273. 若無聖言, 無人知曉上帝,天國,地獄和死後的生活
有一些人認定並自行去證實, 即使沒有聖言, 人們也能知道上帝的存在,天國與地獄, 以及聖言中教導的其它事情。與這些人無法以聖言來爭辯, 只能以屬世理性之光, 因為他們不相信聖言, 只相信自己。
用你的理性之光來調查, 你會發現一個人有兩樣生命的能力:認知與意志。認知服從于意志, 而非意志服從於認知。因為認知僅僅表明和指示應當要什麼和做什麼。結果, 許多人比其他人的頭腦更聰明,更明白仁義道德, 但卻不依照去行出來。但若這些事情是他們所願意的, 情況就不同了。進一步調查, 你會發現一個人的意志等同於人自己; 人自己的意志從出生時起就是惡的, 並在人的認知裡產生偽謬。
[2]就此若能達成共識, 你還會發現另一件事:就人自己而言, 若不是出於意志中的自我, 他不願去明白任何事情; 倘若沒有獲得知識的其它出處, 人們不願去明白任何與私己和世間利益無關的事情, 在此層面之外的一切事物都藏在幽暗之中。例如, 當他抬頭望太陽,月亮和星星, 偶然想到它們的起源, 他只會認為它們應該自行存在(或由它們自己而來)。如此想法難道比世上許多學者更深刻——儘管他們從聖言中獲知上帝造了萬有, 卻將造物功績歸於自然？如果對聖言一無所知, 這樣人又會怎麼想呢？
那些古代智者, 諸如亞裡斯多德,西塞羅,塞尼加等等, 他們寫了關於上帝與靈魂永生等著作, 你相信這些觀念最初源自他們自己的認知？不！是通過其他人獲取這些觀念, 追溯起初之人,乃從古聖言得來(關於古聖言, 參看之前264-266節)。屬世神學的作者們並非從自己獲得這些概念, 只不過用他們的理性來確證從教會學來的概念。他們當中甚至有一些人為屬靈概念辯護, 然而自己卻不相信這些。
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.