a theologico-political treatise [part i]-第15部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




is　from　eternity　contained　in　the　Divine　nature　as　an　eternal　verity；　we　say



that　God　possesses　the　idea　of　a　triangle；　or　that　He　understands　the



nature　of　a　triangle；　but　if　afterwards　we　look　to　the　fact　that　the　nature



of　a　triangle　is　thus　contained　in　the　Divine　nature；　solely　by　the



necessity　of　the　Divine　nature；　and　not　by　the　necessity　of　the　nature　and



essence　of　a　triangle　…　in　fact；　that　the　necessity　of　a　triangle's　essence



and　nature；　in　so　far　as　they　are　conceived　of　as　eternal　verities；　depends



solely　on　the　necessity　of　the　Divine　nature　and　intellect；　we　then　style



God's　will　or　decree；　that　which　before　we　styled　His　intellect。　（57）



Wherefore　we　make　one　and　the　same　affirmation　concerning　God　when　we　say



that　He　has　from　eternity　decreed　that　three　angles　of　a　triangle　are　equal



to　two　right　angles；　as　when　we　say　that　He　has　understood　it。







（58）　Hence　the　affirmations　and　the　negations　of　God　always　involve



necessity　or　truth；　so　that；　for　example；　if　God　said　to　Adam　that　He　did



not　wish　him　to　eat　of　the　tree　of　knowledge　of　good　and　evil；　it　would　have



involved　a　contradiction　that　Adam　should　have　been　able　to　eat　of　it；　and



would　therefore　have　been　impossible　that　he　should　have　so　eaten；　for　the



Divine　command　would　have　involved　an　eternal　necessity　and　truth。　（59）　But



since　Scripture　nevertheless　narrates　that　God　did　give　this　command　to



Adam；　and　yet　that　none　the　less　Adam　ate　of　the　tree；　we　must　perforce　say



that　God　revealed　to　Adam　the　evil　which　would　surely　follow　if　he　should



eat　of　the　tree；　but　did　not　disclose　that　such　evil　would　of　necessity



come　to　pass。　（60）　Thus　it　was　that　Adam　took　the　revelation　to　be　not　an



eternal　and　necessary　truth；　but　a　law　…　that　is；　an　ordinance　followed　by



gain　or　loss；　not　depending　necessarily　on　the　nature　of　the　act　performed；



but　solely　on　the　will　and　absolute　power　of　some　potentate；　so　that　the



revelation　in　question　was　solely　in　relation　to　Adam；　and　solely　through



his　lack　of　knowledge　a　law；　and　God　was；　as　it　were；　a　lawgiver　and



potentate。　（61）　From　the　same　cause；　namely；　from　lack　of　knowledge；　the



Decalogue　in　relation　to　the　Hebrews　was　a　law；　for　since　they　knew　not　the



existence　of　God　as　an　eternal　truth；　they　must　have　taken　as　a　law　that



which　was　revealed　to　them　in　the　Decalogue；　namely；　that　God　exists；　and



that　God　only　should　be　worshipped。　（62）　But　if　God　had　spoken　to　them



without　the　intervention　of　any　bodily　means；　immediately　they　would　have



perceived　it　not　as　a　law；　but　as　an　eternal　truth。







（63）　What　we　have　said　about　the　Israelites　and　Adam；　applies　also　to　all



the　prophets　who　wrote　laws　in　God's　name　…　they　did　not　adequately　conceive



God's　decrees　as　eternal　truths。　（64）　For　instance；　we　must　say　of　Moses



that　from　revelation；　from　the　basis　of　what　was　revealed　to　him；　he



perceived　the　method　by　which　the　Israelitish　nation　could　best　be　united　in



a　particular　territory；　and　could　form　a　body　politic　or　state；　and　further



that　he　perceived　the　method　by　which　that　nation　could　best　be　constrained



to　obedience；　but　he　did　not　perceive；　nor　was　it　revealed　to　him；　that　this



method　was　absolutely　the　best；　nor　that　the　obedience　of　the　people　in　a



certain　strip　of　territory　would　necessarily　imply　the　end　he　had　in　view。



（65）　Wherefore　he　perceived　these　things　not　as　eternal　truths；　but　as



precepts　and　ordinances；　and　he　ordained　them　as　laws　of　God；　and　thus　it



came　to　be　that　he　conceived　God　as　a　ruler；　a　legislator；　a　king；　as



merciful；　just；　&c。；　whereas　such　qualities　are　simply　attributes　of　human



nature；　and　utterly　alien　from　the　nature　of　the　Deity。　（66）Thus　much　we　may



affirm　of　the　prophets　who　wrote　laws　in　the　name　of　God；　but　we　must　not



affirm　it　of　Christ；　for　Christ；　although　He　too　seems　to　have　written　laws



in　the　name　of　God；　must　be　taken　to　have　had　a　clear　and　adequate



perception；　for　Christ　was　not　so　much　a　prophet　as　the　mouthpiece　of　God。



（67）　For　God　made　revelations　to　mankind　through　Christ　as　He　had　before



done　through　angels　…　that　is；　a　created　voice；　visions；　&c。　（68）　It　would



be　as　unreasonable　to　say　that　God　had　accommodated　his　revelations　to　the



opinions　of　Christ　as　that　He　had　before　accommodated　them　to　the　opinions



of　angels　（that　is；　of　a　created　voice　or　visions）　as　matters　to　be　revealed



to　the　prophets；　a　wholly　absurd　hypothesis。　（69）　Moreover；　Christ　was　sent



to　teach　not　only　the　Jews　but　the　whole　human　race；　and　therefore　it　was



not　enough　that　His　mind　should　be　accommodated　to　the　opinions　the　Jews



alone；　but　also　to　the　opinion　and　fundamental　teaching　common　to　the　whole



human　race　…　in　other　words；　to　ideas　universal　and　true。　（70）　Inasmuch　as



God　revealed　Himself　to　Christ；　or　to　Christ's　mind　immediately；　and　not　as



to　the　prophets　through　words　and　symbols；　we　must　needs　suppose　that　Christ



perceived　truly　what　was　revealed；　in　other　words；　He　understood　it；　for　a；



matter　is　understood　when　it　is　perceived　simply　by　the　mind　without　words



or　symbols。







（71）　Christ；　then；　perceived　（truly　and　adequately）　what　was　revealed；　and



if　He　ever　proclaimed　such　revelations　as　laws；　He　did　so　because　of　the



ignorance　and　obstinacy　of　the　people；　acting　in　this　respect　the　part　of



God；　inasmuch　as　He　accommodated　Himself　to　the　comprehension　of　the



people；　and　though　He　spoke　somewhat　more　clearly　than　the　other　prophets；



yet　He　taught　what　was　revealed　obscurely；　and　generally　through　parables；



especially　when　He　was　speaking　to　those　to　whom　it　was　not　yet　given　to



understand　the　kingdom　of　heaven。　（See　Matt。　xiii：10；　&c。）　（72）　To　those　to



whom　it　was　given　to　understand　the　mysteries　of　heaven；　He　doubtless　taught



His　doctrines　as　eternal　truths；　and　did　not　lay　them　down　as　laws；　thus



freeing　the　minds　of　His　hearers　from　the　bondage　of　that　law　which　He



further　confirmed　and　established。　（73）　Paul　apparently　points　to　this　more



than　once　（e。g。　Rom。　vii：6；　and　iii：28）；　though　he　never　himself　seems　to



wish　to　speak　openly；　but；　to　quote　his　own　words　（Rom。　iii：6；　and　vi：19）；



〃merely　humanly。〃　（74）　This　he　expressly　states　when　he　calls　God　just；　and



it　was　doubtless　in　concession　to　human　weakness　that　he　attributes　mercy；



grace；　anger；　and　similar　qualities　to　God；　adapting　his　language　to　the



popular　mind；　or；　as　he　puts　it　（1　Cor。　iii：1；　2）；　to　carnal　men。　（75）　In



Rom。　ix：18；　he　teaches　undisguisedly　that　God's　auger　and　mercy　depend　not



on　the　actions　of　men；　but　on　God's　own　nature　or　will；　further；　that　no



one　is　justified　by　the　works　of　the　law；　but　only　by　faith；　which　he　seems



to　identify　with　the　full　assent　of　the　soul；　lastly；　that　no　one　is　blessed



unless　he　have　in　him　the　mind　of　Christ　（Rom。　viii：9）；　whereby　he　perceives



the　laws　of　God　as　eternal　truths。　（76）　We　conclude；　therefore；　that　God　is



described　as　a　lawgiver　or　prince；　and　styled　just；　merciful；　&c。；　merely　in



concession　to　popular　understanding；　and　the　imperfection　of　popular



knowledge；　that　in　reality　God　acts　and　directs　all　things　simply　by　the



necessity　of　His　nature　and　perfection；　and　that　His　decrees　and　volitions



are　eternal　truths；　and　always　involve　necessity。　（77）　So　much　for　the　first



point　which　I　wished　to　explain　and　demonstrate。







（78）　Passing　on　to　the　second　point；　let　us　search　the　sacred　pages　for



their　teaching　concerning　the　light　of　nature　and　this　Divine　law。　（79）　The



first　doctrine　we　find　in　the　history　of　the　first　man；　where　it　is　narrated



that　God　commanded　Adam　not　to　eat　of　the　fruit　of　the　tree　of　the



knowledge　of　good　and　evil；　this　seems　to　mean　that　God　commanded　Adam　to　do



and　to　seek　after　righteousness　because　it　was　good；　not　because　the



contrary　was　evil：　that　is；　to　seek　the　good　for　its　own　sake；　not　from　fear



of　evil。　（80）　We　have　seen　that　he　who　acts　rightly　from　the　true　knowledge



and　love　of　right；　acts　with　freedom　and　constancy；　whereas　he　who　acts　from



fear　of　evil；　is　under　the　constraint　of　evil；　and　acts　in　bondage　under



external　control。　（81）　So　that　this　commandment　of　God　to　Adam　comprehends



the　whole　Divine　natural　law；　and　absolutely　agrees　with　the　dictates　of　the



light　of　nature；　nay；　it　would　be　easy　to　explain　on　this　basis　the　whole



history　or　allegory　of　the　first　man。　（82）　But　I　prefer　to　pass　over　the



subject　in　silence；　because；　in　the　first　place；　I　cannot　be　absolutely



certain　that　my　explanation　would　be　in　accordance　with　the　intention　of　the



sacred　writer；　and；　secondly；　because　many　do　not　admit　that　this　history　is



an　allegory；　maintaining　it　to　be　a　simple　narrative　of　facts。　（83）　It　will



be　better；　therefore；　to　adduce　other　passages　of　Scripture；　especially　such



as　were　written　by　him；　who　speaks　with　all　the　strength　of　his　natural



understanding；　in　which　he　surpassed　all　his　contemporaries；　and　whose



sayings　are　accepted　by　the　people　as　of　equal　weight　with



those　of　the　prophets。　（84）　I　mean　Solomon；　whose　prudence　and　wisdom　are



commended　in　Scripture　rather　than　his　piety　and　gift　of　prophecy。　（85）　Life



being　taken　to　mean　the　true　life　（as　is　evident　from　Deut。　xxx：19）；　the



fruit　of　the　understanding　consists　only　in　the　true　life；　and　its



absence　constitutes　punishment。　（86）　All　this　absolutely　agrees　with　what



was　set　out　in　our　fourth　point　concerning　natural　law。　（87）　Moreover　our



position　that　it　is　the　well…spring　of　life；　and　that　the　intellect　alone



lays　down　laws　for　the　wise；　is　plainly　taught　by；　the　sage；　for　he　says



（Prov。　xiii14）：　〃The　law　of　the　wise　is　a　fountain　of　life　〃　…　that　is；　as



we　gather　from　the　preceding　text；　the　understanding。　（88）　In　chap。　iii：13；



he　expressly　teaches　that　the　understanding　renders　man　blessed　and　happ