this, you will see that of himself a person is unwilling to comprehend anything that does not accord with the native character of his will, and that it is impossible for him to do so unless he has some other impetus that causes him to see it.
Prompted by the native character of his will, a person is unwilling to comprehend anything that does not have to do with himself and the world. Anything higher than that is for him shrouded in darkness. So, for example, when he sees the sun, the moon and the stars, if by chance he were to think about their origin, he would be unable to think other than that they came into being by themselves. Could he possibly think more deeply than many of the learned in the world, who, even though they know from the Word of the creation of everything by God, still ascribe it to nature? What then would these same people have thought if they had known nothing from the Word?
[3] Do you suppose that ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and others who wrote about the immortality of the soul arrived at this in the first place on their own? They did not. Rather they learned it from others by its being handed down from people who first knew about it from the Ancient Word.
Writers of natural theology do not derive anything of the kind on their own, either, but only confirm with rational arguments what they know from the church where the Word is found. There may even be some among them who confirm these things and yet do not believe them.
115. There are some men who maintain from firm conviction that without the Word a man can know of the existence of God, of heaven and hell, and also something of the other matters taught in the Word. They thereby weaken the authority and the holiness of the Word, if not with the mouth yet in the heart. Therefore, one may not argue with them from the Word, but from the light (lumen) of natural reason; for they do not believe in the Word but in themselves. 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 the way.
Inquire further and you will find that man's will is his proprium, and this when regarded in itself is entirely evil, and in consequence of this, that falsity arises in the understanding.
[2] 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 there is no possibility of doing this unless there were some other source of knowledge. Man from the proprium of his own will does not desire to understand anything but what relates to himself and the world; anything beyond this is in thick darkness to him. 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 that many of the learned men in the world who, although they know from the Word that God created all things, yet acknowledge nature [as creator]. Still more would they do so had they known nothing from the Word. Is it credible that Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca and other ancient sages who have written about God and the immortality of the soul first derived their knowledge from their proprium? No; they obtained it by tradition from others who first learned it from the [Ancient] Word. 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.
115. But as there are those who maintain, and have confirmed themselves in the opinion, that without a Word it is possible for a man to know of the existence of God, and of heaven and hell, and of all the other things taught by the Word, and as they thereby weaken the authority and holiness of the Word, if not with the lips, yet in the heart, therefore it is not practicable to deal with them from the Word, but only from rational light, for they do not believe in the Word, but in themselves. Investigate the matter from rational light, and you will find that in man there are two faculties of life called the understanding and the will, and that the understanding is subject to the will, but not the will to the understanding, for the understanding merely teaches and shows the way. Make further investigation, and you will find that man's will is what is his own [proprium], and that this, regarded in itself, is nothing but evil, and that from this springs what is false in the understanding.
[2] Having discovered these facts you will see that from himself a man does not desire to understand anything but that which comes from the own of his will, and also that it is not possible for him to do so unless there is some other source from which he may know it. From the own of his will a man does not desire to understand anything except that which relates to himself and to the world; everything above this is to him in thick darkness. So that when he sees the sun, the moon, the stars, and chances to think about their origin, how is it possible for him to think otherwise than that they exist of themselves? Can he raise his thoughts higher than do many of the learned in the world who acknowledge only nature, in spite of the fact that from the Word they know of the creation of all things by God? What then would these same have thought if they had known nothing from the Word?
[3] Do you believe that the wise men of old, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and others, who wrote about God and the immortality of the soul, got this from themselves [proprio]? Not so, but from others who had it by tradition from those who first knew it from the [Ancient] Word. Neither do the writers on natural theology get any such matters from themselves. They merely confirm by rational arguments what they have already become acquainted with from the church in which is the Word; and there may be some among them who confirm without believing it.
115. Sed quia illi qui statuunt, et apud se confirmaverunt, quod homo absque Verbo scire posset existentiam Dei, et quoque caeli et inferni, tum aliquid de reliquis quae Verbum docet, et illi per id auctoritatem et sanctitatem Verbi infirmant, si non ore usque corde, ideo non licet cum illis ex Verbo agere, sed ex lumine rationali; nam non credunt Verbo, sed sibi. Ex lumine rationali 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 solum docet et monstrat viam. Inquire etiam, et invenies quod voluntas hominis sit ejus proprium, et quod hoc in se spectatum sit mere malum, et quod inde sit falsum in intellectu. Quum haec inveneris, videbis quod homo ex se non velit aliud intelligere quam quod est ex proprio voluntatis ejus, et quod nec possit, nisi alibi sit unde id sciat. Homo ex proprio voluntatis suae, non vult aliud intelligere quam quod sui et mundi est; quicquid supra est, ei in caligine est: ut dum videt solem, lunam et stellas, si tunc forte cogitaret de ortu illorum, num aliter posset cogitare, quam quod illa 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? Num credis quod veteres sophi, ac Aristoteles, Cicero, Seneca et alii, qui de Deo, et de immortalitate animae scripserunt, id primum ex proprio sumpserint? Non, sed ex aliis, qui per traducem ex illis qui id primum sciverunt ex Verbo (Vetusto 1). 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.
Footnotes:
1. Vetusto:- sic Vera Christiana Religio 273