神学年刊-神学哲学-天主教图书中心

作者：斐林丰年份：1977

First, I found it necessary to clarify a few things regarding the meaning of history and historicity.(1)

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines historicity as " historical character, genuiness of alleged events". This definition throws us back on the question: what is genuine history?

Common sense readily distinguishes two meanings of the word "history". History may mean, in the first place, the event or sum of events itself (lived history). Or, secondly, it may mean the narration of the event or sum of events (recounted history).(2) This distinction is plain enough. But as soon as we proceed further we get into trouble. If we ask: "what is the relationship of history in the second sense to history in the first sense?", then the answer is not so easy. It is the problem of the nature of historical knowledge. This problem in modern times has received two widely different solutions.

1. The first solution is that of positivist historiography. This solution reached the apex of popularity and acceptance in the last century, but it is still nowadays very widespread and unconsciously admitted also by many of those who seem to reject it.

According to this view, the historian (that is, the practitioner of history in the second sense) sees history (in the first sense) as an object of investigation and scientific enquiry, which is open to empirical testing and to which the principles and method of the positive empirical sciences should be applied. Historical facts are the object of historical science. These facts must be "observed" and scrutinized carefully so that one may obtain a description of them that is as exact as possible. The best kind of historical science is the one that gives the most exact description of the facts, the one that succeeds in giving, as it were, a photographic-stereophonic literary rendering of the facts as they really happened. In order to achieve this the historian must be totally impartial, must refrain from letting his subjectivity intrude in his examination of the facts, must avoid passing value judgments on the facts. His only job is just like that of the physicist, or the chemist, or the biologist: it is to analyze the facts and describe them as accurately as possible. In this way history can become an exact science, as exact as the natural sciences.

Historicity in this context, then, is the perfect correspondence between the historical event and its historical account. It is a quality of the event insofar as it has happened exactly as described by the historical account, and a quality of the account insofar as it exactly describes the event as it happened.

Now a word or two of criticism. The positivism of this view is evident. Its concern is to assure the reliability of historical science and this is praise-worthy. But its positivist bias makes it do so by assimilating historical science to the natural sciences. However, the belief that this assimilation is possible at all is an illusion. In fact, while the natural sciences have a deterministic object, history has as its object human reality which is, even if limitedly, free. (Of course, we are all well acquainted with what the proponents of 19th century positivism thought about human freedom!). Moreover, while the object of the natural sciences is empirically observable now, the object of history is past human experience: man is still with us, true, but his experience is gone and the only link with it is through human testimony, which, again, involves an element of freedom, of non-determinism.

Not only is history's assimilation to the natural sciences an illusion, but also the belief in the possibility of exact representation of past events. There simply can't be a photo-like or stereo-like reproduction of past reality by means of language. Language is necessarily conceptual and concepts comprehend living experience only imperfectly, because living experience is not made up of abstract essences but of concrete singular details. Even if optimum conditions of evidence and testimony were given, still the literary outcome would be but an approximation to the real thing. Concepts simply cannot grasp the infinite variety of details involved in real life. The human mind is incapable of keeping track of all possible circumstances involved in any one happening.

Finally, the ideal of perfect objectivity is as illusory as the first two points we have already mentioned. The subjectivity of the historian inescapably conditions his historical work and this from two fronts: on the one hand, the object itself of the historian's study is value-charged, insofar as it is a human event: the value is part of the historical fact itself and must be taken into consideration: refusal to consider it is itself already a value judgment; on the other hand, the work itself of the historian is necessarily subjective in the choice of significant material: in fact the historian does not deal with each and all of past events alike, but only with those that he judges significant, but evidently this judgment of significance will be determined by his subjectivity.

The consequences of such a positivist view of history when applied to the NT recounting of the history of Jesus and the early Church were disastrous. According to this view inexactness of detail (there is plenty of it in the NT) amounts to falsification or at least carelessness on the part of the historian with regard to the real facts. Also according to this view, the presence of value judgments in a narrative (again, there is plenty of them in the NT) jeopardizes its objectivity and throws doubt on the historical reliability of the whole narrative.

These conclusions of positivist historiography, however, rather than weaken the historical value of the narratives in question, show how unsound are the premises from which the reconclusions derive. Inexactness of detail and the inevitability of value judgments are hard facts that will always be part and parcel of all historical work by men. Rejection of them would practically mean rejection of all past history. The fact to be realized is that these features of historical work are the consequence of our real humanity and as such they can jeopardize the reliability of historical research only if they are tendentious. As for scientific exactness and absolute objectivity, these are dreams realized only in the minds intoxicated with positivistic scientism.(3)

2. The second solution to the problem of the relationship between history-science and history-reality, is that of existentialist philosophy. It should be noticed that here not only is the solution different, but also the approach to the whole problem is completely different. This is not so strange, since the positivistic approach to history is from the scientific point of view, while existentialism approaches it from the point of view of philosophy.

To come a little closer to our specific topic even while dealing with this general question, I will choose as representative of this second point of view Rudolf Bultmann, who draws his existentialist understanding of history mainly from the philosophy of Heidegger.

Bultmann, like Heidegger, refuses to look at history as if it were an object. On the contrary, he affirms history as a constituent element of the human subject: man is essentially "temporal being", "being-in-history": temporality and history are simply the human reality of not-being-all-at-once-and-once-for-all, the fact that man does not possess his being fully in any particular moment, but in every particular moment has to create it anew by projecting himself into the future by a free decision. History is the reality of man-in-the-making, of man's openness to the future, of man's capacity to escape from being determined by his past, of man not as actual but as possible being, open to a whole variety of possibilities. History therefore is simply man's potentiality for being and not the real cycle of past-present-future, it is existential temporality, not chronological time.

In this perspective, what becomes of historical knowledge, of the study of history? The present we are living it, the future is not-yet, the past then is the proper object of historical knowledge. The existential approach to the past will be that of looking for human events as examples of the actualization of human potentialities, as possibilities of being. Historical events by definition are products of human freedom. History is essentially, the history of human freedom, each event revealing one particular realization of man's potentialities.

It is clear then that if the student of history is to perceive events as possibilities of being, he has to get involved in these events, exposing himself to the challenge emitted by these events. By turning existentially to the past, the historian learns how to create his own future. The understanding of the past is thus inextricably bound up with the understanding of oneself, of one's own potentialities for being, of one's own openness to the future. This understanding of self stimulated by existential confrontation with the past, this is the essence of genuine historical knowledge. The past event itself is past only insofar as it has already happened, but it may be said to be future insofar as its meaning endures and has not exhausted its capacity to challenge human freedom to new realizations of itself.

This kind of existentially interpreted history is the only "proper" historical knowledge. Proper historical knowledge is concerned with the "that" of the past event, not with the "what" of the past event, for if the attention turns to the "what" then the event loses all its challenging dynamism, becomes objectified, it is no longer a human event, but a dead piece of scientific material. To know a past event as objectified is "improper" historical knowledge.(4)

However, Bultmann does not totally exclude from his philosophical construction "improper" historical knowledge, that is, scientific historical knowledge in the sense of the positivists. This improper historical knowledge is concerned with the "what" of events, it analyzes them, it describes them etc. Bultmann sees this objective consideration of the past as an essential, integrating part of total historical knowledge. This objective knowledge, in fact, is the starting point for the attainment of proper subjective existential knowledge. The important thing to notice, however, is that true objectivity resides only in the second kind of knowledge. The first kind claims to be objective, but in reality it is not, because by objectifying the historical event it treats an essentially human event in the same way as it would treat a natural phenomenon, and insofar scientific knowledge of history is unauthentic knowledge. The only knowledge, instead, that does justice to the uniqueness of human historical events is existential knowledge, for it treats the event for what it really is, a manifestation of human existence, an epiphany of freedom, and insofar only existential knowledge is authentic historical knowledge. Man-in-history will fully realize himself only by passing from unauthentic, self-styled "objective", scientific knowledge, to the authentic, really objective even though apparently very subjective, existential knowledge.

Historicity in this context, then, is neither a quality of the event, or a quality of the historical account, but a quality of man himself. Hence for Bultmann it is quite beside the point to ask: Did this really happen? the proper question being: Does this fact help me to authentically create my own existence by challenging me to a free and responsible choice?

How does Bultmann apply this philosophical scheme to the Christian reality (for Bultmann is not an existentialist for the sake of philosophy, but for the sake of theology and the Christian faith)?.

Firstly, the awareness of one's historicity, of one's openness to the future, of one's being-not-yet-fully-realized, but having-to-fully-realize-oneself by free decisions: this awareness is the necessary pre-understanding that makes faith and the response to the divine revelation possible. That is, consciousness of one's historicity is ultimately openness to the revealing God.

Secondly, revelation takes place as an event in history. As such it can be grasped by historical knowledge, both proper and improper. That is to say, revelation presents itself both as a fact verifiable by scientific history (such a fact is the Jesus of history, the fact of the Cross) and as a salvific event (this event is the Christ of faith, the event of the Resurrection). The former aspect is the object of improper, unauthentic, scientific historical knowledge, and has no salvific significance. The latter aspect is grasped only by proper, authentic, existential historical knowledge, and only this has salvific significance: if the response to the challenge perceived is positive, then this proper knowledge becomes faith.

Thirdly, it is the kerygmatic event that makes the passage from the first kind of knowledge to the second possible. In fact the kerygma is just this: the presentation of the Jesus of history, of the Cross, as the Christ of faith, as the Resurrection. That is, the kerygma is the presentation of an objective fact as challenging my freedom, as questioning my existence. The kerygmatic event sets in motion a process by which the man conscious of his historicity is confronted by the Biblical past and by faith recognizes in it the most authentic possibility of human existence. The kerygmatic event is itself a pure gift of God, for there is an unbridgeable gap between the first and the second step, between improper and proper knowledge. The first step is open to natural historical knowledge. The second is not subject to verification by historical science but is perceivable only by faith. In faith the second step (the Christ of faith, the Resurrection) becomes the true significance of the first step (the Jesus of History, the Cross). The two are indissolubly united as the signifying and the signified. But only the first step is an objective historical event. The second is not an historical event: it is the transcendent significance of the historical event denoted by the first step.

Fourthly and lastly, Bultmann sees as a highly regrettable development the early Church's retrogression from the second step into the first step achieved by the "historicization" of the significance of the events of the Jesus of history. What was originally the existentially perceived significance of the event (namely, the Resurrection as the belief in the saving efficacy of the Cross), was objectified into an historical fact (namely, the Resurrection as an objectively verifiable historical fact). Now this is precisely the essence of myth: the translation of the transcendent and the divine into the historical and the human. Hence the necessity of a program of de-mythologization: the re-discovery of the original eschatological transcendent significance that has successively become historicised and so hidden behind the veil of legend (this is not only the case with the Resurrection, but also with the other Gospel legends: the virgin birth, the temptations in the desert, the Transfiguration, the Ascension etc.). In this way the historicizing process of the primitive Church is reversed and modern man can still find meaning and challenge in the de-mythologized Gospel kerygma. The perception of God's challenge, of God's voice calling me today to the full stature of my authentic existence, to hear this voice and to respond to it, this is faith.

And now some comments, first on Bultmann's philosophical understanding of history, then on his theological application of this understanding.

Firstly, Bultmann's dichotomy between objective or chronological history and existential history reduces history-reality to the historicity of man, to man's being-in-time. How legitimate is this radical reduction? This seems to me to be simply the consequence of existentialist anti-essentialism: man's essence is nothing but self-createdness by means of free decisions in atomic moments of time; man creates himself anew in each moment; to exist is to choose one's existence; there is not any continuum of time-space or of consciousness. But then anyone who has not been mystified by existentialism will admit that this continuum, this non-atomism is a primary datum and on it is based the very possibility of the atomic choice acts. History, therefore, is not identifiable with the individual's temporality. On the contrary, the individual's temporality is situated in history which is a kind of supra-individual temporality. History as commonly understood is the platform of man's historicity as existentialism understands it.

Secondly, by labelling ordinary time and history as unauthentic, Bultmann leaves his so-called authentic existential history prey to absolute subjectivism, for in that case true history would be only that which is meaningful for me. However, this attribution of unauthenticity to objective ordinary history (whose subject matter is ordinary, chronological time and the events that take place in it) is also a consequence of another philosophical presupposition, namely, the phenomenological disaffection with every kind of objectification, with every question asking what is it?. Again, this is an unacceptable contradiction of an intellectual tendency natural to man and unauthentic only when it is misdirected (as, for example, in positivist philosophy).

At this point it is worth noticing how Bultmann, while rejecting the positivist view of history as natural science, does not really criticize it or attack it. He rather subsumes it in his system as the dialectical negative overcome by the dialectical positive of existential knowledge. As far as I am aware, he did not challenge the validity of the positivist view of history insofar as scientific, objective, non-existentialist history is concerned. Bultmann's failure to criticise positivist historicism on its own ground may psychologically explain his attitude to objective scientific history: Bultmann is a believer but he is convinced that the historicity of the Gospels cannot be defended since their historical value has been demolished by positivist historical criticism. But what about the Christian faith, then? Bultmann is determined to save faith. He does so by making faith absolutely independent from any historical ground. The unreliability of the latter (Bultmann takes for granted the conclusions of positivist historians!) in this way will be irrelevant to faith. Objectivity is thus not only not required by faith, but is definitively an obstacle on the road to faith. A desperate solution indeed! This despair about historicity of the Gospels shows that insofar as human knowledge is concerned Bultmann is at heart a thoroughgoing positivist. He is an existentialist only insofar as this philosophy enables him to salvage the faith. This latent positivism is also probably at the root of neo-orthodox Bultmann's liberal negation of miracles! Positive science was confident that it had succeeded in explaining away miracles. Bultmann seems to have taken this for granted. Was it this crypto-positivism that led him to draw the distinction between "miracle" (the brute fact, empirically verifiable) and "wonder" (the faith-perceived aspect of human happenings), damning the miracle and saving the wonder?(5)

The second point on which I would like to make some comments is Bultmann's application of his existentialist understanding of history to the Christian reality.

Firstly, the radical separation made between ordinary history and existential history introduces an unbridgeable cleavage between the world divine and the world human, between time and eternity. His intention in introducing this dichotomy is to safeguard the transcendence of the world divine and of faith. But he fails to realize that this excessive concern for transcendence jeopardizes the very reality of the Incarnation, which by definition is the bridging of the gap between God and man, the penetration of eternity in time in the one person of the Son of God Jesus Christ. But this identification of Jesus Christ with God Bultmann will reject as unauthentic mythical objectification and historicization! Anyhow, the fact remains that the onesidedeness of Bultmann's position is too narrow to embrace the comprehensiveness of the following statement of the Christian faith: "Christ, in time, is the Being who transcends time, but who expresses himself really through and by means of time" (Mourouz)(6).

Secondly, Bultmann unjustifiably sees all historical ground as threatening and even destroying the very essence of faith. According to him, if faith is based on scientifically ascertained historical facts, then faith is no longer faith (characterized by absolute certainty), but mere human knowledge (only probable at best). But this opinion of his is due to a misunderstanding of the nature both of historical signs and of faith.

In fact, an historical fact can only be a "sign" of the supernatural. In no way can it amount to a demonstration of the supernatural. A sign is not a proof and one needs faith to understand the significant import of a sign. The first and ultimate sign is the historical Christ himself. Its import (the Christ of faith, the Emmanuel, God-with-us) is appreciated by faith alone. True. Here we can agree with Bultmann. But to say that the historical Christ is "not of interest to the Christian belief in the Resurrection" (these are Bultmann's own words)(7), that is, to say that faith can do without historical signs, this is false. "If Christianity were no more than a philosophy of life, then matters of objective history would not be crucial to it. So long as we knew that someone had lived roughly the sort of life Jesus allegedly lived, we could at least take the 'imitation of Christ' as an ideal for human living . . . But if we want to go beyond that (as Bultmann certainly does) and claim that God was actually imparting himself in a quite distinctive and decisive way in the events of Jesus' life, then it is a matter of immense seriousness to learn what these events were".(8)

Moreover, Bultmann's understanding of faith is also defective in that he exclusively conceives faith as a decision of the will (which, of course, it is), and rejects faith as a kind of knowledge (which it is too, and if Bultmann does not agree with us in this it is because of his philosophical presuppositions).

The influence of Bultmann's system on the problem of the historicity of the Gospels is evident: he introduced a certain light-heartedness in the dismissal of the Gospels as unhistorical. Previous exegetes might have done so with a heavy conscience. Not so Bultmann: faith can, and indeed must, do without historical confirmation. So why so much trouble in trying to substantiate the Gospel's claims to historicity? (Whether they do make such claims we shall see later). That not only Bultmann's disciples but also some Catholic exegetes have been blessed with this light-heartedness will be clear from the survey of opinions that I am going to undertake in a moment. But before proceeding to that I would like to attempt a sketch of a more balanced view of history and historicity, which integrates the best insights of the two preceding positions, while overcoming their serious limitations.

A synthesis: the integral understanding of historiography and historicity. The nature of history in the second sense we distinguished at the beginning of our enquiry (recounted history) necessarily depends on the nature of history in the first sense (lived history). What is then lived history? It is a human reality, it is events significant for man. But every human event necessarily entails a twofold element of subjectivity and objectivity, of personal experience and external observable facts.

It was the illusion of 19th century positivist historiography that history, like natural sciences, was made up only of objectively verifiable phenomena, so that all accounts of past events had to be stripped of all subjective elements, if they wanted to win recognition as reliable history.

It is the danger of today's existentialist historiography to nourish the illusion that it can attain a true understanding of historical events by personal confrontation with their deep significance, dispensing with objectivity altogether.

The integral understanding of history contends that both the objective and the subjective elements are constitutive parts of history, recognizes with existential historiography that the formal constitutive element of history is the event's significance for the men who lived the event and, dependently on them, for all men throughout history, but also stresses that the way to the attainment of the true significance necessarily passes through the signs of objectively investigable data, the validity of the significance depending on the genuinity of these signs.

It is clear then that an invented event has no historical significance at all. An event the basic details of which are accurately (though not necessarily "exactly") related can yield the correct historical significance and be considered truly historical. That is to say, inaccuracy in minor details (like exact date, minor and secondary circumstances etc.) need not jeopardize the historical value of the whole narrative, even though the latter has to be carefully examined and evaluated. Inaccuracy in major details seriously undermines the historical value of the whole event. If it be asked what is the standard for distinguishing major from minor details, I would say that a major detail is the one that carries more of the burden of the significance of the event.

The consequences of this integral understanding of history for historicity are momentous.

Firstly, on the one hand the event's significance and observable data are put in the right place, to the effect that the equation "true history == exact history" is no longer valid. It is realized that the matter at hand being a human event (and a past event at that) the perfect recovery of all details would be impossible, and even if it were possible it would be irrelevant: there is indeed an "empirical residue" in history (to use a phrase of Bernard Lonergan) : the colour of Caesar's socks when passing over the Rubicon river makes no difference to the significance of that event and to its historicity (even if the account said that they were green while instead they were red!).

"It is obvious, therefore, that in the account of a witness, just as in that of a professional historian, not all details have the same weight; they do not stand out with the same degree of affirmation. (History) can be true by accommodating itself to the inexactness of details, if the details in question are not central to the event; absolute exactness, for the rest, surpasses human possibility".(9) When Chesterton remarked that it is enough to hear the report of the same car-accident by two eyewitnesses to start doubting about the whole of history, he was not denying that historical truth is attainable, but rather was saying that the criterion of historical truth set up by his positivist contemporaries was an impossible one!

So the divergences in detail of the evangelists should not be a reason for distrusting their historical truth as long as the crucial details and their meaningful import are not opposed to each other. For example, to take scandal at the divergences of the three Lucan accounts of the conversion of St. Paul is to subscribe to the positivist view of history as true only if exact. Evidently Luke did not share this view: if he had, he would have harmonized the three accounts! But he didn't, even though he had certainly noticed their minor discrepancies. For him the historical truth of the event he was relating lay in the real event of Paul's encounter with Christ on the way to Damascus, which encounter converted him.

Secondly, the fact that the historian was or is deeply interested and involved in the events described is no longer seen as necessarily an obstacle on the way to the attainment of historical truth. On the contrary "evidence is more interesting in the measure that its author was more involved in the events he reports. It is, of course, necessary to be careful to interpert it correctly, by taking into account the witness's point of view, by marking its limitations if necessary, and especially by comparing it with that left by other participants".(10)

Applied to the NT evangelists this point shows that we need not distrust them as historians for being deeply interested in, and totally committed to, those events as believers. It is precisely their faith that makes them penetrate the total significance of the event. This evidently does not dispense us from checking their version of the facts with other available evidence.

Thirdly, the event's significance being the formal element of history, it is clear that historical truth is not the same as scientific truth, and does not have the same kind of objectivity. "It is truth or conformity with being, but the demonstration of which can never be finished (it involves an infinite): it has objectivity, but a peculiar sort of objectivity, in the attainment of which all the thinking subject as an intellectual agent is engaged."(11)

The recognition of the historian's own presuppositions shows that an essential part of the process of reaching historical truth is the critical examination of these same presuppositions. The good historian will try to assess the correctness of his presuppositions and throughout his work he will be aware of them.(12) "Such a position implies no subjectivism. There is truth in history . . . But the truth of history is factual, not rational truth; it can therefore be substantiated only through signs, after the fashion in which any individual and existential datum is checked; and though in many respects it can be known not only in a conjectural manner but with certainty, it is neither knowable by way of demonstration properly speaking, nor communicable in a perfectly cogent manner, because, in the last analysis, the very truth of the historical work involves the whole truth which the historian happens to possess; it presupposes true human wisdom in him; it is 'a dependent variable of the truth of the philosophy which the historian has brought into play'.(13)

With reference to the NT this means that our certainty of the correctness of the evangelists' faith and philosophy becomes certainty of the correctness of their historical accounts insofar as the formal constituent of historical truth is concerned, namely, the event's significance for man. The certainty of faith for believers redounds into certainty of historical truth also with regard to the reliability of the signs that disengage this significance. But while the correctness of the former (significance of event) is finally guaranteed only by faith, the reliability of the latter (empirical phenomena of the event) is open to the investigation and confirmation by the science of history. I said "confirmation"; the non-believer will inevitably also take into the account the possibility of the biblical account being disproved by independent investigation.

　

*An extract from the Annual Research Paper "The Historicity of The Infancy Narratives"

(1) These are the main sources from which I have got my information about the problem of historicity: 1. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, The Paternoster Press, 1970, esp. ch.II; Pierre Grelot, The Bible Word of God, Desclee, 1968, esp. pp. 115-124; Idem, "La naissance d'lsaac et celle de Jesus", Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 94, Mai-Juin 1972, pp.462-487, 561-585; Claude Geffre, "Bultmann on Kerygma and History", in Rudolf Bultmann in Catholic Thought, Thomas O'Meara and Donald Weisser eds., Herder and Herder, 1968, pp. 167-195; Jacques Maritain, On the Philosophy of History, Geoffrey Bles, 1959, esp. pp. 5-7, 129-132; W. H. Dray, "Philosophy of History", The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards ed., Vol. 4, Taiwan edition, 1968, pp. 26-30;

Georg G. lggers, "Historicism", in Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Philip Wiener ed. Vol. II, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973;

John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, Darton Longman and Todd, 1975, esp. pp. 126-27.

(2) These two meanings have been distinguished linguistically as "cursus rerum" and "historia" in classical and medieval Latin; as "Geschichte" and "Historic" in modern German; as the "historial" and the "historique" (Jean Guitton) or as "histoire-realite" and "histoire-science" (Blondel) in modern French. In English there is no such linguistic doublet for history, unless one adopts some such neologism as "historiality" and opposes it to "historicity".

(3) It is possible that, for altogether different reasons, these are also dreams still lingering in the minds of most of us who are dedicated to ecclesiastical studies. For, in these studies, we concentrate especially on metaphysical and dogmatic questions and thus learn to get a keen appreciation of the criteria of metaphysical and dogmatic truth. Because of this, however, it is also easy for us to make the mistake of simply transposing the same truth criteria to historical problems. Historical truth is only analogically the same with metaphysical and dogmatic truth. Historical truth has its own criteria which perhaps we are not trained to appreciate to the full. If we identify the historical approach with the metaphysial-dogmatic, then we are committing more or less the same mistake of the positivists who identify it with the scientific approach. For this observation, cf. Pierre Grelot, The Bible etc., p. 123, note 134.

(4) This terminology is Bultmann's own. Elsewhere he uses also the words "Geschichte" and "Historic" to bring out the same distinction. Evidently there is some overlapping here with the distinction made at the beginning of his section. This second distinction seems to be a sub-distinction of the second member of our first distinction, namely: Historic as scientific knowledge (Historic) and Historic as existential knowledge (Geschichte).

(5) In a different way, the same latent positivism is at least negatively present in all those apologists of the historicity of the Gospels of the past and the present who share with the positivists their understanding of history as exact scientific history. Fighting on the very same ground of their opponents, their position has become more and more difficult to defend. But one need not concede to the attackers of the historicity of the Gospel the choice of the ground!

(6) Quoted by Claude Geffre, art.cit., p. 192.

(7) Quoted by Claude Geffre, Ibidem, p. 183.

(8) Ronald W. Haepburn, "Bultmann, Rudolf", The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc. p.425.

(9) Grelot, op.cit., p.118-119

(10) Ibidem, p.117.

(11) Jacques Maritain, op.cit., p.5

(12) That each historian has presuppositions, is generally admitted today. It was the 19th century histiorians that believed in the possibility of absolute objectivity without presuppositions. In this very belief they showed their own positivist presuppositions!

(13) Jacques Maritain, Ibidem, p.6-7. The quotation in the last sentence is from Henri Marrou, De la Connaissance Historique, Paris, Du Seuil, 1954.

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J. Which Bible 年份：1977

SOME HINTS ON CHOOSING AN ENGLISH AND CHINESE BIBLE

  These hints are in two main parts, with a short bibliography at the end.

Part 1: Check-List of Some Current Bible Translations in English & Chinese

No attempt is made here to list all Bibles in English and Chinese, ancient and modem, but only those that are "current", i.e. those available through Hong Kong bookshops. Nor is any attempt made to list the various editions and bindings (complete, partial; hardback, paperback) or dates of new printings of these various Bibles. The date given here is as far as possible the year of first publication. Note that many English-language books are published both in England and in the U.S.A.

Catholic Bibles in English

Kleist-Lilly  J. Kleist & J. Lilly, The New Testament, Bruce, Milwaukee, 1954
Knox R. Knox, The Holy Bible, Burns & Gates, London, 1955
Douay  Rheims-Douay Version of the Bible, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1956 (many earlier editions and some more recent)
Grail Psalms (H. Richards, ed.), The Psalms: A New Translation, Fontana Books, Collins, London, 1963
JB A. Jones, ed., The Jerusalem Bible, Darton, Longman & Todd, London/Doubleday, New York, 1966 (reprinted in Taiwan)
RSV, CE  Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain, ed., The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1966
NAB Catholic Biblical Association of America, The New American Bible, Kenedy, New York, and other U.S. publishers, 1970 (reprinted in Taiwan)
Living Bible  K.N. Taylor, The Way: Catholic Edition (The Living Bible) Our Sunday Visitor, Huntingion, Ind., 1973
Wu Psalms  吴经熊，圣咏译义初稿，商务印书馆，台北，1946
OFM Bible 思高圣经学会，圣经，香港，1968;　十一册，北平／香港，1948-1961
Wu NT 吴经熊，新经全集，商务印书馆，台北，1949
Hsiao NT  萧静山，新经全集，光启出版社，台中，1956
Hsiao NT  光启编译馆，新轻全集新译本，上下册，光启出版社，台中，1969
Other Bibles in English

Chicago Bible  E.J. Goodspeed et al., The Complete Bible: An American Translation, University of Chicago, 1939
RSV  Anon., The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 1957 (including deutero-canonical OT books; reprinted in Taiwan)
Phillips  J.B.Phillip, The New Testament in Modern English, Collins, London,1958
AB W.F. Albright & D. N. Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible, Doubleday, NewYork, 1964 (38 volumes planned, about 20 now published)
OAB, RSV  Anon., The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford University Press,1965
TEV, GNMM Anon., Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament in Today's English Version, American Bible, New York, 1966
NEB  Anon., The New English Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford University Press, London, 1970 (reprinted by Mei Ya Publications, Taipei, 1970)
NASB  Anon., New American Standard Bible, Lockman Foundation,1971
CB, RSV  Anon., Common Bible: The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, An Ecumenical Edition, Collins, London, 1973 (includes deutero-canonical books)
NIV  Anon., New International Version, New Testament, New York Bible Society, New York, 1973
NB Anon., The Good News Bible, American Bible Society, New York, 1976 (without deutero-canonical books)

Other Bibles in Chinese

Union Version 新旧约全书，圣经公会，香港，1919

Lui Chan-chung 吕振中，〔全部圣经〕，1970

Contemporary Good News 当代福音，中文圣经意译本新约全书，香港新力出版社，香港， 1975

TCV  给现代人的福音，香港圣经公会，香港，1976

Lockman NT  新约全书，新译本，申文圣经新译委员会，香港，1976

PartII: Some Comments on the Above Check-List

Catholic Bibles in English

The Kleist-Lilly NT has been called by J.L. McKenzie "the most modern of modern speech versions", and "the best existing translation in English by Cathoics... ; consistently superior to Knox in the Gospels, superior (but less consistently)to Knox in the other books". I am not sure how easily available it is today.

Knox's NT is better than his OT--he was a good Greek scholar. His Pauline epistles have been termed "masterful"."Knox has been more appreciated by literary aesthetes than by... biblical scholars" (says Raymond Brown). He translated from the Latin Vulgate. His is one of the rare one-man translations of the whole Bible (on which he spent 10 years) and the first Catholic challenge to the Douay Bible for centuries. Knox is already somewhat dated, I feel, but still circulates to some extent in Hong Kong, e.g. in a bilingual Chinese (Fr. Hsiao, S.J.) and English translation of the Gospels, Acts and Paul published in 1962-64 by the Hong Kong Catholic Truth Society. Cf. Knox's On Englishing the Bible.

The Douay was a competent translation from the Vulgate made at Rheims and Douay and later revised by Bishop Challoner. It dominated the English-speaking Catholic world for several centuries. It is now rather out-of-date because of its archaic language, poor printing and lack of contact with modern biblical scholarship.

The Grail Psalms, translated directly from the Hebrew by a team of scholars, were intended to be sung to the melodies of Joseph Gelineau. They read well and seem sufficiently accurate--H. H. Rowley, an outstanding Protestant OT scholar, calls them "a very impressive rendering". The Psalms in the new English Breviary, The Liturgy of the Hours, follow the Grail version.

The JB is related to the Bible de Jerusalem which was published by the best French-speaking scholars, first in many separate fascicules, then in a single volume and now (1975) in a thoroughly revised edition. The original French BJ is the outstanding French version with an international reputation. The English JB, though very widely circulated round the world in many editions, is not of the same calibre--a glance at the list of "collaborators" will suggest why. The Scripture text in particular has been severely criticized for many inaccuracies and excessive liberties. However, the introductions and footnotes are of real value and the very readable English style and good printing make it generally popular. The JB text appears in several Mass lectionaries and in parts of the new Breviary, and it is approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury for use in Westminster Abbey.

The RSV appeared in a Catholic edition with minor textual adjustments and some extra notes in 1966. This edition, which has a Foreword by Cardinal Heenan and Imprimatur by the Archbishop of Edinburgh, is available in an inexpensive paperback. Personally I find this the most reliable and generally satisfactory Bible for my work. See further comments on the RSV below.

The NAB is the name ultimately given to the U.S. New Confraternity Bible (the first Confraternity Bible of 1941 was an attempt to modernize the Douay Bible). The NAB was done by the best U.S. Catholic biblical scholars and claims to be the first Catholic translation into English directly from the original languages. It is certainly a competent and reliable translation with useful introductions and notes, and the U.S.-style English does not seem obtrusive. I am not sure how widely it has been accepted inside and outside the Catholic Church in the U.S.A.

The Living Bible: This is not a translation but a paraphrase, and as such it has been severely criticized for distorting the original meaning, cf. Catholic Biblical Quarterly review in vol. 36 (1974), pages 439-440. By 1974 it had sold 16 million copies. This Catholic edition surprisingly carries an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

Catholic Bibles in Chinese

N.B. For writings in Chinese the present writer obviously does not claim any competence but just offers a few opinions for reference.

Dr. John Wu's Psalms and NT have been highly praised as a tour de force for putting the biblical text into elegant literary Chinese. However, many Hong Kong Chinese today have little interest or competence in classical Chinese. Moreover, since John Wu translates from English, the result is not always faithful to the original sense. I have heard that Bishop Francis Hsu asked his friend John Wu to make a special, new colloquial translation of the Scripture readings in the new lectionary for use in the Sunday Mass liturgy in Hong Kong, and that that is the origin of the present Chinese readings.

This NT of Fr. Hsiao, S.J. was the standard Catholic NT until the OFM version appeared. It is based on the Vulgate and is said to read rather well in Chinese, apart from some local dialect expressions. The third printing was done at the Sienhsien Catholic Mission, Hopei Province, in 1933, and the first Taiwan edition was done by Kuangchi Press in Taichung in 1956.

The OFM Bible is at present the standard Catholic Bible approved by the hierarchy and used in the liturgy in Taiwan and, on week-days, in Hong Kong. It will also presumably be used in the new Chinese Breviary. It is the first Chinese Bible translated directly from the original languages and was praised by the famous Dr. Hu Shih, the leader of the Chinese literary renaissance. The full ll-volume edition is a monumental work of over 9,000 pages. I have read the complete NT and parts of the OT and the translation strikes me as very careful but perhaps too literal for bridging the gap between languages so different as, e.g. Hebrew and Chinese. The Chinese text has been sometimes criticized for being rather stiff, "translation Chinese". One the other hand, a Chinese Protestant friend engaged on a new translation of the OT, praised it precisely for its literalness. A great wealth of introductions and notes are provided, especially in the complete edition, well-informed but in general of a somewhat cautious, conservative tendency in exegesis and theology. This translation remains as an imposing contribution and it is unlikely to be superseded by any new Catholic translation, especially of the OT, for at least a generation.

This Kuangchi NT was done by an anonymous team of Jesuits, of whom I think the French Fr. Petit was one. It appeared in an earlier form in Tientsin in 1949. It looks a good piece of work, but I have rarely met anyone who uses it.　

Other Bibles in English

The Chicago Bible has been acclaimed for its NT. R. Brown calls it "in many ways the best complete Bible available" up to the time of writing (1968). I have the impression that it is more a scholarly translation than one for wide, popular use.

The RSV, which is in the tradition of the King James Version (1611),was prepared by outstanding Protestant scholars and is the most faithful translation that I know of the original text and meaning. This faithfulness may sometimes result in a certain stiffness in English style by comparison with other more idiomatic versions. It still uses some "Bible English", e.g."thou" (to God), "behold". J. L. McKenzie says that it "is regarded by many as the best English version". According to C. L. Manschreck, it is "likely to be the most enduring of all translations in the 20th century". The NT of the RSV was revised in 1971, and the permanent review committee has both Catholic and Protestant members from Britain, the U.S. and Canada. In Hong Kong the printed booklets giving the Sunday Mass readings in English use the RSV text.

Phillips is an English vicar with a gift for lively, readable English. His NT has been very popular in England and the U.S. However, he does depart too far from the original at times and frequently lapses into paraphrase. He is working on an OT version.

The AB is a major U.S. translation and commentary series still in progress. The scholars invited to prepare the 38 volumes include prominent Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Raymond Brown's John is possibly the finest contribution to date. The style and approach varies considerably from volume to volume in this series.

Even before the RSV came out in a Catholic edition in London in 1966, the Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha received an Imprimatur from Cardinal Gushing of Boston without any changes in the RSV text (1965).

The TEV of the NT claims to have sold 50,000,000 copies. It aims at people outside the Churches and deliberately uses a simplified vocabulary and style. It seems to be substantially accurate but the simplified English inevitably loses many of the subtleties, e.g. of St. Paul's thought. R. Brown's judgment: "Stylistically it stands somewhere between Phillips and the NEB. Occasionally it is too free in its departures from a literal rendering of the original, but it reads well . . ." Massive world-wide publicity, attractive printing, splendid line-drawings and low cost have resulted in an enormous circulation. There is now a magnificent hardback edition in full colour.

The NEB is not a revision of any earlier version but a fresh translation direct from the original languages. It was done by the best British Protestant scholars led by Professor C. H. Dodd of Oxford and advised by a literary panel. It has been praised for being faithful to the original sense and as incorporat ing "excellent scholarship and vigorous modern British style" (R. Brown). It was sponsored by the main non-Catholic Churches in Britain. I think that the NEB is now used publicly at services, like the King James Version and the RSV, in the Anglican and other Churches.

The NASB is said to be quite popular in the U.S.A. It is of a conservative tendency.

Finally the Common Bible was published in 1973. It again uses the RSV unchanged text with the deutero-canonical books and is the nearest we have yet come to a real common Bible accepted by all the Christian Churches. It has been "approved" (in some sense) by Cardinal Koenig, President of the World Catholic Federation for the Biblical Apostolate, and by Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras II, Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriar chate of Constantinople. It is published in inexpensive paper-back form.

The NIV, like the NASB, was translated by a committee of fifteen conservative scholars from five English-speaking countries. They come from a wide variety of Protestant Churches.

The recently published Good News Bible presumably follows the same principles as the NT. The Catholic scholar Fr. E. H. Maly has reviewed it favourably in The Bible Today for March 1977, pages 1177-1180. Time calls it "homespun" and mentions that it has been criticized by some scholars. It has sold 11/2 million copies in its first three months. It has been suggested to the publishers that they consider publishing an edition containing also the deutero-canonical books of the OT.

Other Bibles in Chinese

The Union Version is probably still the standard Chinese Bible used by most Protestant Churches. It now seems somewhat antiquated in language. I have seen it stated that it was translated from English, not from the original text, but that statement has been challenged. There are two editions, one using神 for God, the other using上帝 .

Lui Chan-chung, a Protestant scholar, recently made a fresh translation of the NT, which has been highly praised to me by a competent critic.

Contemporary Good News, as the subtitle suggests, is more a paraphrase. It is the Chinese equivalent of Taylor's Living Bible (see above). It is well-produced. One edition uses the Mainland characters and carries photographs of Chinese scenes, e.g. the Great Wall, youth, street scenes, and therefore seems intended for circulation there. 神 is used for God. See review in Ching Feng No. 45 (July 1975) 36-39.

The basic text of the TCV was done from English by Moses Hsu, a popular Chinese writer for young people, and then revised against the Greek text by 9 Protestant and 3 Catholic Chinese scholars. It aims at non-Christians between 18 and 25 years of age and therefore employs a simplified vocabulary and quite modem style. It is attractively produced and illustrated and sells at a very economic price. Fr. Mark Fang who worked on the drafts for several years seems rather satisfied with it in general. The Catholic edition of the TCV carries a preface signed by Archbishop Lo Kuang of Taipei and substitutes the Catholic terms for "God", "Holy Spirit" and "Yahweh". It is unfortunate that the two notes on the "Lord's Supper" and "Bread" with their Protestant theology of the Eucharist (not found in the TEV) were allowed to remain unaltered in the "Catholic Edition". The TCV interpretation of Romans 5,1-5 is discussed by Thomas Law and Andrew Tsui of Holy Spirit Seminary and by Major Ng of the Salvation Army in the Kung Kao Po: 14.1.1977. Fr. Marcus Chen, O.F.M. has written a more detailed review of the TCV in Vox Cleri No. 161, December 1976, pages 52-55. Work is now continuing on the OT translation.

The Lockman NT would be rated by Fr. Fang even higher than the TCV', see his review of it in Collectanea Theologica Universitatis Fujen, No. 30 (Winter 1976), pp. 593-7. Work is proceeding on the Lockman OT.

　

Bibliography

1) The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966),vol.2 has a long articIe entitled "BibIe, (Text and Versions)". Within that article two sections deal with modern English versions:

S.J. Hartdegen, "Cathoilc English Versions", PP.465-470;

S. Bullough & L. A. Weigle, "Protestant and Jewish English Versions", pp. 470- 476.

2) C.L. Manschreck, "The BIbIe In English", in: The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (ed. C. M. Laymon), Collins, London, 1971, pp.1237-1242.

3) 思高圣经学会，圣经辞典，香港，1975, 45一48: 中文圣经译本。

4) 贾保罗编，圣经汉译论文集，基督教辅侨出版社，香港，1965

作者：汤汉 Tong, John 年份：1977

PREFACE

Last year, Fr. Mark Fang, professor of Sacred Scripture of Fujen University, Fr. Edward Malone, assistant secretary of the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences and I went to pay a visit to Rev. Peter K.H. Lee at the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, which is situated on the top of a hill in Shatin. Built in the style of a Chinese Buddhist monastery, it had been used as a Buddhist temple. Later it was bought by a Lutheran Community for the purpose of holding dialogue between Christians and Buddhists. Now it has extended its usage and become the Christian Study Centre. The environment was enchanting; to be there was like being in a fairyland. After a little chat Rev. Lee took us to have a look at the environment. Passing through an arch on the slope of a hill we saw a couplet which says:

"Many walk along the wide road where they find no true happiness,

Few enter the narrow gate wherein is found eternal life."

宽路行人多并无真乐，

窄门进者少内有永生。

It is very interesting that this couplet connects together true happiness and eternal life. It struck us most because among us there were Chinese who are deep in the Eastern culture and there was also an American who reflects the western culture. Besides, we were at a place which was once used as a Buddhist temple and now as a Christian Study Centre. It happened also that I was thinking of writing something on joy. So I copied the couplet at once and use it now as an introduction to my essay.

A. THE TWO ESCHATOLOGICAL TRENDS OF TODAY

As there is a close relationship between joy and eternal life, I would like first of all to introduce the two modern eschatological trends before going deeper into the topic "joy".

About a decade ago, two scholars, Howard Clark Kee and Franklin W. Young, in their book A Study on the New Testament, had pointed out that the two trends of Modern Eschatology were already evident in the early church persecution period. According to their point of view the first conflict between the Christians and the Roman Empire started at the time of Nero (54-68 A.D.). In July 64 a great fire broke out in Rome which lasted for six days and the greater part of the city was burnt to ashes. Though it was said that this great fire was caused by the irresponsible act of Nero, it might well have been due to the lack of communication between the Christians and the Romans of those days. So Nero could make use of the anti-Christian feeling of the people and lay the blame on the Christians, thus distracting the public attention. The second conflict took place at the time of Domitian (81-96). Domitian was the first Emperor who proclaimed himself a god, not only within his own capital but also to the boundaries of the Empire. So he looked upon all Christians who would not worship him as god as disloyal to the Empire and condemned them to death.

Kee and Young point out that these two incidents gave rise to two reactions among the early Christians - the pacificatory and the uncompromising attitudes. The former can be presented by the authors of the First Letter of Peter and of the Letter to the Hebrews. By means of these letters they warned their brethren in Christ not to be agitated by the coming of suffering, but that they should be patient in waiting, looking upon suffering as chastisement from God, because Christ himself had also suffered while on earth. They had no intention to rouse the hatred of believers against the Roman Government; on the contrary, they advised them to respect the Emperor and his Government. The uncompromising party was represented by the author of Revelation. He asked believers to stand firm in faith when faced with the threat of persecution, of suffering, of death. Through the description of the struggle between the Child and the Red Dragon he wanted to project the contest between the power of God and the influence of Satan. The result of it was that the Child who represented the resurrected Christ gained control over the Red Dragon which represented the Roman Government. This school prophesied that the relation between the state and the church would one day come to an end and he asked believers to be strong in their faith in resisting the evil power of the time.

Finally Kee and Young also point out how the two different attitudes developed into the two modern eschatological trends of thoughts. The pacificatory party adopted the Greek thought of Plato which, when joined to the historical concept of the Christian religion, formed a pattern. According to this pattern things on earth are the imperfect miniature of the heavenly perfection. Therefore the eschatological hope of believers is not based on the imperfection of the present world compared with the perfection of the world to come, but on the imperfection of the present world with the perfection of the future heaven. The uncompromising party adopted the Jewish apocalyptic literature, using strange phenomena and signs to express faith, and reminding the contemporary church of the belief that the redemption of the Lord will be perfected, moving from the perfection of the earth to the perfection of the world to come. If they wished that the new heaven and the new earth would appear sooner, they had to trust in the promise of the Lord, not dreading suffering but participating in all life's practical activities.

These two schools of eschatological thought, appearing in the early church, not only deeply influenced her life, but also prevails in the theological field of this century and gave rise to a conflict in the Catholic Church in the forties between the eschatologists and the incarnationalists. It also gave rise to the flux of the theology of hope in the Protestant churches in the sixties. Recently, with the motto of "theological indigenization" Christian faith has been sifted of its western accessories, i.e., of the western culture which has been appended to the explanation of faith; and study has been made into the various cultures and traditions and, especially through the eastern religious mysticism, into the innate spirit of Scriptural eschatology.

Last month by chance I picked up the magazine Ching Feng (Chinese edition) vol. 48 and came across two articles about "Joy". "The spirit of Joy in Chinese Philosophy" by John Wu was rich in content and feeling, making for easy reading. The second article is a book review by Liu Po-Chuen on "Moltmann's Joy and Theology". It stirs the reader to raise critical questions about his own actual state of joy and to reconsider it. I personally think that these two articles on "Joy" find expression in the two eschatological trends, the former carves out Joy's inner transcendance and the latter stresses its social liberating action. These strike me and have set me thinking. Now I will try to examine the joy of a Christian from these two angles.

B. THE TWO THEOLOGICAL VIEWPOINTS ON JOY

Searching for happiness is one of the purposes of life. Men of all times and places are keen on working for it and yet they cannot clarify the different strata of the concept of joy. Some look upon material enjoyment as happiness; other relish friendship as happiness. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher rightly classified joy into two types: that of a temporary nature he termed pleasure; that of a permanent nature he termed happiness. But I personally prefer a definition given by a writer who picks out three words and gives them a meaningful significance. They are "pleasure", "happiness", and "joy". The happy feeling which comes from the material and through the five senses is called pleasure; the relish experienced in human relationship is called happiness; and that blessing which comes from God and never changes is called joy. All these come from different strata of joy, closely related yet different. Indeed throughout the Old and the New Testaments joy is particularly connected with Israel or with the whole church. Joy is not the sudden fruit of faith; it is the chief strain running through the whole relation with God. The Encyclopaedia of Scriptural Theology by Alan Richardson minutely points out that joy has its source in the life of God; it is part of the gift from God. It is also the expectation of the final blessedness. Only at the final coming of God will our joy be completed. Therefore in the Old Testament many passages deal with this expectant joy; and with a strong eschatological sense, the Jews look upon joy as inseparable from total salvation (Is. 12:3; 6:10; 65:18-20; Ps. 126). In many of the New Testament parables about the Kingdom of God the concept of joy and the awesome presence of God are linked together (Jn. 3:39; 17:13; Rev. 19:7). All in all, in Scripture joy is always referred to its eschatological reality. This reality, due to the death and resurrection of Christ, has been partially realized in the life of man, and also guaranteed the actualization of the future total redemption.

The joy which the Scripture refers to is not only a passive concept but also an active one: it is a promise and a gift from God, the death and resurrection of Christ being its first fruit. Also it requires the cooperation of man to break all fetters - to free himself and the world in order to receive the salvific joy of God and to bring it to completion. The theology of joy today strives to answer the following question: "How can we live the true spirit of joy in the framework of salvation history?" Theological thought has also been influenced by these two eschatological trends and look at joy from two different strata.

(1)Looking at joy from the Interior Stratum

This system of thought usually begins with the phenomena of life. It seeks first to experience the painful phenomena of birth, old age, sickness and death and then to examine the psychological reaction of people in general when faced with such phenomena of life. Lastly, it searches for the right attitudes of Christian faith when faced with the same phenomena of life.

"Phenomena of life" usually refers to what the existentialists call the pattern of existence and, also as Heidegger says, "Death is the most fundamental pattern of human existence."Because on the day we were born we started proceeding toward death, just like a flower that blooms is going toward its withering. Life and death are so closely connected that they give rise to "anxiety" and "suffering".

How do the people generally react when faced with such phenomena of life? E. Kubler-Ross, after a long period of observation, had written a book. The Last Journey, in which she synthesizes the general psychological reaction into five main streams: 1. denial and refusal; 2. resistance and anger; 3. gambling and bargaining; 4. frustration; 5. involuntary acceptance. Why are such negative psychological reactions experienced? There is no other reason except that man looks upon death as the end or extremity of life, so that he cannot help feeling sad, regretting that he has not yet done his best and it is already time to die.

But facing the same life phenomena, what attitude does Christian faith inspire in us? First of all we should know how Christ faced these life phenomena, and then we see how we Christians should follow his footsteps along the same path. Salvation history tells us that God, because of his love brought forth for mankind. This love is like a calling which requires a life-long response from man. This, in turn, brings about a communication of life. But because man unfortunately committed sin, he lost his way and broke the relation between man and God and between man and man. Therefore Christ lowered himself and became man; and with his own life he reveals to us the way to respond. His life is a total act of obedience to God the Father. He takes the body of a slave, being obedient unto death on the cross, and having emptied himself, he lets the love of the Father fill his whole being. After his Ascension into heaven he continued to act in his believers, so as to have his salvific plan realized. Through the indwelling of the Spirit in man and his inspiration he helps man to be conscious of self and to participate in the act of dying and rising. Therefore Christ and his faithful followers do not look upon death as the end and extremity of life but as a change. Everyday they meet the changes of life with joyful hearts and these changes in life simultaneously bring them a more profound interior joy.

Today the spirit of joy, abundantly hidden in salvation history, has become very bright and clear due to research into Eastern culture and the study of Buddhism. Buddhism also acknowledges that the interior of man has been enslaved by fame and profit. To obtain the joy of liberation he has to practise the art of "breaking through" and "unifying". "Breaking through" means a way of going deeper into life, to break all fetters. "Unifying" is the art of experiencing and recognizing the real "me", rendering the union of the unlimited with the limited. Through the subtle ply of a landscape the Chinese poet, Su Dung Po, was able to give an inkling of the Zen flavour:

The mist of Lu Shan, the tide of Zhe Giang;

Till a man with longing fore his visitation,

Lave a man with void hind his apprehension;

The mist of Lu Shan, the tide of Zhe Giang.

庐山烟雨浙江潮，

未到千般恨不消，

及至到来无一事，

庐山烟雨浙江潮。

Dr.Daisetz Suzuki, the Japanese Zen Master, in his book Zen Buddhism, points out that this is also the view point of the following quotation: "Before a man obtains 'enlightenment',he sees the mountain as mountain and the water as water. When he has learnt the theory of enlightenment through the guidance of a qualified master, he sees the mountain not as a mountain and the water not as water. But when he really arrives at the place of repose, he sees the mountain as mountain again and the water as water again."

Continuing his explanation. Dr. Daisetz Suzuki, "Before achieving enlightenment we see the mountain as mountain. This is because we look at the mountain with the concept of general knowledge and with the analysis of our intellect. The mountain then is lifeless. After achieving enlightenment, we do not look upon the mountain as a natural feature, standing high in front of us, but we transform it into one with all things and the mountain is no longer a mountain. But when we are really enlightened we have already united the mountain to our lives and also our lives into the mountain. Then the mountain becomes a reality, and it has life.

The movement from "seeing the mountain as mountain" to "seeing a mountain not as mountain" is the "breaking through" stage; and the movement from "seeing the mountain not as mountain" to "seeing the mountain as mountain again" is the "unifying" stage. If we connect the stages of breaking and unifying together, and locate it in the faith of Christ, making use of it to transform our lives, by dying to the old self and giving rise to the new self, well, is not this the Paschal Mystery? No wonder, John C. H. Wu in his essay points out that Confucianism leads us to leap over the barrier between self and men; Taoism helps us to leap over the barrier between self and things; Buddhism leads us to leap over the barrier between life and death. Thus our whole life is indeed a journey from the little "me" to the real "me". Arriving there, can we refrain from sighing and saying with St. Paul, "I live, but it is not I that live, but Christ lives in me"? And can we not feel that everyday, every month is but that festive day in creation, in which every minute and every second is filled with excitement and joy?

(2) Looking at Joy from the Social Stratum

After having looked at joy from the interior stratum, now let us turn to look at joy from the social angle. This system of thought usually begins with the social phenomena and leads us to question the purpose and the characteristics of enjoyment provided for ordinary people by politicians, capitalists and cultural leaders. It formulates a critique of the particular theory of amusement. Then it tries to find a way of liberation, with the eye of faith, in order to offer real respect and progress to the nature of men.

The so-called social phenomena are referred to by Moltmann in his book Theology and Joy as the suffering and struggle of life. In the society of today politicians make use sports, competitions, philately and other activities to give the people a moment's relaxation of the spirit. Capitalists give the labourers an occasional holiday of rest; cultural leaders arrange programmes of amusement for the public. Apparently they are very much concerned for the people, but in reality this is only a sort of anaesthesia, hoping that after a moment's disciplined relaxation and repose, they can extend further pressure or squeeze out more work. Well, what is the aim and characteristic of this amusement? Is it for the common people or just for the few on top? Do these enjoyments bring us a greater freedom or a greater bondage?

Of course a Christian cannot stand aside with folded arms and watch all these unjust phenomena! First of all, since he is man, he is automatically a part of the society and has duty to participate and to promote social justice, so as to render perfect the creation of God. Besides, since he is also a Christian, he has the duty to abolish the fetters of social injustice, so as to render the continual influx of the salvific gift which Christ, by dying and rising from the dead, has gained for us. As St. Luke says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke 4:18-19)

How should we participate positively in promoting social justice? Moltmann in his essay also suggests to us the way of breaking through and unifying. In breaking through, he clearly points out that we should root out the concept of utilitarianism and pessimism. So-called utilitarianism takes the achievement of fame and profit as the standard of one's success. Pessimism implies the attitude of not daring to thrust oneself forward, but knowing only to kneel down and beg for pardon, when faced with injustice. Both attitudes of life should be abolished, for if they remain, the just society will never appear, and real and permanent joy is only an utopia. In unifying, it means to affirm the value of everyone's life and work so that he will be respected by others and thus help oneself and others to obtain a complete and thorough human development.

Although Christ spent only three years on earth to spread the good news, before this period he had spent thirty years of hidden life, walking quietly the ordinary path, using his simple life to affirm the value of life, manifesting the greatness of humanity even through lowly work. Therefore after abolishing utilitarianism we ought to establish positively the right concept of value, not taking fame and profit and success as standard but measure it with dedication and intention, so that the life and work of everyone in society will be respected. Besides, despite the fact that what we see in politics, finance and social culture do not correspond to our ideal, we are still full of hope, and through the signs of the times and from Christ who came to serve, we learn to offer our lives, to replace selfishness with love, to promote the progress of the society. Pedro Arrupe Superior General of the Jesuits, in his essay "Men for others", has emphatically expressed this thought and also has realistically suggested to us the following three practical points:

1. Live a simple life — this asks us to resist persistently the tide and fashion of the consumer society, not to follow suit with relatives and friends in buying luxurious goods; but through simple lives we should try to have an excess to be shared among poor and needy brothers.

2. Not to take unjust profit — this implies that we should not care only for the income of our production and neglect the heavy burden laid on the others. Attention should also be paid that although we are in a neither high nor low position in society and apparently we are not oppressing anyone, in reality we are using the neither high nor low means to sustain the oppressing system, or indirectly we are oppressing the victims.

3. Reform the unjust system — this is a further step and it is also the most difficult one. It requires of us to dedicate ourselves to the thorough reform of the unjust system, to arouse the consciousness of the oppressed and to help them in practical ways to fight for the victory of justice.

With confidence, strength and the guarantee given us by the death and resurrection of Christ, we not only see clearly but also can go forward courageously towards the goal we are longing for. Human history will surely break through the present state and arrive at the state of completion. While we are alive, we shall surely have to labour. But this labour will no longer be a bondage or a yoke; it will originate from freedom and be motivated by love. The Lord will wipe away all tears from men's eyes and there will be no more grief or pain (Rev.21: 2-4). We will enjoy the joy of eternal freedom in the city of God, as described by Isaiah, "Arise, Jerusalem, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you … And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising… Then you shall see and be radiant, your heart shall thrill and rejoice… " (Is. 60:1-6)

C. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

The two perspectives introduced above, of course, point to two aspects of the one joy. They are not exclusive but complementary to each other. For if we start from our heart and stop in our heart, although we can become light of spirit, be made happy, yet we shall be led to an individualism lacking in constructive effect to the society. Contrarily, if we start with society and stop with society, although we can give service to the people and the world, we shall surely loose our interiority and become a lost generation.

I personally think that because of the difference of Eastern and Western cultures our ways of searching for joy are also different. Here are two examples to illustrate this point:

Example 1. It is said that when the Buddha Sakyamuni was preaching on a certain hill, he took a flower and showed it to the people quietly, not uttering a word. His disciples looked at one another, not understanding what he meant. Only his eldest disciple Mahakasyapa gave a knowing smile. Then the Buddha said, "I have a wonderful way which is hidden from sight. I will not write it down or preach it abroad; but I hand it on to Mahakasyapa." Why is a smile so important which enabled Mahakasyapa to inherit the honourable office of his master to rule the monastery? Nothing very special! It is because Eastern people, unlike Westerners, who stress differentiation more, take the interior stratum and the social stratum and combine them into one. Therefore Eastern people think that if joy starts from the interior, then with incessant fostering, it will naturally extend outward and come to the social stratum and then to the whole mankind. In like manner, if it starts from the social angle, it will also go from the exterior to the interior, enabling real joy to reach the depth of one's soul.

Example 2. Bertrand Russell said that when he was young, he was always unhappy. Later, he learnt to extend his attention to others, and be a person who always gave, who enlarged his own interests and set his emotions free. Then, and only then, could he taste joy and really become the locus of the feelings and happiness of others. The example of Russell can represent the attitude of the majority of the Westerners in their search for joy. They stress differentiation and try first of all to distinguish clearly the social angle and the interior angle and then begin searching for happiness.

But regardless of the stress of Eastern culture on joining and the Western culture on differentiation, I think that for complete joy, deep commitment is indispensable.

In fact, N. Z. Zia in his book Christianity and Chinese Thought has examined Christian faith and the New Chinese Cultural Movement. He correctly points out that the New Chinese Cultural Movement, in order to oppose the "man-consuming culture" and further, in order to oppose "man-consuming man", has drawn many men into the modern tide of Lenin-Marxism. In order to rebuild the national fortunes and its tradition, we should interchange, criticize and harmonize Eastern and Western cultures. Therefore, what Christian faith can offer to Chinese thought is the taking of its innate mysticism and its social service and combine them together so that everyone can at once be a thoroughly new man in Christ through the grace of salvation, and so make suffering China experience the real taste of joy.

To conclude, it is worthwhile to use another Buddhist story to remind ourselves that we should put unceasing effort into our commitment. Tradition says that Su Dung Po and the monk Fo In were good friends. They lived on opposite banks of the river and they often communicated with each other. One day after his Zen exercise Su Dung Po felt very tranquil and comfortable, so he wrote a poem on the wall:

I bow down my head in concentration.

Though the sun is shining brightly,

But not even the eight winds can move me,

As I sit at the lotus position!

稽首天中天，

毫光照大千,

八风吹不动，

端坐紫金莲。

Not long after, Fo In came to visit Su and read the poem. He took up the brush and wrote by its side, "Foul Air!" and then crossed the river back to his monastery. After his quiet sitting, Su saw the two words and he recognized the handwriting of Fo In. He was enraged! He crossed the river, thinking of getting hold of Fo In in revenge. But when he arrived at the monastery, he found the door closely locked; and on it were written two rows of words:

What the eight winds could not have moved,

Some foul air across the river has pushed!

八风吹不动

一屁打过江

Instantly Su Dung Po realized that he was still far behind in fostering the feat of unifying, for he himself knew only how to rely on words and on superficial feeling. Therefore he dared not knock at the door but quietly took the same boat and returned home.

From this, we can learn that St. Paul's "Rejoice always in the Lord" is indeed profound and practical knowledge!

(Translated by Sister Dorothy Cheng)

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J. 年份：1977

A HONG KONG VIEW

On the 6th February of this year Radio TV Hong Kong broadcast a programme on Christian Unity. The programme, which was chaired by Fr. Ciaran Kane, S.J., brought together Dr. Paul Clasper, an American Episcopalian, and Fr. Bernard J. Shields, S.J., a Roman Catholic. They discussed the important new ecumenical agreement on "Authority in the Church", published in London and Rome in January. The text was published in the London Catholic weekly The Tablet on 22nd January, and as a pamphlet by the Catholic Truth Society and the SPCK jointly in London.

The following is a transcript of the Hong Kong broadcast. The original spoken style has been slightly tightened up in a few places.

Kane: During the recent Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, an agreed document on Authority in the Church was published by the Anglican-Roman Catholic international commission which has been studying the topic in their search for common ground between the two Communions. With Dr. Paul Clasper, who teaches Theology and World Religions at the Chinese University, and Fr. Joe Shields, who teaches New Testament at the Holy Spirit Seminary Aberdeen, I talked about the significance of the document.

Clasper: Well, I think this is a very significant document in the life and discussion of the Church. It's like the great, big issue that's been lurking behind the scenes for along, long time in ecumenical discussions now comes right into the middle, and there's a chance to face and discuss what many have believed to be one of the thorniest of all problems, but it looks like we have rather amazing consensus, at least ground to begin to discuss on. So I think this is quite a significant document.

Kane: One of the comments on it was that it was perhaps one of the big events of Christian history this century. Do you think that's exaggerated, Joe?

Shields: Well, I wouldn't quite put it that way myself, not immediately anyway, until I see the reaction of the two Churches involved. I would agree with Paul, certainly, that it's significant, very significant and very important, and from a theological point of view I think it's a very fine synthesis of what we hold on both sides as regards this matter of authority in the Church. I think it's very comprehensive too, e.g. those who possess authority, it goes through these, one by one, beginning obviously with Christ who possesses authority in a unique way, as being the Son of God, also the Scriptures, the Word of God, and then the various human what-you-might-call "Depositories" of authority: the faithful, ordained ministers, bishops, patriarches and primates, Councils and the Bishop of Rome.

Kane: Some of the newspapers took it up very much as kind of a Pope for the Anglican Church. Is this a fair comment, Paul?

Clasper: I think maybe for the average reader or the casual person, that doctrinal agreements reached by a theological commission cannot by themselves achieve the goal of unity. In other words, this hasn't settled anything by any means. What it has done is raise the question for discussion. And so the document concludes that "we submit our Statesments to the respective authorities to consider whether or not" we have expressed the common mind "on these central subjects", and whether or not there is some action that is now called for, if we have expressed the kind of consensus of unity. So in many ways this is really a statement to further discussions at a very significant level. So some of those headlines in the paper sound like it's already wrapped up and nothing more to be said or done about it, and I think that would be wrong.

Kane: One of the English comments that I saw was that because the Anglican Church is more democratic and less hierarchically ruled, that the voice of the people, so to speak, will live much more say in whether this in fact is accepted or not.

Clasper: It's hard to know who speaks for Anglicans─maybe it's hard to know who speaks for Roman Catholics these days too ─. But the broad spectrum in the Anglican Communion of course includes some on the one hand who are almost fundamentalist type of Christians, who on the whole have great resistance to matters Roman Catholic and these are a large number of people and very vocal. And the pendulum swings to the other side, to many who are Catholics of a kind who almost "out-Catholic" many of the Roman Catholics, and they of course welcome it with open arms. But in between "in the misty flats the rest of us go to and fro". And it will take a lot of discussion and sifting and shaking down by this broad spectrum of Anglicans, and that's why it's difficult to say what the Anglican reaction is or will be.

Actually the Anglican Communion has been going through lots of stresses and strains these days: ordination of women has been a big question and many other – the new liturgies have all been discussed. So we are a Communion in ferment, and it would be a little hard to predict how we are going to come out on this one.

Kane: You have done a certain amount of research, Joe, on some of the things that have been appearing recently. What kind of reactions have you picked up in newspaper comments and letters?

Shields: Well, a variety really, many of them very positive. I would say the newspapers, the news agency reports and so on are very positive about it, that it is quite a remarkable document. I have seen some of the correspondence that's appeared in the London Times and that has been a bit more negative, I must say. One point in particular I might mention: there have been some letters from the Free Church people in England, say Methodists and so on, and they seem to be a bit worried about it. I suppose it's the sort of permanent dilemma that the Church of England has had, namely which way to go, towards the Roman Catholic position or towards the more Reformed position, and some of these Free Church people feel that this move now certainly is in the direction of Rome, and therefore it's taking the Anglicans away from them, so to speak, and so they are a bit unhappy about it, I can see.

But another thing I'd like to mention is this that I think we wantto see this particular document in context, namely that it is part of a dialogue that has been going on between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church for, I think, eleven years now, dating from the time when Archbishop Ramsay of Canterbury visited the Pope in 1966. And one of the things they agreed to do─it was an extremely cordial, friendly meeting and one of the things they decided to do was to set up an international commission of theologians from the two sides, Anglican and Roman Catholic, and to examine the areas of disunity between the two Churches and see what could be done about them. And they talked about "unity by stages", that bit by bit, step by step, we'd try to come together. And as a result of that there was a meeting held in Malta of a preparatory commission and they mapped out the area, and then in 1971 the first of these three Common Statements appeared, the so-called Windsor Statement on the Eucharist. Two years later in 1973 you had the Canterbury Statement on the Ministry. And now, just about two weeks ago, we have this Venice Statement on Authority. It was completed last Summer, I believe, but it's just now been published. Therefore we have to see this as part of an ongoing dialogue. It's not finished by any means at this point. These three documents in fact will be revised by he commission and they'll be combined into one document and then submitted to the authorities on both sides.

But as Paul has made quite clear, I think, the reaction of the ordinary faithful is extremely important, on both sides again. How are they going to react? Will they find their faith represented in this document? And then also what about the leaders of the Churches, are they going to accept as well. At the moment it's an open question. The document is published for discussion and reactions.

Clasper: When we speak, Joe, of the common people in both Communions discussing, does it seem like the Anglicans have the most to face up to and maybe risk, while the Roman Catholic laypeople don't have quite as much to risk, they've it all going their way? Or how does it look that way?

Shields: It's difficult to answer that really. Again I think the ordinary Catholic faithful will have a lot of different reactions to this, I imagine. It'll depend for one thing on what part of the world they live in. To me this is all a very English-speaking problem. There are, as we all know, the old wounds and the old history of 400 years and I'm afraid a lot of these have sort of got into the common imagination and it's so difficult to dispel them. This is going to be a very slow, tedious problem. You can have agreement among theologians, on an academic level or a theological level, but how much of this really reaches the ordinary people and will be acceptable to them?─I think this is perhaps the key question.

Clasper: I liked the spirit of the document when it said we have tried "to get behind the opposed and entrenched positions of past controversies". One of the tests will be whether we can, as non-Roman Catholics for instance appreciate the ferment and the changes that have come in Roman Catholicism and face the kind of things that you people are saying today, and whether we can face some of the issues that have divided us, at a fresh stage of discussions and not simply polarize on the basis of past polemics.(Music . . .)

Kane: Dr. Paul Clasper with Fr. Joe Shields discussing the Anglican-Roman Catholic Statement on Authority in the Church.

This has been "Sunday"

作者：Martin, Mary Louise 年份：1977

I have been asked to enumerate some trends in catechetics as I see them. I list six trends that I see present in Hong Kong today, indicating the trend catechetics will take in the future.

One trend is the ever-increasing involvement of lay Catholics in the catechetical tasks of the local Church. In almost every parish we find groups of young adult men and women eager to volunteer their time to teach Catholic or non-Christian children, to teach or accompany catechumens, especially those of their own age. They plan, organize, and teach, doing much of the work themselves, consulting a priest or Sister only when their

inexperience or lack of training indicates to them a need for help. They are eager to volunteer their time and energy because they take seriously the Church's teaching that an baptized Christians should take part in the mission of the Church. They feel they have something to share — the Good News of Salvation in Christ— and it is their joyful right and duty to share it. They enter into their volunteer work with zest and creativity, energy and generosity, and a healthy self-confidence. In Hong Kong much catechetical work of the parishes is carried out by young lay people.

Another noticeable trend is the prevalence of team-project. Team members pool ideas and "know-how." Natural leaders emerge. Team members feel they are on a peer level and that each one has something to contribute. A sensitivity to each one's talents and contribution is usually evident. I observed a shy, retiring young woman, a factory worker from a very poor family, conduct a very satisfactory class with a group of factory worker catechumens. The best in her had been drawn out by participation in a team and by the support she found there. In a team the work is more interesting, more easily done. The members feel the support and good-will of others; they are enabled to develop talents previously hidden or unsuspected. The project done by the loner becomes less and less common. Team-work is the order of the day.

The tendency to work in teams is part of a larger trend and quest: the desire to form or be part of a Christian community. Our Catholics often stress the need for the support and companionship of other Christians in order to live a faith-life in our society. When they feel very alone in their struggle as a small minority to preserve high Christian values, to act in accord with Gospel principles, to face indifference, ridicule, even antagonism─they find the greatest help in their faith from other like-minded Christians, with whom they can share their experiences, seek advice, find common solutions. In the catechetical field this trend shows itself in the team-teaching and projects, in efforts to integrate catechumens into the Christian community at an early stage, in attempts to utilize small group discussions, liturgies, prayer days, to give deeper formation to those already Catholic.

An ease and spontaneity in prayer and liturgy, and in sharing faith experiences, is another noticeable trend. Liturgy becomes more and more part of catechetical formation, and rightly so of course. I have witnessed spontaneous prayer among catechumens led by young lay teachers, hymns chosen by catechumens themselves as a real expression of prayer, a readiness to vocalize deep inner sentiments. A facility, a lack of self-consciousness, a willingness to share innermost thoughts, is evident, resulting in quite different expressions of prayer than that present a years ago.

A fifth trend is the desire and effort to combine doctrine with a living faith-life. "We must be witnesses to Christ in daily life," "what we study must be relevant and meaningful for our lives," "we want to have a living faith:" these words we hear constantly. Our Catholics and catechumens are not satisfied with a faith that is only intellectual, with a Gospel study that is academic only. They have a wholesome desire to unify faith and action in their lives. This extends, to an extent at least, to an awareness that their Christian actions must include an attention to society conditions in need of correcting.

The single most influential impetus for catechetical changes that have taken place in recent years in the movement towards indigenization. This is so all-embracing as to be much more than a trend. It is rather a heartfelt plea: "Let us be ourselves." This desire has helped us to appreciate more our own uniqueness and worth. We are less satisfied than formerly to take over wholesale a project, book, programme, from another country. We have been thrown on our own resources, brought to use talents we did not know existed, forced into projects we once thought impossible. The desire to indigenize has focused our attention on areas peculiar to our own situation, as our mixed culture, double language system. It has brought us to question the status quo, for example, the almost exclusive use of Western religion texts. Because of this movement we have begun the search for more suitable content for the non-Christian students of our Catholic schools, discovered that Taiwan translations are not always suitable, and have done more translating and publishing ourselves. We have produced our own materials, even to writing textbooks, a task once thought beyond our capabilities.

Some think our present efforts to stand on our own two feet are superficial. Indigenization has only touched the surface: books, visuals, syllabuses. It has not delved deeply into more essential areas as values, ways of life. I feel this will come .A beginning has been made, a thirst aroused. The trend is irreversible, the thirst unquenchable. No one wants it otherwise.

Some of the trends here listed are universal and will doubtless form part of the discussion material for the 1977 Synod of Bishops, whose theme is Catechetics for youth and children. While a Synod cannot deal with practical problems, it can provide those of us in the field of catechetics throughout the world with an impetus and an exposure to the views of world-wide experts.We look forward to the proceedings and final document from such a world-wide body to stimulate us to greater zest and vision in dealing with the multiple elements of our local catechetical situation.

30th June, 1977

　

* Condensation of an article for World Mission magazine, N.Y. by the same author.

作者：Martin, Mary Louise 年份：1977

A FINAL DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED NEW CANON LAWON MARRIAGE

  Introductory:

Chapter 1: Marriage Preliminaries.

Chapter 2: Concerning Impediments in General.

Chapter 3: Prohibiting Impediments.

Chapter 4: Diriment Impediments.

Chapter 5: Matrimonial Consent.

Chapter 6: The Form For The Celebration Of Marriage

Chapter 7: Celebration of Secret Marriages.

Chapter 8: Time and Place of Celebration.

Chapter 9: Effects of Marriage.

Chapter 10: Conjugal Separation.

Chapter 11: Convalidation of Marriage.

TITULUS VII

ON MARRIAGE

242. i Christ Our Lord has raised the marriage contract between baptized persons to the dignity of a sacrament.
  ii Hence there can not be a valid marriage contract between baptized persons which is not a sacrament.
234 i Marriage, made by mutual consent as described in 295sq., is the intimate sharing of their whole life by a man, and a woman which by its very nature leads them towards the procreation and education of children.
  ii The essential properties of marriage are its unity and indissolubility, which in a Christian marriage have a special strength by reason of the sacrament.
244   Marriage is favoured by the law; hence in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage is to be upheld until the opposite is proved (except in the case of 345).
245 i Any valid marriage is called legitimate.
  ii A valid marriage between baptized persons is called ratified if it has not been completed by consummation; it is called ratified and consummated if the husband and wife have had sexual intercourse by an act suited of itself for procreation, towards which marriage of its nature leads, and by which the two are made one flesh.
  iii If the husband and wife live together after the marriage has been celebrated, consummation is presumed, unless the opposite is proved.
  iv Any invalid marriage is called putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one of the parties, until such time as both are aware of its nullity.
246   Marriage since it is the principle and foundation of human association also concerns civil society. Since however a marriage between baptized persons is one of the sacraments of the New Law, Christ has entrusted to his Church the discipline and care of this sacrament as regards its integrity and holiness. The marriage of baptized persons, even when only one is baptized, is governed not only by divine but also by canon law, leaving however to the civil authorities the competence to deal with the merely civil effects of such a marriage.
247 i A promise to marry, whether unilateral or bilateral, or engagements to marry are governed by local law which will be determined by the Episcopal Conference, after taking into consideration the local customs and civil law, if such exist.
  ii The promise to marry does not give anyone the right to demand the celebration of the marriage; it does however give the right to claim compensation for any loss incurred.
248   Pastors are bound by their office to fulfill their duty of giving catechetical instruction about the sacrament of marriage, in accordance with the norms established by the ecclesiastical authorities.

CHAPTER I MARRIAGE PRELIMINARIES

249 i In accordance with the needs of the time and the place, pastors should use suitable means to ward off all dangers of invalid and unlawful marriages being celebrated. Hence it should be established before a marriage is celebrated that there is no obstacle to a valid and lawful celebration.
  ii When there is danger of death, or an urgent case for the celebration of the marriage, if other proofs can not be had, the statement of the parties concerned, under oath if necessary, that they are baptized and that they are not bound by any impediment, is sufficient unless there are indications to the contrary.
250   Let the Episcopal Conferences determine norms for the prenuptial enquiry, the publication of the banns, and other suitable means of investigation to be made before the marriage takes place; and after these have been carefully observed, the parish priest may proceed to assist at the marriage.
251   Let Catholics who have not received the sacrament of Confirmation be confirmed before their marriage if they can do so without serious inconvenience.
252   All the faithful are obliged to reveal the existence of impediments known to them to the parish priest or the Ordinary before the celebration of the marriage.
253 i One's own Ordinary in his own prudence and for a just and reasonable cause can dispense from the publication of the banns even in another diocese.
  ii If one has several Ordinaries, the dispensation pertains to him in whose diocese the marriage is celebrated; but if the marriage is celebrated outside one's own dioceses, any of the above Ordinaries can dispense.
254   If anyone other than the parish priest who should witness to the marriage has made the pre-nuptial enquiries, he should let this parish priest know the results as soon as possible and by an authentic document.
255   Except in case of necessity, the parish priest should not assist at the marriage of vagrants before bringing the case to the Ordinary of the place, and obtaining his permission.
256(NEW)   Let the parish priest proceed in the same way as in 255 when there is question of a marriage between two persons who during a previous marriage committed adultery between themselves, and contracted a civil marriage.
257 i Let the Parish priest (each the engaged couple according to their different situation about the sanctity of marriage, their mutual obligations to one another and the obligations of parents to their children.
  ii The parish priest should take care to prepare the celebration of the marriage in such a way that its sacramental dignity is brought to light and the parties and others assisting take an active part in the sacred rite.
258   Let the parish priest warn minors not to contract marriage without the knowledge of their parents, or when they are reasonably opposed. If they refuse to accept this this advice, he should not assist at their marriage without prior consultation with the Ordinary of the place.

CHAPTER II IMPEDIMENTS IN GENERAL

259   All can marry who are not prohibited by the law.
260 i A prohibiting impediment means that it is seriously forbidden to contract the marriage, but that if nevertheless it is contracted, the marriage is not thereby rendered invalid.
  ii A diriment impediment both forbids the celebration of the marriage, and also prevents it from being validly contracted.
  iii All impediment even if it binds only one of the parties, makes the marriage illicit or invalid.
261   An impediment is public when it can be proved in the external forum; otherwise it is secret.
262 i It pertains solely lo the supreme authority in the Church to stateauthentically when divine law forbids or nullifies a marriage.
  ii The same supreme authority has the right (privative) to, determine other impediments either prohibiting or diriment for baptized persons, without detriment to iii.
  iii Episcopal Conferences in particular circumstances can set up particular impediments, either prohibiting or diriment, by a decree published in accordance with the law.
263   Only those who were baptized into or received into the (new)Catholic Church and have not formally defected are bound by purely ecclesiastical impediments.
264(new)   Only the supreme authority in the Church can abrogate in whole or in part the impediments of ecclesiastical law, Episcopal Conferences however retaining the right to abrogate impediments set up by themselves.
265 i The Ordinary of the place can forbid persons living in his diocese or even his subjects living outside his territory to get married in a particular case, but only for a time and while a grave reason exists.
  ii Only the supreme authority in the Church can add a nullifying clause to this prohibition.
266 i The local Ordinary can dispense his own subjects wherever they are staying and all those actually living in his territory from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, with the exception of those whose dispensation is reserved to the Holy See.
  ii The impediments from which dispensation is reserved to the Holy See are: ─
1)The impediment of age, as often as the lack of the required age exceeds one year;
2)The impediment arising from sacred orders or from perpetual profession in an institute of consecrated life;

3)The impediment of crime as described in 290;
4)The impediment of consanguinity in the collateral line up to the third degree, with the caution however that a dispensation from consanguinity in the direct line is not given;
5)The impediment arising from affinity in the direct line.

267   A custom introducing a new impediment or contrary toexiling impediments stands condemned.
268   In danger of death, the local Ordinary can for conscience sake and, if necessary to legitimise children, dispense his own subjects wherever they may be and all those actually living in his territory from the canonical form and from all ecclesiastical impediments, public or secret, provided he guards against scandal.
269 i In the same circumstances as in 268 but only for cases where the even the local Ordinary can not be approached, the parish priest, or a sacred minister properly delegated, or a person properly delegated in accordance with 318, iii, either priest or deacon, to assist at the marriage has the same power to dispense. Likewise a confessor if it concerns a secret case, for the internal forum but outside the act of sacramental confessio.
  ii In the case above in i, the local Ordinary is considered not to be available if he can only be reached by telephone or by telegraph.
270 i The local Ordinary under the conditions stated at the end of 268.i can dispense from all the impediments mentioned in 268 whenever an impediment is discovered or brought to the notice of the Ordinary or the parish priest at a time when all the preparations for the marriage have been made and the marriage can not be postponed without probable danger of serious harm while the matter is being referred to the Holy See.
  ii This power can also be used to convalidate a marriage if there is the same danger in delay and there is not time to recur to the Holy See, or to the Ordinary in cases where he can dispense from the impediments.
  iii In the same circumstances, all those mentioned in.269,i have the same powers subject to the same conditions, but only if the case is by its nature or in fact secret and recourse can not be had even to the local Ordinary in accordance with 269 or only with danger of violating the secrete and a confessor must observe what is prescribed in 269.
271   The parish priest or the priest or deacon mentioned in 269 must inform the local Ordinary immediately about the dispensation given for the external forum; and the dispensation must be noted in the marriage register.
272   Unless the reply from the Sacred Pentitentiary says otherwise, a dispensation, given in the internal non-sacramental forum for a secret impediment, should be noted in the book which is to be kept in the secret archive of the Curia (according to CIC 379); and no other dispensation for the external forum is necessary even if the secret impediment later becomes known publicly.
273   The Ordinary who gave testimonial letters or transmitted the requests to the Holy See executes the dispensations from public or known impediments entrusted to the Ordinary of the petitioners, even though the parties have left for another diocese never to return; he should however inform the Ordinary of the Place where they will contract the marriage.

作者：梁宗溢年份：1978

福音是基督亲自带来的救恩讯息，在福音书中，作者把耶稣生活中的言行抽取出来，然后再以描述的方式重复过来，好能成为信仰的根基，和给予宣讲者，教导者及护教者一个稳固的基础。福音书也用于基督徒的礼仪聚会中，藉着聆听、信仰的经验重新活现出来。虽然福音书也具有历史性质，因为是建基于基督的言行及历史事件之上，但它们并非基督的自传或生活日记。根据普遍的意见，现在的福音书形式是玛尔谷订立，他是以耶稣复活后之神学思想去搜集有关耶稣在世时的资料，因而写成一本叙述耶稣教训的书本。路加再把它扩展到初期教会，在圣神影响下加以发展。而若望福音更是作再深入的神学反省，如「复活后期」的基督的角度去回顾基督在世时的言行。这福音的前言－－第一章－－是对基督的本体作出其他作者所没提及的反省。然而若望福音中的「语言」有别于其他的福音书，「若望的基督」(Johanine Christ)在什么程度下与历史中纳匝肋人耶稣相吻合呢？若望怎样去「看」、去解释及明白基督呢？如果作者写作的目的是「这些所记录的，是为叫你们信耶稣是默西亚、天主子、并使你们信的人，赖他的名获得生命。」(若20：31)他透过什么去完成记录呢？所用的文字又怎能使人得到信仰而获得生命呢？本文便试图以「记忆」这观念去瞭解以上的问题。

历史的基督跟若望写作福音的时侯已有一段时间距离。若望怎样去瞭解基督？尤其是他怎样把这些瞭解以福音书的形式传授给当时的教会？从若望福音中所用的文字，如「看见」、「听到」、「从而认识」、「认识」、「作证」及「回忆」等，我们也许可以见到一些端倪。若望以一个「历史家」的眼光去注视着历史基督、而形成若望独特的「视野模式」(ModeofVision),即若望以一个有信仰的「见证人」身份，曾经见过、听过基督(具有与基督相遇的经验)，藉着「回忆」，重新看见纳匝肋的基督。这样基督隐藏着的奥秘活现出来，成为可见的。继之传授给教会，化成一股宣扬福音的动力，为基督作见证。宣讲及见证便是一个不停的回忆过程。在这过程中，过去的基督经验以「现在」的新姿态出现了。如此，受光荣的基督继绩生活于教会内及对信友说话。(1)现在，让我们把重点放在「回忆」这个过程上面。

在没有从圣经的观点看「回忆」之前，我们试从一个诗人的角度去分析「回忆」的现象。海德格(Heidegger)在贺德龄(Holderlin)与诗的本质一文中，提及有关「忆起」(Re-collection)及「回归」(Home Coming)的问题。「忆起」是涉及「过去」与「将来」;「过去」不单是一种静态的已发生的事情或经验。一位诗人想及过去的事，在这思想中，「过去」重新流回，构成诗人思想的经纬线。如此，「过去」投注在诗人目前，「过去」重新临现及作出影晌。但当「想及已经发生的」，诗人会顾及到这个「过去」是个「没有完全显露」的过去。如此，那继续显露的未来是什么呢？就是那个神圣(Holy)－－那不断将临(Advent)的神圣。诗人的任务是去注意那「过去的」和那「将要来的」－－神圣本身便是两者的结合。(2)这种说法对我们瞭解记忆是有帮助的，因为若望并非只是「静止地」想起历史中的基督。在记忆中，基督活现临在于若望恩想中，不断的显露着，因为基督本身便是「过去」及未来的结合：「我是阿耳法」和「敖默加」－元始和终末。(默21：6)

现在，让我们从圣经中去看记忆。「记忆」这观念在圣经中很是普遍。上主记忆起某些人物而把恩宠及怜爱赐予他们(创8：1、19：29、出32：13、撒上1：11等)。上主创造了一个新的境况，就是人在急需中而获得上主的救助。所以当上主记忆的时侯，一个创新的事件便发生了。上主的子民也要记忆上主的作为。申命纪特别发展了一套记忆神学，以色列人要牢记上主在埃及的作为，要作出新的服从与信任。圣咏也很多时找到「记忆」的记述，记念以色列的过去时常写成「看到」上主神圣的作为：「请你们前来观看天主的作为。」(咏66：5)整个天主子民在礼仪中默观天主救赎的历史。在圣咏48：9，我们更看到描述过去和宣布现在两者并存：「我们所见，正如所闻。」咏40：4以新歌的形式，宣讲过去的事情，但为信众来说是一个有影响，活生生的体验和行动：「众人见了起敬起畏，都将全心信赖上主。」(3)在新约里，记忆非单只是一个思想过程，基督的言语更是藉着门徒的记忆，在他们身上产生力量。「主转过身来，看了看伯多禄，就想起了对他说的话来：「今天鸡叫以前，你要三次不认识我。」(路22：61、谷14：72、玛26：75)基督复活后，门徒们也记忆起基督的话，而第一次明白基督的话：「他不在这里了，他已经复活了。你们应当记得，他还在加里肋亚时，怎样告诉过你们，说人子必须被交付于罪人之手，被钉在十字架上，并在第三日复活。」(路24：6-8)他们遂想起了他的话。从以上的讲法看来，「记忆」这个观念并非只是若望福音所独有，而是一个圣经所使用的重要观念。

在若望福音里，「记忆」这个字出现的次数很少。在第二章及十二章中，我们发现了「记忆」这个字。『给卖鸽子的人说：「把这些东西从这里拿出来，不要使我父的殿宇成为商场」』。他的门徒就「想起」了经上记载的：「我对你殿宇所怀的热忱，把我耗尽」的话……这座圣殿建筑了四十六年，你在三天之内就会重建起它来吗？」但耶稣所提的圣所，是指他自己的身体。所以当他从死者中复活以后，他的门徒就「想起」了他曾说过这话，便相信了圣经和耶稣说过的话。』(若2：16-22)『第二天，来过节的群众，听说耶稣来到耶路撒冷，便拿了棕榈枝，出去迎接他，喊说：「贺三纳！因上主之名而来的，以色列的君王，应受赞美！」耶稣找了一匹小驴，就骑上去，正如经上所记载的：「熙雍女子，不要害怕！看，你的君王骑着驴驹来了！」起初他的门徒也没有明白这些事，然而当耶稣受光荣以后，他们才「想起」这些话是指着他而记载的。』(若12：11-16)从这两段记载中，我们可以看到及提到一些问题：

a.门徒们起初不明白耶稣行为的意思。

b.门徒们是在耶稣复活后想起来才了解的。

c.想起及了解什么呢？

d.是若望自己想起而把这「想起」写成门徒也记起，还是宗徒们确实记起来呢？

e.是什么使到若望及门徒想起呢？

f.记起之后又有什么后果呢？

我们相信若望是历史基督的见证人，从他记述事物的细致情形便知道(第五章描述贝特匝达水池的情形)。在路加福音，驱逐商人出圣殿是连接着荣进耶路撒冷(路19：29-46)。但驱逐商人，清理圣殿的记述在若望福音是在耶稣公开活动之先，与荣进耶路撒冷是相距很长时期，因为有些圣经学者怀疑这两件事件在若望原本是否相连(4)。不过，现在若望福音安排这两件事分开，当然有其目的及神学看法。再者，在第二章里，作者加上自己的评语：「耶稣所提的圣所，是指他自己的身体。」(若2：21)由此，我们可看出这位与历史基督交接过的作者，是作出有选择的记忆。不过这种经验非若望所独有，而是与早期的教会，门徒团体分不开的：「论到那从起初就有生命的圣言，就是我们听见过，我们亲眼看见过，瞻仰过，以及我们亲手摸过的生命－－这生命已显示出来，我们着见了，也为他作证。」(若一、1：1)而若望第一章中也说：「我们见了他的光荣。」(若1：14)若从一个人的思维结构来看，所有明显的阐明(目的引申出理解)，在脑海中必先要把握着那些要阐明的。阐明不能缺少先有所假定的资料，阐明一些东西基本是基于一些「先有」(Prepossession)、「先见」(Preview)及先念(Preconception)之上。(5)由此，若望福音作者阐明基督事件也是基于「先有」的共有传统－－宗徒团体对复活基督的瞭解(格前15：3-8)。这样我们也许明白，记忆基督之事是宗徒团体的经验，而若望福音作者是其团体中之一位，分有如此经验，但以他独特的神学看法去写成有关基督的描述－－使信基督的人，赖他的名而获得生命。

若望及宗徒都记起了与基督的经验，不过在上述两章节中，我们看到一个现象，即在基督复活后，藉着记忆，宗徒才明白基督复活前行动的意义。这即是说，在基督复活前，宗徒们是曾经历过那些事情，具有经验，但是不明白。若望福音曾指出与暗示这种情况，「耶稣回答说：斐理伯、这么长久的时候，我和你们一起，而你还不认识我吗？」(若14：9)『于是他门徒中有几个彼此说：「他给我们所说的……究竟有什么意思？我们不明白他讲什么。」』(若16：17-18)「如今在事发生前，我就告诉了你们，为叫你们当事发生时能相信。」(若14：29)其实，事情发生时，门徒也不能相信，而在事情发生后宗徒才藉着「记亿」而明白。

现在，我们进到问题的中心，是什么光景使宗徒们记忆呢？两段福音非常明显地指是在耶稣复活及受光荣之后，「当他从死者中复活以后，」(若2：22)并单指时间的先后问题，还说明门徒记忆起的原因及信息。换句话说，耶稣的复活是门徒记忆起过往的经验，以及信仰基督的言行的主要关键。从很早期的基督徒宣讲中，宗徒便被视作为复活基督的见证人。「这位耶稣，天主使他复活了，我们都是他的见证人。」(宗2：32)基督的复活为宗徒们来说是一件很有深刻意义的救恩事件，他们愿意以信德的眼光去明白这件事情，基督复活并非是从坟墓里走出来，圣经用「死者中复活」，基督被了解为「生命之源」(宗3：15)及「死者中的首生者」(哥1：18)等语句表达。由此，我们可看出基督复活，自早期教会的了解及宣讲使被视作为救恩史的一部份。耶稣在复活前始终未能使门徒了解祂本身的奥秘，虽然门徒看到基督的行动和表样，听过他的教导，甚至非常敬仰他，但他们劫不明白基督是要接受痛苦及死亡，十字架事件使他们四散东西，他们做梦也没想到基督的复活。但与复活的基督相接触后，他们渐渐提高了对基督的信心及了解，这经验慢慢照明了他们的眼目，从一个更深、更新、更全面的角度去看基督的生平事迹，生活与教训，历史的基督被看成是复活基督的延绩。现在，我们可更进一步问一下，究竟根据若望福音那两段章节，宗徒们透过记忆，「看」到和「瞭解」到些什么呢？

第二章第十七节，当耶稣驱逐商人出圣殿的时候，门徒就想起了：「我对你殿宇所怀的热忱，把我耗尽。」(咏69：9)的话，若望是否记述门徒当时的确是如此记起，抑是作者写作手法的描述，而实在是在阐释，我们不得而知，而且也不甚重要。不过作者似乎以预言基督救世活动去了解这句圣咏，「热忱把我耗尽」不是说基督内心充满怒火，而可以有胆量去驱逐商人出圣殿。作者已经从基督复活后的全面性瞭解去回顾这件事，他瞭解基督的热忱是要带给他死亡，所以十七节已是指门徒在复活后的「记起」，更引致更深入的以基督的角度去看旧约。(6)牛羊是旧约圣殿中必要的祭品，耶稣驱散卖牛羊之商人，并非只尊重圣殿的壮严，而更是指出崇拜上主在基督复活后不再是牛羊的祭品，而是基督，一种精神与心灵方面的崇拜。(7)第二十二节更明确地指出这种对基督作深一步的了解，记忆首先把基督在世之言语重现出来，但这些言语的重现非单是记忆的产物，同时也展示出信德。在这章节里，基督回答犹太人时说出一个神迹：「你们拆毁这座圣殿，三天之内我要把它兴建起来。」门徒对这「征兆」另有瞭解，基督的死亡、复活带来普世性的福音，以代替狭窄民族性的犹太宗教，一个新的纪元开始了。门徒在「记忆」中认识到基督复活的身体便是末世救恩时期的「圣殿」，圣经中预言的新圣殿已在基督身上实现了。至少若望福音第一章第14节是如此了解：「圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间。」默示录第二十一章22节亦指出：「在城内，我没有看见圣殿，因为上主全能的天主和羔羊，就是她的圣殿。」而早期教会也认为基督便是圣殿：「而基督耶稣自己卸是这建筑物的角石，靠看他，整个建筑物结构紧凑，逐渐扩大，在主内成为一座圣殿。」(弗2：20b-21)

两段章节都提及门徒记忆起古经的记载。由此看来，耶稣复活后，门徒对基督的事获得较完整的看法，他们看到耶稣的言行，与旧约的预许很吻合，因而对旧约作了较广及较深的瞭解。旧约是指向基督，祂的来临及复活，完成了旧约不足，而更使旧约在上主派遣圣子降生的救赎计划中占着一种地位，基督不独超越梅瑟的法律，更道出深一层的教训。(8)除了上述的两段章节外，若望也许藉着回忆(虽然不明显地写出来)，在第十九章也提出基督完成了旧约：『那看见这事的人就作证，而他的见证是真实的，并且「那位」知道他所说的是真实的，为叫你们也相信，这些事发生，正应验了经上的话说：「不可将他的骨头打断。」』(若19：35-36)当然若望瞭解基督「完成」一切的高峰，是在十字架上：『耶稣尝了那醋，便说：「完成了」。就低下头，交付了灵魂。』(若19：28)再者，如果基督「完成了旧约」的意思是把分散在旧约有关救世者的预许聚集起来，使能在基督身上看到完整，而基督他只藉一次奉献，就永远使被圣化的人得以完成(希10：14)。那么，门徒也藉着基督被圣化了，因而能够把他们以前跟基督散乱的经验，通过记忆重新聚集起来，而达到全面的，完整的领悟。

若、12章记述基督荣进耶路撒冷之情况，门徒藉着记忆，想起了这个历史情况。第十四节作者作出了观察：「耶稣找了一匹小驴，就骑上去。」同时跟着一些评语：「不要害怕，看，你的君王骑着驴驹来了。」如上所说，门徒在基督复活后想起了经上的话是指着基督而记载的，同时，他们明白基督便是「要来的君王－－默西亚」，也许门徒已经知道救赎以色列的默西亚是要来的；但复活前与复活后门徒对默西亚的看法完全不同，基督的复活使他们更深入看到「匝加利亚先知」的话，若12：16指出门徒没明白这些事，而匝加利亚先知所说有关默西亚的形像，想是门徒在基督复活后所瞭解的，「他是正义的、胜利的、谦逊的，骑在驴上。他耍由厄辣因铲除战事，从耶路撒冷除掉战马，作战的弓箭也要被消除，他要向万民宣布和平，他的权柄由这海到那海，从大河到地极。」(匝9：9-10)君王的形像并非是一个只具有民族性和政冶性的，而是普世性的及和平的。基督是默西亚的主要义思，在于祂启示天主临到人间，成为以色列的君王，把被遗弃的重新收集起来。以色列民要作出一个选择，为绩延以色列的命脉，他们需要选择武力抑或和乎与谦逊。同时门徒看到基督是君王的意思是在受苦、死亡及复活。他们见到群众迎接耶稣，确是迎接「君王」。所不同的，是在复活以前，他们会觉得只是普通、表面的迎接一位民众心目中有权力的救世者；但在复活后，门徒再记起那时情况，看到了另一意思，他们迎接一位和平，通过受苦，死亡而更克服死亡的君王。(9)

记忆只是一个思想的过程，但门徒怎样藉着回顾而能够去「看见」、「明白」和「瞭解」事件深一层的意义呢？如果我们注意到上述两章节说明了基督的复活及受光荣是门徒记忆的关键，那么，基督的复活及受光荣事件必定在门徒身上产生了效果及力量。若望反省到这是圣神的力量(其实在若望反省的时候，圣神已在他身上工作了。)「我还与你们同在的时候，给你们讲论了这些事，但那护慰者，就是父因我的名所要派遣来的圣神，他必要教训你们一切。」(若14：25-26)「教训」这词在若望福音很多时是有「显示」的意思：「我由我自己不作什么，我所讲论的，都是依照父所教训我的。」(若8：28)「你们就不需要谁教训你们，而是有他的传油教训你们一切。」(若一、2：27)教训显示什么呢？显示出基督复活前给门徒所讲论的事，「教训你们一切」非单只提醒，使对基督的记忆不致丧失，且具有从记忆中去瞭解及阐明的作用。记忆及教训指示出不单把过往的事物及言语机械式重组起来，也是把它们的含意显示给门徒。基督徒团体更确切地说，显示的内容是把历史的基督重新临现于门徒的跟前，基督复活前的言语，藉着圣神的引导，为基督徒团体有着更新、更深的意思。

除了教训之外，圣神也藉见证阐释历史的基督。「当护慰者，就是我从父那里给你们派遣的，那发于父的真理之神来到时，他必要为我作证，并且你们也要作证，因为你们从开始就和我在一起。」(若15：26-27)见证的内容是在世界面前显示基督，这见证是与门徒的见证相连结的，而门徒的见证因与基督的持久联系：「你们从开始就和我在一起，不只是「过去」的，而是在「现在」，「目前」继续着，圣神的见证在若一、5：6b「这位就是经过水及血而来的基督，他不但以水，而且也是以水及血而来的，并且右圣神作证，因为圣神是真理。」真理的圣神所见证的，便是那永恒的基督与历史中被钉死的纳匝肋耶稣的合一。「凡明认基督为默西亚，且在肉身内降世的神，便是出于天主。」(若一、4：2)不过，只有受光荣的基督才会赐与真理之神(若15：26．16：7)；而圣神也只「宣告」属基督的一切，「当那一位真理之神来时，他要把你们引入一切真理，因为他不凭自己讲论，只把他所听到的讲出来，并把未来的事传告给你们，他要光荣我，因为他要把由我所领受的，传告给你们。」(若16：13-15)如此一来，圣神把基督之言行带进另一全面性的看法。所以，在圣神支持下的教会不断宣讲，基督的说话继续延续下来，得到更深刻地去把握，完满地展露出来；而教会亦根据个别情况的需要，把它宣讲出来。(10)于是，圣神真的把宗徒团体及教会引入真理，「我本来还有很多事要告诉你们，然而你们现在不能担负。」(若16：12)真的，待基督复活以后，宗徒们才能担负起，因为他们是以复活基督的整体救赎计划的宏大范围去瞭解。

我们既然说明了圣神推动及引导着门徒，藉着记忆，把基督的经验重新呈现。然而门徒有什么影响及反应呢？「他的门徒就想起了他曾说过这话，便相信了圣经和耶稣说过的话。」就字面来说，门徒相信了圣经及耶稣的话，未知是指概括性的旧约来说？抑或是某些特别章节？例如咏16：10或是如若2：17所提的咏69：9，我们不得而知；但是在门徒的宣讲中，他们常把旧约作为复活的指证：「且照经上记载的，第三天复活了。」(格前15：4)当然相信是包括相当真实的意思，圣神就是把门徒引入真理。不过，真理并非只停留在理智的层面，只是抽象的，而是指基督本身，「我是道路、真理、生命。」(若14：6)指基督所有的言行，因为基督是显示天主救恩的临在，在太初已有的圣言，为人带来「真理」－－(若1：17)，更好说，基督把自己带给了人类，藉着真理之神，人们将被转化－－肖似基督;「可是我们知道：一显明了，我们必要相似他，因为我们要看见他实在怎样。」(若一、3：2)人如果想达到这个目的，必需要接受基督(若1：11-12)，使真理在我们之内(若一1：8)。如此一来，我们属于真理－－真理成为我们的本性－－由此，我们成为真实的崇拜上主的人，也就是这真理之神引导我们从混乱的知识中达到洞见：「你们如果固守我的话，就确是我的门徒，也会认识真理，而真理必会使你们获得自由。」(若8：31-32)从罪恶达到爱。「这爱的因由，就是那存在我们内，并永远与我们同在的真理。」(若二：1-3)如此，人们便生活在真理内(若二：4)，以心神及真理去朝拜(若4：23-24)。所以宗徒相信圣经及耶稣的话，不只是回顾起基督的话而理智上相信，而更是以生活去肖似基督。在基督内作出转化，相信是要具体地表示出来，要去「履行真理」(若3：21)，「如果你们遵守我的命令，便存在我的爱内，正如我遵守了我父的命令而存在他的爱内一样。」(若15：10)这样才能成为基督真正门徒。(11)

若望福音中所谈及的记忆，确是一种新的及真的知识，就是对基督的瞭解。这种新的瞭解产生了动力，以生活去实践出真理。这样，在基督内，基督徒成了新的受造物，成为天主的化工，新的出生是藉着相信基督的言语：「他自愿用真理之言生了我们，使我们成为他所造之物中的初果。」(雅1：18)如此的「记忆」过程，相信在退省方面是可以应用的，例如在依纳爵的神操中便有如此的运用，在五十二号－－三种罪默想。同样地默想第三种罪，便是记忆起罪的严重和凶恶，因为犯罪是相反我等主造物主。(12)把罪的严重和凶恶，藉着记忆重新临现于退省者跟前，因而重新对罪恶的憎恶，归向善源－－天主，达成一种悔改行动的实践。第一○七号－－降生奥迹瞻想：『聆听那世界上的人所说的，便是怎样他们彼此谈话，怎样他们咒骂与亵渎天主。……同样地「聆听」天主三位所说的，便是「我们要救赎人类」……然后「聆听」天神和圣母所说的。末了，反省，为能从一总人的言语中，采取神益。」反省当然含有回亿的意思，但这种回想并非单单记起以前所「听到」的，而是希望从中取得神益，意即指向一个美好的前景－－在神修道路上进步。

以上是若望的「记忆」观念一个小小的运用。当然这观念不可能孤立地看，不过藉着记亿，我们再重新制造出宗教经验，通过实践，获得更新的经验。如此，我们才能渐渐的成全，如天父一般的成全。

参放资料

(1)Bauer： Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology., 1970. Sheed and Ward, London. Vol 1. Faith-IV. Faith in the writings of St. John.

(2)Congar, Yves： The Mystery of the Temple. 1962, Burns & Oates Ltd., London.

(3)Leon-Dufour：editor. Dictionary of Biblical Theology 1967 Geoffrey Chapman Ltd., London.

(4)Heidegger Martin： Beingand Time, 1962, SCM Press Ltd., New York.

(5)Kittel： Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol.IV, Vol.VI.

(6)MarshJ.： St. John he Pelican New Testament Commentaries, 1968, London.

(7)McKenzieJ.： Dictionary of the Bible, 1966, Geoffrey Chap-man Ltd., London.

(8)MussnerF.：The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of St. John, 1967, Palm Publishers, Montreal.

(9)RichardsonW.： Heidegger hrough Phenomenology to Thought, 2nd Edition, 1963, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.

(10)Ryan, M. Rosalie； Editor： Contemporary New Testament Studies, 1965, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota.

(A) Sint. J.： The Resunection in the Primitive Community.

(B) Barry W.：The Spirit of Truth and of Life in John's Gospel.

(C) Feuillet A.： The Era of the Church in St. John.

(11)The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol.4, 1962, Abingdon Press, New York.

(12)Text of the Spirtual Exercises of St. Ignatius, 5th Edition, 1952, London.

(13)Orr.J.(Ed.)：The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol.V.： (Truth )1974 (Reprinted), Eerdmans.(15)The Jerome Biblical Commentary.

(A) No. 63. The Gospel According to John

(B) No.80. Johannine Theology.

(1)Franz Mussner： The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of St. John, 1967, Montreal. P. 45.

(2)Richardson W. Heidegger- Through Phenimenology to Thought, 2nd Ed., 1963, Hague. P.454.

(3)Mussner F. 同前 P.P.48-49.

(4)Brown, R.：The Gospel According to John (The Anchor Bible) P.463.

(5)Heidegger M.： Beingand Time, 1962. New York. P.P.189-191.

(6)Mussner F. 同前 P.40.

(7)Cougar Yves： The Mystery of the Temple, 1962, London. P.124.

(8)Leon-Dufour： Dictionary of Biblical Theology. 1967, London. P.171： FULFILL.

(9)Marsh John：St. John－ The Pelican New Testament Commentaries, 1968, London. P.P.459-460.

(10)Mussner F.同前 P.P.59-64.

(11)The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Vol.4. P.P.715-716.

(12)Text of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. 5th Ed., 1952. London. No.52.

(13)同上 No.107.

作者：容若愚年份：1978

前言

今年三月，英国 Screenpro影业公司推出纪录片「静默的见证」(The Silent Witness)，片长五十三分钟，耗资二百万港元，前后费时三年。内容介绍近年科学界研究着名的基督圣殓布的结果。

严格的科学态度

当代学者处理圣殓布问题的态度可分两种：大部份天主教徒都相信这块长十四呎，阔三呎的麻布也就是当时包扎基督尸首用的殓布，而殓布上的人像确是耶稣的真容。至于如何解释圣容印在布上就意见不一，有用自然现象，如血与香料加氨产生的化学作用；也有用奇迹；更有用基督复活的蜕变所产生的辐射去解释。这类理论以圣经为基础：相信新经的纪述是历史事实。

另一类学者采取严格的科学态度，不以信仰为出发点，认为福音的记述亦只供参考。他们直接从圣殓布下手，研究其来源及各种现象，学者自始保持开放态度，承认圣殓布可能为艺术膺品。「静」片的导演陆大卫 (David Rolfe) 原来不信神，一直反对女儿入教。接受每日快报(Daily Express) 访问时他说：「我以怀疑的态度开拍这片，那时只相信是个电影的好题材。我已征得各股东同意：到头来若证实圣殓布是伪造的，影片将照样推出。不过目前我只能承认它是真的，因为证据太多了。」今天这位导演已成为基督信徒了。

跟陆氏合作的学者也属同一思路，根据一般科学假设，先设法证明圣殓布及其上的人像是人造的，可能是某位隐名的中世纪艺术家根据福音记述而绘制的，这假说成立吗？

苦痛的痕迹

圣殓布上的血迹自然是医学界研究的对象，解剖学及病理学专家都承认这些伤痕来自其人。最先作这类研究的是位着名的不信神的解剖学教授。法国Sorbonne大学的德拉义(Yves Delage)于一九自○三年向法国科学协会宣布圣殓布确是真的，当时科学界哗然，而德教授险些儿被除名。

三○年代法国的具巴碧医生 (Dr. Pieme Barbet) 继续德拉义的研究。近年来各国着名的医师亦颇有贡献，在英国首推皇家病理学家伯劳期(Dr. D. Barrowcliff) 及已故的韦大卫医生(Dr.D. Willis)。在义国有法医官朱高迪教授(Prof. Judica Cordiglia)。此外是美国洛杉畿的毕罗拔医官(Dr. R. Bucklin) 及纽约的山东尼医生(Dr. Anthony Sara)。

毕罗拔医生是洛杉畿的首席法医官，曾在那全美最繁忙的医疗中心服务二十多年。他根据圣殓布上的血迹鉴定死者的伤势及死况。死者两手腕有钉痕，双足被一枚大钉穿透，全身约有一百二十处鞭伤。罗马宗座大学的李察蒙席(Mgr. Giuglio Ricci) 考据当时罗马兵可能用的两种鞭子，两种的尖端都系上硬物，其中一种的硬物上还有钉子，每组鞭子共三条，而殓布上的鞭伤痕迹亦确是三个一组的。

毕医官又指出死者的肩背会被重物所压，头部满是尖刺留下的伤孔；如果是茨冠，则妳不是传统的环形茨冠，而该是帽形的，遮盖全头，还有是死者肋旁的伤痕。

毕医官根据丰富的经验推测死者体高五呎十吋，重约一七五磅，年约卅至卅五岁，他的结论是：「死者是被钉死的，死前受了非人的痛苦。」

医学的证据亦只此而已，可是如何肯定死者就是二千年前的耶稣？

历史溯源

圣殓布的伤痕肯定了死者的死况，但最令科学界称奇的倒是死者的尊容。这庄严而安祥的容貌一直隐藏在血迹后面，一八九八年才由义国摄影师石庇雅(Sesondo Pia) 偶然发现。

然而如何肯定这张虽死犹安的面孔就是主的圣容？这当然与圣殓布的历史有关。圣殓布的来历最早只能推溯到十四世纪，首先公开面世时，圣殓布属于法国萨尼家族(Geoffrey de Charny)。当时萨尼骑士刚在英法之役中阵亡，其遗孀把这圣物公开展览，引起当时教会的诽议，认为不可能为主的殓布，因为福音并无记述。

一四五三年，萨尼的孙女把殓布赠与沙和公爵，殓布由利尼镇(Lirey) .转运至山比力 (Chambery)，就在一五三二年险遭大火烧毁。一五七八年才由法国转到都灵城。至今刚是四百年了。(今年暑假义国将隆重庆祝，除公开展览圣殓布，还于十月七日召开首次国际大会，出席的将有各国的科学家及学者。)

所以最近六百年的历史都有典籍可考，但问题就在十四世纪以前的一段漫长日子。假定圣殓布是真确的，它就必须来自巴肋斯坦。这一段不全的历史一直是圣殓布问题的最大弱点，最近才由学者打破了这个谜：其中最重要首推瑞士的费麦时博士(Dr.Max Frei) 及牛津大学的威尔逊教授(Dr. Ian Wilson) 的研究。

瑞士福尔摩斯

谁也预料不到，圣殓布的秘史竟由一位罪犯专家揭晓！费麦时出掌苏黎世警署化验室凡二十五年，研究罪案的成绩，驰名国外。他屡次利用疑犯衣服上的尘埃而证实与凶杀现场有关，很像小说里福尔摩斯的手法。

一九七三年，他应邀主持圣殓布辨真的工作，费博士最先从放大了的照片上发现殓布上附有各种尘埃，他要求一些样本。都灵总主教白弥格枢机 (Card. Michele Pellegrino) 有点诧异，到底批准了。

电子显微镜下，他看到各类微粒：矿物，植物，纤维，细菌，还有花粉。他决定集中研究花粉样本。他也是植物学家，很瞭解花粉的特性。原来花粉虽细，外壳却异常坚硬，历千万年而不易碎裂。而且每种植物的花粉都有显着的分别。

东正教的依地沙之像

西方教会在中古时代留下的文件，数量很可观，而中世纪对圣物的热忱亦不乏记戴，然而对现存的圣殓布却只字不提。为甚么？其中一个假设是：当时的圣殓布可能并不以殓布的型式存在。这假设不无根据：犹太人一向视殓布为不洁之物，初期教会可能把殓布折起来。

威尔逊就是根据这假设进行研究的。他在东正教的典籍中找。到Mandylion的详细史料：这原是一块布，上面只有基督的圣容，但也是一张模糊不清而带神秘感的面孔。如果把圣捡布对折四次，使圣容向上，再用植架围好，四边用绣线拉成格构花纹，这就与Mandylion外型一样，圣容也呈现在柜架正中。这是否巧合？

威尔逊把东方教会历代的基督正面圣像作一系列比较，发现自公元六世纪以来的艺术作品都跟圣殓布及Mandylion上的圣容十分肖似，几乎同出一辙：长发、闪族面型及鼻子、胡须、神色庄严。最早的作品在叙利亚的熊斯镇发现，是一张刻在银器上的基督圣容。详细比较下，其作者必曾见过圣殓布上的圣容。可是自公元六世纪以前的作品就不同了。不但个别作品的差别悬殊，而且表达基督的型像也没有一定的模式。第四、五世纪的画家爱把基督绘成像希腊的太阳神似的少年，没有胡子，面目英俊。事实上当时圣奥斯定曾指出：那时代的基督肖像种类奇多，汗牛充栋，因为「我们不认识他的外貌，也不认识他母亲的样子。」

因此，自六世纪迄今，东方教会沿用的基督正面像都是以Mandylion上的圣容为蓝本，而他们确信后者乃基督的真容。按东正教记载，这圣物是在第十三世纪早期在拜占庭失传的。而圣殓布首次在西方出现是十四世纪。可见Mandylion与圣殓布之间确有非常的关系。

更重要的是这件东正教的圣物是在第六世纪才发现的－－当时是在土耳其安度纳草原的依地沙(Edessa)，即今日的乌发市(Urfa)。这不但说明第六世纪以后艺术作品上的基督容貌何以同出一辙，也与费麦时博士的花粉研究不谋而合，至此圣殓布的来源已渐露端倪。

威教授详尽的放据，已编撰成书，名为「都灵的殓布」(The Turin Shroud)，于五月面世，其主要论点是证明圣殓布与Mandylion 原为一物。他曾在今年复活主日的泰晤士周刊撰文介绍目己的发现。如果把他的贡献跟费麦时的研究及其他科学家的结论互相对证，我们的确能像英国着名神学家鲁宾逊教授 (Dr.John Robinson) 说：「目前圣殓布问题的研究已跨越一大步，我们可以肯定它不是中世纪的膺品。」

东方教会传统里的Mandylion，其大小只及圣殓布的十六份一。正中只有基督的正面。南斯拉夫格德镇(Gradac) 现存的一幅璧昼，是十二世纪遗物，正是Mandylion的写照。布的四边被线系于框架上，圣容的周围则是格构装饰。这一种装饰已证实是公元初期土耳其一带贵族衣服的设计图案，例如在伊拉克首都巴格达的博物馆里就有一具公元第二世纪的土耳其王的像，其长衣的编绣格式与Mandylion的相同。

为甚么那时要把圣殓布改装成华贵的饰物？可能是故意折起掩饰其本来面目，殓布在近东文化中都不是祥物，何况教外国家仍未能接受耶稣是天主呢﹗(这圣物在六世纪古籍中又名tetradiplon意即封折四次。)

在欧洲出现

如果威尔逊的理论成立，东正教的Mandylion就与都灵的圣殓布实属一物，而圣殓布的大部历史都可以放证了。余下来的只是由十三世纪至十四世纪中叶的空白：即由君士坦丁堡失踪而至在法国利尼镇出现的一个半世纪。这期间圣殓布在那里？至今仍是一个谜。

不过威教授也提供了少许线索。他怀疑当时极可能是落在圣殿骑士修会里(Crusader Order of Knights Templars)。十三世纪时，该会的骑士常把圣物作大手笔的买卖。他们习惯举行神秘集会；十四世纪初叶，民间普遍传闻：骑士集会时朝拜一个有胡子的神秘人头，有人说该人头镶在横匾上，也有人说那是个幽灵。

事实上，当时法国的裴利伯亲王(King Philippe) 觊觎骑士会的财产，于是以癖邪为藉口，于一三○七年发难铲除圣殿骑士修会。

我们固然不能肯定骑士朝拜的所谓「幽灵」究为何物，可是由于当时这组织遍布欧洲，这神秘人像的复制品自然也不径而走。在英国南部深马郡的骑士镇(Tempelcombe Somerset) 也曾有一座骑士修会的小堂，一九五一年被拆毁。当时发现了一幅画，也许就是其中一幅「幽灵」的复制品，现存该镇的圣玛利小堂内，它的年代固然可考，但不能肯定就是骑士会恭敬的圣物，可是这「幽灵」却的确与圣殓布上的圣容十分相似！

然而这线索的价值何在？圣殓布在法国首次公开时是属于萨尼家族的，萨尼骑士本人固然已在一三五六年九月十九日阵亡，可是他与骑士修会有关吗？威教授发现：一三一四年三月在巴黎最后两名骑士修会的首脑被正法，用火烧死，罪名是异端邪说。其中一位是骑士会的总教头Jacques de Molay，而另一位则是诺曼第骑士分会的教头，他叫甚么名字？萨尼﹗(Geoffrey deCharny)

虽然未有足够证据建立前后两位萨尼骑士的关系，不过骑士修会的风云至少可以解释一件事：当萨尼家族后来被教会指责伪造圣物，他们不能自辩，也没有说出圣殓布的来源，因为无论洗劫君士坦丁堡或朝拜「幽灵」都不是十分名誉的。

总括来说，这一段历史仍有悬疑的地方。

怀疑派神学家的见证

前面提及的鲁宾逊教授是着名的怀疑学者，二十年前他是候活教区的主教，那时他的「向上主摊牌」(Honest to God) 一书轰动英国教会，目前他是剑桥大学神学院主任。他从严格的新经学者立场研究圣殓布真伪。有一点他已深信无疑：圣殓布绝不会是按福音记载造出来的膺品。

从四部福音，可以肯定原来的殓布只是暂时权充包扎之用，待安息日一过，门徒再妥办后事。若瑟亚利玛第亚显然急于在下午六时以前做妥一切。虽然若望圣史指出耶稣的葬礼全照犹太风俗，但耶稣的尸首大概未加洗涤，于是复活的大清早，妇女们带着香料上坟，一定是要完成安葬的程序。其次尼苛德摩买了这么多香油(一百磅！) 傅擦尸首一定也是为了防止尸首腐烂。

鲁宾逊又指出若望福音提及的墓里的「手帕」，原来是翻译上的误解：这块小布原是为把尸首的口部合拢，避免空气进入身内，犹太人惯常用布把死者的下巴紧缚头部 (即用布沿双耳绕下巴一圈)。这点后来在立体分析器下得到证实。

前言立体影像分折器

美国空军军校两位年青的教授合作研究圣殓布的圣容，最近提供了划时代的资料。杨泽森 (Dr. John Jackson) 是物理学博士，艾增柏 (Dr. Eric Jumper) 是航空导向专家。他们先研究死者身体每一点与殓布的准确距离：发现殓布上的像，其每一微点都有同样的密度，不管这点跟死者身体接触的距离如何不同，事实上，有些地方身体与布的距离竟有四厘米，但影像的密度依然一样！

其后他俩获准借用VP8影像分析器，这仪器原是太空中心用以收发月球及火星拍回的讯号，利用拍好的照片算出星球表面的各种距离。普通的人像照片上的各种密度因光暗而不同，在VP8的立体分离下，各点与实物的距离被还原，于是分析器上呈现的是模糊不清的像！可是当他们把圣容的底片(亦即正像) 放进VP8，萤光幕上竟出现一个完整的立体人像，三个向度极之均匀。这张庄严安祥的面孔，比石庇雅在黑房内首次见到的更真实！为甚么普通照片没有同样的立体效果？为甚么印在平面白布上的竟是一个立体的像？

静默的见证

鲁宾逊特地到美国访问杨艾二人。现在问题已不再是圣殓布的真伪了，而是自然现象如何解释圣容的烙印？出席会议的尚有空军总部的电脑主任唐宁博士 (Dr. Don Lynn)，他曾负责分折由海员二号拍摄回来的照片。

艾博士认为烙印不可能是有机物质，如植物或矿物的反应，因为圣殓布曾遭大火，在高温下有机性的影像都会消失。

唐博士曾利用各种颜色的频率反应来分析烙印的问题，他指出烙印也不可能由人体内的分泌物所导致。反过来说，如果是由于血汗与空气产生作用，则把殓布拉平时，烙印绝不能保留完整的面容。何况现在更发现烙印是立体的呢！

那末到底是甚么作用促成这绝世的尊容？唐博士认为唯一可靠的解释是：一度极短促而极强烈的幅射能！

历来也曾有过学者相信基督往复活的过程中，脱离物质 (dematerialization) 的一刻所产生的辐射能！可是这不外是假说而矣。

杨博士的结论很中肯，他说：「我们身为科学家可以肯定这圣容不是艺术作品，也超越人的创作能力。」至少圣殓布的真确性已没有疑问了，至于自然科学如何解释这现象，还有待学者的努力。

(综合报导，七八年三月二十八日，伦敦大学)

一八九八年，石庇雅首次在圣殓布的底片发现的基督正像。这庄严而安详的尊容一直隐藏在血迹之后凡十九世纪；今日，祂是否仍向我们做着静默的见证？

圣殓布在VP8 影像分析器下呈现的立体照，注意两行火烧痕迹之间的立体人像，左为正面，右为背部。
杨泽森博士(左)，艾增柏博士(右)
据推测，圣殓布初期曾在中东一带展露，因而带有各种尘埃。
Linum Mucronatum，费麦时在电子显微镜下发现的花粉之一，藉此他把圣殓布的历史追溯至土耳其及中东。
费麦时博士，苏黎世警局的福尔摩斯。
近东一带的纺织机，其历史可推至基督年代，至今仍沿用。
以「向上帝摊牌」一书驰名的怀疑派神学家鲁宾逊博士；他宣布圣殓布绝非膺品，其真确性无可置疑。

(1)Franz Mussner： The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of St. John, 1967, Montreal. P. 45.

(2)Richardson W. Heidegger- Through Phenimenology to Thought, 2nd Ed., 1963, Hague. P.454.

(3)Mussner F. 同前 P.P.48-49.

(4)Brown, R.：The Gospel According to John (The Anchor Bible) P.463.

(5)Heidegger M.： Beingand Time, 1962. New York. P.P.189-191.

(6)Mussner F. 同前 P.40.

(7)Cougar Yves： The Mystery of the Temple, 1962, London. P.124.

(8)Leon-Dufour： Dictionary of Biblical Theology. 1967, London. P.171： FULFILL.

(9)Marsh John：St. John－ The Pelican New Testament Commentaries, 1968, London. P.P.459-460.

(10)Mussner F.同前 P.P.59-64.

(11)The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Vol.4. P.P.715-716.

(12)Text of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. 5th Ed., 1952. London. No.52.

(13)同上 No.107.

作者：刘富根年代：1978

前言

(甲)巴勒斯坦的地，形势及政治背景

(一)名称：一般信徒称巴勒斯坦为圣地，以纪念救恩史上所发生的重大事迹。在此之前，曾有许多世纪，被称为客纳罕地、阿摩黎人地区、以色列或犹太地。自公元五世纪始，由于希腊文化的影响，巴勒斯坦一名后来居上，流传至今。原来只是培肋舍特地，按字源巴勒斯坦即来自培肋舍特。1

(二)地理形势：在苏伊士运河北面，是一条较长的地带，面积约二万七千○二十七平方公里。其地势占有极重要的地位，是中东的门户，控制运河进入地中海的最近处，位于欧、亚、非三大洲的中心点，更是自美索不达米亚至埃及和阿拉伯半岛，自叙利亚至腓尼基必经之地。向来在历史土是各大强国－－亚述、埃及、巴比伦及波斯等必争之地。

(三)政冶背景：自以民进巴地之后，在数千年的历史中，除了大卫王和撤落满时代，以及阿斯摩乃王朝，巴勒斯坦获得真正统一和完全的独立外，在其他时代中，大都过着受人统治而不能自主独立。原因是与它的地理形势有密切的关系。二千多年之前，犹太人虽欲复国而多次的起义，但始终被罗马帝国所败，且终于灭亡。巴勒斯坦被罗马帝国征服后，一部份虔诚的正统犹太教徒，仍然志愿生活于圣地，老死于圣地；另一绝大部份犹太人则流散至世界各地，阿拉伯人渐次成了当地居民的多数。后来犹太人在他国受到迫害，相继地逃回圣地。如一八八○年代，由于俄国发生反闪族(犹太)运动，故有许多犹太人因而来至巴勒斯坦定居；殊不知，这却在无形中造成了当代史上最大的不幸：犹太人的民族主义与阿拉伯民族主义互相抗衡，前者为了达成其目的，除了挤入现属于阿拉伯世界的一个最重要地区外，更和后者作殊死斗。

一八九七年犹太民族极力想在巴勒斯坦地区复国，遂有世界性的「熙雍主义」(Zionism) 出现。在第一次世界大战期间，英国占领了属于奥图曼帝国叙利亚省的巴勒斯坦；一九二二年战后经国际联盟委托英国正式代管。由于各国的犹太人在经济上相当富有。故此，大战期间，各国需要他们财经上的支持，因而促成了他们也都赞助犹太民族的复国运动。于一九一七年十一月二日，由巴尔福勋爵发表了宣言，声称:「英国政府赞成，在巴勒斯坦为犹太人建立民族之家，并将尽最大力量促其实现。……」2但另一方面在一九一五－－一六年初春之间，为争取阿拉伯人的响应，协约国方面确也曾予以政治性的许诺，就是建立一个大阿拉伯王国，新的王国包括巴勒斯坦在内。后来阿拉伯人的期望落空。一九二○年被分割为现今不同的阿拉伯国家，在此期间他们的地方被协约国所托营。

第二次世界大战期间，欧洲犹太人受到纳粹的血腥迫害及屠杀，粉纷逃入巴勒斯坦，人数剧增。他们又利用各国犹太人捐助的款项，大景收买当地的肥田沃土，据为移民的公产，因而迫使贫困的阿拉伯人陷于不利之境；而愤怒的巴勒斯坦人更以暴乱和大罢工来抗拒犹太人的经济侵略。此行动延续至二次大战将发生时才告一段落。英国政府曾派了一个委员会往调查巴勒斯坦冲突的起因，而提出以下结论：既然犹太人与阿拉伯人，各有利害，不能共存于一国，那么唯一解决之道就是将巴勒斯坦一分为二，一个阿拉伯国和一个犹太国。这使到巴勒斯坦境内阿拉伯人的武装暴动，越来越激烈；阿拉伯人有两个基本要求：一是犹太人停止移民；二是在原整的巴勒斯坦土地上给予占大多数的阿拉伯民族独立主权。这更造成了犹太人和阿拉伯人之间的关系日趋紧张

第二次世界大战后，英国在中东的地位为美国取代。美国为了在中东和东非扩张，掠夺中东和北非的石油资源，乃进一步扶植犹太复国主义，要在阿拉伯世界当中，制造一个欧洲人的共和国，作为它向中东进行侵略的工具。一九四七年十一月廿九日，第二届联合国大会在美国操纵下，通过巴勒斯坦「分治」决议，规定在巴勒斯坦地区建立两个国家。全世界回教徒和犹太教徒的圣地耶路撒冷则由联合国管理。一九四八年五月十四日，犹太人在巴勒斯坦宣布成立「以色列国」。五月十五日，英军自巴勒斯坦撤退。

以色列建国第二年，阿拉伯国家即向以色列宣战。战争于四九年结东，阿国战败，以国分别同埃及、约旦、叙利亚、黎巴嫩订停战协定。以国占领了若干阿国家的土地，并且占领了耶路撒冷新城的大部份。以色列对于丢掉产业和流亡在外的阿拉伯的难民，既坚拒他们归去，又不予以赔偿，因而激起巴勒斯坦人报复之念，推动排犹运动。故伊拉克宣布犹太人一年内要离开该国。军事上失利的阿拉伯国家，想从经济上置对方于死地。故此，阿拉伯国家与以色列国便形成了多次冲突的出现；直至到了今天，问题仍存在着，武装仇杀仍没有止息。

在一九七三年阿拉伯世界高峰会议上，阿拉伯各国都承认巴解组织是巴勒斯坦人民的唯一合法代表。由阿拉法特任主席的巴解组织及属下的游击队和「抗拒阵线」的游击队，联合签署了一份政策宣言。文件重申巴勒斯坦人民将继续「为争取重返家园的合法权利，争取自决及建立独立的巴勒斯坦民族国家奋斗」。建国将「不必借助和乎协定，不必以色列承认，不必经由谈判」。因阿拉法特急于要建立一个众所承认的巴勒斯坦国，故此在形势所迫下，也不得不赞成出席日内瓦和会；这举动使到属下游击队愤然退出该组织，另组抗拒阵线。这阵线认为在列强的赞成下建立小巴勒斯坦国即是放弃消灭犹太复国主义的斗争。建国后，巴国人民将在国际压力下被迫和以色列共存，在以色列国内的巴勒斯坦人亦将永远得不到解放。

由此种种历代积存恩怨，不但得不到云开见月明的解决，反而日渐加深与恶化，形成中东爆发第五次战争的可能性。

(乙)以色列与巴勒斯坦武装仇杀的因由

从以上之政冶概况描述可见巴勒斯坦境况的混乱以及斗争的日趋激烈，形成了巴解组织的恐怖活动频现，甚至乎威胁到世界各地，以求达到他们解放整个巴勒斯坦返回故土之决心。然而，以色列亦恐防巴解在其附近建国而威胁日后的安全，所以极力阻止其在邻近建国，并扩展领土，尤其对于巴解组织的恐怖手段，给与极大的报复行动。因此更促成二者间的武装仇杀的对抗现象。例如，最近的一次恐怖活动出现，其因由是埃及总统沙达欲打破中东问题的僵局，亲自到以色列访问，寻求公正和全面的和平解决办法，提出多项建议与以国会谈，并欲促成重开日内瓦和会。这次访以，是近代外交史上一次少有的冒险行动。可谓成则为英雄，败则身败名裂。由于南黎巴嫩的事件迫使沙达在没有先照会其他阿拉伯国家的情况下，公开宣布愿意到以色列去，因此使到其他国家对他极度反感。巴解组织更是愤怒填胸。正当以色列在南黎巴嫩屠杀巴勒斯坦人的时候，埃及却向以伸出了和平之手，这对巴人来说不能不是一个沉重的打击。虽然沙达向以国会发表演说时，重申巴勒斯坦人民有立国的权利，但他也表示欢迎与以色列共存，亦即是无条件地承认，犹太复国主义有权利在巴勒斯坦人的国土土建立国家。同时他也在演说中避免提及巴解组织。其后宣布邀请各方参加开罗会议时，也没有提及他们。后来，埃及官方发言才说明他们也在被邀请之列。当巴解组织拒绝出席开罗会议后，埃及却另外邀请在西岸的一些巴勒斯坦人到开罗。这期间，在开罗的巴解电台因攻击沙达而被政府下令关闭。埃及还驱逐了一些巴解人仕离境。

在目前之形势下，中东问题的政治解决，只不过意味着巴勒斯坦人的民族利益将被搁置一旁而已。在这生死存亡的关头下，巴解组织只好采取激进的政策，一方面是宣称不再相信政冶解决，以恢复巴解游击队的团结；另方面则四面游说，希望能进一步孤立埃及，使其不敢和以色列单独签和约。更采取了一次恐怖活动，以求阻止没有巴解参加的中东和平谈判。这次恐怖活动，阿拉法特(一向温和的巴解领柚) 明知以国大举报复，仍不惜冒险，致折损百多名游击队。巴解一位发言人说出他们的目的:「我们得以行动证明，巴勒斯坦人如果没有得到他们的权利，中东就没有和平。3他又表示 :「巴解赞成和平谈判，但是如果产生了不让我们参加的企图，我们别无抉择，只好采取军事行动。我们人民知道以色列强大，预料将会接受到报复，但是即便他们报复，也显示出我们不会被粉碎的」。4由他的语气，可知巴解坚定不移的立场，更以行动去证实。一九七八年三月十一日，巴勒斯坦的敢死队在海法到台拉维夫的高速公路上，演出了惊心动魄的一幕。他们在安息日的下午，偷偷地在地中海那边的岸上登陆，然后劫持了两部满载游客的巴士，一直向台拉维夫驶去，并在沿途把任何目击的途人射杀，最后还毁坏巴士及造成多人死亡。据估计，在行动中约有四十人死亡(其中包括四名恐怖分子)及超过八十人受伤。在以色列历史中，这是最严重的一次恐怖分子袭击行动。

在以色列方面，为报复巴勒斯坦游击队的屠杀，从海陆空三方面进军，扫荡在黎巴嫩南部的巴游据点。以色列这次扫荡的行动，显得其部署的精密，行动的迅速，但是并非一次「危险的进军」，因为他们知道巴游无论在数量或装备士都比不上自己的。这次报复行动，是以国朝野群情激愤的反应；国会更正式通过决议，要求予巴游以无情的打击。其规模之大，远超出了过去所习见的那种突击性报复行动的范围，致殃及很多无辜的乎民。整个中东冲突也因而升级。在如此情况下，埃及总统沙达的和平行动，以及美国的调停努力，暂时无法继续。

(丙)反省及批判

这事件的发生，引起各国的关注及舆论界的批评。现试从伦理角度作一反省及批判，并分述如下:

(一)巴勒斯坦人民是阿拉伯民族之一，早期因住于此地而得此称号。当时来说，他们并未有组织建立国家的能力与渴求迹象；但到了后来，一方面，眼见其他阿拉伯民族相继独立，分冶成为现今的沙地阿拉伯、约旦、伊拉克、叙利亚、埃及、黎巴嫩等国家;而以色列也据种种因素，在北区复国至今更具卅年的历史。另一面，由于此区长年战争的影响，使到大量巴勒斯坦的阿拉伯人，成为流徒的难民，分散各地，但是却相当团结。一部份原因是由于以色列的敌视；其次，阿拉伯国家支持他们的组织，主要是为了反对以色列，并非真正喜欢他们；最主要的，还是英国托管巴勒斯坦卅年中，使他们成为在这一地区受过最多教育的人，他们所产生的医生、律师、教师及科学家，比其他任何阿拉伯国家为多，他们的妇女也较其他阿拉伯国家自由。故此在无形中，使其民族意识加强，需要成立国家，维护民族性尊严。根据物权 (Dominion)，即直接支配财物的主权，包括使用权、收益权、处分权三种权力，物主对于自己的财物，在道德及法律范围内，可以自由使用，收益，处分。5故巴人有权享用。但另一方面，早在地球上有国家与政府之前，民族就已存在。以色列民散居各地，在任何国家都有居住与生存权利。故以民无权在巴土地上居住，这说法绝对不通。在这些地方有国家与政府之前，早就有以色列人住在那里了。故他们亦有生存与居住权利。至于以国之建立，强占用地，使到很多巴人流亡，而他们又拒绝此等人回归原有土地。这亦是违反社会正义。因为若果物主( 巴人)蒙受损失，以色列政府应给予相当的补偿才对。无偿强占强用是不合理的。6故第一，消极方面，以色列应准许巴人立国，并且给与他们应有的土地建国，不应惧怕被侵略而违反巴勒斯坦人居住立国的权利。第二，积极方面，如果真正发扬自由、平等、博爱的精神，彼此宜合群共存。因为世界人权宣言第一及五条所说:「世人皆生来享有自由、尊严及权利；各赋有理性、良知，应该和睦相处，情同手足。任何人不应被施以酷刑、不人道、侮辱或处罚。」又教宗若望廿三世在「和平于世」通牒谓:「凡志在抑制民族的生命力和发展者，都构成违反正义原则的重大罪行。如果这种恶毒的措施目的，在于灭绝一个种族，那么，那个罪行更加重大了。」7

(二)从巴勒斯坦的历史背境分析，责任大部份落在于英、美两国身上。如当初在政冶思潮未有今天那么激烈的情现下，处理得当，事件必不会弄到如此难于收拾的地步。可惜他们只顾私人利益以致偏袒以色列；联国又在美国的操纵下，发挥不到本身功能，使巴人被排挤，致造成今日武装仇杀事件的发生。站在公义立场上，英、美两国都难辞其咎。

(三)埃及总统沙达访问以色列时，被一些激进的阿拉伯国家及巴解组织攻击为投降派。但他却得到国内大多数人民支持他的和平主动。他重申了阿拉伯主和派的一贯立场，包括：一、要求以国交回占领阿拉伯领土，二、强调巴勒斯坦建国的权利。回国后更强调不会单独和以签和约。这显示了他并没有出卖阿拉伯人民的利益。亦非否定了以国的权利。沙达欲筹备开罗会议，再商讨研究重开日内瓦会议。他这次突破性的访问，牺牲自我顾全大局的果敢精神，值得钦敬与赞许。但沙达疏忽了巴解组织的完全参与会议的主权，却是一个缺失。这也可以说是间接造成今次仇杀的成因之一，使到整个和谈搁置起来。

无疑，这次访问总算加速双方谋求和平。因为这是阿拉伯国家第一次承认犹太复国主义在巴地建国的权利，同时以、埃两国保证今后不再诉诸战争来解决纷争。从此以、埃直接谈判的门打开了。以国必给与埃及回报或愿退让西奈半岛给埃及，自己也减少了与埃及再作战的可能性。

至于远景问题，则有待联合国的继续努力。希望和谈重开时，美国和阿拉伯分别运用影响力，促使问题早日获得合理的解决。因为要建立和平，首先要彻底根除民族间所有纷争的成因，促进他们对人权的尊重；其次，需要有组织良好的国际团体，促使各国互相合作，以克服或事先预防这些不幸，并制止这些无羁的暴力，并须致力于创建专门促进和平的团体。8这也是联合国安全理事会补偿过往对巴勒斯坦人民的不公义的好机会了。

(四)舆论界对于巴游恐怖份子这次的行动，虽然是有所谴责，但少不免却寄以同情和谅解。相反，对于以色列的报复行动却猛烈抨击，甚至转载各国公开声明的指责。但我总觉得舆论界的这种指责，有欠公允。他们并不完全了解，巴解游击组织，正以新的方式，即以阴谋颠覆的手段，做着长期明枪暗箭的战争。在许多情况下( 如巴游在以境内袭击无辜者等)，将恐怖政策视作战争的新方法。9这种手段完全违反了神学上所谓「合理战争」的范围，不单威胁以色列的安危，且影响全世界的和平。

(五)得不到参与自决中东问题的巴解组织，对筹备会议诸国有疑问，故感不满。这次激愤地以用「敢死队」的行动，企图阻止会议的召开。虽然其行动之目的，未可厚非，但所采取之手段，殃及无辜，有违人类自由生存的伦理法则。

同样，以色列的报复行动，也犯了同样错误，使到许多难民营的人死亡与受苦。故教宗保禄六世，也谴责以色列的报复，伤害到各黎巴嫩城镇及难民营内无武装的平民，并对这次轰炸伤亡人数之多深感悲痛。其实，「武力雄厚，并不能使其在军事及政冶方面的运用都成为合法的。如不幸爆发战争，作战的双方并不因此可以为所欲为。」10

总之，以、巴相方以暴易暴的手段，同出一辙，不但违反伦理精神，也把和谈之门关闭。

(六)以、巴双方所存的问题，若得不到妥善解决，民族间武装仇杀就永远不会止息，甚至有爆发中东第五次大战的趋势。他们应该在非暴力下大团结，为修和作出艰苦的努力。战争永不能解决问题，只表现了弱肉强食的态度。同时从暴力中，人类永远无法找到和平的果实。

事实证明，袭击巴士事件后，以沿岸城市的居民，纷纷抢购枪械。他们认为自己已经「处于前栈」，有受到巴游击队登陆攻击的危险。这种在恐惧中的生活，不但不会得到长久安宁，且会增加民族之间的仇恨。

(七)「交谈」的重要性。两个民族的恶性连锁反应，皆因缺少交谈。这使人联想起，今日世界各国所产生的冲突和社会的混乱，皆因有关双方缺乏以和平的态度去处理纠纷。各执己见，只会形成更不良的效果。「聆听」与「忍让」确实重要;「忍让」并不表示让步的一方是弱者，因为只有那些肯宽恕，敢于信任和不怕为建设一个更健康、更有人情味的世界而受苦的人，才有资格去缔造和平。因为「和平并不只是不作战，亦不只敌对双方之间建立武力的平衡，更不在于独裁镇压，而是名符其实的正义的伟业。"……故此，和平决非一劳永逸之事，而应经常由人类去建树。此外，由于人类意志薄弱，而又为罪恶所重创，故欲获致和平，需要人人恒心控制其私欲，并需要合法权力的督导。……除非人权利益获得保障，除非人们互相信任，自动与他人交换其心灵与天才的财富，则世界不可能获得和平。决心尊重他人及各民族的尊严，实行并致力于博爱，是建树和平的必要因素。故和平亦是爱德的成果，爱德远超过正义所能贡献的。」11

1 圣经辞典，思高圣经学会，一九七五年版，一一七至一一九页。

2 胡为著，今日中东，自由出版社刊行，民国四十五年版。

3 转自七八年三月廿五日星岛晚报(暸望台)。

4 同上。

5 张希贤著，伦理神学纲要，光启出版社，一九六五年再版，一九一页。

6 同上。

7 天主教会训导文献选集，施安堂译，一九七五年，一○四九页。

8 大公会议文献(梵二)，中国主教团秘书处出版，一九七五年。论教会在现代世界牧职宪章 (简称「现代」)，83号，三○七页。

9「现代」，79号，三○一－－三○三页。

10「现代」，79号，三○一－－三○三页。

11「现代」，78号，三○○－－三○一页。

作者：宋兰友年份：1978

景教就是五世纪由叙利亚人纳斯释领导，并于厄弗所大公会议上被判定为异端的纳斯释主义 (Nestorianism)，传入中国后称为景教或大秦景教(The Luminous Religion of Ta-chin)。根据景教碑，景教一名的来源，实因「真常之道，妙而难名，功用昭彰，强称景教。」唐贞观九年(六三五)，「大秦国有上德日阿罗本(Alopen) 占青云而载真经，望风律以驰艰险，贞观九祀，至于长安，帝使宰臣房公玄龄总仗西郊，宾迎入内，翻经书殿，问道禁闱，深知正真，特令传授。」之后，公元六三八年唐太宗下诏日：「详其教旨……济物利人，宜行天下，所司即于京义零坊，造大秦寺一所，度僧二十一人。」公元六九八年至七○○年间，因为武则天偏袒佛教，压抑其他宗教，景教遭受第一次打击。不过在玄宗时，景教开始进入佳境，公元七三二年有教士名及烈和一个波斯特使团到长安朝贡，十二年后又有一个景教士佶和到长安传教，玄宗还为景教的寺院封号。公元七八一年德宗在位时竖立景教碑。

从武则天以后到公元八四五年间，是景教在中国最兴盛的时期。根据旧唐书卷十八上武宗本纪，「会昌五年(八四五) 秋七月庚子，敕并省天下佛寺。……其大秦，穆护等祠，释教既已厘革，邪法不可独存，其人并勒还俗，递归本贯，充税户；如外国人，送还本处收管。」「八月制……其天下所拆寺四千六百所，还俗僧尼二十六万五百人，收充两税户；拆招提兰若四万余所；收膏瞍上田数千万顷，收奴婢为两税十五万人，隶僧尼属主客。显明外国之教，勒大秦，穆护，祓三千余人还俗，不杂中华之风。」

景教到了宋代已经衰落了。不过，宋人宋敏求着长安志还记载说：「义宁坊街东之北，波斯胡寺，贞观十二年太宗为大秦一胡僧阿罗斯立。」可见此时景教仍未改名，寺院也未被毁。不过，我们从苏东坡的一首「五郡」诗( 约作于一○六二年) 看来，宋代景教在盩屋的大秦寺已易主。到南宋国宁宗庆元五年(一一九九) 与嘉秦元年(一二○一)间，金杨云翼任陕西东路兵马总管注长安时，曾赴盩屋参谒大秦寺，发现寺院已完全变成废墟了。直到十三世纪元朝兴起后，在边疆地区的景教徒蒙朝廷之助，再度进入中国本土活动，一直到明朝为止。

十七世纪中，利玛窦也曾在中国找到几个景教徒，但他们对自己的宗教，除了十字记号外，一无所知。

综观景教在中国，从盛行到衰落，也不过短短四、五百年。我们不禁要问，以景教备受唐代几朝皇帝的保护，既为它建寺院，题字甚至立碑以资久远，为什么竟在四、五百年后就销声匿迹，几乎完全从中国的历史中消失。照方豪神父的看法，其中主要的原因是因为景教依附政治的关系。所谓「赵孟之所贵，赵孟能贱之」。它的命运，完全操纵在帝王手上。

固然，依附政冶，是景教衰败的主要原因，不过我个人以为，景教过份汉化，以至失去它自己宗教的本色，也是它在中国失败的主因之一。我们知道，景教的传教士，不但彻底吸收儒家的思想，更大量采用佛教和道教的成语，翻译基督宗教的经典。他们的做法，其实是相当冒险的，尤其在中国，儒释道合流的风气一向很盛，试看唐太宗的诏书，不正是这种各种宗教合流的观点表露无遗吗？诏日:「道无常名，圣无常体，随方设教，密济群生，大秦国大德阿罗本，远将经像，来献上京，详其教旨，玄妙无为，观其元宗，生成立要，词无繁说，理有忘筌，济物利人，宜行天下。」(见龚天民着唐朝基督教之研究附录二)景教过度本地化的结果是完全丧失它自己的特色，变成三不像的宗教了，不但不能吸引中国知识份子反而遭到他们的遗弃，这是意料中的事了。

现在，正当我们教区高唱宗教本色化，大力提倡宗教使用本地语言之际，我们看看唐代景教的传教士，如何运用当时的语言文字，翻译基督宗教的经典，又如何在翻译基督宗教思想时，如何被儒释道思想所腐蚀，相信是很有意义的。不过因为篇幅所限，本文只就景教碑和汉文的八种景教经典，分析景教教士对Theos或God的中文译名，以作为神学本色化和神学使用本地语言这两方面的工作的初步而且十分幼稚的探讨。我不敢奢望能找出什么结论，只想藉这个小小的研究，提出一些问题，作为我们今后思索的方向而已。我只选「天主」一词来分析，固然是因为篇幅和个人学力所限，不能对这些文献的翻译问题，作全面的分析研究；但主要还是因为这是基督宗教最基本的概念，一切的神学思考，无不以这概念为始，最后市无不以它为依归。

不过，即使范围已缩小至只分析Theos或God的中文译名，在这篇文章里，我也只选其中几个比较有趣的译名来谈谈，因为本文只是志在分享的趣味文字，不是志在发表学术见解的学术论文。

景教的汉文经典，就我们现在所知，有景教碑文、序听迷诗所经第一、一神论、大秦景教三成蒙度赞、尊经、志玄安乐经、宣元本经、大秦景教宣元至本经、大圣通真归法赞等九篇。以下有关「天主」的中文译名，就是从这些经典中抽取出来的。

A 、天尊

这一词，主要出于序听迷诗所经(以下简称序经)。此经为日人高楠顺次郎博士所藏。全经共一百七十行，每行约十七、八字，是所有景教经典中最古的一篇，大约在景教入唐后不久，奉唐太宗之命写成的。经文文字晦涩难解。根揍东洋史权威羽田亨的说法，此经的题名「迷诗所」的「所」字为「诃」字的误字，所以「迷诗所」应为「迷诗诃」，即景教惯用的「弥师诃」，是默西亚的音译。「序听」的「听」字可能是「数」或「鼠」字的误字，全名应为「序鼠弥师诃」即「耶稣默西亚」( 序鼠或序数即经文中的移鼠，Jesus的音译)。全经的主要内容是从新旧约圣经讲解基督宗教的教义。

经文的第一句「弥师诃说天尊序娑法云」意即弥赛亚( 默西亚 ) 讲述「天尊序娑」。根据羽田亨博士，「娑」字应作「婆」即耶和华之意，可见「天尊」是用以代表天主的词汇。

「一神论」的第三篇「世尊布施论第三」( 其余两篇为：喻第二、一天论第一 )，世尊是指耶稣基督。在这篇经文内，「天尊」和「一神」都是指天主的意思。这两个词交替运用，似乎没有什么特别的区分，也许作者有意用「天尊」和「世尊」来寓意天主与耶稣地位之别，因为照佛教的说法，世尊是释迦牟尼的尊称，表示释迦牟尼是世人所尊敬者。耶稣，从他的身份地位上说，只是世人所尊崇的，而天主却统领一切，祂才是整个天地所尊崇的。如果这个分法是对的话，则这也反映纳斯铎主义的基督学观点。值得注意的是，虽然在世尊布施论第三一文内，天尊和一神混合并用，但在一天论第一里，「天尊」一词从来未出现过。在序听迷诗所经内，「一神」这词也不曾出现。我们很难肯定景教的传教士，在应用这三个词有什么特别的含意，不过从这三篇经文来看，似乎「一神」是用来强调天主的一致性，而「天尊」却用来表示天主的超越性。

此外，我们知道，「天尊」本来是道教尊称神的名词。景教作者写汉文经典时，随手借用道家名词，是在传播三教同源的思想，以为「天尊即神」？抑是因为基督宗教初初传到中国，要表达教义，苦无适当的词汇名称，只好就地取材，或用「天尊」，或用「佛」来代替希腊文Theos或英文God的意思？我们不得而知。不过，他们这样不经修饰的用另一语言的名词，借用另一种文化思想，无疑会使基督宗教与道教与儒家的思想，混淆不清。

他们不但在天尊一词的运用上，造成一种混淆不清的现象，就是在表达Theos的涵义上，也沾上不少释道思想的色彩。例如:

「天尊身在明乐静度。安居在天，皆诸佛为此风流转世间，风流无处不到，天尊常在静度快乐之处，果报无处不到。」(见龚着附录二序听迷诗所经)

这里，不但有道家的清静无为的思想，同时也有佛家的因果循环，善恶偿报的观念。又如：「众生无人敢近天尊，善福善缘众生……然不堕恶道地狱即得天(道)，得如有恶业，家(生)堕落恶道，不见明果，亦不得天道。……天尊受许辛苦，始立众生，众生理佛不远，立人身自尊，善有善福，恶有恶缘。」

以上这些片断，如果不标明是景教经典，有谁读了不会以为这是某些和尚在说因缘的文字。这和基督宗教原来的天主或Theos的概念，实在相差很远了。龚天民在唐朝基督教之研究中指出，序经中这些名词如「恶业、果报、缘业种果」等，显然是佛教的思想，他说:「虽然基督宗教不像佛教一样，主张三世因果说，但也说有某种因果，例如全人类现在所受的苦(果)，原由亚当犯罪而来(因)，又如保禄也说过类似佛教所说的现世业的道理，『顺看情欲撒种的，必从情欲收败坏；顺着圣灵撒种的，必从圣灵收永生，我们行善不可丧志；若不灰心，到了时候就要收成』(迦6 ：8,9)。」他认为「景教宣教师在序经中所用的恶业、果报等术语，大概在指基督教的原罪说和保禄的现世果报观，不过，景教士用这些名词，只在简单说明人间如信神便能得天道，如行恶便入恶道地狱，众生必须事前多多思想由业所缘而结的果子。」不过我个人以为，报应的概念，不算是基督宗教伦理学的要点。如果我们过份重视这种「报应」的伦理观，就不能充份表现天主的仁慈和对人无条件的救恩和爱了。现在，报应的伦理观又渗杂佛教的轮回思想，怎么还能算是基督宗教的伦理神学呢？我以为这点在我们力求基督宗教本色化的过程中，应该特注意，本色化或语言本地化并不等于不经思索和不经修饰的采用本地语言与文化。

B、诸佛、佛

序经在不少地方都用「佛」或「诸佛」这两个名词，例如:「诸佛及非人平章天阿罗漠(汉)，谁见天尊在于众生。」「诸佛为此风流转」，「人急之时每称佛名」，「谁报佛慈恩」，「天尊受许辛苦，始立众生，众生理佛不远。」「此人及一依佛法，不成受戒之所。」「先遣众生礼诸天，佛为佛受苦置立。」「圣上宫殿，于诸佛求得」等等。羽田亨博士和佐伯好郎博士都以为这些「佛」和「诸佛」，都是指基督宗教的God的意思。但龚天民先生则以为序经中的「佛」和「诸佛」的意义不同。他以为单数的「佛」是指上帝。但「诸佛」却不是，他以为诸佛是指旧约中的诸神或天使而言。例如圣咏:「主啊，诸神之中没有可比你的。」(咏86:8)「我要一心称谢你，在诸神面前歌颂你。」(咏138:1) (见龚着)

用佛和诸佛代旧约中的「上主」「雅威」和「诸神」的意思，也许可以说得通，但我以为我们很难说「佛」可以代替新约中天主，尤其是「天父」的概念。因为佛原是觉者的意思，是了悟无明十二因缘起论，知生死之由来，在心灵上获得解脱生死之苦者。佛的本质和基督仁慈之父，时时以人类之救赎为念的天主，实在完全不同，我们又怎能以这个字来译新约的Theos呢?

再说，从佛的本质上看，佛只是觉者，并不是神或一个超越的存在。这种佛即神的思想，大概是因为汉朝佛教传入中国时，中国人用道教的神仙思想接受佛教的结果。所以说佛即神，已经是对佛教思想的一种误解了，如果更以佛代天主的概念，更是错上加错。

C、一神

一神这个词，主要见于「一神论」。一神论是景教最古的经典，由京都帝国大学讲师富冈谦藏氏所藏。全经总存四百O五行。首部虽残缺，但根据卷尾所题一神论第三之名看来，一神论实为全帙之题名。此经大约是景教入唐后不久写成，包括喻第二，一天论第一，世尊布施论第三等三篇短文。很明显，一神这个词，是用来表示天主的至一性。从现代白话文的文法观点来说，这一词在运用土是很有问题的，例如「一神论」这一篇经文的第一句:「万物见一神，一切万物，既是一神。」这「一神」到底是一个神还是至一无上的神？换句话说 :「一」是用作数量形容词还是同性形容词 ?

「一神」这一词，除了「一」字会造成文法上的问题外，还有一个问题值得考虑的是：以神为Theos或God的中文译名是否恰当？这是一个很复杂的问题，它所牵涉的，不但是语言文字，同时也是思想的诠译问题。基督教在十九世纪初在中国着手翻译圣经时，神学家就为了用「神」还是用「上帝」作为Theos的译名而相持不下，双方争执了几十年，最后只好取折衷办法，自由使用「神」或「上帝」作为Theos的译名。这个复杂的问题，我不想在此讨论。不过，我以为对于神学本色化，这无疑是一个值得思考的问题。

D 、父

以父代「天主」一词，以表示天主的仁慈，而不是以「父」作为Theos或God的中文译名，这也是我们现在常用的办法。景教经典的作者，除了讲述圣三的道理时用「父」这个字眼外，共在世尊布施论第三这篇经文内，单独用「父」一字来表示天主的仁慈。它的用法也和现代的用法相同。例如作者讲到祈祷求恩时，教人「向父」祈求，又说:「从汝等父边索饼即得。」

但是景教讲圣三的道理所用的中文词汇，以我们现代的眼光来看，是相当奇特的，从这些词汇中，我们也可见到景教受佛教与道教思想影响的情况。例如:「人来向水字于父、子、净风，处分具足。」以净风表示Holy Spirit，从意义上说，似比我们现在所用的「圣神」更贴切。不过，「净」字很明显是道教常用的字，「风」也是。不过风字却很能表示圣神这一概念的旧约根源。如创世纪讲到天主的「风」从水面运行。而且，「风」不有道德的意味，如「风化」。所以，风字也可表示圣神的力量，不过连着「净」字，它给我们的印象是这力量比较偏于静态的，这和现代注重圣神力的动态的一面不同。大体上说，「父、子、净风」这一个描述，和圣三的涵意相去不远。

我们从「三威蒙度赞」这篇经文中，却可看到圣三的另一种写法:「慈父、明子、净风王」。这很明显是受道教思想的影响。最奇怪的是，作者景净居然称圣神为净风王而又不称父，子为王。虽然道教对神的尊称，一向喜欢用王或帝，而景净写三威蒙度赞时，得到佛道两教人士之助，他用道教尊称神的字眼尊称基督徒的神，本来不足为怪，但为什么只用于圣神而不同时也尊称父、子为王，这实在令人费解。

圣三这个中文译名(慈父、明子、净风王)只能表示圣三原意中的父、子、爱的关系。至于经文的其他意象和对圣父、圣子的颂赞，就完全是释道术语了。例如形容天主的词句:「无上诸天、三才慈父、师帝。」「大师(即父) 是，我等圣主，大师是我等法王，大师能为普救度，大师慧力助诸赢，我叹慈父海藏慈」等等，从这些字句中，我们何尝能找到一丝基督宗教的意味?

其实就这篇经的名称:「三威蒙度赞」也大有研究的价值。根据明干那(A. Mingana)考证的结果，经文实为景教徒，亦即东叙利亚教会所用的荣归主颂。佐伯好郎博士以为「三」即三位一体，「威蒙度」是叙利亚文imudu (浸礼之意) 的音译。三威蒙度意即奉父子圣神三位一体的名在受洗者头上浇水三次。不过龚天民先生以为把「蒙度」看为借用佛教语「蒙度彼岸」，靠三位一体之名的威力蒙度得救也说得通(见龚着30-31页)。无论如何，像这种非道非景，亦道亦景的圣三译名，实在不能算是最好的翻译。

另一组圣三译名是:「妙身皇父阿罗诃，应身皇子弥施诃，证身卢诃宁俱沙。这个描述出自尊经。从尊经的内容看来，它应该是教会礼拜仪式中的祈祷文。照剑桥大学中国文学教授摩鲁的解释，「尊经」可能就是「可尊敬者和圣经」的意思。从经文中充满佛道两教的色彩及佛道两教术语运用之纯熟程度来看，此经文好像是直接用中文写成而不是由外文翻译过来的。不过，经文虽然是直接用中文写出，但思想还是翻译过来的。圣三的神学思想，佛、道两教根本没有，所以尊经有关圣三的描写，借用佛道的术语，结果只是写出一些既不是佛、道恩想，又不是景教思想的东西。不过虽然如此，我们还是不能不佩服作者的创作力。试看「妙身皇父阿罗诃，应身皇子弥施诃，证身卢诃宁俱沙」这三种身份对得多工整。这其中只有「应身」一词是直接从佛典借用的，「妙身」在佛学字典中找不到，可能是景教作者自创的。

照佛学的说法，不可思议之谓妙。妙身即不可思议身，这可能是指人证得无上正觉之佛陀身体，也就是说，这可能是指佛身。佛学有所谓佛具十身。当然并不是说佛有十个身体，而是指佛所处的十种不同的境界。从二至十，每一种不同的境界，又可按其数目而分别每一种境界的不同情况。例如二身有六种情况：真身，应身之二身；常身、无常身之二身；生身，法身之二身；实色身、化色身之二身；真身、化身之二身；实相身，为物身之二身。但这其中并不见有妙身或证身，可能这两个名词都是作者景净自创的，大概妙身就是佛身，用来代替圣三中的圣父，取佛身之不可思议的最高境界。应身，证身都是最高境界的两种不同的情况，证身寓意圣神为父、子作证。如果这解释是对的话，我们真不能不佩服景净用心的良苦。但，像这样以基督宗教的基本概念和佛教的思想融会、适应的结果，基督宗教的根本思想还能保存多少，实在很令人怀疑。

最后，让我们看看景教碑文上所写的圣三译名，那就是:「三一妙身，三一分身，三一净风」。「三一」表示三位一体的意思，大概不会错吧。分身，应该是指妙身的另一种情况。这一个圣三的描述，虽然不如尊经所写的那个含有这样浓厚的佛教色彩，其涵意和「圣三」神学的差异也不这样大(至少它能表示三位一体的意思)，但就整体来看，还是不很妥当。

以上我就景教经典，分析过景教传教士在过份热切求取基督宗教地方化的情形之下，对Theos或God所作的各种亦景亦佛，非景非佛，亦景亦道，非景非道的翻译，以及这种翻译所引起的问题。现在，让我来谈谈我个人对景教士翻译Theos或God一词的感想:

首先是翻译的问题。我以为翻译可有三种不同的方式，那就是音译、字译和意译。所谓音译，顾名思义，就是用音或近似同音的中文字把一个外文字翻译过来。这种译法普通都用以译人名、地名和国名，不过有时也译一些术语式概念或一些本国没有的物品。例如：雅威，耶路撒冷，哀的美敦书，德律风根等都是。

音译最大的缺点就是，如果两种对译的语文的发音系统很不相同的话，音译的名词读起来就非常不顺口。而且音译只是一些发音与原字相同的单字的组合，这些单字可能是完全没有意义，例如哀的美敦书，不懂英文的人，怎能猜想得到这是什么意思的呢?又如景教士把耶稣音译成「移鼠、翳数、序听、夷数」等，我们现在看起来，更觉得既没有意义又不雅听。

不过，音译也有它的好处，如果我们所要翻译的，是一种全新的观念，音译又比勉强找意思相近的词汇来代替好，因为这样译出来的字句完全没有意义，读者在接受有关这些字句的新意义时，可以不受该字句原来的意义所影响，Jesus的音译耶稣就是一个很好的例子，因为「耶稣」这两个中文字不能构成意义，读者对耶稣的了解，就只好完全依靠原作者的解释和说明，这样作者的原意就不容易被歪曲或误解。

以此类推，我们也许要问，Theos或God是否也是音译比我们现在的意译更好呢?这真是一个很困难的问题。就从基督宗教的发展来看，我们发现，无论是希腊文的Theos，拉丁文的Deus违还是英文的God，都不是希伯来文的Elohim的音译。中文的神、上帝、天主，当然都不是希伯来文Elohim的音译。就我所知，天主一词，在中文古书上找不到，我很怀疑这一词可能是利玛窦时期才开始用的(也许就是利氏自己创造的也不一定 )。上帝和神，都是中国原有的对超越者的称谓，用这两个词代表希伯来文的Elohim或希腊文的Theos的利弊，我在前面已指出，基督教争辩了几十年，到现在还找不到最令人满意的答案。

所谓字译，我的意思是在自己的文字中，找一个意义相同的字代替，如以桌子代替table。这是最简单的办法。当然，有时因为两种文字文法的不同，在字句的组合上免不了要更动或改变，但这都是翻译工作上最容易解决的问题。

最后是意译。我所谓的意译是指思想的翻译。这是翻译工作中最具挑战性的步骤。当然，这种方式，如果能不受文字的限制，只是把别人的思想，用自己的文字写出来例如用中文介绍康德的哲学思想，这是比较容易的。但即使是这样，康德哲学的专有名词或他自己独创的术语，就不容易翻译了。例如翻译Elohim或Theos或God ；又如翻译海德格的Throwness，沙特的Nothingness，Being等。我们不但要找出自己文化中类似的思想，同时还得比较这两种思想，找出其异同，即便是最细微的异同(其实这种工作做得越精细越好)，才能把这种外国思想翻译过来。这种工作，是学术研究的工作，不是单靠经验和文字技巧所能做得到。有时一些词语，表面看来意义相同，其实不然，譬如「上帝」和「神」这两个词，与Elohim的涵意，就很不同了，它们与新约的Theos的涵意相差更远。希伯来人的超越者的概念，最重要的是至一性位格；但「神」这个概念，就不包涵这两个意思了。中国人的上帝也相当人格化，但中国人的上帝虽然在众神诸帝之上，但他并不排斥他们，他可以和他们共存，也不禁止他的信民崇拜众神诸帝。最重要的是，在中国，国家的统治者也可称帝。有功德的皇帝死后，还可以被尊为圣帝，更可以接受子民的香火供奉。

中国历史悠久，文化内容丰富，文字的涵意复杂，组合的变化也大，所以在翻译思想的工作上，尤觉困难，更加上中国字是单音字，在作词造句时，必须组合三数个字才能表达一个意思，这无形中又增加不少的变化和带来不少的困难。因此，在未对中文和中国文化思想下过一番苦功以前，我们怎能轻言神学本色化呢?景教士的翻译，难道还不足以使我们对本色化的问题，提高警惕吗?

作者：汤汉 Tong, John 年份：1978

有关多玛斯与康德论证的观点

书名：Our Knowledge of God

译名：人怎样认识神

著者：John Baillie (约翰．贝利)

译者：谢秉德

出版：香港道声出版社(一九六五年初版)

　

(甲)前言

道声出版社编译处颜路裔指出：本书作者是名震全球的神学家，最近被选派为苏格兰教会的主席。年轻时原为爱丁堡大学的哲学教授。一九一九年往美洲讲学，首先在奥柏伦学院(Auburn Theological Seminary)教书；继而执教鞭于加拿大多伦多以马内利大学(Emmanuel College, Toronto)；以后又多年讲学于纽约协和神学院(Union Theological Seminary in N.Y) ；最后重返爱丁堡大学，任神学教授。

由于作者是有名的神哲学家，而该书也是一本知名的神学著作，内容上引证了许多神哲学家的观点。故此，虽然该书的初版是在一九三九年，但至今仍旧版数甚多，销售甚广，为神学界所欢迎。所以值得探讨它的内容和观点。

(乙)关于论点的基础

该书的论点基础有「破」有「立」。在「破」的方面，作者指出：传统的推理论证法，源自希腊的柏拉图。因为古时希腊，当诡辩学派未兴之前，神或诸神之存在，并不需要论证。迨至诡辩学派起来后，不只是怀疑神的存在，而且很多青年人的教师们，倡立教义来否认神的存在。正在这种情形下，柏拉图起来挽救，柏氏挽救之道，就成了二千余年来，西方哲学与神学思想上的立论标准。柏氏以无神论者自己的立场，来对付无神论者。柏拉图说，除了科学之外，没有别的方法能确定神的存在。特别是凭动力学与天文物理学，这两种特别科学证明神之存在。这一传统，由柏拉图而传于他所创的学园(Academy)，更由其弟子亚理斯多德传于他所创立的来钖亚 (Lyceum) 学院；最后更由这两学院传予基督教的哲学和神学思想界，一直至今，仍被视为正统思想，少有更改。

在「立」的方面，作者指出：在新约和旧约中，人是凭神与人之心灵接近而直接认识祂。神对人不是一种推论，而是祂的临在。神的临在，既是迫切，同时也是恩赐。因为圣经的时代，人的危险不是不信神，而是信得太多。当时的问题，不是「什么神存在?」而是「什么神我当崇拜?」故此，全部旧约圣经中，关于神的认识，都不凭宇宙论的论证，而以西乃山耶和华自己的启示，给予摩西的十诫与律法，及神藉历代先知所说的话为依据。到了新约时代，「信」这个字，其概念显占重要地位，一切邪恶，皆以不信为根基。耶稣在世时所深切惋惜的不信者，并非是人心中或思想上否认神存在的人，而是那些在思想的表面对神之存在毫无疑问，而在生活上却好像视神不存在一般的人。

(丙)关于多玛斯的论证

在介绍西方传统的推理论证法时，作者举列中世纪的基督教思想界的权威多玛斯为例，以资说明。依据多玛斯的意见，人除了凭着五官体认自然世界外，对任何存在事物，没有别的直接知识。神既是人的五官所不能感受的，故祂不能为人直接认知；我们只能凭着神在自然世界所发生的影响，凭祂所造之物去认知祂。多玛斯又进而提出人对神的认识，所能达到的限度。他的结论是，人对神的存在，能有积极的认识，但对神的本性之知识，只是属于消极方面。人确知神的真实后，就只有凭消极的反证法，来确定神的性格。例如我们能证明神非众数，神没有一个物质的身体，祂不存在于空间，祂不是无知，祂也不是人见中的善良。至于积极方面是什么？因神的本体广大无量，则超乎一切人智所能知识和领略。作者又指出：多玛斯与古时希腊哲学及文艺复兴后西方近世哲学显然有不同之处，因为他相信除凭自然途径认识神之外，还有一个超自然的途径，那即是圣经中所启示的信仰之路。作者更注意到：多玛斯在他的「反外邦总论」上，与不信的人辩证时，认为所采用的论证具有逻辑的确识，叫一切具有理性的心智不得不信；可是在别的着作中，与信徒讨论信仰的性质时，就立刻表现他的立场，不完全是如此，认为信心不只是一件理智的事，更是一件属于意志的事。多玛斯的这种观点有点像后期佛兰西斯培根的说法:「逻辑的外在凭证，只为要折服无神论，而不是阐明宗教．」。最后，作者认为：多玛斯采用希腊及圣经二者并列的方法，想作调和－－即所谓综合的井列方法，故他的「神学总论」的前边是希腊式的论证，而后来则进而看重圣经的启示；毕竟这种方法，只是机械式的论列，对历史的背景与连绩性，缺乏了解，因为二者是对立的，不能一并接收。

(丁)关于康德的论证

作者举列和评论了多玛斯的论证后，立即谈到康德的论证。他认为：十八世纪的下半时期以后，对神之存在的传统论证的方法，乃遭受严厉的挑战；这传统的方法，遭受到近代大恩想家的严格批评，尤其是康德的批评。他的批评约分三种。第一种批评针对自然神学所依据的特别论证，认为它们一经细察后，都归无效；第二种批评来自康德所提供的另一种论证，他的论证是不凭官感的事物，而凭良心，他不想自然世界去论证神，而是凭道德生活中的各种真实性，去证明神性或神之存在；第三种批评比第二种批评更完满和更接近圣经的启示，它是在康德死后，在他书桌上所发现的一本遗着内所提及的。在该书中，康德自己亦见到，神不只是由人的道德生活的经验，推论而认识，而神自己亦在这些经验中向人直接显现。最后，作者认为：康德的批判哲学所恢复的基本真理，是极有贡献的；康德所称的「实践理性为首」，也是十分重大的发现；甚至康德相信，人在意志领域，感觉「善」的绝对要求时，就在这实际的人生中，人乃真正与绝对的客观真实接触，而这最后真实，不是在那些引起人的思考之事物形态上与人接触，而是在那要求人向它服从的至高命令之下与人接触。就在这点上，康德具有基督教中最宝贵的真知灼见。但是作者又同时指出：康德受十八世纪「尊敬法律」的思想影响太大，以致将人类丰富的灵性生活，删减到只剩下一种接受方式，敬重法律，自我抑逊；此外他又将那道德命令(义务)，与那发命令者分开，光剩下一个「义务」，与宗教所最基本关切的「恩赐」，实有很大的距离。这就是康德论证的缺限。

(戊)批评

让我们依照上述约次序，给与该书一些反省，分析和建议如下:

(一)关于论点的基础－－该书作者深切瞭解到，欲探求「神的存在」，这个每一世代都出现的问题，就必须采取返本归源的办法，先看一看新旧约的启示采用什么方式的论证？又古代希腊的哲学运用什么方式的论证？以资取舍。这确是作者的洞见。可是，作者对新旧约内容的基本瞭解是不完整的。因为，新旧约的启示虽已终止，但人类对启示的回应，仍一直不断的在历史中出现。对现代基督徒非常重要的问题，往往是圣经作者和初期教会人士所未曾拟思的问题。因此，要想直接从圣经找这些问题的答案，或光是断章取义的引用几段圣经作为答案，是绝对不可能的。所以圣经的信仰，为现代基督徒只是一个开始，提供借镜和启发，并不统御我们，却要求每个时代的人自己对历史及当代问题负责，寻求合乎时宜的答案。故此，笔者赞同作者的意见，要返本归源，参考圣经所提供有关认识神存在的方法；但不赞同作者视圣经如同固定不变的量尺，衡度一切不同时代的同一问题。因为圣经毕竟也是一本生活的历史，而不是一堆抽象法则；况且同一问题在不同时代，就有不同意义和要求，需要我们单独去面对和寻求解答。这是该书在「立」方面的一个大缺点。

在「破」的一方面，该书对于一个很重要的问题，不但没有交代，且写法也易导人陷入混乱，致误以为希腊哲学家所否定的「神」，与圣经中所肯定的「神」在意义上完全一致。其实，希腊哲学家固然很早就否定神的存在。例如布达哥拉斯(Protagoras) 在纪元前五世纪就已宣称「人是一切事物的度量衡」，同时伊壁鸠鲁派哲学家陆克度(Lucretius) 以为「自然一旦摆脱自大的暴君，就能凭着它自己的力量，成就任何事，一切都是自发自动的，完全不依靠神。」(De Rerun Natura 1093)这都是从基本上否定神存在的例子。在第一个例子里，否定神是为了人的好处，把人看作世界最终的意义。第二个例子是因为属意自然而否定神，把自然看成一切的依归。简单的说，希腊哲学家所否定的「神」，和圣经中所肯定的「神」在意义上并不一样。他们所否定的，其实是那些以神的形式出现的，控制世界及管制人的命运的原则和力量。而且他们否定这些神，为的是强调人与自然的自主。而圣经中所肯定的神却赐人恩典及自由。

(二)关于多玛斯的论证－－该书作者亦在批判多玛斯的论证前，没有交代清楚多玛斯当日所面对的时代背景。原来由初世纪至十三世纪，以信仰为基础的基督教义一直是促成西方文化成长及发展的一个主流。但是到了十三世纪初叶，先后因着两位阿拉伯哲学家阿味齐纳(Avicenna) 与阿未洛厄斯(Averroes)，及两位犹太籍哲学家亚味齐布朗 (Avicebron) 与马意末尼弟斯(Maimonides) 的介绍，西方受到亚里斯多德以理性为主的科学思想的冲击，顿时感到信仰与理性无法取得协调。面对这个伤脑筋的重大问题，当时的学者分成两大派：第一派可称为「保守派」，他们认为宁可使人的理性受损，也不愿放弃信仰，因而把亚氏与那些介绍及接受亚氏思想的人都视为罪犯，加以口诛笔伐，甚至欲将他们蝇之于法；另一派则可称为「进步派」，他们高呼理性至上，任何不能受理性严格考验或不能提出充份证据的信仰，都不能予以接受。面对看这针锋相对约两大学派，多玛斯遂把当日圣经新传统、亚里斯多德哲学新探讨以及回教与犹太教哲学，综合成一个有系统的整体，使人相信理性与信仰仍有相通的地方。而多玛斯的综合哲学确实为当日及后代带来了两点良好的结果。一方面使「保守派」人士接纳自然科学，承认这是神所赐给人的美物，蔑视自然科学就等于蔑视神及神的造化。另一方面，也使「进步派」人士接纳信仰，承认神不断以祂自己的存在和活动，直接而密切地临在于万物中。所以多玛斯的综合哲举并非像一般人所以为的那末简单，因为它的重点不在于提供一些由果到因的推理论证，而在于引领人接纳自然科学及意识到神在万物中的活泼临在。这不但是一项惊人的新尝试和成就，也开创了今日神学所提倡的「俗化过程」(Secularization)。只可惜后来多玛斯的追随者大多数未能按照他的方向，发展他的综合神学的工作，更失去了由他这种工作所引发的强大内在张力。

无可讳言，多玛斯的论证方法含有很大的弱点。那就是他所采自亚里斯多德的「运动」问题，与历史中真正的亚里斯多德学说有天渊之别。原来历史中亚里斯多德所关注的「运动」只是广义性质的运动，亦即「变化」。亚氏问的问题是：东西是什么？它们怎样成为现在这样的东西？而多玛斯则把亚里斯多德的思想更改，以利于基督教信仰的解释。因而多氏所说的「运动」变成了特殊意思的运动，亦即「造化」。多氏所问的问题便成为：为什么东西会存在？为什么有一些东西，而不是一点东西也没有？所以亚、多二氏的问题及哲学思想有极大的不同，亚氏所谈的是「逻辑哲学」，而多氏所讲的却是「形上哲学」。硬把「逻辑哲学」变成「形上哲学」，便成了多玛斯论证方法的致命伤，也变成了日后康德宣布多氏论证无效的主要因素。

(三)关于康德的论证－－同样地，该书作者亦在批判康德的论证前，没有交代清楚康德当日所面对的问题。原来，在圣经和中世纪时代，科学还未发达，当人们从自然中取得各种物资时，神就很自然地被看成一切美好事物的施予者；当自然残暴地打击他们时，他们就投奔神求取保护与救援；当自然盲目的暴力无情地毁灭他们的生命时，他们就问：疾病、痛苦与死亡的意义是什么？难道我们注定要向盲目命运屈服吗？于是那时候的信仰的答覆是：人该把他的生命托付于神，因为神是自然的创造及统御者，祂是自然之主。而当日的神学也随着这点信仰给与解释，发挥和运用。但到了十八世纪以后，科学逐渐发达，尤其是西方人在控制自然方面渐有巨大成就；因而不再把自然看成是一种既丰富又残暴的力量，而只视之为一种无限的、富有可塑性的东西；也因而认为自然并不再反映神的存在，却只能反映人自己和人的能力而已。不过，就在近代人深信科学的无上威能时，却又不断地受到另一种经验的打击。这就是深深地因着人对他的兄弟的伤害，他的罪行、战争、逼害以及他们不能和平共处的事实而忧虑。尤其是令人伤心和丧气的，就是人类的历史无一不是人类自己一手造成的灾祸，自取灭亡以及他们种种惨痛的失败。这种对人生活环境的破坏，也是康德当日应该面对的新课题。所以当康德从知识的研究，发觉了我们追求形上学的界限后，便转从道德方面来追求那些形上学问题 ( 特别指灵魂不灭和神的存在而言)。这样，我们才能瞭解：为什么康德把自己哲学的重心安放在道德学说上。

笔者同意该书作者的批评，认为康德的论证受十八世纪重法的思想的影响甚大，以致会造成人类丰富的灵性生活的抑减。可惜作者未提供某种实际方法，以作补充。笔者认为，康德的论证尚有丰富的发展机会，尤其是可以通过中国哲学的照明，将会显得活泼、有情感和充实。因为中国哲学有三大主流，即儒家、道家和释家。儒家引导我们超脱人我的樊篱，道家帮助我们超脱物我的樊篱，而释家却引领我们超脱坐死的樊篱。这三家的哲学不但道出了崇高的道德哲学，也同时表达了真切的感情和悦乐。儒家的悦乐导源于好学、行仁和人群的和谐；道家的悦乐乃由于逍遥自在，无拘无东，心灵的和谐;禅宗的悦乐则来自明心见性，还我本来面目，促进入世与出世的和谐。这三家的哲学都视人生是从小我到真我的历程，以道德为本务，以感情悦乐为发现真我时的意外收获。它们仍不断熏陶着我们自发地修炼「破」与「立」两点功夫，透过「破」去澈梧生命之道，解除一切桎桔；透过「立」去体认出真我，让有限与无限会合。所以笔者相信，康德哲学与中国哲学的互相照明，必可使康德的论证更为活泼充实和富溢情感。

(四)关于多玛斯与康德论证的异同－－现代心理学家威廉．詹姆士(William James) 指出，每个人的思想成长及发展，都会经过一段「认同危机」(Crisis of Identity) 阶段，才能建立起自己的「认同感」(Sense of Identity)。笔者相信多玛斯和康德也分别在不同时代里遭遇过类似的心理历程，他们面对着不同时代的问题所引起的冲击，必然产生一番思想上的波动；但经过一段挣扎路程后，突然他们找出了自己的新路钱，使他们的信仰更形坚强。这情形有如俗语所谓；「踏破铁鞋无处觅，得来全不费功夫」，又似辛弃疾在「青玉案」所说的 :「众里寻他千百度，蓦然回首，那人却在，灯火阑珊处!」这里，笔者对多玛斯及康德的开放态度和创新精神，深感钦佩。

此外，现代历史学家柏林(Isaiah Berlin) 也指出，世界上有两大类人：一类人知识很广博，知道很多东西；另一类人知识很深远，只知道一件大事；而这两类人就像希腊Archilochus夫文所载的，前者似狐狸，后者像刺猬。笔者以为，世界上像狐狸或刺猬的单纯类型不多，而属于混合类型的却不少。多玛斯与康德都兼有这两类型的气质。前者的思想较为沉潜广阔，是带有刺猬气质的狐狸；后者的思想较为高明深远，是带有狐狸气质的刺猬。故此，多玛斯的思想系统宜于中古世纪初学神学的人；而康德的思想系统则适合于近代老练的哲学家。

除上述的相同及相异点外，笔者以为，多玛斯与康德对「神之存在」的不同论证的过程，其实是相反相成的。前者生于十三世纪科学不发达时代，尚未明瞭人类知识的限度，故提倡用类比法(知) 作媒介，把科学与宗教调和起来；后者生于十八世纪科学开始发达的时代，深切明白人类知识的限度，故提倡用道德(行) 作媒介，把科学与宗教调和起来。前者想透过「知」而达「信」；而后者却欲透过「行」而达「信」。所以如果后人认为多玛斯或康德的思想「离经叛道」，这样的批评完全忽视了他们两人所处的历史背景和立论重点，也确是十分肤浅和错误的见解。

最后，如果我们有注意近代中国儒家知识主义(Intellectualism) 的兴起，则不难发现清代考证学与宋明理学之间有其内在的发展线索，亦即是儒学从「尊德性」的层次转入「道问学」的层次的明显趋势。首先，张横渠正蒙「大心篇」强调「见闻之知乃物交而知，非德性所知。德性所知，不萌于见闻。」这表示张子重「尊德性」而轻「道问学」。但是到了后来，朱熹劫主张「涵养须用敬，进学在致知」。「敬」属道德范围，「学」属知识范围。虽然朱子谈「敬」在「学」先，以「尊德性」为第一义，而以「道问学」为第二义；但这里我们已可窥出，朱子要在「尊德性」与「道问学」之间维持一种平衡。及至到了十七世纪的王船山时代，又产生进一步的变化。船山本人虽承认人的德性之知得之于天，是先验的，但却认为「多闻而择，多见而识，乃以启发其心思而会归于一……。」这表示船山对「道问学」的重视已超乎「尊德性」。最后到了十八世纪，晚年的戴震却坚决地说:「义理即考窍、文章二者之源也，义理又何源哉？熟乎义理，而后能考窍、能文章。」意思是：一方面，义理固然是考证之源，而另一方面，名物训诂却是证实义理是非的唯一标准。从此，戴氏遂把「尊德性」与「道问学」融合在一起，对「道问学」更形重视，认为我们必须透过「道问学」以达于「尊德性」。

中国近代儒家知识主义这种融合「道问学」与「尊德性」的趋势，又正好与近代西方神哲学那种区分「道问学」与「尊德性」的趋势分道扬镖。因为中古世纪的多玛斯欲在「尊德性」与「道问学」之间维持一种联系和平衡，希望以知识论为初阶，导向形上学，探求神的存在，然后又由形上学走向伦理学，把握人生，发挥具体的道德实践。但是到了近代，康德却欲把「尊德性」与「道问学」区分高低，在两者之间安放一条界线。故康氏先透过他的「纯粹理性批评」一书去说明纯粹理性的限度，指出人无法知识神的存在；但另一方面他又透过他的「实践理性批评」一书，说明知的极限可由行的实践补充，认为除了理性知识外，人还另有更高一层的伦理道德层次，是与生俱来的一种要求。如此，这两位在西方神哲学界举足轻重的人物的思想之不同，恰好把西方神哲学在「道问学」与「尊德性」两者从融合迈向区分的趋势表达了出来。

(己)结语

总括说来，「人怎样认识神」这本书，在有关多玛斯与康德的论证上，确有不少洞见和建树，也有不少关键性的重大弱点，而最大的弱点是欠缺了突破性的探索和对中国哲学的开展。

作者：神学年刊编辑委员会年份：1978

序

今年四月十六日至二十三日，本港举办了一个「教会语言本地化研讨会」。参加人数大约有卅人。大家均认为过份重视英文，会使不懂英文的人产生自卑感，权利受剥削。大多数人有崇洋心态，对自己身份感到混淆。中国文化受忽视；西学不能在中土生根。以英文为教学媒介妨碍学生的心智发展。

参加者有一些共同的信念：（一）中国人应以母语为沟通工具；（二）发扬中国文化，尊重其他文化；（三）关心本地人的需要及发展；（四）香港教会应肯定中文为主要的传意工具；（五）应以母语为主要教学语言。

参加者针对教会现状，提出以下的建议，期望有关方面，能加以考虑：

（一）教会英文学校应探讨以英文为教学语言的不良影晌及所付出的代价，看能否考虑转为中文学校；

（二）教会中文学校应改进语文的教学法，证明以中文为教学语言并无损于英文的水准；

（三）教会机构、议会、通告、记录、档案等要以中文为主；

（四）长期居留香港的修院讲师应学习以中文讲授。修生留以中文写论文及讨论。并在修院中增加研究中国文化的课程；

（五）外国传教士要不断学习中文并加以运用，更应尊重中国文化及生活方式；

（六）教友不应以学习英语为目的而组织或参加善会。教友更应鼓动及帮助外籍傅教士学习中文；

（七）基督徒基层团体应留意及推动教会语言本地化。

参加者提出以下的实际行动：

（一）与各方面人士交谈，以推广语言本地化运动。交谈的对象有国籍神父、修生、修女、教会中英文学校、教区议会及机构、外籍传教士等；

（二）举办巡回讲座，以推广语言本地化运动；

（三）邀请教会学校的学生协助举办展览。

兹将研讨会内的一些演讲摘要，公诸同好。

目次
英语教学与教育宗旨陈佐舜
教学语言本地化陆鸿基
梵二前教会语言的演变　陈振威
传教士对教会语言本地化的影响杜逸文
传教士对教会语言本地化的影响骆铿祥
传教士对教会语言本地化的影响郑生来
本地人何促进教会语言本地化关俊棠
语言本地化与基督徒的信仰汤汉

作者：Subramaniam, Stephen 年份：1978

"But vastness blurs and time beats level. Enough! the Resurrection,
A heart's clarion! Away grief 's gasping, joyless days, dejection.
Across my foundering deck shone
A beacon, an eternal beam. Flesh fade, and mortal trash
Fall to the residuary worm; world's wildfire, le39e but ash:
In a flash, at a trumpet crash,
I am all at once what Christ is, since he was what I am, and
This Jack, joke, poor potsherd, patch, matchwood, immortal diamond,
Is immortal diamond."
　
Extract from "That Nature is a Heraclitean Fire and of the comfort of the Resurrection” by Gerard Manley Hopkins S.J. [ in Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins , Third Edition by W.H. Gardner, London : Oxford University Press,] p.112
　
CHAPTER I
The Descent As Condition Of Possibility For Man's Salvation
This study is primarily intended as an effort in biblical spirituality for use during retreats. It is an approach at under-standing how the johannine Christ speaks to our "joys, hopes, griefs, and anxieties" (1) in a way that is both timely and timeless.
As such, this study is offered as just one contribution to the broader field of the relationship between Theology and Ministerial Consciousness. In concrete, how does johannine Christology illuminate or deepen one's sense of mission or apostolic 39ail-ability?
The Gospel is fundamentally a faith-experience: something to be shared about Someone. It is an offer, an invitation to believe (20/3). Though the mystery of Jesus is precisely the simultaneous affirmation of his divinity and humanity, the greater paradox does not lie in affirming the divine aspect but in affirming the human aspect. "For the essential question that God presents is not that God should be God, that is to say, transcendent, but that God should be man, that is, clothed in human nature. . . .We are only s39ed if the Word of God really did assume human nature. And so his human nature is supremely important to us." (2)
The Word begins in he39en (I/I), descends and is immersed in the world (1/10), is seen or beheld (1/14) in the process of being lifted up (1/18). Central to this perspective is that the Son comes into the world (1/9) and reveals the Father (1/18) to s39e all men. The Son knows that he is sent. He also knows where he is going.
"The hint half guessed, the gift
half understood, is Incarnation.
Here the impossible union
Of spheres of existence is actual,
Here the past and future Are conquered, and reconciled." (3)
Since practically all these notions are implicit in [1/4], we could take it as the axis that orientates this study. Two questions arise: What life' does Christ communicate? How is the johannine Christ light' to men? They can best be examined from the stand-point of Existential Phenomenology. To re-express it in terms of an extended question: What is given to man's facticity that makes him restless even when he appears to be at spatiotemporal rest? As James Joyce describes the enigma: "Every life is many days, day after day. We walk through ourselves meeting robbers, ghosts, giants, old men, young men, wives, widows, brothers-in- law. But always meeting ourselves." (4)
The common denominator is man's need to regain or return to his wholeness, the need to come home. How does man come home with the Son?
Jesus receives from the Father and gives what he receives (5/26, 12/49, 17/2, 17/8, 17/11, 17/22, 17/24). The Son receives and gives through love (5/20), (3/35). While the Baptist was the lamp (5/32) thus denoting a temporary presence, Jesus is the light (5/36), a permanent presence. Jesus is what he brings (11/25). He is giver of life (6/33, 10/10): his words are spirit and life (6/63), the words of eternal life (6/68).
In the light of 17/24 whatever the Son does is a sign which is related to man. The work that Jesus does is the work of the Father. The Father listens to His Son (9/31, 11/41f) through whom the prayer of the Christian is always tran56itted. God's power is the power of persuasive love, not of dominating force.
John's theology is the outcome of a prolonged meditation on his experience of the man Jesus in the light of the Resurrection (2/22, 12/16, cf. 19/35 too). Christ is, to transpose a phrase of Plato, the moving image of eternity. What the johannine Christ says and does are
"outpourings of eternal harmony
in the medium of created sound;
they are echoes from our Home." (5)
　
CHAPTER II
Immersion As Affirmation Of Man
[1] Christ As Self-Gift
No one has ever seen the Father except Jesus (1/18). Jesus tells us what he saw in the Father's presence (8/38) and he makes men the children of God whom they can then call Father (20/17). Jesus is the way because he is the truth and life (14/6). Life comes through the truth. Those who believe in Jesus as the incarnate revelation of the Father (and that is what truth means) receive the gift of life, so that the words of Jesus are the source of life (cf. 6/63, 5/24). (6)
John sets all those who claim to be guides to God (10/8, 5/43) in contrast with the one who is the way, the truth, and the life. In seeing Jesus one sees God. When men know him, they know the Father (14/7). When men see him, they see the Father (14/8). This is the significance of belonging to the truth (18/37). As the Messiah Jesus is the Revealer of God who in revealing grants life (17/3).
In his faithfulness to the love that unites him to the Father (15/10) Jesus achieves the complete gift of himself (cf. 3/16, 1/14). Love is what God is, and Christ reveals what God is: love (3/16, cf. 1 Jn. 4/9-10). So too the grace of Christ induces us to offer our life also for our brothers (1 Jn. 3/16, 15/13, 6/45). Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Him. Jesus promises that he will never cast out anyone who comes to him (6/37). This promise is given an immanent aspect in I Jn. 5/14f: "Man is so united with Christ that he not only receives from the Father but also shares the privilege of the Son, that the Father hears him." (7) Fellowship with God is disclosed and made possible in the earthly Jesus (14/7-11).
Jesus was so completely the one sent that it has been possible to describe his existence as a 'subsistent relation' －－ an existence that is . . . the actuality of being-from-the-Father and being-for-us. (8)
Jesus is commissioned by the Father (5/43). The Father's will is what Christ does to s39e all men (6/46, 8/29, 3/17). What makes us good is proximity to God (10/32f).
Christ's self-giving can also be approached from another aspect. His immersion provides the human context for the sending of the Paraclete. "The coming of the Paraclete implies an unbroken continuity of the coming of Jesus. Three times Jesus raised the point that men cannot of themselves come to him, twice to the Jews (7/34, 36; 8/2 If) and once to his disciples (13/33). (9) This inability makes the sending of the Spirit an absolute necessity for the disciples. We can say that the Paraclete is in effect the memory (looking-back or hindsight) and the intentionality (looking-ahead or foresight) of Christ.
In his dwelling with men (1/14) Christ extends to them fellowship with himself and thus with God, a fellowship that is continued in the apostolic ministry of the Word. It is in this way that the Word become flesh remains the revelation of life ([1 Jn. 1/1]). (10) Man organises his past around the direction of his future. The future proceeds as the past recedes.
[2] The Other As Co-Affirmed
(A) Attractive Aspect:
The fundamental understanding of the person as spirit in the world opens us to a universal vision of humanity. John Cameli reiterates that the movement beyond oneself shared universally and expressed diversely puts us in touch with all men of goodwill who share that movement. (11) One's here and now experiences are not only subjective but intersubjective. They can be related to all men. The relationship deepens because the experiences h39e a transcendent referent. Even though the complete story always escapes, we can and do experience the unrestricted character of our intending and hence the desire for complete intelligibility.
The johannine Christ attracts people: the Baptist's disciples (1/39), Nathaniel (1/48), Nicodemus (3/lf), Samaritans (4/30, 40), a large crowd follow him up the hills near the Sea of Tiberias (6/5), and many come to him across the Jordan (10/41). Their coming is an expression of their openness to God. Their openness is already an act of faith (7/35). It is a reflection of light in their lives (cf. 3/19).
Those who reject this coming place themselves in a situation of sin (3/20, 5/40). Such a rejection may spring from a situation of complacency. Gabriel Marcel contends that there is an intimate connection between complacency and death. In every sphere, but above all in the sphere of the spirit, a satisfied being, a being who declares that he has everything he needs, is already on the path of decomposition.
An open disposition to receive the truth is most important in John since everyone can be "taught by God" (6/44-5) and can be drawn by the Father to Christ. This is reflected in Jesus' invitation to the Samaritan woman in 4/10. In 5/6 he asks the paralytic at Bethzada: "Do you want to be healed?" In 9/35 Jesus asks the blind man whom he has healed: "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" The man replies: "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?" (9/36)
The latter question expresses a basic readiness or open disposition to Promise. Grace is identical with the man's willingness to accept the cure and to attribute it to God's activity (9/35-38).
In 11/40 Jesus reassures Martha: "Did I not tell you that if you would believe you would see the gloiy of God?" He earlier describes the quality of the personal relationship which he offers: "I know mine and mine know me" (10/14) (cf. 4/23). Just as Wisdom fills the universe and holds all things united (Wisdom 1/7), Christ draws all things to himself (12/32). In 20/2 If Christ also formally restores the fellowship with Himself which had been broken by the unfaithfulness of the disciples. (12)
(B) Restorative Aspect:
Jesus cures and restores life almost as if he could not tolerate the presence of death (13). Already during his ministry he is described as giving resurrection life in the present to those who believe in him as "the resurrection and the life" (Chapter 11), and who come to him as the bread of life (Chapter 6), or recognise him as the source of living water (Chapter 4). The johannine Gospel is written so that believing we may h39e life in his name (20/31, cf. 5/24).
Throughout John the theme of 'Coming' to Jesus will be used to describe faith (3/21, 5/40, 6/35, 37; 45, 7/39). In 5/40, 6/40, 6/47 eternal life is promised respectively to those who come to Jesus, those who look on him, and to those who believe in him. All three are different ways of describing the same action (14).
Christ needs no one to testify about human nature for he is aware of what is in man's heart. (2/25) This is reflected in the first ten verses of Chapter 4 when he opens up to a stranger, the Samaritan woman. He wants to enter her life, but her fear of intimacy acts as a counter-pull. It is only after she hears and sees that she is touched (4/29). Similarly in Chapter 5 Jesus makes the first move when he asks the paralytic: "Do you want to be healed?" (5/6). But the paralytic does not listen (5/7).
Discipleship begins with a question in 1/38 leading to an acceptance of Christ in 1/39. This acceptance is confirmed in 2/11 when his glory is seen and he is believed. Brown is perceptive when he notes that 1/39 anticipates 12/26: "If anyone would serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, my servant will be." (15)
Christ brings out what is most implicit in those who are drawn to him. He makes explicit what they h39e been waiting to receive and thus restores them to wholeness. Time is formative and salvific.
At the second Cana miracle Christ accepts the inadequate faith of the Capernaum official (4/48) and heals his son (4/51). The significant phrase is 4/50: "The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way". The Word is both life (5/21) and judgment (5/22). It invites men to see what the Son does rather than on what the Baptist said (5/36). The Father began the work of creation and salvation. He has now handed it over to the Son that he might bring it to completion (5/36b).
Christ cares for others because he is aware of the depthdimension of their interiority (2/5, cf. 16/30 too). That is why he is able to listen to them. He says no word to the woman caught in adultery until the end (8/1-11). He hears the need for forgiveness which contrasts with the inner guilt of her accusers (8/7-8). He affirms her as a person: "Neither do I condemn you" (8/11). This affirmation is also a liberation since it sends the person on mission. He tells her: "Go and sin no more" (8/11) which echoes his call to the paralytic in 5/14. The imperative is not negative but positive: it orients one's perceptions and beh39iour to the light. As Henri Nouwen remarks, "We all need to discover and recognise in ourselves our own potential. But it needs to lie affirmed by others from outside." (16)
The restoration to wholeness is a gift. But its appreciation and consequent significance involves an ongoing process. The Christian needs to complete himself as a task. This pattern is implicitly known and affirmed as the 'pre-established dignity of man' (17) since man is led to mould himself in this attraction. "It only unveils itself completely in the knowing－－believing－－loving dialogue of man with God, and hence can never be given simply in the manner of object-like objectivity." (18) One has to immerse oneself in this whole process of discovering this pattern and actualizing it in one's everyday living. Or as Rahner puts it, the use of one's freedom necessarily poses man with the choice of degrading his dignity or preserving it by the grace of God and converting it into achieved dignity. (19)
The restoration to wholeness is a task for each one. The Samaritan woman who invites her friends to "come, see a man who told me all that I ever did" (4/29) can also ask herself: "Can this be the Christ?" (4/29). Initial assent does not necessarily exclude subsequent unrest. However, Jesus as prior gift accompanies us as we move. He is the moving, image of eternity. Accompaniment transforms unrest. To put it in the words of Philip MeShane, "Each of us is definable as an incarnate aspiration for total interpersonal understanding, an aspiration which is fulfilled only in the Mystery of Divine Affection." (20)
(C) Advocative Aspect:
Since we must begin from the performance if we are to h39e the experience necessary for understanding what the performance is (21), the advocative aspect of Christ discloses two apparent poles of Christ's performance. He attacks and he defends. No one "ever spoke like this man" (7/46) who "did works which no one else did." (15/24).
His glory (1/14) is also the judgment (3/16-21). Those who believe already possess life (5/24) and there is a continuity between the 'already' and the 'not-yet' (14/19, 11/25-26, 14/2-6, 17/24). Light is sweet and it is good for the eyes to see the sun (Qoheleth 11/7). Jesus reveals himself as light by what he says and does (1/4, 1/9, 8/12, 9/5, 12/46, 1 Jn. 1/5). We need to walk in the light to be in union with God who is light (I Jn. l/5f). Fraternal love is the criterion for judging whether we are in the darkness or in the light (2/8-11). (22)
The light of Christ has a transforming effect (12/36). He is the eternal shepherd who gives of his fullness (1/16) like God, who does not give by measure (3/34, 10/10). In 11/27 Martha knows that Christ's prayers h39e power with God: her confession of faith anticipates what Jesus later says to his disciples about prayer (14/16, 16/23). If light is rejected, blindness results (12/40) just as hatred leads to rejection of brotherly love (1 Jn. 2/11).
When the light comes it is refused (5/39). Jesus' appeal to four witnesses: the Baptist (5/33-35), his works (5/36), the Father (5/37-38), and Scripture (5/39)－－which are all acces- sible to the Jews－－ is rejected by them because they believe that their distorted Torah-conditioned mindset cannot go wrong. In effect, they reject God's love for man (5/38) because they do not h39e love of God in their hearts (5/42). They fail to recognise that the scope of Jesus is not restricted to any particular Scripture text since he is the total context of Scripture (5/39, 17/12, 19/24,19/28, 19/36).
Jesus cures a paralyzed man on the official jewish day of rest, even though he could easily h39e done so on another day for the man had been at Bethzada pool for thirty-eight years (5/5). The johannine Jesus cures on the Sabbath in order to reveal the continuity between God's creative activity at the beginning of the world and his salvific activity in Jesus (5/17).
Perhaps the best instance of his advocative role is in Chapter 9/1-41. Christ rejects as a norm the cyclic causality of sin and suffering (9/3) but draws attention to the good works of God that will follow (9/3f). In this connection I find Lonergan's view of history and subjectivity h39ing added significance: "The challenge of history is for man progressively to restrict the realm of chance or fate or destiny and progressively to enlarge the realm of conscious grasp and deliberate choice." (23)
The blind man sees and is touched. He ridicules the theoretical ignorance of the experts (9/30) in contrast with his concrete experience of being healed. The Jews react negatively to the person of Christ (9/16, 9/24) because of their pre-selective attention, based on their biased Torah-conditioned presuppositions. They see the good work but say it cannot come from God since the work is that of a sinner (9/24). But God does not listen to sinners (9/31 cf. Is. 1/15) unless they are penitent. Since no one could h39e performed this unparalleled cure unless God had listened to him, Jesus cannot be a sinner in spite of his breaking the Sabbath law. The man confesses his faith in 9/33: Christ is from God (cf. 3/21). Reinforcive texts in this direction include 8/12, 12/45, and 12/46.
Jesus' immediate appeal is not to external authority but to one's total religious experience (9/3, cf. 7/24). It is interesting to note that Peter's messianic confession is linked with his call. John stresses that the name (Peter = Rock) came from Christ's insight into Simon: "Jesus looked at him" (1/42). (24) From one's self-appropriation of life (I Jn. I/I) one is able to bring others to the experience of Christ. John 15/16 serves as a constant source of support to the believer: "You h39e not chosen me: I h39e chosen you." Christ not only chooses but also intercedes for us (10/11, 12/32, 17/19). (25)
Earlier in 8/12-38 the Jews considered themselves free because of their filiation from Abraham. Their liberty was the consequence of God's choice of them as His own people. But John attacks this point. He opposes Jesus to Moses, the Eucharist to the manna, the true liberty which Jesus as the Son and Revealer of the Father brings to the suppressed liberty of the Jews. Jesus alone can give true liberty and a necessary consequence of this liberty is faith in him and perseverance in this faith. This is the truth of Christ which makes men free. (26)
The life-giving function of Christ is also reflected when Christ is "troubled" (14/1). The johannine use of the verb "tarassein" is used to describe Christ's emotions when confronted with Lazarus' death in 11/33 and with his own betrayal by Judas in 13/21. It refers to the broader context of the dualistic struggle between Jesus and Satan. In an extended sense, the disciples' faith conquers the world (1 Jn. 5/4) by uniting them to Jesus who has conquered the world (16/33) (cf. 14/1). (27)
The believer "will perform. (works) far greater than these" (14/12) after the glorification of Christ (17/1, 5) when the Father will perform. in the Son's name works capable of manifesting the Son's glory. The "greater" is eschatological and corresponds to Paul's conviction: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God g39e the growth." (1 Cor. 3/6). John 14/12 also reinforces the Teilhardian view that the depths we attribute to matter are no more than the reflection of the heights of the spirit.
[3] The Christologteal Difference: Human Questions Transposed
Jesus' first words in the Fourth Gospel are a question put to the Baptist's two disciples: "What are you looking for?" (1/38). It is also addressed to all men since it touches on the basic need that causes them to turn to God. (28)
The two disciples respond to Christ's invitation and stay with him (1/39), thus indicating that their central need has been touched. On the other hand, Nicodemus represents perhaps the type whose questions spring more from his peripheral-self than his central-self. He is one of those mentioned in 2/23-25 who believe merely because of external signs. Jesus reacts unf39ourably towards them in 2/24-25 and greets Nicodemus with the same reaction (3/3f).
Jesus has not come from God in the sense that Nicodemus thought (a man approved by God), but in the unique sense of h39ing descended from God's presence to raise men to God. Nicodemus misunderstands Christ on the theme of begetting (3/4, 3/9), while Christ stresses the he39enly origin of the begetting of the Spirit (3/5). The johannine tactic is "to transpose the
topic to a higher level; the questioner (Nicodemus) is on the level of the sensible, but he must be raised to the level of the spiritual." (29) Brown contends that Nicodemus' questioning is an instance of a wider failure to accept the testimony of Christ. (30)
The Samaritan woman in Chapter 4 provides an interesting study too. Her first question reveals a fear of intimacy (4/9). Her request for the place of living water (4/11) situates her major interest in "where" rather than "who". Through the johannine technique of misunderstanding, Christ turns the dialogue into a deeper level where the questioner is drawn as a 'who' into a relationship with him. For the first time her need is specified: "Sir, give me this water." (4/15)
There is a shift from the spatial to the interpersonal. She becomes progressively involved as a 'who' in the dialogue (v. 17, 19, 25), leading to her explicit acknowledgment of Christ's significance in her life (4/29). He makes a difference to her life. In spite of her misunderstanding, Christ's invitation (to all men too) continues as an open-ended process. The other-self is able to take over from the prior gift of the Christ-self. Conversion is, as Lonergan reiterates, a prolonged process though its explicit acknowledgment may be concentrated in a few momentous judgments or decisions. (31)
When the Baptist's disciples represent to him that crowds are flocking to Jesus instead (3/26), John's reply transposes their expectation to a higher level: "He must increase, but I must decrease" (3/30). Human activity becomes a leading signal of God's transcendence. What began as John's ceaseless but isolated activity (1/23) now ends as a prolonged but unifying contemplative stance (3/30).
In 6/34 the people ask Christ for the bread of God which igves life to the world. But neither ordinary bread (6/27) nor manna (that is, neither Moses nor the Torah) provides the answer (cf. 6/31, 6/49). Man's central hunger is not for transitory food but for permanent existential meaning (6/35, 6/68). The answer is in Jesus who offers himself for the whole world just as 17/3 fulfills Wisdom 15/3. It is also interesting to note that thrice in the Gospel Jesus is tempted by his own people to do a different kind of good that is not in accordance with the mind of God (6/15, 6/31, 7/3). In 7/3 he is tempted to take back his divine power which he surrendered through his self-emptying to become man.
As he journeys to the Father there is a corresponding movement of departure from him by his disciples (6/66). When they should come closer to him, they distance themselves from him apparently on account of fear or insecurity. It provides the occasion for him to ask the Twelve: "Will you also go away?" (6/67). The question becomes a challenge for him to continue journeying to the Father as well as a challenge for the Twelve to remain with him. Context becomes problematic.
Jesus would h39e nothing to do with a kingdom of this world (18/36, cf. 12/31, 14/30, 16/11, 1 Jn. 5/19). In 12/12-16 when the crowd goes out with palm branches to hail the King of Israel (reminiscent of the political Maccabean celebrations in 1 Mc. 13/50-52 and 2 Mc. 10/7) Jesus finds a young ass to ride upon. He transposes popular jewish messianic expectations by reminding them of Zechariah's promise (Zech. 9/9). The king of Israel is to be primarily one of peace and salvation, rather than of political power. (32)
In the Footwashing account Peter's question in 13/6 is taken up by Christ in the following verse. Jesus is doing more than giving a lesson in humility. The footwashing can only be understood after the 'hour' is over (cf. 2/22, 12/16). (33)
Jesus has a constant sense of the fleeting hours (of the 'now'). He prepares his disciples for the great tribulation (13/19, 14/29, 16/1, 16/4). For the disciples this preparation is still a period of incompleteness in discipleship (13/36f), in prayer (16/24), and in understanding (16/12, 16/25).
This incompleteness is but a reflection of the tension between the 'now' and 'not-yet'. In 6/17 the disciples expect Jesus, but he only comes later (6/19). The degree of expectation is heightened in 11/30 when Jesus "had not yet come to the village." These two instances contrast with the complete affirmation of the Baptist: my joy is now full (3/29). However, 16/12 supplies a kind of linkage: since Christ transcends time (7/33, 12/35, 13/33, 14/19), we too should keep our expectations open-ended.
This future-orientation is specified in the relationship between Christ's divinity and humanity. Fr. Thomas Corbishley describes it as follows: "In his divine nature, Jesus expresses the Father's self-transcendence, since he is the expression of the Father's own self-transcendent utterance.
"In his human nature, in his eucharistic self-giving, in his death-transcending resurrection, he is the expression of man's refusal to be totally restricted to the here and now, to the limitations of his individual, earth-bound, death-interrupted experience." (34)
In other words, the human witnesses to the divine. Human nature not only has but is a signal of transcendence. In the light of the Christ-event, man is not only on the way to God. Man is the only way to God.
　
CHAPTER III
Convergence As Goal Of Man's Journey
Eternal life is the life by which God lives, and which the Son possesses from the Fath (5/26, 6/57). The Son, though turned towards the Father (1/18, 6/46, 9/4), is also oriented towards men. He is God's Word spoken with the purpose of giving eternal life to men (1/4, 10/10, 1 Jn. 1/1-2, 1 Jn. 4/9). That is why a challenge remains: "We must work the works of him who sent me" (9/4).
Thomas' question in 14/5 serves to involve the disciples in the journey of Jesus. Brown cities the Augustinian text: "He prepares the dwelling places by preparing those who are to dwell in them." (35) But Philip is more concerned with the product rather than the process of the journey. He tells Jesus: "Show us the Father, and satisfy us" (14/8). Here Philip probably expects a mystical vision of God along the lines of Sinai theophany. (36)
This direction of thought is also rejection in 10/24 when the Jews ask: "How long will you keep us in suspense?" They want instant answers but the real answer can only come from one's reflective interiority. Jesus refers to His Word which only faith perceives and which is concealed from unbelief (10/25). Earlier he appeals to his sending by the Father, whom the Jews do not know (7/28f). He is in fact the hidden Messiah (cf. 2/24) since His true origin is concealed in his earthly descent. This true origin is the basis of his power and it characterizes the work he performs. Christ offers himself, not an idea (12/25).
Christ is attested to through the Scriptures (5/39), through the Baptist (1/7f, 3/26, 5/33), through God (5/32, 5/37, 8/18), through the works which the Father invites him to do (5/36, 10/25), through the Son himself (5/31, 8/13f, 8/18), and through the Spirit of Truth (15/26, 1 Jn. 5/6). Finally the witness is given by the disciples themselves (15/27, 1 Jn 5/6). Christ is the fullest revelation of God 39ailable to man (cf. 1/18). He is the image of God, as Paul says (2 Cor. 4/4) who is otherwise invisible (Col. 1/15, Heb. 1/3).
If we may re-echo Augustine: "Because Christ himself is the Word of God, the very deed of the Word is a word to us." (37) That is why Christ's exhortation to "put your faith in these works so that you may come to know (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father" is already an invitation to possess eternal life. Eternal life is to know the Father and Son (17/3).The Son has revealed what is to know the Father and Son. It is a loving knowing. Knowledge and love grow together. Loge intensifies as knowledge deepens (cf. 1 Jn. 4/7-8, Eph. 3/17-18).
This is the focal point of the new commandment (13/34-35). It springs from the New Covenant at the Last Supper (cf. Lk. 22/20). It is interiorized; it is the gift of God's love directed to men who are sinners and unworthy of love. The generosity of God's love could not be fully known until He had given His Son. In this sense 17/23 links God's love in Christ with the disciples. (38) This salvific role of the disciples can also be seen in 12/20-33 when the Greek world asks after Jesus. Bultmann contends that since the Greeks must turn to the disciples in order to reach Jesus this could indicate that the access of the Greek world to Jesus is mediated through the Twelve. (39)
"In him was life, and the life was the light of men" (1/4). Jesus is recognised as the one who answers human needs and longings. This recognition is shared by Andrew (1/41), the Baptist (3/28), the Samaritan woman (4/28), some of the hearers in Jerusalem (7/31, 41), and Martha (11/27). As Jesus goes across the Jordan to the place where John first baptised, many come to him and proclaim: "Everything that John said about this man was true" (10/41). Sight beckons, leading to a confession of faith. The visual provides the context for a faith-experience. Already he is drawing all men to himself (12/32). Similarly, the works of Christ bring the Sanhedrin officials, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus closer to him (19/38-39).
The visual provides the context for a faith-experience because the context itself is a structural linkage or a point of conjunction between man's inner need for wholeness and Christ's response to that need. For instance, the Samaritan woman's confession in 4/39 is made possible because she has received light from her encounter with Christ. We are told that "because of her testimony" (that is, her concrete experience and conviction), "many Samaritans from that city believed in him" (4/39).
If we take 4/10 and 4/14 together, it can be said that h39ing received prior light we too are a derived source of living water. Christ's prior act of knowing and loving the Father sets in motion his own service of others and generates in turn the disciples' subsequent service of others. In other words, the Gospel rests on the disciples' experience and appropriation of Christ's love for them. The whole process is seen as theoteleological－－going up to the Father (13/lf).
Another situation is when Christ heals the Bethzada paralytic. Note how the latter responds to his directive (5/8, 5/11). He tells his questioners who protest that it is not lawful for him to carry his pallet on the Sabbath: "the man who healed me said to me: 'Take up your pallet, and walk' " (5/11). The tone is that of a counter-reply uttered from a conviction that has been generated through empirical events.
Christ's critical stance is also reflected in Chapter 8 when the Scribes and Pharisees question him: "According to this law Moses commanded us to stone such women to death ..." (8/4). But the incarnate eyes look in a different direction. "Jesus bent down and began to write with his finger on the ground" (8/6). The law was given through Moses, but truth through Jesus (1/17). Jesus goes beyond Judai56. The criterion is not external conformity but one's inner need for salvation. Bruce Vawter takes up this point: "The Christ-event has revealed the inadequacy of Judai56 to give a final answer to what is truth－－an inadequacy shared by the Gentile world, for Pilate too is ignorant of truth" (18/38). (40)
When people meet Christ and are healed they go back (that is, they are sent in some way) to their own community to share their joy with others. The going back itself expresses a deep need to proclaim to others the goodness of His work (3/12, 5/15, 6/14, 9/1 If, 12/3).
However, in spite of Christ's many signs "many did not believe in him" (12/37). He appears a failure (6/66, 7/5). The disciples' lack of understanding is also a severe burden to him (14/9). Yet he remains patient with them and continues to make their salvation his concern in sayings like 16/12; 17/lf and in acts like those in 13/lf and 18/8. If we view 12/37 in the light of 14/lf there is no abandonment by God but a co-presence. The Father accompanies His Son's journey. So too will the Son accompany His disciples (cf. 15/9).
The case of Judas serves as a kind of contrast insofar as he abandons Jesus. 13/26 indicates Christ's last visible attempt to s39e him but this offer is not received (13/27). In the johannine Passion key elements converge: giving (18/11), caring (10/17), obeying (10/17f), and glorifying (13/31-14/13, 17/lf) by which all men are given access to the Father.
The humanity of Christ in 12/27-33 is very striking. He is "troubled because he fears the threat of Satan's victory. But his endurance shows how every man ought in such an 'hour' to make such a decision. His endurance confirms that he is "above all the Revealer, whose decision alone makes possible in such an hour the human decision for God (cf. 16/33). (41)
The johannine crucifixion is less concerned with the fate of Jesus than its significance for his followers. Jesus dies as the model shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (10/11, 10/14-15). These are those who hear his voice and know him. (42) His death is not only kingly but priestly: "It is for them that I consecrate myself' (17/19). This intensity of inferiority cannot be adequately thematised. Fr. Malatesta holds that one of the sufferings of life in this world is precisely the impossibility of total mutual transparency and therefore of perfect communica- tion between those who love one another. (43)
Christ's death marks the completion of all that the Father had given him to do (19/28-30). His last words as man: "It is finished" (19/30) are a victory cry over Satan (44) insofar as he has finished his work and obediently fulfilled the Father's will. His lifting up from the earth on the cross will draw all men to him (12/32). When Jesus dies he hands over the Spirit which seems to indicate that his own Spirit will now take up his work (16/7).
Incidentally, William Johnston discloses that the Church Fathers loved to quote John 16/7: "It is to your advantage that I go away". His understanding of the patristic exegesis was that Jesus himself wanted to liberate his disciples from an excessive and possessive attachment to him. "They might well h39e added that in all friendship separation plays an important role in leading friends away from absorption to an ever greater universality." (45)
A pull-to the future is made possible because of a push-from the past. The human heart remains basically restless until it experiences a gr39itational pull to, and arrives, at its still point. The Spirit not only touches the personal centre of the believer but becomes part of that self-transcending movement and experience of restlessness. Union with Christ in the Spirit means being in relationship with and movement to the Father.
The apparent moment of sorrow is transformed by the higher subsequent moment of joy. Mystery transposes and elevates problem. We see the convergence of promise and fulfillment as 19/30 illuminates 12/32. In John there is a triple movement of "being lifted up": when Jesus is lifted up on the Cross, when he is raised up from death, and when he is lifted up to he39en.(46) This triple movement reconciles the tension between initial sorrrow and subsequent joy (14/1, 14/27).
The blind man in Chapter 9 derived his sight from God when he was sent "to wash in the pool of Siloam" and came back seeing (9/7). With his explicit affirmation in 9/38 he found his still point. He arrived home (cf. 3/30 too). The sign is secondary to the referent.
When the Risen Lord calls Mary by her name in 20/16 the calling is itself a sign. But what gives it significance is its referent: the fact that the Lord has come home (20/18). Though the johannine account emphasizes continuity (20/16) and transformation (20/14, 20/17), it certainly reiterates that Christ does not call us apart from the familiar but in terms of the familiar (20/16, 20/20, 20/27, 21/5, 21/10, 21/12, 21/25). Life is not interrupted (14/19).
The Beloved Disciple "saw and he believed" in 20/8. He believes because he has become very sensitive to Jesus through love. (47) When one is touched by love one becomes a poet. In 21/4 when Jesus stands on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, the Beloved Disciple is the first to recognise him, and it is he who informs Peter: "It is the Lord" (21/7).
John's Great Beatitude is in 20/29 when Jesus praises the majority of the people of the New Covenant who, though they h39e not seen him, through the Spirit proclaim him as Lord and God. He assures these followers of all times and places that he foresees their situation and counts them as sharing in the joy heralded by his resurrection". (48)
Eternal life and divine sonship are gifts already in the possession of the Christian. However, there is room for future perfection even when physical death is no more (5/28-29).Bultmann takes up this point and holds that "the believer already enjoys in the present what apocalyptic speculation had expected from a future transformation of the co56os." (49)
　
CHAPTER IV
Depth-Subjectivity As Convergence Of God And Man
Light invites, heals and transforms (4/29, 8/11, 8/12f, 21/17). Though Nicodemus' acceptance of Christ's message is more passive than active on account of the former's Torah-conditioned mindst (3/4) he reaches out to CHRIST as a person (19/39). On the other hand, the blind man's instant healing (9/7) brings him closer to Christ (9/25f) with an increasing critical negativity towards his persistent questioners (9/30-33). His growth in awareness of Christ could be viewed as a growing approximation of his centre.
This movement is a growth in depth-subjectivity. This could be defined as a dynamic process in which one's personal centre is gradually touched, where a personal core decision is reached or is in the making. Other instances of depth-subjectivity include 1/39, 4/29, 8/10-11, 9/39, 10/41-42, 11/27, 19/30, 20/16,21/7, and 21/17.
Depth arises from an awareness of who one is. Depth springs from one's centre. The centre is an explicit awareness or acknowledgment of one's goal, Ultimate Meaning. Only in the journey can one find one's centre. Even if there is no clear-cut way to go one makes a way by going. In the 'making' one comes to know what home is. The centre is the point where God's call and man's response, where intrapersonal and inter-personal states of consciousness coincide, where aspiration and fulfillment, departure and arrival converge. Ultimately the journey of the Self is not merely individual but social. The Father accompanies the Son, and the Son accompanies His disciples as they accompany each other through the Spirit.
Christ's descent and man's ascent are inextricably connected. Christ came to make the human heart a temple, the soul an altar, and the mind a priest. (50) One's centre is first received before it can respond, (cf. 17/11). Others are a constitutive part of Selfhood. One can receive others because of the Father's prior self-gift in His Son (15/17). The Paraclete is invisible to the world because he is within the disciple (14/17). God is the sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere (cf. Mt. 24/23, Mt. 24/27). He is, in Augustine's phrase intimius intimo meo, altius altissimo meo. The centre is both personal and universal.
In Giordano Bruno's view, the soul is a centre because "this pace of divine dwelling is ... the convergence of all co56ic phenomena" (51). Fr. Thomas Clarke develops this point and treats this centre as "both my own human self, the image of God that I am, and the Self of God, the holy Spirit, given precisely to be the selfing of myself, bestowed in order to give me (back) to myself by being given to me as the Self of Father and Son." (52)
This is where the action is: where data-collection leads to praxis and internalization, where theology is given flesh and blood to generate ministerial consciousness, and where history is taken up and once more offered as a Hymn to Eternity. As Mencius observed:
"He who goes to the bottom of his heart
Knows his nature as man.
To know his nature as man
Is to know He39en." (53)
It is at the Centre that one knows, insofar as one can know. One can only reach out if one first reaches down.
If contemporary man is homo quaerens seipsum, he is also homo quaerens Deum. God is the good news that humanity is possible. And Christ demonstrates that friendship is both desir-able and necessary. By his descent Christ reveals God's way of love to man. By his ascent he becomes man's way to God. Here is the 'place' where a double recognition takes place. One is recognised as being loved by Father and Son. One also recognises others－－in the light of the glorified Christ－－through the Spirit (2 Cor. 13/14, Phil. 2/1), since the Father of Jesus is our Father because Jesus is our brother. We are back to where we started.
The humanity of Christ continues to speak to man's immersion in the finitude of spatiotemporal worlds. Descent invites Ascent. The Risen Christ calls men and women to greater heights, to possibility, to Promise. His enduring presence and support (14/1) accompany us home and give added significance to that infinite horizon of meaning underlying Peter Berger's words:
"Over the memories of pain looms
The solitary figures of the
Virgin of Consolations,
Ever wiping the brows of
The Quixotes of this world." (54)　
　
REFERENCES:
(1) Gaudium et Spes, N.7.
(2) Jean Danielou, Christ and Us, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961), p. 21. cf. "The full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity, and you h39e been given full life in union with him." (Col. 2/9: Breviary text for Eastertide, Week 2, Monday).
(3)T.S. Eliot, The Dry Salvages, Four Quartets, (New York: Faber, 1959).
(4)James Joyce, Ulysses, (London 1958), p. 273.
(5)J.H. Newman, Fifteen Sermons, Oxford, (London 1872), p. 347 quoted in Philip McShane, Music That Is Soundless, (Dublin: Milltown, 1969), p. 19.
(6)Raymond Brown, The Gospel According To John, The Anchor Bible Volume 2, (New York: Doubleday, 1970), p. 631.
(7) Scan O Cearbhallain, All Who H39e This Hope in Him－－1 Jn. 3:3－－A Contribution To A Johannine Theology Of Hope, (Rome: Gregorian University, 1975), p. 27.
(8)See Joseph Ratzinger, Priestly Ministry, (New York: Sentinel Press, 1971), p. 12.
(9)See Kittel, TDNT, Vol. 2, p. 673f.
(10)See Bruce Vawter, "Johannine Theology" in JBC, Vol. 2, p.832, n. 24.
(11)See John Cameli, "Spirit, Holy Spirit, Spiritual Life" in Chicago Studies, (Chicago: Spring .1976), p. 72.
(12)See Kittel, TDNT Vol. 9, p. 644-5.
(13)Leon-Dufour (ed.), Dictionary Of Biblical Theology, (London: Chapman, 1973), p. 315.
(14)Brown, Vol. I, p. 79.
(15)Brown, ibid.
(16)Henn Nouwen, Out Of Solitude, (Notre Dame: 1974), p. 36.
(17)Karl Rahner, "The Dignity Of Man" in Theological Investigations II, p. 238-9.
(18)ibid.
(19)See Do You Believe In God, (New York: Paulist Press, 1969), p. 38-41.
(20)Philip McShane, God, Man, Mystery, (Dublin: Milltown Park), p. 14.
(21)Bernard Lonergan, "Christ As Subject" in Collection (London, New York, 1967), p. 186.
(22)Dufour, DBT, p. 318-9.
(23)Bernard Lonergan, insight, (London: 1961), p. 228.
(24)Brown, Vol. 1, p. 79f.
(25)See TDNT, Vol. 4, p. 623f.
(26)See TDNT, Vol. 2, pp. 487-502.
(27)See Brown, Vol. 2, p. 618, 624.
(28)Brown, Vol. 1, p. 78.
(29)Brown, Vol. I, p. 138.
(30)ibid.
(31)See Bernard Lonergan, Method In Theology, (London: 1971), p. 130.
(32)See Raymond Brown, New Testament Essays, (Milwaukee, 1965), p. 205f.
(33)Brown, Vol. 2, p. 565.
(34)Foreword to G. Martelet, The Risen Christ And The Eucharistic World, (London: Collins 1976), p. 7.
(35)Brown, Vol. 2, p. 627.
(36)Brown, Vol. 2, p. 632.
(37)Quoted in 39ery Dulles, Revelation Theology, (New York: Herder, 1969), p. 28.
(38)See Brown, Vol. 2, p. 614.
(39)Bultmann, The Gospel of John, p. 423.
(40)See JBC, p. 831.
(41)Bultmann, The Gospel of John, A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), p. 428.
(42)See Brown, Vol. 2, p. 912.
(43)Edward Malatesta, "Jesus And Loneliness", The Way, (London: October 1976), p. 251.
(44)See Brown, Vol. 2, p. 931.
(45)William Johnston, Silent Music, (New York: [1974] ), p.160-5.
(46)Brown, Vol. 1, p. 146.
(47)See Brown, Vol. 2, p. 1005.
(48)Brown, Vol. 2, pp. 1048-9.
(49)Bultmann, p. 357.
(50)See Kahlil Gibran, Secrets Of The Heart, (New York: 1964), p. 103.
(51)Quoted in Thomas Clarke, "Finding Grace At The Centre", The Way (January 1977) p. 14.
(52)ibid.
(53)Quoted in Supplement To Progressio, (Rome: CLC), p. 20.
(54)Peter Berger, Pyramids Of Sacrifice (New York: Basic Books, 1974), p. 232.

作者：Chu, Mei Fen 年份：1978

"Religion"
Religion can be understood as a "stepping out" of oneself to look at things－－including oneself－－from the standpoint of a whole. "Stepping out," of course, is metaphorically used. For it is possible only because the self and the whole of reality are understood to be related. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the whole of reality is understood to be the fullness of being in which the person participates. In the Buddhist tradition, it is understood to be the opposite, that is, non-reality or non-being. Even then, the self can choose non-being only because non-being is already part of selfhood. Apart from the content of the "whole of reality," then, religion is a passage from the self into a greater whole, a passage which can be called transcendence.

The distance gained through such a passage is not that between two points of relativity, but that between an assumed absolute and all points of relativity. From the viewpoint of the absolute and the ultimate, all parts fall into context and all concerns appear preliminary. A preliminary concern is not a lesser concern. On the contrary, the standpoint of the ultimate tends to make one or another of the preliminary concerns assume a character of ultimate importance. But that element of ultimacy coming from a meaning greater than oneself is not identical with the importance given by common-sense perspectives. A decision of faith is still a decision. While it affirms some things, it negates others. All concerns being put in the context of the ultimate concern, however, even that which is affirmed is not in itself ultimately important. Transcendence can be metaphorically expressed as vertical transcendence.

*(Extract from the doctoral dissertation submitted by the author to The University of Chicago Divinity School.)

Religion can be involved when the peasant watches the grains grow, when the poet writes poetry, or when the philosopher philosophizes. Religion is involved if, for the person concerned, the work is more than a task to be accomplished, and the product is more than a commodity. For, by viewing oneself, one's product, and the working process with all the relations they involve from the standpoint of a whole, the fragmentariness of commodities is overcome in one way or another. It is by stepping into the whole and viewing life from thence that religion enters into play. A manifestation of reality is involved which grasps and changes the life of the individual and perhaps also changes society. If the meaning that faith provides is of a transcendental character that is superadded to the everyday reality, both on the individual and on the societal levels, then religion easily falls into the category of metaphysics and of idealism such as described by Mao. This has to do with the content of religion. Formally, religion is vertical transcendence regardless of its content.

Religion thus understood is not limited to institutional religions. Both institutional religions and religion in the generic sense involve the use of the language of symbols. Whereas institutional religions are characterized by their use of sacred symbols, religion in the broad sense may use secular symbols to express a reality which is for that reason not less sacred to the people concerned. In either case, symbols point to an ultimate meaning which everyday language cannot express. As Mircea Eliade says: "If the mind makes use of images to grasp the ultimate reality of things, it is just because reality manifests itself in contradictory ways and therefore cannot be expressed in concepts." 1

Formally speaking, then, religion is the interpretability and the acceptability of everyday realities on the one hand, and the meaningful relatedness of those realities on the other. According to C. Geertz, religion with its system of symbols acts to make the world view and the ethos of a people a closely knitted whole. The world view is the way, according to a given people, "things in sheer actuality are," and "a people's ethos is the tone, character, and quality of their life, its moral and aesthetic style and mood; it is the underlying attitude towards themselves and their world that life reflects." 2 P. Tillich similarly describes religion as "an attitude of the spirit in which practical, theoretical, and emotional elements are united to form a complex whole." 3

The religious dimension in Mao Tsetung Thought
With the above undersanding of religion, a religious dimension can be viewed as underlying Mao Tsetung Thought. The following paragraphs will explain what we mean by this.

The idea of social development
In July 1955, Mao describes his dissatisfactions with the way economic development was unfolding itself, and the Great Leap Forward policy began to be formulated. By the time of the Third Five Year Plan, the principle motivating the GLF was consolidated and priority was given to the lessening of the gap between industry and agriculture, between the urban and the rural areas, and between the intellectual and the manual work. From the decision he then made, a religious dimension seems to have been present in his thought. We do not mean to identify the GLF policy and the values he then affirmed with religion. Neither are we suggesting that the opponents of that policy have no religious dimension implicit in their thought. The difference might have been in the content of the religious dimension. In Mao's case, it seems that the fear he expresses, namely, that the work-peasant alliance might break up, indicates a "stepping out" of the situation and a viewing of the same from the standpoint of an ultimate concern.

China was then high in international rankings of economic growth. 4 That Mao should have been dissatisfied and afraid precisely at such a moment indicates that the understanding of reality underlying his thought makes economic growth into a preliminary concern. Given Mao's numerous statements revealing his wish and his effort to speed up the process of industrialization, the ultimacy of his central concern stands out even more clearly. The imperative to alter the trend of development seems to arise from the standpoint of the whole of reality. From such a viewpoint, life is no longer seen in quantitative terms, but quality becomes more important. From the same viewpoint, one is not satisfied with structures only, that is, with reason providing maximum progress in high technology and development ad infinitum.

Mao's way of dealing with the issue of social development may appear to be idiosyncracy to some and political romanticism to others. To us, Mao's position in this issue as in others clearly presupposes a totality of view, a sense of mutual dependence of structure and meaning, and an ultimate concern which transcends all other concerns. The whole that is presupposed is unified, teleological, and sacred. We will clarify what we mean by these categories.

A metaphysical whole is also a whole, but it is not a unified whole. Its static character repels parts. Mao's sense of totality and interrelatedness locates security neither in a static whole nor in parts. It unites both the whole and the part. The unified whole indicates that Mao relates himself to a reality beneath appearances, a reality which is the ground beneath the surface where the whole and the part compete, an abysmal reality which unites and transcends opposites and which we call "depth."

The whole that is presupposed in Mao's thought is a teleological whole. It does not locate meaning at the end of history or beyond history in a realm different from the historical, but it tends towards integral meaning at every point in history. The telos is always near at hand; yet it is not totally reached. The process assumes thus primary importance. The expectation of fulfillment challenges from within each given situation for new forms, for greater meaning, for more relatedness. Yet, the teleological whole does not reject the old as such. On the contrary, the historical process appears dotted with moments where the same telos had become manifest. Only a teleological whole can in its process creatively unite opposites such as the old and the

new. But it can do so because it is related to the depth of history, to that reality beneath the historical process which sustains the latter by giving it meaning. The teleological whole can unite and hold opposites together because it is related to a reality in the light of which the aim of history appears to be so sublime that the warring opposites within the current of history are relativized and therefore reconciled albeit momentarily.

The whole presupposed in Mao's thought is a sacred whole. Its symbols are purely secular, yet implicitly they speak of an ultimate concern, and only a sacred whole can be the object of an ultimate concern. Nationalism, communism, socialist revolution, socialist construction, development, and humanity all have great significance for Mao. Interpreted in certain ways, these policy goals can become opposites; that is, nationalism can militate against communism, socialist revolution against socialist construction, and economic development against the mass line approach to development. In Mao's thought, however, these sets of opposites are held together. These sets of categories, it seems, would bcome irreconcilables if they were taken in their literal sense. Mao holds them together because implicitly they are symbols for him as well as policy goals. They are symbols for him because: (1) They are not abstract ideas but part of the concrete reality in which the Chinese people including Mao parti- cipate; (2) They are related to their own depth－－nationalism to a vocational consciousness, communism to the communal dimension of the socio-political realities as they are given, development to human relations, humanity to the needs of the poor and blank; and (3) Their own depth points to a sacred whole which is the object of Mao's ultimate concern. Short of a relation to the sacred whole, it seems that the elusive depth of these symbols could easily disappear. The ultimate concern which focuses on depth not only holds the opposites in tension, but also it sustains the symbols in their humanizing function.

Thus the need for technology is keenly felt by Mao. But he must needs ask the question of the why of technology. The demand to turn the course of development towards greater inter- relatedness was unconditional. From this, we infer that his understanding of reality is underpinned by a depth. The totality that Mao's thought presupposes is able to unite the opposites because it is a unified, teleological, and sacred whole, and a whole that is related to the depth of reality which in turn gives depth to Mao's thought. From the depth of reality, an imperative emerges causing structure to seek meaning. A vision of the good is implied in the move, a vision according to which technological progress must be subordinate to human purposes, and modernization must start from the given Chinese situation interpreted as a whole.

For Mao, the growth of the Gross National Product is seen in the context of the welfare of the peasant masses, of the growth and the transformation of the person, and of the interdependence among different sectors in society. While the conditions of under- development tend to subordinate all else to modernization and industrialization, China under Mao stands for a notion of social development that is the total development of the human person. Technologization and humanization constitute mutually competing opposites. To hold both together in a creative way is an impossible task unless both are transcended in the light of the depth of reality. It seems that Mao's thought has a religious dimension freeing it from the pressures of life and of history because it is related to the depth in which there is space to view problems from a distance. From the viewpoint of depth, what capitalist society considers important is secondary in importance to Mao, and what constitutes the core of alienation in capitalist societies is truly resisted. Mao's statement to the effect that the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie constitutes the major contradiction during the socialist stage is perhaps the best illustration of the depth in his thought.

The viewpoint of depth does not mean a heteronomous approach to suppress the human needs for economic development, for modernization, and for technology. Heteronomy implies an alien power working against the claims of reason and of structure. If the approach to social development through depth were heteronomous, Mao might have taken a more moralistic approach and advocated certain attitudes, norms, and styles as blueprints to be modeled. Mao's attitude is more than this. It involves a basic directedness that is not the sum total of a number of behavioral practices. It is a spirit that can only result from a state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, an ultimate concern which does not suppress structure, but one that seeks its fulfillment.

Mao's approach through depth may have resulted in the preference of elementary technology for certain areas that are beginning to modernize, and through intermediate technology to let it develop towards high technology. But this gradual process of development at a different pace in different localities is not anti-technology. Mao's slogan "Walking on two legs" that describes the process implies a balance and a unity. Technology united with meaning seems more likely to be an instrument of peace although in the course of its implementation, struggles in the superstructure may be involved. Technology according to the First Five Year Plan model minimizes struggle. But it may bring in its wake a widening gap between different social groups, and this gap might become the basis of future cataclysmic strifes.

Thus the centrality of Mao's theory on struggle paradoxically combines with a long range vision of relative peace. In unveiling the reality of present contradictions, future antagonistic contradictions can be avoided. Mao's fear lest the worker-peasant alliance be broken speaks volumes. It results from a sensitivity that prefers reality to appearance. Perhaps his self-identification with the poor and the lower-middle peasants explains in part this preference. But such a self-identification itself seems to point to a prior experience of being grasped by an ultimate concern.

The means of social change

If religion is viewing reality from the standpoint of depth, a standpoint which locates all socio-political structures, and structures of meaning in the context of ultimate meaning, then Mao's class theory and his theory of the state both point to a religious dimension in his thought.

Mao's class theory affirms the class nature of revolutionary struggles. The complex nature of classes in China, however, prevents him from assigning the role of dictatorship in an exclusive sense to any one of the existing classes, not even to the industrial proletariat. Strictly speaking, social change is not the prerogative of any one social class since both interdependence and conflict characterize the relationship between any two of the classes existing in Chinese society. Belongingness to the industrial proletariat does not automatically make the person in question an agent for social change.

The same happens in the case of the Chinese Communist Party as the vanguard. The latter is the most important means for social change. But social change depends on much more than the vanguard. The "much more" can be thought of in terms of "the stand, viewpoint, and method of Marxism-Leninism." This stand, viewpoint or method seems to be something that grasps and changes the person. Once the person is so grasped, he or she is freed from servile dependence on dogma, from arrogance in holding a position of authority, and from confinement to his/her self-interest.

What Mao means by the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint, or method seems to imply a religious dimension which we have called self-transcendence, dimension of depth, standpoint of the whole of reality, directedness towards the unconditional, or ultimate concern. When Mao speaks of the need for the cadre to take the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint he seems to describe a transition into a larger whole within which one finds an anchorage so unshakable that it dispels all fear of disclosing oneself and one's mistakes. The viewpoint of the whole results in an intern- alization of the criterion between right and wrong, good and evil. It does not safeguard from mistakes, but it provides one with the ability to see one's mistakes and the courage to criticize oneself as well as to accept criticism.

Thus the means of social change as understood by Mao seems to involve both the person and a reality that is not alien to the person but beyond the person. The proletariat, the vanguard, and the state are all subordinate to such a reality. From the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, a higher principle or criterion emerges. This principle is not an object of rational knowledge, and it does not result from heredity. It can only be thought of as a gift. One can lay conditions for the emergence of such a principle or criterion, but education alone cannot inculcate it. The "airing of views" within the Party is an important way to enable the emergence of such a criterion. But ultimately, the process does not guarantee such an emergence. Mao's democratic centralism seems to indicate that neither the democratic process nor the centralist form is sufficient to ensure the presence of the higher principle or criterion in the Party, but that both process and form ought to be transcended and united with import and meaning.

From the standpoint of the whole of reality, the self-abnegation that is expected of the vanguard is at the same time the cause of its fulfillment. For, to have structure united with meaning is to invest the vanguard's power with the basis of that power, namely, justice. Such a unity links socialist construction and socialist revolution directly with the origin and the first experiences of the Communist movement in China. In the beginning, the sense of justice provided the driving force for the revolution. If Mao shifted from a reformist position to a revolutionary one, it is only because violence was considered inevitable given the existing structures with all the violence they implied. The revolution was justified, in Mao's view, because of the need of the oppressed masses for liberation. In the unity of power and justice, a proletarian being had emerged.

According to Mao, the same foundation of the power then seized must be the foundation of the power that the vanguard exercises later on. From his viewpoint, it is not only reasonable that the vanguard subordinate itself under a higher principle, but also it is in such a subordination that the vanguard finds its own fulfillment by finding its own reason to be. Moreover, there is greater possibility for the vanguard to reach its strategic and tactical goals upon the basis of the proletarian being since the majority of the nation will then more easily recognize themselves in the vanguard.

The nature of dialectics
In Mao's view of history, freedom as decision, that is, freedom that goes towards the shaping of history is different from a notion of self-sufficiency. The communal decisions for self- reliance as experienced in the Border Region during the War of Resistance involves the notion of responsibility for oneself and for one another. That experience speaks of the need for all involved－－the army, the Party, the people－－to meet survival needs together as a community. It also speaks of the awareness of a people that they had nothing more to lose. This double aspect seems to involve the gaining of a distance from the everyday realities, a distance and an inner freedom which indicate the presence of a religious dimension. Along with the concrete outcome of the communal decision－－increased production, improved technology, better organization, victory in war, etc.－－an answer as to the question of the meaning of life seems to have been experienced, an answer which provides Mao with a vision of the good. Later on, in spite of changed circumstances, his thought remains directed towards the same principle of interdependence.

Self-reliance involving the principle of mass mobilization implies an understanding of reality as a whole. For, different from an atomistic notion of self-sufficiency, self-reliance involves a communal dimension. The 'self ' of the social unit is constituted by different sectors in society relating to one another and bearing the responsibility for one another. The Yenan experience is not designed to fit a preconceived idea of a whole. Circumstances led to it. However, it seems to correspond to Mao's understanding of reality according to which the inter-relatedness of being is an essential element. The experience provides him with an answer as to the question of the meaning of life. In this sense, it has a lasting impact on his thought.

We do not mean to say that henceforth Mao made Yenan into a structural blueprint to be modeled on all levels of society. Rather, the experience seems to confirm in Mao the understanding of meaning or of wholeness as inseparable from structure. Social structure must embody interdependence in a realistic, not in an abstract or a dogmatic way. This involves a transcendence of self-sufficiency. When this happens, freedom as decision overcomes destiny but destiny is at the same time regarded as the context providing the possibility for freedom to overcome it. The unity of mutually repelling opposites must involve, we assume, a religious dimension. For, what we mean by transcendence is not a shift from freedom to destiny or vice versa. It is the understanding of both as representing but partial meaning that a tending towards integral meaning transcends both while uniting them.

According to Mao, the same law of the unity of opposites between quantitative and qualitative changes applies to both nature and history, though with a difference in the two cases. Three propositions seem to be affirmed by Mao in his view of history. From all three of them, one might infer that a religious dimension is present: (1) Becoming is better than being; (2) Being and becoming are dialectically related; (3) There is no definitive synthesis between being and becoming in history.

Mao's argument regarding the superiority of becoming to being can be formulated as follows: contradictoriness within being leads to becoming and history is propelled forward by becoming. This happens in nature also. If it happens in nature, Mao's argument seems to imply, it must be an objective law. Therefore, it is normal that it should also happen in history. This argument makes it understandable why the qualitative leap which is identified with revolutionary change in history is also used to describe the evolutionary process in nature.

Upon closer examination, however, "qualitative change" or becoming in nature does not cover the same content as when it is used in relation to history. Whereas in nature, the evolutionary process moves on in an infinite succession of forms one higher than the other, in history, the process of becoming follows a more tortuous path. It is partly on account of this difference that Mao offers the model in nature to be followed by the makers of history; that is to say, nature presents a challenge to history to move towards true progress. But 'progress' in the true sense is a prerogative of history although ultimately, that is, from the viewpoint of the unconditional, the two notions of history and of nature seem to merge into one same whole.

As we have discussed above, becoming in history involves a process both similar to and different from natural selection. It is similar to natural selection in that the strong overcome the weak when two forces confront each other in revolutionary wars. It differs from natural selection in that the whole notion of class struggle places the hope and the faith in victory on the side of the proletariat which is the weak, the powerless, and the exploited vis-a-vis the bourgeoisie. Needless to say, the proletariat must organize themselves and build up their power before they can overcome the bourgeoisie. But deep within the Marxist faith and hope is the affirmation that it is the weak that represent the true and the good. A meaning dimension is thus given to becoming in history, a dimension that is lacking in the process of natural selection. Faith and hope imply, it seems, a stance from an ultimate concern directed towards the unconditional making it possible for those grasped by such a faith and such a hope to see what the lay people's eyes do not see.

Characteristic of Mao's thought, one pole is never emphasized to the exclusion of the other. Thus in emphasizing becoming, he makes a strong point that being is not to be neglected. Being and becoming must be held in tension in such a way that both gradualism and adventurism can be overcome. From this, we again infer that a religious dimension is present in his thought allowing him the space and the freedom in which to reconcile the two opposites. Mao does not hesitate to deny a definitive synthesis in history that would abolish all contradictions. His statement to the effect that capitalist ideological influence will definitively be eliminated one day is to be understood, it seems, along with other statements which confirm his belief that there will still be qualitative changes in Communist societies. Given his understanding that qualitative change comes from contradictoriness within, one might conclude that the contradiction in Communist societies, according to him, may not be that between capitalism and socialism, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but new ones the nature of which no one can predict.

At this point, history and nature seem to join together in Mao's theory of the dialectics between being and becoming. Without a definitive synthesis in history. Communism is hoped for, not guaranteed, and from Mao's optimism in nature, we might infer that his hope is grounded where nature and history meet. Such a meeting point cannot but be there where both are transcended. The locus of meaning for Mao being both within history－－the superiority of becoming over being sufficiently shows his emphasis on history－－and beyond it is a strong indication of a religious dimension in his thought.

The notion of fulfillment
The Chinese Revolution according to Mao struggled on two fronts. First of all, it opposes the feudal structures in the socio-economic, the political, and the cultural realms. To do this, it relies on reason as the critical principle. The land reform is organized on the basis of a rationale and under efficient leadership. It differs in quality from primitive revolts. The peasants especially are taught to transcend personal interest and clan spirit. The process designed to lead the peasants, the workers, and the masses from a class in itself to a class for itself is an educational process based on revolutionary reason, that is, on a critical principle which, by its function, affirms that the principle of justice begins with justice in the economic realm. Social injustices, such as existed with regard to the young, to women, and to the lumpen- proletariat, are also directly or indirectly fought against, and mass participation in class struggle extends the principle of justice into the political arena.

Secondly, the Chinese Revolution according to Mao fights against technical rationality in all its manifestations. Thus class struggle is more than a redistribution of wealth or a reversal of power. A qualitative difference is manifest in that all parts involved participate in the struggle as parts of a whole. The women's liberation is put in the context of responsibility; military work in the context of political work, economic production and scientific experimentation in that of class struggle. The organic view of the whole unites survival needs with meaning needs. The critical principle of rationality gains distance from itself as technical reason in order to criticize itself. This, it seems, is done because in Mao's thought, there is a higher principle which transcends reason, on the one hand, and which resists the emergence of a new feudal power, on the other.

In the light of this higher principle, the depth of tradition is united with the depth of reason through an understanding of justice as the basis of authority. Claims for justice in the form of popular revolts have been numerous in Chinese history. Thus, Mao's thought, because it is directed towards the unconditional, unites the critical principle with the root of the Chinese tradition. Mao's statement to the effect that the Chinese substance－－like his general line is something that cannot be changed supports our interpretation. Elsewhere Mao speaks of the Chinese substance differently. He says:

We must learn many things from foreign countries and master them. We must especially master fundamental theory. Some people advocate 'Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical application.' Is this idea right or wrong? It is wrong. The word learning' in fact refers to fundamental theory. Fundamental theory should be the same in China as in foreign countries. There should be no distinction between Chinese and Western things in fundamental theory.

Marxism is a fundamental theory which was produced in the West .... Marxism is a general truth which has universal application. We must accept it. . . . It was only because the Chinese people accepted Marxism and combined it with the practice of the Chinese revolution that they won victory in the Chinese revolution. 5

In our view, the two statements do not contradict each other. The 'Chinese substance' is given new expression through a Marxist revolution; in the Marxian perspective, Mao finds something that corresponds to the way the Chinese people understand reality and know how they ought to relate to it. Mao seems to be able to unite the Western and the Chinese because both are seen as conditional in the light of an unconditional demand. In this, he shows a religious dimension in his thought.

The availability of truth
In epistemology, Mao's materialistic position puts the emphasis on practice so that reason may be freed from its conditioning factors. But Mao's materialism is dialectical. The revolutionary practice transforming the productive forces does not lead automatically to truth in the superstructure. Practice is both guided by theory and it reflects back on theory. If the step leading from theory to practice is a deepening movement according to Mao, the step from practice back to theory also involves courage and willingness to rectify oneself and one's theory. For, theory and practice as a unity of opposites are not only mutually interdependent, but also mutually conflictual. 6

The fact that Mao's epistemology holds theory and practice in tension implies a transcendence of both in the direction of the unconditional. For, in spite of Mao's understanding of truth as open towards infinite possibilities, there is a fundamental perspective－－that of Marxism-Leninism－－to which he continues to refer, a perspective which continues to grasp him and to change him. At the same time, a good seems to be present that urges him to undertake some of the decisions in spite of the great risks involved. This fundamental perspective with the good it points to in a given situation provide Mao's epistemology with an anchorage in which theory and practice could be united because they are both transcended. And this point of anchorage from which arise unconditional imperatives indicates the presence of the religious dimension. For, unless this point of unity in depth has an opening on the unconditional, it seems that Mao's epistemology would either make Marxism-Leninism into a dogma or relinquish it in favor of an activism in response to some immediate needs thus disregarding the initial concern which had launched theory into practice.

Soteriology
The epistemological principle and the normative question related to it constitute perhaps the most important issue that can be raised about Mao's thought. Mao's own answer to this issue can be summed up under the category of 'the mass line.' However, this answer would not seem to be satisfactory because the mass line has many concrete manifestations in the economic, the political, and the cultural realms none of which exhausts the answer to the question: Who decides what is the good?

Basically, Mao seems to understand reality to manifest itself in such contradictory ways that the answer cannot be an either/or in issues such as redness versus expertise, democracy versus centralism, raising the standard in art and literature versus popularization. No structure guarantees the correctness of decisions. The mass line as an answer that holds both poles would not seem to be a real answer.

If, however, the mass line is viewed as holding more than principles for ad hoc policy-making and more than abstract ideas deduced from previous decisions made, then the answer it provides to the normative question can be real. The answer contained in the notion of the mass line is a religious answer. For, nowhere else as in this notion does Mao's thought better indicate the presence of a religious dimension.

The mass line draws parts together in the different realms of political life as well as in between the realms. The direction it points to is clearly one of the belongingness and the inter-relatedness of being as over against exclusive self-relatedness. Its integrating tendency in the public realm shows that a faith is involved, a faith that has an opening on ultimate meaning. Without such an opening, it seems that some fragments would have been taken as the whole. It is from the viewpoint of a whole without boundary, metaphorically speaking, that fragments can remain being recognized as fragments, on the one hand, and that each fragment can be seen as vitally important in the light of the boundless whole, on the other. Once again, we hold that Mao's thought as shown in the mass line principle reveals a fundamental assumption as to the unconditional.

The vision of the good that is implied in the mass line－－and for that matter, also implied in the broader category of the Marxist-Leninist perspective－－is an outcome of faith. As Mao himself puts it, the Marxist world view is a matter of belief and to be a real Communist, one must be "reborn." It is clear that individual transformation, according to Mao, involves such a faith, and that social transformation in the sense of an all-round humanization depends much on a vanguard that has such a faith. One might infer from this that even the individual cannot force transformation to come about himself or herself. However, it is important to lay the conditioning factors that would favor such a transformation. For, although structure and process do not guarantee faith, faith must needs be embodied in structure and it often emerges in process.

With the faith dimension of the mass line in view, the answer to the normative question that the mass line provides can perhaps be summarized as follows: (1) In matters of government, the "better" is preferable to the "best"; (2) The ones who make the decision ought to be rooted in the Marxist perspective; (3) The good decision is based on the presupposition that parts of a whole are organically related; (4) "Democracy in full measure" with its ethos of openness, vigor, and liveliness is the environmental requisite of the good; (5) There is no decision-maker so absolute that his or her authority cannot be questioned and severely so. Mao's thought, in teaching these principles to the Party and to the people at large, has the potential, it seems, of creating a people that is conscious of its dignity, unafraid of political participation, and a people who know that they must stay together for their own sakes as well as for the sake of the whole.

In short, the normative question is answered by the mass line principle through its double aspect as a constitutive principle and as a corrective. The fact that it involves a dimension of spirit indicates its 'religious' character. For, to live by the mass line, one must have the ability to step out of the situation, and with a sense of freedom from it take the necessary risks. The mass line is thus indicative of the religious dimension in Mao's thought.　

1.Mircea Eliade, Images and Symbols (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1969), p. 15.

2.C. Geertz, The interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 126- 27.

3.P. Tillich, What Is Religion? ed. and introduction by James L. Adams (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 160.

4.Ta-chung Liu, "Economic Development of the Chinese Mainland, 1949-1965," in Ping-ti Ho and Tang Tsou, eds., China in Crisis (1968) 1, bk. 2: 625.

5.Mao, "Chairman Mao's Talk to Music Workers" (August 24, 1956), pp. 85-86.

6.P. Tillich says in this respect: "Practice resists theory, . . . it demands an activism which cuts off every theoretical investigation before it has come to its end. In practice, one cannot do otherwise, for one must act before one has finished thinking. On the other hand, the infinite horizons of thinking cannot supply the basis for any concrete decision with certainty" (Systematic Theology 1: 93).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by: Holy Spirit Seminary College

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J. 年份：1978

Recently I met a priest who does pastoral work in a busy Kowloon parish. He told me that some of his young parishioners are eager to learn more about the Bible, especially about the life of Christ in the Gospels, and he asked me what was available in Chinese. The present article can be seen as an answer to his question.

It is always more important to read the Bible than to read about the Bible. However, since the Bible was written so long ago and so far away and often deals with profound and com-plicated matters, the ordinary reader needs additional help to understand the written word of God. If he only reads the biblical text, there will not infrequently be times when he is in doubt about what the words mean.

Fortunately such assistance is easily available today. This article attempts to introduce to the reader such books published by Catholics in Chinese about the Bible. It has a deliberately limited objective. It does not list translations of the Bible, many of which provide commentaries and other helps, cf. the article on that subject in Theology Annual 1 (1977), pages 90-100. It concentrates on more serious writings, without completely neglecting popular booklets. It attempts to deal with books currently available from publishers or bookshops in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

To draw the line between books on the Bible and those on theology, spirituality, catechetics or preaching is not always easy; but for the sake of brevity, only works that deal manly with the Bible are listed here. For obvious reasons I make no comments on the Chinese style of the works mentioned.

Our Protestant and Anglican brethren have written or translated many Chinese books about the Bible, our common heritage, but to keep the present article within manageable proportions, only works published by Catholics are included.

Part I : Books about the Bible as a whole
1) 思高聖經學會編著，「聖經辭典」，思高聖經學會，1975
This is a major work of biblical scholarship which should be placed beside the Chinese Franciscan Bible. It provides information on every aspect of the Bible: each book of the Bible, important biblical persons and theological concepts, history, geography--all have articles devoted to them. Well illustrated and indexed, it is also splendidly printed and solidly bound, though the price is high. It possesses many of the good qualities and also some of the drawbacks noted in the monumental Chinese Franciscan Bible, cf. Theology Annual 1 (1977), page 96. This important dictionary is reviewed in 神學論集, No. 25 (1975), pages 457-467.

2) 陳真譯，「聖經研究簡介」，華明，1977
Fr. Luis Alonso Schokel is an internationally known Old Testament scholar and a professor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, where almost all Catholic professors of Sacred Scripture receive their professional training. In this book he gives an enlightening account of how Catholics have approached the Bible since the sixteenth century Reformation up to Vatican Council II.

3) 李紹崑著，「聖經概論」，香港公教真理學會，1968
This work, introduced by the famous Chinese Catholic scholar Dr. John Wu Ching-hsiung, gives a general introduction to the Bible. Being an original work by Dr. Cyrus Lee Shao-k' un, its special feature is that it stresses the Chinese approach to the sacred writings.

4 ) 王敬弘著，「聖經是怎樣的一部書？」，光啟 1972
Fr. Richard Wang of Fujen University, Taiwan, wrote this short introduction to answer readers' questions about inspiration, revelation, the canon of the Bible and such-like matters, ending up with some practical advice on reading the Bible.

5 ) 趙雅博譯，「怎樣讀聖經」，光啟，1965
This is a translation of What is the Bible? written by the well-known French scholar Henri Daniel-Rops of the Academic Francaise for the 150-volume Faith and Fact series. It is probably the most comprehensive work of general introduction available in Chinese and is written in non-technical language.

6 ) 房志榮著，「聖經與聖經學」，光啟，1968
The author of this booklet is Fr. Mark Fang, Old Testament professor at Fujen University and editor of 「神學論集」 for a number of years, who has written-extensively on the Bible. This is one of his shorter writings, with four brief chapters on the Holy Land and the Bible; the Catholic Church and the Bible; reading and studying the Bible; and the historical value of the Bible. These were originally a series of lectures.

7 ) 盛常在譯，「聖經－－主愛的盟約」，光啟，1968
Some of the customary introductory questions are dealt with in this translated booklet (the original author's name is omitted for some reason). It has a section on biblical problems and ends with advice on how to read the Bible with profit.

8 ) 王敬弘，劉賽眉合著，「聖經十講」，十冊，光啟，1973
This set of ten attractively produced booklets covers the usual ground of biblical introduction. It has the advantage of being the most recently written work of its kind in Chinese. It gives helpful advice on such things as how to set up a Bible study group and how the Bible can help us to pray better. There are also pamphlets in the set providing necessary information on the historical background of both Old and New Testaments.

9 ) 房志榮著，「聖經與人生」，聞道，1971
Fr. Mark Fang deals in this booklet with such questions as: Now that we have the New Testament, do we need the Old Testament? What has the Bible to say to modem man? Wisdom in the Bible and in Chinese culture--what have they in common?

10) 房志榮著，「天主教與基督教聖經的異同」，聞道，1970
Is the Catholic Bible identical with the Bible read by the Protestants? Fr. Fang explains the differences and how and why they arose. He adds in an appendix a useful list of the Catholic and the Protestant names in Chinese for the books of the Bible and their abbreviated titles.

11) 房志榮著，王敬弘合著，「聖經信箱」，光啟，1974
These 163 questions and answers originally appeared in a regular column conducted by Frs. Fang and Wang in the periodical「聖化」over several years. They deal with a great variety of questions that readers asked about the Bible, about half of them concerning the New Testament.

12) 徐牧民譯，「關於聖經的問題」，光啟，1964
A similar but much shorter pamphlet written by Fr. Francis McCool of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, which answers questions commonly asked, e.g. what does the Bible teach about the origin of man and of the universe?

13) 周湛華譯，「天主的證人」，香港公教真理學會，1967
A series of eighteen sketches by the English biblical writer Fr. Leonard Johnston of prominent biblical personalities, mostly from the Old Testament, such as Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, John the Baptist.

14) 韓承良編著，「聖地朝聖指南」，思高聖經學會，1977
One of the only books I have seen in Chinese written to help the pilgrim to the Holy Land. It gives an outline of the general history of Palestine and then information on what one can see at the many places that figure in the Bible. The illustrations are somewhat disappointing.

In Chinese, then, there exists a good variety of popular works to introduce people to the Bible, but nothing as yet by a Catholic scholar dealing thoroughly with the more profound questions in a scientific, up-to-date, technical way, to compare for example with A. Wikenhauser's New Testament Introduction or Robert-Feuillet's two-volume Introduction to the Bible.

Part II : Books about the Old Testament
1 ) 周士良譯，「舊約以色列民族史」，光啟，1967
This rather detailed history of the Jewish people in biblical times was written by Henri Daniel-Rops, mentioned above.

2) 房志榮著，「梅瑟五書批判小史」，聞道，1968
Fr. Mark Fang attempts in this short pamphlet to introduce his readers to the new approach to the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, especially since the time of Julius Wellhausen. He summarizes the official Catholic teaching on these complex questions.

3 ) 房志榮編譯，「梅瑟五書的寫成－－兼論舊約的其他諸書」，聞道，1968
Fr. Fang briefly deals with how the Pentateuch reached its present form and also with the completion of the whole Old Testament. He acknowledges his debt to Fr. Norbert Lohfink, the German Old Testament specialist.

4 ) 房志榮著，「梅瑟五書的作者與特徵」，聞道，1971
This booklet discusses the sources of the Pentateuch as commonly accepted today and also the place of the Law and the Covenant in the Pentateuch.

5 ) 房志榮著，「創世紀研究」，光啟，1972
This is a full-length 200-page work in which Fr. Fang provides a detailed, full-scale treatment of the text of the book of Genesis, concentrating on the much discussed first eleven chapters.

6 ) 王敬弘譯，「開天闢地」，光啟，1972
Cardinal Jean Danielou, who was more a patrologist than a scripture scholar, selects some major theological issues raised by the first three chapters of Genesis, such as the creation of the universe; the mystery of sin; and Adam and Christ.

7) 房志榮著，「走向自由的路－－出谷紀」，聞道，1970
Here Fr. Fang discusses the book of Exodus and in a densely written booklet explains how the book was written and what place it holds in the New Testament.

8) 胡安德譯，「以色列人的良心－－充軍期前的先知」，華明，1977
The Conscience of Israel is a very successful work of the respected U.S. scholar Fr. Bruce Vawter and provides an excellent, well-informed and non-technical introduction to the Pre- Exilic Prophets of the Old Testament.

9) 詹德隆，張雪珠等合著，「第二依撒意亞－－引論兼簡易詮釋」，光啟，1973
The Fujen Theological Series published this work on Second Isaiah (chapters 1-39 of Isaiah). It was prepared, like several other volumes in the series, by some of the students in the Theology Faculty of Fujen University, Taipei, as a result of seminar work. It discusses many relevant questions, e.g. the prophetic movement; critical and historical questions concerning the book of Isaiah; the Servant Songs; Second Isaiah and the liturgy; and adds a useful bibliography of Chinese and English writings on Isaiah.

10) 劉家正等編著，「耶肋米亞先知－－他的生活和信息」，光啟，1974
This is a parallel work to the preceding prepared by the Fujen theology students on the prophet Jeremiah. It provides some detailed exegesis of important passages.

11) 劉家正等編著，「約伯面對朋友及天主」，光啟，1974
In the same Fujen Theological Series, we have a thorough textual exegesis, followed by a theological synthesis of the enigmatic book of Job.

12) 呂芬蓉，曹定人合譯，「聖詠－－聖詠結構及意義」，華明，1977
This is a translation of a well-established book on the Psalms by the Dutch Trappist, Pius Drijvers. It gives a rather complete treatment of the customary questions, e.g. the origin of the Psalms; the various types; their use as prayers. It also prints the complete text of the Psalms in the Franciscan translation.

13) 房志榮，于士錚合譯，「絕妙禱辭－－聖詠」，光啟，1976
Fr. Augustin George, a French biblical scholar, concentrates on the spiritual and theological riches of the Psalms, but without neglecting important literary and critical issues. Fr. M. Fang, one of the translators, appends three of his own articles on the Psalter, previously published elsewhere.

14) 胡國楨等編著，「箴言－－簡介與詮釋」，光啟，1978
The most recent volume in the Fujen Theological Series is a full-length study of the Book of Proverbs, giving detailed exegesis and a general introduction on the Old Testament wisdom literature. There is an interesting comparative table of Chinese and Old Testament proverbs and a good bibliography in Chinese and English.

On the Old Testament we now have some highly competent work done by Fr. M. Fang and also by foreign experts such as Vawter, Drijvers and George. But apart from these writings on the Pentateuch, on the Psalms and on two of the prophets and Proverbs, together with the Franciscans' 8-volume translation and commentary, there exists almost nothing by Catholic writers in Chinese on vast tracts of the Old Testament, and in particular no up-to-date commentaries either at the popular or scientific levels.

Part III: Books about the New Testament
1) 田永正譯，「教會與新經」，光啟，1967
Fr. Patrick Fannon, the English biblical scholar, adds a subtitle to the original booklet: "the birth of the New Testament from the life of the Church". He explains how the New Testament was gradually written to meet the needs and circumstances of the early Church and that it still has an intimate connection with the daily life of the modern follower of Christ.

2 ) 房志榮編著，「新約諸書分類簡介」，光啟，1972
To compose this very useful small book, Fr. Fang took the introductions to all the books of the New Testament as found in the complete edition of the Jerusalem Bible and translated them into Chinese.

3 ) 周納爵譯，「福音概論」，光啟，1957
Fr. Joseph Huby, the French biblical writer, wrote this systematic treatment of each of the four Gospels and their writers and special characteristics. It provides a lot of basic information, but having been written between the two World Wars, is not now up-to-date on various critical questions.

4) 馬駿聲著，「福音與信仰」，光啟，1964
"Are the Gospels trustworthy?", that is the question which Fr. Eugene Zsamar, a Hungarian missionary who spent his life among the Chinese and wrote a series of books in Chinese on spirituality, attempts to answer in this booklet. His answers are the traditional ones, common in text-books earlier this century but now needing updating.

5) 張春申著，「福音新論」，光啟，1973
Fr. A.B. Chang has taught dogmatic theology at Fujen University for some years. His Modern Criticism of the Gospels presents biblical-theological studies of Christ's Baptism, Temptation and Transfiguration, preceded by a set of chapters on modern Catholic critical study of the Gospels and its effect on our understanding of historicity, inspiration and related topics. This is a valuable work by a prominent Catholic theologian.

6) 王敬弘譯，「福音中的歷史性真理」，聞道，1973
In 1964 the Pontifical Biblical Commission published an important statement on the historicity of the Gospels, in effect giving the official Catholic position towards Rudolf Bultmann and his influential school of Form Criticism. This document of the Biblical Commission, which was taken up into the Vatican II Constitution on Divine Revelation, has been translated into Chinese by Fr. Richard Wang who added Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer's informed commentary on it from Theological Studies of 1964.

7 ) 蔣梅等譯，「新約導讀叢書」，十四冊，光啟，1974-77
This is a series of 14 short commentaries on each book of the New Testament forming the Chinese version of the popular U.S. series. New Testament Reading Guides. They are quite readable and informative, and in some cases are of real value where done by outstanding scholars, e.g. Raymond Brown on John; R.A.F. MacKenzie on New Testament Introduction; David Stanley on Matthew; Barnabas Ahern on Galatians and Romans. The Chinese translations were done in Taiwan by a group of university students under the supervision of Fr. Richard Wang. The full biblical text is also printed, in the Franciscan translation.

8 ) 帆行譯，「馬爾谷福音詮解」，光啟，1962
In the 1920's and 1930's the Verbum Salutis commentaries on the New Testament books appeared in France. The Gospels commentaries subsequently were published in English. Only one of these commentaries has appeared in Chinese: Fr. Joseph Huby's commentary on Mark's Gospel which was translated in Shanghai in the late 1940's and reprinted in Taiwan. It is a substantial work, stressing the theological and spiritual aspects, but is outdated from the exegetical and critical points of view.

9) 韓承良編著，「瑪竇福音教師手冊」，「路加福音教師手冊」，「宗徒大事錄教師手冊」，思高聖經學會，1976
These three booklets were prepared to help those teaching Biblical Knowledge for the Hong Kong Secondary Schools Certificate of Education examination, which in New Testament prescribes The Acts of the Apostles and one of the Synoptic Gospels in rotation. Each booklet is divided into a certain number of lessons and gives a short bibliography for further reading in Chinese and English. The volume on the other Synoptic Gospel, Mark, does not seem to have been published as yet.

10) 房志榮編著，「保祿使徒的生活，書信及神學」，光啟，1974
This work, compiled by the indefatigable Fr. Fang, collects the introductory material on St. Paul, his life, letters and theology to be found in the highly-acclaimed Jerome Biblical Commentary and presents it, in slightly simplified form, in Chinese dress, resulting in the most up-to-date Catholic work on St. Paul in Chinese.

11) 傅文輝譯，「怎樣讀聖保祿書信」，光啟，1967
A useful book on St. Paul by Fr. Francois Amiot, the French biblical scholar. It is on a popular level, covering somewhat the same ground as the preceding work but not as well.

There are some useful books in Chinese on the New Testament but they are not numerous. We must record the astonishing fact that apart from the Franciscans' three volumes of New Testament text and commentary and the New Testament Reading Guide series dating back almost twenty years, there is only one commentary of any size on one of the four Gospels and virtually nothing on any of the other 26 books of the New Testament, the basic writings of the Christian religion.

Part IV: Biblical Theology
1) 聖經神學辭典編譯委員會譯，「聖經神學辭典」，三卷，光啟，1975-78
This is a major reference work, edited by Fr. Xavier Leon-Dufour with articles contributed by the leading biblical scholars of the French-speaking world. The Chinese version is translated directly from the original French in its second, greatly enlarged edition. This standard work has articles on all the theological concepts of both the Old and New Testaments. The French and English editions follow a purely alphabetical order for the articles, where-as the Chinese rearranges the material into three volumes, dealing in turn with: God and the World; Christ and Salvation; The Holy Spirit and the Church; but for ease of consultation, adding indexes in Chinese, English and French.

2 ) 徐牧民譯，「古經要義」，光啟，1967
Fr. Albert Gelin, the French writer, gives a valuable short survey of the main themes of Old Testament theology under the headings: God's revelation in the Old Testament; God's plan for mankind; individual salvation.

3 ) 傅文輝譯，「聖經的人性觀」，光啟，1974
Fr. Gelin's study of Man in the Bible adopts a theological and spiritual approach.

4) 陶為翼譯，「萬民的天主－－以色列的天主/ 基督徒的天主」，光啟，1977
Fr. Jean Giblet, the French writer, edited this work which follows some key biblical themes, e.g. God's plan, God's revelation, God's call, God's faithfulness, as they develop right through the Old and New Testaments.

5 ) 侯景文譯，「基督之光」1970
This work of the famous French theologian Fr. Jules Lebreton is subtitled: "The Spiritual Doctrine of the New Testament".

6 ) 黃素蓮譯，「信證學與聖經中的基督」，光啟，1972
Apologetics and the Biblical Christ was written by the well-known U.S. theologian, Fr. Avery Dulles. In five chapters he discusses the impact of modern studies on the traditional approach to fundamental theology and apologetics.

7 ) 王敬弘譯，「天主子－－救世主」，光啟，1969
This is a competent work on how the Bible sees the divinity of Christ. Five prominent French exegetes contribute. Special attention is given to St. Paul and St. John.

On Biblical Theology, the fruit of detailed study of the sacred text, we have now one major work, the Dictionary of Biblical Theology, and half a dozen other volumes of fairly recent vintage. We still lack in-depth treatments of major writers (such as John and Paul) and of themes of the New Testament, particularly as seen through Chinese eyes.

Conclusion
Although this article aims at being comprehensive within the limits expressed, it appears to be a first voyage across a largely uncharted sea. So the compiler would be grateful to receive corrections and to learn of books in this field that have been overlooked in the present tentative list.

Two reflections suggest themselves at the conclusion of this rapid survey of Chinese Catholic books on the Bible: gratitude to those who have laboured long hours and months to produce our present Catholic literature on the Bible, whether written originally in Chinese (almost one half of the titles listed above) or translated from other languages; and secondly, a realization of the enormous task that remains to be done in this field by dedicated people who have a love of God's Word, who are prepared to master the tools of modern biblical study and who can write Chinese well－－an urgent and demanding example of "Localization". Only then can Catholic biblical writing in Chinese hope to take its place beside the extensive and profound Catholic writings on the Bible in the other great world languages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by: Holy Spirit Seminary College

作者：嘉理陵年份：1978

The following Bibliography is an initial attempt to gather together references to works in English on Basic Christian Communities. It is in general based on the material which is fairly readily available in Hong Kong, notably in the Library of Holy Spirit Seminary. Anyone who is interested in more extensive reading should consult the following international bibliographies:

Delespesse, Max, (edit). Courrier Communautaire International. (Brussels, Centre Communautaire International).

Floristan, C. "Les Communautes de base: compte rendu bibliographique". Concilium (Paris), 104(1975)133-141.

Pigault, G. Christian Communities/Communautes Chretiennes. International Bibliography 1972-1974. RIC (Repertoire bibliographique des institutions chretiennes/Bibliographical repertory of Christian institutions)－－Supplement No. 16 (Strasbourg, CERDIC, 1974).

I should like to thank Fr. B. J. Shields S.J. for his help in compiling this Bibliography.

Achutegui, Pedro S., S.J. (edit). Asian Colloquium . . . : see below, FABC.

Alting von Geusau, Leo. "The Basic Community Movement". IDOC International, 29(31 July, 1971)3-14.

Alting von Geusau, Leo. "Towards an International Analysis of New Forms of Community". IDOC International, 44(25 March, 1972)47-70.

Amalorpavadass, D.S. "On the Local Church, on Small Communities, on Missionary Motivation". The Bishops' Synod, 1974: Evangelization in Asia Today, Part 2, pp. 62-66. (Manila, n.d.)

AMECEA. Conclusions of the Fourth AMECEA (Association of Member Episcopal Conferences in East Africa) Plenary Meeting, Nairobi, Kenya, 15-22 July 1976.

Argiiello, Kiko. "To Renew Christian Life in Parishes－－Neo-catechumenal Communities". Christ to the World. 22(1977) 92-99.

Basic Christian Communities in the Church. Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, 62 (Sept. 1976). Compiled by J. Kerkhofs S.I. with the cooperation of A. Mendoza and L. Hertsens W.F., on the basis of information available by November 1976. ("The Quest for Truly Human Communities", pp. 2-5; "Basic Ecclesial Communities in Latin America", pp. 6-12; "Basic Christian Communities in Africa", pp. 13-20; "Basic Christian Communities in Asia", pp. 21-22; "Basic Christian Communities in Europe", pp. 23-26; "Basic Christian Communities and Creativity", pp. 27-30; Appendix: "Extract from the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi", p. 31; "Extract from A Time for Building (Report of Joint Working Party on Pastoral Strategy. C.I.S. of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales)", p. 32.).

Besret, Bernard. "Communautes de base". IDOC International, 44(25 March, 1972)9-15.

Bianchi, Enzo. "Bose: An Interconfessional Community in Italy". Concilium, New Series, No. 9, Vol. 9 (1973)111-119.

Bravo, Francisco. "Laymen . . . is what it takes". America, 8 April 1967.

Briend, Theo. "A Fruitful Pastoral Experience in a Parish of 30,000 Souls in Brazil". Christ to the World, 21(1976)197-201.

Bright, Laurence, O.P. (edit). The Christian Community. Essays on the Role of the Church in the World. (London, Sheed and Ward, 1971). pp. vii, 168.

CCP National Team. Christian Formation Sessions For Basic Christian Communities, Part 1. (Manila, EAPI, 1977).

CELAM. The Church in the Present-Day Transformation of Latin America in the Light of the Council (The Medellin Documents), esp. Document 15, #10: "Basic Christian Communities". (Washington D.C., The Latin American Bureau, USCC, 1970).

Clark, David B. Basic Communities. (London, SPCK, 1977). pp. 200.

Clark, Stephen B. Building Christian Communities－－Strategy for Renewing the Church. (Notre Dame, Indiana, Ave Maria Press, 1972; Manila, Bea Institute, BCC Series, No. 5). pp. 189.

"Community Life in Brazil." The Tablet, (Jan. 1977) 45-46.

Currier, Richard. Agony and Ecstacy in Building Christian Community: A Pastoral Plan for the Catholic Church. (Ligourian Pamphlets, 1969).

Delespesse, Max. The Church Community, Leaven and Life-Style. (Ottawa, The Catholic Centre of St. Paul University, 1969).

DeSousa, D'Arcy A. "The Lost Dimension. The Sense of True Community". Lumen Vitae, 32(1977)197-206.

Dupuis, J., SJ. "Community and Ministry". FABC, Asian Colloquium . . ., pp. 223-243.

Dupuis, J., S.J. "Ministries in the Church. An Asian Colloquium". Vidyajyoti, 41(1977)243-260 (esp. pp. 248-250).

Edele, Andrew. Building Small Communities in Urban Areas. (AMECEA Documentation Series, 18 Jan. 1978).

FABC (Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences). Asian Colloquium on Ministries in the Church. Hong Kong, Feb. 27 Mar. 5, 1977. Edited by Pedro S. de Achutegui S.J. (Manila, Bea Institute, 1977). pp. xxiv, 496.

FABC. "Conclusions of the FABC Colloquium on Ministries in the Church. (Hong Kong, 27th Feb. 5th Mar. 1977)" (Extracts; full text in FABC, Asian Colloquium . . ., pp. 17-57). Vidyajyoti, 41(1977)279-289 (esp. pp. 283-285).

Fang, Mark, S.J., and Shields, B.J., S.J. "The Church as a Living Community in the New Testament". Teaching All Nations, 7(1970) 127-144; also in: Humphrey, Sinicization . . .: see below.

Greeley, Andrew. "The Persistence of Community". Concilium, New Series, No. 9, Vol. 1 (1973)23-35.

Gresh, Ted. (edit). Basic Christian Communities in the Philippines. (Manila, Bea Institute, 1977, BCC Series, No. 8). pp. viii, 139.

Gresh, Ted. (edit). New Ministries in the Church. An international Survey. (Manila, Bea Institute, 1977, BCC Series, No. 7).

Gresh, Ted. (edit). New Ministries in the Church. A Philippine Perspective. (Manila, Bea Institute, 1977, BCC Series, No. 6).

Gresh, Ted. (edit). New Wineskins for a Church in Ferment －－All About Basic Christian Communities. (Manila, Bea Institute, 1977, BCC Series, No. 4). pp. iv, 127.

Gresh, Ted. (edit). Outline－－A Core Course for Lay Leadership Formation. (Manila, Lay Formation Institute, 1976; Bea Institute, 1977, BCC Series, No. 2). pp. iv, 40.

Gresh, Ted. (edit). Readings on Basic Christian Communities in the Church. (Manila, Bea Institute, 1977, BCC Series, No. 1).

Hally, Cyril. "Japanese Community Models". Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, 41(1972)29-32.

Harriot, John F.X., S.J. "Basic Communities in Asia". The Month, (March 1978)81-85.

HasenhuttI, Gotthold. "Church and Institution". Concilium, New Series, No. 10, Vol. 1 (1974)1-21.

Haughton, Rosemary. "The New Communities". Doctrine and Life, 27(1977) No. 5, 53-64.

Hearne, B. Theological Reflections on the Objectives of Christian Community. (AMECEA Documentation Series, 18 May 1976; AMECEA Plenary Study Conference, 1976, Position Paper, No. 2).

Hertens, L. "The Basic Community in African Churches". Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, 41(1972)27-28.

Hofinger, J., S.J., and Sheridan, T.J., S.J. The Medellin Papers. A Selection from the Proceedings of the Sixth International Study Week on Catechetics, held at Medellin, Columbia, 11-17 August 1968. (Manila, EAPI, 1969). pp. 222.

Humphrey, Delos A., M.M. Sinicization. The Church as a Living Community (1969 Workshop); The Gospel of Christ and Modern China (1970 Workshop). (Taipei, 1971).

IDOC International 44, Editorial. "New Forms of Community". IDOC International, 44(25 March 1972)2-8.

International Colloquium on New Forms of Community Life (Louvain, 9-13 Sept. 1971). Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, 41(1972)3-7.

J.C. "Life of a Christian Community in a Chinese Village". Christ to the World, 21(1976)202-205.

Kalilombe, P.A., Bishop. An Overall View On Building Christian Communities. (AMECEA Documentation Series, May 1976).

Kalilombe, P.A., Bishop. "Building Christian Communities". Lumen Vitae, 32(1977)175-196.

Kenney, Carlton. The Church Which Is His Body. (Cariton Kenney, P.O. Box 5036, Waco, Texas).

Kilian, S.J. Theological Models For The Parish. (With full bibliography). (New York, Alba House, 1977). pp. xi, 192.

Kosicki, G.W., C.S.B. "Steps Toward Christian Community". Review for Religious, 36(1977)467-477.

LADOC. Basic Christian Communities. (The LADOC "Keyhole" Series: Latin American Documentation, USCC, Washington; Manila, Bea Institute, 1977, BCC Series 3). pp. ii, 63.

Lohfink, Norbert, S.J. Experiences of Basic Christian Communities in West Germany. (Position Paper at Seventh Jesuit Ecumenical Congress, Frankfurt, 24-30 August, 1977).

Martin, Ralph. Unless the Lord Build The House . . . (esp. pp. 35-38, "Christian Community"). (Notre Dame, Indiana, Ave Maria Press, 1971). pp. 63.

Mensa Domini Catechetical Institute. Growing Up Towards a New Community: Practical Guide for Building Christian Communities. (San Jose, Antique, Philippines, Mensa Domini Catechetical Institute, 1977). pp. iv, 94.

Meyer, Bernard P., M.M. Christian Communities in the Third World. (Maryknoll, New York, 1969, privately printed for Maryknollers). pp. vi, 167.

Mukombe, Pirigisha, Bishop (interview). "A Living Christian Community in the Diocese of Kasongo in Central Africa (Zaire)". Christ to the World, 22(1977)317-322.

New Forms of Community Life. Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, 41(1972). Contents detailed in this Bibliography under: international Colloquium ...; Nuij; Scherer; Hertens; Hally.

Njenga, John, Bishop. "How to Build Basic Christian Communities in Eastern Africa". Christ to the World, 22(1977)403-410.

Nuij, Ton. "New Forms of Community Life". Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, 41(1972)8-17.

Paine, Rick. "Project Place". IDOC International, 44(25 March 1972) 16-23.

Palmes, C. "Basic Ecclesial Communities and Religious Leadership in Latin America". Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, 50(1974)77-79.

Paul VI, Pope. "Evangelization in the Modern World" (Evangelii Nuntiandi), Dec. 8th, 1975, #58, "Ecclesial Basic Communities". L'Osservatore Romano (English Edition), 25 December 1975, p. 6.

Paul VI, Pope. "Local Church Structures in a Time of Renewal" (Address to the XXI Italian National Study Week for Pastoral Renewal (Aggiornamento), the theme of which was: Diocese, Parish and Basic Communities; Sept. 9th, 1971). The Pope Speaks, 16(1971)218-222; cf. The Clergy Monthly, 36(1972) 81-83.

Paul VI, Pope. "The Neo-Catechetical Communities". (Extract from a speech given on 12 January 1977 to the International Congress of the Neo-Catechumenal Communities, 10-13 January 1977). Christ to the World, 22(1977)74-79.

Paz, Jehudah. "Kibbutzirn". IDOC International, 44(25 March 1972)24-46.

Perrin Jassy, Marie-France. Basic Community in the Africa Churches. (Translated by Sr. Jeanne Marie Lyons, Maryknoll, New York, Orbis Books, 1973). pp. xviii, 257.

Perrin Jassy, Marie-France. Forming Christian Communities. (Uganda, Gaba Institute Pastoral Papers No. 17, Gaba Publications, 1970).

Perrin Jassy, Marie-France. "Leadership". Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, 50(1974)80-82.

Power, David, O.M.I. "In the end God: Thoughts on Community". Doctrine and Life, 26(1976)174-184.

Rahner, Karl, S.J. The Shape of the Church to Come. (German Ed: Freiburg, Herder, 1972; English Trans: London, SPCK, 1974; Manila, Bea Institute, BCC Series No. 9).

Rahner, Karl, S.J. "On the Structure of the People of the Church Today". Theological Investigations, Vol. 12, pp. 218-228. (London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1974).

Rahner, Karl, S.J. "Perspectives for the Future of the Church". Theological Investigations, Vol. 12, pp. 202-217. (London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1974).

Regan, David, C.S.Sp. "The Small Community as Most Local Church". Doctrine and Life, 26(1976)845-854.

Remy, Jean, and Voye, Liliane. "Informal Groups in the Present-Day Church: A Sociological Analysis". Concilium, New Series, No. 10, Vol. 1 (1974)85-99. ,

Rich, John. Life Together in Small Christian Communities. A Leadership Training Course. (Davao City, Philippines, The Lay Leadership Institutes, 1977). pp. ii, 94.

Rigby, Andrew. Communes in Great Britain. (London, Routledge, 1974).

Russell, Letty M. "Theological Aspects of the Partnership of Women and Men in Christian Communities". Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, 59(1976)4-10.

Scheepens, J., S.M.M. Towards Christian Communities in the Parish. (Uganda, Gaba Publications, 1970).

Scherer, Jacqueline. "Some Paradoxes of Contemporary Communities: Sociological Observations". Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, 41(1972)18-26.

Siefer, Gregor. "Ecclesiological Implications of Weber's Definition of 'Community' ". Concilium, New Series, No. 10, Vol. 1 (1974) 148-160.

Silva Corcuera, Guillermo, S.J. Christian Base Communities: A Church being born of the people who are fighting for their liberation. (Position Paper at Seventh Jesuit Ecumenical Con- gress, Frankfurt, 24-30 August 1977).

Smith, Frances. Towards a Living Church. (Uganda, Gaba Institute Pastoral Papers, No. 15).

Synod of Bishops, 1974. "Suggestions of French Bishops". Teaching All Nations, 12(1975)28.

Synod of Bishops, 1974. "Topics for Discussion". Teaching All Nations, 12(1975)13.

Van de Vijver, Raymond, C.I.C.M. "Establishment of a Neo-Catechumenal Community in Japan". Christ to the World, 22(1977)100-104.

Vanier, Jean. "Building up a Healing Community (A Retreat with JeanVanier)". Good Tidings, 15(1976)127-128.

Vanzin, Calixte Victorin. "Living Christian Communities in the Diocese of Uvira (Zaire)". Christ to the World, 19(1974) 453-461.

Vision on Building Small Christian Communities. (Seminar held in Davao City, Philippines, September 1977).

Wu, John Baptist, Bishop. Pastoral Letter on Basic Christian Communities. Hong Kong, Sunday Examiner, 24 March 1978, p. 1.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by: Holy Spirit Seminary College

作者：祈士真 Casey, John J. 年份：1978

It may be thought that after the Second Vatican Council issued its DECREE ON PRIESTLY TRAINING, there should be little or no difficulty in planning seminary courses. However, this has not been the case because of the limitations of the document. For the decree, which gives basic objectives of curriculum and instruction, takes for granted the traditional study of philosophy and theology without critically evaluating the reasons why they are still considered most appropriate for the education of the priest. Perhaps those who wrote the decree saw this conclusion as so obvious that it did not need to be stated; and perhaps most would agree that this is true for the field of theology. But the same can not be said of philosophy. For although many would agree that philosophy is most appropriate, there are others who consider the social sciences or some other area of the sciences as better suited to the overall training of the contemporary priest. Those who hold this second opinion see the Vatican decree as having done little more than add the weight of authority to one side of a disputed question.

This being the case, it is the purpose of this paper to examine the basic starting points from which these differences of opinion spring and to try to put them in clear perspective. It is hoped that continued investigation of this particular question will lead to a more efficient and effective curriculum for that two-year unit of major seminary instruction which precedes the study of theology.

Philosophy has traditionally been considered the counter-part of theology in the education of the priest and this position was taken for granted in the Second Vatican Council. The DECREE ON PRIESTLY TRAINING states that the basic curriculum objective in seminary education is "a more effective coordination of philosophy and theology so that they supplement one another in revealing to the minds of the students with ever increasing clarity the mystery of Christ." 1 Now it is evident that this statement means both philosophy and theology have a complementary role to play in this unfolding. For philosophy this role is defined as the contributing of a "solid and consistent knowledge of man, the world and God based on the philosophic patrimony which is forever valid." 2 In line with this it can be rightly understood that the role of theology is similar, namely the contributing of a solid and consistent knowledge of man, the world and God based on the theological patrimony of the Church. It is also quite clear that philosophy and theology are not seen as presenting two separate but equal pictures, but rather as presenting one picture which is indeed the mystery of Christ. Thus a basic principle behind this curriculum objective is that proper philosophical reasoning supplements theology in the unfolding of the faith.

Now it is perfectly obvious to anyone involved in seminary teaching that the logical reasons for holding such a position can be found in the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. After all, an effective coordination between philosophy and theology is a profoundly Thomistic theme, and in its day was a radical departur from traditional thinking. For up to that time any secular thought that did not have the authoritative approval of the Church Fathers was considered a dangerous innovation. Thomas changed this through his doctrine of the one truth coming from several sources which doctrine he put into practice in his SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, thus wedding philosophy and theology together in a way that saw each complement the other in presenting to the mind of man a complete picture of reality.

The way that reason and faith complement each other, Thomas explained as follows. Man is endowed with a light of knowledge through his very nature. But this light of natural knowledge is incapable of knowing all things particularly those things which concern what he can not experience. Thus for a complete knowledge of reality, revelation is necessary from whence comes the second source of knowledge for man, the light of faith. Now the light of faith is an auxiliary to natural knowledge in building up and completing that part of the total picture of reality which can not be grasped by reason alone. In this structure of the one truth coming from both natural knowledge and the light of faith, there is an area in which both faith and reason overlap. Thus that God exists, that He is One and the like can be demonstrated by the light of natural reason as well as be presented to us by faith. This means that the quantitative content of what is known by the light of faith and by the light of reason will vary in different people. Thus the more intelligent man can know more about God by the light of natural knowledge than the less intelligent who must depend more on the light of faith for his knowledge about God. However, the end point－－the knowledge itself－－will be the same for one as for the other.

Given the above, it is clear that natural knowledge and the knowledge of faith have an intrinsic connection. Neither natural knowledge alone nor the knowledge that comes from revelation will give to man that whole picture of reality which is, of course, the truth. But because of this organic unity, revelation can correct defects in reasoning and reason offers deductive possibilities that allow man to understand more clearly through analogy even those truths that can be known only by the light of faith.

Now given this analysis of Thomas' thought, it seems an obvious conclusion to those who accept his reasoning that philosophy and theology are really inseparable because together they produce one result, namely the true picture of reality. Granted this, however, there are those who say this analysis describes only what Thomas did in his day but does not describe accurately what Thomas intended. The true focus of Thomas Aquinas can only be understood by comparing the intellectual climate of his time with that of the twentieth century and then, using this as a background, by analysing his work.

By reason or natural knowledge, Aquinas was actually speaking of secular science which in his time and in his way of looking at it was found at its best in the works of the philosopher Aristotle. For this reason Thomas abandoned traditional thought and accepted Aristotelianism. From his time to ours, however, what is best in secular knowledge has become embodied in the field of science. Thus what Thomas set out to do in the thirteenth century no less an eminent Thomist than Etienne Gilson describes in the following way for Thomas' twentieth century counterpart. "He would be taking the scientific view of nature and putting it to the service of religion in a synthesis in which everything starts from faith and returns to it." 3 Now this is exactly what Aquinas did in his time. He took Aristotle's philosophy which was the current science and put it to the service of religion in a synthesis in which everything started from faith as the absolute measure of truth and returned to it as the end point of all investigation. So if Thomas Aquinas were alive today, he would be using science rather than philosophy for his synthesis since it is science today that gives us our contemporary human picture of reality. This being the case, it is more in keeping with the mind of Saint Thomas to concentrate on science as the counter- part to theology in unfolding the deeper meaning of the mystery of Christ while waiting for that genius of our day who like Thomas will pull together science and theology into a new synthesis.

Now whether Thomas Aquinas were he alive today would be putting science to the use of his theological pursuits is only speculation. But what is known is that Thomas considered philosophy as being almost totally directed toward a knowledge of God. And so true did he consider this of metaphysics that he gives us an interesting insight into the philosophy curriculum of his day when he says in the SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES that "this is why metaphysics which deals with divine things is the last part of philosophy to be learned." 4 Given this conviction of Aquinas, then, it is difficult to see how he would choose science, which is obviously not concerned with the divine, over philosophy and particularly over metaphysics as that branch of human knowledge which he would use together with theology to form his synthesis. On the other hand, however, science left out of such a synthesis would sorely tax his conviction of the unity of knowledge.

But all of these arguments have little or no effect on those who do not start from the basic Thomistic principle of the unity of all knowledge and therefore would see various fields of knowledge as having only an extrinsic connection with one another. And basically it is because of this extrinsic connection only that they claim a particular richness afforded by the various sciences in unfolding the mystery of Christ. This is a classical positivist position and it is best understood by looking at the kind of analysis those who hold this position would make of the deficiencies of Aristotelian thought in the development of knowledge. Since Aristotelian thought is at the heart of the philosophical patrimony which is considered forever valid, it is a clear indication of how useless positivists would see it in the service of the faith.

Aristotle's philosophy by its very nature binders the pursuit of knowledge. The reason is that Aristotle relied on a logic of classification whereby through qualitative judgments distinc-tions were noted among various things. Quality, then, became the basic category of reality. Aristotle's investigation of things consisted of observation and through observation sorting out those qualities which were merely accidental from those qualities which were essential. By repeatedly doing this, Aristotle was able to intuit the essence of a thing which then became the why of its activity. Now the difficulty with this approach is that the information that one receives from such a method is trivial. For example, one arrives at the knowledge that the essential quality of man is rationality. From that point on, any time you ask a question such as why do men write books or why do men make laws, your answer is always a statement of man's essence, namely because man is rational. But this kind of a causal answer does not really give us any new information; rather it simply unpacks from the essence of man what we have already put into it when originally sorting out the essence. Thus writing books and being rational are really the same thing; we are staling a tautology. The difficulty basically goes back to Aristotle's conception of causes. He did delineate four causes; the efficient cause－－the internal or external agency which makes a thing move, the material cause－－the stuff of which a thing is made, the formal cause－－the pattern or law of development, and the final cause－－the end toward which a thing develops. Now when we look closely at all these causes, we find that efficient, formal and final causes are usually the essence in disguise. Thus a thing does what it does because it is what it is. Now if we ask the question why does a rose grow, using Aristotle's system of knowledge, our answer would be that a rose is a rose because a rose is a rose－－the classic tautology. Thus the great flaw in Aristotle's approach is that it allows for so few deductive consequences which makes it theoretically trivial for the development of knowledge. It is only when one dispenses with Aristotle's conception of causality and begins to explain things in terms of the functional dependence of variables that human knowledge is able to blossom forth.

The positivist approach, on the other hand, has proved itself very fruitful in the development of the theological sciences. Scripture studies which had languished for centuries underwent tremendous development when the positive approach became standard. And in recent years other studies, particularly the study of liturgy and the sacraments, have expanded under the same influence. And moral theology is undergoing the same transformation today under the same impetus. This being the case, a much better preparation for the fuller unfolding of the mystery of Christ in its relation to man during the study of theology would be a solid background in the sciences which form the basic positivist approach.

Now while the positivist approach can indeed show out-standing results in the cognitive content of certain areas of knowledge within the broad field of theology, it can not be denied that because its fields of study can have no intrinsic connection to theology, it suffers in relation to theology from the same difficulty that the Aristotelian approach suffers in relation to science, namely theoretical triviality. Whereas philosophy can do valuable service in three areas－－the background of human knowledge on which the faith is built, the expanded understanding of the faith through analogy and the defence of the faith through its ability to demonstrate truth, falsity and necessity－－the social sciences or any other field of knowledge using the positivist approach can do only one service in the area of the background human knowledge on which the faith is built. The reason why the approach is so limited in relation to theology is the lack of an adequate notion of causality. When final causes were consciously dispensed with as irrelevant to the advance of science and efficient causality was reduced solely to physical agents interacting among themselves, science arrived at a position where it was unable to contribute anything other than trivia to the unfolding of the mystery of Christ. For a field of study which denies final causality can not in fact contribute to the unfolding of what is the final cause of all human activity and the cause of causes. And the underdeveloped notion of efficient causality in science leads us to trivia. Suppose we were talking about the ascension of Christ. "The only thing that such an approach could contribute to this topic would be something on the interdependence of variables such as oxygen, pressure and the human body at various levels of ascent. So outside of general background knowledge the contribution of science be it physical or social will be very limited indeed whereas the contribution of philosophy by the very nature of the field of study will be quite superior.

These, then, are the basic positions and the basic arguments for and against philosophy or the sciences as the more suitable field of knowledge to be coupled with theology in the major seminary curriculum. However, since dialectical thought has a great effect on our age, there is a growing tendency in practice to arrive at a synthesis of these two conflicting positions whereby individual questions are studied from both the philosophic and the scientific points of view, noting what each area of knowledge has to contribute to a fuller understanding of that topic. It is interesting, of course, that this is the position which had developed in theology in the post-scholastic period. But there is indeed sound rescuing behind such a procedure in the philosophy curriculum which gets right at the heart of the contemporary controversy concerning knowledge. Because what is popularly considered a conflict between theology and science－－sacred knowledge and secular－－is really the historical and unresolved conflict between the two great branches of secular knowledge, philosophy and science. What this means is before any new synthesis can be developed between secular and sacred knowledge, secular knowledge must first set its own house in order. In short, if Thomas Aquinas were alive today, his first task would be to unify science and philosophy, a need which did not exist in his day. Only after that could he turn to the synthesis of human knowledge and theology.　

1.DECREE ON PRIESTLY TRAINING of Vatican Council II, V, 14.

2.IBID., V, 15.

3.Etienne Gilson, THE PHILOSOPHER AND THEOLOGY. (New York: Random House, 1962) p. 217.

4.SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES, Bk. I, Chap. 4, No. 3.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by: Holy Spirit Seminary College

作者：刘赛眉年份：1979

引言：

卡尔．巴特(一八八六年至一九六八年)被认为是继路德及加尔文之后，改革宗教会所产生最伟大的神学家之一。巴特的着作甚为丰富，其中以「教会教义学」(Church Dogmatics ) 一书最具代表性，此书共五卷，阐释信仰之主要内涵。正如一般神学家们对巴特的认识，巴特的整套神学乃以基督为中心。这位出生于瑞士，却受教育于德国的神学家，年青时曾受十九世纪所流行之自由主义所影响，尤其崇拜哈纳克(Harnack) 与鹤曼(Hermann) 两位自由主义者。巴特早年曾与卜仁尔(E.Brunner ) 和步特曼(R.Bultmann) 携手创立一学派，此学派被称为「辩证神学」(Dialectical Theology )或「危机神学」(Crisis Theology)。稍晚，巴特脱离二人而自成一神学体系。综观巴特的整个思想背景，除了在神学上曾受到自由主义之影响外，在哲学方面则受到祁克果之存在主义、托斯也夫斯基、康德，以及黑格尔等人的哲学所感染，而中古世纪的神学家安瑟莫(Anselm ) 和近代的石莱马赫要算是影响他的神学思想定型的最得力者。一方面，巴特虽然受到当代不同思潮的刺激和影响，但另一方面，他的整套神学仍不失去以圣经为基础的特色。自从巴特公开扬弃自由主义，后来又与步特曼和鹤曼二人分手之后，他的神学特点更为彰显。这位会被视为「新正统主义者」的基督神学家，其后期的神学发展，特别注重神学的「客观性」与「历史性」。在巴特的神学思想中，值得注意的是其立论似乎与正统神学站在同一立埸，而事实上他另有解释，此亦为他获得「新正统主义者」雅号之原因。

巴特对「启示」以及「罪和救思」皆有独特之见解。他的启示论与救恩论未必人人能接受，但无论如何，巴特的神学常常具有其「创造性」。他在教授神学时，经常鼓励学子们独立思考，开发个人的思想领域。此外，他的神学又非常因时制宜，切合现况，他教导弟子们在研究神学时，必须一手拿着圣经，另一手拿着报纸，把神学拍合于目前的时代。由于巴特神学的复杂与丰硕，任何人欲把他的思想摘要介绍，都是一件不容易的事。本文只集中于探讨他庞硕思想中的一点，就是他的「成义论」(On Justification)。一直以来，「成义」的道理曾被视为「基督教」与「天主教」分裂的核心教义之一，但经过龚．汉斯(Hans Kung) 神父对巴特成义论的分析与介绍之后，发现巴特的成义神学与天主教的教义并非全无可接触之处。当然，巴特并不足以代表整个基督教对成义的看法，但总算是有交谈的可能。龚．汉斯神父最近虽曾因某些着作含有「可疑」的思想而受到训导权方面的注意，但当他介绍巴特的成义论并与天主教的成义道理比较时，卡．拉纳(Karl Rahner ) 神父曾说：龚神父所论述的诚为天主教的正统教义。再者，在龚神父介绍了巴特的成义论之后，巴特本人亦曾表示龚神父对他的思想了解颇正确。本文乃以龚神父所着：「成义－－巴特的教义与一位天主教徒的反省」(1) 一书为出发点，并辅以其他参考资料(2)，汇通之后，发表而成。本文且分下列数点讨论：

一、巴特成义神学的中心思想

二、龚．汉斯对巴特成义论的反省

三、卡．拉纳对龚汉斯的反应

四、一点反省

　

一、巴特成义神学的中心思想

路德曾认为「成义」(Justification) 是整个基督教最基本和最核心的教义，这端教义有决定基督教之盛衰的能力。路德论到成义的问题时，主要是面对着中世纪的经院神学，更由于路德对罪的深刻体会，以及对人性彻底败坏的肯定，致令到他强调罪人的成义乃「外在的称义」。巴特在论述罪人成义的问题时，与路德的观点稍有分歧。一方面，巴特亦认为人性已因罪而完全败坏，罪人之所以能够成义完全是靠耶稣基督，所以他的成义论是以基督为中心的。另一方面，巴特并不把成义的道理视为基督教的核心教义和焦点。他认为成义的道理非常重要，亦很困难，但它只是基督救恩讯息中很特殊的一面，因为，不论从福音或从教会的历史上去看，成义都不是一个中心问题，只是到了十六世纪宗教改革时，它才呈现为极主要的问题，事实上，加尔文亦没有把成义视为基督教的中心课题。

为巴特而言，一切教义的中心应当是「天主而人的耶稣基督」，而教义神学亦该是以基督为中心的神学。若要瞭解巴特的成义论，则必须同时明白他的「选」的神学。在「选」(Election) 的神学上，他发展了他的「预定论」(Predestination )。天主在耶稣基督内选人的行为，永远是一白白的恩赐，而罪人成义的基础就在这「选」的恩惠上。「选的神学」最能表现出巴特神学的辩证性。在耶稣基督身上，天主选的行为具有消极和积极两面。消极方面，天主选的行动中包含了「拒绝」(Rejection)，不是拒绝罪人，而是天主首先拒绝了自己的儿子，为使一切人在子身上成为父所选的。因为，在人类中，耶稣是首先被「选」而同时又被「拒绝」的一位，在这位同时被选而又被拒绝的耶稣基督身上，罪人才有成义的可能。积极方面，天主「选」的行动在耶稣复活及升天的事件完全实现出来了，天主为自己选了「死亡」与「地狱」，故此祂能够为人类选择「光荣」、「幸福」、与「永远的生命」。

根据巴特的思想，可见天主在耶稣基督身上有「双重意愿」，就是在祂的子身上天主同时说出了「是」与「否」( “Yes” and “No”)。这「选」和「拒绝」的双重意愿，都包含在一个行动之内。简言之，「拒绝」永远是附属在「选」内，这就是巴特的「十字架辩证神学」。这位「受拒绝的被选者耶稣基督」是罪人成义的永恒基础，因着祂，一切被拒绝的罪人都被选为天主子民。亦由于巴特把「成义」与「救赎」相混淆，故有人称巴特的「预定论」为「普世得救论」(Apokatastasis) (3)。既然巴特把「成义」的思想与「选」的概念相连，则其后果必然是「成义」与「盟约」不可分，因为「选」的概念基本上与「盟约」相关。最后，巴特的成义论就在「盟约」的思想范畴中来发展。在耶稣基督身上，天主与人的关系原是「盟约的关系」，所谓罪人成义，就是重新恢复这已毁的盟誓，并使之达到圆满。

巴特曾经尖锐地批判天主教特利腾大公会议的「成义法令」(4)，他认为天主教的成义神学并未严肃正视天主的恩宠行为乃白白之恩赐。在巴特的成义论中，他极关心天主的光荣(Solo Deo Gloria) 。在成义的过程中，人的地位虽非不重要，但天主的公义与慈爱理应首先受到光荣和赞美。巴特认为天主教对于罪人成义的训导使天主的「尊严」和「绝对的统治」受到威胁，换言之，非受造恩宠(Uncreated Grace)的一面被削弱了。

龚．汉斯神父认为巴特对天主教成义神学的批判并不公允，而且很片面。事实上，特利腾大公会议的「成义法令」乃为针对当时的原始基督教派而颁发，尤其是针对路德的思想。路德既认为人性已因罪而彻底败坏，人无能为善，故此人的一切行为皆为罪，纵使人有信仰，亦无能参与在成义的事功内。一切人的成义都是藉着耶稣基督的缘故而「外在地称义」，而非「内在地成义」。为答覆路德、加尔文、以及当时的宗教改革者(Reformers)，特利腾大公会议十分强调成义工程中人的自由参与的一面，也肯定人的一切善行皆有其「功绩性」(Merit)。大公会议认为，罪的确削弱了并损伤了人性，但人性并未曾到完全彻底败坏的地步，人仍有自由行善的可能。然而，由于大公会议的成义法令全力面对路德等人，故实有矫枉过正的可能，轻忽了强调「信仰」的重要性，而这「因信成义」的思想正是基督教所极为重视的一点。

巴特的成义论亦很强调「因信成义」，但是，巴特的「成义只靠信仰」 (Sola Fides)与路德的观点不同。巴特似乎并不排斥「善工」(Good Work)。他亦深知宗教改革者在解释保禄宗徒的「因信成义」这句话时的弱点，圣保禄实没有排拒人的善工。巴特认为善工应置于「信仰」和「爱德」的关系中来解释。按照(迦．5：6) 说：那信德是以爱德行事的信德。换言之，信德应表现在行为上。巴特以为保禄的「因信成谢不仅不排除善行，反而说出了人必须自由行善，当保禄说这句话时，主要是在「成义不靠法律」的背景和上下文中说出来的。倘若善工是爱德的行为，而爱德又必须出自信德，如此，巴特最后仍能在不排拒善工的情况下说：「成义只靠信仰」。龚神父认为，值得注意的一点是：巴特从不把信仰本身视为善工，为他而言，信仰乃一恩赐。毕竟，巴特的成义论其重点仍置于天主的能力与慈爱上，这也就是他摈斥特利腾大公会议的「成义法令」的理由了。

巴特与路德很不相同的一点是他清楚地论到了罪人的「内在成义」。巴特并没有否定原始基督教所说的「宣布成义」，但他却修正了它的意义。巴特认为，罪人成义并非是一空洞的、外在的事。他认为我们的成义的确有一如在法庭上宣布人为义人的成份，但这「宣布」是真实和有效的。由于这是天主的宣布，故此它不仅创造了罪人成义的事实，而且还启示了它。职是之故，巴特的「宣布成义」可以毫无保留地称为「内在成义」。他也曾举例说：基督徒不能相信一句(或一部份) 没有效果的信仰陈词，就如我们都接受那句宣布「耶稣已由死者中复活」的句子，因为它不是空洞的，而是绝对有效的宣布，巴特由此结论：罪人不只是外在地称义，而是真实地在天主面前成义。

在巴特的思想中，「成义」与「圣化」原是一体两面的事，均为天主在耶稣基督内与世界「和好」的行动，但这行动包含了两面。从天主方面来看，这「和好」的行动就是天主在耶稣基督内的「下降」与「提升」人类，从人方面来看，这就是「成义」和「圣化」。既然两者同属一行动，故一者完成则另一者亦同时完成。论到「和好」与「成义」之间的关系，巴特以为「成义」只是「和好」中颇重要的一面，而非等于「和好」。

二、龚．汉斯对巴特成义论的反省

龚神父认为巴特无意与天主教争论，但由于巴特对天主教的「圣经与传承」、「首席权」、「圣母学」……等等的了解，而导致他对天主教的「成义论」有误解。龚神父不完全接纳巴特对特利腾大公会议的批判，但无论如何，巴特的看法，的确代表了某些基督教神学家的意见，而最有意义的是某些在基督教神学界领先的学者都放弃了纯粹外在称义的理论。

事实上，路德的「外在成义论」之所以能够在当时有如此大的影响力乃基于三个理由：第一、他的神学相反当时的形式主义，要求宗教有强烈的精神生活，第二、恢复天主在成义工程上的「领先」地位，反对人以行善自夸，第三、路德的成义论产生于教会正处于极度黑暗的时期，当时许多信徒皆视罗马教廷为恶的根源，而路德的成义论多少亦针对那由于生活放肆而不相称于继承伯多禄首席地位的基督代表所造成的恶劣境况。

教会的生活原来就与神学休戚相关，龚神父曾认为，神学乃生命之学，生命就是神学反省的素材，若神学与生活脱节，它使很容易流于僵冷而成为一套抽象的概念。教会的生活可以使神学的反省更为丰硕，但另一方面它亦可能是抑制神学正常发展的原因之一，在路德的时代便产生了这样的情形。龚神父批判巴特过于重视「十字架的辩证神学」。此外，巴特与特利腾大公会议是站在两个不同的立场土来看成义的问题，巴特以为「成义」首先是：天主在耶稣基督的死亡与复活中对人(救恩性) 的判断，而特利腾大公会议则重视「成义」在人身上的过程。龚神父认为这两个立场不仅不彼此冲突，而且相辅相成，互为补充。巴特所注重的是「客体的成义」，即天主在十字架上所完成的救援工程，而特利腾大公会议所谈到的大部份是「主体的成义」，即是注重人的努力合作。正如特利腾大公会议并无意排除成义中「信仰」的一面，同样，龚神父以为巴特亦并未否定「主体成义」的一面，这一无可由巴特主张「内在成义」一事上见到。然而，由于巴特在批判特利腾大公会议的「成义法令」时，极力把持自己的立场，以自己所瞭解的成义概念来抨击特利腾大公会议的法令，致使他不能估计到主体与客体成义原是一体两面的事。巴特所指的「成义」其实正是天主教所谓的「救赎」(Redemption)，而这救赎特别是指耶稣基督在十字架上死亡复活的客观事实，与人类接纳此救赎工程的主观事实稍有分别，而后者便是天主教所说的「成义」了。龚神父以为，巴特所说成义的三个因素，特利腾大公会议从未曾忽略，这三个因素就是 (1)罪赦；(2)赐予天主子女的权利；(3)赋予永生(5)。唯一的问题是巴特过份强调成义的「末世性」，视成义为一许诺。

另一个在「成义神学」土争论的课题，就是路德所说的那句名言：「同时是罪人和义人」(Simul Justus et Peccator)。在人的经验中，这句话本来是不必争论的，这是每个人都可以经验得到的事实。可是，由于路德对这句话另有解释，放在神学上曾一度引起两教的激烈争辩。龚神父认为，倘若能够正确地解释这句话，天主教是不难接受其为真理的。首先，他指出在罗马天主教的礼仪经文中的确肯定了这个事实，特别是在弥撒中。倘若「同时是罪人和义人」这句话只是要描写出义人身上也有罪这件事，神学上是不必争论的。但现在问题的症结却在于：如何可能一个既然已真实地成义的人又同时真实地是罪人？整个是义人而同时又整个是罪人？对于这个问题，必须谨慎回答，否则便会产生两种可能，或者说人是真实的成义，整个是义人，而罪人则是不真实的，又或者说，人是真实的罪人，整个是罪人，而成义只是外在的。路德正是后者的代表，强调人彻头彻尾为罪人，故成义只是外在的。

现且先看特利腾大公会议的训示：(一)成义的人，一方面仍有犯罪的能力，另一方面又不断在追求成全。(二)成全是一由上赐下的恩惠，非源于人自身，人必须在基督内不断地去接纳此恩典。

至于巴特，他是以罗马人书第七章为基础。他以为，不论人怎样诠释这一章圣经，总不能否定在人身上有两种势力彼此冲突的事实，而圣保禄在这段圣经中描绘这事实为「有罪的旧人」与「成义的新人」之间的争斗。

龚．汉斯的解释一方面假定了特利腾大公会议的思想，另一方面则在神学上从「时间」、「贪欲」和「罪」等观念去反省「同时是罪人和义人」这句话的意义。首先，龚神父解释，在人身上，时间并非完全是独立约三段，即，过去、现在、与未来。相反，在人的生命过程中，时间是一不止息的「流」，这「流」包含了三个时刻，而这三个时刻结合为一整体，都属于我，是我的「流」，是我的过去：我的现在与未来。「过去」虽成为过去，但仍包含在我的「现在」内，同样，对于「未来」亦然。换言之，目前的「义人」和过去的「罪人」都在我的「流」之内同时奔湍，直到天主一次而永久地把「我的流」转化为永恒的「现在」。

其次，龚神父引用拉纳神父的思想来阐述「败坏」的观念。路德所谓的「败坏」乃指人彻头彻尾为罪人，根本没有善可言，因此否定人身上的「善工」的价值，以为善工只是一「标记」。但为特利腾大公会议而言，这「败坏」只相当于「贪欲」，犯罪后的人性，并非彻底败坏，只是受伤，在他身上有「贪欲」存在，这「贪欲」被喻为「引火木柴」，极易导人于罪。在义人身上仍有这罪的趋向，但贪欲非罪，只有当人同意贪欲而付诸行动时方为「罪」。罪从来不只是个人的事，它常是违反基督及其肢体的行动。在教会身上，「同时是罪人和义人」亦是一事实。教会是至圣的，但同时是罪人的团体，至圣性和有罪性之所以能够并存于教会内，乃由于教会的「圣」并非完全来自其成员的圣德 (虽然也重要)，而是源自耶稣基督。她的圣非由她本身的言语和行动所赋予，而是产生于基督的训诲与圣事，教会的「至圣性」之不可毁灭乃是由于基督救恩不可毁灭之故；另一方面，这至圣的教会却由有罪的肢体所组成，为此，「有罪」和「至圣」这两股激流在教会的生命中同时并进而产生了一种张力(Tension)，牵引着她走尽旅途的历程。)

最后，巴特的成义论是奠基在「光荣只归于天主」(Sole Deo Gloria ) 以及「因信成义」(Sola Fides) 上。龚神父以为若正确解释这两句话，这两句话不会与特利腾大公会议的成义法令有大冲突。论到成义只靠信仰时，巴特把信仰从两面来分析，一方面它是天主的恩赐，这恩赐使到一「新的存在」(或「新人」) 诞生；另一方面，信仰亦是人的行为。至于特利腾大公会议对信仰的看法则是：信仰既是行为又是灌注的德性(In-fused Virtue)，后者是言明信仰乃一由上赐下的恩典，前者则指出，在人身上，信德为一行为。若按照巴特封信仰的分析，「因信成义」的话并非完全不能接纳。

至于「光荣只归于天主」(Solo Deo Gloria)，龚神父以为，巴特是误解了特利腾大公会议所说的「合作」。巴特既认为成义只是父在子内所完成的工程，故此很难容纳「人的合作」这个思想。事实上，巴特的困难第一是来自「词汇」的运用；其次是来自他对「合作」的误解。巴特所说的「成义」其实就相当于特利腾大公会议所指的「救赎」，特利腾也没有说救赎工程(指耶稣在十字架上的工程) 是需要人合作才完成的，而不是基督所独力完成的事件；至于特利腾大公会议所说的「成义」，则指人的主观得救过程。在人接纳救赎这件事上，则需要人的合作，而这「合作」是「参与」(Involvement) 之意，而非指「同工」(Collaboration)。同时，在「盟约」的概念下，天主亦要求一位主动合作、积极参与的「盟侣」，故此祂仍愿意保存人回应的自由及选择的能力。

特利腾大公会议所指的「成义」，非指一半来自天主，另一半来自人。它亦强调如无天主的恩宠，人一无所能，天主是独力工作，而人的参与则是「被动」中的「主动」，天主在成义一事上是完全「领先」的，为此，人的合作毫无减损「天主的光荣」。

对于「成义」和「圣化」的关系，龚神父以为二者乃一体两面的事。如果成义被了解为「罪之赦免」，「圣化」则为「成全」(包括圣洁、与天主的友谊等)。在救恩的秩序上，「成义」先于「圣化」，后者是基督徒在其生命中发展他在成义中所领受了的圣洁及仁义之恩典。

论到「功绩」问题，龚神父以为，原始基督教所反对的是法利塞式的功绩：人凭善工而自夸，不再全心信赖天主。其实，对于这一点，天主教明显的也不会赞同，然而若把「功绩」看成是天主的「酬报」实无不可。虽然人的行为常不相称于天主的酬报，但总不能把此事一笔勾销。

三、拉纳神父对龚、汉斯的反应

拉纳神父指出，龚神父所介绍的天主教成义道理无疑是正统的教义，但是，他所提出来的大部份是天主教教义中可与巴特神学相合的一面。虽然，龚神父的道理与教会的正统训导并无冲突之处，但这并非说，他的思想及解释已足够清楚，毫无引起人误解的成份在内。单就成义与圣化的关系而言，拉纳便认为有再详细探讨和解释的需要，而拉纳神父亦曾写一文，对「成义与圣化」以及「信与爱」之间的关系大抒己见(6)。

对于「同时是罪人和义人」的问题，拉纳神父认为它在过去虽曾成为两教在神学上的争辩点，但为今日的信徒来说，这个问题不应再是造成两教分裂的问题之一，而应当成为两教都共同面对而反省的「神修」问题。除非大家都反省到自己在天主前是怎样的一个存在，否则，只在理论上争辩是徒费精力。在天主前人永久是罪人，但另一方面亦很深地体会到天主恩宠的临在使他成义，这是任何信徒都有的基本经验。事实上，路德所主张的人性已彻底败坏的思想，已逐渐随着社会思想型态的变迁而削弱，今日在人文主义思潮的影响下，甚至信徒，对于人性尊严和自由负责的肯定，人已感到自己是理所当然的活在天主的慈爱之中，罪人的意识已逐渐转弱。

此外，拉纳神父认为，过去天主教拒绝「同时是罪人和义人」这句话是因为它未曾清楚地表达出天主的恩宠和能力真实地和彻底地改变人。在耶稣基督的死亡里，人已越过了死亡的边界，由天主的行动切实地在人身上产生效果一点来看，人在天主前能够真正是「义人」，而非「外在地成义」。另一方面，天主教能够同意这句话的，是它可以表达出人不能完全确定自己的得救的思想。人既不能确定自己的得救，故需要时常寄望于天主。一方面他虽然是义人，但另一方面他身上仍然有罪，至少是小罪。拉纳神父指出，自从奥古斯丁以来，教会使强调人常为罪人，而这样的思想从未由特利腾大公会议所撤除。小罪使人不断地回归天主，乞求宽恕。并且，人尚在旅途中，他的「信」和「爱」亦是在过程中，人必须不断地自由去选择天主，而选择天主的这个人又是来自亚当和厄娃的后裔，为此，人常悬于两极之中：一端是起点(或出发点)，在这一点上正说明他是来自沦落的境况，而目前他不断地离开这个起点，朝向终点，另一端就是这终点和目标，这目标他现在已在信和望中拥有，但仍未完全获得，如此，旅途中的人常是在两极的张力中前进，在此意义下，我们可以说人「同时是罪人和义人」了。

四、一点反省

正如拉纳神父曾说，龚神父是一位相当敢于冒险的神学家。龚神父面对巴特的成义论，在天主教的立场上以冒险的精神探讨了教会的训导与巴特神学的异同。虽然，有时候他的确越过了教会训导的领域而推出了一些不是每人都同意的论断，但无论如何，他在成义论上的探讨，在神学界里获得了一个惊奇的后果：就是一位伟大的基督教神学家竟同意他所介绍的成义论。虽然他的成义论尚有不少可商榷之处，但我们却不必因为基督教神学家对他的成义论的接纳和同意而认为他的神学思想是「非天主教」的。另一方面，既然巴特的成义论不足以代表一切基督教神学家的思想，故此我们亦不能就此下结论说，天主教与基督教已在「成义」的教义上「合一」了。若如此，结论未免下得过早或太草率，而且龚神父的成义神学也不一定可以代表所有神学家(天主教) 的意见。无论如何，在巴特与龚汉斯的交谈中，显示出「成义」的问题并未走进死巷。巴特的思想相当复杂，有时侯亦甚为隐晦艰涩，如果真正要了解他的成义神学，恐怕非要进入他整个神学思想的脉胳中不可。除了「成义」的问题之外，巴特对天主教的「首席权」、「圣母学」…… 等问题都另有见解，值得斟酌。

在神学上，两教对「光荣只归于神」、「恩宠唯一」、「信仰唯一」，以及「圣经唯一」等基督教原则曾奋战多年，如今在巴特的成义神学里，这些原则同样出现。其实，所谓「善工」、「功绩」，以及「合作」等问题的争辩还不是基于上述的原则！正如一位神学教授(卫格神父) 在介绍保罗．田力克的思想时说，基督教的原则基本上是一「先知的原则」，反对一切「偶像」，甚至是圣经的文字本身。一切只归于神。

至于「同时是罪人和义人」的问题，虽然在实际经验上是不必争论的事实。但过去在神学上的争辩亦并非全为无谓的角逐，因为这个问题触及其他的信道以及基督徒的「人学」问题。

另一位神学家Henri Bouillard也同样介绍及评论过巴特的成义论，但他对巴特的看法与龚汉斯所介绍约有些不同。在后者的介绍中，认为巴特并未排斥善工，而且亦主张成义只靠信仰。可是H.Bouillard却说，以信仰为人的行为而言，巴特主张成义不靠信仰，也不靠善工，而只靠耶稣基督，因为整个人类已经在耶稣基督之内成义了。对于善工的问题，两人的介绍与评论亦不同，在H.Bouillard的介绍中，善工为巴特几乎只是一「标记」，而龚神父则以为巴特没有否定善工的价值。到底他们两人谁更瞭解巴特的思想？这一点恐怕只有巴特自己本人才能决定。然而，他们二人都同样认为巴特是误解了特利腾大公会议「成义法令」中「合作」的思想。

在此，我们并无意去解决成义神学上许多神学家都解决不了的问题，这亦不在我们的能力范围之内。直到今日，成义论仍被视为一「争辩的神学」。笔者不敢自诩已抓住上述几位欧洲神学家的思想精髓，特别是巴特的神学，既然着名的神学家对巴特的思想尚且感到了解不易，我们更不敢说已正确地把握了他的神学思想。只是，既然在神学的历史上，这个问题曾引起激烈辩论，笔者只是努力尝试把几个有关成义的重要课题及其争论内容介绍出来，让读者一窥端倪。许多问题，我相信日后仍会不断地交谈下去，也需要继续的交流，以求进一步的瞭解。今日在神学的探讨上，神学家们都颇有开放的态度，两教的神学比前具有更深的接触，在彼此冲激、互相启发之下，也许对某些真理会更清楚、更能够得其要领！

　

1.Hans Kung, “Justification－－The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection”, N.Y. 1964.

2.Karl Rahner, “Justified and Sinner at the same time” in "Theological Investigation”, vol.6 p.p.218-230.

Karl Rahner, “Barth"s agreement with the Catholic doctrine of Justification”, in “Theological Investigation”, vol.4, p.p.189-198.

苏恩佩著，基督教神学思想简介，校园团契出版。

司徒焯正著，近代神学大路线，证道出版社。

3.普世得救论：巴特并没有明言「普世得救」的理论，但由他「选」的思想上看必会导致这样的后果。参阅苏恩佩着：「基督教神学思想简介」第一四二至一四三页。

4.特利腾大公会议的成义法令可参阅Karl Rahner 所编的 “The teaching of the Catholic Church” 中论「恩宠」的那部份。p.p. 382-397。此法令一共有十五章。

5.见「成义法令」( D.792-796 )。

6.见Karl Rahner, “Barth’s agreement with the Catholic Doctrine of Justification” in "Theological Investigation" , vol.4 , p.199

作者：汤汉 Tong, John 年份：1979

(甲) 奥古斯丁的简略生平

奥古斯丁(A.AUGUSTIN) 在公元三五四年，生于北非达迦斯特城(TAGASTE)。父亲是商人，性情凶暴；母亲乃虔诚基督徒，性格温良。因此，奥氏兼具纵欲及虔诚的倾向。青年时，奥氏不但天赋甚高，通习拉丁文学、希腊文学及修辞学；而且血气极盛，生活放荡不羁。曾信奉摩尼教，主张宇宙善恶二元论；三十岁后，开始在意大利接触基督宗教，同时亦研读柏拉图著作；不久皈依基督宗教，且成为神父，位至主教。死于公元四三○年，罗马帝国崩溃之前夕，享寿七十有六。他写下了自己的墓志铭：「什么使得基督徒的心沉重？因为他是朝圣的香客，渴望着自己的国度」。(注一)

(乙) 著作「论神之城」的动机

奥氏毕生著作甚丰，多至二百三十二部，包括自传、哲学、神学、释经、伦理等广泛问题。他的文笔优美，充满崇高的理想和意境；立论精深，足以发人深省。而「论神之城」(THE CITY OF GOD) 一书更是奥氏最伟大的杰作，可以称为欧洲第一部历史神哲学。

奥氏动笔写「论神之城」时，是在哥德人摧毁罗马城(四一○年)后三年，即四一三年，一直到十三年后，即四二六年，才告完竣。在这段罗马帝国垂危的日子里，北欧中欧的蛮族正组成联合阵线，由各方向帝国攻击，不但使罗马军队四方受敌，并且使帝国到处遭焚掠。吊念古代的人，乃痛惜这个文物兴盛的大帝国的崩溃，嫁祸于初兴的基督教会，说他们崇拜基督，背弃罗马古代所敬神灵，致招神灵震怒，降罚帝国。

奥氏处此多难之秋，目睹世局的混乱，人心惶徨；耳闻对基督教会的嫁祸言论，日益倡盛，遂写了这本「论神之城」。(注二)

该书共二十二卷，分为前后两编。前编由第一卷到第十卷，是奥氏的初步回答，指出罗马的遭受惩罚并不是因为基督宗教，而是因为古代罗马宗教的粗鄙及纵欲；更指出入侵的蛮族赦免了基督教堂以及躲到教堂的人，但是对于残留的异教殿宇则毫不怜惜。后编由第十一卷到第二十二卷，是奥氏的第二步回答，也是他对历史解释的所在，试图根据柏拉图的存在于「天上某处」的理想国之观念，圣保禄的生与死信徒组成的一个社会观念，以及道纳杜斯教派(DONATISM) 之神与魔鬼两个社会之理想，给与世界历史一个普遍性的演变原则。奥氏在这后编中，指出世界由两个象征性城市组成：善城与恶城；神在善城，魔鬼在恶城。人类历史就是这两股力量作殊死战的记录；双方互有胜负，但神将在争斗中获胜，对忠心信仰祂的人给予报偿。(注三)

无疑，这样一本说明人类历史来龙去脉的书，不但给与当时处于黑暗迷惘的人仕一份鼓舞和信心；而且也带给后代的思想一股深远的启发和照明。

(丙)「论神之城」的笔调

奥氏天生极富情感，常有爱与被爱的冲动。他虽然承认亚里士多德(ARISTOTLE) 的论证，以为人可以藉理智追求到最终原因；但是，因为他自身的生活体验，却更喜欢运用情意去追求美善。有了三十三年在功名利禄中打滚的经验后，他最后说出：「我们的心得不到你(神)，便摇摇不安。」的一句祷词。这种情意浓于理智的趋向，早已在他早年的名著「忏悔录」(CONFESSIONS) 中表露无遗。(注四)

原来，约在公元四年，奥氏写了那本十万字的「忏悔录」。它是一本自传式的书，是直接写给神的。在该书的字里行间，他赤裸裸地表露自己皈依神以前的生平事迹，用亲身的经历去证实并宣扬神在罪人身上的奇妙恩典。

由于奥氏一生深受灵肉争战的困扰，故此他在「忏悔录」中记述了很多个人面对善恶抉择的奋斗史。十三年后，当蛮族起来蹂躝美丽和伟大的罗马城时，奥氏遂运用写作「忏悔录」的同样架构，回答整个世界问题，指出这也是魔道与神道之争，而神道终必获胜。所以「论神之城」一书的基本笔调，早已孕育在「忏悔录」内。两者的范围虽不同，但要表达的核心问题却始终一贯。

(丁)「论神之城」对历史的解释

一如旧约创世纪记述神在六日内造成宇宙万物，第七日安息；同样地，奥氏在「论神之城」一书里，把人类历史分成七个阶段。

第一阶段是人类的婴孩时期，从亚当到诺厄。在这阶段内，神道由亚伯尔代表，魔道由加音代表，互相对峙。这时期的人类看重物质生活，精神生活尚在襁褓中，故此有亚当的背命受罚。

第二阶段是人类的童年时期，自诺厄到亚巴郎。在这阶段内，人类的理智渐开，能分别善恶，然而理性及意志尚未能制服力量强大的欲情，故有洪水灭世及巴泊尔塔事件导致的语言分歧。

第三阶段是人类的少年时期，从亚巴郎到大卫。这时期的特征是被神简选的亚巴郎子孙；他们渐渐长成为一个民族，代表神道的发展。

第四阶段是人类的成年期，从大卫到充军巴比伦。在这时期，人类在使用理智的路上，已达到成熟阶段。大卫以后的国势盛极而衰，终至充军巴比伦；这象征魔道的兴盛。

第五阶段是人类的壮年期，从充军巴比伦到基督降生。在犹太民族的衰落中，另有一部份人的精神生活振作起来，一心仰望救主的来临，而救主基督亦果真降临；这象征神道的复兴。

第六阶段是人类的老年期，从基督降生到世界末日。在这一时期，从外面看，人的物质文明继续发展；然而从内部看，人的精神文明进入了老年的衰败期，需要神不断的扶持，以获更新。

第七阶段是人类的完成期，从世界末日到基督第二次再临。这时，魔道将被消灭；基督审判人世的一切善恶；结果恶人受永罚，善人享永福。(注五)

这样，奥氏说明了历史的延续性及统一性。并且在历史嬗变和进步中，他发现一种内在的进化倾向；这种倾向为奥氏是超越和神迹活动的天命。如把这观点与近代哲学家黑格尔(G.W.F.HEGEL)「正、反、合」的辩证史观相比，便有了根本的差异，因为黑氏强调人理性(绝对理念) 的自由，创造历史；而奥氏却强调神的能力，宰制历史。但两者均具有浓厚的历史意识。

奥氏的「论神之城」，不但是欧洲的第一部历史神哲学，而且也为现代西方解释学的发展，奠下了颇有份量的根基。兹介绍如下：

(戊) 对「圣经解释学」(BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS) 的贡献

首先，从「论神之城」的内容，我们可以发觉，奥氏的世界观是十分古老的，他仍然保持圣经时代的那种超自然主义的三层结构的观念，即：神及天使住在地球之上的空间，人类住在地球上，而魔鬼则住在地球以下。可是在奥氏的古老世界观背后，奥氏已开始「非神话化」(DEMYTHOLOGIZATION) 的解释工作，即：寻求神话里面所蕴含的信仰讯息(KERYGMA)，使圣经的信息不至被古老的世界观淹没。比如：在第十一卷第八章，论及如何瞭解神在六日工作后休息，奥氏说：「不当如儿童一般，以为天主在第七日休息，且祝圣了它，是天主太疲倦了。祂曾用永远可懂的话，而非空言，一开口，一切便造成了。

天主的安息，是说在天主内休息的人，如说蓬壁生辉，就是说宅中的人正在欢天喜地，因受了光荣；虽然不是房屋自身，而是使人幸福的原因。

我们亦说：房屋壮丽，使居家者乐也融融；这时我们说：『乐也融融』，是以外包，指点内涵，如同我们说，全戏台都在拍手，原野欢腾，虽然在戏台上是人在拍手，在田野中是草木欣欣向荣；亦以原因指点成效，如说一封喜信，使大家喜悦。」(注六)

又比方：在第十二卷第二十七章，论及人类的同源和女人的产生，奥氏说：「没有比天主只造了一个原祖，由他而传生人类，更好的证据，为劝人避免尚未发生的纠纷；若已发生，为平息它，以保存和睦。

天主由男人的肋骨中，造了女人，是用此事教训我们，丈夫与妻子当如何和睦。」(注七)

从上述的说话里，我们可以领悟：对于奥氏，「神话」有原始人幻想的成份，但并非无意义；相反地，很值得我们用严肃、认真的态度去接受它们，因为它们蕴含宇宙、人生那些最终的真理。

所以把圣经的超自然部份视为「神话」，而要把它们「非神话化」的计划，并非由布勒特曼(BULTMANN) 或现代神学家开始(注八)，早在公元四世纪的奥古斯丁已从事这项工作。

(己)对「人文解释学」(HUMANISTIC HRMENEUTICS) 的贡献

其次，德国哲学家狄尔德(W.DILTHEY, 1833-1911) 曾以人生为全部哲学的研究对象。他所说的人生哲学，实指从人生各方面的经验着手，集合知、情、意的具体和变动的事实，以求得人生的意义。他的着手方法，是把自然科学与人文科学分开。自然科学的研究对象为自然界，按照一成不变的自然律法去研究，以求得外在的认识。人文科学的研究对象是人的活动；人的活动常是变更和内在的，故要求研究者移情同感，以直接及内在的经验去体贴他的人经验。(注九) 而奥氏在「论神之城」一书中，亦涉及这类「人文解释学」。

在第十八卷第三十九章，论及对圣经的瞭解方法时，奥氏认为神藉语言进入人类的生命中，激动人心的不断接纳和回应。他说：「在颁布诫命之前，梅瑟已指定了教导圣经的人；圣经称他们为引领人，即将圣经引至弟子心中，或更好说引弟子至圣经中。

所以任何民族不可自夸在学识方面，比我们的圣祖及先知更早，因为他们有天主的智慧；连埃及虽亦以文化古老自夸，但在智慧方面，亦不比我们的古圣祖更早。因为没有人敢说埃及人在知道文字之前，即伊西斯教他们前，就精通文字学了。

他们的学识，被称为智慧，是天文及类似的智慧，只能训练头脑，而不能教人真的智慧。」(注十)

在第二十卷第十九章，论及讲解圣经的秘诀时，奥氏提出了「以心换心」的位际性解释。他说：「到以精神意义，去懂犹太人以物质意义所懂的律法时，将『使父亲的心归向自己的儿子』；七十贤士以单数代替多数子女们，即犹太人懂律法，如同他们的祖先一样，连先知梅瑟亦在他们中生活过。

这样，父亲的解说，成为儿子的解说时，父亲的心就要归向儿子；儿子如父亲感觉时，儿子亦要归向他们的父亲。七十贤士本则说：『人的心归向他的近人』。谁比父子更为亲近呢！」(注十一)

因此，奥氏的解释法要求解释者，重新设身处地去体会说话者的思路和意境，使说话永恒存在的一面继续被体验出来，以应验我国旧祠所谓「将你心，换我心，方知相忆深」之意。

无疑，「论神之城」一书的史实包括了犹太、希腊和罗马的历史，但着墨不多，也欠缺纯粹的考据和仔细分析。可是在另一方面，奥氏却有深度的洞察力，突破史实的范畴，赋予历史一个全面性的综合，推动历史迈向同一个目标。

总之，「论神之城」不但是「载道」的文学，告示我们历史的意义；也是「言志」的文学，引用了很多诗、词、赋、小说、散文和戏剧，去表达自己最真挚和高尚的情意，以感染读者的共鸣。奥氏要透过这本集合知、情、意的史篇，导引我们在瞭解人类历史时，要用整个生命「跃入」(LEAPIN) 字里行间，用知、情、意去体会片断文字背后的万千气象，谛听静止音符里面的伟大乐章，重建历史的整体，赋与历史真正的生命。

今天，很多人提到近代英国的历史哲学家柯灵乌(R.G.COLLINGWOOD)，称赞他的人文主义的历史观及解释法，说他所受的影响来自狄尔德(注十二)。但我们又岂可忘却奥氏在「论神之城」一书中早已为他们奠下的根基？

(庚)对「存在解释学」(ONTOLOGICAL HERMENEUTICS) 的贡献

此外，「时间」、「存有」、「焦虑」、「死亡」等字眼或内容，亦常出现在「论神之城」一书中，它们也说明了奥氏对解释学的另一面贡献，要在主客分割前，探索和解释人性的根本。

在第二十一卷第十四章，论及人间现世的罚时，奥氏回忆少年求学，常受老师鞭打；直至老年时，对昔日受教育的经过，仍然耿耿于怀，竟情愿死，不愿重度这种生活。于是奥氏写出了自己「被拋掷的存在」及「焦虑」，说「愚鲁无知，也是一种痛苦，当加以避免，所以往往用刑罚强逼儿童去求学，仍然是痛苦的事，有时他们情愿受罚而不求学。

若能任意选择，或者死亡，或者回至孩童年龄，谁不择选死亡？人生不以笑，而以哭开始，无意之中，是预示将来的痛苦。」(注十三)

在第十三卷第十一章，论及人能否同时生死时，奥氏就透过了修辞学的一套说法，表达人生如不经过和把握死亡，就无法回归「存有」。他说：「人在死亡中，没有比死亡更恶的，除非是不能死去的死亡。」(注十四)

上述奥氏的说话，与现代哲学家海德格(M.HEIDEGGER, 1889-1976) 在他的代表作「存有与时间」(BEING & TIME) 所描述的「此有」(DASEIN) 之自我发现、自我展露及自我说明，是互相辉映的。因为海德格说明了「人生」最基本的性相是瞭解；而人在瞭解自己的存有时，首先发现的是自己被拋掷在世界中；这个「在」是人内在于自己，而世界却展露在他之前，世界同时也包围着他；因此，「此有」展露其自身是一个正在追求目的之存有，同时也展露世界上的一切与官现此目的之关系。对于海氏说，死亡的真正意义，在于展露人生的有限性，因而督促如此人生在有限的存有时间中，去追求人生的满全。(注十五) 事实，海氏不单在「存有与时间」一书说过：「死亡是人存在最基本的方式。」(注十六) 而且在一九六四年的一次演讲里亦说过：「一个死亡前死亡过的人，在死亡时将不会死亡。」(注十七) 可见奥海二氏的说话十分相近。

虽然，奥氏与海氏的存在解释学均是层层向内的抽丝剥茧；毕竟海氏只完成了人的存有的思索，尚未能确切告诉我们什么是存有；而奥氏在千多年前已经在这存在解释学的骨架内，注入了鲜血和生命，即「神」本身。这就奥氏伟大过人之处。

(辛)结语

总括说来，「论神之城」一书的思想深度及文体光华，确已攀上了中古世纪神学、哲学及文学的最高境界；这是毋庸置疑的。但对于这本书在解释学方面的伟大贡献，至今尚未被人多加注意和深入探讨。故希望本文能收「拋砖引玉」之效。

(注一) PAPINI著，光启社译，圣奥斯定傅，上海土山湾印书馆发行，一九三六年，页一至二五。

汤清著，奥古斯丁的生平著述及影响，见于：奥古斯丁选集，香港基督教辅侨出版社，一九六一年，页九至五九。

威尔社兰(W.DURANT) 著，幼狮翻译中心译，拜占庭伊斯兰及犹太文明，幼狮文化事业公司出版，一九七四年，页九九至一一四。

(注二) 圣奥斯定著，吴宗文译，天主之城上册，台港商务印书馆，民国六十年，页一：译者序；作者序：本书的目标及内容；圣奥斯定对天主之城，在校对时的话。

(注三) 威尔杜兰著，拜占庭伊斯兰及犹太文明，页一一○至一一二。

(注四)圣奥斯定著，应枫译，忏悔录，台注光启出版社，一九六三年再版，页一。

(注五)圣奥斯定著，天主之城，下册，特别是页五四七至五五○，页五八三，页六二四，页九六七至九六人。

罗光著，历史哲学，台湾商务印书馆，民国六十二年，页一一○至一一一。

(注六)圣奥斯定著，天主之城，上册，页三七五。

(注七) 同上，上册，页四四O。

(注八)R.PALMER, HERMENEUTICS, N0RTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY PRESS, EVANSTON, 1969, p.p. 34-38, 48-54.

苏恩佩著，基督教神学思想简介，校园团契出版社，一九七一年五月二版，页二一至二七。

(注九)R.PALMER, Op, Cit., p.p. 98-123

罗光著，历史哲学，其一三七至一四一。

(注十)圣奥斯定著，天主之城，下册，页七二五。

(注十一) 同上，页八五二。

(注十二) 余英时著，历史与思想，联经出版事业公司，民国六十六年七月第三次印行，页二二三至二四六，页二五○。

华许(W.H.WALSH)著，阎子桂译，历史哲学，幼狮出版，民国六十五年，页四一至六六。

(注十三)圣奥斯定著，天主之城，下册，页八八二。

(注十四) 同上，下册，页四五二。

(注十五)R.PALMER, Op. Cit., PP.I24-139. M.HEIDEGGER, BEING AND TIME, HARPER & ROW, N.Y., 1962.

郑圣冲编著，存在的奥秘，台湾商务印书馆，民国六十一年，页八七至一一四。

邬昆如及黎建球著，中西两百位哲学家，台湾东大图书公司印行，一九七八年，页七四五至七五O。

(注十六)M.HEIDEGGER, BEING & TIME, pp.279-311.

(注十七)M.HEIDEGGER, UBER ABRAHAM A SANTA CLARA, in ： THE EASTERN BUDDHIST, NEW SERIES, VOL.1, NO.2 SEPTEMBER, 1966.

作者：劳伯埙年份：1979

(甲)导言

过去十五年间，随着医药的进步，物质生活的改善，以及对主对人的基本态度的转变，度婚姻生活的教友，常遇到不少问题，诸如：人工节育、避孕丸、坠胎、离婚、再婚等；因而神学家对婚姻的探讨，亦多是环绕着这些迫切的牧民问题，以致疏忽了对婚姻是一件圣事的研究。

其实，教会一向都承认婚姻是一件圣事，但碍于过去的圣事神学，太注重圣事的工具性及事效性，故无法产生一套既积极又为现代人所能了解及接受的婚姻圣事神学。教友知道婚姻是一件圣事，但不清楚或没有想过这与他们的生活有什么关系。

本文的目的，并不是提供一套完整而有系统的婚姻神学。事实有不少神学家，已在这方面努力过。另一方面，影响家庭生活的内在和外在因素不少，且因时间、地域的不同，各因素的影响都不会一样。神学家必须常留意这些改变，否则他们的婚姻神学便会沦于空泛。所以本文只是指出迈向婚姻圣事神学(不是婚姻神学) 可走的方向。因此这篇文章分为两大部份。第一部份指出在梵二以前，不能产生一套合理的婚姻圣事神学的原因，说明过去神学没有解答的地方。第二部份则指出今日神学的趋势，注重如何弥补过去的不足，以及怎样使婚姻生活成为教友成圣的途径。

(乙) 梵蒂冈第二届大公会议前的婚姻圣事神学

(一)梵二前教会的训导

庇护十一世「圣洁婚姻」通谕

梵二前，教宗庇护十一世的通谕，可说是教会对婚姻最详细及最完整的训导。它根据圣奥古斯丁所讲有关婚姻三项好处，论及婚姻的本质和法律，并反对当日人们对婚姻的谬论。最后教宗提出各项可以补救时弊及圣化家庭的办法，指出婚姻是基督所建立的「新约」圣事，故此是一个特殊的圣宠标记与泉源，不单赋予恩宠，还赐予其它恩惠，使夫妇们能善度婚姻生活。通谕虽未明文指出，却透过内容暗中肯定，婚姻圣事的施行人是夫妇二人，而不是司铎。(注一)

通谕根据当时的思潮，将生育与教养子女作为婚姻的首要目的，虽然如此，夫妇的爱「可以正确地称为婚姻的首要原因及理由。」(注二) 这使日后神学家对婚姻的讨论，逐步超越了法律及条文的范畴。

特伦多大公会议(COUNCIL OF TRENT)

对宗教改革者所提出的问题，特伦多大公会议所作出的回答及训遵，直至二十世纪中叶，仍深切地影响教会的神学研究。改革者相信人是堕落的，因此否认婚姻是一件圣事；而达尔文 (CALVIN) 更认为婚姻与耕种或修补房屋一样，只是一项俗务而已；故此，如果因通奸或其它重大理由，离婚是允许的。特伦多大公会议的文献论及婚配圣事的部份不多，只强调婚姻是永久不可拆散的结合，所赐予的恩宠是基督在十字架上所挣来的，为圣化夫妇二人，坚定他们的结合，使他们问的爱情臻于完满。

由于特伦多大公会议所着重的，是成义的问题，故讨论也多与圣洗、坚振及圣礼三件圣事有关。对七件圣事的总论很简短，只列出了十三条典章(CANONS)，以针对改革者的错误。(注三) 不过当时教会内的圣事神学，与十五世纪翡冷翠大公会议为亚美尼人合一所颁发的诏书所论及七件圣事的内容完全相同。

翡冷拉大公会议(COUNCIL OF FLORENCE)

这诏书的圣事神学，主要是来自多玛斯的着作：「论信理与圣事」。诏书指出圣事是由三要素组成，「即(一) 圣事的事物(仪式) 作为圣事的质料(MATERIA)，(二) 施行圣事用的经文，作为圣事的形式(FORMA)，(三) 施行圣事的人，必需具有遵行教会所指定的意向；以上三个要素之中，若缺去一项，就不成圣事了。」(注四) 在讨论前六件圣事时，诏书都是根据这三个要素而清楚列明每件圣事的质料、形式及施行人。(注五) 但论及婚配圣事时，则离了这「形」、「质」及施行人的大纲；只是指出这件圣事「是基督与教会结合的标记…‥婚配圣事的成因(CAUSE EFFICIENS) 通常是由于(男女) 彼此言明自己对婚姻的同意。」(注六) 接着，就重覆教父所提有关婚姻约三个好处。只有一煞是肯定的，就是男女二人的同意，形成有效的婚姻。但这圣事的「形」和「质」是什么呢？施行人又是谁呢？诏书未有交代。

虽然这诏书不是一份「不能错误的信理文件」(注七)，但可以反映出，教会直至十六世纪为止，对于婚姻圣事，仍没有一个清晰的认识，或一个有系统的神学。即使在一九三○年，庇护十一世的通谕也只是强调婚姻圣事赋于恩宠，圣化夫妇们。但这圣事与基督徒的生活，有什么关系？在婚姻中，夫妇二人怎样参与基督的救赎及创造？这些近二、三十年来信友所关心的问题，在梵二前，教会并没有清楚回答。神学家的讨论亦多沦为伦理的规条，不但并没有建立一套真的婚姻圣事神学，反而变成建立一个完整的婚姻圣事神学的阻碍。

(二)建立一个完整的婚姻圣事神学的阻碍

从十二世纪始，教会才肯定七件圣事；但可惜，圣事神学一直建基于「形」、「质」的士林哲学，及注重圣事的事效性上；故应用于婚姻圣事，便显得不适当了。除了这原因外，还有下列因素，使神学家迟迟找不到一套完整的神学。

教会历史中对性的观念

在婚姻中，男女二人能合法地(或为社会所容许下) 运用他们与生俱来的生殖及性的机能。故对「性」的态度，自然会影晌响社会与教会对婚姻的看法。

在早期的教会，一方面禁止信友放纵情欲、通奸和一夫多妻制；另一方面，也反对一切宣扬身体是败坏或邪恶的异端，如诺斯论(GNOSTICISM) 和摩尼教 (MANICHAEISM)。这两种异端认为在生育中，灵魂陷入邪恶的躯体内，所以应摒除婚姻，而寻求精神上的超脱。在历史中教会不断谴责这些异端，因此维护了婚姻生活的尊严，视「性行为」在婚姻生活中是正常的。可惜，不少神学家却受到这些异端的影响。最显注的例子，就是奥古斯丁。奥古斯丁认为，性有如动物的行为，不受人的理智所管制，而且所产生的官能满足非常强烈。这一切都要归咎于原罪，因为它创伤了人的本性，使人有了欲情。他认为原罪就是欲情，所以在没有原罪之前，婚姻及生殖子女是一件好事；可惜在原罪后，每一个孩子都可以说是由父母的罪恶中所诞生。但由于人类的繁衍是天主的意愿，故人仍可以结婚；不过每一次房事，就算是以生育子女为目的，都是犯小罪。因此他提出了婚姻约三项「好处」：生育子女、忠诚及圣事。父母应教养子女，使他们敬畏天主，而圣事性使婚姻不可拆散。这样，婚姻成了一种临时的措施，是对人的软弱及欲情的让步。

虽然奥古斯丁对性的观念不会被我们接受，但他始终没有提议要取消婚姻。他所提约三项「好处」，到今天仍被一部份的神学家接受。他们认为当人结婚时，就投身于一个建基于夫妻的爱的团体内，而这团体的存在是为了生育子女，接受「新的受造物」(后格．5：17)。至于夫妇行房事被认为是小罪，到了中世纪后，已不被人接受；而且神学家已慢慢领悟到情欲本身并不是罪恶，遂将奥古斯丁对性的偏差观念改正过来。

另一个阻止教会对性有一个正确中肯的观念的因素，与献身于天主而守贞的问题有关。由于基督本是天主，却空虚了自己，取了人性(斐．2：5-7)，生于童贞玛利亚。所以保禄宗徒推荐童贞的生活，使人能不断地专心事主(前格．7：35)，正如基督为爱我们而舍掉自己的生命一样。为了使人能领悟到童贞的生活，视为一个完全的奉献，宗徒作出了一个比较：「没有妻子的：所挂虑是主的事；娶了妻子的，所挂虑是世俗的事。」(前格．7：34) 他并没有贬低婚姻生活的地位(参看弗．5：32)，只是想指出他的意见(前格．7：25)，认为童贞生活是与主结合的方式之一，使人能将救恩带给整个教会团体。

但自第二世纪开始，贬低肉身及反对婚姻的论说，开始流传。解释童贞生活的意义时，常离开了基督降生救赎这个根基，忘记了基督的话：「有些阉人，却是为了天国而自阉的。」(玛．19：3-12) 而结果将婚姻生活的价值降低。所以在中世纪时，有些神学家认为，婚姻比较修道生活，是次一等的基督徒生活。时至今日，仍有教友保持这种见解哩！

在本文的下一部份，我们见到这思想是何等荒谬！正如保禄宗徒所说，每人都有自己得自天主的恩宠(前格．7：7-11)，故此不能将二者比较，况且基督本身已肯定了贞洁和婚姻两种生活的价值(玛．19：3-12)。

教会婚姻观的沿变

教会对婚姻的观念，可从结婚的礼仪中反映出来。初期的教会和今天不同，对婚礼并没有任何规定。在基督升天后三、四十年间，不管他们是已婚或未婚的信友，都体验到他们已参与基督所带给自己的新生命；而这生命超越世上的一切事务，加以他们一心热切期待救主的再临，所以他们并没有对婚姻和婚礼有什么特别的规定或探讨。保禄宗徒除了在厄弗所人书将基督对教会的爱比喻为夫妻之爱外，并没有清楚地论及婚姻生活的实质及礼仪。他对婚姻生活的教训，无非是为了提醒信友，领洗后应该度一个新的生活。

另一个更重要的原因，就是犹太人本身已有固定的婚礼习俗，婚姻是一夫一妻制，而且更享有为大家所接纳的教义及社会地位。非犹太的基督徒的婚礼也有传统固定的风俗。故此，只要他们接受基督的教训，肯定婚姻的不可拆散及一夫一妻制，和婚礼中没有异教的崇拜或成份，则教会就不再需要作出任何规定。它所关心的，是信友们的生活「在基督内」。

在最初几个世纪里，教会仍采取同一态度，承认教友们依当地的风俗或法律所行的婚姻为合法的。当时罗马人有关婚礼的风俗及法律( 除了下述的例外情况外) 都没有与信仰产生冲突。在罗马建国时，婚礼是一个宗教礼仪，出嫁的女子离开她家族的神，转而隶属于丈夫家族的神，婚礼就是这个入门典礼。但到了基督的时代，罗马人的宗教已衰落及俗化，婚礼才变成普通的风俗习惯，虚有其表。

但罗马人的法律规定，奴隶的婚姻只属同居，而不是婚姻。这是明显地相反教会的立场，因为在领洗后，每一人都是天主的子女，再没有自由人和奴隶之分别了(前格．12：13)。奴隶因此不能被夺去一个合法婚姻的地位。在这情形下，主教可准许他们结婚，而不理睬法律的规定。从这时起，教会使开始立例管理婚姻；若有需要，还将政府的法律搁置在一边。

以后的历史演变，不能在此一一详述。不过由四世纪开始，西方的教会已开始由主教在婚礼中为新人祝福。在此之前，这常是父亲所做的。在东方，司祭也取代女子的父亲，将男女的手放在一起。慢慢教会作出更多的规定，这全是社会环境所导致的。

在罗马帝国衰落时，因野蛮人的入侵，使社会制度受到破坏。各民族在治理其疆域时，常依赖教会已存有的有效行政制度和法律。教会因而需要负起立法的责任，尤其是定出有效婚姻的标准，以防止皇族和地主间的各种婚姻所产生的继承权流弊。在第九世纪，教宗尼各老一世根据罗马的法律，决定男女双方的同意，而不是行房，就构成了有效的婚姻。(注八) 在十二世纪，有人根据日耳曼法律，认为行房后，婚姻才是有效的。所以教宗亚历山大三世，重覆教会的训导，指出男女双方的同意，就构成有效的婚姻。在行房后，成为「已遂的婚姻」(CONSUMMATED MARRIAGE ) 而不可拆散。但「未遂的婚姻」可因其中一人进入隐修院而解除。(注九)

为了证明双方的同意是自愿的，同时也为了查明双方都没有婚姻阻挡，十三世纪的拉脱朗第四届大公会议便明文禁止秘密婚姻。(注十) 到了十六世纪，特伦多大公会议对婚礼作出最明确的指示，婚礼必须由本堂神父(或认可的司铎) 及在两位证人前举行，否则婚姻是无效的。(注十一)

从以上所见，教会对婚姻的规定主要是环境所使然。但对婚姻生活及婚配圣事的意义，没有多大的反省，这点在上文已说过，这是因为圣事神学注重「形」、「质」及功效性，而对属于整个人生活的婚配圣事，便一无效用。但直到十八世纪，整个社会对婚姻的观念，也使神学家对这些问题不关心。在十九世纪前，社会各阶层人士都认为，婚姻为大多数人是理所当然、不用质疑的事。婚姻生活使夫妻二人得到感情和生理上的满足；生儿育女、延宗接代，更是天经地义之事。但自文艺复兴后，西方的思潮便一直受一种以实用及自我为中心的哲学所影响，人的行为的出发点是一个属于现世实用的自我利益。到了十九世纪开始，便有人提出自由恋爱、同居的思想，反对婚姻。

由于整个西方文化，都弥漫着这种以个人利益为中心的思想，神学家虽然不接受，但也难免受到影响。基督徒生活在世上，就是为救自己的灵魂，神学的写作就注重甚么是大罪、小罪，劝人守诫命，避开罪恶，以便升天堂。因此，基督徒在追求自我的得救时，再见不到活在怜人中的基督 (玛．22：34-40 ；前格．13：1-13)。在这情况下，对婚姻的研究，也就停留在法律的层面上。若已婚的教友避免奸淫、人工避孕、离婚……，便会溜入天堂。再加上神学家很少会有婚姻生活经验，而已婚的教友却不提他们所遇到的困难和体验，教会便难以产生一套为人所接受的婚姻圣事神学。

不过，在这种环境下，却产生婚姻的首要及次要目的，在这里，我们只能将问题简略介绍一下。婚姻的首要目的。就是生育教养子女。家庭是社会及文化中最基本的单位，故对子女的培育，自然会影响社会、国家、教会的廷续及将来；所以从社会的观点看，家庭的「功能」(FUNCTION)，就是生育教养子女，以便延宗接代。

在这种思想中，夫妻二人互相爱护及伴侣关系，便成为次要目的。其实，为夫妻来说，这未必一定是他们结合的次要宗旨，尤其是为那些儿女已长大的父母或为没有生育的夫妇而言。不过，从社会的活动及生存来说，这便成了次要的。由于法律主要是以社会的需要而制定，所以圣教法典一○一三条便将生育和教养子女，订定为婚姻的首要目的。

(三)小结

上述是讨论梵二前的婚姻圣事神学，和影响这些神学的因素，指出由于太强调法律的关系，所以神学家只注重婚姻契约及首要目的，夫妇反而成了次要目的；加以机械式的恩宠论，神学家更疏忽研究，夫妇如何在婚姻生活中参与这件圣事。

我们花这样多篇幅，来讨论很多属于历史的问题。表面看来是与本文的主旨－－找寻一个适合现代人心态的婚姻圣事神学无关。不过，不可忘记，我们所处的社会却是与昨天的社会，一脉相承的，忘记了历史，便不能了解现在。我们要重新开始，但却不能将过去一笔勾销。

(注一)韩山城译，近代宗教文猷论婚姻与家庭，台北，一九六四年，页七十九至八十。

(注二) 同上，页七十四。

(注三) 施安堂译，天主教会训导文宪选集，台北，一九七五年，页五○八至五一二。

(注四) 同上，页三九三。

(注五)同上，页三九四至三九八。

(注六)同上，页三九八。

(注七)Neuner, J. & Dupuis, J. ed .,The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, Bangalore : Theological Publications in India, 1973, p.349.

(注八)施安堂译，天主教会训导文宪选集，页二五○ 。

(注九)同上，页二八至二八一。

(注十) 同上，页三一三。

(注十一)同上，页五一一至五一二。

作者：罗国辉年份：1979

(甲) 前言

礼仪乃教会生活行动的顶峰，同时也是教会一切力量的来源(注一)。由于不同的礼仪正表达了教会往不同时代和地域对上主呼召的不断回应，故此在历史上形成了多种礼仪传统(注二)。在芸芸礼仪传统中，可分成两大类别：即西方礼仪和东方礼仪。

译者受洗于罗马礼的传统中，受西方教会崇拜生活的熏陶，但在探讨教会礼仪宝库时，不期然对东方的礼仪传统发生兴趣；况且梵二大公会议也曾说明，东方教会的制度、礼仪传统与教友坐活纪律，均流露着从教父而来的宗徒传统，这正是天主启示的构成部份，同时也是整个教会所共有的财富(注三)。故此对于他们丰富的礼仪和灵修传承，实在需要加以了解、尊重、保存和发挥(注四)。

目前使用金口圣若望(St. John Chrysostom) 的感恩祭礼典的天主教徒和东正教徒，共约二十九百万人(注五)。故此它是东方礼中最多被人使用的礼典。本文特别选译这礼典，一则作为个人对教会礼仪生活探究之增益，二则希望以此作为中国教会本色化礼仪的参考资料。

(乙)东方教会拜占庭礼及金口圣若望礼典简介

拜占庭礼仪本来是拜占庭(君士坦丁堡) 地方基督徒崇拜和施行圣事的方式；因为拜占庭乃当时(公元四世纪) 东罗马帝国的首都，故此在政冶和文化的影响下，这礼仪传统传播得非常广泛，远远超过其他东方礼仪，以至有人以为拜占庭礼即等于东方礼。使用这礼仪的地方，除了整个拜占庭王国外，也包括斯拉夫民族的其他地方，还有耶路撒冷、安提约基、亚历山大等地的宗主教区，同时也有希腊、埃及、俄国及匈牙利等地方的教会。而这礼仪的主要应用语文有希腊文、俄文和保加利亚文等。(由于俄国教会的传播，今日也有许多地方应用本地语文来举行拜占庭的礼仪，比方芬兰语、德语、英语；昔日在中国内地，也曾使用过中文！) (注六)

拜占庭礼仪中，共有三种礼典：就是(一) 最常用的金口圣若望礼典，(二) 是一年只用十次左右的大圣巴西略礼典，和(三) 只在四旬期内某些日子，偶然使用的大额我略礼典。这些礼典很早便在教会中存在和使用；完整地把这三个礼典都记载下来的，是远自公元八世纪的Codex Barberini 抄本，这抄本现正珍藏在梵蒂岗图书馆内。

译者选译的，就是拜占庭礼仪中，最常用的金口圣若望礼典中的感恩祭。译文主要译自Joseph Raya and Jose De Vinck Edited, Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Alleluia Press, 1970.

其他参考译本有：

一、Basil Shereghy Edited, The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, The Liturgical Press,St. John's Abbey Collegeville, Minn., 1961.

二、Casimir Kucharek Edited, The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Alleluia Press, 1971.

三、P. Kuvochinsky Translated, The Divine Liturgy of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Graeco-Russian Church, London Cope and Fenwick,1909.

金口圣若望典礼是否真的出自该圣人手笔呢？为回答这个问题，首先要知道，礼仪是由祷文、圣诗及礼节等组合而成，且圣餐礼自最后晚餐至今，即有不断重覆庆祝和演变；初时，经文礼节并没有固定形式，因时、地、人而各异，经过多个世纪，才构成不同的式样，而每个式样都在不断的使用中有所增减或改变，故此，任何礼典传统都不能绝对地归于某人的手笔，而应该是属于教会，归在某地方教会的传统之内。因此，金口圣若望礼典，应是属于或出自该圣人的地方教会，且为其所属的传统所常用。

关于金口圣若望礼典的来源，有说是源自四世纪末期君士坦丁堡所举行的大圣巴西略礼典，(而这礼典也似乎是改自叙利亚礼的)，后来在五世纪初期由金口圣若望缩短改篇，而成为今日所谓的金口圣若望礼典(注七)。但是经再三研究，按文学传统来说，溯源自圣人的，可能只有「为慕道者的祷文」、「献礼经」和遣散礼中「司铎在经台前诵」；至于感恩经，则非常接近约六世纪时代的叙利亚十二使徒感恩经，故此，这两个感恩经可能有看同一的古老来源，且极可能是早于金口圣若望时代的。(我们可以肯定，在圣巴西略和金口圣若望之前，早已有某种式样的礼仪传统存在了。) 故此，我们没有充份证据说金口圣若望曾改编了这礼典的感恩经，也不能证明他把这感恩经从叙利亚介绍到君士坦丁堡来使用。然而，这礼典以金口圣若望来命名，却是因为他在奉行这礼典的传统中，是个备受敬爱的教父和英雄吧！(注八)

总括来说，这礼典积聚东方教会的历代礼仪宝库，有溯源公元四至六世纪的主要经文，和其后的智慧成果，实堪称为东方礼仪传统的重要典籍。

(丙) 金口圣若望感恩祭礼典的结构

(主礼者穿着祭衣和预备饼酒礼)

平安启应文、(三篇圣咏对经及祷文)、小进堂礼：进堂咏及三圣颂 (主礼者就位)

圣道礼
圣言宣读：(旧约)、新约、亚肋路亚及福音、(讲道)
恳切启应文
为慕道者祈祷及遣散慕道者
信友祷文

圣体礼
大进堂礼：献礼启应文及圣洁生活启应文
平安礼及信经
感恩经
为团结祷文及天主经
举扬圣体及分开饼形
领主体血
感谢及遣散礼：祷文及祝福
(分发余下的祭饼)

注：括号内的礼典译文将从略。

(注一)梵二大公会议礼仪宪章第10号

(注二)礼仪一览表

东方礼

亚历山大
依索匹亚礼(Ethiopian)
高普特礼(Coptic)

安底约基亚东部
玛拉巴礼(Malabar)
加堤礼(Chaldean)　　
内思多略礼(Nestorian)
阿美尼亚礼(Armenian)
拜占庭礼(Byzantine)

安底约基亚西部
玛罗礼(Maronite )
叙利亚礼(Syrian)

挪威
尼达罗斯礼(Nidaros)

西班牙
莫撒拉伯礼(Mozorabic)
班哥礼(Bangor)
海佛特礼(Hereford)

英　国
约克礼(约克郡)(York)
撒伦礼(撒斯堡Salisbury)

西方礼

法国南部
塞尔特礼(Celt)
高卢礼(Gallican)
比尼云多(南部)(Beneventan)

义大利
阿规雷雅礼(北部)(Aquileian)
盎博罗削礼(Ambrosian)
罗马礼(Roman)

修会礼
方济会堂 (Franciscan)
道明会礼 (Dominican)
本笃会礼 (Benedictine)

(注三) 梵二大公会议东方教会法令第一号。

(注四)梵二大公会议大公主义法令第十五号。

(注五) Basil Sherehihy Edited, The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, The Liturgical Press, St. John’s Abbey Minn., 1961, p.5.

(注六)Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, London Catholic Truth Society, 1911, p.p. 396-397

(注七) Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, London Catholic Truth Society,1911, p.118

(注八)Basil Shereghy Edited, T he Divine Liturgy of St. John's Chrysostom, TheLiturgical Press, St, John's Abbey Minn., 1961 p.p.6-7.

作者：嘉理陵年份：1979

The Gospel, whether received as kerygma or as didache, is of its nature the demand for a response. While that response will be yes or no for the one who, because of his situation within the present order of creation, finds himself the recipient of the Gospel as kerygma, for those of us who have already said yes, and for whom the Gospel is thus to be received as didache, the response is somewhat different from the clear dichotomy of yes and no: it is, rather, a further decision to confirm our yes, and by implication deepen it; or the further decision to deny it, and hence to contradict the tenor of our existence. For the response demanded cannot be merely notional, since creation is act, and the creative word of God must achieve its purpose. If we believe, it is not merely to admit that we have heard "the message of the truth and the good news of our salvation" (Eph 1:13, cf Col 1:5), for salvation is existential and the news of it must be realized in a new creation, a creation of which Christ is the first-born (Col 1:15). In entering the truth we enter the realm of divine reality. For if Christ is our life (Col 3:4, cf Phil 1:21), it is so that as he lives in the presence of the Father in love, the communication of that love to us will enable us to live in the presence of the same Father, who has chosen us in Christ before the world began, to be holy and spotless (Eph 1:4, Col 1:22).

This counterpoint of faith and love has always been a central theme of Christian thought. It has, however, been left to recent times to recover that other dimension of New Testament and early Christian thought, the dimension of hope. In a world in which the present seems ever more illusive and the past seems irrevocably past, the future crowds in upon us at an ever increasing pace. If man is still to be master of creation in compliance with the divine command (Gen 1:28-29), that future must not be allowed to assume the form of an idol commanding man's submission. Nor may the Christian simply reject the future in a mistaken loyalty to the past and the present. In the face of the dilemma there is only the answer of Christ and the relationship which, through him, we have with the Father and the Spirit. While all schemes are only partial elucidations of the truth, there is a certain relationship between faith and the past, love and the present, hope and the future. In a theological climate now marked by the emergence of a greater awareness of the value of hope in our Christian lives, it is necessary that we return to the Scriptures in order to recover from them the certainty that Christ is our hope.

The basis for a Christian's hope in God is fundamentally his being a member of the "holy and faithful brothers in Christ" (Col 1:2) for this holiness is that which in the Old Testament was given to Israel - the privilege of being chosen by God to be his own special possession (seghullah : Ex 19:5f etc). Christians are God's new miqra, qodes (Ex 12:16 etc; Col 3:12), his children as he is their Father (Col 1:2). In his Letter to the Colossians, Paul's usual religious greeting links together the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love (Col 1:4; of also 1Cor 13:13; 1Thes 1:3; 5:8 for the triad). The fact that they are so fervently lived out in Colossae is the reason for Paul's constant prayer for the community and his thanksgiving to God. While it is, of course, certain that Paul is not schematizing these three virtues in this passage, there is still a certain relationship set up between faith and the past, love and the present, hope and the future. For the faith of Christians looks to all that has happened the man Jesus, who is now Christ - and more, is now Lord, Kyrios (Col 1:3). The consequence of that faith is the abiding concern with the contemporary Christ - the Christ who not only has ascended to the right hand of the Father as Kyrios but who lives here and now in the brothers who form the Christian Community. Hence it is that faith overflows into the present as communitarian and ecclesial love. Nor does this love in the present exhaust the totality of the Christian commitment, for there is the time of the Church, stretching between the ascension of Christ and his parousia, to be lived out; and since there is still a future dimension to the resurrection, faith must transcend the present and take in the full sweep of human history. Hence there is a hope, for faith projected into the future is hope. Yet the hope that Paul speaks of here is not simply the attitude or virtue of hope (spes sperans) but is an actual gift which will be presented to the Christian (spes sperata) in heaven (Col 1:4). That hope is a motive for our love in the present - not simply in the sense that we love our brothers in order to attain a reward in heaven: the interrelation between love and hope goes much deeper here - the reality and the certainty of that hope which is laid up for us becomes a ground and basis of love in the present, just as faith in the past of Jesus is also its ground. Faith, hope and love are the essential content of the "message of the truth" (Col 1:5, cf. 1:21), and the firmness of faith maintaining us in hope is what lies at the basis of the holy and unspotted nature given us in the reconciliation Jesus won for us in his mortal body on the Cross (Cor 1:21-23). This new election, the objective correlative of the eschatological nature of the Community, is further emphasized in the use of the word kleros (Col 1:12), especially in its relationship to phos. For the kleros of the Old Testament was the land of Israel, but now the heritage or inheritance has passed to the Christians, the new company of the Saints - and it is specified in terms of revelation (phos ), the revelation which was incarnated in Christ, the light of the world (Jn 1:4:9; 8:12; 12:46 etc). This light and its bestowal on the new people of God by the Father are a further basis for a Christian hope, since it dispels that darkness which threatens man, more menacingly from an unknown future than from a conquered past.

While a biblical theology of hope would be more than an examination of words, one must centre it on the text of Scripture. Much light would be derived from that cluster of words which occur at the end of Paul's greeting and prayer for the Colossians: dynamis, kratos, doxa, hypomone, makrothymia and chara (1:11-12) - each of these terms is important in any theology of hope. While much might be said about each one, it will have to suffice here to recall the whole tension of chara-lype which characterizes the Gospel, especially and expressly so in the Farewell Discourse of the Gospel of John. The theme of joy which runs through Luke's Gospel gathers to a climax in the last verse, with the disciples in the Temple eulogountes ton Theon. Apart from the relationship of eulogeo and eucharisteo (the latter occurs in the present context Col 1:12), there is the Temple theme, that centre of the presence of God and the focus of Old Testament hope. The finding of Jesus in the Temple is accompanied by Mary's "odynomenoi ezetoumen se" (Lk 2:48), and we find that in general in the New Testament odynaomai is an eschatological word: it occurs in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, Lk 16:24f ; it is probably also eschatological in Acts 20:38, where the Community's sorrow at leaving Paul is related to the certainty of his coming death; cf. also odune in Rom 9:2, and possibly also in 1Tim 6:10. There is also the concept of Christ's life as a journey to Jerusalem where the Temple was, a concept which is formative in Luke's Gospel: Jerusalem and its Temple, and the suffering it meant for Christ as well as the redemption it meant for us - these are to be related to the temple-body of Jesus in Jn 2:13-25, and the church-body of Christ in Paul, Col 1:24.

This leads naturally to a consideration of hope and suffering: Paul's doctrine of the relationship of his own (and hence of every Christian's) suffering to the sufferings of Christ is an import- and element in a theology of hope, for it is in the face of suffering and death that hope finds its severest test : we think of the poignancy of the elpizomen of the disciples on the way to Emmaus, Lk 24:21. It would seem to be important in considering Col 1:24 that we pay attention to the fact that the sufferings of Paul are pathemata while those of Christ which are to be filled out are thlipsis. This latter word is, in general, eschatological in the New Testament (it is not used for the Passion of Christ in the Gospels). Even though the sufferings of the Christian may be denominated pathemata just as Christ's are (Col 1:24; 2Cor 1:7; 1Thes 2:14 in comparison with 2Cor l:5f, where thlibometha also occurs for Christian suffering), it would seem to be clear that there is no question of their supplying any lack in the pathemata of the Passion of Christ but are taken up into that eschatological suffering which is the continuation of Christ's Passion and which is in fact one of the clear promises that Jesus makes to his disciples when he is about to leave them (Jn 16:33). This is further em- phasized when we contrast Col 1:22 with 1:24. For while Christ's sufferings were en to somati tes sarkos autou, Paul's sufferings are en te sarki mou and are hyper tou somatos autou, which is the Church. While it is certain that Christ's sufferings were utterly human in that they touched his being (soma) through his humanity (sarx) and while it is equally certain that the omission of soma in reference to Paul's sufferings is not meant to indicate that they touched Paul's inner self to a lesser degree, it does seem that there is a certain intentionality in the different phrases, an intentionality which reveals the depth and the true nature of the relationship of Christian suffering to the Passion of Christ. Hence our certainty of victory, linked to that victory of Christ which is proclaimed en parrhesia (Col 2:15). Though the word is adverbial here and means little more, apparently, than "in public", the word itself, denoting as it sometimes does courage or bravery or boldness (1Jn 2:28 etc), is redolent of eschatological victory.

Though many themes might still be uncovered and indicated even briefly, we must finish with a consideration of the phrase which, along with 1:24, might be said to be the most important of the themes in Colossians related to a theology of hope: "Christ within (among?) you, your hope of glory" (1:27). Glory is the object of hope and, in a certain sense, is that hope itself (tes doxes as epexegetical gen.). For inasmuch as hope is a theological attitude relating us to God, its object is being-with-God in perfect fulness, that intimacy which only comes with the resurrection and is our glory. But inasmuch as hope is spes sperata, it is identified with glory, for that is what is laid up for us in heaven. Yet that gift is not simply future: here and now Christ, who in his own body is our salvation and hence our glory, is alive in us, whether in the individual Christian in a divine indwelling or in the Community as such. So Christ is our hope (1Tim 1:1): when Paul tells us that, in relation to the hope placed in annual festivals, New Moons and Sabbaths, Christ is the soma, the reality, (Col 2:16), he can only mean that Christ, both in his person and in his ecclesial body, has become our hope. If we appropriate that hope, if we are truly risen with him, then we are oriented towards the future, towards the ta ano (3:1) which will be given us fully when, at the appearance of Christ in glory, we too shall be revealed in the fulness of that same glory. (Col 3:4).

作者：Dagdag, Teresa 年份：1979

(Righteousness in the Psalms)

I. INTRODUCTION

The 60s and 70s have been a period of great reawakening to the immensity of the problems of injustice that we face today. As technology develops, industry flourishes, and man's perception becomes sharper, man realizes the significance of his participation in creating and tran-forming the world. Not only do we read about the many positive aspects of human growth and scientific advancement; we also become aware of the groaning of man: torture, violations of man's right to a decent wage and livelihood, to the free expression of thought and ideas, violation of respect for human life - in short, the curtailing of human rights and of human growth, of LIFE.

Christianity as a whole has had to meet the demands of our relationship to this modern world of intricate structures. Sin has become better understood in its social context and its social implications have been found to be staggering. Many economic, social, and political structures have come to be considered sinful.

Christians, as a consequence of their reflection on sinful structures in the national and international spheres, have discovered their role, not only in preaching liberation from personal sins of selfishness, pride, and falsehood, but also and more extensively, in helping man to realize the effects of this personal sin in the multitude of networks which can prevent them from becoming fully human. The Christian community continues to seek and search for fresh in-sights and new interpretations of salvation which God could be revealing to us as a response to the human predicament.

The Synod of Bishops produced "Justice in the World" in 1971. In it, the Bishops urged "action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world" (1) and considered it as a "constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel... of the Church's mission for the redemption of the human race and its liberation from every oppressive situation." The Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace was set up, committing itself to the struggle for the promotion and defense of human rights.

The Asian Scene

In Asia, particularly in the Third World nations (and most of Asia is "Third World"), conditions have not measured up to the standard set by the United Nations' "Declaration on Human rights", Vatican 's "Gaudium et Spes", and John XXIII 's "Pacern in Terris". The Asian Bishops singled out injustice as the basic social problem in Asia in 1971. (2) Since this conclusion was reached, a series of reflections on the part of the Asian Bishops has been an on-going phenomenon. The BISA or Bishops' Institute for Social Action articulated the following in their 1974 meeting in Novaliches :

...our people are poor in this sense: the overwhelming majority of them are deprived of the access to the material goods they need for a truly human life, and even of access to the resources they need to produce these goods for themselves.

Our people are deprived of the goods and opportunities to which they have a right because they are oppressed. They live under economic, social, and political structures which have injustice built into them.

Biblical Sources:

It is in the light of the present overwhelming unjust conditions in the world today on the one hand, and of the on-going reflection of the Church on these innumerable situations of injustice on the other, that going back to the Biblical sources becomes imperative for us Christians. The Church as a whole, different Bishops' Conferences in Latin America (Medellin 1968) and in Asia (Manila 1970 and Taipei 1974), and the preparatory materials for the Puebla Conference, have expressed concern for the poverty and oppression of the majority of the people in these continents. The contemporary situation of injustice urges us to understand more deeply the historical and traditional sources of our Christian faith. This process will help us greatly to discover the meaning of justice and to interpret the locus of God's righteousness today. The result of this study and reflection will help us strengthen our motivation and constancy in the cause of justice.

The interplay between God and man and between man and man is very vividly expressed in terms of righteousness or un-righteousness in the OT. An interesting observation regarding man is that whatever he expresses as part of his suffering also becomes the articulation of his aspirations and hopes. It is in looking at what causes man pain and hurt that we can discover what can constitute his joys. It is in examining what makes man less human and dehumanized that we find out what will help man become fully human. It is in experiencing and reflecting on what is un-righteous that man becomes aware of, and able to sort out and determine, what is righteous. To examine the biblical sources on righteousness enables us to make comparisons with contemporary situations of injustice and discover what God may be saying to us today.

The Psalms :

Although the theme of righteousness is centrally significant in the whole OT, this study will attempt to focus only on the Psalms as a contribution to an understanding of righteousness in the OT in general.

Man's hopes and aspirations are usually embodied in his prayers, because in them he makes possible an intimate communication of his inner conflicts and ideals with His Creator and Saviour. The Psalms are a case in point. Though there are various kinds of Psalms, the lamentation, whether individual or communitarian is the most common form. The Psalmists either appeal to God's righteousness or praise it. (3) The Psalms were generally composed between 1000 - 200 B.C., and hence they articulate a rather significant part of Israelitic history. The historical setting may vary, but it is evident that the theme of righteousness is centrally significant as a concept in the OT, and therefore pervades the whole Psalter.

The Psalms express the deep relationship between man and God. Man, in the person of the psalmist, uses various forms of worship to communicate with his Creator and Saviour. The Psalmist rejoices in Ps. 33 because God "loves righteousness and justice" (v.5), and trusts that Yahweh will lead him in the "paths of righteousness for his name's sake" (23: 3). He knows that Yahweh is "my rock and there is no un-righteousness in him" (92: 16). The Psalmist believes that "righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne" (89: 15). In the royal psalms, he proclaims that "Your divine throne endures forever and ever, your royal sceptre is a sceptre of equity, you love righteousness and hate wickedness" (45: 7-8) and asks Yahweh to "give the king your justice, O God and your righteousness to the royal son" (72: 1).

In the Psalms of lament the psalmist suffers and feels afflicted because justice and right- eousness are lacking. The presence of the "un-righteous" in his life urges him to appeal to Yahweh for deliverance (71: 2), for his stead- fast love (44: 27), and his righteousness (36: 6). These are the cries of the afflicted awaiting Yahweh to rescue and help them (120: 2). They trust Yahweh because they know that he favours the poor, the needy, and the godly, the little ones and the righteous (140: 13). God himself is judge (50: 6), but a judge who saves and delivers his people from oppression (81: 7).

Ps. 12 gives us an example of lamentation. The lament is usually expressed in the following structure although not necessarily in the same order:

The Lord is asked to intervene :

"Help, Lord; for there is no longer any that is godly; for the faithful have vanished from among the sons of men. Everyone utters lies to his neighbor; With flattering lips and a double heart they speak."

The psalmist wishes :

"May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that makes great boasts, those who say, "with our tongue we will prevail, our lips are our own; who is our master?"

The divine oracle:

"Because the poor are despoiled, because the needy groan, I will now arise," says the Lord; I will place him in the safety for which he longs."

The confident response from the community:

"The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

The community is confident that the prayer is heard :

"Do thou, 0 Lord, protect us, guard us ever from this generation. On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the sons of men."

The psalmist lists the evildoers as the source of his afflictions. He believes in the fighteous (7: 10) and in the righteous God (9: 9). The wicked are boastful and may not stand before Yahweh's eyes (5: 6). The fool in the Psalm does not fear Yahweh; he says instead, "there is no God" (14: 1).

For the psalmist, the difference between the evildoers and the righteous is that the latter has fear of God and fidelity to the covenant relationship, whereas the former does not have either or disregards them. This fidelity is expressed through the observance of the Law. Those who came to worship were asked at the gates to declare their loyalty to Yahweh's will for justice. A selection of Yahweh's commandments were put to those who entered the gate. Von Rad states that every proclamation of the commandments - not just that in the ceremonial of the liturgy of the gate - was always at the same time a question about Israel's righteousness, her "tsedaqah", her readiness to say "yes" to the relationship of community offered to her by Yahweh. (4)

Only the righteous were acceptable to Yahweh and this was expressed through a ceremony which took place at the entry of the pre-exilic Temple. Pss. 15 and 24 are liturgy psalms pronounced on the occasion of 'pilgrims' entering the Temple. The people seeking admission start by asking:

"Who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill?" (15: 1). (5) The answer to this question was the entrance Torah given by the cultic officials:

"The man who walks blamelessly and does what is right (tsedeq) and speaks truth from his heart" (v.2).

The gates of justice, (6) the gates of the Temple, are also mentioned in Ps. 118, to express what is expected of anyone who is to enter through them. The tent is a holy place where many may meet God, and the gate leads to it:

"Open to me the gates of righteousness (tsedeq) that I may enter through them and give thanks to the Lord. This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous (tsaddiqim) shall enter through it" (118: 19-20).

In the new Testament, the gate is the door through which we shall be saved. Jesus says; "I am the door, if any one enters by me, he will be saved" (John 10: 9)

(1) "Justice in the World", Synod of Bishops, (St. Paul Publications, Pasay City, Philip- pines), Introduction.

(2) "Four Faces of Asia", a summary report on the Asian Bishops Meeting, Manila, 1971, by Vitaliano Gorospe, SJ ed. (Ateneo de Manila U Press), p. l

(3)Quoted in Leopold Sabourin, The Psalms : Their Origin and Meaning, (New York : Alba House, 1970), p. 88.

All references to OT in this paper follow the MT, as in New American Bible.

(4) Gerhard von Rad, The OT Theology, Vol I, (New York : Harper & Row, 1962), p. 378.

(5) "Tent" is a term for the Temple ; Cf. Roland E. Murphy, Psalms, in R.E. Brown, et al. edd., The Jerome Biblical Commentary (JBC), 35 : 32Tcf. also 35 : 134.

(6)A similar role was played by the gates of the city : The city-gate had a similar function : cf. Gn. 23 : 10 ; Dt 21 : 19 ; Ps. 69 : 13 ; Amos 5 : 10, etc.

作者：Goodstadt, Leo F. 年份：1979

Since 1976, China's citizens have enjoyed far greater personal freedom than at any time since 1966. The amount of open debate about political ideals and the quality of life has grown steadily. The volume of information about the nation and its problems has expanded sharply. The authorities have proclaimed their respect for individual civil liberties very extensively. In this more liberal atmosphere, the fate of religious belief and liberty of worship is an important topic. A crucial test of personal freedom in any society is the degree to which the citizen is allowed to follow without penalty his own conscience even when his beliefs do not reflect the ruling ideology.

For the Chinese Communist Party, the question of belief ought to cause no great problems. Chairman Mao Zedong laid down very clear principles on toleration for religious opinions. He stated: "We cannot abolish religion by administrative order or force people not to believe in it." He described "patriotic people in religious circles" in these terms: "They are theists and we are atheists. We cannot force them to accept the Marxist world out- look." (Selected Works, vol. V, pp. 389, 424.) The Chinese Constitution of 1978 guarantees under article 46 freedom of religious belief to reflect the continued adherence of Peking to Mao's doctrine on the matter.

Difficulties arise over the way in which private religious belief is to be expressed in practice. The amount of freedom of public prayer, worship and religious instruction which Peking feels it can permit is very limited. This restriction is clear even in statements which pro- mise a new deal to Christian citizens. For example, Xiao Xienfa, Director of the Bureau of Religious Affairs of the State Council, explained in June this year: "Freedom of religious belief is a longterm and fundamental policy of the Communist Party and the state." He admitted that this policy "was seriously sabotaged" in the past. After 1976, he continued, "we have done some work to implement the freedom of religious belief". Xiao is reported officially as showing how religious toleration had improved by quoting "the opening and renovation of some temples and the rehabilitation of religious believers who were victims of framed up cases fabricated by Lin Biao and the gang of four". (Xinhua News Agency 29 June 1979.)

Frank admission that, in the decade after 1966, religious liberty was drastically curtailed is a hopeful sign. But the evidence Xiao Xienfa brought forward to prove circumstances had improved is depressing. Temples are reopened as part of the general campaign to restore cultural relics, preserve scenic spots and encourage tourism. Official accounts of the restoration of famous shrines refer to small numbers of mainly old pilgrims. The reports suggest very strongly that the religious aspect of ancient temples has become a very minor consideration. (Xinhua News Agency on Mount Omei is a good instance. 4 November 1978.) The great exception is Tibet where Buddhism remains a powerful force. The Chinese authorities in 1979 have sought to win the support of the Tibetan population and thus granted concessions to its religious practices. In part, this freedom has reflected the general policy of winning over to Peking all groups attacked by the extremists after 1966 in the Cultural Revolution. But another factor is the diplomatic importance of Tibet. The region is of great concern to India and the Soviet Union with both of whom China has border disputes. Tibet's Dalai Lama has visited the Mongolian Republic in 1979 to Peking's dismay and after a long campaign to persuade him to avoid the Soviet Union's Mongolian satellite and to make even a short trip to China. (Xinhua New Agency 8 & 27 December 1978, 21 February 1979.)

International problems have been the main pressure on Peking when it comes to religious affairs. An obvious example is the reopening of a handful of places of Christian worship. Without such facilities some distinguished personalities would have found a journey to China politically embarrassing. Spain's King Juan Carlos might have offended a majority of his fellow-countrymen if China had no High Mass for him to attend. (Xinhua News Agency 18 June 1978.)

But the close connection between religion and foreign affairs in Peking's eyes is brought out most strongly in its comments on the Papacy in the last two years. Peking reported factually the deaths of the last two Pontiffs and the elections of their successors. Pope John Paul II inevitably inspired Peking's official news media to extensive commentary through his June trip to Poland. The official Chinese account was relatively objective. The power of religion in Poland was noted. "A rapturous welcome from his Polish followers" was stressed. The contrast between Catholic and Communist Party views on life was recorded. The opposition of Pope John Paul II to "Soviet control over Poland" was illustrated. Peking and the Vatican are on the same side when it comes to Eastern Europe. Both view Moscow's presence beyond its national frontiers as serious oppression of the peoples of Eastern Europe. (Xinhua News Agency 12 June 1979.)

Diplomatic considerations affect internal policy with equal force when hostility towards the Soviet Union arises. Peking shows special tolerance of religious practices in areas where there is a danger of Soviet subversion. Such regions lie along the Sino-Soviet frontier and are inhabited often by ethnic minorities who cling to religious traditions. In the case of the Moslems, toleration is relatively extensive, notably in Ninghsia Hui Autonomous Region. The explanation is partly that this toleration seems to imply no more than respect for the social customs and dietary practices of a national minority. (Xinhua News Agency 16 & 19 October 1978.) A second factor is almost certainly Sino-Soviet rivalry for influence among the Moslem nations of Asia and the Middle East.

Other minority nationalities are not treated quite so generously, even in Tibet. The general impression made by reports of local offical attitudes to religion is that overt religious practices in the form of worship are regarded with great suspicion. Thus, stress has been laid on the need to prevent "counter-revolutionary activities under the cloak of religion" even when calling for respect for religious beliefs. (Tibet Radio Service 4 December 1977; Hebei Radio Service 5 December 1977; Qinghai Radio Service 28 November 1977.)

In daily life in China, the Government's concern has switched from the religious convict-ions of the individual to open practices of a religious nature. During 1978, attention was fo- cussed on religion and death. For unexplained reasons, even senior Communist Party officials find it difficult to refrain from honouring the dead with traditional rituals, including the participation of Taoist clergy. A number of places published accounts of scandalously elaborate and pious funerals for parents and spouses. (Hunan Daily 12 April 1978; Hebei Radio Service 20 April 1978; Shandong Radio Service 23 April & 16 September 1978.) Some elements of popular religion also crept back into marriages but less widely. (Xinhua News Agency 29 December 1978.) One province has lamented this year that nursery staff and parents keep alive traditional beliefs among children, which shows the importance of oral tradition in a peasant society. (Anhui Radio Service 10 May 1979.)

In 1979, a concerted drive has been made to eradicate traces of popular religion. The main targets have been superstitions, particularly those connected with fortune telling. Reading palms and faces and use of the I-ching have been bitterly attacked. (Hunan Daily 22 March 1979; Qinghai Radio Service II April 1979.) In one province, the current campaign has been justified in the following language: "Feudal superstition is a rather stubborn, evil and backward practice. An arduous and important task on the ideological front is to destroy feudal superstition." (Xinhua Daily 23 March 1979.) To some extent the 1979 anti-superstition drive was inspired by a tragedy in September 1978. Allegedly, two women undertook to cast out demons. In so doing, two children were first beaten and then burned to death. (Jiangsu Radio Service 23 March 1979.)

An additional significance of the anti-superstition drive is the distinction which the Government drew between religion and superstition. Peking resisted the temptation to denounce all forms of religious belief as equally evil. Feudal superstition was defined as "all intrinsically absurd and preposterous beliefs in which nobody with the slightest cultural and scientific knowledge would believe." Religions are "superstitions" Peking explained, but "religions refer mainly to such world religions as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism". (People's Daily 15 March 1979.) Once more, awareness of the links between religion and the outside world has persuaded Peking to adjust its attitude to religion.

Foreign relations are not the whole of the story, nevertheless. In this context, it is interesting how much space was given at the 1978 Atheism Symposium of the World Religions Research Institute to Chinese philosophy. (Guangming Daily 6 January 1979.) Religion and theology have a direct relevance today to the development of Chinese Communist Party ideology.

For the Chinese Government, the legacy of Mao Zedong has become a major crisis. Some elements in the leadership wish to treat Mao Zedong Thought like Divine Scripture. Orthodox Communist Party members condemn this view. The Maoist extremists have been condemned because "they used borrowed religious rites to force people to treat their leaders the way religious believers adore god." (Guangming Daily II March 1979.) Worse still, "they tried to monopolise Mao Zedong Thought like mediaeval popes monopolised the Bible, doing their utmost to establish the absolute authority of Mao Zedong Thought." (People's Daily 26 December 1978.) The Maoist extremists perpetuated a Chinese tradition: "Political power in China was often given a theological connotation." (Red Flag 3/1979, Guo Luoji.)

The irony of the situation is that references to Catholic history in the current Chinese political debate ensure a new status and importance for Catholic doctrines. The Catholic Church is not just a relic of the past or an object of purely cultural interest. The Church has a direct relevance, in the opinion of the Communist Party theoreticians, to a full understanding of the way in which Marxism was perverted after 1966 in Peking. The role given to the Catholic Church by the Communist Party is not an honourable one. But at least the Church is not being ignored. It is still one of the forces which the Communist Party believes must be overcome to establish the Marxist Utopia. Unhappily, the Catholic Church remains the symbol of the persecution of Galileo and of the excesses of the Inquisition, which are frequently recalled by the official press. For the present, intellectual awareness of the Catholic Church by the Communist Party is kept at this unfavourable level. Perhaps there is some room for hope that the situation may improve since most of the Communist Party objections to the Church appear to have been overcome. The Party now claims to "have cut off the churches' ties with imperialism, carried out democratic reforms of religious procedures and abolished feudal privileges." (Xinhua News Agency 18 February 1979.)

A possible sign of an easier regime for Catholics could be the rehabilitation of leaders of the National Church and their appointment to public offices. Large numbers of the members of this pitiable body fell victim to ideological extremists in the Cultural Revolution. The false charges against them have been dropped, and they have been restored to their former positions, treatment enjoyed by large numbers of those purged in the Cultural Revolution. (Xinhua News Agency 5 June 1979; Shanghai Radio Service 11 January 1979.) But these rehabilitations have been caused by factors other than respect for freedom of religion. The first is the desire to discredit totally the Maoist extremists and the opponents of Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping. (Shanghai Radio Service 21 March 1979.) The second factor is the desire to restore the reputation of the Communist Party officials responsible for propaganda and united front activities including work among religious circles. (Xinhua News Agency 18 March 1979.) The post-Mao era is not filled with reverence for religion.

The prospects for the freedom of religious believers in contemporary China seem clear enough. The public practice of religion will be tolerated under very restricted circumstances. Popular religious activities are particularly suspect. Private beliefs are tolerated as a matter of law and practice, more 80 than for many years. However, there are no signs that overt expressions of such beliefs are any more acceptable than in the past. What public worship is permitted can be explained very largely in terms of concern to influence opinion overseas or to compete with the Soviet Union. The status of the Catholic Church has been enhanced by the election of a Polish Pontiff who has made a very successful foray back to his motherland. As long as Peking maintains its concern to contain the Soviet Union's thrust beyond its own frontiers, China and the Vatican have certain shared diplomatic interests. The Catholic Church also benefits from the revival of academic interest in its history because of its relevance to political heresy in China. For the rest, the Catholic Church and its Chinese members are to the Government no more than pawns in the overall calculations by the Communist Party of national interests.

作者：Dumas, Aline 年份：1979

Man needs others to become himself, and God is present in man's making of man. (1)This essay is a result of many years of reflection on the experience of presence, both in friendship and in community life. The key question it seeks to answer is: How can presence, in the interpersonal relationship, lead to a fuller, richer life and thus be an effective sign of the love of God? (2) For it appears that as growth occurs through a satisfying relationship between two persons, there is more in this interaction than just the presence of these two human beings: there is a force which draws them, from within and from beyond, to a richer, fuller life, which transcends the limitations of these two persons. (3) What is this dynamic force? It is believed, by men of faith, to be a God of love.

＊Extract from a research paper presented by the author to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of the University of Ottawa in 1974.

Presence and Growth

In this paper, we will use the word presence in both the material and personalistic sense, as: being with someone or something; being open to, and sharing one's being, with others. When we speak of growth, we will refer to constructive personality change, that is, a change in one's habitual way of perceiving the world, in a direction which leads to a fuller awareness of reality, and also a change in behaviour, in a direction which leads to greater integration and more effective living.

Starting with the hypothesis that we need the presence of others in order to grow, we will see in brief what some contemporary psychologists and humanists have to say on the subject. Then, we will look at some theological aspects of presence, keeping in mind that this does not exclude the psychological aspects but rather incorporates them, adding a new dimension, that of faith.

Man Needs Others in Order to Grow

Contemporary psychology has been saying in every way that man needs others to become himself. Child psychologists have told the world again and again that a child needs to be loved by his parents before he can begin to give love. (4)

Freud stressed the fact that the first five years were the most important in the life of a person, and that the development and dissolution of the Oedipus Complex at this stage would largely condition a person's social relationships through-out his life, especially his attitude toward people in authority and toward the opposite sex. (5)

Erikson, in his theory on the eight stages of growth, claimed that if a child did not receive sufficient love and care at each stage, or if he was not guided in the right way, his growth would be arrested, and this would affect each subsequent step of his development. For example, if a child has not learned basic trust during the first year of his life, he will see the world as more hostile than benign for the rest of his life. (6)

In Carl Rogers' famous client-centered therapy, the focus is on the individual, not only as he is now, but as he can become. Rogers says that presence will be life-giving if the therapist is congruent, that is, truly aware of what he is experiencing, and if he communicates unconditional acceptance and empathy to his client. What will happen in such a therapeutic relationship? The person will get in touch with what is best within him, and he will move on in a good direction. He will become more fully himself, more congruent and "self-actualizing", as Has low puts it. (7)

Sidney Jourard feels that in order for growth to take place, both parties must be open to each other. This openness comes about through disclosure, yet this disclosure has to be mutual, not one-sided. It is the therapist who should initiate the process of disclosure since he is supposed to be more congruent than the client in the relationship. If presence is genuine and personal, if there is care and concern for the other person, then presence will become an invitation-to-live. Furthermore, this invitation may be extended not only by therapists, but by anyone who is concerned about another person, whether it be a parent, friend, spouse or teacher. Jourard states: "Any teacher who liberates, expands, activates a person's consciousness creates a condition for a richer life of longer duration." (8) This will happen when the person who is concerned about another communicates his concern, and when the other, in turn, accepts the invitation.

Man Needs Others to Become Himself

Gregory Baum supports the hypothesis that "man is in need of others to become himself. (9) He claims that it is through dialogue that man comes to be what he is. This is easy to see in the possession of language, which is given to us by our family and our community. It is through language, that is, non-verbal as well as verbal language, that we are summoned to consciousness. Unless there is a mother, actual or surrogate, a baby could never develop a conscious life. Consciousness comes about through dialogue, being spoken to and responding. Man learns from others, not only on the level of information, but also on the deeper levels of self-knowledge and of values. It is by listening to what others have to say, both by their words and by their attitudes, that we can learn about the world and about ourselves. (10)

Dialogue suggests more than merely hearing what is conveyed by word or attitude, it implies an answer, a personal answer which one learns to make freely, and which renders him responsible for himself. Yet this dialogue is not an easy process; man's freedom enables him to resist the word that is addressed to him. One reason why man resists is that he may feel challenged by the word which is spoken to him, challenged to change and grow, to let go of his self-image and enter into the world of another. Dialogue, in this sense, may lead to a conversion. This process of conversion is repeated over and over again in a person's life. For example, a child, at first, looks to his mother simply for security and love, but gradually he comes to recognize her as another person with her own wants and needs; one who is able to resist his self-centered demands. At that moment, his little world is shattered and he becomes more open to reality. This openness, this new perception, means personality growth. (11)

But what is involved in this experience of becoming more fully human? What really causes further growth in a person? Many humanists and psychologists explain that it is genuine presence in an interaction that can effect this kind of change in perception and in behaviour. Now we will let a few theologians speak on presence in interpersonal relationships as a life-giving sign of the love of God.

God Within the Life of Man

Current trends in the New Theology indicate less concern with the God 'out here', perhaps because too much stress was placed on transcendence in the past. Now, more interest is being shown in finding God within the world and within the life of man. This does not mean that the Transcendent God is dead, but that the immanent God is closer to the ideals and the needs of modern man, whose life is influenced by existential philosophy and Humanistic psychology. Humanists today see man as becoming, as a process, as "a being whose being is always in question". (12) Contemporary theologians have often been accused of being humanists, and some of them see this not as an accusation but as a fact. If being a humanist means having a man-centered understanding of religion, not only do they agree with this view, but they find ground for it in the fact of the Incarnation. According to Gregory Baum:

The divine incarnation in Jesus Christ reveals to us that God's encounter with men always humanizes them and that God's grace comes to men not only in moments of piety but more especially in their relationship to the community, the Church. It is revealed to us in Jesus that the human is the locus of the divine. God's self-revelation effects the growth and reconciliation of man. (13)

In order to understand this growth-promoting presence of God in community, it may be useful to consider the effects on human beings of personal presence.

Human Presence

Piet Schoonenberg insists very strongly on the distinction between physical presence and personal presence: "The word presence means for us the relationship of something or someone to something or someone else." (14) This kind of presence is characterized not only by a 'being with' which could refer simply to physical presence, but also by influence, help, and finally an enrichment of the one in whose presence one is. Presence, therefore, is something active. 'Communication' refers to a mutual give-and-take. One party may be active and the other passive, but ultimately there is an action and a reaction taking place by the simple fact of the mutual presence of two human beings who are aware of each other in some way. Communication implies not only a giving of something, but the self-communication of the person himself, that is, "of those living insights which have formed his inviolable spirit, and especially of those attitudes to life whereby he has built up his deepest being." (15) Communication here means not simply giving information about these insights and attitudes, but sharing these in a way which leads to an inner intuition in the understanding, followed by a connection in the will. Schoonenberg believes that intuition is the summit of our capacity for knowledge, and that the deepest working of our will consists, not in changing things outside ourselves, but in determining our own attitude toward reality: God, the world and ourselves. If someone can communicate with another in these deepest activities, he will truly be present to the other, and will live on in his heart and mind. Needless to say, this quality of human presence is not easy to attain, and is also limited by the reality of human beings' limitations. Furthermore, even when two persons have experienced deep communication, much depends on both parties' capacity to remain true to each other and on their willingness to grow in this relationship. There is even a further risk involved: that the two parties may grow away from each other as they reveal their changing perceptions.

Freedom and openness are important elements of a successful interpersonal relationship. People are free to open themselves up to one another, to disclose, or not to disclose, what is deepest within them. They are also free to receive, or not to receive, the other's self-revelation in faith. Even when two persons are together, one, or both, can still refuse to be personally present. But when the choice to be open is made by the two parties both to accept and to integrate the giving and receiving of mutual self-disclosure, the actions of the two persons become symbols of their growing relationship in which neither has to give up his own personality, but in which, instead, if the communication is genuine, both will become themselves.

In our society today, when interpersonal relationships are becoming more impersonal, people tend to draw together in crowds to overcome their feeling of loneliness. Mere physical presence cannot overcome separation, it must be penetrated with personal presence or with one of its symbols. For example, an embrace or a kiss is a sign of love. It promotes union only inasmuch as it expresses the real affection which exists between two people; otherwise it may leave them as lonely as ever. On the other hand, a letter can be a symbol of presence in absence, since it makes the other person, the beloved or friend, live on in one's memory, and speaks of the hope of a reunion. Absence can actually purify love of its alloys by erasing from memory various negative aspects. Remembrance can also deepen presence in such a way that a departed one seems closer than before. (16)

Divine Presence

For theologians -- as well as for all those who have faith -- all that we have said concerning the characteristics of human presence can point to the presence of God in the world and in our lives. Schoonenberg says that God's presence is all-pervasive, but when we speak about Him, we cannot speak of spatial presence in the same sense as when we speak of material bodies. Though He fills all space, it is not in a spatial way. He is present by giving Himself freely and willingly. "He is in human beings in order to make them live, in order to fulfill them, in order to give them to each other, in order to lead them finally to God." (17)

Man is free to accept or to refuse God's love. The only way he can limit God's presence in his life is by refusing to open up to Him. But the strange paradox this entails is that man cannot control the results of this refusal. According to the Christian point of view, if we refuse to open up to God, we refuse life, so that man, in order to be saved, must accept salvation from an Other, and since salvation comes through other human beings, vivified by the presence of Christ, man cannot cut himself off from others. (18)

(1)Cf. Gregory Baum, Man Becoming: God in Secular Experience, New York, Herder and Herder, 1970, p. 55-59.

(2)Cf. J. Ratzinger, Foi Chretienne Hier et Au-jourd ' hui, Paris, Mame, 1969, p. 57.

(3)Cf. Baum, Man Becoming, p. 55-59.

(4)Cf. Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving, New York, Harper & Row, p. 38-41.

(5)Cf. Hall & Lindzey, Theories of Personality, New York, Wiley, 1957, p. 51-55.

(6)Cf. Erik Erikson, Childhood and Society, New York, Norton, 1963, p. 82-86.

(7)Cf. Frank Goble, The Third Force, New York, Pocket Books, 1973, p. 23-36.

(8)Sidney Jourard, The Transparent Self, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971, p. 97.

(9)Cf. Baum, Man Becoming, p. 55-59.

(10)Baum, Ibid., p. 44.

(11)Ibid., p. 43.

(12)Sidney Jourard, Disclosing Man to Himself, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1968, p. 153.

(13)Baum, Man Becoming, p. 137.

(14)Piet Schoonenberg, "Presence and the Eucharistic Presence," in Cross Currents, Winter 1967, p. 41.

(15)Ibid., p. 46.

(16)Cf. Ibid., p. 49-50.

(17)Ibid., p. 51.

(18)Cf. J. Ratzinger, Foi Chretienne Hier et Au-jourd ' hui, Paris, Mame, 1969, p. 185.

作者：祈士真 Casey, John J. 年份：1979

THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE MAJOR SEMINARY

Year after year in seminaries -- particularly around the time of ordination to priesthood and first assignments -- a question arises which can be a bit irksome to seminary staff since they are the ones who hear it most often. Usually in Hong Kong it runs something like this: "We know that the new priests have received a fine education in philosophy and theology, but will they be able to understand the problems of people at the grass-roots level in the resite areas and the housing estates and will they be able to help these people solve their problems?" More simply, what we are being asked is: "Does the seminary program blend properly the practical -- that is, the spiritual and the pastoral -- with the theoretical in preparing men for the priestly ministry?" And it is a bit irksome because it can only be answered by a hypothetical statement which in turn must be verified by experience which again in turn must wait the passage of time to see how the 'new' priest works out.

Be that as it may, however, the query is a perennially valid one because it is the root question of the successful seminary program. Indeed it was the attempt to arrive at a solution to this question at a certain time and in a certain place that gave rise to the institution that we are so familiar with today, the major seminary; the institution which the Second Vatican Council canonized as "necessary for priestly training." (1) And in canonizing this institution, the Vatican Council made it quite clear that one of its major tasks will always continue to be the struggle to blend properly at each time and in each place the practical needs of the ministry with the theoretical needs of the churchman. How these values originally established the major seminary is the subject of this paper.

The time was the first half of the seventeenth century; the Council of Trent had been over for fifty years and more. As was the political custom of the time. Catholic kings and princes had been expected to ratify the Council decrees in their territories, thus making them part of the law of the land. In the newly Protestant kingdoms and states in the North of Europe, of course, this would not be the case but in Southern and Western Europe which remained within the Catholic fold, rulers were expected to do so. Only then could the reforms of the Council of Trent receive the sanction of law whereby church-men slow to act could be forced to comply.

Among the decrees of the Council was the famous one on seminaries which made it incumbent upon diocesan bishops to establish special colleges wherein poor boys of about the age of twelve would be received and carefully nurtured and prepared to become eventually priests of their respective dioceses. The decree said much about the support of such a school but precious little about what it should be like. Nevertheless, shortly after Trent, many bishops were struggling to establish colleges of this kind led by Charles Borromeo of Milan, and the models used were the famous Jesuitrun institutions in Rome, the Roman College -- now the Gregorian University -- and the German College. The Roman College offered an excellent example of what a small studium generale or mini-university specializing it literary studies -- secondary school today -- philosophy and theology should be, and the German College an excellent example of what a well-run hostel for students for the priesthood should be. Put them both together and you had a good model of a hostel or college for clerical students with its own academic program stretching from the literary studies which a student started at about the age of twelve right up to ordination, everything the decree of Trent seemed to call for. Such endeavors were going on somewhat successfully everywhere in the Catholic world, it seemed, except France.

France was a Catholic kingdom, to be sure, but the government was very reluctant to make any changes, particularly those dictated by Rome. As a result, fifty years after the Council of Trent, the French government still had not ratified the Council so that the Church struggling to move with Trent was trapped in a pre-Tridentine mold. Yet it was this situation that made France highly suitable as an experimental proving ground for testing the practicality of the decrees of Trent. In other words, there was no force of law making anyone conform so that changes that did come about were the results of individual churchmen who saw the needs of the time and were able to translate them into programs which the people of France, clergy and laity alike, would freely deem beneficial to themselves and therefore be induced to follow. From just such an interaction, the major seminary as we know it today -- that composite of practical and theoretical preparation for the priesthood which admits only those students who have already finished their ordinary schooling or its equivalent -- was born.

The French Church of the early seventeenth century was divided into innumerable endowed benefices which provided the members of the clergy with their livelihood. So much was regulated by law which could be taken to the civil courts, that French bishops had little control over the selection of candidates for the priesthood. To be ordained, one merely presented himself to his bishop bringing documents testifying that he had a valid reason for seeking ordination and that he met the canonical requirements for the same. Preparation for ordination was left up to the candidate himself. Once a man was beneficed and ordained, he was something like a tenured public official who could only be removed from his position after a complicated legal procedure which would have to prove that the services inherent in the benefice were not being performed. And he was not obliged himself to perform these services but simply to see that they were performed through others whom he might hire to do these tasks.

Although preparation was left up to the individual himself, it was not taken lightly. There was a quality preparation for the priesthood that could be received at the University of Paris or if this was not feasible at one of the provincial universities. This consisted of the study of humane letters, philosophy and theology, and was the same as the quality education in France for any one of the three basic professions of the time with law or medicine at the top replacing theology for those wishing to pursue such careers. The humane letters course could be taken at any one of a number of colleges in France, the most famous of which were establishments of the University of Paris or the Society of Jesus. Following upon this, the student studied philosophy and theology, sometimes receiving a degree in both but in any case emerging with a degree in theology. Basically the course was supposed to train one to be a theological scholar and as far as any practical, pastoral application was concerned, this was not the task of the university. But, then, this quality training was reserved for the upper classes and for the bright who had special ecclesiastical ambitions which would hardly include the ordinary work in a parish.

The candidate for the priesthood who was of simple family background and of average intelligence learned how to do the job of a priest through what was basically an apprenticeship system. This was the almost universal pattern for priests in the country areas of France although it was common enough for parish priests in the city of Paris itself. A young lad who was destined to be a priest would be taken in by his local pastor and while working around the church, would be taught the rudiments of the ministry of a parish priest along with what knowledge of the faith the parish priest himself had. This was a time-honored way of preparing for the priesthood and those who underwent it received a certain practical pastoral knowledge which their university educated confreres did not. On the other hand, their theoretical knowledge was severely limited and depending on the priest under whom they did their apprentice-ship, could be practically non-existent. Also, apprenticeship did not necessarily take place before ordination and this caused more than the ordinary numbers of problems. Sometimes a man was ordained first and what training he received was on the job training. Needless to say, such priests were destined to fill the lesser benefices and in some cases no benefice at all but simply to be the employees of parish priests, what we might more aptly describe today as Sunday help-out.

1 OPTATAM TOTIUS, III,

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J.年份：1979

JESUIT PAINTER AT THE COURT OF PEKING

  Court painter and architect in the imperial capital for over half of the 18th century, confidant of three of the greatest Ch'ing dynasty Emperors, protector of the Chinese Church in times of persecution, pioneer in introducing Western techniques of painting and architecture to the Middle Kingdom, greatest of the missionary artists of his time with a secure place in Chinese art history -- and yet a simple, self-effacing religious man who never neglected his missionary vocation to bring Christ to others: such was Brother Joseph, whose life and work deserve to be better known to students of Chinese Church history and of Chinese art.

It all began with a letter sent from Peking to Rome more than 250 years ago asking for a painter. The international team of Jesuits, whose predecessors led by Matteo Ricci (利玛窦) had first been permitted to live in the imperial capital almost a century previously, now felt that they needed a talented Western-trained artist to help them in their work at the court of K'ang-hsi. A young Milan-born Jesuit-in-training then barely twenty years old, Giuseppe Castiglione, was selected for this very unusual assignment at the other end of the known world. Before being attracted to join the Society of Jesus in Genoa he had studied art under a famous artist of the day and shown not a little promise. But quite consciously putting all that behind him, he asked to enter the religious life, not with a view to becoming a priest but in the humble grade of a coadjutor brother.

Setting out for Lisbon, then the usual port of departure for the East, he found himself directed, once in Portugal, to travel to the university city of Coimbra, where he was detained for several whole years decorating the house chapel of the local Jesuits, painting portraits of the Portuguese royal children, and the like. It took an express order from the Father General of the Jesuits in Rome, Michele Tamburini, to whom he had written on 22nd February 1714, to obtain his release, enabling him, now at last a fully-fledged Jesuit, to set sail on 11th April of that year. In the company of Brother Costa he boarded the vessel "Our Lady of Hope" bound for Goa and points East. Meanwhile his confreres in Peking were impatiently awaiting the arrival of their new painter. Sailing into the harbour of Macao, for centuries the base for most missionary work in East Asia, on 10th July 1715, he eventually reached Peking just before Christmas, now in his twenty-seventh year.

From that time until the day of his death just over half a century later--17th July 1766-- he lived and worked uninterruptedly at the Court as painter and subsequently also as architect to three of the most enlightened Emperors of the Ch'ing dynasty: K'ang-hsi (康熙, died 1722), his son Yung-cheng (雍正, died 1735) and his nephew the long-lived Ch'ien-lung (乾隆, died 1795).

Taking the Chinese name Lang Shih-ning (郎世宁) he set to work with a will to master the secrets of Chinese brush-work and to learn to paint with oils on glass and mirrors, and in water-colours on silk. The rules of his art as he had learned them ten and more years before in Italy he had regretfully to set aside, having to adopt instead many new artistic values and techniques.

Accustomed to handle historical and religious subjects and to paint portraits, from now on he was called upon to paint subjects such as trees, flowers, fish, eagles and, above all, horses, dogs and everything connected with the battle and the hunt to which his Manchu patrons were so addicted. He did in fact paint some historical scenes, such as the vast panoramas depicting the military conquests of Emperor Ch'ien-lung, but had time for few pictures with religious themes. (1) Arnold Silcock in his discriminating work on Chinese art speaks of the opposition that Castiglione met with at first when he used "high lights and cast shadows, mathematical perspective and conventional well-filled background". (2)

His paintings of horses are justly famous. No less a person than Emperor Ch'ien-lung, himself a skilled painter, composed the following tribute to him in poetic form which was calligraphed on one of his paintings in 1743: "The Emperor asked Lang Shih-ning to paint for him this dragon-like horse. Henceforth it can no longer be said that no one can equal Ts'ao and Han (two painters famous for their paintings of horses)". (3) In another painting, an enormous panoramic scroll measuring 7.76 meters in length and now, like most of his surviving works, in the National Palace Museum in Taipei, he succeeded in painting a round hundred horses -- the celebrated "One Hundred Steeds" (百骏图) -- each in a different position or movement. (4) Aready as early as 1728, then, he had solved the technical problems of depicting a horse at full gallop, i.e. sixty-six years before the first European artists began to attempt it in the West.

**********

Castiglione's relations with his three imperial patrons are of interest and of some importance in the history both of Chinese art and of the Catholic Church in China, for the dedicated artist, toiling away year after year in his studio at the Court, never forgot that he was a missionary of Christ with a religious mission to perform, a religious message to communicate. Ch'ien-lung, although a savage persecutor of the Chinese Catholics and of many of those who cared for them, enjoyed lavishing the marks of his esteem and benevolence on his Jesuit friend, giving him gifts, sending him food from his table, even, to the astonishment of his courtiers, going to visit him almost every day and conversing familiarly with him. He sat to his foreign friend for more than a dozen portraits. Finally overcoming the modesty of the humble Brother who had so frequently declined such an honour, the Emperor insisted in 1750 on making him a mandarin of the third rank, fortunately a purely honorific title without any obligation of functioning as an official.

During the periodic outbursts of religious persecution, decreed or tolerated by the Emperor, Brother Joseph did not hesitate to intercede with his imperial visitor for his brethren and correligionists scattered throughout the imperial realm. From the year 1583 to 1616 Fr. Semedo counted no less than fifty-four different persecutions of the Catholics, most of them of local character. From then until the death of Brother Castiglione in 1766, there were almost as many more, five of them general persecutions. (5)

When Ch'ien-lung ascended the Dragon Throne in 1735 at the age of twenty-four, the missionaries were hopeful that he would be more tolerant towards Christianity than his father, but when he renewed the prohibitions, Castiglione was charged with presenting a petition to the Emperor in person, Now forty-seven, he had acquired great experience of Court affairs. A contemporary relates how on 3rd May 1736,

the Emperor came as usual to sit by him and watch him paint. The Brother laid down his brush and, suddenly assuming a sad expression, fell to his knees and after uttering a few words Sacred Law drew from his breast our Memorial wrapped in yellow silk. The eunuchs of the presence trembled at this Brother's sudacity, for he had concealed his purpose from them. However, the Emperor listened to him calmly and said to him in a kindly way: "I have not condemned your religion; I have simply forbidden the people of the Banners to embrace it". At the same time he signed to the eunuchs to receive the Memorial and turning to Castiglione he added: "I shall read it, do not worry, and go on painting". (6)

The persecution which had lasted two months abated, but every morning Castiglione was searched as he entered the palace to make sure he did not carry any similar documents. We know of at least two other occasions, in 1737 and in 1746, when he approached the Emperor for a similar purpose.

**********

We possess very few writings from the hand of Castiglione that would throw light on his inner thoughts during these long years. (7) However, Jean-Denis Attiret, a French Brother artist and junior contemporary of his in Peking, on occasion gives vent, with not a little "Gallic fire", to some of the frustrations which they faced together:

To be attached to a chain from day to day, to have time to say one's prayers scarcely even on Sundays and feast days, to paint almost nothing according to one's own taste or aptitudes, to meet a thousand other difficulties which it would take too long to explain -- all this would make me want to return to Europe if I did not believe that my brush were useful for the good of religion, to make the Emperor more favourable to the missionaries who preach it, and if I did not see paradise at the end of my trials and labour. That is the only thing that keeps me here, and the same is true for the other Europeans who are in the Emperor's service. (8)

Still, there were times when it was possible to introduce the subject of religion more directly or even when the Emperor himself raised such questions:

The Emperor, according to his habit, was one day in the studio of Brother Castiglione, who was working with several Chinese and Tartar painters. "Do Christians fear death?", asked the Emperor. The Brother replied: "Those who have lived a good life do not fear it. Those who lived an evil life fear it greatly." "But", said the Emperor, "how is one to know if one has lived a good or an evil life?" "One knows", said the Brother, "by the evidence of one's conscience."

The Emperor then addressed a Chinese painter. "Tell me the truth. I have seen you for a long time with the Europeans: have you embraced their religion?" The Chinese said that he was not a Christian; what had always stopped him was the incarnation of a god. Castiglione then intervened to give some explanations. "But this mystery", he added, "is developed at length in our religious books." Then the Emperor declared to the Chinese painter: "It is because you can- not read the European books that you have not become a Christian". Castiglione protested that such books existed in Chinese characters. Whereupon the Emperor concluded drily with two words addressed to Castiglione: Hua-pa -- Get on with your painting". (9)

**********

Brother Joseph was shortly to be called to face a still more demanding artistic challenge. In 1747 Ch'ien-lung decided to construct at his Summer Palace six miles north-west of Peking a whole complex of buildings in the European -- or at least Chinese-European -- style, a veritable Peking Versailles fit to rival Louis XIV 's Chinese dream of a "Trianon de porcelaine". So Castiglione, now aged 59, was summoned by imperial command to lay down his paintbrush and become "architect-in-ordinary" for this grandiose new venture at Yuan-ming-yuan (圆明园). Together with a French hydraulic engineer, Pere Michel Benoist, who was to install the very elaborate system of fountains, he set about drawing up the detailed plans required and supervised the actual building operations.

The resulting set of palaces, as described by a modern sinologist, would not have been unworthy of the "Sun King" himself:

It was a complex of pavilions, gardens, gates, canals, fountains, lakes, waterfalls, flower-beds, labyrinths, etc., bearing the name Hsi-yang-lou. Much use was made of marble and faience of different colours, yellow, green, bright and dark blue. The brilliantly-coloured roofs shimmered in the sunlight. The boundary wall did not lack even the fine red of Pompeii. The fronts of the buildings had columns, pilasters, balustrades, life-sized lions on Western pedistals and other architectural features in marble or a stone similar to Florentine "serena".

Contrary to the Chinese style, the buildings had several storeys. The columns and pilasters were decorated with Ionic and Corinthian capitals. The staircases and terraces were at times like those at the Farnese palace at Caprarola; at other times the steps and the gates were of bronze. For the windows first-quality glass from Venice or from France was used lavishly. Baroque art and that of the Italian Renaissance appeared in certain architectural forms. There were even pavilions destined for concerts of different types of music, Chinese, Tartar, Tibetan or Mongolian. (10)

What a pity that this splendid example of Italian architecture in China, unique of its type, was completely lost in the burning and destruction of the ancient Summer Palace, for which the Anglo-French troops led by Lord Elgin and General Cousin-Montauban were responsible in 1860.

**********

After the completion of this architectural wonder of truly royal dimensions in 1759, Bro-ther Joseph returned quietly to his studio and worked on at his paintings for 7 years more. But in 1766, when he had reached the venerable age of seventy-eight years, the time came for him to lay down his Chinese brush for the last time, to take leave of Ch'ien-lung and of his other Chinese and foreign friends and to join his Jesuit brethren of former days in the Chala cemetery. There he still rests, a mile or so from Peking. To the posthumous honours heaped on his tomb by a grateful Emperor (11) was added that of being included -- the sole Western painter to be given this supreme artistic accolade -- in the classic seventy-two chapter work, A History of Painting (历代画史汇传), composed by P'eng Jun-ts'an (彭蕴璨) in about 1800, although not printed until fifty years later. (12)

However, Brother Joseph's own greatest satisfaction at the close of his long life must surely have been to have helped to introduce to the "Middle Kingdom" not just a new Western artistic "dimension" but a new religious "perspective" destined to unite and even transcend East and West in the long centuries to come.

**********

  Bibliography

Cecile and Michel Beurdeley, Giuseppe Castiglione; A Jesuit Painter at the Court of the Chinese Emperors, London, 1972

P. Bornet, Notes sur l'evangelisation du Tcheli et de la Tartarie aux xvii et xviii siecles ..., Peking, 1937, pp. 14, 107,154

F. Bortone, I Gesuiti alla corte di Pechino 1601-1813, Rome, 1969, pp. 188, 206, 208

P. D'Elia, "Castiglione, Giuseppe", Enciclopedia Cattolica, Rome, vol. 3 (1949),columns 1038-1040

J.F. Kearney, "Brother Castiglione, Artist to Emperors", in: The Four Horsemen Ride Again, Shanghai, 1940, pp. 33-58

J. Krahl. China Missions in Crisis: Bishop Laimbeckhoven and His Times, 1738-1787, Rome, 1964, pp. 11-13, 81-89, 114-116, 199-202

L. Le Boisselier, "Decouverte d'unc Stele en l'honneur du Frere Castiglione", Relation de la Chine (Paris), October 1916

G.R. Loehr, Giuseppe Castiglione, 1688-1766, pittore di corte di Ch'ien-lung, Imperatore della Cina, Rome, 1940

G.R. Loehr, "Missionary Artists at the Manchu Court", Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society (London), vol. 34,1962-63

Archbishop Stanislaus LoKuang, Lecture on G. Castiglione on occasion of exhibition of Castiglione's paintings in Taipei, Central Daily News (Taipei), 16th May, 1969

J.G. Mahler, "Lang Shih-ning" in: B.S. Myers ed., Encyclopedia of Painting, New York, 1955, p. 110

Mikinosuke Ishida, "A Biographical Study of Giuseppe Castiglione", The Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko, No. 19, 1960

P. Pelliot, Les influences europeenes sur 1 'art chinois, a speech at the Musee Guimet in 1927, Paris, 1928

L. Pfister, Notices biographiques et bibliographiques sur les jesuites de l'ancienne mission de Chine 1552-1773, vol. 2,18th century, Shanghai, 1934, pp. 635-639

J. Joshua, "Chinese Art The Month 167 and a Jesuit Artist" (1936) pp. 324-333

A. H. Rowbotham, Missionary and Mandarin: The Jesuits at the Court of China. Berkeley, 1942 .

S. Schuler, "Bruder Giuseppe Castiglione, der bedeutendste Jesuitenmaler am kaiserlichen Hofe in China", Katholische Missionen 44 (1936) pp. 301-308

R. J. Verostko, "Gastiglione, Giuseppe", New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, vol. 3 (1967) p. 192

「郎世宁画集」，北京，1931。

刘乃义著，「郎世宁修士年谱」，天津，1944。

施惠淳著，刘赛眉译，「名画十骏犬的作者郎世宁」，神学论集13 (1972)，页473-478。



In the detailed Catalogue of Castiglione's paintings drawn up by Cecile and Michel Beurdeley, pp. 163-191 of their sumptuous volume, only about a dozen of the 163 extant paintings deal with religious subjects. During a period of house-arrest under Yung-Cheng, Castiglione was able to decorate the new Church of St. Joseph, the Tung T'ang. Said to have been the finest in Peking, it was seriously damaged by fire in 1811 and later demolished, cf. Beurdeley, p. 33. Castiglione also did two large paintings for the Nan T'ang, "Constantine on the Point of Victory" and "The Triumph of Constantine" which have likewise perished, cf. Beurdeley, p. 93.
An Introduction to Chinese Art and History, London, 1947, p. 209.
Beurdeley, p. 165. On a portrait of himself as a young man Ch'ien-lung wrote the lines: "Shih-ning has no rival in the art of portraiture... He painted me in my young years. When I enter this room today with my white hair, I no longer know who this person is." Beurdeley, pp. 97-98.
In 1970 the Chinese postal authorities, to commemorate the International Symposium on ancient Chinese painters held in Taipei, issued a splendid set of Castiglione's horses, including his "Hundred Steeds" on a continuous series of five stamps, surely destined to become a collector's item. In 1972 some of his attractive dogs were similarly honoured. In 1978 a leading Hong Kong bank celebrated the Year of the Horse with a fine calendar of one of his three paintings of "Eight Horses".
Kearney, p. 50
Dominique Parrenin, in: Lettres edifiantes et curieuses ecrites des missions etrangeres. Memoires de la Chine, Toulouse, 1810, vol. 20, pp. 287 ff., quoted in Beurdeley, p. 39.
The Jesuit archives in Rome possess seven letters written by Castiglione between 1714 and 1733, usually to the Father General of the time. Beurdeley gives some extracts from these, pp. 154-155. He collaborated with Nien Hsi-yao a high Court official, on an adaptation into Chinese of Andrea Pozzo's Perspectiva Pictorum et Architectorum in 1729, cf. Beurdeley, p. 136.
Kearney, p. 45.
Jean-Gaspard Chanseaume, in a letter of 1746, in: Lettres edifiantes, vol. 23, p.88, quoted in Beurdeley, p. 44.
D'Elia, columns 1039-40.
His tombstone was found in the plain of Peking by a missionary, Father Ducarme, at the beginning of this century: "The inscription is flanked by two dragons. At the top are engraved the two characters which indicate that the stele was erected by order of the Emperor. The inscription recalls that the Emperor Ch'ien-lung, wishing to reward the services of the European Lang Shih-ning, erected this stone in his memory and gave him all the surrounding land." Cf. P. Ducarme , Bulletin catholique de Pekin, March 1915, quoted in Beurdeley, p. 60.
Many of Castiglione's paintings figure in the official catalogues of the paintings in the Imperial Palaces, the Shih-ch'u pao-chi (石渠宝笈), cf. Beurdeley, p. 161. The most recent edition, in 1979, of the standard Chinese encyclopedic dictionary, the Tz'u Hai, has the following expanded entry under "Lang Shih-ning": ... he arrived in China to do missionary work and was subsequently appointed Court painter to the Ch'ing Court. He took part in the architectural work of renovating and enlarging the Summer Palace (Yuan-ming-yuan). He excels in portraiture, flowers, birds, animals in movement and especially in painting horses. He combines harmoniously the Chinese and Western techniques of painting, paying attention to perspective and light and shade; however in his artistic work he mostly emphasizes the smal details and stops at the external form.

作者：刘赛眉年份：1980

正如孟道尔(Arthur P. Mendel) 在「马克斯主义着作之精萃」(Essential Works of Marxism) (注一) 一书的序言中所说，马克斯主义对欧亚之影响，已远超过一个世纪以前马克斯和恩格斯所预示的。因为马克斯共产主义的幽魂，不仅缠绕着欧洲(注二)，而且大大地征服了半个地球，其影响力且有日渐扩张之势。其实，马克斯主义之所以盛行，一则固然是马氏哲学本身所具之理想；另一则方可谓时势造英雄，因为他的哲学非常踏实地针对了当时的社会、政治、与经济的情况，同时，马氏的思想极力把「科学」与「伦理」溶为一炉，给予伦理上的「正义」一个科学理论的基础。尽管有人认为马克斯的哲学已过时，但马氏对社会的分析，以及他所许诺的「无阶级的理想国」仍然吸引着不少人。若要了解马克斯的思想，便不能把他的哲学从使其滋长繁生的温床抽离；透悉了马氏哲学诞生的背景之后，则其哲学对经济落后国家特具吸引力一点，便不难瞭解，虽然马氏生前曾预期革命在先进资本主义国家中首先发生。

本文主要是站在基督徒信仰的立场上，对马氏所预许的「理想国」作一神学反省，并与今日神学上所解释的「新圣城」或「新天地」作一比较，以观二者之异同。本文既主要为神学反省，故此并无意详细刻划马氏的思想内容，笔者以为，只是简要地抽出其重心，达到本文之目的便足够。

一　马克斯主义的「正义王国」

马克斯主义显然是西方文化及文明过程中的产儿(注三)。这个哲学在工业革命时代抬头，一直影响着走向工业化的国家，这个主义融合了欧洲文艺复兴运动以降诸潮流之精髓，譬如：俗化主义(Secularism)、经验主义(Empiricism)、理性主义(Rationalism)、唯物主义(Materialism)、以及对「进化」(Evolution)和「进步」(Progress)的乐观信念。马克斯可以说是法国理性主义者的忠实信徒。他深信人的理性及劳动的潜能，藉以创造出一个「新社会」。从某方面而言，马氏的哲学为十九世纪的德国诚然是一项突破，他以「经济决定论」吞噬了费尔巴哈(Feuerbach)的「唯物论」而打击了黑格尔(Hegel)的「唯心论」。马氏的哲学不仅是彻底的「人文主义」和近乎「实证科学」的「实践哲学」，而且是打击当时的宗教及教条主义的狂潮。马氏的唯物及无神思想主要是受到费尔巴哈的影响，有人认为梅瑟海斯(Moses Hess)亦是影响马氏的「无神论」的人物之一(注四)。马氏以为，宗教只是人理性的投射，幻想有另一世界之存在，在那里神赐给人在现世所不能得到的幸福。宗教不仅不能裨益于人，而且极之阻碍人的自我发展。马氏深信，他所宣布的「无阶级的理想国」可以取代基督徒所宣讲的「天国」，这「理想的国度」必然在历史的进化过程中实现，在那里充满正义、「各尽所能、各取所需」(注五)。

马氏的「天国」不是神赐的，而是人为的；不在「来生」，而在「今世」；不在降生成人的神身上实现，而在人的劳动中成就。马氏亦认为，他的「正义王国」必须「强者得之」，因为「暴力革命」是促成这国度实现的要素之一。马氏的「天国」亦一样宣告「穷者乃真福」，因为最后「无产阶级要专政」。马氏的「理想国」扎根于历史，决定于经济，这王国与人、历史、和自然有着决定性的关系。在这王国里，人的本质在劳动中得到满全，而人劳动的场所就是自然，藉着劳动，人不断地自然化(Naturalization of man)，而自然亦不辍地人化 (Humanization of nature)，历史就是人在劳动中创造了自己及自然的过程，当历史完成，人和自然都达到了满全。

在基督徒的信仰中，神是历史的主人。按照德日进神父的思想，神既内在于宇宙和历史，又超越宇宙和历史，祂在宇宙和历史之内(Within)和之外(Without)，推动着并吸引着宇宙和历史不断地向前和向上提升，所以，神是宇宙和历史的中心、始点和终点。德氏的历史和自然是同时向上向前进化的。马克斯的「天国」则完全禁锢在历史内，是历史进化过程中必然出现的一个阶段，而马克斯主义者所负起的，正是一个「历史性的使命」，以革命者的姿态，促使这历史决定了早晚必要实现的「无阶级王国」的来临。马克斯本人不喜欢谈论「超越」(Transcendence)及「形而上」的问题，他的「历史观」(如果笔者没有懂错的话)是没有「纵面」的「横面历史观」。他不由时空及事件的角度来看历史，而由唯物及经济的立场来看历史的发展。他套取了黑格尔的「辩证法」却抽空了它的内容，来解释历史的进化。人以劳动推动历史，而历史则依循正反合的自然规律演化；马克斯思想中的人是一个「劳动人」或「生产力」，而他则喜称自己为「现实的人」。人存在最基本的条件是物质，当人开始以生产去满足人最基本的物质需要时，历史便开始，「因此第一个历史活动，就是生产满足这些需要的资料，即生产物质生活本身，同时，这也是人们为了能够生活就必需每日每时都要进行的一种历史活动，即一切历史的基本条件。」(注六)归纳而言，马氏是以人为历史的中心、始点和终点。历史的每个时期有其特征，而其特征则由「生产方式」来决定。马氏认为在正反合的辩证规程下，历史不断的由「量变」而致于「质变」，当整个人类的社会皆变成了「无阶级」状态，历史的任务才完成。具体说来，马克斯深信全世界到最后只剩下两种阶级的对立，就是资产主义与无产阶级，而小资产阶级最后必沦为无产阶级。由于无产阶级的成员日益扩展，而资本主义则因资本家的互相竞争和彼此吞灭，最后庞大的资本只落在少数人手上，当人多势众的无产阶级受压迫和自我割离(Alienation)到白热化的阶段时，他们的忿恨便会催促他们揭竿起义，消灭资本主义而成为一「无阶级的国度」。因此，共产和无产都只是(必需的)「手段」，「无阶级」才是目的。

再者，马氏的「天国」亦是「普世性」的。共产主义必须向普世进军，若它只限于某一国家及民族，则不能达到其意义(注七)。他的「理想国」必须落实在一切社会和国家之中，换言之，非等到全世界都变成「无阶级」，则他的王国尚未算实现，所以，由「正义者同盟」脱胎出来的「共产主义者同盟」，一开始就是国际性的。

马氏的「辩证唯物史观」唯一的优点是历史不再是片段和个别事件，而是一气呵成、前后互相呼应、有一贯性、和有目标的动态过程。历史的每个阶段均有着内在的连系。但是，正反合的规律是否是解释历史演进的最好方式？有学者就认为马克斯把历史过于简化了，而存在主义者沙特也曾批判马氏的由「量」变到「质」变之说不甚科学化。此外，马氏认为，在历史演进的过程中，每个阶段本身就潜在着使自己「质变」的因素。例如资本主义，马氏认为它必定会消灭，除了革命的外力推翻它之外，资本主义本身使潜有使自身「质变」因素。若如此，我们必须追问：马氏所谓由无产阶级专政的「无阶级王国」会不曾潜有使自身质爱的因素？若有的话，他的「理想国」岂非仍然不太理想？也许有人会说，当无产阶级运动完全取得胜利时，私产制已废除，产生的阶级经济条件亦已失去，所以，那时不会再有阶级与阶级的对立和挣扎了。果真如此，就是说马氏的「无阶级王国」也需要具有某种「永恒性」了？那么，他的王国岂不是也并非很科学化？因为科学无法完全实证永恒！如果可能的话，在此之外，我们也许可以再发一个问题：如果今日西方的资本主义先进国家，开始注意到工作中劳工的「自我割离」(Self-alienation)的问题，设法改善，以减弱这种割离的现象，在此情况下，马氏的「天国」会不会再来临？但话又说回来，今日社会的情况与十九世纪马氏所处的社会环境都有类似的病症财富不均、贫穷、不义。为此马氏的理想国仍然具有某种程度的吸引力。

二　基督教徒信仰中的「天国」

马克斯的「正义王国」本来启发自犹太基督徒的「天国」，一旦他的「理想国」在科学方法上建立了其理论基础之后；便向基督徒所信仰的「天国」挑战。有人认为，马克斯主义可以纠正宗教，而宗教方可以修正马克斯主义。笔者可以同意这句话，但认为对这句话需要解释，否则，会使人感到相当混淆。我以为任何宗教信仰在流传的过程中，都很容易产生一些不太正常的现象，导致这些现象产生的原因，可以是信仰培育的不足，可以是实践的不够，也可以是其他更复杂的因素。这些现象若用潘霍华(Bonhoeffer)的概念来描写，就是「宗教」和「信仰」的分离。潘霍华所谓的「宗教」，是指把神放在人生活的「边缘」上，只是求神拜佛、求福免祸；而「信仰」则是以神为生活和行动的「中心」，是一种彻底的「投身」(Commitment)，从而产生真正的「使命感」(Discipleship)。前者很容易将福音的讯息僵化，倾向于宗教的教条主义，把神蓄置在「另一个世界」中；而后者则使人成为真正的「使徒」。事实上，马克斯主义所能够打击的是「边缘」的宗教，真正基督的信仰反而是马克斯主义的「救星」。本来，「宗教信仰」是一件「整合」的事；但在实际生活上，往往两者分离，造成了没有宗教的信仰(无神论者亦有他们的『信仰』)，或者是缺乏信仰的宗教。

现在，笔者且按照下列几点，对基督宗教所信仰的「天国」稍作反省：

(一)天国与「物质」

我们不要误解，以为马克斯的唯物论否定精神之存在。其实，若用一般老百姓的言语来表达，唯物论的问题是在于「物质决定精神」。在「德意志的意识型态」中，马氏肯定「生活决定意识，而非意识决定生活」。这里所谓的生活乃指物质生活而言。马氏说：「精神从一开始就很倒霉，注定要受物质的纠缠」(注八)。若物质解决，精神也解决，如此，物质便取代了神。

基督徒所信仰的「天国」与「物质」也有一定的关系，但它从来不把「物」神化。按照德日进的思想，由于神降生成人，潜入物质之中，成为物质宇宙的一部份，从那时起，物质便含有一种朝向「成全」的动力，而基督徒信仰中的「天国」就是在这位降生成人，成为物质的一部份，而又光荣复活，带着物质超越飞升的神身上实现和满全。「天国」落实在物质的宇宙之内，却又向物质挑战。德氏认为，在我们做抉择及对物质采取立场之前，物质只是一「斜坡」，人可以踏着它上升，亦可以下降。物质与精神虽属不同的层面，但两者并非对立；相反，在复活的人而天主的耶稣基督徒身上，精神与物质是一体。其实，精神与物质是互相决定、彼此影响的。总言之，成人及复活的耶稣基督是「天国」的核心，若抽去了此核心，基督徒信仰中的「天国」便会由基础上坍塌。

(二)天国与「全新」

马克斯「质变」的思想，意味着「全新」的概念。由「质变」而来的「无阶级王国」是一个「全新的社会」，与资本主义社会截然不同，在那里再没有不义、压迫、阶级的对立；在那里「各尽所能，各取所需」。

基督徒信仰中的「天国」亦是「全新的圣城」、「全新的天地」。在那里眼泪要擦干，再没有痛苦、不义……等等；在那里盲者复明、塑者听见、哑者说话、饥者得饱、寒者得衣；在那里也没有阶级、不分自由人、奴隶、犹太人，或希腊人。然而，这「无阶级」非由阶级斗争取得胜利之后而来，而是来自「爱的满全」。

天国是天主的能力进入人间，当神的能力进入宇宙内，宇宙就要换上全新的秩序；当神的能力进入人类的生命之中，人类的生命就有全新的变化。人类的正义不再是「以牙还牙」，而是「给他走两千步，将内衣也给他」。原来这就是福音的正义，只有这正义才彻底反转「以恶还恶」的恶性循环，把恶由人类中根除，于是，基督徒可以宣布：天主是爱。这爱是无条件和无保留的，它不仅彻底反转「以暴易暴」的旧秩序，而且是打破「交易」和「代价」的交往的有利武器；也是战胜「恶」的途径。对于「暴力革命」的问题，笔者并无深入的研究，故不便发挥。但是，「为什么我不是基督徒」一书的作者英国哲人罗素，曾在他另一本着作「政治理想」(Political Ideals)(注九)中说，只有脑子里充满物质思想的人才认为可以用暴力取得一切；他举了些例子说明暴力对精神是无能的。事实上，某些西欧的共产主义者也曾主张温和的「和平过渡」。

(三)天国与「历史」

天国就是天主的能力进入类历史的行动，这天国必然与历史有关。基督徒信仰中的天国，不是只在历史的尽头，也在历史的过程中间；不完全在历史之外，也在历史之内。世界的历史是救恩史实现的舞台，人的获救是在历史的过程中。按照圣经学者的探讨结果，发现圣经中所启示的「天国」的确是有着「已经」和「尚未」两面，一方面这天国已经不断地透过许多历史事件进入了人间，另一方面，它仍期待着圆满的实现。不仅世界的历史是一动态的过程，人类的救恩史也是在过程中。这天国在历史中不断地与历史一同向纵向横发展，直至在基督内达于圆满。

结语

本文只是一初步的尝试，企望拋砖引玉，以达切磋之效，其中可能有些思想尚待深入发挥与修正。无论如何，此仅为一起点。

　

注一：Arthur P. Mendel(ed.), Essential Works of Marxism,1961 New York, 1971 16 p.p.592.

注二：见共产党宣言马克斯恩格斯选集卷一北京人民出版社一九七二年页二五O。

注三：同注一 p.1.

注四：袁廷栋著马克斯哲学简介与评价台湾光启出版社民国六十四年页十。

注五：见共产党宣言。

注六：德意志意识型态马克斯恩格斯选集卷一北京人民出版社一九七二年页三十二。

注七：同上　页四十一、四十八。

注八：同上　页三十五。

注九：Bertrand Russell , Political Ideals , London 1963.

作者：劳伯埙、伍国宝、林祖明年份：1980

一、「天主实义」产生之背景

传说自从圣多默宗徒及一些其他初期教会人仕曾到过中国，但无征不信，祇有唐代，约六世纪时，有碑文载景教来华的事迹。千余年来，教会在中国耕耘，至利玛窦才开始有较明显的教会历史传统。(注一)

利玛窦是耶稣会士，于一五五二年生于义大利，一五八二年抵澳门，与范礼安和罗明坚等人一起到中国传教。于一六一零年五月十一日逝世于北京。利比毕生努力宣传福音，并介绍西洋科学着作等，而「天主实义」一书就是其名着之一。(注二)

一五九三年范礼安认为罗明坚之「天主实录」太简略，希望利玛窦重编一部更完备，更适合中国文化思想的教理着作。在此情况下，利氏便着手编写了「天主实义」。这是利玛窦于一五九五年(万历廿三年)在南京时所着。但由于当时没有长上之许可，加以许多神学名词，尚未找到适当之译名，故只是由朋友出版。虽然当时他祇接触中国文化约十年左右，但已能博引六经四子以与天主教义相照明。此书于一五九七年译成拉丁文，呈请澳门主教及范礼安批准，范礼安令孟三德院长审阅，后因孟院长病逝，审查工作中止，直到利氏抵达北京后，约在一六○一年获卧亚教之批准，并且在冯应京，徐光启等人领洗后，确定了神学名词的翻译，才于一六○三年在北京正式出版。(注三)由于在这段时间内，利氏能再深入与中国仕大夫们接触，对于中国的文化精神更彻底地认识，故能进一步瞭解天主教教义与中国文化的联系。他复于此时将「天主实义」的内容再详细整理，尤其是第七章，特别增补了他在南京和三淮和尚及黄辉学士之问答，作为此章之中心内容。(注四)

此书自开始着手编着，至一六○三年印出，其间共历八、九载之久，而利氏在这期间亦在中国文化上作了决定性的投身。他于一百九四年废「僧」名，留长发，穿儒服，严以儒者身份传教。于一五九五年他更超越广东省韶州而深入内陆，首次远赴南京，其间起居皆多与中国儒家人士一起。于一五九六年，在南昌宣发第四誓愿，更肯定自己传教的使命。于一五九七年，他受任耶稣会传教区会长。翌年，他自南昌启程赴南京及北京，后因不许久居，离京经临清而达江苏，通游中国中原文化中心地带。一五九九年他第三次到南京，并准备进贡礼品，北上北京。至一六○一年才荣入北京。辗转八、九年在官场，儒家、佛家和道家思想中国周旋的利氏，已可在中西文化逐步沟通下澈悟，故当其面对中国人论述教义的时侯更显圆浑，思想尤见精辟。(注五)

这本书是在利氏易「僧」为「儒」之后写成，他以孔孟之道，引用中国人传统的伦理道德，来阐明公教教义。他严厉地驳斥佛家，但讨论儒家思想时，则措辞很委婉，而且引儒家的经典来指出宋儒的不足。最终目的乃为证明公教教义与孔孟思想之相吻合。

二、本书的结构

「天主实义」这书分上下两卷，九八篇，共四万余字，是以中国明朝之文言文写成，文笔通畅，论辩时更用了西方士林哲学的架构来表达，故清晰且俱有逻辑性。同时利氏更仿用中国古文论语式的问答体裁编写，书中「中士」的身份既是他自己在中国文化中的「矛」，又是他自己以西方思想面对中国文化的「盾」。在中西对答中，阐明了天主教的重要教义。

首篇是论天主始创天地万物而主宰安养一切。此篇一望而知其士林派招式甚多，如「四因说」及推论「天主的存在」等思想，都是希腊哲学巨人亚里士多德和欧洲神哲圣人多玛斯的辉煌构思，所以在据理证明天地万物有一主宰，清晰有力，读之使人豁然开朗。

第二篇是解释世人错认天主。本篇批评中国佛道之「空」、「无」及宋儒「太极」之不足，指明「空」、「无」及「太极」皆不可能为万物之真源，而中国古代所祭祀的「帝」就是「天主」。

第三篇是论人灵之不死不灭与禽兽大异其趣。本篇旨在辨明人兽的分别，说明魂有三级，而人之灵魂乃属于最高级，为别的禽兽所无。利氏复证明人灵属神体，不死不减。在评击佛教的天堂地狱一段中，他又指出天主教比任何宗教更古老，即天主教包括一切宗教。

第四篇是论鬼神与灵魂，并解释天下万物不可能是一体，即天主教不主张泛神论。又万物与天主不可能是一体，因万物是天主所创造，而只可以说天主临现于万物之中，他无所不在。又强调各种事物不宜混乱，不然就是轻视上主，赏罚不分，仁义道德解体、世界混乱。

第五篇是驳斥轮回六道及戒杀生的错误观念，并说明斋素的正意。本篇攻击佛教的斋戒是植根于民间通俗的观念，而轮回一事与所知的「魂有三级」的观念矛盾，此举会混乱人伦，相反天主的旨意万物是供人享用废农事畜牧。而斋戒的正确观念是在于人的痛悔，正心寡欲乃修德养性之效。

第六篇是解释意向不可无，并论人死后有天堂地狱的赏罚，报答世人所行的善恶。本篇乃前数篇的指向及归宿。世人行善犯恶必遇到天堂地狱之赏罚。因人有自由意志所以要负责他所选择之行为的一切后果。此篇劝人行善，善果使人终身受用。

第七篇是论人性本善并论天主教徒的正学。本篇首先指出善恶之分别：人性中尽理则善，而尽情则恶。仁爱乃一切德行之冠。德行并非天生，而要不断习修。在人内早已潜藏着对真，善，美的倾向。其后论及修德的方法，指出爱乃一切德行的动力爱人乃基于爱主。他排除中国学士主张修身乃靠己力，他指出若无天主助佑，一切努力乃徒劳。

第八篇是论教士独身的意义与由来。本篇乃利氏为自己辩说，解释独身不娶的意义，并针对中国传统的「不孝有三，无后为大」的观念予以补充。



注一：顾保鹄编著，中国天主教史大事年表，光启出版社发行，中国民国五十九年十二月初版，第一、二页。

注二：张奉箴著：利玛窦的前驱罗明坚，神学论集第七期民国六十年三月，第一二三页一四一页。　

张奉箴著，利玛窦的又一前驱范礼安，神学论集第八期民国六十年七月版，第一八三一八九页。香港真理学会及光启出版社发行。

注三：刘顺德译注，利玛窦原着：言文对照「天主实义」之序言，光启出版社，民国五十五年七月第三、四页。

注四：同上。

注五：方豪六十自定稿，下册，利玛窦年谱，方豪发行，民国五十八年六月，第一百五页一五八六页。一五六五

三、利氏论天主之存在及主宰万物

在第一章，利氏希望证明天主的存在、造化万物和天主的奥妙无穷。他的论证乃依据中世纪士林哲学。一开始他便指出人与禽兽的分别在于人能推理，故人人都以理为标准。跟看便以士林哲学来证明万物必有一位造物主，称为天主，祂乃至高无限及至善而超越万物的，人不能完全瞭解祂。(注六)

本篇所针对的问题，主要是佛教空无之说及宋儒太极之论。「空」和「太极」曾被认为是万物的根源。所以利氏在这篇里证明了天主是造物主，且在第二篇驳斥「空」和「太极」不能成为万物之源。

中国传统思想以人为本，历代思想家都注重个人修养，并以「治国、平天下」为己任，故思想的主流比较少注童纯「形而上」的推理，而多以治国救世为出发点。孔子乃以「四时行焉，百物生焉」来讨论天道。他只是从人可以体验得到的现象中去探讨，而不在「形而上」的境界中来研究。不仅先秦思想如此，两汉之后也是如此。西汉立国后，权力集中于皇帝一人身上，形成「家天下」的局面，为了维持「天下为公」的理想，才形成了儒道两家思想的大综合，「太极」、「四时」、「五行」的思想才揉合于儒家的思想(注七)。所以利玛窦引用士林哲学形而上的思想，看来与中国人注重「人」的心态，不太配合。

况且，从另一角度看。孔子所说的「未知生，焉知死」，并没有排斥神存在的可能。老子在「道德经」中也谈到万物靠「道」而生存。「道」是无形无声，无所不包，深不可测。虽然如此，人能在天地间各种事物中见到「道」的存在(注八)。老子的思想含有「形而上」的色彩，只是后来的道家将他的思想「物质化」，加入阴阳五行的观念。至于庄子也强调修养的最高境界是人与万物合一。其实，中国的传统思想并不完全否定「神」的存在，再者，传统中也有天子祭天、民间敬祖的习仰(注九)，所以有关天主存在的问题(不一定限于士林哲学的论证)，在适当的时机下向中国人阐述，也会为他们所接受。

虽然以今日人的立坊批判过去未免不公允，但读到利氏的思想对今日的天主教神学的意义时，不能不说几句，今日神学不再是纯以护教为目的，而且也脱离了士林哲学的架构。这一方面反映了现代人的思想动向，不喜欢过于追问事物的本体是什么，而愿意间事物为我有什么意义。神学主要的任务是将启示用当代人的思想和语言表达出来，使生活和信仰融为一体。利氏所用的护教辩驳方法，为信仰虽然提供「合理」的基础和意义，但不容易为今天的人所接受。当然，他的方法只是反映他所处的时代的神学动向。

今日神学又注重与其他宗教交谈，互相攻击的时代已过去。「天主实义」对佛教的攻击，引起很多佛教徒的反感及和尚的仇视。利玛窦看来也体会到这情形，故此他写了「二十五言」，只按基督宗教的立场来谈论道德的优美，不再和其他宗教辩论；这书大受欢迎，而他后来也认为「天主实义」也应这样写(注十)。

「天主实义」既是一本介绍天主教义的书籍，故应把此书放在利氏整个传教方法中来批判。他放弃急功近利的方法，不在街头市道直接宣讲，反而一方面介绍西方的科学，另一方面努力研究中国语言及文化，指出公教教义不仅可与孔孟之道融合贯通，甚至还可以使其发扬光大。他先消除中国人对外来思想的猜疑，然后才劝中国人入教。因此利氏崇儒，也不是为讨好士大夫。利氏在促进中西文化交流的贡献上有目共睹，而他的传教方法也是今日教会所接纳的。(注十一)

在「天主实义」一书中，他引用经籍来证明教理，对土大夫的影响很大(注十二)。但影响力还是与作者的为人有很大关系，他待人有礼，德行出众，学识渊博，故为土大夫所敬重。在利氏生时，接受洗礼进教的士大夫，大部份是受传教士的言行所影响(注十三)。或者这就是今日所谓的生活见证。但最好的见证行为若不加以言语的解释，仍会不见其效，故此宣讲(包括文字)仍是必需的。



注六：利氏的论述是士林学派所常用的，放在此不用重述。

注七：参阅徐复观著，两汉思想史第二卷，香港中文大学，一九七五年，特别是页一三三至一三七，一七七至一七九页。

注八：见老子，第二十五、四、十四，五十一章。

注九：当然传统中不以祭祀为宗教祭典，而为国家社会的祭典。见罗光著：中国传统对神的敬礼(续)神学论集十八集，页七十六，民国六十三年元月。

注十：在给朋友的信中曾提到这点，见罗光著，利玛窦传光启出版社发行，一九六O年十月台版页一七八。

注十一：保禄六世著，保禄六世通谕在新世界中传福音，刘鸿荫译，闻道出版社印行，民国六十五年三月初版，第二十节。

注十二：方豪著，十七、十八世纪来华西人对我国经籍之研究，方豪六十自定稿下册，方豪发行，一九六九年，其一八六至一八八。

注十三：参看李之藻的教化，见罗光著，利玛窦传，页一五一至一五六。(同上) 归

四、利氏论灵魂之不灭及天堂与地狱

关于这个论证主要见于「天主实义」的第三篇和第六篇。

利氏认为过份迷恋世物乃造成人与人之间竞争及互相残杀之主因。他深信现世只是人暂时的居所，因此人应期望死后灵魂的升天堂。人必须积德于世，死后才有赏报。

利氏更指出人的灵魂与肉身有两种不同的性质。灵肉的组合有善恶两种相反的倾向，故有爱好与厌恶的心理。人的灵魂有通晓事物的本性，实属神体，乃无形无像，不可消灭。

从人的意志及心理上来看，人都愿意流芳百世，常生不死，加上现世的事物皆不能完全应验赏罚和满足人心，因此，假若人的灵魂随着肉身而灭亡，岂不是枉费了他们一番的善意吗？由此推证，人的灵魂，不拘善恶，皆不随肉身而死亡。

谈到灵魂的归宿及善恶赏罚的问题，利氏指出来世有天堂地狱的赏罚，是为报答世人用自由意志所行的善恶。人的功过善恶来自人的自由意志，行事在外，理心在内，视乎以理心作主或以兽心作主行事。

事实上，看重来世福乐的人，必定轻视现世的利益。而行善也有三种动机：下等的只为升天堂，免下地狱；中等的为报答天主的恩德深重；上等约为顺从天主的圣意，为爱天主，而不是基于利害关系。

利氏更指出中国古籍中有天堂的说法，如「天既遐终大邦殷之命，兹殷多先哲王在天。」的「天」是指「天堂」。

利氏的「天堂地狱」之说，可说是「天主实义」中获教立场的颠峰。因为他指出天堂地狱实为不死不减的灵魂的归宿；更强烈地指出佛教的天堂地狱之说借用了天主教天堂地狱的教义。

至于天堂地狱的详细情形，因为天主没有启示于世人，利氏只以「知之为知，不知为不知」的态度，坦直地说：「难言言也。天主经中特举其概。不详传之。」

利氏指出人为善为恶是出于意志以评老、庄的「勿为勿忘勿辩」的学说。其实，利氏还未深入了解老、庄「无为」、「消遥」及「与万物为一体」的思想。他断章取义的解释，不由整体观之态度，证实利氏对老、庄逍遥酒脱的思想未能融淮贯通。

当被问及「不善不恶的人，先善后恶的人和先恶后善的人死后如何」的问题时，利氏很主观地说出：「不是善、就是恶」；以临死一刻的善恶来决定升天堂或下地狱。于此，他更阐述炼狱是为那些痛悔不深、做补赎不够的人赔补前罪的处所。利氏局限了天主能力，标榜出一个赏罚分明的天主，而忽略了天主慈爱的一面。

五、利氏的伦理思想

利氏采用士林神哲学来解释善恶的分别：「恶乃善之缺」，他以「子女偷窃为供养父母」为例，说明偷窃本身的恶行会破坏为了供养父母的善意。而且人类要对自己行为的善恶后果负责：善人升天堂，恶人落地狱。人类的意志是判断行为善恶的准则，基于此，他驳斥中士的「君子行善没有任何用意」的学说，并反对老、庄的「无」。

他举中国历史上的圣贤行实为例，说明人类的行为均有意向，圣贤以奖赏来劝人行善，以刑罚来劝人避恶。古人行善是为了保存身体、财物、和名声，行善乃基于利害关系，以「功利」为行善的最高目标。后来利氏谈论来世事情多少有针对「功利」的趋向。

虽然他有说明行善的三种正确意向：为升天堂免下地狱，为报答天主深恩，为符合天主的旨意。他亦以第三者为最上等的意向，而第一者为下等意向。人行善应该基于爱德而不是为了避免刑罚。利氏指出中国历代圣贤行善都是基于一个「利」字身体、财物、和名声之「利」。由此他用西方圣人方济各为例，说明行善不是对刑罚的恐惧，而是为承行天主旨意为最终目标。最后他利用宗教补充中国传统行为意向之不足，把它提升至宗教的层面上。

下半篇利氏用理论证明天堂地狱的存在；人类无穷的欲望唯有全福才能使之满足；人类有追求真善美的倾向；以及天主对善人恶人的赏罚大公无私等。他又解释了善恶报应的问题，特别是善人贫贱、恶人富贵的不公允现象。

他排斥一些反对天堂地狱存在的儒者；他应用诗经上说「在上」，「在天」、「在帝左右」为例说明古人所指的「天」乃「天堂」。

他又以推理的方式说明善人的归宿是天堂，而恶人的终极是地狱。古代的大圣贤如文王、周公等必定在天堂，而那大奸大恶者一定在地狱。他最后指出不信「天堂」者非君子。天堂与地狱的快乐与痛苦是无尽的，分别为善人与恶人而设。

早期，利氏在中国受范礼安神父的影响极深，对中国文化的学习与瞭解不遗余力，加上天资聪敏，所以能与当时的士大夫接触。虽然他有过人之处，但始终带着浓厚的西洋思想，及士林神哲学的思想方法。由于东西方的文化思想和社会教育等不同，虽然利玛窦努力研习东方的生活言行，但其人始终末能渗透东方的思想而产生彻底的共鸣。

利氏在「天主实义」一书中就揉合了多玛斯的思想方式：以中士与西士的对话为文章的骨干。本书的格调又颇与中国「论语」之表达方式相仿(孔子与弟子们的对话)，利氏极可能参考了它而决定文章的格式。

在本书中他很有系统地把问题连结，又把每篇的中心思想，很清楚的逐步探索；所以有记载说：「文定公除光启当其寻求人生真理之初，问道于罗司铎如望，司铎授之以『天主实义』一书，公持归邸舍，彻夜不寐……曰：『我平生善疑，至此无可疑；平生好辩，至此无可辩，即立志受洗』。

利氏在第六篇「行善避恶」的解释中，用了「子女偷窃为供养父母」为例，说明一个真理：「善与恶誓不两立，永不共存，恶就是善之缺。在此更用了士林神哲学对善恶分析之方法。然而在他所举之日常生活事例中(为了善的目的而行恶)，大概很不容易被中国人所接受。中国的哲学思想多植根于伦理生活，与西方的推理思考方法不同，所以西方哲学的某些原则当遇到实际生活的例子时就会产生不协调。在中国传统文化中，「孝」乃占极重要的地位，有不少民间流传的故事，皆歌颂那些为了父母、子女、朋友之故而犯法的英雄人物。这些犯了法的所谓「豪侠」往往被视为劫富济贫、锄强扶弱的「善」人。为了「孝义」，善恶之分反而次要，「孝经」以「孝」为诸德之根，「天地之性人为贵，人之行莫大于孝」。利氏在阐述善恶的问题时，借用了此事例，文在牵连到「孝」的问题，而他在「天主实义」中，对此问题没有进一步交代。

当利氏讨论到古圣贤劝人行善完全是为了利益时(行善结果是快乐、行恶结果是刑罚)，首引起了一个「意向」的问题。他批评古圣贤行善的出发点是为了自己的身体、财物、与名声，全是「利己」主义。其实不然，以孔子为例：他抱「有教无类」的态度，不问学生家境，而因着学生的天赋、倾向与目标而「因才施教」，授予不同知识。又例如学生问仁时，孔子就有不同的答覆：樊迟问「仁」，子曰：「爱人」。颜渊问「仁」：子日：「克己复礼……」。子张问「仁」，子曰：「能行五者于天下为「仁」矣」。(注十四)由此可见，圣贤教育之目标，不是为个人声望利益，而是为了学生的发展。孔子之所以删正「六经」，提倡「六经」普遍化，是因为看到制度之崩毁，「天下无道」，「名义不正」天子不知为天子，诸侯不知为诸侯，大夫不知为大夫，庶人不知为庶人，以至国家社会动乱；所以，他倡导「君君、臣臣、父父、子子」之论而救当世之弊。(注十五)

此外，利氏批评圣贤的行为乃功利性的似乎不太了解古人。子曰：「子绝四：母意、母心、母必、母固」。(子罕论语)他着重人有自由的性情，人是活而可变的。曰：「我则异于是，无可无不可。」又日：「君子喻于义，小人喻于利」。而圣贤所唯一执着的乃「义」的行善的目的不是为了别的，而是「义」之所当为，而「利」只是小人所追求者。

利氏在此，对中国传统圣贤的思想未免太快下结论，利氏或许想以天主正教来补充先儒的不足，但由于对儒家思想未有充份的瞭解，所以在某些地方还不十分完善。

当利氏一方面批评圣贤行善是基于「利己的思想」，另一方面，自己在「天主实义」中论「行善避恶」与「天堂地狱」时，反而采用「功利」的思想。虽然他阐明行善的三种正确意向，以承行主旨为最崇高，但在利氏的表达及所用的例证中，就太强调善人得永福的天堂而恶人得永罚的地狱之说。他曾用了半篇来阐明天堂地狱的存在以及谁会升天堂和谁会进地狱的问题。使读者感到他所着重的是赏罚问题行善为免下地狱，而把「利益」「得天堂」成为行善的目标。其实升天堂的赏报并非目标而应是结果善行所带出来的必然后果。它不是唯一的目的，唯一的目的是承行主旨最高的正确意向。利氏也忽略了善行的内在价值，在很多的事情上，行善并没有带给人显着的利益，但人经常仍作没有利益的善行，因善行本身有价值，是人类内在的共通意向，孟子曰：「人皆有不忍人之心，先王有不忍人之心，斯有不忍人之政矣」。「人皆有不忍人之心」；「人之所以异于禽兽者几希，庶民去之，君子存之」。可见先贤主张行善是因为此乃人之所以为也。

由此可见中国儒家的行善不是基于「功利」的理由，而是因其为人之所以为人，发挥人的善性人之初性本善。

虽然利氏的努力仍然很有限，但不失为神学本地化的先驱，他努力把天主教义翻译，用适合中国人吸收和领略的方式来表达，本书在多处地方仍挟杂着西方思想，未能达至神学本地化的要求，但他此举实是一大突破，尝试把宗教开入另一个文化，发掘在别的文化内的俱理。

利氏打开天主教在中国的门户，又扩展宗教的视野，他的成就不可抹煞，实为今日传教的傍样。



注十四：冯友兰著：中国哲学史，太平洋图书公司，一九六八年五月再版一O一一O二页。

注十五：梁正延注释，广解语译四书今诂，香港上海书馆印行，一九七三年一月出版，颜渊篇(十一)一八四页。

六、利氏论「仁」

在本书中利氏论仁之思想主要集中于第七篇。他讨论人性本善并论天主教徒的正学中所提到的「爱的诫命」就是「仁」。在这章中，他先论我国孟子以后多数儒家所争论甚为激烈的人性善恶问题；再说到恶是「缺点」而非独有存在的形上实体，然后又介绍天主教内修的纲要：「德行」是习惯行的善，不是天赋的善。德行中以仁爱为最贵重。而德行则贵在实践。人要改恶迁善，必须每天反省。爱是基于认识，愿多一些爱天主，就该更多一点认识天主。爱德的深处，不是爱人为我有利，而是被爱者本身的价值。他分七段来阐述仁是诸德中的最重要纲领。

一、爱天主在万有之上，爱人如己，为一切德行之总纲。这里指出，仁之尊贵在于承行天主之德，他先说我们已有「成人之恩」，此人性在乎爱，在乎人心自由意志的抉择，而抉择则在乎明达天主事理，即在于「格物」。

二、瞭解万物在于信。与人往来必须信任他人有实据的话，人与人不能见心，交往在乎信，人与神交往既不能见心，更不能见体面，要更大的信德。至于家国，天下的关系都在于信古人之心得与教训。

三、他把仁爱分成两种：第一种是「已爱」，血气之爱，是未有格物的爱，纯是感情盲目的爱，使人爱财、爱色、爱名、爱利……等，利氏以十一种情爱带来的痛苦及不自由的生活作例子。第二种是「祂爱」，以「神」的意愿为自己的情感和行动的原因。

四、真诚的爱人是爱天主的效果。这爱是活的，不是虚伪的，真心的爱天主，就是可以随便(自由的)做一切的事也不会得罪于人或神。

五、仁的解释在乎被爱者的本身美好，而不是被爱者的美好为己有利。是对物本身的接纳。

六、由于第五点的立论，亦可引伸以下的结论：恶人虽恶，但亦有其可爱的地方。利氏的仁本原则是：世物都是天主造的，天主爱世物，恶人是世物之一。他虽恶，有缺点，但天主仍准他存在，因此天主仍爱他，故我们爱天主，亦要爱恶人。

七、指明这仁爱是不断习修的生活，因为人有灵体之内外分别，故该用外内方法修德，外者以礼仪来事奉天主，久习可启发人内心的德行。内者以祈祷来事奉天主，表示钦崇，感谢，依靠，爱慕，并求天主赦罪，加恩之外，也扫除人心中的恶念，进而同天主结合。

在利玛窦论仁思想的论据中，可以肯定的是利氏紧握着教会大宗师多玛斯的成德之路，就是：要认识以能去爱，并以希腊哲学的三段论证法来表达。由于利氏以信仰天主为大前题，而以信人信万物为小前题，故其结论是爱、信、智就是仁。所以真正的仁，首先是爱能成为人而感谢并爱护自己在万物之中的地位；其次是要信靠，信靠天主爱「我」，天主所以创造万物亦是以助「我」的成长和发展。同时由于我不能完满自身的活动，必须与外物接触，从而瞭解自己。但人对这外界之投身，必有信靠始可行动。在行动中认识事实，认识天主就是藉万物表达祂对「我」的爱。在个人积聚的经验中，更结连古人，朋友的教训及指示，使成为善的抉择的启发智。当然，在这里利氏表达仁的思想是汇集了中国儒家的礼、义、仁、智、信，的道统思想。这实使我们中国传统的论仁得以跨越一大步，进入宗教层面，在生活中具体化。使中国仁的文化不再以人作中心，而以天主作中心。简言之，他以为爱一个人，就是爱他所爱的。天主爱我，我又爱天主，所以我爱天主所爱的我就是成全的自爱。天主爱人类和万物，我爱天主，所以我爱天主所爱的人类万物，这就是「祂爱」和「他爱」交流成长的具体表现，这自爱和他爱的合称谓之「仁」。

这思想架构的好处，是绝不笼统，点数分明，使中国儒家子弟们一读就可明白，因为其字句和辞义都是中国道统的思想，论证的次序则取用西体，故颇有爽朗、清晰、精辟之感觉，可以说得上是一「中学」与「西学」交流的作品。然而由于利氏的宗教

思想是他作品的骨架与写作的动机，所以使仁、智、信的思想范畴从人的本体中跳越到神的本体中，使「仁」的意义由存在性的体悟而跃至形而上的超越境界中，(from existential understanding of love transcend to ontological understanding of love)。这实在是给予中国文化再向上提升的作用，所以本书虽然不完美，但可算是当时十六世纪的佳作。

虽然利氏论仁的神学思想有上述优点，但同时也有不少极限，需知由于利玛窦的西方神哲学思想的底子是当时中国人所难捉摸瞭解的，而那超越的创造者天主更是他刻意灌输的大前题，故当他表达其「仁」的论证时，每每有很多天主教信仰上的教义思想。例如其所提出之成人之恩的天主，位格神的思想以祂的意愿作为人(仁)的情感和行动的原因，及像天主一般的爱人……等等，都是推销教会神修的产品，而忘记了中国人，即使是那些学养很深的儒家，根本就没有以色列选民或欧洲十五六世纪以降人民所有的宗教氛围作背景，所以他的言论多少使人感到渺茫，唯可取者，「天主实义」实为福音在中国之先导。

利氏在其书之最末虽提出天主降生成人是教士守独身的来历，但对天主圣三的奥迹，却保持缄默。虽然传布福音是他第一个原则，但在写作中，一煞也没有传讲的味道，他祇用各哲学与典籍来谈信德。他又以辩护天主真教作一贯的第二原则，这是他始终保持的极限。从利氏身上反映了当时教会传统以来的护教精神，这精神曾下意识地阻限了传布福音的活泼力量。但话又说回来，利氏护教是当时可体谅的，因为利氏一方面要「合儒反道」；另一方面又要「超儒」而传扬真道。其实当时利氏所面对的环境比十六世纪教会在欧洲所面对的新教更困难，因为更难有明确的立场，加上教会当局对中国文化的不了解，利氏在中土传教恰似大海捞针，只是「捞」而已，捞出路线已差不多了。

此外，在「天主实义」一书中，他亦有训导人如何实行仁信。利氏写「实义」的目的是针对知识份子，特别是官宦人士，这与中国向来「学而优则士」的思想有关，利氏欲取捷径，由上而下传扬福音，因为当时的社会情况是「仕」影响社会的力量最大，所以能从其个人所面对的困难来看，利氏讨论之「实义」非明朝之「清谈」派可比。

七、总结

仁的观念，在中国思想史土是最重要的，也是最伟大的。它在历史上出现和被讨论的次数无可估计。尽管如此，仁只是在孔孟的儒家思想中方很明确地被重视，并由其弟子发扬光大。仁的涵义，非常丰富，大抵可以分三类：伦理的、政治的、和宇宙论的(注十六)，而利氏的「论仁」思想，篇幅祇两三页，不过千多字，已将其中心思想大体上抽出，并汇通西方宗教思想作一提升，使中国「仁」的思想更完美。利氏的「实义」实际上是移植了西方的宗教思想于中国传统文化中。无论怎样，利玛窦远道重洋，尽量适合当地文化，甚至投身为「仕」，全为了福音能在中国扎根。他更不怕多重障碍，几经艰难接近明朝皇帝，以达成其由上而下的传布福音的方法。从其写「天主实义」一书中，又可见到他投身于传福音的热诚。

利氏晚年的生活事迹更为感人，他侍奉病友李之藻之牺牲精神，实是我们传福音者的最好榜样，仁的理论超卓地显现于其行动中，这实在是「天主实义」一书中所难得见到的活见证(注十七)。

注十六：韦政通编发：中国哲学辞典，大林出版社，中华民国六十七年八月二十日版，论「仁」一三○至一三八页。

注十七：同注十，页二二三。

John P. Ga1vin著劳伯埙译年份：1980

现代系统神学论耶稣复活 (注一)

一、卡．拉纳 (K. Rahner)

虽然并不是全体的神学家都接受卡、拉纳的见解，但他对「复活的性质」的反省，在神学中有其独特的影响力，因此我们首先介绍他的思想。

既然卡、拉纳了解基督学为「自我超越」的「人类学」(self-transcending anthropology)，而人类学即为「不完整的基督学」(deficient christology)。所以他的「复活神学」与他整个的「神学人类学」(theological anthropology)是不可分割的。他整个基督学的出发点是人的自由：天主在恩宠中的自我赠予时常触及人具体的存在，人不仅可以在许多的可能性中作自由抉择，而且他可以自由地投身上主而完成自我。这「自由」具有趋向永恒的特质，一旦抉择，便永不能挽回。在人有限的生命历程中，「死亡」是自由抉择的高峰。从这方面看，「死亡」不必是「人体内生命机能」的停顿，而是包括了积极和消极的因素：一方面「死亡」似乎是不可避免和强加于人身上的；另一方面，「死亡」也是人最后的和决定性的一次在天主前运用他的自由。于是，「死亡」成了一个多面性的事实，它的每一层面都与时间有着不同的关系。

拉纳认为，人有一个「超越的希望」(transcendental hope)，就是希望在他的生命历程中所成就的一切，能够永久存在，因此他以为这「超越的希望」不仅内在于人的自由抉择之中，而且与人的自由共存亡和共延展。人若否定这事实，就会「自我矛盾」，因为这事实并不会因着人的否定而消失。使到我们能够从人类学的层面上去了解「复活」的意义的，就是这「超越的希望」，这希望并不是渴望现世生命的延长。而是渴望跃过死亡而进入永恒。既然这个希望是指向整个人，意谓人不但渴望灵魂不死不灭，而且希望肉身的不朽。可是人了解这希望的内容，尤其是对于肉身复活的了解，更为有限；对于解释「复活」这件事所必需应用的各种「意像」(image)，必需予以极大的保留，否则这些「意像」的缺陷就会妨得我们对「复活」真理本身的了解。

耶稣的复活不仅确立这「希望」，而且使它在一具体的人(耶稣)身上完满实现。由于耶稣是唯一无二的，所以祂的复活也含有唯一无二的特征；但另一方面祂的复活也包含了整个人类复活时所有的特点。死亡本身就是人最后一次决定性的自我形成，所以耶稣的复活是祂在世上生存的成果，而不是死后另一段不同性质的时期。复活绝对不是一个外加于祂身上的记号，证明天主赞成祂所做的事，复活证明祂整个命运在上主前是永久有效的。而祂那已完成的及正在完成的死亡的目的表示出：基督的复活不是祂受苦和死亡后的另一件事，而是基督在苦难时所呈现出来的事。就是一个有血肉的人，主动地和被动地将自己完全交付于仁爱的上主，并自由地投身于祂。

拉纳强调，虽然复活并不是单纯发生在信仰当中的事，但我们不要以为它和信仰毫无关系，在某种程度下，我们一定不曾清楚认识到复活后耶稣存在的型态。虽然在他的早期着作中，我们清楚见到他假定了空坟墓的事实，但我们很难说拉纳神父的「复活神学」，必需要求空坟墓的事实。

在他的早期着作里，拉纳曾指出：复活后的显现，门徒事实上并非直接看见了复活主的存在型态，但最近他却对与「复活的启示」有关的各种问题，十分注意。他的研究有一个特点，就是强调人对复活的「希望」只是便人可能认识耶稣复活的条件之一，而非一证实耶稣复活的证据，一如实证主义所了解的。再者，空坟墓并不是证明耶稣复活的充足证据，因为对于空坟墓可以有许多不同的解释。在拉纳神父的许多着作当中，他曾认为，门徒对「复活」的经验是独特的，从他们的作证中，信徒不但得知当时所发生的事，而且还可以知道他们对复活主的经验的可能性和这经验的性质。在一些更近期的着作中，他曾尝试称空坟墓的发现和耶稣显现的报导是宗徒门基本经验的表白，这基本经验就是体验到耶稣生活在天主的光荣中。拉纳神父以为一切信徒皆可得到这种经验，而他们之所以认识到「历史中的耶稣」完全是靠首批宗徒的见证与宣讲，并由此而相信人类所追求的复活，已经在耶稣身上完满实现了。这反映出拉纳越来越重视人的「希望」的超越性，但他同时宣称人不断需要一些「事件」，把启示带给人。

在他早期有关基督学的论文中，拉纳强调的是「基督的降生」，但在他后期所谓「救恩史的基督学」作品中，则很强调复活的角色。在许多近期作品中，「复活」是「基本基督学」上的两个参据点之一，而另一点就是「历史中的耶稣自我了解为末世性的救主」。虽然复活并非用来证实耶稣(是末世性的救主)的这种自我认识的证据，但是由于通过复活，那蕴含在耶稣的行动当中的这种「自我了解」(为救主)，为我们才会变为清楚及可靠，所以复活可以说是我们信仰的根基。拉纳神父曾经为基督学提供了许多不同的「历史参据点」，他首先关心的是从历史的层面上去证实耶稣本人及某些与祂的生命有关的事实。当然，能够知道多少又是另一个问题。由于拉纳知道，要获得所有关于耶稣的史实是十分困难的事，而且他有这种思想上的趋向，就是认为耶稣的「自我了解」(为末世性的救主)基本上是「信仰的对象」，而不是「信仰的基础」。所以他在一篇论文中提议，神学家应考虑，当我们对耶稣这种「自我认识」所知有限时，复活有没有可能成为基督学上充足的「历史基础」。然而，他知道很多神学家不会把复活视作一可以被证实的历史事件，并且意识到，当代人即使接受复活是「信仰的内容」，也不易接受复活是「信仰的根基」，所以垃纳有时候几乎完全诉诸「历史中耶稣的生命与死亡」；亦由此在他的全部着作中，复活似乎有多种不同的功能。不论怎样，一旦复活附属于耶稣的死亡，则它便不会是基督学的中心，而基督学本身也不会是神学的中心了。

二、简士培 (Walter Kasper)

虽然简士培对复活的观点与拉纳的并不完全相同，但在简氏的着作中很易找到拉纳的思想的痕迹。简氏说复活是「天主末世性的行动」，是耶稣进入了「天主的范畴」的事件。为了避免「幻象论」，一定要提出在复活当中有关「肉身复活」的问题。在圣经里「肉身复活」就是整个人的复活，并且也是人继续接触世界的方式(纵然这方式是完全新异和超性的。)然而，对这样一个「神化的身体」怎样接触世界，我们却几乎不能作出任何具体的陈述。

简士培有时将复活和十字架紧密相连，例如他说：宣认复活信仰的内容，就是肯定新纪元在耶稣死亡时开始出现。他引述拉纳的观点说：「复活就是十字架上的死亡已完成的及正在完成的目的。因此，它不是耶稣的生命和苦难之后的另一件事，而是发生在耶稣死亡中的，换言之，就是一个有血肉的人主动地和被动地将自己交托于上主，而天主又慈爱地接受了这交付。故此复活可说是十字架更深一层的超性层面」。尽管在解释拉纳的陈述时，简氏修正了拉纳的某些思想，但以上所述的一段，使人见到他们的观点十分相似。然而在其着作的他处，简氏指出复活是「天主新颖的行动」，而这行动是人不可推论出来的。他反对(基督学)只是注重「历史中的耶稣」，因为复活有它本身「额外的内容」，那就是被钉死的耶稣在天国内的新生命。故此，简氏的立场有含糊之处，同一的辞句可以有不同的解释：一方面他在基督学上的论据毫无疑问是依靠复活所带来的新启示，但另一方面，他某些对「复活性质」的描述与他基督学的论据并不吻合。

在「复活的启示」这个课题上，简士培主张：既然我们不能从耶稣的「生平」推论出「复活」，所以需要引用一件「新」的事来解释在耶稣死后产生复活信仰的源由。虽然简氏认为发现「空坟墓」在历史上是可能的，但他的主要参据点是复活后的「显现」，而「显现」就是基督或天主主动地再次与人接触的行动。然而，简氏对显现事件的看法与传统的不同，他认为「显现」不必是「奇迹」，而是「信仰的经验」，就是说体验到耶稣的神仍在活动，而耶稣仍生活在祂的神之内。

简士培把复活作为他基督学的焦点，并且常批判其他学者不把复活作为他们基督学的中心。他强调在基督学里基督复活在圣神内的重要性，并且尝试发展他所谓的「在圣神内的基督学」(pneumatically orientated christology)，使学者除「由上而下」的基督学和「自下而上」的基督学外可以有多一种选择。他认为，「由上而下」的基督学并没有充份考虑到当代的环境；而「自下而上」的基督学亦是有缺陷的，因为历史中的耶稣具有来自天主的「自我了解」。此外，由于简士培赞同「复活」为纯粹「由上而下」的基督学，因此他认为「历史中的耶稣」不是产生信仰的充足基础，在祂的生命完结时，祂生命的意义仍悬而未决，而且，从表面看来，十字架窜改了祂的讯息。「历史中的耶稣」也不是基督徒信仰的全部内容，因为除了「历史中的耶稣」带来启示外，复活事件和在圣神的使命里都以一更超越的方式带来启示。故此，「复活」是信仰根基的一部份，因为它除了证明「历史中的耶稣」的「合法性」以外，并给它提供了新的内容，同时简氏认为：为了防止削弱基督学的内容，这新的内容是必需的。基督学的内容和最基本的准则应当是：「历史中的耶稣」和「被提升及复活了的基督」。这二者的身份当有区别，而这区别乃来自「复活」。

三、龚汉斯 (Hans Kung)

对基督学的研究是龚氏的名着「论基督徒」(On Being A Christian)一书的核心部份。这本书的目的是将基督宗教与世界上其他宗教以及各种「非神的人文主义」(non-theistic humanism)互相比较，从而指出基督宗教的特点。它的出发点是护教，并以类似讲道的文体写成，对象是非信徒和一切信仰受到考验的信徒，故此本书虽讨论基督学的根本问题，但却非系统化的神学着作。他强调他的基督学是「自下而上」的，并认为自黑格尔和史特劳士之后，这是基督学唯一合理的路向。他坚决反对他在都平根的同侪简士培，而认为可以把复活并入「自下而上」的基督学里，因为讨论复活的信仰并不是纯粹基于「由上而下」的基督学，而不必找寻另一个方法以表达之。

龚氏反对布特曼的学说，他认为耶稣的复活不仅表明了他死亡的意义，也不仅是发生在门徒身上的事，而是一真实的事件；这事件是天主干预的行为，发生在一切似乎都失败的时刻。然而，它不属于历史，因为它超越了历史的范畴，因此它不能仅从历史去证实。复活不是(死者)再重入时空中，再渡今世的生活，而是进入了「最后的实有境界」里，即是「死在天主内」。虽然「复活」与「死亡」客观上看来是有分别的，因为「复活」很清楚是与「死亡」和「埋葬」不一样，但「复活」与「死亡」并不一定发生在不同的时辰，因为复活来自死亡，在死亡中，且与死亡同一发生。复活必定包括「肉身」，意指复活起来的是同一个人。但这人的肉身在生理机能上并不一定与从前的身体相同；故此肉身复活并不一定暗含着空坟墓的事实。

纵然龚氏认为「空坟墓」的传统是传奇性的描述，但他对复活信仰的起源的评价在某方面与简士培相似。「复活的启示」主要是发生在耶稣死后门徒对他完全新颖的经验里；毫无疑问，这经验就是新约有关「显现」的内容。可是，显现事件不是超性的干预，它只是门徒对那被钉死而活着的主的体验。龚氏认为不可用心理学来解释显现的事件，而应将它们比拟为旧约先知的被召，或者是在信德中所领受的召叫。「复活的信仰」在历史中的起源不是龚氏的主要问题，因为他以为，有关空坟墓和显现的历史性的问题与复活讯息的意义的问题相较之下，前者就变得不重要了。

龚氏认为复活主要的任务是证明「历史中的耶稣」是合法的。在他的思想里，耶稣本人和他的事业颇紧密相连，二者看来都在他死亡时耻辱地完结了，因为祂死亡的样子，看来就是人和天主都公然地放弃了祂，祂的生命在彻底的失败和充满羞辱的情形下结束。祂的公开生活在群众中引起了不少「期望」，但这些「期望」是否合理，他的公开生活对此并无答案，而他死在十字架上并没有彰显天主克胜了死亡。但也正是在他死亡的时候，引用耶稣名字的活动才真正开始，因为在那时人才真正地信祂。纵然复活是天主用来证明耶稣本人和他的事业是「合法」的，而且没有这证明基督徒信仰便不会有一个充足的基础，但龚氏仍坚持复活本身是信仰的对象，而不是验明信仰的奇迹。无论如何，我们不能单方面研究复活，或让复活减损十字架的中心地位，因十字架乃与耶稣的公开生活相连。因此，龚氏声称基督学的基本准则是「圣经中的耶稣基督」「在世上、在十字架上、在他的复活、和在团体的宣讲中的耶稣基督本人」。复活虽然不可或缺，但与简士培的观点比较，在龚氏的思想里复活更是从属于耶稣的公开生活和祂的死亡。

四、司褐雷碧 (Edward Schillebeeckx)

在他对耶稣的生平探讨之后，他对「复活性质」的了解与拉纳的完全不一样。他强调复活不仅揭示了耶稣死亡事件所包含的启示，而且更战胜了死亡消极的一面。这个新异的事件赋予耶稣死亡新的意义。他断然反对纯粹将复活看成是教会复活信仰的渊源(虽然他指出二者是不能被分开的)，亦由此，他同样坚决地否定复活是耶稣死亡的「另一边」，它是耶稣死亡具有救赎意义的一面；他否定的主要理由是死亡仍属于消极的。无论如何，司氏认为复活是「超越历史」和「超越经验」的，同时也否认耶稣的肉身复活必须包括了空坟墓的证据。

司氏认为：圣经中有关发现空坟墓的叙述是预先假定了对复活主的信仰。当他分析了有关的圣经章节之后，他结论说：空坟墓事件的历史性不能够确立，而且这事件并不能成为信仰耶稣复活的充足基础。另一方面，他却强调门徒对历史中耶稣的「记忆」的重要性，他从宗徒们对耶稣的恩宠性经验中，获悉了复活的意义，而这经验就是他们体验到耶稣(在死后)仍然活着。当司氏解释显现事件时，他认为视觉的体验并非主要的因素，而更重要是宗徒个人的宗教经验，他们从显现事件中经验到天主对人的罪的宽赦，从而聚集他们成为一个以伯多禄为首的宗徒团体。在此我们应注意一点：上述的宗教经验必需与纯粹的主观信念加以区别，我们不应以一种近乎幼稚的和太现实的态度去解释它；对于我们自己的信仰亦复如此。在司氏(基督学)的荷兰文原着第三版所加插的那部份中，他的立场似乎有所改变，与早期不同。虽然如此，他仍深信，复活乃意味着对死后的耶稣产生了一种新的经验，但在此他并没有指出「罪的赦免」的主题。最后，他对「复活的信仰」在历史中如何演变的问题不置可否，他只坚持此信仰乃源于天主，但他对于所谓的「超自然」主义者的观念一概不接受。

在司氏的基督学中，「复活」所扮演的角色是根据他的基本原则而定，这原则是：「解释纳匝肋耶稣的唯一标准就是纳匝肋耶稣本人」。他很强烈地批判以下两点：第一，救恩只是来自耶稣的复活；第二，复活是神学的唯一出发点。他认为若视救恩仅求自「历史中的耶稣」，或视其仅来自「复活的基督」都是错误的，因为复活若与历史中的耶稣分离，则它使会沦为「神话」；反过来，若历史中的耶稣缺少了基督徒所谓的「复活」，则耶稣的一生便成为一出惨剧。为司氏自己而言，了解耶稣的转捩点无不是耶稣的死亡，而是在此之前，群众拒绝他的时候。司氏在福音中找到证据，证明当耶稣发觉他的宣讲和行动不受群众接受时，他便预先知道他的死亡就快来临，并且明白死亡是他的使命的一部份，但同时，耶稣的死亡作为一个最后的「先知性标记」而言，它有待后人去深入解释。原来基督学就是有关耶稣整个生命的描述，而耶稣的死亡是最先使到基督学的描述成为可能的，然而耶稣的公开生活和死亡决不是最后的。最低限度它们不是基督徒希望的基础。在耶稣的死亡与早期教会对祂的宣讲之间所存在的，并非是「复活」，而是「宗徒们的经验」经验到祂还活着。司氏不愿意说复活是天主对耶稣一生行实的「认许」或「批准」，他认为一句信仰的陈词不能够使另一信仰的陈词「合法化」，而且真正使到基督徒信仰「合理化」的不是目前的事件，而是未来的事实(末世性的事件)。

一：译自：John P. Galvin, The Resurrection of Jesus in Contemporary Catholic Systematics, in Heythrop Journal vol.XX(1979) n. 2 p.p.123-145

五、贝善思 (Rudolf Pesch)

贝善思是一位释经学家，他也着手研究有关复活信仰的起源的问题。我们在这里提到他乃是因为他曾清楚表示要为「基本神学」的发展作出贡献。他接纳拉纳的复活思想，但认为对于「空坟墓」和「显现」事件的历史性的论证并不足以使人信服。他主张基督徒的信仰乃扎根于历史中的耶稣，而不是在祂死后所发生的事情上。他坚持说，在耶稣生时，宗徒们便已相信祂是一位「先知性的默西亚」。既然在犹太人的习俗里已有「末世性殉道先知」死后复活的传统，所以宗徒们的信仰在本质上的改变，纵然不诉诸「显现」或「空坟墓」的证据，亦是可能的，而他们在信仰上的改变是耶稣被钉死后必然的效果)，特别是当耶稣的公开生活快将完结时，祂不断预期着死亡的来临，并把祂的死亡视作一「救恩性的事件」，特别当祂在最后晚餐时祂明显的如此表现。贝氏讨论「复活的启示」时，把重点放在历史中的耶稣身上，并且假设了门徒们(对耶稣的生命)有很深刻的反省；毕竟，贝善思坚持「启示」和「反省」决不是彼此排斥的。

在他看来，复活的功用不是用来证明历史中耶稣所做的一切是合法的(天主所认可的)证据，因为耶稣的公开生活和祂的死亡已经足够成为基督徒信仰的基础，故此不用找其它合法的证据，故此更好说复活在基督学上是一种合法和必需的表白，它从耶稣死亡的观点说明了耶稣这个人(对我们)的末世性意义，而这一点却是不能完全从历史的层面上去确立的信仰基础。

六、耶洛钖 (Hans Jellouschek)与叔普(Franz Schupp)

对复活在基督学上的作用耶洛锡(JELLOUSCHEK)和叔普(SCHUPP)也提出了他们的见解，他们都接受拉纳对「复活的性质」的解释。在一篇讨论历史中的耶稣在基督学上的意义的文章里，耶洛钖指出「复活」这个名词并不会增加基督学的内容，反而它是指向被钉死的那一位，因为复活与耶稣及其一生息息相关，故此复活指出耶稣的救恩意义，并表达出耶稣本人的永久重要性。耶洛钖认为宣信「耶稣复活了」就是等于宣信「耶稣是基督」；但宣信「耶稣复活」并不是宣信「耶稣是基督」的理由。这两句信仰陈述的内容主要是主词所指的耶稣，而不是宾词所指的事物。

叔普曾尝试表达耶稣和整个历史的关系，而同时避免贬低耶稣在历史中的真实性和祂救赎全人类的意义，结果他承认我们不能确定「耶稣复活」的信仰在历史中的起源。但他坚持我们并不会因此而无法为这信仰作出神学的探讨，因为我们要把一个陈述的起源及其有效性的问题分辨清楚，若我们不知道一个陈述的来源时，仍可以研究它是否有效。叔普主张十字架无疑是「救援学」的中心，但它却不是耶稣直接宣讲的内容。十字架只是代表耶稣接受祂自己在当时个人宣讲所带来的后果，故此十字架也同时表达了当时的人无法逃避耶稣的讯息。为了解释上述的主张，他提出了一个「救援学」的大纲，反对将耶稣的一生的有效性建基于祂死后的事件(复活)上；同时他恐怕若我们说救恩是来自祂死后的另一件事(复活)，便会贬低了十字架的价值。为此他认为复活就是对耶稣本身的宣信，而更重要的是表达出祂的死亡具有救赎的能力。

七、卡斯洛 (Hans Kessler)

卡斯洛深信在过去救援论由于太注重耶稣的降生和苦难，因死疏忽了祂的公开生活，结果妨碍了救援论的研究。他概略地提出了一个基督学，复活在其中的功用很少。他的学说十分依重萧石(FRANZ-JOSEF SCHIERSE)对释经学的研究，萧石的神学立场基本上是这样的：耶稣在祂的言行中揭示了全部最后的真理，而后来的解释只是尝试用概念来表达出救恩事件的某一层面。卡斯洛坚持说我们应以历史中的耶稣为基础去了解救恩。卡氏研究了法兰克福学学派的「批判学」后，提出了一个救赎理论的初步大纲，特别强调耶稣具有解放性的公开生活(但他同时也没有声称这是一个完整及周密的理论)。稍后，在另一篇文章中，卡斯洛又提出，尽管在十字架上耶稣看似是一位失败者，但复活展示了祂是最后及唯一的救世主。同时，在复活这个基础上，说明了耶稣并非已成过去，现今只是活在人们的记忆或在祂对人的影响力中，其实，祂是以一种新而唯一的形式与天主生活在一起，并藉着圣神，不停地临在于人间。

八、素宾奴 (Jon Sobrino)

素宾奴是一位巴斯克籍(BASQUE)的耶稣会士，现在执教于萨尔瓦多。他从拉丁美洲解放神学的角度去研究复活，由于深受莫特曼(Moltmann)的影响，他坚持应以战胜不公义和死亡的希望作出发点去面对复活的问题。

素宾奴认为复活是一末世性的事件，与从近似死亡状态中苏醒过来是两回事，因此复活并不能直接地去全部了解。尽管他认为有关空坟墓的历史性的问题仍是悬而未决，但由于显现事件很早便在基督徒团体中流传，故认为可能是事实；同时，这些事件的主要内容都显示有其历史性，故此，他这样判断：虽然我们不能确切地指出显现经验的性质，但可以肯定门徒都曾获得独特的经验，而这些经验恢复了他们曾一度被粉碎的信心。

素宾奴的研究，主要不是在显现和空坟墓的事件上。他企图将基督学建基于历史中的耶稣身上，并且提出警告说：基督宗教所面对最深的诱惑，就是片面地集中在复活了的基督身上。他认为，正由于众人都视复活为信仰耶稣的根基，故此这就成为了忘怀耶稣具体生活的原因；过份强调复活就是使到神学离开具体生活的病征，并使复活由「信仰」沦为「宗教」和「歌颂权力」的事件。为防止这种情形出现，他认为必须把「复活」和「十字架」相连为一，还要极力避免掩饰「十字架的丑闻」。从正确的观点去看，复活实在显示了天主是谁，一方面它澄清了生命的意义；另一方面它又澄清了人类生存和人类历史的意义。纵然素宾奴提到耶稣「成为」天主之子这一点，但他并没有用这个观点来解释复活，一如「嗣子论」所说。

九、佰特沙(Hans Urs Von Balthasar)

伯特沙视复活在时间上是与耶稣死亡分离的事件。纵然复活是和历史有关，但它不可能是一件在历史中发生的事，因为它不是(耶稣死后)重渡现世的生活，而是耶稣进入了另一个存在的境界，永久摆脱了死亡，超越现世的限制。复活不是信仰的起源，因为它本身都根源天主圣三的奥迹。既然耶稣的复活并无其他事情可资相比，故此伯特沙认为，复活了主的存在境界是绝对独一无二的，并且若从人类学的观点来看，讨论这存在的境界的性质并无很大的价值。

伯特沙发现众人多以下面的思想来了解复活，就是圣经里「生活的天主」的概念。用犹太的「默示文学」(apocalypticism)以及历史中的耶稣曾自称为末世性的救主的思想都不足以解释复活这一独特事件。虽然空坟墓的发现是历史性的事，但空坟墓本身却只是一个标记，意义是模棱两可的。启示复活的含义的主要是显现的事件，这事件超越任何「批判」，因为它是(门徒)和一位活生生的人(耶稣)的「遇合」。没有显现的事件，门徒就不会宣讲复活，因为他们的信仰与耶稣本人和祂的工程太过紧密相连，若没有另一件事(显现)发生，他们是不会继续耶稣的事业(宣讲)的。

既然伯特沙是和他人合作，尝试作出一个综合性的信理神学，并且在这一套神学里去探讨「巴斯挂奥迹」，所以他的复活神学并不能表现他个人的特征。他似乎让「复活」在神学里扮演一个中心的角色，认为复活是教会内一切神学的出发点，好使我们能正确地把握着耶稣生命的意义，为启示基督的天主性和天主圣三的奥迹，复活似乎十分重要，而且它也是教会根基的一部份。然而从他重视十字架的一点来看，若把复活看成是他的神学中心似乎是不正确的。

十、哥年士 (G. O' Collins)与兰尼 (D. Lane)

澳洲耶稣会士哥年士和爱尔兰神学家尔尼都提出了相似的复活神学。

哥年士认为复活是一件真实的事，而且包含了耶稣肉身复活的事件，这肉身曾三天被埋在坟墓里。这件事意味着基督曾离开了人类的历史，祂光荣的肉身进入了一个新的存在形态里，祂不仅充满了圣神，并且成为了全人类生命的泉源。虽然天主曾决定性干预了复活的事件，但我们不能把它当作历史的事情看待，因为它并非发生于时空，而更好说，耶稣是脱离了人类历史，进入了另一个属于天主的永恒世界。

哥年士虽然承认「空坟墓」的历史性，但却认为它从属于「显现」的传统。另一方面，圣经中有关显现的记载又依靠在另一可靠的传统上，就是怕多禄和其他的门徒遇见复活了的基督，可是，有关显现的详情却仍旧是含糊不清，在这点上，哥年士找到了「复活的启示」：「复活后的基督对一群人的自我启示使他们产生了复活的信仰，并使他们组成了第一个基督徒团体」。

在哥年士的基督学里，复活扮演着一个主要的角色：他很逻辑地判断复活是基督学的根基。一方面，他坚决反对布特曼(BULTMANN)，强调历史中耶稣的重要性；另一方面他同时批判趋向于过份夸大历史中的耶稣在信仰里的重要性的潮流，而这些潮流的主要代表人物是耶肋米亚 (J. JEREMIAS)和(E. FUCHS)福克斯。耶稣的死亡和复活既是天主启示的最高峰，若我们尊重耶稣的生命是特殊的，则不应贬抑祂的死亡和复活为不必要的附属物。

兰尼认为复活是天主在耶稣身上的超历史行动。复活既然是在死亡的「另一边」发生的事件，故此不在时空的范畴内。复活既然是天主的行动，我们只能从它的效果认识它。这些效果首先是「显现」的事件，为门徒来说，显现是真实的，具有启示性和历史性的事件。「空坟墓」的传统也十分可信，然而与显现的事件相比就变为次要了。虽然在基督学里我们必须研究耶稣的公开生活，但只研究它是不足够的，因为它的意义模棱两可。而且，祂的「死亡」是一个失败的标记，祂的死亡曾摧毁了宗徒们的信念。「复活」和「五旬节」可以说是一个「渐进的启示过程」中最后和必需的阶段，也是天国介入人间的重要事件，它澄清了那早已蕴藏在耶稣的言行中的意义，也同时为基督信仰注入新的内容：就是使复活后的基督成为信仰的新对象。

十一、雪适 (Leo Scheffczyk)与哥德兹(Franz Coorth)

对「复活的性质」的最传统观点，可以在雪适讨论这个问题的书本里找到。他多次说过需要为复活提出一个「实在」的见解，而这见解也同时是客观的、历史性的、以及属于圣经实证的，它与存在主义和混合了存在主义及注释学的见解对立。纵然复活和十字架相连，但二者并不是同一件事；因为复活是天主的干预行为，亦是一新的创造。既然复活是天主的行动，这行动既属于历史，同时又超越历史，若追寻它发生的源由似乎不甚恰当，一如人追寻天地万物的起源一样。无论如何，耶稣的复活必定包含着空坟墓。

虽然「空坟墓」的传统比「显现」事件较为次要，但是雪适坚持空坟墓的传统不是一个「传说」。「看见了复活的主」后，首批信徒宣称祂复活了，既然认出显现的那一位是谁乃是信德的行动，而这行动又包含了人的自由在内，故此，相信复活并非是人推理的结果。在雪适看来，显现不仅是门徒相信复活的基本因素，而且它也是内在于复活本身的，谁若认显现就等于否认复活。

在他的着作的开端，雪适声称系统神学在研究复活的课题上有三个任务：第一：解释复活是基督宗教的特点；第二：从圣经里发掘出复活的神学意义；第三：说明复活的真理是一切真理的关键和中心。但他认为第三点是最重要的。为此，在他的着作里他用了不少篇幅去说明，为正确地了解天主三位一体、基督、创造、圣事和末世论等神学课题，必须以复活为最中心的参据点。除了强调整个神学都应以复活为中心之外，雪适并严厉地批判传统神尚没有明认这点。

哥德兹在慕尼黑曾是雪适的学生。在他的一篇论文里，他同样指出复活的中心地位，这篇论文主要是探询以「历史中的耶稣」作为解释信仰的准则是否正确的问题。一方面他承认历史中耶稣的重要性；但另一方面，他坚持：若没有复活，耶稣的生平与命运会显得很含糊，甚至对于宗徒亦然。因此他结论说：复活就是基督徒信仰在历史上的基础。他引述新约里不同的章节来证明，新约最主要是肯定耶稣的复活是天主决定性的启示。故此，他主张解释基督徒信仰最后的标准不是历史中的耶稣，而是死而复活的主，祂藉着圣神不断临在于教会内。他认为除了这标准以外，其他标准很难不削减基督学的内容，因为它们没有注意到复活本身不仅包括了历史中的耶稣，而且还超过这一点，只有复活才包含了基督学的真正内容。在两篇较为近期的文章里，哥德兹明确地肯定，「信仰」必须顾虑到复活本身及其藉「显现」而表达出其为天主救恩性行动的意义。他亦曾批判司褐雷碧，认为司氏反对耶稣死后的事件(复活和领现)的肯定，并不足以支持司氏的「复活的概念」。

十二、结论

这篇文章简单介绍了当代天主教在基督学上对「耶稣复活」的各种立场。在我们所讨论的三个课题上：复活的性质、复活的启示、复活在整个神学中所扮演的角色，神学家的观点分歧很大。纵然在短期内(或者永远)我们不可能在这些课题上达到同一的意见，但我们可以提出一些评语，使我们留意在各种不同观点里面所共有的中心问题。

首先，研究「复活的性质」和它的「神学功用」之间的关系会使我们获益。我们不清楚各种对「复活的性质」的观点是否符合它在神学上可能有的功用。试举一例以说明：若果一面以消极的词句来说明十字架的意义，而另一方面却说复活有证明耶稣自称为救世主是合法的的功能，那么，我们说「复活」与耶稣的「死亡」不可分割是否有些矛盾？以龚氏和简氏为代表，他们收集各种歧异的资料，却没有仔细研究在综合各种不同的思想时所遇到的问题。因此，当他们讨论复活在「基督学」中的功用时，使人想起潘南培(Pannenberg)的立场；而他们对于死亡和复活之间的关系的描写却明显地过于依重拉纳的思想，然而，拉纳对「复活的性质」的看法与潘氏在基督学上的论证看来是不甚吻合的。对这课题更深刻的探讨会帮助除去某些作者表面看来似乎矛盾的观点。

第二：在讨论复活的神学功能时，争论的焦点是「历史中的耶稣」是否足以成为基督学的基础和准则。这个问题也是当代基督教在基督学上的中心问题，就如潘南培和艾具龄(Ebeling)的对立见解所显示的。很可惜讨论这问题时常受到用词上的妨碍，原因是同一的词汇却有多种不同的用法。不论是主张「历史中的耶稣」足以成为基督学的基础和准则的神学家(例如萧石、卡斯洛)抑或是否认这观点的某些学者(例如哥德兹、简士培、兰尼尼)，在提及「历史中的耶稣」时，都很少提及祂的死亡；但另一批学者(例如贝善思、叔普、耶洛钖)则不仅提到祂的死亡，而且还给予祂的死亡一个很显着的地位。因此，对于讨论「历史中的耶稣」是否足够成为基督学的标准这个问题，前者和后者的意见便很难一致了。至于那些宣称「历史中的耶稣」足够成为基督学的基础和准则的学者，曾有人指责他们削弱了基督学的内容，其实，对那些认为「历史中的耶稣」是不包括祂的「死亡」的学者，这指责可能是对的；但对其他持不同意见的学者，这指责并不一定正确。原来，不加批判地接纳潘南培将「耶稣的行动」与祂的「苦难」和「复活」区分开来可能是产生各种难题的根源。若视耶稣的死亡为祂公开活动的后果，而又将祂的死亡与其公开生活分离，才评定祂的公开生活的价值，几乎是不可能的事。另一方面，我们也应当更加仔细地审查那些强调「历史中的耶稣」(包括祂的死亡)足够成为基督学的基础与准则的观点。这观点有一最大的好处，就是基督学的基础和准则可从历史的层面出发，而其他的准则(例如龚氏的「圣经中的基督」与简士培的「世上的耶稣与光荣复活的基督」)都预先假定了一个「答案」，这「答案」就是针对了拉纳所认为是首要又最根本的问题：就是：从「历史中的耶稣」跳到「初期教会的宣讲」这一「步」的合理性。

最后，「耶稣死亡」的神学意义是讨论「复活」的关键和枢纽。虽然「赔补」和「祭献」的理论均属此问题的范围，但耶稣死亡的问题还包含了更复杂的因素。有系统地进一步研究更形需要。尤其是释经学最近对新约中各种解释的研究成果，对神学探讨更是有利。为达到更适切地解释耶稣的复活，避免把耶稣的死亡从祂的公开生活中抽离是一很重要的先决条件。即使在此无法鸟瞰各家之言，以提供一较完整的建议，但无论如何，可以肯定的是：一个消极地评估耶稣的死亡的神学始终不能在基督学上有根基及积极地肯定祂的生命的意义。

作者：McLoughlin, Michael 年份：1980

"As the Catholic Church is foreign to no nation, so should every nation produce its own sacred ministers." "Wherever there exists an indigenous clergy, adequate in number and training, there the missionary work must be considered as having been brought to a happy end, there the Church is founded." (Benedict XV).

Since the beginning of the catholic missions in China, the Church has sought to establish a full regular normal local Church. In practice, from the beginning, efforts have been made to foster and to multiply Chinese vocations. It was not, however, until the present century that a concerted and organized plan for the whole country was devised. For many years the great Seminary of the Martyrs in Penang had been a sort of Central Seminary for most of the Far East, and in various parts of China there were Major Seminaries for special districts. All this was good, but still more was needed. Church Law laid it down that there should be a seminary in every diocese: where that was impossible, the Bishops of an Ecclesiastical Region, by their mutual assistance, were to open a common seminary for all the dioceses of the Region.

The First Council of China in 1924 urged the matter as of great importance, and under the guidance of the Apostolic Delegate to China, then Mgr. Costantini, a network of fourteen Region Seminaries were planned. By 1936 eleven of these seminaries were functioning: Kirin (Manchukuo), Chala (Peking), Suanhwafu (Hopei), Hankow (Hupeh), Tsinanfu (Shantung), Tatungfu (Shansi), Kaifeng (Honan), Chengtu (Szechwan), Nanchang (Kiangsi), Ningpo (Chekiang), and Aberdeen (Hong Kong). In 1949, there were sixteen Regional Seminaries, as well as many local Major Seminaries. Today, none of those seminaries is in operation in any form except one, Aberdeen, Hong Kong.

The origins of the Regional Seminary, Aberdeen, are to be found ultimately in the initiative of the Apostolic Delegate in China and of the Bishops who ruled the vicariates of South China in the early decades of this century (1). Even after that all-important decision had been taken, even after Hong Kong had been chosen as the general address, there was still a very great amount of practical work to be done; for as yet, there was no building, not even a site, and no staff.

This last problem proved the easiest to solve. The Irish Jesuits had just recently arrived in the Vicariate, and were not yet deeply committed. A stroke of a pen in Rome and the whole matter was settled in the traditional ecclesiastical way. The Jesuits in Hong Kong became responsible for finding the necessary staff.

A stroke of a pen may produce a staff: it will not level a site or raise a building. Mgr. Valtorta, then Vicar Apostolic of Hong Kong, had half a dozen sites in mind. One of these interested him particularly; it was the hill-crowned tip of a peninsula overlooking the fishing village of Aberdeen, near the Southwest corner of Hong Kong island. When the Apostolic Delegate came to Hong Kong to decide where the Seminary should be built, it was to this site that he was first brought. The other sites were not even looked at: the Regional Seminary was to be in Aberdeen.

The site had been chosen: but obviously there would have to be months of negotiation and waiting before taking possession. On 25th February 1927, Mgr. Valtorta brought the Jesuit Fathers to the scene of future labour. Having seen it, they promised St. Theresa of Lisieux that if she would secure possession of the site within six months, her feast would be celebrated in the future Seminary with special solemnity. Months passed, and nothing seemed to be happening. It looked as if the Saint were ignoring the time limit. But on 24th August, the very last day of the six months, an unheralded telephone message informed Mgr. Valtorta that the site was his.

To design the Seminary building, an architect long famous for his grasp of the traditional Chinese style, Dom Adalbert Gresnigt O.S.B., was chosen. The original plan provided for a great quadrangular building, stepped down the hill towards the sea. Later on it was decided to reverse the plan, so that the whole grandiose structure might face the busy road rather than the lonely sea. The economic blizzard of the thirties shrivelled these high ambitions. One side of the proposed quadrangle was indeed built according to Dom Gresnigt plan; but the connecting wings, the great facade, and the Chapel itself had to be resigned with a sigh.

Yet, incomplete though it is, the portion that was erected bears evident testimony to the wisdom of the choice of an architect. For all its elaboration of colour and detail, the present Seminary is pre-eminently a building of stately unity.

Now the Seminary had a site and a plan. Nothing more was needed, except labour, tools, bricks, stone and mortar, and someone to see that all these were properly used to carry out Dom Gresnigt's plan. Fr. Grampa P.I.M.E. undertook this last arduous labour. Almost fifty years and, during the war, an unknown number of guns have done their worst; but the fabric is still a striking monument to Fr. Grampa's skill and devotion.

On 3rd October 1930, the feast of St. Theresa of Lisieux, Mgr. Valtorta, in a private ceremony, blessed and laid the cornerstone of the already rising building.

In so far as the Regional Seminary of Our Lady, Queen of China, had an official opening, it was on the Feast of All Saints, 1st November 1931. The first students had arrived a few days earlier, October 28th, and classes had already begun. Since the last touches had not yet been given to the building, there was no question of an elaborate opening; but on November 1st, there was a simple ceremony, which suitably symbolized the union that should bind a regional seminary to the dioceses it serves and especially to the Ordinary of the diocese in which it is built.

In the presence of H.E. Mgr. Deswaziere and a few priests connected with the dioceses of South China, H.E. Mgr. Henry Valtorta said Mass for the students, during which he preached the first of his inspiring Latin sermons which were to be heard and appreciated for the next twenty years. He pointed out to them the significance of this new development for the missions of South China. He also showed how this seminary was a visible symbol of the universal catholic charity, which is not limited by national boundaries. The students should show forth this charity in their own lives and, as priests, they should teach it to the people committed to their care. Union and charity between the students and their superiors and between the students themselves should be the distinguishing mark of the new Seminary, and the surest sign that it was achieving the results expected from it.

Fr. T. Cooney S.J. was installed as the first Rector. The other professors were Frs. G. Kennedy, P. Joy, D. Finn, and R. Gallagher, and Rev. H. O'Brien and G. Casey. There were, to begin with, seven theologians and thirteen philosophers.

Life in the Seminary at Aberdeen was similar to life in any seminary in a mission country in the thirties. There were, of course, events particular to Aberdeen. During the first ten years, a kitchen, laundry and servants' quarters were added to the original building. In 1936 a large telescope was set up and put into working order. The preliminary tests gave good definition and magnification. With this a meteorological station was established and regular readings were taken. Unfortunately with the approach of the war in 1941, the telescope had to be dismantled, and has not been restored.

Another activity of value to the students was provided by Fr. Finn's interest in the archaeology of South China. Besides being Professor of Scripture and Spiritual Director, Fr. Finn was a trained archaeologist. During his time in the Seminary he studied the superstitions and customs of the boat people of Aberdeen; his findings were sent, along with a selection of idols and charms, to the Lateran Museum. He also made many pottery finds on the nearby island of Lamma. Some of the students used to accompany him on his field work, and became quite expert in recognizing primitive artefacts and recording their location.

But the most important event of this period was the Japanese war, which caused so much physical suffering and poverty in China. To alleviate these distresses, a Chinese Catholic War Relief Organization was set up. This gave the seminarians an opportunity to show their zeal, and their contribution was substantial. Here is part of a letter from the Treasurer of the Organization to the Prefect of the Seminarians.

"A third time, and in such a short time, the Chinese Catholic Relief Organization has received a generous contribution from the Seminarians of Aberdeen... Your letter is very inspiring and I hope to quote it in the next issue of the Catholic Digest... In your own way, you too are bearing the burden of your country's suffering and you are to be congratulated on the generous sacrifices you are making... Hundreds upon hundreds of wounded are being taken care of and thousands and thousands of refugees".

For the first two years the number of students was small, but an influx from Fukien and Kwang-tung brought about a sudden increase in 1933. In 1937, the Fukien Seminarians were recalled to Foochow, to continue their studies in the newly opened Regional Seminary for that province. This step had been foreseen; for it was only natural that a group of dioceses in which vocations were numerous and where language and customs differed so much from those of the Cantonese, should have a seminary of their own. Numbers, however, did not fall off at Aberdeen. The Minor Seminaries of Kwang-tung, which in the preceding ten years had been both increased and reorganized, now began to send increasing numbers of candidates. A few more came from the Chinese diaspora - one from Banka, and a steady flow from North Borneo. There were dioceses in Indonesia and Siam which also applied for places, but had to be refused because the space was needed for those who had first claim to be admitted, and also because it was felt that the Seminary should be kept purely for the Chinese. The largest number of students in the Seminary at one time was seventy-five; while the number ordained to the priesthood during these first ten years was forty-eight.

Ordination, of course, is the whole purpose of a seminary. For the Aberdeen Seminary, its greatest day was not the opening but Easter Saturday, 31st March 1934, when the first of its students were raised to the priesthood. His Excellency Henry Valtorta, Bishop of Hong Kong, performed the ceremony in the Cathedral. The Apostolic Delegate to China, H.E. Mgr. Mario Zanin arrived in Hong Kong for the first time during the ceremony, and was present in the sacristy at the conclusion to receive the new priests.

The following article, taken from the 'Rock' 1934, is quoted here as a tribute not only to those first priests of Aberdeen, but also to all who have followed them. Since they left the Seminary, these priests have been asked to undertake difficult, even heroic assignments. Some have been in prison, some are in prison, many have had to leave their country to work in other lands. To all the Regional Seminary offers its greetings and thanks.

"This event (of the first ordinations from the Seminary) gives us many reasons for rejoicing, in the first place for the great gift that has been conferred on the recipients themselves. No higher honour can be conferred on man than that he should be called by God to the service of the altar. The priest is the minister of Christ on earth. In Christ's name he pours on the neophyte the waters of Baptism, in Christ's name he brings comfort to the sinner... But above all－and this is the sublime dignity of the Catholic priesthood－in Christ's name he stands at the altar, Mediator between man and his Maker, to offer up once more the Sacrifice which was offered by the great High Priest Himself on the hill of Calvary. ... It is a sublime dignity indeed and the Catholic faithful look to the priest as someone who stands to them in the place of Christ. ...He is the servant of all. But he is well requited for his life of sacrifice by the love and gratitude of his people. We therefore congratulate in the first place these three young men whom God has called to serve their own China and the Chinese people in this supreme service."

The years sped by unperceived until suddenly it was realized that the tenth year had arrived. The students wanted to celebrate the occasion, but the conditions caused by the war made that almost impossible. It was finally agreed that Mgr. H. Valtorta would celebrate pontifical high mass in the Seminary and that he would administer tonsure and minor orders to those who were due (sixteen candidates).

On the tenth anniversary, the sixty-six students in the Seminary represented between them all the Vicariates in Kwang-tung, the Vicariate of Wuchow in Kiangsi, and the missions of Borneo and Sarawak. A commemorative card, showing the area from which the students were drawn, was distributed. On a map of the region each of the mission centres was indicated, and the number of former students ordained for each mission was marked. The total of those who had entered the Seminary and had already been ordained was forty-eight; of those many had already spent some years in other major seminaries, others had completed studies commenced in Aberdeen, in Rome, in the new Regional Seminary in Foochow or elsewhere. Twenty had made their full course of Philosophy and Theology in the Regional Seminary. One had died, Fr. James Wong Sing Foon.

The happiness of the tenth anniversary celebrated on 1st November 1941 had barely faded from memory, when the terrible tragedy that is war became imminent. On 7th December 1941, a quiet Sunday evening, the Hon. Mr. John Wu Ching Hsiung, afterwards Chinese Minister at the Vatican, came to the Seminary to give a lecture on one of his favourite topics, the Chinese Classics as a Providential Preparation for Christianity. After the lecture, he and the professors were chatting and expressing their confidence that there would be no war. Little did they realize that the disaster of Pearl Harbour would have taken place within the next twenty-four hours. The next morning a telephone call from the city gave the news of the attack on Hong Kong.

The Government had already informed the Rector that, in the event of war, the Seminary would be requisitioned for the safe housing of the families of the officials and workers in the naval dockyard, and that the seminarians and fathers would have to leave the house. The quest-ion then arose of the disposal of the seminarians. Government did not feel itself obliged to provide accommodation. In order to make sure that all would have a definite status in war-time, professors and students had enrolled for various forms of civilian service. The house was now made ready for the reception of the government's protegees, and all prepared to go to their posts as called up. Eventually not more than fifty people, instead of the expected five hundred, came, and the seminarians were not all called on for service. In the early days of the war, some did go to Hong Kong to help with the work of accommodating refugees, while others directed the distribution of food to the poor in Aberdeen village. But the very swift advance of the Japanese soon put an end to these activities. Those who remained in the Seminary sandbagged the windows of the refectory according to plan. That proved be be a necessary and effective defence.

During the last three days of the siege, December 23rd - 25th, the seminary was in the very front line. British look-out posts and gun-positions had been set up near the property, and this apparently drew the fire of the advancing Japanese. Fortunately they did not use guns of sufficient calibre to pierce the strong walls of the seminary, and only a shot through a window could have done serious damage. As everybody remained in the sandbagged refectory, there was little injury to personnel. Of one hundred and twenty persons, only three were wounded, and their injuries were but slight. However, Providence was at work. The Rector had decided that in future, beginning with Christmas Eve, Mass would be in the refectory. If they had remained in the chapel that Christmas Eve morning, they would have had Benediction after Mass. Just at the time when Benediction would have been in progress a shell came through a chapel window and exploded destroying the altar.

This escape and the continuous thunder of the guns on the walls was so unnerving that the seminarians made a vow to Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces, to be fulfilled if She would preserve them from harm (2).

On Christmas morning the Rector decided to take the women and children away from the Seminary to the convent in the village; two-thirds of the seminarians went also, while the others volunteered to stay behind to protect the house from looters. The fighting ended that afternoon and all returned to the seminary on the morning of the 26th. Those who had remained behind were in good spirits, even though the house had been bombed twice on Christmas Day.

With as little delay as possible, the Seminary was temporarily patched up and cleaned, the remaining families were sent back to the city, and by January 1st the regular life of the seminary was restarted. On January 7th after the lapse of only a month, normal classes were in progress, but many hours had still to be spent by the students in repairing the damage to the building.

For the next three and a half years the usual life of the seminary was carried on amid the customary difficulties of an occupied city. The Japanese never got to the point of registering the seminary, as they could not fit it into any one of their categories. It was neither school, church nor monastery－and so it carried on, protected by its very incomprehensibility. This liberty granted by the Japanese, however, would not have been sufficient in itself to ensure survival, had it not been for the arrival, irregular and unforeseen, of financial assistance from Rome and Ireland.

For some now forgotten reason, in May 1945 fears were expressed that Hong Kong would be subjected to a devastating bombardment, food was running too low, and prices were exorbitant, rice costing up to $65 U.S. per 1b. It was decided, therefore, to accept the generous invitation of H.E. Mgr. J. Ramalho, Bishop of Macao, to join his seminary. Professors and fourteen students set out and were given a wonderful welcome.

When in August 1945 peace was restored, the seminarians were still in Macao, and in Aberdeen there was only one priest, the Rector Fr. J. O' Meara, S.J. At first it was proposed not to open the seminary until after Christmas, but on November 7th six seminarians, three from Kaying and three from Swatow, arrived unexpectedly by minesweeper from Swatow. It was then decided to recall the other seminarians and start lectures as soon as possible. On November 19th the normal course of lectures began. During the next few days more students arrived, bringing the number to thirty one.

That was quite a large group to maintain at the time, for life was still difficult. Electricity and water supplies had only recently been re-connected. Transport was not organized, and so communications with Hong Kong city depended on chance lifts in Government or military trucks. Food rations were supplied by the Government at a price, and these had to be supplemented by local produce.

A more serious difficulty was malaria. The regular precautions against mosquitoes had been neglected during the occupation, and mosquitoes were numerous and voracious. Malaria was rife in the neighbourhood. Many of the seminarians contracted the disease, and there were two violent cases of cerebral malaria. But in January 1946, the house and grounds were sprayed with insecticide which brought relief.

Gradually, during the next few years, normal conditions were restored in Hong Kong. In the seminary, there was regular discipline, varied by the usual chance occurrences that happen in any life.

Meanwhile the community was changing. Fr. J. O' Meara, having steered the seminary through the storms of war, handed over his charge to Fr. R. Harris. Three years later, Fr. J. Garland succeeded Fr. Harris, who had been appointed Superior of the Hong Kong Jesuits. A few months later Fr. Joy, the last of the original staff, left for Singapore. In 1957 Fr. Garland was succeeded by Fr. J.B. Wood, who remained in office until the close of the Regional Seminary in 1964. There was also a considerable change in the teaching staff since the end of the war.

1949, Febr.
3rd 1 priest, 27 seminarians from Kingshien:
  Febr. 17th 4 priests from Kingshien:
  Mar. 28th 30 seminarians from Kingshien:
  April 16th 26 seminarians from Hankow:
  April 28th 17 seminarians from Shanghai:
  May  2nd 7 seminarians from Fushun.

Thus it went on, comings and goings, so that from day to day no one knew how many; except perhaps the Rector, Fr. Harris, and the Minister, Fr. Morahan. At one time during May there were 120 seminarians in the house.

Of these refugee seminarians, those from Hankow went to Macao, those from Kingshien to Manila. After one year the Shanghai seminarians returned to Shanghai; the rest remained in Aberdeen to complete their course. Since then more refugee students from various minor seminaries, as well as the students from the Hong Kong area have kept the numbers above average. In 1956, the 25th anniversary of the Regional Seminary and roughly ten years after the war, there were fifty-four theologians from twenty-one dioceses and one religious congregation and twenty-five philosopers from ten dioceses and one religious congregation. But the ending of communications with China had its effect. By 1963 the number of seminarians had diminished to eleven theologians from five dioceses and fifteen philosophers from three dioceses and one religious congregation. It was not surprising then that on Monday, February 17th, 1964, the Acting Rector of the Regional Seminary, Fr. John Foley, S.J., received a letter from the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda to the effect that the Sacred Congregation had decided "to discontinue the activities of the Seminary" from the end of the academic year. Finally, on 21st July 1964 the Regional Seminary Aberdeen came to an end after thirty-three years with the signing of a document by Fr. John Foley, S.J. and Fr. Dominic Bazzo, P.I.M.E., Rector of the combined Major and Minor Seminary for the Diocese of Hong Kong.

During its brief existence, the Regional Seminary has had a varied history. What has been mentioned here is only an outline of the more important events in that history. Many other events could have been recounted, e.g. the social work of the seminarians among the boat people of Aberdeen, the "hedge" school for the children of the area, religious broadcasts, the newsletter "Vox Almae Matris" (Yuen Shing) sent monthly to the priests who had studied in Aberdeen, the new chapel completed in 1957 and so on. To sum up briefly and factually the achievement of the Regional Seminary, two hundred and fifty priests have been ordained since the Seminary opened in 1931. Besides Hong Kong, which has the largest number, and the Republic of China, these priests are to be found in sixteen different countries. Some have died (certainly more than 16); some have given up the priesthood; but by far the vast majority of them are strongly active in the mission of the Church. The spiritual achievement of the Seminary, through the apostolate of its priests, is impossible to estimate: that judgment belongs to the Lord.

  (1)Joseph Da Costa Nunes, Bishop of Macao; Adulphus Rayssac, Vicar Apostolic of Swatow; Anthony Fourquet, Vicar Apostolic of Canton; Henry Valtorta, Vicar Apostolic of Hong Kong; James Edward Walsh, Vicar Apostolic of Kong-moon; Aloysius Penicaud, Vicar Apostolic of Pakhoi; Francis Xav. Ford, Prefect Apostolic of Kayingchow; Paul Mary-Joseph Julliotte, Superior of the Mission of Hainan; John Guarona, Pro-Vicar of Shiuchow.

(2)"Die 24 Decembris 1941, cum omnes in Seminario degentes maximo in periculo a globulis ignitis constituti essent, Fratres Alumni, annuente P. Rectore, Beatissimae Virgini Mariae, si domum et omnes habitantes in ea salvos incolumesque piissime custodiret, se vota infrascripta impleturos esse, polliciti sunt.　

A. Tertiam partem SS. Rosarii per unum mensern cotidie in actionern gratiarum recitare.　

B. In Seminario Regionali, speciali modo, colere Beatissirnam Virginern Mariam sub titulo: 'Mediatrix Omnium Gratiarum'.　

C. Unumquemque post Ordinationern sacerdotalem denas Missas offerre. "

作者：陆鸿基 Luk, Hung Kay, Bernard 年份：1980

FROM the Old Testament TO St. Thomas Aquinas

  When as little children we made our first acquaintance with Catholic doctrine, we recited in the Catechism that a human being consists of a body of clay and a soul made in the image of God. At death, body and soul separate－the former decays and returns to earth, while the latter, which is immortal, comes before God for trial and reward or punishment eternal. The Catechism, true to its nature, did not tell us about the development of this doctrine from its ancient roots to its mediaeval fruition; rather, we were simply, and simplistically, handed the doctrine in its Tridentine fossilisation. Those were the days before Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council.

More recent developments in the Church have called for a broadening of the intellectual foundations of our understanding of the Catholic Faith. Such a task involves, among other things, breaking out of the confines of Western philosophy (which is not divinely inspired, but only accidentally grafted on to Christian teachings) towards more ecumenical interpretations of the Faith. This essay is an attempt to outline the evolution of the concept of the soul, in the hope of contributing to a popular appreciation of the role of Greek philosophy in the making of the Catechism doctrine. (1)

The concept of the soul that we have inherited was born of a fusion of a Jewish eschatology with Greek myths and speculations, and then nurtured in generations of Christian minds.

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The notion of a soul surviving after death is not readily discernible in the Bible. Hebrew monotheism, or the worship of Yahweh, was an ethnic religion; its central message was the contract between God and Israel, and the individual Israelite had significance only as a member of the Chosen People. It was the people as a whole that was rewarded or punished for its conduct, in this world. Belief in an individual hereafter was left rather vague.(2)

The Old Testament distinguished four elements in a human being.

There was the neshamah or 'breath' which comes and goes in the act of breathing.
There was the nephesh. The basic meaning of this word was 'throat'; eventually, the meaning expanded to include 'breath', 'desire', 'appetite', 'life', or 'self’. For example, the Book of Proverbs has: "A righteous man has regard for the nephesh [life] of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel." (RSV, Prov. 12:10). In Psalm 103: "Bless the Lord, 0 my nephesh [being]." And in Genesis 2:7; "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (ruach); and man became a nephesh [living being]."
There was the basar or 'flesh', which denotes the stuff of which the different parts of the body are made. This word was not used in a perjorative sense in the Old Testament.
Finally, there was the ruach, literally 'wind', a kind of life force bestowed from above, without which the psychophysiological composite of the nephesh-basar would have no life and no consistency. Sickness and sleep were considered loss of ruach; death was an almost total loss of it. The use of this word only became common with Ezekiel, during the Exile.(3)
These elements together formed a single psycho-physical organism. There was no dichotomy of body and soul. So long as a person was alive, each of the four constituents, including 'flesh', was alive too. Upon death, the composite whole was irreparably dissolved. Although the Yahwist thinkers could not envisage a complete personal extinction, they never defined what part of a human would survive death. Whatever it was (sometimes vaguely identified as the nephesh), descended beneath the earth to She'ol. This place of the dead was also variously described in different parts of the Old Testament as an awful pit, a walled city, or a land of dust and darkness. Descent to She'ol was the common fate of all, regardless of social or moral standing; and She'ol and its denizens were considered to be outside the interest or care of Yahweh. Thus, the life of the individual in the hereafter was not an important concern for the Yahwist religion, whose main business was the collective vigour of the Chosen People.(4)

This belief began to change during the Baby-lonian Exile(5th century BC), when questions began to be raised. If Yahweh had the power to save his Chosen People, why did he allow them to be overthrown and suffer in this way? Faced with this criticism, the emphasis on retribution began to shift from the communal to the personal, and from the this worldly to the hereafter. The concept of an almighty and just God demanded an eschatology that promised individual Israelites vindication after death for injustices suffered before it. This new trend was reflected in Ezekiel's vision of a post-mortem judgement and the resurrection of the dead: it was a restoration of the entire psycho-physical being, not immortality of a soul. By the time of Daniel (2nd century BC), these beliefs had received more concrete, if still largely communalistic and apocalyptic, treatment. In the Book of Enoch, however, a new development became evident. Not only was there going to be a final universal judgement at the end of the present world order, there were also individual judgements at the point of death. Instead of being a shadowy, undifferentiated place where all the dead were treated similarly for an indefinite time, She'ol was now compartmentalised into a place of refreshment, and other, hollow, places for the dead of different moral calibres. Thus the nephesh began to take on personality, as well as continuity with life in this world. The Pharisees around the time of Jesus Christ probably believed in rewards and punishments between death and the apocalyptic resurrection.

Among the Hellenised Jews of Alexandria, a very different concept arose. In Wisdom 9:15: "A perishable body weighs down the soul, and this earthly tent burdens the thoughtful mind." This dichotomy, in which the soul is all that counts, has more affinity with Plato's Phaedo than with the Hebrew tradition, as will be seen. Thus, it was not until late Old Testament times that the Jews came to believe in personal survival beyond death; except in a few instances, there was as yet no well-defined idea of an immortal soul.(5)

GREEK MYTHOLOGY

In the Hellenic tradition, the initial position was similar to that of the Hebrew. Homeric Greeks regarded the human being as a living organism compounded of three parts: a body (soma), a thymos or conscious self, and a psyche or life principle. A human being was only truly a human being when all three components were functioning harmoniously together as an inter-related whole, which was shattered by death. With the dissolution of the body, the thymos merged with the air, while the psyche was transformed into a shadowy replica of the living human known as the eidolon, and descended into Hades, an underground cavity rather like the original She'ol. These eidola had no memory, and were completely unconscious, insubstantial, and apathetic. Thus, the Greeks also had no notion of a personal survival after death, and Homer could speak of "the strengthless heads of the dead". Life in this world was the only full full and proper life.(6)

But there was another set of ideas about the soul among the Greeks, that of Orphism, a religious reform movement in the 6th century BC. The Orphics held that the key to human nature was the mythical murder and eating of Dionysos-Zagreus by the wicked Titans, sons of Earth, who were then blasted by the victim's father, Zeus. Because of their last meal, the ashes of the monsters contained elements of both Dionysos and the Titans. Out of these ashes arose humankind, with a dual nature－a material body which was a child of Earth, imprisoning an ethereal and immortal soul derived from a god. For the soul, the body (soma) was a tomb (sema). This soul or psyche combined the conscious self (thymos) and the unconscious life－principle (psyche) of the older Homeric conception, and came to be regarded as a preexistent conscious self that survived the death of the body. Because this divine psyche was tied to matter and to the evil inherent in it, it had to pass through a number of human or bestial incarnations lasting many centuries before it was sufficiently purified to return to the divine realm. This awful burden of births, deaths, and miseries, known as the transmigration of souls (metempsychosis) could be reduced only if an enlightened soul lived for three successive incarnations as a phi-losopher. Among the Pythagoreans, who formed one branch of the Orphic movement, the soul was associated with the 'higher' or intellectual faculties: for them, devotion to science was the highest form of purification of the soul.(7)

Thus arose a dichotomy between a divine, individual and immortal soul, and a material body. The soul and the body did not form one person: rather, they were an antagonistic duo, each with its own personality. This dichotomy was to become prominent in Plato's thought, and also influenced the Old Testament Book of Wisdom.



1.Jorg Splett, “Immortality”, in Karl Rahner, ed., Encyclopaedia of theology (NY, 1975), 678-689. New Catholic Encyclopaedia (NY, 1967), “Soul, Human, Immortality of”, XIII, 464-470. Cf. Ch’ien Mu, Linghun yu hsin (Taipei, 1978).

2.S.G.F. Brandon, The judgement of the dead (NY, 1967), 56-58. Cf. New Catholic Encyclopaedia, ibid.,467.

3.New Catholic Encyclopaedia, ibid., 449-450. C. Ryder Smith, The Bible doctrine of the hereafter (London, 1958), 1-9. Albert Gelin, The concept of man in the Bible (NY, 1968), 13-19.

4.Brandon, Judgement, 59. Smith, 3.

5.Brandon, 60-75. Gelin, 21. New Cath. Ency., XIII, 449-450, 467-468.

6.Brandon, 76-87.

7.Brandon, 88-96. Gelin, 20.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

As philosophy began to emerge among the Greeks, the human being came to be considered within the framework of physis or basic principle of all growth and movement. The psyche came to be identified with whatever element each philosopher held as primary, e.g., fire, water, air or ether. In general, it was agreed that the psyche was material: while it was a source of growth and movement, it was not considered personal or immortal. On this, the pre-Socratic philosophers generally harked back to Homer rather than to the Orphics.(8)

Socrates and Plato took a different approach; it is difficult and here quite unnecessary to distinguish the two. Plato's idea of the soul was related to his theory of knowledge. The material world is marked by particularity and impermanence; sensual perception can only give us impressions of a confusing multiplicity of concrete objects subject to the vicissitudes of time. For Plato, that is misleading and is not real knowledge. What are reliable, because permanent, are concepts, Ideas or Forms (eidos). If that is the case with concepts of substantives, it is all the more true of abstract qualities such as beauty, justice, or truth, which are never embodied as such in concrete objects. Furthermore, concrete objects are never simple. A chair contains more than 'chairness' ; it also has 'woodness' , etc. A beautiful person contains not just 'beauty', but also has other qualities such as being 'human', and so on. So a concrete chair is less perfectly a chair than the Idea of a chair; and a beautiful person is less perfect than the Idea of beauty. What is more permanent and more perfect is of course also more important; and, Plato insists, also more real. Hence, the world of Ideas is more real than the world of concrete objects. The body with its distracting and entangling senses which inform one of concrete objects is the 'lower' part of a human being; thought, which alone informs one of the 'higher' world of Ideas, is the most important human activity; and what enables one to think is the soul, the 'higher' part of the human being. A successful life for a human being is therefore the intellectual life, the life of the soul, which alone can commune with the higher, more real world.

In the Phaedo, Plato's account of Socrates' last conversation with his friends, the distinctions between the soul and the body are made clear:

Did you ever behold [absolute justice, beauty, and goodness] with your eyes? ..... Or did you ever reach them with any other bodily sense? －and I speak not of these alone, but of absolute greatness, .....and of the essence or true nature of everything..... Is not the nearest approach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of each thing which he considers? .....And he attains to the purest knowledge of them who goes to each with the mind alone, not introducing or intruding in the act of thought sight, or any other sense together with reason, but with the very light of the mind in her own clearness searches into the very truth of each; he who has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements which, when they infect the soul, hinder her from acquiring truth and knowledge－who, if not he, is likely to attain to the knowledge of true being?(10)

Not only is the soul higher than the body, the body also drags the soul down from intellectual heights. It is only when the soul is rid of the body that it can attain wisdom and purity:

For the body is the source of endless trouble to us by reason of the mere requirement for food; and is liable also to diseases which overtake and impede us in the search after true being: it fills us full of loves, and lusts, and fears, and fancies of every kind, and endless foolery, and in fact, as men say, takes away from us the power of thinking at all ..... It has been proved to us by experience that if we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body－the soul in herself must hold things in themselves : and then we shall attain the wisdom which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers; not while we live, but only after death; for if, while in company with the body the soul cannot have pure knowledge, one of two things follows－either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, after death ..... And thus having got rid of the foolishness of the body, we shall be pure and hold converse with the pure, and know of ourselves the clear light everywhere, which is no other than the light of truth.(11)

The conclusion is that "the soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intellectual, and uniform, and indissoluble, and changeable." The care of the soul is the most important task in life: preparation for the soul to leave the body and return to the invisible world, the preparation for death. The fate of those who have neglected the soul and lived the life of the body will be reincarnation as beasts.(12)

It is clear then that Plato conceived of the human being as a composite, with soul and body being distinct substances; and in conformity with the theory of Ideas, it is the soul, not the body, that is real; it is the soul that is the person. At the end of the Phaedo, when Socrates was asked how he wanted to be buried, he said:

However you please, if you can catch me and I do not get away from you ...... I cannot persuade Crito, my friends, that the Socrates who is now conversing ..... is really I: he thinks I am the one whom he will presently see as a corpse .....After I drink the poison I shall no longer be with you, but shall go away to the joys of the blessed .....(13)

The Orphic influence in these passages is obvious. It will presently be shown how Plato's concept of the soul merged with Jewish eschatology to form a cornerstone of Christian thought.

Plato's disciple Aristotle started out with a concept of the soul similar to his master's, but it gradually developed into a very different and more subtle idea. Aristotle's emphasis was biological rather than religious; he was concerned to find in his work on the soul the principle of life rather than guidance for life. Yet his doctrine on the soul is more metaphysical than that of Plato.(14)

As a biologist, Aristotle was concerned to find a common definition for all living things.(15) This was his goal in the De Anima, his systematic general theory on the subject. In this treatise, he defined soul as "the first actuality of a natural body potentially possessing life. "(16) This terse definition requires explanation.

First, the terms he used. A 'body' is a substance, that is, "something which is neither predicated of a subject nor present in a subject", e.g., a human, a tree, a stone.(17) A 'natural body' is a body that is not made by human hands. 'Life' is "the capacity for self-sustenance, growth, and decay."(18) To understand 'potentiality' and 'actuality', it is necessary to delve further into the concept of substance.

As a class of existing things, substances may be divided into three:

matter, in the sense of pure matter without shape or form, which in itself is not an individual thing;
shape or form, which attributes individuality; and
the compound of the two.
In this analysis, matter is potentiality, form or shape is actuality.(19) For example, a piece of shapeless wax is potentially a statue; the shape that the wax acquires from a mold is actuality. The wax originally had the potential to be made into a statue, which potential was actualised when the statue was made. Similarly, certain natural bodies have the potential to be made into living beings; what actualises this potential is the soul.

Now, the term 'actuality' (or 'entelechy', or 'fulfillment') has two senses, which are analogous to

the possession of knowledge, and
the exercise of that knowledge.
For example, before a person has learnt what Aristotle means by the soul, one has the capability or potential for learning it. Once having learnt it, the person is capable of tracing the steps of the arguments, but does not need to do so; that person may be said to know, to have fulfilled the capability. This is analogous to the first actuality. This actualised knower may prefer to spend every waking moment retracing the arguments; that active exercise of the knowledge is analogous to the second actuality. Again, every person has the potential to study to be a historian. Once having fulfilled that potential (assuming that 'history' is a discreet subject), this person is a historian even in an undisturbed slumber (cf. first actuality). When researching and writing, he is a historian exercising the knowledge (cf. second actuality).(20)

To return to the definition of the soul. The natural body having a potential or capacity for life is related to its soul in a manner analogous to the knower's relation with the knowledge possessed, to the historian's relation with history. Without historical knowledge, one would not be a historian; without the shape provided by a mold, an amorphous piece of wax would not be a statue; without a soul, a natural body that has capacity for life would not be a living thing. Thus, a living thing is a compounded substance of body and soul, as matter and form. The soul, the form, is the first actuality of the life potential of the body, the matter. (The living thing－body and soul together－exercising its vital functions is second actuality. 'First' and 'second' are in ontological, and not necessarily temporal, order.) Thus, the soul is the cause and first principle of the living body, not only as the formal, but also as the efficient and the final cause, while the body is the material cause.(21)

Here, a few points need to be made.

Since form and matter are both substances, the soul is as substantial as the body; but the soul is not, of course, material, and therefore not corporeal.
Since a soul is the actuality of a particular potential, a human soul will not actualise a dog's body, nor vice versa; there is little, if any, room allowed for a Platonic transmigration of souls.
Since soul is form, and body matter, and the two compounded make up the living thing, "one need no more ask whether body and soul are one than whether the wax and the impression it receives are one."(22) It is also obvious that the soul must be spatially co-extensive with the body.(23) "Furthermore, the soul cannot exist without the body."(24) Hence, by this definition alone, Aristotle seems to have ruled out the immortality of the soul.(25)
But Aristotle goes further and introduces ideas on the hierarchy of nature into his discussions on the soul. "A thing lives if any one of the following is present in it－mind, sensation, movement or rest in space, besides the movement implied in nutrition and decay and growth." Of these vital functions, the most basic is the capacity to absorb food, because "it may exist apart from all other powers, but the others cannot exist apart from this in mortal beings". Hence, nutrition is found in all living things, from plants to humans. Similarly, animals have sensations, and among different sensations, touch is the most basic, being common to all animals.(26) Proceeding this way up a ladder, so to speak, one can enumerate the faculties of the soul: nutrition, appetite, sensation, locomotion, and thought, and rank living things accordingly.

Plants have the nutritive faculty only, but other living things have the faculty for sensation too. But if so sensation then also for appetite..... In addition to these senses some also possess the power of movement in space, and others again－viz., man and any other being similar or superior to him－have the power of thinking and intelligence.(27)

This, then, is Aristotle's ladder of souls. Just as there are higher and lower orders of life, so there are higher and lower kinds of souls－the higher souls possessing more faculties than the lower ones. This ladder may be roughly said to have three steps:

the souls of plants that are strictly nutritive ;
those of animals that are nutritive as well as sensitive; and
those of thinking and reasoning beings.
Are any of these living things immortal at all? Aristotle talks about biological reproduction－like nutrition, a faculty common to all living things－as being done for the sake of having "a share in the immortal and divine in the only way they can ....."(28) But this striving for the immortality of the species is not personal immortality, nor yet the kind of which Socrates assured his friends.

It has been noted above that Aristotle's definition of the soul seems to leave no room for immortality. There is, however, an escape hatch, so to speak, in his hierarchical scheme. For although the soul of a living thing is an inseparable whole exercising all the numerous vital functions, "in the case of the mind and the thinking faculty nothing is yet clear; it seems to be a distinct kind of soul, and it alone admits of being separated, as the immortal from the perish-able."(29) Elsewhere in the treatise, Aristotle elaborates on this point. Just as there must be a distinction between an art and its material, between the matter in a thing and its efficient cause, so there must be a distinction between an active mind and a passive mind within the soul. "Mind in the passive sense is such because it becomes all things", and its thinking is closest to perception－which, according to Aristotle, is a passive or neutral sense receiving messages from an active object and is temporarily actualised by the object. The active mind, on the other hand, "makes all things; this is a kind of positive stage like light; for in a sense light makes potential into actual colours. Mind in this sense is separable, impassive, and unmixed, since it is essentially an activity; for the agent is always superior to the patient, and the originating cause to the matter." He concludes:

[The active] mind does not think intermittently. When isolated it is its true self and nothing more, and this alone is immortal and overlasting (we do not remember because, while mind in this sense cannot be acted upon, mind in the passive sense is perishable), and without this nothing thinks.(30)

What does he mean? He has admitted above that he was not yet clear, and Greeks, Muslims, and Christians have debated this concept for more than two thousand years. This is indeed the most obscure part of his psychology. It is probable that he believed in a hierarchy reaching from the lowest beings to God, with the active reason of a human being among the highest members in the scale, yet still below God and other intelligences. Whether or not that is a correct interpretation of what was at the back of Aristotle's mind is not important for this essay; the main point here is that Aristotle admits of the immortality of the individual human soul, and thus enters the mainstream of discussions on that problem. After a certain metamorphosis, his psychology as outlined here became established Catholic doctrine.

To oversimplify a long and complicated story, that metamorphosis may be said to have taken place in two stages. First, a Judaeo-Christian eschatology merged with one form of the Platonic concept of the soul, resulting in the Augustinian doctrine that dominated the early middle ages; the emphasis of this teaching was the substantiality of the soul and its independence from the body. Second, the early mediaeval Christian idea was redefined by St. Thomas Aquinas in essentially Aristotelian terms in the 13th century; this redefinition emphasised the unity of the human being, of body and soul together. The Thomistic approach was officially adopted by the Church, especially by the Council of Trent.



8.New Cath. Ency., XIII, 447, 451. S.G.F. Brandon, Man and his destiny (Manchester, 1962), 174-184.

9.Sir R.W. Livingstone, Portrait of Socrates: being the Apology, Crito, and Phaedo of Plato in an English translation with introductions and notes (Oxford, 1953), 78-81. Cf. A.E. Taylor, Plato: the man and his work (7th ed., 1960), 180-193.

10.Livingstone, 100-101.

11.Ibid., 101-102.

12.Ibid., 126-129.

13.Ibid., 194. Cf. Antony Flew, “Immortality”, in Encyclopaedia of philosophy (NY, 1967), IV, 139-150; Herschel Baker, The image of man (NY,1947, 1961), 46-49, for Plato’s later views.

14.Wm. A. Hammond, transl., Aristotle’s psychology: a treatise on the principle of life (London, 1902), xxvi-xxvii. For stages of development of Aristotle’s psychology, see Sir David Ross, Aristotle, Parva Naturalia: a revised text with introduction and commentary (Oxford, 1955), 1-18; also, Ross, Aristotle (5th ed., London, 1964), 112.

15.Ross, Aristotle, 112, 129. Hammond, xv, xxi-xxii, xxvii, 1xxxiii.

16.W. S. Hett, transl., Aristotle: On the soul, Parva Naturalia, On breath (Cambridge, Mass, 1957), 69 (de Anima II, 1, 412b5 in the Greek Text). Cf. Ross, Aristotle, 134.

17.Hett, 67.

18.Ibid.

19.Ibid.

20.Ibid., 97-101. Ross, Aristotle, 134.

21.Hett, 87-88. Hammond, xxii.

22.Hett, 69, 79-80.

23.Hammond, xxii-xxiv. Baker, op. Cit., 60.

24.Hett, 79.

25.Flew, op. cit. Hammond,1xxxv. Ross, Aristotle, 131-132, 135.

26.Hett, 75.

27.Hett, 81-83. Hammond, 81-83. Ross, Aristotle, 129-131. Cf. Joseph Needham, Science and civilisation in China, II, 21-23.

28.Hett, 86-87.

29.Hett, 77.

30.Hett, 171, (De Anima, III, v, 430al0-25, in the Greek text), on the 'active mind' Ross, Aristotle, 135, 148-153, on 'active reason'. Hammond, lxxi-lxxxvi, on 'creative reason'. Also known in the middle ages as 'active intellect' or 'agent intellect' (intelligentia agens).

THE EARLY CHRISTAINS

The first Christians expected an imminent apocalypse.(31) The Jewish followers of Jesus believed that he was the Messiah of Israel, and that he would soon return to them as Lord of the Judgment, bring an end to this world, and resurrect the dead－ i.e., reconstitute their psycho-physical organisms. Their concept of the human being was still the traditional Hebrew one, essentially un-Hellenised, of a psycho-physical unity.(32) However, as more and more Christian converts were Greeks, and especially after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the central Church there, Hellenic dualism began to gain ground within the Christian faith. The Jewish eschatology of Last Judgment and resurrection of the dead now had to exist side by side with a more uniquely Christian eschatology of an immaterial soul of each person being judged individually at death and given everlasting reward or punishment, without waiting for the apocalypse and the resurrection of the body. How this development came about, and how the two eschatologies came to be reconciled, is beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice it to note here the process was a gradual one.(33) Even St. Paul, who considered his own mission as towards the Gentiles, never adopted the body and soul dichotomy of the Phaedo entirely. Although his attitude towards the body or flesh (soma and sarx respectively) was ambivalent, and he eventually came to distinguish between a lower, natural body (soma psychikon), and a nobler, spiritual body (soma pneumatikon), and left some hints of a body (soma) ,soul (psyche) , and spirit (pneuma) trichotomy, the soma was the self. He did not elaborate on body versus soul, but rather, on different tendencies within the self, the soma. (34)

THE PATRISTIC PERIOD

It was not until the Patristic period of doctrinal development that there began to emerge a clear distinction between body and soul. Athenagoras (fl. 177), self-styled Christian philosopher of Athens, first made the point of an immortal soul surviving the death of the body, and an eventual reunion of the two at the resurrection. St. Irenaeus attacked the Platonic idea of trans-migration of souls and their divinity, but insisted on an incorporeal, immortal soul, distinct from, but united to, a mortal body. Origen was the first among the Fathers to formulate the idea of the soul as a spiritual, rational substance. He also held that all souls of intelligent beings were created at once, in the beginning, pure, equal, and alike, and were put to the test by God. Except for the soul of Christ, all fell to some extent, and became angels, demons, or human souls. St. Gregory of Nyssa objected to this theory of creation, and held that the body and soul of each human were brought into existence together, but he did not know how. Nemesius (whom the Scholastics wrongly identified with Gregory) wrote the first summa of Christian psychology, the De natura hominis (ca. 400), in which he rejected the definitions of the soul of Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, and concluded that the soul was an incorporeal substance, subsistent in itself, not dependent on anything else for its being, yet intended for union with the body. He was unable to answer satisfactorily how the soul and the body were joined together. Tertullian tried to solve this problem by urging that Adam's soul alone was created by God, while all other human souls came into being by the act of biological generation. This 'traducian' theory (Adam as tradux or 'shoot') was never officially adopted by the Church.(35)

All these theories on the soul grew up in the Hellenistic world in the form of Christian polemics against:－

the Sceptics, Epicureans, and Stoics, who did not believe in life after death;
the Gnostics, who held an extreme dualism of body and soul, perhaps derived from Orphism and Platonism; and
the pagan neo-Platonists.
Of these three, the last had the most influence on Christian thought.

The most important, though not the earliest, neo-Platonist was Plotinus, a third-century Egyptian. His philosophical system was built around his psychology. The soul for him was an incorporeal reality which gave form to the body but owed nothing in return. With the soul were all the metaphysical qualities of pure intellect, unity, moving and vitalising power, and even matter. Among these, the greatest was intellect, and intellectual self-knowledge was the highest mode of subjective life. The human intellect bridges the realms of matter and mind, of which the latter was superior and illuminated. In fact, the intellect was one of the higher emanations from the First Mover, the One that is pure Being, or God, and by relying on intellect, the soul can free itself from corporeality and begin the long ascent to the One. Thus, for Plotinus, the soul is a created divinity, a part of the Universal Soul, whose destiny it is to return to merge into the One. This soul cannot sin or suffer, and has no individual mortality. Moreover, the body-soul dichotomy is absolute. It is obviously not a Christian conception.(36)

ST. AUGUSTINE

Unlike Plotinus, St. Augustine's Platonism was a Christian one. For Plotinus, all that matters is the flight of the soul to the One; historical events on earth are of no consequence. For Augustine, on the contrary, history has a goal, namely, the salvation of human kind by the Incarnation of God on earth. Worldly events therefore have eternal meaning. Furthermore, since God is all good, everything made by God must also be good, and that includes this world and human bodies. On the other hand, Augustine is true to the Platonic position that the ultimate good is spiritual, and is to be sought in the intelligible world of the soul, not the material world of the body. Hence, he is anxious to show the superiority of the soul to the body; and he defines the soul as a rational substance equipped to rule the body. By defining the soul as a substance, he asserts its independence from the body. He also borrows, with adaptation, Plato's proofs in the Phaedo of the immortality of the soul. However, he is also careful to say that neither is the human soul a part of the divine substance, nor is there only one soul for all of humanity; the former because the divine substance is indivisible, and the latter because each human has different and distinct lives and actions.

Now, if Augustine's definition of the soul guaranteed its independence from the body and its immortality, it accentuates another problem inherent in any dichotomous formulation: What is a human being Augustine's answer to that question is that a human being is a rational soul using a rational soul using a mortal and earthly body. The soul uses the body to keep in touch with the world of material objects and sensations, and it gives life to the body by mediating between it and the divine Ideas. But if the model is that of someone using an instrument or tool, the unity of the human being is called into doubt. Scripturally, the human being is a unity; further, retribution on the immortal soul after death would not be fair unless body and soul acted as a whole during life. This problem of the unity of the human being was one of the unsettled questions bequeathed by Augustine to the Middle Ages, and which none but St. Thomas Aquinas could resolve.(37)

ST. THOMAS QUINAS

Just as St. Augustine Christianised neo-Platonism, St. Thomas Aquinas has often been said to have "baptised" Aristotle. If in Augustine's thought, the fullness of Christian faith was always in advance of his philosophy, Aquinas was able to assert the independence of philosophy as well as its instrumentality for rationalising that faith.

Aquinas's conception of the human is basically the hylomorphism (from hyle, 'matter', and morphe, 'form') of Aristotle. He defines the soul as "the first actuality of a natural organic body having life in potentiality"; and as "the first principle by which we live, sense, move, and understand". However, these definitions have to be seen in a broader framework to show his solution to the problems bequeathed by Augustine.

Aquinas posits a hierarchical universe of actuality and potentiality. The more something is actualised, the higher it is in the hierarchy; the more it remains potentiality, the lower it is. Matter is potentiality, form is actuality. Undifferentiated matter is pure potentiality; it is the lowest on the scale. God is pure actuality; It is the highest. Only God is fully actualised; only God exists by Its own essence (God is, simply because of What It is.) Everything else exists because its potentiality for existence is actualised to a less complete degree.

Now, the human being stands in the middle of this hierarchy. It is composed of a certain material substance, and a form which actualises the material substance into a living body. This form is the soul. Since the soul can perform certain of its operations in which the body has no part, it must subsist by itself; i.e., it is a substance, an immaterial substance. As a substantial form, the human soul is higher than those forms which are wholly embedded in matter, such as the soul of a dog or the form of a chair, but lower than the angels which are forms completely separated from matter. The human soul possesses the degree of being that its nature, its location on the hierarchy calls for. Unlike an angel, it does not have enough actuality to attain its perfection in a separated state. It is incomplete in itself; it is a simple intellect whose light is so faint that it needs a body to perform most of its operations. At the same time, the body is just potentiality that requires a form to actualise it. So body and soul each need the other for its own completion. The human being that results from such a union of matter and form is a substantial union, not an accidental one. It is not a mixed being, because each component still subsists. It is neither an angel locked in a material prison, nor a spiritual motor driving a material shell, because the soul needs the body to complete itself. Both components are made by the one true God and are therefore both good, and both necessary. The human being is hence not one being made up of two other beings, because it is only the soul, the form, that actualises, that provides the act-of-being (esse), for the body, the potentiality. So there is only one act-of-being for the human unity, one being of two distinct substances (but not two real subjects or distinct existences). It follows that there can be only one substantial form or one soul for this human unity－a single indivisible soul that has all the rational, sentient, and nutritive powers, not three separate souls for various functions. And if the soul is indivisible, it cannot have been derived by division from the souls of one's parents. It can only have been individually created by God from nothing.

In this way, Aquinas guarantees the unity of the human being without endangering the immortality of the soul. The soul is immortal because all substantial forms are by definition immortal or incorruptible. Since the soul's existence does not depend on the body, but is derived from God, it cannot corrupt with the death of the body. Further, since the act-of-being and individuation of a thing are always found together, and both are therefore found in the soul, the human being does not lose its individuation by the death of the body. Finally, since the human being is a unity of soul and body, and neither is complete without the other, a reunion in the apocalyptic resurrection is not only reasonable but also necessary. Thus, Aquinas succeeds in completely harmonising Hellenic concepts with Hebrew eschatology. His is still a dualistic view of the human being, but it manages to avoid any extreme form of dichotomy.(38)

THE MAGISTERIUM

By the early 17th century, doctrines on the soul had received many official definitions by the Christian Church. While many of these definitions were not established as infallible dogma, they were issued by popes and councils in exercise of the magisterium of the universal Church, and constituted positions from which no Catholic might lightly depart. These positions, as summarised in the systematic index of the Enchiridion symbolorum, included the following: the human soul is not a part of the divine substance; it is created by God from nothing; it did not pre-exist, and is not generated by parents; it does not evolve from the sensitive to the rational; it is a substance; it is not one for all humans, but one for each; it is not naturally either good or bad; it is rational and intellectual, but is not by itself an object evident to cognition; it is immortal; it is united with the body, not accidentally, but is the form of the body truly as such and in the act-of-being; it is endowed with freedom, which can be proved from Scripture as well as from reason.(39) Such, in the main, was the doctrine of the soul which the Jesuit missionaries brought to Ming China.(40) Such too, was the basis of the pre-Vatican II teachings handed to us in the form of questions and answers on the nature of humankind. Its indebtedness to, and imprisonment by, Greek philosophy is evident. Where do we go from here?



31. Brandon, Man and his destiny, op. cit., 204-208.

32.Brandon, ibid., 208-211. J.A.T. Robinson, The body, a study in Pauline theology (London, 1966), 11-16.Gelin, op. cit., 23-24.

33.Brandon, ibid., 211-236.

34.Ibid., 211-224. Robinson, op. cit., 17-33.

35.Brandon, ibid., 224-236. New Cath. Ency., XIII. 452-455.

36.A. Hilary Armstrong, St. Augustine and Christian Platonism (Villanova, 1967), 4-9. Baker, op. cit., 94-96. Thomas Whittaker, The Neo-Platonists (4th ed., Cambridge, 1928), 40-53.

37.Etienne Gilson, The Christian philosophy of St. Augustine (NY, 1960), 44-55. F. Coppleston, S.J., A history of medieval philosophy (NY, 1972), 42-43. Armstrong, op. cit., 4-17.

38.Etienne Gilson, The Christian philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (NY. 1956). 174-199. Coppleston, ibid., 186-189. H.D. Gardeil, Introduction to the philosophy of St. Thomas (London, 1956), III: Psychology, 5-7, 14-42. A.C. Pegis, St. Thomas and the problem of the soul in the 13th century (Toronto,1934).

39.H.J.D. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum: definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, edited by J.B. Umberg, S.J. (Friburg, 1937), 'Index systematicus, VI-d, Anima humana '

40.Ai Ju-lueh (Giulio Aleni), S.J., Hsing-hsueh tsu shu (Hangchow, 1623; Shanghai, 1873), is the earliest and most complete example. Cf. the Jesuit edition of Aristotle's works published at Coimbra, Portugal, in the late 16th century, entitled Commentarii collegii conimbricensis e Societate Jesu (Vatican Library microfilms).

作者：祈士真 Casey, John J. 年代：1980

Perhaps it may seem strange to some to talk about effectiveness in relation to philosophy rather than to talk about truth, certainty or meaningfulness, three terms with which philosophy traditionally has been associated. But the idea of the effectiveness of a philosophy cannot be overlooked today given the fact that our modern world is one of philosophical pluralism with its competing systems. Among the various philosophers, we have seen the effectiveness of a number of French existentialists led by Jean Paul Sartre in shaping the minds of their countrymen and beyond the borders of their country the minds of many others as well. And who is not impressed with the expanse of Marxism although well aware that in many cases the freedom to accept or reject the doctrine was not an individual option. So the fact of the matter is that philosophies differ in their effectiveness, that is in the ability of any given one to stimulate the minds of intelligent people to seek rational solutions to contemporary problems in accord with its principles. In view of this, it is easy to see that the question－How effective is contemporary Christian Philosophy? －is indeed a valid query on its own merits and perhaps particularly so to us in the Orient where the outward reach of the Church in mission is a prime concern.

The first problem that arises, of course, is the question of suitable criteria. By what means that you can be reasonably certain are independent of other influences, do you measure the effectiveness of a philosophy? And again, although Marxism's effectiveness may be measured by the number of revolutions it has fostered and existentialism even by the effect it has had on the world of Letters, how does one measure the effectiveness of Christian Philosophy? We shall see that the answer to this question, that is the criteria whereby we might judge the effectiveness of contemporary Christian Philosophy, was one of the prime concerns of that very philosophic movement. As a result, an understanding of what Christian Philosophy in the contemporary sense is, also tells us what the built-in criteria for judging its effectiveness are.

What the name Christian Philosophy indicates might seem obvious at first glance but both within the context of local experience, as well as within the context of general Catholic experience, it can be misunderstood easily. The misunderstanding within the context of local experience can arise from the fact that Buddhism and Taoism in traditional Chinese thinking have been considered to be both religions and philosophies. Therefore it is easy to interpret Christianity in the same way and consider Christian Philosophy as the non-religious part of the total teaching. The misunderstanding within the context of general Catholic experience can arise from thinking of Christian Philosophy as referring to a period long since past in the history of philosophy which covers roughly the thirteenth century and a short period of time immediately after. But in actuality the name Christian Philosophy designates a movement that has been part of the Catholic scene since the beginning of the nineteenth century, waxing and waning with the circumstances of the times. Basically, the movement is the search for a suitable systematic reflective understanding of man that would be acceptable on its own merits to intelligent people of any given culture and at the same time would offer a firm foundation for a presentation of Christian revelation.

The focal point of the Christian Philosophy movement is commonly considered to be the famous Encyclical of Leo XIII, called Aeterni Patris from the first two words of the Latin text but offically sub-titled "On the Restoration in Catholic Schools of Christian Philosophy According to the Mind of the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas. "(1) Whether one considers the effect of the encyclical either as slowing down the progress of true Christian Philosophy or as rescuing it from chaos and setting it on the right track, one cannot deny its impact. The encyclical explicitly recognized the Christian Philosophy movement which had taken place within the Church and was an obvious attempt to control it by making it an official movement and giving it a norm, namely the mind of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

In content, the encyclical was an optimistic piece whose author reasoned as follows. Of all the periods in the history of the Church, the scholastic period was the most remarkable for the intellectual activity of its ministers. During that time Christian scholars set up a system of thought that was more than a match for the religious, social and political problems of their day. Chief among these scholars was Thomas Aquinas. Given his accomplishment, why could not Christian scholars of the present day follow Thomas Aquinas in their attempt to cope with the religious, social and political problems of the modern era. To help this along, if seminaries and Catholic universities taught according to the mind of Thomas Aquinas, then the pastors and teachers of the future would all speak the same language in addressing the problems of their times and places and seeking solutions to the same.

Leo's optimism grew out of his conviction that there was basically one philosophy in the same sense that we today think there is only one science. That one philosophy is valid at any time or in any place because it is based on reality as it is and not as it is understood. Therefore one need not talk about a European, a Chinese or an Indian philosophy but rather one need only talk about true philosophy and false philosophy just as no one in science talks about a European, a Chinese or an Indian science but rather about real science and charlatanry. So it was, then, that Leo urged seminaries and Catholic universities to get to the task of teaching this true philosophy and developing it' to meet contemporary needs.

The result of Leo's optimism was a flurry of scholarly research into medieval thought that has helped all of us understand better that remarkable period in the history of philosophy. Such scholarly research also produced materials for seminary and university use from the philosophy course of Desidere Mercier to the Insight of Bernard Lonergan.(2) And yet, withall, the hundredth anniversary of the encyclical passed less than a year ago－August 4, 1979－with hardly a ripple in Catholic scholarly circles. It was not that the movement of Leo XIII lacked success or that Thomism lacked any internal consistency whereby given its common principles, it could not more than hold its own. In fact the encyclical of Leo XIII helped establish Thomism as a respected philosophical position in contemporary philosophy. What happened was that the problems that Leo XIII saw philosophy solving simply had moved off center stage and were replaced by contemporary problems of a different nature.

Leo saw philosophy in relation to the Christian faith as fulfilling several functions. First, he saw philosophy in the traditional scholastic sense of both demonstrating the existence of God and revealing certain things about the nature of God. Second, he saw philosophy as fulfilling an apologetic function whereby belief could be shown to be perfectly reasonable. Third, he saw philosophy as providing the methodology whereby belief could be shown to be perfectly reasonable. Third, he saw philosophy as providing the methodology whereby theology became a true science. And finally, he saw philosophy as the defender of the truths of the Faith and the destroyer of error. In short, Leo saw a world more complex to be sure but still the same world Thomas Aquinas had addressed in his Summa Contra Gentiles. But there were others who saw a world primarily concerned with man and his place in a rapidly expanding universe. These were the ones whose vision set Christian Philosophy on the road it was following, so different from that to which Leo hoped to bring it back.

The initial impetus towards Christian Philosophy in the contemporary sense of the movement was provided by a Frenchman by the name of Louis de Bonald.(3) He had lived through the turbulent period of the French revolution and although his sympathies were with the old order rather than the new, nevertheless he was steeped in the intellectual climate of enlightenment in France with its deep concern for man the social being. At the same time he was a serious Catholic who deplored the divorce of reason from religion. Therefore, when he began to develop his philosophy, it showed two important characteristics drawn from this background. First, it was a social philosophy concentrating on man as a social being and second, it sought to demonstrate the absolute need for God's revelation. The first characteristic would make it relevant to the intellectual climate of the times and the second would make ti specificially Christian.

Taking a page from Descartes, de Bonald proceeded from a basic principle by natural reason alone. But his first principle was not the result of a process like Descartes' famous methodic doubt but rather was an observable fact, namely men speak. On reflecting upon this observation, it became clear to him that Language is indeed the constitutive principle of society in general and therefore of the particular domestic, civil and religious societies. Since it is Language that makes social life possible and therefore society cannot exist without it, Language itself had to begin with society. But what is its origin? It could not be an invention of man because when man reasons, he must use Language. And if he had made up Language himself, then he would have had to reason without using words which is impossible. Therefore, Language had to be a free gift given to man by his creator, God. And because of the necessary connection between language and reason, with this gift also came the figt of Truth. In short, all of this giving is God revealing and therefore a proper understanding of man in society brings us to the absolute necessary of God's revelation.

The philosophy of de Bonald was far more complex and far-reaching than the short summary given above but his idea of a Christian philosophy is clearly delineated in it. His thought provides a rational foundation for God's revelation which in the religious society of Christianity we have in the Scriptures. But it is also easy to see that de Bonald's doctrines are capable of development in several ways, two of which caused difficulty in the Church. On the one hand, if one concentrates on the priority of Language in reasoning－that is, man reasons only through the use of Language－and Language is a gift of God which also contains the gift of truth, and the whole process of God giving language and truth is by definition revelation, then the role of reason in arriving at truth becomes completely overshadowed by revelation. In short, reason becomes unnecessary. On the other hand, if one concentrates on the fact of Revelation, it is quite obvious that God revealing is much broader in its scope than the Christian Scriptures. In fact, the initial Revelation of God, which came long. before the Christian Scriptures, gave us truth. Therefore, what the Christian Scriptures contain is already implicit in what God initially revealed to us and can be arrived at through the use of Language in reason. It was in the light of such interpretations of the Role of Reason and Faith that the statements of the first Vatican Counicl, while somewhat quaint to us today, were so vigorous in their own time.(4) And it was to support in a very practical way the teachings of the first Vatican Council that Leo XIII published his encyclical Aterni Patris in which he attempted to steer the Christian Philosophy movement back into orthodox channels by wedding it to the Thomistic tradition.

But as mentioned above, changes had already taken place on the world intellectual stage and a return to Thomism could not overthrow these changes. Even de Bonald himself was one of the last who would analyse society from an organic point of view. Those who followed him would tread the positivist path and several became the basic theoreticians of the new science of sociology. Philosophy, for its part, continued to focus more and more on anthropology not as a metaphysical extension of what science had to offer but rather in directions totally its own. The first philosopher to come to grips with the problem of Christian Philosophy within this new context rather than within the context of Leo's encyclical was Maurice Blondel in his famous work L' Action.(5)

Blondel was convinced that creative thinking in the Church must take place within the context of the thought that occupies modern man. Past philosophical systems may solve problems to the satisfaction of specialized groups but in making use of them the group becomes isolated from the wider intellectual community and from the thought patterns of society in general. In short, we end up talking only to ourselves and not to the people to whom we intend to speak. To overcome this defect, he looked for a key notion taken from inner experience as his starting point, a notion understandable and common to everyone. This was the notion of action.

Blondel saw man as both a thinker and a doer and it was always something of a puzzle that there is a dichotomy between what we think and what we do. Indeed the simpler and more straight forward approach to a problem lay in doing rather than in thinking. Thus, if we ask the question－Does man have a destiny? －the more effective way by far of answering that question is to study man doing rather than thinking because it is by action AND NOT thinking that we solve the problem of our destiny. Now the question of man's destiny is the central human problem for Blondel, the focal point of all man's willing and therefore the focal point of all his action. Blondel chose this problem because he saw the question of Destiny as the universal one that could not be avoided. If one tries to suppress it, by so doing he affirms it in its entirety. Nor does the problem have a negative solution since the will for nothingness is a contradiction. The problem of our destiny springs from the deepest source of our willing; it is the principle of our action. What we must do is measure its scope and its scope can be measured because action that is the result of man's willing is determined in so far as it must fall within a certain structure.

Beginning with the more elementary activities of man and continuing to the more complex, we gradually come to understand the inner structure of action and its development. In knowledge, for instance, the most elementary datum is sensation which man recognizes to be beset by inconsistencies. To overcome this defect, man creates science which in turn leads to the action of synthesis. Society begins in the determinism of consciousness which necessarily gives rise of freedom. Freedom in expressing itself in action meets resistence from both the body and the world. The result of this interaction is the individual. Still under the same restraints of his action, the individual seeks a complement outside himself to be a cooperator. This gives rise to deeper unions among individuals from whence comes the various levels of society; family, nation, humanity. Moral action successively passes through a utilitarian ethics and metaphysics to a disinterested ethics based on an absolute that is not yet defined. Finally, there is the action of man seeking self-fulfillment and self-sufficiency. First, he attributes religious values to his natural actions by attaching to experienced finite objects, infinite and absolute characteristics. When he realizes that such superstition involves a contradiction, he is faced with the stark fact that within the natural order, he will never find the self-fulfillment and self-sufficiency that he is seeking. And now comes the ultimate question－How in such a situation can action continue?

In Blondel's reasoning, we have now arrived at the point where action brings us to God. Once man realizes that in the natural order he cannot find what he needs for self-fulfillment, then he is faced with his most important decision－either to accept God or to do without him. But to reject God is the death of action. Therefore, man cannot truely live unless he consents to introduce God into his life. But even when he consents, man is powerless to place God under his control since God is completely beyond man's grasp. In the final analysis, then, man can only reach his destiny by God freely giving himself to man. Man himself can only wait for the unknown Messiah. Philosophy, then, can bring man to the threshold of Christianity but no further. Anything beyond that requires faith and practice.

Although this is a very sketchy summary of Blondel's early thought, we can see contained within it two very clear criteria by which he himself judged the effectiveness of Christian Philosophy. The first is that whatever thought is to be developed in the quest for a genuine Christian Philosophy must be within the mainstream of contemporary thought. And the mainstream of contemporary thought is not the domain of the specialist but the general undercurrent of present thinking. In short, we must think the way that the people of our time think. The second is that whatever philosophy meets this first criterion must truly provide a suitable basis on which to present the Christian faith if that philosophy is to be a Christian philosophy.

Before turning to a contemporary Christian philosopher and subjecting his work to the scrutiny of these criteria, it must be said in all fairness to the Christian Philosophy movement that Blondel's idea of Christian Philosophy although indisputably the contemporary one is not the only one. A second and very different idea of what Christian Philosophy should be was advanced by Etienne Gilson, the historian of philosophy and Thomist.(6) According to Gilson, Blondel's model became the standard model of contemporary Christian Philosophy because of a general misunderstanding of a key phrase in Leo XIII 's encyclical Aeterni Patris. That key phrase was "according to the mind of" Thomas Aquinas. Most interpreted this phrase as referring to content and therefore indicating the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas. This misinterpretation led to the development of what we know of as Neo-Thomism. Actually, according to Gilson, this phrase did not refer to content but to an approach or methodology. Thus, what should have resulted from Leo's encyclical was the study and adoption of Saint Thomas' method.

Gilson summarily stated Aquinas' method as follows. Thomas was a theologian who was interested in making the Faith understandable to the people of his time. To do this, he took the best of the secular knowledge of his time－which was the thought of Aristotle－and adapted it in a striking way to the needs of theology, always beginning from Faith and returning to Faith as the endpoint of each of his investigations. Now it was precisely this procedure which made Aquinas so successful, namely the taking of the best of the science of his day and putting it to the service of the Faith. In Thomas' time, all secular knowledge was one; that is, there was no separation of science and philosophy, physics and metaphysics. This separation began with Descartes and has been plaguing us ever since. But at that time it did not exist. Thus Aquinas could take his questions of Faith and trace their understanding through physics and metaphysics back to theology. What made this possible was the fact that Aristotle's metaphysics was based on his physics, the important link that made secular knowledge one. At the present time, we do not have a contemporary metaphysics drawn from contemporary physics; but nevertheless the best science of our time is contemporary physics. Thus the true Christian Philosophy movement of the present day should be the work of theologians who are also good scientists and who are truely attempting to discover the contemporary metaphysics necessary to synthesize Science and the Faith.

The differences between Blondel's position and that of Gilson are immediately evident and need not be commented upon further. Suffice it to say that the Second Vatican Council in its Decree on the Training of Priests－a direct descendent, to be sure, of Aeterni Patris－gave its blessing to the approach of Blondel. The Council document stated that while students should rely on the philosophical patrimony which is forever valid, they should, nevertheless, become familiar with modern philosophies, particularly the ones that are most influential in their own countries. In learning philosophy, they should be concerned with seeking rational solutions to real problems of life in their time and place. In short, philosophy should enable them to dialogue with the men of their times.

But the Second Vatican Council, unconsciously perhaps, also gave a new impetus to the Christian Philosophy movement in its contemporary approach and this new impetus produced the contemporary Christian Philosophy to be examined in this paper.(7) In the same document mentioned above, an admonition was given to seminary personnel to seek a better integration of theology and philosophy in order that students might understand more clearly how both work together in explaining the mystery of Christ. In fact, says the document, this harmonious interlocking of philosophy and theology should be the subject of a special course to be given to students at the very beginning of their major seminary training. It is easy to see how this admonition challenges scholars to demonstrate, as it were, how a philosophy can offer a rational sub-stratum for the truths of the faith. No one has made a more serious attempt since the second Vatican Council to do just this than Karl Rahner in his work Foundations of Christian Faith.(8) For this reason, we take his as the representative contemporary Philosophy

Rahner approaches the philosophy that will set the stage for Christianity as would Blondel, looking at it not with the eye of the philosophical specialist who together with his fellows has given us a plurality of conflicting starting points, but rather with the eye of the average intelligent person who sees man as the universal problem he is to himself and therefore as the starting point of philosophical speculation. Thus, Rahner defines philosophy as "every theoretical reflection upon and self-interpretation of human existence." But this reflection is not done in isolation from the flow of life but rather in the world, in time and in history. In short, man reflecting upon himself must do so in the context of this world, his times and cultural-historical milieux. What this means in practice is that there is present to each man a ready-made interpretation of what he is, an interpretation springing from the cultural-historical milieux into which he was born. This ready-made interpretation is his historical origin. What he actually does, then, is reflect upon his historical origin to see what it tells him about himself. Once he receives this information, he then asks himself whether this information is still valid within the context of his own self-experience and therefore whether or not he should still remain bound to it.

At this point an important question concerning the validity of philosophic experience arises. Since cultural-historical context differ, will not a person's understanding of man differ in accord with his historical origin? Although Rahner does not specifically ask this question, we know from what he says on cognate points particularly on the relationship between philosophy and theology that his answer would be no. Different cultural-historical contexts simply provide different roads whereby men will arrive at the same destination because that destination is the basic anthropology that underlies any culture. And whether we understand it or not we must act in accord with it. Because all of our cultural-historical constructs have been built on this one anthropology, we can arrive at a clearer understanding of that basic anthropology through reflecting upon any of these constructs in relation to ourselves.

Rahner's reflecting man would, indeed, be very "Western" in the sense that the cultural-historical milieux within which he is going to reflect is a world of advanced science and technology as well as a world of Christianity. Science presents him with an anthropology but this anthropology is one that allows him to experience himself in a number of ways to be sure, but always in ways that are not himself. In other words, science presents man only as an object which can be dissected and studied. And yet only he, the subject, can analyse and study himself as an object. What this means is that he cannot be derived completely from the sciences; there is something more that is uniquely his own and that depends on himself. As a result, he begins to experience himself as subject and person.

From subject and person, man's reflection inevitably leads mim to the experience of transcendence. For Rahner, transcendence is intuited by man when he realizes that although he is limited in his world, time and history, his horizons in both theory and practice are unlimited. Given this intuition, to evade the experience of transcendence is impossible; at best one can only postpone it and if one waits too long, he comes to that most striking experience of transcendence, death itself where the gap between man's infinite horizon and finite reality is most clearly thrust upon him. But in experiencing transcendence, man also intuits himself as responsible and free. He experiences this intuition in relation to his becoming; that is, he experiences himself as both responsible for his own becoming and free to choose within a given range of actions associated with his becoming in his world, time and history. It is easy to see that this experience also carries within it the experience of dependence because in practicing his responsibility and freedom he sees that he is also at the disposal of his world, time and history, a disposal over which he has no control.

Once man experiences what he is－subject and person and therefore transcendent, responsible and free as a result of his transcendence, and finally dependent as to his own disposal－he has arrived at what Rahner calls the presence of mystery. This mystery is basically the vast, silent darkness of what is beyond the feeble light of man's attainment. In short, it is the recognition of the beyond ourselves. Rahner calls this the unthematic or undifferentiated perception of God, and it is this perception that sets the stage for Christianity. As mentioned above, Western man is not only reflecting in a world of advanced science and technology but also in a world where an important part of his historical origin is Christianity. Therefore, as he stands before the unthematic perception of God, he must ask himself is the Christian thematic perception of God still valid within the context of his own self-experience and should he still remain bound to it.

Now it is easy to see that Rahner's thought meets both of the criteria we have taken from Blondel to judge the effectiveness of contemporary Christian Philosophy. In the book in which Rahner states his thought－ Foundations of Christian Faith－the first criterion, namely that Christian Philosophy must be within the general mainstream of current thinking, is theoretically fulfilled. After all, Rahner specifically stated that this is what he set out to do and he gave convincing reasons to show that he had actually done so. The second criterion, that is that the philosophy expounded must offer a suitable basis on which to present the Faith, is not only theoretically fulfilled but also practically fulfilled in this instance. Rahner not only said he was going to show how philosophy and theology complement one another but he actually demonstrates this very claim in the major portion of his book.

But it is clear from the above that we are faced by one problem, and that is how do we know that Rahner's philosophy is indeed within the mainstream of contemporary thought practically as well as theoretically. Probably most would answer by saying that a general survey of contemporary European Philosophy would help remove this problem. But for those of us in the Orient, an example closer to home would be much more welcome. Can we find a Chinese philosopher doing Rahner's kind of thinking? The answer is yes, we have one in Fung Yu-lan (馮友蘭) an outstanding contemporary Chinese philosopher.

Fung Yu-lan, in a brief work entitled A Short History of Chinese Philosophy written just before the Chinese liberation, revealed much of his own thinking on philosophy in the Chinese tradition.(9) To him, philosophy is systematic, reflective thinking on life. Everyone who is not yet dead is in life but only some who are living engage in reflective thinking about life and among these, a smaller number still whose reflection is systematic. These people we call philosophers, that is those who think reflectively on Life and then express their thoughts in a systematic way.

When one reflects on Life, he sees that part of the universal experience of man is that of transcendence and to Fung Yu-lan this creates a major problem in relation to his historical origin in this world and at this time. He is aware of the fact that in the West, the transcendental experience has been a major force in the stability of a strong religious tradition. On the other hand, Westerners looking at the cultural-historical reality of China see the Chinese as less concerned than they are with religion. And, indeed, Fung Yu-lan recognizes this as a fact. But what does this mean? Does it mean that the Chinese man simply denies the transcendental experience and as a result there is no spiritual basis in Chinese civilization?

Fung Yu-lan's reflection on the kind of a man he is in relation to his own historical origin leads him to assert that the Chinese man does not deny the transcendental experience but rather expresses it differently from the Western man. To clarify this, he analyses religion and philosophy. His analysis brings him to the conclusion that the heart of the matter is a question of values. Religion is thought to give one super-moral values while philosophy only moral values. Love of God, for instance, is a super-moral value while love of man is a moral value. Does this mean, then, that the Chinese are not conscious of those values that are higher than moral ones? The answer to this question is, of course, no. The reason is that the Chinese man satisfies his craving for transcendental experience in philosophy in a way that would be very similar to the love of what Rahner would call the non-thematic God. So therefore, in philosophy he has the super-moral values expressed and appreciated and in living according to philosophy these super-moral values are experienced.

In reading Fung Yu-lan, we find a number of peculiar prejudices and preconceptions expressed concerning religion in general and Christianity in particular that are not incorporated into the above summary. But they are no more surprising than similar Western thought concerning Chinese religion and institutions. But what we do see quite clearly is a good practical example of a Chinese philosopher going the same kind of philosophizing that Karl Rahner is doing and from this we can judge that Rahner's Christian philosophy would be effective in this context. In short, Rahner and Fung Yu-lan would be perfectly capable of dialogue, one with the other.

What we have seen above is only one example taken from the oriental context. Unfortunately, the exclusiveness of Marxist thought in China precludes free interaction of philosophical opinion, particularly on the important point of human transcendence. But the one example we have is clear enough to give a strong indication that the kind of philosophizing the contemporary Christian Philosophy movement is engaged in is effective in addressing itself to the intelligent, thinking person.

1.AETERNI PATRIS may be found in Etienne Gilson, THE CHURCH SPEAKS TO THE MODERN WORLD. THE SOCIAL TEACHINGS OF LEO XIII (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1954), pp. 31-51.

2.Lonergan saw his work as contributing to the movement of Leo XIII. In INSIGHT (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), p. 747, he says as much. However, his later work METHOD IN THEOLOGY (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979), shows a shift away from this position towards what we call in this paper Contemporary Christian Philosophy.

3.De Bonald's works have not been put into English. However clear presentations of his thought may be found in Mary Hall Quinlan, HISTORICAL THOUGHT OF THE VICOMPTE DE BONALD (Washington: CUA, 1953) and Etienne Gilson et al., RECENT PHILOSOPHY: HEGEL TO THE PRESENT (New York: Random House, 1962), pp. 209-214, 714-718.

4.See CONCILIORUM OECUMENICORUM DECRETA (Rome: Herder, 1962), pp. 780-787.

5.A complete analysis of Blondel's work is contained in Henri Bouillard, BLONDEL AND CHRISTIANITY (Washington: Corpus Books, 1969).

6.Gilson explains his position at length in his work THE PHILOSOPHERS AND THEOLOGY (NewYork: Random House, 1962).

7.Clear documentation is contained in Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., VATICAN COUNCIL II THE CONCILIAR AND POST CONCILIAR DOCUMENTS (Northport: Costello Publishing Company, 1975).

8.Karl Rahner, FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH (New York: The Seabury Press, 1978). The theoretical content of Rahner's Christian Philosophy is found primarily in the first forty-three pages of the work. The rest of the book is devoted to the practical application of this philosophy to the understanding of the Faith.

9.Fung Yu-lan, A SHORT HISTORY OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY (New York: The Free Press, 1966). The work was originally written in 1947 and the author saw it as an opportunity to explain both his own philosophy and Chinese philosophy in general to an English -speaking audience. He does this primarily in the first chapter of the book.

作者：白敏慈 Baptista, Marciano 年份：1980

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the less publicized facts concerning Karl Rahner is that his doctoral dissertation in theology, written in 1936 and as yet unpublished, was "on the Church's origin from the wound in the side of Christ as portrayed in the writings of the Fathers." Rahner's interest in the pierced side of Christ has never left him. It is the aim of this essay to examine briefly some of his writings on the Sacred Heart and to discuss their relevance for the local Church in Hong Kong.

2. THE WORD "HEART"

Rahner begins his consideration of the devotion to the Sacred Heart by examining the word "heart" in its symbolic significance. Although the word "heart" of necessity includes the idea of bodiliness and therefore includes also the bodily heart, "in the original (and not the subsesequent, derived or metaphorical) sense, 'heart' is a primal word. It is not susceptible of a proper definition by the joining of better known concepts."(3) The word "heart", Rahner adds, "falls into the category of words for the whole man; that is, it signifies a human reality predicable of the whole man as a person of body and spirit, a reality which is therefore prior to any possible distinction between body and soul."(4) Rahner continues:－

"Heart", taken in this primal sense, denotes the centre which is the original kernel of everything else in the human person..... Here is the focal point of a man's primal and integral relations with others and above all with God: for God is concerned with the whole man, and in his divine actions it is to man's centre, his heart, that he addresses his graces or his judgements.(5)

Since a heart can either be good or wicked the author emphasizes that "it is..... by no means inevitable nor a matter of course that 'heart' should imply love. The fact that Lord freely wished the centre of his Person to consist of 'love for us' is just the incomprehensible thing in our experience if him. "(6) Rahner adds, as if in wonderment, :－

And our ultimate discovery is that this centre (this "Heart") is possessed by a free, unfathomable love. This love, as the inmost "essence" of God himself, is bestowed on us as a free gift. And it is this love that characterizes and unifies all the attitudes of our Lord. (7)

Given the above considerations Rahner goes on to define veneration of the Sacred Heart as "the latreutic cult of the Person of Christ under the aspect of his Heart in so far as this is governed by the prodigal love of God for sinful men, the love in which God gives himself to the sinner."(8)

3. CERTAIN DOGMATIC CONSIDERATIONS

Rahner states that "theology can and must show that the devotion to the Sacred Heart is materially contained in the Scripture and in patristic and medieval tradition."(9) But he immediately adds: "nevertheless this abstract dogmatic argument and the indication of a precedent will not provide sufficient basis for the present devotion to the Sacred Heart. "(10) For this we must appeal "to the ‘private revelations’of Paray-le-Monial."(11)

In its present form the devotion to the Sacred Heart is a "new creation, from the perennially valid material of the faith, of something that was demanded at that precise moment by the actual historical circumstances of the Church. "(12)

Rahner further explains that "the private revelation points out the one path which the Church must with all urgency take. What is new is not the matter of such a revelation but the placing or shifting of the emphasis within the ambit of what is legitimate for Christianity."(13)

4. DEVOTION IS ESPECIALLY FOR THE MODERN WORLD

Some have claimed that devotion to the Sacred Heart was a corrective for Jansenism. Rahner denies this and states, concerning what is new in the devotion, that: "It cannot be described exclusively or even principally in terms of Jansenism. Not only was Jansenism and its range of ideas too ephemeral a phenomenon to provoke such an answer, but the message only became effective in a period no longer swayed by Jansenism."(14)

Rahner now comes to one of the central points concerning his theology of devotion to the Sacred Heart. He explains the newness of the devotion thus:－

The message must therefore be intended for the modern situation in general, which properly began only with the French Revolution. This period is characterized, and that in ever increasing measure, by the secularisation of life (of the state, society, economy, science, art). The religious values of Christianity are being progressively eliminated from modern life, and the burden of belief is resting more and more exclusively on the personal decision of the individual. The Christian world, which could once carry a man almost independently of his own decision, is subject to unceasing attenuation. Every man must live, irrespective of whether he decides for or against Christianity, in a situation marked by the outward, and therefore also inward, "absence of God", a situation which corresponds to Golgotha and Gethsemane in the life of Jesus (Mk. 14, 32 ff.; 15, 32 ff.), where life is to be found in death, where abandonment implies the deepest proximity to God, and where the power of God parades itself in weakness. (15)

Since the world is becoming more and more secularised and followers of Christ in the modern world find themselves more and more in a context of a world in which love has grown cold, then it is fitting that devotion to the Sacred Heart emphasizes the following: "the interior life, faith in the love of God, present even when it seems furthest away (in consequence of the growing sin and godlessness of the world, from which believers and unbelievers alike suffer), and reparation."(16) Rahner now explains these three aspects of the devotion more fully:－

Interior life is not the selfish luxury of religious introversion. The interior man is rather he who, by the power of God, believes and loves in spirit and in truth, in a world where the love of God has grown cold, or at least has almost ceased to project itself into "exterior" life. Interior life means the strengthening of man in faith and love without the props of an externally Christian society.

The second characteristic is faith in the love of God in spite of his judgements. It has a special meaning in our day, when God, the Lord of history, appears as an angry judge, when the hour of darkness seems to have overtaken human history, and the historical situation of the world reflects mysteriously the interior state of souls.

Reparation means the endurance of this godless situation with and in the Son, in Gethsemane and Golgotha, and fellowship in Christ's apparently fruitless love for the sinful world.(17)

5. SPIRITUALITY AND DEVOTION TO THE SACRED HEART

Although devotion to the Sacred Heart is, according to Pope XI, summa totius religionis (the epitome of all devotion), nevertheless it would be wrong to think that "devotion to the Sacred Heart and the spiritual life are one and the same thing..... The heart is the origin and centre of, but it is not identical with, the whole spiritual life."(18)

One could speak broadly about devotion to the Sacred Heart in such a way that it "would be conceptually and materially identical with Christianity. But that could be only harmful to the devotion."(19) Although it is possible to focus the whole of the spiritual life on explicit, conscious devotion to the Sacred Heart, "such a concentration is not part of the devotion recommended to every Christian."(20) This is because "Christian spirituality, which will include devotion to the Sacred Heart..... allows of an endless variety of forms, and within it devotion to the Sacred Heart can appear in the most various shapes and degrees of intensity. "(21)

1.Herbert Vorgrimler, Karl Rahner: His Life, Thought and Work, trans. Edward Quinn (London: Burns and Oates, 1965): p.26.

2.Karl Rahner, "Some Theses on the Theology of the Devotion," in Heart of the Saviour: A Symposium on Devotion to the Sacred Heart, edited by Josef Stierli (Freiburg: Herder, 1957): pp. 131 - 156. This same essay has been published, in a different translation, in Karl Rahner, "Some Theses for a Theology of Devotion to the Sacred Heart," Theological Investigations, vol. 3: The Theology of the Spiritual Life, trans. Karl-H and Boniface Kruger (Baltimore: Helicon, 1967; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1967): pp. 331- 352. In this article quotations will be take from the former Stierli edition. Cf. Karl Rahner, "The Theology of the Symbol," Theological Investigations, vol. 4: More Recent Writings, trans. Kevin Smyth (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966; New York: Seabury, 1966): pp. 245 - 252.

3.Ibid., p. 132. Cf. Karl Rahner, "’Behold This Heart.’: Prelimiaries to a Theology of Devotion to the Sacred Heart," Theological Investigations, vol. 3: The Theology of the Spiritual Life, trans. Karl-H and Boniface Kruger (Baltimore: Helicon, 1967; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1967): pp. 321-330; Karl Rahner, "The Theological Meaning of the Veneration of the Sacred Heart," Theological Investigations, vol. 8: Further Theology of the Spiritual Life 2, trans. David Bourke (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1971; New York: Herder and Herder, 1971): pp. 217 - 228.

4.Ibid. Cf. Karl Rahner, "Faith as Courage," Meditations on Freedom and the Spirit (New York: Seabury, 1978): pp. 9-11, for a further discussion of this category of words.

5.Ibid., p. 133. Cf. Karl Rahner, "Sacred Heart," The Eternal Year, trans. John Shea, S. S. (London: Burns and Oates, 1964): pp. 121 - 128.

6.Ibid.

7.Ibid., p.137.

8.Ibid., p.138.

9.Ibid., p.139.

10.Ibid.

11.Ibid.

12.Ibid.

13.Ibid., p.140.

14.Ibid., p. 141.

15.Ibid.

16.Ibid., p.142. (Rahner’s italics.)

17.Ibid. (Rahner’s italics.)

18.Ibid., p.144.

19.Ibid., p.145.

20.Ibid.

21.Ibid., p.146.

6. FOR WHOM IS EXPLICIT DEVOTION TO THE SACRED HEART?

Explicit devotion to the Sacred Heart will be practised by "a small circle, a holy remnant of devotees, of true witnesses, fruitful patterns of genuine piety for others to imitate, a circle of which priests too would be members. "(22)

In particular, this devotion will be singularly appropriate for the priest of tomorrow since he will be a man whose "office will not carry weight through social prestige; he will have to set forth and prove its validity by the proofs of the Spirit and of power, by the authentic vigour of his experience of God."(23) Furthermore, "he will be a man who truly endures the grievous dark-ness of existence together with all his brothers and sisters, knowing that both its first source and its blessed fulfilment are found in the mystery of love which conquers by the incomprehensibility of the cross. "(24) In addition, "tomorrow's priest will be a man whose calling is most difficult of all to justify in profane terms, because his real success is always vanishing into the mystery of God and because he is not a psychotherapist dressed in the old-fashioned costume of a magician."(25)

In short, the priest of tomorrow must be man with a pierced heart

..... from which alone he draws strength for his mission. With the pierced heart: pierced through by the godlessness of life, pierced through by the folly of love, pierced through by lack of success, pierced through by the experience of his own wretchedness and profound unreliability, believing that only such communicates the strength for his mission, that all the authority of office, all objective validity of the world, all the efficacy of the sacraments' opus operatum, are only turned into the event of salvation by the grace of God if they come to man through this ineffable channel of the pierced heart. I say he is the man with the pierced heart because he is to lead .men to the very core of their existence, to their inmost heart, because he can only do so if he has found his heart; because he and others can only find this centre of existence, the heart, if they accept its being pierced, pierced by the incomprehensibility of love that is pleased to conquer only in death.(26)

Rahner concludes thus concerning the priest of tomorrow:－

Now when a priest of tomorrow who must be like this is always overtaxed by what he should be－and is by the grace of God at the bottom of his heart－anxiously asks where he is to find what he has not of himself, where he can contemplate in its archetypal simplicity what he himself should be, then there is only one thing for him to do－turn to the Lord whom he serves, look on him whom they pierced, and venerate the pierced Heart of Jesus Christ.(27)

Devotion to the Sacred Heart is also most appropriate for Jesuits whose spirituality, like all spiritualities, needs a “new protective force, protective (oddly enough) against itself; so balancing its internal forces that the particular within it builds up and does not destroy.(28) Rahner then explains that "our point is..... the devotion to the Sacred Heart is an inherent and necessary preventive for Ignatian Spirituality against its own dangers.”(29)

7. IS THE DEVOTION OUT-OF-DATE?

Rahner has no problem admitting that certain elements of the devotion to the Sacred Heart as handed down to us

….. do carry clear signs of their age; the limited viewpoint from which they have been presented can only be explained from the theological background of the seventeenth century. For example, this form of the devotion has no ordered connection with the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity….. Moreover one misses in the devotion a lively awareness of the dogma that Christ is our mediator with the Father….. But these "period" failings are not essential to the devotion and can be supplied without undue difficulty.(30)

Rahner adds that "all the ingredients of devotion to the Sacred Heart are borrowed from dogma, and in this sense the devotion is valid for all ages of Christianity."(31)

The situation of "love grown cold," however, which was the external stimulus for the devotion in the first place, far from decreasing in our time has, in fact, intensified. This has prompted Rahner to write, concerning the circumstances of secularisation, of the experience of absence of God and of "love grown cold," that since these circumstances

..... are still with us and show no sign of changing, indeed are only now revealing all their breadth and gravity, the cult of the Sacred Heart can only become more and more seasonable. If the devotion, understood in its proper and most profound sense, has suffered a reverse in very recent times, this is not because it is ill adapted to our age. Such a reverse is rather itself a sign that "charity has grown cold."(32)

Rahner now elaborates his position concerning why he considers the devotion is most modern in these words:－

Do you imagine that this devotion to the Sacred Heart is old-fashioned, dated, a piety of yesterday. What is old-fashioned? What is modern? The really modern Christian is not the man who makes a point of non-conformity to a certain past and conforms to a today that only shallow minds take for the future; he is the man who keeps the old and anticipates the real future. Much in the Church which seems old really anticipates the future before anyone has yet caught sight of it..... No, the rare, resolute people who find things of tomorrow in those of yesterday are the ones to tell us what today really is. So it may be with devotion to the Sacred Heart..... The heart of man is always unknown country only discovered by the future, the first beginning at which we have not yet arrived. And therefore understanding the heart of Jesus in faith, hope and love is one long adventure ever new, that only ends when one has arrived at one's own heart and discovered that after all the frightful pit is filled with God. This is true of the individual and it is true of the general situation at the present day.(33)

RELEVANCE OF THE ABOVE FOR THE CHURCH IN HONG KONG

Does what Rahner says about devotion to the Sacred Heart have anything to do with our local Church here in Hong Kong? I believe it does especially if we reflect on our recent past and on our future. Let me explain what I mean.

8. LOVE GROWN COLD IN HONG KONG?

What has been the most significant event for our Church in Hong Kong in the last twenty or so years? This is a moot point, but I would like to stick my neck out and single out the Golden Jubilee Affair as the most momentous event in our recent history. The reason why I say this is that that event was the occasion when for the first time the Church in Hong Kong came face to face with the fact that She is the Church of sinners. The sin I speak about is not an isolated, individual sin, but rather the disunity, disharmony and division in our Church during the months in which the Golden Jubilee affair occurred. During this time priest was fighting against priest, sister against sister, brother against brother and Christian against Christian.

I happened to be away at the time when the main events of the Golden Jubilee affair were taking place. The reports I received showed that there was a real confrontation in the Church here. Having returned from overseas recently, I have discovered that there is still much rancour concerning the whole Golden Jubilee episode.

Now I am quite willing to admit that my perception of the situation may be quite wrong. Indeed I hope and pray that I may be wrong and that in fact the situation in our local Church following the Golden Jubilee affair is just as it was prior to the those same events. But at least the question must arise whether or not our charity has grown cold. If it has and if there is discord in our local Church then the only way it will be healed is by forgiveness, compassion and reparation; it will not be healed by renewed accusation,' by vituperation and by making demands.

In a way the Church of Hong Kong has reached the point of no return. Either we get on our knees and pray for forgivness for our own part in injuring the Body of Christ and for the grace to be able to forgive our enemies (especially our enemies within the local Church) from the heart, or else the damage to the Church in Hong Kong will be permanent because, in a very real sense, we wish it to be so; even God cannot forgive if we do not want to forgive and be forgiven.

If, however, we humbly admit our own contribution to the damage done to Christ's Body as incarnated in Hong Kong and forgive our enemies from our hearts and, furthermore, pray for them and make reparation for their sins as well as our own, if we do this then the Church in Hong Kong will rise like our Master, wounded but glorious. The choice is ours and the time for choosing is now.

9. THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH IN HONG KONG

The discord and divisions in the Church in Hong Kong spoken about just now will pale in comparison to the disunity we will all experience in the local Church if Hong Kong is returned to the Chinese Government. If that day comes there will be some who will refuse to compromise on any issue, there will also be those who will join the Patriotic Church and then there will be those who will wander around like lost sheep without a shepherd, not knowing what to do or what to believe.

Objective criteria for orthodoxy will become clouded over with time: contact with the Vatican will become more and more problematic as silence descends on the local Church; unity with the bishop will be no less uncertain since there will be some bishops who will be suspect; relations between the priests and the faithful will become harder and harder and, for many, all will seem to be lost.

If that time comes it will be hard to evaluate who belongs to the true Church and who does not. When all other signs seem ambiguous the indisputable sign of the True Church will be recognized by those who are true followers of Christ: do they love one another, do they love their enemies and pray for them, do they make reparation for the wrongs their enemies do, do they forgive those who persecute them? ..... If they do they are the true Church.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus teach us to love and pray for our enemies and give us the grace to forgive them from the heart.

22.Karl Rahner, "The Man with the Pierced Heart," Servants of the Lord, trans. Richard Strachan (London: Burns and Oates, 1968; New York: Herder and Herder, 1968): p. 110.

23.Ibid., p. 111.

24.Ibid., p. 112.

25.Ibid., p. 113. Cf. Karl Rahner, "Unity－Love－Mystery," Theological Investigations , vol. 8: Further Theology of the Spiritual Life 2, trans. David Bourke (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1971; New York: Herder and Herder, 1971): pp. 229 - 250, concerning the relationship between the Sacred Heart and Mystery.

26.Ibid., pp. 113 - 114.

27.Ibid., p. 115.

28.Karl Rahner, "Ignatian Spirituality and Devotion to the Sacred Heart," Woodstock Letters 91 (Feb., 1962): p. 22.

29.Ibid., p. 23.

30.Karl Rahner, “Some Theses,” p.142-143.

31.Ibid., p.143.

32.Ibid.

33.Karl Rahner, "The Man with the Pierced Heart," pp. 117 - 118.

作者：陈尹莹、汤汉 Tong, John 年份：1980

丁光训主教访美加记后

(甲)记述

一九七九年九月初，共产中国改变了三十年来的决策，遣派一个由基督教、佛教、回教领袖组成的代表团出席在美国新泽西州普林士顿举行的第三届世界宗教与和平大会。这十人代表团美国之行，不但明显地表示近日中国对宗教逐渐改变的态度，代表团中四位基督教代表，更给我们海外的基督信徒一个与他们直接切磋的机会。

这个代表团出席世界宗教会议，显然是中国决意把一九七八年人民大会议章中第四十六条文「人民宗教自由」的决策付诸实行的表现之一，这并不是一个突如其来的改变。远在去年一月，停顿多年的北京宗教事务总署连同它在上海及广州的分支同时重新开放。二月的时候，中央政府在云南省首都昆明开设宗教研究所，订八年计划。跟着，基督教传教士王明道获得释放。七月的时候，四十七岁的傅铁山神父被选为北京天主教主教，到去年年底，各地大小教堂渐渐开放，由政府协助逐一收回房屋地产，以助未来各宗教团体自给自足。中央政府甚至资助南京宗教研究所重新编订圣经，于今年内继续出版，供国内基督徒使用。最近，被囚禁二十二年的广州天主教主教邓以明，获得释放。这一切的表现，跟六十年代文化大革命进行得如火如茶的时候，各宗教信徒所受身心的迫害，自然都是令人难以置信的对比。

共产主义否定所有宗教信仰，是无可否认的事实。但是在中国九亿多人口中，共产党员只占百分之三也是事实。在中国全力推行现代化的今天，中央政府知道，要全国安定进步，非得到其他百分之九十七的国民悉心合作不可。于是这广大人口中的一亿佛教徒、一千万回教徒、三百万天主教徒和七十万基督教徒，他们的宗教信仰，便因此而受到容忍和某种程度的尊重。

经过过去三十年的惨痛经验，中国政府突如其来的转变，自然使人满腹疑团，至少也采取观望态度，正如代表团中的基督教南京主教丁光训说的：「在美加各地，不少同胞都问我：『你是政府派来的特务吗？政府如今鼓励基督教的三自运动和天主教的爱国教会，真正的目的是在消灭宗教吗？』我就回答说：『文化大革命之后，一切与宗教有关的事物摧毁无遗。如要宗教消声匿迹，政府只要袖手旁观即可。如果要消灭宗教，却又出面支持宗教研究，岂不是多此一举？』」所以目前最切要的问题，倒不是中央政府有多少诚意，目的何在，而是在政府容忍的范围内，如何能将耶稣基督仁爱的讯息，在中国身体力行，正如丁主教去年十一月在加拿大多伦多说的：「今日中国的信徒和世界其他许多地方的基督徒一样，正要踏入人类历史的一个新纪元，摆脱欺压的制度。在一个半殖民、半封建的土地上，协力建立社会主义。在这个历史过程中，中国基督徒怎样负起这个使命，结果可能与中世纪时欧洲大陆从封建制度进入资本主义的纪元的时候一样，影响力会深远无比。这个在我们国土上进行中的试验，无论成果如何，凡是关心基督信仰在未来世界中的命运的人，都不可以忽视。」

基督信仰如何能在局限的条件下与共产主义共存？身为基督徒，在共产制度下是否也能做一个好国民？这是丁光训主教及无数其他身处共产中国的基督徒正在追寻解答的问题。丁主教在这方面的努力并不始自今天，他原籍上海，早年毕于上海圣约翰大学及纽约的哥伦比亚大学。远在四十年代，他和他的妻子已经是海外基督徒的青年领袖。五十年代初期，他俩返回中国的时候，萦绕心中的就是同一的问题：共产主义认定所有宗教信仰与它的唯物论背道而驰，那么基督信仰在中国有任何立足的机会吗？「可是我和我的妻子都觉得跟我们的同胞一起同甘共苦，比什么都重要。」于是，在一九五一年底，丁主教和他的妻子返回中国服务。

基督信仰在中国的前途，跟佛教、回教比起来，似乎更加荆棘满布，有数不尽的社会及历史的远固和近果，其中最大的结症，当然是因为基督信仰在中国的发展，和过去百多年来中国的同胞在国土上受尽欧西强国欺凌压榨的事实分不开。当年外国传教士满腔热忱，远渡重洋，来到中国的大城小镇，为中国的老百姓带来救恩的佳音。但同时在国际舞台上发生的，是一一使中国人抬不起头来的屈辱。而且在广大的土地上，简朴单纯的老百姓见到的是靠欧美汇来的金钱兴建的教堂、学校、慈善机构，以及用西方传统思想和教育训练出来的中国知识份子凌驾在吃不饱、穿不暖的老百姓之上。于是原来基督仁爱的讯息、天父的形象，变得模糊不清。中国过去三十年革命的努力，尽管犯了多少无可补救的错误，经历了多少使国土满目疮痍的挫折，但无可否认的事实是中国的同胞得回了自尊，抬起了头。

今日中国的基督徒也成了努力建国的同胞中的一份子。在这个自醒自觉的年代，基督的信息大概比在任何其他时代更有意义。但最要记得的是，基督信仰在中国发展，绝对不能重蹈覆辙，因此，丁光训主教去年十一月在加拿大发表谈话时说：「要基督的真正讯息在中国发扬光大，我们一定要为基督信仰努力探讨一个纯中国化的表达方式，这个形象一定要要同时是基督化，又是中国化，绝不能是西方思想传统的附属品。」在此时此地的中国，要探索一个纯中国化的基督信仰，仍是一条崎岖漫长、艰钜无比的路途。要在无神论者统治下的中国发扬基督信仰，也许并不如我们没有身历其境的人想像中那样毫无协调的可能。在加拿大的时侯，丁主教曾经准备了一篇谈话，叫做「一个中国基督徒对无神论者的钦佩」，内容反映他三十年来对此问题的探讨。远在一九五七年的时侯，他当时是南京宗教研究所的主任，曾经对学生发表过一篇关于宗教信仰的演讲，指出了不少人否定神的存在，其中一个原因是因为教会并未能真正传达了真神的形象。他说：「主耶稣说：『让你们的光芒照耀大地，好使所有的人看见你们所作所为的美善，回头去赞扬你们在天上的父亲。』但是，我们并没有这样做。人们看见我们基督徒的生活、思想和工作，却无法看出得我们主耶稣的天父如何慈爱、公义、光明正大。他们通过教会所见到的神，是他们良心上的正义感和道德观所无法接受的，………。所以，今日面对共产中国的基督徒，在批判指责之余，还需要俯首诚心地忏悔。」

丁主教在美国纽约与神学家聚会时，曾把无神论者分为三大类：第一类是「道德败坏的人，他们为人自私、刻薄、不负责任、毫无纪律，致使他们不能相信有神存在，因为如果真的有神的话，这个神一定不能容忍他们这样生活。」第二类的人虽然对神的观念抱着严肃的态度，却不能不否定神的存在。丁主教解释说：「我们基督徒坚持神是父亲，而且无所不能。你可有想过在这一个充满苦难、分裂、缺陷的世界里，要信一个这样的神真是谈何容易？较易接受的是一个慈爱但是有心无力的神；或是一个无所不能却并不慈悲为怀的神；又或者是一个既无德又无能的神。神或许不能也不愿意克服邪恶；或者祂可以克服邪恶却不愿意去做；或者祂想做却又做不来；又或者祂既能够也愿意征服邪恶。当然只有最后者才当得起是神，可是，实际上又好像并不如此。从世界四方八面种种不幸、丑恶、不公不义的事看起来，要相信神是无所不能的天父，我们要感谢祂而不能咀咒祂，实在太难了。犹太长老李察鲁实斯坦谈及『神的死亡』的理论时说：『我说我们正生活在神死亡了的时代，意思是指神人天地之间的连系中断了，我们孤零零地站在冷酷无情、无声无臭的宇宙中，除却自己以外，再没有任何饶有目的的主宰来相助。经过第二次世界大战，六百万犹太人被宰杀，一个犹太人对神还有什么话说？』所以有些无神论的人虽然很想对神抱有严肃的态度，但实实在在不能没有疑问，这些人值得我们同情和谅解。」

第三类无神论者是热爱人类的革命志士。他们不信神，是因为他们所见到被宣扬的神，只是特权阶级的护盾，不容许任何为老百姓着想的价值或制度上的改革，维护着不公不正的社会秩序。对这样的神，被剥夺和压迫的人就只能否定祂。这种无神论并不是毫无可取的地方，因为它的出发无是对人群真正的关怀，它鼓励无私的男女掌握自己的命运，再不俯首缄然认命。丁光训主教认为我们那个滞停了数十年的社会，正需要这一种抗议，因为在这些无神论者对神的否定中，找寻的是人灵的尊严和解放，他们为了要为广大的人民争取身心的自由，拒绝接受那虚假的神的形象。

「在这种无神论据内，有无可比拟的高贵情操。」丁主教继续说：「例如马克斯主义里说的：『人世在生，就是要参与创造的伟大工程；人与人之间的分歧，与人的本性相违，是社会制度自我矛盾的结果，人生的自由，与生俱来，要参与创发性的劳动……』这些马克斯信条本来就有很浓厚的神学观。」

杜斯妥也夫斯基说：「神真的不存在的话，人就什么都会做出来了。」丁主教不同意这位俄国大文豪的话，却认为无神论并非等于没有道德观。他说：「我认为许多革命之士，他们否定神的存在，但有许多事他们不曾准许自己去做。他们自律很严，极力避免做任何事以损害革命最终的目的－－老百姓的自由和解放。」今日中国国土上满布的就是这样的无神论者。「他们热爱群众，愿意为老百姓作任何牺牲，他们并不为自己斤斤计较，去找寻安逸的生活。他们在老百姓中，把他们所信的身体力行。革命最重要的标志是爱，不是恨。真正的革命志士的出发点，必须是对人的热爱。毛主席说：『所有参加革命的人士都必需彼此关怀互助。』在革命过程中，暴力和恨怒到处皆是，但一个革命人士之所以恨，原因是他要爱。他对老百姓的关怀，使他跟有违人道的制度势不两立。他对正义的热忱使他对不公正的事，不胜其烦……革命之士也是人，他们也能犯错。但是，由于他们知道个人的错误会如何损害到革命的目的，所以他们不停地严格反省、自我检讨和批评，努力克服自私和短见……我们身在中国的基督徒，早就不再自鸣清高，处处找寻这些革命之士的缺点。相反的，他们的舍己为人使我们愧悔莫名。他们非宗教的精神修养，是我们身为基督徒的人所不能忽视的……中国的老百姓，就是在这许多舍己忘我的革命之士引领下，得到解放，文化物质生活慢慢得到改善。今天世界上四分之一的人口在我们占全世界土地七分之一的国土上得到温饱，三十年来物价平稳，我们的食用很简陋，但再没有人挨饿，吃树皮的日子已成为过去。我们四分之一的国民在学校里受教育，我们有的是一个比以前公义的社会，使基督信仰中的神－－一个既慈爱又无所不能的神－－渐渐有被接受的可能。舍己为人的精神本来就是基督讯息的原则。「这些革命之士和神这样接近而又非否定祂不可，归根到底，大半还是我们身为基督信徒的错啊！」

基督信徒能和这样的无神论者并肩而行吗？丁主教对这一点毫无疑问。在基督信仰漫长的历史里，和其他哲学理论共存，并不是第一次。他说：「基督徒认定耶稣基督是罪人的救主，这点固然重要，但是在圣约翰的福音里，在圣保罗给以弗所和歌罗西基督徒的书信里，我们所见到的基督也是宇宙之主，整个受造的世界的荣耀与满全，上主创造万物的最终涵义。这个基督是上主教导万邦的圣言，照引全民的亮光。到历史终结的时候，祂就会从整个人类－－包括信者和不信者－－的手中，接纳他们的工程，不是要把它丢弃，而是要使它升华，使它十全十美，好献给神－－我们众人的父亲。」

「基督的福音并不硬定要把所有的真理包罗，真理显示的方法不一。不直接从基督信仰而来的真理，我们并没有害怕的必要，因为真理就是真理……我们对任何的启示都应该钦羡不已，欢天喜地的去探讨：因为它们一样能够引带我们向着最终一统的真理－－基督－－走去。」

「我深信革命之士亦能在基督的讯息中找到有意义的地方。基督的福音不曾削减他们的革命精神，但会使它更纯洁、更高贵、更能为上主所悦纳……我们充满陈腔旧调、繁文褥节而呆滞不前的教会，也可借助这个革命的过程，大大地革新。我想望着有一天，这两者会合而为一，这时，我们见到的，就会是一个崭新的世界，崭新的基督信仰了！」

在这个漫长的路途上，我们身为基督徒的能做什么呢？丁主教说：「让我们求上主赐给我们一个谦下的心吧！一九五七年的时侯，他曾对他的学生说：『同学们啊，要在社会主义统治下建立基督教会，在教会一千九百多年的历史里还未实现过。在三自运动里，我们肩负的是一个非常重大的责任，为什么上主把这个职责给了我们，却不给别人？是因为我们优人一等吗？不！主有他的理由，我们还捉摸不到，但至少我们知道，因为我们在中国的教会，既低且微，无权无势，我们就可以表现主的教会如何在微不足道中发挥她的力量，显扬主工程的伟大，把光荣归于上主，因为只有这样，才显得真正的力量并不来自我们，而是来自上主。」

(乙)分析

究竟丁主教三十年探讨的结果，与目前共产中国的哲学思想有何异同？让我们运用我们所认识的共产中国哲学思想的分析方法，去设法透视丁主教言论所特别强调的地方。我们将依照下列的次序逐步分析：（一)世界观；(二)认识论；(三)伦理观；(四)历史政冶观。

(一)世界观

在中国哲学史上，「理」与「气」及两者之间的关系，一直是表达不同世界观的主要词汇。今日中国哲学思想所强调的世界观，可以用下列两句话概括：「理在气中」、「无理则无气」。究竟这两句话有什么意思？原来，按照他们的解释，「气」就是「器」，即「物质世界」；而「理」就是一切物质世界变动的原则。所谓「理在气中」，就是说，一切物质世界变动的原则都是从物质世界本身产生。而「无气则无理」这句话，则清楚地表达出物质是一切运动原则的基础及根源。无疑，这种世界观就是唯物主义内涵的演绎。

站在基督徒立场，丁主教的世界观已把「理」改作我们信仰中的「神」。一方面他强调及同意「理在气中」的说法，但他的意思却是：神不断在这个现实物质的世界中，指导物质世界的进化；但另一方面，他所接受的「无气则无理」的意义却落在不同的层次上。唯物论者的解释是在「存在意义」上，意指物质是世界的根源；而丁氏的解释却在「认识意义」上，意思是：只有透过服务世界、热爱人类，我们才能真正接触及认识神。

因此，一九七九年九月九日在纽约市河滨教堂的主日讲道词中，丁主教说：「今日越来越多基督徒瞭解到，与超越神的接触，主要不在『某处』，而在于人类的位际关系中。即使人际关系看似十分俗化，每当我们自己投入这种关系的深处，我们实是开放自己，通往神圣的领域，与神接触。神既是爱，就只有在这爱中，我们才能与这位宇宙的至高者接触，把我们自己调协在神的本性内。

所以，丁主教虽然同意唯物论者所强调的「理在气中」的说法，也在认识的层次上接受「无气则无理」的意义；但在存在的层次上，始终坚持有神论者的内容，肯定神才是宇宙之主、万物之源。这样的采纳，不但有利于一位基督徒在共产国家内生活，也能纠正一些基督徒的错误观点，不再以为神只住在教堂或天上领域，也不再把基督信仰与实际生活割开。

(二)认识论

随着以「气」为主的世界观，今日中国哲学思想特别强调「实事求是」的认识论，要求每个人抱着科学精神，脚踏实地，从实事实物的接触及验证中，去认识事物。同时，今日中国哲学所特别反对的，就是「主观唯心论」及「客观唯心论」。根据他们的解释，「主观唯心论」使人脱离现实世界，共会从幻想或推测中去认识事物，犹如天生瞎子之揣测颜色一般；而客观唯心论」则是在获得了一些有限的真知真识后，再凭幻想力或推测力去扩大这些有限的知识，以致推想出其他不可能证实、甚至不可能存在的事情。

作为共产中国的一份子，丁主教在他的言论中也强调「实事求是」的认识论；但丁氏再把这种认识论划分为两类：一类是对「自然科学」的客观认识论，另一类则是对「人文社会」的客观认识论。前者可以透过科学方法或知识去获得，因为自然科学是人类研究的对象，有普遍规律可寻；但后者则只能透过「位际关系」(INTERPERSONALRELATIONSHIP)才能领悟。因为知、情、意在每个人生命中的活动复杂无比，要透过「心心相印」的体验才能成全。所以，丁主教虽然接受「实事求是」的认识论，但站在基督徒的立场，他所特别关心的问题，不是「自然科学」，而是神、人、与社会。

早在一九五七年六月十二日，丁主教在南京神学院对他的学生，发表了一篇提名为「基督徒的有神主义」的演讲，其中的说话足以反映出他的认识论：「如果有人发现，在历史的某些时期，有某些宗教信仰人士，曾运用宗教作为鸦片，因而结论出神并不存在，我们便该对他说『你的逻辑推断不正确，你不可从那个大前提，获得这个结论。……每个人应切实研究宗教，不该从一些已含结论的定义去探讨；不然，我们便陷入教条主义的错谬里。』」

在纽约河滨教堂的讲道词中，丁主教直截了当地提出他「以心体心」的认识论，他说：「爱护同胞，并非只是向他们微笑或德待他们，而是要我们设身处地，以心体心，去体贴他们的感受，明瞭他们的正义精神，与他们并肩作战……。」无疑，丁主教对位际体悟的强调，与他本人的神学背景及信仰使命有着密切的关系。但这种强调却是一般唯物论者尚未深入探讨的领域。

(三)伦理观

在以「气」为主的世界观的脉络下，今日中国的哲学思想特别强调「顺欲」的社会伦理观。按照他们的解释，「欲」就是指人的基本生理要求；而「顺欲」就是满足人的基本生理需求。不过，这些基本生理要求的满足，并非是个体性的，而应是社会性的，就是要满足社会整体的基本生理要求，使所有人民丰衣足食，物质生活获得正常发展。故此，能够「顺欲」，满足大多数人民的生理要求的，就是合乎伦理，也就是「善」；否则，就是违反伦理，就是「恶」。所以，世界上没有先天的及不变的伦理观，有的只是后天的及顺应社会生活要求的伦理观。这也是「理在气中」及「无气则无理」的世界观的一项演绎。

站在中国基督徒的立场，丁主教也强调「顺欲」的社会伦理观，但是他把「欲」的内涵扩阔，不但指人的基本生理要求，也指人精神上的要求。在他看来，「顺欲」就是使人得到整体及全面的发展，包括物质及精神两方面。而传播福音就是接受这方面的挑战，要先从社会上大多数人的物质生活方面着手。因此，他在同一次纽约河滨教堂的讲道词中说：「今日我们大多数中国基督徒所认为崭新的观点，就是醒觉到：人不单是罪人，也是被欺压的人；不单违反神的律法，也被别人侵犯权利。我们亦瞭解到：传播福音的任务，不单使人深悟自己的罪过，也与我们社会中被欺压的人站在一起，体察他们的感受，跟他们一起生活。单是便人深悟自己的罪过，尚未算是彻底的传播福音。……曾有人很巧妙地指出，传播福音就如同一个乞丐告诉另一个乞丐，何处可以找到食物。这观念不错，但仍末透彻地说明传播福音的含义。乞丐还需要明白，他们自己的饥饿疾病、无家可归、婴儿死亡，及失业行乞等，并非神的旨意，而是少数人贪占权利的结果，也是他们被动忍受的结果。我们应该帮助乞丐看出，神的旨意并非要社会一小群顶尖人物控制一切，享受丰美的生活，把剩余的去救济乞丐，而乞丐却要被欺负，接受行乞的命运。只有当所有被欺压的人士，都变成我们关怀的对象时，神才会把圣言放在我们口中，去见证基督为罪人的救主。这样，我们才够资格说话，群众也乐于听从我们。」

这样，丁主教的社会伦理观与一般共产中国哲学思想的社会伦理观，两者在关怀的出发点上虽然相同，但在最终目标上，却大有分别，因为丁主教始终承认，人的精神生活仍占着最高的地位。

(四)历史政治观

今日中国哲学思想，除了主张「顺欲」的社会伦理观外，还强调「顺势」的「历史政治观」。这个「势」就是指历史发展的客观规律。他们认为历史发展的客观规律依次是：奴隶制度、封建制度、资本主义、社会主义、共产主义。

丁主教也强调「顺势」的历史政治观。所以，他以中国基督徒的身份，放弃外国的工作和生活，毅然回到祖国，接受共产政权，希望付出力量，与同胞一起建设国家，要亲自体验和表达出，一位基督徒如何也能在共产政权下做个好国民。此外，他更以基督徒领袖身份，领导中国教会变成一个自治、自养、自传的本地化教会，洗脱「洋教」的污名。

一九七八年在接受一位美国退伍军人侯活、海曼(Howard. S. Hyman)的访问时，他说：「基督徒可分两类：其中一类认为自己应该只是信奉基督宗教，而基督信仰与服务人民没有任何关系。这并非说，他们反对服务中国人民，只是说，基督信仰与他们的实际生活无关系。另一类中国基督徒则认为，他们在社会所作所为应反映基督的训导，服务人民就是实践对神的信仰。你们在美国基督教会中也有这两类人。我较同意第二种的看法。话虽如此，我并非想把马克斯主义宗教化，也不是想把宗教马克斯化。总之，我不以为两者可以融合一起。」

在同一访问中，丁主教又说：「三自运动(于一九五一年在政府宗教事务局领导下成立)是中国基督徒所推动的一种运动，目的要使我们的宗教获得真正的独立。换言之，我们要使中国的基督教会成为本国化，如同英国教会是英国化一样。我们不应该是美国、英国、和加拿大宣教会的属会，故中国教会该自治、自养、自传。」

这样，丁主教透过推行三自运动，表达自己对政治及信仰的认同。无疑，丁主教本人因为受过比较开明的神学教育，具有深阔的学养，且又隶属于不太强调传统体制的教会，故能把自己的信仰与国家的历史政冶观调协，但对于其他大多数中国基督徒，如果他们从未接受过同样的神学教育，且又隶属于不同传统体制的教会的话，他们要如何面对教会与国家的不同要求？这仍是一个需要继续探索的大问题。

(丙)问题

的确，丁主教的处境及抱负，使我们联想到下列一连串问题：

多年来，我们在中国的兄弟姊妹潜心努力，追寻如何能够在社会主义下把基督的训诲身体力行。他们不断聚集祈祷，甚至把圣经逐章逐句凭记忆抄写下来，互相传阅。到今天，他们能在国内宣扬主的福音，使身在海外的我们，兴奋万分，感谢上主的眷顾。正如基督教三自爱国运动委员会今年三月一日发表「告全国主内兄弟姊妹书」中说的：「亲爱的主内弟兄姊妹们：我们在基督里向你们问安，我们今天又能这样公开称呼你们，不能不感谢神和归荣耀于神，我们虽经过了大风大浪，主用祂的杖和祂的竿，带领我们经过死荫的幽谷也没有遭害，使我们深深地领会到，主的应许是永不落空的，同时，使我们想到主对约书亚说的话，『我必不撇下你，也不丢弃你』(书－5)，应验了在我们当中。」

但是，在我们深受鼓舞之余，在未来艰钜漫长的路途中，等待着解答的还有无数的问题。首先，共产主义与教会的教诲的最终理想，虽然都是要建立起一个正义和平的世界，可是，在达到这个理想的过程中，共产主义坚持群众的利益要走在个人自由选择之前，并且为得到完善的结果可以不计代价。这一点与教会的精神有没有冲突呢？个人良心的选择，在对国家和对上主之间产生矛盾的时候又怎样？人性的本质是精神抑或物质？两者的关系如何？是物质决定精神抑或精神决定物质？人的本质决定现象抑或现象决定人的本质？过去教会在中国的工作和列强欺压中国的历史确实纠缠不清，但即使我们今天不会重蹈覆辙，我们仍要解答出，怎样才使同胞不再把它当做一个西方的宗教？又怎样才可以使一个现在的中国人觉得教会的训导，包括对神、对罪等的观念有切身的意义？从教会在中国过去三十年看似寂寂无闻的经历中，我们对基督信仰和共产主义得到了什么启示？三十年来教会凭着遍布中国境内的基督徒基层团体，不断萌芽长大，海外的教会对他们有什么借镜的地方？一个基督徒的使命，与他的实际生活环境不能分开，故此，生活在完全不同环境下的我们，怎能洞察国内同胞在社会主义下的生活体验？在有限的认识下，对国内教会的成长我们能作出什么贡献？当然，身为天主教徒的我们，在反映中国基督教内兄弟姊妹的经验之余，还得面对一个更复杂的问题，就是如何可以同时尊重教会近二千年的传统？……这些都是要寻找答案的问题。我们认为，在我们追寻真理的路上，必须努力保持中肯的态度。正如Concilium杂志去年六月份的前序所说的，我们要避免过激的观点，既不可过份天真乐观，认为上主完美的天国就会在未来的中国出现；也不可轻率盲从，一口咬定过去三十年中国的革命一无是处。毕竟，信仰提示我们，上主是历史的主宰，祂的慈爱常伴随着我们。我们深信，在祂认为适当的时间和环境下，祂必会把祂钟爱的中国子民引领回祂的怀抱去。

　

附录

解放后仍有宗教存在吗？

－－访问丁光训主教－－

侯活．海曼著　　汤汉、陈尹莹合译

　

（本文原载于一九七九年夏天「新中国」杂志。该杂志为中美友谊社出版。作者海氏在第二次世界大战期间，加入美军在中国服役。在一九七八年，他以退伍军人代表旅行团领袖的身份，返入中国。)

对于西方人来说，丁光训主教大概是今天中国最着名的基督教领袖之一，他曾是一九七八年三月在北京所举行的人民政治协商会议的代表，也被选为全国人民代表大会的会员。此外，他是南京神学院的院长(亦是南京大学新成立的宗教研究所的主任)。他的妻子是南京大学的英语教授。

我有一位担当过基督教男青年会学生秘书的朋友，他于一九四六年在上海已经认识丁主教。当我赴中国时，地拍我介绍给丁主教。现在丁主教夫妇很高兴地准许我带同其他旅行团团友，在他们上海的寓所内与他们共同消磨一个黄昏。我们经过一块园地，进入他们那古老英国式的美丽房子，通过一条小走廊，那朴素而镶了墙板的会客室就在右边。室内简单地陈设了一张沙发椅、数张椅子及一张咖啡桌子。我们一共是八位美国人，其中有基督教徒、犹太教徒，也有并无加入任何宗教的人仕。隶属美国基督教全国协会的巴牧师(REV.ROBERT RUE PARSONAGE)可说是我们中的「专业人仕」，他代表全体向我们的主人家提出一连串问题。下面的访问以问答方式进行，我把我们的谈话重新整理，灌成录音带。当我首先问及丁主教能否录音时，他眨一眨眼回答说：「当然可以！我肯定这不会对我不利。」

问：据我们所知，毛泽东认为：任何宗教、任何不以唯物主义为基础的运动，如非无用，就是与社会生产背道而驰。今天有关宗教的法律，究竟是基于对宗教信仰者的纯粹容忍抑或尊重呢？

答：当我的内子与我于一九五一年返回中国时，这一些问题曾不断徘徊在我们的脑海中。一九四不年以前，我俩一直住在中国。之后，我俩同赴外国，至一九五一年后期才返回来。当时我们从日内瓦返回，因为我们都是该处普世学生基督徒联会的职员。普世基督教协进会的学生基督徒联会及圣公会的同事和朋友们都反对我们回来。记得一位主教曾对我说，由于我与西方人和海外基督徒工作的联系这么密切，一旦返回共产中国，必会招致危害。另一位好友写信请我不要回去，并警告我说，即使我不被斩首，也会被关入集中营多年。但我仍决定了回来，因为和我的同胞同甘共苦更为重要。自返中国后，我一直在教堂工作，我并未被斩首，也未被关入集中营。事实上，据我所知并没有集中营这回事。我不是说，共产中国对基督信仰或任何宗教有好感。共产党员本身虽反对宗教，仍准许中国人民依其所需去信仰。但是，我们不能把这种政策解释为国家对宗教的保护与鼓励。我们的国家绝不推行宗教，也没有任何宗教在中国被立为国教。所有宗教一律平等。但我能瞭解为何他们仍坚持宗教自由的政策。其实十分简单，因为要在我国建设社会主义是一件重大的工作。共产党希望联合我们社会中各类人民，参与共同目标；这就是所谓「联合阵线」。

问：这政策有何重要及如何实施？

答：共产党员的数目，在中国人口中只是一个十分细小的数字，(在九亿多人口中) 约占三十万人口强。而大多数老百姓并不是共产党员，他们都渴望中国能享受更丰美的生活。就在这条「联合阵线」上，我们大家设法去异求同。当我们在外国时，我们曾担心，将来在新中国内，共产党员会竭力教我们认为宇宙间并没有神的存在，也不应该信神等等。但我过去廿五年多的经验却告诉我，共产党员是最先尊重人民宗教信念者之一。我们联合反抗帝国主义者的侵略，并肩努力建立社会主义。除了这些把我们团结一致的基本政冶观念之外，我们不但可以相信不同宗教，而且我们的宗教信念真正受到尊重。

问：去年三月曾举行人民协商大会，请问阁下可否告诉我们一点有关这方面的事情？这个大会曾否涉及宗教在中国的问题？

答：在人民政治协商会议中，我们的成员包括佛教徒、回教徒、天主教徒及基督教徒。据我们所知，在中国并没有犹太教徒；假如有的话，他们的代表也会被包括在内。这会议是一个特别为宗教团体而设的部门。在这部门内，中国的佛教、回教、天主教及基督教，以及西藏和内蒙的喇嘛教领袖均有代表出席，一起研究共同问题，申诉不满。在过去数十年中，宗教自由在中国若干地方，确实受到四人帮的压制，比如：在中国西北部回教徒占大多数的地区，曾有些干部认为回教应被消灭，要迫使回教徒相反自己的信仰去喂猪。在四人帮统治下，所有政策都应雷厉风行，所有中国人都应立即接受共产主义。所以，任何末充份表现自己为共产党员或纯粹社会主义，四人帮视他们为不良份子或中产阶级，需要遭受斗争。他们认为在共产主义之内，不能有宗教存在。故此宗教事务局、回教徒及其他人仕便首当其冲。可是，这些事情现在都能在上述会议中提出，且大部份问题正在谋求解决。

问：目前这里基督徒的宗教生活如何？

答：基督教徒虽只占全国人口的千份之一，却始终保持一定的影响力。昔日基督徒因为与西方势力有联系，在中国是特权阶级。在美国，一所教堂提示给人的，只不过是一些神圣超凡的观念。但在中国却不一样，我认为教堂使很多中国人记起西方人的侵略及不平等条约。这就是今天的中国基督徒不太理会能否在教堂举行聚会的部份理由。一九四九年的南京，只有五佰名基督教信徒，却有三十五所教堂。自从南京成为当日中国首都后，更获得美国及英国差会的基金支援。解放后，中国基督教徒瞭解没有理由支持这三十五所教堂，遂于一九五八年把总数削减为四间。外国报章便立即大做新闻，说中国共产党迫害中国基督徒，报导教堂如何被充公。其实，共产党并没有作过任何事情，只是从文革开始，我们连那四间教堂也没有使用而已。兴建教堂完全是西方的神学及礼仪观念。它们是为了提醒教徒于礼拜天早上十一时去教堂崇拜。但是我们的工厂采取轮班制度，每周工作七天，每天轮流有若干工人休息。基督信仰在中国是新的宗教，特别在解放后，中国基督徒甚愿拋弃西方习俗。在中国各处，很少基督徒于主日早上在教堂聚会；这听起来好像十分不虔诚，却是事实。可是，南京的基督徒大约每周一次，在任何借到的地方举行小团体聚会。

问：闻说你会称中国的基督教已进入「无分宗派的」(Post-Denominational) 阶段。请问这名词有何意义？有组织的教会在新中国要坦当甚么角色？

答：我确曾说过今日中国基督教已进入「无分宗派的」阶段或更好说是「非制度化的」(Deinstitutionalized) 教会。以往，即使我们对美国内战一无所知，祖国内仍一向存在着北方浸信会及南方浸信会、长老会、路德会、圣公会及七日复临会，甚至还有四方福音差会。但是从一九五八年至一九六○年，这些派别已模糊不清。据我所知，很多圣公会(尤其有主教制度的圣公会)及一些路德会，仍然对教会传承持有强烈意识。但大部份中国基督教徒已不理会这些传承与宗派。他们可说已踏入「无分宗派的」阶段。解放前，中国老百姓十分贫穷，需倚赖教会及福音组织开办学校、大学、医院和孤儿院。现在我们再没有维持这些健康、教育和慈善机构的需要，因为政府能为更多的老百姓提供同样的服务，甚至效果更佳。在一九六○年代，基督教男青年会的踪迹及基督教戒酒会的作用，经已消失净尽，它们成了多余及不必有的组织。此外，在唐山地震后，国家开设了很多孤儿院。我们实在不能与国家相比，也没有这种需要。所以，基督教会在中国要成为「非制度化的」教会，逐步把组织当作负坦般摆脱。中国基督教会也是「非神职化的」(Declericalized) 教会。我们中很少信徒至今仍被雇任为秘书处的牧师。每一位基督徒都是平信徒。连以前曾担当牧师职责者，也以平信徒身份参与基督徒团契，因为在我们的脑海中，劳动占有很崇高的地位，故此很多牧师要求负起劳心或劳力的工作，获取与一般人民相同的薪酬。加入基督徒团契是「非职业化的」信仰。其实，本质依旧，形式不同而已。在今日的中国，为信仰福音的中国人，基督信仰主要变成对现实世界有实际功用和密切关系的信仰，而分享这种世界观的人，团结一致。

问：中国从未采用或产生任何一种闻名于世的宗教。这是否由于中国人民的宗教性格完全不同所使然？

答：我的朋友们和我都觉得，中国人民并非如同印度和巴基斯坦人民一样，是宗教狂热者。我们常常需要输入宗教。本地唯一的宗教就是道教，而道教其实并不存在。之后便是孔教，很多人曾试图把它变成宗教，但它主要仍是一种伦理系统，无法变成一种宗教或神学。

问：今天神学院教育情况如何？你以为它应走什么路线？

答：目前中国不可能再收容过百青年人，把他们安置在象牙宝塔中，过五年生活，把我们从西方神学系统和制度学得的东西灌输给他们。我们的神学教育应大事修改，对象也不是为培育出一些高级知识份子，好去告诉别人该如何做。这在今日的中国并不适宜。我们至今尚有学生进入神学院，在指定地方研读两周或一年。我们仍在尝试的阶段。我们也打发一些宣教师到西南地区的基督徒团体去，他们每次都逗留一段时期。主要问题还是我们尚未厘订我们的目标及主要工作。某些西防教会团体正在努力尝试向中国传播福音。我们也知道，每周有二百六十小时的宗教广播节目，分别从日本、菲律宾及香港发射到中国。但我怀疑这些广播能否收到预期的效果。三十年前，基督徒的数目之所以较为庞大，就是因为当时人民缺乏食物及可以从教会取得帮助。他们至今仍被称为「米饭基督徒」。在农村地区，至今还存留着原始宗教的标记，一些石头象征神明，而迷信者竟向着这些东西膜拜。

问：信仰既建基于传播福音，则在传播不受到鼓励时，信仰会变成什么样子呢？

答：照我所知，今日很少中国基督徒想到自己蒙召去传播福音。我们大多数都觉得，我们们的基督信仰是这般西化，简直超过我们所能接受的程度。在四十年代，我们所有的神学教育都用英语灌输，全国性的教会领袖会议都用英语举行，金钱由外国输入，外国宣教士直接或间接教导我们该如何做。在中国人的脑海中，基督宗教至今仍是「洋教」。所以谈得太多传播福音，为我们起码就没有益处，因为这样做便等于推销洋货。

问：请问可否告诉我们有关三自运动？基督教徒如何能保持自己的信仰，又同时能完完全全地成为新中国的一份子？

答：三自运动(于一九五一年在政府宗教事务局领遵下成立)，是中国基督教徒所推动的一种运动，目的是要使我们的宗教获得真正的独立。换言之，我们要使中国的基督教会成为本国化，如同英国教会是英国化一样。我们不应该是美国、英国和加拿大宣教会的属会，故中国教会该当自治、自养及自传。

问：既然国家已能解决人民的基本需要，我们明白为何某些基督教组织不再需要存在。在西方，我们希望知道，今天中国的宗教人仕是否也视宗教为「服务人民」的途径？

答：有两类中国基督徒。其中一类认为他们应该只管信奉基督宗教，而基督信仰与服务人民没有任何关系。这并非说，他们反对服务中国人民；只是说，基督信仰与他们的实际生活并无关系而已。另一类中国基督徒别认为，他们在社会所作所为应反映基督的训导，服务人民就是实践对神的信仰。你们在美国基督教会也有这两类人。我较同意第二类的看法。话虽如此，我并非想把马克斯主义宗教化，也不是想把宗教马克斯化。总之，我不以为两者可以融合一起。

作者：黄婉仪年份：1981

一、前言

基督论是当代神学讨论的重心题目，也可以说，是一门仍待开拓发展的神学。以一个神学的门外汉来说，初上基督论这一课程，即使学的只是一些皮毛，说不得沾上什么边际，但已觉得基督论之博大高深，主要因为基督的一生：他的言行，奇迹，苦难，死亡，复活，显现，升天等，在在都是超越时代而又存在于时代中，而且包含的意义又是如许的深远，丰富，骤然间要处理和吸收如此多的资料，真的感到吃力，难以消化。这篇拙作虽然只涉及基督论中的其中一部份，但却因是基督论中最重要的部份基督信仰的高峰就在祂的复活，一如保禄说的，如果基督没有复活，那连同我们的信仰也是假的。因此，面对一个如此严肃而又是涉及我们信仰核心的题目，总不能马虎应付老编一下。但问题是：可供参考的资料，手头上只有神学论集第36期，基督学文摘，复活这几木书，而其中资料最丰富的，要算基督学文摘和复活，但可惜同是译作之故，看起来就不免吃力了。

但是，无论如何吃力，也得勉为其难，唯有把从书本得来的资料整理一下，铺衍成篇。

二、什么是复活

过去，对于耶稣的复活，我一直是这样想的：耶稣在苦难死亡之后，肉身复活，而我们也因此而得救恩，我从没有想到要深入的探讨复活的意义，事实上，也不懂得复活还有什么深刻的意义，反正最重要的是：我们得救了。教会把复活节视为一年之中最重要的纪念礼典，作为一个信徒，就是在复活节中有一个很长的假期，也应该收敛心神，不宜再有任何庆祝活动了。我从来了解的复活节就是这样的，而且也是抱着这种心态，一年一年的度过复活节。

然而，通过基督论的研究，教我更深入了悟复活之义，基督信仰最显着的特色，不是建基于教义和道理上，而是建立在这个历史性人物：基督身上。祂不单在历史中生活过，就是至今还生活在信徒中间，而教会也是因祂的复活而对祂产生独特的信仰，通过祂的复活，使我们深刻的体会：天主的确临现在人间，若然基督没有复活的话，那么祂留下给我们的言行教训，是没有多大意义的，也和其他的宗教信仰没有什么分别。我们试看看，在基督初死时，门徒那种沮丧的心情，与及目睹基督复活，在他们面前出现，他们那种兴奋，与及互相走报基督复活讯息那份急不及待的心情，于此可见我们信仰的不是已死的教义和规条，而是活生生的，基督复活的经验，教会就是如此一代一代的，把这深刻而真实的经验宣讲下来。也就是说，我们信仰的核心，必须是那死而复活的生命之主，而且直到今天，祂仍然生活在我们之中，要不然，我们的信仰和宣讲也都是假的。现在就让我们细看复活之意义。

A．比较宗教学上的复活

在人类历史中，当面对宇宙不停的运转，同时又觉察到四季荣枯的变化时，便不免兴起一种复活的观念，此一观念存在于不同的民族文化中。然而这种复活的观念却和宗教上的看法不同，因为前者是对宇宙自然的一种客观而外在的看法，是指大自然那种生生不息的蔓衍之力。而宗教上的复活，指的却是主体人类对神的启示底认识，觉察到人自新之力，源于上主。

B．犹太人复活之观念

a．出谷之后进入福地，以致达味皇朝建立期间：

在犹太人思想中，生命之再生，是在后期才有的观念，例如：

「现在，你们认清，只有我是那一位，除我以外，没有别的神，我使人死，也使人活，我击伤人，也加以治疗，谁也不能由我手中救出。」(申32：39)

「上主使人死，也使人活，使人降入阴府，也将人由阴府提出。」(撒上2：6)

这种观念：深信生命是天主使然，是和比较宗教学的看法不同，且这种看法是发自内心，由于犹太人过去曾有过无数动人的和天主交往的经验，他们深切了解世界是为人生活而创造的，而世界之潜能可否发挥，就全看在人上面了。然而，从出谷经验中，他们觉察到自己的败坏与衰颓，于是整个生命的世界，都沉沦在罪恶之中，世界的潜能不能发挥，疾病与死亡却接踵而来；而他们又视绝望和死亡的境况是一深埋于地下的地方阴府，人就是通过疾病与罪恶而逐渐进入此深渊之中的。不过，他们又同时意识到，天地间的主宰是万能的，而且祂有着永生之力，他们因而对神有着一份信盼，深信神不曾因他们的不忠与败坏而离弃他们；反之，神必会把生命再赐给他们。

b．犹太人充军时期

在基督降生前二百年，犹太人对复活的看法就更深刻了，那是因为长期受异族统治下而孕育出来的观念，他们深信充满慈爱与权力的神，既然收纳人类为他的子民，那么必然会带给他们无限的希望，甚至使一些出人意表的事发生，让他们进入前所未有的丰盈的未来，例如当时许多犹太人为保卫自己的人民，免陷于敌手而光荣战死，于是犹太人便反省过来，从而深信神绝对不曾薄待这些英雄，剥夺他们参与这圆满未来的机会：

「那时，妳的人民，凡是名录在那书上的，都必得救，许多长眠于尘土中的人，要醒起来，有的要入于永生，有的要永远蒙辱受辱。贤明之士要发光有如穹苍的光辉，那些引导多人归于正义的人，要永远发光如同星辰。」(达12：13)

「来，我们回到土土那里去，因为他撕碎了我们，也必要治愈，他打伤了我们，也必要包扎，两天后，他必使我们复生，第三天他必使我们兴起，生活在他的慈颜下。」(欧6：13)

在这里明显地见到，犹太人相信凡善渡此生的人，即使死了，这些亡者仍将会和其他的人一起进入预许的圆满未来，甚至肯定人类历史达至终极时，即使死了的人，会重新加入神的子民的大家庭中，复活的观念明显地由集体而走向个人，因此，总结来说，这时犹太人有关复活的观念大致有下列三特点：

1.相当物质化，强调躯体的再生。

2.人再得复活是世界末日时才会发生的事。

3.犹太人认为在世界末日时，所有会复活的人(善人)都一起复活。

尽管上述所说有关犹太人复活的观念，看起来是那样有理由，但和在基督复活以后体验而得的，相比之下，仍不免显得有点模糊不清，因此，在基督要来临的时侯，难怪犹太人把复活看成是他们民族的复兴。

C．基督的复活

如果我们把基督复活这一回事，视为灵魂重回肉身，于是肉身使复活了这样看待，那就末免太肤浅了，因为如果我们把一个死尸的复活，作为我们信仰的核心看待的话，那实在是太过于简单了。现在让我们再看一下，究竟基督的复活，包含了什么更丰盈的意义。

犹太人由过去那种蒙陇不清的复活观念中，进而经历过了基督的复活经验，至此，复活的意义再没有那样昭然若揭和明晰了。他们清楚地意识到及体会到，那预许给人类的救恩，由于基督的死而复活，得以实现了。因为基督的复活，彻底地把人类由罪恶的境况改变过来，祂的复活，带来了人类新的生命，耶稣就是众生的天主，这种观念，和犹太人传统的复活观念有着很大的分歧，总结成几点，就是：

1.复活后的生命，人不再受躯体的限制。

2.复活已在耶稣身上发生，不必等到世界末日，而且复活也在每一个人心灵内开始。

3.耶稣是复活的初果，也只有藉着祂，人才能复活。

为了更深入地了解复活的讯息，我们不妨从福音与宗徒书信中，看初期教会如何把复活讯息宣讲及保留下来。

不过，在进入分析之前，我们首先要了解新约作品无论在成书年份及写作对像方面，都有着差异，例如保禄宗徒书信，是新约作品最先出现的，而其他福音，有些则迟至六十年后才完成，而这些作品写作的对象也各有不同，有些是为东方人写的，有些则是为西方人，新约作者面对如许复杂的背境，他们不得不按其对象的需要，及各自作者神学的观点而成书，因此，在记载上的差异自所难免，况且严格来说，新约不是历史书，所以也不必纯用历史的角度去看新约，最要紧的是，这些新约的作者，所要告诉我们的复活讯息，是一致的，尽管他们表达的方式不同。

三、福音及宗徒书信对复活及显现奥迹之阐释

首先我们可以从这些史料中见到，初期教会对复活一事所关注的，并不是耶稣死后复活的过程，而是他们对耶稣复活所经验得的看法，他们深深领略到耶稣就是主，就是默西亚，他们对于复活不再局限于躯体的再生这一事上，而是看到了人类因基督复活而得以实现神为他们所订下的救恩计划一事上。而后来宗徒所要宣讲的，也正就是这一个得以实现的计划。

A．保禄有关复活的证言－－复活宣道

新约中有关复活最古老的记载，一般看来认为是格前15：3－5，而事实上，得前4：14，应较格前为古老，因为：

「我们若是信耶稣死了，也复活了，同样，也必信天主要领那些死于耶稣内的人同他一起来。」(得4：14)

这里的描写相当简单而直接，但看看格前：

「基督照经上记载的，为我们的罪死了，被埋葬了，且照经上记载的，第三天复活了，并且显现给刻法，以后显现给那十二位。」(格前15：3－5)

就知道保禄对复活之宣信加上演绎，扩展了其意义。而这些宣信条文，是初期教会所用以表达对复活的信仰。通常宣信的条文都非常独立，可以任意由上下文中抽出，其出现比新约作品还要早，保禄领受了这些传统而录入他的书信中，我们还可在保禄其他书信中：

罗1：3 斐2：6－11 罗10：9

见到其痕迹。此外在：

迦1：18 2：2 6：8

之中，更清楚说明，保禄如何接受复活的训悔。他在接受这些训悔后，也完全无讹地宣讲出来，他深信耶稣藉祂的复活，完全分享了神对世界的主权，因此基督实在是我们的审判者，上主和救世主。在格后4：5－6，保禄这样写道：

「因为我们不是宣传我们自己，而是宣传耶稣基督为主，我们只是因为基督的缘故，作了你们的奴仆。」

在保禄的信念中，神藉基督进入人类生命中，以致不得不认祂为主，为了祂而甘心作奴隶，但是人却因此而进入前所未有的圆满幅度中；而神的威能，就如黑暗中的皓光，照亮我们的心，保禄在大马士革途中的经验正说明这些。

B．福音中关于复活的记载－－复活故事的传统

在福音中，关于复活的记载，每一部福音都是以复活作收场，然而却没有一部福音把复活事件，写成实在或亲眼目睹的纪录；因此，耶稣复活本身就欠缺目击证人，虽然显现和空坟墓可以作为一种解释，但历来在这方面仍然有着不少的争论。

在讨论这些争端之前，我们不妨先看一下，四部福音的传统类型：

a．加里肋亚传统：

这个传统较早，属于宣道型，有显现的叙述以伯多禄为中心，且基本上指向加里肋亚，相信救恩并不止于犹太人，而是传扬到外邦人的世界。在这个传统中，福音的描述没有过去及将来，永远是现在时刻，故可以超越时代，由于是宣道型，故此具有宣信成份，玛窦福音及玛尔谷福音属于这一类型。

b．耶路撒冷传统：

这传统出现较晚，属于故事型，以叙事体写出，故此较为冗长，有关显现的叙述，更包含了各式各样的人物，且还提及其他传统所未曾提及空坟墓的事，目标是指向耶路撒冷，在描述上且采用过法，现在，将来的方式，这个传统重视礼仪及教义。路加福音及若望福音属于这一类型。

在末作个别福音的分析之先，我们先看看那些四福音共有而值得深入了解认识的问题。

C．复活故事中几黠值得了解的问题：

a．第三日：

在福音中，说耶稣在死后第三日复活，然而在福音的其他章节中，却写成三日后或过了第三天，第三天及三天以后，很明显地有着时间上的差异，但如果我们了解到福音是在作者们经历了「复活」经验后才成书的，因此，福音并不纯是历史的记述，反而是一种在追忆往事时对已发生事件底深刻意义的赋予，于是，第三天这句话便失去了意义，我们也不必视为某一个固定了的日子。相反，从救援的角度来看，我们发觉，第三天是传统上得救，消灾和扭转干坤的大日子，我们不难从古经中找到证据：

「两天后，他必使我们复生，第三天他必使我们兴起。」(欧6：2)

此外，又如亚巴郎准备在第三天奉献独生子时，看来他已放弃任何希望，而实际上却刚好相反，上主使一切成就了。(创22：4)而约瑟则是在第三天才把兄弟放出监狱的(创42：18)诸如此类的假证，在旧约中不知凡几，都在说明上主曾预许不会让以色列子民(义人)受窘超过三天，故第三天也就意味着上主同样地也插手于耶稣的复活事件中。而路加描述厄玛写途上两个失意的门徒，似乎也是把第三天看作上主处罚的期限，只是第三天过了这些要拯救以色列的先知却仍没有什么动静，因此他们才失望地回乡，然而就在这一刻，耶稣的显现，却证明救恩的行动已经开始，因此，第三天可说是救恩史的转捩点。

b．空坟墓：

(1) 四福音作者的记录在本质上的差异：

如前所述，四福音的作者对于复活清晨所发生的事：不单写成既非亲眼目睹，更且在本质上有着相当的差异，现列表如下：

谷三位妇女傅抹尸体上坟后什么也没给人说一位天使有说话
玛两位妇女观看墓地跑去报告给门徒知道一位天使有说话
路三位妇女傅抹尸体两位天使有说话
若一人妇女重回坟墓两位天使没有说话

事实上，这种差异只能说明福音的作者，没有意思给复活事件作历史性的报导，相反，他们相当重视如何以自己的神学观点去表达那复活的讯息，因此上述各种不同的描述，只是为把信仰的核心，用适当的言词来表达。

(2) 圣史对空坟墓的看法：

一直以来，人们都以为耶稣复活的证据，是因为发现他的墓穴空了，然而由研究新约的结果，我们得知，新约的作者并末以空的墓穴作为复活的凭证，主要是因为它本身不能证明基督的复活，不过，圣经的确这样提示给我们知道，坟墓是空了。因此，我们要弄清楚，把空坟墓描述出来的目的是什么？从以下的分析我们可以知道，圣史记载的重无，目的在表达：空坟墓是信仰的标记。

1. 谷I6：1－8

这是有关复活的最早记载，玛及路都是据谷而写成的。在这里，也有提及空坟墓的事实，但却未被引用为基督复活的证据，因为如果谷有此企图，必然会技巧地把此一细节描述出来，问题是谷把目睹墓穴空了的事实写在几个妇女身上。要知道，妇女的说话和证言，在当时的社会是不被重视的，但谷却这样把事件交代出来，显见初期教会并没有视空坟为复活的证明。

2. 玛28：13

在玛的记载中，提及犹太人谣言基督的尸体不见了，是因为门徒在夜间偷去的，这里可反证出坟墓是空了的事实，但是，再深一步看，当时不肯接受基督为救主的犹太人，他们心目中的复活，是和基督徒的看法不同的，这些犹太人视复活为肉躯的复生，如今墓穴的确空了，因此他们只得解释基督的尸体被偷走，不然便要承认基督肉躯的复活；犹太人既然对复活持有这样的看法，因此，当时一般基督徒，必然不会以空墓作为证明基督复活的证据，因为新约的内容不是为不信的人提供证据，而是为一切的人宣讲：复活带来充满生命这一喜讯而写的，因此，对空墓穴所能有的结论，就是神力所使然。

c．复活和再生：

基督的复活，指的并非死尸重新变成活人，因此，复活并非单指肉体的复活，虽然福音中的记载，有时相当张调复活后的基督仍带着十字架刑的伤痕，与及他怎样和弟子一起吃喝欢乐，好强调耶稣在复活前后都是同一个人，但这些只是为给外邦人一个较具体的解释而已，事实上，基督复活还有祂更深一层的意义，那就是在复活的基督身上完成了默启期望的末世伟业，因此，复活不是纯粹的历史现象，而是超越了历史，甚至是人类历史经验中所不能触及的境界。

而基督所完成的末世伟业，就在祂身上显示出来，那就是永恒的新生命，这新生命断不可用现世可朽壤的肉躯相比的，圣保禄在格前15：35－38，42：44，50，这几段文字中，有相当精辟的描述，因此我们如要获得这永恒的新生命，必须与基督同死，而且要立时开始。

d．显现

1. 显现的对象

在记述显现时，宣信类型及故事类型的对象也有着明显的差异，宣信条文中特别强调基督显现给伯多禄及十一门徒，故事类型中也强调伯多禄的地位，但却加多了妇女及其他的各式各样的人物，早期教会那样强调伯多禄的地位，主要是因为他是复活的主要证人，日后复活的讯息，也是由伯多禄及其门徒传扬开去的，因此伯多禄成了教会团结的核心，况且耶稣大多数在团体中显现，也反映教会对团体的重要性。

2. 显现的时空

有关耶稣显现的地点，玛窦及玛尔各重点是放在加里肋亚，及圣路加和若望时，则重点指向耶路撒冷，至于时间方面，也有显着的差异，一如前所述，这些并非是复活的主要证据，而是圣史各按其笔法以表达复活讯息，故不拟在此再作细论。

3. 显现本身之意义

对于耶稣的显现，新约的宣信中写成是宗徒们「看见」了主，而在希腊文中，「看见」有着三种译法：

1.第一被动式：耶稣被看见了，行动的主体是宗徒们。

2.第二被动式：这译法有解释天主的行动的意味，耶稣被显现出来。

3.中间式：耶稣显示了祂自己，行动的主体是耶稣基督自己。

究竟宗徒们看见了复活的主这句话该如何解释？值得采用的是第二和第三种译法。按斐3：12的描写，这显现的启示包含了基督使人隶属于祂自己的意思，因此，使宗徒可以和基督作位格交往，了解复活的意义。而更深入的解释，则可参考迦拉达书第一章：保禄对基督的启示，看成是末世性事件，就是说，天主把末世性的启示，预先呈现给门徒知道，而格后4：16也作类似的描写：「因为那吩咐先从黑暗中照耀的天主，曾经照耀在我们心中，为使我们以那在基督的面貌上，所闪耀的天主的光荣的知识，来光照别人。」因此，末世性的显现，就是钉在十字架上的那一位，从天主的光荣中被看见了在耶稣基督身上，已显出天主的光荣。

福音的描写则较为平白，门徒在见到复活的基督，由惊疑害怕，进而喜乐过来，最后则是基督光荣显现的时刻，一如玛窦所写的：

「天主地下的一切权柄都交给了我，所以你们要去使万民成为门徒，因父及子及圣神之名给他们授洗，教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切。看，我同你们天父在一起，直到今世的终结。」(玛28：16－20)

在这之后，基督才隐没，隐没在神性的境界中。

D．四福音对复活显现奥迹之表达

a．加里肋亚类型

1. 玛尔谷福音16：1－8；4－20

在这段文字的描写中，出现许多矛盾的地方，例如：

妇女上坟为给尸体敷抹香油，然而这是不可能的，因为三天后才敷抹，违反当地的习俗，也不符合巴勒斯坦炎热的气侯。
妇女在安葬耶稣时，一直留意着放置尸体的地方，断没有理由忽略那块堵塞洞穴的大石，然而她们居然要到路上才发觉。
光暗，动静的对比：　例如安息日一过(光)，与墓穴的情况(暗)相比。妇女的说话(动)，与妇女被景像惊吓，以致说不出话来(静)相比，尸体不在与复活的耶稣作对比。
天使叫妇女回去报告喜讯，但是妇女却因为太过害怕了，以致什么话也说不出来。
玛尔谷这样的彷佛把复活事件描写起与世界无关，只是令妇女惊骇的一件事吧了，而且又把一切矛盾的，不可发生的事情放在一起，究竟玛尔谷的用意何在呢？

原来，作者这样的描写，是为了引起我们的探究，因为玛尔谷写作的对象是那些已接受了信仰的人，他们已相信基督复活的事实，因此他着重把复活的意义表达出来，他要说明的是复活就是整个信仰的高峰，因为天主的超越性，祂使一切不可成就的，都成就了，妇女之所以失责，就是面对复活这件不可思议和玄妙奥秘的事前，只能自觉自己的渺小。此外复活出诸天使之口，也是要说明，复活这一件高峰事件并非是人力所能知，非得由神启示不可，故此谷没有强调尸体失踪之事实，盖用这种方式证明基督复活，未免流入人理性思维所能达的境界。

2. 玛窦福音28：1－26

玛窦福音具有反犹太人意识，从空坟墓的描述即可得知。玛窦强调耶稣不单是复活了的主，也是新的梅瑟，而这新梅瑟，是天主胜利的表现。玛窦以27：57－66及28：11－20两段作对比。

1. 在27：57－60中

a. 先以好人：富人若瑟及妇女与坏人比拉多、司祭长及法利赛人作对比。

2. 在28：11－20中

b. 士兵因耶稣失踪前来报导，同祭长则教士兵造谣，和天使之出现说出耶稣复活之事实作对比。

c. 士兵的怕得要死和要对墓，与妇女的喜乐作对比。

此外，玛窦更把梅瑟在西乃山上见天主，和耶稣之山中圣训及山中显形相比，点出耶稣就是旧约中梅瑟的复现，而且成功地带领新的以色列子民出谷，得新生命，建立新天新地。

b．耶路撒冷类型

3. 路加福音24：36－53

路加的神学是耶路撒冷神学，他是以耶京作为救恩的中心，因此在福音中，经常提及此处，这是路加对救恩史的看法，而救恩的事实，就是天主爱人的愿望，这一愿望，直至基督死亡复活才达至高峰，也藉着祂，神再赐给世界创造的圆满能力，但仍需人的参与，神的赐与才能成就，故人必须立即行动，承坦传扬福音的使命，而救恩就是由耶京开始，直至天下万邦。

又因路加写作的对象是希腊化了的犹太人，所以刻意描写复活后的基督形体，目的是使信徒相信复活后的基督是真实的人，而非灵魂。至于在厄玛乌路上门徒转变之描写，也是路加所持有的。在这里，路加同时想表达一个信念，那就是：复活后的基督，已被提升至与神分享相同权能的地位，也正由于他，所有的人生命再得丰盈，路加笔下的门徒，在见到耶稣复活升天后，个个都是皆大欢喜的返回耶路撒冷。因此，路加认识到的，复活的主就是生命的。

4. 若望20：1－31

若望有关复活的描写，基本土是在两个层面上发展的：

1. 记载宗徒与复活了的耶稣相遇，这相遇使宗徒由悲戚惶惑变为喜乐及深信不疑，这里要表明的是，宗徒的内心转变，是因为接受基督那伟大而慑人的真理之后，这里，路加和若望，都想指出，基督不仅改变人的外在，同时也是一种深入内心的转变。

2. 描写耶稣和宗徒进食，及被多默触摸的事件来证明当日宗徒所见的是一个真实的人，而显现给多默是若望所独有的描写，这种真实的人的论调是较后期才发展成的，因若及路之写作对象均是已受希腊文化熏陶的人，因此必须有充份的证据，才能使他们信服，不过，若望对于多默的信仰，有更深入的反映，若望认为信仰包括信靠及依赖，因此，每一个人都要超越摸到才信的障碍。

E．格林多教会对复活的误解及保禄的释疑：

所以保禄不怨其烦的说：

1. 物体有不同本质(形体或躯体)，所以有鱼体，兽体等。(格前15：36－41)

2. 本质会改变：成长的植物，即与原来的种子不同。(格前15：37)

此外，保禄更说明：天主在创造人时，赐给人生命，但这生命是短暂的，终要归于尘土，但是神在新的创造之中，通过基督的死亡复活，却要把永生的生命赐给人。(见格前15：42－44)

四、后语

感谢天主！祂藉耶稣基督的苦难，死亡和复活，再次把祂的恩宠临现人间，又因为初期教会对于复活基督那种深刻的经验，因而躯使宗徒到处宣讲，甚至不惜牺牲性命，把这一个喜讯向全人类报导开来，我们不单认识这个大喜讯，更因着历史的累积及前人经验的分享，我们得以更丰盈地分享这一复活的果实。复活就是人类同基督的爱情，把祂的苦难化为换取永生的力量。同时，复活也是充满希望的，因为人类视死亡为绝望之事时，天主却石破天惊地扭转干坤，把永生的希望再赐予给我们，在面对复活后，享有无比神权威严的基督，我们根本什么也不能做，唯一可以做的，就是俯伏朝拜，而且也一如圣保禄在大马士革的经验以后，努力宣扬福音，因为若「我不宣扬福音，我就有祸了」。

作者：刘赛眉年份：1981

沉默(1)

这部曾经吸引了无数读者的公教小说－－沉默(Silence)，乃由日本名作家远藤周作(Shusaku Endo)所着。沉默已翻译成多种文字，畅销欧、美、亚洲。远比之另一部作品：耶稣的生涯(The Life of Christ)，虽亦甚为动人，却不及沉默一书在神修上之深度。六年前笔者曾细读的中译本。六年后，恰于当今教宗访日本之际，笔者偶而重读沉默的英译本。在一份关怀多难的中国教会的心情下，重读这部小说，引发起一连串崭新的领悟。沉默的故事发生在日本的多难之秋。十七世纪的天主教会往日本遭受到史无前例的厄运。本故事不仅揭示了由西方传入的基督宗教与日本文化的冲突，并启开了人性「强」与「弱」的奥秘，也答覆了一个由圣经中的约伯直至今日科学倡明的社会仍困扰着基督徒良心的问题，就是：为何善人要受苦，为何天主对善人的苦难袖手旁观？

一、故事的背景：

本故事主要在叙述两位葡籍耶稣会士在日本的秘密传教活动。故事发生在公元十七世纪长崎及其邻近村落。自鸟原叛乱(Shimabara Rebellion 1637－1638)以后，由于日本的统治者怀疑葡萄牙人曾牵涉在此次的叛乱中，故决定封锁一切港口，拒绝与任何国家经商。中国与荷兰虽受到特殊的待遇，但仍免不了严格之搜查。当时，长崎是中、荷、日贸易之主要港口。自从一六三八年，日本下封锁令之后，所有的外籍传教士不得其门而入，他们只能用偷渡的方式，躲在荷兰及中国的商船内混入日本境内从事牧养天主子民的秘密活动。由于日本政府的强烈反对天主教，在十七世纪时，天主教会全然成为「地下教会」，所有的基督徒皆隐藏自己的身份，不敢公然披露，这就是日本历史上有名的「隐藏的基督徒」(hidden Christians)的时代。沉默的故事就是发生在这些hidden Christians中间。

二、故事简介：

本故事是作者按照一些史实而虚构出来的。但这故事所引发起的问题却是真实的信仰及伦理问题。

本小说由结构观之可分为两部份。第一部份由第一章至第四章，主要在描述两位葡籍耶稣会士潜入日本，展开秘密的传教活动。这两位会士名为塞巴斯汀、罗洛里哥(Sebastian Rodiques) (2) 及佛朗西斯．贾贝(Franciso Garrape) (3)

经历了许多风险，这两位司铎藉着日人吉次郎(Kichijiro) 的引路，得与日本的地下教会接触。他们隐匿于山舍中，暗地里施行圣事及训诲。可惜，这条基督徒的村落不久为日本的统治者所发现，两位司铎被迫离开这村落。第二部份由第五章开始，这一部份完全集中在罗洛里哥(Rodigues) 的遭遇上。罗洛里哥终于被吉次郎所出卖，落在井上的手中。当罗洛里哥落网后，他同时揭开了他的神学老师费雷拉(Ferreira) 的背教之谜。为了这位老师，他曾翻山越岭，远踄重洋来到了日本，想打听出这位老师的下落。当罗洛里哥知道了他心爱的老师不但已背教，而且成为使他背教的线人时，他心里既憎恨又同情。但无论如何，最后他也走上了他老师所走过的道路，遭受若与老师一样的命运。罗洛里哥终于也背数了。

三、故事的主题：

按照笔者的了解，沉默的故事不断围绕着几个中心的问题在发展。这些问题就是，为何天上对善人的苦难沉默不言？的确，天主的沉默有时是如此之深，祂「置若罔闻」的熊度几乎根本地动摇了人对「天主存在」的基本信仰。到氏天主存在否？若祂存在，祂是否真正地关怀人类的痛苦？一个仁慈良善的天左怎可能让不义和邪恶如此猖獗地摧残善良的百姓？在沉默的小说里，上述的问题重覆地出现。罗洛里哥终于在种种的折磨及痛苦的经验中找到了「天主沉默」的答案。这位「背教的保禄」(日本人给予这位司铎的别号)了解到，欲寻得上述问题的答案不能经由理性的分析，须由一颗在信与爱，在痛苦中净化了的心去领怡。在折磨及痛苦中净化了的罗洛里哥瞭解到天主从未对他缄默。天主常与他同在，然而只有一颗净化了的爱心方能听懂天主这强而有力的言语沉默。天主的道与人的道不同。天主的通人无法预测，亦梦想不到。天主的沉默是一种强烈的爱情之言，这言语只有那全心全灵爱祂在万有之上的人才能参透其中的奥义。天主不仅居在善人与无辜者之内，而且与他们一同受苦。

爱者永远不会要求所爱者为他移去所有的困难与痛苦，但求所爱者与他在困难与痛苦中同在。如果爱者知道所爱者在困难与痛苦中支持着他，与他共渡难关，痛苦与困难又算得是什么？这位司铎罗洛里哥对天主的爱心已在痛苦中得到净化。只有一颗净化了爱心才能刺透天主沉默的奥秘。纵然受到他愿意为他们舍掉生命的日本人所唾弃，纵然受到天主教会的不谅解与拒绝，这一切为那净化了的心都不重要了，最重要的是他知道天主了解他在踩踏圣像时脚下和内心的疼痛而没有舍弃他。

这位在折磨中净化了的司铎，了解到在世间并没有所谓「强」与「弱」。只要天主在人的软弱内，弱者亦强。强者与弱者同样是「殉道者」，只是天主要求他们自我牺牲的方式不同罢了。「谁能断言弱者不比强者更受苦？」(4) 一颗在苦难中净化了的心更有能力无私地爱：「他(罗洛里哥)现在以另一种与前不同的方式来爱他的天主。一切事情发生到如今都是为使到这司铎达到这样(无我)的爱」(5)。作者远藤周作用了许多「反讽」(IRONY) 的手法，说出了这端真理：只有一颗完全净化了的爱心才能领悟天主沉默的奥秘。

(1) 天主的道与人的道

当罗洛里哥在葡萄牙的时候，他曾经愿要到日本传教，度一个与日本人一模一样的生活，成为日本人，取一个日本的名字，终老于日本。当故事接近尾声之时，读者可见天主满全了这位传教士的初衷。但天主成全他的心愿的方式是地做梦也不会想到的。事实上，他亦不曾如此去想和去祈求，因为这方式太痛苦了。井上赐给了他一个日本的名字，而且也赐给了他一些他根本不想去要的东西(别人的妻儿)。从此，罗洛里哥的名字逐渐为人所忘记，留下来的只是一个原本不是他的日本名字「冈田三右卫门」，以及一个耻辱的别号「背教的保禄」。他果然隶属于这个国家，永远不能重返自己的国土，日本的土地长埋了他的原名及躯体。他曾渴望成为一位殉道者，一如茂吉(Mokichi)及一藏(Ichizo)。事实上，天主要他接受的殉道方式比茂吉与一藏的方式更困难、更痛楚。他的殉道方式不但没有名誉与光彩，而且所忍受的内心痛苦与折磨比肉躯的殉道更长久、更可怕。他被迫去做一切相反自己意愿的事。有什么比被压迫用言语、用行动、用文字去攻击自己所心爱的事情与朋友更痛苦？罗洛里哥被强迫去相反他愿意效忠的教会，被迫去践踏一张他曾朝夕思慕的面容，被迫用文字去攻击他所深信的天主。倘若设身处地的细想，读者不难体会这种内在痛苦的剧烈。然而，就在这撕裂人心的痛楚中，这位司铎对天主以及对人的爱得到了净化。他现在活着不为什么，甚至不为自己的理想，而是彻底地只为天主而活。因此，「世间并没有强者与弱者，谁敢断言弱者不比强者更受苦？」

正如耶稣基督死于完全被遗弃之中，这位司铎亦死于寂寂无闻中。在人间的历史里，除了留下一个耻辱的背教之名以及一个原来不属于他的日本名字以外，他什么也没有了没有名誉、没有光彩、为日本人所摈斥(为了这些日本人他曾拋下了家园，受尽了痛苦)，为教会所弃绝(为了效忠这教会他曾冒险来到异域传扬她的福音)。倘若说天主不存在于司铎的心中，岂非他的一生太可悲了吗？因此，这司铎说，「天主并没有沉默，纵然祂沉默，我的生命直到今天也已经为发言了」。

(2) 基督的脸(Christ's Face)

「基督的脸」这个主题贯穿着整部小说。基督的面容在罗洛里哥的心中不断地改变。在他到达日本以前，年青的司铎心中所爱慕的是基督那张既光荣又俊美，充满神采的面容。基督英武有力的面孔曾是罗洛里哥一切力量的泉源。但当他被迫踩踏在基督的脸上的时候，他立刻了解到他自己是何等的软弱与丑陋，他并不比吉次郎好了多少。当司铎举脚践踏在基督的脸上时，他心中那张光荣俊美的脸突然变为凹陷、疲乏不堪的倦容。经众人踩踏之后，基督的脸已变得模糊、疲惫、难看。然而正是这张筋疲力倦、毫无俊美与光华的脸向这司铎启示了人间最美妙的东西基督无我与可受伤的爱心。这张承受了千千万万次践踏与伤害的脸对这位司铎说：「踏吧！踏吧！我正是为此而存在！」作者用一种反讽的手法暗示出基督美丽的内心更在祂疲惫、凹陷、受伤、和毫无光彩的面容中显示出来。

一如耶稣基督、这位司铎也放弃了他从前那张精力充沛、圣洁、并充满光彩的脸，而接受了自己那张充满软弱、疲乏的「丑」脸。在这位司铎接受了自己软弱丑脸之后，他开始了解到，天主从未曾对他沉默，天主在他内与他一起接纳了他自己这张软弱和没有光华的丑脸。这位接纳了自己软弱的脸的司铎，现在有能力真正地接纳和宽恕那张日本人的丑脸吉次郎。他曾在航向日本的船上轻视过这张软弱的日本面孔，在他被出卖的那一刻，他也曾憎恨及拒绝过这张日本的面孔。但当罗洛里哥发现他和吉次郎同样软弱的时候，他能够在告解圣事中真正说出了宽赦之言:「不是人能够判断，天主比任何人更瞭解我们的软弱」(6)。教会可以把绝他为真正的天主教司铎，他的同道也可以排除他，但是在十七世纪日本的土地上，他是唯一的司铎，他行了只有司铎才能行的赦罪圣事，他也真正地从内心宽赦了这张日本的丑脸。这也是作者「反讽」的手法之一。

沉默这部小说，自问世以来曾引起广大群众的争论，其争论的焦点，往往不在「天主的沉默」这个问题上，而在罗洛里哥的背教行为上。接照笔者的浅见，世上许多事情从外表行来都是相对的。至于对与不对和是非黑白的伦理判断，有时并非如此清楚。小说中有些关乎信仰与伦理的问题，我们不能只凭「脑袋」去解决、去推埋，而必须用「心」去领悟。就如「禅机」，必须用一颗感应的心去参悟。总而言之，「爱心」本身是最好的「判断」，天主的判断与人的判断往往背道而驰。茹达斯得救与否为我们仍是一个谜，罗洛里哥是否真正地背教?我们的判断也只在表而，因为这位司铎曾说:「我或许是背弃了教会，出卖了弟兄，但我从末出卖过主。」笔者认为全书最精采的一段话是在故事的末尾，现且录下原文(英译本):最后，笔者愿提出井上所提出的问题作为本文的结束。井上对罗洛里哥说基督宗教根本不适合日本的土壤，「你(罗洛里哥)所带来日本的基督教已在日本的文化中变了型，变成了一种怪物」(7)。到底，在本地化的过程中，基督的福音如何才能在一个文化中生根柚基，而又不致于受某文化的堕落因素所歪曲?此外，这小说中所引发的许多信仰与伦理的问题都会使人联想到目前正处于未安定的状态中的中国教会。对于这一点笔者不欲发挥下去，有待读者细读沉默一书后自己去联想，去领悟。

1.Shusaku Endo, Silence, New York, 1969.
2.人名的中译用「沉默」的中译本。远藤周作著、朱佩兰译，沉默，道声出版社，一九七二年第二版。
3.同上
4.见　沉默　英译本　页二八五。
5.见　沉默　英译本　页二八六。
6.见　沉默　英译本　页二八四。
7.同上页二八二。

作者：麦景鸿年份：1981

导言

自人类以来，敬天祭神的行为即随之而生，而此等行为，随着人类的文明进步，或历史的演进而产生变化。任何新的事物必有其来源或出处，是故新的事物，以古旧的过去作为基础。

教会礼仪的演进约可分为两大阶段，从初期教会至现在，以脱利腾大公会议为转捩点(注1)。此会议的召开是在一五四五年十二月，目的是为安定当时因改革者提出改革而带来的混乱，会议内容主要探讨的，包括圣经、教义、圣事及教会的传统等等(注2)。

在此会议前，西方教会往不同的地方，礼仪上有不同的仪式，但礼仪的程序和基本结构相同，而自此会议后，西方教会决定以罗马礼仪为主。第二届梵蒂冈大公会议可说是敬会礼仪另一个转捩点，给教会开拓另一新纪元。梵二大公会议为了「日渐加强信友的基督化生活，使可以改变的制度更适应我们现代的需要，促进一切有利于信仰基督人士的合一，巩固一切召叫众人加入教会的途径，因而自信改革发展礼仪，亦为其特殊的任务。」(礼仪宪章1)

「礼仪宪章」颁布于一九六二年十二月四日，内容涉及到各种直接或间接与礼仪生活，产生关系的各种指示。特别对七件圣事作了一连串的改革，在形式、经文及礼节各方面有了不少的变动，目的在使现代人更有效地建设教会与敬礼天主。神圣公议会诸位教长的苦心与期望是否得到实现，我们可从「礼仪宪章的颁布至现在，因礼仪生活的转变给予其他不同程度的信仰生活所带来的革新，可以约略见到。

概括来说，教会的礼仪，是由简单至复杂，再由复杂至简单。这的确是个重要的变化。或可说，教会是在复古。所谓复古，并不是在礼仪的动作、衣饰、布置或规矩上仿效及抄袭过去，而是在精神生活上，恢复初期教会的精神，直追初期教会怎样经验基督的死亡与复活，怎样生活出教会为一救恩团体，一个充满圣神的团体。

虽然有关初期教会生活的文件不多，特别是礼仪生活方面，本人却愿意尝试探讨一篇约在等三世纪初期的文章希坡利忒的「宗徒传统」。这篇文章可算是这时期较详尽的记载了有关当时礼仪的进行程序和一般教友生活规程。希望能从中得到一些提示，作为我们现在礼仪与团体生活的警醒。

作者生平及历史背境

希坡利忒生于公元一七O年，出生地点不详，死于公元二三五或二三六年(注3)。他生活二世纪末叶至三世纪初。当时教会的生活状况，一般来说与前两世纪比较起来是大不相同的。那时，教会笼罩在凄风苦雨中，教会仍然受到政府的剧烈磨难，教难持续不断，可说是蒙受了沉重的打击，在这阶段内教会一面向外传教，一面从事组织。第三世纪的教会，不单与当时政府抗衡，同时教会也在惊涛骇浪中坚定地建设起来。

在政治方面，除了当政者对教会攻击及迫害之外，在思想学术方面，有很多不同宗教的上义复兴及诞生。特别是那些宗教哲学潮流，也不断地冲击教会的信仰，当时教会内部，也发生了若干纷扰，包括有当时极负盛名的若干教父。(注4)

希坡利忒可算是被埋在地下很久的人物，在一五五一年(注5)才在他的公墓内，寻获一个他坐着的浑身像，像的座位上刻着他的着作目录。他的作品包括圣经注疏、护教着作、讲道的、辩证的、还有信条、历史、经典及诗歌等作品。

约二一二年时，奥利振到罗马，曾听过他的一次演讲，当时他可说是罗马的一个大名鼎鼎的博学司铎。(注6)

他的经典作品精华就是「宗徒传统」，这卷文献早已闻名，一八九一年被称为埃及教会法律，原文已失去，现时剩下的，只有高德、爱西屋皮亚，和亚利伯这几个近东地区的译文。(注7)它是属于教会初期古老的法律集，批判学者在研究此等文献时，常弄得茫无头绪，因为很多地方因残缺不全，以至不能连接，作清晰的研究。

这部着作很多学者认为它对文学和道学都有关系，除此之外，「宗徒传统」在礼仪方面也给我们揭示了初期教会，在礼仪生活的一些片断。为研究礼仪发展史的学者提供了极珍贵的资料。这文献记述的是罗玛礼仪，它先后叙述祝圣主教、司铎及执事的礼仪。而且还援引了若干冗长的礼仪经文，并论及精修者、寡妇、读圣经者、贞女、助理执事、治病神思、日课的时辰、祈祷、圣洗、大斋、爱餐(agape)、呈献鲜果、复活节大斋，圣体及祈祷的时刻等等。至于该文章的着作时期，学者至今仍未能予以确定，仍须学者们下一番努力。

注１：邹保禄，「教会礼仪简史」，神学论集，27期，I976，页一一一。

注２：New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 14. PP. 271－278

注３：New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 6. PP. 1139－1141

注４：吴应枫译，教父学大纲(卷一)，光启出版社，民国六十四年，页一六五。

注５：New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 6. PP. 1139－1141

注６：吴应枫译，教父学大纲(卷一)，光启出版社，民国六十四年，页二一三。

注７：同上，页二一七。

「宗徒传统」(注8)

大纲

第一章至第十四章：记载有关晋升神职礼仪，教会内各种职务人员被拣选的条件、服务的范围及内容。

第十五章至二十一章：慕道者培育过程，及入教的程序。以上两段的记述，即由第一至第二十一章，有较为系统的记载，并对各事物有清晰的描述。从第二十二章开始至第四十二章，记述的事物就失去了有次序的分类排列。

主要内容

第22、24、34、39章：执事的职务。第35、41、42章：私人祈祷的时间及守则。第37、38章：对圣体，圣血的尊崇。详细内容的阐述，为避免冗长及因其内容重要性不大而略去部份，包括23至32章及40章。

第一章宗徒传统

天主由祂上座之处，按照祂的旨意，赐下各种恩宠，为避免信者走入歧路。并能跟随着传统的信仰，按照训导能保持信仰的内容，徒徙使信仰生活避免错误，及避免误解和无知。圣神在教会内指导一切，给予完满的恩宠为使教会的信仰正确无误。

第二章关于主教

被祝圣的主教，应由整个团体所拣选及作出决定，并为大家所接纳。晋升礼仪必须在全体信众前举行。在主日，所有主教、司铎团及教友聚集。全体静默，在内心祈祷呼求圣神降临，其中一位参与礼仪的主教，被团体要求为被晋升者覆手及祈祷，念以下的经文说：

第三章晋升主教的祷词

我们主基督的父，富于慈悲的天父，你从不间断地垂顾教会，称通晓一切，预知将来。从亚巴郎开始，称已召选司祭，为使你的圣所不缺乏行祭礼的人，从起初你就愿意藉着那些被你所拣选的人得到光荣。现在请赐下你精神的力量，这是你藉着你的圣子，我们的主基督，给予诸位圣宗徒的。为使他们能在每一地方建立教会，为不停地赞美光荣你的圣名。通晓众人内心的天父，求使你所拣选的仆人，喂养及培育你的羊群，这位堪当在你面前的大司祭，以圣教会名义向你呈上礼品，并日夜不停地执行这职务。并因大司祭的神恩，因你所定的诫命而得到赦罪的权柄，按照你的圣意订立规程。得到你给予众宗徒解放被束缚者的力量，及能以纯洁平安的心向你呈上馨香而能使你慰悦的祭品。藉着你的子耶稣基督，因着祂的光辉与荣耀属于你、及在教会内的圣神，从现在直到永远。亚孟。

第四章　平安礼及祭献

祝圣经文后，新的主教与参礼者行平安礼，随后执事献上礼品，新的主教在礼品上覆手、念一篇经文(感恩经)感谢说：愿主与你们同在。

信众答：也与妳的心灵同在。

主教说：请举心向上。

信众答：我们全心归向上主。

主教说：让我们感谢主。

信众答：这是理所当然的。

主教继续说：天主，我们感谢你，藉着你的爱子耶稣基督，祂是你按你的旨意在最后时期给予我们的救援与赎罪者。祂是与你同在的圣言，藉着祂你创造了一切，并因祂而得到喜乐，你派遣祂从天上降至贞女的胎中，藉圣神及贞女的胎，得到肉躯降生，宣布祂是你的圣子，为满全你的意愿，带给你神经的子民。当祂受难时仲开双手，使信仰你的人不受痛苦的束缚。

祂被出卖而受痛苦，但祂却摧毁了死亡，解除了魔鬼的锁炼，下降阴府，在光荣中宣示复活，祂拿起面饱向你感谢说：你们拿去吃，这是我的身体，是为你们而分开。同样拿起爵杯说：这是我的血，为你们而倾流。你们这样做，是为纪念我。

纪念祂的死亡与复活，我们向你献上这面饱和爵杯，我们感谢你，因为便你使我们能在你面前举行祭祀。我们也求你派遣圣神临于你圣教会的祭献，藉圣神的丰盈而使参礼者及整个教会合而为一，持守真理的力量。我们赞美及光荣你，藉着你的子耶稣基督，因为祂的光辉及荣誉归于你，及教会内的圣神，直到永远。亚孟。

第五章关于呈献「油」 (注9)

若信友带着油前来，呈献给主教，则接纳的仪式和接纳饼酒的奉献一样，但不是照样按字说出经文，只是说：天主，请圣化此油，使藉着傅油礼而领受此油的人得到圣化(注10)，同时此油也在君王、司祭及先知的身上。使饮用此油的人得到力量，藉傅油礼领受此油的人得到健康。

第六章呈献乳酪及橄榄

若信友呈献乳酪及橄榄。主教祈祷说：请圣化这些溶合在一起的奶，使能溶合我们在你的爱内，使这些橄榄不是从你的甘甜中被分离。如在你的生命树里，使仰望你的人也能分受丰盛的甘美。

在每次祝福的祈祷中必须说：光荣归于你天父、及子，及在圣教会内的圣神，从现在直至无远。亚孟。

第七章关于司铎

晋升司铎的时候，主教必须在晋升者头上覆手，其他神父也同样做。主教祈祷说：天主，父，我们的主耶稣基督的父，请垂顾你这位仆人。求你给予他司铎的神恩，也赐予他司铎的明辨，以一个纯洁的心协助管理你的子民，正如你垂顾选民，授命梅瑟拣选司祭，你使他充满圣神而成为你的仆人一样。现在，至，请把恩纯的圣神充沛我们，使我们堪当以一个忠信及纯朴的心侍奉你。藉着你的子耶稣基督，因着他光辉和权威属于你，及教会内的圣神，直到永远。亚孟。

第八章关于执事

领受执事圣职的人选，如前面所说的，是被众信友拣选及接纳。在晋升礼仪中，只有主教行覆手礼。因为执事不是晋升为司铎，所以参礼的司铎不用行覆手礼，执事是主教的服务员，应听从主教所指派的工作。因为他没有领受司铎的神恩，为此缘故，只有主教覆手，而在晋铎礼仪中，司铎团也为新司铎覆手，因为新司铎分享同一的神恩。但司铎的职权也是接受而来的，没有授予的能力，为此司铎不能祝圣任何神职，施行授予圣职礼仪。

主教在执事前诵念经文说：天主，万物的创造者，你用圣言安排秩序；我们的主耶稣基督的父，你派遣你的圣子按照你的旨意而服务，并向我们揭示你的意愿。请给予圣神的恩宠，使这被你拣选的仆人能服务你的教会。(注11)，在你的至圣中向你呈上至高的司祭，能光荣你的圣名，使他的服务能不受指责并能晋升更高的品级。藉着你的子耶稣基督我们的主，因着祂的光辉，权威及赞颂归于你，及圣神，从现在直至永远。亚孟。

第九章关于精修者

一位精修者如他因主的名字，受锁炼之苦，不须在他头上覆手，他所受的苦，已使他享有与司铎相称的荣誉，如他被晋升为主教，则在他头上覆手。

如果一位精修者不是被捉到官员前，不是带上锁炼受惩罚，不是被监禁，不是被指斥受到刑罚，祇是间竭因主之名被嘲笑，或在家庭中受到责罚，如果他能坚持而又晋升他，则按照适合他的神品而给他覆手。

主教将依照以上所说的作感恩的祈祷，不须按字说出。在祈祷中按照他记忆的能力作祈祷，如果任何人有能力作较长的及庄严的祈祷，这是好的。但如果有人作简短的祈祷，不要阻止他。不过，他的祈祷必须是正确的。

第十章关于寡妇

当一名妇人被称为寡妇，不是被祝圣的，只是向众信友公开让各人知晓。一个妇人的丈夫去世后，不论她的年纪是老或幼，必须让她接受时间的考验。一位妇人成为寡妇，只是让整个团体知道，她便与其他寡妇一样，没有礼仪上的职责，只是属于信友团体，并有恒常祈祷的本份。

第十一章关于读经职

读经职由主教委任，并授于他一部圣经，不用行覆手礼。

第十二章关于贞女

因为她自由决定作守贞女，不用行覆手礼。

第十三章关于助理执事

助理执事(五品) 被指定跟随执事，协助执事工作，不用行覆手礼。

第十四章关于治病的神恩

若信友自称在启示中领受治病的神恩，不用行覆手礼，让他所做的事实，证明他是否说实话。

第十五章接受信仰者

若愿意聆听天主的圣言，必须被带至导师前，询问他为什么接受信仰。带领他们来的人，需要给予证明那位欲接受信仰的人是否有资格，所问的问题包括他的整个生活：他是否有妻子？他的主人是否信徒？他的主人是否准许他接受信仰？让他听道后，如他的主人不证明他是一个善良的人，他将被拒绝。如他的主人是外邦人，则教导他尊重主人的意见，避免发生是非。听道者是已婚的男人，或是有丈夫的妇人，则教导他们善渡生活。若男人不是与他的妻子一起生活，他将被教导不要继续这样，要有一位合法的妻子。任何人被认为不洁，或行为与邪魔有染，不准听道，直至他被认为纯洁为止。

第十六章关于技艺及职业

听道者同时被问及他们的工艺技术及职业的状况，若男人是妓院的守门人，他必须停止该工作，否则被拒绝听道，如果是以造塑像或油漆工作生活的，就指导及提醒他不要造偶像或外邦的神像，或不再做该工作，否则同样被拒绝。当戏剧演员，必须停止该项工作，否则被拒绝听道，如教导儿童的，最好停止，如他没有谋生的技能，则准许继续。

若是在竞技场作赛马车比赛的，或观看该等比赛，则必须停止该活动，否则被拒绝。若是博斗比赛的斗士或是指导他人作此项比赛的，或是受顾于作角力的比赛的，让他停止，否则被拒绝。

任何外教的祭司、看门者、或与偶像有关连的，必须停止其工作，否则被拒绝。兵士虽在权力范围内也不能杀人，若是奉命行事也不要照命令执行。如不愿这样，则被拒绝。谁有带剑的权力，或是城市穿着紫袍的裁判者，必须停止，否则被拒绝。慕道者或信友若想作兵士，必被拒绝，因为他们轻视天主。

妓女、行为放荡者、阉人或作了一些羞耻而不可告人之事者，均被拒绝，因为他们是不洁的。魔术师、行巫术者、星相学家、占卜者、解梦者、江湖行骗者、裁剪衣穗者、或语言的表演者，均被拒绝。

男人的妾侍，如她是这人的奴隶，或已为他生了孩子，而现在仍然忠信于他，则她能接受听道，任何男人必须停止有妾侍，而只能有一位合法的妻子，如他不愿意，则被拒绝。

尚有其他不容许的生活方式或习惯，未能尽录。但天主的圣神在不同的时刻会指导我们，怎样判别一切。

第十七章查考生活及职业，聆听圣道

聆听圣道者被称为慕道者，一般情形慕道者接受培育三年。但决定他们的改变不是时间上的长短，而是生活行为的表现。

第十八章慕道者的祈祷

当传授要理的教师授课完毕后，让慕道者自己祈祷，与信友分开，妇女自行在一处地方祈祷，不论是信友或是慕道者，当慕道者祈祷完毕后，不让慕道者向信友互相致侯，因为慕道者还不是神圣的，但信友互相致侯时，男女要分开，而女性要以面巾檬着头。

第十九章关于慕道者的覆手

在祈祷后，教授要理的教师给慕道者覆手。为他们祈祷后，遣散他们，传道者不论是神职人员或信友，都照此而行。

慕道者因主的名字被拘捕。如因此而受苦甚至被杀，虽然他并未受洗，但他已得罪赦而成义，因为他藉自己的血而受洗。

第二十章关于预备接受领洗者

被选定接受洗礼者，先让他们的生活接受考验，包括他们慕道期内的道德生活是否有好的表现？有否尊重及照顾寡妇？是否有探望病者或行各种善功？上述一切虽要带领他们前来的人予以证明。若说「是」，才让他们听福音。

自被选定的时期开始，他们生活在一个特别的地方，每天听道后，行覆手礼及驱魔礼，直至洗礼的时间。主教将亲自向他们逐一行驱魔礼，使能更清楚明白他们是否有纯洁向善的意向。如发现他们不符合要求，他们不得接受洗礼。接受洗礼者，需在圣周四沐浴清洁。(在经期中的妇女不得接受洗礼，而会另定日子举行洗礼)。在星期五开始守斋，星期六齐集在一个由主教指定的地方。他们要跪下祈祷，主教在他们头上覆手行驱魔礼，在他们面上吹气，并在他们的前额、耳朵、及鼻上作记号，表示开启他们的五官。

他们整夜祈祷及听取训道。前来接受洗礼的人，除了在感恩祭中用作奉献的物品外，不用带任何物件。

第二十一章关于圣洗礼仪

在鸡鸣破晓的时间，先在施洗用的水旁祈祷，所用的水必须是流动的，在必要时或危急时可用其他所能找到而能使用的水。受洗者必须完全除掉身上的衣服，洗礼由年幼的开始至年长的，会说话的在先，不会说话的在后，不会说话的由父母或家人代答问话，而男性先受洗，接着是女性受洗，受洗者不带任何物件进入水中。

在施行洗礼的同一时间，主教在祈祷中祝福两种「油」(注12)，一是感恩圣油，一是驱魔用的圣油。两名执事(一名手持驱魔礼用的圣油站在施行洗礼的司铎左边，另一名持着感恩圣油站在右边。当司铎带领每一位接受洗礼者领受洗礼峙，他将嘱咐受洗者大声宣示说：

撒旦，我弃绝你，及你所有的服务和工作。当他们大声逐一宣示弃绝魔鬼的时候，司铎为他傅上驱魔圣油说：大声宣示让所有不洁之神远远地离开你。

随后受洗者便除去衣服，赤裸裸地走向站在水旁的主教或司铎。执事和他一起进入水中，施洗者覆手说：你信唯一的天主，全能的父吗？(注13)受洗者说：我信。

施洗者把手按在他的头上，把他浸入水中。施洗者再问说：你信耶稣基督，天主圣子，藉着圣神生于童贞女玛利亚，在总督比拉多时受难至死，第三天自死亡中复活，并升天坐在圣父的右边，将会再次来临，审判生者死者吗？受洗者答说：我信。施洗者再次把他浸入水中。施洗者再问说：你相信圣神、圣教会，及肉身的复活吗？受洗者说：我信。受洗者再浸入水中一次。前后受洗者被浸入水中共三次。当受洗者从水中上来，司铎为他傅上感恩圣油说：「我因耶稣基督之名给你傅油。」每一位受洗者擦干身体，穿上衣服后，进入教会的团体聚集之处。

主教在他们头上覆手，祈祷说：主，天主，你使他们能堪当接受了罪过的赦免，使他们能沐浴于更新的圣油中。请你赐下这恩宠，使他们能依照你的意愿，服务你并为光荣圣父，及圣子，藉着在教会内的圣神从现在直到永远。亚孟。

按着主教将感恩圣油倒在手中，并擦在新颁洗者的头上，说：我因全能的天主父，及耶稣基督，并天主圣神给你再傅油。

在前额上作记号，主教向领受圣油者给予致候之吻说：

愿主与你同在。领受者说：也与您的心灵同在。

主教向每一位新颁洗者，做同样的仪式，最后他们与全体信众一起祈祷。末领洗者不能与信众一起祈祷，直至他们完成了上述一切礼仪为止。

当他们祈祷时，互相给予平安之吻。奉献礼由执事把礼品呈献给主教，他接纳后，祈祷感恩使面饱成为基督的身体，酒成为基督的血，为信仰他的人而倾流了。(注14)牛奶与蜜糖混合在一起为表示出给我们祖先的诺言得到圆满。一如天主在圣经里曾说过「一块流奶流蜜的土地」。同样，基督给予祂的身体，藉此使信仰他的人好像婴儿一样得到滋养，使受创伤的心灵藉着圣言尝到甘甜，并使洗涤用的水像征清洗人的内心，而灵魂得到洁净好像身体被洗涤过一样清洁。主教向群众解释所有施行的一切礼仪。

当他擘开面饱，分给每人一小块时，他说：在基督耶稣内天国的面饱。

领受者说：亚孟。

如果没有足够的司铎，执事则拿起圣爵，站在适当的位置。首先拿起水，随后是奶，再后是酒。每位领受者在每一爵杯三次。施行者说：在全能的天主父内

领受者说：亚孟。施行者说：及在主耶稣基督内。

领受者说：亚孟。施行者说：及在圣教会的圣神内。领受者说：亚孟。

此后每一位依此而作。

信友领受圣体圣血后，将踊跃做各种善功，(注15)，慰悦天主，使生活行为合乎规矩，并充满热忱地在教会内学习虔敬的生活。

我们所记载的是简短的描述，关于圣洗及神圣的奉献礼，已完全给教授了关于肉身的复活，及其他所写下的一切，但如有其他必须说的，主教会亲自教导新信友。不信者必不能知道，除非他们先接受洗礼。一如圣若望所说『关于那块白石：一个新的名字已写在其上，除非先接受了它，否则没有人知道。』

第二十二章关于分送圣体

在星期日，可能范围内，主教应亲自分送圣体给全体信友，或由执事及神父擘饼，当执事送到神父手中，神父分给信友；在其他的日子，领圣体的程序，遵照主教的指示。

第二十三章逾越节的斋期

在逾越节的奉献礼前两天，任何人若吃了食物，他不算守斋。但孕妇或病者，若不能守两天的严斋，则只守星期六一天，或按照其需要只吃面饱及喝清水。在这期间内，在海上航行中的人，未能计算逾越节在那一天或某些人必须吃些少食物，则他们于五旬节后，补做所欠缺的。(注16)

第二十四章执事遵从主教

每一位执事及助理执事(五品)必须遵从主教，执事告知主教那里有病者。若主教愿意前来探视病者，病者得到最高牧者的探望，应得到无比的欣慰。

第二十五章祈祷的时间

信友们在起林后，开始工作之前，必须向主祈祷，然后欣然地开始工作，若有任何机会聆听天主的圣言及训道，必须前往，为使灵魂得到滋养及安慰。让信友热心前往教会聚集的地方，因为教会是圣神的居所。

第二十六章感恩祭前不吃食物

让信友自动前往领受主的身体，但在此之前不许吃任何食物，若信友能怀着虔敬的心领受，则任何邪魔或致死的势力，不能在他身上有所成就。

第二十七章圣体必须小心保存

每一位信友应小心保护圣体，不要让外教人、老鼠或其他动物吃掉。也不要让任何圣体的碎屑掉落地上，因主的圣体是给信友们领受的，不应被视为没有价值的东西。

第二十八章杯爵内所盛载的不能倒掉

因主之名而祝福之圣血，每当你领受时必须小心，不要倾倒任何一小滴。不要因糟蹋或搬视圣血台犯罪。(注17)

第二十九章

执事及神父须在主教所指定的地方每日聚会，执事必须每次出席聚会，除非因病而不能参加，每次集会为学习教会的训导，结束前祈祷，会后各人返回岗位做本份内的工作。

第三十章祈祷的时间

信友在早上起来，洗脸后向上主祈祷，才开始工作，如在某地方有天主圣道的训言向信友讲述，则各人必须前往，因为祈祷能助人渡过日间所遇到的软弱时刻，如不争取每次听取圣道的机会，藉训言坚强自己，则魔鬼便利用你空间的时间，开始扩展。所以不要使自己在听取训道时迟到。天主圣神藉着训导，进入听者的心中，增强信仰的力量。这训导同时指示你家居的生活。

所以各人应踊跃前往教堂，这被天主圣神滋养的地方，如在平日没有圣道的宣示，各人自己在家中阅读圣书也能得到益处。

如果这时不在家里，而在其他地方，则在心里向主祈祷。因为在这时间，基督被钉在木架上，为这缘故旧约的法律描述用白面饱的奉献，此喻为基督的体血，而被宰杀的羔羊必须是完整无残缺的羔羊，基督是那牧人同时也是那从天下降的面饱。

在第六时辰也要祈祷，当基督被钉在十字架上十天地分开，黑暗笼罩大地，在这时刻做一个有深度的祈祷，默念基督祈祷的声音。为那些不信的犹太人所有万物及整个大地都在昏暗中。

第九时辰做一个长的祈祷及祝福，灵魂怎样被正义所祝福，使能知晓学习义人的祈祷。(注18)

天主没有说谎，祂惦念着祂的穿诸圣并赐下圣言光照他们。在这时基督被刺穿了助旁，流出血和水来，照耀那天剩余的时间直至晚上。

在休息前先祈祷，午夜起来先用水洗手，后祈祷，如妻子在一起则一齐祈祷，如她不是信友，你独自到另外一间房内祈祷，再回到房间睡觉，不要在祈祷上懒惰，因为结婚不是污秽的。

谁洗净了，不须再洗涤，因为他们是洁净的。藉着呼吸湿润的空气，而把唾液放在手上使全身成为圣的。祈祷时的信心好像领受洗礼的时候一样，圣神的恩惠而圣洗圣事使信者得到圣化，这样便要在这时刻祈祷。

长辈给我们传授传统。于这时辰所有受造物停下片刻(注19)，赞美天主、星星、树木和水也停止流动片刻，所有总领天使在这时刻与所有义人的灵魂一起赞颂天主。

为此事的见证，主曾说：在午夜有人喊叫说：新郎来了，起来迎接他吧！他说：要小心看守，因为妳不知道在什么时候他来了。

仿效上述的一切，于黎明鸡啼时祈祷。在这时辰，以色列的子孙否认了基督。我们藉信仰知道，在这天我们仰望这从死亡复活的光荣。

当你这样造时，所有信友必须记着这一切，同时互相教导，及鼓励慕道者，你将不受诱惑及灭亡。因为你时常惦念着基督。

注８：Geoffey J. Cuming "Hippolytue：A Text for Students "Grove Books Brameote Notts 1976　

内容根据上述译本。

注９：原文也没有说出那些是什么油，不能肯定为橄榄油或那一种油。

注１０：此处译本作「健康」解释，但根据原文，用「圣化」比较合适及建意，而下面所说的「健康」是清晰且可以肯定。

注１１：文章在此处断了没有继续下去，下面的祈祷是从另一译本抽出。

注１２：没有说出是那一种油，研究的学者也不清楚。

注１３：各译本有不同的语句描述圣洗誓词，请参看原文。

注１４：原文为希腊文"antitype"一字，且以下数句较难以中文注释，故祇作意释。

注１５：文章在此断了，没有继续。下句是新的开始。

注１６：跟着那几句话，原文复杂，专注研究的学者也未能确定，故没有译出。

注１７：内容不太清晰，学者们持不同的意见。

注１８：文章在此处没有继续，下句是新的开始。

注１９：这时辰是什么时候，原文没有说明。

结语

这篇文献的内容是记述当时罗马教会的生活规程及教会团体的生活状况，综合它的内容约可分为三部份：

1.教会内各级人员及教友的职务

2.入教的规程及礼仪

3.教友团体及私人生活规程

反省的方向试从这三点开始。

１．由第二至第八章主要记述有关晋升主教、司铎及执事的经文。从经文的内容及附录得知被晋升者、被拣选的条件及礼仪进行的情况。各种不同的品级有各自的职务及工作范围。公元三世纪的教会，进行礼仪的时候与现在比较有很大不同。在当时他们没有各种类的礼仪经书，故此，负责带领祈祷或主持礼仪的主祭，需要有相当的背诵，思考及说话清晰的能力。因为带领者与众信友一起祈祷及单独诵念祷文。首先他的祈祷内容必须合乎教会的信仰及宗徒的传统，不可混杂有其他的异端思想。其次是每字清晰使参礼者完全明白了解祈祷的内容；再者，因为主礼者的祈祷是随口说出来的，没有记录下来，不能把所作的祈祷写下留作另一次聚会时应用。为此就是一些记忆力很强的人，也不能每次完全一样的祈祷，就是内容相近也不能字字一样。

这样的祈祷方法比较活一些，每次的祈祷可说是出自他们的心和口，而不是照书本的经文读出来，按照教会的信仰及传统，作适当自发性的祈祷是值得我们学习的。因为这样的祈祷能帮助我们多反省自身的信仰，与天主、与生活的环境，及与世界的关系。

近代的信友团体和各种的礼仪，都是根据礼仪经书，诵念经文及进行礼节，而这些书本是由教会内有关的机构印制，给予各地的信友应用。故此未必完全乎台每一地区不同的生活情况及团体的祈祷需要。

在基督徒最初三百年历史中，教会拥有帮助基督徒善度基督徒生活的有力社会组织。凡愿作基督徒的，他们爽快地为善度基督徒生活之目的而与其他基督徒团聚，他们参加的团体是小而紧凑的团体，有高度的士气和融洽气氛。结果，早期的基督徒在善度坚强的基督徒生活上，得到很大的帮忙。个人成为这环境(这团体)的一份子，而这环境还较生活于其中的其他环境更为强韧作为他守身为基督徒之有力支持。更由于这些团体的坚强活跃，又吸引了更多人的皈依基督信仰。

尤其像今天我们所处的缺乏共同理想与共同身份的社会中，一个真正的基督徒团体，是能供给基督徒一个善度基督徒生活的环境。活跃的基督徒团体，他们将会以基督徒身份有力量向社会发挥影响力，而不是附和社会，而且，这些基督徒团体愈成长发展，其对社会的影响力便也愈大。

按照自身及团体的生活情况作适当的祈祷，不但能增加对祈祷及礼仪的投入，更能在实际的生活体验中所领受于天主的一切，而在祈祷中予以感谢。使祈祷或礼仪与生活连在一起，兼且也使我们能深入了解我们生活于其中的团体，及周围的环境。「此等礼仪最足以使信友生活表达基督的奥迹和真教会的纯正本质，并昭示他人。」(礼仪宪章2)根据记述也可得知当时坦任神职的条件，第一个重要的条件是为众信友所拣选及接纳。所有晋升神职的礼仪必须在众信友齐集时举行。初期的教会组织不算庞大，况且最初三世纪的教会仍是在被压迫的期间，不像日后得到自由，广传天下，人数剧增的时期。故此，一个小的团体多能彼此认识，兼且在奉行礼仪时，大都能全体共聚一起，在生活力而能互相照顾及彼此探访。

反观现在，遍布世界的教会或教区内的各堂区，由于种种社会及时代进步的改变，使生活的方式及习惯有很大的差别，故此同一堂区内的信友未能有一起聚集的机会，更不能完全认识，很难表达出一个生活于基督的团体。或许我们改变现在的一些划分方法，再从记述的文件中学习初期教会团体生活的精神而用于今朝。「现代的环境，使人类在社会，技术与文化的联系之下，更形接近，因此更加重了教会的这种责任，为使人类在基督内也得到完整的统一。」(教会宪章1)

十一至十四章讲述教会内信友不同的生活方式。宣读员是天主圣言的宣读者，由主教委任，他负责宣读及保存天上的圣言。贞女及寡妇的生活，教会明确订下此等生活的要求，及使各人知晓谁是属于贞女或寡妇的团体。并能照顾她们生活所必需的一切，指示她们时常为教会团体守斋及祈祷。尚有因为教难的缘故而产生一些被迫害，并能坚持信仰的精修者，他们享有与司铎相称的荣誉；此外还有助理执事(五品)等。现代的教会已没有明订此等的生活方式，或某些职务已在某些程度上被改变了。例如当时的贞女团体与现在的修女团体，基本上可说是相同的。

另一点是祈祷经文的结束词也有其特式和意义。就是有关他们的圣神观，每次祈祷的结束词，定必有这一句话「在圣教会内的圣神」，在此文件其他的章节，每当谈及辨别是非、异端，或需要指导、力量的泉源及抗拒邪魔的力量等等，都谈及圣神恩宠的助力。探究初期教会的圣神观，让溯源至五旬节事件开始(宗：2)因为宗徒大事录成书的时间与这篇文件所记载的时期大约相距一世纪多。故此他们的圣神观应是溯源于初兴的教会，而一贯的传下来。据学者们的研究，宗徒团体在五旬节事件中被赋予了曾应许给他们的「先知之神」。说出神妙语的神恩效能，是先知之神显示的传统方式。圣神一来，就开始宣讲福音，更是表明先知之神的能力。因此，教会首次领受并体验到的圣神就是「先知之神」，是耶稣生前曾许诺要遣发的圣神，这事件使他们的团体成为充满圣神的基督徒团体，意识到圣神就在他们中间，并意识到圣神临在的教会意义，圣神是天主的神，基督的神，同时也是临在于教会的神。这实际的体验由初兴的教会传承下去，不断设法使自己成为最理想的教会团体，并实现为充满圣神的基督徒团体。(注20)

梵二大公会议再次重申圣神临于教会中，并推动指导一切，梵二大公会议的召开，给教会打开了新的里程，使我们深切体验到天主圣神的临在，祂的风吹遍了基督的教会，发生了积极的作用，深刻的影响。各项的革新都在展开，以适应现代人类的需要。

2．入教的规程及礼仪十五至二十一章很有次序地记述入教的情形，从儒斯定的着作，可知在第二世纪时，已有在圣洗前听道与祈祷的规定。在第三世纪对准备领洗的人都进行详细的审查，以便了解他们的品行，文件中很清楚的把每一种被认为与基督的教会格格不入，不受欢迎的职业及生活习惯，人教者必须放弃以往的败坏生活，才被接纳入教，否则被拒绝。那时候确定有幼童领洗，因为施洗的次序是由年纪小的开始至年纪大的。

当时，一般公民生活，尤其是在公共秩序方面有着各种的冲击，包括各种外教的神，哲学的思潮，生活的靡烂，奴隶制仍然存在等等。要作完善的基督徒可说难万难。而此等入教程序的积极后果是：圣洗圣事给领洗的成年人，留下一个深刻的印象，他们初次与教会接触便是一种富有意义的准备，在听道的时期中，他们对基督的教会有逐步的认识。被接纳在复活节领洗的人，从被接纳那天开始，他们必须每天聚会听道，接受福音，接受驱魔礼，最重要的是聆听主教讲导。

圣洗礼的施行不是在全体信友前举行，而是在一个特定有活水流动的地方，施洗者和受洗者一起进入水中，受洗者领洗时，赤裸裸地被完全浸入水中，在施洗前及后各有一次意义不同的油礼。施洗后由主教祈祷呼求圣神，领洗者藉着主教的覆手及傅油礼领受圣神。从此一位新的基督徒正式进入教会的团体，才可以向信友互相致候，互以平安之吻祝贺，并参与感恩祭。他们的入教过程很能表达出一位外教者怎样从生活的转变开始，至受洗重生加入得救的团体，成为圣神的居所教会团体的一员。其间挣扎脱离黑暗，奋斗向善的经历，成为他日后信仰生活的支柱及力量。

藉着这个入教过程，我们可反省现在慕道者的入教程序。我们怎样培育慕道者？是否小心及严格的甄选接受侯洗者？信仰的培育是否有偏差？例如，人强于信仰知识的灌输而忽略基督徒伦理生活的指导，我们现在是否有昔日严谨的精神，及积极的态度培育新一代的基督徒。初期的整个入教过程，包括信仰知识的传授、伦理生活的指导、及礼仪的进行，很能表达出从死亡进入生命的精神。我们可将他们用作培育慕道者的方法或守则，改变少许为能适合于今日的教会。应用于慕道者的培育，使从死亡进入生命的精神也出现于我们现在的圣事。

3．教友团体及私人的生活当时教友生活的情形，确有其独特之处，近代的信仰生活与之比对之下，可说完全不同。某些当时的生活习惯因时代的演进，随之而变换了，甚或消失于无形。

二十七至二十八章关于圣体圣血，其中一点比较特出的是：不要被外教人或小动物吃掉圣体。不被外教者吃到，或许当时可能有外人混入团体中冒领圣礼，故此用以警醒各信友小心。但有关于不被老鼠或小动物吃掉了，那可能在感恩祭后，信友多领一些圣体带回家收藏，用以在其他日子于祈祷后自领，或分派给病者用的，故劝喻信友小心收藏圣体不要让来探访的外教人或家里的小动物吃了圣体。可见他们不是每天都举行感恩祭的。(注21)

守斋的规则与现在的也有不同。他们没有分大斋或小斋。当时的守斋就是完全不能吃东西，任何人在指定的斋期内吃了食物，不当作守斋。守斋的时期和我们现在相似就是在领圣体前，和逾越节前四天守斋，因为当时的教会尚未有四间期的规定，故此没有四旬期开始撒灰礼那一天的斋期。

另外值得我们注意的是当时信友的祈祷时间。可分为早祷，在早上起床后，开始工作之前：及早上九时，午间十二时，下午三时，晚上在睡觉前，及午夜起床祈祷。此一系列的祈祷都以基督苦难日的历程作为中心内容，于不同的时间片断记念基督的苦难。宗徒并劝勉信友不要在祈祷上懒惰，使信仰天主的心因缺乏祈祷而软弱无力，被魔鬼藉着空间的时间而有所活动。

时辰祈祷方面，现代的信友可能因历史的转变而影响或误解，在香港，一般信友甚或部份神职以为诵念日课单是神职人员或修道过奉献生活者的本份。如果我们真的探究有关时辰祈祷的开始及历史发展，便知道时辰祈祷是整个教会的祈祷，是全体信友，教会内每一份子的祈祷，不单是为某些独特的人而设。教会是一个团体，让以祈祷来表现出它团体的特性。所以宗徒大事录中，首次记载教友的事是他们的集体祈祷，「他们和妇女们及耶稣的母亲玛利亚，以及祂的兄弟们，都同心合意地专务祈祷」。(宗一、14)日课礼如同其他的礼仪，不是私人的行动，而是属于教会全体的。它表达教会全体，并影响教会全体。『在教友团体中最重要的是堂区。它犹如教区的细胞，「在某种情形下，代表着分布在全世界的有形教会」。这些团体应尽可能在圣堂内公开举行某些主要时辰的日课礼仪。』(日课礼仪总论21)

在香港，一般基督徒到圣堂都是参与圣事性的礼仪，不知有几多个堂区有团体诵念时辰祈祷的聚会。要知道「教友聚集在一起，心口合一参与日课礼仪时，就显示出教会在举行基督的奥迹。」(日课礼仪总编22)

正如这篇文件所记述的，于祈祷的时间，若你不是在家里，而是在街上，也要在心中作默祷，记念基督的苦难。

今日的信友也被劝勉多参加聚会，听取圣言的训导，藉此增强信仰的力量并得到家居生活的指导。

今日我们每当到圣堂的时候，大都是参与弥撒，此外并没有什么原因可以使我们再返回圣堂，参加其他的基督徒聚会，更遑论参加听取圣言宣讲及听取训导的聚会。另有一点更不同的是：昔日他们印刷书籍及文字工具的运用非常缺乏，故此对言词传达讯息的感受力比较强，他们偏重于听与讲的训练，由于常听与专心听讲的缘故，妇女及儿童熟谙圣言，有时竟能背诵，他们喜好听诵（而背诵对他们也不是一件苦事(注22)）

这与我们现在的信友，对圣言接受的态度有一段距离，虽然然我们现在极之方便，「圣经」皆能人手一本，但我们对圣言的热爱比他们相去甚远。

在开始之前曾说过研究此文件的希望，是探索公元第二世纪末叶罗马教会团体的生活精神，而着眼于今朝。我们定不可能在生活方式或礼仪行动方面按照以往而行，但我们可从中吸取其精神，特别在今天圣神的恩宠蓬勃的临于教会，我们应敏捷并踊跃的作出回应，使能产生丰盛的果实。「礼仪既能使教内的人，每日建设成以吾主为基础的圣殿，成为在圣礼内的天主的住所，礼仪又能把教会显示给教外的人，好像树立于各国之间的旌旗，将散居的天主儿女，齐集麾下，直到同属一栈一枚。」(礼仪宪章2)

注２０：胡国桢，「坚振是独立圣事的神学意义」神学论集，34期1977、页五五四。

注２１：王维贤译，天主教史，上册，征祥出版社，杏港真理学会，民国五十四年四月初版，页五五。

注２２：同上，页六。

作者：白礼达 Brady, Peter 年份：1981

一九五八年英国哲学家安思彤碧(Elizabeth Anscombe)女士发表了一篇有关现代哲学的论文。文中她比较英国现代哲学家和犹太基督传统有关对与错的观点。根据犹太基督传统的说法，某些行为，无论其后果如何，必定是错的。例如：为任何目的而杀害无辜、无论是怎样好的代人受罚，在严重的事件上骗取另一个人的信任然后把地出卖给敌人，崇拜偶像、鸡奸、通奸、发虚誓等，但另一方面，现代英国哲学家却主张，在某种情况之下，以上这一切行为，都可能是对的。因为照他们的说法，凡是能产生良好的效果的行为，就是对的行为。如果说谎所产生的善果能胜过它的恶果，那么，说谎就不算错了。有些哲学家更进一步，不只考虑行为的后果，同时也考虑行为本身的性质和价值。例如他们曾认为以说谎欺骗他人这件事本身确实不如说实话好。我们可以把行为壤的方面和善的方面同时考虑。任何行为，如果它好的方面胜过坏的方面，则这行为就算是对的行为。安思彤碧称这种哲学为效果论。

新的发展

效果论其实不是一种新的理论。它只不过是功利主义的一种形式而已。早在十九世纪，班涵和米尔就已在英国提倡功利主义了。过去一百年来，这套哲学一直被天主教哲学家排斥，但现在，它却在相当大的程度上被德国和美国的天主教神学家接受了。现在，他们这些人是这样讨论伦理问题的：

一、医生是否可以直接杀死一个患不治之症同时正忍受剧烈的痛苦的病人？

二、医生是否可以杀死胎儿以挽救母亲的生命？

三、法官是否可以判一个无辜的人死刑以挽救其他五个无辜的人？

四、如一位已婚的女战犯相信她的家庭需要她的帮助，她是否可以和一个狱警发生性关系以便确保她可得到释放？

对于主张效果论的人来说，这一类问题的答案一定不是直接了当的。照传统的教训，某些行为一定是坏的，它们本身也坏的，所以永远不能实行。效果主义者却不能依靠这条原则。所以，如果他比较倾向保守，他就会说，传统的道德规律是有效的，应该常常遵照。一个遵行这些规律的人通常都能得到较多的善果。但也可能有例外的情形。如果他是在理论和行动上都放弃传统教训的效果主义者，他就会说：直接堕胎、直接杀死一个无辜者以挽救多数无辜者、与他人发生性关系等行为，有时也能产生较大的善，所以在道德上也可算是对的行为。

改变的原因

效果主义者为放弃传统的伦理原则的主张，提出了好些理由。有些人说虽然本质是错的行为，一般来说都是错的，但，这也不能证明这些行为常常都是错的。可能在某些情况，在我们现在不能预见的某种情况之下，这些行为是对的。也有些人认为传统有关直接杀害无辜、说谎、避孕等是错的论辩，不能令人满意。他们说，这些论辩不能证明，杀害一无辜者的生命总是侵犯天主对生命的权利；错误使用一种天生的功能，例如语言，也不一定是错的。还有些人认为，传统的道德规律，其实也是基于效果论的原则，人从经验学会，尊重无辜者的生命能产生最佳的效果。他们声称，其实伦理学者在草拟道德规律时，一向都把效果列为考虑的项目之一。

批评

每当功利主义被提出来峙，它一定会成为众矢之的，所以现代这个形式的功利主义受到严厉的批评，是一点也不奇怪的。效果论的原则可以多种不同的形式表达，例如：好的行为就是那些有一个相称的理由的行为；好的行为是那些从长远来说，能产生较大的善的行为；一项好的行为就是不会造成不必要的伤害的行为。基本上说，效果论的原则要求一个人常常思量他的行为的效果，以分辨他的所作所为是对还是错。在许多批评这个原则的理论中，以下各点是值得注意的：

一、人不可能尽知一项行为的所有效果，因此，不可能实现这套理论的要求，计算一项行为的所有效果。

二、即使我们可能知道一项行为的所有效果，我们也不能计算这些效果。叫一个人计算最大量的善、最小量的恶、最佳的效果等等，这无疑是对人提出毫无意义的要求。这等于叫他把一些没办法计算的东西加起来，把不可比较的东西拿来比较。例如有一个人，他决定学习，他的决定会影响他的知识、友谊、健康和宗教。他可能获得知识，但忽略了朋友、健康和宗教。知识、友谊、健康和宗教都是对人有益的事，但不能互相比较的，因为它们之间没有一共同的标准可供比较。不错，它们每一样都是好的，但不能把它们相加或相减，人不能把一本书的重量、每一页的颜色、书的重要性和里面所包含的各种思想等一一相加。这些都属于不同的范畴。可见最大量的善这个概念是一个幻想。

批评效果论的人也不否认，有时效果的确是可以计算的。一个人如果决定达到某些具体的目的，他是可以预算达到目的最好的方法。医生可以预算不同的药品对病人的健康效果而选择其中最有效的一种。在这个例子上，他有一个标准可供他比较不同药品的效用。但我们没有一个共同的标准，可供判断行为的每一种效果，如何达到最大的善和最好的结果。

三、效果主义者不能帮助人决定如何分配善。我们应该追求最大的善，最佳的效果。那么人是否应该只求生产最大量的善而不计较动用多少人工？如果制造了最大数量的善后，只有少数人可以享用，那制造最大量的善是否应该？是否制造能够平均分配的少量的善更好？还是人应该以帮助最需要帮助的人为目的，而不计较他们这样做的结果是否是最好的？效果主义者根本不能回答这些问题。

四、效果主义者是怎样解决问题的呢？批评家指出，他们是根据当时社会所流行的规范解决问题的。这样他可以说，杀害一人以挽救五个人的生命是错的，因为这样会破坏社会正义的基础。另一方面，他也可以说，直接杀害一个未出生的婴儿以挽救母亲的生命是对的，在这件事上他却不必考虑这样做会破坏社会正义的基础。可见他的理由是很不一致的。

五、效果主义者断言，不是证明，人有义务实行能带来最佳的效果的行为。这么说，似乎在表示，一种不能带来最佳的效果的行为就是不好的行为。如果我相信施舍穷人比不施舍好，那我就必须施舍了。这样说来，即使是把这个原则用在道德上，这样的道德不是太严厉了一点吗？

结论　

天主教的效果主义者在不同的程度上赞同这套理论，有些赞同较严格的效果论，有些却对它的基本原则作相当程度的修正或接纳其他的原则以解决他们的难题。有些却在反对效果论的批评的压力之下，对他们的观点，作某种程度的修正。另一方面，他们对传统观点的批评，刺激了一些伦理神学家和伦理学者，促使他们更深入地检讨传统道德原则所坚持的理由。

作者：骆显慈著 McLoughlin, Michael　林瑞祺译年份：1981

「普世教会对任何国家来说都不应是属于外国人的。」为此，每个国家都必须建立他们自己的圣统制。」

「那里有本地神职人员，数目充足而又获得适当培育，那里的传教工作就会有美果，而那里的教会亦会得以建立。」(本笃十五世)

天主教传教事业在中国展开之初，圣教会已寻求方法建立完整标准的正常地方教会。在实践方面，从起初开始，教会即不断努力在国籍人士身上培育及推广圣召。但直到本世纪，才有整体及有组织的全国计划。多年以来，宏大的槟榔屿殉道者修院差不多成为远东区的中央修院，在中国某些地区亦有地方上的修院。这一切都好，但仍是十分不足，教会法典规定每个教区必须有一所修院，假如情况不许可，同一区域的主教们，应基于互助精神，同办一所为该区域内各教区服务的修院。

一九二四年第一届中国天主教会议决定了重大行动，在中国宗座代表刚恒毅主教(MSGR. CONSTANTINI) 的引导下，计划建立十四间总修院。至一九三六年，其中十一间已投入服务，分别为：吉林(满洲国)、沙辣(北京)、宣化(河北)、汉口(湖北)、济南府(山东)、大同府(山西)、开封(河南)、成都(四川)、南昌(江西)、宁波(浙江)及香港仔(香港)。至一九四九年，共有十六间总修院，及很多地方上主要的修院。今日，无一能继续正常维持，香港仔总修院是唯一的例外。

华南总修院的由来，是出于宗座驻中国代表及本世纪初华南各教区主教的倡议(注一)。即使所有决定得到通过，即使选定香港仔为院址所在，这仍然有很多实际工作有待进行，因为到此刻为止，仍未有院厦，也未有院址，亦未有修院教职员。

这些难题的末一项最容易解决。爱尔兰籍耶稣会士刚在不久之前到港，而仍未有重大的工作。罗马方面大笔一挥，一切事情立即可以依从教会传统方法进行。香港耶稣会士负担起必须的教职。

大笔一挥能够带出教职员；但却不能开辟一块院址或兴建一座院厦。香港教区恩理觉主教(MSGR.VALTORTA)心目中有好几个考虑的地点。其中他特别钟悦的一处是：港岛西南角半岛上面临渔港的小山岗。宗座代表访港以决定修院院址所在时，首先参观的就是这小山岗。他还未看其他地点，就已经决定，总修院应建在香港仔。

院址决定了，但明显尚有接续而来的几个月谈判及有待接收地权。一九二七年二月二十五日，恩主教引领耶稣会神父参观未来的工作环境。见过院址后；他们应许圣女小德兰(ST.THERESA OF LISIEUX) 如果她能保佑他们在六个月内拥有地权，将在未来的修院内为她的瞻礼举行特别庄重的礼仪纪念。月复一月的过去，毫无动静可见。看来圣女似乎已忽略了期限。但在八月二十四日，差不多是六个月以来最后一日，无声无息地来了个电话，通知恩主教说院址是属于他的了。

设计院厦的人选，落在以善掌中国传统建筑特色而驰名的本笃会会士格宁神父(DOM ADALBERT GRESNIGT O.S.B.) 身上。原本的计划是一个宏大的四合院建筑，有台阶一直下伸向海边。后来决定改变计划，而整个雄伟的结构面向繁忙的大路较优于面对孤清的海水。三十年代经济动荡，使鸿图大计萎缩不少。格宁神父计划中四合院的一边经已完成；但左右两翼，正面的高楼，连同小圣堂本身，都在叹息中告吹了。

虽然，修院未能完全完成，但仍可以见证建筑师的选任，是明智之举。凭着精心细选的颜色及装设，今日的修院仍是庄严和谐而出类拔萃的建筑物。

有了修院的院址及设计，尚须工人、工具、砖石水泥，及一位能督导工作，使格宁神父的计划能获得切实执行的人。宗座外方传教会会士甘柏神父(FR.GRAMPA P.I.M.E.) 接受了这份艰钜的工作。经历了五十年，其中包括大战期间无数炮火的肆虐。格宁神父的心血继续依然维持是别具一格的名胜。

一九三O年十月三日圣女小德前瞻礼，恩主教在非公开的仪式中，为已展开建筑工程的院厦祝圣及奠基。

一九三一年十一月一日诸圣瞻礼，中华之后圣母总修院正式开幕。首批修生在较早之前的十月二十八日抵达，并开始上课。由于最后的工程尚未竣工，开幕并不特别隆重；但十一月一日，仍举行简单仪式，象征修院所服务的各教区，特别是她所在的香港教区，团结一致。

在巍主教(MGR.DESWAZIERE) 及一些华南各教区有关的司铎观礼下，恩主教为同学们主持弥撒，并作首次拉丁文讲道。他的精采讲道在以后二十年内仍继续备受推崇。他指出这是华南传教发展的新象征，他同时道出修院为普世教会彼此相爱的可见标记，是没有国家界限的，修生们在生活中表达出这彼此相爱的意义，如同司铎一般。他们须透过关怀，教导人们彼此相爱；师生间及同学间的彼此相爱及团结，是新修院的明显标记，并且是能造就修院所期望的成果的最坚强保证。

耶稣会士古宁神父(FR.THOMAS COONEY, S. J.)，被选为首任院长。其他教授有简力达神父(G.KENNEDY)，曹魄神父(P.JOY)，范达理神父(D.FINN)，嘉文翰神父(R.GALLAGHER)，白理安神父(REV.H.O'BRIEN)及祁祖尧神父(G.CASEY)。在开始之时，共有七名神学生及十一名哲学生。

香港仔华南总修院的生活与国内其他十三所修院的生活差不多。当然，有些事情是香港仔修院所特有的。在最初的十年，主楼增建了一个厨房，洗衣房及工友宿舍。一座巨型望远镜在一九三六年设置及投入工作。试用时，证明清晰度及放大量均良好。于是一个气象观察站便成立了，并定期摘下记录。不幸在一九四一年战争迫近时，望远镜被迫拆下，而从始再没有被组合过来。

范达理神父(FR. D. FINN, S.J.) 对华南文物考古的兴趣，提供了学生另一种课外活动。除了教授圣经及作为学生的辅导神师外，范神父本身亦是一名受过专业训练的考古学家。居留修院期间，他研究香港仔渔民的风俗及迷信；他的研究结果，连同一批挑选过的神像及符咒，都送往拉脱郎博物馆(LATERAN MUSEUM)。他同时在南丫岛发现很多陶器。很多学生陪同他作实地研究，后来都对了解陶器的原始工艺及出土地，有相当造诣。

这期间最重大的事件是日本侵华战争，弄致中国生灵涂炭。为了减轻抗战的困苦，中国天主教抗战援助协会(CHINESE CATHOLIC WAR RELIEF ORGANIZATION) 于是成立了。这有机会让修生表露出他们的热诚，他们的贡献是很切实有用的。以下是协会司库致修生学长一封函件的部份内容：「在短短的期间内，中国天主教抗战援助协会已三次收到香港仔修院修生的慷慨赠予……你们的来信带来很人的激励，我希望能把它节录在下一期的天主教文摘(CATHOLIC DIGEST)……在你们的道路上，你们承坦了贵国所受痛苦的负袒，你们能作出慷慨的牺牲是值得庆幸的……数百的伤者，数千的难民，都因此而获得照料。」

首两年修院学生人数不多，但一九三三年从福建及广东涌来的修生使人数骤增。一九三七年福建修生被召回福州，到该省新开办的总修院就读。此一步骤是预见到的；很自然地，一组教区拥有数目庞大的圣召，而他们的语言及风俗又很不同于广东人，实有成立真正属于他们的修院的必要。不过，人数并没有因此而减少。广东的小修院，在以往的十年内数目大大增加了，结构也经过重组，此时开始不断增加送赴香港仔申请名额；亦有一些修生来自中国移民的地方一名来自BANKA，北婆罗洲也有定期的选送修生来。印尼及泰国的教区亦曾要求修院收纳他们的学生，基于需要顾及第一申请优次的同学，他们的要求被拒绝了；同时，此举亦因为有保持全修院修生为中国人的必要。修院学生人数最多的一年是七十五人；而在首十年内获得晋升铎品的总数是四十八人。

修院的一切目标当然是祝圣铎品。为香港仔修院而言，最重要的不是开幕礼而是一九三四年三月三十一日复活节，首批修士领受司铎圣职，香港教区恩理觉主教在总堂主持仪式。宗座中国代表蔡宁总主教(H. E Mgr. Mavio Zanin) 在礼仪举行之际，首次到达本港，刚好赶及在典礼完毕峙，在祭衣房接见新铎。

以下一段文章，节录自一九三四年的「盘石」杂志，作为对首批香港仔修院的新铎及其他后继者的致意。司铎们毕业离开修院后，分别接受到不同的艰巨任命，甚至有英雄式使命，有些曾经被下狱，有些现在依然受监禁，有些远离他们的祖国而到海外服务。对所有的司铎，华南总修院为他们奉上祝福和感谢。

「这事(首批修生晋铎)使我们很有理由雀跃高兴，首先是领受铎品者本人接受到的恩典。为一个男子来说，再没有比接受上主的召叫为教会服务更光荣了。司铎是基督在世的仆人，因着基督的名字为新信友付洗，因着基督的名字他安抚罪人……。在此一切公教司铎的尊荣可敬处之上，他因着基督的名字站在祭台之前，作为人与创造主的媒介，一再重行献上加尔瓦略山上基督自为大司祭时所奉上的祭献……。这实在是尊崇可敬的，公教信徒眼中的司铎，是基督地位的代表……他是罪人之仆。他会以奉献生活回报他的子民对他的爱护及感谢。我们为此最庆幸的，是上主召叫了这三名青年为他们的中国及中国人民在崇高的任务上服务。」

时间不知不觉地溜过，直至第十周年来临为止。学生们想为此事庆祝，但战争影响时局，致使无法实行。最后决定由恩理觉主教在修院主持主教大弥撒，并由他主持削发礼及授小品给候选者(共十六人)。

十周年院庆上，六十六名院生分别代表所有广东各教区、江西梧州教区、婆罗乃及沙捞越传教区。有一张纪念咭，印有院生的分布情况。一张总教区的地图上，标明各传教中心的所在，并注明在各处中心服务的已晋铎校友的人数。从修院毕业晋铎的总人数是四十八人；当中有些在其他大修院渡过很多光阴的，有些在香港仔、罗马、福州新总修院及其他地方完成学业的。二十位是在华南总修院完成全部哲学及神学课程，其中一位是已去世的黄成宽神父。

一九四一年十一月一日十周年院庆的欢乐情况已差不多在记忆中消失。当时战火的灾难已逼近眉睫。一九四一年十二月七日一个宁静的主日黄昏，日后成为中国驻梵蒂冈大使的吴经熊先生，来到修院演讲，讲题是他所熟习的「中国传统是基督信仰的天赐准备。」演讲完毕后，他与教授们闲谈，言谈间尚表示他们相信不会有战争。他们一点不知道，在接着约二十四小时内珍珠港会遭受蹂躏。次日早晨接到由市区拨来的一次电话中，告说香港已受到攻击。

政府当局早已通知院长，一旦战争发生，会征用修院作为海军船坞的官员及工人的家眷的避难所，而修生及神父们必须离开修院。这些需求驱使修生作好准备。政府本身不觉有需要提供居处。为了确定每个人在战时有一定的岗位，教授及学生都分别加入各种公众服务。修院已作好充份准备可以容纳政府人员眷属，所有修生都预备好听候出动。实际上到来避难的人数只有五十人而非原来预算的五百人，而亦并非所有修生奉召出动。战事开始的最初几天，一些修生到市区协助安置难民。其他人则指导派发食物给予香港仔渔村的贫民。但日军的迅速进展结束了这一切活动。留在修院的人根据原定计划在饭堂的窗户上堆上沙包。这后来证明是必须而且有效的防御。

十二月二十三至二十五日包围战的最后三天，修院是暴露在最前线。英军的俯瞰据点及火力据点部署在修院附近，这无疑招引推进中的日军的火力。幸好他们使用的炮火口径不大，并未足以轰破修院的坚固外墙。由于所有人都留在堆满沙包的饭堂内，所以人命损伤甚少。一百二十人之中，只有三人受轻伤。不过，上主的宠佑一直临在，院长决定了，从平安夜开始，弥撒会在饭堂中举行。假如平安夜他们留在小圣堂内，会在弥撒后施行降福礼。刚好在应该是降福的时刻，一枚炮弹穿透小圣堂的窗户飞入，轰毁了整个祭台。

这次得逃大难，但炮火依然接二连三射向院厦外墙，修生惊魂未定，连忙向圣母诸宠中保(OUR LADY MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES) 许愿，祈求她护佑众人免受损伤(注二)

圣诞日早上，院长决定带领妇孺离开修院，前往村中的女修院暂避，三份之二修生亦同行，其他的修生自愿留守修院以免有人趁机抢掠。中午时战斗停止，全部人在二十六日上午返回总修院，留守的人都精神饱满，但圣诞日当天院舍已两度受到轰炸。

事不延迟，修院立即作暂时性的修茸及清理，留在院内的妇孺悉数送回市区，一月一日修院再新开始过正常生活。一月七日，停课刚刚满一个月，正常的课程重新展开，但修生很多的时间用在修补院厦的损毁上。

以后的三年半修院维持着平常的生活，当然亦难免遇上沦陷城市的种种困难。日本人从来没法为总修院明确注册，他们不能将它划归入任何一类。它不是学校，不是圣堂，也不是修道院所以它维持下去，就靠着这种难以注解的特性得以保护。即使有这种从日本人手中所取得的自由，假如没有罗马及爱尔兰来的不定期及难以预期的经济支援，修院是不保证能生存下去。

一九四五年五月，很多现在已遭人遗忘的理由，使人忧心香港会成为毁灭性轰炸的对象，粮食供应短缺，物价高涨，食米每磅售价高达六十五美元。因此，院方决定接受澳门主教H. E. MGR. RAMALHO, BISHOP OF MACAU的邀请，加入他们的修院。各教授及十四名院生起行，获得热烈的欢迎。

一九四五年八月和平重临，修生依然留在澳门，在香港仔只有一位司铎，就是院长马良神父(FR. JOHN O'MEARA, S. J.)。原定不打算在圣诞节之前重开修院，但十一月七日六位修生突然乘扫雷艇回来，三名来自嘉应，三名来自汕头。这立时决定尽快召回所有修生及重开课程。十一月十九日正常授课开始。以后几天修生陆续到达，使总数增加至三十一人。

当时要维持的人数算多，因为生活依然十分困苦。水电供应刚刚重新接驳好，交通仍未有获得正常安排，与香港市区的联络全靠政府或官方货车的不定时来往。食物由政府作定价的配给，当地出产的食物方可略作补充。

更严重的问题是疟疾。沦陷期间定期的预防措施完全松懈，蚊虫多而且狂疟。疟疾在邻近滋长。很多修生罹病，其中两名患了大脑疟疾的重症。但一九四六年一月，院舍及周围场地都喷上杀虫剂、杜绝病患。

以后几年，香港逐步恢复正常，修院亦回复正常的训练课程，当然其中亦不乏一些生活上的趣事。

同时，总修院的团体不断改变，引领修院渡过战火日子的马良神父，将修院的责任移交夏利士神父(FR. R. HARRIS, S. J.)，三年后伦若瑟神父(FR. JOSEPH GARLAND, S. J.) 接替夏利士神父的院长职。而夏神父则受任为耶稣会香港区省会长。数月后，修院始创时所留下最后一位教职员曹神父(FR.JOY) 离港前赴新加坡，一九五七年移交职责与黄永耀神父(FR. JOHN WOOD, S. J.)，黄神父一直任职至一九六四年总修院结束为止。战事结束的一年教职员的变动颇大。

一九四九年中国大陆政权易手。按着数年修院多被封闭，修生被放逐到各处，大部份到了香港。所有进再港仔总修院的申请都获得批准，虽然连渡宿的问题也悬疑未决，饭堂所有用膳时间都要分两批进食。神哲学课程都倍增。伦理神学共有三班而教义神学及哲学都加倍。以下是到港人数及日期。

一九四九年　

二月三日　　一名司铎，二十七名修生从琼县迁来；

二月十七日　四名司铎从琼县迁来；

三月廿八日　三十名修生从琼县迁来；

四月十六日　二十六名修生从汉口迁来；

四月廿八日　十七名修生从上海迁来；

五月二日　　七名修生从抚顺迁来。

来来往往继续下在，日复一日，根本没有人能知道究竟修院共有多少人，可能夏利士院长及莫神父(FR. MARAHAN) 会例外。五月间曾经有一次修院多及一百二十人。

逃难而来的修士，从汉口来的去了澳门，从琼县来的转赴马尼拉。一年之后上海来的修生纷纷返回上海；其余修生都留在香港仔完成学业。以后，更多的逃避修生由不同的小修院涌来，而本港教区的学生亦有加入，使人数一直维持在标准水平之上。一九五六年约和平后十年，总修院庆祝二十五周年院庆，其时共有分属二十一个不同教区及一个修会的五十四名神学生，及分属十个教区一个修会的二十五名哲学生。与中国大陆联络的结束，对修院起了影响。一九六三年修生人数减至分属五个教会的十二名神学生及三个教区一个修会的十五名哲学生。所以不难意料到一九六四年二月十七日星期一，署理院长科利神父(FR. JOHN FOLEY, S. J.) 会接获传信部的枢机主教一封函件，表示圣部已决定从学年结束时起「不再维持总修院的活动」。一九六四年七月二十一日，有三十三年历史的华南总修院，在科利神父及香港教区大小修院合并后的院长唐多明神父(FR. DOMINIC BAZZO. P. I. M.E.) 共同签署一份文件后，宣告结束。

在总修院的存在期间，有很多不平凡的历史。在这里所提及的只是较重大的事件的一些提纲。其他尚有很多重要事情必须一提的，例如修生在香港仔渔民之间所做的社会工作，为区内儿童办的「街边小学」，宗教广播，每月寄发予曾在修院就读的司铎的通讯「院声」(VOX ALAME MATRIS)，一九五七年新圣堂建成等等。简洁而具体地综合起修院的成就，从一九三一年总修院成立以来，共有二百五十位司铎获得祝圣。除了在中国大陆及人部份留港外，这些司铎的足迹亦遍布海外十六个国家。司铎之中有的现已去世(已知的有十六位以上)；有的放弃铎品；但毕竟绝大部份是积极地为教会的使命服务。总修院的精神成就，透过司铎的宗徒工作，更是无可估量：只可以由上主评断了。

施惠淳著 Shield, Bernard J. 林瑞琪译年份：1981

今年我们正庆祝一九三一年成立的华南总修院开办五十周年。自一九五六年即任教于修院的骆显慈神父(FR. MICHAEL McLOUGHLIN S. J.)，已于去年在本刊上为修院写了一段小史(注一)

本文现尝试罗列自一九三一年以来所有谈及修院的印刷册，并对这些读物的资料来源加以注释。在有关的已出版的书籍、文章、印刷图片之外，尚有数量相当的未被印行的文件，包括有官方或非官方的要件和书信，未经刊印的图片，种种其他资料等(注二)，以及特别那些可幸地仍与我们在一起的朋友，自一九三一至六四年间与修院有关的一些回忆(注三)。但由于主题所限，本文只谈论已印行的读物而已。

作者执笔为文的原意，可用若望福音第六章第十二节的那句话「把剩余的收集起来，免得糟蹋了。」来解释，亦一如中国成语所说：「饮水思源。」

为求方便起见，本文谨分为书籍及文章两部份：

甲、书籍

介绍修院最详细的单行本要算是「银禧纪盛」(THE SILVER JUBILEE RECORD)。该特刊是一九五七年修院二十五周年院庆时，同时以中英文混合版本发行(注四)。其中辑录了一系列对三十、四十及五十年代初期修院活动有颇详尽描述的文章，并具备所有从修院领受铎品的神职人员的照片，兼附中英文姓名(注五)。这份有纪念价值的专辑只是印行了极少数目，早已绝版，而且事实亦极难以觅得。

赖诒恩神父(FR.THOMAS RYAN S. J.) 的三部有关香港天主教的着作，可以补充很多关于香港仔修院的资料。他所写着名的「百年故事」(STORY OF A HUNDRED YEARS) 差不多等量于截至一九五八年为止的香港教区发展史，叙述了修院的成立情形，同时备有三帧修院的照片(注六)。他的「水深火热中的耶稣会士」(JESUITS UNDER FIRE) (注七)，为一九四一年十二月日本侵略者对修院建筑物戏剧性轰击的目击叙述。赖诒恩神父一九六二年的着作「香港天主教指南」(CATHOLIC GUIDE TO HONGKONG)用了整整三页纸谈论修院，包括一九五七年修院小圣堂开放，及修生的牧民训练等(注八)。

一份由巴黎外方任教会纳匝肋印书馆印制的拉丁文本修院手则，目前仍存放在教区档案处(注九)。

一九五八年梁作禄神父(Fr. A Lazzarotto P. I. M. E.) 为纪念宗座外方传教会往香港传教百周年所编写的「香港天主教」(Catholic Hong Kong)，对修院亦有详尽的描绘。

为纪念耶稣会到达本港及广州传教二十五周年而编写的「爱尔兰耶稣会士在华南」(Irish Jesuits in South China)，用了两页的篇幅介绍了修院，包括了一座巨型的望远镜的图片，这座望远镜是首任修院院长，一位有专业水准的机械师，耶稣会会士古宁神父(FR. THOMAS COONEY S. J.) 协助下所设置的(注十一)。

乙、文章

从一九三一年以来的众多天主教期刊中，我们至少可以找到六种能为我们的主题提供第一手资料的刊物。

战前香港，「盘石」月刊(The Rock) 就是个中的表表者。盘石月刊一九二○年十月由一位教友鲍文中校(LT. COL. FRANCIS J. BOWEN) (注十二) 创立。在他主编下「盘石」月刊维持了差不多五年，直至一九二五年五月才告停刊。一年多之后，恩理觉主教(BISHOP VALTORTA) 邀请爱尔兰籍耶稣会士到港并负责重新发行「盘石」月刊。这份杂志于是在一九二八年一月复刊，并持续至一九四一年十二月，一个香港的灾难性月份为止。复刊后的「盘石」起码有十期曾刊载有关修院首十年生活的文章及图片(注十三)。

特别令人感兴趣的是「盘石」所收录的那些图片，包括建筑中的修院大楼，大楼奠基，以及宫殿式大楼矗立在草木不生的光秃山头之上等。还有一早年修院教职及修生合照的历史性照片。具有多方面精湛学问的范达理神父(FR. DANIEL FINN S. J.) (注十四)，为介绍修院大楼的建筑特色所写的一篇文章亦刊载在内。

日后成为耶稣会华南传教区及爱尔兰省区省会长的潘多默神父(FR. THOMAS BYRNE S. J.) 曾在一九三六年七月号的「盘石」上，发表一篇描述那新置的十三吋口径巨型望远镜及其百年历史的文章。在一九四一年十二月号(刚赶及在日军侵入前出版)之前，仍有其他很多的文章描绘十周年院庆。由于时局不靖，庆祝活动相当低调，但最后院庆气氛却因首次咏唱修院院歌而大为增加。院歌系由中国文学教授黎正甫先生(注十五) 填词，由一位未具名的神学一年级学生谱乐。

更多战前修院生活的资料，相信可在一九二八年创刊的中文天主教期刊(公教报)内找到。战后的修院活动资料可在复刊的公教报或其一九四六年创刊的姊妹报「英文公教报」(SUNDAY EXAMINER) 内寻找。最起码每年的晋铎典礼的照片也得以在那里保留(注十六)。

修院修生曾自力出版一份每月通讯达十二年之久，并寄发住在本港、国内及海外各院友。这份名为「院声」(VOX ALMAE)(注十七) 的刊物，内容包括修院新闻、院友消息，每月退省主题、伦理神学个案、新书评介等。虽然其中的神学比重有限，但仍堪当视为目前「神学年刊」的前身。

与修院有直接关系的刊物并不只「院声」一份。四十年代末期及五十年代一份报导更详尽的刊物曾有一段时期由修院负责编写。这份刊物在一九四八年创刊时称「中国传教事业」(CHINA MISSIONARY)，但随后数年又屡易其名为「中国传教士简报」(CHINA MISSIONARY BULLETIN)及「传教汇报」(MISSION BULLETIN)，而至一九六○年发行期最后一年，再改称为「亚洲」(ASIA)。它的内容主要是动荡的五十年代中国天主教会的重要纪事(在一定程度上亦包罗了基督教会的纪事)，是五十年代一项不可多得并且难以取代的直接资料。作为编辑之一，在修院生活及工作多年的耶稣会会士保拉撒神父(FR. LEO PAUL BOURASSA S. J.)，不时写下修院校园生活琐事，留下了宁静的学府风光的图片(注十八)。

「中国传教事业」的前身「主教会议文摘」(DIGEST OF THE SYNODAL COMMISSION )，似乎并未能为香港仔修院的过后历史提供一些较重要的资料(注十九)。

但对于矗立在香港仔渔港守望着无数大小渔船的修院大楼，基于其中国式建筑常使人留下深刻印象，所以经常现身于一般普通的报章上。最备受注意的英文报章「南华早报」(SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST)，曾详细地记载修院一九三一年成立的情况，并刊登了大楼壮丽外貌的图片(注二十)。停刊已久的新闻报「香港电讯」(The Hong Kong Telegraph) 在一九三六年修院的巨型望远镜从欧洲运抵时，也作了一次精彩动人的报导(注二十一)。

最后，我们必须一提一份并不多为人所知，但却从一九三一年起即定期刊载香港教区及修院纪事的年刊，这份名为「爱尔兰籍耶稣会士手册」(The Irish Jesuit Directory)目前每年仍在都柏林印行(注二十二)。它可靠地提供了一九三一至六四年间在修院服务的会士名录。举例说，一九三五年号会收集了一束日记，按月记载过去一个学年所发生的事情。一九六四年号之内，收录了一篇作者未署名的文章，详细报导「街边小学」的生活实况，并加上一辑学校照片，这间露天的学校是由修士们为当地渔民子弟开办的。

　　　　　　　　　　　

前文是收集及整存三十年来所有有关香港华南总修院文字记载的初次尝试。无疑必定有挂一漏万之处，笔者衷心欢迎各方面详加指正及补充本文之不足。

香港仔修院在华南天主教发展史上所扮演的角色的总观，仍有得进一步的发掘及记载，同时我们应感谢上主，使修院在其牧民领域内及领域外，都能宣扬基督福音。

注释及书目

１．骆显慈神父著「华南总修院回忆录」(「神学年刊」第四期一九八０年号) 八十三至九十九页。

２．主要记存于罗马万民福音传播部，香港教区档案处，及香港耶稣会副会省办事处。

３．可喜的自一九三一年起至今约六位院长，目前仍全部和我们一起健在，他们是： Fr. Thomas Cooney, Fr. John O'Meara, Fr. Richand Harris, Fr. Joseph Garland, Fr. John Wood及Fr. John Foley。

４．骆显慈神父(Fr. Michael McLoughlin S. J.) 一九五七年编「香港鸭巴甸华南总修院银禧纪念特刊(一九三一至五六)第一O八页，中英文混合版。

５．有部份修生的名字相信与照片中人不符。

６．赖诒恩神父著「百年故事：一八五八年至一九五八年宗座外方传教会在香港」(The Story of a Hundred Years： The PIME in Hong Kong 1858-1958) (香港真理学会一九五九年出版)，第一九四至一九五页；图片第一九五、一九九、二二七页。

７．赖诒恩神父著「一九四一年香港沦陷时期水深火热中的耶稣会士」(JESUITS UNDER FIRE IN THE SIEGE OF HONG KONG 1941) (LONDON：BURNS OATES AND WASHBOIRNE, 1944)文第一五九至一六０页，图第四，第一O五，第一二０页。

８．赖诒恩神父著「香港天主教指南」(CATHOLIC GUIDE TO HONG KONG) (香港公教真理学会，一九六二年出版) 文第八十三至八十五页，图第八十七页。

９．潘格神父(G. Byrne) 编「香港华南总修院院规」(REGULAE SEMINARII REGIONALIS HONG KONG ENSIS) (香港纳匝肋印书馆，一九三二年) 第十一页。

１０．梁作禄神父编「香港天主教：百年传教活动(Catholic Hong Kong：A Hundred years of Missionary Activity) (香港天主教刊物出版处一九五八年出版。) 书中艾巧智神父作「本地神职界的修院」文第三十页，图三十一至三十二页。

１１．「爱尔兰耶稣会士在华南」：二十五年的回顾(IRISH JESUITS IN SOUTH CHINA： A RECORD OF 25YEARS) (香港版一九五二年) 文第六至七页(附插图)另有图片在第十四、二十四页。

１２．「盘石」第三期(THE ROCK 3)：一九三０年六月)有其照片。在第一九五页。

１３．「盘石」卷三(THE ROCK 3)：一九三O年十一月号「华南总修院」(The Regional Seminary)第三六七至三六八页，另有两帧插图在第三六五页。卷四：一九三一年十二月号(From a Hong Kong Armchair) 总第三二四至三二五页，四帧插图在三二四及三二六页。卷四：一九三一年十二月号「香港仔没有圣诞」(No Christmas in Aberdeen) 总第三九O至九四页，图片在三九三页。　

卷四：一九三一年十二月号「华南总修院」(REGIONAL SEMINARY) 四０八至四０九页，图见四０九页。　

卷五：一九三二年一月五帧图，见二十四页。　

卷八：一九三五年四月号「访客」(The Visitor)　

「小香港大事件」(Big Things in Little Hong Kong)见一一九至一二二页。　

卷九：一九三六年七月潘力神父(Fr. T. Byrue S. J.) 著「修院天文学」：如何及为什么(ASTRONOMY IN A SEMINARY：HOW AND WHY) 三一五至三一八页。　

卷十：一九三七年五月号「在港晋铎典礼：五位国籍新铎」(Ordinations in Hong Kong：Five New Chinese Priests) 第一五二页。　

卷十二：一九三九年五月号刚恒毅总主教著「传教的艺术：一九四二年梵蒂冈展览会」(Art in the Missions：The Vatican Exhibition of 1942) 页二二五至二二八，修院照片见第二二五、二二八页。

卷十四：一九四一年十二月号「香港华南总修院：创立十周年院庆」(The Regional Seminary Hong Kong：Tenth Anniversary of the Opening) 第四九七页。

香港华仁书院差不多拥有全部「盘石」(The Rock)。

１４．梅雅颂(William Mencham) 所著「建筑学在香港」一文，曾特别介绍范达理神父(Fr. Daniel Finn S. J.) 的建筑学成就，见该书(Hong Kong：Heineman, 1980) 第十一至十六页。

１５．黎正甫先生是一位杰出的学者，曾著有不少中国文学书籍。

１６．公教报办事处存有整套的中文公教报及其姊妹刊物 “Sunday Examiner”。

１７．目前仍未能发现这份通讯的印本。

１８．保力齐(Richard C. Bush Jr.) 在他的「共产中国下的宗教」"Religion in Communist China" Nashville：Abingdon Press, 1970) 首先运用了CMRA这个缩写代替了这份杂志的所有四个名字。　

下述的五期CMBA刊有总修院的资料：　

卷六：一九五四年十月号第七三九页刊有修院及香港仔渔民的图片。　

卷六：一九五四年十一月号「香港仔华南总修院」(Aberdeen Regional Seminary) 第八九三至八九四页。　

卷八：一九五六年一月号伦若瑟神父(Fr. J. Garland S. J.) 着「香港仔华南总修院一九三O至一九五五」(The Regional Seminary Aberdeen, Hong Kong 1930-1955) 第三十三至三十五页，另附四帧照片在二十九至三十二页。　

卷五：一九五三年二月号「史皮曼枢机主教访港」(Cardinal Spellman visits Hong Kong) 第一八六页。　

卷五：一九五三年九月号「修生晋铎」第七一O至七一一页。

１９．香港大学利玛窦宿舍，差不多完全保存起这份稀有的杂志，包括一九二八至三O年及一九三三至四O年所出版的。

２０．南华日报一九三一年十一月二十四日：「香港仔新标致：规模庞大的总修院建筑完成，全部中国式设计」，香港教区有剪存这篇文章。

２１．一九三六年七月十一日星期六「香港电讯」(The Hong Kong Telegraph) 所有的标题如下：「香港的巨型望远镜」，具有历史价值的仪器，矗立在港岛上，全中国第三大望远镜，天文学的冲击，一度是全球最大的。

２２．除了每年的修院教职员名单，该期刊所载与修院有关的文章尚包括：

卷六：一九三三年力理(J. Neary) 「爱尔兰耶稣会士在中国」(The Irish Jesuits in China) 一文，有关修院部份见一五四至一五六页，图片见第一六O页。　

卷七：一九三四年「华南总修院摘要」(Notes on the Regional Seminary) 见第一四０至一四一页。　

卷八：一九三五年「华南总修院：一年插要」(Regional Seminary：Notes of the Year) 页一二二至一二七。插图片见第一七八、一八八页。　

卷九：一九三六年「华南总修院：一年摘要」(Regional Seminary：Notes of the Year) 第一一六至一二二页。　

卷十：一九三七年「华南总修院：一年摘要」(Regional Seminary：Notes of the Year)。　

卷三十一：一九五八年刊载有修院照片在第一一四页。　

卷三十七：一九六四年「香港的修院」(The Seminary, Hong Kong) 见第十一至二十六页，照片第十二、十五、十六、十八、二十三页。

卷三十八：一九六五年「街边小学」的照片见第八十三页。

请注意，差不多上述所有资料的影印本，均可在华南总修院的后继者：香港仔圣神修院的资料室获得。

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J. 年份：1981

THE CONFESSOR AS MEDIATOR BETWEEN MAGISTERIUM AND CONSCIENCE
(A Contemporary Role)
John J. Casey
Theology Annual vol.5 1981 p.159-175

　

**********

Abstract
The author examines the problem, of being a good confessor－a major challenge today. He endeavours to describe the special task of the confessor in modern times and suggests how he can carry it out in practice.

作为一位良好的告解司铎是今日司铎牧职的重大挑战，作者试图指出今日告解司铎的特殊任务，和实际上如何履行此任务。

**********

　

Of all the sacraments in the Church, the most complex in its execution is the Sacrament of Penance. Like any of the other sacraments, of course, it demands an empowered minister and a capable recipient. But whereas the other sacraments demand simply the desire to do what the Church does on the part of the minister and simply the desire to receive the specific sacrament on the part of the recipient, Penance has a number of added conditions that are to be met by both the recipient and the minister before the sacrament in its entirety becomes an accomplished fact. On the part of the recipient, these are summed up under the aspect of conversion of heart whereby in the acts of contrition, confession and promised satisfaction, he clearly indicates to the minister that this is the case. On the part of the minister, all are summed up under the aspect of spiritual judge whereby he must make the decision to pronounce absolution under the power of the keys and must levy a penance that will be salutary for the recipient.

What this means in practice, then, is that the Sacrament of Penance on both the part of the minister and the part of the recipient demands a level of sophistication that none of the other sacraments demands. Historically this demand has meant much for the intellectual training of the diocesan priesthood. Anyone who is at all acquainted with the history of the development of seminaries after the Council of Trent is aware of the fact that the Council's call for the better administration and reception of this sacrament was the single most powerful influence on the development of the seminary theology course that became in time the standard course.(1) But while the minister of the sacrament was trained, the recipient of the sacrament was left at a relatively low level of understanding for some time.

The prevailing mentality in the Church was that a well trained ministry would take care of the needs of both the minister and the recipient of the sacrament. That is, the minister would be well versed in the understanding of both roles and the recipient accepting the minister as an expert, would simply follow his directions in preparing for and carrying out a proper reception of the Sacrament of Penance. For a long time this system was perfectly adequate and still is in some parts of the world today. But during the present century, this system started to break down in many places. The reason was that the ordinary recipient of the sacrament began to be better informed thanks to rapidly advancing Catholic educational opportunities, and under this impetus he began to realize that he was capable of developing his own expertize for his role in the Sacrament of Penance. What was a timid recognition at first, was given a powerful boost by the lengthy controversy in the Church over the use of conjugal love, commonly known as the Birth Control Controversy.(2)

It was Pope Paul VI who officially recognized the personal competence of the recipient of the Sacrament of Penance in this regard while attempting to safeguard the role of the Hierarchical Magisterium. In an allocation to the cardinals of 23rd June, 1964, he said the following:－

The Church recognizes manifold aspects of the problem (Of birth control), that is to say, the manifold areas of competence, among which is certainly preeminent that of the spouses themselves, that of their liberty, of their conscience, of their love, of their duty. But the Church must also affirm hers, that is to say, that of the law of God, which she interprets, teaches, promotes and defends……(3)

Such a statement clearly indicates the competency of the recipient of the Sacrament of Penance in his role and recognizes a potential area of conflict between the magisterium and the individual concience.

The tension between the magisterium and the individual conscience frequently leads to a feeling of inadequacy among confessors in fulfilling their role as judge. Caught between a determined magisterium and an equally determined laity, both of whom have legitimate areas of competence on a moral question, the confessor seems to be left without a personal role in the dispute. On the one hand, the magisterium is reminding him that he is a minister of the Church and that he must follow its teachings; on the other hand his penitents remind him that he must respect their freedom of conscience. What is he to do?

In an attempt to solve this dilemma, confessors sometimes have taken strict sides. But this course of action is hardly a satisfactory one because it tends to alienation. On the one hand when the confessor authoritatively takes the side of the magisterium, he only serves to alienate his penitents from himself and from the Sacrament of Penance. On the other hand when he cavalierly takes the side of a penitent, he only serves to alienate him from the magisterium of the Church and perhaps is even a cause of his loosing all respect for the teaching authority of the Church. Either position is always a disaster.

The obvious answer to this dilemma is to recognize that the confessor of today is called upon to exercise a completely new role in his penitential ministry, namely that of mediator between the magisterium and the individual conscience. In this role, the confessor cannot take sides which would alienate; rather he must seek to heal division by bringing both sides together in an effective penitential situation. Since this is a recent role thrust upon the confessor, unfortunately sacramental theology texts and manuals are usually unacquainted with it. As a result, as yet little printed direction is offered to the confessor. But there are two things that he must have a clear understanding of; first that this is indeed a valid role springing from the nature of the sacrament itself and second that to fulfill this role properly calls for serious intellectual study rather than simply pastoral counseling techniques.

The validity of the new role as springing from the very nature of the Sacrament of Penance itself, unfolds from the history of the sacrament. In the early days of the Church, the sacrament was a rare occasion in the life of a Christian. It was celebrated with great solemnity and severity for serious sinners who by their sin had cut themselves off from the life of the Church. In such a context, the category of serious sins was understandably small－idolatry, murder and adultery being the original triad of mortal sins.(4) Given the social structure of the time in both the larger society as well as the Church community, such sins were never secret. Thus the culprit stood accused in the sight of all and he did his penance in the sight of all.

As the Church's awareness of the richness of the Sacrament of Penance grew, the catalogue of sins to be penanced began to become more complex and with it the role of the penitent. A larger list of sins meant that many faults were no longer public knowledge and to disclose them could well have had harmful effects for the penitent. As a result, the sacrament began to take on a double form; one the public form for public sins and the other the private form for private or secret sins. In the first form, the sinner stood accused by the very public nature of his faults and he approached the tribunal of penance simply as a culprit seeking forgiveness. With secret confession, however, the sinner took on an added role, that of accuser as well as culprit seeking forgiveness. Meantime the role of minister remained the same, that of judge primarily of the salutary penance to be given to rectify or bring back into proper balance the life of the sinner that had been disordered by his fault. With the passage of time, secret confession became the rule and public penance gradually disappeared except in extraordinary cases. At the present time, even in these cases it is hardly an effective measure in the life of the Church.

The development of theology in the middle ages added greater sophistication to the understanding of the dynamics of the Sacrament of Penance. Under theological analysis it came to be understood that Penance consisted of certain material elements and certain formal elements neither of which could be separated from the other if the sacrament was to be integral. The accuser-accused role of the penitent was understood to consist in three concrete acts; contrition, confession and satisfaction. The judgmental role of the confessor then shifted somewhat to be seen as consisting primarily in the decision as to whether or not the penitent fulfilled these acts that were necessary for an integral sacrament to be confected.

From the time of the Council of Trent up to the present, the essential form of the Sacrament of Penance and the essential acts of the penitent and confessor have remained unchanged. But at the same time there has been a great development in the understanding of what the dynamics are whereby one accuses himself of sin. Put simply, it was the task of the moral theologian to clarify classes and types of sins so that the penitent in examining his conscience would know what material he should accuse himself of. If he were not certain, then he would have to make a judgment of conscience but he was also given detailed instruction on how this was to be done. As mentioned above, the system worked well for a number of years－in fact until the advances of technology began to pose new problems for old situations. One of these, of course, was the birth control problem.

What made the kind of a problem that birth control offers such a celebrated one was a certain shift in the way that the Church had been addressing such problems. For a long time in the history of the Church, moral problems were given solutions by theologians. If the solution arrived at was judged by the Church to be an improper one, then that solution would be set aside and corrected by the teaching authority of the Church. Thus in practice the positive magisterium of the Church consisted of theologians whereas the negative magisterium consisted of the hierarchical teaching authority. In serious times and for serious questions, this latter authority acted through a general council.

During the nineteenth century and particularly after the defining of the dogma of papal infallibility, the hierarchical magisterium of the Church came to assume a position of prominence in the solution to moral questions. Thus in response to modern birth control questions, it has not been moral theologians in a slow developmental way but rather papal pronouncements that have constituted the positive teaching authority of the Church. On the one hand this system has benefitted the Church in so far as it has given quick, decisive answers but on the other hand the mode of presentation－parent to child tradition－and the sense of finality of a papal statement the continuing infallibiliy discussion－have made it difficult for an increasingly educated adult laity to adjust. In practice this is experienced particularly in the penitent's role of accuser in confession.

The difficulty that the penitent has in integrating magisterial statements on morality into a proper framework in his role of self-accuser in the Sacrament of Penance, of its very nature calls for a counter response on the part of the confessor. By virtue of his role as judge of the integrity of the acts of the penitent, he is therefore obliged to mediate between the magisterium and the conscience. Perhaps some might say that this is not true mediation because the confessor in the actual context of the Sacrament of Penance is in contact with only one party and therefore the usual give-and-take of the mediating situation is impossible. Thus the role of the confessor in this situation is no more that that of a persuader of the one side that can change (the conscience) to adapt itself to the side that is unchangeable (the magisterium). However, this obviously is not the case.

The confessor in his role of judge in the Sacrament of Penance does not act by virtue of delegated authority; rather he acts by virtue of a power that comes to him directly from Christ through his ordination. Once the Church gives him the care of souls through office or delegated jurisdiction, he exercises a power that is his directly and does not depend for its execution on any other person in the Church. Since the exercise of such a power contains within it all the means necessary to carry it to its fulfillment, the confessor in the opere operanti of the Sacrament of Penance becomes in his role as mediator the authentic interpreter of the teachings of Christ and a fortiori of the magisterial teaching of the Church. He thus plays an active role as the representative of the magisterium with full power to interpret for the magisterium. In fact, when he exercises this role properly it may even be said that he partakes of the infallibility that is implicit in the Church In so far as the penitent need not fear that the interpretation he receives will be detrimental to his salvation. However, it must also be clearly understood that since this charism of the confessor flows from the integrity of particular penitential situations, the interpretations that he makes of the teachings of Christ or the magisterium of the Church are valid only for the individual sacramental situation connected with that interpretation. In short, the confessor in his role as magisterial mediator with the individual conscience does not in any way modify the objective magisterial teachings of the Church.

But as mentioned above, the proper fulfillment of the role of mediator on the part of the confessor demands a deep knowledge of magisterial decrees. In the question of birth control, this would be the encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope Paul VI, HUMANAE VITAE.(5) And just as Pope Paul made use of mature reflection and assiduous prayers in arriving at his conclusion, so the confessor must do the same. He should be able to penetrate behind the words (what is stated) in order to arrive at the heart of the message (what is affirmed). HUMANAE VITAE is not a difficult document but a very clear one. Arguments against it fall into two categories; the first of these is that the teachings put forward in the encyclical are based on an inadequate conception of the natural law and the second is that the teachings do not do justice to the integrity of the human person.(6) It is not the purpose of this paper to criticize these points but suffice it to say that the author sees them as the result of a focus on the words of the encyclical (what is stated) rather than a focus on the real message (what is affirmed). The confessors' primary interest must be on the message.

A careful study of the text of HUMANAE VITATE reveals very clearly that the intent of the encyclical was to safeguard the essential nature of conjugal love. Therefore anything that would violate this essential nature－that is, remove entirely from acts of conjugal love any reference to its life-giving aspect－would be a serious disturbance of a natural order that both revelation and human reason have recognized as a sine qua non of the human condition. In its absolute understanding, it clearly affirms a basic human life-style－the family in its root sense－and it clearly denies the validity of contrary life-styles like homosexual marriage. This absolute under-standing that the confessor takes from the document, becomes the principle from which his mediation between the magisterium and the individual conscience in the Sacrament of Penance will flow.

It is important that the confessor understand the intent of HUMANAE VITAE as a principle and not as a law. Catholic moral theology from the very earliest days of its development has exhibited a marked tendency to reduce Christian conduct to a series of laws which establish a criterion outside of as well as prior to any act the Christian may perform. The law, then, simply provides a blue-print of rectitude of conduct whereby one simply forms his conscience by comparing his conduct to the blueprint. In this examination he ticks off as sin whatever in his conduct does not correspond to the outline in the blueprint. The confessor must understand that the need for his role as mediator became necessary precisely because such a reduction of Christian conduct is largely rejected by recipients of the Sacraments of Penance today and specifically in their role of self-accuser.

A principle, on the other hand, while establishing a criterion outside any act the Christian may perform, does not establish a criterion prior to the act. What this means is the principle is a part of the act itself, enhancing or vitiating the perfection of the act. Principles in regard to human conduct, then, are concerned with virtues rather than laws and it is within this context that the confessor mediates between the magisterium and the individual conscience. In the question of birth control, the mediation will concern the affirmation or denial of basic human dignity in the conduct of ones conjugal life from both the standpoint of the individual and the standpoint of the principle, both of which enter into the one act.

In summation, then, the birth control problem gives a prime example of the role of the confessor as a mediator between the magisterium and the individual conscience. And as more sophisticated moral problems arise which make greater demands on the penitent in his role of self-accuser, the confessor's role will 'obviously also become more demanding. One might well ask, then, if new moral problems will continue to make the roles of the confessor and the recipient of the sacrament increasingly more complicated to the point where Penance will become a meaningful sacrament only for the best educated. It is the opinion of this writer that such will never be the case. New moral problems are not new in the strict sense but rather new variations on a theme. And the history of moral problems has shown that they wax and wane in accord with the times. But that is another study.

　

FOOTNOTES
1)Cf. Louis Vereecke, STORIA DELLA THEOLOGIA MORALE MODEKNA, VOL. II (Roma: Academia Alfonsiana, 1980), pp. 113-122.

2)An excellent survey of this appeared in Franz Bockle 'Bibliographical Survey on the Question of Birth Control' CONCILIUM Vol. 15 No.1 (May, 1965) 53-69. The statement made by the chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Conference at the 1980 Synod of Bishops in Rome showed that the situation outlined in the article had not changed in the last fifteen years.

3)Cf. Paul VI, Allocation to the Cardinals, 23rd June, 1964; ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 56(156(1964) 588-89.

4)Cf. Paul F. Palmer, SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY VOL . II: SACRAMENTS AND FORGIVENESS (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1959), pp. 66-67.

5)Cf. the official English translation of HUMANAE VITAE. EN CYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH (Vaticana: Tipografia Polyglotta, 1968).

6)Cf. Robert H. Springer, 'Notes on Moral Theology' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 30 No. 2 (June, 1969) 249-288.

　

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beekle, Franz. 'Bibliographical Survey on the Question of Birth Control' CONCILIUM Vol. 5 No. 1 (May, 1965) 53-69.

Cardegna, Felix F. 'Contraception the Pill and Responsible Parenthood' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 25 No. 4 (December, 1964) 611-636.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH Vaticana: Typographia Polyglotta, 1968.

Flynn, Fred. 'Humanae Vitae and Natural Law' PRIEST 25(1969) 81-88.

Kelly, Gerald. 'Pope Pius XII and the Principle of Totality' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 16 No. 3 (September, 1955) 373-396.

Mahone, John. 'Understanding the Encyclical' MONTH 226(1968) 233-244.

Palmer, Paul F. SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY VOL. II: SACRAMENTS AND FORGIVENESS London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1959.

Reed, John J. 'National Law, Theology and the Church' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 26 No. 1 (March, 1965) 40-64.

Springer, Robert H. 'Notes on Moral Theology' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 30 No. 2 (June, 1969) 249-288.

Vereecke, Louis. STORIA DELLA THEOLOGIA MORALE MODERNA VOL. II Roma: Accademia Alfonsiana, 1980.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by: Holy Spirit Seminary College

作者：陆鸿基 Luk, Hung Kay, Bernard 年份：1981

AN INQUIRY INTO MEDIEVAL AND REFORMATION THOUGHT

Nineteenth-century liberal historians, whose writings often affected an anti-Medieval bias derived from the political anti-clericalism of their own age, tended to treat the Middle Ages as a dark, uncivilised, illiberal era, intolerant of any deviance from Catholic dogma. For examples they would cite the papal and conciliar condemnation of heretics, the domestic crusades against the Albigensians and other dissidents, and the Spanish and Roman Inquistions of medieval and early modern Europe, To these writers, the revival of Classical learning, the Protestant revolt against the Catholic Church, and the rise of capitalism, signified the dawn of a new and more tolerant age.

Recent historians are likely to dispute these images. Their researches have shown that although the medieval record of religious tolerance was far from brilliant, it was not uniformly unenlightened or irrational. Medieval thought did differentiate between various kinds of dissidence from the magisterium of the Church for different treatments. The infamous wars against the Albigensians, Hussites and other popular heretics are found to have been motivated more by the land greed of the feudal nobility than by the religious dogmatism of churchmen. Furthermore, the height of religious intolerance was reached not during the Middle Ages but in the era of Protestant-Catholic confrontation, in part under the sponsorship of John Calvin. In this view, the Renaissance and Reformation were not so much the beginning of a better age as the period between the waning of medieval civilisation and the coming of modern times.(1)

This article inclines towards the latter view, and will trace the development of attitudes towards heresy in medieval and reformation thought, and the slow emergency of religious toleration. It is important first to clarify certain concepts.

Dissidence and orthodoxy are relative terms that depend for their meaning on each other. To call a body of thought or a type of behaviour orthodox implies the existence of thoughts, words, and deeds that are deviant from it. Thus, as ideas, actions, and people splinter into more and more groups, there would appear tiers of orthodoxies and dissidences. But while the orthodox might have existed in general form before the development of dissidence, the precise formulation and reformulation of orthodoxy might have been precipitated as a defence against the dissidents. Examples of this process abound in the Patristic period of Church history. Thus, not only in logic, but in actual development as well, are orthodoxy and dissidence interdependent.

Heresy is a particular kind of dissidence in the context of a particular kind of orthodoxy.(2) Traditional Christianity presupposes an absolute truth that is knowable by humans and is in fact known to (if not fully understood by) good Christians. This truth is capable of more and more precise formulation, but the outline is believed, to have been established by divine inspiration, and is beyond dispute. Dissidence, therefore, could imply grave error, and is to be avoided. But what constitutes heresy at any one point in history depends on the scope of the formulated dogma, which grew in time. What to do with heretics would in turn depend on the pertinent theories current in the Church and on external circumstances.

From a theological approach, heresy is a problem for the conscience of the Christian as well as for society and the Church; in addition, the hierarchy's policy towards heresy and heretics involves also the theoretical relations between ecclesia and mundus, In the discussions that follow, it is important to bear in mind the tiers of orthodoxies and dissidences as well as the dynamic nature of the meanings of truth and heresy.

HERESY AND THE INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE

Since the proper purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls, the primary theological concern on heresy should be the state of the heretic's conscience; in other words, can a heretic be saved?

Traditional Christian teaching recongised three kinds of consciences :－

1) The conscientia recta et vera (upright andcorrect conscience), which sincerely observes norms that are objectively true.

2) The conscientia exlex (outlaw conscience), which follows its own whims without reference to any objective norm.

3) The conscientia recta sed non vera (upright but incorrect conscience), which adheres to sincerely held objective norms that are without the fulness of truth.(3)

The first one is the good conscience of the true believer; the second is sinful; but it is the third, the erroneous conscience, that presents the main problem in the case of heresy. If it is granted that the heretic is a person of goodwill and sincere in her or his belief of the wrong doctrine, would she or he be expected to follow the orthodox version of the truth and thus go against her or his own dissident conscience? Or should the conscience be obeyed against the dogmatic truth? In which case, if either, would the poor heretic be saved? On the various treatments of this problem were hinged the diverse theories of persecution and tolerance.

The Biblical and Patristic teachings are rather ambivalent. Paul of Tarsus, the first to have touched on the subject explicitly, seems to have been of the opinion that the erroneous conscience is binding on the individual, and should be followed by himself and respected by others.(4) Augustine of Hippo held that a man cannot believe unless he wants to, but also argued that it was legitimate and advantageous to use force to 'help' the erroneous conscience correct its beliefs.(5) In the Middle Ages, there gradually arose two different schools of thought on the subject. On the one side were mostly Franciscans and Augustinians who denied any righteousness on the part of the erroneous conscience, and ruled that the individual would sin whether following it (and thus going against the truth) or disobeying it (and thus willingly doing wrong according to his own light). The only obligation for such a person was to put aside his erroneous conscience in favour of a correct one. This was the position, for example, of Bonaventure. According to such logic, the orthodox members of the Church, charitably mindful of the salvation of their dissident brethren, should do the utmost, including the use of necessary force, to bring the heretics back to the one true fold. Tolerance was out of the question because it was actually to the harm of the lost sheep. The other school of thought was led by Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, who differentiated between involuntary and voluntary ignorance of the truth. They held that the involutary erroneous conscience was guiltless, did not impair salvation, and should be respected; such was the ignorance of the pagan, who could attain salvation by goodwill and good works. Voluntary ignorance, on the other hand, did not excuse any fault; and ignorance of the divine law which everyone was supposed to know in one's own mind was considered one kind of voluntary ignorance. Since the heretic had once known the truth and then fell away, his erroneous conscience was not innocent, his salvation was impaired; intolerance and persecution of him was also justified.(6) Guided by these two schools of thought, which arrived at broadly similar positions by way of different paths, the medieval Church condemned thousands of heretics to the merciless 'secular arm', which usually had its own political or economic motive for bounding the dissidents.

During the Reformation period, the struggle between orthodoxy and heresy became more and more heated. As each major reformer considered his teaching to be true and deviations from it to be false, it is historically more accurate to speak of othodoxies and heresies. Thus, when Martin Luther established his doctrine as an orthodoxy, he adopted a position on heresy remarkably close to that of the Franciscans and Augustinians. Although Luther was at first (while himself a dissident in the Catholic Church) opposed to the use of force on heretics, his final stand was in fact consistent with his basic theological tenet of sola Scriptura. If the Bible is the only truth and the only salvation, an erroneous conscience, one that does not adhere to Biblical truth, has no hope of salvation. Thus he writes: 'A really good conscience desires nothing better than to listen to the teaching of the Scriptures and to examine itself with the help of these Scriptures.' The use of force on the heretic was ultimately to be sanctioned.(7) Perhaps Luther's background as an Augustinian monk also contributed to his position.

Nevertheless, Luther drew a distinction between heresy, which was an act of the erroneous conscience, and blasphemy, which was the sin committed by the outlaw conscience. Calvin made no such distinction. This again was consistent with his theology. Since faith and salvation are predetermined anyway, the traditional distinction between three kinds of consciences is irrelevant. This is not to say, however, that it does not matter what one thinks about God. Since God is high above and one far below, any unworthy expression about God is an affront to God's dignity and honour, and must be vindicated. Heresy is thus the same as blasphemy, and both are lese-majeste; toleration is completely out of the question.(8) The Reformation, by bringing about religious diversity and strife, also therefore witnessed a diminution of what little there was of religious tolerance in medieval thought.

It must not be thought that Calvin was the only one of his time to deny bona fides in the heretic. In the heat of controversy, fine points of doctrinal distinction were only too easily forgotten. After the Munster coup, for instance, Luther's definition of blasphemy broadened considerably to include the rejection of an article in the Apostles' Creed!(9) The Jesuit Peter Canisius also considered heresy as lese-majeste.(10) It is only too tempting for the orthodox to brand the dissidents as evil people.

Heresy and society

The salvation of the individual was of course not the only concern of the orthodox. Since the Church functions in a social context, the welfare of one part of the Church has to be balanced against that of other parts. Thus, heresy troubled the Church not only because of the salvation of individual heretics, but also because other members of the ecclesia and mundus might be affected by the spread of dissident beliefs. To prevent large numbers from following false prophets, the case was often made for weeding out heretics before they could recruit others to their side. Aquinas regarded heresy as a contagious evil; logically, therefore, 'an enlightened charity towards the masses of Christian people demanded energetic measures…… when, because of constant relapses, the culprit gives the simple faithful a dangerous example of inconstancy in matters of faith.'(11) For such a reason was the crusade preached against the Albigensians, who were condemned for both doctrinal and moral deviance.(12)

The view of Thomas was shared by Calvin, who expressed the same point with colourful imagery:－

That humanity, advocated by those who are in favour of a pardon for heretics, is greater cruelty because in order to save the wolves they expose the poor sheep. I ask you, is it reasonable that heretics should be allowed to murder souls and to poison them with their false doctrine, and that we should prevent the sword, contrary to God's command, from touching their bodies, and that the whole Body of Jesus Christ be lacerated that the stench of one rotten member may remain undisturbed?(13)

Calvin himself would go so far as to cooperate with his archenemy the Roman Inquistition to secure the arrest (and subsequent burning at the stake) of the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus.(14)

The adherence of the masses to truth is but another way of saying the unity of the orthodoxy. The unity and universality of Latin Christendom was regarded as a matter of great importance in the Middle Ages, indeed, as the basis of society.(15) Although this ideal lost much of its reality in the Reformation period, the unity of faith in each territory was still generally cherished, and constituted a problem for ecclesiology as well as for political theory. (Infra)

It is evident from the above discussions that orthodox attitudes towards dissidents were often based not so much on considerations for the dissidents themselves as for the rest of society. Thus, distinctions were sometimes made between freedom of private belief and freedom of public worship. The former was a matter for the individual conscience and not to be coerced, while the latter could constitute a public scandal, and should be regulated. Such was Luther's position in 1525, as was Zwingli's strategy in Switzerland in 1529.(16) Distinctions were also made between peaceful heresies and seditious ones. Luther indeed thought at first that the former were necessary for the ultimate triumph of truth!(17) The great exponent of Christian humanism, Erasmus, would tolerate religious heresy but not the anti-authoritarianism of the Anabaptists. Johann Brenz, the reformer of Wurttemberg, stressed the differences between the violent and non-violent elements of the Anabaptist movement, the 'black sheep' and the 'genius', and argued that the whole lot should not be punished categorically for the crime of the former.(18) Indeed, the parellel that was frequently drawn by the orthodox from Aquinas to Canisius between heresy and the counterfeiting of money(19) may as well be turned around to show one possible limit of intolerance－heresy that does not spread or provoke social upheavals, like counterfeit money that does not circulate, is relatively harmless and may be afforded somewhat more tolerance. Such arguments, obviously, would not be applied or accepted by Calvin.(20)

Church, State, and Sect

If a heresy is seditious, it would naturally involve the state, in which case the concern would be political rather than dogmatic. But this was not the only way in which the secular power entered into the story of tolerance and intolerance. While the waning of the Middle Ages was in part the breakdown of the dualism of Church and State, diverse new patterns of Church-State relations evolved during the Reformation period, each supplying a different approach to the problem of dissidence.(21)

The power of the ruler to intervene in religious and ecclesiastical matters had long been a matter of debate in Latin Christendom. Although Eastern caesaropapism was vigourously denied by the medieval Latin Church, the tendency in the late Middles Ages was for the prince to gain political ascendancy gradually over the Church in his territory. The Reformation, course, greatly facilitated this development. In the Middle Ages, the 'secular arm' of the Church was given the nasty tasks which the Church considered outside its scope and below its dignity to perform. Such, for instance, were the massacre of heretical villages, or the burning of dissidents condemned by the Inquistition. But it was for the Church, and the Church alone, to decide what the people should believe and what constituted heresy. Luther, however, pressed by the Catholics from one side and by the Zwinglians and Anabaptists from another, had to turn to the princes for support.(22) He conceded to the princes a three-fold task, viz.:－

1) The prince should as far as possible encourage the preaching of the Gospel.

2) He should prevent the preaching of false and heretical doctrine and at the same time repress whatever should constitute an attack on God's honour.

3) He must see to it that all his subjects come to listen to the word of God.(23)

This being the prince's province, heresy came to be considered a crime against the secular ruler, and loyalty to the ruler would demand at least outward adherence to the state religion. From this doctrine of the cura religionis of the prince grew his power as 'guardian of both tablets of the Ten Commandments' (in the words of Philip Melanchthon, Luther's lieutenant), and as defender of religious unity, in his own territory. This was in effect an extension of the idea of the secular arm, with the State gaining the upper hand over the Church. Any heresy, whether seditious or not, would be a crime against the State. Finally, this doctrine developed into the Augsburg formula of cujus regio, ejus religio－the prince was to enjoy complete freedom of conscience between Catholicism and Lutheranism, but not so his subject, who had to choose between obedience or exile.(24) This political compromise, which was to the disadvantage of both the dissidents and the Church, was accepted by Catholic apologists, contrary to traditional teachings. (25)

It probably made little practical difference to the individual dissident, once persecution started, whether he was bounded by the Churches or by the State, as may be gathered from Roland Bainton's vivid portraits in The Travail of Religious Liberty.(26) This was especially the case for the various Anabaptist sects, which were almost universally reviled. By radically revising many of the basic tenets of medieval Christianity, as well as by refusing to obey civil authorities (no taxes, no military service, etc.), they attracted to themselves the hatred of Europe's increasing number of hardening orthodoxies. At the same time, since most Anabaptist groups had no political ambitions, and were made up of entirely voluntary memberships, they had no territory in which to set themselves up as the orthodox, and no dissident groups to persecute in turn. They thus formed the lowest tier in the pecking order of the orthodox and heretics. Only in a very few places, for example in Poland from around 1550 to 1530, were they free to develop. One of the most famous, ,and for the question of tolerance the most important, of these sects was Socinianism, named after the Italian refugee Faustus Socinus (Sozzini) and his followers at Rakow. Racovian ecclesiology denied the need for any church or the exclusive claim of any church to truth and salvation, and advocated a complete separation of church and state.(27)

Anabaptism was not the only religion that found refuge in Poland. As a matter of fact, all manners of faith were able to take advantage of the peculiar political structure of the monarchical republic. Other countries which legally allowed religious diversity in the sixteenth century were France under the edict of Nantes and Brandenburg during the reign of Johann Sigismund.

Moral religion and doctrinal indifference

The Socinian indifference to doctrinal distinctions was not a unique phenomenon. In fact, it stemmed from a background of the Erasmian irenic tradition of conciliating the divergent factions of the divided Church.(28) The Christian humanist had advocated a non-doctrinal piety that included a Christian life of heartfelt virtues; he believed in leaving theological problems to the speculations of professional theologians. He had followers in all camps of the religious strife of the Reformation era. One of the most famous Catholic irenic writers was Georg Cassander, who attempted to formulate a very few basic articles of faith acceptable to all Christians, and to leave the rest for each Church to decide－a kind of diversity in unity which he hoped would establish permanent peace.(29) Such efforts, however, were largely unsuccessful,(30) although they did leave important traces.

One interesting offshoot of this counciliatory tendency was the growth of English Latitudinar-ianism as a solution of tolerance in a state church. The form taken by the Elizabethan Church had been inspired to a large extent by the secular politics of compromise among several non-Roman positions, and in the late 16th and early 17th century, efforts were made under such men as Richard Hooker to broaden the doctrinal base of the church to make it more than just state established, but national as well.(31) Partly influenced by socinianism,(32) it was under attack from both Catholics and Puritans. From the viewpoint of these repressed elements, this church was not exceedingly liberal (as Catholics familiar with the story of Edmund Campion well know). Yet loosely defined doctrines did tend to reduce the instances of dissidence and conflict during the reign of the Virgin Queen.

Another solution to the problem of tolerance of religious disparity in a state was that attempted by France under the Edict of Nantes. The king belonged to one church, but loyalty to him was considered to be above religious differences. Thus, peace and national interest were invoked for tolerance and accomodation of a dissident group. This solution proposed by the Politiques was also practised in Poland and Brandenburg, and may be considered a secularised version of the medieval concept of the 'greater good'.

More Rigid Definitions of Orthodoxies

But while some nations compromised within themselves the broken ideal of Christian unity, the Churches, in defence against one another, undertook to define their own doctrines in ever more uncompromising terms. 'This stiffening of attitudes all round was the result of the rise of Calvinism (1550-1560). Not only the Catholics, with the Council of Trent, but the Lutherans, too, were provoked by the clear-cut rigidity of Calvinism to formulate their own position and doctrine more clearly.' (33) Such rigidity could only have led to greater exclusiveness and intolerance in thought and word, if not always accompanied by cruelty of action as well.

Summing up

The above survey serves to outline the questions of heresy and tolerance in medieval and reformation thought, and shows how intolerance actually reached a peak suring the Catholic-Protestant confrontation. A few points may be raised here.

Much of the theological controversy during the Reformation period centred around the efficacy of faith versus works for salvation. However, the concern in most churches with the purity of doctrine seems to indicate an anxious though unarticulated place for cognition somewhere between the dichotomy of faith and works. While the devil knows more about God than man does and yet is damned to eternity, how much, and what, must man know in order to be saved? A Christian humanist would have answered not very much. A study of what the orthodox persecutors might have answered may give us fresh insight into the structures of their theologies.

In terms of social history, tolerance and intolerance among the Christian groups should be placed in the context of the discrimination and persecution of Jews, Moors, and witches. Since the High Middle Ages, there had been occasional pogroms, expulsions, and witch trials. The step-by-step break-down of medieval society in the fifteenth century led to mass frenzies over issues where this world and the next one met. The Lutheran revolt in Germany had been proceeded by the expulsion of minorities from Spain, the publication of the Malleus maleficarum by the Dominicans, and the Savonarola uprising in Italy. There were profound social, economic, psychological, no less than sincerely religious causes behind the phenomenon of religious intolerance and persecution. Theoretical issues were probably just the rallying points and rationalisations of the bitter struggles. In the heated atmosphere of the Reformation period, calm resolution of theological disputes was well-nigh impossible. It takes a different mind-set, a more charitable disposition, and today, for religious tolerance and ecumenism to be established and peace to prevail.

1)See, for instance, Norman Cantor, Medieval history (London, 1969).

2)'Heresy', in Karl Rahner, Ed., Encyclopaedia of theology (London, 1975)

3)Murray, John Courtenay, S.J., The problem of religious freedom (London, 1965), 7-8.

4)Lecler, Joseph, S.J., Toleration and the Reformation, English translation by T.L. Westow (London, 1960), I, 17-18.

5)Ibid., 51-60. Castellio, Sebastien, Concerning heretics, translation and introduction by Roland Bainton (New York, 1935), 21-29.

6)Lecler, op. cit., 94-100.

7)Ibid., 150. Cf. John Dillenberger, ed., Martin Luther－selections from his writings (New York, 1961), 389-390. Lecler, ibid., 156-169.

8)Lecler, 334. Cf. Roland Bainton, Hunted heretics (Boston, 1953), 169-171.

9)Bainton, Roland, The travail of religious liberty (London, 1953), 62. Cf. Lecler, 161.

10)Lecler, 280.

11)Ibid., 88.

12)Cantor, op. cit., 419 et seq.

13)Quoted in Lecler, 88.

14)Bainton, Hunted heretics, ch.8 et seq.

15)Lecler, 70-71.

16)Ibid., 157, 314-315.

17)Ibid., 153.

18)Castellio, op. cit., 41-42, 162.

19)E.g., Aquinas, Canisius, and in the France of Francois I; see Lecler, I, 85, 280; and II, 15, respectively.

20)Castellio, 69-72.

21)Cantor, ch. 20. George Sabine, A history of political theory (New York, 1961), ch. 14, 15.

22)Lecler, I, 80, 145-164.

23)Ibid., 242.

24)Ibid., 242-260.

25)Ibid., 290-293.

26)Bainton, Travail, op. cit.

27)Lecler, 383, et seq. C.f. Stanislas Kot, Socinianism in Poland (Boston, 1957 ).

28)Lecler, 413. Cf. H. John McLachlan, Socinianism in 17th century England (Oxford, 1951), 9.

29)Lecler, 270-276.

30)Ibid., 225-235; 263-264.

31)Klein, Arthur Jay, Intolerance in the reign of Elizabeth (Port Washington, N.Y., 1968), 94-99. Lecler, II, 355, 398 et seq.

32)McLachlan, 54 et seq.

33)Lecler, II, 478.

作者：陆鸿基 Luk, Hung Kay, Bernard 年份：1981

FROM ANCIENT HERESIES TO MEDIEVAL RELIGIONS: A GUIDE TO THE STUDY OF NESTORIANISM
Bernard Hung-bay Luk
Theology Annual vol.5 1981 p.111-120

　

**********

　

INTRODUCTION
Of the many religious movements which grew on the fringes of main-line Christianity in late Antiquity, two were particularly significant in view of their medieval developments, and deserve our special attention as Chinese students of the medieval West. They were Nestorianism and Manichaeism.

Nestorius was a Persian Christian who became bishop of Constantinople, His views about the nature and person of Jesus Christ led to his condemnation as a heretic by the ecumenical council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. His followers moved eastwards across Asia, and in the T'ang dynasty were the first to bring the Christian religion to China. Nestorianism became known in Chinese history as the Ching-chiao (景教), and it survived in China until at least the Yuan period. It forms an important chapter in the chronicles of Christian missions as well as in those of Sino-Western intercourse. The late-Ming Jesuits were able to cite the then-rediscovered Nestorian Steele, a magnificent T'ang monument in both Chinese and Syriac characters, as proof of the antiquity of their faith. Today, the 'shadow of a shade' of the followers of Nestorius can still be found in the mountain regions which form the frontiers between Iran, Turkey, and the USSR, among the Kurds. The Nestorian story links Chinese history closely with the medieval West, and should receive our attention.

Manichaeism, long regarded by the medieval Church as an ancient heresy, was actually a distinct universal religion which emerged at the confluence of Zoroastrainism, Buddhism, and Christianity, and which (like Islam) honoured Jesus as one of its prophets. Its founder Mani (A.D. 216-277) was also a Persian; his teachings, too, were condemned in the land of their origin. This sophisticated, dualistic, gnostic religion was persecuted and found followers in both the West and the East. Augustine of Hippo, the great Christian philosopher, had once been a Manichaean, and wrote some of the most famous refutations of Manichaeism. Po Chu-i (白居易), the T'ang poet, composed verses on Manichaean doctrines after that religon was introduced into the Chinese capital during the An Lu-shan (安禄山) Rebellion. In neither medieval China nor the medieval West, however, did Manichaeism enjoy any position of honour. Its gnosticism was condemned in both cultures as contradictory to orthodox teachings. Manichaeism thus formed an important undercurrent in both China and the West. Such heretical movements as the Bogomils, the Paulicians, and the Albigensians in medieval Europe, and Maitreya Buddhism and the White Lotus Sect (白莲教), in China, bore close resemblances to the religion of Mani, and were probably inspired by his teachings. Hence, the story of Manichaeism would add greatly not only to our appreciation of Sino-Western relations, but would also enable us to see medieval religious history from a more comprehensive perspective.

The following reading guides give first of all general articles for the uninitiated reader, then more specialised and in-depth accounts in books and articles for the more serious student. They are based on what I read in the library of Indiana University, although most of the items are also readily available in one or another of the major collections in Hong Kong. The paucity of Chinese language studies in these two areas has made it necessary to compile the guides with mostly English language works. A few titles in French and German are included for readers proficient in those languages.

NESTORIANISM
General Introduction
A very brief introduction to Nestorianism can be found in the History of the Catholic Church in China, by Joseph Motte, S. J., translated by 候景文 ,S. J., as「中国天主教史」(Kuangchi, Taichung, 1971), but the account is too brief to give anything but a vague impression. Similar is the article on 'Nestorius' in Macropaedia vol. 12 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Rather more detailed, albeit with a definite Catholic bias, are the three articles entitled 'Nestorian Church', 'Nestorianism', and 'Nestorius' in the New Catholic Encyclopaedia, v. 10. A detailed and theologically more technical account can be found under 'Nestorianism' in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, 1915; 4th impression, 1958), v. 9. This lengthy article concentrates on doctrinal aspects and yields very little information on the history of the movement.

Specialist Works
On the Nestorianism which has survived into modern times, an interesting eye-witness report is George Percy Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals (London, 1852; reprinted 1969, by Gregg International). This book is based on the author's expedition to Mesopotamia and Kurdistan in 1824-44, and is in general very sympathetic to the Nestorians. The first of its two volumes reports on the expedition and the recent history of the Nestorians in the region, while volume 2 is a description and discussion of Nestorian faiths and practices.

On the Nestorians in China, there is no shortage of materials, partly because of the very interesting role of the Nestorians in the diplomatic exchanges between the Mongols and the West. Studies of Nestorianism in China centre to a large extent around the Nestorian monument discovered at Sian (西安) in the 1620's. Almost immediately there was an outpour of historical and propagandistic writings by the Jesuit missionaries as well as by Chinese Christians, and the interest has been revived in the present century. Thus, for example, we have冯承钧「景教碑考」(Shanghai, 1931); Y. Saeki, The Nestorian Monument in China (London, 1916; 1928); G. Schlegel, 'Nestorian Monument at Si-ngan-fu', T'oung Pao, v. A8; L. Giles, 'Notes on the Nestorian Monument at Sianfu', ibid., v. 21; and P. Pelliot, 'Une phrase obscure de 1' inscription de Si-ngan-fu', ibid., v. 28. A faithful and beautiful rubbing of the monument is on permanent display in the library of Chung Chi College, C.U.H.K. The monument, however, is not the only evidence of Nestorianism in China; other relics and documents have also been discovered. Articles in the T'oung Pao faithfully record these discoveries. For example, J. Takakusu, 'The name of Messiah found in a Buddhist book－the Nestorian missionary Adam, Presbyter, Papas of China, translating a Buddhist sutra', v. A7; and A.C. Moule, 'The use of the cross among the Nestorians in China', v. 28. A number of Nestorian crosses found in Mongolia are in the collection of the Fung Ping-shan Museum at the University of Hong Kong.

The study of Nestorianism in China is not limited to topical reports of archaeological finds. There are quite a few comprehensive works, for example，罗香林「唐元二代之景教」(Hong Kong, 1966) narrates not only the spread of Nestorianism in China through seven centuries, the persecution it suffered, and its revival, but also its interactions with Taoism, a seldom treated subject. Y. Saeki, cited above, also has a Japanese work on the decline and fall of Nestorianism in China: 佐伯好郎「中国仁于什了景教衰亡之历史」(1955). A. C. Moule, also noted above, did not think very much of Saeki's critcal ability as demonstrated in the Japanese scholar's earlier book. Moule's own work includes a general history, Christians in China before the year 1550 (19307); and a volume containing corrections and additions to that book, entitled Nestorians in China (London, 1940), in which he regrets both his own rash judgments as well as Saeki 's.

On the history of the Nestorians among the Mongols, Pelliot's classic Les mongols et la papaute (taken from the Revue de 1'Orient chretien, 1923, 24, and 31) is useful as a general introduction. J.A. Montgomery's translation from the Syriac original of The History of Maballaha III, Nestorian Patriarch, and of his Vicar, Bar Sauma (Columbia University Press,1927; reprinted by Octagon Books, 1966) is extrememly interesting both for Nestorianism and for contacts between the extremities of medieval Eurasia. This book also contains a brief but very informative introduction.

On Nestorian history in general, W. C. Emhardt and G. M. Lamsa, The Oldest Christian People (New York, 1926), gives an inside view, as Lamsa was a Kurdish Nestorian. A newer book, The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbours－a Study of Western Influence on their Relations, by John Joseph (Princeton, 1961), opens up an interesting field, but unfortunately limits itself to the more recent centuries.

MANICHAEISM
General Introduction
Better served than Nestorianism, Manichaeism is quite well-covered in the general encyclopaedias. The Britannica contains a long and learned article on 'Manichaeism' (Macropaedia v. 11) by H. C. Puech, an acknowledged expert in the field. The article on 'Manichaeism' in the New Catholic Encyclopaedia (v. 9) is even more substantial, and was written by another expert, J. Ries. Other relevant articles in the NCE include the ones on 'Bogomils' and 'Albigenses', which are brief and informative, and as one would expect, somewhat one-sided. The article entitled ‘Manichaeism’ in the Encyclopaedia of Relgiion and Ethics is again lengthy and technical, but in the present case, sadly outdated, since it was written before the Manichaean documents discovered at Turfan (吐鲁蕃) in Sinkiang could have been properly studied. Another general article, on 'Dualism in philosophy and religion', in the Dictionary of the History of Ideas helps us put Manichaeism and the medieval heresies in broader perspective. Also somewhat outdated but broader in scope is F. Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity (Cambrideg, 1915), of which v. 2, ch. 8, gives a detailed description of the doctrines and history of Manichaeism, as well as its intellectual inheritance from, and legacy for, other religions of the early Christian era. In particular, this work traces the development of various forms of Gnosticism, of which Manichaeism was one.

Specialist Works
Similar in scope to Legge, but more up-to-date and of a less introductory nature, is Alexander Bohlig. Mysterion und Wahrheit, gesammelte Beitrage zur spatantiken Religionsgeschichte (Leiden, Brill, 1968). H. C. Puech, Le manicheisme: son fondateur, sa doctrine (1949) is a classic in the field. F. C. Burkitt, The Religion of the Manichees (Cambridge, 1925), and G. Widengren, Maniund der Manichaismus (Stuttgart, 1961) are also useful general works.

The place of Manichaeism in the thought and religion of the West has provoked a good deal of refutations from the Christian point of view. Frederick Palmer, Heretics, Saints, and Martyrs (Harvard, 1925), ch. 7: 'Mani and Dualism', gives not so much a description of Manichaean dualistic doctrine as a logical discussion of dualism from a Christian, monotheistic angle; it is a very stimulating survey. A. A. Moon, The 'de natura boni' of St. Augustine－a Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (Catholic University of America Press,1955), also contains a systematic examination of Manichaean doctrine in addition to Augustine's refutations. Augustine himself may also be read in his Confessions, of course, and in De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus manichaeorum, translated under the title The Catholic and Manichaean Ways of Life, by Gallagher and Gallegher (Catholic University of America Press, 1966). Other works of the Patristic period, such as Alexander of Lycopolis's Contra Manichaei opinione disputatio and St. Archelaus of Carrha's Hegemonius acta Archelai are also refutations of some importance. From the Middle Ages, Bernard Gui, ed., Manuel de 1 'Inquisiteur (Paris, 1926) gives a medieval treatment of the Catharian variety of Manichaeism.

The medieval heresies that resembled Manichaeism of Antiquity and probably descended from it have received considerable attention. A. S. Tuberville. Medieval Heresy and the Inquisition (1920; London, Archon Books, 1964), ch. 2, gives a general narrative which includes the Bogomils, the Paulicians, and the Cathari, emphasising the last one. D. Obolensky, The Bogomils, a study in Balkan neo-Manichaeism (Cambridge,1948) was a seminal work that brought together the study of the medieval history of the two ends of Europe. Another seminal work is S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee－a study of the Christian dualist heresy (Cambridge, 1955), which has stimulated much rethinking on the meaning of heresy in medieval history.

The study of Manichaeism in Asia, and in fact of Manichaeism in general, has benefitted tremendously from the archaeological discoveries at Turfan in Sinkiang. In this connection may be mentioned A. V. W. Jackson, Researches in Manichaeism, with special reference to the Turfan fragments (New York, 1932). Most of the Turfan documents are in the Sogdian language, an eastern branch of Middle Persian spoken by the Samarkand merchants and missionaries who plied the Silk Route. The work of Professor Mary Boyce has been particularly important for elucidating these texts. The T'oung Pao has carried many studies on Manichaeism in Asia, for example, E. Waldschmidt and W. Lentz, 'Die Stellung Jesu in Manichaeismus', V. 25; A. von Le Coq, 'Ein Manichaisch-uigurisches Fragment aus Indiqut-Schahri ', and 'Fragment einer manichaischen Miniatur', both in v. 9; Haneda Toru, 'Fragment de Manicheens en ouigour, trouves a Turfan', v. 28; E. Peterson, 'Le Manicheisme et le culte de Maitreya', v. 28; and P. Pelliot, 'Le traditions manicheens en Foukien', v. 22. Another article of some general interest, which would be hard to obtain in Hong Kong, is in the Asiatische Studien (Bern), entitled 'Manichaeism, Buddhism, and Christianity in Marco Polo's China', by L. Olschki, 1951. On Manichaean influence on the Bon religion of pre-Buddhist Tibet, there is a discussion in Helmut Hoffman, Die Religionen Tibets, Bon und Lamaismus in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Freiburg-Munchen, 1956).

No discussion of Manichaeism in Asia can leave out E. Chavannes, Manicheisme en Chine, which is available in the Chinese translation by 冯承钧 as「摩尼教流行中国考」. On the influence of Manichaeism as a force in Asian history, Denis Sinor, Inner Asia (Bloomington, Indiana, 1969), is a must. Sinor narrates the role of the Sogdians and discusses the conversion of the Uighur ruler Mou-yu as well as the Manichaeism of the Uighur at Turfan. In this connection, other works listed under the Sogdians in Sinor's Introduction a 1 'etude de l 'Eurasie Centrale (Wiesbaden, 1963) would also be useful. In fact, this critical bibliography would be useful for the study of Nestorianism as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by: Holy Spirit Seminary College

作者：嘉理陵年份：1981

CHRIST AND HOPE:
ELEMENTS FOR A THEOLOGY OF HOPE FROM THE COMMENTARY OF ORIGEN ON THE GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN
Seán Ó Cearbhalláin
Theology Annual vol.5 1981 p.121-158

　

**********

Abstract
The author examines Origen's Commentary from the point of view of Christian hope.

本文從基督徒希望的角挺去探討奧利振的註釋。

**********

　

I INTRODUCTION
The recovery of hope as a pertinent theological category has provided us with a key to much of theological thought. Concern for the future and the relevance of Christianity for that future demands a reexamination of Christian sources. While Moltmann's presentation of a theology of hope would seem to be somewhat onesided in its insistence on Paul to the virtual exclusion of the rest of the New Testament (1), his insights are valuable in making further use of the themes of hope, promise, future, new, etc., in a re-reading of the Scriptures. The present essay attempts to suggest a little of what some of the themes from Origen might have to offer to a theology of hope. Though occasional reference is made to other works, the essay is centred on the Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.

There are two approaches possible in such an essay. A first approach would be a reading of Origen to see what he says specifically about hope: while this would not, of course, be confined to an examination of whatever Origen might say in relation to the word elpis, still the infrequancy of the word in the Johannine writings would be reflected in Origen. The second approach would be to use the category of hope as a heuristic structure: while this involves the danger of finding in Origen what one wishes to find there, it can have the advantage of using a context different from that of Origen himself, in order to highlight a different aspect of his thought. The result would then be a dialogue between Origen and a theologian attempting to enrich a theology of hope from his thought. It is this latter way which we shall attempt to follow here.

The method might be supported from what Origen himself says concerning the Gospel: there is a distinction between the material of the Gospels and the purpose behind them: since all the New Testament writings are to provoke faith in Christ, they are all in some sense gospels(2)－ pointing out Christ, rather than merely announcing him, as the Old Testament writings did (3). Origen's purpose was presumably to teach, and to teach Christ, who is ultimately the only content of the Gospel (4); and Christ is, among many other attributes, not only the 'expected one' (prosdokomenos), he is also the 'hoped-for one' (elpizomenos)(5), as God is the apelpis-menon skepastes (the help of those who despair)(6).Christ is the way upon which we must walk, a way on which we need neither staff nor sandals.(7) But he is also the truth: he not only leads us to that future which is God the Father, he leads us through the Spirit in (or into) the whole truth: and if the future is not true, there is no hope.

II TRUTH, MYSTERY AND HOPE
To seek for Jesus is to seek for logos, sophia, dikaiosyna, aletheia, dynamis Theou.(8) Yet Jesus, composed though he may be of many theoremata. is one(9), for there is one Logos as there is one truth.(10) The wisdom which does not possess the truth is a false wisdom, abusing the very name of wisdom(11). If, in face of an uncertain and indeterminate future, man would lead his life in wisdom, above all in Christian wisdom it is necessary that he incorporate the truth into his life. The truth is the mystery(12), as Christ is the mystery(13), and the Trinity the fundamental mystery(14). That mystery is given in different degrees to different men, but the difference of degree is not a difference in kind, for the truth and the mystery is the same Christ, who is himself autoaletheia and the prototype of the truth found in rational souls (15): truth is a designation (epinoia) of Jesus(16), and Jesus himself is opposed to 'image' as well as to Satan (17), who pretends to be word and truth.

This wisdom which is Christ is not something esoteric: though Origen does speak of ta krypta etc., these terms accent the secret aspect of the mystery and mean rather something which of its nature is hidden, and not something which is 'reserved', to be given only to initiates(18). Again, Origen speaks of Christians and others who cannot, or do not, come to a full understanding of the mystery: the word of God considered as drink may be water or wine or the blood of Christ(19). Still, the certainty that in thus speaking of mysteries Origen is not speaking of a reserve for initiates, is in itself an element for a theology of hope. For while his whole speculative nature might have led him to seek salvation in a Gnosticism which would be so restricted as to leave most of the world in a darkness of despair, his identification of the mysteries as being those of Christ and of the Christian religion understood in its finest depths(20) means that there is hope for all men who, in face of the world, know that it is Christ himself who is the Good Samaritan who will bind up their wounds and keep them(21).

For John, truth is the sphere of divine(22) and hence too, for Origen, truth is the totality of the significance inherent in plural nouns ta mysteria and ta mystika(23) While it may have a more literal meaning, the opposite of error and falsehood, truth is also opposed to eikon, mimema, typos and skia. It is this latter meaning which is contained in the adjective alethinos in the Gospel of John(24).

For Origen, aletheia is the spiritual reality beyond all sensible appearances and, as such, is to be identified with mysterion (25). This can be seen especially in Origen's conception of the relationship between the two testaments; the mysteries of Naaman and the Jordon(26), of Hosea (27), etc., are to be understood in the light of the New Testament, for it is in the promises of the New Testament that the mysteria of the Old Testament are to be found. Yet the mystery is not completely unfolded or proposed in the New Testament, for even the events of the New Testament [Resurrection(28), Incaration(29), Call and Election(30), Death of Christ(3l), Divinity of Christ(32)] contain the mystery or are themselves contained in some statement of Jesus or reference to him: that is, they have a profound meaning which must be sought beyond the statement of the fact. If we may add to Dodd's categories of analeptic and proleptic signs(33) the third category of metaleptic signs(34), we may say that the events we have listed are metaleptic signs, in that they occur simultaneously with their significands: hence they are autologous, not heterologous, signs. Thus the Incaration is itself its own reality, even if that reality be understood in different degrees by Christians: the deeper understanding of this mystery which may be achieved by some is not an understanding of something different from the reality of the Incarnation itself. The Resurrection, too, is not, strictly speaking, a proof of anything: the mystery of the Resurrection points to itself, for the rising of Christ from the dead is the total and self-sufficient meaning of the Resurrection in that this is the very breaking through of Christ's divinity. The nature of metaleptic and autologous signs is better understood when one considers the Washing of the Feet in Jn 13, which Origen says is scene from the life of Christ designating or pointing to another mystery(35). This 'other' mystery, this total truth behind the event, we may take, with Dodd(36), to be the Incarnation, the parabolic reenactment of Phil 2:6f. However we understand it, the Washing of the Feet is heterologous, it is not a sign in and for itself.

The importance of this in relation to a theology of hope is seen when it aids an understanding of what Origen meant by mysterion and helps to ground a true attitude to the world. For the world is not myth. In Origen's thought, myth is to mystery as human invention (plasma) is to divine truth(37). While the world must ever be more of man's making as man progresses in an understanding of what God has given him both as principle and as task to be performed, that world must never be allowed to degenerate into myth, as if the totality of its meaning were ultimately to be derived from man in an absolute sense, or as if the world were to be an autologous sign. Christian hope must look beyond the tendency to myth and see the divine reality which creates the human liberty to make of the world what man wants and at the same time to act as a guarantee that man's effort will not have been in vain, but will indefectibly contain aletheia. Perhaps it is here that we should think of Origen's play on the word kosmos(38). Christ is a kosmos; the Church is the kosmos (ornament) of the kosmos (cosmos). We are close to the expressions and thought of Teilhard de Chardin: 'Christ……compels recognition as a world', and the concept of the Church as the core, the forward arrow of evolution(39). If for St. John it is the truth which will make us free (Jn 8:32), so too for Origen it is the truth, the mysterion, which sets us free, free from history and historicizing(40).

Since for Origen a spiritual person is only seen or known inasmuch as he allows it(41), there is little danger in knowledge of the world resulting in a myth of man's own creation. This has a twofold importance in a theology of hope. First of all, since there is a certain revelation of God in creation, and a definitive one in the Incarnation, we can be sure that the mystery of God confronting us is a divine receptivity opening out into creation. Secondly, no matter how distant the limits seem to be placed, either to human knowledge, or to human progress and enterprise, or even perhaps to human becoming, we can be sure that there is a divine being who is greater than creation, otherwise a complete understanding of the universe would entail a complete understanding of the mystery of God. Hence it is that, while admitting the validity of a natural knowledge of God, Origen is more concerned with a supernatural understanding of the image of God in man than with a natural one(42), for this acknowledges the transcendency of God.

III INCARNATION AND THE CONTEMPORARY CHRIST
Origen's approach to Jesus is incarnational: he even tells us that he went to the Jordan to find. the Bethany where John was baptizing, following in the footsteps of Christ(43). He can also say that the human nature of Jesus consisted precisely in being capable of death(44). His vision of Jesus, however, is not limited to such aspects of the Incarnation: he is taken up with that concern for the 'contemporary Christ' which David Stanley has shown to be an integral part of the New Testament world view(45). Thus, Christ is not only he who took away the sins of the world, nor he who will take them away, but he who here and now and for ever takes, is taking, them away(46); the healing power of Christ is operative in the present(47); he is continually reducing his enemies to make them a footstool under his feet, for this is a process not accomplished all at once (ouk athroos)(48).

This same incarnational dimension of his thought characterizes Origen's teaching on our knowledge of Christ. In a discussion on arche as the principle of science (mathesis) Origen distinguishes between science relative to the nature of an object and science relative to an object quoad nos. He applies this distinction to the knowledge we have of Christ, and affirms that while the principle of a knowledge of Christ in himself is his divinity, the principle of a knowledge of him in our regard is his humanity(49). The humanity of Jesus is the mirror through which the mystery is seen, and it is this mystery made flesh which John the Baptist gives witness to(50), it is the 'shadow of the Logos', whereas the alethinos Logos is the divinity(51)

Since the Father thinks the Son, the Son knows the Father(52) and derives his very existence from his continual and unceasing contemplation of the depths of God(53). It is this unceasing contemplation which is the source of the Son's glory(54) and which, since it involves a communication of himself by the Father, is the meaning of the Son's 'being taught' by the Father (55).

Though we are assured by Jesus that in seeing him we see the Father (Jn. 14:9), the materiality of the body (our own or that of Christ) is a darkness which stretches between God and us, for we do not now have a direct vision of the realities: we do not yet see them dia eidous(56). We can, it is true, prescind from the body for a short time so that we can contemplate the Logos, but such an abstraction cannot last long(57), for we do not attain the spiritual stripped of the sensible(58). This knowledge will be replaced at the end of time by one more kin to that of the angels, symbolized in the angelic manna(59), even though in the highest contemplation of the mysteries of the Logos we shall never be quite oblivious of his Passion and the other aspects of his earthly life(60)－the basis for a certainty in hope that no beauty which we shall ever create, no thought, no harmony, no unique nuance of human love will ever 'die entirely in their flesh', as Teilhard de Chardin puts it (61).

Christ is thus the key of knowledge(62). If we developed this in line with a theology of image in Origen's thought, we should see that not only does Christ in his image of the Father explain the ultimate reality of the human being who is created in the image of God(63). but since self-knowledge is an appropriation of that imaged, Christ in creatures is the ultimate and only key to the universe(65). Christ is thus also the ultimate ground of hope: even considered as Logos or Wisdom that ground of hope is not impersonal, for the Logos-Son or Wisdom-Son is the incorporeal hypostasis made up, even in his unity, of various theoremata containing the logoi of the universe(66), and is none other than Christ the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth. The seed which is sown is the logos of the mystery which was hidden from previous generations (Eph 3:5) and which is eventually revealed by Jesus in that he is the light which renders the Samaritan fields 'bright' for the harvest (Jn 4:35)(67).

It is precisely as the one who reveals the Father that Christ is the key of knowledge. For Origen, 'revelation' has two meanings: it is either the understanding of what is revealed, or the coming-to-be of what is foretold(68). The revelatory function of Christ as expressed in the events of his life is thus twofold. In the first place, these events reveal the mysterion of the divinity of Christ, and the mysterion is noeton as opposed to aistheton(69): what is to be understood in Christ is the mystery of his divinity. In the second place, these events reveal the future destiny of man. Thus the Resurrection of Christ was revelatory of his divinity. At the same time, in being the fulfilment of the scriptures and hence the coming-to-be of the mysterion of the Old Testament, the Resurrection is also promise of what is in store for man(70): the mystery of the third day(71), which in the Old Testament is the day of consolation.

Further, in the revelation of his own divinity, as Logos-God, Christ is the revealer of the Father (Jn 14:9; 8:9; Mt. 11:27) (72). Again, this very revelation is a revelation of the creature to himself, for it is the Father who is the source of the logoi, which he creates in the eternal act of generating the Son, and who is hence the source of the mystery of the creature(73).

While the mystery is Christ, the fundamental mystery is thus seen to be the Trinity: the Father reveals himself in Christ, who is both the Wisdom and the Logos of God. The Father is also revealed in the unveiling of the mystery of the creature which is part of the revelatory work of Christ. Further, the logikos must, inresponse to the Father his Creator, become pneumatikos, docile to the Spirit, so that his understanding of the mystery may be made perfect, for it is only a renovated conscience, one illuminated by the Wisdom of God, that can discern the will of God in all(74).

Yet the mystery of God is not entirely unfolded, since the journey facing man is into a future, a journey which in Origen's thought even transcends death and continues into the eternity of God－much, we might suggest, as the descent of Christ to the earth was not exhausted in the Incarnation but continues even today in fulfilment of the promise 'I am with you all days…… ' (Mt. 28:20) (75). While some may seek an answer to the riddle of the future, and hence to the quest of human hope, in terms of a quies, Origen would seem to place it in a continued journey, no longer perhaps towards the light but in the light.

The mystery out of which God speaks to us now is a darkness, for darkness is not always an evil thing but may serve as the hiding-place of God(76). It is Jesus, the light of men and the light of the world, who dispels the darkness of God, and yet the Incarnation itself is a form of darkness, being a mystery(77): hence the very light of God can be a darkness for man. But one day the partial will be destroyed and there will be no more ignorance, so that man will have 'angelic' knowledge at the end of time and share in 'angelic' adoration in spirit and truth (Jn. 4:23f), without images or shadows, but through intelligible realities(78).

Yet, since the 'hour is coming and now is' (Jn. 4:23) when that adoration takes place, the mystery of God and his creation is not an entire darkness: for Origen, in opposition to Celsus, believed in the validity of analogy, as well as of synthesis (via affirmationis) and of analysis (via negationis) (79), in coming to a knowledge of God. Analogy is valid because there is a similarity (syggenia) between the visible and the invisible(80). Hence he can affirm the reality of knowledge and of that area which is beyond the comprehension of man. This is expressed in various images, such as the lay-out of the Holy of Holies(81). It is also apparent in the different ways in which Origen explains Jn. 21:25, that the world could not contain all the books that might be written about Christ: only the Father is capable of understanding the totality of Christ(82); or some mysteries are inexpressible in human writing or in human speech(83); or in the imagery of the Treasury of the Temple－Jesus taught there, but only those things whose spiritual grandeur could be contained therein(84). There in their different ways all indicate the paradox of the mystery which is inexpressible and yet is noeton, the proper object of understanding(85).

IV CONFORMITY TO CHRIST
If the Christian is to be the hope of the world, it is only in the measure in which he is to be conformed to Christ: faith in Jesus must be such that it penetrates our very substance and directs our actions. Hence if we really believe that Jesus is justice (dikaiosyne), we shall never do what is unjust; if we believe he is Logos, reason, we shall not give ourselves up to that which is unreasonable (alogos); if we believe he is Wisdom, we shall neither do nor say anything foolish. As a programme for hope in the world this is a succinct expression of Christianity: our belief in Jesus as Patience and Fortitude, Wisdom and Power, leads us away from our sins so that we do not die in them. This belief leads us to survive in strength and to be not incapable of the beautiful (ta kala) or, as Crouzel translates it, 'to believe that the good is possible'(86).

While conformity with Christ may seem to be more a Pauline than a Johannine ideal, Origen's concern with the meaning of light in the life of both Christ and the Christian shows how there is here a fruitful category for a Johannine theology of hope. Origen wonders why John the Baptist was sent precisely in order to witness to Jesus as light, and not as life, nor as Word, nor as arche, nor as the subject of any other attribution (epinoia) (87). The dichotomy between light and the other attributes is not quite as rigid as might appear from the question, for it is precisely as light that Christ is the life of men(88). No one who is dead can follow Jesus(89), and he who remains in the darkness of sin remains in deaths(90): death and sin are the same for man(91), as are life and light, thought these latter at least not unequivocally so(92). The designation of Christ as the light of men does not mean exclusively of men(93): he is also the light of the world, and that is a more intense light than the light of men, either because the world is greater than man or different from man(94). As Christ is designated the light of the world from his operation of illuminating it(95), so too the saint is a son of light because his good works shine before men(96). The world cannot possess the fountain of light within itself, and hence the disciple is the light of the world because he brings the light of Christ to it(97).

Here is the basis for a theology of involvement in the world based on the concept of light: the Christian is a source of hope for the world because, even though it is Christ who is the light of the world, he shares this title with the Apostles and the Christian teachers, those who bring the light to others who cannot receive it directly(98).

The optimism of Origen is thus that of the Gospel of John; even thought the darkness persecutes the light, and may even seem to have triumphed over it in Judas ' exit into the night, it is certain that the light cannot be overcome by the darkness, for in its approach it is the light which is victorious(99). Nor is this victory through coming to be denied by what Origen calls the 'dispensation of the physical coming of Christ into our human life (bios) ', where he understands the approach of Jesus to John the Baptist and his disciples in terms of Is. 53:7 and Jer. 11:19 as necessarily a coming to death(100), for it is precisely the death of Jesus which brings life and hence is the hope of mankind. However, he is not such a misty-eyed optimist as to imagine that simply an exposition of the truth will be enough to bring the world to perfection in appropriation of that hope which is Christ. He recognizes the fact that the revelation of the truth may do more harm than good and hence, following the Apostles, he leaves the truth hidden on occasion－a device followed by Christ in teaching the multitudes in parables and later explaining their full significance to the Apostles(101).

This optimism, expressed also somewhat cautiously in the phrase 'to be not incapable of the beautiful', lies at the heart of his doctrine of apokatastasis (102), which was 'no more than a great hope on his part(103); for Christ must really be all things to all and in all, and that in a manner which far surpasses Paul's becoming all things to all men(104). In the doctrine that risen man shall become like the angels(105) there is the same radical optimism, even if it may seem to be based on a depreciation of the materiality of the human being: for Origen does not teach that men will become angels, but that they will become the equal of angels, hence preserving their own being in a great self-transcendence, where man will obviously be close to a full appropriation of that logikos centre of his being, in conformity with the one Logos of the Father, the source and organizing centre of the logoi of all beings(106).

Again, this same optimism grounds Origen's assertion of the evident, almost perceptible or sensible (aisthetos), Providence of God, denied by the Epicureans, which ought to convince one that there is no end different from the good(107).

Conformity to Christ in the light of Providence will imply that the Christian seek out the will of God(108): that will is involved not only in the sending of Christ, but in the sending of the Spirit as well. The perfect man (teleios), the one who has in himself the necessary formation (deousa proparaskeue) (109) to be capable of receiving the divinity of the glorified son in these end times, is the pneumatikos, the one who has opted for the Spirit(110). He is the opposite of the somatikos, and also of the aisthetos. While he is still logikos because of his rapport with the Logos-Son, he is also pneumatikos because of his rapport with the Spirit. Hence, in the last analysis the mystery, in its relation to man, is grace(111). It is the saint, the one whose conversation or citizenship is in heaven, who understands the works of God; for these are hidden from men and can only be understood by the one who enters the world of invisible realities to contemplate face to face the causes of things(112). This contemplation can, of course, only ultimately be achieved in death, so that is some sense there is a key to the mystery of the world in death. It is in face of death that human hope finds its greatest trial. There are indeed two ways of looking at death(113), derived from the two ways of looking at life. There is a life which is indifferent in itself, and in that sense we say that the 'impious' and the brute animals live; and there is a life which is 'hidden with Christ in God' (Col. 3:3), the meaning of life in Christ's predication of that term of himself (Jn. 11:25). Opposed to the first, death would also be indifferent; but opposed to the second, death is that last enemy which Christ is to overcome (1Cor. 15:26). Christ has in fact overcome the world 'Jn. 16:33) and so it is in dying with Christ that we come through victorious, through the mystery of death in the Kingdom, the world of the mystery, of ultimate reality.

There is a reciprocity of knowledge, for while it is true that it is only a knowledge of the mysteries of God which will reveal his works in the world, there is the study of 'physics'(l14) to act as a propaedeutic to the knowledge of God, and hence in itself a religious form of knowledge, a knowledge which shows the vanity of the sensible and the transitory nature of the terrestrial, and yet which is in fact a search for the plan of God in order to insert oneself into it(115).

The delight of God in his creation is a delight in the logoi of creatures(116), and hence ultimately a delight in his own Son, who as Logos is the receptacle of the logoi of creation. This ratio of creatures is not a static thing, it is a force of development, a divine idea, the will of God incarnate in every being(117). If we may correlate several different statements of Origen (without thereby implying that he himself necessarily saw the connection), we might say that 'physics' is a form of self-know-ledge, a seeking after the will of God which is incarnate in oneself, the understanding of the macrocosm through an assimilating understanding of the micrososm which is one-self, for 'physics' derives its validity from the fact that there is only one Word, through there are many 'incarnations' of the word－among them the human soul, the sensible world, the prophetic word(118).

Knowledge of oneself, which constitutes 'the greatest part of wisdom'(119) is, in Origen, a religious not a philosophical task: it is the attaining of the knowledge that one has been created in the image of God. This knowledge is a principle of a more mysterious knowledge, namely that of God himself(120). Though physics is a valid form of knowledge, nevertheless it is less than Scripture, as the two talents are less than the five(121). Hence it is that for Origen only a spiritual understanding of creation can open up the horizons necessary to transcend creation itself, whether in faith or in hope.

Knowledge as a basis for hope and of a Christian concern for the future must not be divorced from the Christian life in the world: if one does not live morally (kalos), one cannot possess the knowledge of God(l22): one must be of God to know God(l23) and this being 'of God' is filiation(124), for in order to know God as Father one must have the attitude of a son towards him, not that of a slave who only knows him as Master(125).

Thus Origen sees that light which the Gospels speak of as being applicable to both knowledge and morality(126): life and light are interchangeable, and yet the life which is in question here is not the life which is common to all logikoi, rational beings, and to the aloga the irrational. It is rather the perfecting of our logos in participation in the first Logos(127). Hence it is that the power of the Logos, that is to say the intensity of true light, increases in proportion to a holy life(128). Sin is an obstacle to light, and so it is a diminishment of the possibility of becoming a child of God: light itself is not in its perception alone a source of sonship, but only a source of its possibility, for true sonship consists in a full comprehension of the words of God(129).

If, again, adoration in spirit and truth is what creates real sonship(130), and if the hour for such adoration is already present here and now, then the task of undoing the works of the devil cannot be left to the eschatological hour of the final victory but must begin now, so that the Christian in the world may prove that he is not a child of the devil(131).

V THE CHURCH: LIGHT, JOY AND HOPE
The Church, the alethinon kai teleioteron soma of Christ(132), is the source of Christ's activity in the world, rather than the individual Christian as such, for it is Christian baptism, the incorporation into the Church, which gives a grasp of religion (taxis tes theosebeias) in all clarity(133). Hence the heretics cannot know either the goodness or the justice of God(134). in a certain sense we may say that the Church is the object of the promises of God, not simply in its earthly existence but in its perfection in heaven: for since all the parts of the earth have been cursed in Adam, the earthly Judea cannot be the promised land: that can only be the heavenly Jerusalem, which is none other than the Church(135).

The Church is the 'true' Jerusalem, where 'true' is to be understood of 'spiritual truth' in the conformity of the symbol to the mystery expressed(136). Hence it is the true and most perfect Body of Christ, in contrast to his historical body and his eucharistic body, which are in fact only images of the true body(137). Thus the Incarnation, as the Eucharist, is for the sake of the Church, to bring it into being. It is in this sense too that the Church can be seen to be the end and purpose of creation, an end which is ultimately no different from Christ himself (138).

As the Christian becomes the light of the world, so too the Church is the light of the world, the kosmos tou kosmou. The light, which was once given to the Jews has now been given to that race (the Church) which shows forth the fruit of light and gives light to the world(139). All who receive the light interiorize it so that they themselves become light(140). The Church will be seen to be the light of men at the end of the world, but even now her influence secretly extends to all men. As Crouzel points out(141), this is not an answer on the part of Origen to the question of the salvation of non-Christians. He is rather pessimistic and hesitant about this, in contrast to the optimism usually accorded his doctrine of apokatastasis. The principle of the Church's universality is that of Christ, who invisible in his divinity is present to every man and is 'extended' (symparekteinomenos ) to the whole world and to every world (142). It is thus the Church's universal task to unveil to mankind the Christ who stands in the midst of them, a task which first fell to John the Baptist.

The Church is the vehicle of eschatological joy and hence of hope, for though in the world we are set about by (eschatological) suffering (thlipsis), we are bidden to have courage, for Christ has overcome the world (Jn.16:33), and so his joy is in us and our joy is made perfect (Jn.15:11). Though Origen's treatment of the Miracle of Cana has disappeared with the lost Book Nine of the Commentary, there are enough scattered references to it to show its importance and to reveal a little of what it might have supplied for a theology of hope through its treatment of joy. His derivation of the name Cana from Hebrew qnh, to obtain etc.(143), is redolent of the Covenant theology of the seghullah (Ex. 19:5f etc.).

Origen seems to have regarded the first Cana miracle as the arche of the signs performed by Jesus, not only in the temporal sense of beginning but in the sense of principle (144). This is again underscored in the various uses he makes of the two comings of Christ to Cana. The first coming to Cana is symbolic of the Incarnation, the second of the Parousia(145). At his first coming, Jesus takes possession of the world, and at his second coming he establishes his possession of all those who believe in the Father through him(146). The first time, he comes to give wine for joy, the second time, to take away what illness remains and the danger of death (147). In comparison with the Samaritan episode (Jesus stayed only two days there) Cana is seen to be one of the signs which share the mystery of the third day(148).

VI CONCLUSION
The importance of the fact that the first word of Jesus in the Gospel of John is a question (Jn. 1:38) is underscored by Origen when he points out that there are six 'words' or sayings of John the Baptist recorded before Jesus takes up the word with 'What do you want?' (149). The perfection of revelation in Jesus, hinted at in this seventh word of the Gospel, confronts man as a question. When man responds by seeking the place where Jesus dwells (ultimately the bosom of the Father Jn.1:18), revelation becomes an invitation: 'Come and see', and the acceptance of the invitation becomes the tenth hour, the sacred time(150). This invitation to come and be with Jesus opens out into the promise at the end of Matthew's Gospel: 'I am with you all days till the end of the world' (Mt. 28:20). The future, then, is one of accompaniment by Christ and not simply one leading to a union in the parousia: there is a difference between being with and being in (151), a difference which could be exploited to reveal the Christian relevance of man's efforts in the world.

This optimism of the presence of Jesus would seem to be belied when Origen asserts that this world can possess nothing of ta ano, since its very creation is a katabole(152). The disciples of Jesus, however, have been taken out of the world and so do not belong to its condition of katabole: in this there lies a hope for the world, for the disciples are taken from the world inasmuch as they take up their cross and follow Jesus(153) and hence live fully according to the Gospel. By doing so they share in the nature of the Gospel: and the Gospel is aparchai in distinction from the Law, which was protogennemata(154). Hence the harvest is over, and sower and reaper may rejoice together (Jn.4:36).

A Theology of Hope would then include a Theology of Joy. It would also include a Theology of Festivals. Origen is puzzled as to why precisely John should say 'the pasch of the Jews ' (Jn. 11:13), and reasons that eventually what the Jews were celebrating was not the Pascha Domini (155). There is to be continually discovered in the Christian life what it means to say 'Christ our Pasch has been immolated' (1Cor. 5:7), and the relation of what is thus asserted to the future. A Theology of Festivals then takes on a profoundly Eucharistic meaning: for the historika are types of the noeta, as the somatika are of the pneumatika, and hence Christ our Pasch is ultimately what is meant by the Pasch of the Old Testament(156). When this is understood in relation to all that Origen has to say about mystery and its presentation in enigma and shadow, we are close to the sacramental dimension of the Christian life, through which the once and future Christ is here and now.

ABBEREVIATIONS
CJ－Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.

Frag－Fragments from the Catenae on the Gospel of St. John. (in GCS IV;481ff).

GCS－Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Drei Jahrhunderte. Herausgegeben von der Kirchenvater-Coimmission der Konigl. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Leipzig 1903.

OCM－Crouzel, H., S.J.: Origene et La Connaissance Mystique. DDB 1960.

PG－Migne: Patres Graeci

　

NOTES
1)Moltmann, J. Theology of Hope. On the Ground and Implication of a Christian Eschatology. (English Translation) London, SCM Press 1967. Cf. O’Collins, G. 'Hope Seeking Understanding' Theology Digest 16(1968) 155-159.

2)CJ I:3(5) GCS IV:7:7ff PG 14:28-29.

3)CJ I:3(5) GCS IV:7:2ff PG 14:28.

4)CJ I:8(10) GCS IV:13:19f PG 14:37. Therefore Jesus is the gift which he brings: CJ I:9(11) GCS IV:14-15 PG 14:40-41.

5)CJ XIII:27 GCS IV:251:23f PG 14:445.

6)CJ XIII:28 GCS IV:252:17 PG 14:448.

7)CJ I:8(10) GCS IV:145ff PG 14:40; CJ I:27(26) GCS IV:34:9ff PG 14:73; CJ VI:19(11) GCS IV:128:24ff PG 14:233.

8)CJ XXXII:31(19) GCS IV:478:27ff PG 14:825.

9)CJ V:5 GCS IV:102:29ff PG 14:192. Cf.also CJ I:34(39) GCS IV:43:20 PG 14:89; CJ II:18(12) GCS IV:75:19 PG 14:145.

10)CJ II:4(4) GCS IV:58:23ff PG 14:136; CH VI:6(3) GCS IV:114:30 PG 14:212.

11)CJ II:4(4) GCS IV:58:25ff PG 14:212.

12)On the identification of aletheia and mysterion in Origen, cf. OCM 26ff. Cf. CJ XIII:17 GCS IV:241:9 PG 14:424.

13)OCM 72.

14)OCM 80. Cf. In Gen. Hom. IV:6 GCS VI:57:20 PG 12:183.

15)CJ VI:6(3) GCS IV:114:22 PG 14:209.

16)Frag IX GCS IV:491:17f.

17)CJ II:7(4) GCS IV:61:13ff PG 14:120.

18)OCM 39-41, for kryptos ktl. Cf.also OCM 36 on aporrhetos.

19)CJ VI:43(26) GCS IV:152:15ff PG 14:276.

20)Cf. OCM 33, and below Notes 28-32.

21)CJ XX:35(28) GCS IV:374:25ff PG 14:656.

22)Bultmann, R. Article on Aletheia, TWNT 1:254; The Gospel of John: A Commentary (English Translation, Oxford, Blackwell, 1971), 53 note 1, etc. Brown, R.E. The Gospel According to St. John I-XII (London, Chapman, 1966, 1971), Anchor Bible Vol.29, 499.

23)CJ XIII:17 GCS IV:241:9 PG 14:424: aletheia opposed to plasma, mysterion opposed to plasma, mysterion opposed to mythos, cf. OCM 33. CJ II:4(4) GCS IV:58:20ff PG 14:116 for the proof that there is only one truth; CJ VI:6(3) GCS IV:114:20ff PG 14:212 on the truth of Christ (who is autoaletheia) as the source of all truth.

24)Frag VI GCS IV:488:14ff. CJ II:6(4) GCS IV:60:15f PG 14:120.

25)Contra Celsm IV:38 GCS I:310:26 PG 11:1090.

26)The Jordan was a figure of Christ: it was not the prophet but the Jordan which cured Naaman, as it was not the prophet but Christ who could heal with a word, CJ VI:47(28) GCS IV:156:2ff PG 14:281. The Jordan, whose name means descent CJ VI:47(28) GCS IV:156:32 PG 14:281, is a figure, typos, of the word who descended to our level CJ VI:46(28) GCS IV:155:23f PG 14:280.

27)Hosea means 'saved', and the prophet received a mystikos logos CJ II:1 GCS IV:52:19ff PG 14:105.

28)The Resurrection of the Christ who suffered on the Cross contains the mystery of the resurrection of the whole Body of Christ, CJ X:35(20) GCS IV:209:31f PG 14:372.

29)On the sandals of Jesus as symbolic of the Incarnation and the Descent into Sheol, CJ VI:34(18) GCS:143:33ff PG 14:260.

30)The mystery of Call and Election is signified in the food of the great feast, LK 14:1 16f, CJ XIII:34 GCS IV:259:27f PG 14:460.

31)The mystery of Christ's death, Frag XC GCS IV:553:19f.

32)The mystery of the Divinity of Christ, CJ VI:35(18) GCS VI:144:19f PG 14:260.

33)Dodd, C.H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. (Cambridge, University Press, 1953 1970), 370 note 1, 371, 401f.

34)For the word metalepsis, cf 1Tim 4:3.

35)CJ XXXII:2 GCS IV:427:25 PG 14:744 (mysterion). The Footwashing is also a symbolon, CJ XXXII:8(6) GCS IV:438:1 PG 14:761, which is to be explained in reference to Is 52:7 ('How beautiful……are the feet of one who brings good news'), ibid. and CJ XXXII:7(6) GCS IV:436:30ff PG 14:760.

36)Dodd, op.cit, 401.

37)OCM 29. CJ XIII:17 GCS IV:241:9 PG 14:424. Cf. also note 23 above.

38)CJ VI:59(38) GCS IV:167:21ff PG 14:301.

39)Teilhard de Chardin, P. Le Pretre (1918, unpublished); cited in Hymn of the Universe, (Collins, Fontana Books, 1971), 139. Cf. CJ XIX:22(5) GCS IV:324:4f PG 14:568, whether the Firstborn of all creation could be a world (Kosmos). Also, Le Milieu Divin, passim.

40)Origen thus speaks of the spiritual meaning behind apparently insignificant details of geography and history. Cf. below on Cana. Also, OCM 69ff.

41)OCM 112. In Luc. Hom.III GCS IX:19:14ff PG 13:1808.

42)OCM 129.

43)CJ Vl:40(24) GCS IV:149:10ff PG 14:269.

44)CJ X:6(4) GCS IV:176:7 PG 14:316.

45)Stanley, D.M. 'The Quest of the Son of Man', The Way '(1968) 3-17.

46)CJ I:32(37) GCS IV:42:2ff PG 14:88.

47)In Cant. Hem. II:4 GCS VIII:48:15f PG 13:51

48)CJ VI:57(37) GCS IV:166:9ff PG 14:300.

49)CJ I:18(20) GCS IV:22:27ff PG 14:53. Cf. OCN 73.

50)CJ II:37(30) GCS IV:97:2ff PG 14:184.

51)CJ II:6(4) GCS IV:60:19ff PG 14:120.

52)Frag XIII GCS IV:495:24f.

53)CJ II:2 GOS IV:55:7f PG 14:109.

54)CJ XXXII:28(18) GCS IV:473:10ff PG 14:817.

55)CJ II:18(12) GCS IV:75:25f PG 14:145-148.

56)CJ XIII: 53(52) GCS IV:282:llff PG 14:497; dia eidous opposed to ' in a mirror or enigma', CJ X:43(27) GCS IV:222:20ff PG 14:395. Cf. OCM 103, 350.

57)CJ VI:52(33) GCS IV:161:16ff PG 14:292.

58)CJ XIII:40 GCS IV:265:26ff PG 14:469.

59)CJ X:18(13) GCS IV:189:20f PG 14:337.

60)CJ II:8(4) GCS IV:62:24ff PG 14:121-124.

61)Le Milieu Divin, (Collins, Fontana Books 1964 1971), 55.

62)OCM 72.

63)CJ I:17(19) GCS IV:22:19ff PG 14:53, understanding arche as 'principle', not as 'beginning'.

64)Christ, who is in the Saints and is the image through which men are conformed to God, is the creator of truth in us, as he is autoaletheia, CJ VI:6(3) GCS IV:114:20ff, 115:16ff PG 14:209, 212. Cf. also OCM 64f.

65)CJ Vl:34(18) GCS IV:143:34ff PG 14:260.

66)CJ I:34(39) GCS IV:43:20ff PG 14:90; CJ II: 18(12) GCS IV:75:18ff PG 14:145.

67)CJ XIII:46(46) GCS IV:273:lff PG 14:481.

68)CJ VI:5(2) GCS IV:112:3ff PG 14:205-208; the mystery is made manifest in the writings of the prophets and in the coming of Christ CJ XIII: 17 GCS IV: 241: 1ff PG 14:424.

69)OCM 41-43 on nous, noetos.

70)CJ X:35(20) GCS IV:209:32ff PG 14:372: hence Paul's 'we are risen with him' (Rom 6:5) is an arrhabon.

71)Samaria contrasted with Cana: CJ XIII:52(51) GCS IV: 280:31ff PG 14:496. The image of the third day is frequent in Origen, OCM 78.

72)Cf. Frag XCIII GCS IV:556-557 on Jn 12:44, 'Whoever believes in me, believes not in mebut in the one who sent me'. For a discussion of the difference between knowing God and believing in God, CJ XIX:4-6(1) GCS IV: 302ff PG 14:529ff.

73)Cf. about, note 63. Also: the Spirit descends upon the Lord and upon ' the Lord who is in each one', CJ X:28(18) GCS IV:201:18f PG 14:357. Cf. also OCM 80, 109.

74)OCM 80f. Com. In Rom IX:1 PG 14:1207.

75)In Cant. Horn. II:4 GCS VIII:48:17ff PG13: 51. Cf. OCM 190, 465ff.

76)CJ II:28(23) GCS IV:84:27ff PG 14:102-105.

77)Frag XVIII GCS IV:498. Cf. CJ VI:35(18) GCS IV:144:5ff PG 14:257-260, on the image of the sandals of Christ. Compare CJ XIX: 6(1) GCS IV:205:17ff PG 14:536 on Christ as ‘steps’ leading to a knowledge of God, the lowest being his humanity.

78)CJ X:18(13) GCS IV:189:21f PG 14:337.

79)OCM 127.

80)OCM 106. In Lev. Horn. V: l GCS VI: 333:14 (Latin), 25 (Greek, Philoc., 30) PG 12:447.

81)CJ XIX:6(1) GCS IV:305:17ff PG 14:536.

82)Peri Archon 11:6:1 GCS V:140:9 PG 11:210.

83)CJ XIII GCS IV:230:3ff PG 14:405. Cf. CJ XX: 34(27) GCS IV:372:18ff PG 14:652.

84)CJ XIX:10(2) GCS IV:309:24ff PG 14:544.

85)OCM 41-43, 85.

86)OCM 445. CJ XIX:23(6) GCS IV:325:5ff PG 14: 569-572.

87)CJ II:37(30) GCS IV:96:17ff PG 14:181.

88)CJ II:18(12) GCS IV:75:30 PG 14:148.

89)CJ XIX:13(3) GCS IV:313:13 PG 14:549.

90)CJ II:20(14) GCS IV:76:33f PG 14:149.

91)CJ II:20(14) GCS IV:77:19ff PG 14:149. Cf. the translation given in Sources Chretiennes, Vol. 120 (1966, Ed. Cecile Blanc), 299: '……celle de la mort qui est la meme chose queles tenebres des homines'. PG seems to understand the phrase differently: '…..ad hancmortem in tenebris' (loc. cit.).

92)CJ II:23(18) GCS IV:80:24f, 30f PG 14:156.

93)CJ II:22(16) GCS IV:78:16ff PG 14:151.

94)CJ I:26(24) GCS IV:31:29ff PG 14:69.

95)CJ I:37(42) GCS IV:47;15f PG 14:96.

96)CJ II:1 GCS IV:53:2ff PG 14:105.

97)CJ I:25(24) GCS IV:31:13ff PG 14:68.

98)CJ I:25(24) GCS IV:31:8ff PG 14:68. Cf. also CJ I:26(24) GCS IV:32:8ff PG 14:69.

99)CJ II:27(22) GCS IV:84;13ff PG 14:162. Cf. also CJ XIX:10(2) GCS IV:309:29ff PG 14:544 on the necessity of silence (i.e. withdrawal) in the presence of Pilate in order that Jesus might make it possible for his enemies to prevail over him so that he might die for mankind.

100)CJ VI:53(35) GCS IV:161:30ff PG 14:292.

101)CJ XXXII :24(16) GCS IV:468:16ff PG 14:809－a distinction between Moi haplousteroi and hoi bathuteron akouein memathekotes.

102)'To be not incapable of the beautiful': CJ XIX:23(6) GCS IV:325:24f PG 14:572. Apokatastasis: CJ I:16 GCS IV:20:11f PG 14:49, where it is linked with Christ's victory over death, the last enemy (1Cor 15:25f). In CJ X:42(26) GCS IV;219:29 PG 14:389, it is used for the restoration of the Jews after captivity.

103)Crouzel, H. Article: 'Origen and Origenism', NewCathEnc 10:772a.

104)CJ XX:35(28) GCS IV:374:31f PGI4:656.

105)Comm. In Matth. XVII:30 GCS X:671:19 PG 13:1568f

106)Cf. CJ II:18(12) GCS IV:75:19 PG 14:145 on the Logos as systema theorematon.

107)CJ II:3 GCS IV:57:6f PG 14:113. Cf. Sources Chretiennes, Vol. 120, 226 note 1.

108)OCM 51, 54.

109)CJ I:7(9) GCS IV:12:7 PG 14:36.

110)OCM 44.

111)OCM 46.

112)Peri Archon II:11:4 GCS V:187:4 PG 11:243; Ib., II:11:5 GCS V: 188: 1ff PG 11:244f: knowledge of all rationes will be given us on returning to Christ.

113)CJ XX:39(31) GCS IV:380:27ff PG 14:665.

114)Comm. In Cant. Prol. GCS VIII:75:19ff PG 13:73.

115)OCM 51, 54.

116)CJ XIII:42 GCS IV:268:23ff PG 14:473.

117)Peri Archon II:11:4 GCS V: 187:10f PG II:243.

118)Cf. CJ X:24(16) GCS IV:196:20f PG 14:349 on the human soul; CJ II:1 GCS IV: 52:16 PG 14:105, Frag. Matth. 506 GCS XII: 208 PG 13:1705 on the prophetic word.

119)In Ex. Hom. III:2 GCS VI:162:16 PG 12:310.

120)OCM 64. Comm. In Rom. I:16 PG 14:863.

121)Frag. Matth. 506 GCS XII:208 PG 13:1705.

122)CJ XIX:3(1) GCS IV:300:32 PG 14:528.

123)CJ XIX:20 (5) GCS IV:321:18 PG 14:564.

124)CJ XIX:6(1) GCS IV:304:30ff PG 14:536. Cf. CJ 1:16 GCS IV:20:15ff PG 14:49－the blessed are transformed into sons.

125)CJ XIX:5(1) GCS IV:303:23f PG 14:533.

126)Cf. CJ Vl:19(11) GCS IV:128:7ff PG 14:233, where light is linked with he hodos he agathe.

127)CJ II:24(19) GCS IV:81:12ff PG 14:156. Cf. also CJ XX:39(31) GCS IV:380:22ff PG 14:665.

128)OCM 137.

129)CJ XX:33(27) GCS IV:370:16ff PG 14:648.

130)CJ XIII:16 GCS IV:240:23ff PG 14:424.

131)CJ XX:13 GCS IV:342:28ff PG 14:601.

132)CJ X:36(20) GCS IV;210:32 PG 14:373.

133)CJ VI:44(26) GCS IV:153:26 PG 14:277.

134)CJ I:35(40) GCS IV:44:32ff PG 14:92.

135)Contra Celsum VII:29 GCS II:180:4ff PG II:1462f.

136)OCM 34. Cf. CJ VI:42(35) GCS IV:151:24ff PG 14:273, where the City of God is the unspotted Church of God and not the sensible (aisthetos) Jerusalem.

137)The Body of Christ, like the Temple, is a typos of the Church, CJ X:35(20) GCS IV: 209:16ff PG 14:369. The aistheton soma of Christ, nailed to the Cross, is contrasted with the holon soma of Christ, the Church, CJ X:35(20) GCS IV:210:1ff PG 14:373.

138)The Gospel is of Jesus Christ, the head of that Body which is to be saved, namely the Church, CJ I:13(14) GCS IV:18:10ff PG 14:45.

139)Frag XCI GCS IV:554:10ff.

140)Frag XLII GCS IV:517:21.

141)OCM 144.

142)CJ VI:30(15) GCS IV:140:11f PG 14:252.

143)CJ XIII:62(60) GCS IV:294:28f PG 14:517.

144)Origen knew of this distinction and used it, CJ XIII:37 GCS IV:262:35-263:1f PG 14:464. Cf. also his distinction between Christ as Alpha and Omega and as Beginning and End, CJ I:31(34) GCS IV:38:1ff PG 14:80; Jesus is Beginning as Wisdom, but not as Logos, CJ I:31(34) GCS IV:39:21ff PG 14:84.

145)CJ XIII:57(56) GCS IV:287:27ff PG 14:508.

146)CJ XIII:57(56) GCS IV:288:8f PG 14:508.

147)CJ XIII:57(56) GCS IV:288:2ff PG 14:508.

148)CJ XIII:52(51) GCS IV:280:31ff PG 14:496.

149)CJ II:35(29) GCS IV:93:25-95:1 PG 14:177-180.

150)CJ II:36(29) GCS IV:95:9ff PG 14:180.

151)CJ X:10(8) GCS IV:179:28ff PG 14:321.

152)CJ XIX:22(5) GCS IV:324:17ff PG 14:568-569.

153)CJ XIX:22(5) GCS IV:324:23 PG 14:569.

154)CJ I:2(4) GCS IV:8:8ff PG 14:25-28.

155)CJ X:13-14(11) GCS IV:183-185 PG 14:328-332.

156)CJ X:18(13) GCS IV:189:25ff PG 14:337-340.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared by: Holy Spirit Seminary College

作者：祈士真 Casey, John J. 年份：1981

THE CONFESSOR AS MEDIATOR BETWEEN MAGISTERIUM AND CONSCIENCE

(A Contemporary Role)

Of all the sacraments in the Church, the most complex in its execution is the Sacrament of Penance. Like any of the other sacraments, of course, it demands an empowered minister and a capable recipient. But whereas the other sacraments demand simply the desire to do what the Church does on the part of the minister and simply the desire to receive the specific sacrament on the part of the recipient, Penance has a number of added conditions that are to be met by both the recipient and the minister before the sacrament in its entirety becomes an accomplished fact. On the part of the recipient, these are summed up under the aspect of conversion of heart whereby in the acts of contrition, confession and promised satisfaction, he clearly indicates to the minister that this is the case. On the part of the minister, all are summed up under the aspect of spiritual judge whereby he must make the decision to pronounce absolution under the power of the keys and must levy a penance that will be salutary for the recipient.

What this means in practice, then, is that the Sacrament of Penance on both the part of the minister and the part of the recipient demands a level of sophistication that none of the other sacraments demands. Historically this demand has meant much for the intellectual training of the diocesan priesthood. Anyone who is at all acquainted with the history of the development of seminaries after the Council of Trent is aware of the fact that the Council's call for the better administration and reception of this sacrament was the single most powerful influence on the development of the seminary theology course that became in time the standard course.(1) But while the minister of the sacrament was trained, the recipient of the sacrament was left at a relatively low level of understanding for some time.

The prevailing mentality in the Church was that a well trained ministry would take care of the needs of both the minister and the recipient of the sacrament. That is, the minister would be well versed in the understanding of both roles and the recipient accepting the minister as an expert, would simply follow his directions in preparing for and carrying out a proper reception of the Sacrament of Penance. For a long time this system was perfectly adequate and still is in some parts of the world today. But during the present century, this system started to break down in many places. The reason was that the ordinary recipient of the sacrament began to be better informed thanks to rapidly advancing Catholic educational opportunities, and under this impetus he began to realize that he was capable of developing his own expertize for his role in the Sacrament of Penance. What was a timid recognition at first, was given a powerful boost by the lengthy controversy in the Church over the use of conjugal love, commonly known as the Birth Control Controversy.(2)

It was Pope Paul VI who officially recognized the personal competence of the recipient of the Sacrament of Penance in this regard while attempting to safeguard the role of the Hierarchical Magisterium. In an allocation to the cardinals of 23rd June, 1964, he said the following:－

The Church recognizes manifold aspects of the problem (Of birth control), that is to say, the manifold areas of competence, among which is certainly preeminent that of the spouses themselves, that of their liberty, of their conscience, of their love, of their duty. But the Church must also affirm hers, that is to say, that of the law of God, which she interprets, teaches, promotes and defends……(3)

Such a statement clearly indicates the competency of the recipient of the Sacrament of Penance in his role and recognizes a potential area of conflict between the magisterium and the individual concience.

The tension between the magisterium and the individual conscience frequently leads to a feeling of inadequacy among confessors in fulfilling their role as judge. Caught between a determined magisterium and an equally determined laity, both of whom have legitimate areas of competence on a moral question, the confessor seems to be left without a personal role in the dispute. On the one hand, the magisterium is reminding him that he is a minister of the Church and that he must follow its teachings; on the other hand his penitents remind him that he must respect their freedom of conscience. What is he to do?

In an attempt to solve this dilemma, confessors sometimes have taken strict sides. But this course of action is hardly a satisfactory one because it tends to alienation. On the one hand when the confessor authoritatively takes the side of the magisterium, he only serves to alienate his penitents from himself and from the Sacrament of Penance. On the other hand when he cavalierly takes the side of a penitent, he only serves to alienate him from the magisterium of the Church and perhaps is even a cause of his loosing all respect for the teaching authority of the Church. Either position is always a disaster.

The obvious answer to this dilemma is to recognize that the confessor of today is called upon to exercise a completely new role in his penitential ministry, namely that of mediator between the magisterium and the individual conscience. In this role, the confessor cannot take sides which would alienate; rather he must seek to heal division by bringing both sides together in an effective penitential situation. Since this is a recent role thrust upon the confessor, unfortunately sacramental theology texts and manuals are usually unacquainted with it. As a result, as yet little printed direction is offered to the confessor. But there are two things that he must have a clear understanding of; first that this is indeed a valid role springing from the nature of the sacrament itself and second that to fulfill this role properly calls for serious intellectual study rather than simply pastoral counseling techniques.

The validity of the new role as springing from the very nature of the Sacrament of Penance itself, unfolds from the history of the sacrament. In the early days of the Church, the sacrament was a rare occasion in the life of a Christian. It was celebrated with great solemnity and severity for serious sinners who by their sin had cut themselves off from the life of the Church. In such a context, the category of serious sins was understandably small－idolatry, murder and adultery being the original triad of mortal sins.(4) Given the social structure of the time in both the larger society as well as the Church community, such sins were never secret. Thus the culprit stood accused in the sight of all and he did his penance in the sight of all.

As the Church's awareness of the richness of the Sacrament of Penance grew, the catalogue of sins to be penanced began to become more complex and with it the role of the penitent. A larger list of sins meant that many faults were no longer public knowledge and to disclose them could well have had harmful effects for the penitent. As a result, the sacrament began to take on a double form; one the public form for public sins and the other the private form for private or secret sins. In the first form, the sinner stood accused by the very public nature of his faults and he approached the tribunal of penance simply as a culprit seeking forgiveness. With secret confession, however, the sinner took on an added role, that of accuser as well as culprit seeking forgiveness. Meantime the role of minister remained the same, that of judge primarily of the salutary penance to be given to rectify or bring back into proper balance the life of the sinner that had been disordered by his fault. With the passage of time, secret confession became the rule and public penance gradually disappeared except in extraordinary cases. At the present time, even in these cases it is hardly an effective measure in the life of the Church.

The development of theology in the middle ages added greater sophistication to the understanding of the dynamics of the Sacrament of Penance. Under theological analysis it came to be understood that Penance consisted of certain material elements and certain formal elements neither of which could be separated from the other if the sacrament was to be integral. The accuser-accused role of the penitent was understood to consist in three concrete acts; contrition, confession and satisfaction. The judgmental role of the confessor then shifted somewhat to be seen as consisting primarily in the decision as to whether or not the penitent fulfilled these acts that were necessary for an integral sacrament to be confected.

From the time of the Council of Trent up to the present, the essential form of the Sacrament of Penance and the essential acts of the penitent and confessor have remained unchanged. But at the same time there has been a great development in the understanding of what the dynamics are whereby one accuses himself of sin. Put simply, it was the task of the moral theologian to clarify classes and types of sins so that the penitent in examining his conscience would know what material he should accuse himself of. If he were not certain, then he would have to make a judgment of conscience but he was also given detailed instruction on how this was to be done. As mentioned above, the system worked well for a number of years－in fact until the advances of technology began to pose new problems for old situations. One of these, of course, was the birth control problem.

What made the kind of a problem that birth control offers such a celebrated one was a certain shift in the way that the Church had been addressing such problems. For a long time in the history of the Church, moral problems were given solutions by theologians. If the solution arrived at was judged by the Church to be an improper one, then that solution would be set aside and corrected by the teaching authority of the Church. Thus in practice the positive magisterium of the Church consisted of theologians whereas the negative magisterium consisted of the hierarchical teaching authority. In serious times and for serious questions, this latter authority acted through a general council.

During the nineteenth century and particularly after the defining of the dogma of papal infallibility, the hierarchical magisterium of the Church came to assume a position of prominence in the solution to moral questions. Thus in response to modern birth control questions, it has not been moral theologians in a slow developmental way but rather papal pronouncements that have constituted the positive teaching authority of the Church. On the one hand this system has benefitted the Church in so far as it has given quick, decisive answers but on the other hand the mode of presentation－parent to child tradition－and the sense of finality of a papal statement the continuing infallibiliy discussion－have made it difficult for an increasingly educated adult laity to adjust. In practice this is experienced particularly in the penitent's role of accuser in confession.

The difficulty that the penitent has in integrating magisterial statements on morality into a proper framework in his role of self-accuser in the Sacrament of Penance, of its very nature calls for a counter response on the part of the confessor. By virtue of his role as judge of the integrity of the acts of the penitent, he is therefore obliged to mediate between the magisterium and the conscience. Perhaps some might say that this is not true mediation because the confessor in the actual context of the Sacrament of Penance is in contact with only one party and therefore the usual give-and-take of the mediating situation is impossible. Thus the role of the confessor in this situation is no more that that of a persuader of the one side that can change (the conscience) to adapt itself to the side that is unchangeable (the magisterium). However, this obviously is not the case.

The confessor in his role of judge in the Sacrament of Penance does not act by virtue of delegated authority; rather he acts by virtue of a power that comes to him directly from Christ through his ordination. Once the Church gives him the care of souls through office or delegated jurisdiction, he exercises a power that is his directly and does not depend for its execution on any other person in the Church. Since the exercise of such a power contains within it all the means necessary to carry it to its fulfillment, the confessor in the opere operanti of the Sacrament of Penance becomes in his role as mediator the authentic interpreter of the teachings of Christ and a fortiori of the magisterial teaching of the Church. He thus plays an active role as the representative of the magisterium with full power to interpret for the magisterium. In fact, when he exercises this role properly it may even be said that he partakes of the infallibility that is implicit in the Church In so far as the penitent need not fear that the interpretation he receives will be detrimental to his salvation. However, it must also be clearly understood that since this charism of the confessor flows from the integrity of particular penitential situations, the interpretations that he makes of the teachings of Christ or the magisterium of the Church are valid only for the individual sacramental situation connected with that interpretation. In short, the confessor in his role as magisterial mediator with the individual conscience does not in any way modify the objective magisterial teachings of the Church.

But as mentioned above, the proper fulfillment of the role of mediator on the part of the confessor demands a deep knowledge of magisterial decrees. In the question of birth control, this would be the encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope Paul VI, HUMANAE VITAE.(5) And just as Pope Paul made use of mature reflection and assiduous prayers in arriving at his conclusion, so the confessor must do the same. He should be able to penetrate behind the words (what is stated) in order to arrive at the heart of the message (what is affirmed). HUMANAE VITAE is not a difficult document but a very clear one. Arguments against it fall into two categories; the first of these is that the teachings put forward in the encyclical are based on an inadequate conception of the natural law and the second is that the teachings do not do justice to the integrity of the human person.(6) It is not the purpose of this paper to criticize these points but suffice it to say that the author sees them as the result of a focus on the words of the encyclical (what is stated) rather than a focus on the real message (what is affirmed). The confessors' primary interest must be on the message.

A careful study of the text of HUMANAE VITATE reveals very clearly that the intent of the encyclical was to safeguard the essential nature of conjugal love. Therefore anything that would violate this essential nature－that is, remove entirely from acts of conjugal love any reference to its life-giving aspect－would be a serious disturbance of a natural order that both revelation and human reason have recognized as a sine qua non of the human condition. In its absolute understanding, it clearly affirms a basic human life-style－the family in its root sense－and it clearly denies the validity of contrary life-styles like homosexual marriage. This absolute under-standing that the confessor takes from the document, becomes the principle from which his mediation between the magisterium and the individual conscience in the Sacrament of Penance will flow.

It is important that the confessor understand the intent of HUMANAE VITAE as a principle and not as a law. Catholic moral theology from the very earliest days of its development has exhibited a marked tendency to reduce Christian conduct to a series of laws which establish a criterion outside of as well as prior to any act the Christian may perform. The law, then, simply provides a blue-print of rectitude of conduct whereby one simply forms his conscience by comparing his conduct to the blueprint. In this examination he ticks off as sin whatever in his conduct does not correspond to the outline in the blueprint. The confessor must understand that the need for his role as mediator became necessary precisely because such a reduction of Christian conduct is largely rejected by recipients of the Sacraments of Penance today and specifically in their role of self-accuser.

A principle, on the other hand, while establishing a criterion outside any act the Christian may perform, does not establish a criterion prior to the act. What this means is the principle is a part of the act itself, enhancing or vitiating the perfection of the act. Principles in regard to human conduct, then, are concerned with virtues rather than laws and it is within this context that the confessor mediates between the magisterium and the individual conscience. In the question of birth control, the mediation will concern the affirmation or denial of basic human dignity in the conduct of ones conjugal life from both the standpoint of the individual and the standpoint of the principle, both of which enter into the one act.

In summation, then, the birth control problem gives a prime example of the role of the confessor as a mediator between the magisterium and the individual conscience. And as more sophisticated moral problems arise which make greater demands on the penitent in his role of self-accuser, the confessor's role will 'obviously also become more demanding. One might well ask, then, if new moral problems will continue to make the roles of the confessor and the recipient of the sacrament increasingly more complicated to the point where Penance will become a meaningful sacrament only for the best educated. It is the opinion of this writer that such will never be the case. New moral problems are not new in the strict sense but rather new variations on a theme. And the history of moral problems has shown that they wax and wane in accord with the times. But that is another study.

　

　

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beekle, Franz. 'Bibliographical Survey on the Question of Birth Control' CONCILIUM Vol. 5 No. 1 (May, 1965) 53-69.

Cardegna, Felix F. 'Contraception the Pill and Responsible Parenthood' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 25 No. 4 (December, 1964) 611-636.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH Vaticana: Typographia Polyglotta, 1968.

Flynn, Fred. 'Humanae Vitae and Natural Law' PRIEST 25(1969) 81-88.

Kelly, Gerald. 'Pope Pius XII and the Principle of Totality' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 16 No. 3 (September, 1955) 373-396.

Mahone, John. 'Understanding the Encyclical' MONTH 226(1968) 233-244.

Palmer, Paul F. SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY VOL. II: SACRAMENTS AND FORGIVENESS London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1959.

Reed, John J. 'National Law, Theology and the Church' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 26 No. 1 (March, 1965) 40-64.

Springer, Robert H. 'Notes on Moral Theology' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 30 No. 2 (June, 1969) 249-288.

Vereecke, Louis. STORIA DELLA THEOLOGIA MORALE MODERNA VOL. II Roma: Accademia Alfonsiana, 1980.

1)Cf. Louis Vereecke, STORIA DELLA THEOLOGIA MORALE MODEKNA, VOL. II (Roma: Academia Alfonsiana, 1980), pp. 113-122.

2)An excellent survey of this appeared in Franz Bockle 'Bibliographical Survey on the Question of Birth Control' CONCILIUM Vol. 15 No.1 (May, 1965) 53-69. The statement made by the chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Conference at the 1980 Synod of Bishops in Rome showed that the situation outlined in the article had not changed in the last fifteen years.

3)Cf. Paul VI, Allocation to the Cardinals, 23rd June, 1964; ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 56(156(1964) 588-89.

4)Cf. Paul F. Palmer, SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY VOL . II: SACRAMENTS AND FORGIVENESS (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1959), pp. 66-67.

5)Cf. the official English translation of HUMANAE VITAE. EN CYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH (Vaticana: Tipografia Polyglotta, 1968).

6)Cf. Robert H. Springer, 'Notes on Moral Theology' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Vol. 30 No. 2 (June, 1969) 249-288.

作者：刘赛眉年份：1982

(一)古代近东民族中「言」的概念：

(1)米索不达米亚的神话

从米索不达米亚的神话中，可见到神的话是充满能力的。当面对神的话时，人无能予以抗拒。此外，神的话亦具有创造的能力，使到万物存在及赋予生命。神的话又能决定人的命运，只要神的话一出口，人的命运就决定了，不能改变。

在米索不达米亚，神的话的能力与魔术性的言语相似。魔术性的话本身具有一种催迫人的力量，它不仅是一句命令的话，它的能力比一句命令的话更有力，能够驱除一切障碍直达它所要达到的目标。而神的话亦拥有这样的性质，它能够创造出它所表征的内涵。

(2)埃及的神话

在埃及地方，人们对「话」的信仰，主要是在「名字」上(name)。他们认为，名字所包含的是一个存在的事实。每一件事物皆有其名字。为他们看来，没有名字的东西是不可理解、不可领会的，因此也不是真实的。

当神呼唤一个名字时，这名字所代表的事物立刻存在。他们又认为，名字是由「心」形成，而他们所认识的心：就是思想的器官，而非感觉的器官；而话就是宣布那由心所形成的事实名字。因此，当创造之神呼唤一个名字时，此名字里面就存在着一个事实。

古经的天主之言的描述，亦受到了近东文化之影响。在创世纪中，天主呼唤了亚当与厄娃的名字，因此，亚当与厄娃亦由天主的话所创造。在依撒意亚先知书中，天主又说：「我叫了你的名字，你在我眼中是宝贵的。」(见依四十三：1－4)

(二)希伯来人思想中的「言」：

一方面，希伯来人思想中的「言」，与近东神话中的言，其意义有基本的差别。但另一方面，希伯来的思想的确颇受古代近东文化之影响，现且把二者之异同略述，如下：

希伯来人也如同近东的民族一样，视「言」具有能力，而这种思想是现代文明思想所没有的。希伯来人之所以相信「话」具有能力并非是出于迷信魔术，而是反映出在未有书写文字来保存口传的话的「前文化时期」。(preliterary culture)他们相信话是永久的事实，特别是一些在许诺、盟约、和命令等方式下所表达出来的话。「话」并非一空的概念，而是把人内心所孕育的事实表达出来。

在古经中，话的能力特别是出现在「祝福」及「诅咒」上，尤其是当祝福及诅咒之言是发自人内心深处的时候。说这样的话的人，往往把自己投入话中，把自己身上的全部力量解放出来。在此，我们可以列举古经的几个例子来看看：

(1)希伯来人思想中的「言」：

富依撒格被骗祝福了雅各伯之后，他无法再拾厄撤乌同样的祝福，故只好给他另一个较逊的祝福。为什么呢？因为在第一个祝福里面，依撒格已经把全部祝福的力量投在他所说的话中，傅递到了雅各伯身上。祝福的力量在雅各伯身上解放出来，有如覆水难收，不能返回依撒格身上；因此，第一个祝福已成为不可挽回的事实，于是只好给另一个祝福厄撤鸟。

(2)雅各伯被拉班所骗 (创廿九：20－27)

雅各伯被其岳丈拉斑所骗，娶了拉斑的长女肋阿为妻。为能再次得到辣黑耳，他只好再服侍拉斑七年，因为在婚约的话中，拉斑的话成了不可挽回的事实，而雅各怕在婚约中的允诺，使得他无法不再服侍拉斑七年。

(3)诅咒的话 (民十七：1－2)

在这段圣经中，米加的母亲诅咒过偷她银子的贼，但后来当她知道银子是自己的儿子偷去的时候，她已无法收回那已出之诅咒，故立刻给儿子一个祝福，希望力量互相抵消。关于诅咒之言的例子，可以参阅(撤下十二：1－18)，以及(户五：12－31)。

从上面的例子中，可见希伯来思想中的「话」，是充满动力的；或更好说，是一个动态的事实。这动力与说话的人的意志力有关。「话」亦是一永久的事实，它表达着那说话的人，而且在那人消逝后，这话及其力量仍存在。

(三)雅威之言与先知：

当谈到天主之言时，一定不可忽略它与天主在历史中启示的行动的关系。在巴比伦和埃及等地，当他们的神话谈到神用说话来干预人间的事情时，他们从来没有指出这些事情之间的关联。换言之，神的话只是进入了一件一件独立而互不关连的事情上。可是，在希伯来的思想中，神的话却非如此。天主的话不仅串连个别事件、塑造历史，而且还推动和引导历史，它使历史产生，亦使历史完成。历史是由天主的创造之言开始，直到圣言耶稣基督成为血肉而完成。天主的话连结了历史事件而谛造了人类的救恩史，因此，天主的话是既在历史中又超越历史。天主是通过历史来说话，但祂的话却赋予历史一层又深又超越的意义。

在古经中，雅威之言的两大轴心是：先知和法律(即是：口传的十诫和先知的口谕)。

(1)十诫

十诫是天主的启示，在十诫的法律中，雅威肯定自己是主。十诫可以说是天主之言以法律的形式出现。在这具有命令性质的话里，雅威显示了祂自己的能力，因此，在这些话面前，以色列民不仅服从而且俯首叩拜。

(2)先知之言

在法律的话与先知之言之间有着重要的分别。法律的话具有永久的价值，是为世世代代的以色列民而存在的；但先知的话则是在某一特定的环境中说出来的，当先知的话实现了之后，很可能与后来的世代无关。例如：厄里亚先知宣布阿哈齐雅王「必定要死」(列下一：1－55)这话只限于阿哈齐雅王身上，当皇帝死去后，亦即是说，当先知的话实现了以后，这话就失去了它的动力性了。又譬如：米该亚先知预言耶路撒冷与圣殿的毁灭(米三：12)，这预言直到耶肋米亚时代，对人民仍是一大威胁(耶廿六：17－18)，但到了公元前五八七年之后，这预言便没有动力性了。先知每一次发言的时候，雅威都临在于先知的话中，且以「判决」和「救援」的方式表达出自己的意愿。雅威通过先知对个人所说的话，对一切人类都有警告的作用和楷模之价值。先知领受了雅威的话之后，这天主之言往往首先藉着一些挣扎而在先知身上创造一个新生，使他相称于成为天主之言的传达工具。先知接受了雅威的话之后，目的只是为传递，所以，先知的功用常常是中介性的，是传达者或带讯者。先知很多时都会用一定的格式发言，例如：「雅威这样说……」。这个格式(Thus saith Yahweh) 一方面是表示先知所说的是雅威的话；另一方面亦用来分开何者是雅威的话，何者是先知自己的话。

(3)先知之言的两大特色

当先知代替雅威一发言后，雅威的话便脱离先知而独立行动。(见依九：7) Edmond Jacob说，先知的话仿如「计时炸弹」，它一旦投入敌营之后，必定要爆炸的，但却需待以时日，而这些爆炸的事件就是指「历史事件」。
先知之言尚有另一特色；当雅威通过先知发言，雅威的话就有了「圣事性」的特色。意谓：这话必产生效果，而且是产生它所表征的效果。例如：列上十五：29；十六：12；十六：34。列下一：17；七：16；九：26、36；十：17。
雅威的先知性言语，常常带有「破坏」与「建设」的双重作用，就如耶肋米亚先知的使命。雅威之言藉先知之口说出以后，的确有摧毁、破坏、建设、及培植的作用。耶肋米亚先知说：雅威之言如火如锤，能粉碎岩石。(见耶廿三： 29)先知之言并非常常都立刻实现的，故此，有时这些话造成了很大的威胁，当话一出先知的口而落在人身上后，没有人知道它什么时候会实现、会爆发。

(四)雅威之言与历史

有些圣经神学家告诉我们，雅威之言是整个救恩史的中枢神经及关键。翻开整部圣经，也许圣经的编着者本身也没有发现，他们所编写的这部救恩史，每一阶段都是由天主的话连结而成的。在古经中，第一件发生的事，就是天主用祂的话来创造，从此也就开始了这部人类得救的历史。

在历史上发生的一连串事件，都是由雅威的话所引发，由此可见，雅威之言是整个古经历史每一阶段的「交接点」。譬如：创造之言开始了历史的第一页；接着又由雅威宣布洪水泛滥毁灭人类而开始了第二阶段(创六、七章)；之后，雅威向梅瑟发言，吩咐他带领以色列民出离埃及，在西乃订盟，组成新的子民(出三)；雅威之言在旷野一步一步地导引以民进入福地(申一：6；二：2；三：1、27－28)；在民长纪中，雅威经常发言；雅威之言召叫撤慕耳而结束了民长时期，预备了王国的建立(撒上三)；雅威之言宣告撤乌耳正式为王，是为王国时代之肇始(撒上九：17)；后来，雅威之言又宣布废除撤乌耳而选拔达味(撒上十六：12)；最后，亦是由雅威之言宣告王国分裂为二(列上一：31)。也许，我们可以说，雅威之言就是历史，因为历史的一切事件无非是实现雅威的言词。历史的话是动态的，而且是可以领会的。所谓动态的，即是说，这话必定生效，必会完成它所表征的内涵；所谓可领会的，是说这话塑造了一个历史过程，而这过程是可理解、可领悟、甚至是可见的。于是，我们可以说，整个历史是一个启示，揭露雅威的意旨；也可以说，由于「话」是一个人的力量在藉言的符号中解放，故此，话是启示出说话的那个人。既然，雅威之言是在历史中表达、构成历史，那么，如果我们说整个历史是一个启示亦并无不可，因为雅威是在历史中自我启示。

总言之，雅威之言在历史中有两个特点：(1)可领悟、可理解的；(2)充清动力的。雅威的话不但塑造历史，而且还解释历史。在好几篇圣咏里面，的确可以见到，「言」是超乎历史之上、驾驭着历史的，为此，圣咏的作者在这一点上常表示有极大的安全和信心。(参阅咏一○五：8－42)。可是，有时雅威在历史中的行动和许诺，需要人极耐心地等待其实现。

(五)天主之言的位格化：

当论到天主之言的位格化时，不能不谈到「言」与「智慧」、以及「言」与「神」的关系。圣经中把言位格化是相当晚期才明朗的思想。位格化的言与智慧和神并列。当天主之言启示天主自己时(咏一一九：89)、在执行天主的命令时(咏一四七：15；一○七：20；依五十五：11；智十八：14及以下)，都表现出其位格化的特色。在古经的训诲文学或智慧文学中，特别可以见到言的位格化。智慧文学用「言」(dabar) 这个字来指在学校及家庭中施训诲的智者的教训；于是，在这文学里，常常把言与智慧等量齐观。由于智慧的主人是天主自己，所以智者的话和教训亦被视为是天主之言的显示。同时，在箴言篇中，我们发现智者之言具有权威性，他们的话的权威就如同法律之言一样有权威。(箴十三：13－14；十六：20－22)。

言除了兴智慧相连以外，还与「神」有关，特别是在创造中。神是雅成口中的「气」，而「言」与「气」是一同由雅威口中发出的，谁聆听了雅威之言也同时接受到雅威的神(圣神)。但是，神与言有别。神更是一位启发行动的助手，祂较大的功能是在启迪行动上。在创造中，神亦是一穗创造的力量(见创一章)，及生命的主要因素(创二：7；咏一○四：30)。除非神临在于言之中，否则不能有真正的启示，也没有真正的答覆，更谈不上在言中的天人相遇了。然而，在言中的天人邂逅，必须到了新约耶稣基督这位望言降生后，才能够圆满地实现。

结论：

最后，读者必须注意一点，以色列民比较不强调言的创造功能(在此特别指在大自然中的创造)，这点与它的邻近民族很不相同，以民较强调历史。他们是从历史的角度来看世界，视世界为一舞台，历史不断地在这舞台上演，直到完成。在这角度下，他们也注意到这个世界及其中的一切都是由天主的话所创造、所支持的，故此，天主口中所发出的言语亦会在大自然．的现象中具体地启示出来；不寻常的现象:如玛纳(中八:3)，寻常的则如风、雪、雨、雷、电……等等，均可成为雅威启示自己的标记。

作者：黄克镳年份：1982

导言

圣事与标记是现代天主教神学的重要词汇，梵二称教会为救恩的「圣事」、「与天主亲密结合、以及全人类彼此团结的标记和工具」(教会宪章1)。在梵二前后，不少天主教神学家都以圣事一词解释教会的性质。(1)

圣事一词除应用于教会的奥迹外，也被用来诠解基督的奥迹。如薛理碧(E. Schillebeeckx)的一部早期名着便题名为「基督与天主际遇的圣事」，(2)主旨说明人必须透过基督的奥迹才能与天主会晤。在今日的基督学中往往看到圣事、标记、肖像、面貌、比喻……等词语，(3)这些名词虽然不是同义词，但有着基本上相同的地方，它们都指出在基督身上，我们可以找到天主及人的真正面目。

圣事与标记也是拉内神学的重要名词，格外见用于他的教会学及基督学。他称教会为救恩的「基本圣事」(Grundsakrament)，却称基督为「原始圣事」(Ursakrament)，(4)即指基督不但是教会及七件圣事的根源，祂本身便是一切使天人际遇的圣事原型。拉内格外以圣事标记来描述基督的死与救恩的关系，这是他对救恩学的特殊贡献。本文分三部份研究拉内论基督的死与圣事标记：首先介绍拉内所创的「真实标记」(real symbol)一词，然后解释拉内论基督死亡的「圣事标记因」(Sacramental-symbolic causality)，最后对这「圣事标记因」加以详述。

一、拉内论「真实标记」(Real Symbol)

为了明白拉内所说的圣事或标记，必须了解他所创的词语「真实标记」(real symbol)。(5)他把标记分为「主要」及「次要」两种，次要标记即一般由人制定的标志或记号，如天秤象征公义，国旗代表国家……等。主要标记也称为「真实标记」，即那些非由人制定，本身具有象征作用的。理由是「真实标记」本身已蕴藏了所象征的事物，使所象征的事物真实地临现。最好的例子要算人的身体，(6)身体是人的「真实标记」，是一个人在世界上具体临在与表现的方式。教会的七件圣事也是很好的例子，圣事虽然是基督所制定，但它们所象征的恩宠奥迹，藉着圣事的标记真的临在及实现。比如圣洗的水象征赦罪与新生命，而圣洗圣事也实在赦免罪过以及赋与圣宠的新生命。拉内的「真实标记」最能表达天主教圣事神学的观念，圣事的意义即是以象征的方式产生所表明的奥迹与恩宠；所以拉内往往把圣事及「真实标记」两词互相混用。

拉内格外把「真实标记」一词应用于基督学，称基督的人性为天主的「真实标记」，(7)他的用意在于强调基督的人性与天主性的内在关系。这人性并非圣言的外衣或工具，只是为了使圣言给世人看见及进行救赎工程，但并不真正的揭示天主圣言。(8)反之，基督的人性便是祂的天主性在世界上的真实临现与真正的「自我表达」(self-expression)；(9)正如人的身体是灵魂的真标记一般。拉内的理论在于彰明基督人性的重要，这人性真的把基督的天主性映射出来，因此基督在世的仪表、举止、言行、以及整个的临在都成了天主子的自我启示，因而也启示了祂的天父。

二、基督之死的「圣事标记因」

拉内认为基督为天主的圣事及标记，最清楚地表现于基督的死。依照教会的训导，基督的死是人类得救的原因。传统的道理称这是「主动因」(efficient cause)。(10)中世纪圣安瑟莫的补偿理论一直是传统救恩学说的主流，补偿理论指出人类的罪冒犯了天主无限的尊威，因此需要一位人而天主的救主代表人类，同天主作相称的补赎。基督的死便是对于天主无上尊荣所受凌辱的相称赔偿，它赔补了天主的公义，平息了祂的义怒，把人欠下的债一笔勾销，使人与天主重归于好。由此可见，基督的死是人类获得赦免及救恩的「主动因」。

拉内对这种有关基督死亡的传统解释感到不满，他认为天父才是救恩的「主动因」，基督的死对救恩来说是「目的因」(final cause)及「圣事标记因」(Sacramental-symbolic cause)。(11)拉内的理论基于他对天主普遍性救恩计划的观点，他相信天主愿意拯救一总人，认为天主圣父是人类救恩的发起人，祂的永恒决策才是救恩的最后「主动因」。基督的死显示了天父的救恩计划并使这计划在历史中具体实现。祂的死就像一件圣事一般，表明并实现救恩的奥迹。因此这死具有圣事标记因。

依照拉内的看法，由于圣父的普遍救恩计划，祂自创世之始便以两种不同的方式把自己通传给人类，即「超越的自我通传」(transcendental self-communication)及「历史中的自我通传」(historical self-communication)。前者指天父藉着圣神无时或息地把自己通传给人，后者是藉着降生的圣言在历史中完成。(12)拉内认为人对于无限、永恒、及神的无止境开放与向往，实际上便是对于恩宠的开放与向往；这种对于恩宠的倾向本身便是恩宠的效果。拉内主张人类一受造便被提升到超性的恩宠境界，纯粹的本性境界并未真实存在过，拉内称这种恩宠境界为人内在的「超性境遇」(Super natural existential)，在人作出自由抉择前已影响了人。(13)即使在人类堕落后，由于基督的救赎，这种恩宠境遇仍然保留，使人同时存在于罪及恩宠的双重境遇下；(14)可是人必须靠基督的救赎，才能对恩宠的呼唤作适当的回应。

这种恩宠的超性境遇或天主超越的自我通传是不断指向历史的自我通传的。只有在基督身上，天主的自我赐予才达到完满的地步，祂把自己完全赏赐给人，同时又从人一方面取得绝对的回应。因此，基督便是天主对人不断自我通傅以及人不断向天主开放的巅峰，在基督身上天人际遇的双方进程得获最高的显示与实现。(15)但这天人际遇的高峰要在基督的死才充份表现出来，因为拉内视死亡为人生命的最后抉择，死亡不但是被动的事，更是足以影响及注定人一生的行动。(16)基督的一生也以祂的死亡为最后结局，祂的死正式谛结了天人合一的永久盟约。由此可见，基督的死没有改变天父永恒的救恩计划，但把一种常在进展中的天人际遇的事实揭示出来，并把它带到完满及永无反悔的境地。因此，对天父赐予人类的救恩来说，基督的死不是「主动因」，而是「目的因」及「圣事标记因」。

基督的死既然是救恩的实效标记，那么我们可以更进一步分析，这死亡究竟怎样具体地象征及实现救恩。照拉内的看法，基督的死充份启示了罪的性质及后果。今日人类的死亡，除了肉体的痛苦外，还带着焦虑、恐惧的心情，这样的死亡是人类罪的惩罚。(17)基督的死也不例外，除了是罪的惩罚外也把罪的性质表露出来。(18)罪是人对天主的抗拒，人在天主台前愿意自主自足，不肯服属于天主；但结果是与天主隔绝、及沦于无能为力的状态中。基督被钉在十字架上，遭受天父及世人的遗弃，并且悬在架上，不能动弹，无法自救，这种被拋弃以及软弱无能的情况，正好表现出罪的性质。但基督本来无罪，祂所承担的是我们的罪案，祂为了我们的罪受死亡的痛苦。

从另一方面看，基督的死也带来了罪的翻案。罪便是违抗背叛天主，基督的死却是祂对天父的爱心与服从的最高表现。基督一主不断回归天父，向天父事事服从，以承行天父的旨意作每天的食粮，祂的死便是这种不断向天父自我交付的极点。祂以爱及服从承担了罪的后果死亡，这样便把罪的标记变作服从的标记；(19)正因此基督战胜了罪恶与死亡的势力，建立了一种新的救恩境遇(saving situation)。所以垃内称基督为救恩的「原始圣事」，祂使那些跟随祂的人也能克胜罪恶与死亡，进入恩宠的新生命。(20)今后死亡获得新的意义，但凡以爱心及委顺的态度接受死亡的，便是参与基督的死，能给自己及世界带来救赎。拉内认为基督徒应从领洗时便开始参与基督的死，以后一生延绩，直至生命的最后一刻，这样才算是死在主怀中的幸福者。(21)

这种「圣事标记因」也可以从天父一方面看；前已说过，今日人类带有焦虑与恐惧的死亡本是加给罪的惩罚，但天父既然没有怜惜自己的儿子，竟为了我们把祂交付于死亡，这无异是把一个罪与罚的标记化成爱的标记。(22)

三、圣事标记因的评价

以上简要地介绍了拉内论基督之死的圣事标记因，现在略加评论。拉内提出的圣事标记因也受到某些神学家的批评，如巴达沙(H. U. Von Balthasar) 在最近出版的一书中对这圣事标记因加以评击。(23)他指责拉内忽略了基督的死对救恩的重要性，说他把基督「为我们」而死的事实归功于天父，结果不是基督，而是天父「为了我们」而牺牲，基督的死只揭示了天父永恒的救世计划。

的确，拉内把救恩的重点归于天父的永恒决策，视天父为整个救恩史的发动人及主要角色，这与圣保禄的救恩学相符合，按照宗徒的思想，基督死亡的意义并非为了平息一位忿怒的天主，却是表明那位富于宽恕的「天主在基督内使世界与自己和好」(格后五：19)。(24)圣保禄深明基督「为我们」而死的道理，但也指出天主没有怜惜自己的儿子，反而「为了我们」众人把祂交付了(参阅罗八：32)。同样，拉内也没有否认基督「为我们」而死，只是强调首先是天父「为了我们」把基督交付出来。

拉内虽然不以基督的死为救恩的主动因，但他所提出的目的因及圣事标记因并不减少基督的死对人类救恩的绝对需要。假如我们依从圣多玛斯的见解，说基督主要是为了人类的罪才到世界上来，那么基督的死对我们的罪赦与救恩似乎该具有主动因，可是，拉内跟随思高学派的主张，认为基督主要不是为了补救人类的罪才到世上来。基督一开始便在天父的救恩计划中，是天人际遇的高峰与最终目标。这目标不但指引救恩史的导向，更发挥吸引及推动的力量，这才是目的因的真义。再者，祂的死不但显示了天父的救恩计划，更使这计划在人类历史中完满地、永无反悔地实现。假如没有基督的死，那么天人际遇的进程仍是模棱两可，未达一成不返的巅峰状态。现在祂的死把救恩史引入最后(末世)阶段，成为天人合一的永久盟约与最高标记。其实拉内的圣事标记因也包含了主动因，可是比后者更丰富；圣事标记因说明基督的死像圣事般以象征的方式实现救恩。拉内所反对的主动因是以基督的死为救恩的最后根由，或以为这死改变了天父的永恒计划。

进一步来说，假如有人认为救恩的主要意义在于赎罪，那么圣事标记的解释也远胜于圣安瑟莫的补偿理论。补偿理论所提供的是一种外在、法律性的救恩解释，即基督的死偿还了我们的罪债，使我们成了自由人及与天主重归于好。补偿学说未能指出基督的死本身的意义，拉内的圣事标记解释却能阐明基督死亡的内在意义。这死亡一面表征罪的性质，同时又表明爱克胜了罪的恶势力，把反叛的标记化成爱与服从的标记，因此建立了一种新的救恩秩序，使人类能进入这秩序，分享恩宠的新生命。在这种解释下，人类的死亡也获得了新的意义，只要与基督的死联合起来，死亡便能产生救恩与圣化的价值。所以这圣事标记的解释超越外在、法律的范畴，是一种内在化及与人的存在和境遇有密切关系的救恩解释。而且，这种圣事标记的救恩解释也着重个人的参与，基督的死建立了一种客观的救恩境遇，但人仍需要作出自由的抉择，才能进入这救恩境遇。(25)这好比礼仪中的圣事，为了收到圣事的实效，领受者的信心是先决条件。这种个人参予的因素，在那基督替我们赎罪还债的补偿学说中很容易受到忽视。

最后，拉内的圣事标记解释，把注意集中于基督的死，没有明确指出基督的复活对救恩的标记价值，这确是一大缺憾。其实拉内也曾说过，基督的死与复活是同一奥迹的不同两面，彼此有着密切的连系；(26)可是在阐述救恩的圣事标记时，他却忽略了复活的一面。假如拉内说基督的死是救恩的圣事标记，那么他也该指出复活对救恩的象征意义；正如基督的死格外显示了罪的性质及天主宽恕的爱，复活便表明了恩宠的新生命。基督徒所领受的救恩便是在今世开始分享基督复活的新主命，并在末世新天新地中，以复活起来的「属神的身体」完满地参予基督永恒的生命。因此，拉内所说救恩的圣事标记应该包括整个踰越奥迹，即基督的死亡与复活才是救恩的实效圣事标记。

缩写

SM－Sacramentum Mundi: vols. 1-6

TI－Theological Investigations: vols. 1-17

附注

1.参阅： A. Dulles, Models of the Church (Dublin, Gill and Macmillan, 1976) pp. 58-70.
2.E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of Encounter with God ET (London, Sheed and Ward, 1963).
3.参阅：E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of Encounter with God; Idem, Jesus, An Experiment in Christology (New York, Seabury, 1979) pp. 626ff.; J.-J. Latour, "Imago Dei invisibilis", in Idem et H. Bouesse (eds.), Problemes actuels de christologie (Paris, Desclee,1965) pp. 227-264; J. A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (London, SCM, 1973); H. Kung, On Being a Christian (Garden City, Doubleday, 1976) p. 17; G.O’Collins, What are they saying about Jesus? (New York, Paulist, 1977) p. 17. 拉内有关这题目的著作见下。
4.O. Semmelroth 称教会为「原始圣事」(参阅：Die Kirche als Urakrament [Frankfurt, J. Knecht, 1953]). 拉内却称教会为「基本圣事」(Grundsakrament). 以「原始圣事」(Ursakrament) 一词来称基督本人。参阅：K. Rahner, “What is a Sacrament”, TI vol. 14, p. 142; “Aquinas’ Theology of Scaraments”, ibid., p. 160, note 24.
5.参阅：K. Rahner, "The Theology of the Symbol", TI vol. 14, pp. 221-252. 这篇文章对了解拉内的神学思想极为重要。
6.同上，pp. 245-252.
7.同上，pp. 238.
8.同上，pp. 237-239; K. Rahner, "Current Problems in Christology" TI vol. 1, pp. 156f.
9.K. Rahner, "On the Theology of the Incarnation", TI vol. 4, pp. 115f.; Idem, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York, Seabury, 1978) p. 224.
10.参阅：L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Cork, Mercier, 1966) p. 185.
11.Foundations of Christian Faith, p. 284; Idem, "The One Christ and the Universality of Salvation", TI vol.16, pp. 212-216.
12.K. Rahner, "Salvation", SM vol. 5, pp. 430f.; Idem, The Trinity (London, Burns & Oates, 1975) pp. 91-94.
13.Foundations of Christian Faith, pp. 126-133.
14.K. Rahner, "Original Sin", SM vol. 4, pp. 330f.
15.Foundations of Christian Faith, p.169.
16.K. Rahner, "Death", SM vol. 2, p. 60; Idem, On the Theology of Death (London, Burns and Oates, 1961) pp. 30f.
17."Death", SM vol. 2, p. 59.
18.On the Theology of Death, p. 61
19.同上，p. 62; "Death", SM vol. 2, p. 61.
20."Salvation", SM vol. 5, pp. 431f.
21."Death", SM vol. 2, p. 62.
22."Salvation", SM vol. 5, p. 431; Foundations of Christian Faith, p. 305.
23.H.U. von Balthasar, Theodramatik III, Die Handlung (Einsiedein, Johannes Verlag, 1980) pp. 253-262: "Exkurs: Zur Soteriologie Karl Rahners".
24.参阅：D.M. Baillie, God was in Christ, An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement (London, Faber and Faber. 1956). 作者强调圣父才是赎世工程的主要角色。
25.参阅：K. Rahner, "The One Christ and the Universality of Salvation", TI vol. 16, pp. 205-207.
26.K. Rahner, "Resurrection", SM vol. 5, pp. 332f

易福．贡格 (YVES CONGAR)著汤汉译年份：1982

贡格说，初期教会缺乏一致的态度，正好显示了地方教会对于普世教会的关系，以及罗马宗座所扮演的角色。而东方教会以圣三为蓝图的教会学，则更进一步给予梵二教会学一个发展的基础与动力。

初期教会并不认为日常习俗的不同，会有害于合一。犹斯定(Justin)支持那些仍旧遵守梅瑟法律的基督徒。教宗安尼西度(Anicetus)虽然不同意坡里革(Polycarp)对于庆祝复活节日期的意见，但他仍容许坡里革主持感恩祭，以表示维持彼此间的共融关系。稍后，依内略(Irenaeus)要求教宗域陀(Victor)不要为了复活节庆日的礼仪问题而对小亚细亚的主教施以绝罚。

虽然所有人都应接受圣经和大公会议的法令，但奥斯定却认为各地方的不同正显示出教会的圆满与美丽。大额我略(Gregory the Great)劝导坎特培里的奥斯定(Augustine of Canterbury)从高卢或其他教会选取礼仪材料，设法把它们配合到自己的传教区域去。

在东方教会亦有类似的开放情形。亚大纳削、希那利、及巴西略认为，只要同意尼西信经的内容，应当准许人们用不同的语言表达。亚历山大城的济利禄接受安提约基雅城的若望用厄弗所会议的「生育天主者」(Theotokos)一词表达信仰，虽然在这方面各人的神学立场不同。

东西方教会一方面对多元化采取容忍态度，另一方面亦同时出现对立的趋势，要统一各教会的习俗。特别在罗马，除了肯定教宗的首席权外，还坚持其他礼仪习俗要与罗马礼仪一致。信仰伯多禄宗座，就必需在法则及礼仪上跟随伯多禄宗座的传统。这是达玛索(三六六三八四)及良一世(四四○四六一)的呼吁。额我略七世废除西班牙Mozarabic礼仪。本笃十四世要求在统一的教会内实行礼仪拉丁化，而这种趋势仍为庇护九世(甚至长十三世)继绩推动。

究竟罗马对划一的要求是否成功？在实践方面，承认伯多禄与罗马宗座的首席权，并不防碍地方或国家教会在日常生活上的自主权。菲洲教会拼命保持独立。东方教会在教律方面不断抗拒干预。(虽然如此，罗马的干预仍被接受，并不被视为只属对「荣誉首席权」的尊重。)最后，罗马宗座的权威及影响力盛行于西方(菲洲除外)，亦即是流行于广阔的拉丁宗主教管辖区。随着后来的扩张，这种影响伸延到世界各地，造成「公教」与「拉丁化」之混淆，以及「普世教会的首席权」与「西方宗主教职权」的混乱。

由于缺乏地方教会神学，额我略改革后的拉丁教会学便把普世教会视同一个身体，其中每个地方教会是肢体，而罗马教会是头。换言之，普世教会是一个大教区，以教宗为教区的主教(伯多禄达米盎语)。

直至庇护十二世在位末年，教会被视为一个「完美的社团」。这种观念支配着教会学。既然「完美的社团」必需拥有一切立法、司法、和执法的途径以达到自己的目的，则地方教会纵然拥有完整的圣事及信仰生活，仍未算是「完美的社团」。教宗的「权力」往往被强调，以保持他对普世教会所拥有的法律地位。

梵蒂冈第二届大公会议后的转变，并非是为了抹除教宗的首席权，而是要重新发现地方教会。如果教会的完整奥迹能在感恩祭的庆典中实现，则「完美的社团」这个观念连对于教会的外在生活也不足以描述(卡．拉纳语)。所以梵二恢复了东方「圣体教会学」，并描述如下：

「唯一的大公教会就在个别教会的中间，由她们集合而成。」(「教会宪章」第二十三号)「在这些团体中，都有基督亲临其间，因祂的德能而联合成教会。」(「教会宪章」第二十六号)「(教区)由(其牧者)藉福音及圣体在圣神内集合起来，而组成地方教会，基督的教会即临在此处，能在此活动。」(「主教在教会内牧灵职务法令」第十一号)

因为梵二看得出教会的本质建立在超越的原则：天主(若一1：6)、基督(格前1：9)、福音(斐1：5)、圣体(格前10：16)、圣神(格后13：14)上，故此，它能承认在其他基督团体中有教会本质的存在，同时在东正教会中亦存在着真正地方教会的质素。

每个地方教会就是天主的教会，但只限于宣信及与其他地方教会共融的时候才是，而这共融产生了普世教会。罗马宗座的角色最好是从这种共融的需要的脉络里去了解。宗座并非教会本质的源头，但她有使命，也因此有神恩和权力，要藉着维护传统及宣信去推进合一生活，以及仲裁争执，以保证教会问的共融。

神学基础

无论地方教会与普世教会之间的关系，或(地方及普世)教会与其领袖之间的关系，都以圣三的内在关系为蓝本。这个关系在外文称为"Circumincession"，意即：圣三互相存在于对方，性体相同，共融为一；但另一方面，父不是子，而子也不是父，各自享有那存在于对方及存在于圣神的位格内的天主性。

耶稣曾祈祷，使教会的合一肖似祂自己与父的合一。(若17：11)；这正好是把圣三模式运用于教会与教会之间的关系上。正如天主性只存在于位格上，普世教会亦只存在于各地方教会内，并来自地方教会。正如圣三的天主性不能与位格分离，普世教会亦不能与地方教会分离。

在圣经中，「教会」(EKKLESIA)一词是指一个在特定地方的信众团体，把以基督为首的身体的奥妙彰显出来(参阅厄弗所书及哥罗森书)。教会超越地域的性质，并不排除她本身的地区性。只有像天主的教会存在于格林多地方那样(格前1：2……等)，地方教会才「是」天主的教会。

「教会」一词不但运用于众教会之母的耶路撒冷团体(宗5：11)，也应用于其他地方教会(宗15：41)。保禄和巴尔纳伯不但被安提约基雅教会派遣，也接受耶路撒冷教会的欢迎(宗15：3、4)。这两个地方教会都是「天主的教会」(宗20：28)。

团体与其牧者的关系，或地方教会与其主教的关系亦是这样。教会在其管理者身上「拟人化」(宗20：28)。十二宗徒是「新以色列的初芽，同时也是圣统阶级的起源」(「教会传教工作法令」第五号)，所以耶稣在同一个祈祷中包括团体与领袖(若17：20)。

在初期教会的书信中，团体与牧者彼此包含，并不分离。比方：西彼帘说：「与自己的主教联合的群众，以及追随自己的牧者的羊群，才是教会。……主教在教会内，教会也在主教内。」

把这些观念转移到普世层次，亦可以找到圣经和传统的支持。(从罗马天主教观点看)，在职务方面，普世教会的首领和牧者基督，由伯多禄及保禄所建立的罗马教会的主教(教宗)所代表。基督、十二宗徒、教会三者由伯多禄代表(玛16：18：若21：15－17)。脱离三者之一，伯多禄都不能保持他的代表性。

耶路撒冷团体曾是众教会之母(路24：47)，为以后的教会提供模式和参考(格前11：16；迦2：2)。即使我们接受首席权已从耶路撒冷转移到罗马，还应依照圣三的内在关系去解释罗马宗座的地位。

有关地方教会的新神学，以及梵二「教会宪章」的圣三教会学，都一起重申东正教神学多年来所坚持的主题：「任何民族的主教们都应知道，在他们之中谁人居首，也应尊敬他，视如首领。没有与他商量，不应作任何重大事情。……而居首的，没有谘询过全体主教，也不应有所行动。……这样才能充满和谐，在圣神内，藉着子，光荣天父。(公元约四百年的「宗徒宪章」)」

这里，在赞颂圣三的脉络中，订定了个独角色和彼此沟通的规则，以致在主教全体与其首领的关系上，不但全体能够临现于个人，而且个人亦得以临现于全体。

一三五七年，君士坦丁堡的亚大纳削曾引用若望福音第十七章十一节及二十至二十二节以说明：正如圣三是一体，宗徒们(主教们)亦只有一个首领。当代东正教神学家舒密曼(A. Schmemann) 也说：「正如圣三的三个位格并不把天主性分裂，每一位都完整地拥有天主性，……因此教会的性质亦不会因为教会的多元化而分裂。……正如圣三的位格有『三』，……因此教会亦见众数，……而且在众教会中有圣统制，……有居首的教会及居首的主教。这并非是把一个教会辖属于另一个教会之下，而只是使每个教会活于全体教会内，而全体教会亦活于每个教会内。」

我们还须面对现实，就是：梵蒂冈第一届大公会议所钦定的教宗首席权，不可能贬抑为「居首的教会」及「居首的地位」，因为首席权教义一直被罗马天主教各地方教会接受。但历史使我们确信，一旦深悟这项教义的底蕴，并非不可能修正，而我们今日从圣三的内在关系去看这项教义时，首席权的真谛终于呈现出来。梵二开始采取了主教团的观念和共融的教会学，以表达出这项教义的内蕴。

如果「首席教会」及「首席地位」有一个使命，因而有一个神恩和不能削减的权力，则存在于这个首席教会内的地方教会，亦有不能削减的地位，就是怕多禄所代表的地位。至论教宗的不能错误神权，梵二认为它只是教会的不能错误神权(「教会宪章」第廿五号)。这正好暗示出个人代表团体。换言之，伯多禄个人代表整个教会(奥斯定语)，所有教会临现于个别教会当中，而各个教会以一种特殊方式临现于罗马教会。

具体应用

共融要求沟通；遇到要对共同信仰作决断时，便当谘询其他教会：「何处有共融，何处便有共同的决断。」(盎博罗削语)自从把「与子」(FILIOQUE)一词加插在信经以后，我们西方教会好像已不再把东正教会视为姊妹教会，而(在一八五四、一八七○及一九五○年)自行钦定信条。

我们理应与步耶(Bouyer)、纳胜加(Ratzinger)、杜勒斯(Dulles)三位神学家一超质问：当某一个教会没有份参与大公会议，而且大公会议所订立的信条不符合这个教会的传统时，我们能否把这些议决、甚至教条强加于这个教会身上？

罗马在担当普世教会共融的督导者角色时，应该采用法律和组织方法，以推进各教会间的沟通。而学者、尤其是历史学家则可以帮助罗马重新检讨过往流传下来的不同意见。

今日教会如欲复制出第三或第四世纪教会的结构，当然是不切实际的试图。教会现况与教宗权威已发展成长，他们所担当的角色亦无法退回往昔情况。毕竟历史能显示出：罗马宗座虽然不是其他教会之源头，但仍担当中心角色。这个权威的拥有者多被称为「基督代表」，少被呼作「罗马主教」，但是，从上述的探讨我们觉得，「罗马主教」这个被遮盖了的名衔对教宗更为切合。

译自

YVES CONGAR, LOCAL AUTONOMY AND CENTRAL POWER, in： THEOLOGY DIGEST, VOL. 29, No. 3, FALL 1981, pp. 227-230.

作者：林祖明年份：1982

（甲）导言

教友在礼仪生活中，直接和经常与教会接触的是圣体与修和圣事，其余的圣事在教友生活中原则上只有一次或在特殊的境遇中才会领受。由于罪赦与圣体圣事有关系，所以罪赦在修和圣事外的可能性便产生了。教友是否可以在修和圣事外，在圣体圣事中有把握地得到罪赦，与天主及教会和好？这是本文所希望探讨的。现在我们首先澄清罪与赦罪的含意。

（乙）罪与赦罪的意义

在圣经上论及罪的意义皆指在思、言、行为上违反天主旨意的某种行为。(1)在古经中，就以色列民承行或违背天主与他们所订的盟约为准则，罪是一种使人与天主隔绝的行为。在新约中指出，所有人都沉溺在罪恶中，因此耶稣一开始宣讲就劝人悔改；在美善天主的台前，人是不完美和有欠缺的，是在撒旦的权下期待救赎的一群。耶稣在宣讲天主无限慈爱的同时，提醒世人要重新回归天主的怀里，荡子的比喻便是毫无保留地描述出天主慈爱的伟大，祂无论在任何时间和环境之下，都会接纳一个真心回归的荡子。

罪之赦就是人在犯罪后，获得天主的宽恕，重新与天主和好的意思。在整个的旧约中，人类与天主的关系，经常在一种摇摆不定的情况中。叛逆与服从、犯罪与归依的例子多得不可胜数，这是以民犯罪与得救的历史。但是罪赦并不意味着暂罚的免除；原祖要承担犯罪的后果，劳苦工作、用血汗谋生。罪过的赦免完全是天主的主动爱情，并不是罪恶的掩盖，而是完全约铲除(达九24)和忘记(耶卅一34)。

在新约中，罪赦的意义与旧约相同，就是将人与天主的隔离障碍取消，人再次与天主和好；这完全是由于基督的死亡复活的效果，但这罪过的赦免不是单方面的行动，而是个人积极的「更新」、「改造」和「新的创造」：「天主、求你给我再造一颗纯洁的心…」(咏五十一8)。这个「新创造」的成功与否要视乎人的参予和回应、人与恩宠的合作而产生的。

（丙）赦罪在圣体圣事内的位置

一、圣经的启示

建立圣体圣事的叙述，很清楚记载在对观福音和格林多人前书内。虽然从文学类型的批判中，发现他们的词语结构并非耶稣在最后晚餐中建立圣体圣事的说话，有可能是转载目初期教会的礼仪经文。(2)

将四段建立圣体的叙述比较时，发现格前和路加相近，玛窦和马尔谷相似，因此神学家认为它们是来自两个不同的礼仪传统；而它们分别表达了两个古经的神学传统：「先知」和「司祭」。「先知」传统是以「新的盟约」为申心；司祭传统则以「祭祀」为中心，而祭祀就与「血」有极大的关连。祭祀的血在古经中有赎罪和立约的意义这盟约的血为众人而倾流，以赦免罪恶…。虽然，在路加和格前没有明显记载「赦免罪过」的字样，但并没有削弱其对赎罪的意义，因为两个传统都是共同表达出受苦之仆的型像。(3)

二、受苦之仆的祭献意义

在玛窦和马尔谷有关耶稣在最后晚餐的叙述中，用了「这是我的血，新约的血，为大众倾流」的话，(玛廿五28、谷十四24)它们隐藏着古经的「受苦之仆」为大众的罪而死的思想「因为他为了承担大众的罪过，作罪犯的中保，牺牲了自己的性命……」(依五十三12)；又谓：「我正义的仆人要使多人成义，因为他承担了他们的罪过」(依五十三11)。而且，「受苦之仆」被天主立为祂与人类的盟约的中保(依四十九8)。故此，盟约的观念不被局限于法律中，而是由「仆人」的无我和牺牲精神所建立的，而这仆人的遭遇正好反映在耶稣身上。

耶稣将这旧约观念放在自己的死亡行动中，应验古经所载，把「谁是这位受苦之仆」的谜底揭开，他自己就是这个真正的「仆人」，实现了古经的期待和盼望，而且，耶稣把「受苦之仆」的形像提升成为天主第二位的牺牲，超越了古经的概念。人类的任何牺牲都不能与祂的相比：「人还能拿什么作为自己灵魂的代价？」(谷八37)；只有耶稣的牺牲才使天主悦纳。「受苦之仆」的身份不是任何一个人可以胜任，唯有降生成人的耶稣才能圆满的实现这个预言，他所建立的圣体圣事为天主所悦纳，使人的罪过得到赦免：「他所背负的，是我们的疾苦；担负的，是我们的疼痛…他被刺伤，是因了我们的悖逆，他被打伤是因了我们的罪过；因他受了惩罚，我们便得了安全，因他的受伤，我们得了痊愈」(依五十三4－5)。

三、祭献与赦罪的关系

若要更深入瞭解耶稣牺牲的赎罪意义，就不能不从犹太古经传统去看二者的关系。

在古经中，任何一个祭献都有赎罪的成份。(4)「赎罪」(Atonement)就是表明愿意脱离邪恶的行为，从罪恶的势力中解放出来。有罪的人不能与天主直接沟通，需要一个牺牲为中介，藉此希望能消除天主的义怒，使神与人之间的关系能重新建立起来。(5)

以色列人在举行赎罪祭时，会把那选定的「代罪恙羊」放在祭坛上，同祭会把手按在羔羊头上，按着司祭会宰杀恙羊，把羊血洒在会幕的四周，其余的血就倒在祭坛脚旁(肋四)。洒血象征祝圣、洁净和圣化。这个思想便影响了初期归化的犹太基督徒，把赎罪日基督化：「没有血的倾流，罪恶就得不到宽恕。」(希九22)(6)

四、新约有关耶稣牺牲的瞭解

在对复活基督的经验的影响下，福音作者在描述耶稣的事迹时，隐藏着不少的神学思想。玛窦讲述贤士献给婴孩耶稣的礼物时，以殁药暗示耶稣的牺牲(玛一11)。马尔谷在耶稣论及人子的将来时，反映出「受苦之仆」为罪人牺牲的一幕：「人子不是来受服事，而是来服事人，交出自己的牲命，为大众作赎价。」(谷十45)

记述耶稣苦鸡的四位新约作者，同时用踰越节晚餐的背景来描写耶稣的最后晚餐。在他们心目中，耶稣的苦难、死亡和复活是踰越的事件。对观福音指出了这个晚餐是踰越晚餐；而若望更指出耶稣自己就是踰越的「恙羊」，将要为人而牺牲。用「血」建立新的盟约更加说明耶稣的死是流血的赎罪牺牲。(7)

圣保禄指出，踰越节恙羊基督已被祭杀作了牺牲(格前五7)。耶稣自己就是赎罪祭…不但赎我们的，而且也赎全世界的罪过(若一书二2)。若望和保禄都指出耶稣的死有双重意义：成为「踰越的牺牲」和「赎罪的牺牲」，显示出新约的救赎和宽恕。(8)

五、初期教会的训诲

初期教会对信仰的训诲和着作往往被后期基督徒视为信仰反省上的资科和根据，在教会的传统中占有重要位置。

「十二宗徒训言」(Didache) 记载，在预备主的感恩祭时，为能使天主悦纳，首先要忏悔罪过。这很明显与玛窦福音(五23－24)互相辉映，表明圣体与祭献的关系。安提约基雅的依纳爵强调自己的祭献与基督的祭献参合(致罗马人书四1－2)。(注九)儒斯定更取了犹太人的观念来解释祭献的目的是赎罪，而基督是踰越祭献的完成，基督是赎罪祭，圣体圣事就是这祭献在今世的延绩。

依来内重覆基督用自己的血把人从罪恶中救出来。(10)依波里都继承传统对祭献瞭解的同时，更深入指出，从圣言降生成人和从死人中复活升天的事件中，不只是圣言自己回归天父台前，而且祂也把人类献于天父面前，使人类也分享天主子的神圣性。(11)人类不仅消极的被赦免，也积极地参予天主圣三的生活。

六、小结

在教会的神学发展中，对圣体圣事有更深入的瞭解。今日，更注意圣体是教会共融、互爱、感恩和爱宴的观念，而不太强调圣体的赎罪意义。但当我们返回新约和初期教会的时代，清楚看到圣体和罪赦的祭献有密切关系。福音反映出当时不同地方教会传统的信仰表达，而福音作者觉察到圣体的赎罪意义为当时教友的重要性，同时亦是他们信仰的表达方式，所以从祭献的角度来表达出罪赦完全是由于基督的牺牲。「新盟约的血」、为众人而倾流」、「受苦之仆」、「为纪念我而举行」等思想，都藉圣体圣事表达出来了。而初期教会的训导，便是这事实的见证。

耶稣赐予教会「束缚」和「解除」罪恶的权力，藉着教会的行动，罪人可以在天主台前获得直接而完全的罪赦，这全基于耶稣在十字架上的死亡、复活和升天。祂为人类赚得了天主义子的福份(罗八)。圣体圣事的建立正是要我们为「纪念」祂，「纪念」不只是事件的重温，还有更深的意义，就是求主记忆祂与人订立的盟约，记起祂对人所施的救恩和护佑，成为一个宣示救恩的行动。(12)在人更深体验天主的忠信和爱情的同时，也要求人自省，记起自己的软弱，经常有犯罪的倾向，承认自己的不足，再次藉着基督，在这个「纪念」的行动中，求主接纳和宽恕一切过犯。

（丁）圣体圣事的实际赦罪能力

脱利腾大公会议谴责那些认为圣体圣事的主要功效是赦罪的理论。这次公会议重申圣体圣事只消除小罪与其暂罚：「由圣体圣事而产生的对天主的完善爱德行为，使小罪及其暂罚消除，而小罪与罪罚消除的程度紧系于爱的深度」。(13)

圣体圣事的主要效果有三：(一)、是与基督最密切的契合；(二)、是灵魂的食粮，使超性坐命能得以保存和滋长；(三)、是未来永福和身体复活的保证。圣体实际赦罪的范围只限于小罪及其暂罚，但这并非无条件机械式的赦免行动，是要视乎领受人的情况而定，例如：他「爱」的程度有多深、佃与天主的关系如何等。但这个罪赦并不只是他与天主两者的事情，而是藉着基督所建立的教会去完成，故此教会也参予其间，在圣体圣事中是基督在教会内宽赦他的罪过。

教会是基督的圣事，而基督则是天主父的原始圣事，是天主恩宠的标记天主与人相遇的特殊标记。当人愿意藉圣体圣事与天主结合，又不是处于大罪的境况中，天主可以直接把那人的过失消除，使他没有阻碍地、直接地与天主结合。在这个情况下，可以说是圣体圣事赦免了人的罪过，但是要在与天主密切契合的大前题下才有效，因为罪过是阻碍与天主契合的主要因素。

圣体圣事对大罪实在是无能为力的，因为大罪是整个人毫无保留的整个投向罪恶，不只是以事情的大小来衡量其严重性，也是看整个人的生活取向和态度，这也非一朝一夕的结果。犯大罪的人整个的内心远离天主，充满邪恶，毫无与天主契合的意愿，就算有天主的恩宠，也不能达到圣体圣事的圆满效果。所以若果认为圣体圣事可以有赦大罪的直接功效，就是忽略大罪是离弃天主的行为和后果，认为圣体圣事是万应的魔术。

内心取向的改变是要经过不断的归化过程，藉着每次的修和能使罪人更接近天主，在改受基本抉择的过程中可能会经常遇到失败，但教会从不会拒绝罪人归依，和得到赦罪的需要。在每次的归依中，人接受更多的恩宠，使自己更堪当接受与天主契合的圣体圣事。所以圣教会规定领受圣体圣事必要没有大罪在身，即是：若察觉有大罪必须领受修和圣事，为了更圆满的与天主契合，与教会共融，分享教会的生命。

但这引起一个似乎矛盾的问题：若果圣体圣事是基于加尔瓦略山上的牺牲，是天主与人修好的标记，为何它不能担当实际的修和角色，而只有赦免小罪的能力，对于消除大罪则只可以在特殊的情形下才能有效？

若要瞭解这个问题，首先要看看圣体圣事在教会中的位置及它与别的圣事之关系。

圣体圣事完全是来自天主的爱与主动，而不是由于人的功绩。因着罪的缘故，天主与人之间存在着一条不可跨越的鸿沟。基督为了填补它，不惜牺牲自己，成为人类与天父间的修和中介。天父接纳基督代表人类的赎罪祭，重新与人建立关系，更藉着基督所建立的教会把恩宠分施。

所以「圣体圣事乃是基督完全的奉献、共融的祭祀、赎罪的牺牲，为了消除世界的罪恶」；(14)「单是基督的牺牲，就足够使天主与人修和，消除一切罪恶」，(15)并足够赚来罪过的宽恕。祂的死带来救恩。(16)祂打破了人神的阻碍(弗二14)。这完全是天主的主动，祂甚至交付自己的身体，作为爱的最后凭证，为了取得罪人的回头。(17)所以圣体圣事是其他圣事的中心。(18)

由于圣体圣事，其他的圣事才可以成立、才有意义，因为若果没有十字架上的牺牲，天父与人还未修好，而人永久与神有隔膜。加尔瓦略山上的牺牲是人类救恩的开始，它赋予教会圣事的基础，而修和圣事亦在这个背景之下建立；而它存在的目标，就是使人能从罪中回头。

圣体圣事并不保证领受人自动得救，人自己要参予其中。但罪人单靠自己也不能解除与天主及教会的隔阂，必需藉教会的祈祷与修和圣事的帮助。在存在的角度来看，修和圣事是圣体圣事的预备，但实际上圣体圣事是先于修和圣事。若修和圣事脱离了基督苦难复活的祭献含义，就毫无意义了。正如圣保禄所说：若果基督不是真的从死者中复活起来，我们的信仰便是空的，我们成了全世界最傻的人。若果圣史不是领略到耶稣的教训，和经验到复活基督的启示，一定不能带出希望的讯息和暗示出希望的圣事修和圣事。而这观念是始于天主从古经的时代藉先知启示给犹太人，而在新约时代则藉基督得以完成。所以圣体圣事的建立是天主宽恕世人的保证，是天主与人重新建立关系的起点，使所有的人都有机会得救。而修和圣事是人类得救的实现，罪恶彻实地得到宽恕。

（戊）圣体圣事与修和圣事的比较

基督是天主父的原始圣事，祂是不可见的天主的肖像(哥一15)，充满天主的恩宠和光荣(若一14)：祂是恩宠之泉，祂自己是天主，而祂在受难之前为自己和为人类建立了爱情的圣事：「你们要为纪念我而举行这事」(路廿三19)：并在升天前许下圣神，建立教会，继续祂的工程。教会是基督的圣事。教会在她的生活中，因着教友不同的需要，在七个不同的时刻中行动，藉着这些行动，人与天主接触，得到特殊的恩宠。

圣体圣事是教会最完整表达自己的行动，是其他圣事的基础。「藉着十字架的奥迹，人与天主建立新的盟约，圣体圣事就是这个盟约的肯定和证明」。(19)所以若果没有十字架，基督的工作还未圆满，教会也不能从中产生，其余的圣事也不能成立。

圣体圣事和修和圣事的相同点，就是两者同是恩宠的泉源，二者都建基在基督的死亡和复活奥迹上，而圣体圣事可以被称为圣事中的圣事，是一切圣事的中心。它的目的就是为了建立基督徒的团体，促进团体的共融团结。

修和圣事是为了处理基督徒的悔改而设，藉着这圣事帮助人类不断归依，而这个效果并非圣体圣事可以完全达到的。修和圣事的存在固然是因为基督曾在福音说过「束缚和释放」或赦免罪过的说话，但这些说话必需在祂的整个生活中，祂的降生，自我牺牲，死亡和复活的事件中去了解才有意义。

圣体圣事本身已隐藏着赦罪与修和的意义和力量，而这效果需要在修和圣事的境况中才能圆满的彰显出来。修和圣事是一件切实的悔罪圣事，圣体圣事就是修和的泉源，而修和就是进入共融团体的第一步。

基督徒藉圣言和擘饼，纪念基督死而复活的奥迹，同天父呈上赞颂和感恩的祭献；在圣神的带领下，使团体能够在信德和爱情的气氛下日渐成熟，直到基督再度来临的时刻。教会也透过修和圣事继续基督的赦罪和治疗的职务，使天国更深的实现。罪人在圣神的感动和引导下，在回头的过程中与教会修和，重建因罪恶而被损坏的关系，赞扬和宣示天主无穷的慈爱。(20)

圣体圣事是纪念和庆祝天主藉基督带给人类的整个救恩行动，所以圣体圣事是一件具有「修和」效能的圣事；而修和圣事更是「修和」的彻底实现。

　

1.思高圣经学会圣经辞典，页九一○。
2.王敬弘、新约中的圣体圣事，「神学论集」第十二期 (香港真理学会，光启出版社发行民国六十一年)　页二○○
3.同上　　　页二○四
4.同上　　　页一九七
5.Robert J. Daly, S. J., “The Origins of the Christian Doctrine of Scrifice” (Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd, 1978) p. 26-28.
6.ibid p. 29-31
7.ibid p. 54-56
8.ibid p. 78
9.ibid p. 85-87
10.ibid p. 93
11.ibid p. 100
12.Max Thurian, “The Eucharistic Memorial” part 1 Ecumenical Studies in Worship no. 7 (John Knex Press 1960) p. 39.
13.天主教信理神学下册页六二四
14.神学论集第十二期页一九六
15.Max Thurian "The Eucharistic Memorial" part 2 p. 79.
16.Joachim Jeremias, "The Eucharistic Words of Jesus" (SCM Press Ltd., Bloomsbury St. London 1964) p. 226.
17.Oscar Cullmann, "Essays on the Lord's Supper" Ecumenical Studies in Worship no.1 (John Knox Press, Richmond, Virginia 1958) p. 61-62.
18.Karl Rahner, "The Church and the Sacrament" (Herder Freiburg, Burns and Oates London 1963) p. 82.
19."The Eucharistic Memorial" part 2, p. 56.
20.James Dallen, "Eucharist and Penance",. (Worship vol.50 No. 4 July 1976) p. 327-328.

作者：吴智勋年份：1982

(一) 问题的发生

很少人会否认宗教信仰和伦理有密切的关系。保禄书信便曾劝勉教徒生活行动要相称天主的宠召，应「脱去旧人，穿上新人」(弗四：17-32)。如果对基督的信仰，能在伦理生活上产生显着的效果，似乎顺理成章的形成所谓基督徒的伦理。六十年代末期到今天道十几年中，天主教伦理神学突然热烈的讨论这个题目：基督徒伦理的特征是什么？但也有神学家对整个假定发生怀疑，因此他们追溯一个更基本的问题：究竟有没有特殊的基督徒伦理？

促成这问题的探讨是有几个近因的：第一就是所谓神学的俗化运动(Secularization)。(1)俗化一方面反对把世界神话化、神性化或神秘化；而另一方面注意世界本身的自主性及内在价值，俗化并非无神主义，它承认天主创造了世界，但这并不是一个空虚、无意义的世界，天主在创造时已给与世界其内在的意义。俗化亦不同世俗主义(Secularism)。世俗主义是一种反宗教的意识型态，它强调人的内在自主，完全独立于一个超越的天主之外，故它否定一切来世及超自然的思想。

俗化运动也影响到伦理界。如果天主的法律已铭刻在人的心中，人的道德已有其内在价值；换句话说，我们实在不需要把它基督化，它才产生意义和价值。天主并没有创造一个无意义的世界，然后派遣基督来给予它价值。我们的世界是天主所创造、救赎的世界，天主的恩宠既在起初已内在于自然里，因此神学家便注意到这个问题：基督信仰究竟有没有对人的道德(Human morality)加添了一些实质内容？

另一个促成讨论的原因是对教会训导地位的商榷。天主教徒都知道圣统教会有训导的权力，但不少教会当局的伦理训导和一般人的意见不相同，形成天主教徒有与众不同的伦理信念，例如：婚姻的不可解散性，人工避孕、堕胎、安死等的不道德，其中有些似乎只有天主教才如此主张。教会训导当局既和一般人抱不同的伦理意见，人们很自然会问：是否当局除了理性外，还有一些其他基础(比方启示)，使它和别人有不同的观点？「人类生命」通谕(Humanae Vitae)公布后的十几年间，很多神学家都提出对当局非不能错的训导有持异议的权利。在理论上及事实上，越来越多人不接受当局对某些伦理问题的训导。对教会训导权的动摇也影响了特殊基督徒伦理的存在。

梵二以后，教会普遍兴起交谈之风，这是因为梵二如此鼓吹之故：「大公会议……将指出这天主子民对其寓居其内的世界所有联系、尊重及爱护。但为达成这目标，再没有比对上述诸难题，同人类直接交谈更妙。在这交谈内，教会将借助福音神光，将她在圣神教诲下，由其创立者所接受的神力神方，提供给人类」。(2)不少神学家响应此号召，与非天主教徒作各式各样的交谈。基督徒伦理的特征也是交谈题目之一。古伦(Charles　E. Curran) 的「交谈文集」便有一篇重要文章：「与人文主义交谈：是否有特殊的基督徒伦理？」(3)

基督徒伦理特征的讨论始于欧洲。一九六六年三月第二十八届法国天主教知识份子周，便以讨论人的道德和基督徒的道德为题目。(4)一九六九年九月法语伦理教授会议，重点亦在基督徒伦理的特征上。其中奥拔(J. M. Aubert) 和西门(R. Simon) 的文章，更奠定以后讨论的基础。(5)德国和意国的神学家也举行了类似的会议。(6)至于英语的伦理神学家慢慢迎头赶上。麦哥铭(Richard A. McCormick) 每年一次的「伦理神学摘要」，便曾三次讨论这个问题。(7)他更和古伦携手搜罗了有关这方面的重要文章，编成「伦理神学文选」第二集，以「基督徒伦理的特殊性」为主题。(8)十几年来，这个题目一直流行于天主教伦理神学的圈子里，以致有人认为这是现代伦理神学最基本的课题。

(二) 问题的处理

天主教历来主张自然律伦理，认为人性与人的理智并未完全为罪恶所败坏，人的理智能够分辨天主的计划。圣多玛斯便认为自然律分享天主永久的法律。人既然有同样的本性，因此在伦理境界内，基督徒与非基督徒有共同的基础。不少教宗的通谕都从这个基础出发。教宗良十三世的「新事」通谕(Rerum Novarum) 主张以人性及人性尊严为基础去处理社会问题；若望二十三世的「和平」通谕(Pacem in Terris)，是对着所有善心人而说的，因为他们都怀有基于自然律的理智。因此，从传统自然律伦理看来，天主教似应赞成没有所谓特殊的基督徒伦理。

可是，事情不是这样简单。首先，自然律受到部份天主教伦理学家的攻击。古伦便认为天主教自然律伦理太乐观，忽视人罪恶的事实；这种伦理是静止的、保守的、不变的，未能适应今日万变的社会；最严重的，是它把自然(natural) 和超自然(supernatural)、创造和救赎分开；换句话说，人本性能不受超性所影响。(9)这种对立，受到不少神学家非议。另一方面，有些伦理神学家亦不满意把基督徒伦理和一般伦理混为一谈，失却它本身的特色。他们保持圣保禄「换上新人」的信念，认为基督信仰实可改变人的行为和伦理准则。

辩论中有些观念慢慢澄清，焦点集中在基督徒伦理有没有特殊的物质内容(material content)上。奥拔首先尝试用圣多玛斯的「四因」，去解决基督徒伦理的特征问题。他认为伦理的物质内容只有一种，基督徒与非基督徒皆一样，基督徒伦理的特征不应在这里找寻。(10)可是也有人反对他的意见，因而形成在天主教内有两种主张：

(甲) 肯定基督徒伦理的特殊物质内容

这个立场主要来自意国一份神学杂志「天主教文明」(Lacivilta cattolica) 的社论。(11)它首先提出，基督徒伦理的两大特征是信德和圣宠。它承认「人的道德」基于理智，合乎理智的便是道德的；「基督徒的道德」亦基于理智，但是指受信德光照、提升的理智；该理智聆转天主的圣言，特别是从圣经、传统和教会训导处发出的天主圣言。它不同意基督徒伦理仅在乎一个新的精神和一个基督徒的意向性(intentionality)，而没有新的行为和准则：「信德和圣宠……不可能不产生新的行为和诚命」。(12)耶稣并非只教导自然道德规范，他来是为成全它们，扩大它们的领域。它举出一些不见于自然伦理的例子：爱仇、不报复邪恶、谦逊甘愿坐末席、舍弃财物、热爱十字架、听命至死、为天国而守贞等。

该社论强调基督徒与非基督徒间有一本质上的不同。基督徒是新人，新创造物，被召去「过一个新生活」(罗六：4)。基督徒是指相信基督，在基督内的人；非基督徒是指那不信基督，不在基督内的人。明显的信仰使基督徒与非基督徒产生本质上的不同。

我认为这种论调有一个困难，即把基督徒和非基督徒对立起来；前者在基督内，后者不在基督内。可是另一方面，该社论又不能不随从梵二以来教会的指示，即有些非基督徒能按照自然律伦理生活，得到救赎而与基督结合。这样，社论中的非基督徒，似乎只能是既不信基督，又不随从自然律伦理生活的人，大概他们是圣若望所谓与基督对立，「属于世界」的人(若十五：19)。

该社论的原意可能是这样：非基督徒是指没有明显信仰基督的人，但能随从人的伦理去生活。基督并不来废除，而是来完成、净化所有人的价值。可惜社论进一步的说：完满的人的伦理只能是基督徒伦理，完整的人的道德必须是基督徒的(指明显的基督徒)。这种论调的结果，是把基督徒与非基督徒对立超来，使基督徒在伦理上有优越感，人的伦理只能是二等伦理。

(乙) 否定基督徒伦理的特殊物质内容

大部份的天主教伦理神学家都主张无所谓基督徒伦理的特殊物质内容。他们所用的名称可能不同，但意思是大同小异的。奥拔把伦理分为物质(material) 和形式(formal) 的层面，福斯(J. Fuchs) 则分为实际的(categorical) 和超验的(transcendental) 两个层次。(13)物质或实际的层面，是指伦理生活上各种特别的价值、行为、规律。在这个层面上，没有所谓基督徒伦理的特殊内容；但在形式或超验的层次里，特殊的基督徒伦理是可能的。至于这个基督徒伦理的特征是什么，则每个伦理神学家的重点不一。

尤斯丹(A. Jousten) (14)指出：在旧约，伦理是与盟约连在一起，伦理规律能表现围绕着盟约的救恩；在新约，救恩的指示亦与道德命令连在一超。厄弗所书所云：「脱去旧人，穿上新人」，就是这个意思。尤斯丹跟着提出两个基督徒伦理的特征：

(1) 基督徒伦理本质上是一个宗教的伦理，它处于基督宗教的讯息之中，即宣布天国的来临，显示天主的意旨。天主圣言是一个伦理原则，因为它使信从的人，面临一个基本抉择。故此，基督徒的伦理有一个纵面的尺度，它不是回应人的召叫，而是回应基督的召叫。表面上，「基督徒的」道德行为与「人的」道德行为无异，即无物质内容的不同，亦不能与自然律分家；但为一位基督徒，道德生活成为信仰基督的表现。伦理之所以称为「基督徒的」，只能因为基督临在其中，其特征就在于此。

(2) 基督徒伦理的第二个特征就在于「爱的诫命」，这是基督徒伦理的内容。基督把旧约法律和先知都系于爱的诫命。这个爱的诫命，并非一般的伦理规律，它是基督信仰在实际环境中的实践原则。爱的召叫与回应是个人的、独特的，只有在那境遇中的人，才能明白爱究竟要求他采取什么行动。自然律能够是实现爱的方式，基督徒伦理的特征兴及它和自然伦理的关系也在于此：基督徒伦理把自然律深切化和彻底化。

奥拔用圣多玛斯的四因去处理基督徒伦理的特征问题。(1)物质因：指伦理行为、规律等。伦理的物质内容，有无信仰的人皆一样。(2)目的因：爱是目的因，爱贯通整个伦理生活。(3)功效因：指天主的恩宠，它藉着爱和人的意志联合。(4)形式因：指信德。奥拔认为这是基督徒伦理特征所在。由信德而生意向性，把一般道德规律付诸实行。从他的信德，基督徒认识到他的道德行为有一超验的、超世的目的，因而不会把世上的目的绝对化。奥拔的主张很有启发性，但他过于要配合多玛斯的四因，勉强把相连的东西分开了，同时亦把特征拘限于形式因。但目的因中的爱，功效因中的恩宠，实在不能和形式因中的信德分开，信德不能不包含爱与恩宠。没有爱与恩宠也没有信德的可能。

福斯分析基督徒的伦理行为为两层面。在实际层面里，基督徒与非基督徒的伦理表现、规律等是相同的；在超验层面内，基督徒伦理有其独特的地方。福斯问：当我施舍时，我究竟做了什么？我是否只做了给钱的行为而已？抑或藉着这个好行为，我满全自己的人格，成为一个好人？这个好行为亦使我与天主连在一起。他认为有一个意向性贯通所有道德行为，这个意向性是基督徒的基本抉择，即与天主连在一起，接受基督的一个基本决定。基督徒行善时，能意识到此关系；作恶时，这个意向性也存在，不过是拒绝接受此关系。罪因此有一个「基督徒的」意思，罪人不单是做了某一恶事，他更把自己与天主对立超来，并拒绝基督和他的圣神。福斯把这个超验的、基督徒的意向性作为基督徒伦理的特微。

侯士(G. J. Hughes) 从一个与众不同的角度去研究这个问题。(15)他的问题是：伦理是否需要一个基督徒的基础？经过仔细的分析，他发觉基督的启示、教训、模范，都不能加给我们的伦理知识一个实质内容(substantive content)。换句话说，没有一个伦理的实质内容只有基督徒才能拥有，而非基督徒是无法领略的。侯士的结论是：基督徒的信仰能为伦理做到的，是「提供刺激力、上下文和动机」(a stimulus, a context and a motivation)。天主的启示常刺激我们不满足一般世俗的伦理思想，它要求我们变为成全的，如同天父是成全的一样。基督徒的信仰能光照我们的伦理生活，使我们洞悉它的全面性。在这个上下文里，我们能对伦理有新的了解。基督徒的信仰亦给予我们希望的动机，不管情况如何恶劣，在基督内的人总是不失望，效法基督，朝着最高的理想目的走。

古伦对这个问题讨论很多，也是最激进的一个，因为他认为无所谓特殊基督徒伦理的存在。他首先提出天主的救赎是为全人类，并非只为基督徒。至于全人类如何得到救恩，则有不同的说法。古伦利用拉内(K. Rahner) 的隐名基督徒的观念去解释。拉内认为天主向全人类提供救恩，人能拒绝或接受它而并无明显的认识耶稣是主，故善心的无神论者亦能是隐名的基督徒。可见基督徒和非基督徒并不对立，他们都能分享基督的救恩。同样，世界不是一个纯粹自然，不受天主恩宠影响的地方，创造与救赎不能分开。我们只有一个历史性的秩序(Historical order)，即人被造、犯罪、救赎三者合而为一。换句话说，所有人皆处于罪恶及恩宠的影响下，皆被召分享天主的救恩。基于此历史性的秩序，人的伦理必须与基督徒伦理有相同的内容。古伦初期的结论是：基督徒与非基督徒皆分享相类的伦理规律、态度、趋向、目的等。(16)他后期的结论更大胆，认为人甚至能分享意向性和动机性，虽然这不是出于有意的反省。(17)古伦主张基督徒伦理唯一与众不同的，只在于基督信仰能影响个人的意识及对该意识有意的反省(Thematic reflection)。

(三) 问题的澄清与反省

辩论的双方，看来是难以调和，但若加以仔细的分析，则两者其实有很多共通的地方。双方讨论时，有些地方含糊不清，甚至用相同的字而不是指同样的东西，故必须把含混的东西澄清。

(甲) 伦理的含义

既然是谈基督徒的伦理，伦理两字必须弄清楚。华特(James Walter) 把伦理的意义分析得很好。(18)我觉得有助于问题的了解。伦理一词能带有三个意思：(1)伦理基础(ground of ethics)：此指人存在的超验境界。人在其存在的基层内，有自由、反省、负责的可能性。人若没有目由、反省、负责的能力，便不能算是一个道德主体了，因为他连伦理基础也没有。(2)伦理自身(ethics as such)：此指一套伦理原则、假定和判断，人有意的用这一套东西去决定自己的道德行为。伦理作为一种科学就在于此。每人都可反省自己的经验，有意的形成一种规律和生活态度，并以此去指导自己的伦理生活。(3)道德(morals)：此指人的实际伦理行为和操行。

华特认为任何基督徒伦理的特征只能在实际界，而不能在超验界。换句话说，只能在伦理自身及道德这两范畴，而不能在伦理基础上，因为伦理基础只能有一个，任何人皆相同。他认为基督徒伦理的独特性就是基督徒的意向性。(19)

本文主要不是批评华特的文章，但对他文章的评论实有助于问题的澄清。福斯和华特都同意基督徒的意向性是基督徒伦理的特征，但福斯把意向性放在超验界面华特却放在实际界！我认为把意向性放在超验界是比较合理的。意向性并不指某一特殊伦理行为、规律等，它指基督徒的一个基本决定、基本态度，接受并答覆天主在基督内所显示的爱。这个意向性存在于所有实际界里的道德行为，它也是产生个别意向的原动力。华特把意向性放在实际界，但那该属「伦理自身」呢抑或「道德」呢？看来两者皆不属，因为意向性根本不是一套伦理原则、规律等用以决定道德行为，它也不算是其一道德行为本身。倘若三个伦理范畴皆不属，似不应称为伦理特征了。

我认为华特相古伦的错误，是以为基督徒伦理的特征，会在伦理基础上再加一层。两个伦理基础会产生创造与救赎、自然与超自然、「人的」与「基督徒的」对立。其实，基督徒意向性这个特征，并非在伦理基础上加上另一基础，它只是形容(qualify) 该伦理基础而没有替代了那基础。

(乙) 特殊性与独特性

这是澄清问题最重要的一环。当我们讨论基督徒伦理的特征时，那特征是指特殊性(distinctiveness) 抑或独特性(specificity) 呢？一般参加讨论的伦理神学家都没有好好分清楚此点。打开「伦理神学文选」第二册，里面的题目有些用特殊性，有些用独特性。古伦较喜用特殊性，但有时两者运用，(20)有时标题用特殊性，而下面跟着的解释却用独特性，(21)充份表现他把二者看成是同义词。森逊(Michael Simpson) 也在同一句子里用了两者：「这种个人道德要求是独特地基督徒的。……因为它基于一特殊的基督徒意识，此意识与别的宗教意识不同」。(22)

我想强调的是：古伦和森逊皆以英语为母语，他们认为两者是同义词，对于此事实，我们自无异议。但为了澄清问题，把独特性和特殊性看成有不同意义，未免不是一件好事，免得再纠缠不清。独特性应指唯独我才有，而别的不能有，即含有排斥性的意义。特殊性是指与一般不相同，是一个特征，一个标志，但并不表示别人绝不能有。例如：刻苦耐劳的美德，是中国人的特殊性，与一般其他人不太相同的特征，但并不排斥他国人有刻苦耐劳的可能。

有了这个分别，我们回头看看上述的讨论。「天主教文明」的社论肯定有特殊的基督徒伦理内容，它的例子是：爱仇、不报复邪恶、舍弃财物、热爱十字架、听命至死、守贞等。我们可以说，这些行为都是基督徒伦理特殊之处，基督徒以此为标记。如果该社论认为这些是基督徒伦理的特殊性而非独特性，则理论可以成立，基督徒确以此突出于一般人之外。但倘若该社论认为只有基督徒才有，则大有问题，非基督徒也能爱仇、不报复邪恶、舍弃财物、守贞等。

一般人认为反对人工节育、绝育、离婚、堕胎、安死等是天主教伦理的特征。这种特征，只能指特殊性，是天主教伦理的标志，但不应指独特性，只有天主教伦理才有。很多非天主教徒也反对绝育、离婚、堕胎、安死等。这些伦理表现都在实际界，故只能有特殊性而没有独特性。

同一原则，我们可看看古伦前后期的文章。最初，古伦主张基督徒与非基督徒都能分享相类的伦理规律、态度、趋向、目的等。他所举的例是自我牺牲的爱、希望、对近人的关怀等。古伦若指基督徒在这几方面并无独特性，那是对的；但他应保留的说，在这几方面，特殊性是可能的。至于后期的文章，他大胆的说非基督徒也能分享基督徒的意向性，则有些问题。我认为基督徒的意向性是超验的、独特的，而非基督徒是分享不到的。

(丙) 本质伦理和存在伦理

李嘉利(Norbert Rigali) 曾对伦理一词加以分析，受到麦哥铭的赞赏。(23)李嘉利指出，伦理神学家认定基督徒与非基督徒伦理物质内容相同，仅能就本质伦理(essential ethics) 而说，即基于人的本质而来的伦理。但伦理的范围并不止此，李嘉利认为本质伦理外还有三类：(1)存在伦理(existential ethics)：这不是指着人的本质来说，而是对着人的个体性(individuality) 而言。在存在伦理境界内，人人都因着背景、倾向、才能等的不同，对绝对道德的要求，作出不同的回应。(2)基督徒本质伦理(Christian essential ethics)：每个团体能产生一些伦理决定，而非该团体中人是不会有的。天主教会是一个团体，有基于基督信仰的本质，由这些本质所产生的伦理决定，是非基督徒所无的，例如：决定做神父、参与弥撒、办告解、用耶稣的名为别人祈祷，这些决定只有花基督徒团体的环境内才会产生，非基督徒不会有此。(3)基督徒存在伦理(Christian existential ethics)：此指基督徒作为一个个体所作的伦理决定，例如：基督徒决定去过修道生活。麦哥铭很赏识李嘉利的四分法，而且自己也采用，(注廿四)即主张在本质伦理内，无所谓独特性，但其他三个范畴内，独特性是可能的。

我认为这种区分是有商榷的地方。首先，我承认每人都是独一无二的(unique)，他的个体性是绝对的，世界再找不到一个和他有一模一样的背景、心态、气质、才能的人。但从这个角度去谈伦理特征是没有什么特别意义。单就人的个体性来说，既是独一无二的，就不能构成一类有特殊性或独特性的伦理。我们只能说这是其某人的伦理，不能是什么基督徒的伦理；独一无二的个人，永远不能构成一类。倘若我们不单从个体性来研究，则讨论仍有可能。

李嘉利的本质伦理相存在伦理，相类我们上面谈过的「伦理自身」和「道德」。伦理自身是基于人性而来的一些伦理规律、原则等，人应用来作伦理决定；道德是指个人实在的道德行为、决定等。如上所说，没有两个人的存在伦理或道德会一模一样，但撇开不能归类的单一性不谈，仅就其作为一道德行为来看，人的道德仅有特殊性而无独特性。你的道德行为别人也能够作，某一类的伦理行为只能作为你的特征，你的标志，但不能排斥别人可能如此作。因此，把存在伦理看成是独特的是大有问题。

其次，李嘉利的「基督徒本质伦理」和「基督徒存在伦理」界线不清楚。不知他为什么把要做神父与否，领圣事与否、建天主教学校与否都放在基督徒本质伦理中，而在基督徒存在伦理又有要过修道主活的决定？看来它们似应在存在伦理内。此外，他把伦理的范围推得太广，似乎和一般人认为的规范伦理范围不同。他所举的例子中：决定是否要建天主教学校、组织合一团体、维持一宗座代办等是否都属规范伦理的范围，确值得怀疑。这些决定当然和生活有关，但中间似不牵涉是非善恶的问题，把它们括入伦理境界是值得商榷的。

我认为前述伦理的三分法是正确的，即伦理基础、伦理自身和道德。李嘉利的分法似乎忽略了伦理基础的存在。既然前面说基督徒伦理的独特性只能在超验的境界，则李嘉利所列出的基督徒本质伦理和基督徒存在伦理只能有特殊性而无独特性。基督徒伦理的独特性不在于伦理的物质内容上面，而在于「基督徒的」一词上。很明显的，基督徒伦理的独特性最基本的是信德。信德使伦理冠上基督徒之名，它贯通所有伦理规律、伦理决定和伦理行为。

(四) 结语

我们讨论的是「基督徒」伦理的独特性，而不是「回教徒」或「佛教徒」的，因此独特性显然落在「基督徒」一词上。基督徒是指明显地信仰基督的人，他们不但在基督内与天主相连，同时亦应和基督徒团体相连。耶稣的来临不是为人带来独特的伦理原则及伦理行为，他来是为改变人。基督徒的信德使人在天主的光照下，对事物有全面和正确的看法。梵二也强调此点：「信德既以新的光芒照耀一切，并显示天主对人的整个使命所有的计划，故能指导人心，朝向充份合乎人性的解决方案进行。大公会议立意在信德神光的烛照下，对今天颇为人们重视的价值，加以衡量，并将这些价值归诸天主，因为祂是这些价值的泉源。这些价值既出源于人的智能，而人的智能又是天主的恩赐，故都是很好的。但由于人心的腐化，这些价值多次脱离其应循的秩序，而必须予以净化」。(25)

人的伦理判断标准是基于人性的理智，信德并无取代理智，而是有提醒、光照、净化的作用，使人对人的意义和价值爱得更敏锐。信德作为基督徒伦理的独特性听来似乎缺乏伦理的气味，故不少伦理神学家用较伦理化的词汇表现出来，如福斯用基督徒的意向性，尤斯丹用爱的诫命等。

今日社会在文化、风俗、信仰上越形复杂。如果基督徒坚持有独特的伦理原则、规律和行为，则社会公共的决策会遇到很多难题。在基督徒占大多数的国家里，基督徒能基于他们独特的伦理，订立一些法律，勉强其他非基督徒遵守。在基督徒只是少数的国家里，他们可能受到社会的压力和歧视，弄到生活十分困难。我相信基督徒能有他们特殊的伦理规律和行为，但这些都是基于人性的，别人也能分享，也能认知的。只有这样，彼此和谐共处才有可能。

　

1.参阅张春申著「俗化的意义」，神学论集第十四号，五五一～五六一页。张神父提及俗化在社会、政治、文化及宗教范畴里的意义。
2.「论教会在现代世界牧职宪章」，第三节。
3.Charles E. Curran, "Dialogue with Humanism: Is there a Distinctively Christian Ethics?" in "Catholic Moral Theology in Dialogue", Notre Dame: Fides, 1972, pp. 1-23.
4.该周所宣读的论文载于 "Morale humaine, morale chretienne", Recherches et Debats, LV (1966).
5.J-M. Aubert, "La specificite de la morale chretienne selon saint Thomas" in "Le Supplement" 92 (Fevrier,1970), pp. 55-73.　R. Simons, "Specificite de l'ethique chretienne", ibid., pp. 74-104.
6.可参Sergio Baotianel, "I1 carattere specifico della morale cristiana", Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1975, p.11.
7.Richard A. McCormick, "Notes on Moral Theology", in "Theological Studies", March, 1971, pp. 71-78; March, 1973, pp. 58-60; March, 1977, pp. 58-70.
8.Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick (ed.), "Readings in Moral Theology, No. 2: The Distinctiveness of Christian Ethics", New York: Paulist Press, 1980.
9.Charles E. Curran, art. cit.
10.J-M. Aubert, art. cit., p. 71.
11."La civilta cattolica", 1972, III, pp. 449-455.
12.ibid, p. 453.
13.Joseph Fuchs, "Is there a Specifically Christian Morality?" in "Readings in Moral Theology, No. 2", pp. 3-19.
14.A. Jousten, "Morale humaine on morale chretienne" in "La foi et ie temps", 1(1968), pp. 419-441.
15.Gerard J. Hughes, "A Christian Basis for Ethics" in "The Heythrop Journal", January, 1972, pp. 27-43.
16.Charles E. Curran, art. Cit. p. 20.
17.Charles E. Curran, “Catholic Ethics, Christian Ethics, and Human Ethics”, in “Ongoing Revision in Moral Theology”, Notre Dame: Frides, 1975, pp. 25-26.
18.James Walter, "Christian Ethics: Distinctive and Specific?" in "Readings in Moral Theology, No. 2", pp. 90-110.
19.ibid., p. 102.
20.Charles E. Curran, "Catholic Ethics, Christian Ethics, and Human Ethics", op. cit., pp. 9-11.
21.ibid., p. 16.
22.Michael Simpson, "A Christian Basis Ethics?" in "The Heythrop Journal", July, 1974, p. 292.
23.Richard A. McCormick, "Notes on Moral Theology", March, 1973, p. 59.　Norbert J. Rigali, “On Christian Ethics” in "Chicago Studies", 1971, no. 3, pp. 227-247.
24.Richard A. McCormick, "Does Religious Faith add to Ethical Perception?" in "Readings in Moral Theology, no. 2", pp. 157-158.
25.「论教会在现代世界牧职宪章」，第十一节。

作者：祈士真 Casey, John J.年份：1982

THE ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHER AND THE THEOLOGIAN:

A CONTEMPORARY DIALOGUE

I. INTRODUCTION

If we understand human experience in the broad sense of the conscious events that make up the individual life, then it is easy to see that throughout the history of the Christian tradition, people have considered themselves as coming in contact with the divine through various kinds of human experience. For instance physical experience has played a significant role in the lives of some. Saint Paul tells us he underwent a profound physical experience of God on the road to Damascus and his response was a sharp and immediate change in the direction of his life. Martin Luther underwent a more ordinary but no less physical experience when he was struck to the ground by lightning as a young student at the University of Erfurt and immediately vowed that if saved, he would become a monk. And emotional experience of the divine was a frequent claim of mystics as well as others. In fact in fundamental Protestantism today, this is a common experience of the born-again Christian. Finally, intellectual experience has provided a way to God whereby through reflection the reality of the divine becomes clear in our minds. The theology of the Christian tradition abounds in such experience and in the Catholic Church the master of this way has been considered to be Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Of the three kinds of the experience of the divine mentioned above, the most widely accepted has been the intellectual experience of God. This is not to say that other kinds of experience of the divine have been frowned upon. But physical and emotional experiences of God cannot be judged impartially as to their authenticity because they cannot be objectivised. Since they are intensely personal experiences, they cannot be shared at the experiential level. In short, they cannot be made scientific, that is couched in some kind of an objective framework of expression whereby others can also experience the same thing and by virtue of this experience accept or reject the conclusion. And since making the intellectual experience of God scientific is exactly what the great classical theologians have tried to do for centuries, it is not at all strange that this kind of experience of the divine should be the favored one. But in the recent history of thought, the traditional intellectual experience of God has shown itself to be less and less convincing to many people. The reason is that the framework within which one can objectify his reflective experience of any kind has been expanding and as it grows the traditional categroies of the intellectual experience of the divine receed further and further into the distance. The initial framework within which the divine was scientifically objectified was a framework of causes. God as the efficient and final cuase of everything seemed very close; in fact, his causality was seen as almost contiguous to us in space. But first the development of science extended our reflective framework through the discovery of the workings of natural laws which in turn pushed God off into the distance as efficient cause and ignored him as final cause. Thus the framework of science tended to make God spatially distant. Next history further expanded our framework of reflection while at the same time pushing the unique manifestation of God in the world in the person of Jesus Christ back into a specific temporal and cultural milieu. Thus the framework of history tended to make God in the world temporally distant. Finally, the development of philosophy seemed to give the final blow to any meaningful reflective experience of the divine.

Since Immanuel Kant synthesized epistemology into a dualistic principle of knowledge consisting of a priori categories of the mind and a posteriori elements of experience, the pre-reflective ground rules of knowledge lean heavily toward the assumption that any reflection that is not grounded in immediate conscious experience cannot be factual and therefore significant to the practical affairs of life. Nowhere is this idea more clearly expressed and defended that in the tradition of philosophy known as the analytic tradition. This way of thinking does not deny that people are having reflective experience nor does it deny that they are calling it religious experience. What it does question, however, is the connection between the reflective experience they are having and any factual religious content.

All of this, however, has not stopped the theologian from his search for an intellectual experience of God. By and large he accepts the post-Kantian pre-reflective ground rules of knowledge and thus espouses the claim that any meaningful thought about God must be grounded in immediate conscious experience. He also realizes that this acceptance is not enough and that he must submit himself to interrogation by the watchdog analytic philosopher who will determine whether he is talking sense or nonsense. This dialogue between the analytic philosopher and the theologian leads to some interesting conclusions and this paper will illustrate a few. It will look first at the way the analytic philosopher guards the field of meaningful experience. Then it will look at several theologians who claim that immediate conscious experience does lead to an experience of the divine. And finally, it will look at the dialogue as it develops. It must be noted here, however, that in this dialogue experience of the divine－which after all is very personal－must be objectivised into religious language. The dialogue, then, will concern whether immediate conscious experience－or common human experience, if you will－leads to meaningful religious language.

1)Cf. Ian Campbell, ‘Some Cultural Problems of the Galilean Period’ ATEISMO E DIALOGO Vol. XV, No. 3 (September, 1980) 149-156.

2)Cf. Peter Berger, A RUMOR OF ANGELS (Garden City: Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1970), pp. 1-27.

作者：陆鸿基 Luk, Hung Kay, Bernard 年份：1982

THE WANING OF A MEDIEVAL SOCIETY:

INTERPLAY OF MOTIVES IN THE SCOTTISH REFORMATION

In the past, writers on the Protestant Reformation often tended to emphasize the religious causes of this major upheaval in European history, and, depending on their own sectarian or political positions, sided with one party or another in the momentous events. A number of Protestant authors, for instance, were unsparing in pouring invective on what were regarded as the abuses of the Catholic Church. More recently, historians have come to recognize that the Reformation, like any other period of profound and rapid change, was not a simple set of events, nor did it have just one kind of cause. More ecumenically, and more fair-mindedly, modern historians note that not only were there national and doctrinal variations in the Protestant Reformation; there were also dynastic, diplomatic, and economic motives no less important than the religious ones. A fuller understanding of the Reformation demands an appreciation of the inter-play of motives. Furthermore, the Reformation resulted not only in the disunity of Latin Christendom; it also helped launch many a country on the fringes of Europe from the middle ages into the early modern era. As religious persons went one way or another in the struggles, it was the secular power that gained the most from the Reformation. In the case of the Scottish Reformation, problems of Church lands, aristocratic versus royal power, national independence and international alliances, were mingled with questions of political rebellion and religious reforms. And for a while, the little backward country off the northwest coast of Europe can be said to have held the key to the fortunes of Calvinist Protestantism.

CHURCH AND STATE

To understand the Scottish Reformation, one must appreciate the political structure of sixteenth-century Scotland. One historian has put it succinctly:－

The most obvious fact about sixteenth-century Scotland is that Scotland, unlike her southern neighbour, was still a medieval country, both politically and economically. The power of the nobility, collectively (and even, on occasion, individually, though this was rare), was far greater than that of the King. To this situation chronic wars with England and the dynastic misfortunes of the successors of the Bruce were the major contributors……The Privy Council, the Parliament, and the Convention of Estate had no legal authority independent of the Crown. But the Crown was never independent of one faction, at least, of the great nobles……(1)

There was no powerful burgher class to counterbalance the aristocracy, and hence national politics meant the competition, or manipulation by the Crown, of factions of noble families. Some of these families were the Hamiltons, the Douglasses, and branches of the royal clan of the Stewarts. Several of them were ancient enemies and constant rivals. While the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries saw the gradual rise of a Scottish national identity (provoked by wars with the English), consideration of clan interests usually continued to be of primary importance.

But while politically powerful, the nobility, whose wealth was based on not very productive land, was chronically impecunious. The Church, on the other hand, was wealthy and powerful although the wealth was being sucked away by the Crown and the nobility in the early sixteenth century. The Scottish Church was also very corrupt. In the view of the same historian, perhaps 'no branch of the Church in Europe was more riddled with vice. '(2) Sexual immorality was rampant, although apparently more so among the upper than the lower ranks of the clergy.(3) The lower clergy was too poorly paid to be anything but dull, ignorant, and guilty of unspectaculars.(4) Many priests were illiterate, and totally unable to perform any kind of clerical function except the frequent and indiscriminate use of excommunication or 'cursing'. Benefices were gifted to relatives or sold to third parties in irregular ways, and offices were often passed down from generation to generation to legitimized sons born in concubinage.(5)

But in simony and plurality, as well as in nepotism, the offences of the lower clergy were trivial compared to the carryings-on among the prelates and the nobility. Benefices were regarded almost as family possessions or as honourable outlets for illegitimate offspring, and little children were often appointed to high offices. The most notorious of such cases was when, in 1533, King James V was able to use the example of the looming English reformation of Henry VIII to blackmail Pople Clement VII to legitimize his three bastards and grant them benefices. (6)

At the same time, the Church was coming more and more under royal influence and control. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, conciliarist ideas had gained a dominant position in the University of St. Andrews. In the late fifteenth century, after long struggles with the Pope, King James III won an indult to nominate bishops; and in 1526, the Estates asserted that

quhatsumever persone……takis ony bischeppes placis……but our soverane lordis command letteris or chargis or desyre……, thai sail incur the cryme of tresone and leise majestic.(7)

In 1543, Parliament legislated that

the frutis of the abbacyis and prioryis pertening to the kingis gracis sonnis……be convertit and deliverit to the quenis grace comptrollar for the honorable sustenation of hir grace......(8)

The queen referred to was the baby Mary Stewart. Such legislation was only the culmination of a whole generation of squeezing the wealth of the church by means of the feu-farm.

Feuing was a heritable land-tenure in return for an annual fixed money rent, the feu-duty. While this arrangement brought in hard cash for the person or institution granting the tenure, it also in effect meant the alienation of the land to the grantee. Hence, canon law forbade the feuing of Church lands. In 1531, King James V used the excuse of establishing a College of Justice (and the threat of siding with the Protestant military Schmalkald League of Lutherans and Swiss reformers) to persuade Pope Clement VII to grant an annual tax of ￡10,000 Scots to be paid by the Scottish prelates. The only way the prelates could meet such payment was by large-scale feuing. Clement thus opened the floodgates for the alienation of Church lands to the Scottish nobility.(9) After holding out for a few more years, the Pope even granted the Archbishop of St. Andrews the right to confirm the institution of feufarms without reference to Rome.(10) In these transactions, it was the nobility, not the yeomanry, that benefitted.(11)

Thus, unlike in England where King and gentry benefitted financially from the Reformation and the Dissolution of monasteries, in Scotland, the King and the aristocracy were able to milk the clergy quite satisfactorily without changing religion, just by waving the Protestant threat. Although Lutheran ideas were introduced into Scotland soon after the outbreak in Germany, in 1525 there was an act of Parliament prohibiting the importation of Lutheran literature, and the Reformation at first evoked little response from Scotland. Some efforts were made by the Scottish Church at internal reform, but without much success.(12)

1)Maurice Lee, James Stewart, Earl of Moray (New York, 1953), 6-8.

2)Ibid., 12. Cf. L. Macfarlane, 'Scotland', The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), xii xii, 1231.

3)William Croft Dickinson, et al., eds., A Sourcebook of Scottish History (London, 1953), ii, 142. Cf. Gordon Donaldson, Scotland: Church and Nation through Sixteen Centuries (London, 1960), 48.

4)Donaldson, ibid., 41-42.

5)Dickinson, op. cit., 99-102. Cf. Sir James Balfour Paul, 'Clerical life in Scotland in the sixteenth century', Scottish Historical Review, xvii (1920), 177-189.

6)Dickinson, 89-90. New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., 1231.

7)Dickinson, ibid., 81-89.

8)Ibid., 91.

9)R.K. Hanny, 'On the foundation of the College of Justice', Scottish Historical Review, xv (1918), 30-46. Dickinson, 47, 220-221.

10)R.K. Hanny, 'A study in Reformation history', Scottish Historical Review, xxiii (1926), 18-33.

11)Ibid., 33.

12)Lee, op. cit., 13.

SCOTLAND'S INTERNATIONAL POSITION

Another reason for the initial non-receptiveness of the Scots to the ideas of the Reformation was due to the international position of their country. For centuries, England had been Scotland's 'Auld Enemy', while France was the 'Auld Ally'. Since England was breaking away from the Roman Church, and France was remaining Catholic, it followed that Scotland should choose to remain Catholic too. This tendency was further bolstered by the recent memory of the defeat of all the available forces of Scotland by the English in the battle of Flodden in 1513. To stay with France seemed the only way to avoid conquest and assimilation by the English under the Tudors.(l3) But many historians who hold this view also believe that the battle at Flodden, paradoxically, also marked the turning point in Anglo-Scottish relations, because Scotland was defeated in foolhardy support of their French allies, and gradually more and more Scots came to accept that the destiny of their country lay with England, not with France; and such attitudes helped eventually to precipitate the Scottish Reformation. Upon the death of James V in 1542, Henry VIII proposed a match between his son Edward and the infant Queen Mary Stewart; but the deal would have implied the absorption of Scotland by England, and was therefore rejected by the Scottish court. Marie of Guise, the French queen dowager and regent of Scotland, was thus enabled to pursue a pro-French policy and a match between her daughter and the Dauphin. This in turn meant absorption by France; and those patriots who had previously feared England now feared the even closer danger of France, as personified in the queen dowager. By this time, England under Mary Tudor was Catholic and persecuted Protestants; Scottish leaders, in reaction against both France and England, became much more receptive to Protestant ideas.(14) In this connection, it may be noted that unsuccessful internal reforms undertaken by the Scottish hierarchy in the 1540's and 50’s were actually quite close to Lutheranism in certain parts of theology (such as justification by faith), suggesting that the active elements among the clergy might not have been averse to a Henrician-type reformation, and that it was for reasons other than religion that such a reformation did not take place.(15)

The above analysis is not intended to suggest that diplomacy was the determining factor in the outbreak of the Scottish Reformation. Rather, international relations was one of several important factors. One of the points which a strictly diplomatic interpretation of the Scottish Reformation would not explain was the possibility of a Protest ant Scotland allied with a Catholic France against a Protestant England, or a Catholic Scotland allied with a Protestant England against a Catholic France. Sixteenth-century international relations were often not dictated by religious affiliation, to say the least; and it is further inappropriate to assume that the religious policies of the Scots were simply reacting to the fluctuating situation south of the border. Other important causes of the Scottish Reformation are to be found in the domestic politics of the country.

13)See, for example, P. Hume Brown, John Knox, a biography (London, 1895), 39-41; Lee, op. cit., 14; and the New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., 1231-1232.

14)Lee, ibid. Also, Donaldson, op. cit., 52.

15)Dickinson, 140-141, 121. Donaldson, 50.

ARISTOCRATIC FACTIONS

The first Scottish martyr to the Protestant cause was one George Wishart, who was burnt at the stake in 1546 as a heretic.(16) He had made few but dedicated converts, and some of these proceeded to murder Cardinal Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrews and leader of the pro-French party. But religion and diplomacy were not the only causes for the assassination. Beaton had made many enemies in local disputes, and had threatened the interests of some noble families by his land and succession policies.(17) After his death, the affairs of state were in the hands of the queen dowager and the new archbishop, John Hamilton, half-brother to the heir apparent to the throne, the earl of Arran. While the French alliance was uppermost in the mind of the queen dowager, Hamilton's main interests were those of his family. As it was more to the advantage of the Hamilton family for the French influence to be restricted (since Arran would inherit the throne if Mary Stewart died childless, and also because Arran ' s son was a contender for Mary Stewart's hand), archbishop and queen dowager did not always see eye to eye, and the domestic as well as foreign policy of this period by no means had the unanimous support of all the factions in the country. In religion, reforms by the hierarchy took place side by side with the wooing, by different political factions, of the growing Protestant elements.(18) Some of the converts to Protestantism were no doubt sincere, while others had less honest motives; but despite their growing numbers, they did not form a coherent group until after John Knox, an unknown preacher implicated in the murder of Beaton, returned from exile to the Continent and training under Calvin in 1555. The struggles between the queen dowager, the Hamiltons, and the supporters of Lord James Stewart of Moray, bastard half-brother of Mary Stewart, were reaching a crisis because of domestic disputes and the marriage of Mary to King Francois II of France. Knox was able to unite the Protestant nobles, in a 'Common Band' of the Lords of the (Protestant) Congregation in 1557. Religious reform thus merged with political rebellion against the regent queen dowager. When factions of Protestant as well as Catholic nobles, such as Huntly, succeeded in toppling the regent, the Reformation in Scotland officially began. The decisive campaign was fought in 1560 between the French troops of the government and English troops sent by Queen Elizabeth to support the rebels of the Congregation and to prevent French hegemony in her northern neighbour. The Protestant army entered Edinburgh in the spring of that year. In June, the queen dowager died. And in August, the Scottish Parliament abrogated Papal authority, prohibited the Mass, and adopted a reformed Confession of Faith drafted by Knox and his comrades. That same year, Knox et alii also produced the First Book of Discipline. outlining their Calvinistic ideas of religious, social, and educational reforms. Meanwhile, the organisation of local congregations in place of the old parishes continued apace. Although it was some years before the Church of Scotland was firmly set up, the old Scottish Church had come to an end.

SUMMING UP

Such, in brief, were the events leading up to the establishment of Protestant power in Scotland. The multiplicity of causes and motives is evident. Although abuses in the old Scottish Church were common, and although the sincerity of religious motives in some of the reformers is not to be doubted, the Protestant Reformation in Scotland was probably not religiously inevitable. If the situation had been different in the aristocratic, ecclesiastical, and diplomatic arenas, a Catholic Reformation might have been successful. As it was, the fact that the Scottish Reformation was Calvinis t rather than Lutheran was ironical in that the Auld Alliance, which had initially kept Scotland Catholic, also led the Scottish Reformers to seek inspiration in the French-speaking, rather than the German-speaking lands of the Continent. And Calvinism, thus translated into English, soon became the Puritanism of old and New England.

16)Dickinson, 128-130. Brown, op. cit., 60-70, J. Durkan, 'Scotland, Church of', in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., 1235-1236.

17)Dickinson, 119-121. Brown, 68-69.

18)Lee, 20. Brown, 272. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1232, 1236.

19)Brown, 300, et seq. Lee, 22-23. D. Mc Roberts, 'Knox, John', in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., viii, 242-243.

20)New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1232-1233, 1236. Lee, 53, 57.

作者：Johnston, Marcia Ellen 年份：1982

SOME SPECULATIONS ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL

The human personality of Jesus Christ is a topic that has long fascinated students of the Gospels. Christ seemed in his most ordinary encounters with others to be able to draw on the Spirit and establish a relationship in a totally new way. There seems to be a history of his personal charismata as well as his divine mission to men.

Unfortunately, reading the Gospel looking for clues to the personal psychology of Jesus is far more eisegesis than exegesis. Despite this major flaw, the Gospel of John can provide a basis for making exegesis-style speculations about the nature of Christ's relationships with others, and to extrapolate from this to some idea of the nature of Christian counseling.

Christian counseling, the marriage of the spiritual level of man's existence with the problem-solving approaches of modern psychology, is relatively new and certainly a more counter-culture approach to traditional movements within the Church, or at least the 'established' Church. “Spiritual health lies with a Christianity that has more in common dynamically with the counterculture that strives for honesty, openness, sharing, genuineness, loving confrontation and awareness, than it has with those centres where establishment religion presses upon the clergy and people for compliance with restrictive ways of avoiding closeness to all those Christ-like qualities.”(1)

It is natural that the Church should return to the healing of man, as a return to the active the Gospel. Counseling is an area well supported in the Gospels by the attention given not only to the physical processes of healing but also, quite accurately, to mental illnesses. Whether in theory possession by devils in scripture is seen as a real possession or merely as an aetiological expression for mental illness, there is direct Gospel evidence to support both Christ's rebuke of the state of the person, and his cure. "The dialogues of Jesus with individual people remain at the center of the Gospel. He spoke so specifically in relation to the needs of the individuals."(2)

Frank Lake, clinical theologian, has developed a model of the dynamic cycle in the life of Christ which is later used as the basis for the analysis and origins of normal healthy human personality structure. Using St. John's Gospel, he cites four stages of development: acceptance, sustenance, status and achievement. The first stage(analogous to pre-birth infancy experiences of human infants) postulates Christ's acceptance by the Father (Jn. 3:17; 17:5). Sustenance is shown in the direct relationship with the Father through prayer. Constant access to the Father is also a dimension of sustenance, shown in Jn, 11:42. In the second stage, where in human infancy bonds are maintained through eye and touch contact, the beginnings of seperation from the mother and ego identity are found. The needs in the second stage are for sustained sustenance. Lake finds this model in Christ's abiding in the Father (Jn. 1:18, 15:9, 5:20, 3:34 and 14:11), all of which refer to the sustenance found in the permanent relationship between Father and Son.

Both of the first two stages are seen as 'input', while the third stage of development indicates the capacity to see a personal identity separated from the figure of sustenance. In the life of Christ this refers to his specific statements of the consciousness of his own being: "I am from above" (8:23); "I am the Son of God" (10:36); "I am not alone" (8:16-18); "I am the light of the world" (8:12); etc. Everything is entrusted to him by the Father (Mt. 11:27), and Jesus by virtue of his sustained identity is able to say, "Follow me" (1:43, 12:26).

The fourth stage is the stage of achievement. In the life of Christ this is strictly limited by the will of the Father. "The son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do." (5:19,30, 36). He can speak of nothing but what he hears from the Father (8:26); the words he does speak are from the Spirit (6:63), and he is to finish the work of redemption God gave him to do (4:34, 16:5, 19:30). In the human translation of this stage, it is at this point that the sustained and newly separated identity of the child is able to organize itself and reach out to the world. In the adult identity it is the stage where work is possible, and the goal of the work is that of Christ, service to others.

Lake's model goes on in its second stage to elaborate on the dynamics of the ontology of grace, and a fourfold phase of the 'being-well-being' which is dependent on grace. God grants acceptance through Christ, the obedient Son, and we are signed into acceptance through baptism, and the family acceptance of the fellowship. New life brought into being through Christ is sustained by the Spirit. Sustenance is through the Word, the Eucharist, the fellowship. In the third phase, "having been loved into abundant life by God, through Christ in the Spirit, we have a new identity, a new purpose in living.'(3)

The new status conveys responsibility as well. If acceptance and sustenance have been given us unconditionally, our motivation then is to love as we have been loved. Gifts for specific service are given. The work stage is the last, service to the world and Word.

Lake's Christ-centered model is the basis for the ontological model which serves as a training tool for Christian counselors to understand and guide change in the human personality, starting with an examination of their own growth. The four stage ontological model is divided again into input and output stage. Lake explains "the sources of personal well-being as being opened by love and care, sustained by the source person, who goes 'down' to draw the needy one into being by relationship and then opens up rich communicable personal resources. These respondants complete the input. A strong sense of status and identification motivates a movement to give out to others. The achievement of this service is output."(4)

What has any of this to do with John's Gospel? It will be my contention that, by examining the relationships found in John's Gospel between Christ and the other characters, a basic model for Christian counseling, similar to Lake's thesis, can be supported. It is a question of interpretation. Superficially one can argue that the historical reality of each encounter may not hold up under strict exegesis. However, the attitude maintained by Christ in his relationships with other persons in the Gospel, although undoubtedly arranged by John and his redactor, does portray a basic sense of human psychology. Lake summarizes the change in God / human relationships by staling that: "Unmerited grace, Christ's love for wrecked men, itself creates a new relationship and a new being."(5)

For the purpose of relative simplicity the text will be divided into sections: Jesus and the disciples, Jesus and his relationship with John the Baptist, the 'healing cycle', Jesus and the Samaritan woman, Jesus and the adultress, Jesus and Nicodemus, Jesus and his friends: Mary, Martha and Lazarus. I would stress again that much of the interpretation is taken from the carefully studied exegesis of authorities on the Gospel, but the interpretation of it is my own subjective model. I think quite validly that a case can be made for developing levels of understanding in the Gospels, starting with a historical veracity, with the Christology and theological levels and the socioeconomic pastiche, and I find no difficulty in seeing the psychological level as well. Being a novice both in theological discourse and psychological training, I may prove to be erroneous in both areas. However the purpose of the paper is, not to offer conclusions, but to present some interesting speculations on the personal interpersonal relations Christ had and the underlying psychology of those relationships.

JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES

In his Commentary on John in the Anchor Bible series, Raymond Brown speaks of Christ's coming as a crisis for all men: "All through the Gospel Jesus provokes self-judgement as men line up for or against him; truly his coming is a crisis in the root sense of that word. "(6) In his initial encounters with his disciples there is a sense of this same crisis and self-judgement. Jesus acts in two ways which indicate his awareness of the critical moment for the disciples. First, he calls them by name. On the surface this seems simplicity, and yet on one level the name is the personal summation of all that we are: we are called into life by our name; God, who is all Wisdom, knows us by name.

Jesus is in a different sphere of existence, that belonging to the spirit, but also present in the reality of the flesh. When he performs his 'signs' and his work, the gifts he gives are 'real' gifts, that is, they are from heaven; the 'real' water is contrasted with ordinary water; the real bread, the bread of life, is in contrast with bread which parishes; and Jesus is the real light that has come into the world.(7) By this same logic one might argue that when he 'calls' the disciples he calls them by their real name; that, throughout the Gospel, he is dealing on different levels with the individual characters, one level being the level where he both recognizes and responds to the real person.

No list of the disciples is given explicitly in the Fourth Gospel. Among those mentioned are Simon Peter, Andrew, Philip, Thomas and Judas Iscariot, Nathaniel. In the earliest pericope with the disciples, Jesus in vs. 35-39 clearly issues an invitation to Andrew and the other disciple, possibly John. The most significant phrase is "Come and see" (1:39). The earlier phrases set the direction of the dialogue: Jesus asks, "What are you looking for?". They misinterpret the question and ask prosaically where he is staying. Christ issues the invitation "Come and see". In the exegesis of the phrase, "What are you looking for?", two meanings can be found. Superficially, "What do you want?"; and, with deeper meaning, "What are you searching for?". "Jesus' first words in the Fourth Gospel are a question that he addresses to a very one who would follow him……This question touches on the basic need of man that causes him to turn to God, and the answer of the disciples must be interpreted on the same theological level. Man wishes to stay (menein: "dwell, abide") with God; he is constantly seeking to escape temporality, change and death, seeking to find something that is lasting. Jesus answers with the all-embracing challenge to faith: 'Come and see '."(8)

Implicit in this faith is the promise of truth, that Jesus will show them that which is real, the reality of the God/man relationship, his real self and, finally, their own reality. Although Brown does not include this in his commentary, I think it can be a logical derivation that Jesus is not only offering an invitation to the disciples but a challenge to 'come and see' reality. The challenge lies in the danger of the unknown, of discovering or being discovered in the secret part of the self that demands protection and hiding. Christ promises they will 'see' and Brown equates 'seeing' with faith throughout the Gospel. Perhaps it is also synonomous with truth, and with that contact with truth which can be a painful though cleansing experience.

In verse 42, Christ responds to Peter by performing both actions: He looks at him, that is, sees or knows him clearly in the spiritual and psychic sense, and he names him. This twofold act sets the relationships throughout the Gospel. In terms of human counseling relationships, Jesus sets a clear pattern for seeing what is there, the spoken and the unspoken message from the sufferer, the body language, the 'little flags' behind the dialogue. It is Jesus who "in the beginning of the process of discipleship……takes the initiative by turning and speaking. As John xv 16 will enunciate, ‘It is not you who chose me. No, I chose you’."(9)

If attention is turned to the individuals chosen, then the emphasis moves from 'seeing-looking-believing' which are all ways of describing the same action, coming to believe in Jesus Christ, to the effect of the actions of Christ's seeing. On the psychological level, the idea of deepening trust is present, leading to an ability through the relationship to accept self and others, and to greater insight which parallels the growth of faith. Perhaps they are the same, trust implying belief and acceptance in the relationship, faith in the person of Jesus. More importantly for the disciples is the reflection of Jesus' seeing: it is also the attraction to Christ: here is a man who knows / accepts / wants me. There is a natural inclination to want to stay with the 'one who knows'.

Dodd remarks that in "the meeting between the two……contrived by Andrew, who, informing his brother that he had found the Messiah, brings him to be introduced", there is an implication that Jesus "gave Simon the name by which he came to be known".(10) Brown stresses that the "name came from Jesus' insight into Simon".(11) The results are the same, the 'knowing' of the name and the giving of the 'known' name to Peter are the direct symbols of the starting discipleship and summarize the relationship between Christ and Simon Peter. Even in his weakness Christ will also see the later strength.

A parallel picture emerges with the introduction of Philip. Again Jesus 'finds' him, knows him to be Philip and offers the 'follow me－come and see' formula. Brown implies that there might have been an earlier contact with Christ, and in this second encounter Philip shows a growth of insight. He speaks of Christ as the very one, a description that could also lead back to the notion of the 'real' one.

Nathanael is called the figurative symbol of reaction on the part of the Jews who accept Jesus through doubt. The conversation between Jesus and Nathanael reinforces the idea of 'knowing'. Jesus does not only see Nathanael－he recognizes him, and by this deep recognition the invitation to join him is issued. Dodd characterizes the inter-change as a dialogue "of unusual form in which Jesus makes an observation not to, but about Nathanael, and Nathanael apparently overhears". "It is this evidence of Jesus’s knowledge of him, it seems, that evokes Nathaniel's confession".(12)

In these first interchanges in the Fourth Gospel, the character of Jesus already offers several insights into how Christ related to others. First, he goes to them, he reaches out to others. Secondly, there is the notion of his ability to 'know' others, and to convey that knowledge by calling them by their name. He seems to understand or empathize with both the apparent and the hidden areas of their personalities. Thirdly, he offers them a way of knowing, of awareness both of themselves and of Him, a look at his realities. By responding to the search of others for meaning and for truth Jesus calls them to himself and his Father.

In these Notes, the following abbreviations are used:－

Dodd:C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. (Cambridge, University Press, 1963).

Brown, Jn.:R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1. (London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1966).

Brown, N.T.E.:R. E. Brown, New Testament Essays. (Milwaukee, Bruce, 1965). Chapter X, “The Gospel Miracles”, pp. 168-191.

　

1)Frank Lake, Clinical Theology, Introductory Pamphlet (pro ms.), 8.

2)Ibid.

3)Frank Lake, Clinical Theology, Chart N.c., Dynamic Cycle or Law of the Spiritual Life, in the Body of Christ (pro ms.). (Cit. modified).

4)Frank Lake, Clinical Theology, Chart Na. 1, The Basic Form of the Model (pro ms.). (Cit. modified).

5)Frank Lake, Clinical Theology, Introductory Pamphlet (pro ms.), 13.

6)Brown, Jn., cxvii.

7)On the meaning of "real", cf. Brown, Jn., Appendix I, 2, 499 ff.

8)Brown, Jn., 78f.

9)Id, 78.

10)Dodd, 306-307 (Emphasis added).

11)Brown, Jn., 80.

12)Dodd, 310.

JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST

The first character presented in John's Gospel is of course John the Baptist. He is known from the Synoptic Gospels as the cousin or relative of Christ. John is chiefly characterized in the Fourth Gospel by statements about what he is not. There is little personal contact indicated between Jesus and John. Only the baptismal scene in other versions indicates direct meetings. Despite the absence of direct dialogue, there is a relationship between the two men, if only in the interchange of their apostles. If Jesus was gifted with the spiritual knowledge of others, then John also had some power of knowledge with his divine mission. "His baptizing and preaching in the desert was opening up the hearts of men, leveling their pride, filling their emptiness and thus preparing them for God's intervention."(13) John's claim to identity is also interesting; he is by his own admission the 'Isaian voice in the wilderness', the one who takes the angelic role in preparing a way through the desert for the Israelites to return to Palestine. "John the Baptist is to prepare a road, not for God. God's people to return to the promised land, but for God to come to His people."(14) In the preparation John's basic ministry is a call to self-assessment, to personal honesty. How neatly this dovetails with the call of Jesus to 'come and see '. John's own integrity is shown in his denial of the prophetic or kingly roles that are wished on him and the maintenance of his secondary status to the 'one who is to come'. John's relationship with Jesus is heavily circumscribed the strict character with which the author of the Gospel sets him up: "The character in which the Baptist is to be presented is defined in advance by a statement in the Prologue (i. 6-8): the man named John, who was sent from God, (a) was not the Light, but (b) came to bear witness to the Light, (c) in order that through his agency all might become believers. This threefold schema controls subsequent sections dealing with the Baptist."(15)

It seems clear that, in the long term relationship of Jesus and John, with the possibility that they both had some connection with the Qumran community, and the strong possibility that Jesus had been an earlier follower of the Baptist, Jesus was able to 'know' John for who he was, while John was less sure of Jesus. The ability of Jesus to know in the divine sense as well as the human begins to emerge in his public ministry, after he left John and moved into his teaching ministry. John says twice, "And I myself never recognized him' (Jn. 1:31,33). His role in hindsight was the recognition of Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic figure" raised up by God to destroy evil in the world."(16)

When Jesus began his teaching ministry, his behaviour no longer fitted the expected pattern for John, of the judgemental prophet or priestly king, and thus, from prison, John sends his disciples to question the change in direction.

"It is precisely that change in the way Jesus was conducting himself (a change that took place after John the Baptist was imprisoned) which led John the Baptist to send from prison to inquire if, after all, Jesus was really the one to come" (Lk. 7:20).(17) The relationship illustrates a strong point in the personal psychology of Jesus Christ－he rarely behaved in the way others expected him to. In the relationship with John, this misunderstanding, and John's persistence in clinging to his former patterns of expectation, caused a break in trust with Jesus. It also indicated a clinging to Christ, John giving all his own glory to the 'one who is to come' but somehow expecting that this figure would fit his own image, that he would have some control. When he found that he could not control the Messiah figure he had trouble dealing with the relationship.

"If John the Baptist actually did expect an Elijah-like figure we have at last the explanation of why he sent his disciples to see if Jesus really was the one to come－Jesus was not acting in the way John the Baptist expected! And Jesus answered him in terms of Isaiah: His was not the role of a destroying judge; but that of a gentle healer and preacher predicted by Is. 35:5-6 and 66:1."(18) Looking at the evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls, Dodd postulates that "it is by no means unlikely that the Baptist should have deliberately set himself to fill the role of the voice "If the man of Qumran believed themselves to have been called (or believed that they might in future be called, according to the interpretation adopted) to fill the role of the Voice in the Wilderness, so may John the Baptist have believed himself called, though his conception of the role went somewhat beyond the 'study of the law'."(19)

St. Paul, in a speech to Jews at Pisidian Antioch, states: "Before his coming John had preached a baptism for the repentence……and as John was finishing his course he said, what do you suppose I am? I am not he. No, but one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie."(20)

With the elaborate preconception of the 'glorious one' to come it may well have been difficult for John to recognize, or be reconciled with, the existence of Jesus. When he did, he seems to have gone to the furthest extreme in denying himself－in the bridegroom speech and other disclaimers. This suggests to me that he was never comfortable with the day to day reality of Jesus in visibly human form and activity.

13)Brown, Jn., 50.

14)Ibid.

15)Dodd, 248.

16)Brown, Jn., 60.

17)Id, 155.

18)Brown, N. T. E., 139.

19)Dodd, 253.

20)Acts 13:24-25.

THE HEALING STORIES

Moving from the first relationships outlined in the Gospel, we find the Cana cycle with its repetition of sign and Christ's emerging public ministry. The theology of the 'Cana to Cana' cycle plays an important part in the message of John's gospel. John places less emphasis on the miracle story per se to prevent the idea of Christ as a mere miracle work, a notion he suggests strongly was repugnant to Jesus himself. "It is on the meaning of the Johannine miracle that we must center our attention, and perhaps we can find a key to this in John's vocabulary. Although others (including the editor of the Gospel) refer to the Jesus' miracles as 'signs', Jesus himself consistently refers to them as 'works '."(21) Brown suggests that the Old Testament background for the notion refers to the work of God accomplished by creation and continuing throughout the salvation history. John specifically has Jesus sum up his ministry in 'work' terms:" "I glorified you on this earth by completeing the work you have given me to do'. Not only are Jesus's miracles works; His words are works too: ‘The words that, I say to you people are not spoken on my own; it is the Father, abiding in me, who performs the works’."(22)

If the notion of work is a direct reference to the miracles performed in the course of his public teaching ministry, the notion of faith is implied in the performance of the signs. In John's description of the healing / signs cycle, the faith of the one who wishes to be or is healed, is as important in the dialogue as the power of the healer. "In fact, several times Jesus attributes the salvation directly to the faith of the person healed. 'Your faith has healed you' (Luke 8:48, 17:19, 18:42) ".(23) The range of faith varies from complete trust and faith in Christ, to scepticism and later conversion. Jesus speaks harshly (Jn. 2:23-25; 4:48; 6:26) of the belief which comes in the more typically Johannine and less Synoptic cases, "where people come to believe in Jesus because of the signs."(24) "Evidently Jesus is not satisfied with having his miracles looked on as mere credential cards; He wants an understanding of what they reveal."(25)

On a psychological level, Jesus seems to seek the development of insight on the part of the healed. Faith implies acceptance, understanding and belief－a knowledge of who the healed 'really is' and who Jesus 'really is'. The growth of faith and insight moves through what Brown categorizes as the unsatisfactory stages in reaction to the signs: refusal to see the signs with any faith, such as Caiaphas; belief in the miracle-working power of Jesus alone, a magic-worker image which Jesus refuses to accept. The acceptable response is found in those who see what is meant by the signs and who are able to learn who Jesus is and what he will do, and thus completely believe in Him. The highest level of belief is found in those who believe without signs (Jn. 20:29).

In a counseling relationship similar levels of reaction are displayed. The growth of trust is often based on how much better the counselor can initially make the client feel－temporary relief of symptoms, which is often preceded by scepticism and disbelief. From the initial distrust, the healer in this case is able to concentrate on demonstrating his ability to be trustworthy. Those who are able after time to trust the counselor are enabled through trust to gain insight. The counselor is in a position gradually to introduce the client to areas of his behaviour or personality that are unknown to him, just as the client is gradually able to 'allow' the counselor to have access to more of the hidden self. Those who are able to understand and see themselves have developed insight and often the personal strength to change behaviour in a desired way. At the highest level of a counseling relationship the client will be able to accept the information of the counselor without having to 'test' the trust relationship continually.

Of course this is a very rough image of both Jesus' ministry and the counseling process, but the parallels in the 'healing stories' seem very clear. In each situation Jesus looks for a response from the 'one to be healed'.

The Cana cycle begins with the wedding at Cana, which shows a small scene in the relationship of Mary and Jesus. Although the scene has been interpreted as a denunciation of Mary, Brown argues that this is misleading. Instead Mary plays a definite and honored role in her association with the disciples, and her request initiates Jesus' public ministry of signs. His refusal directly to accede to her request makes it clear that he is not there to act on her behalf or the will of others but only to answer the will of his Father. Mary, on the other hand, shows her complete belief in her son by asking the impossible and even in rejection persisting in her acceptance of what Jesus is capable of doing. It is as if she is saying－Look, this is what this man my son is, nothing is closed to him. Other characters in the miracle cycle show similar persistence in the face of the initial rejection, and Jesus responds. By the end of the Cana sign we have been introduced to what John wants us to know: that at this wedding Jesus first reveals his glory and "his disciples believed in him."(26)

With that focus Jesus shows great insight in dealing with his mother: the sign is obliquely at his mother's request, and he honors her presence, a presence he knows will no be possible from that point on. It seems to be a natural breaking point in their relationship and yet by publicly including her in the scene and act of his first sign he also pays respect to her role in the preparation of his ministry.

The Nicodemus scene continues the healing cycle, and begins John's use of the dialogue as a form of learning. Questions on one level are answered on another. "The lactic of the Johannine dialogue is always for the answer to transpose the topic to a higher level; the questioner is on the level of the sensible, but he must be raised to the level of the spiritual."(27)

Jesus responds in the Nicodemus dialogue in such a way as to present a challenge to the man himself－a point of asking / challenging growth. Brown points out the answers of Christ were not that oblique; while Nicodemus might have had some confusion about the role of the Spirit, he should have been able to understand some of the material from his Old Testament background. A second point brought out implicitly with the dialogue was the inability of 'knowledge' to prove the correct response to Christ. Indeed in the parallel to the counseling progress, 'knowledge' can prove an obstacle to growth, what we freely 'acknowledge' about ourselves can be superficial and masking of what is the real state. Nicodemus hid behind his mask－the role of an educated man, refusing to allow his own lack of knowledge in an inner sense, and it was this role that Christ challenged. As long as the belief was with the conscious mind and not from the deep emotional level of the personality, it was not effective in change.

21)Brown, N.T.E., 180f.

22)Id, 181.

23)Id, 179.

24)Id, 183f.

25)Id, 184.

26)Brown, Jn., 103.

27)Id, 138.

SAMARITAN WOMAN

The interchange with the Samaritan woman at the well illustrates the Johannine dialogue in use with a different social stratum. Nicodemus is eminently respectable, the Samaritan woman is not. "If we analyze the repartee at the well, we find quite true-to-life the characterization of the woman as mincing and coy, with a certain light grace."(28) She fails to appreciate his gesture in conversing with her－outside the normal custom. It is suggested by Roustang that the woman is mocking Christ in the first exchanges about water. Certainly she is not expecting serious consideration from this man who is a Jew and Rabbi. The dialogue shows rising clarification: Jesus asks for water, the woman fails to understand, he clarifies, she asks about the clarification－an indication of 'buying the answer'－and takes the initiative in demonstrating that he can see her. He points out his knowledge of her, mirrors her for herself. The woman tries to evade the knowledge Christ has put in front of her but Jesus again uses her answer to show her who she is.

The entire scene shows the progressive relationship of the healer and the healed: before Jesus can bring her to healing in her life she must see, as he does, who she is. The flirtation, the evasion and twisting of the truth would be characteristic of a normal counseling relationship especially in the case of the hysteric personality. The woman seeks to manipulate Jesus, that being the only pattern with which she is familiar. Under the pattern lies the lack of acceptance, which has marred her life and prevented trust and the building of permanent relationships. Jesus not only responds, indeed, initiates the contact, but also demonstrates that he knows who she is and is still willing to accept her. "We heard in iii 19-21 that those whose deeds are evil do not come near the light lest their deeds be exposed. The dialogue in 16-18 constitutes the crucial moment of judgement: will she turn her back on the light?"(29)

Judgement is not really the best description of what is happening in this scene. Reality modeling is a closer description; Christ will not allow her to play games or evade the truth about who she is. The turning point in the healing process must be her acceptance of this reality, and her realization that he is willing to accept her despite her desperate manipulation because he sees what lies beyond the role. In verses 19-20 we have the situation where the woman sees the 'light' and in 21-24 Jesus explains "that true worship can come only from those begotten by the Spirit of truth. Only through the Spirit does the Father beget true worshipers."(30) In verses 25-26 the woman finally recognizes who Jesus is and Jesus affirms it; and implicit in this fact is that she recognizes who she is, and that He also affirms it－one without the other is difficult. She must know who she is in order really to 'see' him clearly. Brown comments: "In this scene John has given us the dramma of a soul struggling to rise from the things of this world to belief in Jesus ". (31)He has also given us the basics of a psychological dramma. When she calls Jesus a prophet, her identification of him" stems from the special knowledge that he has exhibited, but may also refer to his obvious wish to reform her life."(32) The insight Christ shows in seeing what her real needs are, and his tolerance for her behaviour again mirrors his ability to 'see' the person beyond normal perceptiveness.

28)Id, 175, citing M.J. Lagrange, Evangile selon S. Jean (8th ed; Paris, Gabalda, 1948), 101. The following reference to Roustang is taken from Brown, Jn., 177.

29)Id, 177.

30)Ibid.

31)Id, 178.

32)Id, 171.

OFFICIAL'S SON

The sign of the cure of the official's son deals with a more physical reality of Christ's ministry. Many of the same elements are however present in this scene. There is a question of trust or faith at the center of the scene; "the man put his trust in the word Jesus had spoken to him and started for home." (Jn. 4:50b). Jesus comments that only by seeing will people believe; and, interpreted on the double level John is often intending, the question of seeing can go beyond physical sight and mean the development of insight into who Jesus is, and what the relationship between Christ and man must be. Of course this is a passage concerning the power Jesus has over death and life, and coming to believe in Christ who is the eternal word / life, but it is also a passage about trust, and man's basic fear of trusting that which is not visible.

Fearing risk is common both in these passages and in any counseling relationship. In spiritual or psychological counselling that person must take the initial risk of accepting the unknown, and this is often the greatest obstacle to growth. Jesus models risk taking and calls for it in his relationships with others.

BETHESDA CRIPPLE

"The general pattern or form of the Bethesda story, like that of several pericopae in the Synoptic Gospels……, is determined by a feature common to them all: that Jesus takes action on his own initiative, without any appeal either from the patient or from his friends."(33) Common to the healing stories is the challenge of Jesus to the sick man, '"Do you really want to become a healthy man?' 'Have you the will to health?' The man's reply is a feeble excuse, which shows that his will to health has been weak. In view of this, the further command, 'Rise, pick up your stretcher and walk!' is felt as a further challenge to the man's enfeebled will, and, in fact, as a demand for his co-operation in the cure."(34)

Once again Jesus deals with the reality of the man's personality: if he does not have the will to be healthy, then he will be unable to accept the cure. The healing process indicated by Christ in this scene is two-fold; the healing power of the Spirit and the acceptance of the healing by the will of the patient, the desire to be healthy. The psychological parallels are so obvious it would be redundant to mention them. One is not cured, one becomes well; and this becoming involves the will to accept, grow, change and live. The responsibility for change belongs to the sick person. Jesus challenges the man to take up his own life and be responsible for it. He also challenges the man not to return to his former behaviour, 'sin no more', recognizing the psychological dimensions of the weak will which made him ill. Christ makes a distinction in the opening lines of the scene between sin and suffering, yet he recognizes the role that the self has had in the cause of the illness. The grumbling character of the sick man illustrates this: "If the paralytic's malady were not so tragic, one could almost be amused by the man's unimaginative approach to the curative waters. He crotchety grumbling……betrays a chronic inability to seize opportunity, a trait reflected again in his oblique response to Jesus' offer of a cure."(35)

THE ADULTRESS

The psychology of the adultress scene in Chapter Eight is similar to the dialogue with the Samaritan woman. Both deal with women of a socially unacceptable class, who are considered guilty of social crimes. Jesus laid down some clear reactions to guilt, both the guilt of the society which causes the women to be ostacised and the guilt of the individual. He proved unshockable, he did not recoil in horror from the woman; he refused to join them in their guilt trip, and he made a clear statement－that the truth of the woman's sin was more acceptable than the hypocrisy of the accusers. Finally he accepted, acknowledged what she had done, but made it clear that he was concerned only with her present and future behaviour.

The writing in the sand is debated, but the majority opinion suggests that he wrote from the Old Testament texts dealing with scandal. The "adultery in Law was concerned with unfaithfulness on the part of a wife, and not with affairs between husbands and unmarried women."(36) Christ indicated the double standard of the accusers. In this scene we are shown "the delicate balance between the justice of Jesus in not condoning the sin and his mercy in forgiving the sinner"; it is "one of the great gospel lessons".(37) It is perhaps the power of Christ's acceptance that enables the woman to stop.

An example of the 'acceptance' of Jesus is found in the discourse in 8:25-26: "What I have been telling you from the beginning. Many are the things I could say about you and condemn; but the only things I say to this world are what I have heard from Him, the One who sent me, who is truthful".

33)Dodd, 174.

34)Id, 176.

35)Brown, Jn., 209.

36)Id, 333.

37)Id, 337.

THE BLIND MAN

In Chapter Nine, the blind man episode deals with the 'seeing of the Light', In this case, the physical blindness of the man is not a bar to his insight: he is better able to see and appreciate Jesus than the blindness of faith on the part of the Sadducees. "The encounter is a casual one…… As at Bethesda and at Nain, Jesus 'saw' the sufferer. But on the present occasion the 'seeing' does not at once lead to active intervention, which waits on the initiative of a third party: the disciples draw their Master's attention to the blind man."(38)

In contrast with other healing stories, the healing of the blind man is not immediate. "In our present passage, on the other hand, after the operation with spittle, the patient is bidden, 'Go wash in the pool of Siloam'. He goes, carries out his instructions, and emerges with the power of sight. This gives a different aspect to the story: the co-operation of the patient is demanded. His readiness to obey the command of Jesus is an essential element in the cure, and is in fact a measure of his faith, though John does not use the term."(39)

It is also a very directive statement on the part of Jesus. While he normally leads or acts on behalf of others, here he directs the man to effect his own cure. Obviously the character of the blind man is completely different from the paralytic of Bethesda or the women of the earlier encounters. Here is a man who needs only guidance and direction, and Jesus recognizes this.

It is also a comment on the vulnerability of the human condition, to be in a life where for the most part man walks blindly, with only the trust of others as a guide. Christ offers his guidance. Only by trusting can the man accept the offer and participate in his own cure. True, this is a very allegorical way of seeing the story; but much of John's scenerio is built around Jesus the light and my interpretation extends only into the psychogical level, dealing with the inability of people to see themselves clearly.

Other stories in the Synoptic gospels, (the story of the paralytic in Mark, the man with the withered arm, the lepers in Luke) show similar scenes with the faith of the sick person operative in the cure. In a counseling situation faith in God begins with trust in the source person. Jesus was able to inspire trust in most of the men and women he touched.

Jesus makes several comments in the blind man scenario about the nature of blindness and his own role, which again give clues to the personal psychology of the human Jesus. 'I came into the world for judgement; that those who do not see may be able to see and those who do see may become blind' (9:30). That he is talking about vengeance is nonsense, he is talking about ignorance, and free will. This is more evident in 9:41: 'If only you were blind then you would not be guilty of sin, but now that you claim to see, your sin remains.' This seems to refer to the responsibility of insight: once you are able to see your own behaviour, just as once you are able to see Christ, then the rejection of both goods becomes self-condemnation. In making the blind man able to see, Jesus is also freeing him to become responsible for his life, with the possibility of choosing the rejection of the good as well as to follow it in Jesus. He will no longer be attached to the sin, or behaviour of his parents, but become a person in his own right. Perhaps this is why Jesus does not initially rush to cure him. Brown comments that "the care with which the evangelist has drawn his portraits of increasing insight and hardening blindness is masterful". (40)

THE LAZARUS STORY

Finally we come to the dramatic climax of the healing stories, leading to Jesus' own death. He has been revealed as the Wisdom, and the Light, and the Life of the world, now he demonstrates that he is indeed physical life for others. Jesus resurrects his dead friend Lazarus from the tomb. "There is much dramatic or picturesque detail. There is, once again, the delay, allowing the illness of the patient to reach a fatal conclusion, and this leads, after much dialogue of a peculiarly Johannine cast, to the theme of death as sleep (xi. 11-14). Then we have, in highly dramatic vein, the journey of Jesus, his arrival four days too late (as it seems), his meeting with the sisters……the scene of mourning, in which Jesus is constrained to join."(41) There are also strong elements of response on the part of Jesus, of emotional reactions, and some revealing moments showing his relationship with his friends, Lazarus, Martha and Mary.

The scene is "unique in this gospel for the way in which it combines narrative and discourse in an inseparable whole".(42) It is the longest continuous dramatic narrative in the Gospel, and has very distinct characterization. It is unique in showing some of the personal life Jesus had with this family in Bethany. "There is frequent emphasis on the love that Jesus has for the family. If Bethany was Jesus' lodging place when he came to Jerusalem……then it is not too unreasonable to suggest that it was at this home that he stayed and that its occupants were truly his close friends."(43)

In this scene, as throughout the Gospel, it is clear that Jesus had a very personal and individual relationship with each of the three friends, as well as the normal social relationship. Like Mary, his mother, at Cana (Jn. 2:5), they felt able to turn to him confidently when Lazarus fell ill. In each case, there is the same half-expressed hope that Jesus will act despite the seeming impossibility of the situation".(44) Although it does not mention that Lazarus petitioned his Master, it can be assumed that he too hoped that Jesus would come to heal him. There is ample evidence that Jesus knew of the sickness: vs. 4, 11, 13, 14; and yet he did not respond in the way the sisters expected. As at the Cana wedding scene Jesus is not manipulated, he cannot allow them to control his action, although he expresses concern. Bultmann claims that "Jesus' works have their own hour." Certainly in the Lazarus story this is true－"Out of love Jesus did not go to help the sick Lazarus, for he would be of more help to Lazarus when Lazarus was dead."(45)

I do not think that Jesus would test them just to see to what extent their belief would hold. Instead the focus could be on the other side of trust－to believe freely even when the concrete support is missing, a centered faith that sustains the relationship with love, even when the loved one behaves in a way outside our expectations. Jesus was himself, he was responsive to the will of his Father, and responded with compassion to the need of the three in Bethany, knowing that he did not need to let them dictate his actions. If they were in fact his close friends, then the relationship did not need him to act. He loved them enough to know that they would accept who he was and what he did.

When he finally went to Bethany and came at that time of the funeral scene, he was met by the two sisters－Martha, who "throughput the incident……believes in Jesus but inadequately" and who indicates, 11:39, “that she does not as yet believe in his power to give life”(46) and Mary who again affirms that she believes and accepts Christ.

The emotional outburst from Jesus indicates that the scene is really a point where, not only in the spiritual sense but in a real human psychological sense, Jesus is free to show these friends who he is. The spiritual concepts of glorification and belief are on another level the expression of real love and trust. He demonstrates his trust in their belief by accepting the hard situation, not responding to Lazarus immediately, and yet expressing his own real pain at Lazarus's death. Facing the tomb of Lazarus also calls out of Jesus his pain at his own approaching death and he feels free to share that with these his friends.

The interchange with Martha is one where she demonstrates what she thinks she knows of Jesus and he affirms for her what he really is. "As usual with the 'I am' statements which have a predicate, the predicates 'resurrection' and 'life' describe what Jesus is in relation to men－they are what Jesus offers to men."(47)

In that context the openess with which Jesus comes to Martha and Mary is truly the offering of his love to them, that here at this time he will be himself with them. It is as himself, the very real expression of who he is, that he raises Lazarus from the tomb, from death and from the darkness that death represents. And in doing so he must face his own death, and perhaps his own fears of death.

The model for the counseling relationship is clear. The healer must be truly free to be him / herself and to affirm that identity with the client. Secondly, to reach the pain and disorder of the client, requires empathy－to go to that place－and the facing of one's own personal darkness. Jesus goes beyond what might be expected to be with Lazarus all the way even to death.

After dealing with the relationship of Jesus with the family in Bethany, we move to the anointing scene. It shows many of the same elements, in the close portrayal of friendship between Mary and Jesus. If, as it is sometimes suggested, Mary was also the Magdalen, brought back into society through Jesus, then the portrayal of this scene has an even deeper meaning. Mary's caring for Jesus is obvious, she listens to him, she embraces his feet in the Lazarus scenario, she is there for him. In the context of a loving relationship that is only hinted at, she is clearly a person close to Christ. Finally in this scene she anoints him, and as with his mother in the Cana scene, her presence and action take on prophetic overtones. Benoit separates the scene into two incidents, one, involving a sinner woman who anoints Jesus' feet with her tears, as in the Lucan drama; and the second involving a close friend of Jesus who anoints Jesus with her best perfume on his head. Whichever version is accepted, the evidence of three accounts, Mark, Matthew and John, plus the Lucan version certainly support the fact that Jesus was lovingly anointed by a woman and not only accepted the anointing but rebuked those who thought it unseemly.

I find the action of Mary a real and understandable expression of love, made in a way that forced her beyond the 'reasonable' limits of social expression of her time. She took a risk because she loved Jesus enough to risk showing it. The greater risk would have been to keep silent and do nothing. The fact that it was a physical action suggests that she was symbolically saying what she could not express verbally, and doing something that was a frightening and intense expression of her feelings. It is Jesus’ acceptance of the love that frees her; not to have it demanded that the love be returned in kind, Jesus has made it clear earlier that he cannot be held by human relationships, and yet, by his acceptance of Mary's acts, he makes his love for her clear. By demonstrating that he understands what this is for her, he affirms her and offers her himself. Much is made of the action: "Mary's action constituted an anointing of Jesus's body for burial, and thus unconsciously she performed a prophetic action," (48) but I think it is this emotional climate which is the center of the scene. Jesus gives Mary permission to be herself, to love, and to express the love, and to have the love accepted. The model for Christian relationships is clear.

　

38)Dodd, 181.

39)Id, 183.

40)Brown, Jn., 377.

41)Dodd, 231.

42)Id, 228.

43)Brown, Jn., 431.

44)Id, 433.

45)Id, 431; ibid. for the reference to R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 303.

46)Id, 433.

47)Id, 434.

48)Id. 454.

作者：黄克镳

导言

去年神学年刊中笔者曾介绍当代神学家卡．拉内(KARL RAHNER) 神父论基督之死的「圣事标记因」(SACRAMENTAL－SYMBOLIC CAUSALITY)；1 当时已计划于本期年刊中继续介绍拉内有关基督意识的独到见解。刚巧今年辅大神学论集五十四、五十五两期中，张春申神父先后发表两篇大作，详细讨论有关耶稣的知识及意识的问题；张神父从圣经、传承以及现代神学各方面讨论这问题。2 笔者愿意继续这一探讨，专门介绍拉内对这问题的精辟见解；张神父在论耶稣的意识一文中也曾撮要地介绍拉内的思想，3 但因该文是全面性的探讨，无意详细研究拉内的思想，本文可作为这方面的补充资料。

在天主教神学范围内，有关基督的意识和知识的探讨，在梵二前的一段时间，曾一度成为基督学的热门问题；4 梵二以后，基督学的争论点渐渐转移到基督的身份上。5但基督的意识及知识问题，与祂身份的问题是无法分开的，对于降生奥迹及基督身份的了解，自然也影响到有关祂的心理与认知的看法；反过来说也是真的。所以有关基督的意识与知识的问题，虽然现在已不是明显的热门问题，但一直是隐伏在对基督身份的探讨后面的重要问题。

在拉内的基督学中，这问题也占很重要的位置；拉内的基督学主要是一种超历史的先稔的基督学(TRANSCENDENTAL CHRISTOLOGY)，他不以基督的生平事迹为起点，却从人的普遍状况与特性出发，研究基督的奥迹。6 拉内对基督的意识与知识的探讨，可以说是连贯这种先稔基督学与历史角度的后稔基督学(HISTORICAL－CATEGORICAL CHRISTOLOGY) 的桥梁，7 俾能继续发挥一种以基督生平事迹为基础的基督学。

拉内对于基督意识及知识的见解，被不少学者视为有关这深奥问题的突破；8 当然不能算是这问题的完满答案，但至少是一个令人满意的解释。既然拉内的理论贡献重大，在他自己的基督学中又占重要位置，所以很值得我们较详细地加以研究。由于篇幅关系，本文只讨论拉内有关基督意识的见解，希望有关基督知识的问题也会因此更为清楚。9 本文第一部份首先介绍拉内有关的思想，然后在第二部份指出其特殊贡献。

(甲) 卡．拉内关于基督意识的见解

「荣福直观」(Beatific Vision) 与「直接神视」(Immediate Vision)

传统神学二向以荣福直观解释基督意识与知识的问题，称基督在世时已经如天上神圣一般享有直观天主的特恩。10 原因在于基督是圣言降生成人，要把救恩带拾人类，因此祂本人在世时便应该享有这完满救恩，即面对面享见天主的荣福直观；同时，因着这荣福直观，基督又能在天主内谛观一切，清楚地认识自己的特殊身份与使命，以及世界上的一切事物，

拉内首先对「荣福」一词发出异议，认为与天主亲近并不一定带来荣福；11若说耶稣在世时常享受天上的荣福，那么在山园祈祷时及垂死的痛苦中，难道祂也享有这荣福吗？传统神学提出的解决办法，或是把基督的意识划分为两个互不干犯的区域，或是说在受难时荣福直观的神恩暂时中断；这两种解释都不能令人满意。况且耶稣在世时真正是一位旅居尘世的路人(VIATOR)，祂必须接受各种痛苦与考验，才能作我们的楷模。为了这些缘故，拉内建议把「荣福直观」一词改为「直接神视」(IMMEDIATE VISTON)。12

外在理论(extrinsicist theory)

除了建议把荣福直观改称直接神视外，拉内又分析对这种直观或神视的两种不同解释：即外在理论(EXTRINSICIST THEORY) 与内在理论(INTRINSICIST THEORY)。13 外在解释把基督的直观视作一种额外的恩典，因着基督的特殊身份而赏赐给祂的。这理论是以所谓「完美原则」(PRINCIPLE OF PERFECTION) 为依据，祂的人性既然与圣言结合，故应享有一切完美及特殊恩宠，其中最重要的便是在世时不断享见天主的直观神恩。这种视直观为额外恩典的看法，也影响了对直观性质的了解，把它看作一种主体与客体间的认识，认为藉着直观，基督清晰地看见天主，就如一本书或一面镜子一般，同时又在天主内洞悉一切世间的事物。14

拉内认为这种对直观的外在解释不无困难，首先这与圣经的记载不甚配合，福音上介绍的基督是一位懂得发问、疑惑、学习、惊讶、深受感动……曾遭受到被天主遗弃的垂死痛苦的基督。15 再者，假如耶稣在直观中对自己的身份、使命及在祂身上将要发生的一切，完全瞭如指掌的话，那么，祂对于天主的信赖与委顺将是轻而易举；祂的自由抉择也大受限制。16

内在理论(intrinsicist theory)

因此，拉内给直接神视提供一种较内在的解释，把这神视看作降生奥迹的必然因素；同时认为这不是一种客体般的认识，却是主体的自我意识。首先，拉内反对把直接神视看作一种额外、附加的恩典，他强调直接神视与降生奥迹根本无法分割，两者是同一事实的两个不同幅度，圣言与人性的结合(HYPOSTATIC UNION) 是降生奥迹的存有幅度(ONTOLOGIGAL DIMENSION)，直接神视便是这奥迹的认知幅度(EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIMENSION)。17

拉内的见解基于他的一个重要哲学理论，即任何事物的存有与认知的一致性。18他发挥圣多玛斯的意见，主张一切事物都朝着意识境界前进，趋向于「自反」(REDITIO IN SE) 的能力。19事物必须通过认识及爱才能返回自己、临在于自己(SELF－PRESENCE)，这种自反或临于自己的能力正是事物存有的程度的指标。20 初看起来，拉内的理论好像犯了「泛意识论」的错误，以为一切事物都是有意识的，或是以为但凡没有意识的事物，便缺乏真正的存有。为了解答这疑难，应注意拉内对世界的看法，他认为在整个受造界，物质与精神之间，有一种基本上的连贯性与一致性。物质具有潜力，不断趋向精神，有形的世界不断趋于内在化(INTERIORIZATION)，无灵之物以达于意识为鹄的。21 拉内这种见解，不难获得进化学说的支持，由于造物主赋与的潜能，物质与精神之间并无不能跨越的鸿沟。

当然拉内也看到物质与精神之间的基本区别，物质没有认知的能力，它只能被认识而不能有所认识；物质固然朝着意识界前进，但它本身的意识只是尚在发展中的潜能，因此物质的存有程度是很贫乏微弱的。22 随着人的出现，物质的世界首次返回自己，进入自我意识，所以人是有形世界的颠峰，他的存有高于一切物质界之上。由此看来，拉内所持存有与认知一致性的理论，具体上指一切具精神的主体都能基本上意识到自己的身份与实况；更具体地说，天使与人都能各自认识自己的身份与特性。其实这哲学原则与心理学理论也相符，正常的人都能基本上了解自己的身份，精神分裂的一种表现便是对自己身份的误解与错乱。

认知与存有不但一致，而且自我意识的程度与存有的程度是成正比的；一个存在个体越成全，其自我意识也越深，如此天神的意识胜于人的意识，因为前者是直觉的，无需透过物质的中介。现在让我们返回基督意识的论题，拉内认为不但物质界不停地朝着精神迈进，就是人本身也在不断进展中，人的本性不是一成不变的，却在不断成长与实现中。人之所以为精神体，因为他对神具有无止境的开放(POTENTIA OBOEDIENTIALIS)，拉内认为这是给人最好的定义。23 既然人最基本的特性是对于神的开放，那么神的临在与占有，并不减弱人的价值，反而把人提升到更完满的境界。从这角度看来，圣言降生的奥迹无异是把人提升到最高的境界，因为圣言的临在与结合满全了人对神无止境的开放。24 依照上述存有与认知成正比的原则，降生奥迹既然是人的最高境界，这事实该是基督的人性所意识到的，而且这意识的深度远胜于一般人的自我意识。25 拉内称基督完全被圣言占有的意识为直接神视，它不是额外附加的恩典；却是降生的奥迹的内在因素，这不外是把圣言与人性的结合由存有的层面引申到认知的层面。

「基本状况」(basic condition)

拉内除了以直接神视为降生奥迹的内在因素外，他的理论还有一个很大的特点。这神视不是主体与客体间清晰的认识，而是同于主体的意识。26 他又把意识区别为两个不同的层面或型态，即未经反省、含蓄、非概念的意识型态，以及经反省的、明显的、以概念表达的意识型态。他认为基督的直接神视属前一种意识型态。27 这种未经反省的意识也可以称为主体的「基本状况」(GRUNDBEFINDLICHKEIT)，这是每个人都具有的，是他一切精神行动的先决条件。28 人在认识任何事物时，便同时意识到自我及这个我与所认识的对象有所分别；除了这自我意识外，他还含隐地意识到一个更大的视野(HORIZON) 或可知的领域，他意会到这视野或领域比他所注意到的任何对象更广大，拉内指这视野或领域相当于一切可知事物的总和(TOTALITY OF ALL KNOWABLE OBJECTS) ；这种超越个别对象，趋向更大视野的动力拉内称为"VORGRIFF" (PRE－APPREHENSION)。29 就如人在观看一件事物时。他同时意识到围绕着这事物的背景；假如他蓄意观看这更广阔的背景时，他还是意会到一个更大的空间。他知道山外还有山，海洋尽处仍是浩瀚无涯的海洋，甚至整个大地也只不过是一颗微粒，被无边际的太空包围着。

这更大的视野或领域不但出现于认知的行动中，在作出任何选择时，人也意会到除了眼前选择的对象外，还有其他无数可以选择的对象。总之，人感到自己常被更大的真善美包围着，在我们认识的事物之外还有更大的真理，在选择的对象以外还有更大的美善。这更大的视野或领域，这无止境的真善美，是我们认识或选择个别对象时不可或缺的条件。假如没有这视野，我们根本无法形成抽象的概念或把个别事物列于存有的范畴。30 拉内认为这不断伸展的视野，这无尽的真善美，到最后该是天主自己。拉内称之为「无名的奥秘」(NAMELESS MYSTERY)，31 这奥秘充塞天地，环抱万象，包围众人，这奥秘同时是光明与晦暗，正如在太阳的光辉下我们看见一切，但太阳本身却光耀夺目，不可正视；这奥秘沉默无言，却不断邀请人朝着更大的真善美提升，催促人超脱万物，超越自我，迈向无限的真善美。32 不同的宗教以不同的名称称这无名的奥秘；无信仰的人否认这奥秘的存在，却无法对这无止境的更大视野给予一个满意的解释。

拉内称这种被奥秘包围的意识为人的「基本状况」，这是一种含蓄、未经反省、非意念的意识，但却深深植基于人心，成为他一切精神行动的基础。拉内视基督的基本状况与一般人的相似，同是一种被天主包围的感觉；但因祂的人性与圣言结合，被圣言完全占有，所以在祂心灵的深处意识到与天主的绝对及唯一无二的亲近(RADICAL AND UNIQUE CLOSENESS TO GOD )，一种跟天主极密切的关系，这是一般人意识不到的。33 这便是基督灵魂的基本状况，拉内把这基本状况看作基督所享有的直接神视，定是一种主体的、未经反省的意识，并非一种客体般的认识。

基本意识渐趋明朗化

按拉内的意见，未经反省、非意念的意识形态具有一种内在的动力，渐趋明朗化及以概念表达出来；34因此基督的直接神视或基本状况也渐由含蓄、直觉的层面发展到反省及表达的层面。这是真正的意识形态的发展，这发展需要一段时间；同时，耶稣也须藉着外在的环境，通过与别人的来往接触，透过四周发生的事情，以及在圣经的指引下反省学习，以便更了解及更清楚表达自己的身份与使命。35 基督很早便发现自己与天主独特的关系最适宜以父子的关系来诠解及表达，所以在福音中耶稣的言行间流露出很深的子的意识，一种由父而来，及不断回归天父的心态。拉内解说基督这种子的意识正是祂作子事实的认知层面。耶稣又认定天国的图象最能解释祂受于天主的特殊使命，所以福音中天国成了基督宣讲的主要对象，祂甚至把自己本身比作天国的来临。36 称基督这种探索、诠解的过程为意识形态的发展，并不是说祂由一无所知的境界渐渐进入意识及认知的境界，而是说由一种含隐未能解说的基本意识渐渐进入一种明显，以概念表达的意识。37 拉内的见解一面维护基督在基本上常具有天主子的意识，一面又强调祂有真正的心理意识的发展，使祂的生平历史更有真实感。

1.「救恩的「圣事标记」卡．拉内论基督之死」，神学年刊6 (1982) 11-20

2.「耶稣的知识与意识(上)」，神学论集54 (1982) 537-552；「耶稣的知识与意识(下)」，神学论集55 (1983) 79-93.

3.art. cit., 神学论集55 (1983) 86-89.

4.参阅W. Pannenberg, Jesus－God and Man (London, SCM, 1976) pp. 328-334; 有关书目参阅K. Rahner, "Dogmatic Reflections on the Knowledge and Self-Consciousness of Christ", TI vol. 5, pp. 193f., note 2. 以下简称"Knowledge and Self-Consciousness" .

5.有关近日基督学新趋势，参阅H. Miessen (陈宽薇译)，「基督论的新趋势」，神学论集47 (1981) 55-62; F. S. Fiorenza, 「梵二以后的基督论」，神学论集51 (1982) 49-69.也参阅A. Dulles, "Contemporary Approaches to Christology: Analysis and Reflections", Living Light 13 (1976) 119-144; G. O' Collins, What are they saying about Jesus? (New York, Paulist, 1977); B. Cooke, "Horizons on Christology in the Seventies", Horizons 6 (1979) 193-217; B. O. McDermott, "Roman Catholic Christology : The Recurring Themes", Theological Studies 41 (1980) 339 -367; A. Schilson－W. Kasper, Christologie im Prasens. Kritische Sichtung neuer Entwurfe (Freiburg, Herder, 1977); L. Renwart, “Un signe en butte a la contradiction (Lc. 2,34). La Christologie dans quelques ouvrages recents", Nouvelle Revue Theologique a. 112, t. 102 (1980) 716 -754.

6.K. Rahner, FCF, pp. 206 - 208; 参阅H. Miessen, art. cit., 神学论集47 (1981) 56; F. S. Fiorenza, art. cit., 神学论集51 (1982) 51; O. H. Hentz, "Anticipating Jesus Christ : An Account of Our Hope", in L.J. O' Donovan (ed.), A World of Grace. An Introduction to the Themes and Foundations of Karl Rahner ' s Theology ( New York, Seabury, 1980) p. 110.

7.K. Rahner, “Jesus Christ, IV”, SM vol. 3, p.200.

8.参阅A. Grillmeier, “The Figure of Christ in Catholic Theology Today”, in J. Feiner et al. (eds.), Theology Today, vol. 1 (Milwaukee, Bruce, 1965) pp. 99-105; J.－J. Latour, “Imago Dei Invisibillis”, in idem et H. Bouesse (eds.), Problemes actuels de Christologies (Paris, Desclee, 1965) pp. 246-249; E. Gutwenger, “The Problem of Christ’s Knowledge”, Concilium 2(1966) 48-55, R. E. Brown, "How much Did Jesus Know－A Survey of the Biblical Evidence", Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29 (1967) 343f.

9.拉内对于基督知识的见解参阅 “Knowledge and Self-Consciousness”, TI vol. 5, pp.200-202.

10.奥脱，天主教信理神学上册(台中，光启1967) pp. 271-275; 奥脱称这为神学上确定意见。

11."Knowledge and Self-Consciousness", TI vol. 5, p. 203.

12.ibid.

13.ibid. pp. 204f.

14.ibid. p. 207.

15.ibid.

16.ibid. p. 202.

17.ibid. pp.206-208 这里拉内没有用 “ontological” 与 “epistemological” 两字，却用了"ontic" 与 "on-logical". 当拉内把这两词对立时，其意义与习用上 "ontological" 与"epistemological" 的对立相同。

18.ibid., p. 205; 拉内在他的哲学著作曾详细讨论这基本原则，参阅 SW. pp. 67 - 77; HW, pp. 37-44.

19.参阅多玛斯Summa Contra Gentiles IV, 11.

20.HW, pp. 45-52; 拉内称存有属类比性质，存有的程度与意识或自反的能力成正比。

21."Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World", TI vol. 5, pp. 161-168.

22.HW, pp. 49f.

23.HW, pp.66f.; "On the Theology of the Incarnation", TI vol. 4, P. 109.

24."On the Theology of the Incarnation", TI vol. 4, p. 110; "Current Problems In Christology". TI vol. 1, pp. 170f., and note 3.

25."Knowledge and Self-Consciousness", TI vol. 5, p. 206.

26.ibid., p. 208.

27.ibid., p. 199, 208f.

28.ibid., p. 200.

29.ibid., p. 201: HW, pp. 58 - 60.

30.“Vorgriff” 是拉内思想主要观念之一，在SW中有很详细讨论，他证明人觉察到更大视野或领域的超越能力("Vorgriff”) 是形成抽象概念及认识实有的先决条件。参阅SW, pp. 117-236.

31."The Concept of Mystery in Catholic Theology", TI vol. 4, pp. 51f.; 拉内也称这奥秘为「神圣的奥秘」(Holy Mystery) (Ibid., pp. 53f.) 「奥秘」一词对拉内神学极重要，除上述文章外，请参阅FCF, Ch. II : “Man in The Presence of Absolute Mystery" (pp. 44-89).

32.超脱的理由不在于这世界不好，拉内强调天主临在于世界上的一切事物，但因祂是万物的范围与基础 (horizin and ground)，祂超越万物之上。因此拉内认为一方面必须在万物中找寻天主，同时又应该不断超越万物，参阅 "The Ignatian Mysticism of Joy in the World". TI vol. 3, pp. 277-293; “Being Open to God as ever Greater”, TI vol. 7, pp. 25-46.

33.FCF, p. 249: 拉内也称这种独特的关系为 "direct presence to God", 参阅"Knowledge and Self-Consciousness", TI vol. 5, p. 209.

34.“Knowledge and Self-Consciousness”, TI vol. 5, p.211.

35.ibid., p. 212; FCF, p. 249.

36.FCF, pp. 251-254.

37.“Knowledge and Self-Consciousnesss”, TI Vol. 5, p.212.

(乙) 卡．拉内的特殊贡献

一、更符合空虚自己的降生神学

拉内关于基督的意识问题提供直接神视的解释，的确把这个讨论向前推进了一大步；不少神学家，不论是天主教或基督教的，都一致认为这是拉内的特殊贡献。38这见解的优点格外在于它的内在性质，认为直接神视不是附加的恩典，却是降生奥迹必然的因素。这种解释可以克胜传统神学有关基督的荣福直观所遇到的困难。首先新约没有提及基督生前时常享有面见天主的特恩；39 反而告诉我们，祂空虚自己，取了奴仆的形体，与人无异(斐二，七)；又说祂在各方面与我们相似，是我们真正的长兄(希二，十七)。传统上以为这荣福直观的意见来自圣奥斯定，但事官上也并不那样确定；40至于教会训导也没有明文指出基督享有这特恩；教宗比护十二在「奥体」通谕中也只不过按照神学传统提及基督的荣福直视，无意对这传统作出权威性的声明。41这种特恩基于受希腊思想影响的完美原则，这原则跟基督空虚自己，与常人无异的降生神学不符，后者成了今日基督学的普遍趋势。42 因此拉内所提出直接神视的解释在今天的神学上更受接纳。

二、兼顾基督的基本意识与心理发展

拉内强调人的意识应分为不同的层面或形态；把这理论应用于基督的意识可以解决一个双重的困难。一方面保存了正统神学所持意见，说基督常具有天主子的意识；另一方面又能顾及基督精神生活发展的真实性。首先，神学上往往争论耶稣何时才知道自己为天主子的身份及作默西亚的使命，有些人说耶稣在孩童时代便清楚知道，有些说在领洗时才得到特殊的启示，更极端的说要到复活后基督才明白了解自己的身份与使命。43拉内的解释可以符合正统神学的意见，他承认耶稣自孩童时代，开始有自我意识时，便基本上意识到自己的特殊身份，即意识到与天主的唯一无二的密切关系。

另一方面来说，拉内关于基督心灵基本状况的解释，又说出了基督心理发展的事实。祂也和常人一般，在身体与智慧上逐渐成长，也得从四周的一切学习与反省，以便解释祂与天主那种独特的关系。在古经的光照下，这种独特关系的意识逐渐明朗化，成为子及默西亚的意识。即使在公开传教的生活中，耶稣仍在探索这默西亚使命将如何具体地完成。这种对自己身份、使命及命运不完全清楚，以及探索的需要，使耶稣不断向天父开放，信赖及交付。其实，对自己的未来感到有些含糊不清，并不是一种欠缺，反而更符合人的真实处境，而且是全心仰赖天主及真正运用自由的先决条件。基督在探索中所表现的信赖与服从，正是我们基督徒的最好楷模，就如希伯来书劝勉信友们应「常以双目注视信德的始创者和完成者耶稣」(希十二，二)。

三、视降生奥迹为历史过程

接受基督心理发展的事实也会影响对基督生平的看法；否定了这心理发展，基督的生平便谈不上是真正的历史。祂所作的一切只是为了作给我们看，好叫我们效法而已。这无异说基督的一生在白冷降生时已全部完成，日后并没有真正演变的过程；这种看法与今日动态，历史角度的基督学观点不同。44拉内把降生的奥迹视作一个延续至基督圣死复活的奥迹。45因着圣言降生，基督成了天主子，但这天主子的身份不是机械式的一下便完成；还须在基督的一生中渐渐实现。降生的奥迹固然给了这作子的生活一个形上的基础，但子的身份还要透过基督向天父不断的交付，以存在的方式渐渐完成。46所以垃内强调，福音上所载耶稣对天父的朝拜、感恩、祈求、信赖与服从等行动都是构成祂作子身份的要素。47 正如每个人都在不断成为他自己，耶稣也一生不断实现自己，直至死在十字架上，祂才满全了子的身份及默西亚的使命。

这种对基督生平的认真态度是由于相信祂有真正的心理意识的发展；根据这种看法，基督的生平是一个真正的历史过程。虽然拉内的基督学主要是先稔的、超历史的基督学，他自己没有充份发挥一种以基督生平事迹为基础的基督学，48但他对于基督意识的见解，给了这种历史角度的基督学一个有力的支持。拉内又多次强调，「意识基督学」(CONSCIOUSNESS CHRISTOLOGY) 或「存在基督学」(EXISTENTIAL CHRISTOLOGY) 应与「形上基督学」(METAPHYSICAL CHRISTOLOGY) 殊途同归；49假如我们认真地以基督对天父独特关系的意识为出发点，探究祂一生所表现的那种自己完全来自天父及不断回归天父的心态，我们不难到达传统上以圣言降生为出发点的形上基督学。其实这种殊途同归的现象，正表明拉内所坚持的存有与认知一致性的原理。存在的基督学以福音中耶稣的生平为起点，是一种从下而上的基督学，是今日较普遍采用的基督学方法。50

四、提供基督徒的意识模型

拉内将基督的直接神视看作祂心灵的基本状况，且与一般人的基本状况在结构上相似，是一种向着无限奥秘的无止境开放，这奥秘本来是沉默及无名的，人被它包围着却不知怎样称呼它，即使给了它一个名称还是感到词不达意。待基督来了，祂给我们启示了这奥秘的名称，原来这沉默的奥秘便是天父。祂在默默中化育万有、亭毒众生。在基督的光照下，人才知道自己向着无限与永恒不断超越的那股无名动力，正是一种归根返源，回归天父的趋向。原来每个人都是按照基督昨子的肖像受造，带着子的形象，51要和基督一起，在圣神的启发下不断呼喊：「阿爸、父啊！」作基督徒的真正意义便是便自己灵性的基本状况渐渐明朗化及基督化，参与基督作子的意识，感到自己是由父而来，并要以绝对的信赖及完全的交付，不断回归父家。

再者，基督徒既分享基督作子的意识，也该加深彼此间是兄弟姊妹的意识，要像基督一般向别人开放，为别人而生存。这种向天父及弟兄的开放便是件基督徒的核心要素。由此可见，拉内对于基督意识的反省，不但对基督学有重大贡献，而且对基督徒的灵修生活也有重要的启发。

结论

上文简要地介绍了拉内有关基督意识的见解与特殊贡献。读者也许注意到，拉内对这问题的解释，除了基督学外，也涉及不少拉内思想的其他要点，诸如存有与认知的一致性，人的不同意识型态，以及人向着奥秘无限开放的基本状况……等。因此，拉内对于基督意识的理论可说是他思想的纲要，明白了他对这问题的解释，自然会对他的思想体系有一概括认识。

要讨论人的心理及意识问题，本来已是极奥妙复杂的；现在要探讨人而天主的基督的意识，更无异企图进入奥秘中的奥秘。拉内当然无意对这问题作出解答，只是设法给予一个探讨性的解释；欲知这解释是否正确可靠，最好还是看看定是否与新约资料配合。拉内不是圣经学者，但也熟读圣经，对新约介绍的基督有很深的体会。他对于基督意识问题的反省，虽然哲理成份很重，但基本上还是受着新约资料的指引。

拉内所介绍的基督与福音中的基督相同，是一位懂得发问、疑惑、学习、惊讶、深深感动、曾受到被天父遗弃的垂死痛苦的基督。(注五十二)诚如希伯来书所说，是「一位在各方面与我们相似，受过试探的，只是没有罪过。」(希四，十五)另一方面，这位基督也能向门徒们说：「谁看见了我，就是看见了父」(若十四，九)。53 祂深深意识到自己与父之间有着一种唯一无二的密切关系，一种无法描述的子的意识；这种意识由祂一生向天父的绝对开放，无条件的信赖与交付中表露出来，使祂在各种试探中常保持忠贞不二，成为「信德的始创者和完成者」。

若干有权威的圣经学者，以圣经批判的方法对有关基督意识的问题加以研究后，他们乐于承认，拉内以信理神学家的身份对这问题所持意见，与他们研究的结果基本上相同。54 由此可见，拉内的理论解释，不但带来这问题的突破，而且与新约资料配合，是可靠的理论。

　

缩写：

FCF－Foundations of Christian Faith ( New York, Seabury, 1978 )

HW－Hearers of the Word (London, Sheed and Ward, 1969)

SM－Sacramentum Mundi : Vols. 1-6

SW－Spirit in the World (London, Sheed and Ward, 1968)

TI－Theological Investigations : Vols. 1-20

　

38.见上注八。

39.参阅J. Galot, Who is Christ? A Theology of the Incarnation. (Rome, Gregorian University Press, 1980) pp. 354f.

40.ibid., p.355, and notes 29, 30; 参阅张春申「耶稣的知识及意识(下)」，神学论集55 (1983) 84f.

41.ibid., p.358, note33.

42.参阅 ibid., pp. 356f.: “Other historical epochs and other mentalities may well have delighted in the contemplation of Jesus” most sublime perfections. In our own day, we tend to be more interested in what the incarnate Son of God has in common with our human way of life." (p. 357).

43.参阅R. E. Brown, “ ‘Who Do Man Say That I Am’: Modern Scholarship on Gospel Christology”, Catholic Mind 73 (1975) 21-33.

44.参阅H. Miessen, art. cit., 神学论集47 (1981) 56; W. Kasper, Jesus The Christ (New York, Paulist, 1976) pp.20, 37f.; B. Welte, Jesus Chritstus und die Theologie", in J. Sauer (ed), Wer ist Jesus Christus? (Freiburg, Herder, 1977) pp. 155f.

45."Salvation", SM vol. 5, p. 428.

46.K. Rahner, The Trinity (London, Burn & Oates, 1970) pp.62f.

47.ibid.

48.虽然拉内本人没有充份发挥一种以基督生平事迹为基础的基督学，但他深信这种基督学方法的重要性；参阅 "Remarks on the Importance of Jesus for Catholic Dogmatics," TI vol. 13, pp. 201-202; “The Two Basic Types of Christology”, ibid., pp. 213-223.

49参阅 "Current Problems in Christology", TI vol. 1, pp. 168-174; FCF, pp. 302-304. 这里拉内也称他视作相对的两种基督学为：“Ontological Christology” 及 "Ontic Christology”; 见上注十七，薛理辟 (E. Schillebeeckx ) 也强调耶稣对天父的深切意识 (Abba－experience) 是了解基督身份的秘诀；参阅E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus－An Experiment in Christology (London, Collins, 1979) pp. 256-269.

50.参阅G. O' Collins, op. cit., p. 13.

51.参阅E. Mersch 所发挥 “Filii in Filio” 的思想：Theology of the Mystical Body (St. Louis, B. Herder, 1951 ) pp. 325-373.

52.见上注十五

53.拉内多次引用这句经文，甚至说基督学不外是对这节经文的诠释；参阅 “The Theology of the Symbol” TI vol. 4, p. 237.

54.参阅A. Vogtle, “Exegetische Erwagungen uber das Wissen and Selbstbewusstsein Jesu", in J.B. Metz et al. (eds.), Gott in Welt, II (Freiburg, Herder, 1964) pp. 608-667; 也参阅以上引用R. E. Brown 的两篇文章 (注八及注四十三)。

作者：吴智勋

(一) 自然律伦理面对的困难

如众所知，天主教历来都主张自然律伦理，认为天主在人性中铭刻了一个道德秩序，人顺之为善，逆之为恶。教会训导当局常以自然律去驳斥异端，或据自然律去指导天主子民过伦理生活。教宗依诺森十一世便曾斥责放纵主义者(LAXIST) 误用自然律去支持他们的手淫行为(1)。教宗保禄六世在「人类生命」通谕中强调，婚姻伦理教义的原则「是建立在自然律上，并受到天主启示的光照和充实」(2)。他要求夫妇尊重婚姻行为的本性和目的，因为按自然律，「任何婚姻行为本身该是传授人的生命的」(3)。教宗若望保禄二世在「家庭团体」通谕一再声明，他支持教会传统的训导，特别是保禄六世「人类生命」的训导(4)。

天主教主张自然律伦理自是不成问题，但教外的思想界却毁多誉少。功利主义者不以抽象的人性作为道德价值的标准，而从实际的效果去估价，他们有的以个人的幸福为标准，有的以大众或社会的福利为准则。进化主义者抱着物竞天择的原则，认为人与其他动物一样进化而来，进化的过程并未停止，人如何能有固定的人性？为了求生存，人往往不择手段，毫无理性可言；不是他愿意如此，而是他别无选择。弗洛依德(SIGMUND FREUD) 一派的学者则认为人是受潜意识的动力所左右，尤其是受超我所控制；倘若以为人能自由地按其理智去做决定，那便是不符事实的幻想。存在主义者沙特更不遗余力的攻击自然律伦理。他认为人若有了固定的人性，有了不变的自然律，便没有自由了，他不能够去创造自己。他主张在人身上，存在是先于本质，人自由的去划定自己应走的道路，同时为他的自由决定负责；这样，他才算是个真人。

不但在教外自然律伦理有四面楚歌的感觉，连在基督宗教内，它也受到不断的考验；福来奢(JOSEPH FLETCHER) 的场合伦理(5)便揉合了存在主义的自由，功利主义的实用，加上基督徒的爱德而成功的新伦理学说。场合伦理否认客观不变的伦理秩序的存在。人的场合常是具体的、独特的、不会重复的，所以根本不可能有一些客观不变的道德规律，适用于所有独特的环境。一般道德规律只能够是相对的，充其量只有照明作用。福氏攻击天主教的自然律伦理为法律主义(6)，把规律绝对化，不管什么问题，人都能从书本上找到预定的答案，完全忽视了每人独特的场合。福氏提出一自由的、主观的、自主的伦理态度；客观不变的伦理规律既然不存在，每人只能在他的环境中，以诚实的态度，本着爱心去作道德决定。

在天主教中，亦有人开始对自然律伦理发生疑问。古伦 (CHARLES E. CURRAN) 曾多次撰文批评自然律伦理(7)。他指出自然律一名很含糊，在思想史上并非一完整的哲学系统，它能有不同的解释。「人类生命」通谕所讲的自然律，是带有浓厚的物理主义色彩，即把行为的物理性与道德性混为一谈。利用物理性的不育期去节育是道德的，但其他人工的节育方法，都相反天主的计划，皆不道德；换句话说，道德或不道德是取决于物理性的生殖周期。古伦认为这种主张源于二三世纪一位罗马律师乌平恩(ULPIAN)。乌氏分辨出自然律(IUS NATURAIE) 和人律(IUS GENTIUM)，自然律是人和其他动物共同的地方，而人律则只属于有理性的人。这种主张很容易把物理性的生理过程看成是自然律的要求，如在人的性行为中，精子是准备与卵子结合，以期达到生育的目的，所有有意阻止精子卵子结合的行为，便是违反自然律。乌平恩所懂的自然律容易做成一种双层人类学，人的基层是动物性，上层是理性，危机是伦理问题往往取决于基层的自然动物性。从前的人有一个原始信念：要幸福快乐，必须要倾自然；自然的能力太大，人们感到无力抗拒，后来再进一步把顺乎物理自然看成是道德的行为。但这种原始信念早已成为过去，今日的文明要求改造自然以求迎合人类。自然有地心吸力使我们不能飞，但人能制造东西相反此自然秩序。顺乎自然是否能作为今日的口号，更能否决定行为的道德性？从这种自然律出来的世界观是静止的、永恒的，因为本质不会变；同样，自然律伦理是保守的、普遍的、不变的，因人的本性总是一样。

在神学上，古伦认为自然律伦理难以配合基督信仰的整体观。自然律若是独立于启示之外，很容易产生对立的现象：即自然与超自然的对立，创造与救赎的对立。人的本性能不受超性所影响，一般人按自然律去生活，但基督徒却在自然律之上加上福音律，形成基督徒的伦理比其他人的伦理优越的感觉。此外，自然律伦理太乐亲，过于信任理智，忽略罪恶的力量。人应该认真考虑罪恶的存在，和它破坏性的后果，不要沉醉于自然律浪漫的乌托邦。

1：DS2149.

2：「人类生命」通谕，No. 4.

3：同上，No. 11.

4：「家庭团体」通谕，No. 29－32.

5：JOSEPH FLETCHER, "SITUATION ETHICS", SCM, LONDON, 1966.

6：同上，PP. 18－22.

7：CHARLES E. CURRAN, “NATURAL LAW AND CONTEMPORARY MORAL THEOLOGY” IN “CONTRACEPTION”, EDITED BY C. E. CURRAN,　HERDER AND HERDER, N.Y. 1969, PP. 151－175.　

CHARLES E. CURRAN, “NATURAL LAW” IN “THEMES IN FUNDAMENTAL MORAL THEOLOGY”, NOTRE DAME, LONDON, 1977, PP. 27－80.

(二) 自然律的意义

面对多方面的责难，很多学者对自然律重新加以反省。有些为自然律伦理找出路，有些则对人类行为的普遍性发生兴趣，特别是心理学、人类学和语言学这几方面为然。因此，过去廿年对自然律的研究突然蓬勃起来，但这里只侧重自然道德律的探究。

「自然」与「律」是两个不同的概念。自然(NATURE) 一词，能指大自然，亦能指与生俱来之本性。在物为物性，在人则为人性。西方讲自然主要源于亚里士多德。他认为有机体皆有它特殊的本性，怎么样的种子必按其本性长出怎么样的果实来。有机体的本性是动态的，因它有内在的倾向去不断成长，由潜能发展为现实。这种发展并非任意的、漫无目的的，而是朝着特定的目标走，即事物整体的完美。至于人的本性，亚氏一方面看出人在生理成长上和其他动物一样，朝着特定的目标发展；另一方面，人是理性的、道德的存有。理性活动的最高目标是对天主的默观(CONTEMPLATION OF GOD)，而道德活动的目的是一德行的生活。原则上，人理应朝此两目标走以求达到幸福，但事实上，人并无必然的内在倾向去达成它们，反而误认其他次等价值为他的真正幸福。亚氏始终没有发展一套自然律的理论，不过他对自然的主张，却有很大的启发性。

正式提出自然律的，应是斯多噶派的哲人。他们一方面认为人有顺乎自然的内在倾向，另一方面，自然也客观地要求人合乎本性所赋予的事实；因此，顺乎本性或自然就是善，反之为恶。

圣多玛斯是最有系统的研究自然律的一位。他从永久律开始讲，永久律是「天主智慧的模式，用以指导一切东西的行动和行为」(8)。基督徒相信创造万物的天主，从永远就预定万物的终向，祂创造它们各有其特殊的本性，好使它们能实现自己的终向，亦即符合天主永远的计划。可见天主的永久律是一切法律，包括自然律的泉源，故圣多玛斯认为自然律反映天主的永久律。天主在人身上预定了一道德秩序，人自然地倾向它。圣多玛斯发觉道德责任基于人的存有(BEING)，人有自然倾向认为自己应按理智行事(9)。他着重理智的地位：「人性中各种倾向，如能受理智管辖，皆能隶属于自然律之中，故自然律的规律虽多，其实根源只有一个」(10)，这就是人的理智。人有很多自然倾向，但理智能分辨那些有善的目标。理智认出最基本的自然倾向是：「人应行善避恶」。这是第一条自然道德律。圣多玛斯推而广之，再提出三种自然倾向：(1)自保的倾向相应此倾向的自然道德律就是：人有保存及护卫人类生命的道德责任。(2)传种的倾向人有道德义务去傅生及教育人类。(3)理性与道德进展的倾向这是人所独有的，人有责任破除无知，追求真理，与人和平相处(11)。

从人性中的自然倾向推出自然道德律不光是圣多玛斯的做法，连有经验主义者之称的哈特教授(PROFESSOR H. L. A. HART) 也曾用此法。他认为求生存(SURVIVAL) 是自然律的缩影，也是最基本的自然倾向。从这个倾向，他结论出几个自然的伦理责任：(1)限制使用暴力去杀害或伤害身体。(2)彼此忍耐和妥协。(3)提倡兼爱。(4)制定法律以尊重财物。(5)制定法律以保障守法者不为不守者而牺牲(注12)。

不少人用不同的方法把本性和道德连起来(注13)。圣多玛斯从人性自然倾向中寻找自然道德律只是其中一种，但也有人提出异议。休谟(DAVID HUME) 指出：从事实的描述跳到伦理责任(FROM "IS" TO "OUGHT") 是不合逻辑的(14)。摩尔(G. E. MOORE) 更据此而发挥他的「自然主义的谬误」(NATURALISTIC FALLACY) (15)，指出用非道德性词语去描述道德名词的意义是包含了逻辑的谬误，例如称善是快乐。用到自然律上时，人怎能从一个非道德性的事实(如自保或求生存的自然倾向)，结论出一些道德的规律(例如应保护人类生命，限制使用暴力等道德规律)？

这是一个争论已久的问题，这里不打算详细讨论。我只指出持异议的都把道德领域和其他领域截然分开，认定二者不能共存，不容许非道德事实里能包含道德价值。他们定下的楚河汉界，自然不准别人跨越，但他们怎能肯定他们最基本的信念是对的呢？我们说过：天主创造人的时候，就赋予了人一个道德秩序。人并没有从人性的事实里创造一些规范性的道德规律来，道德的必然性早已包含在人性里，人的理智只是发现它而已。蓝西(IAN RAMSEY) 说得好：「如果求生存是所谓新自然律最基本的东西，那么求生存必定有一道德的必然性」(16)。

把人性中的物理事实绝对化了，自然有物理主义的弊病，但倘若以为它与道德全无关系，把它从自然律中完全除去，一如有些神学家的提议(17)，亦缺乏全面性。没有物理构造的人不是真人，人的物理结构各有其自然目的，人以其自主的理智，全面的了解整个人，然后才能决定道德规律。赫宁(BERNARD HARING) 特别强调要对人作整体了解，他不轻率的从人物理的设定跳到道德规律，也不忽略人物理性的重要(18)。我认为人性其实是一个抽象名词，代表人的整体，包括他的物理性、自然倾向、自律性、他和别人的关系、和世界的关系、和天主的关系。在这众多关系中，天主赋予人一个道德秩序，人可用理智去发现此天赋的责任；如人有社会性，人要互相帮助才能发展社会，故阻碍人类发展的自我主义行为，理智会判断为不合人性的行为。天主创造万物，虽为人享用，但理智告诉我们，万物不止为现在的人而存在，也为干千万万后世人而存在，故此破坏资源，暴殄天物，理智会判定为不合人性的行为。孔子「钓而不纲，弋不射宿」(论语述而)，及曾子「伐一木，被一兽，不以其时，非孝也」(大戴礼记大孝)，都显示出人与万物间的关系是有道德秩序的。人除了这种横面的关系外，还有踪面与天主的关系。人如果承认自己是有限物，不能自有，须有一无限的造物主所创造，则人对此造物主实有恭敬爱慕的责任。

自然律中的「自然」讨论过后，让我们看看自然律中的「律」有什么意思。「律」能有多种不同的意思，卢布斯基(JERZY WROBLEWSKI) 归纳为五个(19)：(1)指规律(NORM)，用以表达「应该」。(2)指社会事实(SOCIAL FACT)，如社会秩序或社会制度，现时社会上各式各样的法律指此。(3)指精神事实(PSYCHICAL FACT)，是一种禁令式的情褚。我认为史提芬逊(C. STEVENSON) 的情绪主义属这一类。「律」是对某种行为的情绪表达，我表示了我的态度。我若说堕胎是不道德的，我是对堕胎的行为表达了我的情绪。(4)指价值或价值的实现，卢氏认为自然律的律属这类。(5)指复合现象，即可能包括上述一种以上的意义。「律」的意义能够不止此五种，自然律的「律」，很容易和「律」的其他意义混淆。圣多玛斯也难免有此倾向。他对「律」的解释是：「律是由团体负责人，为谋求公共福利所颁布合乎理智的措施」(20)。跟着他谈到永久律，自然律和人律，把三者通称「律」。其实，他所界定"的「律」的意义，用在人律身上是最贴切不过，把自然律称为「律」，只能有类比的意思，即天主(团体负责人)为了人的好处(公共福利)，赋予(颁布)人一个道德秩序(合乎理智的措施)。有人为了迸免混淆，改用「自然权利」(NATURAL RTGHT) 而不用自然律；但也有人认为自然权利只是自然律的一部分，不足以代表自然律本身，仍主张沿用自然律之名，不过要注意它类比的意思就是了。

让我们在这里把自然律的定义做一个小结：自然律是人性里面的一个天赋道德秩序，人能在启示外，甩理智辨认出来。倘若要把这个道德秩序引申，我们可以用莫顿(LOUIS MONDEN) 的定义：「自然律是一个动态的存在事实，是人透过他实际生活环境，他对主对人的位际交谈，达到他自我完满及自我实现的秩序」(21)。

8：SUMMA THEOLOGIAE I. II. 93. 1.

9：同上，I. II. 94. 2.

10：同上，I. II. 94. 2.

11：同上。

12：H. L. A. HART, “THE CONCEPT OF LAW”, OXFORD, CLARENDON, 1961, PP. 190－193.

13：H. P. OWEN, "NATURE AND MORALITY" IN "DUTY AND DISCERNMENT" EDITED BY G. R. DUNSTAN, SCM PRESS, 1975, PP. 23－29，作者列出十种把本性和道德连在一起的方法。

14：DAVID HUME, "A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE", BK III, PART I, SECTION I.

15：GEORGE E. MOORE, “PRINCIPIA ETHICA”, CAMBRIDGE 1959 (REPRINTED), CHAPTER I, SECTIONS 10－14, PP. 9－21.

16：IAN RAMSEY, "TOWARDS A REHABILITATION OF NATURAL LAW" IN "CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY", EDITED BY IAN RAMSEY, SCM PRESS, 1966. P. 388.

17：LOUIS MONDEN, "SIN, LIBERTY AND LAW", SHEED AND WARD, 1965, P.88.

18：BERNARD HARING, "FREE AND FATTHFUL IN CHRIST", ST.PAUL PUBLICATION, 1978, VOL. I, P. 317.

19：JERZY WROBLEWSKI, "ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEUOLOGY OF LAW" IN "RIVISTA INTERNAZIONALE DI FILOSOFIA DEL DIRITTO" , 50 (1975). No. 4, P.838.

20：SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, I. II, 90.4.

21：LOUIS MONDEN, OP. CIT., P. 89.

(三) 自然律的认识

上面屡次提及理智能认出天赋的道德秩序，现在的问题是：理智如何辨认出来？这牵涉自然律的认识论。传统士林哲学根据圣多玛斯把自然律分为三级：第一级是一些普遍的大原则，如「人应行善避恶」、「人应爱他的邻人」、「己所不欲，勿施于人」等。人只要反省一下，都会同意这类自明的规律。用今日的术语来说，这类规律是超验的(TRANSCENDENTAL)，它们指出一种伦理态度。可是另一方面，这类规律是抽象空洞的，缺乏实际的内容，它们并没有实在的告诉我们什么是善，什么是恶，怎样做才是爱人。光有这种规律，并没有对我们的伦理生活，伦理判断有太大的帮助。

第二级的自然律比第一级的较为实际，有些人认为是从第一级演释出来的。十诫中大部份都局这一类，如「应孝敬父母」、「不要杀人」、「不要奸淫」、「不要偷盗」、「不要说谎」等。士林哲学家认为这一类自然律亦是普遍的，人虽然做不到，亦会承认这是应守的。有些伦理学家也不太满意这一类规律，认为它们只强调某一类行为是好的或是壤的，但却没有告诉我们怎样做才算是被嘉许的好行为，域被禁止的坏行为，即怎样的杀人行为才被禁止？教会不是也容许自卫杀人，执行死刑或在正义战争中杀人吗？怎样的性行为才算是奸淫？怎样拿走别人的东西才算是偷盗？怎样的不讲真话才算是说谎？可见这类规律实际也帮不了我们甚么。有些伦理学家索性称它们为重复语(TAUTOLOGY) 而已(22)，有强调性作用而无指导或决定的作用。它们只告诉我们坏行为是坏的，好行为是好的。

第三级的自然律是指那些经过一番推理而来的实际规律，它们用具体语言指出某特殊行为是对或错，例如：婚外的性行为是不道德的，以捐助者的精液进行人工受精的行为是不道德的。在推理的过程中，良心能够是错误的；因此，第三类自然律并非普遍地被认知。我们必须承认，要写定这类实际规律是困难的，并且有错误的危险，我们常有改善的可能。事实上，不少实际规律是经过长时期的试验才发展出来，例如：对囚犯施行酷刑拷问是不道德的，这是基于人性尊严。人性尊严作为人性中的道德秩序早就存在，但根据理智对它所作的解释则是动态的。历史每时期对它的了解能是片面的，因而写定的成式(FORMUIATION)，也能不同。自然律本身作为一个人性的道德秩序是普遍的、不变的，但根据理智的了解而写定的实在规律，能不断受到批判而改善。正如自然物理律常存于宇宙秩序中，但要等待有智慧的科学家才发现它，而写定的自然物理律仍能不所得到改进。

为什么理智对自然律的认识如此不完善？有什么方法帮助理智了解自然律呢？人所处的环境非常复杂，未受过推理训练的理智实在不容易把握在具体场合中的实在规律。以下是一些实际方法帮助理智从第一、第二类自然律到达第三类自然律。

(甲) 认识基本价值 (Basic Values)

上面提及有人把自然律看成是价值或价值的实现。虽然自然律要比价值丰富，但亦无可否认与价值有关。价值是对人而说的内在美善。所谓基本价值，是指那些人人都追求的内在美善。有些价值是那么基本，人不能不为了它本身而追求它，例如：生命、真理等。菲尼斯(JOHN FINNIS) 列出七种基本价值(23)：(1)生命：人有自保的倾向，人对生命的追求是无可疑问的。(2)知识：人渴求真相，人对知识有无限的渴求。你不能对他说：「够了，不要再追求了」。他仍能再问下去：「为什么不？」人总觉得获得知识是件好事，无知总是缺憾。(3)娱乐(PLAY)：菲尼斯叫人不要看轻此，这是人类文化不能缺少的因素。我承认悠闲、娱乐的重要性，不过在价值等级上，难与其他的基本价值比较就是了。(4)美感经验：我们常把真善美连起来说。人追求美的感受，不为什么，就是美本身有价值。(5)友谊：与人和平相处以至结为生死交都属这类。真正领悟友谊价值的人，能处处为朋友着想，不会把友谊看成达到某些目的的工具。(6)实际的明智(PRACTICAL REASONABLENESS)：人要求理智地选择自己的行为，造就自己的性格。人希望自己的行为、习惯、态度都能纳入一明智的秩序。内在地说，人有内在的自由，不受麻醉品影响或某思想所洗脑，使自己的情绪、性情产生一种内在的和谐；外在地说，人能真正地实现自己的理想、选择和决定。总之，此价值非常复杂，但能构成一个整体，而菲尼斯则称之为实际的明智。(7)宗教：这里是指广义的宗教。人可能没有任何现成的宗教信仰，但他能不断追求宇宙秩序的根源。连无神论者沙特也承认自己有道德责任。人为什么会有这种责任？人不是在默认超越他之外有一种秩序吗？人不断在追问这个秩序的根源，他和这秩序的关系。菲尼斯称这种价值为宗教。他认为自己只能反省出这七个基本价值，但并不否定别人能添上别的。可是不论加上什么，都能和其他七种拉上关系。

这些基本价值和我们讨论的自然律有很大的关系，每种基本价值都是人所追求的，愿意实现的。对每一基本价值的尊重，就是自然律基本的要求。虽然教会传统特重生命、真理和宗教三个基本价值，很多实际规律都是基于尊重此三者，但其他基本价值亦应受到尊重，这同样是自然律的要求。

(乙) 价值的衡量

倘若在某一环境中，只有一种价值牵涉在内，人不难发觉在那情况中应跟随的实在规律，如「偷窃是不应该的」，或「救人的性命是应该的」。但假使在同一环境中，有两种价值发生冲突，人就不容易找出该遵守的实在规律，如偷窃去救人性命是否应该？则不能立刻从书本上取得答案，因为这里牵涉价值的衡量。

这些衡量价值的说法，受到不少教内伦理学家所非议。菲尼斯把它看成是功利主义(UTILITARIANISM) 或效果主义 (CONSEQUENTIALISM)。认定这些都是反理性的(24)，即暗示自然律伦理不应用上它。癸保禄(PAUL QUAY) 则批评很多天主教伦理学家，用价值的衡量把传统绝对的自然道德律相对化了(25)，例如：传统绝对禁止奸淫、堕胎，但现在有些伦理学家把这些相对化了，他们为了别的价值而容许这些恶产生，美其名是为了较大的善。

天主教的伦理学家，大部份都主张自然律伦理，但因为了解不同而产生不同的应用。自然律应用时需要理智，理智衡量行为是否符合人性秩序，是否有相称的理由。在衡量之前，行为只能是事实的描述；衡量之后，才能作价值的描述。例如：「性行为」是一个事实的描述，虽有它的价值，却没有所谓德不德；但「婚外的性行为」则成为「奸淫」了。奸淫是一个价值的描述，即已下了一个道德判断，婚外性行为是违反了互相尊重、敬爱、忠信的价值，故奸淫是没有相称理由的不道德行为，是绝对禁止的。同样，没有意向的杀人行为是中性行为，如在车祸中杀人，杀人只能是非道德恶(NON－MORALEVIL)，但「谋杀」却是个价值的描述，说明没有相称理由而取去无辜者生命的价值。没有相称理由而去干犯一个基本价值是不道德的，即传统所谓内在恶或道德恶，内在恶或道德恶是绝对禁止的。

在衡量价值时，理智主要不是作量的计算。我不同意菲尼斯把所有基本价值看成同等，不分轻重先后。倘若价值冲突不能避免，而我又有责任去行动，则我会牺牲一个较低的价值去保存一个较高的价值，如牺牲自己的舒适娱乐价值去保存较高、较急切的生命价值，但同时没有否定在普遍情形下娱乐的价值。传统的双果原则就是采取价值的衡量，最少双果原则的第四个条件就是要求善果超过恶果。假使生命价值的牺牲不能避免，理智衡量价值后，会告诉我们应去抢救那可挽救的生命，如放弃胎儿以挽救母亲，免得两个都死去。促成这非道德恶的产生，能够是物理地直接，但伦理地却是间接，即用理智去分辨传统直接间接的问题，而不作机械式的划分。

(丙) 圣经与教会训导对理智的帮助

虽然我们说过，理智能在启示之外，认出人性的道德秩序，这只说明了自然律伦理是普遍的，并非基督徒的专利，但并没有否定启示对理智的光照作用。梵二沿用梵一的意思，认为「关于那些原本为人类的理智，所能通达的天主事理，而在人类现实的状况下，能够容易地、确切地和无讹地被一切人所识，仍当归功于天主的启示」(26)。人的理智并非不能错，要看清楚刻在人性里的道德秩序并非易事。人的私欲能蒙蔽理智，使良心模糊不清；人罪恶的境况，更阻碍人对自然道德律的认识。圣经是人的伦理的一面镜子，因为只有启示能给人的生命一个整体、完满的意义；人的伦理中有很多不明显的成份，要等待启示才使它的意义完全显露，爱仇就是其中一个例子。爱仇的思想是存在于人性道德秩序里。论语宪问记载：「或曰：『以德报怨，何如？』子曰：『何以报德？以直报怨，以德报德』」。这里不想评论孔子不赞成的理由，我只想指出，既然有人能提出以德报怨，显示出爱仇的理想，是理智能够认知的，启示则帮助人清楚了解爱仇的基础和整体意义，更给予人爱仇的动机和执行的力量。

作为天主教徒，我们相信教会训导处能给予教友伦理生活上的指导。着名伦理神学家福斯(JOSEPH FUCHS) 更认定天主圣言和教会训导是认识自然道德律最有效的帮助(27)。教会训导处因有圣神的助佑及累积的经验，对福音和基督之律有较深切的了解，故对自然律的认识比一般教友优胜，较难发生错误。一般的教会训导虽然没有给予教友一个绝对可靠的帮助去寻求自然道德律，但却能给予一个最可靠的帮助。梵二亦呼吁教友以教会的训导去培养良心：「教友为造就自己的良心，该谨慎注意教会的神圣而确实的道理。由于基督的旨意，教会是真理的导师，她的职责是宣扬并权威地教授即是基督本身的真理，同时，以自己的权威昭示和确证由人性本身流溢的伦理秩序的原则」(28)。

22：TIMOTHY E. O’CONNELL, "THE SEARCH FOR CHRISTIAN MORAL NORMS", IN CHICAGO STUDIES, 1972, No. 1. PP. 90－91.

23：JOHN FINNIS. "NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL RIGHTS". CLARENDON PRESS. OXFORD, 1980. PP.86－90.

24：同上，P. 112.

25：PAUL M. QUAY, "MORALITY BY CALCULATION OF VALUES" IN "READING IN MORAL THEOLOGY, No.1. MORAL NORMS AND CATHOLIC TRADITION". EDITED BY CHARLES E. CURRAN AND RICHARD A. McCORMICK, PAULIST PRESS, 1979, PP. 267－293.

26：梵二「天主启示的教义宪章」，No. 6.

27：J. FUCHS, "NATURAL LAW", GILL AND SON, DUBLIN, 1965, PP.155－162.

28：梵二「信仰自由宣言」，No. 6.

(四) 自然与超自然的难题

主张自然律伦理不一定产生自然与超自然的对立。首先，自然与超自然或本性与超性，在神学上当然是有分别的。这种神学上的分别，不应结论出两者是截然独立的东西。人的本性一开始就受超性所融和，人常被领导朝着一超性的终向走。天主愿意把自己通传给人，祂特别创造了人性，使人能接受这个通传，向天主开放。拉内(KARL RAHNER)称人为灵(SPIRIT)，人一面生活，一面不停的向绝对者伸展，同天主开放(29)。拉内发现在每一个认知和自由的行为里，人都是向绝对者开放。这种现象显示出，天主赋予人性一种「超性的存在物」(SUPERNATURAL EXISTENTIAL)，使人朝着超性的终向走。福斯也有相似的主张，认为人受造后就向着超性目标走，超性因此非加在人性上一些外在的东西，它是属于人的定义本身(30)。可见不少神学家不同意自然与超自然的对立，两者常应放在一起，自然缺乏了超自然便不自然了。

从圣经的角度来看，圣保禄早说过天主已将自己显示给人，人能从祂所造的万物，辨认洞察出来。天主的恩宠，在人性中产生作用，不管那人是谁：「几时，没有法律的外邦人，顺着本性去行法律上的事，他们虽然没有法律，但自己对自己就是法律。如此证明了法律的精华已刻在他们的心上」(罗二：14－15)。天主的恩宠，透过基督，超越了时间与空间，即古往今来的人，都受到基督恩宠的施惠。圣保禄指出基督之前的犹太人也蒙受基督的恩宠：「我们的祖先……都吃过同样的神粮，都饮过同样的神饮；原来他们所饮的，是来自伴随他们的神盘石：那盘石就是基督」(格前十：1－4)。我们可以说，基督的救恩影响所有时代的人，认识祂的，或不认识祂的。人性早已受超性所弥漫，早已有超性的因素。古伦认为自然律伦理会做成自然与超自然的对立，是他对自然律有误解而已。

(五) 结语

天主赋予人性一个道德秩序，使人能按此而归向祂。人若要成为真人，就必须依此秩序而生活。个人行为的对或错，道德或不道德，并非依靠主观的判断，而是看是否符合人性的道德秩序。因此，自然律伦理必然的反对主观主义的伦理。可是要用理智认出实际自然道德规律并不容易，我们的认识能够是不完满，自然律的成式常能再改善，人性丰富的意义能在历史中不断被发现，使不完满的道德规律更趋完善。在认识自然道德律的过程中，人要把握到人性中的基本价值；做道德抉择时，则衡量各种有关的价值，它们的价值等级、急缓、需要等倩形，同时亦把整个人的终向，事情整体的结果放在眼前，最后用理智去选择推广善而减低恶的行为。

圣多玛斯在讨论基督徒的智德(PRUDENCE) 时曾大胆的说：爱并非基督徒主要的德行。他的意思是说：爱给予所有德行一种动力，能贯彻所有德行；但如果人连普通常识也没有，爱是很难作指导性的道德判断的。因此，他主张人要有智德，并把智德列在四枢德之首。基督徒用自己的理智，在启示的光照下，衡量相称的理由，最后并选择一个最能符合人性的行为，并加以执行，这便是自然律伦理的中心思想了。

29："A RAHNER READER", EDITED BY GERALD A. McCOOL, DARTON, LONGMAN AND TODD, 1975, P. 20.

30：J. FUCHS, OP. CIT., P. 45.

Roger Aubert著汤汉译

(一) 早年生活

狄斯力．马尔斯(DESIRE MERCIER) 于一八五一年十一月廿一日，诞生于比利时BRABANT省法语区BRAIHEL ALLEUD镇一个美好的中等家庭内。在他的叔伯中，曾有一位当过LEOPOLD一世皇朝的财政大臣。可是，当他刚刚七岁的时候，他父亲的猝然逝世使他的母亲和七个小孩处于困难的境况。后来，马尔斯公开说：「我一直以来的愿望和最深抱负，就是鼓励那些我所能够影响的人。这种提高别人精神的倾向，我肯定是我母亲灌输在我身上的。从她的表率中，我由不自觉到自觉地明白，爱是在于忘我、把自己奉献给别人。这就是从母亲的内心和平稳的意志力中，我所学习到的生命的伟大课程：人是虚无，成功与挫折无关痛痒，只有天主才最重要。为了自己而去碌碌追求某些事物，是一件很愚昧的行为；智慧的本质是单纯倚靠天主。照我追亿所及，这就是我所吸收的第一条指导原则。」

在一位杰出的老师PIERAERT神父的指导下，马尔斯开始发挥他的智慧和才华，并且在完成学业后决定当一名神父。从一八六八年至一八七三年，他按照比利时习俗，在马林(MALINES) 教区的修院就读哲学和神学，之后，转往鲁汶大学深造神学。一八八七年七月，取得相等于今日博士学位程度的硕士文凭，随即受委为马林教区修院的哲学教授。当时正值教宗良十三世于一八七九年颁布「永恒之父」(AETERNI PATRIS) 通谕，提倡以返归圣多玛斯着作为哲学研究之方向。对于遵循教宗这项指示，马尔斯神父早已训练有素，因为他的一位鲁汶教授CANON DUPONT 曾悉心指导过他，使他对多玛斯学说(1)的综合方法早已发生兴趣；他只需在这个方向上继续努力，并且追随新崛起而又最开明的德籍耶稣会士KIBUTGEN的路线即可。原来，当日有两条返归多玛斯学说的路线：一条主要在意大利盛行，它着重拘泥字面地返归圣多玛斯的教导及十六、十七世纪有关圣多玛斯的重要注释，完全不理会从笛卡儿到康德及黑格尔这批新哲学家所介绍的新思想，也不尝试把新的科学方法及其精神揉合到哲学思想中；另一条路线就是马尔斯所定的路线，他深知忠于圣多玛斯的文字屡屡会不知不觉地妥成不忠于圣多玛斯的思想的方式，故此他喜欢忆述LACORDAIRE的格言：「圣多玛斯为我们不应该是一条界限的标志，却应当是一股导引的亮光。」马尔斯从开始便致力将多玛斯学说配合入当代知识实况中，特别由于他的一位弟弟研读医学，故此，马尔斯完全瞭解到：物理学及自然科学在十九世纪的知识领域所占的重要地位，要解决哲学的重大问题时，必须借重科学及其仔细观察与分析方法的成就。

良十三世恐防通谕会如同罗马所颁发的很多文件一样，很快便失去原先的影响力，故此他找寻方法，务使多玛斯学说的复兴得以在世界各地扩展。教宗立即想到鲁汶大学，因为它是当日全球唯一全面性的天主教大学，而且教宗曾当过教廷驻比利时大使，对这所大学十分熟悉。因此，教宗要求比利时主教们成立一个新的职位，专责教授多玛斯派哲学。由于经济及其他理由，主教们开始时很犹疑，直至教宗再三坚持，他们才着手进行。他们首先物色到一位出色和有才干的思想家VAN VEDDTNGEN蒙席，可是他推辞了。后来TOURNAI教区主教因为曾任过马林教区修院院长，很赏识马尔斯的才华，遂推荐了这位年刚三十岁又寂寂无名的神父给主教们。

马尔斯不单是一位杰出的哲学家，正如他形容自己是一位「热衷于学习和瞭解」的人，能分辨当日热门问题的反应，对一切人文价值采取乐观开放态度，而且实践严格的神修生活，他也是一位有魄力的人物，认真工作，不理任何阻碍，务求成功。当然，离开他所致力的修士培育工作，是一件很可惜的事，但他立即明白到置于他身上的新任务的重要，并且立刻着手开辟那展在他前面的新途径。正如他日后所说，从读书时期开始，他已学会了如何把「服从、工作、决心和胆量」集于一身。

译者按：本文译自CARDINAL MERCIER：A CHURCH MAN AHEAD OF HIS TIME 小册子，除作者名外，没有注明出版地点及日期。

1：「多玛斯学说」乃圣多玛斯．阿圭拉(一二二六至一二七四年)的神哲学，它虽然主张人的理性有能力认识天主，但它把自然与超性、理性与启示、受造与天主分别。在十九世纪下半叶，产生了一种返回多玛斯学说的进步学派，不但反对当日激进的哲学家，也反对前数世纪的退化士林哲学。

(二) 大学教授

「多玛斯高级哲学」课程于一八八二年十月开始，马尔斯为了取得教授这个课程的委任并为了接触过去数十年来推动多玛斯学说复兴的领导人物，匆匆去了罗玛一趟，同教宗呈递他根据VAN WEDDINGEN的意见所拟定的课程大纲。由于他深信在当日科学实证的世界中，哲学思维要以观察事实作为自己的起点，也应把科学各部门所启示的事实加以系统化解释，故此他决定重返鲁汶大学，事师当日在自然科学界有领导地位的教授，包括比利时现代动物学先锋之一的解剖学家VAN BENEDE、生物学家JEAN－BAPTISTE CARNOY、化学家HENRY、及神经病学家VAN GEHUGHTEN。不久之后，他还去到巴黎，在著名的心理学家GHARCOT的诊所学习了几个月；由于柏林是当日欧洲科学研究的主要中心之一，他也在那里逗留了一个月。

他于一八八二年在鲁汶所开设的课程是一项选修课程，故此其成功全凭教授个人的影响力。从一开始，他便吸引了他的听众；他的课程本来主要为神学生而设，但不久之后，普通学生比神学生还多来听他的课，因为马尔斯揉合了自己稳固的信仰、广阔的知识、对时事问题的敏觉、以及十分个人的看法；他对于瞭解年青人特别有天赋，主动去跟他们交谈，这是当日大学教授所罕有的行动。

取得良十三世的同意后，马尔斯便运用心理学去开始自己的课程，因为他认为心理学是接触可观察的事物的第一步，不但哲学家要根据这些事物加以反省，而且当日很受重视的心理实验也能提供新的知识。

以后数年，从一八八三至一八八六年，他教过所有哲学科目，诸如逻辑学、伦理学、宇宙学、形而上学。他虽按照圣多玛斯的教导，但在某些重要的问题上却能使多玛斯的思想追上时代，同时他亦开始在杂志上着述，俾能接触更多群众。

他很快就培养出一批出色的学生，使他们每人都能在最重要的科目上担纲，随即，他便想到扩展原有计划。一八八七年，他向良十三世建议成立一间哲学研究所，与大学的哲学及文史系保持一种没有束缚性的连系。他的目的是便这间研究所不但成为一间高级教学中心，学生可以在其内接受个别指导做研究，而且亦成为一间研究中心，重新去反省一些问题和多玛斯派的答案，使研究出来的具体资料可以促进哲学思想及实验科学的进步。在当日实证主义的气氛下，马尔斯也许把哲学提升到太高的位置，但是在那个基督宗教哲学正受到轻视的时代里，他的努力使他在很多方面被认为是一位有价值的交谈者。他多次甘冒罗玛方面警告之险，仍坚持哲学应独立于信仰和神学，结果，他获致很大的成功。

他于一八九二年出版了「心理学」，一八九四年出版了「逻辑学」及「形而上学」，最后一八九九年又出版了「批判学」。这些哲学着作都为他在国外嬴得令誉。同时一八九四年问世的「新士林哲学」期刊，成了鲁汶大学表达「开放性的多玛斯学说」的固定喉舌，不但备受赞赏，而且也为该大学赚得世界性的声誉。

可是，正当成功看似在握之际，整个事业却因为同时在比利时相罗马兴起的强烈反对，而几乎弄至让步而了结。原来，罗马教育部新部长MAZZEIIA枢机主教控告他过度强调学术研究自由，危害系统神学的训导，与罗马新多玛斯学说研究所采取的路向背道而驰。经过一段时期，当这位枢机主教差不多可以劝服良十三世接受他的忧虑时，幸好教育部长及时改由SATOLLI 枢机主教担任，而SATOLLI 枢机主教曾阅读过马尔斯的着作，对他十分欣赏。

更壤的情况倒是马尔斯要同时面对鲁汶的重大困难。这些困难不但是在金钱方面，要维持广大计划的开支，而且也是在教义的取向上，因为不少曾在罗玛受训练的同事控告他背离传统的多玛斯主义。最大的痛苦莫过于与大学校长ABBEIOOS蒙席发生冲突。冲突的开始是在两人强烈性格的对抗及观点的相异上。在论到天主教徒应如何集中精力去面对当代不信的现象时，马尔斯认为哲学应着重时代的争论，而ABBELOOS却如同鲁汶大学的其他教授一样认为，应该运用宗教历史、圣经诠释和教义历史去对抗科学理性主义对基督信仰的批评。但是，他们两人在思想上的相异，因着行政上的冲突更形复杂。马尔斯要使自己的研究所在大学中成为独立机构，有自己的财政和教职员，而且这间「高级哲学研究所」的主席(这衔头在一八八九年正式加在马尔斯身上)可以越过大学校长而直接与主教们及梵蒂冈接触；而校长却不能同意这些做法。有一段时期，比利时主教们倾向于同意校长的反对，因为从行政效率的角度看，校长的反对确实颇有道理，而马尔斯亦正如一切有广大计划的人士一样，不容易与之相处合作；特别是他任职的最初几年内。幸好，就在一八九八年，罗玛对他的态度突然好转。罗妈的支持使马尔斯站稳，而ABBELOOS的地位很快便无法保持，不久即自行辞职。

放在科学倡明及困难特多的十九世纪末叶期间，马尔斯从事另一项十分有趣的新工作。为了使哲学研究所有规律性地收录学生，而不是只有某些不读神学的学生或只选修一两科的学生听课，也为了使比利时神职界的精英接受到比较一般教区修院更好的哲学训练，马尔斯获得教宗的准许在鲁汶开办了一所大学修院，命名「良十三世修院」，俾一些修生在去教区修院攻读神学前能在此深造两三年哲学。马尔斯因为关心未来神父的培育问题，创设了这种当时十分新颖的制度，而这种制度建基于纪律方面的信任和个人神修的更深指导上。由于「良十三世修院」有很多外国学生就读，故此它的影响超越比利时边界，唤起世界各地的神职界精英去注意一些问题，即三、四十年后称为教区神职人员的神修问题。

在大学所度过的廿五载时光，肯定带给马尔斯教授永恒的声誉。从一九○六年起，以后的二十年内，他却要在一个完全不同的领域中去扮演一个领袖角色。

(三) 马林教区总主教

GOOSSENS枢机主教逝世后，马尔斯继任为全比利时最重要的马林总主教区的首长，他的徽号是「耶稣基督的宗徒」。他深信司铎的圣德是每一位神父传教工作的基本因素，所以从开始他便注意神职人员的神修训练。他向修生及神父的训话，不少已经出版并翻译成多国文字，特别对于拉文民族国家内的教区神职人员的神修更新，带来很大贡献。这种关注使他末年创办了「耶稣之友司铎团」，藉此把自己教区内追求更成全生活的神父团结一起。

此外，马尔斯亦对早期的礼仪运动很有兴趣，(2)刚刚在马林教区上任，他便决心提高主教座堂的礼仪的尊贵地位。在一九○九年马林天主教大会上，他出人意料地邀请了本笃会士LAMBERT BEAUDUIN 出席发表一篇有关「教会的真祈祷」的报告。这种真祈祷其实就是源自MONT－CESAB地方所推行的一种牧民礼仪运动。马尔斯枢机主教直至晚年还是多次大力支持这位本笃会士及其同工的努力，他甚至不理医生的劝谕，仍然亲身出席参与那些为神职界及教友而安排的礼仪更新大会或研讨周。

马尔斯昔日在鲁汶从事哲学研究的特色就是，藉着与现代进步科学的接触，使教会传统的思想追上时代；现在，在现代主义的危机时代里，他又要再次表达这份关心。(3)的确，在瞭解了BLONDEL LABERTHONNIERE及TYRRELL 等思想家的学说后，他一方面保护多玛斯主义传统，免受士林哲学敌人的攻击，但另一方面，在当日教会兴起的一股反现代主义的气氛下，马尔斯却设法使教会当局和那批提倡现代主义的公教学者合作，增进交谈，以免彼此不信任的情况会导至有关双方受到损害。同时，为了使天主教研究机构获得足够的资源去面对科学进步的要求，他于一九○七年向教宗庇护十世建议成立国际天主教学者协会，可是经过数月的讨论，终因反现代主义者的操纵而遭受挫折。对于那篇在一九○七年为反对现代主义而颁发的「应牧放主羊」通谕，马尔斯曾在一封很长的牧函中突出了它的积极面，但他亦与教宗一起反对那些丝毫不能接受神学进步的保守人士。他一方面代表鲁汶大学部份教授保护一些进步人士，另一方面他亦同时鼓励耶路撒冷圣经学院的创始者LAGRANGE神父站稳脚步，不要向损毁他的名誉的人让步。的确，马尔斯在保护信仰上超不让步，但他却清楚地把教会的信仰与思想狭窄的神学家似是而非的立场区分。马尔斯要坚持的一点就是，要在教会内维持学术思想上的自由。

但这位伟大的学者也关心当日比利时劳苦大众的不幸处境，以及他们所面对的问题。当日有一斑活跃的教会人士，他们想在马林组织一个天主教大会，规模像似五十多年前所举行过的；马尔斯一当了总主教，便鼓励和支持他们。这是一项很敏感的行动，因为那些推动人士是一班基督徒民主政制的支持者，而且很多害怕下台而有保守倾向的天主教政客多年反对这类大会。虽然有人反对，但马尔斯仍然支持社会进步。早年在鲁汶教授伦理哲学时，他已认为：只要采取适当步骤，能够避免社会主义的错误，我们不必否定国家有权干预生产方法和公共财富的分配。他还说，国家的责任既是监管社会福利，便应该采取有效措施，防范过度个人主义的危机。由于这种态度，他赞成鲁汶大学创办社会研究学会。他屡屡以主教身份申斥社会党的阶级斗争观念，因为他认为这种理论相反基督信仰精神；但他主要申斥的却是社会党的反神职主义，尤其是社会党对天主教教育的敌视态度。我们在他的战前作品中，的确找到一些过份简化的反社会主义论调，但我们可别忘记，他在一九○九年的牧函中写道：「社会主义在使公共财富更平均分配上是正确的。」在任主教职之初；他支持了比利时基督贸易联盟的组织者多明我会士RUTTED，虽然受到天主教各方面的严厉批评，并没有退缩。战后，马尔斯亦大力支持了公教工青运动的创办人CARDIJN神父，虽然这个运动亦受到布鲁塞尔城一些天主教保守人士的猛烈攻击，但他的支持并未消减。



2：「礼仪运动」的目的，是为了恢复和推动教友去明白、积极及深入参与教会的公开崇拜，尤其是弥撒圣祭。

3：「现代主义」发生在十九与廿世纪时期。有些天主教思想家，在历史批判的原则和新哲学观点的双重影响下，设法把传统立场适应到宗教知识的深度演进中。今日，他们中一部份人可称为「激进派」，因为他们质问圣经文字的超性幅度和基督宗教的起源，而且认为天主教信条只有象征价值。

(四) 第一次世界大战 (一九一四至一九一八年)

第一次世界大战是马尔斯生命的分水岭。在国王、政府及军队撤退往法国之后，他成了留在比利时的唯一权威，常不顾虑他自己个人的安全，采取任何他认为适当的步骤。

一九一四年冬季开始时，他看到人民越来越灰心沮丧，有被德国宣传征服的危险，遂觉得需要发出「爱国与耐力」牧函去警醒群众。这封牧函散发各地，流通于外国比本国还多，变成了对占领比利时的德国的一项公开挑战。

德国总督的最初反应，就是把马尔斯软禁在他的主教府内，设法使他收回牧函。但枢机主教决意拒绝，连教廷大使出面劝解亦归无效，使人认为他已超越自己的主教本份，去参与政治行动，有违圣座中立的立场。

马尔斯与德国占领比利时的政府之间的争斗展开后，马尔斯由始至终不甘示弱，有时毫不留情；在一位教会人物身上出现这种态度，在今天很易被视为过火。他展开两条阵线的争斗：一方面，虽然当时比利时是中立国，但因遭受德国占领而卷入战争，工人们亦因而被迫参与强制劳动，马尔斯遂藉着不断与德国总主教的通信，竭力为这些工人争取利益；另一方面，他运用牧函及其他公开行动，不断赞誉在逆境中的勇敢及民族自尊心，视之为基督徒的可佩德行。马尔斯的颂扬爱国，在今天的情况中也许有点过度，但我们应把它置于当日的环境中去衡量，他的做法正是要追求一件今天我们要醒觉的事情，就是：为了正义，每一个基督徒有责任去干预这个世界的事件，绝不能在他的弟兄们受苦时，逃避到不卷入事件的默观中。所以在理论家开始讲及政治神学之前半个世纪，马尔斯早已直觉地感受到，也勇敢地实践了。

最后，比利时的占领政府终于尊重枢机主教的坚稳不屈态度，而市政主任BARON VON DER LANCKEN 于一九一八年十月十七日写信给他说：「你是一位受尊敬的比利时牧者，被占领的比利时的化身。」数月后，大战停止，他会见国王ALBERT 及胜利军队，接受所有协约国的赞美，最后还赴美国作为期两月的凯旋探访。本来，枢机主教对于这次越洋旅程颇为犹疑(当日尚没有越过大西洋的飞机)，但是外交部长PAUL HYMANS却坚持他前往，目的是要利用他的超卓声望，请富有的美国帮助比利时经济复原。

由于勇敢地抗拒了侵略者，马尔斯在协约国中取得超卓的声誉。在凡尔赛条约谈判期间，他设法运用这种声望去争取天主教的利益，可惜徒劳无功。他曾主动接触CLEMENCEAU，欲使比利时天主教国家可以取得巴勒斯坦的委任统治权，以免圣地落入基督新教的英国及犹太复国主义者手中。他特别在得到圣座的同意前，已设法引起「和平会议」的兴趣，去解决那悬而未决的罗马问题。(4)为此，即使梵蒂冈缄默不言，他仍然乐意藉着群众示威去推动世界舆论，因为自从当了主教后，他便开始日渐深信，大众传播在今日世界里扮演着一个领导角色。



4：所谓「罗马问题」，就是从一八六O年至一八七O年，意大利国家逐步并吞一切从中古世纪以来属于宗座的领土。教宗庇护九世、良十三世、庇护十世及本笃十五世自动把自己当作囚犯，关在梵蒂冈十分细小的领土内。至一九二九年，庇护十一世才藉拉脱朗条约与墨索里尼解决这个事件。

(五) 第一次世界大战后

战争的结束及议会制度的恢复，使马尔斯枢机主教面临新的问题，其中之一就是保持国家统一的问题，因为推行普选更难产生一个有足够支持力的政府。为了避免当日处于困境中的工人阶级的不满，也为了避免受到俄国革命事件的影响，马尔斯希望联军继续留驻比利时一段时期，而且战时政府也继续掌权，以保障国家的稳定，同时，天主教徒亦支持给工人建造房屋和禁止嗜酒的法律，因为这也是社会主义者所坚持的。他恐怕工人阶级因为受贫困刺激，不能心平气和地参加普选。所以，当比利时ALBERT王立即展开普选，及为此而指责他时，他十分不高兴。

普选的结果，卒使天主教在上下两议院失去大多数议席。当然，我们不能认为马尔斯是为了有利天主教党而采取爱国立场，但明显地他希望天主教也能日后在政冶方面得益。由于天主教党失去了自一八八四年以来从未间断的大多数议席，所以必需成立一个联合政府。马尔斯一方面很谨慎地维持天主教的党派的团结，使政府尽可能有大多数的代表性，但另一方面却又支持国家联盟。他不曾在函牧中呼吁信众支持；他尽力除去障碍，甚至为了争取自由党派FREEMASONS 的合作而要求禁制一份反马松党的杂志(BULLETIN ANTIMA CONNIQUE) 出版。(5)当某些激进份子建议把耶稣圣心像加入国旗以示感恩时，一向热心恭敬耶稣圣心的马尔斯对他们说：「国旗属于所有比利时人；除了为表示所有比利时人热爱祖国外，任何人都不能因其他理由去使用它。」

他在战时与左派政要的接触，对二十年代早期的政治情况产生颇大影响。两党(即天主教党及自由党)或三党(即天主教党、自由党及社会党)联盟的组成，使一向左右比利时政坛的教会派别的棘手问题获得和平解决。但马尔斯枢机主教仍不断敦促国王关注，务使战后的三党联盟政府不受社会党太大的影响。虽然他知道，也防范社会主义者反对神职界的态度，但当情况需要时，他却表现出自己的现实态度，不理主教团其他成员的默不作声，赞成基督民主党人士和社会党人士在一九二五年组成联合政府。这点在今日看来相当正常，但发生在半个世纪前便相当新颖，亦需要很大的勇气和锐觉。

另一方面，比利时国家主义的狭窄观念，使马尔斯枢机主教无法明白佛兰芒人问题(FLEMISH QUESTION) 的产生，以及很多佛兰芒极端份子所提出的要求的合法性。(6)他在这方面的消极态度，成了他任职主教期间最受争论的事项之一，也引起佛兰芒圈子(包括天主教徒在内)很大的反感。

马枢机主教的公开活动，无可否认予人一种错觉，以为他是一位政冶主教，很少关注教会事情，更少照顾自己教区的状况。其实，正如上述，他曾经鼓励过早期的礼仪运动，也很注意提高自己的神父的神修质素，因此，他多次亲自指导神职人员进行为期数过的避静。他个人的通信相当清楚显示出他关心自己的教区，鞠躬尽瘁，至死方休。大战前，他亦表示很有兴趣成立公教青年俱乐部及组织公教青年活动。战争结束后，他不但为神职界及教友制订了教会守规，而且也立定了一些原则，使教会在现代世界，尤其是在女子教育及社会工作上，推展宗徒行动。

枢机主教的个人宗教生活十分虔诚，尤其是因为遭受战争之苦而加深他自己对圣母的敬礼。因此，他发动大规模的运动，以争取罗玛承认圣母中介地位的道理和立定圣母诸宠中保的瞻礼。他亦支持赎主会士的积极行动，设立特别恭敬耶稣圣心的弥撒，但是，他却阻止他们复古，走回古老的礼仪传统去。

的确，马尔斯枢机主教所作的无数旅行、所接待的大量访客、以及从世界各地所收到的无数来信，使他十分繁忙，无足够时间照顾自己广大教区的日常事务。他的性格趋向大胆创新，只有把日常事务托给可信任的助手料理。他绝对深信，主教既作为宗徒的继承者，便不应该单单注意自己的教区，也要关注整个教会所面对的一切问题。这点精神屡屡使他接受一些令人惊讶的任务。所以，在逝世前不久，他支持了比利时传教士雷鸣远神父，向罗玛争取祝圣中国本地主教。也在大战刚结束后，从事与教会内分离弟兄的接触，成了他日益加强的一种工作。



5；比利时「自由党」在马尔斯时期，采取反对教会及甚至无神的立场。社会党亦有相同的态度。

6:「佛兰芒问题」就是指比利时佛兰芒语团体与法语团体之间的对抗。其中的理由是因为比利时人起来反抗荷兰人所控制的政府的压迫，于一八三O年成立一个新的独立国家，以致佛兰芒语的权利处于困境。从此，佛兰芒方面的领导阶层设法使佛兰芒语成为比利时的国家语言。

(六) 教会合一

他在一九一四年前已关注俄国东正教，因为他对法国耶稣会士MICHEL D'HERBIGNY所介绍俄国神哲学家SOLOVIEV (7)的书发生兴趣，而且D' HERBIGNY是ENGHIEN地方的神学院教授，有机会与他多次接触。大战后，D'HERBIGNY 对合一问题很有兴趣，因为俄国人流徙到西欧各国，正为罗玛天主教开启了合一的展望。在这位耶稣会士的推动下，枢机主教也是教宗本笃十四世在一九二一年八月为俄国饥民所发出的呼吁信的幕后人之一。以后数月，他设法代表莫斯科大主教干预一位受布尔什维克迫害的牺牲者，也多次帮忙俄国在西方的圣统代表，尤其是帮助沙皇前任驻巴黎大使的兄弟IZVOLSKY，因为该位巴黎大使曾任比利时普鲁塞尔俄国教会的主任神父。除了干预教会事情外，马尔斯还关心到在比利时和法国日益增多的难民，由于他的保护和经济支援，加上两位来自NAMUR地方的神父的帮忙，《比利时援助俄国人》基金会得以在鲁汶成立。而这两位神父之中的一位，特别负责协助俄国青年在比利时就读大学。枢机主教对自己这种工作的爱心和瞭解，可以在他一九二二年五月廿七日致在巴黎的俄国国家委员会的信看出来：「的确，教会之间的复合是天主子民（包括你们和我们）所渴求的。但是，除非绝对尊重别人的良心，我们不会推行。你们中有二十位青年，住在学生宿舍几达一载，在鲁汶天主教大学很用功念书；你们不妨问问他们：是否他们的宗教自由受到某方面的侵犯？」两年后，枢机主教向罗玛大力支持本笃会士LAMBERT BEAUDUIN 院长的工作计划，要以隐修院方式推进东西教会之间的修好。在得到庇护十一世的覆信和准许本笃会从事这种工作后，LAMBERT 院长亦倚靠马尔斯枢机主教的权威，于一九二五年在AMAY地方建立了隐修院；这地方今天变成了CHEVETOGNE 隐修院，是天主教合一运动的中心之一。

正当他十分关心罗玛与东正教之间的修好之际（这点特别从他在布鲁塞尔于一九二五年九月廿五日教会合一祈祷周所发表的着名演讲可以证明），他对合一的关注又扩展到基督教的另一方面。他本来对基督教的世界有相富强的偏见，但一九一九年夏天美国之游为他却是一项启示：在天主教护教书籍那带有恭维的描写背后，他发现了基督教的本来面目。当他被邀向主教派教会的大会发表演说时，他说：「我问候你们，犹如问候那些为共同理想而服务的兄弟、在自由的爱中的兄弟、尤其是在基督信仰中的兄弟一样。……这种兄弟之情的产生，就是因为我们有同一个天父。」一位天主教枢机主教在向基督教大会致词时称他们为「基督信仰的兄弟」，确是宗教改革以来史无前例的，而且使到一些天主教的保守派人士产生反感，向圣部控诉他。一九二○年四月，马尔斯接到一封本笃十五世写给他的信，认为他同意会见「主教派的假主教」是一件「遗憾」的事，(8)以及在那种情况下运用「基督信仰中的兄弟」为称呼也是「不能容许的」。在受到这种警告后，胆小的主教必会因此小心地避开这个危险范围，但这却不是马尔斯的做法。当他在十二月会见教宗时，他不但把这件事解释清楚，而且也呈上一个颇大胆的建议。他使教宗注意到，采取被动的态度去对待大战结束以来渐渐形成的合一会谈的尝试，是危险的，在美国尤然；但他同意梵蒂冈的看法，现在尚不是罗马教会参与其他宗派会议的时候。事实，对于一九一八年春天路德会NATHAN SODERBIOM 所发出的这类邀请，他的回答相当冷漠。按照他的意见，还需在比较不公开的层面多作尝试。在教宗的要求下，他用以下字句总结出自己的计划：「在恳请大家为圣座的秘密意向祈祷后，我设法逐步邀请每个重要基督教派、圣公会、尤其是东正教内一位至两位神学家到马林教区来。我要招呼他们数日，接触一位懂得正确教义和怀有爱心的天主教神学家。在这种亲切关系中，藉着天主恩宠，他们彼此间的瞭解必会大大加深。」对于这封一九二○年呈给教宗的信，枢机主教从未收到回覆，但是到了翌年，环境终于许可他实现自己的部份计划，且取得意想不到的成果。



7: SOLOVIEV (一八九三一九００年)是一位出名的俄国神哲学家，他在生命晚年变得十分亲近天主教。

8: 我们应该注意一下一九○九至一九二○年时代的天主教看法，估计它至今有何改变。

(七) 「马林会谈」：宗教改革后各教派的第一次交谈

一位法国遣使会士FERNAND PORTAL，因为曾接触过圣公会其中一位显赫的人物HALIFAX 勋爵，故此从一八九○年便开始对圣公会与天主教的修好发生兴趣。他认为新的可能性在大战后又重新展开，遂向马尔斯枢机主教建议，要举办一个由数位天主教及圣公会神学家组成的会议，作为建立接触的方法。他为什么要向马尔斯建议？主要是因为枢机主教有双重的声望，既是鲁汶多玛斯哲学高级研究所的创办人，也是德国占领期间比利时人反抗的精神领袖；从探访美国所受到的凯旋欢迎，可见他在英格撒逊圈子内有很大声望。当然，PORTAI 亦从报章上读过马尔斯向主教派教会大会所发表过的演说。似乎这是上天的安排，马尔斯在向教宗本笃十五世呈上建议后数日便接到这份邀请，但他以很含蓄的方式回应了这个请求，因为他不愿被人控诉到罗玛后不久，果然和圣座冲突起来，被人拿作把柄。但是，那年秋天，PORTAL及HALIFAX又重新请求。PORTAL 习惯提起，他和他的老友自二九一四年后未曾见过面，突然在同一日彼此通信，亦同样建议先去凭吊战场，然后往距前线不远的马林地方去。马尔斯枢机主教十分热情接待他们。富HALIFAX 勋爵问他是否同意组织圣公会及天主教代表会议时，马尔斯开始问他为什么不向英国天主教当局请求。回答是：「因为他们的思想很敌视这种做法。」HALIFAX 用事实及个人经验佐证自己的说话。枢机主教承认他说得有理，原则上赞成。数年后他记述他当日的回答如下：「我绝不能让我们的分离弟兄中的一个会这样说，他诚意敲一位天主教主教的门，而那位天主教主教却拒绝给他开门。」

结果，于一九二一年十二月六日，马尔斯、他的副主教VAN ROEY 蒙席及PORTAL 神父代表天主教，而HALIFAX、未来TRURO 的主教FRERE 牧师及威尔斯主任ROBINSOS，他们六位参加者一起在马林总主教府的大会客室会面。

交谈在极度友善气氛下延续了三日；如套用会议记录的说话，它是「在一种很深的宗教热情下」结束。当威尔斯主任很热诚地称这是「我生命中最深刻的经验之一」时，一向与圣公会圈子的交情十分肤浅的马尔斯枢机主教，现在深为他的英国客人的热诚所感动。他从开始便与FORTAI 神父很合得来。这是不出奇的，因为熟识他俩的GRATIEUX 神父指出：「在某方面可把枢机主教和PORTAL 神父比较。他们同样欲把天主教思想革新，追上现代世界；他们有同样开放诚实的心，同样热爱年青人，也同样有吸引群众的能力。」由于交谈属于十分私人性质，马尔斯认为无须先征得罗玛方面的准许才欢迎HALIFAX勋爵及他的朋友。但他却认为，即使无须征得许可便可行动，最好仍旧知会圣座。无疑，他等待适合机会去知会圣座。一九二二年一月二十二日，即与圣公会人士聚会后六周，本笃十五世在得病得仅数日便猝然逝世，马尔斯立即启程赴罗马参加选举教宗的秘密会议。二月六日，RATTI 枢机主教当选，取名庇护十一世。就在选出那天，当新教宗接见他时，马尔斯告知他有关去年十二月的交谈，在提及他以前和本笃十五世关于这件事的接触时，他问教宗反不反对他继续这类「私人性质的会议」。教宗记起他与圣公会学者及俄国东正教人士的会议，遂答覆说，自己深信他们绝对怀有善意，他的态度也是十分积极的：「对于这些会议，我只能看到它们的好处。」

第二次会议在HALIFAX 勋爵请求下于一九二三年四月十三至十五日举行。虽然彼此间有那么多信仰道理相同，但勋爵对罗玛的中央集权、礼仪中能否使用英语、任命主教的方式、坎特培里大主教的特殊地位等教律问题，感到障碍重重。但后来他认为研究天主教对教宗地位的观点更为重要，故此这便成了一九二三年十一月七至八日第三次会议的主题，这次多了四位参加者：一位比较注重罗马的圣公会主教CHARLES GORE 和三位历史家(即圣公会的B. KIDD 和M. HEMMER，以及天主教的BATIFFOL 蒙席)。在深入讨论后，找出几个集中点，大家同意需要更深入研究教宗首席权的道理。

枢机主教是一位哲学家，而不是神学家。他的历史知识有限，有时追不上讨论的内容，但他由始至终都十分留心，富溢同情心。

坎特培里大主教在一九二三年给圣公会主教们的圣诞文告，以及马尔斯枢机主教在一九二四年元旦日的牧函，两者首次提及这些会议。由于首次公开引起的反对，下一次会议只能拖延到十八个月后才举行。在互相通信后，梵蒂冈不理英国天主教圈子的不满，确定交谈可以继续。马尔斯本想为自己一月的牧函取得罗玛方面的明显批准，以表示圣座方面已迈进新的一步，但教宗不愿太多卷入这件事，结果婉拒了。不过，教宗起码没有采取任何退缩步骤，反而多次显示圣座目前积极愿意继续推进与圣公会的接触。所以国务卿GASPARRI 枢机主教毫不犹疑地告知比利时驻梵蒂冈大使，圣座鼓助「马尔斯枢机主教曾经参与并将继续下去」的交谈。稍后，教宗亲自在枢机主教会议上说：「所有在上主恩宠推动下关心分离弟兄的天主教徒，都令我十分欣悦。他们努力除去成见，清理信仰的障碍，把整个公教道理表达出来，尤其是用生活的榜样把基督门徒的特点、爱显露出来。」国务卿告知马尔斯，教宗说这些话时，已注意到马林会谈。

所以在天主教方面，一切官方的障碍已除去，但在英国方面，坎特培里大主教却要面对圣公会大多数人士相当强烈的反对，因为HALIFAX 勋爵所代表和支持与罗马修好的人士尚是少数派。最后，在马林与坎特培里的多次通信后，十位参加交谈者终于能在一九二五年五月十九及廿日再聚会。当VAN ROEY 蒙席发表一篇文章，论及天主教对主教职与圣座的关系的看法时，GORE 与BATIFFOL 对教宗在早期教会的角色发生了一场新的争辩，马尔斯随即宣读了一篇由LAMBERT 院长所草就的相当动人的报告。在这篇报告里，这位有魄力的本笃会士把自己的历史知识和先知性想像结合一起，勾划出坎特培里大主教与罗玛联合时所可能享有的独立自主范围。

我们不清楚罗马对第四次会谈有何反应，因为马尔斯在会议后便立即再去罗玛，所以整件事情由口述交代。但庇护十一世显然从此时起，开始受到英国天主教圣统方面日渐增多的敌对反应的影响，特别注意到交谈展开后，个人归化的数目从此下降。要瞭解庇护十一世态度的转变，必须考虑到马林会谈之外的其他问题。原来，自一九二五年起，教宗的整个合一政策改变了。与俄国东正教修好的希望曾令人鼓舞一时，如今却觉得比他登极之初更有问题，此外他又忧虑到教义方面的自由主义，特别因为一九二五年八月举行的斯德哥尔摩会议使合一运动形成，而圣公会亦正式参加。与此同时，要商谈解决罗玛问题的话，便需对圣部一部份不妥协份子让步，因为以MERRY DEL VAL 枢机主教为首的人士从开始便声明坚决反对马林会谈。一九二八年一月教宗颁发的「MORTALIUM ANIMOS」通谕，对非天主教徒关于合一所尽之努力采取了不变通和不理解的态度，就因为受了上述情况的影响。

马尔斯自始至终都保持信心，他写给HALIFAX 的一封信表达自己如何在晚年面对两教合一的问题：「我们不该把敌对的教条摆出来，却应顾全我们的主观心理。事实从圣奥斯定至十六世纪，英国教会与罗马教会同属一个身体。即使今天，难道它不是含蓄地与罗玛联合一起吗？如果有障隔的双方都能深入自我反省，他们不难藉圣神的帮助发现到，保持分裂是一种错误的想法。历史的影响、误解、不合理的恐惧都可以造成表面上的分歧，不知不觉地遮盖我们所相信的真理。我深信情况确是如此。」

这些文字写于一九二五年，不但使罗马，而且使各地很多神学家的眼界大开。另一方面，这些说话似乎与梵蒂冈第二届大公会议的各项肯定相吻合，除了显出他的伟大爱心和热情外，也表达了他的深度智慧和信念。这样，他成了天主教合一运动的真正前驱之一，而这个衔头也是他所拥有的众多崇高衔头之一。



9:不是并吞，而是与圣公会合一》。

(八) 结语

马尔斯枢机被癌症侵袭，手术的尝试没有成功，结果于一九二六年一月廿三日逝世。死前一日，HALIFAX 勋爵虽已超过八十岁，仍然在仲冬从英国赶到，在枢机主教的小房子参与弥撒。在领圣体后，枢机主教伸开双手，两位老友拥抱良久。他们不能一起在同一圣祭中领圣体，但是他们的心灵已经排除障碍。深深结合为一。为了表示这种超越宗派界限的团结，枢机主教把自己的戒指除下，送给HALIFAX。

马尔斯的殡礼在备受尊崇的气氛下举行。教友景仰他为一位伟大的基督徒及主教；知识界视他为一位开明的思想家；而政界人士及非信友则承认他是一位伟大的爱国者。由于社会主义者E. VANDERVELDE 的推动，政府给他国葬，ALBERT 国王及其他政要也来参加葬礼。

无论在哲学或具体行动方面，马尔斯一生都走在时代前面；他是一位实行家，从不因危险而畏缩。正如所有伟大的实行家一样，他对自己的权威有很强烈的意识，有时因个人的感情和兴趣，他超越了自己权力范围去对待他的神父们。虽然他是这样的一位行动家及哲学家，但他更是一位祈祷者及准确的领导人，他的威严留给接触过他的人一份深刻的印象。他比一般人度一个更简朴严肃的生活，知道如何对一般群众表达自己纯厚温暖的情怀；但他有时也因此过份信任别人。这实是每一个热爱别人的人所付出的代价。马尔斯是一位伟人，全球知名，是欧美无数学府及学会的会员。法国部长LEON BERARD 在拜访了这位老枢机主教后，出来对人说：「我今天真正体会到『威望』这两个字的意义。」但是，马尔斯亦同时是一个简朴的人，他在自己的主教府生活得比很多隐修士和工人阶级还简朴。他接待部长及主教们，也以同样态度欢迎任何前来求他的平民。正如所有普通人，他有自己的缺点，但由于把自己一年比一年更献给上主；他放射出圣神的光辉和福音的精神。一位马林教区的老妇论及他说：「即使在冬天或下雨的日子里，在他经过后，他遗留下一些光辉。」

作者：刘家驹

(一) 前言

利玛窦与雷鸣远两位神父在很多方面是不能比较的。他们生活于不同的时代，属于不同的修会和国籍，要面对不同的问题等等。然而，我想试图从他们两位有关的资料中，提出两点来比较一下，或许可供我们深入了解这两位传教士。

(二) 热爱中国

利玛窦在去世前一年，写信给在澳门的耶稣会副会长，谈到在中国的传教事业，列出了可以继续；的七个理由。但从这七个理由的叙述中，不啻是充分地表达了他对中国人与中国文化的尊敬与热爱。他说：

「第一个理由是：传教事业的发祥，实属神奇，一如天主的一切事业，时常有着种种的困难，至今不绝；然而我们的声价，却日渐提高，教友的数目和品质，也有增无已。」

「第二；因为在这里，文章和学问很被看重，说话有理，人们绝不轻视。而且在中国可称为贵族的，只有文人和学者。因此似乎容易使中国士大夫相信我们的信仰，因为我们的信仰，理由充足，士大夫既相信我们，其余的人更容易劝化了。」

「第三，由以上一条我们看出：易于宣传福音的方法，就是用书籍宣传圣教，书籍可以在中国各处畅行无阻。」

「第四，中国人的天资聪敏。书籍、言语和服装以及朝廷的组织，东方人无不景仰。因此，若是我们能给他们教授科学，他们不单可以变成学者，而且因着科学他们也容易进入我们的圣教。他们后来也不会忘记受教的大恩。如今我们已经顺利地开始了。」

「第五，中国人也是倾向修身事天的。(有的人以为中国人不是这样，但是我在这里，每天观察，中国人确是如此。)有史以来，中国人就遵守人性的天理，较我们西方人更完善。在一干五百年前，中国人并不甚敬鬼，就是那些敬鬼的人，也不像古经罗马人和希腊人那样的淫逸无耻。他们是愿意修德的人，行为也很好。而且中国古人的经书，是中国最古最有权威的书。书中只讲敬天和敬天地之主。我们只要细读这些书，里面很少找到相反人性天理的事，反而有许多事合乎天理，比任何讲本性学问的哲学家也不稍逊。我们希望中国古来的许多圣贤因着遵守天理，再加上天主仁慈所赐的恩惠，也可以得救灵魂。……」

「第六，在中国教友保守信德，更较方便，因为中国很太平，有时一百多年也没有变乱。」

「第七，我们至今，谨小慎微，和中国士大夫往来，他们都称我们为学者为圣人。我希望我们至终常能保全这种声誉。如今在我们的会士中，既有好几位品行端方，神学优秀的人，而且没有一人不勉力学习较高的中文程度。因为仅知道我们的学术，不通晓他们的学术，毫无用处。」(见罗光着利玛窦传，页二○七八)

一五八○年，利玛窦晋铎后，又到卧亚修院攻读神学两年。当时很不满意传教区修院，拒绝收纳印度修生，只让他们速成或补习班式，教育印人，使他们晋铎后，学识不足，而只能成为欧洲传教士之助手，他曾就这事向其总会报告(见利玛窦传，三三页)。但在中国传教时，诚如上述的「七个理由」中所述，不仅敬重中国人，同时地敬重中国文化。

于斌枢机曾在两个演讲的场合，推崇利玛窦为文化传教的楷模：一是在一九六○年，称「天主教与中国文化相互之影响，……远的不谈，明末清初像利玛窦到了中国，研究线装书九年才开始传教讲道，但天主教对中国文化仍极重视，例如天主教在大陆所办的其中三大学把中国文化列为重要课程来研究，因此引起了很大的注意」(于斌：天主教的影响，见于斌总主教言论集，自由太平洋文化事业公司，民国五十三年，页三三一)。另一次是在一九六三年，称：「意大利教士利玛窦，他念了整整九年的中国书，才去讲道，所以才开启了传教的新机运，为后世树立了文化传教的楷模。……第二次中外文化的综合是开始于明末清初，因为利玛窦、徐光启把我们中国的文化和西欧文化交流，使中西携手相互了解，彼此学习，我们今天所说的新文化运动，实在开始已将四百年，在徐光启、李之藻、杨廷筠的时候已经开始了，不但开始而且已有很好的成就。」(见于斌总主教言论集，页三八三)

一九七二年，罗光总主教在「利玛窦传」再版序中说，「利玛窦是一位先知，预先知道中国传教的途径，也预先知道中国复兴的步骤。他所预先知道中国传教的途径，在于文化工作；所预先知道中国复兴的步骤是科学和伦理。他便在这个路途上，按着步骤去开路，提倡科学，宣讲基督福音和儒家传统的融洽。」(见该书页三)

从以上的资料中，可以证明利玛窦热爱中国文化与中国人。特别把中国文化的优点与不同，介绍到西方。同时，也愿把西方的科学与思想，介绍给中国人。

＊＊＊＊＊＊

事实上，整个的雷鸣远传中，都表露出他如何热爱中国人、中国文化以及中国的一切。这里，我想从他的传记中，抄录出一些片断。

「我那时候爱中国的心情，如同今天无别，也没有再加添。……感谢天主，中国民族真是一个体面的民族，真是一个优秀的民族，全球的任何百姓也不能比他。实在令人起敬起爱，我看见渔夫们洗网工作，家庭中相亲相爱之情，真是文明的表现。」(见赵雅博，雷鸣远神父传，越南自由太平洋协会，一九六三，页五九)

「雷神父一到北堂，立刻就将自己的房间，安排成中国样式，找来一些线装书，一些字画、瓷器与其他代表中国文化的东西，充实自己的卧室，衣着方面改用中国服装，用饭时，则使用竹筷而不肯使用刀叉。」(同上，页六八)

「一条发辫的事情虽然小，但是其中国化的意义，则是很大的。……他要事事中国化，处处表现爱中国，只要是中国的东西，便是好的，尽管是随俗卑风，只要不是罪恶，他便认为可以实行。」(同上，页九五)

赵雅博神父曾分析雷鸣远神父这一爱中国的心态说：「人们这样的喜欢他，当然有他的缘故，这个缘故不用说是由于他爱中国人，真的爱中国人。有人说雷神父是瞎了眼睛，不看中国人的短处，而一味盲目的爱。不是的，他对中国人的短处并不是不知道，但是他的使命是救中国人。对要救的人的缺点，一方面是改正它，另方面是要原谅它。人非圣贤，孰能无过，即便是圣贤，也何尝不是过恶万千。他人的缺点过失并不值得我们太过重视，并且雷神父对中国人的爱，并不是自然的爱，而是超自然的爱，透过天主而爱世人，爱的是他的灵魂无价，爱的是他整个的人乃是耶稣救赎的对象，为了救他而爱他，并不需要因他的缺点而不爱他啊！」(同上，页二○四)

(三) 高尚品德

雷震远神父在序「雷鸣远神父传」里说：「雷鸣远神父不愧为现代宗徒，人见人敬，人见人爱。其品德可直追圣方济沙勿略及利玛窦二位传教先锋」(雷鸣远傅，页一，越南自由太平洋协会，一九六三)

这是把雷鸣远与利玛买来做比较的，重点是放在「品德」上。

辅仁大学校长罗光总主教，一九五九年序其所着「利玛窦传」时说：「利玛窦的伟大，不在于灌输西学，不在于精通中文，乃在于他能克己，能勇进，能识时，另外是在于他爱主心切，不求荣己，只求荣主。」(利玛窦传，页七，辅仁大学出版社，一九八二)这段形容，重点也是放置在「品德」上。

事实上，无论利玛宾与雷鸣远传记的作者，前者是从资料，后者是从资料与亲泽，所感受到的最大的触角，是品德，由此品德才能发挥出其他的工作。

徐光启在跋「二十五言」中，对利玛窦有以下的形容，可见利玛窦的「学」与「德」的关系：

盖其学无所不窥，而其大者，以归诚真宰，干干昭事为宗。朝夕瞬息，亡一念不在此。诸凡情感诱慕，即无论不涉其躬，不挂其口，亦绝不萌诸其心。务期扫除净洁，以求所谓体受归全者。间尝反覆送难，以至杂语燕谭，百千万言中，求一语不合忠孝大旨，求一语无益于人心世道者，竟不可得。(利玛窦传，页一四九)

李之藻在序「畸人十篇」里说：

西泰子浮搓九万里而来，所历沉沙狂飓，与夫啖人略入之国，不知几许，而不菑不害，孜孜求友，酬应颇繁，一介不取，又不致乏绝，殆不肖以为异人也。观其不婚不宦，寡言饬行，日惟是潜心修德，以昭事乎上主，以为是独行人也。复徐叩之，其持议崇正辟邪，居恒不释卷，经目能逆顺诵。精及性命，博及象纬舆地，旁及句股算术。有中国先儒累世发明未晰者，而悉倒囊究数一二，则以为博闻有道术之人。迄今近十年，而所习之益深，所称忘行忘念之戒，消融都净；而所修和天和人和己之德，纯粹益精。意期善世，而行施畛畦，语无排击，不知者莫测其倪，而知者相悦以解。闲商以事，往往如其言则当，不如其言则悔，而后识其至人也。(利玛窦传，页一五一二)

陈垣在「从教外典籍见明末清初之天主教」一文中的「教士之品学」，引用几段资料，其中有李月华所说的「玛窦紫髯碧眼，面色如桃花，见人膜拜如礼，人亦爱之，信其为善人也。……玛窦年已五十余，如二三十岁人，盖远夷之得道者。」又引用明史意大里传称「其国人东来者，大都聪明特达之士，意专行教，不求禄利，其所着书，多华人所未道，故一时好异者咸尚之，……公卿以下重其人，咸与晋接。」(见陈垣学术论文集(第一集)页二一二二一三。)

从这些资料中，可以了解利玛窦之品德。

关于雷鸣远神父的品德，这是目前很多人所公认的，可以从两方面去说。一是在雷鸣远传中，所记录到他的谦逊与服从，使他成功了。一是接触他的人的亲身体验。我们不妨读一下他于一九二三年见传信部长王老松枢机的经过情形：

你是雷神父，啊，我多么高兴见到您，请坐在我前面哪，……我从我心的深处感谢您所作所为的一切，感谢你所遭受的痛苦，感谢你完善的圣愿服从，是它拯救了一切！请你注意倾听：在一个这样重大的命题(本地主教)，如果保卫这一命题的司铎，他的行为不是绝对的无瑕可指，我们绝对不会支持他！我不能充分向你说明，我们多么感谢你是一位完善的会士。我没有办法表示我多么感谢你对服从的德行有这样大的信德，使您毫不迟疑的绝对服从！就人事说，你的服从彷佛破坏了一切。不，天主所祝福的正是这一点，你看依恃天主的上智是没有错误的。」(雷鸣远传，页三六六七)

曹立珊神父所写的「春风十年」中「圣若翰的基本精神」大家在讨论圣若翰修会主保的座谈会上，称：

雷神父劈头便问大家：「圣若翰的基本精神是什么？」，沉默了几秒钟，有一位修士发言了：「圣若翰的基本精神是苦修：他不饮酒，时常守斋，住在荒野，吃煌虫野蜜，穿骆驼毛衣……」……可是，雷神父：出人意外的摇摇头，表示不同意。接着另一位修士提出新的见解，他说：我想若翰的基本精神是「勇敢」。请看，他谏诤国王黑落德，公然斥责国王强占自己的弟妇，对骄傲的法利塞，放浪的军人，贪污的税吏，也敢直斥他们的不道德行为：耶稣也说若翰不是随风摇动的「芦苇」，而是一位「守正不阿」的强人。雷神父听了，微笑着把手二摇说：「也不是」。第三个修士很明智而谨慎的提出第三个意见：我猜看，是不是爱火？圣若翰充满厄利亚的精神，彷佛一团火，他声嘶力竭的到处喊说：「侮改罢，天国近了」。雷神父告诉他，还没有猜对。……忽然有一位青年修士说：我想圣约翰的基本精神是「谦逊」。他曾说：「基督应发达，我该退消」。又说，「我不是基督，我只是旷野的呼声。」这声音只传扬基督，传报后自身即消失。雷神父听了把大姆指一伸说：好，说对了。因为克苦、勇敢、爱火及其他的德行，都植基在「谦逊」上面。……有了谦逊，才不顾自己，只为天主，面对真理才显得坚强。……(雷鸣远传页八六七)

于斌枢机在雷鸣远神父逝世六周年时讲了「雷鸣远神父的三不朽」，其中特别提到了雷鸣远的「全真常」全牺牲，真爱人，常喜乐，(曹立珊神父去年出版了「雷鸣远神父的神修纲领」一书就是讨论这个的。)说：

「全牺牲，真爱人，常喜乐，……牺牲不难，难在一个全字；爱人也不难，难在一个真字，喜乐也容易，但常喜乐就不太简单。牺牲为爱人之表现，爱人为喜乐之基础，助人为快乐之本。这是有连带性的一套修养方法。」(于斌总主教言论集，页三○七)

于枢机在「人生之谜」中，又说：

从前雷鸣远神父提出一句口号为：「打倒我。」为什么要谈革命，先要打倒自己呢？打倒自己并非「自杀」之谓，因为「自私」原是人类的天性，如果不先铲除此一自私的劣根性，革命的前途势必障碍重重。(同上，页一三五)

(四) 小结

如果让我在利玛窦与雷鸣远两位之中，说出最不相同的作为与性格的话，我觉得利码窦所愿着重的阶层是「士大夫」，由此而通过文化的传播来影响中国；雷鸣远却是以「普通人」为对象，也可以说是社会性特重，想以此而掀起种种的改革。因此，利玛窦把着书立说做成第一位；而雷鸣远则会办普及性大的益世报，和发起不少的群众运动为最重要。

作者：凌蕙彤 Ling, Esther

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE IN THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING (1)

I. Introduction

Love is the key element in Christian mysticism. In The Cloud of Unknowing, besides being the key element, love is also the basic and unifying theme underlying the whole teaching on mysticism, from the very initial stage of God's call and man's response to the ultimate intense moments of mystical union. The word love itself, which recurs in and threads through every page of the book, is the most important word in the author's vocabulary. Indeed, the prayer of the mystic is viewed as an act of love.

The Cloud of Unknowing is an anonymous work. As the information concerning its author's background is lacking in detail, critical studies have not been successful in discovering the real identity of the author. However, there is enough evidence for scholars to conclude that it is a work of an English mystic written in the 14th century, in the first full flowering epoch of English mysticism properly so called, when other mystics in England such as Richard Rolle, Walter Hilton, and Julian of Norwich were writing their enduring classics of Christian mystical experience. If this dating is correct, our author must have been a contemporary also of great mystics in continental Europe including Meister Eckhart, John Tauler, Henry Suso, Jan van Ruysbroeck, Catherine of Siena, and Thomas a Kempis. It has been further proved, on linguistic grounds, that the book was written in a central district of the North-East English Midlands.(2)

It seems likely that this 14th century author was a priest, for he gives his blessings at the end of the book in chapter 75. He was certainly a theologian with a wide knowledge of patristic writings and other later works which lie behind his own book. Dionysius' influence is explictly acknowledged: "Anyone who reads Denis' book will find confirmed there all that I have been trying to teach in this book from start to finish" (chapter 70). The influence of Augustine and Aquinas is obvious; for instance, the idea of "naked intent" expounded in chapter 24 reflects the Augustinian and Thomistic concept of "chaste love". Similarly, much of Augustine's teaching has been integrated into the exegesis of Mary and Martha (chapters 16-23), and the title "The Cloud of Unknowing" itself, as Dr. Hodgson has rightly pointed out, is an imagery in Benjamin Major of Richard of St. Victor.(3) The author claims that the specific purpose for which he was writing was to give guidance to a young disciple of twenty-four who was seriously considering committing himself to a life of contemplation. But as one reads the book, one feels that in actual fact it could very well have been written for all those who aspired to contemplative prayer in general. Indeed, it has been acknowledged as "the most excellent work on contemplative prayer ever written in the English Language".(4)


1.In this paper the text we use is the edition by Johnston: JOHNSTON, W., ed., The Cloud of Unknowing and The Book of Privy Counselling, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1973, 195p.

2.See P. Hodgson, ed., The Cloud of Unknowing and The Book of Privy Counselling, London, Oxford University Press, 1944, pp. xxvii-1, especially pp. xlix and l.

3.Ibid., p. 1xii.

4.D. Knowles, "The Excellence of the Cloud", The Downside Review, LII (New Series Vol. XXXIII), 1934, p. 92.

II. Knowledge of God through love

If love is the essence of the mysticism of The Cloud of Unknowing, and if contemplation is an act of love in the view of our author, what precisely does this mean? And what exactly is our author's teaching on love? The purpose of our present paper is to look into this teaching , which is not easy to analyse despite the book's simple style.

We shall start with the noetic dimension or aspect of love. While being thoroughly influenced by the Dionysian tradition of the so-called negative theology, our author is by no means simply following the currents of tradition, but distinguishes himself from the main stream of "via negative" by his characteristic consistent emphasis on the primacy of love in his whole approach to mystical knowledge. As a matter of fact, while insisting on following Dionysius' doctrine that "The most divine knowledge of God is that which is known by not knowing" (chapter 70), he takes great pains from the very outset to make it clear that love is the essence of any contemplative activities, for it is "by love that he (God) may be touched and embraced, never by thought" (chapter 6). A contemplative should make continuous efforts to lift his heart up to God with "a gentle stirring of love" (chapter 6), abandoning all discursive thought, putting aside even the most pious images, covering them over with a "cloud of forgetting" (chapter 9). At the height of his effort, when the contemplative is face to face with a "cloud of unknowing', it is again love that is called upon to make a break-through: "Yes, beat upon that thick cloud of unknowing with the dart of your loving desire and do not cease come what may" (chapter 6)

In the above paragraph we have quoted a few phrases of key importance: "gentle stirring of love", "cloud of forgetting", and "cloud of unknowing ". These are recurrent imageries in which the author's concept of love is subtly embodied, and hence it seems in order to allow ourselves to indulge in some exegesis of these phrases with a view to bringing out their significance in full force.

The idea of "gentle stirring of love" is repeated many times throughout the pages in various forms. It is referred to as "blind stirring of love", as "secret little love", as "naked intent of the will", as "blind outstretching", as "loving blind desire", and as "dart of loving desire''. It is re-echoed by Saint John of the Cross in The Living Flame of Love when he writes: "Oh, lamps of fire, in whose splendours the deep caverns of sense… were dark and blind".(5) According to our author, this "stirring" is founded on faith: "I prefer to abandon all I can know, choosing rather to love him whom I cannot know" (chapter 6), and this love is reflected symbolically in Mary who sits at the feet of Our Lord, all rapt in contemplation. This "stirring" is not something that can be acquired simply by means of human effort within the heart, rather, it is a response to God's call which is a divine gratuitous intervention. It is with this in mind that our author writes:

And so with great longing for him enter into this cloud. Or rather, I should say, let God awaken your longing and draw you to himself in this cloud while you strive with the help of his grace to forget everything else" (chapter 9).

Here, both passivity and activity are involved; passivity in terms of divine grace, and activity in terms of human will. On the human side, therefore, any "stirring of love" has to depend not only on the heart but also on the will. Finally, this "stirring" is "blind", because its origin is in darkness and its movement unconscious. But despite being "blind", it moves with love and is far superior to discursive reasoning, because the former goes directly to the essence and being of God while the latter cannot know God as He is in Himself. Hence our author insists:

Rational creatures such as men and angels possess two principal faculties, a knowing power and a loving power. No one can fully comprehend the uncreated God with his knowledge, but each one, in a different way, can grasp him fully through love" (chapter 4).

The "blind stirring of love", therefore, marks the beginning of an emerging enlightenment.

When the "blind stirring of love" has begun working, leading to a knowledge which is known by love, the contemplative has to be careful not to smother this love with conceptual thinking and meditation. Instead, he must enter into a "cloud of forgetting" which, according to our author, is the abandonment of all images and concepts so as to allow the soul to love mystically. In other words, while admitting that meditations on the Passion of Christ, on Our Lady, and on the saints are good in themselves and are excellent for beginners, the author insists on the necessity of relinquishing them lest they would be an obstacle to the work of supra-conceptual love, or would constitute a barrier between the soul and God. This is not so much rejection of reasoning, memories and the material world as detachment from all these. Images and symbols in religious traditions are not to be rejected in themselves, but the contemplative wishing to reach God as He is must overcome any attachment to all such symbols. This is a process of liberation in which man is liberated from the sensible and conceptual to find access to the realm of union of love.(6) It is in this sense we are to understand our author when he says "fashion a cloud of forgetting beneath you, between you and every created thing" (chapter 5).

The third imagery is "cloud of unknowing". Our author teaches that mystical knowledge is obscure, knowing that He is without knowing what He is. In other words, contemplation can only be in the "cloud of unknowing".

For in the beginning it is usual to feel nothing but a kind of darkness about your mind, or as it were, a cloud of unknowing. You will seem to know nothing and to feel nothing except a naked intent towards God in the depths of your being. Try as you might, this darkness and this cloud will remain between you and your God. You will feel frustrated, for your mind will be unable to grasp him and your heart will not relish the delight of his love. But learn to be at home in this darkness"(chapter 3).

Here our author is obviously speaking about a psychological condition in which the human mind is dark from a lack of knowledge. On the one hand all memories of creatures have been abandoned, and on the other hand no distinct knowledge of God has been possible. However, the "cloud of unknowing" is only "between" man and God, and is penetrable by constant "stirring of love''. If it is a matter of "between", man is both separated from and at the same time connected with God. The separation in question is not a physical one, but is man's awareness of his own finite existence－an awareness that constitutes a separation. To overcome this awareness, man must allow himself to enter into a state of total unconsciousness, a condition of unknowing, whereby the medium 'leading to a deep experience of God who is beyond ordinary human knowledge is provided. So, in effect, the obscurity or darkness is not hopelessness. It is a condition from which enlightenment may in due course emerge. The process, however, entails the will beating upon the dark "cloud of unknowing" with a "dart of longing desire" (chapter 6). And when the soul ceases from any effort to comprehend the incomprehensible, he is capable of raising himself up to the Being of God Himself, and becomes "oned" with Him in an inexpressible fashion. The union, therefore, is essentially an act of love and of will. This idea of a combination of love and will, as Dom Justin McCann has pointed out, is a major modification of our English author on Dionysian teaching.(7) Dionysius maintains that love is the essential element leading to the union, but he does not go on to give any explanation about this union; our author, however, insists that the union of love is an exercise of the will.

Sufficient has been said about the noetic aspect of love as taught in The Cloud of Unknowing; just another quote to round off this section:

…he may touch you with a ray of his divine light which will pierce the cloud of unknowing between you and him. He will let you glimpse something of the ineffable secrets of his divine wisdom and your affection will seem on fire with his love (chapter 26).




5.E. Allison Peers, ed., The Complate Works of Saint John of the Cross, Wheathampstead, England, A. Clarke, 1974, Vol. III p. 16.

6.Cf. N. O' Donoghue, "'This Noble Noughting and This High Alling': Self-Relinquishment in the Cloud of Unknowing and the Epistle of Privy Counsel", Journal of Studies in Mysticism, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1979, pp. 1-4.

7.J. McCann, ed., The Cloud of Unknowing and Other Treatsies, Westminster, Maryland, The Newman Press, 1952 (6th and revised edition), pp. xii and xiv.

III. Love is incarnational and Christo-centric

Love means union with God; but it also means union within oneself and union with one's fellow-men. Our author is quite explicit about this. He points out that man's "oneness" within himself has been destroyed by sin, he must either in this life or in purgatory undergo purification if this original "oneness" is to be recovered. In contemplation, the "stirring of love" burns out the very roots of sin, removes concupiscience as does the fire of purgatory. Thus man recovers his "oneness" within himself.

Parallel to this process of self-unitive purification is the process of communion. Plunged in the "cloud of unknowing" and stripped of all discursive thoughts, the contemplative Is by no means alone or isolated. On the contrary, he is in communion with the entire church, both the living and the dead. He is able to come to a closer and more real union with his fellow-men by means of the "stirring of love".

For when you fix your love on him, forgetting all else, the saints and angels rejoice and hasten to assist you in every way…Your fellow-men are marvellously enriched by this work of yours, even if you may not fully understand how; the souls in purgatory are touched, for their suffering is eased by the effects of this work…(chapter 3).

Moreover, this communion of love, as our author insists, is also true at a practical and incarnational level. Thus he writes:

…through contemplation he is so growing in practical goodness and love that, when he speaks or prays with his fellow Christians at other times, the warmth of his love reaches out to them all, friend, enemy, stranger, and kin alike (chapter 25 ).

In other words, the community is enriched by the act of love of contemplation in day-to-day life. This, however, is a mutual two-day road, for contemplative prayer has to depend on the prayer of the community and on the sacraments of the church for its spiritual food, without which it would certainly be stifled (chapter 28 and 35 ).

Our author's doctrine of love may be described as incarnational in another sense. It is interesting to note how he takes great pains to lay emphasis on the harmony between body and soul in man in paragraphs like the following:

God forbid that I should separate body and spirit when God has made them a unity. Indeed, we owe God the homage of our whole person, body and spirit together. And fittingly enough he will glorify our whole person, body and spirit, in eternity, (chapter 48)

It is in this light that chapter 16-23 concerning the symbolical story of Mary Magdalene should be interpreted, and the same concept of unity must be applied to our author's understanding of the whole person of Christ. While it is perfectly true that the exegesis of the gospel passages involves much more reading into the text than modern biblical cricism permits, yet it would be unfair to accuse our author of teaching a religion of pure spirit, rejecting all sensible feelings and imageries. On the very contrary, feelings do seem to play a part in Mary Madalene, the symbol of the ideal contemplative. She is described as weeping at the empty tomb on Easter morning, and her feelings and devotion to Christ are succinctly summed up: "Sweet was the love between Mary and Jesus. How she loved! How much more he loved her!" (chapter 22) Thus if our author, following the scholastic tradition, teaches that to love conceptually in meditation on the Passion of Christ precedes loving supra-conceptually in contemplation which is much higher, he is in fact saying that it is through the humanity of Christ that one finds access to his divinity, getting in touch with his Godhead. He also gives a clear theological basis to what he teaches about abandoning conceptualized images of Christ. The humanity of Christ is a creature, and true love does not stop at the human nature of Christ but rather terminates at the whole person of Christ which is God Himself. Therefore what concerns the contemplative is not a question of forgetting temporarily the humanity of Christ, as Mary does, rapt in contemplation at the feet of Jesus. At the height of mystical love the humanity of Christ may indeed be present as it is present to Mary Magdalene, but the fascination of the divine is so predominant that it may entail a temporary forgetting of the human. Thus viewed, mystical love in The Cloud of Unknowing is not only incarnational but also Christocentric.

IV. Love is Christian living intensified

One final observation. If our interpretation in the preceding pages is correct, it seems clear that the doctrine of love of our author is much more that a doctrine; it is a life of mystical love which is described as an intensification of ordinary Christian living. Contemplative prayer is nothing else but the fulfilment of evangelical charity in its most perfect form. In other words, the perfect following of Christ manifests itself in mystical love. Hence this love is not really distinct from the charity taught in the New Testament which calls all Christians to perfection: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48). It is the charity that includes all the virtues. And it is clear that our author does admit this when he writes:

…as the Ark contained all the jewels and treasures of the temple, so this little love intent upon God in the cloud of unknowing contains all the virtues of a man's spirit, which, as we know, is the temple of God.(chapter 71)

If it is identical with Gospel charity, and if it is an intensification of ordinary Christian living, then all baptized Christians are obviously called to the work of this "little love", to contemplative, and to become a mystic. Our author, however, insists over and over again that contemplation is not for everyone but for those have a special call from God. Moreover, by distinguishing the special vocation to perfection from the universal call to salvation, our author is saying implicitly that there is a hierarchy of Christian living with the mystics above the common daughters and sons of Mother Church. How can this conflict be reconciled? William Johnston, while disagreeing with the author that "the only way to perfection is by entering the sheepfold of contemplative prayer", sympathetically remarks that "the English author is a man of his age"－an age in which there was no other recognized path to perfection except that of contemplation. It was in fact very much later that a less monastic spirituality arose, raising the question of the possibility of other paths to Christian perfection.(8) We agree with Johnston. Furthermore, considering The Cloud of Unknowing as a whole, we feel that if the author were our contemporary today, his sound theology would certainly be potential enough to stretch further and deeper to arrive at some insight into the unity of contemplation and activity. If in the 14th century he could identify mystical love with an intensification of ordinary Christian living, as he really did, today in the 20th century he probably would have no problem in broadening his concept of mysticism to include other expressions of mystical love manifested outside contemplation in the strictest sense of the word.

V. Epilogue

St. John in the Fourth Gospel speaks about perfect love in terms of "indwelling", and St. Paul in his Epistles speaks in terms of "in Christ'. Our author, in effect, is speaking about the same in terms of "blind stirring". Just as both "indwelling" and "in Christ" are not merely symbolic language of mystical talk, but a call to a life of the Spirit, so the "blind stirring" is a reminder of this call. It is a reminder of a call that should be addressed to all Christians, for none may be excluded from this life under God's grace.

　


8.W. Johnston, The Mysticism of the Cloud Unknowing : a modern interpretation, New York, Desclee, 1967, pp. 262f.

作者：施惠淳 Shield, Bernard J.

SHIUHING 1583: MATTEO RICCI 'S ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

Matteo Ricci (利玛窦) arrived in Macao on the 7th August, 1582. He crossed into China and on 10th September, 1583 reached the city of Shiuhing in Guangdong Province, there founding the first Catholic mission in China in modern times. The fourth centenary of that momentous event is now being celebrated in several countries and in a variety of ways.

The present article attempts to offer a modest tribute to this great religious and cultural bridge-builder who has been hailed as "one of the most remarkable and brilliant men in history"(1) and whose influence continues down to today, sometimes in unlikely places.

Ricci's own writings are not easily available, at least in English. His monumental work on the entry of Christianity into China(2) was completed shortly before his death in Peking in 1610. However, his own Italian text was not published but instead was translated into Latin by a Belgian confrere called Nicolas Trigault. Trigault's Latin version appeared in many printings and translations in various parts of Europe in the early 17th century.(3) As a translation, however, it is seriously defective, taking great liberties with Ricci's text and making substantial additions and subtractions without alerting the reader.(4)

Unfortunately when it was decided in the 1950 's to make a belated English version of Ricci's work(5), this was done from Trigault's Latin rather than from Ricci's own Italian text, even though Ricci's original had by then been finally published.(6)

If there is any truth in Buffon's much-quoted maxim that "Style is the man"(7), then to sample some of Ricci's distinctive style of writing directly from his own words should throw some light on the character and motivation of the man. It is with this hope that the following translation is offered, based directly on D’ Elia's edition and giving Ricci's first-hand account of how he and his confreres tried to communicate the Christian message to the Chinese people. Following D'Elia I have inserted the Chinese characters where relevant and also added some numbered notes to supply necessary information or clarification at certain points of the text.(8)

＊＊＊＊＊

On the Entry into China of the Society of Jesus and of the Christian Religion

Book II, Chapter 4: "The Fathers Gradually Begin to Speak with the Chinese about the Holy Christian Religion"(9)

245

At this early stage, so as not to make people suspicious of something so new as this, the Fathers were not keen on preaching very clearly about our holy law but in the time remaining to them after receiving visitors they empoyed themselves instead in learning well their spoken and written language and polite customs, in winning over the goodwill of the Chinese and in influencing them with the example of a good life towards what they could not do by language nor time permit.One thing with which all the Chinese showed themselves very pleased was the fact that the Fathers together with all the members of their household dressed like the more respected people of this country, their dress being modest and long, with long sleeves also, not very different from our own.(10) The house had two rooms on either side with a sort of living-room in the middle. This the Fathers arranged as a chapel with an altar in the centre where they placed the picture of Our Lady with the Child in her arms.

246

Since there is no name in the Chinese language which corresponds to the name "God" nor can even "Dio" be properly pronounced in Chinese, there not being the letter "D",(11) they began to call God T' ien Chu (天主), which means "The Lord of Heaven", as He is called up to now throughout China as well as in The Teaching of the Christian Religion (天主紧要) (12) and the other books which they wrote .(13)And this fits in very well with our purpose, since the Chinese adore Heaven as the supreme deity (which some people think of as the material heaven), using the same name as we have given to God, and so it is stated clearly how much greater is our God than what they take to be the supreme deity, since God is the Lord of Heaven. For this reason they call Our Lady by another name which means Lady Holy Mother of God (天主圣母娘娘).(14)

247

This picture of Our Lady and her Son which we placed on the altar all the mandarins and other literati, the ordinary people and likewise their pagan priests,(15) who came to visit the Fathers, all adored, bowing and touching the forehead to the floor with much respect, and they were in admiration of the artistic qualities of our painting.It is true that shortly afterwards they put in place of Our Lady another painting of the Saviour, since the Fathers said that we must adore only one God, and when the Chinese saw the picture of Our Lady on the altar, it not being possible so soon to explain the mystery of the Incarnation, they became a little confused and- many of them spread the report elsewhere that the God whom we adored was a woman.

248

And since many people also came to ask questions about the doctrine from the Fathers, having doubts (and with good reason) about their own religion, the Fathers put the Ten Commandments of the Decalogue (祖传天主十诫) into Chinese characters and had them printed. They then distributed them to many people who asked for them and who said that they wanted to practise them because they saw that they were in such conformity with reason and the natural law.

249

Many people also began to make presents of incense to incense the altar and to give alms to the Fathers for their sustenance and for oil for the lamp which was kept buring before the altar. And it would have been easy to obtain from the mandarins some income from the land around their temples; but it seemed to the Fathers that it would be better not to accept this income so as not to become dependent on the mandarins, as the pagan priests are. In this way also they acquired the reputation of not furthering their own interests. And so all the mandarins wanted to make contacts with them, being sure that they had nothing to ask from them, unlike all those who deal with them and are constantly making demands on them.

250

With this way of communicating, more by actions than by words, the good fragrance of our law came to be spread through all of China. And even though many came only out of curiosity to see something new, still they always brought away something to help towards their conversion at home, or something which they heard the Fathers say, either through an interpreter(16) or by means of what they were learning of the Chinese language, about the good customs found in the Christian kingdoms, the falseness of idol-worshipping, the conformity of the law of God with the light of natural reason and what their first sages taught in their books.

251

The first person to become a Christian in China was a poor man with an incurable disease, given up by the doctors and who was therefore thrown out of his house by his relatives into a field because they could not support him. And when the Fathers learnt of this, they asked him if he wanted to be a Christian and so save his soul, seeing that he could not save his body. And when he saw that none of his own people took care of him any more and that some among the foreigners visited him, it seemed to him that this assistance had come from heaven and he replied that he would accept our law very willingly indeed, since he considered that if it taught people to do such works of charity, it could not but be true. So they got the servants of the house to make a small hut for him in a clean place and they sent him every day from our house everything he needed, and at the same time they instructed him in our Holy Faith, until he seemed to be sufficiently instructed, when they gave him holy baptism, and he died some days later. Since God willed that this great work should begin from the smallest beginnings possible and in order that this work should be more meritorious, God permitted that it should be badly interpreted by the Chinese. They could not convince themselves that anyone in the world could succeed in doing such a difficult work as this without any self-interest and spread the report throughout the city that the Fathers knew that that man had a precious stone inside his head and that they wanted to take care of him so as to extract the stone from his head after his death.

252

The Fathers－and consequently the Christian religion－always acquired no little reputation in China because of the many books about our sciences and the laws of our kingdoms. Some of these volumes were large, such as the canonical texts, and others were worked in gold and very well bound. Although they could not read nor understand what they contained, still from the external magnificence and the fineness of the printing they convinced themselves that those books must deal with important things, seeing that such account was made of them in our kingdom; and that in the matter of books our country was ahead, not only of all the other nations known to China, but even of China itself which they thought up to then was superior in letters to all the kingdoms of the world. In addition they saw that the Fathers always had some good scholar of Chinese literature in the house and that they studied with great diligence by day and night, studying the written language, and for this purpose had bought many of their books and also filled the whole study-room with them. And so they came to understand both that letters and the sciences are highly esteemed in our country and also that in their own country the Fathers were scholars also in their sciences, which is the only thing in which nobility consists in China, as we have explained. Hence, on comparing our priests with those of their religion, in whom ignorance reigns, they easily thought how much better based on reason is the law which Ours profess than what was taught by their pagan priests.

253

And since the literati wished to know something more than was said about our law in the printed Commandments, with the help of a scholar who was in the house(17) the Fathers arranged a Catechism (天主实录) in this script, in which were refuted some points from the religions of China and the main heads of the Holy Faith were explained, especially those which could be more easily understood with the light of natural reason. All the more important citizens were very happy and satisfied with this, and especially the Governor, Wang P' an (王泮).

Ours gave away many hundreds and thousands of copies of this, so that the name of the Christian law, never heard of or known to the Chinese, was spread more rapidly and to more distant places. This was because the books reached places where the Fathers could not and our message is rather better explained in this kingdom by the written than by the spoken word, because of the great power which their characters possess.

254

There is a custom that the important magistrates, when they wish to pay some great honour to someone, send to him with great solemnity and celebrations a wooden tablet in a frame on which they write and engrave two or three rather large and meaningful characters in praise of that person. And to one side is written the title and name of the magistrate and to the other side the year in which it was made, which in this country is usually the year of enthronement of the king(18) then reigning. And wishing to pay this compliment to the Fathers because of the good opinion he had of htem sna so that the people would have more respect for them, the Governor of the city and protector of the Fathers sent two of these tablets to them. One was to be placed over the door of the house, which was also the door of the chapel, and it said, translated into our language: "The Chapel of the Flower of the Saints" (僊花寺); the other was to be placed in the hall and said: "Those who have come from the Holy Land of the West" (西来净土).(19) When these tablets were set up in their places, it gave great credit to the Fathers in the eyes of all sorts of people who passed through that street and who entered the house and saw how much they were esteemed by that mandarin, who not only had a great reputation in this province because of his position and learning, but also because of his virtue and reputation for good government.(20)

　

1)Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China, Cambridge, vol. 1, 2nd edition, 1961, p. 148; quoted by F.A. Rouleau, S.J., "Ricci, Matteo", New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, 1967, vol. 12, p. 471.

2)Della Entrata della Compagnia di Giesu e Christianita nella Cina. After a comprehensive account of China and the Chinese, the work describes the step by step progress of Ricci and his companions from Macao to Peking. P.M. D' Elia (see Note 6, below) examines the historical value of this work, in Fonti Ricciane, I, pp. c1xxxvi－c1xxxvii.

3)Nicolas Trigault, S. J., De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu ex P. Matthaei Ricci ejusdem Societatis Commentariis Libri V, auctore P. Nicolao Trigautio, Belga, Augsburg, 1615, with four subsequent Latin editions in 1616, 1617, 1623 and 1648. It appeared in French (1616), in German (1617), in Spanish (1621) and even in Italian (1621), but in English only in excerpts until 1953.

4)See, e.g. the comments of George Dunne, S. J., quoting D. Bartoli and D' Elia, in Generation of Giants: The Story of the Jesuits in China in the Last Decades of the Ming Dynasty, Notre Dame/London, 1962, pp. 175-176.

5)Louis J. Gallagher, S. J., China in the Sixteenth Century: The Journals of Matthew Ricci: 1583-1610. New York, 1953.

6)Matteo Ricci, S. J., Fonti Ricciane: Storia dell'Introduzione del Cristianesimo in Cina. ed. Pasquale M. D' Elia, S. J., 3 vols., Rome, 1942-1949. There is now a French translation: G. Bessiere, Histoire de l' expedition chretienne au royaume de la China 1582-1610, Paris, 1978. I have heard that an English translation was made in the U.S.A. in the 1950's but never published. It is greatly to be hoped that the present centenary celebrations will provide the stimulus for both an English and a Chinese translation of D' Elia's text.

7)"Le style est l' homme meme", Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707-1788), Discours sur le style.

8)The translator acknowledges his indebtedness to Father Sergio Ticozzi, PIME, for his assistance in interpreting more than a few places in Ricci's Italian text.

9)D' Elia dates the events of this chapter to the period between October 1583 and November 1584 when Ricci had established himself at Shiuhing (肇庆; sometimes written "Chao Ch 'ing" or “Zhaoqing”). This city on the West River is about fifty miles west of the Province capital Canton (Guangzhou).

10)At this early stage Ricci wore the robe of a Buddhist bonze(和尚).

11)“Dio” is the name for God in Italian. Ricci presumably means that the sound “D”, rather than the letter "D", does not exist in Chinese. In fact there is a "D" sound in both Mandarin and Cantonese, but the quality differs from the Italian "D" as found in the word "Dio''.

12)D' Elia, Fonti Ricciane, I, p. 193, points out that in this work, written for Chinese Catholics, Ricci uses exclusively the term天主.

13)In his important apologetic work T' ien Chu Shih I(天主实义) Ricci uses four different terms for God: 天主，上帝，天主上帝，天上帝，cf. D' Eiia, ibid. An English translation of this book is expected later this year.

14)D' Elia says that this Chinese title for Our Lady－or at least the Niang Niang part of it－was borrowed from the pagans. It was used briefly by the Catholics at Shiuhing before being abandoned.

15)"their pagan priests": Ricci's expression is: "i ministri de' loro idoli''.

16)Ricci's Chinese interpreter in Shiuhing appears to have been a young Chinese known by the name Filippo Mendes.

17)A native of Fukien Province, this man was married and had gained the degree of bachelor (秀才) in the imperial examinations. He asked to be instructed in the Catholic faith in 1584 and was baptized by Father Cabral on the 21st November of that year, taking the name of Paul. He later helped to convert the members of his family and some of his fellow mandarins in Peking.

18)"king": Ricci strangely uses here the term "re" rather than the word for "emperor".

19)Both of these expressions have a Taoist and Buddhist flavour about them. The term Ricci interprets as "Saints" probably refers to the Taoist "Immortals", while the word here translated as "chapel" is the ordinary term, even today, for a Buddhist monastery. "The Holy Land" is more literally "the Pure Land", which is also the name of one of the main Chinese Buddhist sects. Clearly Governor Wang thought of Ricci and his companions as some type of Buddhists or Taoists, and therefore chose expressions that he considered would appeal to them.

20)Finally, for further reading about Ricci, George Dunne gives a useful bibliography, Generation of Giants, pp. 371-379. Vincent Cronin is preparing a new edition of his very readable biography: The Wise Man from the West, London, 1955. A splendid Chinese translation has been made of this: 思果译，「西泰子来华记」，香港，公教真理学会，一九六四年。

作者：祈士真 Casey, John J.

LUTHER AND CATHOLIC CHURCH ORDER

INTRODUCTION

The year 1983 marks the five-hundreth anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther the Augustinian priest who became an outstanding religious figure in that sixteenth-century movement known as the Protestant Reformation. So great was Luther's influence that his thought remains very much a living part of our world today. Sizeable numbers of Christians who call themselves Evangelicals trace their inspiration back to this heritage.

Traditionally Catholics have considered the basic point of departure in Luther's teaching to be his doctrine of justification and faith. This is not surprising since Cardinal Cajetan who was sent by Pope Leo X to meet Luther at Augsburg, made note of the fact that he thought this doctrine as it stood would indeed institute a new church. It would, he thought, take a lot of discussion to round it out into Catholic teaching. But Rome had a prior concern and it was this concern that Cajetan was to present to Luther first, namely the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Luther refused to consider this first and some historians say the reason was Luther's suspicion that he was being used as a pawn in papal politics. Whatever the reason, from that point on efforts at reconciliation between Catholic and reform positions met with little success.

At the present time a vastly changed world has replaced that of the sixteenth century and Catholic-Lutheran ecumenical dialogue may be looked upon as the contemporary Cajetan-Luther discussions. Without going into detail, it is interesting to note that in the dialogue on doctrine great strides have been made in resolving the differences that exist between the two traditions. Perhaps this is not surprising because from the very start Lutherans thought their doctrine was indeed the traditional Catholic faith. They saw what they were doing as simply pruning away nonessentials that had become attached to essential Catholic doctrine. Present-day dialogue usually begins from this position and seeks to clarify the basic common faith that stands beneath any particular theological expression of that faith. At the same time, the dialogue takes a second look at some of the so-called nonessentials of the sixteenth century to see whether these may have been misunderstandings rather than points of actual contention. Results of these common doctrinal dialogues have been published both in Europe and in the United States.

Although dialogue on Church authority remains a difficult ecumenical issue, it provides an interesting perspective for Catholic theologians to reflect upon the tradition of authority as it developed in the Catholic Church. It is well to note at the beginning that we are talking about here is not ministry but rather Church order. The discussion on ministry in the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue basically has been part of the doctrinal reflection. Within that context it concerns certain Christians rightly carrying out the various function that exist within the Christian community on behalf of the whole community and its individual members. Church order, on the other hand, concerns the place or position that members of the Christian community have within that community and whereby they are related to and distinguished from one another. It was on the question of Church order that Luther's thought offered a different perspective that has had its effect on more recent Catholic thinking. What this paper will do in broad outline, then, is place the thinking of Luther on Church order within the context of the development of Catholic thought.

THE CATHOLIC TRADITION OF CHURCH ORDER

Within each Catholic community of the baptized, in actual practice distinctions among members rest in the position each has in relation to the sacraments. This springs from the principle that the basic community activities are the sacraments and of all the requirements involved in the valid celebration of a sacrament, the primary one is that of requisite power on the part of the person actually celebrating that sacrament. All other requirements involved in the celebration of a sacrament are predicated on the existence of a minister who has the requisite power to celebrate that sacrament. Should an empowered minister be lacking, a sacrament cannot be celebrated.

For the majority of the sacraments, the minister receives his power through the reception of one of the sacraments themselves, namely Holy Orders. This celebration has been recognized throughout the history of the Church without serious dissent as a function belonging to the office of bishop which in turn is transmitted through the reception of this sacrament. In the Catholic tradition this is the principle behind the belief in the apostolicity of the Church whereby each bishop can trace his line of ordination back to the apostles themselves who were directly empowered by Christ. Thus it is commonly held that once the chain of sacramental contact back to the apostles is broken, requisite power for the majority of the sacraments ceases to exist.

Among all the sacraments celebrated for the Catholic community of the baptized, the greatest is the Eucharist and the community member having power over the Eucharist is the priest. But priesthood is common to both bishop and presbyter so that both by ordination have equal authority over the Eucharist. But a potentially confusing situation in Church order is saved by the fact that only the bishop has authority over the sacrament of Holy Orders and in principle it is by this authority that Eucharistic ministers are provided. Thus although the presbyter has equal control over the greatest of the sacraments, nevertheless it is only through the bishop alone that the Church continues the Eucharist from generation to generation. Thus the bishop is easily distinguished as superior to the presbyter since the presbyterate depends upon the episcopate for its continuance. In turn both of these are easily distinguished as superior to the ordinary members of the Catholic community since they must depend upon the bishop and the presbyter for the Eucharist without which they would not be spiritually alive.

The primacy of control over the sacraments in Catholic Church order can be seen in a negative way in the order of deacon. Although the order of deacon was one of the three original offices in the Catholic tradition, it virtually disappeared for centuries. And the disappearance began once it was clearly decided by the Church that the deacon had no share in the priestly office. The Second Vatican Council has resurrected this office but it still remains virtually indistinguishable from lay ministry, the post-Vatican II replacement for minor orders.

Within the universal Catholic community of the baptized in contradistinction to each local community, Church order recognizes the highest position of all as the office of pope or Supreme Pontiff. Although it is the highest office in the Church it has always been the least secure. A primary reason is that the office of pope is not marked by any special sacramental control peculiar to itself. Thus the pope being essentially a bishop, enjoys no special advantage over any other bishop in the sacramental line that would clearly mark him as superior. For this reason at various times throughout the history of the Church his superiority has been questioned on these very grounds. Now when Saint Jerome asked the question "What can a bishop do that a presbyter cannot do," he answered it in the very next words of his question "except ordain?" This was sufficient in time to position a clearly established difference between presbyter and bishop. But when the same question was asked about the relationship between pope and bishop, the answer came to rest upon a power of jurisdiction.

The problem of jurisdiction has existed in the Church from its earliest days. The principle behind it was that Church order in practice existed within the call to service of a local Church or, as it was called in the very early days, a parish. In time each local parish had its bishop, its presbyters and its deacons and difficulty arose when a bishop or a presbyter attempted to administer a sacrament outside his own Church－that is within the parish of another bishop without that bishop's permission. Particularly distressing was the dispensation of the sacrament of Holy Orders outside one's jurisdiction.

Such jurisdictional questions which are so frequently mentioned in early councils came to be thematized under the categories of validity and lawfulness, categories borrowed from the Roman legal system. It could not be denied that bishops had the requisite power to ordain for that would be to destroy the intrinsic power of the very office of bishop itself. But should he ordain outside his own Church, he would be doing so unlawfully or illicity and the one ordained could be denied the lawful and licit practice of his office. Likewise it could not be denied that the presbyter had the requisite power to confect the Eucharist; but should he do so outside his own jurisdiction he could be doing it unlawfully.

But the sacramental system was not the only focus of jurisdiction. A second and very important focus concerned the question of who would preside among bishops in a given area. The bishops of apostolic or apostle-founded Churches were recognized as holding first rank and among these none shared the same prestige as the bishop of the Church at Rome with its two apostles Peter and Paul. But such prestige alone did not sustain the weight of a growing papal claim to the highest hierarchical position in the Church.

The medieval Church wedded jurisdiction and sacrament together as two sides of the same coin. While on the one hand power over the sacraments within the Catholic community of the baptized came from Holy Orders, this was not necessarily a complete power that allowed indiscriminate confecting of the sacraments. What was also necessary was a legitimate call to office in the CURA ANIMARUM. This distinction although in the same vein as the earlier one of lawfulness and liceity, was more sophisticated because in some cases it concerned validity. It did not, however, lessen sacramental power already traditionally attached to the offices of bishop and presbyter; rather it centered around powers attached to authority in the Church, namely the power of the keys. Thus the verticle line of authorization under the power of the keys started with the pope who in turn initially authorized bishops who in turn authorized presbyters.(1)

However the power of the keys still did not give the papacy a firm base in relation to other bishops largely because in Scripture the power of the keys was presented to all of the apostles as well as to Peter. Thus to position bishops in a vertical hierarchical scheme under the pope was never really established until the First Vatican Council in 1870. And that was a development well after the Reformation.

Church order as it has been described thus far has been within the Catholic community of the already baptized. But the basis of Church order rests upon the sacrament of Baptism; or to be more precise. Baptism is the sacramental base on which the whole structure of Church order rests. Now while one might get the impression from what has been expounded up to the present that Church order in the Catholic tradition is the result of ordinary sociological laws at work in an organization heavily influenced by Roman social structures in the first instance, medieval feudalism in the second and renaissance divine right of kings in the third, these laws alone could not account for the peculiarly Christian position concerning the minister of Baptism.

There is no written indication at all that there was any explicit consciousness in the early days of the Church of an unrestricted empowerment for the administration of the sacrament of Baptism. In the early Churches or parishes, Baptism was a community celebration administered by the bishop together with his presbyters and deacons and for that matter the whole community. Questions as to whether Baptism by others than community ministers would be valid first arose in the case of Baptism by heretics. What the early Church meant by heretics were basically Churches or parishes that were fully established with bishop, presbyters and deacons but because of a doctrinal or disciplinary dispute, were Churches in competition with those which held the Catholic faith and practice. The question arose that when someone from an heretical Church entered a Catholic Church, would he have to be rebaptized? After a certain amount of dispute, the Catholic Church decided that given the proper administration of the sacrament－that is, with the trinitarian formula during the washing－heretics were indeed baptized and only the anointing (the sacrament of Confirmation) was necessary for such people entering a local church. At the same time the validity of orders of such heretical churches was usually not accepted, so implicitly it had to be held that people outside the traditional ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon could indeed baptize.

It is not surprising that as a corollary of this question concerning the validity of Baptism celebrated by heretics, the added question should eventually arise as to the validity of Baptism celebrated by non-Christians. The answer to this question was side-stepped by Augustine in his work CONTRA EPISTOLAM PAKMENIANI, Book II. Said Augustine: "This is indeed another question, whether Baptism can be given even by those who were never Christians. Nor should anything be rashly asserted on this question without the authority of a sacred council equal to such an important question."(2) By Augustine's time, then, it was not a settled question and even he did not presume to give an answer on his own authority.

After the patristic period, as we enter the period of the middle ages, the problem seemed to reach the stage where it demanded an answer. When that answer came it was a clear one from a letter of Pope Nicholas I in November of the year 866. In the letter he told a group of bishops that all else being proper, whether the person baptizing is Jew, Christian or pagan, those receiving such baptism are indeed baptized.(3) So from the period of Augustine's quoted work (398) to Pope Nicholas' reply in 866, the question had been clearly resolved. The teaching of the Church was that indeed anyone was empowered to confer the sacrament of Baptism.

Saint Thomas Aquinas writing in the thirteenth century and probably around the year 1270, stated in the third part of the SUMMA THEOLOGIAE that just as any water at all is sufficient from the point of view of the matter of the sacrament of Baptism, so any man－even a non-believer or non-baptized person－is competent and can baptize in case of necessity. He goes on to say that the one who baptizes ministers only outwardly whereas it is Christ who baptizes inwardly and he can use any man in whatever way he wishes. The unbaptized person even though he does not belong to the Church in reality or in sacrament can belong to the Church in intention and likeness of action in so far as he intends to do what the Church does and he observes the form of the Church in baptizing. In this way he works as a minister of Christ. The reason for this, of course, is the necessity of Baptism, a necessity which Aquinas though the other sacraments do not have.(4)

The clearest statement that the teaching authority of the Church itself has made, was given at the Council of Florence which met from 1438 to 1445. This was a reunion council and in it an instruction to the Armenians was formulated which contained the following teaching on Baptism. "The minister of this sacrament is the priest, whose office it is to baptize (ex officio). But in case of necessity, not only a priest or deacon but a lay man or woman, in fact even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he observes the Church's form and intends to do what the Church does."(5) With this statement the Catholic tradition of the minister of the sacrament of Baptism reached its present maturity.

It is interesting to note that in Catholic thinking just as being in traditional metaphysics is considered the perfection of perfections because it is the ground that makes all other perfections possible, so Baptism is truely the sacrament of sacraments because without it no other sacrament is possible. In fact the Catholic community of the baptized which is the locus of all the other sacraments exists only by virtue of Baptism. Thus in a Church order that is based on authority over the sacraments, the empowered minister of Baptism poses a peculiar problem because everyone is equally empowered in Baptism within the Church community. Such a situation without an adequate theology behind it could easily cause the whole Church order structure to collapse in upon itself. In a limited sense this is what happened in the reformation thought of Luther.




1)The Council of Florence gave the clearest exposition of this vertical hierarchical line.

2)Cf. Sancti Aurelii Augustini, OPERA OMNIA Vol. IX (Parisiis: Apud Gaume Fratres, Bibiopulas, 1837), p. 107.

3)Cf. ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM, No. 335.

4)Cf. Q. 67 Art. 5 in Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, Vol.57 (New York: McGraw Hill, 1975), pp. 66-69.

5)Cf. Paul F. Palmer (ed.), SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY VOL I: SACRAMENTS AND WORSHIP (Westminster, The Newman Press, 1963), p. 99.

LUTHER'S POSITION

Up through the time of Martin Luther, the basic theology behind Church order as it had developed in the West depended upon a theological work believed to have been written by Dionysius the Areopagite in the first century of the Christian era. Since the author in the work claimed he was baptized by Saint Paul, this writing roughly held the same position in medieval theological thinking that the early second century letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch hold today in Vatican II thinking on Church order. The work consisted of four treatises, the second of which concerned the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In this treatise a mystical explanation was given to Church order in the verticle line. In effect it tended to soften the power-over-the-sacraments base while establishing a divine order in symbolism that was spiritually fruitful. Even though it is now known that this writing is a fifth-century forgery, nevertheless at that time it presented an adequate theological base for Church order.

During the humanistic revival of the fifteenth century with its emphasis on language study which included taking a fresh look at Scripture through the medium of the original languages in which the books of the Bible were written, the neoplatonic and non-scriptural character of the pseudo-Dionysian writings began to pale. Fresh insights into any theological question were now coming from the Scriptures themselves and it was into this scene that Martin Luther came.

Luther looked on existing Church order as kind of a tyranny contrary to the freedom of the Christian which he found so often expressed in the Epistles of Saint Paul. As he saw it, this tyrannical Church order consisted of two kinds of baptized members, the ordained baptized and the simply baptized. The former group although the smaller exercised enormous control over the latter which was the much larger group. Their control of Church order created a class society within the Church that might be graphically expressed as ORDAINED-baptized and baptized whereas according to Scripture Christians are BAPTIZED with some being BAPTIZED-ordained. Thus it was Baptism that gave every Christian his unique identity and status; any addendum was simply a community function extending from one's Baptism.

As for priesthood, it is through Baptism that the Christian enters this exalted state. Should one ask how those specifically called priests in the Church differ from those called lay people, Luther's answer was that the name "priest" was unjustly transferred from the many to a few thus causing an improper distinction among Christians that Scripture itself does not make. Those who have appropriated the name ''priest" to themselves are actually called "minister," "servants" and "stewards" in Scripture. Thus there is no vertical hierarchical arrangement of divine origin in the Christian community; rather there is, a horizontal added condition of service some members of the community have. Luther explained it thus: "Although we are all equally priests, we cannot all publically minister and teach. We ought not to do so even if we could."(6)

The evil of the old hierarchical Church order which saw some in the community usurping the rights of all, could be seen in several practices the most blatant of which were the denial of the cup to the laity and the imposing of obligations on the laity without their consent. In the denial of the cup to the laity, priests are claiming a dictatorship for themselves which they do not have. Since by the teaching of Scripture they are actually servants, it should be their duty to administer the body and blood of Christ under both species to those who desire it and whenever they desire it. As to the imposing of obligations on Christians, once again this is an aberration of the hierarchical class system. Luther believed that no one－pope, bishop or anyone else－had the right to impose any special obligation on a Christian without that Christian's consent. In short, within the community of the baptised, no relationship exists among Christians where one has authority over another.(7)

Luther and his followers were accused of attempting to get rid of the existing Church order by abolishing bishops. And indeed from what has been said above such a move would easily attain its desired goal. But in the Augsburg Confession, Philip Melanchthon claims that Lutherans did not wish to abolish the traditional office of bishop which had existed for so many centuries in the Church but rather wished to abolish what we might term prelates. Bishop is a ministry term which appears many times in Scripture whereas a term like prelate which is commonly used in the Catholic Church as a substitute for bishop, is a description of rank not taken from Scripture but rather from secular practice whereby someone is designated as superior to others. In actual practice this would mean the abolition of the relationship within the Church community based on control over the sacraments. The first casualty among the sacraments within such a change was Holy Orders. This could no longer be a sacrament because if it remained so, then by divine institution it would continue to produce a special group within the Christian community of the baptised, independent of community control. Such a group of its very nature would preside in the Christian community. The alternative was the Christian community as a whole having control over the sacraments by being the instrument through which one was rightly called to sacramental ministry.




6)Cf. Luther's "The Freedom of a Christian" in John Dillenberger, MARTIN LUTHER: SELECTIONS FROM HIS WRITINGS (New York: Snchor Books, 1961).

7)Cf. Luther's "The Pagan Servitude of the Church", ibid.

THE CATHOLIC ADJUSTMENT

The position of Martin Luther and his followers produced a positive and a negative effect on the Council of Trent's deliberations on Church order. In the positive vein, the Council firmly upheld a Church order which was grounded in control over the sacraments within the Catholic community of the baptized where the most important sacrament celebrated was the Eucharist and the key to the Eucharist was the sacrament of Holy Orders. In the negative vein the Council stepped away from the issue of the relationship between pope and bishops－the power of the keys－and left that controversial issue raised by the reformers hanging. For three hundred years this issue matured in the context of European political and social change until it was finally settled at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At this Council it became Catholic doctrine that the pope is the infallible head of the Church and his primacy is that of universal episcopal jurisdiction. The principle invoked was that these perogatives of the papacy are implicitly contained in the very concept of primacy in the Church. Once this was settled, the basic questions raised by Martin Luther concerning Church order could be addressed.

The most important question was the universal priesthood of all the baptized and how this coincided with the special hierarchical priesthood. A second question following from this was the very nature of sacramental control within the Church－what its role and function was and how it differentiated Christians within the Catholic community of the baptized. And finally, given the fact that anyone can have control over the sacrament of Baptism the very base on which the whole structure of Church order stands, what would be an adequate theology for ensuring that the whole structure would be less vulnerable to internal collapse.

The Second Vatican Council took up the problem of the universal priesthood of the baptized and its relationship to the hierarchical priesthood within the Church. In speaking of these two priesthoods, LUMEN GENTIUM, the Council's dogmatic constitution on the Church, states the following:

"Although they differ essentially and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial hierarchical priesthood are none the less ordained one to another; each in its own way shares in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest by the sacred power that he has, forms and rules the priestly people; in the person of Christ he effects the Eucharistic sacrifice and offers it to God in the name of all the people. The faithful, indeed, by virtue of their royal priesthood, participate in the offering of the Eucharist. They exercise the priesthood too by the reception of the sacraments, prayer and thanksgiving, the witness of a holy life, abnegation and active charity." (No. 10)

What this statement of the Second Vatical Council has done is to make it proper now to speak of priesthood in the Church in two ways, the priesthood of the baptized and the priesthood of the ordained. These priesthoods are essentially different but complementary. The essential difference in a general way is seen in the exercise of these two priesthoods. One－the ordained priesthood－is an active priesthood which can effect and offer the Eucharistic sacrifice whereas the other－the priesthood of all the baptized－is more of a passive priesthood whereby one is disposed to receive the effects of the active priesthood and all that this signifies., The principle of the relationship between the two is still one of control over the sacraments, principally the Eucharist, but the control is mutual because basically one priesthood cannot do without the other. The ordained priest, since he offers in the name of the baptized priests, is dependent upon their existence and the baptized priests are dependent in turn upon the leadership of ordained priests for the exercise of their particular priestly charism. Thus there is an essential not just an accidental relationship of one to the other.

The Council also expressed the Scriptural basis of both priesthoods. The priesthood of the baptized is explicitly mentioned in Scripture while the ordained priesthood is not. However for the baptized priesthood no special role is mentioned in Apoc. 1:6 and no clear role in 1 Pet. 2:9-10. Nevertheless the right to the title is there. Whence comes the right for bishops and presbyters to call themselves priests over and above their baptized priesthood? The Council indicates that they have the right to the title because they act in the person of Christ in their Eucharistic ministry. And since Christ is THE PRIEST in Scripture－particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews－the ministers who act in His name have the right to the title "priests" in a special way even though Scripture does not specifically call them such.

As for the very nature of sacramental control within the Church and how it differentiates, the Council enunciated a very clear and precise principle in its decree on the liturgy. The liturgy which is primarily the celebration of the sacraments and in particular the Eucharist, is seen as the action of Christ the priest and of His body which is the Church. Thus the liturgy is the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ in which full public worship is performed by the mystical body of Jesus Christ－that is, by the head and His members. The ordained priest, then, has power over the sacraments only as a vicar, a stand-in as it were for Jesus Himself. Thus sacramental control differentiates members in the Church primarily by designating those who represent Christ at the most solemn functions that He has given His Church to perform.

As for Baptism, nowhere is the primary action of Christ more clearly seen and the secondary role of His ministers more clearly indicated than in this Sacrament. "By His power He is present in the sacraments so that when anyone baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes." The Church, then, is one body and whenever it acts it always acts together with its head. But in the world of external signs when the head has need anyone can stand in for Christ because in the reality of the sacrament itself it is Christ who acts. Men then are primarily His ministers, His servants, His stewards, as He sanctifies the priestly people.

It is interesting to note that the Church has accepted Luther's concerns as valid starting points but from these starting points has reached rather different conclusions. The baptized are indeed priests but priesthood in the Church is not to be understood through the priesthood of the faithful but rather all priesthood in the Church is to be understood through the priesthood of Christ. Power over the sacraments does indeed differentiate the members of the Christian community of the baptized and is grounded in the Scriptural concept of minister, servant and steward but this ministry, service and stewardship is given to Christ as He sanctifies the members of the Christian community. Finally, human control over the sacraments while necessary is most graphically illustrated by Baptism as simply a secondary role. Since Christ Himself plays the primary role, one need not fear that Church order based on control over the sacraments is in any danger of collapsing in upon itself.

There are those who say that everything contained in the theology of Vatican II concerning Church order had been part of the theological patrimony of the Church well before Martin Luther came on the scene. That may well be true but in no sense does this detract from the role of Luther in helping to shape current Catholic thought. The philosopher Plato discovered several centuries before Christ that when one is dealing with general ideas, dialogue helps them to become clear and precise. In Church order it is largely through wrestling with Luther's ideas that Catholic thinking has reached its present stage.

作者：汤汉 Tong, John

(甲) 引言

记得十年前，香港天主教及圣公会经过了差不多两年的磋商，终于在一九七四年三月十五日，假座香港下亚厘毕道一号圣公会会督府小堂，签订了具有历史性的圣洗协议。目的是除了重申双方施行同一圣洗，以避免重洗，并保证该圣事的尊严外，还使双方教会关系增强，在双方对教义的交谈及瞭解上迈进了富有意义的一步。当日，邝广杰主教(尚是牧师)、张绿芗牧师及笔者亦有份参与起草过程，故至今印象仍深。

但是上述圣洗协议的内容，与一九八二年在南美秘鲁利马(LIMA) 所公布的合一文献比较，无论在深度及阔度上均简陋得多。笔者承蒙香港基督教协进会之遨，参与了今年四月廿九日的「合一研讨会」，并对利马文献内所论及圣洗的部份发表一点意见，现把讲话写下，与读者分享，希望收到拋砖引玉之效。

(乙) 文献产生的历史过程

早在一九六三年，当第四届「信仰与教制」(FAITH AND ORDER) 会议在加拿大满地可举行时，参与者已开始研究，如何能在教会观、圣经、传统之关系、教会与牧职、崇拜、洗礼与圣体等重要问题上寻求合一。

一九六七年，参加在英国BRISTOL所举行的「信仰与教制」委员会议的成员，觉得需要把过往数十年之合一讨论综结，亦要将协议的神学论点写出。事实，在会议后，成员随即把「圣体」的协议内容胪列出来。

一九七○年，该委员会成员在瑞士日内瓦举行会议，进一步把「圣洗」初步协议写出。

而在一九七二年，该委员会成员又在法国马赛举行会议，再进一步把「牧职」的神学内容列下。

自一九七四年非洲迦南ACCRA会议始，该委员会的核心小组已开始着手把「圣洗」、「圣体」、以及「牧职」三者放在一起草拟，至一九七七年完成。次年，这份集「圣洗、圣体、及牧职」于一身的草稿，得以先在印度BANGALORE会议中接受讨论，继而在一九八二年的秘鲁利马会议中，获得一百多位参加的神学家的修改和一致通过，并予以公布。

由于参加者至少曾参加过上述会议多次，故其临在具有连贯性，而且他们又来自世界各地不同的基督教派，故甚具代表性。因此，各个教会当局，虽尚未视它为教会官方「批准」的文献，但亦至少尊重它，认它教会当局「接纳」的文件；其重要性可见一斑。

(丙) 文献结构及内容分析

利马文献的圣洗论包括五大部份：(一) 圣洗之设立、(二) 圣洗的意义、(三) 圣洗与信心、(四) 圣洗的施行、(五) 圣洗礼的举行。五部份中，以第二部份最长、最重要。这部份不但充满圣经章节，详论圣洗的象征，而且幅度广阔，层次分明，结构紧凑。它首先指出圣洗的意义是：「参与基督的死而复活」(罗．六：3－5；哥．二：12)、「罪的洗净」(格前．六：11)、「重生」(若．三：5)、「基督的光照」(弗．五：14)、「穿上基督」(迦．三：27)、「圣神赐予的更新」(铎．三：5)、「经过洪水而得救的经验」(伯前．三：20－21)、「从奴役中获得霹放」(格前．十：1－2)、「超越性别、种族、社会地位的界限而成为新人」(迦．三：27－28；格前．十二：13)。继而，这第二部份还从圣神的恩赐，说到与基督身体的结合，成为天国的标记。总之，这第二部份，以圣经所描写的不同形象和内涵，生动而活泼地说明了圣洗的意义。因此，这部份可说是整个文献的圣洗论的根基和核心，由此而散发出其他四个部份。

谈到第一部份论「圣洗的设立」，基督宗派对此意见不一。有的认为是耶稣亲自建立了新约的圣洗，连圣洗的外在标记(言语和行动)，也由耶稣自己逐一决定好；有的则认为洗礼在旧约时代已存在，若翰洗者在耶稣传教之前，亦已施行悔改之洗礼，故此基督只给已有之洗礼加上一个新元素，即「圣神的赐予」。面对这种意见纷歧的情况，文献只说：「基督徒的洗礼根源于耶稣的传道工作、受死和复活。」从「根源」(IS ROOTED IN)一词的运用，可以看出与会神学家求同存异的用心；透过这个字眼，他们既不否定，也不偏重上述其中任何一方的意见。

至于第三部份「圣洗与信心」，也值得注意它在整章中的位置和所运用的措词。文献不把信心问题置于第四部份论「圣洗的施行」内，却把它另列，且放在「圣洗之意义」之后，却在论「圣洗之施行」之先。可见与会神学家肯定「信心」对圣洗的必须。但是在肯定了信心的必须后，文献特别强调圣洗不是一个短暂的经验，而是在基督里不断的「成长」，以达到基督「圆满」年龄的程度(弗．四：13)。在谈到「信心」的部份上，文献似乎刻意安排了「成长」及「圆满」两个措词，目的是要开启另一条途径，以便解决一直引起争论的「婴孩洗礼」问题。所以，这里特别提示我们，即使在实施婴孩洗礼的教会内，领洗的婴孩虽然现在没法宣达个人的信德，但父母及团体仍有责任助他成长，使他的信德与日俱增。

而第四部份所论及的「圣洗的施行」，内容着重处理两个棘手问题：(一) 婴孩洗礼问题；(二) 圣洗和坚振的关系。

关于婴孩洗礼问题，利马会议的讨论，先把不同教派的实施归纳成三个模式：(一) 一些教会，由于认为洗礼者必须宣发个人信心，故只准成人领洗。(二) 另一些教会容许婴孩受洗，并不是按照对成人要求的一般标准，而是按照「天主愿意所有人得救」的特殊原则；而且，这些教会还认为，婴孩受洗还可显示出，在使人死而复活的人生路途上，天主的爱作了肇端，以及人类、教会都彼此合成一体。(三) 而第三种教会的做法，则是对于婴孩洗礼的容许，不置可否，在尊重各个教会的不同传统的大前题下，只强调圣洗是一个「过程」，因此，即使领了洗的婴孩待长大后才能表明个人信仰，但是，信心的长进和加深对成人或婴孩都是必须的。利马文献在上述三个实施模式中，推许了第三个模式。

至于圣洗与坚振之关系，文献亦意识到，基督徒对圣神恩赐的标记存有不同的见解。文中说：「为一些人，是水礼本身；为其他人，是傅油与按手，又或者其中一样，即目前很多教会所称的『坚振』或『坚信礼』；又为另些人，是三者俱全，因为他们认为圣神活动于整个礼仪中。无论如何，所有人都同意，基督徒的洗礼是藉水及圣神而施行。」事实，由于不同传统，有些教会视坚振(或坚信礼)为一件圣事，强调圣神的赐予，使圣洗者迈向圆满；另一些教会则只把它当作一项宣认礼，使在婴孩时领了洗的教友，能公开表明个人自己的信心。姑无论不同的教会如何看这个问题，视坚振为一件圣事或只是一项教会仪式，文献只欲以圣经为基础，一方面指出圣洗与坚振两者紧密相连，因为「基督的死而复活」与「圣神降临」不能分开；另一方面又说明圣洗在圆满意义上(IN ITS FULL MEANING) 标志出「基督的死而复活」和「圣神降临」，亦同时产生这两件奥迹的功能。

最后是第五部份论「圣洗礼的举行」。虽然由于各教会的不同传统，使圣洗礼的举行产生很多分歧，但与会神学家仍能达成三个最基本和重要的协议：(一) 「因圣三之名」施行「水洗」；(二) 圣洗在通常情形下，由「圣职人员」施行；(三) 圣洗礼宜于主要的节期，即复活节、圣神降临节及主显节举行。这三项协议的达成，殊不简单，故此，事后有人笑称要分别颁三个金像奖给这三项协议。谈到这里，也值得注意一下，文献对举行圣洗礼所建议的节日中，并未包括圣诞节，因为主显节的神学意义，比圣诞节更广阔、更圆清。试问：假如耶稣基督只降生而不显现于外方人，对我们怎会有很重大的意义？

总括一句，这是一篇划时代的文献，也标志了合一的里程碑。

(丁) 文献对香港基督徒的讯息

笔者以为，上述文献提供给我们香港基督徒三点启发如下：

(一) 交谈精神合一交谈，并非是唇枪舌剑，而是彼此尊重、聆听。从而共同迈向真理。故此，这种交谈要求我们一方面「求同」，一齐走向圣经；另一方面「存异」，尊重各教会的宝贵传统，务求做到合一非统一、却是合一多元的地步。

(二) 团体意识文献教导我们，领洗不只是为了使个人得救，也是为加入教会，以天下为家，进入社会，服务人类，见证和参与基督的解放工程，使正义与和平的天国早日临现人间。所以，文献以「人类的解放者」这名号来称呼基督。这样的称呼，相信并非出于偶然。

(三) 牧民实践利马文献既然是一件十分出色的文献，故牧者应首先把它消化、实践，然后教育教友、慕道者，更应在堂区的礼仪中，依它的指导实行。这样，才不致使一件优美的文献，变成书桌上的装饰品。

(戊) 一些建议

笔者曾请教圣经学家房志荣神父，他指出这件文献虽然优美丰富，但仍不免有一些值得商榷之处，特别是以下两点：

(一) 迦拉达书第三章28节原文说：「不再分犹太人和希腊人，也不再分奴隶和自由人，也不再分男人和女人，因为你们在基督耶稣内已是一个了。」利马文献却把这段圣经的次序调换，先讲「性别」，后提「社会地位」，最后才说及「种族」。请问：为何要把次序如此调换？究竟是不是为了刻意针对性别的区分？

(二) 当这份文献论及「圣洗的意义」时，我们以为不妨在罗．六：3－11；哥．二：13；三：1；弗．二：5－6的圣经章节后，加上弟后．二：11－13。因为这首基督徒古诗歌，不但表现出基督徒信念的坚强，还更进一步阐释死而复活与我们现实生活的关系：「如果我们与祂同死，我们也必与祂同生；如果我们坚信到底，也必与祂一同为王；如果我们否认祂，祂也必要否认我们；如果我们不忠信，祂仍然是忠信的，因为祂不能否认自己。」

附录

利马文献论圣洗（原文）

(一) 圣洗的设立

基督徒的圣洗，根源于耶稣的传道工作、受死和复活。圣洗是与被钉于十字架并复活了的基督结合，也是进入上主与祂子民所立的新盟约中。圣洗是上主给予人类的恩赐，因父、及子，及圣神之名而施行。根据玛窦福音的记载，复活的主差遣门徒到世界各地，为人们施洗(玛．廿八：18－20)新约的书信、宗徒大事录和教父着作，都证明了宗徒时代的教会普遍地施行圣洗。教会继续这样做，视之为一项对施恩之主的承诺礼仪。

(二) 圣洗的意义

圣洗是从耶稣基督里获得新生命的标记。它使受洗者与基督和祂的子民结合。新约圣经和教会礼仪用不同的形象，说明圣洗的意义，表达出基督及其救恩的丰盛。旧约也有用水为标记的记载。圣洗是参与基督的死和复活(罗．六：3－5)；罪的洗净(格前．六：11)；新生(若．三：5)；基督的光照(弗．五：14)；穿上基督(迦．三：27)；圣神赐予的更新(铎．三：5)；经历洪水而获救的经验(伯前．三：20－21)；从奴役中得到释放(格前．十：1－2)；超越性别、种族和社会地位的界限而成为新人(迦．三：27－28；格前，十二：13)。以上不同的形象都说明了同一的事实。

(甲) 参与基督的死和复活

圣洗就是参与耶稣基督的生命、死亡和复活。耶稣为了要完成上主的旨意，曾在约旦河和罪人一起受洗(玛．三：15)。之后，耶稣开始过着受苦仆人的生活：遭遇各样苦难，以至于死，然后复活(谷．十：38－40、45)。藉着圣洗，基督徒加入到基督解放人类的死亡中，把罪恶埋葬了，让「旧亚当」与基督同钉在十字架上，使罪的权势遭到破坏。因此，受洗的人冲破罪的奴役而得到自由，完全与基督一起死亡、埋葬、复活。在耶稣基督复活的大能下，迈向新生，亦清怀信心，期待复活，最后与复活的基督合而为一(罗．六：3－11；哥．二：13：三：1：弗．二：5－6)

(乙) 悔改、赦罪、洁净

圣洗除了使基督徒有份参与耶稣的死而复活外，也含有认罪和内心悔改的意思。若翰的施洗，就是悔改赦罪的洗礼(谷．一：4)。新约亦强调了圣洗的伦理含意，比如：用清洁的水洗净身体、清洁内心的罪、成义(希．十：22；伯前，三：21；宗．廿三：16；格前．六：11)。因此，受洗者都得到基督的赦罪、祝圣。并在圣神的引领下，把新的道德方向作为他们洗礼的部份经验。

(丙) 圣神的恩赐

圣神在人们受洗过程及前后，都在其中工作。同一的圣神当日宣告耶稣为子(谷一：10－11)，也在五旬节日把门徒联合起来(宗．二)。上主把圣神的传油及许诺赐给受洗者，给他们盖上印号，把子女所能承受的初步产业安置在他们心中。之后圣神继续培养他们的信仰生活，直到万民都蒙上主拯救，承受全部产业，颂扬祂的光荣(格后．一：21－22；弗．一：13－14)。

(丁) 与基督的身体结合

依上主的意旨，圣洗是使我们成为信徒的标记和印号。藉着圣洗，基督徒与基督联结，彼此之间联结，也与各时代和各地方的教会联结起来。这种把我们联结到基督的同一洗礼是合一的根基。无论何时何地，我们都成为一个民族，被召去承认和敬拜同一个主。透过洗礼与基督结合，这对基督徒合一百很重要的意义。「只有一个洗礼；只有一个天主和众人之父」(弗．四：4－6)。当圣洗的合一在至一、至圣、至公、从宗徒傅下来的教会实现时，基督徒才真的能见证上主医治人和使人修和的爱心，因此，透过圣洗与基督结合，是对各教会的呼召，叫他们克服分裂，发扬团结精神。

(戊) 天国的标记

圣洗使我们在现世开始新生命，使我们参与圣神的团体。它是天国和来世生命的标记。圣洗使我们的生命充满信望爱，扩展及于普世，期待早日同声承认耶稣是主，并归光荣于父。

(三) 圣洗和信心

圣洗是上主的恩赐，也是人类对这恩赐的回应。圣洗指向成长，达到基督圆满年龄的程度(弗．四：13)。所有教会都承认，接受圣洗带来的救恩，必须具有信心。在基督内成为负责任的成员，必须具有个人的承诺。

圣洗不是短暂的经验，而是一生不断在基督内成长。圣神使受洗的人有基督的形象，因此可以彰显主的荣耀(格后．三：18 )。基督徒的生命，虽面对不少困难，但也不断蒙恩。受洗的人为基督、教会和祂所爱的世界而活，常盼望着上主新天地的来临，届时祂将成为万物的主宰(罗．八；18－24；格前．拾伍：22－28、49－57)。

受洗的信友在基督信仰生活内的不断成长，显示出人类可以重获新生，得到解放。他们有共同的责任，在此时此地，在教会和世界上，为耶稣解放人类的福音作见证。在服务及见证的团契里，基督徒会发现圣洗的圆满意义，视洗礼是上主给予其子民的恩赐。同样，他们也承认，圣洗除了表示与基督一同死亡外，也要求信徒圣洁，在生活的各方面去努力完成上主的旨意(罗．六：9以下；迦．三：27－28；伯前．二：21－四：6)。

(四) 圣洗的施行

(甲) 成人洗礼和婴孩洗礼

宗徒时代可能已有婴儿洗礼，但表明个人信仰的洗礼却是新约最明显证实的模式。

在历史过程中，圣洗的施行曾发展成不同的形式。如果父母或监护人愿意孩童在基督信仰环境下长大，一些教会会为婴孩施洗。而另一些教会则仅为那些会表明个人信仰的人施礼。有些只为成人施洗的教会也鼓励给婴孩行祝福礼，表示感谢上主赐给家庭婴孩，并促使父母答应做真正的基督徒家长。

来自其他宗教或没有宗教的人，只要他们接受基督信仰及参加慕道斑，所有教会都会为他们施洗。

为成人或婴孩施洗，都是在教会内举行。当一个能为自己作出回应的人受洗时，他对个人信仰的表明，便成了圣洗的一部份。而当一个婴孩受洗时，他要待长大后才能作出回应。但两者都要在信仰上长进及加深认识。在领受洗礼时能表明个人信仰的人，需要在个人信仰的回应上不断增长。婴孩自然要待长大后才能宣达个人的信仰，故此需要基督宗教的熏陶，以启发他表明个人的信仰。所有洗礼都植根于和表达出基督到死不渝的忠信。圣洗与教会的生命和信仰有密切开系；透过整个教会的见证，圣洗指向上主的忠信，视上主的忠信为所有信仰生活的根基。在每一次圣洗中，信众重申对主的信仰，也承诺去为主作见证，服务别人。因此，所有圣洗都应在基督团体中举行及发展。

圣洗不可重领，凡可解作是「重洗」的行为，均应避免。

(乙) 圣洗－傅油－坚振

在上主的救恩工程中，基督死而复活的奥迹，与五旬节里圣神的恩赐是连在一起的。同样，参与基督的死而复活，亦与接受圣神分不开。圣洗的圆满意义就标志和产生这两件奥迹。

什么是圣神恩赐的标记？基督徒对这个问题有不同的见解，因而圣神的赐予亦与不同的行动相连。为一些人，是水礼本身；为其他人，是傅油与按手，又或者其中一样，即目前很多教会所称的「坚振」或「坚信礼」；又为另一些人，是三者俱全，因为他们认为圣神活动于整个礼仪中。无论如何，所有人都同意，基督徒的洗礼是藉水及圣神而施行。

(丙) 迈向互相承认圣洗

各教会愈来愈多互相承认圣洗，视之为归依基督的同一个洗礼，要求受洗者宣认基督为救主。至于在婴孩洗礼的情况中，则由教会(父母、监护人、代父母和信众)作出宣信，待婴孩长大后，才由他宣发个人的信仰和许诺。互相承认圣洗，是圣洗赐予我们在基督内合一的重要标记和表达方法。如果可能，各教会应公开表示互相承认。

为克服分歧，施行成人洗礼者和施行婴孩洗礼者，都应重新考虑他们的某些措施。为成人施洗者，要更清楚说明儿童被安置在上主恩宠的保护下；而为婴孩施洗者，不可轻率行事，要多些关心受洗儿童的培育，使他们日后能对基督产生成熟的许诺。

(五) 圣洗的举行

圣洗是以水及因圣父、圣子和圣神之名而施行。

在举行圣洗时，应重视水的标记。浸洗很迫真地表现出基督徒在受洗中参与基督的死亡、埋葬和复活。

正如在初期教会的情况中，圣洗所赐予的圣神可用附加的方式表明，例如：按手、傅油。十字架的标记表示：圣神的恩赐已经开始，又保证上主必将来拯救自己的子民(弗．一：13－14)。重新运用这些活泼的标记，会使礼仪更形丰富。

在任何一完整的圣洗礼中，至少要有以下几项要素：宣读与圣洗有关的圣经；呼求圣神降临；弃绝罪恶；宣认对基督和圣三的信仰；用水；宣布受洗者已获得上主儿女及教会成员的新身份，蒙召为福音作见证。一些教会认为，基督徒入门圣事必须包括圣神的印记和圣体的参与。

在圣洗礼仪中，宜依照圣经解释圣洗的意义(比如：参与基督的死而复活、悔改、赦罪、洁净、圣神的恩赐、与基督的身体结合、天国的标记)。

虽然在某些情况下，任何人皆可为人施洗，但在正常的情况下，圣洗的施行者是领了神品的圣职人员。

圣洗既与教会的团体生活和崇拜有密切关系，在正常情况下，便应在公众崇拜中举行，藉以提醒会众自己已受的洗礼，也使会众欢迎新颁洗者加入团体中，并且负起培育新领洗者的信仰的责任。圣洗圣事宜于主要的节期举行，比如：复活节日、圣神降临占礼、主显节，这正是初期教会的惯例。

(附注译文从略)

作者：吴智勋

(一) 引言

远在上一世纪，教宗良十三已提出「圣经是神学的灵魂」1，其从差不多每位教宗都强调了圣经的重要性2。话虽如此，梵二以前的伦理神学，很少用圣经；虽然它花不少篇幅去讲圣经中的十诫，其实只是用十诫作为一个范畴去讨论伦理问题，并非真正以圣经为基础。间中引用圣经的时候，只把它当作引证文字(PROOF-TEXT)，去证明某一个基于自然律的观点是对的而已。例如：同性恋行为是违反自然律，作者往往引用罗马书去支持此：「他们的女人，把顺性之用变为逆性之用；男人也是如此，放弃了与女人的顺性之用，彼此欲火中烧，男人与男人行了丑事，就在各人身上受到了他们颠倒是非所应得的报应」(罗一：26－27)。看！圣经也证明我们所讲的是对的。不少伦理神学家早已发觉这种方法论不完美，并彻底加以改善。着名赫宁神父的「基督之律」3，可说是新旧伦理神学的分水岭。书名本身是出自圣经：「你们应彼此协助背负重担，这样，你们就满全了基督之律」(迦六：2)。他认为伦理神学主要不再是可做什么，不可做什么，而应集中在基督身上，祂本人就是我们的法律、道路与生命4。这样处理伦理神学才有整体观，不含支离破碎。

梵二重新肯定返回圣经的神学趋势，认定「圣经的研究当视作神学的灵魂」(启示24)，「应特别注意的是改进伦理神学，其科学的体系应受圣经更多的滋养，说明教友在基督内使命的崇高，以及他们在爱德内为世界的生命多结美果的责任」(司铎16)。短短几句已提示了伦理神学的方法和任务。伦理神学不应像从前一样，以法律主义味道甚重的圣教法典为根基，而改以圣经为依归。基督徒的伦理是一个以基督为中心、「在基督内」的伦理，而此伦理基本土是一个召叫、一个使命，而非一条法律。这个使命是一个爱的要求，基督徒的伦理就是连同基督，满全爱的法律，结爱德的果实。梵二以来，不少人着手沿着这个指示而研究，基本上放弃从前「司铎手册」式的方法论。

本文只愿讨论几个初步的问题：为什么伦理神学要用圣经？人的理性不够吗？传统自然律伦理不是在启示之外吗？假定圣经是应该用的，如何用圣经去研究及处理伦理问题？

　

1：教宗良十三世一八九三年十一月十八日「上智」通谕(Providentissimus Deus)：宗座公报卷二六 (1893－94)，P. 283.

2：E. Hamel. “L’ Ecriture, Ame De La Theologie”, Gregorianum, 52/3, 1971, pp. 511－535. 该文做了详尽的研究，列举了本笃十五世「施慰圣神」通谕(Spiritus Paraclitus, 15、9、1920)，庇护十二世「圣神默示」通谕(Divino Afflante Spiritu, 30、9、1943)，与及「人类」通谕(Humani Generis, 12、8、1950)。

3：Bernard Haring. The Law of Christ. 该书原着为德文，成于一九五四年，并陆续翻译为十四种语言。英译本成于一九六一、六三及六六。中译本成于一九七四至一九七九年间。

4.参Bernard Haring. Free and Faithful in Christ. St. Paul, Vol. I, 1978, P. 5.

(二) 为什么要用圣经去研究伦理神学？

一个接受了基督福音的信徒，天主的法律不是铭刻在他的心坎吗？旧约已提到：「我要将我的法律放在他们的肺腑里，写在他们的心头上，我要作他们的天主，他们要作我的人民」(耶卅一：33)。新约时代圣保禄讲得更清楚，连不信主的外邦人，也能认识天主美善的本性：「几时，没有法律的外邦人，顺着本性去行法律的事，他们虽然没有法律，但自己对自己就是法律。如此证明了法律的精华已刻在他们的心上，他们的良心也为此作证」(罗二：14－15)。天主既将祂的法律刻在人的良心上，基督徒只要倾听良心的呼声不是够了吗？为什么还要返回圣经？非基督徒随其良心行事，其伦理生活不也是令人起敬，不是比很多基督徒还要好吗？

这里牵涉的问题很多，现在只能作简短的回答。基督徒毕竟仍在世途上，生活在「已经」和「未曾」当中。意思是说，天主的救恩已经来临到他身上，可是还未曾完满。领洗时所领受的圣神，并没有一次过的完全光照良心。圣神的确开始了转变，但此转变仍有待一生不断的继续。铭刻在人心的法律，能因为人的罪恶，弄至模糊不清，甚至有被改变的危险，但圣经忠实地反映天主的圣意；当我们因自己的软弱对爱的实践有缺失时，圣经使我们看清楚天主如何藉基督爱了我们，并帮助我们满全基督爱的法律。推动人心的圣神与默示圣经作者的圣神是同一的，圣经一定能与人内心的法律相辅相承。

传统的天主教伦理可称为自然律伦理。所谓自然律就是人性里面的一个天赋道德秩序，人能在启示外，用理智辨认出来5。既然理性已可以认出自然律，又何必返回圣经？究竟我们应随从自律的理智抑或他律的圣经？有关理智抑或圣经的问题，在基督宗教内有很大的分歧。其中一大类是以天主的启示作为伦理唯一的根基。以下几位是以不同的角度到达同一的结论：

(1) 齐克果(Kierkegard)：

特别强调神的超越性，神的命令完全在人的伦理之上。以亚巴郎祭献儿子为例，人的伦理成为一种诱惑，使亚巴郎不去服从天主的命令。但亚巴郎克服了这种诱惑，服从天主的命令而不服从人伦理的命令。人的伦理在天主的命令前要让步，可见真正的责任，就是实行天主的命令6。

(2) 巴夫(Karl Barth)：

认定离开天主的启示而谈伦理是没有希望的，因为人的理智已为原始堕落及其本罪所败坏。几时人企图用理智去分辨善恶，他只是重蹈原祖的覆辙，要如同天主一样，自己去分辨善恶。故此他认为建立哲学伦理是不可能的，全理智去判断天主的圣言是最基本的亵渎7。如此看来，巴夫会把启示之外的自然律伦理看成是白拉其(PELAGIUS)主义的一种，人企图不要启示恩宠，而用理智去解决所有伦理问题。

(3) 华特(Keith Ward)：

采取较温和的路线，主张人的理智有实际不足之处。人若只靠自己的理智作伦理反省，面对如此众多甚至相反的伦理论调，人怎能达到「正」「误」的协议？倘若按人的需要来探讨伦理，则理智又难以决定什么是人真正的需要。到最后，只靠理智的伦理只能退到一个相对的立场。华特反对相对的伦理，认为解决的办法就是承认圣经为伦理的基础，特别是耶稣道德观点的权威性8。

可是，只要圣经的方法论，在实际应用时亦有行不通之处。不少基督教的伦理学家也同意此9。我们现在就拿山中圣训的例子去说明。

(1)古人说：「不可杀人」，而耶稣说：「凡向自己弟兄发怒的，就要受裁判」(玛五：22)。

(2)古人说：「不可奸淫」，而耶稣说：「凡注视妇女，有意贪恋她的，他已在心里奸淫了她」(玛五：28)。

(3)古人说：「谁若休妻，就该给她休书」，而耶稣说：「除了姘居外，凡休自己的妻子的，便是叫她受奸污；并且谁若娶被休的妇人，就是犯奸淫」(玛五：32－33)。

(4)古人说：「不可发虚誓！要向上主偿还你的誓愿！」而耶稣说：「你们总不可发誓……你们的话该当是：是就说是，非就说非；其他多余的，便是出于邪恶」(玛五：34、37)。

(5)古人说：「以眼还眼，以牙还牙」，而耶稣说：「不要抵抗恶人；而且，若有人掌击你的右颊，你把另一面也转给他」(玛五：39)。

(6)古人说：「你应爱你的近人，恨你的仇人」，而耶稣说：「你们当爱你们的仇人，当为迫害你们的人祈祷」(玛五：44)。

六者外在的形式和情况皆一样，都是先引一段犹太人法律的话，然后耶稣以祂的权威说出基督徒应有的心态与行为。可是，问题来了，按照天主教的传统，(2)(3)的例子，应按字面的意义去解释。教会要人跟随耶稣的教训，心里洁净，不光是外在不做奸淫的行为而已。教会不忠于耶稣的话，认定婚姻不可拆散，不容许离婚。至于其他(1)(4)(5)(6)往往看成是理想。耶稣不但要求人不要去杀人，而且连发怒也不应该，但我们认为发怒有时是可以的，倘若有适当的理由，那便是「义」怒；耶稣叫人不要抵抗恶人，但我们认为自卫正义战争是可以的；耶稣叫人不要发誓，可是我们生活中却又有不少发誓的机会，在法庭上要发誓，在就职时要宣誓，修道生活有誓愿，连童子军也有誓言；耶稣叫人爱仇，而我们往往只要求正义，追讨罪债，认为宽恕恶人只是妇人之仁，是姑息养奸，使善良的人受更多的苦；有人还会说，打击及消灭压迫人的人才是满全爱的要求。总之，我们没有按照字面去理解基督的教训。我们要追问的是：六种教训耶稣都用同一的形式语调说出，为什么(2)(3)我们认定字面的意义就是基督的原意，而其他四者，我们却认为是理想，有时能有例外的可能？为什么不一视同仁？我们这样做，不是因为经过理智判断的过滤吗？可见我们从圣经吸取伦理教训，很难忽略理智。

天主教传统主张人的理智并没有完全为罪所损坏，人的理智能够分辨天主的计划，这就是自然律伦理的基础，即以理智认出天主刻在人心的道德秩序。可是，倘若理智已能分辨善恶，为什么还要圣经？圣经学家告诉我们，圣经上的伦理规律很多是从当时流行的道德规律借过来。十诫的条文不少也能在同期的其他民族的道德规律中发现，圣保禄亦借用了斯多葛派及其他希腊的伦理思想。既然理智也能办到，为什么还要靠启示？梵一及梵二所给的答案是相同的：「关于那些原本为人类的理智，所能通达的天主事理，而在人类现实的状况下，能够容易地、确切地和无讹地被一切人所识，仍当归功于天主的启示」10。

人的理智并非不能错，良心在推理时能以善为恶或以恶为善，伦理学上便有所谓错误良心这个名称。要看清楚天主刻在人性上的道德秩序并非易事。人的私欲和恶习能蒙蔽理智，例如性欲便能使人良心模糊不清。圣保禄曾提到：人本来能从万物中认出天主的美善，但他们的心陷入黑暗，因此，天主任凭他们随从心中的情欲，陷于不洁，去行不正当的事(罗一：18－32)。

圣经是人伦理的一面镜子，因为只有启示才能给予人的生命一个完整的意义。人的伦理中有很多隐晦的成份，要等待启示才使它的意义完全显露。例如以德报怨的爱仇思想是人的理智能认知的。论语宪问提到：「或曰：以德报怨，何如？子曰：何以报德？以直报怨，以德报德」。礼记表记亦有相似的讲法：「子曰：以德报德，则民有所劝；以怨报怨，则民有所惩。……以德报怨，则宽身之仁也,以怨报德，则刑戳之民也」。这里不打算深入探讨为什么儒家如此主张，我只想指出，既然有人能提出「以德报怨」的讲法，即在人的伦理中，爱仇的思想能够为人理智所认识，只因为种种理由，不为儒家所接纳罢了。启示帮助人明白爱仇的基础和整体意义：「你们当爱你们的仇人，当为迫害你们的人祈祷，好使你们成为你们在天之父的子女，因为他使太阳上升，光照恶人，也光照善人；降雨给义人，也给不义的人」(玛五：44－45)。基督当我们还是罪人的时候，就爱了我们，在十字架上时，还呼求天父宽恕杀害祂的人。基督徒就从基督身上，看到爱仇的意义，得到爱仇的动机和执行的力量。

总括来说，人是通过理智去认出天主刻在人心的法律，但此理智必须接受启示的光照与指导，才得到整体、完满的意义。天主教的伦理传统可说是双源的，即启示与理智并重，两者相辅相承，并非两个毫不相关的独立体。启示主要并非提供新的伦理物质内容，而是使人的理智良心更敏锐的去找寻天主的意思，并且更完整地、容易地及无错误地去发现道德规律。理论上，理智可以把握到这些规律，但实际上在具体历史环境中，没有启示人是无法完全地认识它。两者既是伦理生活不可或缺的事，所以「圣经和人的理智，同时是伦理神学的灵魂」11。

　

5.参拙着「自然律伦理探究」，神学年刊(7)，1983，p.27。

6：S. Kierkegaard. Fear and Trembling, Oxford, 1939, PP. 84－85.

7：Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics Vol. II, Part 2, Edinburgh, 1957, pp. 517FF.

8：Keith Ward. Ethics and Christianity. London, 1970. 以上三者的意见，均见G. J. Hughes. “A Christian Basis for Ethics”. The Heythrop Journal, January, 1972, pp. 27－43.

9：James M. Gustafson. Theology and Christian Ethics. Pilgrim Press, 1974, p. 145.

10：DZ 3005，梵二「启示」宪章，第六节。

11：E.Hamel. “La Theologie Morale Entre L' Ecriture Et La Raison", Gregorianum, 56/2, 1975, P. 319.

(三) 如何从圣经中吸取适用于今天的伦理教训？

圣经是写定的文字，不能再改的，它受到当时的历史、文化、风俗等所影响。要知道圣经原文究竟在说什么，我们要依靠诠释学(EXEGESIS)。可是，这还不足够，我们还要问：圣经原文对今天的我们说什么？这就是释经学(HERMENEUTICS)要处理的问题。释经学是个大学问，本文无意详述它。这里只简略说明它的方法，然后看看如何利用它去吸取适用于今日的圣经伦理。

(1) 释经学的对象是圣经的一段文字(A TEXT)或圣经中某事件(EVENT)。释经学的第一个层次是分析性的，即把该段文字或该事件放到当时的上下文(CONTEXT)里，看看它所包含的真理受到了环境的什么限制。这里要借助不同的学问，如历史学及社会学，以明白当时的政治社会背景。例如：圣保禄要人「服从上级有权柄的人，因为没有权柄不是来自天主的……谁反抗权柄，就是反抗天主的规定」(罗十三：1－2)。可是，默示录却认为圣徒要和来自魔鬼的政治势力搏斗：「谁若该被俘虏，就去受俘虏；谁若该受刀杀，就去受刀杀：圣徒们的坚忍和忠信即在于此」(默十三：10)。上面两段圣经表面的伦理教训是相反的。过去欧洲专制君主往往根据前者而说：「君权神授」，要人民乖乖的做个顺民，否则是相反天主；但亦有人用默示录的话，指出压迫人的政府是魔鬼的工具，必须要和它斗争到底。光看圣经字面实在使人对服从政府与否无所适从。可是，只要我们借重历史学、社会学，便会知道罗马书及默示录都受时代环境所影响。保禄要基督徒服从政府，因那时的罗马政府还未压迫教会，甚至有时出面维持秩序而帮助基督徒。阿哈雅总督加里雍根本不想理犹太人对保禄的攻击：「问题既是关于道理、名目和你们自己的法律的事，你们自己管罢，我不愿作这些事的判官」(宗十八：15)。保禄在耶路撒冷圣殿被犹太人拿住，以为他带外邦人入圣殿，最后要由千夫长带兵把他救出来(宗廿一： 32－36)。后来犹太人又阴谋杀保禄，千夫长动用二百士兵，七十骑兵，二百长枪手把保禄解送到凯撒勒雅去(宗廿三：23－24)。到了默示录的时代，多数学者认为是公元95年，多米仙(DOMITIAN)迫害教会时，作者认定罗马王是魔鬼迫害基督徒的助手，故罗马王的权柄来自魔鬼，非来自天主，基督徒要努力抵抗。

语言学亦能对圣经原文的了解提供宝贵的意见。例如有关离婚的名句：「我却给你们说，除了姘居外(PORNEIA)，凡休自己的妻子的，便是叫她受奸污；并且谁若娶被休的妇人，就是犯奸淫」(玛五：32)。学者对PORNEIA一字，就有不同的看法。有人说是不贞(UNCHASTITY)，有人说是非法同居(CONCUBINAGE)，有人认为是一种近亲的婚配，即乱伦婚配，保禄就曾用此字骂格林多人乱伦的事：「我确实听说在你们中间有淫乱(PORNEIA) 的事，且是这样的淫乱，连在外教人中也没有过，以至有人竟同自己父亲的妻子姘居」(格前五：1)。倘若指的是通奸(ADULTERY)，希腊文应用MOICHEIA。故此，PORNEIA很可能是指非法同居或不合法的近亲婚配，自可把这种不正当的关系中断。当然，另有学者认为玛窦想缓和耶稣严厉的语气，故加上这个例外，其他福音所载才是耶稣的原意。无论如何，学者在圣经文字上的研究，实有助于对作者原意的了解。

对圣经文学类型的注意，亦是不可或缺的事。福音的体裁和书信的体裁不一样，甚至同一福音内也能有不同的体裁。如果以同一的态度去研究阅谊，便会产生误解了。

(2) 第二个层次是综合性的：只停留在分析层次上，最多只得到圣经文字在上下文中的意义，还未涉及圣经的中心讯息。故此，从圣经文字的意思，我们还要追溯耶稣的原意或整个启示的讯息。耶稣的来临主要并非为教伦理，只把祂看成一个道学家便犯了基本上的错误。祂来是为承行天父的旨意及宣扬天主的国。忘记这些，则耶稣和其他古代伦理学家没有很大的分别。法利塞人和经师以为承行天主意旨就是违守法律，耶稣要求门徒超越此：「我告诉你们，除非你们的义德超过经师和法利塞人的义德，你们决进不了天国」(玛五：20－21)。耶稣接受法律，亦宣告法律的不足，把它提到圆满的境界。祂以自己的权威，揭露天主的圣意：「我却对你们说……」。祂要人宽恕、爱仇．不报复，心里要洁净，要忠信等等。因为天国的来临，门徒必须行动，不能抱一观望的态度，必须接受或不接受天主爱的邀请。天国不但要求人行动，亦赋予人完成行动的力量。所以，圣经告诉我们，基督徒的伦理，是一个接触到天主恩宠的人的伦理；因为救恩已来临到他的身上，他才有力量去宽恕，爱仇，去过贞洁忠信的生活。圣经主要不在乎提供新的伦理规律，而在乎给予一个被救赎的新人的形象与远景。

(3) 这是一个圣经作者的世界和我们的世界融和的层面：经过分析与综合这两个阶段，把握到作者的原意与圣经的中心讯息后，我们可回到圣经的个别伦理教导。这些伦理行为，是信徒在信仰的光照下所作的决定，是他对天主爱的邀请在特定的历史环境中所作的回应。让我们以初期教会部份基督徒的行为作例子：「他们专心听取宗徒的训诲，时常团聚、擘饼、祈祷。……凡信了的人，常齐集一处，一切所有皆归公用。他们把产业和财物变卖，按照每人的需要分配」(宗二：42－45)。「众信徒都是一心一意，凡各人所有的，没有人说是自己的，都归公用。……在他们中，没有一个贫乏的人，因为凡有田地和房屋的，卖了以后，都把卖得的价钱带来，放在宗徒们脚前，照每人所需要的分配」(宗四：32－35)。

把财物拿出来公用自然是一个伦理行为。面对着这个圣经中具体的伦理教训，今日的我们应如何回应？经过分析与综合的步骤，我们会发觉作者的原意，并非要建立一个普遍、绝对的模范，要后世所有基督徒去遵循。事实上，教会亦无要求当时的基督徒一律追随。阿纳尼雅夫妇起贪念，要骗伯多禄，只拿出卖田地一部份的价钱，而想分享他人的财物。伯多禄明明的说了：「为什么撒旦充满了你的心，使你欺骗圣神，扣留了田地的价钱呢？田地留下不卖，不是还是你的吗？」(宗五：3－4)。这裹暗示了出卖田地，财物归公，并非一个基督徒必须做的伦理行为。作者的意思是想指出圣神的特殊力量，因圣神的缘故，他们能「一心一德」，即心神彼此合一；因为心神彼此合一，他们才进一步愿意彼此分享所有，作为心神合一的表示。这事件亦指出圣神的能力，圣神充满每人的心，才促使他们有此相称的爱德行为。

我们看这段圣经时，必须先得作者要表达的福音讯息，然后才看那在信仰光照下所作的伦理决定，能否是我们今天表达此信仰和爱最有效的办法。时至今日，仍有人因为圣神的力量，以财物公用来回应天主的召叫，可见圣经上具体的伦理例子并非没有用。但是，勉强别人实行财物公用，却未能把握福音讯息而成为一心一德，便是本末倒置。

(四) 圣经伦理的类型

圣经的伦理指示很多，但它们不属同一类型。圣经学者往往分为三种(注十二)。应用圣经伦理时，该知道那是属于何种类型的：

(1) 末世性的伦理 (Eschatological Type of Morality)：

因着基督的降来，天主的国已经来临了。基督徒在圣神的感召下，接受了末世性的讯息，起了彻底的转变，以新生活去回应。奉献的独身生活是最明显的例子。宗徒回应基督的召叫，舍弃自己的家庭或舍弃组织家庭的愿望，为建立天国而献身。这正是耶稣所说：「有些阉人，却是为了天国，而自阉的」(玛十九：12)，「人为了天主的国舍弃了房屋、或妻子、或兄弟、或父母、或子女，没有不在今世获得多倍，而在来世获得永生的」(路十八：29)。路加比玛窦或马尔谷多了句「舍弃妻子」，成为我们所谓福音劝喻，建议人过一个独身生活。当然，独身生活并非进入天国的条件，而是为那些有特别恩宠的人，为配合新天地的来临，而选择了这种生活方式，因为独身生活最能配合末世天国的本质，那里的人，「不娶也不嫁」(玛廿二：30)。圣保禄清楚的向人推荐独身生活，但他知道那并非基督普遍的要求：「论到童身的人，我没有主的命令，只就我蒙主的仁慈，作为一个忠信的人，说出我的意见」(格前七：25)。他所推荐的生活方式，是带有末世性的色彩：「时限是短促的……因为这世界的局面正在逝去」(格前七：29－30)。所谓「时限」(KAIROS)是指基督再临前的时期。独身生活正是末世来临最好的准备。从前耶肋米亚先知过守贞生活以表示旧约的末日，与及天主和选民的盟约要终结；现在基督徒的独身生活，是告诉人新约新天地的来临。独身生活给予人一份内在的自由，使人能更「悦乐主」和「专心事主」(格前七：32、35)。

(2) 超越性的伦理 (Transcendental type of morality)：

作为一个基督徒，他的伦理生活和信仰生活不可能是两件毫不相干的事。这就是圣保禄所谓：「如果你们真听过他，按照在耶稣内的真理，在他内受过教，就该脱去你们照从前生活的旧人，就是因顺从享乐的欲念而败坏的旧人，应在心思念虑上改换一新，穿上新人，就是按照天主的肖像所造，具有真实的正义和圣善的新人」(弗四：21－24)。基督徒的信德就是生活的解释，其道德生活就是对基督召叫的回应。基督徒的爱德把人提升，使人产生彻底的变化，给予人实行的力量与动机：「我给你们一条新命令：你们该彼此相爱；如同我爱了你们」(若十三：34)。这里所讲基督徒的信德与爱德，并非指某一特殊的道德规律或行为，它们贯通所有道德行为中，便道德行为深切化，彻底化，并成为个别道德行为的原动力。每一个好行为都具体地把这超越性的信德和爱德表现出来，并重新肯定对基督的回应与抉择。

(3) 实际性的伦理 (Categorical type of morality)：

圣经的伦理很多都属这一类。初期教会因人数越来越多，开始有组织及结构，同时亦需要一些伦理规律去解决疑难，指导信众。这些规律慢慢进入基督徒日常生活里，例如：信友争讼应在教会内求解决(格前六：1－6)，解除信主前的婚姻之保禄特权(格前七：12－15)，对妇女在会堂内的规定(格前十一：2－16)，信友应捐助教会(格前十四：34－35)等。有些规律一直沿用到今天。

总括来说，末世性的圣经伦理，是有天主特别的宠召，并在圣神的恩宠下才可实行的，故我们不能普遍地要求人过真实的贫穷及守贞的生活。超越性的圣经伦理是每位基督徒都要具有的；没有基督徒的信德与爱德，伦理并不能称为「基督徒的」伦理了。至于实际性的圣经伦理，是当时的基督徒，在他们的历史文化背景下，对基督的召叫作具体的回应，以表现自己的信德和爱德。这些实际的伦理行为，我们当然可以借镜，但同时不忘记其有限性。作者的讯息是我们要把握的，而非表面的文字。可见圣经伦理并不能一成不变的套用到今天。

(五) 结语

我们肯定圣经对伦理生活的重要，但应用圣经伦理时，该知道它究竟属于那一类。有人能因为不能做到耶稣对富少年的要求(玛十九：16－26)而耿耿于怀，害怕自己与天国无缘。这就是不了解这个末世性的圣经伦理，是需要有天主特别恩赐才能完成的。不要以为圣经伦理本身已包含了所有今天具体问题的答案，更不能随便翻开圣经某一页，便认为那是天主今日对我的要求。其实，「圣经伦理并不等于基督徒伦理」(注十三)，最少不是所有实际性的圣经伦理，都是今天的基督徒所必须跟随的。我们实需要花点工夫，找出作者藉这些圣经伦理所要表达的意思，再与圣经的中心讯息印证。在启示的光照及教会训导的指示下，我们用理智去决定那些是此时此地，作为回应基督召叫的伦理行为。

实际性的圣经伦理是多元化的，甚至来自非基督徒的泉源，但超越性的圣经伦理却把看似杂乱的多元化伦理连结起来。信德与爱德使人成为基督徒，亦使人的伦理成为基督徒的伦理。基督徒不论是研究伦理神学或实行伦理生活，都不能缺少这个核心。圣经记载着天主如何向人作爱的邀请，而人如何向天主作或不作信德与爱德的回应。在这个救恩史内，伦理才会有根基；在这个上下文中，我们才能说：圣经是伦理神学的灵魂。

作者：黄建国

(甲) 导言

保禄，原名扫禄，是个迫害初期基督徒的人。他认为耶稣只不过是一个被处死了的囚犯，而祂的跟随者却坚持祂从死者中复活，并仍然在他们中生活着。他正往大马士革途中，被一道强光打落马下；当耶稣给他说了以下的话「扫禄，扫禄，你为什么迫害我？」后(宗九：4)，扫禄便皈依成为保禄。他发觉当他迫害基督徒时，就是迫害基督。保禄永远不会忘记大马士革道上的体验和耶稣的那番话，而且他身为基督徒和虔诚使徒的整个生活，可以总括为对这些话的真谛的了解不断地加深。他从神学观点的人类学去发挥他的教会观；因而他惯常(有一百六十四次之多)以一句简单的短语来称述一种新的存在。并不是基督耶稣在基督徒身上发出影响力，而是基督徒进入一种与耶稣合一的本体关系，藉着一种改变把他转化为『一个人，一个身体』(弗三：15－16) 成为基督的身体。保禄写道：

「其实你们众人都藉着对基督耶稣的信仰，成了天主的子女，因为你们凡是领了洗归于基督的，就是穿上了基督：不再分犹太人或希腊人，奴隶或自由人，男人或女人，因为你们众人在基督耶稣内已成了一个。如果你们属于基督，那么，你们就是亚巴郎的后裔，就是按照恩许作承继的人。」(迦三：26－29)

他用如此轻松自然的笔调描述这种在基督内新生命各种不同的层次和阶段。他断言这新生命是极富生气的，需要不断成长，并分个人和团体的层面。严格来说，他没有分明建设起个别基督徒或基督徒的整个团体教会，因为他视这些为同一现实的两个观点：复活基督的生命，生活在个别基督徒内，也在基督奥体教会的联合肢体内。他也坚信在基督的身体外是没有真正的圣德或天主的生命的。当个别基督徒，藉着服务他人，在圣德上长进时，整个教会也在圣德上同时长进。

(乙) 「教会」：字义及溯源

保禄书信给我们提供很多有关他对教会的信念及观感的资料。在他的书信中，「教会」(  )一词的出现有达六十次之多。首先让我们研究一下他怎样运用这词。

「教会」 CHURCH的原义渊源于希腊字，此字意指「被拣选者」或「被召唤者」。一般而论，教会是天主由永恒拣选或召唤的全人类所构成的爱和生命的团体。

保禄用「教会」(  )这词时，无论单数或复数，他是描述一个地方的信徒团体。所以他给耕格肋的教会讲话(罗十六：1)；给劳狄刻雅人的教会讲话(哥四：16)；给得撒洛尼人的教会讲话(得前一：1；得后一：1)。他又讲及外邦人的众教会(罗十六：4)；论及迦拉达的众教会(格前十六：1；迦一：2)；提及马其顿的各教会(格后八：1)。他称那些为耶路撒冷贫穷的基督徒带来捐献的人为各教会的使者(格后八：25)；他鼓励格林多人在众教会前证实他们爱情的果实(格后八：24)。他说他把众教会的挂虑放在心上(格后十一：28)。

我们知道，教会初兴时基督徒的团聚不多；直到第三世纪初叶才有教堂的建筑出现。在那些初兴的岁月中，基督徒的聚会是在任何能容纳他们的房舍里举行的。所以，保禄见到「教会」(  )一词，便运用在任何地方一特殊的教会团体身上。因此，他讲及在阿桂拉和普黎斯加家中的教会(罗十六：5；格前十六：19)；他论及与宁法家有关连的劳狄刻雅教会(哥四：15)；提及那在阿尔希颇家中的教会(费2)。

保禄把「教会」(  )这词视作各地方基督徒团聚为举行礼仪或训导的写照。对这词如此的用法和「聚会」很相近。他谈及格林多基督徒聚会时所发生的不如意事件(格前二：18)；他断言先知建立教会(格前十四：4, 5, 12)，评击那些太过看重语言之恩的人，因为在聚会中他宁可以自己的理智说五句训诲人的话，而不愿说一万句语无伦次的话(格前十四：19)。他述及整个教会聚集在一起(格前十四：23)。他又说妇女在集会中应当缄默，因为在集会中发言为女人是很适宜的(格前十四：34, 35)。他又讲及自己在每个教会中所训示的事(格前四：17；十七：17)。在上述的一切光景中，「教会」这词代表耶稣基督的崇拜者，因祂的名而聚集在一起。

最后，保禄用「教会」(  )一词来描绘教会的整体，在每一地方，每一国家中，整个信奉耶稣基督的团体。他替自己辩护时断言：就热忱说，我是一个曾迫害过教会的人(斐三：6)。他讲论藉着教会而得知的天主的各样智慧，能在教会内天主获享光荣(弗三：10, 21)。他说教会服属于基督及基督爱上了教会(弗五：24, 25)。他断称教会为基督的身体(哥一：24)。保禄用「教会」(  ) 这词来概括一总专心致志为基督生活的人。

而且保禄屡屡清楚表示他不把教会当作只是人的组织或机构。教会和众教会就是天主的教会和众教会。他两次承认自己曾迫害过天主的教会(格前十五：9；迦一：13)。他设法使那些犯了不轨行为的格林多人明瞭他们的做法等于轻视天主的教会(格前十一：22)。当他谴责那些格林多教会争吵的成员时，他说天主的众教会并无这样的风俗(格前十一：16)。他论及在犹太天主的众教会(得前二：14)；他因着得撒洛尼人的良好品行及卓越的信德而感到自豪(得后一：4)。虽然教会由人组成的，但仍不愧为天主的教会。同样他谈及在犹太和在基督内的教会时，也说它们是天主的各教会(得前二：14；迦一：22)。教会是在基督内的，也是属于天主的。

在给格林多人的两封书信中，我们可以看出保禄思想的进展和演变。这两封信是写给在格林多天主的教会的(格前一：2；格后一：1)；基督徒的团体已不再是格林多的教会，正确地说，该是在格林多的天主的教会。在此处我们可见到一个重要观念的开始，就是教会并不是一群乌合之众，或孤立个体的聚合；无论基督徒在何处聚会，天主的教会就在那里。现在已不再称格林多的教会，或迦拉达的教会，或罗马的教会；所有的都是天主的教会。

有两个因素影响保禄的思路朝这方向走。(甲) 在格林多他要应付一连串分裂的问题；又要排解地方聚会分党分派的问题；因为有些声言是属保禄的，另一些人说自己是阿颇罗的人，有些人却公认是刻法的门下(格前一：12)。保禄深信教会是合一的；教会并不是由不同的各教会，派别或党系合成的；依最后分析，教会也并非由不同的会众组成的；无论它在那里，它都常是「天主的教会」。(乙) 可能保禄对罗马帝国1的体验日益成长，使他的思想取道于这方向。在全世界上当时都有罗马的殖民地。罗马殖民地与英属殖民地不同。它不是一种殖民于一不知及未经开拓的地方；也不是先锋部队进入一不认识的地方。罗马有习俗盛行世界各地。罗马有几处军事基地以操纵道路的交界处，而从这些据点控制整个地区。在这些基地罗马惯常任用一小撮市民；通常这些市民乃为退伍军人并已赐予公民权2。这些殖民地就是军事基地的枢纽，并将罗马帝国连贯起来。而殖民地的特色就是，无论位于何地，都要说罗马方言，穿罗马服装；地方官员都须用罗马官名；推行罗马习俗，施行罗马法律。这些殖民地犹如在世界各地的小罗马一样，然而它们却以此为荣。无论它们在什么地方，直至天涯地角，罗马以外的皆被视为蛮夷。所以，保禄见到的教会，无论它在那里，都是天主的教会。教会是一个包容一总国家的整体，无论它的地方性怎样把它局限，它仍是天主的教会。教会合一的思想在保禄心中扎根，逐渐演变及茂盛地成长起来。

还有，「教会」(  )这词并非基督教会的创新。当基督教会为自己特有的目的使用这词时，这词已含有它的历史背景，而且是双重的历史。我们该探讨其双重背景，为能认清这词所附带的联想，及它对听到这词的人所引起的回忆。

首先，这词有一个犹太文化的背景。在「七十贤士译本」，即希伯来圣经的希腊文译本中，「教会」(  )一词是表示聚集的以色列民，即聚集在一起的天主子民。例如，在天主颁布十诫给梅瑟时集合在一起的百姓。申命纪有这样的记载：「……以上所写的，是上主在集会(  )之日，在山上由火中对你们所说的一切话。」(申九：10；十八：16)屡次这词用以表达以色列的「集合」或「聚会」(申卅一：30；民廿：2；撒上十七：47；列上八：14；咏廿二：22)。因此，为一个犹太人这词常有天主召集的子民的意思。在运用这词时就暗示教会是天主的子民。以色列是天主的选民；可是当天主子来到的时候以民却没有承认祂，更没有接纳祂，因此以色列丧失了她的地位及其成为一个国家的特权。真正的以色列，新的以色列，真实的天主子民，真诚的  ，已不再是以色列国家，而是教会。( 这词指示出教会才是天主的工具及代理。

其次，这词又有一个希腊文化的背景。在希腊大民主政体中，统治的机构称为，而是由每一个拥有或未经失落公民权的市民组成。其实，在那寡头执政的时代，可能只限用于那些于财产上有资格的人；但在大民主时代，包括一总自由的人或市民。只有，有权选举和罢免地方官员，接纳和遣派使节，并在执行正义及立定法律上有权作最后决断。所以，为一个希腊人讲出了公民权的光荣；而且当基督徒运用这词时，若的成员是一个希腊人时，他会轻易地自然地把自己当作天国的市民。

1. 罗马人的殖民政策参阅「韩承良编著的：新约时代历史背景，香港，一九七九，第五至九四页。」

2. 同上。

(丙) 保禄惯用的术语

现在我们可以描绘出有关教会的基本事实之一，这是一个简而清的事实，但多次却被人遗忘。在新约中我们找不到「教会」这词有建筑物的意思。在新约里「教会」从来不是指由石头和石灰，或砖头和水泥接合而成的建筑物。新约里「教会」常是一群举行礼仪的百姓，他们将自己的心神和生命献给了耶稣基督。就是为了这个缘故，我们才从保禄用来描述教会成员的字句中，找到有关教会真正的特征及使命。以下就是他在书信中惯用的术语。

甲、在基督内3

每位作家或讲者惯常都有些口头惮或术语。他用这些术语时无需思索，而且几乎全不意识到这习惯。保禄的口头惮之一就是「在基督内」。这术语在他的书信中共出现了一百六十五次。

这术语并非保禄神学的骨髓，而是他整套宗教信仰的撮要。「在基督内」这术语对保禄来说，常是基督信仰的摘要讲法。在保禄书信中，只有得撤洛尼人后书中没有引用过这术语。无人会否认，在经年累月中保禄对这术语的意义渐渐加深；其实，这术语及其意义在保禄的心目中，并不是后期突然而来的发现。这术语对他的信仰生活，自始至终都是他信仰体的中心和灵魂。

而且我们要注意，保禄从来没有把这术语描作他自身独有的信仰体验。「在基督内」的体验并非因他在受惠时所享有的东西，也不是因为他在热心虔敬上的提升到一般人所不能企望高攀之境所享有的东西。定是每一个基督徒所知悉所体验的东西。保禄不只会说这「在基督内」的术语是一般基督信仰的实质，而且他也会宣称它是每一个基督徒的信仰核心。

我们也须注意，保禄从未用过「在耶稣内」这术语。他述及生活「在基督内」，「在基督耶稣内」，「在耶稣基督内」，「在主内」，但从没有说「在耶稣」。其意义是说，这术语与复活的基督有着特殊的关系。它并非描述或表达一种时空或物质上的关系，因为这些只基于时空及物性的接触，这样的关系可以找到，也可以失落，如同「在」与「不在」的交替一样。它指的是精神的或属灵的关系，这关系并不依靠时空，是一种与常在及处处都在的复活的主及永生的基督的关系。

现在让我们来看看保禄书信中「在基督内」这术语的真谛。

保禄把教会的整体及每一个别教会视作在基督内的教会。在得撒洛尼的教会是在天主内及在主耶稣基督内的(得前一：1)。犹太境内的各教会是属于在基督内的(迦一：22)。每一个别教会可能形式不一又分散于世界各地，但它们全是在基督内的。教会的生活就是在基督内的生活。

不但各教会是在基督内，连众教会的个别成员也在基督内。斐理伯人被称为斐理伯的众位在基督耶稣内的圣徒(斐一：1)。问候是给在基督耶稣内的每位圣徒的(斐四：21)。在斐理伯的教会成员乃在主内的兄弟(斐一：14)。哥罗森人书是写给在哥罗森的圣徒和在基督内忠信的弟兄的。当厄帕洛狄在罗马病倒后被遣回斐理伯时，他「在主内」被接待(斐二：29)。那些教会中的执权者乃在基督内治理他人(得前五：12)。

一总基督徒在基督内的事实，确是教会内成员的合一根源。所有基督徒藉着对基督耶稣的信德成为天主的子女(迦三：26)，而且因此割损与不割损并不重要(迦五：6)。在基督内没有犹太人或希腊人，男人或女人，自由人或奴隶的区别(迦三：28)。所有基督徒在基督内是一个身体(罗十二：5)。天主的计划就是要把这分离了的宇宙统一起来；而这统一只有在基督内才能实现(厄一：10)。这事在最实际的方式下应行得通。在斐理伯两个发生口角的妇人被催迫在基督内重归旧好(斐四：2)。因为每一教会都是在基督内，所以在真正的各教会中间不能存有分裂。因为每一个基督徒是在基督内，所以在那些真正基督徒之间不能存有任何障碍。他们可以属于不同的国家，肤色，身份，地位，才干，阶级和出生；他们可属于教会内不同的肢体，他们可有不同的语言，政治，方法，仪式，礼仪，行政；若他们都在基督内，这一切分别全没有相干。若人们体味到基督信仰不表示属于一个教会，而是属于一个在基督内的教会，那末教会中的分裂明天便可解除。

乙、圣徒4

在保禄书信中教会的成员称为「圣徒」的共有几乎四十次之多。这字的希腊文是，中文的「圣徒」是相当呆板的栩译，但找不到更好的翻译。因为今日一般人认为「圣徒」乃上了祭台被教会立了圣品的人。但基本的意义是与一般常物不同，是将它从常物或一般用途中取出来。所以殿宇是「圣的」，因为它与一般其他建筑物不同；一位司祭是圣的，因为他是被「选出」来的，所以他是有异于其他的人；一个用作祭物的牲畜是神圣的，因为牠被挑出来专为祭祀之用，而与其他牲畜不同；安息日是神圣的，因为它有异于其他的日子；而且天主是至神圣的，因为祂与一总人不同。所以说教会成员是或圣徒，是等于说他与其他的人不同。

讲完了的真正意义，我们还要加多一句。这种不同之处的表达，并不是藉着把自己抽离世界而生活，而是藉着在世界中以不同方式生活。保禄屡屡称那些住在某地区的信徒为。例如，他写书信给所有在罗马的「圣徒」(罗一： 7)；他又论及在耶路撒冷贫苦的圣徒(罗十五：26)；他寄信给阿哈雅的众圣徒(格后一：1)。无论这与众不同之点是什么，这不同点是在日常生活中可找到的，它并非如隐修士修女一样离开俗世而生活。

但究竟这种与众不同点主要是在于什么？不只一次保禄在字上加了一短语。他写信给在斐理伯的众位「在基督耶稣内」的圣徒(斐一：1)，在同一封信中他的结语问候是：「你们要在基督耶稣内问候各位圣徒」(斐四：21)。他又曾写信给在哥罗森的圣徒及在基督内忠信的弟兄(哥一：2)。所以，一个圣徒就是一个在耶稣基督内的人。这字所表示的分别就是：可称为的人常生活在耶稣基督面前，恒常在这临在中醒觉，为能聆听基督的训诲，并随时予以实践。他虽生活在烦嚣的俗务中，但他整个生命都是依照基督的标准，而不是跟随世界的标准。「圣徒」这字的实在意义是「基督的献身子民」。教会的成员就是那些把自己的生命献给基督的人。

丙、弟兄们

在保禄书信中，「弟兄们」这名称用于基督徒身上。给在罗马的基督徒书信中，他用他们的名子致候某些人，然后他附加一句「请问候和他们在一起的弟兄们」(罗十六：14)。谁立恶表就等于得罪了弟兄们(格前八：12)。「所有的弟兄都问候你们」，这是他给格林多人的祝候(格前十六：20)。他又谈及从马其顿来的弟兄们(格后十一：9)。致厄弗所人书信的结尾是这样的：「愿平安赐与众弟兄」(弗六：23)。他对哥罗森人说：「请问候劳狄刻雅的弟兄」(哥四：15)。他给得撒洛尼人书信中有这样的一句：「你们要以圣吻问候所有的弟兄」(得前五：26)。总言之，在保禄书信中「弟兄们」是他对收信人惯用及爱用的称呼。

此处显示了一项真理：教会是由一群弟兄组成的。意思就是：教会是一个天主的大家庭，家中成员皆彼此以手足之情相处。当一个教会在心神方面分裂时，当苦味辛酸侵入彼此的情谊中，当不宽恕的精神造成无可救药的裂痕时，教会已不再是教会，因为除非教会是手足情谊的团体时，已不配称为教会。

丁、信徒

基督徒是「信徒」，即那些有信仰的人。天主是那些有信仰者的父亲(罗四：11)。得撒洛尼人在信德和爱德上可作一总信徒的模范(得前一：7)。换句话说，教会成员就是那些接受耶稣基督所说为真的人，而且他们的生活也符合并支持他们所相信的。基督徒就是深信耶稣基督是救主，并使耶稣基督成为他们生命的主。

所以，对世界来说，教会的一员是不寻常的人，因为他生活于基督面前，并依基督的准绳生活。对他的邻人来说，教会成员是活于手足情谊之中。对耶稣基督来说，教会成员是那接纳基督对他生命所作的施予及要求的人。

3.Cerfaux, Luicen. The Church in the Theology of St. Paul. Herder & Herder, New York, 1959, pp. 207-228.

4.ibid, "Believers" pp. 161-175.　

示编委会「越」基督信仰新观，香港，1978，第二章第三节「论神圣」。

(丁) 象征教会的图像

现在我们该把注意转移到保禄书信中某些有关教会的着名图像的言论。从其中我们可学到更多有关保禄教会观的思想。但同时我们当小心谨记这些只是图像和喻像而矣；而且我们不该把自己的私意加入其中而太过依赖它们。当我们研究这些图像和喻像时，困难常在于认出或确定几时喻像就是喻像，几时它却是实在上的事实。

甲、教会是一个身体5

我们先以这些图像中最伟大的一个开始，就是教会乃有生命的身体。保禄用「教会作为一个身体」的图像是为强调教会主要的合一。他向罗马的基督徒这样写道：「就如我们在一个身体上有许多肢体，各有．不同的作用或功能；同样，我们众人在基督内，也都是一个身体；彼此之间，每个都是肢体。」(罗十二：4, 5)所以每人当善用天主所给与的恩赐，预言之恩，服务之恩，教导之恩，劝勉之恩，慷慨之恩，监督之恩，慈善之恩(罗十二：7, 8)。现在我们要清楚明白保禄图像是从什么环境产生出来的。保禄只是坚持：人不可把自己估计得太高而过了份；但应按照天主所赋与各人的恩宠为团体共同服务(罗十二：3)。所以教会如一个身体般是一个整体。人不当因天主所赐的恩典而自豪，也不当以为他所受的恩赐最为重要，而夸大举扬它以致忽视他人所受的恩赐。所有恩赐当以谦虚的精神和服务的态度去运用，常要记得我们不应彼此竞赛，但要像一个身体上的肢体一般，一起和谐地相处合作，相依为命。

在格林多人前书第十二章中，保禄详细而生动地把上述图像加以描述。教会如身体一般由许多肢体合成。各肢体都有自己的功用。脚不能没有耳，耳也不能不靠眼。若身体完全只由一种肢体构成，则它会失去其功能。就算隐藏的肢体；甚或那些不好意思提及的肢体，也有它们特殊而不可取代的功能。若一个肢体受苦，它并非独自受苦，因为它的痛苦影响全身，而且必定是由整个身体去分担(格前十二：12－27)。

再者，让我们牢记这图像由来之环境。格林多的教会当时正面临双重分裂的危机。它分裂成党成派，他们将自己依附不同的领导人；这些领袖虽然不需要负起分裂之责任，但他们的名字却被利用作为党派的名字(格前一：12)。而且格林多人前书第十四章也指出，在教会中盛行一种有关神恩的竞争。那些有语言之恩的却以此自傲；甚至那些先知也互相竞争着找机会把自己的讯息宣示。事实上，在格前第十二章中，保禄将各类神恩一一列举出来。从圣神而来的，有智慧的言语，也有知识的言语；有信心之恩，治病的奇恩，也有行奇迹的恩赐；有说先知话的，也有辨别神恩的；有说各种语言的，也有能解释语言的恩赐(格前十二：7－9)。在教会成员的功能中，有些是宗徒、先知、教师，及那些有奇迹、治病、帮助、治理之恩，及说各语言的人(格前十二：28, 29)。困扰格林多的问题就是不把神恩用在合作上而是用在彼此竞争方面。甚至在「主的晚餐」中，格林多的教会也分党分派(格前十一：18)；其效果就是整个圣事的实效被破坏了，因为他们聚在一起，不领悟他们是主的身体，也不够敏感度去醒觉到他们在基督内亲密的结合。

在运用身体的图像时，保禄的直接目的并不是讲论到教会。他只是论及一个特殊会众的生活态度及精神。格林多人在自己的聚会中，从来朱学过要如一个身体般地生活；他们生活得很散漫好像彼此敌对的独立团体；他们运用所受的恩赐来高举自己及彼此斗争；相反，他们原来该生活得如同人体上的肢体那样和谐与亲密。无可否认，这图像本身蕴藏着一个可应用于整个基督教会的观念；但是，首先给人的印象却是一个特别的教会中彼此成长的明争暗斗。

而且教会是身体之意表明它是合一的产生者。论及教会的伟大书信要算是那封写给厄弗所人的书信了。这封书信的主题可这样撮要。我们所见到的世界充盈着战乱的分裂。国与国的战争，信仰与信仰间的斗争，外那人与犹太人的相争，而且在每个人自己内的战乱。天主的计划是要众人和万物在基督内修和，并把他们合而为一(弗一：10)。耶稣基督是天主手中的工具，使一切战乱及分裂的人和事物进入一新的合一境界。藉着自己的生命和死亡，耶稣基督给人类带来了合一的方法。但这些合一的办法应遍及全世界和全人类；这就是教会的工作和使命。在教会中只有一个身体(弗四：4)：基督是人的平安；祂把外邦人和犹太人聚集在教会内；他们中间的围墙已被拆除；他们在教会内彼此修和成为一个身体。换言之，简言之，耶稣基督是天主修和的工具。教会存在的意义就是其本身当是一个完整统一的身体，而且也是人与人间合一的产生者。

但保禄不单只称教会为一个身体，而且他用了最伟大的名字称呼它基督的身体6。这伟大称号由格前书信开始又透过与遍及厄弗所书和哥罗森人书。保禄说：「你们便是基督的身体，各自都是肢体。」(格前十二：27)。他称教会为基督的身体(弗一：23)：他又论及建树基督的身体(弗四：12 )。他称耶稣基督为这身体的头(哥一：18)，基督的身体就是教会(哥一：24)。

此处我们遇到一个保禄解释上非常真实的疑难。当保禄讲述教会是基督的身体时，对他的意思的瞭解不一。有些人相信「教会是基督的身体」这短语应以神秘的意义去领会，而且当一个人进入基督的教会时，他神秘而玄妙地进入基督的身体。有一名句把教会描作「降生奥迹的延续」，所以一如天主「降生」，在耶稣基督身上取人性，耶稣基督也以「降生奥迹」的方式存在于教会内。另一方面，有些人却认为这短语当以更实的意义去领会，即在它的功能方面去领会。耶稣基督的工程应该继续；但祂自己却不在有形的肉躯内去完成这救世工程；因为祂已回到祂的光荣中。若耶稣基督想教导一个小孩子，祂要找一个男人或女人去教他。若祂想祂的讯息到达那些从来末听过福音的人那里，祂当找一个男人或女人去带送这讯息。若祂想帮助及安慰人类，他当找到甘愿做这工作的人。换句话说，耶稣基督需要教会作为自己的身体，因为在教会中祂当找到人手去做祂的工作，人脚去奔波劳碌，人的声音去把祂的讯息宣示出来。教会应是基督藉以行动的身体。事实上，当然这两种有关「基督的身体」的观点并非互相矛盾，但一个人所强调的重点会造成很不同的结论。

现在让我们暂且搁置对不同意义所产生的问题的答案，而再回到保禄有关教会所引用的图像上。

在厄弗所书及哥罗森人书中，保禄有另一个屡次重复的观念即基督是教会的头。天主将万有的元首给予教会(弗一：22)。教会的各成员该成长到归于那为元首的基督(弗四：15)。如同丈夫是妻子的头，所以基督也是教会的头(弗五：23)。基督是身体教会的头(哥一：18)。祂是头，所以全身才能获得滋养而互相连结(哥二：19)。我们也许注意到耶稣基督被称为身体的救主(弗五：23)。

从上述的一切引出了一个结论。若我们用神秘的意义去领会「基督的身体」，若我们把教会视作降生奥迹的延续，那么我们已承认了耶稣基督就是教会。依保禄的看法这是不对的；因为在基督与教会之间常有一个清晰的区别。基督是身体的救主(弗五：23)。教会服属于基督(弗五：24)，身体是头藉以履行其决断及命令的工具；身体是头的代理。若没有身体，头实际上简直一无所助。我们几乎可以毫无疑惑地确定，保禄称教会为基督的身体用意就于此。教会就是基督赖以执行其目的和计划的工具、代理、武器、有机组织。透过教会基督把生命、真光和救恩带给人类。此处便是教会的光荣，因为教会是基督手中不可或缺的工具。

在保禄书信中有两段文字特别指出这点。可能有人会反对说，主张教会是基督赖以实践天主的目的和计划的工具或代理的意见，就等于说耶稣基督要依赖教会。这点可能令人震惊，但这确是保禄所说的。在写信给哥罗森人时保禄说自己在为他们受苦时而感到高兴，而且他为了基督的身体教会，补充基督的苦难所欠缺的(哥一：24)。说基督的苦难有所欠缺是极不平凡的说法。可是保禄的意思却实在是这样。基督一次过找到了罪的补救方法；但是这补救法需要带给人，使人知道和接近而这就是保禄的工作，教会的工作。若在基督内把天主所赠予的救恩喜讯带给人类的这份工作含有痛苦的成份，那末这些痛苦大可说是完成基督的痛苦。让我们举一个类比。一个科学家或医生可能会发现种治疗某不治之症的新方法；一个外科医生可能会发现一种新的技术应付某项不可能的手术；但治疗法和技术不但要有人去发现，而且它们也需为那些需要它们的人成为可享用可利用的；使它们成为可利用的或许要付出辛劳、牺牲和思考的代价。事实上，若人一些也不认识不知道，那末基督为人类所作的一切则不能为人所享用；人们不会知道基督的事迹除非教会告诉他们。「但是人若不信他，又怎样呼号他呢？从未听到他，又怎能信他呢？没有宣讲者，又怎能听到呢？」(罗十：14)。基督需要教会把祂赐予的救恩知识带给人类，在这项工作内所含有的痛苦弥补及完成基督的痛苦。再一次我们又逼不得已回到把教会作为基督的工具及代理的观念上。

第二段文字是记载于厄弗所书信中的。在这里有关教会保禄这样写道：「这教会就是基督的身体，就是一切内充满一切者的圆满。」(弗一：23)。这并不是易懂的说法，而且学者对其意义有不同的看法。但是，依我们看来，它的最简单及最自然的意义，据希腊文而论，是这样的。希腊文一字中文译作「圆满」。πληρωμα是名词，从动词而来(意即充满，完成)。而乃当某东西被充满时的效果。比方把一个杯子盛满时可用这字。而且屡次用作描述一船的船员，或一船中的货物。平时自然的用法是把它用作「装满的一篮」或「一盛满东西的手」。再者，在「论政治」一文中，亚里斯多德(ARISTOTLE)描述苏格拉底(SOCRATES)如何简要地概括出一个最简单的城市的组织7。苏格拉底主张，一个最简单的城市当有六种技工：织工，农夫，鞋匠，建筑者，铁匠，牧人；在这六行业中要加入一个商人及一个零售商。亚里斯多德说这些构成一个城市的「圆满」 (  )。没有他们城市不能成立；有了他们城市便有了主要的基础。因此这希腊字就是藉以某东西被充盈之完成物。因此，保禄所说的意即指教会乃基督的「补足物」或「补充物」。教会就是基督的工程赖以完成的东西。我们当分别清楚基督的任务及工程。基督的任务在十字架上一次过完成了，在那里人类的救赎已一次过得到了保障；但基督的救世工程仍待完成，这工程就是使这救赎行动及其效益也为人所认识。而且这基督的工程是要教会去完成。就是在完成这工程上教会是基督的「补充物」，「完成物」。8

我们认为当保禄把教会讲作基督的身体时，他思想主要的重点是在教会作为耶稣基督的工具和代理的功能上，透过这主要的「补足物」基督把祂已完成了的任务让世人知道。就在这里产生了基督身体的另一意义。若教会要去完成那工程，若她堪当这工程，若她应该去做基督愿她做的工作，则她当很接近基督地生活，她该如此存留于基督内，使她与基督的结合如是密切，因此她在神秘的意义上可被称为基督的身体。换言之，为在实际意义上成为基督的身体，教会也该在神秘意义上成为基督的身体。

乙、基督的净配

我们还没有讲完保禄教会观的伟大喻像。保禄书信里这些动人伟大的喻像或图像中，有一个极可爱动人的喻像，就是「基督的净配」。这幅图像在厄弗所书信中描绘得最为精彩(弗五：22－23)，因为它把夫妻间的关系比拟作基督与教会的关系。「你们作丈夫的应该爱妻子如同基督爱了教会」(弗五：25)。这观念的浮现来由表面上并不明显，但若从格后第十一章第二节的观点看去，则非常生动。在那里保禄写信给格林多基督徒解释，他呼吁的逼切需要：「因为我是以天主的妒爱爱护你们。原来我已把你们许配给一个丈夫，把你们当作贞洁的童女献给了基督。」

在犹太的婚礼中10有两位重要的人物，他们称为「新郎的朋友」。其中一位代表新郎，另一位代表新娘。他们担任中间人的角色；他们邀请人客；通常照顾一切事物的安排。但他们最重要的本分就是保证新娘的贞操及新郎的洁德。所以，保禄想及基督为新郎，及把自己当作新郎的朋友，又把格林多教会当作基督准备好了的新娘；而且保禄认为自己有本分把格林多教会如同毫无瑕疵、玉洁冰清的新娘献给基督。

这是一个很古老的观念渊源于旧约时代。先知们把以色列视作天主的新娘。「你的夫君是你的造主；他的名字是万军的上主」(依五四：5)。「你们以色列家对待我，正如对自己良友不忠的妇女上主的断语」(耶三：20)。这就是为何旧约把神灵的不忠视作奸淫，而且当以色列不忠时，她被指责与异神行淫(出卅四：15, 16：申卅一：16；咏七十三：27：欧九：1)。当耶稣讲及「那邪恶淫乱的世代」时，祂指的就是神灵对天主的不忠(玛十二：39：十六：4：谷八：38)。而且这就是在旧约中天主这么多次被称为妒忌的神的理由(申川二：31：出廿：5：卅四：14：匝八：2)。天主是一个不能容忍劲旅的情人。

我们在此所有的，是基督与教会关系最可爱的描绘喻像。教会是基督的净配；基督与教会关系的密切如同夫妻。

丙、教会是建筑物11

基督徒乃天主家中( ) 的成员。保禄在信中对厄弗所人说，他们不再是外人，而是圣徒们的同胞，是天主的家人(弗二：19)。最令人感到注目的是：天主、教会及基督徒之间的关系是用最亲密的人际关系来表达比拟的，即丈夫妻子和子女间的关系。

有时保禄书信也把教会比作建筑物，是天主所造并为天主而造。「你们是天主的建筑物。」(格前三：9)整个建筑物结构紧凑(弗二：21)。

就是从这概念我们取得「教会如殿宇」「建立」的观念。那先知宣讲的话把教会建立起来(格前十四：3－5)。这就是为什么基督徒当在神恩上追求超过他人，他们作这事并非为了自己的光荣，而是为了建立教会(格前十四：12)。保禄常竭尽己力把他的天主子民建立起来，而他的权威是天主(格后十二：19；十三：10；十：8)。基督徒的本分是彼此建树(得前五：11)，而且需该追求有助于彼此建立的事(罗十四：19；十五：2)。一切职务及神恩都是白白得来的，全都是为建立教会(弗四：12, 16)；而且基督徒的生活及行为该当全部为了建立教会(弗四：29)。

此处我们要面对两项真理。教会的工作常该是建设而不该是破坏。若破坏是在所难免，若旧的及习染极深的观念一定要被铲除时，常该以新的及更好的去代替。一总教会的训诲及行动，其特色常该是积极的，绝不可只在目标及对象上消极。这表示基督徒绝不该把自己视作一个个体。他是建筑物中的一块石头，一块砖。他存在的目的不在于使人注意他，而是因自己身为建筑物的一部份增强建筑物的力量。他与其他基督徒相连如同一建筑物中每块石头的连结一样密切。

另一项值得注意的事，就是有些圣经章节对这建筑物有明确的指示。教会不单是一座建筑物；她也是「天主的殿宇」。「你们不知道，你们是天主的宫殿吗？」(格前三：16, 17)「天主的殿与偶像有什么相合？」(格后六：16)「整个建筑物结构紧凑，逐渐扩大，成为一座主的圣殿」(弗二：21)。关于教会为建筑物的喻像，有助于说明有关天主子民的统一性和多元性。比如一建筑物的上部构造，要有它的基石，且筑在地基之上。教会亦如此，圣保禄说：「你们是建立在宗徒及先知的根基上，以耶稣基督本身为屋角的基石。」(厄二：20)

这观念虽简单但很伟大。一座殿宇是神在世的住所；而教会不是别的而是天主圣神在世的住所。

保禄书信中还有两个有关建筑物的寓像。首先，基督是教会的根基(格前三：11)；其次基督是教会的主要角石(弗二：20)，就是基督身上整个教会才建立起来，也是藉着基督整个教会的结构才能连结起来，统一起来。

丁、教会是一块农田12

「教会是农田」这喻像在旧约中是很着名的。以色列是天主细心种植的葡萄园，而且它也象征着一株橄榄树。这喻像在默示录中，新约里及初期基督徒的着作里继续生活下去，结出各种不同的果实。这是因为农田的讲法是传统式的，而保禄却利用它而矣。

或许保禄是想起了依撒意亚所说的葡萄园。他在格前第三章这样写道：「我栽植，阿颇罗浇灌，然而使之生长开花结实的却是天主。」(格前三：6－9)在依撒意亚先知书中(也在福音中)是天主在耕种( 三：9)，人只不过是天主的仆人，助手，因为是天主使之生长。这喻像所训示的是指一小撮被选者的兴起，即从格林多人中兴起的那些各团体。他们的教会就是天主的农田。但是，显然地他们的教会只是那块大农田中的一幅地区，全部属于家庭中的父亲的，而这块大农田就是普世教会。既然天主是所有合一的泉源，那么以前彼此间的分界已是不可能，而思想也要提升越过地方的界限去容纳基督徒社会的普世性，就算在文字意义上仍然是指社会中一特殊的部份。

在罗马人书中(罗九：17－24)我们又面临另一问题。就是存在于基督徒核心位置的问题，究竟是犹太基督徒或是外教的皈依者。这里保禄发展了橄榄树的喻像。保禄用了野生橄榄树枝移植到好的橄榄树作比喻。他把外邦人比作野生橄榄树，把犹太人此作好树。他用这种手法说明了外邦人被召的历史经过，这是默示录作者的笔调。但在他思想底处说出了天主子民合一的必要。

  5. σωκα「身体」的观念，保禄用来描述教会在格前十： 7；十二：12－27：罗十二：4－5。在他心目中这些章节所表达的，只是个别的团体。可是明显的把教会视作「神妙身体」的言论却找不到。在格前十二：12中地方教会与人体的比较上，我们注意到「基督也是如此」及在罗十二：5中「所以我们人虽众多，在基督内却是一个身体」。

6.Cerfaux, Luicen. The Church in the Theology of St. Paul. Herder & Herder, New York, 1959, pp. 262-289, "The Body of Christ".

7.Aristotle. The Politics, 4.4.

8.Delling, Gerhard. TDNT Vol. VI pp.302-311.

9.「原来我已把你许配给一个丈夫，把你们当作贞洁的童女献给了基督……」(格后十一：2－4)「新娘」的喻像用来比作团体或民族，在犹太文化中是常见的。

10.de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel. DLT, London, 1973, pp. 24-38.

11.这喻像集中在基础及基石的字眼上。建设理想的殿字的图像，在厄则克尔先知书第四十章及以后的章节都有详细的叙述。保禄描绘建筑物时，是把它与庄田或农田相提并论的(格前三：9)。第一眼看去，我们会说保禄是指某建筑物而言。但这建筑物有基督耶稣作为基石，而又使我们想及一座神圣的建筑物，一座殿宇。其实在格前第三章第十六节中，我们才可下此结论。格林多人的团体就是这建筑物，一如殿宇一般。虽说这图像是用来比作格林多教会，但也可普世性地引用。同一的喻像在罗马人书第十五章廿节中也有暗示(而且格后六：16；罗九：32, 33：格前十四：12, 26；格后十二：19：罗十五：2)。

12.「农田」是指耕种之地，按圣经所记载的时期，完全不像今日巴勒斯坦那样从事农耕，广泛无际的大沙漠在那里延展着，野地布满了岩石，陡峭的山坡只适于放牧。藉这一点线索，我们可以了解为何一块肥沃的土地会做教会喻像。

(戊) 天主子民13

保禄既然在犹太神学上受过训练，很可能他在被主召唤后反省过「天主子民」的思想，尤其是在他以「外邦人使徒」自居的观点上。在天主的计划中，以色列与外邦人的关系格外使他感到困惑。在致罗马人书第九章至第十一章中，他对救恩史作了一个独特的探讨。这伟大的观念不可作为起点，因为它的形成是当保禄处于他传教活动的巅峰时代，在他结束了在东罗马帝国的任务后，并目睹外邦人准备相信的心切，又在「莫非天主摈弃了自己的人民？」(罗十一：1)的悬殊观点下写成的。为了协调连犹太本都难以致信的事实，即天主对以色列的承诺及以民大多数人固执成性不信基督的事实，保禄于是很有见地的质问：「这并不是说天主的话落了空(罗九：6)；难道天主不公道吗？(罗九：14)或许天主对以色列的不忠是有责任的，难道无论发生什么天主对以色列的许诺仍会照旧应验？」事虽如此，他警告归了化的外那人不要对以色列人诸多责难，因为以色列虽然大部份为不信之徒，但以色列仍是这橄榄树的根，而外邦人却是接上这树的枝条，天主仍会忠于自己的许诺(罗十一：17－24)。这一切虽是从其一角度的观点，但可从中了解到他传教的体验。所以我们当问保禄对自己为外邦人的圣召有什么积极的评论，及从中他得到怎样的教会观？

关于这点，保禄致迦拉达人书有明确的指示。在书信中保禄郑重维护他的使徒职，即他作为外邦人宗徒的合法权及他与原来的宗徒同等的权利，及他无割损无规条的喜讯，是他无限制的世界性的训导基础。用一种寓言性的说法他把亚巴郎的两个妻子视作自由及奴隶的预像(迦四：21－31)。他将那按肉欲而生的为奴的女人哈加尔比作西乃山盟约，因此而生的却为奴隶；她好比「当时的耶京」，一如她的子女同为奴隶。自由的撒拉却是「藉恩许」生子，她象征「天上的耶京」，她就是我们的母亲，「你们像依撒格一样，是恩许的子女。」但我们必须记着，保禄当时为了打倒陈旧的法律规条的枷锁，而这又是「当时的耶路撒冷」所依附的，但保禄当时所见所闻的以色列，事实上是如此敌对基督，磨难基督信徒(迦四：29)。这当然与罗马人书第九章至第十一章的观点不同，因为在罗马人书信中只是把「以色列」现象的正面呈示了出来。保禄就是置身于这两种极端中：一方面以色列是天主的子民，当然恩许是有效的；另一方面，犹太教对承继恩许基督(绝对来说)却表出绝对的不信(迦三：16 )，他们恒存于奴役的法律中，不符合天主的意愿，甚或杀害属于救恩新秩序的基督信徒。可是从这种辩证中，保禄的判断和态度却是心平气和的，并没有针对当时的以色列，引出了他对天主子民的积极观念。这天主子民由以色列及外邦人的信徒所形成，并在基督内成为一全新的个体：「不再分犹太人或希腊人，自由人或为奴的，男人或女人；因为你们众人在基督内已成为一个」(迦三：28)。对保禄来说，一个天主的新百姓取代了旧的，而且虽然这新的是以旧的为依据，只因是在旧的百姓身上有着天主的恩许祝福，但这新的子民却站在新的基础上，因为他们相信继承祝福的嗣子只有一个，及救恩的中保也只有一个，就是基督耶稣。

我们刚看过，保禄把天主的新子民视作「天上的耶路撒冷」(迦四：26)，或它在世的象征(这是基督的母亲)，而且他又称之为「天主的新以色列」(迦六：16)。当然为了更清楚地解释这点，他曾作过另外的尝试；然而对祝福最好的阐释还是以下的论述：「当保禄讲及以下的规则时，大概在他心目中当时有迦拉达的基督徒；他们及整个天主的以色列，无论在什么地方，都从天主那裹得到和平与仁慈的祝福。」保禄宗徒把荣誉的旧衔头转移到那信基督的新社会里。其实这应被视为一种故意的神学步骤；因为类似的事已不只一次地发生在保禄身上：许给亚巴郎令其后裔繁多的祝福，已转移给了基督及藉祂而给一总藉信德及圣洗和祂连结在一起的人(迦三：14, 16, 29)，又在罗马人书中由亚巴郎而来的属灵的后裔，就是那些如亚巴郎一样，让自己藉信成义的人，割损者与不割损者毫无分别(罗四：11－17)。在适宜的地方，保禄还解释「割损」及「犹太人」的意义(罗二：25－29)，或否认一些以色列人的以色列人公民权，及一些亚巴郎后裔的亚巴郎子女的身份(罗九：6－8)。

为他来说，不信的以色列就是「依血统而成的以色列」(格前十：18)，而且他将那些不信的犹太人和希腊人比作反对「天主教会」的人，意即反对基督徒团体的人(格前十：32)。他在初期教会中并非单独持有这观点；连同以色列荣誉的衔头。他还强调断言自己在此教会中的特权，并把教会描作天主旧子民的合法继承人。而且，他尝试为这产业供应一神学的基础；他极力追求承认信耶稣基督的人就是天主的子民，这就等于对旧约的新解释。在这方面，他的而且确提高了初期教会对自己身为独立团体的意识，而且为把基督信徒视作「第三个种族」的观念铺路。

犹太人与希腊人在教会内的契合，在厄弗所书信中描绘得最为深奥。这是「基督的奥秘；这奥秘在以前的世代中，没有告诉过任何人，有如现在一样，藉着圣神已启示给祂的圣宗徒及先知」(弗三：4－13)。透过宣布和平与那些「很遥远」的人(外邦人)及那些「附近」的人(犹太人)的基督，这两种人以前彼此分离敌对，如今在圣神内有同等的方便接近天父(弗二：16)。只有与外邦人的结合，教会末世性的主要图像才可被引出来，而且天主的救恩计划才会达至顶点，「天主的智慧」「透过教会而为上天的率领者和掌权者所认识」，即透过她的现实和她的训诲，它们的权力已被宣布废弃(弗一：21－23；四：8－10)。以这样的远景看去，在天主的救恩计划中教会只可被视作由犹太人及外邦人组成，并由基督悬在十字架的身体所代表，又将之理成「一个新人」(弗二：15)，而为基督所救赎所圣化(弗五：23, 26)；基督的唯一身体由祂指挥及建立，基督是它的头，并使之达到基督圆满年龄的程度(弗四：11－16)

在教会中保禄保证外邦人的自由，这事实是显而易见的。主要的是由于他在「耶路撒冷会议」中，获得了外邦人进入教会而无须行割损或遵守犹太法律。他主张一总人唯一得救的途径，就是信仰耶稣基督；在致迦拉达人书信中他把这思想阐述得如此清晰强烈，而在罗马人书中神学论点的如此明朗，以致他人没有怀疑的余地：「天主的正义，如今在法律之外已显示出来；法律和先知也为此作证；就是天主的正义，因对耶稣基督的信德，毫无区别地赐给了凡信仰的人，因为所有的人都犯了罪，都失掉了天主的光荣，所以众人都因天主白白施给的恩宠，在耶稣基督内蒙救赎，成为义人。」(罗三：21－24)。所以外邦人在基督内有着兄弟般同等的权利，而且也不容许以往的犹太人对外邦的基督徒有任何忽略(参阅迦二：15－18)；另一方面，当然外邦基督徒也不要因旧以色列的失败而鄙视他们(参阅罗九至十一)，同时对这些犹太兄弟深表关怀同情，虽然他们中有些人对于饮食的事良心较为狭窄(参阅罗十四)。因此，保禄劝勉各教会努力促进基督徒的团结，大家一心一意与耶路撒冷教会及出源于她的新教会共融合一。在这一方面，他对形成教会合一及一致性的意识作出了实际而具体的神学上的主要贡献。在人性而论，为何教会恨快扩展而没有分裂的主因之一，可在保禄神学中找到；因为他使一总信众活生生地意识到天主倾注在他们身上的合一及其不容抗拒的一致性：「对主耶稣基督的一个信仰(格前八：5)，一个构成在基督内合一的洗礼(迦三：26；格前二：13；哥三：11；弗四：3－6)，共同分享一个祭饼并因此分享基督的身体，藉此这许多的人却成为一个身体(格前十：16)

从上述看来，保禄曾深省过教会的性质。他认为教会不仅是信基督者的组织或团体，而且的确是新约的天主子民，被提举了的主在世的团体。


13.梵二大公会议所论定的，教会为天主的子民；教会宪章以整个第二章去讨论圣经这个概念。基督建立了这项新盟约，就是用祂的血所立的新盟约，祂从犹太人及其他民族中号召祂的子民，使他们因圣神而不是以形体联合起来，成为天主的民族。

(己) 教会是一个奥秘 14

天主的计划是要我们透过祂圣子所建立的团体，去分享祂的爱、喜乐和生命。而保禄却称此计划为「世世代代所隐藏的奥秘」(哥一：26)。奥秘的希腊文是。在希腊的社会中，只有两种奥秘：一是宗教性的，一是文学上的。前者就是把神的生命在礼仪中复苏，使参与者能体验到神的感觉；后者是一种特殊知识只属于特别的，一小部份人的特权。现代的学者不相信保禄的意义来自希腊思想。依保禄之意，就是天主的慈善要我们人藉祂的圣子分享祂的生命；这是隐藏在天主内永恒的意愿，透过天主屡屡介入人类历史，人渐渐预备接受主的恩赐。当天主派圣子到世上来，祂启示了自己的意愿：这奥秘在基督身上启示出来及在我们身上应验在世上爱的团体，充满爱的生命天主本身。这奥秘有以下的阶段：(一) 从亘古以来隐藏在天主内；(二) 在基督身上启示出来；(三) 在我们身上应验。

(一) 隐藏在主内的奥秘

保禄把这奥秘视作上天的计划，由爱的催使而成孕，但却不为人所明认。这是上主的旨意要人活祂的生命，透过祂的子，祂自己进入世界为把人与天父结合，就是把整个团体与天父相连。在祂圣子的宝血中，天主与人订立一个新盟约，并形成一个新民族，一个爱的团体。「我们所讲的，乃是那隐的，天主的奥秘的智慧，这智慧是天主在万世之前，为使我们获得光荣所预定的；今世有权势的人中没有一个认识她，因为如果认识了，决不至于将光荣的主钉在十字架上。经上这样记载说：『天主为爱祂的人所准备的，是眼所未见，其所未闻，人心所未想到的。』」(格前二：7－9) 15

为何天主不一开始就把祂的计划天上爱的团体形成人的爱情团体启示给人？其实这问题早在我们以前已存在。圣依肋奈也曾问过这问题。保禄的回答可从迦拉达人书第三章廿九节中见到。

天主造我们时教我们祂的存在；在祂与以民立约及订梅瑟法律时，祂告诉我们祂自己的超越性、神圣性及唯一性，并开始使人成为一爱的团体。在基督内及在启示的光照下，天主告诉我们祂自己爱的生命及邀请人，在人的爱情团体中，去分享爱的生命。这爱情团体就是天主所钟爱的子民教会。

(二) 隐藏在基督内的奥秘

当天主把祂的圣言发出进入世界，藉祂圣子的降生，这奥秘已摆在人的眼前。在祂圣子内，天主要聚集一个团体教会，依祂自己的肖像，即天上爱情团体的肖像，塑造形成。祂会让人分享祂自己的生命，把他们带进祂亲密的爱中，如同祂的嗣子，祂的子民。保禄说：「……使你们合乎我所传布的福音，和所宣讲的耶稣基督，并合乎所启示的奥秘这奥秘从永远以来，就是秘而不宣的，现今却彰显了……」(罗十六25－26)。16

(三) 在我们身上应验的奥秘

在哥罗森人书第一章廿五中，保禄告诉他们，「基督在你们内」就是这奥秘。从上下文中可知，保禄是在谈及教会，因为他这样写道：「我可在我的肉身上，……教会……我作了这教会的仆役……。」(哥一：24－27)「基督往你们内」是指教会的成员，在受洗进入基督内之后，接受祂丰富的恩宠成为天主的子女。这奥秘的最后阶段即透过基督天主与人的契合，是从基督开始与人类历史同时进行的。这是最后的时期，教会成为基督的延续及完成，如此基督继续生活、救赎、更新、创造，并把人结合在祂内；所以教会成为在世上爱的团体的中心及泉源(参阅弗三：8－11)。

(庚) 结语

所以，当我们再回顾和反省一下保禄的教会观，我们可得以下的结论。

为保禄来说，教会就是那些把自己的一生奉献了给基督的男女所组成的队伍，他们与基督的关系，有如妻子与丈夫般亲切；他们彼此的关系有如建筑物中的砖石般紧凑联系密切；他们的荣耀就是一个身体，基督的身体，透过此身体基督的救恩及主的慈爱不断在世界显示、实现，直到祂再光荣地降来。

14. Powell, John. The Mystery of the Church. Bruce, New York, 1967, pp.10-19.

15. 关于这点还有以下的章节可参阅：(哥一：25－27；弗一：5－10；三：3－5；8－10)。

16. 关于这点也可参阅(哥一：27；四：3－4；希一：1－2)。

(辛) 附录：保禄思想中「基督的身体」的演进

(一) 迦拉达人书

这书信成书时大概在公元五十四至五十五年间，并在盛怒下写成的。从这封书信中我们清楚知道，有些心怀不轨及误入歧途的犹太皈依者，向那些可怜易受欺骗的迦拉达人说，保禄虽在此处建立了教会，但他自己却不是宗徒，因为他根本没有见过基督或听过祂的宣讲。因此在这书信中，保禄说明自己是宗徒的种种理由证据，然后他便把他的道理做了一个纲要。他坚持说梅瑟法律虽来自天主，但其目的只是暂时的计划，而最后是领人到基督那里。真正的成义(圣德)只能来自信基督，藉圣洗及忠于基督的训诲。这就是在基督内合一的意义(迦三：26－28)。

这里保禄所着重的人在基督内约合一是属过继性的。藉着基督及在基督内，我们成为天主的义子及天主无穷富藏的承继人(迦四：4－7)。

(二) 格林多人前书

当保禄离开格林多时，是在公元五十至五十二年之间，那时他已在那里住了一年半左右，他新建立的格林多教会是他传教事业中至蓬勃之一。(本书信成书时大概是在公元五十七年春)。格林多教会当时继续发展成长了五年后，荆棘开始从玫瑰花中浮现出来。访客由格林多到厄弗所去找他，向他报告那迫使人灰心的分派分党的消息：有人宣称是保禄的门下，有些人却说是属亚波罗的，另一些人则称是伯多禄的人。因此，这封书信对这困扰的教会的讯息是我们在基督内的合一。还有其他的问题，包括不道德的恶表，例如一基督徒公开地与他的后母同居。而基督徒团体以漠不关心的态度接纳这事。基督徒的贞操在格林多这样的气氛下难以保存。就是在这种情境下，保禄于公元五十七年春写了这封书信。(格前六：9－11；15－20)

后来，在同一封书信中，有关参与外教人祭祀的事，保禄警告他们。而且他所持的理由就是在基督内成员的身份和合一。我们「在基督内是一个」，而且当我们在感恩祭中领受主体时，我们与祂及彼此间的契合渐渐加深(格前十：14－17)。

在第十二章第一部份，保禄解释圣神给了教会每成员所坦任的角色及应作的贡献。这里保禄明显地把教会比作一个身体，并详述这寓像的含意(格前十二：12－27)。

保禄此处所要求的是绝对拋弃个人私益及竞争的行为。他很惊奇见到当基督徒只能形成一个基督的身体时，还能在琐碎小事上争吵。

(三) 罗马人书

依年历而论，保禄接着写了罗马人书信(大约在公元五十七至五十八年冬)。表面看来，这封信是写给罗马人的，并告诉他们他访问罗马的心愿。然而他在这里趁机会发挥他十二年热心传教的核心主题及思想：在基督内的合一。对保禄来说，这是他那时有关教会的最基木课题。他最恐惧的专就是犹太人与外邦人基督徒的分裂(罗六：3－11)。

亚当所遗弃了的上天的产业及超性生命，再一次藉基督摆在人的眼前；而且基督把这新的分配恩宠的方式视作再生、重生。基督透过圣洗圣事赋与这新的生命，祂把这新生命灌输给那些与祂同死(于罪恶)的人；藉着恩宠的沟通祂把一个新的民族纳入自己内，形成了奥体。教宗比护十二世这样写道：「因为耶稣的宝血，在十字架上流注，基督平息了天主的义怒，一切天国的宠爱，特别新约中的龙爱，为人类灵魂的获救，最要紧的，还是为了教友的灵魂，流注于地上。是在十字圣架上面，耶稣才占有祂的教会，换句话说，是在十字圣架上面，祂才占有祂的奥体的各个份子，因为不是为了十字圣架的原故，圣洗圣事决不能接纳人类于奥体，合而为一。因为耶稣的圣死，已经把整个人类，完全救赎过来了。」17

后来，在罗马人书信中，保禄对他们说，对那些在基督耶稣内的再也不会有罪可定。而且也劝戒格林多人，要以基督徒的合一为正直道德生活的动机(罗八：9－10)。

不久后他又督促他们对天主的爱要有信心，因为这爱在基督徒与基督结合的过程中显示出来：「天主使一切协助那些爱他的人，就是那些按他的旨意蒙召的人，获得益处，因为他所预选的人，也预定他们与自己的儿子的肖像相同，好使祂在众多弟兄中作长子。」(罗八：28－29)

在这封冗长书信的结尾，保禄要求每一罗马教会的成员接纳自己在教会中的地位，同时又引用生活的身体作为寓像，说明基督徒在基督内的合一(罗十二3－6)。

(四) 哥罗森人书

哥罗森人书是保禄「狱中书信J中的第一封。其实在他写哥罗森人书时，大概在公元六十一至六十三年之间，那时他是在罗马并在罗马兵士的看守下，等候着自己案件的过堂。哥罗森位于厄弗所东面一百一十哩的地方。保禄并没有亲自建立哥罗森的教会。但他曾感化过一个厄伯发人(EPAPHRAS)，很可能他委任此人在其本城哥罗森去建立一个教会。当厄伯发(EPAPHRAS)发觉这新兴教会的处境难以应付时，他便去到罗马向保禄报告一切。结果就是哥罗森人书信的诞生。这年轻教会所面临的危机，是对某些犹太信念及实践的妥协倾向，因为在这些信念和实践中混杂着外教人的气息。保禄这封书信的目的是想刻划出基督超越一切受造物的绝对至高性。(哥一：15－20) (哥一：24－27)

在痛斥那些伪经师的影响时，因为他们明显地影响了哥罗森的教会，保禄有以下的言论：「这样的人妄自尊大而不与头相连接；其实由于头，全身才能赖关节和脉络获得滋养而互相连结，藉天主所的生长力而生长。」(哥二：19)

而且他断言，因为我们一总人在基督内团结一致，我们便是以祂的肖像再被塑造了：「在这点上，已没有希腊人或犹太人，受割损或未受割损的，野蛮人、叔提雅人、奴隶、自由人的分别，而只有是一切并在一切内的基督。」(哥三：11)「还要叫基督的平安，在你们心中作主；你们所以蒙召存于一个身体内，也是为此，所以你们该有感恩之心。」(哥三：15)

(五) 厄弗所书

虽然这封书信命名「致厄弗所人书」，然而说这书信实在是写给厄弗所教会的，确是可疑的(注十八)。今天这问题至普通解决是这样的：保禄发出这封类似通谕式的函件抬一总亚细亚省的教会；这公函包括一切通谕的非个人特色，但它不愧为保禄留给教会最丰富的遗产之一。在这书信中，他重复哥罗森人书的主题，基督的绝对至高性，但却使之充满着基督在教会中的至高性，祂是奥体生活的头，与基督往宇宙中的至高性迥然不同。

一切人类的历史在基督内找到其最完满的意义的说法是正确的。因为基督的人性与天主性密切结合；祂在自己身上，把一切受造物与自己的天主性相连。在这书信中保禄强调说，正如一总受造物与基督相连，那末，所有领过洗的人也亲密地在祂内及偕同祂合成一体。这结合的现实是如此深刻和密切，以致保禄用了一个生活身体的各肢体彼此的结合形成一体，来表达他的思想。在基督内我们人性合一的这端道理不是保禄这封书信的主题，但却渗透了整封书信。以下的章节是他这端道理的纲要，而厄弗所书可说是这道理最完满的表达：(弗一：10；13－14；22－23；二：14－16；三：14－21；四：3－16)。

这封书信的结尾，是保禄有关「教会为基督的身体」的思想发展的最后阶段。他把基督与教会的结合比作夫妻的结合。此处他把教会是「身体」的寓像和「新娘」的寓像放在一起，以显示彼此间最深挚的友谊及爱情。在圣洗的水中，基督沐浴、医治、并转化祂的新娘。教会是祂的新娘，焕发着祂自己的生命(弗五：23－32)

17. 赵尔谦译「论基督身体」P. 11, 香港，一九四九。

(癸) 参考书目

1. 吕大明译「天主的子民」，光启，一九七五。

2. 房志荣编著「保禄使徒的生活、书信及神学」，光启，一九七四。

3. 田永正译，汉斯龚著「教会发微」上册，光启一九七六。

4. 示编委会编译「越基督信仰新观」示，一九七八。

5. 香港天主教青年联会「教会特辑」，一九七六。

6. 赵尔谦译「论基督身体」香港真理学会，一九四九。

7. 韩承良编著「新约时代历史背景」思高，一九七九。

8. Cerfaux, Lucien. Christ in the Theology of St. Paul. Herder & Herder, New York, 1966

9. Cerfaux, Lucien. The Church in the Theology of St. Paul. Herder & Herder, New York, 1959.

10. Fitzmyer, J. A. “Pauline Theology”, in: Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1968.

11. Harrington, W. J. Record of the Fulfilment. Geoffrey Chapman, London and Dublin, 1968.

12. Jacob, Louis. A Jewish Theology. DLT, London, 1973.

13. Kasemann, Ernst. Perspectives on Paul. Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1971.

14. McKenzie, J. L. The Power and the Wisdom. Geoffrey Chapman, London and Dublin, 1966.

15. Powell, John. The Mystery of the Church. Bruce, New York, 1969.

16. Prat, Fernand. The Theology of St. Paul. Newman, Westminster, 1956.

(十七)Schmidt, K.L. art.εμμλησια in TDNT, Vol. III, pp. 501-518.

(十八)Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Church in The New Testament. Herder & Herder, New York, 1966.

(十九)de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel. DLT, London, 1973.

(二十)Taylor, M.J. A Companion to Paul. Alba House, New York, 1975.

(廿一)Zeitler, J., Wetterer, E., Verkamp, B., La Pierre, A. The Church. P. J. Kennedy & Sons. New York, 1964

作者：陈耀鸿 Chan, John

FAITH AND PRAXIS IN THE POLITICAL THEOLOGIES OF J. B. METZ AND J. MOLTMANN

Political Theology Revisited

Faith, for J.B. Metz, is "a praxis in history and society that is to be understood as hope in solidarity in the God of Jesus as a God of the living and the dead who calls all men to be subjects in his presence".(1) That is, Metz sees Christian praxis, meaning faith, as social praxis which in turn is ethically determined, is accompanied by a making present of a collective historical memory, and is characterised by its pathic structure. This, then, is Metz's understanding of Christian faith in the light of his political theology as a "practical fundamental theology ".

Moltmann, on the other hand, has never claimed to have a "political theology" of his own. Faith for him is "the foundation upon which hope rests,…Without faith's knowledge of Christ, hope becomes a utopia…But without hope, faith falls to pieces".(2) Theology, and in particular political theology, to be responsible, is public. It stands "consciously between the Christian, eschatological message of freedom and the socio-political reality'. (3) Political theology for Moltmann, then, is a "hermeneutical category" defining the context and the medium in which Christian theology is to be articulated today. This is further understood in the assertion that "the new criterion of theology and of faith is to be found in praxis". (4)

Despite the similarity between Metz and Moltmann in their approach to the subject, there are crucial differences in their later developments. We shall return to this point in the fifth section of this paper.

The term "political" theology itself is not without ambiguity and misunderstandings. The traditional usage in Greek philosophy arises from the tripartite division of theology into mythic, natural, and political. Each of the three addresses itself to different gods with the political as inferior to the other two. Roman theology took up this division but with a reversal of priorities. That is, political theology took precedence over the metaphysical and became no more than a theological justification of the primacy of politics. Augustine, in The City of God, criticizes this all too immanent process at the expense of the transcendent. He emphazises the dependence of the political on the mythic and the metaphysical, the three being distinct but interrelated ways of speaking about God. Yet the Roman conception of political theology was revived from the Renaissance onwards to offer support to the uneasy 'marriage' between the church and the state. Political theology thus became, once again, the tool of those in power to justify a "Christendom" from “the right”.

A new political theology for today will have to dissociate itself from any conception of a "Christendom", either of the "Right" or of the “Left”. Political theology, a truly human endeavour, will necessarily be rooted in the world. And yet, as theology, it is at the same time always pointing to that which is beyond the world. A credible political theology will have to maintain a unity between the identity and non-identity of faith and culture, between redemption and human history; that the resurrection hope will not be swallowed up by history as it makes death and guilt transitory. Nor will it swallow up history because a hope based on the cross is fulfilled only when the dead and all creation are returned to the full lordship of God. (5)

While Moltmann sees political theology as no more than a hermeneutical horizon. Metz locates it firmly in the arena of fundamental theology. For Metz, fundamental theology today can no longer simply be a rational justification of faith that is narrowly apologetic in nature. That is, it must not be reduced to a "theological meta-theory" of existing world theories. Rather, it must justify itself as theology by "a return to subjects and the praxis of subjects''…"As such, its task is to evoke and describe a praxis which will resist all evolutionary attempts at reconstruction and any attempt to do away with religious practice as an independent entity or the religious subject as an authentic element in the process of a historical and materialist dialectical system".(6) In other words , the practical fundamental theology devised by Metz is always bound to the act of opposing any attempt to condition religion socially or to reconstruct it theoretically.


1)J. B. Metz, Faith in History and Society, Burns & Oates, London, 1980, p. 73. The term “praxis” implies the activity of the whole person, intellectual as well as physical. It is more than what is understood by the term “practice”. Henceforth, the former will be preferred to the latter in this essay. See also Metz’s article, “Political Theology”, in Sacramentum Mundi.

2)J. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, SCM Press, London, 1970, p. 20.

3)Moltmann, "Political Theology", in The Experiment Hope, SCM Press, London, 1975, p. 102.

4)Moltmann, "God in Revolution", in Religion, Revolution and the Future, Charles Scribner's Sons, NY 1969, p.138.

5)Moltmann, "The End of History", in Hope and Planning, SCM Press, London, 1971, p.167f.

6)Metz, 1980, p.7.

Political Theology & Liberation Theology

Political theology, understood in the restricted sense of Metz and Moltmann, is distinct from, though closely related to, the liberation theologies of Latin America. A common distinction made between the two is to consider their different contexts that give rise to their particular mode of theological reflection. This involves three aspects: the secularization of society, the privatization of faith, and the role of theology in the life of the Church. (7)

First, the German political theologians see the process of secularization in a positive light. The separation of church and state, the world ceasing to be the numinous, and the rise of the human subject in the search for emancipation, are key stages in the path to the freedom of faith expressed in human subjectivity. The Latin American liberation theologians criticise this projection as imposing the particular European model of church-state relationship on other regions. For them, the church is still very much bound up with the state. Secularization, while still in its beginning stages, leads not so much to the 'death-of -God' syndrome, but rather to a near schizophrenic dualism of faith and politics.

Second, the concern of political theology in Europe is to offer a critical corrective to the current existential theology which tends to advocate a privatization of faith in the wake of the secularization of society. In a secular society, Christian faith seems to have lost its public dimension except as a minority cult or even as expressions of personal, individual interest. Liberation theology from Latin America, on the other hand, is conceived as a critique of the Catholic liberal developmentalism that has been exported to the third world from the so-called developed countries. The model of development presupposes a social and economic structure that is not only insensitive to the real problems of the host nations, but is also instrumental in preserving the oppressive structures in these nations, thus perpetuating the evils of injustice. Liberation theology seeks to offer a radical break from the status quo based on a Christian foundation.

Third, the nature of political theology, in particular that of Metz and Moltmann, is more in the methodological realm. That is, they see the role of political theology as defining the context and the horizon in the task of doing theology. In their search to elaborate the relationship between religion and society, political theology tends to focus on the dialectics of theory and practices On the other hand, liberation theology seeks to give relevant interpretations of faith symbols of the Christian message of liberation. Their emphasis is less on methodology in the theological task. Rather their interest is centred more on the example of Jesus Christ as a bringer of liberation.

Despite the distinct differences between political theology and liberation theology, theologians from both sides do have a mutual influence on each other. For example, Sobrino’s heavy reliance on Moltmann’s theology of the cross in his Christlolgy at the Crossroads shows the methodological root of most Latin American theologians. Or, Metz’s second formulation of his political theology is the result of the critique of Latin American theologians who saw Metz’s theology of the world as no more than an extension of a form of Kantian political ethics in which the notion of faith is over-and-above and untouched by its historico-social context. (8)

It is not a matter of choosing between the one or the other, of political theology or liberation theology. Both are serious attempts to take theparticularity of history as the starting point for theological reflection. Their individual usefulness is determined more by the relevance of the issues out of which they are developed.


7)See F. P. Fiorenza, "Political Theology and Liberation Theology: an inquiry into their fundamental meaning", in Liberation, Revolution & Freedom, ed. by T. E. McFadden, Seabury Press, NY, 1975; also, C. Davis, Theology and Political Society, CUP, Cambridge, 1980, Chapter 1, "From Orthodoxy to Politics".

8)It is difficult to say how the mutual influences between theologians in the two continents are effected. The general impression is that the Latin American theologians depend on their European counterparts for method, while criticising them for not taking "praxis" seriously but of being concerned only with a "theology of praxis''.　

See G. Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, SCM Press, London, 1974.

Metz and Moltmann: their starting points and their objectives

The political theologies of Metz and Moltmann begin with the view that the self-revelation of God takes place primarily in the reality of the history of Jesus Christ. As this history is coextensive with the history of the world, political theology believes that the self-communication of God to man cannot be some timeless, acultural and theologically impartial entity, but has to be inextricably bound up with the discussion of the historico-political expression of faith.

It is, thus, the intention of Metz and Moltmann to counter the tendency to take the discussion of faith and theology out of the realm of the historico-political experience of man. That is not to say that theology before them is not interested in the human pole of God's self-communication. Rather they are adding a corrective to the reaction of theology's previous attempt to answer the challenge of the Enlightenment in Europe. The dualism of faith and history that emerged from that reaction is contributory to the crises of identity and relevance for Christianity. (9)

In Moltmann, we find a re-emphasis on the eschatological dimension of the gospel message. God is not a being totally detached from the world. He is the eschaton, the future which has come near drawing us forward. This imminence of the eschaton means, for Metz, that faith is not a flight from the secular world into the realm of individual piety. Rather, it is within the socio-political reality of this secular world that God encounters man (and woman). To return to an 'authentic' response to this divine condescension, Metz advocates a "de-privatization" of faith.

Thenceforth, Moltmann arrives at the positiion that the God who draws near in history is the revelation of the history of Himself. That is, theology's task in discerning God in history leads us further on to an insight into the history of God. For him, the challenge of political theology can be justified and sustained only because of what it reveals in the trinitarian history of God. Metz, on the other hand, finds that political theology is complete only if it leads to a completely different way of doing theology. He rejects the transcendental-idealistic approach because it fails to exercise its critical function as demanded by the gospel message it proclaims. As an alternative, Metz proposes a "praxical" approach to theology which expresses itself in narratives of painful memories in the history of human liberation and salvation.


9)Apart from the two articles on "Political Theology" by Metz and Moltmann mentioned above, see also T. W. Ogletree, "From Anxiety to Responsibility: The Shifting Focus of Theological Reflection", in New Theology No. 6, ed. by Marty & Peerman, Macmillan, NY, 1970.

The Context of Political Theology－Theological and Historical

In this section we will make a deeper analysis of the intentions and issues behind the political theologies of Moltmann and Metz with an attempt to draw out their similarities and differences. As mentioned already, political theology begins, as with all other theologies, in the self-revelation of God In Jesus Christ. This central core of Christian faith is and can never be contested, not even for political theology. What is at issue is the primacy of the form of expression of this faith and thus of Its mode of transmission. Whether this expression is to be characterised principally by the intellect, the will or the all-engaging human act, leads respectively to the corresponding modes of transmission of faith as orthodoxy, orthopoesis and orthopraxy.(10) Much of the controversy over the primacy question is influenced by the historical conditioning of the believer vis-a-vis his basic understanding of himself as human and the understanding of God as the transcendent. Arising thence are secondary questions, which include: the identity and non-identity of faith and that human historical conditioning, the epistemological structure of theology, and the continual discovery of the true character of the original biblical record of God's self-revelation in Christ, all acting as parameters within which the original question on primacy takes shape.

In the existentialist theology of Barth, Bultmann and Rahner, we find three different understandings of faith and its modes of expression. In Barth, the primacy of faith is identified with none of the three modes of expression－neither intellect, will nor praxis. Faith is primarily an act on God's part even in its its human expression. Theology becomes the explication of this divine action in man. The non-identity of faith with man's historical conditioning means that the original Word of God mediated in scripture is above historical criticism. It is only on the secondary level that faith enters as the human acknowledgment of the divine action, and love for one's fellowmen follows the proclamation of the Word.(11)

We find in Bultmann an opposite position. Faith, while acknowledging its ultimate divine origin, Is identified with the historico-existential conditions of man. Primacy is given to a form of orthopoesis whereby knowledge of a new relation with God and with oneself leads to a life of faith characterised by love and freedom. Theology becomes the tool for a continuous correlation between faith and the existential condition of man.

For Rahner, the question of primacy is further identified with the very constitution of man. The 'anonymity' of faith is synonymous with the transcendental subjectivity in man. Theology is thus 'anthropology'; and anthropology is impossible without its theological groundings. The biblical record is understood as the irreversible exemplar of the thematization of this transcendental subjectivity in the God-man Jesus Christ.

It would be unfair to say that in Bultmann and in Rahner there is a simple identification of faith with the human situation. Both writers are aware of the non-identity element, the not-yet of eschatology, in their theology. Yet their treatment of the tension created by this latter element falls into the intellectual trap of reifying history. As a result, Bultmann reduces the human condition to the historicity of man realized in the time-and-again decision of faith. In Rahner, the reality of the ambiguity of the history of religion exists more as an intellectual possibility rather than a fact under the broad vision of the 'anonymity' of faith. This imbalance of Identity over non-identity in Bultmann and Rahner is not a 'watering-down' of faith, but is rather the product of the 'over-spiritualizing' of man. The major weakness in their attempts to explicate faith, and to a similar extent the almost utter non-identity approach in Barth, is to locate the Christian message in some atemporal conception of truth that is accessible to the private, intellectual realm of an individual.

The revival of a praxical understanding of knowledge and truth led to a fresh challenge to Christianity's search for an adequate expression of the original self-revelation of God in Christ. The dissatisfaction with an idealistic conception of man and his history plus the critique of religion as an ideology was the occasion that gave rise to political theology as the answer to the search for a contemporary expression of faith. In the formulations of Moltmann and Metz, political theology emphasizes the critical function of faith. The identity of faith with the idealistic conception of history and humanity found in Bultmann and Rahner and the near non-identity found in Barth are replaced by a more optimum unity of identity and non-identity.

Faith lived as hope recognises the world and its history as the only reality whereby faith finds an expression. The 'already' element of eschatology finds expression in the practice of Christians. At the same time the 'not-yet' element is the ground of the 'already' as eschatology breaks into history and the future into the present. Yet knowledge of the promise of the Risen Christ no longer serves as an explanation of history. It confronts it. Theology becomes an hermeneutical tool to mediate between the practice of faith and political society. It defines the contexts whereby the Christian message of the resurrection of the crucified one takes up history seriously as the voice of the oppressed. The orthodoxy of dogmatic statements gives way to the orthopraxy of Christian "living as the embodiment and expression of the Truth. The biblical record too receives a fresh understanding as a body of faith-stories that seek to preserve the different memories of God's self-communication to man in history. As THEO-logy, these memories become the ground of all other forms of theology. They also give shape to the epistemic structure of a praxis-oriented political theology. In order to perform its role as a critique of society and also of Christianity in its institutions and subjects, political theology can only mediate the Christian message in the form of stories of subversive memories. The hope of the oppressed is thus grounded in the solidarity with Christ who rose from the dead. The history of freedom is thus remembered not as a series of triumphs but rather as stories of sufferings in history. Memory of the non-identity of human sufferings in history becomes the subversive tool of political theology to fulfil its critical function.(12) The need for narrative in political theology avoids the danger of only offering a critique of society on the transcendental-idealistic plane. This latter mode of critique is applicable only when its overall presupposition that society is guided by a rationalistic-idealistic ethic is operative at the time. If this is not the case, the critique will be no more than an academic exercise in the realm of ideas; and runs the risk of exonerating the burden of sufferings in history in exchange for the aesthetic satisfaction of a neat and reified 'history'.

If the negative moments in political theology remind us of the crisis theology of Barth, it is because of their coincidental interest in the non-identity of faith with any 'secular' expression of emancipation and of redemption. Yet there is a crucial difference between them, not only in the degree of non-identity but also in the capacity of the non-identity in their theology. In Barth's crisis theology, the non-identity has its roots in a denial of any form of natural revelation. Faith comes only through a direct proclamation of the Word, because faith is nothing but the adherence to its object, namely the Word of God. Thus the non-identity in Barth is overarching in his theology. It denies the world so that the latter may turn to faith in the search for freedom. In political theology, the non-identity never functions apart from the context of the identity of faith and the world. Faith is neither prior to nor over-and-above the world perceived as history. Faith is found only in and through the world. The non-identity of faith here has its roots in the eschatological contents of the Christian message. The present is always relativised by the future in which God, the 'object' of faith resides. The 'not-yet' of the eschaton is the core of this non-identity that pulls history. That is, God as future is continually beckoning man, symbolized in a praxis, forwards. Thus, faith is always critical of any attempt to remove this forward thrust, whether it is to suppress the pain of suffering thus creating an illusion of a fully realized 'already' or to remove the pull of the future as advent in projecting an eschatology that pretends to comprehend the totality of history. However, this non-identity element in political theology does recognize a genuine movement of letting men be full subjects as part of that eschatological history of man's emancipation in Christ.


10)See R. Panikkar, Myth, Faith & Hermeneutics, Paulist Press, 1979, Chapter VI, 2, "Faith as a Constitutive Human Dimension". Metz's understanding of "praxis" is different from that of Panikkar. The former is concerned with the practical side of social praxis, the critical function of memories in history, and the pathic structure of praxis, whereas Panikkar is concerned with finding a general (and acceptable) understanding of faith in a cross-cultural study. His interest in "praxis" as a form of a self-realization of the human agent tends to focus on the moral and anthropological determinant of social praxis. As such, he is really discussing the concept "praxis" rather than "praxis" itself; and his method is more akin to establishing an orthopoesis rather than an orthopraxy, i.e. he emphazises finding the right concept to guide action rather than finding the right activity to rest his reflection upon.

11)References to the conception of faith held by Barth, Bultmann and Rahner, come from: K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. IV. i. p. 742; R. Bultmann, Theology of the N. T., vol. 1, Ch. V(C), and also J. Macquarrie's An Existential Theology; K. Rahner, "A Short Formula of Christian Faith", in A Rahner Reader, ed. by G. A. McCool, and also Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith.

12)"Memory" for Metz is not only a "theme" for his practical fundamental theology, but also a "category"; that is, it not only provides the content of his political theology but also the structure and means whereby this theology effects changes. See Metz (1980), Chapters 5, 6 and 11.

A Divergence in Metz and Moltmann

So far, we have covered the common elements in the political theologies of Metz and Moltmann. In their recent development, there is a clear divergence in their orientations. The criterion used in this analysis is based on M. Lamb's division of the different modes of theological methods in the course of the history of the development of theology.(13) Of the five modes mentioned by Lamb, which we have translated into graphic form below (Figure 1, page 87), it is the criticomorphic and the politicomorphic modes that will concern us here. Both seek to arrive at a unity between the identity and non-identity of faith and culture. Unlike the neomorphic mode which favours an identification of faith and culture (e.g. H. Cox's The Secular City) or the fideomorphic which insists on the non-identity of faith and culture (as with Barth), the criticomorphic and the politicomorphic recognise the tension between the transcendent dimension of faith and the historico-political reality of its manifestation. The crucial difference between the two, according to Lamb, which correspondingly distinguishes the 'political' theologies of Moltmann and Metz, lies in the capacity of each to mediate the Christian message from the present into the future. The criticomorphic mode, relying on Scriptures and on a rational conception of the human situation, can only hold a dialogue between faith and an intellectual perception of the reality of man and thus be able to mediate the Christian message from the past to the present. Political theology, as a typical example of the politicomorphic mode of theologizing, takes the present reality, captured in the form of narratives and memories, as its starting point to create a future in and through the critique of faith on human history. As such, the paradigm-shift advocated by Metz in the construction of a praxical fundamental theology puts him one stage beyond the criticomorphic, according to Lamb; whereas the return of Moltmann to a speculative theology of the Trinitarian history of God represents a regress even to that of a more sophisticated form of fideomorphism.

To be fair to Moltmann, we have to point out that he does not confine himself to the realm of political theology. In fact, he has criticised the tendency to reduce political theology to a theology of politics, and of Christian praxis to social activism. He warns: "The modern world's devotion to what is ethical and pragmatic has led to the distintegration of the doctrine of the Trinity in moral monotheism. The reduction of faith to practice has not enriched faith; it has impoverished it.(14) The remedy, says Moltmann, is to take into practice adoration, to liberate practice from activism. This requires us to return to the notion of "knowing In wonder" which is found in the new theology of the Trinity. This new theology includes two histories. The history of God sending forth the Son and the Spirit in the act of self-propagating love reveals to man a God who suffers with his forsaken creation, who suffers because of it and for it. Yet this suffering of God is relativized and measured against the final freedom and perfect liberation of God at the end of history. Thus political theology as a tool to reveal this history of the sending-forth leads to a second history of gathering up and has to be interpreted in and by it. Soteriology, for Moltmann, is never far from doxology. The result of political theology seems to lead to a need to speculate (though not the same as empty abstraction) on the trinitarian nature of the history of God. This new understanding of the Trinity leads us further to the insight that in God, and therefore in man, there is no domination but only participation.

The new emphasis in Moltmann's theology leads him away from praxis to gnosis. In terms of the theory-praxis nexus, his theology is still very much based on that of the Kantian ethical model of theory guiding practice, reason directing action. The fideomorphic model of Barth, which focuses itself primarily on the sovereignty of God and the lordship of Christ in history, is advanced to a compassionate God and the forsaken Son, a shift from lordship to fellowship. The wholly Other of God in Barth and the comparative contingent man is modified into a panentheistic movement of God in human history. This tendency in Moltmann, according to his critics, and Metz in particular, runs the risk of reducing the reality of human history to man’s conception of it. Metz even accuses Moltmann of exonerating the burden of the history of suffering in claiming that the suffering in this world has already been overcome in Christ’s passion. For Metz, the reality of the suffering in society and in history, their non-identity character, is not and cannot be identified with any meaning other than its subversive power as a dangerous memory. Metz feels that Moltmann has confused the negativity of the history of suffering with the “negativity of the dislectically mediated concept of suffering”. (15)

While Metz and Moltmann are both concerned with the offering of a theodicy in face of suffering in the world, Metz feels that an adequate apology of suffering can only be met on its own level, namely in praxis. Thus he criticises Moltmann's attempt as merely giving a rational explanation of suffering and meeting his problem on the level of speculative theology. If Moltmann's political theology of the cross is the beginning of a dialogue between theology and the 'critical theory' of Adorno and Horkhelmer, Metz's political theology as practical fundamental theology is the product of taking this same theme of the cross to its logical (praxical) conclusion.(16) The speculative turn in Moltmann's political theology means that a certain timelessness is unconsciously introduced when suffering is ontologised in the being of God. The in-breaking of eschatology into history, of the future into the present, somehow loses its crisis element because the present so conceived and history thus qualified remain within the realm of what A. Fierro called a "first-stage" theological discourse, i.e. a discourse acceptable only to members of a believing community.(17) The result is a 'Christianization' of the conception of history and of the present, with the subsequent danger of taking lightly the ambiguity of human history.

In the political theology of Metz, the "negative" character of critical theory is clearly manifested. Despite the accusations of Schillebeeckx, Metz is not making a simple identification of Christian liberation with the emancipation of the Critical School.(18) Methodologically speaking, Metz does pattern his own on those of the early critical theorists. However in terms of content, he is at pains to note the non-identity of faith with the emancipation of the Frankfurt School, which F. Fiorenza, on the other hand, sees as a close parallel to a reinterpretation of atonement and redemption in Christology.(19) Metz's strong reliance on memory as a category of his narrative-practical theology shows his debt to Marcuse. His persistent denial of any attempt to ontologize suffering can be traced to Benjamin's understanding of the history of suffering and to Adorno's immanent critique of ontology.(20) But that is as far as any direct parallel between Metz's political theology and the critical school goes. He is fully aware of the Christian character of any political theology. Yet, unlike Moltmann, he does not want to interpret political society in terms of the political dimension of the cross. Rather he concentrates on the critical function of political theology and directs it at the crisis of Christianity in its institutions and subjects.

For Metz, the Church Is the institutionalization of the dangerous memory of Christ. This dangerous memory, to be truly Christian, is more than a mere recalling of the history of suffering. It is at the same time the very expression of the eschatological hope of faith. Nevertheless, it is not simply an eschatology that only lends meaning to history. Rather its principal task is to remove any sense of timelessness from our understanding of history by providing an "apocalyptic ‘sting’" of the "not-yet" of the Eschaton. With Moltmann, Metz asserts that political theology relativizes all ideology and political system in that none of them is or can be identified with the subject of faith, the believing subject. This is not to say that Metz too is reverting to a fideomorphic dichotomy of faith and history. Rather the basis of non-identity of the subject with any socio-political class is rooted in the critical nature of faith. To identify the believing subject with any social class will simultaneously marginalize other classes and return to a form of Christendom-type political theology. The negative content of political theology is to highlight the urgency of the Christian message to thwart any false security arising from a complacent and misguided view of pluralism. Metz is not claiming that the believing subject exists in a social vacuum. Quite the opposite, Metz believes that political theology can only be practised in an institutionalised form. The Church is or should be this vehicle whereby the critical function of faith is exercised. Even the very notion of the "imitation of Christ" is to be institutionalized and is exemplified in the religious orders within the Roman Catholic Church. (21)

By institutionalization, Metz is not advocating a simple view of building a 'superstructure' for faith. Rather it is the recognition of the socio-political reality of the believing subjects that the community of the Church is inseparable from the praxis of faith. Political theology can only be practised within the Church if it is to be Christian at all. It provides the hermeneutical horizon for the believing community to justify their faith by exercising that critical function in face of any structure that prevents persons from becoming subjects. It is not a political ethics, so it does not provide concrete guidelines for action. Rather its function is theological, which includes the critique of any theology that incorrectly identifies faith with any ideology or philosophy, the keeping alive and relevant that original truth intention of the biblical testimony to the memory of the raising of Christ from the dead, and the pursuing of the task of solidarity in hope with all men who are called to be subjects in the presence of God. All these Metz sees as the reasons for a continuous dialogue and exchange between theology and the other sciences and philosophies in the development of a "praxical" form of theology, and thus his commitment to the inter-disciplinary project at the Institute of Theological Research in Bielefeld.


13)See M. Lamb, History, Method, and Theology: A dialectical comparison of Wilhem Dilthey’s critique of Historical Reason and Bernard Lonergan’s Meta-Methodology, Scholar Press, Montana, 1978. And also his article in CTSA Proceedings, vol. 31, 1976, “The Theory-Praxis Relationship in Contemporary Christian Theologies”.

14)Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, SCM Press, London, 1981, p.8.

15)Metz, 1980, p.l32. The term "non-identity" is used in this paper to denote both, following the method adopted by Metz and Moltmann. See Metz, 1980, Chapter 7, and also Moltmann, The Crucified God, SCM Press, 1974, Chapter 1.

16)On Critical Theory, see D. Held, Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas, Hutchinson, London, 1980.

17)A. Fierro, The Militant Gospel: A Critical Introduction to Political Theologies, Orbis, Maryknoll, 1977.

18)E. Schillebeeckx, The Understanding of Faith, S. & W., London, 1974, Chs. 6 & 7.

19)F. P. Fiorenza, "Critical Social Theory and Christology: Toward an Understanding of Atonement and Redemption as Emancipatory Solidarity", CTSA Proceedings, 1975.

20)See T. W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics, RKP, London, 1973, Part One, II., and W. Benjamin, "Theses on the Philosophy of History", 1940.

21)See Metz, Followers of Christ, Burns & Oates, London, 1978.

The Concluding Problem

The negative character of political theology forms the basis of a fresh problem vis-a-vis its role in the path to knowledge and truths. Does it have any positive content apart from its negative and critical function in society and in the Church? Despite the fact of faith as praxis in Christians who "are always carrying in the body the death of Jesus", will political theology have room to behold the freedom and glory of the kingdom? How does it deal with the stories of the joy of the disciples when they met the Risen Lord in view of the memory of the crucified one? Will political theology admit of a variety of levels of theological discourse, some narrative and some speculative? As every praxis has its moments of transcendental reflection, can political theology be an exception? These are indeed the key issues in the debate within political theology and its relation with the rest of the theological world. To substantiate its claim as the hermeneutical horizon and the fundamental task in contemporary theology, political theology must expound its positive relation with other theological tasks and elucidate the conditions of its truthfulness.

As Metz has pointed out, "the political tendency of a political theology can only be accepted as valid if its theological tendency is valid. The reverse is not true".(22) And how, one may ask, is one to judge the "theological tendency" but in the light of coherence with the body of theological discourses. One is tempted to conclude with the remark that, if Barth's crisis theology revolutionised contemporary ways of theologising by introducing the Trinity to the fore, Metz and Moltmann embody this crisis in the praxis of theology by bringing the Trinity to the fore of revolution.

Figure 1

22)Metz, 1980, p. 49.

Francis Xavier Zhu S. J. 著 B. J. Shields S. J. 施惠淳译

AN OUTSTANDING PALAEONTOLOGIST WHO DISCOVERED PEKING MAN

I Introduction

I have already selected and translated seven or eight conversation pieces recording conversations with some famous, contemporary French scientists. Science made them realize that science is not almighty, that science and religion each has its own sphere. Not only do they not clash with each other; on the contrary, they can give each other mutual assistance. Science also makes them strengthen or gain faith.

Now once again to introduce someone famous all over the world, the great palaeontologist and palaeanthropologist who discovered "Peking Man", Father Teilhard de Chardin.

This year is the centenary of his birth. African scientific circles and UNESCO have suggested arranging a solemn commemoration of the French palaeanthropologist, Fr. Teilhard de Chardin. This summer meetings will be held over a period of three months at the Catholic University in Paris, France, the Institut Catholique de Paris; academic papers and commemorative essays will be delivered.

The quarterly Daziran, published by the Association of Chinese Natural Science Museums, the Chinese Society for Environmental Science and the Beijing Museum of Natural Science, in its first issue for 1981 published an article written by Zhen Shuonan and Huang Weiwen, "Recalling the French Palaeontologist Teilhard de Chardin's Time in China", in which they lauded to the skies the scientific contributions of their teacher and his human qualities.

Rev. Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S. J. was a Frenchman, born in 1881, who later entered the Society of Jesus and was ordained a priest in 1912. He came to our country twice; the first time in 1923 for just a year; the second time in 1926, this time staying for twenty years. In 1946 he returned to Paris; he died in the U. S. A. in 1955.

In 1941 I was returning from Northern China to Shanghai; while passing through Tianjin, I met him. His humility, his warmth and his kindness were very moving. He brought us to visit the Beijiang (Northern Frontier) Museum, explained to us the fossils of the "Ordos culture", and then explained to us about the tools used by Peking Man which were exhibited in the parlour of his residence. At the time we really did not dare to believe that the simple, unpretentious, humble, sincere person standing before us was the discoverer of Peking Man, famous throughout the contemporary world.

II First Visit to China (1923-24) (Investigating "Ordos culture", Discovering "Ordos Man")

Before him, another Jesuit, Father Emile Licent, had investigated and collected primitive vertebrate animals and early human fossils in Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, Ningxia, Shaanxi and Gansu Provinces. He also founded the "Museum for the Palaeontology of the Huanghe and Baihe Basins". The Chinese name is the Northern Frontier Museum. It was part of the Ecole des Hautes Etudes set up in Tianjin by the Jesuits.

In 1920 Fr. Licent had discovered the first early stone tool to be found in an authenticated place and position in our country, in the yellow mud of the Xinjia River in Qingyang County, Northern Gansu Province (near Inner Mongolia). This was the dawn of discovery of human fossils. In order to expand the scope and results of the investigations, Fr. Teilhard was invited to come to China to help and assist.

"Teilhard at that time had already become a scientist of international reputation because of his work in identifying and reconstructing the famous Eocene animals of Northern France. Dedicated to clarifying the history of the dawn of the human race, he perseveringly abandoned the comfortable life of Paris and came to China which was then extremely poor and backwards" (Daziran, loc. cit.)

Fr. Teilhard arrived in Tianjin in May 1923 and met Fr. Licent. Disregarding whole oceans of difficulties the two Fathers set out at once, took the train to Baotou. From Baotou they began the labours of their long expedition.

Setting out from Baotou (now Inner Mongolia), they travelled west along the northern bank of the Yellow River. This stretch of the Yellow River suddenly turns north from Lanzhou.

Passing through Ningxia, it turns east for some distance, then suddenly south again, forming a U shapes. The upper reaches are called the Ordos region. Then at the eastern foot of Langshan, i.e. where the Yellow River changes direction, they went south still following the Yellow River and reached Yinchuan in Ningxia. From there they crossed the Yellow River towards the east, reaching Hengcheng on the opposite bank and then went east along the Great Wall. This is the former site of the "Ordos culture" and they found a large quantity of the remains of ancient stone tools. The two Fathers stayed for some time at Shuidong stream, within the borders of Lingwu, thirty Chinese miles to the south-east of Heng- cheng. Here is situated the centre of the Ordos culture.

Then they travelled east along the Great Wall, surveying and excavating as they went, and reached Jingbian County in Shaanxi Province, staying at the church of the Belgian Fathers beside Xiaoqiao (they are the Fathers of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, CICM).

In that area they found a rich collection of fossils of mammals. "This makes clear that the Ordos people of that time could already hunt in groups. As to stone tools, they discovered tools which were sharp-pointed, flaked and chipped, and provided precious material for studying the early production methods of the children of the Yellow River." (ibid.)

In this region they did not find many human fossils. But they did however make one startling discovery: In the fossil of an antelope which had been excavated by Fr. Licent the previous year, they identified the Incisor tooth of a late "Homo Sapiens''. "At the time it had not been recognized but only because of Teilhard's serious attitude to work and high powers of identification－'the perceptive mind knows the hero'－could this priceless treasure come to the light of day and shed a strange light. This tooth identified by Teilhard and called "Ordos Man" is the first human fossil to be found in China…It gave a very great impetus to the excavation of the site of 'Peking Man' which was later to become famous." (ibid.)

Having been only one year in China, he had discovered "Ordos Man".

In 1924 he returned to France; he was already a world-renowned scientist, the president of the French Geological Society and only forty-two years of age!

III On Second Visit to China He Stayed Twenty Years (1926-46), Discovered Peking Man"

From 1926 to 1946 Teilhard spent twenty years in China. Living in the China of the old days the conditions were very difficult; doing scientific work in the wilds was extremely trying…With extreme dedication and side-by-side with Chinese scientists who were then young and in order to awaken from their slumber the palaeo-vertebrates sleeping in the soil of China, so that they would voice the truth about the evolution of life and the history of the Earth, he zealously probed the mysteries of natures" (ibid.)

During these twenty years, the feet of Fr. Teilhard traversed both sides of the Great River, inside and outside the Great Wall. He not only went to the North-West plateau but also to the North-East, such an important place for fossils. But his greatest and most important merit was to excavate Peking Man together with Yang Zhongjian and Pei Wenzhong. He also made appeals abroad so as to collect funds for the large-scale excavations at Zhoukoudian.

"Peking Man" was discovered in the district of Zhoukoudian to the south of Beijing, in all seventeen or eighteen male and female skeletons, a large number of stone tools and traces of the use of "fire", together with signs of religion. "Peking Man" was the earliest ancestor of the Chinese, separated from today by about 600,000 to 1,000,000 years. According to what Fr. Teilhard emphasized to me in Tianjin, Peking Man already had traces of religious belief.

The scholarly writings of Fr. Teilhard are today still indispensable reference books for the study of vertebrate palaeontology and palaeoanthropology. "These scholarly articles provide extremely reliable material for understanding the mammals of the Mid-Pleistocene Age and the living conditions of 'Peking Man's" (ibid.)

Fr. Teilhard for a lengthy period undertook the work of consultant in Beijing to the Cenozoic laboratory of the Chinese Geological Survey Institute. During that time, in collaboration with Yang Zhongjian and Pei Wenzhong, he wrote quite a few articles on the geology of the Cenozoic Era in Northern China and the Zhoukoudian site.

"In 1942 he wrote in collaboration with others the volume Chinese Fossil Mammals. Up to now this work is an indispensable handbook for anyone studying the mammals of our country. Nowadays whenever one consults the writings of Teilhard, he would be deeply conscious that he was an early ‘trail-blazer’ in China for the investigation of vertebrates." (ibid.)

IV A Good Teacher and Helpful Friend, Whose Memory is to be Cherished

Fr. Teilhard was humble, sincere, kindly, enthusiastic. Now let us listen to the personal statements of his colleagues and students.

"But among all the foreign scientists, Teilhard de Chardin was the one who had the most harmonious relations with the Chinese scientists. He never gave himself the airs of a 'foreign grandee', but always as a friend of the Chinese citizens got on well with Yang Zhongjian and Pei Wenzhong who were then still very young. According to what Prof. Yang Zhongjian told the writer of this article before his death, Teilhard in scholarly matters always treated him and Pei Wenzhong on equal terms. Although at the time Teilhard was a scientist with an international name, he still gave me the impression of being unassuming and easy to approach."

"Regarding Teilhard's Intimate and unreserved friendship with Chinese scientists, there is a detailed account in Yang Zhongjian's The North-East in Cross-section (1931)…On four expeditions he always travelled with Teilhard; as a man he was sincere and kindly, penetrating in his observation of nature, careful in his scholarly research, as well as his great and rich erudition, so that one could not only get much help in knowledge but also be deeply changed for the better morally. To travel with him was really a pleasure and would make one forget the hardships of the dusty roads."

"In this book Yang Zhongjian again several times refers to how he and Teilhard shared sorrows and joys while travelling in different provinces of the North-West and different place in the North-East and gives moving examples of brotherly affection. When they were making geological observations within the borders of Shanxi Province on 2nd September 1929, Yang Zhongjian got the 'flu and had a high fever; because of eating something dirty, he got an acute infection. But Teilhard was not afraid of being infected and stayed by his side night and day to nurse him..."

"Yang Zhongjian was returning to Beijing ahead of time by making a detour through the Soviet Union and before departing went to take leave of Teilhard. He wrote: On the morning of the 10th I went again to Teilhard, since I was about to leave, but neither of us wanted to part from the other…to separate and go made one unhappy… Through the friendship of Yang Zhongjian and Teilhard one could also see the lofty character of Teilhard, this wanderer in a strange land, his will set on the scientific exploration of nature."

"In midsummer 1980 the famous archeologist Prof. Jia Lanpo led a team of researchers in geology and palaeobotany; despite the steamy summer heat and travel-stained, they arrived at Shuidong stream, within the borders of Lingwu in Ningxia Province (thirty Chinese miles to the south of Hengcheng). Mr. Jia stopped in front of a broken-down house, thinking of an unforgettable visitor from the history of science. In that 'cottage of Zhang San' there had lived the world-famous scholar of the science of vertebrates, the friend of the Chinese people, Teilhard de Chardin. The visitors with a spirit of reverence cherished the memory of that French scholar who had probed into nature in China for a long period and made important contributions." (ibid.)

That Fr. Teilhard should thus receive the respect, veneration and affection of his colleagues and students was because of his spirit of strong perseverance and disregard of suffering and his noble character of humility, deference, humanity and sincerity. This proves that his accomplishments were developing continuously. And the source, motive and protection of all this was because he had a religious faith, he was a priest, he was a Jesuit. He drew all his strength from his religious faith, from Christ.

V Spirit of Scientific Research

To do research in science, his fearlessly great spirit of not being afraid of suffering and being patient with all kinds of annoyances astonished his companions. "With dedication to clarify the history of the dawn of the human race, he perseveringly abandoned the comfortable life of Paris and came to China which was then extremely poor and backward." "Living in the China of the old days, the conditions were very difficult; doing scientific research in the wilds was extremely trying. If Teilhard had not possessed a burning dedication and a spirit of sacrificing himself for science, he could have sat down quietly in a church and announced 'the Word of God' according to the book. But he did not choose that way of life. But with extreme devotion and side-by-side with Chinese scientists who were then young…"

One of Fr. Teilhard's special merits was to cultivate, guide and assist the younger generation of rising scientists, "to help our country to cultivate a generation of scholars in vertebrate palaeontology and palaeo-anthropology. Especially during World War II, all scientific research work in northern China had ceased, but Teilhard stayed on in Beijing, occupied by the Japanese army of invasion, and perseveringly carried on with his research work under extremely difficult conditions."

Fr. Teilhard helped young scientists, gave them guidance and encouragement. "Yang Zhongjian discovered in the Dongshan mountains in Shaanxi not far from the Shenmu county capital the footprint of an animal and for the moment could not make out which animal had made it. Teilhard at once determined that it was the footprint of an iguanodon and picked up this specimen. This was the first discovery in China of a dinosaur's footprint. When they returned, they wrote a research report on it…Yang Zhongjian then really experienced that one could learn many things when with Teilhard and enjoy together the enormous pleasure of making scientific discoveries."

Beside, while helping the young generation of scientists to write scientific reports, he and Yang Zhongjian and Pel Wenzhong wrote many reports on "Peking Man" and "the Zhoukoudian caves".

"When Teilhard and young Chinese scientists were jointly writing articles, it was serious work, no detail was unimportant; he became their good teacher and helpful friend. After Teilhard had carefully corrected the draft of the article, a part of it was kept in the Institute for Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeo-anthropology of the Academia Sinica."

VI Science, Truth Have No "National Boundaries"

The study and Interchange of science and truth have no national boundaries or class limits. When Fr. Teilhard came to China to do scientific research, his colleagues and students welcomed him warmly, looked up to him with gratitude and love and respected him.

"There was a basic difference between him and the imperialistic elements that invaded China. Chinese people can distinguish friends and wolves, and cannot forget this French friend who was a wanderer in a strange land, his will set on recording a scientific 'Book of Genesis', and made a contribution to the study of the vertebrate palaeontology and palaeo-anthropology of China…"

"In 1930 Yang Zhongjian and Teilhard took part as representatives of their respective countries in a Chinese-French team for scientific observation. When the Chinese and French were exploring in the North-West, differences arose several times. The basic reason for this was that on the French side there was a group with strong imperialistic ideas; they did not respect Chinese sovereignty and despised Chinese people. At that time Teilhard still got on very well with the Chinese and respected the opinions of the Chinese. Yang Zhongjian wrote that Teilhard and he had worked together for three years and that he was a kindly and lovable man, he himself being intoxicated by science."

"Yang Zhongjian was a man of extreme racial pride who possessed a very strong sense of patriotism; he had never cringed or lowered himself before foreigners, but as to those foreign scientists who sincerely treated Chinese people as friends, he respected them greatly."

That a foreigner who was also an authority in science could respect Chinese people and had absolutely no attitude of putting on airs and insulting others was certainly something unusual. To be able not to have any trace of imperialism was also something precious and hard to find.

His colleagues and students drew a very accurate conclusion.

"Today when we are just making advances towards modern science, we should make a just evaluation of Teilhard and also of the original facts of history. To treat an enemy as a friend is of course dangerous; to falsely accuse a friend of being an enemy is obviously damaging. Towards those who hoist the banner of science but specialize in carrying on robbing activities in China and form a gang of imperialistic invaders, we should scorn them to their faces. As to Teilhard, a good teacher and helpful friend of this sort, we should always think with affection of his kindness and merits."

"We should adopt the attitude of historical materialism, seek truth from facts in treating foreign scientists who have worked in China, and in this way it will benefit the future development of cooperation and friendship between Chinese and foreign scientists." (ibid.)

The evaluation of Fr. Teilhard by these palaeon-tologists and palaeo-anthropologists and their attitude towards Chinese and foreign scientific cooperation is extremely accurate, unlike some ignorant and incompetent people or scientists who are dabblers, and who have a narrow racialism or nationalism and indiscriminately oppose all international cooperation. Science and truth have no national boundaries, they are classless. Ethics and morality, religion and faith have also no national boundaries and are classless. Science and truth, ethics and religion absolutely require intercommunication and assistance between different countries. Fr. Teilhard's coming to China and helping to excavate "Ordos Man" and "Peking Man" is the best example of this.

The Catholic religion is for the whole human race. It is for every region, for every race, It assimilates the traditional culture of every region and every race, purifies it and sanctifies it. The culture and thought of every region and race is of use to the whole Church, can make it more rich and varied and can enable the Church to proclaim to every race and every region a Christian spirit and work of redemption more appropriate to that region and that race.

VII Another Galileo?

The scientists of the twentieth century see more clearly that there is no contradiction between science and religion, each has its own domain, one cannot replace the other, but they can coexist and co-prosper together, they can even complement each other. Fr. Teilhard was an outstanding scientist in palaeontology and palaeo-anthropology. He investigated fossils－the direct proof of biological evolution－, and at the same time he had a profound belief that God created the world, he was a believer in God. He was also a member of the Jesuit religious order (the Jesuit order in the Catholic Church has always been maligned by the enemies of religion as being the most reactionary, the most conservative). In the person of Fr. Teilhard, science and religion were in intimate harmony.

1) New Things are Formed Gradually

New things do not fall from heaven in one piece, ready-made. They grow and develop gradually, are gradually accepted. Old things are also gradually eliminated and destroyed. "At the sound of exploding crackers the old is eliminated; with peach-wood charms all nature is made new"－the changeover from old to new can certainly not be solved like that, overnight. The revolutionary movement must face extreme opposition, must pass through dramatic struggle.

The new things, people will not understand at once, and the new things themselves must also go through a lengthy and thorough scrutiny and testing before they can be proved true. A newly produced medicine, must it not be tested for a time? Evolution cannot be an exception. To use evolution to explain the Bible cannot be an exception either; if it meets with opposition, that is not something surprising.

2) To Move Forward with Firm Step

As regards the question of religious faith and the whole question of the Church, hasty action is certainly not possible, nor is it possible to go back on one's word or make unpredictable changes. Therefore, the Church is always prudent and earnest, it goes through lengthy study, consultation and consideration before it can make the final decision.

To beatify or canonize someone requires a lengthy period of investigation and thorough discussion.

The miracles worked at Lourdes have to be thoroughly observed, diagnosed, the illness must not recur for at least two years after being cured, solemn procedures must have been carried out before it is officially proclaimed as a miracle.

Our Lady's appearances at Lourdes and at Fatima had to go through lengthy investigation and study before they were recognized by the Church. The miraculous events at Zose, the Church also must submit to lengthy investigation and study.

Fr. Teilhard's explanations took a period of time before they received a just and due evaluation on the part of the Church. (Fr. Teilhard's courageous spirit of scientific investigation was highly praised by the present Pope in June 1981.)

3) Evolution and Religion

When Darwin founded evolution, from first to last he retained his religious faith and was a believer in God. Natural selection, the survival of the fittest in no way contradicted the position of religion.

However, the article published in the periodical Daziran by Zhen Shuonan and Huang Weiwen has as sub-title, "The French Palaeontologist Teilhard de Chardin in China" but the main title is "The Exiled Priest".

It is written in the article: "He superstitiously believed in the error that 'God made man', but also accepted the truth of evolution. The idealist world-view of the Catholic and the materialist attitude towards research of the scientist led to the clash of extreme contradictions in the person of Teilhard de Chardin. But after all he is a specialist in the study of natural history, his object of study－fossils－is the direct proof of the evolution of living things.

Therefore, at the same time as he was propagating Catholic doctrine to the members of the Church he was also propagating some aspects of evolution. This was considered by the Church to be 'rebellion and sedition' and his right to work as a priest in France was withdrawn. In 1925 Teilhard was exiled and came back again to China…

Because he had a tendency towards "evolution", Fr. Teilhard had his right to work as a priest in France withdrawn and he was exiled in 1926.

Is Fr. Teilhard another Galileo?

As to this matter, how is it to be understood and dealt with correctly?

The Church (the Bible) propagates to men God's holy Word, the work of redemption, and does not directly discuss science. What the Church emphasizes is: All things have a first origin, all things have a creator, man is composed of soul and body. So long as science does not deny these points, as regards the description and explanation of the earliest period of the universe and the human race, the Church gives complete freedom and certainly does not interfere. Religion and science each has its own domain!

4) Fr. Teilhard was a Good Priest and a Good Religious

Other people have availed of this opportunity to attack the Church for exiling Fr. Teilhard and say that he is the Galileo of the twentieth century who suffered and was banned for science. In his person it could again be seen that the Church is behind the times, opposes science and obstructs progress.

But what about Fr. Teilhard himself? He knew that the new ideas would not be accepted at once, but would have to go through a period of misunderstanding, prejudice and lack of trust. He happily left France in 1926 and came to northern China. If this unpleasant thing had not happened and he had not come to China, there would also have been no discovery of "Peking Man", it would have been a very great loss for the science of anthropology. "When the old frontiersman lost his horse, who could have known that it was a blessing in disguise?" From an unfortunate affair to get such a startling benefit! The plans and arrangements of the Lord, how great and marvellous they are, making man gasp with astonishment and utter praise! Fr. Teilhard de Chardin could humbly follow God's will, blaming neither God nor man, "He has regarded his low estate…He who is mighty has done great things for me…henceforth all generations will "nil me blessed."

　

* Translator's Note:

Fr. F.X. Zhu Shude earned a Ph.D. in Geography from the Sorbonne, Paris, in 1949. Arrested in his native Shanghai in 1953, he spent almost 30 years in prisons and labour camps until his death on 29 Dec., 1983. He had been released briefly in 1980-81. This article appear「哲學與文化」(Universitas), No. 102 (Nov. 1982), pp. 759-765, and is translated here by the editor's kind permission. Mr. M. S. Cheung of Wah Yan College, Hong Kong, has kindly helped to interpret certain expressions.

作者：Hon, Savio 韩大辉

AN INITIAL CRITICO-INTEGRAL ESSAY ON KANT'S APPROACH TO THE POSSIBILITY OF METAPHYSIC

1. INTRODUCTION

The problem of metaphysics, dressed in whatever form, is as old as human history, and yet it is an ever new problem which must somehow or other be confronted by anyone who reflects in depth on the vital issues of human life. The literature on the issue is amazingly abundant and this fact affords ample evidence that it is still in vogue. Many great thinkers have racked their brains in an attempt to find, once and for all, a definite solution, but more often than not they discovered more its mysteriousness than revealed the mystery itself.

Kant has certainly contributed a great deal to the history of reflection upon one fundamental issue, whether Metaphysics can be a Science. The Critique of Pure Reason, he says, "was intended to discuss the possibility of metaphysics". (1)

The title of this essay, hence, may appear at first sight to be immensely vast, for it almost includes the major part, if not the whole, of Kant's philosophy. However, what I want to stress here is his approach, by which I mean his initial preoccupation or disposition towards metaphysics and the way he adopted the primary assumptions for establishing the doctrine of the unknowability (of the thing-in-itself). With this new epistemological paradigm, Kant concludes that no metaphysics can attain to the status of Science. Such a claim, as I shall demonstrate, is grounded in his transcendental faith that the mind cannot even reach the existence of the thing-in-itself. This is to destroy every possibility of ontology, the study of being as being. I shall criticize the tenability of his agnostic position to see If any affirmation of being-in-itself is possible. This is crucial to the point at issue, for metaphysics without a solid ontology would be precarious. Thus at the end I try to show that his transcendental method (or approach) can be somehow integrated and lends itself to a sort of intuition of being which is a key to open the mysterious realm of beings-in-themselves.

Hundreds of commentators have made long and detailed comments on Kant's philosophy but the disputes among them show no guarantee that they understand him perfectly. There is still room for further clarification. Hence this essay, with its accent more on a synthetic than analytic presentation, aims at providing an initial step into the discussion of the point at issue.

2. KANT'S INITIAL PREOCCUPATION

In order to understand Kant's approach properly, we have to determine what sort of problem he has in mind to deal with. "A search for truth" would be far too general an answer. In the present context, I would confine myself to his initial preoccupation: The Critique "will therefore decide as to the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics in general, and determine its sources, its extent, and its limits－all in accordance with principles" (Axii) (2). This implies that Kant actually starts with an epistemological inquiry about the possibility of validly establishing some true metaphysical claims.

2.1 The Difficulty in Distinguishing between Metaphysical and Epistemological Inquiries
It is often said that everyone has his own view of metaphysics. William James, for example, regards it as an unusual obstinate effort to think clearly.(3) Not many people think likewise. Aristotelian metaphysicians would say that it is the science of being as being. Kant himself uses the term "metaphysics" in different senses. In a wider sense, it means the Transcendental Philosophy itself, while in a stricter sense it is understood as a Transcendental Science with objects of its own beyond the possibility of sense-experience (cf. B869-B870). Kant identifies the latter with Baumgarten's metaphysics, which Is defined as "Scientia prima cognitionis humanae principia continens''(4) It is the Science which contains the first principles of that which is within the comprehension of our knowledge. The chief objects of such a speculative metaphysics, for Kant, are the things-in-themselves and in particular, God, freedom and the immortality of the soul (cf. R874).

Now there arises immediately another problem: to what extent can we attain the truth from an inquiry into what-things-in-themselves-are? This at once becomes an epistemological problem which is concerned with the justification of our knowledge of what-things-are. In other words, the epistemologists are anxious to inquire about "what can I know?". This question, in its turn, arouses at once the metaphysical inquiry about "what is the foundation of the real?". Unless the latter inquiry is answered, we cannot even pose the question "to what extent do I know what is real?". However if I am not sure of this, how can I claim to know the foundation of the real? The vicious circle, as it were, seems to trap us into a perpetual self-closed skepticism. The distinction is not easy to draw between metaphysical and epistemological inquiries. They are so inextricably interwoven that in the discussion of one the other is bound to enter. Kant wants to find a breakthrough of this impasse.

2.2 The Disputes among Metephysicians
Kant shows that, throughout its history, philosophy has been onesidedly concerned with the metaphysical problem of what-things-are and keeps neglecting the problem of their knowability. Men have always been absorbed in the perennial wonder about what the universe as a whole is like. They have looked to speculative reason for light on this and each one has arrived at his own conclusion. There is not a single metaphysical view, as Kant points out, which all unanimously accept. Hence metaphysics appears to be an arena for endless combats, whereas Mathematics and Physical Sciences have, by and large, advanced more smoothly. However hard the metaphysicians try to replace the systems of others with what they think is genuine knowledge, such attempts, for Kant, have been doomed to failure, because the source of the disputes is still very problematic, especially regarding the assessment of the nature of genuine knowledge.

Knowledge in Kant's context is something more than mere beliefs.
"If our holding of the judgment be only subjectively sufficient, and is at the same time taken as being objectively insufficient, we have what is termed believing…when the holding of a thing to be true is sufficient both subjectively and objectively, it is knowledge" (B850).

In the Prolegomena, he further states that "everything to be known a priori (must be) apodictically certain", …and hence ought not contain probable but perfectly certain judgments'. (5)
According to Kant, never has there been any metaphysics that contains judgments so perfect that it is not challenged by the skeptics or can be completely exempted from doubt.

2.3 Kant's Aim of Settling the Disputes
However, the skeptics have also been unable to prevent philosophers from attempting metaphysics anew, because skepticism itself is incapable of being established authoritatively (cf. B388ff). Hence the combat between dogmaticism (metaphysical theories) and skepticism would seem to have been unending until Kant's criticism appeared.

Kant divides his philosophical development into three stages; dogmaticism, skepticism and criticism, as he sees these phases exemplified not only in the historical process in general but also in his own mental evolution. He begins with the dogmatic rationalism of Leibniz and Wolff, then calls this doctrine in question with the aid of Hume's empirical skepticism and gradually arrives at his own critical standpoint.:

Metaphysics, Kant holds, after having for so many centuries been nothing but a process of merely random groping, has not yet had the good fortune to enter upon the secure path of a science (cf. Bxivf).
For Kant, the best way to settle the disputes among metaphysicians is to determine the limits of knowledge beyond which the human mind cannot go. Hence he sets forth the problem in question in the Critique as: "How is metaphysics, as science, possible?" (B22). Note that his primary concern is not only with the truth or falsity of a particular system of metaphysics but also with the possibility of discovering how the truth or falsity of any metaphysical claim whatsoever can be sustained.


NOTES:

1.KANT, I., Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, transl. By L. W. BECK (New York 1961), Appendix p. 121.

2.KANT, I., Critique of Pure Reason, transl. by N. KEMP SMITH (London 1964) Axii. This number refers to the original pagination of the Kritik der reiner Vernunft. "A" is for the first edition and "B" for the second. I will use this pagination for references to the Critique.

3.Cf. JAMES, W., Some problems of Philosophy: A Beginning of an Introduction to Philosophy, (New York 1911).

4.BAUMGARTEN, A. G., Metaphysics, (Halle 2nd ed. 1743) #1. Baumgarten's method is to start with general definitions and proceed to more particular propositions. This is along the line of Leibniz-Wolffian methodology.

5.Prolegomena, #369-370.

3. KANT'S PRIMARY ASSUMPTIONS

In order to tackle the above-mentioned problem, Kant sets out his first Critique on a twofold logical basis. In fact it is only one basis considered from two different aspects. First of all, Kant transforms the hylomorphic structure of individual things held by Aristotelian metaphysicians into the hylomorphic structure of knowledge; that is, he distinguishes matter and form in knowledge. The external objects constituting the matter are to be conformed to the mental forms of the knower. Secondly, another aspect of the same assumption can also be traced in the logical characteristics of judgments which are synthetic and a priori. The synthetic element is the matter whereas the a priori elements are mental forms. The first aspect is derived from the Copernican Revolution and the second from the theory of judgment.

3.1 Conpernican Revolution
In order to determine the truth or falsity of any metaphysical claim, Kant deliberately sets out to bring about a revolution in our way of thinking about the relationship between mind and thing. It has been assumed in the traditional realistic thesis that truth simply consists in the conformity of mind to thing. Hence the thing is taken as the standard, and the mind is denominated "true", when it submits to this standard and really does describe the independent nature of the thing. Such a thesis is, of course, a plausible one but, Kant contends, it cannot escape the force of Hume's skepticism.

For Hume, if the mind in order to know must conform itself to objects, then it cannot discover any necessary connection between the objects. It thus becomes impossible to explain how we can make any necessary and universal judgments. However it is not merely that we find, for instance, that experienced events have causes, we also know in advance (a priori) that every event must have a cause. An event may happen with an unknown cause but it is surely not causeless. If everything is reduced to the merely empirically given, we cannot discover that there exists a causal relation. Hence, it is impossible to explain the knowledge of causality on the hypothesis that knowledge consists in the mind's conforming to objects. If the mind stands to the objects as the measured to the measure, it is impossible to determine the a priori conditions that govern the objectivity of knowledge. The a priori portion of the cognition cannot be derived from mere sense-experience.

Hume, then, denies the a priori elements in knowledge but explains the discovery of the causal connection in terms of the subjective association of ideas due to some sort of habit. Experience shows A to have been frequently followed by B and never to have occurred without B. The idea of B is therefore associated with A in a way in which no other idea is. It is by a customary association reinforced evermore by repetition that one has the "feeling" of the necessary connection between A and B. This is the origin of the idea of causality.

Kant is not satisfied with this and critizes Hume's emprical premise insofar as the latter does not distinguish well enough the two distinct functions of human cognitive faculties, namely, sensibility and understanding. Kant's distinction is a sort of combination of rationalism and empiricism. He locates the difference between the two faculties not merely in their operative stages but also in the origin of their presentations. Granted that the sensibility is the faculty of receiving impressions, sensation consists In the mind's being-affected-through-senses and the diversity of the sensations is due to the "stuff" given In experience. Kant, then, finds no other way of saving the distinct a prior element In knowledge than by attributing its origin to the faculty of understanding itself. In Kant's terminology, the sense-manifold of intuition is a posteriori, contingent and derived from experience whereas the subsumption of the intuitional data under the a priori categories provided by understanding renders our knowledge a priori, necessary and underived from experience. However It is noteworthy that Kant also assigns the a priori elements not only to the understanding but also to sensibility; hence the a priori forms of space and time also constitute pure sense intuitions which are not contingent.

This compels Kant to reverse the relation between mind and thing so that scientific truth may depend, somehow, upon the conformity of the thing with the mind. In other words, reliable knowledge is restricted to things as they appear, in conformity with our mental forms. Kant, therefore makes the Copernican Revolution:

"Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge. This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be possible to have knowledge of objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being given. We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus ' primary hypothesis (mit den erten Gedanken des Kopernikus)" (Bxvi).

3.2 The Theory of Judgment
This Is the other aspect of Kant's assumption. In the philosophy of Leibniz, the principle of sufficient reason is considered the grandest axiom of the entire rationalistic system. The principle, in its most general logical form, states that "the content of the subject must always include that of the predicate in such a way that if one understands perfectly the concept of the subject, he will know that the predicate appertains to it also''.(7)

Kant, in his pre-critical period, is puzzled with this analytical requirement for all true propositions or judgments, especially when they state something about fact and existence. This leads Kant eventually to revise the theory of judgment.

He follows rationalism in making a distinction between a posteriori and a priori judgments, and empricism in making one between synthetic and analytic judgments. The distinction of the first pair is in view of their derivation from experiences. The a posteriori judgments are derived from experience, whereas the a priori are not. The distinction of the second pair is in view of the subject-predicate relation: a judgment is synthetic when the concept of the predicate is not contained in the concept of subject, and is called analytic when the predicate is so contained,. On finding that some recognized general scientific propositions are necessary and universal, Kant concludes that we do possess a pure, a priori element of knowledge.

Concerning the a priori characteristic of knowledge, Kant radically diverges from the traditional realistic thesis which states that "universality" and "necessity" are found to be real traits in the essential structure of nature and that our intellect cooperating with senses can penetrate into the essence of things. However Kant's new conformity-theory of knowledge compels him to deny such penetration. He attributes all the epistemologically warranted, formal and determinate elements in knowledge to the cognitive faculty of the knower.

Within the framework of a priori knowledge, Kant finds difficulty, not with the analytic a priori judgments, but with the synthetic a priori ones. The latter are used to extend our scientific knowledge. Now metaphysics, if it be science at all and can yield true knowledge, ought to contain synthetic a priori knowledge.

"For its business is not merely to analyze concepts which we make for ourselves a priori of things, and thereby to clarify them analytically, but to extend our a priori knowledge" (Bl8).

Thus metaphysics consists, at least in intention, entirely in the task of searching for synthetic a priori judgments. Since Kant holds that the direct object of our knowledge consists in the mind's being-affected-through-senses, the chasm between things-in-themselves and mental contents becomes insurmountable. On this premise, Kant has already undermined the possibility of metaphysics.

3.3 The Bearings of the Assumptions
Just as Copernicus attributes observed movements, not to the heavenly bodies, but to the condition of the observer, so Kant attributes certain ways in which objects appear to the knower to his subjective a priori conditions or mental forms (cf. Bxxii and the note). This is similar to a man who sees the world as red because he is wearing a pair of red-tinted spectacles. The world which presents itself to him in the sense-experience is a red world but whether the world outside of his experience is red ot not is another question. The man knows the red-colour only insofar as he encounters something in the experience of vision.

Space and time, for example, are not pertinent to the thing-in-itself but are a priori forms of sensibility. Whenever the external objects appear to us, they must have been temporalized and spatialized. They constitute the framework, as it were, in which the manifold of sensation is ordered and arranged. This is an example concerning the level of sensibility.

Another example concerns the understanding. Kant holds that we certainly do know a priori that every event must have a cause. Why? Objects must be subjected to the a priori concepts of categories of the human understanding of which causality is one.

However the Copernican Revolution does not imply that the entire reality is reduced to a mental construction or our thinking of them. Kant is not an idealist (at least not in this sense). It means rather that the mind imposes, as it were, on the material or the "stuff" of experience its own focus of cognition, determined by the structure of human sensibility and understanding and that objects cannot be known except through the medium of these forms.


NOTES:

6.Cf. DRYER, D. P., Kant ' s Solution for Verification in Metaphysics, (London 1966) p. 17.

7.LEIBNIZ, G.W., Discourse on Metaphysics, (Wiener 1961) p.93.

. THE REJECTION OF METAPHYSICS

It is not difficult to see how Kant, with the above-mentioned premises, comes to the conclusion of a doctrine of unknowability which pre-determines the fate of metaphysics.

4.1 The Doctrine of Unknowability (of Things-in-themselves)

4.l.l The "Reference" of Appearance
Kant distinguishes the matter and the form of knowledge. The matter is said to be the object of representation given from without and is received passively through the senses, whereas that which so determines the manifold of the representation that it allows of being ordered in certain relations is called the form of appearance (cf. B34).

At the end of the Transcendental Doctrine of Elements in the Critique he concludes that categories of understanding, taken by themselves, yield no knowledge, and that the schematized categories can yield knowledge only insofar as they are applied to the data of intuition, namely, the appearances (cf. A568 B596). Hence appearances are naturally described as sense-representations which are the modifications of the subject's mind but not as objects independent of the mind. Paradoxically, appearances are often called objects and regarded as external, spatially distinct from the knowing subject and his ideas (cf. B34; A109).

It seems that Kant makes a distinction between the object and the representation of the object. Appearances are referred to both the objects and representations. In order to reconcile this twofold reference, we have to resort to his Transcendental-Empirical distinction.

4.l.2 Transcendental-Empirical Distinction
Kant makes a distinction between transcendental and empirical objects, transcendental and empirical selves. The central issue of this distinction is to separate two kinds of inquiry or claim. Neither of them is supposed to refer to two different entities but to two different ways of talking about one and the same thing.

The transcendental inquiries concern the a priori possibility of knowledge or its employment. For instance, the transcendental logic concerns the scope, the origin and objective validity of "the laws of understanding and reason solely in so far as they relate a priori to objects''. (B81f). Transcendental philosophy concerns the mode of knowledge, especially regarding its combination of matter and form; as Kant says, "I entitle transcendental all knowledge which is occupied not so much with objects as with the mode of our knowledge of objects insofar as this mode of knowledge is to be possible a priori" (B25). Hence the transcendental claims are about the a priori elements in the knowing subject and method of his pure reason. With this in mind, Kant concludes that our knowledge of objects holds valid only within the appearances, namely, within the sphere in which we are being-affected-through-senses in cooperation with our a priori elements in the mind.

Kant also allows empirical inquiries to be admitted in the appearances in which the objects of experience are considered spatially distinct, external to the inquirers. Hence we can treat all external objects in the field of experience as things-in-themselves, insofar as appearances are concerned, without troubling ourselves about the primary ground of their possibility as appearances.

By virtue of this distinction, Kant is able to make different claims on the following statements: first, that there are external objects of which we have knowledge; second, that we are immediately aware of our ideas, or representations. The first is a transcendental falsity but an empirical truth, whereas the second is a transcendental truth but an empirical falsity. Transcendentally speaking, knowledge of objects is subject to a priori conditions on the part of the knowing subject, and thus is only applicable to representational objects or contents given in experience. In other words, appearances are contents of our mental representations in the transcendental sense. Empirically speaking, the objects of experience are considered as external objects spatially distinct from the knower. (8)

The most obvious exemplification is that of space and time. They are regarded as transcendentally ideal because they are the a priori forms of intuitions. Since the sense-manifold is given in the inner experience of succession and the outer experience of space, we can be certain that they are our a priori forms with which we spatialize and temporalize the given "stuff" or the "sense-manifold" in a specific arrangement. But the question whether they, in fact, belong to the realm of the thing-in-itself is entirely beyond our sensibility and hence our a priori forms cannot be applied to that realm. On the other hand, they are empirically real because they always hold good for the experienced objects which are spatially distinct from and external to us.

Up to here Kant has only made this distinction between the two inquiries, but to advance beyond the limit or bound of sensuous intuitions and to ask the ground for the possibility of appearances in the transcendental sense, the concept of a transcendental object would be required. Note that Kant says that the concept, not the existence, of transcendental objects is required. In point of fact, Kant has simply inserted it Into the world of Noumenon and the concept of Noumenon is a limiting concept (Grenzbegriff) demanded by the concept of Phenomenon as the correlate of the latter.

4.1.3 The Transcendental Object and Noumenon
First of all Kant explicitly mentions that the idea of appearances involves the idea of something that appears (cf. Al04). In other words, if we try to abstract from all that which in the object has reference to the a priori conditions of knowledge, namely, the possibility of objects of knowledge, we arrive at the idea of Transcendental Object, "the completely indeterminate thought of something in general" (A253).

Since all sense manifold representations are related by the understanding to the transcendental object which signifies only a something-X, the transcendental object cannot be insulated in thought.

However, not satisfied with this substrate of sensibility (cf. A251), Kant proceeds to transform the notion of transcendental object into the concept Noumenon In view of the latter's etymological significance. Noumenon means objects of thought or of understanding, namely, as intuited or apprehended in a non-sensuous fashion. In order to form the positive concept of Noumenon, Kant assumes the possibility of an intellectual intuition in which the thing-in-itself is directly apprehended.

By way of hypothesis, Kant attributes this intellectual intuition to the "Intellectus Archetypus" (cf. A695 B723) which belongs to the Divine Mind. It is also called creative intuition, for it is wholly active and productive source of creation. Hence God directly apprehends the real essence of the thing-in-itself without the aid of sensuous intuition because God has created all this. Sensuous intuition is ascribed to "Intellectus Ectypus" which belongs to human finite minds in the sense that finite minds are affected by extra-mental things (through senses) whose existence is supposed rather than created by them. All cognition worked out through the human mind, therefore, has to begin with sensuous intuition. The Noumenon in its positive notion, thus, means the object of intellectual intuition and hence things-in-themselves are objects of God's creation and knowledge and not objects of human cognition. In its negative sense, it is not-the-object-of-sensuous-intuition and in point of fact the entire Transcendental Doctrine of Elements is entertaining the negative concept of Noumenon. The introduction of Noumenon, Kant insists, is meant to keep a strict hold of the critical teaching, namely, that both sensibility and understanding are only applicable to the Phenomenon.

Therefore, the concept of Noumenon is only a problematic one not assertoric (cf. A254 B310), because Kant believes that we have no means of asserting its objective reality for the very thought of its real existence involves the existence-category. Hence it is a limiting concept for its function is only to limit the pretensions of sensibility.(9)

4.2 The Failure of Every Metaphysics (as Transcendent Science)
With the above doctrine in mind, we can see easily that the general ground for Kant's own rejection of metaphysics is not difficult to state. The Transcendental Aesthetic and the Transcendental Analytic taken together can lead to the conclusion of the unknowability of the thing-in-itself which destroys every possibility of speculative and transcendent metaphysics.

Kant has first argued that the objects of speculative metaphysics are basically transcending from sense-intuition. Secondly metaphysicians, at least in intention, have to establish the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments in metaphysics. However the very question of how such judgments are possible yields the transcendental (matter-form) theory of knowledge. No knowledge of objects is possible except insofar as it is related to the a priori conditions on the part of the knowing subject. Hence knowledge is only restricted to things as they appear, in conformity with our mental forms, and does not reach things-in-themselves. This claim is fatal to all metaphysical theories.

Furthermore, Kant makes it perfectly clear that the principles of understanding can have a very limited application, namely, their objective reference is confined to phenomena alone. If there were any metaphysical doctrines, they would have been supposed to be independent of sensuous intuition altogether and to be established by intellectual intuition which we unfortunately do not possess. In the absence of intellectual intuition, the doctrine of unknowability is founded. In any case, it appears that, whether in fact or in principle, speculative metaphysics cannot be made up of synthetic a priori truths. Thus Kant rejects every possibility of metaphysics as a transcendent science.


NOTES:

8.Cf. BIRD, G., Kant's Theory of Knowledge, (London 2nd Impression 1965) p. 44f.

9.Cf. PATON, H. J., Kant’s Metaphysics of Experience, (London 1951) Vol. 2, chs. LV & LVI, pp. 442, 450ff.

5. EVALUATION

My evaluation of Kant's approach will proceed as follows. We shall first see whether the doctrine of unknowability is tenable within Kant's context. Consequently, is Kant able to do away with all the possibility of metaphysics? If not, then in the second point we shall see whether Kant's assumption, the Copernican Revolution, needs any further modification. Can it yield another insight different from that of Kant?

5.1 Criticism of the Tenability of the Doctrine of Unknowability
It seems that Kant wishes to remain in an agnostic position. For he believes that we can neither assert nor deny the existence of any object in the Noumenal world and a fortiori, cannot speak of the knowledge of its nature or essence.

However Kant does not seem to me consistent in remaining in such an agnostic position. For, concerning the problems of the transcendental self and the transcendental object, Kant has not been able to give a satisfactory account. Furthermore, his "Refutation of Idealism" confirms my belief that Kant cannot help but retain the existence of the thing-in-itself.

5.l.l The Paradox of the Transcendental Self and Transcendental Object
In the Transcendental Analytic, Kant claims that the sense-manifold of the intuition is to be subsumed under the a priori categories provided by the understanding through the schemata of imagination; and that only the schematized categories can yield knowledge.

However the relation between sensation and intellection presupposes a principle of unification which is the unity of the Consciousness-in-general: the Ultimate a priori ground for the sense-manifold being synthesized and brought into an intelligible unity under the categories of understanding. Kant puts it this way:
"It must be possible for the 'I think' to accompany all my representations" (B131).
Thus the "I think" constitutes the "Transcendental unity of Apperception" to which Kant attributes the framework of objectivity and the possibility of experience in general (cf. Bl32). Now the subject of the unity must be capable of self-consciousness so that the knowing subject can be aware of his own unity between the perceiving and thinking subject. In other words, the self-consciousness enables the subject to be aware of the fact that the self is the source of the unity. Hence on the occasion of experience, the existence of a transcendental ego reveals itself to the subject. As a pure and original unity, the self, in some way precedes experience precisely because it is the a priori condition for the possibility of experience. In this way the "Self" cannot be referred to an empirical self. For the empirical self is only what is known in appearance, it cannot be the bearer of the appearance(10). Kant, then, admits the existence of the transcendental self, at least implicitly. For he puts it this way:
"Certainly, the representation 'I am', which expresses the consciousness that can accompany all thought, immediately includes in itself the existence of a subject" (B277).

On the other hand Kant is aware that such addmittance would be an illicit inference. Hence in B422 he warns us not to mistake the subject as if it were an object of thought under its process of caterigorization. He wants, therefore, to maintain that its existence cannot be asserted for such an assertion would involve the categorization of the understanding. Kant's position seems to be this: one thing is that we have to think of the transcendental self as existing; another is that we do not know whether this ought-to-think-it-as-existing entails its objective existence.

This position is agnostic on one hand but paradoxical on another. I do not know how it is possible that Kant, on the one hand, asserts transcendentally that the "possibility of the experience" Is grounded in the transcendental unity of apperception while, on the other hand, holding that existence of the transcendental self that constitutes the transcendental unity of apperception is entirely unknown. For me it is, at least, co-known or co-affirmed though in an unthematical way. We shall dwell on this point later.

As we have observed in connection with B277, Kant's early doctrine of the transcendental object has developed in somewhat a close parallelism with that of the transcendental unity of apperception(11). The concept of transcendental object is used to account for the diversity of sensations and for the objects of representations. By this, Kant means that the thing-in-itself is the object which appears to us but it never appears to us as it is in itself. Its appearance has already been re-organized by the a priori elements of our cognitive faculties. The existence of the thing-in-itself seems to be inevitable, but Kant wants to remain agnostic, again, about this transcendental object, for the same reason as that mentioned above. Hence he runs into the same inconsistency as with the transcendental self(12).

There is another similar reason to explain why Kant cannot remain consistent in his agnostic position. The first Critique (as well as the doctrine of unknowability)is intended to set a limit to the validity of human knowledge. Within the area of this limit, namely, within the phenomena, our knowledge, such as that of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, is proved to be valid and reliable, whereas beyond this limit we, in principle, cannot claim any knowledge. However one cannot draw such a limit, unless one presumably knows (a priori) that there exists something noumenal which is beyond the limit. On the other hand, if we claim to know that there exists a noumenal world, the thing-in-itself, the knowledge of this claim will no longer be valid because this claim is mediated by our a priori catergories.

Kant, says P. F. Strawson, "seeks to draw the bounds of sense from a point outside them, a point which, if they are rightly drawn, cannot exist"(13). Indeed, F. H. Jacobi, the contemporary of Kant, has well remarked that without the idea of the thing-in-itself, we cannot enter the world of the Critique of Pure Reason, but with it neither can we remain inside(14).

5.1.2 Kant's Refutation of Idealism
Kant's refutation of Idealism provides further evidence to confirm my belief that Kant cannot remain agnostic but is, at heart, a realist who asserts the existence of the thing-in-itself. He puts the argument this way:
"I am conscious of my own existence as determined in time. All determination of time presupposes something permanent in perception…Thus perception of this permanent is possible only through a thing outside me and not through the mere representation of a thing outside me; and consequently the determination of my existence in time is possible only through the existence of actual things which I perceive outside me…In other words, the consciousness of my existence is at the same time an immediate consciousness of the existence of other things outside me" (B276).

There is a great dispute among the commentators whether Kant is here referring the existence of the actual things outside oneself to the thing-in-itself, even though in his introduction (cf. Bxxxix and the note) Kant has explicitly maintained that the independent existence of the object is to be understood in the empirical sense(15). I also doubt whether this argument in such an emphatic form does not constitute a Transcendental Realism. For, if the consciousness of my existence is referred to the transcendental ego which reveals itself to the subject on the occasion of experience, the object of experience must be in some way the non-ego of the non-empirical reality. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that the non-ego, the object of experience, is, after all, a mere construction of the mind. But does Kant possibly mean this? Definitely not! He certainly thought it absurd to reduce all reality to mere mental construction of the subject, else he would have been no better than Berkeley whose idealism maintains that only the mind and what the mind perceives exist. Therefore, Kant has to look on the retention of the existence of the thing-in-itself as a matter of common sense. Besides, if the thing-in-itself is totally eliminated, the phenomena would be identified with the thing-in-itself; and consequently Kant's philosophy would, at once, have become full-blown metaphysical system.

Granted that he has retained the thing-in-itself, does it follow that his rejection of metaphysics is automatically self-invalidated? Not necessarily, although the strength of his rejection is now much reduced. For, at least, it is, in principle, possible for man to know the existence of the thing-in-itself.

However the Copernican Hypothesis can still enable Kant to remain subjectivistic regarding the nature or essence of the thing-in-itself. He can still possibly deny that the human mind can ever penetrate into the essence of the natural things themselves. Now it is time to discuss his assumptions.

5.2 Criticism of the Copernican Revolution
I think I have explained earlier why Kant opts for this assumption, hence I do not want to repeat myself here. What I wish to point out here Is that Copernicus' doctrine of motion (cf. Bxxii), taken in itself as a scientific theory, does not confirm Kant's philosophical conclusion.

Copernicus explained that the observation of motions of the heavenly bodies must be in view of the motion of the observer on earth. This actually is derived from the Aristotelian principle of relative motion. For Copernicus holds that if the observed objects are moving in the same direction with equal velocity, no motion can be observed. If any movement is ascribed to the earth, that notion will generate appearance of itself In all things which are external to it, though as occurring in the opposite direction, as if everything were passing across the earth.(16)

Now Kant employs the same analogy in his theory of knowledge that the apparent characteristic of reality is due to the mind of the knower(17). If the knowledge of objects is due to the structure of the cognitive faculty, then the mind can never penetrate into reality beyond its appearances. Consequently no transcendent metaphysics is possible.

I think the key-point is that our observation of the external world, at least insofar as motion is concerned, is always relative to the situation of the observer. The relativity can be further confirmed by Einstein's theory about the simultaneity of time. According to him, when events happen at different places, they can be called simultaneous only in a relative sense. For it is empirically possible that according to one observer event A happens before event B; according to another, B may precede A; whereas a third observer may call them simultaneous., There seems, therefore, to be no universal "before" and "after" in time, insofar as observers are concerned. Hence observations, as far as motion and time are concerned, are always relative to the observers.

However does this consequently confirm Kant's belief that knowledge consists in the conformity of objects to the situation (mental forms) of the knower? Does it follow that we can observe objects in space and time owing to our a priori forms of sensibility with which we spatialize and temporalize the sense-manifold? Does it further entail that it is our mind that imposes the principle of causality on the phenomenal world rather than penetrates into the real nature of the world by abstraction? I do not think that it is necessarily so.

The presence of this relativity does not entail the non-penetrability of things in themselves by the mind, and the awareness of the relativity just presupposes the contrary. The very possibility of detecting the relativity and subjectivity of our sense-perception reveals to us that we are some way given an absolute datum in our experience against which we can pinpoint the fact of relativity. The consciousness of this absolute datum vindicates the penetrability of the thing-in-itself by the mind. To what extent? I do not know, but it is, in principle, possible.

Of course such a remark would not by itself necessitate an abandonment of the general standpoint represented by Kant's theory of experience because his new conformity-theory of knowledge may serve him as an absolute datum, a point of departure, which taken as vindication does not require any demonstrated proof and consequently be rationally defensible.

Besides, Kant's Copernican Revolution is an initial asumption designed to explain the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments on the supposition that they could not be explained otherwise. However to postulate the assumption in this way is not uncontroversial. For example, it is still relevant to ask if there is in fact any synthetic a priori knowledge. Secondly, if we agree that there is, we can still ask whether its possibility cannot be explained in ways other than Kant's.

The above remark indicates there is a certain amount of arbitrariness, if not bias, in Kant's initial option with which he has already undermined a priori the possibility of transcendent metaphysics at the very outset. I doubt whether this is the best option, if there is any, to settle the dispute among the metaphysicians.

Two important remarks can be made here. First, with his epistemology Kant has not succeeded in remaining consistently in the agnostic position. I am inclined to think that he, at heart, belongs to Transcendental Realism which, at least in principle, concedes a sort of immediate, intuitive or unthematic co-knowledge of the objective existence of thing-in-itself. This arouses a certain hope for the revival of metaphysics. Secondly, granted that Kant has full right to opt for his initial assumption (Copernican Revolution) and the transcendental method, he can arrive at the awareness of relativity which, indeed, tames every wild dogmaticism. However he cannot ignore that this awareness precisely presupposes something absolute concomitantly given there in the cognitive experience.

Now I would like to dwell on, at some length, this absolute datum to see if it can bridge the chasm between the thing-in-itself and the so-called "mental contents" of the knower, and to see if it can furnish a new insight for an alternative approach to the possibility of metaphysics.


NOTES:

10.Cf. KEMP SMITH, N., A Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, (New York 2nd edition 1962) pp. 321-331.
11.Cf. IBID.
12.Some commentators would not consider Kant's agnostic position as inconsistent. For, on the part of the subject, one can be certain of or experience the existence of the thing-in-itself, but it does not follow that one knows that it objectively exists. The concept of Noumenon is demanded as the correlate of the concept of Phenomenon, The word "correlate" is used just to avoid asserting the cause-effect relation between two concepts. The term "correlate" simply means that the concept cannot be insulated in thought insofar as we have the concept of phenomenon.　
In my view, this position is not tenable. For, as soon as one grasps the existence of something one should not remain agnostic about its objectivity. This is an intuitive knowledge and not merely a subjective certainty. I will dwell on this point later.

13.STRAWSON, P. F., The Bounds of Sense, (London 1966) p.12.

14.Cf. WALSH, W.H., Kant Immanuel, In P.EWARDS (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London 1976) Vol. 4, p.315.

15.Cf. EWING, A. C., A Short Commentary on Kart's Critique of Pure Reason, (London reprinted 1961) pp. 176-187.
16.Cf. KEMP SMITH, N., op. cit., pp.23-25.
17.Cf. PATON, H. J., op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 75-76.

6. PERSPECTIVES AND CONCLUSION

6.1 The Awareness of Relativity Presupposes the Intuition of Being
The "awareness of relativity", for Kant, is a clue discovering the limitation of human knowledge. It restricts whatever we know to appearances. He says very well that knowledge must begin with sense-experience, at the same time that sense-experience will not be possible unless it is submitted to the a priori forms of sensibility. Hence these two premises taken jointly make it impossible for man to attain any knowledge beyond the so-called senseintuition. Note that the abandonment of the speculative use of reason is due to the absence of the intellectual intuition on the part of man rather than the objects of this intuition, namely, the transcendental self and the transcendental object.

In my opinion, the objects of this intuition should be not considered things out of which we, as it were, try hard to dig the essence. On the contrary, as Fichte has pointed out, the said object, the transcendental ego, is an act rather than a things(18). According to him, to ascribe the transcendental ego to the ultimate ground of the unity of consciousness implies that the pure ego, namely, the transcendental ego is considered an activity within consciousness. For example, I am now thinking an object A. Then, I can think the "me" that thinks an object A. Obviously I objectify the "me" that thinks an object A, in the sense that I make it object-for-subject. Hence the process can go on infinitely, namely, that I think the "me" that thinks the "me" that thinks…ad infinitum. However hard I try, the Ego transcends objectification and is itself the condition of all objectifiability and of the unity of consciousness(19). Fichte, hence, insists that we must have the intellectual intuition of the transcendental ego as an act within consciousness and that this is not a mystic experience for the privileged few. Nevertheless Fichte has taken this primordial intuition as his first principle or truth in philosophy and develops a system of Idealistic Metaphysics.

I am not interested in his idealism but rather in his primordial intellectual intuition. Its central issue is: what is intuited is not an objectified essence but an act. The mentioning of Fichte shows that in spite of Kant's denial of intellectual intuition, a Kantian philosopher could also preserve the validity of the intellectual intuition of the pure ego as an activity within consciousness. This could be a starting point for the possibility of metaphysics.

Some Neo-Thomists actually follow a similiar line of thought regarding the so-called Intuition of Being. They distinguish a simple apprehension of the "essences of things" from an intuition of Being (namely, Actus Essendi or act of existing). The former can be explained in terms of an essential judgment that describes the essence of the object concerned, for example, "This is so-and-so", whereas the latter is to be explained in terms of an existential judgment concerning the act of existing, namely, "This IS". The former judgment presupposes the latter, for the former would be meaningless if we cannot affirm the latter a priori.

Moreover, we need to make another distinction between the concept of existence and the intuition of hems (an immediate affirmation of Actus Essendi ). When we say that “A is being” in the former sense, we mentally attribute the concept of existence to A; when “A is being” in the latter sense, we affirm a pure Actus Essendi disregardins what A is, whether it be my mental product or what-not.

In fact, when Kant says that “existence” is one of the a priori categories, he uses “existence” as a concept with which we think. Hence in an existential statement like "God, as a necessary being, exists, (ontological argument), we, in Kant, s context, are objectifying the necessary being as object of thought and in the meantime we can’t help but think the necessary being as existing, insofar as a necessary being is conceiveable. In this case, we are just passing from one concept (of existence) to another (of necessary being) or the other way round, but we cannot leap from the conceptual order to existential order. The leap is illicit. Kant, indeed, is right in refuting the ontological argument but is wrong in neglecting that apart from the concept of existence we still have the intuition of being. I do not mean we can intuit directly God’s existence but rather mean that we are able to affirm intuitively the Actus Essendi, no matter what this Actus Essendi may be. That is to say the intuition that “something exists” is it is primarily given disregarding what this something is. We simply encounter the Actus Essendi which is delivered to us as an absolute datum in the experience.

However Kant was not completely unaware of this. For example, his desperate effort of insisting on the unity of apperception as a fundamental experience is precisely a confirmation of the apprehension of something existent as an unity. Kant’s denial of intellectual intuition does not exclude the intuition of being. Indeed the “awareness of relativity” presupposes it.

6.2 The Transcendental Method and the Intuition of Being
A thorough and attentive study of Kant’s position shows that his transcendental method is by no means restricted to the concrete conclusion of the Critique.
The interesting study of O. Muck on the transcendental method reveals that "during the last forty years the numbers of neo-scholastics have grown who consider the so-called ‘transcendental method’ the way to reach the goal set by contemporary neo-scholasticism, viz., a response of the scholastic tradition to the contemporary philosophical problemtic”,(20). Joseph Marechal for instance, was one of the first pioneers who deliberately adopted the transcendental method as a fruitful tool for the aims of scholastic philosophy(21).

However I would like to have recourse to Emerich Coreth, one of the most prominent contemporary transcendental Thomists, who has succeeded in showing the richness of the intuition of being by means of the transcendental method. His investigation of the condition of possibility of the act of knowledge leads to a dialectical development of philosophy which is in essential agreement with Thomism in terms of its results, but which goes deeper with respect to its foundation(22).

For him the task of metaphysics is provided by the transcendental method, which he defines in the words of Kant, "I call every knowledge transcendental, which occupies itself not so much with objects, but rather with our way of knowing objects, insofar as this is to be possible a priori"(23).

The method refers to inquiries into the a priori conditions under which metaphysical claims may be true. It starts with the inquirer's experience of being conscious (in Coreth's case, it is the questioning itself). Within this horizon, a twofold constant and interactive movement of thought, namely, reduction and deduction, is employed so as to uncover thematically the immediate, unthematized and pre-philosophical data in the initial awareness which furnish the a priori conditions of the total reality of being conscious (as this reality presents itself in the act of knowing) and then "from this previous datum, uncovered reductively, (there is deduced) a priori the empirical act of consciousness, its nature, its possibility and its necessity. Whereas reduction proceeds from a particular experience to the conditions of its possibility, deduction goes from these conditions to the essential structures of the same experience''. This is to mediate the immediate knowledge, from the unthematic to the themtic. Thus it reverses the process of universal doubt by going beyond the merely factual state-of-affairs pointing to the vindication of something unquestionably absolute which is being as the foundation and horizon of metaphysics in germ.(24)

As B. Lonergan remarks, in his critique of Coreth's original German work(25) under the significant title "Metaphysics as Horizon"(26), for Coreth the basis of transcendental method, applied to any judgment, lies not in the content of the judgment but in its possibility and its functions by reductio ad absurdum;
"The main task of the metaphysician is not to reveal or prove what is new and unknown; it is to give scientific expression to what already is implicitly acknowledged without being explicitly recognized"(27).
The trouble with Kant, Coreth says, is that:
"…he did not go far back enough when looking for the conditions of possibility of human knowledge. He stopped at the finite subject, he did not reach an absolute horizon of validity, and thus he eliminated all possibility of metaphysical knowledge. Only if we can, against Kant and proceeding beyond him, show that our a priori knowledge is metaphysical knowledge of being, which opens for us the absolute horizon of being as such, shall we be able to validate metaphysics critically and methodically. This task has been clearly recognized within the neo- Scholastic school, especially since the pioneering work of Joseph Marechal''(28).

His starting point is the conscious, concrete activity of the human mind asking a question. Lonergan remarks that to doubt questioning is to involve oneself in a counterposition, and so questioning is beyond the doubter’s capacity to doubt coherently(29).

"When we question the question, our attention is forced to proceed beyond the explicit knowledge presented by the content into the implicit knowledge contained in the act of questioning itself. Thus when I ask what things I can question, the very act of asking this question supplies an answer to it. For I can ask questions about absolutely everything. Should somebody suggest that there might be limits to my power of questioning, I shall ask questions about these limits, and by this very fact proceed beyond them. The fact that I can question absolutely everything is unthematically contained in the very act of questioning. If I inquire what this "absolutely everything" about which I can ask questions really is, the answer to this question is likewise unthematically or implicitly contained in the question itself. For I always ask what everything IS. Hence I know that everything about which I ask questions IS and that the range of my inquiring is the unlimited horizon of being.

We have here a continual interaction, a dialectic between concept and act, between pensee pensee and pensee pensante, between the conceptualized, explicit, thematic content of our knowledge and the unthematic, pre-reflexive, implicit knowledge that is co-affirmed with the act of knowing itself. The interaction results in what the German language calls Volizugswissen" (30).Therefore the co-affirmation or co-knowledge of being is concomitant to every act of consciousness though in an unthematic way. A rejection of the possibility of metaphysics implies a contradiction between the denial and the act by means of which one denies, between the thematic content of the act and the unthematically co-affirmed and presupposed conditions of its possibility(31).

The very possibility of questioning, as Lonergan remarks, (or of any conscious activity, we may add) is being, and this being is being (Actus Essendi) in its unqualified sense, being-in-itself (An-sich-Sein). The process of bringing out this intuition of being is a process of a mediated immediacy (vermittelte Unmittelbarkeit), through the transcendental method that points to the interaction between "concept" and "act" (Vollzug, or "performance" in Lonergan's translation)., Kant failed to get hold of the intuition of being, because his use of the transcendental method consists in the dialectic between concept and concept (categorized) and not between concept and act. His contradiction, as Lonergan remarks, lies not in the formal entity (Ich denke) that merely thinks thoughts, but in a concrete intelligence that by its performance means and by its uttered contents denies that we know what really and truly is so (32).

6.3 An Alternative Approach to Metaphysics: The Intuition of Being
I have reason for the preference of this intution of being as a new approach to metaphysics. I am convinced that a good approach should not be located merely in the epistemological inquiry, as Kant located it. For we will have difficulty In bridging the chasm between the thing-in-itself (the uncategorized stuff) and the mental contents (categorized concepts). This actually re-echoes the difficulty of drawing the distinction between epistemological and metaphysical inquiries mentioned earlier. For they are so interwoven that it is difficult to decide which should take the precedence. The intuition serves precisely as a primordial datum that transcends and precedes both inquiries. In other words, if you do not start with "something exists", then you start with a nought. And nothing comes from nothing!

Coreth would also consider that the intuition of being is something to be presupposed by an inquiry:
"Questioning or inquiring presupposes some knowledge about being. But this knowledge…is not a knowledge which possesses that which is known, but a knowledge which projects that which can be known. This presupposes that we already know about being or about the meaning of being. The origin of this knowledge lies in the act of questioning itself. Whenever we question, we know that we question, that we are the inquirer, that we perform the act of inquiring. In every act of inquiring or knowing, some being is given which coincides immediately with knowing, which knows itself as being. The act knows itself as being. Being knows itself as act. We have an immediate unity of being and knowing in the very act of knowing"(33).

Following the same line of reason, Muck remarks also:
"Since the act of questioning knowledge has shown itself to be finite and conditioned by pointing beyond itself to the absolute, we ask again how the finite act stands with respect to the finite subject and how it is made possible by it. This leads to the development of being and acting, being and essence, and the universal laws of being. However, not every act is a question. This leads us to the conditions of the act of intellection in which being as such is disclosed, and to the immanent exposition of being according to its transcendental determinations (in the classical sense). However, this step does not explain why the intellectual act of man is questioning and not simply the possesion of knowledge. This void leads to the foundation of a metaphysics of the material world and of sense experience, as well as of human being in the world (including interpersonal relationships and the moral order of human activity). It also leads to the determination of the relations of questioning to the absolute as religion, and this absolute as God"(34).

This intuition of being, as many thinkers confirm, is always present in our experience whether it be sensible, intellectual, moral, mystic or religious etc. provided that we make a reflection upon it. I think that Kant also had a similiar intuition in his moral experience. The moral agent is conscious of the "duty", the "ought", the "categorical imperative"! How, Kant asks, is this categorical imperative possible? In reply to this, he finds that its possibility is grounded in the idea of freedom of the will. If freedom were illusory, the entire moral experience would be deceptive. But since moral experience, for Kant, is incontrovertible, "Freedom", though belonging to the noumenal world, is necessarily required as the a priori ultimate ground for the possibility of moral experience and categorical imperative. As a consequence the categorical imperative is not possible, unless the moral agent, man himself, is at once a member both of the phenomenal and noumenal world. This is the theory of Two Standpoints. The empirical self belongs to the former world, hence its action follows the law of causality that governs the phenomena, and it is also liable to deviate from the way in which it would act as a member of the noumenal world. And the moral law is legislated by the free will of the transcendental self upon the empirical self as Imperative.(35) The Two Standpoints theory presupposes the intuition of the moral activity within the consciousness. The moral experience demands or "posits" an Ego as a member of the two worlds. This leads to the bi-polarity of the intuition of being, namely, man (as moral subject) being-in-the-world. This strikes the same tone of the intuition of being.

Hence the intuition is a good starting point for the journey to metaphysics for it opens a new possibility to the thing-in-itself. If this intuition imposes an ineluctable urge on us, an urge that urges for self-openness to the real and absolute, then we must admit that it is an intuitive knowledge. If this is knowledge, it follows that our mind, to a certain extent, has the possibility of attaining to the knowledge of the thing-in-itself. It assures us of the fact that our mind is open to truth.

In conclusion, I admire Kant's effort and seriousness in tackling the possibility of metaphysics but I disagree with his way of adopting the initial assumptions that lead him to an agnostic position (for his inconsistency). His intention of settling the metaphysical disputes is good but leads him to the extreme position of denying every possibility of metaphysics. I am conscious that there are still many difficulties in the attempt to build metaphysical system(s), but Kant's transcendental method is very highlighting in this regard. Finally, if metaphysics has as its object the fundamental explanation of all things, considered in their entirety, such an inquiry must be grounded in the intuition of being as an absolute datum. Hence the reinstatement of the possibility of metaphysics depends on whether or not one has the experience of the Actus Essendi and whether one considers it an intuitive knowledge. This is the initial option we have to decide upon, just as we have to decide whether man is rational, and whether he is able to philosophize with his rationality.


NOTES:

18.Cf. Sammtliche Werk, ed. by I. H. FICHTE, 8 Vols. (Berlin 1845-46) Vol. 1, pp. 463ff.

19.Cf. IBID.

20.MUCK, O., The Transcendental Method, transl. By W. D. SEIDENSTICKER (New York 1968) p. 19.

21.Cf. van RIET, G., Thomistic Epistemology, transl. by G.FRANKS, 2 Vols. (London 1963) Vol. 1, pp. 236-271.

22.Cf. MUCK, O., op. cit., pp.285-306.

23.CORETH, E., Metaphysics, transl. by J.DONCEEL, with a critique by B. J. F. LONERGAN (London 1968) p. 35.

24.Cf. IBID., pp.31-44. The exact quotation is from p. 37.

25.It appeared in Gregorianum 44(1963) pp.307-318 and as an appendix to J. Donceel's translation, pp. l97-219. The quotation used is according to the latter.

26.Lonergan explains that "a horizon is a maximum field of vision from a determinate standpoint. In a generalized sense, a horizon is specified by two poles, one objective and the other subjective, with each pole conditioning the other. Hence, the objective pole is taken, not materially, but like the formal object sub ratione sub qua attingitur (under that aspect which the activity specifically regards); similiarly the subjective pole is considered, not materially, but in its relation to the objective pole. Thus, the horizon of Pure Reason is specified when one states that its objective pole is possible being as determined by relations of possibility and necessity obtaining between concepts, and that its subjective pole is logical thinking as determining what can be and what must be. Similarly, in the horizon of critical idealism, the objective pole is the world of experience as appearance, and the subjective pole is the set of a priori conditions of the possibility of such a world. Again, in the horizon of the expert, the objective pole is his restricted domain as attained by accepted scientific methods, and the subjective pole is the expert practising those methods; but in the horizon of the wise man, the philosopher of the Aristotelian tradition, the objective pole is an unrestricted domain, and the subjective pole is the philosopher practising transcendental method, namely, the method that determines the ultimate and so basic whole" (IBID., pp.211f).

27.LONERGAN, B. J. F., IBID., p.200.

28.CORETH, E., op. cit., p. 36f.

29.Cf. LONERGAN, B. J. F., op. cit., p. 210.

30.CORETH. E., op. cit., pp. 39f.

31.Cf. IBID., p. 35.
32.Cf. LONERGAN, B. J. F., op. cit., p. 205.

33.CORETH, E., op. cit., p. 69f.

34.MUCK, O., op. cit., pp. 304f.

35.Cf. PATON, H. J., Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (New York 1964) pp. 114-131.

作者：吴智勋

前言

读哲学的人，往往提到方法论的问题。他们都知道笛卡儿的理性主义是用了演绎法，即从一些先天的、与生俱来的、清晰明判的概念，演绎出其他原则来。经验主义的休谟用的却是归纳法，即从一些后天的经验与事实，归纳出一些规律来。至于康德，他的先验法则来个哥白尼式的革命，知识不是主体的认识与客观事物的符合，而是事物与主体的先验形式符合。总之，他们所用不同的方法，就产生了不同的结论。

神学方面言方法论是这十多年内的事，这并不是说，十多年之前，神学并无方法论。研究神学不能没有一套方法论的，只不过神学家并无刻意的把所用的方法拿出来讨论吧了。这十几年来，神学方法论大行其道。罗烈根(Bernard Lonergan)「神学的方法」一书(注一)，更挑起人对神学方法论的兴趣。穆勒(J. J. Mueller) 便归纳出四种不同的神学方法(注二)。至于伦理神学方面，谈方法论也大不乏人，如毕兰菲(David W. Blanchfield) 便大谈着名伦理学家麦哥铭(Richard A. McComick) 的方法论(注三)；古伦(Charles E. Curran) 的「伦理神学」一书，第二部份全是方法论问题(注四)，他自已也评论过赫宁(Bernard Haring)所用的方法(注五)。这些谈论神学方法论的着作，往往是从不同的角度去讲，笼统的称为方法论，容易使人迷惘。我尝试把各神学家所言的方法论，分四类去讨论：(1) 从出发点看方法论；(2)从伦理知识来源看方法论；(3) 从伦理模式看方法论；(4) 从伦理重心看方法论。

(1) 从出发点看方法论

方法是一种工具，帮助我们做反省，下结论。方法的出发点不相同时，亦做成重点或甚至结果有异。以下是取几位神学家做例子：

（一）罗烈根的先验方法论(Transcendental Method) 是以人类悟性结构做出发点。他发现人的认知有一基本模式，即意识有四个不同的层次(注六)：经验、理解、理性、负责。每个神学家做神学反省时，都应遵守这些先验规则，即留心所有相关的经验和资料，提出充足的、可能的解释，判断那一个是最合理的答案，并对自己的决定负责。这些意识层次应用到神学上，分为两组神学、八个应用特质(functional specialties)。第一组是中介神学(Mediating theology)，即神学是传达一个讯息：第二组是介定神学(Mediated theology)，神学本身成为被传的东西。

在中介神学中，其应用特质如下：

(1) 研究(Research)：研究有关资料，特别要注意其他学科所提供的事实。

(2) 解释(Interpretation)：理解消化所搜集的资料，例如：心理学、社会学、人类学对罪恶感的解释，能帮助我们对良心的了解。

(3) 历史(History)：这是对神学作纵的研究，如研究某伦理问题的历史发展。

(4) 辩证(Dialectic)：这是为解决资料解释的冲突，设法在合一的精神下，调和各种意见，提出一综合的主张。这是一种皈依(Conversion)，皈依提出新的视野，新的抉择。这能够是理智的皈依，把顽固的、导致错误的概念，予以彻底澄清。例如：有些教徒充满爱心去生活，却深信谁实行人工节育我必定下地狱，实在需要理智的皈依。皈依能够是道德的皈依，即认识到真正的价值，自由的去选择善，例如：有人奉公守法，不敢走私漏税，只是因为怕被查出要受处分而已，还未认识守法的价值，他需要道德的皈依。罗氏也提出宗教的皈依，此指天主的爱充满人的心，而人无保留的、无条件的驯服。这是天主的恩宠，人能与此恩宠合作，使皈依在生活上产生作用。

在介定神学中，亦有四种特质，不过方向刚好与中介神学的相反：

(5) 基础(Foundations)：基础是皈依的客观化，也是个自由决定。人经验到天主的恩宠，客观地表达出来。

(6) 教义(Doctrines)：教义表示事实和价值的判断，这能够是信理上的，也能够是伦理上的判定。教义是教会所判定，是基督徒信仰的肯定和鉴定。

(7) 系统(Systematics)：系统企固排除教义里不清楚、不稳定的成份，以便教义间有一内在统一性。各神学部门间亦应有一致性，如伦理神学对罪的解释，不应和圣经神学或信理神学的解释冲突，否则无法成为系统。

(8) 传达(Communications)：神学家必须把他们的讯息，用最适当的方法表达出来，否则神学会对我们所处的现实世原漠不相千。神学本位化或本地化就是这方面的尝试。

上面四个层次，两组神学，八种特质，可表解如下：

意识结构中介神学介定神学
负责    (4) 辩证 (5) 基础
判断    (3) 历史 (6) 教义
理解    (2) 解释 (7) 系统
经验    (1) 研究 (8) 传达

罗烈根的方法，其实是一般神学家应用着的，因为做神学工夫不能不牵涉悟性，只不过罗氏把我们的意识客观化，使我们更能了解自己，把握自己。倘若神学是信仰追求理解的话，则非要留心我们的认知不可。因此，悟性的结构就是神学的出发点。

（二）经验方法论(Empirical Method) 是以经验做出发点。经验方法并非经验主义，它是具有一个信仰幅度。天主是从人的经验与人接触，人经捡到自己是个奥秘，经验到天主的召叫，而自己必须作回应。救恩不再是个理智上的概念，而是活生生的经验。基督徒的伦理就是一个经验到自己在基督内被天主召叫的人的伦理。每位基督徒都在理智上知道基督降生救赎我们，以自己苦难圣死涤除我们的罪恶，并以复活恢复我们的生命，但经验方法论者更重基督的死亡和复活「如何」影响我们的生活；基督本人是我们伦理生活的泉源和模范，祂给予我们行动的力量，使我们生活中有基督徒的意向和信念，以祂作为我们伦理判断的标准。总之，人在生活中经验到基督爱的召叫，而以具体的行动回应天主这份恩宠。神学必须能反映这个事实。光是经验是不够的，神学应助人了解经验的意义，例如：人人都能在生命某阶段经验到痛苦，这并不是神学；但如果我们能以信仰的眼光，带出痛苦积极的意义，那才是神学。

有些神学家就特别从人的痛苦经验中做神学反省，例如解放神学家苏炳诺(J. Sobrino)就从人的痛苦做出发点。他并非从个人的痛苦着眼，而是侧重社会内人民普遍的痛苦。他经验到南美国家痛苦的原因，在于贫富悬殊，人民受政冶压迫，经济受人操纵，跨国组织控制了别国的命脉并干扰别人的内政。这种社会现象及文化背景迫使他喊出一个圣经的口号：「解放」。基督所宣讲的福音，必须助人解除不公义的束缚及制度。在他的神学里，他担任了先知的角色，谴责不公义的现象，指导人与贫苦受压迫的人认同。

人的经验是包罗万有的，因此经验方法论能概括很多基本上不相同的方法论。解放神学家是从社会上人普遍的痛苦经验开始，是个从下而上的神学方法。但有些神学家却从个人的宗教经验着眼．天主在人存在的环境中与他相遇，天主主动的接触人，人如何从伦理生活回应祂，服从祂。这个方法主要不是我做什么，而是天主要我做什么，对天主的启示，天主的召唤完全信服。总之，注意力是放在天主身上，是个从上而下的神学方法。

注一：Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972.

注二：J. J. Mueller, What are they saying about theological method?, Paulist Press, 1984.

注三：David W. Blanchfield, "Methodology and McCormick" in The American Ecclesiastical Review, 168(1974), pp. 372-389.

注四：Charles E. Curran, Moral Theology－A Continuing Journey, Notre Dame,1982.

(2) 从伦理知识来源看方法论

梵二肯定圣经是「神学的灵魂」(启示24)，要求伦理神学「应受圣经更多的滋养」(司铎16)，圣经顺理成章的成为伦理知识的来源。哲学伦理可以不牵涉启示，但伦理神学不要启示就不能称为神学了。圣经是伦理知识的来源，神学家是绝无异议的，产生争论的却是：圣经是伦理知识唯一的来源抑或是伦理知识的来源之一？

有些基督教的神学家倾向认为圣经是唯一的来源(注七)，对人的理智抱怀疑的态度。天主教的传统却认为圣经是伦理知识来源之一，因而产生不同的方法论。我们认为人的理智同样是伦理知识的来源，它并没有完全为罪所败坏，还能够分辨天主的计划，这就是自然律伦理的基础。从罗烈根认知的模式，更肯定了人的理智往伦理知识上的必然性。启示能光照理智，使它更充实，更完整，有更阔的视野，但启示不能取代了理智。天主教传统赞成良心是判断是非善恶的标准，而良心就是「正直的理智」。没有理智，人就没有善善恶恶的能力，缺乏了伦理的基础，也没有伦理责任可言；没有理智，人也没有推理、判断的能力。这是我们同意启示与理智并重的原因。

基于对理智的重视，我们只重各学科的成果。梵二清楚指出：「攻读哲学、史学、数学、自然科学及艺术，颇有助于提高人类对真、善、美的理解力，对于普遍价值的判断力」(世界牧职57)。此外，我们亦看重非基督宗教的伦理智慧，承认它与我们有共通之处。在高唱神学本位化的今天，我们更不能忽视中国传统的伦理思想。圣经新旧约也曾向当时其他民族的伦理借镜，如圣保禄便借用了斯多葛派及其他希腊的伦理思想。中国先贤的伦理，定有很多与基督徒伦理融汇贯通，相辅相承的地方。虽然有些基督教兄弟，对中国传统伦理颇有微言，甚至斥为「没有规范和动力的道德」(注八)，但大致上基督徒对中国圣贤的伦理总是怀着敬意的。张春申神父进一步认为天主启示孔子超自然的得救之道，由他去传播整个民族；孔子不光是古代一位圣人，他实在是中国天主教的「梅瑟」。张神父结论说：「在福音传入之前，中国人必须接受孔子传播的启示真理始能得救」 (注九)。这是一个很大胆的结论。站在一个中国基督徒的立场，我承认孔子的确受了天主的启示，但找吏认为孔子并非唯一受到启示的，启示亦不仅限于儒家，他们在福音未传到中国社会前起一定的作用。因此，在研究伦理学时，我们不光是引用一些中国圣贤的伦理，以便解释清楚基督徒的伦理，更重要的是能看出先贤的伦理在中国人的救恩史上面，曾占过一席重要地位。福音是中国传统伦理的继续和圆满。

伦理知识的另一个来源就是教会团体。教会的训导处有圣神的助佑和累积的经验，对伦理的指导有莫大的价值。虽然训导(Magisterium) 一词，在中古时曾一度分为牧者的训导(Magisterium cathedrae pastoralis) 和导师的训导(Magisterium cathedrae magistralis) (注十)，但从梵一到梵二，训导一词，完全是指牧者(即教宗及主教) 的训导。这里仍沿用这个意思，以免混淆，但没有否定神学家有训导的价值。

梵一以前，牧者的训导似乎没有特别影响伦理神学的方法。但从良十三开始，刻意要增强教会牧民的原动力，不断发出通谕。在位期间(1878－1903)，曾写了五十多篇通谕。伦理神学受其影响，慢慢从通谕训导里提取其内容。他的「玄妙莫测」(Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae,1880) 谈论婚姻及家庭生活，他的「新事」(Rerum Novarum,1891) 开社会正义问题的先河。前者影响着教会对婚姻的训导，例如庇护十一的「圣洁婚姻」(Casti Connubii, 1930)，梵二的「论教会往现代世界牧职宪章」，(Gaudium et Spes,1965) 中第二部份第一章「维护婚姻与家庭尊严」，与及富有争论性的保禄六世的「人类生命」(Humanae Vitae,1681)，都是进一步的发挥「玄妙莫测」。「新事」通论的影响更大，甚至被认为是伦理神学中论社会正义的基础，奠定了教会在正义问题上要走的路线。教宗庇护十一的「四十年」(Quadragesimo Anno,1931)，若望二十三的「慈母与导师」(Mater et Magistra, 1961)，保禄六世的「民族发展」(Populorum Progressio,1967)「八十周年」(Octogesima Aveniens,1971) 和当今教宗若望保禄二世的「论人的工作」(Laborem Exercens,1981)，都是在「新事」基础上论社会问题的。

1918年颁布了新的圣教法典，更使整个教会朝向罗马。圣教法典及教宗通谕已走进神学的结构里，伦理神学几乎成为教会训导处的神学。每一个伦理问题，神学家都要看看圣教法典怎样说，教宗的意见怎么样。教会训导处的权力到了庇护十二「人类」通谕(Humani Generis,1950)达于极点。教宗引用福音的说话「谁听从你们，就是听从我」(路十：16) (注十一)，要求神学家服从，并认为「这个神圣训导层，在信仰与伦理道德的事上，为任何神学家，都该是真理最近的，也是普遍的标准，因为主基督，曾把整个信仰的宝库即圣经与属神的传统道理都委托这个训导层，去看管，保卫，并予以诠解」 (注十二)。

现代的神学家多不满意他们的神学，只为教会训导处服务，神学沦为训导处意见的注脚。这种发展，是本末倒置，把对天主圣言权威性的解释(quo) 放在天主圣言(quod) 之上。神学与训导处都只应为天主圣言服务，quod应在quo之上(注十三)。

这里不打算讨论教会训导处与神学家的关系。我只想指出训导处的训导本身就是神学，谁能反对梵二的文献或像「慈母与导师」，「人类生命」等通谕本身就是神学，为伦理神学带来可观的资料呢？研究伦理神学实在不能忽略教会训导处，这可能是我们独特的方法论。

注五：Charles E. Curran, Critical Concerns in Moral Theology, NotreDame,1984, pp.3-41.

注六：Bernard Lonergan, op. cit. p. 9.

注七：参拙著「圣经与伦理神学的关系」，神学年刊(8)，1984，19-20页。

注八：章力生：「人文主义批判」、宣道书局，1968年，卷上，第贰篇，第三章，86－106页。

注九：张春申：「孔子、启示、中国历史与基督」、神学论集(7)，1971，37－38页。

注十：参Yves Congar, "A Semantic History of the Term 'Magisterium"' in Readings in Moral Theology, No. 3, The Magisterium and Morality, edited by Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick, Paulist, 1982, pp. 303.

注十一：参DS 3885.

注十二：参DS 3884.

注十三：Yves Congar, "A Brief History of the Forms of the Magisterium and Its Relations with Scholars", in Readings in Moral Theology, No.3, op. cit., pp.326.

(3) 从伦理模式看方法论

人生活不能没有伦理规律，伦理规律帮助我们评定行为的对错。伦理规律的基础在那里呢？伦理学家颇不一致，因为每人所用的模式不一样，故此产生不同的结论。伦理神学有时所谓不同的方法，原来是指伦理规律所本相异的模式。模式所用的名字颇不一致，有时使人产生混乱的感觉。

主要的模式之一是功利主义(utilitarianism)。此模式的目的是为最大多数的人带来最大的利益，并以此作为行为的选择。与此相近的是效果论(Consequentialism)，主张行为的对错，要视乎能否产生良好的后果。天主教伦理学家多喜用目的论(Teleology) 的名称。目的论认为衡量行为时，必须考虑所有可能的结果或目的；我们面对的善和价值都是有限的，因此不能先天地选定某种善或价值，而要把它们拿出来衡量，看看那个价值更高更迫切，从而选定它。以上三种论调意义接近，有些神学家干脆看成是同义词(注十四)。不少天主教伦理神学家把伦理规律所本的模式分为两大类，即目的论和义务论 (注十五)。

义务论(Deontology) 承认很多行为的道德性是由目的或效果去断定，但有些行为不管环境、目的、效果如何，总是不道德的。例如：说谎、自杀、绝育等，因为这些行为违反人性中的道德秩序，即违反了自然律。哲学家康德在伦理学上是个义务论者。传统天主教伦理神学多赞成此说，这派神学家甚至从圣多玛斯「神学纲要」取得支持：说话的自然意向是表达人的真正思想和感情，说谎是相反了说话的本质，亦因而相反人性，故不应为了避免某些恶而说谎(注十六)。今天，天主教伦理神学家中仍有些坚持此说的，如格林西(Germain Grisez)，康纳利(John R. Connery) 等。他们批评当今教会内的伦理神学家离弃传统训导，美其名为修正主义或中庸之道，投靠教会从前反对的功利主义或效果论 (注十七)。

至于中庸的伦理神学家却认为他们所用的模式，是传统效果论和义务论外的第三种，不应把这模式和效果论混为一谈。至于这第三种模式，至今还没有统一的称呼。古伦(Charles E. Curran) 称为综合目的论(Mixed teleology)或综合效果论(Mixed consequentialism) 以别于严格目的论(strict teleology) 或严格效果论(strict consequentialism) (注十八)。麦哥铭(Richard A. McCormick) 称为温和目的论(moderate teleology) 而称其他两类为绝对效果论(absolute consequentialism) 和绝对义务论(Absolute deontology) (注十九)。场合伦理学家福来奢(Joseph Fletcher) 是属于绝对效果论，即行为的对错，取决于它带来的效果；格林西属绝对义务论，认定有些行为，无论带来什么效果，总是不道德的，不应该做的。温和目的论者不同意绝对效果论，因为道德责任能来自效果以外的因素；他们也不赞成绝对义务论把善(good) 与公正(right) 分离，后者认定公正就是公正，不需要以善的效果作基础。温和目的论者认为衡量行为正误要用均衡理由(Proportionate reason or commensurate reason)，因此，不光是行为的效果，连达致这行为结果的方法亦在考虑之列。

我虽主张中庸的温和目的论，但本文不打算详述为什么那个伦理模式比较合理。我只想指出伦理学家自称用了不同的方法，有时是指上列不一样的模式。

注十四：Charles E. Curran, "Utilitarianism and Contemporary Moral Theology: Situating the Debate" in Readings in Moral Theology, No. 1, Moral Norms and Catholic Tradition, edited by Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick, Paulist, 1979, pp. 341-342.

注十五：Franz Bockle, Fundamental Moral Theology, Gill and Macmillan, 1980, pp. 235-247.

注十六：Summa Theologiae II -II. 110. 3-4.

注十七：Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. I. Christian Moral Principles, Franciscan Herald Press, 1983, Ch. 6.　

John R. Connery, "Morality of Consequences: A Critical Appraisal", Theological Studies, 34(1973), pp. 394-414.

注十八：Charles E. Curran, "Utilitarianism and Contemporary Moral Theology", op. cit. p. 352.

(4) 从伦理重心看方法论

人的伦理通常可分两大部份：内在的道德主体和外在的道德世界。很多基本伦理神学书都这样划分(注二十)。在过去，伦理神学特别重视道德行为，常常讨论什么行为是对，什么行为是错；什么可以做，什么不可以做。这做成法律的意味很重，用的是以个案为中心的决疑方法论(Casuistic methodology)。从前伦理神学家所写的书，不少都是良心个案(casus conscientiae) (注廿一)，以帮助司铎听告解或解决牧民问题。这个方法论在梵二后受到很多伦理神学家的攻击，认为有法律主义的倾向，容易误导人以为满全法律条文是伦理生活最重要的事，或把注意力放在行为上面，把行为的规律绝对化。我们不能说这个方法论不能用，梵二后的今天，仍有伦理学家写良心个案问题 (注廿二)。

今日的伦理神学家倾向于把重心放在道德主体上面。行为的对错(rightness or wrongness of behaviour) 固然重要，但个人的善恶(personal good or evil) 更重要。我们关心的首先应是个人的善恶，其次才是行为的对错。要知道做了一个客观上是对的行为，不一定就使人成为善人；同样，做了一个客观上是错的行为，不一定就使人成为恶人。基督徒伦理基本上是一个使命，而非一条法律。因此，伦理神学应回到道德主体，他如何回应福音的召叫？如何选择他的回应？拒绝召叫(罪恶) 和回应召叫(德行、礼仪、祈祷等) 为主体有什么意义？总之，焦点集中在主体身上，他与天主的关系，与自己的关系，与别人的关系，与世界的关系。每种关系都是道德主体在生活中对天主召叫的回应。梵二的指示似乎证实这个方法论是适合现代基督徒的：「应特别注意的是改进伦理神学，其科学的体系应受圣经更多的滋养，说明教友在基督内使命的崇高，以及他们在爱德内为世界的生命多结美果的责任」(司铎16)。伦理神学主要不是说明个别的伦理行为，而是使基督徒了解自己的召叫，在基督内做一个更相似基督的人，满全基督之律，为天主、为别人，为世界、也为自己带来爱德的果实。

结语

伦理神学的方法论是一个复杂的问题，本文自然无法概括方法论的每一方面。从上述所讨论的方法论中，我们似可综合一个今日伦理神学应有的方法论。罗烈根的先验方法，是每个作思考反省的神学家都免不了的。每人都要搜集资料，消化资料，调和冲突，看看能否有突破，好能奠定基础，判定价值，成立系统，然后用适当媒介表达。这个方法自然不会和经验方法论有任何冲突，因为反省经验，亦要遵守这些先验规则，或更好说，先验方法必然的包括经验成份。在研究过程中，我们虽强调理性的能力，但同时肯定圣经启示、教会训导，先圣贤伦智慧累积的功用。因此，伦理神学不但是理性的，还要是受启示光照的，教会性的，合一性的，与人文伦理相辅相承的。在反省伦理规律时，伦理神学应坚决反对绝对效果论，因这模式纯粹以效果决定行为的对错，认为没有甚么规律是绝对的，一切相对着实用效果，漠视有些行为不论带来什么公益都不应该做这事实。另一方面，绝对义务论过份以责任，以法律为重，太重公正，甚至连善也要牺牲掉，有「人为安息日」的倾向。伦理神学似应走一条中庸温和目的论的路线，善与公正同样重要，使用均衡理由时，不但看行为的后果，也考虑行为本身和达成结果的方法。最后，伦理神学应把道德主体的善恶放在行为正误之上，主体对外的各种关系，他对天主召叫的回应，他的祈祷、圣事、礼仪生活，应比决疑的个案为重。我不敢说这是个完美的伦理神学方法，最低限度这符合梵二的精神。

注二十：如Timothy E. O’Connell, Principles for a Catholic Morality, Seabury Press, 1978.其书主要讲道德个体(Moral person)和道德世界(Moral world)。

注廿一：较著名的拉丁文著作有A. Lehmkuhl, E. Genicot-I. Salsmans, P. Palazzini-A. de Jorio等的「良心个案」。英文的有Joseph F. Wagner, The Casuist, 4 vols; Canon E. J. Mahony, “Questions and Answer”, 2 vols.

注廿二：铎声多年来断断续续的载了述之八十多号「良心问题」。

作者：杨玉莲

一、前言

在最近的十年里，神学的探讨上出现了一些新思想：耶稣是一位说故事者、圣经中的旅程故事等。这些新观念为神学上、圣经上和神修上的研究都带来新的探讨角度，使信友更能深入了解耶稣的宣讲及圣经故事的目的。

写这文章．目的是希望透过旅程故事的了解，使信友察觉到耶稣是在向他说故事，从而明白自己的回应应该是一个朝向天父的信仰旅程。在面对困难时，懂得接受挑战，勇敢面对，更重要的是懂得偕同主耶稣基督一起去走毕这信仰旅程，到达目的地。

由于「旅程」、「故事」是比较新的说法，所以在本文章的开始，本人是采用了John Navone的思想去介绍「故事」、「圣经中的故事」及「圣经中的旅程故事」，其后则以撒玛黎雅妇人的故事来加以阐释，作出一些综合及反省。希望这一切能为读者带来贡献。

二、简介「故事叙述」(STORY-TELLING)

(以下的资料主要是来自Tellers of the Word一书，Theses for the theology of story)

首先，让我们知道一个事实：人类是其故事的主人翁，是其主体，因为人是一种懂得说故事及造故事的动物。从生活经验中，我们知道人是喜欢说故事：小孩子喜欢在睡前要求听故事。渔夫喜欢说其打鱼所经历的故事；游客喜欢把其所闻说给别人听；长辈往往喜欢回忆及说其年青时的英勇故事；甚至现时我们所看的电视节目中，大部份都是剧集正在告诉观众不同类型的故事。由此，我们可知道人的确在不断说故事，听故事。

其次，故事是由说故事的人所创造出来的。那么，说故事就像工艺一样，需要雕琢修饰一翻，好能藉着技巧、手法把说故事者的目的及故事的意义表达得淋漓尽至。由于说故事者在说时也是在说其自己的经验、信念及价值观，所以听众往往被他领到做决定的层面上，也即是所谓回应的时候。简单来说，讲故事是讲者及听者一起共同创作的。如果在听故事的小孩不愿意相信你所说的，你根本不能说出甚么「白雪公主」或「狼来了」的故事，故事就说不成了。

然而，所有人类的故事都在提出问题或尝试解答有关人的最基本问题：就是生命及死亡。神于是被牵涉入每一个人类的生命故事之中，遂展开了故事的神学(Theology of story)。

神学再不是「神圣物件的科学」(Science of things divine) (注一)，而是神学家对于人对耶稣的故事的适当回应的不断反省。既然「神学」一字(theol ogos) 是神的话，那么重点该在于祂说话本身的行为，所以，要探讨的是「祂」怎样透过说话在现时向我们揭露自己及祂的救恩。此外，故事的特质是在使讲者和听者建立关系，所以众故事之背后故事是爱的故事。因此，故事的神学是有关人和那会讲话说故事的神的神学问题，并尝试带人进入天主的爱，爱的故事之中，使人的故事得以完满。

三、耶稣一生所说的故事

正如上述所说，所有人类的故事都是有关神的故事，所以我们可以说天主是透过人的故事被显示出来。但天主被人所认识的故事就是天主圣言圣子耶稣基督。

耶稣是一位讲故事者。他一生的故事就是与人分享其做天父儿女的责任，及联结所有受造物归于圣父。在三十三年的生活中，耶稣不断以爱去显示给世人「爱」的真正意义及天主的真象，而藉着圣神，罪人得以皈依，成为忠实的基督徒。其实，去讲「喜讯」故事的及聆听的都是由于天主的恩宠圣神，祂在两者身上奇妙地工作。

他对门徒施教时，时常喜用比喻。目的是藉一些人们能够容易明白及能触摸到的事情去了解更深的奥理真道。不过，有一个更大的比喻我们必须知道：耶稣自己是天主的比喻(注二)。耶稣所宣讲的是天主的国，要了解这个奥秘就是必需从讲者身上去了解，那即是说，是要求听者的投入，默观耶稣，进入他内才能了解明白而作出适当回应，而这个认识及皈依的深度是向无穷尽开放的(open-ended)，是视乎听者对讲者所说的真理认识有多少，以及对讲者本身的了解和默观有多深。

由此引伸，我们得知故事有一个非常重要的因素：听者的反应及回应是在乎讲者是否说得娓娓动听，具吸引力，但最重要的不是其所说的内容，而是他自己的作证，用身教来感动人去参与这个故事，一同创作。因此，不同的说法、不同的语调和不同的表达，都同样会有不同的反应。但我们无可否认，耶稣是一位最完美的讲故事者，他在吸引整个人类听他所讲的故事，归向他。

每次听完他所讲的故事之后，听众往往是充满惊奇的喜乐，这就是天主恩宠的奇妙特质。在每一个故事里，团结的天主圣三是故事的开始、中途及终向。因为正是祂在向我们说故事，邀请我们去寻求那无尽的爱，洞悉祂伟大奇妙的奥秘，同时也是在分享祂的美善。

注一：这句 “science of things divine”是引用John Navone: Tellers of the Word一书中，在导言里他所采用过的，pg. XV.

注二：「耶稣是天主的比喻」是出自Interpretation: "Jesus as the Parable of God in the Gospel of Mark" by John R. Donahue, October 1978.

四、圣经的旅程故事

我们会说圣经是一部天主启示的书，是有关祂怎样从太初就爱了人，拯救全人类的喜讯。若从另一角度来说，它是一部有关天主及神所拣选的人的「旅程故事」。亚巴郎、梅瑟、耶稣、伯多禄和保禄等都有他们自己的旅程去回应那为了人民的神圣召叫。透过他们的故事和他们与天主之间的关系，我们更加能够了解和认识天主。总括来说，圣经的故事是便人从不同的方向，怀着期望去认识爱慕天主，而且还藉着一连串的旅程故事展露出天主是谁以及我们是谁(Who God is and who we are)。

现在让我们看看一些旅程故事。相信大家都知道支配着整个旧约故事是「出谷」的故事，而支配着新约的便是基督的故事。新约是用新的旅程故事，有关新梅瑟、新「出谷」及新以色列的故事来把旧约从新阐释。耶稣是在太初已存在的圣言，他是被圣父所派遣到人间并从人间返回天父去。他是从加里肋亚到耶路撒冷开始他的旅程，而这个旅程其后是由他的门徒承接起来，从耶路撒冷延展至世界的地极。除此之外，在他所讲的比喻中，有许多还是旅程故事，如浪子的故事等。

以下是圣经旅程故事的一些特点：

(一) 每一个旅程故事都包含着三个内在主观性的因素：超验之神(transcendent spirit)、自我超越的领袖(self-transcending leader) 及自我超越的团体(self-transcending community)。

在旅途上，天主的神在默感、带领及赐予力量。旅途的过程是在经验那超验之神的权能、光照及许诺，而对这经验作出的回应。故此，旅程包含着开放的回应和服从那神在自己生活中的呼召。祂是超验的正因为祂所默感、带领和赐予力量的人都能藉着祂、因着祂而变为超越性。

从自我超越的领袖身上，我们可以察看到超验之神的效果。透过那些个别被召的人，超验之神向整个团体显露自己，并转化它成为一个在信、望、爱中不断自我超越的共融团体，因为超验之神在领袖身上所作的是为他人、向团体开放的。

自我超越的团体是由超验之神透过自我超越的领袖所带领着的。因此，去行走旅程是超越之神结合整个团体，使它迈向救恩之门。

耶稣的生命是在天主的神临于玛利亚而开始的。他的使命也是由天主的神降临于他的受洗时而开始的。更因祂的降临，教会之所以诞生，同普世万民，为复活的基督作证。从这里，以上的三个因素的互相关系，相信已经很清楚及具体的表达出来了。

(二) 每一个旅程的开始是由困难、问题或危机所引发的。

面对这般的情况，人会挣扎、寻求解决，期望「出谷」。于是圣经的旅程故事的出发点是在于人被召去解决困难，提出问题及寻求回答。但解决方法及答案的质是由他自己所负责的，因为这是受他的回应所决定的。

(三) 旅程的动力是由信、望、爱所支撑的。

团体对其首领充满信心，正如基督的团体因信主基督而结成一体。信德能使团体在行走旅程时所遇到的混乱和逆境中挣扎，充满力量，努力不懈的走毕旅程。

到达福地的希望是整个出发的推动力。我们离开出发是怀着希望到达目的地。行动是希望有好的改变，所以希望是自我超越的参与着善。

爱，是一个回应及责任。出于爱，人被召叫开始其旅程故事；由于爱，人才能有其「出谷」事件。每个旅程故事是爱使人有更丰盛的存在。爱克服一切，使人不断的自我超越，而超越就是回应那召唤我们离开自己的真理力量。

耶稣是充满着上主之神；他把自己的生命献给世人，遂成为我们的道路、真理及生命。他是人存在的开始及终向(Alpha and Omega)。因为他，在他内，天主被人认识和经验为爱，所以人愿意及不断的向着天主开放和追求祂那超越的爱。

(四) 圣经的旅程故事常含有家、无家及回家的特质。

梅瑟的出谷纪是从一个不是真正自己的家园开始出发，经过四十年的流浪才到达天主所预许的福地。但后来的充军使以色列饱尝家园毁灭，无家之苦。最后，他们终于被释放回家，遂构成一个新的「出谷」旅程。

新约时代把家及回家的意义扩大延伸。家是指我们的源头，生命的开始。耶稣从圣父来到世间又从世间回到祂(注三) 生命之源那里去。同时，在另一方面，看见耶稣也即是看见天父，他在祂内，合二为一。故此，耶稣在这世间上时常在家里(源头)。此外，他又说过谁听从及遵守他的话，他就是他的母亲、兄弟和姊妹。家，遂在那些存留在他的话里的人中间。

回家是聆听及遵守圣言的动力，也是认识和见到天父的动力。既然回家是回归天父的动力，那就要以心神和真理，以及信任的爱去回归。在回去时，我们不是单独的，我们是有指标的道路的(若14：3ff)。回家是对真理回应的动力：「谁爱我，乃遵守我的话，我父也必爱他，我们要到他那里去，并要在他那里作我们的住所。」(若14：23)。家是圣父的居所。祂住在那些寻求真理、爱真理及忠实地生活的人的心里。这就是天国的临在，平安就是在家的经验，是彼此的认识及互相的接纳。

(五) 自制、克己和弃绝在旅程当中是需要的。

旅程是意味着一个分离，离开自己而面向新的我，新的方向和新的事物。所以，克己能帮助我们从那些防碍我们走向更美善的生活困难中挣扎和克服，使我们能解放于自由中。

(六) 迷失路途

犯罪是迷失了路，道路(Hebrew：hata)，四处流浪(Hebrew：avon)，而悔改是回归(Hebrew：shuv)。这指出：在旅途中寻找道路是会遭遇到许多困难，但我们千万不可没有目的地流浪。在出发时，我们已将目标放准，努力迈向目的地，故此面对着日常生活的挑战时，勇气及辨明是极需要的。

(七) 记起路途在圣经旅程故事中是十分重要的。在旅程中的团体是会回忆起天主在过往为他们所作的奇异工作，于是旅程是在参与天主在将来所作的奇妙工作。

回亿创造将来，只有那些忆及许诺的才会察觉它将来的实现。他们之所以有将来是因为他们了解在过往从中的真正意义。

(八) 旅程带给人无限的成长。

为了成长，人是愿意冒险、甚至受苦。旅程故事已假定成熟的主要条件是成长的能力(capacity for growth)。这成长是一个方向的移动，为个人及社会的发展无限制的开放。

(九) 最后，不屈不挠的精神是每一个旅程故事的基本必须条件，因为世上是充满了邪恶的势力。

在旅途中，我们虽然会跌倒，受到迫害，遭受痛苦等，但只要我们屡败屡战，怀着坚定不移的信心，我们终会到达目的地。

经过以上的介绍，对于旅程故事的认识已略知一二。综合来说，旅程故事包含着内在及外在的旅程。外在的是透过时间和空间移动，而内在的是在存在的奥秘中移动。再者，外在的是一个计划，是内在旅程精神的比喻；而内在的则是其意义，在伴着外在旅程。在此，就以若望福音来作一个例。若望福音告诉基督往圣父去的旅程故事。在加里肋亚和撒玛黎雅的众旅程当中，耶稣所宣讲天主的圣言是记录在「征兆之书」内(Book of Signs)。这「征兆之书」其实就是回归天父的旅程，包含着耶稣的一生，经过死亡及复活而成为光荣复活的基督。这些可见的旅程是基督朝向天父内在活动的「征兆」，也是基督徒宗教经验的质，也即是说：每位基督徒该有回归天父的旅程的宗教经验。

注三：这思想主要出自若16：28。

五、「撒玛黎雅妇人」的旅程故事分析

为了更深入了解圣经的旅程故事，以及与我们自己的关系，现引用若望福音第四章「撒玛黎雅妇人」的故事来加以阐释。在介绍时，故事是当作一个话剧来处理，分为两场。

(甲) 与上下文之关系

第二章至第四章是一个周循由加纳至加纳。首先，耶稣是从加纳开始到耶路撒冷、撒玛黎雅、而返回加纳(加里肋亚)。这是一个贯通「世上王国」的回归旅程。既然是一个旅程，耶稣是必须经过撒玛黎雅，因为加纳至加纳是一个传教的旅程。

(乙) 戏剧的目的

总括来说，其目的是寻找那些迷失的。这一幕是要指出耶稣的寻找和那妇人信仰的成长。

(丙) 背景

耶稣和一个孤独者。耶稣坐在雅各伯泉旁，邻近息哈尔；那是大约中午(第六时辰)。当时他很疲倦，口渴，是处于需求的状态中，但他仍然对四周寻找的可能性留意。他是以人的知识及敏锐与那妇人交往。在另一方面，不可忽略的，是那妇人处于她的孤独之中。

(丁) 戏剧与架构

整个故事是一出两幕剧，而这处所谈及的只是第一幕。这幕也可分为两场。以下是它的编排及介绍(注四)：

第一幕：耶稣与妇人的对话

第一场：活水(4：6－15)

对话一(4：7－10)

耶稣：请给我点水喝

(耶稣是突破了当时的社会习俗，与一位撒玛黎雅妇人谈话。)

妇人：你既是个犹太人，怎么向我一个撒玛黎雅妇人要水喝呢？

(妇人拒绝了耶稣)

耶稣：若是你知道天主的恩赐，并知……

(耶稣是提出两个挑战；就是(1) 认识是谁在与她说话和(2) 向他请求活水。)　

对话二(4：11－15)

妇人：先生，你连汲水器也没有，而井又深，你从那里得那活水呢？

(妇人误解「水」是指普通物质的水)

耶稣：凡喝这水的，还要再渴；但谁若喝了我赐与他的……将在他内成为涌到永生的水泉。

(耶稣在加以澄清)

妇人：先生，请给我这水罢！……

((2) 她终于请求水)　

第二场：向天父的真朝拜(4：16－26)

对话一(4：16－18)

耶稣：去，叫你的丈夫来，再回这里来。

(耶稣采取主动，显示他认识她的生活。这是一个转捩点。)

妇人：我没有丈夫。

(她在拒绝面对现实)

耶稣：你说：我没有丈夫，正对；因为你曾有过五个丈夫，而你现在所有的，也不是你的丈夫……

(耶稣在列出她的行为)

对话二(4：19－21)

妇人：先生，我看你是个先知。我们的祖先一向在这座山上朝拜天主……)

(她在逃避耶稣，遂转个话题)

耶稣：女人，你相信我罢！到了时候……

(耶稣解释朝拜天父是由真理之神所推动)

妇人：我知道默西亚要来……

((1) 认出耶稣就是默西亚)

　

经过了简明的介绍，现在就以「旅程」的角度来分析一下：

让我们先谈耶稣的旅程。这幕是耶稣的旅程被中断的一幕。

由于人性的软弱疲倦(注五)，他朝圣的旅程正面对着会变为普通旅程，甚至沦为漫无目的的徘徊，他几乎失落了自己。其实，旅程的目的就是这个打扰，透过我们神修生活中的中断，圣神活跃地工作。

至于那妇人，她的旅程本来就是一个普通「出外」的惯常事件，但这外在，物理(physical)的旅程却成为一个内在精神的旅程。她所取得的再不是物质的水而是活水。还有一点，她的旅程不是止于井旁，反而由惯常的「出外」变为一佰回归的旅程传教的旅程(4：39－42)。

然而，成长是这位妇人的内在旅程。仔细研读，我们可以察觉她对耶稣态度的转变。首先，她在弃绝耶稣，「你是个犹太人」；后来态度软化下来称他为「先生」；跟着以宗教的幅度来形容耶稣为「一位先知」；到最后更能以真正基督徒的认识称耶稣为「默西亚」。从中，我们可以看出她的跳跃，信仰的成长就是她内在旅程的后果。

此外，危机是旅程的决定点。「危机」，从希腊文中(Krisis) 是解作一个判决，所以它是决定的一刻，也即是真理的一刻。危机是一个转捩点，可决定旅程变为「朝圣的」或是「徘徊的」。在这故事中，耶稣成为那妇人生活的危机。耶稣遭受她的弃绝，但他并没有接受，反而他以光进入她内，给她挑战。这个挑战遂变为决定接受光或拒绝光的时刻。终于，她接受挑战，还作了一个决定性的改变，使漫无目的的旅程变为朝向天父的旅程。

注四：参考资料是采用Raymond Brown, the Anchor Bible "The Gospel According to John" pg 177ff.

注五：耶稣的疲倦除了是指身体上之外，也是指出一个征兆：就是他苦难的旅程。井旁的故事说出耶稣是怎样带领人归向天父，而他苦难的故事也正是具体表明透过他的救赎，整个人类才能回归父那里去。

六、从「撒玛黎雅妇人」故事来看旅程故事的一些特点

在朝圣的旅程中，耶稣被去汲水的撒玛黎雅妇人所打扰，而开始了那妇人的旅程故事。首先，耶稣是主动的开始她的旅程(v.7)。他邀请的目的是向她挑战，使她寻求认识「天主是谁」及「我是谁」(v.10)。在邀请时，耶稣是与她一起，陪伴着她，并为她澄清、指引和开道(v.13)。由于耶稣诚意的邀请，那妇人终于接受了，并主动的开始她内在的旅程(v.15)。诚然，她的旅程是由于耶稣在给她挑战，使她产生问题、危机；再加上她自己向真理的开放之下而开始的(v.19)。行走时，耶稣更以信、望、爱来坚强她，使她明白耶稣自己本身就是信、望、爱的泉源(注六) (v.21)。另一方面，在旅途中，她是从无家(v.22)而变为有家可归的人(v.23)，就是以心神，以真理朝拜天父。这就是整个旅程的高峰。最后，她是充满着无比的喜乐(v.28)去开始其传教的旅程(v.29)。

七、综合及反省

从经验中，我们知道在听故事时，我们不单祇在听故事的内容，其实也是在认识和默观说这故事的那位。人在说话时，除了在传通讯息之外，也是整个自己，包括思想，心底的意念都融会在言词里，所以说故事者也是在说出他自己是谁，把自己表达出来，让人了解他的信念、生活、价值观等。同样，天主的圣言耶稣基督在向每一个人讲故事，叙述天主的国、天主的伟大及对人类的慈爱。要了解这一切，就必须从圣言身上去了解，进入他内，才能明白天主的真理奥秘。

讲故事时所采用的方法技巧也会为听者带来不同的反应和回应。如果我们朗诵一首情诗，用了粗野冷酷的声音和语调来诵读，必定会使听者不堪入耳，惹起不满，鼓躁起来。但假如诵读的那位溶汇了诗中的感情，把自己化成主角向自己的爱人细诉，效果就会更加理想，使听者深深感受到诗中所流露出的爱意。耶稣也是一样，他用爱来向我们倾诉，以比喻的方式来向我们展示天国的奥秘，更以挑战来邀请我们向他回应，开始我们朝向天父的旅程。

旅程可以是一个普通的旅行，一个徘徊、或一个漫无目的的流浪，或是一个以天父为目标的朝圣。在出发时，可能是没有目标或是目标不清淅，但一个普通平凡的出外也可被耶稣转化为一个朝圣的旅程，尤如「撒玛黎雅妇人」的故事一样，所以耶稣是时刻在邀请我们加入回归天乡的旅程。

旅程故事是藉着问题的刺激，生活的质疑使人认识自我，反省自己的经验，察觉自己的改变及天涯的跳跃。这就是成长。这成长就是向那超验之神无限的开放，投奔祂。故此，旅程故事是在说出人的进化朝向基督的进化，以及他的「成人」(Becoming)。

在朝圣的过程中，耶稣一直在陪伴我们每一个人，所以我们并不会弧单。在另一方面，人将在悔改、宽恕、好客及共融的气氛中成长，肖似基督。最后，耶稣更以喜乐平安倾注入我们心中，而主所赐的平安使我们深深的与他契合起来。喜乐的泉源是来自与天主的相知相契，并与祂为友。天主还使我们充满圣神的喜乐向着天下万民传扬祂爱的音讯，为祂作证。

当耶稣，我们的师傅在向我们讲故事时，我们该注意四点：

(1) 留心细听(Be attentive)

听故事是要用心去听才会把内容留意，了解讲者的背景和目的，以及他的心意、希望。不然，我们便会白白溜走他的讯息，错失良机，放过与天主相知相契的机会，正如耶稣说过：有耳的，听罢。

(2) 聪明敏悟(Be intelligent)

用心听，目的是去悟其道理，这样才不曾「听而不闻」。但能否听得懂讲者的道理，背后的训示和邀请，这是极需要我们聪敏及才智去理解的。

(3) 适当的理解(Be reasonable)

除了明白整个讯息之外，还要知道讯息的背后内容和征兆，所以我们需要运用理智去反省以往的经验，从而面对此理解而作出判断，决定接受邀请和挑战与否。

(4) 负责任(Be responsible)

决定方向是对讯息的回应，更是对讲者的个人深入的回应。只有这段的回应才是一位负责任的听者，才不往讲者的一番心事。

以上四点是每位听者都该经验的步骤，也是开始其旅程之路的必经步骤，希望每位听者被邀请者都能经过净化，在主的光照下，勇敢的接受挑战，朝向天父，与祂紧密的契合起来，在圣神内呼祂为「阿爸！父啊！」

注六：这句子于出于The Way "Faith and Hope and Love" by Joseph P. Whelan, October 1968.

九、书目

(1)John Navone, Tellers of the Word, Le Jacq Publishing Inc., New York, 1981.

(2)John Navone, The Jesus Story: Our Life as Story in Christ, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 1979.

(3)Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (Anchor Bible), Doubleday, New York, 1966.

(4)神学论集，第五十一期，「路加福音中『旅程叙述』的一个意义训练门徒(上）」，高慧琳译，一九八二年春。

作者：罗国辉

当别人知道我是攻读「教会礼仪」的时候，往往都给我一个莫名其妙的反应，不单是教外人士，甚至连教友对「礼仪」两字也是知其所以而不知其所以然，故此，实在有为「教会礼仪」澄清一些观念的需要。

其实，今日天主教常说的「礼仪」乃是中译希腊文Leitourgia之教会术语；而Leitourgia这「词语」之所以成为基督徒术语，也是经过一段历史的过程。

字源

首先Leitourgia在古希腊时代的古典用法是指「公务」或「为大众(社会) 的服务」，这「公务」是一份光荣，以表达个人或某一家族对大众及国家的爱戴，但是到了希腊时代晚期(公元前三世纪后)，这词语渐渐离开原来的意义，而用于某人或某一家族(社会阶层)自愿或强迫性地为某种利益而必需承担的「职责」，或借用来统称任何「服务」和「事奉」，包括纯个人性的职务，故而失去了「公共」服务的意义。这词语接着也应用于当时的宗教(特别是神秘宗教上)，作为人对神祇必需的「事奉」和「礼拜」(与一般自然宗教礼拜神明的意义相同，也和一般所谓「人」对「神」的事奉和责任同义。)，而这些「事奉」和「礼拜」往往是由某些受托的人物按着一定的仪式所举行，它所着重的是「一套必须的拜神仪式」，而失去了Leitourgia原本的「公务」或「社会服务」的内容。(1)

旧约七十贤士本

在圣经旧约被翻译为希腊七十贤士本(2) 期间，Leitourgia就被用了一百七十次之多，且刻意地被用于有关「肋未」和「司祭」在帐棚、会幕或圣殿里向雅威的「礼拜」(如：出：廿八－卅九；户四：八；编下卅一：2；则四十一－四十六；特别是：户十八：20－24；编下卅一：2；则四十四：15－16)而群众的服务和向雅威的礼拜则以另一词语Latreuein或Douleuein来翻译(如：出一：14；六：6)。这种分别显示当时译者刻意表达他们心目中的Leitourgia就是「上主所设立(来自法律者上)，并由特选的人物肋未和司祭所做的仪式；换句话说、即是「一套官方及专职化的礼拜」。(3)

新约

Leitourgia一词及其演变在新约当中，共用了十五次，其中作一般「服务」，或「事奉」的意思有：罗十三：6；十五：27；斐二：25－30；格后九：12；希一：7－14；用作旧约「司祭敬神」的有：路一：23；希八：2－6；希九：21；希十：11；(在希伯来书的用法是类比性的)，用作属神(精神) 敬礼的有：罗十五：16；斐二：17；而唯一似乎用作狭意地指基督徒和相聚敬礼的有：宗十三：2(然而释经学家对这章节的解释各有不同，但一般的意见是如在希伯来书一样，是以旧约的敬礼的词语作类比，突出基督徒敬礼的真实性、独特性、超越性，而非旧约七十贤本里的用意。) (4)

早期教会内的应用

在教会的最初两个世纪，Leitourgia也多次用在希腊文教会文件中，如用作旧约司祭敬礼的有：初世纪的格来孟前书(5) 卅二、2；四十、2；用作爱德行动的有：第二世纪荷马牧人传(6) 比喻五、3、8；用作「事奉」天主的有：格来孟前书卅四、5，牧人传(7) 比喻七、6，比喻九、27、3；用作团体中每人的职责者有：格来孟前书四十一、1；渐渐也引申到执事、长老(司铎) 和监督(主教) 职务上，类比旧约的司祭，如初世纪的十二宗徒训诲录十五：1，格来孟前书四十四、2－6，三至四世纪欧瑟比教会史(8) 三、13、34；甚至施洗，举行晚课为称为Leitourgia，而Ancira(314) 和安提约基亚(341) 的主教会议他用之统称基督徒的庆典；早自第四世纪Serapion礼文(9) (十一、3) 已称感恩祭为Leitourgia。于是后来东方教会则保留这词语，专用于称呼感恩圣祭为神圣的Leitourgia。比如金口圣若望感恩经(10)则常将此词句用作「神圣的事奉」解。

拉丁译文

圣经拉丁通行本(11)，将Leitourgia这词语的内容译为Ministerium (臣仆、司祭) ，Officium (职任) ，Munus (职守本份)，Caerimonia (礼节)，Opus (工作、工程)，Servitus (服役事奉)，Cultus (崇拜、风俗)，Devotio (虔诚、奉献)，Sacramentum (密事、入伍)，Mysterium (神秘、密事、奥理)等等。

写于5－6世纪的圣本笃会规(12) 则称每日的「时辰礼赞」为Opus Dei (天主的工程)，如十九章、四十三章、四十九章等。

约六至七世纪的罗马礼书Sacramentarium Veronense(13) 的93号祷文则称「感恩祭」为Mysteria，并解释为「实现(履行) (上主) 救赎我们的工程」。

至于一般论及「教会礼仪」的作品，自古时到十二世纪(即圣经的狭意观念形成前)，常用Sacramentum (密事) 和Mysterium (密事、奥迹)；从第七世纪到十七世纪，则常用Officium (职任)，这词也常见于一九一七年的圣教法典(如2256、1)：自十七世纪后，则常用Caerimonia (礼节)；十六世纪到廿世纪，则常用Ritus (规矩、敬礼)；在经院学派则常用Cultus (崇拜)，而Cultus正式使用于教会文件是在一百六八年「日课经」的颁布(Bulla Quod Ad Nos)

Leitourgia的译音拉丁文Liturgies仅在十六世纪使用于受东方教会影响，的论感恩祭经文和其仪式的着作，如G. Cassander, Liturgia de Ritu et Ordine Dominicae Caenae, Quam Celebration Graeci Liturgiam, Latini Missam appelarunt 1558.

直到十八世纪之后，拉丁文Liturgia则需被用作统称一般教会「庆典」(礼仪)。然而Liturgia正式用于教会文件中是一九七四年的Auctorem Fidei，遂渐渐战为常用之教会术语，好像梵二会议的礼仪宪章也就是「Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia」(14)。

中文意译

中文「礼仪」一词作为教会术语，解作「教会庆典(敬礼)」，首先见于一六七O年，利类思译「弥撒经典」当中，用来意译Feria IV Cinerum (灰之星期三) 为「圣灰礼仪」。从此则常用于中国天主教会的作品，梵二文件Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia则译为「礼仪宪章」了。

以上是Leitourgia (中文意译为「礼仪」) 一词的字源和在教会文字、资料及文件上的应用历史；然而这名词本来的意义和后来借用的意义和译文，又是否能够表达现在教会所了解及愿意表达的内容呢？

所以，实在有必要将梵二大公会议「礼仪宪章」所了解的「礼仪」作简要之说明。

(1)Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. G. Kittel), vol. IV, Eerdmans, Michigan, 1985, pp. 215-219.

(2)The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (with an English Translation by L.L. Brenton) London, 1974.

(3)Concordance to the Septuagint, vol. II , (ed. 'E. Hatch, H.A. Redpath), Akademische Druck-u. Verlagasanatalt, Graz-Austria, 1954, pp. 872-873.　

G. Kittel, op. cit., vol. IV, pp. 219-222.

(4)A Concordance to the Greek Testament, (ed. W.A. Moulton, A.S. Geden) Clark, Edinburgh, 1970, pp. 597.　

The Analytical Greek Lexicon, Bagster, London, 1967, pp. 250; G. Kittel, op. cit., vol. IV, pp. 222-239.　

A.G. Martimort, The Church at Prayer, New York, 1968, pp. 1-8.　

L. Eisenhofer, J. Lechner, The Liturgy of the Roman Rite, New York, 1961, pp. 1-7:　

S. Marsili, "Liturgia" Anamnesis I, Casale, 1979 pp. 33-45; Catholic Encyclopaedia, New York, 1967, s.v. "Liturgy" Dizionario Teologicio Interdisciplinare, (ed. L. Pacornio), Casale, 1977, s.v. "Liturgia".

(5)中译本见吕穆迪译，宗徒时代的教父，香港，1957，19－76页。

(6)中译本见吕穆迪译，宗徒时代的教父，326－440页(即何而马神牧启示录)。

(7)中译本见吕穆迪译，宗徒时代的教父，1－18页。

(8)英译本见(Tran. A.G. Williamson) Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1983.

(9)英译本见L. Deiss, Spring Time of The Liturgy, Minnesota, 1979, pp. 183-208.

(10)原文见A. Hanggi, I Pahl, Prex Eucharistica, Fribourg,1968. pp.224-225. 中译见罗国辉译，东方教会金口若望的感恩礼典，神学年刊(3)，1979，香港，53-81页。

(11)泛指圣热罗尼莫(347－419) 的拉丁通行本，见圣经辞典 (思高圣经学会编著)，香港，1975, 908号；此处用修订版Biblia Sacra, Vulgatae editionis, Sixi V Pont. M. Issu Recognita et Clementis VII Auctoritate Edita, Roma, 1822.

(12)Regula Monasteriorum, (ed. L. C. Mohiberg) Benedictus, Vibolone, 1981.

(13)Sacramentarium Veronense, (ed. L. C. Moniberg) Roma, 1978.

(14)见注四。

梵二礼仪宪章

梵二大公会议「礼仪宪章」开宗明义就在第二节，引用降临后第九主日(Sacramentum Veronense，93号，即今日常年期第二主日) 献礼经所说的，「礼仪」就是上主在我们身上「实行救赎的工程」。然后更进一步的在第一章五至八节里详细说明天主的「救世工程」完成于耶稣基督的降生成人、死而复活的逾越奥迹里；而教会基督的奥体，就是救赎工程在时空里的延续和实现；故此教会以不同的方式，特别在福音的宣讲和施行圣事当中，继续实现这救恩史。事实上，在「礼仪」当中，基督实在临在于圣言的宣讲，圣事的施行，(特别是圣体奥迹)，圣职的服务及奉主之名彼此相聚的天主子民中间；同时，教会也通过基督向圣父献上心神和真理的崇拜。故此「礼仪」基本上就是基督执行祂的司祭职务。

换言之，「礼仪」的本质，就包括了(一) 基督临在他的子民教会当中，藉着有效的标记施行祂「救世的工程」；(二) 同时也是整个基督的奥体(教会)，元首和肢体，一心一德向天父的公共敬礼。由这两个基本的要素就构成基督信仰中的所谓「礼仪」，即七件圣事、日课(圣经颂赞和代祷) 和准圣事。

「礼仪」一词的商榷

从以上梵二对「教会礼仪」的了解，我们可以试固分析教会历代所用有关「Leitourgia」的词语之长处和短处。

那些「官式礼拜」、「公仆职任」Ministerium, Officium, Servitus等字眼，虽然可以表达「礼仪」是教会对上主的「公共事奉」，也是对教会团体的「服务」，但是其重点只集中在「司祭、公仆职务」身上，而忽视了信众在礼仪中的主动地位和参与，(无怪乎历史中有神父「开」或「做」弥撒，教友「望」或「听」弥撒的讲话方式。事实上，「礼仪」的基本要素之一是整个基督奥体、元首与肢体的共同行动(礼宪、14)。同时，「礼仪」也不仅有人的层面，亦有神的层面，即是天主藉着基督，以有效的标记，亲临和介入祂子民中间，施行救恩。故此，「官式礼拜」、「公仆职位」等字眼有把礼仪变成纯粹一套官式特定礼规之危险。(1947年的「天人中保」(15) 通谕的25节已经拒绝了这种「礼规主义」的错选。)那些「崇拜」、「礼拜」、「礼节」、「敬礼」的字眼，Cultus, Caerimonia, Devotio, Ritus，也相当有限，它们或许可以表达「礼仪」是教会在基督内向圣父的有形崇拜，但总是有太表面化和形式化之嫌，且忽略了「教会礼仪」并非只是人为的崇拜，而同时也是上主藉着有效标记介入和主动的「救世工程」，故此「崇拜」、「礼节」、「敬礼」、「礼拜」等字眼，也有把「教会礼仪」变成纯粹人为感性宗教仪式的危险。(事实上，1947年的「天人中保」通谕第25节也拒绝这「仪式主义」的错选」)。若称以「奥迹」或「圣事」、「密事」，Sacamentum, Mysterium，好处是包含了「教会礼仪」是上主藉着有形标记亲临在祂子民当中彼此交往的意义；但可惜是比较深奥，不经过解释，恐怕一般人很难明白。

而另外一个比较好的名词，即本笃会规里所用的Opus dei (天主的工程)；这名词一方面可正面的把「教会礼仪」是「上主藉标记亲临祂的子民中间、施行「救世」工程的意义表达出来，也同时要求人的回应和参与；事实上六至七世纪的罗马礼书(Sacramentarium Veronense)93号也解释「教会的礼仪」实为(上主) 履行(实现) 拯救我们的工程」。

现在也让我们看看中文所用「礼仪」两字，是否也有不足之处。

「礼」字在说文解字中解作「履」也，足之所依；所弓事神致福也，从示从丰，丰者，行礼之器；礼有五经，莫重于祭。辞海(1980年版)「礼」则解作敬神、敬礼、仪式和规范之意。而「仪」字生说文解字中是：度也、法制也、善也、宜也；辞海则解作礼节、仪式、向往、和宜。

故此，在一般人的了解中「礼仪」就是敬神致福的仪式(16)，或「敬礼」，「礼的交往」，「彬彬有礼」的做法，「礼教」，定国安邦之策；但若用之于教会，又是否能够使人明白是上主藉着有效标记，在教会里与祂子民的互相交往，即神的介入和工作，教会对上主的赞颂和回应呢？又或恐怕一般人只能偏狭的了解为人为对神的「敬礼」，或信仰之「礼法」而矣。

当然我们承认每一个词语都是有限的，比如原文Leitourgia一词也是同样不能完全表达所谓「教会礼仪」的内容；况且每个词语在应用的过程中，也藉着解释而引入新的内容，特别是教会的术语；然而，如果能够找出或创作一个内容恰当，而不会招致误会的词语，就最好不过了，这实在是需要各位教内兄弟姊妹共同寻找的。

其中一个可能的建议是以「圣礼」来代替「礼仪」一词。因为根据说文解字解释，「圣」者「通」也；按照辞海(1980) 则解作无所不通，在宗教上指属于教主的。故「圣礼」可解说来自教主，通圣之礼。此词的好处是一方面可表达出「来自上主亲临」的一面，同时保留了「礼」、标记、仪式的一面，即「敬礼」、「礼拜」、教会回应上主的意义。可惜的是「圣礼」一词已被一些基督教人士用于指天主教所谓「圣事」(圣洗、圣餐) 之意(17)，故可能有天主教和基督教不同的用法和内容，容易引起混乱之嫌。

结语

从以上对「教会礼仪」一词的分析来看，我们可以见到所谓「教会礼仪」的基本要素是「上主的救世工程」和「教会的回应」，(即基督论及教会论)，也同时可见中文「礼仪」一词约有限。如果我们单从「礼仪」字面的看法，去追逐于一些礼节式的新鲜感，而美其名以为是本地化，那就实在是一个误会了；因为事实上，要建立本地化的「教会礼仪」，首先是要本地的基督徒元首和肢体，开放于上主圣言，而生活于「祂的救世工程」中，并且以心神和真理来崇拜和回应，然后从他们对「上主救世工程」的回应和经验中，以诚于中、形于外的言(文字语言的交往)和行(生活、及藉标记的交往)，来表达救恩在教会和社会中的实现(18)。

谨以降临后第九主日(今之常年期第二主日) 的献礼经作为彼此之共勉和代祷：「恳祈天主，使我等以敬心时习于圣事，凡以此祭，即行救赎我之工，为尔子基利斯督，亚孟。(一六七零年弥撒经典。)

　

(15)英译本可见The Liturgy (Papal Teachings), (ed. Benedictine monks of Solesmes), Boston, 1962, pp. 313-407，特别是pp. 325.

(16)正中形音义综合大典，台湾，197　197，查「礼」，「仪」，辞渊，商务，1931，查「礼」。

(17)见辞海 (1982)；宗教词典 (何继愈主论)，上海，1981，查「圣事」。

(18)庞秉辉同学，在「礼仪导论」习作中的反省，实在藉得我们借镜，现撮录以飨读者：　

「……另一方面，在思索神学、教会本地化时，使我看到更多的问题，有待我们探讨，提出意见及解决。首先，我们中国人对宗教的信仰态度并不如西方人士的以「知」明「信」，而却愿以「行」体「信」。(基督教与中国思想，谢扶雅著，60页) 是故，对文字上的定义，我们并不如西方的严谨及有系统的分析，因为我们知道并体验到许多事理，尤其在宗教信仰上是不能尽以文字或言语来完全表达：「言不尽，意无穷」。而应要用中国的传统、文化，代以「行」动来体现出这「信」仰。这方面的发展应是我们教会本地化，也是「圣礼」本地化要做的事。」　

Dizionario Teologico, (ed. H. Fries) Brescia, 1967, s.v. “Liturgia”.

Nuovo Dizionario Di Liturgia, (ed. D. Sartore D. & M. Triacca) Roma, s.v. “Liturgy”.

New Dictionary of the Liturgy, (ed. G. Podhradsky), London, 1967, s.v. “Liturgy”.

作者：凌蕙彤 Ling, Esther

Though contemporary New Testament scholarship has not been successful in achieving a consensus of opinion on the history of tradition behind the three passion predictions in the synoptic gospels (Mk 8:31; Mk 9:31; Mk 10:32-34; Mt 16:21-23; Mt 17:22-23; Mt 20:17-19; Lk 9:21-22; Lk 9:43-45; Lk 18:31-34), it is generally agreed among scholars that the presence of these predictions in all the three gospels is due to Mark, and that the predictions in their present context in the gospel of Mark are of special significance in Mark's theology of the cross. The purpose of this paper is a two-fold attempt: namely, to study the historicity of the predictions in the gospel of Mark and to elucidate the theological significance of these three predictions.

I

At the outset let us ask a preliminary question: how similar and how different are the three predictions? A synoptic comparison will reveal the following common features (see Appendix):

1.Jesus is accorded the title "Son of Man";

2.Jesus will be killed and will rise after three days;

3.Jesus "must suffer" (8:31) or "will be delivered" (9:31; 10:33); and

4.The Jewish authorities are the culprits responsible for the suffering and death of Jesus (except in 9:31 where the word "men" is used ambiguously).

The only marked difference that stands out is that the third prediction (10:31-34) is much longer, including details that are lacking in the other two accounts. What do these common features and minor differences reflect? Can they throw some light on the basic problem as to what extent the predictions are from the tradition of Jesus himself, from the tradition of the early church, and from the redactional pen of the evangelist?

Rudolf Bultmann, in The History of the Synoptic Tradition, maintains that the predictions are three versions of a single statement which, in their present context, are intended by the evangelist as a literary introduction to the passion narrative of Jesus. He argues that triple repetitions are common in the New Testament: for instance, Jesus is three times tempted (Mt 4:1-11; Lk 4:1-13). Jesus prays three times in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mk 14:32-38 and parallels), and Peter denies Jesus three times (Mk 14:66-67 and parallels). Indeed, to this list of three-fold repetitions we can add many other Old Testament and New Testament triplets, such as Samuel's three calls in his sleep (I Sam 3:3-9), and Paul's thrice-narrated conversion in the Acts of the Apostles (Act 8:1-22; 22:4-16; 26:9-18). It does seem that "three" is a number that has special significance in biblical writings. But Bultmann develops his theory more sceptically elsewhere, in The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, where he argues that the passion predictions are simply some post-resurrection formulations, some "vaticinia ex eventu" or prophecies after the event. and that we cannot know how Jesus understood his destiny and his death.(2) How far is Bultmann's view tenable?

To enable us to answer this question, a critical discussion of the whole section of Mk 8:27-10:52 seems necessary. We will begin at the level of structure analysis, and then proceed to examine the key words in the three predictions.

Structurally, this section falls neatly into three divisions all of which follow the same pattern:

1.Each division begins with some precise geographical references, i.e. "the villages of Caesarea Philippi" (8:27), "went on from there and passed through Galilee" (9:30). and "And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan" (10:1)

2.Each division contains a prediction (8:31; 9:31; 10:33f) which is introduced within a consistent contextual pattern in which the announcement of passion is followed by a subsequent misunderstanding on the part of the disciples, and a teaching on discipleship by Jesus.

The first announcement occasions Peter's rebuke which is followed by Jesus' teaching: "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (8:34f). The second announcement has an explicit reference to the disciples' inability to understand, which is further illustrated by their discussion on greatness. At this point Jesus begins teaching again: "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all" (9:35). After the third announcement, misunderstanding emerges in the form of the request of James and John. Here Jesus' teaching culminates in the example of the Son of Man who "also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).(3)

If the above analysis is correct, two structural characteristics which stand out distinctly are noteworthy: the consistency of pattern. and the consistency of progressive arrangement of material. These two characteristics obviously reflect a strong element of redactional work on the part of the evangelist, who has carefully reconstructed the way 'to Jerusalem, the destination of the suffering and death of the Son of Man. This, however, still can neither prove nor disprove Bultmann's thesis. In other words, we cannot deduce from this indication of redactional activity on the part of the evangelist any conclusion as regarding the origin of the predictions themselves. All we can say is that they are there in their present context for a special theological purpose of the evangelist.

Turning to the level of linguistic analysis of the key phrases and words, we will begin by singling out the significant word dei in 8:31. Contemporary research has rediscovered that this word as used here can only be fully understood in connection with the fulfillment of scripture, for it underlines God's divine providence in the Christ event (4). It is related to scripture as a whole, not to some particular text such as Psalm 118:22, Or the Servant Songs of Isaiah, or Daniel 7, as commentators in the past have generally suggested. Its real background is that of apocalypticism, and it is used in Mk 8:31 in a sense proper to apocalyptic literature, as indicating that certain future events are decreed by the wilt of God. Thus the whole clause hoti dei ton huion tou anthropou polla pathein is of crucial importance. In this light we can appreciate better that to persuade Jesus to shun these sufferings is to tempt Jesus to disobey the will of the Father, as Satan has done in the three temptations. This explains the real meaning of the words of Jesus when he says: "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men" (Mk 8: 33). This reference to the divine plan of God's salvation which is ultimately realized in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is a common feature of early Christian tradition. Hence the use of the expression dei in Mk 8:31 gives us good reason to believe that the first passion prediction may be traced backward to pre-Markan tradition.

Another key expression is meta treis hemeras which occurs in all three Markan predictions. G. Straecker, in his study on this section of Mark (5), points out that the preposition meta in this expression is surprising and striking because-it clearly contradicts Mk 14:58 and Mk 15:29, which state that the resurrection would be dia trion hemeron and en trisin hemerais respectively, both of which can be translated as "within three days". He further draws our attention to the fact that in both the Matthean and the Lukan versions of the passion predictions this is rendered as te trite hemera or te hemera te trite ("on the third day"), which is a formula possibly assimilated to the presentation of the passion narrative and influenced by the earliest kerygmatic formula such as that in 1 Cor 15:4. This analysis gives us good reason to conclude with Straecker that the expression as it stands in the present context probably cannot be attributed to Mark's redaction, but to the tradition of Christ's passion, and therefore is also pre-Markan.

The verb apokteinein in Mk 8:31 is equally significant. This verb is used in early traditional formulae to refer to the Jew's responsibility for the death of Jesus; and an obvious example of this use is in 1 Thes 2:15. In the gospel of Mark, the evangelist does not always use apokteinein when referring to the death of Jesus. In the passion narrative, for example, he uses stauroun (Mk15:13ff; 1,6:16). If our observation here is correct, the presence of apokteinein in this logion also encourages the view that Mk8:31 may have a pre-Markan origin.

If the first prediction may be traced back to a pre-Markan origin, what about the second and the third predictions? Earlier on, in both our synoptic comparison and structural analysis, we have demonstrated that all the predictions are structurally as well as contextually quite similar, except the third which includes more details. We have also pointed out that the contextual pattern betrays obvious traces of the evangelist's redactional activity. At this point, having established the pre-Markan origin of the first prediction. we are able to discern with a little more clarity what that redactional activity may probably have involved. It seems likely that the second and third predictions in their present context are repetitions of the original logion in Mk 8: 31. They are repeated progressively by the evangelist for theological or apologetical motivations. The minor differences may perhaps be explained as due to influences by the general passion narrative tradition of Jesus.

This leads us to a further question. If Mk 8:31 is pre-Markan, does it belong to the tradition of the earthly Jesus? Or can we agree with Bultmann that the predictions are prophecies ex eventu, and that Jesus did not anticipate his death? W. Kasper makes an allowance for a distinction between the content of the predictions and their formulation, maintaining that even if they were formulated by the early church, they are not inevitably nothing more than statements placed retrospectively on the lips of Jesus. The content could well have been from the earthly Jesus.(7) Hans Kung, on the other hand, argues that Jesus did anticipate his death and did expect his execution. He maintains that Jesus would not have been so naive as not to have had any presentiment of what finally happened to him. He argues that, while a christological interest must be allowed for anywhere in the gospels, historical scepticism must not be allowed to become uncritical. He admits that the predictions in Jewish apocalyptic style

are vaticinia ex eventu,......a literary genre which occurs frequently in the Old Testament and in ancient literature generally. These announcements are aids to proclamation, to the kerygma, and therefore are not prophecies or predictions in the strict sense. They are "kerygmatic formulas" which enable Jesus' way of the cross to be seen as the fulfilment of God's plan of salvation and not the consequence of blind fate.

But, he underlines carefully, this does not imply that Jesus never knew he might lose his life, and therefore could have never shared his anticipation with his disciples. (8)

Hans Kung's view seems covincing. Along his line of argument, we may indeed add a further question. If the predictions are post-Easter interpretations of Jesus' death and resurrection without a historical core, we may ask why they do not reflect the explicit soteriological interest of the early Church that Christ died for our sin and that He died by crucifixion. This centrally important soteriological element is always present in all the most primitive and earliest Christotogical proclamations such as that recorded in 1 Cor 15:3-4. Why in none of the three predictions is it stated that "the Son of Man must suffer and be killed for us and for our sin and then rise again"? The third prediction, while giving us an outline of the actual course of the passion, does not indicate the element of the killing by crucifixion. This surely is too important an element to omit. Indeed. C.H. Turner aptly remarks that if the predictions had been put onto the lips of Jesus by the early Church ex eventu, we should have inevitably found the word "crucify". (9)

By way of concluding this section, we may point out that there are good reasons for us to believe that the origin of the logion in question might very well be Jesus himself. In any case, the evidence in favour of this view is much more convincing than any scepticism against it.

1.R.K. Bultmann. The History of the Synoptic Tradition, (Translated by John Marsh), Oxford, Blackwell. 1963.

2.R.K. Bultmann. "The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus", The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ. edited by C.E. Braaten and R.A. Harrisville, New York, Abingdon. 1964. p.23

3.This analysis depends heavily on N. Perrin and H.E. Todt. N. Perrin, "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark" Union Seminary Quarterly Review 23, 1967-68, p.363; H.E. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Translated by D. M. Barton), London, S.C.M. Press, 1965, pp.145-149.

4.W.J. Bennett. Jr., "The Son of Man Must...", Novum Testamentum 17, 1975. p. 128.

5.G. Straecker, "The Passion and Resurrection Predictions in Mark's Gospel", Interpretation 22, 1968, p.429.

6.Ibid., pp.434-435.

7.W. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, London, Burns and Oates, 1976, pp. 114-115, p. 120.

8.H. Kling, On Being a Christian (Translated by E. Quinn), Garden City. New York, Doubleday. 1976, pp.320f.

9.C.H. Turner. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London, S.P.C.K. 1931. p.40.

II

Having dealt with the historicity of the texts, let us turn to the side of theology. The key to an understanding of the theological significance of the predictions is perhaps found in the so-called messianic secret and in the Markan use of the Christological title "Son of Man" in the context of the whole section in which the predictions occur.

Wrede, the first exponent of the messianic secret,(10) finds the clue to the puzzle of Jesus' habitual enjoining silence upon all around him and his secrecy in Mk 9:9, which reads: "he charged them to tell no one what they had seen until the Son of Man should have risen from the dead". According to Wrede, this was invented by Mark to explain why Jesus was not seen in his glory until after the Resurrection. This was by no means accidental: Jesus had recommended secrecy because he did not want to reveal his real Messianic identity while he was still alive. Mark designed this explanation and inserted it into the tradition handed down to him. Evidently Wrede is working on a presupposition that no one had ever thought of Jesus as Messiah before the Resurrection and that Jesus himself had never claimed to be the Messiah. But was it really so? Was there ever a Jesus tradition free from Messianic elements? Probably not, for certainly the Jewish Christian community right from the very beginning saw their master as Messiah.

The clue to the messianic secret lies in the Passion, not in the Resurrection. The function of the messianic secret certainly was not that entertained by Wrede, for Mark did not impose a theory on the tradition he had taken over; rather he was concerned to emphasize its true nature of proclaiming Jesus in the light of the Resurrection. Mk 9:9 embodies the evangelist's own theological insight and reflection that a genuine understanding of the true nature of Jesus was impossible until after the Resurrection. Hence misunderstanding was not only unavoidable but even necessary. Mark realized that the true Christ was the suffering Son of Man, and this conviction obviously has controlled his treatment and organization of the gospel material. Evidence of this is in the section we have just analysed (Mk 8:27-10:52). Here the evangelist dramatically describes the disciples' failure to understand Jesus' true messiahship. The replies of Jesus are not only to reassure the disciples that he went to his execution knowingly and willingly, but also to point out that an understanding of his messiahship had to depend on the Passion. It is here too that the evangelist develops his christology and his soteriology of the Son of Man. "The Son of man must suffer many things" (Mk 8:31), but the Son of Man will come "in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mk 8:38). And the Son of Man came "To give his life as a ransom for many" (Mk 10:45). Each of the passion predictions must be viewed in the light of these Markan presentations of the Son of Man; and in these Markan presentations, as Norman Perrin puts it, "we have moved from earthly authority through the necessity of suffering to apocalyptic authority. We have moved also from the necessity for the passion to the soteriological significance of the cross"(11) The passion predictions, therefore, have a definite and central theological function to perform within the Markan framework of proclaiming a suffering Messiah, a genuine understanding of whose true nature was impossible until after the Resurrection.

10.W. Wrede, The Messianic Secret (Translated by F.C.G. Greig), Cambridge and London, James Clarke, 1971.

11.N. Perrin, "The Creative Use...", p.364.

III

By way of recapitulating, the following points may be significant:

1.Mainly on linguistic grounds, evidence speaks for a pre-Markan origin of the first prediction in Mk 8:31.

2.Though it has not been possible to trace the historical substratum underlying the prediction logia. it seems certain thay have a historical core. In fact, it can be demonstrated convincingly that Mk 8:31 may very well have its origin from the earthly Jesus.

3.On structural and theological grounds it seems likely that the first prediction in Mk 8:31 is repeated three times by the evangelist in the present context immediately before Christ's entry into Jerusalem. The repetitions are for theological and apologeticat purposes.

4.The chief concern of Mark is the passion and suffering of the Messiah, for without the cross, neither Jesus' works nor his words can be genuinely and properly understood. Indeed, the exousia of the Messiah is to be proclaimed from the cross: "Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mk 15:39). Thus the gospel of Mark is christological. and its theology is a theology of the cross, a true understanding of which includes an understanding of the cross embraced in Christian discipleship. The passion predictions are part of this theology as well as the key to this theology. Therefore it is not surprising that each prediction of passion, as discussed earlier, is followed by a unit of Jesus' teaching on discipleship (Mk 8:34ff; 9:35ff; 10:38ff). To be a disciple means readiness to take up the cross, readiness to be servant of all and smallest of all. and readiness to sacrifice oneself.

Finally, we conclude our study by proclaiming with Mark: "Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (Mk 8:35).

APPENDIX: A SYNOPTIC COMPARISON OF THE PASSION PREDICTIONS

Mk. 8:31
And he began to teach them
That the Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes,
and be killed,
and after three days rise again.

Mk. 9:31
for he was teaching his disciples saying to them,
The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men,
and they will kill him, and when he is killed,
after three days he will rise.

Mk. 10:32-34
And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid.
And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying,
"Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem;
and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and scourge him,
and kill him.
and after three days he will rise.

Bibliography

ANDERSON, H.. The Gospel of Mark (New Century Bible). 1976, xviii 366p.

BENNETT. W.J. Jr., "The Son of Man Must...", Novum Testamentum 17,1975, 113-129.

BULTMANN, R.K., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Translated by John Marsh). Oxford. Blackwell, 1963, vii 456p.

BULTMANN, R.K., "The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus". The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, edited by C. E. Braaten and R.A. Harrisville, New York. Abingdon, 1964, 247.

KASPER. W., Jesus the Christ (Translated by V, Green), London, Burns and Oates. 1976, 289p.

KUNG, H., On Being a Christian (Translated by E. Quinn). Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1976, 720p.

NINEHAM, D. E.. The Gospel of St. Mark, Middlesex, Penguin Books, 1965, 477p.

PERRIN, N., "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark", Union Seminary Quarterly Review 23, 1967-68. 357-365.

STRAECKER, G., "The Passion and Resurrection Predictions in Mark's Gospel". Interpretation 22, 1968. 421-442.

TODT, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Translated by D. M. Barton), London, S.C.M. Press, 1965, 366p.

TURNER. C.H., The Gospel According to St. Mark, London, S.P.C.K., 1931.84p.

WERDE, W., The Messianic Secret (Translated by F.C.G. Greig), Cambridge and London, James Clarke, 1971, xxi 292p.

作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio

ON THE JOHANNINE CHRIST IN THE TRIAL－

A THEOLOGICAL ESSAY ON JN 18:28－19:16C

PART ONE: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Theological Inquiry and Hermeneutics

"Are you the King of the Jews?" (Jn 18:33). This is a decisive question Pilate posed to Jesus. By this question, John allows his readers to begin an inquiry about the identity of Jesus (1) . Every question arises from a state of mind with which the questioner directs his investigation. The question of Pilate is not only used by John as a means to furnish some historical information about Jesus, but is intended to be a perennial question of John's readers to Jesus as well.

To the question(s) of Pilate, the Johnannine Christ (2) does not only give an answer but corrects also his way of questioning and requires the questioner(s) to "see" with the eyes of faith. This is exactly what Jesus did in the Trial and John just repeats it in his own way. From the first question of Pilate (18:33) to the seventh: "Where are you from? " (19:9), John has skillfully shown that Jesus managed to shift Pilate's earth-bound mental state to a superior level. Pilate is no longer interested in his Galilean origin, for at that moment he perceives Christ to be something more that a human mortal. His augmented "fear" (19:8) and "solicitude" to release Jesus (19:12) confirm this. The Trial projects a series of solemn and progressive proclamations of Jesus' identity and at the same time is blended with a crescendo of urgency for decision (belief or disbelief). In an ironic yet theologically correct (3) way, he is called "the King of the Jews" (18:39; 19:3), "the Man" (19:5) and "God's Son" (19:7). In the same way John wants to lead his readers into this christological horizon (4) where they will have to face Christ face to face. In fact, a careful reader may realize that as those actors involved in the drama of Jesus' life have to come to a decision (belief or disbelief) in his signs and words, so the reader himself should do the same. This is the very intention stated at the end of the Fourth Gospel (20:30-31), where John addresses his readers (5).

Today when we read this paragraph again, we want to grasp John's theological message so as to enter into the christological horizon he intended to bring forth. Our inquiry will be: Who is this Christ who manifests himself in the Johannine description of the Trial? This is a theological inquiry based on the conviction that Christ still speaks to us through John's Gospel. Thus our essay is mainly a theological one, though it only helps to "see" an answer without pretending to be exhaustive.

At this point, hermeneutics must be called into play. It is a complicated issue that lends itself to endless discussion, for it is concerned with theology, philosophy, history, linguistics, sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and so on. The text (of the Trial) projects a meaning of its own, but at the same time. is open to an infinity of interpretations beyond the intention of the author (6).

However, from the theological point of view. hermeneutics can be considered a service of the word and of the confession of faith. It attempts to bring out the transcendence of the word. which is simply the transcendence of speaking human subjects in relation to their conditionings (7) . Any transcendence presupposes a "breach" and a "leap" over which faith must be involved as pre-comprehension. Thus it should be worked out within the living reality of the Church, which is the recipient of the Divine revelation ("Ecclesia discens") prior to all differentiation of the offices in the hierarchy. Her primary activity preserves with fidelity and docility the revelation which has been given to her in "words and signs'' (8) and still resounds in the present day (9) . For this the Holy Spirit endows different charisms on the Church, and, in particular, on the Apostles and their successors, that in "receiving" and "handing-down" the Divine Truth they may never fall into the wrong path. The interpretation of a scriptural text should help to map out a route that makes possible a common journey for those who want to encounter God (10).

Of course the entire process of the transmission of the Deposit of Faith should not be limited to the moments of infallible canonization of Holy Scripture or proclamation of dogmas; it is, above all, to be "lived" in the worship (11) in which God's glory will dwell upon men. "Homo vivens Gloria Dei". As a matter of fact, every Good Friday when we listen to the "Passio" according to John. we sense that Christ still speaks of himself to men (especially in the Liturgy) through John's writing.

The "Trial" itself was already a route theologically mapped out by John that led his contemporary to Christ. However, the mapping may be blurred by the long distance of time and cultural differences. The "letter" may no longer be a sufficient guide to the "spirit" (12). Through a hermeneutic process, we thus wish to recover its "sufficiency" so that the "Trial" may appear again as an ever renewed route to the threshold of the Mystery for the modem men.

Our working area is the text itself. We do not employ an exegetical process like Text Criticism, Literary Criticism, Form Criticism, Redaction Criticism (13) and. so on. All these stages of work are presupposed. By adopting a philologico-semantical analysis, I try to furnish a "hermeneutical space"－a field of possibilities for play in which any man may immerse himself both receptively and actively as a creative perceiver of meanings; for "play" is a mode of receptive-active encountering realities from which meanings of life can be derived (14). Such a hermeneutical space results from an existential interaction between the text to be interpreted and the interpreter who has the conviction that the more he reads the text, the more it becomes telling. The repeated readings should go hand in hand with the analysis of verbs, vocabulary, syntagmas, syntax, textual and contextual structures and so on. Any intelligent reading may lend itself to an interpretation but here it is the philologicosemantical analysis, without excluding other methods and approaches, that throws light upon our readings.

Futhermore, the outcome of a hermeneutic space is based on the mutual relationship between the "event" and "writing". By event here we mean the historical Trial itself. The writing, refers not only to a simple production of text. but above all to that special text so designed (and so inspired) as to provoke faith within the readers (15) . The Trial happened in the past but has a permanent force appealing to men of different times and places. The writing is to save it from forgetfulness, and hermeneutics is to keep it perpetually "alive" to those who seek to step over the threshold of the Mystery.

2. The Johannine Theology of History

A careful reader of the Trial will notice that John continously mixed the present tense with the past. He adopts the inceptive use to give a striking effect of continuation－something is happening. John is not only reporting the past in a lively way by using the historical present, but also on the theological level, he is showing us the presence of the Mystery that appeals, here and not. to his readers. In order to understand John's subtlety, it is expedient to dwell at some length on his theology of history.

The conclusion of John's Gospel (20:30-31) reveals two major interests, namely, the Revelation through the events of Christ, and their salvific implications for men who are appealed to make a decision of faith either in the acceptance or refusal of his Revelation.

Now Jesus did many other signs (semeia) in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. and that believing you may have life in his name" (20:30-31).

For John the "semeia" are the events of Christ themselves, the sight of signs should lead people to believe in him (cf 1:51; 2:11, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 30; 7:31; 9:16. 23 and so on) and his revelation. Now this dominant theme determines also John's conception of time.

The coming of Christ is the irruption of the eternal into the temporal sphere.

"The Word became (aorist) flesh and dwelt (aorist) among us" (1:14).

"For the judgment, j came (aorist) into this world" (9:39).

The use of the aorist indicates subtly the inception of the state in a global sensed that the dwelling and coming of God took place at a certain point of time in the past and has thus inaugurated the New Era of God's Presence in human history. The idea of the irruption of the eternal into the temporal leads us to a conception reminiscent of the kairos of the vision of Paul. All the events take place in the stream of single moments (chronos) one after another. With the coming of Christ, there has come true the fullness of the chronos (Gal 4;4). In the unrolling of the plan of God (oikonomia), there has arrived the climax－the Christ-event in relation to which every event is to be defined as "before" or "after".

"Formerly you were without Christ, strangers to the covenants of the promise" (Eph 2:12).

Now he (Christ) has reconciled you in his body of flesh" (Col 1.22) (17).

However John has skillfully focalized this idea of kairos into the hora of Christ (18).

"Truly, truly I say to you the hour (hora) is coming and now is (nun estin)" (Jn 5:25).

The hour is the full accomplishment and unfolding of the Divine Plan, that is, the glorification: Cross and Resurrection-the returning to the Father and the sending of the Holy Spirit. The accent of the time, therefore, is on the present nun estin. The past and future with reference to chronos are brought together in the "hour" of Christ and they become a unity in the believers (20:31: pisteuontes). The future will bring nothing decisively new. for the eschatological accomplishment no longer takes place in the future at the end of time but right now in the Christ event.

The eschatological hour further supercedes the dichotomy between the past and future insofar as it appeals to man, here and now, who has to decide to accept or to refuse Christ's revelation. That is why Jesus came for judgment (5:22: krisis and 9:39 krima) upon the world - a division between the believers and unbelievers. Thus life and death, light and darkness appear together. The hour is the moment of judgment pregnant with salvation and decisiveness in the present. The hour is no longer a time between times, but is the definite consummation in which one has no need to wait for any end of the historical yet to come. For it is now all consummated (19:30: tetelestai). For the first time. the traditional dualism of the aeons (the present historical time and the future accomplishment at the end of time) derived from the Jewish apocalyptic is now eliminated. The coming of the logos subsumes the entire human "procursus" in the historical time. Instead there is another dualism, expressed by Hellenistic categories, between light and darkness, truth and falsity, believers and world, that which is above and that which is below (19).

In short, the Johannine theology of history is based on the presence of the eternal Word in the temporal world. This presence constitutes the Christ event, the Final Establishment, the Last Word of God towards mankind. Thus the Christ event becomes a contemporizing of eschaton. Salvation history subsumes human history and transforms it into a new creation. Whatever takes place in the world is to be judged with reference to the krisis in Christ.

Thereby the historicity of man comes to expression, namely, that man through faith in Christ moves from decision to decision. In the very decision of faith, man takes his Christie shape or becomes unbeliever. It results in the tension between the light and darkness and constitutes the real drama of eschatological existence－already and not yet－in human history:

"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (...)

but to all who received him, who believe in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:5,12).

However the force that overcomes this tension is Agap6. the Father loves the world by giving the Son (cf 3:16), and the Son loves the disciples with the love which the Father exhibits towards Him (cf 13:1; 15:9) in order that they may love one another (cf 13:34) and that the world may believe that is was the Father's love (cf 17:21; 14:31) for which the Son comes to the world. The love of God. consists not in loving him but in being loved by him, and whosoever is loved by God also loves others (cf 1 Jn 4:7-21). Hence loving others becomes the acceptance of God's love and, at the same time, the unifying force of the light that dissipates the darkness (20).

Granted that John has a theological conception of history which is foreign to empiricopositivistic historiography, it does not follow that the hisotricity of the trial is totally at stake. Some authors, like P. Winter, hold that "from John 18:29 onwards the Fourth Gospel contains nothing of any value for the assessment of historical facts''(21). The statement is wildly sweeping and ungrounded. "While there is evidence of some degree of elaboration by the author, the most probable conclusion is that in substance it represents an independent strain of tradition, which must have been formed in a period much nearer the events than the period when the Fourth Gospel was written, and in some respects seems to be better informed than the tradition behind the synoptics, whose confused accounts it clarifies" (22).

Hence it can be said that there are two perspectives in John's account of the Trial. One is historical: another we could call eschatological. Though they are of two different domains they are both nevertheless real.

2.1. The Historical Perspective of the Trial

By the standard of modem historical certainty, Jesus' Trial and Death on the Cross can be regarded as an assured "nuclear fact". However the history of Jesus that led him to the crucifixion was, above all. a theological one. To qualify it as "theological" is not to slight the authenticity of the fact; on the contrary it furnishes a point of contact between the empirical world (of facts) and the Mystery (of faith). With all this blending of fact and faith, John's account of the Trial is still the most consistent and intelligible that we have ever possessed. Only John makes it clear why Jesus was brought to Pilate. He was accused as an evildoer (cf 18:30) and should be condemned to death. Then he was considered, or at least, insinuated as testes (cf 18:40). This is a term that can refer to a simple robber, a rebel, or even more probably to a Zealot who makes armed conflict against the Roman rule (23).It is nor a simple political offence but a serious rebellion against the Pax Romana (24) which is rooted in a political religion, namely, Caesar is the god and thus requires everyone to offer due obedience to him. The Romans could not bear such a rebellion, or better the Kingship of Jesus, which would endanger the authority of their political god (25). Although John makes it clear from the mouth of Pilate that Jesus was not guilty of this charge (3 times: 18:38; 19:4, 6). he was still condemned on this charge (cf 19:15-16, 20-22).

The portrait of Pilate yielding to the subtle interplay of political forces carries a certain conviction, as John intends to show, that Jesus was reckoned with transgressors of the Jewish Law and was condemned as a blasphemer:

"We have a law and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (19:7; cf Lev 24:16) (26).

This is also in common with the tradition of the Synoptics.

Furthermore John's chronology, where the judicial process takes place on the 14th of Nissan, is more credible than that of the Synoptics, where it takes place on the feast of Passover (27). Though it is difficult to separate the historical kernel in a modern sense from the account of a theological history, yet it would also be too hasty to draw the conclusion that John has tried, at any cost, to jam all the facts into a theological frame in such a way that no trace may be founded in history. If modern historiography is foreign to John's intention, then we have no reason to search for it. For the truth narrated by John is not deprived of historicity, but is chiefly concerned with the interiorization of faith, openness to transcendence and a spiritual journey towards the self-unfolding Mystery.

2.2 The Eschatological Perspective of the Trial

In the fourth Gospel, it is the "Glory" of the Son that determines the content of the Trial. The whole NT unanimously agrees that the Resurrection was the climax of the Glory of the Son, for it was the mighty act of God par excellence. For John however, this "Glory" had already been visible during the ministry (28). The Glory is the irruption of the eternal into the temporal, and thus the anticipation of the Eschaton. What was supposed to happen at the end of time has now happened to Jesus, who is to unroll the salvific plan of God－the Final Establishment. It all starts with incarnation:

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

full of grace (charis = hesed)

and of truth (aletheia =' emet)

we have beheld his glory (doxa = kabod), glory as of the Only Son from the Father" (1:14).

The Glory of the Son is. thus. the Word (logos) spelt out by God to all men that His Mercy (hesed) and Fidelity ('emet) have now come true. That is why. for John, in the great "hour"－in which the Trial took place－Jesus is not only a simple man who by the envy of the Jews was accused as evildoer, rebel and blasphemer, but the One who has to come to exercise the eschatological function (29). In spite of the ironic setting, Jesus in the Trial is presented solemnly as the King, the Final Revealer, the Universal Judge, the Eternal Light, the Incarnate Truth, the Visible Glory, the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (......) and brings forth salvation for those who believe in him.

3. The Development of the Narratives of the Paschal Event

In John, historical instances are always gilded with theology so much so that Death and Resurrection－two historical instances－form one single Paschal event. In fact in different stages of preaching, the NT writers became more and more aware of this fact. Three stages can be distinguished here.

First, in the early preaching of the Apostles, especially that of St. Paul, we may notice that the Cross and Resurrection had created in the early witnesses two distinct experiences. At first, they were totally disheartened by the scandal of Jesus' Cross, but then were over whelmed with joy at the encounter with the Risen Lord. It is the apparition experience that makes the first witnesses recognize the identity of Jesus as the Son of God sent forth by the Father, born of woman (...) (cf Gal 4:4f), who. being found in human form, humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on the Cross: therefore God has highly exalted him (cf Phil 2:8-9). These two contrasting movements, katabasis (descending ) and anabasis (ascending), though they are of the same pre-existent Son of God, are in some way due to the two sharply contrasted experiences of the early witnesses.

In the second stage of the preaching, there emerges also the life-story of Jesus and, at the end of it, the appearance narratives. This does not mean that the preaching Church had now invented new material; rather, always remaining faithful to the earlier traditions, it adopted a new form of preaching for some particular reason. In these narratives. Jesus was presented, right at the announcemnet of Messiah's birth, as the One from above, the Son of the highest; but then there followed the movement of kenosis until the point of death on the Cross. However, it will be an empty Cross－a Cross that projects a light to the Resurrection by the confession of faith of a pagan centurion. This link between the Cross and Resurrection was further explained in the post-resurrection appearances by Christ himself. Hence at this stage, the Cross and Resurrection have been further unified as one single event.

In the third stage, John makes it even clearer that the Glorification takes place right away in the Exaltation of the Son of Man. The use of the verb hypsoo shows exactly the exaltation of the Glory and of the Cross. For John the katabasis movement takes place at the moment of Incarnation, and during the life-time of Jesus the anabasis movement goes upwards until the exaltation on the Cross. Note that in this upward movement, there is a crescendo of the revelation of the incarnate logos and a crescendo of disbelief that lifted him up on the Cross. What is on man's side the katabasis and humiliation, is the anabasis and glorification on God's side. John has marvellously unified these two contrasting movements at the moment of the "hour" where one can hardly disjoin the Cross from the Resurrection. They are of one single paschal Mystery.

Schematically, we can present the development this way:

"While the basic story remains fhe same. it (the Fourth Gospel) has been beautifully rewritten to present the Crucified Jesus as the consummate revelation of God's love (cf 13:1; 12:13; 19:30), lifted up from the earth in a final victory over evil (3:13-14; 8:28; 12:32), drawing all men to himself (12:20-12; 19:25-27) so that they may gaze upon the pierced one (19:37). It is here that God's work (ergon) is brought to fulfillment (see the use of telos and related verbs in 4:34; 12:1; 17:4; 19:29-30)"(30).

The trial for John was not only an important stage historically precedent to the Crucifixion of Christ, but should also highlight theologically the consummate revelation of God's love that invites man to a personal appropriation.

"In the New Testament it is above all St. John who emphasizes this aspect: truth is not simply the revelation which Christ brought by manifesting himself; under the action of the Spirit human beings must also appropriate this truth for themselves. In the Johannine writings 'to do the truth' (poiein ten aletheian) (Jn 3:21; 1Jn 1:6) means precisely to make the truth of Jesus one's own, so as thereby to reach the light" (31).

If John's word speaks about God and invites his readers to a confession of faith, then it is of interest here to elucidate the theological message contained in the trial of Christ described by John.



(1) John is used here as a name for the author(s) of the fourth Gospel, for whose identity, see G. Segalla, Giovanni = Nuovissima versione della bibbia (Roma 1978) 110-117. Biblical quotations are taken from RSV.

(2) By "Johannine Christ" I mean that it is Christ who speaks of himself through John.

(3) See G.W. Macrae, Theology and Irony in the Fourth Gospel, in R.J. Clifford-G.W. Macrae (eds), The Word in the World: Essays in honour of Frederick L. Moriatry (Cambridge 1973) 89-92."

(4) A horizon is a maximum field of vision from a determinate standpoint. Our standpoint is not only the systematical quest, "Who is Christ for me?", but involves an interior personal appropriation. For truth is not simply the revelation which Christ brought by manifesting himself; under the action of the Spirit man must appropriate this truth for himself. For John, "to do the truth" (Jn 3:21; 1Jn 1:6) means precisely to make the truth of Jesus one's own, so as thereby to reach the light. See I. de La Potterie, History and Truth, in R. Latourelle - G. O'Collins, Problems and Perspectives of Fundamental Theology (New York 1982) 87-104. See also G. O'Collins, Interpreting Jesus = Introducing Catholic Theology 2 London 1983) 1-34.

(5) See E. Liebert, "That you may believe": The Fourth Gospel and Structural Development Theory, in Biblical Theology Bulletin 14 (1984) 67-71 ; and E. Cothenet, I I Ouarto Vangelo, in A. George and P. Grelot (eds), Introduzione al NT vol. 4. La Tradizione Giovannea (Roma 1978) 147-158.

(6) See H.G. Gadamer, Wahreit und Methode (Tubingen 1965); and J. B. Thompson, Critical Hermeneutics. A study in the thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jurgen Habermas (Cambridge 1981).

(7) See R . Manle, Hermeneutics and Scripture, in R. Latourelle - G.O'Collins (eds), op. cit., 69-86.

(8) See Dei Verbum 2: "Haec revelationis oeconomia fit gestis verbisque intrinsece inter se connexis (...)".

(9) See Gaudium et Spes 21.

(10) See R. Manle, op. cit., 85

(11) The Proclamation of the Word in the Worship of the Church has been very much stressed ever since Vat. II. See, for example, Ordo Lectionum Missae, editio typica altera (Vatican 1981) n.3: "De verbi Dei Liturgica Significatione (...) Sic in Liturgia Ecclesia fideliter sequitur modum legendi et interpretandi Scripturas sacras, quo ipse Christus, qui ab 'hodie’ eventus sui, ad Scripturas omnes perscrutandas adhortatur, usus est (cf Lk 4:16-21; 24:25-53; 44-49)"; see also J. P. Schanz, Introduction to the Sacraments (New York 1 983) ch. 4, The Sacraments as Proclamation, 60-97.

(12) See Rm 2:29; 7:6; 2Cor 3:6; and R.Manle, op. cit., 70-71.

(13) See H. Zimmermann, Metodologia del NT. Esposizione del metodo storicocritico (Torino 1971); B. Maggioni, Esegesi, in AA. VV., Dizionario Teologico Interdisciplinare II (Torino 1971) 101-110.

(14) The interpreter tries to interiorize a text so as to arrive at what is behind the text: external realities or events. Thus he enters into a relationship of presence with them. This presenciality is the basis of true knowledge. The most perfect mode of knowledge is not that carried out uncommittedly, objectivizingly, in accordance with the mental schema of "subject-object", but that gained by means of encounter structured around the "appeal-response" schema. An interpretation is likened to working in the field of an. It is an aesthetic experience. Concerning this sort of experience, see an interesting article of A.L. Quintas, Art and Culture, in International Philosophical Quarterly 24 (1984) 373-381.

(15) See, R. Manle, op. cit., 69-70; for the philologico-semantical method, see R. Farina, Methodologia (Roma 1978) 78-84.

(16) See M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Rome 1953) #253.

(17) See X.Leon-Dufour, Time, in Idem (ed), Dictionary of Biblical Tehology (London 1982) 604.

(18) For a good synthesis of the notion of h6ra in John, see R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (New York 1966 1970) Appendix I: 11 , hora .517-518.

(19) See E. Dinkler, Earliest Christianity, in R.C. Dentan (ed), The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East (London 1967), History according to John, 202-205.

(20) See ibid.

(21) P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus = Studia Judaica 1 (Berlin 1961) 89.

(22) C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1965) 120.

(23) See K.H. Rengstorf, Lestes, in TDNT vol IV, 258, where he observes that in Josephus the term is constantly used for the Zealots. "

(24) See J. Moltmann, The Crucified God (London 1 974) 1 1 2-1 59: The Historical Trial of Jesus; here 136-239.

(25) See ibid.

(26) See D. W. Wead, We have a Law (Jn 19:7), in Novum Testamentum 11 (1969) 185-189.

(27) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., 861.

(28) See ibid., Appendix I:4, doxa, 503-504.

(29) John has used the Messianic title "the Son of Man" to present Jesus as that mysterious figure in Dan 7:13-14 who has this eschatological mission to being forth the great accomplishment; for this reason he is given dominion, glory and kingdom. See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (Rome 1978); J.F. 0' Grady, The Human Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, in Biblical Theology Bulletin 14 (1984) 63-66.

(30) F. J . Moloney. John 20: A Journey completed, in The Australasian Catholic Record 59 (1982) 417.

(31) I. de La Potterie, op. cit., 102.

PART TWO: ANALYSIS

4. Literary Analysis of the Text

With these preliminary considerations in mind, we set our theological inquiry in motion by first reading the text in an analytical way. We have three things to do. We first try to understand the division of the Gospel which furnishes the context of the text. In its turn, the context determines and enlarges the significances of the text. Secondly, we tackle the text itself and thirdly its structure in order to draw out the theological themes.

4.1 The Context

The collocation of the text tells us right away that the passage concerned is at the heart of the Book of Glory. It has three divisions: The Last Supper (chs 13-17): The Passion Narrative (chs 18-19): The Risen Jesus (20:1-19). The Passion narrative also has three divisions: The Arrest and Interrogation of Jesus (18: 1-27): His Ecounter with Pilate and the Jews (18:28-19:16c); The Crucifixion and Burial of Jesus (l9:16d-42) (32)The dramatic presentation of the trial which occupies the central place of the division is to be read in the context of the entire Gospel. And there are four important references to be borne in mind.

4.1.1 The Prologue

Schematically, I would like to present a sort of progressive parallelism between the prologue and the Trial regarding the identity of Christ. We can notice the difference between the believing readers of John who know well the Prologue and the actors involved in the drama of Jesus' Trial who heard the solemn proclamation of Christ without believing it.

PROLOGUE TRIAL
1:1 The Word was with God 18:36 My Kingdom is not of this World
1:10 He was in the World 18:37 For this I was born
1:10 The World knew him not 18:40 Not this man but Barabas
1:14 We have beheld his glory 19:5 Here is the Man
1:14 glory as the only Son from the Father 19:7 He has made himself the Son of God
1:18 It is God the Only Son, who is in the Bosom of the Father 19:14 Here is your King (then the crucifixion took place－return to the Father).

While in the Prologue there is a crescendo of revelation on God's side, there is another parallel crescendo of proclamation and disbelief in the Trial on the World's side. This is one of John's techniques to contrast two movements so as to urge his readers to get rid of a world-bound mentality and give room to faith.

4.1.2 The Book of Signs

After the Prologue, the story of the Gospel opens. There appear the witnessing statement of John the Baptist: "Behold, the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of/the world" (1:29): "And I have seen and have borne witness that W\s is the Son of God" (1 :34). We then find a series of confessions of faith:

1:38 Rabbi (= Teacher)

1:41 Messiah (=Christ)

1:45 We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets spoke, Jesus of Nazareth

1:46 Rabbi You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!

All these confessions of faith are in the current categories of Jewish expectation. They are not denied by Jesus, but something more is indicated. The disciples are promised the sight (33)of the "greater things" (1:50-51) which will be realized in the passion when the Son of Man is lifted up and glorified (34). The promise is to be slowly realized as the Gospel unfolds. It will be worked out gradually during the whole of the public life of Jesus (cf chs 2-12), where the "signs" are to be seen. For John, seeing means a believing experience (35).

The Trial presents exactly tthese "greater things" to be seen

19:5 Behold, the Man

19:14 Behold, your King

The verb horao is always the same as that of 1:29: Behold the Lamb of God. and that of 1:51: You shall see greater things. All the earlier confessions are insufficient and to be integrated by the "sight" of the Man humiliated yet the King glorified.

4.1.3 The Last Supper

The narrative, here. seems to be addressed to a restricted audience of believers. It describes the climax of Jesus' life and of his "hour". John is keen on theologizing the time and circumstances. It was before the feast of Passover and the next day the slaughter of the paschal lambs took place, exactly the day of the Crucifixion. During the Supper, there occurred the Foot-washing. When Judas went out, "it was night" (13:30)-a phrase laden with theological, as well as chronological, signifcances (36). This time detail insinuates the prevailing darkness of the World. When Jesus was brought to the Roman Praetorium, it was "at dawn" (18:28)－the Light comes to dissipate the darkness. When he was proclaimed, "Here is your King", it was noon on the day of preparation for the Passover(19:14)－the Light was in full splendour and the Lamb was to be slaughtered.

Furthermore the farewell speech highlights the Trial scene:

14:3 to prepare a place for the disciples

16:28 the Son, thus, will return to the Father

17:4 Jesus glorifies his Father by fulfilling the Mission

17.5 The Father glorifies the Son by authenticating his Mission and by receiving him into his pre-existent Glory.

The Son's Mission, the Father's Authentication and the Return to prepare a place are all now focalized in the Trial-the death sentence of man's judgment and yet at the same time God's judgment taking place in man's, for whoever sees and believes the exalted (crucified) One may have eternal life.

4.1.4 The Resurrection

The identity of Jesus as Son, as Man and as King is further made clear in the appearance narratives (cf Jn 20). If Jesus is God's Son (19:7), then he is a Son dedicated to enlarging God's family. In returning to his Father and his God, he elevated his followers as his brothers, having the same Father and the same God. The relationships between Jesus and his followers are increasingly put into evidence:

13:16 The disciples are likened to servants in the Foot-washing

15:14 They are called friends for whom Jesus would lay down his own life

20:17 Now in returning to the Father, he elevates them as brothers.

As the Son imparts to his disciples the Holy Spirit, he gives them also the Mission that his Father has given to him－the forgiveness of sins which is the condition of entering the Kingdom of God. John identifies the Christ in the Trial with the Risen One. Thus, it is the 'glory" of the Risen Christ that tints the Trial setting.

4.2 The Text

The text is taken from Eberhard Nestles's Novum Testamentum Graece, 21st edition (37).As for the textual criticism, I principally adopt B.M .Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London 1975). Some remarks in the philological notes will also be taken from J. Mateos－J. Barreto. II Vangelo di Giovanni. Analisi Linguistica e commento esegetico (Assisi 1982).

4.3 The Structure

The criterion for dividing the passage, according to most biblical scholars, depends on the personages in the scenes, places and the verbs (38)

The continual use of verbs of motion agousin, eiselthen, exelthen…divides the drama into seven scenes:

1: The JEWS demand
Jesus' DEATH (18:28-32) 7: The JEWS obtain
Jesus' DEATH (19:12-16b)
Actors: Jesus, Pilate and the JEWS
Place: Outside the Praetorium
LIGHT:
at day break (28b) LIGHT:
the sixth hour
(= noon) (14b)
LAMB:
the Passover (28d) LAMB:
the day of the
slaughter (14a)
DELIVERED (paradidomi)
by the JEWS to Pilate (30c) DELIVERED (paradidomi)
by Pilate to the
JEW(16d)
(KING):
Jesus is accused as an
evildoer (30c) KING:
"Here is your KING"
(14d)
JUDGMENT:
Pilate refuses to
judge while the JEWS
had no power to
judge (31) (JUDGMENT):
Pilate made Jesus
sit down on the
Tribunal (13c): the
rest became the
judged
(CRUCIFIXION):
The JEWS demand
Jesus' death (31)
and Jesus knows
about His death
(32) CRUCIFIXION:
that He should be
crucified (16b)

2: Pilate questions
Jesus about KINGSHIP (18:30-18b)
6: Pilate questions
Jesus about AUTHORITY (19:9-11)
Actors: Jesus and Pilate
Place: Inside the Praetorium
KING-question:
"KING OF THE
JEWS?" (33c)
Jesus corrects
Pilate by turning
his political
investigation
into a religious
quest KING-question:
"Where are you from?"
(9b)
It is a religious
inquiry; Jesus'
silence leaves Pilate
to decide
  AUTHORITY:
Pilate's boast of his
authority (16)
KINGSHIP:
"not of this
WORLD" (36b)
"You say that I
am a KING" (37d) "FROM ABOVE" (11c)
"You have no authority
against me" (11b)
TRUTH:
Jesus' witness to
the TRUTH (37g); he
who is of the
TRUTH hears His
voice (37h);
"What is TRUTH?"
(38b)

3: Jesus is innocent.
Barabbas but not the
KING OF THE JEWS
(18:38c-40) 5: Jesus is innocent.
"Behold, the MAN"
"Crucify Him!"
(19:4-8)
Actors: Jesus Pilate and the JEWS
Place: Outside the Praetorium
INNOCENCE:
I find no crime in
HIM (38d) INNOCENCE:
No crime in HIM
(4b, 6e)
KINGSHIP:
Choice between
Barabbas and  KINGSHIP:
Wearing the crown
of thorns and the
purple robe, Jesus
was presented,
"the KING OF THE JEWS"(39b)

"Here is the MAN"
(4d)

REFUSAL:
The Jews reject
Jesus for they
prefer Barabbas,
a robber (40)
REFUSAL:
"Crucify Him.
Crucify Him"
They reject Jesus
as the "SON OF GOD"
(6b. 7d) Pilate's uneasiness is
here implied
Pilate's fear is here
more explicit (8)

4: Jesus is scourged, crowned,
clothed and mocked as KING
of the JEWS (19:1-3)
Actors: Jesus and the soldiers
Place : Inside the Praetorium
The scene is a subtle piece of
irony that describes that
－Jesus is the real KING, but
not of this WORLD
－the crowning and clothing of
Jesus fit into the solemn
proclamation
"no crime in HIM" (19:4.6)
"Here is the MAN" (19:5)
"Here is Your KING" (19:14)

As we may notice, this is only a proposed structure presenting a chiastic-circular movement.

"There is a very careful balancing in setting, content, and even in length (1=7; 2+3=5+6). The only episode in which Pilate does not figure prominently is 4, the middle episode. Obviously the hand of a meticulous planner has been at work here"(40).

In these 7 scenes, there \re many possible themes such as Light, Lamb, Delivered, Judgment Kingship, Truth, Revelation, Belief and Disbelief, Above and Below, Authority, the Man, God's Son, Crucifixion, and the like. In order not to lose sight of our original inquiry, the Identity of Christ in the Trial, we try to organize these themes on Christ into four headings:

(1) Christ, the Revealer

who came to the WORLD from ABOVE, as the LIGHT in the DARKNESS, as the LAMB of God who takes away our sins and as GOD'S SON who REVEALS to us the TRUTH.

(2) Christ, the King Glorified

who CAME to restore the Eschatological KINGDOM which takes place in the event of the CRUCIFIXION, where the SON OF MAN is LIFTED UP. He is the Eschatological Protagonist (cf Dan 7:13-14)to whom is given the POWER, the KINGDOM and the GLORY in order to regin universally. His GLORY takes place in the CRUCIFIXION, which is the great ACCOMPLISHMENT of the Salvific Plan of God for it is a Glorious RETURNING to the Father.

(3) Christ, the Judge

who for the JUDGMENT came to the WORLD (9:39). His JUDGMENT is not to condemn but to justify those who BELIEVE. Though submitted to the LAW, he does not JUDGE according to the LAW but according to GRACE and LOVE.

(4) Christ, who comes to provoke FAITH

and invites' us to adhere to the TRUTH to which he TESTIFIES through signs and words. He helps those who fall short of FAITH, but before HIM one must inescapably make a DECISION OF FAITH (41)

Now a sort of schematical synopsis, we try to see how these four themes are interwoven together around the Figure of Christ.

We shall divide the text of Jn 18:28-19:16 according to the following headings:

1. the Jewish authorities ask Pilate to condemn Jesus.

2. Pilate questions Jesus about Kingship (cont.)

3. Pilate seeks to release Jesus; the Jews prefer Barabbas.

4. (Intermediary) The Roman soldiers scourge and mock Jesus.

5. Pilate presents Jesus to his people; the Jews shout for crucifixion.

6. Pilate talks with Jesus about power.

7. Pilate yields to the Jewish demand for Jesus' crucifixion

1. The Jewish authorities ask Pilate to condemn Jesus. 18:28-32

REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH
Towards Pretorium: the LIGHT shines

in the darkness(1:5; 13:30).

Ready to eat the Paschal LAMB (1:29).

See also.19:14


Jesus is DELIVERED by Judas, now by th JEWS.

The JEWS intend the DEATH of Jesus (11:50):


The TRIAL begins, JESUS is to be judged: accused by the JEWS.

Jesus as Evil-doer.



Pilate refuses to judge and the JEWS cannot jude (for Jesus is real JUDGE)
Jesus is REFUSED by the JEWS-the World

Pilate wants to be NEUTRAL.

2. Pilate questions Jesus about Kingship (cont.). 18:3738b

REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH

The FULFILMENT of Jesus' WORD (3:14, 8:28; 12:32s): the CROSS - the climax of REVELATION.

The question betrays Pilate's interest still in earthy matters. Apparently Jesus did not say Yes or No, but affirmed that His coming into the World is to reveal the TRUTH, because He is come from above (3:13; 8:23); He knows the father (8:26); He is the
a glorious death to save the whole Nation.

Jesus does not deny His KINGSHIP, but links it to His witness to the TRUTH.


Pilate returns to His own question.

Without giving a diresct reply, Jesus presents Himself as the withness to the TRUTH so that Pilate should decide for or against the TRUTH. Jesus' judgment consists in the decision for or against His witness


Pilate still fell short of FAITH.

Jesus helps him by showing that His being in the World is to prvoke FAITH, so that he who believeds in Him may have eternal life (3:16).

3.Pilate seeks to release Jesus; the JEWS perfer barabbas (18:38c-40)

REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH

TRUTH (14:6); His DEATH wil be its supreme testimnoy (8:28)

The JEWS symbolize the World to which the TRUTH is revealed but which does not accept it.


The listening to Hsis voice (10:3) has an OT background fo the KINGSHIP (Ez 34)


With this question Pilate tries to avoid the decision.


Pilate wants to remain indifferent.

REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH

19

Pilate proclaims Jesus' INNOCENCE (19:4.6).

Pilate foretells an innocent death, though not consciously.


Offically Jesus is no lnger on TRAIL, for he is innocent.

The title KING is admitted by the Romans (19:3).  Jesus as the KING of the JEWS.  The KING becomes the JUDGE insofar as the JEWS(= World) have to decide between Jesus and Barabbas.

Pilate tries to avoid the decision between the World (=the JEWS) and the TRUTH (=Jesus).

   Ironiaclly, failing to give Jesus justice Pilate is forced to make a travety of justice.
Pilate cannot remain netural bt follows the World.

REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH
The scourging recalls the fulfilment of the suffering SEVANT (Is 50:6).  The mockery and scourging are telling evidence of Jesus' willingness to drink the chaltce of the Father. (18:11)
The JUDGE suffers injustice.
The scourging seems to be a benevolent plan for Jesus' release but reveals Pilate's attitude of trying to save the TRUTH while complying with the World.



Ironically, through the gestures of the mockers, the TRUTH of Jesus' KINGSHIP is revealed.

The son GLORIFIES the Father by fulfilling His Will (17:4)  The Crown of throns and the purple cloak prepare the solemn judging scene in (19:12-16a).
   5. Pilate Presents Jesus to his people; the Jews about for the crucifixion. (19:4-8)

The unconscious proclamation of Jesus' KINGSHIP is a sign that the Gentiles will Unti-
One can recognize Jesus' PASSION as GLORY as far as one confesses the KINGSHIP of the
The scene shows the irony of confessing the TRUTH of faith without believing in it.

REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH

mately confess Jesus as the KING.  RISEN CHRIST. For John it is the RESURRECTION that determines the content of the PASSION (17:1-5).

The KING is revealed as the MESSIAH, for "MAN" here is another Messianic title, as that of the SON of MAN in whom the LOVE of GOD is the be man-


The second declaration of Jesus' INNOCENCE

The Same is repeated in 18:38; 19:6.


The title MAN could be eschatological for one who has also a judging role (LXX zech 6:12f).

Ironcially, when Pilate refused a political.
At the begining of the minstry in 1:35-51 titkes were given to Jesus as the FAITH of the disciples grew; (these include SON of GOD, SON of MAN, KING of ISRAEL). Now, at the end of His life, in a cressendo of disbelief, Jesus is mockingly or incredulously called the KING OF THE
6. Pilate talks with Jesus about power. 19:9-11

REVELATION GLORIFICATION JUDGMENT FAITH

ifested. So the long waited Messianic KING comes to ironic FULFILMENT.

Jesus as the SON of GOD, though refused by the greatest REVELATION (1:18; 3:16).

Pilate comes to a real TRUTH-searching question.
The SON of MAN is glorified when He is exalted(= crucified) because while re-turing to the Father, His pre-existent glory Him to the Father (3:13; 8:28; 12:23; 8:28; 12:23, 32, 34).

From the question "what did you do?" (18:35e) to the question
charge, the JEW fell back on the religious charge, which Pilate finally accepted under political presure.

By refusing Jesus as the SON of GOD, the JEWS judge themsleves.

After hearing the religious charge, Pilate interrogates Jesus again.
JEWS, the MAN, and the SON of GOD.

Pilate's fear is also due to his religious instinct.

By this question Pilate perhaps still tries to find a legal loophole

REVELATION GLORIFICATIO JUDGMENT FAITH

The Silence recalls, in FULFILMENT, the Suffering Servant Is 53:7.
"Where are you from? "(9b), i.e., a from politcal investigation to that of "FROM ABOVE".


The momentary silence shows that Pilate is on TRIAL and he has to decide.
To save Jesus (see LK 23:6,where he asked if Jesus came from Galilea so as to send Him to Herod). But here it lends itself also to a theological inquiry whether Jesus cmes FROM ABOVE.

It is a religious wonder caused by fear (19:8).

7. Pilate yields to the Jewish demand for Jesus' crucifixion. 19:12-16ab

REVELATION GLORIFICATIO JUDGMENT FAITH

Jesus reveals the AUTHORITY FROM ABOVE, because He comes FROM ABOVE (1:14,17; 3:13)

Jesus speaks with AUTHOIRTY.


Jesus glorifies His father by complying with His will FROM ABOVE.(17:4).


A JUDGMENT is given on those who refuse Christ radically (12:31).  The fear causes Pilate to bluster about his earthly authority.

Jesus corrects him.

Pilate, charged with misusing his God-given power, tries to release Jesus.

REVELATION GLORIFICATIO JUDGMENT FAITH

It is the day for the slaughter f the LAMB. the HOUR for the LIGHT to shine in full: Here is your KING.


The CRUCIFIXION is the EXALTATION, for the son fulfils the Father's Will and Father receives the Son into GLORY.

Jesus is now DELIVERED by Pilate.


The text lends itself to a JUDGMENT-scene where Jesus acts as JUDGE (sitting on the Tribunal) and the rest are the Judged.
This Prompts the JEWS to renew their political blackmail.

Pilate finally is submitted to the WORLD (=JEWS), for he perfers his power to the TRUTH.

The JEWS pushing esus to death, are forced toabandon their Yahweh-KING (againstIs 26:13)


(32) For the general structure, see R. E. Brown, op. cit.

(33) See ibid., Appendix I:3, see, 501-503.

(34) See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, 2341 .

(35) See not 33.

(36) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., 579.

(37) The print-out of the schematical synopsis in this article is taken from A. Marshall. The RSV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (London 1979).

(38) See, for example, I. de La Potterie, De narratione passionis et mortis Christi (Io 18-19) = Dispense per il corso del Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Roma I sem. ann. 1978-79) 81-87: Structura. It is slightly different from that of R.E. Brown, op. cit., which seems to have a better division as far as the personages are concerned.

(39) This structure is taken from R. E. Brown, op. cit., 859, but here integrated with some more details. For further discussion, see A. Janssens de Varebeks, La structure des scenes du rbcit de la passion en Jn 18-19, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 38 (1962) 506-509; A. Dauer, Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh 18:1-1972) 101-102.

(40) R.E. Brown. op. cit., 858.

(41) The words in capital letters are important and must be read read in the light of the whole Gospel by resorting to a concordance.

PART THREE: SYNTHESIS

5. Christus, Rex Glorificatus Glorificansque

So far we have only presented the crude materials, still in some way dispersed. Now we shall try to synthesize all these elements in the key of "Glory" as an attempt to demonstrate a Johannine answer to our leading question: who is this "glorious" Christ condemned to be crucified in the Trial(42)?

If Pilate's question; "Are you the King of the Jews?" (18:33), is John's attempt to see the "Glory" of Christ in his Kingship, then we can pose at least three questions:

(1)What sort of Kingship did the Johannine Christ proclaim?

(2)How did he come to be proclaimed as King by others?

(3) What is the function of his Kingship?

The first two questions will be tackled in 5.1 Christus, Rex Glorificatus, and the third one in 5.2 Christus, Rex Glorlficans.

5.1 Christus, Rex Glorificatus

In the second episode (18:33-38b), there appears a very interesting dialogue between Jesus and Pilate. Laden with theological significance, it furnishes a very dense discourse about the Kingdom of Jesus.

5.1.1 The Kingship of the Johannine Christ

The question of Pilate (18:33) reveals, first of all, his political interest because he only wants to see if Jesus is an evildoer or, worse still, one of the Zealots jeopardising the Pax Romana. Jesus will not categorically refuse to be known as a King but he wants to avoid misunderstanding. As a matter of fact he corrects Pilate's questioning which is still earthbound(43). Although Pilate evades it, Jesus has already John's readers in an attitude of Faith to listen to his speech(44).

Jesus' answer is phrased in a solemn and poetic diction. In the five lines of v.38, the absolute statement of the first line "My Kingdom is not of the World" is rephrased and repeated in the last line, while the intermediary lines 2-4 offer an explanation(45). Now let us concentrate on some keywords.

5.1.1.1 My Kingdom and the Kingdom of God

Jesus speaks of "My Kingdom" here, whereas in the preceding case he speaks of "the Kingdom of God" (cf 3:3,5). Such a change is not insignificant. In the "hour" it is revealed that what belongs to God the Father belongs also to Jesus and vice versa (cf 17:10: all mine are thine, and thine are mine and I am glorified in them). This is the Glory that the Kingdom is given to him. This reminds us of the Son of Man described in Dan 7: 13-14 -an ancient mysterious figure,

5.1.1.2 Not of this World but from Above

During his ministry, Jesus has already made it clear about his origin:
You are from below, I am from above:
You are of this World, I am not of this World" (8:23)

Note that the parallel contrast between " You" and " I " , "of the World" and "Not of the World". "From Above" and "From Below" is very telling.

The "World" in John has several meanings, and it may mean two or three things at one time. It may refer to the world as created by God (1:10; 17:5, 24). It indicates the sinful situation (1:29; 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) from which men are to be liberated by the incarnated logos. Hence the World becomes also the object of love and Salvation for which the Son was given by the Father (3:16). The World, however, is sometimes identified with those (unbelievers) who have turned against Jesus, whose coming has become a Judgment for them (9:39; 12:31). Finally Jesus conquers the World in his "hour" (16:33). The working out of this Victory over the World must be continued after Jesus' departure. For this, he sends his followers into the World (17:18), and their faith in him, expressed by Agape, is to overcome the World (1 Jn 5:34f). Their aim is to make the World believe in Jesus and come to know that his mission is from, the Father (17:3, 21, 23)(46). In fact, this is the Kingdom that Jesus wants to establish. It is in the World, like his disciples, but not of the World (17:11; 18:36), and, as a pilgrim, the Kingdom has to pass from this World to another(47).

5.1.1.3 Truth and Judgment

On one hand, Jesus has calmed down Pilate by showing that his Kingship will not endanger the Pax Romana, yet on the other he challenges Pilate to recognize the Truth. In 18:37 Jesus without denying his Kingship further clarifies that his birth into the World is to Testify the "Adyent" of the Truth -- the incarnated logos (cf 14:6) -- into the World. Thus the signs and words in his ministry constitute a testimony to the Truth and his testimony has a judgment function (cf 9:39). His judgment consists not in condemning the World but in man's decision "for" or "against" him. John has skillfully demonstrated this by using the genitive after the verb akouein in 18:37, which refers to a listening with understanding and acceptance(48). Everyone who belongs to the Truth, listens to Jesus. This recalls the theme of the Shepherd in 10:3ff, which has its background in the OT portrait of the King-Shepherd (cf Ez 34) (49). Thus those who belong to the Truth are the Sheep given to Jesus by the Father. But now, does Pilate want to belong to the Truth? This is the challenge Jesus made to him. At this moment Pilate knows, at least, one truth, that Jesus is not guilty of anything (18: 38) and that the Trial ought to cease. However, to this True King-Judge, Pilate does not want to submit himself. He retorts, "What is Truth?" (18:38). On a theological level, Jesus' silence to the question suggests that it is Pilate who is under trial and has to answer. For he is indecisive and wants to comply, in some way, with the Jews, so he resorts to the annual amnesty -- either Barabbas or the King of the Jews (18:39) -- as an evasion from the Truth. At this moment the Judgment extends also to the Jews, while they have to pass a judgment on the incarnated Truth by preferring Barabbas to the True King.

The Kingship of Jesus, thus, is related to his Mission of revealing the Truth, is such a way that men may come into his Sheepfold (the Kingdom of Truth) by listening to (believing in) his voice. The refusal or acceptance becomes the discriminating factor (Krisis, krima) of the citizenship of the Kingdom.

5.1.2 The Way of Proclaiming the Kinaship

We now come to the second question: How is Jesus proclaimed King? The setting of the drama is marvellous and perhaps much Telling than the dialogue itself (18:33-38b).

5.1.2.1 The Lamb and the Light

The verb ago recalls the Fourth Song of the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 53:7 (the same verb in LXX ago as in 18:28):

"Like the lamb that is led (echthe) to the slaughter"(50)

Throughout the "hour" of Christ, John continues to supply details to describe the great fulfillment (telos) of the Divine project. For instance, the present continous tense agousin in 18:28 is not only a historical present but a theological present as well.

It was early (en de proi). In Jn 13:30 after Judas had received the morsel and gone out, John points out that it was night (en de nux) With Jesus' permission to Judas (13:27) and the solemn entrance of Satan into the drama (13:27), the "hour" of darkness has come. However, it is Christ who Takes the initiative to go through the darkness.

" I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness" (12:46)

The night does not last long and soon will have its dawn: the outbreak of the Resurrection light(51) which comes true in the risen Christ who now is about to be crucified and glorified as the King. John is not concerned chiefly with chronology, but rather with the theological present: now it is at dawn. The King to be glorified is the true light that dissipates the darkness. The Light shines stronger and stronger until about the sixth hour (19:14)(52). It is, therefore, the noon of the Preparation Day of the Passover (19:14) when the Light is to shine in splendour and the slaughter of lambs is to take place in the temple. The crowd is in full excitement shouting and pressing Pilate hard, "Away with hiM (...) Crucify him" (19:15). Pilate hopelessly gives in. The Glorified King, thus, becomes the Light to dissipate the darkness, the Lamb to take away the sins of the World (12:46; 1:29).

5.1.2.2 The Rejection of the Jews

It is surely not difficult to notice that there is a crescendo of rejection on the part of the Jews. At first, they accuse Jesus of doing evii and demand his death. After the interrogation, Pilate makes a series of proclamations of truth (18:38, 39) but without taking sides. He thought he could have escaped the decision by way of the annual amnesty. It is of no avai1. The Jews reject their King bluntly by opting for Barabbas. Pilate is still indecisive and resorts to the absurd scourging (19:1-3). After Jesus had been scourged, crowned with thorns, dressed in purple, mocked as King, he was brought out again. "Behold, the Man" proclaimed Pilate - a pitiful scene appealing for mercy. It is of no avai1. The Jews reply violently, "Crucify him" (19:6). Pilate still insists that Jesus is innocent (cf I9:4,6). Finally the Jews reveal the ultimate reason of their rejection: he made himself the Son of God (cf 19:7).

As a matter of fact, the Jews would have no problem to have Jesus as their King, so much so that they did try once to force him to be King (cf 6:15: after the multiplication of bread), but only in the way they want Jesus to be - an earthly King. Jesus withdrew himself and refused such a Kingship, because his Kingship is not of this World. This is precisely what the Jews cannot tolerate- that Jesus be the Son of God.

Unfortunately this rejection increasingly widens. In reply to Pilate's solemn proclamation, " Here is Your King" (19 : 14), they shout again. "Crucify him " (19:15). The rejection becomes irremediable to the extent that they even reject their own Yahweh-King (cf Is 26: 13), "We have no King but Caesar" (19: 15). They have calumniated Jesus as blasphemer by becoming blasphemers themselves. Pilate hands over Jesus to the Jews (19:16). Now the Glorified King is to be "Lifted up".

5.1.2.3 The Rejection and Judgment

One may ask what the Jews' rejection has to do with Jesus' glorified Kingship. First of all we have to understand the technical use of the term "the Jews" in the Fourth Gospel. Sometimes it has a simple reference to the Jewish people, and so covers Jesus' enemies and his followers and even himself. Yet John creates a son of "theological anti-semitism" to describe those enemies of Truth, as persons devoid of spiritual insight and as spawn of the devil(53).John is not really anti-semitic, but is condemning the rejection of Jesus and those who desire to kill Jesus. The rejection represents subtly the Judgment of the World upon Jesus and that of Jesus upon the World at the same time. The two judgments are entirely different. Let us quickly go through the sense of Judgment in John. Jesus' claim to judge no one (8:15) is true for it is not the aim of his coming (3:17). However the role of Judge is entrusted to him (5:22, 27) in the sense that his judgment results from his presence, before which men have to decide (9:39). He in fact does not come to condemn (judge) the world (12:47), but he who refuses his revelation has already undergone the Judgment (3:24).

Throughout the Trial, Jesus is carefully described as the real Judge in an ironical form of being judged. In 18:31 Pilate told the Jews to judge Jesus but they said they could not do so according to the law. Pilate had found Jesus innocent (3 times: 18:38: 19:4, 6), and had consequently no right to judge Jesus on legal grounds. There is another telling detail in 19:13, ekathisen epi bematos, by which John leaves his readers to intuit that it is Jesus who sits upon the Tribunal and exercises, consequently, his supreme role of Judgments(54), at the moment when the Jews press hard to do away with Jesus. Not only him but also his Father (19: 15)! Pilate, failing to take up a position for the Truth, turns out to be the instrument of the World.

Once again we see here that the judgment of Jesus goes hand in hand with his revelation. The consequence of Jesus' revelation is the Judgment which no one can escape, not even the powerful Roman Prefect (19: 10). At the moment when the Jews think that they are passing judgment on Jesus, the Glorified King becomes the Universal Judges(55).

5.2 Christus, Rex Glorificans

We now comle to the third question : What is the function of Jesus' Kingship? For brevity's sake, let us resort to the messianic titles which appear in the Trial. As we know, these titles in John do not only indicate the person of Jesus but, above all, point out the specific aspects of his mission, and hence also the function of Christ(56). In our text, we find principally three titles: the King of the Jews, the Man and the Son of God.

5.2.1 The King of the Jews

Throughout the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is proclaimed King not a few times. First in the confession of Nathanael: the King of the Israel (1:49). John is careful to make the distinction between the "Jews" and "Israel". The latter is a favourable term describing the real succession to the OT heritage. This confession has laid the ground for the perception that Christ is the Messianic King pre-announced in the OT. However this confession is not sufficient, so Jesus turns Nathanael's attention towards the "greater things" about the Son the Man (1:50-51).

After the multiplication of bread the people want to take Jesus by force and make him King, but Jesus "stole away" (6:15). In this episode, Jesus was' being hailed as the Second Moses, the Prophet who would come to give the manna which would usher in the endtime(57). Yet it is clear that Jesus is not prepared to accept this identification, so he withdrew himself to the hills(58).

At the time of his solemn entry into Jerusalem, he is greeted as the Kina of Israel. John quotes Ps 117:26 (LXX) but elegantly adds this title:

Psl 17:26: Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord(59)

Jn 12:13: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.

This time Jesus does not flee from their acclamations, as he did in 6:15 but enters on an ass. Now he faces acclamations, but sets about correcting them in the light of the text from Zech 9:9: the humility of the King. The "hour" has come for Jesus to affirm his Kingly role (12:23). He will determine the nature of his Kingship, it will not be in the way expected by the crowds and by his disciples (12:16). The Kingship of Jesus is tor worked out through his elevation and glorification upon the cross (12:16); now he is going to face this moment(60).

Then finally in the passion account, Jesus is presented as the King of the Jews (18:33, 39; 19:3: the King of the Jews; 19:14, 15; your King; 19 : 19, 21; the notice on the cross). The change from "King of Israel" to "King of the Jews" is by no means casual, though they both denote the same King of the same people. “Israel” is a favourable term, whereas "Jews” is not. The Jews have brought Jesus before Pilate as an evildoer; Pilate, instead, presents him as the King of the Jews (18:33, 39) and they opt for Barabbas. Then in the scourging, Jesus was crowned with thorns, dressed in purple, mocked as the King of the Jews and struck with hands (19:1-3). The scene (and the use of of rapismata) recalls the third song of the Servant of Yahweh in LXX Is 50:6:

" I gave my back to the smiters, then my cheek to the slaps (rapismata)" (61)

The mockers speak the truth though unbeknown to themselves. The same thing happens to Pilate when he proclaims the title (19:14, 15). It is interesting to note that the Jews do not want to accept this title(19:19-21), but Pilate forces them to confront it. Let us not forget the setting: the Light, the slaughter of lambs, the seating during the Trial and so on.

In John's mind, Jesus is identified with the King of those who act against him and his Father. Such Kingship was inconceivable in the current messianic hope and it was extremely difficult to express this mystery in terms of the Hellenistic categories available to John. However, John narrates the fact by supplying many details (sometimes not very explicit) that continuously point to the kingly function of Jesus: He is the obedient Servant of Yahweh who carries out his will through suffering. Precisely the greatest suffering is to be the King of those who reject, who kill and who even betray his own beloved Father. The narrative is full of contrast, and human logic is of no avail here, for at this moment it is the Mystery of Love that prevails. It is the "hour" to win over the World and the way of doing it is Agape, for which the Father gives up his Son (3:16) and the Son lays down his Life to impart the forgiveness of sins and to bring about the conversion of the World.

5.2.2 Behold, the Man (19:5)

The term itself has no special significance. It may have the same meaning as 18:29: "what charge do you bring against this man? " However the context in which the term is used makes a great difference

In John, the Trial is a vehicle that "develops the motif of Jesus' Kingship. Acknowledged by Pilate as the King of the Jews", though not in a political sense (18:39), Jesus is refused by the Jews as they opt for Barabbas (1 8:40). Then Jesus undergoes the ironic investiture and coronation, where he is hailed the King of the Jews by the Roman Soldiers (19:1-3). Now he is brought out "royally bedecked and empurpled, to be presented to his people for acclamation. In John's eyes Israel's long wait for its messianic King thus comes to ironic fulfilment. (...) (However) we may wonder whether the evangelist's creative sense has not been controlled by some details that he found in his tradition. If he were inventing with complete freedom, this would have been the perfect moment to have had Pilate say, 'Behold the King!' (as in 19:14). Instead we find the enigmatic (proclamation) 'Behold the Man!' (19:5)"(62).

The term "Man" in such a solemn context must have had a particular significance. As a matter of fact, the acclamation creates in the Jews a violet reaction: "Crucify him, crucify him!" (19:6). We can duduce that this acclamation is a title of honour which the Jews could never tolerate.

Not a few scholars think that the use of ho anthropos is a reference to the Son of Man(63). The Hebrew ben 'adam or the Armaic barnasha behind the Greek term could have two meanings, as many other semitic expressions, namely, "Man" or the "Son of Man"(64).The argument does not appear very convincing, but if we turn to the use of the term "Son of Man" in the rest of the Gospel, some striking similarities appear between them . We may notice that the last appearance of the term "the Son of Man" is in 13:31, when the hour of darkness (13:30) has arrived. In 13:31, Jesus says "NOW is the Son of Man glorified (aor.)". The word " NOW" is related to the "hour" which 'was not yet at hand' (2:,4; 4:6; 8:20) but NOW has arrived (12:23; 13:1). The aorist passive of "glorified" indicates an inception of state, namely, the glorification of Christ has been set in motion. Again John has no interest in the chronology of time, namely, the exact moment in which the glorification takes place, whether it be the Last Supper, the sixth hour on the cross, or the Resurrection. For him, there is only one theological present in the paschal Mystery.

However John is not discarding history. He makes it clear that the glorification does have its historical ground, namely, the cross; and in 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34 the Son of Man is said to be lifted up. This obviously refers to the event of the Cross: the word "crucify" appears only in the passion account and for the first time in 19:6 after the solemn proclamation of " Behold the Man!" (19:5). There is a parallel between "the Son of Man" and "the Man", "lifted up" and "crucified". This parallel is by no means casual. Before the "hour", namely, in the Book of Signs (chs 2-1 2), Jesus was foretelling the event of the Cross in terms of elevation and the Son of Man the ancient figure in Dan 7:13-14, who is supposed to be the eschatological protagonist that rings forth the accomplishment of the Kingdom of God. As a matter of fact the promise of the "greater things to be seen" is made by Jesus in reference to the son of Man (1:50-51). However in the passion account, John speaks of crucifixion - a term that gives a sense of historical happening. John, thus, did not do away with history for the sake of theology, though it is theology that determines the significance of history. In fact, right in the prologue, John has already prepared his readers for a theological understanding of the narrative of Jesus' life. In this way, the significance of "the Man" in 19:5 is to be linked with the use of "the Son of Man" in the rest of the Gospel, or, at least, it is implicitly a messianic title that indicates something about Jesus' Kingship. One of the reasons why Pilate does not proclaim straight away the Son of Man may arise from John's respect for the title which was traditionally reserved for Jesus to speak about himself (65).

If "the Man " (19:5) is a messianic title and is used after the scourging scene (19:1-3) where Jesus was mockingly crowned and dressed as a King, then we have at once an evident title about the function of Jesus' Kingship. The Messiah-King is the long-waited celestial being (cf Dan 7:12-14) who is to come for the establishment of the Kingdom. His establishment consists in being lifted up so as to be seen and to be of God' Love to men. His kingly glorification, though taking on the form of scandalous humiliation, has reached its high point insofar as God's Love is fully manifested in his humanity and thus men’s salvation is safeguarded. Now the King is not only glorified but is also glorifying insofar as he is to win over the sinful world with Divine Love (16:33).

5.2.3 God’s Son (19:7)

In 19:6 the Jews refuse Pilate's acclamation, "Behold the Man" by shouting "Crucify him". Pilate reacts at once and for the third time he says. "I find no crime in him". Then in 19:7 the Jews reveal their ultimate reason why Jesus should die, because he has made himself God's Son.

One may notice that the expression "God's Son" is without the article. This usually means one of two things, either one wants to refer to something indefinite, or one wants to call attention (66) to something. The absence of the article in this case is surely meant to draw attention and to give reinforcement to the title. There are three reasons for saying this:

First, in all three synoptic accounts of the Trial before the Sanhedrin , the accused blasphemy is always expressed with the article :

Mk 14:61: ho huios tou eulogetou

Mt 26:63: ho huios tou Theou

Lk 22:67: ho huios tou Theou

Instead John's expression has no article and it must have some particular significance.

Secondly, in John's eyes, the Jews would not have condemned Jesus to death if he had only claimed to be one of the sons of God in a general sense, namely one of the pious Jews loved by God. Definitely not. The Jews refuse categorically that Jesus is God and that he belongs to the sphere of Divinity as described in the prologue.

Thirdly, the anarthrous title has at once its effect on the powerful Roman Prefect; when Pilate hears these words, he becomes more afraid (19:8); he enters the praetorium again and says to Jesus, "Where are you from?" (19:9). Pilate must have known that Jesus is from Nazareth. He is asking of Jesus' Divine Origin.

As a matter of fact, the uses of "the Son", "the Son of God" or "God's Son" have a lot of similarities. They certainly constitute the most outstanding characteristic of the Fourth Gospel (67). If we go quickly through the use of these terms, we find that these sayings nearly express a direct relationship between God and Jesus. Note that John does not intend to talk speculatively about this relationship in terms of the Divine Nature as such, for John has never doubted the Origin and Nature of Jesus (1:1-18); rather he now wants to point to something beyond, namely, the heavenly Father who is unceasingly at work in the human existence of the incarnated logos.

Again John is subtle in expressing this. Pilate in this augmented fear before the silent Jesus (19:8-9), begins to bluster about his authority. Jesus, then, corrects him, "you would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above" (19:10-11). Here we should understand the statement in the light of 10:17-18 where Jesus says, "I lay down my life that I may take again (...) I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father". The power "from above" thus designates clearly a Divine initiative on the handing-over of the Son to the hands of the Roman Prefect. In fact it is by the Father's will that the Son has come into the World (6:38). The raison d'etre of the Son's earthly existence depends entirely on the Father'sWi11 (5:30).

"The Father stands behind the whole of the work and revelatory function of Jesus (12:29); 14:1 9-11) and as such, faith and attachment to Jesus mean 'belonging' to the Father (14:21, 23; 16:28-27). As in the Son of God sayings, we are told that Jesus went out from the Father who sent him and that he returns to the Father (13:1; 14:12, 28; 16:10, 27, 28; 17:11, 13; 20:17) leading the faithful to the place which he has prepared for them (14:2-3; 17:24). (...)

It can be seen that the soterioloaical function which flows from the unique union between the Father and the Son is continued a n d developed" (68).

In this sense, he who delivered Jesus to Pilate has the greater sin (19:11 ) for he who refuses Jesus as God's Son, refuses, also the Father This is exactly what the Jews were doing (19:7, 15).

The title "God's Son" indicates an eternal union between Jesus and the Father, not attained in time, nor ceasing with this life or with the history of the World. This union is made known, above all, propter nostram salutem. John has early scored an excellent insight about this salvific union in his beautiful prologue, 1:1:

"In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was turned in loving union towards God.

What God was, the Word was" (69).

Now this "movement of the loving union towards God has involved also the entire humanity. Men are to be brought to the Father and, hence, to be glorified in the union between the Father and the Son. Let us borrow the words of C.H. Dodd to express the same idea:

“The human career of Jesus is, as it were, a projection of this eternal relation (which is the divine agape) upon the field of time. It is such, not as a mere reflection, or representation, of the reality, but in the sense that the love which the Father bore the Son ‘before the foundation of the world' and which he perpetually returns, is actively at work in the whole historical life of Jesus. That life displays the unity of Father and Son, in ways which may be described as 'knowledge' or 'indwelling', but are such, not in the sense of withdrawn contemplation like that recommended by 'Hellenistic mysticism', but in the sense that the love of God in Christ creates and conditions an active ministry (...) which is an aggressive conflict with the powers hostile to life, and ends in a victory of life over death through death. The love of God, thus released in history, brings men into the same unity of which the relation of Father and Son is the eternal archetype" (70).

In conclusion, in this chapter we have seen the Kingship of the Rex Glorificatus and in what way he is King. We, then, further demonstrated that his Kingship has a salvation. He thus is the Rex Glorificans, namely, his Glory started a New Glorification of all men.


(42) See J. Kurichianil, The Glory and the Cross. Jesus' Passion and Death in the Gospel of St. John. in Indian Theological Studies 20 (1 983) 5-15.

(43) Note that the accused asks the Roman Prefect questions (18:34) as if he were the "judge". In a subtle way John shows that it is Pilate who is on trial. See R. E. Brown, op. cit., 868.

(44) Jesus always helps people to integrate their real search for Truth and provokes 'faith when one falls short of it (cf Jn 2:23ff; 3:2ff; 4:43-48).

(45) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., 868.

(46) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., Appendix I: 7, world, 508-509.

(47) See St. Augustine, Tractus CXV in Joannis Evangelium : “Nunc autem regnum meum non est hinc', hic est enim regnum eiusque in finem saeculi, habens inter se commixta zizania usque ad messem; messis enim finis est saeculi (...) quod utique non fieret, si regnum eius non esset hic, sed tamen non est hinc; quia peregrinatur in undo : regno suo quippe dicit, 'De mundo non estis, sed ego vos elegi de mundo' (Jn 15:19)". The quotation is taken from PL 35:1939.

(48) See M. Zerwick, op. cit., 869.

(49) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., 854.

(50) A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart 1935).

(51) It is not by chance that in the postresurrection appearance John uses the same word early (proi) in 20:1 when Mary Magdalene came to the tomb.

(52) Instead of "about the third hour" an obvious attempt to harmonize the chronology with that of Mk 15:25. However it seems that John is more interested in the theological setting than in the chronological. See B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London 1 975) 252-254.

(53) See R. E. Brown, op. cit., LXX- LXXIII; J. E. Leibig, John and in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 20 (1 983) 209-234.

(54) See R.E. Brown, op. cit., 880; I. De La Potterie, Jesus, Roi et Juge d’apres Jn 19:13: ekathisen epi bematos, in Biblica 41 (1960) 217-247. The Greek verb kathizein is sometimes transitive (cause. someone to sit down) and sometimes intransitive. There are not a few difficulties if we try to interpret it a in transitive sense. First of all we would expect it to be followed by a pronomial object if it meant "sat him down". De La Potterie in his article cited above 223-225, counters this objection by insisting that the noun "Jesus" which comes between two verbs "brought out" and "sat down" is the object of both. The second difficulty is that the intransitive use of kathizein with "judge's bench, tribunal" is well attested. For instance, the same expression that appears in John (aorist active of kathizein with epi bematos) is used in Josephus' description of Pilate where it clearly means that Pilate sat down on the Tribunal, see Brown, 880. After all, the real difficulty lies in the historical context: it would be difficult to perceive how the Roman Prefect could put a prisoner on the Judge's bench. However, de La Potterie also gives a very eloquent argument for the transitive use of the verb starting with John's theology: the real judge is Christ. There is also some ancient support for this, e.g., in the Gospel of Peter 7, and in Justin's Apology I, XXXV, 6, where the Jews (not Pilate)sat Jesus upon a judgment seat and mocked him. De La Potterie suggests that the anarthrous use of bema is not the judgment bench but another seat on the magistrate's platform and it was not necessary for the Roman Prefect to sit on the Judge's bench. He further argues that the preposition eis always has the sense of motion in John. Therefore eis is congruent with the transitive use of kathizein . Hence the whole phrase ekathisen epi bematos "eis" topon legomenon runs perfectly coherently with the transitive use of the verb.

(55) See. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1953) 211; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John. A Commentary (Oxford 1971 ) 350.

(56) See G. Segalla, op. cit., 85-93; Of course, in the Trial, proclamations like “the King”, "God's Son", "the Man" are used to mock Jesus and to show the disbelief of the actors there, but on a deeper level these linguistic expressions reveal the common conviction of John's readers that faith is the only possibility for the correct perception of Jesus; see H. E. Lona, Glaube und Sprache des Glaubens im Johannesevangelium, in Biblische Zeitschrift 28 (1984) 168-184.

(57) See II Baruch 29:8; Mekilta on Exodus 16:25i Eccles. R. I, 9.

(58) See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man 108.

(59) For the Greek text, cf A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta.

(60) See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, 172.

(61) A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta.

(62) In this paragraph, words in quotation marks are from R. E. Brown, op. cit. 890. (Scriptural references adjusted).

(63) See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, 202.

(64) See ibid, 205.

(65) The Son of Man sayings appear about 86 times in the NT. Only a few of them are not used by Jesus himself: once in Acts 7: 5e (Stephen's death acclamation); once in Heb 2:6 which quotes Ps 8:5 (LXX); twice in Rev 14:14; 1:13 derived from Dan 7:14; once in Jn 12:34 where people repeated the words of Jesus. See J. D'Arc, Morden Concordance to the New Testament, ed. revis. tr. by M. Oanon (London 1976).

(66) See M. Zerwick, op. cit., #179.

(67) See R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according St. John, vol 2 (N.Y., Seabury, 1980), in which there is a very good Excursus. "The Son" as Jesus' self-designation in the Gospel of John; see also vol 3 on Jn 18:28-19:16.

(68) F. J. Moloney. The Johannine Son of God, in Salesianum 38 (1976) 71-86, here 85.

(69) Idem. The Word became Flesh = Theology Today Series 14 (Dublin 1979) 40.

(70) C. H. Dodd. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1953) 262.

PART FOUR: CONCLUSION

6. Evaluation of the Method

We have begun with a theological inquiry about the identity of Christ in the Trial believing that some answers can be found from the Johannine text (as inspired) by creating a hermeneutic space through philologicosemantical analysis. Our focal area is the "text" itself which is blended with history and theology. If the text were devoid of history, then John 's theology would become pure imagination. However if the (written) history were a simple record of an ensemble of happenings one after another, then some important meaning might escape our notice. Frequently the chronological report is misleading, which is why John has placed his priority on theology without, however, discarding history.

Now in the historical paschal event, it is God who gives the meaning which transcends human conditionings. John perceives this and tries to convey it to his readers. However John's perception of the event is not closed in itself (or in a text) but has a permanent appealing force to all men of different times and places, insofar as behind these written words it is God who speaks personally. On a theological level, we may present it in the following scheme:

God speaks God speaks God speaks
in in in
Paschal
Johannine Today's
Event
Church Church

In each stage God demands of us a faithful listening when he speaks to the contemporaries of Jesus, to the Johannine community and now to the Church. The aim of this essay is precisely to create a hermeneutic space in which the appealing force of the Johannine text may become more "alive" to contemporary readers . Thus our hermeneutic process is not only possible (and in some way necessary) but at the same time perfectible.

Bearing this in mind, I would like to pass two remarks on the limit of our work. First, I have used principally the philologicosemantical method which does not contemplate the sociocultural background of John's Sitz im Leben with all its implications. This is to be integrated by other exegetical methods. Secondly, it is not enough to create a hermeneutic space for its own sake, but a hermeneutic space is needed that points to new possibilities of theological actualization in the modern world. In other words, John has in his own way expressed the Truth of Christus, Rex Glorificatus Glorificansque, and in what way can the same Truth be expressed now? How should the God-man story, once beautifully narrated by John, be re-told toddy? This leaves another step to be completed.

7. Towards The Glory of Man

The underlying motive to quest for Christ's identity is existential: "To me" does it make sense at all? In the hermeneutic space, therefore, I venture to posit some personal reflections which could serve as a route to enter the field of theological actualization.

We have seen how John narrated the Glory of Christ in the absurd humiliation. Two questions may arise:

First, why should Christ be glorified when he has never ceased to be the glorious Son of God?

Second, why should he be glorified in humiliation and not otherwise?

To the first, John did not give an answer in terms of cause and effect, but he did perceive a purpose in Christ'ss glorification (71). Incarnated Logos has never lost his filial union with the Father, He is still God, though at the same time a true man. The glorification is certainly not for his Divine nature but for the human. Furthermore God does not only glorify Jesus of Nazareth (18:5, 7 during the arrest in the garden) but also though him the glory will be spread out to those who believe in him.

"The Glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one" (The priestly prayer in the Last Supper, 17:22).

Irenaeus picks up the same idea when he writes:

"Gloria enim hominis Deus; operationis vero Dei et omnis sapientiae eius et virtutis receptaculum homo" (Adversus Haereses, III, 20, 2-3)."

(God is man's glory, but it is man who receives the effect of God's activity, who is the recipient of all God 's wisdom and power).

If God and all his work are the outpouring our life will receive a new transcendent meaning from which emerge many dimensions that transform our life in the pattern of the Lord's Passover:

Trinitarian Dimension:

We are to be received into the unity of the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit.

Christological Dimension:

To do this we need to make a decision of faith to be with Christ, in Christ, for Christ and towards Christ.

Ecclesial Dimension:

Those who believe in Christ will also enter his Sheepfold and form an agapeistic community which continues Christ's Victory over the World where hate, despair, all forms of slavery and suffering are still reigning.

Sacramental Dimension:

As Christ made visible God in him, so the Church has to make visible Christ in her, by becoming the sign and instrument of his salvation which is channelled to men through the chosen signs that the Church inherited from the ministry of Christ for purification strength, nutrition, service, solidarity, partnership and, above all, Love.

Now let us come to tackle the second question behind which there is revealed also the Sitz im Leben of the Johannine community which was under a heavy persecution. John was well aware of the puzzle of the community: how to reconcile the daily sufferings with the salvation) already brought forth by Christ. He encouraged them by presenting the glorification of Christ in relation to the suffering of the Servant. While the synoptic passion accounts unanimously used the verb "suffer" (pascho) to describe Christ Jesus, the Son of Man, in John's Gospel this verb does not appear at all. The Johannine Son of Man has never considered the Cross as suffering but as glory and salvation There is no agony scene in the garden. During the arrest, the soldiers fell to the ground when Jesus stood forward and said, "I am he (Jesus of Nazareth)!" (18:5, 6, 8): The Johannine Christ has lived "royally" this moment of what we would call humiliation.

During his life-time, Jesus gradually cut his figure as the obedient Son-servant of God who revealed the Love of the Father to men. Finally there remained the cross as the ultimate testing ground for what he had preached: Greater love has no man than that a man lay down his life for his friend (15:13). This is the vocation and mission of the Son The Cross thus is the culminating point of Jesus' vocation as the glorified Son of God. In him there is the meeting point between God's giving and man's receiving. In this climax, what was from the human side humiliation and death, was from God's side glory and resurrection. Hence the glorification of the Son did not do away with the fact of suffering, which is an inevitable consequence of sin that man has to bear. However Christ did not only come to bear it together with man as sheer condemnation, but also transformed it into something salvific.

"So you have sorrow now, but I wilL see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you (...) and that your joy may be full" (16:22, 25).

Such a beautiful theme of Glory founded in persecution and suffering fits not only into the Johannine community but also into today's World. The refrain of John, "Where there is love, there is God; where There is the cross, there is glory" still strikes a hopeful tone in the modern world, in the pilgrim Church, in the feeble hearts of those Christians who are still searching for the sense of the Cross. Perhaps suffering today still represents the scandal of the Cross, and thus, constitutes the enigma of our Christian life. The tension between the light and darkness still exists but is to be overcome by love and faith in Christ, the King. Only then, the Glory of man will come true, perhaps not in the way we could expect it but surely with unsurpassed stupendousness, because it is God who is at work for our Glory.

HOMO VIVENS GLORIA DEI!

(71) M_Pamment. The meaning of "doxa" in the Fourth Gospel, in Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1983) 12-16. The word doxa in the Fourth Gospel (after 1:14 and 2:11) has associations not of power but of selfless generosity and love.

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A0910E1_1.htm
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A0910E2.htm
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A0910E3.htm
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A0910E4.htm

作者：斐林丰Fedrigotti, Lanfranco M.

A THEORY OF CHRISTIAN AND BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

Introduction

What is hermeneutics all about? The term "hermeneutics" has a history. It derives from a Greek word which means "interpretation". Traditionally, it has been used to designate the study of the rules regulating an adequate interpretation of Literary texts. In ecclesial circles it denoted and still denotes "the science of the methods of exegesis"(1). While the ecclesial use of this term goes back only to the 17th century, the reality for which it stands goes as far back as the very beginning of the Church. The Church, from her very birth, has been a great interpreter.

In the contemporary era, however, this term has been more and more often used by philosophers with a much larger connotation. In philosophical circles, it is now currently used to mean" a general understanding of reality obtained from a specific perspective"(2). To speak of hermeneutics today means to speak of a vision of the world conscious of its particular stand-point. So there is talk of marxist hermeneutics, psychoanalytic hermeneutics. existential hermeneutics, etc.

Given such a development in the use of the term "hermeneutics" and in the reality meant by it. it seems no longer possible at present to treat hermeneutics simply as a set of rules for good interpretation. Even Biblical hermeneutics is called today to become a "philosophy of interpretation" and a "theology of interpretation". The importance and the urgency of answering this call is clear on at least three counts: a) the uniqueness of the Word that is to be interpreted: Word of God as well as word of man; b) the universality of this unique Word, which is addressed to all people, in all places and for all times: c) the pluralism of attitudes which shape the person as an interlocutor of this unique Word. Today this pluralism is not only a matter of different social and intellectual backgrounds. Today it is a racial and cultural pluralism which runs much deeper than the discrepancies between systems of thought within any given culture. As the pluralism runs deeper, so must we also look for a deeper and wider basis of consent, or at least of dialogue.

What I shall try to do in this paper is certainly a far from adequate attempt to meet this need. In practice, I shall proceed from the newer and larger sense of hermeneutics to the older and narrower sense. That is, I shall go from hermeneutics as philosophy to hermeneutics as the science of basic principles of exegesis.

For all its inadequacy, this paper intends to be a tribute of gratitude to the participants in the seminar on "Christological Texts in the New Testament: Scripture and Tradition", held at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome in the spring of 1983, under the guidance of Prof. Ignace de La Potterie, S.J. Most of the ideas expressed here are the fruit of the lively mutual "contamination" that took place during that seminar (3).

Sacra Scripura

aliquomodo

cum legenitbus crescit.

(Smaragde)

　

Somehow

Sacred Scripture

grows together with those who read it.

PART I: Hermeneutics as Mediation between Being and Person

1.1. An unusual encounter on the cross-roads of thoughts

The outline of hermeneutical theory that I arn going to present owes much to the hermeneutical reflection that is going on in contemporary philosophical circles. I am thinking in particular of the German philosopher H. G. Gadamer (4), the French P. Ricoeur (5), and especially the Italian L. Pareyson (6). At the same time, this theory situates itself in the stream of interpretative insights that has kept flowing throughout the exegetical tradition of the Christian church.

There is at least one thing in common between these two areas of hermeneutical reflection, namely the sense of mystery, whether in the form of the mystery of God and man or in the form of the ineffability of being, the transcendence of truth etc. Of great significance for me also is the fact that this sense of mystery is equally characteristic of much Oriental thought. This unusual encounter on the cross-roads of human thought can be seen as a sign that this hermeneutical theory is rooted in a sound common-sense philosophy, that "philosophia perennis", which is the basis of dialogue between persons, peoples and cultures.

On the other hand, I am well aware that modem people have deep-rooted misgivings about any talk of mystery and transcendence. It is a fact that contemporary philosophical and theological endeavours have been radically influenced by the "masters of suspicion"(7): Nietzsche has taught us to beware in thought and language of ideological bias; Marx of social alienation; Freud of unconscious sublimation. They have made us aware of the presence of hidden forces which tear apart the conceived thought and the expressed word from crude, unexpressed reality. This suspicion, of course, has even more far-reaching derivations. It is the daughter of Kant's "Copemican revolution" and farther back of Descartes' methodical doubt. Since then. it has gone beyond being merely simply a question of method and has made itself into a philosophy destructive of all absolute certainties.

Characteristic of thinkers like Gadamer, Ricoeur and Pareyson. instead, is the attempt to cope with this suspicion in a positive and constructive way. It is not surprising, therefore, if the coping with the suspicion surpasses the boundaries of a pragmatic science, devoted to the exposition of the meaning of a text, and becomes a philosophy in its own right.

1.2.What kind of history?

The starting point of this philosophy is an awareness which is shared by most contemporary thinkers and which can welt provide a fruitful basis for dialogue. I mean the awareness of the historical conditioning and of the radical finiteness of man. which is often also called the historical consciousness of modern man. Man is rightly seen as being constitutively signed by his being-in-history. Man is essentially a historical being (8).

Most thinkers would probably agree with these general statements. As soon as we try to qualify them. however, there takes place a dramatic parting of the ways. There are in fact two opposite ways of understanding history at this basic stage. Do we understand history as closed on itself, whether at the level of the individual or at the universal level of mankind? Or do we opt for an open view of history, as including a transcendent dimension both at the individual and at the universal level?

Since we are in the hermeneutical field, we can express this option thus: do we opt for a closed or for an open relationship of history and truth? An open relationship of history and truth entails the presupposition that history is the manifestation of a mystery greater than its controllable events; that history, at the level both of the single event and of the totality of the events, has the symbolic function of pointing to a reality deeper and greater than itself. On the opposite side, a closed relationship of history and truth entails the presupposition that history is reducible to itself: that it does not have the symbolic function of expressing a reality beyond itself, that it has no relationship to any mystery whatsoever other than the unpredictability of its own unfolding. It is clear, then, that this openness or closedness is in relationship to a mystery, the mystery of existence itself, of being itself. It consists in the acceptance or in the denial of this mystery. Now, the hermeneutical philosophy I am following, together with thirty centuries of Judaeo-Christian tradition, has opted for openness to mystery. But in doing so, it has had the merit of demonstrating the inevitability of opting for one or the other of the two alternatives, so that the denial of transcendence is shown to be no less an option that the acceptance of it. It is evident, therefore, that I have been speaking purposely of "options". This does not mean that the acceptance or denial of mystery or transcendence excludes any rational ground. Rather it means that the rational ground alone is insufficient to induce assent, without an element of openness, of dedication, ultimately, of faith.

We have left behind us very quickly the common ground on which we had started off, that is, the experience of man's historical nature. However, before doing so. we have somewhat enlarged the area of this common ground, by pointing out the necessary presence of some basic presuppositions in any kind of philosophical endeavour. "Precomprehension" is a term that expresses well the nature of these presuppositions, insofar as they are more akin to vision and intuition than to reasoning and deduction. The positive precomprehension of accepting mystery is actually based on the intuition of our historical being as finite and of Being itself as infinite. The affirmation or the denial of this intuition constitutes the parting of the ways.

1.3. Truth as the self-revelation of Being to the person

We have seen that it is precisely through the experience of our historical finiteness that we have an inkling of the infinite mystery. The person-in-history comes into touch with Being as such through the multiplicity of beings and, first of all, through the experience of one's own existence. This fact is rich with consequences for our hermeneutical theory.

On the one hand, truth is precisely this relationship holding between Being and the person. Without Being or without person there is no truth. On the other hand, the comprehension of Being as such is mediated by the multiplicity of beings, so the only adequate way of knowing the truth will be a hermeneuticat one. It is interpretation that makes possible the encounter of Being and person, and therefore the attainment of truth. Hermeneutics does so by explicitating the witness given by the multiplicity of beings to the presence of Being as such. When this explicitation attains its goal, then we have truth. Truth is the self-revelation of Being to the human person, who is capable of perceiving it thanks to its interpretative dynamism (9).

This dynamism unfolds between the two poles of finiteness and infinity, making the person-in-history the "organon" of the self-revelation of Being in truth. In this dynamism we may distinguish two aspects: the "original" aspect (originality), and the "originary" aspect (fidelity). The "original" aspect of interpretation is that quality of comprehension which is peculiar to each person in its individuality, marked by both space and time. The "originary" aspect, instead, is that quality of comprehension which is common to all successful interpretations, which attain to a grasp of transhistorical truth. These two aspects, though distinguishable, are not separable. Actually, the second is possible only through the first. But the second has the nature of a goal, while the first has only the nature of an instrument, valid only inasmuch as it helps to attain the goal. Authentic interpretation will, therefore, steer clear both of a narcissistic ideal of originality for its own sake and of an impossible effort of being absolutely impersonal (10).

Interpretation, thus understood, overcomes the opposition between naive realism and gnoseological scepticism. In interpretation the person is not merely a subject, but an interlocutor, and being and truth are not merely on object, but a source of meaning. Interpretation is aware that truth is not reducible to its formulations. Rather it is incarnated in them. that is, both present in and beyond them. Interpretation sees itself as the never definitively attained possession of an infinite, before which it feels both the exigency of faithfulness and gift of personal freedom. It believes neither in the absolute ineffability of the infinite nor in the total enunciation of truth. For it, neither depth without evidence, nor evidence without depth are worthy of the per-son-in-history. Instead, it knows that truth is attainable without being exhaustible. It brings human speech and thought from being merely expressive of contingency to being revelational of transcendence. And in doing so, it experiences the fundamental congeniality that links truth and the person-in-history. Truth is penetrated by means of sympathy, it is discovered by means of capturing its wave-length. Through this exercise in congeniality, the person-in-history finds itself drawn both beyond itself and deeper into itself (11).

1.4. the hermeneutical rehabilitation of time

I intend now to underline two or three aspects which have only been hinted at in the previous paragraph. It will have been noticed how history has been valued as a mediator of the self-revelation of Being in truth. History and finiteness are not seen as negative characteristics of human existence, but on the contrary as that which makes possible a dialogue with the infinity and the transcendence of truth, a dialogue which, taking place in history, is related to the past as well as to the future. The person-in-history is both given and becoming, both "object and project"(12). This is true of the individual and of mankind. In this perspective, time assumes an irreplaceable hermeneutical function. Its openness to the past and to the future provides an openness to the inexhaustibility of truth. The multiplicity of interpretations is not only produced but also tested by time. In fact, how does one distinguish between adequate and inadequate interpretations? An essential role is played in this distinction by the flow of time. The Italian poet A. Manzoni, on hearing the news of the death of Napoleon, asked himself :

Fu vera gloria?

Ai posteri l' ardua sentenza (13)

To see whether an interpretative line ends up in a cul-de-sac or not, it must be followed up to its end. But this often takes time. Consequently, temporal distance is no longer seen as an insurmountable obstacle to the attainment of truth but as an indispendable help in seeing clearly the difference between true and false interpretations of existence. On the other hand, is it necessary to point out that we are falling into the excess of historicism, if we simply consider time as the mother of truth? But if time is not the mother of truth, it is certainly "the midwife of truth"(14). If it is not the source of truth, it is certainty "the well of truth"(15). Time does not beget truth, but it assists at its birth in us. The hermeneutical interlocutor may be distant, opaque and dark, but the stream of history is a catalyst that makes it transparent and luminous. No wonder, then, that the "history of the impact" of a text (16) is an essential part of the enquiry into its meaning.

1.5. The hermeneutical rehabilitation of precomprehension

At the basis of every interpretative enterprise there is a set of presuppositions. We have seen already the most basic of them, the option for an open or a closed view of history and existence. Our past experience, both as individuals and as humankind, provides us with a whole net of such presuppositions. The belief that one could radically do away with them by means of scientific objectivity is one of the most preposterous illusions recorded in the history of thought. There is hermeneutical significance in this inevitability of some kind of pre-comprehension. This inevitability is in reality a s'9" of our finiteness and being-in-history. In order to jump out of all pre-comprehension one would have to jump out of history, which is absurd.

This is not to say, however, that all presuppositions are valid. Rather, they provide a perspective, which both makes possible, and is modified by, the self-revelation of Being in truth. This self- revelation. which is an ongoing process, will show which of the pre-suppositions cannot stand when confronted with truth. Sterile suspicion on the whole of knowledge is thus replaced by fertile "interrogation"(17) in dialogue with the totality of being which gradually (and inexhaustibly) reveals itself. Hermeneutics consists in this ongoing dialectic between one's total understanding and new particular instances of understanding, in such a way that the whole illumines the part and the part may modify the whole. This basic acceptance of pre-comprehension, together with the readiness continuously to readjust it in the light of new truth disclosures, has been called the "herrmeneutical circle"(18).

1.6. The hermeneutical rehabilitation of personal involvement

In the light of the discovery of the positivity of basic pre-comprehension, personal involvement also begins to be seen as having a positive significance for an adequate hermeneutics. Not without reason, personal encounter is often used as a valid model of the hermeneutical encounter. As a matter of fact. what is at stake in both is the genuinity of self-revelation and of perception of meaning. It may be useful, therefore, to dwell for a moment on the dynamism of personal encounter. A genuine personal encounter grows more and more intense thanks to a dialectic or ""oscillation" between involvement and detachment, familiarity and extraneousness, comprehension and non-comprehension. As D. Bonhoeffer's well-known saying goes: "Community is a danger for you, unless you know how to remain alone. And solitude is a danger for you, unless you are involved in a community"(19).

In the same way. interpretation demands both involvement and detachment. We are people of the 20th century, so there is perhaps no need to stress the aspect of detachment: the success of the scientific endeavour in all areas of life is sufficient evidence of its fruitfulness. What needs to be stressed, instead, is the interpretative value of personal involvement, which has been for too long degraded to the level of irrelevance, if not downright negativity, with regard to comprehension and knowledge. The consequences are also there for all to see.

In our context, detachment would mean my critical awareness of my presuppositions as well as of the historical conditioning of human comprehension. Involvement, on the other hand, would consist in valuing my own personal experience of life and history. This value is based on the radical "affinity" of all historical experience, which makes it possible for my personal experience to enlighten other historical experiences. This mutual interaction of present and past historical experiences is called by Gadamer "the fusion of the horizons", namely, of the present and past horizons. By fusion I think he means not identification, but an encounter which is marked both by distance and proximity: the distance of being a past experience, retraceable only by means of witnesses of various kinds, and the proximity of being just another historical experience, perfectly congenial to the person-in-history (20). The perception of this congeniality demands that the interpreter do not abstract from his being-in-history. On the contrary, the more genuinely involved he is in his own historical experiences, the more capable will he be to perceive the message that comes to him from other such experiences. In passing, let it be noted that the capacity for this "fusion of horizons" is the sign of an integrated personality, if we agree that the ingredients of such a personality are "a realistic contact with the present, a reverential continuity with the past, and a courageous responsibility for the future"(21).

1.7. Truth, neither ineffable nor reducible, but inexhaustible

Our starting point has been the experience of our historical and finite existence. Now it is time to sound a warning against a twofold danger that lurks just around the corner of our rehabilitation of time, pre-comprehension and personal involvement. In the first place there is the danger of resolving in a unilateral and extreme way the tension that exists between the finite and the infinite, between hermeneutics and ontology, between language and rationality, between person-in-history and truth. This unilateral and extreme solution is that of limiting the manifestation of truth, being and the infinite by identifying it "sic et simpliciter" with the experience of this manifestation in the language and interpretative activity of the person-in-history.

Against this aberration it must be stressed that the person-in-history receives the manifestation of the infinite precisely as such, that is, as infinite, as endlessly greater than itself. Therefore, the language which bears witness to this manifestation contains it more in the form of a seed than in that of a full explicitation.

The other danger lurking behind our hermeneutical endeavour is the claim that truth is absolutely ineffable. This second aspect of the danger can be traced back to two opposite and extreme positions with regard to the understanding of the Being-as-such which we have been talking about.

One is the position of those who conceive Being as such not as positive existence, but as nothingness. A little thought will show that this amounts to the same thing as the absolutization of finiteness.

The other extreme is the position of those who identify "tout court" Being-as-such with the Infinite Personal God. No wonder that these people are overwhelmed with such a sense of divine mystery as to opt for absolute ineffability.

By now it must be clear that we do not subscribe to the first extreme. An explanation may be in order as to why we do not subscribe to the second, either. In order to pass from Being-as-such to the Infinite Personal Being, we think that the whole enquiry of an adequate natural theology should be included in our hermeneutics. No direct identification of Being as such with Absolute Being is possible. Sound rational evidence must be provided for the fact that Being-as-such finds its ultimate explanation only in the existence of the Infinite Personal Absolute Being who is God. We make our own, therefore, the end term of such an adequate natural theology. This end term is God. who is both knowable and irreducible, immanent and transcendent, meaningful and mysterious.

To summarize and conclude, our hermeneutics does not subscribe. to any absolutization of finiteness. On the other hand, it does not subscribe to any mysticism of the ineffable, either. It holds, in fact, that in human language and rationality there takes place a true manifestation of Being in truth. The only concept of truth that does justice to this situation is that proposed by L. Pareyson. namely, the concept of inexhaustibility. Truth is present in its concrete historical formulations, but at the same time it is also beyond them. The person-in-history is more situated inside the truth than set up in front of it. The potentially infinite number of concrete formulations of truth must confront one another in an incessant dialogue which will allow the person-in-history to have a better comprehension of inexhaustible truth. Once more. the indispensable function of time and of personal dedication to the investigation of truth is vindicated. No one individual. no one historical period, can claim to have exhausted the exploration of truth, or rather to have opened itself totally to the manifestation of truth. Each individual and each period, instead, is called to make his original contribution to this opening up of truth (22). As Pope John Paul II said in his peace message for the year 1985: "Man's journey through history is like a pilgrimage of discovery".


NOTE: The more general philosophical terms I shall be using, (such as being, existence, reality, history, person, time, truth, mystery, finite, infinite, unity, multiplicity, etc.), will be used with the connotation that is current in the "common sense philosophy" or "perennial philosophy" that I speak of in this article. The "common sense philosophy" connotation of these terms is close to, though not identical with, the connotation of the implicitly metaphysical terms of the language of the man-in-the-street. So, for example, like the man-in-the-street, I consider the terms "being", "reality". "existence" as synonymous. I am well aware, of course, that this is not the case in some types of contemporary philosophy.

Unless otherwise stated, references by author's name are to the works listed in the bibliography.

1. F. L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone (eds). The Oxford Dictonary of the Christian Church. 1974, 1985, 2nd edition revised, P.641, "Hermeneutics".

2. Mondin, p. 13. Unless otherwise stated, the translations from other languages into English are mine.

3. The other members of the seminar were: Nicola Di Tolve, Marco Frisina, Joseph Sama, Giuseppe Sciorio, Fabrizio Tosolini. Pierantonio Tremolada. Michael Waldstein. I would like to thank also Rev. Fr. Theobald Diederich O.F.M., of the Studium Biblicum, Hong Kong, for reading my paper and giving some valuable comments.

4. By putting these three thinkers together. I do not mean that they form a school. On the contrary, they reveal widely divergent sensitivities. It is precisely this fact, however, that renders all the more significant their convergence on some basic hermeneutical insights. Some of these insights can be traced back to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. I have become acquainted with the philosophy of Gadamer thanks to the presentation made of it by Prof. l. de La Potterie. I would recommend reading Gadamer's Le probleme de ja conscience historique, (cf. Bibliography, no. 8).

5. I have become acquainted with Ricoeur especially through the presentation of his insights in the work of C. Helou, a book worth reading.

6. Introduced to him by Prof. l de La Potterie. I recommend reading at least part of his Verita e interpretazione, pp. 53-90, and the presentation of his hermeneuticat thought in Modica, esp. pp. 87-159.

7. The expression must be Ricoeur's Cf. Helou. p. 12. Ricoeur has probably derived it from Nietzsche's expressions "Kunst des Misstrauens" and "Schule des Verdachtes": cf Pareyson, p.116, and the note on pp. 247-248.

8. Cf. Gadamer, II problema, pp.27-28.

9. Cf. Modica. pp. 90-91.

10. For the distinction original-originary, cf. Modica, pp.91-93. But there is a tension in Pareyson's thought between seeing originality as instrument (pp.98-101) and as effect (p.93). For the expression "organon of self-revelation", cf. p.95. For the last sentence of the paragraph, cf. p.103.

11. This paragraph is a digest of Pareysonian expressions: Modica, subject-object, cf. p. 104; irreducibility to formulations, cf. p. 105; never definitively attained possession of an infinite, cf. p. 106; faithfulness and freedom, cf. p.117; expressive and revelational, cf. pp. 129-136.

12. Cf. Gadamer, II problema, p.54.

13. Ode 5 Maggio: "Was it true glory? Let posterity pass this arduous judgement".

14. "Veritas filia temporis" (Truth is a daughter of time) is an adage of Aulus Gellius in his Notitiae Atticae, quoted by de La Potterie in class (henceforth cited as de La Potterie, Course). "Time is not the mother, but the midwife of truth" is a saying of John Milton, quoted by Pareyson. p.85. The reference is given on p.224 as Milton, The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce. Complete Works, Vol. II. p.225, Yale 1959.

15. The expression is Gadamer's. quoted by de La Potterie, Course.

16. My translation of Gadamer's "Wirkungsgeschichte".

17. Gadamer, II problema, pp.90-91. He calls the "discovery" of pre-comprehension "revolutionary", ibid., p.81.

18. Gadamer, ibid., pp.78-79.

19. I have been unable to find the exact reference.

20. Cf. Gadamer, II problema, p.78 for the concept of affinity. "Fusion of horizons" quoted in de La Potterie. La nozione, p.111.

21. D. Maruca, Caring Relationships and a Pastoral Spirituality, Some Aids, Rome 1983, ad usum privatum. Cf. Gadamer. II problema, p.28.

22. The danger of an "absolutization of finiteness", paradoxically combined with a "mysticism of the ineffable" seems to have been incurred by Heidegger. Cf. Gadamer, II problema, pp.27. 87. Together with the distinctions between original and originary, between expressive and revelational, this seems to be the third distinctive contribution made by Pareyson. For this concept of inexhaustibility, cf. Modica, pp. 119-126; inside the truth, rather than in front of it, cf. p. 105: dialogue between interpretations, cf. pp. 153-156.

PART II: Christ-Truth as Foundation of Christian Hermeneutics

2.1. Christ-Truth as ultimate hermeneutical ground

Here, I think, is the point of insertion of Christian hermeneutics with its unique and incredible claim (precomprehension?) that inexhaustible truth has taken body and speech in the person-event of Jesus of Nazareth. Does this claim nullify all that has been said up to now? The answer is no. In fact, while on the one hand Christian faith claims that inexhaustible truth has been posited once and for all in the person-event of Jesus Christ, on the other hand it predicates of this person-event the same inexhaustibility that we have predicated of truth itself. Hence there follows that the significance of this person-event cannot be fully exhausted by anyone in history. Jesus of Nazareth, because of his unique sharing in the mystery of God, remains for ever beyond the total reach of any method and of any human formulation.

If all this is true. then the person-event of Jesus Christ assumes an incomparable hermeneutical significance and so does his Spirit-filled social body, the Church, which is being constructed along the banks of the river of history. The unheard of claim to supreme hermeneutical significance has been made by Jesus himself: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt. 11:27b). "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). His Church has seen him from the very beginning in this function: "I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth; and he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne....... And they sang a new song, saying. 'Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals..." (Rev 5:6-7, 9a). His is the Spirit that is leading mankind into the fullness of truth...(cf. John 16:13a).

In these words lies a challenge of unfathomable daring to the hermeneutical intentions of man, at the same time fulfilling them and calling upon them to go beyond themselves. This is the challenge that offers an unhoped for total rehabilitation of history by making it the receptacle of the uncircumscribable mystery of God. No wonder, therefore, if in the Church which is the historical effect of- the person-event of Jesus Christ, we find a concrete realization of the hermeneutical theory sketched out above.

2.2. The hermeneutical significance of tradition as inclusive of Scripture.

The Church sees her arche in the person-event of Jesus Christ. This is an arche which enshrines a mystery of inexhaustible depth. In this mystery she is vitally involved. She is in it. she is not merely faced by it. Sacred Scripture is the expression of her self-consciousness of her own vital union with the very mystery of God thanks to the mediation of Jesus Christ.

Materia sacrae scripturae totus Christus est.

caput et membra (Glossa ordinaria) (23).

Not unnaturally, then, does she see her living tradition not as an unbridgeable abyss between her and her arche, but on the contrary as the terrain which stretches between the present and her arche, and which makes possible her access to it. On this terrain. Scripture is simply the portion of ground closest to the arche. Scripture is part and parcel of the life of the Church. In it she recognizes "bone of her bones and flesh of her flesh".

Arca testamenti ecclesia vocatur,

in qua duorum testamentorum virtus

digito Dei scripta est (Alcuin) (24).

She approaches her arche with a basic precomprehension (faith) which is the fruit of personal contact with the arche both exteriorly through the normal human communication and interiorly through the communication of the Spirit. For the first witnesses, the normal human communication meant direct contact with the person-event of Christ. For us believers of the present, this communication implies the mediation of all believers that have preceded us. This mediation (especially that of Scripture and Tradition) in a sense is certainly a barrier between us and the originary person-event of Jesus Christ. It demands in fact a not too simple effort of semantic transference (25). Nobody, moreover, denies the necessity erf being critically aware that the testimony of Scripture is charged with the temporality and personality of the inspired authors, and that tradition is also a chain of transmission almost imponderably charged with the heritage of the different ages of history. At the same time, however, the Church is not blind to the fact that this supposed barrier has a high hermeneutical value: in the case of Scripture because of the total personal involvement of the witnesses: in the case of tradition, because of the temporal distance which acts as a filter of the soundness of every new attempt at comprehension. As for the interior communication of the Spirit, this is of even greater hermeneutical significance. Only the Spirit can bear witness to the transcendent quality of the person-event of Jesus Christ. Now, this Spirit is not something detached from the Church. It is, instead, the very life and soul of the Church.

The Church's approach to her arche is based, therefore, on a twofold witness, interior and exterior. The Church's self-awareness of this reality has produced the two twin doctrines of inspiration and canonicity of her scriptures. The first embodies the Spirit's witness to the transcendent character of the person-event of Jesus Christ; the second, the testimony of the eyewitnesses of this person-event to its historical character. A consideration of these two doctrines will highlight the hermeneutical value of this twofold witness.

2.3. The hermeneutical significance of the inspiration of Scripture

Firstly, this doctrine ensures the symbolic value of the scriptural text. It testifies to the fact that a divine mystery is expressed by the human word. Without inspiration, there would be no direct link between the person-event of Jesus Christ, which is the originary “locus” of God’s revelation, and its presentation in the text.

The doctrine of inspiration sets up this link in two stages: in the first place, it asserts the genuinity of the relationship holding between the source of revelation and the expression of this revelation in the scriptures. We are here at the stage of the production of the sacred text, say. the gospels. This text does not come from the source of revelation itself. Jesus is reported to have written not on parchment but only on the sand......The contact of the authors of the gospels with the source was itself mediated-by vision, by hearing, by understanding, in a word, by a linguistic event. Thanks to this mediation and that of the Spirit, the eyewitness receives the manifestation of the truth present in Jesus Christ. He interiorises this reception and eventually bears witness to it in word and writing. We have then a new linguistic event, already at a remove from the source of revelation. It is only the continued presence of the Spirit which establishes the continuity between the revelation and the witness borne to it.

The second stage in the hermeneutical assistance of the Spirit comes when a reader or listener enters into contact with the source of revelation (the person-event of Jesus Christ) through the mediation of the inspired text. We are at the level not of the production, but of the use of the text. We have seen that the text itself is a linguistic event already at a remove from the source of revelation. The encounter with the text, as a consequence, is situated at two removes from that same source. Hence the need of the Spirit's presence in the community presenting the text and in the individual receiving it; it is only this presence which again guarantees the continuity between the integral meaning intended by the author and its perception by the listener or reader of today. This continuity consists in the authentic symbolic value of the text, which in human words expresses a reality that is both human and divine. It is true that every human word is already symbolic of a deeper reality. But in the case of Scripture the symbolic function to which the text is summoned transcends the capacity of the human word, which therefore needs the assistance of the testimony of the Spirit.

This assistance is the ground of the Church's capacity to draw the full spiritual sense from the letter of the scriptures. Just as, on the level of history, temporality ensures the link between the present horizon and the horizon of the arche, so, on the level of transcendence, the activity of the Spirit is indispensable for establishing that affinity which is the condition sine qua non for the possibility of interpretation.

Secondly, and consequently upon this first point, the doctrine of inspiration shows how the reference to the transcendent mystery inherent in the text is beyond the reach of pure method. Method must be enlivened from within by faith, a living experience which is vitally transmitted by the historical community of the Church. The "sensus fidei" is crucial.

Thirdly, inspiration anchors the whole of Scripture to a unique source, the Spirit, present in the multiplicity of the human authors. This is the basic justification for seeing Scripture as a unified whole, whose centre is Jesus Christ. The "analogia fidei" is therefore a valid interpretative instrument.

Fourthly and lastly, this doctrine brings to perfection the view of history and truth as related in openness, that is, as allowing for the transcendence of truth over history. A closed view is incapable of doing justice to the peculiar kind of witness that the biblical text purports to be.

2.4. The hermeneutical significance of the canonicity of Scripture

In the current of historical witnesses to the self-revelation of transcendent truth in the person-event of Jesus Christ, there is a privileged sector: the apostolic witness. It is privileged because it is the witness of those who have been in direct personal contact with the person-event of Jesus Christ. The self-revelation of God resides precisely in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth in the integrity of his reality and development. This man. in this time and in this place, is the decisive revelation of the mystery of God and man. That is why the church is conscious that about him the essential could be said and has been said only by those who "from the beginning were the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2b). If the historical reality of Jesus Christ is the true sign of the transcendent mystery hidden in him, then those who have been historically sharers of his experience are the primary witnesses to the significance of this sign. The New Testament is nothing but the concretization in literary form of this witness. From- then on, it is no longer possible to add any essential feature to the face of truth. Instead, there is handed on to all successive generations the task of penetrating, deepening, interiorizing the inexhaustible richness contained in the apostolic witness to Jesus-Truth. Still, the "sensus auctoris" is' normative.

This, then, is the crucial significance of canonicity for hermeneutics. Canonicity traces once for all the boundaries within which it will be fruitful to dig our wells in search of the living water of truth. Jesus Christ is a revelational person-event which exhausts all human attempts at comprehension. This person-event exhausts also all possibility of manifesting the truth.

Christus totam novitatem attulit

semetipsum afferens (Irenaeus) (26).

These canonical boundaries have been drawn by the living experience of the Church, which, as the Spirit-filled social body of Christ, is connaturally capable of recognizing the essential features of the physiognomy of her head. This living experience has run through the centuries in the "conscience collective de l'Eglise" (Blondel) (27), and it has become concretely recognizable in the declarations of the Councils and of the Magisterium. Interestingly enough, the spokesmen of this collective conscience of the Church are linked by uninterrupted succession through the gift of the Spirit with the first eyewitnesses. Is not all this a sign that history is taken terribly seriously?

Yes, canonicity stands as a bulwark for the historical character of this revelational person-event as well as for its uniqueness.

2.5. Some practical conclusions

From what has been said up to now, some practical guidelines emerge, which illumine our interpretative activity.

Firstly, while there is continuity between the interpretation of the sacred texts and the interpretation of other texts, still Sacred Scripture relates to the faithful interpreter in a specific manner. It is the same continuity-discontinuity that holds between the personal mystery of everyman and the mystery of the man-God Jesus Christ.

Secondly, the interpreter of the word of God is not an outsider with respect to the sacred text. The text is part of his life, and so he approaches the text with a vital concern. To express this fact in as sharp a way as possible, we could say: the interpreter knows that if the text lives or dies, he is going to live or die with it. Interpretation is a question of life or death for the meaning of one's existence.

Thirdly, the faithful interpreter's concept of truth goes a little farther than the classical concept of truth as conformity of intellect and reality. The classical concept seems to make personal freedom and experience external accessories of truth. It easily leads those who react to it negatively into relativism, and those who react to it positively into dogmatism or tolerance (28). The Christian interpreter shares the personalistic concept of truth as the self-revelation of reality to the human person through the hermeneutical mediation of the intellect, a self-revelation which appeals for recognition but is ready to put up with a refusal. In this way every linguistic event is seen as including an intention of self-communication. Relativism, dogmatism, and tolerance are thus replaced by dialogue and mission, respecting, but also challenging, the free response of the person-in-history. Witness is an essential consequence of this concept of truth (29).

Fourthly, the language used by the Christian interpreter results from a triangular reference to the language of Scripture, the language of the believing community, and the language of the contemporary historical reality (30). Only in this way will it be possible to achieve an adequate explicitation of the truth.

Fifthly, in correspondence with the second paragraph, it may be said that not only is the text part of the interpreter's life, but the interpreter's life is part of the text. The life of the faithful community provides somes kind of contemporaneity with the events and the per-sons presented by the text. This experience has been beautifully expressed by St. Leo the Great:

Omnia igitur quae Dei Filius ad reconciliationern mundi et fecit et docuit,

non in historia tantum praeteritorum novimus.

sed etiam in praesentium operum virtute sentimus (31).

The hermeneutical rejevance of such an experience is evident.

Sixthly and lastly, since the Spirit is given to all and the apostolic witness is offered to all, the work of interpretion of the word of God is everybody's job. The boundaries of the field to be tilled have been canonically drawn, the energy and the tight for the work are assured by the Spirit, the cultivation of the field of truth is the exclusive privilege of no one. It follows that the reflection on the biblical word in an academic institution is only secondarily different from this same reflection in a seminary room or a family Bible group or a Sunday sermon or a novel or a play. Primarily, all these forms of reflection are one. The primacy of this unity calls for a great openness on the part of all towards all. The word of truth lives and develops in every faithful heart and mind. Again I borrow the words of a Father of the church. St. Augustine:(...)

omnibus sanctis,

propter vitae illius secretissimae quietissimum sinum,

super pectus Christi Joannes evangelista discubuit.

(...) nec ille (...) de fonte dominici pectoris solus bibit:

sed ipse Dominus ipsum evangelium.

pro sua cuiusque capacitate omnibus suis bibendum,

toto terrarum orbe diffudit (32).

Christ-Truth is recognized all the less inadequately the more extensive is the openness to the contribution of others who live or who have lived this experience: the saint and the scholar, the poet and the peasant, the historian and the theologian, the black and the white, the ancient and the modern…

But now it is time to take a closer look at Christ-Truth


23. Quoted by de La Potterie, Course. "The subject-matter of Sacred Scripture is the whole Christ, head and members". One fruit of the Seminar was also the awareness of the hermeneutical suggestiveness of the concept of arche. In this concept is also included the whole of the OT revelation. Hence, when I speak of Christ-Truth, I mean to include also the OT Scriptures.

24. PL 100, 1152B. "The Church is called the ark of the covenant, because, in her. the power of Old and the New Covenants has been inscribed by the finger of God".

25. Barr, pp.3-4.

26. Quoted by de la Potterie. Course. "With Christ's coming, the totality of new reality has come".

27. This phrase expresses well Blondel's description of tradition, in Blondel, pp.213-216. Another fine phrase is: "une experience toujours en acte". p.204.

28. Cf. Modica. p.24. Tolerance is only a modified form of dogmatism. It is in fact based on the view that truth is totally contained in its formulations. Hence, there is no point, on the one hand, in proposing one's formulation to anyone who has a different formulation, and. on the other hand, in lending an ear to anyone holding a different view.

29. Interpretation and witness are the two essential features of revelational thought, cf. Modica, pp. 157-159.

30. cf. Helou, p.223.

31. Sermo 12 de Passione, 3, 6-7 : PL 54, 356. "It is not only the history of past events that acquaints us with all that the Son of God did and taught for the reconciliation of the world. Of all this we also have a personal experience throught the power of the (sacramental) acts present in our own life".

32. Tractatus in loannern, 124. 7. CorpChr. SeLat, Vol 36, 687. "John the Evangelist rested his head on the heart of Christ on behalf of all the saints, as a symbolic anticipation of that most quiet haven in which that most secret life is lived. John was not the only one to drink from this source, which is the Lord's heart. In fact. The Lord himself has spread the Gospel itself throughout the world so that all his own could drink of it, each according to his capacity".

PART III: The Structure of Christ-Truth and the Structure of Hermeneutics

3.1. The fourfold structure of Christ-Truth

The uniqueness of Jesus Christ lies in his being both God and man: uniqueness, therefore, which is a totality. In the superemely unified person of Jesus Christ lies the totality of being as in its centre. That is why his person-event is of ultimate hermeneutical significance. This coincidence of uniqueness and totality in a historically finite, concrete subject is the essence of the mystery of Christ. The scandal is perhaps only slightly alleviated by considering that the sense of mystery is also at the heart of all the "human sciences" insofar as they aim at comprehending the irreducible unique concrete existence, and not only the general and the abstract (33).

As we have seen already, in John's gospel Jesus presents himself as the truth, that is, as the absolute revelation of God to man and of man to man in the light of God. This is the same as claiming that his person and his event are the ultimate ground of meaning. I think I am justified, therefore, in analysing the structure of hermeneutics in terms of the structure of Christ-Truth.

In this part I am following very closely the insights of 1. de La Potterie (34). The person-event of Christ-Truth reveals a fourfold structure, in which the coordinates of God and man, of time and eternity meet.

a. Christ-Truth is historical: he is a true member of our history. (Cf. 1 John 4:2-3).

b. Christ-Truth is transcendent: in him is hidden and revealed the mystery of God. (Cf. John 1:18: 20:31).

c. Christ-Truth is personal: the "locus" of his actualization is primarily the human person. (Cf. John 17:26).

d. Christ-Truth is eschatological: his total significance is realized only at the end of history. (Cf. John 16:13)

Through this fourfold structure Christ-Truth fulfills and redeems all the human searches for meaning, liberating the truth that is in them. and denouncing the falsity that all too often is mixed with the best intuitions. This is a big statement and so I would like to specify it a little, first with reference to the Western tradition of thought and then. tentatively, with reference also to oriental tradition as represented especially by Chinese philosophers.

a. Christ-Truth as historical fulfills and redeems historicism: Christ is a fully historical person-event, truly immersed in the flow of human history. but not reducible to history.

b. Christ-Truth as transcendent fulfills and redeems Platonism: Christ is a transcendent mystery which relativizes history, and yet he is rooted in history and does not escape from history, but on the contrary assumes history into his own mystery.

c. Christ-Truth as personal fulfills and redeems existentiatistic personalism: the revelation given by Jesus realizes itself in a supreme way in the self-transcending human person, and yet it is greater than all human persons in their individuality as well as in their totality.

d. Christ-Truth as eschatological fulfills and redeems Hegelianism: Jesus Christ as Truth shall be totally fulfilled only at the end of history when God wilt be "all in all", "everything to every one" (cf. 1 Cor 15:28b). However, this "delay" is not due to any inadequacy on his part but is due to God's will of making us all sharers in his fullness.

Applying this specification to the oriental context. I would attempt this confrontation between Christ-Truth and Oriental thought:

a. Christ-Truth as historical redeems and fulfills the positivistic Confucianism of Hsun Tzu and many modern Chinese thinkers.b. Christ-Truth as transcendent fulfills and redeems Hinduism. Buddhism, Taoism. with their acute sense of the contingency of material and historical reality.c. Christ-Truth as personal redeems and fulfills the great traditions of Confucianism. Moism. Neo-Confucianism, with their stress of personal cultivation.

d. Christ-Truth as eschatological fulfills and redeems the dynamic idealism of Wang Yang Ming and the "Da Tong" ideal that has inspired so many modern Chinese revolutionaries.

Partially, and sometimes distortedly, this fourfold structure of Jesus-Truth can be seen reflected in the multiplicity of human attempts at grasping the totality of meaning. Now I would like to show that this fourfold structure has always been present to Christian consciousness from its birth to this day.

St. Paul was perhaps the first to give it expression, even though in a figurative and implicit way. in Eph 3:18, staling that the mystery of Christ has the dimensions of (historical) breadth, (eschatological) length, (transcendent) height, and (personal) depth.

Patristic tradition wavers between a threefold and a fourfold structure of meaning. But the former is mainly due to the fact that the discussion often turned upon the meaning of the text of Scripture, and not on meaning as such. Thus Origen gives a threefold structure (35)Augustine a fourfold (36), but not in the sense intended here. However, when the eye is raised from the text and set on the person-event to which the text testifies, the fourfold structure appears neatly.

In libris autem omnibus sanctis intueri oportet

quae ibi aeterna intimentur,

quae facta narrentur,

quae futura praenuntientur,

quae agenda praecipiantur vel admoneantur (37).

Mediaeval hermeneutics systematized the suggestions of the Fathers, demonstrating that the fourfold structure presented here underlies their twofold, threefold, or even fourfold presentations (38). The result was the famous quatrain:

Littera gesta docet,

Quid credas allegoria,

Moralis quid agas.

Quo tendas anagogia (39).

Once obtained, such a neat systematization incurred the danger of being applied not only to the person-event of Jesus-Truth to which Scripture testifies, but also to the text itself, and to every single text, at that. This, of course, may be seen as an abuse of the fourfold structure, but only insofar as the structure is forced upon a single sentence, without reference to the whole biblical context. So, for example, however charming, it is excessive to see in the word "Jerusalem" the presence of the fourfold structure in each and all of its occurrences (Jerusalem as "urbs historica. Corpus Christi, anima christiana, urbs coelestis"). However, it may well be that, throughout the Bible, Jerusalem appears in one or the other of these meanings.

The mediaeval systematization has been always influential, overtly or silently, in all hermeneuticat probings. Even today, it is probably more alive than may at first sight appear. As Urs von Balthasar has pointed out:

The four senses of Scripture have been secretly brought back to life by the more recent Protestant theology: the ‘literal sense’ is that which results from historico-critical enquiries; the 'spiritual sense' shows up in the kerygmatic meaning; the 'tropological (or moral) sense' corresponds to the existential meaning; the 'anagogical sense' re-lives in the eschatotogical meaning (40).

After all, what is Christian hermeneutics if not simply a function of that "staying in the truth" (cf. John 8:44) which is the Christian life? And what is faith if not a) memory of the historical person-event of Jesus Christ and b) openness to the transcendent mystery revealed in it? What is hope if not the expectation of the eschatological fulfilment? What is charity if not the existential assimilation to, and personal identification with. the person-event of Christ-Truth?

Have we fallen into pan-hermeneuticism? No. As human life has an essentially hermeneutical character, so we have done nothing but underline the essentially hermeneutical character of Christian life. And just as Christian life is under the sign of the cross, so Christian hermeneutics is under the sign of the cross. As Schlier in his commentary on Ephesians has pointed out, breadth, length, height and depth are the dimensions of the cross. In Christian hermeneutics we see transpiring the age-old crucifixion of orthodox faithfulness to the word of God, this titanic effort of the reconciliation of opposites, of the "comprehension" of all dimensions of truth. Needless to say, this effort does not imply violating the principle of non-contradiction. Opposites are not contradictories, and the Holy Spirit is the first great respecter of the principle of non-contradiction (pace all dialectical metaphysicians and theologians).

3.2. The basic duality underlying the fourfold structure of Jesus Truth

The four dimensions of truth can be grouped in two different ways, each of which is of crucial hermeneutical significance:

a) St. Thomas Aquinas classifies "historia" or "gesta" as literal sense, and the other three dimensions (allegoria, moralis, anagogia) as spiritual sense (41). The hermeneutical significance of this grouping (which is widespread also in patristic tradition) is that the binomial symbol-reality is the substratum of the fourfold structure. History is the visible sign of the invisible reality of the other three dimensions (transcendence, personality and eschatology). These three latter dimensions are rooted in history and cannot be uprooted from it without being pulverized, that is. without destroying their reference to Christ-Truth. The historical reality of the person-event of Jesus-Truth cannot be dispensed With. Christian hermeneutics, therefore, welcomes any light that can be thrown on the historical character of the person and the event of Jesus Christ. Hence it values highly the contribution of the historico-critical method. And it uses this method with the pre-comprehension that it is important, and that it is possible, to ground convincingly the historicity of the revelation of Christ-Truth.

On the other hand. the Christian interpreter is aware that what can be obtained with the historico-critical method is only half of the picture. And it would be to mortify the inner dynamism of even this half, not to let it develop into its other dimensions.

b) There is a second way of grouping the four dimensions of Christ-Truth: historical character and transcendence are attritutes of Christ-Truth in himself, while personal interiority and eschatotogical fulfilment are attributes of Christ-Truth-for-us-and-in-us:

The hermeneutical significance of this second grouping is even more far-reaching than the first. In it we come close to realizing what hermeneutics essentially is. In fact, we have the encounter of two persons: the person-event of Jesus Christ becomes hermeneutically relevant (and therefore Truth) when it meets another person-event, when it meets us. Truth is the revelation of a person to another person.

For Jesus-Truth this means that his person-event has no other raison d'etre than his relationship to us. Christ-Truth is a reality totally oriented to the other, a reality graciously but wholly determined by the search for the encounter with the other. Jesus Christ is what he is, not because he needs us, but because we need him. That is what we mean, I think, when we say that Christ is the revealer and the redeemer.

For us, this means that the person-event of Jesus Christ in his historical and transcendent reality is a constitutive element of our own meaning as' human persons. Human fulfilment is grounded in the relationship of the human person with the person of Jesus Christ. On this vantage point, one thinks of the many persons who have no controllable relationship to Christ. It is immediately apparent that this relationship goes well beyond the boundaries of empirical controllable facts.

Let us return to the hermeneutical significance of this underlying duality in itself: it is the duality of personal encounter. Why, then. should it grow into a fourfold structure? Because, of these two persons who meet, the first is both transcending history and rooted in history (in the image of man), while the second is both a person in the making and is gifted with personal inferiority and depth (in the image of God). In other words, we could say that the duality becomes fourfold because vertically, it involves both a human-divine reality (being the encounter of God and man), and horizontally, a process from beginning to end (being an encounter that takes place in history).

Moreover, the two persons involved in the encounter are looked upon in this duality from the point of view of their hermeneutical significance, and therefore differently, since Christ and we have a different hermeneutical import. In the dimensions of history and transcendence. the person-event of Jesus Christ is seen its uniqueness as human symbol of the mystery of God. In the dimensions of personaljty and eschatology. instead, man is seen in his universal nature as man-in-history, and therefore man-in-the-making, fulfilled only at the end; as well as in his universal nature as self-transcending person in the mystery of his interior depths. Speaking more simply, it can be said that Jesus Christ is seen in his unique role as authoritative giver of meaning, while we are seen in our general capacity of receivers of meaning.

We have tried to characterize this basic duality, with the danger of losing sight of the fact that the duality itself is actually situated in the perfectly unified person of Jesus-Truth. The perfect unity in plurality of the two or four dimensions must be emphasized. This, in fact, is the "unicum Christianum". the peculiarly Christian feature of it all. In the "totum corpus, caput et membra" (the whole body. head and members) unity reigns. Thanks to his historical character, Jesus is God made in the image of man; thanks to his self transcending dynamism, man is made in the image of God. In Christ-Truth. God and man are reconciled in one.

That is why I would refrain from describing the basic duality of the hermeneutical encounter in terms of subject and object (42), the object being the person-event of Jesus-Truth encountered by me, the subject. This seems to me a most inadequate expression of what actually happens in the hermeneutical face-to-face. This is always a meeting of two persons, even if before our eyes there is only a piece of paper with a few signs in ink. This piece of paper is truly an object, but an object which points beyond itself to a subject, to a person. As an object, the paper or the book (even the book of Scripture) has only :a mediating function. The end term of the encounter is the person-event revealed by the meaning of the text.

In an unfathomable way this founding encounter has happened between the "subject" of man and the "subject" of God in the incarnation of the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. Ultimately, the incarnation with its duality in perfect unity is the true ground of every hermeneutical encounter. This is what I have been trying to express throughout by using the perhaps awkward expression Christ-Truth or Jesus-Truth. Jesus Christ, the "verbum abbreviatum" is the first and last theological and hermeneutical model for the interpretation of Scripture (43). In the last analysis, he is the model of all interpretation as such.

3.3. The threefold structure of biblical hermeneutics

If Christ-Truth has four or, more fundamentally, two dimensions does it mean that also the structure of hermeneutics is twofold or fourfold? No. The structure of hermeneutics is threefold. In fact, the I encounter between the two persons of which we have been speaking, does not take place without a "tertium quid", without an intermediary. The encounter itself is of an interpretative nature just because it is a mediated encounter. In general, this function of mediation is performed by language, understood in the sense usual today of anything that allows a communication to take place (words, gestures, symbols, events, etc.). In our case this mediator is the language event of the biblical text. The text mediates the encounter between Jesus Christ and us. It is important to realize that the text is a mediator and only a mediator. Its function is essentially that of bearing witness. It "presents" the revelational event and the person of the revealer. It does so in at least two different ways: a) by making the revelational person-event present to ever new audiences in new spatial and temporal situations; b) by allowing for the ever renewed discovery of the deep sense of the revelational person-event (44).

Hence the tripartite structure of hermeneutics

Person A Language/Text Person B

In this formulation the different function of the two subjects or persons involved in the encounter mediated by the text is not sufficiently highlighted. This difference is, instead, apparent in many of the formulations that I have found in discussions about hermeneutical problems. I shall list them here, without altering their own specific perspective.

Luther (45)
Res Verba Sensus
Heidegger (46)
The Unexpressed The Expressed The Comprehended
Gadamer (47)
Ontology Aesthetics Historicality
Cazelles (48)
Word Scripture Spirit
Lapointe (49)
Revelation Inspiration Canonicity
Grech (50)
Constitutive Revelation Sacred Scripture Interpretative Revelation

Already in the New Testament we can find, in germ, as it were, the awareness of this tripartite structure of interpretation. The prologue of Luke is a good example, or the first conclusion of John's gospel. A sketch will make this clear.

Luke 1:1-4
The things which have been accomplished among us
Write an orderly account (based on) the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word That you may kn the truth
John 20:30-31

Jesus did many signs in the presence of the disciples
These are written in this book That you may believe

My own formulation of the hermeneutical structure of the sciptures would be as follows:

SUBJECT A
LANGUAGE/TEXT SUBJECT B
Person-event of Jesus-Truth

Apostolic memory and interpretation of Jesus-Truth Personal and ecclesial realization of Jesus-Truth

It remains clear that both Subject A and Subject B subtend the same complexity we have examined in dealing with the fourfold structure of truth. That is: Subject A retains its composite structure of historicity and transcendence. Subject B that of inferiority and temporality. A consequence of this is that the text must function in all these four directions, if it is to undergo an integral hermeneutical treatment. Concretely, it means that the exegete, who does not want to be hermeneutically irrelevant, will bring to bear upon the text all these four hermeneutical instruments: the historico-critical investigation (historical dimension), theological reflection (transcendent dimension), personal faith experience (personal dimension), confrontation with Church tradition and world development (temporal-eschatological dimension).

Under the name historico-critical investigation I intend to include also all other possible methods of explicitating the "bodiliness" of the text in all its superficial and deeper levels. The more the concrete reality of the text is understood, the more it can fulfill its symbolic function of pointing to the other dimensions. If it can be discussed whether the exegete's first concern should be with this first dimension, I think that on the other hand it is essential that the exegete be concerned also with the other three dimensions, because only thus will he open up the text to them. It must never be forgotten that the text we are dealing with is the word of God. Without a certain amount of theological reflection, the meaning of the text will be lost by at least half. Without a certain reference to personal and communal experience, no help will be offered for the interiorization of the word. And without acquaintance with the development of the historical appropriation of the Word, it will be impossible to do justice to its eschatological dimension. And by eschaton I mean the fulfilment of God's project for man, a fulfilment which is gradually being brought about by the commitment of every man and woman in response to God's offer in truth and love: the interiorization and consummation of the mystery of Christ in the personal and communal history of man.

3.4. The mediator is not a dead but a living word

It may be useful now to consider for a moment this question: what kind of word or text is this which claims to be able to mediate between Christ-Truth and us? The answer to this question will enable us to summarise much that has been said up to here.

Is this word-text a fossil of what the person-event of Jesus-Truth was? Or is it more like a living organism, alone capable of bearing witness to a truth that is at the same time life? The answer is clear aid fundamental: the apparently dead letter of Sacred Scripture reaches us carried by the living stream of tradition, which is constituted by the Spirit-filled perennial life of the Church, social and mystical body of Christ-Truth. The context in which this text reaches me is not the dead context of a dusty library, but the very human and very much alive ecclesiat faith experience of Jesus Christ as truth and as life.

Now, this context corresponds perfectly to the very nature of the text, which claims to be both a report and a witness. As a report it claims to be able to ground the historical solidity of facts and words. As a witness, it claims to be able to ground the perception of the mystery of which these historical facts and words are signs.

Only now perhaps does the hermeneutical value of tradition become unmistakably evident as well as the soundness of the hermeneutical reflections outlined in this paper. Tradition makes the difference between a living and a dead word (51).

By going through the history of exegesis of any Biblical text, it would be possible to provide a kind of experimental confirmation of the essential hermeneutical function of tradition, conceived as the Spirit-inspired progressive explicitation of the word on the way to the eschatological fulfilment.

Tradition guided by the Spirit is the bridge that allows the text to speak to us as a living witness. This bridge is not made of stones nor of books, but of the faith experience of people like you and me, of people like our fathers and our mothers, who before you and before me have comprehended the person-event of Jesus-Truth and have borne witness to him.

The text of Scripture, therefore, can claim to be able to mediate the encounter between us and Jesus-Truth, not because it is a text, but because it is a text produced and interpreted by a living witness. More important than the fact that it is written, is the fact that it bears witness. This witness is still alive today. And from the very beginning this witness has been borne often even unto death.

We ourselves, called to be witnesses, how do we fulfill our responsibility toward future generations?

　


34. Cf. especially his Course and class notes. La nozione biblica di verita, etc.

35. Cf. Bibliography, no.1.

36. Cf. Bibliography, no. 2. Augustine is property dealing here with the problem of the Christian reading of the OT.

37. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram Libri Duodecim, (ed. J. Zycha, CSEL, Pragae Vindobonae Lipsiae, 1894. "In all the sacred books, we must be able to perceive intimations of eternity, narrations of (historical) events, predictions of the future, precepts or admonitions for (personal) behaviour".

38. Cf. Bibliography, no. 3.

39. It is cited three times by Nicholas de Lyra in his Prologus to the Glossa Ordinaria (PL 113. 25-68). Henri de Lubac, in his Exegese Medievale (Paris) 1, p.23, affirms its real author to have been a certain Augustine de Dacie in his Rotulus pugillus, written around the year 1260. "The letter teaches what has happened, allegory what you must believe, morality what you ought to do, anagogy where you must arrive".

40. H. Urs von Balthasar. Con occhi semplici. Verso una nuova coscienza cristiana (Brescia 1970), p.19. De La Potterie quotes it, correcting the Italian translation in his article "Esegesi storico-critica e interpretazione cristiana: 'L'esegesi cattolica oggi'". Parola e Spirito (Studi in onore de S. Cipriani, ed. C.C. Marcheselli, Brescia 1982).

41. Cf. Bibliography, no. 3. The basic distinction literal-spiritual or, equivalently, historical-mystical, runs through the whole of Patristic exegesis. See. for example, the phrase that Augustine tirelessly repeats in his Tractatus in loannem: "Factum audivimus, mysterium requiramus": "We have heard the fact, let us probe into the mystery". Cf. also Greogory the Great and his Moralia in job, e.g. 35, 15-41 (PL 76. 779).

42. Cf. Pareyson's same concern, but applied to truth in general, in Modica, pp. 101-105.

43. Cf. de La Potterie. La nozione, p. 106.

44. Cf. de La Potterie, ibid., p.96, and Gadamer, II problema, p.49.

45. Weimar ed., Dr Martin Luthers Werke, (Tischreden, Vol. 1-6. 1912-1921) V. 26 (September 1540). Quoted by de La Potterie, Course.

46. Cf. Gazelles, pp.24. 27-28.

47. Cf. Gadamer, Truth and Method, First Part, Sections I and II; Second Part. Section II.

48. This is the very title of his book (cf. Bibliography, no. 7).

49. Cf. Lapointe, pp.57-71. 147-150.

50. Cf. P. Grech. Corso di Ermeneutica: Ispirazione ed Ermeneutica. Spring term. Academic Year 1982-83, at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, (class notes).

51. See Appendix for a sketch of the hermeneutical theory here propounded.

APPENDIX

Sketch of the hermeneutical theory outlined in this paper.

Man = Man-in-history
\ /
History open to the Transcendent
\ /
The Transcendent reveals itself to Person in history = Truth
\ /
As a process in time
\ /
Through a dialectic between whole and part
\ /
Challenging personal freedom
\ /
With inexhaustible richness
\ /
/ \
JESUS CHRIST = THE TRANSCENDENT IN HISTORY
\ /
The fruit of the Paschal Event : The mystical body of Christ
\ /
The Holy Spirit as its soul
\ /
The apostolic witnesses as its foundations
\ /
The scriptures in tradition
/ \
Jesus Christ

Rdeemer

Revealer
Man-in-history

Redeemed

Faith-ful

\ /
Hermeneutical encounter = Mediated personal encounter

\ /
Hermeneutical encounter = Mediated personal encounter

/ \
“Christus totus caput et mwmbra”
/ \
Historical-Transcendent Personal-Eschatological
\ /
CHRIST-TRUTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1)ORIGENE. Traite des Principes, Neuvieme traite (IV. 1-3):

Que les Ecritures sont divines; comment il faut lire et compredre les Ecritures. Tome III (Livres III-IV) SC 268, introduction, texte critique de la Philocalie et de la version de Rufin. traduction par H. Crouzel et M. Simonetti. Paris 1980.

(2)AUGUSTINUS. De Utilitate Credendi ad Honoratum liber unus, 3. PL 42. 68-72; Historia, Aetiologia, Analogia, Allegoria.

(3)THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, Pars I, Quaest. 1, Art. 10. Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici Opera Omnia IV, iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita Romae 1889.

(4)MAURICE BLONDEL, Histoire et Dogme: Les Lacunes Philosophiques de l'exegese moderne, in Les Premier ecrites de Maurice Blondel, Paris 1956.

(5)J. BARR, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford 1961.

(6)R. LAPOINTE. Les trois dimensions de l'hermeneutique, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 8, Paris 1967.

(7)H. GAZELLES. Ecriture, Parole et Esprit ou trois aspects de l'hermeneutique biblique. Paris 1971.

(8)H.G. GADAMER. II problema della coscienza storica, (trad. it. Di Giangaetano Bartolomei, introduzione di V. Verra) Napoli 1974 (2).

-Truth and Method, (translated by William Glen-Doepel from 1965 (2) Wahrheit und Methode), London 1975.

-Philosophical Hermeneutics, (translated and edited by David E. Linge) Berkeley 1976.

(9)C.M. MARTINI e L. PACOMIO, I Libri di Dio, Introduzione generale alla Sacra Scrittura, Torino 1975.

(10)I. de LA POTTERIE, La nozione biblica e cristiana di verita e la sua inportanza per l'interpretazione della S. Scrittura, Ad usum Privatum auditorum tantum, Roma 1977-78.

(11)C. HELOU, Symbole et langage dans les Merits johanniques. Lumiere-Tenebres, Paris 1980.

(12)G. MODICA, Per una ontologia della liberia, Saggio sulla prospettiva filosofica di Luigi Pareyson, Roma 1980.

(13)L. PAREYSON, Verita e interpretazione, Milano 1982 (2).

(14)G. B. CAIRD. The Language and Imagery of the Bible, London 1980.

(15)P. TOINET, Pour une theologie de l'Exegese, (Preface par ie P. Ignace de La Potterie S.J.). Paris 1983.

(16)P. RICOUER, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, Fort Worth 1976.

-Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Essays on Language, Action and interpretation (edited, translated and introduced by John B. Thompson), Cambridge 1981.

(17)B. MONDIN, L'ermeneutica metafisica di S. Tommaso nel Commento alle Sentenze, Caltanisetta 1977.

作者：张春申

梵二大公会议闭幕二十年之后，去年一九八五年召开了世界主教特别会议，共同评估二十年来大公会议善加采用后所有的成就，以及误解和滥用后所有的偏差。特别会议的「结束报告」中，根据共融观念来看教会的性质和结构；本文也自同一观点，讨论至公教会中的罗马教宗的职务，同时也藉梵二大公会议的教会宪章的第三章，澄清中国天主教内的一些思想。

全文分三部份：(一) 至公教会的共融；(二) 圣统性的共融；(三) 金鲁贤教授对教会的共融之解释。

(一) 至公教会(天主的教会、基督的教会) 的共融

1. 共融的基本意义

共融(Communion) 按照字义，该是共同结合。教会称为共融，最为基本的意义，一方面是天主圣父藉着耶稣基督在圣神内的自我通传；另一方面是天主子民藉着信仰与洗礼开始，接受天主的通传；于是天主圣三和天主子民共同结合－－共融，即是教会。

天主圣父藉着耶稣基督往圣神内自我通传的一切，由于事实上是针对天主子民，因此具体而论包括好几个层面上的内容；有为了天主子民生命层面的天主自己生命的分享；有为了天主子民构成礼仪团体层面的基督建立的圣事；有为了天主子民团体之间的关系，以及团体对外关系两个层面的来自耶稣基督的福音要求、永生真理、教会不同职务与神恩等等。以上的一切内容都是天主通传于天主子民的。总而言之，可以称为构成教会的要素。籍着教会的要素，天主和祂的子民共同结合－－共融；这是共融的基本意义。

2. 地方教会的共融

自基本意义相当容易地演译出天主子民团体中的个人之间的共融。教友藉着信仰与领洗，每人都与天主共同结合，根据自己的身份接受天主通传的教会要素，于是彼此之间共同结合在来自天主通传的教会要素上；因此可说教友之间的共融是建立在基本意义上的共融。

但更加应当注意自基本意义之共融，讨论到地方教会的共融。关于地方教会本文不拟多加说明；为了具体的需要，我们简单地只采取一个意义。地方教会是已经深入社会生活的，而与当地文化相当和谐的，享有相当稳固基础的，而且能在当地承行教会使命的教友团体。因此，不同的社会、文化中，存有不同的地方教会。早在圣经中已经有了不同地方教会的名称－－耶路撒冷教会、得撤洛尼人的教会等等。如同天主子民中个人之间共同结合于天主通传的教会要素上，而彼此构成共融，不同地方教会更有理由承认彼此是一个共融的教会。

原来每个地方教会必然属于不同的文化，深入固定的社会，不过构成它称为教会的该是上面所说的教会要素。因此，我们可以说一个教会(天主的教会、基督的教会)，许多地方教会。说一个教会因为教会要素是共同的，正如保禄所说：「只有一个身体和一个圣神，正如你们蒙召，同有一个希望一样。只有一个主，一个信德，一个洗礼，只有一个天主和众人之父。」(弗四：4－6)，地方教会不是「一个教会」的部份，而是「一个教会」所有的要素通传在固定的社会与文化中的天主子民团体。地方教会是「一个教会」的降生与代表；另一方面，仍旧可以说许多个地方教会，那是自不同的社会文化中的天主子民而言。保禄向罗马教会问安说：「基督的众教会问候你们。」(罗十六：16)。

这样看来，所有地方教会既然拥有同样的教会要素，彼此结合在教会要素上－－共融。由于拥有的是共同的教会要素，所以一起共称为「教会」，一个天主的教会(宗二十：28)、基督的教会(罗十六：16)，一个至公的教会。

3. 地方教会与至公教会的共融

教会在二、三世纪时，已经逐渐提出至公教会的名称，所有信仰基督的地方教会构成一个至公教会。其实在新约时代教会早已含有至公的意识。即使起初只有一个耶路撒冷地方教会，可是在它的意识中自认是天主的教会，它将由耶路撒冷走向全犹大和撤玛黎雅。为此，实质上地方教会与至公教会两个概念是同时孕育的，即使名称与两者之间关系的发现是后起的。至公教会存在于每个地方教会中，每个地方教会代表至公教会，它不是至公教会的部份。至公教会原则上要扩展到普世，是普及各地的教会。为此，虽然至公教会具体地是存在于每个地方教会中，但是，概念上它并不与地方性牵连，而更是标榜所有教会团体的共同性及教会的共同要素。

如果不同地方教会之间彼此构成一个共融，那么所有地方教会与至公教会、普及各地的教会之间的关系更是显而易见之事了；所有地方教会的共融便是至公教会。事实上，教会学一般而论更是注意所有地方教会构成的一个共融：至公教会

4. 共融、对立、分裂

共融－－共同结合，基本上指的是天主圣三之自我通传与其子民，共同结合的教会。根据这个基本意义，引申出不同地方教会之间构成共融；以及所有地方教会是一个共融－－共同结合于教会要素上，成为一个至公教会。

共融概念中含有自由意愿，因此与之相连的是对立，甚至分裂。本文不拟自基本意义上讨论教会作为天主救恩计划中之共融，以及对立与分裂。简单而论，对立是会发生的，因为教会自天主子民而言是有罪的教会。分裂是绝对不曾发生的，因为耶稣基督许下：天天与祂的教会和在，直到今世的终结(玛二八：20)。

这里特别要讨论的是不同地方教会之间的共融、对立与分裂；以及地方教会与至公教会之间的共融、对立与分裂。

首先，地方教会是实现在不同社会、文化区域的教友团体。如果它深入固定社会与当地文化和谐；如果它承行教会使命于特殊民族中，那么它的礼仪生活不能不与当地文化的象征融合；它传播的福音真理和实践的福音要求不能不在自己的社会文化背景中注解出来。因此，地方教会不能不显出簇新的面貌，会引起其它地方教会的惊讶，甚至对立。在教会历史中这类的事并不稀少，比如公元四二九年君士坦丁堡宗主教奈思多略讲的圣母道理，便受到亚历山大里亚宗主教济利禄强烈反应。古代教会历史中两个地方教会由于道理上的不合而导致共融破裂的也是常有的事，比如厄弗所大公会议之后，有一段时间，亚历山大里亚地方教会与安提约基地方教会便是处在分裂情况之中。

不同地方教会之间的共融，产生真正的对立与分裂，根源上该是双方关于共同接受的教会要素上有了歧见。奈思多略与济利禄，以及两个地方教会的对立，都是由于对基督的信仰上发生冲突。共融是结合于教会要素，对立与分裂来自双方互指对于教会要素的不忠与破坏。

不同地方教会之间的共融产生对立与分裂，今日已不多见。由于教会在历史中的演变，现代更受人注意的是地方教会与至公教会的共融、对立，甚至分裂问题。简单地说，罗马教宗的职务经过将近二千年的发展，愈来愈对教会共同要素肩负起保障、实践和推广的工作；也可以说至公教会作为普及各地的共融而论，受到相当严密的注意。在此情形下任何地方教会往自己固定的社会与文他领域中，如果推动较新的教友生活，难免不受到负责大公教会共融的职务所注意，因而对立的产生是不难了解的了。

至此，我们自然会问，如果今日不同地方教会之间的共融产生对立，甚至分裂的威胁；如果至公教会与地方教会的共融产生对立，甚至分裂的威胁，将怎样处理？是否天主圣三通传于子民教会要素中，基本上含有解决的方法？

(二) 圣统性的共融

教会共融怎样保障？对立与分裂怎样解决？这里只自梵二大公会议教会宪章第三章，抽出一些资料，原则性地作答。

1. 宗徒团与主教团(19－22)

「耶稣把这些宗徒们组成一个团体，就是一个固定的集合体的形式，从他们中拣选了伯多禄作为这个团体的首领。耶稣先把他们派往以色列的子孙，以后派往世界各国，要他们分享自己的权能，去接受所有的民族为弟子，去圣化、治理这些民族，这样去传布教会，在主的领导下为教会的职员及牧人，万世万代，以至世界终穷。」

「由于主的规定，圣伯多禄及其他宗徒们组成一个宗徒团，基于同等理由，继承伯多禄的罗马教宗和继承宗徒们的主教们，彼此也联结在一起。……一个人接受了主教圣事的祝圣，保持着与主教团的首领及其他团员的圣统共融，就是主教团的一份子了。」

2. 主教团的权力(22)

「主教团在训导与牧权上继承着宗徒团，而且就是宗徒团的延续，只要与其首领罗马教宗在一起，而总不与此首领分离，则对整体教会也是一个享有最高全权的主体，虽然这种权力，没有罗马教宗的同意，不能使用。」(22)

另外一个享有最高全权的主体是罗马教宗。他以基督代表及整体教会牧人的职务名义，对教会有完全的、最高的、普遍的权柄，时时都可以自由使用。神学家对两个最高全权的主体，有着极丰富的研讨。

本文采用的神学意见是教宗作为教会首牧的职务，是教宗作为主教团首领实施主教团的最高全权的另外一种方式。换句话说，主教团是这样一个教会最高全权团体，它可由教宗一人以主教团首领身份独自执行全权，也可由首领教宗与成员共同执行全权。教会全权主体只有一个，它是主教团。

3. 圣统性的共融

教会宪章视主教团是一个共融、一个首领与其他团员的圣统性共融。其融是共同结合，我们已经论及教会?天主圣三之通传与天主子民之接受的共同结合。不同地方教会之间构成的共融－－共同接受教会因素。地方教会与至公教会的共融－－地方教会与普及各地的教会具有共同的教会要素。究竟梵二大公会议所说的「圣统性共融」是什么？与上述的各层共融有什么关系？

(1) 圣统性的共融是什么？

圣统性的共融是教会中的主教团、继承宗徒团的主教团。称它为共融，因为团中的每位主教共同结合。由什么来共同结合？那是对整个教会的最高全权。所有在主教团中的成员共同结合于最高全权上，所以称为共融。不过这个共融是圣统性的，因为成员之中有首领－－罗马主教，没有他的同意主教团不只任何成员个人，即使成员团体，也不能使用共同享有的最高全权。

(2) 圣统性的共融与上述的各层共融有什么关系？

1. 自天主圣三与其子民共同结合的基本共融而论，主教团－－圣统性的共融，是耶稣基督，为了维护天主子民团体之间的关系，以及团体对外的关系，而通傅的教会职务。它是基督通传的教会要素之一。消极而论，教会中任何个人或者团体，否定这个因素则是异端人，如果脱离这个职务则是裂教人。

为此，任何教会团体或者地方教会，脱离这个教会职务，那么它失落了教会要素之一，便无法再是完整的、圆满的教会团体了。

2. 积极方面，圣统性的共同成员象征着唯一与至公教会的共融，按照西彼廉(Cyprianus 200-258)，「主教在整个教友团体中，教友团体就在主教身上」。意谓地方教会的信仰与行动在主教身上出现。那么我们可以看到在主教团中代表所有地方教会的主教，以及他们的首领罗马教宗共同结合，这个共融不是象征唯一与至公教会的共融吗？

梵二大公会议也有这样的思想：「主教团的统一件，也表现在每位主教与个别的教会，以及整个教会的彼此关系上。罗马教宗继承伯多禄，对主教们和信友群众是一个永久性的，可见的统一中心和基础。每位主教则是其个别教会的有形的统一中心和基础；这些个别教会都是整个教会的缩型，唯一的大公教会就在他们中间，由它们集合而成。因此，每一位主教代表他自己的教会，全体主教在和平、相爱及统一的联系下与教宗一起代表整个教会。」(23)

3. 圣统性的共融既然代表整个教会，实在也代表了所有地方教会之间的共融。

4. 不同地方教会之间构成的共融怎样可以保障？根据上面的思想，它由地方主教在和平、相爱及统一的联系下保障。这里已经不是任何目标的和平、相爱及统一的联系；而是共同和平地接受教会要素；根据共同的教会要素相爱与统一地联系。当然共融之保障不只由代表地方教会的主教得到，可能也由地方教会的天主子民，在教会要素中：如感恩祭、祈祷中，和平、相爱及统一地联系而得到。

不过，如果不同地方教会之间的共融产生了对立，甚至分裂的威胁，又将怎样？这里我们不指实际的解决之道。至少在理论上，由于真正的对立与分裂应当关于教会要素，那么理应由圣统性共融的首领来调停与解释，甚至指出真正的教会要素而来定断是非。另一方面，两个地方教会之间的对立或分裂的威胁，若由双方根据教会的要素来解决也无不可，似乎实际更好。

5. 至于地方教会与至公教会之间的共融，该由「全体主教在和平、相爱及统一的联系下与教宗一起代表整个教会」来加保障。但是，一旦某个地方教会与大公教会之间发生对立与分裂的威胁时，共融又将怎样保障？真正对立与分裂威胁，在本文的背景中应当关于教会要素。地方教会的教会要素是具体地实现在固定的社会生活，当地的文化背景，以及承行教会使命之中；往往显出特殊面貌。原则上在至公教会中，地方教会各显特殊面貌，更加显出多采多姿、光辉耀目。但是历史上却因此产生过对立，甚至分裂的危机。究竟怎样保障共融呢？根据梵二大公会议之教导，原则上该由圣统性共融之首领罗马教宗来解决。究竟他应当有什么态度？需要怎样的步骤？都非本文所能触及的。甚至在历史上可能发生过地方教会的生活被人错懂、误解，因而导致极为痛心的后果。但这一切仅能要求至公教会的首领谨慎从事，避免旧辙重蹈，而不是否定来自基督的教会职务。

而且地方教会与至公教会之间的对立与分裂的威胁，不只牵涉大公教会的首领，而且也与其他地方教会有关。实际而论，其他地方教会的主教理当根据教会要素，审量与解释对立的来源，甚至判断分裂之威胁的真相。但是，他们不是圣统性共融的首领，因此必须与首领联系。他们尽可表达意见，教宗也应聆听；但是决不可与首领背道而驰，甚至有些言论及行动助长当事的地方教会加深对立，坚持其立场。

末了，根据梵二大公会议的精神，我们可以说共融(对立、分裂) 牵涉不同层次；的确不同地方教会之间、地方教会与至公教会之间的结合，基本上是属于信仰与爱的层次。有关方面在信仰与爱中接受来自天主圣三的教会要素。不过属于信仰与爱层次上的彼此关系，在教会中并非不能以法律层次的话来表达。因此，今天教会中对于共融的保障与对立和分裂的消除，除了信仰和爱的精神之外，也应用法律的方式。当然法律尚应建立在信仰和爱之上。其实教会有法律层次，自新约时代早已如此，今日整个教会如此，连地方教会也是如此。

金鲁贤教授对教会的共融思想

上海畲山修院院长金鲁贤教授在几个机会中，对于教会的共融发表了一页的谈话。本文便根据今年四月十八日他在西德圣奥古斯丁(Saint Augustine) 的一篇英译的讲辞。讲辞内容很丰富，与我们内容有关的是第二部份－－整体教会与地方教会。但第二部份中讨论本地化的篇幅占得较长。金教授自称不是神学家，又非历史家；但是由于他在中国教会中的影响很大，所以我们特地把他有关这问题的思想，提出来交谈一下。

1. 地方教会与普世(整体)教会

金教授对于地方教会指出好些对象，但是演讲中讨论的地方教会与本文是相同的。他认为普世教会是一抽象概念，实际上并不存在，只是存在于地方教会中；因此，不如称为整体教会。整体教会完全地存在于地方教会中，因此每个地方教会是完整的教会。我认为金教授的困扰在中文翻译中，尤易感到。「普世」与「地方」自然引人把地方教会当作普世教会的一部份。但由于在神学上不是如此了解，因此他说普世教会是一个抽象概念，本身并不存在，而是存在于地方教会中。为了避免普世教会与地方教会之关系说解，他认为不要用普世教会，而用整体教会，每个地方教会都是完整的教会。

其实西文普世{Universal) 与至公(Catholic) 具有关系。而至公的意义在第二世纪用为教会的性质以来，意义上也有发展。最初便是「全」教会与个别的、地方的教会互相区别；为此更是属于经验性的用字。第三世纪以来，「至公」已经用来针对异端派、分裂派，视他们不属「至公」教会，「全」(普及各地) 教会，至于「至公」已经含有正统的意义。奥斯定曾经综述「至公」的意义，它包含「全」、「正统」和普及世界(包含万民) 三点。而最后一点今日更受注意，它已经含有神学解释；意即基督教会的性质，不只是在固定地区中，但又超越固定地区，要求普及世界。至公教会与地方教会互相有区别，但不冲突；它存在于地方教会中，但是按照教会的要素却又普及他处，而且原则上是为普及世界，包含万民的。至公教会直接指示的是大公性，与「地方」区别，但它存在于每个地方教会中，表示地方教会即使具体落实于固定社会与文化中，它也不能不又是至公的，因为教会要素并不由于落实于地区而失掉大公性的。这是教会的奥迹，定是地方的，又是大公的。地方教会必须本地化，但是如果本地化而失落了至公性，那不是基督的教会，「地方」与「至公」之间产生张力，但是并不分开，这也是教会本地化所不能不注意到的。本文基于这个缘故，一方面如同金教授不用中译的「普世」；另一方面与金教授不同，本文中无意用「整体」来代替，「至公教会」是现成的名词，即使是地方教会也不失为「至公」，虽然我也知道这个名词在大公主义中的困扰。

不过，金教授所说的整体、完整的教会在地方教会中，是千真万确的，梵二大公会议文献中也如此说过。

2. 教会奥迹之一?整体教会在地方教会中

金教授引用了梵三大公会议教会宪章第一章的话，指出教会是一件「圣事」，就是说教会是与天主亲密结合，以及全人类彼此团结的记号与工具。既然是一件「圣事」，在外在的形态后面含有奥迹?天主的奥迹性活动。金教授在演讲的第二部份提出二项奥迹性行动；其一便是整体教会在地方教会中。

对于这个奥迹金教授并没有解释，只是引用了圣多玛斯的「熙雍！请赞扬！」圣体颂中的三节：

10. 我们遵从祂的命令，
  祝圣酒饼，
  作为赎罪的牺牲。
19. 不可怀疑，应当牢记
  祭品虽然可以剖分，
  每分都是耶稣全身。
20. 饼形酒形随意分，
  分的只是饼酒外形，
  基督圣体毫无增损。

根据引用的三节诗文，金教授意谓如同整个耶稣基督临在于随意分的饼形、酒形内，完整的教会往每个地方教会中。每个地方教会是完整的教会，丝毫不缺少什么；同时，所有地方教会形成一个完整的教会，这是教会奥迹之一。

圣体圣事与教会具有非常密切的关系。饼形与酒形「每分都是耶稣圣身」；各地的教会都是整体教会。一般性的比较，确是相似，但是鉴于基督的教会的实际状况，不能不对于这种比较提出一些讨论。

前文中曾解释过「一个教会、许多地方教会」。一个教会由于共同的教会要素；许多地方教会由于不同的教会与文化区域的天主子民。地方教会是整体教会，由于分享共同的教会因素。构成教会的因素具有好几层面，虽然应该合为整体，实际而论，由于种种缘故，不同的教会团体或者在不同地方的教会，能够接受整体，也能够排除部份。可见教会要素是能够分割的。失掉整体要素的教会团体或地方教会，便无法称为整体的或完整的教会。它与其他地方教会以及至公教会的共融也将是不完整的了。

自圣体圣事而论，凡是祝圣过的饼形、酒形，成为整个耶稣基督，祂是不能分割的。而饼形、酒形更无自由意愿而言。自教会而论，教会要素能被分割，而教会团体的天主子民具有自由意愿。梵二大公会议有关整体的教会因素；与它存在于哪个教会团体内；以及有关不完整的教会团体…等等，都讨论过，值得加以参考。(参阅教会宪章8, 14, 15)。

当然，金教授在相比中的积极因素仍是非常有用，而且富有神学意义。

3. 教会奥迹之二－－整体教会与地方教会的关系

金教授对此奥迹亦引证了圣三庆节的颂谢词：「神圣的主，全能的父，永远的天主；你和你的独生子及圣神只是一个天主，一个主：不是单独一位，而是三位一体。我们因着你的启示，坚信确认你的光荣，和你圣子的光荣，与圣神的光荣，毫无差别或分异。因此在承认真实永恒的天主时，我们颂扬三位分明、性体唯一、尊严均等。」

根据圣三庆节颂谢词，金教授在教会学上类比性地引申到整体教会与地方教会彼此之间的差别、一体与平等上。地上的教会反映出天上圣三奥迹。

金教授以三位一体的信理来处理整体教会与地方教会之间的一体与平等，使人想起公元一三五七年，希腊的亚达纳削(Grec Athanase) 和教宗代表伯铎多玛(Pierre Thomas) 之间的辩论。教宗代表说：教会只有一个首领，十二宗徒难道是十二个头吗？而亚达纳削首先认为宗徒享有相同的全德，不分高低，亦不分为十二个首领。他们是一个首领，如同天主圣三是一个天主，不是三个天主。结果亚达纳削给予罗马教宗的是荣审性的首席。至于教会的首领是由继承十二宗徒的主教分享的，如同一个天主性体包含父、子、神三位。

应用圣三模型解释教会似乎是相当的传统，不过金教授处理的是整体教会与地方教会的差别、平等与一体。

的确，如同「奥迹之一」中已见到的，地方教会是完整的教会，在教会要素上并不缺少什么，谁也不能否认这方面的一体与平等。不过金教授似乎并未彻底研讨与应用圣三模型。颂谢辞中一方面肯定性体唯一；另一方面坚信三位分明。金教授只取用了性体唯一，为了维护教会之间的平等与一体。但是圣三学中的父、子、圣神三位分明，他并不考虑用在教会学上面。

我们分二个步骤来继续金教授的圣三模型教会学。上面同意：自教会要素而论，整体教会、地方教会、各个地方教会是平等与一体的，因为共同地信仰与接受了来自耶稣基督通传给教会的一切要素。现在我们要继续先从地方教会来分析一些事情，然后讨论至公教会。

一个地方教会接受了教会因素，自它的每位天主子民而论，大家是平等与一体的。因为他们具有共同分享天主的生命，相信一切基督传授的真理，接受祂所启示的教会不同职务。梵二教会宪章指出基本平等的根源是分享耶稣司祭、先知、君王的地位。但是，基本平等并不否定差别。建基于教会不同职务上的差别。在地方教会中，按照我们教会中悠久的传统，有主教、司铎、执事的不同职务。这些教会职务根源上是来自耶稣基督，由地方教会中不同的信者来担任。于是我们可以说地方教会中的天主子民，按教会要素有基本的平等与一体；不过，按职务是有差别的－－此一差别是属于教会要素，所有信者都应该相信与接受的。可是，即使在一个地方教会中我们可以按圣三模型(性体唯一、位格分明)，来谈教会要素之平等，教会职务之差别。主教、司铎、执事，被任命在的方教会中服务，领导地方教会。

自整体教会与地方教会之间的关系，与及不同地方教会之间的关系来讨论，一体与平等是在共同分享的教会要素上；差别是在于教会职务方面。每位主教代表自己的地方教会与罗马主教构成一个圣统性的共融?主教团；主教团以罗马主教为首领，作为教会的最高全权的主体。这是梵二大公会议根据圣经与传统所肯定的教导。由此可发挥出代表地方教会的主教之职务，以及主教与罗马教宗之关系。(参阅：圣统性的共融)

总之，教会要素共同为一，教会职务差别为多。如果我们认真应用圣三模型解释问题，似乎不可忽略一面，而只重另一面。

因此，我们对于金教授演讲的第一部份中的一句话，相当担心。他说每个地方教会应当自己有能力来决定自己的前途(Fate)。所谓前途，如果只是属于一些直接或间接与教会要素没有重大关系的事，那么所谓「独立、自办」，也是理所当然的事。如果牵涉到教会要素的事，那么根据基督教会的职务，不但主教团的首领罗马教宗不能不关怀、指导，甚至干涉；连所有的主教，作为世界主教团的成员也不能毫不关心。

以上所写的都是梵二大公会议的教会论资料，博学如金教授者，既然在演讲中表示基本上接受梵蒂冈第一届和第二届大公会议，而且又在实施梵二大公会议，那么他大概不难同意本文所发挥的他所没有讲出来的思想。

4. 地方教会的本地化(Inculturation)

金教授演讲的第二部份，对于教会本地化说了不少。我们自己过去十多年来也在致力神学、灵修本地化的工作，所以非常了解他的关怀、但是在这问题上尚觉得他忽略了一种自然产生的张力，那便是「地方」与「至公」之间的张力。本地化是深入社会与当地文化和谐，一方面是福音熏陶社会与文化；另一方面是社会与文化为福音所吸收；因此，一方面显扬出本地的特色；另一方面共融于大公教会内，为了保持这两面，本地化应该尊重大公教会而感到「约束」；不过至公教会亦应尽量了解一个文化而自我「节制」。金教授说得对：「地方教会之间的关系是共融、互爱、尊重、援助；但非生硬之干预。无一地方教会压迫其他地方教会的。」但是这也得补充：地方教会具有至公的性质，必须谨慎保护教会的共同要素。对于至公教会的关怀、指导、干涉，也会根据教会中应有的次序而平安地聆听与接受。这是教会奥迹中「地方」与「至公」的张力。总之，在梵二大公会议的光照下，金教授的演讲在神学方面尚可继续更加完整地发挥下去，一个不完整的教会学为中国教会，尤其为现代中国教会，并不有益。

　　

张春申

一九八六年七月三日

辅大神学院

作者：吴智勋

(一) 前言

从梵一到现在，教宗不能错的训导常是一个热门和具争论性的题目。在教会是一个严谨组织的模式底下，除了教外人士反对外，教会中人提出异议的算是极少，但梵二把整个形势改变了。梵二虽然重新肯定梵一的决定，但教会的模式趋于多元化，思想开放了，交谈扩大了视野，教宗不能错的训导一再受到挑战。挑战可能是件好事，教内人士能藉此认清楚不能错训导的主体、对象、范围、条件等等，不致流于不必要的误解，以为教宗所讲的每一句话都不能错。交谈也带来了好结果，例如天主教与路德宗就教会训导权力与不能错问题发表了联合声明1，最少彼此能平心静气聆听和设法了解对方的立场。

教内的挑战主要来自神学家，远在一九七○年，汉斯．龚(Hans Kung) 投下第一枚炸弹，出版了他极富争论性的着作「不能错误？一个探讨」。经过多年的辩论，龚氏终在一九八○年受到教廷当局停职的处分。但事情并没有因此停止，教宗在伦理上的训导，不断受神学家的非议，古伦(Charles E. Curran) 就是其中显着的一位。他在堕胎、人工节育、绝育、离婚及其他性问题上所提出的异议，先受到教廷信理部严重警告，要他撤回自己的主张。几百位神学家曾联名请教廷收回成命，不可扼杀梵二以来自由交谈讨论的风气。但一九八六年七月廿五日，信理部赖辛嘉枢机(Cardinal Ratzinger) 终于去信给古伦，通知他停职的处分，亦不接受他的折衷办法2。总之，在伦理范围内，越来越多神学家赞成对教宗训导提出公开异议的合法性。本文试对宗教不能错的训导作一分析，教友对教宗训导的态度，以及提出公开异议的标准。

(二) 训导的意义

有人指出，教宗的训导不能看作他个人的意见。他的讲道辞、通谕，往往是由别人撰定，而他同意就是了；「人类生命」通谕就是一个最明显的例子。故此教宗的训导实际上就是教会当局的训导，是教宗以教会牧者的身份，代表教会向其子民所作的训言。训导(Magisterium) 一词，其拉丁字源来自Magister，即导师，含有权威的意思。到了中古时，训导渐渐分为两类，圣多玛斯便有牧者的训遵(magisterium cathedrae pastoralis) 及导师(神学家) 的训导(magisterium cathedrae magistralis) 之分3。但到了今天，magisterium已演变为牧者的训导(包括教宗及主教)。我们当然不能否认神学家也有训导的权威，不过，当magisterium一词应用时，应该是指主教牧者的训导，而非神学家的训导。我不赞成麦贵(Daniel C. Maguire) 的提议，把magisterium(单数) 转为magisteria(众数)。他认为「不但要注意教宗及主教的训导，而亦要注意有同样权威性(equally authentic)的教友和神学家的训导」4。我承认交谈的重要，但把牧者的训导和神学家及教友的意见混淆起来，实在没有好处。因为从梵一到梵二，magisterium一概指教宗及与他共融主教的训导。

训导通常分为普通训导(ordinary magisterium) 和特殊训导(extraordinary magisterium) (又称庄严训导solemn magisterium) 两种。这种方法，贡格(Yves Congar) 认为祇始于十九世纪中叶5。普通训导是指教宗在一般通谕、文告、演辞中的教训或主教在他牧函或地方主教团的教训。特殊的训导是指教宗以其「宗座权威」(ex cathedra) 或大公会议为普世教会明确定断当守的信条。梵二虽然属于特殊的事件，但会议神长并没有运用其权威明确颁布新的当信信条，神学家认为其训导仍属普通训导。

1：Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue, "Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church" Common Statement. Cf. Theological Studies, March, 1979, pp.113-166.

2：该信原文载于L' Osservatore Romano, 25 August 1986 p. 3。亦参The Tablet, 23 August 1986, pp. 890-891古伦曾提议不再教性伦理作为折衷办法，但不为赖辛嘉枢机所接纳。

3：参Yves Congar, "A Semantic History of the Term 'Magisterium'" in "Readings in Moral Theology, No.3: The Magisterium and Morality", 1982, edited by Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick, p.303.

4：Daniel C. Maguire, "Morality and Magisterium", in "Readings in Moral Theology, No.3",op. cit., p.6l.

5：Yves Congar, "La Foi et la Theologie", Tournai, 1962, 158. Pius IX's Tuas libenter in 1863.

(三) 不能错训导的主体

怎样的训导才算是不能错的训导呢？梵二引梵一的话说：「几时主教团的首领，罗马教宗，以全体基督信徒的最高牧人与导师的身份，在信仰上坚定其弟兄们，以决断的行动，宣布有关信仰与道德的教理，他便以自己职位的名义，享有这种不能错误的特恩」6。梵一把不能错的特恩拘限于教宗身上，梵二却将之扩大，伸展到与教宗共融的主教。如果主教「彼此之间并与伯多禄的继承人保持着共融的联系，正式地教导信仰及道德的问题，而共同认定某一项论断为绝对应持之理，便是不能错误地宣告基督的道理」(教会25)。可见不能错训导的主体是教宗或与他共融的主教团。

由上面的文献可看到，不能错的训导是带有很多限制性的条件的。梵一神长们投票前，贾沙主教(Bishop Vincent Gasser) 已清楚指出：绝对不能错只属于天主，教宗的不能错是有限制及有条件的。他必须要以普世教会导师及最高判官的身份，以宗座权威发言；不能错训导的「对象」，必须是信理和伦理的道理；不能错训导的「行为」是指教宗定断那些信友必须相信或必须摈弃的道理7。

梵一的条文骤眼看来，是很易令人误解的。最引人争论的是：「罗马教宗的这种定断，是由于他自己，而不是由于教会的同意，故它(这种定断) 是没有更改的可能性」8。这好像是说教宗有特别的权力，独立于教会之外．教宗变成在教会之上，而非在教会之内，是教会的一份子。翻查梵一的历史，便会知道「不是由于教会的同意」一句，是梵一神长最后关头才加上去的9，理由可能是针对法国神职班条文(Gallican articles) 的思想而发的。一六八二年，法国神职会议奉法王命令发表了四项条文，限制教宗的权力。其中第四项说：「在信德的问题上，主要部份也是属于罗马教宗，而且那有关全教会以及每一教会的法令，是属于教会的权限，但他的判断，若不加以教会的同意，则不是不可能予以调整」10。一六九○年，教宗亚历山大八世「在众多中」典章(Const. Inter multiplices) 谴责这四项条文11，后来法王收回成命。梵一神长的附加语应在这个背景下去理解。贾沙主教一再强调，教宗的不能错误性不能与教会分离，他是以伯多禄的继承者，教会领导人的身份发言，他是代表着整个教会的。圣神来到伯多禄的继承人身上，并非要他们发表新道理，「而是为叫他们，在他的助佑下，把那藉宗徒所传授下来的启示即：信德的寄托，圣洁地予以看管，且忠实地予以陈述」12。

另一个具争论性的问题，就是教宗的定断，「是没有更改的可能性」。这是不是说，定断的条文没有重新表达或解释的可能？我认为这是个误解。信条的写定，一定是受历史条件所限制。教廷信理部「教会的奥秘」(mysterium ecclesiae 1973) 宣言把这个情形讲得很清楚：(一)信仰条文的意义是要依赖在一特定时空的语言表达能力，(二)有时信仰真理最初表达得不完整，后来人类知识扩阔了，以致真理的表达也更完善，(三)信理条文的颁布往往是要解决一些问题或纠正一些错误，故解释条文时必须考虑这个背景，(四)条文所用特定时代的概念是能变化的，因此条文也难免受其影响13。故此，只要忠于信条原来的意思，为适应时代，新的表达方式是可能的。例如：梵二虽然重覆梵一所定断的不能错的训导，但表达上就较完善了。首先，「教宗发表论断时，并不是以私人的名义，而是以整个教会的最高导师的名义」(教会25)，即教宗不能错的特恩是和整个天主子民的信仰连在一起的；不但如此，他更和所有主教连在一起。在讲教宗不能错特恩时，梵二清楚在「罗马教宗」上，冠以「主教团的首领」(教会25)。既然教宗不能错的特恩是与主教团及全体天主子民连结在一起，难怪梵二说：「几时主教团与伯多禄的继承人共同执行这种最高训导职权……。教会就绝对不曾不同意上述那些(信条的) 定断」(教会25)。

6：梵二「教会宪章」No.25，梵一「永远司牧」(Pastor Aeternus), DZ 3074。

7：Mansi 52, 1214.

8：DZ 3074，梵二「教会宪章」No.25也有相同的话：「因此，他(教宗) 的定断，本身就理当称为不可修改的，而并非因教会的同意(才有此权力)。

9：参Cuthbert Butler, "The Vatican Council", Vol. II Longman, 1930, Ch.22, "The Deputation De Fide and the Infallibility Decree", p. 133.

10：DZ 2284.

11：DZ 2281-2285.

12：DZ 3070.

(四) 不能错训导的对象

表面看来，不能错训导的对象或范围很简单，就是信理和伦理，光是教会宪章廿五节已多次说明此。可是，远在梵一时，贾沙主教已分别出不能错训导两个不同的对象，而传统称为第一对象和第二对象。第一对象是指启示的真理，第二对象是指那些虽非启示真理，但我们需要它去保卫和解释天主做示的真理14。梵二把这个意思表达出来：「这项不能错的特恩，是救主愿意祂的教会往断定信仰及道德的问题时所享有的，其不能错误的范围和天主启示的宝库范围相等，这一宝库必须谨慎地保存。忠实地讲解」(教会25)。这里所谓「天主启示的宝库」是指第一对象，而「谨慎地保存，忠实地讲解」这个宝库，就是第二对象了。

这两个对象实际上包括些什么东西呢？训导第一对象有时称「信德的寄托」 (depositum fidei) 或「启示的宝库」(depositum revelationis) 15。这是天主为了我们的得救所启示我们的，它包括了圣经和圣传，「圣传及圣经组成一个天主圣言的宝库」(启示10)。在基督救赎的工程中，有些启示的奥秘，是经过教会长期的信仰反省才意识到的。这些真理，虽无明显地在圣经中找到，我们相信确是来自天主的启示，与天主的救赎工程连在一起的。近世纪以来三个信理条文属这一类，即一八五四年圣母始胎无玷，一八七○年教宗不能错误与一九五○年圣母蒙召升天。

不能错训导的第二对象是颇具争论性的，不少神学家认为不能错训导应只限于「启示的宝库」，换句话说，只有那些形式地启示的真理，才能称不能错的训导。但是教会法定的解释似乎不是这样，「教会的奥秘」宣言清楚解释梵二的意思说：「教会不能错的训导不但只涉及信德的寄托，还更推及其他事情，缺乏它们的话，信德的寄托便不能正确地保存和解释了」16。至于这个第二对象的确实范围就没有一致的意见了，最少连梵二也没有加以界定。苏利文(Francis A. Sullivan) 提出几个传统认为属于这个范围的例子：(1)教会对相反启示真理的主张所提出的谴责。(2)由启示真理必然地推论出来的主张。(3)信理的事实。教会有时要决定一些信理的事实，例如：教会要决定历史上某一教会会议是否属大公会议，会议的大公性是对信条的制定是有影响的，教会这种决定应属不能错训导的范围。(4)庄严的圣人列品，一般认为教宗决定某人列入圣品是不能错的17。

看过上面对不能错训导的分析、范围与例子外，我们不禁要问：教会一再强调不能错的对象是信理和伦理，为什么讨论的多拘限于信理方面？究竟在伦理范围内，有没有不能错的训导？倘若有的话，例子是甚么？倘若无的话，是否可向教宗的伦理训导提出公开的异议？提出公开的异议，究竟有什么标准？这是我们要讨论的问题。

14：Mansi 52, 1226-7。亦参Joseph A. Komonchak, "Humanae Vitae and Its Reception", Theological Studies, June 1978, pp. 243-244.

15：梵一称depositum fidei(DZ3070)，梵二称depositum Revelationis，教会25。中文译法不一样，有时易生混淆。

16："Mysterium ecclesiae", Op. cit., p. 432.
(五) 不能错伦理训导的可能性

一般伦理神学家认为在伦理范围内，不能错的训导是可能的。传统伦理神学认为自然道德律的根源是天主，是天主永久律的反映。因此，爱人如己、行善避恶的原则，人的尊严、生命价值、宗教自由的肯定，如果不算是启示的、不能错训导的第一对象，最少算是不能错训导的第二对象。但问题仍未解决；自然道德律有不同的层次，抽象而普遍的伦理原则，其不能错性大致不成问题；但实际的伦理规律能否有不能错的训导呢？有些神学家认为是能够的，福特(John Ford) 和格林西(Germain Grisez) 属于这一类。

福、格二人在「人类生命」通谕十周年时写了一篇文章，认定「人类生命」的伦理教训，是属于不能错的训导18。他们承认「人类生命」通谕是属于普通训导，但却是不能错的普通训导。他们分析教会宪章25节所列出不能错误的条件：「如果他们(主教们) 彼此之间并与伯多禄的继承人保持着共融的联系，正式地教导信仰及道德的问题，而共同认定某一项论断为绝对应持之理，便是不能错误地宣告基督的道理」。二人认为「人类生命」的伦理训导，完全符合上述的条件。首先，从历史的角度去看，在一九六二年之前，不断有教宗及主教提出人工避孕是严重的罪行，如热罗尼莫、奥斯定，连东方教父伊比法尼斯(Epiphanius)、金口若望，也如此主张。这些人中有些是大神学家，是教父，甚至是教会公认的圣人。近代的教宗如庇护九世、良十三世、庇护十世、十一世、十二世、若望廿三世和保禄六世都如此主张．当时的主教他一致支持他们。可见这个训导有普遍性，是教宗和主教们「共同认定」的。这个主张已在不同的时代、不同的环境、经过不同的挑战，而教宗主教们仍一致如此坚持的。在梵二以前，没有教宗、主教或神学家提出异议。圣教法典从十三世纪到一九一七年的都有明文禁止使用人工避孕。教宗或主教提出这主张时，往往认为有启示做根据的；创38：9－10敖难泄精的罪，就常被引用。奥斯定如此，直至庇护十一世「圣洁婚姻」(Casti Connubii) 也如此19。另一段常用的圣经是罗1：26－27，天主不喜男女逆性之用。福、格二人认为虽然引用这两段圣经是否恰当是有争论，但过去引用的人，都相信人工节育的训导是有启示的权威的，故这个训导可定断为「绝对应持之理」(tanquam definitive tenenda)。两人的结论是：禁止人工节育是一个不能错的普通训导，教宗主教们并非发表个人的意见，他们「接受」这项训导向信友陈述而已。这项训导是确定的，不光是一个理想的建议，而是每一个信徒必须遵守的责任。人工节育的行为本身是个严重的罪，并无其他意见的可能性，盖然主义不能应用，教会不能改变这个答案，因为这是真的。天主的教会不可能错了那么多个世纪，不可能以基督的名义，用一个错误的训导，使那么多教友陷于罪恶。

这里稍为提一下汉斯．龚也有相类似的论调20，只不过有完全不同的结论而已。龚氏承认教宗从未以宗座权威定断人工避孕的不道德，但既然梵二之前的教宗及主教已一致谴责人工节育，并认定其为罪恶；因此，人工节育的不道德已经成为教会不能错的普通训导了，难怪保禄六世要随从宗座委员会少数派人的主张，在「人类生命」通谕中继续谴责人工节育。龚氏因此作出如下的推论：「人类生命」通谕是教会训导处不能错误的训导；「人类生命的训导已为绝大多数天主子民所摈弃，这个训导明显地是错误的；所以，说教会训导处有不能错误性，这个训导本身是错误的。」

现代绝大多数的伦理神学家都同意「人类生命」不算是不能错的普通训导，我认为这个意见是对的。在伦理范围内，特别是有关实际的伦理规律，一般的伦理判断只有明智的伦理确定性，即没有错误的恐惧，这亦即传统所谓根据确定良心去行事。明智的伦理确定性并非绝对的，它不能绝对地排除错误的可能，这与不能错误性不一样。教会传统对人工避孕的训导是属于这一类。教会在不同的时代对这个问题下了一个判断，认定那是为该特定时空最好的定断，并如此教导天主子民。只要有伦理的确定性，教会训导处便可坦然无畏地去教导，并要求其子民遵守。教宗或主教们从没有把人工节育的不道德当作不能错误的信条去训导，既然未公开作决定性的定断，是不能称为不能错的训导的。新圣教法典七四九条、第三项就声明此：「任何教义，除非是明显地如此决定的，不得视为以不能错特恩所决定者」。这里所谓「明显地如此决定」，是指第一项中教宗以全体信徒最高牧人和导师的身份，用职权以决定的行动宣布有关当信从的信仰或伦理教义，及第二项中主教们在大公会议聚会，以信仰和伦理的导师和法官的身份，为普世教会决定地宣告当信的信仰和伦理的教义时，或世界各地与教宗有共融的主教，与教宗一致确切教导信仰及伦理时。若非明显地如此决定，不能算作不能错的训导。

这里一再提及「决定地」、「确切地」，其实与梵二所谓「绝对应持之理」，在原文皆一样，即tanquam definitive tenenda。这是不能错训导一个重要的条件。怎样才算是「决定地」、「确切地」呢？拉内神父(Karl Rahner) 在注释梵二教会宪章25节时讲得很好21。他分别出在不能错的训导中，有些是一如天主启示般去「相信」(credenda)，这是指启示的教义(即上面所谓第一对象)；有些却是「绝对应持之理」，「应持」(tenenda)是对着那些非严格地启示的真理(即第二对象)。若要使非严格地启示的真理成为不能错，则必须是definitive，意指有绝对严谨和不能修改的同意(absolutely strict and irreformable assent)。「人类生命」的训导似乎还未符合这个条件。

至于不遵守这训导便是罪行又如何解释呢？如果我们接纳「人类生命」有明智的伦理确定性，教宗是可以如此教导和要求信友服从的。训导本身包含对基督真理有较优胜的洞悉力，所以在正常情况下，教宗的训导有约束信友的能力，因为他的训导能帮助信友找到真理。假如教友明知教宗的训导比自己所懂的优胜仍不愿跟随他，反而跟随自己不确定的怀疑良心去行事，那是有罪的。正如圣保禄提到不洁食物的事：「谁若怀着疑心吃了，便被判有罪，因为这不是出于信心做的，凡不出于信心做的，就有罪」(罗14：23)。另一方面，如果信友并非出自顽固或骄傲，在人工节育问题上肯定自己确实的获得真理，那他在这个问题上不再需要教导。教宗的训导必定有一目的，就是帮助信友获得真理。因此，若信友对获得真理已有了确定性，他就无可选择地跟随自己确定的良心。这不再是个罪行，即使那是与教宗的训导不相符。圣多玛斯就支持这个做法，他认为：「教会权威若对真相不清楚，而提出相反人确定良心的要求，则人宁可接受绝罚，也不应违背自己的良心」22

由上面所说的，几时教宗的训导牵涉严重的伦理责任，并明言如不遵守便是罪行，不能据此下结论那个训导必定是不能错的，即绝对明确，要求信友有不能修改的同意。若有此结论，教宗的普通训导，便会变成几乎不可能；因为他若谴责某类行为是罪行，则要准备那是不可能错的，并要求教友不能修改地同意。过去教会谴责很多行为，甚至在举行弥撒圣祭时，也有很多规则条文约束着神父，否则是犯重罪，但无人会结论出那些约束性的条文都是不能错的。

如何回答天主怎能容许教会在人工节育的问题上错了那么多世纪？天主圣神去了那里？多少公教夫妇因为这个训导饱受痛苦的经验，被视为大罪人，不容许领圣事？假使教会改变这个训导，如何对得住这些人？首先，我们怎么知道「人类生命」的训导一定是错误的？大部份的主教及神学家都不认为这是错误的训导。当时教会的反应主要分三类：一类是清楚接受，一类是调和通论的训导，一类则表示不确定的立场23。像汉斯．龚认定「人类生命」是错误的训导，则是少之又少。一般认为「人类生命」是一谨慎的牧民劝谕，它是向现代色情和泛性主义提出有声的抗议，它是此时此地教会最妥当的推荐；这并非信条，故此它的责任有暂时的性质，它有被修改的可能性。它能够是不完整的训导，但不完整的训导和错误的训导有很大的分别。即使教宗训导在这问题上出了错，这也不是出奇的事。基督并无答应教会在所有生活问题上都不犯过错，保证教会绝对正确的指导信友的良心，或跟随教宗训导的教友不会有上述的痛苦经验。成熟的信徒应知道教宗的训导并无给予他们一个绝对可靠的帮助，但能给予一个最可靠的帮助。如果我们确实知道教宗的训导是错误的话，我们必须跟随自己确定的良心。我们只对真理负责任，教宗训导只在传达真理时才对我们有约束力。

我们试将伦理范围内教宗训导的不能错性做一个小结。虽然教宗从未以「宗座权威」，明确地颁布一些不能错的伦理特殊训导，或决定地宣布某些伦理普通训导为不能修改的信条，这并不表示我们没有不能错的伦理规律。普通的自然道德律如爱人如己，人的尊严、生命价值的肯定，唯我主义、享乐主义的否定，皆不待教宗庄严地宣判，我们也知道是不能错误的伦理训导，因为只要拿它们和福音精神比试一下便可看到是调和或不调和。但一旦落实到实际伦理规律上，要绝对肯定不能错便极端困难了，最少教宗从未如此做过。若把禁止一些具体行为如谋杀、奸淫、剥削等的规律视为不能错的例子，是没有多大意义的。这些行为既已判定为不道德的，自然绝对不应做。判定不道德行为为不道德，这类规律只是重覆语而已，对问题的解决没有什么帮助。

18：John Ford and Germain Grisez, "Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium", Theological Studies, June, 1978, pp. 258-312. Grisez最近又写了一篇文章，再一次肯定他的立场。参"Infallibity and Contraception : A Reply to Garth Hallett", Theological Studies, March 1986, pp. 134-145.

19：庇护十一世一九三O年「圣洁婚姻」通谕No. 56：「圣经说，天主深深痛恨这可憎的孽行，且有时以死刑惩处之。就如圣奥斯定说的：『倘有避孕情事，连同合法妻子举行的性行为，亦是违法的丑行。犹达之子敖难曾因此而为天主所格杀』」。

20：Hans Kung, "Infallible? An Inquiry", Doubleday, N. Y. 1971.

21：Karl Rahner's commentary on art. 25 of Lumen Gentium, in "Commentary on the Documents of Vat. II", edited by Herbert Vorgrimler, Vol. I . Herder and Herder, 1967, pp. 210-211.

22IV Sent., dist. 38, art. 4.

23：Joseph A. Komomchak, "Humanae Vitae and Its Reception", op. cit., p.249.

(六) 对非不能错的教宗训导提出公开异议的可能性和标准

既然教宗的伦理普通训导并非不能错，教友可否随从自己的良心对教宗的训导提出异议？这是否不服从的表示？一般的意见是：信友不应顽固地固步自封，而应向训导权威开放，承认教宗是个胜任的导师；故教友一方面「应由自己的判断来引导，并该享有自由」(信仰11)，另一方面亦要小心，「不少人似乎倾向于自由，拒绝服从，而藐视合理的顺命」(信仰8)。如果教友清楚认定教宗的训导错误，他不但可以不同意，而且有责任不同意，否则是虚伪；人不能服从错误的训导，不管训导者是谁。至于应否「公开的」表示异议就有分歧的意见了。其实公开异议并非保守或先进的问题。先进的固然常对性问题的训导提出异议，但不少保守的何尝没有对社会问题的训导提出异议，说训导过于左倾？有些认为不应该对教宗的训导提出公开的异议，教友应对教宗的训导保持敬意，不同意时应保持缄默，不应公开的反对教宗，减低信友对教宗的信任。但这个态度，用于自己也不敢肯定的情况下是正确的。倘若自己在这方面也是个权威，认定教宗有错误而不加以修正，又怎能说对教宗怀有敬意？让他留在错误中是对他更大的不敬。向教宗的训导提出异议的确可能使教宗在信友前的可信性减弱，但让错误继续存留，将来会更打击他的声望，更难使教友信任他，而且更使教会蒙受其害，错误能越早修正是越好。很多神学家不愿公开提出异议就是避免立恶表，以免领导别人公开不服从教宗。但古伦认为：「如果神学家不公开提出异议，有时也在立恶表」24。他的意思大概是说：立恶表是以表样领人入歧途。如果神学家见人追随错误的训导而仍保持缄默，他的缄默使更多人入歧途，故事实上是在立恶表。因此，有人认为神学家不但有权而且更有责任对错误的训导提出公开的异议，保持缄默是对教会的不忠。

神学家在这问题上意见分歧，往往因为取自教会不同的模式。强调圣统制牧者教导而信友受教的模式，自是不赞成信友向教宗训导提出公开的异议；强调仆人教会要不断聆听学习的，则倾向于容许信友向训导处提异议。好使教会不断反省、学习、改良。我认为对教宗训导提出公开异议是可能的，不过公开异议应有标准：

(1) 提出公开异议的人：我们已承认教会训导处对真理的把握比我们优胜，因此我们接受他的教导，以便获得真理。提出公开异议者必须是个肯定自己已获得真理的人，即在某伦理问题上他已认识清楚，是个胜任的权威。这样，他才有资格向训导处提出公开的异议。对于那些一知半解的，未下过努力研究功夫的，道听涂说而认同某一适合自己个性的意见的，不适宜亦不应该跟风的提出公开的异议。我认为所谓胜任的权威，不应只拘限于神职人员，任何信友只要他在该问题上下过功夫，有确定的信念，都能够是胜任的权威。可见异议并非神职人员的专利。

(2) 公开异议者的态度：异议者必须承认训导处有特别教导天主子民的权力，故须对训导处保持敬意，并非哗众取宠，以公开异议而引人注目，提高自己成自己作品的身价，增加自己受欢迎的程度。每个异议者都该对天主、对教会、对自己诚实负责，认定提出异议是有建设性，是为了教会的好处，使真理受显扬，使错误受纠正。他应诚实的研究训导的意见，对训导开放，听取过专家的意见，并求天主启迪自己，然后才作决定。即使要提出异议，亦应知道自己的主张同样并非不能错，有心理准备如有新的资料出现，使训导的理由变得更强更合理时，则放弃或改变自己的意见，承认自己的错误，不会顽固地坚持到底。提出异议时，应采取交谈的方式，而非采取谴责的方式，更不应抱一敌对态度，甚至利用舆论界使自己变成理直气壮的英雄．是个为真理牺牲的殉道者，使训导处成为人所共憎的压迫者。异议者应深信训导处同样痛苦地追寻真理，为真理服务。

异议者应准备，为了保持另一更高价值，他愿意暂时接受一折衷办法，而非毫不妥协地坚持一个能错的主张。启示提供我们一个很好的例子：宗徒大事录记载，使徒在耶路撒冷开会议，保禄和巴尔纳伯反对犹太基督徒加于外邦基督徒身上的种种规矩。伯多禄同意不应「在门徒的颈项上，放上连我们的祖先和我们自己都不能负荷的轭」 (宗15：10)，雅各伯也同意外邦基督徒应有他们的自由：「不要再加给外邦归依天主的人烦难」(宗15：19)。会议结束却要求外邦基督徒「戒食祭邪神之物、血和窒死之物，并戒避奸淫」(宗15：29)，即仍然要他们遵守一些肋未纪所载的「圣洁的法律」。为什么保禄、巴尔纳伯不力争到底，使真理受显扬？因为他们发现有维护另一价值的需要，故同意折衷办法。为了保持共融(κοινωνια)，维持犹太、外邦人两团体之间的和平与团结合一，他们同意这个在具体历史环境中的实际规律，以确保超验的爱的规律 (αγαπη)。爱与自由有冲突时，自由有时要暂时让步，耐心等候适当的时机。异议者应有这种心态。

(3) 公开异议的对象：如果神学家是向同僚神学家发言，他可以对其伦理问题，发表不同训导主张的意见，作为学术交流，自由探讨，希望从交谈中使真理越辩越明。倘若是在神学院中，对象是神学生，他必须先把教会法定的训导忠实地阐述出来，然后加上自己不同的意见，作为另一个可行的办法。不过法定的训导与个人的意见应清楚分辨出来，不可混淆，以免误导神学生。假如是在圣堂讲道台上，对象是一般信友，在这种场合提出公开异议是不明智的。这不像在研讨会和课室中，参与者与异议者能交谈、澄清、反覆辩论。在圣堂中，一般信友只是聆听接受，无法立刻澄清问题，因此能产生很多误解，能减低信友对训导者的敬意与信任，能误导教友以为教会已改变立场。在讲道台上，讲道者是代表着教会发言，同信友说话。那时他有不同的身份，等于一国的大使公开发言时，他是国家的代言人，他所讲的一切，不应该再是个人的意见，而是国家法定的主张；只有在不同的场合中，一国的大使才可讲自己的意见。异议者应明智地分辨他发言的场合是什么，对象是谁。

24：古伦一九八三年八月十日的公开信，见Kevin Kelly, "Obedience and dissent : 1, The Learning Church", in The Tablet, 14 June 1986, p.620.

(七) 结语

我们对教宗不能错的训导，必须有一正确的了解。神化教宗的训导，把它放在天主圣言之上是一个错误；另一方面，对他有偏见，轻视他的训导，认定那是落伍守旧的思想，则是对教宗的不敬；两个极端都要避免。信友必须承认教宗的训导与一般神学家的训导不一样，认定他得到圣神的帮助去领导教会，他对福音及基督之律有较深刻的了解，有自己的权威，故决断比一般教友优胜；有错误的话只属例外，故信友常应以敬重的心情去赞同他。他的不能错的训导，有一定的对象、范围与条件。不能错的训导是表示某一信条发展到终点，已经无可修改了，教宗只是把整个教会的信仰做了一个明确的定断，颁布为信条，教友应犹如启示般去相信或认定是绝对应持之理，异议是不应该的。但在教会历史中，教宗仍未明确定断过某一实际伦理规律为不能错的训导。至于非不能错的训导，是指仍在发展途中的主张。既非不能错，即有被修正的可能，异议不但是可能的，而且能够是应该的。因为对过去教宗训导的批判，我们才有梵二的「信仰自由宣言」、「大公主义法令」等训导。有异议，教会才能自我反省，才能成长。不过．异议必须是负责的、诚实的、有建设性的、明智的、来自确定良心的；异议者应怀着敬重教宗与爱护教会的心情，有准备接受教会的判决，作为此时此地较妥当的一个解决办法。这种为真理服务的异议是健康的。最后，我以一个教会古老的原则作结：「在必要的事上，要合一；在怀疑的事上，要有自由；在一切事上，要有爱德」。

作者：黄怀秋

圣经中的伯多禄共有三个名字，他原名「西满」(Sm'on = Simon)，耶稣给他改名叫「刻法」(Kpy')，意即「伯多禄」(Πετροζ)。到了今天，伯多禄已经成为一个很普通的男子名；我们在这里所说的，却是历史中的第一位伯多禄。

关于西满改名伯多禄的事，四福音都有记述；在这些记述中，我们大抵可以分别出两至三个传统。玛四：18；谷三：16；路六：14的记载都很简单，这个传统大致上把改名的事追索到耶稣召选伯多禄的脉胳范围中。另外，若一：42也保留了一段类似的传统，背景也是召选门徒；不过，这里却提供了一些独特的资料：西满的全名是「若望的儿子西满」，耶稣给他取名「刻法」，圣史跟着提供了一点字源的线索，他解释这个阿拉美(Aramaic)字的意思，并说：「意即『伯多禄』」，换言之，在希腊文，「伯多禄」一字就是亚拉美语「刻法」一字的意译(不是音译)?它翻译了在另一个语言系统上与它意义相同的字。

若一：42的传统可说界于谷三：16(和平行文) 和玛十六：18之间；一方面，它和谷三：16一样，把改名之事安放在召选门徒的背景中，另方面，它也和玛十六：18相若，从字源上解释了「刻法」和「伯多禄」两个字的关系，而它所加给的资料亦与玛十六：17不谋而合(1)。不过玛十六：18更进一步，解释了耶稣改名的深意，并显露刻法／伯多禄的双关含义。原来不管在亚拉美语还是在希腊文，刻法／伯多禄都不是一个人的名字(propel name)，而是一个普通名词(common name)：石，大石，盘石(2)，这样，它就和「西满」这个名字不同，后者在新约时代，是一个相当通行的人名；可是，在耶稣给西满改名的年代，却没有人会叫作「石」！因此，它本来只能算是一个「诨名」，一个绰号，像「豹子头」之于林冲，「智多星」之于吴用一样，它们只是描写一些属于林冲、属于吴用的特质。

玛十六：18清楚显示了西满改名伯多禄的真正意思。因为刻法／伯多禄一字有双关含意－－这个人名本来是一个普通名词，因此，当玛十六：18的耶稣对西满这样说：「你是Πετροζ(伯多禄盘石)，在这Πετροζ(盘石)上，我要建立我的教会」的时候，「盘石」这个字就一语双关地拍这个叫做盘石的人认同为教会的基石。原来名字，在古人心目中，不单是一个称号，它还代表那个人，他们甚至相信名字拥有一种神秘的力量，因此掌握到一个人(或神) 的名字，就能对他产生一种神秘的驱策力，而更改名字，在犹太传统中更不陌生(如创十七：5－15；三十二：28)，它不单代表名称的转变，还象征一种和生命有关的转捩。改名的人承担了一个许诺(阿巴郎改名为阿巴辣罕，就是要成为万民之父)；当然，有许诺，就有责任(所以天主要和阿巴辣罕订立盟约)，限制他和自己的关系。现在西满更名为「石」，他为背负了一个许诺、一个责任；而更有甚者，这一许诺和责任，都暗藏在「石」这个名号之中。

由此可见，正因为「刻法／伯多禄」不是一个人名，而是个普通名词，这件改名事迹才更具深意。小明可以改名做小行，或者丽霞改唤爱娟，这在他的生命中，即使有很大的意义，可是在这个新名字土，我们到底看不出他改变了的生命特质。可是当一个叫做西满的人改唤作盘石的时候，事情就不可同日而语了。他的新名字不单是一个称号，它还指出这个人生命的实质意义、他的身份、他的任务、甚至他的存在。它代表一项功能，西满从此不单被「唤」作盘石，他还「是」盘石，要「作」盘石，「成为」盘石，因为在这伯多禄盘石之上，教会就要建立起来。

可是，对于玛十六17－20这一节福音，自古以来产生了无数的疑团，它只出现在玛窦福音而被其他三部福音所略去，就更令人怀疑它的真实性(3)。尤其在教派的纷争上，罗马天主教以此作为她得享「正统」的圣经根据，认为伯多禄的权力已经递交到他的继承人身上；基督教的兄弟们则力排此说，甚至否定教会是建基在伯多禄之上。大约三十年前，奥斯卡．库尔曼(Oscar cullmann) 这位基督教圣经大师，在他的力作彼得：门徒、宗徒、致命者中为这个持续了几个世纪的争论作了一个总结(4)。他采用历史的科学方法，尽量排拒教派利益的诱惑，希望以客观的态度对待圣经。他的结论肯定了伯多禄在早期教会中的首席地位；却对宗教承嗣权的问题甚表怀疑。天主教方面的回应可以奥图．卡革(Otto Karrer) 的伯多禄和教会为代表(5)。二位大师的争论已成历史；教会仍然继续她的步伐。本文也不是要重复他们的理论，只是想在这个问题上提供一点个人的、简陋的看法。

库尔曼不单接受这节福音来自历史中的耶稣的说法(6) (它不是玛窦为着因应教会的需要而创作的)，还接纳传统的「公教」解释：教会是建立在伯多禄这个历史人物之上，而不是建基在他明认耶稣的信德上(7)，甚或在耶稣自己身上(8)。虽然保禄在格前三：11明明地称耶稣为「根基」，而且是唯一的根基，因为除祂以外，任何人不能再奠立其他的根基，但是，把格前的思想读到这段福音中只是忘记了伯多禄这个字一语双关的结果，这样，我们就无法理解伯多禄的更改名字与耶稣建立教会这个脉胳范围的关系。怎样解释耶稣先对西满说：「你是Πετροζ」，再说：「在这Πετροζ上」的关系呢？除了将此Πετροζ看成彼Πετροζ外，我们别无他法。

至论耶稣建立教会的时候，这里用的是将来式：「在这盘石上，我『将会建立』(oikodomeso) 我的教会。」换言之，教会要待将来才正式建立起来。虽然耶稣在世之时已经聚合了基督徒团体，可是这个未成形的团体只是预显地生活出那将要成立的教会的特质，后者要在基督死后才正式地建立起来。因而这个将来也不是末日式的终极性的将来。根据库尔曼的意见，教会与末日的天国相异而相连，她存在于这个世代中，虽然她正从这个世代的末梢向着永恒翘首张望，并一步步地走向她未来的完成。因此未来的教会只是预显末日天国的光荣，正如聚合在耶稣身旁的天国团体也只是预尝来日教会的芬芳。这样，库尔曼似乎把天国的实现分别出三个相连续的阶段：历史中的耶稣、耶稣死后到末日再来、末日的永恒天国。这三个阶段并没有整整齐齐地割裂开来，相反，在任何一个阶段中，我们都可以找到其他两个阶段的因子；因此，我们可以从耶稣身上看到完满，在教会之中预期天国的来临。不过，严格来说，教会位于这个连续整体的中间阶段，这个阶段可能为时甚短。事实上，根据种种迹象，我们可以肯定耶稣讯息中浓厚的末日意味，他宣讲马上就要来临的天国。因而从他死后到他再来的这一段时候，只是天国的预备期，是中间的夹缝时代，而这也是玛十六：17所说的建立教会的时候。耶稣的末日意识，似乎排除了伯多禄职位世世相传这个观念的可能性。

再回头看玛十六：18的话！当耶稣对伯多禄说：「你是盘石，在这盘石上，我要建立我的教会」，他所指的，要在上面建立教会的基石，就是怕多禄这个历史人物。他是对伯多禄，这位历史中的第一位教会元首说：「我要立你为将要成立的教会的基石。」可是，他亦很可能只是想及伯多禄而已，把历代的列位教宗都读到伯多禄身上，以致当耶稣对伯多禄说这句话的时候，也是对他们说了，这种看法，可能只是后世的理解，而不是圣经原文的意思。这点，笔者以为，我们可以同意库尔曼的见解。事实上，现今这种层次分明、壁垒森严的圣统制，极有可能并不出现在耶稣的视野之内，尤其当我们从末日临近的角度去理解耶稣讯息的话。

关键性的问题似乎是：耶稣立伯多禄为教会盘石，假如他没有万世承嗣的观念，这件事到底有甚么意思？

其实，「我将会建立我的教会」这句话是中性的，即是说，它虽然没有明显地设想，但也没有显然排除教会日后的生命，因为这不是它注意的目标。事实上，教会存在时间的短长问题，不在耶稣这句话的视野之内。他说的只是建立、是奠基。这里用的是建筑的形象(9)，就像建筑楼宇之初要奠下基石一样，耶稣也在教会正式成立之前亲自奠基。奠基只此一次，因此，笔者以为，我们可以同意库尔曼所说的，这不是一个不断重复的行动，而是「只此一次」(once and for all) 的事实。不过，我们更要强调的是：不单奠基只此一次，基石也只有这么一块，它不曾「移位」，不能「易手」，上面的楼宇站立一天，它在下面也得站立一天，但若在上面的站立千年万年，它也只得舍命陪君子了。这就是我们与库尔曼不同的地方(10)。是的，日后楼宇可以增建，可以改建，但是基石早就奠下的了，而这就有万世的价值，纵使耶稣在说这句话的时候的确没有想到万世，就像一个奠基者也可能没有想过楼宇日后的命运一样。英文的once-for-all，在中文上几乎不可翻译，不错，那是once，是独一，但也是for all－for ever，是永久、是永远、是决定性地不能变更的事件。

所以教会的基石只有一个，我们不能再有另外的基石，当耶稣立伯多禄为教会基石的时候，他就承担了永为教会基石的任务，不因时间的短长而有所改变，也不因职位的更递而有所变动。教会存在二十年、二百年、或二千年，这个基石都是一样，这是在她建立之初就早已奠定的。即使在宗徒大事录所显示的早期教会图像，也不能改变这点。事实上，我们对早期教会所知甚少，即使伯多禄的确曾经「失势」(这是个十分不当的形容词)，于是耶路撒冷教会之长的职位落到主的兄弟雅各伯的手里(宗十二：17)，而他自己则在承让出治理之责之后，四出传扬主的讯息，与保禄分庭抗礼，分掌「犹太人」及「外邦人」宗徒之职(迦二：7)，并听命于耶路撒冷教会的命令，甚至害怕「由雅各伯那里来」的人(迦二：12)，他身为教会基石的身份仍然不会变，也不能变，因为基石与日后的变动总不可同日而语，它们出现在两个不同的层面上。这是我们与库尔曼意见分歧的地方(11)。教会由始至终的伯多禄只有一个，即使雅各怕在执掌耶路撒冷教会之后，他也不会成为伯多禄，他还是雅各伯。因为我们的伯多禄只有一个，他就是历史中的伯多禄。

后记

自从十九世纪严肃的释经学开始萌芽发展以来，许多我们从前认为理所当然的意念和对圣经的诠释方法都受到了质疑，我们的信仰和传统一次又一次地经受了很大的震撼和挑战；不过，在痛定之余，也让我们回头细察和重新审视我们的信仰特质。百炼才出精钢，基督教会的信仰本质也必须在淘尽了各种沙石杂质的干扰之后，才清楚地呈现出来。

对伯多禄的疑难也是一样。无论从那方面看，我们都该感谢库尔曼的挑战，他的论点是任何一个严肃的神学生都不能忽视的。不过，为我们更重要的，却是怎样在接下这道战书之后，以认真的态度，不苟地反省我们的传统信仰。本文只是作者拋砖引玉式的一次尝试吧了！

(1)玛十六：17称西满为「约纳的儿子西满」(Simon Barjona)，这个名字可能就是若一：42「若望的儿子西满」(Simon the Son of John) 的亚拉美语读法。

(2)人名是不能译意的，只能音译。「伯多禄」却译意而不译音，这一点正显示出，它本来不是个通行的人名。另外，Kephas一字的串法，除了尾音S是希腊文的附加之外，它还包含一个限定词a，因此它的意思是the rock，而不是a rock。在古老的基督徒传统中，Πετροζ一字也常带有冠词σ；这个最早期的「基督」一词也常带有冠词一样。最突出的例子是谷八：29：「σπετροζ对他说：你是σχριστοζ」。以上参阅M. Miguens, Church Ministries in New Testament Times, Arlington, Christian Culture Press, 1974, 87页及196页，注152，153。

(3)着名的经学家中，反对这段篇章的真实性的，举其大者而言之，包括H. J. Holtzmann, J. Weiss, M. Dibelius, A Harnack, R. Bultmann, W. G. Kummel等人。攻击者的另一主要论据是「教会」一字的出现，这个字，在四福音中，除玛十六：18外，共在玛十八：17中用过。但A. Schweitzer, J. Jeremias, A. Oepke等则坚持这段篇章的真实性。后者主要是根据这篇记述中浓厚的闪族语言特色：如「约纳的儿子」(参阅注(1)，以「血和肉」代表人，众数的「天」字(ouranoi) 等等。Jeremias甚至发现这段篇章有类似耶稣平素话语中的闪族韵味(比对玛十一：7－9，25－30)：三?三的结构：包括三节，每节三行。

(4)O. Cullmann, Peter : Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (由F. V. Filson自德文原着Petrus译成)，London, SCM Press, 1953, 1962(2).

(5)O. Karrer, Peter and the Church. An Examination of Cullmann's Thesis, (Quaestiones Disputatae, 8), New York, Herder and Herder, 1963.

(6)不过，库尔曼却以为这段福音本来出自另一脉胳范围(最后晚餐)，经玛窦安排整理之后加插在这里。

(7)这是一些早期教父的看法，如盎博罗削、金口若望、希拉里、教宗良一世等。

(8)宗教改革时代，玛丁路德等人多随此说。据Strack-Billerbeck的注解，耶稣没有对伯多禄说：「你是盘石」，只是说:「我对你说，是的，对你，伯多禄。在这盘石上……」。

(9)建筑的形象弥漫全段经文，除了十六：18明明说「建立」教会之外，下一句所用的字眼，如「门」、「钥匙」等等明显地都曾受到建筑形象的启发。

(10)根据库尔曼的理论，由于耶稣立伯多禄的时候，没有万世承嗣的思想，因此，伯多禄教会盘石的地位，不但是可以变动的，而且事实上，他也只在最早的一段日子里位居教会元首，到了后来，他的地位已经慢慢被雅各伯所取代了。至少在宗徒会议的时侯，宗徒权力的转移已经完成，因此，迦拉达书所说的教会柱石，以雅各伯为首，跟着是刻法和若望(二9)，这样的排列次序绝不偶然，它反映了当时教会的实况。

(11)参阅注(10)。

作者：苏国怡 Socol, Carlo

THE ROMAN PRIMACY IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES OF THE CHURCH

In the 1970s a theological forum on 'post-ecumenical Christianity' identified the Vatican I definition of papal primacy and infallibility－and more precisely the former as foundation for the latter's claim-as the single greatest difficulty on the path to ecumenical agreement between the Christian churches (1). A decade later, the same question has become a burning issue in this part of the world, as scriptural, theological and historical arguments are being drawn out of the closet in an attempt to legitimatize a situation brought about largely by ideological pressure, political dictates, misunderstandings, lack of communication as well as objective difficulties, a situation that might become a de facto separation.(2)

From a historical point of view, the question concerning papal primacy is more complicated than often portrayed by both its supporters and detractors. People discussing this issue naturally enough attempt to go back to the early life of the church in order to support their views with both biblical and extra-biblical proofs. And since the rapid emergence of the Roman see as a centre of both leadership and juridical authority is such a striking feature of the life of the Western church from the middle of the 4th century onwards that there is no denying it. recourse is made to the first three centuries(3).

However, evidence for this period is scanty, discontinuous and often uncertain. It is a period no one should venture into lightheartedly. Lack of cross evidence practically deprives the historian of his most reliable working tool. That, coupled with the complexity of the issue and the confessional and theological bias that threatens objectivity, explains the variety of opinions one comes across on this and other early church questions. Evaluation of evidence is often at the mercy of each scholar.

The account which Catholic church historians give of the problem of Roman primacy, though differing in the manner of presentation as well as in the evaluation given to single events or documents, is fairly univocal. It is relatively easy to give a presentation of the Catholic position, while a dialectic approach would make the issue considerably more complex. Catholic substantial uniformity is not surprising and cannot certainly be dismissed as the consequence of apologetic preoccupations inhibiting Catholic scholars from exploring divergent hypotheses with sufficient freedom of mind. It must also be accounted for by the objective value of the testimony the past has left us as well as by a substantially correct approach to the sources (4).

Given all these difficulties, it would seem to me that the best way to go about trying to throw light on the issue is to consider all available evidence, both direct and supplementary, against the background of our general knowledge of this period, allowing the conclusions to emerge spontaneously－as far as possible－from the global experience of the church within the great becoming of history. In fact, it is not enough to limit oneself to the analysis of each piece of evidence, conclusions from which are often, well, inconclusive. Nor does it do to try to isolate certain issues deemed to be crucial and discuss them. not for this particular period in the life of the church at least (5).

Not much can be said in a short article. Available evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical, strictly related to the case is anything but abundant. Space and an 'objective' stand demand that even here the subject be dealt with in a sketchy and detached manner, and facts be allowed to speak for themselves as much as possible. They are given in a chronological order (6).

Evidence

AD 49－The oldest piece of evidence of concerning a Christian presence in Rome dates back to the reign of Claudius (41-54), who "drove from Rome the Jewish agitators stirred up by Chrestos" (SUET., Vita Claud., 25, 5). Christianity was, hence, probably introduced to the capital by a group of unknown Judaean Christians, a thing that does not clash with the tradition, related for the first time by Irenaeus, attributing the evangelization and 'founding' of the churching in Rome to the apostles Peter and Paul. The notion of 'founding' goes beyond that of a mere 'introducing'.

AD 57－Romans. By that year Rome's Christian community must have been a thriving one if it prompted Paul to address a letter to it and to express the desire to work there (Rm1 :15).

AD 54-57－The earliest New Testament witness concerning Simon-Peter are the important references contained in Galatians and 1 Corinthians: Peter as first witness to the resurrection of Christ; Peter as Paul's source of tradition about Jesus; Peter as leader in Jerusalem at the time of Paul's visits there; Peter's role in the apostolate to the circumcised (cf. Gal 1:18; 2:7-9, 11, 14: 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5) (7).

AD 64－Mark. 1 Peter. In the earliest of the four gospels consigned to writing, i.e. Mark's, Simon-Peter features prominently. In it we find the basic outline of the gospel portrait of Peter with which we are familiar. The following are the highlights: the call of the fisherman; the appointment of the Twelve, the first of whom is Simon, "whom He surnamed Peter"; Peter's confession and subsequent rebuke by Jesus; Peter's witnessing of the transfiguration along with James and John; his denial of Jesus; Peter specially sorted out as destinee of the angel's post-resurrectional message relayed by the women who had come to the empty tomb (cf. Mk 1:16-18; 1 :29-31, 35-38; 3:14-16; 5:37; 8:27-33; 9:2-13; 10:28-30; 11:12-14, 20-22; 13: 3ff; 14: 27-42. 54. 66-72: 16:7) (8).

In 1 Peter the author addresses himself to the presbyters of the communities of Asia Minor as a 'fellow-presbyter', obviously out of modesty, for he had earlier identified himself as endowed with an apostolic office (5:1-4) (9).

By this time Peter and Paul had reached Rome. Paul arrived there in chains in the Spring of 61 and suffered martyrdom under Nero in 67. When Peter got there is not known. One can only make suppositions. Yet the tradition of Peter's stay in the capital and his martyrdom there in 64 or 67 is too strong to be questioned.

This Roman tradition, never challenged in antiquity, rests on the testimony of three sources, chronologically close to each other that when taken together acquire such a weight as practically to amount to historical certainty: (1) Clement's letter to the Corinthians. AD 96, which relates events occurring in the recent past, especially the death of Peter and Paul "through jealousy and envy", and which possibly alludes to Nero's persecution. (2) The essential nucleus of this testimony is confirmed some 15-20 years later by the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church of Rome. (3) The Ascensio Isaiae (4,2), re-elaborated in a Christian sense ca. AD 100 and whose testimony about Peter's stay in Rome and his martyrdom there has been recently revalued, prophetically announces the death of one of the Twelve at the hands of Belial, murderer of his mother (Nero). This statement is further clarified by a fragment from the Apocalypse of Peter (early 2nd century): "Go Peter...to the city of fornication and drink the chalice I foretold"(10).

No evidence brought against the Roman tradition even closely approaches the amount and sheer weight of evidence in favour of it. The excavations under the altar of Peter's Confession in the Vatican have brought up a wealth of new circumstantial evidence as to the location of Peter's tomb. The force of these proofs, however, is dimipuished by uncertainties and above all by an annoying flaw: the bones have not been found in the tomb, but by the side of the 'trophy of Gaius', not sufficiently protected (11).

AD 70-80－Matthew, Luke, Acts. Three episodes stand out in Greek-Matthew's account of the apostle Peter, though they not the only ones: Jesus saves Peter as he sinks while walking on the water; Peter's confession and Jesus' promise to him (the text cited by the Catholic Church as scriptural basis for the authority of the papacy); Jesus, Peter, and the temple tax (Mt 14: 28-31; 16:16b-19: 17:24-27) (12).

In Luke we find the following stories: the call of Simon and the miraculous catch of fish; Jesus' prayer for Simon's faith not fo fail, to enable him to stengthen his brethren; the appearance of the risen Lord to Simon (Lk 5:1-11; 22:31-32; 24:34). On the whole Luke presents a very favourable portrait of Peter to his gentile audience. He is the last of the Twelve to be mentioned by name in Lk, and the first of the Twelve to be mentioned by name in Acts. This is probably no accident. For Lk the Twelve are the bridge between the historical Jesus and the church, and Simon-Peter plays that role par excellence (13).

In the first half of Acts it is Peter who dominates. His prominence stems from being first in the post-resurrectional list of the Eleven, from the significant role he played in the election of Matthias, and again as preacher in the Jerusalem church, as miracle worker, as object of miraculous divine care. etc.(14) Acts also describes Peter's part in the conversion of gentiles, his relation to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem authorities, his moving on "to another place" (Acts 12:17), his mediating role at the 'council' of Jerusalem, after which he disappears from the scene of Acts and we find him soon afterwords in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14).

AD 80－2 Peter. This letter, sometimes set in the 2nd century and hence considered as the last NT writing, presents Peter as the guardian of orthodox faith. His authority is called upon to correct doctrinal and moral confusion spread by false teachings since he has the authority to interpret the words of Scripture (15).

AD 96－Clement's 1 Cor.－The letter of Clement, bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians supplies impressive evidence. It was written just before the close of the apostolic era. Such was its standing in the early church, that for some time it was included in the canon of inspired writings. As late as the second half of the 2nd century it was regularly read at Corinthian liturgical gatherings This document testifies to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul under Nero with a high degree of probability. Yet its importance is due to the fact that it bears witness to the first documented intervention of the Roman church in the life of a sister church. Clement indeed wrote in the name of his community－he himself remains a background figure, as monarchical episcopate had not emerged at this early stage-to seek to re-establish peace in Corinth by means of admonition and counsel. It is not known whether Rome's intervention, which had been delayed by raging persecution, was spontaneous or had been called for. One thing is certain, though, and this is Rome's consciousness of her authority and consequent responsibility. The claims contained in the letter exceed the limits of brotherly solidarity. Its tone is authoritative, at times almost threatening, and seems to expect obedience. Corinth heeded Clement's advice. No one in antiquity ever had anything to say about Rome's action. For Pierre Batiffol. Clement's intervention represents "the epiphany of the Roman primacy" (16).

AD 100 ca.－The Gospel of John contains ten references to Simon-Peter, of which the most relevant ones are: Jesus meets Simon and tells him he will be called Cephas: Peter confesses Jesus as the Holy One of God; Peter at the empty tomb: Jesus specifically entrusts his flock to Peter (cf. Jn 1:40-42; 6:67-69; 20:2-10: 21:1-23) (17).

AD 110 ca.－Ignatius' letter to the Romans has already been mentioned. It conveys the esteem of non-Roman Christians for Rome. The bishop of Antioch wrote seven letters to as many churches, yet on comparison Romans stands out as unique: its enthusiastic introduction, resounding with honorific and fulsomely respectful epithets, bears witness to a real pre-eminence of Rome. which inspired a singular veneration throughout the ancient world. In an obvious allusion to Clement's letter, Ignatius states that the Roman congregation acts as teacher. He gives it the title 'president of love'. Accordingly he offers no advice, as he did to the other churches, but rather entrusts the communities of Syria soon to be deprived of their leaders the Rome's charity. Commenting on this letter, the Anglican scholar S.H. Scott wrote of a primacy pertaining to the church of Rome by virtue of Peter's primacy. Indeed, the letter does contain some of the elements of papal theory developed later, such as the importance of the capital, the presence of Peter and Paul. Rome's leadership in faith and love, but as it does not specifically refer to the bishop of Rome, one cannot speak of a personal primacy yet (18).

AD 140 ca.－Hermas, the author of the mystical treatise known as The Shepherd, describes Clement, bishop of Rome, as having been entrusted with the care of churches abroad (Vision 2, ch. 4).

AD 180 ca.－Irenaeus' Contra Haereses is the most famous testimony on the subject. To prove the Gnostic heretics wrong, the author outlines what he deems to be an incontrovertible and universally accepted 'rule of faith': tradition founded on the apostles and guaranteed by succession. In this respect Rome stands out as having been founded by Peter and Paul, and because he considers communion with this one community as the most reliable proof that a church is within the tradition approved by the apostles. Irenaeus provides a list of Peter's successors, the first to do so. He then concludes with an often quoted sentence: "With this church, on account of its more powerful principality alt other churches in every place must agree (Lat. 'convenire') since in it the Christians of all places have preserved the apostolic tradition" (Adv. Haer.. III, 3, 1-2).

For Louis Duchesne, one cannot find a dearer statement of (1) the doctrinal unity of the universal church, of (2) the sovereign and unique importance of the Roman church as witness, custodian and organ of apostolic tradition, and of (3) her superior preeminence among all the Christian communities. There may well be other important churches, but as far as sheer 'power' is concerned, Rome stands above them all (19).

AD 190 ca.－The controversy over the Easter date. By the end of the 2nd century various aspects of church life were becoming better and better organized: the monarchical organization had practically been established, hence news about Rome's bishops becomes more and more detailed. A canon of the scriptures was being drawn up, the first symbols or creeds were formulated (20), along with the first elaboration of liturgical traditions (21). In all this Rome was playing a relevant role. Naturally each community had traditions of its own. Yet this whole complex movement towards commonly accepted points of reference shows that nearing AD 200 Rome－whatever the exact explanation of this phenomenon may be－enjoyed a pre-eminent authority.

Extraordinary as it may be, one particular episode, that of the controversy over the Easter date, imposes itself on our attention, for it highlights Rome's role in the church's search for greater unity in a matter purely religious. Easter was celebrated on different dates in the East and in the West. In the year 154, bishop Polycarp of Smyrna had travelled all the way to see his Roman counterpart, Anicetus, to try to reach an agreement, but failed to do so. The lack of clarity over the issue was opening the gates to abuse and schism. This probably explains why, at a certain moment, having received a letter from Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, explaining the Eastern customs, bishop Victor of Rome (189-199) decided, to intervene in the question with exceptional severity, i.e. threatening the Eastern churches with excommunication: no one, not even Irenaeus, who played a mediating role. and who had nothing good to say about the excesses of Victor's intransigent centralism, ever thought of challenging Rome's right to impose a disciplinary norm under threat of excommunication (22).

AD 200 ca.－Bishop Zephyrinus of Rome (199-217) condemns Montanism. The Roman presbyter Gaius boasts of the 'trophies', i.e. the funeral monuments, of Peter and Paul in Rome. Abercius, bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia, who had visited Rome under Marcus Aurelius (161-180), dictates a famous epitaph that bears witness to a growing awareness of the universal brotherhood being created by the church, something he had been able to experience in his travels. It also praises the majesty of the Roman church, queen of the Christian world (23).

AD 210-220 (after 213)－Hippolytus rebukes bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus (217-222) for having failed to intervene－as duty demanded－to stop the Patripassian heresy. Also Tertullian complains against a bishop (Callistus, or Agrippinus of Carthage?) whom he sarcastically calls 'supreme pontiff and 'bishop of bishops', for the authority he had claimed on the basis of Mt 16:18 was exaggerated, since the gift signified therein was intended for Peter alone (De Pudicitia, 21). Obviously, in the wake of increasing unrest and division, a search was on for irrefutable proofs of episcopal power. Tertullian's assertions are significant in that they point to a Petrine interpretation of episcopal authority－either in Carthage or in Rome－one generation before Cyprian (24).

AD 230 ca.－Origen tries to defend himself against accusations brought against him in Alexandria by writing to bishop Fabian of Rome (236-250). Origen's condemnation by an Alexandrian synod had been confirmed by a Roman synod called by bishop Pontian (230-235) (25).

AD 256－Bishop Stephen of Rome makes what appears to be the clearest claim so far to primacy by a Roman bishop. We have access to his fact through the reaction of those who opposed it, i.e. Cyprian of Carthage and Firmilian of Caesarea, at the peak of the controversy over baptism by dissidents. Stephen criticised the African bishop for reconferring such baptisms, a criticism which did not go down well. Out of some real as well as personal motivations, in the name of the rights of bishops, whom be claimed were responsible to God alone, Cyprian rejected the "tyranny" imposed by Stephen and contended with the right of his "brother" on the Roman see to make himself bishop of bishops. On other occasions, however, Cyprian recognized the right of the bishops of Rome to be informed about important matters, such as the election of bishops. For him Rome was indeed "Peter's chair", "the principal church", "the point of origin of sacerdotal [= episcopal] unity"(26). In his famous De Unitate Catholicae Ecclesiae, in a double, authentic (!), recension, he views Peter as the origin and foundation of unity. Yet his chief concern was the oneness of the local community within itself, not that of the universal church. In fact he held the opinion that all bishops had received a power equal to that of Peter. No distinction as yet had been drawn between power of orders and power of jurisdiction. Consistently with his unconquerable episcopalism, Cyprian refused to budge (27). His, at times inconsistent, theology shows all the characteristic tension between a marked sense of solidarity among all bishops and the unique position of the bishop of Rome. The African martyr holds on and bears witness to both traditions, yet he fails to harmonize them.

AD 260-262－The two Dionysiuses' affair is a fact which closely resembles in its dynamics Clement's intervention in the Corinthian affair. Dionysius the Great, bishop of Alexandria, had to deal with a group of Sabellians. dissidents who denied any real distinction between the Persons of the Trinity. The bishop himself, however, had gone too far in his attempt to explain the distinction: he had made the son less than, subordinate to. the Father (incidentally, the same error Arius was to spread in Alexandria in the following century). For this reason charges were brought against him in Rome, prompting pope Dionysius (260-268) to convene a synod and correct both the bishop and the whole catechetical school of Alexandria with its proud Origenist tradition, in what is the most important ante－Nicene document on the Trinity. The episode on the one side highlights Rome's continuous commitment to orthodoxy since the times of bishops Victor, Zephyrinus and Callistus, on the other it is evidence of Rome's magisterial authority, exercised by its bishop in a sovereign manner. The doctrine being judged and censored was held by one of the most notable and venerated bishops of antiquity. In the face of Rome's sentence the foremost episcopal see in the East and the personal prestige of its bishop seemed to count for nothing. No one even thought of appealing (28).

AD 272－Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, had been deposed and replaced by a local synod on account of his adoptionist heresy. However, he had chosen to stick to his post and refused to hand over the church buildings to his successor. Pagan emperor Aurelian, who was then passing through the town and had been called in to help solve the question concerning the right of property, sentenced that the true bishop and legitimate occupier of the episcopal house should be he whom Felix (269-274), bishop of Rome. and the bishops of Italy recognized (29).

(1)H. KUNG, Editorial, in Concilium 4/7 (April 1971), p.7. The issue is entirely dedicated to 'The Petrine ministry in the Church'.

(2)「中國天主教」創刊號(一九八０年十一月十日，北京) 二十至二十二頁。湯漢「教宗首席權與主教團的關係?中國天主教質詢的一個神學問題」，鼎刊，1981年5月，14－18頁。梁作祿，「文革後的中國天主教」，香港1982，80頁。

(3)There is a historical as well as a sentimental reason for this: the church of the first three centuries was supposedly purer, more evangelical, more charismatic, less papal, less institutionalized, less compromised with the world as compared with the 'Constantinian church', which was hopelessly caught up in a process of integration with a society that considered itself Christian, on which she patterned her typically Roman organization and legal structure, eventually emerging as state religion. Few historians nowadays would uncritically accept such a sharp distinction between a pre-Constantinian and a Constantinian church in this sense.

(4)As we come nearer to our times, one easily comes across views that diverge in a more substantial way. Readers might be familiar, for instance, with Charles Davis' A Question of Conscience (New York. 1967), or Hans Kung's The Church (Westminster. 1967). The two differ between themselves, the first being a systematic rebuttal of each piece of evidence in favour of primacy at the height of a personal crisis of faith; the second re-reads history in the light of certain ecclesiological presuppositions. Neither authors are trained historians. Different still are the views expressed by James F. McCue (Roman Primacy in the First Three Centuries, in Concilium 4/7 [April 1971] pp. 37-44). In what appears like an 'ecumenical effort', the author does not seem to endeavour to support evidence traditionally considered invaluable for the Catholic viewpoint on primacy and prefers to rest to whole issue on the nature of the Church's development.　

No account is here given of the now subsided Catholic-Protestant controversy of early 20th century. Among the manuals/articles available at local libraries the following have been selected : K.BAUS, From the Apostolic Community to Constantine ( = Handbook of Church History 1.ed. H. Jedin and J. Dolan), New York 1965, pp. 151-2, 355-360; G. LEBRETON-G. ZILLER, La Chiesa primitiva (= 'Fliche & Martin' 1), Torino(3) 1958, pp. 281ff., 484ff., 491ff ; Id., Dalla fine del II secolo alla pace costantinana (313), (= 'Fliche & Martin' 2), Torino(2) 1977, pp. 595-598 (because it is a more recent edition, the Italian translation is preferred); K. BIHLMEYER-H. TUCHLE, Church History, I , Christian antiquity, Westminster 1958, pp. 112-117, 311-322; L. HERTLING, Geschichteder katholischen Kirche, Berlin(4) 1967, Chinese Ed., 1967, pp. 45-52; J. LORTZ, Geschichte der Kirche in ideeges-chichtlicher Betrachtung, 2 Bande, Munster(21) 1962, Ital. Ed.(3) 1976, pp. 90-93, 148ff., 181f.; A. FRANZEN, Kleine Kirchengeschichte, Freiburg I. Br. 1976, Engl. Ed., pp. 100ff.; M. SCHMAUS, Pope. C. Historical Development, in Scaramentum Mundi 5, pp. 42-50; G. SCHWAIGER, Pope. II. History of the Popes, ibid., pp. 50ff.; W. ULLMANN, Papacy. 1. Early period, in New. Cath. Encyc. 10, pp. 951-954; B. STUDER, Papato, in Dizionario patristico e di antichita cristiane, dir. A. Di Berardino, II, Casale Monferrato 1983, coll. 2638ff.; G. VODOPIVEC, Papato, in Dizionario Storico Religioso, dir. P. Chiocchetta, Roma 1966, pp. 712. Also WL. D'ORMESSON, The papacy, ( = Faith and Fact 80), London 1959 ; H. CHADWICK, The Early Church ( = The Pelican History of the Church 1) New York 1967. Most sources cencerning the papacy in the early period may be conveniently found in H. DENZINGER-A. SCHONMETZER, Enchiridion fontium historiae ecclesiasticae antiquae, Barcelona(9), 1965.

(5)H. Kung's exposition of the issue is vitiated, in my opinion, by this type of approach, typical of the systematic theologian. Cf. KUNG, Church, 456ff.

(6)Dates for biblical events, which are to be taken with some degree of aproximation, follow the chronological table provided in the Supplements Section of the Jerusa1em Bible. Biblical evidence is here treated as historical evidence.

(7)R. E. BROWN. Peter in the New Testament, New York 1973, pp. 23ff.

(8)Ibid., pp. 57ff.

(9)Ibid., pp. 149ff.

(10)BAUS. From the Apostolic Community, pp. 112-115.

(11)Ibid., pp. 115-118; M. GUARDUCCI. Le reliquie di Pietro sotto la confessione della basilica vaticana, Roma 1966.

(12)BROWN, Peter, pp. 75ff.

(13)Ibid., pp. 109ff.

(14)Ibid., 39ff.

(15)Ibid., 154ff.

(16)P. BATIFFOL. Le catholicisme des origines a Saint Leon－I. L' Eglise naissante et le catholicisme. Paris(9) 1927, p. 146.

(17)BROWN, Peter, pp. 129ff.

(18)FLICHE & MARTIN I, p. 416.

(19)Quoted in D' ORMESSON, Papacy, p.146.

(20)The four gospels and the thirteen Pauline letters had come to be accepted AD 130 ca. and were placed on the same footing as the Old Testament between 170 and 220. Peculiar to the Western church was the Apostolic Creed.

(21)Cf. JUSTIN, Apology, I. 61-67 (written ca 150-155): HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME, The Apostolic Tradition, (ca. 215).

(22)FLICHE & MARTIN II. pp. 575ff.

(23)The meaning of the symbolic language employed by Abercius, which had given rise to many discussions in the past. no longer seems debatable. Ibid., I. pp. 488.

(24)McCUE. Primacy, p. 41; FLICHE & MARTIN II. p. 579.

(25)Ibid., p. 383.

(26)Eg. 55,14; De Unit., 4.

(27)Only a fresh persecution avoided an open split between the bishops of Carthage and Rome. The conflict was composed under pope Sixtus, "the good and pacific pontiff", who had succeeded Stephen in 257. Cf. FLICHE & MARTIN II. p. 312; J. QUASTEN, Patrology, II. Westminster 1964, pp. 375-378.

(28)FLICHE & MARTIN II, pp. 378ff.

(29)Ibid., p. 379.

Conclusion

The last decades of the 3rd century were peaceful and largely uneventful. The church enjoyed the peace granted by Galerian's edict of tolerance (AD 260). Diocletian was reorganizing the empire but was soon to launch the fiercest persecution, which was eventually followed by a general peace in 313. From AD 67 thirty-one bishops had sat on the see of Peter, some of them outstanding, others less, some well known, others almost unknown. During the intervening 280 years the church had expanded to include over 1.000 communities, unevenly spread throughout the empire and beyond its borders to the East. What originally was just a message had grown into a movement that had won freedom and imperial recognition, and soon was to turn into Rome's single most powerful moral driving force. The church had withstood challenges from without and conquered serious crises from within. Local communities had organized evangelization and catechesis, charity and liturgy: baptismal rites, some outline for eucharistic prayers, which were largely spontaneous: the first elements of a liturgical year were taking shape. Ties and communications with other churches had been set up. There was a canon of inspired scriptures, some symbols of faith and a primitive theology. By the end of the 2nd century Christians were able to look around and really feet their religion was a universal one.

The process had been a gradual one. The progress had not been even. The churches had not had a chance yet to come together and give themselves some form of unitary organization. This was to be done by the great councils of the 4th and 5th century, notably Nicaea (325). Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451). The one symbol of unity and its driving force at this time was Rome. The vitality of other churches had spilled over the surrounding areas: Antioch for Syria, Carthage for N. Africa, Alexandria for Egypt. Rome stood out among them. The most prominent among the apostles, Simon-Peter, had worked and died there. Between the years 80-100 the NT communities had recognized in him the rock on which Christ was building his church, the leader to whom he had given specific authority to bind and loose, the shepherd to whom his flock had been entrusted. Him He had strengthened, so that he might in turn stengthen his brethren, and, in time, give his life for them, in a mission that the church was to carry out to the ends of time (Mt 28:18). If this appears like a grand role, perhaps we may remember that it was the later NT writings that began to cast Peter in an idealized role (30).

Before claiming any authority, the bishops of Rome had picked up the heritage and had gone about expanding it, well aware, from as early as the end of the 1 st century, that they were acting with an authority that had come from Christ through the apostles. At least twelve out of thirty-one bishops of Rome gave up their lives or were exiled in the course of their mission. They stood for and promoted unity and communion within the church, defended orthodoxy at home and abroad, intervened in the life of other communities, correcting, encouraging, or excommunicating, if necessary. In AD 180 Irenaeus clearly saw the bishops of Rome as 'successors' of Peter, and sort of crystalized his view in a 'rule of faith' he put forward as a point of reference for orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, they exercised a power which in some respects was what later came to be called primatial and juridical. The word of Christ to Peter was unfolding its prophetical role and was gradually being realized in an incarnated church, herself growing, expanding and getting organized (31).

This is what the documents point to. Yet the picture needs some pinpointing. Was there or was there not a Roman primacy in the first three centuries? As stated once and again, the question concerning the primacy of the bishop of Rome is a complicated one. Any answer to such a question is not possible without differentiating exactly between his position as bishop, as patriarch and as successor of Peter. To separate primacy from patriarchate is not easy, particularly in this period when no agreement on supra-diocesan organization had been mooted as yet. Nor does it do to attempt to apply categories known to have existed at a later stage, such as referring juridical notions to a church on which the concept of law had not yet impressed its mark. In this period she rather represented herself thorough categories such as 'communio', 'pax', 'agape', of which Rome was said to be the president, a type of inter-church relationship that naturally did not exclude juridical or disciplinary elements (32). Yet to attempt to reduce such concepts to juridical categories would mean failure to capture the sense of early Christian life.

Having said this. one may assert, on the basis of historical evidence, that the bishops of Rome did exercise an authority that was truly primatial, at least in the broader sense of the word. i.e. an extra-diocesan intervention that surpassed the powers later attributed to metropolitans and patriarchs. Such was the case at least in the actions of Clement, Victor, Stephen and Dionysius. While Clement's 1 Corinthians does contain a primitive theology of episcopal succession, there seems to be no manifest evidence that his action was actually 'informed' by a clear Petrine consciousness. However this somehow fits with the dynamics of a gradually developing living reality. In the cases of Victor, Stephen and Dionysius. however, the claim to authority is such that one can think of no ground to justify their papal stand-point other than that of primacy. To all effects, these interventions were 'papal'. While in the first half of the second century we have evidence of a Petrine interpretation of episcopal power, and pope Stephen possibly appealed to it in his controversy with the African bishops, the 'Petrine text' of Mt 16:18 began to become important as providing a theological and scriptural foundation to a consciousness that had grown and kept growing, only in the middle of the 4th century (33). Hence, when the council of Sardica in 343 established the appellate jurisdiction of the Roman see, and when pope Damasus (366-384) began to refer to Rome as the 'apostolic see', or when pope Leo I openly claimed to speak for Peter, no real novelties were being introduced. It was rather a matter of defining the issue in more explicit, juridical terms, fully in keeping with other parallel developments in the life of the church. The ecumenical council of Chalcedon (451) received Leo's intervention (the famed Tome to Flavian) as a true Petrine utterance: "Peter has spoken through Leo!"

　

(30)BROWN, Peter, pp. 55. 127.

(31)LORTZ. It. Ed.. 1. p.91.

(32)海脫令，51-52頁(HERTLING, Chinese Ed.).

(33)CHADWICK, Early Church, pp. 237-238.

(34)SCHMAUS, Pope, p.44.

(35)海脫令，49-50頁(HERTLING, Chinese Ed.).

(36)V.SOLOVIEV, La Russie et L' Eglise universelle, Paris 1889, quoted from the It. Ed., pp. 44-45, in VODOPIVEC, Papato, pp. 712-713.

(37)LORTZ, It. Ed., I, p.92.

苏国怡著；李子忠译

在七十年代，一个有关「合一运动后的基督教义」(post-ecumenical Christianity) 的神学论坛，视梵一的「宗座首席权」和「不能作错」的信条－－尤其声言前者为后者的根据的看法－－为基督徒合一的唯一最大障碍(1)。十年后，同样的问题，在我们这儿，又再炽热起来。由于意识型态，政冶动向、误会、缺乏沟通，和一些客观困难的缘故，在我们这儿产生了很困扼的形势。这形势亦很可能演变为真正的分裂。目前有些人企图找出圣经、神学和历史的论据，务使这儿的情况合理化(2)。

从历史角度看，宗座首席权的问题本身，往往较这信念的支持者或反对者所意想的更为复杂。讨论这问题的人，惯常追溯到教会初期，以便利用圣经内外的证据，支持自己的观点。自从公元四世纪后期，罗马宗座即迅速脱颖而出，一跃而成西方教会中领导和法权的中心，这是无可否认的事。因此，大家便不约而同的往最初三个世纪中探索(3)。

然而，这时期的例证稀而又少，更是间断和不明确，我们万不能轻率从事。历史家也鉴于佐证缺乏，而束手无策。冉加上问题的复杂，和一些左右客观性的教派及神学偏差，于是产生了许多对这问题、和对其他教会初期的问题的不同意见。这皆因学者们往往随意衡量所得的资料所致。

一般公教历史家论述罗马宗座首席权时，虽然各有不同的表达方式，衡量个别事件和文献时也略有回异，但基本士都很一致。故此，讲论公教立伤，并非难事；但若要兼顾正反双方的立场，事情就复杂得多了。公教学者的基本一致，是意料中事；但这并非他们的护教心理作祟，致使无法自由探讨其他异己的假想。这一致性，实因历代留给我们的证供大致上足够客观，而且对文献持有正确的态度之故(4)。

由于种种困难，阐明这问题的最好方法，似乎就是在大家熟悉的时代背景中，检讨一切有关事例，无论直接者或补充者。同时要让结论，由教会在历史演变的全面经验中，尽量自发而出。事实上，只管分析每项例证是不够的，因为这样得来的结论，往往并非肯定的定论。更不应该把认为困难的问题，个别抽出来讨论，尤其在教会历史中的这段时期(5)。

在这短文中不能详铺直叙什么。圣经内外的有关例证，并不太多；但基于篇幅和「客观」立场的需要．在此只能略作讨论，留待事例本身作自我表白。这些事例将按年代先后编排(6)。

事例
公元四九年－－基督宗教在罗马出现的最早例证，要推溯到喀劳狄(Claudius四一至五四年) 执政时期；他「从罗马驱逐了因Chrestus煽动而骚乱的犹太人」(苏厄托尼，《喀劳狄传》，廿五，5)。因此，基督信仰大概由一群犹太裔的基督徒传入首都。这并不抵触依肋纳(Irenaeus) 所载，有关伯多禄和保禄二位宗徒在罗马传扬福音和「建立」教会之传统。「建立」的含义远超过「传入」。

公元五七年－－《罗马人书》。此时，罗马的基督徒团体必定很蓬勃，促使保禄致书他们，并表示愿意到他们中间工作(《罗》一：15)。

公元五四至五七年－－《迦拉达书》和《格林多前书》是新约中最早记载有关西满伯多禄的重要文献：伯多禄身为基督复活的第一个见证人；伯多禄是保禄有关耶稣传统的来源；保禄造访耶路撒冷时，伯多禄是那儿的领导人；伯多禄担任受割损者的宗徒职(参看《迦》一：18；2：7－9，11，14；《格前》一：12；三：22；九：5；十五：5) (7)。

公元六四年－－《玛尔谷福音》，《伯多禄前书》。在四部福音中最先成书的《玛尔谷福音》里，伯多禄的地位很显着。由这福音中，我们得悉伯多禄的基本形像。以下是其显着者：渔夫被召；耶稣选定十二人，以西满为首，并给他起名叫「伯多禄」；伯多禄承认基督，但随即被基督斥责；伯多禄与雅各伯和若望一起见证耶稣显容；伯多禄否认耶稣；天使命那些到空墓的妇女，把复活后的信息转告伯多禄(参看《谷》一：l6－18；一：29－31，35－38；三：14－16；五：37；八：27－33；九：2－13；十：28－30；十一：12－14，20－22；十三：3等；十四：27－42，54，66－72；十六：7) (8)。

《伯多禄前书》的作者，对小亚细亚众教会的长老，自称是一位「同为长老者」。明显的，这只是客套话，因为作者在较早前，曾指出自己负有宗徒职(五：1－4) (9)。

此时，伯多禄和保禄已来到罗马。保禄于六一年春，带着枷锁到来，并于六七年在尼禄(Nero五四至六八年) 执政时殉教。我们不知道伯多禄何时到达，只能作估计。不过，有关伯多禄在首都居留，和在六四至六七年间殉教的传统，却是毫无疑问的。这罗马传统，在古代一直没有被置疑。它是根据三个年代相约的文献；它们一起产生的见证力，构成了史实的确切性。它们就是：(1)《克肋孟致格林多人书》，写于公元九六年，讲论一些近期发生的事，其中也提及伯多禄和保禄的死，是「而由于妒恨和嫉妒」，这可能暗示尼禄皇的教权。(2) 十五至二十年后，《安提约的依纳爵致罗马人书》又再肯定了这证言。(3) 约在公元一００年经教友窜改过的《依撒意亚升天录》(四：2)，也为伯多禄在罗马居留和在那儿殉教一事作证。这例证近日再获人重视。书中预言十二人之一，将死于拭母者贝里雅耳(Belial：暗指尼禄皇) 之手。这句话可由《伯多禄默示录》(第二世纪初) 残卷中得到阐释：「伯多禄，你要到…那淫乱的城中，饮我预告的爵杯。」(10)。

没有任何相反这罗马传统的例证，可稍微在数量和分量上，与那些有利这传统的例证相比。在梵蒂岗伯多禄大殿正祭台下的发掘，给我们提哄了许多有关伯多禄坟墓所在地的旁证。可惜这些证据的力量，由于未能肯定而大大削弱了，尤其一项令人烦恼的缺陷：骨骸并不在墓中，而放置在「佳尤纪念碑」旁，未受到适当的保护(11)。

公元七O至八０年－－《玛窦福音》，《路加福音》和《宗徒大事录》。希腊文的《玛窦福音》有关伯多禄的记载中，有三段特别的事迹：耶稣救起在海上步行而下沉的伯多禄；伯多禄承认耶稣，和耶稣给他的许诺(这段经文是罗马天主教援引，作为宗座权力由来的圣经基础)；耶稣，伯多禄和殿税(《玛》十四：28－31；十六：16b－19；十七：24－27) (12)。

在《路加福音》中，有以下的记述：西满被召和奇妙的渔获；耶稣为西满的信德祈祷，使他不致失足，并能坚固弟兄们；复活的主显现给西满(《路》五：1－11；廿二：31－32：廿四，34)。大致上，路加向他的外邦听众，介绍了一个伯多禄的好形像。在福音中，伯多禄在十二人中排名最末，但在《宗徒大事录》中，却排名第一。这并非偶然之事，路加以十二宗徒为历史中的耶稣与教会间的桥梁，而西满伯多禄单越地担任了这角色(13)。

在《宗徒大事录》的前部，伯多禄独占鳌头。他是复活后十一宗徒名录中的首位，主持玛弟亚的选拔，在耶路撒冷教会中宣讲，行奇迹，更是天主奇妙照顾的对象等(14)。《宗徒大事录》也描述伯多禄归化外那人的角色，他与耶路撒冷教会和该教会的领导人的关系，他继续「往别的地方去」(《宗》十二：17)，他在耶路撒冷会议中的调解角色；此后，他便从《宗徒大事录》里消失，不久后，我们又在安提约找到他(《迦》二：11－14)。

公元八０年－－《伯多禄后书》。这封信有时被列为第二世纪时，新约的最后作品。信中，伯多禄被视作正统信仰的维护者。既机他有权解泽圣经，所以人们请求他，以权威纠正一些假教师所引致的信理和伦理混淆情况(15)。

公元九六年－－《克肋孟致格林多人前书》。罗马主教克肋孟给格林多城信友的信，留给了我们印象深刻的例证。这封信写于宗徒时代的末期，在初期教会中很有地位，竟一时被列入圣经正典书目中。直至第二世纪末叶，它常在格林多教会礼仪中被宣读。这文献极可靠地证实伯多禄和保禄在尼禄皇时殉教。但最要紧的，它是罗马教会干预其他教会生活的最早记录。克肋孟以团体的名义写这封信，他自己只是一个幕后人物，因为这时候，还没有君主政制的主教职(monarchical episcopate)。克肋孟企图以劝导和建议，恢复格林多教会的安宁。罗马的干预由于教难当前，未能及时；我们也无从知道，这干预是罗马自动自发的，还是应当地教会要求而作的。所能肯定者，就是罗马对自己权力和必然责任的自觉性。信中的要求也超越了友爱团结的限度：权威性的语气，间中也带着威吓，企望对方的服从。格林多教会果然就范，听从了克肋孟的忠告。昔日根本无人过问罗马的行动。克肋孟的干预，对Pierre Batiffol而言，简直就是「罗马首席权的出现」(16)。

约公元一００年－－《若望福音》载有十段西满伯多禄的事例，其中最特别者计有：耶稣遇到西满，并告诉他应称为「刻法」；伯多禄承认耶稣是天主的圣者；伯多禄到空墓去；耶稣刻意把羊群委托给伯多禄(参看《若》一：40－42；六：67－69；廿：2－10；廿一：1－23) (17)。

约公元一一０年－－上面提及的《依纳爵致罗马书》，表达了罗马以外的信友对罗马教会的敬重。这位安提约的主教，曾分别写了七封信给不同的教会，但给罗马教会的信却很独特：那由衷的导言，充满敬意和尊重的称号，实为罗马真具卓越地位的明证，令昔日各地都表出独有的敬意。依纳爵清楚地暗示克肋孟的信，他指出罗马教会是以导师身份行事。他称之为「爱德的首长」。顺理成章的，他并未好像对其他教会一样，给它忠告。反之，他把快将失去牧者的叙利亚教会，委托罗马教会善心照顾。圣公会学者S. H. Scott评论这封信时，指出罗马的首席地位，是来自伯多禄之首席权。的确，这封信含有日后宗座理论的要素，诸如首都的重要性，伯多禄和保禄的临在，罗马在信德和爱德上的领导地位等。但是，由于信中从不明文指出罗马的主教，因此，还未能称之为人本的首席权(18)。

约公元一四０年－－赫尔曼是一篇称为《牧者的神秘论》之作者。他形容罗马主教克肋孟受委托照顾海外的教会(神视二，第四章)。

约公元一八０年－－依肋纳的《反异端论》是这问题最着名的例证。作者为证实玄识派(Gnostic) 异端者的错误，就列出了他认为无可争论和全体接受的「信仰规范」：即建基于宗徒和有承续保证的传统。在这方面，罗马教会既是由伯多禄和保禄所建立，因而超群出众。他更认为，一个教会若能与罗马共融，就是它符合宗徒传统的最稳妥的证据。依肋纳是第一个列出伯多禄继位者的人。他继用一句常被援引的话作结束说：「由于这教会莫大的卓越性，一切教会都要与它相符(拉丁：Convenire)，因为在它内，各地的基督徒才能保存着宗徒的传统」(《反异端论》三：3，1－2)。

对Louis Duchesne来说，除这话外，没有其他断语能更清楚说出：(1)普世教会的信理一致，(2)罗马教会在宗徒传统的见证、护卫和组织上，有着无与伦比的重要性，(3)它在所有基督徒团体中的特殊卓越性。事实上，还有一些相当重要的教会，但至论「权威」，罗马教会却凌驾他们之上(19)。

约公元一九O年－－复活节日期的争论。第二世纪末，教会生活在各方面都有好转，组织也较完善：教会的君主政制而稳立，有关罗马历任主教的记录也较详尽。圣经的正典书目已被数列，首篇信经也被拟出(20)，同时，礼仪传统也初步被仔细制定(21)。在这一切事上，罗马教会都担当着重要的角色。每个教会团体本来都有各自的传统，但在这个复杂交错的变异中，大家都向着同一据点认同。这表示，接近公元二００年时－－无论这现象有何解释－－罗马教会已享有卓越的权威。

争论复活节日期的这项事例，事非寻常，值得我们加以注意，因为这事例显明了罗马在教会寻求纯宗教性问题的统一上，所担任的角色。庆祝复活节的日期，在东方和西方，各有不同。公元一五四年，斯米纳主教保理加布(Polycarp) 长途跋涉，会见罗马主教亚尼策(Anicetus)，希望在有关问题上达成协议，可惜却失败了。由于这问题不明朗，造成了当时一些自作妄为和裂教的现象。这正好说明，为何罗马主教维克多(Victor) 一八九至一九九年) 在接到厄弗所主教鲍理克(Polycrates) 解释东方习尚的信时，竟然决心极严厉地干预这问题，甚至不惜以革除教藉来恫吓东方教会；虽然这样做似乎过份，但竟无人过问，甚至双方的调解者依肋纳，对维克多的过份中央独裁也不敢置评，也从不质问罗马以革除教藉的威吓，来施行纪律规则的权力(22)。

约公元二００年－－罗马主教翟斐林(Zephyrinus一九九至二一七年) 谴责蒙丹主义(Montanism)。罗马司译佳尤(Gaius) 因罗马拥有伯多禄和保禄的墓牌而自毫。夫黎基雅省耶辣颇里主教阿帕尔削(Abercius) 在奥勒里(Marcus Aurelius一六七至一八０年) 执政时曾到访罗马，他着名的墓碑上，刻上了他四处游历的体验，显示出当时教会所抑起的普世同道感，愈来愈明确。碑文也歌颂基督徒天下的皇后－－罗马教会的威望(23)。

公元二一O至二二O年(二一三年后)－－依玻理(Hippolytus) 责备翟斐林和贾理笃(Callistus二一七至二二二年) 两位罗马主教，没有善尽职守，抑止「圣父受难说」(Patripassianism) 的异端。戴尔都良(Tertullian) 抱怨一位主教(贾理笃Callistiis，或迦太基的阿格宾Agrippinus？)，并以讥讽的口吻称他为「最高司牧」(supreme pontiff和「众主教之主教」(bishop of bishops)，原因是这位主教曾引用《玛》十六：18自称拥有伯多禄所触有的权力，戴尔都良认为这位主教实属过份了(《论谦逊》廿一)。当纷乱和分裂四起之际，主教们自然都设法找寻有利自己权力的有力证据。戴尔都长的见解是很重要的，因为它指出了主教的权力－－不论在迦太基或罗马－－都是来自伯多禄者；值得惊奇的，这见就竟在西彼廉(Cyprian) 前一代已出现了(24)。

约公元二三０年－－奥力振(Origen) 为洗脱亚历山大里教会向他的控诉，曾致函罗马主教法比盎(Fabian二三六至二五０年)。但亚历山大里会议判他的罪，已在较早前由罗马主教彭谦(Pontian二三０至二三五年) 在罗马召开的会议所批认了(25)。

公元二五六年－－罗马主教斯德望(Stephen) 作了有史以来，有关罗马主教首席权最清楚的声明，我们能从他的反对者的反应中，领会到这事。迦太基的西彼廉(Cyprian) 和凯撒勒雅的费弥里(Firmilian)，在有关异议者洗礼的问题上，与斯德望激烈争论。斯德望批评西彼廉重施洗礼，但这批评未被乐意接受。西彼廉由于一些真实的个人理由，恃着自己认为只须向天主负责的主教权力，极力反对斯德望的「专横暴虐」，抗拒这位罗马宗座「兄弟」，立自己为求主教之主教的权利。然而，在其他情形下，西彼廉却承认罗马主教有权过问一总重要事宜，例如选立主教等。他认为罗马确是「伯多禄的圣座」，「最重要的教会」，「司牧职(= 主教职) 合一的根源」(26)。在他曾两度亲自修订的着名的《论公教会的合一》中，他视伯多禄为合一的根源和基础。然而，他最关心的只是地方教会自身的合一，而非普世教会的合一。事实上，他主张所有主教都领有与伯多禄同等的权力。此时尚未区别清楚神职权(power of Orders) 和司法权(power of Jurisdiction)。西彼廉固执于自己不妥协的主教主义，拒绝让步(27)。他不一贯的神学理论，正好代表那种特色的拉据现象，一方面是众主教团结的强烈意识，另一方面却是罗马主教独特的地位。这位非洲的殉道者，为这两个传统坚持到底，作出见证，但终未能协调二者。

公元二六０至二六二年－－两位狄尼修的事件很类似从前克肋孟全力干预格林多者一样。亚历山大里主教伙尼修(Dionysius the Great)，针对一群否认圣三位格有区别的萨培里派(Sabellians) 时，过份侧重圣三的区别，以至把圣子贬抑或屈居在圣父之下(巧合地，亚略Arius在下世纪中，也在亚历山大里散播同样的错谬)。因此，有人在罗马控告他，迫使教宗狄尼修(Dionysius二六０至二六八年) 召开会议，矫正这位主教和亚历山大里学派，虽然他们曾自炫拥有奥力振的传统，这传统在尼西会议前，可算是有关圣三道理的最重要文件。这事件上，一方面显明了罗马主教，继维克多、翟斐林和贾理笃后，在维持正统道理上，不断作的努力，另一方面也证实了罗马主教，以至尊身份所实施的讼裁权力。这次受裁判和审核的道理，竟是来自一位古代极知名和德高望重的主教：面对罗马颁布的判决，连这东方最重要的主教辖区和其主教的声誉，都被视作无物，而且竟无人企图上诉(28)。

公元二七二年－－安提约主教萨摩沙塔的保禄(Paul of Samosata)，由于他的「承继说」(adoptionism) 异端，因而被一个地方会议所罢免和取替。但地决心把持职位，拒绝向继位者交出座堂。教外的罗马总皇奥来里恩(Aurelian) 正途经该处，人们邀请他调解有关地产的问题，他便裁定，真正的主教和座堂的拥有人，应是罗马主教费力斯(Felix二六九至二七四年) 和意大利众主教所承认者(29)。

结论
第三世纪最后几十年中，都是平静和少事故的。伽勒利(Galerian) 颁布了宽容基督徒的诏书(公元二六O年)，使教会安享太平。但当戴克利先(Diocletian) 重整帝国时，又迅速展开了最严重的教难，直到公元三一三年才重获太平。由公元六七年起，相继三十一个主教曾登上了伯多禄的圣座，其中有显赫者，也有平庸者，有着名者，也有寂寂无名者。在这其间的二百八十年中，圣教会扩展至千多个教会团体，零散地分布整个帝国和东边版图外。它初时只是一项信息，渐演变为一股动力，继而获得自由和帝国的承认，不久更成了罗马唯一最有力的伦理动力。教会一面抵御外来的挑战，一面跨越了严重的内部危机。地方团体组织了自己的传福音和教理教导，慈善事业和礼仪活动等：圣洗仪式，基本上自发性的感恩祭纲要；礼仪年历的雏型也渐形成。与其他教会的联系和通讯也已建立。此外，还有圣经书目，一些信辞和初步神学理论。第二世纪末叶，基督徒环顾四周，已能体会到他们宗教的普世性了。

这过程是逐渐的，进展程度也不一。各教会还未有机会在一起共同磋商，为自己定立一些统一的组织形式。这梦想只能在第四、五世纪的公会议中实现，特别是尼西(三二五年)，君士坦丁堡(三八一年) 和加彩东(四五一年) 等公会议。当前的合一标记和动力都集中在罗马。各教会的活力已扩散到周围地区；如安提约在叙利亚，迦太基在北非，亚历山大里在埃及等。但罗马却始终凌驾它们之上。这皆因宗徒之长西满伯多禄曾在那儿工作和逝世之故。公元八０至一００年间的一总新约教会，都不约而同承认伯多禄就是基督用以进行建设他教会的盘石，是曾领受特权去束缚和解放的领袖，和受委托看管羊群的牧者。基督曾坚强他，使他届时也能坚强自己的弟兄，并在实践教会直至世末的使命时(《玛》廿八：18)，为兄弟们牺牲了自己的性命。这任务确是艰巨，也许我们应记得，在新约最后期的的作品中，伯多禄才被置于一个理想化的角色中。(30)

罗马历任主教在宣称任何权力前，早已继承了这遗产，且不断发挥它；从第一世纪末，他们已清楚意识到，自己是本着渊源基督和承自宗徒而来的权力去行事。三十一位罗马主教中，至少有十二位在任内舍生殉道或被流放。他们支持并促进了教会内的合一和共融，维护了圣座内外的正统道理，专注其他教会的生活，纠正、鼓励、并在必要时也不惜革除它们的教藉。公元一八０年，依肋纳清楚看出，罗马主教是伯多禄的「继位人」，并将这看法归纳在他作为正统道理指南的「信德的规范」中。其实，罗马主教所施行的权力，即日后所谓的首席权(primatial power) 和司法权(Juridical power)。基督给伯多禄说的话，业已展开它的先知作用，并且逐渐在一个具体的教会中实现出来，这教会不断成长、扩展和组织起来(31)。

这些都是上述事例所供述的，但这描述还须作更进一步的指明。在最初三世纪中，罗马首席地位究竟存在与否？我们先要重申，这有关罗马主教首席权的问题是很复杂的。为能答覆这问题，必须准确分辨罗马首收的主教身份，宗主教(patriarch) 身份和伯多禄继位者身份。区别首席权和宗主教权，并非易事，尤其这段时期中，在超越教区性(supra-diocesan) 的组织上，尚未开始找寻一致的措施。其次，我们也不可应用后期的类别于这时期的教会上，例如提及教会的法权观念等，因为法律的观念尚未影响教会。这时的罗马教会，多以「共融」(communio)，「平安」(pax)，「爱德」(agape) 来代表自己；它被视为这方面的首长，即一种与众教会间的关系，而其中也不免有法权和纪律的成份(32)。但若设法把这一总的观念，都规限于法权的类别上，便与初期教会的生活大相径庭。

弄清这点后，我们可根据历史的例证，断定罗马主教确实施行了一种真正的首席权，至少是广义上的首席权，即一种跨越教区的干预，和超过后期属于省区主教(metropolitan)和宗主教(patriarch) 的权力。克肋孟、维克多、斯德望和狄尼修所施行的正是这权力。克肋孟在《致格林多前书》中，确有一套主教承传(episcopal succession) 的初步神学理论。但我们还不能明确证实，他的措施是出于一个清楚的伯多禄意识(petrine consciousness)，但这更符合一个生活事实逐步发展的情形。然而，在维克多、斯德望和狄尼修的例子中，他们如此坚持自己的权力，除非这是基于他们固有的首席权，根本就无法解释这些教宗的立场。他们所占的干预，在各方面都显出是「教宗性」(papal) 的。虽然，第二世纪上半叶中，我们已发现了主教权力建基伯多禄的说法，而且斯德望教宗与非洲主教争论时，可能也运用了这个观念；不过，以《玛》十六：18的「伯多禄经句」(Petrine text) 作为神学和圣经基础的重要性，要待四世纪中叶，才会陆续浮现出来(33)。为此，当三四三年萨尔狄会议定立了向罗马圣座的上诉权时，或当教宗达马苏(Damasus三六六－三八四年) 指罗马为「宗座」(apostolic see) 时，又或当教宗良一世(Leo I) 自认以伯多禄名义讲话时，他们其实并没有作了什么新奇的事。事实上，这只是用更明确的法律词汇，说明了同样的事实，这正与教会历史上其他类似事件的发展相仿。如彩东大公会议(四五一年) 接纳了教宗良一世说的话(着名的《致福拉维恩书》)，把它看作伯多禄所说的一样：「伯多禄藉良的口发了言！」。

若要再说明最初三世纪「伯多禄宗座职」(petrine office) 的性质，我们大可以说，这职务并非经常执行，只在受请求或在环境许可时才执行的；这是一种对基督徒合一责任，深切意识的表现；是一个可感受到而非明文说明的权力。在这第一阶段和以后多个世纪中，这权力多以仲裁的形式出现。公元一０００年后，教宗们才渐多自发性的决断(34)。这并非如一些人所认为的荣誉上的首席权，在最初几世纪中，根本无人提及荣誉、称号和程序。这类东西都是拜占庭(byzantine) 时代才出现的。这权力也不是来自个人威望，一如济利禄(Cyril)，奥斯定(Augustine) 或盎博罗削(Ambrose) 者。在这初世纪中，罗马主教的职能，虽然没有后期附加的君主式的排场和行政责任，但却不失为真正的教宗。更好说，那时教宗的职能－－即身为盘石和天国钥匙的持有者－－较现在更为明显。再者，现今的教宗们根本很少会想到，革除某地域或某主教的教藉的(35)。

后语
这篇有关教会最初三世纪之罗马首席权的文章，决不能当作这类问题最完尽的讨论，但我们却根据了历史例证。这文章未必能说服所有人，因为就连历史事实本身－－真可惜！－－也可被人加以解释的。我们本可以侧重某些细节，或注释某些事例；在一定范围内，这样做固属无可避免，但在这类问题上，似乎更适宜的，是如同俄国神哲学和合一运动家梭罗维也夫(Vladimir Soloviev) 敏锐地指出的，应忽视那些「非法会议和政务官员的话」，而去倾听「那些伟大教父们的话，如依纳爵、依肋纳、狄尼修、亚大纳削等…」，即那些曾与初期教会生活息息相关，并且「曾为临现于继位者的伯多禄宗徒作过见证的人」(36)。至于罗马宗座，应与地方教会有何种形式的关系，则见人见智。或许也有人想讨论，伯多禄宗座职的演变是否常常作得合宜(例如：初期以拉丁文ministerium解释希腊文diakonia一字，但后期竟改称officium；又如后期出现的vicariatum或principatus之观念等) (37)；或许也有人希望罗马的中央集权(centralism) 能减少，而加强与众主教的联系(collegiality)。但无论怎样，我们竟然想像一个名符其实的公教会，而没有了为全体信徒利益服务的伯多禄职－－为教会合一、安定和爱德的维系。

　

附注
(1)H. KUNG, Editorial, in Concilium 4/7 (April1971) P. 7. 这一期是完全讨论「在教会中的伯多禄职」。

(2)《中国天主教》，创刊号〔一九八０年十一月十日北京〕二０至二二页。汤汉，「教宗首席权与主教团的关系－－中国天主教质询的一个神学问题」，《鼎》，三〔一九八一年〕十四至十八页。梁作禄，《文革后的中国天主教》，香港，一九八二年，八十页。

(3)这情形有一个历史和感情上的理由：照推测，最初三世纪的教会，应是更纯真，更富福音精神，更具神恩，较少宗教性，较少和俗世妥协；然而，「君士坦丁时代的教会」却无可救药地，被牵涉和一个自鸣基督化的社会作整合的过程。它仿效这社会的罗马式组织和法律架构，最后竟成了罗马的国教。以上这种对君士坦丁时代前后教会，黑白分明的看法，今天已很少被历史家们，不分皂白的接纳了。

(4)愈接近我们的时代，愈容易遇到在极基本的事上分歧的看法。举例说，读者或许认识Charles Davis A Question of Conscience(NewYork,1967)，或者Hans Kung的The Church (Westminster,1967)。这两者各有分别，前者当时正经历一种个人信仰危机，他按步就班地反驳一切有利首席权的例证；后者在某种教会论的先念下，重读历史。两者都绝非训练有数的历史家。James F. McCue (Roman Primacy in the First Three Ceuturies, in Concilium 4/7 [April 1971] pp.37-44) 有另一个看法，他似乎怀有「合一运动的热衷」，故不设法支持天主教传统上认为对首席权极有价值的例证，却宁可把问题放在教会发展的特性上。　

我们并不打算在此介绍二十世纪初期，和如今已平息的天主教和基督教之间的争论。在本地图书馆能找到的书籍／文章如下：K. BAUS, From the Apostolic Community to Constartine ( = Handbook of Church History I, ed. H. Jedin and J. Dolan), New York 1965, pp.l51-2, 355-360; G.LEBRETON-G. ZEILLER, La Chiesa primitiva ( = 'Fliche & Martin' 1) Torino(3) 1958, pp.281ff., 484ff., 491ff.; ID., Dalla fine del II secolo alla pace costantiniana (313), ( = 'Fliche & Martin' 2), Torino(2) 1977, pp. 595-598(意大利译本是根据最新版，故更为方便)；K. BIHLMEYER-H. TUCHLE, Church History, I, Christian antiguity, Westminster 1958, pp. 112-117, 311-322; L.HERTLING, Geschichte der Katholischen Kirche, Berlin(4) 1967, 中文译本(1967)，四五至五二页；J. LORTZ, Geschichte der Kirche in ideegeschichtlicher Betrachtung, 2 Bande, Munster(21) 1962, Ital-Ed.(3) 1976, pp-90-93, 148ff., 181f.; A.FRANZEN, Kleine Kirchen-Geschichte, Freiburg 1. Br. 1976, Engl. Ed., pp.l00ff.; M.SCHMAUS, Pope. C. Historical Development, in Sacramentum Mundi 5, pp. 42-50; G.SCHWAIGER, Pope. II. History of the Popes, Ibid., pp.50ff.; W.ULLMANN, Papacy. 1. Early Period, in New. Cath. Encyc 10, pp.951-954; B.STUDER, Papato, in Dizionario patristico e di antichita cristiane, dir. A. Di Berardino, II, Casale Monferrato 1983, coll. 2638ff.; G.VODOPIVEC, Papato, in Dizionario Storico Religioso, dir. P. Chiocchetta, Roma 1966, pp.712. 尚有WL. D'ORMESSON, The Papacy, (= Faith and Fact 80), London 1959; H.CHADWICK, The Early Church, ( = The Pelican History of the Church, 1) New York 1967.大部份有关早期教宗的文献，可参阅H.DENZINGER-A. SCHONMETZER, Enchiridion symbolorum, Barcelona(34), 1967; C. KIRCH, Enchiridion fontium historiae ecclesiasticae antiquae, Barcelona(9), 1965.

(5)按本人看法，H. Kung对这问题的阐释，被他那套系统神学家固有的态度削弱了。参看KUNG, Church, 456ff.

(6)本文中圣经事迹的日期，是根据Jerusalem Bible附录中的年表，是相约性的。圣经中的例证，在此当作历史例证辨。

(7)R. E. BROWN, ETC., (ed.), Peter in the New Testament, New York 1973, pp. 23ff.

(8)同上，pp. 57ff.

(9)同上，pp. 149ff.

(10)BAUS, From the apostolic community, pp. 112-115.

(11)同上，pp. 115-118; M.GUARDUCCI, Le reliquie di Pietro sotto la confessione della basilica vaticana, Roma 1966.

(12)BROWN, Peter, pp. 75ff.

(13)同上，pp. 109ff.

(14)同上，39ff.

(15)同上，154ff.

(16)P. BATIFFOL, Le catholicisme des origines a Saint Leon-I. L'Eglise naissante et le catholicisme, Paris 1927, p. 146.

(17)BROWN, Peter, pp. l29ff.

(18)FLICHE & MARTIN I. p. 416.

(19)在D'ORMESSON, Papacy, p.146中被引述。

(20)四福音和十三封保禄书信，约在公元一三０年被大家所接受，又在一七０年与二二０年间，被置于旧约同等的地位。而宗徒信辞却只是西方教会所持有。

(21)参看JUSTIN, Apology, I, 61-671 (约写于一五０至一五五年)；HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME, The Apostolic Tradition, (约二一五年)。

(22)FLICHE & MARTIN II, pp. 575ff.

(23)阿伯尔削运用的象征性语言，在过去曾抑起了许多讨论，如今已无人再争论了。同上，I, p. 488.

(24)MCCUE, Primary, p.41; FLICHE & MARTIN II, p. 579.

(25)同上，p383.

(26)Ep. 55, 14; De Unit., 4.

(27)新起的教难幸而避免了迦太基众主教和罗马的公开决裂。这次纠纷在教宗西斯笃(Sixtus)任内形式，他在二五七年继斯德望为教宗，被誉为一位「善良和爱好和平的教宗」。参看 'FLICHE & MARTIN' II, p. 312; J. QUASTEN, Patrology, II, Westminster 1964, pp. 378ff.

(28)FLICHE & MARTIN II, pp. 378ff.

(29)同上，p. 379.

(30)BROWN, Peter, pp. 55, 127.

(31)LORTZ, It. Ed., I, p.91.

(32)海脱令，五一至五二页(中文版)。

(33)CHADWICK, Early Church, pp. 237-238.

(34)SCHMAUS, Pope, p.44.

(35)海脱令，四九至五十页(中文版)。

(36)V. SOLOVIEV, La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, Paris 1889, 本文中引述自It. Ed., pp.44-45, in VODOPIVEC, Papato, pp. 712-713.

(37)LORTZ, It. Ed., I. p. 92.

作者：黄克镳

有关童贞受孕的一些反省：意义与事迹

导言

「童贞玛利亚」可说是信友们对圣母最常用的称呼；宗徒信经中圣母已被称为「童贞玛利亚」(ex Maria Virgine)；从古代开始圣母便被誉为「卒世童贞」(1)。教会有关圣母终身童贞的训导在内容上包括三部份：即圣母童贞受孕(Virginitas ante patum)，耶稣的诞生不损圣母的童贞(Virginitas in parter)，以及耶稣诞生后圣母仍终身保持童贞(Virginitas post partum) (2)。由于篇幅关系，本文只讨论第一点：圣母童贞受孕。

童贞受孕的信理很多世纪以来一直受到信友们的尊奉，圣母童贞受孕常被视为毫无疑问的事实；直至上世纪基督教自由派神学才开始对这信理产生疑难，有些基督教学者把童贞受孕视作一种纯粹的「神学解释」(theologoumenon)，目的是为了表达一些神学意义，与历史事实无关(3)。天主教学者对这问题的公开讨论是在梵二之后，荷兰主教团出版的「新的教理」(一九六六)，论及圣母童贞受孕只给予精神意义的解释，对历史事实略过不提，虽然也不否定(4)。不少国家的神学界都对这问题提出讨论，那些否定童贞受孕历史性的学者，大都以「神学解释」一词去注解这奥迹(5)。但也有不少着名的圣经学者和神学家，却认为「神学意义」与「历史事迹」并非对立；反之，童贞受孕固然有深远的神学意义，但它的意义是来自历史事实的基础(6)。

诚然，以往对于圣母童贞受孕的解释，通常只注重生理的事实，把它视作圣母个人的特恩，目的是为了保存她的完美；又或只把童贞受孕看作一个奇迹，以证明基督的超越性。这些解释往往未能把童贞受孕的深送意义表达出来，原来童贞受孕的首要意义是有关基督本人的，其次是关于救恩的意义，正是在有关基督与救恩的意义范围内，才显示出它对于圣母的意义。为了对一件事物加以重视与欣赏，必须认识它的意义。本文第一部份将从基督救恩与圣母本人三方面去反省童贞受孕的神学意义;但如上文所说，意义与事迹的连系是一个关键性的问题，本文第二部份将从新约有关资料，探讨童贞受孕的历史性。

甲．童贞受孕的神学意义

一．关于基督的意义──基督是天主子

圣母童贞受孕的意义首先是关于基督的，这从宗徒信经中也可看出：「我信其因圣神降孕，生于玛利亚的童身。」童贞受孕原来正是为了显示的天主性，表明祂是天主子的身份。圣经学者认为新约基督论有它渐渐发展的过程，新约中所表达基督是天主子的信仰也可分为几个不同的阶段，以基督的生平来说，这些阶段是从后向前发展的，即复活、受洗、受孕与诞生、以及先存这四个阶段(7)。宗徒们初期的宣讲集中于基督的圣死与复活，以及祂即将来临;在开始时，对于基督为天主子的信仰是与复活的奥迹紧密相连的;是由于复活的奥迹，他们才宣称基督为天主子;宗徒大事录记载保禄在会堂的宣讲，在论及基督的复活时他引用圣咏第二篇：「你是我的儿子，我今日生了你」(咏2：7)(8)。宗徒的宣讲渐渐也包括基督生前的言行，特别是祂的传教事迹。同时，圣史们都相信这位在复活时被显示为天主子的基督，在传教生活中已经是天主子，于是四部福音(若望间接叔述)都记到耶稣受洗的事迹，宣示他们对基督天主子的信仰为当时圣神以鸽子的形象降临在祂身上，并且天父亲自作证说：「你是我的爱子」(谷1：11)(9)。这便是玛尔谷福音的开端，他没有继续往前写下去(10)。玛窦与路加的记载却再往前走一步，也叙述耶稣的诞生与童年事迹，这两位圣史也进一步宣称他们对天主子的信仰，明白宣认耶稣从受孕开始便是天主子，他们认为耶稣与生俱来的天主子的身份，正好在童贞受孕这事迹中显示出来。最后，若望福音虽没有记载耶稣的童年事迹，却给我们揭示了有关天主子奥秘的最后启示：即先存的天主子。基督是圣言降生成人，这圣言从永恒便与天主同在，是父的独生子。除了若望福音外，对于先存天主子的信仰也可以在一些新约书信中找到(11)。

以上简略地介绍了新约有傀天主子信仰发展的四个阶段，现在要详细些看看童贞受孕与天主子信仰的关系。童贞受孕的叙述可以说是玛窦与路加有关耶稣童年记述的中心事件，两位圣史都指称这事迹显示出基督是天主子的身份。在玛窦的记载中，这位因圣神受孕于玛利亚的是「厄玛奴尔：天主与我们同在」(1：23) (12)，「祂要把自己的民族，由他们的罪恶中拯救出来」。路加也清楚指出：「那要诞生的圣者将称为天主的儿子」(1：35)。假如新约作者把圣咏第二篇引用于基督的复活与受洗的奥迹，现在应用在祂的童贞受孕与诞生便更有真实感，对着这位因圣神、天主的德能、受孕于童贞玛利亚胎中的耶稣，天父诚然可以说：「你是我的儿子，我今天生了你」(咏2：7)(13)。

有关天主子信仰发展的前三个阶段(复活、受洗、诞生)，我们看到已经在玛窦与路加两部福音中和谐地配合起来;但有些学者指出新约没有把童贞受孕与天主子先存的讯息联合起来;神

学家潘宁博(W.pannenberg)更认为这两个讯息根本格格不入，互相排斥(14);可是，即使新约作者并未把两个奥迹连在一起，第二世纪的教父，如安提约的依纳爵，即已把它们合并起来，永恒的天主圣言因圣神降生于童贞玛利亚(15)。可是这两个奥迹可以天衣无缝地联合在一起。

从玛窦与路加的记述告诉我们，耶稣因圣神受孕一事正好表示祂是天主子;现在我们要作一神学反省，看看天主圣子降生成人的奥迹，是否必须透过童贞受孕的方式实现;换言之，天主圣子既以天主为父，假如祂要降生成人，是否根本不可能有一位世上的父亲?有关这问题，神学家的意见不一，有些认为天主子降生成人的奥迹与童贞受孕有必然的关连。巴达沙(H.U.vor Balthasar),认为基督既是天父的儿子，祂不可能出生于一位人世的父亲;否则，祂对天父那种绝对服属的关系将会产生困难(16)。贾洛(J.Galot)也指称天主子降生成人，应在降生的奥迹中即启示祂主子的身份;因各种受孕，生于童贞圣母，正是基督身为天主子的标记，使祂作天主子的事实在历史及血肉中显示出来;祂既是天主的儿子，降生时也该直接生于天主(17)。另有些神学家，其中也包括赖辛格(J.Ratzinger)，却认为这两个奥迹的关连不是绝对的。赖辛格认为天主子的身份是形而上的事实，在降生时，即使基督生自人世的父亲也不能影响祂天主子的地位(18)；虽然如此，赖枢机仍肯定两者之间有一种极深入，甚至彼此不可分离的适宜性(19)。以上的问题可说只是一个理论性的问题，事实上在救恩史中，天主的确选定了圣子因圣神受孕以降生成人的方式，即使这不是必然的途径，至少显出是天主上智安排中最适当的途径。

有关圣三的神学告诉我们，父是一切的根源，子的基本意义是接受者，祂从父那里接受祂的存在、生命与一切，又本能地怀着感恩与孝爱之情，整个地归向天父;天主子降生成人，除了要把人类提升到子的地位外，同时也要将圣三内父子间极密切的关系启示给我们;圣子愿意藉着降生的奥迹，将祂在永恒中与父的密切关系，以人的方式在历史中生活出来，使我们能看见、能体会并参与祂和父的密切关系。

若望福音序言的最后一节正好和序言第一节前后呼应，序言开端说：「在起初已有圣言，圣言向着天主」(1：1);序言最后一节论及降生成人的基督时说：「从来没有人见过天主，只有那向着父怀的独生者，身为天主的，他给我们详述了」(1：18)。正如天主子永恒投向天父，祂在世生活时也不停的归向天父;因此祂不但以言语，更以整个的存在和全部的生活将有关圣三的奥秘给我们详述了(20)。其实四部福音所介绍的基督，其最显着最深刻的特点可说是祂对父绝对的归属;祂深深意识到自己整个由父而来，又要回到父里去(21);祂以极亲切的「阿爸」(abba)称呼天父，这是犹太教中创新的称呼(22)。这种对于父的归属使基督一生向父完全信赖以及无条件地交付，直至死在十字架上的一刻。基督这种整个地归属于父的意识可说是祂心灵最基本的要素。

基督固然兼有天主性及人性，但祂的心理与意识是统一不分割的;假如除了天父外，耶稣还有世上的生身之父的话，那么当祂在心中说「阿爸」时，这称呼的对象便会产生混淆。祂一面意识到自己完全出自天父，但又意识到自己人性的生命也来自世上的父亲，那么，祂内心对天父那种唯一无二的绝对归属岂不受到影响?或许有人反驳说，我们不也是这样吗？一面完全属于天父，但却也来自世上的父亲，这对于我们跟天主的关系也没有什么影响。可是我们不该忘记，虽然基督把祂和父的密切关系显示给我们，愿意我们参与，但我们和父之间的关系跟基督与父的关系有着基本的分别(23);因为天主子的全部意义在于「生自父」，为了使基督的人性也分享这种唯一无二的子的意识，祂降生成人时也该「生自父」，而没有另外一位世上的父亲。

总括来说，降生奥迹与童贞受孕虽然不是绝对连在一起，但实际上，因圣神受孕生于童贞女的事实，最能显示基督从永恒生于父的奥秘。虽然从形而上说，人性的父亲并不妨碍基督是天主子的身份，但从心理上看，这对于基督那种完全归属于父的深切意识却不无困难。

二．关于救恩的意义──救恩是来自天主的恩赐

救恩是天主的恩赐，从创世之始天主便决意把人类提升到恩宠的境界，使人作祂的儿女，分享祂的生命，这一切都是白白的恩赐。人类始祖却违背天主的计划，拒绝了祂的恩宠和友谊，把人类禁锢在罪的领域;就如同在天主与人类之间筑了一堵高高的围墙，人单凭自己的力量，绝对无法超越这围墙，唯一的希望是来自天主。

原祖父母违命吃禁果，企图升至与天主相等的境界;人类苦心建造巴贝尔塔，冀盼凭人的努力直冲天际;这一切都是徒劳无益，化为泡影。但人类这种趋向天主，希望与天主接近的愿望，原来并非不好;反之，这愿望是天主所赋，深深植根于人心灵的深处，不可阻遏。可是天主却愿意人以受造者的身份接受救恩;人类经年累月修建巴贝尔塔所未能达至的理想，顷刻间，由于天主降生成人，便使这天人合一的愿望圆满实现。在救恩的事件上，天主不需要人苦苦经营，只要求人把心灵开放，以精神贫穷的心态去接受祂的恩赐。

恩能与救援是天主白白的恩赐，降生奥迹更是恩宠中的恩宠，是绝对不可思议的恩赐。童贞受孕的奥迹正好表明降生奥迹是纯粹出于天主主动的恩赐，这恩赐不来自自然规律的发展，也不来自人的意愿、能力或工作的成果;这恩赐只能来自天主的决策以及圣神的德能，是纯属「由上而来」的恩赐;在人方面所需要的只是童贞女那种虚怀若谷，完全开放与接受的态度。(24)

天主赐给人的救恩在若望福音中称为人的重生，使人成为天主的子女。这「重生」在希腊文指的是「由上而生」：「人除非由上而生，不能见到天主的国」(若3：3)(25)。关于信徒「由上而生」的事实，在若望福音的序言已经谈及：但凡接受基督，信他名字的人，天主给他们权能，好成为天主的子女;「他们不是由血气，也不是肉欲，也不是由男欲，而是由天主生的」(1：13)。有关这句经文，从古代至今曾有很多的争论，争论点在于不清楚圣经原文是单数或复故(『他』或『他们』);假如是复数，这经文便是指信徒们的重生;假如原文是单数，那么便是指基督的童贞受孕。经文的两种读法各有相当充份的历史根据(26)。那些主张单数的学者当然很珍视这句经文，因为在这里可以找到若望福音有关童贞受孕的声明;上文曾提及潘宁博的疑难，认为天主子的先存性无法与童贞受孕的记述配合;但假如这节经文是单数的话，那么不必等待教父们，若说本人早已把这两个奥迹联合在一起：永恒的圣言，不经血气或人欲，却藉天主的德能，生于童贞女(27)。

从另一方面说，假如原文是复数的话，那么这经文也很能发挥童贞受孕的意义。我所说救恩是从上而来的恩赐，人必须「由上而生」才能进入天国;若望序言那节经文说明信仰基督的人，将成为天主的子女;他们的重生不是由于人的意愿、欲望或能力，而是藉天主的「能力」、「由天主而生」。若望序言的经文用于复数时表示恩确生命的诞生不是由人而来，却是由上而来的恩赐。基督徒的恩宠生命是以基督的生命以及祂天主子的身份为根源与模型;基督徒有两次诞生：本性生命与恩宠生命的诞生，第一次是由人而生，第二次却是由天主而生。但基督在时间中却没有这两次的诞生，因为祂无须也不能重生;在受孕的第一刻祂便是天主子，兼有人性与天主性的生命。假如恩宠生命的特色是「由上而生」，那么，基督本人既是恩罢生命的根源与模型，为了使这原始模型具有圆满的象征意义，基督本人在降生时当然更应该是「由上而生」或「由天主而生」的(28)。因此，若望序言的经文用于复数时，本来描述信徒灵性的诞生，但也间接描述基督本人──恩宠生命之源──的真实诞生：「不是由血气，也不是由肉欲，也不是由男欲，而是由天主生的」。由此可见，若望序言这句经文，不论用于单数或复数，都显示基督童贞受孕的奥迹。

说恩宠的生命不来自血气与人欲，这并不是说血气与肉欲有什么不好;男女婚配是天主创造时的计划，基督更把它立为圣事 ;可是恩宠的生命却超出了人的意愿与能力，只可以「由上而生」，是天主白白的恩赐。这个世纪基督教伟大神学家巴尔特(K．Barth)虽然承认婚姻之爱的崇高，但认为自然生殖不能充份表达恩宠与降生奥迹的超然性;在自然生殖中，人意识到自己的本能，意志主动的抉择以及自己的创造力，这一切跟恩宠及降生奥迹纯粹「由上而来」的性质不符合;在自然生殖中存有自我满至的爱(eros)，不能适当地达降生奥迹那种白白施予的无我之爱(agape)(29)。可能有人不同意巴尔特的说法，但我却认为他对于降生奥迹是白白的恩赐这端道理，有很深入的见解。

三．关于圣母的意义──童贞玛利亚是信徒的典型

以上两节反省了童贞受孕对于基督及救恩的意义;童贞受孕一面显示基督是天主子，一面也表明救恩，尤其降生奥迹，纯属由上而来的恩赐;正是在这有关基督与救恩的意义中，我们才可以瞭解童贞受孕对圣母本人的意义，近代圣母论喜欢从模型或典型的角度认识圣母，梵二称童贞圣母为教会的典型，神学家拉内(K.Rahner)则称圣母为成全的基督徒及基督宗教的典型(typical expression of Christianity)(30)。拉内问基督宗教的核心要素究竟在于什么，他的答案是：基督宗教的精义在于天主白白地施与恩宠，并期待人以开放的态度去接纳祂的恩宠;基哲宗教的精华即在于此。假如我们同意这解释的话，那么，无可否认，圣母便是基督宗教的完美典型(31)。

拉内非常强调，圣母为天主之母的奥迹不应只视作一件生理的事实;圣母怀孕与产生耶稣，除了是生理的现象外，更是一件灵性上，与自由意志、心理及整个人有关的事迹(32)。圣母同意作天主之母格外表现出她对天主的信德及服从;在圣母以身体怀孕降生的圣言之前，她首先藉信德以心灵孕育了天主的话(33)。教宗若望保禄在「救主之母」通谕强调圣母是信德的典型;通谕指出佳播天使向圣母的祝候正好与圣妇依撒伯尔的赞颂前后对应(34)，天使称圣母为「满被圣宠者」，(路1：28)报告圣母蒙天主之拣选，作祂圣子的母亲;依撒伯尔却说：「那信了由上主传于她的话必要完成的，是有福的」(路1：45)。天使的喜讯显示天主给予圣母的恩宠，依撒伯尔的赞颂表示圣母如何以信德回应这恩赐。

圣母的童贞与她作天主之母的使命是密切连合一起，两者不可分开的;圣母之所以是童贞正因为天主拣选她以贞女的身份作圣子的母亲。童贞受孕一面表明降生奥迹纯属天主的恩赐，同时也显示圣母的信德和绝对回应的态度。依照自然规律，男女配合以产生生命，阳性属主动，阴性属被动;虽然在婚姻生活中彼此对于对方都有同样的权利，但女子始终是处于接受的地位，必须从男人接受才能产生生命。圣母童贞受孕的意义即在于天主愿意她不寄望于人，不依靠人的意愿及能力，以完成作母亲的使命;却要她一心仰望于主，只盼从主那里接受一切;这种一无所恃，全心信靠主的态度，正是心灵的童贞，即对主的恩宠完全开放的与接受。

这种心态并不简单，石女生子在旧约是视为天主破格的恩赐，但童贞生子却是史无前例的奇迹，单凭天使的说话，圣母便该信这空前的奇迹将在她身上发生;而这奇迹在别人面前又是无法解释的，她的未婚夫若瑟将有何反应?四周的人又将说些什么？(35)圣母对这一切也无瑕顾虑，只须知道这是天主的计划，这位童贞女坚信天主自会在她身上完成自己的计划，于是她毫无保留地回应：「看，上主的婢女，愿照妳的话成就于我吧!」(路1：38)。圣母这句话正表达了童贞的精神意义，即对天主绝对信赖，完全开放的基本态度(36)：假如缺乏了这内心的态度，身体的童贞也没有什么意义。但转过来说，假如在圣母身上没有童贞受孕的事实，她也没法有那种一无所恃，整个寄托于立约深刻经验。在圣母身上精神与肉体的童贞是紧紧联在一起，彼此映射，相辅相成的。

圣母童贞的心态也由她的赞主曲中充份流露出来：「我的灵魂颂扬上主……因祂垂顾了祂婢女的卑微……全能者在我身上行了大事……祂从高座上推下权势者，却举扬了卑微贫困的人;祂会使饥饿者饱餐美物，反那富有者空手而去……」(路1:46－53)。是圣母精神与肉体的童贞使她一面看到自己的卑微贫乏，一面却满怀信心，颂谢上主在她身上所显示的慈爱与大能。

圣母深深瞭解她的童贞是与天主之母的使命紧密相连的，为此，她不但以童贞受孕，而且在耶稣诞生后也终身保持着童贞，把自己的整个生命完全贡献于作天主之母的使命。从教会初期直至今天，圣母的童贞启发了无数的基督徒。在旧约石生育的女子被视为天主的欲罚，受到众人的轻视。童贞圣母的榜样光照了为天国守童贞的意义：即别无旁骛，一心仰赖向往天主，任由天主处理的态度。在教会内一部份的信徒蒙召以身心的童贞把自己奉献给天主，目的格外是为了使童贞的标记在教会内历代相传，使全体信徒在圣母及独身者身上看到这童贞的标记，因而也培育童贞的心态，即那种一无所恃，而全心所赖归向主的态度。圣母的童贞也告诉信徒们，为了天国的缘故，即使世上极美好及有价值的事物，也是可以放弃或提升的(37)。

1.The perpetual virginity of Mary was explicitly defended by Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and others.

2.Paul IV, in the Bull "Cum quorumdam" (1555), condemned those who denied the virginal conception and who taught that Joseph was the father of Jesus. The Pope ended with the assertion that Mary's virginity was threefold, "before birth, in birth and perpetually after birth" (DS 1880). Cf also the third canon of the first Lateran Council (649) which, though not an ecumenicalCouncil, was ratified by Pope Martin 1. The canon reads： "[Mary] in the fullness of time and without male seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit God the Word himself, who before all time was born of God the Father and incorruptibly brought him forth, and after his birth preserved her virginity inviolate. "(Mansi 10,1152).

3.Cf D.F. Strauss, DOS Leben Jesa kritish bearbeitet (Tubingen, 1835) I, p-75. "Theologoumenon " , in our context, means the transition of a purely theological concept into a seemingly historical narrative (cf R.E. Brown et al. (eds.), Mary in the New Testament, London, Chapman 1978, p. 124, n.273). It is different from the meaning given in： K. Rahner and H.Vorgrimler, Concise Theological Dictionary (London, Bums & Gates 1983@) p.497. The English-Chinese Vocabulary of Dogmatic Theology, published by Fu-jen Catholic University, Taiwan, (1985) follows Rahner's explanation.

4.The wording of the New Catechism was ambiguous and the Commission of Cardinals recommended that the words should indicate that Our Lady was always "adorned with the honour of virginity" which was "supremely in accord with the mystery of the Incarnation" (AAS 60, 1968, 688). The Supplement to a New Catechism puts it thus： " Jesus was not procreated by the intervention of man. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born from a young woman who was full of grace and chosen by God to be the Holy Mother of his Son."

5.For a Survey see M. O'Carroll, "The Virginal Conception. Some di Mariologia (Milan, Ed. Paoline 1986) pp. 1418-1424.

6.Cf F. Courth, "Historisch oder theologisch： eine falsche Alternative. Dogmatische Uberlegungen zum Problem der Jung-frauengeburt", in Theologie und Glauben 68 (1978) 283-296; R.Laurentin, "Sens et historicity de la conception virginale", in Studio medwevalia et nwriologica P. Carolo Balic OFM dicata (Rome, Antonianum 1971) pp. 515-542.

　

7.For a brief sketch see R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, Double-day 1977) pp. 29-32. For an extended treatment see, R.H. Fuller, The Foundation of New Testament Christology (London, Collins 1969). Readers must be aware of Fuller's functional and somehow adoptionist interpretation of the earlier stages of NT Christology.

8.Cf Acts 13：32-33

9.The first part of Ps 2：7 is echoed here.

10.To say that Mark bears witness to Jesus' divine Sonship through the episode of the baptism does not mean Mark held the view that Jesus became God's Son only at His baptism. Cf R.E. Brown et al. (eds.), op. cit., p.90 n.l88.

11.E.g. in some chtistological hymns: Ph 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20; Heb 1:1-4

12.Matthew keeps the title of Is 7：14： "Emmanuel： God with us". That it is equivalent to "Son of God" can be seen from Mt 2：15.

13.In view of their obvious christological concern some scholars deny that the Evangelists intend to present the virginal conception as historical fact. Cf R.H. Fuller, op. cit., pp.195f. This difficulty will be dealt with in part two of this article.

14.W. Pannenberg, Jesus - God and Man (London, SCM 1968) p. 143. Pannenberg argues that the account of the virgin birth intends to say that "Jesus first became God's Son through Mary's conception.

15.Cf Ignatius, Magn. 8,2; Eph 19,1; also Aristides, Apology 15:1;Justin, Apology 1,21 and 33. Cf also O. Piper, "The virgin Birth: The Meaning of the Gospel Accounts", Interpretation 18 (1964) 132.

16.Cf H.U. von Balthasar, "Concepito per opera dello Spirito Santo, nato dalla Vergine Maria", in AA. VV., lo credo. Riflessioni teologiche sulla professione di fede (Assisi, Cittadella 1977) pp.37-39.

17.Cf J. Galot, "La conception virginale du Christ". Gregorianum 49 (1968) 658f： "La maternite virginale par l'Esprit-Saint constitue le signe de la filiation divine, sa manifestation dans la chair II fallait encore qu'en tant qu'homme, il soit Fils de Dieu, engendre dans sa nature humaine, directement par Dieu."

18.Cf J. Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (London, Search Press, 1969) pp. 205-213.

19.Idem, Die Tochter Zion. Betrachtungen uber den Marienglauben der Kirche(Einsiedlen,Johannes V. 1987) p.50, n.g.

20.Cf I. de la Potterie, La verite dans Saint Jean (Rome, Biblicum 1977) vol. I, pp. 228-239. In these pages the author examines the profound meaning of the first and the last verse of the Johannine Prologue. The expression "eis ton kolpon toupatros" (1：18) forms an inclusion with the phrase "pros ton Theon" (1：1) at the beginning of the Prologue. Both prepositions "pros" (1：1) and "els" (1:18), when govering the accusative case, must be understood dynamically as meaning "towards". Hence, the two verses refer respectively to the eternel Word as always turned "towards" God the Father and the historical Jesus as constantly turned "towards" the bosom of the Father. It is precisely through this unique relationship towards his father that Jesus reveals the secret of the Father to us during his earthly life.

21.Concerning the consciousness of the historical Jesus, I follow the explanation given by K.Raher in his article, " Dogmatic Reflections on the Knowledge and Self-Consciousness of Christ", in Theological Investigations, vol.5 (London, Darton 1966) pp. 193-215. Cf also J.H.P. Wong, "Karl Rahner on the Conscious-ness of Jesus： Implications and Assessments", sianum 48 (1986) 255-279.

22.J. Jeremias has done a thorough study on the use of this address to the Father; ctAbba. Studien iw neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Gottingen, Vandenhock & Ruprecht 1966)

23.For this reason Jesus always makes a distinction between "my Father" and "your Father" and never, not even once, confuses the two.

24.Cf K. Rahner, Mary Mother of the Lord. Theological Meditations (New York, Herder and Herder 1963) p.69. There Rahner points out that Mary's virginity and the origin of Jesus without an earthly father signify one and the same thing, not in words, but in actual existence： "God is the God of freely bestowed grace, who cannot be drawn down from on high by all our endeavours, whom we can only receive as the inexpressibly freely given gift of himself."

25.The Chinese version is taken from the Chinese Bible translated by The Studium Biblicum O.F.M. in Hong Kong. The text of RSV reads, "unless one is born anew", but in a footnote it states, "or from above". The original Greek "anothen" literally means "from above".

26.The reading in the plural is found in all the important Greek manuscripts; but the earliest date of these manuscripts does not go beyond the fourth century. Instead, the singular reading is found in citations of the Fathers of the second century or the beginning of the third, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus. Origen knows both readings. Irenaeus and Terullian openly critcize the Gnostics for altering the text from singular to plural. For a discussion see A. Serra, "Vergine", in Nuovo Dizinario di Mariologia, pp. 1431

27.For contemporary theologians and scripture scholars who defend the reading in singular see： J. Galot, Eire ne de Dieu： In 1,13 = Analecta biblica 37 (Rome, Biblicum 1969); P Hofrichter, Nicht aus Blut sondern Monogen aus Gott geboren (Wurzburg, Echter 1978); 1. de la Potterie, "La Me re de J6sus et la conception virginale du Fils de Dieu", Marianum 40 (1978) 41-90

28.The absolutely "from above" character of the Incarnation is stressed by K. Rahner, op. it.,pp.67f： "The actual realization of the Incarnation of the Son of God is the absolutely free and Incalculable mystery of divine grace, and as such, stems not from below but entirely from above."

29.Cf K. Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark 1956) vol. 1, part 2, pp. 192ff

30.K. Rahner, op. cit., pp.36f. Rahner calls Mary the "typical expression" of perfect Christianity (p.37)precisely because she is its "actual realization"(p.36).

31.As absolute response to God's grace Jesus Christ is of course the most perfect model of Christianity. But at the moment of the Incarnation, the conscious human response to the offer of grace is made through the consent of Mary, representing the whole humanity.

32.K. Rahner, op. cit., p..55

33.Cf LG 53; Augustine, De sancta virginitate, III, 3;Sermo 215, 4;Sermo 196, 1.

34.Cf Redemptoris Mater, n.12.

35.The charge of illegitimacy probably did occur. Cf R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp. 534-542： "The charge of Illegi- timacy".

36.Cf K. Rahner, op. cit., pp.66f： "Her will to virginity is in a true sense fully comprised in the readiness of the blessed Virgin to decrees of God's holy will, in whatever form; it was implicit in her freedom and her love as she said： Behold the handmaid of the Lord."

37.K. Rahner believes that the virgin Mary has important messages for all Christians, i.e., the virginal attitude of total dependence on God's grace, and the ability to renounce even good things of this world for the sake of the kingdom. Cf Idem, op. cit., pp. 70f.

乙．童真受孕的事迹

本文第一部份反省了童贞受孕的三种基本意义，即有关基督、救恩及圣母本人的意义。在讨论这些意义时，我们同时指出意义与事实之间的密切关系，两者是难以分解的;可是今天却有不少学者以「神学解泽」(theologoumenon)的理念去注解圣母的童贞受孕;认为这是圣经作者编作的故事，藉以表达一些神学讯息，本身并非真实的历史事迹。本文第二部份便要讨论这问题，研究童贞受孕的历史性;这部份将分析一些新约有关的资料，探讨有关童贞受孕叙述的历史价值。

新约关于童贞受孕的记载可见于玛窦及路加有关耶稣童年事迹的叙述;很多世纪以来，这些童年事迹一直被视为历史事实，随着近代圣经批判学的发展，学者才开始对这些叙述的历史价值提出讨论(38);这讨论当然也涉及童年叙述中的主要事件，即圣母的童贞受孕。对童年叙述历史价值的疑难，特别由于玛窦与路加叙述彼此有很多的分歧，不能两者全是历史事迹;同时，某些学者认为在这些叙述中，两位圣史大概无意写历史，他们只不过引用旧约的经文或题材，配合在耶稣身上，以证明祂是默西亚、天主子。至低限度可以说，圣史们的用意是神学意义重于历史事迹(39)。本文讨论有关童年叙述的历史问题时，在探讨童贞受孕的历史性。有关童贞受孕的问题时，目的在于探讨童贞受孕的历史性。有关童贞受孕的问题，我对圣经学者布朗(R.Brown)提供的资科，以及美国新约学者(包括不同教派) 关于圣母的研究小组所讨论的结果，颇感兴趣，下文将特别引用些资料作为讨论题材(40)。

首先，两部福音有关耶稣五年的叙述固然很有出入，但也有不少相同的主要资料;如：玛利亚许配给若瑟，但圣母怀孕时他们尚未同居;若瑟是达味的后裔;玛利亚受孕并非来自若瑟;玛利亚因圣神受孕;耶稣在大黑落德时代诞生于白冷;耶稣在纳匝肋长大……等(41)。我们还可以注意到，这些相同的资料，除了最后两点之外，都集中于玛窦第一章十八至廿五节;上述圣经学者们同意在这段记载里，有不少早于玛窦福音的传统资料，这些资料也包括童贞受孕的传统(42)。除了这些基本上的相同点外，玛窦与路加的童年叙述有很多不相同的题材，即在报导相同的资料时，他们所采的方式也很不相同;例如在叙述童贞受孕时，玛窦是以若瑟为中心，路加却以玛利亚为主。这些相同与相异的地方显示出圣史在编写时找到相同的基本资料，但由于不同的神学观点及编辑手法，加上写作对象的不同，于是两个童年叙述便有不同发展和表达。我们很有理由相信那些相同的资料，是圣史编写福音前已存在的古老传统，也是童年叙述的基本历史资料(43)。

有关童年叙述的另一疑难似乎更为严重，即认为玛窦与路加在这些章节里无意写历史传记，只是把一些旧约的题材或经文应用在耶稣身上，以证明祂是默西亚和天主子。事实上，在玛窦前两章的叙述里，差不多每次都引用一句旧约经文，并指明这经文如何在耶稣身上应验了;可是我们也不可因此结论说，玛窦记载的事迹都是他虚构的故事，藉以证明古经有关默西亚的预言在耶稣身上的应验。反过来说，我们也可以说有些事迹的记述来自已经存在的资料，而玛窦看到某些旧约经文与这些事迹贴合，因此便引用了。路加在叙述关于约翰诞生及基督诞生的预报时，大概采用了古经预报诞生的模式;但这也不是以断定这两次预报诞生的内容不是路加之前的资料，至于采用古经预报诞生的模式，那只是路加处理历史资料的一种编辑方法。

的确，两位圣史在童年叔述中运用了不少旧约的经文或题材，作为引证或表达的方式，但关于我们要讨论的中心课题，即圣母童贞受孕的内容，他们的记述却是创新的;这内容不能来自古经。前面已提及，按照旧约的看法，生儿育女是上主的祝福，不生育的女子视作上主的惩罚。旧约对于童贞的意义，既不瞭解，更不重视，根本没有人期待默西亚将生于童贞女。不错，玛窦引用了依撒意亚先知书有关童贞女攘孕生子的预言(依7：14)，但这是他依据希腊译本的创新解释，在他以前的经师们对这句经文从未有过这种注解(44)。不但童贞受孕的观念不能来自古经，而且为了传达这讯息，玛窦在记载耶稣的族谱时，迫于打破旧约族谱的常规，另采不同的写法。按犹太习俗，族谱只载男人的名字，父生子、子生孙，被生者成了产生者，这样历代相传下去;可是传到若瑟时，玛窦不得不转变写法，以表明耶稣不是若瑟所生的「．…‥玛堂生雅各伯，雅各伯生若瑟，玛利亚的丈夫，玛利亚生耶稣，他称为基督」(1：15-16)(45)。假如玛窦在这里写「若瑟生耶稣」，那么族谱便更通畅，而且族谱要指明耶稣是达味之子的主旨，也更为清晰;但为了忠于童贞受孕的讯息，玛窦不惜更改犹太族谱的传统写法。

路加在圣母领报的叙述中，大概采用了旧约预报诞生的模式，可是童贞受孕的课题却超出了旧约的思想，不能取自古经。也有些学者认为玛窦固然明显地叙述童贞受孕的事迹，但路加却不然;只凭路加的记述，说玛利亚在领报后，与若瑟透过普通夫妇的关系而产生耶稣，也无不可(46)。布朗却不以为然，他指出路加的记述所要说明的是玛利亚不但在领报时，是一位「不认识男人」的童贞女，而且也是以童贞的身份怀孕了耶稣(47)。布氏所持理由特别在于约翰诞生与耶稣诞生两奇迹的比较;路加记载了这两个诞生的预报及诞生的情况，在这些记述中耶稣的地位常在约翰之上;假如约翰「在上主面前是伟大的」(1：15)，耶稣却纯粹地「将是伟大的，并被称为至高者的儿子……天主的儿子(1：32,35)。约翰诞生的奇异处在于父母已双双年老，依撒伯尔又是素不生育的，这可由路加对两人的描述(1：7)及匝加利亚的疑难中(1：18)看到。假如耶稣超出约翰之上，那么祂的诞生也该有一个比石女生子更大的奇迹，那便是童贞受孕。关于这一点，路加用这样透过对玛利亚是童贞女的称谓(1：27)以及她所提出的疑难(1：34)表达出来。路加对于耶稣不是若瑟所生的信念，也可从基督族谱的开端显示出来：「．…‥人都以他为若瑟的儿子」(3：23)。

在讨论童贞受孕有关基督的意义时，我们简略介绍了新约基督论发展的四个阶段，指出童贞受孕在玛窦与路加的心目中，表明了耶稣从受孕之始便是天主子的身份，因此，童贞受孕对有关基督的信仰有重大的意义。不少学者便断定是为了表达对于基督的信仰，两位圣史便创作童贞受孕的叙述，以表明这神学意义;即视童贞受孕为一种与事实无关的「神学解释」。布朗认为这疑难是有关童贞受孕的关键性问题，他同意两位圣史记载童贞受孕是为了神学上的理由;但同时认为圣史们也无法超越他们的时代背景，编作童贞受孕的题材(48);这课题是没有先例的，如上文所说，它超出了旧约的思想范围。或说旧约中天主称国王为自己的儿子(咏2：7)，但人们都知道谁是国王的父亲，而且他之所以成为国王，正因为真是出自王室的后裔;所以古经称国王为天主之子与童贞受孕的内容截然不同。

童贞受孕的叙述既然不能出自旧约，支持童贞受孕是「神学解释」的学者便认为它的出处是希腊罗马神话，或一些非犹太宗教的信念。依据这些神话或民间宗教，往往以为国王是神之子，是由神所生的;这观念可能影响了圣史，使他们记述达味之子默西亚也不经男人，而是由天主子所生的。经过学者们的研究，认为这种说法也不能成立，因为童贞受孕的记述与外教神话故事有根本的分别;依照神话故事的叙述，是由男性的神与人间女子发生性关系而产生神之子的，实际上并非童身受孕(49)。圣史的叙述中却没有这种关系的描述，却是圣神(在犹太文是阴性的)以创造力使玛利亚以童贞受孕，产生耶稣(50)。

本文研究童贞受孕的历史性时，多次引用了布朗及美国新约学者研究小组的资料;他们讨论的结果是：童贞受孕的叙述不是圣史们所编造，藉以表达一些神学意义，如上文所指出，这种圣史编作故事的主张曾遇到重重的困难;合理的解释该是圣史们写作时已经找到有关童贞受孕的更早传说，他们便依据这传统，以各自的编辑方法记叙下来(51)。可是，布朗及研究小组把福音的资料分为三个阶段：福音记述，福音前传统，以及真实的历史事迹。他们认为有关童贞受孕的福音记述可以上溯至第二阶段，即福音以前的传统资料，但封认为按照目前圣经批判的研究结果，并未能由第二阶段进至第一阶段，因此他们的结论是：童贞受孕的福音前传统资料，究竟是否属于历史事迹，这一点仍是个悬疑的问题，有待新约学者继续研究(52)。他们附加说：信徒们由于初期教父的作证以及教会训遵的权威，当然有理由相信童贞受孕历史事迹(53)。

我认为布朗及研究小组提供的资料有不少可取之处，但我却不同意他们的最后结论，即有关童贞受孕历史性的悬疑。他们列出充份的理由，指明圣史无法创作童贞受孕的故事;那些支持圣史编造故事的意见者，必须面对很多严重的难题;因此布氏等合理地把福音报导的资料带前一步，承认福音前有更早的传统。但是，假如这些福音前传统，并非真实的历史事迹，那么便是编造出来的，这样一来，同样的难题又出现了，那个首先编作童贞受孕传统的人，不是面临两位圣史所无遇到的同样困难吗?如布氏等所说，童贞受孕既非出自旧约，也不来自希腊罗马神话，或非犹太宗教;那么，即使有人愿意表达神学意义，也难以超越他的时代背景，创作童贞受孕的观念。我相信那些把童贞受孕的福音叙述带到福音前更早传统的理由，也可以合理地把这些更早的传统带到历史事迹的层面。

在讨论历史文件的价值时，史家的可靠性是一个重要的因素。布朗既同意两位圣史找到有关童贞受孕的更早传统资料，他们也接受这传统，并把它视作历史事迹记载下来(54);那么，圣史们刻意的见证应受到更大的重视。诚然，福音包括不同的文学体裁，但历史当然是其中主要的体裁;虽然福音的主旨不在于写耶稣的生平传记，但一般学者们都接受福音基本上的历史可靠性。童贞受孕是童年叙述的主要事件之一，假如我们接受福音一般的历史可靠性，也同意童年叙述具有某些基本的历史资料，那么当然也应该接受童贞受孕叙述的历史性。

布朗有关童贞受孕的历史性的悬疑，如着名圣母神学家罗冷丹(R.LaurentIn)指出，可能由于他太轻易地忽略了圣母本人是某些童年事迹资料来源可能性(55);事实上，有关童贞受孕的事迹，只有圣母本人才知可以告诉我们，而路加在童年叙述中也两次提及圣母「把这一切事默存在自己心中」(2：19：51);罗氏认为学者应更认真考虑这两句经文的含义(56)。谈到圣母是路加童年叙述的资料来源时，布氏及研究小组表明，不该以为路加在童年记述中写了圣母的回忆录，但不否认路加曾接受了一些有关耶稣诞生的历史资料，并相信这些资料也包括童贞受孕的传统(57)。当我们说圣母是某些童年事迹的资料来源时，我们也不是指路加给我们写了圣母的回忆录，而是指一些基本的历史资料是由她而来的。为了结东本文的第二部份，我的结论是：布朗及新约研究小组提供的资料本来可以带来一个更积极的结论，不必把童贞受孕的历史性视作一个悬疑不决的问题。

38.The full title of R.E. Brown's book reads, The birth of the Messiah. A commentary of the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. In Brown's treatment, priority is given to theological message over the propblem of historicity, though without omitting altogether questions of source and historcity, The following is an example of a different approach to the infancy narratives by a well-known Mariologist, R. Laurentin, Les Evangiles de l' Enfance du Christ. Vertie de Noel au-dela des myths (Paris Desclee 1982)

39.Cf R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp.37f.

40.Special references will be made to the following works: R.E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (London, Chapman 1974); hereafter as Virginal Conception; R.E. Brown et al. (eds.), Mary in the New Testament. The Latter bears the subtitle: "A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars" and is the outcome of the studies made by an interdenominational group of NT scholars in USA.

41.Cf R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp.34f.; Brown lists eleven points shared by the Two infancy narratives. Cf also A. Feuillet, Jesus and His Mother; according to the Lucan Infancy Narratives and according to St. John (Still River, St Bede's Publications 1984)Pp.l55f.

42.Cf R.E. Brown et at. (eds.), op. cit., pp. 87f

43.Cf R.E. Brown, "The Birth Of the Messiah", p.34: "Since it is genrally agreed among scholars that Mt and Lk wrote independently of each other, without knowing the other's work, agreement between the two infancy narratives would suggest the existence of a common infancy tradition earlier than either Evangelist's work- a tradition that would have a claim to greater antiquity and thus weigh on the plus side of the historical scale. " Cf also Mary in the New Testament, p.111 and n. 234

44.Virginal Conception, p.53 Mary in the New Testament, p.92. This is not ot deny that Matthew was convinced of giving the right meterpretation to his text of Isaiah. We should admit that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Matthew has brought forth the fuller meaning (sensus plenior) hidden in his text of the Old Testament.

45.Cf R. Laurentin, "Concepito dallo Sprito Santo. La Critica. L'esegesi e il senso", in AA. VV., La Madre del singore = Parola Spirito e vita no. 6 (Bologna, Dehoniane 1982) pp. 76-78

46.Cf J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Viriginal Conception". Theological Studies 34 (1973) 541-575. Fitzmyer considers four reasons for believeing that Luke intends a virginal conception iin his account. But all these four reasons are said to be inconclusive.

47.Cf R.E. Brown, "Luke's Description of the Virginal Conception", Theological Studies 35 (1974) 360-362; Mary in the New Testament., pp. 120f.

48.Cf Idem, Virginal Conception, p.31, n.37. In footnote 26 on p.25, Brown proposes three objections against the view of the virginal conception as a "theologoumenon".

49.Cf Ibid., p.62. Brown points out that the supposed "parallels" consistently involve a type of hiers gamos where a divine male impregnates a woman. There is no virginal conception in the real sense. Cf also, Mary in the New Testament, p.93, n.l96.

50.Cf R. Laurentin, Les Evangiles de l'Enfance du Christ, p.476; L. Legrand, "Fecondite Virginale selon l'Esprit dans ie Nouveau Testament", Nouvelle Revue Theologique 84 (1962) 785-805.

51.Cf Mary in the New Testament, pp.95; n.37 (see n.48 above) 124f. For a similar view see also Virginal Conception, p.31,

52.Cf Mary in the New Testament, toe. Cit. For the same conclusion, see also Virginal Conception, pp.66f.

53.Cf Mary in the New Testament, p.96

54.Brown holds that Matthew and Luke accepted the virginal conception as historical, though we cannot be certain of the source of their information; cf Virginal Conception, p.31.

55.R. Laurentin, art. Cit., in La Madre del Singore, p.81

56.Ibid. Laurentin refers to A. Serra's recent study on these two verses which, as the author points out, contain the formula indicating the transmission of a memory; cf A. Serra, Sapienza e contemplazione di Maria secondo Lc 2, 19.51b (rome, Marianum 1982). Cf also, A. Feuillet, op. Cit., pp.67-73.

57.Mary in the New Testament, p.lll and n.234

结论

以往论及圣母童贞受孕时，往往只注重生理的现象;其实这是一个具有丰富含义的奥迹，我们应该从救恩史的角度看这奥迹。童贞受孕一面与圣母作天主之母的使命紧紧相连，同时也与降生奥迹密切联合;因为正是在童贞玛利亚的怀中，因圣神的德能，圣言成了血肉;童贞受孕正是圣言降生所采的方式。童贞受孕不但是降生的方式，也充份把这奥迹的深邃意义显示出来：那位降生成人的基督是由父所生的子;降生奥迹是由上而来的白白恩赐，不是人力所能获致的;玛利亚以毫不保留的回应代表人类接受了这恩赐。

童贞受孕不但有丰富的神学意义，也是的真实事迹;它不是一个空洞的标记，却是真实的标记，是意义与事实的合一(58)。如同梵二启示宪章所强调的这正符合天主启示的基本方式，即在救恩史中以行动及言语配合起来，互相解释证实(59)。若只有事迹，没有注解，则令人无法瞭解救恩事件的意义;但若只有注解，没有事迹作基础，注解便沦为「空谈」（flatus vocis），不能产生救恩的效果。假如言语与事迹组合成为启示的经纬(60)，那么，待时期一满，启示达致高峰，当圣言降生的奥迹实现时，圣史的言语竟与事实分歧了？降生奥迹是基督宗教的基础，不但降生奥迹是否属实有绝对的重要性，就是降生奥迹所采的方式，既与这

奥迹结合不可分离，因此也有极大的重要性。圣史既刻意为这童贞受孕的方式作证，我们岂可忽视他们作证的言词？在降生奥迹中，天主圣言进入历史，成了血肉;从此，言与血肉，意义与历史结下不解之盟。可是偏有人说，就在叙述这降生奥迹的当时，圣史作证的言语竟与事实无关;那将是历史中最大的讽刺。

基督徒的信仰承受自宗徒与初期教父的信仰，这信仰由教会一直传承下来。如神学家拉内所说，教会的宣讲应以圣经为最高准则;但我们也该相信，在同一圣神持续的引导下，教会恒常的宣讲也表达了圣经真正的意义(61)。那么，历代传诵的宗徒信经所声明的条文-「我信其因圣神降孕，生于玛利亚的童身」-应该是圣经意义的可靠解释。在讨论童贞受孕的历史性时，我格外引用了布朗等学者的研究资料;我认为那些资料相当可靠;但可惜在结论时，他们把童贞受孕的历史性视为一个悬疑的问题;我却相信凭他们提供的资料应该得到一个更积极的结论。

最后，让我们静默片刻，观赏一下路加圣史有关圣母领报的叙述。这叙述的深度与美不次于受难史的迫真感人;事实上，两段叙述都曾启发了无故宗教艺术的杰作，提供了祈祷默观的无价宝藏。在圣母领报简朴的叙述中，天使的祝侯与圣母的回答前后呼应。「万福，蒙受恩宠者!」是的，一切都来自主的恩宠;「看!上主的婢女……」，我们唯一可作的便是毫不保留的接受与回应。天主白白地赐恩宠给人，并等待人以开放的态度去回应;这便是基督宗教的基本意义，童贞玛利亚便是基督宗教的典型与标记(62)。这标记该是清晰可见的，为此玛利亚不但在心灵上是童贞，也在具体的存在中是童贞;在圣母身上，童贞的意义与事实、精神与肉体的童贞，应该配合一致，这才是真实的标记。因此，拉内指称玛利亚不但被蒙召在心灵上培养童贞的态度，还须以她具体的存在，及全部生活把童贞的心态表明出来;「为此圣母是精神与肉体上的童贞，是唯一及绝对地任由天主措置的」

作者：陈满鸿、罗国辉

甲、前言

自中世纪以来，圣母及圣人的瞻礼，或以教理为主题的庆典取代常年期主日的倾向日益严重。教会在历史中虽多次删除一些次要的圣母或圣人瞻礼，以免常年期太多中断，但在每次去芜存菁的努力之后，新订的瞻礼又陆续出现。有时已取消的纪念又再恢复。于是，礼仪年历一次又一次的被填满(1)。

在本世纪初，罗马礼的圣人瞻礼在一年三百六十五天中占了二百三十天。到一九五零年更增至二百六十二天(2)。其中有不少圣母的节日或纪念。从消极方面来说，这现象使人觉得感恩礼的目的就为敬礼圣人，常年期仿似「空隙」，甚至主日也充塞着圣人的瞻礼，或以「教理」为主题的庆典(如：圣三主日等)，以致为大多数教友，主日感恩礼变成了他们学习要理的机会，而忽视了主日的唯一内容乃庆祝基督的逾越奥迹。

梵二大公会议后礼仪年历的改革，强调主日的特殊地位，原则上，主日即基督复活的庆祝，让排除其他任何庆祝(3) (除了一九七零年罗马弥撒书所列的几次例外)。至于在礼仪年的平日安插圣母及圣人的节日，无非是因教会在他们身上，体会到基督救恩的效果(4)，从而效尤他们在现世与基督同受苦难，同享光荣，藉着基督、归向天父。不过，敬礼圣母及圣人该避免混淆礼仪年的运作。因为教会愿意「在一周年内，发挥基督的全部奥迹，从降孕、诞生，直到升天、圣神降临，以至期待主的光荣再来」(礼仪宪章102节)。

基于以上的原则，革新后的礼仪年历删去了不少次要的纪念日，取舍方面按照着礼仪宪章所训示的，看是否有历史的实际根据，是否与普世教会有关而定(5)。凡无从稽考的人物，附会的传闻，抽象的次要教理主题，或与普世教会无关的纪念，都应取消或降为可有可无的纪念(6)。

圣母在圣人的庆节中，由于她与救世大业有不可分割的关系，而且她反映了最完美的救恩效果，是普世教会的母亲，与每人有关，放在礼仪年中所占份量远超过任何圣人(7)。

但在历史上也不乏虚构或建基于感倩化的敬礼，甚或混淆着迷信因素的圣母敬礼；删除这些「纪念」或予以降级是合理的。同时并非每个圣母庆节与我们的信仰生活都具同等价值与意义(8)。从敬礼圣母的历史资料中，我们足以分辨出各庆节历史根据的强弱，以及与基督救恩事件关连的多寡和轻重。历史根据的功用，是帮助我们判断某一庆节在救恩史上的地位及在我们信仰生活中的意义。

一九七零年罗马弥撒书所保留的圣母庆节共十五个，为明晰起见，各按月份及日期先后为序表列于后：

乙、梵二后圣母瞻礼日期

日期         瞻礼名称   类别

一月一日     天主之母   节日

二月二日  献耶稣于主殿  庆日＊

二月十一日   露德圣母  任选纪念

三月廿五日预报救主降生节 (圣母领报) 节日＊

五月三十一日  圣母访亲   庆日

五月／六月    圣母圣心 (五旬节后第二星期六) 任选纪念

七月十六日    嘉模圣母   任选纪念

八月五日    圣母大殿祝圣日 (圣母雪地殿) 任选纪念

八月十五日   圣母蒙召升天节日

八月廿二日    圣母元后    纪念

九月八日      圣母诞辰节  庆日

九月十五日    圣母痛苦    纪念

十月七日       玫瑰圣母   纪念

十一月廿一日  献圣母于主殿纪念

十二月八日    圣母始胎无玷节日

注：有＊者(献耶稣于主殿及预报救主降生) 在一九七零年罗马弥撒书中列为基督的节日，由于这两日与圣母的关系密切，且在起源上又与圣母有关，故仍包括在本表及以下的介绍内。

(1)中世纪瞻礼的繁多，早引起十六世纪宗教改革者的非议，天主教方面。亦于脱利腾大公会议前后作出努力减少瞻礼的数目，可惜努力不成功。公议会后教宗比约五世核准之日课及感恩祭典内之圣人瞻礼确比前大大减少，即一年只占158个。但至本世纪初已增至二百多个。教宗庇护十世(1903 14) 曾呼吁减少圣人瞻礼数目，结果适得其反。教宗保禄六世于1969年核准罗马礼年历时，在牧函中指出太多的枝节庆祝已导致救恩奥迹内容之减损。牧函中亦指出其前任教宗比约十世，比约十二世及若望二十三世均试图「清理」礼仪年历。可见罗马礼年历之再整理已属多年来之渴望及努力。[参阅Apostolic Letter Approval of the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the New General Roman Calendar, Pope Paul VI, 1969.　

United State Catholic Conference (USCC): Roman Calendar: Text and Commentary, 1973. Chapter2, Sect 1.

(2)统计数据采自A. Adam, The Liturgical Year, New York. 1980, pg. 209.

(3)主日地位原则上不该被其他瞻礼长期取代之；训示见一九六九年罗马礼年历准则一章六节。又礼仪宪章106节称主日为最优先的庆节。　

新经及早期教会的聚会亦以主日为中心。〔参阅玛廿八、1，谷十六、9，路廿四、1，若廿、1，格前十六、2，宗廿、712，经外文件见安提约基亚依纳爵证言，主张基督徒该守主日而非守安息日(Ad Magnesios 107)，112年Bithynia地方总督Pliny the Younger上书罗马皇帝Trajan，报导基督徒主日聚会(Epistolarum lib. 10, 96) 犹斯定(+165年) 叙述主日之擘饼礼(1 Apologia, 67)；为当守的日子(Didascalia Apostolorum 23)。〕

(4)参阅礼仪宪章111节，又1970罗马弥撒书圣人通用颂谢词之(一)。

(5)参阅礼仪宪章111节，又一九六九年罗马礼年历准则49节。

(6)于一九七０年罗马弥撒书中圣人瞻礼或敬礼日之取舍属则见USCC Roman Calendar: Text and Commentary, Chapter II，Sect. 1. 总括来说，敬礼式或主题式的瞻礼大大减少，存在之真实性不确之「圣人」不列入礼书，除非有古老之圣堂以之命名。古代之殉道者及圣人较优先被列，以外，一些罗马礼以外的东方礼教会圣人亦受重视，务求使所列之圣人有代表性及普世性。至于次要或地方性之瞻礼，则列入个别教区及个别修会之庆祝内。

(7)参阅教会宪章66节。

(8)圣母敬礼式的日子被削减，主要是为了使圣母在救恩工程中与圣子的关系更突出，故教会较重视属于后者的瞻礼，如预报救主降生及献耶稣于圣殿。圣母生活中的重大事迹亦受重视，如始胎无玷，圣母圣诞，访亲，蒙召升天等。这些庆祝以事件为主而非庆祝抽象主题。

丙、早期教会圣母瞻礼的发展

敬礼圣母现存最早的考证纪绿，是在纳匝肋相传为圣母宅址遗迹所发现约二至三世纪的石刻：上有「万福玛利亚」字样(9)；又三世纪的一份埃及纸卷上写有赞美圣母的圣诗：「天主之母，我们投靠妳仁慈的荫庇，当我们陷入诱惑时，请勿拒绝我们的呼求，但救拔我们脱离危险，无玷者！万福者。」(10) 可见在二至三世纪时，基督徒已有圣母敬礼和祈祷的雏型。

由个别基督徒或小团体式的敬礼推展为大规模的庆祝、或订立圣母纪念日，耶路撒冷是重要的发源地。耶路撒冷自古已是主要的朝圣地，基督徒往吊与基督生活有关的事迹，在重要的或相传的地点建筑圣堂并举行礼仪。故古代教会不少节日或敬礼，皆源于耶路撒冷，后来才传入西方罗马。

本章分两部份，分述源自耶路撒冷及罗马的圣母敬礼发展。

(一) 源自耶路撒冷的圣母庆节

这些庆节的起源，大多与救恩事迹所在地有关；但在演变中，有了信理定断的成份，并在庆祝的重点及日期上屡有迁移，这从以下各庆节的分述中可见一斑。

一、圣母蒙召升天节 (八月十五日)

在耶路撒冷与白冷之间的启迪玛(Kathisma)，相传是圣母临近产期与若瑟赴白冷登记途中曾歇息的地方，在厄弗所大公会议(431年) 之前，该地已在八月十五日庆祝「玛利亚天主之母」节，诵读有关耶稣诞生的福音(路二．1-7) (11)，说明了圣母敬礼的背景是以救恩史基督奥迹为主流。

厄弗所大公会议基于肯定耶稣是真天主又是真人，宣认玛利亚为天主之母的信理。此后圣母敬礼便在各地蓬勃发展起来。约于第五世纪末期，耶路撒冷也在八月十五日庆祝「天主之母」节，不过地点是在革责玛尼山园附近，相传为圣母墓地所在之处举行，且在其上筑有圣堂。于是，八月十五日原为天主之每节，在耶路撒冷渐渐变成为「圣母安眠节」。莫理斯皇帝(Maurice) 在位期间(582-602)，将此庆节引申到他所辖治的范围(12)。

圣母安眠节(Dormitio) 在七世纪传入罗马，教宗息泽伍一世(Sergius I, 687-701) 加上游行庆祝(13)，七世纪中叶的罗马福音选读集称之为「圣玛利亚生辰」(Natale S. Mariae)，即生于天上的纪念日(14)；另一本七四０年的福音选读集则称之为「圣玛利亚安息节」(Solemnitas de pausatione S. Mariae) (15)；七五０年受法国影响的罗马礼书改称为「玛利亚蒙召升天节」(In adsumptione S. Mariae)。但祷文内容乃一般纪念圣母的通用祷文而已(16)。

实际上圣母去世升天的史料并不详尽，出现在五世纪的一本伪经「童贞玛利亚升天录」(De transitu Mariae Virginis) 始有圣母去世，及身体灵魂一齐升天的描述(17)，其后的教父则在讲道中屡有提及，尤其是若望．达玛森(+749) 更将之发扬光大(18)。到第七至第八世纪时，罗马额我略礼书在弥撒游行前的祷文阐释了「圣母蒙召升天」的思想：「主啊！今天为我们是可敬的节日，天主圣母在这天接受了暂时的死亡；你的圣子、我们的主由她诞生，所以她不能为死亡的锁链所困扰」(19)，但其他祷文都只是含蓄地提及圣母的去世，和现今在天国里为我们代祷(20)，或一般性的纪念圣母的祷文而已。

中世纪时期，有关圣母肉身是否升天有不同的见解(21)，伪热罗尼莫书信谓圣母身体不朽，但是否已升天则缄口不言(22)，伪奥斯定训导录(23) 及乌苏阿殉道录(24) 认为圣母尸体下落不得而知，不愿把传奇予以肯定。许多隐修院的公共祈祷都采用乌苏阿殉道录，而伪热罗尼莫书信则被列入日课经本里。

持相反说法的，是十二世纪托名奥斯定的一篇匿名论着，依据理性相信圣母身灵升天(25)。此意见在十三世纪后为士林学派神学家接纳。圣多玛斯认为出于土而归于土的咒诅不牵涉玛利亚，因为地灵魂肉身一起蒙召升天(26)。教宗圣庇护五世于一五六八年改革日课经时，把怀疑圣母身灵升天的伪热罗尼莫书信删去，而代之以承认圣母身灵升天的着作(27)。但圣母是否身灵升天的意见在民间仍有争辩。

历经若干争辩之后，至教宗本笃十四世(1740-1758) 宣布玛利亚升天为可靠意见。第一次梵蒂冈大公会议时，曾有约二百位主教签名要求订定圣母蒙召升天为信道，但未议决。一九四六年教宗庇护十二征询全球主教的意见，在几乎一致同意下，遂于一九五零年十一月一日，颁定「童贞玛利亚灵魂肉身蒙召升到天国的荣耀」为信理(27)。

历史上此一争论的重点不在玛利亚是否蒙召升天，而在她的肉身是否也升天；这争论的基础是灵肉二元说，倘若我们采用另外的(或圣经) (28) 的人学观点，则这些争论也许不存在。

一九七零年罗马弥撒书圣母蒙召升天节的颂谢词说明了圣母蒙召升天的教会性及末世意义：「童贞玛利亚今日蒙召升天，是你教会要达到圆满境界的开端和形象，也是你子民在人生旅途中，确切希望和安慰的凭证。」故此，圣母蒙召升天给我们揭示了基督逾越奥迹在人身上的最完美效果，鼓励我们去分享圣母所达到的光荣，一如在集祷经所谓：「你赐给了你圣子之母灵魂肉身天国的光荣，愿我们也以天国为人生目标，得与她同享荣福。」(29)

二、预报救主降生节 (三月二十五日)

三月二十五日在第二、三世纪间，被视为春分，亦是天主创世的纪念日，部份地方教会也以此日作为基督苦难圣死，战胜罪恶?真光克服黑暗的日子(30)。虽然后来以春分月圆后首主日为复活节的传统确立了(31)，但十二月二十五日已被视为基督诞生的纪念日(32)，故此倒数九个月(三月二十五日) 便自然成了基督降孕母胎的日子(33)。在第六世纪，东方已盛行这庆节(34)。大约于第七世纪传到罗马，仍称预报救主降生节(Annuntiatio Domini)。教宗息泽伍(687-701) 为它添加求恩祷文和游行(35)，其他西方教会也称这节日为「基督降孕」(Conceptio Christi)，「圣玛利亚领报及我们的主耶稣基督的苦难」(Denuntiatio S. Mariae et passio Domini Nostri, Jesu Christi) 等(36)。自七世纪到一九七零年，罗马弥撒书当日所用的领主后经，也反映了这节日的背景和内容：「天主，求你将圣宠倾注在我们心中，我们既因天使的传报，得知你圣子降孕人世，愿我们仰赖祂的苦难及十字圣架，获享复活的光荣。」(这经文也用于三钟经；今日仍用于罗马弥撒书将临第四主日集祷经，这经文说明了整个降生救赎的奥迹，一方面纪念基督降孕(真光进入世界)，另一方面则纪念基督的苦难逾越(真光战胜了黑暗) (37)。

西班牙的陶来多(Toledo) 会议(656年) 鉴于三月二十五日常遇四旬期或圣周，故改在圣诞前八天，即十二月十八日庆祝(38)。米兰礼最初已在将临期最后主日庆祝预报救主降生，到了九世纪才接纳加上三月二十五日的庆祝(39)。东方教会在都伦(Trullan) 会议(692)则坚持即使三月二十五日预报救主降生节遇上圣周五，依然如常举行圣祭庆祝(40)。接罗马礼的习惯，若三月二十五日遇上圣周最后三天，或复活节八天庆期，则预报救主降生节便改在复活第二主日后的星期一举行。

已见于七世纪沿用到一九七零年的罗马传统，三月二十五日的主题「预报救主降生」也重复于将临期第三遇冬季斋期星期三的福音(当日选读路一：26-38；星期五选读路一：39-47) (41)，可见三月二十五日的瞻礼，核心是庆祝圣子降生救赎世人的奥迹；这天本是主的庆节(42)，但也不忽视玛利亚与天主的计划合作，成为救主之母的角色。可惜自中世纪后，三月二十五日只侧重「圣母领报」，忽略了圣子降生救世计划中天主的拣选与主动，致变成纯粹庆祝圣母的事件。一九七零年罗马弥撒书将此节日正名为「预报救主降生节」，重申此日是主的节日，庆祝天主圣子降孕母胎。同时在将临期最后主日也重读预报救主降生(甲年及乙年) 或访亲(丙年) 的福音。

一九七零年罗马弥撒书当日的祷文强调圣子降孕母胎，是真天主真人，并祈求分享祂的神圣生命(集祷经及领主后经)，颂谢词则提到圣母以信德接受基督降生救世，居我人间的讯息，天主藉此履行了祂的许诺，使万民的期待得到实现(43)。

从历史上，可以看出很多地方教会并不太执着三月二十五日的日期，日期可以改动，但重要的是庆祝基督降生救世的奥迹，即使在将临期重复圣子降孕母胎的读经，也可说是必须的。圣言降生在我们心内，需要人的合作与接受，而圣母玛利亚也就是最佳的典范。

三、献耶稣于圣殿节 (二月二日)

按犹太传统，妇人生产男孩后四十天应到圣殿取洁(肋十一：1-8)。同时，首胎男婴应祝圣于天主(出十三：2)，然后以献礼赎回。

这节日早在公元四百年的耶路撒冷在二月十四日庆祝，因为当时以一月六日主显节为主的圣诞，四十天后即二月十四日，纪念玛利亚若瑟带领耶稣上耶路撒冷献给上主，在圣殿遇到西默盎及亚纳的事迹(路二22-40) (44)。在六世纪中叶，皇帝Justinian因消灾祈福而通令全国庆祝；在君士坦丁堡(拜占庭礼) 称之为「相遇节」(Hypapante) (45)。迟至七世纪中叶才传入罗马；罗马礼既以十二月二十五日为圣诞，「相遇节」便在二月二日举行；七世纪末教宗息泽伍加上游行(46)。

其实，东方礼早于五世纪中叶已有烛光游行(47)，但动机欠详，或许始因是取自路二32，表示基督是「异邦的光明，以色列的荣耀」。但罗马八至九世纪在这节日游行时穿黑色祭披(48)，一五七零年罗马弥撒书改为紫色；而君士坦丁堡传统则赤足游行，可见有补赎的性质；但是否为对抗异教徒在二月份举行的狂欢节，尚待讨论(49)。至于祝圣蜡烛，始于第十世纪的德国(50)。

七五零年受法国影响的罗马礼书称这日为「圣母玛利亚取洁节」(in purificatione S. Mariae) (51)。但七、八世纪的额我略礼书仍称之为「相遇节」，在圣母堂庆祝(Hypapante ad S. Mariam) (52)。此节日本来就与基督降生奥迹有着密切的关系，直到八世纪后，「圣母取洁」才渐渐成为通用的名称，「相遇节」便慢慢被弃不用；弥撒经文虽然沿用路加福音二：22-40不变，然庆祝的重点却转到圣母身上。直至一九七零年罗马弥撒书才正名为「献主(耶稣于圣殿) 节」(In praesentatione Domini)，重申此日属于主的节日。弥撒前仍保持祝圣蜡烛及持烛游行进堂(53)，游行进堂时穿白色祭披，咏唱西默盎圣歌，或其他赞颂基督是世界的光的圣诗；集祷经仍沿用七至八世纪时罗马的祷文：「全能永生的天主，正如你的唯一圣子取了我们的肉躯，今天奉献于圣殿；我们恳求你，使我们也能同样(保持) 身心纯洁，奉献于你的尊威台前。」(54) 这祷文清楚指示当日庆节的意义，要求我们也献出自己，在基督内实行天主的救世计划。领主后经则继续发挥与基督相遇的含义：「愿我们所领的圣事，在我们中完成你圣宠的工程；你曾成全西默盎的愿望，使他在去世前亲眼看见基督；求你也赐我们在生活里迎接基督，来日获得永生。」

这庆节的含义，正如颂谢词所说的，是纪念基督往圣殿里把自己奉献给天主，祂与西默盎相遇，满足了人类对救恩的渴求，显示自己就是万邦的光明。今天我们也在圣言及圣事的标记中与基督相遇，并指向在天上的彻底相遇。

四、圣母诞辰节 (九月八日)

第五世纪中叶，耶路撒冷圣殿以北靠近羊门的水池，据传是耶稣治愈病患(若五1-19) 之处，建有圣堂(55)。九月八日为该圣堂祝圣纪念日。又相传该堂是筑在玛利亚父母的宅址，玛利亚在那里诞生，故奉献给圣母。到第六世纪，九月八日便成了纪念圣母诞生的日子(56)。

这节日在第七世纪传入罗马，同列为当时圣母四大庆节之一，正如其他三大庆节一样，被教宗息泽伍辅以游行礼(57)。

一九七零年罗马弥撒书订九月八日为庆日；当日的进台咏、集祷经及领主后经清楚指出，因为玛利亚生育了人类的救主基督，所以圣母的诞辰也给世界带来救恩的曙光和希望。福音则诵读耶稣的族谱和若瑟领受天使报喜，(玛一1-16, 18-23) 为指出耶稣是因圣神降孕，生于玛利亚之童身，是真天主真人(58)。玛利亚的诞生，和若翰的诞生，都是件「前躯」，为天主所拣选，准备基督的来临。

五、献圣母于圣殿纪念日 (十一月廿一日)

耶路撒冷第三座敬礼圣母的圣堂建于圣殿原址之入口广场，于五四三年十一月二十一日祝圣(59)。后来按伪雅各伯福音第七章传说圣母三岁时被献于圣殿，被圣殿的贞友们抚养(按旧约的传统这是不可能的) (60)；于是「传说」便在该圣母圣殿实地庆祝。十一月二十一日便成为献圣母于圣般的纪念日，于第八世纪已流行于东方。一一六六年皇帝Comnenus定为公众假日。十二世纪传入英国，十四世纪Philippe Mezieres为增强东西方教会的关系而在西方极力提倡这节日，一三七二年教宗额我略十一世(1370-1378) 允其所请而把这节日纳入法国亚味农的宗座礼仪。其后西斯笃四世(1471-84)1把这节日引入罗马，且定为假日。庇护五世(1565-1572) 于改革弥撒书和日课经时，不允列入礼仪书，因所纪念的事件纯属传闻，但西斯笃五世(1585-1590) 在一百八五年却又重新恢复，且扩展给全罗马礼教会(61)。一九七零年罗马弥撒书虽仍保留了该纪念日，幸而祷文只字不提献圣母于圣殿事件，且采通用的圣母经文，以避免附会传说(62)。

(二) 源自罗马的圣母庆节

一、圣母大殿祝圣纪念日 (八月五日)

圣母大殿于四零零至四三零年间建于罗马的尼斯奎林山，在教宗西斯笃三世(432-440)任内落成，时厄弗所大公会议(431) 刚宣布「天主之母」信条。教宗把新落成的大殿奉献给圣母，这是西方第一座奉献给圣母的大殿。该圣殿的壁画，尤其拱门上的细石镶嵌画，主要是表达圣母在基督救世工程内的角色(63)。教宗西斯笃三世开始于圣诞前夕在该大殿内仿白冷山洞所筑的小堂内祈祷，并主持弥撒，成为子夜弥撒的起源(64)。

约十三世纪后，关于圣母大殿的起源另有一个传说：谓在三五二年八月四日至五日晚上，圣母梦示罗马贵族若望，要在尼斯奎林山有积雪之处建堂(其时是夏天，积雪乃表示奇迹)，于是教宗黎贝留(352-366) 按圣母所示而建堂。这传说使圣母大殿亦称为圣母雪地殿；八月五日便成为所谓的「圣母雪地殿祝圣纪念」，并列入一五七零年罗马弥撒书(65)。一九七零年弥撒书采用「圣母大殿祝圣纪念日」一名而弃用「雪地」传说，且改为随意纪念的日子(66)。

圣殿是纪念和举行基督奥迹的场所，放八月五日严格来说是属于圣堂祝圣的周年纪念，它被列入礼仪年历，主要是因为圣母大殿是西方第一所奉献给圣母的大殿。至于弥撒的经文，只是采用圣母通用经文而已。

二、天主之母节 (一月一日)

一月一日为罗马新年，教会早已有「远避偶像」(ad prohibendum ab idolis) 的补赎、斋戒及弥撒(67)，以对抗异教徒在该日对辰纳斯(Janus) 神的狂欢。其后在七世纪时早已把一月一日订为天主之母的纪念日(圣玛利亚诞辰Natale S. Mariae)，在圣母堂举行弥撒(68)。这是最早源起于西方的圣母节日。其后罗马从东方引进了二月二日的「相遇节」、三月二十五日的「预报救主降生节」、八月十五日的「安眠节」及九月八日的「圣母诞辰节」，且教宗息泽伍为这四个节日添加了游行，于是一月一日的纪念，便相应地渐渐式微。

七五零年受法国影响的罗马礼书只有圣诞后第八日的弥撒(In Octabas Domini)，祷文内容与圣诞有关，但颂谢词却提及了圣母的地位说：「耶稣基督是婴孩又是天主，由贞女又是母亲诞生。」(69) 七至八世纪罗马额我略礼书在圣诞后第八日的集祷经(今日仍沿用)，祈求说：「天主，你藉圣玛利亚的童贞生育，赐给了人类永远得救的洪恩，我们既由她承受了生命之源、你的圣子、我们的主耶稣基督，求你也使我们体验她的代祷。」(70)可见罗马礼确在庆祝基督降生奥迹中纪念天主之母，且藉此重申基督是真天主真人的信德。

西班牙礼于第七世纪时渐渐于圣诞后第八天(一月一日) 庆祝耶稣受割损(路二21)，这耶稣受割损的纪念日渐渐传入高卢礼，然后一五七零年罗马弥撒书采纳了圣诞后第八天「主受割损」(In circumcisione Domini et Octava Nativitatis) 的称谓，但祷文没有改变，只不过把以往的福音(路二21-32) 缩短为(路二21)。

一月一日的庆祝虽屡经转折，但始终不失在当天纪念圣母的色彩，除了弥撒经文外，当天大日课的对经也反覆提及基督降生的奥迹和玛利亚为天主之母的角色，例如以下对经：「多么神妙的交易，人类的创造者取了有灵的肉躯，生于童贞女，不由人道而生，而将自己的天主性赐给了我们。」「梅瑟看见焚而不毁的荆棘丛，是妳保持童贞的标记，令人赞颂不止。天主之母，请为我们代祷。」(71)。一九七零年罗马弥撒书改革回到历史根源，重申一月一日，即圣诞后第八天，为圣母的节日，庆贺她作天主之母。一月一日遂正名为「天主之母节」。(Sollemnitas S. Dei Genetricis Mariae) (72)

圣诞期的庆祝，本来就充满基督降生救世奥迹的意义，很自然的在阐释那诞生的是真天主真人时，提及玛利亚是救主之母的角色；她服从了天主的旨意，因圣神怀孕，给世界诞生救主；故天主之母节是与基督降生奥迹相连的庆祝，也是属于圣诞期的庆祝内容。

事实上，罗马礼不仅在圣诞期，也在将临期纪念圣母，即是以基督的事件作为礼仪年历的中心，旁及圣母与天主的救世计划合作，例如一九七零年之前将临期第三周冬季斋期星期三便诵读预报救主降生的福音，星期五诵读圣母访亲(73)，一九七零年罗马弥撒书改在将临第四主日纪念以上事件，作为圣诞的准备，且在将临期第二式颂谢词中提及「圣母以无比的慈爱抚育了基督」(74)，可以看出敬礼圣母不固定在任何一佰日子上，而是随着礼仪年历庆祝基督的救世工程时，标榜出圣母参与了基督的救世使命，与天主的救世计划合作。

(9)J. BRIAND. La chiesa primitiva Nei ricordi di Nazaret, Jerusalem, 1976, pp. 23 26, 在相傅圣母住宅的地方，有KEMARIA字样刻在柱基上，明显地是把「玛利亚」的名字加在天使报喜时所说「万福」之后，这可能是当时敬礼圣母的一个见证。A. G. MARTIMORT, The Church at Prayer, Vol. 4, (New Edition), collegeville, 1986, p. 130.

(10)译自C.BERSELLI, G. GHARIB, Sing the Joys of Mary, Slough, 1982, p. 39.

(11)按417至438年间，亚美尼亚礼选经集的记录；这选经集的英译见J. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels to the Holyland, Jerusalem, 1981, p. 274.　

至于为甚么选定八月十五日作为圣母的节日，则不得而知，但按四至五世纪的叙利亚文伪经「圣母升天录」(De Transitu Mariae) 说宗徒们定了一月廿五日，五月十五日及八月十五日作为圣母的节日，可能当时在叙利亚已有上述的圣母纪念日。　

到了六世纪时，Coptic教会在一月廿一日纪念圣母，而高卢Tours则在一月十八日，不一月份的圣母庆节是纪念圣母为天主之母的(Mariae Teotokos) 在七世纪的Bobbio弥撒里，当天有两台弥撒，一为纪念圣码利亚(S. Mariae Solemnitate) 另一台为圣母蒙召升天 (in adsumptione S. Mariae) 且载有受伪经影响的赞美诗，描述圣母身灵升天，后来的高卢弥撒书里则没有了第一台弥撒，而只保留了第二台弥撒纪念圣母蒙召升天。七世纪时的Luxeuil选经集也以一月十八日为圣母蒙召升天节。　

M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 248 250. K. A. H. KEFLLNER, op. cit., pp. 235 237.

(12)J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 131; 特别是注：3; M. RIGHETTI, Storia Liturgica, Vol. 2, Milano, 1946, pp. 247 250; K. A. H. KELLNER, Heortology, ,London 1980, pp. 235 237, J. M. O'CONNOR, The Holy Land, Oxford, 1980, pp. 88 90.

(13)当时仍然保存 "DORMITIO" 的称号；Liber Pontificalis, Vol. 1, p. 376, 381.

(14)Wurzbrug Comes福音选读集，A. Adom, op. cit., p. 215; M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 251.

(15)A. G. Martimort, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 135, note 11; M, RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 247.

(16)Sac. Gelasianum, No. 993 996, 也见L. Bruylant, Les oraisons du Misssel Romain, Vol. 1, Louvain, 1952, p. 133的祷文沿革，但安K. A. L. KELLNER, op. cit., p. 238所载的630年Rheims的Sonatius主教已称这节日为Assumptio, (P. L. 80, 446)

(17)关于「圣母升天录」的各种版本和纪录可参阅(Trans. M. R. James,) The Apocryphal New Testament, "The Assumption of The Virgin", Oxford, 1969, pp. 194 227.

(18)奥脱着，天主教信理神学，下册，光启台湾，1967, pp. 345 347; K. A. L. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 235 237.

(19)Sac. Gregorianum, No. 658 660, 是前夕弥撒；No. 661 664是当日游行及弥撒，NO. 661游行的祷文曾于1951年教宗庇护五世宣布圣母蒙召升天的信理的，在宗座典章Manificentissimus Dei中所引用。

(20)Sac. Gregorianum, No. 663; No 660提及纪念「圣母的安息」。其余的祷文则只是一般性纪念圣母的祷文而已。又在一九五０年前，八月十五日的福音竟是选用一般圣女节日的章节：路十、38 42(玛尔大和玛利亚)，这福音选读也用于米兰礼，西班牙礼及东方礼。 M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 252.

(21)以童身的德行作为脱免罪污，获享不朽之身的想法，早已见于第二世纪，如Martirologia Geronimiano称圣若望的去世为蒙召升天(Adsumptio Johannis) M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2. p. 252.

(22)Ep.9: Cognitione, (Paschase Radbert +865); 奥脱，天主教信理神学，p. 346.

(23)Sermo, 208; Adest nobis, (Ambrosius Autpertus +784); 奥脱，天主教信理神学，p. 346.

(24)USUARD +875, 奥脱，天主教信理神学，p. 346.

(25)Ad interrogata, 奥脱，天主教信理神学，p. 347.

(26)Expos. Salut. Amg., p. 347.

(27)梵二前的日课经，有诵读Sermo S. Joanis Damasceni, 及Homilia S. Petri Canisii. Breviarium Romanum, Ex Decreto S. S. Concilii Tridentini Restitutum, Edito Prima Juxta Novam Typicum, Ratisbonae, 1952. 奥脱，天主教信理神学，p. 347.

(28)参阅圣经神学辞典，光启，台湾，1978，见「人」，「神(气)」，「肉体」，「灵魂」，「身体」，「复活」，「升天」。

(29)Missale Romanum, Ex Decreto Sacrosancti Cecumenici Concilii Vaticani II Instauratum Auctoritate Paul, PP. VI Promulgatum, Editio Typica, Vaticanis, 1970, pp. 596 597.

(30)Tertullian, Adversu Judaeos, VIII, 18; A. Chupungco, The Cosmic Elements of Christian Passover, Roma, 1977, pp. 26 37, 49 54; M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, PP. 50-52.

(31)尼赛亚大公会议(325年) 的决定；罗国辉，踰越，香港，1987, pp. 110 111; A. G. Martimort, op. cit., Vol. 4, PP. 33 34.

(32)最早记有以十二月廿五日「无敌太阳神节」作为「基督生于白冷」的纪念日是354年的日历，LP 1: 11; A. G. Martimort, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 78, p. 119.

(33)西方礼书中：P. 385, G. 850的纪录称」这天为「向天主圣母(玛利亚)报喜及主苦难日」；而H143, P. 385, G. 850. M. 575, 即今日将临第四主日集祷经，也即三钟经的结束祷文的内容也反映这传统。一方面纪念耶稣降孕，另一方面纪念耶稣的苦难。P. Bruylant, op. cit., Vol. 2, No. 575. 为那些不采用十二月廿五日为圣诞节的亚美尼亚礼，则在四月七日(一月六日倒数九个日) 纪念天使向玛利亚预报基督降生的事件。K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 232 233.

(34)Bishop Abraham of Ephesus 的讲道，(PO 16: 442 47) 引用于A. Adom, op. cit., pp. 152 153 note 56; L. Duchesne, op. cit., p. 272 note 3, p. 576; K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 232 234.

(35)Liber Pontificalis, I (ed. L. Duchesne), Paris, 1886, p. 371 376. 按L. Duchesne, Christian Worship, London, 1923, p. 273, note 1, 大额我略时候，罗马仍未有，「圣母圣诞」，「圣母安眠」，「圣母献耶稣于主殿」及「预报救主」等节日。

(36)这日在西方教会的不同名称可见P. Bruylants, Les oraisons du Missel Romain, Vol. 1, Louvain, 1952, pp. 89-90; 特别注意N: 十一至十二世纪的罗马拉特郎隐修院，仍称它为「预报救主」(Annuntiatio dominica); K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., p. 231; 自额我略礼书(Sac. Gregorianum) No. 143至1970弥撒书所用当日的领主后经也反映出这节日的古老传说：降生和救赎。一六三七年的中国版刻画曾把这节日称为「圣母领上主降孕之报」，见「敬礼圣母汇编」，香港圣母年筹委会及教区礼仪委员会合编，1987, p. 136.

(37)见注33。

(38)K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 232 233, Missale Mixtum (PL LXXXV. 170, 734) 在十二月八日及三月廿五日两次庆祝这节日。

(39)M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 264 266.

(40)J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 96; M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 264 266; K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 231 232.

(41)见A. Nocent, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 1, collegeville, 1977, pp. 169 170, 的重整。

(42)见米兰礼一贯的传统和罗马礼最早的记载如Liber Pontificalis.

(43)罗马弥撒书，1970, pp. 538-539。

(44)J. Wilkinson, op. cit., pp. 127 128, 也见于当时的亚美尼亚礼读经集，J. Wilkinson, op. cit., pp. 262 263. Egeria游记载有圣祭，但仍未有烛光游行；按J. A. Martimort, op. cit., p. 88, note 32, 烛光游行是约在450年所加上的。

(45)K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 173 174, J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit.. Vol. 4, pp. 88 89.

(46)Liber Pontificalis, Vol. 1, p. 376, 称之为Dies S. Simeonis, quod Ypapanti Graeci appellant. K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp.175, 228-230, L. Duchesne op. cit., pp. 273, note 1.

(47)J. A, MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 32在note 32提及Cyril of Scythopolis的记载。

(48)Ordo XX, M. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani, Vol. 3, Louvain, 1974, pp. 235 236.

(49)J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 89; K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., p. 175 176; J. A. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy, London. 1980, pp. 145 146.

(50)PRG 2: 6 9; P. Bruylants, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 80 81可见这些经文的用处和年代。

(51)Sac. Gelasianum, 829 831, 集祷经中纪念基督带着我们的人性进入圣殿，其他祷文与圣诞的主题有关，但全部都没有提及圣母。

(52)Sac. Gregonanum, 123 127; 祷文内容是有关基督降生及祂带着我们的人性进入圣殿等，除了领主后经外，便没有提及圣母了，但领主后经(No.126) 也曾用于将临期四季斋期，星期六及卸白衣主日，而在这些情况中，则没有了「藉卒世童贞玛利亚的转祷」这句话。见P. Bruylants, op. cit., Vol. 2, No. 928. Sac. Greg., No. 124仍在今日用作集祷经。

(53)祝圣腊烛的两式祷文，都以基督为真光，祂照耀了信众的心灵，而祈愿追随真光的人，都能进入永恒的光明之中；故此手持烛光，唱着西默盎圣歌进入圣堂，确有末世意义，意味着在基督中我们已把握着天国永光的希望。

(54)罗马弥撒书，1970, p. 525, Sac. Gregorianum, 124.

(55)J. M. O' Connor, The Holy Land, Oxford, 1980, pp. 22 23.

(56)J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 131; A. ADOM, The Liturgical Year, New York, 1981, p. 217. Rado, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp.1349 1350; M. Righetti op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 263 264, note 136歌颂圣母诞辰的圣诗首见于Romanes Melodos约六世纪中叶的作品，这圣诗也取材于伪雅各伯福者。七世纪的S. Sophronius也为这圣堂而写了圣诗。(Anacr. 20, P. G. 87/3, 3821 3824).

(57)Liber Pontificalis. Vol. 1, pp. 376, 381.

(58)1570年弥撒书中的祷文也有相同的观念；1570年弥撒书中的福音也是玛一．1 16。

(59)J.M. O' Connor, op. cit., PP. 55 56。

(60)有关伪雅各伯福音记载「圣母被献于圣殿」可参看(Trans. M. R. James), op. cit., pp. 38 49, "Protoevangelium" 特别是P.41。

(61)A. ADOM, op. cit., PP. 221 222; J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, P. 131, P.140; M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 266; L. Bruylant, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 165; K. A. H. KELLNER, Heortology, London, 1908, pp. 265 266.

(62)罗马弥撒书，1970 p. 644。

(63)G. Bovinin, Mosaici paleocristiani di Roma (Secoli III VI), Bologna, 1971, pp. 145 185; 这些壁画取材于圣经，但也有些取材于所谓「伪经」，但要明白这是当时的热心习惯和表达方式。

(64)M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 53 55; A. C. Martimort, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 83.

(65)A. G. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 141, 特别是note 27; Blue Guilde Rome and Envirouns, London, 1985, pp. 194 196.

(66)罗马弥撒书，1970，P. 586。

(67)这弥撒已见于Sac. Gelasianum, No. 54 56; 但早自奥斯定已在当日的讲道中(讲道词198 Tours (567) 会议，Toledo (663) 会议也先后加上补赎，斋戒和祈祷。直到七世纪才以「天主之母」庆节取代之：但献礼经和颂主后经仍存于1570弥撒书，见Sac. Greg. No.83 84, M. 711及588. M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 67 68.

(68)Wurzburg的书信集(560 590年) 没有记录，但Wurzburg 的福音集(645年) 载有这天是Natale S. Mariae 圣玛利亚诞(辰)，福音是路二．21 32，见Nocent, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 250的重整，M. Righetti, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 68 69.

(69)Sac. Gelasianum, No. 48 53; No. 53有抗拒偶像的语句，其余则直接与圣诞节有关；No. 51的颂谢词则有提及基督是婴孩又是天主从贞女又是母亲而诞生。

(70)当时已改在由「万神庙」改建的S. Mariam ad Martyres举行；十二世纪时教宗Callisto II (1119 1124) 改在S. Maria Trastevere 举行，M. Righetti, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 69. L. Bruylants, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 10 11, Vol. 2, No. 440, 771及588, N0. 440是集祷经，今日仍沿用；No.588在不同场合也可加上「因某某圣人的代祷」一句，故在九世纪后的礼书，在纪念圣母的弥撒中，都加上「因童贞天主之母荣福玛利亚的代祷」的说话；No. 711没有提及圣诞也没有提及圣母；No. 711及588的经文一直沿用到1970 K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 165 166, 于714至731年的S. Genevieve的选经集，仍称这天是Natale S. M; 到了十一世纪，一些弥撒仍以这天为圣母的节日，L. Bruyiants, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 10; 十二世纪Bernard of Constanza的记录仍称该天为圣母的节日，见M. Righrtti, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 69.

(71)(1568) 所根据的传统，且今日仍然使用。「多么神妙的交易……」可能受了良一世，亚历山大利亚的济利禄等教公的讲道所影响，A. Nocent, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 214, note 154, 155. 同样在圣诞日课经传统的许多对经，在歌颂降生成人的天主时，也提及圣母玛利亚的角色，比方在夜祷(Noctuno) 中的对经：「今日天上的君王为我们诞生了，生于童贞女，召叫那沦亡的人重回天(国)」。(这对经现在还应用)。又比方：「万福！玛利亚、天主之母，保全着童贞，今天为我们生产了世界的救主」(这对经今日已没有采用了) 等。

(72)罗马弥撒书，1970，pp. 162 163。

(73)冬季斋期的选经已见于六至七世纪的罗马选经集，且冬季斋期可能也是最早的将临期平日礼仪，也可能早已存在于四至五世纪。选经重组可见A. Nocent, op. cit., Vol 1, pp. 168 173.

(74)罗马弥撒书，1970，PP. 132，394。

丁、中世纪圣母瞻礼的发展

在纪念圣人的历史中，首开先例是古代的殉道者，接踵而来的是纪念宗徒、圣母及圣人圣女。圣母敬礼的开端已在上文记述。其后的演变是不断趋向于节日的激增，以圣母或其他圣人为名目的纪念纷纷在东方礼、罗马礼及其他地方教会的团体中出现。在敬礼圣母方面，罗马礼直到十四世纪仍只庆祝传统的圣母四大瞻礼(圣母蒙召升天、圣母诞辰、预报救主降生及献耶稣于圣殿)。其实这四个瞻礼中只有前两个可算是圣母的庆节，后二者为基督的庆节。一直至十四世纪，罗马才钦定一些地方教会或修会团体所推广的圣母庆节。

一、圣母始胎无玷 (十二月八日) 节日

这一纪念源自入世纪希腊拜占庭教会已有纪念玛利亚的母亲圣妇亚纳的怀孕，故属于后者的庆日，十二月八日之选择，是因为东方礼教会已经于九月八日庆祝圣母圣诞，倒数九个月即十二月八日，便是圣母成胎之日。按伪雅各伯福音，亚纳长久荒胎，后得天使报喜，因天主施恩而怀孕圣母。该节日于十一世纪传入英国。

十二世纪初，圣安瑟莫的弟子艾特玛，宣称玛利亚在成胎之始即不受原罪沾染。在这时期前后的神学家，如圣伯尔纳多、伯多禄隆巴、圣文德、圣多玛斯等都不赞同，因为他们认为人人需要救恩与圣母无染原罪两个肯定是互相矛盾的。换言之，大多数神学家强调基督救恩之重要与必要性，意味着圣母也需要救恩，但民间团体大多都接受圣母不受原罪玷污的「假设」。

终于，方济会神学家董思高以「先赎论」阐释了以上所提的棘手问题。董思高的思想是人灵之被圣化无须晚于人成孕之始，成孕于先而圣化于后只属概念上的先后，玛利亚在母胎成孕之始已有可能蒙基督救赎之恩。他根据士林哲学一句格言：「天主能作的，且作了更好，所以祂就作了」。于是他宣称「先赎」是最佳的救赎方式，基督以此方法救赎祂的母亲是很恰当的，故祂就这样做了。这理论同时解释了人人需要救恩及圣母蒙受特恩的问题。

方济修会率先接纳了这理论并把圣母始胎无玷列入修会的节日，以后圣母始胎无玷的道理与庆祝日渐普及。一四七六年为方济会士教宗西斯笃(1411-1484) 予以核准用于罗马礼仪年历。一七零八年教宗格肋孟十一世(1700-1721) 推广为普世教会庆祝。一八五四年教宗庇护九世(1846-1878)，经谘询全体主教后，正式钦定圣母始胎无玷为信理。

从圣母始胎无玷的争论过程中，我们看出圣母敬礼不能纯属感情，而当以正统的神学为依据，但信友在感性上的反应能够先于理论，而神学家为维护基督救恩的重要性也作了不少努力。从亚纳的敬礼转移到圣母的敬礼，最后以基督为中心是这敬礼的进展过程。这节日也是礼仪上的一句名言最佳的佐证：即教会的祈祷就是信理的内容(lex orandi, lex credendi)。

当天的选经反映了该节日的意义，第一篇读经(创三9-15) 预示「女人」的后裔与蛇的后裔间的仇恨，此为救恩许诺的开端。答唱咏及第二篇读经(弗一3-12) 赞扬天主的救世工程，福音是预报救主诞生之一片段(路一26-38)，标榜圣母与天主的救世计划合作。感恩礼三篇祷文都重申圣母因天主之「先赎」免于罪污，而祈求天主也使祂的子民脱免罪恶。

二、露德圣母 (二月十一日) 任选纪念

一九零七年始有这纪念日，称为无玷荣福童贞玛利亚显现节(In Apparitione B. Mariae Virg. Immaculate)，纪念圣母于一八五八年二月至七月间向圣女伯尔纳德一连串的显现，五十年后之二月十一日，即圣母在露德第一次显现的日子，教宗庇护十世(1903-1914)订为庆日。一九七零年罗马弥撒表改为随意纪念的日子，易名为露德圣母纪念日(B. Mariae Virginis de Lourdes)。

名称更易的意义，是削减「显现」本身的重要性，因为「显现」本身并不普及，且在信仰上不是必要的。重要的是圣母本身，及她给世人的讯息。但我们要注意的是圣母的讯息并不增加基督启示的内容，而是提醒世人她圣子曾给我们的教导。

露德现已变成为着名的朝圣地，朝圣者终年不绝，在圣母显现的山洞上筑了一个三层的圣殿及广场，另有水池及一座地下圣殿(称庇护十世圣殿)。圣母的讯息是劝导人多祈祷，作更深的悔改及多从事爱德服务。这些都在露德朝圣地很具体的表达。为我们的信仰生活，露德的重要性不在于显现或病愈奇迹本身，而在于使人感染悔改，祈祷及爱德的精神。该纪念日的集祷经也包括脱免罪恶束缚的呼求。

三、圣母访亲 (五月三十一日) 庆日

这庆日起源当溯至公元四六九年，希腊拜占庭礼于七月二日纪念圣母的一件外衣被保存在君士坦丁堡郊区的一座小堂内。当天读经是圣母往访表姐依撤伯尔，及她的赞主曲。一二六三年方济会将此节日列为修会的庆祝日期，易名为圣母访亲纪念日，并推广作为圣母的庆日。一百年后教宗乌尔朋六世(1378-89) 为获圣母眷顾结束分裂(教宗三胞案)而核准该纪念日，继位教宗波尼法九世(1389-1404) 于一三八九年再重申此项核准。分裂结束后的公会议于一四四一年正式钦定为节日，并颁大赦予该日的礼仪辅礼员，因为在分裂期间，反教宗者没有接纳该庆节。一九七零年罗马弥撒经书遂将此节日安置在五月三十一日庆祝，即在预报救主降生及圣若翰诞生之间，以对照路加福音的记载。

此日感恩祭的祷文特别提及圣母顺从圣神的爱德精神。集祷经开始谓：「天父，你感召了玛利亚怀着你的圣子往访依撒伯尔，求你使我们顺从圣神的指引，常能与她一齐赞美你。」献礼经亦谓：「天父，求你使我们的献礼中悦于你，一如你接受了玛利亚的爱德……。」领圣体后经则论及尚在母胎的若翰因主基督的到访而欢跃。

可见圣母访亲的内涵，是玛利亚顺从圣神，爱人行动的德表，另方面是她怀着基督的含义，预示着基督的来临给人类带来救恩的喜乐，这也是当天读经的中心思想。

四、圣母圣心 (五月／六月) 任选纪念

敬礼圣母圣心源于十七世纪圣若望犹定(St. John Eudes) 的推动，但至十九世纪才较普遍被接受。首先是奥斯定修会于圣母升天后的主日举行圣母圣心弥撒，其后被采用于罗马教区。一九四二年世界第二次大战期间，教宗庇护十二奉献世界于圣母圣心，为祈求和平，再加上圣母于一九一七年在葡国花地玛的显现被当地主教调查属实，一九四四年教宗庇护十二世(1939-1938) 遂钦定圣母圣心为采用罗马礼地区的瞻礼，庆祝日期为八月二十二日，即圣母蒙召升天节后第八日。

一九七零年罗马弥撒书把这庆日降为随意纪念的日子，并移至耶稣圣心瞻礼的次日。即五旬节后第二主日后的星期六。而八月二十二日改为圣母元后纪念。

这样一来，圣母的纪念就更合逻辑，因为圣母元后纪念日刚好在圣母蒙召升天后八日，可当作为圣母蒙召升天庆祝的延续。至论圣母圣心移至耶稣圣心瞻礼的次日，更显出圣母与基督的关系，圣母的心无非是基督的心的反映，她是她圣子最完美的门徒。

当日的集祷经：「你圣母圣心是圣神的寓所，也求天主使我们堪当成为祂光荣的宫殿。」这祷文提出了圣母圣心敬礼的意义：基督充满圣神，祂的母亲也由于作了基督徒的典型而充满圣神，而今日我们所祈求的，也是同一圣神的恩赐。

五、嘉模圣母 (七月十六日) 任选纪念

嘉模圣母纪念日(Our Lady of Mt. Carmel) 原是十三世纪嘉模修会(Carmelites，另一译名叫加尔默罗修会) 的重要日子，该修会由一群隐修者在巴肋斯坦嘉模山创立，其会规于十三世纪得教会批准。相传于一二五一年七月十六日该会之会长西满史托(Simon Stock)在神视中见到圣母给他一块圣衣，这就是让修会推广圣母圣衣的起源。

其后该会被迫离开圣地，迁移到西方。为了迁移时的种种困难得以解决，遂定立七月十六日为修会的圣母纪念日，时为一三七六至一三八六年间。教宗本笃十三(1774-1730)于一七二六年把这纳入罗马礼仪年历。一九七零年罗马弥撒书把七月十六日的纪念日降为随意纪念的日子。

该日感恩礼集祷经引出了嘉模山更普遍的意义：「上主，求你因童贞圣母玛利亚的代祷……叫我们抵达天上的圣山?你圣子基督的面前。」在旧约里，山是天主显现的标记，厄里亚先知曾在该山居住，力斥假先知的虚伪(列上十八19-20)，保卫了以民的信仰。自古以来均有基督徒来此山朝圣。嘉模圣母纪念日，叫我们追溯来自该山的以民信仰历史渊源，并指向天上的圣山熙雍的耶路撒冷。

六、圣母元后 (八月二十二日) 纪念

自中世纪以来，已有不少修会团体及在教会的祈祷中，尊玛利亚为天使、诸圣人及世人之后。至十九世纪才有这瞻礼。一八七零年西班牙及拉丁美洲于五月三十一日庆祝圣母诸圣者之后瞻礼。一九五四年十一月一日圣母年闭幕时，教宗庇护十二世把五月三十一日定为全教会庆祝圣母为天地元后的日子一九七零年，罗马弥撒书把它移至八月二十二日(圣母蒙召升天后第八日)，以显出这节日与圣母升天的关系(见上文)，地位则为纪念日。

当日的进堂咏引用圣咏四十四篇第十节：「王后佩带敖非尔金饰，在你右边侍立」。集祷经提到天主把圣母给我们作母亲及母皇，使我们赖她的转求，获享天主子女的荣耀。换言之，圣母为天地母后虽是一种尊称，但这无非是为「侍奉天主」及为世人代祷。

七、圣母痛苦 (九月十五日) 纪念

前称圣母七苦节，起源于中世纪修会团体纪念圣母在十字架下的哀恸，以后扩展为纪念圣母一生所受的各种苦难。「七」字在十五世纪开始应用，因当时人爱用这数字，与圣母七乐相应。一七三七年本笃十三世(1724-1730) 制定「童贞玛利亚七苦节」，在苦难主日前的星期五庆祝，以示圣母痛苦与基督痛苦的关系。

于是时，圣母之仆修会已于一六六七年获罗马准许于九月份的第三主日庆祝圣母七苦节。其后于一八一四年教宗庇护七世(1800-1823) 被放逐法国获释，就把这九月份第三主日的圣母七苦节推广至全教会作为谢恩。一九一三年教宗庇护十世(1903-1914) 把这节目移至九月十五日举行。

一九七零年弥撒书取消了苦难主日前星期五的纪念，以免重复，并把九月十五日易名为圣母痛苦节，地位为纪念日；而九月十四日则是光荣十字架庆日。

圣母痛苦节在今日的礼仪中与十字架有关，即基督首先被钉在十字架上，吸引众人皈依祂，而基督徒的生活也要继承十字架的精神，而十字架不独有痛苦的一面，同时更是光荣及胜利的象征；圣母玛利亚正好是基督徒追随基督，分担祂救世劳苦的模范。

该日的集祷经提到圣母分担基督的苦难，求主使我们也能同样去作。第一篇读经引用希伯来书第五章，论基督从苦难中学习了服从。

为我们今天，「七」这字已不重要，重要的是作为基督徒，藉十字架达到完美的人生过程，而圣母则是我们这方面的模范。

又值得一提的，就是圣母痛苦的继抒咏，即着名的Stabat Mater，大多数音乐学者推定歌词为十三世纪一位方济嘉布遣会士所作，历代音乐家部会为它谱曲。圣母痛苦这题材的普及性及受爱戴程度由此可见。

八、玫瑰圣母 (十月七日) 纪念

这节日起源的远因与诵念玫瑰经有关。玫瑰经的主要推动者是道明修会，他们组织玫瑰经团，鼓吹多诵念玫瑰经，然而这节日的建立，却是西方一连串胜仗的「感恩」。

这节日最初名为「胜利之母节」，由教宗庇护五世(1565-1572) 于一五七一年制定，为纪念奥国在立本陶(Lepanto) 地击退土耳其军；该次胜利被认为是诵念玫瑰里的效果。继位教宗额我略十三世(1572-1585) 于一五七三年把这节日易名为玫瑰圣母节，作为罗马市的当守节日。一个半世纪以后，欧洲又再在彼得瓦顿(Peterwardein) 对土耳其战争获得胜利，教宗格肋孟十一世(1700-1721) 在一七一六年遂把玫瑰圣母节扩展至整个教会，以表感恩，规定在十月份第一个主日庆祝。日后教宗庇护十世在一九一三年把这节日改回原来的十月七日，即立本陶战役的胜利纪念日。一九七零罗马弥撒书将该日子保存不变，给予「纪念日」地位。

是日感恩礼的祷文已完全没有战役胜利的谢恩色彩，集祷经及领主后经均提到耶稣的降生、苦难和复活奥迹，刚好是玫瑰经的三份，也是基督奥迹的精华，故这天的意义在于玫瑰经所纪念的基督奥迹，而圣母是确实的参与者。

九、其他圣母节日

除以上在今日罗马弥撒书所载的圣母节日外，还有不少与圣母有关的节日，其中有些已渐渐式微，有些属地方性的庆祝，有些则已完全取消了。从十七世纪开始，这等庆祝有如雨后春笋；它们既然都属历史沿革的一部份，这里就择录一些较为人所熟知的作一简介：

(1) 圣母圣名节最早期在西班牙庆祝。初时是日课形式，一六八三年九月十二日波兰军解放维也纳，教宗依诺森十一世遂把圣母圣名节列内罗马年历，在圣母诞辰节后的主日举行。其后教宗庇护十世把这日移至九月十二日。然这节日是重复圣母诞辰的意义的。

(2) 慈爱圣母节这日原是慈爱修会(Order of Mercedarians) 的庆节，该修会创于十三世纪，致力赎回欧洲被回民战败被掳的基督徒。该修会大约在十七世纪开始庆祝慈爱圣母节 (Our Lady of Mercy)。

(3) 圣母母性节 (Motherhood of Mary)这节日为教宗庇护十一世于一九三一年钦定，为纪念厄弗所大公会议一千五百周年，十月十一日是当时被认定为该会议闭幕的日子(其实不确)，让次会议宣称圣母为天主之母，圣母母性节则定在该日。一九七零年罗马弥撒书恢复了一月一日的天主之每节。为免重复，便取消了十月十一日的纪念。

(4) 中华圣母庆节这庆日为中国地方教会的庆日。一九二四年六月十八日，上海全国主教会议决议将中国奉献给圣母，一九四一年，教宗庇护十二世为中国地方教会钦定中国之后庆节。在今日礼仪年历中，让节名为中华圣母节，并移至五月第二主日前之星期六，即母亲节前一天庆祝。

圣母是教会之母，也是全人类之母，「中华圣母」的意义，自然从属于以上意义，在此不必另赘。

(5) 其他从十七世纪至二十世纪钦定的圣母纪念还有很多，比如：十二月十八日圣母预产期纪念；一月二十三日圣母圣若瑟结婚纪念；四月二十六日善导之母纪念；五月二十四日圣母进教之佑纪念；六月二十四日永援之母纪念；十一月二十七日显灵圣牌纪念等。

如众周知，目前不少圣堂或教会学校机构仍以上述之名称命名。这些节日虽已从一九七零年罗马弥撒书中取消，但罗马无意取消个别有关团体或地区对这些节日的庆祝。

总结

玛利亚的敬礼日虽然很多，但不是每个节日为我们都有同等的意义。从历史中我们得知早期的节日多与基督或圣母的事迹有关。比如源自耶京的圣母蒙召升天节，圣母诞辰节，献圣母于圣殿节等，都是于圣地睹物思人，纪念在当地所发生的事迹。献耶稣于圣殿节，及预报救主降生节，是以基督诞生的庆日计算而定，即十二月二十五日倒算九个月为预报救主降生，圣诞后第四十日为献耶稣于圣殿。圣诞后第八日为天主之母的纪念，是圣诞期庆祝的一部份。圣母大殿纪念则因为圣母大殿是西方最早奉献给圣母的圣殿。

以上早期教会的圣母敬礼日期，是可更改的，因为庆祝的对象不是某地点及某时间，而是救恩事件本身，并在意义上与基督救世奥迹密切相连，且其中一些庆祝，根本上该称作基督的庆节。

中世纪以后的庆节，有些原是地方性或修会性的庆祝，而扩展至全教会，有些则是得圣母助佑之谢恩，或立节日作纪念，有些更是抽象的主题，为庆祝加于圣母的热心名衔，如：圣母圣心，慈爱圣母，永援之母，善导之母等。理论上，这些加诸圣母身上的尊称，数目可能超过一年的日子。一九七零年罗马弥撒书中，大部份抽象的主题性庆祝或纯地方性的庆祝，均已删除，表示敬礼圣母该特别着重有历史根据的救恩事件，使我们在庆祝之时，更深的领会并投入基督的救世工程之内。

在中世纪，圣母始胎无玷是圣母庆节发展中最重要的一环，就圣母成胎而言，是一个事件的庆祝，所经历的神学争辩，则更深入显出基督救恩的意义。不过在礼仪中，我们并不从神学争辩的胜负作为庆祝的对象。

但中世纪是礼仪走下坡的时候，道听途说的传闻及混有迷信成份的敬礼遂窜入礼仪。人们舍本逐末，忽略了礼仪的真谛，舍基督的奥迹于脑后，而专门着眼于一些可有可无或纯对圣母的尊称的庆祝。这些庆祝都很实际：如求战胜，求圣母的各种助佑，但问题不在这些敬礼的合理与否，而在礼仪与纯度不一的民间热心敬礼的撕混。

可幸的是，经过历史的考验，那些纯属热心敬礼而混入礼仪的纪念或次要的节日大多已不再存在。每一个时代的需要不同，过去吸引人的一些表扬圣母德行的枝节名目，或出于穿凿附会的庆祝，如圣母结婚节，劳来德圣母节(传说天使把纳匝肋圣母的屋搬到义大利劳来德镇)，圣体圣母节，谦逊圣母节等，已不再吸引人注意。敬礼圣母基本意义今日重新显露出来；圣母的敬礼或纪念日常是与基督的普世救恩有密切关系的事迹。

节日的不断累积，使历史上节日包袱越来越重。事实上教会每一次礼仪改革，必定包括重订礼仪年的节日，把次要的纪念日删除。而另一方面，各修会团体或地方教会亦不断的将地区性庆祝争取成为普世教会的庆祝，过程尤具政治性，而罗马教会往这方面则相当保守，不会轻易接纳，否则今日的圣母节日更琳琅满目，年中天天更换他庆祝不完。即使如此，今日保留下来的仍相当多。我们可以从历史的发展脉胳预测今后仍会有新订的圣母纪念日出现。而每一个时代，我们都要辨别那些日子值得广扬，那些日子是属次要，那些日子已不合时代需要。在这方面，历史研究是有效的工具，帮助我们作出合理的决定，以保信仰的核心讯息，避免信仰外表化的倾向。

最后，礼仪年是基督救赎奥迹随着日子及节期一步一步披露的恩宠时刻，是救恩史在此时此地的具体实现；在教会内是绝对没有独立的圣母礼仪年的，故圣母各纪念日在礼仪年中的安排，并不按时间的逻辑先后(部份除外)，而是安置在以基督奥迹为主的时节中，作为彰显基督救恩的从属庆祝。

作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio

MARY AS THE SANCTUARY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT－

SACRARIUM SPIRITUS SANCTI

1. Introduction

"As for May she treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart" (Lk 2:19,51). The Virgin Mary who was directly involved in the event of the incarnation never lost sight of any mysterious happenings in her life but kept them all in her heart that. as it were, a greater desire be induced in her to reach all the full depth of the descent of God, descendit de caelo. In fact the grace she received far surpasses all other creatures, both in heaven and on earth and was called the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit (Sacrarium Spiritus sancti) because by receiving the Word of God in her heart and in her body she gave Life to the world (1). Many in later generations who were in search of God (quaerere Deum) followed the examples of the humble Virgin by meditating upon the same marvels that God has achieved.

The Holy Scripture as divinely inspired is precisely a record of God's words and deeds (2). Meditation on the Scripture thus offered the beginnings of the eternal vision of God. This is especially true in the monastic culture (3). A reverent approach to the text, careful consideration of every detail of expression and cultivation of a quiet receptiveness which allows the Holy Spirit to speak in a man's heart as it will, all these had long been the traditional features of the "holy reading" (lectio divina) of the monastic life (4). Regarding the Marian title "Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti", we confine ourselves to a presentation of a lectio divina of a twelfth-century abbot, Rupert of Deutz (5). To be more precise, we are going to present some of his reflections (on this title) taken from his treatise On the Works of the Holy Spirit (6) which was the fruit of his prayerful meditation.

The twelfth-century has been considered a period of theological renewal (7). It witnessed the first stirrings of scholasticism and a flowering of the patristic traditions, specially, among monks. Many great authors belonged to this period like Anselm of Laon (d.1117), Rupert of Deutz (d.1129), Hugh of St Victor (d.1141), Abelard (d.1141), William of St. Thierry (d.1148). St. Bernard (d.1153), Gilbert of Poitiers (d.1154). Peter the Venerable (d.1156), Peter Lombard (d.1160) and so on (8). Among them Rupert of Deutz is considered the founder of biblical theology (9). Whatever one may think of the accuracy of this title it does bear witness to the fact that his writings had a great influence on monastic theology (10). Besides, he was also a "Mystiker" (11) and was endowed with the special gift of understanding the Scriptures. He did not deny the value of human learning, but simply they cannot be compared with "a visit from on high" (vistatio ab altissimo) (12) and he claimed himself among those who were privileged to have the gift of understanding with which he could do nothing but keep writing (13). Obviously this visitatio ab altissimo has enriched his lectio divina so much so that his commentary was intended to be a help for his readers to have an initial contact with divine mysteries (14).

What then is lectio divina? It means a text itself to be read, a selected passage or a lesson taken from the Scripture. In the Middle Ages as in antiquity, the reading involved the participation of body and mind. The readers had to pronounce the words they saw them, listening to the words pronounced and hearing the so-called "voices of the pages". It is a real acoustic reading: legere and audire. At the same time the lectio is accompanied by meditatio. The mind should think of the words read. It implies the thinking of a thing with the intention of doing it: in other words, to prepare oneself for it, to prefigure it in the mind, to desire it, in a way, to do it in advance－briefly, to practice it. This results in more than a visual memory of the written words. What results is a muscular memory of the words pronounced and an aural memory of the words heard. The meditatio consists in applying oneself with attention to this exercise in total memorization; it is, terefore, inseparable from the lectio. It is what inscribes, so to speak, the sacred text in the body and in the soul. This repeated mastication of the divine words is sometimes described as spiritual nutrition. In this case the vocabulary is borrowed from eating, from digestion, and from the particular form of digestion belonging to ruminants. For this reason, reading and meditation are sometimes described by the word ruminatio which will lead to the depths of the words and taste of their flavour (in ore cordis). The way of uniting reading, meditation and prayer, this "meditative prayer" as William of St. Thierry calls it, had great influence on religious psychology. It occupies and engages the whole person in whom the Scriptures take root, later on to bear fruit. It is this deep impregnation with the words of Scripture that explains the extremely important phenomenon of reminiscence whereby the verbal echoes so excite the memory that a mere allusion will spontaneously evoke whole quotations and, in turn. a scriptural phrase will suggest quite naturally allusions elsewhere in the sacred books. Each word is like a hook, so to speak; it catches hold of one or several others which become linked together and make up the fabric of the expose. The monastic lectio is aimed at meditatio and oratio. It is a prayerful reading. Obviously lectio divina is one of the principal occupations of the monk as described in the Rule of St. Benedict. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to know, to learn, and for some. to teach. In fact literature is a conditioning factor of Benedictine life (15).

(1)See Lumen Gentium 53: Virgo enim Maria, quae Angelo nuntiante Verbum Dei corde et corpore suscepit et Vitam mundo protulit (...) ut sit Genitrix Dei Filii (...) sacrarium Spiritus Sancti quo eximiae gratiae dono omnibus aliis creturis, coelestibus et terrestribus, longe antecellit.

(2)See Dei Verbum 2: Placuit Deo in sua bonitate et sapientia Seipsum revelare et notum facere sacramentum voluntatis suae (cf eph 1:9), quo homines per christum, Verbum camem factum, in Spiritu Sancto accessum habent ad Patrem et divinae naturae consortes efficiuntur (cf Eph 2:18; 1Pt 1:4). (...)Haec revelationis oeconomia fit gestis verbisque intrinsece inter se connexis, ita ut opera, in historia salutis a Deo patrata, doctrinam et res verbis significatas manifestent ac corroborent, verba autem opera prociament et mysterium in eis contentum elucident.

(3)LECLERCQ J., The Love of Learning and the Desire for God. A Study of Monastic Culture (New York－Fordhanm Univ. 1982, repr. 1985) 71-86. This is a translation from L' Amour des lettres et le desir de Dieu: Initiation au auteurs monastiques du moyen age (Paris 1957); EVANS G. R., The Language and Logic of the Bible. The Earlier Middle Ages (Cambridge Univ. 1984); SPICQ C., Esquisse d' une histoire de 1' exegese latine au Moyen Age (Paris 1944).

(4)See EVANS G. R., o.c. 13; LECLERCQ J., o.c. 15-17, 72-73; 212-217; ROUSSE J.－SIEBEN H. J.－BOLAND A., Lectio Divina et Lecture Spirituelle, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite t. 9 (Pris 1976-77) 470-510; Von SEVERUS E. －SOLIGNAC A.－GOOSSENS M.－SAUVAGE M.－SUDBRAK J., Meditation, in Dictionnaire de Spirtualite t. 10 (Paris 1977-80) 906-934.

(5)Rupert of Deutz (ca. 1075-1129) was born and brought up in the environs of Liege. During his adolescence he had a series of mystical experiences and was convinced he had been granted the gift of understanding the Scriptures. As zealous Gregorian reformer he refused ordination until his simoniacal bishop had been reconciled to Rome (1106). As a biblical theologian he wrote many biblical commentaries and had not a few controversies with the secular clergy of Liege, the school of Laon, the Canon Regulars. He was appointed Abbot of Deutz near Cologne in 1120 and died March 4, 1129.　

Further details on his life can be found in MAGRASSI M., Teologia e storia net pensiero di Ruperto di Deutz (Roma 1959); ARDUINI M. L., Contribute alla biografia di Ruperto di Deutz, in Studi Medievali 3 ser. 16 (1975) 537-582; EADEM, Neue Studien uber Rupert von Deutz, Siegburger Studien 17 (Siegburg 1985); VAN ENGEN J., Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley 1983).

(6)The De Operibus Spiritus Sancti (abbrv. Spir) belongs to the third part of Rupert's most comprehensive exgetical work De sancta Trinitate et Operibus eius, in HAACKE Rh. (ed.). Corpus Christianorum Continuatio MedMevalis (abbrv. CCCM) 21-24 (Turhnolti 1971-72). The whole work contains 42 books in three parts. It deals with the greater part of the Bible, associating the Three Persons of the Trinity with the principal epochs of history: the Father with Creation (in part one from book I to book 3), the Son with Redemption (which begins already with the expulsion from Paradise and culminates in the Incarnation in part two from book 4 to book 33) and God the Holy Spirit active through His seven gifts from the Incarnation to the Last Judgment in part three from book 34 to book 42). The thirty-two books in the first two parts deal with differnt Old Testament books except one with the Gospels. When Rupert comes to Part three De Operibus Spiritus Sancti on the works of the Holy Spirit he draws freely from the whole Bible. It can be taken as an independent unit. Rupert follows the Augustine's influential tripartite division of salvation-history (ante legem, sub lege, sub gratia). These nine books deals with the Holy Spirit who is at work through His seven gifts. The history of the Church is organized in seven epochs corresponding to the seven gifts though without defining clearly their time divisions.

(7)See the stimulating volume of BENSON R.L., －CONSTABLE G. (eds). Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Oxford 1982). Especially CONSTABLE G., Introduction xxvii: "By their self-imposed chronological limits, the authors imply that the renaissance was mainly bracketed in the century from the 1060s or 1070s to 1160s and that the early twelfth century was its center of gravity",

(8)See LECLERCQ J., The Renewal of Theology, in BENSON R.L－CONSTABLE G. (eds), o.c. 68-87, here 69-70.

(9)See SPICQ C., o.c. 117

(10)See LECLERCQ J., The Love of Learning and the Desire for God 218: Rupert "is the source par excellence for traditional monastic theology".

(11)HAACKE Rh., Die mystischen Visionen Ruperts von Deutz, in Sapientiae Doctrina: Melanges de theologie et de litterature medievales offerts a Dom Hildebrand Bascour O. S. B. (louvain 1980) 68-90.

(12)See De gloria et honore Filii hominis super Matthaeum XII ed. HAACKE Rh. CCCM 29, 386: Ego quamvis et ipse nonnullos in disciplinis scholaribus patres habuerim, et in libris artium liberalium non segniter studiosus exititerim, hoc profiteor quia vistatio ab altissimo melior roihi est quam decern patres huiusmodi.

(13)IBID., CCCM 29, 384: (...) cito subsistit inundans ilia vis amoris paulatimqu decessit; ego autem os meum aperuit et cessare quando scriberem nequaquam potui, et etiam si velim, tacere non possum.

(14)See Spir 1, 2 24, 1823-24: Verum speculandae huius gratiae via recta legitimusque ordo, tune demum nobis servabityr, si gratiae principem et largitorem, mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominern Iesum Christum prius cognoverimus.

(15)See note 4.

2. Mary－Sanctuary of the Holy Spirit (Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti)

The title in this work first appeared in the seventh chapter of book one (Spir 1. 7) when the incarnation of the Word is mentioned as the first act of the Holy Spirit. The Word though pre-existing should now take human flesh in the Virgin's womb and be generated by her. Since Mary is a creature and could not achieve this alone, then the Holy Spirit comes upon her and the power of the Most High overshadows her that the incarnation be achieved. Rupert actually repeats what the Gospel has narrated but only put it in a nice poetical way that reflects, nonetheless, his theological vision of history and the destiny of men.

The Latin word Sacrarium indicates a place destined for ceremonies of worship or a sacred dwelling of divinity where divine secrets or sacred things pertinent to divinities are to be reserved (16). Rupert has used it as a bridge term to describe the highest point of the continual descent of tanscendent deity into immanence which had already initiated in the first moment of creation and which pointed to the summit of the Virginal conception of the Word. It is an adapted term to provoke ideas like God's plan {propositum Dei), revelation, indwelling of divinity, worship of God, Church, sanctification of man, and so on. In sum it is a reassertion of the classical interpretation of the "exchange" {commercium) by which the Son of God became what we are in order that we might become what he is－sons of God in the Son. The underlying motif in all these concepts is Rupert's theology of salvation-history (17). At the heart of history is the event of the incarnation which took place in the Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti. the Blessed Virgin.

2.1 Mary and the Synagogue:

The Preparation of the IncarnationThe outreach of the Word to the world has already taken place ever since the very moment of creation. Rupert expresses this idea by putting the words of Ps 44:1-2 in the mouth of the Father: "My heart overflows (eructavit) with a goodly theme (verbum bonum); I address my verses (opera) to the king; my tongue (lingua) is like the pen (calamus) of a ready scribe"(18). Verbum bonum obviously is associated with the second divine person. The world is not only created in Him but also for Him (propter quod) that He may reign over all peoples. God intended all along to have the Word assume a concrete, earthly role in the divine plan for all peoples independent of the fall of humanity. Just as the first man should dominate all the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that move on earth by virtue of his rationality; so the Incarnate Word will reign over all peoples by virtue of His divine majesty (19). Man is to be the Lord of the world, but God the Lord of all men through the Incarnate Kingship of the Word. This has always been the plan (propositum) of God. The Word's assumption of the flesh constituted no new plan on God's part. That is to say the incarnation is unconditional. All that was "new" yet not unforeseen was attributed to the fall of man which required that the Incarnate Word, rather than opting for other possibilities, should assume a servile humanity of Adam. namely, a mortal body which was to undergo the suffering of sacrifical death in order to requite God's righteousness (20).

The unfolding of the divine plan is always in a progressive form (a minore ad majus) and every part of sacred history marks a incrementum of light. Thus the divine plan has taken a more explicit shape in the history of the chosen people (21). By quoting Ez 16:4ff, Rupert recalled the misery of the people born in the state of sin just like a poor girt born in the dirt of blood. The misery was represented by the slavery in Egypt whence the Lord brought her and made a covenant with her decorating her with the Law. This passage like many others in the Scripture demonstrated that the love of God towards the chosen people his likened to that of a husband for is bride (sponsa Dei) (22). This great love of God will be further made tangible in the incarnation.

"Would it be a joke or fictitious play on words, spoken without thinking seriously, from the Father of alt wisdom whose immense great love is the Holy Spirit? Far from this! Actually He wanted to be the husband of rational humanity, that is to generate from her His own Son. In fact He began doing this, when He revealed this here and there and when He sent Moses and the prophets. God, the husband and spiritually God the Holy Spirit chose some souls from the people proven by faith. They were admitted to by embraced chastely by the husband. Then by the impetus of His love, namely, of the Holy Spirit, God－the husband－infused His own seed from His inner self, His Word from the depth of His heart to the chosen ones. Then the Word of Truth received by them opened their mouths and took up their corporeal voices that they might prophecy for Him and provoke faith from the listeners". (23)

In this way Rupert shows that the love of God is not only confined to the Synagogue－the chosen people, but extended to all humanity as such (vir esse intendebat rationalis creaturae humanae). Or to speak in another way, the Church in the largest sense embraces all men in different times and places (24). To be the husband of humanity means that God wants to generate His own Son together with her. In fact the "infusion" of the divine seed is expressed in the prophetical charism, that is, a spiritual conception of the Word (Conceptio in mente) in the chosen people (sponsa Patris).

Since God spoke to man through man. He adopted human languages. Obviously all transcendence of divine truth cannot be enclosed in earthly speaking. Thus Rupert warned us "not to let the apparent use of the similes attenuate the reality of truth. In fact whatever the truth-telling holy Scripture speaks to us about the love of God or God, the lover, is always true and constant. However due to the limited situations of our flesh similes are to be used. These similes with respect to the constant truth are nothing but shadows or transitory images. For us. earthly beings, the earthly things came to be known immediately and deemed as the reality and the 'reality' itself as similes. On the contrary the latter is reality, the former are similes which will pass away with respect to the permanent" (25). Hence to call the Synagogue sponsa Patris is a metaphorical way of talking about the intimate relation between God and man. What matters here is not the term itself but the relation that constitutes the entire reality.

Now the "reality" which will come true is that God loved so much humanity that He wanted to generate His own Son out of her and now in Mary God will bring His plan to completion (cause completa). Just as the conceptio in mente has taken place in the chosen people, above all, among prophets, so Mary, before her physical conception (conceptio in ventre), has had also the spiritual conception (conceptio in mente). In this sense Rupert is not only audacious enough to call Mary the bride of the Father (sponsa Patris) but also the best of the chosen people (pars optima ecclesiaeprioris). There are two reasons for which Mary became the best. First in the moral order Mary in an excellent way manifested her faith or "fiat" before the proposal of God (26). Faith is the pre-condition of (conceptio in mente) (27). Her faith thus furnished the best dwelling for God (descendit de caelo). Secondly, in the ontological order, it is the physical conception (conceptio in ventre) that brings, as it were in a retroactive way, her conceptio in mente to fullness. Let us now examine this two-fold conceptio more in detail.

2.2 Conceptio in mente

As the Virgin was the chosen sponsa Dei Patris and the pars optima God loved her to the utmost. But how (quornocto)? Rupert's technical use of "how" is usually intended to lead the readers to rise from the "letter" to the "spiritual sense" of the reality. Then elegantly he puts his meditated "how" in this way:

"God, the Father, (...) was her husband (...). How all his interest, all his fruit, all his affection, all his love. all his power and generating force were brought together upon this Virgin when the fullness of time came? Only the Virgin herself who had experienced this knew best (...). The holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. We have only heard of these words but she was the first to hear and by believing what she had heard. In her fervent belief she opened her mind and mouth saying, 'Behold, the handmaid of the Lord, let it happen to me as you have said'. At once, according to the word of the angel, the Holy Spirit came over her and through the open doors of faith penetrated in her. Where? First in the sanctuary of her chaste breast (Sacrarium pudici pectoris), then in the temple of the sacred and immaculate womb (templum sacri et incorrupt! uteri). In the dwelling of the breast the Spirit made her the prophetess and in the womb, the mother" (28).

By relating the image of "open doors" (ianuae apertae) to the assent of faith, Rupert describes the penetration of the Holy Spirit which is the love of God (Amor Dei) and which entails the conceptio in mente of the Word in her heart. Thus Mary became the prophetess. Her prophetical dignity is far beyond all other prophets insofar as her conceptio in mente is the last and the most important preparation for the conceptio in ventre. In fact the beatitude of all other prophets derives from their relations to this sanctuary of God. To express this. Rupert employs the prophecy of Isaiah, "'I approached the prophetess then she conceived and gave birth to a Son' (...). Rather we have no doubt that all the holy prophets, Moses for the first, had approached this prophetess! All came to her: the particuler prophecies of alt and every single special grace came together upon this prophetess at the moment of the coming of the Holy Spirit over the virgin. Isaiah, indeed all the prophets, believed themselves blessed because they were well aware of bringing something of the good Word to this sanctuary of the Holy Spirit" (29).

Hence in this way the Virgin Mary "received the full grace of the Holy Spirit and conceived the whole Word of God. first in the spirit then in the womb (prius mente quam ventre concipiens)"(30).

The word "approach" (accessi) together with "conceive" and "give birth" does convey the meaning of sexual intercourse which, however, is used to express "intimate knowledge" in another way. The prophecies are the fruit of the conceptio in mente of the prophets. The sum total of all these prophecies points to nothing but the coming of the Messiah－the incarnation of the Word. However all these prophecies would not be fulfilled, were it not for the believing assent of the Blessed Virgin. In such a way the prophecies give expression to the immense richness of this sanctuary of the Spirit but it is the opening of the doors of this dwelling that renders all the prophecies dynamic, vital and fulfilled. The dynamic outreach of the divine transcendence through the prophecies arrives at its summit and fullness in the Virgin's conceptio in mente.

2.3 Conceptio in ventre

Like many other prophets conceptio in mente requires both faith of the person concerned as pre-condition and assistance of the Holy Spirit. In fact for the fiat of the Virgin Mary the Spirit came upon her. However for the conception in ventre it requires something more which is expressed by the greeting of the Archangel Gabriel, "Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus". Rupert further specified the fullness of grace (gratia plena) in terms of the overshadowing of the power of the Most High that guarantees the second generation of the Son of God (31). This power (virtus altissimi) is nothingbut the Holy Spirit Himself, the Spirit of love (32).

"What did this fragile girl receive or conceive? She was so fragile not by her sex but by her mortal nature. In spite of this, she conceived the true Word of the Lord. the true substance of the Word, out of the best substance of God the Father before whom even the angels trembled (...). It is precisely the power of the Most High, the power of performing great wonders that makes her female nature ready for the coming of the Word"(33).

Now Rupert turns his attention to the Incarnate Word who constitutes the real content of the conceptio in ventre. Though the conceptio in ventre is by virtue of the Holy Spirit. Rupert made it clear that it is not the Spirit who generates (Spiritu generante). The Son generated is not the Son of the Spirit. The conceived one is not due to the generatio but operatic Spiritus sancti. The child to be born will be called holy (sanctum), the Son of God (Filius Dei). Rupert following John 1:1 affirms that what the Virgin conceives has pre-existed long before, holy (sanctum) by ageless essence {antiqua essentia), and has always heen the Son of God. The fact that he is now called the Son of God manifests the name of God who was not yet known as the Father who generated this Son not by adoption of grace (non adoptione gratiae) but by his very nature (proprietate naturae) (34).

For Rupert the holy (sanctum) is the sanctifying holiness (sanctitas, qua sancti omnes sanctificantur)and is now born as the holy of the holy (sanctus sanctorum). He was not conceived or born in the sin of Adam and then sanctified by the accidental holiness. Definitely not. It was the immaculate Virgin (incorrupta Virgo) that conceived this essential holiness (essentialiter sanctum) by virtue of the Holy Spirit (35). Rupert is well aware that the "sanctifying holiness" is to be conceived or born in the immaculate Virgin, though without making it explicit that it is this "sanctifying holiness" which had sanctified her long before this conception. However it is important to note that the conceptio in ventre does not only point to the revelation of the heavenly Father but also the sanctification of all humanity. In fact a few lines later he associated this holy one called the Son of God with the New Man of St. Paul: The first man became a living soul (animam viventem) and the second has become a life-giving spirit (spiritum vivificantem) (36).

Now by his comparison between the New Man and the old man, Rupert tries to draw a picture of the New Man. God made man out of the soil of the earth which was not blessed, while for the heavenly man God blessed the Virgin. He quoted the words of the archangel Gabriel "blessed are you among women" (benedicta tu in mulieribus) and Ps 84 "Lord, you have blessed your land" (Benedixisti. Domine, terram tuam). Thus the New Man was not made of the soil of the ground (cte limo terrae) but of the "blessed earth" which unlike the first is the living, sensible, rational and above all. faithful. Precisely because of this faith, it becomes capable of receiving the Holy Spirit and the seed of God (37). We should not think that Holy Spirit is a better and wiser maker (artifex) than the Father, though the New Adam conceived by the work of the Holy Spirit is better than the old one; because the New Adam is made of a better land that is more similar to the divine reason (divinae rationi vicinior) (38).

The first man was created in the image (adimaginern) and likeness (ad similitudinern nostram) of God. imago means the reason which distinguishes man from other creatures in the world (39). Similitudo is the participation in the Holy Spirit (40). The first man was supposed to pass from imago to similitudo. He could have by his free and rational activities entered into loving communion with God from a natural life to a supernatutal one. These activities are nothing but the imitations of God's goodenss (41). However the first man failed. Now comes the second Man in whom the similitudo is the Holy Spirit Himself and the imago Dei invisibilis is the Son of God. They both join together in the very womb of the Virgin. Then by way of reminiscence (42), Rupert refers this fact to Ps 84:11: "Faithful love (misericordia) and Loyalty (veritas) join together. Saving Justice (iustitia) and Peace (Pax) embrace". These divine attributes personified are referred to the Holy Spirit (misericordia -pax) and the Son (veritas - iustitia). "Loyalty (veritas) will spring up from the earth" (Ps 84:12) points to Christ's humanity and "Justice (iustitia) will lean down from heaven" (Ps 84:12) to His divinity (43). In this way the New Man is by far the most perfect of all men.

Rupert's identification of the similitudo with the Holy Spirit obviously depends heavily on the Latin structure of Gen 1:26: "Faciamus hominern ad imaginern et similitudinern nostram". The possessive adjective "our" {nostram) is attached to similitudinem not to imaginem. This enables him to say that "our likeness" (similitudinem nostram) refers to the Spirit of the Father and of the Son (44). Such a heavy dependence on the Latin version in exegesis today sounds perhaps far-fetched, yet the analysis of the Latin structure for medieval exegetes was itself one of the techniques to discover the "key" to other passages. It is an effective evocation of biblical images and a device to break through the prison of the letter so as to arrive at the spirit of the word. Of course the similitudo of the New Man reinforces the concept of the overshadowing of the Spirit and thus fits in squarely with that fo the sacrarium Spiritus Sancti.

2.4 Mary and the Church: The Continuation of Incarnation

Within the framework of the "unique Church" as the entire humanity, the conception in ventre does not only render Mary the pars optima ecclesiae. the sponsa Patris but also the model of the new Church, the bride of the Son of God (exemplar iunioris ecclesiae sponsae Filii De;) (45). The Holy Spirit who in or from the womb of the Mary has worked for the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God will also be at work in the womb of the Church through the life-giving baptism of grace for the re-birth of many sons of God. It is not without reason that we distinguish the Old Synagogue which is the bride of the Father from the "New" Church which is the bride of the Son. It is clear that the Synagogue of that time did not recognize the Son of God and thus could not be said to be His bride; God was only revealed to a few through the Spirit of prophecy and was hidden from the rest (46). The distinction between Mary as sponsa Patris, par excellence, and the Church as sponsa Fitii enables Rupert to draw a close parallel between the womb of Mary (uterus Mariae) and that of the Church (uterus Ecclesiae).

First of all. the Church in a large sense an be identified with the entire humanity yet has a special task of conceiving the Word who wanted to be incarnated. For Rupert that pregnant woman in labour described in Rev 12 is to carry out this task and hence the image is formally applied to the Church (47) but inclusively also to the Virgin Mary who has shared the pain of childbirth. Rupert did not tackle this point in one explicit place, but if we put together the scenes he depicted in different passages, a close-up picture of the Church-Mary can be seen in this woman. "Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman robed with the sun standing on the moon. and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant, and in labour, crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth"(Rev 12:1-3). Rupert explained in detail that this woman is the Holy Church. According to the Scripture, once she was found in her nudity because of the sins of the first parents but now is robed with the sun, that is, Christ, the sun of justice(...). The moon under her feet means renouncement of worldly goods. On her head a crown of twelve stars means that at the beginning the Church is embellished with twelve apostles (48). She is pregnant with the good Word of God in her heart by virtue of the Spirit of God's love. She preaches out of great love and cares only for the generation of the spiritual sons (49). The labours of the Church are due to the confrontation of the evil one which has begun a lasting battle (50). However the presence of Mary on Calvary shows her involvement in the same "labours", namely, the painful childbirth which is different from that of the joyful childbirth in Bethlehem. Rupert decribes this by images. Under the cross "a sword pierced through the soul of the blessed Virgin and Mother of God" (51). At the same time John the beloved disciple was there "to drink the cup of the Lord's passion"(52). The "drinking" marks a new life of John as one of the twelve stars of the nascent Church and as a son entrusted to Mary. Later as apostle and evangelist he was granted the admirable visions with which he wrote of the inexpressible mystery of the Incarnate Word in the Book of Revelations. (53). Then in his letter he was able to testify to the three human witnesses of Christ's baptism: the Spirit, water and blood (54). The blood of Christ was poured out with water from his side and thus washed away all the sins of those who have faith (55). In another passage He was likened to a little golden bag of God, namely the fullnes of the Holy Spirit. This bag was torn by the passion and from thence overflows (procedere) the Spirit for the forgiveness of sins (56). The passion is His own baptism by which Christ Himself was glorified (57). In this way the glorified Christ－the husband of the Church (sponsus ecclesiae) by His blood, water and Spirit renders fecund the womb of the Church.

Secondly, both Mary and the Church enjoyed the same divine fecundity of the Holy Spirit. "The divine omnipotence that came upon Mary and overshadowed her that the only begotten Son of God might be conceived and born of her, is the same omnipotence that comes over the waters and endows them with fecundity so that the sons of God may te re-born of them. The source of the natural water is rendered life-giving and becomes the womb of the Church and the womb of grace" (58). In this way Mary becomes the exemplar of the New Church, because the same Spirit that first came upon and dwelled in her will also does the same for the regeneration of the children of God in the womb of the Church.

Thirdly, since Mary herself is neither detached from nor stands above but is always within the Church, her fecundity empowered by the Holy Spirit renders fecund the motherhood of the Church in generating sons of God. Rupert again resorts to the image of Rev 12:1-2 so as to show that the entire Church through Mary who forms pan of the Church gives birth to Christ in flesh with a loud cry of desire and of lasting expectation (59). In this way the divine fecundity of the Spirit enables both of them to generate the same Christ but at once in different senses. Mary gave birth to the Only Son of God, while the Church to sons in the Son. By the message of the archangel Gabriel and the overshadowing of the Spirit Mary gave birth to the Only Son of God who, pre-existing in eternity, assumed the flesh from her; whereas the Church by the preaching of Gospels (praedicatio evangelorum) and the life-giving washing (lavacrum vivificum) (60) generates the children of God who in their corrupted humanity are re-formed in the divinity of Christ (61). Just as the message of Gabriel requires faith from the Virgin, so does the preaching of Gospels require it from the listeners. To put it in another way, the Church thus becomes the Mother of God, at least in a mystical way, precisely because on the one hand her most excellent member Mary has generated the Son of God and on another the Church herself through her generates sons in the Son. It is from Mary, the sacrarium Spiritus sancti, the Church first, mente gravida, then utero gravida, attains the divine fecundity and generates the sons of God. When the Virgin was giving birth to the Incarnate Son, it was the whole Church in her giving birth. When the Church is giving birth to the sons, it is Mary in the Church giving birth to them. In Mary the Church becomes Mother of the God-man and in the Church Mary becomes mother of all. A mutual penetration, almost an exchange of functions, takes place between one and another. Thus Mary by virtue of her motherhood of the Son becomes the mother of all sons (62).

As the Church has assumed the task of generating the children of God (63), she has to face the challenges of the evil one (64). It is the Incarnate Word Himself who has to carry on the process of incarnation and bring it to fullness (65) and become the sanctifying holiness of all who are born of this woman. The fullness of the incarnation, from which we are invited to attain initially in this world (66) through the sacraments, will be realized in the resurrection of the body. On that day the Word in the heart of the Father will fully be present in our body (67) in such a way that the Spirit dwelling corporally in the Incarnate body will also dwell in us (68).

(16)The Latin Word "Sacrarium" derives from "Sacer" (sacred, holy) and "Arium" (a suffix denoting a place). The Greek is "Ieroteion", "hagionbema". It means a temple, a sanctuary of a church, sacristy, treasure-room, chapel, sacred order; the inner part of the temple or the altar where the pyx for the consecrated bread is placed. See Du CANGE F. C.－HENSCHEL G. A. F.－FAVRE L., Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis 10 vols = Standard Edition of L. FARVRE (Niort 1882-87, repr. Paris 1937-38); FORCELLINI A.－CORRADINI F,－PERIN J., Lexicon Totius Latinitatis 4 vols (Patavii 1864-69); NIERMYER J. F., Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus. A Medieval Latin－French/English Dictionary with Abbreviationes et index fontium by Van de KIEFT C. (Leiden 1976, repr. 1984).

(17)Rupert did not discuss theoretically the historical interpretation of salvation but he simply took it for granted. Every divine truth is to be grounded on historical events. His work of De sancta Trinitate et operibus eius covers the whole span of salvation-history. He managed to construct a sucession of epochs according to the Holy Scripture which is a record of divine work. However he could only manage to illuminate the early period on one side and the end of time on the other: the vast period between the patristic age and the present remains undifferentiated. For this argument see MAGRASSI M., o.c.

(18)Spir 1,12: CCCM 24:1835: Eructavit cor meam verbum bonum, dico ego opera men regi. Lingua mea calamus scribae velociter scribentis? Neque enim tantummodo intelligendum est de creatione mundi, ubi Pater verbum eructabat, creando quidpiam, dicendo: Fiat (...).

(19)See Spir 1, 12: CCCM 24, 1835: Ergo ilium (Adam) praeesse iussit piscibus, volucribus et bestiis, videlicet dignitate rationis; istum (Christum) autem populis, scilicet auctoritate divinae maiestate.

(20)See Spir 2, 6 CCCM 24,1868: multum tibi debemus nos, Deus Christe, quia homo factus es, at tu econtra multum nobis debes, homo Christe, quia propter nos Deum assumptus es. Nam nisi fuissemus nos peccatores, causa cur tu assumi in Deum deberes, nulla fuisset. Confortenetur, inquam, nec enim id solum attendere debent, quod tantae dignitatis Dominus propter tarn indigna servilium personarum delicta, tantis affectus est iniuriis et ipsa morte, morte autem crucis.　

Note that Deus Christe and Homo Christe means the same Incarnate Word, Son of Mary, hence these words are not addressed to the pre-existing Word. The plan of Incarnation was already established in eternity (ante omnia omnia saecula: Spir 1,8: CCCM 24, 1829), but the concrete way of incarnation as now de facto is conditioned by the fall of humanity. Further explanation can be found in MAGRASSI M., o.c. 229-232.

(21)See Spir 1, 8: CCCM 24,1829: causam (...) in ea (Maria) perficere.

(22)See Spir 1, 7: CCCM 24, 1828: Multa eiusmodi sunt in Scripturis ... ubi vinim sive maritum eclesiae sive ecclesiae sive synagogae sese Deus esse asserivit.

(23)Spir 1, 7: CCCM 24, 1829: Numquid laetabunda aut ludicra levitate et non cum certae rei pondere haec loquebatur omnis sapientiae Pater Deus, cuius est amor magnus et immensus, hic Deus, hic Spiritus sanctus? Absit hoc! Actu quippe vir esse intendebat rationalis creaturae humanae, id est Filium sibi ex ea generare, quod et facere iam incipiebat, cum haec et haec diceret, cum Moysen et prophetas mitteret. Electas nimirum et probatae plexibus castis, spiritualiter Deus Spiritus Sanctus admittebat, et impetu huius amoris sui, huius Spiritus sancti, semen suum de secretis suis, Verbum suum de proftindo cordis sui incutiebat illis.

(24)See also MAGRASSI, o.c. 91.

(25)Spir 1, 7: CCCM 24, 1829: Rem veritatis non extenuet et suspicio affectatae similitudins. Nam revera quaecumque sancta et veridica Scriptura nobis de amore Dei vel amante Deo loquitur, tarn vera tamque constantia sunt, ut potius haec nostra camalia, de quibus similitudines ducuntur, illis constantis veritatis queadam quasi umbrae vel transitoriae imagines sint. Verum quia nobis, qui de terra sumus, prius ista terrena in notitiam venerunt, idcirco istae res, illae autem rerum similitudines aestimantur; revera autem ilia res, istae vero rerum similitudines sunt, quae et illis permanentibus transeunt.

(26)Spir 1, 8: CCCM 24, 1829: per huius beatae Virginis uterum camem fidei ante omnia saecula proposuerat.

(27)See Spir 1, 11 CCCM 24, 1833: propter fidem ... seminis Dei perceptibilis.

(28)Spir 1,8-9: CCm 24, 1830: Pater (...) vir eius erat (...) Tpta autem tails viri utiliats, totus fructus, ominis affectuis, totus amor, tota virtus ac generandi vis, quomodo ubi venit plenitudo temporis in iam dictam Virginem se contulerit, ipsa quae experta est melius novit, nos autem audivimus tantum verba aeterne mandata memoriae, verbe Gabrihelis archangeli dicentis: Spirtius sanctus suerveniet in te et virtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Ideoque et quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius Dei. Verba, inquam haec nos audivimus tantum, illa autem et prior audivit et auditui credens continuo quod audierat experini meruit. Ubi enim bene credula menten suam st os suum aperuit, ut diceret: Ecce ancilla Domini, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum, moxs iuxta dictum angeli hic Spiritus sanctus superveniens in eam per apertas fidei ianuas sese infudit. Quo autem sese infudit? Nimirum prius in sacrarium pudici pectoris, deinde in templum sacri et incorupti uteri; on donum pectoris, ut prophetissam faceret; in uterum, ut materm efficeret.

(29)Spir1, 9: CCCM 24, 1830-31: Et acessi ad prophetissam, et concepit et peperit filium. Num autem solum istum ad hanc prophetissam accessisse putamus, aut quornodo accedere potuerit miramur? Immo sanctos omnes prophetissam accessisse non dubitamus. Omnes omnino ad illam convenerunt, omnium enim et singulorum divisivae gratiae, particulares prophetiae, in istam prophetissam sirnul convenerunt, sirnul Spiritu sancto superveniente concurrerunt, Et beatum se Isaias, immo beatos se omnes prophetae sancti non immerito crediderunt, quod hoc modo ad istam prophetissam accessuros se sese noverunt, quod ad istud Dei templum, ad istud Spiritus sancti sacrarium quidpiam Verbi boni sese afferre cognoverunt.

(30)Spir 1, 9: CCCM 24, 1831: haec Virgo (...) plenam sancti Spiritus gratiam suscipiens, totum Dei Verbum, Deum Verbum prius mente quam ventre concipiens.

(31)See Spir 1, 9: CCCM 24:1831: Ad exponendam eius gratiae plenitudinem parum fuerat dixisse: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, nisi addidisset, et virtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi.

(32)See Spir 1, 9: CCCM 24,1831: virtus, inquam, altissimi. id est idem ipse Spiritus sanctus, Spiritus amoris obumbravit ei.

(33)Spir 1, 9: CCCM 24, 1831: Quid enim puella fragilis non modo sexu sed et conditione mortalitatis suscepit aut concepit, nisi validum Verbum Domini, validam substantiam Verbi, de optima substantia Dei Patris, quern tremunt angeli? (...) Opportune igitur obumbrabit illi virtus altissimi, virtus miraculonim potens. fernineam substantiam Deo Verbo conciliare valens.

(34)See Spir 1, 10: CCCM 24, 1832: Condpies enim de sancto quidem Spiritu, sed non generante sancto Spiritu. COnceptus iste Spiritus sancti non generatio, sed operatio est. Caro de came Virginis, non de ipsa erit substantia Spiritus sancti. Et notandum quod non dixit sanctum vocabitur aut erit, neque dixit Filius Dei erit, sed vocabitur Filius Dei quod nascetur ex te. Quod enim Virgo concepit iamdudum erat, et antiqua essentia sanctum erat, Filiue Dei erat. Restabat hoc solum ut vocaretur quod erat, et ipsa vocatione dum vocatur Filius Dei manifestaretur nomen Dei, quod nondum notum erat, non quo dicitur Deus, sed quo Pater Filii vocatur. Vocabitur,iaquam, Filius Z) ei, quod iam est, non adoptione gratiae sed proprietate natureae.

(35)See Spir 1, 10: CCCM 24, 1832: unum autem sanctum id est sanctitas, qua sancti omnes sanctificantur. Hoc sanctum est iste sanctus sanctorum, quern non in delicto praevaricationis Adae concepturn vel natum sanctitas accidens sanctificavit, sed essentialiter sanctum Virgo incorrupta de Spiritu sancto concepit.

(36)See Spir 1, 10: CCCM 24, 1832: Vocabitur ergo, id est invocabitur ab omni saeculo hoc nomine quod est Filius Dei, Filius altissimi. Ecce haec est illa nova creatura, ille novus homo, de quo apostolus: Primus, ait, homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de caele caelestis. Item: Factus est primus homo Adem in animam viventem, novissimus vero in spiritum vivificantem.

(37)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1833: Ecce autem in ista caelestis hominis factura nova dicit archangelus, immo qui in archangelo loquitur Spiritus sanctus: Benedicta tu in mulieribus. Et psalmista per propheticam hue adductus gratiam succinit et dicit: Benedixisti, Domine, terrain tuam. Amplius autem et in hoc terra ista praepollet, quia terra Domini est. Non enim illic dixit Scriptura: Formavit igilur Deus hominern de limo terrae suae, sed benedixisti, ait, Domine terram tuam, et recte. Qualis enim ilia, et qualis terra ista? Terra ilia nullo modo seminis Dei perceptibilis, utpote irrationalis, insensibilis, inanimata, immobilis. Terra autem ista animata, sensibilis, rationalis, et quod optimum est, fidelis, et propter fidem Spiritus sancti et seminis Dei perceptibilis.

(38)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1833: Non ergo melior aut sapientior est artifex Spiritus sanctus, quam Deus Pater, licet novus iste Adam, qui de Spiritus sancti operatione conceptus est, melior atque dignior illo sit vetere Adam, quern fecit Pater, sed melior terra, melior et divinae rationi vicinior a Spiritu sancto materia sumpta est.

(39)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1834: Homo...ad imaginem Dei, quia factus est rationalis.　

Spir 7, 13: CCCM 24, 2062: Rationalitas quippe hominis in eo eat quod ait: faciamus hominem ad imaginem, sive creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam.

(40)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1834: similitudinern Dei, ad quam non pervenit homo, nisi participatione eius, id est Spiritus sancti.

(41)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1834: est bonitatem Dei.

(42)The rumination of certain words or sentences often provokes imagination or association of other verses in the scripture. The memory, fashined wholly by the Bible and nurtured entirely by biblical words and the images they evoke, causes them to express themselves spontaneously in a biblical vocabulary. Reminiscences are not quotations, elements of phrases borrowed from another. They are the words of the person using them, they belong to him. Perhaps he is not even conscious of owing them to a source. Moreover, this biblical vocabulary is twofold in character. First, it is often poetic in essence. Sometimes it has greater value because of its power of suggestion than because of its clarity or precision; it hints at much more than it says. But for that very reason it is the better suited to express spiritual experience which is completely impregnated with a mysterious light impossible to analyze. Furthermore, though lacking in precision, this vocabulary is endowed with a great wealth of content. See LECLERCQ J., The Loving of learning and Desire for God 75-76.

(43)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1834-35: Convenerunt igitur beatam Virginern similitude atque imago Dei invisibilis, obviaverunt, sicut in psaimo canimus, misericordia et veritas sibi, iustitia et pax osculatae sunt. Veritas quippe et iustitia secundum Scripturarum auctoritatem vera sunt nomina huius imaginis, id est Filii Dei. Misericordia et pax pia sunt vocabula huius sumilitudinis, id est Spiritus Dei. Itaque quod dictum est: Misericordia et veritas obviaverunt sibi, hoc repetitum est dicendo: Iustitia et pax osculatae sunt. Dicendo deinde, veritas de terra orta est, et iustitia de caelo prospexit, removit impietatem blasphemiae dicentis quia Christus ex Maria initium sumpsit. Etenimunus idemque Dei Filius secundum carnern quidem de terra ortus est, sed secundum divinitatem prius de caelo prospexit.

(44)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1834: notandum quod non dictum sit, faciamus hominem ad similtudinem et imaginem nostram, sed ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.

(45)See Spir 1, 8: CCCM 24,1829: Sic autem beata Virgo, prioris ecclesiae pars optima, Dei Patris sponsa esse meruit, ut exemplar quoque fuerit iunioris ecclesiae sponsae Filii Dei, filii sui.

(46)See Spir 1, 8: CCCM 24,1829-30: Qui enim Spiritus sanctus in utero vel de utero eius incarnationern operatus est unigeniti Filii Dei, ipse utero vel per uterum ecclesiae, per vivificum lavacrum gratiae suae muitorum operatunis erat regenerationern filiorum Dei. Unde nobis suo loco plenius dicendum erit. Nec vero ab re ita distinguimus, ut praecedentem ecclesiam Patris sequentis Filii sposam esse dixerimus. Nam quern virum non cognoverat, eius coniux synagoga dici vel esse non poterat. Constat autem quia Dei Filium illius temporis ecclesia non cognoscebat; nam excepto quod paucissimis per prophetiae Spiritum revelabatur, de cetero Deus absconditus erat.

(47)There are two significant places in which Rupert comments on the woman in labours in Re 12. Spir 6, 14: CCCM 24, 2027; 8, 13 CCCM 24, 2089.

(48)See Spir 6, 14: CCCM 24, 2027: Mulier nempe ista, sancta ecclesia est, mulier quondam nuda nuditate ilia, quam in primis parentibus per peccatum accidisse sancta Scriptura denotat, nunc autem amicta non amictu qualicumque, sed amicta sole, id est Christo sole vero sole iustitiae. (...) Et luna sub pedibus, id est mutabilitas bonorum temporalium in contemptu eius (...) omni mundo abrenuntiare, (...). In capite eius, id est initio eius, corona stellarum duodecim, decus est apostolorum duodecim.

(49)See Spir 6, 14: CCCM 24, 2027: Quid enim erat mulierem in utero habere et clamare parturientem et crucian, ut pareret , nisi habere in corde bonum Dei verbum de Spiritu amoris Dei conceptum et praedicare per magnum caritatis affectum et nimium sollicitari progeneratione filiorum spiritualium?

(50)See Spir 6, 14: CCCM 24, 2028: mulier in utero habens, dum cruciaur ut pariat, tacere non potest, iratus est diabolus, et contra illam consurrexit in bellum.

(51)See Spir 6,12: CCCM 24,2025: ubi beatae Virginis et genitricis animam gladius pertransivit.

(52)Spir 6, 12: CCCM 24, 2025: Stabat autem, ut iam dictum est, cum ea (Maria) iuxta crucern isto (lohannes) quoque dilectus, et siquidem credis, ipse quoque mente vulnerabantur. Quapropter, ut credimus, non caret omnino magni huius honore praeconii, quod et ipse biberit calicern Domini.

(53)See Spir 4, 10: CCCM 24, 1950: lohannes apostolus et evangelista ex verbis suis cognoscitur, (...) istum discipulum Dominus lesus ceteris altius diligens (...) aperuit illi nirsus singulariter secreta caeli, ut videret visiones admirabiles, quas et digessit libro qui inititulatur Apocalypsis, in quo tot paene sacramenta, quot verba sunt, scriberetqiie illud altum et hominibus inenarrabile Verbi Dei, Del incarnati mysterium.

(54)See Spir 3, 10: CCCM 24, 1907: lohannes autem: Quia tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus, aqua et sanguis (...) sermonis auctoritas, procul dubio divina est.

(55)See Spir 1, 27: CCCM 24, 1854: Fusus est sanguis christi atque cum sanguine aqua pariter de latere eius cucurrit, et quia fidem habuerant, eonim omnium peccata lavit.

(56)See Spir 1, 27: CCCM 24, 1855-56: At vero ubi Dei Filius semetipsum hominern exhibuit hominibus, et qui sacculus auro Dei, id est plenitudine plenus huius Spiritus sancti, scissus est tormento passionis, illinc extunc processisse vel procedere hunc eundem Spiritum sanctum in remissionern peccatorum. nullus ambigit, nemo diffidit, nullus dubitat nisi infidelis.

(57)See Spir 3, 3: CCCM 24, 1906: baptismate suo Christus, id est passione sua est glorificatus.

(58)Spir 3, 9: CCCM 24, 1912: Qui enim divina omnipotentia sua in Mariam supervenit, et obumbravit illi, ut conciperetur et nasceretur ex ea unigenitus Filius Dei, ipse eadem omnipotentia supervenit aquis, et eis fecunditatem tribuit, ut renascantur ex eis filii Dei. Fons aquae elementaris hoc superveniente vivificatus, fit uterus ecclesiae, uterus gratiae.

(59)See Spir 8, 13 CCCM 24, 2089-90: Mulier (...) in utero habens et clamabat parturiens, et cruciatur ut pariat (...) Ouamvis enim iuxta querndam altiorem sensum semel hoc factum sit, tamen el hodie fit, et fieri non desinit usque ad finern saeculi, semel videlicet hoc factum est, quando universa patrarehanim et prophetarum electorumque omnium ecclesia per Mariam Virginern, quae eiusdem ecclesiae portio est, Christum in came peperit, cum magno clamore magni desiderii et diutinae expectationis.

(60)See Spir 2, 12: CCCM 24, 1875-76: IsteDominus est,cuius manus haec fecit, Dominus, inquam, cuius in manu est amima omnis viventis et spiritus universae carnis, hominis immo cuius tanta est potestas, ut de lapidibus homines facere possit. Propter quod dicit: Data est mini omnis potestas in caelo et in terra, Euntes docete omnes gentes, bapyizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.　

Spir1, 8: CCCM 24, 1830: ipse (Spiritus sactus) de utero vel per uterum ecclesiae, per vivificum lavacrum gratiae suae multorum operaturus erat regenerationem filiorum Dei.

(61)See Spir 1, 15: CCCM 24, 1838: Tandem fomiatum istum (Christum) ab illo (Adam) formato discemimus, non tantum in eo quod istum Spiritus sanctus de virginea came, ilium autem formavit Dominus Deus de limo terrae, verum et ipsa formationis dictione, Dicimus namque quia formatus ille formatus tantum, hie autem formatus et ipsa forma est.　

Spir* 6, 14: CCCM 24, 2027-28: Universi ordinis praedicatonim quoscumque Spiritus sanctus misit, qui ordo vere mater ecclesia est, universi ordinis eorum talis est intentio, talis affectus, ut spirituales parere filios et Cristum formare valeant in suis auditoribus.

(62)The title of Mary as the Mother of the Church is not an easy one. At the first sight it may seem that Mary as Mother is not within the Church. It is the ingenuity of Rupert to explain Mary as member of the Church but at the same time the Mother of the Church. This coincides with the expression of Paul VI, "lgitur ad Beatae Virginis gloriam ad nostrumque solacium, Mariam Sanctissiman declaramus Matrem Ecclesiae in the closing speech of the third session of the Vatican II in 1964; see AAS 56(1964) 1016 (Enchiridion Vaticanum I 306*); and the same in his Solemnis professil fldei (30 iunii 1968) AAS 60(1968) n.15 (Enchiridion Vaticanum III 551).

(63)See note 59. Spir 8, 13, 2089-90: Quamvis enim iuxta querndam altiorem sensum semel hoc factum sit, tamen et hodie fit, et fieri non desinit usque ad finern saeculi, semel videlicet hoc factum est, quando universa (...) ecclesia per Mariam Virginern, quae eiusdem ecclesiae portio est, Christum in came peperit, cum magno clamore magni desiderii et diutinae exspectationis.

(64)See Spir 8, 13: CCCM 24-2090: Tunc stetit draco ante mulierem, ut cum peperisset, statim devoraret filium eius…

(65)See Note 61. The New Man Christ is the forma and imago according to which the new humanity is to be re-formed. That is to say that the divinity of Christ descendit de caelo is going to embrace all humankind.

(66)See Spir 1, 27: CCCM 24, 1854: Sane cum hie Spiritus sanctus plenus dicitur, eodem dicto nos ad hauriendum invitamur. Item cum dicit ille alius testis pleni huius: Et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, nos ad accipiendum, nos ad haruienendum provocamur.

(67)See Spir 9, 24: CCCM 24, 2125: Vita igitur illa hic a praedicta resurrectione prima incipitur, quia videlicet nunc in tantum vivimus, in quantum beatam Trinitatem cognoscimus, illic autem in resurrectione secunda perficietur, quando vel ex quo facie ad faciem Deum Patrem et Verbum Patris in corde eius et in came nostra, sanctumque utriusque Spiritum in utroque videbimus. Ipsi gloria et imperium in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

(68)See Spir 1, 2: CCCM 24, 1823: Haec duplex gratia resurrectionis animarum et reovationis corporum. haec gemina resurrectio mortuorum, nunc nobis ruminanda atque tractanda est, in laudem et gloriam eiusedm Spirtus sancti, Det et Domini nostn, cuius emissio per Christum nostras iam animas vivere fecit, et corpora vivificabit (…) inquit apostolus (…) Quod si spiritus eius (Christi) qui suscitavit Iesum a mortuis, habitat in vobis, qui suscitavit Iesum a mortuis, convivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra propter inhabitantem Spiritum eius in vobis.

3. Conclusion

Behind the exegesis of Rupert, there lies a strong historical sense. He constantly, though not explicitly, applied his notion of predestination very concretely to sacred history. From the very beginning God had a plan (propositum) whereby those whom He had called He would also save and exalt (Rm 8:29-30) by way of the Son's incarnation. The Devil sought to frustrate God's plan but without success. God's plan remains unchanged but the Incarnation of the Word had to assume a fallen humanity. To prepare this incarnation God the Father chose the "girl born nude in the dirt of blood" (Ez 16) to be His bride. Thus the conceptio in mente began to take place in the chosen people, and in particular, among the prophets. Just as all Scriptures tend towards Christ the Word, so also alt prophecies converge upon Mary, the "physical" bearer of that Word. In her the plan (propositum) was to be brought to fullness. Thus she became the sponsa Patris. par excellence and at the same time the sacrarium Spiritus sancti.

The use of sacrarium reminds us that the Word, who as the most precious seed is kept in the innermost and heart of the Father Creator, reaches out to humanity through Divine Love, the Holy Spirit. Since humanity was corrupted by sin, the Word goes deep down to its depth (kenosis) in order to renew it completely with the power of the Spirit. In accordance with the saving design of the Father, He took up the human flesh from the virginal immaculate womb. Thus the Virgin Mary becomes an abode in which dwells the divine fecundity, that is, the seed of the Father and the love of the Holy Spirit. From the virgin this fecundity will extend itself to the entire Church, namely, humanity, that she may generate spiritual sons in the Son. The whole incarnation process has still to take place in the Church and in her very heart, namely, the sacrarium spiritus Sancti.

Right at the beginning of the twelfth-century, the Church because of the political situation tended to take up a juridical countenance and the devotion to Mary tended to be isolated from an ecclesial context. Rupert, instead, by way of his lectio divina. following tradition, reminds us that Mary is in the Church, and Church in Mary by virtue of the incarnation of the Word. Her dignity as Mother and Virgin becomes object of our filial veneration and her virtue becomes that of our imitation.

by Michel Gourgues, O. P.translated by Fr. Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti, S.D.B.

MARY, THE MOTHER OF OUR FAITH

PART ONE

MARY, THE "WOMAN" AND THE "MOTHER" IN JOHN

by Michel Gourgues, O. P. (1)

I. THE MOTHER OF JESUS IN JOHN

The mother of Jesus, whom the fourth Gospel never mentions by name, appears in this Gospel four times: 1. in the episode of Cana (2:1-11); 2. in the short summary that follows (2:12) "After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brethren and his disciples; and there they stayed for a few days"): 3. in a question concerning the origin of Jesus in 6:42 ("Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"); 4. finally, in the episode of the cross, in 19:25-27.

A. Designations in John 2:1-5 and 19:25-27

In the episode of Cana (vv. 1-5) and in the episode of the cross, the evangelist designates Mary in three ways: 1. three times as "his mother" (he meter autou, in 2:5 and twice in 19:25); 2. twice as "the mother" (ten metera. in 19:26a).

In each of these two pericopes (2:4 and 19:26b), the evangelist reports the unusual appellation by which Jesus addresses his mother: "woman" (gynai). In 19:27a, John reports Jesus' words to the beloved disciple present at the foot of the cross: "Behold, your mother!".

The meaning of this formula has been and still is very much discussed. Almost all the possibilities must have been envisaged. It is thus, for example, that Mary has been seen as the symbol of Israel's tradition and heritage transmitted to the Church and to the Christians represented by the beloved disciple. According to others. Mary is rather the symbol of the Christians of Jewish origin accepted by the Christians of Gentile origin, symbolised by the disciple. More popular and more ancient is the interpretation which sees Mary as the symbol of the Church, mother of the believers. Still another interpretation appeared more recently (11th century in the West) but became very influential later on: Mary is the mother of the believers not so much as a symbol of the Church as rather in her personal and individual capacity. Hence the idea of spiritual motherhood, sometimes associated with, and amplified by, that of co-redemption.

What we want to say here is that the content of Jn 2:1-5 is of primary importance for the interpretation of the formula of Jn 19:27a. At the same time, bringing these two pericopes face to face permits us to account for the meaning of the appellation "woman" which is present in both.

B. ''This, the first of his signs" (2:11) / "It is finished" (19:30)

Commentators have for long. had the habit of putting together the scene of the cross and that of Cana. The fact already noted that Jesus in both cases uses the same appellation to address his mother supports this combination. But there are additional supporting elements:

1. The time indication of Jn 2: 1-11 is the moment when the "hour has not yet come" (2:4) and we are made to assist at the inauguration of Jesus' mission. On the contrary, in 19:25-27, the hour has come: Jesus' death on the cross, the first stage in the process of exaltation-glorification, is now imminent. We have here. therefore, on the one hand the beginning of the mission, on the other hand the end of the mission, the account of the first and of the last "action" of Jesus.

2. The same actors appear in both accounts: Jesus, his mother and his disciples－the group in 2:1-11, a representative in 19:25-27. At the beginning of his mission, Jesus manifests his glory for the first time in the presence of his mother; the latter is still present when Jesus at the end of his mission has arrived at the hour of full glorification.

These similarities lead some to conclude that, in the intention of the evangelist, the scenes of Cana and of the cross must form something like a grand inclusion enclosing the whole of the Gospel witness. Perhaps this is to push things too far. However, it is difficult to think that the author did not set up any connection between two scenes that are so similar and correspond to the beginning and the end of Jesus' mission.

Let us then see first the data concerning the mother of Jesus in Jn 2:3-5, in order later to show how they can illumine those of Jn 19:25-27.

(1)Nouvelle Revue Theologique 108 (1986) 174-191. In my translation I omit all the rich bibliographical notes. Thess can be easily retraced by referring to the original article. I have transferred most of the other notes into the text of my translation. I have given indication of this transfer each time in the notes that follow.

II. AT CANA (2:3-5): FROM MOTHER TO WOMAN

Let us first of all give a look at the text. setting out it in three columns and pointing out the structural components which will be explained below.　

Introduction

On the third day there was a marriage at Cana and in Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there;


2 Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.
  A
　

   B   C
  INITIAL SITUATION
　
(Need expressed)   CHRISTOLOGICAL REVELATION   REACTION

(the mother)

3 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine". 4 And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My Hour has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
  A'   B'   C'
  TRANSFORMED SITUATION

(Need satisfied)
   CHRISTOLOGICAL REVELATION   REACTION

(the disciples)

6 Now six stone jars were standing there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 11a This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; 11b And his disciples believed in him.
7 Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim.
8
He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it.
9 When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

A. Components of 2:1-11

The account begins (w.l-2) with the indications of the circumstances of time ("the third day") and of place ("at Cana in Galilee") as well as with the mention of the actors on whom it will then focus attention. These actors are mentioned in the following order: the mother of Jesus (v.1b), Jesus himself (v.2a), then the disciples (v.2b).

It is in this same order that these "agents" intervene in the story. While vv.3-5 describe the initiative of Jesus' mother in approaching him, vv.6-11 describe at greater length the intervention of Jesus himself and its impact on the disciples.

To tell the truth, if the story narrated only the intervention of Jesus' mother and that of Jesus himself, it could limit itself to verse 3. Followed by verses 6-10, (4) In this case we would obtain a story still complete in itself, endowed with its own coherence and dynamism: the initial situation of lack and need, expressed through the intervention of the mother (v.3), is transformed by the intervention of Jesus (vv.6 10). In other words, the need pointed out by Mary is met by the change worked by Jesus of the water into wine. All the essential elements of the miracle are present.

However, note carefully: the presence of verses 4 5 and 11 shows that John is not so much interested in the miracle itself, with its marvelous character. Rather, he is interested in its meaning. The initial situation and its transformation are the occasion of a Christological revelation which provokes a reaction on the part of the privileged witnesses, the mother and the disciples of Jesus. On the one hand, the mother's request (2:3) induces Jesus to reveal something regarding himself and his mission (2:4). This revelation, in turn. entails a reaction on the part of Mary (2:5). On the other hand, the description of Jesus' intervention (2:6-10) is followed by the statement of its Christological meaning (it is a semeion by means of which Jesus manifests his glory [2:11 a] and by the mention of the disciples' faith reaction (2:11b).

The Cana story, therefore, presents a characteristic structure entailing the twofold repetition of three parallel terms, thus:　

A
Initial Situation
(Impasse Expressed)
(2:3) A'
Transformed Situation
(Impasse Overcom)
(2:6-10)
B
Christological Revelation
(2:4) B'
Christological Revelation
(2:1 1a)
C
Reaction (of Jesus' mother)
(2:5)
C'
Reaction (of Jesus' disciples)
(2:11b)

It seems to me that the discovery of this structural parallelism will prove to be of primary importance for the interpretation of the main elements of the text.

Let us see now the content of verses 3-5, i.e. the sections of the text corresponding to the letters A (Initial Situation). B (Christological Revelation) and C (Reaction) in the diagram above.

B. Initial Situation (2, 3)

"They have no wine" (2:3b). How should we understand this remark made by the mother of Jesus?

Three main interpretations can possibly be envisaged.

1. Mary's remark does not entail any particular expectation; she is only taking stock of a pitiful and embarassing situation. Somehow this is the attitude of the paralytic of Bethzatha in chapter 5, who does not express any expectation with regard to Jesus, but only gives an account of his difficulties:

Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is troubled, and while I am goinganother steps down before me. (5:7)

2. The mother of Jesus expects that he will do something to solve the problem. Aware of the embarassing nature of the situation, she is thinking of some practical solution that is within the scope of man's mind and action. This is more or less the case in Jn 6:5. where, before a crowd that has nothing to eat. Jesus starts considering a solution of this kind: "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?". V.6 will tell us that he is actually putting Philip to the test,

3. The mother is expecting from her son a miracle that is going to transform the situation.

Sticking to the data of the text and trying to dovetail with the perspectives of John himself, it seems that we should reject the first and the last interpretation and that consequently the second is to be preferred.

a. Mary's reaction as expressed in v.5 ("Do whatever he tells you") shows that she expected something from Jesus at the very moment that he seemed to have expressed a refusal to intervene (v.4). A fortiori, Mary's first observation (v.3) must have given expression to an expectation.

b. Ought we, however, to see in it the expectation of a miraculous intervention? Not necessarily. Such an expectation would involve a "displacement" within the context of John's presentation of the event. That is, since Jesus has not yet performed any sign (cf. 2:11 a), it would be necessary to suppose that his mother knows already that he has a power he has not yet manifested, all the more so since he has not yet "manifested his glory" (2:1 la). As yet. it is not known who he truly is and, consequently, what he is able to do by reason of his identity.

c. It is a frequent fact in Jn that the expectations expressed with regard to Jesus are at first situated on a purely human level. Let us take some examples. Jesus tells Nicodemus that it is necessary to be born anothen (an adverb which can at the same time mean "from above" and "anew") in order to see the kingdom of God (3:3), Nicodemus, however, at first understand Jesus' words in a human and natural sense (3:4). Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman about the gift of living water (4:10), but also she (mis) understands in a purely material sense (4:15). In the same way, at first the official at Capernaum approaches Jesus as a mere healer or wonder-worker (4:47). In the same way, too, as we have already seen, when Jesus asks the paralytic whether he wants to be healed, the latter envisages only such a healing as can be obtained by a plunge into the pool (4:6-7). So also, when Jesus speaks to the Jews about the bread which he can give them (6:32-33), the Jews think about material bread and not about the bread of life who is Jesus. That they do not have in mind this higher meaning is shown by their reaction in 6:41. Finally. Martha, the sister of Lazarus, expresses the expectation that Jesus will do something (11:22). However, she does not expect the miracle of the resurrection, a miracle which Jesus is able to work (cf. 11:23-24).

In all these cases, the interlocutors of Jesus remain on a purely human level. The object of their requests or of their expectation does not transcend this level. Jesus, instead, places himself on a different level. Could it not be the same here?

d. Yes. Jesus' reply in verse 4 shows that there is a shortfall between the level of Mary's expectation and the level on which Jesus intends to place his intervention.

C. Christological Revelation (2:4)

"O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come". This is the way Jesus' reply (2:4) must be literally translated. Its interpretation has not yet ceased to embarass the commentators. Let us begin with the last part of the reply, which seems easier to clarify.

"My hour"

Which hour is it? The hour of undertaking his mission? The hour of "showing himself to the world", according to the formula of 7:4? The hour of working a miracle? All these suggestions contradict the meaning usually given by John to the "hour" of Jesus. In fact. the hour of Jesus is the hour of the glorification, which glorification is indissolubly linked with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The "hour", therefore, is the hour of the death-resurrection, the hour when Jesus has "to depart out of this world to the Father" (13:1). Does this mean that the public ministry which precedes the death-resurrection is not important? Does it mean that Jesus essentially has come to die and to rise again? Rather than answer these questions straightaway, we should try to place ourselves within John's perspective. Within this perspective we see that the hour of the total glorification is the hour of the death-resurrection. This glorification, however, is anticipated through Jesus' carrying out of his ministry (cf. 12:28; 13:31-32; 17:10.22). In particular, it is anticipated through the "signs". This fact is expressed in different ways in at least three passages. The first passage is the conclusion of the Cana story:

This, the first of his signs. Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory (2: 11a)

In chapter 11 there is a twofold mention of God's glory and Jesus' glorification in connection with a "sign", the reanimation of Lazarus:

But when Jesus heard it he said,"This illness is not unto death;it is for the glory of God,so that the Son of God may be glorified by meansof it (hina doxasthei)" (11:4).

Jesus said, "Take away the stone".Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him."Lord, by this time there will be an odour,for he has heen dead four days".Jesus said to her.Did I not tell you that if you would believeyou would see the glory of God?" (11:39-40).

We can see, then. that in 2:4 Jesus is saying that the moment of manifesting his glory has not yet come. (Jesus thinks of the glory-manifesting sign because his mother's request has led him to do so). Jesus sees the situation as implying an anticipation of the hour of his total glorification. This interpretation is derived from the Johannine understanding of the "hour". It is confirmed by the parallelism that we have noticed between v.4 and V.11a: verse 11a, speaking of the manifestation of Jesus' glory, clarifies the meaning of the "hour" mentioned in 2:4b. In other words, the Christological revelation which follows upon Jesus' intervention (2:7-10) clarifies the Christological revelation which had followed upon Mary's request (2:3).

"What have you to do with me? "

The meaning of the first part of Jesus' reply－"what have you to do with me?"－is also clarified. As we have already seen, the mother of Jesus implicitly expressed her hope for an intervention by Jesus (v.3), who somehow is asked to solve an embarassing problem, but in a way, so to say. all too human and material. By evoking the prospect of his "hour", Jesus indicates that he situates himself on a higher level. He rejects the type of solution expected by his mother. Or better "it is not so much a refusal as a comment which opens up some of the deeper implications of the event" (B. Lindars) (2). Jesus accedes to his mother's request, but on another level: by accomplishing a "sign" that will reveal his glory. However, the hour of the glorification has not yet come.

The reply "what have you to do with me?" makes us recall the reply given by Jesus in Mt 20:22 to the mother of the sons of Zebedee:

"You do not know what you are asking"

Or, to remain within the confines of John, the reply made by Jesus to the Samaritan woman in 4:10:

"If you knew the gift of God "

It is as if Jesus were saying: You are asking me to do something, to find some solution on the level of human endeavours, but you do not suspect the depth of your request. If I must intervene it will not be in this way. And if I intervene in the way that I should (i.e. by accomplishing a sign), I would be going against the plan of God ("my hour has not yet come").

Without really intending it and realizing it, the mother of Jesus is taking the initiative in an order of realities which properly pertain only to God and his plan of salvation. Is not this the meaning of Jesus' response, indicating that his mother and himself are not on the same level? As in all the other passages mentioned above in B c, a "displacement" takes place in 2:4. From the context of material realities we are projected into the context of spiritual realities.

"Woman"

It is possible now also to understand the unusual way Jesus addresses his mother {gynai, "woman"). Mary is called to leave the human level on which, as mother, she can claim authority over her son. She is asked to place herself on the level of faith and of the salvific plan of God, where her influence and her privileged position are no longer decisive. On this level, Mary finds herself a "woman" like all others. It should be noticed that Jesus in the Gospel of John always addresses women in this way. Cf. 4:21; 8:10; 20:13,15. It is clear from the context that there is not the least hint of disrespect in this way of addressing women. All the same, it is striking that Jesus addresses thus his mother! Neither the Bible, nor Jewish literature, nor, apparently, Greek literature provide another example of a son thus addressing his mother. So at least say the scholars who have investigated this point. (3) This unusual way of addressing one's mother as "woman" should, therefore, be understood in a theological context. Other contexts, like psychology, rules of propriety or human customs, are incapable of explaining it. Now the theological meaning is this: from now on, Jesus says, the fundamental relationship is that of faith. In the order of God's design to be carried out (the "work" of which Jesus speaks in the Gospel of John), "flesh and blood" count for nothing. Not even Mary's motherly relation is an exception. It does not confer any privileged status. We are here in perfect harmony with the Synoptic data of Mk 3:35 and parallels: "Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." Also Lk 11:27-28: "A woman said to him, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it! '."(4) Once the hour of accomplishing God's plan has come (the hour that will culminate in the glorification), Mary the mother must somehow make place for Mary the woman called to faith.

D. Reaction (2:5)

Is it not precisely Mary's faith that finds expression in the command reported in 2:5: "His mother said to the servats, 'Do whatever he tells you'."? It seems to me that a good number of indications favour this interpretation.

1. In the first place, there is the immediate context. We have just seen that Jesus' response in v.4 denotes a "displacement", a leap from the human level－on which rests Mary's initial intervention－to the level of faith. Does not the fact that Mary persists in her expectation show that she has entered into the new perspective evoked by Jesus' response?

2. Given the fact that, as we have already seen, v.11 b illumines the sense of its parallel v.4, can we further infer that there is the same relation of parallelism and mutual illumination between v.11b and v.5? If so, Mary's reaction (2:5) must be inserted in the line of faith, like that of the disciples (2:11 b).

3. In 2:1 la the sign of Cana is explicitly related to those which will follow ("This [was] the first of the signs"). But in the accounts of the signs that follow John is interested in the reactions of the witnesses in so far as these have something to do with faith (or non-faith: cf. 5:36-40; 6:26; 9:37-41; 11:26-27.45; 12:11,18,37). (5) After all. it is just this link "signs-faith" that is underlined in the conclusion of the Gospel: "These [signs] are written that you may believe" (20:31). Now 2:5 speaks about the reaction of the mother of Jesus. Of itself this detail is not indispensable for the progress of the story. It means that it must be understood in relation to faith.

4. In 2:4 Jesus practically tells us that he has no intention of working a sign. But then he immediately does work a sign (2:6-10). There are other instances in the Gospel of John where Jesus at first refuses to act, then reverses his refusal or reluctance to act because he has been faced by a manifestation of faith. The best example of this is the second sign of Cana (cf. 4:47-50). Everything happens as if faith, which is "the work of God" (6:29), played the role of a "signal" which conveys in some way to Jesus the will of Him who sent him.

5. There are also in the Gospel of John instances in which, when a request is made to Jesus, Jesus himself so to say "increases the measure". Secondly, the one who has made the request opens himself up to this new perspective. Finally, Jesus intervenes in a way that surpasses the level of initial expectation. This is the case, for example, in the story of the reanimation of Lazarus, where the same elements as in 2:1-11 are recognizable:

A
Level of expected intervention 11:21-22 / 2:3
B
Superior level on which the should take place 11:23-26 / 2:4
C
Reaction of faith 11:17 / 2:5
D Intervention
11:39-44 / 2:7-10

All these indications lead us to see in the attitude reported in Jn 2:5 a reaction of faith. Without perceiving exactly Jesus' intentions, Mary has understood the "change of level" demanded by her son's response. She accepts to let herself be placed on this level from now on and professes her total trust in Jesus. V.5 bears witness to a "displacement" in the level of Mary's expectation and to a faith which entails an opening up to the unknown. When in Lk 1:38 Mary replies to God's messenger: "Let it be to me according to your word", she has some idea of what is going to happen (cf. 1:30-37). In Jn 2:5, instead, she has only a presentiment that something new is going to begin. In this new beginning all happens according to a plan beyond her comprehension. Mary professes her readiness to collaborate with this plan, even though she does not know clearly how it will be carried out in practice: "Do whatever he tells you". In short, in Jn 2:3 Mary had made her request as a mother: in 2:5 she reacts as a believer.

Notice here the affinity of the attitude of Jesus and Mary with their attitude in Lk 2:49-51: "And [Jesus] said to them [his parents], 'How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?' And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them[ ]; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.''(6)

If this interpretation is correct, it means that in the eyes of the evangelist the attitude expressed in 2:5 enjoys considerable importance. Somehow, it is Mary's faith that sets everything in motion. It is the presence of this faith that prompts Jesus to work the inaugural "sign". This sign will allow him to manifest his glory and to undertake the fulfilment of the work received from the Father. In some way, the faith of Mary is at the origin of the mission.

It is possible that , as some authors think. John places Mary's faith in relation with the faith of Israel. This relation comes to light if we approach the formulation of Jn 2:5 ("Do whatever he tells you") to that by which the people of old expressed his acceptance of the first covenant (Ex 19:8; 24:3-7: "All that the Lord has spoken we will do"). This aspect, however, is not essential for our purpose.(7)

  (2)Ibidem, note 7.

(3)Ibidem, notes 8 and 9.

(4)Ibidem, note 10.

(5)Ibidem, note 12.

(6)Ibidem, note 13.

(7)Ibidem, note 14.

III. AT THE CROSS (19:25-27): FROM WOMAN TO MOTHER

Let us see now how the data we have gathered from the Cana event can shed light on the event of the cross.

Unlike Cana. the scene described in 19:25-27 is not completely peculiar to John. Like the two scenes that precede it in the Passion Narrative (19:19-22 and 19:23-24). it contains a core common also to the Synoptics. To this core peculiarly Johannine elements are attached:

Mt 27:55-56 Mk 15:40 Lk 23:49 Jn 19:25-27
55 40 49 25
There were also many women there, looking on from afar There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were And all his acquaintances and the women stood at a distanc But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
56     26
among whom were
Mary Magdatene, and Mary the mother of James and Josph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disci- ple whom he loved, standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
      27
Then he said to the disciple. "Behold, your mother! " And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

The common core is admittedly very small: the moment Jesus dies, there are some women present, among them Mary Magdalene (also in Mt and Mk) and Mary the wife of Clopas, perhaps the same Mary that is also the mother of James and Joseph, mentioned in Mt and Mk. In the remainder there are only differences:

1. While in the Synoptics, the mention of the women follows upon the description of Jesus' death, in John it precedes it.

2. While in the Synoptics the women stand at a distance, in John they stand "by the cross".

3. The most important difference consists of course in the content of w.26-27. unknown to the Synoptics: on the one hand, the presence of the Beloved Disciple; on the other hand. the words of Jesus to this disciple (v.27) and to his own mother (v.26). It is our task now to examine these elements peculiar to John.

A. "Behold, your son!" (19:26)

The Crucified first of all addresses his mother: "Woman, behold your son!" (ide ho hyios sou).

A good number of modem exegetes, actually toeing the line of some Fathers of the first centuries, hold that John has merely reported a manifestation of provident attachment and a very natural demonstration of filial piety. At the moment of his death. Jesus entrusts his mother to the protection of a disciple of his. The latter will be able to take good care of her. when the death of her son will have left her by herself.

No quarrel about the fact that this is the primary sense of what is being related. But over and above this primary sense, does this account have also a symbolic meaning? Is it not necessary to look for a deeper theological meaning? There are at least two indications that we should do so.

1. The context

The majority of the events recounted in 19:16-37, besides a primary meaning, have also a symbolical import and a theological meaning. This is the case, for example, with the episode of the division of the garments (19:23-24) which comes immediately before our pericope. This episode reflects a custom of the times: the spoils of those condemned to death belonged by right to the soldiers or to those who fulfilled the function of executioners. John lingers over this apparently trivial event longer than the Synoptics (Mk 15:24 and parallels). If he does so. it is because he has his own purpose: he intends to affirm something with regard to Jesus' identity. Thus, applying to Jesus in v.24 the formula of Ps 22, the evangelist doubtless intends to show that in Jesus the figure of the "righteous persecuted" is perfectly realized. Ps 22 is the supplication of such a persecuted righteous one. The preceding episode (19:17-22) had presented Jesus as Messianic king. The divided clothes episode intends to show that this Messianic king has attained to the glory of royalty only by passing through the experience of rejection, persecution and death. So this episode further affirms a theological truth, that very same truth which Jesus had affirmed in 12:23-24:

"The hour has comefor the Son of man to be glorified.Truly, truly, I say to you,unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies,it remains alone;but if it dies,it bears much fruit."

Similarly, the following episode of Jesus' death (19:28-30) concludes with the remark: "When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished'; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." It is true that this last expression is equivalent to the simple" he breathed his last". However, John's manner of speaking shows that the evangelist certainly does not limit himself to this first meaning. Actually, the formula "gave up his spirit", on the one hand. makes use of the noun to pneuma, which can mean both the vital breath and the Holy Spirit; on the other hand, it uses the verb paradidomi, "to transmit". There is no doubt that this verb is more meaningful than the verbs "to expire" (ekpheo) and "to yield" (aphiemi) used in the same context by Mark (15:37) and Matthew (27:50). Moreover, there follows immediately the narration of the "pierced side", from which flow water and blood (19:31-34). This episode can be linked with the saying of 7:38 ("Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water"). In this saying the evangelist sees a prediction of the gift of the Spirit. This gift, according to the Fourth Gospel, is consequent upon Jesus' "glorification" (7:39). But, as we have seen. Jesus' glorification is connected with his death-resurrection. It follows that by writing paredoken to pneuma, John must mean that the gift of the Spirit was already anticipated through the death of Jesus.

Let us take another example. After saying that the soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus, the evangelist remarks: " these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, 'Not a bone of him shall be broken' " (19:36) This passage certainly preserves the memory of a historical fact. namely, the custom of breaking the legs of the crucified (19:33). This custom is attested also by other contemporary sources. Nevertheless, in the light of Scripture, the evangelist discovers the deep meaning and import of an apparently unimportant event. Without this deep insight this event probably would have passed unnoticed. The retelling of this event offers John the occasion of identifying Jesus no longer with the "righteous persecuted" (as in 19:24), but with the paschal lamb. This is all the more plausible since John sees Jesus as "the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (1:29). In addition, the evangelist takes pains to note in 19:14 that it was about the sixth hour when Jesus was handed over to be crucified. This was the very moment when there began in the Temple the immolation of the lambs to be used for the celebration of the paschal meal (cf. 18:28). In this implicit way, John proclaims a datum of faith: this crucified, whose legs the soldiers will not break is the true and definitive paschal lamb, whose death brings salvation to his people.

All this compels us to conclude that, if the scene of 19:25-27 has only a literal sense devoid of all symbolic import, this scene would be the only one in the context not to carry any symbolic meaning."'

2. The presence of the Beloved Disciple

The "beloved disciple" is the one whom Jesus indicates to Mary as her "son" in 19:26. This disciple is named as such ("beloved") five times in the last part of the Gospel (chs. 13-20) and in the appendix (ch. 21 ). These mentions appear in the account of the last supper (13:23), of the crucifixion (here in 19:26-27), of the coming to the tomb (20:2), finally in the second ending in 21:7 and 21 :20. Four times out of five－the only exception is found in our passage here in 19:26-27－the Beloved Disciple is together with Peter. There are three other passages, all subsequent to the ones just mentioned, where there is mention of "this disciple" (21:23,24) or of "he who saw it" (19:35). In six other passages there is question of "the other disciple" or "another disciple", also unnamed and always associated with Simon Peter. Such is the case in the Passion Narrative (18:15,16) when Jesus appears before Caiaphas, and in the Resurrection Narrative (20:2.3,4,8). In 20:2 this "other disciple" is identified with the disciple whom Jesus loved:

[Mary Magdalene] ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."

Note should be taken of the fact that in certain passages the person and the experience of this disciple possess, in the eyes of the evangelist, a symbolic value. John sees in him the representative and the model of the believers. This is suggested especially in 19:35:

He who saw it has borne witness－his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth－that you also may believe

" that you also (kai hymeis) may believe": this formula suggests that the situation and the attitude of the Beloved Disciple have a value of anticipation and of standard-setting with respect to all the believers. In like manner, the promptness with which the same disciple believes on Easter morning－"he saw and believed" (20:8)－and recognizes the Risen One (21:7), must also have exemplary value.

We have. therefore, every reason to see the symbol of the ideal believer in the disciple who in 19:25-27 accompanies the mother of Jesus to the foot of the cross.

B. "Behold, your mother!" (19:27)

What is then the meaning of the formula: "Behold, your mother!" in 19:27?

Adhering to the Gospel data, it seems to me that two explanations can be entertained.

1. There is a passage in John which reveals certain affinities both with the Cana episode and with that of the crucifixion. It is Jn 16:20-21 :

Truly, truly, I say to you,

you will weep and lament.but the world will rejoice;you will be sorrowful,but your sorrow wilt turn into joy.When a woman (he gyne) is in travail she has sorrow,

because her hour (he hora autes) has come (elthen);but when she is delivered of the child.she no longer remembers the anguish,for joy that a human being is born into the world.

As in Jn 2:4 a and 19:26b, there is question here of a gyne (woman). As in 2:4b and 19:27 the hour (hora) is mentioned. Of course, here the hour is that of the woman and not, as in the other two cases, that of Jesus. This notwithstanding, this hour of child-bearing appears to be the symbol of the hour of Jesus' death: the disciples will be afflicted by the departure of Jesus just as a woman is plunged into sorrow when the hour has come to give birth to her child. In other words, in Jn 16:20-21, Jesus foretells to his own that at the moment of his death they will be like a woman at the moment of child-bearing. So that we can say that this woman-in-child-bearing symbolically or allegoricaily stands for the community of the disciples.

Given the points of contact between Jn 16:21 and 2:1-11 and 19:26-27, could we not apply the same symbolism to the mother of Jesus? At Cana, where the "woman" Mary places herself in the midst of the disciples, the "hour" has not yet come; in 16:21 Jesus speaks to the disciples of an hour which is coming soon and which will be like the hour of the "woman" who has to bring her child to light; in 19:26 the "woman" hears Jesus telling her: "Behold, your son!", at the very moment when the "hour" has finally arrived. Possibly, these points of contact answer to an intention of the evangelist. In 19:26 he describes the situation of the mother of Jesus in terms that are reminiscent of the situation of the woman in 16:21: John possibly wants us to see in the mother of Jesus a symbol of the Church, i.e. the community of the disciples. The noun "mother" absolutely used (i.e. without modifiers) in 19:26 tells in favour of this interpretation. In fact. if we translate this verse literally, this is the result: "When Jesus saw the mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to the mother. 'Woman, behold, your son! '" Mary is no longer viewed as the mother of Jesus, but as the symbol of the ecclesial community, as "the mother" of the faithful.

2. the second explanation is simpler but, in my view. it is even better suited to John's perspective. This interpretation results from the juxtaposition of the crucifixion scene to that of Cana.

We have seen that in 2:5 the reaction of the mother of Jesus is to be understood as a faith reaction. Having heard her son's reply (2:4), Mary raises herself somehow to the higher level of faith and correspondingly transforms the nature of her expectation. Confronted with this act of faith. Jesus works his first sign (2:5), thus inaugurating his mission and giving rise to the faith of his disciples (2:11). Thus Mary is the one who was the first to believe (2:5), the one whose faith preceded the faith of the disciples (2:11). Is it not in relation to this fact that in Jn 19:27 she can be designated as the mother of the Beloved Disciple? The latter, as we have seen. is the symbol of the ideal believer. Mary has heen the first to believe. She has believed from the very start. She has believed to the end. In fact, she is still there, at the foot of the cross, at the moment when the mission of Jesus is accomplished. Is it not precisely in this way that she is the mother of the faithful represented by the Beloved Disciple? Mary is the mother in this sense, that she has been the first to believe, she has been the one whose faith has, so to say, launched the mission which now is being achieved at the cross.

＊＊＊＊＊＊

Cana is the moment when the hour has not yet come, the moment when the mission is going to begin. There Mary. the mother, must give place to Mary, the woman, called to the leap of faith. The cross is the moment when the hour has come. the moment when the mission comes to an end. Mary, the faithful "woman", becomes again mother, but this time in the order of faith, in which order she has accepted to situate herself from the start. At Cana, insofar as she is the human mother of Jesus, Mary somehow loses a son. At the cross, insofar as she is a believer, Mary finds a multitude of sons. She has followed Jesus faithfully from beginning to end, from the first foreboding of the hour to its final accomplishment. No wonder that she finds again multiplied "a hundredfold" that which she had accepted to renounce. But she finds again all this because she believes.

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A011D2.htm

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A011D3.htm

by Michel Gourgues, O. P.translated by Fr. Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti, S.D.B.

MARY, THE MOTHER OF OUR FAITH

PART TWO

MARY, THE "WOMAN" AND THE "MOTHER" IN JOHN: A RESPONSE

In his last encyclical letter entitled "Redemptoris Mater" number 21, Pope John Paul II has given us a rich explanation of the significance of Mary's presence at the wedding feast of Cana as related in Jn 2:1-12. In the middle of his meditation on this intriguing episode, the Pope asks himself: "What deep understanding existed between Jesus and his mother? How can we probe the mystery of their intimate spiritual union?". The Pope answers these questions saying: "The fact speaks for itself", and then in a very articulate manner he goes on to show that the Cana event reveals the new dimension, the new meaning of Mary's motherhood once Jesus begins his public ministry. This new kind of motherhood is concretely manifested in a. Mary's bringing man's needs within the radius of Christ's messianic mission and salvific power; b. Mary's wishing the messianic power of her Son to be manifested; c. Mary's presenting herself as the spokeswoman of her Son's will. Finally, the Pope concludes saying: "At Cana Mary appears as believing in Jesus. Her faith evokes his first 'sign' and helps to kindle the faith of the disciples."

It is said of St. Thomas Aquinas that in writing the Summa Theologiae, in the body of the article he usually presents first the reasons of other thinkers with whom he feels he can agree and only at the end does he present his own position, the one which he thinks is decisive for the resolution of the problem in hand. I don't know whether Pope John Paul followed the same method in writing his encyclical. Anyhow, it seems to me that the two sentences with which he concludes article 21 are decisive for the understanding of Mary's person and role as envisaged by Jn 2:1-12.

Michel Gourgues's article "Mary. the 'woman' and the 'mother' in John", which I have just translated, in my opinion is an excellent exegetical demonstration of the validity of John Paul's concluding analysis of Mary's role in the Cana event. The original article having been written in French, and so being only relatively accessible to interested readers here in the Far East, I think I have done a useful thing in translating it into English and having it translated into Chinese. It seems to me that the strength of this article lies in the way the author uses the total context of John's Gospel to throw light on the meaning of particular passages. This is an exegetical method which is highly recommendable and easy to use. It only requires a deep familiarity with the text of the whole Gospel. This familiarity is available to anyone who finds it worthwhile to spend some time in reading and re-reading the Gospel.

In this article, however, there are a few points which. I believe, could be improved upon. One point has to do with the structure of the Cana narrative. Another point has to do with the analysis of Mary's expectation as expressed in her sober observation: "They have no wine". After reading the encyclical letter "Redemptoris Mater" I feel that the latter point calls for further consideration. It is especially these insights inspired by the encyclical that I would like to share with the readers.

I. THE STRUCTURE OF JOHN 2:1-12

Michel Gourgues has made a valuable contribution to the study of the structure of the Cana pericope by detecting the thematic correspondence between w.3-5 and 6-11. However, in his article this correspondence is based mainly on considerations of thematic content, without the support of the more decisive linguistic indications. While making an effort to provide support for Gourgues' interesting suggestion, I think I have found a better way to account for the structure of Jn 2:1-12, which at the same time strengthens Gourgues' basic contention that v. 11 is crucial for the interpretation of w.3-5. I shall present the structure that I have found, proceeding in steps:

1. The inclusion formed by vv.l-2 and 12

Gourgues' structure omits v.12. However, there are dense correspondences between vv.l-2 and 12: "the mother of Jesus" (v.1) = "his mother" (v.12): "his disciples" (v.2) = "his disciples" (v.12): "on the third day" (v.1) = "for a few days" (v.12); cf. also the geographical data in v.1 ("at Cana in Galilee") and in v.12 ("down to Capernaum"), which correspond to each other by a relationship of opposition.

These vocabulary correspondences require that v.12 be included in the structure of the Cana pericope as its proper conclusion. Together with vv.l-2 it constitutes a fine spatio-temporal inclusion. We know that the phenomenon of "inclusion" is typical of chiastic structures. These structures, in turn, are typical of narratives that have had a pre-history of oral transmission. Many, if not most. biblical narratives are structured chiastically.

2. Also a theological introduction-conclusion

Vv. 1-2 and 12 fulfil the function of introduction and conclusion of the Cana pericope. However, they are not the only introduction and conclusion. V.11 has also a strong conclusive character. So much so that Gourgues takes it to be the only conclusion of the Cana narrative. The fact is that vv.l-2 and 12 act as spatio-temporal introduction-conclusion, as we have seen. V.11, instead, is clearly a theological conclusion. We are led to ask, then, whether, besides a theological conclusion, there is not also a theological introduction. I think we should answer this question in the affirmative: vv.3-5 are such a theological introduction.

Are there any vocabulary indications of such a theological introduction-conclusion? I think there are. For example, notice how in vv-3-5 the mother of Jesus is mentioned twice. This double mention sets vv.3-5 closer to the spatio-temporal introduction (vv.1-2) and conclusion (v.12), where she is also mentioned, than to the body of the narrative, where Mary does not appear. Similarly, the mention of "Cana in Galilee" and "his disciples" in v.11 places this verse also closer to the spatio-temporal introduction, where "Cana in Galilee" and "his disciples" are also mentioned, as well as to the spatio-temporal conclusion where "his disciples" are mentioned again.

One more thing to be noticed, however, is that there is not any verbal correspondence between vv.3-5 and v.11 themselves, i.e. between the theological introduction and the theological conclusion. This is a curious phenomenon, which nevertheless is not uncommon in chiastic structures. It is the phenomenon I like to call "a chiasm within a chiasm."

This needs a few words of explanation. Perhaps the best way to explain is to diagram the relationship between vv.1-2, 3-5. 11 and 12. First, let us draw these relationships as they result for the order of succession of these verses in the narrative, thus:　

1-  3-
2  5

11  12

The resulting "X" figure is the reason why this kind of relationship between parts of a narrative is called "chiasm" (i.e. crosswise effect). If, instead, we draw the relationships holding among these verses on the basis of the vocabulary correspondences, we obtain a diagram which reveals a non-chiastic, non-inverted effect:

1-  3-
2  5
︱  ︱
11  12

Now. this change from chiasmic to non-chiasmic in the vocabulary correspondences produces the effect of a "chiasm within a chiasm" This will be evident if we combine the two diagrams above, thus:

1-  3-
2  5

11  12

This doubly chiasmic phenomenon locks these introductory and concluding verses in an indissoluble whole. Together they provide the Cana narrative with a spatio-temporal-theological introduction and conclusion.

Are there other examples of this phenomenon in the NT? Of two examples I know, one occurs in John's Gospel chapter 5. It is now recognized that the first part of Jesus' speech (Jn 5:19-30) is chiastically structured.(1) In this chiastic structure, vv.21 and 26 (parallel vocabulary and theme: Judgment) appear in an inverted order, thus constituting a chiasm within a chiasm. The second example is found in the Letter to the Hebrews, which is increasingly recognized as having been written according to a wonderfully consistent chiasmic structure. Within this structure, the corresponding sections 3:1-4: 14 and 11:1-40 (theme: Jesus the trustworthy high priest demands our trust), and 4:15-5:10 and 12:1-13 (theme: Jesus the high priest who shares our sufferings demands our endurance in suffering) appear in inverted order, thus, again, constituting a chiasm within a chiasm.

These other examples strengthen our conclusion that in the Cana pericope vv.3-5 and 11 are strictly connected with the introduction in vv.1-2 and the conclusion in v.12. This connection is not one of repetition, but rather one of theological reflection and explicitation. In vv.1-2 and 12 the time. the place and the "dramatis personae" of the event are presented. In vv.3-5 and 11 the deep significance of the mutual interaction of these persons at this time and in this place in highlighted. At the centre of this mutual interaction stand Jesus, his mother and the disciples.

3. The correspondence between w.3-5 and v.11

Now we have to look more closely at the relationship between vv.3-5 and v.11. In both cases there are three affirmations being made. This fact is obscured in Gourgues's structure, since he lumps together the first two parts of v.11 under one single heading: "Christological Revelation". He thus distinguishes only two parts in v.11, namely 11a and 11b. In reality v.11 contains three parts, to be thus labelled:

11a (= Gourgues' 11a, first part)

11b (= Gourgues' 11a second part)

11c (= Gourgues' 11b)

My contention is that v.11a should be dealt with on its own, and not together with the following, even if it is true that v.11b explicitates the meaning of the term "sign" used in 11a. In fact, 11a, the first part of v.11, acts as a short recapitulation of the preceding narrative in vv.6-10. As such. it represents everything that has been said in vv.6-10. Hence, it should belong to the first section of Gourgues' structure ("Transformed Situation") and not to the second ("Christological Revelation"). It is clear that, even though I take issue with Gourgues on his division of v.11, I am not shaking the validity of his analysis but only sharpening it. The threefold structure of vv.3-5 and v.11 stands. The three affirmations in vv.3-5 correspond to the three affirmations in v.11. The correspondence is excellently expressed by the titles given by Gourgues to each of the three sections: "Initial Situation" (Need expressed) －"Transformed Situation" (Need Satisfied); "Christological Revelation"－"Christological Revelation"; "Faith Reaction of the mother of Jesus"－"Faith reaction of Jesus' disciples".

4. The central position of vv.6-10 in the structure

Unlike Gourgues, I leave vv.6-10 out of the threefold structural correspondrnce. They enter the correspondence only through v.11a which recapitulates vv.6-10. Withdrawing these verses from the threefold correspondence allows us to see the fine balance existing between vv.6-8 and vv.9-10.

vv.6-8 could be entitled: "Jesus, the servants, the water", while the title of vv.9-10 could be: "The steward, the bridegroom, the wine". Vv.6-8 narrate in the plainest terms the acts leading up to the working of the "sign" at the hands of Jesus. Vv.9-10 relate the bewildered reaction of the steward of the feast.

Interestingly, the miracle itself is not related, but only its preparation and the reaction to it. The miracle happens between 6-8 and 9-10. It is passed over in silence with a genius-like stroke of narrative economy.

In these verses no mention is made either of the mother of Jesus or of his disciples. Their presence belongs to the salvific preconditions and to the salvific aftermath of the event. They are the "faith actors" of the event. That is, the significance of their presence is totally relative to their attitude towards Jesus. In this perspective, their presence is decisive. Instead, regarding the actual working of the sign, the only presence that is decisive is that of Jesus.

This is the meaning of the absence of Mary and the disciples in 6-10. On the other hand, the important hermeneutical contribution of the threefold correspondence between w.3-5 and v.11 is to show that the "faith actors" (the mother of Jesus and the disciples) are essentially related not only to Jesus, but also between themselves. The faith of the disciples is essentially related to the preceding faith of the mother of Jesus!

To conclude this part. here is the text of the Cana pericope, disposed insuch a way as to reveal the neat, chiastic structure:　

1 A On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee. and the mother of Jesus was there;
2   Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples
3   When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine".
4   And Jesus said to her,
  B "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."
5   His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
6   Now six stone Jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
7   Jesus said to them,
  C "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim.
8   He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast," So they took it.
9   When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew),
  C'
10   the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely . then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
11   This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee,
  B' and manifested his glory; and his disciple believed in him.
12   After this he went down to Capernaum,
  A' with his mother and his brethren and his disciples; and their they stayed for a few days.

It will be noticed that the words underlined are the linguistic indicators of the phenomenon of "inclusion" which is characteristic of chiastic structures. The process of inclusion at the end starts in B', but is completed only in A' with the mention of " his mother" and the indications of time and place corresponding to those given in A. Hence, verse 12 should be included as an integral part of the Cana story. Parts B and B' deal with the initial situation and the aftermath of the event. Parts C and C' are the account of the actual event: Jesus' interaction with the servants in C, leading up to the steward's reaction in C' to the miracle, already a fait accompli.

The Cana story is a strikingly sober and neatly structured narrative.

1.The chiastic structure of this passage was first discovered by J. Forbes in his The Symmetrical Structure of Scripture (T.&T. Clark: Edinburgh 1854) 69. I found this reference in K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant (Eeardmans; Grand Rapids 1976) 62 note 44. This chiastic structure has been confirmed by the study of A. Vanhoye, "La composition de Jean 5:19-30" in Melanges B. Rigaux (Gembloux 1970) 259-274.

II. THE NATURE OF MARY'S EXPECTATION

In II, B, Gourgues studies the nature of Mary's expectation as reflected in her remark to Jesus: "They have no wine". He envisages three possibilities: 1. Mary expects nothing; 2. Mary expects Jesus to solve the problem in a natural way; 3. Mary expects Jesus to solve the problem in a miraculous way. Gourgues' conclusion is that "we should reject the first and the last interpretation and [...] consequently the second ought to be preferred".

I agree with Gourgues' rejection of the first possibility, but I disagree with his rejection of the last. In particular, the reason adduced by Gourgues to justify the rejection of the third possibility seems to me highly problematic. Gourgues says: "Such an expectation [of a miracle] would involve a 'displacement' within the context of John's presentation of the event. That is, since Jesus has not yet performed any sign (cf. 2:11 a), it would be necessary to suppose that his mother knows already that he has a power he has not yet manifested, all the more so since he has not yet 'manifested his glory' (2:1 la [our 2:11b!]). As yet it is not known who he truly is and, consequently, what he is able to do by reason of his identity."

It is with these affirmations that I would like to disagree. True, Gourgues states this only in respect of "the context of John's presentation of the event", not with regard to the actual knowledge that Mary may have had. It is a question of understanding what John the evangelist wants to say, not to discover what Mary actually knew. Even allowing for this restriction, however, Gourgues' position seems to me to be untenable.

On the one hand. I agree with Gourgues that it is not necessary to say that Mary expects Jesus to perform a miracle. The literary economy of John's narrative does not demand us to do so. I would even say that it does not encourage us to do so. But this is not to say that it does discourage us from doing so. The fact is that the literary economy of John's narrative is neutral with regard to the nature of Mary's expectation. In a while, we shall try to prove this. For the time being, let us say that the possibility that Mary may be expecting her son to work a miracle cannot be ruled out.

1. The difference between miracle and sign

In fact, Mary's possible expectation of a miracle does not necessarily involve a "displacement" within the context of John's presentation of the event, as Gourgues claims, the displacement would happen if Mary were expecting a "sign". But she may be expecting only a miracle. John distinguishes between a "sign" and a miracle. A miracle is a wonder-work, like. for example, a sudden cure. A "sign" in John's Gospel is a wonder-work with universal salvific significance. This universal salvific significance makes the difference between a miracle and a sign. A miracle can be approached with mere curiosity or out of a dire sense of need. A sign can be approached only through faith.

In expecting a miracle, Mary is not anticipating (and so "displacing") the challenge Jesus will issue to her in v.4. This challenge maintains all its abruptness and forcefulness, even if Mary is expecting a miracle. Jesus in v.4 challenges his mother to make the leap from the expectation of a clever or, possibly, even miraculous solution of a family problem, to the expectation of a "sign". The rest of John's Gospel can help us to see how this is so.

In 4:46-54, the account of the "second Cana sign", Jesus issues the very same challenge to the Capernaum official who has asked him to heal his son. But here Jesus does so in two steps: First, he reacts nervously to the official's request: "Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe!" (4:48). Here the meaning of "sign" is specified as "wonder". This is the only case in which in John "wonder" is added to "sign". "Sign" in John has a manifestly ambivalent value: it is positive, if it leads to faith in Jesus; it is negative, if it fails to do so. A "sign" fails to do so, when it is perceived not as a "sign", but merely as a miracle, as a "wonder". Hence, it is clear that the addition of "wonder" here is meant to show that Jesus reacts nervously to "signs" negatively understood, to "signs" as "wonders". There is the same veiled negative connotation to the word "sign" in Jn 2:18,23-25; 6:14,30; 11:47; 12:18.

Next, the official from Capernaum repeats his request for a "wonder": "Sir, come down before my child dies." (4:49). Jesus' nervous reaction has not attained its purpose of raising up the official's faith to the level of a true "sign". Hence Jesus tries again, challenging the official to a higher form of faith. Through this higher faith the official must know that Jesus does not need to "go down" at all, he does not need to be in a hurry to forestall the imminent death of the child ("before my child dies", the official had said). That is why Jesus tells him: "Go; your son will live." (4:50). John immediately remarks that Jesus was successful in his second attempt: "The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way." (4:50)

In 6:25ff. Jesus again draws the same distinction between "signs" and "(miraculously) eating one's fill". To the people who ask him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?". Jesus answers, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves." (6:26)

In 12:40 Jesus reacts to Martha's difficulty in raising herself up to the level of true salvific faith, exclaiming: "Did I not tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?". Martha had been expecting a miraculous cure of her brother. But this is not what Jesus expects us to expect of him!

All these other examples make clear that even if Mary is expecting a miracle she is not causing a "displacement" in the Johannine narrative. To think that Jesus can work a miracle, this is not yet the fullest form of faith. The only adequate form of faith, the faith elicited by Jesus' Christological challenges, is to believe that Jesus can work and wishes to work "signs" of a universal salvific significance. To this higher level of faith does Jesus invite his mother in 2:4, and Mary promptly responds.

2. Mary may be expecting a miracle

a. Hints at Jesus' virginal conception in the Gospel of John

Having dealt with the literary problem of whether Mary's possible expectation of a miracle is consonant with John's presentation of the Cana event, we must deal now with a more basic question, namely: is it possible, apart from the literary economy of the narrative, that Mary actually might have expected a miracle? Searching for an answer to this question, we shall be given a welcome opportunity to fathom a little the mystery of Mary's relationship to her son, Jesus. To answer this question, we cannot rely. as we have done just now, on examples drawn from other parts of the Gospel. In fact, the case of Mary expecting a miracle is unique, because she does so before Jesus has worked any miracle at all. In the case of other people expecting Jesus to work a miracle, we can say that Jesus was already famed as a miracle-worker. Not so with Mary at Cana: "This [was] the first of the signs Jesus did" (2:11)! To find an answer, we have to go deeper.

Before Cana, Mary had already experienced God's miraculous power in the mysterious event of her virginal conception of Jesus. Jesus is the child of an unheard-of miracle. There is at least an echo of this wonder in John's insistence on the "virginal" character of our own re-birth as children of God in 1:12-13 : " children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". It is a known fact of textual criticism that verse 1:13 is read in the singular, and thus referred to the Word, by some of the earliest Church Fathers, like Irenaeus and Origen (in their Latin translations) and Tertullian. In the singular, this verse would be a probable Johannine reference to the fact of the virginal conception of Jesus, other possible Johannine references to this fact are the irony underlying 6:42 and the malicious insinuation present in 8:41.

In 6:42 Jesus listeners ask themselves, "Surely this is Jesus son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know. How can he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" In the context of the Bread of Life Discourse as well as in the context of the whole Gospel, it is clear who the Father of Jesus is. The self-assurance of Jesus' listeners with regard to their knowledge of his father and mother produces a sense of irony in the reader. The irony, however, concerns only the "father" part of the question. The mother of Jesus, in fact, has already appeared in 2:1-12. There is no irony about Jesus being known as the son of Mary. The irony is about people thinking Jesus as the son of Joseph, when Jesus has always been speaking of God as his Father. This is one of the typical traits of John the evangelist: he uses irony to reveal awareness of basic facts of Jesus' life. Another example of such a procedure is the question about Jesus' Davidic descent in 7:41-42: "Would the Christ come from Galilee? Does not scripture say that the Christ must be descended from David and come from Bethlehem, the village where David was?". The questioners take it for granted that Jesus is not from Bethlehem and use this supposedly certain fact to argue against Jesus' Messianic character. But John and the readers of his Gospel know full well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Thus the questioners' argument is turned against themselves. Hence the irony-effect.

In 8:41 it is not a question of irony but of malice, in the context of an extremely harsh confrontation between Jesus and "the Jews who had believed in him" (8:31). Jesus tells them: "You do what your father did" (8:41a). The "father" meant by Jesus is the devil! (cf. 8:44). The Jews retort: "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. " The first meaning of their reply is that they are not idolaters. In the OT (just as in the NT Apocalypse of John), fornication is the standard image for idolatry. However, in the context of the heated exchange between the Jews and Jesus, this expression may carry an outrageous insinuation with regard to Jesus' virginal conception. Of course, this insinuation presupposes that the Jews are acquainted with the fact of Jesus' unusual conception. This would go against the implication of the question posed in 6:42. Hence, the presence of this insinuation in 8:41 is not certain. We may conclude, therefore, that in John there are at least some hints at the reality of Jesus' virginal conception. The lack of a clear-cut statement of the virginal conception in John is made good, for the enquiry in hand, by the explicit statements present in the other Gospels. (2)

In particular, the material offered by Luke allows us to use the fact of the virginal conception to get a glimpse of the inner workings of Mary's heart. The miracle of the virginal conception is for Mary a "sign", interpreted as such by the divine revelation accompanying it, of Jesus' divine sonship. From the very beginning of her union with Jesus, Mary knows him as the Messiah and the Son of God. Of course, she knows him as such through faith, which is a form of knowledge, but an obscure form of knowledge.

I cannot agree, therefore, with the following asertion of Gourgues in II.B: "As yet it is not known who [Jesus] truly is and, consequently, what he is able to do by reason of his identity". I think that this statement is faulty both with regard to John's literary presentation of the Jesus-event and with regard to Mary's actual knowledge of Jesus' indentity.

b. Mary's faith knowledge of Jesus begins with her virginal conception of Jesus!

The Cana event comes after the Johannine Prologue with its explicit profession of faith in the transcendent character of Jesus' identity. Moreover, in the rest of Chapter One disconcerting titles have been already attributed to Jesus: "He on whom you see the Spirit descend" (1:33), "Son of God" (1:34,49). " the Son of man [on whom] the heavens open and the angels of God ascend and descend" (1:51). As far as the literary economy of John's Gospel is concerned, there is no question that, at least for the reader, the mystery of Jesus' identity has already dawned upon us. But what about Mary?

Does John want to tell us that the reality of Jesus' divinity dawned upon Mary after the Cana event? I do not think so. As we have seen, there is nothing in John's Gospel to prevent us from relying on the contribution made by Luke's Gospel to understand Mary's mind and heart. At the moment of her virginal conception of Jesus, Mary is confronted with the very mystery of God. Faith is nothing but the placing of oneself unconditionally before the mystery of God revealing Himself. Mary at the moment of the Incarnation thus places herself before God in faith. Faith is man's answer to God who reveals himself. In the case of Mary, God reveals himself in a transcendent and unique way in the person of his Son and her Son Jesus. The virginal conception is the "sign" of this unique and transcendent revelation.

Of course, Mary's faith grew. It grew, indeed, but it did not change. All too often we hear explanations of the growth of Mary's knowledge of Jesus (or even of Jesus' own self-consciousness) which turn growth into a substantial change. But this is misunderstanding the true meaning of growth. If Jesus' self-consciousness was genuine self-consciousness, then it was consciousness of his divine self from the very beginning. This is true, even if his consciousness grew from the consciousness of a child to that of an adult. As a child, Jesus' consciousness of his divinity was the consciousness of a child, but still consciousness of divinity. As an adult. Jesus' consciousness of his divinity became the consciousness of an adult. Analogously, if Mary's faith was true faith, then it was knowledge (however obscure) of Jesus' divinity and humanity, from the very beginning. For this is what faith is: God-given insight into the true identity of Jesus. Mary's faith grew; there is no problem about that. But it was always the same plant that kept growing to its full stature. Through the growth process, a plant is identical with matter (the seed) to the height of a mighty tree (the oak). This is only an image of spiritual growth, but a valid image nevertheless. So that we may conclude that Mary's knowledge of Jesus did not change, but grew. A peasant's common sense can be of some help in understanding God's word.........

c. The growth of Mary's faith knowledge of Jesus

The Gospels and the Book of Acts provide us with enough material to detect the great strides forward in this unceasing process of growth. These great strides in Mary's growth in faith have well-known names: the Annunciation, the Visitation, the marvellous and tragic circumstances of the first Christmas, the Presentation of Jesus in the temple, the surprising 12 year old Jesus, Cana and the other encounters between Jesus and his mother during the public life, the Stabat Mater, 'the Resurrection), Pentecost.

The impression we get is that this growth took place "by leaps and bounds", so to say, rather than by a smooth, gradual development. Each of the great Christological-Marian Gospel events contain a tremendous challenge to Mary's faith. The Cana event is no exception. Mary is called upon to grow in faith, but by taking once again "the leap of faith". However, it is her very same faith that takes the leap!

After these reflections, it may be clearer how improper and inadequate are some rather common ways of describing Mary's knowledge of Jesus; ways which have, in my view, unduly influenced Gourgues' analysis of Mary's expectation:

a. Mary at Cana passes from ignorance of Jesus' true identity to an incipient knowledge of it. Strangely enough, this seems to be the way Gourgues understands the situation.

b. Mary passes from an all to human knowledge of Jesus to a more "Christian" knowledge of him.

c. Mary starts to grow from a "Low Christology" (Jesus as Messiah) understanding of Jesus to a "High Christology" (Jesus as Unique Son of God) understanding of Jesus'. (3)

Not at all. From the first moment of the Incarnation, coincidently with that very moment, Mary Knows her son in faith as the true Son of God. Christian faith is this or it is nothing. To counteract all these inadequate ways of understanding Mary's faith, let me quote a few sentences from number 17 of the encyclical "Redemptoris Mater":

"Faith is contact with the mystery of God. Every day Mary is in constant contact with the ineffable mystery of God made man, a mystery that surpasses everything revealed in the Old Covenant. From the moment of the Annunciation, the mind of the Virgin-Mother has been initiated into the radical "newnes" of God's self-revelation and has been made aware of the mystery. She is the first of those 'little ones' of whom Jesus will say one day: 'Father, ... you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes' (Mt 11:25). For 'no one knows the Son except the Father' (Mt 11:27). If this is the case, how can Mary 'know the Son'? Of course she does not know him as the Father does: and yet she is the first of those to whom the Father 'has chosen to reveal him' (cf. Mt 11:26-27: 1 Cor 2:11). If though, from the moment of the Annunciation, the Son－whom only the Father knows completely, as the one who begets him in the eternal 'today' (cf. Ps 2:7)－was revealed to Mary. she, his Mother, is in contact with the truth about her Son only in faith and through faith! [...] Thus even his Mother, to whom had been revealed most completely the mystery of his divine sonship, lived in intimacy with this mystery only through faith! Living side by side with her Son under the same roof, and faithfully persevering "in her union with her Son', she 'advanced in her pilgrimage of faith', as the Council emphasizes (LG 58). And so it was during Christ's public life too (cf. Mk 3:21-35) that day by day there was fulfilled in her the blessing uttered by Elizabeth at the Visitation: 'Blessed is she who believed'."

d. Yes, Mary may be expecting a miracle

After having stressed the true nature of Mary's knowledge of Jesus in faith, let us return to the nature of her expectation in the context of the Cana event. Mary in faith certainly knows Jesus not only as pure man, not only as wonder-worker, not only as Messiah, but also as Son of God in the strong Christian sense of the term. It is possible, therefore, that at Cana Mary is calling upon Jesus' Messianic power to come to the rescue of the newly-wed spouses in their sorry plight. If there is a limitation in Mary's expectation it consists in this: Mary expects Jesus to act as Messiah, as divinely authoritative Messiah, but merely to solve a private family problem. From this angle, even though Mary may be expecting a miracle, still we may call her expectation a human expectation. Jesus, instead, calls upon her to place herself on a higher plane before him: not the plane of private family affairs, however important and pressing they may be, but the plane of public universal salvific needs of mankind. It is to these needs that Jesus wants to cater through the public acts of his universally salvific power, the acts of "the hour", the "signs" that reveal his own and the Father's glory.

Considering again three possible ways of understanding Mary's expectation suggested by Gourgues, we may say that after all it does not make any real difference, whether we opt for interpretation 2 or interpretation 3. Both 2 and 3 have one important point in common: in both cases, Mary's expectation is below the level expected by Jesus. Now we know, however, that this divergence in level between Jesus and Mary should not lead us into denying the truly "Christian" quality of Mary's knowledge of Jesus.

3. A contrast not between material and spiritual, but between private-particular and salvific-universal

There is another statement of Gourgues which I would like to question. He concludes the paragraph discussing Jesus' pointed question "What have you to do with me?" thus: "From the context of material realities we are projected into the context of spiritual realities".

In my opinion this is not an adequate statement of the case. The divergence between Jesus and Mary is not a contrast between the material and the spiritual. Mary's expectation includes both material and spiritual elements. For example, her concern for the preservation of the joy of the marriage feast cannot certainly be described as "material". Rather, the contrast is between a particular human affair and the uiversal salvific plan of God. Even so, of course, the contrast is not an absolute one. For the universal salvific plan of God includes particular human affairs. We can say that God's plan of salvation becomes "incarnate" in concrete human events. However, Jesus is precisely asking Mary to see the universal salvific will of God in the particular event of the marriage feast. If Jesus acts, he is going to act in fulfilment of God's universal salvific will and not merely to solve the problem of a newly-wed couple. Somehow, the limitation of Mary's expectation does not lie in asking too much. It lies in asking too little! And this is true, even if, as I believe, she had been asking for a miracle!

Having stressed so much the "divergence" between Jesus and his mother revealed by Jesus' question: "What have you to do with me?", a further point should be made to obtain a more balanced appreciation of Jesus' meaning. That is, we must be careful not to give too negative an import to Jesus' sharp questions in v.4. I say "questions" in the plural because also the second part of v.4 probably ought to be translated as a question, thus: "Has my hour not now come?", so that the whole verse actually should run thus: "Woman, what have you to do with me? Has my hour not yet come?" (4)

Jesus is questioning Mary's relation to him. He questions this relation because of the hour (not yet come, if 4b is translated as a statement; somehow already come and not yet come, if 4b is translated as a question. A question, in fact. is neither an affirmation, nor a negation!).

"A question is a question". (5) Attention to this fact should help us to understand better the meaning of Jesus' questions in v.4. In v.4a Jesus is not denying Mary's relationship to him. He questions it. His questioning shows that there is a certain divergence of view between him and his mother. Now a question can have both a positive and a negative answer. It is typical of Jesus' questions in John's Gospel that the context of the whole Gospel provides both positive and negative answers to Jesus' questions. In the case of Jesus' question here, Jesus is denying the continued validity of a merely human mother-son relationship. At the same time. by this very question, Jesus is inviting Mary to enter into a new relationship with him on the plane of God's plan of salvation. Jesus calls on Mary to become the first believing woman in a fully salvific sense. Jesus is asking Mary to become the mother of all truly "Christian" believers.

Truly, Cana is a prefiguration of the Stabat Mater. At the cross, too, Jesus asks Mary to renounce considering herself his mother. He asks her to become mother of the disciple whom he loves. He asks her to become such insofar as she is the first "faithful" woman. The old Mary-Jesus mother-Son relationship is set aside; a new Mary-disciple mother-son relationship is established.

If we pass on to v.4b, there is additional room for wonder. Mary's remark about the lack of wine has given rise in Jesus' mind to the thought of the "hour" that will "manifest his glory". This fact is pointed out also by Gourgues, who, in a parenthesis, says: "Jesus thinks of the glory-manifesting sign because his mother's request induced him to do so". Gourgues does not stop to ask why this should be so. Moreover, Mary's remark not only kindles the thought of the "sign", but also that of the "hour". The two realities, naturally, are related. The sign manifests Jesus' glory. The hour is the hour of the glorification of the Son of man (12:23), The "hour" is in reality the "sign" par excellence, the Paschal Event that fully reveals the Father's glory in the person of Jesus.

Now we should stop and ask: Why should Mary's remark be capable of so much? Capable of stirring up the thought of the Paschal Event in Jesus' mind? Would it be capable of doing so if her request were totally within the confines of a purely human perspective? Does not Jesus' reference to the hour rather show that there is more to Mary's request than meets the eye? We must recognize that there is a depth in Mary's request that is difficult for us to fathom. I would propose that the following is a less inadequate assessment of Mary's expectation: Even though Mary's request does not match Jesus' expectation, still it has a depth which we are not able to fully understand.

This being the case, I further propose that the best exegetical attitude is one of silent pondering on things greater than us: "What deep understanding existed between Jesus and his mother? How can we probe the mystery of their intimate spiritual union?" (Redemptoris Mater, n. 21).

  2.This procedure is at odds with the one adopted in Mary in the New Testament, edited by R. E. Brown and others and regarded by many as a standard study of Mary in the New Testament. In my opinion, the exegetical method adopted in this book is unacceptable. It results in a minimalist, least-common-denominator type of exegesis. A typical example of the conclusions such a method leads to may be the following. Dealing with the origin of the Christian faith in the virginal conception of Jesus, the majority membership of the task force behind the book suggests that "the 'catalyst' for the notion [of Jesus' virginal conception] might have been that Jesus was born prematurely (i.e. too early after Joseph and Mary came to live together－cf. Mt 1:18, a 'fact' which was interpreted by his enemies in terms of his illegitimacy, and by Christians in terms of his having been miraculously conceived. The tenuousness of this hypothesis was acknowledged". This hypothesis is not merely tenuous, it is ludicrous and preposterous. It lays its proponents open to the reproach levelled by Dostoyevsky against "the scholars of this world" more than a hundred years ago: " They have only investigated the parts and overlooked the whole, so much so that one cannot help being astonished at their blindness" (The Brothers Karamazov, Penguin, Harmondsworth 1982, p. 199). Dostoyevsky was no exegete. But he was a Christian. He knew what he vas talking about. Here is an astonishingly perceptive comment of his on the Cana story: '"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him. They have no wine,' Alyosha heard. 'Oh yes, I nearly missed that, and I didn't want to miss it. I love that passage: it is Cana of Galilee, it's the first miracle Oh, that miracle, oh, that lovely miracle! It was not grief but men's gladness that Jesus extolled when he worked his first miracle－he helped people to be happy "He who loves men, loves their gladness"－that was what the dead man had kept repeating, that was one of his main ideas Without gladness it is impossible to live, says Mitya Yes, Mitya Whatever is true and beautiful is always full of forgiveness－that also he used to say' 'Jesus saith unto her. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatever he saith unto you, do it.' 'Do it The gladnes, the gladness of some poor, very poor people Yes, poor, of coure, if they hadn't enough wine even at a wedding Historians write that the people living by the lake of Gennesaret and in all those places were the poorest that can possibly be imagined And another great heart of the other great being, his Mother, who was there at the time, knew that he had come down only for his great and terrible sacrifice, but that his heart was open also to the simple and artless joys of ignorant human beings, ignorant but not cunning, who had warmly bidden him to their poor wedding. "Mine hour is not yet come"－he said with a gentle smile (yes, he certainly smiled gently at her) And, surely, is was not to increase the wine at poor weddings that he came down on earth. And yet he went and did as she asked him Oh, he is reading again.'" (Ibidem, p.424). Dostoyevsky's insight into the Cana event exercises a sobering influence on our exegetical investigations. What we consider a laborious breakthrough ("his Mother [ ] knew that he had come down only for his great and terrible sacrifice"), is taken by Dostoyevsky as the self-evident starting point of his reflection!

3.This oft-repeated and yet, in my opinion, inadequate expression of the facts seems acceptable even to such a careful thinker as J. Galot. Cf. his "Marie, premiere dans la foi" in Esprit et Vie 97 (1987) 385-391.

4.This is the first sentence of a study on Jn 2:4 by A. Vanhoye: "Interrogation johannique et exegese de Cana (Jn 2:4)" Biblica 55 (1974) 157-167. Most of the insights in this sub-section and the next section are derived from this study.

5.Ibidem, p. 157.

III. MARY'S FAITH RESPONSE

Here I would like to add a few remarks to the excellent comments made by Gourgues on the sigaificance of Mary's reaction to Jesus' challenge: "His mother said to the servants. ' Do whatever he tells you'."

Jesus called into question his mother's relationship with him. He did so the moment Mary had taken the initiative. It is as if Jesus let his mother understand that it was no longer the time for her to take the initative. Mary accepts being put into question. She accepts that the "natural" mother-Son relationship be set aside. From now on she does not try any more to exercise her motherly influence on her Son. On the contrary, she puts herself at the service of her Son. She places herself among the servants. In their midst, she invites them to collaborate with her Son: "Do whatever he tells you". She does not know what Jesus intends to do. But she is already at his disposal. She is ready to collaborate. But it is he who must take the initiative.

We are very far here from a certain traditional interpretation that sees Mary as ignoring Jesus' questioning and persists in asserting her will at all costs, bending to her will even that of Jesus! Of course it is not my intention to minimise Mary's power of intercession. No, it is only a question of perceiving the Gospel-indicated direction of this powerful intercession: Mary intercedes for us before Jesus and the Father "that their will be done"; at the same time she intercedes before us that we "do whatever he tells" us. At Cana "Mary not only gives her consent to the renunciation demanded by Jesus. She does more. She encourages others to the same unconditional docility. In doing so, she passes from her role as mother of Jesus according to the flesh to her role as spiritual mother of the faithful".(6)

Cana is Mary's second Annunciation. Not Gabriel, but Jesus himself calls his mother to a new mission. This new mission is inaugurated at Cana and culminates on the Cross: "Woman, behold, your son!"(7) The Crucifixion scene of Jn 19:25-27 describes the culmination of Mary's spiritual motherhood of the faith-ful Christians. Standing by the cross, Mary becomes the mother of our faith, because at that moment Mary's faith reaches its apex. "How great, how heroic then is the obedience of faith shown by Mary in the face of God's 'unsearchable judgments'!. How competely she 'abandons herself to God', without reserve,' offering the full assent of the intellect and the will' (cf. DV 5) to him whose 'ways are inscrutable' (cf. Rom 11:33)! And how powerful too is the action of grace in her soul, how all-pervading is the influence of the Holy Spirit and of his light and power! Through this faith Mary is perfectly united with Christ in his self-emptying. [...] At the foot of the Cross Mary shares through faith in the appalling mystery of [Jesus] self-emptying. This is perhaps the deepest 'kenosis' of faith in human history". ("Redemptoris Mater", n.18).

"When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?" (Lk 18:8). Mary, mother of Jesus and mother of our faith, pray for us!

　

6.Ibidem, pp. 165-166

7.The contemporary confessor of the faith, Mons. Ignatius Gong, Catholic Bishop of Shanghai, prefers to see the Cross rather than the Cana event as Mary's second Annunciation. In the pastoral letter of April 22nd, 1951, he writes: "To Mary, the words of Jesus on the cross, 'Woman, behold, your son!', were like a second Annunciation, the beginning of a second motherhood". (China Missionary Bulletin 3 (4) (1951) 659. (My translation from the French).

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A011E1_1.htm

作者：嘉理陵

WHAT TO ME ...? (Jn 2:4)

The words of Jesus to Mary at Cana, as any commentary, and the pertinent bibliography (1) it quotes, will testify, are far from being adequately or acceptably elucidated. Opinions offered must be taken with a treatment of the question of the role that the whole Cana scene plays in the total Johannine dramatization of the story of Jesus. Opinions will thus be placed somewhere between an "ultramarianist" perspective which would see Jesus advancing his "hour" at the (supposed? / presupposed?) request of Mary, and an "antimarianist" perspective which would see Jesus rejecting either the (supposed? / presupposed?) request, or the suppositions behind such a request, or even the person of Mary in making the "request".

Exegetes rightly question the presuppositions or even prejudices of commentators who push to either extreme, to the detriment of veritable exegesis and the promotion of eisegesis. But if it is correct procedure to question the "abnormal" presuppositions grounding aberrant commentary, perhaps there are, even many, occasions when a critical realism would demand that, without having recourse to methodological doubt, exegetes might consider questioning the "normal" presuppositions which must be implicit in any "normal" exegesis of any text, in order to attempt to broaden the range of heuristic, and hermeneutic instruments necessary for furthering their work.

In dealing with the exegesis of the words of Jesus to Mary at Cana, we might say that the "normal" (and hence acceptable) presuppositions are inherent in or are supported by both the text and the context. If heuristically we desire to question these presuppositions, then we have to question, once more, the text and the context.

Textual Considerations

to her / autei

The fact that Jesus is speaking to Mary. and hence answering her supposed / presupposed / implicit "request", is. of couses, strongly grounded in the use of the dative case of the feminine singular personal pronoun autei ["to her"]. This dative is accepted as a dative of address, and the person addressed can be none other than Mary, something underscored by the vocative gynai. Woman! The normality of this is so imperative that to question it may seem to verge on the borders of abnormality already accepted above as aberrant. If Jesus is not speaking to Mary, then who is he speaking to?

Nevertheless, the range of use of the dative case in Indo-european languages and of its functional equivalent in languages of the semitic, hamitic, and other groups [whether in declensional "case" form or in prepositional form] is far more extensive than the dative of address and, indeed, is so extensive that grammarians are driven to create terminology to deal with its variations.

The dative of address, then, is one of many uses, and, I would submit (2), a wider familiarity with the use of "dative functions" in a wider variety of languages, would increase our sensitivity to the nuances of its use in the language of the New Testament, whether that "language" is understood as the written Koin6 Greek of the text or the supposed / proposed Aramaic cultural mindset behind the text. Perhaps, then, for the sake of argument, and for the furtherance of the range of our heuristic tools, we might suggest that there is a "dative of instigation". The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the verb "to instigate" as: "urge, incite...bring about". If (still very much in the realm of hypothesis) the autei of Jn2:4 could be taken as such a "dative of instigation", then the picture would change radically. But before proceeding further it is necessary to look at other words in the text.

Jesus said…

Bruno Snell, in his book on the making of the mind, quoted approvingly by Bernard Lonergan in Method in Theology (3) has demonstrated from a study of both language and painting the efforts of man to express experiential interiority in language which does not yet adequately possess all the panoply of a modern rational psychology. Could it be that the language of the New Testament is still at the stage of exteriorization, concretization of the rather more elusive and abstract concepts of interiority, whether that interiority is experienced in a more meditative mode ("Mary KEPT [syneterei. Lat. conservabat] all these things in her heart pondering {symballousa, Lat. conferens] them" [Lk 2:19]), or in a more spontaneous mode ("The Pharisees SAID in their hearts" [eipan en heautois'. Lat. dixerunt intra se]. [Mt 9:3])? Again, supposing this to be so for the sake of the hypothesis, and without for the moment further justification of all the details, then the whole passage would read something like [with variants in square brackets]:

"At Mary's instigation..."

["at the instigation of Mary's question"]

[or, much more simply: "at Mary's words"]

"Jesus reflected and said to himself:

"What has what you are saying to do with me?"

["What are you telling me in what you are saying?"]

[or, again much more simply: "What are you trying to tell me?" (4).]

Then the next words would become a reflective question (5): "Could it be that my hour has come?"

With the whole Johannine technique of "words of double significance" / "misunderstanding" / "inadequate understanding" in mind, we might find a great deal of light through a wider consideration of a distinction between "saying" and "telling" such as is implicit in the version offered here, a distinction implicit, almost even explicit, in many passages where the so-called "misunderstanding" technique is being employed or where symbolism is elucidated, or even straightforward speech is being explained, not only in Jn but in the rest of the New Testament as well [cf. Jn 3:26ff; 10:34ff: 13:22-30; 14:29f: 16:18ff, 29ff: 21:18f; 21:20-23].

If this all seems to fall into the temptation of "psychologizing" Jesus or Mary that Bultmann warns against in his commentary, still we have to risk the temptation in order to develop our understanding of the written objectifications of that human experience of inferiority which the Evangelists and their contemporaries were conscious of but did not always have an adequate psychological vocabulary at hand to express (6).

(1)Unfortunately, at the moment of writing I cannot have recourse to a library, and hence can offer no specific references to authors cited in passing nor demonstrate in greater detail the viability of many of the assertions or suggestions made here, by, for example, detailed study of grammatical, syntactical or lexical occurrences of the suggested "dative of instigation".　

Those familiar with the literature will be able to see what is based on the work of others.　

There is always the question of the literary genre of such an essay: has it any exegetical value, or is it pure fancy and eisegesis? Let us say it is musings on the margins of the Gospel, even mutterings on the margins of the commentaries!－or, more seriously, an essay in an illative search for coherent meaning, whose context is wider than the text which provokes it. Where both deduction and induction fail us in the resolution of a particular crux in interpretation, hypotheses may be suggested and worked on, perhaps more profitably, by a courageous use of the illative sense.　

[A simpler and more devotional form of this essay will appear in Progressio, the publication of the Christian Life Community. Readers who would like copies of that form of the essay may have one by contacting me. I hope that there will be further opportunites to elaborate some of explicit and implicit suggestions made here.]

(2)Although not in command, at the moment of writing, of all the evidence, I have enough familiarity with the standard Biblical languages, European classical and modern languages, (including the less widespread languages of, for example, the Celtic group) and with non-European languages such as Chinese and Japanese, to make the suggestion at least as, but something more than, I hope, an educated guess.

(3)In the context of the present tentative suggestions, it would be worth exploring at longer range the relationships between inferiority and theory as realms of meaning, dealt with in Method in Theology, especially in what concerns their verbal objectification, and then elaborating the findings of such exploration in the form of heuristic and hermeneutic instruments.

(4)Or again, in a rather more colloquial form, current in certain places and situations: "What do I hear you telling me? / "Do I hear you saying ...?

If we prescind from, or discard, the colloquiality, the cultural frame and the modernity of this last suggestion, we are reasonably close to what is being suggested here.

(5)By "reflective question", I mean, of course, something quite different from the understanding of the sentence as a question discussed and rightly dismissed by Raymond Brown in his commentary.

(6)It does not seem a satisfactory solution to suggest that Mary's words, and hence, perhaps by implication, Jesus' words also, are only [?] part of the story-telling technique, as would appear to be Bultmann's solution, unless one elaborates this further in terms of the narrated narrative being the objectively expressed correlative of a lived narrative or "story", at least as far as that lived narrative or "story" is understood by the "literary" narrator. This same point was made, in reference to the Mary's words to the angel [Lk 1:33], though in very different terms, in an article by Auer in Revue Biblique over 30 years ago, "L' Annonce a Mane".

Contextual Considerations

The role of the Cana story in the Fourth Gospel is a debatable one, so that Raymond Brown in his Anchor Bible commentary assigns it a double function: that of closing the series of events in Ch.1 and of opening the "Cana cycle".

But we might suggest a slightly different view: Ch.1 in its entirety is introductory, and may be divided into two sections:

1:1-18－ a THEOLOGICAL introduction in which historical elements are intermingled.

1:19-51－ a HISTORICAL introduction is which theological considerations are intermingled.

In spite of the historical nature of 1:19-51 and the historicity which may be accorded the "events", these "events" might be seen, not as an integral part of the "story" of Jesus, but rather as a prerequisite prelude to that story as it is recounted by "John". The "introductions" are, it goes without saying, meant for the Reader rather than intended as detailing the early days of Jesus' ministry.

Beginnings

It may be accepted that a concern with "beginnings" played a part in the elucidation of the "Jesus" story. It would also be apparent that Mary played an integral part in the stories about the "beginning" both of Jesus [Mt 1-2; Lk 1-2] and of the Church [Acts 1:14]. Unless we can imagine the Johannine author or authors or school operating in a complete vacuum, it would be obvious that these ideas would also affect them.

Much is rightly made of the fact that in Ch.2 the Cana miracle is not called the "first" sign but the "arche" ["beginning" or even "principle"] of the signs. Without going unacceptably beyond the intention of the Gospel, we may see the whole life of Jesus as a sign, and Cana as its beginning. It would be important that Mary, "the mother of Jesus" would be involved in this beginning.

It would appear that the "beginning" which occurred at the message of the Angel also marked an end (7). A justification of this would require an analysis of the Lucan annunciation scene, of the function of John the Baptist in relation to Jesus etc. Suffice it to say here that it is not impossible that the "beginning" which was Cana should also mark an end. Again, looking beyond the limits of the present essay to much that has been said in terms of Israel as the vineyard of the Lord, (especially, perhaps, in reference to the prophecy of Isaiah), and the importance of this theme for an adequate elucidation of much New Testament imagery, for brevity's sake we may suggest:

Mary said THEY have no wine,

and by THEY she meant simply the young couple as hosts.

Jesus heard Mary say "THEY..."

but his understanding [would have] jumped to ISRAEL:

Israel has no wine…(8)

By implication, the context for an elucidation of the reaction of Jesus to Mary's words at Cana ought not to be confined to the " Sitz im Evangelium*", the context of the Gospel, but should be sought also in the " Sitz im Leben Jesu*", the life-situation of Jesus himself, which must, no matter how elusive the object of the investigation might be, pay some attention to Jesus' human search for the Father's will.

Unless we imagine Jesus coming from heaven with a timetable of his life in his head and a clear heavenly picture of his destiny in his mind and heart, we must (a view, of course, much more consonant with the reality of the self-emptying inherent in the Incarnation) accept the fact that, like all of us, he had to find his vocation, and to grow (in wisdom and grace) into an understanding and acceptance of the Father's will for him. It can be relatively easily demonstrated from the Gospels that Jesus appears to have found his vocation in the book of Isaiah. But again, all the modalities of that vocation had to be discerned in the living out of his daily life.

To gather, to begin to gather, disciples was one thing, to know when the "hour" of actually beginning the great sign of his total public life had arrived was another thing. We always look for "signs from heaven", and Jesus reminded us that we ought to discern the signs of the times. But one cannot discern in the abstract: one needs a context in which to discern, even a concrete question which has to be faced and answered through discernment.

Mary As Prophet

Following up and elaborating the suggestions made here, we may say that at Cana Jesus physically "heard" Mary speaking of the young couple's plight, but, in his discerning search for the Father's will, he "heard", in her voice and in her words, and in the lived "parable" of the young couple, the voice of the Father calling his attention to the plight of Israel. It was time to move - not in answer to a request for a miracle from his mother, not by "advancing" his "hour" at her "request". (Strictly speaking, from a language point of view, she made no request but simply a statement). It was time for him to move, in his own free response to the Father's call as that call was mediated for him by the circumstances of the wedding at Cana and by the words of Mary as an unwitting prophet, even the last of the prophets.

As Jessu could refuse to hear the voice of the Father in the "tempting" suggestion of his unbelieving relatives [Jn 7:1-11], so there is no a priori reason why he should not discern the call of the Father in the words of his Mother, especially against the background of a wedding feast which, pace a large number of exegetes, can scarcely, within the total context of the biblical imagery of marriage and of wedding feasts, be reduced merely to background. Mary, in the simple unwitting way that is true of most of us, because for Jesus the voice of the Father. As such, she stands at the end of the Old Testament as its last prophet, calling from the depths of Israel for the wine of redemption.

[Completed, 17th April, 1988]

(6)It does not seem a satisfactory solution to suggest that Mary's words, and hence, perhaps by implication, Jesus' words also, are only [?] part of the story-telling technique, as would appear to be Bultmann's solution, unless one elaborates this further in terms of the narrated narrative being the objectively expressed correlative of a lived narrative or "story", at least as far as that lived narrative or "story" is understood by the "literary" narrator. This same point was made, in reference to the Mary's words to the angel [Lk 1:33], though in very different terms, in an article by Auer in Revue Biblique over 30 years ago, "L' Annonce a Mane".

(7)Briefly, it is this "end", and the transition implied in it, which is the basis for using "Ark of the Covenant" as a Mariological title.

(8)The Justification of such a suggestion cannot be textual, but only contextual in the wider sense accepted in the following paragraghs, plus an inherent [?] probability that Jesus' penchant for telling parables was an objective correlative of a subjective disposition, allowing him, we might hazard a guess, to see the parabolic value of much that surrounded him in his daily life: lilies in a field, fishing nets, etc., etc.,－a wedding in Cana? things said to him? His mother's words at Cana? There is the further context of interpretation as an ongoing search for inner coherence whether in the "lived" or the "narrated" narrative.　

Without wishing to attribute these suggestions, especially if entirely unacceptable, to anyone else, I might submit that, following up the suggestion made in note 6 through an exploration of narrative theology such as elaborated by John Navone's book on the Jesus Story, and the co-authored Tellers of the Word, etc, much illative and acceptable insight might be engendered into the role of the Cana story in the Johannine story of Jesus, and indeed into many other points in scripture.

作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio

前言

「对我来说，有关奥迹神学的最初意念，是我在举行和庆祝礼仪的时候渐渐悟出来的，生命只能源于生命，又当我研究圣犹斯定(St. Justin) 时更加肯定这个发现(...) 真实神圣的泉源，就是礼仪庆典本身，(...) 真正智慧的最终源头并非只是学术研究，而是在奥迹的氛围里活生生地投入基督生命的时辰。」?这是礼仪运动期间一位风云人物贾西尔(Odo Casel + 1948) 的自白，(1) 礼仪影响了他的研究，成为他治学的泉源，拓展了他神学的领域。

圣事是一个礼仪行动，具有仪式、标记、言语、行动敬礼天主的庆典，一份与神密切的交往和活生生的经验，它像音乐一般，有人弹唱它时就存在，并使人有特别的感受，但事前它需要人去准备，事后又导人进入新的境界、新的展望、新的生活。上世纪的礼仪运动正是朝这方向去更新教会的团体，使礼仪与生活融合一起，而这更新的运动本身既能引发很多思潮的涌现，同时也需要有活泼和创新的神学去延续，为给予深入的动机和远大的前景。事实上，在礼仪运动期间，所带动出来的圣事神学，直至今日非常丰富，(2) 本文主旨有两个，其一是尝试对整个礼仪运动的过程和同期的神学思想作概括的描写，其二是介绍一些主要的书目，以供参考。

1. 礼仪运动

《礼仪宪章》(sacrosanctum concilium = SC) 说明：「促进并革新礼仪的努力，理应视为天主上智为我们这时代安排的记号，好像是圣神在自己教会内经过一样」(SC43)，其实这句话源于教宗庇护十二世1956年的话，他当时在首届国际牧民礼仪大会中向与会者致词：「礼仪运动是(…) 天主上智为我们这时代安排的记号，好像是圣神在自己教会内经过一样。」(3) 既然教会的训导将「礼仪运动」视为这时代的事件，我们就尝试找出它的来龙去脉。

1.1 礼仪运动的前奏

学者引用「礼仪运动」一词表达近代教会往十九世纪末期礼仪更新的现象，可是要厘定何时开始这现象却不容易。(4)

暂且撇开上主安排的一面不谈，礼仪运动也像其他人类精神运动一般，是从一些文化思潮涌现出来的。

首先我们要谈脱利腾大公会议之后，教会在神学方面推崇经院学派(Scholasticism) 所提出的「形质论」(matter-form theory) 去诠释圣事，在牧民方面很看重圣事的「事效性」(Ex opere operate)，只要有「合法」和「有效」的礼仪，自然就会产生无形的恩宠，正确的经文(form) 和指定的标记及仪式(matter) 成为中心，而疏忽了信友的参与，故此举行圣事变得相当物质化和具有魔术的意味，再加上巴洛克(Baroque) 文化的影响，使外在的礼仪变得十分铺张，神职人员穿着华美的礼服，在圣所中，穿来插去，四周的陈设、画像、灯火更使人有目不暇给之感。

新兴的启蒙运动(Enlightenment) 受到新哲学思维的洗炼，经历过一班哲人笛卡儿、休谟、康德等人的带动，开始打击传统的形上学，在认知论方面又失去往日在信仰和理智之间一贯的平衡，因而推崇人的理性、科学方法，有关人生、群居、伦理、艺术和宗教等都纳入杜会观点而论，对教会提出的传统答案不再感兴趣，这种潮流自然令教会中一些当权人士感到不安，甚至导致他们过份敏感，而变得反为更保守。

不过在教会中，也有一些人感到礼仪太拘泥于外表和法定的形式，便急于寻求其他的出路去改革，启蒙运动却帮助他们解除了思想的桎桔，而采取较开明的态度，他们对墨守成规和华而不实的礼仪都会抱有不同的态度，由存疑到激烈的反感都有。

当时教会也兴起一些牧者，特别关心信友在礼仪上的参与，在这方面重要的贡献计有：毕斯多亚议会(Synod of Pistoia 1786)；穆拿多利(L. A. Muratori +1750)；西肋(J. M. Sailer +1832) 等。他们将礼仪的问题从教会的边缘再带回核心，礼仪与教会自身是分不开的事实，建立教会，就不能疏忽大力改善天主子民的礼仪生活，使他们既能意识，又能实践礼仪的内在意义。

这种牧民的挂虑和启蒙运动的思想开放，正好为十九世纪的神学带来积极的一面，他们在理论力面积极地重申正统的信仰，在牧民上复兴原有教会的面目，重要的影响有来自承于西肋(J. M. Sailer) 路线的学者(如：J. B. Hirscher +1865, M. A. Nickel +1869)，在德国杜平根大学(Tubinger University) 于1817年创立的天主教神学系，及其中一些重要的学者(如：J. A. Mohler +1838, F. A. Staudenmaier +1850等)，和英国的牛津运动(Oxford Movement 1833-45) 及其领导人(如：J. Keble, E. B. Pusey, J. H. Newman等)，他们已能在整个文化气候中，和藉历史的追溯，体会到礼仪更深层的内涵，及其对教会的关系。(5)

1.2 本笃会隐修院

与此同时，在本笃会的寺院中，又兴起一班学者，直接触发了礼仪运动。先是由法国的梭冷团体(Solesmes) 开始，由当时的院长祁朗佑(Dom Gueranger +1875) 领导，一直延展到德国的波隆(Beuron) 和比利时的玛力素(Maredsous) 和蒙凯撒(Mont-Cesar)。祁氏的抱负是要复兴本笃会的隐修精神，同时深感礼仪该是修士们神修的中心和泉源，可是当时的礼仪风气都很表面化，而追求内在心灵经验的人便诉诸热心神工：朝拜圣体、退省、默想等，祁氏便追本溯源，寻根究底地找出礼仪原有的精神。他是一个多产作家，笔调流鸭，大受欢迎，重要的着作有《礼仪制度》(Institutions Liturgiques, 3 vols., 1840-51) 和《礼仪年》(L' Annee Liturgique, 9 vols., 1841-66)，虽然书中的内容并非无懈可击，但却开宗明义地说出这些作品是要引起有心人士的注意，减少礼仪上的陋习，和重返早期原有的礼仪精神。这是一个有系统和长线的计划，重回基督徒神修、礼仪的泉源。(6)

在波隆(Beuron) 的隐修院，在1863年创院时，两位创院的胡尔德兄弟(Mauro和Placido Wolter)，他们受到祁氏的影响，将礼仪视为隐修生活的中心，这就促使毛禄．胡尔德专注他的礼仪着作。(7)

在比利时的蒙凯撒(Mont-Cesar)，又出现了另一位礼仪运动的主将玻度恩(Dom Lambert Beauduin)，他在未进隐修院前，曾受教宗良十三委派为工人的指导司铎，入修院后极力主张礼仪要走牧民的路线，1909年九月廿三日在玛林(Malines) 召开的全国天主教行动大会中，他说了句颇具历史性的话：「礼仪必须深入民间」(II faudrait democratiser la liturgie)，不少的人认为这次大会是礼仪运动的发韧之始。(8)

玻氏既以牧民为主，就不着眼过去，而致力将过往活出来的礼仪精神，重新发挥，建立今日的教会。不久蒙凯撒和玛力苏等地就成为推广礼仪的中心。(9)

在比利时，出版了不少有关礼仪的重要刊物，重辑过往的典籍，有系统地收集以前的手抄本，并加以诠释，这些对礼仪圣事神学都有重大的贡献。由于大部份的书已不用拉丁文而是用通行的法语写的，故此有相当普及的影响力。(10)

德国的礼仪复兴也是源于本笃会隐修的环境，不过他们有机会接触到大学的知识分子和政界人物，最主要的里仪运动中心是玛利亚拉克(Maria-Laach)，当时的院长是希维坚(I. Herwegen)，联合莫尔伯(K. Mohlberg) 和贾西尔(O. Casel) 两位会士，卦丁尼神父(R. Guardini) 及两位教授多尔格(Fr. J. Dolger) 和布士特(A. Baumstark) 等人，专注礼仪学术的工作，却不乏牧民的意识。(11)

除了在隐修院外，还有其他的公教团体推动礼仪。信友在这些团体中，已有机会积极地参加所谓「团体弥撤」(Gemein-schaftsmesse)，对礼仪有更进一步的明瞭和欣赏。(12)

在奥国有奥思定会的会士柏殊(Pius Parsch 1884-1954)，他也受到贾西尔(Casel) 的礼仪神学影响，决心专注于「大众化的礼仪」，他的着作和所主编的杂志，大部份都是阐释一年中的弥撒、日课经和礼仪等季节的意义，企图将教会祭礼的行动与平信徒参与的层面拉近。(13)

意大利的礼仪运动在当年也有重要的贡献，1914年在斐纳皮亚(Finalpia) 的本笃会修院创办了《礼仪杂志》(Rivista Liturgica)，即时受到好几位主教的欢迎和支持，杂志的好几位主编也协助出版了为教友适用的礼仪书。(14) 当时也有些神父专门以礼仪培育为宗徒工作的，在热那亚的莫利亚(Moglia di Genova) 为青少年唐努路(Tonolo) 专注堂区的礼仪，慈幼会会士高鲁素(Grosso) 和威士玛拉(Vismara) 受到梭冷团体的影响，在慈幼会的堂区、院校大力推行礼仪运动；在学术研究方面有理卡笛(Righetti)。(15) 在罗马有斐纳皮亚(Finalpia) 所支持的圣安瑟谟宗座礼仪学院，其中所出版的学术书刊(Studia Anselmiana) 及礼仪杂志(Ephemerides Liturgicae) 对学术贡献尤深。

西班牙的礼仪运动也是源于本笃会的蒙杜拉(Montserrat)。(16)

美国方面有本笃会圣若望的修院(St. John, Collegivile－Minesota) 也不甘后人、相继致力推广礼仪运动。(17)

1.3 教会官方的训导

教宗庇护十世(1903-1914) 上任后，便顺着礼仪运动发展的气势，正式从事重要的改革，并厘订方针。他的基本信念是：要建立真正基督徒的精神，其首要和不可或缺的泉源就是积极参与神圣的奥迹和教会公共和隆重的祈祷。他提出的文件有：

□1903年《关注的事件中》(Tra le sollecitudini) 论述礼仪音乐。

□1905年《脱利腾大公会议》(Sacra Tridentina Synodus) 鼓励信友参与弥撤时去勤领圣体。

□1910年《何其独特》(Quam Singulari) 劝勉小孩子到了运用理智的年龄初领圣体。

□在每日礼赞方面，教宗也特别推崇圣咏的祈祷，但同时体会牧者的工作日益繁重，订立新的规矩，减少诵念的圣咏篇数，两年后，又着手改革日课经，厘订一年的瞻礼，经考证后，拣选圣经、教父和圣师的诵读，和重修圣人传记。于是在1911年颁布《圣神默启》(Divino Afflatu) 宗座谕令及《两年前》(Abhinc duos annos) 手谕，都是为改革日课经而颁布的。

教宗庇护十二世(1939-1958) 也大力支持礼仪运动，并相当直接和全面地检讨一些礼仪上的争论，在礼仪神学的反省上建立了新的里程碑，直接影响梵二的改革。

□1943年，在其《奥体》(Mystici Corporis) 通论中，教宗肯定了礼仪运动，并说明礼仪该配合对基督和教会的反省。

□同年的《圣神默感》(Divino Afflante Spiritu) 提到礼仪与圣言密切的关系。

□1945年颁布《每天的祷告》(In cotidianis precibus) 手谕，有关日课经。

□1946年成立「礼仪改革小组」革新礼仪年历和每日礼赞，但已觉察到有作全面修改的需要。

□1947年颁布《天人中保》(Mediator Dei) 通谕，全面性地提及礼仪的更新。这文件一方面推扬礼仪运动，并承认其影响力，尤其在欧洲的走势，法国和德国的贡文献，另一方面也指出和纠正一些极端的观点，在神学方面打好了基础。

随着《天人中保》之后，德国几个主要礼仪活动中心联结起来，创立了在「礼仪学院」(Liturgisches Institut)，并在1950年举行了德国的礼仪大会，在意大利的《礼仪杂志》也组织了一个「礼仪行动中心」(CAL : Centro Azione Liturgica)，并得到主教们的支持，在1949年一连串的研讨周(Settimane liturgiche nazionali)，回应《天人中保》的指示；1943年法国已有「礼仪牧民中心」(CPL : Centre de Pastorale Liturgique)，在那里云集了不少突出的人物，其后在1945年创立《天主庭院》(La Maison-Dieu) 的杂志，和其他系列的书：Lex Orandi, le Sessioni CPL和le Settimane nazionali Versailles，又在里昂举行首届里仪大会(1947)，主要是促使欧洲的礼仪学家能彼此沟通。与此同时，有些地方也渐渐尝试将地方用语或歌曲引进礼仪之中。虽然欧洲正经历两次大战的余波，但仍能因着礼仪的缘故，联合起来，甚至在1956年意国亚西西(Assisi) 地方举行了首届国际礼仪牧民大会。

与此同时，教廷也渐渐作了开放的尝试，如：1952年有新的复活守夜礼，1955年使用圣周的新礼规，1955年颁布《圣乐》(Musicae Sacrae Disciplina) 通谕，引起人们注意礼仪音乐在历史沿革和神学上的问题。不过，在梵二前最重要的一步，就是教宗若望廿三所颁布的「新礼典」(Novum Codex Rubricarum) 手谕，将一直以来的重要问题交给大公会议去处理。(18)

1.4 梵二的礼仪改革

《礼仪宪章》的出现是礼仪运动其中的一个成果，同时又意味着有系统的改革。在梵二文件中的初稿中最为完备的就是《礼仪宪章》，于1959年开始谘询，再起草及教长们的讨论，及至1963年十二月四日才正式批准，最后的总投票是在2151票中以2147票赞成通过，宪章并没有定出繁琐的礼规，但却给予神学的基础和礼仪改革原则，当然这文件会影响后期文件的路向和神学，这意味着整个教会的新春将会在祭献天主的大礼中诞生。

文件中的神学特色是着重生活与棺仪的关系、基督的临在、救世工程、信友的主动参与等等，而且在整顿礼仪方面(De sacrae instauratione liturgiae)，也给予地方教会相当的权力作适应(aptatio)，这意味着福音传播本位化的开始(Inculturation)。

有关圣事神学方面，梵二着重从礼仪生活范畴去探讨圣事，同时透过旧约的选民经验去体会基督的逾越奥迹，从这奥迹教会的圣事得以诞生，(19) 因此，基督经常联系着教会。(20) 基督在礼仪中有不同的临在，透过标记，使人得到圣化，(21) 教会作为主奥妙的肢体，经常呼求基督，并通过祂向天父呈奉敬礼。(22) 为此，礼仪是教会行动的顶峰，同时也是一切教会力量的泉源。(23) 圣事的目的是为圣化人类、建设基督的身体、以及向天主呈奉敬礼。(24) 教会是一个司祭的团体，并因着圣事和德行实践出来。(25) 圣事因着外在的标记要求人以信德的眼光去领受，(26) 不过这些标记亦能产生培育滋养的功效，(27) 同时又具有先知性的功能，预示将来的新天新地。(28) 圣事与圣仪有别，后者是教会模仿圣事而设立的标记，使人准备承受圣事的特效。(29)

为更能落实推行礼仪改革，教宗保禄六世在1964年颁发《神圣礼仪》(sacram liturgiam)手谕，成立「礼仪宪章执行委员会」(consilium ad exsequendam constitutionem de sacra liturgia)，委员会一方面关注牧民的需要，但同时也抱着相当客观、严谨的学术态度工作，他们创办了一份杂志《Notitia》，发表他们工作、活动的消息或刊登一些礼仪稿件，直至今日，仍然非常有用。1969年教廷将礼仪圣部分为两部份，并与圣人列品部平排设立圣礼部，1975年圣礼和圣事合为一部。自1968年至1973年全面修订圣事礼典(ordo)，每日礼赞及礼仪年历。

完成了新礼仪书的出版，并不表示了结礼仪的改革，反而开了新的领域，就是使礼仪「生活化」的问题：不是将人生局限于礼仪，而是以礼仪提升人生，在今后的牧民措施中，就须更注意礼仪植根本地文化的工作，要「本位化」就需要更多神学理论的支持。(30)。

1.这是 O. Casel致函其同会兄弟E.Dekkers中的话，引用A.HOUSSIAU, La Redecouverte de la liturgie par la theologie sacramentaire (1950-1980), in La Maison-Dieu (=MD) n149(1982) 27-55, 这里27。

2.参阅最近廿年来的探讨：(按年份排列)　

E.RUFFINI, I grandi temi della teologia contemporanea dei Sacramenti, in Rivista Liturgica (=RL) 54(1967) 39-50;　

J-M.R.TILLARD, Le nuove prospettive della teologia sacra mentaria, in Sacra Doctrina 45(1967) 37-58;　

Y.CONGAR, L'idea di sacramenti maggiori o principali, in Concilium 1(1968) 613-717;　

E.SCHILLEBEECKX－B.WILLEMS, La teologia dei sacramenti oggi, in Concilium 1(1968) 13-15;　

K.RAHNER, Was ist ein Sakrament?, in Stimmen der Zeit n188(1971) 16-25;　

M.NICOLAU, Teologia del segno sacramentale, Roma 1971;　

P.M.GY, Problemes de theologie sacramentaire, in MD n110(1972) 124-142;　

D.GRASSO, La teologia dei sacramenti, in Evangelizzazione e sacramenti, Torino 1972, 35-59;　

H.DENIS, Les sacrements ont-ils un avenir?, Paris 1972;　

J.ESPETA, Para una renovacion de la teologia sacramental, in Ciencia tomista 63(1972) 217-257;　

C.TRAETS, Orientations pour une theologie des sacrements, in Questiones Liturgiques 53(1972) 97-118;　

C.E.O'NEILL. I sacramenti, in Bilancio della teologia del XX secolo. III, Roma 1972, 263-313;　

G.COLOMBO, Dove va la teologia sacramentaria?, in Scuola Cattolica 102(1974) 673-717;　

J-C. DIDIER, Principes generaux de theologie sacramentaire a la limiere du temps present, in Esprit et vie 84 (1974) 611-615;　

C. VAGAGGINI, Fede e sacramenti oggi, in Annunzio della parola e liturgia, Roma 1974, 68-102;　

F. MONFORT, Les sacrements, pour quoi faire? Paris 1975;　

G. LUKKEN, La liturgie comme lieu theologique irremplacable. Methodes d'analyse et de verification theologiques, in Questiones Liturgiques 59 (1978) 193-212;　

M. TAYLOR (ed.), The Sacraments: Readings in Contemporary Sacramental Theology, New York 1981;　

L. della TORRE, Un cammino verso la comprensione dei sacramenti, in Rivista di pastorale liturgica 5 (1985) 3-12;　

S. MARSILI, Punti di teologia sacramentiaria, in I segni del mistero di Cristo. Teologia liturgica dei sacramenti = Bibliiotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae : Subsidia 42, Roma 1987, 17-25; 作者于1983年过世，这是遗作。

A. SCHILSON, Erneuerung der Sakramententheologie im 20. Jahrundert, in Liturisches Jahrbuch 37 (1987) 18-41;　

D. SARTORE, Alcuni recenti tratti di sacramentaria fondamentale, in RL 75 (1988) 321-339;　

A. M. TRIACCA, Per una trattazione dei sacramenti in prospettiva liturgica, in RL 75 (1988) 32-339.　

一些最近总论圣事的神学书：(按作者姓氏字母排列)　

AA. VV., LA Liturgia, i sacramenti : teologia e storia della celebrazione = Anamneses. Introduzione storico-teologica alla liturgia 3/1, Roma 1986 ;　

W. BAUSCH, A New Look at the Sacraments, New York 1983 ;　

L-M. CHAUVET, Symbole et sacrement. Une relecture sacramentelle de l'existence chretienne = Cogitatio fidei 144, Paris 1987 ;　

B. COOKE, Sacraments and Sacramentality, New York 1983 ;　

J. FINKENZELLER, Die Lehr von den Sakeamenten im allegemeinen = Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte IV / 1-2, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1980-81 ;

J. MARTOS, Doors to the Sacred, New York 1982 ; ID., The Catholic Sacraments, Wilmington 1982 ;　

K. B. OSBORNE., Sacramental Thelolgy. A General Introduction, New York 1988 ;　

L. OTT, Fundamentals of the Catholic Dogma, English trans. By LYNCH P., Dublin 1966, 325-349 Chinese translation is available;　

K. RAHNER, Foundations of Christian Faith. An introduction to the Idea of Christianity. English trans. By DYCH W. V., London 1978, 402-430 ;　

C. ROCCHETTA, Sacramentum fondamentale. Dal ''Mysterion'' al ''Sacramentum'' = Corso di Teologia Sistematica 8, Bologna 1989.　

J. SARAIVA MARTINS, The Sacraments of the New Alliance = Subsidia Urbaniana 22, Roma 1988 ;　

J. SCHANZ, Introduction to the Sacraments, New York 1983 ;　

E. SCHILLEBEECKX, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, New York 1963 ;　

M. SCHMAUS, Dogma 5 : The Church as Sacrament, London 1975, 3-42.　

Th. SCHNEIDER, Segni della vicinanza di Dio. Compendio di teologia dei sacramenti, Brescia 1983 ;　

L. SEGUNDO, The Sacraments Today, New York 1974 ;　

H. VORGRIMLER, Sakramenten Theologie = Leitfaden Theologie 17, Dusseldorf 1987 ;　

R. VAILLANCOURT, Toward a Renewal of Sacramental Theology, Collegeville 1976.　

中文方面的有：

赵一舟，《我们的圣事》，台北　1980;

刘赛眉，《圣事神学》，台北　1977；

罗国辉，《礼者，履也》，台北　1988，95－164。

3.参阅La Liturgia. Insegnamenti Pontifici (Rome 1962).

4.「礼仪运动」一词首先出现在德国A. SCHOTT主编的Vesperale 1894，是用来描写当时教会内的一个现象，后来才被视为时代征兆，有关的资料，请参阅：

B. BOTTE, Le mouvement liturgique. Temoignages et souvenirs, Louvain-Paris 1973 ;

A. FAVALE, Abbozzo storico del movimento liturgico, in AA. VV., La costituzione sulla sacra liturgia, Torino 1968, 内有很丰富的参考书目。

A. L. MAYER, Die Liturgie in der europaischen Geistesgeschichte, Darmstadt 1971 ;

B. NEUNHEUSER, Movimento Liturgico, in Nuovo Dizionario di Liturgia (= NDL), Roma 1984 904-918 ;

O. ROUSSEAU, Storia del movimento litergico, Roma 1961 ; ID., I Movimento liturgico da Dom Gueranger a Pio XII, in A. G. MARTIMORT (ed.), La Chiesa in preghiera, Roma 1966, 59-66.

吴新豪(编译)，《天主教礼仪发展吏》，香港　1983，34－63。

5.参阅B. NEUNHEUSER, Movimento Liturgico, in NDL 904-908.

6.参阅P. GUERANGER, Institutions liturgiques, I, Le Mans 1840, xii-xxi.

7.参阅M. WOLTER, Praecipua ordinis monastici elementa, Bruges 1880 ;　

ID., Psallite sapienter, 5 vols, Freiburg 1871-1890 ;

8.参阅 B. FISHER, Das《Mechelner Ereignis》vom 23 Sept. 1909. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der liturgischen Bewegung, in Liturgisches Jahrbuch 9 (1959) 202-214.

9.那里的学术工作有：1912年举办《礼仪研习周及讲座》(Semaines et conferences liturgiques), 每年的课程都会印发出来，自1913年则以另一名称出版：Cours et conferences des semaines liurgiques, Mont-Cesar, Louvain；此外尚有其他专刊：《礼仪生活》La Vie liturgique 1909-1913；在1924-1939以同一名称成为不同教区的刊物；《礼仪问题》Les Questions liturgiques 1910-1918；其后易名为《礼仪问题与本堂》Questions liturgiques et paroissiales (1919-1969)，然后又在1970年转回《礼仪问题》Questions liturgiques。1911-1914 出版《礼仪与本笃会杂志》Revue liturgique et benedictine, Maredsous, Namur；其后易名为《礼仪与隐修会杂志》Revue liturgique et mnoastique, 1919-1939。自1919-1945有《礼仪与本堂通讯》Bulletin paroissial liturgique, 1946年易名为《本堂与礼仪》Paroisse et liturgie，自1919年，为操法兰达语之比国人有Tijdschrift voor Liturgie (Abbey of Affligem)。

10.例如

F. CABROL-H. LECLERCQ, Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie, 15 vols, Paris 1907-1953 ; IIDEM, Monumenta ecclesiae liturgica, 6 vols, Paris 1900-13 ;　

CAGIN为教廷写了如何翻译古时的音乐礼仪典籍(Paleologie musica1e) 并重辑了台阶咏 (Graduale Romanum) 及每日礼赞的对经(Antiphonarium romanum) ;　

LEROQUAIS, Les sacramentaires et les missels manuscrits, 4 vols, Paris 1924:　

ID., Les breviaires manuscrits, 5 vols, Paris 1934 ;　

ID., Les pontificaux manuscrits, 4 vols, Paris 1937 ;　

ID., Les psautiers manuscrits latins, 2 vols, Macon 1940-41;　

DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chretien. Etude sur la Liturgie latine want Charlemagne, Paris 1889 (1925) ;　

BATIFFOL, Lecon sur la Messe, Paris 1916 (1920) ;　

ID., Histoire du breviaire romain, Paris 1893 (1911) ;　

F.CABROL, Le livre de la priere antique, Paris 1900 ;　

ID., La messe en Occident, Paris 1932 ;　

R.AIGRAIN, Liturgia, encyclopedie des connaissances liturgiques, Paris 1931.

11.他们的着作都有很大的推动力： K.MOHLBERG, Die Augfaben der liturgischen Forschung in Deutschland. Vorschlage und Anregungen, in Theologique Revue 17(1918) 145-151 ; 由I.HERWEGEN主编的《祈祷的教会》(Ecclesia oraas)系列，第一本是R. GUARDINI, Vom Geist der Liturgie，他的文笔虽仍有相当浓厚的神学色彩，却能直接落实到牧民的层面去，这种做法成为德国礼仪运动的模式。K.MOHLBERG和A.RUCKER也合作主编《礼仪历史的资料》(Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen)系列，专门刊印过往礼仪的资料，第一本是K.MOHLBERG, Das frankische Sacramentarium Gelasianum 1918。此外还有K. MOHLBERG和Fr J. DOLGER合编的《礼仪历史的探索》(Litrugiegeschichtliche Forschungen)系列，第一本有关其目标及工作K.MOHLBERG, Ziele und Aufgaben der liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen 1919, 这两套系列到1939年共出了31本，后来由O.HEIMING主编，并将两系列合而为一《礼仪学上的资料和探索》(Litrugiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen)，到1973共辑58本。1921年O.CASEL与A.BAUMSTARK和R.GUARDINI合编《礼仪学年刊》(Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft)，第一本出版后，R.GUARDINI退出，A.L.MAYER替上，直到1949年共出版了15本，主要都是O.CASEL的研究，自1959年后，由两位较CASEL年轻的会士先后(H.EMONDS然后E.V.SEVERUS)当主编，并改名为《礼仪学档案》(Archiv fiir Liturgiewissenschaft)，每年出版两册。

12.当时有F.X.Munch和Landmesser一起组织的「天主教学人联会」(Katholischer Akademiker-Verband)对从礼仪学术研究和推扬都有很大的帮助。其后也有青年活动(Jugendbewegung)，尤其是R.Guardini所领导的"Quickborn"，组织非常好的礼仪让青年明白和更容易参与。这些活动都有详尽的报导和评价：F.HEINRICH, Die Bunde katholischer Jugendbewegung. Ihre Bedeutung fur die liturgische und eucharistiche Emeuerung, Munchen 1968 ; B.NEUNHEUSER, Die 《Krypta-Messe》in Maria Laach. Ein Beitrag zur Fruhgeschichte der Gemeinschaftsmesse, in Liturgie und Monchtum 28(1961) 70-82.

13.Parsch的生平与着作可参看Lexikon fur Theologie 8, 1963。他最具影响力的系列有《慈恩之年》(Das Jahr des Heiles)1923年始，解释礼仪年的意义，每年都加增一些资料，另外尚有1926年创刊的《圣经与礼仪》(Bibel und Liturgie)。

14.E.CARONTI本笃会会士是《礼仪杂志》(Rivista Liturgica)的创刊人和主编，同时也以大众化的格调创立和主编《礼仪通讯》(Bollettino liturgico)，其代表作品有：La pieta liturgica, Torino 1920 ; ID., Il sacrificio cristiano, Vicenza 1922 ; ID., Il messale quotidiano. Vicenza 1929. 另一位《Rivista Liturgica》的主编是 I.SCHUSTER，他后来做了米兰的枢机主教，他对推行礼仪运动也有很大的贡献，其作品有：Liber sacramentorum. Note storiche e liturgiche sul messale romano, 9 vols, Torino 1919-1928。

15.参阅

S.MARSILI, Storia del movimento liturgico italiano, in ROUSAU, Storia del movimento liturgico, Roma 1961, 263-369 ;

E.M.VISMARA, La partecipazione del popolo alla liturgia, Vicenza 1920 ;

St. KUNCHERAKATT, The Origins of the Liturgical Renewal in the Society of St. Francis of Sales from its Founder till 1916 = Doctorate Dissertation presented the Pontificio Istituto Liturgico, Roma 1971 ;

A.CUVA, Fons vivas, Miscellanea liturgica in memoria di Don E.M. Vlsmara, Zurigo 1971。

有关M.RIGHETTI的作品：La settimana santa, Monza 1915 ;

ID., Il ciclo liturgico natalizio, Monza 1916 ;

ID., Le origini della liturgica romana, Monza 1917 ;

ID., Il tempo pasquale, Monza 1919 ;

ID., Storia liturgica, 4 vols, Milano 1944-1959.

16.参阅Th.BOGLER, Liturgische Emeuerung in alter Welt, Maria Laach 1950, 82-90.

17.Virgil MICHEL是当时的院长，他先创办了《弟兄们祈祷吧》(Orates fratres) 的杂志，其后在1950再革新，并命名为《祭礼》(Worship)。参阅P.B.MARX, V.Michel and the Liturgical Movement, Collegeville 1957 ; Th.BOGLER, Liturgische Emeuerung in alter Welt, Maria Laach 1950, 104-114.

18.参阅B.NEUHEUSER, Movimento Liturgico, in NDL 915-916.

19.SC 6: sacramenta, circa quae tota vita liturgica vertit ;　

SC 5 : divina magnalia in populo Veteris Testamenti praeluserant(...) per suae beatae Passionis, ab inferis Resurrectionis et gloriosae Ascensionis paschale mysterium ;　

SC 5 : de latere Christi in cruce dormientis ortum est totius Ecclesiae mirabile sacramentum ;

20.SC 7 : Christus Ecclesiae suae semper adest, praesertim in actionibus liturgicis. Praesens adest in Missae Sacrificio cum in mimstri persona (...)　

SC 7 : Christus Ecclesiam, sponsam suam dilectissirnam, sibi semper consociat

21.SC 7 : Liturgia habetur veluti lesu Christi sacerdotalis muneris exercitatio, in qua per signa sensibilia significatur et modo singulis proprio efficitur sanctificatio hominis.

22.SC 7 : quae (Ecclesia) Dominum suum invocat et per ipsum Aeterno Aeterno Patri cultum tribuit.

23.SC 10 : Liturgia est culmen ad quod actio Ecclesiae tendit et sirnul fons unde omnis eius virtus emanant.

24.SC 59 : Sacramenta ordinantur ad sanctificationern hominern, ad aedificationem Corporis Christi, ad cultum denique Deo reddendum.

25.LG 11 : Indoles sacra et organice exstructa communitatis sacerdotalis et per sacramenta et per virtutes ad actum deducitur.

26.SC 59 : Fidem non solum supponunt, sed verbis et rebus etiam alunt, roborant, exprimunt ; quare fidei sacramenta dicuntur.

27.SC 59 : quae (sacramenta) ad vitam christianam alendam sunt instituta.

28.LG 35 : Sacramenta Novae Legis, quibus vita et apostolatus fidelium alitur, coelum novum et terram novarn praefigurant

29.SC 60 : Sacramentalia (...) Ecclesia instituit. Quae sacra sunt signa quibus, in aliquam Sacramentorum imitationern, (...). Per ea homines ad praecipuum Sacramentorum effectum suscipiendum disponuntur.

30.有关礼仪「本位化」的问题，参阅

A.AMATO (ed), Inculturazione, Contestualizzazione, Teologia in Contesto. Elementi di bibliografia scelta, in Salesianum 45(1983) 79-111 ;

A.J.CHUPUNGCO, Cultural adoption of the liturgy, New York 1982. Adattamento, in NDL 1-15 ;

ID., Adattamento all'indole e (die tradizioni dei vari popoli. Relazione del Convegno Liturgico per la commemorazione del ventennio della《Sacrosanctum Concilium》il 25 ottobre 1984, in L'Osservatore Romano (29 ottobre 1984).

P.FERNANDO (ed.), Inculturation in Semincuy Formation (Pune 1980).

GIOVANNI PAOLO II, Catechesi Tradendae, Vatican 1979.

HON TAI FAI, Adattamento liturgico e formazione liturgica. Qualche puntualizzazione per una Strategia Formativa nel Seminario di Hong Kong, in Portare Cristo all'uomo. Congresso del ventennio dal Concilia Vaticano II. Vol I Dialogo = Studia Urbaniana 22, Roma 1985, 971-979.

C.H.KRAFT, Christianity in Culture. A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-cultural Perspective, New York 3rd printing 1981 ;

P.POUPARD. card., Chiesa e culture. Orientamenti per una pastorate dell'intelligenza = Verifiche e progetti 2, Milano 1985.

D.N.POWER, Liturgy and Culture, in East Asian Pastoral Review 21(1984) 348-360 ;

A.A.ROEST CROLLIUS, Inculturazione della fede : la problematica attuale, in B.GENEO (ed.), Inculturazione della fede. Saggi Interdisciplinari, Napoli 1981, 13-32.

A.M.TRIACCA, Adattamento liturgico : Utopia, velleita o stiumento della pastorale liturgica? in Notitia n150 (1979) 26-45 ;

ID., Inculturazione e Liturgia. Traccia per una chiarificozione, in A.AMATO－A.STRUSS (eds), Inculturazione e Formazione Salesiana. Dossier dell'incontro di Roma, 12-17 settembre 1983, Roma 1984.

更多的参考书目可阅：Pontifical Missionary Library of the Congregation for the evangelization of peoples, Bibliographia Missionaria.

2. 当代神学的反省

稍为涉足于礼仪运动的人，很快就发觉这是牵一发而动全身的问题，早期在隐修院推行礼仪的时候，已觉察这一点，不过他们的着作较为偏向历史研究，或者牧民上的应用，正因为他们开始了这两方面的反省，就发展到更全面的圣事神学观。(31) 让我们介绍出几个创新的神学路向，它们都能与礼仪运动相辅相承的：

2.1 圣事与「奥迹」

贾西尔(Odo Casel) 可说是第一位以他的历史研究为基础发展了一套新的构思，与传统经院圣事神学的表达方式不同。

他认为要明瞭圣事就该着眼于救恩史的来能去脉，他从保禄的「奥迹」去阐明救恩史的高峰在于基督的救世大业。今日延续基督的救世大业就是在于举行教会的圣事，基督永恒不朽的生命使救恩在人类历史中绵延不绝地存留下去。人与天主关系的最高境界是人的「崇拜」。

崇拜就是步入基督的奥迹中参与祂的祭相。基督的祭祀一方面光荣天主，另一方面圣化人类(救世大业)，圣事就是重演基督的救世大业。祭祀的奥迹并非在于某些特殊恩宠的应用、源于昔日基督的某些个别行动，而是以圣事行动的方式使整个救赎工程临现在神圣的标记中，并在这临现中产生救恩和敬礼天主的效果。

为贾西尔，整个圣事神学的精髓就是「奥迹的临现」(Mysteriengegenwart作者将这一词解作代表性的临现)。他应用了希腊早期外教的「奥秘祭祀」(mystery cult) 作为模式，引申这种祭祀与圣事的行动有相仿之处：就是大家都用标记和仪式来「代表」隐藏着的奥迹，过往发生的事再一次藉着标记临现，因为基督在世所经历的死亡与复活既发生在历史中，同时又超越历史，故此，基督的救世工程方能使圣事有一种救恩的效能。这就是他理论的骨干。(32)

有人同意贾氏的看法，即圣事是在祭礼中奥迹的重演，却感到贾氏对临现的诠释即奥秘宗教那种征象性的临现应用在圣事上过于牵强。在当时的「现代主义」(modernism) 着重人自然理性的气氛中，这种以教外的「奥秘宗教」作为他理论的模式，较诸今日来说，就显得危言耸听了。

也有人认为这理论似乎将圣事贬为一种物质性的复制品，与其说他的理论源于一种历史的分析，倒不如说是来自一个相当有启发性的直觉。(33) 不论怎样，他的学说引起很多人的兴趣和他弟子日后的研究。(34)

2. 2 圣事、基督?教会、圣神

礼仪运动一方面促进信友的积极参与，但同时亦需要加强其神学上的理由，(35) 很自然地就会反省到教会的本质，因着教会学的更新，(36) 圣事神学的内容也变得更丰富了。

圣事是天主选择与人交往的方式，而人可藉此与神相遇，而教会正是天人交往的地方，很多学者以不同的方法发挥这个意念，认为教会是具有一种「基本的圣事性」，在教会内包含各种形式的圣事行动和标记，只要能促进天人交往的事情，都是圣事性的，都是源于基本圣事(外文：protosacrament, primordial, radical, great, total, universal etc.) 当然，教会称为「圣事」是因为她与基督新郎结合一起。(38)

森明路(O. Semmelroth) 将圣事与教会的关系比作手和手指的关系，它们彼此有着不可分割的联系，手没有手指就不成手了，反过来说也一样。举行圣事就是将教会的圣事性彰显出来、实现救恩，即天主在耶稣基督内实现的救恩，是祂曾使教会得到生命的开始，并能不断滋养她成为天人交往的信仰团体。拉内(K. Rahner) 在差不多同样的脉络里，特别论证了两点：1. 教会是(个别) 圣事的团体，2. 个别的圣事就是教会的自我实现。

从这两点他想尝试再解释圣事「建立」和「效能」的问题。在第一个问题中，他认为在寻找圣经章节去「证明」之前，必须承认在基督建立教会的时候，在隐含的方式下，祂已将所有的圣事一同赐予教会，因为圣事就是教会本质的彰显，换言之，在举行圣事时，天主凯旋的恩宠通过基督的奥体，神妙地临现于基督徒某些生命重要的时刻中，因而基督就在那时刻中藉圣神的力量提升那信徒生命的层次；基督「建立」圣事，并不只是说祂在某个时空的场合表达了人需要某某圣事的心愿，更重要的是说祂愿意透过一些神圣的标记，临现和提升信徒重要的生命时刻。在第二个问题上，他首先检讨了传统的「产主因」的说法，然后将圣事的效能联系到基督的临在，是祂早已将恩宠永不反悔地赐给教会?直至末世，然后每次教会藉礼仪标记举行圣事时，就是基督在行动，再一次将恩宠赐予领受的人。基本上，他认为圣事的恩宠是与相应的标记有「自然」和密切的关系。(39)

这些意见的内涵受到很多学者的欣赏、并影响了梵二对教会、圣事神学的立场，不过，梵二更进一步指出除了基督在教会内的行动外，还有圣神的工作，「教友们藉圣洗圣事加入教会，因着圣神作基督徒的宗教敬礼(...) 因坚振圣事，他们与教会更密切地连结起来，享受圣神的特别鼓励」(LG11)，「再者同一圣神不仅用圣事及职务圣化领导天主子民，并以圣德装饰它，而且把自己的恩宠随其心愿，分配给每一个人」(LG12)，「天主圣神通过服务的职责和圣事，已经在做着圣化天主子民的工作」(AA3)。现代神学的反省集中在：

□圣事作为主基督的行动如何成为圣神在教会内一种特殊的恩临？

□圣神如何活化整个天主子民，使他们更深化圣事庆典中真切的存在经验，领受圣神的恩赐，从而建立教会？

□而圣事庆典就外在标记和仪式又如何成为圣神触动人心的经验，使人更认识和爱慕圣神？

□在礼仪中呼求圣神祈祷经文有何深远的神学意义？

□由于圣神能真实地使教会合而为一，故此，感如何顺应圣神而促进大公的运动。(40)

2.3 圣事、人位和征象

另外我们想介绍史勒拜克斯(E. Schillebeeckx) 的论文《圣事的救恩工程》(De sacramentele heilseconomie 1951)，(41) 全书本来分两册有关圣事总论，上册出版了后，而下册却从未面世。

上册是从圣经和教父开始论及「奥迹」(Mysterion) 的观念，并指出在历史中圣事神学的反省不断在演变。然后他深入阐明圣事中的礼仪幅度，特别标榜圣事的象征性和探索圣事的重要课题，诸如：本质，施行者及领受人的意向，圣事的印号，个人的准备与圣宠的领受。

下册本来是属思想的整理，以基督学作基础，谈论圣事因的问题、圣事的特性，圣事的救恩工程和世界、末世、圣体的关系。不过，有关这题目，他出版了《与基督的相遇是天人相遇的圣事》(De Christusontmoeing als sacrament van de Godsontmoeting 1957)，后来在第四版，他另取名为《基督天人相遇的圣事》(Christus sacrament van de Godsmoeting 1960)。

他的圣事观可这样表达：

□启示本身是透过神圣标记彰显出来的事件，故此本质上是圣事性的。启示中最伟大的标记就是天主降生的奥迹，祂忠于人历史的现实，由无形可见的神体降生成为有血有肉的人?耶稣基督。

□基督的宗教就是为了使人能与天主相遇。

□耶稣基督就成了最完美的圣事：是天主与人的相遇又是人与天主的相遇，祂是根源的圣事，为整个人类带来救恩。

□教会是基督的基本圣事：光荣的主基督来到教会中，透过祂所建立的神圣标记和行动?圣事?接触我们。

□圣事就是复活的主在教会内的行动，它们本身是祭祀的行动，兼且又能圣化人灵；故此，圣事是天主救援的恩赐，这恩赐透过同时潜存在有形可见的标记内，因而成为具体和历史性的事实。

□由于基督是天主，祂的行动就有一种末世性?一次而又能永恒地延续下去，由于祂又是人，祂的行动就有一种现世性?具体地在人的历史中发生，由于祂也是教会的头，祂的行动就要在教会内和透过教会延续下去，故此，圣事就是以标记和征象的形式，源于基督的奥迹，发挥属主、属人、属教会的的特殊价值。

史氏提出基督是天人相遇的圣事，而相遇是指「真切的位际关系」，而「真切」(authentic)一词是具有「属己、个人、亲密」的意思那么七件圣事也该是构成这种关系的标记(sign)。于是，这后来也引起神学家们反省人位(person) 与征象(symbol) 的内在关系。

人追求生命意义、一个统摄一切经验和值得吾人委身的讯息，人经过反复思索后，便用征象将之表达，所谓征象包括一切形之于外的标记，意在指涉(refer to) 某种未被直接给与的事物，换言之，征象所显示的事实是超出征象自身的外在形态，又由于吾人心灵有天赋的能力去体会征象所指涉的事实，征象便成为吾人精神生活交流的媒介，心灵通过征象可到达另一个心灵，心灵的沟通又令吾人体认征象的能力提高，甚至会运用新的征象，或创造一种新的征象系统，由此可见征象在人生中可起多层次的作用：

□征象作为媒介具有公共和约定俗成的特色，可维系某一个社团，同时成为这个社团的特色，如：国旗，信经(symbolum fidei)。

□征象像有机组织物具有某种的架构和规律，正因如此，人才能通过征象建立和维系某种恒常的关系，如：音乐本身具有规律，并可用来传意或抒情。

□征象有制定人行为的功能，如：军装、制服确定某些人的任务或立场。

□征象可助长人与人之间的联系，使他们能彼此交流和共融，如：祝贺咭，甚至是一些宣言或某政治党纲。

□征象可成为一种生活背景，由此而可解释某种行为或事件的意义，如：握手表示一种善意和接受。

基于这种种作用，在人的心灵表达之路上出现了不同的语言、哲学系统、艺术作品、文物制度等等，甚至会用人间的神话、仪式来表达其宗教经验。可是从启示的角度，天主在基督身上的彰显却用了天上的人话，由于基督以人的方式生活了天主的内涵，祂本人就成为一个活生生的标记，人通过祂可往天主那里，但由于基督是真人，祂为维系与人的关系，创立了教会的团体，使之成为祂的标记，同时为这个信仰的团体建立七个神圣的标记，圣事从标记来说是人间的征象，但从效果来说却是天上的事。那么，神学的反省该按征象与人生的关系，去深入和活化圣事中那来自天上的内容。(42)

2. 4 圣事、信仰和圣言

近年来，信仰和圣事在神学反省中，亦引发出一些礼仪神学认知论的问题，就是有关：「崇拜律制定信仰律」(legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi) 的问题。

这句话收集在第六世纪的教律文献中，并说明是出自教宗圣赛勒西一世(Pope Celestine I 422-432)，「崇拜律」是指宗徒传下来要教会为众人祈祷的劝谕 (弟前2：1－6)，其次是指整个教会所用的礼仪祈祷经文，所以后期lex supplicandi 又改称为lex orandi。「信仰律」当时是指教会正统的、活生生的道理或教义。

最近这句话曾七次出现在教宗的训导文件里，教宗西斯都五世(Sixtus V) 为反对释经家李察西满(Richard Simon)，在其《永远天主的伟业》(Immensa aeterni Dei 1587) 应用了主显节的集祷经为证明三位贤士已意识到耶稣的天主性，同时引用教宗圣赛勒西一世(Celestine I 422-432) 的权威，说明「礼仪律制定信仰律」(Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi)。其他六次在1854至1950年之间，刚好是礼仪运动的期间，1854年教宗庇护九世在《不可言谕的天主》(Inefffabilis Deus 1954) 钦定圣母始胎无染原罪的教义时，就采用了这句话，即这教义的成立过程实有赖于历代教会对圣母的敬礼，当时祁朗赭(Gueranger) 就以这句话作为礼仪运动的基础，认为礼仪祈祷经文(lex orandi) 可制定教义(lex credendi)。

可是在1947年，庇护十二世在1947年的《天人中保》(Mediator Dei) 通谕中，为针对当时的「现代主义」(modernism)，尤其是泰勒(G. Tyrrell) 的偏见，他将个人的宗教感觉，不论其内容正确与否，都视为信仰的标准，并认为lex orandi 是指这种宗教感觉的实际表现，而lex credendi 纯属观念上的教义，教宗为避免将公共、客观信仰的宣认只立足于个人及主观的感觉上，便阐明传统的句可倒过来说「信仰律制定崇拜律」(lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi)，教宗是指教会的礼仪须按着正统的信仰而制定，不能按个人喜好而随便自创礼仪。

当然，教宗的话并没有影响教义，但却引起神学家在认知方面的争论，究竟礼仪在神学中只有「佐证」(confirmation) 的功能，还是有「泉源」(source) 的功能。大部分的神学家都走中庸之路，声称两者并不互相排斥，有些人则引入第三个原则「生活律」(lex vivendi)，意即生活经验?追求生活和谐、理智和信仰的协调、敬礼天主、美化人生。「生活律」可发挥里仪的「泉源」功能，就是：视礼仪为活生生的事实，捕捉礼仪庆典的启示内容，活化信仰，并透过诠释法将礼仪的祈祷语言转变为陈述及阐释的语言，礼仪成为神学的泉源，就是以虔诚礼拜天主的态度作为认知的始点(credo ut intelligam)。「生活律」同时又可发挥礼仪的「佐证」功能，就是：视礼仪为一种宣认信仰的经验及承传，成为教义、神学的佐证。从事礼仪神学不只是做文字的功夫，也要兼顾生活上真切(authentic) 的礼仪经验，尤其圣事神学须由「圣事庆典」作为首先和不可或缺的开始点。(43)

有关圣事、圣言和信仰彼此相互的关系是源于活生生的经验和牧民的反省，由于很多人去领受圣事时，却不了解所庆祝的事情，有见及此，一些袒仪神学家便推行一种意识唤醒，1946的礼仪杂志《天主庭院》(La Maison-Dieu) 就是这样开始的。它的对象本来是向神职人员和牧民工作者，但不久就发觉需要在以更科学和客观的态度，重新找回圣言、信仰和圣事彼此关系的历史沿革，故此，这本杂志出了不少文章都是有关圣经和教父的泉源和礼仪的沿革。

在这方面的研究中，以L. Villette的《信仰和圣事》(Foi et sacrement) 最有代表性，这个着作共分两册，上册是加上副题《由新约到圣奥斯定》(Du Nouveau Testament a saint Augustin, Paris 1959)，顾名思义，是由在这段时期内，找出很多的证据，阐明信仰和圣事的关系，不论是早期教会的做法，或后期遇有争论时，如异端教徒的付洗、婴孩领洗等问题，圣事总不能与教会的信仰分割。下册副题为《由圣多马斯到巴德》(De saint Thomas a K Barth, Paris 1964)，作者将圣多玛斯和圣文德的神学立场、及其对教会训导的影响阐明，然后又将宗教改革直至今日的基督教的重点陈述出来，结束时又「圣言和圣事」为题介绍天主教和基督教的神学立场。

与此同时，信仰和圣事经已成为圣事神学的议程，很多学者继续发挥这点，将圣事视为一个信仰的事件，是天人的相遇点。另一条几乎同时进行的脉络是「圣言和圣事」，大概在六零年初学者们就这题目发挥了不少，而且影响梵二的革新。

这些学者都有些共同的看法，其中两个特色较为明显的：

第一是「历史上」的特色：在宗教改革期间，天主教和基督教之间引起的纷争导至后来圣言和圣事几乎完全分割，一种极不自然的分割，将他们视为两件平衡互不相交的事，甚至称基督教为「圣言的教会」，天主教为「圣事的教会」。这种不自然、人为的分割该重新修正过来，再回顾圣经、教会的传承使两者能再结合起来。

第二是「神学上」的特色：即在神学的反省中找出圣言和圣事之间的协调和互补的作用，其宾「圣言」本身就是「导致救恩」的事件，在某程度上，已是圣事性的，同理，圣事本身也是透过标记、行动，宣告了天主在耶稣基督内最后的(或末世的) 胜利，这种「宣告」是旅途教会中最隆重和最富救恩力量的宣告，它涉及了人的、教会的、基督的「宣告」行动。

圣言非只是一种从「事效性」(ex opere operate) 的角度对圣事的解释，就像对所举行的圣事再添上一个额外的、可有可无的宣告，而圣事无需圣言的宣告就可自行发生的事，其实，圣言本身就是一个圣事的行动，透过文字、宣读、聆听的行动，宣告那透过神圣标记而实现的天主救恩，事实上，举行圣事所用的「形」(Form) 和「质」(Matter) 是指祝圣经文和标记及仪式，经文就是浓缩了的圣言，可见圣言是圣事的基本要素，可是「浓缩了」的圣言只满全最低和不可或缺的条件，在牧民和唤醒意识方面尚须多加发挥。

梵二有见及此，也就在更新礼仪时，特别着重「宣告」的层面。首先圣事标记及仪式要十分清晰、容易明白，不但可采用地方语言，也可添上本土文化的气息，加强庆典的感觉，「读经」方面是不容忽视，而且给予大量的题材，让人们因时制宜作适当的选择，务使圣事庆典成为一个「宣告」，圣言的宣告成为圣事的庆典。

2.5 圣事、救恩史、纪念和庆典

在五零年代，有些神学家开始从救恩史的角度开始他们的反省，又从教父的着作里找到不少有关的资料，将救恩的展示和延续视为神人共同的历史(oikonomia)，这个重新发掘出来的土地，非常肥沃，使神学的发展有相当的丰收，并照明了很多信仰上的课题。(45)

在这脉络作圣事神学反省的以达尼老(J. Danielou) 的着作最为突出。他应用了教父们的圣事观，将个别的圣事看作为在教会的时期内「天主美妙的化工」(Mirabilia Dei)，一方面延绩旧约和新约中天主的奇工伟业，同时又预示了末世的人生终向。

他介绍了教父们神学背景和世界观，尤其取材于当年慕道团体所用的要理教授，其中很多是教父以叙述形式，来表达救恩史中的伟大事迹(narratio plena)，并将之视为整个神人历史时期的界定(articuli temporis)，又将入门圣事与天主在以色列选民和基督的奥迹作相互的对照，使慕道者渐渐悟出他们的入门过程其实是整个救恩史的缩影、是一个旅程有不同的阶段，踏上这路上的人，就不断地让天主的妙工重演在他们具体的生命上，逐步引领他们进入天主的奥迹内、那恩许的福地。

另一方面，作者亦指出这条救恩史的脉络是圣事神学其中一个不可或缺的主干，因为正如新约的作者多次引用了旧约的事迹表达天主在基督内的救恩行动，那么圣事也具有同样的动力，因为是同样的基督在圣事内实现天主的救恩，并使人预先品尝将来末世的福乐。每次举行圣事，就是天主对人、对世界、对教会采取救援的行动，因为万有都要「总归」(recapitulate) 于基督内，藉着祂和圣神的大能，迈向天父。

有些作者阐明救恩史的终极已在复活的基督身上提前实现，祂就是人类终向最后的结局(eschaton)，祂升天之后，就开始了「宣告」和「庆祝」的时期，使人也因此而分沾到这救恩的事实，教会的诞生就是要延续天主在基督内对人的「新造化」，这次是藉着圣神的大能，使基督完人更深刻地、更明颇地成为历史上每个人的「肖像」，然后在恩宠和自由约合作下成为天主的「模样」，在基督内达致圆融。(47)

其后，另一位学者提雅(J-M. R. Tillard) 更深入地描写圣事的庆典与救恩史的关联，他从三方面入手：

□圣事是一个救恩的事件

□圣事是一个救恩的事件，同时又是一个标记和信仰的表达

□圣事是一个救恩的事件、一个标记和信仰的表达，而且是在感观的世界中实现出来

他不厌其烦地引用圣经和教父，阐明圣事在救恩史的延续中，使独一无二的巴斯卦事件、那令教会诞生的事件，在时空中临现，基督徒在举行圣事之时，就投入基督、巴斯卦的转化过程里，这项伟大的临现能在教会内实现，就是藉着天主圣言的宣告，并将所宣告的活化在标记中，圣事的标记就成为天主圣言的「预许」和「实现」，又是教会和参与者的信仰表达。有关巴斯卦事件能在现世的标记中「实现」，作者是采用了多玛斯的「工具因」的诠释，到最后现世的标记能产生天上恩宠的能力，是因为天主降生成人的奥迹，是耶稣的人性活出了天主的荣耀。祂的人性是圣事建立的基础，所活出天主的荣耀就是祂恩临人间的结果。(48)

还有些作者较喜欢用「纪念」(anamnesis) 来表达圣事「实现」救恩史(oikonomia) 及其终极(eschaton) 的意念。基督徒在礼仪上所作的「纪念」在现世中同时有三个时间的幅度：将过去的事件，活生生地重演在此刻中，又同时伸延到将来。(49)

「纪念」(anamnesis) 是透过标记和仪式实现出来，但其中有一个极重要的成份，就是，它基本上是信徒团体的庆典(Celebration)。庆典是吾人一个生命的经验，它欢乐的特色帮助吾人从繁忙的生活中释放出来，摆脱刻板生活的压迫感，一方面可藉此再一次体会生命的意义，加深处事做人的动机，检讨遗忘了的目标，另一方面又加强团体的共融、归属感和彼此的关系，而这些成份刚好又能更清晰地界定和彰显这团体的特色。

宗教的庆典通常是一个神圣时刻，其形式具有戏剧、演艺和仪式的性质，从宗教历史的角度看，这些庆典的背后往往源于一些宗教经验，所庆祝的主题是有关发生在过往的一件事，这事对某一个民族产生一些好处，诸如：得到解放，或者意外的丰收，人们深感这是来自神的照顾，同时极想将这些事情的效果延续下去，或再次重复，便透过一些仪式纪念这过往的事，一方面提醒人们齐心求神，另一方面提醒神要像昔日一般照顾他们现在的需要。

圣事中的庆典源于拉丁文：celebrauo，意谓集结一起成为一个群体。它欢庆的特色意味着从人生的困境中解脱出来，达至一个兄友弟爱、心灵自由、充满慈爱的世界。其过程透过仪式、标记和征象纪念巴斯卦的事件，这是基督徒经验中最重要的事件，它既是历史时空上发生的事，又是超越历史时空的事，成为所有人提升和转化的推动力和典范，故此称为奥迹，作为纪念仪式，圣事庆典导人进入逾越奥迹，作为推动力可使庆祝的团体产生新的转化，作为典范，可使人寄望将来的荣耀。事实上，从诠释礼仪典籍的研究中，亦可找到丰富的神学思想。(50)

31.由祁朗赭(Dom Gueranger) 开始，已有不少礼仪神学家，从历史研究和牧民方面，提出不少新的神学意念，如：R.Guardini, O.Casel, I.Schoster, L.Duchesne, J.A.Jungmann, E.Leclerq, F.Cabrol等人，请参阅：

L.BOUYER, La vie de la liturgie, = Lex Orandi 20, Paris 1956 ;

J.A.JUNGMANN, Gewordene Liturgie, Innsbruck 1941 ;

ID., La liturgie des premiers siecles = Lex Orandi 33, Paris 1962 ;

C.VAGAGGINI, Il senso teologico della liturgia, Roma 1965 ;

有关Mysterion－Sacramentum字源学的历史研究：

BORNKAMANN. Mysterion, in Theological Dictionary of New Testament IV, Michigan 2nd printing 1975, 803-828 ;

H.U. von BALTHASAR, Le mysterion d'Origene, in Recherches de Science Religieuse 26 (1936) 513-562 ; 27 (1937) 38-64 ;

P.TH.CAMELOT, "Sacramentum". Notes de theologie augustinienne, in Revue Thomiste 57 (1957) 429-449 ;

C.COUTURIER, Sacramentum et mysterium dans l'oevre de St. Augustin, in H.RONDET (ed.), Etudes Augustmiemes, Paris 1953, 163-332.

J.DANIELOU, Le mystere du culte dans le sermons de s. Gregoire de Nysse, in Vom christlichen Mysterium : Gesammelte Arbeiten zum Gedachtnis von O.Casel, Dusseldorf 1951, 76-93 ;

De GHELLINCK (and others), Pour l'histoire du mot sacramentum, 1 : Les anteniceens', II : Patristique et Moyen Age, Spicilegium sacrum lovaniennse, Louvain 1924 / 1927 ;

C.MOHRMANN, "Sacramentum" dans le plus anciens textes chretiens, in The Harvard theological Review 47 (1954) 141-152 ;

E.RUFFINI－E.LODI, "Mysterion" e "sacramentum". La sacramentalita negli scritti dei padri e nei testi liturgici primitivi, Bologna 1987 ;

P.VISENTIN, "Mysterion-sacramentum". Dai padri alla scolastica, in Studio Patavina 4 (1957) 394-414.

32.有关O.Casel的生平和着作，参阅V.WARNACH, Odo Casel, in P.VANZAN－H.J.SCHULTZ (ed.), Lessico dei teologi del secolo XX = Mysterium salutis / supplemento 12, Brescia 1978. 305-310.　

参阅O.CASEL, Il mistero del culto cristiano (Torino 1966), Tr. It. from the 4th ed. of DOS christliche kultmysterium (Maria Laach 1931, 1960) ;　

ID., DOS Mysterienged'achtnis der Messliturgie, in Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft 6 (1929) 113-204.　

ID., Neue Zeuegnisse fur das Kultmysterium, in Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft 12 (1935) 99-171.　

ID., Glaube, Gnosis und Mysterium, in Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft 13 (1936) 155-305.

33.参阅

C.E.O'NEILL, I sacramenti, in Bilancio della teologia del XX secolo III (Roma 1972) 263-309 ;

E.RUFFINI, Sacramenti, in Dizionario Teologico Interdisciplinare III (Torino 1977)尤其191-201.

34.参阅

V.WARNACH, Il mistero di Cristo. Una sintesi alla luce della teologia dei misteri (Roma 1982) ;

B.NEUNHEUSER, Introduzione e Note aggiunte alla IV edizione, in O.CASEL, Il mistero del culto cristiano, pp. 15-20 ; 154-160 ;　

ID., Mysterio, in NDL 863-883.

35.尤其是有关参与弥撒的问题，参阅

A.VONIER, A key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, London 1925 ;

E.MASURE, Le sacrifice du Chef, Paris 1932.

36.对于这课题，在上世纪末期，德国杜平根大学早开始历史的研究，请参阅

J.A.MOHLER, Die Einheit der Kirche oder das Prinzip des Katholizismus, Tubinger 1825 ; 法文翻译为L'unite del'Eglise ou le principe du Catholicism d'apres l'esprit des Peres des trois premiers siecles = Unam sanctam 2, Paris 1938 ;

ID., Symbolic oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensatze der Katholiken und Protestanten nach ihrenoffentlichen Bekenntnisschriften, Mainz 1832 (Eng. Tr. 1843) ;

为认清那年代教会学更新的简介，参阅

E.MENARD, L'ecclesiologie hier et aujourd'hui, Pruges-Paris 1966 ;

Y.CONGAR, Un peuple messianique = Cogitatio fidei 85, Paris 1975.

37.第一个着作，从一种直觉将圣事与教会的圣事性连系在一起，就是H. de Lubac在1938年出版的《公教教义》(Catholicisme)，然后教宗庇护十二也在其通谕《奥妙身体》(Mystici Corporis 1943)也推广同一个意念，其后，庇护十二其中一个专家也特别写两册论述这个课题S.TROMP, Corpus Christi quod estecclesia, Rome 1946 and 1960.

38.参阅

O.SEMMELROTH, Die Kirche als Ursala-ament, Frankfurt 1953 ;

K.RAHNER, Kirche und Sakrament, Freiburg 1961 ;

P.SMULDERS, Sacramenten en kerk, m Bijdragen 17 (1956) 319-418 ;

ID., Die sakramentat-kirchliche Struktur der christlichen Gnade, in Bijdragen 18 (1957) 333-341 ;　

ID., La chiesa sacramento di salvezza, in　

G.BARAUNA (ed.). La chiesa del Vaticano II, Firenze 1965, 363-386 ;　

B.WILLEMS, La necessita della chiesa per la salvezza, in Concilium n1 (1965), 161-180.

39.参阅

O.SEMMELROTH, Die Kirche als Ursakrament, Frankfurt 1953.

K.RAHNER, Kirche und Sakrament, Freiburg 1961.

40.有关圣神与礼仪的参考书目，请参阅

M.J.FANCISCO, Lo Spirito santo e i sacramenti. Bibliografia, in Notitia 13 (1977) 326-335 ;

C.ARGENTI, Le Saint-Esprit et les sacrements, in Amitie 4 (1973) 14-24 ;

J.CASTELLANO CERVER. Presenza e azione dello Spirito Santo nella liturgia, in Lo Spirito Santo nella vita spirituale, Roma 1981, 113-142 ;

F.LAMBIASI, Lo Spirito santo: mistero e presenza, Bologna 1987 ;　

J.M.POWERS, Spirit and Sacrament, New York 1973 ;　

C.ROCCHETTA, Lo Spirito santo e ie "meraviglie di Dio", in Lo Spirito Santo nella vita spirituale, Roma 1981, 95-112 ;　

A.M.TRIACCA, Spirito Santo e liturgia. Linee metodologiche per an approfondimento, in Lex orandi, lex credendi. Miscellanea in onore di C-Vagaggini, Roma 1980, 133-164 ;　

ID., Spirito santo e liturgia, in NDL, 1405-1419 ;　

ID., La presenza e l'azione dello Spirito santo nella celebrazione dei sacramenti, in Liturgia 19 (1985) 26-62 ;　

为大公运动，请参阅

Lo Spirito santo, la chiesa e i sacramenti. Documento ecumenico del Gruppo di DOMBES, in Enchiridion oecurnenicum. Documenti del dialogo interconfessionale, Bologna 1986ss ;

东方教会的礼仪亦特别从「奥迹」(mysterion) 引申礼仪泉源和圣神的关系，请参阅：

J.CORBON, Liturgia alla sorgente, Roma 1982 ;　

中世纪也有些作者对圣神与礼仪有很独到的看法，请参阅：　

HON TAI FAI, Torrens Voluptatis in Septem Flumina. Towards a Pneumatological Perspective of Rupert of Deutz based on his De Operibus Spiritus Sancti, Roma 1988.41.

有关Schillebeeckx的生平和着作，参阅B.WILLEMS, Edward Schillebeeckx, in P.VANZAN-H.J.SCHULTZ (ed.), Lessico dei teologi del secolo XX = Mysterium salutis / supplemento 12, Brescia 1978, 698-705.

42.有关征象与人生，参阅P.ANDES, La fonction sotenologupie des sacrements, in Stadia missionalia n30 (1981) 89-111 ;

L.BOUYER, Le rite et l'homme, Paris 1962 ;

CH.BERNARD, Symholisme et theolope, Roma 1974 ;

ID., Teologia simbolica, Roma 1981 ;

L-M.CHAUVET, Da symbolique au symbole. Essai sur les sacrements, Paris 1979 ;

ID., Symbole et sacrement. Une relecture sacramentelle de l'existence chntienne, Paris 1987.;

M-D.CHENU, Pour une anthropologle sacramentelle, in MD n119 (1974) 85-100 ;

ID., Anthropologie de la liturgie, in J-P., JOSSUA－Y.CONGAR (eds). La Liturgie apres Vatican II, Paris 1967 ;

M.NICOLAU, Teologia del segno sacramentale, Roma 1971.

K.RAHNER, The Theology of Symbol, in Theological Investigations V, London 1966, 221-252 ;

ID., The ontology of symbolic reality in general, in Theological Investigations IV, London 1960, 222-235 ;

ID., What is a sacrament, in Theological Investigations XIV. London 1976. 135-148 ;

ID., Foundations of Christian Faith, New York 1978 ;

P.RICOEUR, Poetica e simbolica, in B.LAURET－F.REFOULE (eds.), Iniziazione alla pratica della teologia, vol 1, Brescia 1986, 35-63.

A.M.ROGUET, I sacramenti segni di vita, Milano 1970 ;

R.VAILLANCOURT. Toward a renewal of sacramental theology. Montreal 1979, 67-79.

A.VERGOTE. La realisation symbolique dans l'expression cultuelle, in MD nil 1(1972), 110-131 ;

ID., Le rite: expression operante, in Interpretation du langage religieux, Paris 1973, 119-215 ;

D.SARTORE, Segno / Simbolo, in NDL, 1370-1381

43.参阅

P.DECLERCK, "Lex orandi, lex credendi". Sens originel et avatars historiques d'un adage equivoque, in Questiones Liturgiques 59 (1978) 193-212 ;　

K.FEDERER, Liturgie und Glaube. "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi". Eine Theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung, Freiburg 1950 ;

HON TAI FAI, On the Journey of Faith of the Adult-Catechumens, in Ephemerides Liturglcae 103 (1989) 3-41, 161-220, here, 3-7.　

A.HOUSSIAU, La Redecouverte de la liturgie par la theologie sacramentaire (1950-1980), in MD n149(1982) 27-55 ;　

M.LOEHRER, Il modello gnostico-sapienziale della teologia. La prospettiva di has della metodologia teologica di C. Vagaggini, in G.J.BEKES－G.FARNEDI (eds.), Lex orandi lex credendi. Miscellanea in onore di P. C.Vagaggini = Studia Anselmiana 79 / Sacramenta 6, Roma 1980, 19-47.　

G.UJKKEN, La liturgie comme lieu thwlogique irremplafable. Methodes d'analyse et de verification theologiques, in Questiones Liturgiques 59 (1978) 193-212 ;

H.SCHMIDT, Introductio in liturgiam occidentalem, Roma 1960, Cap.IV, lex orandi lex credendi, 131-139.

A.M.TRIACCA. "Liturgia" "locus theologicus" o "theologia" "locus liturgicus"? Da un dilemma verso una sintesi, in Paschale Mysterium. Studi memoria di S.Marsili (1910-1983), Roma 1986, 193-223 ;

G.Tyrrell, Lex orandi, on Prayer and Creed, London 1904 ;

ID., Lex credendi. A sequel of Lex orandi, London 1906

ID., Through Scylla and Charybdis, on the Old Theology and the new London 1907 ;

C.VAGAGGINI, Il sense teologico della liturpa, Roma 1965, 477-508 ;

ID., Fede e sacramenti oggi, in Annunzio della parola e liturgia, Roma 1974, 68-102 ;

ID., Teologia, in Nuovo Dizionario di Teologia, Roma 1979, 1597-1711 ;

44.参阅

L.BOUYER, La parole de Dieu vit dans la liturgie, in Parole de Dieu et liturgie, Paris 1958 pp.l05-127 ;　

ID., Parole, eglise et sacrements dans ie protestantisme et le catholicisme, Paris 1960 ;　

B.COOKE, Ministry to word and sacraments (Philadelphia 1976).　

J.DANIELOU, Bibbia e liturgia. La teologia biblica dei sacramenti e delle feste scondo i padri della chiesa, Milano 1958 ;　

W.KASPER. Wort und Sakrament, in M.GRUNEWALD (ed.), Martyria. Leitourgia. Diakonia. Festschrift H.Volk (Mainz 1968).　

C.E.O'NEILL, Meeting Christ in the sacraments. New York 1965 ;　

K.RAHNER, Wort und Sakrament, Munchen 1966 ; ID., Was ist ein Sakrament?. in Stimmen der Zeit 188(1971) 16-25.　

ID., Sakrament, V : Systematik, in Lexikon fur Theologie Kirche IX 228 ;　

ID., The Word and the Eucharist, in Theological Investigations IV, London 1965,　

J.P.SCHANZ, Introduction to the Sacraments, New York 1983, 60-97.　

A.M.TRIACCA, Celebrazione liturgica e Parola di Dio. Attuazione ecclesiale della Parola. Contributo alla pastorate e alta spiritualita liturgica, in G.ZEVINI, (ed.), Incontro con la Bibbia. Leggere－pregare－amuciare, Roma 1978.　

E.SCHILLEBEECKX, Parole et sacrement dans l'eglise, in Lumiere et Vie 46(1960) 25-45 ;　

O.SEMMELROTH, Teotogia della parola, Ban 1968.

45.参阅

J.DANIELOU, Christianisme et histoire, in Etudes n254 (1974), 166-184 ;

CH.JOURNET, D'une philosophic chretienne de l'histoire et de la culture, in Revue Thomiste 48 (1948) 33-61 ;

O.CULLMANN, Christus und die Zeit, Zurich 1946 ;

G.THIS, Theologie de l'histoire, Paris 1949 ;

L.MALEVEZ, La vision chretienne de l'histoire, in Nouvelle Revue Theologique 71 (1949) 113-134, 244-264 ;

J.MOUROUX, Le mystere du temps, Paris 1962 ;

H.U. von BALTHASAR, Theologie der Geschichte. Ein Grundriss, Einsiedein 1959 ;

46.参阅

J.DANIELOU, Essai sur le mystere de l'histoire, Paris 1953 ;

ID., Sacramentum futuri, Paris 1950 ;

ID., Bible et liturpe, Paris 1951 ;

ID.. Sacraments and Parousia, in Oratres Fratres 25 (1950-51) 400-404 ;

ID., L'histoire du salut dans la catechese, in MD n20 (1952), 19-35 ;

ID., Sacraments et histoire du salut, in Parole de Dieu et liturgie, Paris 1958 ;

ID., Histoire du salut et formation liturgique, in MD n.79 (1964) 28-39 ;

ID., L'entree dans l'histoire du salut : bapteme et confirmation, Paris 1967.

47.参阅

C.ROCCHETTA, I sacramenti e la storia della salvezza. Dai "magnalia Dei" ai "sacramenta fidei" nel pensiero teologico del card. J.Danielou, Roma 1976 ;　

A.ROGUET, Les sacrements signes de vie, Paris 1952 ;　

C.J.GEFFRE, Dai "mirabilia Dei" ai "sacramentum fidei", in Rivista di pastorale liturgica n.13 (1965) 537-551 ;　

P.Y.EMERY, Histoire du salut et sacrements, in Oihonomia, Hamburg 1967, 310-321.　

M.MAGRASSI, Dai "mirabilia Dei" ai "sacramenta fidei", in Rivista di pastorate liturga 13 (1965) 537-551 ;　

R.POU RIUS, Perspectivas actuates en Teologia de los sacramentos, in Phase 12 (1972) 433-488.

48.参阅

J-M.R.TILLARD, Le sacrement evenemente du salut, in Etudes religieuses (1964) 全册；

ID., Principes pour une catechese vrai, in Nouvelle Revue Theologique 84(1962) 1044-1061 ;

ID., Le nuove prospettive della teologia sacramentaria, in Sacra Doctrina n.45 (1967) 37-58 ;

ID., I sacramentidella chiesa, in Iniziazione alla prarica della teologia III Dogmatica, Brescia 1986, 397-482 ;

P.BONY, La parole de Dieu dans l'Ecriture et dans l'evenements, in MD n.99 (1969) 94-123 ;

P.TENA, La celebration liturgique entre l'evenement et les evenements, in Paroisse et liturgie 53 (1971), 129-139 ;

F.RAURELL, Le jugemente prophetique sur les evenements, in Paroisse et liturpe 53 (1971), 99-113 ;

J.A.GARCIA, Evenementes et eucharistie dans les liturgies anciennes, in Paroisse et liturgie 53 (1971), 115-128 ;

49.参阅

O.CASEL, DOS Ged'achtnis des Heirn in der altchristlichen Liturgie, Freiburg 1918 ;

J.JERMIAS, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, Gottingen 1935, 1967 ;

N.A.SAHL, Anamnesis, in Studia Theologica Lundensia, n.1 (1948), 69-95 ;

S.MARSILI, La Liturgia, momento storico della salvezza, in AA.VV., Anamnesis I, Torino 1974, 31-156 ;

S.SCHURMANN, Der Abendmahlbericht Lucas 22 : 7-38, Paderborn 1957 ;

M.THURIAN, L'eucharistie, memorial du Seigneur, Neuchatel-Paris 1959.

B.NEUNHEUSER, Memoriale, in NDL, 820-838

A.M.TRIACCA, "Celebrare" il matrimonio cristiano. Suo significato teologico-liturgico (Anamnesis－Methods－Epiclesis), in Ephemerides Liturgicae 93 (1979) 407-456.

A.M.TRIACCA, "Liturgia" "Locus theologicus" o "theologia" "locus liturgicus"? Da una dilemma verso una sintesi, in Paschale mysterium. Studi in memoria di S.Marsili (1910-1983), Roma 1986, 193-223.

50.有关庆典，请参阅：

A.CAPRIOLI, Linee di ricerca per uno statute teologlco della liturgia, in Communio n41 (1978) 35-44 ;

D.DROSTE, "Celebrare" in der romischen Liturgieschen. Eine liturgie-theologische Untersuchung, Munchen 1963 ;

R.VAILLANCOURT, Toward a renewal of sacramental theology, Collegeville 1979, 102-113 ;

C.ROCCHETTA, Sacramentaria fondamentale. Dal "mysterion" al "sacramentum", Bologna 1989, 515-546 ;

J.P.SCHANZ, Introduction to the sacraments. New York 1983, 130-274 ;

N.SODI, Celebrazione, in NDL, Roma 1984, 231-248 ;

笔者也曾经诠释过《成人入门圣事礼典》(Ordo Initiaionis Christiae Adultorum－Editio Typica－Reimpressio emendata 1974)，从而引申出，慕道「信仰旅程」的神学基础及前景，参阅拙作

HON TAI FAI, On the Journey of Faith of the Adult-Catechumens, in Ephemerides Liturgicae 103 (1989) 3-41 161-220.

小结

现代的神学有赖其他学科的贡献，如：哲学，诠释学，宗教现象学，释经学，历史研究，教父学，教义发展史，语意学等，而演变得更丰富和多姿多釆，令人对基督、教会和自身的奥迹有更深切的了解，圣事神学亦不甘后人，在助人整理人生观的道途上建立新的里程碑。但如果圣事神学不能应对生活的需求，亦不曾发展起来。礼仪运动为圣事神学带来丰收的时代，正因为信友们渴求在礼仪与生活重新整合，从而更新教会，这种渴求需要神学的理论支持。

今日圣事神学的走势是整合各种观念和生活经验，企图将礼仪庆典、生活价值及学术知识融会贯通，为达至一套有系统和普遍论证形式的意义架构，使其足以剖析及整顿吾人对圣事的经验(fides quaeres intellectum)。另一方面，圣事神学亦须顾及吾人的文化背景，将圣事的标记融入文化中，将之提升，使信奉在举行圣事庆典之余，体会到自己的文化亦具有一种类比的「圣事性」，因为它既隐含又彰显和实现天主的救恩(fides quaerens culturam)。综合上述，我觉得这种严谨的反省可分为三部份，而且它们该彼此相辅相承：

1. 本体性的理解

即透过启示内容中最基本、最关键的讯息，产生对圣事经验的认识和价值体会。这些最关键的讯息，如：救恩史，奥迹，崇拜，纪念，重演，庆典，征象，宣告，相遇等就像一些普遍性的原理可解释具体的圣事经验。理解的内容有两部份，一方面吾人深入了解圣事本身的意义，另一方面要体会其价值，进而在意志上、灵修上对其作肯定及生活的委身。

2. 知识性的探索

主要是做知性的诠释学，以启示作为准则，诠释活生生的圣事庆典，及一切有关庆典的人生经验及文化因素，故须研究礼仪庆典的历史沿革，剖析礼仪典籍的内容，尽量找出其共同之处，从而引申一些普遍原理，藉此整顿圣事与人生的经验。

3. 语言性的表达

神学作为学问本身是知性语言，用作阐释和传递理念的，较为抽象的，通常当然是以文字为主；圣事是包括标记、仪式和经文的行为语言，用作「纪念」和「重演」奥迹的，属象征性的，并非以文字为主，圣事神学的语言一方面是延申思想的媒体，另一方面也该是思想转化为行动的媒能，为应用在礼仪上时，更能迎合人的需要，植根于本地文化，适应现代人的生活，而且使礼仪真正成为教会团体行动的「泉源」和「顶峰」。

「问渠那得清如许，为有泉头活水来。」礼仪运动告诉我们，在教会内从事神学反省的人，也须以礼仪为泉源，这样的圣事神学必使人生更为丰盛。

作者：周景勋

乾坤揭主荣．碧空布化工?

纪尔松从「天主的荣耀」谈中世纪哲学的精神

一．引子

在阿波罗十一号太空船登陆月球时，其中有一位太空人居然背诵出圣咏第八首最精彩的诗句来：

诸天现光彩，妙手运阴阳。

瑞景灿中天，星光耀灵光。

人类处其中，碌碌无所长。

乃蒙主拔擢，圣眷迥异常。

(引自吴经熊圣咏初稿译－－(1))

在一个晨烯初露的早上，天边一道带有睡意的橙红光芒，引领我安祥宁静地坐在上主的圣殿中默祷，光芒射透了圣殿彩色的玻璃窗，照着殿中的圣经－－光的祝福；我的心灵被圣经中的三圣童颂摄吸着，无言却是一默如雷般的将我震撼，使我感悟这三位站在死亡烈焰中的圣童－－那一份超越生死的赞词：

上主，我们祖先的天主．你是可赞美的，应交称赞，应受颂扬，直到永远！

你光荣的圣名，是可赞美的，应极受称赞，极受颂扬，直到永远！……

上主的一切化工，请赞美上主，歌颂称扬他，直到永远﹗……

愿大地赞美上主，歌颂称扬他，直到永远！……

普世人类，请赞美上主，歌颂称扬他，直到永远！……

因为他由阴府中救出了我们，

从火焰中拯救了我们。

你们要称谢上主，因为他是美善的

因为他的仁慈，永远常存！

(引自思高圣经：达尼尔先知书三：52－90)

实在的，给我揭开了生命悦乐的奉献，犹似庄子「不悦生、不恶死」的逍遥心境，使我－－无我地唱出心底的赞颂：

干坤揭主荣，碧空布化工。

朝朝宣宏旨，夜夜传微衷。

(咏十九：2，3吴经熊译)

　

　　*****************************

当我们谈论「天主的荣耀」时，我们不期然地会想到这是信仰的问题：神学中的讨论课题或灵修学中生命历程的礼赞。然而，我们在研究中世纪哲学时，我们不能忽略「基督徒哲学」(Christian Philosophy) 的存在；反之，我们肯定「基督徒哲学」从圣奥斯定的思想开始，清楚地表达了「哲学是通往神的道理」，他将「神学」和「哲学」联系起来，相辅相承地互相补充，故有「你明白，好使你相信」的哲学言语，以及「你相信，好使你明白」的神学言语的体验。其后，「基督徒哲学」发展到圣多玛斯而发扬光大，当时更有「哲学是神学的婢女」之说，故多玛斯从经验常识开始，经过理智的抽象作用而得到的知识，到达形上学境界，更以类比的方式肯定「人」的生命是分享天主的存在。(2)

由是，「基督徒哲学」的探讨虽从「信仰」开始，然而其内有着一个理解的知识型态，即「启示」与「理性」产生着一个内在的关系；其后，就是「人」能面对面地瞻仰天主；因此，圣文德(St. Bonaventura) 在「心灵迈向天主的旅程」(Opusculum Doctoris Seraphici ： Itinerarium Mentisin Deum) 一书中强调人生命的终向乃一个心灵的旅程，在这旅程中，人透过：「天主的痕迹」、「天主的肖像」瞻仰天主；且由「存有」瞻仰天主的「至一性」，以及在「美善」内瞻仰天主。又在「神学乃万学之宗」一文中提出：「为使心灵因了天主在内心所讲的言语而认识祂，心灵必须与『是天主光荣的反映，是天主本体的真正肖像，并以自己大能的言支撑万有』的祂(希一：3)，结合为一。……依循这样的路线亦可对自然哲学做出同样的思考。」(3) 这实在是一种「自然与理性皆向超性开放」的观念的哲学。然而，纪尔松(Etienne Gilson) 更清楚地说：「我所谓的基督徒哲学，是一方面保持理性与启示在形式上之差异，但另一方面，亦视基督徒的启示是『理性无可或缺的助力』的任何一种哲学。」(4) 所以，纪尔松在「中世纪哲学精神」一书中，将「天主的荣耀」(造化宣主荣) 列为哲学精神的探讨的内容或课题。而在谈论「天主的荣耀」时，我们不能骤然地讨论，必须先了解内容的来拢去脉。

1.吴经熊著，《内心悦乐之源泉》，东大图书公司　民74年7月4版　一．中国哲学之悦乐精神　25，26。

2.邬昆如编著，《西洋哲学史》，正中书局　民60年，参阅《教父哲学中的奥古斯丁》　227-269，《士林哲学全盛期：圣多玛》　309-327。

3.文德圣师著(韩山城译)，《心灵迈向天主的旅程》，安道杜会学杜出版　民63年，参阅(1)「旷野中微贱者的沉思」8-66，(2)「神学乃万学之宗」69-88。

4.Etienne Gilson, Translated by A.H.C. Downes ： The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy (New York ： Charles Scribner's Sons 1940) 36-37双叶书店发行，参阅沉清松译，《中世纪哲学精神》　第2章「天主教哲学」概念的澄清，国立编译馆　30-31。

二．来龙去脉谈「天主的荣耀」

在哲学的探讨中，当讨论到最后的终极问题时，哲学家们不期然便会提出「绝对」与「无限」的思想领域，这实在有别于人的有限与相对的世界；于是，在哲学的领域中，自然地产生两种论说：「有神论」和「无神论」。

倘若我们从历史中仔细地审察一下，便会清楚地了解，历来的哲学家都对「有神」与「无神」的问题有所争论，但却不否认有绝对或无限的思想终极的存在，好像「绝对」或「无限」是与「有神」与「无神」无关一样。然而哲学史上有名的哲学家，如柏拉图、亚里士多德、普罗丁、奥斯定、多玛斯、笛卡儿、斯宾诺莎、莱布尼兹、康德、黑格尔，以及怀德海等，都确切地承认有「神」(上帝、天主) 的存在。至于今日的辩证唯物论者：共产主义哲学，他们虽然极力否认有基督宗教的天主(上帝) 存在，但却满怀热情地主张此世界是无限的、永恒的、无穷的、和绝对的；更甚者，他们表现的态度，就某种观点言之?心灵投向「主义」的高下深浅的拥护和固执?其实正是一种典型的宗教。(5)

因此，在谈论「天主的荣耀」之先，我们必须肯定且相信「天主」(神、上帝) 的存在，而「天主」是绝对者和无限者，更是创造者。而「基督徒哲学」(Christian Philosophy)从下列所谈的意涵和原由来显扬「天主的荣耀」：

１．天主的创造

天主创造了世界．和世界中一切的万物，特别创造了「人」，并宣布：一切都是善的?「天主看了认为善(好)」(创世纪第一章)。

因此，基督徒哲学肯定：每一本性皆来自天主，且本性皆是「善」的?乃存在内在善性的原则。所以，如果受造物失去本性的「善」，就是离开创造的行动，必定会步向消亡。既然一切万物皆藉创造行动而完成，故必须有着持续创造而继续存在的适然性，便万物在变化中避免堕入消亡；故，这存在上的适然性，可视为万物变化的根源。

２．恶的产生

恶可分为「物理恶」和「道德恶」两种。(6)「物理恶」乃指事物的存在当是完整的或完善的，但其有所缺失，也就是说事物的存在是一种较差或不完整的「善」，其适然性不足够。然而这种较差的善，总还是一种善，因有所缺失的事物也是一种「存有」。

「道德恶」乃理性存在的「人」在觉察到自己的命运，而为此受苦，也因着行为与伦理道德的法则不相合所形成的缺失，使之必须面对悲惨的命运。在哲学上乃指人滥用了意志的自由。在基督徒哲学的系统中，第一个道德恶乃人误用了自由?事实上，自由意志是善的?反抗了自由意志，故有其特殊的名称?「罪」，且扩而充之亦用在其余出自第一个道德恶的其它罪恶上。基督徒使用「罪」这个字时，所要传逢的是他所瞭解的一种道德上的恶，透过自由意志的行动，而进入受造物的宇宙中，直接损及受造物对于天主的基本依赖关系。故圣经上有言：「因一个人，罪恶进入了世界；因着罪恶，死亡进入了世界。」(罗五：12) 道德恶所做成的「罪」带来了「死亡」，但天主赐下了恩宠，透过救赎以弥补罪恶。

****************

基督徒哲学所强调的「罪」乃属「道德恶」的层面，不是「物理恶」的层面，而「道德恶」所涉及的乃伦理学的问题；故圣奥斯定(St. Augustine) 肯定一切罪恶都从意志而来，意志并非被创造为恶，相反的，意志被造为善的，这善的意志只要能继续行善，便可以获致圆满的福乐；但意志若是软弱，便会使人离开善而进入腐化中，于是便产生了恶。然而圣奥斯定确信人的本性是善的，罪恶没有能力毁灭本性，但圣奥斯定却没有清楚地说明。圣多玛斯(St. Thomas Aquinas) 却从三个可能性的解释中清楚说明了罪恶不能抹杀和削减人性的善：

1.「人性的善」可以意指被组成因素所限定，并且被定义为「有理性的生命体」的人性本身，就是说「本性」是人的本质，罪恶不能抹杀和消减的。

2.「人性的善」可以意指人向善之自然倾向，若无此种自然倾向，人甚至无法继续生存下去，因为一般的「善」，其中还包括人自己的善。即是说人性中的善只是人性的一部份，罪恶只能削减，不能抹杀。

3.「人性的善」可以意指人原始的正直，此一正直乃天主造他时所赐，也是他所领受的恩宠。故，人本性中的善不是属于本性的部份，是从外加的；所以，罪恶可以摧毁。

圣多玛斯的立场很清楚是赞成第一点，即人性的善乃人的本质，罪恶无法抹杀或削减的，因为否认这点就等于假定人可以同时是人又不再是人，陷入矛盾中。(7)

另一方面说，基督徒哲学强调：人是灵魂与肉体的结合体，灵魂使肉体成为实体，肉体使灵魂生存。(8) 故圣奥斯定以肉体为一个宝贵的所在，因以照料灵魂，并由灵魂来带给秩序，统一和美丽。因此，基督徒不会逃避肉体，基督徒也不会轻视自然。诸天传述天主的光荣，穹苍宣扬天主的化工，人怎能轻视天主无限智慧和慈善的创造呢？在圣咏中，基督徒特别可以感受到天主的伟大和慈悲，且在三圣童颂(达尼尔先知书三：52-90)中，更体验三圣童在燃烧的热炉内所唱的赞颂歌?「你们要称谢上主，因为他是美善的；因为他的仁慈，永远常存。」这种赞美天主荣耀的歌声，一直在基督徒的心中，从古至今不间断，即使天地陷于罪恶中，依然赞美主荣；即使天地要过去，赞颂上主荣耀的歌声是不会过去的。

5.J. M. Bochenski 著(王弘五译)，《哲学讲话》　第10讲「绝对」，鹅湖出版杜　民75年5版　101-102。

6.张振东著，《士林哲学的基本概念(二)》，辅仁大学出版　民70年　220。

7.参阅同(4) 第6章「乐观的人生」　123-138。

8.参阅同(4) 第9章「人类学」　202。

三．「天主的荣耀」的反省

若我们从形上学的角度作反省，我们可以说：一切存有物皆由天主所创造，也为天主而存在。故天主是万物的因果，我们所做所为都是出于天主的创造；因此，在基督徒哲学所言的受造的宇宙中，每一个存在者的存在对于天主都有一种彻底的「存有学上的依赖」(Ontological relation of dependence)；于是，受造物由于天主而存在，也因天主而得以继续存在；因为受造物的本质出自天主，万物的存在与实体性都是天主所造的善。同样地，只有在天主内，我们才有生命，运动和存在，也就是在天主内，我们才真正拥有这一切；假若我们忘记了我们是出自天主，就等于「罪」又重现于我们内心，即是我们离开了「善」的本性，也离开了天主。「罪恶」本是虚无的，但为人来说，就是人离开了天主－－善的本源，与自我在被创造时分受天主所赋予的「善」本性，因而有所欠缺。基督徒哲学就在「创造论」，与「善」的德性上反省「天主的荣耀」。

纪尔松(Etienne Gilson) 在谈「天主的荣耀」时，提出了圣奥斯定和圣多玛斯两哲士的学说，他们思想上的符合正是「天主的荣耀」这个观念的历史的两个关键性的要点。本文也就根据纪尔松所提出的内容与意见，从圣奥斯定和圣多玛斯的思想中，对「天主的荣耀」作反省与综合说明。

１．圣奥斯定哲学的反思

圣奥斯定的哲学充满一股自我生命超越的力量，从生命的软弱和堕落里，跳入坚强和觉醒中，藉以把握生命终极的天主，尤其从他的「归依的宗教经验」里，导出「皈依的形上学」(Metaphysic of Conversion)，这可以从他所写的「忏悔录」中清楚地了解：如何从自我生命的堕落中，寻觅了上主；改变了自己的生活，感悟上主的恩宠，以致在「忏悔录」的最后目标指向，就是「赞美和光荣天主的伟大」说：

哦，主啊！永恒之君，你对我说的，是一无所知呢，或者你在时间里面看见时间中所发生的一切？那么我为何还向你倾诉这一切？当然并非为了叫你知道，而只是为了使我的心和读书的心提升到你的跟前，使我们全体称颂：『伟大上主，至可赞美』。(9)

对圣奥斯定来说，承认天主就是承认天主的伟大，并赞美一切彰显天主之伟大的美妙化工；因为在「归依的经验」中，圣奥斯定体验到：万物是多么的无能！多么的有欠缺！于是人若无天主的恩宠，便什么都不能做；故受造物(人) 在超性生活上和本性生活上都有赖天主的恩宠，诚如纪尔松(E. Gilson) 所说：「从奥斯定开始，基督徒才致力于指出本性的一种虚空(emptiness)，唯有天主才能填满。这虚空出现在我们身上，证明我们需要天主，我们自己越是不足，便越需要天主。……人类的可怜比人类的伟大，更能证明天主的荣耀。因为后者表示我们的自足，前者却催迫我们寻求天主。」(10)

由于人在空虚中需要天主，也在体验到自我的可怜中必须寻求天主，圣奥斯定为了解决这些问题，便认为宇宙依赖天主创造的行动，且引用斯多亚学派的古老的理性种子学说，将之与创造观连起来：

－天主在创造每一「存有」时，也创造了万物的种子，以及数字的原则，在时间中统治万物种子的发展。这在新的存有产生时，创造这个事实便彰显出来，也就是说在可见的受造物身上，显示出天主在其内的工作：「我父到现在一直工作，我也工作。」(若五：17)

－万物是分受天主的恩宠而存在，故必努力模仿天主。因此圣奥斯定认为每一个真理的判断都预设了：心灵从天主赋予的恩宠中得到「本性的光照」(natural illumination)，天主更透过祂的「圣言」来丰渥我们的思想，即天主的话如同生活的种子，进入思想的胎中，与之结合，使怀孕而产生真理。

－天主丰育人的灵魂，不单使之产生真理，更重要的是产生「德性」。因为「德性」乃奠基在理性的真实判断之上，使能知道且明白：「应该是什么？」「应该做什么？」更好说，人应选择「善」，逆守秩序，爱正义，这便是真理，故「德性」是行善的定习。

其实，圣奥斯定所要肯定的，乃说明天主亲密地临在我人的心中，因智慧之光照耀我们；由于，天主在我们内丰渥我们心灵，故我们心灵的一切空虚即可证明天主的满盈，我们的可怜与伟大一起称扬天主的荣耀。这种深刻的生命感受，实在表现于「恩宠」的层序中，既真实而必然的。但是，若在本性的层序中，则是否必然呢？对这个问题的解答，纪尔松认为有另一方面的说法(expression)，也是对「天主的荣耀」的意义的另一个说法－－多玛斯的思想反思。(11)

２．圣多玛斯思想的反思

圣多玛斯用「自然因」(natural causality) 的观念来判断：「理性种子、光照(真理)、与德行」三个论题；因为天主无限的慈爱，绝不会只以赐给万物存在便不管，祂一定会赐给万物由存在而来的因果力量，所以圣多玛斯根据：「第一因根据其至高美善，不只赐给其它万物以存在，而使其成为原因」这一原则，逐一修正圣奥斯定派有关「理性种子说和真理与德性的光照说」的三个论题。

　

－圣多玛斯承认理性种子，乃以「潜能」(potency) 方式存在物质中；因此，必须有一个第二因(second cause) 使之实现出来；而第二因不会创造，只能使潜在的事物变成实在的事物。

－圣多玛斯修改了圣奥斯定派简约的光照说，而赋予它一种新的意义，却仍然保存光照说的基本论点：　

圣多玛斯和奥斯定派都相信－－人只能在理相(即神性的观念) 中，透过圣言(道) 所给我们的光照，才能认识真理。　

圣多玛斯认为：光照是天主创造人时所赋予的恩典；奥斯定派则认为：理智的能力足以产生真理。　

于是，圣多玛斯提出：人拥有一种本性的光明，即主动理智(active intellect) 的光明。这主动理智之光，在接触到感性经验之后，产生几个第一原理，透过第一原理之助，可以逐步建立知识的体系，然主动理智只有分受真理本身之时，才能产生自己的各种真理。所以说，主动理智是一个生而具有真理之光的理智，这理智本身乃用类比的方式，分受之途径，变成了真理之光。

－有关「德性」之探讨，圣多玛斯清楚地肯定：

「德性」是我们与生俱来的。

「德性」是来自天主。

因此，我们是透过理智作媒介抵达天主的观念，且分受天主性的肖像，其意义乃说：

当有人问：「谁向我们显示美善？」

圣咏作者答说：「上主，你在我们身上显示了你圣容的光辉。」

圣多玛斯要说的是：「藉着神性之光在我们内心所铭刻之印记，我们得以认识一切。」(12)

３．综合谈「天主的荣耀」

诸天称述上主的荣耀，穹苍宣扬祂手的化工，日与日互递消息，夜与夜知识相传。(咏十九)

这美丽的心灵表达乃出自圣咏作者的信仰感受。对于圣奥斯定和圣多玛斯来说，在信仰的体验中都是一样的。「诸天称述上主的荣耀」，其乃因为诸天带有天主的肖像。圣多玛斯更以工匠与作品来比喻创造者和受造物之间的关系：我们可以透过作品的伟大，得以认识工匠的伟大。我们若以「物似主人型」的形容比拟，则作品往往是按着工匠的心意塑造的，故作品是工匠的心意的流露，其必定与工匠有密切亲近的关系。我们若回到因果的原则上言，创造性因果的适当效能，在于赋予存有；存有实际上是最共同的第一个效果，必然较任何一切都更为亲近创造者，故受造物?效果常肖似原因－－创造者，故万物只有藉着「存有」才得与天主类比，即万物在「本性」上相似天主，故万物越有本性，便越相似天主。还有，万物不但在存有上，本性上肖似天主，而且在因果行动上亦肖似天主。按照圣多玛斯的思想：「任何物朝向自己的完美，便朝向与天主相似。」万物的运动都是为了获得存有的满盈，因此把自己的本性带到完美的地步，就是使自己更完美地肖似天主。同时，因为天主是至高的善，祂所造的一切也一定尽善尽美；天主也把自己的善传达给万物，使每一物皆有能力把从天主那里禀受的善，再传布给其它物；这也是将天主的肖像－－「善」传达，而使天主的名在普世受颂扬。所以，我们可以说是成为天主的造化工具：「参赞天地的化育」，做天主的合作者，圣保禄说得好：「我们是天主的助手。」从圣多玛斯的思想中，我们可以看出，强调受造物的美好与效能，不但不损害天主的光荣，反而，抬高受造物是在举扬天主的光荣。(13)

9.参阅同(4) 第7章「造化宣主荣」　146-147。

10.同上

11.同上　147-151

12.同上　151-153

13.同上　153-157

四．结语

纪尔松在讲论哲学思潮的演变中，有一段动人的叙述：「亚里斯多德的纯粹思想已经过时，代之而起的是一位天父，祂的创造力的照耀，一直普及到田里的野草最微小的叶子。在柏拉图的世界里，正义之律自行把善人同善人聚在一起，恶人同恶人聚在一起，历经持续存在之无限循环，现在，却变成一种慈父般的惦念，从无中创造万物，以显示神的荣耀，并使万物同自己结合。」(14)

纪尔松的思想实在代表了「基督徒哲学」的一个新路向，他着重人的地位与价值，强调人本性的善，是天主的肖像，分受天主的至善，故将「基督徒哲学」的路向汇合起来以「宣扬天主的荣耀」：

－天主创造万物，皆是为了祂自己的光荣，也将这份光荣分受给万物。

－受造物以天主的荣耀为乐，基于以自己的光荣为乐。

－天主的光荣真正是万有的目的，正如同天主的光荣亦是它们的起始一般。而且，假如宇宙的目的在于达到一种光荣的地位，这都是为了肖似至高的善而被造。

－受造物为要获得这种福境，实现这种荣耀，不但要求存在，而且要求行动。但一切行动，无论有意识或无意识，无论好坏，都有贡献于天主的光荣，因为我们的行为虽可以不善，但没有一件事会泯除天主的光荣。(15)

若从另一个层面来看天主的荣耀，那就是「天意」的思想，纪尔松认为由「天主的荣耀」的观念结果产生了「天意」的观念，以及其中圆满丰富的意义，而肯定人类的卓越在于能够分享天主的美善，得到天主的眷顾。因此，引伸出：

－天主创造，安排万物，有一目的：这目的就是天主自己。

－我们说天主的眷顾照管世界，就等于是说天主藉着自己的知识和爱情，安排万物朝向天主自己。

－一切万物，无论任何一个，都是被天意所安排，朝向天主。因为，天主既是万物的原始，也就是万物的终向。(16)

由此可见，纪尔松的哲学思想将「基督徒哲学」，更好说是将「士林哲学」展示于一个辽阔无尽的天空中，只见蔚蓝清澈的晴天，「万里无云万里晴」，再将这美丽的意境投入人心，使人感悟创造的伟大，以及天主的光荣，亦以「千江有水千江月」地反映人之分享天主的创造、肖像、和光荣，好能做天主的助手：「赞天地之化育，与天地参」。因此，人的存在必须扩展天主所赋予人的善－－人有爱德的生命，故必须「亲亲仁民，仁民爱物」，使人人能结合于天主的爱中，以提升人的杜会与文化，不断更新、不断超越，以迈向真、善、美的根源－－天主。

14.沉清松著，《存有与人性?祁尔松论中世纪哲学精义》第15卷第9期　哲学与文化月刊172，民77年9月1日　30-31。(亦可参阅《中世纪哲学精神》一书　第8章「天意观」，同(4) 168)。

15.同(9) 157

16.同(4) 第8章「天意观」　176。

作者：叶庆华

引言

这篇文章主要是就詹德隆神父所着之《基本伦理神学》一书之第二章和第十一章所作的反省，内容亦是针对该两章所述的基督徒伦理生活之本质及其最后基础，希望从救恩论的立场再去探讨这两个题目，好能在一个更广阔的脉络中去看伦理生活，确定它在整个天主救恩计划中的地位。至于本文所持之救恩论立场，基本上是参考温保禄神父着之《救恩论入门》一书。

「救恩」的含意与「全福」

若要从救恩入手去反省伦理生活，当然要清楚我们所说的「救恩」到底是什么一回事。在温保禄神父的书中，他以人的经验结合人学的进路去了解「救恩」的含义。(1)

如果「救恩」是所有人都需要的，对一切人都有意义的话，那么「救恩」便是指人性的必然渴求，一种绝对和普遍的需要，这需要与人的存在息息相关，值得人耗其一生，不惜任何代价去追求，因此，它实在涉及整个人生的意义和价值。寻得它，足以使人真正的心满意足。然而，从「救恩」一词的意义中，我们可以知道它不是人能够藉自己或集体力量所能获得的，否则，便不需用个「救」字，只有人在关乎自己整个存在的终极关怀的问题上无能为力时，才需要「救」，须要借助人以外的力量去帮助自己达到目的。不过，在未证明人是否真的无法凭自己满足这需要时，温保禄神父认为最好不用「救恩」、「救援」等字眼，而用「全福」来表示那使人性得以完全满足的东西。

人确实渴求全福

上述的讨论只属理念上的探讨，即例如每个人都需要「救恩」的话，它必定是如此这般的，但人性中到底是否有此必然追求，则仍需者究。在这问题上，温保禄神父用「超验的方法」企图找出人性的基本活动而从中得到答案。

根据他的研究，人的活动虽然繁多，但本质上都企图包容三个要素，由于这三个要素统摄支配所有人类的活动，故此是人类活动之必然目标，亦即人性之必然和本能的渴求。第一样是幸福：每个人都追寻幸福，甚至会不惜牺牲眼前的享乐。第二样是意义：人无论从事任何活动，必欲知其意义，希望明白一切发生的事情，愈能掌握意义，人生愈会积极，愈觉幸福。第三样是善：(2)任何人所追求的，都定是自己认为是好的，几时他认定某事物是好的，他总会选择最好的方法和计划去将之获得，尽管客观地，那目标和方法可能是坏的。由是观之，人性确有必然的渴求，而「全福」可从这三方面去理解。

「全福」的特色

从上述的三个层面，我们可以再进一步认识「全福」的内涵。首先，当人追寻幸福的时候，他必定希望所得的幸福是永恒，不会失去的。当人寻求意义时，他不会满足于只得到部份事物的意义，他总期望一个可解释全部人生的意义。当人找寻善的时候，他定想觅得绝对无限的善，同时，人性对这三方面是有同样强度的渴求的，只有完全符合这三个条件的东西才会被认为是全福。所以幸福、意义、善、真是人之唯一必然追求之三个幅度，而不是三种互不相干的追求。此外，人在追求「全福」时，他必然追求自我的「全福」，这是人对自我的根本的爱的表现。

「全福」既为人人所必然争取者，那么，它对人的存在到底有什么裨益呢？要回答这个问题，得从人的存在结构入手。人是具关系性的存有，人只透过与对象的关系认识自己，这关系愈深，存在感愈大，这关系若改变，势必影响个人，而对象之存在状态亦因此而与个人有密切关连，人之杜会性一面，由是显明。再者，人是自由的，有自由的意志，又有身体，可与对象沟通。

这样看来，全福若具满全人之存在之特性，它必能在上述各方面使人臻至圆满，即它必将人与人，人与杜会，人与万物，甚至人与神之间的关系，推至最深最广之处，又会提升人之自由，亦会改造人的肉身，因为会腐朽的身体不能承受永恒的全幅。

由以上的分析可知，人所必然寻觅的「全福」，实即人繁复本性的图满实现的境界，蕴含永恒、无限等特色。

人的困境

人性追寻永恒、无限、冀求获得属永恒、无限的「全福」，可是这样的「全福」是否会为人所得到，这个问题却不是任何个人或整体人类合作可以提供真正答案的，因为要了解有关无限、永恒的事，必先要具备无限的智慧，永恒的生命，否则无从把握无限、永恒的动向，故人凭自己的力量实无法确知无限、永恒之「全幅」是否必会为人所得，然而这是个关乎整体人类的存在意义的问题，若找不到答案，足以使人失去存在的意愿，甚至走上自我毁灭之途。为此，人必须在历史中找寻来自人以外的属于永恒、无限界的启示。(3)

救恩的临现

基督徒相信天主，相信祂是慈爱的，在爱中，祂创造了一切，祂必不会忍心让人在世上盲冲瞎碰，凭信仰，基督徒相信天主会在历史中启示这关乎人性深处问题的答案。同时，在信德的光照下，人进一步瞭解他所渴求的「全福」，其实就是天主的生命，天主就是无限美善，永恒福乐，在祂内，可以获得整个宇宙的意义，人性的渴求可以得到完全的满足。

天主的启示，最彻底的就在耶稣基督身上，祂是降生的天主，天主透过祂启示了自己，启示了自己是无限、永恒的爱，在基督的一生中天主让人知道，无论人在任何境遇中，祂的慈爱都不离开人，亦不计较人的罪过。另一方面，在基督身上，天主揭示了祂的整个创造计划，诚如默示录所说：基督是元始，又是终结，(默廿一：6) 祂是人的典型(archetype)，是天主创造人时的构想；亦是人的终向，只要人朝着基督，改造自己，即如基督一样，在一切境况中都不失其爱人之心，最后，人必如基督一样，在复活的肉身中获得天主永恒无限的生命。

这来自天主的许诺，犹如黑夜海上的明灯，使沮丧的人类再次燃起希望。藉着对基督的信仰，人尽管仍无法把握理解永恒，却可以放心大胆地踏上基督所开展的爱的道路，(弗三：12) 深信在末日，肉身复活时，人会相似基督，进入天父永恒的生命。这使人自此放心的许诺其实正具救恩意义，因其使人不再迷悯，并使人因确知全福可得而享受「开始性的全福」。(4) 为此，我们称基督为救主，祂为世界带来的救恩是使人确知「全福」可得之许诺。至于「圆满性的全福」，人性的图满实现，仍有待肉身的复活。

复活的身体与伦理生活

全福是永恒的，无限的，不朽的，与我们现今有限的，会死的，会腐朽的身体毫不相称，现有的身孻，虽然不是属于「全福」的，这里要求一彻底改造了的身体，即一永恒的身体，属神的身体。(格前十五：44) 在基督身上，我们可以知道「全福」，天主的永恒生命，只会在复活的身体出现。于是，人性的圆满实现和肉身的复活，便只是同一事实的两面而已。

在讨论全福和人的存在的关连时，我们曾经提过，全福出现时，人存在的所有幅度都会处于图满状态，即人与其他人，与天主的关系，人的自由，人的肉身都将是完美的。复活的肉身不会腐朽，它会让人完全自由的投向天主，让人与一切对象感通无隔。的确，复活的属神的身体是完全转化提升了的身体(totally transfigured body)，(5) 是完全为天主之神控制的身体。(6) 既然天主是爱，(若十四：7，8) 是人间的爱所以可能的条件，那么复活的身能便是通透的爱的身体，藉着它人才可以自由地离开罪恶，与天主与人与万物合而为一。然而，肉身的改造，现在便应开始，因为真诚的爱本质上根本不容许人担搁时间，否则肉身复活只会永远属于将来。「那导守祂命令的，就住在他内，天主也住在这人内。」(若十三：24a) 所以，改造的方法便是以爱为基础的伦理生活，透过不断的祈祷，人在具体的生活中，让爱的根源?天主?藉着基督耶稣所启示的一切去支配我们和人的所有接触，换句话说：伦理生活就是每个具有自由意志的人改造生命，使之导向永恒，以承受「全幅」，分享天主无限生命的唯一道路，(若十四：6) 是实现新天新地，天国理想的不二法门。这样，伦理生活在救援工程中所占的角色实在不可或缺。

「召唤」与「回应」

在詹德隆神父着之《基本伦理神学》一书中，他强调天主先爱了我们，在启示中「召唤」了我们去与祂共融，而道德生活就是我们回应这召叫的「答覆」。(7) 在该书的第二章中，他更特意从新旧约圣经的角度，反覆申明这思想。「召唤」与「答覆」诚然是一对很好的概念去表达伦理生活的本质，但是若不同时强调天主的「召唤」和人性的密切、必然的关系的话，「召唤」很容易会被误以为是人性以外的东西，如是，则作为「答覆」的伦理生活的必须性就难以显出，而道德行为便会成为可有可无的东西了，所以，我觉得有需要去从人性论入手，从救恩的立场去为「召唤」与「答覆」作一注脚。

首先，我认为天主的召叫和祂的爱是分不开的，天主召叫人就是祂爱人的事实，二者是一而不是二。天主对人的召叫，内在于人，并不是人之存在以外的，故不可能被视为可外加于人之存在之上的东西，人之存在本身便是天主召叫的结果，是天主的爱的流露，天主在其丰盈的爱中，创造了人，使人也成为爱的存有。我的意思是：由于人的存在是天主的存在的肖像，(创一：27) 而天主就是爱(爱与天主不可分)，所以几时我们说人存在时，便等如说人分享了天主的生命，即爱的生命。可是这分享只是初步的，圆满的分享仍有待于未来。

藉着基督的启示，天主是爱和天主无条件永远爱人，愿意完全地跟人分享祂生命的性格得以显明。同时人也更清楚自己为爱所生，本身是爱的存有，所以如果人喜爱自己，渴望回到自己的根源去，投入无限的爱的生命，必先由实现自己的爱的能力开始。

于是人生就是人实现爱的能力的过程，当人朝着这目标，在天主的恩宠引导下，得享圆满的爱的生命时，这也是天主的创造大功告成的时刻。这其中，天主虽然让人自由选择是否归向祂，但明智的人会明白：除了走爱的道路归回爱的根源之外，根本没有其他途径可真正满足人心，所以我们常常说真正的自由，是能够时时选择天主，人最圆满的境界?「全福」，「会使人在最严密的必然性内发挥其自由；也会使人在最深度的自由内，承受并接受其本性的必然性」。(8) 由此可知道德行为在人性中有其独特的必须性。总的来说，人存在，人已分享了天主的生命，人需要去爱的渴求是人面对自己的存在时所发现的「已经」的一面，亦是伦理生活的起点。这渴求指出了人存在的目的，即充份地发挥自己的爱的能力，好能仗恩宠更深更广地参与天主的生命，在自由中让天主在自己身上的创造得以完成。这是人的存在的「尚未」的一面，又可说是根源于人性内的天主的「召唤」，亦是伦理生活的内容。伦理神学，就是要研究在具体实在的人生境况中，藉着基督的启示和在教会内的圣神的指引，人如何可以找到实现自我，迈向全福的正确路途。因此，天主的「召唤」，实是人性内的必然渴求，是天主在爱中创造我们的结果，而找寻正确的途径，以满足这渴求，即度伦理生活，便是向这「召唤」的「答覆」。

为幸福论辩护

在《基本伦理神学》一书中，在讲及伦理生活的最后动机时，詹德隆神父分幸福论为社会的幸福论和个人的幸福论。(9) 他批评杜会的幸福论易助长独裁统治，只为少数人带来利益，至于个人幸福论，他认为这尽管是个很好的理想，但基本上却是以自我为中心，故不能成为伦理生活的最后动机。其论据固多发现，但从字里行间，我感到他所理解的幸福和我的颇有出入，为免混淆，我觉得有需要澄清一下。

我对幸福的理解，主要承接本文前部份「全福」的思想。(10)「全福」包含幸福、意义、善三个幅度，彼此不但不排斥，更是互相融摄的一个整体，只有善的，有意义的事物才会令人幸福，在幸福中，人必会寻得善和意义，故此它们不能绝对独立地讲。三者之中，幸福往往不是具体行为的直接目的，而直接目的通常是寻求意义和善。幸福是人的必然追求，是在反省中追认的事实，人一旦意识到自己幸福时，即会觉得那是值得追求的，但很奇怪，它很难当作直接目的去寻求，几时人这样做，总不能得到真正的幸福。真正的幸福是人在发挥潜能，追寻善和意义时的灵性状态。人生必然追寻善，在各种善的事物中，人能最深刻体会的莫过于自己的存有，对其他存有的善，人其实知得很少，于是人对其本身的善的爱惜、欣赏，实在是人爱惜、欣赏其他善的基础。一个人如果不懂得发掘、实现自己的存有的善，亦无从认识、爱慕那远远超越他理解的无限善(天主)。我同意詹德隆神父所说「人的最后动机似乎在于超越自己，不只是实现自己」。(11) 然而人实现自己不只是超越自己的必经阶段，超越自己更是实现自己的必然结果。赖天主的爱，人成为爱的存有，他的自我实现全在于他不断地在具体境况中发挥自己的爱心，不断地在爱中扩展潜能，创造生产，当爱彻底渗透他的每样发展时，人其实已走出了自己，和其他人和天主共融合一去了。的确，天主的爱是无条件的，白白施与的，几时人走向祂 (即走向爱)，必会发现他早已站在那里等我们了。我虽然不能强逼别人必定爱我，但假如对方愿意真心爱我，他有些事情是必定会对我做的。一个爱自己儿女的爸爸必定尽一切力使孩子快乐。同样，爱我们的天主亦必会将自己的生命，赏赐给寻求祂的人。爱当中，就是有这种奇妙的必然性，所以几时人在爱的实现中超越自己，必得享天主的生命。(12) 除此之外，在爱中的人更能获得存在的意义，这些意义绝不是冷眼旁观的科学方法可以效劳，相爱的两人，会比任何一个旁人更认识了解对方；一个时时能爱人如己的基督徒又会比普通人更明白天主。最高层次的意义，往往只有在爱中才能发现，这样的幸福论，横可以通人，纵可以通神，其实亦合符詹德隆神父对伦理生活最后动机的要求，即要一方面肯定天主，一方面肯定世界。　(13) 于是，自我实现便是人生最庄严的事情，个人幸福亦不再是自私了。

幸福、意义、善圆满俱足者为「全福」，此时亦正是一切人与天主共融无碍的境界，这境界就是天国，是每个人必然渴求到达的境界，詹德隆神父亦认为实现天国就是基督徒伦理生活的基本目标。(14) 我强调自我实现，正因为这是具自由意志的人要达到这目标的必然途径。但当我这样强调时，很可能会有人问：那么白痴，植物人又怎样？他无法实现自我啊！这确是个很难回答的问题，需要在苦罪专题上才能得到较全面的处理，不过，顺着现有的论题，仍可以这样说：困难之所以出现，是因为我们一向都是从正面去讲天人合一的途径，即从一个具有自由意志的人的立场去研究他应如何运用自由去实现自我，回归天主。但当我们从反面看时，白痴、植物人若真不能行使自由意志(是否真的不能仍是个值得深究的问题)，则他们根本不会运用自由去离开天主。在信德的眼光中，天主始终和他们一起。构成他们存有的物质虽然有缺陷，致令他们丧失本来可以有的能力，但形式上(formally) 我们仍不能否定他们作为天主根据自己肖像所造成的爱的存有的身份。

结论

当代天主教神学在卡．拉内神父(Karl Rahner) 的影响下，都重视从人学(anthropology)入手，并采用由康德所开展的超验方法(transcendental method)，从最彻底的层面去探索人未完全自觉意识、但却必然地支配着每样活动，并为其所以可能的基础的趋向，然后，从这里开始讨论人神间的关系。在研究伦理生活的本质及动机时，我觉得亦可依从这进路。当人了解真我及其必然趋向，又知道只有实现自己爱的生命才能止息真我的渴求时，为什么我要做好人，便不会再是个问题，道德价值亦会成为更接近我们的存在的东西，而不是些从天而降，强加于我们的规条。同时，由人的实现开始去讨论超越界的事物亦合乎我国传统的思维方式：「不怨天，不尤人，下学而上达，知我者其天乎！」(论语宪问篇)「尽其心者，如其性也；知其性，则知天矣。」(孟子尽心篇) 这种「下学上达」，「知天」的思想在历史上很早已流行。尽管当代新儒家仍然质疑「天」之人格，但基本上仍不会否认天人之可沟通性，只要大家继续从这方面保持交谈，互相取长，一定会有更美好的成果。

　

1.温保禄，《救恩论入门》，台北：光启　民74年。本文关于人对救恩的渴求的部份取自第2章。

2.温保禄　44。原文为真善美，但看其文意及所引的资料，作者所指的其文只是「善」，而且这「善」是形上义的「善」，而非道德的「善」。

3.温保禄　72。Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ (New York : Paulist Press 1977) 136.

4.温保禄　66，72

5.Leouardo Boff, Jesus Christ Liberator (London : Spck 1978) 137。关于身体的意义，见135 : "Body refers to the whole human being (body and soul) as person in relationship with others. Body refers to human beings in their capacity for communication."

6.Boff, 136 : "The human being as body is transforned from carnal to spiritual (that is, God-filled) existence." Kasper, 151 : "...a body entirely directed by the spirit of God."

7.詹德隆，《基本伦理神学》，台北：光启　民75年　62。

8.温保禄　58

9.詹德隆　180

10.在论及人对幸福的追求时，温保禄神父似乎并没有为幸福下一个明确的定义　42，在该段文字中，幸福的意思颇为笼统。

11.詹德隆　182

12.参阅Joseph F.Donceel, The Searching Mind (Indiana : University of Nonre Dame Press 1979) 146.

13.詹德隆　186

14.同上注。

＊　本文为笔者神学一年级时所作。

作者：林荣钧

天国与正义社会的关系－－顾氏(Gustavo Gutierrez) 的理解

一．导言

香港社会从八二年开始，在政治上急剧发展，英首相戴卓尔夫人在八二年前往北京与中国领导人商谈有关香港前途问题，八四年中英双方签署联合声明，香港将于九七年回归中国成为高度自治的特别行政区。随之而来的是香港政府的政制改革和基本法的制定。香港社会从政治冷感逐渐成为政治化，教会身处这时代，面对很大挑战和冲击。因着九七问题所带来的移民问题，及近年大量的越南难民涌进香港，和八九年北京民运六四事件，在催迫教会不得不关注政治及社会事件，从前政教分离的原则已不足回应时代的挑战，教会不得不重新反省自身与政治的关系，究竟教会与世界应保持甚么关系？参予政治及社会行动是否违反传福音使命，假若可以参政及关社，那么它的程度和限制是怎样的？面对时代征兆，如何作信仰反省和发展本地神学？

在有关教会与政治的问题上，近代拉丁美洲的解放神学有着举足轻重的影响。顾氏(Gustasvo Gutierrez) 是解放神学的创始人，在思想和方法上均有重大的突破和贡献，本文在探讨教会与政治的问题上，特别研究他在这方面的理解。由于教会与政治的问题很广泛，本文选择探讨天国与正义社会的关系，因为这是问题的中心，在厘清教会与世界的关系后，我们才能进一步计划牧民行动。

本文除导言外，正文分为三大部份，第一部份从历史发展看教会与世界的关系，第二部份探讨顾氏从信望爱看天国与正义社会的关系，第三部份是批判分析。希望在了解及分析顾氏的思想后，有助本地教会反省和指出发展本地神学的方向。

二．教会与世界关系的历史发展

按顾氏的理解，教会与世界的关系可分三个发展阶段：(一) 教会升平后，所谓基督国(Christendom) 心态时期；(二) 十六世纪宗教改革后至十九世纪的新基督国时期；(三) 近代的分别层面(Distinction of Planes) 时期。(1)

1. 基督国 (Christendom)

在教难以后基督宗徒得君士坦丁大帝接受，教会得以发展，及至公元380年被立为罗马国教，教会更进一步影响社会，当时教会在社会及政冶上占有举足轻重地位，更直接与政权有密切联系。教会自身了解自己为得救的唯一途径。一言蔽之，当时神学上认为「教会以外无救恩」，在此思想下，现世当然缺乏其独立性及价值，一切只是过渡，整个生活是受信仰影响，人类生存的目的是加入教会，获得救恩。现世历史在救恩计划中并未占有一席位。教会相对于现世而言是一切救世工程的中心。基督徒参予社会政治事务只有一个目的?为教会直接利益。所谓基督徒政治只是为保护教会利益而已。这时期的政教关系是合一时期，教会高于社会，社会是为教会服务，这心态(或思想) 一直延至十六世纪。(2)

2. 新基督国 (New Christendom)

十六世纪的宗教改革及十八世纪的法国大革命，对教会产生重要影响，兼在理性主义、人文主义、科学等思潮急剧发展的背景下，教会开始走上一条新的道路。十九世纪玛利坦(Maritan) 尝试在理论上将信仰与社会生活分开，他基本上是随从圣多玛斯的思想，认为恩宠并不压抑或取代人性，相反是便之达到完美。这思想为在世之政治活动开出一条独立自主的路，不需依旁与信仰或教会的关系。与前期不同的是：参予政治活动不是为了教会利益，而是为建立一基于正义、尊重人权及人类弟兄友爱的社会。在这时期，教会理解到自身所活动(管治) 的范围，对现世事务不再加以干预，让其保留独立自主。虽则如此，教会仍自视为救恩的中心，依旧比世界高。政治活动不为教会的直接利益，但是为教会提供在世活动的有利条件。换言之，教会希望在世建立一个受基督信仰所启导的社会。在具能生活上教友拥有双重身份：一为教会成员之一，作为教友自身(Christian as such) 代表教会；另一为受基督信仰所启导的个体，需对自身行为作个人负责。这种双重身份使教友在个人身份上有较大自由度参加政治。他们的任务是要在现世建立基督王国(Profane Christendom)。为有效地达到目的，他们需要加入受基督信仰启导的组织，使自身能逐步受到熏陶及支持，以基督徒身份参予建设社会。

这时期基本上教会与政权是分开的，教会作为信仰团体不应参政，但作为公民则有政治责任。虽然世界的价值提高及加增了独立自主，但她依然需依附教会才可达到完满。(3)

3. 分别不同层面 (Distinction of Planes)

这时期的发展动机是希望在天主计划的合一上分别教会与世界的关系。世界在发展上与教会分开，有其独立目标，而教会不独在本质上与世界分别及分开，兼且在使命上，除了在有关伦理问题上，她不干预现世事务。但她也不是直接干预伦理问题，而是透过基督徒的良心实践这使命。此时期教会明认自身有两大使命：(1) 传扬福音；(2) 作现世的启导者。换言之，教会是属此世以外(order apart) 的团体，她在此世，实践其继续基督救世工程及导人成圣的使命，教会可说是人类社会的灵魂，教会既然如此理解自身使命，因此建设社会便不属其使命范围。教会与世界分别是为天国服务，只是途径不同而已。这种划分使神职与教友的使命划分也作如是观。神职人员的使命是履行教会使命，即传福音与作现世秩序的启导者。教友则直接参予建设世界，同时负起建设教会的责任。在此过程中，他们会与非基督徒合作，共同建设一个更正义、更合乎人居住的社会，使人能更自由地回应上主的召叫。这样看来，世界是有其完全独立自主的目标。而教友在建设社会过程中是完全尊重她的自主性。但教友参政的底线是不能超越教会使命：即传福音及作现世的启导者。(4)

简单地介绍了三个时期的发展后，顾氏认为第三阶段分别不同层面仍未完善，在具体实践上大部份的教会成员没有参予，因为教会有意识或无意识地被现存社会秩序所束缚。未能发挥及实践她的使命。此外，教会内部的保守势力在发展过程中方不断阻挠，对渴望改革的基督徒加增不少压力。第三阶段的发展，在拉丁美洲遭到很大考验，顾氏认为在牧民及神学上均对这思想提出挑战。

在牧民上因为分层的思想规限教友对社会和政治的参予不能超越教会使命，但实际情况却迫使某些教友组织冲破这限制。这些教友组织认为假如不能清楚地及更深地投入这奋斗行动便不能表达教会的临在。(5) 教会成员愈清楚所处环境的痛苦情况，便不能逃避为穷人奋斗的责任。分层的思想只是为那些支持现存社会制度的教会人士辩护。在拉丁美洲，情况如此恶劣，人民被压迫及剥削的环境下，教会是否还能诚实地说不干预现世事务呢？当教会表现沉默或是与现存的独裁及压迫人民的政府有亲密关系时，她是否在满全其纯宗教角色？(6) 随着拉丁美洲教会成员更多及更深地参予政治活动，分层思想显得力量不足，它已不能负起指导作用。故此在牧民上正需要一新的指导思想出现。

此外，在神学反省上，随着俗化思想(Secularization) 的发展，人性及人在现世努力的价值不断提高。人作为受造主体，创造的管治者，有责任将现世加以发展。因而教会与世界的关系亦有所改变，从前认为世界附属于教会，现今却认识到教会需要透过世界了解自己。除了俗世思想影响外，欧洲神学也有大的发展，对自然与超自然的关系，有新的了解，玛利西尔(Marechal) 认为人对天主有一无限开放的渴望，这渴望深植人性，每一认知活动均隐含地包括认识上主的渴望。人只有与天主共融合一，才能得到满全，这种了解使自然与超自然合而为一。拉内(Rahner) 将玛利西尔这抽象及本质性(essentialist) 思想转为历史及存在性的范畴。拉内的无名基督徒思想更表达出全人类共同的召叫?天人合一。梵二后的全人发展的理论也强调这共同召叫(convocation) 的思想。

不论是俗世思想或是拉内的神学，均对分层思想带来冲击，这些思想迫使我们重新注解教会与世界的关系。综观教会与世界关系的历史发展，内里包含几个概念的关系：天国、正义和平社会、教会本质与使命、世界的本质与使命。对这些概念的不同了解形成不同时期的政教关系。

天国是耶稣基督宣讲的中心，在传教之初，祂宣布：「时期已满，天国临近，你们悔改，信从福音吧。」(谷1：15) 基督一生，以言以行，印证天国临现，最后更以死亡复活将天国实现。从此天国是已经来临，但尚未完满。天国是人所力争达到的目标，教会是继续基督的救世工程，是为天国服务，是便天国临现的工具和标记。

同样，正义和平社会是人类奋斗的目标，世界的使命是让这目标能实现。世界一词包含人类社会、政治、文化等意义，世界是人类奋斗的舞台，或说是，达到目标的途径。由于教会是在现世中执行任务，她同时是与人类同行。教会与世界两者的使命如何协调？所奋斗的目标是否等同？教会与世界的权力及价值孰高孰低？这些问题在讨论政教关系中无可避免地需要面对。

综合而言，不同政教关系是基于教会对信仰不同程度的理解，或说是对救恩(人的满全)有不同的了解，因而构成对现世有不同的价值观；也影响教会如何实践使命，以及在实践过程中所担当的角色。拉丁美洲的境况促使解放神学思考救恩与人类解放的历史过程的关系。简言之，即思考天国与建立正义和平社会的关系。

1.Gutierrez G., A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1973) 53-58

2.同上 53-54

3.同上 54-56

4.同上 56-58

5.同上 64

6.同上65

三．从信望爱看天国与正义和平社会的关系

1. 信：解放与救赎

1.1 只有一个历史

政教关系的发展乃基于不同时期对「救恩」的理解及诠释。究竟「救恩」是什么？它为人有什么意义？救恩是基督信仰的中心主题，对它的埋解在历史上有了从量到质的发展。传统的救恩观，教会面对异教徒及外邦人的得救问题时，只关注他们是否领洗加入教会而已。而救恩具体便是罪的赦免及获得来世的永生。这种救恩观将救恩与生活割离，并造成至少在理念上似乎有两个历史：一为人类历史；另一为救恩史。救恩只在来世才得到实现。今日这观念已有所转变，得救不再是在于「量」而在「质」。救恩观是：「假如人向神及他人开放，便可得救，纵使他未必清楚意识自己所做的是什么。」(7)人的存在基本上是对神的接纳或拒绝。与量化救恩观不同，质化救恩观不再认为救恩只是来生的事，现世只是一个测验场所以决定人来世是否得到救恩。质化救恩观认为：「救恩是人与神及人与人的共融，它涵盖所有人类存在境况现实，并将之转化，且在基督内达到满全。」(8) 因此，这种救恩观认为，不应分有「神圣」及「世俗」的历史，历史只有一个，因为人类只有一个目的地，而救恩史是人类历史的中心，天主的救赎行动是人类存在发展的基础。所以只有一个历史，一个「基督终向」的(Christofinalized) 历史。

顾氏为阐释他的「只有一个历史」的思想，他从圣经出发，举出圣经两大主题：创造与救赎，以阐明人类历史与救恩史的关系。

1.1.1 创造与救赎顾氏指出，旧约圣经透过以民在历史中所发生的出谷和解放经验连结了创造与救赎。创造不是一独立事件，与救赎分割。创造本身是第一个救赎行动。其实在先知书及圣咏中均有提到天主同是创造主及救赎者。(9) 顾氏曾引用(弗1：3－5) 说：在永恒计划中天主的创造已指向在基督内人类的救赎。创造是指向救赎。这种创造与救赎相连的观念，在以民历史性的出谷事件中具体地表现。出谷不单纯是在以民信仰中的一件宗教事件，它同时是在历史中发生的政治解放事件，是从奴役走向建设正义社会的事实。

「这是从掠夺及悲惨的境况中突破，进而建设一个正义与友爱的社会。这是在压制扭曲了的秩序中重新创造一个新秩序。」(10)

顾氏理解创造不是一件在宇宙诞生之初所发生的事件，它是一件不断发生的事。在出谷经验中以民体会到，创造是要与救赎一起了解的。出谷因此不是纯然解放的救恩事件，也是一创造事件。创造成为一历史性的救赎事实是构成以民信仰的因素，是便以民具体感受天主的爱的事件。

顾氏要阐明创造、救恩和解放三者的关系。顾氏一方面说明创造与救赎是相连的，而出谷的解放事件亦包合有创造与救赎的意义。但这三个观念要动态地了解。顾氏认为出谷(政治解放) 是人的自我创造，是天主带引他们离开奴役之地，在旷野中使他们明白要建立正义友爱的社会。这建设便是人的自我创造。在这不断创造的过程中，人逐步走上救恩的满全。为以民历史来说是指向与天主所订立的盟约：「雅威政治性地解放犹太人是为使他们成为圣洁的民族

... 盟约赋予出谷完满的意义... 盟约与出谷是同一行动的不同面，均是指向与天主相遇结合。」(11)

事实上顾氏认为整部旧约的中心便是以民的出谷，及走向福地的旅程。在旅途中，以民不断建设正义社会，直至到达福地达至完满。当然在顾氏思想中只有在基督内，创造与救赎才得到完满。顾氏反省以民历史，认为人不单通过劳动，也透过人不断建设正义和平社会的努力，继续上主的创造工程。因为不是凡劳动均有助于人的自我创造，假如劳动不能为人的好处，不指向人的解放及团结合一，劳动是没有价值的。人为解放自由所作出的挣扎和努力，才是人的自我创造。因此顾氏的理解是：解放、创造、救恩均是动态地连结一起向前迈向完满，历史上的解放行动只是开始而已。创造就是人不断建设正义和平社会所作的一切救赎行动的一部份。(12) 救恩为顾氏而言是一份礼物，是上主完全地、自由地赠予的，救恩的内容便是人神及人与人的共融。救恩作为人类自我创造的内在动力，它包含整个人及所有人类历史，而同时救恩也是整个人类行动趋向的满全。(13)

顾氏认为创造与救赎是相连的，人类历史只有一个，天主救恩是在具体历史中实现，他的用意是指出建设正义和平社会是人类的自我创造，它是救恩行动使人迈向救恩的满全，使为穷人争取解放，指正不公义等行动有一神学基础及信仰意义。救恩不是来世才实现，而是在每天的争取解放行动中逐渐实现的。但如何保证这救恩能完全实现呢？假若只观察旧约以民的历史是不完整的，而教会文宪多次提及世界的发展与天国临现是不同的。救恩是否只是政治解放呢？

1.2 基督与整体解放

顾氏十分反对将信仰只保留在精神层面，(14) 福音变成只是个人信仰所需，换言之，信仰只是个人得心灵平安的灵药。顾氏认为，福音中的耶稣与当时的政治有密切关系，天国不单是个人的皈依，也包含社会革命。我们可从三点看耶稣公开生活的政治性：(15) (a) 耶稣提到要猛力擢取天国，祂驱逐商人出圣殿均与热诚者所作相近，但也有相异的地方，耶稣的使命是普世性的，而热诚者发则是狭隘的民族主义，耶稣使人对法律有一灵性的自由，热诚者则极之维护字面地导守法律。耶稣认为天国是一份礼物，热诚者认为天国是自身努力的成果。最后耶稣所带来的解放是普遍而又整合的，超越民族国家界线，直接打击不义与剥削的基础。(b) 耶稣更挑战犹太人的权威，公开指责他们。祂认为真正的崇拜包含个人纯正意向，创造真正的弟兄友爱，对有需要人仕作真正投身并与贫穷人站在一起。(c) 耶稣的公开传教言行触怒了当时权贵，最后死在这些政治权威手上。祂所受之刑罚是十字架，表示受刑者犯了政冶罪行。祂被称为犹太人的君王，此举正威胁到罗马人的统治者。最后耶稣以政治犯的名义死在十字架上。从以上三点看，耶稣的公开生活是与政治有关，而耶稣也因政治罪名被钉在十字架上。

耶稣深知自己的使命是摧毁罪恶，让人从罪恶的奴役中解放出来。祂的使命及公开传教虽有政治幅度，但并不表示天国等同正义和平社会。天国的临现是在于摧毁罪恶的根源?人的自私。顾氏认为罪恶不是个人或私人或纯粹内在的现实，罪本身也是社会及历史事实。具体表现于人际间缺乏弟兄友爱，人与神之间有一鸿沟阻碍人神建立友谊。(16) 罪可说是基本的疏离，是不义与剥削境况的根源，是植根于人的自私。(17)

罪恶不只是个人的私事，它也是一个境况，是人拒绝天主的境况。基督的解放就是让人脱离罪的境况。罪是人拒绝天主及拒绝其他人为我们的兄弟姊妹。因此基督的解放是让人与神，及人与人得到团结共融。这解放不能化为政治解放，虽然它是临在于具体历史及政治解放事件中。在此顾氏提出三种不同的解放，这三者是相连的：(18) (I) 政治解放，(II) 在历史中的解放，(III) 从罪中解放并与天主共融。顾氏明白到政治解放不能替代基督的解放。耶稣摧毁罪的根源使人得到真正的自由，天国即在于此。天国来临是一份恩赐，非人力所能挣到的，现世的发展只是延续创造，及连结救恩的工程。天国并不等同建立正义和平社会，但也并非表示对社会无动于衷。既然天国临现是天主的恩赐，正义和平社会便不能成为天国临现的必然条件。那么两者的关系是怎样的呢？

基本上，顾氏也认为两者是不能等同的。但天国的逐步发展与正义和平社会的基本预设条件是相同的，那便是基督的解放。天国的临现与发展成长长不同的，宣讲天国是帮助社会渴望公义及协助人发现新的幅度及途径，推动人改革社会，对抗剥削及割离，努力建设正义社会。这是人部份的解放，它不是全部。天国发展是一个过程，是具体地在历史的解放事件中实现的，因此没有历史的解放事件便没有天国的发展。但没有天国的临在则不能摧毁不义和压迫的根源。综合而言，历史政治的解放是天国成长的某种表现，虽然是一救恩行动，但不等同天国临现及救恩的完满。(19) 最后顾氏提出耶稣基督的救赎与政治解放的必然关系，基督展现天父对人的爱，而在历史生活中具体表达时，无可避免地会指责不公义及剥削压迫等事件，因这些现象是扭曲了作为天主肖象的人性，(20)因而导向政治性的解放。

2. 爱：在历史中与主相遇

2.1 人性：天主的圣殿

解放过程是指向新的创造，现今在拉丁美洲，教会与人民共同挣扎，一起争取解放，这过程是否为人有意义，使人迈向新的创造呢？挣扎，为解放奋斗等行动是人类的自我创造，但同时也是爱的行动，这爱人的行动如何与爱主结合呢？

顾氏提出圣言不单启示有关天主及有关人的奥秘，最特别的是圣言成为人生活在我中间，因此，人类历史成为与主相遇的地方。

在古经中，早已记述天主如何寓居在以民中间，而天主寓居的方式正显示人神关系的演进。因此概览寓居方式的演进便可了解人神关系的发展。首先天主的寓居是临在西乃山上颁布十诫(出19；14：12；16－17；申10：1)。然后天主寓居的方式转至会幕及约柜。当撒罗满兴建圣殿后，天主便寓居在圣殿(撒下7：5；列上3：1－3)，天主与人的距离逐渐拉近，天主不再藉雷电临在西乃山上，而是在圣殿中与人交往。虽然如此，以民并不认为天主就寓居在圣殿内，他们明白没有任何圣殿能约束雅威，他们相信雅威到处都在。因此与天主交往若囿于外在崇拜时常受到先知的谴责，先知指出雅威所悦纳的不是祭献而是人的内心皈依，及至古经后期的先知书，明显地说天主的神寓居在人心中(则36：26－27；耶31：33)。天主寓居的高峰是天主子降生成人，若望福音序言说出圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间，天主寓居人心完全在耶稣身上实现，耶稣基督是新的圣殿(若2：19－20)，是天主寓居之处，是人神相遇的地方。保禄更进一步说，在基督内基督徒成为圣神的宫殿，圣神寓居是天主的恩宠，是救恩的效果(格前3：16－17；6：19)，最后在宗徒大事录记载中，了解到天主不单寓居在基督徒心中也在所有人心内(宗10：45，47；11：16－18；15：8；若14：23)。综合而言，因着天主子降生成人，人性、历史、每一个人、均成为天主生活的圣殿。(21)

顾氏列出天主寓居方式的演进，最后因着基督，天主寓居在人心内是为连结他的思想：「认识天主便是实行公义。」

为犹太人，认识不单属于理性层面，也包括行动，所以认识天主即爱天主，与人建立合乎公义的关系。既然天主寓居在我们中间，我可透过具体爱德行为与主相遇。基本上人类受造是指向与主与人共融。(若一4：7－8) 犯罪便是拒绝去爱，福音中善心撒玛利亚人的比喻便说我们要成为特别有需要者的近人，我们便离天国不远了。(路10：29－36) 既然我们受造和救赎均是以爱和共融为目标，那么我们如何在现在开始这行动呢？顾氏说行爱德不是抽象的概念，它是因着天主的爱在我们心中推动我们，使我们有能力去爱和建设一个正义和友爱的社会，(22) 因为天主的爱在我们心中所以一切爱德成为可能，天主的爱不是强要我们跟从祂，而是尊重和接纳，让我们是一个人地去爱和被爱。真正对天主的爱只有透过真正具体对人的爱才可实现。面对爱主及爱人两者的应有关系，只是说两者是不可分的是不足够的。顾氏相信对主的爱是无可避免地透过爱近人才可表达，意即在近人身上天主被我们所爱。顾氏更引用龚格的名言：「近人的圣事」(Sacrament of our neighbor) (23) 来说明通过爱有形可见的近人到达爱那无形可见的天主。爱近人并不是手段或工具，爱近人的意义被对主的爱赋予更深的意义。顾氏以人性为天主圣殿来连结爱主爱人的行动的意义，两者不是如何平衡，而是如何合一。他唯恐这份爱只停留在个别的你我关系上，于是再次强调爱近人是包含政治性爱德行动，即包括社会改革，(24) 使爱近人成为与他人共同挣扎求取解放，具体地在历史生活中展现。(25)

2.2 转向近人：与贫穷人站在一起

天主寓居在人心中，把人心作为祂的圣殿，因此爱人同时是爱天主。但为何教会要对贫穷人情有独钟呢？顾氏认为博爱全人类是抽象和普遍性的，这份爱须要从个别的爱开始，或说是透过对个别人的爱进入到博爱的境界。因此他说要优先与贫穷人站在一起(preferential option for the poor)。但这种优先取向是否会导致排除富人得救的机会？顾氏再三强调，这优先取向只是表达次序而非本质上排拒富人，福音是为全人类的，可是福音也有指出对贫穷人的特别关注。而且对富人传福音方式及劝喻也有所不同，教会劝喻有钱人的心切勿依附财富，要悔改皈依以从自我中心及罪恶束缚中解放出来。顾氏坚持孟德连(Medellin) 与普尔保拉(Puebla) 两个主教会议的，就是优先取向与贫穷人及与他们团结一起，因为这是与所有人真诚团结的条件，只有透过个别的爱才能到达普遍的博爱，从而踏进正义与仁爱的国度。(26)

为顾氏而言，贫穷是指在物质上、社会政治上、及人性尊严上有所缺乏。玛窦福音第廿五章清楚表示：对最小兄弟所作的便是对基督所作的，因为基督第二位圣子空虚自我，降生成人，成为最贫穷的人，与贫穷人连结一起，我们服侍身边贫穷的弟兄姊妹便是服侍贫穷的基督。所以照顾穷人不只是慈善事业，也包括为他们争取公义及人权。福音对贫穷人的眷爱在真福八端的第一端中深刻地展露：「贫穷的人是有福的，因为天国是他们的。」(路6：20b) 很多人将这里所指的贫穷局限在精神及宗教意义，但顾氏认为这端真福是包含物质及精神的贫穷。它有两个特点，一点是神学的，它告诉我们天主是谁，另一点是人学的，它强调聆听圣言后的灵性倾向的重要性。整篇真幅八端均是指向物质贫穷，这境况是使人认识天主是谁，天主以祂的自由和恩宠爱贫穷人，而天主这样作并非因为贫穷人好，较其他人美善，只因为他们是贫穷的，(作为天主肖像，钟爱的子女) 他们的境况是对天主的羞辱，而第二点灵性倾向是接受天国启示的条件，太早将贫穷精神化是将天主「人」化，其实，我们所面对的是一个奥迹；是天主先爱了人类，祂召唤我们回到祂的怀抱成为祂的子女，而人的回应便是第二点的灵性倾向，所以第一点的无条件的爱是最能展现天主是爱。

本文前面曾提到解放的三个层面：(一) 政治解放；(二) 在历史中人的解放；(三) 从罪恶中解放与主共融，这三店面也可从关系上了解，即是：(一) 与世界的关系(人作为其主人)；(二) 与其他人成为兄弟姊妹；(三) 与天主是父子关系。这三个层面是整合的，只能分辨不能分开，因此要成为天主子女必然包括实行正义，及转化现存不公义的社会，使天主的公义临现，而人际间才有真正弟兄姊妹的共融。

教会作为基督的跟随者，为延续基督救赎解放的工程，本身要活出这奥迹，要有这三种解放，而三者是共融整合的。基督的命运是教会的命运，因此教会为活出这份为人舍生的爱在生活中应为贫穷的弟兄姊妹交付生命，在死而复活的基督内建立希望，因为祂已战胜死亡及罪恶。在传扬福音过程中，教会固然是要活出这奥迹，而贫穷人是福音的接受者，但贫穷人的生活也是对教会的挑战，因在他们身上展露了福音的价值，如团结，服务，简朴，向主开放，接受恩宠等，贫穷人的生活要求教会悔改皈依，因此贫穷人也是福音的使者。他们提醒教会传福音的首要条件是一如她的师傅基督，活出福音中的贫穷。当我们生活贫穷和服侍贫穷人，我们便不断的皈依及净化，我们便日益与贫穷的基督结合，生活贫穷是表示对主的信赖，因为传扬福音不是靠人间的权威而是靠天主的德能，因此教会一无所依地继续基督的使命正是其应有的面貌。

爱德行为使我们在历史中与主相遇，因为主就寓居在人心，进一步优先爱贫穷人更是主的意愿，我们的爱更具体，也在爱德中展现天主对人的爱，我们的爱是对近人的爱也是天主对人的爱，因为我们是基督的跟随者。此外基督也在受苦的弟兄身上，爱他们便是爱基督，最后向穷人传福音的使命也使教会更肖似基督，贫穷人既是接受福音者，也是使者。顾氏非常强调与贫穷人站在一起，祂整个神学也是以此为出发点，因为在投身于这奋斗过程中，我们会与主与人更共融合一。(27)

3. 望：末世论与政治

3.1 末世性许诺

我们投身于创造正义社会，创造新人类时，预设了对未来的信心，在此我们讨论在信仰光照下未来新世界的意义。首先探讨圣经内许诺的意义，许诺是圣经重要主题之一，一些圣经学者指新约是将旧约许诺精神化，(28) 旧约许诺的实现只在精神层面。但顾氏认为救赎不是灵性或是世俗的，它是两者相连的，现世所实现的许诺是部份的指向末日全部的完成。现在与将来是相连的，对将来许诺实现的希望使我们转化现在的历史现实。事实上只有在现世历史事件里才可开创未来整体的满全。在现世社会中消除悲惨及剥削是天国临现的标记。争取及建立正义社会，使社会中再没有压迫、痛苦、疏离等也是表现着天国的来临。换言之，为正义奋斗便是为天国奋斗。

3.2 信仰、乌托邦(Utopia) 与政治行动

许诺是否乌托邦呢？乌托邦按一般人了解它是一个幻想，不切实际及非理性的。但近代却有新的了解，它是一个建设新社会的历史计划，并且表达了对建立人际新社会关系的渴望。乌托邦会剌激人转化现存社会，它有三点特性需要注意：(a) 与历史现实的关系；(b) 在投身实践中验证；(c) 它的理性本质。

(a) 与历史现实的关系：理想不是空想，也不脱离现实。作为未来的蓝本，它与现实有非常紧密的联系。这联系表现于它对现存制度的指责，及宣告未来应走的路。作为未来的理想，它必然与现实有冲突，要铲除罪恶的根源，所以乌托邦不是改革者而是革命者。除了指责外，乌托邦宣告那主的未来新秩序新社会，宣告未来新社会推动历史前进，使现在所渴望能在将来实现。

(b) 没有在历史中承担、指责与宣告，乌托邦便不会实现，它仍旧是空想而已。乌托邦之能够推动历史前进及革新现存秩序是在于它的历史实践。乌托邦理想国是否结出果实关键在这提出未来目标与现在实践的关系是否紧密。

(c) 乌托邦属于理性秩序的，但一般人的理解始终认为乌托邦是非理性的。顾氏引用Blanguart 的见解(29) 阐释乌托邦不但不是非理性，违反科学，相反，它却构成科学的原创性及能力。有些时候，当现存科学理论到达极限时，要开创新领域便得依靠富创造力的想象(creative imagination)，而Blanguart指出，在政治上的创新想像便是乌托邦。它与意识型态不同，因为意识型态局限在历史当中，它只能达到保存现存秩序的功能，然而乌托邦带领人类进入一真实及富有科学知识的领域，进入具体实践中，以改变现存的秩序。(30) 因此乌托邦虽与科学不同，但它却是科学的内在动力。

经过阐释乌托邦的概念及功能后，我们再检视信仰与政治行动的关系。在谈论爱德时，我们曾以整合解放的三层面分析，现在探讨望德，我们仍尝试从这三层看。首先经济，社会政治的解放是对应科学的理性，它支持有效的政治转化行动，第二层之解放指向在新的团结社会中创造新人类，它属于乌托邦的层面，有推动及改革的功能，至于第三层从罪恶中解放进入主与人共融，这层的解放属信仰层面，简言之，三层分属历史现实、未来乌托邦及信仰等不同范畴，但它们是紧密地相连。

从望德的角度看信仰与政冶行动的关系，顾氏认为必须从与现存不同的社会内创造新人类的努力了解，这个创造新人类是政治解放与信仰的共同目标，(31) 信仰的目的是使人成为更自由更实现人性的人。而政治解放目的也是这样。乌托邦使政治参予者不会成为空想家，相反，推动他们更积极参予及使他们的行动不会出卖自己的原意。解放行动的乌托邦作为目标能加增人们的社会醒觉，了解现存秩序不妥的地方进而创造新人类，使社会转化到一团结共融的社会。顾氏认为这创造便是政冶解放与全人类与主共融的汇合点。(32) 为达到全人类与主共融必需使人从罪恶中解放。信仰便是指出这个可能性，人的确可以消除一切不义、压迫、剥削而进入友爱的社会境况，一切政治解放的努力不会白费，因为天主召叫我们为此而努力。祂同时亦给予协助及保证，我们一定会成功的，信仰进一步指出未来新人类的创造不是空等待的，它要求我们今天开始，虽然我们明白到现在的只是过渡，但我们仍得努力，信仰为我们启示历史的深层意义，未来是掌握在我们手中，今日的行动是指向建立一个更公义的社会，且在过程中我们与主与人共融合一。(33)

7.同上 151

8.同上 151

9.包括依42：5－6；43：1；54：5；亚4：12；5：6；耶10：16；27：5；32：17；33：25；拉2：10；咏74；89；93；95；135；136

10.同上 155

11.同上 157

12.同上 159 顾氏不断强调工作能转化世界，使人成为一个真人，建立人类团体。因此每一行动均成为救恩行动。

13.同上 159 在全书中，顾氏每提及救恩必引出这内容。

14.同上 167

15.同上 225-232

16.Gutierrez G., The Power of the poor in History (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1983) 136.

17.Gutierrez G., A Theology of Liberation 175.

18.同上 176

19.同上 177

20.同上 232

21.同上 189-192

22.同上 199

23.同上 201

24.同上 202

25.同上 203

26.Gutierrez G., The Power of the poor in History 125.

27.同上125-148

28.Gutierrez G., A Theology of Liberation 165.

29.同上 234

30.同上 235

31.同上 236

32.同上 237

33.同上 238

四．批判分析

1. 对天国与正义社会的关系的理解

1.1 顾氏的理论基础：救恩史与人类历史的关系

顾氏所身处的拉丁美洲社会是不公义的，财富落入少数人手上，大部份人受到剥削压迫，生活贫穷。这样的社会境况实在与福音背道而驰。六十年代初期，顾氏从欧洲学成返国后，在大学任教及出任主教团的顾问，期间不断反省信仰在这社会境况的意义，及教会在世界的使命。受到梵二及孟德连(Medellin) 主教会议的影响，他在1971年出版「解放神学」一书，有系统地阐释他的思想和那突破传统及回异欧洲神学的方法论。基本上他将拉丁美洲神学从发展(Development) 转为以解放(Liberation) 为中心。顾氏以社会分析找出拉丁美洲社会问题的征结?在于殖民主义及强国的经济侵略。「发展」的思想，只是加强现存社会结构，不能救人民于水火之中。只有全面的革命才能使社会有新的面貌。圣经中解放的讯息，正好贴合今日拉丁美洲的境况。此外，在检视历史中教会与世界的关系时，顾氏发觉到现时的分层思想(Distinction of Planes) 已不能在拉丁美洲应用，这思想认为教会与社会是分开的，教会只负责传扬福音及作现世的启导者，教友虽然参与建设社会但不能越出这界线。信仰要求教会在面对社会不公义时有所回应，但碍于这种理解，教会不能参予政治，另一方面教会称自己为穷人的教会，应优先与穷人站在一起，顾氏身为神学工作者，不得不再思考信仰在投身打击不义的人身上的意义。如何将建设正义社会与天国相连？

在顾氏心目中，建设正义社会的目标是新人类的创造。但在圣言的光照下，对抗及打击不义社会与新人类的创造有什么意义？从神学方面来看，是找寻救恩与在历史中人类解放过程的关系。因此顾氏便得反省救恩的意义。他阐释救恩从量到质的转变，救恩的目标是解放，而解放则有三层意义，包括：(I) 社会政治的解放，(II) 历史的解放，(III) 罪恶中的解放。结合这三层解放的基础是新的历史观。

传统的历史观将人类历史与救恩史分开，救恩史是人类历史以外的事物，使救恩只成为人死后的永生。恩宠与人性是对立的，自然与超自然也是二分的。但顾氏认为历史只有一个，「救恩史是人类历史的中心，天主的救恩行动是所有人类存在的基础，人性的历史终向必然要肯定地放置在救恩的领域上。」(34) 他的基本肯定是因为只有一个基督终向的历史(Christo-finalized history)。(35)

为顾氏而言，历史是人类不断自我创造的过程，不断体现人的自由，他承接着黑格尔及马克思的思想，认为人是自己生命目标的主人，人是不断意识体现自由，透过工作去改造世界，以决定自己的命运，寻求自由，好能自由地去爱。正如潘霍华所说：「解放的完满意义，在于完全地、自由地与主与人共融。」(36) 而历史便是这实践过程。但在阐释历史只有一个时，他并没有借用哲学或意识型态(ideology)，他只引用圣经的两个主题去说明，这两个主题是创造与救赎的关系和末世的许诺。他从圣经出发，明显地从信仰眼光看历史，以色列民的历史是其真实实的人类历史，但在信仰下，它同时是天主拯救人类和人类回应天主的历史。这种解释是十分生活及存在性的，让人投入在生活中体会。无疑，这种阐释方法让人容易了解两者的合一性，但却无法清楚表明分别性。顾氏承认他受到狄鲁白(Henri de Lubac)，拉内(Rahner)，庞丹尔(Blondel) 有关自然与超自然合一的思想影响，(37) 特别是拉内的超自然存在架构(Super natural existential)，因为人的生命是不断地、终极地回应或拒绝天主，或可说是天主赠予的恩宠，所以历史只有一个。但顾氏并没有采用欧洲的神学语言，他只用圣经和文献，因此便缺乏在概念上澄清两者的可分别而不可分开性。而且，所谓合一，不是等同，由于他没有进一步说明，容易使人误会，以为他将救恩史等同人类历史，换言之，是将天国等同正义社会。因为人类历史与救恩史的关系是作为向明天国与正义社会关系的基础，顾氏这方面的不足难免会招致批评。虽然他在论及天国与正义社会的关系时多次说明两者是分别而不是等同的，(38) 但由于圣经语言是存在性的，文献是原则性的，所以不能达到概念上的澄清。而拉内(Rahner) 在论及人类历史与救恩史关系时，则以他一贯的哲学语言及从人学到神学的方法论将两者关系有系统地作概念澄清，其实，从拉内对人的了解已暗示出人性与超性的不可分，所以论及人存在的问题同时是救恩的问题，拉内指出人本质上有超自然存在结构(Supernatural existential) 使人不断自我超越以及对天主的自我通传自由地接纳或拒绝，另一方面人的存在结构也是历史性的，他说：「人作为超验和自由的位格存有也是同时作为在世界、时间、历史中的存有。」(39) 因此人是不可能脱离历史，他更准确地说：「人的无限制的超越性的主体性本质是历史性地在他的知识及自由的自我实现中传介于他的。」(40) 既然人的自我超越与历史性同时是人的存在结构时，两者是可分别而不可分开的，人的超越性需要历史传介(mediated)，而历史本身时常是这超越的事件。我们可以这样说，有关历史本身的终极事实便是人超越性的历史。按垃内的用语，历史内包含两个层面：一为超越性的(Trancendental)，另一为范畴性的(Categorical)。超越性的历史可称为救恩史，范畴性的称为人类历史，两者并不等同。按照拉内的理解，因为历史中包含人的罪过，拒绝天主，即相反救恩，所以并不等同救恩史，他采用「同周延」(Coextensive) 一词，他说救恩史与世界历史是同周延的。(41) 拉内曾专文探讨救恩史与世界历史的关系，更详细说明两者的异同。他说出救恩史是在世界历史内进行的，然而它的内容及现实却存在于世界历史背后，因此我们并不能透过历史事件明显地认识救恩史，拉内更细致地说明虽然两者是共同伸展但仍有异同，两者是形式上(formally)而非物质上(materially) 分别，(42) 此外救恩史赋予世界历史意义，虽然救恩史必然要透过人类历史展现，但现世终必过去，救恩史促使人的眼望向永恒，而在基督内完成一切。

拉内在理论阐释上，概念的分辨比顾氏精细，使人十分清楚救恩史与世界历史的关系，但落实在天国与正义社会的关系时，显然只能说两者有着辩证性的关系，而在具体历史中实在很难分辨，拉内只能定下底线，上限为不能只强调救恩史或天国致使成为精神或灵性主义(Spiritualism)，下限为不能只强调世界历史或建设正义社会使成为化约主义(reductionism)。(43) 顾氏虽然用圣经语言但似乎也是达到同样结论，而且也只能作如此程度的分别。波夫(Boff) 提出四个模式去阐释天国与正义社会的关系。他强调两者不是完全地共同伸展的，它们是有所重好，我们可以说它们是在对方内肯定自己的身份，而非与对方完全等同。他采用的四个模式是(I) 加釆东模式；(II) 圣事模式；(III) 爱(agapic)；(IV) 人学模式。综合而言，四种模式借用类比作阐释，如在加釆东模式中的耶稣基督的天主性和人性的关系，在圣事模式中天主恩宠与历史标记或媒介的关系，在爱的模式中的爱主爱人的关系，人学模式中的灵魂和肉身的关系，比拟出救恩与历史解放的互相关连，但非绝对等同，两者不可混淆，不可分割。波夫指出这些模式只能比拟地描绘两者的关系，因为内含奥秘的特性。在这末世期间，建设正义社会与到达天国满全时刻保持着一种张力，(44) 波夫的模式系统颇能够将顾氏与拉内的思想综合。

综观三位神学家及近代哲学思潮，(45) 基本在理论阐释上已很清楚说明历史只有一个，天国和正义社会的关系是不可混淆，但也不可分割。各人所用的语言不同，进路不同，互相补足。但在处理实际牧民计划时似乎未能有所直接帮助，仍然是止于原则性指导及清晰概念。比较上顾氏也很明白这困难，因为在具体行动中是很难辨别这两种幅度，所以他最后说出不是靠理论而是靠个人及牧民经验，在具体环境及事件上反省体会。(46)他所提供的出路正是他方法论的特色，这点将在第三部份详细分析。

2. 信理上的不足

2.1 创造与工作

顾氏在反省以民历史时，指出人不单通过劳动，也透过人不断建设正义社会的努力，继续上主的创造工程，因为不是凡劳动均有助于人的自我创造，假如劳动不能为人的好处，不指向人的解放及团结合一，劳动是没有价值的。人为解放自由所作出的挣扎和努力，才是人的自我创造。(47) 顾氏受到马克思的思想影响，对历史和社会转化及人的劳动价值与教会传统演译有所不同。

顾氏理解历史为人争取解放的过程，自由是历史争斗的战利品，因此历史的目标不只是为改善生活条件，在架构上彻底改变，及引动社会革命，更重要的是不断的创造，永不休止，是一种做人的新径，一个永久革命。(48) 劳动或创造是指向这目标的工具，正如上述，劳动不能为人的好处便没有价值。马克思的理论重点在劳动实践。因着劳动，人才能实现本质，改造自然。为马克思而言，认识是不能与通过工作改造世界分开的。(49)环境的改变和人的活动的一致，只能被看作是并合理地解释为革命的实践。(50) 但实践和目标及劳动主体并没有本质上的关连，实践或劳动只是工具，它自身的价值是工具价值，顾氏所指是在不义社会下的劳动是没有价值的，因为不能让人自由解放。在这点上顾氏未有说明劳动自身的价值。劳动并不是源出于人的本质。

梵二教会在《现代世界牧职宪章》阐明：「赖以生产、交易及提供经济服务的人的劳动，远驾乎经济生活的其他因素之上，因为其他因素只是工具而已。人的劳动，无论出诸自动或由他人推动，直接发源于人的人格。…人可能以劳动实行真正的爱德并提供合作，以完成天主的化工，而且，人将劳动奉献天主，便是参予耶稣基督的救世大工。」(No.67)文献指出劳动源出人格，而且并没有什么是没有价值的劳动，此外，劳动更是参予天主创造与救赎的工程。假若按顾氏所说，便得划分有价值与没有价值的劳动，但人是否身处不公义的或有罪的境况便不是人。当然顾氏深深体会到拉丁美洲是一个非人(Nonperson) 的境况，(51) 纵使人努力工作，仍然未能挣得温饱，如何说劳动实现人性呢？劳动自身又有什么价值呢？所以他说有些劳动是没有意义的。

「工作」通谕给工作的定义是：它是一转移及物的行动(Transitive activity)，即是说，一个行动从人类主体开始，指向外在客体，这里预设一由人对大地的特定的主权，在工作中更肯定和发展这主权。(No.4) 人是通过工作达到管理大地的目的。在通论中有数点是论及工作的本质：「决定工作价值的基础主要不是在所作的工作种类而在于工作的是人(person)，工作尊严的来源主要来自于主体幅度而非客体。…因此，工作是为人而非人为工作。」(No.6) 通论指出工作应有的本质和意义，工作与人格的内在关系，工作的价值在于主体而非客体。但如何使训导内容应用在拉丁美洲？虽然我们很难向被压迫剥削，不得温饱、贫苦的弟兄姊妹解释工作的意义，使他们重拾人性尊严。但另一方面，我们却不能为此而只强调工作的客体价值。

其实顾氏的思想和通论的分歧在于两者不同的社会境况和神学方法论，以及各自不同的反省层面。但分析顾氏思想时，由于他受到马克思的思想影响，所以强调劳动的客体价值。事实上这正是顾氏的神学的不足，因为所采用的语言和受到具体环境的偏向影响，他往往受到限制而只能突出某一点，如劳动和创造的客体价值。

劳动既由主体出发，必有其启示意义，即一主体活动只要按启示和良心，必有益于主体发展，人的存在已有价值，只是在劳动过程中人发挥理性与自由意志使人更成为人。这里并不是脱离现实而是在罪的境况中，人依然可活出他的尊严，人能将劳动结合受苦的基督，共同参予救赎工程。在此我们一方面不走极端，只重视灵性一面，让人满足于心灵层面，但在不否定现世改革的价值下依然要肯定灵性的一面，肯定劳动自身(work-in-itself) 的价值，作为主体活动的价值。另一方面，却不能强调现世改革而将劳动贬为工具。

2.2 末世论与政治

顾氏以信望爱看天国与正义社会的关系，在信爱两个范畴，他均引用圣经及文献作反省及支持他的思想，但在「望」的范畴内讨论末世论时，圣经与意识型态的比重却有所失衡。而且在篇幅及内容比较上，明显地比信、爱两范畴少。顾氏采用新马克思主义者博克(Bloch) 的思想来说明未来的梦想是为推翻现在，使将来的乌托邦与现在连上关系。(52) 他引用库尔门(Cullmann) 的分析去了解政治在耶稣生命中的意义，虽然耶稣的行径与热诚党人相似，他经常公开挑战当权的法利塞人及经师等，最后更以政治理由被处死，但他无意改革社会秩序。按照库尔门的了解，耶稣因为感到天国逼近，他所关心的只是个人的悔改。但这种态度应随着时代改变，因为末日已不再像从前感觉那么逼近，所以社会改革有助于个人悔改，(53) 但顾氏不同意这结论，关心社会改革的原因并不在此，而应是耶稣的先知角色，祂指责以民只着重形式的祭献而罔顾社会正义，顾氏归结到政治是耶稣的讯息核心，宣讲天国是向社会揭示对正义社会的渴望，及导致发现新的途径及新的幅度。

顾氏认为政治是耶稣所宣讲的讯息的核心，这是很危险的，虽然他马上补充天国与社会改革的关系，(54) 但仍然予人一种失衡的感觉。明显地，顾氏希望突出耶稣使命的政治幅度，但耶稣宣讲的中心无可置疑是天国，祂的逾越奥迹所摧毁的是罪恶，他的使命超越以色列的政治默西亚观，故不在于复兴以色列国，祂宣讲：「时期已满，天国临近，你们悔改，信从福音吧。」(谷1：14) 是邀请人悔改，当人悔改后以基督的心及眼光看所处的政治境况，弟兄姊妹们承受着罪恶的后果，因而积极投入改革社会及继续邀请人悔改，所以重点在于人心的悔改而导致社会改革，在改革过程中使更多的人悔改。政治不是耶稣使命的中心讯息，而是其中所牵涉的一个幅度而已。

2.3 三层解放

「解放」是顾氏思想的中心，他将拉丁美洲神学思想从「发展」转为「解放」，他并不是笼统地说解放，他的思想承接教会文献的训导，特别是「民族发展」通论及孟德连主教会议，他所说的是整体的解放(Integral Liberation)，内含三个层面。他最初阐释第一层是那些被压迫的社会阶层所渴望的解放，第二层是应用于对历史的了解上，因着解放，人被视为是对自身生命目的有意识地负责，第三层是从圣经启发人在历史中的临在及行动的解放，那便是从基督而来的解放，使人脱离罪恶与主共融。(55) 从信望爱看天国与正义社会的关系的阐释中，他贯彻地表达对解放的理解。(56) 综合而言，第一层是社会政治解放；第二层是人从历史所有束缚中解放，导引人在团结的社会内共同创造新人类；第三层是从罪中的解放，使人与主共融，与人成为兄弟姊妹。顾氏透过阐释信望爱时说明这三层解放的内容，并且在每次论及这整体解放时，总不厌其详地重覆述说三层的互相关系，三者的彼此相连，可分别而不可分开的特性，彼此不可取代，三者共同构成整体的解放，当然中心思想是以基督为基础，一切解放才成为可能。但在仔细分析下，虽然顾氏一再说明不可将基督的解放化为政治解放，但我们所见的只是解放的团体幅度，社会政治解放及历史的解放均是团体性的，顾氏所说是否意味社会结构及人类意识的改变会导致个人的皈依？还是由于要反对欧洲的神学及信仰培育太强调个人皈依，因此走上只强调社会改革及人类皈依的团体幅度？波夫(L.Boff) 在阐释救恩与解放的关系时，也只是处理社会及政冶解放与基督解放的关系。(57) 此外，与「解放」同时成为顾氏中心思想的是「罪」，无可否认，顾氏及孟德连主教会议对罪的理解有所贡献，传统上只强调罪的个人幅度，但他们则转为突出罪的团体幅度。他们称之为「结构性的罪」(Structural or Institutional Sin)，但正由于这种转向，他们的思想便欠缺提到个人的罪。因此顾氏所提到的皈依及解放便只有结构性和团体性的罪，而予人轻忽个人的罪的印象。

面对这些挑战，顾氏在后期的着作中开始补充有关罪、解放的个人与团体幅度的关系。「人心的皈依与社会改革是互为作用的，相互依靠，两者是一体的，我们不能机械地想结构的改革会自动带来人心的皈依，或者个人的改变能保证社会转化，两种设想均是不真实和天真的」，(58) 他在最近期(1990年) 的着作中详细地补充了罪和解放的个人幅度。(59) 这项有关罪的个人幅度是放置在第二层解放内，而人的自由是这层面的主要概念。根据梵二教会在《现代世界牧职宪章》的记载「…新的人文主义的诞生，而这主义的内容便是：人的意义是从他对其弟兄及历史所负的责任来界定。」。(No.55) 这意味着社会政治改革是不足够的，还需要个人的皈依及从历史束缚中的解放。顾氏认为社会的基础不单在正义，也在于自由。人的自由包含内在幅度，人所渴望的解放不只是外在的社会政治解放，人同时寻求内在的解放，这是心于心理层面的，是个人性的，而这种个人自由是属于所有人的，顾氏引用信理部文件(Libertatis Conscientia)：「完成解放过程只能创造行使自由的环境，假若解放缺乏涉及行动者的个人自由是首先要被指责的。」(No.31：另参考No.26) 个人自由是不可或缺的，它是连接基督解放与社会解放的中介。

在论到罪的概念时，顾氏认为罪是拒绝天主爱的赠予，它是个人的自由行为，虽然孟德连和普尔保拉会议均强调罪的境况，但无意抹煞罪的个人性。他重申在不义的架构背后包含有个人和集体对之负责的意愿，一种拒绝天主与近人的意愿。由于罪是与神与人分裂，彼此缺乏爱与团契的关系，因此，罪是内在及个人的缺裂。事实上，社会性或结构性的罪是引申的第二义，社会只是一集体概念，存在的是个人，因此社会的罪是由个人所负责和承担。

基督所带来的解放，使人从个人内心罪的束缚及社会罪的境况中解放出来，基督是首两层解放的中心和基础，内在于这层解放中，正因罪包含个人和团体的幅度，解放也同是个人和团体性的。

顾氏的补充使他解放的思想更完整和平衡，这是十分重要的，因为解放是拉丁美洲神学的中心，在理解和阐释上若有欠平衡整合，便会导致整个神学成为化约主义或灵性主义。(60) 顾氏在这方面的贡献是肯定的。他在说明三层解放时，用了加釆东模式(Chalcedon Model of Liberation)，指出三者关系是一体而可分辨的，三者不是按次序排列先后，而是互相依靠。我们知道拉丁美洲神学是为面对实际牧民问题而产生的，因此如何在实践中体会这三层解放的关系是很重要的。但上述三层解放的关系在神学反省上只能在形式概念上分辨，及指出关系的特点，至于内容及具体境况的体会和分辨，则未有说明，这是顾氏神学的欠缺。

若比较信理部文件Liberatis Conscientia与顾氏的「解放」，思想内容上是一致的，文件所提出要注意的地方，如避免化约主义，顾氏也有重覆解释，但在方法论上，则各有不同，文件的方法论是传统的，从圣经出发，强调启示，以基督为中心，从信仰到生活实践，从个人皈依到爱德行动。但顾氏阐释次序是由社会政治解放到基督的解放，他的神学方法论回异欧洲神学，是从实践(Praxis) 到批判反省，再到行动。顾氏认为神学是在圣言光照下对解放实践的批判反省，假若这神学是与行动脱节的话，那么顾氏的神学便没有意义了。

3. 方法论上的突破

3.1 新的突破

顾氏于六十年代初期从欧洲学成返国后，在大学任教，但一连串的冲击及反省，使他感到欧洲神学及拉丁美洲的「发展神学」不能回应当代的需要。欧洲神学面对的是一个非信徒的世界(Pagan World)，欧洲承接着十六世纪启蒙时期思想的影响成为一个强调理性、个人自由、俗化的世界。教会为在当代继续其使命，拋弃过往护教作风，六十年代召开梵二，教会尝试与非信徒对话，承认无神论的存在。但由于理性主义的影响，教会在演译信仰时是从认知及概念上着手，借助哲学，致使信仰蒙上形上色彩，与现实脱节，信仰培育也在个人主义影响下使信仰私人化(Privatization)。顾氏觉得梵二对社会问题只作一般性评论，对资本主义的垄断经济及剥削穷人却没有加以强烈批评，整体太依靠「发展」的概念，特别是「发展」的政治含意。梵二无疑达到与现代世界对话的目的，但却没有正视这个不和谐及充满对立的社会，(61) 因此在备受殖民主义和跨国经济侵略的拉丁美洲，欧洲神学显得格格不入，与信友生活脱节。

于是顾氏重新思考，他的神学不仅在内容上从「发展」转为「解放」，兼且在方法上和对神学理解上作重新演译。

在了解顾氏的神学方法前，先要注意对他有深远影响的人物和思想，Bartolome de Las Casas 是在拉丁美洲殖民时代的一位主教，他主张与受压迫的美洲印弟安人站在一起，共同对抗当时的压迫者，他的神学方法是从行动中开始，他的神学是投身和参予印弟安人的行动的一部份，救恩与建立正义社会连在一起。(62) 因为他深信基督在印弟安人中间向我们说话，与受苦者在一起奋斗。在受苦者中辨认基督成了顾氏神学的基础。Jose Carlos Mariategui 是秘鲁社会学家及新马克思主义者，对顾氏思想主要有三点影响：(I) 寻求本地化社会主义，尝试从本地受苦阶层去重新演译生命；(II) 以阶级斗争作为主要演译工具；顾氏接受拉丁美洲是一个阶级斗争的事实，教会不能避免选取其中阶级，因此顾氏主张优先与贫穷人站在一起；(III) 理论与实践的结合，顾氏引用Mariategui的话：「只有充足，广阔，丰富及强烈的革命实践，连同不同意见人士的参予，才能为成功的理论创造优良的条件。」(63) 以上三点均在顾氏思想中占有中心位置。(64) 1972年顾氏在西班牙与一群解放神学家聚会，为他带来新的思想，他觉得「爱你的近人」的意思不是等待近人出现而是要走出自我，走进对方的世界，去寻找你的近人。他发觉穷人是一个社会阶级，他的结论是：服务穷人便是参予政治行动。(65)

综合不同的影响，顾氏的神学从参予穷人争取解放行动出发，在过程中体会及认识天主。他十分强调历史实践。(66) 在实践中，以穷人的眼光重读圣经，读经的原则是以基督为中心，在信仰内从自己所处的历史环境重读圣经，重要的是在行动中出发并指向继续行动，他称之为Militant-reading，神学反省是对信仰的理解，神学是内在于信仰生活的，它尝试成为在教会团体内真实、完整的信仰思考。因此神学是在教会的历史发展中产生的。(67) 顾氏对神学所下的定义是：「神学是在圣言光照下对解放实践的批判反省」。顾氏的神学方法完全回异于欧洲，并非先思考理论再作实践，而是先投身再反省然后再投身行动，他借用马克思社会分析，找出社会问题的症结，对现实有所了解才作神学反省，使神学不致与生活脱节，将信仰与政治行动相连。此外，以穷人眼光和在争斗中重读圣经的做法为信仰带来新的面貌和更丰富的内容。但这种方法同时亦是他的缺点，为配合实践境况，他变成有选择地抽取圣经讯息。解放无疑是圣经的重要讯息但并非是全部，而且解放不只是指逃离埃及的奴役，也包括西乃山的盟约，先知谴责不义并非是为推翻压迫者和进行革命，而是叫个人及团体悔改，履行正义。(68) 他引用释经时是借用欧洲圣经学家的意见如Von Rad及Cullmann等，此外，他是部份地抽取适用的章节，如论及创造与救赎时只引用依撒意亚先知书，事实上圣咏也不乏这些思想。(69)拉丁美洲在释经方面未有很大发展，他们可借用欧洲的圣经研究结果，但必须发展本地的诠释原则(Hermeneutic Principles)，免致在释经上流于主观及片面。

由于顾氏要连结信仰与政治行动，以解放实践作反省对象，强调信仰不是相信一些信条，而是相信耶稣基督并愿意以生命回应，因此跟随基督是一种生活方式，是在生活中了解信仰，这生活不是别的，正是与贫穷和被压迫者站在一起，共同打击不义，参予解放运动，所以他阐释信理时，并没有用哲学语言，而用存在性的圣经语言，证明人在生活中体会及认识真理，所以他没有像欧洲神学般系统化及概念清晰，这是他的方法论使然。

历史解放实践是顾氏神学的出发点，但实践是否真理的来源及标准？这是一个知识论的问题。顾氏的神学从实践到神学反省再回到实践，而实践和理论反省是处于不同秩序(Order)，其中如何连系？

3.2 历史实践 (Historical Praxis)

实践是马克思的重要思想，特别是早期马克思，他说：「人的思维是否具有客观的真理性，这并不是一个理论的问题，而是一个实践的问题。人应该在实践中证明自己思维的真理性，即自己思维的现实性和力量，亦即自己思维的此岸性。…环境的改变和人的生活的一致，只能被看作是并合理地理解为革命的实践。…社会生活在本质上是实践的。」(70) 顾氏借用马克思的实践思想，在他的神学里强调信仰不是信条而是生活实践，目的是要转化世界，神学是在圣言光照下对解放实践的批判反省。在实践中所得到的真理是对信仰的了解。实践不是神学真理的判别标准，因为实践属于存在秩序(Existential Order)，而神学则属于认知秩序(Epistemological Order)，两者不能混淆，因此不能以实践作为神学真理的判别标准。(71) 但如何检定实践所得的真理性？顾氏却没有清楚说明。信仰属于存在秩序，信仰是人神的关系，人对神的认识和投身，是人存在的问题，因此信仰不是信条，是活生生的存在交往经验。圣经是有关以民的信仰经验记录，更是天主启示和救赎的见证，所以圣经才是真理的判别标准。(72) 这当然是指救恩真理而言。按照教会的训导，圣经既是信仰团体生活的反省记录，须在圣神内与教会生活对照才能了解其中讯息和继续生活这信仰。

信仰、圣经、神学、实践是连合一起的，神学是反省，是第二行动，神学的功能在于解释，说明及赋予认知意义于被启示所打开的意义世界内所获得的秩序。这是神学的「理论性」功能，它在于阐释，澄清已信的事实。实践是对信仰的回应及实现，它成为团体的信仰经验。(73) 实践(Praxis) 的字义是「行动」，也可指「生活行动」，以民是先有信仰经验，然后圣经作者再对之作信仰反省，从中体会及认识天主的启示和救恩，而反省目的在于使人在生活中认识上主。所以圣经是信徒最早对生活实践所作的神学反省，圣经既是基本启示，它便是今日神学和信仰的判别标准，但启示是奥秘，随着时代及生活经验，人对启示加深了解，使信仰有一新的面貌。

圣经所描绘的信仰经验是团体性的，神学内容也是普遍性的，但实践却是个别性的，神学属于认知秩序，实践属于存在秩序，假若人只是在神学原则指导下，个别地在具体环境实践信仰以回应天主，那么信仰成了信条指导生活，两者是分割的。为了连接神学与信仰生活，或对应拉丁美洲而言是连接神学与解放实践，灵修成了一条出路，因为灵修使实践成为信仰行动，神学与信仰生活(实践) 是动态地辩证地相连，神学所反省的对象是信仰，天主是一个活生生的天主，信仰生活是人每天自由地回应天主，因此每天的信仰经验便成为解释对象及给予神学新元素的所在。

3.3 解放灵修 (Liberation Spirituality)

顾氏早期作品以历史实践作为出发点，虽然是在圣言光照下作反省，但他认为神学的目的是为转化世界，对信仰经验较少描述，(74) 故此，他遭人批评：以历史实践作为真理判别标准。(75) 但他的后期着作明显地作为出发点的历史实践已结合成为一种新的灵修经验，他说：「由于解放实践是从与贫穷受压迫者团结出发，因此它实在是爱的实践…这是爱近人的实践，为基督在近人身上作爱的实践…它根源于父那白白的及自由的爱，而将它在与人类团结成为具体事实。」(76) 因着信仰，我们体会到天父无条件的爱和基督宣讲及实现的解放，福音的中心讯息是父那救赎和解放的爱的完满，这份爱在历史中透过在生活中与贫穷受压迫的弟兄姊妹连结一起而表达。这是新的灵修经验，是集体性的，在斗争中与主相遇的经验，在其中有沉默和喜乐，是反抗不义的沉默和复活的喜乐。顾氏明白，在他面前的工作，对解放实践作神学反省，是为走向更深的领会贫穷人的天主的意义，天主成为穷人的天主，天主在穷人身上显示祂的慈爱。(77) 他清楚说明，解放神学的方法论就是它的灵修，是正在走向完满实现的生命历程，而新灵修的基本要素是祈祷和庆祝。(78) 在近期的着作中，顾氏已没有早期的激进，虽然仍旧是强调行动投身，但已注入灵修幅度。默观和投身，或是默观语言与先知语言，成为解放神学的共同出发点，其实两者是合一的，换言之，历史实践便是信仰经验。(79)

顾氏不是用马克思的认识论去肯定历史实践(Praxis) 的功用，相反他是以灵修去连系神学与行动，因为神学是反省信仰，而实践是信仰经验，在实践中皈依及更深地认识真理。解放神学并不是将欧洲神学换上拉丁美洲面貌，而是从解放行动中去体会认识天主的奥秘，顾氏的方法论不断强调从受压迫者的角度重读圣经便是这个意思，所以解放神学才能成为真正的本地神学。

圣经和教会生活在解放神学中占有重要位置，但如何保持圣经讯息的客观及主观幅度，及避免使教会生活反省变成主观、片面及情绪化，将是解放神学家的重要工作，顾氏作为解放神学之父，其贡献不容置疑，但正由于他是在开创阶段，他只是为解放神学奠下基础，处理某些基本问题，如自然与超自然的结合，历史只有一个，基督为解放者等。

33.同上 238

34.GUTIERREZ G. A Theology of Liberation 153, The Power of the Poor in History 31

35.顾氏在「解放神学」书中180页指出不同进路可得出同一结论即历史只有一个，他并且加以批评Rahner在此思想较为含糊。

36.A Theology of Liberation 29-36.

37.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1990) 22.

38.A Theology of Liberation 168, 231.

39.RAHNER K., Foundations of Christian Faith (New York 1978) 40.

40.同上 140

41.同上142

42.RAHNER K., "History of the World and salvation History" Theological Investigation Vol. 5. 97-114.

43.RAHNER K., The Christian Commitment.

44.BOFF L & C, Salvation and Liberation 56-64.

45.吕格尔(Ricoeur) 的"Christianity and the Meaning of History", History & Truth及马库色(Marcuse) 的"The concept of Essence", Negation的历史观虽然进路不同，但基本上也同意没有分两个历史，历史只有一个内含两个幅度或演译而已。

46.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 23.

47.A Theology of Liberation 159.

48.同上 32

49.同上 29

50.「关于费尔巴哈的提纲」，《马克思恩格斯选集》17。

51.The Power of the Poor in History 193.

52.A Theology of Liberation 216.

53.同上 230

54.同上 231

55.同上 36-37

56.有关信德在A Theology of Liberation 176；望德在235；爱德在The Power of the Poor in History 144.

57.BOFF L & C. Salvation and Liberation (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1988) 43-56.

58.GUTIERREZ G., The Power of the Poor in History 47.

59.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 132-138.

60.GUTIERREZ G., The Theology of Liberation 237.

61.GUTIERREZ G., The Power of the Poor in History 171-185.

62.GUTIERREZ G ., The Power of the Poor in History 174-196.

63.GUTIERREZ G., A Theology of Liberation 90.

64.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 27.

65.同上 33

66.在A Theology of Liberation 6-11, 顾氏列出各种理由赋予历史实践丰富意义。

67.GUTIERREZ G., A Theology of Liberation 3.

68.McGovern A.F., Liberation Theology and Its Critics, Toward an Assessment (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1989) 51, 有关欧洲方面的批评。

69.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 46-48.

70.「关于费尔巴哈的提纲」，《马克思恩格斯选集》第一卷人民出版杜 16-19。

71.Boff C., Theology and Praxis, Epistemology Foundations (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1987) 199.

72.MCGOVERN A.F., Liberation Theology and Its Critics 99.

73.BOFF C., Theology and Praxis 199-200.

74.顾氏在A Theology of Liberation书中论及神学定功能时太强调其先知功能，6-15.

75.MCGOVERN A.F., Liberation Theology and Its Critics 99.

76.GUTIERREZ G., The Power of the Poor in History 50.

77.同上208-209

78.同上103, GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 5.

79.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 3, 16-17. 默观与投身两者兼备使解放神学避免走上灵性主义或行动主义的极端。而BOFF也同意解放神学的出发点是信仰经验，Salvation and Liberation 64-66.

五．总结

在探讨教会的参政问题，我们选择了天国与正义社会的关系，为使教会能更清晰自己在世界中的角色和使命，拉丁美洲的解放神学在这方面的研究是站在最前的，顾氏是解放神学之父，探讨他的思想有助对这方面的了解。

顾氏的方法论以历史实践出发，按着是在圣言光照下对解放实践作批判反省，他早期着重解放实践到后期注入默观灵修元素，使实践成为信仰灵修经验，更能配合他整个思想。他认为神学是认识信仰，而信仰不是外在于生活，而是与生活共成一体，信爱望是基督徒生活的三个主要德行，所以他采用信爱望三个范畴去处理天国与正义社会的关系。

首先在信的范畴，救恩观从量到质的演变带出只有一个历史的思想，自然与超自然，人类历史与救恩史是同周延的。他引用圣经两个主要讯息：「创造与救赎」和许诺阐释因着解放行动，在步向许诺完满的阶段，人要不断自我创造，成为新人类，建设正义社会，而基督是我们的拯救者，因着祂的救赎人才能从罪恶中解放，从此天国已临现人间，只是尚未完满，人的努力可促进天国的发展，天国临现是基督的礼物，而天国发展则需要人的努力。按着是讨论爱的范畴，因着基督降生成人，完成逾越奥迹，使人成为圣神的宫殿，爱人与爱主的行动合而为一。而基督特别与穷人认同，而穷人也是基督和教会优先所受。望德范畴是探讨末世论与政治，乌托邦与现世的关系，乌托邦不是幻想和空中楼阁，相反，它是推动指责现世不义和宣讲天国的动力。

因为顾氏的方法论着重「实践」，所以在语言上未能清晰及有系统地表达救恩史和人类历史的关系，此外，也太强调耶稣使命的政治幅度和创造劳动的客观价值。由于他的立场已优先选取与穷人在一起，故他的神学并非中立的。以穷人眼光重读圣经也会有危险变成主观，如何利用圣经研究的贡献去发展本地诠释原则，便需继绩努力。无疑，顾氏在思想和方法上为拉丁美洲神学奠定基础，但在基督论和教会论上则尚待发展。

但他对历史实践和社会境况的分析，神学的批判反省，及教会的牧民实践三者关系的连系，作出相当的贡献，在研究方向和原则上踏出一步，对其他地方教会发展本地坤学有启发作用。

参考书目
BOFF L & C.. Introducing Liberation Theology (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1987).

-- Salvation and Liberation (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1988).

BOFF C.. Theology and Praxis, Epistemological Foundation (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1987).

BROWN R.A., Guslavo Gutierrez, An Introdution to Liberation Theology (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1990).

CHOPP R.S., The Praxis of Suffering, An Interpretation of Liberation and Political Theologies (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1986).

DORR D., Spirituality and Justice (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1984).

EDWARDS D., What are They Saying about Salvation (New York : Paulist Press 1986).

FERM D.W., Third World Liberation Theologies, An Introductory Survey (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1988).

GUTIERREZ G., A Theology of Liberation, History, Politics and Salvation (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1973).

--"Liberation Theology and Proclamation", Concilium 1974 Vol.6, No. 10.

--The Power of The Poor in History (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1983).

--We Drink From Our Own Well, The Spiritual Journey of A People (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1984).

-- On Job, God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1987).

-- The Truth Shall Make You Free (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1990).

LANE D.A., Foundations for a Social Theology, Praxis, Process and Salvation (Dublin, Gill and MacMillan 1984).

MACRIDIS R.C.. Contemporary Political Ideologies, Movements and Regimes (Scott, Foresman and Company 1989).

MARCUSE H., Negations, Essays in Critical Theory (London : Free Association Books 1988).

McGOVERN A.F., Liberation Theology and Its Critics, Toward An Assessment (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1989).

"Medellin Documents : Justics, Peace. Family and Demography, Poverty of the Church" The Gospel of Peace and Justice, Presented by J. Gramillion (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1976).

MORENO F., Moral Theology from the Poor, Moral Challenges of The Theology of Liberation (Quezon City, Philippines: Claretian Publications 1988).

RICHARD P., "Liberation Theology: A Difficult but Possible Future." The Future of Liberation Theology ed. by Marc H. Ellis & O. Maduro (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1989).

PIERIS A., S.J., An Asian Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1988).

RAHNER K., S.J., Foundations of Christian Faith (New York : Crossroad Publishing Company 1978).

--"History of The World and Salvation-History."

Theological Investigation Vol.5.

--The Christian Commitment (New York : Sheed & Ward 1963).

--The Shape Of The Church To Come (New York : A Crossroad Book. The Seabury Press 1974).

RICOEUR P., History and Truth transl. by Charles A. Kelbley (Evanston : Northwestern University Press 1965).

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith : "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation." Liberation Theology A Documentary History ed. by Hennelly A.T. (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1990) 393-414.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith : "Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation." Liberation Theology : A Documentary History ed. by Hennelly AT. (Maiyknoll, NY : Orbis 1990) 461-447.

马克思，"关于费尔巴哈的提纲"《马克思恩格期选集》第一卷，人民出版社　1975.

Teotonio R. de Souza, S. J.著蔡惠民、孙英峰合译

在座中可能大部份人很希望知道，一个历史学家可以怎样帮助香港教会去策划和准备自己面对将来。因为在一般人心目中，历史是一门以过去为取向的工作，它对于这个以将来为取向的研习会可能贡献不大。因此，在我们未直接进入这次研习会的主题?信仰小团体前，若先瞭解甚么叫做包涵先知角色的「真实活出历史」将会有所裨益。这概念一旦弄清，一个历史学家主持这研习会的可信性便不成问题，甚至是非常需要。

历史通常是指一个民族的生活中，经济、政治、文化等重要事件的记载。这些事件发生的先后次序，形成了一个客观进程，让历史学家去辨别和整理它的内在演进定律。这种历史观的背后，是一个量的时间观念，它包括过去、现在和将来三个互不相容的阶段。这三个阶段中，过去的阶段被认定为历史科学的特定研究对象。在这种观点下，时间是同质的，是一种共有元素。在时间里，所有存有，从无机物到人类，都有其开始和终结。这种时间与历史的观点，虽有其自身某种程度的真理存在，但却无法揭示历史本质上是人类的现象。深层的反思会指出时间和历史是建基于绝对的存有，只有人类才拥有和分享这种存有。以下的时间，我会尝试指出历史性是人类存在的一个构成因素，这因素同时又怎样与先知性的远景和希望吻合。在讲解的过程中，我会大量采用Kappen源自Heidegger的创新性思想，虽然我的思想路线在多方面偏离了他们。

此时此刻作为历史性的基础

所有低于人类的存有无论是有机体或无机体，自身都有一定程度的完整。他们是什么就是什么，无论任何时刻都不会增长。人类则不一样，他们的本质超越现在的存有。意思是说，只有人类才能离开存在，走出自身以外，到达一个未曾出现的前方。这种指向将来的生活并不是心理上对某种特定状况的渴求，而是本体上构成人之所以为人的因素。那一点是这指向将来的终结呢？死亡？从根本的意义来说是对的，因为人在死亡中发现不存有是他的外在极限。但是，死亡不是纯然消极的，它不只是一个被动的行为，同时也是主动，是一个将自己所有完全交付给后人的行动。就是这切实的传承行动确保了历史的延续性。

如果死亡是传承的最后行动，那是因为生命自身是一个传承。人刚生下来就开始死亡、开始将他的光荣、权力，和羞耻传下去。他的言行举止都会成为传承的内容，对后人造成或好或坏的后果。

那为个体是真实的，为团棋同样是真实。个体将自前人承受下来的传授给后人。为团体来说也是一样，生活就是死亡，死亡就是将自己交付出来，因而构成了历史的流转。我们先前提出的问题现在再重现：人类团体的将来是指向什么呢？这问题的答案不能来自理性，只能来自希望。希望会告诉我们，人生旅程的终结是天人合一的圆满，即神性的圆满显示在人性的圆满中。不过，天人合一的圆满能够成为人类团体的将来，除非圆满汇聚了它的个体和整体的过去。

从这角度看，每个人的存在就好像一个策划，一个由很多可能性构成的整体，他的最后实现将与人类的绝对将来结合。可是，个体从那里获得这些有待将来成熟的可能性呢？就是从他诞生时所承受下来的。人的存在是介乎诞生与死亡这两个限度之间。不过，一如透过把完成的传给后人，人超越了死亡；同样，透过接纳传下来的遗产，人超越了诞生。在承受这些传下来的可能性同时，人亦接受伴随着诞生在某一特定家庭，某一特定团体，某一特定历史时机所带来的限制。这些可能性和限制是先于我们的任何自由选择。为个体来说，这是我们命运；为团体来说，这是我们的终向。

我们就是在这种承先启后的精神下，将自己切合于目前。但过去的可能性不会未经批判而原原本本地被接受，每一个世代因而产生它自己的「世界观」，即一套塑造他们去面对人、事物、和大自然的意义。同样，每一世代相对地让世界以一个为他们独特的方式揭示自己。

从以上的反思我们可以明白到时间的三个境况?过去、现在和将来是彼此内在于其中的，因而构成了人存在的此时此刻。

在承先启后的同时，我们赋予目前一个超乎此时此地的意义，这使我们的存在和行动立时变得救赎性和再造性。几时我们为将来而收集和保存过去的真实可能性，那就是救赎几时我们因此而为将来天人合人的完满揭示而铺路，那就是再造。几时我们能将过去、现在和将来彼此内在的态度生活出来，那就是其实活出历史。

在这意义下，活出历史同时是宿命的和自由的。宿命是因为我们所承受的都不是出于我们，而是先决的。自由是因为我们所选择我们所承受的。同样道理，为团体亦是真确的。在策划将来的同时，我们必须依赖过去所注定的可能性。在命运与目的地之间所铺切的，就是十字架苦路。

不真实的活出历史

不真实的活出历史可以是涉及过去、现在和将来方面，可以是不真实的。通常很多人在其中一方面不真实。

在没有忠于将来方面，可以是否认或绝对化将来。无论谁否认将来，乃因害怕死亡。人尝试将自己囚禁在此时此地，以逃出死亡的视野。这类人的生活格言是：「今朝有酒今朝醉」，这是自己对后人所负责任的否认。因为他没有接纳死亡作为自己对人类团体的切实交付，却把死亡委托给潜意识作为那不知名的「他们」的部份命运。这末世性张力失去的后果是个人无能力去创造性地干预历史。

忘记将来很多时是与唯灵论同时存在的。当生命的终极目标被视为不沾人间烟火的极乐世界，灵魂在那里可以享见那同样是不取肉身的神时，那便是唯灵论。唯灵论的一个直接后果是对物质世界以及一切与物质相关的，如肉体、性、婚姻和大地的贬抑。更甚者，就是这天堂一旦达到，文化和历史便被贬为必须超越的罪恶，必须折取的支架。还有，整个创造为天主子女的释放而发出的痛苦呻吟就是沮丧。纵使在今天，这种天神主义仍孕育了主导不少基督徒思想的「灵修」。

在没有忠于过去方面，人同时可以设想两个相对的立场，两者都引致不同的不真实存在形式。第一种包涵在文化失忆内，例如：忘记过去对于出生、童年、低下出身等损伤性经验的反应，或受一个外来文化殖民于脑海的回应。无论是什么成因，后果为个体或团体都是破坏性的。因为没有过去，就没有将来的酝酿，亦没有一个有意义的现在。几时一脉相承的过去被切断，创造力便自然凋谢。这解释了印度的基督徒为什么在文学、戏曲、绘画、音乐、雕塑方面没有生育。与他们的过去切断后，他们失去一个不意识的神话和标记水库，没有这水库、美的创作和意义的感性表达都无可能。

对过去的否定很多时引发它的对立?对过去的崇拜，它的表达形式是其要主义或复古主义。两者都视过去为神人的最高揭示，传统中每个因素都视为天主的默感，因此是万古常有的真理。奇怪的是，对过去的崇拜实际上是对过去的否定，因为过去的不准成为过去，已死的不让成为死去，反被树立为永恒的真理。在讨价还价中，稚气主义支配了大局，眼前的真实挑战则被忽略。这是否香港基督徒的真实情况？

脱离过去或将来的一个无可避免后果，就是对现在的疏远。那里有过去和将来受到光荣，目前则为了反刍这光荣的过去或梦想、虚幻的极乐将来而筋疲力倦。保守主义和将来主义都使现在失去历史的本质。另一个使现在变成不真实的情况是把它绝对化。这情况的发生是过去和将来都被分割，个体或团体只顾现在，并将自己囚在其中，断绝与回忆和希望的关连。目前的一刻成为终结，它的价值在于它能否给予快乐。人的存在因此化为一连串无相关的经验，有些是快乐的，有些是烦恼的。这种存在与意识裂成碎片的结果，在资本主义这形式下成为一种普遍性现象。一方面，它摧毁传统文化，另一方面，为将焦点放在即时的消费而牺牲了人类整体将来的福祉。这是否再次是香港目前的真实情况？

从历史反思到历史学

钩画出有系统的活出历史怎样构成人类个体或集体的存在后，我们现在可以瞭解历史学，或历史科学。「每门科学都是由主题整理所构成」。主题整理的意思是便一些隐含地意会的东西变得有条理。历史学整理的主题是一个民族的历史生活。它的角色是展示一个民族怎样对将来寄以希望，怎样吸取过去的资料，以及怎样创作性地活出目前的一刻。这有别于发掘普遍的历史进程定律或描述和按序接连过去的事件。

但为什么要展示前人的历史生活？因为无论是个体和团体，为活出将来，每个人都须要承受前人的传统，好去满全目前的使命。每个人借助自己的历史本质不意识地进行的，历史学家则依循方法有系统地去进行。但他进行时，必须是团体一份子和代表着整个团体。团体透过他才能返回前人的世代，在那里前人曾活出将来，为使他们刻在声音、木器和石器的财富传下去。

因此，历史学家是深深投入他所尝试展示的内容中。在展示一个民族的生活时，他承受的遗产就如一笔可观的可能性，这些可能性将会形成他的团体的存在策划，意即历史学家是他将要阐释的历史的一部份。换句话说，在阐释历史时，他同时在创造历史。在这过程中，没有主体和客体的分别，而是一个无所不容的原始整体。这点就是历史学与自然科学的分野，自然科学家经常与他的研究对象是保持中立的。

由历史学到预言

我们在活出历史和历史学里发现的过去、现在和将来的三合一结构，也适合用来介定预言。先知就是那些见证人类将来和盼望它来临的人。希伯来先知以新天新地去形容那将来，在那里豺狼与黑羊同饲。耶稣则以天国，佛教则以达摩规条，传统宗教则以上天去形容。在先知性的神视中，将来被视为圆满的来临和过去的复兴。这观念的背后指出，历史不一定是一个向着人类圆满境况进发的进程，在多方面亦是一个从起初圆满境况的倒退和自我疏远。一个清楚的例子就是耶稣有关梅瑟离婚法律的宣讲。耶稣反对离婚是因为希伯来人的绝对性，以及在起初，在创世的时候，天主造了男女，男女因此结合成为一体。其实，在人类过去任何重大突破的根源，人都可以尝试在其中重新发现一些在起初已有的事物。为盼望将来与复兴过去，先知批判性地和创造性地生活于目前。因此，耶稣这位最伟大的先知，不单无情地批判他当时的宗教和杜会，同时也开展了一个反文化和反团体。

基督徒在历史的临在

作为「耶稣的同伴」，如果说基督徒的使命就是继续祂在历史中的先知性干预，相信无人会争辩。但先知性的意思就历史性的完整意义，即为渴望将来的实现，我们从过去中吸取可能性、引导进入一个「新世界」，同时亦指出大地的更原始面貌。

为能满全这使命，教会领袖应撕去困着他们大多数的不真实的活出历史方式。主要不真实的方式是天神主义、文化失忆和工作主义。

天神主义将灵魂的得救投射为生命的终极目标，它的显着面就是对物质世界的轻视。这看法背后的灵魂肉身二元论源于希腊文化，为耶稣原本的传统是陌生的。在希伯来人心目中，灵魂就是肉身的内向幅度。由于这一体的观念被遗忘，因而引致「灵修学」的扩散。在宣讲救灵魂的同时，「灵修学」意味大地的厄运。我们今日所面对的生态危机便证明了这点，对精神事物的寻求合法化了对地球侵略性的开发。苍天和大地因此被非圣神化，目前的挑战就是扭转这潮流，以及重新发掘大地的神性。这需要与那些在犹太?基督宗教传统中，从先知时代已被指与信仰不符的古代生殖力崇拜交谈。

文化失忆是过往曾受殖民地统治的基督徒的命运。作为一个基督徒，意即将自己接在一颗仍未扎根在中国土壤的快乐树上。基督徒一如其他中国人是大地的儿女，这是真的。但分别在于中国人将承自大地的看作自己的财富，基督徒则否定，以及将之与自己的信仰分割。就如乌龟一样，普遍的基督徒将自己囚禁在信仰和教义的硬壳里，导致对过去的呼声无动于衷。或许为很多由或基督徒领袖来说，这点是真实的。虽然他们也尝试信仰本地化，但他们只将中国的过去看成研究的对象。若没有了他们的声音，过去不能说话；若不是在他们内并透过他们，过去不能成为一个「主体」。

天神主义和文化失忆的后果就是一个缺乏意义和创造性张力的目前。对目前疏远的形式是因循主义和工作主义，前者注视过去，后者则注视将来。因循主义的特色，显露在教会机构的工作人员必须符合那循环不息的活动、礼仪和庆节上。在因循主义支配的地方，人开始和结东的位置经常一样。后果是完全失去所有的独特性，此时此刻除了沉闷外别无其他。有别于文化失忆，工作主义的来源是比较近期的。这是工业科技杜会送给教会的礼物。这不是简单的疾病，而是一个有不同表达形式的复杂综合病症。教会中的工作主义者只埋首于器材，他们渴望成果并希望即时得到，他们不顾天国和它的光荣，也不需要过去的激励，因为救恩只来自此时此地可见的成果。成果的生产就是技巧的问题，因而造成对最新心理学，仿宗教、辅导、安慰、沟通、管理、驱魔和分辨神恩等技巧的疯狂追寻。由于非常害怕自己的技巧落后或自己落伍，他们定期到外国参与进修或更新课程。一如他们在工业界上的版本，工作型的教会领袖尖锐地意识到时间的价值。他们瞭解到时间不单是金钱，对天主和人亦很有帮助。他们毫无疑问是忙碌的，为众多的约会而东奔西走。在个别事件的劳役下，他们的过的生活只是工具而无目标，只有专家而无智慧。这是否香港基督徒领袖的缩影，他们正带领天主子民面对一个从马槽开始，在十字架上结束的将来。

by Teotonio R. de Souza, S. J.

HISTORIOLOGY AS PROPHECY

In what way can a historian help the Church in Hong Kong to plan and prepare itself for its future? History is commonly understood as a past-oriented exercise, and as such it would seem to have little to offer in reference to a topic that is future-oriented, namely, small faith communities and the future of the Church in Hong Kong.

The relevance of history in this matter lies in its prophetic role, implied in what I would like to call "authentic historizing". Once this is established, the credibility of a historian to help in a consideration of this topic may appear less questionable, even essential.

History is generally taken to mean the story of the significant events－economic, political, cultural－in the life of a people. The sequence of events goes to form an objective process, and it is up to the historian to identify and formulate its internal laws of motion. Underlying this conception is a quantitative notion of time with its mutually exclusive moments of past, present and future. Of these three moments, the past is set up as the specific object of the science of history. Time, in this perspective, is homogeneous and is the common element in which all beings from inorganic things to humans have their beginning and their end. This way of viewing time and history has its own level of truth but fails to reveal the essence of history as a human phenomenon. Deeper reflection will show that time and history are grounded in the kind of being which human beings have and are. In what follows I shall try to show that the historical is constitutive of human existence and how it dovetails with prophetic vision and hope. In doing so, I shall draw largely on the seminal reflections of Sebastian Kappen, or more originally of Martin Heidegger, though on many issues my line of thinking will be found deviating from both.

Temporality as the Ground of the Historical

All sub-human beings, whether organic or inorganic, have a certain completeness in themselves. They are what they are at any given moment and nothing more. Not so human beings. These are essentially more than what they actually are. In this sense human beings alone ex-ist, that is, stand outside and ahead of themselves, in the not-yet. Living from the future is to be understood, not psychologically in the sense of longing for some definite state of being, but ontologically as constitutive of humanness itself. What is the point of arrival of this tending ahead? Death? In a fundamental sense, yes. For with death humans find their outer limit in non-being. But death is not negativity pure and simple. It is not merely passion but also action. It is the act of surrendering all one has to the generations yet to come. It is that definitive act of tradition (from the Latin verb tradere which means "to hand over") which ensures the continuity of history.

But if death is the final act of tradition, it is because life itself is a handing over and a handing down . For no sooner are human beings born than they start dying, hanging down the power and the glory and the shame that was theirs. Every deed done, every word uttered, goes to swell the planetary stream of life for good or for bad.

What is true of the individual is true of the community as well. What it has received from the generations gone by it hands down to the generations to come. For the community, too, to live is to die, and to die is to give itself away, thus constituting the flux of history. Now the question we raised earlier crops up again: What is that to which the human community is tending? The answer can come not from reason but only from hope. And hope will say that the human caravan has for its goal theandric plenitude, the full revelation of the Divine in the full revelation of the human. But theandric fullness can be the future of the human community only if it gathers into itself the past, individual as well as collective.

Seen from this angle, every individual exists as a project, as a structured whole of possibilities, whose ultimate realization merges with the absolute future of mankind. But whence do individuals draw the possibilities that await maturation in the future? From the heritage they were born with. Human existence stretches between two finitudes, birth and death. But just as, by handing down what has been accomplished to coming generations, one transcends the finitude of death, so too, by appropriating the heritage handed down, one transcends the retrospective finitude of birth. In drawing upon the possibilities handed down, one also accepts the limitations accompanying one's birth in a particular family, in a particular community, at a particular historical juncture. These possibilities and limitations are anterior to any choice on our part and go to make up our fate as individuals and our destiny as a collectivity.

Living from the future and talking over the heritage of the past, we comport ourselves in the present. The possibilities of the past are never taken over just as they are found but are subjected to a critique. That is why each generation has its own "world", understood as the structure of meanings that mould our dealings with the environment of humans, implements, and nature. Correspondingly, each generation lets the earth reveal itself in a way unique to it.

It follows from these reflections that the three ecstasies of time－past, present, and future－are immanent in one another thus constitute the temporality of human existence.

Where we live from the future and draw upon the heritage of the times gone by, we invest the present with a meaning that overflows the bounds of the here-and-now and renders our being and acting at once redemptive and re-creative: redemptive, in so far as we gather into, and save for, the future the authentic possibilities of the past; re-creative, in so far as we thus prepare the way for the full revelation of the human and the Divine. To live out in this manner the reciprocal immanence of the future, the past, and the present is to historize authentically.

Historizing in this sense is at once fateful and free: fateful, because the possibilities we take over are not of our own making but pre-given; free, because we choose what we have inherited. This holds true of the community as well. In projecting a future, a community has to rely on the possibilities the past has destined. Between the destiny and the destination (the realm of freedom) lies the way of the Cross.

Fall from Authentic Historizing

Historizing can be inauthentic in relation to the future, the past or the present. And most people most of the time are inauthentic in one way or another.

One can be inauthentic in relation to the future either by denying it or absolutizing it. Whoever denies the future does so for fear of death. One tries to flee from the prospect of death by imprisoning oneself in the here-and-now. Such a one lives by the motto, "Eat, drink and make merry, for tomorrow we die". This is to disown one's responsibility to future generations. For, instead of accepting death as the definitive handing over of oneself to the human community, one consigns it to the subconscious as part of the fate of the anonymous "they". The resulting loss of eschatological tension renders the person incapable of creative intervention in history.

Forgetfulness of the future often coexists with its spiritualization. This happens when the ultimate goal of life is conceived as an overworld of disincarnate souls enjoying the beatific vision of an equally unfleshed divinity. A direct consequence of this is the devaluation of matter and all that is connected with it－body, sex, marriage and the earth. What is more, civilization and history are debased to the level of a necessary evil to be transcended, a scaffolding to be dismantled, once the heaven above is reached. And creation's groaning in travail for the liberation of the children of God is frustrated. Angelism of this kind is what gave birth to the kind of "spirituality" that rules the hearts and minds of most Christians even today.

In regard to the past, too, one can assume two contrary stances, each leading to its own form of inauthentic existence. The first consists in cultural amnesia, i.e. forgetfulness of the past in reaction to the traumatic experiences associated with one's birth, early childhood or lowly social origins, or in response to the colonization of one's mind by an alien culture. Whatever be the cause, the consequences are ruinous to the individual and the community. For without the past there is no incubation of the future nor any meaningful presence in the here-and-now. Where the umbilical bond with the past has been severed, creativity withers away. This explains the sterility of, for example, Indian Christians in the field of literature, drama, painting, music, sculpture, and so on. Shorn of their past, they have no unconscious reservoir of myths and symbols, without which no creation of the beautiful, no sensuous revelation of meaning, is possible.

Negation of the past often provokes its own opposite, namely cult of the past, which, in turn, manifests itself either as fundamentalism or as revivalism. Both look to the past for the supreme revelation of the human and the Divine. Every element of tradition is seen as divinely inspired and, for that reason, valid for all times. Curiously, the cult of the past is, in effect, the negation of the past. For, the past is not allowed to be past, the dead is not left to remain dead but set up as eternally valid. Into the bargain, the real challenges of the present are ignored and collective infantilism holds sway. True of the situation of Hong Kong Christians?

An inevitable consequence of the alienation of the past and the future is the estrangement of the present. Where the past and the future are glorified, the present exhausts itself either in chewing the cud of "one's glorious past" or in dreaming up some illusory bliss yet to come. Both conservatism and futurism dehistoricize the present.

Another way of rendering the present inauthentic is to absolutize it: the past and the future are repudiated and the individual or the community falls back on the present and encases itself in it. Delinked from memory and hope, the present becomes an end in itself and is valued in terms of the pleasure it can give. Human existence is thus reduced to a series of disparate experiences, some pleasing, others annoying. The resulting fragmentation of being and consciousness has become a universal phenomenon under capitalism which, on the one hand, destroys traditional cultures and, on the other, focuses on immediate consumption at the cost of humankind's global, future well-being. Again true of present-day Hong Kong?

From Historizing to Historiology

Having delineated the structured movement of historizing as constitutive of human existence, individual as well as collective, we are in a position to understand the nature of historiology or the science of history. "Every science is constituted by thematizing." To thematize means to render explicit what we are implicitly aware of. What historiology thematizes is the historizing of a people. Its role is to disclose the manner in which a people, placing their hope in the future, draws upon the resources of the past and creatively lives out the here-and-now. This is something different from either discovering the universal laws of motion of history or describing and serializing past events.

But why disclose the historizing of individuals and communities that are no more? Because to be in the future, one's own and that of the community, demands that each one of us human beings appropriate the traditions of our forbearers in order to fulfill our task in the present. What we each do unreflectively in virtue of our historical essence, the historian does methodically and systematically. But he does so as one sharing his being with, and representing, the community. Through him the community reaches back to the past generations who in their day reached out to the future in order to hand down the wealth of what they had wrought in sound, wood and stone.

It follows, then, that the historian is deeply involved in what he is trying to disclose. In disclosing the life of a people, he is appropriating his legacy as a sum of possibilities, which will go to shape his and his community's existential project. This means that the historian is part of the history, he is making it. Here the familiar distinction between subject and object breaks down in favour of an encompassing primordial unity. This is what distinguishes historiology from the natural sciences where the scientist remains neutral (?) to the object of his research.

From Historiology to Prophecy

The triune structure we have discerned in historizing and historiology also defines prophecy. The prophet is one who bears witness to the absolute future of humankind and places his hope in its coming. The Hebrew prophets spoke of that future in terms of the new heaven and the new earth where wolf and lamb shall feed together; Jesus, in terms of the kingdom of God; the Buddha, in terms of the rule of dharma', and traditional religion, in terms of the heaven above.

In the prophetic vision, the future envisaged is also the fulfillment and recovery of the past. Underlying this is the conception that history is not necessarily a progression to ever more perfect modes of human existence but is in many respects a regression and self-estrangement from an original state of wholeness and fullness. A clear instance is Jesus' pronouncement concerning the Mosaic law of divorce that it was made because of the obtuseness of the Hebrews and that "in the beginning, at creation", God had made humans male and female so that they might join together and become one flesh. In fact, at the root of every significant break-through made by humankind in the past, one can find an attempt to recover some state of affairs that obtained "in the beginning". Anticipating the future and recovering the past, the prophet lives the present critically and creatively. Thus Jesus, the prophet par excellence, not only ruthlessly criticized the religion and society of his day but also initiated a counter-culture and a counter-community.

Christian Presence in History

None would contest that, as a follower or "companion" of Jesus, the mission of a Christian is to continue his prophetic intervention in history. But to be prophetic is to be historical in the fullest sense of the term, that is, so to live from the future hoped for that we, drawing upon the possibilities of the past, help usher in a new "world" and bring about a more primordial revelation of the earth.

But in order to be able to fulfill this task, Christians must tear themselves away from the inauthentic forms of historizing in which so many of them are caught up. Chief among such inauthentic forms are angelism, cultural amnesia, and activism.

Angelism, which projects the salvation of the soul as the ultimate goal of life, has for its obverse side the devaluation of matter and of everything material. The underlying dualism of matter and soul is foreign to the original Jesus tradition and is of Hellenistic provenance. To the Hebrew mind, the soul was nothing more than the dimension of inwardness specific to the human body. It is forgetfulness of this holistic conception of the human that led to the proliferation of "spiritualities". While claiming to save the soul, "spirituality" spells doom for the earth. This is bore out by the ecological crisis we are facing today. The pursuit of matters spiritual served to legitimize the aggressive exploitation of the earth as factor of production. The earth and the heaven were thus desacralized and disenchanted. Now the challenge is to reverse this trend and rediscover the divinity of the earth. This calls for dialogue with the fertility cults of old, which the Judeo-Christian tradition has, from the time of the prophets, denounced as incompatible with true faith.

Cultural amnesia has been the lot of Christians in all former colonies. Being a Christian means to have had one's being grafted on to an exotic tree which has not yet struck deep roots in the native soil. True, Christians are as much sons and daughters of the earth as others of the same land. But, whereas the latter make their own the treasures the earth has handed down, the former disown and repudiate them as contrary to their faith. Tortoise-wise, the average Christian imprisons himself in encrusted beliefs and dogmas which makes him immune to the voice of the past. Perhaps this also holds true of many Chinese ecclesiastical leaders, despite their attempts at inculturation? Do they relate to their Chinese past only as an object of study? The past does not speak through their voice, becoming a "subject" in and through them.

The end-result of angelism and cultural amnesia is a present devoid of meaning and creative tension. The estrangement of the present takes the form of cyclicism or activism. The first looks back to the past; the second to the future. Cyclicism characterizes the life of church people working in institutions where they have to conform to the ever recurring cycle of functions, rites, and festivals. Where it holds sway, one always ends where one began, and begins where one ended. Emptied of all uniqueness, the here-and-now offers nothing but boredom.

Unlike cultural amnesia, activism is of comparatively recent origin. It is the industrial-technocratic society's gift to religion. It is not so much a single malaise as a complex syndrome with varied manifestations. The activist ecclesiastic takes after the machine. He wants results and wants them immediately. The Kingdom and its glory begin to take second place. So. too, do promptings of the past. Salvation comes in the here-and-now in the form of tangible results. And producing results is a matter of technique. Hence the frantic search for ever new techniques, psychological as well as para-religious: techniques of counselling and consoling, techniques of communicating and commanding, techniques of conjuring up and monitoring charisms. Mortally afraid of his techniques becoming obsolete and himself among with it, he must at regular intervals go abroad to the Meccas of technicized religion for updating sessions and refresher courses. Like his industrial counterpart, the activist Church leader is acutely aware of the value of time. He knows that time is not only money but also favour with God and man. No wonder he is always busy, hopping from appointment to appointment. Tyrannized by the particular, he lives a life of means and no ends, of expertise and no wisdom. Can such an activist be a leader for the ordinary Christian of Hong Kong, who has to prepare for a future that may begin in a mangerand end on the Cross!

by Herman Hendrickx, C. I. C.M.

MARK'S COMMUNITY

I. The setting of Mark's Gospel

1. When and Where ?

A considerable number of scholars have held that Mark's Gospel was written for predominantly Gentile Christians at Rome shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans in 70 A. D. and in the aftermath of Nero's persecution.(1) But a growing number of scholars propose that the Gospel was composed in or near northern Palestine (Galilee - Syria) around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

The manner in which Mark writes about Galilee, and the way he describes Galilee as the place of Jesus' activity, and other data within the Gospel appear to indicate that, for the Markan community, Galilee, and perhaps the sea of Galilee, had special significance. The Markan Gospel summons Christians to the land of Galilee, where the risen Lord will soon return. Galilee becomes a Christian Holy Land (Willi Marxsen).(2)

Mark was probably written in close chronological proximity to the first Jewish revolt, in all likelihood before it came to an end with the capture of the city and the destruction of the temple.(3)

2. The Socio-Economic, Political Situation

Palestine, and in a special way Galilee, was an occupied country. Herod the Great was permitted to be king of the Jewish people under the auspices of Rome. However, he was not accepable to many Jews, partly because of his non-Jewish ancestry and partly because of his cruelty and his oppressive taxation. When he died, in 4 B. C., revolts occurred and continued sporadically until the outbreak of war in 66 A. D.

In addition to trouble during and after the reign of Herod the Great, there were other causes of unrest. The main ones were:

(1)occupation by foreign troops;

(2)class conflicts, which included anticlericalism;

(3)social banditry;

(4)religious fanaticism and the concept of God as a divine warrior;

(5)revolutionary prophets and messianic pretenders;

(6)misconduct on the part of Roman officials;

(7)strife between the various factions of Jewish revolutionaries;

(8)taxation, both by the Romans and by Herod and his successors;

(9)the bitter hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans.(4)　

The Latinisms found in Mark, often referred to in support of the Roman hypothesis, indicate rather the expected linguistic penetration in the socio-economic and administrative spheres of the colonized culture of Palestine. A socio-political description must, then, focus upon conditions in agrarian Palestine, which were very different from those in urban Hellenism.(5)

In Palestine, the majority of an estimated population of seven hundred and fifty thousand was peasant. A very small independent artisan and bureaucratic class, and a tiny aristocracy, made up less than one-half of one percent. The local ruling class after Herod was increasingly urban-based, and tended to accommodate the colonial forces culturally and economically. The rural peasantry on the other hand experienced hellenization as further economic marginalization and cultural isolation, especially in Galilee. The main socio-economic conflict was the economic threat to the traditional agrarian way of life posed by the urban oligarchy, due to the economic vulnerability of small landholders and tenant workers.(6)

For the Galilean peasantry, the perennial burden of the imperial tribute, the social pressure of the nearby Hellenistic cities, and the repeated experience of retribution at the hands of Roman legions, would have been more than enough to sow deep-seated alienation. At the same time there would have been a natural class alienation from the native aristocracy, whom the peasant saw not as leader but as collaborator and landlord. This double antipathy could have translated into solidarity with the local social bandits and subsequently the Zealots, and for many it did, but the evidence indicates that this was a minority. We know, for example, that in Galilee the organized insurrection collapsed early, and that Josephus complained bitterly of the difficulties of trying to organize resistance there.

What if a prophet arose who advocated a strategy that disdained the collaborationist aristocracy and Romans equally, and who repudiated Qumranite withdrawal and Pharisaic activism on the grounds that neither addressed the roots of oppression in the dominant symbolic order? We know that uneducated peasants, largely unable to articulate their dissatisfaction, often looked to those able to express in popular discourse a populist vision. It is not difficult to imagine such a prophet invoking the Deuteronomist vision of a just redistributive system, and appealing to the subversive tradition of the great prophetic social critics of Israel. A pedagogy could have been developed to help the peasants unmask the oppressive economic self-interest of the Jerusalem leaders. There is no a priori reason why an alternative to the reformists and rebels could not have been proposed that addressed peasant grievances more concretely. And although it would have been remarkable, it cannot be ruled out that such a prophet might have taken the logic of solidarity among the poor so far as to challenge the artificial gulf that kept the oppressed Jew and Gentile segregated.

There was ample social, economic, political, and cultural justification for a strategy that delegitimized both the Roman presence and the authority of the Jewish aristocracy as it was embedded in the debt and purity systems and reinforced in the temple cult and the dominant interpretation of the Torah. We can only conclude, without further evidence, that the determinate social formation of Palestine in the 60s A. D. produced conditions which render such an "alienative, confrontative and nonaligned" ideology hypothetically plausible. If such an outlook manifested itself as literature which we know to have come from this period, this should be accepted as concrete evidence for a unique social movement which must be evaluated on its own terms.

Mark's Gospel may be such a document, articulating a grassroots social discourse which is at once subversive and constructive. This document was probably written during the Roman reoccupation of Galilee, between the first (66-67 A. D.) and the second (69-70 A. D.) Roman sieges of Jerusalem. The immediate and specific issue occasioning the Gospel was the challenge of rebel recruiters in Galilee, who were trying to drum up support for the resistance around Palestine, and no doubt demanding that Mark's community "choose sides." Though sympathetic to the socio-economic and political grievances of the rebels, Mark was compelled to repudiate their call to a defence of Jerusalem. This was because, according to his understanding of the teaching and practice of a Nazarene prophet, executed by Rome some thirty-five years earlier, the means (military) and ends (restorationist) of the "liberation" struggle were fundamentally counterrevolutionary.(7)

Mark's concern is not only liberation from the specific structures of oppression embedded in the dominant social order of Roman Palestine; it also includes the spirit and practice of domination ultimately embedded in the human personality and corporately in human history as a whole. The struggle against the powers and the individual and the collective will to dominate, is articulated over and over again in different ways throughout the story. This strategy of repetition represents an apocalyptic characteristic of the Gospel: the narrative device of "recapitulation." First in his miracle stories and again in a cycle of visions, Daniel dramatized a single point: the imperative and possibility of resistance to the Seleucid state. So too does Mark restate the discipleship of the cross in a variety of ways. His focus upon the cross set him against those who used apocalyptic symbols to legitimate a militant practice of "holy war" against their enemies. By anchoring the story of discipleship firmly in the lived world of his audience, he stood against those who used heavenly visions to legitimate a withdrawal from political struggle into gnostic communities.(8)

1.Cf. Frank J. Matera, What Are They Saying About Mark? (New York: Paulist Press, 1987)7-11.

2.Ibidem, 11-12.

3.Howard C. Kee, Community of the New Age. Studies in Mark's Gospel (London: SCM Press, 1977) 100.

4.J. Massyngbaerde Ford, My Enemy is My Guest (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1984) 2-12, 65-95.

5.Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man. A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1988) 41.

6.Ibidem, 50-51.

7.Ibidem, 85-87.

8.Ibidem, 103-104.

II. The Community of Disciples in Mark

To ask about Mark's understanding of discipleship in community is to speak about Mark's understanding of the church. However, this task is made difficult by the absence in Mark of specifically ecclesiological language. Unlike Matthew (Mt 16:18; 18:17) and Luke (in Acts 8:1; 9:31, for example), Mark never uses the term ekklesia and lacks the kind of incipient picture of church office which Matthew gives in the story of Peter (esp. Mt 16:18-20) or Luke in the depiction of the authority of apostles (Acts 1:26; 2:42; 4:37).

However, there is one set of related terms which Mark shares with other parts of the New Testament and which were used very early by the church to describe itself: the language associated with household and family. Recent studies have shown the importance of this language for understanding both the theology and social setting of an important early Christian community. There has also been a resurgence in New Testament studies dealing with early Christian "house churches." In the following we select four passages in Mark where household language becomes a prism through which we can see different shades of his understanding of discipleship as life in community.(9)

1. Mk 3:20-35: The True Family of Jesus

This rather complex section of Mark consists of:

a.an attempt by those of Jesus' company (hoi par' autou) to restrain him because they think he is "beside himself (Mk 3:20-21);

b.a charge by scribes from Jerusalem that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebul, along with Jesus' response to them in the parables of the divided house and the divided kingdom and his pronouncement that the sin against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin (Mk 3:22-30);

c.a statement by Jesus on who constitutes his true family (Mk 3:31-35).

What unites the section is the location of all three incidents in the house mentioned in Mk 3:20, as well as the use of household and family imagery (Mk 3:25, 32, 34-35). The whole section also uses the technique of intercalation: a narrative is begun (Mk 3:20-21), interrupted by another narrative (Mk 3:23-30) and then resumed (Mk 3:31-35), so that the two narratives interpret one another.(10)

The Jesus who is thought by his family or close associates to be out of his mind and by his opponents to be possessed is actually the strong one. From Mk 1:7 the reader knows that Jesus is "the stronger one" predicted by John, and the early exorcisms (esp. Mk 1:21-28) depict Jesus as one who despoils the kingdom of Satan. This same Jesus, as master of an undivided household, can determine who will be the true members of his family. Thus the intercalation of the two narratives functions in the service of Christology and discipleship. What concerns us most is the response which comes during the third incident, when the mother and brothers of Jesus are outside and "seek" him (zetousin), a term which in Mark generally has a pejorative connotation (Mk 3:32; cf. 1:37; 11:18; 12:12). When the crowd informs Jesus that his family is calling to him and seeking him, he replies, "And who are my mother and brothers?" He then turns to the crowd sitting around him (the standard position for disciples listening to a teacher) and says: "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother" (Mk 3:34b-35).

An initial entree to the significance of this text is provided by the context of the whole section, Mk 3:13-6:6, beginning and ending with the choosing and the sending of the Twelve respectively. The context and the relation of the saying on the true family to other parts of the Gospel sheds light on its meaning. Jesus is the one who calls those he wishes and his activity precipitates opposition and rejection by his natural family. However, Jesus forms a new family which will be constituted by those whom he explicitly calls (the disciples) as well as those who gathered around him to hear his teaching and are summoned to do the will of God and thus become members of a new family.

At this point the Markan Jesus does not indicate what in the concrete doing the will of God involves. However, later on Mark offers a key to its meaning: in Gethsemane, immediately prior to those events where the divisions which Jesus causes will come to a head in his final rejection by his own people and his abandonment by his disciples. In his agony Jesus prays: "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what you will" (Mk 14:36). Jesus is portrayed here fulfilling the conditions of discipleship which he himself has stated earlier in the gospel. The disciple is to pray to God with faith which believes that God will bring about what is sought (Mk 11:23-24). The disciple is also to become like a child in order to enter the kingdom of God (Mk 10:15). Here Jesus uses the familiar and familial language of a child to a father in addressing God as Abba, and as one to whom all things are possible. However the radical disposition of Jesus is to accept the will of God, even while praying that it could be otherwise. Therefore, "doing the will of God" (in Mk 3:34) and becoming a member of Jesus' family is in its most radical sense being willing like Jesus to accept even suffering and rejection as being willed by God. It is this which Peter fails to do in Mk 8:32, when Jesus characterizes him as "thinking human thoughts", not "the thoughts of God" (Mk 8:33). Solidarity with Jesus makes of one a brother, sister or mother to Jesus, who himself is truly Son of God when he can address his father in faith and trust before his impending cross. Such solidarity also involves membership in a new human family. This perspective emerges most clearly in the next text we will discuss.

2. Mk 10:29-31: The New Family

The interrelationship of household and family language, discipleship and suffering, brings us to the second major text of Mark which sheds light on his understanding of community. In response to the statement of Peter, "Look, we have left everything and followed you," Jesus says:

Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life (Mk 10:29-30).

As in the case of Mk 3:31-35, this text must first be consider in its larger context before its importance to the whole Gospe1 can be assessed.

The overriding context of this passage is the great middle section of Mark, the transition between the Galilean ministry and the Jerusalem Passion (Mk 8:22-10:52). This section is structured geographically around references to Jesus being "on the way" (Mk 8:27; 9:33; 10:32). This phrase suggests both the way of Jesus to suffering and death and the way of discipleship which he will teach during this journey to Jerusalem. The section mostly deals with Jesus instructing his disciples. Furthermore, the whole section is bracketed by two stories of Jesus healing blind men (Mk 8:22-26; 10:46-52), the latter of whom tries to follow Jesus on the way (Mk 10:52). All of this suggests that Jesus is engaged in giving insight to blind disciples.(11)

The section is also structured around three passion predictions of Jesus (Mk8:31;9:31;10:33), followed by three misunderstandings on the part of the disciples, which evoke further instruction by Jesus.

Despite the fact that many commentators hold that the overarching theme of this whole section is the necessity of suffering and the failure of the disciples to understand the message of the cross, it is actually only after the first passion prediction that Jesus gives any extended instruction on the necessity of taking up one's cross to become his follower (Mk8:34-38).

After the second and third passion predictions the instructions are much more about the demands of a life of service or diakonia in contrast to the squabbles of the disciples over positions of prestige. In fact the whole material between the second passion prediction and the final words of Jesus in the section is bracketed between two sayings on such service, both addressed to the twelve and both capturing an essential component of discipleship in community for Mark:

If anyone wants to be first of all, let that one be last of all and servant (diakonos) of all (Mk 9:33). Whoever wishes to be great among you, let that one be your servant (diakonos) and whoever wishes to be first among you, let that one be the slave of all (Mk 10:43-44).

Therefore, the imagery of household service (diakonia) is to characterize the way of discipleship.

The proximate context of Mk 10:29-31 is at the conclusion of a long instruction on discipleship which follows the second passion prediction. It has been noted that, especially in Mk 10, Mark has incorporated much traditional material which deals with the kinds of social concern manifest in other first century religious communities, e.g., questions of marriage and children, wealth and riches, rank and order in the community.

The immediate context of the saying under consideration is the private instruction Jesus gives his disciples after the pericope of the rich young man (Mk 10:17-31). The one who leaves many possessions will have these a hundredfold and will also receive that eternal life which the rich man sought by observing the law.

Leaving family and home to follow Jesus is a well established part of the tradition of the sayings of Jesus. But in Mk 10:29-31 we find interesting variations of the motif.

First, Mark is alone in joining to the command to leave one's family the promise of a new family described as the hundredfold "now in this time (kairos)". Matthew, who follows Mark closely at this point, simply says that such people will receive a hundredfold (Mt 19:29), and Luke states simply that they will receive "manifold more" (Lk 18:30). While all three evangelists promise eternal life, only Mark states that the family which has been left behind will be replaced by a new family. The hundredfold, which the Markan reader knows from Mk 4:20 is the fruit of hearing and doing the word of God, is a new family based not on natural kinship but on the power of God. Such language should not be considered merely as a metaphor, since in the early church the sense of community was expressed in familial language. Paul speaks of Onesimus as his child (Philemon 10) and tells the Corinthians that he became their father through the gospel (1 Cor 4:15). He compares his work among the Thessalonians to a nurse caring for children (1 Thess 2:7), and calls the mother of Rufus his mother (Rom 16:13).

Second, while the second part of the saying, the description of the new family, parallels the first part in virtually every detail, there is a significant omission. Though the disciple is said to leave "home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children ...", the disciple will receive "homes and brothers and sisters and mothers and children." Expected but omitted is the reception of a new father. Possible explanations for this would be that for Mark the only father is God, whom both the Christian community and Jesus are to address as such in prayer (Mk 11:25; 14:36). Equally possible is that the Markan version of the statement embodies an "anti-patriarchal" stance and indicates the radically egalitarian nature of the Markan community, a perspective which is in tune with the general context of Mk 9:30-10:45.(12) Mark's community is one where people are to be last of all and servants of all (Mk 9:35; 10:42-45), where children, who often symbolize the powerless, are to be accepted and embraced (Mk 9:36; 10:13-16), where husbands and wives cannot treat each other as property to be discarded (Mk 10:1-12), and where wealth and the social divisions it causes make it virtually impossible to enter the kingdom (Mk 10:17-27). Mark's new family is to be characterized by the renunciation of dominating power and by mutual service.

Third, the final element of this saying which evokes comment is the curious addition of "with persecutions" to the new family. In form the phrase breaks the rhythmic parallelism of the verse and in content it relativizes the reward of the new family. One rather convincing explanation is that Mark wants to convey that one who leaves family for Jesus' sake and for the sake of the gospel will necessarily be involved in following the way of the cross. Another intriguing explanation is offered by the literary analysis which views the addition as an ironic joke. The reader is said to be caught up in the prospect of rewards which far exceed the sacrifice. The addition creates a humorous incongruity which like all jokes debunks our pretensions by suggesting that the final reward (the hundredfold) does not absolve one from engagement with the contingencies of history (persecution).

While both these explanations have much to recommend them and provide an example of a text open to multiple interpretations, we would like to propose a less theological or literary interpretation which reflects the realities of Mark's community. The conjunction of the new family with persecution is in accord with other statements in Mark about family relationships. As we have seen in Mk 3:20-35, it is misunderstanding between Jesus and his natural family which evokes Jesus' statement that the new family is constituted, not by natural ties, but by doing the will of God. In Mk 6:1-6, Jesus is himself rejected by his own kin and household. In Mk 13, which may mirror actual recent experiences of the community, one of the sufferings is that "brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death" (Mk 13:12). For Mark, life in the new community very often involves persecution by the old one.

We would also suggest that this juxtaposition of family and persecution sheds light on the social setting of the Markan community. It has been shown in the case of 1 Peter that household language is a key not only to the ideology of self-definition of a community but to its actual situation." We would stress the positive aspect of this in terms of the internal strength and coherence it gives to the community. Mark's use of household language serves a similar function. It also indicates one of the reasons why the new family may have evoked persecution.

In Mark's time Jewish, Hellenistic and Roman perceptions of family life are quite conservative. Strong family bonds were supported not only by social pressure but by a host of laws governing marriage, inheritance and relation of different members of the natural and extended family. A Christian community which evoked a saying of Jesus to claim that doing the will of God is more important than loyalty to the natural family would naturally provoke suspicion and persecution. It has been suggested that the statement of Tacitus (Annals 15:44), that Christians were persecuted during the time of Nero because of "their hatred of the human race", meant that for Tacitus Christians were a disruptive social phenomenon. Leaving parents, abandoning occupations and the pursuit of wealth, observance of Jesus' teaching on divorce, consideration for children－all these would bring Christians into conflict with the prevailing ethos and values and evoke that kind of suspicion and hatred which meant that the possession of new mothers, brothers and sisters would exist only "with persecution."

3. Mk 10:42-45: A Community of Service

The third text which offers insight into Mark's understanding of discipleship in community comes at the end of the middle section (:22-10:52). After the third passion prediction, the disciples again engage in a dispute over power and precedence; in this case, James and John request positions of authority with Jesus "in your glory" (Mk 10:37). Jesus responds with a counter question asking them whether they are prepared to follow him on the way of suffering. James and John respond that they are and Jesus predicts their future martyrdom, but says that it is not his to grant positions of power and authority but these are for whom such positions are prepared by God (Mk 10: 40). Rather subtly, the Markan Jesus responds to a question about power and glory by starting his own limitation in face of God's plan. This part of the discussion then concludes.

In the second part of the dialogue the other ten are indignant at the request of James and John, manifesting that same concern for power and precedence which appeared in Mk 9:34. Jesus then responds in three sayings which sum up both the ethics and Christology of the whole middle section of Mark. In the first saying (Mk 10:42-43a) Jesus contrasts the expected behavior of his followers with those who are supposed to rule over Gentiles and lord it over them, and with their great men who exercise authority. It shall not be so among Christians. Jesus thus rejects the mode and manner in which power is exercised in the surrounding environment as acceptable in a community of disciples. The second saying describes the way precedence and authority is to exist in the community: "whoever would be great among you must be your servant (diakonos) and whoever would be first among you must be the slave of all" (Mk 10:43b-44).

The use of servant (diakonos) to characterize Christian behavior provides the point of contact between this section and the household / family theme. Though it is used figuratively and even becomes a term for an office in early Christianity (Phil 1:1), diakonos never loses its root meaning of a table servant or household lackey. This Markan perspective of mutuality rather than dominance is in contrast to that of other religious communities of the time. For example, at Qumran there was great concern for precedence and the proper seating of leaders of the community at the communal meals. Paul indicates that one of the problems at Corinth seems to be that important people in the community manifested their power in the way they celebrated the Lord's supper (1 Cor 11:17-34). Mark's image of the community leaders as table servants rather than as those sitting in the places of honour is a clear affront to the social norms of the time and again conveys the radically egalitarian ethos of the Markan community.

The final saying of Jesus in this section, "For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many," picks up this language of table service but extends it to an understanding of his whole life and crystallizes the meaning of suffering which has permeated this section. As the reader knows from Mk 2:10, Jesus is the Son of Man who possesses authority on earth. As Son of Man he will suffer, die and be raised up (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33), and as such he will come in glory (Mk 8:38). And yet this same Son of Man is to be the servant who performs the ultimate service by giving his life that others may be free ("a ransom for many"). For Mark, then, the ethics of discipleship is possible only when combined with a Christology of redemptive liberation. The community is one which has been freed by Jesus, but freed for a deeper level of mutual service in solidarity with Jesus, who by the paradoxical renunciation of power became the source of liberation for others.

4. Mk 13:33-36: A Watchful Community

The final use of Markan household language which we will treat provides a brief underscoring of the perspective we have developed. At the end of the long eschatological discourse of Mk 13, Mark appends two parables which tell his church how to live during the period prior to the return of Jesus. The certainty of the end is as assured as the coming of summer follows the spring budding of the fig tree (Mk 13:28-29). However only the Father knows the exact time or hour and in the intervening time the Christian posture is to watch (Mk 13:32-33). The final verses of the discourse are a virtual allegory of life in the Markan community. Their life is that of servants who are waiting for the master to return (Mk 13:34-46). The man who goes on a journey leaves his house (oikia) and gives to his servants (doulois) authority (exousia) and an assigned task (ergon). The posture of the whole community waiting for the return of the "lord of the house" (kyrios tes oikias) is watchfulness, that is active waiting. Behind this allegorical language are clear references to the situation of the Markan church. We have already seen that the community are to be servants of each other (Mk 10:43-44). Like the servants in the parable, the disciples of Jesus possess the exousia (authority) which he gives (Mk 6:7). The community exists in a period between the resurrection and the parousia of Jesus, which the parable describes as the return of the "lord of the house." We would claim that this allegory reflects the experience of a Markan house church, assembled in mutual service and watchfulness, which recognizes only Jesus as the lord of the house and waits for his return.

5. Conclusion

Mark is writing principally for believers and describing the consequences of discipleship, not its conditions. Mark presents a narrative picture of the implications of the faith they share with each other and the engagement with the mystery of Christ which results from their baptism. As such, Mark is a narrative expansion of the journey of commitment and recommitment that is to characterize Christian life.

Such a life is to hear again the proclamation of Jesus, "be converted and believe in the good news" (Mk 1:15). To believe, however, is to be called by Jesus in the midst of one's ordinary activity, to leave an old way of life and to follow a new path of companionship with Jesus and with others who have heard this call. The call is also an empowerment for mission and a life doing the things of Jesus. To share the life of Jesus in its most radical dimension involves trust in God even in the midst of undeserved suffering and a willingness to give one's life so that others may be free. Those who are called must be ready to leave old sources of identity and 0security, family and possessions, but will become members of a new family. This new family will be characterized by mutual service and the renunciation of the desire for power and prestige which is the way of the Gentiles and not of the Son of Man.

We would claim that such a vision of discipleship was for Mark not simply an ideal, but was meant to describe the religious life of his house churches. While at this point the exact setting of Mark's theology of discipleship cannot be specified, we would claim that it is in a house church that the Markan Christians live out their story of Jesus, Mark's good news. It is a community trying to be hearers and doers of the word (Mk 4:20). It is also a community which recognizes the good news of Jesus as its sole authority. Those who attempt to appropriate the authority of Jesus are called "deceivers" (Mk 13:6, 21-22).

Mark's community seems to be radically egalitarian in nature and the only visible structure of authority seems to be that of mutual service. At the same time it is not a sectarian community dedicated only to inner nurture. The one called to be with Jesus is also called to mission. The members of Mark's church, like Jesus, are to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile. Exclusivism is also to be avoided. The one who is not against Jesus is for him and the stranger who gives a drink of water will receive a reward. The major ethical posture of the community is the twofold command of love of God and neighbour (Mk 12:28-34).(14)

Mark's vision of discipleship has a dual setting. The primary one is the historical setting where as prophet and pastor Mark brings the teaching of Jesus and the traditions of his church to bear on the concerns of the community. Mark's understanding of discipleship and life in community seems not to have had a great influence. Matthew and Luke alter Mark's picture of community life, as characterized by solidarity, mutuality and service, by showing more concern for issues of institutionalized authority and ministry. In later New Testament writings such as Colossians, the Pastorals and 1 Peter, household language is used to support structured authority and subordination, rather than to describe a situation in which those in authority are to be ministers (diakonoi) and servants (douloi) as in Mark.(15) While such a development may mirror a necessary stage in the evolution of a religious movement or may reflect varied responses of diverse groups to different social pressures, it does stand in tension with Mark's vision.

Mark's vision also has a setting in the canon of the Christian scriptures. In canonizing Mark as an independent book, the church sanctioned a dynamic and prophetic vision of discipleship and community which stands in tension with other New Testament perspectives and with that very institutionalized ethos out of which canonization emerges. To return to Mark's story of discipleship is not simply to recapture the experiences of a transient New Testament community; it is to recapture a picture of Jesus and what it means to respond to his call, which the church says should never be forgotten or glossed over by other more appealing or more relevant pictures.

It is our task today as a community of disciples to hear again Mark's old story and to transform it by our lives into a better story for our age than the ones people live by. Such transformation into an individual and community style of life based on Mark, which renounces the striving for prestige and power over others, and at the same time confronts the evil forces which oppress our society, will bring with it suffering and persecution, as it did for John the Baptist, for Jesus and for Mark's community.

And yet this is not the final word. To hear the final word we must take our stand with the women before the door of death, now emptied of its power and hear again "he has risen; he is not here" (Mk 16:6).(16)

9.John R, Donahue, The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1983) 31-32.

10.John R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973) 58-63.

11.Ernst Best, Following Jesus. Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1981) 58-63.

12.Elizabeth Schuessler-Fiorenza, "The Biblical Roots for the Discipleship of Equals", Duke Divinity School Review 45 (1980) 87-97.

13.John Elliott, A Home for the Homeless. A Sociological Exegesis of I Peter (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) 165-237.

14.John R. Donahue, "A Neglected Factor in Mark's Theology", Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982) 578-581.

15.Daniel Harrington, "The 'Early Catholic' Writings of the New Testament: The Church Adjusting to World History", in: Light of All Nations: Essays on the Church in New Testament Research (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1982) 61-78.

16.Donahue, Theology, 32-56.

by Herman Hendrickx, C. I. C.M.

MATTHEW'S COMMUNITY

1. Introduction

During his ministry, Jesus seems to have been the leader of a kind of rural and village-based sectarian faction of wandering charismatics.(1) However, within a few decades a gradual change took place. Those followers of Jesus who before had been mobile were becoming sedentary or house-based. A transition was being made from the rural and village culture of Palestine to Greco-Roman city culture, from an ethnically homogeneous constituency which was largely unlearned, relatively poor, and of low social status, to an ethnically heterogeneous one that included people more educated, more financially secure and successful, i.e., persons of higher status.

It is generally held that the Gospel attributed to Matthew was written around 80-90 A. D. for just such an audience living in an urban setting. Some scholars have located this urbanized community more exactly at Antioch in Syria. That Matthew's community, at least in comparison with Mark's, was more urbanized seems evident from an analysis of various words in the two gospels. While Mark used the word polis, "city", eight times and the word kome, "village", seven times, Matthew uses "village" only four times but "city" at least twenty-six time. Furthermore, Matthew often connected houses (oikoi) and city (polis) (Mt 10:14; 12:25; 17:24-25; 23:28; 26:18). Thus socio-historical data as well as text criticism point to Matthew's community as more urbanized. Consequently it can be called both a "household church" and a "city church."(2)　

Urbanization led to a degree of prosperity and it has been argued on various grounds that Matthew's audience was a generally prosperous community. Indeed, if we take, for example, the three terms "silver," "gold," and "talent," we discover that they occur in Matthew's gospel no fewer than twenty-eight times, compared with the single occurrence of the word "silver" in Mark and the four in Luke.　

While Matthew's house churches had a degree of material security, the historical reality of urbanization and increasing exploitation of the poor would have introduced deepening economic polarities, and possibly even conflicts. Yet the special Matthean material (M) contains very few sayings about wealth or problems connected with wealth. Where they are found, they do not reveal the kind of severity toward possessions that can be observed in the other gospels.(3) Where Matthew does make redactional comments about wealth, we can conclude:

An examination of Matthew's treatment of sayings about wealth shows that such changes as there are usually seem slight. On the other hand the tendency of the redaction seems clear. Matthew does not intensify the severity of the sayings about riches, but rather he makes such sayings somewhat less severe. This tendency may be related with the fact that the economic circumstances of Matthew's church seem to have been less harsh than those of the earlier Christian communities.(4)

Although the majority of its households were generally financially secure, Matthew's community also seems to have contained a significant group of poor. But rather than making a futile and misplaced call to his community to be poor, Matthew's gospel offered a challenge for it to be just toward the poor. Matthew's use of dikaios ("just") more than all other gospels combined, reinforces this conclusion (Mt 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:22). While Luke's has been called the gospel of the poor, Matthew's has often been called the gospel of justice.

Some features of Matthew's community are tolerably clear. He writes in Greek for a Greek-speaking church, probably in an eastern city; most scholars think this was the great metropolis of Antioch in Syria, sometime in the last quarter of the first century. There may have been many small household groups of Christians in Antioch at that time, however, and quite likely there was a certain diversity among them. Not all may have shared the history and perspectives that Matthew assumed.(5)　


1.Gerd Theissen, The First Followers of Jesus. A Sociological Analysis of the Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1978).

2.Michael H. Crosby, House of Disciples. Church, Economics and Justice in Matthew (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1988) 36-40.

3.But see Thomas E. Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 121-134.

4.David L. Mealand, Proerty and Expectation in the Gospels (London: S.P.C.K.,1980)16.

5.Wayne Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1986) 137.

2. Concrete Situation

The concrete situation addressed by Matthew's Gospel can be described as follows:

First, Matthew wrote for a group of predominantly but not exclusively Jewish Christians.

Secondly, his work can be dated about fifteen years after the Jewish war which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Thirdly, he and his community were situated in a place where recent developments within Judaism, especially the growth of Jamnia Pharisaism, largely determined the religious environment.

Fourthly, the evangelist faced confusion, tension, conflict, and the destructive influence of false prophets within the community.

To substantiate these statements, we must look at the Gospel of Matthew itself. How does it mirror and hence reveal this situation?

Matthean scholars broadly agree that the Christians in Matthew's community were largely, but not exclusively, converts from Judaism. They argue from the obvious "Jewishness" of the first gospel. The Matthean Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of David, promised in the Old Testament, and eagerly awaited by the Jews. Furthermore, Matthew rooted Jesus' origin and his ministry of teaching, preaching, and healing in the Jewish past through several explicit quotations, of the Old Testament and even more indirect allusions. He is also more concerned than the other evangelists with the Christian attitude toward the religious institutions of Judaism, especially the law and the cult. Consequently, the Christians for whom Matthew wrote his Gospel must have had the religious and cultural background necessary to understand his portrayal of Jesus and the disciples. They must have, for example, been familiar with the Old Testament and the practices of Jewish piety. In a word, they must have been to a large extent converts from Judaism.

Even though the Jewish War (A. D. 66-70) and the destruction of the Temple (A. D. 70) did not profoundly influence Christianity as a whole, these events did in fact have a profound impact on Matthew and his community. Matthew directly refers to these events in Mt 22:7: "The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. " Again, in his indictment of the scribes and Pharisees: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... your house is forsaken and desolate" (Mt 23:37-38). Other indications also reveal Matthew's concern with the city of Jerusalem (Mt 16:21; 21:10-11; 27:53; 28:11). All these data suggest that the Gospel was written at a time when the events of the Jewish War, especially the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, had already caused Matthew's largely Jewish Christian community to reflect on their identity.(6)

Central to the Matthean Community's struggle to understand themselves as Christians in a changing world was the question of how they should relate to recent developments within Judaism, especially the emergence of Jamnia Pharisaism. At Jamnia the Pharisees assumed exclusive power after discrediting the Sadducees and containing the traditionally powerful priesthood. They transferred a part of the Temple ritual to the synagogue, and linked the synagogue service to that of the now defunct Temple. They concentrated on the problem of the canon of Scripture and instituted the Rabbinate as the authoritative interpreter of the law. They also consciously confronted Christianity.

Such dramatic changes in Judaism profoundly disturbed the Matthean community. Their self-understanding had been rooted in Jewish tradition. But now they were forced to question their relation to Judaism and even their own identity. Matthew wrote his Gospel in large part to awaken in them a new self-understanding in the light of recent circumstances. He wrote in dialogue with the recent developments in Jamnia, to show his community what it meant to be Christians in the changing milieu of postwar Judaism.

Within the community confusion and doubt prevailed; for what the Matthean Jesus predicts as future events describes the present experience of Matthew's community: "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because wickedness is multiplied, most people's love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved" (Mt 24:9-13). Matthew and his community, then, had to confront important issues: persecution from non-Jewish sources, scandal caused by mutual betrayal, hatred between members, the divisive influence of false prophets, and widespread wickedness causing love itself to grow cold.

In dialogue with Jamnia Pharisaism and in response to these tensions within his community, Matthew retold and translated the story of Jesus. He so selected, arranged and composed his material that his readers might find and recognize themselves in the narrative. He created a distinctive portrait of Jesus, his followers, and his opponents. Members of the community could identify with the disciples and see the opponents as surrogates for the sages at Jamnia. Matthew could address them through the words and actions of Jesus.


6.Eugene A. LaVerdiere and William G. Thompson, "New Testament Communities in Transition: A Study of Matthew and Luke", Theological Studies 37 (1976) 571-572.

3. Four Concerns

Matthew stressed four themes:

First, and above all, he presented his community with a new understanding of their mission. They had been sent to "the lost sheep of Israel." But now they should devote themselves to the wider Gentile mission.(7)

Secondly, to carry out that mission, he urged them no longer to understand themselves as a sectarian group within Judaism. Recent developments indicated that they should accept their separation from Jamnia Pharisaism and claim an independent identity with roots in Jesus Christ and through him in their Jewish past.(8)

Thirdly, Matthew urged reconciliation, forgiveness, and mutual love within the community; for the Gentile mission would never succeed unless the community learned how to manage the confusion, tension and conflict that divided them one from another.(9)

Finally, as motivation for the Gentile mission, Matthew assured his community that, when the Son of Man comes, he would judge not only them but also the Gentiles to whom they were sent.(10)

4. New Understanding of Mission

During his ministry, Jesus stated explicitly: "My mission is only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 15:24). He sent his disciples on mission with the same directive (Mt 10:5b). The vision seemed clear: Jesus came to work for the salvation of Israel. This does not mean that Jesus had no contact with the Gentiles. The Gentile Magi recognized him at his birth (Mt 2:1-12), and the faith of the Gentiles had, at times, amazed even Jesus (Mt 8:10; 15:28). During his preaching, moreover, Jesus had hinted that changes would come. The parables of the two sons, the wicked tenants, and the marriage feast (Mt 21:28-22:14) had all focused on the infidelity of the Jews and the passing of salvation to others (Mt 21:34).

By the time Matthew wrote, the mission to the Gentiles had become a major issue of Church policy. When describing the end of the world, only Matthew's Jesus states explicitly that "this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world as a witness to all the nations. Only after that will the end come" (Mt 24:14). Matthew calls his Church to an extended mission, reminding them that the end will not come until the mission to the Gentiles is accomplished. Although limited to Israel during the life of Jesus, Christian mission in the post-Easter period is a broad, all-embracing commitment to all nations of the world. The risen Christ, endowed with full authority, commands and missions his followers to make disciples of the whole world (Mt 28:19). Exegetes have long recognized that the final commission "to make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:16-20) dominates Matthew's historical and theological perspective.

As Matthew's community struggles with its own sense of identity and purpose, Matthew unites them in a common sense of ministry to the world. His call and vision imply a new sense of Church, and energize his followers to corporate action.

As Matthew's community began to consolidate and expand, it became profoundly aware of its own authority, and struggled to identify structures through which that authority could be channeled.

Composed of several groups, each with its own value system, Matthew's community needed him to call them all to a spirit of reconciliation and a sense of communion.

As a reaction to outside pressures and persecution, the faith of many weakened. The Church needed to be called back to an appreciation of the centrality of Jesus and the need for a living, fruitful faith in him.

Finally, in the changing world of the post-Easter Church, the loss of a sense of purpose and direction needed to be challenged. Matthew focused his community's commitment, launching out to a visionary mission of world conversion.(11)

5. A Community in Transition

The Gentile mission could never be successful if the Matthean community did not learn to manage their internal confusion, tension, conflict, and the divisive influence of false prophets. Hence, the Matthean Jesus invites his disciples, and at the same time the evangelist invites his community, to deepen their faith. Jesus calls them "men of little faith" (Mt 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20).

The episodes in which the need for greater faith is most strikingly taught are the calming of the storm at sea (Mt 8:18-27) and the walking on the water (Mt 14:22-33). Prior to the first storm, the Matthean Jesus commands the crowd around him to go over to the other side of the lake, but only the disciples will follow him into the boat. Who are these disciples, and how are they different from the rest of the crowd? Matthew identifies them as those who are ready to share all that is implied in the fact that their master has no place to lay his head, and to put familial piety in second place when it conflicts with their commitment to follow Jesus (Mt 8:18-22). With the meaning of their action understood, the disciples follow Jesus into the boat. A storm rises, but Jesus is asleep. The disciples awaken him with an appeal for help: "Save, Lord; we are perishing." Jesus responds with the question, "Why are you afraid, 0 men of little faith?" (Mt 8:26). The disciples' inadequate faith refers to their lack of confidence in Jesus' power over the storm. But Matthew's readers, swamped by waves of opposition and conflict and with some beginning to lose heart, would easily identify with the disciples. Matthew calls for a deeper faith in Jesus' power over the evil symbolized by the storm at sea.

Similarly, when Jesus walks through the storm to the disciples in the boat, he invites Peter to come to him on the water. Peter gets out of the boat, begins to walk toward Jesus, but becomes afraid and begins to sink. Jesus catches him with the words, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Mt 14:31). Once they are safe in the boat and the storm has ceased, the disciples worship Jesus: "Truly you are the Son of God" (Mt 14:33). Once again Matthew intends his community to see their situation mirrored in the storm at sea, and their fears and doubts expressed in Peter's hesitation. He invites them to join the disciples in their renewed faith in Jesus as the Son of God.

Also through Jesus' instructions to his disciples Matthew address the confusion and conflict that was dividing his community. The Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1-7:28) and the Communitarian Discourse(Mt 17:22-18:35) are the clearest examples. In the Sermon the disciples and the crowd are called "blessed" when they experience persecution and all kinds of evil (Mt 5:11-12). In the first antithesis they are warned against divisive anger and urged to reconciliation (Mt 5:21-26). In the fifth they are taught not to resist an evildoer (Mt 5:38-42). In the final antithesis Jesus instructs them to love their enemies (Mt 5:43-48). The need for mutual forgiveness is expressed as a petition in the Our Father (Mt 6:12) and elaborated at the end of the prayer (Mt 6:14-15). Finally, in the epilogue to the Sermon, Jesus warns against false prophets (Mt 7:15-20) and against those who would claim a place in the kingdom of heaven on the basis of mighty works in his name (Mt 7:21-23). Matthew's community could easily apply these instruction to their own confusion and conflicts and to the divisive influence of false prophets in their midst.

In the communitarian discourse in chapter 18, Matthew addresses the same issues, but against the background of Jesus' prediction of his own passion, death, and resurrection (Mt 17:22-23). His instructions concern attitudes and behaviour among the disciples. If they would enter and achieve greatness in the future kingdom of heaven, they must now humble themselves like the child in their midst (Mt 18:1-4). Under no circumstances are they to weaken the faith of a fellow disciple through scandalous behaviour (Mt 18:5-9). Instead, they should care for the one going astray and do everything possible to reconcile a brother or sister who has wandered into sin (Mt 18:10-20). Finally, they are to forgive personal offenses without limit (Mt 18:21-35). Once again through these instructions Matthew teaches his community how to cope with their internal situation.(12)

6. Final Judgment

Given his ideas about the Gentile Mission, it is not surprising that in the final sections of his eschatological discourse, Matthew has Jesus describe the judgment of the disciples and the Gentiles.

The Matthean Jesus exhorts his disciples to vigilance (Mt 24:36-25:30). He stresses the fact that, as the Son of Man, he will certainly come (Mt 24:37, 39, 43, 46; 25:6-7, 19), but also that his coming will be delayed (Mt 24:48; 25:5). Since the exact day and hour cannot be known, the disciples should watch and remain alert, like the faithful servant in his master's household or the virgins waiting for the bridegroom (Mt 24:36. 42, 44, 50; 25:13). When the Son of Man comes, however, the disciples will be divided one from another, like the men in the field or the women at the mill, like the faithfill from the wicked servants, like the wise from the foolish virgins, or like the servants to whom the talents had been entrusted (Mt 24:40-41, 45-49; 25:2-4, 16-18).

Matthew addressed Jesus' words to his community in the aftermath of the Jewish war to correct the false impression that the end had already arrived and to call them to constant vigilance and readiness. He also wanted to motivate them to carry out the mission to all nations. Merely belonging to the community would not guarantee entrance into the kingdom of heaven; for they will be judged on how well they used their different talents in the common task of "making disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:18). When Jesus returns he will not judge them according to their abilities but according to how well they carried out their tasks with love and respect for one another.

Jesus ends this final discourse by describing the judgment of the nations to whom he sends his followers (Mt 25:31-46). When he returns as the triumphant Son of Man, Jesus will separate the nations into sheep and goats. He will invite the sheep to possess the kingdom of heaven; he will condemn the goats. Both sheep and goats will be surprised. Then Jesus will explain the criterion for judgment: how well or ill the nations treated the least of his brethren. Jesus declares that he will reward or punish Jews and Gentiles according to whether or not they gave them food and drink, clothed and sheltered them, and visited them when sick or in prison. Without the nations knowing it, they encountered Jesus himself in these little ones because he sent them to announce the good news about God."


11.Leonard Doohan, Matthew. Spirituality for the 80's and 90's (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Bear & Company, 1985) 38-39.

7. Matthew's Community and Us

Matthew's community was not a group of withdrawn ascetics, but rather a community that had participated and was participating in significant historical events. Reactions to some of the major events, both religious and social, had divided Matthew's people into all shades of conservative and liberal. His community showed not only pluralism, but at times even contradictory positions on important issues. Matthew, while probably not agreeing with them, left the differences intact. He strove for reconciliation, renewal, and a corporate sense of mission.

Matthew's community lived at a turning point in Christianity, and had to make decisions which brought them hardship and social persecution. Our Christian communities of 1990 have many of these same characteristics. Matthew presents Jesus to us to calm the storms of our communities, reminding us that divisiveness is a sign of little faith. Christianity's place is still in the midst of world events: the tragedies, oppression, joys and hopes of humankind. There will always be differences among us, but if we are constantly committed to reconciliation, renewal, and a sense of mission, they can be at least controlled and managed. Like Matthew's community, we need maturity and objectivity to face our differences.(14)

Our problems and needs are not unlike those of Matthew's community, and his creative responses to their problems can still be valuable to us. All genuine Christian life must be rooted in the saving events of Jesus, and Matthew is diligent in identifying these sources and establishing them as the foundation for faith. But Christian life does not merely repeat a literalist and fundamentalist version of Jesus' life. Authentic Christian commitment requires a living and life-giving interpretation of those historical events in every generation and in every culture. Only such rooting and interpreting guarantee the genuineness of faith.(15)

Uncertain times can prompt us Christians to ask important questions about our faith and our place in the world: How are we to live as Christians? What are we to do? Where do we turn to find truth and meaning? What does following Jesus mean? What values do we want to foster in ourselves and others? How do we make right decisions and design concrete strategies for action which can create a better world for ourselves and the coming generations? Such questions troubled Matthew and his community. We also ask them today.

Confusion can move us, as it moved Matthew and his community, to reflect on our roots－the persons and experiences from which we have come as individuals and families, as Christian communities, and as a society. As we recall our heritage, we remember significant persons and we relive the events which have shaped our identity. We try to recapture the vision and recover the values of those who founded our communities. As we tap into our roots, we may gain new perspectives from which to view our present times.(16)

Matthew and his community worked with inherited traditions, attended to their present experience, and responded to their surrounding culture. We must do the same. Matthew's story is our inherited tradition. As we listen to it in personal or community settings, we also listen to our present experience and our contemporary culture. We, too, must let what we hear come together in reflection and prayer so that we can discover how God through Matthew's story might be enabling us to live as Christians in our uncertain times.(17)


12.LaVerdiere and Thompson, art. cit. 578-580.

13.William G. Thompson, Matthew's Story. God News For Uncertain Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1989) 127.

14.Doohan, op. cit. 49.

15.Ibidem 161.

16.Thompson, op. cit. 15-16.

17.Ibidem 53.

by Herman Hendrickx, C. I. C.M.

THE "HOUSE CHURCH" IN PAUL'S LETTERS

Introduction

The repeated New Testament use of the term oikos (112 times) and oikia (94 times) indicates the contextualization of the epistles and gospels within this "house" environment. Historically, "household" and related terms described the foundation and context of the Christian movement.

Religiously, this movement originated in and owed its growth to conversion of entire households or of certain individuals within households. Generally speaking, cultic activities like the Eucharist took place in the house.

Economically, the household constituted the context for the sharing of resources among believers as well as with the wandering charismatics.

Socially, the household provided a practical basis and theoretical model both for Christian organization and for its preaching.(1)

While we translate the expressions oikos, oikia by terms meaningful to us, "house", "home", "household", we must be careful not to read into these words the meanings which the English words have for us. Words change with each generation and sometimes with each writer. What Paul meant by the "house church" depended on the Hellenistic culture of his time, with both its Gentile and Jewish components.

I. Hellenistic Background

l. The Household

The two words Paul uses, oikos and oikia, meant roughly the same, namely, the household with its persons and property. Classical Greek maintained some distinction between the two words: oikos brought to mind especially the idea of wealth, possessions, or a physical room, whereas oikia suggested more the relatives, servants, or even clients of a household. Both words were used for the dwelling, the family, or kin.

Paul's Greek, however, shows much more affinity with the Greek of the Septuagint [LXX]. The translators of the Septuagint needed to translate the Hebrew word bait. Bait in different contexts meant a room in a building (Esther 2:3; 7:8); the whole family, including father (Gen 50:8; 1 Sam 1:21), wife, second wife, sons, daughters (Gen 36:6), dependent relatives (Gen 13:1), servants (Gen 15:2-3), attendants (Gen 14:14), and slaves (Gen 17:13, 27); relatives who formed a group between the immediate family and the tribe (2 Sam 9:7); household possessions, including wealth, tools, slaves, and cattle (Ex 20:17; Est 8:1). Without any apparent distinction, the LXX translators chose both oikos and oikia to express the broad concept of bait. The only perceived difference between the two Greek words is the greater frequency of oikos over oikia.

Considered from either its Hellenistic or its Jewish roots, the concept of oikos is thus considerably wider than our concept of "family". Even the word "household" does not do justice to the extension of the Jewish/Hellenistic concept.

A comment by the Roman orator and poet Cicero about one's hierarchy of duties reflects his understanding of a "household". Our duties, he says, begin with one's country, then one's parents, "next come children and the whole household (domus), who look to us alone for support and can have no other protection; finally our kinsmen".(2) Besides one's immediate family, Cicero has in mind unattached relatives, slaves, freedmen, hired workers, sometimes tenants, business partners and clients.

Cicero defines the domus or household by a relationship of dependence, not kinship. In fact the family or household was constituted by the reciprocal relationships of protection and subordination. At the top of the pyramid was the paterfamilias, the family father or other "head of the house", whose power extended at times to that over the life and death of his children. At the bottom of the structure was the slave, who nevertheless could exercise considerable responsibility in his household duties. Supporting this authority was the subordination of the members of the household, who by this subordination enjoyed a sense of belonging and security not provided by any other social or political structure of the time.

Were all the members of the household expected to share the same religious practices? Although our information about this expectation is scarce, we can probably presume that all members, especially those of the smaller households, felt some pressure to share in the household cults. Yet the religious solidarity characteristic of the old agrarian society gave way under the pressures of urbanization. In imperial times, Romans became more laissez faire about the religion of their slaves. This latitude regarding religion appears in the strongly Romanized cities more than in the Greek East.(3)

2. The Jewish Household

Where we find household religiosity dominating and where we find the closest background to the Christian house church is in the Jewish household. In the Jewish world at the time of the New Testament, the family was the primary place for the transmission of the faith. The family prayed in common daily, mornings and evenings, and especially at the blessings of the mealtime.

The preeminent family feast was Passover. This feast was the high point of the year and during New Testament times was held in the homes. As Philo wrote concerning Passover, "each house at this time took on the character of the holiness of the Temple. " We still know very little about the life of the ancient Jewish household with its multiplicity of customs and its inner piety. This silence and privacy concerning the Jewish home, however, was its strongest asset. Whenever external difficulties threatened the public practice of Jewish worship, the Jewish home could assume full responsibility for the practice of religion. As long as the Jewish household maintained itself, Judaism as a religion was protected from any threat.

The writings of the Essenes discovered at Qumran have shed great light on the New Testament, providing as they do expressions and evidence for practices in striking parallel to those of the early Christians. These writings frequently use the term "house" to designate the community, much the way the Old Testament spoke of Israel as a house. The ancient Jewish writers, Josephus and Philo, however, tell of communities of Essenes throughout Palestine numbering as many as 4,000. These Essenes outside of Qumran apparently lived and assembled in private homes. Josephus refers to a "house" where they met for meals and instructions, while Philo speak of them sharing their houses. Such home-based communities would be close parallels to the Christian house churches.(4)

3. Hellenistic Private Cults and Social Associations

In New Testament times, the local church had an important parallel in the Hellenistic clubs and cults which existed in the ever widening social space between the order of the individual households and the public life of the state. These voluntary associations filled an important vacuum in Greco-Roman life. As political power was concentrated in the hands of fewer people for longer periods of time, many citizens experienced a general disenchantment with the polis ("city"). The alternative to closing oneself simply in one's oikos was to become involved in some voluntary and private organization.

Some of these associations were fundamentally cultic, others were predominantly social. Most groups formed around households and their meetings took place in private houses, but they included more than one family. They became, as it were, a community around a family.

The analogies between these Hellenistic clubs and the early church are striking. It does not appear, however, that Christian Groups consciously modeled themse1ves on these clubs. Nevertheless we should not underestimate the more or less spontaneous and diffused influence of these associations on the early Christians.(5)

4. The Jewish Synagogue

The influence of Hellenistic associations on the early Christians may have occurred through the Jewish institution that by far shows the closest parallels to the Christian ekklesia, namely, the Jewish synagogue. Recent studies have detected very specific influence of the Hellenistic associations on Jewish counterparts.

The origins of the Jewish synagogue remain obscure and are generally thought to be rooted in the Babylonian exile experience. The earliest inscriptions evidence their existence from the third century B. C. In New Testament times we have the references in the gospels to the Galilean synagogues (Mt 4:23; 9:35; Lk 4:15, etc.). Philo refers to Diaspora synagogues as "prayer houses".

In the earliest synagogues uncovered by archaeology, we have the same pattern of a Jewish community beginning with a private house, probably using that home for religious purposes, then at a particular point renovating the home to develop a special assembly area, and finally redoing the whole building to build a dedicated synagogue.(6)

1.Michael Crosby, House of Disciples (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988) 33.

2.(De Officiis, 1, 17, 58).

3.Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 30. Vincent Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989) 36-38.

4.Branick, op. cit. 45-46.

5.Ibidem 46-49.

6.Ibidem 52-55.

II. The Christian Household in Paul's Theology of the Church

1. Introduction

"Aquila and Prisca with their house church send abundant greetings in the Lord," Paul writes to the Corinthians from Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19). Some three years later writing to Rome, Paul again states, "Give my greetings to Prisca and Aquila ... and to their house church" (Rom 16:3,5). Writing from prison toward the end of his career, Paul sends a note to his friend Philemon. Opening the letter in his conventional way, Paul greets Philemon, his wife Apphia, Archippus, possibly their son, and "your house church" (Phim 2). Finally in the Letter to the Colossians, we find greetings to Nympha in neighbouring Laodicea and "to her house church" (Col 4:15). The four greetings are the four instances in which Paul speaks explicitly of house churches, assemblies of Christians that formed in and around a private household.

These greetings remind us that the earliest Christians met in private homes. For them the household with its family setting was the church. The private dwelling functioned for the church on two levels. It formed the environment for house churches strictly speaking, gatherings of Christians around one family in the home of that family. On the second broader level, the private dwelling formed the environment for gatherings of the local church, the assembly of all the Christian households and individuals of a city. For such a group, the home functioned as a house church, since the building remained the domicile of the host family.

For about a century the private dwelling shaped the Christians' community life, forming the environment in which Christians related to each other, providing an economic substructure for the community, a platform for missionary work, a framework for leadership. Above all the private home and specifically the dining room provided an environment that corresponded remarkably with the Christians' earliest self-identification, reflecting Jesus' own choice of an "upper room" for his last supper, his choice of "non-sacred space" as the environment of his work, and his insistence on familiar ties among believers.

Sometime in the second half of the second century, some Christians began to dedicate their homes to church assembly. The building ceased to be a residence. Modifications to the structure turned the dining room into a larger assembly hall. Other rooms assumed community functions. Although resembling a house, the building became a church. Eventually Christians were allowed to rebuild their churches from the ground. In A. D. 314, a year after the Edict of Milan, the first of the basilicas appeared.

The Christians meeting in the dedicated churches and basilicas showed an understanding of themselves different from that of the Christians meeting in the house churches. Leadership became concentrated in fewer hands, the hands of a special class of holy people. Church activities became stylized ritual. The building rather than the community became the temple of God. Whether environment determines ideology or ideology determines environment, the link between the two is clear when we examine the shift from the house church to the dedicated church.

In this paper we are interested mainly in the times when Christians met exclusively in private households. More specifically we will focus on the times and churches of Paul. We will look at the connections which appear between the household setting for the churches and the self-understanding and activities of these churches. Of particular interest will be the relationship between the private house church and the local church. Following the lead of Paul, this paper will refer to the smaller unit as "house church" and to the larger unit, which also met in private houses, as the local or city-wide church.(7)

2. Family and Household Terminology in Paul

The frequency of family and household terminology in Paul for the Christian community is striking. He addresses his fellow Christians as brothers or sisters, exhorts them "as a father to his children" (1 Thess 2:11), and even sees himself as a pregnant mother giving birth to the Galatians (Gal 4:19)! When he speaks of "building up" the community (1 Thess 5:11, etc.), he generally uses the Greek word oikodome, derived from the Greek word for "house." oikos.

This household and familial terminology has its roots in the Old Testament and the Judaism in which Paul grew up. Israel was a "house" or "household" (Amos 5:25; Jer 38:33). Household and family terminology used for a religious group thus precedes Paul and his application of this terminology to the house church experience. The frequency and pervasiveness of this language in Paul, however, indicates that for him the words were not empty religious formulas. Paul is an apostle and a father to his communities who are families. The practical necessity of meeting in private homes clearly blended with Paul's theological understanding of the Christian community.

Paul lived this family relationship with his co-workers and communities and he wanted them to live the same. Given the family character of the Christian community, the homes of its members provided the most conducive atmosphere in which they could give expression to the bond they had in common.(8)

3. The Household in Mission Strategy

Most probably the conversion of a household and the consequent formation of a house church formed the key element in Paul's strategic plan to spread the gospel. If we follow Acts in this matter, it would seem that Paul had little success preaching in the synagogues. His method then shifted to establishing himself with a prominent family, which then formed his base of operations in a given city (Acts 16:13-34; 17:2-9; 18:1-11).

It is not surprising then to see frequent mention of baptisms, not just of individuals, but of whole households. Paul mentions such a conversion once (1 Cor 1:16). Acts makes such a household conversion almost a theme in itself (Acts 10:2; 16:15; 16:33;18:8).

Hospitality was the key to the mission. Paul's work was characterized by mobility and travel. In order to accomplish his mission, he depended on an extensive network of social relationships, centered on households. Hospitality to Paul meant not only material support but also attachment to his gospel. It meant sharing his work. Such ideological support appears especially in Paul's reflection on the Philippians' financial subvention of his work (Phil 4:14-18; 2 Cor 8:1-5).

Paul frequently refers to "receiving" his co-workers and "sending" them on their way (Rom 16:1-2; Phil 2:27-29). These words are part of an almost technical language describing the local group's part in the mission. The local group was to accord hospitality to Paul's emissary and then provide that person with enough assistance to return to Paul or to reach the next station.(9)

4. The House Church in the Larger Community

The house church on the one hand, and the household gathered in prayer on the other, did not simply coincide. This is clear from Paul's own writings. Not every member of a family became Christian when the head of the house did. Until he fled his master and met Paul, Onesimus, the slave of Christian Philemon, was not a Christian (Phim 10). Paul lays down precise guidelines for families where the spouses are not both believers (1 Cor 7:12-16).

This lack of perfect coincidence between the "house church" and the household lay at the basis of the openness of the Churches to each other, the networking of "house churches" into some form of city-wide federation we can call "the local church." The relationship between "the single family church" and "the local church" was not clear-cut and finely drawn. Paul makes no attempt to relate "house church" to "local church." From the start a "house church" of a particular family could well have involved others from non-Christian households. Likewise for some time a single "house church" of a particular family may have been the only church of a locality. Only gradually, as "house churches" multiplied in a locality, would the reality of "local church" take on a distinct definition. Yet because the meeting of a "local church" would take place in a "house church", the larger unit would still reflect the smaller.

On the whole Paul seems to emphasize the formation of the "local church", allowing the "house church" of the individual family to recede into the background. Given the strategy of the early missionaries and the constraints against meeting in other places, the appearance of the "single family house church" was to a degree a natural development. The networking of these "house churches" into a "local church" appears to be the object of a special effort on the part of Paul.

Paul's most frequent use of the term "church" refers to a local, i.e., city-wide group of Christians. This meaning is clearest where he attaches the name of a city to the word. He twice greets "the church of God which is in Corinth" (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). Similarly he greets "the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess 1:1).

Paul refers to the city-wide church with the expression, "the whole church," the counterpart of a "house church". The English cognate "catholic" employs the Greek expression kath' hole, but the church kath' hole for Paul was the city-wide or local assembly, not some world-wide organization. Thus Paul speaks of the situation in Corinth of an outside entering the assembly "when the whole church (he ekklesia hole) is gathered in the same place" (1 Cor 14:23). Again, writing from Corinth to the Romans, Paul sends greetings from Gaius and distinguishes him as "host to me and to the whole church" (Rom 16:23).

In Paul's two references to "the whole church," the stress on the plenary character of the gathering suggests something special about the event. "The whole church in the same place" sounds like an important event. Likewise, the redundancy of the expression, "to gather in the same place," seems to point to a special assembly. If the plenary assemblies of the Corinthian church were special, we can infer the existence of sub-groups that met at other times. The picture of more than one "house church" within a city appears also in the descriptions of Antioch and Jerusalem (as found in Acts).

Paul envisions apparently a kind of confederation of several "house churches" forming a "local church". The Pauline "local church" existed thus on two levels, both connected with the households; first, a household assembly of an individual family and those associated with that family, and second, a city-wide level meeting in a private home but consisting of several families.

In gathering the "house churches" together for a city-wide assembly and calling this city-wide assembly an ekklesia, Paul most probably had in mind the city-wide assemblies of the Greek cities, which were also called ekklesia. This ekklesia was the town meeting of the free citizens who gathered to decide matters affecting their welfare.(10)

5. Church as Gathering

The parallel between Paul's use of the term ekklesia and the Greek municipal ekklesia brings out another important aspect of the Pauline church. The Greek ekklesia was an assembly. It came into existence and went out of existence as the citizens were gathered and dismissed. The emphasis of the word is on the gathering itself as an activity rather than on some permanent institution.

This meaning as "gathering" is clearest in the descriptions of "church" found in 1 Cor 11-14. A clear linguistic parallel appears between Paul's expressions, "When you assemble as church" (I Cor 11:18) and "when you assemble in the same place" (1 Cor 11:20). Paul is speaking of the same event in both verses.

In 1' Cor 12-14 Paul repeatedly urges "building up the ekklesia." This admonition applies much more clearly to the actual gathering of the Christians than to any institutional existence of the same group. He never uses the term to refer, as we do today, to local assemblies seen as part of a larger unit. He never, of course, uses the term to refer to the building or the physical setting of the assembly, whether on the household level or the city level. The physical setting of the assembly was a home, a building which functioned outside of "church time" as a private residence.(11)

6. A World-wide Church?

The cohesion of the individual "house churches" into the local church arose for Paul because of the larger unifying context. This larger context gives hints of a world-wide perspective, a gathering that never gathers as such but which also bears the name "church".

When Paul refers to the Christians of a geographical area larger than the city, he does so usually by using the plural form, "churches." When referring to a teaching or rule observed universally by Christians, he again normally uses the plural form of "churches" or a distributive from which implies the plural.

Nevertheless he at times uses the singular "the church" to designate what appears to be more than a local church. It is particularly in his expression "the church of God" that we hear resound a larger than local church (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13).

What echoes in the background in Paul's use of "church" here is the Old Testament phrase qehal yhwh, "assembly of the Lord," translated by the Greek Bible as ekklesia tou Kyriou. This is the description of all the tribes of Israel gathered at Sinai by God to receive his law (Deut 23:2-4). The Sinai assembly, often designated as an ekklesia, was of importance in late Judaism, the Jewish filter that passed the Old Testament to Paul and the early Christian church. The great assembly shows up in the writings of Qumran as the final or eschatological assembly.

Paul pictures the Christians as the true Israel or at least as the new growth on the true Israel (Rom 9:6; 11:17), which has by the Spirit inherited the promises and the covenant (2 Cor 3:6). Unlike the old Israel, however, Christians are not to think of ethnic limits. Christians could apply to themselves the international consciousness of Israel yet push it to even greater universality. Paul would thus expect the local church to have a real sense of belonging to a world-wide people.(12)

7.Ibidem 13-16.

8.Robert Banks, Paul's Idea of Community. The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 61.

9.Branick, op. cit. 18.

10.Banks, op. cit. 34-37.

11.Branick, op. cit. 27-28.

12.Ibidem 29-31. Helen Doohan, Paul's Vision of Church (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989).

by Herman Hendrickx, C. I. C.M.

I. Setting, Date, Authorship

1. Setting

The issue of the setting of the Fourth Gospel is really a kind of condensed history of a particular Christian community in the first century. The best efforts to reconstruct that history result in at least a three-stage view.

At the first stage, the Johannine community constituted a part of a Jewish synagogue. That is, the earliest Johannine Christians were Jewish Christians who believed that the Christian faith was continuous with the Jewish faith and who were content to live within the context of a Jewish community. At this first stage we may suppose that their beliefs were not radically different from Jewish beliefs. Their view of Jesus was that he was the Messiah who had come and then promised to return to fulfill the hopes of the Jews as well as the Christians.

The second stage of this history brought the split between the Christians and the Jews of the synagogue. It appears that the Johannine community experienced an expulsion from their religious home in the synagogue for at least two reasons.

First, their increasingly successful missionary efforts among their colleagues in the synagogue began to pose a threat to the leadership of the synagogue, and an earlier emphasis on what the two groups had in common was steadily giving way to an emphasis on the differences. Involved in this may also have been the effective missionary work of the Johannine Christians among Samaritans (Jn 4).

The second reason for the expulsion was the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in A. D. 70 and the resulting crisis of faith. The destruction of the temple brought a kind of identity crisis for the Jews－what is Judaism without a center of sacrificial worship?－and may have resulted in purging sympathizers of Jesus of Nazareth from some synagogues. (In three places in the Gospel the expulsion of the Christians from the synagogue is echoed－Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). This informal and localized expulsion of the Christians (like those remembered in the narratives of Acts, e.g., 19:8f.) was possibly (later) formalized and made a common practice by the Council of Jamnia (ca. 90 A. D.).

This expulsion had a mighty effect on the Christian community, producing a trauma of faith of major proportions. It was amid this crisis that the fourth evangelist gathered the traditions of the community and interpreted them so as to address the needs of the newly isolated community. It was then that the major themes of the Gospel took shape, providing the Johannine Christians with assurance and confidence in the midst of the uncertainty of their recent experience of deprivation. Furthermore, it was in the subsequent, and perhaps violent, debate with the members of the synagogue that the Gospel found its setting (e.g., Jn 16:2).

The third stage of the history of the community was close to, if not identical with, the setting for the publication of 1 John. While the crisis of the expulsion from the synagogue had been resolved and the community was an independent Christian body, there appeared some internal conflicts over the interpretation of the original Gospel of John in general, and proper belief and practice in particular. Moreover, relationships with other Christian communities had become important (cf. Jn. 21). Certain additions to the Gospel appear to address this situation.(1)

2. Date and Authorship

The task of dating the gospel has become a question of dating the stages in the history of the Johannine community and in reality has become less important for the interpretation of the document than its setting.

For the most part, scholars still date the gospel in the last decade of the first century. Those who hold that the expulsion of the Johannine Christians from the synagogue was a result of the formal decree of the Council of Jamnia (ca. 90 A. D.) must date it within a few years after that council. The first stage of the history of the community sketched above should be dated 40-80, the second 80-90, and the last 90-100.

The identity of the fourth evangelist is hopelessly lost in anonymity. He was not an eyewitness and is not to be identified with the "beloved disciple." It is more likely that the evangelist (whom we shall continue to call John for the sake of convenience) writes of a revered founder of the community whose witness is the basis of the community tradition. The writer speaks of this honoured figure as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." While some scholars have attempted to identify this figure with someone known to us from the gospels (most often John, son of Zebedee, or Lazarus), it seems wiser to admit that we do not know.(2)

1.Robert Kysar, John. Augsburg Commentaries (Minneapolis : Augsburg Publishing House, 1986) 14-15.

2.Ibidem 15-16.

II. The Johannine Community

1. Johannine Community Origins (3)

The disciples who follow Jesus in Jn 1:35-51 include names known in the other gospels (Andrew, Peter, Philip); and the titles given to Jesus there are found in the other gospels (Messiah, Son of God, King, Son of Man). It would seem, then, that at least in its origins Johannine Christianity was not too distant from the dominant style of Christianity in the movement centered on Jesus.

In Jn 4, however, Samaritans are being converted (but not by the original disciples of Jesus); and Temple worship in Jerusalem is declared as losing significance (Jn 4:21-24). Here John has departed significantly from the description of the ministry in the other gospels and is closer to the developments described in Acts 6-8. There (without a break of communion) Hellenistic Jewish Christians separate administratively from the Hebrew Christian majority in Jerusalem who are faithful to the Temple observances; and (in the person of Stephen) Hellenist preaching proclaims that God does not dwell in the Temple.

These Hellenist Christians, not Peter or the Twelve, are the ones who convert Samaria. The Johannine community consisted not only of the type of Hebrew Christians whose heritage is preserved in many other New Testament writings, but also of groups similar to the Hellenists, more radical in their attitudes toward Judaism. There were also Samaritan converts. This mixture may have hastened innovative developments in Johannine Christology and made Johannine Christians particularly troublesome in the eyes of Jews who did not believe in Jesus.

In any case, beginning in Jn 5 a dominant theme of the Johannine account of Jesus' ministry is the hatred that "the Jews" have for Jesus because he is making himself God. The divinity of Jesus as one who had come down from God (an aspect of divinity not apparent in the other gospels) is publicly spoken of and attacked. There are long debates between Jesus and "the Jews" that grow increasingly hostile.

What lies beneath the surface becomes apparent in the story of the man born blind (Jn 9).(4) The Jews in anger say, "We are the disciples of Moses; we know that God has spoken to Moses. As for that fellow (Jesus), we do not even know where he comes from" (Jn 9:28-29). The man born blind, who is described by them as one of the disciples of "that fellow", also speaks as a "we": "We know that God pays no attention to sinners .... if this man (Jesus) were not from God, he could have done nothing" (Jn 9:31,33).

The synagogue and the Johannine community are thus alienated from each other as disciples of Moses and disciples of Jesus; and through the medium of struggles in Jesus' own life, the struggles between these two groups are being told. (In other words, the Fourth Gospel narrates on two levels: the level of Jesus' life and the level of the community's life). Just as the man born blind is put on trial before the Pharisees or "the Jews", so have members of the Johannine community been put on trial by synagogue leaders. Just as the man born blind is ejected from the synagogue for confessing that Jesus has come from God, so have the Johannine Christians been ejected from the synagogue for their confession of Jesus (see also Jn 16:2).

To have suffered expulsion from the synagogue because of a belief that Jesus had come from God inevitably sharpened and tightened the adherence of Johannine Christians to their high Christology.(5) Jesus is so much one with the Father (Jn 10:30) that he is not only Lord but also God (Jn 20:28). Over such issues the Johannine Christians were willing to criticize even other Christians. There is contempt in the Fourth Gospel for Jews who believed in Jesus but who were unwilling to confess it openly lest they be put out of the synagogue (Jn 12:42).(6) There is hostility towards Jewish disciples who have followed Jesus openly but who object when it is said that he has come down from heaven and can give his flesh to eat (Jn 6:60-66) or because he is described as existing before Abraham (Jn 8:58).

Such criticism of others suggests that the Johannine Christians must have been extremely controversial because of their Christology, challenged both by Jews who did not believe in Jesus and by Jews who did believe in him. The courtroom atmosphere of the Fourth Gospel with its constant stress on testimony / witness, accusation, and judgment (Jn 1:19-21; 5:31-47; 7:50-51; 8:14-18; etc.) and with its debates over the implications of Scripture texts (Jn 6:31-33; 7:40-43, 52; 10:34-36) reflects the controversies and how they were conducted.

The struggle with the synagogue and the resultant polemic atmosphere are very important in understanding what is present in the Fourth Gospel but also what is absent. The synagogue leaders apparently thought that the Johannine confession of Jesus as God denied that basic faith of Israel: "The Lord our God is one." In response, the evangelist－and his community－defended the divinity of Jesus so massively that the Fourth Gospel scarcely allows for human limitation. Jesus cannot ask a simple question without a Johannine footnote explaining that he already knew the answer (Jn 6:5-6). Jesus cannot choose a follower who goes bad without Johannine insistence that he foresaw this from the beginning (Jn 6:70-71). Jesus cannot utter a prayer of petition without the assurance that he is only educating the bystanders to the truth that the Father always hears him (Jn 11:41-42). Jesus cannot ask that the hour of the passion pass from him (as he does in the other gospels), for his coming to the hour is intentional (Jn 12:27). The passion of Jesus cannot be narrated in a way that would place him at the mercy of his captors, for he has sovereign power to lay down his life and take it up again (Jn 10:18; see 18:6). The entire presentation protects Jesus from whatever could be a challenge to divinity. It is very important to understand that this particular Christology can be understood only when seen in the context of the community's situation.

2. Johannine Relations with Outsiders

The pre-gospel period of distinctive Johannine formation took several decades from the 50s to 80s, and the Gospel was probably written ca. A. D. 90. Universalism is certainly not absent from an outlook that includes the statement: "God so loved the world ... that the world might be saved through him" (Jn 3:16-17). Yet, as we see in the following verses, Jn 3:18-21, dualism is an important modifying factor in this universalistic outlook. The human race is divided into non-believers and believers, into those who prefer darkness and those who prefer light. Since the Johannine community identifies itself with the believers, it is no surprise that those outside the community are looked upon as more or less shadowed by darkness.

No other gospel so lends itself to a diagnosis of community relationships in terms of opposition. Yet if stress on opposition is inevitable, we must not forget the light which shines within the Johannine community of faith and which is the main emphasis of the Gospel. Otherwise we might get the impression that the Johannine community had a negative self-identity. The Fourth Gospel is not an in-group manifesto meant as a triumph over outsiders; its goal is to challenge the Johannine community itself to understand Jesus more deeply (Jn 20:31).

2.1 Non-Believers Detectable in the Gospel

2.1.1 The World

Although the first impression is of a favorable Johannine attitude toward the world (Jn 3:16-17), actually the term "world" becomes more common in the gospel for those who reject the light. It has been proposed that there is a virtual identity in the gospel between the world and "the Jews." Nevertheless, the world is a wider concept. The fact that the opposition to "the Jews" dominates Jn 5-12 while opposition to the world dominates Jn 14-17 suggests a chronology in relationships.

The shift in opposition "the Jews" to the world may mean that now the Johnannine Christians are encountering Gentile disbelief, even as formerly they faced Jewish unbelief. By the time the gospel was written, the Johannine community had sufficient dealings with non-Jews to realize that many of them were no more disposed to accept Jesus than were "Jews", so that a term like "the world" was convenient to cover all such opposition.

2.1.2 The Jews

The expulsion from the synagogues had taken place some time before the gospel was written; but the Johannine Christians were still persecuted and being put to death by "the Jews." That means that, even if they had moved into more contact with Gentiles, they still lived in a place where there were synagogues.

The many references to "the Jews" should not be interpreted in terms of the Fourth Gospel being used as a missionary tract to be used in converting Jews, and containing ample scripture references. There are other reasons for including the Gospel scriptural arguments used in times past.

First, any religious group that has split off from another group will preserve in its arsenal arguments that justify the stance it took. They serve for the education of the next generation lest there be backsliding, even if there is no hope whatsoever that the erstwhile opponents will be convinced by the arguments.

Second, there were believers in Jesus still hidden away in the synagogues (see below); and the Johannine writer seriously desired to embolden these to confess Jesus, even if it meant that they would be thrown out of the synagogues. The arguments in the Gospel gave the Johannine Christians ammunition to be used in winning over those whom they knew to be crypto-Christians.

2.1.3 The adherents of John the Baptist

John portrays the first followers of Jesus as disciples of John the Baptist and the Johannine movement itself may have had its roots among such disciples. Therefore, it is surprising to find in the Fourth Gospel such a large number of negative statements pertinent to John the Baptist. He is not the light (Jn 1:9); he does not antedate Jesus (Jn 1:15, 30); he is not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet (Jn 1:19-24; 3:28); he must decrease while Jesus must increase (Jn 3:30). All this becomes intelligible when we hear in Jn 3:22-26 that some of the disciples of John the Baptist did not follow Jesus (contrast Jn 1:35-37) and jealously objected to the number of people who were following him.

If once more we read the Gospel partly as an autobiography of the Johannine community, we are led to suspect that Johannine Christians had to deal with such disciples and that the negations are meant as an apologetic against them. The fact that they are refuted in the Gospel, not by direct attack upon them as non-believers, but through careful correction of wrong aggrandizement of John the Baptist may mean that the Johannine Christians still held hope for their conversion (compare Acts 18:24-19:7).(7)

2.2 Other Christians Detectable in the Gospel

In the purview of the Johannine writer, clearly there are some who say they believe in Jesus but who, in fact, are no longer true believers.

2.2.1 The Crypto-Christians (Christian Jews within the Synagogue)

John 12:24-43 supplies the clearest reference to a group of Jews who were attracted to Jesus so that they could be said to believe in him, but were afraid to confess their faith publicly lest they be expelled from the synagogue. John has contempt for them because in his judgment they prefer the praise of people to the glory of God. He tells the story of the man born blind in Jn 9 as an example of someone who refuses to take the easy way of hiding his faith in Jesus and is willing to pay the price of expulsion for confessing that Jesus is from God (Jn 9:22-23, 33-38). This man is acting out the history of the Johannine community.

From the Johannine mirror-view of the Crypto-Christians it is difficult to reconstruct the details of their Christology and ecclesiology. We may guess that in their view the Johannine Christians had unnecessarily and tragically brought about the synagogue action against themselves. In their judgment the expulsion of the Johannine Christians may have been just as much the fault of their radicalism as it was of synagogue intransigence.

Attention is drawn to the action of the blind man's parents (Jn 9:18-23). They not only tried to shield themselves from scrutiny but deliberately turned the inquisitors' attention back upon their own son, knowing full well that he will be subject to the very sentence that they themselves are afraid to face. To what extent their behavior reflects actual events in the history of the Johannine community is, of course, impossible to know. But they remind the reader that, in the Johaninne situation, to avoid an open confession had implications not only for the believer fearful of exposure but also for the others who took the risk and allowed themselves to be involved in the process of confrontation. Self-protection involves the betrayal of others; every individual act has communal consequences.(8)

2.2.2 The Jewish Christians of Inadequate Faith

There were also Jewish Christians who had left the synagogue (or had been expelled), who were publicly known as Christians, who formed churches, and yet toward whom John had a hostile attitude at the end of the century. Their existence is indicated by the presence in the gospel of Jews who were publicly believers or disciples but whose lack of real faith is condemned by the author.

The first clear instance of this is in Jn 6:60-66. The immediately preceding discourse was given in the synagogue (Jn 6:59); and there we saw the utterly hostile objection of "the Jews" to Jesus' claim to be the bread of life, whether that be understood as divine revelation descended from heaven (Jn 6:41-42) or as his Eucharistic flesh and blood (Jn 6:53). But then Jesus leaves the synagogue and engages in dialogue with those whom John calls his "disciples." Some of them complain that what Jesus has been saying in the synagogue is hard to take and deserves no attention. Presumably their distress particularly concerns the last things Jesus said, namely, that the bread of life is his flesh which must be eaten, even as his blood must be drunk, so that the recipient may have life. (Clearly in this scene John has moved out of the historical ministry of Jesus into the life of the church). The scene ends with the words: "many of his disciples broke away and would not accompany him any more" (Jn 6:66). The evangelist refers here to Jewish Christians who are no longer to be considered true believers because they do not share John's view of the Eucharist.

Another instance of Jewish Christians of inadequate faith may be the brothers of Jesus mentioned in Jn 7:3-5. They urge Jesus to go up to Judaea to perform his miracles there, instead of doing them in relative hiding. John equates this with an invitation for Jesus to display himself to the world, and so he comments that even his brothers did not believe in him.

2.2.3 The Christians of Apostolic Churches

Distinct from the Johannine Christians themselves, still a third group of Christians may be detected. They are represented by Peter and other members of the Twelve, and for that reason we call them "apostolic." The Johannine choice of Peter and the Twelve to represent a group of Christians suggests that this group was Jewish Christian in origin, but not necessarily still so in constituency. Philip and Andrew are involved in a scene in Jn 12:20ff. where the Greeks come to Jesus, a scene which is symbolic of an opening to the Gentiles. We know that Peter and the Twelve stand for a group of Christians distinct from the Johannine community rather than for all true Christians because of the consistent and deliberate contrast between Peter and the beloved disciple, the hero of the Johannine community.

Incidentally, it is no accident that John speaks of this hero as a disciple, not as an apostle. Discipleship is the primary category for John; and closeness to Jesus, not apostolic mission, is what confers dignity. In five of the six passages where he is mentioned, the beloved disciple is explicitly contrasted with Peter (Jn 13:23-26; 18:15-16; 20:2-10:20:7; 21:20-23). In the sixth passage (Jn 19:26-27), where the beloved disciple appears at the foot of the cross, the contrast is implicit: Peter is one of those who have scattered, abandoning Jesus (Jn 16:23). Such contrasts cannot be accidental, especially since in several scenes John seems to have added a reference to the beloved disciple in order to establish the contrast.

The Johannine attitude toward these Apostolic Christians is fundamentally favorable. Nevertheless, in the Fourth Gospel these disciples do not seem to embody the fullness of Christian perception. The Johannine Christians, represented by the beloved disciple, clearly regard themselves as close to Jesus and more perceptive than the Christians of the apostolic churches.

The one-upmanship of the Johannine Christians is cegtered on Christology; for while the named disciples, representing the Apostolic Christians, have a reasonably high Christology, they do not reach the heights of the Johannine understanding of Jesus. This seems indicated by Jesus' words to Philip: "Here I am with you all this time and you still do not know me?" (Jn 14:9). We may make an informed guess that the precise aspect of Christology missing in the faith of the apostolic Christians is the perception of the pre-existence of Jesus and of his origins from above.

A difference in ecclesiology may also have separated Johannine Christians from Apostolic Christians. Unlike other New Testament writings which show that continuity with Peter and the Twelve was becoming an important factor in church identity and self-security, the Fourth Gospel gives virtually no attention to the category of "apostle" and makes "disciple" the primary Christian category, so that continuity with Jesus comes through the witness of the beloved disciple (Jn 19:35; 21:24).

These Johannine ecclesiological attitudes should not be interpreted as aggressively polemic, for there is no clear evidence that the Johannine community was condemning apostolic foundation and succession, church offices, or church sacramental practices. The Fourth Gospel is best interpreted as voicing a warning against the dangers inherent in such developments by stressing what (for John) is truly essential, namely, the living presence of Jesus in the Christian. No institution or structure can substitute for that.(9)

3. Johannine Internal Struggles

The story of the community of the beloved disciple is continued after the Gospel period in the Epistles. The Second and Third Epistles of John are one-page letters written by the same person, who calls himself "the presbyter. " The author of the First Epistle of John never identifies himself, and his work is more of a tractate than a person note. His dominant concern is to reinforce the readers against a group that has seceded from the community (1 Jn 2:19) but is still trying to win over more adherents. While the Gospel reflects the Johannine community's dealing with outsides, the Epistles are concerned with insiders. If the Gospel is dated ca. A. D. 90, the Epistles might be dated ca. A. D. 100. (10)

The Second and Third Epistles of John were written to different churches at a distance from the author (who intends to visit them), and so we know that the Johannine community was not all in one geographical place. Different cities or towns must have been involved. And since this was the period when Christian communities met in house churches that could not have held very many members, in a given town or city there may have been several house churches of Johannine Christians.

The author of the First Epistle says that a group has gone out from the ranks of his community (I Jn 2:19). It seems that both parties knew the proclamation of Christianity available to us through the Fourth Gospel, but they interpreted it differently. Each of the disputing parties was making the claim that its interpretation of the Gospel was correct. Hence the author's almost frustrated appeal to what was from the beginning (I Jn 1:4; 2:7, etc.) His opponents may sound as if they know the Johannine Gospel, but in his judgment they are distorting it precisely because they are ignorant of the tradition underlying it.

The central issue was apparently christological. The secessionists so stressed the divine principle in Jesus that the earthly career of the divine principle was neglected. They apparently believed that the human existence of Jesus, while real, was not salvifically significant. The only important thing for them was that eternal life had been brought down to men and women through a divine Son who passed through this world. The author challenges the wrong conclusions that his opponents have drawn from the commonly admitted incarnational theology, and so he is careful to accompany statements implying pre-existence with other statements stressing the career of the Word-made-flesh－a stress more formal and explicit than what is found in the Fourth Gospel.

There were also skirmishes on the implications of Christology for Christian behaviour. The author faults the secessionists on three grounds. First, they claimed an intimacy with God to the point of being perfect or sinless. Second, they do not put much emphasis on keeping the commandments. Third, they are vulnerable on the subject of neighborly love.(11)

4. Conclusion

It was within a situation of conflict, crisis and alienation that the Fourth Gospel was written, and against this background it must be understood. The community's traditions about Jesus were powerfully recast in this milieu, reflecting the influence both of forces outside mainstream Jewish piety and of the conflict with the synagogue. This reshaping of an originally independent stream of tradition is what gave the Fourth Gospel its peculiar character, advancing its portrayal of Jesus ever farther from the earlier tradition toward a deeper understanding, in a process perceived by the community as the work of the Spirit of Truth (Jn 14:25-26; 16:12-15).(12)

3.Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (New York: Paulist Press, 1984) 102-105.

4.David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (Philadelphia : Westminster Press, 1988) 41-48 (on the man born blind).

5.In scholarly jargon, "low" christology involves the application to Jesus of titles derived from the Old Testament or intertestamental expectations (e.g., Messiah, prophet, servant. Son of God )－titles that do not in themselves imply divinity. "Son of God," meaning divine representative, was a designation of the king (cf. 2 Sam 7:14) ; "lord" need mean no more than "master". "High" christology involves an appreciation of Jesus that moves him into the sphere of divinity, as expressed, for instance, in a more exalted use of Lord and Son of God, as well as the designation "God." Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (London : Chapman, 1979) 25.

6.Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community 37-41 (On Nicodemus). See also 52-59.

7.Brown, Community 59-71.

8.Rensberger, op. cit. 47-48.

9.Brown, Community 71-88.

10.Ibidem 93-97.

11.Ibidem 97-124.

12.Rensberger, op. cit. 28-29.

by Teotonio R. de Souza, S.J.

BASIC CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES :

From Roman Catholicism back to Early Church Catholicism

Modernization, Democratization, Participation

"Basic Christian Communities" [BCCs](1) are a phenomenon of the early 60s, and they inaugurated a return to the grass-roots communities of the early Christian era. The Brazilian liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff, has even entitled one of his books Ecclesio-genesis: Base communities reinvent the Church. The rapid development of these communities in the Third World is causing large-scale social upheaval and rootlessness. In such a context, a Church at the grass-roots can give to the marginalized poor a hope of life against the developmental trend that exploits the poor and makes them poorer for the benefit of the dominant class or classes, leaving them with no say in shaping their future. Uniformity of mass production and massive political and economic structures that supervise and control the process have brought about a reaction in the form of small communities in which persons recognize one another, assert their individuality, and "have their say".

I see this as a part of the process of "democratization" generated unwittingly by the very system of exploitation. The modern high level of technology demands increasingly higher levels of information on the part of workers. At the same time, the high levels of media exposure have created greater longings and demands for participation in the decision-making process. The capitalist tendency to maximize profits does not concede such demands without hard bargaining, and even without resorting to violent repressive measures, unless they prove too expensive.

It was in such situations, under the military repressive bourgeois regimes of Latin America, that BCCs provided space for resistance and survival. Participants in BCCs could find in the Bible faith and hope in God, Giver of Life. This led them to sociological reflection on the man-created sinful structures that are depriving masses of people of dignity and the means of living. They discovered in the Bible a power for political action, contrary to the traditional Church reading of it that did not allow the Church leaders to feel at home with the poor. As Gutierrez writes: "the Church goes to work in the world of the poor, but it is not really living there. The Church has its home in other social and cultural sectors, where it is at home. The emergence of BCCs is seen as a challenge to the traditional structures of "authority" within the Church, because it cannot promote "democratization" by retaining its "theocratic, divine-sanctioned, top-down" model of authority that has been discarded in most modern societies and is in the process of being discarded wherever it still survives. However, just as the process has been painful in the secular world, it is not going to be otherwise within the Church world. But the rate and intensity of change will be conditioned by the national histories and world developments, as well as by the history of the institutional Church at the centre and in different parts of the world.

What is discernible is a tendency to "control" the BCCs and bring them under "official" Church teachings and clerical supervision. Some conclude that the outcome－the Catholic Church being what it is－can only be "recuperation" or separation. Even though Vatican II opted for "co-responsibility" of all, the switching of models is proving difficult and the process is being sabotaged because of the centuries-old predominance of the authoritarian model and the bringing into operation of the new model is in the hands of people opposed to it. The very nature of the new model does not allow its supporters to use constraint or threats to remove obstacles and to ensure the success of their cause, for they cannot adopt the very methods they object to. The "communitarian-charismatic-prophetic aspect" of the BCCs seems more relevant for promoting a better response to the needs of the masses of the marginalized poor in the modern world. It still needs the institutional expression as a function of the communitarian-utopian aspect, and to that extent the institutional and hierarchical Church is challenged to re-examine its functions in service of the community, and to cease acting as producer and consumer of sacraments.

BCCs have a critique of the ministries in the Church on the basis of a different ecclesiology (not parochiology): if all are one in Christ (not halves, quarters, etc.), then all bear equal responsibility. All need not do everything, but there cannot be some services more important than others. Then, instead of a hierarchy of bishops, priests and laity, with one-sided accountability, all are accountable to each other. Hence, BCCs call for a new social structuring of the Church and to indicate this the term "ecclesiogenesis" was coined on the occasion of the 4th inter-Church meeting of the BCCs of Brazil in 1981. At this meeting it was realized that the new Church cannot be guided only by wise mentors who deny the people the right to meet and work out their own reflections. In the history of the Church, it has been seen that deviations are possible both among people and guides. A mutual apprenticeship is seen as the best means to avoid deviations.


1."Basic Ecclesial Communities" are better known as "Basic Christian Communities" [BCCs] in Hong Kong. Hence, BCC is used throughout the edited version of this paper, except at one point where the name "Basic Ecclesial Communities" is necessary to the discussion. [Ed.]

Vatican II and Latin-American Response

This new model of the Church emerging from the grass-roots has not been entirely out of tune with the Church of Rome, even though all its implications and applications are not yet acceptable to the "official" Church. "Vatican II must be seen as a historic cultural turning point for Roman Catholicism. It sanctioned with the highest authority movements for institutional, liturgical, and theological reform that had been resisted if not repudiated for two centuries ... It relativized the normative character of the language and habits of thought with which the Church had legitimated its teachings and activities ... It abandoned the idea of a single normative culture, identified with Western "Christian civilization," and called for an incarnation of Catholic Christianity in the variety of the world's cultures".(2) Until Vatican II, the Catholic Church had regarded the culture that Christendom had created as an unsurpassable ideal, which only needed minor adaptations to be relevant to new historical eras or to newly discovered societies.

For the assumption of local self-responsibility for the Church, the Medellin Conference (1968) had a paradigmatic character. There the Latin American Church reflected on itself both "in the light of the Council" and in the context of "the present-day transformation of Latin America". Medellin and Puebla became models for other Churches to imitate. Africans and Asians have also made their own moves in this direction, but if the results have not received as much notice it is only because the Christian influence for bringing about any major social-political change continues to be weaker in these continents than in Latin America.

It is also important to keep in mind that Latin America had at least nominally a century-long existence of independence even before the decolonization process started in Asia and Africa. Afro-Asian decolonization and the rise of non-aligned consciousness brought more sharply into focus for the Latin Americans their own situation of century-long dependence which was now termed neocolonialism. Particularly since the Great Depression, the Latin-American countries have very severely experienced their dependence on Anglo-American capital, and their efforts to introduce greater industrialization with import-substitution led to labour controls, with populist politics and the corresponding growing popularity of left movements. The Reconstruction of Europe and the Marshall Plan provided wide scope for American investments and for exploitation of cheap labour during the immediate post-war period. The East-West divide and the formation of the Socialist Block with its Comecon demanded new areas for investment for Western capital. Latin America has always been the first to suffer in this connection, because of its proximity to the US.

As well as that, the rest of the Third World in the 1960s was targeted for such investments under the guise of the "development decade". The Church's strong antagonism to Communism was exploited to recruit its services as an international agent of "development". Vatican II did much in this regard, but the political economists and social scientists of Latin America had already developed their own analysis in the form of "dependence theory", which the Latin American Church adopted at Medellin. The "dependence theory" saw in the zeal for development on the part of "metropolitan capital" a way of promoting their own interests through control of "dependent capital" in the underdeveloped countries. This was articulated into a new pastoral methodology in the form of BCCs and the new theological-pastoral framework of Liberation Theology, which based its reflection on the praxis of the people's struggle for an integral liberation, borrowing the Marxist social analysis of class conflicts in society and making a preferential option for the poor.


2.Joseph A. Komonchak, "The Local Realization of the Church", in: The Reception of Vatican II, (Washington D. C., 1987) 81.

BCCs : Definition, Methodology, Prospects

Luis Femandes (3) suggests that there is no fixed prescription or formula for starting BCCs. Diverse situations require diverse types of BCCs. He sees as common a faith commitment in the context of a personal and collective commitment to life and action.. This commitment, moreover, does not come by instructions from the hierarchy : it emerges from the reflection of the people with one eye on the Bible and the other on their reality of poverty. Fernandes lists several cases of parish priests going about dividing their large parishes into areas and jobs, and believing that they have founded BCCs.

Despite the difficulty of having a consensus definition of BCCs, and consequently of giving any meaningful estimates of how many BCCs exist or of specifying some definitive programs and activities to which one could point with confidence and say: "This is what BCCs always do", I shall present a skeletal working definition for bringing some clarity into what is said hereafter regarding the theological assumptions and practical consequences of the new reality of BCCs. At a minimum, BCCs are small groups, usually homogeneous in social composition, which gather regularly to read and comment on the Bible. They all originate in some linkage with the institutional Church, and this linkage is maintained in some form. This bare-bone definition highlights three common elements that make up the name "Basic Christian Community" or "Basic Ecclesial Community": a striving for community (small, homogeneous); a stress on ecclesial linkage; they are at the base of both the Church and society. It is this "base" characteristic that makes them suspect and causes unease in the class groupings dominant in the traditional Church structure.

The BCCs are not anti-parish. They are to be seen as living Church cells linked to the parish. Tension often does result where parishes are too centralized, because such a centralization is opposed to the very nature of the BCCs, which believe in the human right to make their own decisions democratically and with wide participation of the lay members. Hence, one bishop suppressed his parishes with a view to giving his 1,600 BCCs great room for manoeuvre.

This does not rule out either the initiative of Church leaders or their constant encouragement and sustenance of the BCCs. "Pastoral agents" (Church leaders) are expected to "accompany" the BCCs, not rule them. Therefore, such pastoral agents should be formed within the BCCs, and their main concern should not be to maintain unity with Rome following the same discipline, the same rites, and the same canon law without exception. The centre of the Church is where the poor are, and the point of departure for theology is not Church doctrine but the grass-roots situation. Salvation is not to be separated from liberation, just as redemption makes no sense without creation. The God of Jesus first gave life, and then chose to give it more abundantly through the Son and the Spirit. Hence, for BCCs the Church has to be a sacrament of life for those who are being denied their God-given life and right to live. This theological approach of the BCCs represents a new Church that refuses to manipulated by the propertied and dominant classes, and to that extent it is bound to face resistance and opposition from the traditional Church and its traditional allies both within and outside.

The BCCs in practice have not been a great attraction for the middle classes, who tend to be individualistic and profit seekers. Apparently, some Europeans who sought to establish BCCs in Latin America often failed because of their life-style, which was more private and individualistic. There was a tendency among them to make their solitude a collective experience, a sort of loners seeking other loners. The BCCs have been popular with the marginalized sectors, and their vision of the world. As such, they have no problem with the official Church. Communists, just like the middle and upper classes influenced by positivist rationalism, fail to understand that there is no advantage in separating the people from the Church or from religion. The very source of people's motivation for political action in the BCCs is the link of faith with life, contrary to the traditional manipulation of religion to put people to sleep. Some surveys have even confirmed a positive link between BCCs membership and higher frequency of sacraments.

The BCCs and liberation theology have been suspected in official Church quarters and in the capitalist countries of making use of Marxist theories. Real Marxists fighting at the grass-roots frequently encourage the BCCs to see Marxism as a popular movement. They act as genuine friends and companions of BCCs, and BCC leaders have had often to share prison cells with Marxists. But the BCCs often speak of the satanic side of Marxism and hold in horror the suppression of the freedom of religion. The problem however remains of BCCs being manipulated by political parties, including left-wing parties, who share more the idealism of the BCCs in favour of the poor. The BCCs and MABs (Movimento dos Amigos de Bairros = Urban Neighbourhood Movements, since mid-70s) do not bind their members to a political party and the members are free to decide their partisan options. At that level, there have been internal tensions calling for more mature reflection and action. The hierarchy in Brazil has encountered such situations, recognized the political inability of its own structures to sustain further political involvement of the MABs and allowed the movements to proceed on their own. This recognition of autonomy with continued moral and even financial support has kept the popular movements close to the Church. The MABs have been strongest where the Church has promoted and supported the BCCs. Grass-roots leaders were thus prepared to enter into the larger arena of town politics and national politics.

When one talks of Basic Christian [Ecclesial] Communities in Latin America it is very important to remember that the BCC is neither a univocal concept nor a model of organization. Furthermore, historical development in Latin America is not a single continuum. Hence both the development and the nature of BCCs in Latin America vary according to the different regional historical developments. One can identify roughly three different models, namely Brazilian-Chilean, Mexican-Colombian, and Central American.

In the first model, the Brazilian-Chilean model, the military-authoritarian regimes allowed space for self-expression only in the Church, and as a result dynamic ties evolved between the Church and the popular movements through the BCCs.

In Brazil, the Church has never grown as a rival to the State, and as a result has had always to depend on popular support.

In Mexico and Colombia, the Church has always succeeded in maintaining its institutional strength despite sporadic challenges and attacks by the State. Against this background, the hierarchy has sought to exercise strict control over popular movements. Polarization within the Church has therefore been far greater and many are forced to function outside the Church.

Finally, in Central America the Church is divided in its support of the popular revolutionary thrust. In this situation, on the doorstep of the USA, no real State exists and the hierarchy has to confront the frustrated peasantry who have lost all hope of reform. Because of strong pressure from the Vatican through the USA, few in the hierarchy or clergy are openly supportive of the revolution.


3.Luis Fernandes, Como se faz uma comunidade eclesial de base (5th ed., Petropolis, 1986).

The Church and the Independence of Latin America

After introducing the immediate political, economic and ecclesiastical background that explains the emergence of the BCCs, I wish to link up this emergence with its more distant historical background. It is important to establish such a link for a fuller understanding of the present-day developments and future trends. Such an exercise will need to be done with regard to Asia in general and to Hong Kong in particular. Critical intervention in history at the present for a better future cannot be done without gathering the past.

The struggle for the independence of Latin America was the struggle between the Creoles and the peninsulares [people of Peninsular Iberia] and both sides sought the ideological and economic support of the Church. The nationalist tensions were brought to the fore during the Napoleonic Wars, when the English blockade made supplies from Spain to the Indies difficult. Spain had to decree the ports of the Indies open to neutral shipping to save the situation. North Americans jumped in and almost monopolized the situation.

The Napoleonic invasion of Spain changed the Spanish anti-English stance. The Creoles of the Indies were not against the Monarchy or the Church in Spain as long as they were left to run their own affairs. They wanted no Jacobinism and no Bonaparte. Latin America was shaken by insurrections all over, starting with the newer viceroyships of La Plata and New Granada. There was no general coordination. Only in Mexico was the insurrection more a popular revolt caused by land hunger and led by a priest named Hidalgo, and there the Creoles joined the Spanish viceroy in stamping it out. From 1814-16 the Spanish rule was restored, except in Buenos Aires. Bolivar (Venezuelan liberator) and San Martin (commander of the La Plata army) took up the common cause of Latin America and with patriotic and mercenary forces gained the liberation of the rest of Latin America (1816-25). But the captains could not cooperate and both the leading conquistadors had to leave for exile.

Their followers partitioned the subcontinent and its large viceroyships into different unitary and centralized states. Most of the new rulers were even noisily pious, but they were all unanimous in desiring to restrict the independent political activities of the Church and employ it as the guardian of the new social order. However, things did not work out that way. From the beginning the Church Hierarchy for the most part supported the royalist cause as a natural response to the Patronato real. The overwhelming majority of the hierarchy were peninsulares and identified with the interests of Spain. They also recognized the threat posed by revolution and liberal ideology to the established position of the Church. Bishops whose loyalty to the crown was suspect were either recalled to Spain or effectively deprived of their dioceses. Most dioceses were filled with candidates of unquestioned political loyalty, but there were a few who clearly sympathized with the patriots.

The lower clergy, especially the secular clergy, were predominantly Creole and though divided, like the Creole elite as a whole, were more inclined to support the struggle for self-rule and eventually independence. There was a deep resentment at the virtual monopoly of the higher ecclesiastical posts by peninsulares. Some of the lower clergy played an outstanding role in the struggle for Spanish American independence, and they proclaimed the Virgin of Guadalupe the patron saint of the Spanish American Revolution. By 1815 over 100 priests had been executed in Mexico. At the same time, a substantial number of loyalist priests preached obedience to the Crown. This was particularly the case in the religious orders, where the proportion of peninsulares to Creoles was higher.

Throughout most of the period of the revolution and the wars for Spanish American independence, the papacy maintained its traditional alliance with the Spanish Crown. In his encyclical Etsi longissimo (30 Jan. 1816), Pius VII urged the bishops and clergy of Spanish America to make clear the dreadful consequences of rebellion against legitimate authority. Later the Vatican became more neutral, partly in response to petitions from Spanish America, and partly because of the anti-clerical attitude of the liberal government in Spain after the Revolution of 1820, culminating in the expulsion of the Papal Nuncio in January 1823. However, under Pope Leo XII, a strong defender of legitimate sovereignty, Rome's attitude towards revolutionaries hardened again, and that at a moment when the royalists were about to suffer their final defeat.

The Catholic Church in Spanish America emerged from the struggle for independence considerably weakened as a result of its too close ties with the Crown. The same voices of reason that repudiated absolute monarchy also challenged revealed religion. The architects of independence sought a moral legitimacy for what they were doing, and they found inspiration not in Catholic political thought but in the philosophy of the age of reason, particularly in the utilitarianism of Bentham. As a result the position of the republican State vis-a-vis the Church was not friendly. Under pressure from the Holy Alliance powers, Rome continued adamant in its opposition to the liberal republics, and most dioceses remained vacant for long periods. It was only under Pope Gregory XVI (1831-46) that many vacancies were filled and, beginning with New Granada in 1835, political relations established with the Spanish American republics.

The structure of the Church was much damaged during the post-revolutionary period as a result of the hostile legislation that closed many convents and appropriated their properties and capital. While acknowledging Catholicism as the State religion, the new governments frequently accepted the principle of religious toleration under pressure of Britain. The Inquisition was invariably abolished. The Church for its part, especially during the papacy of Pius IX, increasingly resisted and mobilized in its defence the conservative forces in Spanish American society, including popular forces. As a result, the conflict between the liberal State and the Catholic Church became a central political issue throughout Spanish America in the middle decades of the 19th century, especially in Mexico, where it led to violent confrontation and full-scale civil war in the 1850s and 1860s. The situation was somewhat similar in Colombia.

As was the case elsewhere, the Catholic Church in Central America was a strongly conservative force. In the 1920s, for example, the Nicaraguan bishops paid little attention to the struggle of Augusto Cesar Sandino except to urge his followers to abandon their "sterile struggle" and return to family, work, and religion. In 1942 the archbishop of Managua crowned President Anastasio Somoza's daughter Queen of the Army in a ceremony using a crown from the statue of Our Lady of Candelaria. In 1954 Archbishop Rossell of Guatemala City organized nationwide processions with a popular "black Christ" to stir up anti-communist sentiments, and he cooperated with the US Embassy in the CIA overthrow of the Arbenz government. In general there was the day-to-day reinforcement of a fatalistic world view through popular religiosity, in which the image of God resembles a celestial hacienda owner. As has been frequently stated, the Church was one of the three pillars of society, the other two being the landholding oligarchy and the military.

The situation of the Church in Brazil was somewhat different, as it had neither the institutional strength and political influence, nor the economic wealth and juridical privileges which it had in Mexico or Peru. Under the padroado real, Brazil's one archbishop and six bishops were, like the Spanish American episcopate, appointed by and subordinate to the Crown. The Church hierarchy, however, included many Brazilians and there was much less of a divide－economic, social or ideological－between the hierarchy and the lower clergy. The transfer of the Portuguese court to Brazil in 1807 saved Brazil and its Church from the extreme political and ideological conflicts which beset Spanish America. In the political crisis of 1821-2, the majority of the Brazilian clergy supported the Brazilian faction and eventually the independence of Brazil. There were some pro-Portuguese elements within the Church, some of whom were deported. There were also some extreme liberal and republican priests, but most were moderate liberals and played an important role in the politics of the time.

The first legislature (1826-9) included more priests (26 out of 100 deputies) than any other social group. The relatively peaceful political transition in Brazil and the continuance of the Monarchy ensured that the Church emerged relatively undamaged and was not threatened by aggressive liberal anticlericalism in the period after independence. There were no serious clashes between the Church and the State till the Brazilian hierarchy came under the influence of ultramontanism in 1870s. Today, Brazil is making a most creative contribution to the evolution of the Church in Latin America through its very wide existing network of nearly 150,000 BCCs in 252 dioceses. This is possible in Brazil because of its supportive Hierarchy, unlike elsewhere in Latin America as we shall see in the next section.

Neo-Colonialism : Church Patronage

This phase is marked by the hangover of "colonialism" in the Church. Used to command alongside the State, the Church continues to be burdened by colonial baggage, which it finds difficult to shed, namely clericalization and institutionalization. Burdened in this way, the Church now finds itself confronted with a "Church-people" that is emerging in the form of basic communities and other movements. That is why we have adopted the terminology of "Crown Patronage" and "Church "Patronage" to designate the colonial and neo-colonial phases respectively.

There was an early phase of the Church involvement in the social problems of Latin America, as in the Falange movement in Chile, 1935-1941. This phase, usually known as the "ethical phase", was inspired by Catholic Action. That was a period of idealism and personalism, when it was believed that society could be restructured by preaching social justice. This was followed by the stage of Christian Democracy, which emerged with contributions of CEPAL (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America) and the belief that the movement could join party politics and draw up programmes for change. The development decade of the 60s and massive aid programmes by the transnational commercial banks brought in the militarization of Latin America to protect the investments under the overt and covert backing of the United States.

Neither the ethical perspective nor economic analysis and development showed a way out of the impasse. Revolution, and not development, was felt to be the only way out. Most committed Christians were convinced that the teachings of the Church were insufficient for bringing about change. The Church was seen as limited to correcting abuses in the system, but not ready to raise questions about the system itself. There was a large-scale exodus of Christians in search of Marxist solutions. Camillo Torres, the Colombian priest who met his death in 1966, symbolized the dilemma of involved Christians at this point: either stay with the Church and adopt reformist positions or opt for revolution and leave the Church. Many Catholics, including priests and male and female religious, joined the ranks, while many lay people joined the movements clandestinely.

It was against this background in Latin America and the Third World in general that the Church began changing its attitude and distancing itself gradually from the Right. The Encyclical Mater et Magistra [1961] was the first indicator of the change. Then came the Second Vatican Council. The Council did not mark the beginning of a change, but rather the acceptance of drives for change that had been rejected for too long. This new acceptance saw its implementation by the Latin American Church at Medellin (1968). Medellin marked a major change in the Latin American Hierarchy, which had blocked the election of Allende in 1964 and helped elect Eduardo Frei. Despite Pope Paul VI 's rejection of any form of revolution during his visit to Bogota in 1968, the revolutionaries got the Episcopal Conferences of Latin America [CELAM] to declare at Medellin that revolution against tyranny was justified. The tyrant could be represented by "unjust structures".

Medellin defined the situation in Latin America as charged with "institutionalized violence", and made the theory of dependence its own, condemning neo-colonialism and internal colonialism, and calling for liberation. The mainstream liberation theologians who had been preparing the ground for Medellin did not always understand dependency in the same manner. For their protagonist Gutierrez, the class-struggle is an important concept for clarifying the fact that it is not nations that are at war but certain classes within nations. For the oppressive regimes, Medellin became a word that meant subversion. The Rockefeller Report warned President Nixon and his southern allies of the likely "revolutionary character" of the changes demanded by the post-Medellin Church. This warning was backed by action: Tupomaros were silenced by the Armed Forces in Uruguay in 1973. The MIR (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) brought about a coup d'etat in Chile in the same year. Montoneros in Argentina, after breaking away from the main popular body of Peronism, were equally wiped out. Fr. Carlos Mugica was a parallel of Camillo Torres, and was assassinated in Buenos Aires.

Following Medellin, the World Synod of Bishops in 1971 made "liberation" the key word and declared that "action in support of justice" was "part and parcel of the preaching of Gospel". It was understood that denunciation of injustice was consequently political but essentially evangelical. The Bishops of Brazil issued two documents that same year denouncing capitalism as "the greatest evil". Bishop Dom Candido Padin had already been responsible for the open denunciation of the doctrine of National Security in July 1968. The theme was taken up at a meeting of seven Latin American bishops and some US bishops at Riobamba in 1976. The meeting was closed down by the police.

That same year, 1976, the Brazilian bishops took an unusual step: the organization of International Days for a Society Overcoming Domination. The idea was supported by Bishops' Conferences in France, Canada, USA and Asia, as well as by the International Commission of Jurists. Many studies were collected over a period of two years, preparing for a general meeting to be held in Paris in May 1978. The meeting was cancelled due to the interference of some regimes through the Holy See. Despite such opposition the Bishops of Latin America repeated the "preferential option for the poor" at their general meeting at Puebia in January 1979. The Bishops of Nicaragua asked the USA to stop aid to Somoza. To quote from the official communique on religion issued by the National Directorate of the FSLN on October 7, 1980: "Patriotic revolutionary Christians are members of the Sandinist Popular Revolution and have been for many years. The participation of Christians, both lay and religious, in the FSLN and in the National Reconstruction Government (GRN) is a logical consequence of their outstanding identification with the people throughout the struggle against the dictatorship". It continues: "Thus Christians have been an integral part of our revolutionary history to a degree without precedent in any other revolutionary movement in Latin America and possibly throughout the world. This fact opens new and interesting possibilities for Christian participation in revolutions in other lands, not only in the period of the struggle for power but also in the next stage, that of the reconstruction of a new society".

In El Salvador, 48 hours after the coup d'etat against President Romero (Oct. 1980), the Archbishop of San Salvador, Mgr. Oscar Romero, expressed his support for the Revolutionary Junta's government. But when the Junta did not live up to the people's expectations Mgr. Romero spoke strongly against it and against the support of Washington. He was shot dead while saying Mass and after preaching: "We are living in a pre-insurrection period, and the teaching of the Church justifies insurrection when all peaceful means have proved useless".

It is important to note the active follow-up of the changes in the Latin American Church on the part of US agencies. At the Santa Fe Conference held in 1980, conservative American politicians worked out the US policy with regard to Latin America. One of their conclusions was that "in the interest of the U.S., Liberation Theology must be frustrated" (confidential report). After Reagan's election the same group established in Washington the "Center for Religion and Democracy" (1981), financed by the Republican Party and some private rightist organizations. The Center operates under the direction of the Protestant sociologist Peter Berger and the Catholic theologian Michael Novak. The elimination of Liberation Theology is the major item on the Center's agenda. This is to be done by propagating "privatized religiosity", leaving the public domain to the State. The Center seeks to encourage an apolitical religiosity which focuses on the feelings of consolation in human inferiority, delinked from any critical engagement in society. It is believed that the two avowed opponents of Liberation Theology in Latin America, namely the Archbishops Obando y Bravo and Lopez Trujillo were raised to the cardinalate in 1984 and 1985 through the good offices of the Centre.

While elsewhere it is State governments that have been throwing foreign missionaries out, in Nicaragua it is the Church Hierarchy that has been expelling the foreign missionaries who have learned to collaborate with the BCCs and with the laity involved in national reconstruction. The reestablishment of ambassadorial relations between USA and Vatican on 10 January 1984 after a break of 117 years was connected with Regan's policy towards Poland and the Eastern bloc, as well as the expectations of USA regarding the Vatican's control over the Latin American Churches, particularly the revolutionary clergy of Nicaragua.

The "Instruction on Certain Aspects of Liberation Theology", issued by the Vatican in 1984, may also be understood against the same background. Contrary to the convictions of most mainstream liberation theologians, who see the world as one and salvation history as one, and consequently as a single plane for clergy and laity to operate on, the Church magisterium has been insisting that the clergy leave the politicking to the laity, and that activists shun such Marxist concepts as class struggle. That same year one of Brazil's best known liberation theologians, Leonardo Boff, was called to the Vatican for interrogation and later forbidden to make public pronouncements for a year. As recently as 1989, Cardinal Arns of Sao Paulo was admonished by the Vatican for writing a letter to Fidel Castro, asserting that the Cuban revolution displayed "signs of the kingdom of God", and Bishop Pedro Casaldaliga, who visited Nicaragua to strengthen the basic communities, was told by the Vatican not to go there again. Both these leaders of the Brazilian Church are held in the highest esteem and veneration by the masses of the Brazilian people.

A team of Asian Bishops that visited Nicaragua and spent 10 days moving freely and meeting anyone they wanted to meet, submitted a report that is very critical of the Hierarchy of Nicaragua as unwilling to compromise and to join hands with the Sandinista government in the face of a ruthless American trade embargo and the "Contra" war. The team of Asian bishops has words of great appreciation for the achievements of the Sandinistas in their attempts at real democratization.

All of this is in keeping with the philosophy of the Trilateral Committee, which was established at the beginning of the 70s under the leadership of Zbigniew Brezezinski. Brezezinski was critical of Kissinger's policies (1969-76): shuttle-diplomacy and tight-rope walking. He favoured a compact global policy, which implied that the democratic system was no longer capable of governing and that the system was too vulnerable to undesirable changes. The Trilateral proposed that the foreign policy makers of imperialism should be "architects", not "tight-rope walkers", and that they should develop a solid edifice. This would require trans-national capitalism to adopt a new face, with a minimum of democratic freedom in politics and absolute freedom in economy. Detente would be one of the pillars of the Trilateral policy for the superpowers and the entire globe. That would prevent any further exodus into the socialist world. In practice any tendencies in this direction were to be discouraged by a powerful military force (rapid deployment). But all this is to be achieved with smiles. Detente would also include ideological pluralism.

This explains the measured and calculated opening towards Eurocommunism, which was to be used to encourage dissidence in the socialist bloc. The results of the media manipulation are clear from the developments in Eastern Europe. After the victory on technological grounds, the Trilateral decided to move on to ideological grounds. The Carter rhetoric of human rights (with control or displacement of military abuses where necessary) in the capitalist sphere of influence was meant to balance the Western embarrassment with the demands for freedom for dissenters in the Socialist bloc.

Against this background, the "upsurge of democracy" in Latin America and elsewhere is a face-saving device and a longterm illusion! Latin America is a part of the world where the Trilateral has nothing to fear, and as such can safely put up "democracy shows". Gorbachev may have learned from the Trilateral to work out a socialism with a human face but that has yet to become a fitting challenge to Trilateral's capitalism with a human face. There is no change of goals and allies in either camp, but only a change of methods. When military force does not provide the expected "security" for the imperialist logic of domination and accumulation of benefits, it is considered advisable to put on a civilian uniform or even to set up a genuinely cooperative civilian rule. The Trilateral project does not envisage justice for the masses, but only a better balance for the upper landed and commercial-industrial interests.

The new "democratization" and promotion of sub-nationalities can be explained as yet another stage in the development of world capitalism. Following the breaking down of the colonial barriers to its capital penetration and the creation of "independent" nations, the new requirement seems to be a further breaking up of the nations into "sub-nations", which would be more vulnerable and therefore more dependent on world capital for their survival.

Concluding Remarks

The colonial Church in the Third world (the image and likeness of the metropolitan Church) has built a solid material basis for itself by having landed property and buildings and other sources of regular income. The price to pay for this is dependence on the dominant classes, whose help is indispensable for the maintenance of and augmentation of the Church's patrimony. Of course the poor were never neglected: they had the sacraments, processions and alms. These were meant to console and confirm them in their natural fatalism. Compared with this situation, the BCCs foster critical relationships and do not allow themselves to be used for maintaining the stability and progress of some classes and of the government that ensures this. It is up to the official Church to support the poor prophetically, abandoning its strong position and temporal power.

It is in the history of Hong Kong that one will have to seek the elements for a creative response in view of its future. The social, political, economic and ecclesiastical structures that have taken root in Hong Kong will need to be carefully evaluated for their constructive or deviating contribution to the majority of the people of Hong Kong. It will be necessary to assess deviation in terms of values that are not in keeping with the "Kingdom of God" and are becoming a block to responding prophetically to the call of the God of history. It may be necessary to do much genuine soul-searching to see how much of the concern for "democracy" is truly a concern for justice for the marginalized or only a concern for safeguarding the benefits reaped by the institutional Church and the well-to-do Christians of Hong Kong. It may also be necessary to distinguish "Church and State" from "religion and politics". When Church and State cannot count on each other for mutual support, when ideologies and public legitimations change, then it is only a new understanding of the tasks of religious faith, with new structures of participation and community building in the Church, that will enable the Christians of Hong Kong to outlive any particular historical conjunction and provide a new creative basis for expressing religious commitment in daily life.

Unwillingness to undertake a serious response to the above points could vitiate any plans to embark on adapting traditional Church structures, turning them into a mere political strategy of the middle class (presuming that the upper class has plans for, and access to, better pastures elsewhere). Any ideas of strategy could end up with frustration faced with intra-Church confusion and political anxieties that may become the lot of Hong Kong Christians in the wake of its integration into the People's Republic of China. The one and only predominant desire ought to be to see in the new developments an historic opportunity to carry the faith and its liberating message into the Mainland in the midst of any trials that may be awaiting.

by Teotonio R. de Souza, S.J.

LOCAL CHURCHES :

Some Historical-Theological Reflections in the Asian Context

The Problem

The concept of "local church" is fundamental for any meaningful discussion of, or for plans for, the implementation of "Basic Christian Communities". The "local church" understood in the sense of some administrative unit of the Church at some level of Church structure is not what makes the "local church" an important issue in the Church today. Seeking parallels in the early history of Church expansion in the form of the churches the Apostles left behind (1) can help us to understand the tensions of locality and catholicity experienced by the followers of Christ from the time Christianity evolved as an expanding social organization.

The expansion of the Church over space and time eventually came to mean that the expansion of communities accompanied the political, economic, social and cultural domination of one society by another. This process was accompanied, as could be expected, by divisive and secessionist tendencies at the level of diakonia within local communities, and at the level of koinonia between communities.

As illustrations of intra-societal conflicts, we have the case of Ananias, who was reluctant to share his goods [Acts 5:1-11], and the necessity of the creation of the ministry of "deacons" when Hebrews and Hellenists had a conflict over the distribution of alms [Acts 6:1-6].

The "heresies" of the early centuries and thereafter illustrate the inter-societal trend of cultural domination in the Roman empire and should be analyzed along these lines, rather than treated as purely doctrinal conflicts. As long as the communities were few and small, personal apostolic admonitions (as seen from the Pauline and Johannine epistles) seem to have succeeded in maintaining the balance between locality and universality without serious damage to koinonia, but as larger political-cultural boundaries were being crossed and apostolic authority was taking dominant political-cultural forms, diversity of ecclesiologies was not an easy alternative to heresies and schisms.

With the emergence of what is called the European World-Economic System (2) and the global expansion of Christianity, it became even more difficult to maintain this balance. In the new colonial set-up, Europe became the "centre" and the "pole of religious expansion", while the colonies became the "periphery", where consensus operated in structures of dependence and domination. In this bipolar context, the catholicity of the Church was linked with the metropolitan church and its western association with the Roman church. Ideological cultural hegemony was located there, and the churches in the "periphery" were only missionary appendages to the church at the "centre". Since Vatican II, it appears that we have been witnessing a change in the approach of the dominant Roman Catholic Church towards the churches of the Third World, the non-Catholic churches, and the other religions. Is this a new self-understanding, or only a tactical theological concession to the post-colonial world situation?


1.Cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (London : Geoffrey Chapman, 1984).

2.Wallerstein, I., The Models World-System, 2 vols. (Florida, U. S. A., Academic Press Inc., 1974-80)

The Approach

Much has been written in recent years on the issue of the local Church (with variations in terminology) and the most that I could claim to do in this paper is to focus on some points that perhaps have not been sufficiently stressed and which could help us understand the problems of localizing the church, which is essential for its true catholicity. Without a good grasp of such issues, serious experiment with "small faith communities" could prove frustrating. As may be expected, our approach will be predominantly historical, but with an awareness of, and sensitivity to, the theological implications for churches in the Third World. The church of Hong Kong is likely to enter into this category.

It is not possible in the space available to enter into factual details of the origin and evolution of the individual local churches in Asia. However, the colonial atmosphere in which they grew has shaped their growth and evolution. The Portuguese and Spanish expansion determined to a large extent the pattern of evolution of the local churches all over Asia, including regions that came under control of other European powers in the course of later centuries. The recipient cultures need also to be taken seriously into consideration to understand the nature of the local churches in Asia. My concluding section will pay special attention to this.

The Church in History : Witnessing to the Gospel?

In the guidelines issued for drawing up the FABC / TAC document on THE LOCAL CHURCH, it was stated that the "being of the Church" is not separable from its "mission". This would imply that the nature of the Church can be best understood only against the background of its past and its doings in the past, without of course negating potentialities for the filture. The scriptural "mission" to all nations and till the end of time does not by itself and without reference to the historical growth of the Church help us to understand how that "mission" was actuated. Furthermore, new challenges to "mission" cannot be understood except in the historical conjuncture that has evolved from both the distant and the more recent past.

The beginning of the Church is traced back scripturally to Pentecost Day, when the outpouring of the Spirit found people from all over the world speaking their own tongues and all understanding each other－a reversal of the Biblical Babel. Although this phenomenon may help to explain some constitutive elements of the Church, particularly the central role of the Holy Spirit, it does not help to understand the actual process by which Christianity expanded into new regions with different cultures. Rather, the Pentecost narrative idealizes the issue. Practically at no stage of the history of the expanding Church have its individuality and universality been so easily manifested as in the Pentecost narrative! There is little likelihood that people today will accept a theology of "mission" that would overstress the idealism of the scriptures without explaining why that idealism has taken less ideal forms in the course of the past twenty centuries.

The gradual self-understanding of the Church is itself a part of its historical nature, as when Jesus said: "when the Spirit comes ... he will lead you into all the truth" (Jn 16:12-12). In time, and assisted by the Holy Spirit, the Church has realized that she has too often been a victim of her own self-justifying rhetoric. In seeking unity, the Church sometimes fell into a cult of uniformity, of a monolithic Church, which aspired to a single universal language (Latin), a single theological system (Neo-Scholasticism), a single system of worship (the Roman Rite), and a single system of government (the Code of Canon Law). The Church also sought catholicity in universal expansion and in an irrational quest for bigness. The notion of mission was corrupted by the imperialistic effort to bring as many as possible into the fold, and by the adoption of the maxim "Outside the Church no salvation". The "barbarians" of the empires were substituted by "pagans". This trend is turning with the more recent self-understanding, but it does not seem to lead as yet to the understanding of the unity of mutual charity leading to a universality of communion of friends. (3)


3.Avery Dulles, Models of the Church (Hong Kong, 1985).

Catholicity : Communion or Domination?

In Western histories of the Church and other theological writings, one commonly reads about the distinction between Latin and Greek Churches, designated as Western and Eastern Churches. I have not come across any serious questioning of this terminology. The term "Eastern" can only tenuously be justified for the Church of Constantinople on the basis of the influence it exercised over the East as a result of the inherited Hellenistic cultural influence in some border areas of the Persian empire, but it was still very much a Greek European church in the eastern part of the Roman empire. The so-called "Churches of Asia" were mostly the churches in Asia Minor, the European Turkey of today. The influence of the Greek Church over Russia was still restricted to the East of Europe.

Moreover, it was the "caesaro-papism" of the Byzantine Church that created problems for the survival of local churches in the Sassanid Persian empire and led to the break-away of the East-Syrian (Chaldean) Church, which kept links with Christianity in the real Asia that was hardly known to Europe. This separation took place before the end of the 5th century.

Hence, the conflicts between the Latin and Greek Churches were very much East-West conflicts within Europe and may be seen as distant heralds of the nationalisms that would emerge following the peak of the Latin hegemony in the Christendom of the Middle Ages. However, there is no denying the fact that the geographical-cultural proximity of the Byzantine Church to the East showed in it some eastern cultural traces that differed somewhat from the Latin concerns. However, the deeper cause of the tension and eventual schism was the cultural predominance that Byzantine Europe enjoyed over the western half as a result of the shift of the capital. The socio-economic and cultural insufficiency of Western Europe and its new political developments enabled the papacy in Rome to exercise leadership and rally the feelings of the western half by drawing upon the Petrine and Roman imperial tradition to compensate for its losses.

In this conflict, the strength of the Byzantine church, namely the presence of the emperor, became also its weakness. It had to share its authority with the emperor, while the papacy in the West could present a unified command and the allegiance of its more rural subjects. Also the prosperity and pomp of the court and its munificence to the Patriarch and hierarchy could hardly provide sufficient experience of threat even in the midst of growing demands of the Roman church for supremacy. Besides, while the emperor could trust himself to control the dissatisfaction of his Byzantine subjects in and around the capital, logistics required that he should be more generous to the demands of the subjects that he had left behind and in the more distant part of the empire.

This may partly explain the nature of imperial interventions and the position taken by the emperor in ecclesiastical conflicts. These socio-politico-cultural contradictions of Western-Eastern European societies can explain to some extent the problems of individuality and catholicity, which saw further deepening when the whole of Europe was reduced to the "periphery" by the Arab-Turkish "centre". In the new situation of encircled Europe, the "crisis of feudalism" * put the religiosity of the local churches of Europe to a severe test.

The "truce of God" could provide only a limited respite, and it was the leadership of the papacy that provided a catholic solution by calling upon the mutually feuding Christian princes and nobles to engage their energies in crusades, which could provide the required Lebensraum. The crusades also offered opportunity to Rome to establish Latin patriarchates in Constantinople, Jerusalem and Antioch and thereby encroach upon the traditional eastern patriarchates.

The Iberian expansion in the 15th century was largely motivated by a continued internal crisis provoked by a population explosion and food shortages. The papal intervention provided a catholic solution to the two Iberian Christian powers that suspected each other's gains in the new enterprise. The catholicity of the intervention was curiously expressed by dividing the globe for the peaceful pursuit of colonization and evangelization by the two contending Catholic powers. The "Roman complex", developed over the centuries of European history with its internal West-East (Oriental Schism) and North-South (Reformation) divides, seems to have been a long preparatio evangelica for a real "missionary" phase. Attempts were made to restore its scriptural meanings to the term "mission", but that could not justify denying the historical origin of its usage and the historical connotations it has assumed in the course of the colonial and imperial phases of European expansion.

Mission : Deculturation before Inculturation?

The people in the Third World can learn from Scripture the nature of an ideal Church, but their own Churches were given birth by "mother Churches" that sent missionaries to them. I am not referring to the Syrian Church in South India, which was an exception. The European missionaries were sponsored by colonial governments or were at least protected by their power and shared their prestige. Thus, for instance, Franciscan and Dominican missionaries accompanied the Portuguese and Spanish royal fleets right from the beginning. When the Society of Jesus was just founded and King John III of Portugal came to hear of its Counter-Reformation zeal, he thought of it as best suited for the colonial designs of the Portuguese. He was not wrong in his expectations. There is abundant documentary evidence to show how the missionaries, particularly the Jesuits in India and the Dominicans in the Philippines, justified the colonial enterprise and defended it against native opposition and resistance. Their early writings express convictions that Portugal and Spain were created by God for the express purpose of spreading the Roman Catholic faith around the world. Rizal may have been exaggerating a little when he wrote in his Noli me Tangere: "The Government itself sees nothing, hears nothing and decides nothing except what the parish priest or the head of a religious Order makes it see, hear and decide".(5)

In Portuguese India the situation was not different. The great missionary of the Indies, St. Francis Xavier, was convinced that it was hard to establish Christianity among the orientals (Negroes) and harder to preserve it, except in coastal regions where the Portuguese control and Portuguese gunboats held sway.(6)

Even when the natives were admitted to the ranks of lower clergy, the white Religious Orders kept control of the "frontier" where the loyalty of the native clergy was not trusted. The Religious Orders in the forefront of the missions justified their reluctance to hand over responsibility to the native clergy by describing every Religious House as a fort and every white Religious as a captain in the service of the Crown.(7) It was not different anywhere in the colonies. A viceroy of Mexico once observed: "In each friar in the Philippines, the king has the equivalent of a captain-general and an entire army"(8) The missionaries were far cheaper and more effective than large and costly garrisons would have been.

With the advent of imperialism and the breaking of the Chinese melon and the partition of Africa in the 19th century, missionary societies, predominantly Protestant, mushroomed all over the colonies. The Treaty of Berlin provided for free movement of missionary societies across territorial boundaries irrespective of the colonial powers which ruled the territories in question. In practice, however, each colonial power tended to accord preferential treatment to missionary societies originating in its own metropolitan country.

Christian missionaries were sent specifically to "civilize" the natives of the colonies and to act as the links between the rulers and the ruled. They were to provide literacy and other skills to the people who were later to become interpreters, clerks, teachers, evangelists, and artisans in the service of the colonial administrations. The converts became extension officers in the process of Europeanization. The degree of conversion to Christianity was defined in terms of the extent to which the convert had absorbed and adopted the culture of the resident missionary. This acculturation was meant to help in the long run to create tastes in the native population for goods that the imperialists had to offer. It was a process in which the western missionaries cooperated enthusiastically till the political process of de-colonization put an end to it. The newly emerged independent nations saw in their political independence the necessary pre-condition for socio-economic and cultural advancement. In reality, the end of colonialism and its physical restrictions on the world-market was a requirement for the emergence of Financial Capitalism in the United States of America in the early decades of this century.

Third World countries are now politically independent, but also fully exposed to the neo-colonial exploitation of Western capitalism. The situation of dependence continues to enable the West to protect its agencies (multinational corporations) in the dependent regions and the Churches have not been very free from its manipulative capacity. Problems confront the churches of the world "periphery" on two fronts. They must struggle for their indigenous character and at the same time and in opposition to their "mother" churches, seek to create an understanding of the needs of their poverty-stricken masses, exploited by a system which, located at the "centre", benefits those same "mother" churches which supposedly aid the "periphery" with their "alms", which amount to only an insignificant fraction of what has been extracted from the "periphery" in the form of profits in an unjust international system.(9)

While the mission of the Church is to witness to the Gospel, we have seen briefly the destruction that this mission wrought in the Third World in collaboration with the Western powers. Though the destructive contribution of the missions to the Third World will never be sufficiently emphasized, one needs to see also the direct and indirect positive aspects that could be classified as "saving" features. It is to be noted, for example, that in most cases the conversions were made among the oppressed sections of the native society. Their conversion and collaboration with the external elements to challenge the predominance of the elite held out a concealed threat and acted as a catalytic agent for promoting reform during the centuries.

In India, for instance, the mass conversions acted as a shock-retreatment on the orthodox Hindu society. It has now learned that the revolutionary potential of low castes, outcastes and tribals cannot be underestimated. However, in the post-independent era the converted minorities are facing a crisis of cultural identity and this is due to the earlier process of acculturation which made them a cultural tragi-comedy, people who do not belong either to the Western culture or to the national Eastern culture. This is how many Christians in Hong Kong may find themselves, between the devil and the deep, unwanted by England and misfits for the Chinese dispensation. This is where the issue of inculturation becomes urgent. Translated bibles and translated rituals cannot provide satisfactory results. Christianity will still remain an implant, and never be a graft living on the sap of the native culture.

Church institutions which have been imported from the West and are deemed as vital for the universality of the Church and its unity, need to be subjected to acceptance or rejection by the native cultural world-view and its values wherever these do not conflict with genuine Gospel values. Unfortunately, in countries where the Western capitalist system does not have full sway, the presumed necessity of many juridical and other expressions of authority and discipline is no longer considered essential.

Generally it is the financial dependence of the Third World Churches needed to maintain institutional luxuries that keeps the clerical bourgeoisie linked with the West to safeguard personal privileges. As a result of its self-sufficiency with funds from abroad, the hierarchy does not need to depend on local resources. This enables it to live well without full integration in the concerns of the people. Within the hierarchy, moreover, those who depend more on foreign resources are also likely to act as watchdogs of foreign interests and to seek external intervention in matters which could and should be sorted out in the country.

It is in this context that an extra-territorial juridical centre does not appear to be a help towards the successful inculturation of local churches. The reluctance of Rome to acknowledge a greater autonomy on the part of the national episcopal conferences is one cause for serious concern and suspicion. Does Rome really serve the local churches, or wish them to grow out of their centuries of domination, including religious domination, and begin to live at a level of equality and genuine communion with all churches under the spiritual leadership, rather than the juridico-political domination of the Pope? Or is Rome only peddling documents on "Local Churches" to keep them humoured? Is it possible that an episcopal conference like that of India, with about 122 bishops, is incompetent to decide most of the matters pertaining to their national church? As a result we have an old church in India which has not really grown up. The process of deculturation may have to continue before Christians in Asia and elsewhere can truly be at home in their own countries and experience the Incarnation.


4.Wallerstein, I 37 ff.

5.Rizal, Noli me Tangere (Trans. Leon Ma. Guerrero, Hong Kong, 1986) 157.

6.Valignano, Historia del Principio y Progresso de la Compania de Jesus en las Indias Orientals (ed. J. Wicki, Rome, 1944) 70.

7.Teotonio R. de Souza, "The Portuguese in Asia and their Church Patronage", in : Western Colonialism in Asia and Christianity (ed. M. D. David, Bombay, 1988) 11-29.

8.C.R. Boxer, The Church Militant and Iberian Expansion (Baltimore, 1978) 75.

9.E. Dussel, "Some Hypotheses", in : Towards a History of the Church in the Third World (ed. Lukas Vischer, Bern, 1985) 110-130.

Asian Cultures and Inculturation

We are still in need of more than stereotypes for understanding what may be called Asian cultural traits. Some of the stereotypes were created by foreign dominators to suit their own interests. One current stereotype is the difference between materialist and spiritual societies. Pre-industrial societies were regarded as more spiritual. This reinforced the notion of the spirituality of the Indian pre-industrial past. It was a sort of compensation for the humiliation of the present. Gandhi even took pride in the absence of technological change and attributed it to the wisdom of the forefathers, "who knew that, if we set our hearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose our moral fibre".(10)

Gunnar Myrdal in his Asian Drama explains Indian "spirituality" as due to a lack of sufficient calories! Non-violence in Indian culture is particularly related to cow-protection, and, in the form of ahimsa, the Buddhists and Jains have made a general ethical value of it. Possibly it was meant to discourage inter-tribal warfare and encourage the expansion of settled agriculture and trade. Buddhism and Jains are known for their origin from new urbanization in the Ganges valley based on iron, the widespread domestication of the horse, and the extension of plough agriculture. The reaction of the new sects is understandable against the background of the concept of matsyanyaya, or the large fish devouring the small fish, known from the Mahabharata and Manusmriti and Dharmashastras. The competition for power ended in the 4th century B. C. with the emergence of the Mauryan empire, which during the reign of Asoka comprised almost the entire subcontinent, and the emergence of Buddhism, which reflected his concern for safeguarding his acquisitions against prospective rivals. Hence, history has little to vouch for the non-violence and spirituality of the Indian culture.(11)

The above considerations are important for any meaningful study of the issue of inculturation. The concept of "culture" that a national bourgeoisie tends to cultivate is often the same as that which the Catholic Church holds because of its own bourgeois composition. This is a "museum" or "entertainment" concept of culture, and not that of culture as "manifestations" of the life-style of people. Which such a concept of culture, one fails to grasp that culture is "living" and that any contribution to it should help the people to cope with their present life-challenges.

All efforts at inculturation of the Church will have to keep these considerations in mind. Inculturation cannot be imposed by force, and much less by a clergy that is alienated from the masses of the people by its training, its institutional affiliations and its association with extra-territorial mentors. This is an area for the church leadership in Hong Kong to reflect seriously on. There may be a need of greater involvement on the part of the clergy in the life-concerns of the common and marginalized people, and this should be done by soiling their hands and feet. Inculturation will then take care of itself.(12) Only then will the true meaning of mission be restored and genuine witnessing of the Good News captivate more hearts.(13)

Even if the Catholic Church wishes to persist in its managerial attitude, particularly with its West-based and centralizing Roman curia, it should by now take serious note of the failure of its global machinery to raise the membership of the Catholic Church in Asia to more than an insignificant percentage of its millions. Even poverty has not been a sufficient motivation for Asians to accept the westernized brand of Christianity. And it is less likely to be an attraction in the post-colonial period with greater sensitivity to national cultures. Hence, the West-based, West-trained, or West-influenced Church managers may have to learn carefully the Asian cultural traits that make Asian cultures immune or resistant to the Westernized package of Christianity.


10.Quoted by R. Thapar, Ancient Indian Social History (Delhi, 1978) 17.

11.R. Thapar, op. cit. 46, 54, 308.

12.cf. Aloysius Pieris, An Asian Theology of Liberation, (New York, 1988) 38ff.

13.Roland Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, (Michigan, 1962).

Some Asian Culture Traits

Since 1967 IBM had been conducting worldwide comparative attitude surveys of its employees. By 1973 they had collected 116000 answer forms in 20 different languages from 72 countries. The analysis of these data showed that there were four dimensions on which the culture differences between countries could be measured. The researchers identified these four dimensions as (1) Power Distance; (2) Individualism-Collectivism; (3)Masculinity-Femininity; (4)Uncertainty Avoidance.

(1) Power Distance represents the extent to which the less powerful members of an organization or institution (e.g. the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. The inequality is defined from below, not from above; and a society's level of inequality is endorsed by its followers as much as by its leaders.

(2) Individualism - Collectivism describes the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. In individualist groups the ties between individuals are loose, and everyone is expected to look after himself / herself and the immediate family. In collectivist societies people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups. Often their extended families continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word "collectivism" here has no political meaning. It refers to a group, not to the state.

(3) Masculinity - Femininity. The distribution of roles between the sexes is a fundamental issue in any society. In some societies men's values differ very much from women's values, while in other societies this difference is not very great. In Western societies men are supposed to be very assertive and competitive, while women are supposed to be modest and nurturing. On the basis of the degree of assertiveness and competitiveness we can speak of masculine countries and feminine countries.

The above three dimensions refer to three types of expected social behaviour: Behaviour towards people higher or lower in rank (Power Distance), behaviour towards the group (Individualism-Collectism), and behaviour according to one's sex role (Masculinity-Femininity). If we compare the three dimensions with the teaching of Confucius, it will be no surprise that the dragon countries are high on Power Distance, low on Individualism, and mid-range in Masculinity-Femininity.

(4) The fourth dimension was Uncertainty Avoidance. This indicates to what extent a culture programmes its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Uncertainty-avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of novel, unknown, surprising situations by adhering to strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and a belief in absolute truths. People in uncertainty-avoiding countries are also more emotional and motivated by inner nervous energy. Uncertainty-accepting cultures are more tolerant of differences in behaviour and opinion; they try to have as few rules as possible, they are relativist in their beliefs, and allow many currents to flow side by side. People in these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative; their environment does not expect them to express emotions. The dragon countries are weak in uncertainty-avoidance.

Two other studies independently designed and conducted also attempt to measure cultural differences. The Rockeach Value Survey designed in the U. S. A. surveyed nine Asian countries among others; and the Chinese Value Survey designed in Hong Kong surveyed 82 different countries of the world. The overlap between the findings of the three studies was remarkable because they used completely different questionnaires on different populations during different years. The reason may be that the three types of expected social behaviour towards senior / juniors, towards the group, and as a function of one's sex role are so fundamental to any human society that they are found regardless of whether the value surveys were designed by a Western or an Eastern mind. They are truly universal human traits in the sense that all societies share the same problems, but different societies have "chosen" different solutions. Unfortunately these cultural traits and corresponding resistances have never been properly understood or taken seriously in the response of the local churches of Asia.

A more serious consideration of the Asian cultural traits is crucial for the inculturation of Christianity and for the rejection of West-imposed attitudes and institutions as part of Christian faith. The Church in Hong Kong may need to do such an exercise to adapt its institutions to its cultural traits and shed the cultural values that alienating it from the masses of its people (not just "common" Christians) by being too much of a mix of Christian faith and Western colonial values.

作者：黄克镳

前言

耶稣身上最显着的特点要算他与天父的密切关系，和他对弟兄的开放。他的一生可以描述为向天父绝对的信赖与服从，以及对弟兄无条件的交付与服务；他的死便是这对天父和弟兄双重逾越的高峰。但新约也给我们叙述耶稣生平「从神」的幅度，即圣神在他身上的特殊临在和活动：耶稣因圣神的德能受孕于童贞玛利亚；耶稣受洗时圣神降临于他身上，使他履行作先知和然西亚的使命；在传道活动中，耶稣因圣神的德能宣讲和施行治病、驱魔等奇迹；最后，圣神也引领耶稣完成死而复活的逾越奥迹。我们可以说，是圣神引领耶稣向天父和弟兄开放，使他实现作儿子的身份和完成宣讲天国的使命。

假如对观福音着重耶稣生平的从神幅度，若望福音序言却告诉我们圣言降生成人的奥迹；日后在教会反省有关基督信理的过程中，这圣言降生的模式成了对基督奥迹的主要诠解，加采东的信理便是依照这模式表达的。但我们不可忘记，在耶稣身上圣言与圣神的临在是不可分离的。对观福音描述耶稣是一位「神恩性人物」(Charismatic figure)，以圣神的临在和活动解释基督事迹。对观福音的「从神基督论」(Spirit Christology) 与若望的「圣言基督论」(Logos Christology) 代表新约启示的渐进过程，两者是相辅相成的。我们无意以从神基督论取代圣言基督论，(1) 但在采用圣言基督论时，我们也该同时强调基督奥迹的从神幅度；近日不少神学家认为这是刷新基督论的主要途径，本文所介绍的便是这种「从神基督论」(Spirit－oriented Christology)。(2)

本位化是神学重要任务，今日更是神学的热门课题。张春申神父曾建议以中国传统思想中「气」的观念了解圣神，格外以「气」解释圣神和耶稣基督的关系；(3) 从神基督论的确能给神学本位化提供反省的资料。本文首先讨论圣神在基督身上临在的三个重要时刻：降生奥迹，耶稣受洗，和逾越奥迹；然后反省基督奥迹的圣三幅度，同时尝试作本位化的探讨。(4)

1. 圣神与降生奥迹

玛窦和路加都记述耶稣因圣神的德能受孕和诞生(玛1：20；路1：35)；宗徒信经宣称：「我信他因圣神受孕，由童贞玛利亚诞生」；尼亚信经以降生奥迹解释基督的诞生，同时声明这是圣神的工程：「他因圣神由童贞玛利亚取得肉躯，而成为人」。(5) 要明白圣神在降生奥迹中的特殊任务，必须知道这奥迹的目标是什么。如下文指出，降生的目标格外在于启示圣三内父子间的密切关系，并邀请人参与基督作儿子的身份。

若望福音序言启示圣言降生的奥迹，同时也揭示这奥迹的宗旨。在序言的高潮，若望宣告「圣言成了血肉」，接着说：「我们见了他的光荣，正如父独生者的光荣，满溢恩宠和真理」(若1：14)。「光荣」(doxa) 表示天主的临在和颇示，而「真理」是指耶稣带来的启示；(6) 在耶稣身上我们看见天主独生子的临现与启示。这启示的主题在序言最后两节再次出现，若望把基督与梅瑟相比：「因为法律是藉梅瑟传授的，恩宠和真理却是由耶稣基督而来的」(若1：17)；正如法律，即旧约的启示，藉梅瑟传授，新约启示的恩赐却来自耶稣基督。(7) 序言结束说：「从来没有人见过天主，只有那在父怀里的独生者，身为天主的，他给我们详述了」(若1：18)。博泰里(I. de la Potterie) 指出，「在父怀里」一词属于静态，希腊原文"eis ton kolpon tou Patros" 有动态意义，更好译作「向着父怀」；意即那位降生的耶稣基督，以他不断归向父怀的生活力式，给我们启示了他和父的奥秘。事实上，序言最后一节经文是序言开端的回应：「……圣言与天主同在」；原文"pros ton Theon" 也带动态意义，应译作「向着天主」：在永恒中圣言常面向着父，不断和父进行爱的对话。(8) 降生奥迹目标便是为了启示圣言和父的密切关系，把这永恒中爱的对话带到世界和历在中；而这启示的目的不但是使我们能看见父独生者的光荣，更是为了使我们从他的满盈中领受恩宠(若1：16)，即藉着他赋予的权能成为天主的子女(若1：12)。

介绍了降生奥迹的目标后，让我们看看圣神对这奥迹所负的特殊任务；这反省与耶稣受圣神傅油的时刻有关，问题是：耶稣在什么时候接受圣神的傅油礼？是在降生时抑或在受洗时？博泰里指出新约仅指证耶稣在约旦河受洗时接受圣神的傅油；(9) 但日后教父们为了针对「嗣子说」和亚略异端，遂把耶稣受传的时刻转移到降生的时刻，同时也改变了傅油的主持者，不再是圣神给耶稣的人性傅油，而是圣言本身藉着降生奥迹给他的人性傅油。(10)

按照新约资料，耶稣是在受洗时接受了圣神的傅油；但我们也不可忽略圣神对降生奥迹的特殊工程，事实上，新约作者明白告诉我们，耶稣是因圣神的德能受生于童贞玛利亚。拉丁和希腊神学都同意圣神对于降生奥迹的特殊参与，这两种神学的不同点在于圣神的工程在降生奥迹中的时序问题。西方(拉丁) 神学一般视圣神对耶稣人性的行动为降生奥迹的后果，东方(希腊) 神学却认为降生奥迹中，圣神的行动先于圣言的行动；(11) 当然，这里所谓的先后并不指时问上的先后，仅属逻辑上的次序问题。

因此，西方神学家牧伦(H. Muhlen) 跟随圣多玛斯的思想，主张在救恩史中圣言和圣神被派遣的次序，依循永恒中由父生发的次序。圣神既由父子所共发，在逻辑上后于子的受生于父；故此在降生奥迹中，圣神的工程后于圣言取人性的奥迹；(12) 圣神在耶稣身上的行动该视为圣言降生的后果。可是今天一些西方神学家也不赞同这立场，如贾士培(W. Kasper) 便批评牧伦的理论，认为在永恒的圣三中，圣神的发出在逻辑上固然后于子的产生，但在救恩史中圣神却是准备圣言降生的前驱。(13) 圣神对于耶稣的圣化不应视作圣言降生的后果，却是降生的先决条件；圣神是回应的爱，他以创造力使耶稣受孕，并祝圣他的人性，使成为降生圣言向天父的回应。(14) 同样，巴达撒(H. U. von Balthasar) 也提出救恩史中圣子和圣神在角色上的更换，在永恒圣三内圣神是父子间爱的结晶，属被动和接受的性质，而子与父一起是共同发出圣神的主动根源；但在救恩史中圣神却主动地使降生奥迹实现，而子对父的派道来说，反而处于被动和回应的地位。(15)

这种对降生奥迹「从神」的见解在东正教神学是清楚可见的，布格可夫(S. Boulgakof) 早已指出在救恩史中圣言和圣神活动的时序，与他们在圣三内的次第相反，(16) 他以圣母领报为例，说明圣神的德能临于圣母身上，实现圣言降生成人的奥迹；因此，传统中曾把圣神与圣母作天主之母的角色相比，圣神被称为耶稣之母。(17) 圣神在降生奥迹中担任母亲角色的言论也可见于叙利亚的古老传统；(18) 而圣母以童贞女为母亲的身份被解作圣神担任母亲角色的媒介与标记。

圣神对降生奥迹的参与不仅限于生理层面，以他的德能使童贞女受孕；圣神的工程更包括灵性的意义，因为圣母的受孕同时是生理和心灵上的事件。如圣奥思定提示，圣母首先以信德在心中孕育天主的话，然后在身上怀孕圣言。(19) 圣神的工作包括这两个层面，他引领圣母向天主的计划开放，同时使她能以童贞女的身份怀孕圣言的肉躯。(20)耶稣的身体既是圣母的血肉，母子的心灵是相连的；圣神便是透过圣母塑造耶稣的人性，便能与天主子的情愫配合。路加指证圣神的工程与耶稣作天主子的身份有关(路1：35)，如果把这节经文与希10：5－7一起阅读的话，那么是圣神给基督预备了一个身体，使他一进入世界便说：「看，我已来到……天主！我来为承行你的旨意」(希10：7)。(21)基督的宣言与圣母给天使的回答互相呼应，(22) 两者都有赖圣神的启发。假如降生的目标是为了启示父子间的密切关系，那么降生的意义该视为以圣言作子的意识和情愫，塑造耶稣人性的意识和心态，以便耶稣的生平可以成为父子间永恒的对话，在世界上和历史中的引申。(23) 这塑造的工作是属于圣神的，他是永恒中父子间爱的维系，也是他完成圣言降生的奥迹。

不少当代神学家强调，应分别耶稣作子身份的「实有幅度」(ontological dimension) 和「存在幅度」(existential dimension)，(24) 从「实有」的层面看，自降生的第一刻耶稣便是天主子；但这天主子的身份不该视作纯粹自动或机械式的事实。过去对事物往往采取较静态的看法，好像一切事物在开始时便已全部完成；今天一般上采取动态和历史角度的看法，(25) 从这角度看，耶稣也须在一生中，藉着向父的开放和回应，生活和实现他作儿子的身份；这便是天主子的「存在幅度」。正如每个人都该在历史中实现自我，耶稣也须导循这途径，在生命中经历成长(路1：52)、考验(希4：15) 等过程，也须透过痛苦「学习服从」，然后「达致成全」(希5：8－9)。耶铢的生平应视为真正的历史过程，在这过程中，他藉着不断向天父交付而实现自己作儿子的身份。(26)

我们可以说圣神的行动既先于圣言的降生，同时也紧随这奥迹；圣神的工作包括了耶稣作天主子身份的「实有」与「存在」两个层面。在圣言降生时，圣神在圣母身上塑造耶稣的人性，使之与圣言同化和配合；在圣言降生后，圣神便留居在耶稣身上，引领他不断以爱的回应，完成回归父怀的历程。由于圣神启发耶稣以儿子的心态回应父，保禄遂称圣神为「他儿子的神」(迦4：6)。耶稣与父的密切关系格外在他的祈祷生活中体验到，并以「阿爸，父啊！」的称呼表达出来；(27) 根据耶肋米亚斯(J. Jeremias) 研究的结果，这种在祈祷中对天主极亲切的称呼，是耶稣本人创新的做法，显示他意识到自己与父那种独特的密切关系。(28) 日后保禄宗徒劝勉基督徒仿效耶稣，以同样的称呼向父祈祷，保禄同时指出这称呼格外是由圣神启发的(罗8：15；迦4：6)；那么，我们更有理由说，是同一的圣神首先启发了这祈祷的创始人耶稣，引领他亲切地称天主为「阿爸，父啊！」。(29) 路加福音记载，在一个特殊场合，耶稣因圣神向天父祈祷：「耶稣因圣神而欢欣说：『父啊！天地的主宰，我称谢你，……』」(路10：21－22)。在这段经文里，耶稣给我们启示了他和父那种独一无二的密切关系，而这祈祷和启示是在圣神的引领下完成的。

1. For an attempt to replace Logos Christology with Spirit Christology see : LAMPE G.W.H., "The Holy Spirit and the Person of Christ", in SYKES S. W.－CLAYTON J. P. (eds.), Christ, Faith and History (Cambridge : Cambridge UP 1972) 111-130 ; Id., God as Spirit (Oxford : Clarendon 1977) ; SCHOONENBERG P., "Spirit Christology and Logos Christology", Bijdrageo 38 (1977) 350-375 ; NEWMAN P.W., A Spirit Christology : Recovering the Biblical Paradigm of Christian Faith (Lanham : UP of America 1987) ; HAIGHT R., "The Case for Spirit Christology", Theological Studies 53 (1992) 257-287. For a critical evaluation see HUNTER H., "Spirit Christology : Dilemma and Promise", Heythrop Journal 24 (1983) 127-140 ; 266-277.

2. Cf. MUHLEN H., "Das Christusereignis als Tat des Heiligen Geistes", in FEINER J.－LOHRER M. (eds.), Mysterium Salutis, B. 111/2 (Einsiedein : Benziger 1965) 524-530 ; KASPER W., Jesus the Christ (London : Burns & Oates 1976) 249-274 ; ROSATO Ph. J., "Spirit Christology : Ambiguity and Promise", Theological Studies 38 (1977) 423-449 ; NOSSOL A., "Der Geist als Gegenwart Jesu Christi", in KASPER W. (ed.), Gegenwart des Geistes (Freiburg : Herder 1979) 132-154; CANTA-LAMESSA R., Lo Spirito Santo nella vita di Gesu. II mistero di unzione (Milano: Ancora 1982); CONGAR Y., "Towards a Pneumatological Christology", in Id., I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 3 (London : Chapman 1983) 165-173 ; LAMBIASI F., Lo Spirito santo : mistero e presenza (Bologna : Dehoniane 1987) 202-224; O'DONNELL J., "In Him and Over Him : The Holy Spirit in the Life of Jesus", Gregorianum 70 (1989) 25-45 ; MOLTMANN J., The Way of Jesus Christ. Christology in Messianic Dimensions (London : SCM 1990) 73-94.

3. 张春申，「天主圣神与耶稣基督」，《神学论集》48期(1981) 245-258；「中国人的气论与神学上的几个课题」，《神学论集》53期 (1982) 341-368。

4. Reflections on the presence of the Holy Spirit in the three crucial moments of the life of Jesus can be found in my article on the Holy Spirit published in English: "The Holy Spirit in the Life of Jesus and of the Christian", Gregorianum 73 (1992) 57-95. The fourth section of the present article dealing with inculturation is new.

5. Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, in NEUNER J.－DUPUIS J. (eds.), The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (New York: Alba House 1981) 9 ; the original Greek reads: "sarkothenta ek pneumatos hagiou kai Marias tes parthenou".

6. Cf. DE LA POTTERIE 1., La verite dans saint Jean, vol. I (Rome: Biblical Institute Press 1977) 117-241.

7. Cf. ibid., 158-169. Based on the parallelism of the two parts of v.l7, and on the contrast between Moses and the law on the one side and Jesus Christ and "grace and truth" on the other, DE LA POTTERIE is of the opinion that the expression "grace and truth" indicates only one reality, i.e. the gift of revelation brought by Jesus Christ.

8. Cf. ibid., 228-239.

9. "L' onction du Christ", Nouvelle Revue Theologique 80 (1958) 225-252; English translation: "The Anointing of Christ", in O'DONOVAN LJ. (ed.), Word and Mystery (New York: Newman 1968) 155-184.

10. Cf. CANTALAMESSA R., "Incarnatus de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine'. Cristologia e Pneumatologia nel Simbolo Costantinopolitano nella patristica", in AA.W., Credo in Spiritum Sanctum. Atli del coogresso teologico internazionale di Poeumatologia, vol. I (Citta del Vaticano, L.E. Vaticana 1983) 101-125.

11. Cf. BORDONI M., Gesu di Nazaret. Preseoza, memoria, attesa (Brescia : Queriniana 1988) 432-433.

12. Cf. MUHLEN H., Der Heilige Geist als Person (Munster: Aschendorff 1969) 207 ; 212 ; ST III q.7 a.l3 corp.

13. Cf. KASPER W., "Spirito, Cristo, chiesa", in AA.VV., L'esperieiiza dello Spirito (Brescia : Queriniana 1974) 77.

14. Cf. Id., Jesus the Christ, 251 : 'The sanctification of Jesus by the Spirit and his gifts is, therefore, in the second place, not merely an adventitious consequence of the sanctification by the Logos through the hypo-static union, but its presupposition. The Spirit is thus in person God's love as freedom, and the creative principle which sanctifies the man Jesus in such a way as to enable him, by free obedience and dedication, to be the incarnate response to God's self-communication."

15. Cf. VON BALTHASAR H.U., Theologik III (Einsiedein: Johannes V. 1987) 167-168; O'DONNELL, "In Him and Over Him", 28.

16. BOULGAKOF S., Le Paraclet (Paris : Aubier 1946) 236-238.

17. Cf. ibid., the author is referring to the Gospel of the Egyptians.

18. Cf. MEYER M., "Das 'Mutter-Amt' des HI. Geistes in der Theologie Zinzendorfs", Evangelische Theologie 43 (1983) 415-430.

19. Cf. Augustine, Serm., 215, 4 : PL 38, 1074 ; Serm., 196, 1: PL 38, 1019. Cf. also LG 53 ; 63 ; PAUL VI, Marialis Cultus (MC), 17 ; JOHN PAUL II, Redemptoris Mater (RM), 13.

20. For the intervention of the Holy Spirit on Mary in the mystery of the incarnation see AMATO A., "Spirito Santo", in DE FIORES S.－MEO S. (eds.), Nvovo Dizionario di Mariologia (Roma: Paoline 1986) 1327-1362.

21. Cf. BORDONI, Gesu di Nazaret, 434f.

22. Cf. RM 13.

23. One should distinguish between different levels of human consciousness : implicit, athematic consciousness and explicit, thematic consciousness. In view of the unity between being and knowing, K. Rahner holds that a basic consciousness, which is non-reflective and athematic, of Jesus regarding his own identity, constitutes the cognitive aspect of the same ontological reality of the incarnation itself. Cf. RAHNER K., "Dogmatic Reflection on the Knowledge and Self-Consciousness of Christ", in Theological Investigations (TI), vol. 5 (London : DLT 1966) 206-209 ; WONG J.H.P., "Karl Rahner on the Consciousness of Jesus : Implications and Assessments", Salesianum 48 (1986) 255-279.

24. Cf. RAHNER K., The Trinity (London: Burns & Oates 1970) 61-63 ; KASPER, Jesus the Christ, 164-166 ; CONGAR Y., The Word and the Spirit (London: Chapman 1986) 101.

25. Cf. KASPER K., "Neuansatze gegenwartiger Christologie", in SAUER J. (ed.), Wer 1st Jesus Christus? (Freiburg: Herder 1977) 140-150; WELTE B., "Jesus Christus und die Theologie", in ibid., 151-164; CONGAR, Word and Spirit, 87, BORDONI, Gesn di Nazaret, 357-364 ; FORTE B., Gesu di Nazaret, storia di Dio, Dio delta storia. Saggio di una cristologia come storia (Cinisello Balsamo: Paoline 1985) 45-63.

26. Rahner insists that alongside a metaphysical christology, it is possible to construct an existential christology or a "christology of consciousness", by presenting Jesus as the one who "receives himself purely and simply and permanently from the Father... and has given himself over totally to the Father" ; cf. "Jesus Christ", in RAHNER K. (ed.), Sacramentum Mundi, vol. 3 (London: Burns & Oates 1969) 200; "Current Problems in Christology", TI vol. 1, 168-174.

27. Cf. DUNN J.D.G., Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM 1975) 15-21.

28. Cf. JEREMIAS J., New Testament Theology (London : SCM 1971) 61-68. For an evaluation of the conclusions of Jeremias, see DUNN, Jesus and Spirit, 22-24.

29. Cf. MARCHEL W., Abba, Pere! La priere du Christ et des chretiens (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute 1971) 222.

2. 圣神与耶稣受洗

不少信徒以为耶稣在约旦河受洗的事迹，仅对我们有意义：给我们立下作补赎的榜样，及祝圣日后圣洗圣事的水。但照新约作者的了解，耶稣受洗首先对他本人有重大意义，这是圣神在他身上以特殊方式临现的时刻。固然，从他在世生活的开始，耶稣常充满圣神，但这圣神的满盈是随着耶稣的成长而增加的(路2：52)。在他生平的特殊时刻，耶稣重新领受圣神的恩赐；耶稣受洗便是这些特殊时刻之一。(30)

「基督」的名称表示「受傅者」，伯多禄把耶稣受洗视作接受圣神的传油，以开始他的传道生活(宗10：37－38)；耶稣本人也引用依61：1，将他受洗时圣神的临现解作圣神傅油(路4：18)。圣经学者耶肋米亚斯指出，耶稣受洗与天父的召唤有关。(31) 耶稣受洗后，有声音从天上说：「你是我的爱子，我因你而喜悦」(谷1：11)，这声音应用了依42：1：「请看我扶持的仆人，我心灵喜爱的所选者！我在他身上倾注了我的神，叫他给万民传布其道。」圣神的临现可视为这预言的实现，引用这经文显示耶稣要作上主的仆人，他领受圣神是为了履行先知的任务(依42：3－4)。照陶德(C. H. Dodd)的意见，耶稣受洗时明白自己要以上主仆人的身份完成默西亚的使命。(32) 耶稣首次在会堂宣讲时所引用的依撒意亚经文，也给予他的使命一种先知性的解释：他要履行宣讲、释放与治疗的任务(路4:：8)；(33) 耶稣的使命可以综合为以言语和行动宣讲天国的喜讯(路4：43)，这天国包括全面性的救恩。

那从天上来的声音把依撤意亚先知的「仆人」改称为「爱子」，这表明耶稣是天主子，同时也指出耶稣作子的身份与他的使命是分不开的。前面说过，耶稣必须以自由的回应实现他儿子的身份，而履行父委托的使命便是向父回应的具体表现。耶稣作子的身份与父委托的使命是这样密切地联在一起，以致若望称子为被父派进者，而父便是那位派追基督者。圣神既然负责启发子向父的回应，他也引领子完成父所托付给他的使命。接受了圣神的傅油，耶稣便藉圣神的德能履行自己的使命。因此在他的传道生活中，耶稣一面意识到自己对父的归属，一面也意识到自己常在圣神的引领下，并以他的德能行事，耶稣可以被称为真正的「神恩性人物」。(34)

有关这方面的福音资料格外丰富耶稣受洗时，若翰看见圣神降临于他身上，并停留在那里(若1：32)；受洗后耶稣充满圣神，随即被圣神引领到旷野里去接受试探(路4：1)；因同一圣神的德能，耶稣回到加里肋亚，开始宣讲的任务(路4：14)，他的说话具有由圣神而来的权威(路4：18，32)。当他驱魔时，耶稣意识到自己是「仗赖天主的手指」(路11：20)，即「仗赖天主的神」(玛12：28) 驱魔；因此他指责那些控告他仗赖贝尔则步驱魔的人，犯了亵渍圣神的罪(玛12：27－32)。日后当司祭长和经师询问他的权柄从何而来时，耶稣反问他们若翰的洗礼是从那里来的(谷11:27－33)，这暗示耶稣知道自己传道的权柄，是受洗时藉圣神的临现赋给他的。(35) 在伯多禄的证道中我们可以找到耶稣受洗后，怎样因圣神的德能履行传道活动的概括叙述(宗10：37－38)。

30. Cf. CONGAR, I Believe, vol. 3, 166-168; LAMBIASI, Spirito santo, 208f.

31. Cf. JEREMIAS, New Testament Theology, 55.

32. Cf. DODD C.H., The Founder of Christology, (New York : Macmillan 1070) 105.

33. Reference to Is 61 : If can be found again during the course of the public ministry of Jesus ; Cf. Lk 7 :22.

34. Cf. DUNN, Jesus and Spirit, 68.

35. Cf. JEREMIAS, New Testament Theology, 56.

3. 圣神典逾越奥迹

在耶稣的全部传道生活中，圣神的临现是显着的，但关于圣神在耶稣受难时的临在，福音却保持缄默；耶稣在旷野受试探的记述大概可以补充这欠缺。不少圣经学者把受试探的叙述视作对默西亚使命的澄清，三次试探都是针对了耶稣作默西亚的使命；魔鬼怂恿他随从民众的期望，作政治性和凯旋式的默西亚，以博取大众的接纳与拥戴。但天父的计划却要他以受苦仆人的角色，完成默西亚的使命。在旷野的试探中，耶稣克胜魔鬼的引诱，决意服从天父的旨意，遵从他指定的道路。(36) 在旷野试探时，圣神的临在是明显的，三部对观福音都记述耶稣领洗后充满圣神，并被圣神引领到旷野里去受试探。

耶稣受试探的叙述也可视作他传道生活的缩写，在整个传道生活的过程中，耶稣继续受到多方面的引诱，催使他放弃天父指示的道路，顺从门徒和民众的愿望作光荣的默西亚(谷8：32；10：37；若6：15)。但耶稣一心跟随父的旨意，决意前往耶路撒冷接受先知的命运，完成他的使命(路9：51；13：31－35)；正如在旷野时一般，耶稣在传道生活中也是在同一圣神的引领下，克胜各种引诱，履行他作先知和默西亚的使命。被捕之夜耶稣在山园的祈祷可视为他向父不断服从与交付的高峰：「阿爸！父啊！……不要照我所愿意的，而要照你所愿意的」(谷I4：36)；这称天父为「阿爸」的祈祷是由圣神所启发的。

十字架的奥迹不但与基督有关，依照东方神学传统，十字架是圣三奥迹的最高启示；近日西方神学也同意这观点。莫特叟(J. Moltmann) 在《被钉的天主》(The Crucified God)一书，以「交付」(paradidomi) 一词为枢纽，对十字架奥迹作了圣三幅度的反省。(37)莫特曼强调，耶稣在十字架上垂死的哀号有它的真实性：「我的天主，我的天主！你为什么舍弃了我？」(玛27：46)。(38) 耶稣不但被门徒和民众近弃，也受到被父舍弃的痛苦。在十字架上，父舍弃了子，可见父也是这悲剧的主要角色；保禄在罗马书指证说：「他既然没有怜惜自己的儿子，反而为我们众人把他交出了……」(罗8：32)。在诠解亚巴郎祭子一幕时，教父奥力振不禁惊叹天父的慈爱，在摩里雅山上他怜恤了亚巴郎的独子，但在加尔瓦略山上却没有怜惜自己的儿子，反而为我们把他交付了。(39) 这位富于慈悲与同情的天主必然参与他儿子的痛苦：基督经历垂死的痛苦，父却抵受了丧子的痛苦；我们虽然不知道天主如何受苦，但可以肯定他受苦的真实性。(40) 在另一方面，耶稣固然被父舍弃，但同时他也主动地交付了自己，这是保禄的信念：「他爱了我，且为我舍弃了自己」(迦2：20)。

十字架揭示了父子间最大的离隔：父交付了子，子被父舍弃了；但似乎矛盾地这也是救恩史中父与子最接近的时刻，他们的维系便是父与子共同的救恩意愿：(41) 父「为了我们」舍弃了子(罗8：32)，子也「为了我」(迦2：20)，或「为了我们」(弗5：2) 舍弃了自己。这共同救恩意愿是基于爱的，是对世人的爱催使父赐下了子(若3：16；若一4：9)；同样，也是对父的爱(若14：31)，和对人的爱(迦2：20；弗5：2)，催使子为我们交付了自己。这爱构成了父与子在最大的离隔中的最密切结合，这爱便是圣神，他是永恒中父子间爱的维系，及他们彼此赠予的结果；在十字架上圣神表达了天主自我给予的爱(self-giving love)，这爱使父和子在把自己赐给世界时仍保持着内在的联系。希伯来书指证圣神在十字架上的临在：基督「藉着永生的神，已把自己毫无瑕疵的奉献于天主」(希9：14)。(42) 圣神是合一之爱，他奇妙地使子在被舍弃时仍保持与父的联系。这圣神不但是父子间彼此的赠予，在十字架上也成了天主给予世界的恩赐。若望福音以不寻常的词语记述耶稣的死：「他交付了神魂(paredoken to pneuuma)」(若19：30)，这句话一面表明耶稣断了气，同时也暗示他把圣神赐给了世界。圣神从垂死的基督进入了与天主疏离的世界，把它从新领回天主那里。

就如十字架奥迹一般，基督复活也是一个具有圣三幅度的奥迹，是天父以圣神的德能使耶稣复活起来。照新约的古老传统，父是使耶稣复活的主动者(宗2：24，32；格前6：14；罗4：24；10：9)，而圣神是天主藉以使耶稣复活的德能(罗8：11；格后13：4；伯前3：18)。(43) 藉着复活，耶稣的身体起了根本的受化，进入了一个新的属神境界，如同保禄论及死人复活所说的：「死人的复活也是这样：播种的是可朽坏的，复活起来的是不可朽坏的；……播种的是属生灵的身体(soma psychikon)，复活起来的是属神的身体(soma pneumatikon)；……」(格前15：42－44)。「属神的身体」不应以希腊哲学思想解作非物质的身体，这里保禄依从犹太思想和圣经传统，「属神」一词来自天主圣神；「属神的身体」并不与物质对立，而指充满圣神，和被圣神改造的身体。耶稣复活表示他整个地进入这种属神的境界。复活的基督不但带有「属神的身体」，保禄更称他为「使人生活的神」：「第一个人亚当成了生灵，最后的亚当成了使人生活的神(pneuma zoopoioun)」(格前15：45)；这不是说基督成了圣神，而是说透过复活的奥迹，基督的人性是这样丰沛地充满圣神，以致成了圣神的分施者，圣神由基督身上流溢于世界。(44) 伯多禄在圣神降临日也为此作证：「他被举扬到天主的右边，由父领受了所恩许的圣神；你们现今所见所闻的，就是他所倾注的圣神」(宗2：33)。

复活基督是圣神分施者的思想也可以在若望福音找到，(45) 若望格外以三段经文传授这道理：在帐棚节最后一天，耶稣站在圣殿前许下要赐给信徒圣神的活水，这圣神还没有赐下，因为耶稣还没有受到光荣(若7：37－39)。这许诺在十字架上，即耶稣受举扬的时刻，找到象征性的满全：耶稣死后，有一个兵士用枪剌透了他的肋膀，立时流出了血和水(若19：34)；这从基督圣肋流出的血和水象征教会和圣事的产生，同时也象征倾注圣神，是圣神把生命赋予教会和使圣事产生恩宠的效果。最后，耶稣复活那天晚上显现给门徒时，向他们脸上嘘了一口气，直接把圣神赐给他们：「你们领受圣神吧！」(若20：22)。依照若望的思想，耶稣在受光荣的两个时刻赋予圣神：即在十字架上和复活当日；若望的用意是指出同一的逾越奥迹包括三个不可分割的时刻：死亡、复活、和赋与圣神。(46)

36. Cf. NEUNER J., Walking with Him. A Biblical guide through thirty days of Spiritual Exercises (Anand : Gujarat Sahitya Prakash 1985) 6-8 ; in the desert Jesus made the great decision concerning his mission.

37. Cf. MOLTMANN J., The Crucified God (London : SCM 1974) 235-249. For a similar reflection by a Catholic theologian, see MUHLEN H., Die Veraoderlichkeit Gotfes als Horizont einer zukunftigen Christologie (Munster : Aschendorff 1969). For a trinitarian theology of the death of Jesus in the Fathers, see Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, I, 128-130 : NPNF X, 110.

38. Cf. ibid., 241 ; also RAHNER K., "The Scandal of Death", TI vol. 7, 140-144. In spite of the fact that these are the initial words of Ps 22 which begins with a lamentation and ends in thanksgiving for liberation (w. 23-27), the opening verse expresses the cry of agony of Jesus, full of anguish and sorrow.

39. Cf. ORIGEN, In Gen. Horn., 8, 8 : PG 12, 208.

40. Cf. MOLTMANN, Crucified God, 243 : "The Son suffers dying, the Father suffers the death of the Son. The grief of the Father here is just as important as the death of the Son." On the suffering of God, see Id., The Trinity and the Kingdom of God (London: SCM 1981) 21-60 ; GALOT J., "La realite de la souffrance de Dieu", Nouvelle Revue Theologique 101 (1979) 224-245. McWILLIAMS W., "Divine Suffering in Contemporary Theology", Scottish Journal of Theology 33 (1980) 35-54.

41. Cf. ibid., 243f.

42. Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Dominum et vivificantem 40 ; LAMBIASI, Spirito santo, 214. According to some exegetes, e.g. Spicq, this verse would not refer to the Holy Spirit. But it is to be noted that a number of codices have "Holy Spirit" instead of "eternal spirit". VANHOYE A. is in favour of interpreting the phrase in terms of the Holy Spirit ; cf. "L'azione dello Spirito Santo nella Passione di Cristo secondo l'Epistola agli Ebrei", in AA.W., Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, vol. I, 759-773.

43. Cf. DURRWELL F.X., L' Esprit saint de Dieu (Paris : Cerf 1983) 19-20.

44. Cf. ibid., 62-63.

45. Cf. DE LA POTTERIE I., "Christologie et Pneumatologie dans S. Jean", in COMMISSION BIBLIQUE PONTIFICALE, Bible et Christologie (Paris : Cerf 1984) 271-287.

46. Cf. ibid., 280.

4. 基督奥迹的圣三幅度：本位化探讨

本文题目是「圣神与基督奥迹」，但在讨论过程中常提及基督奥迹的圣三幅度；不论在降生奥迹，基督的传道生活或逾越奥迹中，父、子、和圣神常主动地临现。基督是圣言降生成人，为了启示父及完成父委托给他的使命；但在降生及履行使命时，常有圣神的参与，是圣神使基督诞生，并引领他回归天父；因此，必须从圣三幅度探讨，才可以了解基督的奥迹。

保禄书信所用的「奥秘」(Mysterion) 一词给我们提示救恩史和基督奥迹的圣三幅度；奥秘包括隐藏与彰显的两面：「这奥秘从永远以来，就是秘而不宣的，现今却彰显了」(罗16：25－26；弗3：5)。这奥秘即天主永恒的救恩计划，保禄称它为「他旨意的奥迹，是全照他在爱子内所定的计划」(弗1：9)；天父永恒的救恩计划是奥秘隐藏的一面，这计划在基督身上的实现便是奥秘在历史中彰显的一面，因此保禄也称它为「基督的奥秘」(弗3：4；哥1：27)。而圣神是奥秘隐藏与彰显两者间的联系与动力，圣神是救恩史的推进者，就如一股无形的力量，使天父永恒隐秘的救恩计划在历史中逐步展示，并在基督身上圆满实现和彰显出来。

初期教父依肋内指出，在创造和救恩史中天主常藉圣言与圣神采取行动，他把圣言与圣神比作天主的左右手，藉以施行救恩工程。(47) 近日神学家拉内(K. Rahner) 指称，救恩史中天主的「自我通传」(self-communication) 是藉着圣言和圣神赐予的，圣言代表天主启示的真理和在历史中完成的救恩，而圣神却是爱的回应。(48) 原来天主不但透过圣言把救恩赐给我们，也藉圣神的启发使我们能开放自己，接纳他的救恩；除非在圣神的引领下，没有人能接受天主的恩宠。为了把救恩赐给我们，天主首先在历史中完成他的救恩计划，基督奥迹便是这计划的实现：「因为天主的一切恩许，在他内都成了『是』」(格后1：20)；基督并不是「是」而又「非」的，在他内只有一个「是」。但基督对父所说的「是」不是机械式地自动实现的，他的「是」是圣言降生成人的自由回应，他也须赖圣神的引领，才能圆满地回应天父，完成父的救恩计划。因此，救恩史是具有圣三幅度的，基督奥迹是救恩史的高峰，当然也享有这圣三幅度。

奥秘一词表达了救恩史和基督奥迹的圣三幅度，这奥秘的圣三幅度也可以在中国传统思想中找到类似的模式；这些模式不是直接与救恩史有关，而是对于宇宙生成的解释，但对本位化的探讨也很有启发性。《道德经》中「道」生万物的过程便有类似的三素模式，老子的「道」是不可言说和无名的，(49) 或说「道隐无名」(《道德经》四十一章)。这隐晦无名的「道」老子称之为「无」，「无」并不是虚无，而指幽隐未形的「道」，这「无」蕴涵着无限的「有」，是一切存有的根源。因此，「道」同时是「无」，也是「有」：「无，名天地之始；有，名万物之母」(《道德经》一章)。(50)「有」是「道」彰显的一面，表明「道」向下落实时界乎无形质和有形质之间的一种状态；「有」是生于「无」的：「天下万物生于有，有生于无」(《道德经》四十章)。关于「道」生万物的过程，《道德经》另有更详细的叙述：「道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物。万物负阴而抱阳，冲气以为和」(《道德经》四十二章)。(51)「道」向下落实时便由「无」产生「有」，即由隐晦而显示；「有」在造生万物前首先分化为阴阳二气，皆阴阳二气相交合而成一种适匀状态时，遂产生万物。老子的「道」由「无」至「有」，由隐而显，再经「气」的运作而产生万物；「道」这种造化的过程具有三素的特征，可以和奥秘的圣三幅度相比较：「无」与「有」可比作奥秘隐藏与彰显的两面，即代表父与圣言的关系；「气」的运作类似在展示奥秘的过程中圣神的工作。当然，《道德经》所说的是「道」造生万物的过程，而奥秘却有关天主的救恩计划在历史中展示的过程。

上文把「一生二」解作由「道」所生的「有」分化为阴阳二气，那么，「气」该是复合的；假如和圣神相比，便首产生困难，是否圣神也是复合的？或阴阳二气更好比作圣言和圣神？早期教父维多理诺(Marius Victorinus) 的圣三神学颇具特色，(52) 对以上问题很有帮助。维多理诺首先强调圣父和圣子之间的一致性，父是无形与隐晦的，子是父的显像；父是「存有」(esse)，子是存有的「行动」(motus)；父是静止与沉热，子是活动和言语。(53) 子由父所生，父与子是同一实体不可分割的两面：「存有」与「动」(being-movement)。维多理诺圣三神学的特点在于指出由「存有」所生的「动」是复合的，包括了「生活」(vivere) 与「认识」(intelligere)，前者为圣言或基督，后者为圣神。(54) 依照这圣三神学，由父所产生的「子」已包含了圣言和圣神，或说「子」受生再分化为圣言与圣神。这样，圣神可说是通过子发自父的；(55) 子的名称却留给圣言或基督。维多理诺的圣三可由下列名称表达：父－存有(esse)，子－生命(vivere-vita)，圣神－认识(intelligere-intelligentia)。(56)「生命」与「认识」同是「存有」的「动」，彼此不可分离，且是相辅相成的：「生命」是衍发，其动向是由根源发展至万物；「认识」是回归，其作用是把万物领回根源。(57)

《道德经》的「道生一，一生二，……」若与维多理诺的圣三神学相比便较为接近，由「父」生「子」，由隐而现，由「存有」至「动」，可比作「道生一」，即由「无」生「有」。这「子」或「动」分化为「生命」与「认识」，即圣言与圣神，然后「生命」与「认识」互相配合运作，继而造生万物；这就如「一生二，二生三，三生万物」：「有」分化为阴阳二气，在二气相交而和合下产生万物。维多理诺的圣三神学除了更易于解释老子的「一生二」外，也讨论圣三与创造的关系，与《道德经》四十二章道生万物的主题配合。此外，维多理诺也以性别特征比拟圣言和圣神的角色，他认为圣言是生命，由根源向外扩展滋生，属阴性；而圣神是认识，带领万物返回本源，属阳性。(58) 可是，中国传统思想对于阴阳的特性却有不同的看法，阳代表刚强、明确、和主动，圣言是无形天父的显像，在创造时显示父的能力，并在历史中实现和展示父的救恩计划，应用阳性；阴代表柔弱、委顺、与回应，圣神引领万物回归根源，格外引领基督回应天父，履行父的旨意及归向父怀，应属阴性。假如与「道」所生的阴阳二气相比，圣言为阳，圣神为阴；阳为动，阴为静；(59) 动使万物生长蓬勃，静却使万物归根复命。(60) 圣神引领万物返本归根，其特征该是阴柔与虚静。(61)

维多理诺格外强调圣言与圣神二而一的特点，由「存有」产生「动」，「动」包含「生命」与「认识」这两个不可分离的基本要素。因此，在降生成人的基督身上，圣言与圣神的临现与运作也是二而一，互不相离的。圣言显示父，其动向是进入世界，在历史中展示父的救恩计划；圣神却是认识，他使子意识到自己的身份和使命，知道自己由父而来，又要回到父那里去；圣神的动向是归向父，是他启发子回应父，并引领子藉着履行所受的使命回归父。圣言和圣神在基督身上这种相辅相成的作用，很能阐明本文所讨论的圣神与基督奥迹的关系：基督是圣言降生成人，但在全部生活中常受圣神的引领，是圣神使他了解和实现自己作儿子的身份，以及完成父委托的使命。

结语

耶稣基督是基督徒信仰的中心对象，新约对观福音给我们介绍一位「神恩性人物」，叙述耶稣在圣神的德能和引领下，履行父委托给他作先知和默西亚的使命；若望福音却给我们启示，基督是圣言降生成人，格外强调他和天父的密切关系。原来这两种新约的见证是相辅相成的，基督是圣言降生成人，在圣神的启发下回应天父，在历史中实现他作子的身份，并以圣神的德能完成父委托的使命。这种从神基督论提醒我们降生的基督具有真实的人性，他的生平是一个真实的历史过程。从神基督论也给我们提供基督徒属神生活的典型，使我们了解圣神在信徒身上的临在与运作；明白基督往圣神引领下回归天父的历程，也该是基督徒的人生历程。

基督奥迹与圣三奥迹是不可分离的，我们必须从圣三角度了解基督的事迹；「奥秘」一词最能表达救恩史和基督奥迹的圣三幅度。在中国传统思想中也可以找到类似的三素模式，本文特别把拉丁教父维多理诺的圣三神学，与老子「道」生万物的三素模式作比较。这并不表示在《道德经》中已可找到有关圣三的启示；但如同新柏拉图哲学曾给希腊教父提供解释圣三的有利工具，在《道德经》中也可以找到颇具启发性的模式，有助于阐述圣三奥迹。本位化反省是神学的重要任务，本位化不但可使中国人更容易接受基督的讯息，也往往使基督讯息获得更深入和更新颖的诠解。本文作者拋砖引玉，望学者们多加指正。

47. Cf. IRENAEUS, Adv. Haer., I 22, 1 : ANF I, 347 ; IV 20, 1: ANF I, 487 ; V 1, 3 : ANF I, 527.

48. Cf. RAHNER K., The Trinity, 91-99.

49. 「道可道，非常道；名可名，非常名」(《道德经》第一章)

50. 陈鼓应注释，《老子今注今译及评介》，商务　台北　1981　47。前人多循王弼，以「无名」「有名」作解；王安石首先主张应以「无」「有」为读。

51. 本章解释不易，这里大致参照罗光主故的注释；参罗光，《中国哲学思想史：先秦篇》，学生　台北　1982　193-200。「道生一」：自无而生有，「道为无」，「一」为有 (195)；「一生二」：「有」分为阴阳二气，老子的阴阳虽然没有被说明是气，但由「冲气以为和」一句，则可以说阴阳是气，而「一」是「有」是「气」，是未分阴阳以前，气的本体(196)；「二生三，三生万物」：「三」一般解作阴与阳会和之气，即所谓冲气也，由这冲和之气而产生万物；但罗光却认为「三」应解作「天地人」(《道德经》廿五章(198)。本章主旨可见于司马光注释：「道生一，自无而生有；一生二，分阴分阳；二生三，阴阳交而生和；三生万物，和气合而生物也」(严灵峰，《道家四子新编》，商务　台北 1968 39)。

52. Cf. MARIUS VICTORINUS, Theological Treatises on the Trinity = The Fathers of the Church, vol. 69, tr. by CLARK M. T. (Washington D. C.: Catholic University of America Press 1981) ; hereafter as FC 69. Victorinus Marius is a Latin Father, influenced by Greek thought. Augustine's trinitarian doctrine was inspired by him. For an analysis and evaluation see HADOT P., Marius Victorinus : Recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris : 1971) ; SIMONETTI M., La crisi ariana nel IV secolo (Roma : Augustinianum 1975) 287-298.

53. Cf. Adv. At., 1, 3-4 : FC 69, 93-95 ; III, 3 : FC 69, 224 ; III, 7 : FC 69, 231-233.

54. Cf. Adv. At., 1, 13 : FC 69, 106; 1, 32 : FC 69, 143 ; III, 8-9 : FC 69, 233-235.

55. Adv. AT., 1, 13 : "Therefore these are also two, one coming from the other, the Holy Spirit from the Son just as the Son comes from God and, as a logical consequence, the Holy Spirit also comes from the Father" (FC 69, 106).

56. Here we must pay attention to Marius Victorinus' principle of predominance. Actually being, life and knowledge are common to all three persons. But they are proper to each one (Father-esse ; Son-vivere ; Spirit-intelligere) as the predominant characteristic of each of them ; cf. Adv. Ar., I, 55-56 : FC 69, 178-182.

57. Victorinus Marius considers life as movement of descent or progression from the origin and as feminine, while he considers knowledge or wisdom as movement of ascent or return to the Father, and as masculine ; cf. Adv. AT., I, 51 : FC 69, 174-175.

58. "... and insofar as life is movement, it received a kind of feminine power, because it desired to vivify" (Adv., Ar. 1, 51 : FC 69, 174). However, as the one movement is both life and knowledge, their gender is interchangeable. Thus, life, being converted to wisdom and by returning to the Father, has been made masculine (ibid.). Likewise, the Holy Spirit (wisdom) is called the mother of Jesus (Adv. Ar., 1, 58 : FC 69, 184-185)

59. 庄子，《天道篇》：「静而与阴同德，动而与阳同波。」

60. 《道德经》十六章：「致虚极，守静笃。万物并作，吾以观复。夫物芸芸，各复归其根。归根回静，是谓复命。」

61. As the Word and the Spirit are both present and at work in Jesus, he possesses masculine as well as feminine features.

作者：吴智勋

1. 中国人的正统观

正统观念与法律的解释似乎是两个风马牛不相及的问题。正统论是中国史学上的一大争论，而法律的解释则是伦理思想中的一个重要问题。我尝试把二者放在一起，因为两者都涉及道德观念。中国文化是受道德观念所浸淫，不论文学、史学、哲学、艺术等，都多方面的受道德思想所影响。

正统的争论，由来已久。隐公三年《春秋公羊传》日：「故君子大居正」，隐公元年《公羊传》：「何言乎王正月？大一统也」。论者多认为是正统论之滥觞。(1) 春秋以事系年，故须主客分明，正闰之说遂起。正统论虽有时从时间上计年次，定正闰，以承接去决定正统的问题。但从空间上的一统看正统，却成为争论的主流。朱子撰《资治通鉴纲目》，其凡例曰：「凡天下混一为正统」。这种纯粹从空间的定于一言正统，极为学者所责备。中国历史上出现过统而未正，或正而未统的朝代。秦、隋、元被认为统而未正，西蜀、南宋则正而未统。「统」以国土统一言，但「正」呢？历代有以前代血统为正，如蜀汉、东晋、南宋等，故要托出前代帝王的子孙以求「正」；有以据前代旧都所在为正，如魏据汉都以为正；有以据位之久暂，以定其正不正。享位不久，则不谓之正，如楚项羽、王莽等是。有以种族定正伪，如以汉族为正，其他辽、金、蒙古、满族皆为伪。梁启超曾评这些定正不正的标准，「互相矛盾，通于此则窒于彼，通于彼则窒于此」。(2) 要兼具统而正，学者又加上道德的因素。

宋代章望之首先有正统、霸统之别：「予今分统为二名，曰正统、霸统。以功德而得天下者，其得者正统也，尧、舜、夏、商、周、汉、唐、我宋其君也；得天下而无功德者，强而已矣，其得者霸统也，秦、晋、隋其君也」。(3) 明方孝孺、徐奋鹏分别有正统、变统之说：「何谓正统？建道德之中，立仁义之极，操政教之原是也；夏、商、周然也。汉、唐、宋虽未必纯，亦近之也，斯以谓之正统。何谓变统？取之以诈力，如晋、宋、齐、梁诸君，即业膺全盛，非正也。守之以残虐，如秦、隋，即历传数百年，非正也。夷狄僭中国，如刘裕、如蒙古；女后据天位，如吕雉、如武曌；强臣奸大宝，如曹、如莽、如坚、如温等，皆非正也，斯以请之变统」。(4) 标准虽非全以道德，但以道德为主。清魏禧进一步分出正统、偏统、窃统三者，(5) 已无新意了。

无论如何，在中国人的心目中，统治者有些是正统，有的是不正统。可是问题来了，若是正统的统治者，自然是众望所归；但非正统的统治者，其治下的人民仍然要生活的，这些统治者所定的法律，人民该采取怎样的态度？该不该守？这就是本文要探讨的问题。

1. 欧阳修「正统论上」云：「传曰：『君子大居正』。又曰：『王者大一统』。正者，所以正天下之不正也；统者，所以合天下之不一也。由不正与不一，然后正统之论作」。见《欧阳文忠公集》第十六卷。　

饶宗颓也认为正统之说始于春秋。见饶氏《中国史学上之正统论》，龙门1977 1。

2. 梁启超「论正统」，见《分类饮冰室文集》全编卷十一。

3. 章望之「明统论」中篇，原文缺，据苏东坡「正统辨论」中录出，见《经进东坡文集事略》卷十一。

4. 徐奋鹏「古今正统辨」，见《徐笔桐先生集》卷八。

方孝孺「释统」、「后正统论」中有正统、变统之说，见《逊志斋集》卷二。

5. 魏禧「正统论上」，见《魏叔子文集》卷一。

2. 法律的必须性

圣经对法律的态度是相当清楚的，耶稣本人就说明：「你们不要以为我来是废除法律或先知；我来不是为废除，而是为成全」(玛5：17)。他接受犹太人所制定的法律，他参加各种犹太人制定的节日，他自己缴纳殿税，也替伯多禄纳了(玛17：27)。圣经亦指出法律的最后根源是天主：「每人要服从上级有权柄的人，因为没有权柄不是从天主来的，所有的权柄都是由天主规定的。所以谁反抗权柄，就是反抗天主的规定」(罗13：1－2)。

不光是圣经要求人遵守法律，人的理智也作同样的要求。圣多玛斯为法律下定义时说：「法律是由团体的负责人，为谋求公共福利所颁布合乎理智的措施」。(6) 按照他的意思，一切人为的法律皆以自然律为基础，而自然律则出自天主的永久律。换句话说，人为法律的最后根源应该是天主。可是永久律与自然律并没有对每一个伦理问题提供详细的规律，此有待社会国家制定法律去处理。例如保护生命的自然律，能用很多法律去表达：交通规则、防止环境污染规则、禁止安死、严惩伤害生命的人。为了公益及社会秩序，立法者制定一些明确的法律，要求人民去遵守。因此，法律常有一种规范力量，非让人民随意遵守或不遵守。

一般来说，法律的制定，是合乎道德、合乎理智、合乎公益，而且是可能的。但在某些情况下，法律的遵守发生了问题，这就有所谓权宜(epikeia) 和法律解释的问题出现了。

6. Summa Theologiae, I, II, 90, 4.

3. 法律的权宜与解释

所谓权宜，出自希腊文epieikeia，指合理的意思。若法律的执行发生了困难，在特殊迫切的情况下，为保护另一更重要的价值，可合理地暂时不遵守，这就是权宜的意思。传统的例子见于《孟子》离娄下：「淳于髡曰：男女授受不亲，礼与？孟子曰：礼也。曰：嫂溺，援之以手乎？曰：嫂溺不援，是豺狼也，男女授受不亲，礼也；嫂溺，援之以手者，权也」。礼法就是一种伦理规律，但能在急切时，为了维护另一价值而暂时悬空。

在正常的情况下，人人都知道应遵守交通规则，但能否为救人而开快车呢？一般伦理学家都说可以，但所提出的理由能不一样。这里只就苏亚莱(Francis Suarez 1548-1617) 及多玛斯(Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274) 两大家的解释来讨论。

苏亚莱重立法者的意志，他认为「立法者的意志是法律的内在形式与灵魂」。(7) 立法者的权力来自天主，他有权为了公益而制定法律，但他亦有权豁免人民守某一法律。在实际的环境里，要引用epikeia去豁免某一法律，我得假定那是立法者默许的意思，即立法者不是准我不守交通规律，而是在救人的紧急情况下，他容许我暂时不受此规律所束缚。多玛斯重立法的作用，他认为一法律的出现，必定有其理由。法律的真正作用是为了公益，维持社会的秩序。因此，在特殊情况下，法律的明文未能充份表达其立法的原意时，我们可根据其真正的意思去解释，而非斤斤计较其字面的意义。如此，权宜是一个德行(virtue)，一个正确使用法律的德行。这里不再是消极的宽免，而是积极应做的行为。我开快车救人，不是假定立法者豁免我守法的责任，而是保障生命公益的积极要求。在那情形下，守法律明文反而是有害公益。(8)

由这个思想发展开来，我们可以说：苏亚莱一派把法律的重心放在立法者身上，其权力来自天主，他为人民制定法律，以便带来公益。既然重心放在立法者身上，则法律的有效与否，在乎立法者是否团体的合法负责人。用中国传统的术语说，他是否正统。当然苏亚莱无意说，立法者可任意制定法律和解释法律。他的时代比多玛斯晚了几百年，他自然熟悉多玛斯对法律所下的定义和所划定的几个条件。他假定立法者定法时已兼顾了「合乎理智」和「公益」两条件，不过在众多可能性中，立法者仍能拟定自己的选择；而其他的条件，即「团体的负责人颁布」，他却特别重视。可见立法者是否合法，是否正统，是否由他颁布，决定法律的有效性。

多玛斯一派把法律的重心放在其功用与目的上面。多玛斯的哲学系统中有所谓事物的四因，即物质因、形式因、功效因及目的因。其中目的因非常重要，它决定了事物存在的理由。用在法律上，法律是立法者的工具，使他能理智地运用以达到适当的目的。法律不应依赖立法者的意志而存在，其本身应有自己存在的理由，它应是合乎公益和理智的。它的规范力量并非来自立法者，而是来自本身明显的作用。因此，法律本身存在的理由成为多玛斯一派的传统。(9) 法律的条件中，此派特重「合乎理智的措施」及「公益」两者。至于立法者是否合法，是否正统，是否称职，颁布细节有没有遵守，都比较是次要的了。因此，当法律明文因环境绿故，未能符合其原来的目的及精神，人有道德责任去改变明文，以达到法律原来的目的。人不光是消极的「被容许」如此做，而更是积极的「必须」如此做。这是一个责任，一个德行。

7. De Legibus, Lib. III, C.20, n.3.

8. Summa Thheologiae, II, II, 120, 1.

9. O'CALLAGHAN Denis F., "The Reasonableness of Law : A Historical Perspective", in The Irish Theological Quarterly 1977, No. 4, 272.

4. 两种主张的实际应用

根据新约的记载，似乎多玛斯的主张，得到较明显的支持。耶稣多次和当权的法利塞人、经师、司祭长、法学士等冲突，往往是法律的解释问题。法律有明文不准安息日工作。如果重视立法者的意志，则当权人的解释，便排除了权宜的可能。耶稣似乎更重法律的目的与作用。他提出：「安息日是许行善呢？还是许作恶呢？是救命呢？还是丧命呢？」(路6：9)。结论自然是：「安息日是为人立的，并不是人为了安息日」(谷2：27)。耶稣亦同意了达味权宜的做法：「你们从未读过：达味在急迫中和他一起的人，在饥饿时所作的事吗？当厄贝雅塔尔作大司祭时，达味怎样进了天主的殿。吃了除司祭外，谁也不许吃的供饼，并且还给了同他一起的人？」(谷2：25－26)

在实除应用上，多玛斯的主张能给人较大的自由。若按苏亚莱的解释，那么看重立法者本人的意志，则权宜有时不能用，因为立法者能声明说：「我的意思是怎样，你的解释并非我的原意，我愿意你在你的情况中仍跟随我法律的明文」。类似这样的声明，所有权宜便要停止，因立法者已亲自解释了自己的意思。例如：教会有禁止人工节育的规律。如果采取苏亚莱的主张，则教宗或信理部一发表声明，亲自表明自己的意思，则其他权宜的做法便不能用了。事实上，有些神学家认为在人工节育问题上，不能有其他可能性，而必须跟随教会规定的解释。(10)

10. FORD John & GRISEZ Germain, "Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium," in Theological Studies (June 1978) 258-312.

5. 法律的解释与正统问题

中国传统中的正统问题在法律的解释上有一定的重要性。统治者(同时是立法者) 的正统与否，影响人对政府，对法律的看法。武王伐纣，伯夷、叔齐叩马而谏：「父死不葬，爰及干戈，可谓孝乎？以臣弒君，可谓仁乎？」(11) 到武王灭纣，建立周朝，二人便义不食周粟，釆薇而食，终于饿死首阳山。虽然很少人会怀疑周武王的合法地位，至少没有人把他列入霸统、窃统、或偏统之中，但伯夷、叔齐总认为尧舜的退位让国才是适当的做法，「以暴易暴」去得天下是不应该的，非正统的。他们的死，总有其道德价值。难怪司马迁要标榜出来，把他们放在列传之首。其他历史上耻仕异朝的人士，一般中国人给他们的评价很高，认为是有气节的表现。

在二十世纪，世界各地仍有不少非正统的统治者存在。不久前的阿富汗、柬埔寨、波罗的海国家的人民，不少认为他们受外国人操纵的政府为不合法。南非黑人对少数的白人统治者，依拉克库尔德族人对其统治者，可能有同样的想法。既属不合法，非正统的统治者，他们无资格制定法律，其所制定的法律可以不守。因此，他们理直气壮地不守法，跟不合法的统治者打游击战，不少人视他们为民族英雄。按苏亚莱一派的主张，这些人是做得对。立法者的正统地位必须先弄清楚，其所颁布的法律才有规范性。

另一方面，按多玛斯一派的解释，合法不合法，正统不正统的问题是比较次要。那些统治者事实上统治着人民，他们怎样夺得政权，是否代表着大多数人的意愿，在制定法律的观点下，反而不太重要。重要的是：立法者是否为了公益而制定法律？其法律本身是否合理和符合自然律的要求？倘若法律符合这两个重要条件，虽生活于非正统的统治者底下，还应服从法律。

根据新约的记载，耶稣及其门徒似乎部走后者的路。犹太人正受罗马人统治，相信那时很少犹太人会认为罗马人是合法地代表着他们的正统政府，否则他们不须念念不忘默西亚的来临，复兴以色列王国。但耶稣本人似乎同意纳税给罗马政府：「凯撒的就应归还凯撒，天主的就应归还天主」(谷12：17)。钱币既有凯撒的像，那是属于凯撒的；按伦理规律，谁的东西就应归谁，属于他的就还给他好了。伯多禄叫人「要为主的缘故，服从人立的一切制度：或是服从帝王为最高的元首，或是服从帝王派遣来惩罚作恶者，奖赏行善者的总督」(伯前2：13－14)。他们似乎不太重视合法不合法，正统不正统的问题。

要分辨两种理论那个绝对「对」，那个绝对「错」是非常困难的。我认为多玛斯的理论给予人较多周转的地方。历史告诉我们，正统与否，很难界定。起初不合法的非正统政府，久而久之，便被公认为合法正统的了。例如：满清初入关，汉人皆视为异族。黄宗羲、顾炎武等有节之士，皆退隐消极地表示抗议。仕异朝的吴梅村、钱谦益等读书人始终怀着羞愧之心，如吴梅村淮阴诗便充份透露懊悔之情：「登高怅望八公山，淇树丹崖不可攀；莫把阴符问黄石，好将鸿宝驻朱颜。浮生所欠只一死，尘世何缘识九还；我本淮南旧鸡犬，不随仙去落人间」。这种无可奈何的懊恼，过了几代便不再存在了。满清政府普遍地被接受，连知识份子也称之为「国朝」了。到清末民初，亦有汉族知识份子为「国朝」卖命或自杀而死的。

历史上正统、霸统或正统、窃统、偏统之别，理论上可能说得通，但事实上极难分辨。俗语已有「成者为王，败者为寇」之说。正统不正统，往往是后代人下的结论；当时的人民，实不易下判断。被公认为最正统的周武王，也有贤人伯夷、叔齐提出「以暴易暴」的抗议。身处于战国、南北朝、五代等乱世的人，统治者不断变换，合法与正统的问题，不知从何说起了。若单从法律本身来看，很多所谓变统、窃统、偏统的朝代，其所制定的法律并不比正统的朝代差，我们实在很难解释为什么要尊重后者而摒弃前者。

总括来说，两种理论，各有优缺点。苏亚莱一派重立法者的合法地位，颇能助人从迷惘中选择要走的道路，看出何者为正，何者为误，亦符合中国人重规的气节。若纯粹只看法律是否合理，是否合公益，则不少游击份子或流亡人士可能不需要反对其当权的政府了。反过来说，多玛斯一派的主张更重法律为人而存在。如果法律本身是合理，能促成善，带来公益，则颁布的立法者是否合法，变成次要的事了。在今日复杂的杜会国家环境里，后者似比前者有较大的自由，较多交谈的余地。

11. 司马迁《史记》伯夷列传。

作者：项退结

往往有人说，中国文化是一种无宗教或至少是与宗教无关的文化。本文将运用历史事实证明，此语充其量仅适合一部份知识份子。诚然，知识份子对文化生活影响甚深，但绝非文化生活的唯一因素。更何况并非所有知识份子都脱离了宗教生活。这里必须辟除一个根深蒂固的成见，那就是以为中国人的文化与思想祇有过一种思想典范，一直没有变过。其实，中国也正像世界其他国家一般，曾不柢一次发生过思想典范与文化的转变。宗教正是上述转型的重要因素。本文将先讨论，究竟什么是宗教；然后将按各不同时代说出各该时期的不同文化。

由于这篇论文的范围过广，本来需要在一本书中纔能褐所欲言，因此不免受到先天的限制，仅能作摘要式的叙述。捉襟见肘，自所难免。

1. 宗教定义的讨论

对宗教的定义先作一简短的探索似乎有其必要。

中古时代的西方世界依照一种古老的传统把宗教定义为神人之间的联系；杨绍南神父因此对宗教作如下界定：人对于有位格的「至上神」所有的精神关系的总汇。(1) 从犹太教，基督宗教及回教的传统来看，上述定义诚然非常恰当，但一应用到佛教显然就无能为力，因为佛教不相信神与上帝。

另一力面也有人对宗教下一个广泛得无所不包的定义，包括一些诸如经济，男女爱情，政治之类的活动。往往被认为可用于宗教的田力克(Paul Tillich) 对信仰的定义，就是这样无所不包。田氏对信仰的定义如下：个人自我的整体及集中的行为，亦即无条件、无限而终极的关怀行为(A total and centered act of the personal self, the act of unconditional, infinite and ultimate concern)。(2) 这里必须注意，田氏认为上帝也不过是自我超越自己的象征而已，有集中而整合行为的个人自我纔是『无条件，无限而终极的关怀行为』的起点与终点。因此，一个人的关怀只要具上述三个条件，无论其对象是什么，依据上述定义都应该可以算是宗教行为。

诚然，田力克称人生对一般性事务的关切为「先遣关切」，唯独『终极关怀』属于信仰范围。然而，由于一个关切之属于「先遣」或「终极」完全在于个人自我的判断，缺乏客观标准，因此对某甲属于先遣关切的事，对某乙却可能用于终极开怀。事实也正是如此。因此，田力克的进路难免失之过于主观；而西方世界对宗教的传统定义则又失之过于以客体对象为准。

限于主观或客观的进路既均有所偏，那么比较完整的宗教定义必须主客观兼顾。由于这一需要，我曾尝试对宗教行为作一描述定义，(3) 试加以补充如下：「对神圣领域(事物、力量、位格) 的信念及由之而来的行动；此项信念与行动往往导致心理，生理，社会及其他功能，但自身独立，绝不能归约于这些功能。」这一定义有如下几个特点。首先，此描述定义中「神圣领域」的概念得自着名宗教学者奥多(Rudolf Otto) 对宗教经验的描述。他在「神圣者」一书中，指出宗教指向一种「令人颤怖而又心醉的奥秘」(Mysterium tremendumet fascinosum) 或神圣者(das Heilige, Numinosum) 的经验。(4) 宗教行为的这一特征使它与其他一切行为分清界线，不再像「终极关怀」那样漫无边际。神圣者可指创造世界具位格性的唯一上帝，可以指图腾、神物、佛性、天地等神圣事物，也可以指诸如命运之类的神圣力且。其次，「对神圣领域的信念」表示出宗教亦有主观的一面：祇要是对神圣领域的信念，其所指位格、事物、力量究竟是否客观存在，则无损于其为宗教；否则许多神庙的宗教性可能就会发生问题(例如我家附近有一间齐天大圣庙，供奉的居然是西游记的人物)。其三，上述定义也指出，宗教信念与行动所发生的功能不可视为宗教本身。例如有以为宗教不过是「心灵寄托」或个人自我的集中及整合，也有人认为宗教不过是穷人得不到优裕生活而把希望寄托于来世。宗教信念与行动诚能发生上述心理及社会这些功能，这些功能却绝不等于宗教本身。因此把宗教现象归约于上述功能的任何一种都不公允。

本文在诘论中将由上述宗教定义说明，宗教在中国文化中究竟占何种地位。显然，本文是以比较广泛的意义来谈文化，即以人各方面能力的培养、训练、表现去理解文化，而并非仅以文人学者的观点来谈文化。

*台湾天主教辅仁大学主办1992年3月27－28日，宗教与文化国际学术研讨会讲词。

1. 杨绍南，《宗教哲学概论)，台北台湾商务印书馆民国58年15。

2. TILLICH Paul, Dynamics of Faith (New York : Harper & Row 1958) 8.

3. 项退结，《中国人的路)，台北东大图书公司民国77年223－224。

4. OTTO Rudolf, The Idea of the Holy : An Inquiry into Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational (London : Oxford University Press 1975) Ch.3-6.

2. 中国宗教与文化的演变

讨论中国宗教与文化的演变以前，让我们先以最简单方式一述思想典范及其转变的理论，因为这有助于对三千年以来中国文化的瞭解。

如所周知，思想典范这一理论源自专门研究科学发展史的孔恩(Thomas Kuhn)。他在「科学革命的结构」中指出，一个时代的科学信念并非完全以观察及实验为基础，而是同时受到那时代流行的「标准科学」所影响。过去，亚里斯多德的「物性学」，牛顿的「自然哲学的数学原理」等书都曾影响到某一时代的「标准科学」，而使反对的新见解遭到抑制或排斥。发生上述影响的着作都有下列二个特点：第一、它们树立了空前的成就，以致在相当久长期间内无人敢与之抗争；第二、它们具相当开放性，容许后起者在其架构以内解决形形色色许多问题；否则人们就会觉得需要提出新的理论。凡是具上述二种特点之科学成就，孔恩称之为Paragdigm；中文已习于译为「典范」。但此词容易造成误解，事实上亦已造成许多误解，以为它仅指模范而已；其实它不仅指模范，尚包括上述二个思想上的特点。因此我建议改译为「思想典范」，以别于一般性的模范。孔恩之所以提出此新概念，其目标在于说明思想典范的转变：随着新科学发现，势必形成与过去思想典范无法并存的新理论，始而使以前的思想典范发生危机，最后造成思想典范的转变。(5)

思想典范本来是指自然科学范围内于某一时代起带头作用而被奉为模范的一种思想。但这种情形不仅在科学范围内有之，而是在任何学科中都能见到。这一名词因此也就被广泛应用于其他学科。我个人认为中国哲学中就有过数种思想典范以及数种思想典范的转变。宗教思想的最重要转变是从早期重视宗教的文化型态一变而成为以道及「天行有常」为主的型态。在历史的发展过程中，上述两种不同的思想典范往往彼此妥协而形成数种新的思想典范。

2.1 早期重视宗故的文化

本文所云的早期是指有文献为证的殷商时代至战国时代前期，约略包括公元前1324－289年之间。殷商时期文化之以宗教为中心，可于19世纪末期出土于安阳之卜辞见之。陈梦家、胡厚宣、岛邦男等的专门着作充份说明了这点。(6)《礼记》表记第三十二篇把下面这些放在孔子口中：「殷人尊神，率民以事神，先鬼而后礼……周人尊礼尚施，事鬼敬神而远之。」这些话充份表达出，殷代是以宗教为其整个杜会生活的中心点。

表记篇也提及夏代：「夏道尊命，事鬼敬神而远之。」论语(为政第二23) 也记载孔子的话：「殷因于夏里，所损益可知也。」因此，大约殷代比夏代周代都更重视宗教。但这并不表示，周人就不重视宗教一味以人文(尊礼尚施) 为事，而是说人文的比重更大而已。要如我们细读书经中最古老的历史文件?「十二周诘」，就会发现周代初期的宗教比重一点不减于殷商时代：处处可以见到周人既尊天命又重人事，尤其强调人修德会蒙上帝垂青。这样的句子在「十二周诘」中俯拾即是，下面的例子从正反二面立言，最具代表性：「有殷受天命……，惟不敬厥德，乃早坠厥命。今王嗣受厥命……王其德之用，祈天永命。」(召诘)

最足以表达出周代融天命与人事于一炉的精神者，莫过于孔子以前早被引用的「洪范」。这一文件与书经中的其他文献所不同者，在于它并不想对老百姓有所指令，而是替统治者与被统治者一起颁布九种大法规?洪范九畴。它们适用的范围包括大自然(五行：水、火、木、金、土；五纪：年、月、日、星辰、历数)，人事中的道德(五事：恭、从、明、聪、客；三德：正直、刚克、柔克) 与政冶(皇极与八政：食、货、杞、司空、司徒、司寇、宾、师) 等等。遵守这些大法规显然属于人事人文；然而大法规本身却由上帝或天所赐(「天乃锡禹洪范九畴」)。

孔子自称「述而不作，信而好古」，又对周公崇拜得五体投地。他之继承大多与周公有闲的「十二周诰」及书经其他文件的宗教与文人思想，是理所当然的。此外，一如我在讨论「洪范」的一篇文章中所指出，孔子的「九思」脱胎于「洪范」的「五事」，表示他对恭、从、明、聪、睿五种人生积极态度曾作深入的思考，并加入他自己的心得。(7)

有人认为孔子仅关心人文，而他心目中的天不过是指人自己的道德良心而已，这在《论语》中丝毫找不到根据。实则他所云的天有知有情有意，而他又意识到自己的人文使命是天所赐与：「天生德于予，桓魋其如予何？」(述而第七23)「天之未丧斯文也，匡人其如予何？」(子罕第九5)「知我者其天乎。」(宪问第十四35) 至于说天对孔子已无足轻重，而他之言天不过是人云亦云，这实在是对孔子人格的莫大侮辱，等于说孔子口是心非，而且是小人：因为孔子曾特别强调「小人不知天命」(季氏第十六8)。

稍晚于孔子的墨子则可以说是中国思想中宗教意识最强的一位，堪称为一位宗教家。祇可惜他太不注意天加于大自然的大法规，而相信每件事都需要天的直接干预。结果反而引起知识份子的疑虑，终至放弃对天与神的信仰而一味相信自然。

孟子之是否相信有知有意的天，当代学术界至今仍聚讼纷纷。我个人则对此了无疑义：孟子仍坚信有知有意的传统的天。对此「万章」(上5) 提供了最明显的证据。孟子在这里指出：「天子能荐人于天，不能使天与之天下；诸侯能荐人于天子，不能使天子与之诸侯……」孟子心目中的天因此完全和天子一般，能听从或拒绝人的推荐，亦即有知有意而具位格性。

究竟中国早期的宗教信仰包括那些内容呢？根据文献，它至少包括下述三点：

一、宇宙中有一位至高的上帝或天，统治着诸神、人与大自然；祂有知有意，亦即具位格性。祂宰制大自然与人事。然而祂在中国典籍中却并非创造世界面唯一的神，因此与圣经所云的上帝不能完全等量齐观。

二、上帝关心人世，尤其关心国家由善人贤人统治；上帝也赏善罚恶。

三、人不仅在此世受天命宰制，身后尚能上升于天，而与至高的天或上帝为伍。诗经与书经都足以证明，中国古代曾有过这样的信念。诗经中的 [文王] 有如下之句「文王在上，于昭于天……文王涉降，在帝左右。」(第235首) 书经中最古老的典籍之一也有「兹殷多先哲王在天」(召诰) 之语。可见这一类思想在中国古代绝不陌生。

无论是涉及上帝或人的信念都对日常生活发生影响；这也就是说，古代宗教与文化生活有密切的关联。对此，吾人仅需涉猎左传的记载，就能知其梗概。

2.2 知识份子脱离宗教以后的俗世文化

A. 道家的自然主义

由于中国早期宗教过份相信上帝在此世福善祸淫，而事实上善人在世未必得意，恶人在世也未必失意，无形中替许多人的宗教信仰造成危机。终于出现了一位天才思想家?老子，他敢用无为而无不为的自然之道来替代福善祸淫的上帝：善既未必得福而淫亦未必得祸，那末上帝的假定就成为多余，大不了上帝也不过是道所生，因为道「象帝之先」(《道德经》第四章)。从此，道家心目中的「天」已非超越世界的上帝，而仅系内在于世界的自然界。《庄子》一书即其最佳实例：其所云之「天」或指「天之苍苍」(1/4)，或与「地」一起指整个宇宙(例如「天地与我并生」2/52)，或与「人」对立而指天道自然(例如「无以人灭天」17/52)《汉书》艺文志因此对道家的起源作了很切当的叙述：「道家者流，盖出于史官，历记成败存亡祸福古今之道。」道既能完全解释一个人或一个朝代的成败存亡祸福，那末上帝就可以一笔勾消。这就是老子所进行的革命或思想典范的转变。由于老子以后没有起来过一位足以与之相匹敌的思想家，道家思想事实上已成为战国时代以后知识份子的共识：别的思想家会有别方面的创见，但都无法置道家思想于不顾。从此，「天」这个字的意义在中国思想界中就永远纠缠不清，后代的重要儒家着作均深受其影响。最糟糕而最习见的是往往以道家的意义曲解道家思想以前的典籍。

「道法自然」的想法是否可与西方的自然律相比？如果答案是肯定的话，那末何以中国的道家没有进一步发现自然科学呢？事实上，道家的道与西方的自然律并不完全一致。李约瑟的看法似乎值得考虑，他认为其不同点之一是道家虽然对大自然有兴趣，却不信赖理性与逻辑。另一方面，西方的一神论由于相信大自然系上帝的化工，纔会在大自然的书中追求一贯的理性定律。(8) 方励之先生在一篇短文中也有此主张。(9)

道家思家对中国的最重要影响是注入了乐天知命的精神。好的一面这使人有勇气面对命运的打击，坏的一面则是便人消极而不求进取。

此外，从艺术史的眼光来看，道家的大自然情调对中国山水画的影响也是值得一提的。

B. 荀子以社会为中心的淑世主义

荀子对天的看法和庄子的一模一样，但所采取的态度却不一样。庄子认为自然之天既已无为而无不为，人的责任不过听其自然而已，亦即上文所引用过的「无以人灭天」。然而荀子却认为，我人既已知天之常道，就应该「制天命而用之」(天论篇)。显然，荀子所云的「天命」就是天之常道，他是综合了儒家的淑世态度与道家的自然主义。对他而言，宗教行为大不了祇有教育意义，不可相信有神(天论篇39－40；礼论篇122)。

荀子的政治与道德思想既已与宗教脱节，因此完全以群为中心，并以符合此义的人观作为基础：「水火有气而无生，草木有生而无知，禽兽有知而无义，人有气有生有知亦且有义，故最为天下贵也。力不若牛，走不若马，而牛马为用，何也？曰：人能群，彼不能群也。人何以能群？曰分。分何以能行？曰义。」准此，人之所以与禽兽不同者即在于群与义(王制篇69-71)，而分之义或不义的善恶标准端在于它使天下(群体)「正理平治」或「偏险悖乱」(性恶篇37)。道德行为之善恶标准亦不外乎此。

2.3 易传与董仲舒对早期宗教思想与自然主义的融合

这里我无意对易传的形成过程及时代加以讨论，因为那不是一篇综合性的文章所能充份发挥的。本文大致采纳《古史辨》对易传的考证。参以方东美先生的见地。(10) 根据这一看法，易传是从春秋至战国时代逐渐形成的，并非某一个别作者所写。

易传的十翼既由不同的人所写成，那末其部份内容反映早期宗教思想与儒家胸怀，而另一部份则反映道家的自然主义，就不足为奇了。后者见之于「一阴一阳之谓道」(系辞上4) '等句，前者则见之于「自天佑之，吉无不利」(系辞上11；大有十四卦上九)。

大约是受易传影响，董仲舒的《春秋繁露》一方面称天为「皇皇上天」及「上帝」，对之举行最隆重的郊祭，因为天或上帝操有立某家为天子的生杀大权(郊祀第69)；另一方面天又完全属于自然界：天有阴阳之气及暖清寒暑，又有木火土金水五行及春夏秋冬四季(如天之为第八十；五行对三十八)。

德国汉学家佛尔开(Alfed Forke) 认为中国古人心目中的天同时兼具物质与精神双重特质。(11) 上文关于古代宗教的讨论足以证明，佛氏的看法缺乏根据。真正把自然界的天与出令之天混为一谈的似乎要等到董仲舒纔能见到。

2.4 佛教的传入与道故的崛起及二教的民间信仰

无论是易传或董仲舒的宗教思想都祇流传于知识份子，一般老百姓所受的影响非常有限。西汉时代的人可没有想到，真正在后代老百姓生活中生根的会是来自印度的佛教和搞符箓的道教。佛教的传入与道家的兴起，这两件中国宗教史的大事均发生在东汉。

A. 佛教的传入与深入民间

佛教最晚于汉明帝(公元57－75年) 已传入中国。经魏晋南北朝以至唐朝，早已蔚然成风。佛教宣扬缘起论，主张「诸行无常，诸法无我」，甚至连人的自我也是空的，这一理论始终不受欢迎。尽管像玄装那样的大师主张万物不能脱离意识独立的唯识论，但老百姓所接受的仍是南北朝时代郑道子的「神不灭论」(12) 和轮回信仰。唐高宗总章元年(公元668年) 完成的《法苑珠林》一百篇，不仅是那时代民间佛教信仰的写真，而且也完全符合现代佛教的民问信仰。这里面不仅包括人死精神不死及轮回的信仰，而且也包括对阿弥陀佛、弥勒佛及观世音菩萨的极大信心。这一切对今日的佛教徒也完全适合。(13)

佛教虽号称出世，却对中国社会及其文化生活影响极大。方豪教授对宋代佛教的贡献有一连串的研究，充分证明佛教对中国的印刷、造纸、书法、绘画、史学、旅游、泉源之开发与维护、造桥、建筑、遗骸之收瘗、栽茶均有出类拔粹的贡献。(14) 佛教对中国文艺的影响也是大家所熟知的。尽管我们不是佛教徒，偶而也会应用些佛教词汇。而禅宗透过日本人铃木大拙打入了全世界的市场；天主教的男女修道院尤其不再对禅宗感到陌生。

理论上佛教是无神的。实际上由于佛教的净土宗相信人能够投生于西天极乐世界，而虔信呼求阿弥陀佛会使人投生西天，无形中信徒已视阿弥陀佛为最高之神。一般佛教徒对佛教的高深理论一无所知，仅知呼求「南无阿弥陀佛」。而僧徒遇到大小事故，亦多口呼「阿弥陀佛」。因此在一般佛教信徒心目中，佛教已是多神教的一种。

B. 道教的与起并与佛教共成为民间信仰

一般均以张道陵(生于汉桓帝时，即公元146－167年) 为道教的开始，实则他祇是符箓派的开始。道教虽有许多派别，但大体而言是一个混合宗教：古代及儒墨敬上帝敬神和福善祸淫的传统思想、佛教的因果报应及轮回信仰、阴阳五行之说，符箓和方士之术，凡此一切均为道教所吸收。(15)

最奇怪的是，民间对忠孝节义足资矜式的古代人物的纪念与崇敬也往往和道教拉上关系。老百姓相信这些人物已经成神，因此习于替他们造庙宇。这一类建筑显然不属于佛教，但也并不属于道教。然而事实上它们统统被纳入道教；唯一例外的是孔庙，它始终独立于道教之外。一般老百姓根本不管是道是佛，什么庙都可以进去礼拜，祇要他或她认为灵异就是。正因如此，所以一般中国人很难说明自己究竟信的是什么教。尤其是过年过节时，庙宇中都会挤满了进香的善男信女。这已属于一种民间宗教信仰，大多是佛道二教并信。尽管如此，这样的宗教信仰对一般老百姓的日常生活与民间文化却是影响深远。适才提及的方豪教授就曾指出，台北的寺庙对地方的发展有过极大贡献。(16)佛教与道教的民间信仰形态绝不仅属于过去，而是至今尚存的事实。

2.5宋明理学的俗世化宗教

这里我无意对宋明理学作详尽的介绍。那太费唇舌，而且也不必要。

我把宋明理学称为俗世化宗教，是因为一方面宋明理学像道家一般，不再相信位格性的天或上帝，同时又像荀子一般，对服务杜会怀着无比热情；另一方面却又相信宇宙(天地) 本身具生生之德的「一体之仁」：:理学家如程颢、程颐、朱熹等都对一体之仁的天地满怀敬意。天地在他们精神生活中实具有「令人颤怖而又心醉的奥秘」或「神圣者」的地位。所以如此者，是因为宋明理学深受易传影响，而后者尚未完全放弃古代对主宰之天的信仰。换言之，一如上文所言，易传中既有道家的自然之天的思想，同时也有主宰之天的信仰；宋明理学则是放弃了后者而把主宰之天的某些特质(如生生之德与仁心) 赋给自然之天。这样做是否合乎逻辑是另一回事；但宋明理学尚保存了某种宗教特质是无可否认的。正因如此，现代新儒学派如唐君毅先生、牟宗三先生等均肯定新儒学的宗教性，实在是有理由的。(17) 诚然，这样的宗教比较缺乏热力，而且祇限于知识份子能勉强体会得到。至于说要身体力行，那就更不容易了。

无论如何，宋明理学与当代新儒学所代表的儒家对天的瞭解和孔孟的儒家已有基本上的差异，因此不能完全视为一事。至于以宋明儒的眼光来诠释整个儒家思想，那更没有学术上的根据，简直就像把新柏拉图主义作为理解柏拉图思想的唯一依据一般；可能这是数世纪以来以朱子为唯一依据的科学遗毒吧。

5. KUHN Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago : The University of Chicago Press 1970) 4-5, 10-11.

6. 陈梦家，《殷虚卜辞综述》，北京科学出版杜1956 561－582。胡厚宣，「殷代之天神崇拜」(《甲骨学商史论丛初集》第一册)，成都民国33年1－11。

岛邦南，《殷墟卜辞研究》，台北鼎文书局民国64年174－255。

7. 项退结，《中国哲学之路》，台北东大图书公司民国初年99－116。

8. NEEDHAM Joseph, Science and Civilization in China, Vol. 2, History of Scientific Thought (London : Cambridge University Press 1965) 163.

9. 方励之，「宗教与科学」，《鼎》中英文双月刊第11卷总第65期 (1991年10月) 16－21。

10. 顾颉刚编，《古史辨》第三册上编?周易经传问题，台北明伦出版杜影印民国59年。其中李镜池的「易传探源」(95-I32页) 尤其值得参考。

方东美，「儒家哲学?孔子哲学」，《哲学与文化月刊》　第4卷　第7期　民国66年7月8－9。

11. FORKE Alfred, Die Gedankenwelt des Chinesischen Kulturkreises (Muenchen : Verlag von R. Oldenbourg 1927) 40.

12. 《大藏经》第52册，弘明集卷5，台北　新文丰出版公司据大正原版影印27-29。

13. 《大藏经》第53册，《法苑珠林》301－302。

14. 《方豪六十至六十五自选待定稿》，台北　民国63年1－185，方豪的这九篇专门研究宋代佛教对文化及杜会的贡献之论文搜证非常详尽，值得出单行本。

15. 王治心，《中国宗教思想大纲》，台北　台湾中华书局　民国69年74－79。　

傅勤家，《中国道教史》，台北　台湾商务印书馆　民国69年台7版。此书对道教之形成及道教之神、方术、修养、规律等等均叙述甚详(第6-10章)。

任继愈主编，《中国道教史》，上海　上海人民出版社1990(第1章) 6－41。

郑志明，《中国善书与宗教》，台北　台湾学生书局　民国77年。

16. 方豪，「台北寺庙与地方发展」《方豪六十自定稿》上册，台北　民国58年783－808。

17. 唐君毅，《中国文化之精神价值》，台北　正中书局　民国42年329－344。

3. 结论

到此，本文的结论已非常明朗，那就是宗教在中国文化一向占极重要的地位。道家的自然主义对知识阶层诚然影响甚大；透过现代科学，这项影响似乎有增无减，马克思主义更增强了它的气势，而且让它一枝独秀。然而，从整个历史看来，纯粹俗世化的道家思想和荀子思想仅占知识份子的极少部份。大多数知识份子至少还有像宋明理学家那样的俗世化宗教，甚至可能有一部份同时接受民间的佛教和道教信仰。至于一般老百姓，那就可以说百分之百信仰某种宗教，而且都相信有神。即使在最古老的时代，中国人似乎已信仰多神教。钱穆虽认为中国古代信一神教，(18) 但似乎缺乏依据：因为一神论同时相信唯一的神创造一切，中国似乎从来没有这一想法。然而，很古老的时代，中国人就相信有宰制大自然与人事的上帝，以及在上帝以下管理山川土地的百神。上帝与百神被赋以位格性，那是毫无疑问的。相信世间祇有非位格的道或天地者，似乎祇有极少数知识份子。

中国老百姓的通俗文化之受宗教生活影响姑不必论，即使是高层次的中国文化也深受宗教影响。至于大陆马克思政权四十多年以来一贯灌输无神论，究竟对中国文化的未来发展会产生怎么样的后果，那就不是本文范围所及。有人说，长期的无神论教育已使宗教无法继续生存，而目前的宗教热往往祇表示出对极权统治的不满而已。(19) 但究竟如何，似乎很难判断。

18. 钱穆，《国史大纲》(修订本) 上册，台北　台湾商务印书馆　民国71年修订9版　262。

19. HE ZHOU, Moralische Herausforderungen in China (China : Heute X 1991) Nr. 4 (56) S. 104.

作者：周景勋

1. 引子

看，十字架怎样展示一切。所谓一切，总归于这七点：

可奇的天主 (The Admirable God)、

理性的神灵 (The Rational Spirit)、

可感觉的世界 (The Sensible world)、

可爱的天堂 (The delightful heaven)、

可怕的地狱 (The frightful hell)、

美德的应受颂扬 (The praiseworthiness of Virtue)、

罪恶的当受谴责 (The guilt of sin)，

因为十字架是『真理』的锁匙、大门、道路及光辉。谁若依循上述程序接受十字架，并追随基督，他将不致于在黑暗中行走，而必能得到生命之光。(1)

基督的十字架展露了生命之光，以光照人的心灵，使人能体认「真理」。圣文德(Bonaventura, 1221-1274 A.D.) 以一种信仰的神秘经验来体悟人生的终向在于与天主的密契冥合；而这契合透过基督十字架的救赎，使他得到了生命的光照，故在心灵的体悟中，经验到天主就在人的心灵内；因此，人的知识乃以天主为中心；人的最先认识也是天主，倘若天主不存在人的心灵中，人就无法寻觅祂。(2)

圣文德的「光照」思想可说是学说的中心，乃受圣奥斯定(St. Augustine) 所影响的；更好说是：圣文德的思想是在圣奥斯定的传统下成长的。圣奥斯定的「光照」论及他的思想都是围绕着「天主」，以及人的灵魂与天主的关系上立论；圣文德更将之肯定：「天主」是内在人的「灵魂」中，所以人必须「返求诸己」，即返回心中找寻「天主」，也就是返回内心找寻「存在本身」；因为圣文德强调「人的心灵」乃「理性的神灵」(The rational spirit)，「理性的神灵」乃蒙天主所光照的，人才能认识心中的天主。故此，在哲学史上称圣文德为「神秘主义的哲学家」；哲学史家纪尔松(E. Gilson) 在「圣文德之哲学」(La philosophie de Saint Bonaventure) 一书里，更认为圣文德的哲学，实与中古时期的教父思想无异，故应称为「基督徒哲学」；因为圣文德的哲学重视「天主」与超自然事物的知识；由是，哲学与神学混合为一。(3)

1.圣文德著(韩山城译)，《爱的烈焰》(De Triplici Via alias Incendium Amoris)，安道社会学社出版　民63年，第三章「抵达真正智慧的静观」32

2.邬昆如编著，《西洋哲学史》，国立编译馆出版　民60年，「波拿文都辣」306

3.葛慕蔺著，《西洋中世纪哲学史纲》，辅仁出版社　民66年，第十六章「伯纳文笃拉」　89

2. 哲学与信仰之光

圣文德曾写过一篇：「神学乃万学之宗」的文章，(4) 其开宗明言：「雅各伯书一章：『一切美好的赠与，一切完善的恩赐，都是由上而来，由光明之父降下来的』(17节)。这段言论涉及一切知识的由来，并暗示众多学识莫不由一切光明的泉源涌出。虽然一切知识的光明都是内在的，但可以合理地分作外在的光明，亦即有关机械的知识；低级的光明，亦即来自感官的知识；内在的光明，亦即来自哲学的知识；高级的光明，亦即出自圣宠和圣经的知识。首种光明是有关技艺的知识，次种光明是属于大自然的知识，第三种光明涉及只可以理解的真理，而最后一种光明则属于得救的真理。」这四种光明成就一切知识；这些知识乃在信仰之光下产生的，圣文德称之为「知识之光」；由四种光明中可分出六种知识之光，其乃以天主创造天地之六天作为配合，而以「圣经的知识」为首，即有圣经之光，来自感官之光、技艺之光、理性哲学之光、自然哲学之光及伦理哲学之光等六种「知识之光」。既然圣经知识居首位，故其他五种知识之光莫不以圣经知识之光为依归，莫不包括并玉成于圣经内，并藉圣经而逾越至永远之光，即集中于天主。(5)

圣经知识就是「神学」，可见圣文德认为神学是万学之宗是有他的理由的，因为神学是从最高的原因：「天主」开始，而哲学的终点只是神学的起点，更可以说：哲学乃以神学作为依归。故葛慕蔺教授在描述圣文德思想特征中表示：

(1)圣文德一生关心基督教思想及学术的统一。

(2)圣文德只撰写神学着作。至于其神学体系，显然都以神学原理、即「启示」(信仰之光)与「传统」为基础。

(3)圣文德认为理性知识(哲学知识) 乃上主所赐，但他也主张理性研究为获得信仰的积极方法之一，然而应以圣经之启示为依归，努力解释宗教的奥迹。在其着作里，哲学仍然次于神学，换言之，哲学为神学之婢。(6)

其实，圣文德在「箴言录」中曾说：神学以启示为其根据，谈论天主自己，从创世之初开始一直到祂救赎工程的结果；而哲学则从可见的(事物之) 结果追溯到「原因」：天主，故圣文德强调：「所有学术均可归结于神学」，这与前面所说：「神学乃万学之宗」是相同的意思。圣文德同时认为：倘若要寻获真理，即正确的知识，必须在信仰之光下做学问(哲学)，因为信仰的活动对人的心灵有积极的影响，没有信仰之光，人必然陷于错误中。所以，Copleston在谈圣文德学说时说：「除非哲学家在信仰之光引导下，哲学在信仰帮助之下，否则没有一个令人满意的形上学和哲学系统能够完成。」(7)

圣文德在「言语录」中也说过：「除非有信仰之光的帮助，否则一个哲学家必然地陷入错误里。」(8)

当圣文德在论证人的灵魂的不朽性中，肯定灵魂的本性是天主的肖像乃论证之因时曾主张：「除非受信仰之光的启照，否则没有一种哲学是可以令人满意。」此即：「如果没有神学的帮助，哲学家也不能解释『灵魂不朽』等思想。」。其实，圣文德要说明的乃人必须先认识天主，在天主的光照下，人才能有其正的认知能力，所以他也说过：「除非我们的理智认识极其纯粹、极其现实、极其圆满和绝对的实有(天主)，亦即是一切事物的理由的、全然的、永远的实有(天主)，决不可能充分认识任何受造物。理智如全不知道什么是毫无缺陷的实有(天主)，怎能知道某实有是有欠圆满和具有缺陷的？」(10)

4.可参阅韩山城译本，见《心灵迈向天主的旅程》(Opusculum Doctoris Seraphici : Itinerarium Mentis in Deum)，安道社会学社出版　民63年　67－89

5.参阅圣文德著，「神孕乃万学之宗」，见韩山城译，《心灵迈向天主的旅程》　76-77

6.同3　89－90

7.COPLESTON F. 著(庄雅棠翻译)，《西洋哲学史》第二章「中世纪哲学」，黎明文化事业公司　民77年　352

8.同上　399

9.同上　401

10.韩山城译，《心灵迈向天主的旅程》33－34

3. 真理与光照

要了解圣文德所谈论的「真理」，我们必须把握着圣文德所肯定的两个命题：

(1)心灵因天主的内在光照，才能把握永恒不变的真理。圣文德强调信仰之光助人不陷于错误中(见前一节)，若从神学上言，则以「基督」为真理，可以匡正人的灵魂：「由于基督是天主的智慧及德能，是满溢恩宠及真理的降生成人的天主圣言，遂创造了圣宠及真理，意即倾注了爱德的圣宠；这爱德既出自纯洁的心，光明磊落的良心和真诚的信仰，故匡正了人的整个灵魂。」(11)

(2)客观上言，天主的存在是不可怀疑的真理，而且是本然天生地贯注在人心中，因为在「论三位一体的奥秘」中，圣文德肯定：「每一个肯定的命题肯定某样东西是真的，可是每个真理的肯定同时也肯定了所有真理的原因。甚至即使有人说人是一只驴子，这句话不管是真与否，都肯定了第一真理的存在，而且即使有人宣告没有真理，他也肯定这个否定是真的；因而也隐含了真理的基础和原因的存在。除非透过第一真理，否则没有真理能被知道，而那使得其他真理能被知道的真理，是不可怀疑的真理，既然天主是第一真理，所以天主的存在是不可怀疑的。」(12) 所以圣文德主张心灵以内在经验认识天主，即只须注意心灵的经验，就能推知天主的存在。(13) 这是因为我们的心灵正是天主的肖像，真理之光就像蜡烛似地辉耀在我们的心灵的面前，故我们可从自身便可以看见天主。(14)

我们从上面所说的两个命题，可以更详细地发挥圣文德的思想，而资料的来源乃圣文德两本着名的着作：

(1) 心灵迈向天主的旅程 (Itinerarium Mentis ad Deum)

在「心灵迈向天主旅程」一书中，圣文德提出了「判断」可以导引我们更准确地认识永远的真理；然而「判断」必须仰仗天主，因为天主是一切事物的理由、不能舛错的准绳及真理之光；一切事物在这「光」内才显得不能舛错、不能磨灭、无可疑惑、无可指摘、无可批评、无可更动、无可限制、无始无终、不可分割和昭然若揭。这是因为天主以自己的本质、万能及临在寓居在万物内之故，所以人当在静观中理解事物，在光照中判断；这是圣文德所主张的：我们的心灵是天主的肖像，故我们的心灵可以理解永恒真理，而且只有在永恒不变的神光的照耀中，得到一些确定的，必然的结论，即能记起永恒真理来。(15) Copleston神父也描述：「此光是心灵获得确定性所必需要的根源，是来到世上照启众人的光。」(16) 但，在这里有一个问题：就是人的心灵透过理智理解永恒真理；真理固然永恒不变，可是，我们的理智是可变化的，那当如何解释呢？圣文德的解释很清晰且简单：「故非靠一个完全不变的光的照耀，便不可能看到辉耀着不变的光的真理；而这不变的光决不可能是可能变化的受造物。所以，人的理智，是仗着『照耀一切世人』的光，而得悉真理的；该光便是所谓『真光』和『在起初便与天主同在的天主圣言』(若 1：1，9)。」(17) 他更引用圣奥斯定的话说：「所有真正在推理者，其知识的光莫不由永远的真理之光所点燃，莫不朝向永远的真理而迈进。」由此可知，我们的理智与永远真理如何紧相连系。(18) 这连系全出自天主，且透过哲学使人更完善地得悉并表现天主圣三的奥迹。在哲学上有自然哲学、理性哲学和伦理哲学：

自然哲学的对象是事物存在的原因，因而引人认识圣父的万能；

理性哲学的对象是事物所以可解的理由，因而引人走向圣言的上智；

伦理哲学的对象是讨论生活的法则，因而引人景仰圣神的圣善。(19)

然而圣文德在「神学乃万学之宗」的文章中更将哲学引伸与「光照」配合，即「由光明之父降下来的」(雅各伯书一章17节)，故天主光照我们探研可以理解的真理者的光明是有关哲学知识的所谓内在光明。这光明乃用于：言语、事物、行为三方面的真理上：

理性哲学讨论言语方面的真理，匡正我们对事物的说明或解释。

自然哲学研究事物方面的真理，在匡正理智本身。

伦理哲学探求行为方面的真理，在匡正人的动机。

(2) 爱的烈焰 (De Triplici Via alias Incendium Amoris)

在「爱的烈焰」一书中，圣文德特别在第三章：「抵达真正智慧的静观」中讨论?「为获得真理之光辉的七阶段」，其内容不外是注解三路(The Triple way) 的思想，即

(i)炼路(Purgation) 导人进入心灵上的平安，人要经过「祈祷」，就能自然而然地获得光照和启示。

(ii)明路(Illumination) 引人进入真理。

(iii)合路(Perfective union) 渡人迈入爱。

圣文德用「甜蜜」(Sweetness) 来形容「爱」，也将「甜蜜」与「真理」放在一起，因为「真理」是藉着天主的爱?透过圣神?而启示的。

现在让我们简单地描述圣文德所说的：「获得真理之光辉的七阶段」。圣文德在开始时设下了一大前题：「透过效法基督才能获得真理之光辉」(The splendor of truth is attained through the imitation of Christ)，倘若不透过基督，便不能获得真理之光辉。可见，圣文德将哲学与神学混合在一起，而以「基督」作为所有学问的中介和核心。(21) 于是，在「效法基督」的大前题下，我们窥视这得救的真理之光辉的七阶段：(22)

(1)理智的赞同 (Assent of reason)

要试想一下受难者是谁？并以理智的赞同对祂表示折服。要绝对坚信基督千真万确是天主圣子，是万有真原，是人类救主及每人的赏善罚恶者。

(2)怜悯的行动 (Movement of compassion)

要想到受难者是怎样的一位，并以怜悯的行动与祂结合，分担最无辜、最温良、最尊贵、最有爱心的基督的痛苦。

(3)惊奇的注视 (Gaze of admiration)

要记起受难者的伟大，并以惊奇的注视而深入于他内。要注视祂无限的权力，无穷的美丽，无涯的幸福及永远无限。要惊奇无限权力的受到贬抑、无穷美丽的蒙受污损，无涯幸福的遭受折磨及永远无限的被处死刑。

(4)热心的出神 (Outgoing of devotion)

要存想使祂受苦的原因，并因热心的出神而忘掉自己，因为祂受难是为了你的救赎、你的启照、你的圣化、和你的光荣。

(5)穿上基督与祂同化 (Clothing in likeness)

要默思祂受难的态度，并努力穿上基督与祂同化，祂为人类而万分情愿地受辱忍苦，对自身异常严厉，对天主唯命是从，对仇敌则十分机智。要跟随基督的榜样，努力对你的近人惯于友善，对自己惯于严厉，对天主惯于谦虚，对恶魔惯于机警。

(6)拥抱十字架 (Acceptance of the cross or embrace the cross)

要注意祂所受的苦多么重大，并以希望受苦的善情拥抱十字架。既然，万能者竟如弱者而沦为阶下囚：圣善者竟如奸宄而为人侮辱；上智者竟如愚者而为人戏弄；正义者竟如歹徒而接受酷刑；所以，你亦要愿望十字架的苦刑，愿望饱受事实上的凌辱和饱受言语上的诅咒，以及姿势上的戏弄与残酷的惩罚。

(7)真理的静观 (Contemplation of truth)

要看看祂受苦的功效，并以静观的眼目注视真理的光线。依照默示录第五章，由于羔羊的蒙难而开启了密封书卷的七个印，该书卷含有一切事物的普遍知识，其中七项，对人们而言是密封着的；但是，现已透过基督受难的功效得以显示出来：即可奇的天主、理性的神灵、可感觉的世界、可爱的天堂、可怕的地狱、美德的应受颂扬、罪恶的当受谴责。

以上的七项都是经过「十字架」而得以显露出来，因为十字架是真理的锁匙、大门、道路及光辉，谁若依循七项程序接受十字架，并追随基督，他将不致于在黑暗中行走，必能得到生命之光。(若望福音8：12)

因此，圣文德鼓励我们以「静观」天主的方式和默思真理的工夫瞻仰不可理解的天主三位一体的奥迹，而体悟一、真、善、美的天主实有：

单一归诸圣父，因为祂是原始；

真理归诸圣子，因为祂是肖像；

美善归诸圣神，因为祂是连系。(23)

11.同上　12

12.同7　361，366

13.同3　91

14.同10　参阅第三章「由深印于本性官能的天主肖像瞻仰天主」31－39

15.同上

16.同7　366

17.同14　34

18.引用圣奥斯定名著：《论真的宗教》的话　见14　35

19.同14　38

20.同5　73－74　

韩山城在译者的话中说：「由于这篇文章的内容和性质颇与《心灵迈向天主的旅程》一书非常类似和接近，故译者乃将它附在《心灵迈向天主的旅程》一书的后面。」

21.同7　349

22.以下所描述的七个阶段的内容，录自韩山城译：《爱的烈焰》一书　第三章之三28－32。

23.同1　38－40

4. 结论－－获得真理在于走上「成全的路」

不论在任何时代、任何环境，一位哲学家、思想家或神学家等在做学问时，都必定有其做学问的目标或终向，藉此以发掘和创造新的学问的里程。

圣文德既是一位神秘主义哲学家，将神学与哲学并合而谈，就是将哲学溶化在他的信仰经验中，希望能获得信仰核心的天主之光照和启示，自己努力潜修，藉着心灵的回归，透过默想、祈祷与静观的工夫，踏上「成全之路」，朝向奥秘生活的目标：与天主密契冥合，逐步迈进，使灵魂享有「真理」。

「成全之路」乃心灵的历程，经过这历程的三个过程：炼路、明路、合路的领导，人可以获得心灵的安宁、和谐与平安；且在信仰的光照下，在基督内获得真理，心灵也能自由；最后便能在甘饴甜蜜的爱中，与天主相合为一：「就是便自己与超越一切本体及知识者结合为一」(24) 的境界。

为了使人达到与天主合一的境界，圣文德将「炼、明、合」三路的阶段详细的描述：

(1)炼路的阶段：

要为了罪恶而羞涩，为了审判而战栗、为了损失而嗟叹。

要为救治创伤而祈求助佑，要为对抗仇敢而克制物欲，要为争取赏报而希望殉道，并要为获取荫庇而投奔基督。

(2)明路的阶段：

要思考受难者是谁，而折服于祂并坚信祂；　

要试想受难者是怎样的一位，而与祂同苦同忧；　

要想到受难者的伟大而为之惊奇不疑；　

要考虑其受难的原因而对之倍加感激和信赖；　

要深思其受难的态度而加以取效；

要熟思其苦难的重大而热列拥抱之；

要细察其苦难的功劳而以理智和静观来瞻仰之。

(3)合路的阶段：

要为了新郎的迅速即至而时时警愓；

要为了新郎的准确来临而倍加信赖；

要为了新郎的甜蜜而燃起爱恋之情；

要为了新郎的崇高而出神并举心向上；

要为了爱悦新郎的英俊而感到休憩；

要为了新郎的充盈之爱而陶醉于愉快中；

要为其爱的勇猛而让依附之情粘结你的心；

使到热心的灵魂常在心灵说：

我追求你，

我盼望你，

我渴慕你，

我举心向你，

我接受你，

我欢欣于你，

我依附你。(25)

为能臻于成全境界?与天主合一，必须循序而进，即为抵达合路，必先经由明路；为抵达明路，必先经由炼路；若上进心志越殷切，举心向上的方式也就越有效。于是，圣文德在「爱的烈焰」一书的最后，呼吁我们要取效天使者之所为，务使我们在信仰的生命中能与真理同在?即与基督同在：

(1)先应以悲难及祈祷呼求真理；

继而应通过阅访及研究来倾听真理；

然后藉着善表及宣讲来传报真理。

(2)应以投奔及战斗来接近真理；

继而应以热忱及竞赛来捕捉真理；

然后应以轻视及刻苦自我来与真理为伍。

(3)先应以祭献及赞颂来崇拜真理；

继而应以出神及静观来惊奇真理；

最后应以亲吻及爱恋来拥抱真理。

祈愿我们在寻觅生命终向中，能懂得返求诸己，扩展心中的善，体悟寓居在我们心灵中的主，懂得常常赞美和感谢祂，亚孟。

24.同10　65

25.同1　35－36

作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio

人生活在形象与其理之间，

要参悟生命之庄严和谐，

寄人生于至善之美，

全靠人心灵里澄澈的天机和妙悟。

1. 前言

基督来了，祂沿着加利肋亚湖岸，走到人群当中，对他们说：「上主的神临于我身上，因为祂给我傅了油。」自始祂以生动的言词、简单的比喻，描述了天国，触动了他们的心弦；呼召他们做渔人的渔夫；治疗他们的病症；喂饱他们；讲他们来喝；他不怕冒犯掌权者，与罪人、税吏、妓女同桌，宽恕他们；祂会理直气壮再告诉他们婚嫁原有的意义，一男一女成为一体。他的作为又是那么有力、充满奇能，令人仰慕不已，但祂来竟是为服事众人。不过，当祂在人群中最风光的时候，却招人嫉妒，最后竟被自己的人出卖，甚至像一个江湖大盗一般，众目睽睽下，任由人拉去钉死在十字架上。对这一切祂都有预感，祂说过一粒麦子如果不落在地里死了，仍是一粒，如果死了，才结出许多子粒来。

祂的死亡并非是一个了结，基督复活的荣耀再一次点燃他们的希望，因为门徒们又再见到祂，并且得到指示，继续传扬祂的福音，为人付洗，组成一个新的团体，一起生活、祈祷、擘饼、期待主的来临。

藉着门徒的见证，我们可感受到，祂说的话总是那么动听，做的事总是那么令人折服，在祂之内，有一种深不可测的奥迹，一个天主的奥迹，自亘古以来就一直隐藏着，这竟是天主使人分享神性生命的计划，现在藉着圣子的降生得以彰显和实现。今日在教会之内，祂藉着教会的宣讲和礼仪仍不断鼓励人：「凡信从我的必得永生，从祂心内要流出活水的江河。」

2. 奥迹礼仪化

宗徒们按着主的意愿去宣讲而且为后代制定些仪式：施洗、傅油、擘饼、覆手、赦罪，修和等，为仅在基督身上已彰显的天主奥迹，再临现到信从基督的人身上。到了教父时代，他们忠诚地继承宗徒的传统，按着他们的环境和对象将奥迹礼仪化，使基督仍能继续施洗、赦罪、擘饼、派遣、治病、选立奥迹的管理人、提升人的婚姻生活。本文就是环绕这个奥迹礼仪化(ritualization of the mystery) 的意念，介绍教父们存留给我们的圣事观。

一如国人称孙中山为国父，基督徒在最初的世纪称教会的领导为教父。他们都有着作且维护正统的教义，本人有卓越的圣德，为教会所公认，属教会早期的人物。教父时代(Patristic Period) 是由第二世纪开始。一般学者认为西方最后一位教父是塞维利亚的圣依希道(Isidore of Seville +636)，而东方的则是圣若望达玛森(John of Damascus +749)。

大部份的教父都是主教，很多都是当时的学者，透过宣讲、着作、管理、举行圣事，渐渐建立礼仪、伦理、生活及讲授教理的模式，很小心地将自宗徒承接下来的传给下一代，同时也开辟了做神学的领域。

其实，教父们极少用「神学」一词，因为这一词在当时是指一些富神话色彩的诗篇。不过就像新约时代的传道者一般，教父们要开始一项前所未有的工程，一方面要宣扬基督，另一方面在面对当时的文化思潮，他们要提供的讯息须使人们能感到是一种人生的智慧(gnosis-sapientia)，否则亦难以与其他的学说或宗教相提并论。

希腊人所谓的人生智慧既是一种理论、思想体系，同时又是一种令人得到幸福的实践途径。它意味着经过磨练而修成的内在态度：向善的意愿，深厚的感情，敏锐的直觉，高尚的品德，雅逸的情操，豁达的理解，欣悦的平安，宗教的信仰，并以这种态度整顿人生；它不能只透过理念传授，而是通过由上而下的彰显才能参透，修此道的人与其说需要一个「教授」来传授意念，毋宁说需要一个有经验的「大师」来引路。得道的人将有一种很和谐的生活，而且会成为先知，师傅和领袖。他们往往采用文思丰富、言词优美的诗句来表达他们的意念。

虽然教父不得不与当时的思想家、哲学家作交谈，最后也会应用他们的思想架构和语言来表达基督徒的智慧(Christian gnosis)，但仍极谨慎地指出这智慧是来自上天的奥迹(mysterion)，它是源于希伯来人对天主的体认(da'ath Yahweh)，透过降生的圣言?基督的启示，成为基督徒对天主的真知(gnosis tou theou)，这就是教父的理想。(1)

在圣事上教父们不但要提供一套理论，也要展示迈向人生智慧的途径，也就是透过圣事与基督汇合，祂才是真正的「大师」，祂本身就是智慧。但这并不表示教父已有一种现成的、连贯性的理论和答案，他们能有的教材，就是圣经、圣传、个人的智慧和经验，就这样寻找出圣经中极有启发性的言词和征象，妥善地按着圣传和环境去设计举行圣事的仪式，为使仪式中的标记、语言、活动能彰显基督的奥迹。这样在他们的领导下，教会的圣事渐渐演变成一系列非常丰富和充满征象的礼仪。(2)

可是在奥迹能礼仪化的过程中，他们特别标榜一个原则，就是：「崇拜律制定信仰律」(Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi)，这句话收集在第六世纪的教律文献中，并说明是出自教宗圣赛勒西一世(Pope Celestine I +432)。(3)

「崇拜律」是指宗徒传下来要教会为众人祈祷的谕令(弟前2：1－6)，在较早前的一些作者曾将之视为教会的规条(regula ecclesiastica)。(4) 按照西彼廉，这祈祷的内容主要是采用主所教的经文(天主经Pater Noster)，(5) 后来又以这篇经文的几个特性引申为制定礼仪圣事行动(obsecrationum sacerdotalium sacramenta) 的准则，就是：

□它是由宗徒传下来的(ab apostolis tradita)

□遍传所有地方和教会(in toto mundo atque in omni ecclesia)

□大家都一致地庆祝(uniformiter celebrantur) (6)

由于一般礼仪的制定需要有这几个特性，故此这lex supplicandi后来就指整个教会所用的礼仪祈祷经文，后期又改称lex supplicandi又改称为lex orandi。最后，奥思定也在其书信中以这点来指出白拉奇异端者(Pelagianism) 的矛盾，因为他们一方面为众人祈祷，一方面却不承认恩宠为得救是必须的条件。(7)

「信仰律」是指教会正统的、活生生的、从宗徒传下来的启示内容，又指宗徒信经(symbolum apostolicym) 或领洗信经(symbolum baptismale)，后来就引申到教会的道理(catechesis) 和教义(dogma)。

换言之，举行礼仪庆典的时候，也就是从宗徒那里承接圣经和圣传的一个活生生的体验，这种体验成为教父一个强烈的意识，并藉此意识来表达教会的普世性和共融、慕道者的教理讲授，甚至用来维护正统的信仰、反对异端、用清晰的言词制定当信之教条。(8)

从礼仪既可引申教义，那么从教父的奥迹礼仪化亦可刻划出他们的圣事观。本文并无意探索这些意识的成长过程，但只想简单地和综合地说出这些意识的内容。假如以十二世纪以后的圣事神学为标准的话，那么教父时代的圣事神学尚未成形，前者「神学」一词的意义是指对信仰作系统的整理以求明瞭，后者则重人生智慧，我们姑且称教父对圣事礼仪的意识为「圣事观」。

当我们描述教父时代的圣事观时，我们要着重：

□他们解释或表达圣事礼式时所用的言词。(参阅下文*3教父圣事观的一般用语)

□举证一些较有代表性的教父，点出他们重要的思想。(参阅下文*4和*5希腊和拉丁教父的主要思想)

□我们虽不用神学一词论述教父圣事观，但并不表示其内容之丰富程度亚于后世的系统神学。事实上他们遗下很多讯息和资料，影响后世的神学和教义。(参阅下文*6教父对圣事神学的影响)

  1.参阅VAGAGGINI C., Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy (Collegeville : The Liturgical Press 1976) 619-622.

2.参阅Ibidem 596-598, 622-628.

3.这文献称为Capitula pseudo-Caelestina或索引"indiculus", 参阅DENZINGER-SCHONMETZER, Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (Freiburg : Herder (34) 1967) 以后简写为DS 238-249 (论天主恩宠De gratia Dei).

4.参阅AMBROSIASTER, In 1 Tm 2 : PL 17, 492.

5.参阅CYPRIAN, De Catholicae ecclesiae unitate 13 : CSEL 3, 1.

6.DS 246 :　

「(……) 此外让我们接受由司祭奉献的崇拜奥迹(obsecrationum quoque sacerdotalium sacramenta)，这些奥迹，由宗徒传下，在各地的公教会庆祝完全一致，好使崇拜律制定信仰律(ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi)。」Sacramenta这里译作奥迹，却指礼仪圣事行动：参阅DECLERCK P., "Lex orandi, lex credendi". Sens originel et avatars historiiques d'un adage equivoque, in Questiones Liturgiques 59 (1978) 193-212.

7.参阅DS 240-241，其中引用了奥思定的话：PL 20, 584B, 586C.

8.参阅早期的礼仪资料：　

《十二宗徒训言》(Didache) 约在第一世纪末出现，其中记载很多有关礼仪和圣事的做法。　

《宗徒传承》(Traditio apostolica)，罗马的依玻理(Hippolytus of Rome) 在215年写成，内有很多资科，足以刻划当时教会的礼仪生活。　

《感恩词》(Euchologion or sacramentary of Serapion)，狄梅士的撒拉标(Serapion of Thmuis)约在350年间写成，包括三十个祈祷，其中还有一个完整的弥撒感恩经(anaphora)。　

《依达利亚的朝圣》(Peregrinatio Aetheriae)，这大概是一位高卢的修女依达利亚在400年间往耶路撒冷朝圣时，写了她在圣地的经历，对于耶路撒冷每日和圣周的礼仪有很详尽的描写，尤其是巴斯卦节的庆典。

《要理》(Catechesis)，默稣斯的德道(Theodore of Mopsuestia) 为慕道者于415年间写成，载有详尽的弥撒和圣洗的释义。

《吾主耶稣基督的遗嘱》(Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi)，作者不详，相信是第五世纪的作品。

犹斯定的《辩教学》(Apology)，约在155年写成，其中60-67章记载丰富的礼仪资料。

《宗徒训诲录》(Apostolic Constitutions)，全书分八章，载有很多礼仪上的做法和规则，传说是教宗格来孟一世从宗徒时代承按下来的，其中有一套完整的感恩祭经文，后称之为「格来孟礼仪」(Clementine Liturgy)。经后人考据，这书大概在第四世纪才出现。　

《释奥的要理》(Mystagogic Catechesis)，经由耶路撒冷的济利禄(Cyril of Jerusalem) 约在347年间传下来，亦有人认为这是400年后才出现的书。基本上书中的要旨在于训导新入教者熟习「奥迹」或圣事，内文亦包括一段弥撒释义。　

安博的《论圣事》(De sacramentis)，这是安博为新入教者的训导，大概由其中一个门徒笔录，约在390年辑成。　

这些资料取自QUASTEN J., Monumenta eucharistica et liturgica vetustissima = Florilegium Patristicum 7 (Bonn 1937)。

3. 教父圣事观的一般用语

如果我们细心阅读教父的着作和礼仪典籍，不期然就觉察到圣事是纪念基督奥迹的事件，尤其是巴斯卦奥迹。这纪念既宣告奥迹临现人问，庆祝人的提升，又同时指向将来美好的终局，为描述这庆典，教父会用「肖像」、「模样」、「征象」、「预像」、「圣事」、「奥迹」和「巴斯卦奥迹」等词，让我们逐一简介。(9)

3. 1 肖像 (Lat. Imago ; Gk. eikon)

希腊文eikon与动词eoikenai是说明一件物品可按其外貌仿制另一件相似的物品，应用在人方面方可。拉丁文imago与其动词imitari (肖似) 同出一根，通常应用在一幅画或雕像，按着这画或像再仿制相似的事物，但也可应用在人、地方或事件上。

「肖像」一词在柏拉图的哲学中占有极重要的地位，在他的二元论中，最真实的存有是在理想世界(intelligible World) 中，这些事物称为类型(form) 或理念(idea)，而在感官世界(sensible world) 中的事物只是这些理念的肖像和模样：

理念作为典范拥有其实的完善，事物只是它们的肖像和模样，事物分受理念的完善，正因为事物是按着它们的肖像而做成的。(10)

肖像并非是一些完全空泛的事物，反之它一方面是蕴藏同时又表达那超越、完善的存有，它分受那完善存有的部份，它肖似那完善存有，并意指那完善的存有。从另一角度看，那完美的存有一方面超越的(transcendent)，因为它不是完全被禁闭在肖像中，但同时它又是潜有的(immanent)，因为藉肖像它得以彰显出来。肖像是时、空场所中的事物，但能具体地表达出那超越的、超感官的、精神上的、完美的存有。

肖像是相对的，即相对于肖像所指向的「真相」；有肖像就表示有实相，肖像虽非实相的圆满，但总不会与实相分割、分离，更不会相反。如果肖像不蕴含或表现实相，就不能成为肖像。

法律只有未来美物(agathon) 的影子，却没有已出现的实相(pragmaton) 的肖像。(希10：1)

旧约之仪式对所要纪念的旧约事件可以有具体表现，故此可以是肖像，但相对于基督来说，只能是影子；而新约的仪式则是「肖像」，因为可「仿制」基督的事件。安博将这意念引用在圣体圣事上：

在法律里有影子，在福音中有肖像。在天堂上有实相；在法律中黑羊被宰杀，现在(在福音中) 基督作自我奉献。并按其人性作出奉献即要经历苦难，同时作为司祭奉献自己(... ...……)这里在『肖像』中发生；那里(天堂) 祂是在实相中，那里就如辩护人在天父前为我们转求。(11)

在礼仪书上也有同样的说法：

上主，今天我们呈上我们的虔敬，因为在这一日被宰的黑羊出世了，而现在我们是奉献他(黑羊) 的肖像。(12)

在接受了永生的保证后，我们谦恭求你，希望在圣事肖像中所成就的，能够在一个彰显的方式中实现出来。(13)

小结：

在圣事的语言中，不论在礼仪及教父里，肖像并非是一些想像出来的、毫不真实的一回事，肖像是指向一个圆满的实相，同时，实相的肖像是在时、空场所中一个具体的表现，又是一种实相临现之形式。(14)

3. 2 模样 (Lat. similitudo ; Gk. homoioma)

在柏拉图的哲学中这名词与肖像意义相同，乃指实相的模样呈现在感官世界中，不过模样通常只应用在事物上，而肖像则亦可应用在人身上。

为教父来说，这词已曾在保样书信中出现过，而且具有圣事性的含义：「我们已结合于基督死亡的模样。」(罗6：5) 这里的洗礼是指基督死亡的模样，因祂的名字而受洗的就是透过这模样参与了基督的死亡。洗礼是具体地，有形可见地表现了受洗者与基督同死、同埋。耶路撒冷的济利禄这样说：

(圣洗) 之内容是指透过一种仿效的方式参与基督真正的苦难，为此，圣洗是『模样』，其意义是说，基督死亡是实相，而圣洗是吾人仿效基督而采用的『模样』，为能参与、分担祂的死亡。(... ...)

请你用神留心宗徒的说话，他并没有说：『我们结合于(基督) 的死亡』，但他说：『祂死亡的模样』。在基督内确实地发生过真正的死亡和埋葬(... ...) ，但为我们只有死亡和苦难的模样，可是所得的救恩并非指模样而已，却是指实相。(15)

安博也有同样之意念：

圣洗肯定是死亡，但并非在于肉身死亡的实相而是在于模样(in similitudinem)，当你浸入水中，你便领受一个死亡和埋葬的模样(similitudinem)，因而领受了十字架的圣事(sacramentum)。(16)

同样，奥思定也认为圣事之所以是神圣事物的标记，正因为它是实相的模样。

如果圣事在某程度上与实相没有相仿之处(模样)，那么圣事便不能是圣事了。(17)

在礼仪经典中，也说过圣体圣事是模样：

执事将礼品呈交主教，主教则对着面饼诵念感恩经文，为使之变成基督身体的典范(希腊文是antitypos)，在杯爵上念经为使之变成基督宝血的模样(希腊文是hoioma)。(18)

有一点值得注意的是当翻译员从希腊文译为拉丁时，刻意地加上模样的原文。在早期的感恩经中：

我们已奉献此饼，唯一独生子身体的模样，这饼是圣身的模样，因为主耶稣曾拿起饼来，擘开(... ...) ，为此我们亦献上这饼成为祂死亡的模样(... ...) ，我们也献上这杯，宝血的模样，因为主耶稣曾拿起杯来(... ...) 。(19)

模样的含意并不在于事物外表与实相具有相似之处，例如酒和血，饼和身之间相似之处不多，而是在于说明整个仪式所意指的实相。饼是身体的模样，为此，献饼的仪式能成为主死亡的模样。

在早期《西班牙的礼仪》(Liturgia Ispanica)，亦有记载：

请你祝福这献礼，就是你的子和我们救主耶稣基督的宝血和身体的肖像和模样。(20)

此外在早期的罗马感恩经(Canon Romanum)：

这是不容置疑的事实，在感恩祭的庆典中，基督体和血的肖像与模样就会成事。(21)

小结：

模样一词经常应用在圣事行动上，它并非看重物质标记，而是整个仪式，故此感恩祭是基督体血的模样，因为它不只是说饼酒肖似基督的体血，而是整个感恩祭仪式上仿似基督，而事实上也是它意指基督的死亡和苦难，并藉此使真相临现。

3. 3 征象 (Lat. symbolum ; Gk. symbolon) (22)

从希腊文的字根symbolon源于syn+ballein放在一起，连合一起的意思。古代的人将制成的陶器一分为二，给两方的人各执一块作为立约的记认，日后双方的代表虽素未谋面，但可拿出这块陶器放在一起，如果吻合就表示大家是立约的人，并须按着原有的约，满全一些义务，这个作记认的陶块就是征象。

在拉丁语系中symbolum这一词用得不多，多次征象和标记(signum) 可互用，当作标记用时，它只有「意指」(signify) 实相的功能，并不表示「蕴含」实相(signified reality)。更有时征象与寓意(allegory) 混淆一起，使征象变成一种不真实，几乎是个人幻想出来的产物。这里我们不谈它的意义。

在希腊教父及东方的礼仪里，「征象」一词是经常用的。但由于这词并非直接源于新约，有人以为他们之所以采用这词是受到教外的奥秘宗教所影响，因为在这些奥秘敬礼中这名词「征象」是指一些经文，或隐秘的物品，而通过这些「征象」入教者可直接得到救恩。

不过，教父们意识到「征象」可应用在礼仪里，它是指经文、物品或仪式。只要能将其所宣告的意义及其所意指的实相连在一起的事情都是征象。从这角度看，「征象」在教父文学里就成为主要的钥匙去体会圣经和圣事了。

旧约在犹太教的眼中可以是一种将来的神圣标记(sacramentum futuri)，但在基督徒眼中，由于他们接受了基督是旧约一切预许、预象的圆满，旧约就不再是单纯的标记而是「征象」了。换言之，只有基督真实地死亡而复活(＝圆满的逾越)，而当年梅瑟的逾越节才可以成为「征象」和基督徒的礼仪庆典。所以，这两件时、空分开的事，一件在旧约是预像，另一件在新约是实现，透过礼仪行动已变成一个逾越，并导人步向救恩的盟约。

同样在感恩祭中(eucharist)，饼、酒奉在祭台前可作为我们奉献礼品的标记，但当祝圣了以后，它们就成为基督体血的「征象」，因为祝圣了的饼、酒已有基督能血的真正临在 (real presence)，这体血就是饼、酒本来所意指的实相，这实相仍奥秘地处于「征象」帷帐下，正因为这是基于「征象」本身所发挥的「连结」的功能。换言之，通过饼、酒和祝圣经文，基督的体血和饼酒才真正地「连结」在一起，那么祝圣的饼酒 (征象) 既意指又蕴含基督的体血。

小结：

征象是说明「外在形式」及其所指的「意义」放在一起时，就会基于先前所定之盟约的力量而发生效力，实相也就临现。

3. 4 预像 (Lat. typus ; Gk. typos) (23)

从字源学来说，预像(typos) 是指一个图章，将某种材料(石或木) 的平面雕出一个负面的图像，为使到图像在蘸上墨色后，可印出一个正面的图像出来，玺印就是一个例子。

预像(typos) 与典像(antitypos) 是一对不能分割而相关的名词(correlative)。如果玺印上的负面图像是预像(typos)，那么印出的正面图像就是它的典像(antitypos)。负面图像通常是难以认清的，不过它的作用是便正面的图像显出来。

新经的作者早已应用过这一对相关词，例如：在格林多前书第十章里提到在出谷纪中的「云中和海中」，「神粮和神饮」(... ...) ，这些事都是「预像」(typos) [思高译「鉴戒」](格前10：6，11)。同样在罗5：14，亚当是基督的预像(typos)，希8：5里在帐棚的敬礼又预示基督将要完成的祭献。伯前3：21认为圣洗是洪水的典像(antitypos)。希9：24中「人手所做的圣所」是实相的模型(antitypos)，这里antitypos和typos是同义词。

由于基督是新旧约的实相(true reality)，也就是典像(antitypos)，那么旧约中的救恩事件，不论是从史实层面上看，或从后期礼仪纪念(旧约的圣事) 的层面看，旧的事件并不蕴藏实相，而只是应许和预告实相(基督)，当基督来了之后，这些负片的作用就不大了。可是当实相离世升天之后，就出现另一些预像－－追忆基督的礼仪纪念，这就是新约的圣事。假如旧约圣事是实相基督的负片(negative)，那么新约圣事就是祂的正片(positive)，因为后者并非单纯地意指实相，同时也使实相彰显出来，成为实相的「承载者」。这里负片和正片的寓意并非在说，后者较前者更为清楚而已，而是说前者预示实相，但后者是蕴含实相。列表如下：

旧约圣事    (礼仪上的预告与应许) 是预像，即实相的负片
  ↘

    实相基督(新、旧约预像的典像)
  ↙
新约圣事    (礼仪上的实现和意指) 是预像，即实相的正片

这个图表可应用在基督圣身和宝血的圣事上。基督光荣复活的身体是实相又是典像，旧约中的玛纳是预像－－预告和应许，新约中的感恩祭是重现实相，故此祝圣了的饼、酒已不再是饼酒而是基督之体血，其本质(substance) 与复活的基督一样，但其外型则保留饼酒之形态，而这外在的形态就如实相的正片一般。故此，圣体圣事就本质而论是实相和典像(antitypos)，就形态而论是预像(typos)。同理，圣洗圣事就本质而论，是基督本人在付洗，就形态而论是保禄在付洗(参阅格前1：10－17)。(24)

小结：

旧约的事件是「预像」，外在形态是模糊不清如负片一般，具有预告功体，基督是「典像」，后者取缔前者；新约圣事也是「预像」，但其外在形态，如正片一般，必须符合和指向基督(实相)，使之彰显出来。

3. 5 圣事 (Lat. sacramentum)

圣事的拉丁文sacramentum并不源于希腊文，而是源于罗马人从军的仪式。从军者须向统帅(imperator) 发誓服从，以一个呼求式的祈祷文奉献给神灵，此外尚须在兵士身上打上一个印号，经文和印号联合一起就成为"sacramentum militure" 或 "sacramentum militiae"。这人一生(或至少一段时期) 就须效忠统帅。

从军的仪式基本上就是一个「祝圣」(consecratio) 和「入门」(initiatio) 的礼节，从这角度看，scaramentum是有一种玄秘的含意(esoteric　import)，意指一班人(不是所有人)，在神灵前作出奉献，为开始(入门) 一种新的生活，成为同样的团体(军队)，并有一个印号在身上。

在诉讼事件中，「圣事」是指一笔款项，放在一个神圣之处(如：庙宇) 作为按金，日后诉讼输了的一方就不能拿回。这两个专门的用法，涵盖誓愿、公开、法理的约束，并与将来接受「降福」或「诅咒」有关。这里所着重的，是人为的「标记」与「承诺」，而非天主的救恩计划和历史。

Sacramentum的玄秘含意，正好给与第三世纪圣经的译者们一个方便的名词，去翻译希腊文的mysterion(奥迹)。这里在圣经的拉丁通行本中(Vulgata) 中举几个例子：

Non abscondam a vobis sacramenta Dei

对你们我不会隐藏天主的奥秘(智6：22)

super sacramento isto

有关这个隐秘的梦(达2：18)

secundum revelationem notum mihi factum est sacramentum (mysterium : Nova Vulgata 1979)

按着启示使我得知那奥迹(弗3：3)

Sacramentum hoc magnum est ; ego autem dico de Christo et ecclesia

这奥迹真伟大，我是指基督和教会说的(弗5：32)。

可是mysterion除了意指入门的礼节外，也意指一套秘密的教义，和传授教义的秘密方法(paradosis : traditio)，类似一些奥秘宗教之仪式，故此拉丁文sacramentum也从「仪式」包含了「教义」的意义。(25)

圣事sacramentum一词在首三个世纪很少用来指圣体圣事。戴都良用过两次，(26) 而西彼廉一次，(27) 但到了第四世纪则愈来愈通用，如：

　

sacramentum passionis (苦难的圣事)，

sacramentum corporis et sanguinis (肉身和血的圣事)，

sacramentum altaris (祭坛的圣事)，

sacramentum mensae divinae (天主餐桌的圣事)。

安博：

你听闻有人谈及身体，有人谈及血，你可知道上主的苦难的圣事(... ...)，每次在我们领受这些圣事时(... ...)我们宣告上主的死亡。(28)

我们祖先所吃的羔羊，意指上主的苦难，而今天我们是藉着圣事来享用这羔羊。(29)

奥思定：

只有那些大地产物经由奥秘祈祷文所祝圣的，我们才可称为主的血和肉的圣事，我们领受圣事是为得到灵性的救恩，和纪念主的苦难。(30)

大额我略：

羔羊之血洒在两个门楣之上，预示我们用口领受羔羊苦难的圣事的时候，成为我们的救赎，同时我们专注去默想和效法祂。(31)

圣事和感恩祭是这样密切，一些说法，如：举行、庆祝、领受圣事(sacramenta用多数)，就表示感恩祭的庆典：基督体、血的圣事。

小结：

圣事源于教外人的名词，被用来释绎希腊文的奥迹mysterion，但在第三世纪后，渐渐有一个趋势将这拉丁名词应用在礼仪的标记、经文、仪式和物品上，故此，原来mysterion所标榜的奥迹?隐藏的、高深的真理，现在经这礼仪化的步骤，渐渐变成有形可见(物质化) 的事情。

3. 6 奥迹 (Lat. mysterium ; Gk. mysterion) (32)

在《七十贤士本》中，mysterion共出现廿多次(多12：7，11；友2：2；智2：22；6：22 [14，15，23]；德3：18；22：27；27：16－27，21)，但由于大部份的章节皆是希腊文为原文，故不清楚其希伯来文是甚么。若从达尼尔先知书12：18－47可得知mysterion是指亚刺美语的raz，智慧书14：15，23中mysterion则明显是指宗教入门的奥秘礼，其他的用法一般是指秘密，或如达尼尔12章指一些隐秘之事，只有天主才知悉，而且须经神的揭示人们才可知道这秘密。

在新约福音中，「奥迹」也有多数和单数的用法，玛窦和路加是以多数来为天国之奥迹，马尔谷则用单数，但都用来表达那隐秘的事是天主为人构想出来，而现在则在基督身上显示出来，而旧约的先知或圣者却无从直接看到或见到，却只能在预象中隐约摸索出来(参看玛13：16－17)。保禄则常用mysterion一词 (罗11：25；16：25；格前2：7；4：1；13：2；14：2；15：51；厄1：9；3：3－4，9；5：32；6：19；哥1：26－27；2：2；4：3；撤后2：7：弟前3：9)。总的来说，mysterion在保禄中是指自永远就有的救恩计划，世代以来是隐藏着的，人的智力无法达到，现在却在基督身上完完整整地彰显出来。基督本人就是天主的奥迹，在祂的人性上充满天主，祂就是天主救恩计划的彰显和实现。

在礼仪书和希腊教父的着作中，mysterion一词较诸其他的词更多次用来意指感恩祭和一般的圣事仪式，至于在第三世纪时拉丁教父则以sacramentum一词作为相应的用法，而拉丁文的mysterium则翻译mysterion的奥秘真理之义。

在希腊的奥秘宗教里，mysterion是意指一种秘密敬礼的仪式(mystery cult)，用来与那公开，正式的仪式作出区分，有不同的奥秘礼，如Isis, Eleusis, Serapis, Mithras, Cybele等的奥秘里，参与的人是希望能得到救恩(soteria) 的保证，这是他们在公共的敬礼中得不到的。他们的仪式主要是重活一些过往的事，就是那些神话中的风云人物在达到神灵的福乐以前所经历过的事。简言之，奥秘礼是一种敬礼，透过一些征象和标记重演一次神话中英雄人物的所作所为，并籍此成为入教者的救恩行动。

奥秘宗教的言词和仪式是专为一些入教者用的，他们须严守秘密，一种严格的宗教静默，不为外人所知，为此奥秘礼在当时的哲学和宗教神学上是对神最高层次的彰显，因为人的纯理智不能到达神，除非神在某种方式下彰显，对入教者披露一些教义(... ...)。

这些奥秘礼渐渐介入当时的哲学和宗教，甚至连教父也仿效奥秘礼的语言并应用在神学的解释上。于是mysterion便吸纳了一些礼仪及神学上的抽象意义，意指教外人不懂的仪式、经文和标记，又因其奥秘之特色，mysterion被称为「征象」(symbolon)，这些「征象」是有形可见的，却隐藏着神的真理，而且须藉「寓意法」(allegorical method) 来诠释，这样就成了所谓神学，而神学就是「释奥」(mystagogia) 的工作，即由解释征象的意义而披露神的真理。

可是，教父很多次用mysterion一词时，是与保禄的用法基本相同。显着的例子是从辩教学的教父开始，他们一方面是针对当时的玄识学派(gnosticism)，很小心地避免与奥秘宗教的奥秘礼mysterion混淆，但将这词应用在基督的教义时，则指救恩的事实，尤其是基督的诞生和十字架，(33) 其次mysteria(多数)，是指旧约的事件是具有预像的功能(typological significance)，基本上与symbolon，typos是同义词，梅瑟展开双手，若苏厄的名字，割损礼，宰杀羔羊等。

亚历山大学派受到新柏拉图主义之影响，认为mysterion就是基督宗教的真理，高层次的和属灵的，基督是伟大的释奥者，进入奥迹mysterion须经历一些较为细小的奥迹mysteria(如：创造，出谷等)；而那些最高超的奥迹须受到保护，免受俗世的侵害，故此须隐藏在外表面形式上，就如圣经中的真理受到「比瑜」(parabole) 去保护一般。例如：奥利振也说初学者须经箴言篇的净化，由圣神领导就可以进入雅歌所描述的真理，才能与圣言(logos) 结合和得到天主圣三的真知。到了第四世纪奥迹渐渐趋向应用在圣事的礼仪上，尤其：圣洗和最后晚餐，即通过外表的仪式而进入奥迹之中。(34)

小结：

奥迹是指

□天主救恩的计画，本来是隐藏的，但藉圣言(logos)－－基督彰显出来

□基督本身就是奥迹

□教会－－光荣基督的临现之处－－是奥迹

□圣事作为教会延续基督救恩的行动也是奥迹

(在下文论述教父主要思想会有更多例证)

3. 7 巴斯卦奥迹 (Lat. mysterium pasquale)

新经作者视旧约的逾越节为耶稣的死亡的预像，如：格前5：7－8已提过基督就是巴斯卦节的黑羊，也暗示当时每年都举行巴斯卦奥迹的庆典。

在第二世纪的一本伪经《宗徒书信》(epistola apostolorum) 也告诉我们，在犹太人庆祝巴斯卦节的日子上，基督徒亦须守夜祈祷、诵经，特别是出谷记十二章，然后纪念基督，共饮杯爵，活出基督的爱(agape)，并期待主和诸位圣者再回来，这是基督的意愿。(35)

有关「巴斯卦奥迹」一词的解释，早在撒得的梅理顿(Melito of Sardis + 190) 的巴斯卦道理词(约165－185) 出现过，说明这是主基督的奥迹：

巴斯卦奥迹既是新的又是旧的，永恒的和现世的，不可磨灭和可消失的，永垂不朽又是逝去的。(36)

梅理顿主教认为主的巴斯卦是在圣周五庆祝，那是主基督祭献的日子，与旧约吃巴斯卦羔羊和出谷的日子相同。不过，犹太人的出谷和巴斯卦节的建立只是后来基督死亡和复活的预像。两者都称为奥迹(mysteria)，因为都具有超性的意义和超越时空的规范。耶稣的死亡保证基督徒可逃离死亡与罪恶的魔爪，就如巴斯卦羔羊的血一般，使以色列民逃离死亡和埃及人的奴役一般。旧的巴斯卦只具预示的功能，但将会消失，随之由新的巴斯卦替上，后者才是永恒的。(37)

另一个同期的轶名作者(Quartodeciman anonimous)，也分享同一的意念：

巴斯卦奥迹是宇宙性的；

天下万有同庆的节日；

因天父意愿受遣来到世界；

基督在世的超性晨曦；

天使和总领天使常存不息的大庆典；

整个世界永垂不朽的生命；

所有人永不腐朽的神粮；

宇宙万物的灵魂；

天上和地下晋身神圣界的庆典(telete)；

新旧奥迹的宣告。(38)

宗徒教父的时代已沿用新经的预像法，以出谷纪的巴斯卦节来解释基督死亡的救恩意义，并且在礼仪上作出相应的配合，使前者与后者能彼此呼应。我们可透过依玻理的《宗徒传承》，更了解当时的做法，这书在第三世纪出现，包括教会的律法、习俗和礼规，源自宗徒的时代，内有完整的感恩经，入门圣事和授予圣秩的仪式。很明显的，这里描写的圣事是纪念新的巴斯卦，因为旧的巴斯卦爵杯已由基督饮了，羔羊也吃了。从此就不再需要旧的巴斯卦，这一点已在对观福音提过：

我渴望而又渴望(……) 吃这逾越节晚餐(... ...)我决不再吃它。(路2：15－16，玛26：29，谷14：25)

诚然基督以最后晚餐已开始新的巴斯卦。祂的死亡就是新的出谷，而这需要一个新的巴斯卦节去纪念祂。故此，在最早期圣体圣事建立的记载，只提起「主耶稣在祂被交付的那一夜」(格前11：23)，(39) 并没有提起是犹太人的巴斯卦节。在《宗徒传承》中也特别着重这一句。此外，依玻理也在其《巴斯卦道理词》指出，新的巴斯卦(pascha) 就是主的苦难(paschein)。(40)

辩教学的教父，如：犹斯定，是按着保禄的脉络，解释基督的奥迹(哥4：3；厄3：4) 就是巴斯卦奥迹，因为整个基督事件是在巴斯卦完成。(41)

亚历山大学派约克来孟多和奥利振则从字源学，去解释基督的苦难(paschein) 就是逾越(pascha)，这是按斐路(Philo) 的释经法，寻找出巴斯卦－－羔羊的宰杀和逾越的灵修和伦理意义。(42)

当时出现一个越势，就是将巴斯卦节日的庆典延长。在小亚细亚是在尼散月第十四日(Nisan 14, quartodecima) 庆祝巴斯卦节。西方的教会则在那天接着来的主日庆祝。不论怎样，两者在节日前一、两天都要守斋和做前一晚的守夜祈祷，其后则有五十天的庆祝。(43)

后来，再由守夜祈祷演变为逾越三日祈求：圣周五，圣周六和主日，为纪念主的死亡、埋葬和复活，(44) 又或者视为总结创造的一周：人的创造、天主的安息、大局形成的开始。(45)

后来，为对称节后的五十天(pentekoste)，又将守斋和收敛的气氛延长至巴斯卦节前的四十天(tessarakoste或quadragesima)，特别为候洗者作静修，这在亚达纳的《庆节书信集》(330－347)中有记载。(46)

将巴斯卦节往前后扩展的现象，是基于一种神学意念，就是愈来愈将耶稣的人性，看为天主救恩计划启示和实现的地方。由于耶稣的生平是一个完整的奥迹，而其内容太丰富了，难于一次过细味其义，便制定很多庆日或庆典，和建立很多圣殿，为纪念主的生平事迹。同时，愈来愈多人前往耶路撒冷朝圣，并将那里的隆重礼仪引入罗马的礼仪中。(47)

奥思定认为巴斯卦是主的逾越，经历苦难而达至生命，并导引相信祂复活的人达至同一的生命。(48) 主的巴斯卦今日仍以不同的方式发挥其效力，一个是每年一次的巴斯卦的庆节，另一个就是每周和平日的感恩祭。(49)

金口若望将平日的感恩祭视为每年的巴斯卦，是为有别于犹太人举行的巴斯卦节，因为基督徒甚么时候都可举行巴斯卦，这和每年的巴斯卦是一样的：

四旬期每年举行一次，巴斯卦则每周三次，有时甚至四次，或更好说，每次愿意的时候都可以，巴斯卦并非是守斋，而是奉献，(... ...)巴斯卦是宣告主的死亡，为此今天我们所奉献的祭祀，和那昨天所举行过的，和每日所要作的，都是一样。就如在圣周那天发生的一样。那个并不比这个更神圣，这个并不比那个更弱，但都是同一个，一样令人颤栗和充满救恩的。(50)

其实不但是平日感恩祭就是主的巴斯卦，即使是其他的圣事亦然，安博就这样暗示过：

有甚么将希伯来人过红海的事来说明圣洗圣事更为合宜呢？(51)

小结

□这是一个新的奥迹，与其他或以往的不同，希伯来人的巴斯卦只有预示的功能，而且注定是被新的取缔。

□这奥迹是以基督为中心，祂的死亡和复活，祂是那巴斯卦被宰杀和祭献的羔羊，只有藉着祂才可明白。

□这奥迹已不再是隐藏的真理，而是基督－－巴斯卦－－的庆典，既是宣告又是纪念，尤其是指基督徒巴斯卦节前夕的礼仪，然后伸延到每件圣事。

9.MARSILI S., La celebrazione dcll’eucaristia nella teologia del Padri, in IDEM (dir.), La liturgia, Eucharistia : teologia e storia delta celebrazione = Anamnesis 3/2, a cura dei professori del Pontifico Istituto Liturgico S.Anselmo di Roma (Casale Monferrato : Marietti 1983) 44-56.

10.PLATO, Parmenides 132.

11.AMBROSE, De officiis ministrorum 1,238 : PL 16, 100

12.PAREDI (ed.), Sacramentarium Bergomense (Bergamo 1962) 63.

13.MOHLBERG C. (ed.), Sacramentanum Vennense (Roma 1954) 335.

14.有關拉丁教父的用法，參閱一些例證：　

"Noe typum Futvrae vcrilatis … imaginem dominicae passionis expresserit" (Cyprian, Epist., 63, 3)　

"Praecedit ante imago sacrificii in ... Melchisedech ... ; Dominus ... veritatem praefiguratae imaginis adimplevit" (ibidem 4)　

"In umbra atque imagine ante praemissum" (ibidem 64, 4) ;　

"Ut ergo umbrae cedcrent corpori et cessarent imagines sub praesentia veritatis ..." (Leo Magnus, Sermo, 58, 7).

15.CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, Catechesis Mystagogica 2, 7 : PG 33,1084.

16.AMBROSE, De sacramentis 2, 7, 23 : BOTTE (ed.) Source Chretiennes = (SCh) 25 bis (1961) 86.

17.AUGUSTINE, Epistolae 98, 9 : PL 33, 364.

18.HIPPOLYTUS, Traditio apostolica 21 : BOTTE (ed.), SCh 11 (1946) 54.

19.Euchologium Serapionis 13, in FUNK (ed.), Didascalia et Constitutio apostolica II (Paderborn 1905) 174.

20.FEROTIN, Liber ordinum 17, 322.

21.GELASIUS I, Adversus Eutychen 3,14A : THIEL (ed.), Epistulae Roman. Pontif. I (Bomberg 1868) 541.

22.參閱OSBORNE K.B., Sacramental Theology. A General Introduction (New York 1988) 60-62.

23.MARSILI S., o.c. 50-51

24.參閱AUGUSTINE, Tract, in ev. Joan. 5,18 : PL 35, 1424.

25.參閱De GHELLINCK J. (and others), Pour l'histoire du mot sacramentum, I : Les anteniceens ; II : Patrislique et Moyen Age, Spicilegium sacrum lovamennse (Louvain 1924/1927) ; MOHRMANN C., "Sacramentum" dans le plus anciens textes chretiens, in The Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954) 141-152 ; MARSILI S., o.c. 52.

26.TERTULLIAN, Adversus Marcionem 4, 34 ; De corona 3.

27.CYPRIAN, Epist. 63, 14.

28.AMBROSE, De fide 4, 124 : PL 16, 667.

29.IDEM, In Ps. 43, 37 : PL 14, 1146

30.AUGUSTINE, De Trinitate 4, 10 : PL 42, 873.

31.GREGORY THE GREAT, Homil. in ev. 22, 7.

32.參閱BORNKAMM G., Mysterion, in Theological Dictionary of New Testament (= TDNT) IV (Michigan 2nd printing 1975) 803-828.

33.參閱JUSTIN, Apol. 1, 13 ; Dial. 74, 91 etc.

34.參閱C. VAGAGGINI, Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy (Collegeville : The Liturgical Press 1976) 601-604.

35.參閱Epistola aposlolorum 13 ; JUNGMANN J. A ., The Early Liturgy (Indiana : Univ. Notre Dame 1962) 89 ; SORCI P., Mistero Pasquale, in Nuovo Dizionario di Liturgia (= NDL) (Roma (2) 1984) 895 ; QUASTEN J., Patrology I (Utrecht : Spectrum 1950) 150-153.

36.Omelia sulla pasqua 2 : CANTALAMESSA R., I piu antichi testi pasquali della Chiesa (Roma 1973) 25.

37.QUASTEN J., o.c. I 245 ; SORCI P., o.c. 884 ; ROCCHETTA C., Sacramentaria fondamentale. Dal "Mysterion" al "Sacramentum" = Corso di Teologia Sistematica 8 (Bologna 1989) 253.

38.Omelia sulla pasqua 40. 57 : CANTALAMESSA R., o.c. 57 ; 67.

39.參閱HIPPOLYTUS, Traditio apostolica 4 : BOTTE (ed.) 12ff.

40.參閱HIPPOLYTUS, Homilia in s. Pascha 49.

41.參閱JUSTIN, Dial. 111.

42.參閱SORCI P., o.c. in NDL 896.

43.參閱TERTULLIAN, De orat. 23, 2 : CCL 1, 267.

44.參閱ORIGEN, In exod. hom. 5, 2.

45.參閱Pseudo-Chrysostom Hom. in s.Pascha 7, 4 : SCh 48, 115 ; quoted from SORCI P., o.c. NDL 896.

46.參閱ATHANASIUS, Epistola festiva 6, 13 : PG 26, 1389 B.

47.參閱Peregrinatio Aetheriae 35-42, CCL 175, 78-85 ;　

RIGHETTI M., Liturgia Storica II 97 ; EUSEBIUS, De solemnitate paschali 7, 12 : PG 24, 701 ; JUNGMANN J. A., o.c. 6. 253-265.

48.參閱AUGUSTINE, Trac. in ev. Joan 55, 1 : CCL 36, 363-364.

49.參閱AUGUSTINE, Sermo 220 in vigilia paschae : PL 38, 1089.

50.JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Adv. Iud. 3, 4 : PG 48, 867.

51.AMBROSE, De sacramentis 1,14 : CSEL 73, 20.

4. 希腊教父的主要思想

这里将按年份介绍一些有代表性的教父思想，(52) 主要是环绕奥迹礼仪化的观念去描写。我们会分希腊和拉丁教父，前者主要用奥迹(mysterion) 的语言，而后者则转用圣事(sacramentum) 的语言，两者均有相同之处，和各有不同的重心。

4. 1 第一至三世纪的教父

在宗徒时代的末期，教会所举行的圣事，以圣洗和主的晚餐为主，明显地这是受了新约作者的影响。渐渐在第二世纪有些作者就将入基督教会的仪式(ceremonies of Christian initiation) 与教外当时流行的「奥秘宗教」(Mystery religions) 的入教仪式相比。明显地，一些教父们认为一个人接受天主的启示，为使自己的生命得到提升，正好与「奥秘宗教」的入教「仪式」相仿，不论在理论和实践上都是。当然，我们要牢记「奥秘」一词已由新约的作者用过，教父们继续沿用下去，同时慎重地不与其他宗教混淆。

安提约基雅的依纳爵 Ignatius of Antioch (+ 107)

「奥迹」一词与基督的生平息息相关，是祂彰显了和实现出「天主的奥迹」。在天主隐密的计划中安排了很多行动，都是以基督为核心，其中有三个是特别值得「大声」宣扬出来的，就是：圣母的贞德，她的神妙生育和耶稣的死亡。(53) 从这角度看，奥迹就是天主的救援行动。若从救恩的角度看，奥迹就是吾人「通过耶稣的死亡而获重生」的事件，这里的「重生」显然是指「圣洗圣事」?吾人进入基督生命的门槛。此外，「执事」(diakonos) 被称为「耶稣基督的仆人和奥迹」，由此可见天主的奥迹今日仍然发生，就是在教会内举行的圣事(sacramentum) 及领了圣职的人，这说法与格前4：1的意义是一贯的。(54)

《十二宗徒训言》Didache (90－120)

这本书分两部份。第一部份论述如何进入基督徒团体，候选人首先要了解教会的道理和伦理：生命之道和死亡之道，这些要理教授特别为那些要求领洗的人而设。然后作者就介绍圣洗的仪式，守斋和主的晚餐礼。第二部份论述基督徒团体的生活和彼此的关系，其中还说明那些有先知神恩的人，藉其行动在地上彰显教会的奥迹(11，11)。(55)

这书已记录了在宗徒时代末期圣洗礼仪的做法：

在向候洗者解释清楚要点之从，便因父，及子，及圣神之名为他们付洗。要用流动的水(为浸洗)，假如没有流动的水，可用其他的水取代；如果不能用冷水，可用暖水；假如两者都没有(即不能作浸洗用)，将水倒在头上三次是因父，及子，及圣神之名。受洗前，付洗者与候洗者要守斋，其他的人若能参与更好，但候洗者须在一至两日前便开始守斋。(56)

犹斯定Justin (+ 165)

在第二世纪基督徒不断受到攻击，罗马得悉基督徒与犹太人有别，并加以迫害，当时的智识份子亦起来口诛笔伐，其中玄识学派(gnosticism) 更是教会的敌人，教会一些人亦受其影响，信奉玄识的学说，渐渐扭曲了启示的内容成为异端分子。这时期基督徒就像生活在战争中，时刻都要辩护自己，而圣犹斯定的作品就是有这种辩教的风格。

「奥迹」就是救援事件，尤其是耶稣基督的出生和死亡，不过，旧约时代的「预象和预言」(typoi kai logoi) 早已预示了「基督的奥迹」。那么，这些「预象和预言」亦成了「奥迹」的一部份，例如：梅瑟伸开的双手，若苏厄的名字，出生后八日的割损礼，巴斯卦羔羊的宰杀等等都是「圣言的奥迹」。(57) 这里的「奥迹」就与「征象」(symbolon) 成为同义词，因为它是真实而又隐藏地将要在历史中完成的事提前预示出来。这个概念影响了后来的希腊和拉丁教父。而圣事与这些「预像」相仿，因为它透过仪式在神妙的方式下使人得到罪的赦免和神的光照。(58)

他对第二世纪的圣洗，感恩祭和主日集会的仪式有极宝贵的报导：

□圣洗称为一种「照明」(photismos)，信友接受了基督的教义，心灵受到光照，可是这光照是因圣三之名从浸洗(loutron) 得来的，它指向重生(anagennesis)。(59)

□主日的集会包括两个阶段：一是读圣经，主教训勉，公共祈祷；二是献饼，成圣体和领圣体。(60)

里昂的宜仁Irenaeus of Lyons (+ 202)

为针对玄识学的二元论，他从天主的计划开始，探究其原因，对吾人的历史作出很深邃的神学反省，并指出一切在历史发生的事都要「总归」于基督。

从创造之初整个历史就是一个「彰显」的事件，透过这「彰显」天主将自我通传给人，而人亦被安排在适合的境况中与天主结合，为此圣言降生，并创立了教会为使人能提升到与天主结合的境况(theiosis : deification)。旧约是天主的「应许」而新约是「实现」，两者的联系就是基督。整个人类的历史就是朝向分享神生命的历程。圣事的庆典虽然是这历程过渡中的一站，但却是人渐获提升重要的一步。当时亦有些异端者反对救恩能出自圣洗之水，而宜仁却指出，虽然自然的受造之水本来不能提升人到另一境界，不过既然圣言已降生，整个宇宙就多了一种新的转化能力。故此，圣事的能力乃来自天上，而非出自下土：

在感恩祭中，我们奉献给天主的礼品其实是属于祂的(... ...)。同样，当吾人呼求天主的时候，地上的面饱再不是普通的面饱，而是成为圣体，具有地上和天主的实质，当我们的身躯领受此祝圣的饼，就不会再只是归于腐朽，而是点燃复活的希望。(61)

那能使新的转化能力绵延下去的，就是恩赐给教会的圣神，是祂临现在圣事行动中，为使『新的创造』由新人复活的基督开始而绵延不绝。

现在我们所领受的圣神，是为改善和准备我们达至永生，同时使我们逐渐习惯领受天主。(62)

亚历山大里的克来肋孟Clement of Alexandria (+ 215)

虽然宜仁为了不想与教外的「奥迹」宗教行动相混淆，而避免用「奥迹」一词描写圣事的庆典，但克来肋孟却很了解二者的分别，便相当放心地以「奥迹」一词应用在宗教的仪式上(不论是教外或教内的)。另一方面，他勉力跟随圣经中的奥迹，将之用来意指一些隐藏的真理，尤其圣经上一些很难了解的章节。他强调「奥迹」具有「象征」和「转化」的能力，一方面透过有形物质的东西而指向高超及精神的世界，另一方面则可提升人的灵魂，使之投向天主。圣洗圣事就是明显的例子，它能使灵魂从肉身中解放出来，得到光照，成为「儿子」，或为「完美的」，承受不朽的生命。(63)

奥利振Origen (+ 254)

对他来说，整个存在界，就如柏拉图所说，分为有形的物质和无形的精神世界，前者是后者的影子，后者是前者的实相，前者相仿(imitate) 和分受(participate) 后者的完善，后者既超越(transcendent) 又潜存(immanent) 于前者。

「奥迹」泛指那些「有形的标记」代表了「无形的精神世界」，故此与「征象」(symbolon)，「预像」(typos) 和「肖像」(eikon) 是同义词。奥迹既相仿同时亦参与那所表达的实相。这些有形的奥迹看来是散立、个别的，有形可见的标记，但同时以隐含的方式蕴藏了属神的实相，对那些有能力参透这个标记的人来说，这标记就是神的彰显(epiphany)，而这些人内心准备妥当的话，能藉此而分受神的生命，或倒过来说这奥迹能将神通传给他。

其实，归根究底只有一个大奥迹、一个天主救援的计划，就是：天主通过圣言(logos) 发显于人时，所采取的行动或方式。在历史上圣言具有三重的彰显：圣言发显于圣经记载的事件中，发显于降生的时候，发显于教会中。就第一重彰显来说，圣经是奥迹，因为圣经于肉眼来说是隐藏天主的救恩?圣言的来临，但于慧眼来说，圣经则彰显天主的救恩；就第二重来说，降生的圣言是奥迹，而且是整个奥迹最完满的彰显，因为天主进入了有形的世界成为一个人，又因着这个人，世界更神妙地充盈天主；第三重是指教会是奥迹，因为教会不断表达、象征、负载和延续基督救世工程直至祂再次来临。

从这角度看，在教会内举行的圣洗、圣体圣事和礼仪行动都是奥迹。奥利振如克来肋孟一般认为圣事尚未是最完美的境界，但已是迈向完美的开始。例如：透过圣洗圣事，吾人已获光照，对天主已有真知，只是这知识在镜中模糊不清(per speculum in aenigmate)，不过将来就会「面对面」享受天主的容颜(参阅格前13：12)。

从圣洗一例中，奥利振提出圣事的三个特性。第一，圣事是一个彰显性的「预像」，在旧约中早已有这个「预像」如：洪水和过红海的事迹等，为彰显基督净化和解救人类的事迹。而现在教会采用水洗的仪式为纪念基督的事迹，就是：象征了圣言从起初已进入了世界，成为人类历史一部份，记载于圣经之内。第二，圣事充满圣神的「征象」，这是基于基督救恩的功效。第三，圣事是指向末世事件的「征象」，但尚未是圆满的事实。不过，今日的圣事行动使教会团体迈向末世复活的荣耀。从这三个特性来看，每个圣事的行动就是奥迹临现的时刻。

奥氏很着重圣言所取的人性，因为这人性是奥迹和圣事彰显的基础和高峰，故此，在现世所发生的事可对精神界产生某种效果，这效果经常由天主圣言所陪伴的，例如：水具有圣化的力量是因着呼求圣神(epiclesis)，慕道者侵洗时能清洁自己的灵魂是因圣三之名。(64)

我们该知道，圣洗就如救主的治病的奇迹一般，都是治疗的『征象』，基于天主圣言具有大能可治病疗弱。圣洗的征象，就得救恩的价值来说，并不亚于那肉体痊愈的价值。因为它们都驱使领受者投入信仰。同样藉着水而得重生的浸洗，就是灵魂得到净炼的征象，使人从污垢和罪恶中得到自由。这浸洗本身(即在肉身上发生的事) 为受洗者来说，是天主恩宠的起点和泉源。受洗者就是那个愿置身在天主的大能下，呼求和敬拜圣三，获得救恩效果的人。(65)

小结

(1)在第二世纪时，「奥迹」一词被用作描写天主救援的行动，特别指旧约记载天主的行动，新约中基督的事件，基督创立的教会，教会为「基督奥迹」服务的「执事职」。

(2)在第三世纪，出现了亚历山大学派，他们偏向采用当时奥秘宗教的语言来描写圣事的行动，特别是圣洗和圣体。

(3)但教父们很小心避免将圣事的庆典与教外的仪式混为一谈，圣宜仁就是明显的例子。他们深知圣事的庆典是源于基督，教会因着祂遣发的圣神便能举行充盈恩宠的圣事。相反，教外的仪式是人为的，他们企图利用自然界的事物，得到某种力量来干预世界的事，流于一种巫术。

(4)不过，就如教外的奥秘仪式企图获得神界的力量影响自己终身大事，圣事的庆典也同样使过往发生过的天主救援事件重演，而最重要的事件当然是基督的逾越。撒得的梅理顿的道理词早已说过，奥迹就是基督徒救恩的、整体性的、涵括新、旧约所述的一切、又是礼仪团体在庆祝巴斯卦时所得到的力量泉源。

(5)所以奥迹既是一种隐藏的真理，在基督事件上彰显出来，又是通过礼仪「纪念」和「宣告」在教会内临现，其主要内容是基督的逾越，具体来说奥迹是礼仪行动，其高峰是逾越之夜：圣洗和圣体圣事的庆典。

4. 2 第四至六世纪的希腊教父

君士坦丁大帝在313年二月颁布米兰谕令，给与基督徒信奉宗教的自由，并下令交还教会的财产，作传教和敬礼之用。基督徒在罗马帝国的地位日渐提高和受到重视，很多人从不同的阶层都转向这个宗教。现在他们再不像以往惧怕自己的宗教给别的宗教所同化，于是可更放心应用奥秘宗教的语言，甚至在基督徒的礼仪上仿仿他们的一些做法。

亚达纳 Athanasius (+ 373)

「奥迹」一词笼统地指高超隐藏的事，诸如天主的救恩计划，但狭义地说就是圣言的降生、福音的宣扬、基督徒的真理和教义、礼仪的庆典，(66) 尤其是圣洗和圣体，因为这两个庆典正好记念主耶稣的逾越和在历史中具体地实现天主的计划：

在祭台上放置饼和酒，若还没有开始呼求圣神和念祝圣经文，那里只有饼和酒，但在诵念这伟大和奇妙的经文后，饼就变成主耶稣基督的身体，酒变成祂的血，让我们齐来庆祝这些『奥迹』(……... ...) 在圣言降下来到饼和酒之中，那里就有圣言的身体。(67)

三位卡帕多西亚的教父the Cappadocians：

大巴西略(Basil the Great + 379)，纳齐安的额我略(Gregory of Nazianzus + 390)，尼沙的额我略(Gregory of Nyssa + 394)

他们的圣事观都是一脉相承。天主的救恩计划(oikonomia) 就具有奥秘和象征的特色，因为这计划的实施是意味着上天的神界进入现今的世界，其后果是将世界转化，和提升到神界(theiosis)。这计划的安排就是由三件伟大的奥迹所实现出来，一是道成人身，即天主救援的慈爱彰显在这「身体」上；二是圣神降临；三是圣体圣事或感恩祭。每件奥迹都宣告同一个和唯一的大奥迹，就是天主的计划藉着圣子的降生、死亡和复活而实现，而礼仪庆典，尤其圣洗和圣体，则宣告、彰显和实现天主圣神在教会之内的伟大力量。换言之，每次举行圣洗和感恩祭时，就是天主的救援进入世界的历史时空场所，而这救援是由基督在生之时已赚得，一次便足够(ephapax)，永不挽回的。(68)

大巴西略 (Basil the Great + 379)

他很着重礼仪，今日的拜占庭教会仍然保留着他的感恩经，这经文是按着救恩史上的重要事件串成一起。他特别强调圣事中的教会向度，既然圣事是藉圣神的力量产生救恩，便须在教会内、透过教会举行的，因为只有教会才享有圣神，故此，那些远离教会的人已没有权力举行圣事的洗礼、覆手授秩。(69) 这并不表示他否认圣事的「事效性」(ex opere operato)，反之将这「事效性」建基于圣神的力量上：

这就是在水和圣神中重生的意义，死亡乃由水实现出来，但吾人的生命却由圣神而扭转过来，圣洗伟大的奥迹乃由三次浸洗，和三次呼求实现出来，这是为使死亡的预像(typos)能显现，同时藉着神性知识的通传，受洗者的灵魂可得到照明，因此如在水中有任何的恩宠，这并不源于水的本质，而是源于圣神的临现。(70)

纳齐安的额我略 (Gregory of Nazianzus + 390)

主在其苦难前一天，进用晚餐的时候，

将巴斯卦奥迹传给门徒们，

而我们则在祂复活之后，进食之前，

将祂的巴斯卦奥迹在教会内分施众人。(71)

他是在说明，有关这奥迹的通传方式，今日所承继的礼仪传统与当日福音的叙述是有些不同，但重要的是，两者都是指向同一个巴斯卦奥迹。

尼沙的额我略 (Gregory of Nyssa + 394)

在起初面饱只是普通的面饱，但当奥迹使之圣化时，吾人就说它已变成基督的身体。同样，奥秘的油、酒虽在祝圣前没有多大价值，但即因圣神大能祝圣之后，就会具有非凡的动力。同样的力量，在『语言』(祝圣经文) 中，可使司铎成为威严和堪受荣耀的。事实上那位昨天和过往是一个老百姓或一个普通人，突然变成神修的大师、领袖、博识之士，又是『隐蔽奥迹』的主持人。(72)

信德是唯一的途径可使人从圣事行动中进入「奥迹」中，并可从中接受其恩惠，最终，奥迹就是隐藏在圣事「征象」的救恩事实。(73)

耶路撒冷的济利禄Cyril of Jerusalem (+ 386)

在他的《要理课》中，他写了有关入门圣事很丰富的前引。「奥迹」一词代表了救恩事件，由天主在耶稣基督的生平和教会的礼仪中去完成，但只有透过信德才能进入奥迹。作者在向慕道者传授要理时，鼓励他们进入奥迹，今日奥迹是透过教会的礼仪行动和标记实现出来。故此，这个行动是整个天主救恩计划的浓缩，以基督为中心，由教会宣告，而庆祝的团体则以信德，透过仪式、语言、行动、物件接受天主的恩赐，就是祂的奥迹。

慕道者是透过「预像式」(typological) 和「释奥式」(mystagogical) 而进入奥迹：

□「预像式」是指一种阅读圣经的方法，慕道者因深信天主在历史上的事迹是祂披露奥迹的行动，所以可从经上记载的「预象」去参透天主的奥迹。

□「释奥式」是从教会的仪式着手，慕道者深信这些仪式(语言、行动、征象) 既能令人进入奥迹，故本身亦有「开明」的作用，不但助人理解「奥迹」的含义，而且使人更具体地将之生活出来。(76)

金口若望John Chrysostom (+ 407)

很多希腊教父都将「奥迹」的范畴应用在祭祀的氛围内，在他们中他可说是佼佼者。「奥迹」一词出现在他的着作中不下200次，其中约有160次是指祭祀中的奥迹，尤其以圣洗和圣体居多。一般来说，奥迹是一个不可知的、隐密的真相，因为它是如此「神妙和惊人」，吾人可按不同的层次作一些肯定：它只是属于天主的，不是向所有人而是向圣者披露的，(对天使的披露只是在降生之后)，即使那些受启发的人亦仍未能进入奥迹中。这个实相，其实早已隐藏在天主的救恩计划中，透过纳匝肋人耶稣而彰显出来，它包括了逾越奥迹，圣神的恩赐，教会，礼仪?尤其是圣洗和圣体。

吾人在征象中庆祝上天的奥迹：埋葬、死亡、复活、生命。这一切的事件都在同一时刻实现出来。事实上，当他们受浸洗时，身体就在墓中，旧人已被埋葬和完全淹没，但当我们从水中上来时新人就出现，(... ...……)天主替我们除掉旧人而穿上新人。(74)

金口若望着重礼仪行动使整个奥迹透过征象实现在历史的时、空场所中。(75)

默稣斯的德道Theodore of Mopsuestia (+ 428)

他着作很多，其中为慕道者的《要理集》最为表达他的圣事观，这书于415年间以叙利亚文写成，载有详尽的弥撒和圣洗的释义，全书共分十六篇道理，头十篇是解释尼釆亚的信经(symbolum) (1－10)，然后天主经(11)，圣洗礼仪(12－14)，感恩祭(15－16)。(77)

每一个奥迹，就是指明在有形可见的标记和征象之内，存有不可见和不可言喻的事物。(78)

从他对圣体圣事的解释可看出他的圣事观。在举行圣事时所采用的物质元素(饼和酒)，并非只具有意指的功能而已，一经祝圣后，确实地蕴藏了神圣的事物。祝圣饼酒的能力源于圣神，故此，须先在呼求圣神(epiclesis) 后举行祝圣礼：

一样是饼的元素(elementum)，另一样是吾主基督的身体，前者可变成后者，饼的元素能经历这巨大的转化是因为圣神降临的缘故。(79)

他特别强调圣体圣事的真实临在，而反对一种象征性的圣事观：

当基督分施饼的时候没有说：『这是我身体的征象』，而是说「这是我的身体」，因为祂希望我们所领受的，是那已充盈恩宠和圣神的(元素)，我们并不按着元素的本质，而是作为吾主的体和血来领受。(80)

将祝圣过的饼擘开，在杯爵上至十字圣号，然后放在血中，就表示纪念基督的死亡，当人领圣体时，不论是多么细小，但已领受整个基督了，就如圣经上患血漏的妇人接触了耶稣的衣服，但其实已接触祂整个人。(81)

托名狄尼修 Pseudo-Dionysius Aeropagite (+ 520)

他企图将柏拉图的奥迹和圣经的奥迹融汇一起，他的神学偏向一种默观形式，所用的词藻充满奥秘色彩，先以人间的经验作出肯定(positive) 的说法，同时要意识经验的有限性，故此要介入否定(negative) 的说法，为使神圣高超的事物摆脱人间经验的桎桔。(82)

对他来说，神圣高超的实相是由有形可见的标记和征象所表达，就如基督本人一样：

在基督的人性上彰显了祂的天主性，但彰显之后仍然是隐藏的，换言之，从较为更神圣的角度来说，天主性是在彰显中隐藏着。(83)

而这实相是天主按其计划去净炼、光照和与人契合的活动，不过这些活动也是透过严谨繁密、有等级的组织，不论是属天上成地下的组织(hierarchy)。由此可见，mysterion是「天主外溢的事件」，故此须怀有一种十分敬畏的态度。

他认为人追求神性的生命(theiosis)，这要经过三个步骤：净炼(purgative)、照明(illuminative)和契合(unitive)，天主正好以入门圣事完成这三个步骤，圣洗为净炼，坚振为照明，圣体为契合。此外，圣事还包括了其他使人与神交合的礼节，如：油和祭台的祝圣礼，隐修士的发愿和亡者的丧礼。(84)

小结

(1)进入第四世纪时，在希腊教父们的重要着作中，「奥迹」一词的用法与奥秘宗教的语言相仿，但同时扎根在保禄的传统里。奥迹既是天主的计划、活生生的基督事件，但又是教会藉礼仪使基督再临现、再活化的事实。

(2)奥迹礼仪化乃源自动态的救恩史观念。天主在冥冥之中已有救世的计划，逐渐在历史中展示和实现出来。最关键性的地方就是基督的事件，因为祂是一切事物的「总归」，这是圣保禄的一个核心思想。教会在延续基督救赎的工程上，是藉着礼仪的庆典，使信友们与基督联系一起。

(3)就现世来说，奥迹礼仪化是指信仰的旅程。奥利振就看到慕道期是进入天主奥迹的过程：首先离开过往的宗教团体，第二是与基督徒团体接触，第三是正式加入基督奥体之中。由此可引伸到慕道期的一连串仪式，如：交付天主经和信经、驱魔、圣洗、坚振傅油等。

(4)在这时期其中有些作者，如：托名狄尼修更发展一种「默观式」的圣事观，其语言充满奥秘的色彩。他谈论到神的流露，人透过礼仪庆典可经验神的流露，并藉此参与神的生命，其过程有三个重要的环节：净炼、光照及契合，这些构思都为奥迹礼仪化的过程而奠基。

(5)为度一个基督徒在世与神交往的生活，教会的奥迹(mysteria) 也包括其他隆重的礼节，如：圣堂的祝圣，贞女与隐修士的奉献，礼仪庆日，时辰的赞礼，殡葬礼，司祭所念的经文，等等。

52.参阅WILLS J.R. (ed.), The Teaching of the Church Fathers (New York : Herder & Herder 1966) 401-493.

53.参阅IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCHIA, Ad Ephesios 19, 1," tria mysteria krauges hatina en hesychia theou eprachthe".　

三个要「大声」宣扬的奥迹，它们都是在天主的「静默」中实现的。「大声」是指末世性的预告，「静默」则喻意圆满pleroma.

54.有关重生，参阅IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCHIA, Ad Magnesios 9, 1.　

有关执事，参阅Ad Tralles 2, 3.

55.这先知的行动(poion eis mysterion kosmikon ekklesia) 不易解释，照猜测，它是指先知的在世神婚喻意天上基督和教会密切结合的奥迹(弗5：32)，参阅BORNKAMM G., TDNT IV 824-825.

56.DIDACHE 7 from WILLS J.R., o.c. 424.

57.参阅JUSTIN, Dial. 44. 111. 24. 40.

58.参阅JUSTIN, Apol. 1, 61 ; 1, 65.

59.参阅JUSTIN, Apol. 1, 61.

60.参阅JUSTIN, Apol. 1, 67.

61.IRENAEUS, Adv. haer. 4, 18, 5.

62.IRENAEUS, Adv. haer. 5, 8, 1.

63.参阅CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Paed. 1, 6, 26, 1-3.

64.参阅NEUNHEUSER B., Baptism and Confirmation (Freiburg 1964) 68-77 ; VAGAGGINI C., o.c. 601-604; ROCHETTA C., Sacramentaria fondamentale (Roma 1989) 250-253.

65.ORIGEN, In Joh. comm. 4, 23.

66.参阅ROCCHETTA C., o.c. 254 ; MULLER G., Lexicon Athanasianum (Berlin 1950) ; PRUM K., Mysterion und Verwandtes bei Athanasius, in ZKTh 63 (1939) 350-360 ; QUASTEN J., o.c. III 78.

67.ATHANASIUS, Ad Neophytes : here quoted from QUASTEN J., o.c. III 78.

68.参阅ROCCHETTA C., o.c. 254-255.

69.参阅Basil's Greek Anaphora in VAGAGGINI C., o.c. 164-169 ; BASIL, Letters 188, 1 : PG 32, 668.

70.BASIL, De Spiritu Santo 15, 35 : PG 32, 129.

71.GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, In S. Pascha, Oratio 40, 30 : PG 36, 401.

72.GREGORY OF NYSSA, Prat. in diem luminum sive in baptismum Christi : PG 46, 581.

73.参阅DANIELOU J., Platonisme et theologie mystique. Doctrine spirituelle de St Gregoire de Nysse (Paris 1954) ; IDEM, Le mystere du culte dans le sermons de s. Gregoire de Nysse (Dussseldorff 1951) 76-93.

74.JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, In Joh. hom. 25, 2.

75.参阅FITTIKAU G., Der Begriff des Mysteriums bei Johannes Chrysostomus (Bonn 1953) ; MAZZA E., La mistagogia. Una teologia della liturgia in epoca patrislica (Roma 1988) 123-167.

76.参阅ROCCHETTA C., o.c. 258-259 ; DANIELOU J., Bibbia & Liturgia. La teologia biblica dei sacramenti e dellc feste secondo I padri della chiesa (Milano 1958).

这书是研究教父们解释圣事和礼仪庆典的奥迹，并将之与旧约的比较。

77.参阅QUASTEN J., o.c. III 408.

78.THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, Catech. 12, 2 ; 参阅VAGAGGINI C., o.c. 30 n21.

79.参阅IDEM, Catech. 16.

80.IDEM, Catech. 5 ; 参阅QUASTEN J., o.c. III 421.

81.参阅IDEM, 6.

82.参阅ROCCHETTA C., o.c. 259.

83.PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS, Ep. 3 ; 参阅VAGGAGINI C., o.c. 302.

84.参阅ROQUES R., L' univers dionisien, in Theologie vol.29 (Paris 1954) 92. 245-302 ; VAGAGGINI C., o.c. 608 ; Von BALTHASAR, La gloire et la croix II (Paris 1968) 131-192.

5. 拉丁教父的主要思想

上文提过，拉丁教父采用sacramentum一词来描写圣事，从字源学上看，它可分为两部份：一是sacer形容词：神圣的和sacrare祝圣。二是mentum，源于instrumentum「工具」，将形容词或动词转为名词的接尾语。sacramentum可解为神圣的工具、事件或圣事，成为「神圣者」的途径及行动。

从文字上的应用可看出拉丁教父与希腊教父的圣事观有显着不同的焦点。前者以sacramrntum一词翻译了mysterion，但集中在描写教会的敬礼，于是渐渐与奥迹为救恩史的观念有距离。其实拉丁文亦有mysterium源于mysterion，而拉丁教父采用sacramentum显然是着重其礼仪意义。

戴都良Tertullian (+ 240)

一般人称他为第一位拉丁神学家，sacramentum「圣事」一词，在他的着作中出现过不下130次，其用法可概括如下：

□指一些神妙的神圣事物或不得而知的教义。例如：希腊圣经中的「奥迹」(mysterion)，在圣经拉丁通行本翻译为「圣事」(sacramentum)。

□指救恩计划和历史，尤其是三位一能天主的行径(ordo personarum)。

□指耶稣基督在世上的生活和祂的逾越事件。

□基督徒的宗教，信仰和礼仪的规范。

□很多时是指「隆重的承诺」(共有84次之多)，有时亦指教义，喻意性的征象和代表。

当「圣事」(sacramentum) 应用在礼仪上时则具有双重的意义，其一是指向「奥秘神圣的事物」(res mysteriosa et sacra)，其二是指公开、隆重、具有约束力的承诺(誓愿，例如：圣洗的应许)。前者是看不见的，隐藏的，但通过后者的仪式，标记就可展露出来。

由此，吾人可感到拉丁教父对圣事的感觉是偏向有形的事物：人面对天主的行径，透过生活、敬拜的仪式和标记，作出回应。虽然戴都良仍将这些有形可见的事物与天主的救恩史拉上关系，但他的圣事观，较诸希腊教父更为「物质化」了。这是由于戴都良认为精神的事物就像一些物质的自立体一般，例如：人的灵魂就是一个自立体可与物质的自立体互相影响。(85)

为此，清水(物质) 可接受天主圣神的力量(精神)，然后这清水可拥有圣化的力量，令到受这水之洗的人，在其灵魂产生净化、照明及圣化的效果：

所有的水。因着它们源于那远古早期的特恩，在呼求天主之后，就得到圣化的能力。因为圣神即时由天而降，临于水面之上，由祂亲自祝圣，同时使之充满圣化的力量。(86)

我们那水的圣事其是美妙绝伦，在那里我们可洗尽铅华、过往盲目生活的罪污，藉此我们得到自由和被允许步入永恒的生命(……)，可是我们小鱼该步武大鱼(ICHTHUS) 耶稣基督的芳踪，在水中重生，我们在别处已无安居之处，除非经常留在那水中。(87)

这里的ICHTHUS是指「鱼」之意，但同时又是耶稣基督、天主子、救世主的希腊文简写。那安居之处是指教会的怀抱。

戴都良相当强调圣事行动的「物质」向度：

肉身是救恩的枢纽(caro cardo salutis)，当人的灵魂要与天主契合，则其肉身亦须相应地配合，为使灵魂紧密地与肉身一起行动。清洗肉身是为净化灵魂。在肉身上傅油是使灵魂受到圣化，在肉身上加上印号为使灵魂得到强化，覆手时将影子荫庇在肉身上为使灵魂得到照明，肉身领受基督的体血为使灵魂充满天主。(88)

精神影响物质，物质影响精神是戴都良圣事观的一个重点。

西彼廉Cyprian (+ 258)

「圣事」(sacramentum) 一词在其着作中出现不下60次，一方面是指奥迹，另一方面是指教会的仪式。基督徒透过这些仪式，就像军人一般向天主作出公开的盟誓。西彼廉十分着重个人的操守和信德，甚至如果一个人缺乏正统的信仰，就不能加入教会的团体。

当时在北非的教会中有些人，曾在异端教派中受洗皈依，西彼廉则主张他们要重新受洗。理由如下：除非圣神通过主教祝圣了付洗的水、坚振的油，这些物质的水和油就不能圣化人灵，这理论与戴都良的相仿，但着重了圣职人员(ordained minister) 的角色，没有他们，物质之水就无法得到来自圣神的圣化能力。

基督透过其逾越事件将圣神赐给了教会，而教会只有一个，其他异端之教派并没有圣神，故此他们无法有效地施行圣事。可是当时的罗马教宗斯德望一世(Stephen I + 257)按照罗马教会的传统，不会为皈依的异端人士再付洗，(89) 因为圣洗的效力不在乎圣职人员个人的圣德，而在乎天主神圣的能力。不过，在神学上尚未能完全解释，有效的圣洗行动并不意味受洗人可即时得到完满的圣洗恩宠。其实西彼廉认为异端人士在洗礼中既未能完全领受恩宠，其洗礼就没有效力。这问题要到奥思定时代才能解决。(90)

波亚迪艾的依拉利Hilarius of Poitiers (+ 367)

他认为要参透礼仪行动的意义，就须用「寓意法」(allegorical method) 去诠释圣经的有关内容，同时他较诸其他的作者更喜爱将sacramentum用在礼仪行动上(ritual act)，所以圣洗称为「新生的圣事」，「浸洗和圣神的圣事」是指入门圣事，感恩祭是「基督体血的圣事」或「与天主共融的圣事」，这并非说sacramentum没有隐秘或宣誓的意义，而是他本人简选了礼仪行动的意义。(91)

安博Ambrosius (+ 397)

「奥迹」一词为安博有很多用法：

mysterium Dei (Trinitatis)  天主(圣三) 的奥迹
mysterium Christi  基督的奥迹
(divinitatis, incarnationis, passionis, resurrectionis) (神性、降生、苦难、复活)
mysterium Ecclesiae 教会的奥迹
mysterium creationis 受造物的奥迹

在礼仪方面，他通常将多数的mysteria应用在入门圣事上：

mysteria lavaci 净洗的奥迹

mysteria renovationis 更新的奥迹
mysteria convivii sacri 神圣聚餐的奥迹

其他圣事则用别的字眼：

peccatorum remissio 罪赦
coniugium sanctificatum 祝圣的婚配

对安博来说，奥迹mysterium代表按天主计划逐步实现出来的救恩史，而基督本人则是整个奥迹最卓越的实现。在祂以前已有救恩的事迹，就是旧约的预像。在祂以后教会仍分施祂的救恩，尤其是那些圣事行动，它们使人不断投入这奥秘的历史里，因此，它们成为很多的「奥迹」。

安博特别强调圣经的圣事性，因为在阅读圣经时，吾人就更能明白天主所作的一切。可是，奥迹的主角时常都是天主，因为祂通过不同的事件施予人类救恩。

在类比的意义下，安博用「圣事」(sacramentum) 表达了救恩史的事实，尤其是旧约的事件(sacramenta legis)，圣言之降生(sacramentum Christi)，基督徒的团体(sacramentum ecclesiae)，礼仪行动(sacramentum baptismatis, sacramentum altaris)。故此，圣事是令天主永恒意愿的奥迹(mysterium aeternae voluntatis) 得以在有形的方式重现。这有形之方式特别是指礼仪中的纪念，因为圣神在这些仪式和标记中工作。在外表上是水清洗了人的肉躯，但内里其实是圣神洁净人的灵魂。

有关圣事(圣洗) 的效能，安博引用了很多大巴西略《论圣神》(De Spiritu Sancto) 的思想，在字汇方面有很多相似：肖像(imago)，模样(similitudo)，预像(typos, figura)，这都使人忆起救恩计划如何在历史中实现。在基督之后，更透过礼仪行动透现出来，这一切行动都属天主的(actio Dei)。圣经和礼仪之间亦有密切关系，前者着重奥迹之彰显和宣认天主的奇妙化工，后者则强调奥迹的纪念和实现。(92)

奥思定Augustine (+ 430)

他继承了希腊教父和安博对「奥迹」的看法，深深参透了基督之逾越，教会和圣事性的救恩计划，可是他却集中在「圣事为标记」的意念里(sacramentum-signum)，共分为三个层次：

(1)作为仪式：圣事是指旧约和新约的神圣事迹，旧约的有：安息日、割损礼、祭献、殿宇、礼仪、祭台、逾越节、无酵饼、庆日、司祭职、敷油、饮食的礼节等。新约的有：圣洗、感恩祭、逾越节、圣职授予礼、敷抽、覆手、婚配、修道奉献、信经、天主经、圣经、礼仪庆典、亚孟、亚肋路亚。

(2)作为征象：圣事泛指整部圣经中所有的寓意(allegory)，不论人、事、物、行动，只要是喻意基督和教会的都是圣事。

(3)作为真理：圣事是指天主圣三和降生圣言之奥迹与及整本圣经中谈及基督的事情。

奥思定之所以着重圣事为标记，是为抗衡当时的多纳徒异端者(Donatists)。他们认为只要保留圣洗、圣体和圣秩，就可自成一个教会与基督共融。奥斯定的回应：他们虽有望事，但并没有内在的力量(virtus interna)，换言之，他们只有圣事却没有基督的恩宠。(93)

为更全面处理这问题，他构思了一个相当精密的圣事观，成为日后中世纪圣事神学的蓝图。我们可分下列数点阐明：

(1)圣事被视为一个神圣的标记(sacrum signum)，但与一系列的事情有密切的关系：印号(signaculum)，和祝圣祷文(visibile verbum)，(94) 但最重要的是圣事乃神圣事物的标记(res sacra)。(95) 标记使吾人想起另外一些事实，(96) 所以标记是神圣事物的「模样」(similitudo)。在礼仪行动中表达出来的圣事是记念过往的事迹，为使人意会这圣事标记所指的内容，并在领受时得以圣化。(97) 负载这「模样」的就是元素(elementum) 和祝圣祷文(verbum)，两者一起构成圣事。「取走了言，水还能是什么？它只不过是水而已。言加之于元素就成圣事。」(98)「言」具有活力，可使「元素」变成「神圣事物」的「模样」，因而可蕴藏恩宠。

(2)「圣事」所指向的「神圣事物」(res) 是指圣神在领受者的灵魂上所起的作用：恩宠。(99)从这角度圣事可分：纯圣事标记(sacramentum tantum)，恩宠和圣事标记(res et sacramentum)，纯恩宠(res tantum)。为说明多纳徒异端者只有圣事标记但没有实质(res sacramenti)，奥氏引用印号(signaculum) 来解释。圣洗若以圣三之名举行就可赋予领受者一个不可重覆和不能磨灭之印号，就像银币或军人们的印号，这印号与恩宠不同。正因这印号，受过洗的异端徒不可重覆受洗，但可藉着补赎恢复圣事的功效(reviviscit)。基于这分法，异教人的洗礼只能赋予神印，却没有完全的洗礼功效。(100)

(3)圣事行动的运作

圣事之行动有三个层次：

1.圣事的庆典乃天主圣言(verbum) 的彰显和实现。这里的天主圣言，就圣事为真理而论是耶稣基督；就圣事为征象而论是圣经中的话；就仪式而论是祝圣的经文。圣言既是耶稣基督便可保证「神圣事物」的实效(ex opere operato)。(101)

2.圣事的最终施行人是升了天的降生圣言，祂今天是教会的头，永远不离教会，故此，圣事是教会直接之行动。是基督使在教会内举行的圣事有效。由于异端徒与基督的教会不能完全合一，他们的洗礼只能是神圣的标记，仍可赋予神印，却没有恩宠。(102)

3.圣事的实效与施行人的德行(ex opere operantis) 无关。(103)

(4)圣事的效力

圣事之效能(virtus) 在于圣事之标记(signum) 能具有神圣事物(res) 的模样(similitudo) 在人灵上产生一个「精神形式」(forma spiritalis)，天主就按此形式藉圣神的大能而施恩，不过领受者却要按自身的信德和虔敬程度(virtus pietatis) 获得圣事之恩宠。所以就模样而论，圣事就是目的因(causa exemplaris) 多于产生因(causa efficiens)。假如领受人是婴孩，心智未成熟，没有发出恰当的信德和虔敬，则因教会的信德(fides Ecclesiae) 领受人仍可获得圣事的恩宠。(104)

教宗大良Leo the Great (+ 461)

在他的着作中，mysterium和sacramentum几乎是同义词，后者所用的次数较多，在他的道理集中出现不下130次：

(1)广义来说，sacramentum是指在预像中隐藏的事实，预像具有可见的形态，但其实是指向另一些事情，在这意义下，sacramentum的用法就很接近mysterium的用法，为指出那高超的事实和信理，隐藏在可见的标记(人、事、物) 中。

(2)狭义来说，sacramentum是指天主救恩的计划已在教会的时期里实现出来，例如：基督是救恩的圣事(sacramentum salutis)，祂的事迹也是圣事(sacramentum nativitatis, passionis et resurrectionis)，因为在这些可见的历史事迹背后都有天主的救恩。

(3)从敬礼角度来说，sacramentum是指圣事的庆典，藉此教会追念天主救援的事件，并使天主的奥迹(mysterium) 在「今日」(hodie) 出现在教会的礼仪圣事(sacramentum liturgicum)中。

大良特别以礼仪将「可见的」和「临现的」两个意念融会贯通，每次举行礼仪时(hodie)，都是奥迹此时此地(hic et nunc) 临现在有形的标记里。(105)

教宗大额我略Gregory the Great (+ 604)

虽然mysterium和sacramentum对他来说，并没有清晰的界限，但他偏向用mysterium来描写隐秘和高超的事，而sacramentum是则指礼仪庆典，例如：他用mysterium来描写「感恩祭」，为说明这里藏有很高深和隐秘的事。整体来说，他着重「奥迹的呈现」(mysterium dispensationis)：救恩源于天主圣三的奥迹，在耶稣身上和祂的生平事迹中彰显。圣经是「奥迹的呈现」的宣告，故此又是奥迹的圣事(标记)，对这宣告的认识称为「天主奥迹的明瞭」(divinorum sacramentorum intellectus)。(奥迹这里是用sacramentum的多数)。整个圣事观的脉络系于救恩史(historia salutis)，而救恩史则系于基督，教会的礼仪圣事则是基督在历史中延续救恩的行动。(106)

在最独特的方式下这个祭献是使主的死亡再临现，虽然主已经复活了不再死亡，而且永远活着、永垂不朽、永不衰退，但在神圣祭献的圣事(mysterium) 中，祂重新为我们再一次被祭献(immolatus)。(107)

罗马拉丁礼仪

其实早在第三世纪已出现所谓罗马的礼仪，但当时还是以希腊文为主，215年的依坡里《宗徒传承》就是一个重要的例子，但自第三世纪中之后，罗马的神职班随着社会的改革，也渐渐用拉丁文。在教宗大额我略之前，我们可追溯到两本重要的礼仪书：《良的圣事书》(Sacramentarium leonianum)和《藉拉西奥的圣事书》(Sacramentarium gelasianum)。这两本典籍是为主教或神父用来主持弥撒和圣事的，其中有不变和按礼仪年的可变部份，但通常没有记载读经的部份，因为另有读经典(Lectionarium) 的。两本书皆以两位教宗命名，良一世(Leo I +461) 和藉拉西奥一世(Gelasius I +496)。虽然这两本书并不出于两位教宗的笔迹，但一定有他们的影响和特色。(108)

从这些礼仪书中，吾人可觉察到圣事被视为一种客观的、具有时空场所的事情，例如在弥撒感恩经的祷文Quam oblationem，这经文仍保留在今日感恩经的第一式中，这里按其字面之义再译一次：

天主我们恳求你，在一切事物中，使我们的奉献成为祝福的、登记的、承认有效的、合理的、中悦的礼品，为能变成我们的主耶稣基督、你是爱之子的身体和宝血。(109)

这里所用的五个形容词正反映出罗马拉丁礼的圣事观也是偏向精简、清晰、严谨，偏向「法律性」(juridical) 的风格。

另一方面，在这些拉丁礼仪书中，仍可觉察到希腊教父的圣事观，尤其将mysterium, sacramentum, figura, imago, similitudo视为同义词，但其用法已偏向事情化。例如mysterium和sacramentum的用法：

L = Leonianum G = Gelasianum

□大部份是应用在感恩祭或圣体圣事上

□间中也应用在圣洗上 (L 23 67；G 485 500 508)

□教会有时则称为sacramentum (G 432)

□礼仪庆典和节日 (L 12 21 22 48；G 456 637)

□婚姻 (L33 138)

□宗徒信经 (L 310)

□乳香 (G 429)

□圣水 (G444 445) (110)

小结：

拉丁教父以sacramentum取代了希腊教父mysterion的观念，但基本上仍是将奥迹礼仪化，而且较前人更为着重一些特殊的礼仪行动和神圣事物的标记，举行这些礼仪行动时，是人与天主建立关系的途径，天主的救恩就会临现于此时此地(hic et nunc)，故此在奥迹礼仪化中，浮现一个趋势很容易将圣事物质化。

在教义方面，有关圣事的礼仪意义、来源、元素、效能、效果、神印、教会的信德、婴儿领洗、施行人、领受者的意向及信德等课题，已渐渐纳入一有架构和综合性的体系里。在这方面，奥思定的努力是功不可抹的。

85.参阅KOLPING A., Sacrameotum Tertullianeum (Munster 1948) ; ROCCHETTA C., o.c. 261-263.

86.TERTULLIAN, De bapt. 4 : PL 1, 1240.

87.IDEM, De bapt. 1 : PL 1, 1197.

88.IDEM, De carne resurrectionis 8, 9.

89.参阅DS 46 : "nihil innovetur, nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illis imponatur in poenitentiam."

90.参阅NEUNHEUSER B., o.c. 92-106.

91.HILARIUS OF POITIERS, In Ps. 91, 9 ; De Trin. 5, 3 ; De Trin. 1, 8, 17 ; In Ps. 68, 17 ; 参阅ROCCHETTA C., o.c. 265.

92.参阅FRANCESCONI, Storia e simbolo. 《Mysterium in figura》: la simbolica storico-sacramentale nel linguaggio e nella teologia di Ambrogio di Miliano (Brescia 1981) ; ROCCHETTA C., o.c. 266-267.

93.参阅AUGUSINE, Tract. in ev. Joan. 26,11, "aliud est virtus interna, aliud sacramentum".

94.参阅IDEM, De Civ. Dei 10, 5 : PL 41, 282, "sacrificium ... visibile invisibilia sacrificii sacramentum, id est sacrum signum est". Contra Faustum 19, 11 : PL 42, 357 ; Tract, in ev. Joan. 80, 3.

95.IDEM, In Ep. 138 ad Marc. 7 : PL 33, 527 ;

96.IDEM, De doct. Christiana 2, 1, 1, "Res, praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus, aliud aliquid ex se facieus in cogitationem venire".

97.IDEM, In ep. 55, 1, 2 ; 2, 3, "Sacramentum est autem in aliqua celebratione cum rei gestae commemoratio ita fit ut aliquid etiam significare intellegatur quod sancte accipiendum est".

98.IDEM, Tract, in ev. Joan. 80, 3, "Detrahe verbum, et quid ista aqua nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum, sacramentum fit."

99.IDEM, in ep. Joan. ad Parthos, tract. 6, 3, 11, "Aliud est ergo aqua sacramenti, aliud aqua quae signifcat Spifitum Dei. Aqua sacramenti visibilis est; aqua Spiritus invisibilis. Ista abluit corpus et significat quod fit in anima : per illum Spiritum ipsa anima mundatur et saginatur".

100.参阅164.

101.参阅IDEM, Contra Faustum 20, 33 ; Sermo 227.

102.参阅Contra Litteras Petiliani 3, 49, 59.

103.参阅143.

104.参阅NEUNHEUSER J., o.c. 123.

105.参阅ROCCHETTAC., o.c. 275.

106.参阅Ibidem 276

107.GREGORY THE GREAT, Dial. 4, 58.

108.参阅JUNGMANN J. A., o.c. 126-128, 234-236, 239-307.

109.Ibidem 127 :　

"Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris : ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domiai nostri Jesu Christi."　

在安博的著作中已有记载过：　

"Fac nobis hanc oblationem scriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christ." in AMBROSE, De sacramentis 4, 5, 21.

110.参阅VAGAGGINI C., o.c. 606 n64.

6. 教父对圣事神学的影响

严格来说，教会到了十二世纪才发展成较有系统的圣事神学，基本上也是在这时期，神学渐渐被视为一种具有思想体系的学问，可引入一些人文学科或哲学去整理信仰的内容。教父的圣事观虽不像中世纪的圣事神学那般有系统，但并不表示没有系统，或在内容方面较后期的更为薄弱，相反在很多有关一般圣事总论(De sacramentis in genere) 的课题上，教父确实提供很多佐证。他们当然也影响今日的神学家，不过这里我们只论述那些中世纪的传统圣事课题。

6. 1 圣事是耶稣基督所创立的

教父虽未曾采用十二世纪「建立」(institutio) 一词来说出圣事与基督之间的关系，但在不同的情况中却肯定圣事是源于基督的。

犹斯定谈及感恩祭的饼是我们主耶稣基督命令吾人纪念祂的苦难，为使人灵从罪恶中得到清洗，(111) 奥利振肯定圣洗源于基督，(112) 艾弗伦指出圣体圣事由基督建立，(113)安博明认圣洗和忏悔圣事皆源于基督，(114) 他的一句话可说是综合了教父们的意见：

若非主耶稣，谁会是圣事的作者？这些圣事源自上天！(115)

奥思定主张教会和圣事是主耶稣基督一起创立的：

祂在新的子民形成一个新的团体时，就赐予一些圣事，为数极少，容易遵守，但极有意义的。(116)

当主在昏睡时。即当祂受苦离世。在架上被长矛所剌透时，从祂的肋旁流出了圣事．并藉此建立了教会。(117)

奥思定基于格前4：1，认为圣事不可能源于十二位宗徒，因为他们只是基督的服务员和天主奥迹的管理人，主基督只给了他们权柄施行而非建立圣事。(118)

从教父的着作中，可看出他们从未置疑过圣事是源自基督的，当然那时他们用词方面不像今天的界定一般。圣事与奥迹是互用的，而且在礼仪方面也没有像今天的圣事和圣仪(sacramentals) 来界定前者由主基督所建立，后者由教会所建立。

6. 2 数目和优次

教父着作中虽没有说出圣事有七件，但都有提及脱理腾大公会议的七件个别神圣标记，耶路撒冷的济利禄和安博向慕道者说及三件入门圣事，此外，戴都良也谈及另外两件：病人敷油和忏悔，而到了奥思定的时代，肯定已知道婚配和圣秩圣事。(119)

他们关注如何透过礼仪标记使人更感受到基督的临在，了解奥迹的意义，和准备领受超性的恩宠，生活他们所领受的。主耶稣教了宗徒们天主经，这祷文虽是制定礼仪一个良好的典范，但并非在每次礼仪只念天主经而已。故此，教父们，通常又是教会的牧者，按着主耶稣的意愿，去为当时教外教内的人传福音，设计适合的礼仪，讲解圣经和要理，提供伦理和灵修生活的方式，抗衡当时的败坏风俗和异端，建立更好的团体。

「奥迹」固然要透过礼仪标记而临现，但重要的是便所领受的恩宠在个人生活上结出常存的果实。「奥迹」是整体的、唯一的，但表达奥迹的标记却是多样的、层次分明的、有缺陷的，故此一方面彰显和呈现，同时又使奥迹失色的。教父们并没有很清楚的界线分辨神圣标记的种类。他们不在乎究竟有多少件圣事，重要的是奥迹只有一个。只要能使之临现，祝圣清水也好，付洗也好都是圣事；不论是罪人做的公开补赎，或主教公开地赋予罪赦、接纳他回教会都是圣事；在圣油弥撒中主教祝圣橄榄油或为人敷油都是圣事。在奥思定的时代，一般认为是圣事标记的不下三十件。

可是，不是所有的圣事享有同样的重要性，显然地入门圣事是最为重要，但三者中，圣洗是「重生」的开端，从先决条件而言，圣洗步入奥迹生活最重要的一步；但从圆满的圣事生活看，则以圣体则是所有圣事行动的高峰，因为这是基督身体和奥体互为因果最圆满的表现，甚至很多现今教父学的专家会认同这句话：

教会实现感恩祭，感恩祭实现教会。(120)

6. 3 圣事的元素

教父们承接了宗徒时代的训导，也用了不同的方式指出圣事里的「被定」(determined)和「限定」(determining) 的部份或元素。当然他们并没有十二世纪的圣事「形质论」(matter-form theory)，故此他们的言词和构想亦非完全与这「形质论」贴切，不过，在他们对「奥秘」呈现在礼仪的描写中，经常有提及这「被定」与「限定」的元素。

宜仁谈到杯爵与面饱接受了天主的圣言，方才变成基督身体和宝血的感恩祭。(121) 戴都良称水之所以能具有圣化的能力，是因为呼求了天主，覆手祈福，邀请圣神降来。(122)耶路撒冷的济利禄说敷油是先要经呼求的祈祷文之后方成为基督和圣神之恩赐。(123) 巴西略也提醒过，在预备感恩祭时，可先呼求天主祝圣付洗之水和油。(124) 尼沙的额我略指出在念完祝圣祷文之后的油、水和司铎即时就变得有很大的价值。(125)

拉丁的教父也有同样的看法，安博说若慕道者的洗礼不是因圣三之名而举行的，他们就不能获得罪赦，在感恩祭中，面饼在诵念祝圣祷文前尚是面饼，但祝圣以后，面饼就变成基督的身体。(126)

奥思定更综合了教父们的意见：

取走了言，水还能是什么？它只不过是水而已。言加之于元素就成圣事。(127)

由此可看到当「奥迹」要呈现在礼仪中的「标记」时，那「标记」就是「被定」元素，而祝圣经文就是「限定」元素。

6. 4圣事的效能

教父对圣事的效能虽没有说明其方式，但却直截了当地肯定圣事的仪式能令人得到超性的恩宠。我们简单地列明几个重要的思想。

6. 4. 1 圣事仪式的效能就是恩宠的充盈(infusion)

例如以圣三之名举行的浸洗(loutron) 就能使人能得到罪赦，信仰的照明(photisma)，重生(anagennetheis)，奉献于天主(anethechamen heautous to theo)，基督内新的创造(kainopoi- ethentes dia tou christou)，达至圆满(teleiosis)，亦即完全进入奥迹中，得到印号(sphraghis)。(128)

正如戴都良说：

身体的浸洗是为灵魂的净化，身体的传油是为灵魂得以祝圣，身体接受十字圣号是为灵魂得到保护，身体的覆手是为灵魂得到圣神的照明，身体领受基督的体血是为灵魂得到饱饫。(129)

奥利振：

水的浸洗本身就是上天恩赐的泉源，这通传是因天主圣三之名的大能。(130)

金口若望：

新的入教者知道很清楚他们是经过水洗而重生，因着血和肉而得滋养。(131)

奥思定：

那水何来的大能在它冲洗肉身后竟使灵魂得以净化？(132)

以上所述都是肯定圣事的仪式及标记是使恩宠倾注在人灵上。

教父们用不同的寓意去表达圣事效能的方式。圣洗之水的重生能力被喻为母亲在胎中孕育生命的能力，如金口若望说：

水之于信徒就如母胎之于胎儿，因为他是在水中得到塑造和成型。(133)

正如母亲如何孕育胎儿，可类比到在超性界中，水的孕育众生的能力，虽然本质上有异但都是真正的「生育」(generation)。有时圣洗的效能可比作圣神对童贞女大能的荫庇，圣神使她生育了成了血肉的圣言。如安博所说：

玛利亚非经人的行径，乃因圣神大能而怀孕(……... ...)，假如天主使童贞女怀孕并完成了生育的工程，那么就不该怀疑同样圣神的大能，降临在水池上，或在那些候洗者之上，而实现真正的重生。(134)

良一世：

(天主子) 变成了人，如同我们一般，为使我们能分享天主的本性。祂赋予圣洗池力量，这力量与祂在童贞女胎中所得到的力量是一样的，就是至高者的德能和圣神的荫庇。正如圣神使贞女玛利亚生了救世主，同样也使水的流动重生那些有信德的人。(135)

有时候，教父将圣洗池之水能拥有精神超性的能力与创造之时的太初之水比照，就如戴都良所说：

天主既然按其谕令创造了生命(……) 为此不该惊奇就算在圣洗池的水中能具有孕育之力。(136)

金口若望说：

既然经上记载：水中要系生蠕动的生物(创1：20)，但自从主进入了约旦河，它就不但繁生蠕动的生物，而且是系衍具理性的生命，因为圣神寓居在它们之内。(137)

故此太初之水从教父时代已视为圣洗池的预像，前者能繁衍自然生命，后者则化育超性生命。

6. 4. 2 圣宠的效能是客观的 (ex opere operate)

外在的仪式、标记是有效地举行和领受，圣事就会产生效果。天主自己直接施予恩宠，并非基于施行者或领受人本身的信德或操守，而是藉着仪式，因为外在标记可成为天主产生恩宠的工具。

当然这个信仰上的意识一直都有，尤其在北非教会发生「重领圣洗」和多纳徒异端的争论，奥思定已用了清晰的言词来表达这个观念。首先，「重领圣洗」的问题发生在第三世纪，不但教会(Catholics) 付洗，而且有些异端的教徒(heretics) 也付洗，那么他们的洗礼有效吗？当时有不同的做法，北非的教会和一些东方的教会认为异教徒洗礼无效，故此要皈依的异教者重新再受洗。

罗马和亚历山大教会则承认异教徒洗礼有效，对皈依的异教徒只需作一个修和礼便足够。罗马的做法引起北非教会的犹疑，后者在西彼廉主教的领导下于255－256年间召开会议讨论，并决定继续前例，即重新付洗的做法。教宗斯德望一世极力反对这种做法，于是西彼廉便回应他，认为他和教宗意见相同，声称没有「重新付洗」一事，可是当问及异教徒的洗礼是真正的洗礼吗？西氏的答案是否定的，不过他并不因着这个意见，就否认其他教会有权利按他们的传统行事。由此可见西氏尚未洞悉整个问题的严重性，还以为是每个地方教会的纪律问题。

可是，西彼廉也给了一个神学解释为何异教徒的洗礼不是真正的洗礼。其实这早已源于戴都良的《论洗礼》：即异教徒既以不同的方式付洗，根本就没有洗礼这回事。(138)西氏却从教色角度去分析这事：圣洗不能脱离教会，教会不能脱离圣神，只有一个教会，一个圣神，脱离教会的异端者就脱离圣神，没有圣神也不能有真正的洗礼。(139)

另一方面，罗马的神学则认为圣洗之有效性非基于施行人的个人圣德，却是基于天主圣三的名号，至于有效的圣洗就是否等于即时获得罪赦就不清楚了，这也正是西彼廉的担忧，认为在异端者手中接受的洗礼总不能接受罪赦。然而罗马教会则认为须承认其洗礼行动的有效性，但始终不能达致其圆满之效果，否则亦无须举行修和礼，其中包含做补赎和覆手祈祷。当时尚没有一个理论可整合北非和罗马的神学。但是到了314年在亚力思的议会(Council of Arles) 里，北非终于承认异教徒的洗礼。

在第四世纪教会享有宗教自由，入教的人多了，所以其慕道期及圣洗的仪式也显得更周详和辉煌。不过也兴起一些严厉的学派，如多纳徒学派，他们在北非拒绝接受迦太基的主教西里安(Caecilian consecrated 311)，因为祝圣他的人是斐力思(Felix of Aptunga)，在教难中(Diocletian persecution) 他是一个背教者(apostate)。他们认为西里安的祝圣礼无效，结果自行分离。他们认为教会的成员皆须是圣者，施行圣事的人更须是圣者，否则不能有效地施行圣事。圣洗亦然，只有圣善的司铎可有效地付洗，否则就要重新再行洗礼。这里尚期待一个更完善的洗礼神学解决这问题。

首先是欧达脱(Optatus of Milevis +385) 大概在370年已指出教会的圣德并不建基在个别成员的圣德上，亦非在于主教或司铎身上。其后奥思定更指出在洗礼中是基督本人藉着教会的仆人而付洗。在东方教会的金口若望也有类似的说法：

感恩祭的奉献经常是一样的，不论是保禄或伯多禄奉行圣祭(……... ...) 因为不是人们在祝圣而是祂在祝圣。(140)

6. 4. 3 圣事效能的基础

由于在付洗的礼仪中是呼求天主圣三之名，教父们一般都将圣事之效能立足于天主圣三之上。有些则较为着重圣神，如亚力山大的济利禄所说：

因着圣神的德能，自然之水才充满超性的力量，为圣化那些善用此水的人。(141)

其他的教父，尤以奥思定为主，则着重基督为基础，因为所有圣事行动都同时是祂的行动：

主在祂的苦难前曾比若翰付洗更多的人，然后即时加上，虽然不是祂付洗而是祂的门徒(若4：1－3)。『祂又不是祂』，理由是祂藉权能付洗，门徒藉其职务付洗。他们奉献自己的努力为能付洗，但付洗的权力仍保留在耶稣基督身上。祂的门徒在付洗，其中也有犹达斯，那些由犹达斯付洗的人，并非接受犹达斯的洗，而是接受基督手中的洗。为此，即使那些曾由一个酒徒、凶手、奸淫者所付洗的，若那洗礼是属基督的，则是由基督付洗。所以，我不怕那奸淫者、酒徒、凶手，因为我只注视那白鸽，藉着它人们告诉我：祂就是付洗的那位。(142)

奥思定再用一些例子来申明：

谁曾是一个骄傲的仆人，就被视为与魔鬼同等。但基督的恩宠并不因此受污染。仍毫不受影响地流过，而且很清澈地流过，直达肥沃的土地(... ...……) 水经过石头的水道，流到花床。在水道上并不产生任何影响，但到了花园却生产丰盛的果实。圣事的德能就如光一般，所有领受光的，都呈现得清亮、明朗，即使是经过污秽的地方。(143)

圣事的施行就像一条水道，不论它是甚么造成的，水都可以一样流过而灌溉土地，使之肥沃。圣事之德能就如一粒种籽，即使播种者是一个坏人，但仍藉圣事的内在生命力发芽，不受播种的人所阻滞。就如光能穿透混浊的空气，或污秽的窗口，仍不会因此失去其自然光辉，那些异端者施行圣事，因此，就如那些恶劣的宣讲者，他们虽不堪当，但仍不能遮蔽真理。(144)

奥思定固然着重基督在圣事行动中的主要角色，但并不否定其他教父所肯定的圣神的幅度，荣耀的基督已被提升上天，在那里祂是藉着圣神临现于世，在教会里不停地工作，尤其在救援的圣事礼仪中，说到最后是天主圣三一起的行动。

6. 5 神印

奥思定前期的教父已在不同的情况中肯定圣事其中的一个效果，并用保禄的字眼sphraghis / signaculum，当然他们在这时并没有分清楚这「印号」是否与圣事恩宠(gratia)有别。

安提约基雅的依纳爵认为信友应有别于非信友。后者具有这个世界之特色，前者则在爱德内，拥有藉耶稣基督而来的天父的「印号」。藉此「印号」，若我们不甘愿死于祂的苦难中，我们就不能获得祂赐予我们的生命。(145) 海美的《牧者》(Pastor of Hermas约155) 亦在罗马提出：

人在接受天主子的名号之前，就已注定要死亡，就在死亡时他接受那印号(sphraghis)，从死亡中得到释放，从而达至生命。那印号就是水洗，所以步入水中时人就死去，但从水中出来时就得生命。(146)

罗马的克来肋孟劝导信友：

要保持你们身体的贞洁和那印号的完美无瑕，为能获得永生。(147)

在第二世纪末，我们可从亚历山大的格来孟，得知一个称为德道的玄识学者(Theodorus the Gnostic)，也承认印号的存在。信友藉着基督在自己身上刻有天主的名字，而圣神则是肖像。即使是畜牲也有一个印号表示所属的羊栈，同样，灵魂既是忠信地接受过真理的印号，就在自己身上带上基督的伤痕。(148)

戴都良谈到「信德之印号」(149)「水洗的印号」，(150) 人除非由经基督苦难的印证没法得救。(151)

依玻理说基督赋予信徒祂的印号，而「反基督」(Antichristus) 就赋予野兽的记号。(152)西彼廉将主印号视为坚振圣事的表现。(153)

奥林普的梅铎弟(Methodius of Olimpus +311)描写神印时这样说：

那些受过照明(受洗) 的人，(ad virilem vere animum) 接受基督的白衣(linamenta) 和肖像(effigiem)，又以真正大丈夫(基督) 的胸襟带上祂的面容(adspectum)。(降生) 圣言的轮廓(Verbi forma)，按着模样(secundum similitudinem)。印在他们之上。同时透过肯定的知识和信德，这圣言的轮廓在他们身上孕育，为能使基督在每个灵魂上能诞生。(154)

艾佛伦说：

圣神以傅油，在祂的羊中打上印号。正如介指印在腊上，同样圣神的印记本来是隐而不现的，但通过傅油，印在因着圣洗而团结一致的候洗者的心里。(155)

亚达纳在与人争辩圣神的天主性时强调，即使傅油是称为圣神，但其实是印号(……... ...)，这印号为保存基督施印者的肖像，那些受印者就能分沾其效果而肖似基督。(156)

耶路撒冷的济利禄谈到：

圣神的印号永世不灭，

那奥秘的印号为能再次得到上主的认识，

一个充满救恩和奇妙的印号，

天上和属神的印号，

通传天主圣神的印号。

然后透过坚振圣事：

你所得到的天主印号，为使你按着印号的肖像，天主的圣德而被塑造。(157)

大巴西略 (+ 379)：

受洗对奴隶来说是赎身的代价，因为是债权人的宽免、罪恶的死亡、灵魂的重生、发光的衣服、任何力量都不能击破的印号、往天堂的交通工具、王国的修和成为义子的恩赐。(158)

同时又说：

一个宝藏若没有印记就很容易遭受盗贼的偷窃，羊群没有印号就易受到围攻。(159)

尼沙的额我略论到领受圣秩圣事的人说：

司铎昨日只是众多平信徒中之一个，现在却成为首领、导师、灵修大师，是进入隐密奥秘的领路人(... ...……) 现在他的灵魂已经历一个不可见的和更好的转化，这是由于恩宠和不可见的大能之故。(160)

金口若望：

在圣洗中你将变成王者，司祭和先知(……) 就如在兵士印上一个记号，圣神也在信友身上印上记号，故此，如你离开自己的岗位，就会给所有的人看见。犹太人就有割损礼作为印记，而我们就有圣神的保证。(161)

安博：

天主籍圣神在我们身上印上了记号，就如我们在基督内死去而得重生。我们能在圣神内得到印号。为此，我们可带着祂的光辉，肖像和恩宠。这就是精神上的印号，虽然表面上我们是在肉身上受印，其实是在心灵上受印，因此，圣神可在我们之内塑造天上的肖像的面容。(162)

宜仁：

藉着圣神我们领受父和子的肖像和刻划，所以，是在圣洗中因圣三之名而领受圣三的肖像。(163)

奥思定可说是综合了各家学说，并应对当时「重洗」的争论，为「神印」建立了一个相当圆满的神学解释。上文提过「重洗」的问题归根究底也是圣洗效能的问题，北非教会主张重洗是因为异端徒没有圣神，故他们的付洗无效，罗马教会主张不重洗，但亦很难说明异教徒的付洗所得的效益又是甚么？与正统教会付洗的效益完全一样吗？

奥思定就此问题就将圣事的效果分为有效性(validitas) 和有益性(utilitas)，异端教会所付的洗若因圣三之名(有效地) 举行，可使领受人得到圣洗之印号(character)，这印号可使领受人渐渐开明，顺从圣神，放弃异端，当异端的障碍清除，领受人便可得到圣神的恩宠(gratia)，圣洗为便便有益了。

受洗人领受了重生的神圣标记，不遏尚要看他接受圣事时心里是否有爱德，如果没有他只接受印号，就像一个逃兵周围游荡。(164)

论及坚振：

坚振圣事从其外在标记看来是神圣的，就如圣洗一般，但亦可印在最坏的人身上，但由于他们过着肉性的生活，故不能拥有天国。(165)

论及圣秩：

主教若从裂了教的教会回归，就不应再为他们举行授予圣秩礼。因为正如在他们身上所受过的圣洗并没有被取消，同样圣秩圣事亦不被取消(... ...……)。不论怎样，如果他们不在爱德中和教会合一，对他们只会带给他们坏处。可是，一样是有效，另一样是没有效；一样是有效无益，另一样是有效又有益。(166)

6. 6 施行人的意向

这里要讨论的是施行人本身的意向与圣事效能之关系。早在第四世纪教会面对有关「重洗之争」时已浮现过这问题。当时北非的主教以西彼廉为首认为异端者既然已离开教会就不能藉洗礼通传恩宠。教会之外无救恩(extra Ecclesiam nulla salus est)，异端者的洗礼故此是无效的。这与罗马和亚力山大教会的做法不同。当时教宗斯德望一世承认异端者的洗礼有效，他们回皈时只须覆手修和即可，不用再次付洗(DS 110)。曾有一个夫名作家在256年间在北非写过《重洗论》(De rebaptismate)，他强调「自远古的习愤」早已不重洗皈依的异端者。(167) 这里没有神学理由只有传统的做法。

后来到了第四世纪，欧达脱(Optatus of Milevis) 斩钉截铁地说：

工人是可变的，圣事本身是不可变的。正如你们所见，所有付洗的人都是工人而不是主人。圣事并不因为施行人而成为神圣的。(168)

奥思定亦步武他的芳踪，从建立圣事的基督去肯定圣事的效能：

圣洗并非因施行人或领受人的功劳，而是基于其内在的圣德和真理。因着那位建立圣事者的缘故，谁若不妥善地领受圣事就会失落，谁妥善地领受就会得救。(169)

这里已开始有神学的理由解释，即使施行人的信德不足，但圣事仍然有效。

可是，问题随之变得更尖锐化，曾有传说，发生在四世纪初的亚历山大城，一群小孩到海边玩耍，将圣堂内的礼节假戏真做一次，后来被发现了，于是就产生一个问题：假如一个人在演戏中完全按照教会的方式和言语举行圣事，而自己是不相信的，这圣事会有效吗？

我们可参详奥思定的答案。首先他承认在教会之外举行的圣事是有效的。领受人可以一次而永远在神印中领受了「形式」(forma：可译作轮廓) 成为基督。他确实成为基督的肢体，而获得能力、希望和权利去承接天主的恩宠和永远的福乐，虽然他并不直接地领受恩宠和福乐本身?或至少后者并非是必然的。(170) 只要按照教会所规定的方式(regula ecclesiastica) 去付洗，那圣洗便有效，至少可赋予领受神印?客观地被祝圣?准备领受天主恩宠。故此，基于这客观的祝圣，奥思定认为，甚至在不认真的状况中所举行的洗礼都「可能有效」。(171)

这说法与奥思定的名句「言加之于元素始能成为圣事」相符，不过奥氏肯定要避免将圣事视为「自动成事」的看法，所以他只能说纵使不认真地举行洗礼「可能有效」。为甚么「可能有效」？因为，倘若圣事施行人尚放置障碍(obicem ponere)，(172) 那么圣事须按障碍的性质而定圣事的有效性。但奥思定隐含地指出为施行人的意向有障碍(缺乏信德) 时，只要他们满全教会的规定便算有最低的意向，让基督在他身上成事。当然这问题到了中世纪有更明确的答案。

111.参阅JUSTIN, Dial., 41 : PG 6, 546.

112.参阅ORIGEN, In Rom. comm. 5, 8 : PG 14, 1039.

113.参阅S. EPHRAEM OF SYRUS, Hymni 4, 4 in LAMY ed. 1, 416, 422.

114.参阅AMBROSE, Expositio ev. Lc. 2, 83 : CSEL 32, 4, 87 ; PL 15, 1583 ; De Paenit. 2, 12, 12 : PL 16, 499.

115.IDEM, De sacramentis 4, 4, 1 : PL 16, 439.

116.AUGUSTIN, Epist. 54, 1, 1 : PL 33, 200 ; "Sacrameniis in numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, societatem novi populi colligavit."　

奥思定早已用过「建立」(instituere) 一词，参阅注169.　

后来脱理腾大公会议也用同样的词句，参阅DS 1601.

117.IDEM, Tract, in ev. Joan. 5, 7 : PL 35, 1417, "Ex latere Domini dormientis, id est, in passione morientis, et in cruce percusso de lancea manaverunt sacramenta ex quibus formaretur Ecclesia".

118.参阅Ibidem, "Sibi tenit Dominus baptizandi potestatem, servis ministerium dedit".

119.详细的出处请参阅NICOLAU M., Teologia del segno sacramentale (Roma 1971) 218.

120."Ecclesia facit eucharistia, eucharistia facit ecclesiam这句话源于De LUBAC H., Corpus Mysticum. L'Eucharistie et 1'Eglise au Moyen Age (Paris 1944).作者用这句话综合了教父和中世纪的神学。有关其他现代作者对这句话的认同，参阅TRIACCA A.M., Ecclesia facit Liturgiam, Liturgia facit Ecclesiam, in FELICI S. (ed.), Ecclesiologia e catechesi patristica (Roma 1982) 255-294.

121.参阅IRENAEUS, Adv. haer. 5, 2, 2 : PG 7, 1124.

122.参阅TERTULLIAN, De bapt. 4 ; CSEL 20, 204 ; PL 1, 1204.

123.参阅CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, Catech. 21, 3 : PG 33, 1089.

124.参阅BRASIL, De Spiritu Sancto 27, 66 : PG 32, 188.

125.参阅GREGORY OF NYSSA, Oratio in diem lumiourn sive in baptismum Christi : PG 46, 581.

126.参阅AMBROSE, De mysteriis 4, 20 : PL 16, 394. De Sacramentis 4, 4, 14 : PL 16, 439.

127.参阅92.

128.这些都可在Didache, S. Justin, Epist. of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, Hippolytus的作品中可找到，参阅NEUNHEUSER Baptism and Confirmation 61-66.

129.TERTULLIAN, De carnis resurrectione 8 : PL 2, 802.

130.ORIGEN, In Joan. 6, 17 ; PG 14, 257.

131.JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Homil. 85 In Joan.: PG 59, 463.

132.AUGUSTINE, Tract, in ev. Joan. 80, 3 : PL 35, 1840.

133.JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, In Joan. ev. 1 : PG 59, 153, "non ultra mater, non ultra partus, non somni, non concubitus est amplexus : sursum tandem naturae nostrae texilur opiricium ex spiritu et aqua. Aqua autem assumpta est, partus genito facta. Quod est matrix embryoni, hoc est aqua fidei : in aqua enim fingitur et formatui".

134.AMBROSE, De Sacramentis 9, 59 : PL 16, 426.

135.LEO I, Sermo V in Nat. Domini 5 : PL 54, 211.

136.TERTULLIAN, De bapt. 3 : PL 1, 1310.

137.JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Homil. 26 in Joan. 1 : PG 59, 153.

138.TERTULLIAN, De bapt. 15, "... nec baptismus unus, quia non idem ; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent".

139.CYPRIAN, Ep. 74, 4.

140.JOHN CHYSOSTOM, Homil. 2 Tm 4 : PG 62, 612.

141.CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, In Joan Ev. 3, 5 : PG 73, 243.

142.AUGUSTINE, Tract, in ev. Joan. 5, 18 : PL 35, 1424.

143.Ibidem.

144.参阅Ibidem.

145.参阅IRENAEUS, Ad Magnesios 5 : PG 5, 665-667.

146.PASTOR OF HERMA, Simil. 9, 16, 3 : PG 2, 995-996.

147.CLEMENT OF ROME, Epist. II ad Corinthos 8 : PG 1, 341.

148.CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, Excerpta ex Theodoto PG 9, 698.

149.TERTULLIAN, De spectaculis 24 : PL 1, 731.

150.IDEM, De pudicitia 9 : PL 2, 1050.

151.IDEM, Adv. Iudaeos 13 : PL 2, 675.

152.参阅HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME, De Antichristo 2 ; PG 10, 734.

153.参阅CYPRIAN, Epist. 73, 9 : PL 3, 1115.

154.参阅METHODIUS OF OLIMPUS, Convivium decern virginum 8, 8 : PG 18, 149, " Ii qui illuminantur, christi linamenta effigiemque ad virilem vere animum adspectumque assumunt, Verbi forma, quae secundum similitudinem, illis impressa, et per certam scientiam fidemque in eis progenita, ita ut in unoquoque spiritualiter nascatur ".

155.EPHRAEM, in ASSEMANI, Bibiot. Orient. 1, 94.

156.参阅ATHANASIUS, Epist. ad Serapionem : PG 26, 583-586 : "Unctio quoque spiritus dicitur, et est etiam sigillum (...) Sigillum vero signantis christi effigiem servat, cuius qui signantur participes effecti, ad eam conformantur".

157.CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, Protocath. 17 : PG 33, 371 ; Catech. 1, 3 : PG 33, 374 ; Catech. 17, 36-37 : PG 33, 1010 ; Catech. 18, 33 : PG 33, 1055 ; Catech. 22, 7 : PG 33, 1102.

158.BRASIL, Homil. 13 in S. bapt. 5 : PG 31, 434,　

"Baptismus captivis est redemptionis pretium, debitorum condonatio, mors peccati, regencratio animae, indumentum lucidum, sigillum quod conatu ullo frangi potest, vehiculum ad coelum, regni conciliator, adoptionis donum".

159.Ibidem 4 : PG 31, 431, "thesaurus non obsignatus diripi a furibus facile potest : ovi signo carenti tuto struntur insidiae".

160.GREGORY OF NYSSA, in bapt. Christi : PG 46, 585.

161.JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Homi. 3 in 2 Cor., 7 : PG 61, 417-418.

162.AMBROSE, De Spiritu Sancto 1, 6 : PL 16, 752.

163.IRENAEUS, Adv. haer. 3, 13 : PG 7, 911.

164.AUGUSTINE, Tract, in ev. Joan. 6, 6 : PL 35, 1456.

165.IDEM, Contra Epist. Petilliani 2, 239 : PL 43, 312.

166.IDEM, Contra Epist. Parmeniani 2, 13, 28 : PL 43, 70.

167.参阅Anonimus, De rebaptismate c. l, 6, 15 ; MARTINS, o.c. 246.

168.OPTATUS OF MILEVIS, De schismate donatistarum adv. Parmenianum 5, 4 : PL 11, 10537, "Operarii mutari possunt, sacramenta mutari non possunt. Cum ergo videtis, omnes qui baptizant, operarios esse, non dominos, et sacramenta per se esse sancta, non per homines".

169.AUGUSTINE, Contra Cresconium 4, 19 : PL 43, 559, "non eorum meritis a quibus ministratur, nec eorum quibus minisiratur, constare baptismum, sed propria sanctitate atque veritate, propter eum a quo institutus est, male utentibus ad pernicem, bene utentibus ad salutem".

170.参阅NEUNHEUSER, o.c. 120.

171.参阅Ibidem. 120 ; AUGUSTINE, De bapt. VII 53, 101.

172.其实是奥思定早已用过"obicem ponere" 一词。AUGUSTINE, Epis. 98, 10.

后来脱理腾大公会议也用同样的词句，参阅DS 1606。

7. 结论

综合上述，教父们的圣事观主要地是源于一种牧者的关怀，加上从宗徒承继下来的传统，面对当时的文化而将奥迹礼仪化。我们已述说了这过程中他们经常所采用的言词，他们中一些较有代表性的思想和留下了丰富的精神遗产，让后世的神学家继续寻求对圣事奥迹的了解。在结论中，我们会提出教父在奥迹礼仪化的三个核心。

第一个核心是现世历史

它涵概整个人类过往、现在和将来的生命历程，包括人的起源和终局。奥思定在这课题综合了教父的意见。在他的《天主之城》一书中，用了天上之城和地下之城的寓意来描写现世历史，将天人合一视为这个历程(procursus civitatum) 的目标，否则这历程本身的意义就不大。

历史就像两座城建基在不同的爱上：对自我的爱和对天主的爱。它的进程就像一个五幕剧：创造，天使和人的失足，基督来临的准备期，圣言降生和教会的创立，人的终局。剧中出现两股势力：天主和撒旦。人在世上要挣脱邪魔的掣肘，投奔天主。在这挣扎中天主站在人那边。

奥思定的地上之城有两个用法，一是描写属撒旦的恶人，二是正在世上挣扎向善的人。整个历史的主人是天主，祂的爱从创世已申延到人的历史，悉心地照顾地上之城(向善的人)，使俗世的平淡、虚浮与幻灭，平添更高的意义，人成为天主慈爱的对象。从地上之城的角度看，俗世成为天主慈爱、美善的征象：

地上之城的一部份是天上之城的一个征象，它『在奴仆的束缚之中』，因为它本身并无自身的任何涵义，作为奴仆，它却具有意指另一个城市的功能，因为它之存有，并非为了自身的原因而是为了预示另一实体。(... ...……) 我们在地上之城发现两件事：它自身的明显存在，以及它对天上之城的象征性展示。(173)

可是，随着道成血肉的事件，天主更进一步参与人类的历史，而人的历史更进一步成为天主的历史，致使现世的生活成为天国的幼芽和开端。换言之，它并不单纯地意指将来天过圆融的境界，也蕴藏着其中的实质。吾人的信、望、爱得以冲破死亡的弧线，既可申延到来生的荣福，也将永恒引进而充实今世的浮生。

第二个核心是基督奥体

每个处身在历史中的人都有机会将其平淡、虚浮、幻灭的生活变得更为充实，提升到更高境界，只要让降生的圣言临现到自己生活的境况中，这样人的历史就会有崭新的意义，就是一切都在祂统领下，回归天父那里。

事实上，降生的圣言仍与教会密切结合，成为一个妙身，前者为首，后者为肢体，教会就是奥体之首的彰显，并且按基督的意愿，再一次使祂的救世大业伸延到每个人身上。基督本身是万民之光，教会则将这光反映出来照耀到每一个人，教会是一件圣事就是说教会与天主亲密结合，以及全人类彼此团结的记号和工具。(174) 最终，基督奥体就是天主的新子民，「一个在父、子及圣神的统一之下，集合起来的民族。」(175)

第三个核心是礼仪行动

为此在教会内有些特殊的行动，是使基督临现在吾人的生活境况中。这就是教父所关心的「奥迹礼仪化」的过程，亦即按基督的意愿，通过一些仪式和征象，使祂介入吾人的生活中，仍然召唤、陪伴、滋养、宽恕、治疗、振奋我们。祂临在于祈祷的团体中、圣言宣读中、饼与酒的圣事中，又以其德能临在于圣事内，因而无论谁付洗实为基督亲自付洗。(176)

圣事之行动实为基督圣化吾人的行动，源于祂的司祭职，在祂奥体中延续，成为礼仪的庆典和纪念，藉此，吾人以虔敬、温顺、活泼的信德，仗赖圣神的力量，归光荣于天父。这光荣的敬礼实乃吾人满怀感恩和喜悦之情接受天主的恩赐，进入基督的逾越奥迹，迈向生活的顶峰，「丰盛人生乃天主荣耀」(homo vivens Gloria Dei)，这就是礼仪上所谓的「美妙的交易」(commercium admirabile)。

行笔至此，我更感到，教父的圣事观与其说是一套神学理论，毋宁说是一种人生慧境。宇宙人生有许多超乎形象之外的真理，经虚涉旷，玄秘幽邃，如空中之音，相中之色，言则有尽，意则无穷。白居易有一首禅诗：

须知诸相皆非相，若住无余却有余，

言下忘言一时了，梦中说梦两重虚。

非相、无余、忘言、梦虚尽述一片形象之内的虚空，但「须知」一语却确立吾人终能幻中见真，虚中见实，简直呼之欲出。诗人很含蓄和巧妙地邀请吾人自行参透，究竟甚么将虚空充实了。

人生活在形象与真理之间，要参悟生命之庄严和谐，寄人生于至善之美，全靠人心灵里澄澈的天机和妙悟。圣言成人就是以天机点化吾人的心灵，圣神降临就是导人迈向这妙悟。尽管在教父时代盛行新柏拉图主义，强调形象与真理的二分化，舍形象而达真理，但教父们面对降生的圣言，就领悟原来虚浮的形象已为永恒的真理所充实。只要尽心尽性地生活现在，就可让真理开创自己的人生，则大智油然而生，大慧峨然而出，人生慧境在望矣。教父所体验的圣事亦即是这个新的转化。

基督来到约旦河，

将整个旧亚当埋葬在水中；

圣神籍鸽子形状降下，

从此祂藉着水和圣神，

开始一个新的造化。(177)

参考书籍

Di BERNARDINO A., Dizionario Patristico e di Antichita III = Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum Roma (Geneva : Marietti 1983 1984 1988)

CARROLL T.K.－HALTON T., Liturgical Pratice in the Fathers = Message of the Fathers of the Church 21 (Wilmington : Michael Glazier 1988)

CAYRE F., Precis de Patrologie et d'Histoire de la Theologie II (Paris : Desclee 1927-1930), English Transi. by H.HOWITT, Manual of Patrology and History of Theology (Paris : Desclee 1936-1940). 中译：吴应枫，《教父学大纲》　四卷　台北　光启 1975-1976。

CHUPUNGCO AJ.(dir.), La liturgia, i Sacramenti: teologia e storia della celebrazione = Anamnesis 3/1, a cura dei professori del Pontifico Istituto Liturgico S.Anselmo di Roma (Genova : Marietti 1986)

JURGENS W.A., The Faith of the Early Fathers I-III (Collegiville : Liturgical Press 1970-1979).

MARSILI S.(dir.), La liturgia, Encharistia : teologia e storia delta celebrazione = Anamnesis 3/2, a cura dei professori del Pontifico Istituto Liturgico S.Anselmo di Roma (Casale Monferrato : Marietti 1983)

NOCENT A., Sacramento, in DPA 3051-3059.

QUASTEN J., Patrology I-III (Utrecht : Spectrum 1950, 1953, 1960) 第四册由八位学者在罗马的 Augustinian Patristic Institute完成Di BERARDINO A. (ed.), Patrology IV (Westminster : Christian Classics 1986). SOLARI P. OSB译自意大利文的 Patrologia III (Torino : Marietti 1978)，开卷语由Johannes QUASTEN教授执笔。

SARTORE D.－TRIACCA A.M., Nuovo Dizionario di Liturgia (Roma : Edizioni Paoline (2) 1984)

VAGAGGINI C., Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy (Collegeville : The Liturgical Press 1976), English Transl. by DOYLE L.J.－JURGENS W.A., I1 sense teologico della liturgia (Roma : Edizioni Paoline (4) 1965).

WILLS J.R. (ed.), The Teaching of the Church Fathers (New York: Herder & Herder 1966) 401-493.


  173.AUGUSTINE, De civ. Dei 15, 2.　

奥思定用了迦4：21－31的「寓意」来表达。亚巴郎有两个儿子，一个生于婢女，一个生于自由的妇人。前者按常例而生代表地上的耶路撒冷，后者按恩许而生代表天上的耶路撒冷，前者曾迫害过后者，但经上记载：你将婢女和她的儿子赶走，因为婢女的儿子不能与自由妇人的儿子，一同承受家业。这「寓意」是说明现世已混杂将来入居天主之城的善人，和地上之城(撒旦) 的人在一起。在现世，前者被后者磨难；但在将来，前者要承受恩许，而后者则被摒弃。

174.参阅Lumen Gentium 1, "LUMEN GENTIUM cum sit Christus, haec Sacrosancta Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto congregata, omnes homines claritate Eius, super faciem Ecclesiae resplendente, illuminare vehementer exoptat, omni creaturae Evangelium annuntiantdo. Cum autem Ecclesia sit in Christo veluti sacramentum seu signum et instrumentum initimae cum Deo unionis totiusque generis humani unitatis, naturam missionemque suam universalem (…) declarare intendit".　

梵二在《教会宪章》中开宗明义说明教会于世界和历史来说就是圣事。

175.Lumen Gentium 4, "Sic apparet universa Ecclesia sicuti 'de unitate Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti plebs adunata".

原文的注释说明这句话是引用了教父们的思想。

176.AUGUSTINE, Tract. In ev. Joan. 4, 1, 7 : PL 35, 1428.

177.参阅GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, Disc. 39, 14 论基督洗礼的道理词：PG 36, 351.

by Patrick Taveirne, CICM

THE EUROPEAN ROOTS OF THE MODERN MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE

This paper will offer a concise description of the modern European context in which the Catholic missionary undertaking of the French Vincentian Fathers, Congregatio Missionis, CM, and later on of the Belgian and Dutch Scheut Fathers, Congregatio Immaculati Cordis Mariae, CICM, developed. Both missionary institutes were active in South Mongolia and North China during the nineteenth century. Although there was no ecumenical spirit or cooperation in the missionary movement, the Protestant missionary enterprise will be described here in order to compare the main characteristics of both undertakings. The actual development of the Belgian and Dutch missionary activities (1870-1922) within a Sino-Mongol context－the Ordos region, to be precise－is the topic of my forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation and will not be discussed here.

The Growing Crisis of the "Propagation of the Faith" during the Counter Reformation and the Enlightenment

Propaganda Fide and Missio

During the sixteenth century the propaganda fide, "propagation of the faith", was linked up with the Iberian overseas expansion. The ecclesio-political symbiosis was the result of the Treaties of Alcacovas-Toledo (1479-1480) and Tordesillas (1494), and of numerous papal bulls, such as Romanus Pontifex of Nicholas V (1454), Inter Caetera Divinae, and Dudum Siquidem of Alexander VI (1493), which allowed Spain and Portugal eventually, with papal consent, to divide the world between them. According to the South African missiologist David J. Bosch, the papal bulls were based on the medieval assumption that the Pope as dominus totius orbis held supreme authority over the entire globe, including the non-Christian world. Herein lies the origin of the right of patronage (patronado in Spanish and padroado in Portuguese), a type of "royal vicariate", according to which the Holy See delegated to the rulers of the two countries the Christianization of the New World, the nomination of bishops, and the administration of religious benefices.(1)

Some historians and missiologists consider the Iberian overseas expansion and missionary enterprise as the continuation of the age-long European adaptation to and confrontation with an expansive and dynamic Islam. Thanks to the Arabs, medieval Europe assimilated several scientific, technological, and cultural innovations, which in turn shaped the European expansion. The Eastern Crusades, the Western Reconquista, the failed attempt of Pope Innocent IV to enter into an alliance with the Mongols, were all part of an increasing confrontation. The emergence of a merchant class and the search for gold, spices and silk, further stimulated the European "discoveries".(2)

From the beginning, the religious factor played a motivating role in European expansion and provided juridico-moral justification for it. According to the Spanish lawyer and Carmelite, Diego Sanchez de Avila, better known by his monastic name of Thomas a Jesu, the commonly used term Propaganda Fide meant not only the conversion of all unbelievers, but also of all schismatics, Jews, and Saracens.(3) Thus the purpose of the "propagation of the faith" was both the universal expansion and the unity of the Church. The new term missio, "mission"－used by the founder of the Jesuit Order, Ignatius of Loyola－derived its meaning from the papal right to send (mittere in Latin) and to assign ecclesiastical envoys, "missionaries", to a particular place, "mission".(4) The main object of the founding of the Society of Jesus in 1540 by Ignatius was the defence and propagation of the faith. At that time, however, the use of the term "mission" was not yet wide-spread.

The growing awareness of the disadvantages resulting from the Portuguese and Spanish alliance between Throne and Altar, the particularism of the different religious Orders, the Counter Reformation－these and similar circumstances were to a certain extent conducive to the formation, in 1622, of the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, "Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith", SCPF. This new dicastery of the Roman Curia was the result, not only of the Pope's response to the colonial missionary policies of Spain and Portugal, but also of the centralizing and reforming spirit that prevailed after the closure of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).(5) The privilege of Christianizing the newly-discovered lands became the exclusive monopoly of the Holy See. While Rome would eventually play a more central and directive role in the "propagation of the faith", the Holy See now started to appoint titular bishops or vicars apostolic (Vicarii Apostlici Domini).(6) They performed ecclesiastical functions on behalf of the Pope in non-Christian as well as in non-Catholic areas, the vicariates apostolic. By creating these vicariates, rather than dioceses, in the overseas missions, the Holy See wanted to bypass the padroado and limit its pretensions. This move of sending papal representatives reflected at the same time the post-medieval ecclesiology of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine on the universal Roman jurisdiction and character of the missionary enterprise. The ecclesiastical authority of the vicars apostolic also raised the sensitive issue of collaboration with the religious missionaries. The introduction of the new ecclesiastical structure was to lead to serious jurisdictional disputes in some mission fields, especially in British India, between the padroado and apostolic missionaries.(7)

The Holy See de facto lost its monopoly of Christianizing the non-Christian world with the crucial role played by the Protestant Nadere Reformatie, "Second Reformation", in Holland, by Puritanism in the Anglo-Saxon world, and by the rise of the Protestant maritime powers, England, Holland, and Denmark. In 1649, the New England Company was founded in England to underwrite the Protestant missionary enterprise in the transatlantic colonies. Dutch overseas mission work began in Formosa－modern Taiwan－in 1627. In the beginning of the eighteenth century the Danish king sent German pietist missionaries to the Danish settlement of Tranquebar in Southeast India. In 1727, a small Russian Orthodox ecclesiastical mission was established in Peking, but apparently did not carry on any missionary activities.

France, until then absent from the Catholic missionary scene, went through a period of revival during the seventeenth century. Extraordinary and itinerant preaching or "missions" were undertaken by regular clerics and Jesuits among the Protestant reformed local population. Under the influence of the founder of the Oratory (1611), the French Cardinal Pierre de Berulle, the now widely used word "mission" received a new christological meaning : the mission of the Incarnate Word. For Vincent de Paul, a farmer's son, "mission" meant the extraordinary preaching which he undertook in 1617 among the religiously abandoned Catholic rural populace of Folleville (Chatillon-sur-Chalaronne, eastern France). From this experience there originated both the missiones paroeciales, "parochial missions", and the Congregatio Missionis, "Congregation of the Mission", CM, established in 1625 by Vincent de Paul.(8) The Compagnie du Saint-Sacrament, "Company of the Holy Sacrament", was founded a few years later by Henri de Levis, Duke of Ventadour, whose clerical and lay members devoted themselves to charitable deeds and the promotion of "parochial missions" in rural and urban areas. The Company's project of foreign missions was not realized, mainly because of the intervention of the Vincentians' procurator at the SCPF.(9)

By 1662, the first emissaries of the Societe des Missions Etrangeres de Paris, MEP, had left France, due to the efforts of a French Jesuit missionary, Alexandre de Rhodes and some members of the "Company of the Holy Sacrament". They found in Siam－modern Thailand－a more favorable reception than elsewhere, but they also sought entrance to Tongking and Cochinchina－modern Vietnam. In 1680, Jean-Dominique Cassini, the director of the astronomical observatory in Paris, approached French government authorities about the possibility of sending some Jesuits as royal mathematicians to make astronomical observations in the Orient. The plan was not realized until 1684, when Philippe Couplet, a Flemish Jesuit missionary from China, visited Louis XIV and also discussed with the Jesuits in Paris the matter of procuring personnel. Later that year, envoys from Siam arrived at the court of Versailles. This event prompted the king to send six Jesuits to the East.(10)

The French missionary effort aimed at reunifying the Protestants with Catholicism at home and at liberating the Holy Land and converting all unbelievers abroad. On the SCPF 's side, more missionary responsibility was given to the local bishops, while the missionary activities of the religious Orders were more closely supervised. Thus, whereas the Jesuits were now much more active in the French countryside, the new missionary institutes went overseas. Secular clerics, such as the Oratorians, Sulpicians, and Vincentians, as well as lay people, followed the regular French Capuchins, who participated in the French missionary enterprise.(11)

Orthodoxy, Moral Rigorism, and Ethnocentrism

After Trent, the Counter Reformation and the "propagation of the faith" were both characterized by their Europocentric emphasis on dogmatic orthodoxy. In the Gallican Church, however, one of the characteristics of the Catholic Reformation during the seventeenth century was its emphasis on moral rigorism and pastoral pragmatism rather than theological orthodoxy.(12) Yet the growing influence of the Enlightenment, the development of several doctrinal controversies and political disputes, weakened the Propaganda Fide by sowing dissension and uncertainty among the Catholic missionaries.

The missionaries at the time discussed the different missio-logical methods, without giving much room for the cultural accommodation of Catholicism in non-Christian cultures. Some sinologists explain this limitation as one of the reasons why the expeditio Christiana "failed" in contrast to the successful Chinese inculturation of Indian Buddhism." The attempt by the Italian Jesuit, Matteo Ricci, to understand Chinese civilization in its own right and to present Catholicism to the intellectual elite and to the general population stands as a contribution to that discussion.

In its Instructions of 1659 to the vicars apostolic of Indo-china, the SCPF advocated the formation of a numerous native clergy ; the adaptation to the local customs and culture ; the adequate spiritual and intellectual formation of the missionaries ; the financial independence and the purely spiritual character of the mission. The missionaries were to abstain from politics and commerce and to consult the SCPF in all important decisions such as the nomination of bishops.(14) The Instructiones ad munera apostolica rite obeunda perutiles(15), "Instructions in order to fulfil properly the apostolic duties", even stated that the true religion is characterized by the rejection of purely human means.(16) The Instructiones, inspired by the Roman Instructions of 1659 and formulated by the French vicars apostolic, Lambert de La Motte and Francois Pallu, constituted the conclusions of the Synod held at Ayuthia, the capital of Siam, in 1664. Although the Instructiones did not exclude the existence of authentic religious values in the non-Christian world,(17) still the rigid puritanical approach adopted by the French vicars apostolic made accommodation hardly possible, at least in the form in which it had been developed by the Jesuits. The Instructiones, as a matter of fact, were suspected of Jansenist inspiration by some Jesuits.(18) The less rigoristic moral and Christ-centred theology of the Neapolitan lawyer, Alfonso Maria de Liguori, founder of the Redemptorists (1732), would become influential outside Italy only during the nineteenth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Instructiones or Monita ad missionaries Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, "Instructions to the missionaries of the SCPF" were translated into French and still read by the Scheut Fathers.(19)

The doctrinal dispute between Jansenists and Jesuits about the role of divine grace and human freedom saw a pessimistic Augustinian confronted with an optimistic Molinist concept of human nature, a contrast which has traditionally been presented as the rigorist moral discipline of the Jansenists versus the laxism of the Jesuits. According to a French archivist-palaeographer, Francoise Hildesheimer, however, Jansenism was nothing else but an extreme expression of the French Catholic Reformation. The reaction against laxism in the Gallican church had manifested itself before the appearance of Jansenism. Moreover, the "disciples of Saint Augustine" also adopted other more positive and surprisingly modern attitudes in the theological and educational fields－the place of the laity and women in the Church, and the importance of having direct access to Holy Scripture, for instance.(20) Its defense of the bourgeois right of an individual Christian conscience brought Jansenism into conflict with both civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Upon the request of Louis XIV, 101 Jansenist theses were condemned by the papal Bull Unigenitus Dei Filius on 8 September 1713.

The discussion between Jansenists and Jesuits also had its repercussions on another dispute : the use of Chinese Christian terms and the question whether Chinese and South Indian (Malabar) Rites had a religious meaning or not. The Rites Controversy was peremptorily settled by the papal Bulls Ex illa die (1715), Ex quo singulari (1742), and Omnium sollicitudinum (1744), to the disadvantage of the Jesuits' strategy of cultural accommodation. The papal condemnation was fully endorsed by the SCPF, which previously had encouraged respect for local cultures by the apostolic missionaries. According to Dr. Paul A. Rule, the rejection of "human means", together with the centralizing tendencies of the Roman Congregations, had by the end of the seventeenth century betrayed the vision of a Chinese church embodied in the 1659 Instruction.(21) It was not until the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and North China that the SCPF again tolerated the performance of the Rites by native Catholics. The Instruction Plane compertum est of 8 December 1939 was the last formal instruction on the Rites Controversy.(22)

The doctrinal disputes during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries often led to political conflicts and religious persecutions by the monarchical absolutist European regimes. Thus, after the death of the French Cardinal Jules Mazarin, Louis XIV personally resumed the struggle against the Jansenists, in which he saw an opposition party to be eliminated. In the second half of the seventeenth century, due to their independence, influence and success, the tide turned against the Jesuits as the spirit of the Enlightenment became influential among European intellectuals and spread in royal circles. After their defeat in the Rites Controversy, seven of their thirty-six Paraguayan reductions were ceded by Spain to Portugal in 1750 by the Treaty of Madrid and consequently abolished.

The reductions had originated with the early efforts of Dominicans and Franciscans to promoted the development of an Indian church independent of the State church. One of their Utopian aims was to unite the Indians in bigger entities (doctrinas in Spanish and aldeias in Portuguese) in order to facilitate a communitarian life, and to help the process of human and Christian maturation. The originality of the Jesuit reductions(23) consisted in their special juridical status vis-a-vis the Spanish Crown. Thus, for instance, in 1640 the Jesuits had permission to arm the Guarani Indians for self-defence, and no foreigner, apart from bishops and governors, had the right to enter. However, the Jesuits tried to impose the Spanish Christian way of life on the Guarani and ruled the reductions in a Europocentric and paternalistic way: the atmosphere was that of a monastery or a Jesuit college. The colonial powers regarded the reductions more and more as a threat and suppressed them, notwithstanding the armed resistance of the Guarani Indians. In 1759, the enlightened Portuguese Prime Minister, the Marquis de Pombal, Sebastiao Jose de Carvalho e Melo, used these events as a pretext for banning the Jesuits from Portugal and its colonies. The French and Spanish Bourbon monarchs followed his example, and Pope Clement XIV dissolved the Society on 21 July 1773 by the Bull Dominus ac Redemptor noster, staling that "it is almost impossible that the Church enjoy a lasting peace as long as the Society exists".(24)

The Shock of the French Revolution (25)

During the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, modern theological and philosophical ideas such as Lutheranism, Calvinism, Jansenism, classical rationalism, empiricism, and Deism shaped an alternative pattern of thought among the urban bourgeoisie, replacing the medieval feudal and theocratic ideas of the ancien regime. Reason, freedom, happiness, and nature became the new key-words. They reflected a new age of optimism in humankind's own discoveries rather than faith in God's revelation. Inasmuch as religion was tolerant, progressive, and above all useful, it was to be accepted. Concrete signs of this new tolerance were, for instance, the French Edict of 1784 abolishing the peage corporel, the "corporal toll" imposed on Jews, and the Edict of 1787 granting official civil status to Protestants. The new ideas were given further concrete form in the liberal, egalitarian, nationalistic, and anticlerical goals of the French Revolution, under the three loosely associated words of the republican motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".

According to the French church historian, Gerard Cholvy,(26) the Revolution did not go wrong on the Declaration of Human and Civil Rights, but on the reform of the Church. The abolition of tithes, the nationalization of Church property, the dissolution of all monastic orders in 1789 and religious congregations in 1790, and especially the obligation to swear allegiance to the Constitution Civile du Clerge, "Civil Constitution of the Clergy"－measures such as these divided the French clergy and kindled the passive and active resistance of some royalist regions in France, especially the Vendee. The religious persecution of 1893-1894 further stimulated the fervor of a minority. An estimated 30,000 refractory French priests emigrated to England, other European countries, and even America. Due to this intransigence, Napoleon Bonaparte was compelled to negotiate with the Pope in order to re-establish religious peace.(27)

With the Napoleonic Wars the ideology of the French Revolution was exported to the other briefly occupied European countries and was to have a lasting impact on the political and social development of continental Europe.(28) Upon the occupation of Rome by the troops of the Directoire, Pope Pius VI was forced to leave.(29) On 15 July 1801, his successor Barnaba Chiaramonti, the Benedictine Cardinal-bishop of Imola, Pope Pius VII, succeeded in negotiating a Concordat with Napoleon. In a letter of 28 August 1802 to the Pope, the latter suggested placing the protection of all missions in the Near and the Far East under his care. Upon the Pope's reftisal, Napoleon held him captive, annexed the Papal States in 1809, and confiscated the properties of both the Holy See and the SCPF. In 1805, Napoleon had already, by an imperial decree, re-established the seminary of the Missions Etrangeres de Paris, MEP, though this decree was to be revoked a few years later. His motives, however, had been purely political, as he feared that Britain would take over the direction of these missions.(30)

By the end of the eighteenth century the crisis of the "propagation of the faith" had reached its climax. According to different estimates(31), the total number of active Catholic missionaries, including indigenous priests, was somewhere between 300 and 526 persons. However, the same geopolitical, socio-economic, and cultural factors which had contributed to the Catholic missionary crisis contained the seeds of an unexpected recovery and expansion during the nineteenth century.

1.BOSCH, David J., Transforming Mission. Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books 1991) 226-230 ; Casiano FLORISTAN, "Evangelization of the 'New World' : An Old World Perspective", Missiology 20/2 (April 1992) 133-149.

2.RIVINIUS, Karl Josef, Weltlicher Schutz und Mission, (Bonner Beitrage zur Kirchengeschichte, Band 14), (Bohlau : Koln, Wien 1987) 9-11 ; SEBES, Joseph, "The Precursors of Ricci", in : RONAN, Charles E. & OH, Bonnie B.C., The Jesuits in China, 1582-1773 (Chicago : 1988) 19-61.

3.THOMAS A JESU, De procuranda salute omnium gentium, schismaticorum, Judaeorum, Sarracenorum caeterorumque infidelium libri duodecim. (Antverpiae : 1613). Quoted in MULDERS, A., Missiologisch bestek. Inleiding tot de katholieke missiewetenschap, (Antwerpen : Paul Brand 1962) 81-84 ; for the development of the missionary idea in modern times see 51-107 ; also SEUMOIS, Andre, Theologie Missionnaire, (Rome : Bureau de Presse O.M.I. 1973) vol. 1, 8-27.

4.BOSCH, David J., op. cit. 228.

5.CAMPS, A., "De katholieke missionaire beweging van 1492 tot 1789", in : VERSTRAELEN, F.J. et al. (eds.), Oecumenische Inleiding in de Missiologie. Teksten en konteksten van het wereldchristendom. (J.H. Kok-Kampen 1988) 222-229 ; PERBAL, Albert, "Projets, fondation et debuts de la Sacree Congregation de la Propagande (1568-1649)", in : DELACROIX, S. (ed.), Histoire Universelle des Missions Catholiques. Les Missions Modernes (XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles). (Paris : 1957) 109-131.

6.BOSCH, David J., op. cit. 228-229.

7.SOETENS, Claude, "Debuts de la hierarchie non-occidentale au temps de Pie XI. Retard voulu ou subi?", in : Des missions aux Eglises : naissance et passation des pouvoirs, XVIIe-XXe s. (10x session du CREDIC, Bale 1989) (Lyon : 1990) 143-167.

8.SEUMOIS, Andne, op. cit., vol. 1, 9-10.

9.GUENNOU, J., Missions Etrangeres de Paris, 21-26. (Paris : Fayard 1986).

10.WITEK, John D., "Philippe Couplet : a Belgian connection to the beginning of the Seventeenth-Century French Jesuit mission in China", in : HEYNDRICKX, J. (ed.), Philippe Couplet, S.J. (1623-1693). The Man Who Brought China to Europe. (Monumenta Serica. Monograph series, no 22) (Nettetal : Steyler Verlag 1991) 143-161 ; WITEK, John D., "Understanding the Chinese : A Comparison of Matteo Ricci and the French Jesuit Mathematicians Sent by Louis XIV", in : RONAN, Charles E. & OH, Bonnie B.C., op. cit., 62-102.

11.CAMPS, A., art. cit. 227-228.

12.HILDESHEIMER, Francoise, Le Jansenisme. L'histoire et l'heritage, (Paris : Desclee de Brouwer 1992) 123.

13.ZURCHER E., Bouddhisme, Christianisme et societe chinoise (Paris : Julliard 1990) 29-30.　

For the term "inculturation" see STANDAERT, Nicolas, "Inculturation and Chinese-Christian contacts in the Late Ming and Early Qing", Ching Feng 34/4 (Dee 1991) 1-16.

14.GUENNOU, J., op. cit., 73-76 ; CAMPS, A., art. cit.. 227.

15.From the fourth edition (1840) it was entitled Monita ad missionarios Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Tide.

16.GUENNOU, J., op. cit., 124-126; RULE, Paul A., K'ung-tzu or Confucius? The Jesuit Interpretation of Confucianism, 126-127. (Sydney : Alien & Unwin 1986) ; PRECLIN, E., and JARRY, E., Les luttes politiques et doctrinales aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles, in : FLICHE, A. and MARTIN, V., (eds.), Histoire de l'Eglise, vol. 19, part 1 & 2, (Paris : Bloud et Gay 1955) 552-554.

17.SEUMOIS, Andr6, op. cit., vol. 3, 183. Instructions aux missionnaires, (Bruxelles : 1920-1921) 81. "En traitant ainsi avec les paiens, il evitera de paraitre leur apporter un enseignement en tous points nouveau, mais il aura soin de les trailer comme s'ils avaient deja une teinte de ces verites".

18.PRECLIN, E., and JARRY, E., op. cit., 553 ; RULE, Paul A., op. cit., 124-129.

19.GUENNOU, J., op. cit., 126.

20.For a discussion of these attitudes see HILDESHEIMER, Francoise, op. cit., 7-10.

21.RULE, Paul A., op. cit., 127.

22.MINAMIKI, George, The Chinese Rites Controversy. From Its Beginning to Modern Times (Chicago : Loyola University Press 1985) 197-219.

23.The Indians were "inducted" (reducti) "into civil life and the Church". See CLEVENOT, Michel, "'The Kingdom of God on Earth'? The Jesuit Reductions of Paraguay", Concilium 187 (May 1986), 70-77.

24.PRECLIN, E. and JARRY, E., op. cit., 95, 110ff, 572, 689, 690.

25.See GEFFRE, Claude and JOSSUA, Jean-Pierre, (eds.), "1789 : The French Revolution and the Church", Concilium (Feb 1989) 1-140.

26.CHOLVY, Gerard, La religion en France de la fin du XVIIIe a nos jours (Paris : Hachette 1991) 7.

27.DELACROiX, S., (ed.), Histoire Universelledes Missions Catholiques. Les Missions Contemporaines (1800-1957) 27.

28.See SIGMANN, J., Les revolutions romantiques et democratiques de l'Europe. Les grandes vagues revolutionnaires. (Calmann-Levy 1970).

29.DELACROIX, S., (ed.), op. cit., 28. JEDIN, Hubert, (ed.), History of the Church, vol. 7 (London : 1981) 3-84.

30."...j 'y suis porte par ie disir d' oter aux Anglaisla direction de ces missions qu'ils commencent a s' attribuer". Quoted in Louis WEI Tsing-sing, Lapolitique missionnaire de la France en Chine (Paris : 1960) 79-80 ; 254-255.

31.DELACROIX, S., "Le declin des missions modernes", Op. cit., 363-394, 385 ; VAN LAARHOVEN, J., De Kerk van 1770-1970 (Nijmegen : 1974) 90 ; BROU, A., "Les statistiques dans les anciennes missions", Revue d' Histoire des Missions (1929) 361-384.

The Nineteenth-Century Religious and Missionary Revivals : Liberal and Socialist Challenges

The Catholic Reveil and the Protestant Evangelical Awakening as Pacemakers

In the first half of the nineteenth century, as a reaction against the rationalistic Enlightenment, Romanticism created a favorable intellectual climate for religion in France, though most French romantic writers did not believe in the divinity of Christ. Intellectuals such as the romanticist Francois Rene Chateaubriand, the liberal-minded priest Hugo Felicite Robert La Mennais (Lamennais), and the Russian convert to Catholicism, Sophie de Swetchine,(32) had a strong spiritual impact on the French Catholic Reveil.

An immense task of instructing both children and adults awaited the artisans of religious revivals. Starting from 1816, the establishment of Sunday Schools with the initial aim of teaching reading, the introduction of the English mutual school system of Lancaster,(33) and the foundation of the educational society of the Marist Brothers, greatly facilitated the evangelization of rural areas in France. "Pious girls"(34) in those regions assumed the highly esteemed all-round service of reading and catechism classes, needlework, soup for the sick, and the upkeep of the churches. As a result, a more elaborate form of religious life developed : the congregation of secular sisters. Its omnipresence around 1860 marked a clear break with the "religious" sisters of the urban convents which had existed during the ancien regime.(35)

Many similar congregations were also founded in Belgium : the Zusters van Liefde van Maria en Jozef (1809), "Sisters of Charity of Mary and Joseph" , the Zusters van Vincentius a Paulo, "Vincent de Paul Sisters" (1818). The majority originated from the initiative of parish priests struck by the needs of the poor. They would bring some pious girls together into a community and let them start a Sunday or day school. These new congregations were often inspired by the seventeenth-century ideals of Pierre de Berulle or St. Vincent de Paul. In Holland and other Western countries many religious communities of women also followed Franciscan spirituality. The vast and rapid expansion of all these new congregations supported to a great extent the religious, educational, and charitable activities of the Church.(36)

Other agents of evangelization among Catholics were the missions to the people or "parochial missions" (volksmissies in Dutch), among Protestants the revival meetings. The "parochial missions" dated from the Counter Reformation and were revived in post-Revolutionary France in order to remedy the defects of ordinary preaching. Their spectacular character, involving the singing of hymns, processions, morning and evening sermons, setting up of huge crosses, made them very popular, but at the same time unpopular among the liberal, urban bourgeoisie. Their emotional impact often resulted in the establishment of confraternities and charitable associations. Less frequent, but more profound in its effect was the organization of closed retreats, especially among women.

The parochial missionary movement in France was halted in 1830 and resumed a few years later in a less spectacular but regular way. It reached its culminating point between 1840 and 1880. When the Belgian constitution ensured the freedom of public worship and association, the parochial missionary movement also became popular in several Belgian dioceses. In the east Flemish diocese of Ghent, the Jesuits, from 1831, and then, from 1844, the Redemptorists, had been taking care of these missions to the people. They were often based on moralizing sermons and resulted in the establishment of new or the revival of old confraternities and charitable associations. In the 1840s the movement spread to the Catholic English and German-speaking regions.(37)

During this period the monastic Orders of the Benedictines and Dominicans were revived. In 1839, Henri Dominique Lacordaire, the preacher of the Lenten sermons at Notre Dame de Paris, made a public appeal for the recognition of the right of religious to associate. Two years earlier Dom Prosper Louis Pascal Gueranger, the Abbot of Solesmes in western France, had travelled to Rome asking for the re-establishment of the Benedictine Order.

In the first half of the nineteenth century, French spontaneous and doctrinal religion were still strongly influenced by moral rigorism and the concept of a frightening God. A typical example was the parish priest of Ars-sur-Formans near Lyons, Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney, the "Cure of Ars", who preferred to preach about death, the existence of hell, the small number of the elect, and the Last Judgment. Basically, this was the same as seventeenth-century spirituality with its educational principle of fear and the common practice of "deferred absolution" as a means of bringing about a real conversion.

Several influences were conducive to the rediscovery of Jesus Christ and to the introduction of more attractive devotions around 1840, a trend which was manifestly stimulated by the religious congregations and the Roman ecclesiastical authorities. Popular education enabled more people to read books such as Lamennais' French translation (1824) of the "Imitation of Jesus Christ", a fifteenth-century devotional work composed in Latin, and de Liguori's "Praxis of Love towards Jesus Christ", an eighteenth-century theological work which was re-edited several times during the nineteenth century. The revival of the devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and to different saints soon became a sign of the growing populist orientation of the Catholic Church against the liberal bourgeoisie's secular values. By reducing the cost of pious images, booklets, and statuettes, the Industrial Revolution allowed the rapid diffusion of these new devotions. Likewise, the development of the railway played a decisive role in the promotion of places of pilgrimage and facilitated contacts with Rome.(38)

Between 1840 and 1880, a clergy closer to the people, due to its social origin and hasty formation, guided religious sensibility by drawing more closely together what the Church prescribed and what the people actually lived. The role of exterior cults increased : public recitation of prayers like the rosary or the Angelus, benediction, processions, pilgrimages, and devotion to the saints. By giving the devotions a more collective rather than individual, a more regional than local shape, the clergy integrated them within the liturgical tradition of the Church. In France, the clergy slowly renounced, in spite of persistent resistance, its moral rigorism and abandoned the Gallican Rites under the influence of Alfonso Maria de Liguori, beatified in 1816, and Dom Gueranger.(39) In Belgium, de Liguori's doctrine was accepted between 1830 and 1840, after the Redemptorists settled in the country. Its acceptance was due especially to the support given it by the theology department of the University of Louvain.

Since the Enlightenment, the Protestants, even more than the Catholics, had been influenced by rationalism in matters of faith, ethics, and theology. In the beginning of the eighteenth century, the early German pietist movement－with August Hermann Francke at Halle and Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, founder of the Moravian brotherhood－was fundamentally opposed to rationalism. By the end of the same century, however, the attacks of Lutheran orthodoxy and rationalism had almost completely paralyzed the religious zeal and the will to mission of these pietistic circles. In Britain, the influence of German pietism and rationalism arrived on the scene more or less simultaneously. The Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge (1699) and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1701), for instance, reflected much of the "distinctly synthetic character" of British spiritual life. Thus, what the Awakenings brought and proclaimed when they burst upon the British and American scenes from the early eighteenth century onward, was not regarded as alien to and in conflict with the ideas of the Enlightenment or with those of a warm experiential faith.(40)

The Great Awakening, a series of revivals in the American colonies between 1726 and 1760, was followed by a second movement, from 1787 to 1825, which in England was called the Evangelical Revival and in the United States the Second Great Awakening. The first Awakening did not give birth directly to missionary activities, although it did lay the foundations for them. The brothers John and Charles Wesley experienced a spiritual renewal which resulted from contacts with Moravians, and, with George Whitefield, they conducted revival meetings in Britain from 1739 on. The Wesleyan revival did not distinguish between "home" and "foreign missions", but kept secular and spiritual interests separated. Starting from 1760, the influence of Romanticism was by no means new to the emotionally charged movement of Methodism. In the 1830s a new revival movement had its epicentre at Geneva, from which it strongly influenced continental Europe.

The Protestant Church authorities and academic theologians adopted, by and large, an attitude of indifference, suspicion, and sometimes censorship towards the new enthusiasm generated by the revivals. The majority of the Protestant evangelicals in the first half of the nineteenth century belonged to the less privileged class of artisans and trained industrial workers. They were moved to compassion by the plight of people exposed to the degrading conditions of the Industrial Revolution at home and colonialism abroad. In the second half of the nineteenth century the interest in missionary work shifted more and more to theological circles in the universities, as instanced by the establishment of the Universities' Mission to Central Africa at Cambridge in 1858.

In the wake of the Great Awakening, the traditional Protestant religious and missionary motif of the glory of God was wedded to other motifs, in particular that of compassion. Under the influence of the Enlightenment, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century the emphasis shifted not only from the glory of God to the love of Christ, but also from the comprehensiveness of the reign of God, which characterized the early Puritan tradition, to individual conversion ("new birth") or salvation of the soul. During the nineteenth century the motif of love manifested itself in a mixture of romantic optimism ("noble savages") and condescending pessimism ("poor savages") towards non-Westerners. (41)

Another prominent nineteenth-century Protestant missionary motif was millennialism : the biblical vision of a final golden age within history. The Napoleonic wars had already spawned extravagant apocalyptic expectations in the Protestant Anglo-Saxon world. Whereas the latent divergences between premillennialism－for instance, the Millerite movement with its emphasis on the imminence of Christ's return－and postmillennialism－the proponents of the Social Gospel stressing the kingdom of God on earth－began to surface in the United States in the 1830s, "Irvingism", a forerunner of the premillennial Pentecostal movement, became popular in Scotland and England. Later it was also influential at Geneva. Edward Irving, a Scottish Calvinist minister, regarded the reappearance of miraculous signs as evidence that the end of the world was approaching. He was deposed by his presbytery in Scotland in 1833, one year before his death.(42)

Finally, what came to be known as the "manifest destiny", the conviction "that God, in his providence, had chosen the Western nations, because of their unique qualities, to be the representatives of his cause even to the uttermost ends of the world", reached its most pronounced expression during the period 1880-1920, the "heyday of colonialism".(43) In the early decades of the nineteenth century, the notion of "manifest destiny" was barely identifiable, but it became more and more prominent with the growth of Western nationalism, imperialism, and the assumption of the superiority of Western culture.

The Elan of the Catholic and Protestant Missionary Enterprise

Romanticism, the consequent Catholic Reveil, and to a lesser extent the shock of the French Revolution, were conducive to a new enthusiastic and optimistic devotion to world mission.

The globetrotter and writer, Chateaubriand, was one of the chief animators of the Catholic Reveil and of the missionary revival. His Genie du Christianisme, ou Beautes de la religion chretienne, "Genius of Christianity, or Beauties of the Christian religion", was published shortly after his conversion in 1802. Chateaubriand, who had travelled to America, drew both on his travel experiences and the Lettres edifiantes et curieuses, "Curious and Edifying Letters", written by the eighteenth-century missionaries. The G6nie du Christianisme became a bestseller; it was reedited many times and translated into nine different European languages. It did not lead directly to the establishment of a missionary society, but was conducive to the creation of a new enthusiasm for the missions. The refractory priests who had emigrated from France after the French Revolution contributed to the propagation of Catholicism in the countries where they settled. This allowed for a rediscovery of the universal dimension of the Church.(44) From 1808 onwards, the Lettres edifiantes et curieuses were republished at Lyons and other places.

The beginning of the nineteenth century was a period of restoration for the Catholic Church. On returning to Rome in 1814, Pope Pius VII re-established the Society of Jesus by the Bull Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum and also revived the SCPF. One year later the French Bourbon monarch, Louis XVIII, followed his example by re-opening the seminaries of seventeenth-century French missionary institutions, the Missions Etrangeres de Paris, MEP, the Congregation de la Mission, CM, and the "Society of the Holy Spirit". In 1848, the latter merged with the Sacred Heart of Mary Fathers, a society founded in 1841 by Franz Maria Libermann, a Jewish convert to Catholicism from Alsace.

At the same time, several new initiatives were taken at the grassroots by simple clerics or lay persons, mostly young people. The "Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary and the Perpetual Adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar", the Picpus Fathers, was founded in 1805 by Marie-Joseph Coudrin. In 1807, a farmer's daughter and catechist from Chamblanc in eastern France, Anne-Marie Jahouvey, organized the Soeurs de St. Joseph, "St. Joseph Sisters", at Cluny. In 1816, the Society of Mary, commonly called Marist Brothers, was founded by Jean-Claude Colin at Lyons in the same year as the Oblates of Mary Immaculate by Charles-Joseph-Eugene de Mazenod in Provence. In the 1840s, all these societies, originally engaged in French missions to the people and popular education, were also active in far-away continents such as Oceania, Africa, and North America.

In 1834 and 1836, after the religious persecutions and abolition of all religious orders and associations in Spain and Portugal, Pope Gregory XVI (Bartolomeo Alberto Fra Mauro Cappellari), with the active support of the Dutch Jesuit superior general, Joannes Philippus Roothaan, recruited new missionary personnel among the members of the revived Society of Jesus. Pope Gregory XVI had been Cardinal-prefect of the SCPF.

Through the "right of entrustment" system, the ius commissionis, the Holy See delimited the mission territories and entrusted them exclusively to different religious orders and congregations, which presented their own candidates as titular bishops. The gradual establishment of this jus commissionis was the consequence both of the elan of the Catholic missionary enterprise, and of old jurisdictional conflicts in several mission fields among regular and secular clerics belonging to different national and ecclesiastical institutions. The SCPF increasingly became the central agency, directing the different vicariates apostolic, of which Pope Gregory XVI established forty-four new ones. This process was to be continued by his successors, Pius IX and Leo XIII.

The Oeuvre de la Propagation de la Foi, "Society for the Propagation of the Faith" was founded in 1822 at Lyons, in order to support the Catholic missionary enterprise. This organization, which owed its development to a young and devout lay person, Marie-Pauline Jaricot, was modelled after the Societes auxiliaires, "Auxiliary Societies", associations of prayer and good deeds for the salvation of non-Christians. In 1816, these societies were introduced into France by a French missionary, Denis Chaumont, who had returned from England. The Oeuvre de la Sainte-Enfance, "Association of the Holy Childhood", was founded in 1837 by the Bishop of Nancy, Charles-Auguste-Marie-Joseph de Forbin-Janson. It promoted exclusively the protection, the baptism－even when it was administered in articulo mortis－and the care of non-Catholic children. Both organizations published their Annales, with letters from missionaries and statistical information, collected small contributions from numerous adults and children under the slogan of an sou par semaine/mois, "a dime a week/month", respectively, and expanded to other European countries. In 1840, they were given active support in Pope Gregory XVI 's first missionary encyclical letter Probe nostis.(45)

The SCPF 's instruction Neminem profecto of 23 November 1845 could be regarded in retrospect as a decisive step towards the establishment of Catholic local churches. In fact, at the time it was only a prudent and progressive instruction, reminding Catholic missionaries of the eight principles which should guide their activities :

　

to divide the mission territories, to establish the hierarchy, and to appoint bishops wherever possible ;

to recruit and train a native clergy by establishing seminaries, to promote indigenous clerics to the episcopate by means of the preparatory office of vicar-general ;

not to treat the native priests as an auxiliary clergy, but to enable them to share in honours, offices, and duties, in the same way as European priests, on the basis of age and merit ;

to renounce the habit of using natives only as catechists, instead of directing all capable young men towards the priesthood ;

not to put pressure on Christian communities with an Eastern Rite to adopt the Latin Rite ;

under no circumstances to engage in politics and secular affairs ;

to devote oneself in the first place to the primary and secondary education of boys and girls, without neglecting pious and charitable associations ;

and, finally, to devote oneself to everything that enhances the integration of religion into local society, so that Christian communities may have their own means of subsistence, without having to rely on outside help, which sooner or later may be lacking.

Thus the SCPF in only one passage clearly expressed its wish to promote indigenous clerics to the episcopate. The Vincentian Father Joseph Gabet, in his memorandum of 1848 entitled Etat des missions catholiques en Chine, insisted on the need to accept Chinese "at all clerical levels". But, on receiving complaints from other missionaries, the SCPF responded that it had not approved Gabet's memorandum. Eventually, it was not until after the First World War that decisive steps were taken by the SCPF and the Holy See towards the development of an indigenous hierarchy.(47)

In the second half of the nineteenth century a certain number of exclusively missionary male and female institutions were established: in Italy, the Seminary for Foreign Missions of Milan (1854) and the Combonian Fathers (1866) ; in France, the Lyons Society for African Missions (1856), the White Fathers (1868), and White Sisters (1869) ; in Belgium, the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary or Scheut Fathers (1862) and the Canonesses Missionaries of St. Augustine or De Jacht Sisters (1897) ; in England, the St Joseph's Society for Foreign Missions or Mill Hill Fathers (1869) ; in Germany, the Society of the Divine Word or Steyl Fathers (1875).

The most remarkable initiative was the founding of the Salvatorians in 1881 by a German priest, Johann Baptist Jordan. Aware of the existing gap between the Eastern and Latin Churches as well as between the clergy and the laity, both men and women, he preferred to call his new missionary institute "apostolic" rather than (Roman) "Catholic" and to distinguish three different degrees of membership : full-time clerics or lay persons, associated talented or qualified lay leaders, and sympathizers or supporters. His ideas, however, were not entirely accepted or approved by the SCPF.(48)

The Oeuvre de St-Pierre pour le Clerge indigene des Missions, "Society of St. Peter for the Indigenous Clergy of the Missions", founded in 1889 by Stephanie Bigard and her daughter Jeanne at Caen, was moved to Switzerland in 1902 because the foundresses were unable at that time to have it legalized in France.(49)

Generally speaking, the nineteenth-century Catholic missionaries were formed in a hasty, secluded, and anti-intellectual manner. The main emphasis of their formation was on the development of a morally responsible, enthusiastic, pragmatic rather than intellectual personality. The missionaries' training was geared towards a pastoral ministry characterized by devotion, charity, sacramentalism, catechesis, and apologetics. Their image was that of a heroic pioneer and paternalistic figure with a predilection for solitude, spirituality, self-sacrifice, martyrdom and a feeling of cultural superiority towards non-Westerners. Theological reflection on the Catholic missionary enterprise or "missiology" only developed at the beginning of the twentieth century in Germany with scholars like Josef Schmidlin, Robert Streit, and Johannes Dindinger.(50) Protestant missiological reflection had already been started at the end of the nineteenth century by the pietist scholar from Halle, Gustav Warneck.

The Protestants touched by the Evangelical Awakening were no longer willing to sit back and wait for the Free or Established Churches to take the initiative. Individual Protestant lay persons, frequently belonging to different Churches, banded together on a voluntary basis for the sake of world mission.(51)

In 1792, a cobbler and pastor from Northamptonshire, William Carey, published his Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen. He is considered as one of the chief architects of the modern Protestant missionary enterprise. His work directly resulted in the establishment of the denominational "Particular Baptist Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen". His example was soon followed by the originally non-denominational London Missionary Society, LMS, founded in 1795. After the formation of the Church Missionary Society in 1799 by Evangelicals in the Church of England, the LMS gradually became the agent of the Congregationalists. Elsewhere, the same happened to the inter-denominational American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (1810), and the Basel Mission established in 1816 by Lutherans and Calvinists. Tensions between the latter precipitated the formation, in 1836, of an exclusively Lutheran missionary society, later known as the Leipzig Mission. The American Board became the missionary arm of Congregationalism when, after 1850, various churches began to sponsor denominational mission projects.

The new missionary societies were the result of the rekindling within Protestantism, by the end of the seventeenth century, of the individual's right to interpret Scripture and to associate in order to promote a common cause. The Enlightenment's optimistic view of humanity, and the emerging social and political egalitarianism further enhanced this trend. The societies were often organized in the manner of overseas trading companies and supported at home by a network of auxiliary societies. People of the most modest means became donors and prayer supporters of mission projects. Moreover, they were given additional backing by the many Bible Societies modelled on the inter-denominational British and Foreign Bible Society (1804), which had developed from the Religious Tract Society founded by the Free Churches.(52) Like the Bible Societies, the missionary societies, whether denominational or non-denominational, at the outset had nothing exclusivist about them. In the 1840s, however, the missionary societies became more doctrinaire and confessionalist in order to counteract the influence of rationalism and liberalism. This trend changed again by the end of the nineteenth century with the emergence of "faith missions" such as the China Inland Mission, founded in 1865 by James Hudson Taylor.(53)

Catholic Traditionalism : Ultramontanism

The French Revolution, the Italian Risorgimento, and the German Reichsdeputationshauptschluss in Regensburg (1803) had a powerful impact on the position of the Catholic Church in the political, socio-economic, and cultural spheres. Its former privileged status, especially in the fields of education and public service, was more and more contested by anticlerical and liberal-minded European nationalists. The laicization or secularization process resulted in the Church's loss of political and social influence in European society(54) and in the stripping of power from the intermediary episcopal authorities in favour of a strengthening of the papacy.

Between 1801 and 1905 the functioning of the Concordat was very shaky in France. Two currents alternated, one favorable to the Catholic Church allowing for influence on secular society ; the other very suspicious, wanting to control all the Church's enterprises outside the liturgical confines of the church building. However, both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities attached great value to the spiritual influence of French Catholicism outside France.(55) The French government consistently resisted all foreign and papal efforts in support of the growing internationalization of the missionary enterprise in China during the second half of the nineteenth century and even after the separation of Church and State in 1905. But this did not mean that French diplomats were simply at the service of the missionaries.

In Belgium, the process of secularization paradoxically increased and enhanced the Church's influence on the daily lives of the remaining Catholics.(56) In 1847, the Belgian liberals established their long term hegemony. Their policy of secularization led to a radicalization of the Catholic ultramontanist positions. The ultra-montane movement in Belgium resulted in a confirmation of the relationship between State and Church and in polarization becoming a characteristic component of the pattern of Belgian society.(57)

The Catholic Church came to rely to a great extent on traditionalism, due to its anti-liberal attitude. This explains why it was less influenced by rationalism than Protestantism, which on the whole adopted a more positive attitude towards the autonomous, egalitarian, and progressive ideas of the modern world. In the Anglo-Saxon world the separation of Church and State had already been realized after the Glorious Revolution by the Bill of Rights in 1689. Consequently, Protestantism was not directly influenced by the destructive and divisive impact of the French Revolution.

Traditionalism was a broad European movement that reacted against the basic principles of the French Revolution. Theorists such as Louis de Bonald and Joseph de Maistre turned against the Revolution's ideals of freedom and equality. They advocated cooperation between Church and State and adhered to an organic or hierarchical concept of society : viewing the individual as subordinate to the community and emphasizing the importance of the family and the role of traditional elites and estates. They took the class society of the ancien regime as their model.

Tradition, rather than reason, was held up as a guarantor of truth and knowledge. With the popular philosophical schools of ontologism in France, Italy, and Belgium－for example, the teaching of Professor Gerardus Casimir Ubaghs at the University of Louvain－individual reason was even further devalued. Ontologism had developed within the idealistic tradition of Rene Descartes and the Oratorian priest and philosopher, Nicole de Male-branche, who tried to reconcile Cartesianism with Augustinianism and thus to construct a new Christian philosophy.(58) The rise of neo-Thomism turned the tide. Catholic theologians were encouraged by Pope Leo XIII's encyclical letter Aeterni patris of 1879 to study the works of Thomas Aquinas, which advocated a synthesis between reason and faith. In 1882, the future Belgian Cardinal, Desire-Joseph Mercier, started teaching neo-Thomism at the University of Louvain. Four years later ontologism was condemned by the Holy Office.

In Belgium, traditionalism found its religious artistic expression mainly in the neo-Gothic style. The Catholic Reveil, Romanticism, and nationalism constituted a fertile soil for developing this school of art, which revived and idealized the medieval past. While in France, Germany, and Holland, neo-Gothic architects like Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, August Reichensperger, and Piet-Jos-Hubert Cuypers respectively were very influential, the ideas of the Englishman, Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin, determined to a great extent the development of the neo-Gothic style among Belgian architects and artisans in the second half of the nineteenth century.(59)

Ultramontanism must be seen as a Catholic variant of anti-liberal traditionalism. It was a trend that supported the independence of the Church, its primacy in society, and continuing collaboration between Church and State. It also implied a rejection of modern intellectual freedoms. According to de Maistre, infallibility in the spiritual order and sovereignty in the temporal order were two completely similar terms: "L'infaillibiliti dans l'ordre spirituel et la souverainiti dans l'ordre temporel sont deux mots parfaitement similaires" (60)

The French ultramontanists were looking for support against the State, or against the discretionary power which the Concordat had conferred upon the bishop over his clergy. In 1826, Lamennais, denouncing the collusion between Throne and Altar, defended the infallibility of the Pope, stating that "Without the Pope there is no Church, without the Church no Christianity, without Christianity no Society".(61) After 1830, the Belgian ultramontanists accepted the liberal state structures of independent Belgium, which allowed the Church a wide freedom of movement. Later, the actions of the Protestant Belgian King Leopold I and of the Holy See reinforced the influence of the ultramontanists. This provoked a strong reaction among the liberal urban bourgeoisie and made ideological opposition a predominant issue in Belgian politics.(62) Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Pius IX increasingly aimed at the restoration of the privileged social position of the Church. The first condemnation of liberal ideas in 1832 by Pope Gregory XVI's encyclical letter Mirari vos, was followed in 1864 by Pope Pius IX's condemnation in the encyclical letter Quanta cura and the Syllabus errorum, a list of eighty unacceptable modern theses. In practice, modern liberties were rejected by promoting close cooperation between Church and State by means of nuncios and local bishops. Pope Pius IX made the ad limina visit of bishops obligatory.

The revolutions of 1848 had exiled Pope Pius IX from Rome. Due to French and Austrian intervention, he was able to return. Since then the Roman question has been dividing the Catholic world: whether temporal power is necessary or not in order to guarantee the spiritual independence of the Holy See. Louis Veuillot, the French editor of the newspaper L'Univers and "lay Pope of the Gauls", became one of the leading spokesmen of the French ultramontane and authoritarian imperialist party.(63)

Ultramontanism was further enhanced by active Roman support for less rigoristic and more touching forms of piety, and for the unification of the liturgy. The Marian and Sacred Heart devotions were stimulated by the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the beatification of Margaret Mary Alacoque in 1864. Ultramontane piety was further strengthened by regional and national pilgrimages. In the 1870s, tens of thousands of pilgrims would yearly congregate at places such as Paray-le-Monial and Lourdes. Dom Gueranger had always struggled for the unification of the liturgy according to the Roman Rite and a return to the authentic Gregorian chant. In 1850, the Roman Rite was universally adopted and, in 1869, the editor Pustet at Regensburg was commissioned by the Roman Congregation of Rites to publish officially the Gregorian chants.

Ultramontanism reached its apex during the first Vatican Council (1869-1870) with the hotly debated proclamation of papal primacy and infallibility. This was the first time that vicars apostolic were invited to attend a Church Council. Apart from some schema and postulates, the theme of "mission" did not appear on the Council's agenda. However, ultramontanism became an essential dimension of the overseas Catholic missionary enterprise. It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that the limitations of this ultramontane strategy became apparent.(64)

The Social Question : Catholic and Protestant Responses

In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, with the consequent migration of the rural population and the industrial proletarization of the factory workers in England and later in continental Europe, the "social question" was first raised among the Protestant and Catholic laity.

In France, Charles de Coux and especially Alban de Ville-neuve-Bargemont in his work Traite d 'Economic politique chretienne, "Treatise on a Christian political Economy", (1834) denounced liberalism and the industrialist's sole concern about production and gain. In May 1833 in Paris, Frederic Ozanam, a lawyer from Lyons, together with his friends, started the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Ozanam was an eager student of the social sciences of Count Claude Henri de Saint-Simon and of Charles de Coux. By the 1840s, when the Society of St. Francis Xavier was founded in Paris for the Christianization of the working class, the Vincentian movement reached Belgium. The initiative was taken by lay persons from the aristocracy and especially from the bourgeoisie rather than by clerics. The members of the St. Vincent de Paul Society adhered to a frugal and devotional life-style, attended the weekly conferences, and personally visited poor families. The St. Vincent de Paul Society stimulated and financially supported popular education, the establishment of free libraries, the diffusion of edifying literature and folk almanacs, and the functioning of parochial groups of Catholic youth, apprentices, workers, and soldiers.(65)

In Germany, Johann Josef Gorres and other Catholic intellectuals were particularly influential in the rise of the Christian social movements, while Adam H. Muller and Franz von Baader were among the first Catholic social theorists. Like their French colleagues, they supported the right of the proletariat to relief in their life, but believed that this could only be achieved in an organic or corporative order of society. The demands made by Muller and von Baader for the reorganization of State and industry, which was to be along the lines of a modified model of the medieval classes and guilds, continued to influence Christian social movements and Catholic social philosophy down to the end of the nineteenth century. In 1846, Adolf Kolping, a former shoemaker's apprentice who became a priest, founded the first group of the Gesellenvereine, "Journeymen Associations". After 1848, he developed them into a network for young craftsmen, covering all of Germany and Switzerland. Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler, a pastor of the Westphalian community in Hopsten and a Catholic delegate to the Frankfurt parliament, saw the solution to the social question primarily in the establishment of charitable associations.(66)

The revolutions of 1848, particularly the June rising of the Paris proletariat－when for the first time the threat of socialism became apparent to the establishment－were followed by a politically conservative reaction all over Europe. In 1851, the initially liberal-minded Spaniard Juan Donoso Cortes published his work Ensayo sobre el catolicismo, el liberalismo y el socialismo, which advocated ultramontane and antisocialist ideas. His work was rapidly translated into French and German. More democratic-minded French social theorists, such as Ferdinand Ozanam, with his call to pass to the side of the "barbarians", i.e. the proletariat, were rejected by the majority of French Catholics. The connection between anti-liberalism and the social efforts of the Church was shown early in Civiltd Cattolica－a journal founded in 1849 by the Jesuits in Rome－in which, for example, the Jesuit Father Luigi Taparelli d'Azeglio in 1852 held the view that the corporations, or guilds and trade associations, which had been dissolved during the French Revolution by the Le Chapelier law of 1791, were rooted in natural law.

After the events of 1848, the Catholic European elite continued to promote a rather hierarchical and corporative community model of social reconciliation and charity, with its emphasis on the role of the natural communities. Among others, the French mining engineer and Catholic social theorist, Frederic Le Play, in his work L' organisation du travail, "The organization of labour" (1845), stressed the family as the pivot of the community and the model for a stable community structure. In Belgium, the ultramontane leader and professor at the University of Louvain, Charles Perin, with his work De la richesse dans les societes chretiennes, "On the Wealth in Christian Societies", (1861), advocated corporalive ideals. The Belgian arch-confraternity of St. Francis Xavier, founded in 1853 by the Jesuit Father Louis Van Caloen, expanded. It aimed at the moral uplift of workers and the provision of suitable recreation, mainly on Sundays. In the Flemish diocese of Ghent, the Xaverian movement, in comparison with the Vincentian movement, was more active in the rural than the urban areas and almost exclusively geared towards the pastoral and devotional needs of the workers. The political and social emancipation of the workers was rather discouraged by the local bishop. By the 1860s, next to the edification of the workers, attention focused more and more on their material needs and emancipation. Soon Xaverians and Vincentians established mutual aid societies.(67)

In Germany, Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler, who had become bishop of Mainz in 1850, in his influential work Die Arbeiterfrage und das Christentum, "The Labour question and Christendom" (1864), stressed the need for a systematic social policy and social reform. By the end of 1865, at the latest, he had come to realize that the social question could not be resolved by charitable measures alone, and from then on argued more clearly for the collaboration of the State and "self-help" from the workers. Between 1865 and 1870 the first "Christian-social associations" spread especially along the lower Rhine, in the Ruhr and other adjacent regions. They involved themselves in organizing strikes and attempts to organize the workers' interests in a way which transcended confessions and was independent of Church supervision.(68) As early as the middle of the 1870, however, charitable associations became the model in the Catholic sphere.

In the wake of the French defeat by Prussia at Sedan in 1870 and the repression of the Commune of Paris in 1871, Count Albert de Mun, together with his friend Marquis Rene de la Tour du Pin, discovered German social Catholicism and developed the Oeuvre des Cercles catholiques d'ouvriers, "Society of Catholic Workers Circles". This corporative organization endeavored to enhance the concern of the ruling class for the working class, thereby respecting the natural ranks or hierarchies. It was founded and directed by lay persons and left the French clergy indifferentor hostile. Leon Harmel's factory corporations, associated with confraternities at Val des Bois near Rheims, and Joris Helleputte's "Guild of Crafts and Trades" at Louvain, belonged to the same corporative tradition.

The Catholic social movements, together with the more academic discussions－the Geneva Association, the Conseil des etudes de l'Oeuvre des Cercles catholiques d'ouvriers, the Circolo dei studi sociali ed economichi, the Free Association of Catholic Social Politicians, the Fribourg Union, the conservative School of Angers, and the Social Congresses of Liege－resulted in Pope Leo XIII 's social encyclical letter Rerun novarum of 15 May 1891. Its recognition of the workers' right of association gave a new impetus to the democratic forces within Catholic social movements and offered a new alternative community model, namely a "society of the middle" with the motto "Religion, Family, Property". Next to the Catholic confraternities, charitable and popular associations, class-related social works were set up, in which the clergy often assumed the role of social workers.(69)

The Catholic and Protestant missionary enterprise was no exception to this paternalistic and rather conservative social attitude. In the beginning of the nineteenth century the Evangelical Awakening was characterized by its antislavery agitation. William Wilberforce, a member of the Clapham Sect and of the British Parliament, launched a frontal attack on the practice of slavery in the British Empire. At home the members of the Clapham group advocated prison reform and state interference in order to improve factory conditions. Their lifestyle and paternalistic social concern were very similar to that of the members of the continental St. Vincent de Paul Society. The British businessman Granville Sharp established, within the context of the Church Missionary Society, the first mission station for freed slaves in Sierra Leone.

The Catholic Reveil was not unmoved by the slave trade. Anne-Marie Jahouvey, foundress of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, established a new mission for freed slaves in French Guiana and, in 1828, dreamt of creating a new reduction at Mana. By 1877, the French Cardinal Charles-Martial-Allemand Lavigerie, founder of the White Fathers and Archbishop of Algiers, promoted the Catholic Oeuvre anti-esclavagiste, "Antislavery Society". In November 1889, largely as a result of the agitation carried on by Lavigerie, the Brussels Conference for the Abolition of the Slave Trade assembled and, in July 1890, signed the first international agreement for the abolition of the slave trade. However, Catholic missionary work in the second half of the nineteenth century remained very paternalistic in its development of African and Chinese Christian enclaves, the chr6tient6s or ferme-chapelles. The CICM historian, Jozef Van Hecken, who has described the missionary enterprise of the Scheut Fathers in the Ordos Region, chose for this work the significant French title: Les reductions catholiques du pays des Ordos. Une methode d 'apostolat des missionnaires de Scheut.(70) The eighteenth-century reductions in Paraguay offered a memorable precedent. (71)

32.CHOLVY, Gerard, op. cit., 23-26, 143.　

In 1815, Sophie de Swetchine (1782-1857) was converted to Catholicism. Two years later, she opened a saloon in Paris and was the "spiritual director" of Montalembert, Dom Gueranger and Lacordaire.

33.Ibid., 23 ; 70.　

The mutual or monitorial system of Lancaster in contrast to the commonly used simultaneous system had the advantage of being less expensive : one teacher, assisted by student-monitors, could teach in a vast area.

34.The pious girl was also called "sister" or "blessed one", la beate. She stayed with her family but wore a cross. See CHOLVY, Gerard, op. cit., 23-24,141-142.

35.During the Middle Ages the religious Orders incorporated the laity through the Third Orders. The Society of St. Ursula founded by Angela Merici (1474-1540) at the end of the fifteenth century differed from the religious Orders in the sense that it originally consisted of a group of unmarried young women, who devoted themselves to the care of the poor and the education of girls, without leaving their family or environment. See DE FIORES ET TULLO, Stefano, Dictionnaire de la vie spirituelle (Paris : Cerf 1983) 537, 1167.

36.BOUDENS, Robrecht, "De diocesane clems en de religieuzen", in : CLOET, Michel, (ed.), Het bisdom Gent (1559-1991). Vier eeawen geschiedenis. (Gent : L. Van Melle 1991) 404.

37.Ibid.

38.CHOLVY, Gerard, op. cit., 54.

39.Ibid., 53-56.

40.BOSCH, David J., op. cit., 276-277.

41.Ibid., 284-291.

42.VIDLER, Alee R., The Church in an Age of Revolution : 1789 to the present day. The Pelican History of the Church, vol. 5, (London : Penguin Books 1974) 65-67.

43.BOSCH, David J., op. cit., 298-302.

44.CHOLVY, Gerard, op. cit. ,23-26.

45.BOUDENS, Robrecht, "De negentiende-eeuwse missionaire beweging", in : BOUDENS, R., (ed.), Rond Damiaan. (Kadoc-Studies 7), (Leuven : Universitaire Pers 1989) 17-39 ; DIJARDIN, Carine, "Van pionier tot dienaar. Profiel van de Belgische missionaris in historisch perspectief (1800-1989)", ibid. 115-186 ; CAMPS A., "De katholieke missionaire beweging van 1789 tot 1964", in : VERSTRAELEN, F.J. et al. (eds.), op. cit. 236-242.

46.Collectanea S.C. de Propaganda Fide, Vol. I (Rome : 1907) 541-545.

47.SOETENS, Claude, art. cit., 143-167.

48.See VAN MEIJL, Peter, P. Antonio di Gesu Intreccialagli OCD als apostolischer Visitator der Salvatorianer und Salvatorianerinnen (1894-1913), Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. (Leuven : KUL 1990) Buch 1A. 179.

49.RETIF, A., "La grande expansion des missions", in : DELACROIX, S., ed., op. cit. 110-111

50.BOUDENS, Robrecht, "De negentiende-eeuwse ...", 17-39 ; DUJARDIN, Carine, art. cit., 115-186.

51.BOSCH, David J., op. dr., 280.

52.VIDLER, Alee R., op. cit., 38.

53.BOSCH, David J., op. cit., 327-334.

54.LAMBERTS, E., De Kruistocht tegen het Liberalisme. Facetten van het ultramontanisme in Belgie in de 19e eeuw. (Leuven : Universitaire Pers, Kadoc 1983) 38-63.

55.CHOLVY, Gerard, op. cit., 15-16.

56.DE MAEYER, J., and HELLEMANS, S., "Katholiek reveil, katholieke verzuiling en dagelijks leven", in : BILLIET, J., Tussen bescherming en verovering. Sociologen en hislorici over zuilvorming. (Kadoc-Studies 6), (Leuven : Universitaire Pers 1988) 171-200.

57.LAMBERTS, E., op. cit., 62-63.

58.DE JONG, Kardinaal, Handboek der Kerkgeschiedenis, vol. 4 (Nijmegen-Leuven : NV Standaard / Dekker 1949) 145-146.

59.See DE MAEYER, J., De Sint-Lucasscholen en de Neogotiek, 1862-1914. (Kadoc-Studies 5), (Leuven : Universitaire Pers 1988)

60.Quoted in HAMON, Leo, (ed.), Du Jansenisme a la laicite. Le jansenisme et les origens de la dechristianisation. Le entretiens d'Auxerre. (Paris: Ed. de la maison des science de l'homme 1983 / 87) 188.

61.Quoted in CHOLVY, Gerard, op. cit., 53.

62.LAMBERTS, E., op. cit., 62-63.

63.CHOLVY, Gerard, op. cit., 56.

64.See PRUD'HOMME Claude, Strategic missionnaire du Saint-Siege sous le pontifical de Lean XIII. Centralisation Romaine et defis culturels. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. (Universite Jean-Moulin Lyon III 1989).

65.ART, Jan, "De gelovigen en het parochiale leven", in : CLOET, Michel, (ed.), op. cit. 413-435.

66.SCHAFERS, Michael, "Rerum Novarum－The Result of Christian Social Movements 'From Below'", Concilium 1991 / 5, 3-17.

67.ART, Jan, "art. cit. ", 413-435.

68.SCHAFERS, Michael, "art. cit."

69.CHOLVY, Gerard, op. cit., 37-52; DE MAEYER, J., and HELLEMANS, S., art. cit..

70.See VAN HECKEN, J., Les reductions catholiques du pays des Ordos. Une methode d 'apostolat des missionnaires de Scheut. (Schriften reihe der Neuen Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft, no. 15) (Schoneck / Beckenried 1957).

71.NEILL, Stephen, A History of Christian Missions, The Pelican History of the Church, vol. 6, Revised Edition (London : Penguin Books 1987) 358-362

Concluding Remarks

The nineteenth-century Catholic and Protestant missionary revivals were mainly the result of a powerful general religious revival as a reaction to the rationalistic Enlightenment. In contrast to the Evangelical Awakening, the Catholic Reveil was shaped by the traditionalist and ultramontane movement. In their approach to the "social question", both the Protestant and the Catholic missionary enterprise generally speaking adopted a moderate conservative and paternalistic attitude, except for the early colonial antislavery agitation among the Protestant and later among Catholic missionaries.

A real appraisal of the missionary enterprise during the nineteenth century cannot be completed unless a thorough and unbiased study of the missionaries' life and work is made within the context of the mission field or local Church itself. The sources for our further study are abundant as far as the European archives of the missionary societies and the SCPF are concerned, as well as the European and Chinese diplomatic archives. However, the materials concerning the life of the local Northern Chinese and Inner Mongolian Church are scarce or seemingly non-existent. It is my hope that this aspect can be further studied by the Chinese and the Mongol scholars themselves or by others in cooperation with them.

作者：罗国辉

前言

人生的体验可以成为「信仰」的经验和「事件」。

生、老、病、死是人生必经之路。在「病」中，人特别容易经验到「是非成败转头空」的悲凉，或者是人情冷暖、世态炎凉，被「天」、「人」遗弃的孤寂。故此，「病」「苦」相连(可参阅训12：1－8)。而且「病」不单使人认识人生的有限，也促使人反省人生，甚至追究病苦的根源。于是，求救于医术和伦理。显然地，有一些疾苦的确是与「罪」有关，但不是全部痛苦都是「罪」罚。然而，求医之时，常也会顺求良心平安(罪赦)。再说家人及朋友的同情鼓励，固然可减轻病人的「苦」，但不一定可以消除全部的「苦」「痛」。于是，人也寻求神明的帮助或归咎于邪魔，故「病」可导人入「圣」，也可误人于「巫术」。但无论如何，「病苦」是追寻健康人生和最终归宿的机缘。(可参阅：约伯传，若9：2－3)

事实上，天主不愿意人丧亡，却愿意人得救，祂在人生的不同遭遇中，施恩救援。在「病」「苦」中，天主使人遇见生命之道?耶稣基督，祂如同先知们所预告的上主之仆和善牧(依53：4；则33：16)，担荷了人间的疾苦，治愈人灵魂和肉体的疾病，恢复人的神形健康(路17：11－19；5：17－26；谷2：1－12；玛8：14－17)，使人认识自己和天主，并善度天主所愿意的健康人生；这是宣告上主的国度已来临的行动的一部份(路4：16－27；7：22；谷1：32－34，40－45)，为让人预尝天国生活的素质和效能(玛25：36)。同样，耶稣基督也委派祂的门徒去宣告天国的来临，授予他们治愈人类的使命和能力(谷6：13；路10：9；玛10：7)。

事实上，耶稣所应许的能力常伴随着宣传天国福音的门徒们(谷15：15－18)；这个继续耶稣基督的使命的团体?基督的肢体，充满圣神，有治病的特恩和奇能(宗3：1－26；格前12：7－9，28－30)，也有恒常性的关怀肢体：「为病人祈祷，因主名给他傅油」；诚然，「出于信德的祈祷，必救那病人，主必使他起来，并且如果他犯了罪，也必得赦免」(雅5：14－15)。这一切，都是为证实他们所传的道(谷16：20)，使众人因耶稣基督而得到救援(宗4：8－12)。

了解的重点：

1.照顾病人的神形需要是整个宣告天国来临的行动的一部份。

2.照顾病人的神形需要，促使人通过基督，从「病苦」的人生逾越到「健康」的人生。

3.照顾病人的人和病人都藉此而更认识基督，肖似基督(哥1：24；格后1：3－11)，也吸引其他人归向基督。

4.所以，照顾病人的神形需要，已分享着基督救世的行动?圣事的效能，且在「为病人祈祷和傅油圣事」中达到高峰和完全体现出来。

5.照顾病人的人中，偶有天赋神恩者，但照顾和慰问病人，及为病人祈祷，却常是每位基督徒的义务，更是公务职任者的使命，每人都有自己的角色！

一. 照顾病人及其圣事在罗马教会的传承

1. 二至八世纪

1.1病人圣体

圣经外，最早的一份有关照顾病人的礼仪记载，可算是公元150年圣犹斯定的第一护教书(67章)。在描写主日的感恩祭宴时，它说「……(在主席感谢完毕)，便将已感谢了的(圣体、圣血) 分给各人，并留下一部份给未能到会的人，由执事送去……(他们也收集捐献)由主席保存，赒济孤儿寡妇，和那些有需要的人，例如：患病及他种事故……」。(1)它所说的「未能到会者」可能也包括病人在内。那么，当时照顾病人的方式之一，也就是为他们送上团体聚会时所祝谢的饼酒?主的体血，让他们可以藉此而与主及祂的肢体契合；同时也为他们送上生活所需的财物。

1.2祝福病人油

至于直接有关照顾病人及其圣事的经文，最早的一份是记载于圣希波律的「宗徒传承」中；它记载了当时在祝谢饼酒后，也祝福了油：「天主，请圣化此油。你曾为君王、司祭和先知傅了油，请圣化那些领受和傅用此油的人，使品尝此油的人得到舒泰，使傅用此油的人得到健康。」(2)

这祝福经文指出此油的应用是为使饮用(品尝) 或傅用者，藉圣神(圣化) 而得到舒泰和健康。这经文成为西方和东方教会祝福病人傅油的蓝本，且各有发挥。虽然这经文在历史上经过多次改动，但仍保持它的基本含义。

这经文在1970年出版的祝福圣油礼典中，更改如下：「天主，予人安慰的慈父，你曾藉你的圣子医治人的疾苦，求你俯听我们出自信心的祈祷，从天上派遣施慰者圣神，来圣化这些油：这是你为人类所创造，你从绿叶青枝产生这些油，用以强化(舒畅) 我们的身体。愿你降福所有傅用这油的人，得到身心和灵魂的健康，除去一切痛苦、衰弱和疾病。天父，请降福这油，让我们因主耶稣基督之名来使用，祂和你及圣神是唯一天主，永生永王。」(3)

除了以上的祝福病人圣油的经文外，我们到了第八世纪仍找不到为病人傅油时所用的经文。在罗马教会，病人油早在第五世纪已由主教在圣周四所祝福。按照罗马格的传统，由主教祝福圣油，正表示出教会的团结和整体性的行动。(4)

1.3 圣油的应用

按照教宗依诺森一世于416年致欧古比主教索钦西的书信(DS 216)，我们知道当时已引用雅5：14－15作为佐证，指出该以主教祝福的油为病人傅油，且不单司铎们，所有信友在他们或其他人有需要时，也可以用来(给人或自己) 傅油。但因为这是圣事，故此，为那些尚未与教会修好者?禁领圣事者，不可给他们傅油。

从五到八世纪，牧者们常劝谕信友生病时不可求援于占卜魔术，只该求援于天主。正如可敬的伯达(672－735)，劝告教友在生病时，不可求援于占卜魔术，而该前往教会，领受基督的体血，并用司铎所祝福的油来傅抹。可见到了第八世纪，由主教或司铎祝福圣油，由教友或神职、甚或病人自己，用以傅抹患处，都是当时极平常的做法，也是照顾病人者，无论是神职、教友，很自然约为病人益处的做法。(5)

2. 第八世纪至十二世纪

2.1 探访病人，为病人祈祷的礼典渐渐成型

在罗马七至八世纪的礼书中已有神职人员(主教、司铎) 探访病人，为病人祈祷的经文(GEL 1535－47；GREG 987－88)。这些拉丁文礼仪在九世纪传入查理曼的帝国后，一般不懂拉丁文的群众不明白其内容，于是神职人员探访病人及为病人祈祷，变成了相当形式化的事。加上隐修院常用的「为病人祈祷日课」(包括七篇忏悔圣咏、祷文、圣诗)，使这些探访病人及为病人祈祷的礼仪更变得冗长，而且受到临终者在病床上领受修好圣事的影响，往往包括了洒圣水、告解、领临终圣体、祝福病人等礼节，更非由司铎主持不可，礼规上也常与助善终的经文排在一起。冗长的神职用的拉丁文「探访病人和为病人祈祷」的礼仪也一直用于罗马礼，包括洒圣水、划十字、多次念圣咏、读经(最后一篇多是若1：1－14)、祈祷、覆手、祝福等。(6) 直到1972年的「病人傅油及照顾病人礼典」才有所修改，且把「为病人送圣体」，尤其是「临终圣体」安排作另外一项仪式。

2.2 「为病人傅油」渐渐变成「终傅」

按照教宗依诺森一世所说，尚未与教会修好的罪人，不得领受「病人傅油」。可是中世纪一般信友都因为害怕严重的补赎(往往是终生的，例如：不得行房或吃肉等)，而把「修好」延迟到在病床上、临终时才领受。于是，受此影响，「病人傅油」也顺延至临终时，办妥当告解后，领了临终圣体，才领受傅油，于是，名符其实是「终傅」了，而且也顺理成章，由主持临终修好的主教或司铎来「傅临终」，而不再会假手于信友了。「终傅」这词语，终于在1245年的第一届「里昂大公会议」应用了(DS 833)。礼典上，探访病人，举行临终修好圣事，送临终圣体，傅「终傅」，和助善终等经文也放在一起，为方便使用。(7)

2.3为病人傅油的经文和傅油部份渐渐规定成型

一直到第七世纪中叶，我们都没有找到为病人傅油时用的经文，大概是因为为病人傅油是很自然的事，由神职、信友或病人自己或他的家人见机行事，没有什么礼规，也没有固定的经文，就是「出自信德的祈祷，因主名为病人傅油」吧！况且，祝福圣油时，已经是整个教会为病人求得上主施慰，恩赐神形健康。

到了第七世纪中叶，在爱尔兰的礼仪书中，有一个很简单的傅油经文：「我因圣三之名给你傅油，使你永享平安(安康)。」这经文也见于其他地方。(8) 然而仍不清楚在身体那处傅油，是否就在患处呢？！

到了第九世纪时，情况变了，尤其当礼仪流入日耳曼地区，神职包办一切礼仪，病人傅油又因临终修好圣事而渐成「终傅」，一些地方已有清楚成型的神职为病人傅油礼规，说明除在患处划十字圣号傅油外，也在身体其他的部位，如在喉、领口、胸、眼、耳、口、鼻、手、足、两腰等地方傅油；偶有三处，七处，十五处，十七至二十处。(9)

同时，傅油时的经文也逐渐定型。傅油方式可分三类：

(1)念一次经文，然后在不同部位傅油。

(2)在每个部位都念同一经文，只改变该部位的名称；经文直接说：「我在你『口』(眼、耳……) 傅上圣油，使你以『口』(眼、耳……) 所犯的罪，尽得赦免。」

(3)大概把傅油的部位限在眼、耳、口、鼻、双手、两腰和双足，而不一定在患处，傅油时用转求式的经文，如：「因这神圣的傅油礼，并赖天主的无限仁慈，祈望天主宽赦你由视觉(口、手……) 所犯的一切罪过。」

第三类的经文和傅油方式，一直使用到1972年的礼典。(10)

至此，傅油的经文和部位基本上确定下来了。傅油的经文明显的是为赦罪，好像是临终修好圣事(告解) 的延续，根本与祝福这圣油时的经文内容和本意不同，而且又不是在患处傅油，根本看不出这是为病人得到身心(神形) 治愈的圣事。相反的，整个礼节都好像送「临终」的行动。

同时，当时亦有观念，把临终修好圣事与「终傅」连在一起，好像领了「终傅」，虽然复原，已被傅油祝圣，故此，不能再度以往的生活(甚至行房或跳舞等)，也不能重领终傅。当然这样的观念，也受到神学家们的质疑和否定，但是，这观念却助长了把「傅油」延迟至重病不起，有生命危险才领受的「终傅」习惯。(11)

3. 十三至廿世纪梵二前

3.1 「终傅」短式的形成

在八世纪至十二世纪其间成型的「终傅」仪式，往往跟「为病人祈祷的日课」(多篇圣咏，祷文，圣诗)，「临终修好圣事(告解)」和「送善终」等合在一起举行，冗长得很，且藉着那受日耳曼影响的罗马主教礼典(PRG) 而传播广远。

但十一至十二世纪间，法国Cluny隐修院的礼典却兴起了「终傅」短式：病人首先办好告解，神职人员为病人洒圣水和奉香后，便祈祷为病人傅油，同时团体念圣咏，然后送圣体。这样的短式流行于欧洲，影响了当时的罗马主教礼典。(12) 后来，方济会士采用了这短式，并在他们的传教过程中，传播到其他地方。1614年的罗马圣事礼仪手册，稍微修改了告解和领圣体的次序，便收纳短式作为「终傅」的施行方式，用于罗马礼的教会。其基本内容是：致候，洒圣水，告解，送临终圣体，祈祷(1925年复兴覆手)，傅油(1917年取消在两腰傅油，足部傅油也不一定需要)，(旁人念七篇忏悔圣咏)，天主经，祈祷。礼规提醒要劝勉病人安心顺命，接受死亡，并吩咐亲友，适时替病人念助善终经。(13) 这样的「终傅」方式一直用至梵二会议后，1972年新的「病人傅油及照顾病人礼典」出版。

3.2 教义上的肯定 (14)

从八世纪开始，为病人祈祷和傅油，渐渐变得神职化、形式化和「终傅」化。

十二世纪开始，神学家们都想当然尔地，按照他们时代所见的「终傅」仪式和惯行方式，来探讨这行动的性质和效能，教会的训导文件也依照当时的了解来颁布当信的道理。

十三世纪第二届里昂大公会议(1274年)，肯定「终傅」是七件圣事之一(DS 860)，其后佛罗伦斯大公会议，给亚美尼亚人的文告(1439年，DS 1324－1325)，肯定终傅是为临终者，由神父所施行，若没有死亡危险，不得领此圣事。施行方式是在身体七个部位(眼、耳、口、鼻、两腰、手、足) 傅油，形式是傅油时念祈求宽恕以该部位所犯罪过的祈祷文，材料是主教所祝福了的油，功效是心灵的健康，若为人灵有益，也可获致身体的康复。(这根本与祝福圣油的祷文的重点不一样，也与只为临终者才施行的规定不符。)

其后的特利腾大公会议，面对新教徒的攻击，重申了教会的立场(DS 1694－1700, 1716－1719)，它引用谷6：13，雅5：14－15来肯定主耶稣建立了这件圣事，以傅油为有形可见的圣事行动和记号，象征赋予圣神。效果是：(1) 涤除罪的遗毒；(2) 激发信心，坚强灵魂，忍受病苦；(3) 最后，若有益于得救也使人痊愈。施行方式是以主教祝福的油为病人傅油，并念求宽恕以该部位所犯罪过的既定经文。特利腾大公会议说当时教会所行终傅的方式与雅各伯书中所言，没有格格不入。同时，神父、主教是此圣事的本有施行者(proprius minster)。领受者应为病人，尤其是临终者，若康复后，在另一次相似临终时，仍可重领(文件中没有重复佛罗伦斯大公会议所说的：「若没有死亡危险，不得领受这圣事」的规定，且常用「为病人傅油」和「病人」来指称这圣事和它的领受者)。

3.3 牧灵影响3.3.1 一般信友惧怕这圣事

「病人傅油」变成「终傅」后，一般信友都害怕领受这圣事，好像是死亡的标记。当然基督徒需要面对死亡，并深信死亡是通往永生，与基督逾越契合的路；然而，这是临终圣体作为「天路行粮」的圣事意义；「病人傅油」本来就不是「临终圣事」。况且，「终傅」用拉丁文举行，一般领受者听不懂，恐怕难于激励信德，只能当作魔术性的一项得圣宠、送善终的方式而已。

于是，一般习惯都是在最后关头，病人弥留时，才请神父傅「临终」，很多时候病人已经没有机会清醒地领受圣事，甚至是已经断气了。故此，这件圣事起不了多大的牧灵作用，反而是神父们的一项工作负担。

3.3.2 照顾病人为病人祈祷和施行圣事变得形式化和神职化

「终傅」仪式只可由主教或神父用拉丁文举行，形成了把照顾病人灵性生活、为病人祈祷和施行圣事方面的责任，都全放在神父身上，尤其信友随时随地急忙找神父傅「临终」，对神父成了一份压力。神父们往往以本堂界限，属谁负责等藉口互相推搪。虽然说应该是义不容辞的服务，但是因为往往病人已弥留不醒，圣事徒具形式，于是很多神父都视作苦差，充其量满足牧灵上的良心本份，或对临终者家人的安慰和支持，而起不了圣事激励病人信德的作用。

在一些地方，人口老化，天气转变时，急召神父傅临终者频繁，神父又年纪老迈，往往应接不暇，老神父也归天去了。十分可惜，在这项照顾病人，为病人祈祷及施行圣事的整个牧灵服务上，信友的角色只是辅助病人祈祷，急忙通知神父，作神父的配角，失去昔日信友按其本份，恒常分担和参与照顾病人，为他们祈祷，甚至是被假手施行圣事的主动角色。整体来说：这件圣事越来越形式化，神职化，没有充分发挥它本应是教会传递基督的治愈能力，延续基督宣告天国来临的一项行动之特色，在照顾病人的事情上，失去牧灵使命的全面性。

1.可参阅：谢扶雅译，《基督教早期文献选集》，基文　香港　(1976)　457。

2.可参阅：《神学年刊》(5)，香港圣神修院神哲学院　(1981)　35；原文见ed. BOTTE B., La Tradition apostolique de saint Hippolyte, Essai de reconstitution (Munster Westfalen : 1963) 18-19

3.可参阅：Ordo Unctionis Infirmorum Eorumque Pastorais Curae (Roma : 1972). (《病人傅油及牧灵上照顾病人礼典》，简称《1972年病人礼典》) 75节

4.罗国辉，《踰越》，真理学会　香港　(1988) 39

5.KNAUBER A., Pastoral Theology Of The Anointing Of The Sick (Collegeville : Liturgical Press 1975) 16A-17A；奥脱，《天主教信理神学(下)》，光启　征祥　台湾　(1969)　701；温保禄，《病痛者圣事》，光启　台湾　(1984)　23

6.ed. MARTIMORT A.G., The Church At Prayer, Vol. III, The Sacraments (Collegeville : Liturgical Press 1988) 127-129 ;《圣教礼典》，光启　台湾　(1964)　84-102

7.KNAUBER A., op. cit., 17A-19A ; ed. MARTIMORT A.G., op. cit., 131

8.ed. MARTIMORT A.G., op. cit., 129, note 59, 60

9.ed. MARTIMORT A.G., op. cit., 130, note61, 62

10.《圣教礼典》，79－81

11.KNAUBER A., op. cit., 17a-19a, with note 56-61

12.ed. MARTIMORT A.G., op. cit., 132, note 70, 71

13.ed. MARTIMORT A.G., op. cit., 132-133 ;《圣教礼典》，75-83

14.请参看：温保禄，《病痛者的圣事》，26－33

二. 梵二礼仪牧灵更新后，「病人傅油圣事及照顾病人礼典」的牧灵反省

经过了多年来的礼仪运动，深入礼仪传承及教会训导的探索，梵二大公会议于礼仪宪章73－75节，明令修订病人傅油礼；罗马圣礼部在1972年出版了「病人傅油及照顾病人礼典」，且由教宗保禄六世以「宗座宪令」颁令实施。拉丁版1983年按新教律修正其「导言」；1986年台湾天主教中国主教团礼仪委员会编印，由教务协进会出版社出版的《病人傅油礼典》(下文称「台版礼典」) 仍是1972年旧版。以下提出其更新的重点和反省：

1. 圣事名称及其领受者

礼仪宪章73节提出，更好称这圣事为『病人傅油』，虽然『终傅』也可以，但声明这圣事并不单是临终者的圣事，因此，若因疾病或年老，开始有死亡危险，便已确实到了领受此圣事的适当时刻。这说法重覆于「宗座宪令」和「导言」(8节)，但在「宪令」中却修改为「……病危者……」(…infirmis periculose aegrotantibus…)，又在「导言」(8)里修改为「因疾病或年老而垂危者」(propter infirmitatem vel senium periculose aegrotant)；两者都没有提及「死亡」(in periculo mortis propter infirmitatem vel senium (S.C.73))。

这些说法，一方面是开放性地改正了自中世纪以来狭窄的「终傅」概念，但也不拒绝这已成的事实，且包容性地接纳这做法。另一方面，在情结上仍解不开「终傅」的概念，遂以「开始有死亡的危险」、「病危」、「垂危」来说明「到了领受圣事」的适当时刻。

其实，这些说法比特利腾大公会议所说的，还要狭窄，因为特利腾大公会议也只是说「应该为病人傅油，尤其为那些病危卧床不起，似乎临终的病人傅油」(DS 1698)。事实上，「病」是人生的一种光景和遭遇，医学越发达，死亡的危险就越少，但可能有的痛苦却不少，这些「病苦」虽不致死，难道就不是遇见和体现基督治愈能力的时刻吗？在圣经中，耶稣的治病便没有限于有死亡危险者(若9：1－41；玛9：20－34；谷6：12－13；16：15－18)，甚至雅5：14－15也没有这个暗示；又在第八世纪以前的罗马教会，及今日东方教会的传承也都没有如此界定。如果说是「重病」或「大病」，这还可以说得过去呢！英语礼典就把拉丁文periculose 翻译为「严重」(seriously)，而非「病危」，且获圣座批准。(1982, ICEL)

「导言」第9节是开放性的。它说病人在傅油后痊愈，或在同一疾病中，病况转危时可以「重覆」领此圣事。

第10节：「由于危险疾病需动手术，手术前可领傅油圣事。」

这令人费解，也缺乏医学常识。任何疾病和手术都有其危险性，也可能没有危险性。总之，要动严重的手术，若病人要求为他祈祷和傅油，不就是「时候」吗？

第11节是非常开放性的：「老人身体衰弱，虽没有危险性疾病，方可领此圣事。」但，这与第8节有点不协调：老人身体衰弱，不一定是「有生命危险」或「病危」，都可以领受此圣事，那么，年纪可否是一个限制呢？假如不是老人，但身体患病衰弱，虽不是有生命危险或病危，可否领此圣事呢？

第12节：「儿童到了理智年龄，并由此圣事可得到助佑，亦可领此圣事。」

这非常容易引人误会，以为人理智上了解圣事，才得到圣事的助佑；但，人的理智可以限制天主的施恩吗？如果我们相信这圣事是基督为「医治」病人神形需要，所建立的施恩工具，那么虽然儿童未了解这圣事的神益，但为他们得到上主医治的恩惠，不可以为他们施行圣事吗？难道要儿童理解医学常识才给他们诊病吗？可能因为仍把这件「医治」病人神形需要的圣事，看作好像专为「赦罪」的圣事，如同在中古世纪的误会，才会有这「儿童到了理智年龄……」的说法吧！

按照雅5：14－15，和在礼仪传承中，内容恒常不变的祝福病人油的祷文来看，这是「病人」的圣事：为病人施行的傅油圣事。「病」的定义、其严重性与年龄的关系，按常理判断便是。该紧记这圣事是基督使在「病苦」中的人，体验到祂的逾越奥迹的行动和机缘。

2. 礼典的安排及其执行人员

1972年出版的礼典，名正言顺称为「病人傅油及(牧灵上) 照顾病人礼典」。这表示出教会重新肯定「病人傅油圣事」是整个照顾病人牧灵需要的其中一部份，是重要和核心的部份，但绝不是全部。正如礼仪宪章9－10节强调，礼仪是教会行动所趋向的高峰和力量的泉源，却不是教会的全部行动。

换句话说，1972年礼典要把「病人傅油圣事」作为整个照顾病人神形需要的多元化行动的一环，不过，它是这些行动的高峰和力量的泉源。(「礼典」中各项照顾病人的礼仪，将在第三节详论。)

1972年礼典的安排，纠正了把「病人傅油圣事」形式化，孤立地看作一项「终傅」仪式的误会，并且刻意地把它看作多元化照顾病人整体神形需要的一项核心行动。

礼典「导言」第1至第4节，开宗明义详细论及人类的疾病及其在救赎奥迹中的意义，除强调了病人的作证使命外，同时强调其他人士(包括医护人员) 也该多方面关照病人的神形需要。

同时，第32至37节更详细论及整个教会?神职和信友并重－－对病人的职务和服务，且把一切照顾和医治病人神形需要的努力，视为福音的准备，和分担基督服务人群的职务(32节)。只差一点没有明显地说明，这是宣告天国来临的行动的一部份。

2.1 信友的角色

33节指出每位信友在基督奥体内互助互爱，在照顾病人的事务上分担不同的职务：或与疾病奋斗的病人，或照顾他们的人，或为病人施行圣事的人。34节尤其指出病人的亲友，及服务病人的人，「先当以信德的言语及祈祷，坚强病人，把他们托付给受苦与复活的主基督……，在病人情况转坏时，立即通知有关神父，并以明智的言词准备病人，在适当时刻领受圣事。」

在42－44节慰问病人的礼规中，指示司铎与照顾病人的信友，要以信德劝解及引导病人与受苦的基督结合，帮助他们并与他们一起祈祷，尤其以圣经协助病人祈祷默想。可是第45节却只是为司铎详细说明「圣道礼仪」程序。

其实为病人举行圣道礼仪，与他们一起祈祷，不光是司铎可以主持，任何信友，尤其病人家属，和照顾病人的人、探望病人的人，都可以按照病人的情况，随时随地，很简单地与病人一起读圣经、分享、祈祷，甚至在病人额上划十字圣号，为他们祝福祷告(《祝福礼典》，290－312号，拉丁版1985)。这绝对不是神职人员的专利，况且有些信友充满慰问病人的神恩，他们最适宜常常参与为病人祈祷的服务，这是任何堂区、教区都极需要发掘和发展的神恩和服务。幸好，45节、64节，也说及司铎该与病人和他们的家人，共同准备和选取适当的经文。

1986年台版礼典第16－21页，提供了「与病人一起举行的圣经诵祷」，由司铎或信友主持都很适合，可惜欠缺了读经后的分享，或简短的讲道。其实无论是否由神职主持，读经后，有一些圣经默想式的分享和安慰的话语都是很贴切的。同时该让病人用他所熟习的经文来祈祷，甚至病人自己不能祈祷时，别人也可以为他们祈祷。至于覆手或在额上划十字圣号，都是很好的行动，表示祝福，祈求天主圣神的支持、安慰和保护病人；一般原则是神职人员用「覆手」，信友用「在额上划十字圣号」来祝福病人(《祝幅礼典》，306－308号)。总之，任何礼典都要灵活安排和举行。

台版礼典第31页之(六)，也加上在举行傅油圣事前，司铎可把一些任务，如读经、信友祷文分配给参礼者，好使他们积极参与。

事实上，整个1972年礼典，都刻意对信友在不同情况下参与照顾病人神形益处的角色，特别详论，尤其在29节指出，在施行圣事上，信友担任的「特派送圣体员」，在需要时，可为病人送「临终圣体」(这当然已经包括在他们通常的职务上了，参阅《送圣体员手册》香港教区礼仪委员会编写及出版，1991)。

整本礼典中，差不多全由信友担任的部份，就是第六章138－151节?扶助临终者的祈祷。只有在141节提及病人断气后，司铎或执事在场，则由他们领念151节的经文，否则由任何一位在场者领念。

其实，任何祈祷聚会，信友都是祈祷的主角，神职的使命是协助信友祈祷：作开始导言，讲解或分享上主的圣言，引导众人祈祷，作集祷结束和祝幅。

无论如何，在1972年的礼典中，信友作为基督肢体，照顾受苦肢体?病人?的神形需要的角色是非常明显的。这纠正了梵二以前照顾病人神益的工作几乎全由神职人员担任的不良现象。

可惜，目前仍未开放在有需要时，例如缺乏神职人员时，假手信友给病人傅圣油。事实上，正如圣体由司铎祝圣，在需要时，假手信友送给病人；同样，圣油既由主教祝福，在需要时，也可假手信友，在祈祷中给病人傅油。这样的做法，同样可以灵活体现整个教会对病人的照顾，为他们祈祷和傅油，把他们托付给死而复活的主基督。(15) 况且，这样的牧灵措施，也是在教会礼仪传承中曾经有过的；相信只待将来解决历史上「终傅赦罪」的情结后，16总有一天，负责照顾病人的信友必得重获假手作为「特派员」，在需要时(神职不在时)，为病人祈祷并傅油。

只有把照顾病人神形需要的职务让信友来分担，尤其是受过培训，充满神恩的信友，来多方面发挥(例如：安慰病人，为他们祈祷……等)，并与神职服务相辅相成，才能把照顾病人和病人傅油圣事，落实为天国行动的一部份，而不会沦为可以藉口推搪的一个负担。

2.2 主教及司铎的角色

信友照顾病人，为病人祈祷的活泼角色，不单不与神职角色混淆，反之，更具体落实了彼此相辅相成的关系。神职的角色在这1972年礼典中，也清楚注明。

「导言」16－19节，论及傅油圣事的施行者：唯有司祭是傅油圣事的本有施行人(minister proprius，台译「专职」，且把sacerdos抽离上下文，误译为「司铎」)；通常情况是由主教、堂区主任、与护理有关的特派司铎，和圣职修会的院长，为病人施行傅油圣事；其他司铎，有合理原因假定得获负责者的同意，便可施行此圣事，事后通知他们便可(16、18节)。

当然，现在已没有因为施行这圣事可获取大笔「谢仪」的现象，把负责者的优先顺序清楚列明，既是职务分明，便不容推卸责任，每位司铎都当义不容辞，在需要时，为病人施行圣事。

同时，17节也指出神职不单是为病人傅油，也应与信友们合作，在他们的协助下准备病人和在他们左右的人，领受圣事。

19节也开放了让多位神父一起为病人举行傅油圣事，且每位神父都可分担一部份礼节，全体都可为病人覆手。

多位司铎(通常是七位)，共同为病人傅油是拜占庭礼施行这圣事的正常方式，为表达出「医治」的能力是来自整个教会秉承着基督的应许。(17) 故此，1972年礼典19节也可以说有这方面的意义，同时可看出司铎间圣职的一体性和团体意义。其实，罗马礼由主教祝福病人油，然后由各司铎使用，也能表达出这含意，且彰显了教会整体行动的意义。

此礼典除了在谈及傅油圣事的施行者时，论及司铎的职务，也在论及照顾病人的职务和其他服务时，指出堂区主任和16节所指明的司铎都有责任时常探访、慰问，并以爱德去帮助病人，并在施行圣事时激励众人对永生的期望，加强他们对受苦和光荣之基督的信德；这样带来慈母教会的开怀和信仰的安慰，使信友获得鼓励(35节)。36、37节则强调司铎要准备病人及信友领受和参与圣事，安排礼仪，选用经文等。

以上所说关于司铎服务病人的职责，都不难执行。唯各教区主教是否如此积极去履行他们为病人祈祷和傅油的职务，倒成问题？！如果他们只在圣周四祝福病人油，然后，袖手不理，没有主动安排和参与照顾病人，为病人祈祷和傅油，恐怕，「导言」的条文也只是空谈。请让主教记得教宗依诺森一世，训勉主教该以自己所祝福的油来为病人傅油的指示(DS 216)。

16－19节说，傅油圣事的本有施行人是主教、司铎，并不包括执事，更不假手信友，这是历史遗留下的问题，因为「终傅」与「赦罪」结合在一起的「阴魂」未散，故此傅油仍由可以执行修好圣事的主教、司铎来举行。

这礼典详细谈论了信友和神职人员对病人的关怀，也包括了病者家属和护理人员对病人的照顾，可惜没有指示应给病者家属牧灵上的关心和支持。事实上，病者家属也在照顾病人的境遇中感到无奈、痛苦、焦虑，而且，他们的状况也会影响病人，故此病者家属也需要信友和神职人员的关心、支持、安慰和代祷。或者在编订本地礼典时，可以加入关怀和以信仰行动(例如：读圣经及祈祷) 来支持病者家属的指示。

3. 礼典中照顾病人的各项礼仪及牧灵反省

1972年拉丁版的《病人傅油及照顾病人礼典》，除了「导言」外，共有七章。第一章是慰问(探访) 病人和送病人圣体。第二章是病人傅油仪式。第三章是临终圣体。第四章是临终时施行圣事仪式。第五章是病危坚振圣事。第六章是善终经文。第七章是任选经文。

在这七章中，有四章是为病危和临终者举行的圣事和礼仪。只有前两章才是真正为病人举行的礼仪和圣事。当然，我们明白病症可以转坏和危害生命，而且照顾病人也应包括照顾到他们离开尘世的事，但用了一半的篇幅来谈论临终事宜，是否容易引起误会，把病人圣事与临终圣事混为一谈呢？又可否把论及临终的部份抽出，独立编成另一礼典，好确立病人圣事的清楚角色？

1986年台版《病人傅油礼典》，封面漏了「照顾病人」这句话，容易误导信友以为只关心傅油，而忽视照顾病人整体需要的精神。

台版礼典的编辑也颇为适应本地需要，而更动了拉丁礼典原有的安排：

台版礼典第一章之(一)，加入了与病人一起举行的「圣经诵祷」(这是台版佳作，上文已论及了)。

台版礼典第二章：「病人傅油仪式」中，竟然把拉丁礼典第四章「临终时施行圣事仪式」移置作此章之(二)。好像把「病人傅油」跟「终傅」混淆在一起；是否太迁就现实，而没有以正确的礼典安排，来纠正不良的牧灵现象呢？！

台版礼典第三章是「病人傅油弥撒」。这部份本来是拉丁礼典第二章之(二)，但台版却删除了拉丁礼典第二章之(三)：教区性、堂区性、或朝圣时，在弥撒中和弥撒外，以团体方式为病人傅油仪式。这是否意味着在牧民上没有这个需要呢？！是否会失去以团体方式举行「病人傅油圣事」的机会，及其教会幅度的意义呢？是否也会失去了团体对病人关怀的行动和培育呢？

台版礼典第四章本是拉丁礼典第三章的「临终圣体」。台版礼典第五、六、七章跟拉丁礼典的一样。

香港教区，在1990年由香港教区礼仪委员会编辑的「教会圣事简编」(真理学会出版)中，安排了在圣堂外送圣体的仪式，包括在家庭及在医院举行各两款(共四款)，内容有全式和简式，为适合香港需要，又有通常为病人傅油及送圣体的礼规，包括在弥撒外和内；同时也有送临终圣礼仪式。香港教区礼仪委员会，在1991年也出版了「送圣体员手册」和「圣堂外送圣能仪式」，专为培育信友担任特派送圣体员，去为病人送圣体，并为他们祈祷。

3.1 慰问病人及送病人圣体

第一章慰问病人的部份，在42至45节(上文已经论述) 提供了一些指示，而没有提供定型的礼节经文。这一方面有它的好处，改变了梵二前的固定形式，好让信友、神职可以按照病人的情况自由发挥，与病人和照顾他们的人一起安排准备。当然，礼典指出「要以圣经为主」(44、45节) 是对的，但灵活运用更是重要，因为病人的知识水平不同，故不一定是照本宣科地把圣经念出来，可能是把圣经内容融合在安慰的话语中讲出来，让病人明白；祷文也应如此。但要注意，每人都有自己惯常的祷文，容易引起自己的热心，故此不怕让病人、并和他们一起用他们习惯了的传统祷文祈祷(如天主经、圣母经、玫瑰经、苦路经等)。如果各地教会在编印本地礼典时，能提供一些灵活的范例，让信友和神父们参考，就更好了。台版已经做到了这一点。

46－58节，是为病人送圣体的一般仪式：包括致候(可洒圣水)、告解或忏悔礼、读圣经和简短讲道、天主经、送圣体、结束祷词和祝福。可以说是非常标准的安排。安排方面也像在病人家中举行的。当然，灵活使用仍是唯一原则。例如：适当地选用圣经和祷文；同时简短讲道可以变成简单的圣经分享，让病人和家属，及照顾他们的人一同参与；又在简短讲道后也可以有信友祷文，让全体在场者同心祈祷。当然，在场的亲友也可分担整个礼仪的不同职务，如：读经、信友祷文等等。

59－63节，是为在医院不同房间的病人送圣体的简式：在第一个房间或圣堂念开始的对经，然后到每个病房送圣体，每次都只向病人说「请看！天主的羔羊……」，然后在最后一个房间或圣堂念结束祷词。

很难想像这样的送圣体仪式是梵二后所安排的礼仪，简直是形式主义的极品，如「集体农场」饲养动物般的方式，根本不能算作奥迹庆典。这方式没有把每个病人看作一个独立尊贵的人，也不把送圣体看作是耶稣通过教会服务人员跟每一位病人的位际交往；这方式不单没有圣言宣读，也没有交谈，更没有祈祷，完全违背了导言35、36、37、40、41各节。如果因为病人太多，司铎太少，那么设立足够的「特派送圣体员」是唯一解决的办法。如果司铎自己不能胜任地履行职务，又不按教会的方法，让别人帮助，将是漠视病人神形需要的重大过失。

「为病人送圣体的简式」，应该是因为病人的情况和客观环境的需要，例如：在公立医院中，访客、病人都多，不宜久留。那么，至少可按情况和病人交谈，在交谈中宣讲圣言，让病人得到安慰，然后祈祷，和送圣体，再和病人一起念些经文，然后祝福离去，让病人休息和祈祷。(请参看香港版「圣堂外送圣体仪式」，1988年香港礼仪委员会出版) (18)

3.2 「病人傅油圣事」礼仪

64－79节，是一般「为病人傅油仪式」。内容是：致候(可洒圣水)、导言、忏悔礼或告解、圣道礼仪(包括简短讲道)、祈祷(也可移在傅油后)、覆手、祝礼油(或圣油感谢词)、傅油、祈祷、天主经和祝福。(1986年台版在天主经后加上送圣体。) 导言41节说，因适应地方及人事环境，忏悔礼可移在圣道礼仪后，圣油之感谢词也可用劝言代替。

这傅油仪式也是非常标准；牧灵原则当然又是灵活应用和让参礼者和病人分担各项职务。

在「覆手」前的祈祷(73节) 可与240、241节替换。「导言」39节也说若罗马礼典有多种自由选用的祷文，地方专用礼典也可加入其他同类型的祷文，且73节也清楚说明可按情境斟酌、补充或缩短祷文。故此，这段为病人的祈祷文当可灵活运用，也可开放让在场亲友加入不同的意向，为病人及其他病者祈祷。当然最后一句最好常由司铎特别提示为病人覆手祈求圣神赋予力量(见73、240及241节的意向)，然后立即在静默中，为病人覆手。这样，祷文跟行动互相呼应，为病者及参礼者更容易明白和领会其中含义，且更清楚体现雅5：14暗示之「祈祷、覆手」之意。以祈求天主赐予圣神和祂的恩宠的祷文，来阐明为病人覆手的礼仪意义是最好不过了。(台版38页74节加上佳句阐明「覆手表示祈求天主赐予圣神和祂的恩宠：医治病人和祝福」。) 故此，不太适宜把这祷文除掉，或改在傅油后。傅油后如果再加上类同的祷文也好，但这另当别论了。(台版37－38页原是拉丁礼典的240节，第二式40－41页是改编自拉丁礼典73节，可惜失去了提及覆手祈求圣事恩宠的重要句子。)

75节是祝福油(242节是另一个可供选择的祝福文)。「导言」21节说除了主教、法律和宗座特准的司铎可以祝福病人油外，在必要时，任何司铎也可在为病人傅油时祝福油，但只限于该次施行圣事之用。「导言」20节说：油可用橄榄油或在需要时可用任何植物油。(在香港是用粟米油，加上清淡的香料，因为粟米油比较耐存，加上清淡香料，好给病者和参礼者一种清新的感受。) 75b节说：如果采用由主教祝福了的油，司铎可在傅油前念一段感谢词。导言41节说，主礼也可因时制宜，以劝言代替感谢词。

在应用时才祝福油是古老的习惯，后来因为主教不能每次都亲自主持病人傅油，于是罗马礼的主教就在圣周四祝福了病人油，让各司铎带回去应用，好表达出教会的整体性行动。但是，这做法使领受圣事者和参礼者没法藉祝福油的祷文，去明白傅油的意义，现在教会容许了司铎在需要时祝福病人油，或为已祝福的油感谢祈祷，或以劝言代替，都可以使领受者和参礼者，藉着这些祷文或劝言，明白圣油的意义。(台版39页的感谢词是本地佳作，内容提及圣神与病者永不分离，使领受者勇敢接受病苦，愉快期待主的恩许，可惜没有提及神形的医治，而且也没有感谢之言；拉丁礼典75b的感谢词是：感谢天主赐下基督，承担和医治我们的疾苦，并派遣施慰者圣神医治我们，祈求天主藉此傅油礼，减轻病人痛苦，医治病者的软弱。充份表达了病人傅油的个中精义。)

在牧灵上，主礼者能够「很自然地拿起油，感谢天主藉基督以圣神来安慰、医治人间疾苦，并求天主藉此油来实现祂圣子的应许，医治当前的病人」，需要主礼者莫大的信德，相信主基督的临在?祂藉教会的服务，继续祂的救世工作。这不单是主礼者的信德表现，同时，这出自信德的行动也要激励参礼者和领受者，以信德与基督相遇，接受此时此刻藉圣事而赐予的圣神恩宠。故此，牧灵上，主礼者出自内心的祈祷态度是非常重要的。

祈祷、覆手，祝福油(或感谢词) 后，便为病人傅油。76节是新的傅油祷文和傅油方式；这经文和方式是教宗保样六世以宗座宪令所颁令实施的：「病人傅油圣事是给那些重病者施行的。施行者在病人的额头和双手傅抹祝福过的橄榄油(或按情况用其他祝福过的植物油，同时只诵念一次以下的经文：

PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM

PIISIMAM MISERICORDIAM ADIUVET TE

DOMINUS GRATIA SPIRITUS SANCTI, UT A

PECCATIS LIBERATUM TE SALVET ATQUE

PROPITIUS ALLEVET.

「导言」23节说宜把祷文分为两段，擦额时念前半段，擦手时念后半段，但在紧急时，只擦在额上，或不能时，擦在更适当的部位，念一次整段祷文即可。76节就是按照通常的情况把祷文分开，分别在擦额和擦手时念。领受者也分别答「阿们」。「导言」24节说不禁止按各地传统增加傅油次数和变动部位。

有关擦抹圣油的部位，的确是简化了，但为什么在额上和手上傅油，却没有解释，难道是昔日有关「赦免以该部位所犯罪过」所遗下的残迹吗？今日傅油时的祷文却没有这样的意思。那么可能是象征性地在病人身体上傅油，因为有时病是没有准确位置的，也有时病痛位置不可能傅油，或公开傅油，故只在身体上选择一些部位来傅油就是了。额代表整个「人」，是可以了解的，但为什么也在手上傅油呢？！无论如何，不应把患处排除在傅油的部位以外，因为这是「医治的圣事」。故此，各地区可善用24节，在本地礼典中注明，除在额上傅油外，也可包括在患处或其附近傅油；这做法会更贴切表达这圣事的意义(在患处傅油是一般医治行为所做的：路10：34)。同时，也可建议念了一次傅油祷文后，在其他部位傅油时，也许可以在默祷中进行，又或重覆这祷文！拜占庭礼由七位司铎一起傅油时，也是重覆傅油和祈祷的。(19)

总之，不要把这傅油部份，简化得匆匆了事，如同魔术，而应在祈祷和信德中，庄严又简单地为病人傅油，让上主救世的奥迹(行动) 体现出来。

按宗座宪令所说「修订圣事格式，是要把雅各伯的劝勉和圣事的效果反映和表达出来。」故此，也该以这角度来了解新订的为病人傅油的行动和傅油时的祷文。

76节的傅油祷文颇难翻译，台版是「藉此神圣的傅油，并赖天主的无限仁慈，愿天主以圣神的恩宠助佑你；赦免妳的罪，拯救你，并减轻你的痛苦。」

其英译为：Through this holy anointing, may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up.

经文前半部份的问题在于「Dominus」的翻译，台版翻译作「天主」，英译「the Lord」，那么是指三位一体的天主或是死而复活后的主耶稣基督呢(宗2：36)？既然宗座宪令说明这经文是反映雅各伯的话，那么雅5：14－15所指的κυριοσ「主」又是谁呢？按一般学者(包括思高圣经学会) 都认为是指主耶稣基督；κυριοσ可译成拉丁文Dominus，中文直译应该是「主」，(虽然在希腊文，拉丁文，这个字也可从文义解为「天主」或是「主」耶稣基督，不过一般拉丁文Deus才直译为「天主」)。故此，考虑了雅5：14－15的含义，及拉丁文的翻译，最保守的翻译应该是「主」。

那么，前半段经文，应译为「藉此神圣傅油，并赖『主』的无限仁慈，愿主以圣神的恩宠助佑你。」或更好译为「藉此神圣傅油，愿无限仁慈的主以圣神的恩宠助佑你。」

傅油经文的后半段，明显地引用雅5：15。最大的问题是拉丁文「allevet」。这个字是直译了雅5：15εγερει，原意是「使起来」。虽然拉丁文allevel确有「减轻」、「提起」、「安慰」和「举起」等含义，但考虑到是引译雅5：15，故该译为「使起来」才妥当。但「使起来」之意也很广，一般学者(包括思高圣经学会注释) 都认为是包括神形两方面，故此台译：「减轻你的痛苦」，恐怕没有译出个中深义；直译作「使你起来」，又怕空乏难懂。又考虑到领受圣事者和参礼者容易领悟本圣事为病人的含义，若意译作「赐你神形康泰」，或「赐你神形康复」，或「赐你康复」，是否比较贴切呢？！

又这段拉丁经文[ut...te salvet atque...allevet] 是说「为了……拯救你和使你起来」，即是上文「藉此神圣傅油，愿主以圣神恩宠助佑你」所带来的效果。可惜台版把其中一部份[a peccatis liberatum](从罪恶中被释放的(你)) 译作另一平行句「赦免你的罪」；事实上，整句原意是「为了使『从罪恶中被释放的你』，得到拯救和起来」。故此，这段经文更好译作「祂既使你脱免罪恶，愿祂拯救你，赐你神形康泰(康复)／(起来)」。这译法比较贴切拉丁原文意义，也反映出雅5：15的主要效果－－「拯救」和「使起来」，及因此而附带的效果－－罪的赦免。(20) (英译也类同)

也就是说，全句傅油经文可译作：「藉此神圣傅油，愿无限仁慈的主以圣神的恩宠助佑你；祂既使你脱免罪恶，愿祂拯救你，赐你神形康泰(康复)」。(也可更简洁地译为：「藉此神圣傅油，愿无限仁慈的主以圣神的恩宠助佑你；祂既赦免你的罪过，愿祂拯救你，赐你神形康泰(康复)。」或：「藉此神圣傅油，并赖主的无限仁慈，愿主以圣神的恩宠助佑你；祂既赦免你的罪过，愿祂拯救你，赐你康复。」)

傅油的祷文清楚表明，这圣事是主耶稣基督藉着教会的服务，施予救恩，给予病人圣神的恩宠。「赋予圣神的恩宠」既是这件圣事的主要功效，效果就是圣神的恩宠要助佑那病人－－拯救那病人，使他起来(赐他神形康复)；经文并没有忽视因此而附带的效果－－罪赦，但巧妙地暗示病人确实因圣神的恩宠而脱免了罪恶。(21)

事实上，如果有需要，病人在傅油前，当首先接受修好圣事，因为傅油圣事，基本上是处于恩宠境界者新领受的圣事。

这傅油祷文，正体现雅5：15的说明，也正是「导言」6节所阐明的：「这圣事赋给病人圣神的恩宠，藉以帮助他全人(整个人) 得到救援，激励病人对天主的信心，增加病人的力量，以抵抗邪魔的诱惑，和对死亡的恐惧；因此，病人不单能勇敢地承受痛苦，且能克服它；若为病人灵魂得益，也能获得身体的健康，如有需要，也可得罪赦和免除应作的补赎。」

要注意，6节基本上也是发挥了雅5：15的精义；它开宗明义的指出在这圣事中，圣神的恩宠使病人得到「全人」的救援；比「宗座宪令」所引述的特利腾大公会议(DS 1696) 说得更清楚。这确实是此新「礼典」的杰作。然后，6节才继续按特利腾大公会议所描述的神形两方面的救援来发挥阐释，然而，却把「罪赦」放回雅5：15所描述的最后位置「如果……」。

开于台译傅油祷文的文义问题，希望日后能够不断修正现有译文，使之更合乎拉丁原文及雅5：15。

目前，有些牧者在个别举行圣事时，已尽量纠正不太完善的祷文，但这不过是个别事例。这些文义不太完善的祷文，在大陆以外地区已经混乱了有识的信友，现在更因供应大陆教会所需的礼仪经文，而混乱了他们，且使他们在不知不觉中，毫无选择地被文义不当的经本所误导，令人忧心。

无论6节和76节如何清楚说出圣事的内容和功效，但为病人和参礼者最重要和最真实的体验，莫如在举行傅油礼时，主礼者能够以教会的信德，清楚地祈祷，甚至重覆，让傅油的祷文(76节) 和傅油的行动深入人心，激起信德，正如7节说：「傅油常与出自信德的祈祷相结合(参阅雅5：15)，且彰显信德。傅油时，在施行圣事者和领受圣事者身上，都该表现出他们的信德；故首要之务应激起他们的信德，因为赖病人及教会的信德，病人得救；这信德就是坚信基督的死亡及复活，祂使圣事获得其效力(参阅雅5：15)，并使人对所期望的天国，藉着圣事，得到保证。」故此，千万不要使傅油礼变成参礼者、领受者都不明白的形式或魔术。

擦抹圣油和祈祷，既是整个礼仪的高峰，就该在庄严中「真实地」施行。油的用量应该是足够显示这是傅油；既是傅油，就该让油被吸收或挥发，而不必用棉花擦掉，否则破坏了博油的行动意义。

礼典77节是傅油后的祷文，拉丁本有两个，任选其一。(台版把这两个祷文选在傅油礼第一式40页和第二式44页；其实这两式37－40页，40－44页根本是一样的仪式，只是经文选用不同而已。) 还有243－246节是为不同情况的病人所用的傅油后祷文；有为年老者、为病危者、为领傅油及临终圣能者、为弥留者。内容非常贴切和丰富，且按照病人情况发挥了病人圣事的意义并表达了它功效的不同重点。(当然，按照病人圣事的本意，为弥留者是否需要傅油是值得商榷的。)

当然，一篇完美的祷文，也需要主礼者尽量以适当的态度去祈祷，才能引发领受者和参礼者的共鸣和领悟。同时，在傅油后，祷文以前，也可邀讲全体默祷片刻，在心里祈求主圣神的恩宠，然后才念傅油后的祷文。

仪式到此为止，可以说是快圆满了，因为按照雅5：15，施行圣事的基本行动：出自信德的祈祷(包括覆手)，以及因主的名为病人傅油，已经施行了。我们相信，藉此圣事的标记和教会的服务，上主已赋予了病人圣事的恩宠(参阅「导论」5节)。

注意：施行圣事的行动：祈祷、覆手、傅油等，每一步骤都彼此有关，互相紧扣，切勿松散举行，也千万不可过于匆忙，要按病人情况来调整礼仪的节奏。

现在，在完成整个礼仪时，就把一切祈求都放在基督所教的祷文中，向天父祈祷，念天主经(78节)。如果给病人送圣体则在天主经后举行；若不送圣体则祝福礼成(79节)。拉丁本237节是另一个可选择的祝福词。

其实，在祝福前，也可按情况和病人的习惯，念一些惯常的祷文，无论是圣母经、玫瑰经等，帮助病人祈祷，然后才祝幅。无论如何，按病人需要，灵活处理。

礼典80－82节是在弥撒中举行病人傅油礼。礼典说如果病人要领圣体，在环境情况允许下，可举行弥撒：在圣道礼仪后，为病人祈祷、覆手、祝福油(或感谢词)、为病人傅油，祈祷后预备礼品，其后，感恩祭宴如常举行。

3.3 团体举行病人傅油圣事

礼典83－92节是在朝圣时，或在教区、堂区、医院等团体举行病人傅油圣事，可在弥撒外(86－91节) 或弥撒中(92节) 举行。礼典说明团体举行病人傅油常该表达出逾越奥迹的喜乐。(台版礼典遗漏了这部份，下次修订时，似乎应补上。)

事实上，在堂区或教区，每年选择一个日子(如果在主日，更好选择该年圣经选读中有关耶稣治病的主日)，邀讲该区的病弱者，包括老人家，由堂区的青少年和成年信友协助，一起相聚，尤其在圣堂里(很多病人都会希望到圣堂，享受圣堂的神圣环境) 举行傅油的弥撒，会让他们感受到整个教会的关怀和祈祷，并藉领受圣事，得到圣神的恩宠。

为发挥堂区照顾和关怀病弱者神形需要的精神，以团体方式为病弱者傅油礼仪确实是牧灵上的需要；这做法不单激励病弱者的信德，也使所有参礼者与病弱者共同体尝上主的安慰和医冶，使他们更关怀病弱者，也更深入反省自己的人生，从而激励他们对上主的信德，对邻人的爱德。这是以正面的方式来纠正信友害怕「傅油」的陋习，鼓励堂区对病人的关怀，传递上主医治的能力，藉此展示天国生活的来临。当然，不只为病人博油，如果还有其他照顾病人老人的活动，更是相得益彰地实践了照顾病人神形需要的精神。

礼典的其他部份是关于临终者的照顾和圣事，本文从略。但并不是说照顾临终者不重要，正是因为这么重要，所以需要另行撰文再加详述。

15.「假手」的意思，是指主教或司铎是该圣事的本有施行人，但因具体困难，而不能亲自把圣体或圣油送给领受者，遂「特派」一些人，假他们的手，去送给领受者。主教和司铎既以基督和祂教会的名义祝圣圣体或祝福圣油，虽然他们「假手」特派员去送给领受者，但仍不失这是以基督和教会名义所做的行为，也不会失去该圣事的效果。

16.如果把「病人傅油圣事」，看作与修好(告解) 圣事一样，其主要目的是赦罪，那么，当然需要由告解圣事的施行人来为病人傅油。若把「病人傅油圣事」，看作如同「圣体(圣血) 圣事」一样，两者都有其各自的本有主要功效，且由于其主要功效，而同时有了「罪赦」的结果，那么，既允许「假手」于信友送圣体，当然也可允许「假手」于信友为病人傅油；领受者既藉领受该圣事，而得到该圣事的本有主要功效，也就同时得到了附带的罪赦。可反省奥脱，《天主教信理神学》，624－625和704；DS 1683和1696, 1673；温保禄，《病痛者的圣事》，52，67－68

17.FORTINO E.F., op. cit., 115-117

18.1988年香港教区礼仪委员会出版。也见于I990年香港真理学会出版的《教会圣事简编》，114－127

19.FORUNO E.F., op. cit., 115-117

20.温保禄，《病痛者的圣事》，14

21.参阅：温保禄，《病痛者的圣事》，47－52页的综合。

后语

1.「照顾病人和病人傅油圣事」是一个施救机缘，试病人在病苦当中，通过教会的服务，与上主相遇、相知、相结合。「病苦」也成为信仰的事件，让病人和教会互相体验基督苦难和复活的逾越奥迹，也吸引人前来渴慕基督十字架的救恩。

2.既然如此，今日堂区该发展多元化的照顾病弱者的服务，无论是探访慰问病人，为病人读经祈祷、送圣体、傅油，甚或各项实际的服务：照顾和陪伴病人、助善终、安慰和扶助病者家属等。该视这些服务是拓展天国，传递上主医治能力的行动。

3.同时，为达成以上的天国行动，要发展和培育多元化的服务人员，无论是天赋神恩者，或是恒常的职务人员，包括信友和神职，尤其当具体地积极培育信友去照顾病人、安慰和扶助病者家属、为病人祈祷和在需要时假手他们施行圣事，并可授予他们职务，例如：「特派送圣体员」、「病弱者探访员」(或其他名称) 等。使信友的职务与神职人员彼此配合，同为病弱者的得益而合作。

4.无论病弱者或健康者都在这信仰事件中彼此鼓励和服务；病人补足基督的苦难，以自己的见证，规劝健康者渴慕天上永恒的事物，珍惜永生，藉基督死而复活的奥迹而得救(「导言」3节；哥1：24；罗8：19－21)；健康者也以教会之名，把病人托付给受苦和光荣复活的主，使他得到支持和圣神的助佑，并激励病人为天主的子民和全人类，奉献自己，与基督的苦难和死亡相结合(「导言」5节；罗8：17；哥1：24；弟后2：11－12；伯前4：13)。这样，我们才是在天国的路上彼此搀扶，同抵生命之源。

5.让我们体味，主基督藉着教会照顾病人和施行圣事而继续祂的救世工程。福音中耶稣治病的事件，今日藉此而在我们当中重演，正如拜占庭礼的傅油经文所说：「圣父，神形的良医，你派遣圣子?我们的主、天主，治愈疾病，使人脱免死亡，求你也治愈你的仆人(某某)，使他脱离神形的疾苦，求你以基督的恩宠恢复他的健康，好使他能以相称的善行向你献上感恩之心。阿们。」(22)

　

22.FORTINO E.F., op. cit., 115-116 ; ed. MARTIMORT A.G., op. cit. 125

基本书目

温保禄，《病痛者的圣事》，台湾　光启　1984

赵一舟，《我们的圣事》，台湾　见证　(1980)　189－200

(ed. COLLINS M. & POWER D.N.), The Pastoral Care of the Sick (London : Concillium SCM 1991).

FORTINO E.F., Liturgia Greca (Roma : Chiesa di S. Atanasio 1970) 115-117.

GUSMER C., And You Visited Me, Sacramental Ministry to the Sick and the Dying (New York : 1984).

KNAUBER A., Pastoral Theology of the Anointing of the Sick (Collegeville : Liturgical Press 1975).

(ed. MARTIMORT A.G.), The Church at Prayer, vol. III, The Sacraments (Collegeville : Liturgical Press 1988) 117-137.

REVELATION :
GOD'S OFFER OF LIFE AND LOVE
Jose M. de Mesa
East Asian Pastoral Institute
Theology Annual vol.13 1991-1992 p.189-196

　

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

Abstract
This is a discussion of the special nature of God's revelation, and of the relationship of faith and revelation. Faith does not consist in an understanding of dogma and faith documents, but rather in an acceptance of the word of God and obedience to it on the part of the whole person.

本文讨论天主启示的特质，并说明信仰与启示的关系。信仰并不只在于理解教义及信仰条文，而是整个人对天主之言的服从与接纳。

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

　

The God-human relationship is fundamental to the Christian Faith. Often referred to as revelation and faith, the relationship founds and sustains the Judaeo-Christian Tradition. Because of this, our understanding of the various aspects of this Tradition like Christology, Ecclesiology, Morality and Spirituality are dependent on our grasp of this foundational relationship. It is therefore understandable that the document Dei Verbum [DV] of Vatican II, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, is regarded as one of the pivotal documents of the Council together with Lumen Gentium (Church), Gaudium et Spes (Church in the Modern World) and Sacrosanctum Concilium (Liturgy).

It is interesting to note that the Council itself considered Dei Verbum a proclamation of the Good News. Footnote 1 of the document states that "this Constitution is not intended merely as a theological document, but as a proclamation to the world. It is a fresh announcement of the gospel, of the 'kerygma' preached by the apostles." Dealing with such foundational reality, Dei Verbum can be considered as the most revolutionary document of the Council. A change in the perception of revelation and faith implies a concomitant alteration of views regarding the other aspects of the Christian Faith, unless inconsistency is preferred to integral understanding. This is why a good and an insightful reading of Dei Verbum is important.

More than a quarter of a century has passed since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Through the years reflection on what the Council promulgated has continued. While Dei Verbum is likely to be remembered for what it said about the bible, I wish to focus my attention on its thoughts regarding the relationship between God and people which the bible presupposes.

The Constitution obviously considers the phrase "word of God" (DV # 1) to be central. It embodies and describes the biblical understanding of the God-human relationship. The imagery it employs is that of God "speaking" and people "listening". A word is spoken and received. To comprehend this way of speaking adequately, it is necessary to spell out the significance of the notion of "word" in the bible. To this end we need to examine "dabar", the Hebrew concept of "word".

Dabar has two characteristics. First, it makes no distinction between the person speaking and the word that is spoken by that person. Speaking was a mode of being of the person. Referring to what is spoken automatically indicates the person speaking. Conversely, the person speaking is known through the word uttered.

Secondly, dabar denotes both action and communication. As deed and word, dabar means an event in nature or history as well as a spoken or written word. Indeed, it can be described either as an active word or an eloquent deed. Deed and word combined constitute the reality of dabar. When reference is made, therefore, to someone speaking, we should think of something happening or being realized. Speech is communicative action.

If "word" is what dabar suggests, the phrase "word of God" is an idiom for the very self of God active on our behalf. The word of God is God. In John's prologue we read that "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" (Jn. 1:1). No distinction is made between the word spoken by the person and the person speaking. The phrase "word of God" also designates a God who is dynamically present in our lives and in our world for our sake. Dabar is deed or action. This manner of imaging God tells us of the divine word as not only communicative, but as effecting something as well. God's marvelous deeds are seen within this perspective as God's words.

The phrase "word of God" does not, therefore, refer primarily to scripture although this is the way it is popularly understood. This does not imply in any way that the designation is mistaken. The bible is also "word of God" insofar as it witnesses to God's deeds. Hence, we rightly say at the end of a reading from scripture in our Eucharistic celebration : "This is the word of the Lord." The word of God as bible is secondary and consequent to the first meaning of the phrase, that is, the very person of God offered unconditionally in relationship.

The faith experience
"Hearing the word of God with reverence and proclaiming its confidently" (DV # 1) contains a double reference. It describes, in the idiom of speaking and hearing, the faith experience (revelation-faith) as well as the Christian attitude towards the bible. It is the first reference which we shall discuss here. To hear God's word with reverence is really another way of saying that one experiences God's action in one's life. God is "speaking" (offering life and love) and we are "hearing" this initiative "with reverence" (accepting humbly and gratefully). We open ourselves to this gracious goodness reaching out to us in love.

In welcoming God's offer of life and love, we find ourselves gripped by this experience. As in the experience of falling in love, we feel so overwhelmed by an unmerited and unexpected manifestation of acceptance and goodness that we cannot but talk about this experience spontaneously. We are impelled by this experience from deep within to "proclaim" to others what has happened to us. We do so confidently because what we are communicating is not mere intellectually accumulated knowledge, but something we have personally experienced deeply. In the words of I John 1:1, what has been "heard", "seen", "looked upon", and "felt" is what is being announced. It seems to me that this is what mission is all about. It is not being given an external mandate, but experiencing an impulse from within. We are, as it were, "missioned" by this experience of God which has seized us. In this sense, being-in-mission is part and parcel of the faith experience.

But just what is the content of this experience? Dei Verbum answers this question by pointing us to the testimony of John : "We announce to you the eternal life which was with the Father, and has appeared to us. What we have seen and have heard we announce to you, in order that you also may have fellowship with us, and that our fellowship may be with the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ" (1 Jn. 1:2-3). What has been experienced and is now being proclaimed is "eternal life". In biblical thought, "eternal life" is not equated with what is still to come. Eternal life is a reality which is already present here and now (cf., for instance, Jn. 6:54). Furthermore, the biblical understanding of eternal life does not limit such life within a so-called spiritual realm divorced from earthly, historical realities. Unlike the popularly held view arising from the Tridentine catechism, which put the heavenly and the earthly in opposition, eternal life in the bible concerns the quality of life in this world and beyond.

The Greek term used in the text of the First Letter of John for "life" is "zoe" rather than "bios". While the latter speaks of existence, the former means a positive quality of such an existence. "Zoe" refers to a life worth living, a truly good life. The same word is used in Jesus' announcement of what he brings : "I have come to bring life (zoe), life (zoe) in its fullness" (Jn. 10:10). Article 2 of Del Verbum repeats this thought as an offer of full humanness when it uses the idiom "to share in the divine nature" ; that is, to become fully human as God intends. Eternal life, then, can be described as the fullness of life which begins here on earth, to say the least, but is ultimately not totally experienced in this world. There is more to life than history can ever possibly manifest. This is so because eternal life is life rooted in The Eternal, who is the inexhaustible God. What ought to be paid attention to more carefully is that God's offer of life and love includes and, therefore, begins with the goodness of life in this world. We cannot just be lamenting that we are "mourning and weeping in this valley of tears" while we await true life in heaven. This would hardly be a compliment to our God who created the world and life to be delighted in. To live life to the full would be the better option, and it would surely be a grateful way of praising the God who made everything good.

The life which is spoken of is a life of solidarity, not one of individualism and isolation. The proclamation of life which God offers is envisioned as leading to fellowship with one another, with God the Father as well as Jesus Christ. Without explicitly saying so, Vatican II in Dei Verbum is broadening an earlier notion of revelation in Catholic theology. No denial is made of the Neo-scholastic understanding of revelation as the making known of truths by God for human salvation. But there is a redefinition of the divine initiative in terms of an offer of life and love. God offers life (zoe) out of love (cf. DV ## 1, 2). Consequently, we can state that "revelation" for Dei Verbum is God's offer of life and love. This is God's word (dabar): the offering of life and love to us. If we read the parable of the sower and the seed in Luke 8:4- 15 in the light of our discussion of dabar and Dei Verbum, it is clear that the word of God in the narrative signifies God acting for our sake, offering life and love to all.

Characteristics of revelation
Article 2 of this dogmatic constitution brings out the important characteristics of God's offer of life and love. It points out most clearly, first of all, that the initiative in this offer comes from God: "God chose to reveal Himself...". God makes the first move, takes the first step to share life and love with us－and this for no other reason than divine "goodness and wisdom". We can, perhaps, imagine God to be so delighted with existence and life as to decide to share these with creation. Revelation is a deliberate choice of God. This important aspect of the Judaeo-Christian Tradition suggests a passion within God for human beings. It differs from philosophy, which begins with a human question about the possibility, existence and activity of a transcendent being which could answer human longing. Revelation assumes that God's question is primary; it comes first and subsequently is followed by a human answer. Revelation is not an act of human seeking, but of being sought after. God's initiative of relating precedes the human counterpart of the relationship. As one Jewish poem puts it :

　

Lord, where shall I find Thee?

High and hidden in Thy place ;

And where shall I not find Thee?

The world is full of Thy glory.

　

I have sought Thy nearness ;

With all my heart have I called Thee ;

And going out to meet Thee

I found Thee coming toward me.

If God's offer of life and love is God's decision and not at all dependent on human merit, revelation must be further characterized as unconditional. Its only foundation and reason is God's gracious goodness. In accord with this understanding is the inclusiveness of such revelation: the offer is extended to all regardless of position, condition or situation. No one is excluded a priori. As unconditional, God's offer is firm and never revoked or withdrawn no matter how we respond to it. Precisely because this initiative does not depend on us, it is totally dependable. "The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases", says the Book of Lamentations in witness to God's faithfulness towards us. "God's mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning" (Lam. 3:22-23). Such witness of our Tradition is most consoling, for we know that, regardless of what happens to us and no matter how far we stray from the right path, God will never abandon us. On the contrary, God will always offer forgiveness, as Jesus' parable of the merciful father assures us (cf. Lk. 15:11-24). Love, which manifests itself as forgiveness in sinful situations, is never withdrawn at any time. This may be foolishness when measured by human standards, but God is much more concerned with what happens to us and what we do to one another than about the divine reputation.

The unconditional offer of life and love has still another characteristic in the document. Revelation, according to Dei Verbum, happens in history. History is the setting of human experiences and it is there that salvation is proffered. Interestingly, Vatican II did not choose between "revelation" and "salvation" in this document. It simply employed the terms interchangeably. Articles 2, 3 and 4 shuttle back and forth between the two terms. As far as the Council was concerned, the history of salvation is the history of revelation and vice-versa. By mentioning history, the Council wanted to convey the conviction that the offer of life and love (salvation) happens in and through ordinary human experiences. Salvation is truly experienced, albeit provisionally and fragmentarily, in ordinary human situations. It is not to be sought in a so-called "supernatural sphere" above the "natural realm" of earthly, secular life in society. In a very real sense, there is no salvation outside the world (Schillebeeckx). God is truly at work in the ordinary. That is what is extraordinary about revelation. What we call the history of salvation is really our own particular human histories as communities of people in and through which God's offer of life and love is experienced. Just as Israel had its own history of salvation, so also every Christian community in a given culture and society will have its unique history of salvation.

Article 4 of Dei Verbum concerns itself with the Christological character of revelation. For Christians, Jesus is the decisive and definitive offer of life and love from God. He "speaks the words of God (Jn. 3:34), and completes the work of salvation which his Father gave him to do (cf. Jn. 5:36; 17:4)". It was he who "perfected revelation". In Jesus we are assured in faith that God's will is the total well-being of persons and of peoples, the fullness of life. Jesus' life, ministry, passion, death and resurrection point decisively to what God wills to effect in our world : life, and its fullness. It cannot be otherwise, for to experience Jesus is to experience the God who is Life (cf. Jn. 14:9). Because of this, we have come to know who God is for us in and through Jesus. Indeed, in Jesus we have really seen the face of God. When seen in and through the person of Jesus, God's face is one of amazing goodness and humanness. God is a caring God who looks after people and who compassionately champions the cause of their well-being.

Faith as obedience
We have begun with revelation, God's unconditional offer of life and love in and through ordinary human situations. To complete the picture, we now turn to the correlative of revelation, faith. Article 5 of Dei Verbum describes faith as an "obedience" by which we entrust our whole selves freely to God. Obedience follows the same idiom of speaking. "Obedire", the Latin word from which "obedience" comes, means "to listen intently". It denotes following the voice which is addressing us. In the case of the God-human relationship, the obedience of faith is our opening of self, acceptance of and commitment to the dabar of God ; that is, the active divine presence offering life and love.

The offer is just what it is, an offer. It cannot be imposed on us and it is not. Neither will God manipulate us into accepting it. We have the freedom to accept or to reject the offer. Thus, Dei Verbum insists that faith is a totally free commitment of self to God. Of our own accord, we receive the offer gratefully or turn our backs on it.

We must not, however, conceive revelation as neutral. The offer which comes from God in and through Jesus Christ has a bias for life and love. The offer, for instance, of love to another person is hardly neutral or indifferent to the possible response it can elicit. Such an offer is seeking for a genuine relationship. Revelation, God's offer of life and love, seeks relationship with those to whom it is extended. Article I already posited this by saying that the purpose of the proclamation of eternal life is fellowship with God and with one another.

Revelation is also not neutral in the sense that it empowers persons and peoples to respond affirmatively to the offer. In the words of the document: "If this faith is to be shown, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God..." The same passage asserts that it is the same Holy Spirit who constantly brings faith to completion.

When we take into account the notion of dabar which looms over this whole discussion, we realize that entrusting ourselves to God's word means to follow the direction this voice gives. If dabar is word and deed, commitment is unavoidable. Giving our word is realizing it in life. The voice, as we have seen earlier, had spoken decisively and definitively about life ("zoe") in its fullness which it wills for people. Faith, which is our "yes" to God's word, is a commitment to the kind of life God wants us to experience, a life that is meaningful, delightful and fulfilling.　

作者：高夏芳

藉误解至悟解

谈一种若望福音中耶稣的沟通方式

前言

在近代释经研究中，愈来愈多学者强调圣经不单是「文以载道」的经典，盛载及传递主之圣言，也是「文以言志」及「文以缘情」的文学巨着，有意境深远的美感(1)，有触动心弦的震憾力。特别在四福音中有开耶稣之言的记录，学者们除了发掘耶稣表达的内容及讯息外，更将注意力推广至分析他的说话方式。耶稣「说什么」和他「怎样说」；他的「何言」及「如何言」是分不开的。当然，他的交谈对象，及他的言词如何在初期教会中被保存，被视为生活指标，被传递，被记录，被编订成文等等都是不可忽略的重要因素。

早在今世纪初，类型批判学者已将耶稣之言按其文学类别分为先知型，智慧型，比喻型，自我显露型，召唤型等，从而仔细审查这些资料由出自耶稣之口至书自圣史之笔的演变过程(2)。这种纵切式的历史批判性分析(diachronic analysis) 有其不可取代的意义，但却可以无形中把历史资料分解得支离破碎，削弱福音的文气，遮尽它波澜起伏的节奏感，淡化它的魅力。需要一种横切式的分析(synchronic analysis) 来与之相辅相成，把经过最后修订的现有福音视为一贯性的文学整体，有其骨干及脉络，有其气势及境界，有其情节及韵律，有其叙事原则及格调(3)。

本文欲从这横面的角度去读耶稣之言。在四圣史笔下，耶稣在与人交谈时不乏沟通技巧，他的达意方式繁多：有时利用比喻或象征(4)，有时发出问题，催使对方深入反省，采取立埸或作决定(5)，有时一针见血地作判断(6)，或直截了当地道出他向对方的要求(7)，有时迂回曲折，戏剧性地一步步引领对方到达目的(8)。其中一种相当独特的方法是运用双关语或意义隐晦的说话，沟通线路的两端处于两个不同层面，与耶稣交谈者首先误解其意，但福音读者却因此误解面对耶稣说话的内容有更深的了解，因而生妙悟之效。这种现象在若望福音中出现得最频(9)，本文就以此为反省对象。

1. 资料概观

兹将有关耶稣被其谈话对象误解的各片段按若望福音的架构及叙事次序列举出来(10)：

1.1 「标记之书」：1：19－12：50

＊ 2：19－22：犹太人误解耶稣有关「拆毁圣殿，三天内把它重建」之言。

＊ 3：3－5：尼苛德摩误解「重生」之意。

＊ 4：10－15：撒玛黎雅妇人误解「活水」的真缔。

＊ 4：31－34：门徒们误解「耶稣已有食物吃」的深层意义。

＊ 6：32－60：
犹太人三番四次误解耶稣有关「永生之粮」的言论及他的「从天降下」。
＊ 7：33－36：
犹太人误解耶稣要「回到派遣他者那里」的意思。
＊ 8：31－33：
犹太人误解何谓「获得自由」。
＊ 8：51－53：
犹太人误解耶稣所说：「谁遵行我的话，永远见不到死亡」。
＊ 8：56－58：
犹太人误解「耶稣的日子」的含义。耶稣说，亚巴郎曾欣喜地期望这日子，他看到了，极其高兴。
＊ 11：6－16：
门徒们误解「拉匝禄睡着了」之意。
＊ 11：17－24：
玛尔大误解耶稣有关拉匝禄必定复活的许诺。
＊ 12：30－36：
犹太人误解耶稣要「从地上被举起」有何意义。

1.2 「光荣之书」：13：1－20：31

＊ 13：1－11：伯多禄误解耶稣为何给门徒洗脚。

＊ 13：27－29：门徒们误解耶稣对出卖他的犹达斯所说：「你要做的，快去做吧」。

＊ 13：36－38：伯多禄误解何谓跟耶稣去他要去的地方。

＊ 14：1－5：多默不明「耶稣要去的地方」及「往那里的路」指的是什么。
＊ 14：6－11：斐理伯不明谁看见耶稣，就看见父。
＊ 14：18－24：犹达斯(不是那个依斯加略人) 不明耶稣「把自己显示给爱他的人」究竟是什么一回事。
＊ 16：16－24：门徒们不明耶稣所说：「我不再用比喻对你们说话，而要明明地向你们传报有关父的一切」。
＊ 18：28－19：16：耶稣在比拉多前受审时比拉多屡次误解耶稣，不明他的君王身份，他的王国的性质，他如何为真理作证，他到底是从那里来的。

除了这些比较明显的片段外，在福音的首及尾还有其他含有误解意味的地方。开始时耶路撒冷首长对若翰的身份及其施洗的用意模糊不清(1：19－28)；在耶稣召叫首批门徒的叙述中纳塔乃耳听到谈及耶稣时的第一反应是迷惘不解(1：45－50)；在加纳婚宴中耶稣对母亲的回答也反影出他们的观点之间有一段距离(2：4)，而婚宴司席对好酒的来源及其最后出现不得其解(2：9－10)。在复活叙述中玛利亚在墓穴前误认耶稣为园丁(20：15)，多默也要纠正自己对「信」的观念(20：27－29)。

还有，在福音的前后半部转捩处误解的气氛也很浓。耶稣讲完了善牧的比喻后，门徒们「却不明白给他们所讲的是什么」(10：6)，在伯达尼晚宴时，玛利亚用香液敷抹耶稣，犹达斯只看到香液的金钱价值，对耶稣受敷的意义却全瞎了眼睛(12：1－8)。耶稣骑着驴驹进入圣城时「门徒们起初也没有明白这些事」及这一切与耶稣的默西亚尊威的关系(12：12－16)。当耶稣向群众作最后讲词时，有声音来自天上，群众对这声音无的放矢地乱作解释(12：29)。

这种误解现象的频密出现已引起了学者们的注意。除了不少若望福音诠释对此问题略有提及外，也有学者以此为专题研究；如较早期的R.PFARRER(11)，O.CULLMANN(12)，较近期的H.LEROY(13)，D.A.CARSON(14)，G.IACOPINO(15) 等。这些学者，尤其是近期的数位，大都从圣史若望的团体实况出发，去理解为何若望笔下的耶稣要采用这独特的沟通方法。这种Sitz im Leben的探讨自有其无可否认的价值；本文的研究角度却较简单，欲把历史批判性的问题搁下，只从实在的福音叙述入手，去分折耶稣被误解的现象，并提出类似以下的问题：是谁误解耶稣？从各种误解的性质及内容可否发掘出一个或数个问题核心？从误解至了解耶稣的路程是怎样的？误解耶稣者缺少了什么？是条件不足？是时机未到？是两端的距离太远？

1. 圣经与美学，圣经与文学，圣经与艺术等主题为最近十数年的圣经研究开创新的领域。有关这些主题参阅：FRYE N., The Great Code. The Bible and Literature / New York 1982 ; AA. VV. Art and Meaning : Rhetoric in biblical Literature, Sheffield 1982 ; ALTER R., The Art of biblical literature in "Journal for the Studies of the Old Testament" 27 (1983) 75-117 ; STENDHAL K., The Bible as a classic and the Bible as Holy Scripture, JBL 103 (1984) 3-10 ; RAVASI G., Bibbia e arte in Nuovo Dizionario di Teologia biblica, Roma 1989.

2. 参阅：DIBELIUS M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, Tubingen 1919 ; BULTMANN R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, Gottingen 1921.

3. 这种横面的或同时式的释经方法(diachronic analysis) 从近代的语言学(Linguistics) 意义学(Semiotics)，结构分析(structural analysis)，叙述文体研究(Interpretation of Narrative) 等得到不少启发及支援，参阅：ALTER R., The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York 1981 ; RIVA F., L' esegesi narrative : dimensioni ermeneutiche, RivBiblIt XXXVII (1989) 129-160 ; FOSSION A., Lire les Ecritures. Theories et pratique de la lecture structurale, Bruxelles 1980 ; SAVOCA G., Iniziazione all’analisi biblica strutturalista, Messina 1989 ; EGGER W., Methodenlehre zum Neuen Testament. Einfuhrung in linquistische und historisch-kristische Methoden, Freiburg 1987.

4. 田野的花草(玛6：30)，空中的飞鸟(玛6：26)，太阳和雨露(玛5：45) 云和风(路12：54－55)，蛀虫和金秀

5. 如「你要我为你做什么？」(谷10：5)；「你们说我是谁？」(谷8：29)，「你为什么称我为善？」(谷10：18) 按NOSENGO G., L' arte educativa di Gesu Maestro. Saggi di commenti pedagogici alla condotta educativa di Gesu Roma 1967，在四福音中共有126个耶稣的发问，按NAVONE J., Il mistero di Dio interpella l’uomo, in "La ivilta Cattolica" 142 (1991), 23-32，在三本对观福音中共有110个。

6. 如「你们要死在你们的罪恶中」(若8：24)「如果你们不各自从心里宽恕自己的弟兄，我的天父也要这样对待你们」(玛18：35)。

7. 如：「来跟随我！我要使你们成为渔人的渔夫」(谷1：17)；「匝凯，你快下来！因为幺今天必须住在你家中」(跆19：5)

8. 如：与撒玛黎雅妇人对话(4：1－42)，治好瞎子(9：1－41)，在比拉多前受审(18：28－19：16) 等片段。

9. 这误解现象其他福音也偶有记载。如谷8：15：当耶稣吩咐门徒们提防法利塞人和黑落德的酵母时，他们却彼此议论，担心他们的饼短缺了。又如路9：45－46：耶稣第二次预言他的苦鸡，门徒们不明他所说，反而暗中思量，他们中谁是最大的。

10. 有关若望福音的架构分析，学者们虽有不同的建议，但大致上都在十二与十三章之间看出一道分水岭。参阅：VAN DEN BUSSCHE H., Jean, BRUGES 1967 ; DEEKS D., The Structure of the Fourth Gospel, NTS 15 (1968 / 69) 107-129 ; SEGALLA G., Giovanni, Roma 1976 ; LEON DUFOUR X., Lecture de l’ evangile selon Jean, I, Paris 1988。把1－12称为「标记之书」，13－20「光荣之书」或「苦难之书」的主要有以下两位作者：DODD C. H The Interpretation of the Four Gospel, London 1958 ; BROWN R.E., The Gospel according to John, I, New York 1966.

11. PFARRER. R., Dan Missverstandnis im Johannesevangeliums, in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" III (1921) 351-361.

12. CULLMANN O., Der johanneische Gebrauch doppeldeutiger Ausdrucke als Schlussel zum Verstandnis des Vierten Evangeliums, TZB IV (1948) 360-372.

13. LEROY H., Ratsel und Missverstandnis : Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des Johannesevangeliums, Bonn 1966.

14. CARSON D.A., Understanding Misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel, TyndB XXXIII (1982) 59-91.

15. IACOPINO G., Iesus incomprehensus. Gesu frainteso nell’ Evangelo di Giovanni, RivBiblIt XXXVI (1988) 165-197.

2. 不同类型的误解者

误解耶稣者包括的范围广阔，从耶稣的敌人至他最亲近的朋友，从犹太首长至市井妇人。有时是群体误解：犹太群众，门徒们；有时是个人：撒玛黎雅妇人，尼苛德摩，玛尔大，比拉多，或个别门徒如伯多禄，多默，斐理伯，犹达斯等。可见耶稣这种独特的沟通方法运用于不同的对话者。

2.1 犹太群众

最易误解耶稣，而误解程度最深，离真理与耶稣真意最远的是犹太群众。犹太人误解耶稣的现象密布在福音的前半部，尤其第七、八章全是由一连串的误解构成。

「犹太人」在若望福音中有特别的含义(16)。若望多次把这名词神学化，用它来统称那些拒绝耶稣，不信他，与他敌对者。他们不认识也不爱天主(8：55；5：42)，所以也不接受天主派遣来世界者。他们只顾寻求自己的光荣，而把天主的光荣置诸道外(5：44)。他们对耶稣窃窃私议(6：41)，迫害他(5：16)，设法逮捕他(7：30)，说他发疯(10：20)，指控他是撒玛黎雅人，并附有魔鬼(8：48)。他们图谋杀害他(7：1)，向他掷石(8：59；10：31)，并严厉阻止别人跟随他(7：13；9：22)。

这些犹太人根本没有了解耶稣的条件，在聆听耶稣时，误解，曲解，不解，实属必然；而耶稣也不枉费心思去开解他们的执迷不悟。他对他们的回应屡次是判断式的，直捣核心地道出他们的不是。「我认得你们，知道在你们内没有天主的爱情」(5：41－42)；「你们要死于你们的罪恶中」(8：24)；「你们容纳不下我的话」(8：37)；「为什么你们不明白我的讲论呢？无非是你们不肯听从我的话」(8：43)；「你们是出于你们的父亲魔鬼，并愿意跟随你们父亲的欲望」(8：44)；「你们不听天主的话，因为你们不是出于天主」(8：47)。有时耶稣用反调的方式质问他们：「你们就这样对我发怒吗？」(7：23)；「我作了一件事，你们就奇怪吗？」(7：21)；「你们中谁能指证我有罪？若是我说真理，为什么你们却不信我呢？」(8：46)。多次耶稣说完了他斩钉截铁的判语后，便毅然隐退，不再把无结果的辩论拖长(12：36；8：59)。

犹太人的误解耶稣并非源自可纠正的无知，而是他们已决定了不信，固执于牢不可破的成见，且自以为是，紧密地关闭心扉，正如耶稣说：「你们看见了我，却仍然不信」(6：36)；「你们如果是瞎子，就没有罪了；但你们如今说：我们看得见，你们的罪恶便存留下来了」(9：41)。

不过并非所有的犹太人都如此心硬，在群众中也偶有人为耶稣所触动而开始信他(2：23；8：30；10：42；12：42)，说他是好人(7：12)，真先知(7：41)，然西亚(7：42)。但他们大致都不能克胜群体压力，因为害怕，不敢公开地议论耶稣(7：13)，或为了明哲保身，免受诛连，不敢公开承认对耶稣的好感(12：42)。

2.2 尼苛德摩

在那些可被开导的犹太人中，一个最突出的人物是尼苛德摩。他夜间访耶稣，显然是碍于自己的身份?犹太人的首领?不敢公开接近这位问题人物，这位民族公敌，他相信耶稣是「由天而来的师傅」(3：2)，这信念有凭可证，「因为天主若不同他在一起，谁也不能行你所行的这些奇迹」(3：2)。尼苛德摩不但是一位德高望重，知书识经的犹太首领，也聪明审慎，善于推理，能见果而思其因，从观察耶稣所行的事迹中悟出他的来源(17)。他一见耶稣便给耶稣的身份下定义说：「师傅，我们知道……」，他觉得已了解耶稣，看清他是何方人物，并可与他在同一层面上谈论事理；但耶稣却立即指出他的「知道」的不足，他们之间还有一大段距离。理智的推敲，传统的权威，经验的智慧，若得不到「重生」(18) 的提升，「由上而生」或「由圣神而生」的转化，仍不能使人与耶稣相通。毕竟了解耶稣不只是「知」(to know) 的问题，而是「是」(to be) 的问题，关乎个人的生命取向，存在核心。当耶稣谈到「重生」，把话题扭向「是」的层面时，尼苛德摩便开始不知，开始误解。耶稣的最后问话：「你是以色列的师傅，连这些事都不知道吗？」(3：10) 与尼苛德摩充满信心的开场白：「师傅，我们知道……」(3：2)相影成趣。

2.3 撒玛黎雅妇人

这妇人的身份与尼苛德摩截然不同。后者是犹太社会的高层人物；前者却属于与犹太人积怨数世纪的撒玛黎雅，是一个生活放肆，思想粗疏的市井妇人。尼苛德摩有心去找耶稣，且对耶稣已有所知；为这息哈尔城的妇女耶稣是偶然遇见的陌生人，她既无心与耶稣交谈，更不期待这相遇会给她带来什么。事实上是耶稣在找她，要把她转化成「以心神及真理朝拜父者」，因为「父就是寻找这样朝拜他的人」(4：23)。

是耶稣首先向这妇女发言，她的第一反应是诧异不解，受得此人与众不同，竟不顾两族人之间渊源深远的芥蒂，若无其事地向她取水喝。耶稣不直接解释她心中的疑团，却继续把她提升，藉着水的象征一步一玄机地引领她进入奥秘(19)，而她也透过一次又一次的误解渐渐认识耶稣。这个向他取水的人其实是个施水者，而他所施与的是「永生之水」(4：13－14)。这个「犹太人」(4：9)，实在比「先祖雅各伯还大」(20) (4：12)，他是个先知(21) (4：19)，是默西亚(22) (4：25－26)。在交谈之初耶稣自已也清楚指出那妇人不解的是什么：「若你知道天主的恩赐，并知道向你说：给我水喝的人是谁……」(4：10)。这两个不知都在谈话过程中渐形清晰。

在发掘恩赐及赐恩者的同时，耶稣也引领那妇人一步步地发掘自己。当耶稣突然扭转话题，问及她的个人生活时(23)，她没有误解，相反正因为她清楚明白才设法逃避。又当她发觉自己的隐羞也被耶稣看透时，她还想另找藉口，把注意力从自己身上引开，转移到一个具争执性且有深远历史背景的问题上，但耶稣仍不放过她，对她说：「女人，你相信我吧！」跟着给她启示朝拜天主的真缔及在她面前显露自己的默西亚身份。在谈话结束时，「那妇人撇下自己的水罐」(3：28)，而耶稣也忘了自己的口喝，他们之间的沟通已升到一个更高超的层面。

2.4 门徒们

从敌人或外人而来的误解，可说是理所当然，但那些已相信耶稣跟随他，最亲近他，最应该明瞭他的人也频频误解他。记载耶稣临别训言及最后祈祷的十三至十七章虽只以耶稣及门徒群为主角，其误解气氛之浓，不下于福音的前半部。不过，有别于犹太人，门徒们向耶稣发的问题并非出于辩论性的质问，而是虚心求解；其内容也非轻浮笼统。他们已被耶稣吸引，跟随了他一段时光，对他有初步认识，但耶稣这位师傅在门徒前比颜回描写孔子所说的：「仰之弥高，钻之弥坚，瞻之在前，忽焉在后」还要高深奥秘。他们不明白耶稣的地方多着。惊奇，不解是他们的恒常态度，更可说这态度与时俱增。当耶稣临别在即，谈及自己的「往父那里去」时(24)，他们确实满腹疑团，百思不解。面对他们的问题耶稣不像对犹太人一样采取坚硬或判断性的语气，反而耐心地给他们解释；虽然这些解释都十分精简，点到即止，但已足够进一步开启门徒们的茅塞。

2.5 比拉多

若望用了比对观福音双倍的篇幅来描述耶稣在比拉多前受审的情况(18：20－19：16)；这片段为他意义特别深长(25)，片段的结构也异常精细巧妙(26)。比拉多与耶稣非敌非友，他自以为与耶稣的事全不相干，对这个人也不知应如何应付。他只以罗马总督的身份去处理一件辣手的案件。执行公义是他的大前提，可是他也十分注重私人利益。「如果你释放这人，你就不是凯撒的朋友」(9：12) 这句话为他的判案起了决断性的作用。从比拉多向耶稣提出的一连串问题：「你是犹太人的君王吗？」(18：33)「你作了什么？」(18：35)「那么，你就是君王了？」(18：37)「什么是真理？」(18：38)「你到底是那里的？」(19：9)「你对我也不说话吗？你不知道我有权柄释放你，也有权柄钉你在十字架上吗？」(19：10) 及他对群众的发问：「你们愿意我给你们释放犹太人的君王吗？」(18：39)「要我把你们的君王钉在十字架上吗？」(19：15)。可见误解的核心在于耶稣的「犹太人君王」身份。比拉多心目中的君王是政治性的，民族性的，而耶稣的王国却不属于这世界(18：36)。他的子民也不限于犹太人，凡属于真理的，都听从他的声音(18：37)。不过比拉多无心聆听耶稣的解释，他不但对这些属灵性的东西一窍不通，且也全无兴趣。

还有一点值得注意的是若望在这里运用了他独特的反讽手法，偏偏要让这位无性格，无主意，无慧心的罗马总督公开地宣布耶稣的王者尊威。比拉多隆重地介绍耶稣：「看这个人」(19：5)，「看，你们的君王」(19：14)，又在十字架上端用三种当时通行的文字写上：「纳匝助人耶稣，犹太人的君王」(19：19)。他不知不觉地公布了一项他自己也不明白的重要真理(27)，可说是剧中人无意，而写剧者有心。

  16. 有关「犹太人」在若望福音中的含意，请参阅：FESTORAZZI E., I Giudei e il IV Vangelo, in San Giovanni (Atti XVII Sett. Biblica), Brescia 1964, 225-260 ; SHEPHERD M.H., The Jews in the Gospel of John. Another level of Meaning, AnglTR, Suppl. III (1974) 95-112.

17. 他那种小心求语，一切慕求合理合法的慎重态度，也可从7：51他为耶稣辩护之言中得见。

18. 这里所用的副词ανωλεν可解作「再次」或「从上面」。故3：37可有「重生」或「由上而生」之意。在释经史中，前者多被拉丁教父采用。希腊教父则较喜用后者，有关这篇言词的研究，参阅：GAETA G., Il dialogo con Nicodemo, Brescia 1974.

19. 参阅：DE LA POTTERIE I., Gesu e i samaritani, in ID., Gesu Verita, Torino 1973, 39-53 ; O’ DAY G.R., Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, Philadelphia 1986, 49ff.

20. 犹太人爱称自己为亚巴郎的子孙，撒玛黎雅人则较喜欢认自己为雅各伯的后裔，参阅McDONALD J., The Theology of the Samaritans, London 1964。4：12可与犹太人的质问「难道你比我们的父亲亚巴郎还大吗？」(8：53) 相比。

21. 4：19：我看你是个先知。λεωεειν(看) 在若望福音中有信的意思。

22. 4：25反影出撒玛黎雅人的默西亚观，默西亚也被称为Taheb，再来者，他是至高的先知，如同梅瑟一样，成为天人中保，撒玛黎雅人的默西亚观没有犹太人的具有那么强烈的政治性。

23. 不少学者认为那妇女不正常的婚姻生活暗示撒玛黎雅人对雅威的不忠。

24. 整篇临别训言(13－17) 都被这个意识渗透。耶稣已踏上归途，预备回归父处，门徒们却要留下，他不愿拋弃他们，愿继续与他们共融。有关此训言的解释参阅：BECKER J., Die Abschiedsrede Jesu im Johannese-vangelium, ZNW 3 / 4 (1970) 215-240 ; BOYLE J., The Last Discourse and Prayer. Some Observations on their Unity and Development, Biblica 56 (1975) 210ff ; WOLL D.B., The Departure of "The Way". The Farewell Discourse in the Gospel of John, JBL 99 (1980) 225-239.

25. 有关此片段参阅：DE LA POTTERIE I., La passione secondo S. Giovanni (18 : 1-19, 42), in AA. VV., La Passione secondo I quaffro vangeli, Brescia 1983 ; ID., Gesu re e giudice secondo Gv 19, 13, in Gesu Verita, 134-157.

26. 比拉多频频出入总督府(四次出，五次入)，十分突出，也十分戏剧性。按此特征为原则可将全段分为七幕：A(18：28－32)，B(18：33－38a)，C(18：38b－40)，D(19：1－3)，C'(19：4－7)，B'(19：8－11)，A'(19：12－16)。七幕前后对称，中间一幕是耶稣被兵士们戏称犹太的君王。

27. 这种讽剌手法是若望的特长，尤其会用于苦难叙述中，耶稣的敌人本想攻击他或取笑他，却无意中道出一些含意极深的真理，如7：42犹太人说：「难道默西亚能来自加里肋亚吗？」11：50盖法的说话，19：2－3：兵士们的戏弄及茨冠加冕等。

3. 天人之距

虽然在救恩史中天主纾尊降贵，用人的说话方式来跟人交谈(28)，但天人之间的沟通却不因此而变成平起平坐式的交往，天主的说话始终是由上而下的，沟通的两端始终处于两个不同的层面，正如天主藉依撤意亚先知所说：「如天离地有多高，我的行径离你们的行径，我的思念离你们的思念也有多高」(依55：9)。聆听天主发言常是以有限容无限，以有涯逐无涯，了解天主的意思总是以小人之心测度至尊天主之腹，今日如是，当时跟随耶稣的门徒亦如是，圣史们写福音的教会初期也如是。

在四福音中若望最刻意强调这天人之距。「你们出于下，我却是出于上；你们是出于这个世界，我却不是出于这个世界」(8：23)。对耶稣的误解或不解的最终根源，正在于此。不解是攀不上高深的境界，误解还加上另一个困难；离不开「出于下」的想法，超越不了「出自这世界」的成见，「那出于下地的，是属于下地，且讲论下地的事」(3：31)。最顽劣的误解是将这「出于下」的想法绝对化，执迷不悟，身在错谬中却以为拥有真理，因而蔑视别人，与耶稣相遇时这种自欺欺人的态度自然地被揭露，耶稣把这些人喻为自以为看得儿的瞎子。「我是为了判别，才到这世界上来，叫那些看不见的，一看得见；叫那些看得见的，反而成为瞎子」(9：38)。

3.1 对耶稣言行的误解

在若望笔下耶稣被误解的片段中，可见有时被误解的是耶稣的所作所为，如在临别晚餐时为门徒洗脚(13：2－20)。人们只按常理去明瞭，却看不出其深层意义，耶稣这样斥责寻找他的群众：「我实实在在告诉你们：你们寻找我，并不是因为看到了标记(29)，而是因为吃饼吃饱了」(6：26)。有时被误解的是耶稣的说话，听者只懂其表面所言，而不解其意向所指。如「圣殿」表面是指耶路撒冷圣殿，但却指向耶稣的身体；「重生」、耶稣的「食物」、拉匝禄「睡着了」、耶稣的「被高举」、他的「回去」等，都有其超字面的更深意义。

3.2 对耶稣身份的误解

归根到底，对耶稣言行的误解其真是基于对耶稣的身份，他的奥迹的整体性，甚或在他身上显露出来的救恩计划的误解。因为耶稣言行的深层意义并非本已隐藏在言行的意义范畴之内，可靠逻辑推理来引伸，或靠验证考察来发掘；却因为是出自耶稣之身，发自耶稣之口，而有其崭新的，超值的意义。如「圣殿」，若没有耶稣的逾越奥迹，何来「耶稣身体」之解？

在误解的片段中，大部份是直接以耶稣的身份及使命为内容的。耶稣从何而来？往那里去？来作什么？他到底是谁？这些问题是误解的主要来由。当耶稣谈及他的「从天而降」时，犹太人都只顾他在世的来源，彼此议论说：「这人不是若瑟的儿子耶稣么？他的父亲和母亲，我们岂不是都认识么？怎么他竟说：我是从天上降下来的呢？」(6：42)。他们竟因知道了这些普遍的身份证资料而以为可以看透耶稣的来源。「我们知道这人是那里的；然而，当默西亚来时，却没有人知道他是那里的」(7：27)。

耶稣的先存性及他之为救恩历史的中心也被误解。犹太人自恃为「亚巴郎的子孙」(8：39)及「梅瑟的门徒」(9：28)，却不明其中深意，不知亚巴郎曾欣喜地企望看到耶稣的日子(8：57)，也不知梅瑟所写的一切都是指着耶稣而写的(4：46)。他们只表面地看到耶稣与亚巴郎及梅瑟的历史距离，故不经思索地提出一些即发问题：「你还没有五十岁，就见过亚巴郎吗？」(8：58)，「这人没有进过学，怎么通晓经书呢？」(7：14)。同样，撒玛黎雅妇人也这样问耶稣：「你从那里得那活水呢？难道你比我们的祖先雅各伯还大吗？」(4：12)；这些既自然直截又幼稚无知的问题把耶稣与他的误解者之间的距离反影得相当清楚。

有关耶稣的「去」又是误解多多，「我出自父，来到了世界上，我又离开世界，往父那里去」(16：28) 这是若望的基督观中的一重要思想，但他笔下的耶稣听众，却不易明瞭。那些不解耶稣从何而来者，自然不知他要往那里去，所以当他向犹太群众说：「我要回到派遣我来者那里」(7：33)及「你们要找我，却找不着，我所在的地方你们不能去」(7：34；8：21) 他门的反应又是一番误解，甚至提出一些可笑的猜测：「难道他要往散居在希腊民中的犹太人那里，去教训希腊人么？」(7：35)「莫非他要自杀吗？」(8：22)，就连对他认识较深的门徒们面对耶稣的回去也迷惘莫解。伯多禄问他：「主，你往那里去？」(13：36)，「主，为什么现在我不能跟你去？我要为你舍掉我的性命！」(13：37)。他豪情激昂，壮志填胸，以为既有足够的忠毅与热诚，肯为师傅拋头颅，洒热血，就没有什么可阻止他跟耶稣同行。可是他错了，跟随耶稣回父家根本不是匹夫之勇的问题。比较冷静，实事求事的多默对耶稣「去」的问题也同样摸不着头脑，他问耶稣：「主！我们不知道你往那里去，怎么会知道那条路呢？」(14：5) 耶稣遂向他解释，往父去的道路就是他自己「我是道路，真理，生命，除非经过我，谁也不能到父那里去」(14：6)。

至于耶稣与父的关系，他的天主子身份，他给人带来的救恩等启示，也是一步一误解地不易被明瞭。斐理伯不明谁看见耶稣，就是看见了父，还天真地问他：「主！把父显示给我们，我们就心满意足了」(14：8)。当耶稣谈及「我与父原是一体」(14：30) 时，犹太人认为他亵圣，要用石头砸死他。他们不明也不信耶稣的天主子身份，控诉他说：「你是人，却把自己当作天主」(14：33)。又当耶稣说：「谁遵行我的话，永远见不到死亡」(8：51)，犹太人也愤怒异常，对他说：「现在我们知道：你附有魔鬼，亚巴郎和先知都死了……你把自己当作什么人呢？」(8：52－53) 玛尔大一家人与耶稣交情深厚，但她对耶稣的天主子身份仍有误解。她相信耶稣有能力使她的兄弟拉匝禄不死，但她以为这能力系于他的真实临在：「若是你在这里，我的兄弟决不会死！」(11：21)或系于他有力的代祷，「就是现在，我也知道：你无论向天主求什么，天主必要赐给你」(11：22)。当耶稣肯定地对她说：「你的兄弟必定要复活」，她不觉得有何值得兴奋。当代的犹太人一般都相信肉身复活(30)，所以她再一次对耶稣说：「我知道」；「我知道在末日复活时，他必复活」(11：24)。耶稣却对她说：「我就是复活，就是生命；信从我的，即使死了，仍要活着；凡活着而信从我的人，必永远不死」(11：25－26)。

3.3 对耶稣逾越奥迹的误解

在耶稣身上最玄妙莫测的，亦即是最易误解的，是他的逾越奥迹，他的救恩工程的高峰。在耶稣被误解各片段中有两段直接与这奥迹有关(31)：犹太人对「三天内重建圣殿」(2：19－22)及「人子被高举」(12：31－36) 的误解。这两片段分配在若望福音前半部?标记之书?的首及尾。它们都有一易见的相同特征，就是耶稣对误解者不作回应，不加解释，而是初期教会在耶稣逾越奥迹实现后重温这些事迹时，悟出耶稣说话的真缔。

耶稣在圣殿内驱逐商人这片段三位对观圣史都有记载，但三位都将它放在耶稣公开生活的最后期，即荣进耶路撒冷后，受难前数天(32)。若望却把它放在耶稣公开生活之始，直接与加纳婚宴相连，且特别点出时间：在逾越节期间(2：13)。加纳婚要的变水为酒是耶稣所作的第一个标记，显示了自己的光荣(2：18)，驱逐商人后犹太人追问耶稣：「你给我们显示什么标记，证明你有权柄作这事？」(2：18)。在婚宴中水变成酒是新约取替旧约的象征，现在若望要介绍新圣殿取替旧圣殿，新逾越取替旧逾越。新圣殿是耶稣的身体，天主光荣的所在(参阅1：14－17)，新逾越是他的死亡复活，这一切都远超当时耶稣听众的理解能力，犹太人自然地误解了他。圣殿为他们就只有他们的祖先艰辛地用人手盖成的这一座，所以他们对耶稣说：「这座圣殿建筑了四十六年，你在三天之内就会重建起它来吗？」(2：20)

有关「人子被高举」的言论出自耶稣的最后一篇公开讲道(12：23－36)。这篇讲道内容以耶稣的死亡及复活为中心。首先耶稣以麦子的比喻谈及自己要藉死亡而受光荣(23－28)。有天上的声音强调及解释耶稣所说。「我已光荣了我的名，我还要光荣」(28)。耶稣藉他的降生及所行标记，已显示了天主的光荣，现在藉他的死亡与复活，天主的光荣还要在他身上大大地彰显。群众不明这一切，误解天上声音的来由(29)。跟着，耶稣第二次发言谈及自己的被高举(30－32)，圣史为耶稣的说话作诠释：「他说这话，是表明他要以怎样的死而死」(33)。群众有一次误解耶稣(34)。全篇讲词的架构工整：两次启示，两次注解，两次误解。最后，耶稣邀请听众在光中行走，然后离开和隐退(35－36)。

从群众的问题：「我们从法律上知道：默西亚要存留到永远(33)；你怎么说：人子必须被举起呢？这个人子是谁？」(34) 可见他们的理解困难在于怎样将他们已知道的，和现在耶稣所说的，放在一起；怎样将他们已有的默西亚观和这个新被介绍的被举起的人子协调。其实，解决方法不难，只要将两者同放在耶稣身上便可，但他们却看不出来。

从地上被高举的人子与落在地下死掉的麦子同是指耶稣的逾越奥迹。麦子死了，结出许多子粒(24)，人子从地上被举起来，要吸引众人归向他(32)。在若望的神学构思中，耶稣的死亡及他的受光荣是同一回事(34)。在比拉多审判耶稣及整个苦难叙述中若望都刻意强调耶稣王者的尊威，所以用「被高举」来描写耶稣的死亡实在贴切不过。它一方面道出耶稣被钉在十字架上，从地上被举起(35)，另一方面也表示耶稣藉他的死亡而受举扬，接受天主的显耀及被世人尊为救主及君王。在若望福音中，耶稣三次提及自己的「被高举」(3：14；8：28；12：32)，其意义与三位对观圣史叙述的耶稣三次预言自己的苦难(36) 相等。这些高深的启示内蕴若望当然不会强求耶稣的即时听众能了解。相反，藉他们的误解更衬托出天主的计划令人赞叹，他的救恩工程远超常人智慧之所及。不过这一切天主也不愿永久地将之封于天书，成为密闭的秘语，在祂指定的时刻，自会揭晓(37)。

  28. 参阅梵蒂岗第二届大公会议，启示宪章12。

29. σημειον= 标记。若望称耶稣的奇迹为标记，此字在他的福音中出现17次。

30. 当代犹太人通用的祷文「十八祝福」中有此句：「主，你的大能永远常存，因为你给死者赐与生命」。在耶稣时代，法利塞人相信复活，撒杜塞人却不信，参阅谷12：18；宗23：8。

31. 还有一段也可被视为与逾越奥迹有关：犹太人对永生之粮的误解。「我所要赐给的食粮，就是我的肉，是为世界的生命而赐给的」(6：51)。此言预指圣体圣事，更预指耶稣的逾越牺牲。

32. 玛21：12－17；谷11：15－17；路19：45－66。

33. 古经从未说过默西亚要存留到永远，但却有提及他的后裔将永存，参阅咏89及37。

34. 这是若望福音中一条十分清晰的神学路线，参阅：THUSING W., Die Erhohung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannes-evangelium, Munster 1979 ; DE LA POTTERIE I., L’ exaltation du Fils de l’ homme (Jn 12 : 31-36), Greg 49 (1968) 460-478.

35. 除了在苦难叙述以外，若望从不用「被钉」来形容耶稣的死亡。

36. 玛16：21；17：22－23；20：18－19及谷，路平行文。

37. 参阅默5。

4. 时机未到

除了基本的天人之距外，时机的未成熟也是耶稣被他的对话者误解的其中因由。天主与人交谈时不把人从历史抽离，而情愿自己走入人类历史，被卷入时光的转流中。耶稣分享了人类的生命历程，一步步从生到死走了三十多个年头。正如在人生中并非每一刻钟都有等量的生命浓度及深度；个别的言语，动作，不常能显露生命的整体及重心；了解耶稣亦不能局限于从他的个别言行中窥其边际，要从他的生命颠峰?他的逾越奥迹?去睹其全貌。

四位圣史都有同样的想法：玛尔谷小心地在福音中布局，引出他的「默西亚秘密」，围绕着「耶稣是谁」这问题制造悬疑气氛，要到耶稣被钉在十字架上，百夫长看到耶稣如何死去，作出他的信仰见证：「这人真是天主子！」(谷15：39)，悬疑才消解。玛窦虽不强调耶稣的不易被了解，但也等到耶稣复活后才让门徒们接受耶稣的隆重派遣，叫他们往普世，使万民成为门徒，并教训万民遵守他所吩咐的一切(玛28：18－20)，路加也特意描写耶稣在复活后显现给两位往厄玛乌的门徒，领导他们将一切有关耶稣的资料及体验整合起来，只这样他们才开启眼目，认出他来(路24：13－32)。若望亦两度清楚地指出逾越奥迹是了解耶稣的钥匙。当他叙述犹太人不明重建圣殿之言的深意时，加上自己的反省：「当他从死者中复活以后，他的门徒就想起了他曾说过这话，便相信了圣经和耶稣说过的话」(2：22)。在耶稣骑驴荣进圣城时，若望指出耶稣藉此举表露他的默西亚君王身份，不过他立即加上：「起初，他的门徒也没有明白这些事，然而当耶稣受光荣以后，他们才想起这些话是指着他而记载的，为此，他们就这样对地做了」(12：16)。

在若望福音耶稣被误解的片段中，可见耶稣不强求他的对话者了解他所说，也多次放弃给他们详细解释。「我本来还有许多事要告诉你们，然而你们现在不能担当」(16：12)，「现在」指的是「我还与你们同在的时候」(14：15；16：4)，或「事未发生以前」(13：19)。在这期间，无论群众或最亲近他的门徒们，都未有全面性地了解耶稣的条件，他们见到的是一些零碎的事迹，虽然这些事迹本身意义深长，足以令他们激动，皈依，但最精釆的，最令人惊讶赞叹，最超乎一切猜想的还在后头。

这关键性的时刻，若望称之为耶稣的「时辰」(ωεα) (38)。这「时辰」指的是耶稣的逾越奥迹，他的死亡，复活，升天。它是耶稣自我显示的颠峰，救恩工程的顶点。耶稣来世就是为此，他的一生迈向这「时辰」(12：27)。这时辰就是他从地上被高举，吸引一切人归向他的时候(12：32)；是他在十字架上为王，被举扬，受光荣的时候；是他说「完成了」交出灵魂的时候(19：30)；也是他离开此世，回归父处，在那里为他所爱的人预备地方的时候(14：2－3)。耶稣频频提及这「时辰」，在他公开生活之始，被母亲催促，显示他的光荣时，他便说：「我的时刻尚未到来」(2：4)。他对群众的最后公开讲词也以这「时辰」的迫近为开端：「人子要受光荣的时辰到了」(12：23)。与门徒的最后晚餐及给他们的最后训言亦以此作启幕：「在逾越节庆日前，耶稣知道他离此世归父的时辰已到……」(13：1)。最后，他向父的祈祷也不离此思想，祷文的第一句便是：「父啊！时辰来到了，光荣你的手，好叫你的子也光荣你」(17：1)。

在若望的神学构思中，这「时辰」是了解耶稣的决断性条件，无论耶稣在世时的门徒，或他离世升天后在教会内跟随他的人，除非透过逾越奥迹，不能真正地明白耶稣是谁。「当你们高举了人子以后，你们便知道我就是那一位」(8：28)。「到那一天，你们便知道我在我父内，你们在我内，我也在你们内」(14：20)。「到那一天，你们什么也不必问我了」(16：23)。

5. 圣神的贯通

若望虽然强调「时辰」的到来在了解耶稣的过程中的关键性，但却没有将一切视为自然的发展。这天人的沟通还需要一股动力?圣神的光照，启迪，引领(39)。

5.1 圣神超越血肉

在耶稣被误解的片段中，很多都有提及圣神。当尼苛德摩误解「重生」的意义时，耶稣对他说：「我实实在在告诉你，人除非由水和圣神而生，不能进天主的国；由肉生的属于肉，由神生的属于神。你不要惊奇，因我给你说了：你们应该由上而生。风随意向那里吹，你听到风的响声，却不知风从那里来，往那里去；凡由圣神而生的就是这样。」(3：5－8)。「神」(πνενμα) 与「血肉」(σαεξ) 的对立是一个典型的若望神学主题。尼苛德摩的误解耶稣基于他的仍属「血肉」层面，不能从天主的观点去思想，生活。藉着圣洗，圣神能将他转化，使他变成一个「由上而生」或「由天主而生」(8：41；1：13；若一3：9；4：7；5：1，4，18) 的新人，使他得享圣神的奇妙德能。这「神」与「血肉」的对立在犹太人误解永生之粮的片段中再次出现。耶稣对窃窃私语的犹太人说：「这话使你们起反感吗？使生活的是神，肉一无所用；我给你们所讲论的话，就是神，就是生命」(6：62－63)，在与撒玛黎雅妇人交谈的最后阶段，耶稣向那妇女解释，朝拜天主不在乎地方。「天主是神，朝拜他的人，应当以心神(πνευμα) 以真理去朝拜他。」(4：24) 意思是说：在默西亚时代朝拜天主者应藉圣神的德能，按照耶稣启示的真理去朝拜他，这种朝拜是超越时空种族的。是新约子民，由上而生的天主子女的祈祷精神(40)。可见在耶稣与人沟通时，圣神使两端调合，为这沟通预备条件，他使人从庸俗狭窄，浅薄粗陋的血肉层面向上提升，也使人向前跃进，超越旧约的规条及人为的桎梏，迈向新约更深远，更广阔，更内在，受自由的境界，能与耶稣「是神，是生命」的说话起共鸣。

5.2 圣神为耶稣作证

在耶稣方面，圣神与他密切共融。「天主所派遣的，讲论天主的话，因为天主把圣神无限量地赏赐了他」(3：34)。圣神的话，就是耶稣的话，也是父的话。圣神「不想自己讲论，只把他所听到的讲出来，并把未来的事传告给你们。他要光荣我，因为他要把由我领受的，传告给你们」(16：13－14)。而耶稣的话，也不是他自己的，而是派遣他来的父的。「我由他听来的，我就讲给世界听」(8：28)，「我的教训，不是我的，而是派遣我来者的」(7：16；14：10，24)。在圣三内，父、子、神的说话相同相通，他们之间没有误解，也没有独家讯息。当他们要将这说话传给世人时，父藉子以人的方式向人发言，而圣神就使这说话在人心内扎根结果。

耶稣在世时有历史性的局限，时候到了，他要「离开世界，回到父那里去」(16：28)，但圣神却与跟随基督者同在，「我要求父，他必会赐给你们另一位护慰者，使他永远与你们同在」(14：16)。有别于子的「成了血肉，寄居在我们中间」(1：14)，圣神的临在是内在的：「他与你们同在，并在你们内」(14：17)，不受时空限制。耶稣的「去」与圣神的「来」直接连系。「我若去了，就要派遣他到你们这里来」(16：7)。圣神使耶稣的临在，他的救恩，他的说话内在化，宇宙化，永久化，超越耶稣以血肉之躯在世时的框框。在耶稣的临别训言中他刻意强调这点。他知道他的说话，基于人的沟通方法的局限及天人交谈本身的困难，不足以立即结出完满的果实，圣神继续他的工程，使那些已消失在历史中的耶稣说话重现在聆听者的心头，「我还与你们同在的时候，给你们讲论了这些事；那护慰者，就是父因我的名所要派遣来的圣神，他必教训你们一切，也要使你们想起，我对你们所说的一切」(14：25－26)。「想起」不单是死板地把耶稣已往的说话在心内重播，而是使昨天的说话今天重活于心，同时也是对说话的更深一层的明瞭，排除误解，使真理显得更真，被接受得更心悦诚服，更融汇贯通，从了解耶稣的个别言行达至进入他的奥迹。「那发于父的真理之神来到时，他必要为我作证」(15：26)，「当那一位真理之神来时，他要把你们引入一切真理」(16：13)。

39. 圣神在若望福音中占一重要地位，若望的圣神观的其中几个特点是圣神被称护卫者，παεαμλητγγδ，及真理之神，他与耶稣的关系十分密切。有关这主题参阅：BROWN R.E., The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel, NTS 13 (1967) 113-132 ; GERRARO G., Lo Spirito Santo nel quarto vangelo, Roma 1981 ; JOHNSTON G., The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John, Cambridge 1970 ; DE LA POTTERIE 1., Le paraclet, l'Esprit de la verite, in ID., La verite dans saint Jean, I, Roma 1977 329-378 ; GHIBERTI G., Spirito e vita cristiana in Giovanai, Brescia 1989.

40. DE LA POTTERIE I., Adorare il Padre nello Spirito e nella Verita, in "Parola Sirito e Vita" 3 (1981) 140-155.

6. 认识耶稣

约略分析了数点误解耶稣的因由后，一个问题随而产生，误解既是交谈的不成功，是沟通的负面结果，那么，正面的，理想的结果应是如何？若望的答覆是：认识耶稣(41)。当撒玛黎雅妇人误解耶稣的活水之谈时，耶稣对她说：「若是你知道天主的恩赐，并知道向你说：给我水喝的人是谁，你或许早求了他，而他也早赐给了你活水」(4：10)。那妇人之所以没有这样做，是因为她不知道，不认识耶稣及他带来的恩赐。

在若望福音中，认识耶稣及藉耶稣认识天主包括了整个救恩奥迹。在耶稣的最后祈祷中他对父说：「你赐给了子权柄，掌管凡有血肉的人，是为叫他将永生赐给一切你所赐给他的人。永生就是：认识你，唯一的真天主，和你所派遣来的耶稣基督」(17：2－3)。得永生者就是认识耶稣者；相反，拒绝救恩，与永生无份者是因为他们没有认识父，也没有认识耶稣。

6.1 认识与爱

认识耶稣决非指理智上的辨理认知，或思维上的推敲求解，最重要的是生命的融合。在沟通过程中很多时误解的发生不是因为言者不达意，也不是因为听者理解力不足或其他天时地利的问题，而是缺少了人和，两者之间没有深情的感应，没有心灵的冥合，不能达到心有灵犀一点通的妙境。这情况耶稣在善牧比喻中表露无遗；「我是善牧，我认识我的羊，我的羊也认识我，正如父认识我，我认识父一样」(10：14－15)。耶稣竟以他与父的亲密关系作他与跟随他者生命共融的典范。这番说话，抗拒他的犹太人自然不解，认为他附了魔或发了疯(10：20)，还强迫耶稣坦白地表明自己的身份。耶稣答覆他们说：「我已告诉了你们，你们却不信；我以找父的名所作的工作为我作证，但你们还是不信，因为你们不是属于我的羊」(10：25－26)。最清楚的言词，对有力的事证也不能使他们了解，因为缺少了那种存在性的归属，生命的交付及汇通。

正因他们不属于耶稣，所以容纳不下他的话(8：31)，没有把他的话存留在心中(5：38)，他们不肯听他(8：43)，在他们心内没有天主的爱情(5：42)。所以，误解耶稣主要不是理智的问题，而是心的问题，爱的问题，整个存在，整个生命的问题，「凡有爱的，都是生于天主，也认识天主」(若一4：7)。耶稣更用了葡萄树的比喻来描绘这种奇妙的生命沟通：「我是葡萄树，你们是枝条」(15：5)，「你们住在我内，我也住在你们内」(15：4)，「你们如果住在我内，我的话也存在你们内……如此你们就成为我的门徒」(15：8)。因着这彼此归属，彼此寓居，生命的彼此参透，耶稣与他的门徒之间形成了一个默契的氛围，超越主客之分，能无沟而通，不用外来的疏导而能深深冥合，耶稣的说话变成一种内在的说话，被爱所容纳，消化。「如果你们遵守我的命令，便存在我的爱内，正如我遵守了我父的命令而存在他的爱内一样」(15：10)。这样的沟通，远离误解，而臻至悟解的境界。有了这生命的融合，耶稣的说话不再是误解的机缘，而是悟道之乐的泉源：「我对你们讲论了这些事，为使我的喜乐存在你们内，使你们的喜乐圆满无缺」(15：11)。

6.2 认识与信

为达到这种生命融合的认识耶稣，若望除了提到爱及「居住在主内」之外，也十分强调信仰(42)。这是与耶稣交往不可或缺的条件。信也是一种生命的交付，藉信仰的直觉可达到理智所未及和客观证据之不足(43)。从初步的信仰出发，渐渐更深入地认识耶稣，再臻至悟通的妙境：这是若望在福音中描绘的典型信仰历程。对不少误解他的人耶稣不即时作理论式的纠正或解释，而邀请他们相信，为能看见及了解。玛尔大当初不太明白耶稣说及自己是复活，生命，也误解了耶稣所说：「妳的兄弟必要复活」，但当耶稣问她：「你信么？」她回答说：「是的，主，我相信你是默西亚，天主子，要来到世界上的那一位」(11：I7)。她的信仰是基本的，她信耶稣是默西亚，但还看不清这与她兄弟的必要复活的实在关系，在坟前她还善意提醒耶稣，拉匝禄被埋葬已有四天，尸体已开始腐化，耶稣遂对她说：「我不是告诉过你：如果你信，就会看到天主的光荣吗？」(11：40) 信是「看得到」的先决条件。犹太人不信，虽然他们以为看得见，以为已认识耶稣，但其实他们是瞎子(9：39)。纳塔乃耳起初对耶稣冷漠，甚至轻视，但当耶稣一言道出他的为人时，他开始被耶稣吸引，相信他，耶稣遂对他说：「因为我向你说：我看见了你在无花果树下，你就信了吗？你要看见比这更大的事！」(1：50)。

当耶稣说完他的天降之粮言论，引起群众的不解及反感时，耶稣要求他的门徒们表态，在拋弃他及跟随他之间作抉择，伯多禄坚决地说：「我们相信且知道你是天主的圣者」(6：69)。在跟随耶稣的生活体验中，信仰与认识支持着他与耶稣的关系，使它经得起考验，坚定不移。

在一场激烈的辩论中，耶稣严厉地指出敌对他的犹太人不认识他，也不认识父(8：19)。在群众中却有些人相信了他。耶稣便对他们说：「你们如果固守我的话，就确是我的门徒，也会认识真理，而真理会使你们获得自由」(8：31－32)。耶稣精简地列出一条信仰路程及其各步骤：相信他，坚守他的话，跟随他，成为他的真正门徒，认识以他为中心的真理，得享他带来的救恩及新生命。相信是过去式的，成为门徒是现在，认识却是将来式。信仰是认识的初步，认识是信仰的完满(44)。

  41. 若望用两个字眼来表达「认识」：γινωσμειν(在福音中出现55次)及ειδεναι（有「知道」之意，在福音出现86次）。有关此主题参阅：DE LA POTTERIE I., "Oida" et "ghinosko". Les deux modes de la connaissance dans le quatrieme evangile, in "Studia Biblica et Orientalia" II (1959) 141-157 ; CARL K.J., Knowing in St. John. Background of the Theme, IndTSt XXI / I (1984) 68-82.

42. 参阅SCHLIER H., Fede, conoscenza e amore nel vangelo secondo Giovaani, in ID., Riflessioni sul Nuovo Testameoto, Brescia 1969, 361-379 ; SCHNACKENBURG R., Il credere giovanneo, in ID., Il vangelo di Giovanni, I, Brescia 1973, 697-719 ; GRECH P., L'itinerario di fede in Giovanni, in AA. VV., Quaerere Deum (Atti XXV sett. Bibblica), Brescia 1980 437-446.

43. 奥斯定的credo ut intelligam及安瑟莫的fides quaerens intellectum可在若望福音中找到共鸣。

44. πιστιδ及γνωδσιδ将成为教父神学?特别第三、四世纪的东方神学教父?及中世纪修道院神学的一个典型研究主题。

结语

若望福音自教会初期已被视为一本「属灵的福音」。二世纪末亚历山大里亚的格肋孟有云：「因见于形体性(σωματικα) 的事迹已有载于其他福音，若望受天主的然启及弟子们的催使，写了一部属灵(πνευματικον) 的福音」(45)。诚然，若望笔下的耶稣，说话和行事都风格高逸，玄妙莫测，神韵独具，非庸夫俗子所能了解。福音中耶稣多次被误解正是制造这种气氛的主要因素。

为什么若望要制造这种气氛？为什么他偏要用误解这种手法？对此问题学者们已作过研究，按H. LEROY(46)，这种文体来自一个受「神知学」(gnosticism) 影响，与犹太人有强烈冲突，又十分关心信友的信仰培育的团体。G. IACOPINO(47) 认为作者刻意纠正第一世纪末的几种错谬趋势，如：将耶稣的形象政治化，物质化，俗化；对圣神的恩赐过份夸张及近乎狂热的兴奋；神知学派因拥有「神知」的自恃。本文的用意不在探讨这「为什么」，却欲观其效果，即文章本身传递给读者的意识及感受。

藉耶稣屡被误解的现象若望给他的读者留下一种对「了解基督」的特别体会。

＊首先，了解基督非易事，基于天人之距，与耶稣沟通常是一个存在性的跳跃。误解就是因为跳不动或跳得不高。

＊「了解耶稣」此语实应宾主颠倒，人不是主动者，而是被卷入天主的奥秘中。误解生于人之喧宾夺主，企图以有限容无限。

＊耶稣的一生应由尾至首，由死至生去了解。远离他的逾越奥迹，就不能把握他所言所行的真缔。误解是支离破碎地窥其边际，而不能从核心出发，观其全貌。

＊耶稣是新约的开端及中心，他的身份，言，行都蕴含着不可预期的新意。误解就有如将新酒放入旧皮囊，以旧装新。

＊了解耶稣其真是一种悟解，一种超越推理思辨的领会，一种生命的契合汇通，与耶稣交往若无这深情的感应，悟解易流为误解。

＊圣神的潜移默化不可缺少，他为耶稣作证，使人更深入了解耶稣，记起他所说的一切。忘记圣神，就会忘记耶稣。

＊了解耶稣并非一劳永逸的工夫，而是永无止境的路途，其中不解，误解，了解，悟解，互相交替。若望福音的最后结语云：「耶稣所行的还有许多别的事；假使要一一写出来，我想所要写的书，连这世界也容不下」(21：25)。读者读完福音后也可以说：耶稣的奥迹高深丰富，古今东西，世界各人都解之不尽，探之不竭。

45. 引自安瑟伯(Eusebius)，《教会历史》，VI，14：7。

46. 见13。

47. IACOPINO G., op. cit., 194-196.

作者：房志荣

在看过赞美诗圣咏第八首以后(1)，我们即刻看另一首有名的赞美诗，圣咏第十九首。在两相比较之下，会觉到相得益彰。在咏十九里诗人把大自然的秩序与法律的合情合理作了一个综合。下面我们先将本圣咏三个诗段的主旨指点出来，然后再加以详释。

2－7节具体地描述创造界：诸天与穹苍，日与夜的交替，两大光体的照明。天体天界虽不像人能说话，但整个受造界就是一种语言，在赞美天主，在给人启示，毫无界线的阻隔。这种藉着缄默的说话能是宣讲，能是讯息，也能是一种耳语。

8－11节用六个同义词指谓上主的法律，这是表达整体的手法，不必去找每一词字的特殊含意，或词与词之间的区别。这里法律被说成一种出自其身的真实价值，因为法律是稳固的，可靠的，给人带来好的效果。法律给人启示天主的旨意，所以并不压迫人。本圣咏作者的亲身经验是，法律为他是「休息，光亮，喜乐」。

12－15节：作者用一个祈祷谦虚地把自己投入刚描述过的双重秩序中。先求天主宽恕他，救他摆脱法律秩序中的纷扰，连他自己看不出的过错也求天主一并饶恕。自身涤净后，他继续祈求天主让他的赞歌，连同他由心坎所说的话，能与大自然无言的赞美诗相应相称。

详释

有人认为咏十九是由两首圣咏合并而成，因为有两个主题，一是大自然，一是天主的法律；格调前后两样：第一部份2－7节，活泼，不规则，富表达力，好用反词，反调；短短几句话涵盖了极广阔的空间和各种向度；在诗的节奏上由四个重音节转入三个(像中国诗的由七绝转五绝)。

反之，第二部分8－15节，规律化，单调化，同义字在同样的位置，韵律是3+2；语气不是描述，而是陈述，思想没有进展。第一部分是原始的神话心态，称天主为厄耳，第二部分是法律心态，称天主为雅威。

不过这些不同点仍不足以解释本圣咏有两位作者，因为同一位诗人在写不同的对象时能用不同的手法，他可以选择不同的词藻，格调，韵脚等。我们跟大部分诠释家认为咏十九是一首圣咏，按其内容可以分为四部份，即(1) 天与穹苍，(2) 太阳，(3) 法律，和(4)祈祷。

一. 2－7节的分析

(1) 2－5a：

作者不用导论，直截了当地引出天体来讲话。一般赞美诗的邀请，如「请你们赞美」，「请你们歌唱」或「我要歌唱」这里都没有。诸天和穹苍本是空间的代表，这里却被位格化了。诸天在复数，因为有很多层，穹苍则是诸天的边界，顶住外天的水。「诸天」与「穹苍」在希伯来文句里互相交叉，表示将上层的空间概括无余。

地呢？大地或全球是听众，在听天体的赞歌；大地也可视为许多听者的另一空间。这两种讲法都假定一个在上的舞台和台下的广大听众。希伯来人虽不用幕景，但的确有设在高处的讲台，为向众多的听者说话，可参阅民长纪九7；箴言九3。

日与夜本是时问的划分和代表，这里也被位格化，不过说法跟我们不同。我们说日以继夜，或夜尽天明，把日夜说成一个没有中断的整体。希伯来人却不愿把这两样绝不相同的东西混在一起，因为当天主把光与黑暗分开时，日是日，夜是夜，彼此不打交道。所以日与日侃侃而谈，夜与夜讯息相传，像两组平行的军队，前后相传，左右不传。日夜是平行的，诸天和穹苍则是交叉的。

天，穹苍，日，被，作些什么？它们陈述，宣扬，交谈，传递，互换资讯，这些都是语言的不同作用和进展。把不说话的天界说成这样，无非是要强调一个神学真理，即大自然显示一个造物主。作者也知道天体并不真的说话，因此刚才用五个词字肯定它们说话以后，现在再用另外五个词字解释它们并不说话：

(a) 不是一般的话；(b) 没有普通的句子；(c) 没有可听到的声音；(d) 但它们的信息传遍大地；(e) 它们的语言达到地极。谁也不能说大自然的话太远，或它在说一种外国语，因为大自然所说的是一个普遍的语言。这语言远在巴贝塔事件混乱人类语言之前就已存在，并且比任何语言都更高超。

这一高超语言讲些什么？讲两件事：光荣与化工，这是至高天主的一种显现。厄耳是创造者天主的称呼，有普遍的价值。空间与时间因是天主的工程，启示祂的光荣，是在天主的行动中把祂启示出来。「他手的化工」，化工是在单数，因此非指工程，而指行动。穹苍不宣扬另一工程或其他许多工程，而是穹苍本身既是天主的工程，因此宣扬天主的行动。用哲学名词来说，大自然是一个「象征性结构」(Guardini)，以受造的身份指向造物主。我们不是藉着推理，而是藉瞻想看出这一事实。2－5a八行诗句把天地间的一切都概括无余。所用的写法是：天在说，地在听，虽然不是一般的语言，它的信息却无远弗届。

(2) 5b－7：

作者在此引进一个重要的角色：太阳，它在天空的旅程划分了白天和黑夜。在希伯来文太阳是阴性的，表达母性的生命力。但这里诗人把它写成阳性，像一名英雄，身材高大，步伐迅速，整个的白日都在它控制下，就像咏八所说繁星控制着黑夜一样。

诗人用家庭生活描写太阳：它有幢帧幕?洞房，洞房里有一张床，他在此度过爱情之夜。早上起床，束装就道，要开始他一天的行程，从东走到西。没有问题，他很有把握地完成他的使命，在所经之地分散热能。是好是坏，受欢迎或受人埋怨都没有关系。无论怎样，世上没有一个角落不受到太阳热力的影响。

太阳默不作声，但它的热能是一个有力的行动，像高天和穹苍一样地宣扬着一个普遍的信息。与天和穹苍相比，太阳有一个动的形象，行动快速，穿过那些不动的天体。动以外是热。这里有点奇怪的是，创世纪第一章先说光是在有星辰以前被分开，但在太阳受造以后，它主要的任务是照明，本圣咏却只提热，不提光。这作何解？也许是因为光可以遮掩逃避，热可无法避免受其感染。关于这点，总训篇43：2－5有一个很相似的描写：「太阳升出，发散热气，的确是至高者奇异的化工！中午的太阳烘热大地……」。

1. 参阅「神学论集」82，1989　463－470及其参考书目。

二. 8－15节的分析

(3) 8－11：

这里也是突然地，没有导论，引入一个新的主题：上主的法律。8－10节的六句话非常规律化，六个指谓法律的同义词所注意的是其同，而非其异。上主也重复六次，说明祂是法律的创立人。六个名词后有六个形容词，都是用来描写法律的。形容词后面再用五个动词说出法律的功用，第六句末尾是一个形容词(全部公允)。最后11节有四个名词(受词) 和两个副词(甘甜，可爱恋adverbs)。

为什么六句，而非七句？因为十诫的第二块石板刻着六条诫命，与另一石板的四条合起来为十诫。另一个可能的解释是，作者要把七字留在后面，就是15节的上主是第七个，以表达完美的意思。咏119也不用七，而用八行诗写出22首歌颂法律的长诗。22是希伯来文字母的数目，这长诗的每八行都用同一个字母开始，这样顺序而下，22首均如此。

11节的两句诗与前六句的结构和韵律已完全不同。这两句诗是用两个比喻把前面所说的作一个综合。一个比喻取自价值的领域，用以衡量价值的物体是黄金。另一个比喻取自人的感受：味觉。法律是最有价值的宝贝，是最有滋味的食品。这不能不使人想起耶15：16和则3：3。作者显然不指谓法律的外在命令，而指其内容和精神。11节的爱恋二字与第十诫所说不可贪他人之财物的贪字是同一动词。又和创3：6的「令人羡慕」的羡慕二字相同。这些暗示都是很有意义的。

吴经熊在他以中国古诗体所译的「圣咏译义」里把六个不同的法律名词及每一名词后的形容词中译如下：

名词妙法形容词全美
      灵证        万确
      玉律        无瑕
      圣典        皎洁
      天威        分明
      神断  (剖)  黑白

(4) 12－15：

12节的虽然(gam) 更好译为「即便」，因为这一单音词引入一系列的反比：法律是完美的，但我不是；法律光照眼睛，但我还有很多事看不清；我看重，也品尝法律，但仍旧守不好。

这最后一段祈祷也是突然开始，没有引论的。作者在13节开始用第一人称「我」来与天主交谈。12节的「你仆人」三字是自谦之词，表示愿意接受天主的盟约，并实行天主的旨意。在若苏厄24章这一说法用了十四次，都指与雅威的关系。

有三件事使本圣咏作者放心不下，并自感卑微：过犯(非故意的错)，未觉察的罪愆，和傲慢。

过犯：因缺乏认识，或没有完全同意，不构成罪愆，但以色列的法律对这些过犯仍有很仔细的规定，为教导人民培养正确和敏感的良心。虽然逾规不是罪，仍要罚款，使得下次更小心，更注意。参阅肋末纪4和5章；户籍纪15章。读肋5：17－18。

未觉察或隐密的罪指人的邪恶倾向和一些不纯的动机。虽然法律予以烛照，但人每每不易发觉这些动向，态度和欲望。咏90：8也称天主的光可照出人的隐私。此外可参阅申29：28；依65：6；耶16：17等。可见说天主认得人的隐私是圣经的传统道理。反之，人都不认识自己，一如训道者所说的：「义人和明智人的行为都在上帝的支配下；是爱是恨，没有人知道。没有人知道他将遭遇的事。一切都是空虚」。(训9：1)

最严重的是傲慢、自负，这是指明知故犯的罪，指叛逆的行为。圣经将这一点分的很清楚，可将户15：22，25－26与30相比。出21：14是讲应该处死蓄意谋杀别人的人。申17：12甚至说刚愎自用，不服从祭司或法官的人也该处死。古人说骄傲是最大的罪，圣多玛斯根据德训篇10：15说骄傲是一切罪恶的根源(1(a)，2(ae)，84，2)。

罪恶是一股力量，想要统制人(mashal)，像创4加音故事中所描述的那样：罪像一只猛兽，跨伏在门口想吞殁人，「但你应制服牠」。(创4：7) 本圣咏作者自称仆人，以上主为主人(mashal)，只有上主能克服罪恶这头猛兽。因此本圣咏的最后一段由歌颂法律的客观声调转入主观的个人恳祷。他自觉无能为力，只好求主恩宠：先求罪的赦免，再求真实的谦逊，最后祈求他口中的赞美，心中的思念都能蒙上主悦纳。本圣咏对至上神约两个称呼，一个出自大自然：天主；另一个出自盟约：上主。这两个称呼与本圣咏的前两部分对称。

三. 基督徒如何读咏19

圣保禄在致罗马人书第10章18节将本圣咏的第4节用在福音的宣讲上，是否有违原意呢？上世纪末本世纪初的德国名圣经学家Delitsch解释说：「保禄把旧约的话用在新约上，把诸天的普遍宣扬当作宣扬福音的图像，他这样做是正确的。因为圣咏作者本人已把天主在大自然中的启示与书写的圣言启示(法律) 作了一个平行的叙述。」

把两个平行的意义放在眼前，我们能作进一步的了解：基督的复活之光给受造界的象征性结构加以照明，使它的静默语言更加清晰。基督徒所静观和所瞻仰的，已不是一个单纯的受造界，而是经过基督改造过和复兴过的宇宙基督是一切受造物的主宰和典型。

古代圣贤也喜欢发掘本圣咏的另一个图像，而把基督看做太阳和新郎。圣奥思定解释格后11：2时说：宗徒把贞女嫁给一位新郎，这位新郎不是基督是谁？当圣言取了人身时他就是新郎，他在贞女的胎中找到了婚床。他与人性结合为一以后，走出了极贞洁的洞房……像一个大力士高兴地束装就道：诞生、长大、施教、受苦、复活、升天、跑完了他的路程，没有留在路上。

在新约里外在的法律被内在的所取代，那内在的法律就是天主圣神。最后，罗马书信第7章延伸了本圣咏的思路，并决定性地澄清了本圣咏最后一段祈祷的深义。以上这两点也是圣奥思定在他的圣咏诠释里所着意发挥的。为中国文化来说，由大自然到法律，再到基督的救恩，确是一条康庄大道。

作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio

1992年10月12日至28日，在安替斯岛(Antilles) 的圣多明哥共和国(Santo Domingo)，拉丁美洲的主教(CEIAM) 团曾从牧民的角度探讨了福音新传的问题。这次是第四届，第一届是1955年在Rio de Janeiro，第二届是1968年在Medellin，第三届是1979年在Puebla。在第四届会议的筹备过程中，最初的课题是：「为新的文化展开福音新传」，但经连续三次的谘询后，教宗亲自也提出修改，后来亦被正式通过，就是：「福音新传、人性发展、基督文化：耶稣基督昨天、今天、直到永远，常是一样。(希13：8)」。骤看起来，这修改的题目比原先的更长，但却能一针见血，道出信仰、人性和文化统一的泉源就是耶稣基督。

无疑，这次会议虽属个别教会的层面，但却激励普世教会为这时代更新自己的牧民行动。教会的道路就是人，是活在一个固定文化和时空的人，并非抽象的人。本文首先描写今人所活的文化气候，说明所谓「后现代」主义对时代的呼喊，及其对各地所带来的挑战与关怀，诸如多元主义，相对主义和虚无主义等。其次说明教会近几年的回应，就是：福音新传，其核心就是面对新的挑战，分担新的关怀，以新的方式宣告基督；第三阐述教会如何以1992新编的《天主教教理》，来说明在福音新传的行动中，教理讲授应有的内容。后现代和福音新传本身都值得分题讨论，这里只作简介，重要的是说明新编教理的中心思想。

1. 「后现代」的呼喊

人类文明的历史总不能按世纪的数目来划分，因为它有自己的演进过程，世纪的数目只说明这些过程的时期而已。一般学者对西方神学思想发展史：教父时代，中世纪和现代，都有粗略的认同。至于「后现代」就像一条鱼，随着近代文化的潮流，进入了神学的领域，神学家们徒手追捕，以为捉到了，它却从他们手中滑走。人们不得不承认它的存在，因为整个时代几乎都充满「后」的气息：后启蒙，后自由，后工业，后基督宗教，后批判，后共产，后文明，后历史，后人文等的说法。本文将浅谈在「后现代」的讨论中，所冒起的呼声，然后再看天主教教会的回应。

「后现代主义」(postmodernism) 一词的源头，最早可追溯到奥尼思(F. Onis) 在1934年出版的诗选中，其后费兹(D. Fitts) 在其1942年的诗选中也应用过。这词渐渐在艺评文字中多次出现，成为一种「反」现代主义的意义，后来在建筑和艺术中渐渐通行。姑勿论如何，这词拥有一定的魅力，到了60年代中后期，后现代主义已成为一个和现代主义精英意识背道而驰的阵势，标榜反传统、反知性的风格。在70年代前期，诞生了一种存在主义式的后现代思潮。80年代，后现代变得更多元和包容，其中的论说不但南北相异，而且经常有相反和对立的情况出现，成为多元主义(pluralism) 的总称。

后现代主义套上诠释学的外衣，也渐渐进入神、哲学的领域中。它并非是现代主义的衍生或延续，而是一种新文化气候，对「现代」启蒙运动(Enlightenment) 和浪漫主义(Romanticism) 进行再反思。马克思以政治经济理论揭发中产阶级的不义。海森堡以量子论的不确定原理打破科技通天晓的美梦。弗洛特以意识植根本能还击道学之士的禁制。达尔文以进化论威胁人有更高层次精神的理论。海德格以「在此存有」(Dasein) 强调本文(text) 对解释主体产生的本体临现与缺席的张力。伽达然以「认知经验」将主体追寻客观真理的活动规为人的基本存在方式，任何概念和普偏论证都不会彻底确定和终结所发生的事，因为当事情发生时，处身在变化中的人受处境所限，未能吸纳所有资料，事后又是另一个处境。故此，历史常常可在一个新的现在重写。语言和实相大可分家。

「现代」主义企图追求普偏的统一语言、古典高雅的艺术、确凿至高的真理，在这氛围下就反现代的潮流就应运而生。最能预先活出后现代精神的就是尼釆，与其说他是系统思想家，不如说他是位先知。他以语文学点出启蒙神话的没落和浪漫怀旧的不实，人生只是约定俗成的游戏规则，一切形而上的价值观都要瓦解。他甚至宣告「上帝的死亡」，彻底地摈弃一切传统的价值，而导致相对主义、虚无主义能独领风骚。

在现代主义追求古典完美的金科玉律下，制造艺术品的功夫已提升到高不可攀的地步，鉴赏艺术的人亦在寻求新的品味。由是，要通过瓦解才可作崭新重组的念头，在艺术评论中领先出现。通俗艺术的「普普」(Pop) 文化，乘着二次大战后的回转，应运而生。「普普」起源于英国，却在美国走红。艺术的表现脱离古典、高级、认真、堂皇、经得历史考验而立下千古垂名的形式，却标榜噱头机智、信口开河的无厘头、性感有味、迷人媚惑、「不求天长地久，只要曾经拥有」的消费能耐。

「普普」和「达达」(Dada) 艺术相辅相承。1916年在苏黎世，集结一班反战的文人，艺术家，在伏尔泰酒店，参与波尔的表演节目来抒解抑郁的心情：反对政治领导以民族主义作藉口制造战争，反对社会的固有制度，反对理论家冷硬的形式主义。很快地「达达」就流行起来，它不是一种主义，却是一种反逻辑、反制度、反传统、反现在、反未来、反高调的张力，以哗众取宠的手法刺激群众喜怒笑骂，宣泄种种抑郁。因此它的表现采用怪诞惊人的招数，挑衅、粗俗的言词，强调疏离、不协调的效果，讽古说今，构想荒谬的未来，以「折衷」选用的态度(eclecticism)，兼容并蓄，甚至包罗一切相反的意念。

将后现代主义推进哲学圈内，作为一套综合当代思朝的描写源于几位代表人物：如：伽达默(H. G. Gadamer)，德里达(J. Derrida)，福科(M. Foucault)，巴尔特(R. Barthes)，贝尔(D. Bell)，哈贝马斯(J. Habermus)，杰姆逊(F. Jameson)，斯潘诺斯(W. Spanos)，伯斯顿(H. Bertens)，哈桑(I. Hassan)，李奥达(J. F. Lyotard) 等人。从他们应用的新名词可看到这种潮流，就是「反」和「瓦解」，然后不经意地(by chance) 组合错乱、非逻辑的符号和语句，如：

解构主义　(de-construct)，

解合法化　(de-legitimation)，

解中心　(de-centerment)，

解定位　(de-establishing)，

转位　(displacement)，

反论　(antithesis)，

反秩序　(anarchy)，

反讽　(irony)，

不定性　(indeterminancy)，

延异　(differance)，

痕迹　(trace)，

互文　(intertext)，

换喻　(metonymy)，

折衷选用主义　(eclecticism)，

转位诠释　(misreading)，

分散　(dispersal)，

多层透视　(multiple-perspective)等。

这些名词都在鼓励新发现，新追求的努力。他们的思想很快地就在欧美各国引起很多回响和流传在不同层次的讨论中。

在这些讨论中，后现代主义并没有垄断一般人的思想，但吾人若仔细地分析时下的生活方式，就不难发觉这词并非只是哲学家们的发明，而是他们企图用来针对时下的生活，而作出的反省。后现代主义与其说是一种既定的思想主流，毋宁说是一种关怀、一种突破现代主义框框的的尝试，旨在超越或拾回在权威下不许苟延的风格，加强吾人的宽容力，不让专家们垄断，却为发明家创造空间。

这种「后现代」的关怀引发多元的表达，这对相信绝对真理的宗教人来说，当然也会带来不可逃避的挑战：就是理性与自由的折腾，科技与俗化的霸权，根源与传统的失调，人文与宗教的蔽塞。后现代的人并不追求对理性有统一的定义，否则人又会寻求所谓的客观的律法，去合法化(legitimation) 某些行为和作风。于是，理性与存有分割，语言与形上实相不符，自由选择并不需要具有任何道德目的，解合法化就是顺从个人的本能和自我的扩张，无须介怀甚么系统和「典范」，社会生活不以某种秩序为先，而应以容忍性(permissiveness) 为主。

工业征服自然却又蹂躏自然，破坏生态。科技使人生活舒适，但物欲熏心。商业不断将人际的经验视为「消费品」，越强烈就越具快感，越具快感就越偏向激情，越偏向激情就越拋离理性，越使官能感受尖锐化，以至面对生活理想都不能反应，成为瘫痪的。为抗衡一切权威、独裁和禁制，必须瓦解传统认定的价值根源，因而传统本身也失去维系力。马克思的预言经不起考验，解放的神话没落了，对世纪末的「大执位」有迫切的期待，新纪元(New Age) 的迷信随之崛起。一切的人文关怀收缩在横面的地平，排除或忽略纵面，不谈起越，不顾来生，剥夺一切超然的宗教真理的可信性。宗教本身的信仰与生活文化的脱节，致使宗教在多元化的衍生和漫延中渐失去原有的身分，甚至连宗教团能也分化，所谓「邪教」也就应运而生。

2. 教会的回应－－福音新传 (New Evangelization)

「福音新传」在最近的教会文件中经常出现，1990年教宗若望保禄二世在《救主使命》通谕中，为纪念梵二《教友传教法令》廿五周年，更刻意提醒天主子民这个重任说：

「天主正在为教会的前路开启人类的地平，在那里人们更圆满地准备好散播福音的种子。我感到时机已至，要动员整个教会的力量，从福音新传，向万民(ad gentes) 传教。任何基督信徒，任何教会机构都不能逃避这责任。」(n.3)

这里我们只是提纲系领地陈述福音新传的神学原则，而不进入具体的解释。

福音只有一个，就是基督所宣讲、见证和实现的那一个。

它一直在人类历史中不断临场。新传不是指另一个新的福音，而是避免用不合时宜的方式去「重传」，但要「新」的方式。新是指一系列的新处境。新的交谈，就是说：福音令人得到自由、释放和爱，这要求教会不断陪伴人和福音作交谈。新的现实就是说：福音点亮人的自我明瞭，因为人的自我明瞭是接受基督的前奏，为此，教会不断学习人的各种特性。新的途径，就是说：福音建立人类合一的路，这要求教会简易、自如、真诚的沟通，并以新的热忱作见证；也就是说：福音既能发挥人的潜能，教会就要不断学习聆听和相信。

救主只有一个，就是基督。

整个福音新传建基在耶稣的救恩和使命基础上。祂展示了救恩奥迹的神性幅幅度，就是：天父的爱、基督的启示和圣神的降临。祂又实现救恩奥迹的人性幅度，就是：人的奥秘在基督内得到解释，人的成长在基督内得到动力，人的缺陷在基督内得到补足，人的极限在基督内得到超越。

传道者只有一个，就是基督。

教会只是参与和延续祂的使命。基督使命是实现圣父拯救众生的意愿和行动，并从圣父那里为我们赚得圣神的动力。教会以圣神为继续基督使命的灵魂，领受宣讲和付洗的谕令，成为天人相遇标记与途径，使天国扩展到世界的园地。

后现代的关怀是「多元化」，而它的挑战是「分化」，「相对化」和「虚无化」。我们想要强调的是：在照顾人类多元的需要之余，基督藉着教会使人类合而为一，就如「父在子内，子在父内」一般。福音新传在教会的整体使命中是产生统一力量重要的一环。

3. 天主教教理

教理讲授不但不能与教会的整体的牧民行动、传教事业分开，还是福音新传中重要的一环。梵二之后，这一点更是所有主教们在行事表上的重要事项。1966年荷兰率先推出新的教理，当时举世哗然，因为可争论的地方实在太多。其他国家也先后编订新的教理，但争论并没有终止。这些认争论指出教理讲授的多元化已遇到信仰分化的危机。

梵二既已肯定「圣言降生」的原则，福音须植根地方文化，而地方文化又是多元的，福音只有一个，那么教理讲授必注定是多元化而又统一的。谁来说出甚么是多元的和甚么是统一的？理论上是教会。换言之，教理讲授就地方教会而论是多元的，就普世教会而论则是统一的。这问题又牵涉到个别教会和普世教会的实际关系。在荷兰(文化中) 所宣认的信仰，在香港也被认同吗？在宗徒时代所宣认的信仰，在90年代他认同吗？这认同须蕴含信仰的整体性和准确性，礼仪圣事的共通性和伦理行为的共同判准。

在这些年间各地的教会在多元和统一的张力下正如履薄冰，甚至是处于一种矛盾的心理状态中。在这情况下，教宗在1985年为纪念梵二闭幕20周年召集了特殊世界主教会议。那时礼仪已普遍革新了，东西方天主教教会的法典也完成。大方针既已定位，教会须致力福音新传来更新自己。在这气氛下，与会者表达了共同的愿望，就是要编一本教理或一本综合全部天主教信理和伦理训导的摘要，使之成为各地编订教理或综合摘要的一个参照本。

1992年终于出现了《天主教教理》(下文简称《教理》)。它是1992年6月25日教宗若望保禄二世批准的，同年12月8日隆重地颁布。教宗在推荐这本书时，称之为「梵二训导最完备和最成熟的果实」，「乃近年教会一大事件」，「一份珍贵的礼物」，他在宗座宪令《信仰宝库》(Fidei Depositum = FD) 用了罕有的词句申明这本书的价值：

「它是教会信仰和天主教会教义的表达，按照圣经、宗徒传统及教会训导证实和解释的……我公认它是一本有效的工具，并钦定为权威的版本，为促进教会的共融，一个传扬信仰的确定准则。」(FD4)

《教理》的前言也申明：

「这本教理的目的是要将天主教教义主要和基本的内容，不论是有关信理或伦理的事宜，在梵二和整体教会传统的光照下，作一个有组织和系统的陈述。它首要的泉源资料是圣经、教父、礼仪和教会训导。它的功能已被确定为『各地方编订教理或综合摘要的一个参照本。』」(《教理》11)

下文我们将会描写这书的编辑过程，从而带出《教理》的「至公性」(catholicity)；然后论述贯通全书的脉络，从而带出人生并不分成四个部份，而是活生生的「奥迹」整合人生，使信仰与生活揉合一起，天主圣三与人契合，人们彼此共融，「合而为一」。

3.1 一个至公教会的制作

梵二之后，教宗保禄六世请圣职部编订《教理讲授指南》，并于1971年批准。后来它又成立了国际教理讲授委员会。1974年世界主教会议讨论福音传播，随后教宗1975年写了宗座劝谕《新世界中传福音》，强调教理讲授的重要性，呼吁1977年的第四届世界主教会议以此为主题。是次会议当今教宗若望保禄二世也以主教的身份参加了。保禄六世于1978年驾崩，新选的继承人若望保禄一世，又忽然被天主召回。继任的教宗若望保禄二世于1979年写了宗座劝谕《现时代的教理讲授》，说明教理讲授是儿童、青年及成人的信仰教育，其中包括以有组织的及系统的方式教授基督的道理(参阅《现时代的教理讲授》18)。

1985年12月1日在特别世界主教会议中，与会者在最后的议案中提出：

「极多的人(valde comuniter) 表白这个渴望，就是整理一套教理或综合摘要(catechismus seu compendium)，论述一切有关信理和伦理的事宜，作为每一个地区制作本地教理或教理摘要的参考。这本书的在教理表达方面应以圣经和礼仪为主，同时又须写出一套健康的教理适用于现代人的生活。」

1986年7月10日教宗成立专责委员会以J. Ratzinger枢机为主席，共12位成员，都是枢机和主教：

枢机：W. Wakefield Baum, B.F. Law, S.D. Lourdusamy, J. Tomko, A. Innocenti, J. Sanchez

主教：J.P. Schotte, J. Stroba, F.S. Benitez Avalos, G.P. Noujeim, I. De Souza, H.S. D'Souza.

编辑小组：7位主教

　J.E. Estepa Llaurens, J. Honore, A. Maggiolini, J. Medina Estevez, D. Konstant, E.E. Karlich, W. Levada.

书记部工作人员：A. Bovone, C. von Schonborn, R. Martinelli, Ana Fernandez.

经历九个初稿

1.　1987.2　adumbratio schematis《概括大纲》

2.　1987.12　avant-projet《计划初稿》

3.　1989.2　projet《计划》

4.　1989.11　progetto revisto(projet revise)《修订计划》

5.　1991.3　textus emendatus《修订版》

6.　1991.5　testo predefinitivo《确定前版》

7.　1991.8　testo predefinitivo－versione correta《确定前版之修定》

8.　1991.12　progetto definitive《确定计划》

9.　1992.2　testo definitivo《确定版》

三段主要的工作期

第一段是由1987年1月到1988年10月，主要是委员会按1985年特殊世界主教会议的决定，写出计划，再经编辑小组正式编写为《修订计划》。

从委员会第一次会议1986年11月，就提出这教理分三卷：信理，圣事和诫命。行文须赋予圣经、教父、礼仪和教会训导的佐证，要顾及现代文化和教会传统的语言，并附加一个教会词汇(glossary) 为解释一些常用的基本概念。读者主要是主教?作为信仰的导师?及其他书写或批准地方教区教理书的人士。目的是为地方教会写一本「参照本」，方便不同的教会按读者的需要编纂教理课本。

编辑小组的主教们便开始工作，后来为协调整本书的风格和监察工作的进度便请了道明会会士von Schonborn来负责，他后来成为维也纳教区助理主教。

第二段是由1989年10月到1990年9月，主要是将整项计划呈交给各地的教会以作谘询，收集意见后，便辑成《修订版》(textus emendatus)。

在1989年11月，以《修订计划》作为蓝本，赋予英、法、意、德、西的译文，谘询所有的天主教主教和主要的大学、学院和修院。收到的回应共有938个，16个来自宗座部门，797个来自个别主教，28个来自主教团，23个来自295不同的主教组别(1092位)，12个来自神学学院，62个来自其他的组别。这些回应大体上贺成这个《修订计划》，26.8%认为非常好，51.1%好，12.1%满意但有些保留，约有10%不赞成。提供要修订的条文共有24,000份(modi)。

从地理分布来说，这些回应有40%来自南、北美，31%来自欧洲，3%来自非洲，15%来自亚洲，11%来自大洋洲和澳洲。

审阅的工作也相当繁复，请很多神父和神学生帮忙。他们将意见分为：1) 总体性的，2) 结构里有关每个部份的，3) 特殊的主题。过程中先作一个客观的分析(radiography)为报导主教们的意见，其后辨别意见的份量(discernment)，最后衡量其他变换的可能性(alternatives)。然后针对下列四项而改善教理的工作：

1. 有关圣经的运用，要征询多些圣经学者的意见，但陈述时要以「启示宪章」为原则，即以圣经为灵魂，避免过分学术的风格。

2. 有关伦理的部份，因意见特别多，故此首先要注意人在德行和恩宠下的成长。为特殊伦理部份，则要避免形式化，可按照十诫的次序陈述，但应将之视为爱主爱人的双重诫命，着重福音真福精神，并要符合现代的处境。

3. 有关「天主经」部份，除了作解释外，也须推演出基督徒祈祷的特色，成为本书的第四部份。

4. 原罪及成义的问题也要多作考虑。

第三段是由1990年9月到1992年12月，主要是将收集的意见，按部就班地编辑成《天主教教理》。

编辑小组将原先的三卷伸至四卷，即：信理，礼仪圣事，伦理和祈祷。这分法也与脱理腾的罗马教理本相同。卷一，卷二和卷四都先后完成。圣经的引用也由学者们再重读和调整。卷三的伦理部份，还须注意一些特殊的地方，如：死刑，和平，战争，社会正义的问题等。最后，在每段的道理加上「撮要」，方便人们记诵。

1991年5月的《确定前版》(testo predefinito)及1992年2月的《确定版》(testo definito)就是按以上原则写成，并在委员会及编辑小组来回数次，经几番的修改，顾及编辑和印刷的问题等。最后在1992年2月14日委员会投票并一致通过，稿件命名为《天主教教理》过，并在1992年4月30日将最后的稿件呈交教宗审阅，1992年6月25日教宗批准，并在1992年10月11日(梵二开幕三十周年纪念) 写宗座宪令《信仰宝库》(Fidei Depositum = FD)，推荐这书，1992年12月8日教宗隆重地颁布。

显而易见，透过这本《教理》教宗要行使伯多禄继承人的「一项特殊服务，提供给神圣而至公的教会、所有与宗座和平共融的个别教会」，就是「支持及肯定所有基督徒的信德(路22：32)，甚至加强立足于同样宗徒信仰上的合一的联系。」(FD4) 教宗没有说「提供给神圣而至公的教会『及』所有与宗座和平共融的个别教会」，是为表明普世教会并非是个别教会数量上的总和，而是一个以基督为首的奥体。两者之间具有密切的「相互性」，后者具体地按前者的肖像而活现，前者则因后者的团结、集合而成(参阅《教会宪章》18.23)。当然这种相互性是建基在伯多禄的继承人(教宗) 和宗徒的继承人(主教们) 的密切关系上，亦即主教们团结一致的本质。那么，在信仰的训导上，他们要共同负起责任。事实上，可从两方面看出，这本《教理》书「正反映出主教们团结一致的本质，也显示教会是至公的。」(FD3)，一方面在成书以前，曾广泛地征询各地的教会另一方面，书成以后教宗也要求主教们将之视为一个「确定和真正的参照本」(FD4)。

3.2 贯通全书的脉络

首先让我们从结构与编排的过程看，然后再集中在教理所陈述的奥迹。

3.2.1 结构与编排

在最初的计划，已提出全书结构的问题，当时的问题，当时，当时委员会提议《教理》是分三卷：信理，圣事和诫命，后来在谘询各主教后才分四卷。其实，多玛斯曾编过一个教理讲授，其结构有三：信经，十诫和天主经。这分法也存留在基督教的传统中。《罗马教理》也是依循这分法编写的。但在信经部份论到：「我信诸圣相通功」时，就介入圣事的项目。由于那年代的圣事课题是相当广阔，甚至超过信经本身的篇幅，因此《罗马教理》便开另一新卷，专门讨论圣事。1992年《教理》的结构是仿效《罗马教理》的：信经，圣事，诫命和天主经分成四卷，即：信理，圣事，伦理和祈祷。

我们可比较两本教理的篇幅：

《罗马教理》1566

《教理》1992

信经　22%

信经　39%

圣事　37%

圣事　23%

诫命　21%

诫命　27%

天主经　20%

祈祷　11%

由此可见，教理分为三卷或四卷，乃按所处理的课题的篇幅而定，而课题的篇幅又有其历史因素，例如在1566年圣事的篇幅是最长的，在1992年则以信经为最长。其实，不论是多玛斯，《罗马教理》和92年的《教理》，它们的分法都是基于一个双重的信念：第一是相信天主圣三对人的爱，第二是相信天主使人有能力回应。按此看法，这两点是一个银元的两面，表达天人最终的关系。新编教理的四卷也是如此：天主的爱分别在信德中(卷一) 宣认，在圣事中(卷二) 庆祝，然而人的回应在生活上守诫命(卷三) 和作祈祷(卷四) 表达对天主的依从和赞颂。

这种编排也解决所谓「真理的等级」(The hierarchy of truths) 的问题。1989年间委员会将《修订计划》呈交给全世界的主教作谘询时，其中一项正是真理等级的问题，受到自北美神学家的最大批评。其实，在问题的背后是卷三伦理的部份。教会的伦理训导自1967年的《人类生命》始，都是反潮流，比一般社会厘定的标准严谨得多。一些神学家，信友，甚至牧者却以这些训导不是隆重地钦定的信理为由，而另设较宽松的标准或理论。可是，真理的等级往往与确定的方式(平常训导或隆重训导) 无关。委员会恨慎重地处理这点，后来由主席Ratzinger在1990年10月27日世界主教会议中向大家解释，因为真理的等级并不在于确凿性的程度，故此，在新编的教理中，无须亦不希望在每条道理之后加上：钦定信理(de fide definita)，信理(de fide)，一般意见(sententia communis) 等的注明。每条教理确凿性的程度是由铺陈的结构、方式、及所引用的权威而浮现出来的。

训导的意义就是遨讲信友顺从真理。在今日实际的环境中，这邀请是诉诸信友的信德。当一些伦理的训导是难于实践时，并非以它的确定方式作为接纳或不接纳的准则，而是以信德的眼光来接受。为此，《教理》卷三的伦理部份需要有卷一和卷二的光照。

此外，还有两个神学理由使信经和圣事先于诫命的。首先，「成义」是必须预设信德和恩宠的，脱理腾的神学是着重「成义」的恩宠是直接与圣事有关，恩宠是首要的，因为恩宠就是以圣神的恩赐充满整个人，赋予超性之德，使之成为新的受造物。故此，在劝勉人守诫命前，先要使人知道基督徒的尊位。其次，只有在恩宠的扶助下，守诫命才能脱离旧约法律主义，而达至新约的真福精神。

3.2.2 奥迹和救恩史

虽然《教理》没有明文说明贯穿全书的脉络，但是宗座宪令《信仰的宝库》已指出：

「四卷是互相联系的：基督徒的奥迹是宣信的对象(卷一)，我们在礼仪行动中庆祝奥迹，而奥迹又藉此恩临人间(卷二)，奥迹的恩临是为阐明和扶持天主子女的行径(卷三)，奥迹成为我们祈祷的基础，祈祷最优惠的表现是『我们的天父』，此外，祈祷又是我们祈求、赞颂和作代祷的对象(卷四)。」(FD4)

这里所说的基督徒奥迹就是圣保禄所说的「从创世以来，即隐藏在创造万有的天主内的奥秘(oikonomia tou mysteriou)。」(弗3：9) 希腊文oikonomia是指家务的管理，从而引申到安排、策划、领导、治理。保禄对这意念有不同的用法：首先是应用在宗徒之职，按天主的计划而传福音(哥1：25；格前9：17)，第二种用法是与奥迹连在一起的，就是指天主的计划和在历史上实现并在基督身上总合的过程(参阅弗1：9－10)。中文可将oikonomia译成救恩计划或救恩史。换言之，这奥迹或救恩计划就是贯通全书的脉络。

卷一在《教理》中可称为启示的救恩计划，是以基督奥迹为高峰的。它是以宗徒信经的形式铺陈，内含天主圣三的结构：我信圣父，我信圣子，我信圣神。整个救恩计划只有一个源头和一个终向，在时空的场所中呈现，其中有些是事件，为整个救恩史是极为重要的，例如：创造，安排成引领，基督的救赎工程，圣神在教会内的更新。

卷二亦阐明同样的救恩计划的观念：在教会内这计划就变成圣事庆典上的救恩计划。换言之，整个救恩史已浓缩在基督奥迹中，并已达至圆满，而现在礼仪庆典将同样的奥迹渐渐扩散和渗透到生活上，因此，对时辰、场所、标记、圣事和圣仪等都需要有所解释。

余下的部份是说明这救恩计划实现在个人或团体的生活的，就需要有行动的方针和恩宠。第三卷主要是谈及诫命作为踏上「爱」的道途。第四卷则解释基督徒的祈祷。

再进一步看，救恩史是以圣三奥迹和基督奥迹为核心，两个奥迹只能识别但从不分开，两者合而为一。在卷一宣认信仰的部份中，对象是天主圣三伟大的爱情，但这爱情是在圣子降生成人的事件中达至圆满的实现，确立了天主「自我通传」的基础，以至每个人只要信从基督就能享有天主圣三的爱情和生命：

「教理教授的核心主要是指向一个人，就是纳匝肋人耶稣，天父的独生子(…)。只有祂才可带领吾人在圣神中达到天父之爱，并分受天主圣三的生命。」(《现时代的教理讲授》5)

基督生平的奥迹有：出生、童年、隐居、传教、苦难、死亡和复活，但陈述这些奥迹并非为了效法基督做一个完美的人而已，而是邀请吾人与祂结合一起。

「一切基督活过的经验，无非是因为祂想令我们可在祂内活出来和祂在我们内活出来。『藉着天主子降生成人的事实，在某程度上祂已和每一个人连系着』。我们奉召和祂合而为一，作为祂的肢体，祂就将自己肉身上为我们所活过的通传给我们，并以此作为我们的典范。」(《教理》521)

就是在这个「祂身体的肢体」的角度下，《教理》陈述卷二圣事篇。

「……基督生平的年个奥迹皆构成圣事恩宠的基础，致使基督现在可藉祂教会的仆人在圣事中赋予恩宠，因为『一切在我们救主身上有形可见的都通传到祂的奥迹中。』」(《教理》1115)

《教理》亦引用极富动感的圣经言词来描写这个事实：

「从基督身躯『流露出来的力量』(路5：17；6：19；8：46) 时常都是充满生气和赋予生命力的，亦即是圣神在祂身体?教会?所行的一切活动，这也是圣事的行动．即在新而永久的盟约中所完成的『天主杰作』。」(《教理》1116)

今天基督的圣事就是将祂生平的奥迹伸延到我们的生活中，使我们与祂合而为一。与基督合而为一就是进入天主圣三的生命中。基督徒的召叫就在于此，而他的回应则有赖其「信德」和「信德的圣事」。

卷三的第一部份是「人被召在圣神之内生活」，其内容涉及伦理的基础。这里的起点是「召叫」，由于人是按天主的肖像而受造，故此他只有追寻天主，才可得到真正的幸福；换言之，他是奉召过「真福」的生活。然而，又由于他是天主的肖像，故此具有理智和意志，那么追寻天主亦须通过人的明瞭和自由的抉择才能达到，这就是基督徒伦理的开端和基础。人的行为既有他的终向，便涉及其自由和明瞭，那么，人的行为自必然就有价值可言：有些行为是更能使人迈向完人的地位，这称为善行，另一些行为则会令人背道而驰，这称为恶行。判别行为善恶的功能则是人的良心。

假如没有天主诫命的指导，又没有天主恩宠的提升，人是没法对天主的召叫作出适度的回应。在「基本伦理」部份，不但兼容《论教会在现代世界牧职宪章》的思维形式，尤其以圣多玛斯的《神学大全》的思想作为主导的脉络。当然这是一个很有意识的选择，主要为调和天主的恩宠及人的自由，两者并不互相排斥，而是融汇为一股「合作的力量」(synergia)，为使人走上「圣德」之路。

基督徒善恶的标准在乎天主的召唤，亦即那深深地嵌入他人性内的倾向，圣经称之为「天主肖像」的尊严。良心是天主呼唤的声音，驱使人从善避恶，十诫只是由天主启示的从善的指标，最终带人上爱天主，下爱世人。习惯行善的能力就成为德行，除了人性的德行还需要有天赋超性之德(theological virtue) 就是源于恩宠而孕育的信、望、爱三德。

「『基督徒啊！承认你的崇高的地位吧！因为你已被提升而分受天主的生命，不要再像以前自甘堕落，度不相称的生活，请牢记你是属于那个身体，是那个身体的肢体。』(教宗大良)」(《教理》1691)

「在信经部份中，我们已宣认天主在创世中对人的施恩是如何伟大；更甚者，就是在救赎和圣化工程中的大恩，一切经信德而宣认的，都要在圣事中获得实现：藉着圣事，信友们得以重生，成为天主子女(若1：12；3：1)，分受天主的生命(伯后1：4)。基督徒因在信德中承认他们新的尊位，也就奉召成为天上的寓居，行动要相称于福音(斐1：27)。藉着圣事和祈祷，他们领受基督的恩宠和圣神的赐予，使他们有力量度一个新生。」(《教理》1692)

「『信德的奥迹其是伟大。』教会在宗徒信经中宣认这奥迹(卷一)，在礼仪圣事中庆祝(卷二)，为使信友的生活能肖似基督。在圣神内归光荣于天父(卷三)。因此，这奥迹要求信友们笃信、庆祝并要从中活出与天主密切的关系，和感受祂确是真实而又生活的。这个关系就是祈祷。」(《教理》2558)

卷三的第二部份是特殊伦理，按天主十诫的次序来铺陈。不过这些铺陈是导向人性和超性的德行，例如首要的三诫是指向信、望、爱三个超性之德和人性的实践宗教之德。第四诫是孝德，第六诫是贞德，第七诫是义德，第八诫是诚实之德，而第九、第十诫又再次提醒人整个十诫不是列出一系列的「禁制」成「必须」，而是福音中的「真福精神」。十诫总纲就是上爱天主，下爱世人(参阅《教理》2093)。

教会历史上有许多圣人圣女的见证，在教理书也多次引用他们的言行，作为加强在爱中侍主的动机。恩宠的福音需要有人用心火去点燃的。

小结

本文从拉丁美洲主教团的牧民关注，引申到普世教会的关注，就是要在现时建立基督的文化。因为后现代主义的兴起，不但使社会变得多元，而且也使宗教走向分化的危机。所以教会要重新宣告基督的福音作为人类彼此合一的动力。为配合福音新传，教会出版了新的《天主教教理》，为使每个个别教会在针对自己的文化，而制定一套本地的教理，大家都有统一的讯息，而不致使信仰分化，反而能推行福音新传，引领人类走上融合在圣三生活的道途上。

作者：张春申

应用中文想写这篇文章，首先遭到的是用词上的困难。「使命」究竟是否固定用来翻译西文的Mission吗？或者Mission是否固定地翻译为「使命」吗？教宗若望保禄二世的通谕Redemptoris Missio。果然译为「救主的使命」，但梵二的Decretum De Activitate Missionali Ecclesiae却译为，「教会传教工作」。同一Missio, Missionali中文却有两个译名「使命」与「传教」。

但更加令人混淆的，是中文「传教」一词，却又用来翻译别的西名：如Evangelization过去一再译为「传教」，至今有人仍旧延用。梵二另一法令De Apostolatu Laicorum，译为「教友传教法令」，可见「传教」已是西文Apostolate；其原意该是「使徒性能」。因此，每次中文「传教」一词出现，实在很难确定它究竟含有什么意义。它是中文教会的「宠物」，常常出现而难以端定内含。

主教团秘书处出版的「救主的使命」通谕译本的「绪言」，在仅有三号中，「传教」一词使用来翻译了三个西名Mission, Missionary, Apostolate，同时将Missionary Evangelization 翻译为「传播福音」。而且在通谕的译文中尚有「传教使命」出现(第23号第二、三节)，令读者相当困扰。

为此，本文即使应用有关译本，一律不用「传教」，同时固定三个译名：「使命」Mission：「福传」或「传福音」Evangelization；「使徒性」Apostolate。三个名词彼此相连，但也有自身的涵意。如此，过去的传教神学将是使命神学。

本文题目是使命神学的二路，即「天主的使命」神学与「教会的使命」神学，以下简称天主使命学与教会使命学。分为四部分来研讨：

一．二路使命学的简介

二．教会使命学的意义

三．天主使命学的意义

四．二路使命学的平议

二路使命学可由教宗若望保禄二世「救主的使命」通谕绪言中的一段话作为出发点：「梵二大公会议根据现代世局的需要，探求革新教会的生活和行动。大公会议强调教会的『使命本质』，将它以动态方式建基于『圣三性使命』自身之上」。(第1号第二节)。所谓圣三性使命(Trinitarian Mission) 即本文所指天主的使命，具体而论，即为基督的使命。可见教会的使命与天主的使命密切相关，问题便是对此关系有不同说法。

一．二路使命学的简介

天主使命学是由圣三的内在关系，说明人类历史救恩旨意的完成。圣父是救恩根源，派遣圣言与圣神实践救恩。圣父是使命的根源，圣言与圣神被派遣，即领受使命。圣言成为血肉居住人间，无限量地拥有圣神，十字架上天主的使命业已完成，但尚未全然实现人间，因为人类历史继续进行。所以复活的基督与祂由父派遣来的圣神，继续实践救恩使命于宇宙及人类历史中间。至于教会则是救恩的标志与工具，基本上只是参与圣三性的使命。这是天主使命学的要点；也是本文所指使命学的一路，虽然并不否认教会的使命。

教会使命学强调教会的生活与行动，建基于圣三性的使命，但耶稣升天与圣神降临之后，从此救恩使命落在教会身上。是它由耶路撒冷开始，直到天涯地角，今世终结，实现救恩使命而运筹一切。基督藉圣神的天天同在，仅似一般性的照顾，虽然偶有特殊功能。这是使命学的第二路。

二路使命学具有彼此相连的关系，但表达使命之于历史中的实践却有不同，有关教会的角色显然有别。

二．教会使命学的意义

笼统地说，梵二大公会议持的是教会使命学路线。鉴于大公会议的主题是教会，不难了解其使命学的倾向。这里仅自梵二「教会的使命工作」法令来探讨，而且集中于第一章论教理原则。

1. 教会的使命与圣三性使命

表面来看，这一章以三号(2，3，4) 论圣三性使命，以五号(5，6，7，8，9) 论教会的使命。资料的多寡显出大公会议的路线。而且圣三性使命似乎仅是前导或基础，教会的使命始是教理原则的重点。第5号有一段话相当清楚表达二者之间的衔接：

「……祂也派遣了宗徒们到天下去，……从此传播信仰及基督的救恩，就成了教会的责任，……」(第一节)

这段引证的话前面是叙述基督召叫宗徒建立教会，后面便是肯定圣统性的教会继承来自基督的使命。教会自己是使命主题，处于「从此」以后的阶段。予人感觉教会是在继续使命；至于圣三性的使命以已「结束」，若有作为，可说偶有的事。

2. 教会的使命与基督的使命

如果我们把教会的使命与基督的使命的关系说明，问题将更清楚。

教会的使命，遵照基督的命令与在圣神的鼓励下，实现于各民各族。它将继续下去，在历史中发挥基督自己完成的使命。(第5号第一节) 可说二个使命相连而非合一。此又可从天主圣神的角色来澄清。梵二法令并不直接指出天主圣神在耶稣被遣降世以及公开福传时的行动。(第3号第二节) 反而提出天主圣神由复活基督遣派，作为教会的同工。祂把整个教会「团结在共融和服务精神内，用圣统阶级和各种奇能伸恩，建设教会」。(教会第4号) 祂又把基督自己的使命精神，投入信友心中。(第4号) 因此，基督完成自己的使命；圣神与教会实现基督完成了的救恩于人类历史之中。基督是完成者，教会是实现者；二者的使命不同，但互相连结。

梵二并未将圣三性使命单独发挥，只是为了阐释教会的使命之来源或基础而提及的。

3. 教会使命的主体与工作

说明了教会的使命与天主的使命的关系之后，可将梵二法令对教会的使命之内涵加以理清。

3.1 使命的主体

教会按照基督的命令领受属于自己的使命，(第5号第一节) 因此旅途的教会本质上使命性的。(第2号第一节)　虽然如此，大公会议特别强调实现使命的责任是「司铎所辅助的主教团，和伯铎的继承人，教会的最高司牧，共同由宗徒们继承下来的」。(第5号第一节；参阅第4号；第6号第一节) 使命的教会性因此更为显着，面对天主的使命，甚至显出「分段」与「延续」的张力。

3.2 实现使命的工作

有关实现使命工作，「教会的使命工作」法令，说明得相当周到，因此需要分别介绍。

3.2.1 属于使命特性的工作

「这种使命的本旨，就是在教会尚未生根的民族或人群中宣讲福音，培植教会」。(第6号第三节)「教会派遣的福音宣传者，走遍全世界，以宣讲福音，在尚未信仰基督的民族及人群中，以培植教会为职责，这种特殊工作普通即称为『使命』」。(同上) 在以上引证的法令第6号第三节中，三次指出用于使命的特性工作是宣讲福音与培植教会。

3.2.2 间接属于使命的工作

「暂时无法直接立即宣传福音，这时奉使者至少可以也应该耐心地、明智地、有信心提供基督仁爱慈善的证据，这样为主作铺路工作」。(第6号第五节) 这便是传统所说的信仰作证。由此可了解为什么有直接传福音与间接传福音之分。生活见证并非使命工作本身。

3.2.3 与属于使命工作有关的工作

「所以在外教人中的使命工作，和在信友之间的牧灵工作；以及促成基督徒之间的合一运动，有所不同，可是两种工作却与教会的使命工作有着密切关系……好能在外教人前对吾主基督作出一致的证据。」(第6号第六节) 合一运动也是信仰作证，但与使命工作不同。

对于上面所说三种工作，尤其第一与第二种工作，「教会使命工作」法令第二章论使命的事业本身，更加详细发挥，重点在于宣讲福音以及集合与形成教友团体。由此也可以见出教会使命论的偏向「教会中心主义」，它的使命特性是宣讲福音而建立教会自身。至于使命有关的其它工作，也都以此为归向。因此便无法见出使命有任何人类与宇宙向度。

4. 教会使命的存在理由与其需要

教会的使命是为了天主的救恩意愿。(第2号第一节) 耶稣基督是天人之间惟一中保，除祂之外没有救恩，所以接受教会的宣讲必须归附祂，藉着圣洗和称为基督身体的教会连结在一起。教会是得救必经之路。「虽然天主有其独自知道的方法，能够引导那些非因自己过失而不认识基督的人，得到为悦乐天主无可或缺的信德」。(同上)

以上四段可说是梵二教会使命学的基本意义，其重点在于教会似乎「掌握」使命，虽然「有时圣神还明显地走在宗徒们的前面，同时又不断地以各种方式伴随指挥宗徒的工作。」，(第4号) 但使命是教会在实践的，圣神「有时」，或者不断地「伴随」而已。

三．天主使命学的意义

梵二「教会的使命工作」法令颁布二十五年之后，教宗若望保禄二世重申教会的使命承诺，发表「救主的使命」通谕。为我们的研讨而论，是要指出通谕代表的使命神学第二路。其实梵二之后的简短神学历史，已由教会学转向基督学，那么使命神学随着同样方向而转受，似乎也是理所当然的。我们愿意扼要自通谕抽出天主使命学的要点。

1. 天主的使命与教会

首先，「救主的使命」通谕的首三章，其每章命名和内容已显出使命神学的转向。第一章：耶稣基督?唯一救主；第二章：天主之国；第三章：圣神?使命的首要行动者。这三章可谓天主使命学的教理基础。标题不说教会，因为它不是使命的首要行动者。

1.1 救恩与教会的使命

值得在此先提出的，通谕对于教会的使命具有一个层次：首先是全面性的使命(Universal Mission)，其中含有向万民的使命(Missio ad gentes)。下面将更多讨论。不过使命整体出于天主救恩的旨意。

教宗若望保禄二世面对今日教会神学界的不同言论，强力地肯定基督救恩的必需性(教会：第一章)，但此非本文所愿处理的。

1.2 救恩与基督的使命以及教会的使命

基督的普世救恩源于祂恩宠、真理与启示的使命(救主：第5号第三节)。通谕的整整第二章，以「天主之国」来落实救恩，而耶稣基督的「蒙召」便是为了这个目的，所以祂的使命便在于此：「因为我被派遣，正是为了这事。」(路4：43) 通谕之所以详细说明「天主之国」的全面，也是为了说明教会使命的全面目标。(救主：第20号第四、五节) 不过，「救恩的最先受益者是教会。基督以自己流血的代价为自己赢得了教会，使教会成为他在世界救恩中的同工。当然，基督住在教会内。她是他的新娘，他使她成长，他藉着她贾践他的使命。」(救主：第9号第一节)

1.3 救恩与天主圣神的使命以及故会的使命

通谕第三章并不注意圣神的被遣派或使命，但丰富地详述圣神在使命中的临在与行动：在耶稣基督的使命中；在宗徒的使命以及教会的使命中。

「圣神的确是教会使命的全面之主要行动者。祂的行动在向万民的使命中(Missio ad gentes) 是杰出显明的……」，(救主：第21号第二节) 教宗相当清楚地注意使命的层面。我们毋庸仔细地随着通谕长篇大论天主圣神在宗徒与教会使命中的各种行动；但值得特别注意的是圣神临在和活跃于每一时空的事实，(救主：第25号第一节) 以及它与教会的关系。按照通论的思想，天主圣神一方面的普遍活动(不仅影响个人，而且也影响社会、历史、人民、文化和宗教的活动)，和另一方面的个别活动，即在教会中的活动是不能分开的。原来，「当祂在一切个人和民族身上灌输和扩展祂的恩典时，祂引导教会去发现这些恩典，透过交谈去培育和接纳这些恩典。」(救主：第29号第三节) 这里可见教会的使命附属于天主的使命。(参阅救主：第20号第三节)

1.4 圣三性使命与教会的使命

「救主的使命」通谕指出「大公会议强调教会的『使命本质』，以活跃方式建基于圣三性使命自身之上」，(救主：1号) 但它以三章篇幅发挥天主的救恩和圣三性使命，同时将教会的使命附属其上；处处显出天主使命的主动性，教会使命仅是回应而已。教会使命或者可说是天主使命的标志和圣事。这也是我们认为「救主的使命」通谕倾向于天主使命学的缘由。

2. 使命的途经

教会以工作或行动来实践使命，所谓使命的途径便是不同方法、道路，为了达到天国来临之目的。通谕第五章论使命的途径，与第二章论教会为天国服务(第20号) 应该互相比较，因此再次见出教会的使命与基督的使命之间的连系。

2.1 不同途径

使命途径可以归为三类：传报(Kerygma)、共融(Koinonia) 与服务(Diakonia)。通谕相当详细举出不同的工作。

1.传报：见证(福传的最初形式)、初期宣讲、归依和洗礼。

2.共融：形成地方教会与合一运动、教会基层团体(福传的动力)、福音降入民族文化(本地化)。

3.服务：宗教交谈(与其他宗教的兄弟姊妹交谈)，以塑造良知来促进发展(学校、医院、出版社、大学与实验农场等)。

2.2 不同途径与教会使命

我们已经二次表示通谕所指的教会使命之层次：全面性使命与向万民的使命。事实上，教宗相当重视此一区分，一方面在今日世界中，他强调向万民的使命有其特殊重要性，另一方面在他广阔的视野中，教会使命该是圣三性使命的标志。因此有关向万民的使命，教宗通谕应用了整个第四章。他保持它的特殊价值，也如同梵二「教会的使命工作法令」一段，承认「它的特性是宣扬基督及其福音，建立地方教会和提倡天国价值。向万民的使命的特质在于对『非基督徒』。」(救主：第34号第一节) 这即是途径中的传报与形成教会团体。

不过教宗也知道今日神学界，「有人提出质问，谈论特定的使命活动或特别谈到『使命地区』是否适当，或者我们应该谈论单一使命环境下的单一的使命，各地皆然。」(救主：第32号第二节) 这段话的上文是有关今日世界的流动性，以致虽能规定传统所说的只有「非基督徒」的「传教区」，但无法不能不容纳天主使命学的观点(参阅32号第三节)，可能也因此使通谕第五章，将所有使命途径与其工作：传报、共融、服务平置一起；同时放宽向万民的使命之视野，这将在下文中解释。

2.3 使命的不同途径与为天国的服务

第五章中，通谕已经从教会全面性的使命、一个使命来提供不同途径；其中有的显明是向万民的使命之工作，但已引入全面性使命之中。的确通谕对于宣讲福音仍旧另眼相看；(参阅救主：第44号第一节) 但我们不拟在此讨论，另有文章专为处理此一问题。(参阅：使命途径的整合，《善导周刊》81年8月23日) 无论如何，不同途径的所有工作都是为了实践同一使命；通谕在第五章中很有意思地用了「福传使命」(Evangelizing Mission) 一词，(第55号第一节) 意谓使命是为福传。至于福传，实以天主之国为对象。因此我们可说所有使命途径的工作旨在天主之国的来临，而天国来临的实现之形态是众多的，(第20号第二节) 因为使命途径的工作不同之故。比如：宣讲、归依与洗礼使人在教会团体形态中经验天国来临；至于宗教交谈的效果则在双方互信相识形态中经验天国来临。二种工作却都是教会使命的途径，(参阅救主：20号) 都为天国来临服务，然而天国来临的形态却由于途径不同而各有分别。

以上两大段是天主使命学的要点，圣三之间的派遣与使命，长存于宇宙与人类的救恩史中，其完成是逾越奥迹，其继续不断实现主要是藉基督的教会，因此而有教会的使命。然而教会的使命仅是天主的使命之「圣事」，有形可见的标志。此使教会的使命超越自己的制定界线，具有宇宙与人类向度，同时肯定使命途径的广度。至于向万民的使命仅是它全面性使命的途径之传报而已，(参阅下文第四部份) 虽然它有特殊的意义。

四．二路使命学平议

根据二、三两部分的介绍，我们认为梵二大公会议，或梵二「教会的使命工作」法令倾向于教会使命学，至于「救主的使命」通谕倾向于天主使命学，现在稍作比较。

1. 两者的差别

梵二大公会议所说的教会使命实乃通谕中的向万民的使命；它是相当以教会为中心的。不过在通谕第四章：「向万民的使命之广大幅员」中，教会一方面肯定向万民的使命保有价值，另一方面却十足显出天主使命学的倾向，提出所谓向万民的使命之变故：甲、地域界限；乙、新世界和新社会现象；丙、文化领域。(第37，38号) 于是使命活动必须加以注视的：「例如：致力于和平、发展和人民的解救，个人和民族的权利；尤其是少数人的权利；妇女和儿童的进展；维护受造的世界。这些也是需要以福音的真光照亮的领域。」(救主：第37号第14节) 这已经远远超过梵二教会使命学的远景。也可说是教宗的天主使命学对向万民的使命所具有的发展。

2. 使命的工作

梵二的教会使命的工作，严格而论只是宣讲福音与培植教会，看来好似教会来自耶稣的命令去实现自己。它是使命的主体，其圣经基础更属对照福音与宗徒大事录。圣三性使命更近若望福音，因此教会全面性使命途径与工作众多面广阔，参与了天主的使命。

由于两种不同的使命学，教会的心灵境界也有不同；一是比较以教会为中心，另一是比较以基督或以圣三为中心。一般说来，也会影响使徒工作者的胸怀。

3. 福传意义的变化

梵二「教会使命的工作」法令，将属于使命特性工作限于宣讲福音与培植教会，其他如所谓信仰见证、爱德表现只作间接福传，而牧灵与合一工作已不视为使命工作。至于通谕不但提出「福传使命」，而将上述所有一切工作视为使命途径，基本上已经不再有直接福传与间接福传之分，这是应当特别注意的。为具体接受使命而献身的人，在信仰经验上也是很有关系的。

同时也应当特别注意，「福传」这个圣经名词在现代教会中的意义，实际已具演变。梵二大公会议时代，福传或传播福音实指宣讲，传报基督的死亡与复活，以及祂的生平。一九七五年教宗保禄六世「在新世界中传福音」劝谕中，福传的内容已经兼有人性解放与发展。而教宗若望保禄二世的「救主的使命」通谕中，福传与福传使命如上所述已经超过传报的界线；不过通谕偶而尚有接近梵二的表达方式。而一九九一年，万民福传圣部与宗教交谈宗座委员会共同发表的「交谈与宣讲」文件中，已经清楚分别指出「福传」的不同意义。这是研究使命学者都有所知的。

4. 结论

派遣、使命与福传是教会大众都熟悉与应用的名词，三者的具体意义根据二路使命学而有差异。本文之作企图指出差异的来源，由于应用者可能早已采取一路使命学而并不清楚意识到。

天主圣三使命学在梵二之后逐渐多为应用，这与将近三十年来神学反省的变化有关，同时也与教会的生活与行动有关。大概说来，今天教会对于使命的意识，更为自我超越，具有人类与宇宙向度。

作者：周景勋

一．引子

圣奥斯定在「天主之城」卷八第一章中，明确地说：「真正的哲学家就是爱天主者。」

「爱天主者」必然地寻觅「真理」而离开「恶」。圣奥斯定在公元二八七年归依「基督」，离弃自己放荡不羁的生活后，对「真理」之热爱，可从「忏悔录」书中卷三第六章第十节得悉：「唉！真理，永远的真理，我从心灵的最深处追念你，深深地向往你。」因为：「我所渴望的，不是那些美妙的受造之物，而是『真理』－－是你的本身－－『永不变易．永不晦蚀』(雅各伯书1：17) 的你。」

为能了解对「真理」如饥似渴之追念心情，人必须先有信德，才能了解「真理」，以及存立在「真理」之内。在圣奥斯定的思想中：信仰与哲学是不能分离的，哲学之所以能完全实现，需要信仰的启发；或者说：哲学是植根于信德中，才能觅得生命的终极，达到圆满的幸福。研究圣奥斯定哲学思想的专家「盖雷(F. Cayre)」说：「所谓哲学，即是指有关思想和生活所依重之原理的自然知识。为能瞭解奥义，需要有信德；奥斯定根据依撒意亚书7：9那句话：『除非你们相信，你们便不会瞭解。』(思高圣经版本译：『假使你们不肯相信，你们必然不能存立。』) 常喜欢说：『相信吧！好能使你瞭解天主的话』；但是在相信以前，先要理解字句本身的自然意义，因此他说：『理解我的话吧！好使你能相信；相信吧！好能使你瞭解天主的话。』(证道集四十三篇第九节)」(1) 圣奥斯定的观点认为：哲学是使人幸福的智慧，真理就是幸福的基础，而人若只依靠自己的理性，是找不到真理的，换言之，即达不到幸福。圣奥斯定肯定说：「若问单凭理性，不靠信德的扶助，人是不能达到真理的。」此乃奥斯定以纯哲学的观点驳斥怀疑主义的证据。(2)

事实上，圣奥斯定所追求的「真理」就是「天主本身」，所希望达到的「幸福」也是「天主本身」。所以他在「忏悔录」卷一第一章作了断言性的导言：「因为你创造我们是为了你，我们的心得不到你，就不能安息在你的怀抱中，便摇摇地不会安宁。」其实，这启导之言也就是「忏悔录」的结语，因为圣奥斯定曾说过：「我那十三卷忏悔录，是赞美使我幸和不幸的正义慈善的天主的，能使人的思想和感情转向天主。」(3) 就是他在生命的寻觅中，最后觅得「生命终极」的天主所作的所言。

1. 盖雷著(刘俊余译)，《奥斯定哲学导论》(F. Cayre, Initiation a la Philosophie de Saint Augustin)，闻道出版社　民74年四月初版，第一章「何谓奥斯定哲学」20－21

2. 同上

3. 订正录卷二第六章

圣奥斯定的忏悔录乃写于公元四００年左右，由书名便可了解到：这是一本记载「在生命的堕落后，走向归依正途：『真理』」的书，可说是一本「生命哲学」的书。

订正录乃圣奥斯定晚年的一部书，共分二卷，大概是在四二六至四二七年间完成，按狄悦蒙(Tillemont) 的Memories, Vol. 13 P. 1040之主张，则是在四二八年完稿的。

(参阅：包达理著(刘俊余译)，《奥斯定思想概论》(Eugene Portalie, Saint Augustine)，闻道出版社　民74年10月初版，第二章「著作」第一节「自传及书札」48－50

二．「忏悔录」是一本「生命哲学」的书

倘若我们以一般人的心态阅读「忏悔录」，我们会觉得这是一本很动人的传奇性的「自传」。

倘若我们以文学的角度来评断的话，我们可以说「忏悔录」是一本感人肺俯的着名的「传记」。

倘若我们从天主教的灵修学上作衡量，则可以说「忏悔录」是一本引人成圣，与天主相晤相遇的灵修书。

倘若我们从人的心理角度上看，「忏悔录」实在是一本描绘一个人心理流灵和改变的好书。

但为我来说，我愿意以「哲学」的探讨来说明：「忏悔录」不单是一本传奇性的「自传」、一本着名的文学的「传记」、一本「灵修书」、一本「心理描述的好书」，它更是一本「生命哲学」的书。我们可以从「忏悔录」中看到圣奥斯定在自我生命中的生生变易的过程，以及思想上的演变过程，这演变或变易可以说是他整个人生活直截了当的流露－－赤裸裸的心灵与思维的流露。我们在「忏悔录」中所遇到的，往往是一个投向生命终极的问题，其目的在于说明自我对生命幸福的探索。

圣奥斯定对生命的探索是永无止境的，直到他将自己的心安顿好，才能超越生命中所遇到的一切；这个安顿是经过了生命的挑战、挣扎、痛苦、……甜、酸、苦、辣、……。当他写「忏悔录」时，已经是为自己的生命找到了安顿的地方，故不是在年轻放荡不羁的时候写的，而是在归依主，有深切的宗教经验后所写的；这时，圣奥斯定大概是四十五岁左右(公元四OO年左右)，已经是一位主教。因为圣奥斯定在写「忏悔录」时，乃是以回忆「自我生命由罪恶中跳跃出来，迈向信仰生命的升华」的方式写的，故「忏悔录」可以说是「回忆录」；圣奥斯定是以全心全灵回亿自我生命的演变，且在心灵得到安顿于天主怀抱中，藉信仰的光照而写的；故圣奥斯定在热切的心灵表达下，使他不得不以「祈祷」的方式不断地感谢和赞美所信仰的主。

因着「信仰的光照」，圣奥斯定在写「忏悔录」时，已经对自我生命的重整有深邃的反省；而生命的反省必定有一个完整的思想架构，才会有生命的反思和整合；这思想架构蕴藏着一个「哲学的体系」－－是一个「生命哲学」的体系，藉以告诉人如何把握自己、超越自己，迈向生命的终极，使生命得以安顿下来。因此，我们可以在圣奥斯定的「忏悔录」的哲学体系中，看出他生命和思想的转化；这转化也是他心灵的变化，蕴含着一股灵修的力量，以引出他自己对天主的肯定和信仰；这肯定和信仰乃是心灵的太阳－－天主所光照和启发的，发挥了他的「光照」或「启发」的学理。

三．「忏悔录」的剖释

「忏悔录」(Confessiones) 这个书名是以拉丁文定名的，有着特别的意义。若按字源上说，我们很容易认为是来自Confessio (忏悔、认罪)，即指「承认或叙述自己的罪过」；然而，按圣奥斯定「忏悔录」的「生命哲学」之架构，不只是一个承认或叙述自己罪过的行为，而是一个把握生命、寻觅「真理」，使心灵得到安顿的归依历程；且在安顿后，有着一份喜悦的感恩和赞美；所以Confessiones乃是取自圣经上用的Confiteri (自白、忏悔、显露〈动心〉)，即是指「一个人自惭形秽，承认并赞扬天主的德能，使人的思想、感情和心灵转向天主」的意义。(4)

藉着Confiteri的意义，我们可再深入地了解「忏悔录」的内涵，更肯定了「忏悔录」卷一第一章的重要性：「因为你创造我们是为了你，我们的心得不到你，就不能安息在你的怀抱中，便摇摇地不会安宁。」从这一节中，我们可以看到圣奥斯定「忏悔录」的「生命哲学」的骨架，就是清楚地说出了：

1. 「忏悔录」指向的终极对象(Object)：「你」－－「天主」

我们可从「忏悔录」卷十第一章找到答案：「由于你喜爱真理，所以「谁履行真理，谁就进入光明」(『然而履行真理的，却来就光明』思高圣经译：若望福音3：21)。因此，我愿意在你面前，用我的忏悔，在我心中履行其理；同时，在许多证人面前发表我(履行真理) 的文章。」此节中所言：「我愿意在『你』面」前的这个「你」所指的就是「天主」，也是「我们的心得不到『你』……便摇摇地不会安宁」所指的「你」是一样的。

2. 「忏悔录」的写作形式(Form)

圣奥斯定是以「心灵」的渴望「天主」写「忏悔录」的。因为在写「忏悔录」时，他已经从生命转化的归依历程中，将自己的「心灵」安顿在「天主」怀中；所以他更能以「心灵」的体验写出「心灵」话语。

在「忏悔录」卷十第二章中可清楚看到：「主，无论我怎样，你都知道，我完全将自己呈露在你面前。我已经说过，为什么我向你自讼自承。我向你诉心自白，不是用肉体的言语，而是用你所熟悉的心灵的言语和思想的呼声。」

3. 「忏悔录」的目的要旨(purpose)

「这是我的『忏悔(录)』的效果：我要显露(自白) 的不是我过去是怎样的人，而是现在的我。我不但在你面前，内心怀着既喜且惧、既悲叹又带着希望向你诉心自白，而且还要向那些与我有同样信仰、同样欢乐、同样死亡的人子们、或先或后与我在一起的国民和羁旅此世的朝圣者，以及陪伴我走生命历程的人诉心自白。」(卷十第四章) 圣奥斯定向所有的「人」表达自己的心意，实在希望告诉他们：「我的心灵已安顿在主内」。所以在「忏悔录」卷十第四章的最后，圣奥斯定说：「我是一个小孩子，但我有一位永生的天父常看守着我；他是最能帮助我的保护人；他生养找他顾护我。全能的天主，你是我的万善，在我重返你膝下之前，你是始终在我左右。因此，我将向你所命我事奉的人们吐露肺腑，不是追叙我过去如何，而是诉说我目前如何，今后如何；可是，我并不想这样判断自己。(格林多前书4：3，思高圣经译：『至于我，或受你们的审断，或受人间法庭的审断，为我都是极小的事，就连我自己也不审断自己。』) 希望读书也本着这种立场读我的『忏悔录』。」倘若人人读了「忏悔录」而能把握圣奥斯定那份寻觅真理，追求终极幸福，不断去恶归依天主的精神，在自己的生命历程中履行真理，也必然能进入光明中，将心灵安息于天主的怀里。

4. 包达理著(刘俊余译)，《奥斯定思想概论》，闻道出版社　48－49

四．「忏悔录」几个「生命哲学」的课题

当我们阅读「忏悔录」时，我们不容易把握他的哲学思想，因为圣奥斯定在描述自己的思想中，不是按照纯逻辑的路线作发挥，而是以「心灵」的切望表达「心灵」的「生命哲学」的世界，所以才会将「生命终极」的断言放在导言上来说。因此，在我们阅读「忏悔录」时，必须先看准其所包容的因素所要表达的实在价值，然后再加以区分，并要留意每个因素－－课题在整体思想中的角色。既然圣奥斯定是用「心灵」描述他的生命，故他是用生活的反思以求达到一个实际的实在，即一个实际的生命的终极历程；在迈向终极历程的路上，表面看来是崎岖不平，又复杂混乱，可是在整体上看，它是一贯相通、组识圆活的，且看出整个「生命」的作用。

因此，倘若我们在阅读「忏悔录」时，将重点放在「生命」的角度上去把握圣奥斯定的思想，我们找出他的思路：「一切都指向生命的发展」(5)，生命的发展在于显扬「真理」－－「天主」。所以，「生命」是一种暗示，以展示生命彰显的极峰，是在心灵的活动领域中的「真」和「善」。因为圣奥斯定的哲学思想初时是受新柏拉图思想影响，但在归依基督后，他的思想是将「哲学」和「信仰」(神学) 贯通起来，肯定了「真」和「善」是「天主」的本性；故此，纵然在新柏拉图主义中有最精明和对超然真理最敏感的人，如柏罗丁，却不能凭自己的力量达到天主。圣奥斯定在「忏悔录」卷七第二十一章清楚地说：「细心研究之下，我又觉得，我在新柏拉图主义的书籍里，所得的若干真理，在圣经里也可以找到。但读时，必须依靠你的圣宠，使得我们晓得：凡有所见，不应『自夸，彷佛以为不是领受的』(格林多前书4：7，思高圣经译：『你有什么不是领受的呢？既然是领受的，为什么你还夸耀，好像不是领受的呢？』)，这不仅对于见到的应该如此，为了能够见到，也应如此；－－因为，『所有一切，无一不是受之于天主。』(格林多前书4：7)－－这样，不仅受到劝告去认识纯一永远不变的你，也为了治愈疾患而服膺不释。谁远离了你，不能望见你，便应自行正肃，踏上通向你的道路，才能看见你，而终于得到你。」所以圣奥斯定相信天主的计划，在他的生命中，使他在认识天主前，先赞研新柏拉图的着作，以智者自居，以学问自负，而陷于罪恶中；然后，使他牢记着新柏拉图主义着作所给他留下的印象，直到他归依主，将生命浸溶在中圣经中时，天主用妙手来裹治他的创伤，便能分辨出何者是臆断，何者是服膺，以能知道找寻通往幸福的天乡。(忏悔录卷七第二十章)

在「忏悔录」卷十三中，圣奥斯定更描写了：「因圣宠而革新的基督徒之完善生活，特点即在于完全服从天主的圣神；而圣神在这里不是指的任何一种圣宠，而是指那使人成为精神(心灵) 的最高贵的圣宠。……圣神七恩使人达到的境界，是灵魂完全为天主圣神所变化，并绝对听从祂的指导。这就是奥斯定念念不忘的理想，与他的哲学也有密切的关系。」(7) 就在「生命」的变化中，圣奥斯定有了生命的跳跃，且透过信仰，依赖「真理」－－「天主」，以及基督的「爱」和圣神的「恩宠」，他的生命得到升华，而进入与天主共融合一的「圆融生命」。在这样的一个生命历程中，其所涉及的「生命哲学」的课题，重要的有：「真理」、「善与恶」、「美」、「认知与记亿」、「幸福」、「时间」等。今分别简述于下：

1. 真理

圣奥斯定对「真理」非常热爱，他爱慕真理，视之如生命；他要以全个「心灵」去拥抱真理，因为他知道他所爱的是什么，追求的是什么「真理」，实在就是天主本身，即永存不朽的真理，他整个生命就在永恒不变的真理中生活：「唉！真理，永远的真理，我从心灵的最深处追念你，深深地向向你，因为我所渴望的，不是那些美妙的受造之物，而是『真理』－－是你的本身－－『永不变易，永不晦蚀』(雅各伯书1：17，思高圣经译：『一切美好的赠与、一切完美的恩赐，都是从上，从光明之父降下来的，在他内没有变化或转动的阴影。〈他自愿用真理之言生了我们，为使我们成为他所造之物中的初果。雅1：18〉) 的你。」

「真理」是「忏悔录」的核心思想，也是圣奥斯定「生命哲学」所要追寻的终极目标，若得不到真理，就是得不到天主，心灵永不得安息。而谈论「真理」最富丰的，可算是「忏悔录」的卷七。我们可以从三方面来分析：

1.1 真理的开显 (卷七第十章)

「谁认识真理，即认识这光；谁认识这光，也就认识永恒。惟有爱能认识它。」

「光」是回应卷七第九章所言的内容，奥斯定引用若望福音所表达的：「在起初已有道(圣言Logos)，道与天主同在，道就是天主。道在起初就与天主同在。万物是藉着他而造成的：凡受造的，没有一样不是由他而造成的。在他内有生命，这生命是人的光。光在黑暗中照耀，黑暗决不能胜过他。」(若望福音1：1－5) 人的心灵只是为光作证，但人的心灵不是那光；可惜，「那普照每人的真光进入了世界，但世界却不认识他。他来到了自己的领域，自己的人却没有接受他。但是，凡接受他的，他给他们，即给那些信他名字的人权能，好成为天主的子女。……」(若望福音1：9－13) 圣奥斯定根据若望幅音的思想，显示出「道」和「光」的思想，这是与新柏拉图主义作一个调整，然后再引用玛窦福音11：25，29所言：「跟我学习吧！因为我是良善心谦的，你们将找到你们灵魂的安息。」以配合他生命的终极：「我的心灵得不到你(天主)，就永不得安宁。」这可以使我们再回到卷七第十章，便可以看出真理完全引导着圣奥斯定的生活，以及心灵的活动：

「永恒的真理，真正的爱，可爱的永恒！你是我的天主，我日夜向你呻吟。我认识你后，你就提升我，使我看到我应见而尚未能看见的东西，可是我还没有资格去瞻仰它。你却用你的神光照耀我昏沉软弱的眼睛，我既爱且惧，屏营战栗。我发觉我是远离了你，飘流异地。我彷佛听到你发自天际的声音对我说：『我是强者的神粮；你长大后将以我为饮食。可是我不像你肉体的粮食；你吃形粮，粮将像你；你吃神粮，我不会像你，而你将像我。』」因着真理的包容，开启了圣奥斯定的心灵，使他心领神会的不再怀疑真理是否存在，更肯定了天主所答覆的话语：「我是自有的」(出谷纪3：14) 是真理。

1.2 真理的不变 (卷七第十七章)

「我发现在我变易不定的思想之上，自有永恒不变的真理。」这永恒不变的真理就是「天主」，无恒地超越受造物的，而受造物，即所有的东西都出自真理所限制，故圣奥斯定说：「你用真理掌握着一切，一切以存在而论，都是『真』的；若把不存在的东西认为存在，才是错误。」(卷七第十五章) 因此，凡出自真理的东西，永远不会是假的。因此，圣奥斯定从万物中体验到那永恒不变的真理就是天主本身，万物因天主而为「真」；所以，「使奥斯定陶醉的并不是只想知道真理的好奇心，他想拥有真理本身，并视之如自己的性命；他追求的不是这个或那个各别真理，而是那唯一完整的真理，万物中一切问题的答案：他寻找的是那包罗并解释一切的实在、真、及善，也就是天主。他不断向往『天主，即智性及内心所领悟的永存不朽之真理』(杂题八十三，第九题)。」(8)

1.3 人如何达到真理

当圣奥斯定体验到有永恒不变的真理在掌握着他的生命后，他也感觉到：「这样，我逐步上升，从肉体到达凭藉感觉的灵魂，进而是灵魂接受器官传递外来印象的内在力量，也是禽兽所具有的最高感性。更进一步，便是辨别器官所获印象的判断力；但这判断力，照我个人的经验，也是变易不定的。因此，当求达到理性(智慧) 本身，理性从我积习的牵缠中将我的思想解放出来，且使我摆脱彼此矛盾的种种想像。找寻到理性所以能毫不迟疑肯定不变优于可变，是受遇一种光明的照耀－－因为除非对于不变有一些认识，否则不会肯定不变优于可变的－－最后在惊心动魄的一瞥中，得见『存在本体』。这时我才懂得：『你形而上的神性，如何能凭所造之物而辨认洞见』(罗马书1：20，思高圣经译：『其实，自从天主创世以来，他那看不见的美善，即他永远的大能和他为神的本性，都可凭他所造的万物，辨认洞察出来，以致人无可推诿。』)」(卷七第十七章) 可见，圣奥斯定在瞭解真理，进获得其理，是经过不同阶段的生命反思，即从感性，以至内心的判断力，理性的肯定，以及天主的光照，才能在那「一瞥」中感悟真理的不变，即天主的大能。(9)

2. 善与恶

圣奥斯定年轻时曾信仰摩尼教，而摩尼教的学说是「善恶二元论」的，将恶归于物质，人的身体也是恶的，只有精神实体才是善的。我们从「忏悔录」卷三第十章中可了解圣奥斯定所受到的影响：「我并不想到那个真正存在的真理；因此，人们向我提出：『罪恶来自何处？神是不否限制在一个物质的躯体内，是否有头发和手指？多妻的、杀人的、祭祀禽兽的人能否列为义人？』种种问题后，我如受到针剌一段急忙赞成那些狂妄骗子的见解。这些问题使无知的我忐忑不安；我背着真理，还自以为面对真理；我不懂得『恶』不过是缺乏『善』，彻底地说是虚无。那时我的肉眼已为外物所蔽，我的精神只能见到魑魅魍魉，当然我不会懂得这一点。」

圣奥斯定在卷七第一章就清楚表达了自己的错，且渐渐地在成长中，对自己的「生命哲学」思想更有信心：「我败坏而罪恶的青年阶段已经死去，我正走上壮年阶段；我年龄愈大，我思想的空虚愈显得可耻；除了双目经常看见的物体外，别种物体，我都不能思议。我的天主，自从我开始听到智慧的一些教训后，我不再将你(天主) 作为一回血肉躯能来想像－－我终于躲避这种错误，我恨高兴在我们的精神母亲、你的圣教会的信仰中找到这正确的观念。」因此，圣奥斯定在肯定「天主」是不朽坏的神体，也是永恒不变的真理后，便藉此以驳斥摩尼教徒(卷七第二章)；'虽然圣奥斯定自己承认：「对于恶的来源问题，我还不能答覆，还不能解决。」(卷七第三章) 但他依然深信天主是不变的天主：「不论恶的来源如何，我认为研究的结果不应迫使我相信不能变化的天主是可能变化的，否则我自己成为我研究的对象了。我很放心地进行研究，我是确切认识到我所竭力回避的那些人所说的并非真理，因为我看到这些人在研究恶的来源时本身就充满了罪恶，他们宁愿说你的本能受罪恶的影响，不肯承认自己犯罪作恶。」(卷七第三章)

其实，圣奥斯定已经在卷三第七章中说了他当时不懂得「恶」不过是缺乏「善」，是「虚无」；事实上他是了解的，只是不去探究「恶」的来源问题而矣；而且「恶」本是「虚无」，故也不必探究。因此，圣奥斯定不发问：「什么是恶？」因已是清楚地说了：「善」的缺乏就是「恶」，恶本身不存在。圣奥斯定要问的是：「为什么会有恶？或作恶的原因是什么？」这两个问题实在只是一个：就是「作恶的原因」。这问题的解答，我们可从圣奥斯定所着作的另一本书：「论自由意志」(De Libero Arbitrio) 中得到圆满的答覆。然而在「忏悔录」中，圣奥斯定也很精简明晰地说了：「作恶的原因是自由意志。」(卷七第三章) 于是，圣奥斯定有了答案，可是，他依然的追问下去：

谁创造了我？不是我的天主吗？

天主不仅是善的，而且是善的本体。那末为何我愿作恶而不愿从善？是否为了使我承受应受的惩罚？

既然我是无比温良的天主所造的，谁把辛苦的种子撒在我身上，种在我心中？如果是魔鬼作崇，则魔鬼又是从哪里来的呢？

如果好天使因意志败坏而变成魔鬼；那么，既然天使是来自至善的创造者，人何从产生这坏意志，使天使变作魔鬼？(卷七第三章)

恶原来在哪里？从哪里来？怎样钻进来？

恶的根荄、恶的种子在哪里？是什么？是否不存在？既然不存在，为何要害怕而防范它呢？

既然美善的天主创造了一切美善，恶又从哪里来的呢？

当然受造物的善，次于至善的天主，但造物者与受造物都是善的，则恶确从哪里来的呢？是否创造时，用了坏的质料，给予定型组织时，还遗留着不能转化为善的部份？但这为了什么？既然天主是全能的，为何不能把它整个转变过来，不遗留丝毫的恶？

天主为什么要用物质来创造万物，而不用他的全能把物质消灭净尽呢？

是否物质能违反天主的意愿而存在呢？

如果物质是永恒的，为何天主任凭它先在以前无限的时间中存在着，然后以此创造万物？

如果天主是突然间愿意有所作为，那末既是全能，为何不把它消灭而仅仅保留着整个的、真正的、至高的，无限的善？

如果天主是善的，必须创造一些善的东西，那么为何不销毁坏(恶) 的物质。另造好的物质，然后再以此创造万物？

如果天主必须应用不受他创造的物质，然后才能创造好的东西，那么天主便不是全能的了？」(卷七第五章)

这些问题，圣奥斯定没有回答，只是轻描淡写地肯定的说：「我的心已能坚持这信仰，将一天比一天更融洽于这信仰中。」因为，对于主基督，我们的救主之信仰已巩固地树立在圣奥斯定的心中。(卷七第五章) 故他要强调的是：「天主所愿的是善，天主就是善的本体，而朽坏(恶) 不是善。」(卷七第四章) 恶不是一种本体，本体本身不是恶的：「事物如果存在，自有其善的成份。因此，凡存在的事物，都是善的；至于『恶』，我所追究其来源的恶，并不是实体；因为如果是实体，即是善；如果是不能朽坏的实体，则是至善；如果能朽坏的实体，则必是善的，否则便不朽坏。」(卷七第十二章) 因此，圣奥斯定再强调：「我探究恶究竟是什么，我发现恶并非实体，而是出于败坏的意志叛离了天主(善)。」(卷七第十六章)

3. 美

「我诧异地觉得：我已经爱上了你……我被你的『美』所吸引住。」(卷七第十七章) 圣奥斯定被天主的『美』所吸引，实在是心灵净化的美，使自己的心灵可以达到善，这就是「忏悔录」所要赞叹的，使自己的心灵留下终身难忘的印景：「对于我所见的一切，只留下了一个可爱的回忆。」(卷七第十七章) 包达理(Portalie) 在描述圣奥斯定对「天主的美」的爱慕说：「别的思想家认为世界的景象显示天主的『存在』，而他在询问受造物时，询问的是天主的『美』，而万物的答覆是邀请人爱慕天主：『天、地、天地中间的一切，到处叫我爱你。』。接着他又说：『我瞻望，就是我询问；它们的美丽，就是它们的答案』(忏悔录卷十第六章)。」(10) 万物的美丽是分享天主的美，因为天主在创造万物时都认为一切皆「美好」，故万物的美是天主「美」的痕迹，是天主「美」的影子，这「美」不是外在的，而是内在的，尤其是哲学家亨利神父认为是「忏悔录」的蓝本之「九论集」中有说：

「回到你自己内，看吧：若你在你自己内还看不到美，请学那雕刻家；为了使像美丽，他这里去一点，那里去一块，他刮削，他琢磨……(等作品完工后)，你要有自信(这就是柏罗丁的骄傲)，纵然你仍是在这里，但你升高了，而你不再需要向导；固定你的视线，看吧！因为那是唯一能看到奇美的眼睛……。谁若想观赏天主和至美，先要变成神圣和美丽的。」(11) 内在的美是心灵的美，分享天主的美。

4. 认知与记忆

圣奥斯定的认知思想实在就是「生命的追求」的思想。认知乃指向生命的终向：即认知天主、追求真理，所以他才会说：「我的心灵得不到天主，就摇摇不安」。认知可见是「心灵」上的，但人的心灵是通过形体的动作才认识一切事物：「我，内在的我，我的灵魂，通过形体的知觉认识这一切。」(忏悔录卷十第六章)

因此，认知有感官性的认知，其对象是外在的，如光明、颜色以及各项物象则属于双目；声音则属耳；香臭属鼻；软硬、冷热、光滑粗糙、轻重、不论身内身外的，都用全身的感觉。(卷十第八章) 有了感官性的认知，问题就发生了：这些色、香、声等如何储藏起来？即当人不看时知花之色、不嗅时知花之香呢？圣奥斯定于是提出了「记忆」－－感官性的记忆。记忆就好像一库藏，以供思想回忆时应用：「虽则我并不嗅闻花朵，但凭仗记忆也能辨别玉簪与紫罗的香气；虽则不饮不食，仅靠记忆，我知道爱蜜过于酒，爱甜而不爱苦涩。」(卷十第八章)

但是，感官性的认知和记忆是找不到天主的，而且感官所认知的东西都不是天主，只能藉这些东西证明有一创造者：就是天主。因此，只有进入心灵才能找到天主。(参阅忏悔录卷十第六、七章)

圣奥斯定为了肯定找寻天主不能在记亿中找，故在忏悔录中提出了各种不同的认知和记亿。为描写记忆，他在卷十中共用了九章的篇幅：

感官性记忆(卷十第八章)

智性记忆(特别是数学上的观念和回亿卷十第九至十三章)

情感上的记忆(卷十第十四、十五章)

遗忘的记忆(卷十第十六章) (12)

但以上所言的记亿都不能找到天主，故圣奥斯定最后走到记亿的根底处找，因而进入了形上学的价值上探求。这个探求是一个新的方向，就是对幸福的追求。

5. 幸福

圣奥斯定认为「幸福」早已存在的心灵中，故人在追求中，自然向往真理、向往幸福，自己也必须会选择真理和幸福。然而，在追求上，其方法是「超升」，内容依然是「记忆」，即先由记亿中提示出幸福，于是会吸引人向上的追求。(13) 其实，找寻幸福就是找寻天主，反过来说：就是找寻天主等于找寻幸福，心灵就能安定。圣奥斯定说：

主啊！我怎样寻求你呢？我寻求你天主时，是在寻求幸福的生命。(卷十第二十章)

幸福就是来自真理的快乐，也就是以你为快乐，因为你『天主即是真理』(若望福音14：6)，是『我的光明，我生命的保障，我的天主』(圣咏廿六首1节，四十一首12节) 于此可见，谁也希望幸福。谁也希望唯一的真正幸福，谁也希望来自真理的快乐。(卷十第二十三章)

人的幸福是在天主内，且只有在天主内，天主便会光照我们、领导我们、赏报我们真正的幸福；这样，人的心灵才不致摇摇不安，因为「除了在你怀中，我为我的灵魂不能找到一个安稳的境地：只有在你怀中，我能收摄放失的我，使我丝毫不离开你。有时你带领我进入异乎寻常的心境，使我心灵体味到一种无可形容的温柔，如果这种境界在我身内圆融通彻，则将使我超出尘凡。」(卷十第四十章) 圣奥斯定的整个心灵，都放在幸福－－天主中，因为他从自己的经验中，体味到幸福是札根在人心灵的最深处，人人都愿觅得幸福，但人人所用的方法不同；有很多人在受造物中寻找，这是白白寻找的，因为不会找到，幸福不在其中；这是当圣奥斯定在青年时到迦太基时一样，只向外寻求，结果只有越寻找幸福、幸福就越远离他。(14) 诚如忏悔录卷三第一章的记载：「醉心于爱的我，还嫌爱的不足；我追求爱的对象，只想爱，我讨厌平凡的生活，也讨厌没有陷阱的道路；我的心灵因为缺乏滋养的粮食，缺乏你－－我的天主而饥饿，但我并不感觉这种饥饿，也不企求不朽的粮食，这并非我已饱饫了这种粮食；相反的，我越缺乏这粮食便越感到它的无味。」因为青年的奥斯定没有将幸福放在真理中，只放在自我的放纵中，所以不明白不朽的幸福是在心灵深处的；直到奥斯定认识了天主，常爱慕天主，爱慕真理，才体味到：「从真理来的，才是幸福」(卷十第二十三章)，而且更感受到天主就是光、救援、真理，在祂内有幸福的生活、有喜乐；所以，人越认识天主，就越爱天主；越爱天主，也就越认识天主，人的心灵便也越归向天主，他便越感到幸福，心灵便能得到安息。

6. 时间

圣奥斯定在自己的生命中不断追求「幸福」，这份追求就是对天主的向往，故是生命的进路，在期间必定有「时间」的观念。但当圣奥斯定面对天主时，天主是「永恒」，在忏悔录卷十一第一章开始，圣奥斯定就说了：「主啊！永恒属于你！」且在卷十一第四至九章都在谈「圣言(道) 创造天地，而肯定了圣言是永恒的话、圣言本身就是永恒的，但圣言显示于外的东西并不是永恒的。只有那些有信仰的人，在内心寻觅到永恒的主，在永恒的真理中找到祂，因为天主圣言就是永恒的。

圣奥斯定提出「时间」的思想，正是与天主的永恒成对比的，即是将无限的时间(永恒)和有限的时间作比较。然而，究竟人如何在时间内，透过时间而达到永恒？于是，圣奥斯定提出两个问题以说明时间的定义：

(1)第一个问题是只以经验来衡量时间的人，他们没有永恒时间的观念，也不瞭解超越的时间。这些人的问题是：「天主在创造天地之前做些什么？」(卷十一第十章) 这些人的心只浮沉在「主观的时间」中，浮沉在「过去」和「将来」的波浪中。他们不明白「永恒」就是「现在」：「时间不论如何悠久，也不过是流光的相续，不能同时伸展延留，永恒却没有过去，整个只有现在，而时间不能整个是现在，他们可以看到一切过去都被将来所驱除，一切将来又随过去而过去，而一切过去和将来却出自永远的现在。谁能控制人的思想，使它驻足谛观无古往今来的永恒怎样屹立着调遣将来和过去的时间。」(卷十一第十一章) 所以，圣奥斯定大瞻地回答：「天主在创造天地之前，什么都不做。」(卷十一第十二章) 既然什么都不做，连时间也不存在，所以只有思想肤浅的人徘徊于过去时代的印象中，而觉得诧异。为天主来说，「一日如千年、千年如一日」(伯多禄后书3：8)，天主的今日即是永恒，因为天主的日子没有每一天，只有今天，这个今天，不在人的时间中。

(2)第二个问题是：「究竟时间是什么？」(卷十一第十四章) 这就是「客观时间」的问题。圣奥斯定的答案实在很奇妙：「如果没有人问我时间是什么，我自觉知道它是什么。但是，如果有人问我时间是什么，我就不知道它是什么了。」(卷十一第十四章) 可见，时间真是一个奥秘。毕竟在奥秘中，圣奥斯定还是以意识中的三度空间：现在、过去、将来答覆了「时间是什么」：「我敢自信地说，我知道如果没有过去的事物，则没有过去的时间；没有来到的事物，也没有将来的时间；并且如果什么也不存在，则也没有现在的时间。」(卷十一第十四章) 但时间的实在性是在于「现在」，所以，圣奥斯定认为：「有一点已经非常明显的，即：将来各过去并不存在。说时间分过去、现在、将来三类是不确当的。或许说：时间分过去的现在、现在的现在和将来的现在三类比较确当。这三类存在我们心中，别处找不到；过去事物的现在便是记亿，现在事物的现在便是直接感觉，将来事物的现在便是期望。如果可以这样说，那末我是看到三类时间，我也承认时间分三类。」(卷十一第二十章)

圣奥斯定以「记忆」考究，将「时间」问题的复杂性揭穿了，且分辨了三类的时间，引出了人对永恒的期望，故可以说：「圣奥斯定要讨论时间的目的就是要透过时间，走向永恒。这永恒是完美的现在，是全部的现在。在它里面，没有『过去』的消逝威胁，也没有不健全的『将来』挂虑。」(15)走向永恒就是去向幸福的生命，也就是人心灵向往的终极，即使自己的心灵能安息在天主的。

五．结语

圣奥斯定写「忏悔录」的目的就是要告诉人：「在我的生命中，我找到了天主、找到了永生的幸福、找到了真理、找到了永恒的终极……我的心灵已得到安顿－－在主的怀抱中安息。

「忏悔录」就是圣奥斯定将自己的生命从失落中，经过不断的挣扎，渐渐觉醒，便开始寻找生命终向而慕道，不断反思而觉悟道之在心内，继而得道、行道，以致与道相通相融的历程，清清楚楚地用自己赤诚的心灵将自己解剖。这种一步一步的觅道以至得道而与道通为一的历程，我们可称之为「生命哲学」的历程。圣奥斯定更将自己的生命哲学溶化在自己的信仰中；因此，无论他的思想如何发展，必定与自己的心灵终极有关，而终极指向必定是「天主」，诚如他在忏悔录中所说：「我以整个加我投入你(天主) 的怀抱后，便感觉不到任何忧苦艰辛了；我的生命充满了你，才是生气勃勃。」(卷十第二十八章) 又在「论自由意志」里说：「正如身体的整个生命是灵魂，灵魂的幸福生命则是天主。」(卷二第四十一节) 这是因为在圣奥斯定的经验中，生命是为天主的，人之被创造也是为天主的，所以没有天主的人，心灵便无所憩息。

由于「忏悔录」的「生命哲学」所描述的是人走向永恒终极的生命力动态，这种生命力是心灵的表达，使人面对着终极的天主；因此，「忏悔录」的「生命哲学」所讲的也是「天人的关系」，这关系阐示了一个超越的历程：

我们拾级而上

数尽了一切有形之物

即神游物表……

怀着热烈的情绪，向往幸福所在

接着再向心内走……

我们又穿越我们的灵魂……

到逢丰富无穷的境界。(忏悔录卷九第十章)

5. 同1　27

6. 同上

7. 同上28－29

8. 同4　345－346

9. 可参阅刘俊余译，《奥斯定哲学导论》，第六章「忏悔录中之哲学」154－156

10. 同4　346

11. 同9　161－162

12. 同上　169－170

13. 邬昆如编著，《西洋哲学史》，国立编译馆出版　民60年，第二部，第一章「教父哲学」第三节「奥古斯丁」251

14. 巴尔迪著(吴宗文译)，《圣奥斯定传》(Gustava Bardy, Saint Angustine)，闻道出版社　民62年12月初版，第十九章「圣奥斯定的心灵」309

15. 同13　266

作者：刘赛眉

引言

德氏被列入我们研讨之范围，我想不仅由于他是一位现代先知，更因为这位先知与中国有一段很深厚的因缘。德氏在中国居住二十二年，对我国地质学界及古生物学界之研究颇有贡献，他本人亦是一位杰出之地质学及古生物学者。

德氏生前曾因从事打破科学与宗教之间的隔闳而遭受流徙放逐之苦，他曾经被猛烈攻击后来又被崇敬的人物。1957年天主教教理审核部曾禁止他的书出版，而他的思想亦受到他的上人所怀疑。因此而被流放到中国来工作。1932年他和几位中国和国际学人发现了周口店的北京智人。可是，当德氏死后，他的思想竟然影响普世，其智慧不仅影响天主教的神学，而且影响到世界的科学及哲学的思潮。他已出版的十部书，总销量达到一百万册。而且各地纷纷成立研究德氏思想的组织。

在古生物学方面，德氏曾协同发现了「北京猿人」－－最早类似人形的动物。

一．人物描写

德氏死时享年七十三岁，出身于贵族家庭，内心虽怀有深沉的痛苦，但却常带着光辉的微笑。

他有一颗热爱人类和大自然的心，他常说，「地球是椭圆的，所以友情可以环绕起它来」。

接触过他的人描写他说，这位神父充满幽默，机智，具有温暖的性格，和吸引人的谦诚态度。只是有人以为由于他的工作范围和所接触的人物，均大部份为学者，故虽在中国二十多年，而似未学会中文。此外，由于地出身的背景和他所从事的工作的性质，放在他身上常流露出一种高贵的气质，使人感到他有贵族之气派，其实，德氏为人甚为谦厚朴实。

二．德氏的进化论与神观

德氏的进化论是典型的有神进化论。他以为凡进化都是由简而繁的，而进化是一切事物的基本原则，一切都在进化中。就在这进化的思想中，德氏综合了科学与宗教，教会与世界。

世界不断在进化，宇宙不断在进化，而教会就是在这进化的洪流中存在，教会是一个不断地进化的奥体。「进步」成为了教会的使命。

德日进感悟到神是在大自然和宇宙中，因此，有人怀疑他是泛神论者，其实不然。

德氏的神学是以「科学言语」来表达的神学。他的「神」基本上是在宇宙中又超越宇宙的，祂既在宇宙中推动宇宙的演进又超越宇宙，吸引着宇宙的进化，由此，在宇宙的进化中，基督内的天主是「始点」又是「终点」(是α及Ω)。

1. 德氏的进化观

影响德氏的是几位生物学家的思想：

1809年法国生物学家拉马克(Lamarck)及1859年达尔文的「物种原始」，其中指出物种可以改变，种类之界可以跨越，而后来魏斯曼(Weissman) 的「突变」则与达尔文的生存竞争与自然淘汰说相结合，成立了稳健的「生物进化论」。

德氏就是应用了这「突变」的思想来解释他的进化论，简言之，德氏视宇宙是一个整体，是一个不断地创生的有机体。它的进化步骤，可以用下列图表显示之：

无生物(物质) → 生物 → 有意识的生物 → 有心智的人(人化) → 精神化(人文化)

德氏配合了基督信仰的反省，凭人类的过去，来了解现在，而展望未来，给人类指出一个乐观的远景。

人是灵肉的整体，且正在「人化」的过程中。现在具有心智的人，应该运用其思想和爱心去人化，去孕育更优秀的存在，而人是现阶段演化的轴心。而演化的矢头是指着「终点」(Ω) 的圆满。

德氏思想的综合

(1)宇宙是一整体。

(2)宇宙是动态的。

(3)「表」与「里」的演化：「质」与「量」的互相影响。

(4)物质－－生命－－意识－－心智的节节演进。利用突变的原理。

所谓突变，就是物件演化到某阶段就会有一转捩点，在此点上突变，大跳跃，而进入另一阶段，当进入一阶段时，前一阶段的特征便逐渐消失。例如，婴儿进入成人，成人身上失去了一切婴儿的因素。(物的「表」「里」一起进化)。

(5)物质内有一股内在冲力，使一切由基层而上冲；但亦可以说有一超物质在外吸引走向更完美。

(6)演化的轴心显然在人身上通过，指向奥美茄点。

(7)演化的完成需要人的自由合作。

2. 德氏的物观

德氏以为每一物内有一个「里层」。在「物里」不断地产生细微的改变，在达到一定界限时，才突然暴露。这「里层」德氏称之为「意识」。物质的「里层」与「表层」在进化过程中是互相消长的。「表」「里」是同一演化现象的两个层面。

物质与思想(精神) 不是属于同一层面的，然而两者并非对立，人则是物质能与精神能合一的最好例证，所谓「人化」都是以物质为起点的。

物质能－－切线能 ﹨
                     基本能
意识能－－轴心能 ∕

两者只是由于结构的程度不同而产生两者的差别。

德氏以为物质不一定是拉扯人向下的东西，在我们对物质采取立场之前，作抉择之前，它只是一个坡路，可以踏着它上升，也可以往下降。

可是，由于圣子降生成人，物质便含有一种朝向「更成全」的内在向力。

由于我们是插足于宇宙之中，我们各自站在各个层面上，或者说是站在坡路各个基点上，而且，从这一点开始，因着环境与教育的不同，各人的任务是不断超升而走向天主。赐予给我们的一连串受造物，它们都不必是障碍，反而应是被利用的中介物，是使我们和睦共处及锻炼人的东西。

为德氏看来，信徒的神修是不能脱离此物质世界的，反而人是踏着这物质世界而上升。

3. 德氏对十字架的看法

德氏对十字架的看法也非常乐观。一般而言，我们常常视十字架是一种悲痛，限制和压抑的象征。是达到崇高目标途中的苦痛和压力。

可是，德氏以为这样的神修观是不配合基督的信仰的，他以为「十字架」不是「非人道」的事，而是超乎人道的事，其实，在人类开始存在的那一刻，十字架已竖立在导向受造物可以到达的最高人之路的前面。因看启示之光愈来愈大，原先人只看到的是两条秃木，后来则看见了上面的耶稣基督。

「十字架」也真有与世界一刀两断的意义，十字架是在祂邀请人攀登的上升之路上，强迫人跳过临界的绝壁。因此，人的脚不断脱离，跨越，而演进成长。

换言之，十字架是必须的，是人自我跨越，走向成全的关键与标记。

4. 德氏的基督

德氏视基督为「潜入物质之中，成为物质之一部份」的上主。

基督在物质之中，指导进化。祂用「融合」和「升华」方式，把大地的精华吸向自己，当这工程完成之时便达到保禄所说的，「上主在万有之中作万有」，万物同归于上主。

5. 德氏的新视野

A. 对教会的影响

德日进将「创造」视为是末日才完成的工程，创造并不限于开天辟地的一剎那。

现在教会亦受到德氏的影响，对宇宙，教会本身和其他问题，皆由「动态」及「演进」的角度去看。

B. 德日进亦影响了教会对「原罪」的看法

虽然，德日进因「进化论」及「原罪」的文字，而惹起教会方面的一时焦急。因为他从「缺陷」方面来谈原罪。

到底，今日在原罪神学上，神学家所谓的「世界之罪」(Piet Schoonenberg) 和「集体位格」之罪等，不能说不是受到了德氏的影响。

C. 对「爱」的新强调

在现代所重视的「通过爱人而爱天主」的口号里，实在充满了德日进的精神。

自从人达到人化之后，爱有了新的意义，它是建设人的品格的。

在进化的过程，特别是在人化中，爱是很大的原动力。

德氏的着作，教宗若望廿三世不仅阅读过，而且在他的「地上和平」通谕中用了德氏的用语。

6. 德氏的两大着作：－－「神的氛围」及「人的现象」

这两本书可以称为德氏的代表作，前者是信者的心声，后者是科学家的表白。

A. 神的氛围

背景

这本书除了受到若望和保禄的书信影响之外，骨子里是奥古斯丁的神学。

(1)注重的是以「心灵」去接触神；强调以「爱」为中心。

(2)个人的修养方面，则采取「由外而内，由内而上」的途径。

(3)强调「基督奥体」和「上主之城」两个观念的内容。

　(德氏重视在耶稣基督内人类的一体，宇宙不断地进化，通过「融合」和「上升」而凝为一个「大位格」，而使到一切达至融合和上升的力量就是爱)。

B. 人的现象

除了是进化论的科学观之外，这本书内的哲学背景是受到柏格森的影响，亦同时是受到多玛斯的感染。(他的物之「里」就是由他士林哲学的「元型」蜕变而来)。

德氏以为天堂与大地不是对立的，从建立大地而达到天堂。

7. 德氏与圣体圣事

圣体是耶稣圣化物质最具体的标志。当司铎说：「这是我的身体」时，他不但祝圣了面饼，而同时圣化了整个宇宙。

人类转化了物质世界，而圣体转化了人类，圣体是延伸了耶稣的降孕，经过人的努力与奉献，使宇宙基督化。

作者：汤汉 Tong, John

当我从罗马毕业返回香港教学后，我曾给我的导师写信，告诉他我将要在香港修院教授的第一项神学科目是「教会学」。他回信敦促我，不但要教导学生瞭解教会，还要热爱教会。因此，两年前，当圣神修院神哲学院校董会成立「神学教材编写委员会」，及分派我负责编写《创世论》时，我再次记起我的导师那番话，并立定宗旨，希望编写这样一本《创世论》，不但使读念它的人瞭解创造主，还要热爱创造主；不但瞭解生命，也热爱生命。

天主教有关创世的教义中文书籍，近二十多年已出版了数册，比如：奥脱着《天主教信理神学》上册；薛迈思着《信理神学》卷二；谷寒松着《神学中的人学》等。这些都是很好的教科书，但由于作者都是西方人，表达方面比较偏重西方思维，未合乎中国人口味，因此，我觉得有重新编写的必要。我编写本书时，希望能突出下列三个特点：

1. 文化中有信仰，信仰中有文化

世上所有人都蒙召信仰天主，我中华文化亦在源远流长的五千年历史过程中，透过古老神话，为天主创世的圆满启示铺路。本书引用了盘古开天辟地、女娲独力造人等中国神话，生动地反映出神、人、世界之间的美妙密切关系。本书亦扼要地点出这些神话后来演变出儒家和道家的宇宙观。由于道家老子的自然之道艰深玄妙，不易知，不易为，故此至东汉末年，张角的地下革命运动，以老子化身为大贤良师作为号召，而公元六一七年在隋朝出现的《老子变化经》，更进而把老子神圣化，形容他是化身降世救主，正好反映出默西亚意识存在于中国文化中。可见我中华文化中实有信仰因素。

本书根据圣经学家的阐释指出，创世纪第一章第一节至第二章第四节a是一首圣咏，为公元前六世纪的作品。它是一班以色列司祭神学家作的。他们先被掳去巴比伦，后被释返回以色列；由于在巴比伦看到波斯帝国的伟大，百花齐放，因而产生豁达开朗的胸襟，写出了这首以浩瀚天空、广大宇宙为题材的赞主诗歌，供群众在圣殿颂唱。这篇司祭典的描述完整而有秩序。从整个故事看，不难发现其中所含的巴比伦神话因素。比如：第一章第一至第二节的「深渊」一词，即与巴比伦神话的混沌龙Tiamat有关。此外，旧约在描述天主时，亦采取了东方神话中的共同特点，屡次将天主描绘成一位东方君主(列上22：19；依6：1f，而宫廷的臣仆就是天使(约4：18)。可见基督信仰中确有文化处境。
2. 理中有情，情中有理

本书提及我们常诵念的信经，是从宗徒时代至四世纪教会公开宣誓信理的经文逐步形成的，它的第一段是：「我信唯一的天主、全能的圣父，天地万物，无论有形无形，都是祂所创造的。」这段经文虽在宣示信理，却含意丰富。比如：「我信」二字的英文(I believe in)，在中文却漏译了一个「于」字(in)；「于」字甚传神，有如中文所说的「依于仁，游于艺」，有投入的意味，充份表现出「倚赖」之情，要求神人交接的经验。至于「天主圣父」亦说明天主与人的关系；人得不到父，就没有幸福，终有无家可归之感。这是理中有情的实例。

很多人提到天主的仁慈照顾，以及所谓的天意天命，便以为天主安坐天庭，眼巴巴地看着预早编排妥当的历史一页页在祂的面前展开。这本书却告诉我们，天主在仁慈照顾我们、提携我们向善的同时，赋予我们自主权，容许我们反抗祂的恩宠。天主既不愿以罪恶为目的，也不愿以它为达到目的之手段。但是，天主具有从罪恶中产生善的智慧和能力；伦理上的恶最后必须为宇宙的至高目标－－天主的光荣－－而服务，即天主的仁慈在罪恶的宽恕中得以彰显，天主的公义在犯罪者自绝于神及自食其果中得以表露。这是情中有理的实例。

3. 微观中有宏观，宏观中有微观

本书特别指出创世与救赎的密切关系，因为降生成人的基督乃宇宙与人类的唯一中心，藉此我们可领悟出救赎乃创世的目标，而创世的观念方可彰显救赎的普及性。因此，基督信仰从救恩史整体去瞭解创世，直指新天新地的出现。我们对创世的解释不只是关心世界「开始」时所发生的事件，而是更重视「时间」内所发生的新实现。创造是上主不断的行动，人与世界若在基督里，新创造便发生了(格后5：17)，这就是基督徒信仰经验的高峰。这是「微观中有宏观」的神学处理方法。

虽然梵蒂冈第一届大公会议(一八七O年) 申明「天主创造了第一个人」，并定为天主教信理，但本书却进一步指出梵一的宣布分属两个不同层次：属于最核心且最深入的是圣经层次，即肯定人来自天主，也是天主照自己的肖像所「创造」的，他兼具精神与物质要素；涉及「如何创造」的问题，则属较浅层次，所针对的是进一步的问题，包括：究竟原祖父母的身体从动物界演变出来，抑或由天主直接造化而来？原祖父母是一对(单偶)，抑或是多对(多偶)？所以我们对教会有关创世的训导既要坚持又不必囫囵吞枣地全部接受。这是「宏观中有微观」的神学处理方法。

总括来说，虽然全书共分四章，而第一及第四两章占的篇幅最多，但我个人则觉得第二章却是全书的核心，也最能赋予我们生活的鼓舞。特别是第二章中所提到的天主照顾与人的祈求，为生活烦忙和焦虑「九七」的香港人最为实用有益。的确，我们烦恼焦虑时，为甚么不尝试仰赖上主？祈祷能帮助我们把烦恼说出来，并非指我们要告知天主我们有何需要，而是开放自己给天主源源不绝的恩惠(从心理学角度看，祈祷为我们也是有益的，因为一个模糊不清的问题是不可能处理的)。此外，祈祷也让我们感到上主分担着我们的痛苦，更是真正行动的能源。

最后，我衷心感谢胡枢机写序，澳门林家骏主教多番鼓励，很多神学先进的着作为本书提供宝贵资料，韩大辉神父和刘赛眉修女进行评审工作，以及陈爱洁小姐负责排版事宜。

本书为中国神学初探者而编写。希望拋砖引玉，亦望各方贤达不吝赐教。

作者：斐林丰 Fedrigotti, Lanfranco M.

CATHOLIC CRITICAL EXEGESIS :

THE GOLDEN MEAN BETWEEN PROTESTANT FUNDAMENTALIST AND LIBERAL EXEGESIS?

1. INTRODUCTION

The Battle of the Exegetes has been raging for the past three hundred years, since the French Catholic Oratorian scholar Richard Simon (1638-1712) published his Histoire critique da Vieux Testament (Paris 1678). Because of the publication of this book later ages gave Simon the title of "father of modern critical exegesis", but in his own age this book caused his expulsion from the Congregation of the Oratory. (1) First used by a Catholic scholar, this type of exegesis soon became the characteristic domain of liberal Protestant scholarship. However, if Richard Simon were to return today among us he would probably find himself comfortably at home in the exegetical atmosphere officially accepted by the Catholic Church.

Does this mean that the Catholic Church has gone over to the liberal Protestant side? Does it mean that Richard Simon himself was a crypto-Protestant of liberal persuasions? Is liberal critical exegesis a viable form of understanding the Word of God? Can one be a critical exegete and at the same time a faithful Christian believer? My reflection on the relationship of critical exegesis and Christian faith has been stimulated by the recent publication in English of a book by two distinguished German exegetes, H. Conzelmann and A. Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985, 8th revised edition; English translation by Siegfried S. Schatzmann: Interpreting the New Testament: An Introduction to the Principles and Methods of N. T. Exegesis, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988). The book is a mine of reference material regarding critical exegesis. It is divided into five parts, which read as follows: Part One: Methodology; Part Two: Contemporary History of the NT - The Environment of Primitive Christianity; Part Three: The New Testament Writings - An Overview; Part Four: Jesus of Nazareth; Part Five: History of Early Christianity. Part Three is a detailed historical-critical presentation of all NT books; Part Four begins with the birth and ends with the death of Jesus (the resurrection is left completely out of the picture); in Part Five, the chapter entitled "The Rise of the Christian Church" mentions the faith of the disciples in the resurrection of Jesus.

The reading of this book has posed for me in the strongest possible terms the challenge of critical scholarship to a traditional understanding of the Christian faith. I felt challenged, even though, or perhaps just because, the two authors in the preface assert that they "began with the assumption that the historical-critical interpretation of the NT cannot be an end in itself but is to contribute especially to the clarification of what is Christian belief". While reflecting on the implications of standpoints of this book, I was happy to hear of the publication of an important document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, entitled The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (April 15, 1993). The present paper is the result of the interaction of my reflection with the reading of these two influential publications.


1. cf. P. Auvray, "Simon, Richard" in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967.

2. THE SPECTRUM OF POSITIONS WITH REGARD TO CRITICAL EXEGESIS

The rise of critical exegesis has sparked a whole variety of reactions within the Christian (Catholic and Protestant) community. The differences in the reactions has created different types of exegesis within the Christian Church. A rough classification of these different types of exegesis would look like this:

A. Sectarian Fundamentalist Exegesis.

B. Fundamentalist Protestant Exegesis.

C. Fundamentalist Catholic Exegesis.

D. Conservative Critical Protestant Exegesis.

E. Moderate Critical Catholic Exegesis.

D' Neo-Orthodox Critical Protestant Exegesis.

C' Liberal Critical Catholic Exegesis.

B' Liberal Critical Protestant Exegesis.

A' Faithless Critical Exegesis.

This classification demands a few words of explanation.

2.1

Firstly, regarding the terminology used. The key terms are a) Fundamentalist; b) Critical: c) Conservative or Moderate; d) Liberal. For the purposes of this paper, a) by Fundamentalist I mean a faith that a priori excludes the necessity of the historical-critical method for the understanding of the Bible (2) ; b) by Critical I mean "the scientific study of the Bible utilizing the same formal methods as those used in the study of antiquity, namely, classical philology, archeology, and ancient history."(3); c) by Conservative I mean a critical exegesis which takes seriously the concerns of fundamentalist believers, namely, the "fundamentals" of Christian faith: the inspiration and authority of Sacred Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, his virgin birth, real resurrection from the dead, and second coming.(4) I call today's mainstream Catholic Critical Exegesis "Moderate" and not "Conservative", because I have not found the moderate Catholic Critical Exegetes calling themselves "Conservatives" as readily as moderate Protestants do; d) by Liberal I mean the critical exegesis which dispenses even with the "fundamentals" mentioned above, if so demanded by critical evidence. To give some substance to these definitions, later in this paper I shall consider three works representative of the three main types of exegesis which I shall discuss in detail: the Fundamentalist, the Moderate Catholic Critical, and the Liberal Protestant. Liberal Protestant exegesis will be represented by the work of Conzelmann and Lindemann mentioned above. Moderate Catholic Critical Exegesis will be represented by the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (5); it is a sign of the times that the results of moderate critical exegesis have entered into a Catechism to be used as a standard reference work by the universal Church. Fundamentalist Protestant Exegesis will be represented by the Word Studies in the Greek New Testament of Kenneth S. Wuest (6), an old work recently re-published.

2.2

Secondly, the order of my classification must be legitimated. By putting Moderate Catholic Critical Exegesis in the centre I may appear to beg the whole question from the very beginning. But in reality this is not so. The classification is only a working hypothesis with which to begin. My paper is meant as a test of this hypothesis. The end result of my work will be judged by the reader. Still, the basis of this classification must be explained. This basis is the tension between the contrasting requirements of criticism and of faith in biblical exegesis. At the extremes of the classification there is in A the unqualified appeal to faith and the rejection of any critical stance characteristic of sectarian Christianity (the cults), while in A' there is the exclusive appeal to criticism and the rejection of any role of faith in biblical interpretation, the standpoint aracteristic of liberal exegesis. At first sight at least, the contemporary official stance of the Catholic Church seems to attain an equilibrium between the two exigencies. Therefore, there is at least a preliminary justification for this classification.

Of course, I am well aware that, holding any of the other positions, one could draw up a similar classification by putting oneself in the middle and rearranging the other positions accordingly. Actually this is precisely what is done by Conzelmann and Lindemann when they say: "This principle [that the text determines the method and not vice versa] is to be maintained against criticism from the 'right' as well as from the left'. The 'right', i.e. fundamentalism [...] The left' [is] represented for instance by Marxism's ideology of history [...]." (7) The very same thing is done by the fundamentalists, who see themselves as the golden mean between the extremes of liberal exegesis and Catholic exegesis. James Barr's analysis (8) of this fundamentalist claim is worth quoting: "[...] these two opposite wings [Protestant Fundamentalists and Catholics] have or have had very similar views about the Bible. [...] Protestant conservatives, indeed, feel that the comparison is a rather remote one in any case, because there are so many other factors: in particular, Roman Catholicism, excellent as its doctrine of scripture and its conservatism about historical matters may be, then goes and spoils the whole excellently conservative scheme by adding to the Bible the whole mass of church tradition as another major source of authority. The conservative evangelical, quaintly, thinks that he occupies middle ground in this respect: the liberals' depart from the true position about the authority of scripture by subtracting from it, the Roman Catholics by adding to it.(9)

The Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists in the past have made common front in their opposition to liberal critical exegesis, especially during the modernist era at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century. But today the situation has changed considerably, especially on the side of the Catholic Church. Hence I think the first thing to do now is to outline more clearly the position of the Catholic Church, comparing it with the positions of Fundamentalism and of Liberal Protestantism.


2. H. Conzelmann and A. Lindemami, Interpreting the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988) 2, define Fundamentalism as the standpoint "that personal faith is presuppositional for proper exegesis - a faith that a priori excludes certain 'critical' results. "Such a definition does not pinpoint exactly the essence of Fundamentalism, since such a definition includes elements proper to Conservative Critical Exegesis and Moderate Catholic Critical Exegesis. The latter can be considered Fundamentalist only by begging the whole question of what Fundamentalism is.

3. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 2.

4. cf. James Barr, Fundamentalism. (London: SCM Press, second edition, 1981) 2.

5. Accessible to me only in the Italian translation: Catechismo delta Chiesa Cattolica (Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1992). The English translation in this paper is mine, except for the quotations from Scripture, where I follow the Revised Standard Version, with some minor variations.

6. "Jesus of Nazareth - Who is He?" in Word Studies in the Greek New Testament 11: Great Truths to Live By From the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971, first paperback edition; original edition, 1952); "Greek Grammar and the Deity of Jesus Christ" in Word Studies in the Greek New Testament 3: Treasures from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company 1971, tenth printing; original edition1941).

7. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 2.

8. It will be noticed that Barr also locates himself in the middle, between the two supposed extremes of Fundamentalism and Catholicism!

9. Barr, 106-107.

3. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CRITICAL EXEGESIS

In the first two hundred years after Richard Simon, the Catholic Church had great difficulty in figuring out how critical exegesis could be consistent with a faithful acceptance of the Bible as the written Word of God. In the last one hundred years, however, the Catholic Church has grown increasingly confident that critical exegesis and faithful exegesis can make a good marriage. The first signs of this newly found confidence appeared in Pope Leo XIII's landmark encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus (1893). Fifty years later Pope Pius XII in the encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) endorsed textual criticism, literary genres, archaeological investigation, etc. as legitimate instruments of Catholic exegesis. This was a decisive breakthrough. The years 1964-1965 saw some basic results of critical Gospel exegesis accepted by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (Instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia, 1964) and, more importantly, by the Second Vatican Council (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 1965).

Finally, on April 15, 1993 the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a document entitled The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. This document a) briefly describes the various exegetical methods and approaches, indicating their strong points and weak points; b) discusses a few hermeneutical problems; c) reflects on the basic dimensions of a Catholic interpretation of the Bible and its relationship to the other theological areas; d) considers the place occupied by Biblical interpretation in the life of the Church. (cf. Introduction, B) (10)

Regarding the historical-critical method, the document has this to say (11): "The historical-critical method is indispensable for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Sacred Scripture, insofar as it is 'Word of God in human language', has been composed by human authors in all its parts and in all its sources. Hence the right understanding of Sacred Scripture not only admits as legitimate, but demands, the use of this method." (I.A)

Naturally, this is not the only method. Hence the document continues: "No scientific method for the study of the Bible is capable of exhausting the richness of the biblical texts. Whatever its validity, the historical-critical method cannot pretend to be all sufficient. Inevitably, this method neglects several aspects of the writings it studies. No wonder, therefore, if today other methods and approaches are proposed to deepen this or that aspect worthy of consideration." (1.B) Even so, the historical-critical method remains fundamental and indispensable.

In presenting this document Pope John Paul II recalls the wonderfully deep reason of this indispensability, namely the mystery of the Incarnation. The Pope refers to a text of the Second Vatican Council: "In sacred Scripture [...] while the truth and holiness of God always remain intact, the marvellous 'condescension' of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, 'that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far. He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.' (St. John Chrysostom, On Genesis, 3,8). For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as of old the Word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the weak flesh of humanity, became like other men." (Dei Verbum, 13).

While there was a time when the terms 'critical' and 'Catholic' used in my title were somehow mutually exclusive, today this is no longer the case. On the contrary, they are mutually inclusive. On the one hand, the acceptance of the critical method by the Church is a sign of her catholicity. On the other hand, the critical method is essentially catholic in its reliance on criteria which are as objective as possible. Catholic means universal, and there is nothing more universal for humanity than our God-given rationality. Unreasonableness creates ghettos. Reason opens up the individual to others and to the Other. The Catholic Church's endorsement of the critical method is in line with its uninterrupted acceptance of natural theology as praeambula fidei.

The welcome given by the Catholic Church to the critical method means that the Church can no longer be considered fundamentalist. In fact, it is characteristic of fundamentalism to reject on principle the critical method, or at least a great part of its results. For fundamentalism, the critical method is the negation of the Bible as the written Word of God, inspired and guaranteed by God. For the fundamentalists, the destructive results of the application of this method to the Bible are all too evident. The Catholic Church, with her two hundred years of misgivings with regard to this method, is in a position to understand the concerns off undamentalist Christians. The excesses of liberal Protestant exegesis have their share of responsibility for the opposition aroused against critical exegesis. In particular, the fundamentalists reproach the critics for readily admitting all sorts of mistakes in the Bible. How can the Word of God include mistakes and errors, and still be the Word of God? This is the overriding fundamentalist concern. Within the Catholic Church there has taken place a profound reflection on this problem. It would be good for the Protestant undamentalists to take cognizance of the results of this reflection and see whether they are not a better response to their concerns than their own fundamentalism.

Pressed by the alternatives, to accept the supposed results of critical exegesis and admit errors in the Bible, or to continue to affirm the absolute authority of the Bible and reject the results of critical exegesis, the fundamentalists opt for the second alternative. The price they pay for doing so is double: on the one hand, this rejection induces a certain lack of intellectual honesty and consistency in dealing with problems in the Bible. (12); on the other hand, this rejection results in an undue stress on the supernatural and the divinity of Christ, at the expense of his humanity.

At the opposite pole of the spectrum, the position of liberal Protestantism vis-a-vis critical exegesis is one of unconditional acceptance. Does this mean a corresponding rejection of the I standpoint of faith? No, liberal Protestantism does not reject the I faith but does something which to Catholic and fundamentalist eyes I amounts very much to a rejection of the faith. Liberal Protestants ! argue for the essential irrelevance of the results of historical-critical exegesis to the Christian faith. In their own words: "In terms of method, the biblical texts are to be treated no differently than other literary sources, especially those of antiquity. [...] For the beginner in this discipline, this observation may already cause initial problems to surface. Anyone who expects 'edification' from his encounter with the OT and the NT is at once confronted with the questions of authenticity, unity, and historical reliability. He has to ask whether the certainty of his own faith may be jeopardized by questioning the historical reliability of certain traditions concerning Jesus, or whether such a danger can be avoided on the premise that faith and historical insight belong to two fundamentally different levels.(14) It is clear that Conzelmann and Lindemann opt for this second alternative. It is also clear that behind this choice there is the "sola fide" ("faith only") principle of Martin Luther: no human element (whether rational or historical) can undermine the certainty of the faith or claim to offer any kind of support to a self-sufficient faith.

Whether this is a satisfactory solution to the problem caused by the tension between criticism and faith remains to be seen. In my opinion, this solution is as unsatisfactory as the fundamentalist solution. There, as already pointed out, intellectual honesty becomes a problem and so does the full reality of the Incarnation. Here, strangely enough, the same twofold problem surfaces. On the one hand, the liberal Protestant position also lacks intellectual honesty. Is it not too easy an escape to say that the historical findings of critical exegesis are ultimately irrelevant to the faith? It must be a cheap faith that can be defended all that easily! Moreover, such a facile defence is actually meant to give critical exegesis a totally free rein. The Christian experience of faith is said to be meaningful even apart from its basis in history (a basis which liberal critical exegesis declares mostly irretrievable). "But this attitude is of little interest to the [true] historian, who will be justified in pointing out that 'there must be an adequate basis for the alleged experience if it is to be meaningful.'" (15).

On the other hand, the reality of the Incarnation is also in danger here. If history is irrelevant to the faith, it means that the Word is not truly Incarnate. A tremendous dichotomy is introduced between reason and faith, nature and grace, time and eternity, man and God. The same dichotomy emerges disguised in different clothes in fundamentalism. After all, opposites touch one another. It may well be that Fundamentalist Exegesis and Liberal Exegesis, these opposites which polarize the Protestant field, are finally rooted in the unbalance of the "sola fide" ("faith only") principle as distinct from the Catholic "prima fides" ("faith first") principle.


10. The only edition available to me is the Italian edition. The English translation of this document in the text of my article is mine. Cf. Pontificia Commissione Biblica, L 'inferpretazione delta Bibbia nella Chiesa (Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993) 125. This summary of the whole document appears on page 29.

11. Pontificia Commissione Biblica, 30.

12. cf. Barr, 40-89 and 120-159.

13. Ban, 169-171.

14. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 2-3.

15. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1977) 182.

4. CONCRETE EXAMPLES OF THE CONFLICT OF EXEGESES - THE PERSON, TITLES, AND CONSCIOUSNESS OF JESUS

4.1 A FUNDAMENTALIST EXEGESIS OF Jn 1:14

Fundamentalism disdains critical exegesis, but it does not disdains scholarship. Kenneth S. Wuest was a university professor, conscious of his scholarly status. He had a very good knowledge of New Testament Greek. He put this good knowledge to very good use to support his fundamentalist exegesis of NT texts. However, the rejection of a critical attitude at times makes him too easily satisfied with the reasons given for a certain exegetical standpoint, as when, for example, he insists on "a rule in Greek syntax called Granville Sharp's rule [...]. The expression in the Greek text ["our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"] conforms to this rule. Here Paul [...] teaches that Jesus of Nazareth is deity. " (16) It may well be that the text here refers the title "God" to Jesus Christ. But it does not follow that this is proved by the reason given by Wuest. A somewhat more critical spirit would have warned Wuest not to apply too absolutely Granville Sharp's rule. (17)

Explaining the Greek text of Jn 1:14, Wuest has this to say: "And then John speaks of the incarnation again in the beautiful words, 'And the Word became flesh and lived in a tent among us' (1:14). The A. V. [Authorized Version] has 'The Word was made flesh.' To make something is to take something and mold it into a new form, changing its shape. The first form disappears to have something that has a different form takes its place. But nothing like that happened to Jesus of Nazareth. Absolute God in His preincarnate state. He remained such in His incarnation. He did not relinquish His deity upon becoming man. He was not made flesh. He became flesh. The Greek word is ginornai, and it is in a tense and a classification of that tense which speaks of entrance into a new condition. By 'becoming flesh', John means that the invisible, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God added to Himself a human body and put Himself under human limitations, yet without human sin. While still deity and omnipresent He became localized in a human body. While still deity and therefore omniscient. He lived the life of a human being on earth. He thought with a human brain. He became exhausted. He broke into tears. He needed food, clothing and shelter. He gave us a picture of what Deity is like through the medium of a human life. He lived in a tent in the midst of humanity. That tent was His human body. Thus, Jesus of Nazareth is a Person having two natures. He is absolute deity. He is true Man. His deity did not add to His humanity. His humanity did not detract from His deity. "(18)

There are several things that strike me in this passage. Firstly, the stress on an orthodox expression of the faith, but in such a way that the orthodoxy sounds exterior, forced (some of the expressions used perhaps are simply heterodoxical: "he became localized in a human body" and the like). Great trouble is taken to give the impression that all this dogmatic material is contained in the single verse of Jn 1:14. Between the lines one reads an attack on liberal and faith-less denials or doubts about the divinity of Christ. The urgent need to confute them transpires from the repetitive and emphatic style. (19) Totally absent is any reference to historical-critical or literary questions. Grammar is the instrumentum princeps of fundamentalist exegesis, because fundamentalists apparently believe in a verbal (dictation type) inspiration of the Bible, so that every word in the Greek text is somehow inspired and is a carrier of revelation. "Thus the rules of Greek grammar teach the deity of Jesus Christ."

There is a sense of smug confidence in what Wuest says, which leaves little room for the sense of mystery. Fundamentalist exegesis is overly confident in dealing with the mystery of God and of Christ. It would do well to ponder a little these words of Kier- kegaard: "One is deeply moved, one longs to be back in those beautiful times, a sweet yearning conducts one to the desired goal, to see Christ wandering in the promised land. One forgets the dread, the distress, the paradox. Was it so easy a matter not to be mistaken? Was it not dreadful that this man who walks among the others - was it not dreadful that He was God? Was it not dreadftil to sit at table with Him? Was it so easy a matter to become an Apostle? But the result, eighteen hundred years - that is a help, it helps to the shabby deceit wherewith one deceives oneself and others. I do not feel the courage to be contemporary with such events, but hence I do not judge severely those who were mistaken, nor think meanly of those who saw aright."(20)

It is strange that it should take a philosopher to remind faith stalwarts like the fundamentalists (or, for that matter. Catholics) that the core of their faith is the mystery of God in Christ. Concern for orthodoxy is a very good thing. But there is also a negative side to it, namely, the danger of turning God into an object and Truth into a series of propositions.

4.2 A CRITICAL LIBERAL PROTESTANT EXEGESIS OF THE SELF- CONSCIOUSNESS OF JESUS AS REVEALED IN THE GOSPEL TITLES OF JESUS

Paragraph 56 of Conzelmann and Lindemann's Interpreting the New Testament is dedicated to "The Question of Jesus' Self consciousness". It discusses the problem whether the titles "Messiah", "Son", "Son of God" and "Son of man" reveal anything about Jesus' self-consciousness. Let me simply report the conclusions of their investigation.

4.2.1

Firstly, with regard to the title "Messiah". Their exegetical conclusion about the Confession of Peter in Mk 8 is this: "The analysis of Mk 8:27ff. indicates agreements with the confession of faith formulated by the Christian community. The pericope contains no concrete, historical material but turns out to be a sort of credal presentation in the form of a scene: that which the whole community believes. Peter voices as representative of all."(21) As for Mk 10:46ff., their verdict is: "Of course, the cry of Blind Bartimaeus ("Son of David") is no historical datum, since it is a question of an introduction to a miracle story, hence a question of a formation by the community." The entry into Jerusalem "proves to be a messianic legend of the community. The scene is inconceivable as a historical event". What about the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin? "[...] It is likewise clear that this scene is devoid of a historical core, for the presentation of the trial is altogether determined christologically. The question of the high priest presupposes that the designations 'Messiah' and 'Son of God' are ultimately identical - a linguistic usage that is foreign to Judaism."(22)

4.2.2

Secondly, with regard to "Son (of God)". "The demons address Jesus as Son of God (Mk 3:11); but this is the community's formation, as is the trial before the Jewish Council, as we have already seen. And the same applies ultimately also to the two epiphany narratives of the baptism and of the transfiguration. They too are legends. [...] Mk 13:32 reflects the early Christology of the church. [...] In its tradition, the early church did not consciously distinguish between authentic sayings of Jesus and secondary formulations of the community. [...] Mt 11:27 is also an expression of community Christology (cf. the affinity with Mt 28:18). It is more difficult to assess the situation in Mk 12:lfft...] If one attempts to reconstruct an original parable of Jesus by excising the allegorical features, all that would remain is merely a parable concerning the fate of the owner of a vineyard and of his son; even then the text would not answer the question of whether Jesus laid claim to the title Son (of God). Conclusion: As far as it can be recognized, Jesus did not designate himself as Son of God" (23)

4.2.3

Thirdly, with regard to the title "Son of man". The "Son of man" sayings are classified by Conzelmann and Lindemann into a) Sayings concerning the parousia of the Son of man; b) sayings concerning the suffering Son of man; c) a saying concerning the Son of man's having come". About a), Conzelmann and Lindemann have this to say: " (a) If the statements about the parousia of the Son of man (Mk 8:38; 14:62) were to be viewed as authentic, one would have to assume that Jesus expected his own future transformation into the Son of man; but this construct can in no wise be derived from the texts. [...] The sayings which speak of the coming Son of man probably point back to Dan 7:13f. and were subsequently applied to Jesus by the community. (b) There are sayings that speak of the suffering Son of man (Mk 8:31) but [...] these are likewise formulations of the community." (24) With respect to c), i.e. Mt 8:20, the following is said: "The statemerit becomes meaningful when it is understood as the community's retrospective glance upon the overall ministry of Jesus; only from this vantage point does it take on meaning as a call to discipleship. It is probable, therefore, that this understanding of the Son of man concept originated only in the church. " (25)

General conclusion drawn by Conzelmann and Lindemann: "As far as we can discern, Jesus used none of the christological titles mentioned in the Synoptics in connection with his own person. Consequently it is impossible to reconstruct the self-consciousness of Jesus from the christological titles of the synoptic tradition" (26)

What is left, then? This: "[...] it follows from the message of his preaching and from his ministry (healings) that he understood himself, as well as his appearance, as the sign of the kingdom of God that is at hand. Any statements that go beyond this are nothing more than mere presupposition." (27)

4.2.4

Now a few comments of my own are in order. Reading through this book of Conzelmann and Lindemann I get a very strong impression of the all-pervasive presence of the logical fallacy of circularity (vicious circle, petitio principii, begging the question). The two authors systematically eliminate material which could be used for a counter-argument that would reach conclusions very different from their own. I think that in the few pages that I have surveyed above this vicious circle appears clearly: it is self evident that Jesus never used or assented to the use of any title if you systematically attribute all these titles to the supposedly creative function of the community! The consistency with which the material is eliminated as a source for evidence of the Sitz im Leben Jesu points to the fact that this elimination is not really demanded by considerations of a historical-critical and literary nature. Instead this elimination is dictated by some basic presuppositions which guide the exegetes and determine their choice beforehand. One such presupposition is certainly the one mentioned in the previous section, namely, the belief that historical data are ultimately irrelevant for the Christian faith.

Such a criticism of liberal critical exegesis is standard in the fundamental ist field.(28) This is no reason for setting it aside as pointless. The ftindamentalists have a point here. A point recognized by Conzelmann and Lindemann themselves: The exegete "must ask (or be asked) about the presuppositions he brings to the text. What tradition is in his background? What questions does he expect the text to answer? Why indeed does he even deal with this text? [...] There is no exegesis without presuppositions. Each interpretation is at least influenced by the exegete's own historical setting. Therefore, he must first of all be clear about the presup- positions he brings along. " (29)

This is very good advice. But I doubt whether the two distinguished authors have taken it themselves. Their book is full of so many "only", "exclusively", "of course", "impossible", "inconceivable", "entirely different", "contradictory", "absurd", "utterly grotesque" etc., all words which betray a self-confidence little in tune with the critical (and therefore self-critical) enquiry. It is all too easy to commit the fallacy of "cavalier dismissal" of different views when one is so full of self-confidence.(30)

Then from time to time one bumps into some problems which seem to be of the exegetes' own making. Take the following example: "Indeed, this is what poses the theological problem of why the Christian faith is not identical with the faith, that is, with the proclamation of Jesus. One needs to explain why, apart from the Gospels, all early Christian literature all but completely ignores both the teaching and the history of Jesus. " (31) That there is a certain discrepancy between Jesus' proclamation and the church's proclamation, this is true. But the explanation is not so far away, unless you have already pre-empted all possibility of an explanation by eliminating all the Gospel material as a possible source of the solution. The "complete ignorance" of early Christian literature (the rest of the NT?) about the teaching and the history of Jesus is not, after all, such a great problem. One has only to pay attention to the literary genre of this early Christian literature. Most of it is of a strictly didactic and paracletic literary genre (the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse being the exceptions). Now it is only to be expected that a didache and a paraklesis will systematically ignore the kerygma, presupposing it as already announced and received. Paul, James, Peter and John did not write letters to announce the kerygma, i.e. to announce Jesus in his sayings and doings. They had done this already by word of mouth. They wrote letters to tackle particular problems of thought and practice that had arisen in the communities. With these considerations in mind, it is easy to see how the problem presented by Conzelmami and Lindemann evaporates like mist in the sunlight.

I have mentioned the circularity of much of this work of Conzelmann and Lindemann. At times other logical fallacies come to the surface in a rather transparent way. One of the most frequent perhaps is the fallacy of false disjunctives, making an improper appeal to the law of the excluded middle. Just one example: "On principle this pericope could also be placed elsewhere in the Gospel, in other words, it does not constitute evidence for a historical development and, instead, fulfils a theological or christological function. " (32) The authors of this sentence have presented the disjunctives in such a way that its two terms (history and theology) seem mutually incompatible. It did not enter their heads that a pericope could have both an historical and a theological ftinction. If any incompatibility is perceived, this is due to the subjective (and invalid) presupposition of the authors that these two levels are "fimdamentally different" to such an extent as to be mutually irrelevant.

Another frequent fallacy is the failure to recognize distinctions as when one argues that "because x and y are alike in certain respects, they are alike in all respects" (33) This fallacy lurks under every appeal to more or less parallel material in Hellenistic literature to deny the historical character of the Gospels.

Finally, on certain problems Conzelmann and Lindemann seem to be out of touch with the latest research. For example, in dealing with parable and allegory, it would appear that no significant advance has been made in the solution of these problem and in the exegesis of the parables since Julicher (end of 19th century, beginning of 20th century). Of his landmark work. Die Gleichnis-reden Jesu, our two authors say that it "has not been replaced to date. "(34) But this does not seem to be the real state of affairs. Perhaps it is true that no single book has appeared to surpass Julicher 's book in importance. However, the cumulative research of exegetes after Julicher has produced results which demand fundamental modifications to some of Julicher's most fundamental tenets. The precise relationship between parable and allegory is one of the tenets in need of revision. Another example: when dealing with the problem of whether the Last Supper was a paschal meal or not, no notice is taken of significant new suggestions. Perhaps one of the reasons for this way of acting is a certain auto-limitation (except for the bibliographies, which have been enriched by the addition of English works by the translator) merely to German scholarship in the discussion of problems. " (35)

I have dwelt somewhat at length with this book of Conzel-mann and Lindemann because it seems to me that, while offering an amazing amount of useful information, it is radically vitiated by theological biases that drastically reduce its utility as a guide to an adequate understanding of the nature of the NT material. It is time now to turn to an equally critical (but not equally destructive or faulty) approach to the exegesis of the Gospels, namely, the approach presented in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.

4.3 A Critical Catholic Exegesis Of Jesus' Identity As Revealed By The Gospel Title Of Jesus

In Chapter Two of Section Two of Part One, the Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with "Jesus Christ, Only Son [of God the Father], Our Lord". The approach is fundamentally scriptural. The choice of texts is very careful. The Chapter starts with several quotations: one from Galatians, two from Mark and two allusions from Luke, thus:

"'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons' (Gal 4:4-5). This is the Good News regarding 'Jesus Christ, Son of God' (Mk 1:1). God has visited his people (cf. Lk 1:68), has fulfilled the promises he made to Abraham and his posterity (cf. Lk 1:55); he has gone beyond all expectation: he has sent his 'beloved Son' (Mk 1:11)". (No. 422)

The choice of these texts has been critically influenced. The core of Gal 4:4 is an old pre-Pauline kerygmatic formula. Mark, commonly accepted as the first Gospel, is also drawn upon. The transcendent meaning of "Son of God" is stressed. Will this be critically ascertained? The next number (423) draws upon the Gospel of John to stress even more the transcendent meaning of "Son of God". Then the Catechism continues:

"Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, with regard to Jesus, we believe and we proclaim: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God' (Mt 16:16). On the rock of this faith, confessed by Peter, Christ has founded his Church (cf. Mt 16:18)." Will any critical observation be made about this? Let us see.

In Article Two, the Catechism examines the name Jesus and the titles Christ, Only-begotten Son of God, and Lord. I shall concentrate on the last three.

4.3.1 Christ.

"Christ derives from the Greek translation of the Hebrew term 'Messiah' which means 'anointed'. In itself it is not a proper name, but it becomes Jesus' proper name because Jesus fulfils perfectly the God-given mission signified by this term. As a matter of fact, in Israel those who were consecrated for a mission entrusted to them by God were anointed in the name of God. Thus kings were anointed, (36) priests also, and, in rare cases, the prophets. Such an anointing vas due par excellence to the Messiah whom God planned to send in order to inaugurate definitively his Kingdom. The Messiah had to be anointed by the Spirit of the Lord, thus becoming at the same time king and priest, but also prophet. Jesus has fulfilled Israel's messianic hope in his threefold capacity as priest, prophet, and king (No. 436).

We have here a good catechetical presentation of the meaning of the term Christ. It presupposes a certain work related to Biblical Theology. No critical feature is yet apparent.

"A number of Jews and also some Gentiles who shared the Jewish hope recognized in Jesus the fundamental traits of the messianic "Son of David" promised by God to Israel. Jesus accepted the title of Messiah, since it was his by right, but not without some reservations, because some of his contemporaries understood it in a way all too human, essentially political." (No. 439)

The observation that Jesus had reservations in accepting the title of Messiah is critical. The next number explains the meaning of Jesus' acceptance.

"Jesus accepted Peter's profession of faith, recognizing him as Messiah, by announcing the imminent passion of the Son of man. In this way he has revealed the authentic content of his messianic kingship in the transcendent identity of the Sonrofman "descended from heaven" (Jn 3:13) as well as in his redemptive mission as Suffering Servant. ' The Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many' (Mt 20:28). For this reason the true meaning of his kingship is revealed only from the height of the cross. Only after his Resurrection, can his messianic kingship be proclaimed by Peter before the people of God: " Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified'." (No. 440)

The stress on the Cross as the core of the messianic identity of Jesus is fruit of critical redactional work on the Gospel of Mark. The crucial character of the Resurrection is a commonplace of critical exegesis. Throughout there is a robust, and yet guarded, confidence that the Gospels offer reliable material for the understanding of Jesus, his identity and mission. Here, and not in the presence or absence of critical judgement is the great difference between Catholic Critical Exegesis and Protestant Liberal Exegesis.

4.3.2 Only-begotten Son Of God

Son of God in the Old Testament is a title given to the angels, to the chosen people, to the children of Israel, to their kings. In these cases it has the meaning of an adoptive sonship which establishes between God and creatures particularly intimate relationships. When the promised Messiah-king is called "son of God', this does not necessarily imply, according to the literal meaning of the texts, that the Messiah is more than human. Those who thus designated Jesus as Israel's Messiah probably did not intend to mean anything more." (No. 441)

This is a strictly critical presentation of the historical situation with regard to the meaning of the title "Son of God". The note appended to the last sentence refers to Lk 23:47: "Now when he saw what had taken place, he praised God, and said: 'Certainly this man was innocent!"'. This means that, after a comparison with the parallel texts in the other two Synoptics, the Catechism concludes that the Lucan version expresses the historical meaning of the words recorded by Mark and Matthew: "Truly this man was the Son of God!" (Mk 15:39; Mt 27:54). Such a conclusion pre-upposes the acceptance of at least a double level of complexity in the process of formation of the Gospels, i.e. the level of historical fact and the level of Gospel redaction.

But then the Catechism continues:

"The same thing cannot be said of Peter when he confessed Jesus as 'the Christ, the Son of the Living God' (Mt 16:16), because Jesus responds with solemnity: 'For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven' (Mt 16:17). In a parallel way, with reference to his conversion on the way to Damascus, Paul will say: 'But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles...' (Gal 1:15-16). 'And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, 'He is the Son of God.' (Acts 9,20). This will be from the very beginning the centre of the apostolic faith, first of all professed by Peter as foundation of the Church." (No. 442).

Here the title Son of God is given a transcendent meaning. What is the ground for such an attribution? In the following three numbers the Catechism gives the answer:

"If Peter could recognize the transcendent character of the divine sonship of Jesus Messiah, it is because Jesus let it clearly appear. Before the Sanhedrin, to his accusers' question: 'Are you the Son of God, then?', Jesus replied: 'You yourselves say that I am' (Lk 22:70). Long before, he had already spoken of himself as 'the Son' who knows the Father, who is distinct from the 'servants' whom God had previously sent to his people, who is superior to the very angels. Jesus made a distinction between his sonship and that of his disciples by never saying 'our Father' except when giving them the command: "You pray then like this: Our Father" (Mt 6:9). He has even emphasized this distinction: 'my Father and your Father' (Jn 20:17)." (No. 443)

This is a very careful collection of Gospel evidence for the understanding of the self-consciousness of Jesus. Again one can see the positive approach to the historical value of the Gospel material. In the next number we pass from Jesus' self-consciousness as unique Son of God to the human recognition of such uniqueness:

"The Gospels in two solemn moments, the Baptism and the Transfiguration of Christ, report the voice of the Father who calls Jesus his 'beloved Son'. Jesus presents himself as 'the only Son' (Jn 3:16) and with this title affirms his eternal pre-existence. He demands faith 'in the name of the only Son of God' (Jn 3:18). This Christian confession appears already in the exclamation of the centurion before the crucified Jesus: 'Truly this man was the Son of God' (Mk 15:39); as a matter of fact, only in the Pascal Mystery can the believer give to the title 'Son of God' its full meaning." (No. 444)

Several points should be noted here. Firstly, John is used with as much confidence as the Synoptics as a source of reliable knowledge about Jesus. Secondly, the scholarly discussion whether Jn 3:16-21 should be put on the lips of Jesus or on those of the evangelist seems to have been overlooked or judged irrelevant. Thirdly, unlike liberal exegesis, the Catechism does not find any irreconcilability between a confession formula "In the name of the only Son of God" and the fact that this formula has a background in the life of Jesus. Fourthly, Mk 15:39 is said to be a Christian confession. This must be put in relation with what has been said above about Lk 23:47. In this way it will be seen that this paragraph again envisages at least a double level of Gospel formation: the level of history (where the meaning of the centurion's exclamation is rendered by Lk 23:47) and the level of redaction (where the meaning intended by Mark is that of the Christian confessional formula, i.e. the transcendent meaning of "Son of God"). Finally, the last sentence of paragraph 444 is the fruit of critical exegesis, which has established that only after the resurrection, when Jesus appeared to them, did the disciples come to full faith to him.

This last point is stressed also in the next paragraph:

"After the Resurrection, Jesus' divine sonship is revealed in the power of his glorified humanity: he is constituted 'Son of God in power according to the Spirit ofholiness by his resurrection from the dead' (Rom 1:4). The Apostles can now proclaim: 'We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth' (Jn 1:14)."

Notice how again recourse is had to an old pre-Pauline kerygmatic formula. This frequent recourse to old kerygmatic formulas is a way of putting to good use the results of critical exegesis which has had the merit of detecting these formulas. Moreover, the use of these formulas is the Catechism's way of pointing to a third level of Gospel formation, i.e. the level of pre-Gospel written sources. As a consequence, in these few paragraphs which we are examining, one can see the complete basic set of levels of Gospel formation discovered by modern critical exegesis: the level of the evangelist, the level ofpre-evangelist sources (written and oral), and the level of the historical facts. This is one of the main critical results officially accepted by the Catholic Church in one of the most solemn forms possible, namely, a dogmatic constitution of an Ecumenical Council. The Catechism has been faithful to the authoritative indications of the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation No. 19. The Council first professes the Christian certainty of the historical value of the Gospels, and then explains the critical threefold level of formation. I think that article 19 is worth quoting in full, with indications of the three levels added in parentheses:

"Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1-2) [FIRST LEVEL OF GOSPEL FORMATION].

Indeed, after the ascension of the Lord the apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the events of Christ's risen life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth.

The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing [SECOND LEVEL OF GOSPEL FORMATION], reducing some of them to a synthesis, explicating some things in view of the situation of their churches, and preserving the form of proclamation [THIRD LEVEL OF GOSPEL FORMATION] but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who themselves 'from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the word' we might know 'the truth' concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (cf. Lk. 1:2-4)." [FIRST LEVEL OF GOSPEL FORMATION].(37)

Again, it should be noticed how the faith in the transcendent sonship of Jesus is firmly rooted in the experience which the disciples had of the Risen Jesus. These last two paragraphs of the Catechism also indirectly explain the redactional situation of Mt 16:16b-19. A comparison with the parallels in Mark and Luke shows that Matthew has here transposed a post-resurrectional account into the ministry of Jesus. The confession of Jesus as Christ-Messiah by Peter belongs to the pre-paschal ministry of Jesus, as recorded by Mark, Luke and Matthew (and also by John: cf. Jn 6:66-71). On the other hand, the confession of Jesus as Son of the Living God and Jesus' reaction to this Father-given confession is probably post-resurrectional. It is an account of the Risen Jesus' appearance to Peter (ICor 15:5; Lk 24:34; Jn 21) and of Peter's acknowledgment in faith of Jesus' transcendent sonship. This acknowledgement has been preceded by Jesus' decisive witness to his divine sonship during the Jewish trial before the high priest and the Sanhedrin, a witness sealed by death. By this faith acknowledgement Peter reverses his threefold denial of his relationship with Jesus. Jesus' reaction to Peter's confession of faith is to build his Church upon this rock (cf. Jn 21:15-19). Such a redactional analysis of Mt 16:13-20 is the achievement of recent critical exegesis.

4.3.3 Lord.

"In the Greek translation of the books of the Old Testament, the ineffable name by which God has revealed himself to Moses, YHWH, was rendered by Kyrios ['Lord']. Since then, Lord has become the most usual name to denote the very divinity of the God of Israel. The New Testament uses the title 'Lord' in this strong sense for the Father. But, and this is new, it is also used for Jesus, who is thus acknowledged as God." (No. 446)

"Jesus himself, in a veiled way, attributed to himself this title when he discussed with the Pharisees the meaning of Psalm 110. But he also did so in an explicit way when addressing his Apostles. During his public life his acts of power over nature, over sickness, over demons, over death and over sin, were all manifestations of his divine sovereignty." (No. 447)

"Very often in the Gospels people address Jesus by the title 'Lord'. By this title they intend to express the attitude of respect and trust with which they approach him to obtain help and healing. Pronounced under the motion of the Holy Spirit, this title expresses the acknowledgement of Jesus' divine Mystery. In the encounter with the Risen Jesus, it becomes an expression of adoration: 'My Lord and my God' (Jn 20:28). Then it assumes a connotation of love and affection which will remain typical of Christian tradition: It is the Lord!' (Jn 21:7)." (No. 448)

In these three paragraphs we have a careful analysis of the usage and meaning of the term kyrios. Different layers of meaning are distinguished. The pre-paschal usage by people is defined in non-transcendent terms, while the post-paschal usage is full of transcendent meaning. This transcendent meaning is based on Jesus' own pre-paschal hints at such a transcendent meaning. It is clear that this distinction between pre-paschal and paschal is the fruit of modern critical exegesis of the New Testament. Its incorporation into the Catechism of the Catholic Church shows that the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of these critical results.

It will also be clear, of course, that we are in an almost totally different world from that of Conzelmann and Lindemann. What makes the difference? Is it the critical nature of the results? If there is a difference in this regard, I dare suggest that it will be because the results of Conzelmann and Lindemann are not critical enough! Of course, the superficial apparatus is ominously critical. But what about the substance?

Evidently the clearest difference is in the attitude to the historicity of the Gospel material. We have seen that the negative attitude of the two German exegetes is due to ideological presuppositions of doubtful validity. I call these presuppositions ideological because they are recognized explicitly by the two authors, but from the very beginning they are excluded from scrutiny and discussion. Now this, I think, is the definition of ideology: a way of thinking that has not been critically examined. And this, in my opinion, is what the presuppositions of Conzelmann and Lindemann amount to.


16. Wuest, Great Truths, 15-16; ibidem, 31.

17. The fallacy of applying this and other grammatical rules too absolutely has been pointed out by D.A.Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984) 80-90.

18. Carson, 29-30.

19. A few pages earlier, Wuest had this to say about the Liberals' suspicions of the Testimonium Flavianum: "In an attempt to break the force of this passage from Josephus, Liberalism claims that it was placed in his writings by the Christian Church to strengthen the argument for miracles." (Wuest, Great Truths, 15). Wuest, Treasures, 33.

20. Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling. Translated with Introductions and Notes by Walter Lowrie (New York: Doubleday 1941, Anchor Books edition 1954) 76.

21. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 323. Notice how the non-historicity of the scene is deduced from the fact that the title is present in the faith of the community.

22. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 323-324. Notice how the reasons given are very summary and of a rigid form-critical nature. However, this book is a summa of critical Findings. Hence no roofs are given. Still, the whole procedure smacks of the defect Conzelmann and Lindemann find in Bultmann's The History of the Synoptic Tradition: "If one consults the book for the purpose of analyzing particular pericope, the immediate impression is that the author makes apodictic decisions about the text without even as much as an attempt at substantiation. " After making this remark, the authors immediately go to the rescue ofBultmann, adding: "This, however, is not the case at all. If one begins to read each chapter in light of its end, as it were, the criteria upon which Bultmann has established his arguments become clear. Only in this way is it possible either to retrace his decisions or to criticize them." (Ibidem, 65) It is not clear what Conzelmann and Lindemann mean by this observation (what does "in the light of its end" ean?). In any case it is not easy to free the whole endeavour of Bultmann from the charge of a deep seated and all-pervading vicious circle fallacy.

23. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 324-325.

24. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 326.

25. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 327.

26. Conzelmann and Lindemann, ibidem.

27. Conzelmann and Lindemann, Ibidem.

28. cf. Barr, 145-149.

29. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 2.

30. "The fallacy in this instance lies in thinking that an opponent's argument has actually been handled when in fact it has merely been written off". Carson, 120.

31. Carson, 286.

32. Carson, 304.

33. Carson, 97.

34. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 74.

35. See, for example, the discussion of the presentation of Jesus' teaching on page 305.

36. Here and throughout, I omit the numerous biblical references given in the footnotes.

37. Walter Abbott (ed.). The Documents of Vatican II, (New York: The America Press 1966) 124.

5. CONCLUSION

I would like to conclude this paper by first quoting two more paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which will form the basis of my concluding comments:

"By attributing to Jesus the divine title 'Lord', the first faith confessions of the Church, from the very beginning, affirm that the power, the honour, and the glory due to God the Father are due also to Jesus, because he is 'in the form of God' (Phil 2:6) [another pre-Pauline faith formula!]. At the same time these faith confessions also affirm that God has manifested this lordship of Jesus raising him from the dead and exalting him to his own glory." (No. 449)

"From the beginning of Christian history, the affirmation of Jesus' lordship over the world and history implies also the acknowledgement that man must not submit his or her own personal liberty in an absolute way to any worldly power, but only to God the Father and to the Lord Jesus Christ: Caesar is not 'the Lord'. 'The Church believes...that in her most benign Lord and Master can be found the key, the focal point, and the goal of all human history.' ( (Gaudium et Spes, 10)." (No. 450)

No human being must submit his or her personal liberty to any worldly power in an absolute way. This challenge also faces all Christian exegesis of the Bible. The spirit of the Enlightenment has been in one sense the breakthrough of the Spirit of God, rich in fruits of tolerance, justice, sense of brotherhood and equality, desire for peace and universal communion, based on the principle that God-given reason is the common charism of all human beingsa nd freedom is of the essence of human nature. But the Enlightenment can also become a source of new slaveries and unimaginable oppressions, if it becomes detached from the ideal source of its world-stirring ideals, God.

By denying that "personal faith is presuppositional for proper exegesis", Conzelmann and Lindemann appear to me to fall into the pitfall of making an idol out of the spirit of the Enlightenment. By saying this, they are actually submitting themselves to the Caesar of modern rationalism, a contradictory form of rationalism, which devours its own childen: modern constitutionalism and democracy are as much the fruit of the Enlightenment as the two World Wars and the breakdown in morality which will characterize the 20th century in all future history.

Protestant (and Catholic) liberal critical exegesis seem to me, therefore, to be capitulating before the Moloch of modern godless rationalism. On the other hand, Protestant Fundamentalism apparently believes that, to meet the challenge of preserving the Christian faith in its pristine purity, it must deny the necessity and inevitability of the critical approach. Moderate Catholic Critical Exegesis stands between these two extremes. Why should it be given central place, if not because it is the only exegesis that effectively affirms the Mystery of God in Christ, while at the same time respecting the integrity of this rational animal, the human person?

by Emeghara, Nkem

INTRODUCTION

Does the African attribute any dignity to the human person? Anyone who is influenced by the old ideas of colonial writers on African societal life would perhaps readily answer this question in the negative. This is because such writers did not take time to study the African mind well before drawing their conclusions. The Africans have thus been described as 'brutes', 'cannibalistic'' crude', 'primitive', 'dark', 'savages', 'pagan', 'ignorant' etc. Human sacrifice and twin murder are among the practices usually cited as evidence of poor regard, or lack of regard, for human dignity on the part of the Africans.

It is the aim of this short paper to call attention to the fact that African society has a very high regard for the human person and gives the preservation of human dignity a priority, contrary to the old beliefs held by some scholars.

The dignity of the human person is seen in the African view of human origins, worship and morals, and in community life.

Much of our illustration will be taken from the lgbos of Nigeria. This is because the writer is lgbo by tribe. The contents of this paper are essential in this day when the world has continued to neglect the dignity of the human person, which has resulted in so much inhumanity on the part of human beings towards each other. Africa is not excluded from this modern inhumanity.

1. HUMAN DIGNITY IN CREATION

One of the ways by which Africans accord a high dignity to the human person is in their view of human origins.

In the creation stories of all African peoples, humanity and God are so connected that one would cease to exist without the other. Although God is understood as being all-powerful, ever-present, all knowing and demanding the greatest honour, fear and reverence from all creation, the African realizes that God's imprint is within the human being, who imperatively acknowledges God's existence and worships accordingly. The lgbos of Nigeria, for example, recognize that the mystery associated with what is called amadu (humankind), which includes humankind's inestimable abilities to produce, build, and to destroy, accounts for human origins and sustenance in God (Chukwu). The chi in human persons is regarded as the inner presence of Chukwu (God), linking them spiritually with God. God created human beings good, complete and likable.(1) They have communion with God, and this communion can be ritually restored whenever it is disrupted. Metuh expressed this closeness to Chukwu among the lgbos when he stated:

Viewed from the standpoint of his origin and final destiny man is best understood in relation to Chukwu (God), his creator. Man comes from God. He has a definite mission to fulfil in God's plan and will eventually go back to God. (2)

Being a complex psycho-physical being which is as mysterious as the universe, the human person remains the highest of all the creations of God. Humanity is the high-point of God's creative action and it is around the human person that the physical and spiritual dimensions of life activities seem to cohere.

God gave human beings the capacity for bringing the ideas they have to fruition, a human trait symbolized in the lgbo Ram headed deity called Ikenga (4).

Ikenga operates in a number of selves or principles: The obi (the heart) is the centre of volition and obedience. It is the concrete human and can be described as courageous, or weak, good or bad, strong or soft. The desire of every human person is to have a strong, courageous and kind or soft obi. A weak and wicked obi is easily subject to the attacks of witchcraft and sorcery, and may consequently weaken and die (5). At death the obi leaves the physical body. In some parts of lgboland it is ritually strengthened for the ancestral world and in preparation for reincarnation.(6). The obi can thus be regarded as the manifestation of life. The chi, as we have said, is the aspect of the human person that comes directly from Chukwu. It has been regarded as a life principle, a genius, or spirit doublet It is the chi that links the human person to God and determines an individual's fortune, or destiny in life. At death, the chi (destiny-spirit) goes back to God in preparation for the person's reincarnation which is determined by God. The eke links people with their ancestors and as a result with the life-force of the clan. A child comes to the world with an incarnation of an ancestor's eke. This ancestor must be known in order to reveal to the parents the taboos and rituals to be observed in order to ensure the child's survival. It is a common saying that a person embarking on a journey should leave his or her eke at home and proceed with the chi. This is because it is believed that in case of danger, the eke will call the person back home, while one needs one's chi on a journey because the chi ensures that the destiny will be achieved on the trip. This destiny is also represented as akara aka, i.e. prints or crevices on the palms of the hand. The goal of a person's life is to achieve the akara chi, i.e. the destiny imprinted on the palms. The eke and the chi work together to achieve this. (8)

Other aspects by which people operate include the shadow-spirit (onyinyo), which is believed to be individual, while the real human person is created by God. The shadow-spirit is also said to be incarnate in the body and is assigned an ancestral guardian. It is believed to survive after death as an individual person and can in turn become an ancestral guardian.(9)

The ume (breath) shows that the breath-spirit is operating in the physical body (ahu). At death the physical body decays and dissolves while the person continues to exist as onye mmuo (spirit being), different from onye mmadu which he or she was before death.

These principles of operation make the human person feel closely related with the unseen "spirit world" through the consciousness of self-transcendence in spite of the physical interactions in the visible world. (10) Peaceful operation at all these levels is necessary for the human person to live life (ndu) to the fullest, which is God's most precious gift. (11)

Thus the dignity of human persons is seen in their being created good by God, their complex nature and God's imprint in them as the crown of God's creation, as well as in God's provision for a continual interaction with them through ritual, despite their limitations. To the lgbo, the human person has an intrinsic nature which, among all creation, is special in the sight of God.

1. An attempted etymology of the lgbo Word mmadu renders it as mmadu "let goodness exist" see R. ARAZU "A Cultural Model For a Christian Prayer", in African Christian Spirituality, A. SHORTER (ed.) (New York: Orbis Books 1978) 114.

2. Emefie Ikenga - Metuh, African Religions in Western Conceptual Schemes: The Problem of Interpretation (Studies in lgbo Religion) 2nd ed. (Onitsha Nigeria: IMICO Press 1985) 109.

3. Cf. O. Imasogie, African Traditional Religion Ibadan (Nigeria : UPL 1982) 56.

4. Cf. E. Ilogu, Christianity and Igbo Culture (New York : NOK Ltd. 1982) 204.

5. E. Ikenge - Metuh, Comparative Studies of African Traditional Religion (Onitsha, Nigeria: IMICO Pub. 1987) 187.

6. Cf. Metuh, Conceptual Schemes, op. cit., Ill and C.K. Meek, Law and Authority In a Nigerian Tribe (London: OUP 1937) 55.

7. See E. llogu, Christianity and lgbo Culture, op. cit., 34. Bolaji Idowu, African Traditional Religion: A Definition (London: SCM 1973) 177. Metuh, Conceptual Schemes, 111.

8. Cf. Metuh, Conceptual Schemes, 111.

9. Metuh, Comparative, 187.

10. Cf. llogu, op. cit., 204.

11. Emeka Ojukwu, The Ahiara Declaration (Geneva: Mark Press 1969)25.

II. HUMAN DIGNITY IN WORSHIP

The dignity of the human person is also identifiable in an insatiable desire to worship.

Mbiti has rightly observed that African peoples do not know how to exist without religion.(12) Adasu also observes that the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions has acknowledged that African religion impregnates the whole life of the community. The day begins and ends with ritualism. All life bears the sign of transcendence and African life has developed a human personality, the spiritual dimension of which assists each one to respond to the noblest aspirations - aspirations that are religious, intellectual and artistic. (13).

Wherever the African is, there is religion and its morals. For the African, the human person is a religious being. (14) This value gives the human person a high dignity. The poorest person is, therefore, rich in nobility as a religious being. This dignity may not provide material wealth, but the African is satisfied with it because it gives hope and a reason for living. As Parrinder puts it,

Man lives in a moral society and his behaviour is prescribed by relationships. Morality is the mores, the manners and the customs of society.(15)

Religion, which gives the African morality, is part and parcel of African customs and traditions, African life. They do not need to put them down in scripture or in texts or as tenets. (16) Each one is aware of all the elements of religion and worship. God, spirits, and the divinities are part of the body of beliefs. To take part in community worship is to have life, for that is what gives the human person dignity precisely as human. In relating with God, who is always the first and the last, Africans do not neglect the lesser spirit beings, without whom their interactions may not be complete. Above all, these spirit beings exist because humanity exists. Any deity that humanity discards ceases to exist. They are messengers of God for the benefit of humankind.

The lgbos of Nigeria believe that God pays attention to every individual at all times. Thus the individual directs prayers, sacrifices, rituals, offerings etc. to God in the manner of worship and incorporates God's name into the names given to children. Theophorous names include Chinomso (God is close by me), Chukwudi (God is), Chika (God is the greatest), Chidimma (God is good), lzuchukwu (God's plan), lwuchukwu (God's laws), etc. Because God is the final arbiter and judge to the lgbo, God's name is used in blessings, oaths and curses, and it also features in songs, and greetings.

The high point of the lgbo concept of human dignity manifested in worship is, perhaps, the reverencing of the ndichie (ancestor). An ancestor is a male person who lived a good life, had offspring, died a good and natural death at a good old age. Such a person is ushered into the ancestral world through funeral rituals and is again reincorporated into the family of his children through the setting up of a shrine for him. It is in this shrine that he is reverenced or worshipped. His presence is felt at all times as he is considered to be part and parcel of the families of his living children. Above all everybody is regarded as the reincarnation of an ancestor, a belief that accords everyone the highest dignity.

Finally, the traditional African allows individual determination of worship expression. No converts are made. There is no mission or evangelism to win people over to the traditional faith.

This also is a recognition of the dignity given in creation. Everyone has the right to religious self-expression.

12. J.S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy (London: Heinmann 1969) 3ff.

13. M.O. Adasu, Understanding African Traditional Religion, Part One (Dorset: Dorset Pub. Co. 1985) 18 citing Non-Christians Secretariatus Meeting The African Religions (Roma: n.p. 1969) 3f.

14. Adasu, African Traditional Religion, 18.

15. E.G. Parrinder, Religion In Africa (London: Penguin 1969) 89.

16. An Ashanti proverb says that everyone knows of God's existence by instinct and even children know him. See Mbiti, op.cit., 29.

III. HUMAN DIGNITY IN COMMUNITY LIFE

The lgbo recognizes human dignity in human origins and Worship. It is, however, in the community life that the dignity of the human person finds perhaps its greatest expression among the lgbos.

First of all, individuals are not regarded as complete until they have been identified with a community. Each one must belong to kith and kin, to parents, brothers and sisters, who are immediate, and to a wider relationship within the extended family. There is nothing like individualism. A person belongs to an immediate family, hamlet, village, clan and town. This belonging enhances chances of survival and ensures security and growth. The compound segment is very important in lgboland. A compound is made up of families of the same immediate fathers. An individual without family is an anomaly, for the family makes the person. A family includes living relatives, ancestors and those yet to be born. According to Shorter, this is the most realistic human community. There is peaceful coexistence through sharing and mutuality. This value, he says, is shown by the use of "our" instead of "my" by Africans.

Every life crisis of an individual involves the whole compound and sometimes the whole hamlet, village, clan, or town. A new born baby does not belong to the biological mother and father only. The baby belongs to the whole community. Thus the lgbos say that one person does not own a child. The child addresses father's brothers (i.e. those called "uncles" in English) as "fathers". A child grows under the watchful eyes of everybody. As they grow up, children are initiated into the appropriate roles they are expected to play. They are not left alone to learn the societal omenala (traditions) without guidance. It is a common African belief that there is foolishness in the growing person (young person). They must therefore be guided otherwise they may destroy themselves. At all levels of development, the lgbos give people titles which indicate expected roles. Thus after infancy and childhood (nwata), a person becomes okorobia (male) or agbohobia (females). In later adult life one is referred to as okenye (old adult). At a good old age one is referred to as onye nka (the very old). At death one becomes ndichie (ancestor). Each stage carries its own dignity and respect as well as its associated role.

A person also acquires respect through the age groups he or she belongs to, for a person's age group is expected to ensure protection and security.

Thus the daily duties of a weak or sick person would be carried out by companions in the same age group. In spite of poor health, one took part in collective farming, building and harvesting, which used to be usual daily experiences. Poor people were never derided as long as they had done their best. In fact, collective labour made it impossible for a family to suffer hunger or want. During the gleaning months anyone could go into any farm to harvest the leftovers.

It was a duty to protect your neighbour's back. Everyone's dignity was respected and ensured. The farmlands were fairly distributed and no one person or selected individuals could own more than their entitled portion. Thus oppression of the downtrodden was checked. In fact there were no downtrodden. Is it any wonder, then, that hunger was not a known issue in lgboland before colonialism and the modern age of capitalism and unjust economic systems.

Respect for one another was further enhanced by the fact that the ruler and the ruled were responsible to God for whatever they did, and everyone's actions were regarded as affecting others and society for good or bad. Everyone was, therefore, "his brother's keeper". Human dignity was highly preserved for that dignity was part of a person's immortal soul or life essence. The lgbo say that "Dignity is beauty". Whenever you encounter someone, you learn, through long greetings, of his or her real condition. You put forward in conversation feelers to find out the possible reactions to the proposals you might intend to make. As a host you do not ask people whether you could do something for them. You are expected to do all you can, offering them your hospitality and warmth of reception, thereby creating for them an atmosphere conducive to speaking out frankly. A visitor is never a disturbance and does not need to make an appointment for a visit. Gifts are not to be refused, for this is regarded as an insult. (21)

If a neighbour seeks to borrow from you, you give what is needed in confidence. You assist the neighbour who is in trouble without waiting to be invited.

The old are respected and cared for as they are the custodians of the societal customs and morality. The older people in the community are regarded as advanced in wisdom and self-discipline. The whole life of a person in the community is geared toward the service of God and humanity.

Sin is regarded as resulting from the urge for power. (22) Power is sought as a means of suppression and oppressfon of the weak. The lgbo understanding of human dignity recognizes that suppression and oppression (power) are desires lying at the centre of human personality which must be adequately checked if human dignity is to be upheld. Neglect of human dignity can result from sin, which can lead to catastrophe because the gods would readily react adversely - a situation that would do no one any good.

Taking care of the less fortunate ones in the community is a duty no one dares neglect. The orphan, the widow, the deformed etc. are provided for and never to be oppressed. A child is taught lessons against the oppressing of the weak early in life. This is done through songs and folk stories. The following is one such song which the writer was taught when he was about the age of five:

nwa ewen nne UnechU

nwa 'wen, nwa 'we nneh, Unneh!

eshi ma nri

Unneh!

akpaba nwa enwe nne

Unneh!!!

Eje ma oru

Unneh!!

Akpofu nwa nwe nne

Unneh!!!

Eshi sha nri

Unneh!!

Akpofu nwa enwe nne

Unneh!!!

Eri mma nri

Unneh!!!

Akpofu nwa enwe nne

Unneh!!

Nwa enwe nne Unneh!

Ahu shiela m anya Unneh!

Ahu shie anya, Unneh!!!

Ahu shie anya ka onwu

Unneh!!!

Translation

Oh! the orphan! Oh! the orphan!!

In preparing food,

The orphan is involved in the cooking.

In going to work (farm),

The orphan is involved in the work.

But when the cooking is completed,

The orphan is sent out of the house.

When the eating is carried out,

The orphan is sent away.

Oh! the orphan!

I, the orphan, have suffered indeed.

I, the orphan, have suffered indeed.

My suffering is worse than death.

The lesson that is taught in this song and the accompanying story shows that the orphan represents all the possible states of the weak, all the types of oppression which can come from the master, and the consequences for the oppressed. Oppression of the helpless leads to a most pitiable state.

In some parts of Africa, there existed the common practice afan anonymous person leaving an empty basket in the center of a village as an indication that some person or family was in difficulty. People responded to this gesture by putting into the basket whatever they could afford to give away, sometimes from their very need. No questions were asked. After a while, the anonymous person came to carry away the filled basket.(23)

21. Ibid, 133.

22. Ibid. The writer's great-grandfather who was leader of his people relinguished the throne because the colonial masters introduced oppression of the subjects.

23. A practice among the Shilluk and some tribes in Nigeria. See Ibid., 111.

CONCLUSION

The human person, special among all the creatures of the universe, has a high dignity in the mind of the African. Although hey may not be perfect, human beings still have a special place in God's heart. God does not discard them and has given them many special qualities which make them different and dignified. People worship God as a right and this makes them morally responsible, a value that other forms of creation lack. In the African community, therefore, all acknowledge this special nature of the human person, and consequently human dignity is extolled and granted each one. African society was what it was solely because the upholding of human dignity was uppermost in the African mind. Being an ever-worshipping being, the African sees the greatest indication of worship in care and respect for others. From childhood, each one is taught to belong and to respect, to produce and to share.

The lesson the modern world can learn from the African is that inhumanity breeds oppression, competition, war, hunger and, perhaps, the final destruction of the human race itself.

by John Tong, translated by Peter Barry

Why and How I Wrote The Theology of Creation

After returning to Hong Kong from studies in Rome in 1970, I sent a letter to one of my professors there telling him that the first seminary course I had to teach was ecclesiology. In his reply, he encouraged me to not only teach the students to understand the church, but also to love the church. Thus two years ago when the Board of Directors of Holy Spirit Seminary College established the "Committee for Publishing a Chinese Theological Textbook Series," and assigned me the task of writing The Theology of Creation, I recalled those words of my professor. In writing The Theology of Creation I set as my goal not only to help the readers understand our Creator, but also to love Him; not only to understand life, but to love life. In the past two decades a number of books have been translated or written in Chinese which treat the Catholic doctrine of creation. Among these are Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Michael Schmaus' Dogma Vol. II, Luis Gutheinz' Christian Anthropology, etc. These books are good teaching materials, but the authors are all Westerners. Their way of expressing themselves is more in accordance with a Western way of thinking; it does not suit the Chinese taste. Therefore I felt that it was necessary to rewrite the material. In writing the book I tried to stress the following three characteristics:

I. Elements of faith in culture, and cultural elements in faith.

Everyone in the world is called to believe in God. The ancient myths in Chinese culture's long 5,000 year history paved the way for the full revelation of God's creation of the world. The book makes use of Chinese myths, like Pan Gu ( ) dividing heaven and earth and Nuwa ( ) creating human beings through her own efforts, which vividly expressed the beautiful and close relationship between God, human beings and the world. It briefly points out how these myths were later transformed into the worldviews of both Confucianism and Taoism. The Natural Way of Taoism's Laozi is quite mysterious, and is difficult both to understand and to put into practice. In the waning years of the Eastern Han Dynasty Zhang Jiao's( ) underground revolutionary movement used the rallying cry of Laozi being reincarnated as an immortal. Then in 617, during the Sui Dynasty, when The Book of Changes of Laozi appeared, this even more ivinized Laozi, describing him as a saviour who has entered into our world. This reflects a messianic consciousness present in Chinese culture, and therefore we can detect elements of faith in that same culture.

This book, in accordance with the exegesis of Scripture scholars, points out that Genesis 1:1 - 2:2a is a psalm written in the 6th century B.C. by a class of priestly Israelite theologians. They had been taken captive to Babylon, and had returned to Israel upon their release from captivity. While in Babylon they observed the greatness of Persia and the flourishing intellectual life there. They suddenly experienced a clarity of vision and a breadth of mind. So they wrote this hymn of praise to God for believers to sing in the Temple which had as its theme the vastness of the heavens and the expansiveness of the universe. The narration of the Priestly Code gave completeness and order to the song. Looking at the story as a whole it is not difficult to discover that it contains elements of Babylonian myths. For instance, the word "abyss" in Genesis 1:1- 2 is related to "Tiamat" in Babylonian mythology. Moreover, when the Old Testament talks about God, it chooses points in common with Eastern mythology. It frequently describes God like an Eastern king (I Kings 22:19; Isaiah 6: 1ff) and angels as servants in the king's palace (Job 4:18). From these examples we can see that there are cultural elements in the Christian faith.

II. Love in the midst of reasoning; and reasoning in the midst of love

The book points out that the Creed which we usually recite was gradually formed over a period of 300 years, from the time of the Apostles to the 4th century when the church was allowed to publicly proclaim the faith. The first line of the Creed says: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible." Although just expressing an article of our faith, nevertheless this line of the creed is quite rich in meaning. The book points out that the first words are "I believe in," but that in the Chinese rendition there is no" in." If the Chinese word for "in" were added to the proclamation of our belief in God, it would more vividly show our love for and our reliance upon God, and the experience of searching for an interaction between God and human beings. Applied to "God the Father," it describes the relationship between God and human beings. If humans do not arrive at the Father, then they have no happiness and will always have the feeling of being homeless. This is a real example of love in the midst of reasoning.

While many people speak of God's merciful providence and God's will, they think of God as sitting on His heavenly throne casting His eyes over each chapter of history, which He has al-ready arranged, as it unfolds before Him. The book points out that when God mercifully cares for us and guides us in the way of goodness. He at the same time gives us free will and permits us to resist His grace. God does not have evil as an object, nor is evil a means for arriving at His object. However God has the wisdom and the power to produce good out of evil. In the end moral evil must serve the most lofty goal of the universe - the glory of God. God's mercy is manifest in the forgiveness of sins. The justice of God is shown in the alienation of the sinner from God and in the consequences the sinner suffers from this alienation. This is an example of reasoning in the midst of love.

III. The macrocosm within the microcosm, and microcosm within the macrocosm

The book especially points out the close relationship between the creation and the redemption because the incarnate Christ is the one and only centre of the universe and of human beings. Through this we come to realize that redemption is the climax of creation, and that the idea of creation manifests the universality of redemption. Therefore from salvation history Christian faith gives a complete explanation of creation by pointing to the rise of a new heaven and a new earth. Our explanation of creation is not only concerned about the events which took place at the "beginning" of the world. Rather it places greater emphasis on the new accomplishments that take place in "time." Creation is an ongoing action of the Lord. If human beings and the world are in Christ, a new creation has taken place (2 Cor. 5:17). This is the summit of the Christian's faith experience. This is the theological approach of "the macrocosm within the microcosm. " Although Vatican Council 1 (1870) led us to think that God created the first man, this book points out that such teaching of Vatican Council I can be understood on two different levels. That which is at the core and at the deepest level is the level of Sacred Scripture. This affirms that human beings, composed of spiritual and material elements, came from God and that God "created" them according to His own image and likeness. The problem of "the manner of creation" belongs to a more superficial level. This points to such questions as: did the bodies of our ancestral parentsreally evolve from animals, or were they directly created by God? Were our progenitors just one couple (monogenism) or were there many couples (polygenism)? Therefore although we must affirm the church's teaching about creation, it is not necessary to accept everything without analysis. This is the theological approach of the "microcosm within the macrocosm." In sumation, although the whole book is divided into four chapters, and chapters one and four take up most of the pages, I personally feel that chapter two is the heart of the book, and provides the most encouragement for our daily lives. I especially refer to the part in chapter two which speaks about human beings seeking God's providence. This has practical benefit for the busy people of Hong Kong who are worried about " 1997." Yes, when we are really worried and anxious, why not try placing our trust in God? Prayer helps us to verbalize our concerns. This does not mean that we just tell God what we need, but that we open ourselves to the inexhaustible source of God's grace (prayer is also beneficial to us from a psychological point of view because unclear questions seem impossible of solution). Moreover, prayer makes us feel that God has taken our troubles upon His shoulders, and that He is the true source of energy for our actions. Finally, I thank Cardinal Wu for writing the introduction and Bishop Domingos Lam of Macao for his continual support, for the many outstanding theological works which provided material for this book, for the pre-publication review work of Father Savio Hon and Sister Maria Goretti Lau and for the editorial assistance of Miss Ingrid Chan. The book was written for beginners in the study of Chinese theology. It was published in the spirit of paving the way for Chinese - Catholic inter culturation. All suggestions and criticisms will be deeply appreciated.

作者：高夏芳

这篇短文的题目取自圣大额我略的一句名言：「读圣经的最终目的是学习如何透过主的说话，去认识祂的心。」1这个意念，在教会十数世纪的传统中，一直根深蒂固。圣多玛斯也套用了耶稣所爱的门徒在最后晚餐中投首于师傅怀中的温馨图像，说出读经者也应一样，「透过基督的心去了解那显示基督之心的圣经。」2

语言及文字都不是绝对的，书本始终是一个沟通媒介，用以达意，用以表心，用以传神，用以启发思想情怀。圣经也不例外，它以有限的人言传达无限的主言；它的每一字，每一句，都可说是超载的，含有无穷内蕴，潜藏着一股奥妙莫测的动力及一个天人相遇的机缘。梵二《启示宪章》清楚地说：

在天之父藉着圣经慈爱地与自己的子女们相会，并同他们交谈。天主的话具有那么大的力量及德能，以致成为教会的支柱与力量，以及教会子女信德的活力，灵魂的食粮，精神生活清澈不竭的泉源。3

近日圣经学者愈来愈强调这点：圣经研究不可止于对经文作学术性的「解」与「释」，更应设法达到「融」与「通」，与发言的天主相感应；起共鸣(sympatheia)；务使读经者能「有基督的心思」(格前2:16)，「怀有基督耶稣所怀有的心情」(斐2:5)，及体验到那种「心有灵犀一点通」的默契及那种「互为内在」的高深境界，正如耶稣所说：「你们在我内，我在你们内。」(若14:20)

本文试从两个不同层面去反省这主题。第一层面是原则性的，欲指出「读主言，入主心」的神学基础。第二层面则是描绘性的，旨在从圣经本身，或在教会传统及教父作品中，列举一些对这主题有启发性的思想及意像。

1. 神学原则

1.1 圣言的「成人」与「成文」

圣经的写成与圣言的成人均出自同一的「降生」奥迹，在圣经内圣言取的不是血肉之躯，而是文字之躯，但这两个躯体同样受时、空、环境所限制，同样有局限、软弱、不完满。两种「降生」都是天主「空虚自己」(kenosis)的标记，依循他「屈尊就卑」的逻辑。

教宗必约十二在《圣神默感》通谕中清楚指出：「正如与父同性的圣言降生成人，与人完全一样，只是没有罪过(希4:15)；同样，天主之言藉人的言语表达出来，与人言完全一样，只是没有错误。」4这个意含再被梵二重新强调、发挥。5

「圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们人间……从来没有人见过天主，只有那在父怀里的独生者，身为天主的他，给我们详述了。」(若1:14, 18)若望福音序言中有关圣言成人所说，也可贴切地用在圣言成文的奥迹上。两者都表露出圣言之居于人间，并以人的方式把天主显示给人。这两个奥迹的平行性联系在教会的信经中也清晰可见。那位「曾藉先知们发言」的圣神，使圣言「由童贞玛利亚取了肉躯，而成为人。」同一的圣神推动着圣言的「成人」及「成文」，他在写经者及读经者身上孕育基督。

圣言的「成文」预备、陪伴及跟随他的「成人」。旧约指向基督，预备他的来临，新约为基督作证，传扬他的救恩。耶稣自己也说：「你们查考经典，因为你们认为其中有永生，正是这经典为我作证。」(若5:39)耶稣的死亡、复活，是「按照圣经所载」而实现的，他复活后，他的门徒们把他们「听见过、亲眼看见过、瞻仰过及亲手摸过生命之言」(若一1:1) 传给后世，并笔之于书，使读者能藉书而信，并藉信而得永生。(若20:30-31)

1.2 圣言与圣事

梵二刻意强调圣言与圣事的密切关系。

教会常常尊敬圣经，如同尊敬主的圣体一样，因为特别在礼仪中，教会不停地从天主圣言的筵席，及从基督圣体的筵席，取用生命之粮，而供给信友们。6

这信念并非始自梵二。教会自始就圣言与圣事，尤其与圣体圣事相比。「生命之言」及「生命之粮」都能使人与主融合，使天人之间起生命交流的作用。教父们惯常讲及耶稣不同形式的躯体：他的血肉之躯，藏于饼酒内的圣事性躯体，成言、成文、成书的文字躯体，由教会组成的奥体。跟随基督在世的门徒们可以「看见、听闻、触摸他」(若一1:1)，后来的基督徒，那些「不见而相信的」(若20:29)，可藉其他的「躯体」，「与耶稣基督相通」(若一1:3)。梵二《礼仪宪章》也谈及基督在礼仪中以不同方式临在，他常与教会同在，临在于圣事中，在他自己的言语内，及在祈祷的会众中。7

奥利振在一篇讲道词中曾这样发人深省地质问他的听众：

你们惯常来参与圣祭，也懂得小心地接领圣体，把祝圣了的面饼视如宝物，不让一小碎片跌下或失掉……但为什么对圣言却粗心大意？难道浪费圣言，不比对圣体的不小心值得受惩罚吗？8

一位中世纪的神学家卢柏(Rupert of Deutz)也作了一个美妙的比较：在纳匝肋会堂中耶稣打开书卷，接受天主的话语并使之在自己身上实现；在最后晚餐中，他拿起饼，感谢了，按照圣经，将自己献上，当作感恩的祭献。9

圣体及圣言是两种耶稣选择的方式，为能超越他的血肉之躯的局限，而长存于他的奥妙身体 ── 教会中。圣体是耶稣在离世前表达的明确意愿，藉圣事的方式留存于世：「你们要这样做，来纪念我。」(路22:19)圣言的广传，也是他临别时刻意嘱咐的：「你们去使万民成为门徒……教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切。」(玛28:19-20)

所以，圣言有其独特的圣事性，能藉有形的标记，施予无形的救恩。不论文字工具多么不相称，多么不达意，多么局限、卑陋，都能发挥救恩的德能。圣言是生活的、有效的，比各种双刃的剑还锐利(希4:12)；它能建设人，并赐与永生的产业(宗10:32)；它有如雨及雪，不能空空地回归天主处，必要实现主的旨意，完成主所委派它的使命(依55:11)。不过，正如圣事并非自动地，或魔术性地发挥效能，而是藉人的与主相遇，真诚接纳，特别在一个共表信仰的礼仪团体中。同样，施予救恩的圣言并非指圣经书卷本身。一本包装精美，但从没有人阅读的书，就如一块墓碑，指示一些再无生命的思想的葬身之处。读书就有如使书本复活、重生。圣经也不例外，它的效能不在于其被供奉，被带着游行或接受献香，而在于其被聆听、被阅读。「读主言，入主心」也等于使圣经重生，使死寂的文字充满生命力，使历史性的「经上记载」变成现时性的「应验」，正如耶稣在读经后说：「你们刚才听过的这段圣经，今天应验了。」(路4:21)

1.3 圣经之道，一以贯之

圣经是一本书，也是一个图书馆。七十二本书写成的时间相隔约千年，有不同的作者及成书过程，不同的体裁，不同背景，不同表达方式及文学水准，却形成一本书。Biblia这个字本身已微妙地同是单数及复数，意会着圣经书本的多元合一。它的一贯性基于它有着同一的启示者天主，显示同一的救恩计划，受同一的圣神默感，被同一的教会鉴别为正典。最重要的是，它有一个统一及唯一的中心 ── 基督。

耶稣自己也明认梅瑟所写的一切，都是指着祂而写的(若5:46)。诸凡法律，先知及圣咏指着祂所记载的话，都要应验(路24:44)。祂也是圣经的解释者，祂开启门徒们的明悟，把全部圣经论及祂的话都给他们解释(路24:27)，只有祂才能开启那用七个印密封的书卷(默5:1-10)。

耶稣既是宇宙的中心，「天上地下的万有，总归于祂」(弗1:10)，从创世纪到默示录，从救恩史的元始至它的满全，整本圣经都应以基督为中心。自教会初期至今，这都是一个牢不可破的信念。圣安博说：「其实，天主只说了一句话，即藉着自己的子发言。」10圣热罗尼莫也有这句常被引录的名言：「对圣经的无知就是对基督的无知。」11中世纪的神学家们喜欢称基督为「浓缩的天主之言」(Verbum abbreviatum)，因为天主要给世人显露的一切，都综合在基督身上。

基督贯通整本圣经，不但在圣经内容方面如是，在释经原则上也如是。因着祂，旧约才有更圆满的意义；因着祂，新约才有内容、基础；也因着祂，整本圣经才有它的完整性。所以，研读圣经不等于积聚松散的历史资料，或从零碎的经文片段中建立合理的思想系统，而是怀着以有限捕捉无穷，窥一角而睹全貌的心态，去领悟救恩的奥妙及「基督那不可测量的丰富」(弗3:8)。换句话说，读经就是与基督深深相遇，从救恩历史的个别因素去发掘基督，又在基督内观宇宙，观历史，认识天主，认识人。

1. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistularum V, 46.

2. "Per cor Christi intellegitur Sacra Scriptura quae manifestat cor Christi", Thomas Aquinas, in Ps. XXI, 11.

3. 《启示宪章》21。

4. Pius XXII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu", 1943 in Enchiridion Biblicum, n.559.

5. 《启示宪章》13。

6. 《启示宪章》21。这比较在梵二文宪中出现了不止一次。参阅《礼仪宪章》48,51,56;《司铎职务与生活法令》18;《教会传教工作法令》6, 15等。

7. 《礼仪宪章》7。

8. Origen, In Exodum homiliae, 13,3.

9. Rupert of Deutz, In Johannem, VI.

10. Ambrose, Explanatio psalmorum, 61, 63.

11. Jerome, Commentarius in Isaiam Prophetam, Prologus.

2. 启发性的象征

2.1 吃圣言，饮圣言

梵二启示宪章称圣经为「灵魂的食粮，精神生活清澈不竭的泉源」12，以「吃」及「喝」来象征吸纳圣言，让它滋养、渗透、被它同化，这类例子在圣经中屡见不鲜。申命纪8:3记载：

他磨难了你，使你感到饥饿，却以你的祖先所不认识的玛纳养育了你，叫你知道人生活不但靠食物，而且也靠上主口中所发的一切言语生活。

这句说话亦曾被耶稣引用(玛4:4)。亚毛斯谈及天主要使饥饿降临大地，「不是对食物的饥饿，也不是对水的饥渴，而是对听上主的话的饥渴」(亚8:11)。智慧文学盛赞上主之言的甘甜美味，滋养人生，赋与智慧(咏119:103；智16:26；德24:26-28；箴9:1-6)。由此，教父们发展了一条意义深长的寓意路线，视圣言为饮食。

旧约的「玛纳」是上主在旷野中赐给他子民的食物。「玛纳」这名称有「这是什么？」的意思。它的形状、性质、味道都很难形容。以色列人收敛它时，有的收得多有的收得少；多的没有剩余，少的也没有缺乏。有人贪心，不依照梅瑟的话，把一些留至翌日，但留下的都被虫子咬坏而腐烂(出16:12-21)。因为它是上主的平白恩赐，满足各人的需求，但却不让人任意处理。教父们爱以此套用在圣言上。奥利振说：

让我们去领受这天上来的玛纳，它在每人口中都有每人所期望的味道，就如耶稣说：『就照你所信的，给你成就吧』(玛8:13)。为你也一样，若你在教会内以信仰及虔敬接受圣言，圣言便会成为你所愿意的一切。13

圣言不但适应各人所需，也改造人，变化人，使人符合天主所愿。就如圣体变化领受者一样，圣言能同化「吃」它的人。这个意念在先知们的被召片段中清晰可见。天主命厄则克尔：「人子，你吞下这书卷……要吞到肚子里，要把我给你的这卷书充满你的五内」(则3:1-3)。耶肋米亚回忆与主初遇的甘饴，说：「你的话一来到，我就吞下去；你的话便成了我的喜悦，我心中的欢乐」(耶15:16)。为使圣言被吸纳后长久地发挥作用，渗透读者的生命、思想、行动，中世纪的神修导师劝谕读者要如牛反刍，使「吃下」的圣言能重浮现于思想、心灵，慢慢达到与圣言合而为一的境界。

「饮圣言」这图像也有其圣经根据。依撒尔亚先知呼吁说：「凡口渴的，请到水泉来！……你们若侧耳，走近我前来听，你们必将获得永生」(依55:1-3)。在新约中是耶稣赐这活水(若4:13; 7:37-38)。圣安博毫不犹疑地把这活水比作圣经：「接受基督的水吧！这水赞颂天主。……谁多读圣经并明瞭其中深意，使自己的灵魂润泽并能灌溉别人。」14

叙利亚教父圣艾弗伦的作品中有这美妙的一篇：

我们就如口渴者在水泉畅饮。主的圣言多姿多采。可从不同角度研读……天主在他的圣言中隐藏了一切宝库，每人都能发掘他懂得观赏的，谁有幸能满载而归，就不要以为圣言的宝藏就止于此，在他能发掘以外的就什么都没有。其实只是他能力有限而不是宝藏被他掘清。被圣言充满以后，也不可以为圣言会因施予了给他而变得较贫乏；相反，应因自己的不能享尽圣言的宝库而赞扬它的伟大。你应因圣言解除你的干渴而喜乐，但不应因为不能饮尽圣言而忧伤，因为口渴者只顾畅饮，不会因为不能饮干水泉而不快。让水泉满足你的干渴比你的干渴耗尽水泉更好。读圣言时应为你能懂得的而感谢天主，却不应因你不能全懂而埋怨。你能吸取到的是属于你的，余下的还是你的嗣业。你现在因你的软弱而无能吸纳的，将来会因你的恒心而赐给你。不要愚蠢地强求把本应一点一滴饮下的水一口喝清，也不要因无恒心而远离这个你每次只可作一瓢饮的水泉。15

正如水泉对它的享用者一视同仁，无分别地尽情施与，圣经也是一本开放给天下读者的书，也如清泉常流而永不干涸；圣经的富饫无穷无尽，饮用它的人不冀求占有它、耗尽它，而只愿被它渗透。

2.2 一本会走动、会成长的书

圣言能赐与生命，它本身也活力充沛。在厄则克尔先知书中，有关四个动物及四个轮子的异像给教父们提供了很贴切的借寓，来表达圣言的动力。

靠近那些活物的四面，在地上各有一个轮子。……活物行走时，轮子也在牠们旁边转动；活物由地面升起时，轮子也升起。神力催迫活物往那里去，牠们就往神力催迫的方向去；轮子也同时与牠们一起升起，因为活物的神力在轮子内。(则1:15-21)

圣大额我略直接将轮子和圣言相比。

除了圣经外，这些轮子还可指什么呢？轮子四面转动，圣经也能自如地适应聆听它的人。轮子平滑无角，转动时不受阻碍，圣经也不受错误的障碍而迟滞不前。轮子向各方面旋转，不怕困难，无论顺境或逆境，它都能平稳前进。圣言的教诲如轮子般时而上升，时而下降。属神者或完满者能洞识的，弱小者也能以字面的方式去理解。16

轮子显露圣言的无往而不利，在圣神的堆动下冲劲十足。保禄在他的书信中也很巧妙地表达这股圣言的动力。福音为他是「天主的德能」(罗1:16)，它要「顺利奔驰，且得到光荣」(得后3:1)。就算它的传报者身带锁链，「但是天主的道却决束缚不住」(弟后2:9)。是圣神推动圣言的「奔驰」，因为圣神在圣经内发动这股力量。其实圣经不单是被动式地受圣神默感，也是主动式地发散圣神的德能，圣神的气息。在五旬节当天，圣神使所有聆听圣言者都能以自己的方言来了解，现在圣言在世界奔驰，被译成不同文字，适应不同文化背景，仍是圣神推动一切，超越障碍，适应不同类型的对象，「为一切人成为一切」(格前9:22)，并使一切能总归于基督。

奔驰、走动与成长分不开。路加在宗徒大事录中常用「天主的言渐渐成长」(宗6:7；12:24；13:49；19:20)来表达初期教会的发展。随着门徒们的增多，随着传教的地域增广，圣言默默地成长，在圣言中显露出的救恩计划也默默地一步步实现。可以说，圣言无声无息地在自己之内成长。

当然，在教会界定正典后，圣经在其实际内容及经文的量方面不会再成长。七十二本圣经只可有新的译本、新版本、新编装，而不会有文字的增多。不过它却在整个教会历史中从未停息地增长。藉着见证它，活出它的人，圣言在其可信性及真实性不断增加；藉着圣经学者及神学家的研读，它能在深度方面长进；藉着礼仪及牧民，它增广其活力。奥利振把圣言比作种子：「在圣经内的每一句话都有如种子，被撒在适当的土地下定会萌芽、成长、扩展。」

圣大额我略有此妙句：「圣经随着它的被阅读而增长」。这是一种彼此互长：圣经在读经者内成长，读经者也在圣经内成长。圣额我略又说：

圣言与你一起成长，除非你能在圣言内进步，你不能从圣言得益。若读经者心中充满了对超性事物的爱，他就能更容易地发掘在圣言中潜藏着的奇妙力量。人的心灵指向何处，圣言也指向何处：你若以热爱去寻找超越事物，圣言就会与你一起成长，一起登峰造极。人攀登得愈高，圣言对他所说的也愈高超，因为每人都在经文中找到他的理想。你从事活跃的使徒工作？圣言与你共步。你已达到内心的隐定及平衡？圣言与你一起定下来。你赖主恩赐，追求默观生活？圣言与你一同飞翔。19

这番说话对耶稣在路8:18所表达的，作了很好的诠释：

所以，你们应当留心要怎样听；因为凡有的，还要给他；凡没有的，连他自以为有的，也要从他夺去。

圣言不但与个别读经者共同成长，更特别地与团体共长。圣额我略还说：「很多次我在独自读经时不能了解的东西，在我与兄弟们一起时却自然地明瞭清楚。」20 教会团体，尤其是在礼仪中的教会团体，是圣言的生长之地，也是它的成长之地，它发挥效能的地方。

2.3 一本内外都写着字的书卷

在厄则克尔先知书2:9及在默示录5:1都有一个有阅书卷的异像出现：一本内外都写有字的书。在初期教会的释经中，把这本书和圣经相提并论，实属理所当然。为教父们，这本内外有字的书更成为支持圣经多种阐释方法及经文多种意义的有力证据。奥利振清楚地说：

这本书指的是圣经的整体，写在外面的是按照经文的直接意义，即文字意义，写在里面的则是它的更深层的属神意义。21

圣额我略也说：

内部写的是藉寓意，外面写的是藉历史写成的；内部写的是超性事物的许诺，外面写的旨在维持可见事物的正确规序。22

无论教父们如何鉴定圣经的不同意义，有一点是无可否定的：圣经的「言有尽，意无穷。」

教宗若望保禄二世在一篇以诠释圣经为题的演说中指出：

天主『物各属其类』地创造了天地。正如创世纪屡次强调的，他不会将一切分别消除，反而利用它们(格前12:18, 24, 28)。虽然他以人言表达自己，但他不愿使他自己的每一句说话只有唯一的含义，唯一的解释；相反，他很有伸缩性地使文字的丰富意义发挥作用，同时也接受它们的局限。23

所以「没有一个单一的科学化研究决定以透彻瞭解圣经经文所蕴含丰富多姿的深意。」24 释经的工作，理论上是永无止境的。

正因如此，圣经不单是天人相遇之处，也缔造了各种不同的人在主内聆听主言，共融共识的空间及机缘。在圣言内圣者与罪人，博学者与无知识者，富有者及贫贱者；不同种族、性别、年代、文化、身份、社会阶层的人以基督为中心缔造世界大同，受同一的圣神启迪，接受同一的天主发出的同一言词。圣额我略有一个清纯可爱的比喻：「圣经就像一条河，低浅到小羊也可从那里渡过，却又深到连大象也可在其中游泳。」25这比喻让人联想起依撒意亚先知有关默西亚时代宇宙和谐的描写：「牛犊和幼狮一同饲养……狮子将与牛一样吃草」(依11:6-8)。圣经事实上是一个在基督内天下为公，世界大同的有形标记。读经者会感受到自己被卷入救恩历史的大洪流，由亚当直至今日；也会觉得自己置身在亚巴郎、梅瑟、达味、耶稣的宗徒等圣者群中，与自己的信仰始祖为伍，正如希伯来书所说：

我们既有如此众多如云的证人，围绕着我们，就该卸下各种累赘和纠缠人的罪过，以坚忍的心，跑那摆在我们面前的赛程，双目常注视着信仰的创始者和完成者耶稣。(希12:1-2)

2.4 一本如火的书

圣言是「生活的，有效的」(希4:12)，它如剑般切割，也如火般燃烧，能灼热人心，尤其是当耶稣亲自解释。厄玛乌两位门徒就有过这种体验，他们觉得自己的心灼热如火(路24:32)。

火能燃点、焚烧、扩散，将它触及的一切卷入，转化成和自己一样。圣言也有这特征，能让聆听者陶化于主，进入主的心，履行他的旨意，更肖似他。这股陶化的力量强得难以抗拒。耶肋米亚先知觉得要在圣言前投降，但又降服得心悦诚服：

上主，你引诱了我，我让我自己受了你的引诱；你确实比我强；你战胜了。……在我心中就像有火在焚烧，蕴藏在我的骨髓内，我竭力抑制，亦不可能。(耶20:7-9)

奥利振这样诠释这片段：

这火先从心中燃烧，然后直入骨髓，再蔓延至整个人，使人无法抵抗，这火是耶稣来世时开始燃点的，他说：『我来是为把火投在地上，我是多么切望它已经燃烧起来』(路12:49) ；后来，他继续藉他的言语把火投入人心。西满及克罗帕作证说：『当他和我们说话，给我们讲解圣经时，我们的心不是火热的吗？』(路24:32)。26

借用着耶肋米亚先知书中一句主的说话：「我的话岂不是像火？岂不是像击碎岩石的铁锤？」(耶23:29)，圣额我略把圣经比作火石，平时是冰冷的，与其他石头无异，但被磨刷后便能击出火花。27圣安博还将这圣言的火与梅瑟在荆棘丛中见到的火相比，火在焚烧，但荆棘却不被烧成灰烬。就如圣言的提升而不毁灭被它触及的人。这火也好像圣神降临时降在宗徒们头上的火舌，是圣神德能的标记。28

无论如何解释，火的象征所隐藏的信念十分清晰：圣经貌似平凡，与人言无异，与其他书本不分，但却力大无穷，能感化人，改变人，使人进入天主的心。中国古籍礼记有云：「礼之教化也微，使人弃恶徙善而不自知」。圣言也有这种潜移默化的力量，在教会初期，当门徒们在圣神降临后首次出来宣讲时，群众一听，就心中刺痛，遂问伯多禄和其他宗徒：「我们该作什么？」(宗2:38)

奥斯定曾有过被圣言震憾的经验。那个奇妙的声音：「拿，念！」催使他展开圣经诵读，这深切的与圣言相遇是他的皈依过程中的转泪点。29后来他激动地说：「主，我绝不犹豫地觉得我爱你，你的话刺透了我的心。」30皈依后他回忆起以前自己对圣经的看法，才觉得他那时实在离圣言很远，虽有研读，但没有被它的火焰燃起，没有被圣言刺透了心胸而藉此进入天主的心。

我觉得，圣经不是骄傲人所能瞭解的，也不是小孩子所能领会，粗看是平凡的，可是，越读越觉得高超，到处垂着神秘之幕。我不能内进，又不肯俯首而前。……我的观察未能深刻，我的傲气使我轻视它的简陋。当知念这本书的人愈是谦小，念起来愈透彻。可惜，我不甘谦小，把虚荣认为真正的伟大。31

对圣经研究有永垂不朽的贡献的奥利振，虽然他没有像奥斯定一样曲折的皈依路程，也和奥斯定有同样的想法：藉圣言进入主心并非知识或学问所能及，他说：「我们在读圣言时，若觉得艰涩难明，或其中某些地方隐晦灰暗，就表明我们对天主的皈依还不足够。」32

12. 《启示宪章》21。

13. Origen, In Exodum homiliae, 7, 8.

14. Ambrose, Explanatio psalmorum, 1, 33.

15. Ephraim, Commentarius in Diatessaron I, 18019.

16. Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem I, 5, 2.

17. Origen, In Exodum homiliae I, 1.

18. "Scriptura cum legente crescit", Gregory the Great, Moralia 20, 1.

19. Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem I, 7, 9.

20. Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem II, 2, 1.

21. Origen, Commentarius in Evangelium secundum Johannem V, 5-6.

22. Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem I, 9, 30.

23. 若望保禄二世，一九九三年四月廿三日纪念两封有关圣经的宗座通谕，在纪念仪式中致词，两封通谕是：良十三，《上智天主》通谕，1883；必约十二，《圣神默感》通谕，1943。

24. 宗座圣经委员会文宪，《教会内圣经的诠释》，1993见The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (Vatican: Libreria editrice vaticana 1993) 41.

25. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob, Praefatio, 4.

26. Origen, In Jeremiam prophetam homiliae 20, 8.

27. Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem 11, 10, 1

28. Ambrose, Explanatio psalmorum, 38, 15.

29. Augustine, Confessiones VIII, 12.

30. Augustine, Confessiones X, 6.

31. Ibid., III, 5.

32. Origen, In Exodum homiliae 12, 1.

3. 结语

在众多对圣经的描绘中，我们可以合理地加上这一个：圣经是天主在基督内向人类敞开心扉的地方。天主开心见诚地与人交谈，并在这本书中给一总人留下一个万古常新的与他相遇的契机。他的说话刺透人心，人亦以心体心，藉这些说话，赖圣神的引导，进入他的心。起初畏怯地、小心翼翼地唯恐出错；继而续步被吸引、被卷入、惊讶其中的深奥、美妙；最后尽情尽意地与主冥合、开怀地接纳、欣赏，并达到「从心所欲而不踰矩」的境界，在主心内「领悟他的爱是何等广、宽、高、深」(弗2:18)。

这种对圣经的看法同时指出圣经的文字并非绝对的，它只是天人沟通的媒介，进入主心的门户。所以咬文嚼字的分析或基要式的释经(fundamentalist interpretation)都很难发掘圣经的深奥内蕴。最重要的是透过圣经的文字进入并寓居于主心中，也让天主寓居于我们心中，如耶稣所说：「谁爱我，必遵守我的话，我父也必爱他，我们要到他那里去，并在他那里作我们的住所。」(若14:23) 对此保禄也作回应：你们「要让基督的话充分地居住在你们内」(哥3:16)。

其实，透过圣经与主契合，这种模式也只是暂时性的，圣经的文字，书本也不是永存的，只局限于我们现世的历史性存在，将有一天，进入主心不再用透过文字。默示录的作者描写他的异像时说：「我转过身来，要看看那同我说话的声音。」(默1:12)将有一天，我们也会转过身来「看」他。那时再不需要文或书。

奥斯定谈及这一天时曾写下一段美妙的说话，我们将之引录作为此文的结束：

主再来时，将是光明的一天，不需要点灯。我们再不用阅读先知，再不用打开宗徒的书信，也再不用找寻若望的见证，就连福音，我们也不再需要。圣经会全部被搁置，这些在此世的漫漫长夜照亮、引领我们的灯将全熄灭……熄了这些灯后我们能看到什么？靠什么来滋养我们的思想？什么能为我们的生命加添优美？那份人眼所未见、耳所未闻、人心所未体验的喜乐又会从那里来？……你将会达到水源，从这水源你在此世只曾沾过一点一滴。你将面对真光，直到现在这光只藉侧射或反射，一丝丝地投入过你那还充满灰暗的心。你始终会见到这光，能正视它，能接受它耀目的灿烂光芒。33

33. Augustine, In Johannis Evangelium tractatus 35, 9.

作者：周景勋

圣多玛斯论天主存在的外一章

体验天主的存在：「天主是爱」

1. 前言

在谈论「天主存在」的问题上，哲学家往往是从经验世界开始，藉着理性的论证和判准，以达到把握绝对实有是不可缺少的方法；或在思想的终极中找出一个超越者 ── 「天主」(神)，作为思想体系的保证；不过，这一切都只能在天主藉着受造物而被知的范围之内作探讨，以及从思想领域的有限所需要的支援来肯定无限者的存在。

但是，若从神学的观点上来说，则出发点是完全相反的，神学家不从「人的领域」出发，而是从天主本身出发，即从启示中说明天主将自己启示给人开始。在神学中最自然的方法是从天主在祂自己之内到受造物，故受造物 ── 人，以信仰的眼光体验天主的慈爱，和「天主与人」的关系所表达出的一份归依的情操；而不是哲学家从受造物到天主的论证和探讨。

若以多玛斯的看法，哲学与神学是可以互相衔接起来的，而且「自然神学是哲学中所要学习的最后部份」。(《驳异端》1,4)但在启示神学及论证哲学的区别中，也可以看出神学与哲学的不同。

然而，在人的终极目的中，人不断地追求一个超越的目的 ── 完全的幸福。究竟哲学的论证和知识能给人成就吗？在神学上是肯定的：只有经过天主才能获得；而哲学上的知识只是对天主存在的证明，再经过人的德性运用，所获得的不过是不完全的幸福。这就说明了哲学所表达的自然的目的是不完全的，它还指向一个超越者，这超越者就是神学上所说的创造者 ── 天主，祂创造了人和万物；天主的创造就是为了给人一个超越性的目的：完全的幸福。

可是，这对于哲学和神学之间的关系又有何影响呢？依照Copleston神父的解说：

依此，人有一个最后目的，超自然的福祉，可是这个目的的存在超过人类本性自己的力量，虽然人之受造是为了获得它，而且通过恩典，人被赋予能力去获得它，可是它却是不能靠自然理性来知道的，也因而它不能被哲学家所预先知道；对它的思考只能局限于神学家。另外一方面，人可以经由他自然力量的运作，去获得一个在此生中不完全而有限的自然的幸福，这个目的之存在和达成的方法，可以被哲学家发现，哲学家可以从受造物来证明天主存在，获得一些关于天主类比的知识，定义自然的德性以及获得它们的方法。因此，哲学家只有在人类理性可以发现的范围内来思考人类的目的，而这仍是不完美的、不尽全的。不过，哲学家和神学家两者都是就具体的人来思考人类，所不同的是，当哲学家能够看见，考虑如此的人类本性，却不能发现人里面所有的一切，也不能看见他的自然使命，他在发现人类的命运上，只能是一知半解，因为人类受造是为了一个超越他本性能力之上的一个目的。1

因此，多玛斯在哲学上，透过理性的探讨，从具体的对象中，找出对自然的认识，且用「类比」的原理，推论出超越实有的存在，再用「象征性」的言语将之描绘出来。其实，多玛斯在证明天主存在的「五路论证」思考过程上，已经用「类比」原理，从宇宙万物作为「果」的认定，推论出宇宙万物之上的「因」。2而事实上，在多玛斯的哲学中，「存有」概念本身就是一个「类比」的概念。3

这种哲学方式的推论天主存在固然与神学上的启示论不同，但目的都在说明：「天主是存在的」。而且在对象上也是一样：告诉「人」有关天主的存在，只是方法上不同。然而，在多玛斯的哲学论证与神学启示两者的中介，有着一种适用于两者的方法：「心灵的体验」。

1. Frederick Copleston著，庄雅棠译，「多玛斯阿奎那之二：哲学与神学」《西洋哲学史》（中世纪哲学：奥古斯丁到斯考特），第32章，黎明文化事业公司　1998　446-448。

2. 参阅Summa Contra Gentiles III, 54; I Sent. 3, 1, 3.

3. 参阅Met. 1003b, 5f

2. 心灵体验与天主存在

多玛斯在谈天主存在上,可分两方面来讨论。

2.1 哲学上的「五路论证」4

「五路论证」是用五种不同的角度，指出从对事物本质的观察，类比到现象背后的「存在本身」 ── 「天主」的存在的证明；而从「类比」原理中说明了所有具体的，个别的事物，都是「分享」(participate)了存在本身(ipsum esse)的余荫，而得以存在。5 就是从「分享」中，人可以藉着心灵的体验，接纳哲学上推论的肯定，即由具体的，客观的观察之后而获得的经验上体验，再经理智的抽象作用和推理，指出万物的美善所透视的美善本身 ── 天主。

「五路论证」的内容：

(a) 第一路乃从变动来证明，推出一位第一不动的动。

这个进路说明：在事物的变动中，必然是由「潜能」(potency)到「现实」(act)的过桯，这正是形上学的基本原理；圣多玛斯在这点上是要发展亚里斯多德(Aristotle)的「第一不动的原动者」学说，肯定了事物的变动是由潜能被引到现实予以完成。所以，我们可以从感觉证实事物的变动，在一物尚未开始变动时，只是潜在一个不动的状态中；当其开始变动时，它能否由自己推动自己作出完整的变动呢？如果可能的话，就说明了自己是推动者，又是被推动者，也可说自己是自动者；如此，岂不是有矛盾，或根本没有说出事物变动的内涵。

因此，圣多玛斯在《神学大全》中说：一物不可能同时是推动者又是被推动者，就是说它是自己推动自己的，故凡变动者必须是被它物所推动的，如果推动者本身亦是在变动中，它自身亦必须被另一物所推动，而后者亦被第三者或第四者所推动。在这种情况下，若无限地推论下去，是没有意义和找不出结果的。可见，在变动中，必然有一个理由，以肯定有一个不动的第一动者，他不需要其他事物所推动。于是第一路论证肯定了事物在变动时，皆有其存在的理由，即有不变动而能使一切变动者存在，因为变动的现象要求不变动的推动者。

(b) 第二路乃来自动力因的本性，而肯定一个首要的动力因的在。

这个进路是以因果律作为论证的基础，说明在事物的生成过程中，必然有其因果关系的动力因；即在现象界可感觉的事物中，事物不能是自己存在的原因，它应当有使它存在的原因，就是有「动力因」(又称「形成因」)促进其形成的条件。

诚如圣多玛斯说：

经验告诉我们，有可感觉的事物中，我们找到所谓的『成因』，但是，我们找不到，而且不可能找到一物是自身的成因，不然的话，此物必先是自身存在，这实在是不可能的。再者，成因不能无休止的推到无限，因为推到无限是没有意义；……因此，在动力因上，必定有一个首要的成因存在，这就是大家所说的『神』。6

从成因的推论中，我们可以看出事物的存在，本身只是「果」，故其能存在就一定有其能成的「因」，而不是从虚无而来的，这是生命存在的基本条件，例如一朵花、一棵树、一只牛等都有其开始生成之因，其能维持生存，就有其生命的条件，透过这些条件 ── 官能、肢体、血液、碳水化合物等条件，生命由这些条件的互动关系，使生命成长。就在一连串的互动关系里，我们能推论到一个首要动因的存在，祂是不被其他任何动因推动，即祂是一切事物的「成因」。

(c) 第三路乃取自可能性(偶有性)和必然性来说明有必然者的存在。

这个进路与第一路及第二路是有关连的，都是由「变化」提出论证，我们可从事物的生成和损坏的事实看出：凡事物的存在是有始有终，能生能灭的；例如一朵美丽的玫瑰花，能绚丽的展示美的生存，但又很快的走向枯萎。圣多玛斯说：「世界上的所有事物都是可有可无，即可生可灭的，此乃我们有目共睹的事。」7 于是，圣多玛斯肯定地指出：凡可有可无，可生可灭的事物皆一定有原因，而且这原因不能推论至无穷无尽，因这样的推论是没有意义的。所以，在这常理下，我们可了解到：世界上的事物在可有可无，可生可灭的状况下，指出事物是可以存在，亦可以不存在，这表示出这些事物不是自己存在的理由。可见，事物不是无始无终的，也不是由无到有的。所以，除了偶然的存在之物外，在万物存在之先，应有一必然存在之物存在，此物是无始无终的，而且应是永远常存的，和不是由别的事物使之存在的，他能依照自己的本性而存在，因为他的本质即是他的存在，乃自有的，万物的存在也是由他所造的，祂就是万有的「神」。

(d) 第四路乃取自我们在事物中发现的等级层次，以推论出最美善的实有。

这个进路讨论存在事物的等级层次问题。因为世界上的事物，在人的感觉上可以分为高等低等的不同层次，藉以显示事物的存在本身价值之高低，其价值高者其美善性亦高，也愈成全；反之，其价值低者其美善性亦低，成全性也愈不足。然而，世界上的事物，按照其本性而言，有那一样是至美善、至成全的呢？我们可以从日常经验及自然科学得到证实，在世界上的事物中是有不同等级分别的，譬如：植物比矿物成全，但与动物相比，则又不及；而人是万物之灵，较其他事物成全得多，但有其有限性的一面，故人不是至美善、至成全的。当然，在形上学上言，「存有」本身的特征是「一、真、善、美」的，然而事物因不是自有的，也就不能以「一、真、善、美」为自己生命的本质；也因事物自己的有限，故亦不能给予他物自己所没有的。由是可追问，为什么「存有」的特征为「一、真、善、美」呢？于是，我们可以在思维上假定有一「至一、至真、至善、至美」而拥有全部成全之物存在，而他本身就是至一、至真、至善、至美、至成全的，他是一切事物的生命根源，事物皆分享了他的本质而成为「一、真、善、美」的。因此圣多玛斯说：

事实告诉我们，善、真、尊贵或其他完美性的事物皆有多有少，故不同的事物在完美(完全)的程度上也有多有少，这是依照事物接近最高事物的程度不同，一如一物愈是接近最热者，也就愈热。因此，当有一至真、至善、至尊贵者存在，他是至高的『存有』。8

钱志纯教授作简单的综合说：

这宇宙中有一些善存在，如果这宇宙是绝对的话，则无法瞭解为什么没有全部的善，如果在别的地方没有一绝对的善存在，则亦无法解释为什么有些善存在。9

(e) 第五路乃取自世界的统辖(安排)，就是伸述宇宙万物有终极的目的因。

这个进路乃根据秩序观察而论的，说明了世界的统辖与安排，和事物之次序，是那么的井然有序，必然有一「有智慧者」(理性者)的存在，他能领导一切事物走向生命存在的终极目标 ── 这是存在的目的。这里所说的目的，是指事物存在的内在目的，并不是指事物的外在目的，因为外在的目的是不显明的；存在的内在目的乃指事物的内在活动方向，这活动在于生命的自我认识与自我肯定。认识自我的有限，肯定自己不是自有的；因此，事物在生存的自然活动下，都受到固定的自然律所统辖，使每个不同的事物都能按其本性而成长，且不致产生紊乱。

事物在固定的自然律统辖下，其存在与活动方式才能顺着一定的规律，以致恒久不变，这一切自然就不会出于偶然，因为偶然恰恰与规律相反……因为固定性是规律的特点；变化不定是偶然的特征。10

由此，我们可以从理性的推论中，作一个肯定性的询问：在世界里是否有一制定自然规律者存在？这位制定自然规律者是否也是一个创造万物者？他对万物的安排是否有目的的呢？圣多玛斯给我们清晰地肯定了：事实告诉我们，事物是为了一个目的而活动，且经常是以同一的方式活动，为实现更有益于事物本身的目的；达此自的，不是出于偶然，而是有意朝向此目的的。我们从事实经验看出，连无知之事也朝着此目的而活动，原因何在？圣多玛斯强调：除非由有意识、有智慧、有理性的存在的指引领导，就如箭是被射箭者所按制和引导一般。因此，世界上有一有智慧者的存在，他领导、统辖和安排自然界的事物朝向目的，使各物各得其所，以便符合他创造万物的原有目的。

2.2 神学上的启示

启示与信仰是分不开的，人必须从信仰的体验中无条件地接纳天主在我们生命中的计划。启示就是指出：天主介入人的历史中，与人相会，且在时间内拣选一些中介人，如圣祖、先知、宗徒等，天主圣神深入他们的心中的行动，即透过他们的判断，将天主的话传给人类；或是基督将神圣的道理授与宗徒，再由宗徒传承下来，人以信仰的体验接纳之。

在多玛斯的思想中，所肯定的启示乃出自天主的爱的救援行动，赋与人类为了得救不可缺少，以及有所帮助的光照。11

而多玛斯所肯定的启示乃直接启示，因为多玛斯认为：「先知得到来自天主直接的启示，因为他们的判断、肯定、指示、完全出自天主的思念，所以直接启示是由天主光照而产生在先知思念中的认知。」至于那些由宣讲而听来的天主的话，或宣讲者具有自天主而来的标记，如：奇迹、圣德……等，使听者相信了启示，得到内心的恩惠，多玛斯不称它为启示，而是天主的吸引、推动。12

其实启示的目的和内容是要使人接纳生命的救恩，这救恩是天主爱的表露，因而明认人的有限和天主的无限伟大，祂存在人的历史中，也存在人的心灵中。故此，人在信仰的体验中，肯定天主的救赎，以及教会的传承。

3. 体验天主的存在：「天主是爱」

生命的体验常是超越哲学与神学层面的限制，故「体验」往往有一个超越的投向，如当从有限生命中体验到自我的无能为力，便会从心灵显现出一个无限者，于是，人会努力将自己投向无限者。在哲学上的超越就是当人体验到生命中生生变易的力量时，便希望超越变易而投向不变易的永恒中；又在暂短的生命中追求一个永生的归宿，信仰的力量便从心灵中浮现，启示的神学便告诉人有关得救的希望，于是人从生命的软弱中体验到永生的保障是出于造物者的仁慈。就从人的生命体验中，圣多玛斯以「天主是爱」协调了神学与哲学的分歧，因为体验「爱」是神学与哲学的共同课题，藉着「爱」而表露了天主存在宇宙中，存在人的心灵中……。因此，多玛斯在神学大全卷一的20问的课题中，特别探讨「天主的爱」。

3.1 「爱」是否存在天主内？13

「天主是爱」(若壹4:16)

圣多玛斯的回答：「我们必须断言肯定：在天主内有『爱』。」14

因为，爱是意愿和每一欲望能力的第一个活动。此乃因为意愿和每一欲望能力的(行动)实现，都倾向善与恶的缘故；就其固有的对象而论，一如善是愿意和欲望的本质和特殊的对象；反之，恶只是次要和间接的对象，与善刚好是相反的。

「爱」随着意愿和欲望的实现而彰显出来，其与善有关连，且必定是自然而然地先于那些与恶有关的事物。因此，打个譬如说：喜乐是先于悲哀，爱先于恨，因为，由自己而存在的事物常常是先于那些透过别人而存在的事物。

再者，较为普遍的是自然地先于那些较不普遍的(事物)。所以，理智是首先与普遍真理发生直接关系，其次则是与特殊的或特定的真理发生关后。

其实，在一些特别的条件下，有些意愿和欲望的确定性行为是与善有关的，如：喜乐和愉快可看作是善的显现与获得；反之，愿望和希望则被认为是还未能获得「善」。然而，不论「爱」是否已经获得，都普遍地被认为是「善」的；所以，爱自然而然地是意愿和欲望的首要行为；因此，所有其他的欲望的活动都预设了「爱」作为他们的基础和根源。因为，除了如同善一样是被人所爱的之外，没有人会愿意或欢乐于其他事物的；或者，除了恶的对象之外，无任何事物会对爱的对象有所反对。同样地，这是很清楚的，任何不同的事物宁愿喜欢「爱」作为他们的第一原则，而不是悲哀。所以，不论是谁，只要是有意愿和欲望，就一定有爱；诚如，若首位者想要的，所有跟随者都同样想要(希望获得)。既然多玛斯在《神学大全》卷一的问题19第一课题(Q19, art 1)中说明了意愿是在天主内的，所以，我们必须将「爱」归因于天主。

3.2 天主是否爱所有的事物？15

「你爱一切所有，不恨你所造的。」(智11:25)

圣多玛斯的回答：「天主爱所有存在的事物。」16

因为所有存在的事物，在他们的存在之为存在本身的范围内，都是美善的，而且他们拥有任何的完整(完美)。既然多玛斯在《神学大全》卷一的问题19第4课题(Q19 art 4)已经说了：天主的意愿是所有事物的原因；所以，只要是从天主来的意愿，任何事物一定能够存在，或必有任何的美善。故，为每一样存在的事物，天主都愿意他们都是美善的；为此，爱任何事物就不过是希望每一事物都有美善，这就证明天主爱每一样存在的事物，而不像我们所爱的，因为我们的意愿不是事物美善的原因；我们的爱只是被事物所吸引，一如被所爱的对象所吸引一样。

由是，我们希望任何事物都有美善，不是(为)他们的美善的原因；相反地，他们的美善，不论是否为实际的或想像的，都能唤起我们的爱；因此，我们愿意(希望)事物能够保存他所有的美善，以及获得他以外未有的美善，到最后，鉴于天主的爱在我们内注入和创造美善，我们便可直接行动了。

3.3 天主是否公平地爱所有的事物？17

圣奥斯定说：天主爱所有祂所创造的事物。在受造物中，有理性的受造物所获得的爱比较多；又在有理性的受造物之中，特别那些是降生圣子的信徒所获得的爱较多，而以祂的降生圣子自己本身所得的爱最多，远超过所有受造物所获得的爱。

圣多玛斯的回答：

既然爱一事物就是希望他有美善，就在这两重层面的方法中，任何事物都可能被爱得多，或被爱的少(之情况出现)。18

其中的一个方式是在于意愿本身的部份之行动，其有可能是较为强烈的或不甚强烈。但，在这方式中，天主不会多爱一些事物甚于其他的事物，因为祂常以同一、单纯、和相似的意愿的行动爱所有的事物。

另一个方式则在于美善的部份，此乃一个人对心爱者所有的意愿；在这方式中，我们认为爱这一个多过爱其他的，虽然，我们的意愿并不是那么强烈，但为了他，我们希望他有较多的美善。就在这方式中，我们必须承认天主爱某些事物多过其他事物；但既然在事物内，天主的爱是美善的原因，一如在《神学大全》卷一问题20第2课题上面已经说过的：倘若天主不愿意给予这一个事物较另一个事物更多的美善，则没有一个事物会比另外的事物更好的了。

3.4 天主是否常爱好的事物较多呢？19

每一种事物都爱他的同类(所相似的)，一如在德训篇13章19节中所说的：「一切动物都爱自己的同类。」现在，较好的事物是愈(比较)相似天主，所以天主喜爱较好的事物。

圣多玛斯的回答：「根据上面所说的，一定是有所必要这样说：天主喜爱较好的事物。」20

因为这在《神学大全》卷一问题20第2, 3课题已经说明了，天主爱这个事物胜过另一个事物，不外是祂希望这个事物有更多的美善，因为在事物中，天主的意愿是美善的原因，也是为何有些事物较另一些事物更好的原因。因此，天主希望他们有更多的美善，故此，天主更喜爱较好的事物是理所当然的。

13. STh I Q2 art 1.

14. 同上。

15. STh I Q2 art 2.

16. 同上。

17. STh I Q2 art 3.

18. 同上。

19. STh I Q2 art 4.

20. 同上。

4. 结论

从「天主是爱」中，我们可以看出多玛斯用哲学的论证方法，按部就班地发出问题，回答问题，解释问题，清楚立论，在其内隐藏着神学的命题：天主愿意人人活得更好，希望人人得救的内涵。倘若，多玛斯没有信仰的体验：「天主是爱」的话，他所推论的结果将是纯理性的思维结果，但我们肯定说：多玛斯就个人本身的信仰，是有着很深的经验，即体验天主的慈爱之临在，所以才能简单清晰的回答所有的疑问，再作出自己的肯定。故在「天主是爱」中，多玛斯要表达出一个讯息：让我们投向美善和爱的根源的天主，在祂内体验祂的爱及救赎，肯定祂是临在人的心灵中，好让祂的大能改变我们有罪的生命 ── 圣化我们、净化我们，使我们更相似祂的真、善、美、圣。故多玛斯肯定完美的幸福在于看见天主，且除祂以外，没有其他善对于幸福而言是必然的。因为「终极的福祉存在于看见天主的本质，而天主的本质亦即是善的本质」。因此，人必须对天主有一清醒的渴求，渴求美善和完全的幸福 ── 即永远的生命；这渴求必须是在信仰体验中建基的。正如圣咏作者所体验到的，他也呼吁我们说：

「请你们体验、请你们观看：上主是何等的和蔼慈善！投奔祂的必获真福永欢。」(咏34:9)

作者：李刚

生存还是毁灭，这是一个值得考虑的问题。

-- 哈姆莱特　

　　　　　　　　　

生死乃人生之一大问题，古今中外的哲学家，宗教家莫不对此作出自己的解答。宗教满足了人类对死亡的关怀，即所谓终极关怀。美国学者哈维兰在《当代人类学》中说：

一切宗教都满足许多社会和心理需求。在这些需求中，有一些 ── 例如，正视死亡和解释死亡的需求 ── 是普遍性的。

可见一切宗教都将对人的终极关怀作出解释，当然这种解释是各说不一的。那么道教的解释怎样呢？换言之，道教对生死问题的看法如何？我们从以下三方面分析这个问题：

1. 道教对生死的看法是个动态的历史过程。

2. 道教生死观的特性。

3. 道教生死观的外王之用

道教生命伦理学与生命政治学。我们分别透视。

1. 道教对生死的看法是个动态的历史过程

道教对生死的看法并非一成不变，始终如一，而是个动态的历史过程，经历了三个阶段的历史嬗变，即汉魏两晋时期，南北朝隋唐五代时期和宋元明清时期。道教生命观在这三个历史阶段发展情况不同，前后有变化，我们分别考察。

1.1 汉魏两晋时期

这一时期，道教生命哲学(它对生命问题总的根本的看法)孕育产生，并形成了独具特色的思想体系，就是强调肉体长生不死，人能够变化形体而成为仙人。到魏晋时，虽然出现了主张精神不死的思想苗头，但不占主要地位，道教对生死的看法主要还是肉身成仙说。

道教中肉体不死，长生成仙说，最早可于《太平经》里发现。《太平经》把「道」诠解为肉体不死之道，认为「人失道命即绝，审知道意命可活」，可以永恒不朽。德国学者恩斯特．卡西尔的《人论》在谈到原始宗教和神话对死亡的态度时指出：

如果有什么东西需要证明的话，那么并不是不朽的事实，而是死亡的事实。而神话和原始宗教是绝不承认这些证明的。它们断然否认死亡的真实可能性。在某种意义上，整个神话可以被解释为对死亡现象的坚定而作顽强的否定。由于对生命的不中断的统一性和连续性的信念，神话必须清除这种现象。原始宗教或许是我们在人类文化中可以看到的最坚定最有力的对生命的肯定。

《太平经》的生命哲学即继承了原始宗教和神话对死亡坚决否定的精神。

汉代道教生死观尚不成系统，证明也不充分，思想发育未成熟。到魏晋时，葛洪对道教神仙不死的生命观作了系统证明，所着《抱朴子内篇》是道教中第一部把神仙不死的生命观建筑在理论体系上的着作。葛洪之后，再也没有人像他那样对人能成仙不死作如此系统的证明。魏晋时还值得注意的是《西升经》。如果说《抱朴子内篇》站在传统立场上讲道教生死观，那么《西升经》中，道教肉体不死成仙的传统观念已经被佛教式的否定形体所取代。《西升经》劝人「不贪身形」，「绝身灭有」。但此种生死观不是汉魏道教的主流，而是一股清新的小溪流。汉魏道教生死观受佛教的辐射程度还不太强烈，但已显出某些认同倾向，出现了分化的苗头，这一苗头到南北朝隋唐即成分化发展之势。

1.2 南北朝隋唐五代时期

这一时期，道教受到佛教的强烈辐射，生命哲学呈分化发展的势头，除了传统的神仙不死说，又有将佛教无生无死说与道教长生不死说混杂在一起的混合说，还有将道教传统的神仙长生说彻底拋弃，完全接受佛教不生不灭的生命观。对这三种情况，我们可以称之为传统派，半传统派和反传统派。很显然，发生此种分化的直接原因，就在于佛教生命观的影响以及道教中部份人士对它的接受。

1.2.1 传统派的生命观

传统派基本上坚持汉代以来道教传统的神仙不死说，受佛教生命观影响不多。此可以陶弘景《养性延命录》为代表。他主张靠人的主观努力去延长生命乃至长生不死，人发扬主体能动性，再加上恰当运作养生方法，就可超越生命的自然之限，迈向长生。司马承祯《坐忘论》说：「人怀道，形体得之永固。」他也是发挥传统观点。对道教传统的神仙不死说作了重要发挥的是唐代吴筠的《玄纲论》、《神仙可学论》，《形神可固论》等。另外，道教茅山宗对传统生命哲学的坚守，这个特色也体现在杜光庭身上，杜氏肯定肉身能成仙。

1.2.2 半传统派的生命观

所谓半传统派是指道教中一部分人在吸收佛教生命观的同时，又保留了道教自身传统。他们将道儒释三教的东西混合在一起，缺乏理论上的创造性。由于他们凑合道儒释三家而消化不良，便出现许多理论上的自相矛盾，一会儿讲道教的神仙长生，一会儿说佛教的无生无灭，身为空幻，不太协调。

1.2.3 反传统派的生命观

所谓反传统派，是指在生死观上彻底否定道教传统的肉体成仙说，肯定生必有死，肉体为臭皮囊，虚假不实，祗有精神才能不朽。反传统派对道教传统的生命哲学进行价值重估，完全接受佛教不生不灭的生命观，在这个问题上，可以说是道教内部的全盆佛化派。在道教传统中，身与道是统一的，得道是肉身的得道，拋掉肉体，得道成为一句空话。而在反传统派这里，肉体与道是分离的，祗有忘掉肉体，才能去拥抱道。

1.3 宋元明清时期

这一时期道教生死观由肉体不死为主一变而为追求精神不死，这尤其表现在道教内丹学中。内丹家讲完「圣胎圆成」、「阳神出壳」。所谓圣胎非肉体凡胎，而是内丹家讲的「纯阳长生之体」，精气神在丹田中凝成不坏的阳神。这样的圣胎实际上指人的精神生命，内丹家主张的是精神超越飞升，精神不死。正因为内丹家注重精神生命的永存，故对肉体便持一种贬斥的态度，以肉身为假相，认为人无身则无患，劝人在生命体验中把「骨肉换尽」，精神不朽。

2. 道教生死观的个性特征

道教对生死的看法有自我个性特征，这些特性如下：

2.1 重生性

道教对于「生」持一种虔敬尊重的态度，高度礼赞生命之神圣，以生死为人生第一要事。《太平经》说：生是根本。《老子想尔注》将「生」提到「道」的高度来体认。《悟真外篇．石桥歌》高唱：「人生大事惟生死」这些都充分展示了道教「贵生」、「重生」的思想。此乃道家重生观的延续。老子主张厚生。庄子说天下至重，但不能以天下危害自我生命。杨朱派道家更是「轻物重生」、「全生保真，不以物累形」。道教即继承了道家这种人生价值观。

重视生命走向极点是神仙长生。道教神仙长生思想的核心范畴是不死之「道」，这种不死之道隋唐以前主要表现为肉体不死，宋元以后则主要体现为精神永存。人的生命与此种不死之道合而为一即可「神仙长生」。有学者将宗教哲学分为本体论型和宇宙论型。所谓本体论是说接近上帝的弥合分裂方式，当人发现上帝时也就发现了自己，他发现了某种与他自身等同的东西，尽管这种东西无限地超越于他。(参阅保罗．蒂利希《文化神学》)这是讲基督教。对道教来说，所谓本体论就是接近神仙之道，人发现了神仙之道就发现了自身，尽管神仙之道无限地超越于他，但道教信徒总是想接近他，与他合为一体。从这种本体追求出发，道教生命观追求无限存在，即道教所谓「无极之道」。这种无极之道是「此在」的。一般说来，世界上绝大多数宗教强调对彼岸天国的追求，道教与众不同，重视此岸生命获得永恒，人生的意义和价值是「此在」世界。道教重视现实生命，追求现世快乐。

2.2 主体性

从神仙长生出发，道教建立起我命在我、神仙可学的生命主体论，主张在生命化育历程中奋进不息，在生死海中无畏拼搏，勇猛精进，直至到达长生不死的理想境界。

《书经「卷三」商书》西伯戡黎说：「我生不有命在天」。这是儒家命定论的生命观。道教与此正相反，主张「我命在我，不属天地」。(《西升经．我命章》)这是将人的主体能动性高度发扬的生命观，对生命持一种积极乐观的态度，坚信人定胜天。既然我的生命在于我自己主体能动性的发挥，那么神仙可学便是顺理成章的了。神仙可学论也是对命定论的否定。有一种意见认为，神仙不死乃命中注定，一般人通过学习也是得不到的。这显然是种宿命论。道教的主流观点认为神仙可以学致，人通过自己主观的刻苦努力，可入于神仙长生之林。唐代道教学者吴筠撰《神仙可学论》专门阐述这一观点。神仙长生可以学致的命题，让生命永存的幻想纵横驰骋，试图凭自我学道来化解生死，反映了人类对生命存在的执着追求，人类面对死亡所作的不懈抗争。

道教生命观的主体性展示了道教对个体自我自由选择的重视，使人成为自我生命的主宰者。成仙了道毕竟是个体的事，生命永恒存在只能具体地体现于个人身上。故道教与儒家的群体主义不同，道教在承认群体，不违背群体利益的前提下，又使个体生命的价值得以实现。可以说，在道教生命观的主体性中含有较强的个人主义精神。个人主义意识的觉悟激发了道教对生命永恒存在的主体能动追求。

2.3 实证性(或曰可操作性)

道教生命观并非纯粹思辨性的产物，其应用性很强，要求在实际运用中加以验证。道教生命观是行动哲学，鼓励人们在行动中去体验生命的真谛，去证实生命的不朽，去实现对生命的理想追求。道教生命观重视现世利益，不追求来生，但求今生今世生命得到了证，而对现世幸福的追求，对死亡的否定，是不能通过空谈来实现的，必须亲身践行。

在道教对神仙长生顽强地追求中，也产生了一些相当有效的实证手段或者说操作方法。这些方法虽未能做到使人不死，却可以让人延年益寿，强身健体，提高生命存在的质量，延长生命存在的时间。这些具有可操作性的方法正是道教生命观实证性的具体展示。这些操作方法有：

2.3.1 外丹服食术

说到外丹服食，人们自然就会联想起《西游记》里孙悟空偷吃太上老君仙丹和王母娘娘蟠桃的情景，按《西游记》所说，服食这些金丹和仙桃就会长生不死。其实，这正是道教传统的外丹服食术的形像写照。

道教外丹术在探索生命之道的过程中也出现失误，没有证实神仙不死的可靠性，但也产生了不少有益的副产品，推动了中国古代化学、矿物学、冶炼学、医药学等多门学科的发展，举世闻名的中国古代四大发明之一的火药，便与道教外丹术相关。

2.3.2 气功内丹术

现代生物学认为，生命活动的独特原则是节奏性，所有生命都是有节奏的。道教早已注意到人的生命的节奏性，并探讨怎样从「气」的角度把握这种节奏，使生命协调健康地发展。于是有道教气功与内丹术的产生形成。

道教修炼气功内丹术的目的在于羽化登仙，长生不死，尽管这一目的并未达到，但对于探索人的生命问题不无有益的启示，对于激发人的生命活力与潜能，延年益寿，不无功效，对于现代人体生命科学来说，也是一笔宝贵的文化遗产。

2.3.3 医药养生术

世上很多宗教都重视医药学，借助于行医传教布道，道教也不例外，并由此而形成了道教医学。何谓道教医学？按日本学者吉元昭治在其所着《道教与不老长寿医学》一书中的解释：

所谓道教医学，可以说就是以道教为侧面的中国医学。这些被看作是道教经典中的主要内容。不过现在，就像道教淹灭在民间信仰(民俗宗教)之中那样，道教医学可以在民间医疗，或民间信仰中的信仰疗法中见到其踪迹。

他认为，道教追求长生不老和现实利益，谋求布教的扩大，而其手段正是道教医学。

道教医药养生术集中体现在孙思邈身上。孙思邈强调养生可以延寿，认为人的寿夭不是固定不变的，关键在于摄养。为此他提倡积极的预防医学。孙思邈的养生学成就高于他的前辈葛洪、陶弘景之处，就在于他自觉地将养生学与预防医学结合起来。他又特别强调养性的重要，养性是养善性，其要义是治未病之病。他要人不仅注意生理卫生，而且注意心理卫生。孙思邈首创老年医学体系，他的《千金要方》集中阐述了其老年学思想。

从以上三大类操作方法可以发现，道教生命观不是空谈义理，而是主张实证，通过自我的身体力行去体验生命真昧所在。

2.4 超越性

所谓超越，对道教来说，就是超越生死，超越人与自然的对立，实现人的生命与自然的和谐统一，与自然同在。

生命是甚么？有位西方学者比夏提出：「生命乃是抗拒死亡的各种功能的总和」。他认为生命的本质就是抵制死亡，维持机体生命。道教对不死的追求，在这里可以找到生物学意义上的解释。人类最深切最永恒的焦虑莫过于死亡焦虑，道教对神仙不死的信仰和追求，在某种程度上使人类这种深切焦虑得到缓释和慰藉，减少了对死亡的恐惧，甚至让人感到有可能超越死亡苦海，到达永生的神仙世界。

道教神仙不死信仰并非凭空产生的，并非像儒家所批评那样，完全是胡说八道，而有其生理和心理的依据。道教生命观对生死的超越反映了人类的本能要求。

3. 道教生命观的外王之用 ── 道教生命伦理学与生命政治学

道教生命观是内圣外王结合的产物，它不仅仅以内圣之道解决人的生死问题，而且发而为外王之用，以其独有的政治伦常观济世救人，这就是道教生命伦理学和生命政治学。

3.1 生命伦理学

这是道教生命观与儒家伦常结合的产物。儒家提出以伦理为本位的价值取向，如果生命与道义发生冲突，二者不可得兼时，便应把道德理想放在首位，为担负道德义务而牺牲个人的生存欲望，舍生取义。与此不同，道教以生命为本位作价值取向，具有强烈的个体生命意识，在对个体生命永存的追求中实现自我，获得圆满具足的人生。道教回避生与义的对立，强调二者的和谐统一，并将伦常道德作为美满生命的先决条件。

这套生命伦理学主张：「长生之本，惟善为基」。(《墉城集仙录》卷1)认为：「修善得福，为恶得罪」。(《正一法文天师教戒科经》)，告诉人们生命存在的质量和长度都与善恶行为有关。道教生命伦理学除了设立外在神的审判，还讲求内在心性的自我审判，是他律与自律结合的伦理学。

道教生命伦理学是道德理想主义的重建，认为末世道德沦丧，世风不古，应该重构道德理想，回到上古淳朴真实的理想社会。在道教的道德理想中不乏传统美德，比如：先人后己，舍己为人，损己利物，助人为乐，尊老爱幼，宽容和柔等。从宗教社会学的立场看，道教生命伦理学在中国古代社会里扮演了一个重要配角(主角自然是儒家伦常)，起到了强化社会秩序的功能，是对儒家道德的补充。

3.2 生命政治学

所谓生命政治学的主要内涵就是道教的「身国同治论」，即从治身的原理出发向外推到政治之道，以治身之道来治理天下，天下太平。此即道教经常所讲的「理身理国之道」。

儒道二家的政治学都以「身」为出发点，不同的是儒家所修之身为道德之身，树立起道德理想人格，由这样的君子出而齐家、治国、平天下；道家则是保养自然生命，所操作的方法是自然无为，并以此修身之道理国。道教完全继承了道家这套生命政治学，并将其加以发展和系统化，使其修炼生命以达长生的一系列原理扩充于政治运作；并劝告政治家们首先应该长久地保有其生命，才能久坐天下，治天下不应扰民，而应清静无为，无欲自化。

作者：杨兴本

1. 生命之起源

伊斯兰教认为，宇宙万物均由造物主创造而来，故一切生命，亦源于真主的赐予。

至于人类之来源，根据伊斯兰教之经典 ── 古兰经的纪载，真主说：「我确已用泥的精华创造人。」(古兰经第廿三章十二节)又说：

「昔时，你的主对众天使说：『我将在大地设置一代理者。』」(古兰经第二章三十节)

当时，你的主对众天使说：『我将从泥土造化一个人，我把他造成，并把我的灵吹入他的体内的时候，你们就向他倒身叩头。』于是众天使全体一同叩头……。(古兰经第三十八章七十一节)

从以上数段古兰经文来看，伊斯兰认为人类的起源，是由真主所创造，真主所养育，而非从猿猴「进化」而来的。真主用泥土的精华做人，表示人在物质方面与地上万物一样，由地上的物质造成。另一方面，真主把「灵」吹入人体，因此，人还具备源于真主所赐予的灵魂。由于人之生存端赖灵魂的存在，否则人便变成一具尸体，故灵魂是人的核心，而肉身只是为完成生命过程之工具。另一方面，真主命令众天使向人俯身叩头，象征人的品位比天使高，因为天使是绝对服从真主的命令，而人却被赋予自由意志，人若经自已的意志决定服从真主，便显得更为可贵。此外，真主创造了宇宙大地，一切飞禽走兽，花草树木，最后创造人来成为大地的代理者。所以人在地上的任务，在被创造时就确定了。真主创造宇宙万物，包括人，并不是儿嬉的，而是充满智慧的，有其计划的。

2. 生命的价值和意义

人的灵魂，被赐予认知和控制事物的能力。人并拥有慈爱、忍耐、真诚等美善的德性。人需要肉体和物质世界才能使这些美善的德性得以发展及完善。人的大部份知识均由五官的感觉开始，而慈爱、真诚等德性是相对于其他人或物而表现的，如忍耐是体现于身体的痛楚时、遭遇损失或苦难时的表现。

真主所有的创造都有目的、有意义的(古兰经第廿一章十六节)，而真主创造人的目的，是要人崇拜和事奉祂(古兰经第五十一章五十六节)。当然，若能尽力发展真主所赐予的潜能，已是崇拜及事奉真主的一种很好的途径。

真主创造人于大地上，并以衪赐予人的各种潜能来考验他(古兰经第六章一六六节)。由于人的核心是灵魂，所以受考验的是人的灵魂。人的灵魂如何使用及照顾自己的身体，将会是考验的一部份。

为使人的灵魂能得以发展，真主给予人能支配地上万物的权力，故此，人将来会因他如何使用地上的资源而向真主交待。这就是称人为真主在大地上的「代理者」的原因了。

3. 面对生命困境之态度

生命既有崇高的价值和意义，在面对困境时，又如何自处呢？我们要明白，生命的旅程绝不平淡，从婴孩、儿童、少年、青年、成人到老，每一阶段都有其特质，婴孩和儿童都受到父母呵护，可说是毫无烦恼的，到入学时，便可能面对学习的困境，在青少年到成人，在社会的接触面广，要面对各种人际关或事业上的问题，而生命之所以有价值，是在乎我们在每一阶段，当遇到风浪时，如何运用真主赐予我们的智慧及启示，去解决困难，从中体会真主赐与我们的恩典。所以伊斯兰教人把困难视作挑战，生命是充满考验的。

古兰经第廿九章二至三节：「世人以为，他们口称归信，就可无事不受考验吗？我确已考验了在他们以前的众人，真主确知道谁是真实的，谁是说谎话的人。」真主是透过对人的试验，鉴定谁是真诚者，谁是虚伪者，谁是奋斗者和坚忍者。在复生日以此考核我们。所以人生是充满考验的，我们面对考验时应该欣然地接受这些挑战。

3.1 在学习方面

穆罕默德圣人曾说：「求学是穆民男女的天识。」又说：「求学问从摇篮到坟墓。」另一则圣训则记载着：「求学问，就算远在中国那里，也应当去。」由此可见，伊斯兰十分重视教育和学习。在古兰经中，时刻都鼓励我们求学问。但真主造人，使每个人的资质、才能、长处都各有不同，若非如此，我们的社会便变成千篇一律了。所以有些人专长于某学科，或对某些知识有超卓的成就，其他人可能望尘莫及。但我们只要曾经努力，不必太过介怀学业上或事业上的得失，有些人不肯面对现实，面临挑战，便加以逃避，这是不对的。

古兰经第二章二八六节：「真主只依各人的能力而加以责成。」圣人穆罕默德曾说：「我们的宗教是使人容易的。」

每当我们遇到困难时，就应以上述古兰经及圣训提醒自己。此外，真主深知我们的心情，衪在古兰经第九十四章重复的提醒我们，遇到困难时，一定有出路的。仁慈的真主还教人怎样在困境时祈求衪，以安定心情：

我们的主啊！你莫令我们担负重担，就像令我们以前的人担负重担似的。我们的主啊！你莫教我们担负无力担负的；你宽恕我们吧！你保护我们吧！你慈悯我们吧！

3.2 在人际关系方面

伊斯兰对人际关系的基本观念：

一. 人本身不能离群独处。

二. 作为真主的「代理者」，在执行「任务」时，需要群策群力。

三. 伊斯兰各种崇拜方式，强调集体一致的重要性。

由于认识真主创造人，使到每一个人的性格和专长各有不同，在人与人之间相处时，要互相容忍，接纳对方，当大家出现不协调时，古兰经提醒我们：「你们要一同拉着真主的绳索，不得分裂。」一切以真主的教导为原则(第三章一零三节)，才不会迷失我们的方向。

家庭是社会组成的单位，伊斯兰极其重视家庭的融洽，在家庭中，成员要互相尊重，父母要教导子女，子女要服从父母，多沟通、关怀、爱护。各成员有时对事物的看法未必一致，但要互相尊重。

父母对子女的责任，由自己选择终身伴侣时已开始，圣人教导我们要为子女寻求有信仰的父母，「天堂在母亲脚下」(圣训)可见母亲对子女的重要性。

至于子女对父母的责任方面，古兰经第十七章二十三至二十四节：

你的主业已命令你们不要事奉他以外的，并当对父母行孝。若是他们的一个或两个在你面前达到高龄，你不可对他们有轻慢之声，你不要呵叱他们，当对他们说温和之语。当以敬爱对他们表示谦卑；你说：『我的主啊！求你对他们行慈，一如他们抚育我幼小时代似的。』

故孝顺父母是天命，除此之外，我们应该对父母爱护，对他们说话温柔，尊重他们，不对他们发怒。对于不违犯真主教导的事，尽量服从他们的意思。不断的向主祈求饶恕父母的过错，就算父母去世后，仍向主为他们祈求。

另一方面，伊斯兰教人尊师重道，师长是传道、授业、解惑者，帮助一个学生成长，从一无所知，到长大成人，师长的诱导是十分重要的。古兰经常提及有学问的人与无知的人不相等，有学问的人显然更加敬畏真主，接近真主。

至于同学、朋友是平辈，平辈之间，以互相尊重为原则，一个好的朋友对我们帮助甚大，他可以影响我们走上正道。但不要追随那种只依从私欲及作事过当者。

有人问穆圣：「什么人能成为我们最佳的朋友？」

圣人回答：「当你纪念真主时，他会襄助你；当你忘记真主时，他会提醒你。」

再问：「什么人是损友呢？」

圣人答：「当你纪念真主时，他不帮助你；当你忘记真主时，他不提醒你。」

再问：「谁是最佳的人呢？」圣人答：「当你看见他时，你会纪念真主。」

这是伊斯兰提醒我们的交友之道。

此外，一些破坏朋友间感情之事，古兰经也提示我们，古兰经第四十九章十至十二节：

惟有众穆民是弟兄，你们要在自己弟兄之间和解……众归信的人哪，莫容一伙男子笑话一伙男子。……不要在同类中寻找错处，也不要互相呼以浑号……众人归信的人哪，你们不要有很多猜疑，因为一部份猜疑是罪恶。你们不要侦查，你们不要背后谈论别人，你们有人爱吃死弟兄的肉吗？

在古兰经中更以背谈朋友的是非比喻为吃死弟兄的肉，因为被你背谈的人是不能替自己辩护，有如一位已死去的人，而背谈也破坏朋友间友谊最大的力量。

总结而言，若果我们知道自己在社会上所扮演的角色，不论是子女，学生或朋友，最重要是知道自己的责任，尽一己的努力，完成应有的责任。在家庭、学校或朋友之间出现困境时，即使心情不佳，应以积极和取的态度来面对，不能逃避现实，或进一死了之。因为死亡并不能解决问题，自寻死路是懦弱的行为，而伊斯兰教对死亡有其特别的看法，将详细讨论。

4. 对死亡之看法

很多人以为死亡是生命的终结，但伊斯兰认为死亡只是从今生过渡到后世的一个阶段。这是伊斯兰一个很重要的基本信仰。相信在世界末日，每个人都会复生，并在真主的跟前接受审判，审判的标准是每人在今世时所作的善恶为准；如果某人是信仰正确，兼且行善，这人就会得到天园的赏赐；相反，如果某人不信真主，恶绩昭彰，所得的将会是火狱的刑罚。

古兰经第三十四章三至五节：

不信道的人们说：『审判日不会降临我们。』你说：『不然，我凭主发誓，它必降临你们。我的主是全知幽玄的。天地间微尘重的事物，不能远离衪；比那更小，更大的，都一一清楚记载在纪录中。』以便祂在复活时报酬信道而行善的人们。这等人将获赦宥和优厚的给养。竭力反对我(真主)的迹象以为已经成功的人，将受痛苦的刑罚。

所以，信仰后世，是符合人类的道德良知。如果死后是什么也没有，那么又为何要信仰真主，并在今生努力行善功呢？相反，如果作恶的人所作的罪行，祸及无辜，而得不到报应，又怎样显示上主的公义呢？

在复生日的审判中，真主完全显示了祂的仁慈与公义。那些归信，并作善事，为了真主而忍受痛苦的人，他们将受到真主无限仁慈之天园的赏赐，但那些否定真主的人，将会处于悲惨的状况之中。古兰经告诉我们，现世的生活，是为永恒的后世作好准备，现世是短暂的，后世是永恒的，目标应在后世，今世应努力耕耘，留待后世享成果。所以伊斯兰教人不必害怕死亡，不必恐惧它，只视它为必然来临的东西，古兰经第三章一四五节：「真主不允准，没有人能死 ── 期限是有规定的。」第三章一八五节：「每个有生命的，都是应尝一死的。在复生日把你们的报酬完全赐给你们。」

此外，由于伊斯兰教导人们信仰后世，所以遇到任何艰难困苦，都确信可以克服，因为生命是真主赐与的，我们要好好利用短暂的生命，做好事奉真主的工作，执行其「代理者」的职务，所以伊斯兰的人生观是积极的，而对任何困难，都应忍耐，绝不应自我结束生命，因为生命本来就是主付托我们的。

作者：吕焕卿

1. 前言

1.1 写作目的

这份小论文是我在硕士班第一学年小组研习会的小小成果。这次小组的同学都不约而同地选择了同一位神学家，他就是着名神学家杜勒斯神父(DULLES, Avery SJ)，我们希望从他的着作中窥探其造神学的方法。我拣选了他在七零年代所撰写的作品：《教会模式》Models of The Church (New York: Doubleday 1974)。

1.2 作者着书动机

于七零年代早期，杜勒斯神父，基于当时美国教会及社会对教会学的争议，因此，他着书作出回应、讨论：教会模式。

教会透过梵二大公会议，经历了自我发现、自我检讨的过程；梵二文件有四个宪章，九个法令，三项宣言，肯定及指出了教会在现代世界的使命及工作。《教会模式》一书中，杜勒斯神父以辩证方法(Dialectic)去分析教会学问题。

教宗保禄六世称教会为奥迹(mysterion希腊文)，因为教会的根源是来自天主圣三的生活团体，超越人的理智和自然，是自有的(Connaturality)。(依据圣多玛斯的论调)教会内涵神秘的一面是基于方法论的运用问题。

杜神父从众多的模式里，选出五个，同时，他也认为可以用该五个模式去发展其他神学论题。

1.3 模式

模式或称模型，亦即图像(image)，图像的功能是象征性的(symbolic)，象征描绘人生命的各种层面，随着人生活的变迁，象征意义也有所改变。比方：现代人很难去明白游牧民族的生活方式及文化。神学家之所以用图像去表达，是因为要使人明瞭信德的奥义。模式是经过反省及批判的图像，模式是为要帮助人更深入了解教会学的新意义。

2.五个教会模式

杜神父提出的五个教会模式是：

作为制度组织的教会 (Church as Institution)

作为奥秘之共融的教会 (Church as Mystical Communion)

作为圣事的教会 (Church as Sacrament)

作为福音传信者的教会 (Church as Herald)

作为仆人的教会 (Church as Servant)

在《教会模式》一书中的神学方法，杜神父用三点来介绍：第一、模式的意义，第二、模式的应用，第三、模式的批判。

2.1 作为制度组织的教会

任何一个机构或团体的形成，不能没有组织架构，教会也不能例外，因为教会是一个多元化的宗教团体，是极需要有制度架构组织。

此类教会模式有钦定信理、制定礼仪、处理圣事的职务之权能及作用。

教会是基督创立的，具有圣统制的组织，梵一已开始修订。这类教会模式不是民主的，所有成员须听从罗马教廷的管理，信友要服命训导权威，参与团体礼仪，及领受圣事，目的是给人接受永恒的救恩。我们可从梵一的文件中看出因由。比方：「基督的教会不是一个平等的团体。」（参阅Pius X, "in vehementer nos" 8-9。）

模式评价

积极方面：此类模式的教会很容易表明立场，能够激发信友的传教心火，以永恒的得救鼓励人为皈依，建立制度规则以安定内部运作。

消极方面：因为强调教会之外无救恩，所以难与其他宗教交谈。此类救会模式太重法制及形式，流于凯旋主义。1550-1950年代的教会走向完全的制度组织，不重圣经，由于太着重训导权威，使神学不能更创新地及有效地发展。

2.2 作为奥秘之共融的教会

现代的社会学中，有两类型的社会关系：(a) 社会(Gesellschaft德文)，(b) 团体(Gemeinschaft德文)。

有些基督教神学家，如潘能(Emil Brunner)在他的着作：《教会的误解》中，对教会(Ecclesia)在圣经中的解释有争议，认为它不是一个有法制的组织，而是一种兄弟共融的团体，人际共融关系。另外，潘霍华更发展教会就是人与人交融的团体(interpersonal community)，在他的神学着作《诸圣的共融》(The communion of the Saints)里有提及此。

天主教方面的观点：黎玛查(A. Rademacher)，这位天主教的神学家坚持教会是在团体的内层(Gemeinschaft)，而外面则是社会(Gesellschaft)。法国道明会会士，龚格神父(Y. Congar)，则认为教会是人的团契，基督的奥体是内外合一的，灵性生命发挥外在的共融，以信、望、爱的生活为共融的因素。这类教会模式有二种图像：(1) 基督的奥体，(2) 天主之子民。

圣保禄的书信有此说法：(罗12；格前12)重点是指明信友的团结、合一等关系。教父如圣奥思定，指出地上教会和天上诸圣是共融合一的。而多玛斯则认定基督是救赎团体的元首，他的教会观是神恩性的，不是法制组织。恩宠成为天人合一之因素，圣神在内运作。

一九四三年，教宗庇护十二世在他的通谕中指明：教会是基督的奥体。梵二大公会议肯定此说法，不过另外用了一项特选的名词：「天主之子民」。词源自旧约，在梵二《教会宪章》的第二章内说明新的天主子民是属于天主的团体，是一个生命、爱及真理的团体。

模式评价

积极方面：此类模式的教会比较走向民主化。成员随圣神指引，自由发挥，创造精神，颇重视圣经基础，走向大公主义，所以能与其他宗教交流。

消极方面：由于此模式不重律法制度，以致走入一种不健康的神化主义，失去教会的身份及面貌，只重人内在的共融，失去向外传教的心态。又因太内在化，不能走向人群，不能满足人心的渴求，因而产生所谓「私下教会」及基基团。

2.3 作为圣事的教会

由于「制度组织的教会」及「奥秘共融的教会」，二者不能彼此接纳。不少二十世纪的神学家将二者作一综合，因而产生另一种模式 ── 「圣事」，肯定象征的主体及客体是合一的。

梵二讨论教会是「圣事」，受哲学及人学的影响，认定人生命内有一系列的象征。圣事是恩宠的标记，又是圆满的、临现人间的、有效的事件。

此类教会模式的基督学是由下而上的(Christology from below)。基督是天主的基元圣事。人是完全地、自由地接纳救恩，教会成了救恩圣事的恩宠标记。此学说的神学家代表有：龙柏(H. de Lubac)、卡拉纳(K. Rahner)、施理毕查(Schillebeeckx)、龚格(Congar)。教会需要诚于中、形于外，才可走向完美，内外一致，在世界旅途中作见证。

模式评价

积极方面：此模式能配合「制度组织」及「奥秘共融」两个模式的优点，使之相辅相成地建设教会，发挥教会传统已有的神学论题，也忠于教会训导。

消极方面：太强调内外合一，不免有自我中心表现。比方，施理毕查(Schillebeeckx)的《基督 ── 与天主相遇之圣事》一书，其内容描述的圣事性太窄，没有服务之意，因此不容易作宣讲之用。

2.4 作为福音传信者的教会

这类模式将重点放在「圣言」上，圣事只是次要。教会是一群人由于聆听天主之言而聚集的。信众是聆听者，教会之任务是宣讲(kerygmatic)。努力使救恩讯息传到人间。这模式的教会着重巴斯卦奥迹的讯息，重视十字架。

此模式的代表者：卡巴特(K. Barth)(基督教)，汉斯龚()(天主教)。汉斯龚认为教会是一件事实的现况，是天国之临现，需要宣讲，教会是为圣言服务。(参阅：, The Church 79-104)

模式评价

积极方面：这类教会模式很重视圣言，有深厚的圣经基础。能够表现教会的身份及使命，对圣经神学有推动作用。带领人进入反省生活。

消极方面：这类教会模式因太重宣讲，忽略了降生的幅度。讲解圣经成了教会当局的专利。

2.5 作为仆人的教会

以上四种模式，皆强调教会站于活动的主体，而世界只是客体。

一九六二年，教宗若望廿三世，关注了时代的变迁，及人的问题，要求教会改变态度，以谦下学习的态度与世界交谈融汇，认为教会只是人类大家庭之一份子，是众人的仆役。此学说的方法是「与俗世交谈」(secular-dialogic)。

「俗世」(secular) ── 教会是入世的，要关注时代的征兆。

「交谈」(dialogic) ── 传统与现代共融，相辅相成。

「仆人」一词也出现在梵二文件中。如：「受苦仆人」、「为他人而生」。

讲论「仆人教会」学说代表者：(1) 法籍神父德日进 (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin)，(2) 基督教的潘霍华。

德日进主张万事以基督为中心。

潘霍华则呼召建立一个仆人的教会，仆人的教会是以自由服务世界，站在人群中，与他们对抗世界的罪恶。

仆人之谓仆人是因为他们的赤贫，常居住在别人的住所内，以信仰事奉他人。

模式评价

积极方面：此模式是以牺牲及服务为宗旨。颇为吸引人和被人接受，教会无私地参与世界，及改善社会。第三世界的解放神学根源于此。

消极方面：这个模式使教会失去自己的身份及神圣立场。很少的圣经基础，只以依42:6-7受苦仆人为根基。对仆人真义有偏差；其实，圣经中的仆人往往是为天主、为圣言、为圣事、及为信仰团体服务。又由于太着重彼此服务，传教意识不大，造成团体成员数目没有增长，不能多元化，对世界意识形态影响不大，与其他社区服务团体分别不大。

3. 杜勒斯对教会模式的评价

杜氏用耶稣会会士、着名神学家朗列根(B. Lonergan)的辩证法(Dialectic)去分析各模式的强及弱重点。

杜神父更提出七个标准去衡量：

(1) 圣经的基础

(2) 根据教会传承

(3) 是否能激发信友传教的身份及使命

(4) 持守教会传统的德行 (Virtues)

(5) 尊重现代人的宗教经验

(6) 协助神学反省产生效果

(7) 使教会容易与其他宗教交谈

如果，依据以上七个标准去衡量，我们会发现很难找一个十全十美的教会模式。

4. 结语

既然没有任何一个模式是十全十美，每个模式都有其内涵及原则，各有长短，所以应可互补不足。

教会是奥迹，我相信很难只以一个图像去表达，有神学家认为可用一个模式作主干，其他则作为补充。

梵二大公会议指出教会是在旅途中(Pilgrimage)，是要求人在旅途中不断学习、皈依、创新，以达致完满的境界。

读罢《教会模式》一书后，自己会发觉谈论教会学，或其他神学课题并不是容易之事，杜神父的五个模式，七项标准会帮助我们去研究教会内诸问题。

今日，要研究教会学，实在是高深的事，在语言和明瞭上都有困难，一个名词已有数个表达和了解，不同的做神学方法，也有不同的教会学出现。例如：

(1) 未来性的末世论 (Futurist or Thoroughgoing Eschatology)

(2) 已实现的末世论 (Realized Eschatology)

(3) 存在主义的末世论 (Existentialist Eschatology)

(4) 救恩史的末世论 (Salvation-History Eschatology)

(5) 预先的末世论 (Proleptic Eschatology)

教会学的争议，有深远的历史。《教会模式》一书中，杜神父比较走向普世大公的教会，他强调教会的合一，及与其他宗教交谈，我也赞同他这观念。

教会的合一是一个盼望、一份恩赐、一个使命。基督徒有一天的不合一，基督的天国就永远不能实现。

让我们虚心去接受在教会内的各种神恩职份，去建树教会，以生命去描述末来天国的图像。

作者：张慧晶

1. 引言

没有宗教信仰的人会有兴趣知道宗教信徒接受信仰的原因。宗教信徒如何认识他们的神？他们是怎样与神交往？这交往是否有利于人，能带来人的得救？这些问题若能得到令人满意的解答，便可用来说服人接受宗教信仰。

天主教是一个启示的宗教。信徒是透过启示认识天主。信徒要了解和接受启示教义先要对教义背后的思想系统有所认识。本文介绍杜勒斯(Avery Dulles)之《启示的模式》Models of Revelation (New York: Orbis 1992) xxi, 344。

此书在1983年第一次出版。作者杜氏就是以信徒的身份和基本神学家的立场探讨启示的教义。

杜氏研究启示的方法是基于对启示两种不同的认识：一是内藏地认识启示；其次是对启示有清楚明确的知识。事实上，所有依附启示宗教的信徒都能内藏地认识启示，但他们就未必能把启示的概念和理论清楚地表达出来。现在，作者尝试把对启示模糊，不明显的意识转化为可以清楚表达的知识。

作者先阐释二十世纪五个类型的启示神学，然后提出他的象征通传论(symbolic communication)并指出这理论如何改善现有的启示神学。本书评主要讨论作者的神学方法，尤其是他如何运用象征的理论重建启示的教义。本书评跟随本书(Models of Revelation)的结构，以西方思想对启示的批评开始，以这些批评的回应结束，前后呼应。

2. 西方思想对启示的批评

过去约二千年，基督教会的宗教基础是天主的启示。到十九世纪末期，基督教会已装备好一套有系统的启示教义。启示被视为是信徒宗教生活、教会使命和神学的基础。不过，在二十世纪，虽然启示仍有很多基督徒接受，但启示的概念就广泛地受到质疑。

2.1 哲学的不可知论

人的认知是不能超越世界的经验。天主，即使存在，也是人不可知的。启示只是神话，是人不能凭字面意义理解的。

2.2 语言学的分析

启示是表达超自然的语言，似是而非的。只有那些可用经验来证明的语言才有意思。因此，启示的教义未必真是有内容的，也未必真正能使人认识天主。

2.3 现代知识学

知识是受制受人本身认的先决条件。启示作为知识，亦有其限制，不能完全符合天主的主动知识。

2.4 经验心理学

今日以理性之批判解答了很多神视或神魂超拔的现象，因而推翻了先知启示和预言家预言的天真看法。

2.5 圣经批判学

很多圣经学家怀疑部份圣经记载来自天主的可能性。他们认为先知和宗徒在运用当时的语言记载时，加上了自己的思想。为此，有些人认为圣经的奇迹和先知的说话更被认为是不可靠。

2.6 教义的历史

在历史中，一些原来被人接受的教义却在后来被人推翻。另有一些教义则由不确定而变为确定。这都使人怀疑这些教义是否真是天主的启示。如果启示的与非启示的之分界线是常在变动，启示本身看来也是可疑问的。

2.7 比较宗教学

在今日宗教多元的社会中，基督宗教再不可因拥有独立的启示而声称自己才是真正的宗教。若能承认其他宗教寻求真理的价值，不同宗教之间的分歧便能得到唯一解除。这个让步也有助于宗教与宗教之间及宗教与世界之间的交谈。

2.8 批判性社会学

很多时，教会官方的训导未必真是来自天主的启示。这些教导可能隐藏着建立势力和压制疑问的自我主义。

面对这些批评旳挑战，作者尝试提出一套可解答以上问题的启示教义。在建立这套神学的过程时，作者先对二十世纪的启示神学作详细的分析。由于本书评旨在研究作者的神学方法，故对现今的启示神学只作简单的介绍。
3. 二十世纪启示神学的五个类型

3.1 作为教义的启示 (Revelation as Doctrine)

启示是天主透过人的言语和文字所通传的知识，就是人受默感而写成的圣经和来自宗徒传承的教会训导。由于圣经和教会训导是来自天主，它们有不能错的权威并要求信仰的回应。但信徒的信仰又是来自圣神所赋予的恩宠。

3.2 作为历史的启示 (Revelation as History)

启示是天主透过历史的伟大事件，尤其是藉基督的死亡和复活，通传自己的大能、美善和忠信。这些历史事件标志着天主是历史的主和终向，要求信徒对天主的救赎有不可动摇的信任和希望。

3.3 作为人内在经验的启示 (Revelation as Inner Experience)

启示是指人没有透过任何媒介而直接地在心灵里经验到天主，得到与天主共融的永远生命。由于天主是以爱的临在与人沟通，人也当以虔敬的爱回应并以心灵的祈祷时刻向天主开放。

3.4 作为圣言之辩证临在的启示 (Revelation as Dialectical Presence)

启示就是天主的圣言。这圣言的内容是天主自己，是藉着耶稣基督和见证基督的圣经及信徒宣讲显示出来。天主的圣言能使人与天主和好并要人以信仰回应。这信仰就是人屈服于圣言的权能，体会天主临在于圣言中，并承认自己是罪人，却得到天主慈悲的救赎。

3.5 作为新意识内的启示 (Revelation as New Awareness)

天主临在于人类事件中，这临在使人类事件多添一个超越层面。这超越性使世事起了变化并刺激人重新组织其经验，使人对世界有新的意识，新的了解。这就是天主的启示。人是被召更圆满地参与天主的创造和引导整个世界的和好。因此，理想的新世界，新的意识本身是启示，也是人的回应。

以上五个神学类型是由个别的神学思想综合而成。所以，作者是由特殊、具体和实在的神学思想建立普遍、抽象和理想的神学类型。基于其理念的性质，这些神学类型可称为神学模式。即是说，五个神学模式有如简单的人造模型，能代表无数的复制品，无数个别的神学思想。不过，由于神学模式是模型，只能粗略地代表个别的神学思想。

神学模式是理论的模式，能帮助在实际的情况中了解复杂的神学思想，也有助于对神学资料和信徒信仰的了解。

4. 辩证法能调和五个启示模式的分歧

五个模式各有优点和缺点，彼此间也存有互不协调的差异。要整合各模式的优点，便先要消除模式之间的冲突。要达到这一点，作者认为唯一的方法是把五个模式革新。然而，革新的思想是循着对传统思想的深入了解而产生的。因此，神学家不但要比较五个神学模式，更要深入探讨这些模式的思想。

朗列根(B. Lonergan)的辩证法是把过往和现在分裂的思想辨认出来。然后，按批判性的标准，在相反的理论中引出正面和负面的价值。最后，提出隐含过往理论的新建议。拉内(K. Rahner)也认为新的理论虽有超越性，但并不干预或排除过往的理论，而且将之包含、保存，使以往的优点得到更完满的实现。

5. 象征的理论是五个启示模式的辩证工具

5.1 作为象征的启示

五个启示的神学模式都明显地或隐约地使用象征。象征是外在的标记。天主透过象征启示自己。象征能在人的意识中引发无数的意念、记忆和感受，能表达比象征符号表面意义更深更广的思想。要领悟象征的意义，人不能只作旁观者，而要把自己投入标记所象征的境界之中。

5.1.1 圣经里的象征

圣经历史的重要时刻都具有象征性的意义。出谷的奇迹、西乃的神显、先知的神视、耶稣的诞生、受洗、显容、死亡和复活以及教会历史的开端都是富有意义的象征。透过这些象征，天主的救赎藉语言显露出来。此外，先知、耶稣和宗徒所教导的重要主题也是象征性的。例如，耶稣所教导的天国就是一个包含着无限意义的象征。这象征能引起听者适当的回应并进入耶稣所宣讲的天国事实中。

5.1.2 启示的四个象征性质

a) 要了解象征的意义，人必须投入象征的领域。同样地，要了解启示的意义，人必须投身于信仰团体中，分享基督爱的生活。

b) 象征有改变人的性质。启示也能改变人的观点，把人的思想领域扩展到新的精神界中。信徒自觉是天主家庭的成员，是被召实践悔改、宽恕和渡新的生活。

c) 象征有力地影响人的行为，使人作出献身的行动。启示也能使信徒臣服并忠心地把整个自我交托于天主。

d) 象征把人带出自我有限的境界，使人对实况有新的体会。启示使人对奥秘有深入的洞悉，是人的理智所不能彻底了解的。

5.2 作为象征的启示视为辩证工具

天主与人的交往具有象征性的意义，可视为一个辩证工具为五个启示模式引出优点和改正缺点。这样，象征的理论能使五个模式互相配合并能建立一套与这些模式有关连的神学。

5.2.1 教义的模式

教义所启示的只是有限的句子内容，无可避免地会忽略文字所不能表达的意义。这些被忽略的却是象征所能够表达的。不过，象征的内容有时会是模糊不清，甚至会曲解事实，因而需要教义的内容予以界定。

5.2.2 历史的模式

历史的模式带来一些对历史的疑问，如奇迹如何是天主的大能行动？若要回答类似的问题，应把有关天主的历史事件看作是一种象征。象征的理论自然地帮助传递这些事件的真正讯息。不过，象征所表达的内容不应只是来自人的构想。揭露天主爱的历史事件本身有助于对象征意义的了解。

5.2.3 经验的模式

在经验的模式，天主是临在于人的心灵中。但事实上，天主不会完全直接地临在。拉内指出人要透过内在的象征才可感觉天主的寓居。而且，从整体角度看，象征是包括人内在恩宠的经验。相反地，经验模式把人的精神集中于内在的经验，因而能使人对象征的意义更了解。

5.2.4 辩证的模式

这模式里启示的言实在可被当作一个象征，而且是最神圣的象征，能在人的意识中表达超越言表面所能表达的启示内容，并创造属于这言的新生命。可见辩证模式实是使用了象征的性质。但是，独立的象征本身是粗糙和不完善的，为启示的宗教是不足够的。为了表达天人合一的救赎，所象征不能脱离天主的圣言。象征的理论也要借助辨证模式的理论。

5.2.5 新意识的模式

象征理论的重点是人主动地在精神上投入象征的领域，因此，不同社会文化的人都可以透过象征得到启示。这样，象征的理论能带来宗教的交谈，世界的和好，是新世界，新意识模式的推动力。然而，启示的象征意义不是完全无限制的。象征是要在特定的范围里被解释和应用。新的环境，新的意识会带来新的象征。因此，象征的理论也需要新意识的推动。

5.3 以象征的理论重建五个启示模式

5.3.1 作为教义的启示

启示的认知价值是表达于教条中。但最初的启示并不是教条。教条是由启示的象征内容分支出来，是从某一个角度对启示作有限的了解。虽然如此，教条所表达的启示真理仍是永久而普遍的。

5.3.2 作为历史的启示

启示的主要象征是在历史中发生。但象征性事件的启示是要在圣经和教会传统的架构中被了解。因为除了依靠历史批判的方法，人还需要天主的恩宠去了解启示的意义。

5.3.3 作为人内在经验的启示

启示不是难以表达的天人相遇的经验。对基督徒象征，传统和教义的默想能引发人内在恩宠的经验，使人能以内在客体的语言在心灵里经验天人的共融。

5.3.4 作为圣言临在的启示

默感的圣经和信徒的宣讲都拥有天主的力量。这些天主的言是语言事件，有象征的性质，能表达比字面意义更深的启示。因此，圣经和教会的宣讲不是不可理解的或让人盲目相信的，而是要人在时间和历史中去了解。

5.3.5 作为新意识内的启示

由于启示要求人在信仰中以行动作回应，启示会带来新的创造，新的存在，新的意识。但启示的意义不是突然转变的，而是逐渐地循着一个时代转变到另一个时代。只有那些愿意作回应的人才能领会启示完整的意义。

6. 象征的理论在启示神学中的应用

6.1 基督

基督可被称为天主卓越的象征。天主在基督身上给予一个普遍和确定的启示。基督作为象征超越一切的象征。因为基督同时是象征和所象征的天主。天主真正地在基督身上临在和活动。

6.2 宗教

非基督宗教虽然未必是启示的宗教，但仍有可能拥有启示性的象征。神学家可藉宗教交谈把这些象征尽量配合基督的象征。这种交谈可有助于对基督宗教和其他宗教的了解。

6.3 圣经

圣经是记载启示的主要文件。圣经所记载的事件和圣经本身的文体都是象征性的。这见解能保卫并帮助人了解传统有关圣经默感和圣经权威的教导。

6.4 教会

教会是象征基督临在的标记。纵使人会犯罪，在基督内一次而永久的启示仍会不断藉着圣神光照在教会内的信徒。

6.5 末世

圣经中的象征，特别是基督的象征有永久作为标准的价值。不过，有关这些象征的解释以及新象征的构形仍会不断在历史中，出现直到末期的圆满。但那些得到天主祝福的人是有可能在复活的基督身上直观天主。

6.6 启示的接受

如同象征的语言，启示在某程度上是可被认知的。人对启示的接受不是完全靠理性的，但也不是只凭信仰。虽然推论的方法或经验不能证明启示的真实性，象征语言所使用的标准能使人看出启示的有效性。例如：从人的表情和姿态可看出这个人的意向和特点。这个猜想一方面来自人理性的推想，另一方面是基于人相信自己的看法。如此，人是处于理性和信仰之间接受启示。

7. 回应西方思想对启示的标准

西方的批判思想过于着重以怀疑的态度验证信仰。后批判期的现代思想家反对这种方法，恢复采用内藏的意识和天人象征性的交往来研究启示。

7.1 哲学的不可知论

人对超感官事物无可避免的渴求证明人的认知不只限于物质现象的世界。人的思想可透过象征的意识对超感官的世界开放。

7.2 语言学的分析

不一定是直接可验证的语言才有意思。宗教的象征能帮助人的思想整合资料。这个整合是依靠人内藏的知识。这种内在的知识是不能验证的，但仍是有意思的。

7.3 现代知识学

启示始终是一种思想的活动。在某程度上，启示是要依靠人的认知条件才可获得的。只不过是人的思想因着天主的启示行动而得到提升，能对天主所显示的得到肯定。

7.4 经验心理学

无可否认，神视或神魂超拔的现象在古时是被当作启示。不过，基本神学启示的概念实不依赖这些心理状态，而是集中于研究天人交往的象征。超感官心理现象只属于神秘神学或神修神学的研究范围。

7.5 圣经批判学

对圣经的记载产生疑问正是迈向启示神学的成熟。按象征理论的理解，圣经清楚描绘天主在历史中的临在。天主利用特殊的语言和事件作为通传祂的爱的象征标记。这样的了解可把现代的信徒带进圣经语言和事件所象征的天人交往中。

7.6 教义的历史

教义是来自对所表达的启示的反省。但成文的教义不是不变的。教会不时有需要随着圣神的引导，按新时代的语言和概念重新表达教义。因此，教义在历史中的变动不是出奇的事。不过，部份传统教导的原始形式是值得保留的。这传统教义的稳定性足以使人对现代教条的教导仍保持着信心。

7.7 比较宗教学

象征的理论提供一个宗教交谈的架构，使不同的宗教能在交谈中彼此赞同和受益。启示是交谈最重要的主题。对其他宗教启示性质的否定只会阻碍宗教交谈。事实上，不同宗教之间的张力可被转化为一种动力。各宗教的象征可被放在其他宗教的传统因素中更完善地被了解。这是有助于对各宗教的认识。

7.8 批判性社会学

由于启示本身的权威，启示可变为人傲慢和野心的工具。但是，否认启示的存在不能解决问题。启示的象征使人察觉自己的罪性。十字架象征罪恶的势力和人悔改及皈依的必要。十字架与复活的象征一齐启示天主的恩宠是胜过世界的罪，从而给予人希望和勇气去对抗歪曲了的意识形态。

8. 结语

这里的讨论属于基本神学的工作。为建立一套完整的启示神学，这工作只是初步的。随后的便是教义的研究。一些问题，如有关启示与圣三，基督和恩宠神学的关系，是要在个别的教义神学里才可得到较圆满的了解。无论如何，作者在本书中提供了一个对启示「成主题前」(pre-thematic)的了解。他是以忠于教会传统的态度为启示神学提出他新而有效的研究方法。其象征性的启示神学补充并超越在教会传统中启示的教义模式。他的方法就是从现实更深入的角度研究启示。事实上，只有他那有系统的象征理论才可做到这一点。

作者：何梅珍

1.前言

今天的社会，受多元文化的冲击影响，面对知识领域的扩阔，神学亦不能脱离此动荡的浪潮。诚如作者杜勒斯(A. Dulles)言：

梵二后的教会的确开放了，能接纳颇多神学意见，为神学营造了一种新气候，使神学的发展更绚灿。但一些前进的神学家，却在已制定的正统信理上作争论，造成现今天主教神学情况之混乱。1

他坦诚地评论现在罗马天主教之神学情况 ── 是神学家缺乏一种共同言语、共同目标及共同准则；再加欠缺文明的作风，争论与不信任情况随之出现。2 正在神学领域探索的我，必须要弄清神学家们的思维路向，才可以发展个人的神学路向。

在探索杜勒斯的神学方法，吾人采用了他的最新着作《神学的工艺：由象征到系统》(The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System 1992)。本文的探索方法是：先由书本的内容阐释他认为现在如何做神学方法，然后加以评论。透过此种阐释方法，希望藉杜勒斯神父之照明，有助我要走的神学路向。

为方便了解此书，我先阅览一些书评，3再细读书中的整体内容，4发觉每一章书都有极大的贡献。我最欣赏是在第一章，他提醒当代做神学的人，不可以忽视二十世纪九十年代的社会，是一个日新月异的新时代，这个社会的新气候，有特别名词称呼之，如后现代(Postmodern)、后自由(Postliberal)及后批判(Postcritical)。他劝人要以一种后批判的精神去做神学。在第十二章，他以首尾呼应的手法，强调后批判要有合一精神，在宗教上交谈、对话，才可以使教会更新，在合一运动基础上互相交换意见，更能刺激人在神学上作反省，把神学以更丰盛的姿态展示人前，使人人可以接受天主的救恩，皈依祂。

为此神学方法的主旨内容不可脱离圣经、圣传及教会训导等信仰要素，教会就是此信仰要素的保存者与传递者，作者认为做神学要清楚认识教会特质，为教会服务，神学才能健康地发展。他努力寻找与重建一个更广阔的讲道团体，最后认为神学方法可建基在合一神学(Ecumenical Theology)上。他引用教宗若望保禄二世的通谕《救主使命》(Redemptoris Missio)，要信徒重视交谈的重要性。

后批判神学鼓励神学家必须在教会信仰团体内做神学，因为教会是神学事业(theological enterprise)的泉源。

1. 当前神学的路向

杜勒斯在第一章先介绍早期的前批判神学(Precritical Theology)，是以权威的口吻讲出此是天主的圣言，使人不敢质疑神学上的疑问，为此它有其超越地位，不可被质疑与挑战。到中古时代，人开始对此种神学有所怀疑，另一种新神学 ── 批判神学(Critical Theology)出现，它成为中古世纪的神学宠儿，但太注重以批判的角度作研究，使神学窒息，令大多数的神学家拒抗防范。

到十八世纪副批判神学(Paracritical Theology)出现，主张神学与科学的讨论要分开。到二十世纪初期，反批判神学(Countercritical Theology)坚持以强而有力的或以奇迹作为证据，利用此种方法作护教之用，基督教与天主教双方都各自努力，把此种神学方法推至极点。5出现反批判神学皆因受第一次世界大战之影响。

杜勒斯接着在第一至四章讲述当代做神学的方法。他在第一章介绍现今社会是要走向后批判神学(Postcritical Theology)的领域去，皆因以往的方法过份集中在思想批判的范畴。第二章他着重象征性通传(Symbolic Communication)，第三章利用模式做神学，第四章指出现代的基本神学与动态的皈依(Fundamental Theology and Dynamics of Conversion)。

杜氏在第一章中，开宗明义的说明他个人的信仰是钟情于后批判神学，以此方法做神学，不要以猜疑态度去挑战神学，其基本态度是要信赖诠释学(Hermenentics)，目的为建设神学，丰富神学的内涵，不是去毁灭神学。6后批判神学给古典神学一种新生命力 ── 坚定信仰的意识(the sense of the faithful)，7为此它要注意其有的缄默幅度，避免作理性主义的批判与有护教色彩的反批判，不会在一些不可争辩的证据(indisputable evidence)上作信仰的争辩，它鼓励信友以其认知力(cognition)去寻找信仰，不可盲目或感情化地信赖。作者认为后批判神学家指导信徒要「自我开放」，坦诚的对天主作出个人的皈依，这样才可以坚定信仰，自愿向天主委身，奉行祂的旨意。8

作者认为后批判神学的优点是在当代神学的不稳定情况中找出一动态的平衡(dynamic equilibrium)，为神学的延续与改革的情况找一新路向。9他更指出后批判神学不可以脱离教会，因为教会为基督的奥体(LG7)，是信仰最早的目击者与传信者(LG19)；为此，后批判神学必须要有教会特质，才可以使神学健康地发展。10

作者评论以往的神学方法只集中在思想批判范畴，的确使神学窒息不前，欠缺活泼动力的皈依。后批判神学要重建一个更广阔的讲道团体，刺激神学家的反省，重视交谈对话，但切记要做神学必须为教会服务，神学才能发展得更健康、更丰盛，我个人非常欣赏作者以上的评论。但我认为后批判神学所面对的环境更复杂、涉猎的知识范围更广阔，教会与神学家之间要互相尊重，才可以真正的把天国的喜讯透过今天的时空领域，展示人前，使人能按清晰良心的指引行事。

天主「自我通传」(self-communication)给人类，藉耶稣基督亲临人间，彰显祂的奥秘，故启示被视作为神圣的教条。信徒要真正明白天主的启示，须参与教会生活，以礼仪崇拜表达出对天主的敬畏，因为礼仪是纪念、是祈祷，是信徒以生活表达出基督奥迹临现人间，是真正教会的纯正本质。(SC2)11

礼仪行动充满了象征性通传，使人藉此与天主圣三的契合，明白天主启示的奥秘。新约圣经以不同图像来描述耶稣基督 ── 如善牧、新郎、葡萄树、光明、判官等。这等象征性通传(Symbolic Communication)，是做神学的方法，教会为表达出耶稣基督真实临在教会内，会透过教条宣言(doctrinal statements)、礼仪(liturgy)及文化语言(cultural-linguistic) 的表达，阐释天主的启示，清晰指出天主藉圣子降临人间，把天主圣三自我通传给世人。

在象征性通传的过程中，利用模式的表达，能帮助信徒更明白神学真理。因为随着经院神学的没落，神学家出现门户派系的成见，神学之间交谈困难，作者利用模式方法论(models' methodology)，为方便进行真正的交谈、对话。

他提出模式在神学上的用处，方便神学家把领悟到的天主的超验奥秘，以「模式」向天主子民讲解传授，藉着对信仰的见证，神学家们可以进行交谈。例如在他的着作《教会的模式》(Models of the Church)中以不同的隐喻(different metaphors)来称呼教会，其目的为方便交谈与和好；在他另一着作《启示的模式》(Models of the Revelation)中，也以不同模式的表达来谈论启示。

在后批判神学时代，模式是有局限的，而其在当代神学领域使用里也有些不合时宜，12但作者深信模式与系统神学(Systematic Theology)的实践颇有相关。13

作者评论在后批判的转变中(postcritical turn)，教条语言、礼仪及文化语言等要配合现时代社会的需要，才能有效地把天主自我通传的奥秘彰显人前。作者认为在后批判神学领域里，信徒要明白象征对启示和教义的关系，14 才可以做好神学。他认为佐治．林白(George Lindbeck)之三类神学方式，15 其中第三类「文化语言神学」(cultural-linguistic theology)，作者称之为「教会转化性的」(ecclesial-transformative)，16 正是说明教会在这个新时代中，要阐释天主自我通传的奥秘，必须适合当代社会的需要。现代做神学的方法不可以只套用中古时代的经院主义(Scholastism)，而利用「模式」的确存有困难，因为神学再不能只满足在自身描述或现象论(phenomenology)上的研究，必须严谨地抓紧问题的恒久一致性与真实性才是。17

以上三种神学方法 ── 即前期所注重的批判思想所扮演的角色(the role of critical thinking)，其后着重象征性通传及利用模式，是深受经院神学的把持，不适合现时代的需要，当前的路向是要走向后批判神学。

既然模式就是象征，取自人性经验的理解，故在今天的社会中，经验神学(Empirical Theology)的确使人在宗教上有深彻的反省，基本神学(Fundamental Theology)需要人充满动力的皈依，信仰作为彻底的皈依，除了问我们如何走向天主外，信友也要清楚知道天主如何走近我们，为此基本神学必须放在人学的焦点上(anthropological focus)。

在第四章，他讲论现今的天主教神学家，其中一些：他们的言论已被肯定接纳，如卡．拉内神父(K. Rahner)及伯尔纳．朗列根神父(B. Lonergan)的先验方法(transcendental method)，都是建立在神学的人学上(theological anthropology)，由人内在经验，辩证神的存在。18

作者评论先验方法确能助人经验到神的存在，使人充满动力的皈依，它要信徒摒弃信仰上一些不合理性的跳跃。透过圣经的启示，它有照明、转化的力量，使信徒明白天主给人白白的恩赐，是藉耶稣基督一次而永久的赏赐给全人类，使人人可分沾天主的救恩。

但切记：此方法虽然由人性经验出发，若只着重用心辨明神的存在，漠视圣经事实资料，则流于空洞，欠实证的功夫；为此，跟随者必要重视圣经，特别在诠释学上研究。

  1. DULLESs Avery, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (New York:
Crossroad 1992) vii: At Vatican II (1962-65) a certain number of theological opinions that had previously been suspect seemed to win official endorsement. This shift contributed to a new theological climate in which novelty was not only tolerated but glorified. Many took it for granted that the heterodoxy of today would become the orthodoxy of tomorrow. To be a leader, then, was to venture onto new and dangerous territory, and to say what no Catholic theologian had yet dared to say. Abetted by journalists craving for headlines and publishers eager to market their latest wares, certain "progressive" theologians have been outdoing one another in originality . Practically every doctrine that had been constitutive of Catholic orthodoxy has been contested by some prominent author. Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, the virginal conception of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity itself were either denied or radically reinterpreted to mean what they had never before been thought to mean.

2. 参阅同上 viii: Today, however, we are faced by the opposite problem. The different theological schools have drifted so far apart that what seems false and dangerous to one school seems almost self-evident to another. Theologians lack a common language, common goals, and common norms. Civil argument has ceased to function, and in its absence opposing parties seek to discredit one another by impugning the motives or competence of their adversaries.

3. 参阅O'DONOVAN L. J., Book Review of The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System in Theologlcal Studies, Vol.54, No.4 (Dec. 1993) 759-761 . WOOD S., Book Review of The Craft of Theologly From Symbol to System in Review of Religions, Vol.52, No.4 (July-August 1993) 629-630.

4. DULLES: (l) Toward a Postcritical Theology
(2) Theology and Symbolic Communication
(3) The Problem of Method: From Scholasticism to Models
(4) Fundamental Theology and the Dynamics of Conversion
(5) The Uses of Scripture in Theology
(6) Tradition as a Theological Source
(7) The Magisterium and Theological Dissent
(8) Theology and Philosophy
(9) Theology and the Physical Sciences
(10) University Theology in Service to the Church
(11) The Teaching Mission other Church and Academic Freedom
(l2) Method in Ecumenical Theology

5. 参阅同上4-5: Paracritical theology claims, "Theology dictates of religious feelings. The dichotomy between scientific and religious discourse, having received its philosophical charter from Immanuel Kant" " Countercritical theology insisted strongly on miracles as evidential signs, reached its culmination in early twentieth-century apologetics, both Protestant and Catholic"

6. 参阅同上7: Postcritical theology, as I use the term, begins with a presupposition of prejudice in favor of faith. Its fundamental attitude is a hermeneutics of trust, not of suspicion. Its purpose is constructive, not destructive. This is not to deny that people are entitled to doubt what they have reason to regard as false or unfounded. The doubter can be a serious thinker, candidly examining the claims made for religion. But theology, as commonly understood, is the kind of inquiry that takes place from with a religious commitment. drawing on the convictions instilled by faith, the theologian uses them as resources for the proper task to theology, which is the understanding of faith.

7. 参阅同上9: Postcritical theology gives new vitality to classical thological loci such as the "sense of the faithful". Johann Adam Mohler maintained that the Holy Spirit had imprinted on the Church "a peculiarly Christian tact, a deep sure-guiding feeling" that leads it into all truth.

8. 参阅同上14: Not least among the merits of postritical theology, in my view, is its ability to maintain a dynamic equilibrium between continuity and innovation.

10. 参阅同上viii: For the better health of theology I believe that its ecclesial character needs to more clearly recognized. Theology must serve the Church and be accountable to it.

11. 参阅同上8-9: Liturgy has regularly been recognized as a prime theological source and it is securely established in this role by postcritical theology. The rule of prayer, as the axiom has it, establishes the rule of belief. The liturgy and the sense of the faithful are particular forms of tradition, which is likewise reckoned among the sources of theology.

12. 参阅同上50-52:
(l) Some contend that concept of models, taken from the physical and behavioral sciences, is inappropriate for theology.
(2) the method involves an unfair pigeon-holing of theologians.
(3) by paying respect to a plurality of mutually incompatible models one falls into relativism and agnosticism.
(4) method of models is booklish and increative.
(5) the method is impugned on the ground that it stops short of being truly
systematic .

13. 参阅同上 8: Theology is the methodical effort to articulate the truth implied in Christian faith, the faith of the Church... the method depends on a kind of
connoisseurship derived from personal appropriation of the living faith of the
Church. The meaning of the Christian Symbols is learned as an an acquired through familiarity in the community...

52: the method of models is helpful not only for mediating between different theological systems but for analyzing the inner tensions within a single approach through models and the practice of systematic theology.

14. 参阅同上21: symbol in relation to revelation and doctrine have considerable
importance for one's understanding of the relationship between communications and theology.

15. 参阅同上17-21: George Lindbeck discusses three styles of theology: the propositionaliste-cognitive' the experiential-expressive, the cultural-1inguistic.

16. 参阅同上 18: instead of cultural-linguistics I shall call it ecclesial-transformative.

17. 参阅同上vii-ix: While theology needs to have a measure of autonomv in order to perform its distinctive service, it loses its identity if it ceases to be a reflection on the faith of the Church.

18. 参阅 MUELLER, J. J. What are they saying about Theology Method? (Ramsey: Paulist 1984)

2. 神学方法的重要元素

在第五、六、七章中，作者强调神学方法的重要元素是利用圣经、重视圣传及教会训导。此三章集中说明《启示宪章》(Dei Verbum)之第二章 ── 论天主启示的传授，其中第十号「圣经、圣传和教会训导权是组成天主圣言的同一宝库，并给教会训导，全体圣民依附着它。」要求信徒明白此三种存在教会内资源是当今做神学的依据。

杜勒斯认为利用圣经做神学有十项探讨(ten approaches)，此等方法在当代神学显明是常用的，即(一)利用圣经作教条陈述的「古典教条探讨」(The classical doctrinal approach)。(二)圣经神学(Biblical theology)。(三)视圣经为属灵的释经(spiritual exegesis)。(四)圣言神学(Word theology)，透过圣经，与主相遇。(五)视圣经为存在诠释学(existential hermeneutics)，是向人宣告的神学(theology of proclamation)。(六)由圣经使人走向经验表白(experiential - expressive approach)。(七)由圣经文字意义(literal meaning)寻找原作者的意向(authorial intention)。(八)历史重整(historical reconstruction)的圣经历史批判研究。(九)叙述神学(narrative theology)，利用文化语言的探讨(the cultural - linguistic approach)。(十)利用圣经作解放神学(liberation theology)之研究。19

作者评论，以圣经作主题去研究神学，是一种好方法，因为「圣经是天主的话，受圣神的默感而写成。」(DV10)，它是神圣的启示媒介。作者重视圣经为做神学的元素，此信仰宝库是信友生活的圣言之依恃，是天主透过不同时空向人类宣讲的语言。作者更强调圣经神学(biblical theology)的重要性，因为它可照明叙述神学(narrative theology)及文化语言神学(cultural-linguistic theology)。

但我们要小心，不可曲解圣经含义，或只在字面上意义兜转，要信赖诠释学的研究，用综合性探讨(comprehensive approach)，汇合科学与属灵的释经，更要接受天主教传统指引与梵二的指导，为系统神学的需要，使神学发展更有体系。

在第六章论及圣传作为神学的泉源。在特伦多大公会议中讨论到圣经与圣传时，认为两者都来自天主，有其神圣的权威，同样受到相等的尊重。20梵二后，更指出圣传有其非常重要地位，在《启示宪章》第二章中，更把圣传向天主子民清楚的阐明，21 使神学家在神学工作方面跟随教会传统的教导。

作者评论，天主子民既相信「由宗徒传下来的教会」，那么便要深深承认圣传的效力，因为它是把主基督及圣神托付给宗徒的天主圣言，以特殊方式表达于宗徒宣讲的默感书上，以连续不断的继承而保存下来。教会重视圣传，因为它可以补足圣经上象征性意义，圣经藉圣传的传授，使人更彻底领悟天主的启示奥秘。梵二后，天主教神学家大多接受与尊重圣传，22因为圣传与圣经都是由天主神泉流出。(DV9)

在第七章论及教会训导与神学的异议(theological dissent)问题。既然圣经与圣传是组成天主圣言的信仰宝库，托给教会去好好保存，教会训导的责任除了是古远信仰(ancient faith)的保护守卫者外，还要准确地向信徒阐释信仰的内容。23但梵二后，教会的圣经权力与神学家之间产生张力，为此作者认为教会训导当局与神学家们要以坦诚的继续交谈为重，他推崇1990年5月14日教廷信理部颁布的训示《神学家在教会中的召叫》(Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian)对教会训导有极重要影响。24神学家要理性地接纳教会的训导，而训导当局也要尊重神学家的专业性，谘询他们的意见。

教会的训导当局是藉耶稣基督名义而行使权威，它的职权是解释和传授天主圣言，为天主圣言服务。我极之欣赏作者所说的：「那些代表普世教会说话者，一定要对世界之不同状况，不同文化有一种敏悦感。」25这样才能负起为教会保管与解释天主圣言的使命。

  19. 参阅 DULLES, O. C. 71-85.

20. 参阅同上 89: Trent held that the authority of tradition was not less than that of Scripture. Both, coming from God, had divine authority Asserting that Scripture and tradition are to be received with equal reverence (DS l 501), the council took over an expression of Basil the Great.

21. 参阅同上 94-98:
(1) Tradition and traditions
(2) The means of transmission
(3) Development
(4) The relation between Scripture and tradition
(5) The problem of distorting tradition
(6) Tradition and magisterium

22. 参阅同上 103-104: Toward a Catholic Consensus:

1. Tradition aroused and continuously sustained in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2. Tradition is grasped through familiarity or participation as a result of dwelling within the Church

3 . Monuments of tradition serve to sharpen the community's sense of the faith.

4. Tradition, as a sense of the faith, provides an element of continuity in the
development of Christian doctrine.

5. Tradition is 'divine', aroused and sustained by God; it is 'apostolic', it is living, it remains contemporary with every generation.

6. Tradition is of equal dignity with Scripture.

7. The Church drew on tradition as a resource for recognizing the canonical
Scriptures...

8. Divine tradition gives rise to a variety of human traditions that mediate it to particular groups at particular times and places.

9. Human traditions needed to make divine tradition concrete and tangible...

10. The ecclesiastical magisterium, making use of Scripture and tradition.

23. 参阅同上 91: The Jesuits of the Roman school, who were close collaborators with the Holy See, emphasized the role of the magisterium not only in safeguarding the ancient faith against corruptions but in developing the explicit content of faith. They promoted the definition of the Immaculate Conception (l854) and the ogmas of Vatican I concerning papal primacy and infallibility (1870) These theologians (notably J. B. Franzelin and L. Billot) distinguished between "active tradition" and "passive tradition". For them, the role of the magisterium, as the bearer of "active tradition", was not simply to authenticate what was believed by the faithful as a body, but to clarify and explicate the contents of faith. The "passive tradition" borne by the faithful as a body was simply a reflection of what had been taught by the magisterium.

24. 参阅同上 106-107: These various statements agree in recognizing the relative
autonomy of the hierarchical magisterium and the theologians in the performance of their specific tasks. The official teachers and the theologians use different metnods and have different goals. The magisterium, which is charged with authoritatively formulating and safeguarding the faith of the Church, does not have to establish its positions by strict theological reasoning. Theologians, whose essential task is to understand and explain, cannot be content to appeal to the authority of popes and bishops.

25. 参阅同上 107-108: Those who speak on behalf of the universal Church must be
sensitive to the variety of situations and cultures in different parts of the world. At times statements are read in a context other than that of the authors and are taken as referring to problems that were not envisaged. Sometimes, also, concise and objective doctrinal statements, especially as excerpted by the news media, give an impression of abruptness and pastoral insensitivity. Advance consultation with episcopal conferences can be, and has often proved to be, of assistance in finding palatable formulations or permitting the preparation of timely explanations.

3. 神学与学术文化

神学与学术文化是不能分割，因神学除了有信仰的幅度外，也有学术文化的幅度；这样，信徒才能真正明白「神人关系」之奥秘。作者在第八、九、十及十一等章中，就讨论到哲学、自然科学等可以促使神学更丰盛地发展。在今天知识领域不断扩张的环境下，互相交谈，尊重学术自由的发展，在神学领域内也是不可缺少的元素。

梵二后的二十多年，天主教神学之能复苏，皆因能开放自己，与现代哲学接触，26 为促使神学家不仅以信仰角度去寻找真理根源外，亦要重视理性的批判；神学之能健康发展，也需要一稳定的哲学传统。虽然不同的哲学系统依靠不同的隐喻根源，但若能扩阔交谈，使信徒在信德的光照下，以清晰的思维去研究救赎奥迹，哲学是有助神学的发展的。

既然信仰在于寻求真理，作者认为在自然科学(physical science)的指引下，能提高人类求真的态度，因为研究科学要以绝对忠实态度去对待研究的结果，神学也是以求真的态度去探讨信仰，为此两者是可以共存的。在今天的社会，真的科学是要证明真的信仰，互相交谈，对话是必要的。

在《天主教教育宣言》(GE10)，论及天主教大学要设立神学院，使平信徒也有机会攻读神学课程。的确，教会是生活在世界旅途中，因知识层面的扩阔，大学中的神学也是一门「人文学科」，神学普及化，使更多人以信仰、以学术研究去探讨天主启示的奥秘，对人类是何等的重要啊！但作者提醒我们，大学中的神学是为教会服务，目的使神学迈向一更完满的境界，使人可明白「神人关系」的亲密性。

为此他认为当代神学要让学术自由的发展，才可以使神学成为充满生命力去探讨神的奥秘。神学家可享有学术自由去发表他们的神学研究，但他们要尊重训导当局的传信权与传递权，因为她是信仰团体的根基。为使信仰与理性协调，开放坦诚的交谈是神学家之间与教会之间必要的元素。

作者评论，神学方法要配合一个社会的环境与文化的需要方可，否则便流于玄虚的境域中，使人摸不着头脑。故今天做神学，必须与其他学科 ── 如哲学、史学、数学、自然科学及艺术同时迈进，因这样才可以提高人类对真、善、美的理解力，明白天主启示的奥秘(GS57)。在哲学层面，多玛斯为天主教神学留下一个根基，我们要承认古代哲学对神学的重要性。27而信仰与科学的交谈对话使两者更互利互惠，28作者引用若望保禄二世在1988年6月1日的训言：宗教与科学并没存有冲突，两者的互相补足，可加强后批判神学的透视力。我认为杜勒斯的理论颇中肯。

在二十世纪的末叶，学术自由与尊重是很重要的，透过神学家与其他学者的交谈，其实更有助神学活泼的发展。教会既为服务人类(GS3)，那么就应该把基督福音与人类文化有所联系(GS58)及调和不同文化(GS59)，让人可以自由探索真理、自由研究与自由宣传己见。但神学家与信徒也要对教导当局有高度的尊重才是。

  26. 参阅同上 127: The intent of Pope John XXIII and of the fathers at Vatican II that Catholic theology should be revitalized by contact with new and more modern philosophical sources has been successfully achieved in the past twenty-five years.

27. 参阅同上 127: The directives of Vatican II quoted above seem to make it clear that the council was recommending that theology be based on the perennially valid philosophical heritage that comes down through Thomas Aquinas.

28. 参阅同上 146: The dialogue between faith and science can produce palpable benefits to both.

4. 迈向合一神学的方法

作者在最后一章论及当代做神学，是要迈向合一神学(Ecumenical Theology)。合一神学要求天主子民在「信、望、爱」中团结，其实此三超德也在教会以外的人们身上看见，29教会以外的人类也可以分沾天主救恩计划，因为耶稣基督交出自己的性命，是为大众作赎价(谷10:45)。

合一神学的基础，是要宗教交谈，这样才可以令教会更新(UR6,9)。教会之外实存有救恩，与不同宗教交谈，更丰富神学，刺激教会内信徒的反省，使他们更明白天主的超验奥秘。

作者所赞同的合一神学，是梵二所认可的交谈方法，牧者与信徒要一致的，按天主的旨意行基督化生活(UR5)。大公主义的精神要基督徒联合祈祷，为教会合一作证(UR8)。在交谈中，天主教神学家要遵循教会的训示，与分离的弟兄们探讨天主的奥秘(UR11)，在爱德内，摒弃敌对成见(UR18)，使所有追随基督的信徒，能融入基督的教会内(UR24)。

作者评论，宗教交谈与互相尊重在后批判神学是极之重要，因为这样才能刺激神学的反省。作者极力的推崇合一神学的方法，是先由追随基督的信友做起，在爱德的共融下，把耶稣基督的福音展示在人类世界内，使人人有机会认识天国的喜讯，皈依天主。然后再与其他宗教交谈，因为他深信天主救恩普及全人类。为此他对甘卫(W. Cantwell Smith)的世界神学(World Theology)虽表示同意，认为信仰可以在非基督徒身上存在，但对世界神学的看法却有所保留。30他也欣赏汉斯龚( )的宗教交谈(inter-religious dialogue)，但却不拥护他的中性神学(Neutral Theology)。

现今神学有其合一性时刻 ── 就是透过交谈、对话，虽然其中有困难、有彰碍，但作者深信真诚的内心皈依(UR7)、联合祈祷(UR8)、彼此认识(UR23)，合一神学定可以在后批判神学大放异彩，迈向圆满的境界。

结论

在后批判领域中，多元文化影响着神学的发展，为此作者强调要重建一个更广阔的讲道团体，故此，公开讨论是重要的，因为透过交谈，帮助信徒去判断、去侦察，探求真理。教会既然为基督的身体，做神学的人，其首先责任要为教会服务，教会所保存的三种信仰宝库 ── 圣经、圣传和教会训导，是神学方法的重要元素，是神学家必须尊重的。神学家可以以不同方式去研究其神学工作的专长，订立不同的神学假设，但必须为教会服务，建立神学成为一共同事业。

我欣赏杜勒斯那种坚持神学要反省，以生活作见证的方法态度，他认为交谈对话是有效的通传媒介，因为它使信徒更易投入信仰的见证内。他以平和态度提供后批判神学的方向，除注意交谈对话外，一定要尊重教会所保存的传统，以古证今，才可以迎接未来。信友在爱德共融下，以圣经、圣传及教会训导作神学方法的元素，更配合开放坦诚的交谈，迈向教会的合一，神学才可有健康的发展。

　

缩略语

LG = Lumen Gentium　《教会宪章》

DV = Dei Verbum　《天主启示教义宪章》

GS = Gaudium et Spes　《论教会在现代世界牧职宪章》

UR = Unitatis Redintegrato　《大公主义法令》

GE = Gravissimum Educationis　《天主教教育宣言》

  29. 参阅同上 179: As late as a few decades ago, Catholics frequently spoke as though faith did not exist beyond the confines of their own Church, but today they generally recognize that divine and salvific faith exists among members of other Christian communities, among adherents of non-Christian religions, and even among people who are not formally religious. The Second Vatican Council, in several important texts, encouraged this new tendency. In its Decree on Ecumenism it stated that faith, hopes and charity "can exist out-side the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church."1 In its Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity it declared that "God, in ways known to himself, can lead people who through no fault of their own are ignorant of the gospels to that faith without which it is impossible to please him."2 Since the council, Catholics such as Raimundo Panikkar have argued that faith is a "constitutive dimension of man,"3 while Protestants such as Wilfred Cantwell Smith contend that faith is "generically human" and "constitutive of man as human"4

30. 参阅同上 181-182: In recent years Wilfred Cantwell Smith, a scholar with
exceptional competence in Islam and other living faiths, has set forth a very ambitious proposal for what he calls a "world theology" Such a theology, he
maintains, "will not displace but subsume its erst-wllile sectional parts", that is, the particular theologies of the distinct religions.8 In this new theology, as he envisages it, there should no longer be any talk of "we" and "they"; no barrier should stand between insiders and outsiders. Adherents of different religions will strive to speak about their own faith only in ways that members of other religious communities "can rationally approve of (or, at the very least, rationally understand)".9

I can agree with Smith up to a point. With him I would hold that faith can exist among people who are not Christian, and indeed among those who have never had historical contact with biblical religions. The Christian theologian should listen empathetically to what such people say about their own religious life, and seek to discern how their statements are rooted in their own experience and history. Conversely, Christians should strive to set forth their own faith in such a way that well-disposed members of other communities might be able to make sense of it. But I would express reservations about the claims of any common "world theology" to subsume or supersede the specific content of each particular religions. Christians, since they believe in the three-personed God and in Jesus Christ as the incarnation of the second divine person, will not be content to do theology as thoug the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were not true. I see no reason for forbidding Christians to mention aspects of their own faith that cannot be "rationally approved" apart from Christian revelation. Based on God's special revelation in Christ, Christian theology continues to differ from that of all other religions. No one could admit the truth of the Trinity or the Incarnation (with the meaning these doctrines have for Christian) without being convened to Christianity.

My difference with Smith is rooted in his concept of faith. For Christians of the classical tradition, faith and belief are correlatives, if not synonyms. To have faith is always to believe something as well as someone. Responding to Smith's interpretation of Thomas Aquinas, Frederick Crosson shows that for the Angelic Doctor faith necessarily involved a content, a material object which was communicables at least in some measure, by teaching or doctrine.12 For Catholics (ands I would think, for most Protestants) faith continues to have a definite content. In the Christian act of faith Jesus Christ plays an indispensable role. Jesus, moreover, is believed and confessed to be the Son of God, the risen Savior, according to the Scriptures and the creeds. This doctrinal content, inseparable from Christian faith, cannot be subsumed or left behind in some new "world theology".

作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio

1. 信仰要求文化

天主作为造物主，从没有离开过人的生活，而人在其历史和文化中，感受到祂的临在，接纳祂启示的真理，并以祂为委身和依附的对象，这就是信仰。活出信仰，有不同的方式和层面，例如：参加礼仪庆典(弥撒)，积极传福音，以基督的爱德参与社会建设等。礼仪、福传、爱德就像信仰的外衣，人们看见这外衣，就会看出这是天主教的信徒。

神学也像信仰的外衣，藉此外衣，信徒将天主所赐的信仰在生活中表达出来。在十二世纪，安瑟莫(Anselm)综合了教会的传统，将神学视为「信仰要求明瞭」(fides quaerens intellectum)。但是，今人愈来愈意识到，人的明瞭是他基本的存在方式，而这方式又不能脱离其文化背景。此存在方式既是文化产物，又是文化的动力；那么，信仰无论当作生活的委身(fides qua)或真理的接受(fides quae)，都该要与信徒的文化揉合为一。事实上，今日神学的趋向特别强调「信仰要求文化」(fides quaerens culturam)。天主教第二次梵蒂冈大公会议已肯定这个事实。

神学虽非信仰唯一的外衣，但信仰却需要它才可登上世界的文化舞台，与其他套上不同外衣的人文精神和宗教信仰交流，辨认彼此的异同、互补作用和对世界文明与历史特有的贡献。神学既然是外衣，就不能完全和信仰等同，信仰是从宗徒传下来，历久不变，但神学则为适应视乎时代和文化，而有所变化。事实上，历史告诉我们，在不同的世代和文化中，就有不同的神学。

神学家本身该肯定信仰不变的成分和文化对信仰的承接力，然后为信仰度身裁剪一套外衣，使人见到这外衣会感到对信仰熟落和自然，藉以接触到信仰的真谛，也使人乐于穿上这外衣，活出信仰，美化自己的文化。

信仰的中心就是若望所说降生的圣言(logos)，文化的承接力是犹斯定(Justin)所说的「散播在文化中的圣言」(logos spermatikos)。两者都是天主向人所作的自我通传。前者是显性的，后者则是隐性的，前者照明和提升后者，而后者则准备人接受前者。神学以自身的原理和方法来建立和指明两者的汇点，使能互认互通。事实上，所有在神学的思维和人文精神都与地区的人类学拉上一定的关系。

神学家为天主圣言服役，点燃信仰，但他也深知圣经和圣传组成天主圣言的信仰宝库，委托给教会保管。为此，教会在信仰上具有训导权，这权力并非超越天主圣言，而是天主圣神的工具，使传递同一的信仰时，善加护守，不致误传。当然，训导当局不是做神学的机构，亦不取代神学家的任务，反而要密切和他们合作，因为他们也是在不同的层面上，跟随圣神的。但最终，教会的权威训导是做神学其中不可缺少的信仰尺度(regula fidei)。这是天主教神学家不可摈弃的信念，至于训导当局和神学家具体上的合作，尤其在现时的「多元、相对和虚无」主义的冲击下1，亦须不断适应和改进。两者基本的态度是承先启后，为天主子民能明瞭圣言而服务，为信仰的统一而效忠。当然，神学家更须强化先知的角色，与俗化的社会共同拟出一份理想的蓝图，再整理自己的文化传统，务使生活和信仰得以衔接。2

在整个神学的工作中，解释的功能是不可或缺。解释就是找出事物的因由和目的，有些事物需要自身之外的事物来解释，另一些事物可作自我解释。任何解释，都需要有被解释的事情或要素，解释的目的和解释的原理。

假如我们想解释下雨的现象，目的是想知道甚么情况会下雨，从而可作预告甚且制造或躲避下雨的情况，以满全日常生活的需要。首先，设法罗列被牵涉在解释中的事情或要素，这里有云、水分、温差、气压，所需的原理是冷缩热涨和地心引力的原理。假如云层的水分密度大，又遇上冷空气，水分便凝结成水滴，受地心引力而下堕，众多的水滴就产生下雨的现象。所引用的物理学的原理，本身亦需要从别的途径来建立和解释，但一经建立后就可用来解释其他的物理现象。这种解释可作验证的、可重复地应用、和在某程度上满足我们理性的探求。

上述的例子基本上是一个物理学解释，可以阐明得更细节和详尽，辅以一些数据(如温度、密度、云层的体积等)。可是，这不是唯一的途径解释下雨的现象。天主作为万有的根源，当然也可解释下雨的现象，不过解释的目的就很不同了，这种解释可有助构成神学的理由，为甚么在礼仪上我们可以求风调雨顺，为甚么在风雨中可以赞颂天主，为甚么雨成为人接触和聆听天主的媒介。这种解释可满全宗教生活的需要。神学家在解释信仰的意义时，往往为自己定下一些神学原理，把它们说清楚，然后将之应用在要解释的事情上。例如，奥思定以天主圣三的道理来解释救恩史的进程(因由和目的)。多玛斯以降生圣言的奥迹来解释教会的圣事(因由和目的)。虽然解释是以满全理性为主，但亦不要忘记解释者个人的心态、品味和对事物的敏锐性，这也会影响他们所作的解释。

本文从神学的解释功能，尝试描写三个神学原理，简称之为「律」即：心物同向律，生活希望律，天人交换律。它们源自人生中重要的经验，包括平常心、忧患意识和道成人身。虽然神学原理不光是这三个，但它们多次成为神学家反省的角度。此外，由于神学家活在不同文化，在其中也找出一些要素，作为贯通人生的范畴，因而形成一些神学主流。本文会介绍三个，并将之命名为信仰追求知性的明瞭、人性的明瞭和希望的明瞭。由于篇幅所限，这里只能提纲挈领地描写这些主流在治学方面的主题、范畴、方法，及其长短。其实在这三个主流中，在不同的程度上已引用了上述原理，但由于方法和对事物的敏锐性不同，故其神学外貌亦随之而异。

1. 这里笔者所说的冲击主要来源于「后现代」主义，参阅韩大辉，「后现代和新编教理」，《神学年刊》n14（1993）36-54。较为深入的研究，参阅

罗青，《什么是后现代主义》，台北五四书店 1989再版。

陆蓉之，《后现代的艺术现象》，台北艺术出版社 1990。

王岳川，《后现代主义文化研究》，北京大学出版社 1992。

LYOTARD J.F., La condition postmoderne (Paris l979).

MACQUARRIE J., Twentieth Century Religious Thought: The Frontiers of Philosophy and Theology 1900-1980 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons 198l).

FOKKEMA Douwe & BERTENS Hans (eds.), Approaching ostmodernism (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company l 986).

2. 一些作者认为天主教神学在最近两个世纪中对「现代」有抗拒，但在开始接受「」现代T时，正是现代开始不再相信自己，参阅

TRACY D., Plurality and Ambiguity (San Francisco: Harper & Row 1988).

IDEM, The Uneasy Alliance Reconceived: Catholic Theological Method, Modernity and Postmodernity, in Theological Studies 50 (1989) 548-570.

大部份的作者一方面指出后现代的隐忧和对信仰造成的危机，同时又承认这种文化气候有可取之处，为建立新的神学，参阅

MACQUARRIE J., In Search of Deity (London: SCM 1984)

CHANTRAINE Georges, HENRICI Peter, KASPER Walter, OAKES Edward t., SCHINDLER David L., SCHMITZ Kenneth L., SLESINSKI Robert F., YOUNG R.V., van der VLOET Johan, HEDWIG Klaus, various articles on Christianity and the Question of Postmodernity, in Communio 17 (1990).

COWDELL S., Radical Theology, Postmodernity and Christian life in the void, in The Heythrop Jorunal 32 (1991) 62-71. IDEM, All This, and God Too? Postmodern Alternatives to Don Cupitt, in The Heythrop Journal 33 (1992) 267-282.

O'HANLON G., The Jesuits and Modern Theology - Rahner, von Balthasar and Liberation Theology, in Irish Theological Quarterly 58 (1992) 25-45.

Editoriale, La Fede cristiana nell'epoca Postmoderna, quaderno 3418 (21 novembre 1992) 329-342. Crisi e speranza rinnovata.

其实，早在一些哲学家的着作中已有些后现代的味道，如：Bergson的生命哲学和Blondel等人，参阅

DOUGLASS P., Deleuze and the Endurance of Bergson, in Thought, A Review of Culture and Idea Vol. 67 no. 267 (March 1992) 47-61.

LONG F., The Postmodern Flavor of Blondel's Method, in International Philosophical Quarterly 31 (1991) 15-22.

2. 三个神学原理

原理(principle)就其外文的字源而言，是说那首要的。有了它，就可解释和发挥出其他的事情。

2.1 心物同向律

世界有心也有物，前者看不见，后者看得见。心乃指人之心性及其活动：思维、情感、渴求。物是指人物、物品、境况、事件。它们的型态和性质虽不同，但都有相同的方向。心有「探索追求的能力」，追求真善美之价值，透过思维，探索这些价值之所在。物有「意指的能力」，只要它在时空场所出现，就可指向自身之外的东西，就此而言，我们可说此物是那东西的象征。「相同的方向」是指心最终所探求的价值，刚好是物最终所象征的价值。

其实，这律例往往出现在我们的平常心中。例如，男友在女友的生日上，送上一束美丽的玫瑰花。作为「物」，这束花本身拥有芬芳的气味、艳丽的颜色、绚烂的生命的，它象征高贵美丽的情怀，就是那男友的爱。那女友，由于心里向慕爱情，从玫瑰的芬芳、艳丽、绚烂，可进入那爱情之中。同样，圣经中《雅歌》一书，也是描写相似的情况。天主创造了万物，也创造了人。万物既源于祂，「最终」也能指向祂。天主赋予人心灵，是为能寻求祂，故此，人仰观寰宇就会渐渐觉察天主的临在，「最终」能体验祂的爱。当然，未到最终一刻，心物只是「相对地」同向，但由那心和物最终共同趋向的天主所陪伴。简言之，凡物必有所指，心必有所思，两者最终地汇合于绝对的存有 ── 天主。

此律有助我们了解天主的启示。在宗徒时代启示已告结束，但对启示的明瞭仍有深化的余地。整个启示由基督交托给教会，其深化过程也主要地由教会继续。由于启示是为使人获得救恩，启示的深化也以人的得救为依归。人活在时空的场所中，基于文化和传统的差异具有不同的问题，但总不能离开其终极关怀，即人最终的幸福在那里。教会陪伴人们去寻求，留意并尝试指出人们心内的追求，和说明在不同的文化中，有哪些事物，按人的心灵追求来说，指向天主的爱。

以圣事庆典例，教会在诞生时也从基督接受了圣事，亦即那些使奥迹临现的标记。那么她一方面保留这些标记，另一方面尽力按人内心不同的追求而组合这些标记。既然凡物必有所指，圣事作为物质标记乃象征那基督的奥迹。当然，圣事又称为真实的象征，因为它们既蕴含又通传恩宠。既然心必有所思，教会就顺应基督的意愿和人的追求，组合这些标记成为圣事庆典。为此，就圣事庆典的形式来说，教会制定过很多不同的仪式，甚至给予不同的名字，但最终是要圣事庆典成为天人相向、相知、相遇的地方。

2.2 生活希望律

「生活」是指整个人生，它既是一个天主的召叫，也是人的回应，这回应在神爱的氛围中透过每天的生活而完成的任务。基督徒相信自己的生命是一个赏赐，因为是按天主的肖像而造生，将来要活出天主的模样。「希望」是指人对将来的期待。基督徒最终的希望就是基督第二次的来临，那时将有一个新天新地。其实，基督第一次来临时已奠定了天主对人不能反悔的救恩，但正如保禄所说的：「我们的得救还是在于希望。」(罗8:24)

一个路牌，只是指标，并不是终点。在人的生活旅途中，很多所发生的事情，都会成为指标，例如：一次疾病，一个挫败，一段刻骨铭心的邂逅……这些经验虽会过去，但都可以成为终点的指标，这取决于走路的人是否已确立他的终点。

无论如何，人在生活上经常有一种忧患意识，即在经验到不如意之事的发生时，便对前景感到忧虑。战争使我们忧国忧民。病告诉我们肉身难免一死。的确，死亡是人生最大的挫败和局限。康德说：「我可以希望甚么？」既有生又何必要死？除非死是另一条生路。宗教信仰往往帮助我们视现世生活为指标或象征，以此建立这个「除非」，有了它，一切就有希望。

如果在现世中，我能够爱，并渴求自己和所爱的人得到永远的福乐，但我又不能单凭自己达成这心愿，那么我会寄望于具有大能的神了，祂能冲破我的局限。当然，祂无须按照我的心愿行事。可是，如果我得知，我之所以能爱，能有永远福乐的心愿，乃因祂的安排，那么我对祂的寄望并非没有基础了。既然在生活上，我可确定自己能爱，甚至渴求永远的福乐，又既然基督来，昭示我这份爱和渴求乃天主的安排，那么在一切我为达成心愿而冲不破的局限上，我都可寄望于天主。

希望既指向将来要发生的事，那么今天发生在我身上的事和我所期待明天发生的事，会有一个相互照明的关连。有时前者有助我们更明瞭后者，有时是后者昭示前者的意义。所有今天发生的事都可以是祂末世来临的指标。

由于那从彼而来的基督，亦即是今天我们在圣事庆典中邂逅的基督，那么圣事庆典就是人生一个优越的时刻，它既是指标，又是终点。作为指标，因为它「尚未是」那圆满的、末世的境况；作为终点，因为它「已经是」那位同样的基督的临现。「我们现在藉着镜子观看，……那时就要面对面的观看了。」(格前13:12)圣事作为目标也会过去，但作为终点，它到了末世仍然是常新的庆典。

厄玛乌路上的经验是一个描述由失望到希望的典型例子：两位门徒失望地离开，路上有主的陪同，聆听主的话：梅瑟、先知及全部经书论及基督，但尚未认出主。到了擘饼(圣事庆典)的时候，门徒开眼，耶稣却隐没了，他们便返回耶京(教会)，内心点燃希望。

简言之，此律有助基督徒面对人生的局限，就寄望那将从彼而来的基督，祂既在复活中冲破死亡的大限，亦必冲破众人的局限。那么，人现世的生活可以成为那终点的指标。基督应许直至末世仍不断陪同教会、临现于现世，每次的临现，尤其在圣事庆典中，都使人生成为末世圆满境况的指标和实现，而且处处点燃希望。

2.3 天人交换律

「天」是指三位一体的天主，祂有个慈爱的计划要实现于世。「人」是指每个人和全人类，他有被创造之目的和终向。「交换」一词源于圣诞子夜弥撒献礼经「奇妙的交换」(commercium admirabile)，此词正指出「道成人身」的奥妙之处，意思是圣言变成人，为使人变成圣言。

「道成人身」是指天主第二位以「子」的身分取了人性，但并没有失去或混淆其天主性，真正地成为人，除了罪过以外和我们人完全一样，就在祂人性上活出了天主性。圣史若望就给我们留下一个宝贵的见证。一次，有一个人对若望说：「来，看看吧！」。他跟随了祂，亲眼看见过，亲手模过，那人竟是生命的圣言，因着这个刻骨铭心的经验，他就为整个人类历史下了一个不可或缺的注脚：「圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间。」

人性是可朽坏的，天主性是无限的爱，人性要面对死亡，但天主性却是永远的生命。降生的圣言不但经历人的死亡，也是一个悲惨不义、绝不令人甘心的死亡，同时也经历复活，复活了的不是再死一次，而是因圣神的大能使复活的身体可承受永生。这就是祂留给我们的逾越奥迹。「人变成圣言」是指众人既与降生的圣言共享同一的人性，那么就有机会通过基督的人性而「分受天主的性体」(参阅伯后 1:4)。由于圣言是不断「投向」天主(若1:2)，那么圣言的降生，使天主已不可回转地投向人、分享人的一切，只要人跟随圣言，也不可回转地投向天主、分受天主的性体，可与祂紧密结合。简言之，只要人能同基督结合一起，其所活的、所作的，即使尽属人性的本质，都可通过基督的人性而分沾天主永恒的生命。

这原理可解释，教会是基督救赎工程的延续。正如基督以言以行建立天主的王国，同样基督以宣讲和圣事作为天人交换之处。正如降生的圣言是人类唯一的救主，同样教会享有这唯一性，即是祂救恩的延续的唯一基石。为此，基督应许圣神护卫她，地狱的门不能战胜她，以至她的宣讲常能忠于基督，在她内举行的圣事庆典常能赋予恩宠。

3. 三个主流

神学有不同的主流，它们有既定的原理和方法，但最重要的是它们在生活文化中，找到一些要素，作为研究和反省的对象。就如科学家们，有些研究自然现象(下雨、季节的转变)，另一些研究生物等，同样神学家们会研究不同的课题。又神学家们有不同心态、品味和敏锐性，他们对这些课题的解释也有不同风格的陈述。下文将列举三个主流，分别说明他们所提出的问题、范畴、课题、方法及其优点与局限。

3.1 信仰要求知性的明瞭

人有理性，就有求知欲，甚么都想知，过去、未来、上下、四方，总之包罗万有，且要知得彻底。这种求知欲使人的文明不断进步，也带动人从世趋向他的存在根由。

保禄说：

认识天主为他们是很明显的，原来天主已将自己显示了给他们。其实，自从天主创世以来，祂那看不见的美善，即祂永远的大能和为神的本性，都可凭祂所造的万物，辨认洞察出来，以致人无可推诿。(罗1:19-20)

这表示世界在起初已能自然地带人到天主那里，可是人的罪过却沾污了人的理性眼目。天主为救人，就遣派其圣子到人间，使相信祂的人能得永生。人的理性须由信仰(即接受主耶稣)的提升和光照，才能达致救援的真理。

信仰和理性是相辅相成的。奥思定说：「我相信为能瞭解，我瞭解为能相信。」信仰不能缺少言词的表达，而这种表达就触及理性的认知。言词是使人明白意义的指标，但信仰本身却要超越言词的宣认，因为信仰是神生命的恩赐，又是人以生命向神作的委身。多玛斯说：「信仰的行动并非只为达到宣认的言词而是言词背后的事实。」

虽然在这世代兴起泛相对论和虚无主义，但同时也流露一种「本体论的忧虑」(ontological anxiety)，存有到底是甚么一回事? 神学家要面对新的的问题：既然信仰肯定真理，那么人的自然理性到甚么程度可肯定真理？人的理性和存在有何关系？事物为甚么存在？存在为甚么如此绝对？怎样描写这些事实？究竟人的语言有否忠实地表达了信仰？谁？何时？何地？甚么？为何？如何？

此类神学着重信条的真理，其所用的范畴，是由圣经语言外延到(传统)形上学的清晰思维和词汇，诸如：实体与附体、超越与潜存、质料与形式、因果关系、潜能与实践、习性与寓居、主动与被动、存在与本质、隐性与显性、先天和经验、类比和推理、信条的起源及演变等等。

在方法上，他们倾向定义式的陈述，将神学视为一种诠释的态度，承认人是懂得用语言的存有，可协调主体的明瞭与客体的存有，然后通过文字的表达成为文本(text)。文本具有独特的活力，其所产生的意义基本上是源于那被明瞭的存有，但当遇上了诠释者，就会按诠释者的存在感受和先存意念，产生某种意义，甚至超出本文原作者的意义，并能确定地符合事实的某一个层面。神学所达到的真理虽未能完整，但却是确凿的，神学常有修正和进展的的余地。

在内容方面，神学以论述信仰的基础为主。天主通过万物，尤其降生的圣言，所作的启示是指向人的救恩，而人的渴求却要达至天主，两者终必汇合相遇。其过程会指出：

人与生俱来的潜能，是向绝对的存有开放。

启示的是可信的，其内容虽然超越理性，但并不与之相违。

从信仰接受的启示，可追求更深度的明瞭。

从明瞭可推演到生活实践。

他们的优点有助人们在知性的观念上去明瞭天主的真理，和作出系统的整理。在治学上偏用演绎法，以经验中自明的真理，证实不自明的真理，因此，可建立不同的真理阶次。这些优点为一些人来说刚好又是弱点，例如过于夸张客观及普遍论证的陈述解释的功能，而导致这些解释很容易成为抽象而不着边际的理论，难于即时应用在牧民和社会的关怀上，容易自成一个关闭的系统，难以吸纳不同系统的思维和创意。

3.2 信仰要求希望的明瞭

若有人询问你们心中所怀的希望，你们要时常准备答覆。(伯前3:15)神学总是要在任何的人类处境中临场，在人生最基本关切的问题上争取一个席位。「上帝已死」是十九世纪人们对神失去信赖的心声，因为他们感到神对人已显得无能，而人却拥有无边的潜力，还是由人类自行发展，制造超人，进而取代神的位置。到了二十世纪，人类饱受两次世界大战的摧残，由超人去取代神的代价就是弱肉强食，灭绝人性的恐怖行为。「上帝已死」就变成人对人失去信心的悲鸣。后现代的思潮将这心声和悲鸣以多元的方式表达，推到一个虚无主义的极端。

《喜乐与希望》Gaudium et Spes这是梵二期间最能表达教会关心世界的一个文献。它是以高姿态 ── 《论教会对现代世界牧职宪章》的形式 ── 出现。它以平和的语调肯定教会的职责、天主对人的召叫，向所有的人宣示天主子民要团结一致，关心人类大家庭，并在各种世界的问题上建立交谈的基础。教会提出福音与俗世一起推崇人的尊严和强调人在世间的活动应以人为归宿，争取更大的正义、更普及的爱德、更合乎人性的秩序。

历史是人走过时空所留下的痕迹，这痕迹既隐藏着，同时又彰显一个奥妙的图形，而这图形随着时空的进展，渐渐所浮现出来的并非是某种意识型态或某个人生观，却是天主慈爱的素描。基督徒末世的讯息，正是透过这历史痕迹，而浮现出来，换言之，基督的喜讯必须与历史进程同化。

这类神学的问题是：行动如何成为神学的「话题」？宣讲如果不是先有正统的行动，能够成为正统的吗？甚么信仰带动政治社会的转化？何时何地那「时辰」要到？全部事实的终极依据和意义是甚么？「我们」可希望甚么？给予生活和死亡的勇气是甚么？

所采用的范畴是：历史、进展、演化、出谷、旅程、时代征兆、时机、朝圣者、旅途中人、行动和工作、妥协与斗争、政治、社会、大同、乌托邦、解放、人类、平等、女权运动、贫穷、环保、和平、公义、展望等。

在方法上，他们应用正反合的辩证去分析历史、社会的事实，制作一套行事系统，以效益作判准，务使信仰是充满动感，产生转化社会的实效。

解放神学应运而生。它首先是抗衡在当代神学的一种「私人化」的极端趋势，并予以一个批判性的修改，但从积极的意义来说，它尝试从现今社会的要求，再描述末世的讯息。故此，它是着重以实践作为真理判准的原则。耶稣的真理就是带动转化的真理。当然，这一点与马克斯的思想殊途同归的，正如马氏所说的：哲学家固然多方面寻求对世界的解释，但重要的是改变世界。神学的解释也是驱使信仰能得到实践。

内容是寻求历史进程的意义，指向新天新地的彰显，演绎希望的动力。人与天主一起并不只是克服大自然而已，基本上是整个人类历史向天主开放、进步和提升的问题。从信仰角度看，与其说这论调是沾上马克斯的色彩，无宁说是德日进的「生命上冲，总归基督」的基本路线。

他们的优点是采用一个具体和动感的语言，使信仰和每日的生活配合，同时又能使人类的整体生命的希望可逐步实现，具有先知默西亚的冲劲。其弱点在于过份偏向马克斯的意识型态。

3.3 信仰要求人性的明瞭

天主既「是隐藏的天主」(依45:26)，那么祂隐藏在那里？隐藏在受造物中，「自从天主创世以来，祂那看不见的美善，即祂永远的大能和祂为神的本性，都可凭祂所造的万物，辨认出来。」(罗1:20)。原来天主隐藏在万物中(隐性)，是为使万物能把祂彰显出来(显性)。可是，人犯了罪，心性受了重创，无法在万物中辨认天主。那么，天主选了另一个方法，就是圣言的降生，为使祂能隐藏在基督的人性中。如是，基督的人性同时具有天主的「隐性」和「显性」。由于「一切都是藉着祂和为了祂而受造……祂又是身体 ── 教会的头」(哥1:16-18)，那么我们的人性也成为天主隐藏和彰显的地方。换言之，在每个人的心中，都存放着向无限存有开放、向慕的意识和相通的潜能。有关这点，从柏拉图、奥思定、安瑟莫、多玛斯、文德、康德的先验伦理观，及至近代的方巴达沙和拉内等人，都接受过不同的诠释，而且从古到今教会内的教父、圣师、神学家们都持守的神学原理，虽然他们赋予不同的名称。

今代人的呼喊道出人意识的脆弱，面对所谓的「宗教真理」，根本就是无能为力。有见及此，一些神学家就尝试澄清这一点：人向无限开放的意识，一方面使人确凿地找到其存在的绝对根基，另一方面在这不可否认的根基上，却呈现了存有的奥秘。天主的自我通传是以人作为对象。如果人被召唤成为一个精神的主体去接受天主的自我通传，那么在他作为主体的本质内就具有一种超越的结构。神学家若能让人更透彻地了解其内在经验，也就更容易地建立一个接触天主奥秘的平台。

他们面对的问题是：究竟「我」的「人」性经验是甚么? 能伸延到神的经验吗？我的存在经验将成为神从我的内在通透出来的机会吗？从我最底层的意识里有天主圣三的踪影吗？我、你、他(它)是甚么？我应该作甚么？对谁负责？甚么值得爱？忠诚和友谊是甚么？痛苦和罪是甚么？自我满全、自我实现的意义何在？

他们所采用的范畴是偏向爱情、生命、自由、恩宠、光明、提升、欲念、诱惑、道德、宗教情操、同时这些词藻指向心灵的意境和挣扎、我与你、位际关系、情谊、忠贞、真切、经验、邂逅、相遇、通传等。

由于这些范畴是指向心灵的境况，故此其表达方法也偏向：叙事性、启发性、寓意性、象征性、诗词性、甚至是神秘诱人的手法，邀请人进入自己最内在的深处，点燃心火，接触那惊讶、叹息、奥秘、逍遥、慈悲、动情的感受。

其神学内容当然也处理各种教义的问题。然而，对他们来说，与其将神学视为一套有系统的学问，毋宁说它是迈向天主的心路，要经历净炼、照明和圆融的阶段。这要加强对自身生活的意识唤醒，采纳有助意识的净化的方法，如：佛家的参禅，印度的瑜珈，中国的气功等。甚至从这些经验中立论，铺陈天主的道理。将信仰的行动视为一个委身及承担，是天人交融的氛围，人的出现是为接受天主的邀请，这邀请要求人在其理性中达至信的服从，而特别指出爱德的行径，是信仰的因和果。

他们的优点是能以简洁而优美和抒情的语言来表达，以叙述性为重，具有诗意，寓意性强，但发人深省，充满智慧，与其说是追求「真理」，倒不如说是追求真切和信守。他们的弱点是过于主观和个人化地作现象的描写，有时会偏激，流于松散。

小结

本文的意向是点出今日神学的趋势，是信仰要求文化。在这大气候中，有三个神学原理，这并不意味只有三个而已。人们相当活跃地应用在信仰和文化的神学解释上。这些原理称为心物同向律、生活希望律和天人交换律。然后我们简介，在现代文化中，浮现出来的三个神学主流。3正如三个原理很少独立地应用，同样这三个主流亦非彼此排斥的。由于篇幅所限，本文未能刊登出重要的书目，这要留待另一个机会了。

神学固然需要生活经验，但只有对天主的爱心才能使我们看得更透彻。整理生活经验要求我们深入自己的文化，做好学问的功夫；对天主的爱，基本上是信仰的经验和灵修的实践，它是一条重生于圣神、肖似基督、走向天父的成长路。

3. 这里介绍的三个主流，本文都没有指出特别的代表人物，因为有些神学家都会随着时代经历个人思想的改变，他都涉猎不同问题和范畴。笼统来说：「知性的明瞭」的代表人物有：玛利坦(J. Maritain)，法国的新神学(nouvelle theologie)，舍努(M. D. Chenu)，丹尼路(J. Danielou)，梅里(J.A. Mohler)，拉纳(K. Rahner)，狄路柏(H. De Lubac)，朗尼根(B. Lonergan)等。

「人性的明瞭」有：马塞尔(G. Marcel)，昆(H. Kung)，拉纳(K. Rahner)，方巴达沙(H. von Balthasar)，崔西(D. Tracy)等。

「希望的明瞭」有：米兹(J.B. Metz)，史列拜克斯(E. Schillebeeckx)，苏宾诺(J. Sobrino)，顾提里(G. Gutierrez)等人。

作者：赵必成 Chiu, Abraham

The Glorification of the Father by the Son in the Gospel according to John 17:4
Abraham Chiu
Theology Annual vol.15 1994 p.119-134

　

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

Abstract
The author interprets Jn 17:4. The verse is found in Jesus' High-priestly prayer. Throughout the entire Gospel of John, nowhere does Jesus call Himself a high priest, nor does anyone else. On the contrary, the high priest is depicted as His enemy. Jn 17 is a prayer which Jesus as master made for Himself, for His disciples and friends. Jn 17:4 quite often escapes the notice of the readers. Getting closer to this verse, we find that it contains a beautiful expression of the incarnation mystery. The Son has glorified the Father by having completed the work which the Father has given to Him.

作者诠释若17:4子光荣父。此节在所谓「大司祭的祈祷」内。但是，纵观整部福音，耶稣从没自称为「大司祭」，别人也绝对没有称呼他为「大司祭」。反之，「大司祭」是耶稣的敌对者。因此，若17其实是师傅表白心迹的一篇祈祷文 ── 为自己、门徒及信友。若17:4经常给读者「走漏眼」，细研之下，原来含蕴圣言降生成人的深奥 ── 以完成工作来光荣父。

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

　

1. v.4   a I have glorified you {shown your glory} on earth ()

2.         b by having completed the work ()

3.         c which you have given me ()

4.         d that I do it ()

　

Jn17:4 presents the glorification of the Father by the completion of the work of the Son. The aorist indicative () means that the Son glorified the Father on earth (v.4a) by completing the work () which the Father has given (, perf. indic) There is an aorist subjunctive () which can have future implications. This leads to a problem about the point which Jesus refused to an the completion of his work, viz., at the farewell supper, on the cross, or in his post-resurrection/exaltation.

17:4 is put in the farewell discourse and it seems obvious that the completion of the work of Jesus refers to his preaching and working of signs before the farewell meal. However, the singular( ) does not mean all the individual works that Jesus has done but rather that his whole life is a work. Moreover, when Jesus is crucified and he knows that all is finished (,19:28), he says, ",(19:30). Does this imply that the work was completed on the cross? Furthermore, the participle () has a variant reading, viz., the aorist indicative in saying clearly that the Son already completed the work.

Some exegetes state that the whole life of Jesus is the glorification of the Father while other scholars suggest the cross event is the glorification. Again, some scholars believe the foundation of the Church to be the glorification. This part deals with the glorification of the Father and investigates the different proposals of scholars.

　

1. Verse 4a:
Syntactic analysis
V.4 starts another theme by using the personal pronoun which emphasizes the glorification by Jesus. The direct object is se (2nd. pers. acc. sg.) which has as its referents,(v.1);  (v.2); and ,  (v.5).  (1st pers. sg. aor. ind. act.) is the predicate of the subject  . The preposition which is used with the genitive  (gen. sg. f.), means on, upon, over a place or time. (1)　

2. Verse 4b:
2.1 Syntactic analysis
It is a participial clause dominated by the circumstantial (adverbial) participle (2) (nom. sg. aor. act. part.) and the predicate is  in v.4a.  (acc. sg. n.) is the indirect object of in v.4a.

2.2 Semantic analysis
2.2.1 Lexical meaning of (3)
In the Old Testament, to work usually means to do or to make. Specifically, it refers to the work of people in projects such as the tabernacle, the temple, the furnishings of the tabernacle or temple, or the walls of Jerusalem. Particularly, work is referred to the work of God. God's work on the Sabbath is called .

In the New Testament, means both activity and the products of activity. Simply, it means in secular Greek work, task. The work of God is indicated in his creation and the maintenance of all that exists. God's work presupposes human acceptance from which there emerge God's redemption and revelation.

In Jn, there is the interconnection between the work of God and the work of Jesus. A fundamental reason for this interconnection between God's work and Jesus' work is the miraculous signs as an attestation of God through the mediator. Jesus does the work in the mutual indwelling of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (14:10f.).

2.2.2 in Jn17:4
Some scholars who maintain the singular work of the Son presume that the whole life of Jesus is the glorification of the Father; on the other hand, scholars who insist that the work of Jesus is the cause of glorification underline the cross event.

The work in 17:4, is related to the salvation of the people. It is a work, occupation or task of Jesus. The author of Jn uses a singular which underlines the unity of the work. In other words, it does not mention the individual works but all the works as a whole. Some scholars assume that this work is the whole life of Jesus. Bultmann insists that it is the revelatory work of Jesus.(4) The realization of the work is commissioned by God through the revealer Jesus and moreover, it is continued in the activity of the disciples. The work given by the Father to the Son is completed on the cross.

Some of the exegetes see that the completion of the work of Jesus is on the cross and this is the climax of his obedience to the Father.(5) This is because the aorist participle is closely linked with the perfect form  in 19:30 which is the last word of Jesus before his death.

Other scholars underline the work as the revelation of the Father (6): indicates that Jesus glorified the Father in his work and it is also the manifestation of the Father's glory. This revelation of the Father implies the unity between the Father and the Son because Jesus has completed the work given by the Father.

The completion of the work given by the Father, implicitly expresses the obedience of the Son.(7) And the death of Jesus is the final completion of the work in his earthly life. It is also the revelation of the Father because Jesus expresses his absolute obedience on the cross.

In the entire Gospel, there are twenty-six phrases which use the singular  or the plural . Fifteen of them relate to the work(s) of Jesus: 4:34; 5:20, 36; 7:21; 9:3, 4; 10:25, 32, 37, 38; 14:10, 11, 12; 15:24; 17:4.(8) Within these fifteen phrases, 4:34 ( : ), 5:36 ( : )and 17:4 ( ) refer to the completion of the work of Jesus. Specifically, the singular  is used in 4:34 and 17:4 respectively which implies that the whole life of Jesus is one unitary work. In other words, the whole life-purpose of Jesus is to complete the work in order that he glorify the Father in the world. (9)We will further investigate the meaning of  in the following section.

2.2.3  in 17:4
a) Aspect of  in 17:4
Scholars do form different camps when they deal with the meaning of  in 17:4. Generally, they connect 17:4 with 4:34, 13:1 and 19:28 in order to elaborate on the attitude of Jesus in his work, especially, Jesus' completion of his work on the cross (19:28). The work of Jesus is intertwined with the glorification of the Father. This glorification is the aim of his work throughout his earthly life. Specifically, the aorist  implies a historical event. The attitude of Jesus is to accomplish the work that the Father has given; moreover, he completes the work in love and obedience. The author does not use an aorist which describes gifts regarded as given by the Father to the Son on his coming into the world to proclaim the Gospel. The perfect  indicates the work as having been given to the Son and as now belonging to him. The Son realizes the  by completing the work from the Father.

The prefatory participle used by the author of Jn is to prepare the readers for some especially solemn utterance or act of Christ. The participle  looks back upon the completed life of Jesus.(10)

b) lexical meaning of (11)
The non-biblical usage of is to make. In the participial form,  means to bring to completeness or wholeness. Moreover, it also comprises the meanings of fulfil, obey, observe, meet the requirements of and bring to pass a prediction.

In the Old Testament, the idea of completeness lies close to the idea of fullness (). In the LXX, the verb means to make perfect, e.g., "the beauty of Tyre" (Ez.27:11; ).

means to fulfil and to carry out in the New Testament. Among the twenty-three occurrences of in the New Testament, nine are found in the Johannine writings (five in Jn, four in 1Jn). is a causative verb and it is used as complete, being to an end, place in a certain (final) condition, make complete/perfect and to fulfil.

In the context of Jn, when  is applied to Jesus, it means that Jesus carries out the work of salvation, preaches the deeds which are given by the Father. Particularly, he completes the works in order to glorify the Father (17:4). 5:36 focuses on the individual works of Jesus and 17:4 underlines the unitary work of Jesus' whole life.

c) The meaning of  in 17:4
In Jn, the completion of the work of Jesus is mentioned in 4:34 ; 5:36 ; and 17:4( ).

In 17:4, the author uses the explanatory  which is used for the infinitive with the aorist subjunctive (12). Together with the final subordinating use of , the infinitive may be thought of as expressing a direction or goal.(13) This direction or goal should be best explained as the cross event in which the  of 19:28, 30 is used.(14)

Let us see the four verbs in v.4:

(1st. pers. sg. aor. indic. act.)
I glorified

(sg. m. aor. act. part.)
having completed

(2nd. pers. sg. perf. act. indic.)
you have given

(1st. pers. sg. aor. act. subj.)
I do

is aor. indic. which means a past event. Jesus glorified the Father already. Jesus glorified the Father by having completed the work which the Father has given (perf., temporal anticipation). The singular  is a collective word for works which points to the work. The obedient Son completes the work to the end, even though he dies on the cross.

3. Verse 4c:
Syntactic analysis
The relative pronoun  (nom. sg. n.) refers to the accusative  in v.4b.  (2nd. pers. sg. perf. ind. act.) has its referent as the accusative  in v.4a. The subject of this predicate is understood as  in v.1. The direct object is  (1st. pers. sg. dat.) which refers the Son.

4. Verse 4d:
4.1 Syntactic analysis
(15) is an indicator of the linguistic level of a final sense (purpose, aim, goal - in order that). The mood is generally in the subjunctive. When  is used with a subjunctive, it implies not only after a primary tense, but also after a secondary tense. There is a large number of  clauses in the Johannine literature (145 in Jn). Jn expresses purpose when he uses  which is in contrast to Lk who prefers an equivalent infinitive construction. In 17:4, the  clause is a final clause of v.4c and it refers to a specific goal.  (1st. pers. aor. subj. act.) is the subject of v.4d and it has its referent moi in v.4c. With , it is translated as to do.

4.2 Semantic analysis
of 17:4 is reminiscent of that of 4:34 and the aorist indicative  of 2:11.

4.2.1  in 4:34
Bultmann insists that Jesus the Revealer is inferior to the one who sent, and Jesus' life is to serve in his ministry. The service is to referred as his food; it means that he has come not only for this service, but indeed through this service.(16)

Schnackenburg maintains that Jesus in portrayed as obedient in 4:34. The decisive element in his act of redemption is the dedication of his will, his obedience towards God, which dominates his whole life and culminates in the sacrificial offering of his body.  seems to bring out the idea of the fulfilment of the divine task of redemption, which is completed to the end (17:4, 19:30).

The singular  means the whole work which Jesus has to do on earth and it is distinguished from  the individual works which he has to accomplish. The singular work signifies the whole life of Jesus on earth.(17)

Morris asserts that the work that Jesus does is not only a human work but also a divine work, because he does what the one, who sends him, wants. The aorist subjunctive corresponds to 19:30 in which Jesus says that it is completed. Morris also believes that the author of Jn elaborates a deeper sense in which nothing is more complete than the cross.(18)

The text itself expresses clearly that the whole life (food) of Jesus is to complete the work and to do the will of the one who sends him.

v.34 a

        b

        c

        d

The subject of v.34a is  and the object is  which refers to the  in 4:33. The predicate  (3rd. pers. sg. pres. act. indic.) is a response to the disciples' question in v.33.  of v.34b is an emphatic expression in order to stress what the food () of Jesus is (). Then v.34cd are explanatory clauses of the food of Jesus. The two aorist subjunctives  and  are the two predicates of v.34cd respectively. of v.34c has its referentin v.34b.   and  are the two direct objects of .  is a genitive participial phrase of which is identified with the genitive . These two genitives refer to.

There are some words of v.34cd which are similar to the words of 17:4, i.e., , and . In this verse, Jesus says that his food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to complete his work. Jesus says that his food is to complete the work of God because the disciples ask whether someone brought him food. As food is a necessary material for continuing life, Jesus' answer signifies that his life is to complete the work which the sending one gives.  andare aorist subjunctives which imply that doing the will of God is equivalent to completing his work.(19)

As a result,  in 4:34 means that Jesus' whole life is to do the will of the one who sends him and the intention of Jesus is to complete the Father's work. Referring to  of 19:30, scholars relate  of 4:34 to the cross event. The death of Jesus makes the completion irrevocable.

4.2.2 in 2:11
v.11 a

        b

        c

Schnackenburg states that the sign in Cana reveals the glory of Jesus and leads those whose faith is ready to a deeper understanding of the person of Jesus. Moreover, Schnackenburg emphasizes that the revelation of the glory of Jesus can be seen through believing eyes. As a means of Jesus' self revelation, the sign has the same force as his words, and as appears from the great miracles that will come later. 2:11 is a programmatic statement of what the signs essentially are and should be: the unveiling of the glory of the Word made flesh (1:14), of the Son of man who dwells on earth and remains linked with heaven. And it is a glory which can be grasped in faith and can thus lead to full faith in Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God (20:31). The glory which Jesus possesses and manifests on earth must be taken as the effect of his divine and heavenly glory, which he had before the creation of the world. (20)

Bultmann observes that 2:11 is not simply investigating the miraculous event, but through the whole of Jesus' ministry, Jesus reveals his glory. As a revealer, Jesus is finally visible after the completion of his work.(21)

Morris focuses on the believing of the disciples. The glory of Jesus is revealed to some and hidden from others. The disciples believe in him because they see his glory in the sign through their believing eyes. (22)

After having observed different aspects of  in 2:11, we put this aorist indicative in syntactic analysis.

is kataphoric to the object of v.11a,  (gen. pl. n.). The subject of the predicate  (3rd. pers. sg. aor. act. indic.) of v.11a is understood in 11b: .  (acc. sg. f.) has its referent.  (gen. sg. f.) is the indirect object of . The predicate  (3rd. pers. sg. aor. act. indic.) of v.11c has its referent as  in v.11b.  (acc. sg. f.) is the direct object of v.11c and  refers to   of v.11b. The subject of v.11d is and its predicate is (3rd. pers. pl. aor. act. indic.)  is related to the accusative personal pronoun and the genitive  refers to  in v.11b.

Precisely, in 2:11, the author indicates that Jesus did the first sign in Cana to manifest his glory, and as a result, his disciples believed in him. In other words, there is a connection between the working of signs and the manifestation of the glory of Jesus.

Consequently,   in 2:11 focuses on the glorification of the Son. The working of the first sign or other signs is not only the expression of the power of God, but the revelation of the glory of God. Secondly, the purpose of the work of signs, obviously, is to make the disciples believe in Jesus the Son of God. In other words, the work of Jesus glorifies (reveals) God the Father and the Son, indeed, the work itself also establishes the foundation of the Church .

4.2.3  in 17:4
is closely related to  which we have discussed in v.4b. However, the work given by the Father to the Son may not require him to complete it. The Son can choose to accomplish the work partially or completely. In other words, is this  clause together with the aorist subjuctive  complementary or an expression of purpose?(23)

a)  as a purpose clause
As we have mentioned in the syntactic analysis of v.4d, John custom is to express purpose with a  clause. If  is used with a subjunctive, it is generally defined as a purpose (final) clause. (24)Therefore, the  clause in 17:4 implies that the work is given to Jesus with the intention that he should do it. Moreover, there are three aspects of an aorist subjunctive: punctiliar, ingressive and complexive(25). Within a  final clause, the aorist subjunctive is used as an infinitive(26). In other words,  in 17:4 is neither punctiliar nor complexive, but ingressive. An ingressive aspect of an aorist subjunctive expresses a sense of continuity. This continuity points out the final purpose of the action: he should do.

b) as complement of a verb
When an infinitive is used as a complement of a verb,  means that the work given to Jesus consists in the doing. In other words, the work consists in the fulfilment of the Father's will (also cf. 5:34)(27). A. Vanhoye compares  of 17:4 with  of 5:36. Grammatically, Vanhoye asserts that of 5:36 is a purpose clause because there is a complementary  as an object of . However,  of 17:4 has no complement and it is the complement of .(28) Moreover, in the context of 17:4, Vanhoye believes that the completion of the work of Jesus is in his passion. The passion of Jesus is the purpose of his work in which the Father is revealed by the Son, and conversely, the Son by the Father because they are in a union of love. In this case, is also a complement of the passion.(29) However, according to the definition in BDF, a complement of a verb is also a purpose clause.

Thus, to summarize this part,  in Jn17:4 can be seen from two aspects, either a purpose clause or a complement of a verb. If  is a purpose clause, Jesus is obliged to do the work given by the Father until the completion of the work in order that he can thoroughly glorify the Father. If  is a complement, it means that the work given to Jesus already consists in the doing. However, it is difficult to distinguish between the two hypotheses because both of them consist of the expression as a purpose clause. Moreover, in the context of 17:4, the participial clause  points out that the Son glorifies the Father by the completion of the work. This completion is to do the work given by the Father. Therefore, it implies a purpose: to do and complete the work. As a result, the Son intends to do the work as the glorification of the Father and, the work given to Jesus already consists in the doing. The fulfilment of the Father's will is the purpose of the Son.

5. Summary
The personal pronoun starts another theme in the context of vv.1-5.  emphasizes the glorification of the Father by the completion of the work of Jesus. Particularly in Jn, there is an interconnection between the works of God and the works of Jesus in which the working of signs and wonders is attributed to God by the Son as the mediator.

The author of Jn uses a singular  which does not imply the individual works but the work as a whole in Jesus' life. In other words, the whole life of Jesus is the work. This work is regarded is the salvation of humankind.

Some exegetes see the completion of the work of Jesus as his death on the cross by relating  of 17:4 to  of 19:30. Others underline the revelatory aspect of the work while they throw light on the aorist indicative . However, both of them express the obedience of the Son to the Father. In Jesus' death, he really and completely finishes his work and in this work, he glorifies the Father in the sense of revealing the Father to the world.

points out the attitude of Jesus when he does the work which the Father has given. To complete the work unto death expresses love of and obedience to the Father. The perfect  indicates that the work as having been given to the Son and as now belonging to him. This prefatory participle draws the attention of the readers to this solemn act of Christ. In the context of Jn,  means that Jesus carries out the work of salvation and  is best explained by the cross event because of its semantic connection with  in 19:28, 30.

When  is used with a subjunctive, it implies a purpose.  expresses the goal of the work of Jesus. This   clause of 17:4 is reminiscent of 4:34 and 2:11. Specifically,  of 17:4 finds its exact repetition in 4:34. In 4:34, the author uses  to elaborate the whole life of Jesus. His whole life is to complete the work which the sending one gives. The two aorist subjunctives,  and  imply that doing the will of God is equivalent to the completion of his work. Bultmann insists that the whole life of Jesus is to serve. Schnackenburg maintains that Jesus is portrayed as obedient in 4:34. He proposes that the decisive element in redemption is the dedication of his will to God. Finally,  in 4:34 means that the whole life of Jesus is to do the will of the one who sends him and his attitude towards the work is to complete it. Referring to  of 19:30, scholars relate  of 4:34 to the cross event because the death of Jesus makes the completion of the work irrevocable.

In Jn2:11, Schnackenburg and Bultmann believe that the working of signs reveals the glory of Jesus and Morris maintains that the working of signs is for the belief of the community.

Indeed,   in 2:11 focuses on the glorification of the Son and its purpose is to make the disciples believe in Jesus the Son of God.

in 17:4 may be investigated as a purpose clause of v.4c or a complement of the verb . In fact, we cannot exclude either of the investigations because they point out the functions of v.4d as the final clause of v.4c and a complement of .

Consequently, the completion of the work of Jesus is the revelation of the Father by his whole life, and his obedient death makes the work completely irrevocable. When the Father is revealed to the disciples who are able to see the glory of God, it is the glorification of God the Father and the Son.

　

Notes
1.
Cf. BDF, 122, #234; BAGD, 286; EDNT 2 (1991) 21. Regarding the meaning of , cf. the exegesis of v.1.

2.
Cf. BDF, 215, #417.

3.
Dealing with the lexical analysis of , we refer to BETRAM G., , in TDNT II (1965) 635-652, 642-643; BAGD, 308; BAUER J.B., Work, in BEBT, 995-1001, 996; SIMPSON J.W.Jr., Work, in ISBE 4 (1988) 1107-1111; HEILIGENTHAL R., , in EDNT 2 (1981) 49-51.

4.
BULTMANN R., Johannes, 199-200.

5.
Cf. ch. one, II. B. 3.

6.
See ch. one, II. B. 1.

7.
Cf. ch. one, II. A. 2.

8.
Cf. CKNTG, 683, #169.

9.
See BROWN R.E., John (AncB 29), 527: "The Concept of 'work' in John is wider than that of miracles; in xvii 4 Jesus can sum up his whole ministry as a work. No only are Jesus' miracles works; his words are works too."

10.
For the general aspect of , we refer to BULTMANN R., Johannes, 378-369: "die Verherrlichung des Vaters vollzog sich in der Vollbringung des aufgetragenen Werkes, - aber das Werk, das der Vater dem Sohne 'gegeben' hatte, ist ja das  und , also der Vollzug der " BROWN R.E., John (AncB 29A) 742; SCHNACKENBURG R., Johannesevangelium vol.3, 197: "und an ihn lehnt sich auch die Bitte an,  der Vater nun seinerseits den Sohn verherrlichen moge. Unter diesem Gedanken ist das Kreuzesgeschehen in das Werk, das der Sohn in Gehorsam und Liebe gegen den Vater (vgl.10:18; 14:31) vollbracht hat, einzubeziehen. Aber daraus darf man nicht folgern,  hier schon der erhohte Christus spricht; es ist das Gebet des scheidenden Christus, der der Vollendung seines Werkes (vgl.19:30) und seiner eigenen Vollendung  ist." Also see BERNARD J.H., St John Vol.II, 563; BARRETT C.K., St John, 504; MURRAY J.O.F., St John, 294-295; GAEBELEIN A.C., John, 315; CADMAN W.H., Heaven, 209.

11.
For the lexical meaning of , we refer to BAGD, 809; ABBOTT E.A., Grammar, 221, #2279; HUBBER H., , in EDNT 3 (1993) 344-345; GUNDRY R.H., Fulfil, in ISBE 2 (1982) 366-369; DELLING G., , in TDNT VIII (1972) 79-84.

12.
Another understanding of  is future indicative; however, in the context of 17:4 where the explanatory  is used,  is an aorist subjunctive.

13.
Cf. BDF, 201, #393.

14.
Cf. GAEBELEIN A.C., John, 315: "it means the finished work on the cross. If He meant the finished work, His death, how could He speak thus, when that work was still unfinished? We must remember that elsewhere in this prayer He speaks of being 'no longer in the world' yet He was still here. In anticipation He looks onward beyond the cross. He knew His work could never fail, that it would be finished, and therefore He gives expression to it in the presence of the Father and for the comfort of His own." See also BARRETT C.K., St John, 504: "the participle should be translated 'by finishing the work ...' The Son glorifies the Father by his complete obedience and faithful fulfillment of his task.  looks back upon the completed life of Jesus, and probable upon his death too (cf.19:30, )." BERNARD J.H., St John vol.II, 563: "His 'works' had been 'given' Him by the Father to accomplish (3:35, 5:36). They had now been accomplished, and presently He would say  (19:30)."

15.
For the analysis of , we consult LAMPE P., , in EDNT 2 (1991) 188-189; BDF, 186, #369; BAGD, 376-378.

16.
BULTMANN R., Johannes, 143: "Dieser immer wieder betonte Gedanke soll die Offenbarung als Gottes Handeln beschreiben: der Offenbarer ist nichts fur sich; er ist 'gesandt', und sein Leben und Wirken ist ein Dienst. Und wenn dieser Dienst hier (v.32, 34) als seine Speise bezeichnet wird, so ist dadurch gesagt,   er nicht nur fur diesen Dienst, sondern sogar durch ihn da ist."

17.
SCHNACKENBURG R., Johannesevangelium vol.1, 480-481: "Das Erlosungstat besteht in der Willenshingabe, im Gehorsam gengen Gott, der sein ganzes Leben erfullt und in der Opferung seines Leihes gipfelt. Ahnlich sagt Jesus in dieser Stunde seinen jungern,  er sich verzehre, um Gorres Willen restlos zu erfullen. Die zweite Wendung  scheint diesen Gedanken nur zu variieren, vielleicht um noch starker die sich bis zum Ende durchhaltende Erfullung des gottlichen Erlosungsauftrags auszudrocken (vgl.17:4; 19:30, hier aber .) Der Singular  meint das gesamte auf Erden von Jesus auszurichtende 'Werk' und ist von den , den einzelnen von ihm zu vollbringenden Werken, zu unterscheiden."

18.
MORRIS L., John, 277-278. Likewise, CARSON D.A., John, 228-229, agrees with Morris that Jesus completes his work on the cross. Moreover, he especially emphasizes the connection between 17:4 and 4:34.

19.
See also BARRETT C.K., St John, 241: "The ministry of Jesus has no significance apart from the will of the Father; it is not the independent achievement of humanity but the fruit of submission."

20.
SCHNACKENBURG R., Johannesevangelium vol.1, 338-340: "Das in Kana Geschehene ist ein Zeichen, das die  Jesu enthullt, und fuhrt die Glaubenswilligen (die Junger) zu einem tieferen Verstandnis der Person Jesu .... Das 'Zeichen' offenbart Jesu 'herrlichkeit', aber nur denjenigen, die es mit glaubigen Augen schauen. Als Mittel der Selbstoffenbarung Jesu tritt es vollberechtigt neben seine Worte und wird, wie sich bei den spateren Grobwundern zeigt .... So sind die drei Satzchen in 2:11 eine exemplarische Darstellung, was die 'Zeichen' ihrem Wesen nach sind und sein sollen: eine Enthullung der 'herrlichkeit' des fleischgewordenen Logos (vgl.1:14), des auf Erden weilenden, mit dem Himmel verbundenen 'menschensohnes' (vgl.1:51), die man im Glauben erfassen kann, um so den vollen Glauben 'an Jesus', den Messias und Gottessohn (20:31), zu gewinnen .... Die , die Jesus auf Erden besitzt und offenbart, wird man als Auswirkung seiner himmlisch-gottlichen Herrlichkeit ansehen durfen, die er schon vor Grundlegung der Welt  (17:5)." Likewise, CARSON D.A., John, 175, also stresses the sign is the revelation of Jesus' glory: "His glory would be revealed in greatest measure in his cross, resurrection and exaltation, but every step along the course of his ministry was an adumbration of that glory."

21.
BULTMANN R., Johannes, 83: "Fur den Evglisten erschopft sich der Sinn der Geschichte nicht in dem wunderbaren Ereignis; dieses, bzw. die Erzahlung, ist fur ihn Symbol dessen, was sich im ganzen Wirken Jesu ereignet, der Offenbarung der  Jesu .... ihn als den Offenbarer, wie er bach der Vollendung seines Werkes erst endgultig sichtbar geworden ist."

22.
MORRIS L., John, 186. Also see BARRETTE C.K., St John, 193: "It is implied that the disciples believed because of the manifestation of the glory of Jesus in the sign."

23.
Cf. VANHOYE A., L'oeuvre du Christ, don du Pere. Jn5:36 et 17:4, in RSR 48 (1960) 377-419.

24.
Cf. BDF, 197, #390: "In the NT it has become common again in a wide sphere with a variety of verbs of motion, and is the equivalent of a final clause."

25.
Cf. BDF, 174, #337.

26.
See ibid, 196, #388: "analytical constructions with  and  have developed into serious rivals of the infinitive. The following picture obtains for the NT: what can be interpreted as intended or probable result is expressed to a great extent by  and the subjunctive;  in other words has a subjunctive (imperatival) sense .... John exhibits a marked preference for  instead of the inf."

27.
Cf. BDF, 199, #392: "The infinitive as complement of a verb borders closely on the infinitive of purpose and result. (1) it is used with verbs meaning 'to wish, strive, avoid, ask, summon, make, allow, permit, hinder, be able, have power', .... Rev3:9 (, cf. 13:12, 15F."

28.
VANHOYE A., Christ, 381: "Cependent, une legere diffe-rnece entre les deux textes fait qu'elle ne convient pas aussi bien a l'un qu' a l'autre: en5:36 - nous l'avons note plus haut, - le verbe introduit par  () a son complement pres de lui, le pronom, tandis qu'en 17:4, le berbe introduit par () n'a pas de complement pres de lui. Dans ce dernier verset, le relatif o est donc a considerer comme etant le complement de   plutot que de  et ce dernier verbe est libre de gouverner la proposition  est a considerer comme finale. La transcription que nous avons donnee plus haut laissait pervevoir cette differnece: 5:36, (les oeuvres que tu m'as donnees pour que je les accomplisse); 17:4, (l'oeuvre que tu m'as donne que je fasse)."

29.
Ibid., 419: "On peut y reconnaitre l'importance du verbe , l'allusion a la Passion contenue dans  et y retrouver cette doctrine essentielle que l'oeuvre du salut des hommes est realisee par le Pere en son Fils, par le fils en son Pere, qu'elle revele ainsi leur union dans l'amor et y introduit ceux qui s'ouvrent a la foi."

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A015j.htm

by Peter Brady

The English philosopher, Phillipa Foot, once told a story which is well known to moral philosophers. A number of explorers were trapped in a cave. Water was rising in the cave and there was only one small exit. Unfortumately, a fat members of the party had become stuck in the exit and could not be removed. The only way the others could clear the exit was to blow the man up with dynamite which they had in their possession. If they did not do this they would all die. Let us suppose that the explorers were all students of ehtics. They discuss their predicament. Should they blow up their fat friend?

The Lesser Evil

Grey: The simplest and quickest way to solve this problem is to choose the lesser of two evils.

Green: "The lesser of two evils" can mean many things. A person who thinks that no matter what he does will commit a sin may choose what he considers to be the lesser of two evils or the least of many evils. Subjectively, he will not be guilty of doing wrong. Of couse, a person who is ethically well-informed will never have to face such a dilemma.

Grey: That is not the case I have in mind. I mean that of two evils a person may choose the lesser one.

Green: If he is absolutely committed to doing evil, for example, to stealing a large sum of money from a bank, a friend may counsel him to take a smaller sum than he planned, for example, $500,000 instead of one million dollars. The friend does no wrong in advising him to take less, provided he does not really want him to take any. The thief is, of course, guilty of stealing the sum he takes.

Grey: No, I am not thinking of that case either. I am thinking of our present somewhat precarious situation. To put the matter bluntly, if indelicately, we should blow up our fat friend and get out of this place as quickly as possible. In this situation it is not wrong to blow him up. He knows his Scripture and will be glad to make the sacrifice and give his life for his friends.

Green: You know your Scripture too, no doubt. You will realise that you are following one of the few ethical principles that gets its name from the New Testament, "The Caiphas Principle". In recent years it has been popularised under other names, Proportionalism, for example, though Proportionalists would never admit it.

Grey: I am glad to find myself in such good company.

Green: Congratulations! But I am afriad you will not find many good arguments for their ethical views. As a matter of fact, they have never been able to refute the criticisms that have been levelled against their method of making moral decisions. They have never been able to show how they can know the good and evil of actions and all their effects to decide which action will be the lesser evil; much less have they been to show how one can add and compare values that are incommensurable.

Grey: But surely this method has a respected place in traditional Catholic ethics. For example, in the fourth condition of the Principle of Double Effect?

Green: It has nothing of the sort. According to traditional Catholic ethics there are certain kinds of actions, perjury, murder, adultery, and others, that are always and in all cir cumstances morally wrong. This is a basic principle of Catholic ethics and of the Principle of Double Effects which was developed to deal with difficulties arising from the fact that there are moral absolutes. Proportionalists deny the existence of most moral absolutes, especially those in the "inner worldly" sphere. Moreover, in evaluating the proportion between good and bad effects, those who use the Principle of Double Effect, evaluate them according to moral principles such as the Golden Rule. Proportionalsim eliminates the need for the Principle of Double Effect and rejects the moral principles on which it is based.

White: The problems of Proportionalism have been discussed for over thirty years and those of its close relative, Utilitarianism, for over one hundred. We have not so much time to discuss our problem. I think one can agree that our purposes should always be good. We should not use evil means to achieve them. Surely it would be wrong for us to blow up an innocent man to save our lives? To allow the intentional killing of any innocent human being is, in principle, to undermine all justice. The lesser of two evils, my foot!

Responsibility

Green: You are right. To blow up our fat friend, even to save our own lives, would be murder. It would be the direct killing of an innocent man. The immediate effect of setting off the dynamite would be his deaht. We would be responsible for his death.

White: We could be responsible for causing his death without being morally responsible for doing something wrong.

Green: But surely if we knowingly and willingly do the action that causes his death we are morally responsible for the death?

White: Well, we need not have chosen to do it. We would then neither cause his death nor bear any moral responsibility for it. But if we do the action that causes his death we are morally responsible for his death insofar as we need not have done the action, but we are not necessarily responsible for doing wrong.

Green: I can see that if death rarely, if ever, resulted from such an action a person would not necessarily be guilty of doing wrong. But we know that the dynamite will certainly kill him.

White: Even in that case, a person need not necessarily be morally responsible for doing wrong, that is, be guilty of doing wrong.

Green: I can agree that if, for example, I choose to learn the computer, I know that I will inevitably make mistakes, which I will not make if I do not learn the computer. Certainly one does not do moral evil by unintentionally making mistakes on the computer. But we must be serious. We are talking about killing our fat friend.

The Effects of Our Actions

White: Well, what would you say about the man who jumps into the icy sea because there are too many people on the life-raft? Is he guilty of committing suicide?

Green: That is different. The immediate effect of his action is that the life-raft becomes lighter and is in less danger of sinking. So unless he intends to commit suicide, he does not do so.

White: Perhaps we can agree, them, that even if I do something that will certainly cause a person's death I am not necessarily responsible for wrongful killing, i.e., murder. In other words, I can be responsible for causing a bad effect, without being responsible for wrongdoing.

Black: That seems to be a reasonable conclusion. But I am not too clear about this notion of "immediate effect". For example, there is the old problem about the warship that is guarding a convoy of merchant ships. Some ships are attacked by a submarine and are sinking. In order to escape, the captain of the warship orders his ship "full steam ahead". He knows that as a result life-boats will be swamped or run down and men will be drowned. Is the death of these men the immediate effect of his action?

Brown: It seems that there are two equally immediate effects, one that the warship begins to escape, the other that the men in the water are killed or drowned. Many of our actions have two equally immediate effects - when I give a present to a friend, I impoverish myself materially while I enrich my friend.

Black: Or there is the case of the woman who, during a famine, starves herself to keep her children alive. A time comes when she knows that if she continues to deprive herself of food she will die. Is her refusal to eat the immediate cause of her death? Is she guilty of committing suicide?

Brown: This notion of "immediate effect" is certainly not too clear. There can be two or even more immediate effects. The effects can be temporarily immediate, physically immediate, and there can be the psychological and moral effects on the agent himself. Instead of looking at the problem as a matter of cause and effect, let us look at the purposes and means employed, that is, at the intentions and choices of the agent, and their effects.

Intentions and Choices

Green: I agree that we alwaus have to consider intentions and choices. Obviously, there must always be good. And one must never intend to bring about a bad effect, but only to allow it when one has good reason for doing so.

Black: In the case mentioned, the man on the life-raft, the warship going full steam ahead and the woman keeping her children alive, the aims of the agents were good, they chose good means to achieve these aims, they did not intend to cause the bad effects and they had good reasons for permittiing them to occur.

Grey: How does all this apply to the case of our fat friend? It is well that he is not able to hear this conversation. He would have died of anxiety long ago.

Black: Our problem is like the case of the man who kills in self-defence. His purpose is to save his life and he chooses to use an appropriate degree of force. In fact, in the circumstances he has to use so much force that he knows he will kill the man, but he does not intend or choose to kill him. It is not because the man dies that he saves his life but because he stops the attack. The death is the unintended side - effect of his action.

Green: I would say that he intentionally killed the attacker in self-defence. The man's death was the means, or at least the immediate effect of the means, by which he defended himself. Direct killing in the case is quite legitimate. After all, he was unjustly attacked.

Black: I stick by my analysis. It is one thing to choose to use appropriate means to defend oneself, it is another thing to choose to kill a man to save one's life.

Change the Description

Green: The fact is that he kills the man to save himself.

Grey: Green is quite right. There is an old trick in Ethics; describe an action in one way and it is a good action, describe it in another and it is bad. This is what gives ethics a bad name. Some philosophers have argued that, if necessary, one can remove the brain from the head of an unborn child and crush the skull to enable the child to be delivered and so save the mother's life. They do not call this process "killing the child" but "reducing the dimensions of the head". Of course, they will say one does not intend to kill, only to reduce dimensions. You might as well say that when you lop off a man's head you only intend to stop his headache.

White: Certainly, we have to consider what a person actually does when we evaluate his responsibility. And the agent has to be sincere and rational in describing his choices and intentions. A person who beheads another to stop his headache is completely irrational. But a driver who finds that the brakes of his car are faulty can swerve to avoid killing a number of people and knowingly but unintentionally kill one person who happens to be on the road. He is not guilty of murder. A pilot who crashes his damaged plane in the sean because he does not want to kill people on the beach where he might have landed safely is not guilty of suicide. Descriptions are important. But they must fit the facts.

Means, Ends and Side-Effects

Green: How is all this relevant to our present problem?

Black: Well, as in the case of self-defence, we want to save our lives. Our purpose is good. The way in which we do this is by removing our fat friend from the opening of the cave. To do so we choose to blow him up. We do not intend to kill him but only to free the opening. His death is the unintended side-effect of the act of opening the cave.

Green: How on earth can you blow a man up and not intend to kill him?

Black: It is one thing to want to remove a man from the entrance to the cave. It is anther thing to want to kill him. It is possible to imagine that we can blow him out of the cave without killing him.

Grey: That is exactly the kind of sophistry that I was talking about a few moments ago. It is known as the technique of "directing one's intnetion". You can justify anything with its help. You can bomb a city and its inhabitants into dust and claim that you only intended to destroy the buildings. Of course, you can imagine a bomb that will destroy buildings and not kill people... it will cause the buildings to disintegrate slowly so that the people will have time to escape... it is one thing to bomb a city... another to annihilate its inhabitants. But in reality, you must not drop a nuclear bomb on a city.

Green: That is true. Clearly, it is one thing to imagine something and it is something else for it to be possible. You can imagine the time before creation or the space beyond all space, but could there be a time before creation or a space beyond all space? I can imagine shooting a person in the head and merely making him unconscious... the possibilities of imagining things are endless. And so too are the possibilities of self-deception if we admit such rationalisations into our moral thinking.

Towards a Solution

White: Let us get back to reality. As a result of scientific progress, it is now possible for a person to live, at least for some time, with an artificial heart. Would we allow a person will a strong heart but a malignant and inoperable brain tumour to donate his heart before death? He does not want to kill himself, and he does not save the life of the recipient of his heart by killing himself, but by having his heart implanted successfully in the recipient. It is one thing to donate a heart: it is another thing to kill oneself. I do not know of any ethician who would permit the donation of a heart of a living donor in any circumstances.

Green: A good point!

Brown: There are indeed similarities between our present problem and the case of killing in self-defence. But there are significant differences also. In the first place, our fat friend is not an unjust aggressor. Secondly, merely blowing him up will not, of itself, save us. We then have to get out of the cave. In the case of self-defence one and the same action has a good and a bad effect. The one act both saves and kills. In the third place, I do not accept the contention that the death of our fat friend is merely a side-effect of our blowing him up. To open the cave it is necessary to choose to blow him up, to make his body disintegrate, in order to free the opening. It is because he has been blown to pieces - i.e. killed, that we will be able to get out of the cave. If we blow up our friend intentionally, we shall be intentinally blowing up an innocent man. And the immediate effect of our action will be that we are murderers.

Grey: Out fat friend has not been showing much interest in our discussion.

Brown: It seems that we shall have to adjourn our little meeting and resume it in more propitious circumstances. The problem concerning our friend, I should say, our dear late lamented friend, is now a merely theoretical one, and the water is rising fast in the cave. It will soon be up to our necks. I thank you, ladies and gen tleman, for a most interesting and stimulating discussion.

And so the discussion ended.

Books and Articles

1. FINNIS J., Fundamentals of Ethics (Oxford: Clarendon 1983) especially 85-94, 106.

2. O'CONNELL T.E., Principles for a Catholic Morality (New York: Seabury 1978) 152-154, 165-173.

3. ANSCOMBE G.E.M., Medalist's Address: Action, Intention and 'Double Effect' in Dahlstrom D.O., et al., The Role and Responsibility of the Moral Philosopher (The American Catholic Philosophical Association 1982) 12-25.

4. BOYLE J.M.Jr., Double-Effect and a Certain Type of Embryotomy, Irish Theological Quarterly 44 (1977) 303-318; "Praeter intentionem" in Aquinas, in Thomist 42 (1978) 649-665.

5. FINNIS J., Object and Intention in Moral Judgments according to Aquinas, in Thomist 55 (1991) 1-23.

6. FLANNERY K., What is Included in a Means to an End?, in Gregorianum 74, 3 (1993) 499-513.　

作者：周景勋

从《论语》和《圣经》的启发中说「会友辅仁」及其整合

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

摘要
本文指出古代的中国和犹太传统都以智慧着称。很多人以此智慧而找到成长之路。作者特别以交友之道为题，分别在论语和圣经的德训篇和箴言篇中找到不少共同之处。真正的友情能使人彼此的精神生命和仁爱得以相通和提升。

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

　

1. 楔子
偶尔中，翻阅了吴经熊所写的《中国哲学之悦乐精神》一文，使我感悟到内心安宁而能参与天地化育的和谐喜悦，然要达到这境界，必须从自我内在的真诚修养做起。于是，我默观地作生命的体验和反省，由孟子所说的：「万物皆备于我矣！反身而诚，乐莫大焉。」(《尽心上》)加上自我的宗教信仰力量，希望在「天人相应」和「心物共融」中获得灵性上的启示；由是，我便在日记中写了这一篇散文诗：

昙花一现

尽心地将生命的灿烂和美丽

赤裸裸地开显出来

毫无保留的发挥了造物者的光荣

在短短的一个夜晚

启示万有 ──

当尽善尽美地活出自己最真的一面

　　蛂@　蛂@　?

生命掌握在自我的手里

真善美蕴藏在生命中

人 ── 在短短的人生历程内走着

当尽心尽力尽意尽灵地

　创造生命的光辉

将内在于自我的真善美开显出来

发挥创造者「圣」的美德

活出创造者在我身上所赐予的「成全」

　 ── 爱的生命

以爱包容短暂的生命

　 ── 自我的生命以及万有的生命

好能换取在基督爱的救赎中

　复活重生的永恒生命

夜的宁静，使我望着窗外的黑漆，却感到内心的光明；虽然我独个儿静静地反思观过(《论语里仁》)，藉以明心见性，体味万物的妙缘及宇宙间处处尽是禅机，因为万有皆伴我旁，也在我心底；人性上有孤独的现象，但心灵却是有着万物与我同在，声音与我同在，宁静与我同在……正如禅宗的一个公案：

春天月夜一声蛙

撞破干坤共一家

我就在「物我共融」中放下一切，不执着，学习「忘」的心境。我深信只要能做到：「物我两忘」，那便能够悟出：「万物尽是禅机」。而自我便永远不会孤立于宇宙间。

由「万物尽是禅机」中，告诉我人，在「物我两忘」之前，人必须与万物产生相连的关系，即人不能抽空自我，脱离这相连的关系，亦即没有物我，我人的关系，人永远不能从其关系中感悟：「物我两忘万物尽是禅机」。故生命的修练不在于离世、遯世、超世的生活方式，而是自然地在人世间生活，但不执物我，即不被物我所束缚，自由的将人内在的真善美，真诚地、赤裸裸地活现出来，若以宗教思想言之，就是：「成圣自己、圣化他人。」孔子则说：「立己立人，达己达人。」《中庸篇》更言：

唯天下至诚。为能尽其性，能尽其性，则能尽人之性；能尽人之性，则能尽物之性；能尽物之性，则可以赞天地之化育。可以赞天地之化育，则可以与天地参矣。

人在成圣中感悟天人合一，在修养德性中悟道，在尽性中参赞天地化育。相反的，人不成圣便不可能有所感悟，没有感悟，怎能达「天人合一」之境呢？人不修养德性，怎能在德性中悟道呢？人不尽性，便无法率性而顺天命，也就不能参赞天地化育了。

2. 悦乎 ── 朋友兮！
既然生命的修练是在人世间进展的，加上人的存在不能自我孤立和封闭起来，故人必然与宇宙间的万有发生互相维系的关系，而以自然律作为关系的保证。另一方面，人是群居的：有社会性和民族性的，便产生了伦常的关系，而以道德律作为关系的保证。儒家的伍伦思想：「君臣、父子、夫妇、兄弟、朋友」就是很好的例子。

五伦的关系，乃中国道统思想中人生活的一个指标，使人在其内体味生活的乐趣，在生活的乐趣中发扬伦常的德性，君礼、臣忠、父慈、子孝、兄友、弟恭、夫唱妇随、朋友有信，骨子里在于发挥「仁德」，以扩充人的生命和谐与协调，发挥生活的互助精神，更能达到止于至善。《大学篇》中释止于至善有这样的肯定：

为人君，止于仁；为人臣，止于敬；为人子，止于孝；为人父，止于慈；与国人交，止于信。

「止于至善」实在乃人内在的灵明德性的目标，故人必须透过「格物、致知、诚意、正心、修身」以明明德和扩展灵明德性，使能达至亲民，即人由修身而齐家、治国、平天下以表达一个社会性：由爱己而爱人，由爱人而达到社会的理想：天下大同。

人在自我的修养德性上找到自我生命内在的和谐，因而体验生命的乐趣；由自我生命内在的和谐进而发展到生命外在的和谐，人与人生活的互助，而发展到群居的乐趣：如家庭天伦之乐、朋友同居共处的美哉与乐趣等。另一方面，人可以从群居的乐趣中，激励自我修养内在生命的和谐，培育自我内心的悦乐精神，实在是相辅相承的力量。这使我记起：「失火而取水于海，海水虽多，火必不灭矣，远水不救近火也。」(《韩非子说林》)又《明心宝鉴》言：「远水难救近火，远亲不如近邻。」可见，邻友之于人的生命有着互相扶持的关系，由相亲相爱的友谊所带给人的悦乐与和谐，铭刻心中，所以当朋友远行而返时，大家因同心相连的友谊所产生的喜悦，更显得可贵。

吴经熊在谈《儒家的悦乐》时，也强调了友谊的乐趣说：

《论语》一开显便洋溢着悦乐的气氛，而谱出孔子人生哲学的全音程：

子曰：学而时习之，不亦悦乎？有朋自远方来，不亦乐乎？人不知而不愠，不亦君子乎？

从这句说里，我们可以体会到读书的乐趣，友谊的乐趣以及修养自己的人格而不求人知的乐趣。……

真挚的友谊可以启发心灵的明德，也可以辅助自我德行的感悟，增益智慧和新知，真可谓是生命中的乐事。难怪古语有言：「得一知己，死而无憾！」

在今日道德走下坡的社会中，群居生活促使人认识很多的朋友。原则上，我当如何交结朋友？我当以何种态度面对朋友呢？在我生命学习的过程中，我要求自己对人一定要「真诚」，要「用心」，但这纯情的流露常常是吃亏的，使自己心烦心忧而不安，然在一本书画册中看到郑板桥那笔峰锐实神妙的四个大字：「吃亏是福」，启迪了我返回内心的明德，寻找自己本有的真善美的天性，诚如老子《道德经》(十六章)中所说：

致虚极，守静笃、万物并作，吾以观复，夫物芸芸，各复归其根，归根曰静，是谓复命，复命曰常，知常曰明，不知常妄作凶，知常容，容乃公，公乃王，王乃天，天乃道，道乃久，没身不殆。

人必须返朴归真，在自然中把握真理。而交友之道乃指示吾人面对生活在群居中的真理。使我们以无伪忠信真诚的心去面对朋友，也可以在生命的和谐中找到真朋友知己，以帮助吾人在德智上有所增益，共同维护社会家国的安宁。吾人深信《论语》中所提到的交友之道，以及《圣经》中所言的朋友之道，实在可以作为今人的借镜。

3. 释意
究竟何谓朋友？《正中形音义综合大字典》的注释：

(1)

甲文
金文(1)

遽伯景彝
金文(2)

曹鼎
小篆

说文

　

甲文朋：王国维氏以为『殷时玉与贝皆货币也；……大者车渠之大，以为宗器；圭壁之属，以为瑞信；皆不为货币。其用为货币及服御者，皆小玉小贝，而有物焉以系之，所系之贝玉，于玉谓之珏，于贝则谓之朋，……珏朋本是一字。』金文朋第一字与甲文朋略同。金文朋第二字：林义光氏以为『从人，朋声，即倗之古文，凡倗友字经传以朋为之；』按象人持朋，义仍与甲文朋同。小篆朋：为凤字古文，略象凤首及羽翼形，其本义作『神鸟』解(见说文许着)，即凤凰鸟；许慎氏谓『凤飞群鸟从以数万，故以为朋党字；』朋即朋党朋友之朋。惟徐灏氏以为『朋党之名，起于汉世，固非造字时所有；且经传朋字甚多，与凤了不相涉，亦绝无通用者，盖朋字隶书作朋，与古文（）形近，后世儒误朋即（）之变体，遂牵合傅会而为是说，非其义也。……两贝为朋，此朋之本义；』按徐王二氏之说甚为明确；惟王氏谓『五贝一系，二系一朋；』徐氏谓：『二贝为朋，』一主郑康成说，一主苏林说，或谓二贝为朋与五贝为朋，古无定数，初为颈饰，即賏之同字，后成为货币，则以十贝为朋友成定制；说可互通，并引参证。

可见朋乃由聚、合、群，同之意而成，故在文化的演化上，以相交好者之同门、同好、同党为朋：

每有良朋，况也永叹。(诗小雅)

有朋自远方来，不亦乐乎？(论语学而)

大凡君子与君子，以同道为朋；小人与小人，以同利为朋。(欧阳修朋党论)

朋心合力。(后汉书李固杜乔传)

同门曰朋。(郑玄注论语公冶长篇「与朋友共」)

同师曰朋。(郑玄注周礼司徒「联朋友」)

（2）
甲文
金文

毛公鼎
小篆

说文

甲文友；金文友；与小篆友略同。小篆友：从二( )，()即手，二手示二人，二人彼此携手，足见相善相助之意；一说二人相善互助如左右二手，故其本义作『同志为友』解(见说文许着)，乃指同心合力者之称。

因此，「友」有同心合力、互助、相善、情谊互通、结交的意思。

幽冥之中，负此良友。(晋书．周顗传)

无友不如己者。(论语学而)

益者三友，损者三友。友直，友谅，友多闻，益矣！友便辟，友善柔，友便佞，损矣！(论语季氏)

惟孝友于兄弟，克施有政。(书．君陈)

兄弟友睦。(南史．傅昭传)

同志为友。(郑玄注论语公冶长篇「与朋友共」)

(3) 中国道德文化以伦理道德为中心，在五伦的生活指标下，人是伦理人，儒家的伦理中心是：「仁」。而仁总摄诸德，包括了人之「对天、对己、对人」，都必须以仁。朱熹《仁说》中清楚地说：

天地以生物为心者也。而人物之生，又各得夫天地之心以为心者也。故语心之德，虽其总摄贯通，无所不备，然一言以蔽之，则曰仁而己矣。

故《大学篇》中所说的「明明德」乃成就仁的开显，而《中庸篇》中所言：「成己，仁也。」就是对己之仁的一个明德的肯定。至于对人方面，也就是《大学篇》中的「亲民」，与孟子所说的：「君子之于物也，爱之而弗仁；于民也，仁之而弗亲；亲亲而仁民，仁民而爱物。」(《孟子尽心上》)是互相相应的，故「仁者，以其所爱，及其所不爱。不仁者，以其所不爱，及其所爱。」(《孟子尽心下》)

「对天」方面，乃在于「法天」，效法「天地之大德」而生，即《中庸》所说的参赞天地之化育，亦如《易干文言》所说：「与天地合其德，与日月合其明。」这就是「天地之大德曰生」(《易系辞下》)的力量，吾人当如圣人之法天，即守位以仁：「圣人之大宝曰位。何以守位？曰：仁。」(《易系辞下》)能法天就能成仁，而与天地万物为一体，程明道说：

天地之大德曰生。天地絪缊，万物化醇，生之谓性，万物之生意最可观，此元者，善之长也，斯所谓仁也。仁与天地一物也，而人特自小之，何哉！(二程遗书卷十一)

王阳明更以「一体之仁」合「天地之仁与人心之仁」，即人可以明明德体验「天地一体之仁」，在《大学问篇》中，王阳明说：

大学者，昔人以为大人之学矣。敢问大人之学，何以在于明明德乎？阳明子曰：大人者，以天地万物为一体者也。其视天下犹一家……大人之能以天地万物为一体也，非意之也，其心之仁本若是其与天地万物而一也。……是其一体之仁也，虽小人之心亦必有之。是乃根于天命之性，而自然灵昭不昧者也。是故谓之明德。……明明德者，立其天地万物一体之体也；亲民者，达其天地万物一体之用也。故明明德必在于亲民，而亲民乃所以明其明德也。……君臣也，夫妇也，朋友也，以至于山川神鬼鸟兽草木也，莫不实有以亲之，以达吾一体之仁，然后吾之明德始无不明，而真能以天地万物为一体矣……是之谓尽性。

吾人在此提出「仁」的思想，实因「仁」能总摄五伦中之诸德，而朋友之信，亦为仁之表达，而使同门同志朋友能在「仁」德中抱有崇德的态度，能同心合力，同气相亲，相善相交，同好相结，使能德配天地，参赞天地之化育。给人与人生命的交往带来和谐的悦乐；人与物的融会得以协调；人与天的感应得以契合。

4. 《论语》中谈朋友之道在德
在儒家的道德思域中，「朋友有信」乃人伦的和谐表现，亦是人自我修持的反省：

曾子曰：吾曰三省吾身，为人谋而不忠乎？与朋友交而不信乎？传不习乎？(《论语学而》)

生命的反省在于对人对己的一个敬重的态度，也是一种修德的方法，故朱熹注说：「尽己之谓忠，以实之谓信。」又说：

忠信只是一字，但是发于心而自尽则为忠，验于理而不违则为信。忠是信之本，信是忠之用。(《朱子语类》)

忠信只是一事，而相为内外始络本末。有于己为忠，见于物为信。做一事说也得，做两字说也得。(《朱子语类》)

罗光主教在谈「信」时说：「信的德，在孔孟的思想里，为一种很重要的善德……孔子讲五伦，五伦中的一伦为朋友，朋友相处之道为信。……朱熹以『学而』篇数章，皆以忠信为本，则信在孔子的伦理论里，占有相当的重要位置。因此，汉朝儒者讲五行五常时，以信配仁义礼智，而成五德。朱熹的解释，以诚为根基，诚于心中的理为忠，发于事为信。」(《中国哲学史宋代篇》朱熹的哲学思想)

忠信之德的反省在《论语》中，孔子无时或息地以身教言教的方法启迪他的弟子，孔子更以德智并重以谈交友之道，吾人可以孔子所言之文行忠信四教，崇德及知人知己来谈述《论语》中的朋友。

4.1 文行忠信四教
孔子在教导弟子时，莫不注重人伦之道的教化，还注重智艺的训练，故孔子说：「志于道，据于德，依于仁，游于艺」(《论语述而》)，然这四句教实与：「子以四教：文、行、忠、信」(《论语述而》)是互相配合的。按邢昺疏讲其义曰：

文谓先王之遗文。行谓德行，在心为德，施之为行。中心无隐谓之忠，人言不欺谓之信。此四者有形质，故可举以教也。

而朱熹集注引程伊川之言说：「教人以学文，修行，而有忠、信；忠信，本也。」然则，学文，修行之目的在于「德」，德行之端始于人伦，因此论语学而篇记：

子夏曰：「贤贤易色，事父母能竭其力，事君能致其身，与朋友交，言而有信，虽曰未学，吾必谓之学矣。」

可见孔子所言的「学」在于德育的教化，而「学」的内容以「文」为基础，如孔子所言的：「博学于文」，「行有余力则以学文」。其实「学文」的目的在于德行，以开显人生命内在的灵明德性。所以交友之道，乃以「文」相会而成就之：

君子以文会友，以友辅仁。(《论语颜渊》)

朱熹注曰：讲学以会友，则道益明；取善以辅仁则德日进。

何晏集解言：友以文德合，相切磋之道所以辅成己之仁。

邢昺疏曰：君子之人，以文德会合朋友，朋友有相切磋琢磨之道，所以辅成己之仁德也。

吾人观之，实能肯定孔子言以文会友意不在于「文」的内容：即六艺 ── 礼、乐、射、御、书、数 ── 而在于「学文」的目的，即「德行」也。故何晏及邢昺皆言：「以文德会合」。而朱熹则言「讲学」，实乃从方法上言之，但「讲学以会友」的方法所欲达成的结果是「道益明」，吾人认为此乃言交友之道的彰显，目的在于「取善」，取善就能与德合而成为朋友，故「取善以辅仁则德日进」，以表达君子之交可增进自己的德行，以辅成自己的仁德。因此孔子勉励人人修德说：「德不孤，必有邻」(《论语里仁》)，强调交友之道在「德」，而德之极乃仁德，可以总摄诸德，然仁德在交友之道的实践上 ── 即「行」的工夫上，莫过于忠信了。

《论语》记孔子以忠处友待人如下：

子贡问友。子曰：忠告而善道之，不可则止，毋自辱焉。(《颜渊》)

朱熹注：友所以辅仁，故尽其心以告之，善其说以道之，然以义合者也，故不可则止，若以数而见疏，则自辱矣。

子曰：爱之能勿劳乎，忠焉能勿诲乎。(《宪问》)

朱熹引苏轼之言注曰：爱而知劳之，则其为爱也深矣；忠而知诲之，则其为忠也大矣。

《论语》记孔子言信以待友：

子路曰：愿闻子之志。子曰：老者安之，朋友信之，少者怀之。(《公冶长》)

《论语》中记孔子言交友必以忠信为基要：

子曰：君子不重则不威，学则不固。主忠信，无友不如己者，过则勿惮改。(《学而》)

朱熹注曰：人不忠信，则是皆无实，为恶则易，为善则难……友所以辅仁，不如己则无益而有损。

郑玄注曰：主，亲也。(何晏乃引郑玄注)

邢昺疏曰：主忠信者，主犹亲也。言凡所亲狎皆须有忠信者也。无友不如己者，言无得以忠信不如己者为友也。

《论语》《子罕》篇重覆记载孔子之言：「主忠信，毋友不如己者，过则勿惮改。」实在证明孔子对交友之道在「德」的重视，无怪乎曾子言：「吾日三省吾身：为人谋而不忠乎？与朋友交而不信乎？传不习乎？」(《论语学而》)因为友以德合，且能共进于仁，故交友不可以不慎，对待朋友不可以不忠信。要知；人不忠信，便不真不诚也不实，且行恶易，为善难，不慎交了不好的朋友，不但无益，更损己德而去仁，故孔子警戒人当小心择友，而将朋友分类。

孔子曰：益者三友，损者三友。友直、友谅、友多闻，益矣；友便辟、友善柔、友便佞，损矣。(《论语季氏》)

能结交益友便能日于德，而辅己之仁，成就崇尚的德性以及崇尚的道德，不但能彰显自我内在昭灵的明德，更能建立人与人交往的相亲相爱，亲民而朋友有信。

4.2 崇德
「崇」字按《说文段氏》解：「崇：从山，宗声，本义作『山大而高』解。」故崇德乃指高大的品德，更好说是崇尚的品德或德性。这种崇尚的品德在儒家的伦理思想中乃以仁德为代表，而使人与人的关系臻于完美是由「仁」，在五伦中则使人伦的关系达至和谐而成就伦常之乐，如君礼、臣忠，则礼与忠使君臣的关系能互相协调而和谐有乐；父慈、子孝，则慈与孝将父子的关系引进爱的和谐中；兄友、弟恭，则友与恭令兄弟的关系达至和睦共融。夫唱妻随则使夫妇恩爱而相敬如宾；朋友有信则使朋友能同心合力、情谊互通于善，故能互助互爱。

由于这种崇尚的品德的重要，故孔子在《论语》《颜渊篇》中曾提及二次：

子张问崇德、辨惑。子曰：「主忠信、徙义、崇德也。……」

邢昺疏曰：「子曰：主忠信，徙义，崇德也者。主，亲也；徙，迁也；言人有忠信者，则亲友之。见义事则迁意而从之，此所以充盛其德也。」

樊迟从游于舞雩之下，曰：「敢问崇德、修慝、辨惑。」子曰：「善哉问！先事后得，非崇德与？……」

邢昺疏曰：先事后得，非崇德与者，言先劳于事，然后得报，是崇德也。

何晏集解：「孔(颖达)曰：先劳于事然后得报。」

亲近忠信者，与忠信者为友；以及迁改自己的私意而从应该做的事，且处之合宜忘，都是崇尚的品德。有崇德的人，自然会得到别人的信服和谅解，在人际的关系上便能得到和谐的协调，且能日进于德。欲达这和谐的协调，人必实践仁德于生活中；实言之，也就是「崇德」的推使：「先事后得」，即先求耕耘，再问收获；倘若为「义」而行之，则更做到：「只求耕耘，不问收获」。这就是说，对一切人，对一切事，只要爱之、忠之、信之、……也就是：「吾日三省吾身：为人谋而不忠乎？与朋友交而不信乎？」(《论语学而》)故孔子曰：「爱之，能勿劳乎？忠焉，能勿诲乎？」(《论语宪问》)所以，崇德者，必能「文行忠信」而友以德立，共进于仁，成为人人之益友，人恒敬之。

在《论语》中，有几个实例，表达了崇德之交友之道、交友之态度、交友之义及其结果：

子曰：「晏平仲善与人交，久而敬之。」(《公冶长》)

晏平仲与人交友，而人能敬之乃其德之化人也，也就是孔子所讲之益友也。相反的，只是虚伪待人，口是心非，花言巧语和口蜜腹剑的人，吾人当小心谨慎之，故孔子耻与之交往：

子曰：「巧言，令色、足恭，左丘明耻之，丘亦耻之。匿怨而友其人，左丘明耻之，丘亦耻之。」(《公冶长》)

虚伪假诚的朋友，言而无信，非孔子所言之益友，而是损友也，这些人非但无信，同时「习于威仪而不直，工于媚说而不谅，习于口语无闻见之实。」

其正的朋友实当能同舟共济，生死与共而有信。子路着重物质生活上的互相分享，乃出于诚心，实吾人之榜样；然若有孔子的大志，相互以信实交往，且扩充至安老怀少就更好了：

子路曰：「愿车马，衣轻裘，与朋友共，蔽之而无憾。」颜渊曰：「愿无伐善，无施劳。」……子曰：「老者安之，朋友信之，少者怀之。」(《公冶长》)

至于颜渊，孔子赞其德，曾子视之为好友，亦赞颂其为人谦厚虚心，不自骄亦不卑视轻忽他人，更能容人之过，且不斤斤计较，这种朋友真难得；而颜渊对待朋友就是以这种态度也：即「见贤思齐焉，见不贤而内自省也。」(《里仁》)

曾子曰：「以能问于不能，以多问于寡，有若无，实若虚，犯而不校，昔者吾友尝从事于斯矣。」(《泰伯》)

因此孔子说：「朋友切切偲偲，兄弟怡怡。」(《子路》)能够诚恳相待，互相和悦地勉励切磋做人之道，而不执拗己之功劳者才是真正的朋友，真正的兄弟。朋友之间的关系，在于真挚的情谊精神，才能美好；情谊的真挚乃「诚于中，形于外」的灵明德性，也就是曾子所言：「君子以文会友，以友辅仁」(《颜渊》)，且在各方面上都能显出朋友间的道义精神，即「主忠信，徙义，崇德也。……」(颜渊)。最明显的例子就是《论语》《乡党》篇记载的「孔子的生活」，他面对朋友之大义大德能做到：

朋友死，无所归，曰：「于我殡。」朋友之馈，虽车马，非祭肉，不拜。

4.3 知人知己
结交朋友的另一个须知的条件在于知人知己。因为人与人的相处若不相知，便会有很多不必要的误会发生，连自己也会固执偏私之见，而与人有所磿擦，甚至会充满仇恨，这不但蒙蔽自我的灵明德性，还不能亲爱人人，故孔子在谈爱人时，强调了必须知人：

樊迟同仁。子曰：「爱人。」问知。子曰：「知人。」(《论语颜渊》)

爱人与知人乃生活「仁」的方法。这里所言的「知」，不是知识的知，乃是知察明辨善恶的德性的知，也就是孔子所说：「不患人之不己知，患不知人也。」(《学而》)又说：「视其所以，观其所由，察其所安，人焉廋哉！人焉廋哉！」(《为政》)这种知人的法则是由人的实际生活表现来作衡量的，因「诚于中，形于外」的真诚流露，不是可以虚伪造作的。在《论语》《卫灵公》篇也记载：

子曰：「众恶之，必察焉；众好之，必察焉。」

人之好恶，群众的眼光是最清楚的；吾人交朋友，常有私心，而未能清楚知人心，故会交得损友，倘若人以「知人」之方法，明察之，以爱人之心行仁，就能诚意以行《大学篇》释诚意说：

所谓『诚其意』者，毋自欺也。……小人闲居为不善，无所不至；见君子而后厌然，揜其不善而着其善；人之视己，如见其肺肝然，则何益矣？此谓诚于中，形于外。故君子必慎其独也。

曾子曰：「十目所视，十手所指，其严乎？」富润屋，德润身，心广体胖。故君子必诚其意。

「知人」可使自己不盲目的顺从别人的好恶，而常执善为之，能如是者，便可以「德润身」，而知道自己德性之所需，故知人知己是相辅相承的，所以孔子教人：「主忠信，无友不如己者」(《论语学而》)，也教人对朋友必须：「忠告而善道之，不可则止。」(《论语颜渊》)而不可「朋友数，斯疏矣。」(《论语里仁》)因此，交友之事乃见人见智为之，然当择乎中庸，不当过激或过缓，且必须择善固执之，以「君子以文会友，以友辅仁」(《学而》)的原则行之；那么，知人知己的工夫才不浪费，且能做到：「唯天下至诚，为能尽其性，则能尽人之性；能尽人之性，则能尽物之性；为尽物之性，则可以赞天地之化育；可以赞天地之化育，则可以与天地参矣。」(《中庸篇》)

故在子夏的门人问交友之道于子张时，子夏的话太过狭隘，而子张的话又太过高不可及，做成无所适从，这不但不得友于人，也因不知人知己而失去朋友。

子夏曰：「可者与之，其不可者拒之。」子张曰：「异乎吾所闻：君子尊贤而容众，嘉善而矜不能。」我之大贤与，于人何所不容？我之不贤与，人将拒我，如之何其拒人也？(《子张》)

然孔子则在此教导人当严于要求自己，而宽容要求人，这便是以德性作为朋友间和谐的调协，藉以互相共勉和互相提携，而不要过于狭隘、或过于高妄。如此，朋友之交便能有所谅解、诚直、忠信，而可以辅仁见明德而亲民，以止于至善。孔子说：

可与言而不与之言，失人。不可与言而与之言，失言。知者不失人，亦不失言。(《卫灵公》)

躬自厚，而薄责于人，则远怨矣。(《卫灵公》)

吾人从文行忠信四教，崇德及知人知己三方来谈《论语》中的交友之道，实在乃以「君子以文会友，以友辅仁」(颜渊)的德性观念立论，因「朋友有信」乃五伦之一，其所启示吾人者乃生活的指标，故孔子殷然着重在「仁」德的教化，说出了文行忠信在于崇德，而崇德在于知人知己、成己成人，「以合内外之德，时措之宜也」(《中庸篇》)。

5. 《圣经》的训示
关于《圣经》中谈朋友之处并不多，而且多集中在《德训篇》和《箴言篇》中。这两篇的内容重点放在「知慧」的训诲中，故都是以色列子民的智慧文学的作品。《箴言》的目的在于教训人，尤其青年人，应学习「智慧」，躲避「愚昧」。所谓「智慧」，并非指人的知识、学历或智力，即指教导人成为一个博学多才的聪明者，「智慧」是在道德生活上立论的，教人怎样敦品励行，成为一个完人。

《德训篇》的内容与写作目的很相似《箴言篇》，其主题也是「智慧」，就是人在处世和宗教生活上应具有和应表现的美德。

这两篇都强调着「智慧」是出于人对天主的敬畏，即以敬畏上主为生活的准则，且「智慧」是属于天主本性的一种德能，天主将这德能赋予人，使人藉「智慧」，即将天所赋予的德能开显出来，而得获幸福的生命；「愚昧」是将天所赋的德能蒙蔽，使人失去智慧，而陷入罪恶中，因而违背天理，其结果就是灭亡。

因此，在谈交友中，人是不能离开信仰中的天主，而以「敬畏上主」作为准则，以能在智慧中开显天所赋予人的德能，使之不被罪恶所蒙蔽。而朋友间亦必须在敬畏上主的生活中相互交融，相亲相爱，忠信以待，同甘共苦，互相勉励，使天主所赋予人的德性彰显出来。然而人是软弱，不但不敬畏天主，而且有人甘愿做罪恶的奴隶，故朋友间有真朋友与假朋友，好朋友与坏朋友之分。

今将《德训篇》及《箴言篇》中有关朋友的记载列于下：

5.1 敬畏上主的人，才有真正的友谊
亲切温柔的言语，能使友人增多，并能感化仇人；同情的话，能使友好的往来敦厚。与你要好的人应多，然而作你参谋的，只千中取一。如要交友，先要考验，不要立刻信任他。因为有的人，只是一时的朋友；在你困难的日子，就不见了。有的朋友，一旦变成仇人，就把你争执的事和仇恨，泄漏出来，为凌辱你。有的人是酒肉朋友，在你困难的日子，就不见了。你幸福的时候，他和你同心，对你的仆婢，也任意使唤；若你遭了难，他就翻脸攻击你，回避你。但对于良好的友谊，你应恒一不变。你当远离你的仇人，慎重对待你的朋友。忠实的朋友，是稳固的保障，谁寻得了他，就是寻得了宝藏。忠实的朋友，是无价之宝，他的高贵无法衡量：金银也比不上他忠实的美好。忠实的朋友，是生命和不死的妙药；惟有敬畏上主的人，才能寻得。敬畏上主的人，才有真正的友谊，因为他怎样，他的朋友也怎样。(德6:5-17)

真正的友谊是一个无价之宝，他的忠实是人生命的保障，也是德性的成长的力量，因为忠实的人必定是敬畏上主者，而敬畏上主者也必定是忠实的。因为忠实者必怜悯人、爱护人、帮助人：「谁不怜悯自己的友人，就是放弃了敬畏上主。」(约伯传6:14)凡在生命中经得起考验而乃是忠实的，正义的，他便成为天主的朋友，天主也因他的正义与忠贞不贰祝福他：

请回忆我们祖先亚巴郎如何受了试探，他历尽了磿难和和困苦，成了天主的朋友。依撒格、雅各伯和梅瑟都这样博得了天主的欢心，面对各种磿难，对天主忠贞不贰。(友弟德传8:22-23)

经上说：「亚巴郎相信了天主，因而这事为他便算是正义」，得被称为「天主朋友」。(雅2:23)

我们的天主！不是你……将这地方永远赐给你的友人亚巴郎的后代吗？(编下20:7)

5.2 真正的朋友是忠信不欺的，且能互相爱护
谁泄漏朋友的秘密，就失了信任，他不会找到一个知心朋友，你应爱你的朋友，对他要忠信，但若你泄漏了他的秘密，就不必再追随他了。谁失掉近人的友谊，就如丧失了自己的产业。你拋弃了的朋友，正如从你手中放走的飞鸟，莫想他再回来。不要追赶他，因为他己远去，他已逃走，像一只脱了罗网的羚羊一样，因为他的心己受了创伤，你再不能和他交接。有了伤痕还可以包扎，辱骂之后，还可以言归于好。但是，若泄漏了朋友的秘密，不幸的心灵就没有希望。(德27:17-24)

告密的人离间友情。(箴16:28)

出卖朋友者是最伤朋友心的，因他的行为是：「连我素来信赖的知心友好，吃过我饭的人，也举脚踢我。」(咏41:10)忘恩负义，只将朋友当作自己手上的玩物，商品，有价值便利用之，无价值便弃之，只为自己的利益：「以你们的朋友作商品」(约伯传6:27)，所以米该亚先知在他的时代，看到社会的不正义，人人只为自己的利益而出卖朋友，且用一对鞋的钱就可以买一个人的生命，所以他警愓当时的忠信诚实的人说：「你们不要信赖邻里，不要依靠朋友。」(米7:5)然而在不同的时代，却有不同的情况，正如《箴言篇》中有提到「远亲不如近邻」的思想：「你的知心朋友，你父亲的至交，你切不可离弃；在你忧患的时日，不要进兄弟的家，靠近的邻舍，胜于远地的兄弟。」(箴27:10)另外在耶肋米亚先知时代，因为是乱世，巴比伦攻打犹太国，使犹太国陷于灭亡(公元前587年犹太国灭亡)，其情形一如米该亚先知时代，北国以色列国的灭亡(公元前722年)，人与人都失去了信用，故先知规劝人要小心择友：「你们应各自提防自己的近人，不要信赖任何弟兄，因为所有的弟兄都爱好欺诈，一般的近人都好说谗言，人都欺骗自己的近人，不讲实话，使自己的舌头惯于说慌，竭力行恶。」(耶9:3-4)但另一方面说，真正的友谊除了忠信不欺，互相爱护之外，还能够甘苦与共，真情互劝，抚慰人灵的。

5.3 名实相符，甘苦与共的朋友才有真情
刺激人眼，会引出眼泪；刺激人心，会显出真情。拋石打鸟，会使鸟惊飞。责骂友人会断绝友情。若你已向友人拔出利剑，不要失望，因为还可以恢复旧交；若你已对友人开口攻击，不要害怕，因为还能和好如初，惟有辱骂、责斥、骄傲、泄漏秘密、暗中伤害，能使朋友疏远。

你的朋友穷困的时候，你要对他忠诚，到他富裕时，你便可以与他共享福利。他遭难的时候，你要待他始终如一；这样，你就可以分享他的产业。火生起以前，炉中冒气冒烟；同样，流血以前，也有咒骂、凌辱和威吓。我不害羞保护一个朋友，也不躲藏而不与他见面，虽然为了他，我要遭遇什么不幸，我也忍受。虽然如此，若他还不知恩，凡听见这事的人，必对他加以防范。(德22:24-32)

朋友平时相爱，唯在难中见兄弟(见真情之意也)。(箴17:17)

凡是朋友都说：我结交了朋友；但有的朋友，却是有名无实的朋友。如果同伴或朋友，变成了仇人，岂不是一件悲伤至死的事？噢！这邪恶的偏向！你是从那里闯进来的，你想用凶恶和欺诈笼罩大地么？有的同伴，在朋友幸福时，就与他同乐；在患难时，却变成了仇人。有的同伴，为了口腹之欲，与朋友分忧，共同执剑反抗敌人。你心里总不要忘记你真正的朋友，分派胜利品时，更不可勿略他。(德37:1-6)

人真的太现实，也太实际了；在世界上真能找到多少有真情而共患难的朋友！所谓：「患难见真情」，「得一知己，死而无憾」，真是难能可贵的，可谓胜过得到宝藏。(如上面曾说过)所以《箴言篇》中也指出，人为了金钱财富才结识朋友，这种现实的人实在太多了：「贫穷的人，为亲朋所厌；富贵的人，则高朋满座。」(箴14:20)又「财富招来许多朋友，穷人却为亲朋所弃。」(箴19:4)虽有许多朋友，但不一定都是好的，且在滥交之下，必有所害：「交朋友过多，必会有损害。」(箴18:24)唯有那些在患难中付出真挚友情，而能同舟共济的朋友才是有名有实的真朋友，他的劝勉，能抚慰人灵(箴20:9)，这些朋友远胜亲兄弟(箴18:24)。

5.4 最大的爱情：完全地接纳、宽恕、为朋友牺牲
《德训篇》及《箴言篇》等旧约经书，乃以敬畏上主的智慧观念来衡量朋友之道，要求对朋友要忠贞不贰、诚信以待、爱护勉励备至，且能共患忧，而强调泄漏秘密、欺诈朋友等出卖的行为是最可恶的。人能获得真情不变的朋友胜过获得宝藏。

新约时代，基督来了，祂不但将旧约中的朋友之道保存下来，更将其优点发挥，使之更成全完美，且将朋友的重要性提高，使人在天主内成为朋友。耶稣说：

你们如果实行我所命令你们的，你们就是我的朋友，我不再称你们为仆人，因为仆人不知道他主人所做的事，我称你们为朋友，因为凡由我父听来的一切，我都显示给你们了……。(若15:14-17)

耶稣的命令究竟是什么？耶稣说：

这是我的命令：你们该被此相爱，如同我爱了你们一样。人若为自己的朋友舍掉性命，再没有比这更大的爱情了。(若15:12-13)

耶稣将人提升成为天主 ── 自己的朋友，然后为了立榜样，更为了救赎人脱离罪恶的奴役，自己甘愿牺牲性命，以实践最大爱情的诺言，还将自己的生命 ── 天主性复活的永恒生命留在「圣体圣事」中，以滋润人灵，养育人的神性生命，正如若望福音所说：「他殷爱了世上属于自己的人，就爱他们到底」(若13:1)，于是将永恒生命的食粮留下，也以他的苦难，圣死表示这一份至大无我，完全接纳，完全宽恕的爱情；因此，他不因为当时的法利塞人，经师等的反对与排斥、辱骂，他也成为税吏和罪人的忠信而尊敬的朋友(玛11:19，路7:34)，因为祂要以爱来感化众人，使人回归正路，而离开罪恶，所以耶稣说：「不是健康的人需要医生，而是有病的人。你们去研究一下：『我喜欢仁爱胜过祭献』是什么意思；我不是来召义人，而是来召罪人。」(玛9:12-13)

耶稣曾很痛心的说了这一句话：「朋友！我并没有亏负你！」(玛20:13)这句话虽然不是向着出卖祂的门徒所说，但也是一次的反映吧！祂只轻描淡写的对出卖祂者说：「朋友，你来做的事，就做吧！」(玛26:50)耶稣的心就是那么的广、阔、高、深。祂对待人如朋友，不论是忠信的人，抑或是出卖祂的人，都一视同仁。这也就是祂爱的流露，以及深切的救赎，这一份爱情真具有特别的韵味，当我们品尝之后，也懂得互相勉励、学习，以彰显这份无我的爱情，千万勿令耶稣基督向我们说：「朋友！我并没有亏负你！」而是向我们说：「我父所祝福的，你们来吧！承受自创世以来，给你们预备了的国度吧！因为我饿了，你们给了我吃的；我渴了，你们给了我喝的；我作客，你们收留了我；我赤身露体，你们给了我穿的；我患病，你们看顾了我；我在监里，你们来探望了我。」(玛25:34-36)

6. 信仰的整合
「吃亏是福」这一句表面上看来是很矛盾的，但深深体悟之，总觉得是一句生活的座右铭。生命本是一无所有的，连生命本身也是天赐的，《圣经》记载：「我赤身脱离母胎，也要赤身归去；上主赐的，上主收回。愿上主的名受到赞美。」(约1:21)倘若我什么都不执着，我有什么可以吃亏的呢？别人认为我吃亏了，我反觉得是一份祝福，因为能无所执着，而能为别人着想，给与人平安、喜乐，以及生命的和谐；且能做到孔子所说：「毋意、毋必、毋固、毋我」(《论语子罕》)，那便可以达至物我两忘，万物皆备于我，以及能尽性而参赞天地之化育了。

至论朋友也便是我生命的一部份，爱人如己的精神便能早日实现。吾人深信，不论做人处事面世交友等，都必须由自已做出发，不要问别人怎样，事情、世局怎样，而先问自己要怎样去面对？自己的态度如何？万事万物都在变化中，连自己也在变化中，故若自己没有积极、忠爱、诚信的心态，我们不但不能明辨是非好坏，连自己内在的灵明德性也不能彰显出来。尤其在今日复杂的科学时代，人心所面对的物质的进步，使心灵也物质化了，因而容易产生心灵的空虚渺茫，把握不到生命的终向和价值。交友之道也鲜于注重德性的交往；其实这也是人性软弱的一面，无怪乎孔子就已经有这种忧患意识：「德之不修，学之不讲，闻义不能徙，不善不能改，是吾忧也。」(《论语述而》)

如果今日的人都能够有生命的信仰，心灵自然能找到一个终向 ── 非物质的目标，而是永恒的真善美，那人便有一个悦乐的心接受生命中，形形式式的考验、磿难和挑战，不论成功或失败，总有着希望；因为信仰给与人希望，而不是寄托；信仰给与人生命的更新改变，使人参与天地生生的大德，在生生不息中创造新的未来，新的境域、新的生命，使人与人之间的交往更亲切，即人人皆我的朋友，我的兄弟姊妹……所以我认为：

信仰乃人心灵内在意念的投向，开显心底灵明德性的善，这善乃天赋予人之所以为人，而异于禽兽者，使人分沾创造者好生之德的「仁」，以开创新的希望、新的未来、新的境域、新的生命。在基督的宗教上，更将这「仁」的流露化作「有限生命」的救赎，这救赎是爱的喜讯，将人从有限中提升，进入无限的境域中，这提升是人在救赎中的超越，是离开罪恶的一个新的出谷，好能进入新生命的复活；这新生命的复活是人生存的终向 ── 在一体之「仁」内生生不息，享有永远的生命：享见天主，与天主共融合一。

享见天主而与天主共融合一便是至善之境，朋友就是在生命历程中 ── 充满荆棘，崎岖不平的历程中，是我的忠实、真情之爱、诚信、无伪、甘苦与共、无执、不怕吃亏的同心同伴，大家在爱中携手走向生命的终点：至善之境。吾人深信人性的软弱会使我们跌倒，不和谐，然而只要大家有悔改归正，积极怡悦的态度，共同的目标，互相在错误中，困难中齐心学习，便是一个好的开始，能坚持到底的，便是一个好的结局。

为使我们在生活中成就好的开始与结局，我们需要从德性生命的落实作反思，务使信仰与生活，德性与生命能有具体而调协的整合，为「会友辅仁」的推展奠定基础。因此，在「文行忠信」和「爱」的学习里，我们可作进一步的探讨，务使人的生命；更透过「会友辅仁」发掘人与人之间的崇高的精神生活，寻找那更高超的精神体验，这体验可说是「宗教人」在信仰中所表达的生命投向无限者的内心途径，诚如方东美教授所说：

作为一种崇高的精神生活方式，宗教乃是人类虔敬之心的表达，人藉宗教可以发展三方面的关系 ── 首先是与神明之「内在融通」的关系；其次是与人类之「互爱互助」的关系；第三是与世界之「参赞化育」的关系。(《生生之德》　黎明文化事业　323页)

这种虔敬心的表达正是发挥人内生命与神、与人类、与世界的密契关系，提升人的生命在仁爱中的生命整合，使能与之有融通和参赞化育的交往；可见，「会友辅仁」也是在这三层的关系中得以推广，使之能在「有信」中认真的实践，藉以发挥中国的道德文化；在这同时，人与人亦需要有宗教信仰的情操，不怕为朋友牺牲自己的一切，甚至是自己的生命，以完成最大的爱(若15:13)；以及「爱你的仇人」的「化敌为朋」的精神(玛5:44)。人可因着「道德文化」与「宗教情操」的整合表达「爱」的行动，在社会中消除仇恨纷争，便能创造和平之世。

为此，我们可以提出一个反省的思路，帮助我们作信仰与生活的整合。

6.1 反躬自省
生命的自省实在是一种内发的力量，帮助人看清自我的生命目标和意义，藉以改善自己生活的态度，《论语》中有言：「吾日三省吾身：为人谋而不忠乎？与朋友交而不信乎？传不习乎？」(《学而篇》)可见，生命的自省在于认识自己，由自己再扩展到人际关系的「爱」中，为表达这一份「爱」，人必须面对自己是否做到：「忠、信、习」的要求。这与希腊哲学家苏格拉底所提出的：「认识你自己」作为自我人格成全的方法是相应的，因为苏格拉底所说的「认识」包括了「知」和「德」的内容，必须透过实践才能达到「善」。所谓「自知者明」(《老子道德经32》)就证明了「善于自省，方能自明」道理。否则，人若不肯反躬自省，不但不能「明善诚身」，还陷自己于无知无明的悲况，如俗谚所说：

乌鸦笑猪黑，自己黑了不觉得；

看别人豆腐渣，看自己一朵花；

长了一身白毛，反说人家是妖。

6.2 跳出物质的束缚
人的生活有精神的一面，也有物质的一面，而且两方面都很重要，缺一不可。然而，在生命的优次排列下，人要有生命的抉择，而抉择必须在「自省、自知、自明」下作出取舍。孔子教人：「杀身成仁」；孟子则言：「舍生取义」；就是肯定了人的道德性抉择在于人格修养的精神面，以展示人生命在德善中的不朽价值，这也是中国文化中所言的「三不朽：立德、立言、立功」。至于「物质」只是暂短而会灭亡的，因为物质不是不朽的；反之人若陷于物质的执着时，物欲会蒙蔽人心，使人失去生命的平衡，甚至束缚人心而陷于失善失德，孟子称之为「非人也」，即与禽无异，故孟子提出：「养心莫善于寡欲」(《尽心下篇》)。其实，庄子也提出：「其尝欲深者，其天机浅」(《大宗师篇》)的思想，希望人做到无欲无念以知「道」之在万物中，更可以引导人体悟生命的逍遥无执。由此，我们也可明白耶稣为唤醒人心，具体地说出了：「人纵然赚得了全世界，却赔上了自己的灵魂(精神)，为他有什么益处呢？或者，人还能拿什么作为自己灵魂(精神)的代价？」(玛16:26)这种精神的呼吁在于整合人的生命意识，使人不做物质的奴隶，而要做物质的主人，也要做自己的主人；故庄子在山木篇中说：「物物而不物于物」，乃在于规劝人在使用外在物质时不要被外在物质奴役自己的精神生命，不然的话就会受到物质的累患，且不能顺任自然而无容私或无伤了。为在今日物质膨涨的社会中，人心也物质化了，人与人之间的关系也趋于以物质的衡量作为判准，做成亲情友情的浅薄，人与人的「疏离」愈来愈大，如何能使社会做到「守望相助」、「敦亲睦邻」和「会友辅仁」呢？这实在是当今的人和社会要深深反省和关注的急务。

6.3 生命的密契
我相信「仁爱」是人生命的心，更是人心的本质。

我也相信宗教信仰的智慧是在于统一和整合人的生命，使人不断地逾越自己走向人与神、人与人、人与社会世界的合一；而在追求合一的力量下，人可以发展成为爱的合一。爱的合一使人的生命力更活跃，也使人的生命更趋向与神与人与世界的密契。基督徒的密契主义提出三个阶段以发展合一的精神：涤净、光明与合一三个途径导引人寻获心灵的安宁、和谐与平安，且在信仰的光照下，在基督的启迪下获得真理，使人的心灵有自由，在自由的爱中与神相合为一。

在中国文化的架构中，人的生命在修养中所追求的成全就是要能「德配天地」和「参赞天地的化育」，更提升人进入「天人和合」的合一境界。而「会友辅仁」的最终目的也是带动人与人的生命在「互爱互助」中发挥与天地之大生命的和谐合一精神，而「宽和而信」、「无私而爱」、「尽心而诚」便是三个导引生命相通的途径。

所谓「宽和而信」就是自我生命的涤净，希望人能收敛自己的生命、炼净自己烦躁的欲念，不致伤己伤人。故「宽」包容了「恕」，「和」则与人的相处能融能合，古语有言：「宽以接下，恕以待人，和以处众」。至于「信」就是信实无伪以致中和，以建立心灵的祥和，生活自然「不怨天，不尤人」，且能做到「仰不愧于天，俯不怍于人」的安身立命。

「无私而爱」乃展示人生命的光明德性在于分享天地日月无私之仁德，即能成为「大人者，与天地合其德，与日月合其明」(《易传、干文言》)，实在与光明之路相配合；藉以肯定人的生命乃分享上天有好生之德，这好生之德也是人生命本有的「明德」之仁心，不断地在人的生命中扩充，且照亮人的生命，更照亮生命的目标。由是，无私之爱使人的心能「大、虚、平、潜、定」，就是：「心大能容、心虚能受、心平能论、心潜能观、心定能应」，自然能做到「亲亲而仁民，仁民而爱物」。

「尽心而诚」乃出于中庸「明善诚身」之「尽性」到可以参赞天地化育的思想，配合孟子的「尽心、知性、知天」和「存心、养性、事天」的思想，藉以说出在人的生命历程中，不断追求达到至善至诚之境，即「穷神知化」地与「天」交会契合。因此，人在「明善诚身」和「尽心」中可与人类的生命，与天地万物的生命互相共融交会而合德，达至上下与天地同流和参赞天地化育的完满合一。在这合一之境，强调了「天道」与「人」与「万物」是没有疏离的，特别是人的生命在生生大化中得到生命的满全而为圣 ── 「大而化之之谓圣」；这正好与基督徒灵修之合一思想相应 ── 万物由于神明的临在而得到圣化，上主是活在一切受造物之中。

6.4 服务薪传
中国文化中所谈论的「五伦」：「君臣、父子、夫妇、兄弟、朋友」，就是指出人在不同地位、身份、角色下的伦常关系，也说出了人与人的位际关系，是一种生命与生命相通的表达，这份「相通」基本上有着一份责任或使命的要求：「父慈、子孝、兄良、弟恭、夫义、妇听、长惠、幼顺、君仁、臣忠」的十义，以及「朋友有信」，都是在「关系」上作出其不同的规范和联系。

因此，人不能自我封闭的单独生存在社会上，必须主动地关注在自我生命以外的人，赋予「宽和而信、无私而爱、尽心而诚」的「仁」，因为「夫仁者，己欲立而立人，己欲达而达人」(《论语雍也》)。这种「己立立人，己达达人」的生命相通为今日的人来说就是「服务」，而「服务」的正确观念在于生命与生命的互相协助和连系，使自己的本性之善与别人本性之善得以相通，以满全生命中「仁爱」的施予和接受。

所谓「服务薪传」就是希望现代人能明瞭人与人之间的关系在于建立生命的相通，而不是疏离；为了使人与人能破除疏离，人必须先立己达己之「仁」，然后不怕自我牺牲地面对自己的责任和使命 ── 将「仁爱」之心无私地施予，如薪火无穷无尽的传下去，让人人都能因着「爱」而得以相通契合；不但使人人自我的生命在爱的契合中得到提升，更使每一个人在自己生命的历程里，可以由物质世界 → 生命境界 → 心灵境界 → 艺术境界 → 道德境界 → 宗教境界，一层一层的向上提升，使生命变成喜悦的礼赞，一直要将生命汇归到「真、善、美」价值的一统理想，甚至将社会和世界引进和平的大同里。

最后，引用孔子之言作为本文的结语：「德之不修，学之不讲，闻义不能徙，不善不能改，是吾忧也。」(《论语述而》)

http://www.shanxixiuyuan.com/sxnk/annaul/A016b.htm

作者：任延黎

天国、尘世、教会之间的关系 ──论第二届梵蒂冈大公会议后的新神学

第一章　天国

一. 天国在此世

大公会议惊人地宣称：「……这神国业已存在于此世，不过尚隐蔽于奥迹内；当基督再度来临时，则将成功为圆满无缺的。」[4] 大公会议在这里所说的天国并不是一个物质的实体，而是一个内心的、精神的实体[5]，它是一个「永恒而普遍的神国，真理及生命的神国，圣德及圣宠的神国，正义、圣爱及和平的神国。」[6] 这是第一次用如此明确的语言作出这样的解释，大公会议的这个论断是一个创新。

在长达近两千年的基督宗教史中，人们一直认为天国是与尘世对立的一片领土、一种环境、一个天上的现实，天主在其间统制；而当天主之国到来时，陷于罪孽之中的尘世则归于彻底的毁灭。由这种观念中派生出消极等待天主之国的降临、鄙视人类在世上的活动及其劳动和智慧的成果的人生态度。造成这种观念的理论上的原因之一是，旧约中的表述「雅威王」、「雅威统治」及新约中的说法「天主之国」、「天国」被神学家们作了此种解释。新、旧约的这些用语使得许多神学家和信徒们把天主之国理解为在世界之外并与之对立的一个场所。在圣经中为数不多的几处，它们的确表现为这样一种环境。旧约中达尼尔曾谈到与世上王国对立的天主之国(达7)。新约中无论是洗者圣若翰还是耶稣本人及其门徒经常说到并被人们注意到的只是天主之国「近了」(玛3:2，10:7；谷1:14-15；路10:4, 11)，而不是其它。在中世纪，关于天国、教会和国家的舆论受圣．奥古斯丁在《天主之城》一书中表现出的二元论的影响很深。人们推论，既然代表天国的教会在世上是旅居并与地上之城对立，那么天上之城必然是和地上之城对立的。人们甚至把教会与天上之城认同而忽略了二者的区别。总之，在基督宗教的传统中，天主之国是作为一个彼岸世界、一个不属于尘世的王国而被宣扬的，它的到来是突如其来的和轰轰烈烈的。耶稣的话被视为这种观念的依据：「我的国不属于这世界；假使我的国属于这世界，我的臣民早已反抗了，使我不至于被交给犹太人；但是，我的国不是这世界的。」(若18:36)

另一方面，在早期基督徒之间千禧年之说曾流传了一段时间。此说认为在末日审判之前，基督将回到世上为选民建立一个幸福的王国，在永享幸福之前选民在此间先享受千年的幸福。这一观念的根源可以在犹太拉比们对有关天国的预言的诠释中找寻到。在先知们预言的天国中，以色列民征服了其他的民族，享受着世间的幸福。这种思想就是犹太锡利亚主义。在基督宗教的最初几个世纪中，一些基督徒继承了犹太人的这一信仰，在他们中间诞生了基督宗教锡利亚主义。此说认为在世界末日之前基督徒将和基督一起统治地上千年。他们这种思想的依据是《若望默示录》中的一段预言(默20:1-15)。在基督宗教历史中，特别是在来世论运动和诸如基督复临派和再洗礼派等新教教派中，天晓得有多少次，先知们宣布了末日到来、尘世毁灭和天主之国光荣降临的日期。当然地他们陷入了失望同时也使信徒们失望[7]。一些信奉锡利亚主义的人甚至试图亲手建立地上的天堂。宗教改革时代的托马斯．闵采尔便是其中之一。他进行了革命，失败了并被砍了头，锡利亚主义也随之没落了。

然而，尽管「末世论」一词仅在十七世纪才诞生，但在神学史中，既对每一个个人的也对整个世界的「最后的现实」的兴趣，却是从一开始就存在的。经院哲学的「末世论」分为两个部份：个人的末世论和集体的末世论。它们是分别论述每一个个人的结局和全体人类的结局的。由于教宗本笃十二世发布的法规终止了各种不同意见之间的争论，这一话题沉寂了很长时间。后来是新教的神学家们首先旧话重提，随之先后出现了韦斯(Weiss)和斯维泽(Schweitzer)的因果末世论，巴特(C. Barth)、布鲁纳(Brunner)和巴尔特曼(Bultmann)的超时间的末世论，库尔曼(Cullmann)的提前的末世论，多德(Dodd)的已实现的末世论，耶莱米亚斯(Jeremias)的正在实现的末世论，以及受到布洛赫(Bloch)的哲学影响的帕嫩博格(Pannenberg)的作为预想的末世论和莫尔特曼(Moltmann)的作为希望的末世论。这些末世论的不同学派广泛地探讨了许多问题，如普及天主之国的方法，时间与永恒的关系，历史与天主的超性的关系，过去、现在和将来之间历史──救赎的形势等等，在天主教思想界引起许多共鸣。

种种旧的末世论思潮毫无疑问地为大公会议的末世论准备了道路，但大公会议的末世论并不是旧末世论的简单继续。大公会议末世论的特点是：它并不为面面俱到地恢复传统神学的各种教义而操心，它日益变得无所不包从而取代了传统神学的作用，它不把自己与任何特定的哲学捆绑在一起，而是立足于对圣经资料的再思考。

二. 旧约和新约中的依据

按照天主教神学家们现在的理解，在旧约中，以色列人并没有一种对人、对时间和对现实的二元论的观点，他们所具有的是一种统一的观念。以色列人没有一些东方宗教所具有的轮回理论。他们的末世不在时间的彼岸，而是此世现实的继续。那是神的一种新创造，它与现实的创造不同，但并不与之对立。神的这个新创造将是终结事件的大系列的最后事件。这一系列事件指的是天主对世界和历史的强有力的干预，具体地说，即在历史中天主的创世行动和救赎行动，它们一起构成天主的整个计划。如《创世纪》的前几章所述的那样，天主的创世行动业已完成：「这样，天地和天地间的一切点缀都完成了。到了第七天天主造物的工程已完成，就在第七天休息，停止了所作的一切工程」(创2:1-2)。然而，天主对世界的救赎仍在继续，它在最后的时刻完成并成为新的创造。以色列人的出埃及和进入应许之地被视为天主在救赎史中不断进行干预的典型事件。是天主帮助和保护以色列人逃出埃及、打败埃及军队、渡过红海和征服应许地(参见出4:15-31，15:1-21；苏21:43-45)。这段历史说明了天主要永远对历史进行有利于其选民的干预的愿望。在说明上述这一切之后，以色列先知们不再只注视着过去，而是把目光转向未来，即从已有的经历转向对一个光辉未来的等待，希望籍天主的帮助建立一个新以色列，变成一个强大的民族。在被许多强大的帝国奴役、放逐和压迫的长期历史中，以色列人坚信天主将重新对他们的历史进行干预、给他们派来一位默西亚来拯救整个民族和创建一个新以色列(户24:17-19；申18:18, 19)。这将是天主的最后一次干预，是将在最后时刻完成的天主的新创造，像旧约中所说过的那样：「上主要在熙雍山上作他们的君王，以至永远」(米4:6-7)。应该说，对雅威解救被放逐者和建立新以色列的一次未来干预的展望，构成了先知们要传达的讯息的核心(依40-55)。

按照天主教神学家们现在的理解，尽管在旧约中使用了「雅威是王」、「雅威统治」、「雅威的国」和「天主的国」等词汇，但以色列人想要说明的并不是天主在另一个地方统治，而是要为他们对天主在地上的君权的信仰找到一个表达方式，以便说明天主的君权需要人们的听命和服从并对他们提供帮助和保护。需要注意的是，给予神明帝王称号是中东古代人民的宗教文化的一种典型的表达模式。以色列民族使用这一称呼并不是为了给予雅威一个超世俗的称号。所以，不必过于注意这个词所唤起的社会含义，也不必太强调这个词在当时宗教中的原义。对于以色列人来说，雅威之所以被称为王，是因为他作为宇宙的创建者创造了世界；是因为他作为奴役的解放者通过梅瑟带领以色列人走出埃及；是因为他作为保护者让以色列人征服了应许地；是因为他作为万能的唯一真神将统治新以色列。以色列人坚信『上主为王，万世无疆！』(出15:18)。他们认为他们受惠于他们的天主，要表达出他们的经历：「在雅各伯中不见罪恶，在以色列中不睹灾祸；上主他们的天主与他们同在，欢呼君王之声，常在他们中间。领他们由埃及出来的天主，为他们有如野牛的角」(户23:21-22)。他们的希望是永远和天主在一起：「但以后，我要常与你同处，……在天上除你以外，为我还能有谁？……我的肉身和我的心灵，虽已憔悴；……亲近天主对我是多么的美好」(咏73:23-28)。总而言之对于以色列人来说，雅威是显现在世界上的天主。他的强有力的干预是天主的王权在救赎史中的表现。以色列人相信天主居住在人民中间(肋26:11-12)。

以色列人的这一信仰在基督教时代被强化和具体化了。对基督徒来说，拿匝勒人耶稣就是以色列人等待的默西亚(玛16:15-17，26:64；路2:26)，他是三位一体的天主中的一位，即圣父之子，是「天主的道」，也就是天主本身，如《若望福音》中所说：「道成了肉身，住在我们中间」(若1:14)。福音书迈出的这一步对基督教神学后来的发展有着极其重大的意义。首先，因为神子基督耶稣道成肉身的理论和圣经中关于天主住在人民中间的论断相呼应。其次，天主在人民中间的显现被具体化为基督耶稣的可见的血肉之躯。于是，以色列人关于和天主在一起的信仰对基督徒来说变成了一种现实。显然，基督耶稣作为圣父之子更有权威谈论天主之国，他宣告的天国的消息显得更为亲切和易于理解，他不仅用言语也用行动来显示天主之国的大能，更多地赢得听众的信任。

事实上，如果说对雅威解救流亡者和建设新以色列的未来干预的展望构成旧约时代犹太先知所要传达的讯息的核心，那么宣告天国则是新约中耶稣基督传达的讯息的核心。他强调的最重要的教导是「时期已满，天主的国临近了，你们悔改，信从福音吧！」(谷1:15)但是在探讨他的不同于旧约的来世论之前，首先要注意这样一个事实，即旧约中「雅威的国」这一说法在新约中变成了「天主之国」，尤其是「天国」。现在的研究表明，早在犹太教晚期拉比们就已出于尊敬的目的而开始避讳雅威的圣名。由于同样的原因，耶稣基督在传达他的好消息时也是这样做的。所以说新、旧约中的表述尽管不同，但概念却是同一个。耶稣基督和旧约的先知们一样，要强调的是神要他的国降临的意愿，具体指的是天主对人的世界和历史的强有力的干预。因此现在的神学家们认为，如果因表述的这一变化而推论天主之国是与地球对立的一个天上的现实，那将是一个不可原谅的错误。

不仅如此，根据第二届梵蒂冈大公会议出现的最新解释，与旧约对照来看，耶稣在他的关于天主之国的讯息中作出的真正创新在于他同时谈论已显现的国、正在来临的国以及将要来临的国。因为在他看来，天主之国有着精神性的特点，它应逐渐地来临，它应完成目前的显现、不断的前进和将来的完满的全过程。耶稣的这些观念构成大公会议关于天主之国、世界和教会的神学革新的依据。大公会议的神学是建立在基督中心论的基础之上的。

三. 天主之国的三个阶段

为了更好地理解这个神学创新，分别看待天主之国的三个阶段将是很有意思的。

把旧约的末世论和新约的末世论作一个对比，人们会注意到旧约并未对所谓「最后的事物」进行深刻思考。它只限于表达以色列人对雅威的未来的干预及其未来荣耀的显现的等待、希望和信心。但是在旧约时代，神的未来干预及其荣耀的显现并未实现，还有待于揭示，所以在旧约中缺乏一个真正意义上的末世论。如果可以用末世论这个词，那么旧约的末世讯息说的时间便是在天主面前和与天主一起展开的历史，末世论即等同于天主本身。以色列人不知道未来有在目前显现的可能，他们拒绝把天主的末世客观化和形象化并诅咒这样做的人(申27:15)。而在新约的末世论中，通过耶稣基督的道成肉身，未来和现在结合在一起，即在道成肉身的耶稣基督里未来成了现在。耶稣的道成肉身的意义在于天主亲自充分地承担了人的状态，接受了诞生、成长和死亡，即参加人的生命在其世上历史和冲突中的所有各种状态和阶段。道成肉身的创新在于它表示出天主在人民中间有一个永久的和最终的住所，从而使天主的荣耀得以表现。正是在天主的已揭示的荣耀这个意义上，耶稣谈论已显现的天主之国。他说：「如果我是仗赖天主的手指驱魔，那么，天主的国已来到你们中间了」(路11:20；参见玛12:28)。他想要说明的是他正在运用天主的大能驱魔这件事清楚地表明，天主的大能，即天主之国的大能，已经来到大地上，也就是天主之国本身已降临到大地上。在关于芥子和已种在田里的麦子的两个重要的和典型的比喻中，耶稣基督清楚地说明，天主之国的善的力量、解放的力量和救赎的力量(由芥子和麦子代表)已来到世界上，正在与恶的力量和死亡的力量(由莠子代表)作斗争(玛13:24-30, 31-32)。若望听懂了耶稣的信息，他在说话时用的是动词的过去时态：「我们见了他的光荣」(若1:14)。但早期基督徒对此并未很好理解，仍在等待天主荣耀的揭示。他们继承了以色列人期待天主的荣耀显现的思想，即旧约中所说的：「他对我说：『你是我的仆人以色列，在你身上我将显示我的光荣』」(依49:3)，而对若望的上述断言却不予理会。新约中的这些信息虽如此丰富，但却一直被古代神学家们所忽略，他们未能从中发掘出一个关于天主之国显现的神学。现在，这些信息被赋予新的解释。大公会议之后，早期基督徒对天主荣耀的理解错误被指了出来，于是诞生了关于天主之国的价值、因素、标准和权能的超前的新理论。据此理论，天国不仅与耶稣的话语相联系，而且和并更和他的行动联系在一起。耶稣不限于用语言宣告天国，而是也用行动显示天国在现世的存在。在他从恶中解放行动中，天国成了现在。在他的救赎活动中，来世的天主之国的新力量采取了历史的形式，即是说，圣父的解放的、王权的大能成为肉身了。这是因为「子的功即父的功」(参见若12:50)，在子的功里天主显示他的荣耀(参见若11:40)。天国的超前是因耶稣基督的道成肉身，特别是因他的死而复活而发生的。总之，在耶稣基督这样一位为他的信徒和新约的作者们所熟悉的人物身上，未来的天国成了现在，雅威的日子成了主的日子，末日的救赎成了现在的救赎，天主的荣耀已揭示，基督徒已获救，永恒已从现在开始……，这一切都已在新约中揭示出来了：「……竟在我们因过犯死了的时候，使我们同基督一起生活──可见你们得救，是由于恩宠……籍着信德」(弗2:5-8)，耶稣基督本人正是以超前的天的权能驱魔、治病和行奇迹。在上所有这一切意义上，耶稣基督谈论了现世的天国。

在耶稣基督关于天主之国的讲道中，除了已被揭示的天主的荣耀确认的天主之国的现世存在之外，还有一个重要的方面值得注意，即天主之国的精神性。据耶稣基督认为，天主之国是为穷人、被压迫的人和小人物的。他说：「你们贫穷的是有福的，因为天主的国是你们的」(路6:20)。所以对于耶稣来说，天国是一个精神王国，天国就是那些在世界上受虐待、生活在非正义的人们的解放与救赎──天主决定干预，派遣道成肉身的儿子来保护他们。善的力量与恶的力量之间的斗争正在世界上继续，天国正在前进，理所当然地，天主之国的因素正在世界上增长。正是在这个意义上，耶稣基督谈到正在到来的天国。在这个正在到来的天国面前，对前人来说曾是有价值的一切已不再是充分的了。天主之国的价值观念和标准已超前来到现在，耶稣基督把它们作为判断的标准和尺度用于现世，要求人生作出改变。他要求人们具有新的行为、新的责任心、新的抉择和新的观念，即服从圣父、爱圣父、爱邻人，包括爱仇敌。耶稣认为，只有人们籍着信德作出精神上的改善，天主之国才能到来，因为它是一个内心的现实。因此，耶稣禁止人们在谈到天主之国时说「在这里」或「在那里」(路17:21)。

然而，尽管天主之国已超前存在于现世，但它毕竟是最后的未来的大事，是注定要在世界末日才完满地揭示自己的现实。新世界虽已存在于现世，但旧世界仍在继续，解放的和救赎的善的力量要继续与恶的、死亡的力量斗争，直至在最后的未来──即耶稣作的譬喻中的收割的时候──取得最终的胜利。天主之国已显现，即新的创造已开始，它只有在最后的未来，在最后的时间完满时，在天主的最后审判时，才完满地到来。正是在这个意义上，耶稣谈论了将要到来的天国。但是耶稣并没有探究天主之国的实质，也没有详细说明它的含义。他传达的信息只是集中于天国的临近和它的到来的紧迫性上。天国被耶稣宣扬成一个已敲响现世之门的现实。正因为如此，他的「天国的话」是福音，是关于人类未来的好消息。至于说到时间的终结，耶稣基督认为不可能知道天主之国最终到来的时间，因为它是圣父的秘密。他说：「至于那日子或那时刻，除了父以外，谁也不知道，连天上的天使和子都不知道」(谷13:32)。他认为最根本的态度是警醒地等待。他用了相当多的关于警惕的比喻来解释这一态度(玛24:42-44，25:1-13)。最后，耶稣把天主之国的最终到来描绘成是像宴会一样的喜事：「天国好比一个国王，为自己的儿子办婚宴」(玛22:2)，尽管还将有天主的最后审判。

对新约的最新研究试图说明，耶稣基督认为未来已超前至现在；现在并未自我封闭，而是对未来开放。在耶稣对天主之国的揭示中，现在与未来、渺小与伟大、历史的超前与末世的完满是互相联系着的两极。所以，对耶稣所传达的信息的任何片面的解释都应被排除。连耶稣本人也被看作是以奥秘的方式存在于当前时代的，因此他的显现就不再是一位缺席者到来，而是一位隐蔽者的光荣的外现。正是在这个意义上，如大公会议所说，天主之国是以奥秘的方式存在于此世的，并将趋向完满。

4. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　39。

5. 参见《天主教信仰简介》，台北　天主教中国主教团教义委员会　1978。

6. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　39。

7. Cfr. AGNOLETTI A., Storia del Cristianesimo (Milano: Istituto Propaganda Libreria 1981) 33, 63, 75, 78, 330.

第二章　世界

一. 世界的新概念

按照大公会议的新的末世论，天国在此世意味着耶稣基督的救赎正在目前实行，尽管它并未终结和圆满成功；这就意味着天主正统治着世界，尽管天主的王权也还需要进一步显示。那么世界就应该重新定义，需要有一个关于世界的新理论来与天主之国的理论对应。这是因应传统神学中关于世界的理论已经不能完满地适合于大公会议关于天主之国的新理论。换言之，大公会议关于天主之国的神学革新要求相称的和对应的关于世界的神学革新，要以存在于此世但并未完满的天国为背景，重新考察世界。

事实上，大公会议的确在关于世界的理论方面作出了显着的和革命性的神学革新，使两个理论和谐一致。

首先，随着大公会议出现了对于「世界」这一词汇和概念的新解释。这一新解释认为，应澄清科学家所用的概念与神学家所用的概念之间的区别。科学家们在他们对于宇宙的物质性的研究中，使用这一概念来指物质世界。相反，神学家们则在传播神启的信息时，运用这个概念指的是历史一文化的复杂的风云变幻。圣经的篇章对宇宙和自然的物质性从来不感兴趣。在旧约的头几部书中，甚至没有用过「世界」一词，用过的只是「天地」(创1:1)，有时也用「一切」(咏8:7)。这是那个时代的许多不同文化的典型表达方式。新约的作者们也是在和旧约同样的意义上使用「宇宙」或「世界」这些词汇的。也就是说，用它们来指创造的整个秩序，尤其指联结宇宙和人的关系(参见迦4:3；斐2:15；罗4:13；格前14:10)，即人生存的环境以及赋予人的世上生活的种种条件和可能性的总和(格前3:22，4:13)。总之，对于早期基督徒来说，「世界」和「宇宙」等词所指的与其说是自然的现实，不如说更是人的活动领域和人际关系的领域。圣经文字是在人类学概念意义上使用这些词汇的。所以，如果说圣经说过：「……这世界的局面正在逝去」(格前7:31)，其意思并不是说这个物质世界，即这个自然的现实将终结，而是要说人赖以生存的环境、人在地上生活的条件和人际关系的总和，将随着耶稣基督的到来，特别是随着耶稣基督的死──复活，将得到根本的变化和改善。也就是说，亚当所犯原罪造成的世界与天主的对立将随着耶稣基督的赎罪的死而终结。总之一句话，世界将得到精神性的而非物质性的改变。第二届梵蒂冈大公会议也是在这同样的意义上谈到世界及其变化的。它说：「世界是人类历史的舞台，……目的在使它依照天主的计划，获致改造而臻于完善」[8]。

大公会议认为，既然世界同时是人类历史的舞台和神的创造，那么它就具有历史的──救赎的特点。所以有一种双重的联系，它一方面把世界与天主联系在一起，另一方面把世界与人联系在一起。世界是历史，它参与人际关系。人与人之间的交流受着世界的调解作用的制约。大公会议认为，现今世界的世俗化根源在于世界是天主创造的这一事实。因此大公会议认为面对世界应提出的基本问题是：根本否定当代的世俗化进程还是积极地评价这一进程，以便重新理解基督教信仰？大公会议以基督教历史上从未有过的新态度对待了这一问题。

二. 世界为天主所愿

第一届梵蒂冈大公会议为了抵制世界的世俗化进程中出现的政治、科学、经济和技术方面的迅速变化和进步，曾采取凯旋主义和完满主义的老态度。尽管第一届梵蒂冈大公会议承认了科学有合法的自主权并强调科学与信仰分属两个不同秩序但又是来源于同一天主，但它并未深入地发掘并从整体上把握这一论题，以便丰富神学，它只满足于把科学与信仰分别看作两个不同的秩序而已。第一届梵蒂冈大公会议的这种态度使得天主教会摈斥任何重新定义世界、人的活动以及人类本身的神学发展，使自己在如此变化了的世界面前陷入困境[9]。相反地，第二届梵蒂冈大公会议扩展和深化了这一论题，在有关问题的态度方面实现了一些根本的改变。

对于大公会议来说，问题不再仅仅是科学与信仰的关系或国家与教会的关系，而是更根本的天主之国与人的世界的关系、神的创造与神的救赎的关系、人类文明与福音传道的关系。大公会议更为强调的是人的世界与天主之国同源于天主，而其余的一切都要以这个关系为背景来看待。正像神学家舍努(Chenu)所说的，大公会议认为要认真看待「世界存在」这一事实。舍努认为，大公会议的这一新观点是它的「一大创见」[10]。

于是，大公会议以新的方式看待世界，与奥古斯丁在《天主之城》的两个城的理论中的冲突对立的语汇相比，大公会议用调和的词句来表述。在奥古斯丁看来，天主之城和人的世界是两个互相对立的因素：天主之国是完满的因而是教会追求的目标，而世界是不完满的因而是不令旅居于世界上的教会感兴趣的和是要被否定的。然而大公会议认为，尽管世界不完满，还有许多恶[11]，但它是天主在基督中创造的，因而是天主所愿的和天主看着很好的创造。《创世纪》中的话便是明证：「天主看了他造的一切，认为样样都很好」(创1:31)。因此，世界和天主之国同样是源于天主的。世界是神的创造，它应有自己的来世的完满，那将是天主之国。大公会议认为，人的世界和天主之国不再是相互对立的，它们是有区别的同时又是联系在一起的，将在时间的终结时在天主之中结合起来成为一体。人的世界注定要通过「天上之城和地上之城的互相渗透」[12]起变化。

一些评论述家认为，大公会议这一神学革新「摈弃了关于历史和世界的任何二元论的和摩尼教的观念」[13]、「断言了两个城辨证的互相渗透和人类生存的统一性」[14]、「拋弃了用冲突的词汇表述的两个城的思想」[15]。

大公会议认为，世界是神的创造，神对世界的创造与神对世界的救赎同为天主计划的组成部份。所以天主是世界的创造者和救赎者，同时天主也是世界的建设者，因为他生活在自己的具体行动及对人类爱怜的历史之中。然后，天主把统治世上万物的权力交到人类手中，人类参加世界的建设因而也是世界的建设者。于是世界被大公会议看作是共同的果实，是天主与人类合作的产物，是神的行动与人的行为交融的成果。世界的存在就这样被视为积极的了。大公会议对世界采取了一种能动的观点，把世界视为不断成长的、进步的、进化的和变化的[16]。不仅世界的创造者天主给与世界，世界世给与它的创造者天主。即天主也从他的被创造物中丰富自己，因为他参与历史，参与人的生活，参与他在基督中感受的苦难。总之一句话，天主在历史之中。怀德海(Whitehead)是第一个这样思考的人，后来有许多神学家赞同他的观点。大公会议认为有必要尊重作为世界的中心的人，尊重他的自主权，尊重他的自由意志以及他对世界的统治，因为天主按照自己的肖像创造了人并把统治世界的万物的权力交给了他。《圣经》就是这样告诉我们的：「天主说：『让我们照我们的肖像、按我们的模样造人，叫他管理海中的鱼、天空的飞鸟、牲畜、各种野兽、在地上爬行的各种爬虫』」(创1:26)[17]。因此，大公会议认为没有必要在一个如此发展了的人的世界面前感到惊讶，一切都是由天主早在创世之初就计划好的。世界、地上现实的自主、人的自由、人的自由意志都是天主所愿的[18]。根据现代神学家对《圣经》的研究，在《圣经》中可以找到人类中心说，道成肉身可以解释为天主对世界的接纳。所以，文明开化的世界的经验并不排斥一种对天主的新的经验，它更有利于真正揭示信仰。

三. 耶稣基督是现世之王

基督中心论在大公会议关于世界的理论中得到了更好的阐述。大公会议说：「教会深信为人受死并复活的基督，藉其圣神赐给人类以光明及神力，以帮助人们彻底回应自己的使命。普天之下，没有赐下别的名字，使我们赖以得救」(参见宗4:12)[19] 。大公会议还说：「同样，教会相信能够在她主和导师(基督)身上，找到整个人类历史的锁钥、中心和终向」[20]。大公会议为整个人类历史所找到的这个锁钥可解释如下：首先，根据基督中心论，早在世界和人类被创造前基督就存在。他是「阿耳法和敖默加」、「最初的和最末的」、「元始和终末」(默22:12-13)[21]。他是隐藏于天主之中许多世纪的圣事，然后参与了作为救赎史组成部份的创世。一切都是在基督中被创造的。当时间完满时，即当《旧约》中被许诺、等待和预备的一切完成时，他到来、被钉十字架而死又复活。这样，由于基督的救赎事业，最后时刻的新创造就提前来到了历史中(参见罗8:19-24)[22]。最后，大公会议的基督中心论至关重要的一个观点是，传统神学认为基督到来、死而复活、升天后坐在天主的右边，他的再来将在世界末日实现。这样，在他的世上生活的时间中就留下了一段空白。正是在这一点上，大公会议完成了神学革新的重大步骤。大公会议论断道，并非耶稣基督在其死而复活后完全舍弃了世界，只有在时间终结时再回来，而是如保禄所说的，他的死而复活的「光荣身体」是「精神的身体」(格前15:44)，可以超越时空的局限，尽管是以奥秘的方式(参见玛18:20)[23]，可以通过基督复活后派遣来地上的圣神在现世行动(若20:22)。

这个重大的神学革新的意义在于，首先，这样耶稣基督便作为行动的、活跃的人物永远存在于世上，在人类朝向天国的进程中起着保护者、导师和引路人的作用，也就是说人类世界永远置于耶稣基督的看顾和关怀之下。这样，耶稣基督与人类世界的关系也就变得更为深刻和紧密了，而前文所述的传统神学中的缺陷则被消除了。

其次，耶稣基督不仅像在传统神学中那样被宣布为天国之王，而且也被称为现世之王：「天主派遣他的儿子，立了他为万有的继承者(参见希1:2)，好使他成为一切人的导师、王和祭司，即成为由天主之子女所组成，新而遍布普世的子民的领袖」[24]。大公会议的这一论断避免了传统神学中对尘世的忽视。

最后，根据这一新观念，不仅受洗的基督徒与耶稣基督结合在一起，而且全体人类的所有人也都注定要和耶稣基督结合在一起。这样一来，耶稣基督的救恩便被扩大到全体人类，而传统神学中只保留给基督徒的耶稣基督的救恩所具有的狭隘性，则被消除了。于是大公会议说：「那些还没有接受福音的人们，也以各种方式受命做天主之民」[25] (但并非所有的神学家都同意这种基督的普世性救恩的观念。例如汉斯．孔在他的《做基督徒》一书中(第772页) 就抗议「匿名的基督徒」的观念)。

有了如此发达的基督中心论，大公会议便宣布：耶稣基督是世界之王、天主与人之间的唯一中介、完人、最高的榜样、人类历史的目的、所有人的救赎、世界的中心、历史的中心、人类的中心、信仰的中心等等，总之是一切的中心[26]。尤其是关于耶稣基督在此世存在的论述使得大公会议可向世俗世界解释道，耶稣基督不在彼岸世界，也不在我们的现实之外，而是它的一部份，他从内部给现实世界以生气。于是，现实世界不再被视为完全世俗性的，而是由于耶稣基督的存在于其中而更被圣化了的，所以更注定是要走向天国的。正像大公会议所说的：「一切都是你们的，你们却是基督的，而基督是天主的」(格前3:23；教会36节)。由于上述种种功德，这一重大的革新步骤被教宗保禄六世称为「大公会议深化理论的第一个成果」[27]。

除此之外，基督中心论还有另外一个不容忽视的重要意义。即在新教中早就存在着基督中心论的许多论调，例如卡尔．巴特(Karl Barth)就持此观点。大公会议采取了基督中心论，就使得注重传统的天主教神学与强调圣经权威的新教神学互相靠近了。这个现已为双方所共同采取的基督中心论，可以有利于普世运动，因为它提供了一个汇聚点，还因为耶稣基督是共同的信仰对象，所以基督中心论有利于所有基督教会的和解与对话。许许多多神学家都注意到了大公会议的基督中心论。孔加尔(Congar)等人评论道，如果说大公会议还没有使天主教神学充分地回到圣经，那么至少已使它集中在耶稣基督身上[28]。但大公会议的基督中心论的意义的这个有意思的方面不在本文论题之内，故不作进一步探讨。

四. 世界的双重看法

大公会议从贬低和否定世俗世界及人类活动的旧态度中解脱出来，在基督教历史中第一次以训导的方式宣称[29]，在世界上有「好的、真实的和正确的」因素，教会应予以承认和尊重。大公会议列举了这些价值观念：平等、博爱、和平、互助……。大公会议破天荒第一次作出结论道，不仅教会帮助世界，世界也帮助教会。世界上有许多好的东西值得教会学习[30]：「凡在家庭、文化、经济、社会乃至国家及国际方面，促进人类团体生活者」[31]，都值得教会学习。大公会议甚至宣称，「连人们以往和现在对她所有的敌视与迫害，亦能对她多所裨益」[32]。以「人拥有天主在其心内铭刻的法律」[33]为前提，大公会议承认人的肉体的合法需求、人的基本权利、人在世上的努力、人对世界的统治、人的自由意志及世界的自主[34]。大公会议还具体地承认了科学的合法性、它的研究自由和它的自主性。教会对于科学的态度经历了一个长期的充满不幸事件的历史。人们对有关哥白尼、布鲁诺和伽利略等人的中世纪的着名案件以及对残酷的多明我会的宗教裁判官们仍记忆犹新。第一届梵蒂冈大公会议曾制订将信仰与科学分为两个秩序的理论，给予了科学以一定的自由空间，但未能深化有关科学的神学。第二届梵蒂冈大公会议则完成了一个转折，宣称「世俗的现实和信仰现实都来源于同一个神」[35]，意即科学与信仰都来源于同一个真理；因此，「认为科学与信仰互相对立」[36] 是错误的。天主教会在对待科学以及无论是社会进步还是科技进步的态度上的这个根本变化，以正式宣告的形式公诸于世始见于若望二十三世1961年的通谕《慈母与导师》以及1963年的通谕《世上和平》。然后，在大公会议文件《论教会在现代世界牧职宪章》中，首次以训导的形式，作为对救赎史为背景的人类进步的某种关注之情，进行了神学上的综合与概括。大公会议说：「有信仰的人认为人类所有个人及团体的活动，亦即历来人们设法改善其生活的努力，本身是吻合天主圣意的」[37]。大公会议进一步推而广之，宣称「凡由人的智能与美德所产生的一切，信友不独不以为它们违反天主的全能，不独不以为拥有理智的受造物在与造物主竞争，反而深信人类的胜利是天主伟大的标志及其奇妙计划的成果」[38]。大公会议作出了一个崭新的评价，它断言：「故此，现世的进步虽然与基督神国的广扬有其分别，但由现世进展可能有益于改变人类社会的观点上看去，则颇有利于天主的神国」[39]。教会以这种关于人类进步、人的智慧以及人的社会活动的新观念为基础，在大公会议之后加快了继续与科学和解以及解决历史问题的步伐。例如，1966年取消了「禁书目录」[40]、1976年决定拓展宗座科学院的研究领域、1979年开始了为伽利略平反的重审进程。于是，教会关于了解和「很好地利用」世俗科学发现的原理，以便用科学来丰富神学，使之可以「同所有科学知识及日新月异的技术并肩前进」[41] 的决定便这样付诸实施了。

为了从各个方面对人类的活动作出评价，大公会议理所当然地也革新了其他一些观念，如劳动、政治、经济、艺术等等。

但是，大公会议对现实世界并不持完全乐观的态度。大公会议并不仅限于赞扬人类的成就和进步，而是列数和强调指出了世上存在的并使世界陷入危机和危险的所有的恶。它们是：贫穷、饥饿、愚昧、新式奴役，以及政治、社会、经济、种族和意识形态的冲突、战争、对宗教的淡漠……[42]。在大公会议看来，所有的恶中最危险和最严重的，是无神论。大公会议说：「教会……对这种万恶理论……，不能不以沉痛心情，极其坚决地加以摈弃」[43]。大公会议要求在俗的基督徒反对「各种形式的唯物主义」[44]。人们很容易注意到这样一个事实，即尽管若望二十三世在大公会议开幕时曾宣布不以谴责为目的[45]，但对无神论的这一谴责构成大公会议的一个非常强烈的声音。人们也可以注意到这一事实，即在大公会议文件中这一谴责所用的词汇只是「无神论」或「唯物主义」，但保禄六世在大公会议期间发表的《教会》通谕中进行这种谴责时，也用了「共产主义」一词[46]。可见天主教会是把无神论──唯物主义──共产主义视为最主要的意识形态的敌人。但是，若望二十三世确立的「和所有一切有良好意愿的人对话」以及「把历史运动与错误理论区分开；把犯错误的人与错误区分开」[47] 的着名原则，当然也适用于无神论者 ──唯物主义者 ──共产主义者。

综合所述，可以说大公会议采用了一种两面观来看待世界，并因而对世界作出了一种双重判断：「现代世界好似大有作为，又好似柔弱无能；可能行至大的善，亦可能做最坏的恶。在现代人类面前，摆着走向自由或奴役的途径、进步或堕落的途径……」[48]。大公会议作出的诊断是：现代世界所患的不平衡是由于「植根于人心的不平衡」；人一方面「感到自身受到多方面的限制」，另一方面「又感到自身有着无穷的愿望，有着走向更高级生活的使命」；人由于「自身的柔弱无能及向恶成性，往往做出本心不愿做的事，又往往不做本心所愿做的事」[49]。大公会议认为，问题在于「人检讨其心灵，便发现自己是向恶的」，然而「人亦发现自身没有能力，有效地去克胜罪恶的攻击」[50]。

五. 世界的改造

大公会议为世界指出的解决办法是，这个被罪恶畸变的世界将改变，当然由于上文所述的原因并不是自动地改变，而是按照为使世界改善而正在世上起作用的来世的希望做出改变。大公会议并未具体说明世界变化的时间与方式，但表示对世界的改变充满信心：「对大地及人类终穷的时刻，我们一无所知，亦不知万物将如何改变。但为罪恶所玷污的世界面目，行将逝去」[51]。大公会议也未具体明确世界的未来与来世的未来之间的关系。施勒比克(Schillebeeckx)对此作了解释：「正是由于基督徒相信绝对的未来 ──对于人来说未来就是天主本人，所以基督徒无法用任何理性的语言具体说明未来」[52]。然而大公会议的基本思想是，在尘世的未来远景与来世的远景之间，存在着一种神秘的联系[53]。大公会议认为由天主亲自在地上开始的天主之国「要进一步扩展，直至世界末日由他本人圆满完成，那时基督将显现」[54]，与此同时「受造之物将脱离败坏的控制，得享天主子女的光荣自由」(参见罗8:21)[55] 。

由此可见，按照大公会议的新的末世论，世界不再被判为要从物质上消失，即被完全毁灭，而是正如斯塔尼斯拉斯．利奥奈特(Stanislaus Lyonnet)所说的那样，发生变化和进行改造：「物质世界不是注定要归于消失」，而是正相反，要被施行一种神秘的「改造」[56]。大公会议认为，要「建设」[57] 世界，意即可以有一个更好的、更符合人类尊严的世界。大公会议认为从这个意义上说，建设世界是与扩展天国密切相关的。大公会议解释其中的原因说，「但期待新天地的希望，不仅不应削弱，而且应增进我们建设此世的心火。因为新的人类大家庭的雏型，是滋长发育在今世的，并已能提供人以新天地的预感」[58]。建设世界对于扩展天国十分重要，对此，大公会议说得很清楚：「现世的进步虽然与基督神国的广扬有其分别，但由现世进展可能有益于改善人类社会的观点上看去，则颇有利于天主的神国」[59]。事实上在大公议后发展成熟的新神学中，可以看到已引进了「建设」天国、「天主之国的建设」[60]、「合作」建设天国等用语。也就是说，现在认为天国也是需要建设的。这一论断是新神学的一大创新，同时也是它的一大难题，因为这些新的用语与福音书的用语相比显然是矛盾的。福音书中说过「进入」天国、天国「接纳」、天国「到来」，但从未说过天国需要建设。这些新用语也与保禄的格言相矛盾，保禄说的是因信得救(救赎即天国)，从未说过可因人工得救。对此施勒比克解释说，尽管不应将尘世的人道化进程混同于人类社会朝向一种更好的安排的进步，但它毕竟是一种类似的关切，因此理所当然地包括在天国的进展之中[61]。他认为，「这也是因为在世界的建设中人类正在联合起来，这种以此世建设为基础的联合，事实上正是末日的天国的某种隐含的预示」[62]。舍努(Chenu)也作过类似的解释：「在人类目前的成长之中，在社会的、政治的、文化的价值观的世界性扩展中，在人权意识的普遍觉醒中，……有着可能为福音准备道路的资源，现在是建设天国的好时机」[63]。

显而易见，「世界将逝去」指的是「为罪恶所玷污的世界面目」行将逝去，即世界上现存的所有的罪恶将逝去，而人类生存和人类努力的好成果，如人的尊严、博爱、自由以及社会、政治、文化的所有价值则不会消失。这些成果和价值曾是基督的圣神所宣扬的，但被谬误和罪恶所污染因而变得模糊不清，所以需要净化。正是在发扬和净化尘世的这些好成果和好价值观这种意义上，新神学论及在地上建设天国。在最后的天国中「我们要再度看到这些美妙及成果。但那时的这些美妙及成果，将是毫无玷污而光辉夺目的」[64]。

　

8. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　2b。

9.MASULLI A., “La filosofia cattolica in Italia” in Critica marxista, n.5-6 (1976) 210-211.

10.CHENU, “Chiesa e mondo” in Specialisti, grandi temi del Concilio (diretta da V. Gambi e C. Danna, ed. Paoline) 34.

11. Cfr. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　37。

12. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　40。

13. SANTINI A., “La Chesa cattolica di fronte alla crisi del mondo contemporaneo” in Critica marxista, n.5-6 (1976) 90.

14. Ivi.

15. Ivi, 111. Cfr. URRESTI J.T.L., “La Chiesa come istituzione” in Concilio vivo, a cura di Bernard Lambert (Milano: Ed. Ancora 1967) 126.

16. RIVA C.I.C., “La Chiesa nel mondo contemporaneo” in Collana magistero conciliare, v.11 (Torino: Ed. Subalpina, ELLE DI CI 1967) 385.

17. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　12, 41。

18. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　36b。

19. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　10。

20. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　10。

21.天主的启示教义宪章　17；教会宪章　45。

22. 教会宪章　4。

23.礼仪宪章　7a。

24.教会宪章　13a。

25.教会宪章　16a。

26.Cfr. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　45。

27.Cfr. PAOLO VI, “L'enciclica ’La Chiesa'”, il 6 agosto 1964 l’enciclica “La teoria e il culto per l'eucarestia”, il 8 settembre 1965.

28.Cfr. CONGAR Y.M.J.C., “La questione della rivelazione” in Concilio vivo 313-314.

30.Cfr. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　36b。

31.论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　44c。

32.Ivi.

33.论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　16a。

34.Ivi. cfr. n.4, 7, 59,63.

35.论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　36b。

36.Ivi.

37.论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　34a。

38.Ivi, n.34c.

39.Ivi, n.39b.

40.Cfr. Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, “Abolizione dell‘Indice dei libri proibiti” del 14 giugno 1966, Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede vol.2, n.705-706.

41.Cfr. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　62f。

42.Cfr. Ivi n.4, 7.

43.Ivi n.21a.

44.Apostolicam actuositatem, n.31.

45.Cfr. GIOVANNI XXIII, “Pace in terra” in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.2, cap.60; “Discorso all 'apertura del Concilo” dell’ll ottobre 1962, in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.1, cap.44-45. Cfr. PAOLO VI, “Il Progresso dei Popoli” in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.2, n.1058, p.889.

46.PAOLO VI, “La Chiesa”, l'enciclica del 6 agosto 1964 in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.2, cap.202, (Bologna: Ed. Dehoniane 1979).

47.Cfr. GIOVANNI XXIII, “Pace in terra” del 'll aprile 1963.

48.论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　9。

49.Ivi n.10.

50.Ivi n.13b.

51.论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　39a。

52.SCHILLEBEECKX E., “Fede cristiana ed aspettative terrene” in La Chiesa nel mondo contemporaneo, a cura di Enzo Giammenchesi, (Brescia: Queriniana 1966) 132.

53.Ivi, 120-121.

54.教会宪章　9c。

55.Ivi, n.9c.

56.LYONNET S., “I fondamenti biblici della costituzione” in La Chiesa nel mondo di oggi, diretta da Guilberme Branna (Firenze: Ed. Vallecchi 1966) 212.

57.论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　93。

58.Ivi, n.39b.

59.Ivi.

60.CHENU M.D., “La Chiesa e il mondo” in Specialisti, I grandi temi del Concilio 841-843.

61.SCHILLEBEECKX E., “Fede cristiana ed aspettative terrene” in La Chiesa nel mondo contemporaneo, 116.

62. Ivi.

63. CHENU M.D., “La Chiesa e il mondo” in Specialisti, I grandi temi del Concilio, 841-843.

64.论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　39c。Cfr. SCHILLEBEECKX E., “Fede cristiana ed aspettative terrene” in La Chiesa nel mondo contemporaneo, 116.

第三章　教会

一. 神圣的教会

诚然，大公会议实现了许多重大的神学革新，以便用新的方式解释天主之国和人的世界。但大公会议更为重要的使命乃定义天主教会自身，即界定它的性质、它的存在、它的使命以及它在当代世界的行为方式。事实上大公会议文件在此话题上用的篇幅更多。大公会议从天主之国及人的世界的观念中很自然地引出它的教会论。大公会议说：「教会在基督内，好像一件圣事，就是说教会是与天主亲密结合，以及全人类彼此团结的记号和工具」[65]。所以笔者认为，大公会议的教会论是从两个彼此平行和紧密相联的不同层面同时展示的。一方面，大公会议要说明教会的神圣性，与此同时亦欲表明它的世俗性。阐述教会的双重性质的这个教会论的目的，在于避免教会性质的片面的因而是错误的理解。大公会议越是要证明教会关心世俗事物的权利，就越感到有必要说明它的神圣性，以免使人把教会混同于世界；于此同时越要证明教会与天主之国的密切关系，就越感到有必要说明它的世俗性，从而不令人作教会与人的世界毫不相干之想。因此，大公会议的教会论的这两个方面都发挥得淋漓尽致，达到神学史上从未有过的水平。笔者的这一观感可在下述事实中找到证明，即基督中心论与在关于天主之国的神学中和在关于人的世界的神学中一样，在大公会议的教会论中也是核心，不仅如此，当大公会议说道：「用一个不平凡的类比来说，(教会)可与道成肉身的奥迹相比」[66]，此时基督中心论已在教会论中达到其顶峰。

历史上，尽管利奥十三世和庇护十二世都曾表达过近似之意，但「类比」一词却从未在这一意义上用过。大公会议完成的这一步，被视为教会理论的「一大发展」、教会内部革新的「关键」、教会与世界之间关系的「根本性表达」，因为有了这种类比，人们可以更好地理解教会的「祝圣过的世俗性」[67]。

因为有此类比，大公会议便可借助为人们所熟知的基督的形象，更清楚地说明教会的性质。吉梅内兹．乌莱斯蒂(Jimenez Urresti)把这一意义解释得很明白，他说：「正如基督在实行其人性时反射其神性并以此完成对全体人类的救赎一样，教会的可见性和社会性也反射其包含的奥秘并将之实行于人类」[68]。用更简单的话来说，即几乎和基督一样，教会也集神性和人性于一身。

有一个很有意思的事实值得注意，即在大公会议文件中有末世论的双重体系。1964年11月发表的《教会宪章》的末世论更具有传统的特色，并且有强烈的教会中心论。而一年之后，即1965年12月发表的《论教会在现代世界牧职宪章》的末世论则有所不同，谈论的更多的是世界的希望、未来以及努力。这一差别表明了大公会议的神长们再思考的成果。《教会宪章》的末世论包含有关教会、世界和天主之国之间关系的神学，它倾向于注重天主之国在历史中的显现，但随即把天主之国归结为教会自身。该文件说：「教会，即天主之国，原在奥秘之中，因天主之德能在世间也看到增长」[69]。这种把教会等同于天国的教会学的根源在圣奥古斯丁的《天主之城》中的二元论中。奥古斯丁不在意区分天主之城与天主之国，他往往把二者等同。这种把教会等同于天国的倾向被一些神学家视为一种凯旋主义的态度、一种自夸和对世界的自我封闭而予以抨击。这种把教会与世界对立的观念比照大公会议的革新精神，已不再合乎时宜。事实上大公会议之后，天主教会已不再坚持这种教会学。保禄六世本人在说起「神圣生活与世俗生活的共存标志着世世代代以来罗马的经历」[70] 时，已经拋弃了用冲突的词汇谈论两座城的思想。

与此相反，大公会议的另一种并不把教会等同于天主之国的教会学在大公会议文件中占据着主导地位，并在大公会议后不断更趋成熟。这种教会学不作上述混淆，但同样成功地阐述了天主教会的神圣性。杜宾根学派曾提出一种教会学研究的神学方法，以便克服路德所作的对可见的教会与不可见的教会的割裂」[71]。在它之后，大公会议懂得重新寻找回来教父和早期基督教关于三位一体的灵感，以便按照天主圣三重建教会的神圣形象，也就是说，以天主圣三为背景来看待的教会的奥秘构成大公会议的教会学的关键。大公会议的教会学依据的是保禄的《厄弗所书》。保禄在此书信中描述了三位神圣位格分别在救赎中所占的位置」[72]。

首先，制订天主计划的创举归功于天主圣父：「愿我们的主耶稣基督的天主和父受赞美！他在天上，在基督内，以各种属神的祝福，祝福了我们，……在基督内已择选了我们，……预定了我们籍着耶稣基督获得义子的名份」(弗1:3-5)。所以教会属于天主圣父。正因为如此，天主教会被大公会议称为「天主子民」」[73]。这原本是旧约的思想，以色列人被称作「天主子民」是因为他们与雅威神结盟(参见申7:6-12，32:8-9)。然后在新约时代，保禄称基督徒为「天主新子民」(格后6:16；罗9:25-26)。圣奥古斯丁有时也将此称呼用于教会。然而这一事实在圣奥古斯丁之后被遗忘了很长时间。甚至使教会的天主圣三性这一有力的思想复活的杜宾根学派也忘记了它。只是在第二次世界大战最初几年的德国，教会的这个名字才被部份地发现」[74]。所以，大公会议所采用的这个教会的名字，既是古老的又是新鲜的，并被视为当前的教会学最基本的论题。

其次，耶稣基督在他的救赎事业中占据着中心位置：「我们就是全凭天主丰厚的恩宠，在他的爱子内，藉他爱子的血，获得了救赎，罪过的赦免」(弗1;7)。尽管是全部的三位一体的天主通过有效的因果报应、道成肉身、对世界的救赎和使天下的一切荣耀完成在行事，并因而在这个意义上可以说教会是不可分的天主圣三的共同业绩和杰作，但毕竟只有圣子受圣父派遣、成为肉身、在童贞玛利亚中成人并承担了人性、承受了人生的苦难以及牺牲了生命，因此应把三个神圣位格所共有的因果秩序与个性这个层面清楚的区分开。从后者来说，只有基督堪称具有真正的、直接的和绝对的意义上的人性，是教会的精神首领和创建者。「成肉身的道作为一个不可言传的词汇，与之相关联的一切都仅仅是个人的：是天主圣三中的承担了人性的第二个位格，是三位之一并受苦受难，是他的教会的负责任的元首，是排除圣父及圣神的唯一位格……」」[75]。所以天主教会被大公会议称为「基督的奥体」，而基督则被视为「默西亚民族的元首」、「教会的导师、君王和司祭」」[76]。

「基督的奥体」这一称呼与「天主子民」一样，也有其悠久的历史。圣保禄是第一个说基督徒是基督的奥体的人：「你们便是基督的身体」(格前12:27，参6:15-17，10:17)。他认为在所有领了洗归于基督的人之间，已不再有犹太人与希腊人、奴隶与自由人、男人或女人之分(迦3:26-28)。教会是基督徒与基督的结合体，也是基督徒之间的结合体。每一位受洗的基督徒都与基督结合为一体，像基督是圣父之子一样，每一位基督徒也是天主之子。保禄用「基督的奥体」这一说法指的是与圣子的同样的父子关系」[77]。教父们继承了保禄的这种神学。用信徒们在圣体圣事中的结合来解释基督的身体的奥秘，所根据的便是保禄的话：「我们所祝福的那祝福之杯，岂不是共结合于基督的血吗？我们所擘开的饼，岂不是共结合于基督的身体吗？因为饼只是一个，我们虽多，只是一个身体」(格前10:16-17)。正如拉辛格(J. Ratzinger)所说的那样，保禄的这段话被视为「给予他们(指教父们)对基督的奥体的全部深入思考的具体意义以确保的坚实依据」」[78]。教父们认为保禄的这一思想与使徒本人关于两个亚当的理论是紧密联系在一起的。根据保禄的这个理论，如果从根源上看我们全体都应与陷入罪恶的旧亚当归入同类，那么我们应全体一起和「第二个亚当」即耶稣基督组成新人类(参见罗5:12-25；格前15:44-49)」[79] 。尤其是奥古斯丁，他非常明确地表达了这种信念」[80]。

但是随着时光的流逝，「教会即基督的奥体」这一观念逐渐被神学家们所遗忘，或至多被当作一种罗漫蒂克的说法。在第一届梵蒂冈大公会议时代许多主教和神学家们都不愿采用这一说法，认为它「太模糊」、「太抽象」、「太神秘」，甚至认为它「太危险」[81]。只是到了第一次世界大战以后，教会研究的革新才建立在这一观念上。庇护十二世断言，「不可能找到比这种表述更美、更优越、……更神圣的了」[82]。第二届梵蒂冈大公会议重申了这一观念。

最后，是圣神完成天主圣三的救赎业绩，但并非单独完成，而是与圣父和圣子一起完成：「在基督内你们一听到了真理的话，即你们得救的福音，便信从了，且在他内受了恩许圣神的印证；这圣神就是我们得嗣业的保证，为使天主所置为嗣业的子民，蒙受完全的救赎，为颂扬他的光荣」(弗1:13-14)。大公会议考虑到了保禄的这番话，十分关注对圣神的神学定义[83]。大公会议强调圣神的永恒性，认为圣神自始至终参与了耶稣基督的全部救赎事业。首先，耶稣基督「籍着圣神的德能」[84] 由童贞玛利亚取了肉躯。然后，在五旬节日圣神被遣来「永久圣化教会，使信仰的人，籍着基督，在同一圣神内，得以走近圣父面前」(参见弗2:18)[85]。如果说大公会议说过基督以奥秘的方式存在于世界上尤其在教会中，这恰恰是因为圣神存在于世界上尤其在教会中，并不断使教会保持青春活力和圣化[86]。对于「耶稣向教会应许的圣神所起的不断参与作用」[87] 的这一澄清，被视为大公会议的革新的一个极为重要的成果和有待于进一步深化的理论[88]。由于圣神居住在教会内这一事实，教会被大公会议称为「圣神的宫殿」[89]。

在这里有必要回顾一下大公会议为教会采用的所有称呼：「天主子民」、「默西亚民」、「基督的国」、「基督的奥体」、「基督的净配」、「圣神的宫殿」以及「救赎的圣事」(阿道夫．隆吉塔诺(Adolfo Longhitano)认为在大公会议之后的教会学新发展中，为避免任何形式的使教会三位一体之一位化，已用圣事的范畴代替了道成肉身的范涛)[90]。所有这些称呼明确地确立了天主圣三的奥秘在基督宗教所有奥秘之中的首席地位，也就是说这些称呼使得教会的奥秘被置于天主圣三的奥秘之中。这些观念清楚地表明了大公会议的教会学，它正如米凯尔．菲里波(Michel Philipon)所说的那样，认为「藉着圣子和在圣神的吹拂下，教会的全部运动都发端于圣父，并回归于他」[91]。所以，教会是神圣的，因为它属于天主圣三，属于天主之国。

二. 世俗的教会

道成肉身与教会之间的类比也可用以说明天主教会的世俗性。大公会议用这一类比来阐述教会的人性与神性的结合。笔者在前文中已论及此，以便说明教会的神圣性是如何有鉴于天主圣三与教会之间的特殊关系而得到证明的。那么现在这一类比从某种意义上说，就使得教会的世俗性更易于理解了。因为耶稣基督道成肉身，以人之身躯在世界上行动；他从玛利亚诞生成人、承受了人生的苦难并作为人被钉十字架而死，同样地教会也在世界上道成肉身、在世界上行动。瓦尔纳赫(V. Warnach)认为作为天主对历史的干预，教会的奥秘在于「在开始时显得是下降到下等的地上环境去」(参见弗4:9)[92]。地上的教会是一个可见的组织(除了是精神性的组织之外)，一个救赎的工具，一个由人组成的，而且是由穷人、弱者、卑贱者甚至罪人组成的团体(参见玛11:25；路14:21；格前1:25-29；格后13:4)，因此大公会议根据圣经把教会看作是女性，像妻子和母亲一样[93]。正像瓦尔纳赫解释的那样，这是因为教会在天主面前永远只是受造物，而每个受造物在与天主的关系中都表现为如同受孕的女人[94]。因此瓦尔纳赫说：「罪人组成的教会与其说是『天上的』不如说更是『地上的』」[95]，他说得很对。

其他的神学家们也有同样的思考。例如皮洛尼奥(Edoardo Pironio)说道：「教会之所以存在，是因为教会是作见证和预言的教会、道成肉身的和显现的教会、传教的和服务的教会。在教会与世界的这种基本关系中，在嵚入人类历史的这种教会的使命中，置入了世俗的基本原则的特殊圣召」[96]。缪勒(Hubert Muller)则说道：「在成了肉身的道中，为主的是人性，因为他是救赎的活器官……」[97]。

第二届梵蒂冈大公会议力求从内部探究教会的奥秘，以便揭示从各方面赋予教会生气的神秘的和神圣的生命。米凯尔．菲里波(Michel Philipon)说：「大公会议就这样标志了反改革的护教论时代的结束」[98]。就这样，大公会议克服了传统教会学的缺陷。通过神学课本和教理问答世代相传的传统教会学忽略了许多重要的东西，尤其是圣神在基督应许的教会中的初始行动和持续的参与。但是从另一方面说，那种被第一届梵蒂冈大公会议的主教和神学家们所喜爱的传统教会学[99]对第二届梵蒂冈大公会议来说仍是有效的[100]，因为它成功地阐明了教会的许多基本因素，如教会的可见的特性、教会的教阶统序……。这个传统的教会学是这样为教会下定义的：「有着同样信仰的、参加同样的圣事和崇拜的、服从同样的合法首领即主教们和教宗的信徒们的团体」[101]。从教会学的这一传统方面可以更清楚地看到教会的世俗性。然而，大公会议的新的教会学毕竟有着更为深刻的意义，它通过与基督的道成肉身作类比，就把教会与人类的结合比作了基督与人类的结合，从而更清楚和更形象地说明了教会的人性。正因为如此，教会认为在教义神学领域里「有必要充份发扬耶稣基督的人性的财富」[102]。如果说大公会议把教会看作是耶稣基督的道成肉身的延续[103]，那么当然也可以发扬教会的人性的财富。如果说教会是由人组成、存在于世界上、行动在世界上并且是世界的一个组成部份，那么就不难理解教会的人性。大公会议所作的与耶稣基督的道成肉身的类比，有助于以统一的观点来看待教会的双重性质，即既有神性又有人性。

总而言之，大公会议的把教会与耶稣基督的道成肉身联系在一起的新教会学，在教会与历史的关系方面实现了一个根本的改变。现在教会感觉到是在历史之中的，是与人类甘苦与共的，而不再是置身于历史之外或之上的了。阿尔贝利格(Giuseppe Alberigo)认为能更好地表述这种重新和谐一致的说法是「教会在人类的陪伴之中」[104]。正如保禄六世所说的那样，大公会议以教会与耶稣基督之间关系的这一理论，得以化解许多冲突的因素：教会是可见的同时又是精神的、是自由的同时又是有纪律的、是团体的同时又是教阶统序的、是已成圣的同时又是继续不断圣化的、是思辩的同时又是行动的……[105]。因此，这一理论被大公会议视为世俗世界与教会之间关系的根本性表述。

但是，如果可以说由于大公会议以与耶稣基督的关系来阐述教会学，教会性质的这些冲突性因素已经在理论上被调和了，那么同样由于对大公会议的教会学的正式解释，这些因素在理论上依然是互相冲突的。安东尼奥．阿切尔比(Antonio Acerbi)在他的题为《两种教会学－－「教会教义宪章」中的法规的教会学与共融的教会学》一书中，想说明在大公会议期间曾经有过将两种互相交织的教会学综合在一起的尝试[106]。而保特麦约尔(Hermann J. Pottmeyer)则说，的确存在着两种大公会议的教会学。他认为第一种教会可在《教会教义宪章》的第二章中找到，它说明教会是天主子民，以便强调信徒的共融；第二种教会学可在同一文件的第三章中找到，它说明教会是圣统制，以便强调法纪[107]。大公会议后由于教会成员在实践中有不同的要求，出现了两种理论倾向。第一种倾向把教会理解为全体天主子民的共融，因而要求建立在教会生活的各种层次上的共同负责制，不赞成仅仅突出神职人员的特殊责任。第二种倾向则强调圣统制的特殊使命与职责，从而把各种形式的共同管理视为与神职人员争权的竞争，所以不愿重视它们。据保特麦约尔看来，这两种倾向都源于《教会教义宪章》，因此他认为：「大公会议后的教会冲突的根源之一就在于大公会议本身的教会学，或者更确切地说，就在于这一事实，即大公会议不只有一种而是有两种教会学，在它们之间缺乏互相协调」[108]。

笔者认为，不必对大公会议后的这一冲突大惊小怪，因为这在历史上经常发生，即每当涉及教会的人性与实践活动时，局面立即就变得复杂起来。

三. 教会的使命

在大公会议有关天国、尘世以及教会的全部神学的基础上，大公会议顺理成章地论断说，基督徒应「忠实满全此世的任务」，但不应妄想「自己可以沉浸于此世业务」[109]。这一结论的理由是非常明显的：天主之国业已显现，仍需进一步广扬，直至在最后的时刻完满；世界将获得改造，所有的人都被召唤去构成天主之民，与耶稣基督结合在一起；但是人由于其向恶的天性而无法自救，所以仍生活在罪恶之中；那么由于教会所具备的特殊性质－－本章已论述过，「在此世就为天国打基础」[110]的使命就当然地落在了教会的头上。

正如在本文引言中已谈到的那样，早在上个世纪的下半叶许多天主教徒就开始尽自己的「社会责任」。只要回顾一下「社会理论」和德国主教冯．凯特勒(von Ketteler)的活动、意大利天主教经济学家托尼奥洛(G. Toniolo)的「社会网领」以及利奥十三世的《新事》通谕就会明白这一点了。本世纪30年代后期，教宗庇护十二世开始十分重视继承和发扬天主教的「社会理论」。在大公会议前夕，若望二十三世在其《慈母与导师》通谕中谈到教会对世俗世界的责任，随后他又在《世上和平》通谕中确立了「在考虑把我们分开的东西之前，首先看到我们共同的东西」的原则以及「开展对话，一方面承认世上的不同现实的独立自主，另一方面让基督徒作好为共同的利益而与其他人合作的准备」的方法[111]。但是，梵二会议第一次以教会的庄严训导的形式确定了基督徒的这种责任。最后，许多神学家不断地确定它的所有细节，以便使之完善。

大公会议认为，教会「出源于永生圣父之爱，为救主基督创建于时间内，并在圣神内团结为一」，「其宗旨是人类来世的得救」，而唯有来世才能圆满完成它[112]，故此，基督徒在此世「没有永久的国土」[113]。但是，天主之国是在此世显现，教会也存在于此世「并由此世的成员－－人－－所构成」。而人的使命是「在人类历史内，培植并建立一个天主子女的家庭。这家庭直到基督再度降来时，应不断发展」[114]。故此，基督徒理所当然地应该「不断改造并净化自身」，「为天主彰显于世界多作贡献」[115]。教会应帮助人类社会「变作天主的家庭」[116]。教会作为一个有形可见而又是精神的团体，在世界上起的作用犹如「酵母与灵魂」[117]。教会有资格做这一切，因为教会承认天主，与基督结合在一起，并始终得到圣神的引导，所以教会享有真理，有得自天主之国的新力量。教会有天主之国的新力量的证据便是：耶稣基督的门徒们在使病人康复、使死人复活、治愈麻疯患者和驱赶魔鬼时，已经能够部份地使救赎的现实提前(玛10:8)。

教会所具有的奥秘的性质，是与教会的来世性紧密地联系在一起的。大公会议突出地强调这一点，它重复了圣保禄的警言：「你们不可与此世同化」(罗12:2)[118]。大公会议认为这是基督徒在从事此世的活动中所应具备的根本态度。保禄六世也提到圣保禄的这一段话：「你们不要与不信的人共负一轭，因为正义与不法之间，哪能有什么相通？或者光明之于黑暗，哪能有什么联系？基督之于贝里雅尔，哪能有什么协和？或者，信者与不信者，哪能有什么股份？天主的殿与偶像，哪能有什么相合？」(格后6:14-16)[119]对此态度，瓦尔纳(V. Warnach)解释道：「不沉迷于世界，而是在信仰中积极地超越世界，这依然是20世纪的基督徒们的任务。倘若教会本身迷失于世界之中，教会就不能服务于世界了……」[120]。亨利．德．吕拜克(Henri De Lubac)尤其注重于强调大公会议的这一根本立场，因为他看到了一个危险。他说道：「现在我们正在经历着一场巨大的混乱，开放的立场会因此变成对救赎的遗忘、对基督的十字架的柜绝、自我的迷失，即对我们在此世的责任的背叛」[121]。因此，他强调说：「如果说 3/43/4 事实上的确如此－－梵二会议嘱咐基督徒们要从事世俗活动，那么它也同样地提醒他们要警惕，永远不要属于世界」[122]。

大公会议认为教会在完成自己的使命时，要用基督看待人的同样目光来对待人[123]，因为「爱天主爱人是第一条最大的诫命。……爱天主不可能同爱人分离」[124]。因此评论家们认为，大公会议拋弃了完满主义和凯旋主义，实现了态度的根本转变。

除了上文所述的大公会议赞美世界上所有的好价值观之外，大公会议还说，教会一面帮助世界，一面由世界接受帮助[125]，所以教会与世界的关系是「互相渗透」[126]，即不仅仅是信仰的团体有东西要传递给世界，「后者也有东西要告诉教会」[127]。施莱毕克斯(Schillebeeckx)也说过「教会可以也应该从人世界学到很多东西」[128]。

在对待人的方面，大公会议认为由于人是「依照天主肖像」而受造的，所以「人是万有的中心与极峰」[129]。人性尊严、人比之物质事物的优越[130]以及人的所有合法权利、需求和努力都应受到尊重，因为「人类的胜利是天主伟大的标志及其奇妙计划的成果」[131]。所以正如瓦尔纳所说的，天主和人不是对头，而是「合作者」[132]。迪拉尔德(J.M.R. Tillard)认为「事实上人是天主在世上的代表」[133]。于是乎，从卢稄到黑格尔、马克思和恩格斯，从希望哲学的新马克思主义者们到法兰克福学派的社会学家们，再从尼采到弗洛依德，思想家们从不同的立场出发一直谋求在哲学上予以强调的人的能力，也得到了大公会议的肯定。人在大公会议的研究中占据着最重要的位置。在大公会议看来，要认识天主就要认识人，认识人就意味着认识天主[134]。

至于天主教与文化之间的关系，大公会议承认文化多元主义的现实，承认天主教的希腊－－罗马面貌的偶然性。大公会议认为，神学根本不能等同于信仰。信仰的内容、人的媒介和神学思考是和一个特定的时代中的信仰的实践、它的形成与表现密切联系在一起的。如果说基督教有希腊－－罗马风貌的话，那只是因为它是在这种环境中诞生的。大公会议认为「历来生活于各式环境中的教会，曾利用不同文化，向万民宣讲福音」[135]。所以教会应该也能够继续「深入各式文化中与之共融」[136]。若望．保禄二世很赞赏这种说法－－深入各式文化中与之共融。他认为这虽然是一种新说法，但是它「很好地表达了道成肉身的巨大奥秘的一个组成部份」[137]。

事实上，大公会议的这一基本态度使得教会得以革新神学，得以利用科学、哲学、各种形式的文化以及其它宗教的果实丰富神学。桑蒂尼(Alceste Santini)评论道，大公会议「并未做其它的事，它只是重新发现了教会有史之初一直采用的方法。所以就今天来说，在各种形式的文化和环境条件中，对启示的话的宣讲要与之相适应，这应作为传教的法则」[138]。

在对待其它宗教方面，大公会议有史以来第一次宣布，在其它宗教中，有些教规和教理是有真理的和神圣的，「它们反射了照耀着所有人的真理之光」[139]，因此，「那些无过犯而不知基督福音……但一心寻求天主的人……可以获得永恒的救赎[140]。大公会议的这一论断的根据，可以在圣保禄的话中找到。保禄认为，「谁爱别人，就满全」了法律」(罗13:8)。「爱你的近人如你自己」(罗13:9)这条法则可以包含所有的诫命。也就是说，全部法律总括在这条诫命里(参见迦5:14)。所以在保禄看来，一个外邦人，如果不仅限于有爱心而是行爱心，那么他就是基督徒了，只是不自知而已[140]，因为天主已把这条法律铭刻在他心中。天主教会正是以大公会议的这种新态度，开始与其它宗教对话和开展与其它分离的基督教会的普世合一运动。

然而需要注意的是，尽管有此新态度，着名的信条「教会之外无救赎」仍然是有效的。这一信条的一种旧的表述是这样说的：「罗马圣教会坚信，并宣布和通告，天主教会以外的任何人，无论是导教徒、犹太人、无宗教信仰者或是脱离了教会的团结一致的人，都不可能进入永恒的生命，而是将被罚入魔鬼及其使者保有的永恒之火中，除非他在死前加入（罗马圣教会）」[142]。这一教理在奥利金(Origene)之后，尤其是在西普利安(Cipriano)之后成为教会的传统。先是奥古斯丁的学生迪．鲁斯佩(Fulgenzio di Ruspe)宣布过这一教理，后来1442年的佛罗伦萨大公会议重申了它。拉辛革(J. Ratzinger)解释说，这条说明教会是救赎的唯一工具的教理在圣经中有其根据，它是说明的信仰是救赎的基本条件以及救赎的唯一道路是基督[143]。圣经说：「信而受洗的必要得救；但不信的必被判罪」(谷16:16)和「除他（基督）以外，无论凭谁，决无救援，因为在天下人间，没有赐下别的名字，使我们赖以得救的」(宗4:12)。大公会议重复了这句话[144]。圣经还说：「然后他又对那些在左边的说：可咒骂的，离开我，到那给魔鬼和他的使者预备的永火里去罢！」(玛25:41)。所以，大公会议重覆了圣托马斯(S. Tommaso)在《神学大全》中的话：「事实上那些还没有接受福音的人们，都以不同方式受到加入天主子民的呼唤」[145]，想要说的只是非基督徒们在忠于他们的良知和具有诚意的条件下，是有得救的可能的，因为谁按照天主铭刻在人心中的爱邻人的法律行事，谁就已经不知不觉地属于教会了，也就可进入天主之国。

教会与国家和政治之间的关系是一个非常有意思而又十分复杂的问题，它有漫长的历史。彼得和其他使徒们都说过：「听天主的命应胜过听人的命」(宗5:29)这句话来自苏格拉底(Socrate)，他审时说过，柏拉图(Platone)将其记载下来。耶稣本人说过：「凯撒的，就应归还凯撒；天主的，就应归还天主」(玛22:21)。他说此话时，是清楚地区分两种秩序的。由此可见，耶稣及其门徒们尽管可能会有自己的政治见解，但他们是不从事政治的。圣奥古斯丁与柏拉图一样，也认为有形世界与永恒世界相比是次要的，他在其着作《天主之城》中，明确地提出教会与国家的分离。但是他也表示了这种看法，即只有当国家在所有宗教事务中都服从教会时，国家也可成为天主之城的一部份。这种重教会而轻国家的看法已成为一条原则并得到许多基督徒和神学家的赞成。在圣奥古斯丁之前的圣安布罗吉奥(Ambrogio)也早已持这种看法。由于持这种观点，许多基督徒在面对国家的历史性灾难时无动于衷。但是在教宗国建立之后，基督徒对政治的态度变得日益积极起来，并以教宗博尼法斯八世的两把剑的理论而达到其顶峰。这位教宗以国家直接隶属教会的公式来解释国家与教会间的关系。他断言无论精神权力还是世俗权力，一切权力属于教宗。教宗可以直接或者通过皇帝行使世俗权力。教宗的权力直接来自天主，而皇帝则通过教宗取得权力。也就是说，世俗权力应服从精神权力。在那个时代，奥古斯丁的二元论没落了。但与此同时还有一种相反的理论，认为精神权力应服从世俗权力。许多皇帝、国王和公爵们更喜欢后者。于是在中世纪的漫长历史中，皇帝与教宗之间的权力斗争从未止息过，两个权力交替地互相吞并。文艺复兴之后，上述理论也没落了，国家与教会分离的理论占了上风。圣卡持琳娜(Santa Caterina da Siena)认为世俗权力不适合于教宗。有一种意见，认为「随着时间的推移，世俗权力的丧失显得对教宗有好处，对致力于关心芸芸众生的灵魂的人来说，治理一个国家是太沉重的负担，他终于从这种操劳中解脱了」[146]。

1787年的美国宪法和法国大革命都制订了国家与教会分离的原则，它极大地影响了基督徒们的思想，促使许多宗教和神学的流派、运动和争论的诞生。罗马教廷长期拒绝接受这项原则，在此期间欧洲许多民族国家形成。1870年「罗马问题」产生后，教廷禁止意大利天主教徒从事政治活动和参加选举。

随着批准建立基督徒的政党和允许天主教徒参加政治选举，罗马教廷的态度逐渐变得越来越不那么强硬了。大公会议又重新提起教会与国家关系的话题，终于强烈地改变了天主教生活。大公会议肯定了教会与国家分离的原则，它说道：「教会凭其职责和资格决不能与政府混为一谈，亦不能与任何政治体系纠缠在一起」[147]。同时，「在各自的领域内，政府与教会是互不倚属而独立自主的机构。但二者各以其不同名义，为完成人类所有私人及社会的同一圣召而服务」[148]。所以，「二者依照时间和空间的局势越形合作，越能有效地为公共福利服务」[149]。大公会议认为，基督徒应该从事世俗事务，政治使命绝不是俗人及无神论者的特权，而也应是基督徒和教会的责任，所以包括基督徒在内的全体国民都应在日常政治生活中合作并获得良好的结果[150]。

60年代，在拉丁美洲发生了一场天主教徒的特别的政治行动，即天主教徒在1968年出现的解放神学的指导下，把马克思主义的某些观念和词句引入了神学。许多天主教徒和神职人员支持解放神学并投身到暴力革命中去。一些评论家认为，解放神学以及欧洲的「为社会主义的基督徒」等运动是受了若望二十三世以及大公会议的启发的。若望二十三世的通谕《慈母与导师》及《世上和平》采用了诸如「解放」、「挣脱」、「发展」等词句。大公会议的文件《当代世界中的教会牧职宪章》则说：「正在发展中的各国，一如最近获得独立的各国，不唯在政治上，而且在经济上，要求分享文明的果实……但实际上，他们与各强国之间的距离，尤其多次在经济上，对比较富庶而进步较快的各国的倚属性，却日形增加」[151]。

对于解放神学的最极端的派别，教会的反应是反对的。1979年若望．保禄二世曾不指名地批评它说：「倘若远离了教会信仰的中心准则，它们势必造成混乱……」[152]。若望．保禄二世认为，那些人是错误的，他们把耶稣解释成是「投身政治的人、与统治和强者作斗争的人、甚至是卷入阶级斗争的人」[153]。与此同时，其他的神学家们在批评这种神学时，总是点其名的。他们不断地解释说，耶稣的解放是宗教性的而非政治性的解放，是从罪恶的精神奴役下的解放[154]。

1984年9月3日的若望．保禄二世的教宗通谕及同年的教廷信理部的正式文件，终于点名批评了解放神学这种与马克思主义联系太紧密的极端派别[155]。1986年教廷又一次发表文件批评解放神学。同时，教廷在几年中不断澄清大公会议关于教会的政治责任的观念，而解放神学也在不断地广为流传，被更多的神学家和教会人士接受。

65. 教会宪章　1。

66. 教会宪章　8a。

67. Card. PIRONIO E., “Nella Chiesa per il mondo” in Osservatore romano, il 18 marzo 1977, 5. Cfr. PAOLO VI, “L'enciclica' La Chiesa'” in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.2, cap.179. MACCA V., “Diversita' di espressiome” in Osservatore romano, il 18 marzo 1977, 5. M?LLER H., “L‘unione di tutta L’umanita‘ con Dio” in Osservatore romano del 18 febbraio 1977. WERNAH V., “La Chiesa e’ un mistero” in Concilio vivo, 56.

68. URRESTI J., “La Chiesa come istituzione” in Concilio vivo, 126.

69. 教会宪章　3。Cfr. Ivi nn.5abc, 36a.

70. SANTINI A., “La Chiesa cattolica di fronte alla crisi del mondo comtemporaneo” in Critica marxista n.5-6 (1976) 111, cfr.p.90.

71. Cfr. LANGHITANO A., “Chiesa diritto e legge nella 'Sacrae Disciplinae Loges'” in A venti anni dal Concilio (Palermo: Ed. OFTeS 1983) 117.

72. Cfr. PHILIPON M., “La Santissima Trinita‘ e la Chiesa” in La Chiesa del Vaticano II, a cura di Mario Grozzini (Firenze: Vallecchi 1965) 336.

73. 教会宪章　9。

74. SCHILLEBEECKX E., “I laici nel popolo di Dio” in I Grandi temi del Concilio, 355-356.

75. PHILIPON M., “La Santissima Trinita'e la Chiesa” in La Chiesa del Vaticano II, 332.

76. 教会宪章　1, 7-9, 13。

77. Cfr. St LYONNET, “Il mistero della Chiesa secondo S. Paolo” in I grandi temi del Concilio, 123-125.

78. RATZINGER J., “Il concetto della Chiesa nel pensiero patristico” in I grandi temi del Concilio, 146.

79. Ivi p.140.

80. Ivi.

81. Cfr. Le GUILLOCE H.J., “Le Tendenze ecclesiologiche nella Chiesa cattolica” in I grandi temi del Concilio, 159-160.

82. Ivi. cfr. PIO XII, L‘enciclica “Mystici Corporis”.

83. Cfr. PAOLO VI, “Il culto mariano” del 22 febbraio 1974 in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.5, n.53.

84. 教会宪章　52。

85. Ivi n.4.

86. Cfr. 教会宪章　4ab, 7g, 8a, 9c, 25c。

87. PHILIPON M., “La Chiesa della Trinita‘” in La Chiesa del Vaticano II, 330.

88. Cfr. PAOLO VI, “Il culto mariano”.

89. 教会宪章　17b。

90. Cfr. LONGHITANO A., “Chiesa diritto e leege nella ‘Sacrae Disciplinae'” in A venti anni dal Concilio, 120.

91. PHILIPON M., “La Santissima Trinita‘ e la Chiesa” in La Chiesa del Vaticano II, 334.

92. WARNACH V., “La Chiesa come mistero” in Concilio vivo, 61.

93. 教会宪章　9d, 6e。

94. Cfr. WARNACH V., “La Chiesa come mistero” in Concilio vivo, 61-62.

95.Ivi.

96. PIRONIO E., “Nella Chiesa per il mondo” in Osservatore romano il 18 marzo 1977, 5.

98. Cfr. PHILIPON M., “La Chiesa della Trinita'” in La Chiesa del Vaticano II, 330.

99. Cfr. Le GUILLON H.J., “Le tendenze ecclesiologiche nella Chiesa cattolica” in I grandi temi del Concilio.

100. Cfr. 教会宪章　8a, 17a, 23c。

101. PHILIPON M., “La Chiesa della Trinito” in La Chiesa del Vaticano, 330.

100. Cfr. Commissione Teologica Internazionale, “Alcune questioni riguardanti la cristologia” in Civilia' cattolica, n.3129, 262.

103. Cfr. Congregazione della Dottrina della Fede, “Insegnamento del diritto canonico” in Documenti uffuciali della Santa Sede, v.5, n.1223.

104.“O col Vangelo o con Ratzinger”, intervista con Giuseppe Alberigo di Giancarlo Zigola, “Panorama”, l'8 dicembre 1985, 67.

105. Cfr. PAOLO VI, “La Chiesa”, l'enciclica del 6 agosto 1964 in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.2, n.179, p.229.

106. Cfr. ACERBI A., Due Ecclesiologie: Ecclesiologia giuridica ed ecclesiologia di comunione nella ‘Lumen Gentium'.

107. Cfr. I due capitoli relativi di “Lumen Gentium”.

108. POTTMEYER H.J., “Il concilio vent' anni dopo” in A venti anni dal Concilio (Palermo: Ed.OFTeS 1983) 21-22.

109. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　43a。

110. PAOLO VI, “Il progresso dei popoli” in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.2, n.1058.

111. Cfr. GIOVANNI XXIII, Mater et Magistra 和 Pacem in Terris. TUCCI R., Introduzione storico-dottrinale alla Costituzione Pastorale ‘Gaudium et Spes'in La Chiesa nel mondo contemporaneo, Collana Magistero Conciliare, v.11, Subalpina (ed.) (Torino: ELLE DI CI 1967) 19.

112. Cfr. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　40a。

113. Ivi n.43a.

114. Ivi n.40b.

115. Ivi n.21ef.

116. Ivi n.40c.

117. Ivi n.40b.

118. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　37c。

119. PAOLO VI, “La Chiesa” in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.2 n.190, p.255.

120. WARNACH V., “La Chiesa come mistero” in Concilio vivo, 63.

121. De LUBAC H., Marietti (ed.), Dal Concilio Vaticano II a Giovanni Paolo II, (Casale Monferrato 1982) 88.

122. Ivi.

123. GIOVANNI PAOLO II, “Lettera enciclica di Giovanni Paolo II all'inizio del suo ministero pontificale” in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.4, n.1242.

124. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　24b。

125. Cfr. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　5a。

126. Ici n.40c.

127. MASULLO A., “La filosofia cattolica in Italia” in Critica marxista, n.5-6 (1976) 213.

128. SCHILLEBEECKX E., “Fede cristiana ed aspettative terrene” in La Chiesa nel mondo contemporaneo, 119.

129. Cfr. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　12ac。

130. Ivi n.14a-c.

131. Ivi n.34c.

132. WARNACH V., “La Chiesa come mistero” in Concilio vivo, 64.

133. TILLARD J.M.R., “La Chiesa e l' uomo ricreato” in Concilio vivo, 119.

134. Cfr. PAOLO VI, “Omelia del quarto periodo nella nona sessione del Concilio” in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.2, n.463.

135. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　58b。

136. Ivi n.58c.

137. Cfr. Congregazione della Dottrina di Fede, “La catechesi nel nostro tempo” in documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.6, n.1886.

138. SANTINI A., “La Chiesa cattolica di fronte alla crisi del mondo contemporaneo” in Critica marxista, n.5-6 (1976) 89.

139. Nostra Aetate, n.2c.

140. 教会宪章　16b。

141. Cfr. LYONNET S., “I foundamenti biblici della Costituzione” in La Chiesa del mondo di oggi, 205.

143. cfr, RARZINGER J., “Salus extra ecclesiam nulla est” in I grandi temi del Concilio, 195-196.

144. Cfr. 教会宪章　10c。

145. 教会宪章　16b。

146. Cfr. Adriana Adelasso Cartotti, “Santa Caterina da Siena e il papato” in Osservatore romano, del 27 aprile 1977.

147. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　76b。

148. Ivi n.76c.

149. Ivi.

150. Cfr. Ivi n.75d.

151. Cfr. 论教会在现代世界牧职宪章　9b。SANTINI A., “La Chiesa cattolica di fronte alla crisi del mondo contemporaneo” in Critica marxista, n.5-6 (del 1976) 102-103.

152. Cfr. POLITI M., “Il cattolicesimo in America Latina” in Critica marxista, n.4 (edl 1979) 70-71.

153. Ivi.

154. Cfr. GALOT J., “Gesu'redentore e liberatore” in Civilto cattolica, n.3113 (del 1 marzo 1980) 423-424.

155. Cfr. Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, “Istruzione sulla teologia della liberazione” in Civilto cattolica (ottobre 1984) 51.

结论

第二届梵蒂冈大公会议完成的神学革新，使无论在神学方面和教会结构方面，还是在存在的实践方面，在天国、尘世和教会之间，在教会与国家及政治之间，在信仰与科学及各种形式的文化之间，在天主教与分离的基督教会及其它宗教之间，在创造者与受造物之间，在良知与信仰之间，在启示与文化之间，在神职人员与俗人之间……存在的许多冲突的、对立的、矛盾的和二元论的因素得以从理论上被消除了。于是各种因素在明确地保持其自身的同时，与其它因素处于重新和谐之中。也就是说，每种因素都在统治一切的天主的神圣计划中有着自己的位置。大公会议的这些神学革新为教会的实践活动从理论上准备了道路。

事实上在大公会议之后，或者更确切地说，在大公会议开幕之后，整个天主教会便投入到「进入世界」的行动中，并且采取了崭新的行动方式。关于这些新方式，仅其一部分就可开列出一个长长的单子：

─俗人教徒开始按照大公会议给予的权利，到处行使传教的职能和代行神父的职能[156]，他们开始在非信徒中间象「灵魂在肉体中」[157] 一样，起着特殊的作用。

─神父们不再有必须只穿修服的义务，他们可以穿着便服到群众中去，从而在管理教区方面有了更多的沟通渠道。

─主教们得以开始派代表去教廷各圣部工作。

─红衣主教团继续不断地国际化，其中来自第三世界的枢机的人数已经过半。

─教宗改变了存在方式，走出了「罗马的囚徒」的状态。若望二十三世出访阿西西(Assisi)，成为第一位走出梵蒂冈的教宗[158]。以保禄六世1964年1月访问耶路撒冷为始，教宗们重新以世界为其活动舞台。1965年10月4日保禄六世在联合国的讲话被认为是教宗们长期以来的第一次政治行动。而教宗若望．保禄二世更是频繁地出访。据统计，在他就任教宗的头20个月，他已出访100多次，以至于在电视观众的印象中，他的形象是：「跪在飞机舷梯旁，亲吻被访问国的土地」[159]。

─礼仪也发生了许多重要的变化。现在在弥撒中使用所有的当代语言，而不再是拉丁文，以便让所有的人理解。祭坛也被置于神父和信徒之间，使得神父和信徒可以更好地交流。

─现在所有的信徒都可以阅读《圣经》以便直接了解天主的话，而不必再通过神父。在天主教会与其它基督教会的合作下，《圣经》的各种新版本和新译本迅速地和大量地问世。现在，教会谈论和平、裁军、社会正义、人质、难民、失业、劳动、劳动者、爱、家庭、妇女的社会地位、离婚、堕胎……，总之，没有教会不论及的话题。通过第二届梵蒂冈大公会议的革新，教会成功地回到了社会活动的中心。从这个意义上说，教会的确是现代化了，天主教的确变成了一个现代的宗教。

156. Cfr. Apostolicam Actuositatem, n.25; 教会宪章　34-35。

157. Cfr. Congregazione per l' evangelizzazione, “L'apostolato dei laici” il 17 maggio 1970 in Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, v.3, nn.2509-2511.

158. Cfr. CAPOVILLA L., MARIETTI (Ed.), Biografia di Giovanni XXIII (Itorino 1959) 292-293.

159. Cfr. “I viaggi del Papa Wojtyla”, l' articolo di fondo della “Civilta' cattolica”, n.3120, 521-524.

作者：蔡诗亚

前言

中国近代音乐大师江文也教授(1910-1983)，在1946-48年间为天主教所创作的中文圣乐作品共四部。

圣咏作曲集(第一卷) －－1947年11月8日初版

第一弥撒曲－－1948年6月13日初版

儿童圣咏歌集(第一卷) －－ 1948年7月20日初版

圣咏作曲集(第二卷) －－ 1948年12月30日初版

以上四本圣乐歌集全部都是由北平(现称北京)方济堂(方济会)思高圣经学会出版及发行。而其中共收录了江文也的中文原创圣乐作品共六十四首，大致可分为四大系列：即圣咏(Psalms)四十七首、弥撒曲一套(Mass)五首、亚肋路亚(Alleluia：福音前欢呼)五首，圣母歌(Blessed Virgin Mary)七首。

由于当时与其后的政治环境及教会礼仪规程的限制因素，江文也的圣乐作品及其名字，在五十年代至六十年代初几乎在宇宙中消声匿迹。笔者从在修院接受培育之初期起（梵二礼仪改革的开始），由于团体礼仪祈祷的需要，故此每天都有机会咏唱中文圣乐（无论是从外文翻译的、由中国大陆流传的或由香港本地中文圣乐作曲家如：刘荣耀、戴遐龄等所创作的）。但在所咏唱的中文圣乐当中，总觉得其中三本小歌集内所刊印的歌曲，无论在旋律或其伴奏方面，都有与众不同的感觉。虽然当时笔者的音乐知识只在初段，但对这些圣乐作品已产生一份莫名的亲切感。印象中，所有属于这类韵味及形式的乐曲，作者名叫江文也。这名字容易记忆，正因为笔划少，同时也因为他所创作的「圣母经」及「恭贺圣母曲」是修院礼仪生活中(晚祷)时常咏唱的。另外，就是他的作品－－圣咏19篇（干坤与妙法）的其中：晨曦发帝乡，丰采似玉郎，洋洋溢喜气，消遥出洞房。当词句与原乐谱一起被唱颂及弹奏起来时，总觉有一份威严的感觉。至于江文也是谁，就不得而知了！

时至今日(96年)在香港教区内，相信很多教友在不同礼仪及基督徒聚会的场合中，都时常喜欢选唱「上主是牧者」(颂恩97首)、「天真」(颂恩131首)、「天主啊！保佑我吧！」(颂恩134首)、「圣母经」(颂恩234首)及「感谢天主」(心颂442首)等等，但对这些歌曲的原创者却一无所知。

这位在本世纪三十年代成名于日本，并曾一度蜚声国际的中国人声乐家、作曲家及音乐教育家，却静静地在一九八三年十月廿四日中午十二时十五分，因久病屡医无效而逝世于北京，终年七十三岁。纵然在五十年代至七十年代期间，江文也的名字被埋藏了，甚至消声匿迹，但笔者总觉得以江文也的一生才华，时间总会为他作证并将他浮现出来，作为来者的教诲与提示。

近这几年，江文也的名字果然受到中国内地、台湾及香港的音乐学者与音乐工作者的高度关注；除了音乐界有关江文也的音乐会外，相信较为突出的就是在香港、北京及台湾都曾先后三次以江文也的名字召开研讨会。

1. 1990年9月10-15日：由香港大学亚洲研究中心与香港民族音乐学会联合组织的「江文也手稿图片展览」、9月13-15日的「江文也研讨会」(以上两项在香港大学内举行)及9月11日在香港大会堂音乐厅，晚上八时所举行的「江文也纪念音乐会」。

2. 1992年6月12-13日：由台北县政府主办、国立台湾师范大学音乐研究所及中华民国作曲家协会策划，于师范大学举行的「江文也纪念研讨会」及6月12日晚上7时30分在师大礼堂的「江文也纪念音乐会」。

3. 1995年7月20-22日：在北京，由中华全国台湾同胞联谊会及中央音乐学院联办的「江文也诞辰八十五周年纪念会暨学术研讨会」及7月21日晚上7时15分在中央音乐学院礼堂的「江文也室乐作品音乐会」。

以上有关江文也的研讨会盛事，笔者有幸也曾参加在香港举行的部份节目及在北京所有的节目，总觉得三地的音乐学者专家及音乐工作者，能在五年内三次联手对这位差不多被埋没的名字予以出土及关注，正表明江文也是一位非凡的音乐家。

江文也生平简介：台湾＞厦门＞日本＞北京

江文也原名江文彬[1]，1910年6月11日出生于台湾省、台北县淡水镇，祖籍福建永定的客家人，家中兄弟三人、排行第二。由于中日甲午战争(马关条约)，清政府割让台湾[2]，故台湾省自1895年至1945年期间为日本的殖民地。江文也就是这样在日治时代的台湾省出生，后因其父在家族商务上的需要，自小(1914年：4岁)就全家移居厦门(福建)。在厦门期间，江文也曾受过中国传统私塾教育，直至1918年(8岁)才进入由日治台湾政府在厦门经管的日文学校(旭瀛书院)就读[3]。江文也天生喜爱唱歌，而厦门当地由基督教传教士所举办的「青年会」也就成了他的音乐启蒙地方；故此可以说，江文也最早接触的也就是教会歌曲，而第一件乐器会是教堂内的风(钢)琴[4]。

1923年(13岁)在母亲逝世后，其父就将江文也送赴日本进入长野县上田中学就读。由于其兄(江文钟)已在日本求学，寄宿于日本的管家中，因而两兄弟可互相照应；同时他在厦门就读的是日文小学，故在日本并无语言上的困难[5]。从1923至1929年中学期间，江文也曾接触过教会团体，而且在精神上也曾接受过一位女牧师的支持与鼓励。在1947年(11月)当北平(京)方济会思高圣经学会初版《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》时，江文也在此集第151页、标题为「写于《圣咏作曲集》(第一卷)完成后」一文，开始就有以下的一段文字：

自从我见了雷永明(G.M. Allegra)神父，同时，「圣咏」也重新提醒了我的意识，在我进中学时，有一位牧师赠我一部「新约」，「新约」的卷末，特别附印「旧约」中的「圣咏」一百五十篇，从此它就成了我爱读的一本书。[6]
1929年(19岁)4月，江文也进入东京「武藏野高等工业学校」修读电机，在学期间(1930年7月开始)课余时随声乐老师阿部英雄习声乐。同时，这个时期的江文也已开始到基督教团体参与崇拜[7]。

1929至1932年当他在高等学校期间，除私下跟随老师学习声乐外，对于当时被称为「现代乐派」的德布西(C. Debussy, 1862-1918)、巴尔托克(B. Bart k, 1881-1945)、拉威尔(M. Ravel, 1875-1937)、史塔温斯基(I. Stravinsky, 1882-1971)等作曲家的作品都非常着迷，而且不断私下钻研。故此，现在一般音乐学者都认为江文也是一位自学成功的音乐家。

他在音乐上的成就，除了他天生喜爱歌唱外，环境的造就相信是重要的一环。厦门的孩童期至日本的青少年期，他在教会团体内的崇拜时刻，实在就是他歌唱的机会，这也是他在日本期间首先在声乐领域上成名的摇篮。1932年(22岁)在高等学校毕业后，江文也随即参加了一家唱片公司的测声并且合格。在该年5月，江文也以「江文彬」的本名参加事时新报主办的日本第一回音乐大赛声乐组，而且入选；第二年(1933年)又参加同一音乐大赛的声乐组比赛，也是入选；从此奠定了江文也的声乐家地位[8]。

之后，由于他对音乐的向往，也对「现代学派」的认同，所以觉得创作正就是他的路途。从工科转至成为声乐家，并且走向作曲家的路途，实在需要一份勇气与忍耐。期间他曾短时期跟随田中规矩及桥本国彦习钢琴和作曲，也曾私下请教于日本着名音乐家山田耕作(Kosaku Yamada, 1886-1965)。[9]

1934年江文也参加了第三回音乐大赛的作曲组，并且在决赛中得到第二名，他终于实现了当作曲家的心愿，同时也为他走向作曲家的路途奠定了基础。同年12月4日江文也被推荐加入「近代日本作曲家联盟」并成为正式会员[10]；从此江文也更有机会及义务以会员的身份在作曲的领域上向前迈进。作为音乐家的江文也，虽然在作曲方面已进了首步，但并没有放弃在作为声乐家的位置，而是在演唱及创作活动上同步前进，也屡获好评。

从1934至1937年期间，江文也在日本都有参加每届的作曲比赛(1935年获第三名、1936年获第二名、1937年也是获第二名)，这不仅使他在日本出名，而且在1936年还以管弦乐曲「台湾舞曲」获柏林第十一届奥林匹克国际音乐比赛特别奖而晋身国际乐坛。1938年也以钢琴曲「断章小品」荣获威尼斯第四届国际音乐节作曲奖[11]。这时期江文也遇上了一位对他影向深刻的俄国钢琴家及作曲家齐尔品(A.Tcherepnin, 1899-1977)。齐尔品当年在中国及日本提携青年新进的作曲家，将他们的作品收集并放在他的《齐尔品收藏集》Tcherepnin Collection内出版，因此江文也的作品有机会在国际音乐领域里出现(包括巴黎、德国、瑞士、纽约等地)。

1938年4月江文也接受音乐教育家柯政和之邀请，受聘于北平(京)师范大学任作曲教授。从此，江文也回到祖国，放弃他过往在音乐上的得着[12]，开始他发掘中国音乐「传统」的工作；同时，创造新的要素，再加上这「传统」。这正是江文也对音乐的执着，他认为「创作」并非凭空捏造，

而是像往昔的贤人，(他们曾)根据「传统」而在无意识中创造了新的文化(再)加上「传统」似的。今天我们也应该创造一些新要素再加上这「传统」……。在孔孟时代，我发见中国已经有了它固有的对位法和大管弦乐法的原理时，我觉得心中有所依据，认为这是值得一个音乐家去埋头苦干的大事。[13]
难怪乎在1948年解放前，有人邀请江氏一家前往香港时，江文也的答覆是：「我不能离开赋予我创作源泉的北京，祖国音乐素材的挖掘工作(已)永远占据着我整个的心田。」[14]

从江文也在日本中学毕业以后至回到北京(1932至38年春)期间，这段时期正是他在音乐旅途上的开始及成名阶段，甚至作为日本音乐界代表而在国际乐坛上活动。虽然江文也迁居北京，但从1938至42年间，他的作品仍有在日本乐坛上出现[15]，这正表示江文也在日本的音乐家地位是如何受重视。而在中国境内，当江文也踏足北平时，正是中日交战期内(1937至1945：八年抗日战争)；对于这位出生于台湾、小时在厦门接受日式教育、后在日本完成中学及高等教育，并且在音乐领域上成名于日本及国际乐坛的台藉中国人……纵然他只是一位彻头彻尾、正正直直、醉深于音乐艺术的人，他是政治边沿以外及之外的人，但政治却来拥抱和单恋他。

在北京，除教学外，这地方根本就是江文也音乐创作的天堂及灵感的泉源。1938年初春，他来到了北平，而且很喜欢这个古雅、质扑的城市[16]，他决心在此作为发掘及钻研中国古典音乐的基地。但从1938年至40年间，在日本人占领下的「华北政府」曾经常播放的「大东亚民族进行曲」、「新民会会歌」、「新民青年歌」及「新民妇女歌」等也确实出自江文也的创作。不管当时原因如何，事情本身在其后中国的历史上，实在起了某程度的反作用，同时也成了他下半生蹉跎的原因和终身遗憾[17]。

为研究中国的古代音乐，江文也特别专注于传统的祭孔仪式，因为他发现孔子儒家的思想正是中国文化的精粹。他认同《礼记》一书中的「乐记」所记载的：「礼以道其志，乐以和其声」－－用「礼」指导人民的行为，使之规范化；用「音乐」感染人民的情操意志，使之和协一致。「知乐则几于礼矣，礼乐皆得谓之有德」－－一个真正懂得音乐的人，同时也讲究礼的；只有把「礼」及「乐」都掌握于自身的人，才能被称为有德者[18]。这正指出江文也认为「『创作』并非凭空捏造」的一个注脚。1939年底，他废寝忘餐，一气呵成他已研究五年多的管弦乐曲「孔庙大晟乐章」－－作品编号30，这也是自从江文也回到祖国北京后，其中最有特色的一份作品；而此乐曲的主旋律，日后亦在他所创作的圣咏第100篇－－请万民尊崇天主(Op.40, No.100)中出现。

1945年9月，八年抗战终于走向胜利，日本将台湾归还中国。江文也兴奋至极，他通宵达旦将花了多年心血写成的「孔庙大晟乐章」总谱重新装订，并寄给了李宗仁转呈蒋介石先生，以表示他对自己出身地「台湾」能回归祖国怀里的喜乐，也是对国家的敬意[19]。这份「纯真」使江文也自投罗网，看来无风无险的他竟落到铁窗生涯，他被当时的「国民政府」拘禁在政治犯的监狱里[20]，十个月后以「不起诉」被释放。期间他在狱中认识了一位出生于中国，很喜爱中国文化且精通中国兵法的意大利人李安东上尉(Cap. A. Riva)。正因为江文也与李安东的关系，他为天主教创作圣乐亦正式揭开了序幕。

[1] 胡锡敏，《中国杰出音乐家－－江文也》，香港　上海书局　1985年初版　7-8。

[2] 郭廷以，《近代中国史纲》，香港　香港中文大学出版社　1979年初版　286-287。

[3] 同注1　8。

[4] 同上。

笔者按：在基督教的教堂内所设置的伴奏乐器，一般都以钢琴为主；而天主教的教堂内所设置的绝大部份都是风琴(Harmonium)，在较大的教堂内甚至会安装管风琴(Pipe Organ)，如清、康熙年间在北京宣武门天主堂就已安装了管风琴。

[5] 吴玲宜，「江文也生平与作品」，《江文也纪念研讨会论文集》，张己任主编，台北　县立文化中心　1992年8月初版　156。

[6] 江文也，「写于『圣咏作曲集』(第一卷)完成后」，《圣咏作曲集 ( 第一卷》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1947年11月初版　151。

[7] 刘麟玉，《从战前日本音乐杂志考证江文也旅日时期之音乐活动》，北京　江文也学术研讨会论文　1995年7月20-22日　2。

[8] 刘麟玉，《从战前日本音乐杂志考证江文也旅日时期之音乐活动》，北京　江文也学术研讨会论文　1995年7月20-22日　2。

[9] 吴玲宜，「江文也生平与作品」，《江文也纪念研讨会论文集》，张己任主编，台北　县立文化中心　1992年8月初版　157。

[10] 刘麟玉，《从战前日本音乐杂志考证江文也旅日时期之音乐活动》，北京　江文也学术研讨会论文　1995年7月20-22日　3。

笔者按：这个联盟的前身是「新兴作曲家联盟」1930年成立，1935年9月改名为「日本现代作曲家联盟」。

[11] 吴玲宜，「江文也生平与作品」，《江文也纪念研讨会论文集》，张己任主编，台北　县立文化中心　1992年8月初版　160。

[12] 同上　161。

胡锡敏，《中国杰出音乐家－－江文也》，香港　上海书局　1985年初版　20。

[13] 江文也，「写于『圣咏作曲集』(第一卷)完成后」，《圣咏作曲集 ( 第一卷》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1947年11月初版　152。

[14] 吴韵真，「先夫－－江文也」，《江文也纪念研讨会文集》，张己任主编，台北　县立文化中心　1992年8月初版　147。

[15] 刘麟玉，《从战前日本音乐杂志考证江文也旅日时期之音乐活动》，北京　江文也学术研讨会论文　1995年7月20-22日　13。

[16] 胡锡敏，《中国杰出音乐家－－江文也》，香港　上海书局　1985年初版　22。

[17] 同上　23。

[18] 江文也(陈光辉译)，「孔子音乐论」，《江文也文字作品集》，张己任主编，台北　县立文化中心　1992年10月初版　22-24。

[19] 胡锡敏，《中国杰出音乐家－－江文也》，香港　上海书局　1985年初版　35。

[20] 雷永明 (韩承良译)，《雷永明神父回忆录》，香港　思高圣经学会　1987年7月初版　126。

为天主教创作圣乐

论到江文也创作天主教的中文圣乐，则必须提及雷永明神父(Fr Gabriel Maria Allegra, OFM 1907-1976)，属方济会会士。由于他一生以圣德和学识服务了教会－－ (现时我们能人手一本的中文圣经，也正是雷神父的生平杰作)，现整个教会团体正期待将雷神父列入圣品的行列。因他与基督的密切联系，使我们能对他犹如我们对童贞玛利亚及天上诸圣加以特殊的尊敬，以彰显天主的奇恩，并获我们对他敬礼与仿效[21]。

雷神父在1930年7月20日晋铎，1931年奉命来中国服务，该年7月3日抵上海，20日到达目的地衡阳并开始学习中文；由1931至39年间曾任小修院院长及开始自力翻译圣经，1939至40年回罗马圣经学院攻读圣经语文及有关学科，后以优异成迹结业并前往耶路撒冷考察。1941年4月回上海，5月抵北平，从1941至45年间，他专攻中国文学并致力于翻译圣经的工作，同时也被任命为意大利驻北平领使馆的神师。在1945年8月2日，雷神父召集了四位青年的方济会会士(李士渔、李志先、刘绪堂、李玉堂)，在北平辅仁大学的西煤厂正式成立「思高圣经学会」，开始全力翻译圣经的工作。

思高圣经学会成立的前后，实在经历过很多波折，读者若与此有缘份，可参阅「雷永明神父回忆录」[22]。另方面，学会成立后，虽然正遇上中国八年抗日战争胜利的时刻，但时局并非那么安定。天主上智的安排，也非常巧妙，《圣咏集》(The book of Psalms)在学会的仝人合力耕耘下，首先在翌年(1946年)9月15日面世。因中文《圣咏集》的出版，雷永明神父的圣德与远见及江文也的才智，就在这期间巧妙地相遇。透过雷永明神父的要好朋友李安东上尉(上文提到江文也狱中的朋友)，雷神父与江文也结为挚交友好。在雷神父回忆录中清楚的记载：

李安东先生给我介绍江文也大师(意文：Maestro)指曾受高深音乐训练，并专职音乐教育工作及创作的专业人士)，我就送给他数星期前出版的中文《圣咏集》。他不是把它阅读，而是把它吞了下去，好像他感到了一种不可抗拒的冲力，要把以色列民的那些诗篇(Psalms)全部谱成歌曲。我审慎地使他明瞭，我不能保证给他报酬；但他坚持说，当他在狱中认为自己的案子难以解决时，那是他向天主许的愿。[23]
由这段回忆录片断及「写于《圣咏作曲集》(第一卷)完成后」：

在我进中学时，有一位牧师赠送我一部《新约》，《新约》的卷末特别附印《旧约》中的「圣咏」一百五十篇[24]。
江文也与「圣咏」实在有一份缘。虽然他不是教徒，他创作「圣咏」只是他音乐创作事业的一部份[25]，但这「事业」对江文也殊不简单！

从他接受雷神父这份创作「圣咏」的邀请后，据笔者与陈维统神父[26]、李士渔神父及已故刘绪堂神父的访问交谈中得悉，江文也在其后每星期日都前往方济会的会院圣堂参与该团体的上午九时弥撒，且风雨不改；他不时也参与会士们在星期日下午四时的主日黄昏祈祷(唱拉丁圣咏Psalms)及在大庆节时带同夫人及儿子们前往。平常他总是坐在圣堂最后的位置，聆听着会士们在礼仪中的咏唱(当时是属梵二前的礼仪，故全部都以教会法定的拉丁文咏唱或诵读)。在会士们咏唱时，唯一可作伴奏的，则只有一具脚踏风琴(Harmonium)，故此可以得悉，虽然在江文也所有的音乐作品里，并没有风琴独奏作品或以风琴伴奏的作品；就是为合唱或独唱的声乐作品也全以钢琴(Pianoforte)作伴奏。而属于天主教的圣乐作品，本来也只用钢琴作伴奏，但由于当时在方济会圣堂内的风琴(Harmonium)设置，故相信他的圣乐作品勉强也能以此乐器作伴奏。据上述三位方济会思高圣经学会长辈所提供的，多次当江文也完成一首中文圣乐作品时，总是兴致地在该圣堂内，以他美妙而雄伟的声线边弹边唱的与会士们共赏，并且谦逊地请教他们的意见及感受，这情况也维持了一段相当长的日子(大约一至两年)。

在这里不能不提的就是，虽然当时在教会礼仪中不能以拉丁文以外的语言诵念或咏唱经文及歌曲[27]，但雷永明神父仍然鼓励江文也继续创作中文圣乐(尤其是弥撒曲)，并且将江文也的中文弥撒曲及圣咏117首(Op.40 No.117)寄往比利时的天主教联合音乐协会作公开交流[28]。这样的行动为当时实在是一份大胆的远见，不过此远见实在亦成了中国教会日后在中文圣乐创作上的一份鼓励及基础(当时雷神父除接受了非教友的中国音乐家江文也外，同期也与另一位非教友的画家蒋兆和结为友好，而初版的江文也《儿童圣咏歌集》封面正就是蒋先生的杰作)。雷永明神父的胸襟广阔，造就了江文也的中文圣乐创作，而江文也的回应(综然江夫人吴韵真女士表示，江文也的「圣咏」创作，只属于他音乐创作事业的一部份。)，也让我们看到天主上智的安排是何等奇妙莫测，实属人算不如天算。正如江文也所谓：

有了某一种才能，而要此才能发挥于某一种工作上时，真需要一个非偶然的偶然，非故事式似的故事！我相信人力之不可测的天意！[29]
于1947至48年间，就在雷永明神父的支持及鼓励下，江文也创作了共64首中文圣乐作品。现在一般音乐学者对江文也为天主教创作圣乐的动机，多从政治、金钱(可观的酬金)、个人情绪(逃避现实)等方面作注脚；笔者愿在此尝试提供多一个渠道供各音乐学者前辈作参考。据上述三位方济会(李士渔、陈维统及已故刘绪堂)神父兼当事人提供，每星期日，当江文也聆听会士们唱颂弥撒后，都必定在修会之小客厅内与雷永明神父相聚交谈(每次大约半小时至一小时)，这表明他们两人的交情非浅。

为供读者或圣乐探求者对江文也所创作的中文圣乐有初步的认识，笔者尝试作了以下的一个简单介绍并将现存所有江文也的圣乐作品都列出来，希望能供作参考或作研究的起步。

　

  [21] 《天主教法典》(拉丁文中文版)，台湾　天主教教务协进会　1985年3月初版　681。

[22] 雷永明 (韩承良译)，《雷永明神父回忆录》，香港　思高圣经学会　1987年7月初版　126。

[23] 雷永明 (韩承良译)，《雷永明神父回忆录》，香港　思高圣经学会　1987年7月初版　126。

[24] 江文也，「写于『圣咏作曲集』(第一卷)完成后」，《圣咏作曲集 ( 第一卷)》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1947年11月初版　151。

[25] 吴韵真，「先夫－－江文也」，《江文也纪念研讨会文集》，张己任主编，台北　县立文化中心　1992年8月初版　145。

[26] 陈维统，「译经五十」，《思高五十》 (林锦玲编)，香港　思高圣经学会　1995年11月初版　45。

笔者按：陈维统神父(方济会会士) －－于1947年在北(平)京加入思高圣经学会行列，现居香港。

　　　李士渔神父－－现居香港。

　　　　刘绪堂神父－－1989年11月份与一位香港的同会年青兄弟(李咏联)前往中国内地，探访该会在大陆生活的会士们途中，在该月廿四日于西安会院内息劳归主。

[27] 《第一弥撒曲》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1948年6月初版　5「序」。
[28] 《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1947年11月初版　III「序」。

[29] 江文也，「写于『圣咏作曲集』(第一卷)完成后」，《圣咏作曲集 ( 第一卷)》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1947年11月初版　151。

江文也的宗教圣乐作品

思高圣经学会在1948年初版《儿童圣咏歌集(第一卷)》时，在该书后页(第41页)付印了一个「江文也作品表」，该表且列明是在1948年6月由作者本人订定，而内里除列出作者当时其他的作品外，还列出了他的宗教圣乐(Religious Music)一栏，编号由40至50。由该作品表(List of Compositions by Chiang Wen Yeh, June 1948)中，我们可以断定江文也已将属于他的天主教圣乐创作品分列在自己的作品系列内。同年12月30日，在思高圣经学会所初版的《圣咏作曲集(第二卷)》内后页(第79页)，又付印了一个「江文也作品表」，不同的就是该表在1948年10月由作者本人再订定，同样也列出了当时属于他的其他作品名称；但宗教圣乐一栏第50号(Op.50)，则由原来的“Terza Messa per grande orchestra”(第三弥撒曲－－管弦乐伴奏曲)改为“5 Alleluia”(5首亚肋路亚－－即：5首福音前欢呼颂)。至于为何已改动的「作品表」日后没有在《圣咏作曲集(第二卷)》的再版中一同再付印或将以后再版的《儿童圣咏歌集》之作品表作适当的修订，其理由可能出版者仍未发现此一改动，仍误为两表是相同的。

虽然这两个作品表的出现只相隔四个月，作者已对表格内的作品名称有所改动。这可表明作者除将已创作的作品排列在表格内之外，还将心目中(即未创作而有意创作的)已孕育的作品名称也列在其中，所以表格内作品名称之增减及改动是意料中的事。实在到现时为止，江文也的宗教作品(编号40至50)系列中，有些是实存的，也有些可能已与作者齐享安息。

江文也原「作品表」的宗教圣乐作品，如下：

Op.40 ...Melodiae Psalmorum圣咏作曲集

Op.41  ...Melodiae in honorem B. Mariae Virginis敬礼万福童贞玛利亚歌集
Op.42 ...“L'Addolorata” - per grande orchestra痛苦圣母(大管弦乐曲)
Op.43 ...Overtura marziale “Lucis Universalis”一宇同光(进行曲序)
Op.44 ...“La Piet ” - per piccola orchestra哀伤圣母(小管弦乐曲)[30]
Op.45 ...“Prima Missa” - per una voce solo o per coro unisono第一弥撒曲(独唱或齐唱曲)
Op.46  ...Melodiae in honorem S. Francisci Assisiensis敬礼圣方济歌集
Op.47  ...Melodies from the book of Psalms for Children儿童圣咏歌集
Op.48  ...Seconda Messa - a due voci第二弥撒曲(两声部合唱曲)
Op.49  ...Nine melodies from the book of Psalms - for 3 voices圣咏曲9首(三声部合唱曲)

下列两编号的分别：

Op.50 ...Terza Messa - per grande orchestra
第三弥撒曲(管弦乐伴奏 )
此栏是付印在《儿童圣咏歌集(第一卷)》内(1948年6月之表格)

Op.50  ...5 Alleluia
亚肋路亚(福音前欢呼颂5首)
此栏是付印在《圣咏作曲集(第二卷)》内(1948年10月之表格)

为使读者对上述江文也的宗教圣乐作品多些资料及认识，笔者尝试依编号提出以下六点见解或疑问以供参考：

1) 作品编号40,41,45,47及50：我们将在本文下段表格中作解释，因这些都属「实存」的作品。

2) 作品编号42 (痛苦之母)及44 (哀伤圣母)：虽然这两首作品至今仍未能找到，原因可能是遗失或可能作者根本仍未创作。由于这两首管弦乐曲都是以「受苦的基督之母－－玛利亚」的名字作标题，笔者认为可能因江文也与雷永明神父之间的交情深厚；同时，雷神父十分恭敬「受苦的基督之母」，而且他的名字Gabriele Maria是他在1923年10月13日加入修会开始初学时改的[31]，取自「圣母痛苦圣嘉俾厄尔」精修圣人的名字(庆日为每年2月27日)[32] 。故相信作曲者是预算创作这两首乐曲给雷神父，并率先将作品名称列入他的作品表内。

3) 作品43 Overtura marziale “Lucis Universalis” (一宇同光)：虽然江文也在1948年10月的作品表上的编号列为 Op.43，但原稿(现存于北京江文也夫人的家中，而笔者也存有该原稿的影印本)上所写的却是「作品42号」，而且是作者本人的笔迹。因此，这篇号与原来的有所出入(因「作品表」上Op.42原为“L'Addolorata” per grande orchestra痛苦之母)。另外、就是原稿的标题为「一宇同光曲」，其上则以外文(拉丁文)写着：Symphonia Lucis Universalis；不过，经江夫人认定此笔迹非出自江文也，也非其女儿江小韵(因她负责整理其父的遗作)的。还有的就是、原稿上并无创作日期的填上(以往一般学者认为此乃江文也在1943年的作品)。由于这些问题非本文范围所及，故留待以后的学者作追查。

4) 作品46 (敬礼圣方济歌集)：由于思高圣经学会及雷永明神父皆属方济会，所以作曲者江文也如果在心目中准备创作一系列的圣方济歌曲，并不稀奇。同样，此项作品属于「至今仍未找到，可能遗失或可能作曲者本人根本仍未创作」。

5) 作品48 (第二弥撒曲－－两声部合唱曲)：属于遗失或可能作曲者本人根本仍未创作。

6) 作品49 (圣咏曲9首－－三声部合唱曲)：虽然在江文也《圣咏作曲集》（第一和第二卷)以及《儿童圣咏歌集》(第一卷)内，全部都是单声部的，但既然作品表内有Op.49这一栏，而且在江文也的「圣咏」作品内，实在有些作品旋律是寄调于他自己以往既有的创作品或编作品的，如：圣咏113(Op.40, No.113)「赞颂举扬谦微者的天主」，就是从他所编作的中国古歌「岳飞满江红 Op.21, No.8」而来的。有些「编作品」原属于三声部的合唱曲，但当江文也将之放在《圣咏集》时，只将其主旋律放在其中应用，如：圣咏150 (Op.40, No.150)「万民万物都要赞美天主」，就是从他所编作的中国古歌「南熏歌 Op.29, No.1」而来。

由于这些原作品都是早于他创作宗教圣乐作品的时期，所以我们有理由相信在江文也心目中，早已存在着将其中9首「圣咏」编写为三声部的合唱作品。而其中相信将会包括圣咏19「干坤与妙法」及圣咏150「万民万物都要赞美天主」。到现时为止，我们并找不到这类三声部的合唱作品，理由大概是遗失？或可能作曲者本人根本仍未着手编写？

在讨论上述第1项：作品编号40、41、45、47及50前，笔者尝试以表格列出全部「实存」及「可寻」的江文也圣乐创作品，以方便读者参考及研究。

江文也圣乐作品（圣咏系列）

圣咏       歌名              章节    作品编号    香港教区
1 义人的成功与恶人的失败 (A94)  (思) 1 Op.40, No.1 心401首
  BEATUS VIR, QUI NON ABIIT
3 困苦中呼求援救 (C47)

DOMINE, QUID MULTIPLICATI SUNT QUI TRIBULANT ME
(思) 3:2-4, 7-8 Op.40, No.3 心403首
4 困难中向天主发出的信心和哀求的呼声 (A126)

CUM INVOCAREM
(思) 4 (宣一) Op.40, No.4
13 危险冗长中的哭诉 (A77)

USQUEQUO, DOMINE, OBLIVISCERIS ME
(思) 13 Op.40, No.13
16A 蒙难时的祷告 (B30)

[天主啊！保佑我吧]

CONSERVA ME, DOMINE
(思) 16:1-2 Op.47, No.16 颂134首

圣138首

16B 救主受苦受辱伊始的祷告 (C51)

CONSERVA ME, DOMINE
(思) 16:1-2, 8-9 Op.40, No.16 心405首
19A 干坤与妙法 (A69)

COELI ENARRANT GLORIAM DEI
(吴) 19:2-7 Op.40, No.19a 心421首
19B 天主的荣耀 (C55) (B32)

COELI ENARRANT GLORIAM DEI
(思) 19:2-5 Op.40, No.19b 心402首
22 默西亚的苦难，死亡和祂光辉的复活 (A82)

DEUS, DEUS MEUS RESPICE IN ME
(思) 22:2-12 Op.40, No.22
23 我的牧者 (B16) [上主是牧者]

DOMINUS REGIT ME
(思) 23:1-4 Op.47, No.23 颂 97首
42 渴慕 (A99)

QUEMADMODUM DESIDERAT CERVUS
(吴) 42 Op.40, No.42
45
祝婚歌(C57)

ERUCTAVIT COR MEUM
(思) 45 Op.40, No.45
47 向万有的君王讴歌凯歌 (C66)(B22)

[万民啊！请鼓掌欢庆]

OMNES GENTES PLAUDITE MANIBUS
(思) 47:2-3, 6-7 Op.40, No.47
颂137首
51 天主，求你怜悯我罪人 (A49)

MISERERE MEI, DEUS
(思) 51:3-7 Op.40, No.51 心412首
57 狮子中间的安眠 (A90)

MISERERE MEI, DEUS, MISERERE MEI
(思) 57:8-12 Op.40, No.57 颂133首
63 渴慕天主 (B25)

DEUS, DEUS MEUS, AD TE DE LUCE VIGILO
(思) 63:2
Op.47, No.63
心420首
87 万民的母亲：熙雍 - 圣教会 (A6)

FUNDAMENTA EJUS IN MONTIBUS SANCTIS
(思) 87 Op.40, No.87 心419首
91 至高者天主乃义人之护卫 (A132)

QUI HABITAT IN ADJUTORIO ALTISSIMI
(思) 91 (宣二) Op.40, No.91
100A 请万民尊崇天主 (A73)

[全地都要向上主踊跃]

JUBILATE DEO OMNIS TERRA
(思) 100 Op.40, No.100 颂136首
100B 感恩歌 (B19)

JUBILATE DEO OMNIS TERRA
(思) 100:3-5 Op.47, No.100 心425首
110A 基督是君王，亦是司祭 (A11)

DIXIT DOMINUS
(思) 110 Op.40, No.110a
110B 在你出征之日 (A17)

DIXIT DOMINUS (VERSUS III)
(思) 希伯来文 110:3 Op.40, No.110b 心441首
111 天主的作为何其伟大 (C68)

CONFITEBOR TIBI, DOMINE
(思) 111:1-4, 10 Op.40, No.111 心430首
112 义人的福乐 (A140)

BEATUS VIR
(思) 112 (宣三) Op.40, No.112
113 赞颂举扬谦微者的天主 (A20)

LAUDATE, PUERI, DOMINUM

(思) 113 Op.40, No.113 颂124首
114 出埃及的神迹 (A143)

IN EXITU ISRAEL DE AEGYPTO

(思) 114 (宣四) Op.40, No.114
117 尔众万民！请赞颂上主 (A26)

[尔众万民]

LAUDATE DOMINUM
(思) 117 Op.40, NO.117 颂129首
119 遵守天主法律的神益 (A147)

BEATI IMMACULATI IN VIA

(思) 119 (宣五) Op.40, No.119
120 怨恨奸恶的慌语 (A54)

AD DOMINUM CUM TRIBULARE
(思) 120
Op.40, No.120
121 上主是你的保护者 (B14)

LEVAVI OCULOS MEOS IN MONTES
(思) 121:5-8 Op.47, No.121 心436首
122 向耶路撒冷致敬礼拜 (A30)

[为教会祈祷和平]

LAETATUS SUM
(思) 122:6-9 Op.40, No.122 颂261首
123A
仰望天主 (B18)

DA TE LEVAVI OCULOS MEOS
(思) 123:1-2 Op.47, No.123 心437首
123B 受压迫者的祈祷 (C72)

AD TE LEVAVI OCULOS MEOS
(思) 123:1-3 Op.40, No.123 心433首
127
人的顺利，完全依赖天主 (A34)

NISI DOMINUS
(思) 127:1-2 Op.40, No.127 心440首
128
家庭的欢乐 (A110)

BEATI OMNES QUI TIMENT DOMINUM
(思) 128 Op.40, No.128 心443首
130 呼吁慈爱的天主 (A58)

[我自深处向你呼吁]

DE PROFUNDIS
(思) 130
Op.40, No.130
颂203首
131A
天真 (A43)

DOMINE, NON EST EXALTATUM
(吴) 131
Op.40, No.131 颂131首
131B

依赖天主 (B12)

DOMINE, NON EST EXALTATUM COR MEUM

(思) 131

Op.47, No.131
133 团聚的兄弟之乐 (A114)

ECCE, QUAM BONUM
(思) 133 Op.40, No.133 心438首
134A 晚课经 (A47)

ECCE NUNC BENEDICITE DOMINUM
(思) 134 Op.40, No.134 心450首
134B 晚课经 (B24)

ECCE NUNC BENEDICITE DOMINUM
(思) 134 Op.47, No.134 心431首
136A 感谢上主 (B34) [感谢天主]

CONFITEMINI DOMINO QUONIAM BONUS
(思) 136:1, 5, 23 Op.47, No.136 心442首
136B 感谢上主 (C75) [你们应当称谢上主]

CONFITEMINI DOMINO QUONIAM BONUS
(思) 136:1-3 Op.40, No.136 颂128首
145 称颂你的名 (B27)

[我的天主，我的王]

EXALTABO TE DEUS MEUS REX
(思) 145:1-3, 10, 13 Op.47, No.145 颂135首
147 赞美重建熙雍的全能天主 (A37)

LAUDA JERUSALEM DOMINUM
(思) 147:12-20 Op.40, No.147 心447首
148 赞颂天主 (B8)

LAUDATE DOMINUM DE COELIS
(思) 148:1-6 Op.47, No.148 心449首
150

万民万物都要赞美天主 (A64)

LAUDATE DOMINUM IN SANCTIS EJUS
(思) 150 Op.40, No.150 心452首

江文也圣乐作品（第一弥撒曲）

  歌名
作品编号现时香港译名 (印于歌集内)
1 主怜诵KYRIE Op.45, No.1 垂怜颂KYRIE

2 荣福颂GLORIA
Op.45, No.2 光荣颂GLORIA

3 信经CREDO
Op.45, No.3 信德颂CREDO

4 圣颂SANCTUS
Op.45, No.4 欢呼颂SANCTUS

5 祝颂BENEDICTUS
6 神羔颂AGNUS DEI
Op.45, No.5 羔羊颂AGNUS DEI

江文也圣乐作品（圣母曲系列）

歌名作品编号
香港教区备注
圣母经 (A6)

AVE MARIA

Op.41, No.1 圣 25首

颂234首
调寄独唱曲(西江月)欧阳修作诗

江文也作曲1938年(Op.21, No.13)

圣母喜乐歌 (A117)

REGINA COELI
Op.41, No.2 颂235首
“颂恩”中名为“天皇后喜乐”
恭贺圣母曲 (A120)

SALVE REGINA

Op.41, No.3 颂236首 “颂恩”中名为“万福母皇”
圣母哀伤曲 (C11)

STABAT MATER
Op.41, No.4  “圣母七苦”庆日为九月十五日 (痛苦圣母)

圣母赞主曲 (C21)

MAGNIFICAT
Op.41, No.5
依念圣母经 (C26)

MEMORARE

Op.41, No.6
庆贺圣母颂 (C29)

TOTA PULCHRA
Op.41, No.7

江文也圣乐作品（亚肋路亚系列）

歌名章节
作品编号香港教区备注
圣诞节亚肋路亚 (F调)

ALLELUIA NATALICIUM IN F

(C33
咏93:1

Op.50, No.1 颂213首 “颂恩”中名为“上主已复活了”
圣诞节亚肋路亚 (C调)

ALLELUIA NATALICIUM IN C

(C36)
咏93:1 Op.50, No.2
圣母升天节亚肋路亚

ALLELUIA IN FESTO ASSUMPTIONIS B.M.V.

(C39)
  Op.50, No.3  八月十五日为庆日
复活节亚肋路亚 (C调)

ALLELUIA PASCHALE IN C

(C41)
咏118:1 Op.50, No.4
复活节亚肋路亚 (D调)

ALLELUIA PASCHALE IN D

(C44)
咏118:1 Op.50, No.5 颂228首 “颂恩”中名为“我们应该喜乐”

注：根据附于《圣咏作曲集(第二卷)》后之作品表(1948年十月版)Op.50为「五首亚肋路亚」系列。比较附于《儿童圣咏歌集》后之作品表(1948年六月版)Op.50则为「第三弥撒曲(管弦乐伴奏)」。

据思高圣经学会的长辈陈维统神父的覆述，在他记忆中，江文也的第一首圣乐创作品出现在当时修会团体面前，并由作者亲自演唱给他们欣赏的就是：圣咏117首「尔众万民」(Op.40, No.117)，即后来被寄到比利时天主教联合音乐协会作交流的一首。由于作者并没有将每首作品的创作日期填上，故现在很难将每首作品作先后次序排列。原因就是：据北京江夫人(吴韵真女士)对笔者覆述，除最先创作的数首圣乐作品有手稿外[33]，绝大部份圣乐作品都是江文也直接用音符印章打印在稿上，然后由她誊上歌词；完成后，便送交方济会雷神父作出版原稿。同时，出版的次序亦是由出版者自由按某方式排列，故出版次序的先后，并不代表作品的创作先后次序。

为方便读者作对照，笔者将以江文也的四部圣乐作品，如上表分为四大系列作介绍：

(一) 圣咏系列

(二) 第一弥撒曲系列

(三) 圣母曲系列

(四) 亚肋路亚 (福音前欢呼)系列

  [30]

[31]雷永明 (韩承良译)，《雷永明神父回忆录》，香港　思高圣经学会　1987年7月初版　10, 13。

笔者按：雷神父的原名Giovanni Stefano Allegra(若望．斯德望．阿勒格辣)。

[32]商志超等编，《每日弥撒经书》，香港　公教真理学会　1966年9月初版　728。

[33]笔者按：现存的原手稿共有六份(存放于北京江夫人的家中，笔者现存的六份为原手稿影印本)。

1) 圣咏16B：救主受苦受辱伊始的祷告(Op.40, No.16)

2) 圣咏45：祝婚歌(Op.40, No.45)

3) 圣咏111：天主的作为何其伟大(Op.40, No.111)

4) 圣母赞主曲(原稿为「圣母赞主歌」)：Op.41, No.5

5) 依念圣母经(原稿为「依持圣母颂」)：Op.41, No.6

6) 庆贺圣母颂(原稿为「庆贺圣母经」)：Op.41, No.7

以上六首江文也的「宗教圣乐」原手稿作品，全部都是刊印于《圣咏作曲集(第二卷)》的，1948年12月30日初版

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A016C4.htm

江文也的宗教圣乐作品

(一)圣咏系列

1.圣咏集(The book of Psalms)

犹太人称为赞美歌Thehillim，全集内容包括了感谢、赞颂和祈祷。希腊译者译为Psalmos，其字面意义是弦乐的音调；由弦乐的音调转为歌咏。Psalterium原为一种弦琴，后来教会却用它来专指《圣咏集》[34]。由于《圣咏集》共有圣咏150章(篇)，上述表格内「圣咏」一栏所显示的就是江文也由1947至48年间所创作「圣咏」的篇号[35]，因《圣咏集》内的每首「圣咏」内容有长也有短，故江文也的圣咏歌曲，有些是取录全首内容章节，有些是摘取部份章节(我们在「章节」一栏再论)。因此，号码表示章数，如：1表示第一章(篇)，而有些数目后有A或B的则表示作者在同一章(篇)内以不同标题的创作品。同时，A表示该作品先于B，而此次序是笔者按照《作品集》的出版先后次序如：16A及16B，或按同部《作品集》的编排次序如：110A及110B而订定。由此栏，我们可知江文也的圣乐作品中，「圣咏」作品现实存为47首。(第一卷共28首、儿童歌集共13首[其中两首也在第二卷内]及第二卷共8首。)

2.歌名

此栏所列出的名称为原出版本的歌名，而中文歌名的订定是取自1946年9月15日由方济会思高圣经学会所编译出版的《圣咏集》之每首主题；外文(拉丁文)的名称则来自该篇「圣咏」原拉丁文通行本(Vulgata)的首句。

本文将江文也的三部「圣咏」作品按出版次序分列为(A)：圣咏作曲集(第一卷)、(B)：儿童圣咏歌集(第一卷)、(C)：圣咏作曲集(第二卷)；而在括号内随英文字母后的数字则表示页数，例：(A94)表示此曲刊在《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》第94页－－ (此分类法同时适合上述表格的其他系列)。

其中有两首歌曲同时拥有两个括号数目的，即：圣咏19B及47，表示这两首分别出现在两部《圣咏作曲集》内。可能由于作者认为这两首歌曲较易咏唱，故安排在《儿童圣咏歌集》中首先出版；之后，在出版《圣咏作曲集(第二卷)》时，再来重覆。因此，虽然付印在《儿童圣咏歌集》内的圣咏作品是属于Op.47，但由于这两首歌曲(19B及47)后来刊印在《圣咏作曲集(第二卷)》时，已由作曲者本人订为属于Op.40，所以这两首歌曲肯定不属于Op.47，而是借用的。

正如本文上面提到，作者在创作天主教圣乐时，不时将他自己以往已编作的中国古曲旋律放在其中，例：

1)圣咏19A「干坤与妙法」的主旋律是来自他编作的中国古歌(合唱曲)「平沙落雁－－ Op.29, No.6」1939年(北京)。

2)圣咏100A「请万民尊崇天主」的主旋律来自他回北京后所创作的管弦乐曲「孔庙大晟乐章－－Op.30」1939年12月(北京)。

3)圣咏113「赞颂举扬谦微者的天主」的主旋律是来自他编作的中国古歌「岳飞满江红－－Op.21, No.8」1938年(北京)。

4)圣咏150「万民万物都要赞美天主」的主旋律是来自他编作的中国古歌(合唱曲)「南熏歌－－Op.29, No.1」1939年(北京)。

从以上的例子，可证明江文也的宗教圣乐作品，存在着借用他自己过往的编作品或创作品的成份。(「圣母经」亦如是) 因此，极有可能圣咏19A及圣咏150在作者心目中，是属于Op.49之内的。

另外，在本栏内随着歌名后出现的[ ]，是现时香港教区所出版的歌集(颂恩及心颂)内之修订名称。

3.章节

1)在江文也的「圣咏」作品内，所用的歌词采自两种译本。

(思)：是根据方济会思高圣经学会于1946年9月在北京初版的白话文体《圣咏集》[36]；(吴)：就是根据吴经熊博士于1946年10月在上海初版的古诗体《圣咏译义初稿》[37]。

2)数目表示圣咏集的章(篇)数，章数后的数目表示节数，例：(思) 3:2-4, 7-8 意为：思高版，圣咏第三章第2至4节及第7至8节。若无节数的则表示作者以全章(篇)内容创作(作为歌词)。

3) (宣)：付印在《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》后第125至150页，作者以教会传统额我略歌(Gregorian Chant)的宣叙调(Recitation)形式创作了五款圣咏简易宣叙调(Toni Recitativi)[38] 。

4.作品编号

三本《圣咏作曲集》(第一卷、儿童歌集及第二卷)，其中：

1)《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》全欠奉作品编号及首数。

2)《儿童歌集》则只有第一首(圣咏148：赞颂天主)印上编号47(Op.47)，所以凡属此集的(除此集内圣咏19B及圣咏47，在上文已讨论外)都应是Op.47。

3)(第二卷)则每首作品都奉印上作品编号Op.(Opus的简写)及首数No.(Number的简写)，因此，我们才发现此卷歌集中包括了Op.41，Op.50及Op.40三个系列的作品(笔者分类)。

由于Op.41属于圣母系列及Op.50属亚肋路亚系列，我们会在下文作交待，故目前只集中讨论Op.40。

4)从《圣咏作曲集(第二卷)》的第47页至77页中，共有8首属「圣咏」类别的，即圣咏 3, 16, 19, 45, 47, 111, 123及136章(篇)。每首作品都印上Op.及No.的数字，因此，我们可以肯定：

a)由于在作者的两个作品表(1948年6月及10月)内，圣咏作曲集为Op.40。

b)在(第二卷)内凡属「圣咏」Psalm 类的都印上Op.40。所以我们有理由相信《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》内属「圣咏」类别的，全应列入Op.40。

5)作品首数(No.)：由(第二卷)内的8首「圣咏」作品所印的首数(No.)得悉，全部都是与该作品所选用的「圣咏」章(篇)数相同；故此，有理由相信江文也是以「圣咏」的章(篇)数作为「圣咏类别」后的首数，如：Op.40, No.136即表示此曲属「圣咏」曲第136章(篇)。

6)由于作者并非按「圣咏」的章(篇)数依次顺序的创作，同时也没有记下创作日期，因此，除圣咏117(Op.40, No.117)为第一首外(陈维统神父的资料提供)，其他「圣咏」的创作先后次序，相信永远是个谜。

5.香港教区

在天主教香港教区过往所印行的三本歌集内，已将思高圣经学会所出版的部份「圣咏」歌曲，编在其中。

【圣】：圣歌选集－－刘蕴逊神父主编 1969年3月初版。

收录江文也的「圣咏」作品一首(Ps.16A)

【颂】：颂恩歌集－－徐锦尧神父主编 1976年8月出版。

收录江文也的「圣咏」作品共12首。

【心】：心颂歌集－－蔡诗亚神父主编 1982年7月初版。

收录江文也的「圣咏」作品共23首。

由于以上歌集先后在教会内外的通行，因此，江文也的「圣咏」作品很早已在教会礼仪及聚会中使用，同时也在学校、团体及家庭中通用，如圣咏16A，19A，23，100A，113，131，133，136A等，更是耳熟能详及老少咸宜的香港教会圣乐流行曲。

  [34]《「圣咏」的名称》　「圣咏集」总论一，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1946年9月15日初版　21。

[35]《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1947年11月初版　「序」ｘ(凡例)。

《圣咏的位置与篇数》　「圣咏集」总论二，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1946年9月15日初版　22-23。

[36]《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1947年11月初版　「序」ｘ(凡例)。

[37]同上。

吴经熊，《圣咏译义初稿》，上海　商务印馆　1946年10月初版。

吴祝文英，《圣心缘－－吴经熊博士与我》，台湾　光启　1986年10月初版。

[38]笔者按：教会传统额我略歌曲(Gregorian Chant)的圣咏调式(Mode)共有八种。分别以Re、Mi、Fa、Sol四个音为「主音」的，各音上再分正副两种调式，故成八调。正调也称为「正格调式(Authentic Mode)」，即第一、三、五、七调。副调也叫作「变格调式(Plagal Mode)」，即第二、四、六、八调。

李振邦，《中古教堂调式有声谱例》，台湾　天主教教务协进会　1982年11月初版　1-7。

刘志明，《西洋音乐史与风格》，大陆书店　1979年12月初版　28-30。

江文也的宗教圣乐作品

(二)第一弥撒曲系列

由于天主教在罗马梵蒂冈(1962-1965)第二届大公会议(下称「梵二」)后[39]，教会于改革中，除重申信友在礼仪中的参与地位外，又肯定了初期教会(一至五世纪)在礼仪中宣讲天主圣言的重要。因此把一千四百多年来广泛地规定使用在各地方教会的法定语文(拉丁文)转为「容许」及「鼓励」各地教会团体发挥地方化的精神，使用本地语言，好让信仰生活融入当地的文化，使能将基督的福音扎根，以发挥天主圣神的德能，愈显主荣。

「梵二」的改革更新，除肯定各地教会团体的地位外，最大的变化就是礼仪改革，因为教会中的礼仪祈祷，正就是基督徒信仰生活的泉源与动力。弥撒－－感恩祭宴可说是基督徒信仰生活的精华所在－－庆祝基督的逾越复活，所以，弥撒曲时常都是音乐家们谱曲的对象，甚至是创作灵感的来源。江文也并不例外，由于他感到教会传统的额我略歌(Cantus Gregorianus)甚为庄严古雅，有感于心，遂决意要以中国古乐的精粹来编撰一部中文弥撒曲[40]。虽然当时(1948)与梵二礼仪改革(1965)相距十七年前，此中文弥撒曲实在无法在当时弥撒礼仪中应用，但此作品已足够表现作者的心思及雷神父的远见：如果圣教会将来正式准许中华信友以中文来歌颂上主时[41]，我们一定非常喜欢，因为这些歌曲，是出自一位精通中西音乐的中国天才作曲家(江文也)所编作的。

碍于当时礼仪规程的限制(圣礼部绝对禁止信友以本国语言，歌唱一部份弥撒固定的经文)[42]，所以(据刘绪堂及陈维统神父的覆述)当时江文也只在北平(京)辅仁大学的礼堂，曾将此弥撒曲演唱过一次(以国语独唱)。笔者在教区圣神修院时(梵二后)，当时的修院音乐负责人徐锦尧修士(现是神父)，曾将这首「弥撒曲」重新配上「梵二」礼仪改革后的中文弥撒礼仪经文歌词，并且常在弥撒礼仪中应用；因此，笔者才有机会品尝这部弥撒曲的韵味。虽然这套弥撒曲只属单声部齐唱作品，但实在是一份佳作，能使参礼者举心向上及有助于祈祷。

至于「第一弥撒曲」的原歌词问题：由于江文也创作时是采用当时香港公教真理学会所出版的《我的主日弥撒经书》，由方济会再依据当时教会中习用的字句而稍加修

改[43]，所以并不存在障碍。故教会内外的音乐团体，如有兴趣咏唱这套弥撒曲，应该属于无任欢迎，也应受到鼓励。正如雷神父所谓，这是出自黄帝子孙手创的旋律与和声，也是已奉献给慈母教会的礼物。不过，笔者认为若在教会礼仪中应用时，如采用徐锦尧神父当年(1966)的歌词修订版本，则更理想。

对于「弥撒曲」的分析，由于非本文范围之内，故笔者只在书籍介绍(后附)一栏，列出有关书籍名称以供读者参考；这里仍可简单介绍三点：

1)弥撒－－感恩祭宴的经文(或歌词)大致可分为两种，即固定不变的「常用经文」部份及非固定的「专用经文」部份；而弥撒曲则属于前者。在音乐传统领域内，「弥撒曲」是属于一个专有的名词，即包括：垂怜颂(Kyrie)、光荣颂(Gloria)、信德颂(Credo)、欢呼颂(Sanctus)及羔羊颂(Agnus Dei)五首歌曲。

2)江文也「第一弥撒曲」内的圣颂(Sanctus)及祝颂(Benedictus)是分属两首但相连的歌曲。由于在历史上，Sanctus这部份是在第四、五世纪时先被教会采纳在礼仪中应用，而Benedictus这部份则到第七世纪时才被纳入罗马礼仪内；全曲到十三世纪时才正式被列入弥撒礼仪的「常用经文」部份内。在复音音乐(Polyphony)兴盛期间(十七世纪)，由于在弥撒礼仪中大合唱与交响乐一并应用，使全曲的长度增长，故不得不分成两段，致使Benedictus被移至祝圣礼(成圣体圣血)之后；因此一般作曲家们在标题时往往将Sanctus - Benedictus合在一起，以表示二而一，一而二的意思[44]。在梵二礼仪改革后，这曲则订定为一，并以“Sanctus”称之；香港教区译为「欢呼颂」。

3)由于作者以此部「弥撒曲」编号为45，所以可依次序列为：

主怜颂(垂怜颂) Kyrie - Op.45, No.1

荣福颂(光荣颂) Gloria - Op.45, No.2

信经(信德颂) Credo - Op.45, No.3

圣颂(欢呼颂) Sanctus(包括祝颂Benedictus) - OP.40, No.4

神羔颂(羔羊颂) Agnus Dei - Op.45, No.5

  [39]笔者按：全球所有主教(包括枢机、宗主教、总主教及各教区的主教)、特委任的专业人士及教友代表等，在与教宗共融中、由天主圣神引领下，为对整个教会团体执行训导或制定法令的一个最隆重之聚会。每次的大公会议都为全球基督徒团体带来新的景象与气色，也使基督徒成员在变幻的时代中充盈生气。

由公元325年教会第一次尼采(Nicea)大公会议至今，曾召开共21次这样隆重的会议；最近的一次为梵蒂岗第二届大公会议(The Second Vatican Council)由1962年10月11日至1965年12月8日，共召开四期会议，也经历了两位教宗【若望廿三世(Papa Giovanni XXIII, 1959-1963)及保禄六世(Pope Paul VI, 1963-1978)】。

许仲仪，《天主教历届公会议简介》，香港　李嘉堂纪念出版社　1964年初版。

陈文裕，《梵蒂岗第二届大公会议简史》，上智出版社　1989年7月初版。

《梵蒂岗第二届大公会议文献》，台湾　天主教教务协进会　1975年12月初版。

[40]《第一弥撒曲》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1948年6月初版　5「序」。

[41] 同上。请参阅雷永明神父所写原文(拉丁文及英文)之「序」(In “Prima Missa” Praefatio/Foreword)。

[42]《第一弥撒曲》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1948年6月初版　5「序」。

[43]《第一弥撒曲》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1948年6月初版　5「序」。

[44]李振邦，《宗教音乐》，台湾　天主教教务协进会　1979年初版　16-17。

江文也的宗教圣乐作品

(三)圣母曲系列

江文也编创「圣母曲」应该是来自雷神父的意愿及当时方济会修院礼仪祈祷(日课－－Office)的需要，理由：

1) 雷神父及方济会会士都十分恭敬圣母，所以《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》首列「圣母经」作为敬献给圣母的礼物。

2) 礼仪祈祷中(尤其是晚祷)及每年的五月及十月(是特为恭敬圣母的月份)，都会应用很多有关敬礼圣母的歌曲。

教会恭敬圣母玛利亚，正因为在她身上，基督完整地显示给我们，也与我们同在。同时，基督宗派一向被称为歌唱的宗教，因此教会的圣乐作品也被认为是实用音乐(Functional Music)。故江文也的「圣母曲系列」虽然只有七首，但每首都属实用的经文歌曲(Motet)类别：

1)圣母经：是每位教友(基督徒)必定熟诵的三首经文中的一首(此外包括天主经与光荣经)。江文也的「圣母经」是调寄于他在1938年所创作的独唱曲(西江月－－Op.21, No.13)；自从1947年当此编创的「圣母经」面世后[45]，一直都大受欢迎，而且在中国海内外的教会团体所出版的歌集，很多也将此曲采纳在其中。近年来，不少教会音乐界人士误认此曲是江文也从古曲「西江月」抄袭过来的。经笔者与江夫人(吴韵真女士)求证后，「圣母经」虽然确实是从「西江月」调寄过来的，但「西江月」也确实是江文也所创作（为此，江夫人也送赠笔者一份「西江月」的原出版稿以作证明）。

2)圣母喜乐歌：是教会团体惯常在复活节期间的中午时份所诵念或咏唱的祈祷文(以取代复活期外的「三钟经－－Angelus」)。

3)恭贺圣母曲：这是教会团体在睡前的晚祷后所咏唱的一首圣母歌曲。

4)圣母哀伤曲：这是每年9月15日为敬礼「圣母七苦」(痛苦圣母)的弥撒感恩祭宴之继抒咏(Sequence)[46]；同时也是基督徒团体在四旬期间朝拜苦路(Way of the Cross)时所咏唱的歌曲。

5)圣母赞主曲：是教会团体每天在黄昏礼仪祈祷中(Vespera)所咏唱的歌曲。严格来说，此曲不属于圣母歌曲类，而是一首赞主颂；除在晚祷中咏唱外，也适宜在领圣体后咏唱。

6)依念圣母经及庆贺圣母颂：这两首经文歌曲是基督徒团体在敬礼圣母时或在晚祷时常被选唱的歌曲或诵念的经文。

至于作品编号问题，在《圣咏作曲集(第二卷)》内，每首圣母曲都有编号及首数的记录，顺序为：

第11页：圣母哀伤曲 Op.41, No.4

第21页：圣母赞主曲 Op.41, No.5

第26页：依念圣母经 Op.41, No.6

第29页：庆贺圣母颂 Op.41, No.7

由「首数」所显示，本集欠缺前三首(No.1-3)；但由于在《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》内实在有三首圣母歌曲类存在，故本集所缺的前三首应该是放在(第一卷)内。

虽然在(第一卷)内欠奉作品编号及首数之记录，但相信亦与(第二卷)相同，故笔者尝试以作品在(第一卷)歌集内的次序编排列为：

圣母经 Op.41, No.1

圣母喜乐歌 Op.41, No.2

恭贺圣母曲 Op.41, No.3

  [45]笔者按：据前任慈幼会省会长陈兴翼神父(现居香港)透露：1947年2月至5月期间，当时北(平)京由慈幼会所主办的「母佑工艺院」(专收容男孤儿及贫穷青少年的寄宿学校)的院长陈基慈神父(Rev Mario Acquistapace, SD－－意大利人－－1946年12月抵北平开办学校，现居香港)，他曾在北平辅仁大学礼堂参与一次宗教聚会中听闻江文也的中文圣乐歌曲后；特与好友雷永明神父商讨并邀请江文也创作一首富中国气韵的「圣母经」给母佑工艺院的青少年咏唱。当江文也编作「圣母经」后，亦由母佑工艺院的学生于1947年5月24日该院所举行的敬礼圣母庆典中作了首唱。后来该院学生亦被邀请在北平辅仁大学礼堂内将江文也的「圣母经」作了首次的公开演唱(由当时母佑工艺院的音乐老师仲顺天修士指挥)。后来仲修士将此曲于1949年带来香港并不断传颂。

[46]李振邦，《宗教音乐》，台湾　天主教教务协进会　1979年初版　26。

笔者按：继抒咏是第九世纪时才兴起的填词歌曲，就是在福音前欢呼(Alleluia)的尾字长吟(Melisma)上，填上一字一音的词句来而形成「继续」歌唱，后来发展成为一种崭新的独立曲式。圣母哀伤曲(Stabat Mater)全曲共有20节，是1727年教宗本笃十三世(Pope Benedict XIII, 1724-1730)将「圣母七苦」(痛苦圣母)的庆日推广到全世界时，也在弥撒感恩祭宴圣道礼中加入「圣母哀伤曲」的继抒咏(Sequence)。

1817年教宗庇护七世(Pope Pius VII, 1800-1823)为感谢圣母救助他于拿破仑的迫害，通令普世教会在每年9月15日特敬「圣母七苦」(痛苦圣母)，并举行感恩祭宴来感谢天主。

李振邦，《宗教音乐》，台湾　天主教教务协进会　1979年初版　26。(四：Sequence)

刘志明，《西洋音乐史与风格》，大陆书店　1979年12月初版　33。

商志超等编，《每日弥撒经书》，香港　公教真理学会　1966年9月初版　996-1000。

《敬礼圣母汇编》，香港　香港教区圣母年筹委会　1987年12月初版。

江文也的宗教圣乐作品

(四)亚肋路亚系列

Alleluia：原文为希伯来文，意谓「请你们赞颂上主」，由Hallelu「请你们赞颂」和Yah「上主」(Yah是Yahve「雅威」、「耶和华」的缩写)二字结合而成，中文照原文字音译为亚肋路亚。这是旧约和新约礼仪上的一种欢呼词，而在现今的弥撒(感恩祭宴)里，在圣道礼仪部份当信众起立聆听基督的福音前，都以唱颂此曲作为欢迎福音的表示。在一片亚肋路亚的欢呼声中，同时会加插一小段祈祷文(大多数选自圣咏(Psalm)的章节)，然后再以亚肋路亚的欢呼声结束此欢迎福音的行动。(Alleluia是一首歌曲，只为咏唱而设，不是为诵读的。)

在四旬期及圣周苦难期间，传统上，教会为使整个基督徒团体在此时期内作好准备，以迎接基督的光荣复活，因此会以其他的欢呼词取代亚肋路亚的位置；而在举行庆祝基督逾越复活的当晚弥撒感恩祭宴中，教会才再次邀请全体信众一同咏唱亚肋路亚。当这震憾人心的欢呼词再被咏唱时，在复活基督的光照下，使整个基督徒团体藉着亚肋路亚的歌声，更能体验基督复活的喜乐与平安。

江文也的亚肋路亚系列中，有5首作品，其中两首是为基督的圣诞，两首是为基督的复活，一首是为圣母升天。

正如圣保禄宗徒所说：「假若基督没有复活，那么，我们的宣讲便是空的，你们的信仰也是空的」(格前15:14)，所以「复活节」是基督徒最大的日子，因为是信仰的铁证。「圣诞节」是天主愿意纡尊就卑参与人类历史、与人同在及「信」的实践的证明。圣母升天是天主显示人永远归宿的所在，同时，表示圣母在世的生活正就是基督永远临在的保证。

在教会内有很多庆节，而每个庆节也有其特定的提示，江文也选取这三个重要庆节和特别为此而谱曲，甚有意义！

结语

在香港、台湾及北京分别三次所召开有关江文也作品的学术研讨会中，每次都有来自上述三地及海外的音乐学者专家及音乐工作者专程汇集参与、提交论文及共同讨论；而在三次会议中，对于有关江文也的宗教音乐作品只在第三次于北京举行时才有专题研讨。香港方面，有苏明村先生所发表的「江文也的宗教音乐初探」及北京方面，有蒲方小姐所发表的「论江文也宗教作品的音乐风格」两篇专题文章。

在1936年10月至1938年中旬期间，整整一年多的时间，正是江文也全心全力编创天主教圣乐的时期（因在这段时间内，并没有江文也的其他作品出现）；同时，在《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》内，作者曾写了一篇「作曲者自序」及一篇「写于《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》完成后」的文章；而在《第一弥撒曲》内，作者也写了另一篇「写于《第一弥撒曲》完成后」的文章。对于这三篇文章，近这几年来不少学者专家在撰写有关江文也时，上述的文章内容，很多时都会被引用。对于一般学者专家都注视这三篇文章，这会否表示，于1937至1938年间，江文也在生命历程里，因有了某程度上的得着，致使他对自己及对中国音乐传统艺术有了他独特的思想看法？

由于过去五年内三次的研讨会，有关江文也生平历史及其作品资料突然丰富起来，而且愈来愈深入详尽。在去年七月于北京举行研讨会后，更成立了一个由三地代表组成的「江文也研讨会筹委会」，以筹划今后的研究活动。笔者除希望在日后的研讨活动中，仍然有音乐学者专家，继续对江文也的宗教圣乐作品作较深入的研究外；同时更希望藉着三地(中、港、台)的中国人学者之汇集、讨论及分享等行动，能表达我们是属于一家人，是合一的标记及见证。

虽然这篇文章只属于「江文也宗教圣乐」的平面介绍，希望能为将来研究江文也宗教圣乐的学者，提供一点儿资料。最后，愿雷永明神父、江文也教授及刘绪堂神父，在主的永恒福乐中继续为中国全体人民代祷。

参考书目

I.有关江文也

1.胡锡敏，《中国杰出音乐家－－江文也》，香港　上海书局　1985年3月初版。

2.林衡哲等编，《现代音乐大师－－江文也的生平与作品》，台湾　前卫出版社　1988年9月初版。

3.刘靖之主编，《民族音乐研究(第三辑)－－江文也研讨会论文集》，香港　香港大学亚洲研究中心与香港民族音乐学会　1992年初版。

4.张己任主编，《江文也纪念研会论文集》，台北　县立文化中心　1992年8月初版。

5.张己任主编，《江文也文字作品集》，台北　县立文化中心　1992年10月初版。

II.有关江文也作品集

1.张己任主编，《江文也手稿作品集》，台北　县立文化中心　1992年6月初版。

2.江文也作曲，《圣咏作曲集(第一卷)》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1947年11月初版。

3.江文也作曲，《第一弥撒曲》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1948年6月初版。

4.江文也作曲，《儿童圣咏歌集(第一卷)》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1948年7月初版。

5.江文也，《圣咏作曲集(第二卷)》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1948年12月初版。

6.刘蕴逊主编，《圣歌选集》，香港　公教真理学会　1969年3月初版。

7.徐锦尧主编，《颂恩－－信友歌集》，香港　公教真理学会　1976年8月初版。

8.蔡诗亚主编，《心颂－－信友歌集》，香港　公教真理学会　1982年7月初版。

9.《干坤揭主荣》，台湾　安道社会学社　1982年11月初版。

III.有关思高圣经学会及「圣咏」

1.雷永明(韩承良译)，《雷永明神父回忆录》，香港　思高圣经学会　1987年7月初版。

2.《圣咏集》，北平　方济堂思高圣经学会　1946年9月初版。

3.吴经熊，《圣咏译义初稿》，上海　商务印书馆　1946年10月初版。

4.《圣经辞典》，香港　思高圣经学会　1975年4月初版。

5.韩承良，《圣咏释义》，香港　思高圣经学会　1980年12月初版，

6.林锦玲等编，《思高五十》，香港　思高圣经学会　1995年11月初版。

7.吴祝文英，《圣心缘－－吴经熊博士与我》，台湾　光启　1986年10月初版。

IV.有关圣乐及礼仪资料

1.李振邦，《宗教音乐》，台湾　天主教教务协进会　1979年12月初版。

2.李振邦，《中古教堂调式有声谱例(连录音带)》，台湾　天主教教务协进会　1982年11月初版。

3.刘志明，《西洋音乐史与风格》，大陆书局　1979年12月初版。

4.陶亚兵，《中西音乐交流史稿》，中国大百科全书出版社　1994年5月初版。

5.APEL W., Gregorian Chant (Indiana University 1958).

6.刘志明，《圣乐综论》，全音乐谱出版社　1990年1月初版。

7.蔡诗亚主编，《圣乐文集》，香港　公教真理学会　1994年6月初版。

8.罗国辉，《礼者、履也》，台湾　光启　1988年12月初版。

9.商志超等编，《每日弥撒经书》，香港　公教真理学会　1966年9月初版。

10.吴新豪，《天主教礼仪发展史》，香港　公教真理学会　1983年3月初版。

11.刚恒毅，《维护宗教艺术》，天主教主徒会　1977年2月初版。

12.台湾辅仁大学神学院编，《神学论集(第十二号)》，台湾　光启　1972年7月初版。

13Story of the Mass = National Bulletin on Liturgy - No. 54 (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops = CCCB 1976).

14《敬礼圣母汇编》，香港　教区圣母年筹委会　1987年12月初版。

V.其他参考书籍

1.郭廷以，《近代中国史纲》，香港　香港中文大学　1979年初版。

2.柳克述，《近百年世界外交史》，台湾　正中书局　1961年3月初版。

3.李定一，《中国近代史》，台湾　中华书局　1968年12月第14版。

4.王克禄，《梵蒂冈简介》，思高圣经学会　1987年10月初版。

5.许仲仪，《天主教历届公议会简介》，香港　李嘉堂纪念出版社　1964年4月初版。

6.陈文裕，《梵蒂冈第二届大公会议简史》，台湾　上智出版社　1989年7月初版。

7.《梵蒂冈第二届大公会议文献》，台湾　天主教教务协进会　1975年12月初版。

VI.近期有关江文也宗教圣乐作品的文章及视听资料

1.苏明村，《江文也的宗教音乐初探》，北京　江文也研讨会论文　1995年7月22日。

2.蒲方，《论江文也宗教作品的音乐风格》，北京　江文也研讨会论文　1995年7月22日。

3.刘麟玉，《从战前日本音乐杂志考证江文也旅日期间之音乐活动》，北京　江文也研讨会论文　1995年7月21日。

4.叶纯之，《中港台实事求事评江文也－－突破政治与宗教禁区》，香港信报　1995年8月1日　20。

5.罗渔，《中国教会音乐的诞生》，台湾　恒毅月刊　1995年10月号　14-21。

6.《白鹭鸶的幻想－－江文也传》(电视影片)，台湾　华视制作　1995年7月2日及30日分上、下集首播。

7.《一家之主－－江文也介绍》(H077) (电视节目)，台湾　光启文教视听节目服务社制作　1993年3月27日首播。

作者：黄淑珍

书评一－－孔格的《我信圣神》

1. 引言

在《我信圣神》一书(三册)中，作者孔格(Yves Congar)透过阐释启示及教会生活使人认识圣神。在启示，特别在圣经中包含了不少揭示圣神的内容，由于圣经是受到默感的，所以能作为对天主的经验的一个判断标准。至于教会生活是指信友在圣神引导下的生活，我们可从这生活经验，认识圣神。

2. 问题

一开始作者就提出了一些问题和对一些现象的不满，目的是为整本书铺路，以后的发展或多或少是对这些问题的答覆或回应。

作者察觉到神恩复兴运动(Charismatic renewal)，又称圣神同祷会，是当今的一股信仰热潮，这复兴运动的澎湃不是孔格着书的主要原因，然而他却承认这运动催迫他出版一本有系统地论述圣神的作品。

作者也注意到人们对于认出圣神为圣三中的一位有一定的困难，因为对于圣神我们缺乏一如圣父及圣子那般清晰和达意的概念。父子的概念自然地使我们明白父生(begetting)子，而父子是表示关系的名词，显示了两位互相联系的特征，但是对于圣神我们无法作出类似的联想。「圣神」一词不一定有位格的内涵，「神」可以指父和子都是神，「圣」同时可用于父及子，至于「发圣神」的「发」(procession)同样适合用于子源于父的关系上。

启示从来没有很明确地指出圣神是三位一体的天主中的一位，一如人能从启示中的耶稣身上认出圣言、子为一位，并透过子而领略到父是另一位。圣神没有如雅威在旧约及耶稣在新约中以「我」来自称，祂没有以自己作为「我」，启示给人，而是透过祂在我们内所赋予的一切，来让我们认识祂。既然在这方面有某些透明度的认识和领会，我们就可以从这些经验作分析。因此，作者认为基督徒的生活经验为认识圣神是必要的。孔格清楚地说明这里的经验是指那些能给予我们有关圣神的客观知识的方法或渠道，而不是纯粹的主观个人经验。

3. 范畴

3.1 第一册

孔格称《我信圣神》的第一册为《救恩史中的圣神：关于圣神的启示和对于圣神的经验》(The Holy Spirit in the Economy : Revelation and Experience of the Spirit)正如其名，这第一册分为两部份：正典圣经及基督宗教历史。

第一部份的重要范畴包括：

1. 旧约中雅威气息的行动(the action of the breath of Yahweh)

2. 新约中不同圣经作者的圣神观

a) 保禄对于圣神的经验完全系于耶稣的复活及其受光荣为基督和为主的这个事实，因此保禄认为圣神与光荣基督的行动有着一定密切的结合。

b) 路加在宗徒大事录中，趋向将圣神看成有位格的，并在某些方面有别于雅威的一位，强调圣神在救恩史中的干预。

c) 若望的着作重点放于：(i) 耶稣赋予神，(ii) 已许诺的护慰者及(iii) 神在门徒们及教会的时代。

第二部份是历史的回顾，孔格回顾基督徒在历史不同时期中，所吸取及表达过有关圣神某些特别有意义的知识。其中包括：初期教会的经验，教父的着作，古典神学－－例如：圣神是父和子的相互的爱，宗教改革及至梵蒂冈第二次大公会议之后，人们则着重圣神所产生的效果。

3.2 第二册

第二册命名为《主及赋予生命者》(Lord and Giver of Life)。其中分为四部份。

第一部份：圣神活化教会，指出圣神合作建立教会，圣神是教会唯一、至圣、至公及由宗徒传下来的根源。

第二部份：天主的气息存在于我们个人的生活中，其中主要的范畴包括：

1. 天主派遣了自己儿子的圣神到我们心中 (迦4:6)

2. 在圣神内及随从圣神而生活

3. 圣神与自由

4. 圣神的恩赐及果实

第三部份是有关「神恩复兴运动」：其潜质及问题，其中主要的范畴有

1. 「神恩复兴」在教会内所产生的积极贡献

2. 「神恩复兴」的关键性问题

a) 应否称为「神恩」性的运动

b) 运动的危机：太强调即时效应及减弱对公共事务的委身

c) 引人入胜的神恩

d) 在圣神内受洗

e) 复兴与合一

第四部份是结论：「在圣神的团结中，一切崇敬和荣耀」结论道出天主之神的宇宙性、普遍性及永恒性。

3.3 第三册

第三册的题目是《生命的河流在东方及西方流动着》 (The River of Life Flows in the East and in the West)。在这一册中孔格尝试以合一的角度看天主第三位。

在第一部份，作者介绍了天主第三位在不同时期的神学发展，并列举了东、西方有关圣神的神学思想，犹其着重西方教会的「和圣子」(filioque)的内涵－－圣神是由圣父「和圣子」所「共」发的，及其为东、西方教会争论的原因。

在阐释了东、西方的圣神论之后，孔格继而作了一综合的神学反省，有创见地提出了四个神学课题：

1. 父是作为天主性的绝对根源

2. 有关天主第三位的神学默想

3. 在天主内的母性及圣神的女性特质

4. 迈向建立一个倚重圣神论的基督论

在结束第一部份之前，孔格更提出了一些有助于东、西方教会和解的具体建议。

第二部份是论述圣神与圣事，包括了以下的范畴：

1. 圣神恩赐的「印记」，即有关坚振圣事的意义

2. 感恩经中的呼求圣神颂

3. 圣神存在于我们与基督的身体及宝血的共融之中

4. 教会生活就是一篇长的呼求圣神颂

4. 神学方法

4.1 信仰要求明暸

孔格采用了古典的神学探讨方法作为他做神学的出发点－－信仰要求明暸(faith seeking understanding)。作者认为信仰要求明暸它所持守及所经验过的，而信仰所持守的又要吻合受默感的圣经。天主透过圣经跟我们说话，并传达给我们为回应祂爱情计划所需要知道的，圣经中有圣神的揭示。我们不是独自寻求信仰的明暸，在我们之前有很多基督徒曾经反思过他们的信仰，他们也曾经验过圣神，而当代的基督徒也有为他们的经验作见证。

在《我信圣神》一书中我们可以清楚地见到作者运用了圣经和历史的探讨方式作为他做神学的方法。整本第一册完全采用了这两个探讨方式。第三册的第一部份，天主第三位在不同时期的神学发展是采用了历史探讨方式。以圣经作为信仰经验的判断标准在三册书中随处可见。

孔格也有从现象出发作探讨(phenomenological approach)，他察觉到一个真实的现象，就是基督徒有困难认识到圣神为圣三中的一位，而整套书的出现是为了帮助信徒克服这个困难。圣神能够被认出是因为祂的效果，加深了对圣神的认识能使我们更开放于圣神，好让祂随意地在我们之内运作。孔格也注意到另一个现象，就是神恩复兴运动的蓬勃发展及在这运动中所产生的问题。他从这现象出发，作深入亲身的探讨和了解，继而再作反省及提出一些指引。

作者同时应用了基督学作为探讨的方式(Christological approach)。这个探讨方式曾多次被应用，在第二册的「圣神活化教会」部份，孔格强调教会的产生是源自两个使命(派遣)，子的使命和圣神的使命。有关这两个使命，他更引用了宜仁(Irenaeus)极具诗意的图像－－犹如天主的两只手。他更指出，根据保禄的神学观点，受到光荣的主与圣神在天主内虽有分别，但两位的功用却是如此的结合，以至我们可以同时一起经验两位，且能够接受其中一位犹如另一位一样。因此，孔格认为完美的圣神论必定指向基督及天主圣言的工作。在解决神恩复兴运动的一些具体问题时，孔格再次强调任何健全的圣神论一定要以基督为参照，圣神论的真切性(authenticity)要以基督为判断的标准，即那些源于圣神的行动或果实必定要与降生的圣言、主耶稣基督的工作是一致的，或最低限度是协调的。在综合神学的反省中，作者更尝试迈向建立－－倚重圣神论的基督论(Pneumatological Christology)。

4.2 爱与祈祷

孔格深切地相信神学的钻研须融汇于生活的颂赞中－－圣三的颂赞(doxology)、礼仪的参与。惟有透过庆祝礼仪我们才能共融于奥迹之中。作者明认他一直虔敬地以爱及祈祷伴随着他的写作。

4.3 语文的运用

孔格认为语文的运用与写作人的背景有密切的关系。作者自觉身为神学家，生活于圣经、教父及大公会议的教会之内，他又是一位教师，他的工作就是教学。他所用的语文－－教诲式的，就自然地反映出他的工作及身份。

曾经有人质疑孔格用的语文不是今日时下人们所能够明白的，他以教父为例，讥讽地反驳这种说法。他指出教父们与天主及祂的奥秘有亲密的关系，要迁移到教父所定居的地方，即要明白教父所说的话，人不单需要在智力上用功，人甚至要有宗教上的皈依。言下之意，孔格认为人能否明白他所用的语文，实在有赖于读者本身与天主所建立的关系的亲密程度。

5. 资料

孔格在《我信圣神》一书中引用了很多（或许太多）第一手资料。在这里当然不能一一尽列，而只想点出作者为建立他的神学观点，特别在有关东、西方的圣神论所引用过的一些较为有决定性的资料。

5.1 若15:26及16:14-15

当护慰者，就是从父那里要给你们派遣的，那发于父的真理之神来到时，他必要为我作证。(若15:26)

东方教会认为这段经文是证明圣神只是发自父的最佳证据。然而，在经文中并没有「只」这个字眼。孔格指出经文所牵涉的是即时及明确的途径，属护慰者、真理之神在现世的使命，而不是关于父自永恒中「发」圣神的事实。

他(真理之神)要光荣我，因为他要把由我所领受的，传告给你们。凡父所有的一切，都是我的；为此我说：他要由我领带而传告给你们。(若16:14-15)

拉丁教会乐于引用这段圣经来阐明神是发自父和子的。孔格却认为这经文的背景是指出传递真理的一种方式，属于救恩工程中恩宠赋予的层面，而不是先于救恩工程的那先存境况。

根据以上的分析，我们决不能单从第四部褔音中的这两段经文作出有关圣三教义的直接结论。新约圣经中所显示子与神的关系大多是属于救恩工程的层面。东方教会一直以来都坚持执着用若15:26及16:14-15中的专有名词，虽然在诠释中有其局限，但为促进东、西方教会的合一交谈，这些名词有其一定的中立作用，值得重新厘定。

5.2 第一届君士坦丁会议 (381)

在信经中有关圣神的条文就是在这一届会议中所决定及完成的，主要是为驳斥「圣神被造论」：我信圣神，主及赋予生命者，由圣父所发，祂和圣父圣子同受钦崇，同享光荣，祂曾藉先知们发言。会议的目的主要是肯定圣神与父、子是同性同体的，实在有其天主性。因此会议所定的条文仍然适用于若15:26的救恩工程背景。会议完全没有意思要准确地分析神是以什么方式而发的，「发圣神」为与会的神长是一奥秘，应受尊崇(而不是被分析)，「和圣子论」(filioquism)及「唯一父论」(monopatirism)等概念为当时与会的神长是完全陌生的。

虽然这一次会议是没有拉丁教会神长的参与，但其中的决定是为拉丁教会所接受的，而条文内容绝对能够成为判断的标准，因为它表达出基督徒的信仰，我们就是这样信的。

5.3 翡冷翠大公会议 (1439)

自第八世纪拉丁教会在不合符常规的情况下将「和圣子」(filioque)加进信经之内，东方教会对此一直表示不满，而东、西方教会又在「发圣神」的教义上争论不休。东、西方教会终于在1054年正式宣告分裂。

翡冷翠大公会议曾为东、西方教会的合一带来一线的曙光。这次大公会议最关注的是词汇的问题，与会者尝试寻找「发」(procession)的真正意义。

希腊教会着力于维护天主性根源的统一性，一切都是发自父的。

拉丁教会对此立场有以下的回应：

1. 承认子呼出(spiration)神完全是源于父

2. 圣神发自二(有两个呼出者 duo spirantes)犹如出自单独一个根源(single principle)

拉丁教会不愿意接受子与父在发圣神方面有不同的功能。

在会议中曾经公开了一封由玛西姆(Maximus the Confessor)于655年写给塞蒲路斯的一位司铎，玛连奴(Marinus)的信。在信中，玛西姆声称拉丁教会承认父是子及神的唯一因。在会议中一些拉丁教父的着作原文也显示「和圣子」(filioque，西方教会立场)与「通过子」(per filium，东方教会的立场)有相同的意思。

玛西姆的这封信就成了合一的基础，与会者于1439年6月6日宣布合一。合一的宣言被当时的君主及东方教会的39位基督徒所接受，他们当中有主教、代理人、执事及修院的长上。宣言明认「和圣子」(filioque)，是合法及合理地被加进信经之内。拉丁教会，特别是教宗，在这次的会议中似乎获得很大的胜利，因为这实在是一次达至圆满合一的大公会议。可惜的是东正教会完全否定了这次会议的成果。

翡冷翠大公会议的重要性在于

1. 「和圣子」及「通过子」是可以互用或互补不足的，

2. 在圣神的领导下，与会的神长表现出有合一的意愿，

3. 这会议的成果可以作为日后东、西方合一交谈的出发点。

5.4 拉丁教会的代表人物

5.4.1 波西迪艾的依拉利 (Hiliary of Poitiers +367)

根据依拉利，神发自父，从子那里接受父给予子的一切，那就是具天主性的性体，神完成及彰显圣三同性同体的统一性。

5.4.2 奥斯定 (Augustine +430)

在信仰表达方面，若果奥斯定的理论「自起初」、「在一开始」(principaliter)能放进到拉丁教会源用的「发」的字句中，即变成：「自起初的发」；拉丁教会就与东方教会所用的「根源性的发」(ekporeuesthai)有相同的入手点。「自起初」其实是包括在「和圣子」(filioque)的意义中。「和圣子」的内涵：发自圣父和圣子犹如来自一个源头。因为唯一的源头是父，而只有子接受了父的一切。如果奥斯定的理论能够被清楚地表达出来，就不会引致东正教会认为西方教会企图肯定圣神是发自两个源头。可惜的是，这理论刚好没有被清楚地表达出来。

5.4.3 多玛斯亚奎纳 (Thomas Aquinas +1274)

多玛斯的方程式：两个呼出者，犹如出自一个源头(duo spirantes, unus spirator)。

5.5 东方教会的代表人物

1. 亚理山大的济利禄 (Cyril of Alexandria)

2. 塞蒲路斯的额我略 (Gregory of Cyprus)

3. 额我略巴拉玛 (Gregory Palamas)

在「发神圣」方面他们的理论大概可以归纳如下：

神所拥有的「自立存在」(hypostatic existence)唯独是来自父，但根据祂在天主性的同性同体中作为第三位的存在方式而言，祂的「性体存在」(substantial existence)是来自父及子。

6. 独到之处

《我信圣神》是一套很全面性地论及圣神的神学教科书、神学参考书，而其中的大部份内容能够供一些很好的灵修默想资料，实在是一本不可多得的作品。从书的丰富内容可以看到孔格在圣神论方面的钻研是既深且远，他不但博览有关方面的着作，和掌握它们其中的精粹，而且能够在这些之上建立他自己独到的见解，也很具创意。

无可否认，圣神论是一颇为艰深的科目，然而作者在整套书的铺陈上，很有步骤，层次分明地将不同的课题遂一演绎，让读者按步就班地投入这项艰巨的研究。然而，读者不时也要停下来，细嚼其中的内容，然后再加思索，方可能领会字里行间的真正意义。

配合适当的时段，作者会放进一些珍贵的综合片段，帮助读者作一整合，使他们更清楚地掌握先前所读过的。第二册的结论是圣神论的宇宙观，综合了这一册的全部内容－－圣神的工程。第三册的「有关天主第三位的神学默想」可以说是整套书的浓缩精华，其中不乏具启发性的默想材料。至于「迈向建立一个倚重神圣论的基督论」点出了圣神论的一个新的发展方向，有前瞻的宏愿。

孔格拥有敏锐的时代触觉，神恩复兴运动的研究可以说是回应这个时代的需要而作的。新的课题如「在天主内的母性及圣神的女性特质」是极具时代气息的课题，反映出作者洞悉现今神学潮流的走势。在「圣神活化教会」的部份，孔格致力发展在教会学中圣神论的原素，且很有新见地。这课题也是当今基督徒十分关注的。

孔格在《我信圣神》一书中最大的贡献可以说是他在神恩复兴运动及在东、西方合一的问题上所作的具体、实际可行的建议。

孔格除了看到神恩复兴运动的积极面之外，他更一针见地点出运动潜在危机，就是太强调即时的效应和疏忽对社会事务的参与。孔格建议运动的支持者不应独立存在于教会之外，他们必要是天主教教会(普世及地方教会)的一部份，他们必须积极参与圣事庆典、与教会的牧者合作、参与教会的活动、传教的使命及服务。孔格也指出任何「神恩」的效果必须与降生圣言，主耶稣基督的工作协调，以辨其真伪。

作者分析东、西方教会不和的原困，他认为这并不是信仰层面的问题，而是信仰表达不同的问题。基本上东、西方教会有不同的心态。在教义上，西方教会依据圣经，但同时强调推理的重要；东方教会尊重圣经和理性资源，但同时认为天主是奥秘，不能完全被认识。

在「和圣子」(filioque)的问题上，孔格眼光独到地看出问题的症结。在用词方面，拉丁教会的「发」(procedere)不及希腊教会「根源性的发」(ekporeuesthai)的内涵丰富。为迈向合一，发展父为「单一源头」的主题是可行的路。奥斯定的「自起初」(principaliter)的理论可以作为主题发展的依据。

7. 不足之处

读了孔格的名着《我信圣神》，笔者实有耳目一新的感觉。整套书差不多可谓无懈可击。若果必要从中发掘一些暇疵，笔者只认为孔格在精确地分析了东、西方教会在圣神论上的分歧后，竟然建议西方教会将「和圣子」的字句在信经中删除，实在是美中不足。

试想，已经背诵了多年的信经，拉丁礼的基督徒要突然删除其中的一些字眼，而换上别的程式，实在是不可行的。况且这种做法会引起信仰上的混淆，可能带来严重的恶果。

孔格认为既然「和圣子」是在不合法的情况下被拉丁教会加进信经之内，理应按合一精神，和基督徒该有的谦卑态度，删除这字句。可是，孔格在他所提众多具体实际可行的建议中，竟然提出这项难以实现的建议，实在令人费解。

8. 结语

孔格成书的目的是要让人认识圣神，这认识当然不是纯粹地指理智上的认识，而是包含了信仰上的皈依。这书《我信圣神》，相信或多或少令使读者加深对圣神的认识。天主将圣神作为「礼物」赏赐给我们，同样祂也将祂的儿子赏赐给我们，然而在这些赏赐之中，只有圣神被称为「礼物」。但愿基督徒不单要认识，且要珍惜这「礼物」。

作者：安中玉

书评二－－韩大辉的《与基督有约：从庆典到奥迹》

1.导言

经过初步的空中浏览，《与基督有约》一书给予笔者一个充实的感觉－－活像一间微形的圣事图书馆。相信《与基督有约》一书给予读者的初步印像是文字上的革新。从前不单非天主教徒，就连天主教徒自己闻「圣事」也「色变」；相信读者读过《与基督有约》一书后，将来读者闻「圣事」同样也「识变」，是知识上的蜕变。这蜕变基本是源于我们教会一直对「圣事」一词过份地留于历史上某种僵硬的解释所至。

作者就他在圣事神学上多年钻研的心得和圣事神学在牧民层面上的反省在本书的题目上作了一个崭新的点题－－与基督有约。我特别被这个「约」所吸引，亦被副题中的「庆典」所掀动。《与基督有约》一书开宗名义指出其内容不单停留在圣事总论的范围内，而且更会扩大其课题，重看基督就是所有圣事的共同渊源。所有圣事源于基督，基督对人的爱和救恩计划本身就是奥迹。人在高兴的时侯会办喜事；基督徒面对基督这奥迹时更会惊叹，继而要庆祝。这一点就是我们的主题－－与基督有约。基督徒怎样庆祝呢？综观历史，我们庆祝的高峰在于透过圣事庆典步入奥迹，与主相遇。就是这个「相遇」正正走进我们的主题－－与基督有约。这个「约」有盟约和约会的意义。

2.特色和架构

《与基督有约》一书的对象是神学生，其目标是作为一份精简的神学反思材料。此书的特色是在圣事的课题上同时达到「博」和「精」两环。此外，书中所缉录的资料大都附以原文而在征引外文时，皆以不同字体作识别。例如拉丁文用斜体字、英文用正楷、圣经的希伯来文和希腊文，则采用罗马拼音法，字体亦有所不同，务能帮助不谙原文的读者。

《与基督有约》一书的架构共分十五章，除了首、末章分别为导言和结论外，其余十六章分成五篇，分别是圣经篇(二至五章)、教父篇(六、七章)、释义篇(八、九章)、总论篇(十至十五章)和庆典篇(十六、十七章)。每篇既可独立地成为一个单元，亦彼此相辅相承。这点也正是此书的一个特色。

3.方法论

总观而论，《与基督有约》一书提出了两个主要的方法作整体的支撑。分别是「溯源法」和「推理法」。前者顾名思义是走回历史中去探讨前人为何要庆祝、怎样庆祝等等的问题。当中又分作有「贯时法」和「同时法」分别作为横轴和纵轴作研究。「贯时法」针对在不同时期出现的圣事之传统和观念；「同时法」则以时间作单元列出历史上有关基督的庆典。方法二「推理法」，是以关键性的范畴或模式，通过神学的反省成为普遍的原理，加强神学的圣事庆典的解释力。此二方法基本上被用于《与基督有约》一书内每一章。另外作者在行文时，经常有一问题－－圣事怎样才能跟基督徒的关系更密切－－存留在脑海中。此被关注的问题显着地出现在第一章的导言中，作者指出我们若误解圣事，那么圣事的举行，可以成为「撕裂」我们生活的因素。他指出七件圣事会有「撕裂」成长、「撕裂」天主、「撕裂」共融、「撕裂」公义、「撕裂」情谊和「撕裂」健康的可能性。

在《与基督有约》一书的内容上，三个神学原理或可称之为预设会相继出现在神学家的探讨中。它们分别是「心物同向律」、「生活希望律」和「天人交换律」。现在让我们走进每一章中看看其中的神学方法。

4.内容

4.1 圣经篇 (二至五章)

圣经篇以四章连贯的主题紧扣着，分别是「许诺与基督」、「基督与奥迹」、「奥迹与庆典」和「庆典与圣事」。

在第二章「许诺与基督」中，以色列民对雅威天主的体验系于祂的许诺。天主按自己的忠信和慈爱实践其许诺，祂透过语言和行动将许诺逐渐实现在以民的历史中。而以民则透过许诺的实现，渐渐体会天主各项工程－－指向将要来临的默西亚、基督的工程。他们将天主的许诺活在日常的生活和敬礼中而与这些敬礼有关连的神圣标记，就是日后所谓「旧约的圣事」。

在第三章「基督与奥迹」一章中指出基督的事件是指祂在世的生活体验，包括祂的宣讲和行动。基督来宣讲天国，祂自己本身就是天国；基督的行动包括接触罪人、行奇迹、更新敬礼、选立宗徒、死亡和复活。基督的事件披露了整个救恩计划，而宗徒们也意识到这就是奥迹。

在第四章「奥迹与庆典」中重点指出基督在世留下了一个纪念(anamnesis)叫我们日后跟从举行此事。初期教会也针对了当时的生活环境，制定庆典仪式，而所有的庆典都是环绕逾越奥迹。在庆典中，圣父是一切的起点和终向，圣子是爱的彰显和实现，圣神是万物在基督内的共融和转化。

在第五章「庆典与圣事」中指出在早期教会的庆典中，有些我们今天称之为圣事，是浓缩了教恩事件的特色。虽然圣经中没明显地说出圣事有七件，但在早期教会的礼仪庆典中我们可以找到七件。其中以圣洗圣事和圣体圣事为最重要。人透过洗礼领受了基督的新生命；藉着傅油和覆手得到生命的坚固；藉着圣体圣事和教会合而为一，此乃入门圣事。由于人生命的软弱，当人病倒和因罪过而跌倒，我们可透过忏悔圣事和病傅圣事得到治疗，此乃治愈圣事。至于最后一类的圣事名为服务共融的圣事：基督赋予教会内一些人个人特殊使命，就是授予圣秩的覆手和男婚女嫁祝圣他们，并通过他们对其他人的服务和见证，使这新生命的共融得以延续和普及。

4.2 教父篇 (六至七章)

第六章「希腊和拉丁教父的反省」一章中，作者点出了拉丁教父以sacramentum 翻译了希腊教父的mysterion，基本上这仍是将奥迹礼仪化的现象。在教义方面，有关圣事的礼仪意义已渐被纳入一个有架构和综合性的体系里。

在第七章「庆祝奥迹的意义」一章里，作者说得好。他指出与其说庆祝奥迹是某一个行动，倒不如说是整个基督徒生活的凝聚点、综合天主与人类、许诺与实现、召叫与回应、此生与来生、纵面与横面、今天与明天、信德与行动等等。事实上当时庆典的用语不断提醒人们这个事实。此外，作者更带出在教父们的奥迹礼仪化的过程中，有三个庆典的核心。它们分别是现世历史、基督奥体和圣三事件。现世历史成为天国的幼芽和开端，原因是基于圣言成血肉的事件，天主更进一步参与人类的历史。礼仪庆典是为应付现世历史的需要，因为以后在天主之城就无须藉标记行事。基督奥体是万民之光，教会将这光分映出来，照耀到每一个人心中。祂就是新子民，一个父、子及圣神的统一之下，集合起来的民族。而圣三事件就是我们庆祝奥迹的信仰核心：藉圣事行动，我们以虔敬、温顺、活泼的信德，仗赖圣神的力量，在圣子内，将荣耀归于天父。

综合以上教父篇所言，教父给教会留下丰富的精神遗产，让后世的神学家计续寻求对圣事、奥迹的了解。

4.3 释义篇 (八至九章)

释义篇跨越了十多个世纪，其中的神学家和讨论的课题相当复杂繁多。作者将此篇分作两章作介绍。

第八章「圣事庆典的形上演绎」一章探讨由七世纪到十四世纪的圣事观。首先奥思定的圣事观透过依希道普遍地影响了七至十一世纪。当中的定义指出圣事就是神圣事物的标记，而此标记是指举行圣事庆典时，人们所采用的经文、物品和仪式。随后便有不少学者于标记和神圣事物两者作了不同的强调而引起了不少的争论。到了十二世纪的神学丰收期。当时的隐修院神学(奥思定思想)着重了圣事在教恩史中的一体性，并用寓意法解释圣经和礼仪。当中的代表人物是卢柏(Rupert of Deutz +1129)。另一批学者，学院神学家则重视理性和逻辑，强调圣事的多元性及每件圣事的独特性。此段时期圣事的定义是：有形的标记内酝藏着无形的圣宠。作者举出的代表有亚培拉(Peter Abelard +1142)和隆巴(Peter Lombard)。走进十四世纪，圣事神学渐趋成熟，代表人物是多玛斯。他引用形上原理将圣事既是标记又是产生因的两个意念相互整合起来，形成有系统的圣事神学。

第九章「圣事庆典的危机与现代思潮」一章探讨由晚期士林神学到特伦多大公会议后人们对圣事的诠释。首先晚期士林神学的圣事观以基督论为主，说明圣事源于基督元首及其恩宠，但欠缺教会学和圣神论的支援。加上当事过份地走进固定的哲学框框里，而流于分化，未能顾及奥迹的全面性。当中的道明会、方济会和唯名派仍未能再将神学反省推到更高的层次。在宗教改革前，教会的训导受着多玛斯的影响，只针对具体圣事问题给予答案。到宗教改革时期，新教人仕从成义的角度开始去论圣事，因此双方的见解不同，因此而有特伦多大公会议的出现。会上重新肯定圣事有七件，由基督所建立，都蕴藏和通传恩宠。此外圣事施行人需有权柄、意向和采用规定的「形」和「质」。自此，圣事神学开始着重历史、实证、推理、判断而从圣经、圣传和推理中找证据，予以证明。我们可得知圣事的反省亦离不开这种手册式的框框。

十八至十九世纪是一个批判的年代。由十七世纪的启蒙运动开始，众人对传统渐不信赖而相继以各种方式作批判。继有十八世纪的杜平根大学的史宾(M.J. Scheeben +1888)、开国元老梅肋、牛津运动(Oxford Movement)的风云人物纽曼枢机(J.H.Newman +1890)、新士林主义(Neo-scholasticism)的学者以及十九世纪初震撼天主教神学的现代主义(Modernism)。至于今日的神学，作者刻意地放在庆典篇作讨论。

4.4 总论篇 (十至十五章)

总论篇将有关所有圣事的课题分六章讨论。每章的铺陈都有着相同的基本架构，分别是圣经的基础、教父的确认、释义的发展、教会的训导和神学的反省。

第十章「圣事的形质论」指出在传统中圣事已被肯定为神圣事物的标记和庆典。就圣事有形可见的仪式而论，圣事庆典由言(verbum)和事物(res)组成，是后期的神学分别称之为「形式」(form)和「质料」(matter)。前者具限定功能、后者具被定功能。此方法可容易地鉴定圣事庆典中的不能改变的「必要」部分(essentia)和那些可以改变的部分。在七件圣事中，圣洗圣事的「形」是因圣三的名或基督的名，「质」是水。坚振圣事的「形」是祈祷文，「质」是覆手和圣神的傅油。圣体圣事的「形」是耶稣建立此圣事的话(格前11:24；玛26:26-28；谷14:22-24；路22:19-20)，「质」是饼酒。忏悔圣事的「形」是教会的赦罪祷文，「质」是当事人的认罪和补赎。病傅圣事的「形」是祈祷文，「质」是傅油。圣秩圣事的「形」是覆手祷文，「质」是覆手。婚姻圣事的「形」是按基督和教会密切关系，男女所缔结的婚约，即二人成为一体，「质」是夫妇彼此奉献的爱。

第十一章「圣事的建立」一文中指出此建立(institution)是指有形可见的标记赋予超性的能力，足以意指(signify)和产生(produce)恩宠。文中也列出了七件圣事在「基础」、「建立」和「实践」上的圣经基础。于教会训导中，特伦多大公会议声明:「谁若说新约的圣事，不是全由我们的主耶稣基督所建立的……都该受绝罚」。(DS1601)无论如何，基督建立圣事，并不只是说祂在某个时空的场所表达了需要某某圣事的心愿，更重要的是祂愿意透过一些神圣的标记，在信徒重要的生命时刻里，再一次作出奇妙的化工。

第十二章「圣事的数目和优次」于这个影响教会合一的课题下，谈到了基督徒的共识、圣事的优次、圣事和圣仪等的课题。

第十三章「圣事的效能」谈到圣事仪式本身所发挥其效力的问题。首先圣经和教父皆肯定圣事仪式本身具有超性的圣化恩宠，他们用了一些重要的思想: 恩宠充盈论、客观实在论和天主德能论。到了宗教改革时期，作者列出了三个新教学者的学说：分别是马丁路得、加尔文和慈运理。纵使三位都否认圣事直接的效能，但他们都没有否定圣事具有通传恩宠的效能。随后的中世纪则以圣事因果律(sacramental causality)为主解释圣事客观的效能，但偏向「物质化」。到了今日，神学再强调圣事中「象征」和「人位」的幅度。因此，「相遇」的理念经常出现在今天的圣事神学的研究中，其中的表表者有拉内(K. Rahner)、史勒拜克斯(E. Schillebeeckx)、海德格(H. Heidegger)、布柏(M. Buber)和麦各利(J. Macquarrie)等学者。

在第十四章「圣事的效果」中，作者从三方面谈圣事的效果：分别是圣化恩宠、圣事恩宠和神印。首先，作者从人神的位际关系看圣化恩宠而指出奥迹就是恩宠－－恩宠是在圣神内生活。因此这是一份释放、分享天主的生命和共融(koinonia)，是天主绝对自由的施惠。鉴于不是每件圣事都给予同样的恩宠，故此圣事恩宠(gratia sacramentalis)就是每件圣事所赋予的特殊恩宠。其特色就是一种习性(habitus)、一种权利、一个内在的力量(intrinsic vigor)、有其统一性和连续性。反观圣化恩宠就是共同的天主的生命。至于「神印」一词，是源自希腊文charasso, charakter，有「刻上去」、「印号」(sphraghis)的意思。此词可说是来自希1:3论及天主本体的真象(charaketer tes hypostaseos)。这神印是属神的、不可磨灭的，跟圣化恩宠不同，可给予那些没有圣化恩宠的人。在七件圣事中，只有圣洗、坚振、圣秩三件圣事赋予人神印。

第十五章「圣事的施行人和领受人」首先谈到施行人的合宜性、意向和信德的问题。综合来说，无人可为自己施行圣事，不是每一个人都可以施行所有的圣事而有些圣事要求先有教会赋予的权柄。在意向方面，文章也提到意向的必要、性内在性、外在性和意向的程度，内里又分为现在意向、潜在意向、习性意向、限定意向和不定意向。在施行人的信德问题上，特伦多大公会议从施行人作为「工具」的角度看，只要他们怀有「行教会要行之事」的意向即可，他们在信德上的软弱和罪过并不影响圣事的圣化效能。领受人方面，他们要有三个基本的条件，分别是有效地领受圣事、有益地领受圣事和合法地领受圣事。此外领受也要有秩序，例如在领受婚姻和圣秩圣事之前须先领受入门圣事。

4.5 庆典篇 (十六至十七章)

于此章的开首，作者又带出他在文章内经常伴着的问题。他指出生命只能源于生命，真正的智慧不停留在学术上的纸上谈兵，而是在奥迹的氛围里，活生生地投入基督生命的时辰。本篇分作两大部份：第一部份继续承接释义篇谈及有关圣事观念的历史沿革，简介礼仪运动的过程和同期的神学思想；第二部份则陈述圣事庆典的意义。

第十六章「从礼仪运动看庆典神学」共分三部份。第一部份作者简述了礼仪运动的来龙去脉，说明人不仅需要礼仪，更渴望得到满足。作者首先从礼仪运动的前奏开始谈起，再带出当时本笃会隐修院的贡献，跟着用教会官方的训导和梵二的礼仪改革作结束。礼仪运动的发动并不是一朝一夕，由于特伦多大公会议后教会过份着重士林学派对圣事作形而上的解释，以致人们感到礼仪冰冷，并设法寻找新的出路。这正是教会中礼仪运动的引发点。的确，教会在圣神的引领下渐渐省觉到礼仪不是将人生局限，而是将人生提升。作者在第二部份介绍了几个强化庆典神学的酵素：它们分别为「信仰和圣言」、「基督、教会、圣神」和「救恩史、纪念和庆典」。作为纪念仪式，圣事庆典导人进入逾越奥迹；作为推动力，可使庆祝的团体产生新的变化；作为典范，可使人寄望将来的荣耀。在最后一部份，作者综合了云云的神学家的意见，提出了五个论据。首先是「奥迹临现论」－－代表人物是贾西尔(Odo Casel)。他从保禄的「奥迹」引申到基督的救赎工程就是救恩史的高峰。今日教会延续基督的救赎工程，就在于举行圣事庆典的时侯。「真实象征论」－－代表人物是拉内(Karl Rahner)。他以真实象征和人学的观点出发，指出每个存有都是象征，因为存有既能表达又可实现。象征在人生中有着多层次的作用，而基督在世成为活生生的标记。圣事就标记来说是人间的象征，就效果来说是天上的事。「天主荣耀论」－－代表人物是方巴达沙(Hans Urs von Balthasar)。他的思想建基于天主的光荣(Herrlichkeit - Theodramatik)。在解释圣事庆典上，他用了人学起点的另一端，即从天主那边看过来。因此，圣事须从圣言的降生、空虚以及荣耀的提升去明瞭。「位际相遇论」－－代表人物是史拜克斯(Edward Schillebeeckx)。他指出基督是天人相遇的圣事，相遇是一真切的位际关系，而圣事是构成这些关系的标记。近期，女性神学对此课题亦有独特的贡献。「救援解放论」－－其思想源自德国，在拉丁美州盛行。其主要思想指出礼仪不仅在精神上将人从「恶魔」中释放出来，也从地上的「恶魔」－－各种不公义－－将人释放出来。因此，圣事恩宠正好与人类的历史任务有密切的关系。

第十七章「圣事庆典的意义」里，作者首先从字源学看「庆典」。他分别以古典拉丁文、基督徒的拉丁文学、拉丁教父的礼仪庆典和中文的庆祝和庆典作一阐释。跟着他从经验看庆典与人生。作者在第三部份从中国民族信仰，即儒、道、佛看庆典。随后，作者分别从圣经和神学史上进入基督徒的传统看「庆典」。最后作者从三个时空来综合出今日庆典神学的意义，而这三个时空分别为「过去」、「现在」和「将来」。过去的纪念(anamnesis)是指我们庆典的核心－－基督的逾越奥迹。现在的恩临，作者分别在信德、盟约、恩宠、提升、共融、生命和天道七个角度去看教会在圣事庆典中要走的路。过去指向现在，现在指向未来，因此基督徒所期望的是一个伟大的许诺－－基督第二次的再来。

4.6 结论 (第十八章)

《与基督有约》一书的结论篇首先以庆典与神学的关系作一前后的呼应，道出整部书的方法论，即于导言中所提到的「心物同向律」、「生活希望律」和「天人交换律」。跟着作者步进庆典与本位化的问题，简略地谈到时下热门的话题－－「礼仪本位化」的一些原则和范围。如前所述，圣事庆典不单是一些理论，而是跟我们的生命、灵修有密切的关系。故此，作者在结论篇有精彩的一页－－庆典与灵修。他归纳出第一种灵修是「以基督为挚友的灵修」。耶稣曾为门徒洗脚，他给予我们的新诫命是要我们彼此相爱，并称他们为朋友(若15:14)。祂并不以主仆跟我们相称却愿做我们的朋友。因此，我们要步入基督的奥迹、迈向真切的相遇。这个相遇正酝含《与基督有约》一书的「盟约」和「约会」的深意。

第二种灵修是「与教会共同庆祝的灵修」。教会是基督所建立，而追随基督不是个人的事，却是个人和众兄弟姊妹一起在共融中同步。因此我们务要忠于教会的宣讲、迈向庆典的教理、建立团体的共融、发挥圣事的效能和依赖圣母的助佑。第三种灵修是「以每天为庆典的灵修」。这里的每天是指我们生活的每一小节。让我们身为基督徒都能在每一刻都懂得去祈求天国的来临、培养深切的信仰、参与社会的建设、关心中国的发展以及寄望永恒的生命。从而，体会基督的爱。

第四种灵修是「以喜乐为心态的灵修」。喜乐是天主的福份和恩赐，我们有了这份恩赐就可尽心尽性地生活，去超越自己。因此我们要得保持快乐的圣德、发展亲切的友谊和持守成长的本份。第五种灵修是「以生活为赞颂的灵修」。灵修不但注重祈祷，而且还将整个生活转化成祈祷，因此我们要彰显天主的荣耀，做个有朝气的人。作者在末篇的最后一部份从庆典的角度看礼仪牧民的意义，带出牧者心和天地心的相偕。

5.评论

《与基督有约》一书是一本资料精简的圣事参考书，是同类书中的表表者。笔者尝试列出对此书数点的评论。首先在庆典篇第十七章「圣事庆典」的意义中，作者从字源学看庆典的字义而分别用了拉丁字典Lexicon totius latinitatis及Thesaurus Linguae Latinae作阐释。相反，于中文的庆典和庆祝上，作者则只用了商务印书局第四册的《辞源》作阐释。由于前者是拉丁字典中的出色之作而后者则是众中文字典中其中一本，故此有相迎见绌之感。

此外，在同一章里从「中国民俗信仰看庆典」的一个环节里，作者所用的参考资料均来自：1)《中国民间宗教史》(两次)、2)《中国古代鬼神文化大观》(十二次)、3)《中国社会与宗教》(两次)和4)《中国的神话世界》下册、(两次)。单看资料是充足的，但一跟「基督徒庆典的传统」相比便再一次显出其悬殊。其原因明显是因为作者的意向是以圣事神学为主而非中国文化。尽管如此，「中国民俗信仰看庆典」一节可助长教会加深庆祝的意义。

6.综合

笔者尝试以简单的数十字去形容《与基督有约》一书如下:

人与基督有约，是基督用血建立的天人新「盟约」，基督是基元圣事；是人在教会内以圣事庆典，促进天人相遇的『约会』，教会是基本圣事。

基督徒凭信德以喜庆的心，透过礼仪去聆听圣言、纪念基督的奥迹，并且让基督圣神的德能提升自己的生命，敬礼天主。与此同时，人的生命得从平淡走进永恒，获得救恩。

作者：黄炎雄 Harry WONG

Copernicus expressed his ingenious conviction about the revolu tion of the earth around the sun in the form of plausible hypothesis; but the simplicity of his formulation would not correspond to the radicality of the content. It was one of those vigorous ideas, almost with one's own life, with which one can be in agreement or in disconformity, but never indifferent.

In the philosophical field, the Kantian revolution is like that not only because it purports to be the inversion of the previous thought, but also because after the Dissertatio of 1770, philosophers have not been able to stop considering it and taking position before it.

In contemporary philosophy, Kantism still leaves a sufficient mark, and its consequences and influences are so important that we can affirm that in the philosophical realm, we are still living in a Kantian atmosphere.

Nevertheless the force of the philosopher of K nigsberg is based on the depth and importance of the questions which he asks than on the answers that he offers. The problems he poses are truly basic topics.

How are the sciences possible? With this question, Kant initi ated his investigation on the critical problem. The question is highly interesting and Kant formulates it to perfection. In the first place, it is perfectly legitimate, since it asks for the foundation of the sciences. In the second place, it is even obligatory for all the philosophers who are not satisfied with describing what is given, but try to reach its expla nation.

The situation would be different if he asked whether the sciences were possible. Doing that would incur in the clear illegitimacy of put ting in doubt the very existence of the sciences, which by itself is evident: "as these sciences are really given, one can ask about them: how are they possible? Since they have to be possible as it is demon strated by their reality"[1]

Kant examines the constitutive elements of what he considers sciences in order to isolate the essential ones from the accidental as pects. These elements will make the sciences possible. Before any-thing else, he observes that the scientific propositions are always universal and necessary, or - with his words - synthetic a priori judge ments.

For the German philosopher, the constituted sciences are Mathematics and Physics; but not Metaphysics. The motive of this discrimination is the success of the former and the failure of the latter in provoking the unanimous consent of those who profess them. To elevate Metaphysics to the rank of the mentioned sciences is an ethically praiseworthy try, although it is debatable insofar as its validity is concerned. The previous question is now posed in these words: Is Metaphysics possible as science?

It is well-known that the historical knowledge of the philosopher of K nigsberg is quite scarce. It does not go beyond Leibnizian rationalism - impoverished and spread by Wolff -, the empiricism of Hume and Newtonian physics. This could make us think that the problems aroused by Kant are similar to those which bothered Leibniz. The comparison of both authors shows effectively that the Kantian doctrine is not anything but a probing into the problems posed by his predecessor and an answer to those questions which the latter has left open. For example, the Kantian question: "How are the sciences (synthetic a priori judgements) possible?" refers to the Leibnizian problem: "How are the universal and necessary truths possible?" Notwithstanding, one particular point separates them: these truths be long, according to Leibniz, as much to Mathematics, Physics, Metaphysics as to morals. Both authors have then a common concern: that of discovering the foundation of Metaphysics. However, in Leibniz the Kantian prejudice of not considering Metaphysics as science is absent.

It can be said, without fear of exaggeration, that the Kantian solution is the consequence - certainly not wanted by its author - of the Leibnizian solution brought to its extreme. Perhaps we find ourselves before one of those sporadic cases in which the maxim enunciated bravely by Kant is fulfilled: "Any philosopher understands his prede cessors better than they themselves". This is reflected with particular clarity in determinate questions.

For Professor Verneaux, in the question of the origin of knowl edge, "Kant follows Leibniz purely and simply. He makes his own, under the new name of 'originating acquisition', the theory of the virtual innatism of the ideas."[2]

A scholar of Leibniz, Tonelli, suggests that "the Kantian revolu tion took as one of its central characteristics the rejection of the sensibility as the only source of knowledge. It is then easy to infer that Kant's reading of the New Essay Concerning Human Understanding (written by Leibniz) could be one of the elements which pushed him to adopt his new solution"[3]

Entering into the sphere of the probable that the reading of the New Essays has contributed in a great way to waken up the dogmatic dream of the creator of transcendental idealism, it can seem that this affirmation is adventurous; but from the chronological point of view, it does not lack foundation. Written in 1703-1705, the New Essays were not published until 1765, in the Raspe edition. The philosophical works that appeared during the successive years after 1765 showed that their authors did not understand with in depth the Leibnizian doctrine. Only Kant understood if fully. And the Dissertatio was given birth in 1770. With this, one does not pretend to affirm that Leibnizian innatism is Kant's only source of influence. The innatism of Crusius also plays an important role. Although Kant did not accept at first moment this moderate innatism, the knowledge of this doctrine could have called his attention by its analogy with that of Leibniz. The combined influence of both could be an important element in the famous philosophical revolution of 1770.[4]

The questions formulated by Leibniz and Kant do not constitute an absolute novelty. They are present in the previous philosophical systems; they were posed already by Plato, four centuries before Christ, in this form: "Why the universal and necessary truths are". A question which for him gives rise to all intellectual development.

The Platonic answer - the reminiscence - has great influence on the innate ideas of Leibniz. According to the doctrine of the reminis cence, the universal and necessary truths are in the soul in an uncon scious way even before its earthly existence. These truths remain hidden until they become conscious in a determinate moment by a series of perceptions which unleash in the soul an activity of comparison, combination and conclusion. Therefore, these truths are no more than remembrances of something forgotten, and their univer sality and necessity are precisely founded on their independence from experience.

St Augustine of Hippo, although influenced by Plato, could not accept the preexistence of the soul and rejects therefore the doctrine of the reminiscence, but he is aware of the fact that the sensible knowl edge cannot give origin to the universal and necessary truths, because the object of the first ones are the changeable realities. The Bishop of Hippo proposes to us then his famous solution: the divine illumination. The soul finds or recognizes in itself the universal and necessary truths because God is its interior Master. More intimate to It than its own intimity, the soul consults with the immutable Truth the knowledge which it acquires, and in It, it finds the scientific truths. In the same way as the sun illuminates the corporeal things, God is the source of the spiritual light which makes the reason understand the scientific truths. If the sun is the source of light, God is the source of truth. It is important to take note that St Augustine has recourse to the divinity only to justify the universality and necessity of the truths, but not to obtain the content. He avoids in this way the danger of incurring in a material innatism, that is to say, an innatism of mental content.

This question also called the attention of the Arab philosophers, among them, Avicenna. Influenced by the neo-platonists and Greek commentators of Aristotle, he affirmed - with a doctrine in conformity with that of Plato - that the One, First Principle, creates the First Intel ligence from which the rest proceeds by successive emanations, the last one being a Separated Agent Intellect common to all men. This Agent Intellect is the dator formarum, that is to say, the one who gives the form to the material beings and the knowledge of them in men. In this way, the universality and necessity of the truths are justified.[5]

In the opposite direction, we find the Aristotelic - Thomistic thinkers, who grant man the power which the Platonic line places out side of him. It is enough for us to recall briefly here the position of St Thomas of Aquinas who, following Aristotle, sustains that each man has his own agent intellect. It corresponds to it to justify the universal ity and necessity of the truths thanks to its capacity to abstract - and therefore to educe - the essences of the things starting from particular knowledge proceeding from the senses.

The current of thought defending the existence of universal and necessary truths are followed by Ockhamist nominalism which denies them stricto sensu. Ockham centers his attention in the particular beings, since for him there is no more reality than the singular or individual, as experience attests it. Consequently, there is no general knowledge. Nevertheless the experience itself seems to indicate that there are terms which designate general concepts. Ockham does not see in this more than the consequence of the limited human knowledge, which does not distinguish various objects among themselves. In principle, we should designate each thing or each real fact with a different word, since a common nature does not exist. In practice, because of economy of words, we put a multitude of similar things or facts under a same term; but being conscious of the fact that that "general" word only has extension but no comprehension.

The nominalist doctrine was later on adopted in its fullness by the empiricists like Locke, Hume, etc. Locke, for example, was one of those who attacked most strongly the doctrine of innate ideas, above all in his work Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

As a reaction against the empiricism of Locke, Leibniz wrote the Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain answering point by point the Essay of the English. For Leibniz, the existence of the universal and necessary truths is something evident. In order to solve the ques tion of how they are possible, he has recourse to innatism because the truths in question cannot come from the things themselves since expe-rience only gives us particular and contingent knowledge. Neither does it seem to him plausible that there be a continuous divine illumi nation. The Leibnizian solution, as he himself admits, is very much influenced by Platonism, although he declares that he is not in total agreement with the theory of the reminiscence.

Innatism, as a solution to the critical problem, corresponds to the psychological point of view. Nevertheless, we do not lack the corre sponding solution in a transcendental posture: the Kantian apriorism.

The doctrine of Kant sustains principally that transcendental knowledge or a priori knowledge is that which deals with objects in general, different from the empirical objects, that is to say, that in which all the objects - real or possible - converge and have to converge. His thought is quite well-known and it is enough for our purpose to remember that the matter of thought is the sensation, which gives us chaotic, amorphous phenomena. These phenomena are elaborated or ordered in two levels: first in the sensible level by the a priori forms of this level (space and time); afterwards in the intellectual level by the twelve categories, which are also a priori forms. The universality and the necessity of the knowledge are justified by the aprioristic forms, which do not come from the experience. As we can expect, the Kantian apriorism leads us to the conclusion that we only know the thing-in-me but we do not know the thing-in-itself because the form is given by the mind and it is not drawn from the thing in the reality.

Finally comes Hegel who introduces the absolute idealism which denies totally the existence of the external reality. For him, the only real things are the ideas in the human mind. The external reality is nothing more than a projection of the ideas in our mind. In this way, he converts the human mind into the creator of the things in the reality.

This brief historical panorama indicates that the problem of the universal is something perennial. The only correct solution is the one which can maintain the proper connection between the sense knowl edge and the intellectual knowledge without falling into the extremes.

The nominalists and empiricists on one hand are correct in maintaining that the only source of our knowledge is reality, our expe rience. Nevertheless, they commit the error of stopping our knowledge in the sensible level by denying the existence of universal truths. The innatists and idealists on the other hand are correct in distinguishing and accepting the jump between the sense knowledge and the universal and necessary truths; however they fall into the mistake of driving a wedge between them by claiming that the human mind is not a tabula rasa but rather it has inborn knowledge which does not come from the senses.

From here, we can see that the only correct solution to solve the critical question (How are the universal and necessary truths possible?) is the Aristotelic solution, maintained also by St Thomas of Aquinas, which affirms that each human mind has the capacity to abstract from the sensible data the essences of things in the reality; in this way, what we know is always the real nature of things in the reality (the things-in-themselves, not the things-in-me) but at the same time they do not remain in the particular level thanks to the power of the mind to abstract, to leave behind the sensible and keep only the intelligible. The Aristotelic-Thomistic solution is the only one which fulfills at the same time two essential goals: maintaining the distance between sense knowledge and the universal and necessary truths but without cutting the connection between them. That distance is important because thanks to it men are distinguished from the irrational beings, and that connection is important because it is the only natural way by which the truth of the universal and necessary knowledge can be saved.

As a conclusion we can say that the Aristotelic-Thomistic solu tion is the correct solution to the critical problem (the problem of the universal) because it is the solution which respects the true nature of man, a creature who does not only have a material body but also a spiritual soul; whereas the error of empiricism is to degrade man to the level of mere animal (i.e., without spiritual soul) and the mistake of idealism is to raise man to the level of God (i.e., forgetting his condi tion as a creature).

[1]KANT I., Cr tica de la razon pura, Vol.I, Trad. by MORENTE M.G. (Madrid: Liber a General de Victoriano Su rez 1928) 99.

[2]VERNEAUX R., Cr tica de la "Cr tica de la razon pura" (Madrid: Ed. Rialp 1978) 155.

[3]TONELLI G., Leibniz on Innate Ideas and the Early Reactions to the Publication of the Nouveaux Essais (1765) in J. Hist. Philoso 1974 (12) 437.

[4]Cf. Idem, 453.

[5]For more details, see HERNANDEZ M.C., Historia del pensamiento en el mundo isla mico, Vol.2 (Madrid: Ed. Alianza 1981) 193s..

作者：斐林丰 Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti

The Gospel and The Gospels:

The Four Gospels, or The Fourfold Gospel?

The Gospel of ..., or The Gospel According To...?

Introduction

"You cannot see the wood for the trees!" This proverb comes often to mind when reading exegetical literature of the Bible, especially the kind of literature that stems from the historico-critical exegetical tradition. Historico-critical exegesis in its now multicentenarian history has produced a curious mixture of epoch-making exegetical breakthroughs and downright exegetical nonsense. A recent document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, entitled "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church", has reaffirmed the enduring value of the historico-critical method, while at the same time warning against an uncritical use of this critical method. In this article I shall try to present in a popularizing fashion some results of this method with regard to the formation of the literature we know as the Four Gospels. In so doing I hope to show how the historico-critical method in itself is not inimical to a positive assessment of the Gospel witness. At the same time I hope to provide an insight into the New Testament ground of the fundamental challenge facing the Church of all times: this challenge is called "evangelization", is called "Gospel", i.e. the presentation of the mystery of Jesus to all human beings, even to all creation (Mark 16:15).

1. "Gospel", a Word with a History: From the One Gospel to the Four Gospels

Nowadays when we hear the word "Gospel" we immediately think of the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But it has not always been so. In the first 100 years of the Church's life, the word "Gospel" did not immediately suggest the thought of a book or of a set of books. What was the meaning of this word then? From about A.D. 30 to about A.D. 130 this word referred not to a book but to a piece of news, a piece of good news that made the round of the then known world transmitted by word of mouth.

A news is a report or announcement regarding a recent event. A good news is an excited report or announcement regarding a recent happy event. So a first century Christian, sharing his faith in Jesus with someone else, would say: "I have a good news to tell you, a news that can fill your life with meaning and joy." The two words "good news" actually translate the single word "Gospel", so that this first century Christian could also be quoted as saying: "I have a Gospel to tell you."

At the beginning of the life of the Church, therefore, the word "Gospel" actually meant a piece of good news, referring to a happy event. Throughout the New Testament (including the Four Gospels) this word has this meaning and only this meaning, with the following three minor variations: (1) 'a' good news, as in Gal 1:6: "I am astonished that you are so quickly [...] turning to a different gospel"; (2) 'the' good news, as in Rom 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel"; (3) 'the announcement of' the good news, as in Rom 16:25: "God [...] is able to strengthen you according to my gospel"; or as in Mark 8:35: "Those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it." In all three cases what is envisaged is the oral transmission of a piece of news.

It is important to recover this original meaning of the word "Gospel" in order to appreciate the treasure hidden in the four books that we call "Gospels". It is bearing this meaning that this word appears at the head of the Gospel of Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Paraphrased, this lapidary phrase could sound as follows: "The happy news, that is, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Son of God. This is how it all began." When Mark wrote the word "Gospel", that is how he understood it. That is also how Matthew, and Luke, and John, and Paul, and Peter understood it. Thus understood, this word has only one referent: the person of Jesus, the mystery hidden in the person of Jesus who was born, died, and rose for us, the mystery of the Immanuel, of the God-with-us, the mystery of the Kingship of God, the mystery of man's radical salvation by the gratuitous initiative of God the Father of Jesus in the Spirit. The word "Gospel", however, refers to this person and this mystery as "announced", as "proclaimed". So the original meaning of the word "Gospel" comes very close to the meaning of the modern and more cumbersome word "evangelization", if by "evangelization" we mean first and foremost the proclamation of the mystery of God in Christ Jesus through the power of the Spirit.

When, then, did our more usual meaning of the word "Gospel" appear? When was this word first used to denote not an oral act of transmission of news but a written text containing this news? When did the word "Gospel" start to mean the four books that record Jesus' words and deeds? Such a use of the word "Gospel" can be first documented starting with St Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165 A.D.). In his Apologia Prima pro Christianis Justin mentions the Apostles and the "Memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels". This seems to be the first time in the history of the Church that the word "Gospel" is used to indicate the books written by the four evangelists. Since then, this meaning has become prevalent, making it difficult for us to give due attention to the original meaning of the word "Gospel". In its original meaning, the word "Gospel" had one single referent, the "One Gospel", the Good News of Jesus passed on by word of mouth from person to person. In its later meaning the word "Gospel" had four different referents, namely the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch the former meaning is still evident, as when he writes to the Philadelphians: "I am clinging for refuge to the Gospel message as though to the incarnate Christ, and to the Apostles as the collective ministry of the Church." Yet, a trace of the original "One Gospel" meaning is preserved in the Liturgy of the Mass whenever the deacon starts proclaiming the Gospel by saying: "A reading from the Holy Gospel ACCORDING TO...", and not "A reading from the Holy Gospel OF...". When saying, for example, "the Holy Gospel according to Matthew", we are using the word "Gospel" in a sense that does not refer to the book written by Matthew, but refers instead to the good news contained in that book. In this phrase the word "Matthew" refers to the book. Unfortunately, the true meaning of the phrase "the Holy Gospel according to..." has been obliterated in the Chinese translation of this liturgical text.

What I propose to do in the following sections is this: we shall explore the content of the original oral "Gospel", the One Gospel, and try to show its relationship to the content of the written Gospels, the Four Gospels. In doing so, I hope to help myself and others to see not only the trees but also the wood when reading or listening to the Gospel.

2. The One Gospel: Synchronic Approach to the Original Meaning of "Gospel"

The original oral Gospel can rightly be called the One Gospel because, notwithstanding the variety of emphases on the part of the various Apostles, the word of Paul stands true: "Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe." (1 Cor 15:11)

To begin with, let us first take an overall view of the original content of the One "Gospel", as we can derive from a synthetic look at the whole New Testament, including the Four Gospels. We do this in order to supplement the historico-critical method with concerns which are at once traditional and contemporary. That is, we try to supplement the diachronic method of exegesis with the synchronic method. At this stage, we shall limit ourselves to outline synchronically the overall impression one obtains in contacting the New Testament texts regarding the "One Gospel", the essential core of the Good News. In doing this it will not be necessary to use a strictly chronological approach to the New Testament writings. It will suffice to choose some representative expressions from the Gospels and Acts.

"Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means, 'God is with us'" (Matt 1:23).

"Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).

"We have found the Messiah" (John 1:41).

"We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth" (John 1:45).

"Never has anyone spoken like this!" (John 7:46).

"Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?"(Mark 4:41).

"You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (Matt 16:16).

"Truly this man was God's Son!" (Mark 15:39).

"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen" (Luke 24:5).

"My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28).

"Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36).

"No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known" (John 1:18).

2.1 The Gospel is News

Something extraordinary has happened. Something unheard-of. God has broken out of his unphatomable mystery. The unapproachable God has approached us. The Word who was in the beginning, the Word who was with God, the Word who was God, has become flesh and has pitched his tent among us. This is too extraordinary an event for us to remain indifferent to it. This is too unheard-of a fact to be kept secret. This news in its newness and extraordinariness by far surpasses anything that the Old Testament could have led us to expect. "In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph 3:5). The prophets meant here are the prophets of the New Testament, the bearers ofthe Gospel message. As for the prophets of the Old Testament, they foretold much about the coming salvation. Their expectation took on a plurality of forms: salvation through the promised Messiah-son-of-David, salvation through the promised Prophet, salvation through Elijah, salvation through the promised Coming One, salvation through (or for?) the Suffering Servant... (cf. John 1:21) The nearest approach prophetic revelation made to the actual reality of salvation can be found in the basic message of Deutero-Isaiah and of Daniel, the message of the coming Kingship of God. However, the actual happening of salvation in Jesus Christ went beyond even Deutero-Isaiah's and Daniel's apocalyptic expectation. Paul's word remains true: "In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind." The salvation given us through Jesus not only fulfils all Old Testament expectations and promises, but it does so in a totally unforseen, wonderfully transcendent, manner. The Good News of Jesus Christ is really "news".

2.2 The Gospel is Good News

The Good News of Jesus Christ is also really a "good" news.

This extraordinary happening, this unheard-of fact is the news that each human heart deep down desires to hear. It is the news that alone can quench the longing of the human heart for communion with the source of its being, God. "For Thou hast made us for Thee and our heart is unquiet till it finds its rest in Thee." (St. Augustine) In the West this famous dictum of St Augustine expresses powerfully humankind's thirst for God. In the East, we may quote Confucius's equally powerful dictum: "If a man in the morning hear the right way, he may die in the evening without regret." The news of Jesus fills man's heart with joy and peace. This news reveals the supremely wonderful ultimate destiny of man: an unimaginably intimate and yet personal union with God. This news overturns from top to bottom humanity's view of life. As Miguel de Unamuno said: "Without Thee, Jesus, we are born only to die. With Thee, we die to be born." This news gives man strength to live up to his or her ultimate destiny in the face of immense trials and untold suffering. "The things that have now been announced to you through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven - things into which angels long to look!" (1 Pet 1:12), through these things "you rejoice, even if now for a little while you have had to suffer various trials [...]" (1 Pet 1:6). The Gospel is the Good News par excellence: "The Good News of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God" (cf. Mark 1:1).

3. The One Gospel: Diachronic Approach to the Original Meaning of "Gospel"

Now we shall approach diachronically the original meaning of the word "Gospel", trying as far as possible to start from the earliest appearances of this word in the New Testament. In doing so we shall be using the historico-critical method to test the validity of the overall synchronic impression outlined above.

The very first time this word appears (in 1 Thess 1:5), it means the One Gospel, simply the Good News as proclaimed by the Twelve, by Paul and by the other apostles.

The word Gospel is extremely frequent in the Letters of Paul. It occurs 60 times. It is possible that it is Paul that made this word become a key expression of the faith of the primitive Church. Adding up all other occurrences of this word in the New Testament, we obtain the meagre total of 16. "Gospel" is a Pauline word. Before him Peter and the other apostles probably simply spoke of "news" (aggelion) or "announcement" (kerygma) without adding the qualifier "good" (eu-aggelion). Where Peter used to say: "I have a news to share with you", Paul would say: "I have a GOOD news to share with you."

Most of the time, Paul uses the word "Gospel" absolutely, without adding any qualification. Sometimes, however, Paul also refers to it as "the Good News of God" or "the Good News of Jesus Christ". The OF of "the Good News of God" is a subjective genitive. That is to say, by "the Good News of God" Paul means that this good news originates from God. It is a gift of God to humankind. The OF of "the Good News of Jesus Christ" is an objective genitive. That is to say, by "the Good News of Jesus Christ" Paul means that the content of this good news is Jesus himself. Sometimes Paul speaks of "my Gospel" or "our Gospel" meaning: the Good News which I announce. Without exception Paul uses this word to mean the Christ event and its transcendent significance for mankind as proclaimed by the Apostles.

3.1 The Essential Core of the One Gospel in 1 Cor 15:1

It is a well-known fact that most of the literary activity of the primitive Church can be classified under the following three headings: kerygmatic literature, didactic literature, and parakletic literature. Kerygma is the announcement of the Good News. Didache is the explanation of the Good News. Paraklesis is the exhortation of the Good News. Paul's letters are mainly didactic and parakletic in character, and so only indirectly relevant to the topic we are discussing. This notwithstanding, there are many short kerygmatic references to the One Gospel in Paul's letters. Usually Paul just refers to the content of the One Gospel without expressly stating that this is the original announcement of the Good News. In at least one instance, however, Paul at the same time mentions the Good News and describes the basic content of this Good News. I am thinking of the key passage in 1 Cor 15:1-5: "Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you - unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he has been raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."

Many biblical scholars agree that the last five clauses of this passage reproduce an extremely early profession of faith of the Aramaic-speaking Christian Church in Jerusalem or in Damascus. Paul has not composed these five clauses out of his head, but on the contrary has quoted from memory a faith formula current in the primitive Church. However, it is probably Paul's original contribution to describe the content of these five clauses as a "good news", as a Gospel. For us sinful people, Jesus' atoning death is good news indeed. For us mortal people, Jesus' burial and resurrection are good news indeed. But why should the death and resurrection of the man Jesus Christ be so crucial for the whole humankind?

The answer to this question is only indirectly expressed in the ancient faith formula of 1 Cor 15:3b-5. This formula refers to Jesus by means of the title "Christ", that is, Messiah, the Anointed One. This title expresses well Jesus' significance for the people of Israel, while it is insufficient to express Jesus' significance for all other peoples. Jesus' significance for all peoples is grounded in his being the transcendent only-begotten Son of God. This title is present in another most ancient kerygmatic formula of the primitive Aramaic-speaking Palestinian Church, the formula with which Paul opens his Letter to the Romans. This formula starts and concludes with a reference to Jesus as the Son of God. An attentive reading of this formula shows that in the opening reference Jesus is referred to as the-Son-of-God-in-himself, while in the closing reference Jesus is referred to as the Son-of-God-for-us: "the Gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord..." Rom 1:3-4). Jesus is significant not only for Israel, but for man as such because he is not only a man but he is also the transcendent Son of God. As such, insofar as his eternal being transcends all time and space, he is intimately related to each human being and to the whole of human history: "in him all things in heaven and on earth were created [...], all things have been created through him and for him" (Col 1:16). The kerygmatic formula of 1 Cor 15:3b-5 does not state expressly the transcendent nature of Jesus' person. However, in the context of chapter 15 of 1 Cor it is clear that the "Christ" mentioned in 15:3 is "the Son of God" mentioned in the other kerygmatic formula of Romans. This is borne out by what Paul says in the same chapter of 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 15:28): "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all". Because Jesus is "the Son himself", he to whom "God has put all things in subjection" (1 Cor 15:27), his death and resurrection have decisive salvific significance for each and all human beings. Each human being comes into existence, continues in existence, and fulfills one's own existence from, in, and for the Incarnate Son of God Jesus Christ our Lord. Within this good news which is Jesus-the-Christ, Jesus-the-Son-himself, we can "stand", we can build our lives without fear of ever being reduced to shame.

3.2 The Full Content of the One Gospel in the Pre-Pauline Kerygmatic Formulas.

1 Cor 15:3b-5 and Rom 1:3-4 are not the only places where Paul quotes from memory kerygmatic faith profession formulas deriving from the Aramaic-speaking primitive Church. Limiting our enquiry to Paul's early and major letters, there are at least the following instances of pre-Pauline kerygmatic material included by Paul into his letters. In chronological order: 1 Thess 1:9b-10; 4:14; 1 Cor 15:3b-5; Phil 2:5b-11; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 1:1b, 4; 4:4a; Rom 1:1b-4; 10,8b-9; 14:9, 10b. If we collect carefully all the data present in these earliest Christian professions of faith, we obtain a fairly detailed presentation of the full content of the One Gospel.

The good news (Gospel!) from God (Rom 1:1)

the good news which we proclaim (1 Cor 15:1)

the word of faith which we proclaim (Rom 10:8b)

　

which God promised beforehand

through his prophets in the holy scriptures (Rom 1:2)

　

regarding God's Son (1 Thess 1:10; Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4a)

who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality

with God, as something to be exploited (Phil 2:6)

　

sent by God when the fullness of time had come (Gal 4:4a)

　

according to the flesh a descendant of David (Rom 1:3)

born of a woman (Gal 4:4a)

emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness (Phil 2:7a)

　

Jesus (1 Thess 1:10; Phil 2:10)

Christ (1 Cor 15:3)

Jesus Christ (Phil 2:11; Gal 1:1, 3; Rom 1:4)

Christ Jesus (Phil 2:5b)

　

who died (1 Thess 4:14; 1 Cor 15:3; Rom 14:9; implicitly in 1 Thess 1:10; Gal 1:1; Rom 1:4; 10:9)

who gave himself up (Gal 1:4)

being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross (Phil 2:7b-8)

for our sins (1 Cor 15:3; Gal 1:4)

in order to deliver us from the present evil age (Gal 1:4)

　

according to the will of our God and Father (Gal 1:4)

according to the scriptures (1 Cor 15:4)

　

who was buried (1 Cor 15:4)

　

who on the third day (1 Cor 15:4)

　

according to the scriptures (1 Cor 15:4)

has been raised up (1 Cor 15:4)

was raised up

by the living and true (1 Thess 1:9-10) God (Gal 1:1)

by the Father (Gal 1:1)

rose up (1 Thess 4:14)

lived again (Rom 14:9)

　

from the dead (1 Thess 1:10; Gal 1:1; Rom 1:4)

　

God highly exalted him (Phil 2:9)

　

and gave him the name that is above every name (Phil 2:9)

Lord (Phil 2:11; Rom 10:9)

Our Lord (Rom 1:4)

Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9)

according to the Spirit of holiness (Rom 1:4)

declared the Son of God in power (Rom 1:4)

who rescues us from the wrath that is coming (1 Thess 1:10)

　

who appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (1 Cor 15:5)

　

who will come from heaven (1 Thess 1:10)

　

before whose judgment seat

seat of God (Rom 14:10)

seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10)

all of us must appear (2 Cor 5:10)

must stand (Rom 14:10)

so that each one may receive good or evil,

according to what he has done in the body (2 Cor 5:10),

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2,10-11)

　

Therefore, you turned to God from idols (1 Thess 1:9b)

If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord

and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,

you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)

　

The analysis of the pre-Pauline kerygmatic fragments present in Paul's letters offers us an extremely rich presentation of the basic content of the One Gospel, the original Good News. This content can be summed up (to use a later terminology) in the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God become Son of man and the Paschal Mystery of his Passover. Our analysis is the fruit of the careful critical work of many exegetes who have been able to detect these early kerygmatic formulas. By adding up these formulas we have reconstructed the earliest Creed of the Church. In it the Apostolic Creed used in our contemporary catechesis and liturgy is already visible. It would be uncritical, therefore, as well as untrue, to think that the fundamental Christian faith profession of Jesus as Incarnate Son of God and Dead-Risen Paschal Son of man is a later development. The earliest New Testament literary data bear witness to this faith profession as the earliest Christian self-understanding in faith. This Christian self-understanding is ultimately based on the fact of Jesus' own self-understanding as the only-begotten Son of God and Son of man.

3.3 Three Characteristics of the One Gospel Which Are Relevant to the Four Gospels

3.3.1 The Unhesitating Affirmation of the Divinity of Jesus

It should be emphasized that the affirmation of the divinity of Jesus is an integral part of this earliest expression of the Christian faith. Christ who is from all eternity the Son-of-God-himself becomes the Son-of-God-for-us through his Incarnation-Passion-Death-Resurrection-Exaltation. There has been no time when the Christian faith did not unhesitatingly assert the divinity of Jesus, just as there has been no time when Christian faith did not unhesitatingly assert Jesus' humanity. Words like "nature" and "person" may be later developments. But the mysterious reality which these words try to express with precision is not a later development. The wonder of the Good News lies precisely in this unheard-of paradox: the eternal Son of God has emptied himself to become the temporal Son of man, to become the Immanuel, the "God-with-us". He has emptied himself in taking upon himself our finite human nature. He has emptied himself in taking upon himself our death, even death on a cross! But this self-emptying of his has become our fullness, a fullness stronger than sin and death, a fullness that carries man within the very fullness of God's most intimate life. This is the One Gospel, this is the Good News!

From the first day of the Gospel proclamation, Christian faith never detached the affirmation of Jesus' messiahship from the affirmation of his divine sonship. The original Christian proclamation is not "Jesus is the Messiah!", but "Jesus is Lord!" (1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11). To say that Jesus is the Messiah is not to say the most important thing about him. "Messiah" is only a functional term. It expresses one aspect of the mission entrusted by God to Jesus, the aspect that fulfils one kind of Old Testament expectation. The title "Lord", instead, says much more than "Messiah". "Lord" includes "Messiah", while "Messiah" does not include "Lord". "Lord" is also a functional title, but a functional title based on an identity title. The most important thing about Jesus is his identity. Jesus' identity is connoted by the title "Son". The functional title that corresponds to the identity title "Son" is the title "Lord" (kyrios). "Lord" is a divine name. "Lord" is the standard Septuagint translation for the Hebrew divine name YHWH. But while YHWH is the proper name of the God of Israel, "Lord" adds to this proper-name-meaning a functional shade. That is, by calling God "Lord" we assert his kingship over nature and over history. Hence, the title "Lord" is both an identity title and a functional title. In both cases this title includes a divine connotation. Now the earliest strata of the New Testament attribute this divine title to a historical man, Jesus of Nazareth.

In Acts, an alternative form of proclamation combines "Lord" and "Messiah", thus expressing Jesus significance both for Israel and for man as such: "Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36). A third form of proclamation combines the titles "Messiah" and "Son of God": "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:30-31). Also in the Gospel of John, a fourth form of proclamation appears: "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). This last form is not essentially different from the other three. In fact, the title "Lord" includes the title "Messiah", and the title "God" means Jesus' unique divine sonship. (Cf. John 1:1)

The above emphasis is important today when the exegesis of the four Gospels sometimes seems to obscure this basic fact, namely, that the four Gospels bear unhesitating witness to the divinity of Jesus. By obscuring this fact, some contemporary exegetes undermine the most important dimension of the One Gospel, of the original Good News. It is not the four Gospels that have added the recognition of Jesus' divinity onto the original Good News. On the contrary, it is the original Good News that has transmitted this essential content to the four Gospels. When the Gospel of John says: "And the Word was God" (John 1:1), John is not distancing himself from the original Good News. On the contrary, he is drawing water from the well of the original Good News. The pre-Pauline Christological hymn of Philippians had already said that much in different words. The primitive Jerusalem Church was persecuted by the Jewish authorities not because this Church proclaimed the messiahship of Jesus, but because it proclaimed the divine sonship of Jesus as revealed by his death and resurrection! The much vaunted development of New Testament Christology has often been badly misunderstood. New Testament Christology develops not in its essential content (Jesus' divinity and humanity) but in its meeting new challenges and new needs as the Gospel proclamation progressively engulfs different cultures and traditions.

Given Jesus' divinity, it is easy to understand how the "Good News of the Kingdom of God" (Matt 4:23) and the "Good News of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1) are actually one and the same thing. The former expression indicates the main content of Jesus preaching in the Synoptic Gospels. The latter expression indicates the content of Jesus' preaching in the Gospel of John and the content of the Apostles' preaching in Acts and in the Letters. Because of his divine and human nature, Jesus is the kingdom of God among us (Origen). It would be unreasonable, therefore, to postulate a contradiction between the Good News as preached by Jesus in the Synoptics, on the one hand, and in John, on the other. Or between the Good News as preached by Jesus himself, on the one hand, and by the Apostles, on the other. The One Gospel is essentially the same, whether on Jesus' lips or the Apostles', whether on Paul's or Peter's lips.

3.3.2 The Centrality of the Paschal Mystery

It will have been noticed that the One Gospel concentrates heavily on the paschal event of Jesus' passion-death-resurrection-exaltation. This feature of the One Gospel helps us to understand another major feature of the four Gospels, namely, the immense disproportion with which the various events in the life of Jesus are narrated. The first 30 years of Jesus' life are dealt with briefly in only two chapters of Matthew and Luke (non ein Mark and John). The 3 years of public ministry are dealt with somewhat more at length. But the lion's share of attention is given to the last 3 days of Jesus' life on earth: the days of his passion-death-resurrection. Why should the four Gospels focus their attention so unevenly? The answer lies in the nature of the One Gospel, of the original Good News, which concentrated its attention on the Paschal Event of the Son of God and Son of man at the end of Jesus' life.

This exceptional focussing brought to bear upon the paschal mystery was aptly expressed by Martin Kaehler when he described the four Gospels as "passion narratives with extended introductions" Of course, this can be better expressed by saying: "The Gospels are PASCHAL narratives with extended introductions". There never existed a passion narrative without a resurrection narrative as its conclusion. Mark 16:1-8 is the only natural conclusion of chapters 14-15. Without this conclusion, chapters 14-15 become meaningless, and so does the whole Gospel. The wonder of the Good News lies precisely here: the Son of God, the source of life, has undergone death, insolidarity with mortal man; but in the process, thanks to this divine solidarity, death has been swallowed up by life. (cf. 1Cor 15:54; 2 Cor 5:4) Divine life defeats human death. This is the essence of the Good News. The earliest kerygmatic fragments in the New Testament do not disconnect the fact of the resurrection from the fact of the passion and death. Consequently, it must be stressed that the culmination of the four Gospels is not a passion narrative but a paschal narrative, beginning with the anointing at Bethany and ending with the account of the empty-tomb, the resurrection announcement and at least one appearance narrative (or a hint of such an appearance, as in Mark 16:1-8). Now what God has united, let no man separate.

This One Gospel’s second characteristic (the centrality of the paschal mystery) has an inner connexion with the first characteristic (the unhesitating affirmation of the divinity of Jesus). In fact, the divinity of Jesus is revealed to the Twelve and the women precisely through the paschal experience of Jesus. Within this paschal experience a) Jesus bears solemn witness to his human-divine identity before the highest Jewish anthority (the high priest and the sanhedrin) during the most important night of the Jewish year (Passover night) in the most holy Jewish place (the holy city of Jerusalem); b) Jesus is condemned to death precisely for this solemn witness to his own identity, judged as blasphemous by the high priest and the sanhedrin; c) Jesus dies as a blasphemer before the eyes of all Israel; d) God by the resurrection of Jesus proves Jesus' solemn witness to his own human-divine identity as true, and therefore worthy of belief; e) the Twelve and the women, faced with the reality of the risen Jesus, see in it the God-given sign of the truth of Jesus' self-witness and so believe in his divine-human identity: "My Lord and my God".

3.3.3 The Integration of History and Faith.

The third characteristic of the One Gospel is that its essential content is made up of mutually integrating historical facts and theological facts, historical statements and faith statements, reports framed by spatio-temporal indications and interpretations spanning the total mystery of God and man.

List of the historical facts

　

Promised beforehand through the prophets

in the scriptures,

a descendant of David,

born of a woman,

Jesus,

who died,

who was buried,

who on the third day was raised up,

who appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve,

who will come again.

　

List of the theological facts

　

God's Son,

Christ,

(who died) for our sins,

according to the scriptures,

who has been raised up by the living and true God from the dead,

thus being designated the Son of God in power,

liberating us from the wrath to come,

who will come from heaven,

before whose judgment seat we must all appear.

If you confess and believe,

you will be saved.

　

Clearly, then, the One Gospel is made up of historically grounded faith statements or, conversely, of theologically meaningful historical and trans-historical events. Two sentences appear in both lists, the sentences expressing the resurrection and the second coming. These two events are both historical and meta-historical. They are both within history and beyond history. They are actually the limit of history. Because of this peculiar nature of theirs they appear in both lists. The union of the title Son of God with the personal name Jesus reveals that the identity of Jesus of Nazareth also has both an historical and a trans-historical, a temporal-human and eternal-divine dimension.

This double historical-theological character of the One Gospel is shared by the Four Gospels. It has been customary through the Christian centuries to call the Four Gospels "histories". It has been fashionable in the last 100 years to deny that the Four Gospels are "histories" and to state that they are mainly theological compositions. From our analysis it is clear that both the traditional and the modern way of speaking are defective. The true nature of the One Gospel and of the Four Gospels is best expressed by the following combination of terms: theological histories, historical theologies. No member of this binomial can be renounced. On the one hand, the Christian faith is firmly rooted in historical facts. Without this root it is not Christian faith. "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14a). On the other hand, Gospel history is transfigured by faith, because in history the Christian faith sees the Lord of history at work. "We have seen his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14b)

Also this third characteristic of the One Gospel has an inner connexion with the first and second characteristics. The One Gospel is both historical and theological because Jesus is both God and man, as revealed in his paschal event.

Given this threefold coincidence between the One Gospel and the Four Gospels, it is clear that the One Gospel is faithfully preserved in all four written Gospels. There is more continuity than discontinuity between the One Gospel and the Four Gospels. It is to stress this all-pervading underlying continuity that the Fathers of the Church preferred to speak of the "Fourfold Gospel" rather than of the "Four Gospels". The Fourfold Gospel: this is a very apt way of expressing the relationship between the One Gospel and the Four Gospels, a relationship characterized by a wonderful basic unity, a unity perceived by faith, and by reason open to faith. Contemporary exegesis, somewhat inebriated by its advances in form criticism and redaction criticism, should be more careful not to be blind to this essential unity of the Gospels.

3.4 A Confirmation of the Pre-Pauline One Gospel from Acts.

In the book of Acts Luke has recorded 7 great kerygmatic discourses: 1. Acts 2:14-36; 2. Acts 3:12-26; 3. Acts 4:,8-12; 4. Acts 5:29-32; 5. Acts 10:34-43; 6. Acts 13:23-41; 7. Acts 17:22-31. These seven discourses recorded by Luke have been aptly described by Martin Dibelius as "summaries of summaries" of the actual discourses pronounced by Peter and Paul.

The first five discourses are spoken by Peter, the last two by Paul. Peter and Paul are also the only two persons in Acts recorded by Luke as making use of the word "Gospel". Peter uses this word at the Jerusalem Council: "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers." (Acts 15:7). Paul uses the word "Gospel" in his farewell discourse to the Ephesian presbyters: "I do not count my life of any value to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the good news of God's grace." (Acts 20:24) "The good news of God's grace": what a wonderful expression of the One Gospel!

If we compare these discourses of Peter and Paul in Acts with the pre-Pauline kerygmatic formulas found in the letters of Paul, we realize that the content of the discourses in Acts is essentially the same as the content of the kerygmatic formulas. There is the same unhesitating assertion of Jesus' divinity, the same concentration on the Paschal Event of the Son of God and Son of man, the same integration of historical and theological facts, the same convergence of concrete data and vast interpretations. We may try to summarize the content of these seven kerygmatic discourses as follows:

1. The age of fulfillment foretold by the prophets has dawned, the Messianic Age, the Last Age, the Decisive Age of Salvation (Acts 2:16-23, 25-31; 3:22-26; 10:43; 13:32-37).

2. The coming of the Last Age has been brought about by THE MINISTRY, the death, the burial, the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus of Nazareth, the Holy One of God, the Child of God, the Servant of God, the Son of God (Acts 2:22-24; 3:13, 21; 4:11; 5:31; 10:36; 13:23).

3. Peter and the Twelve and Paul are eye-witnesses that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth is risen (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39-41; 13:31).

4. By virtue of his paschal exaltation Jesus of Nazareth is at the right hand of God both Lord and Messiah, i.e. Divine-Human Head of the Israel of the New Covenant which includes the whole of mankind (Acts 2:32-36; 10:40).

5. The Holy Spirit in the Church (the Israel of the New Covenant) is the sign of the presence and power of Jesus Christ in the world (Acts 2:33; 5:32).

6. The Last Age will reach its final fulfillment with the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to judge the living and the dead (Acts 3:20).

7. Only through faith in Jesus and repentance of one's sins, salvation is obtained in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:37-41; 3:19; 4:12; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38-41).

The fundamental concordance of Luke's recording of the primitive kerygma with the pre-Pauline kerygmatic formulas in Paul's letters is clear. This concordance confirms the basic historicity of Luke's reports. There is only one major variation, which I have highlighted: the mention of the public ministry of Jesus. This mention is made very discreetly in Discourse Number 1, more fully in Discourses 5 and 6. This is how Discourse 5 presents Jesus' public ministry: "You know the message [God] sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ - he is Lord of all. That message spread throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John announced: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. We are witnesses to all that he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem." (Acts 10:36-39).

This peculiarity of Acts' kerygmatic Discourses 1, 5 and 6 is precious because it points out the source of the "introductions" to the "paschal narrative" which make up the bulk of the Four Gospels. Not only the paschal narratives (the accounts of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus) are rooted in the primitive Good News, but also most of the text of the Four Gospels. Starting from the ministry of John the Baptist, what the evangelists report is based on the primitive kerygmatic preaching of Peter and the Twelve.

This is true especially of the three Synoptic Gospels. In the basic structure of these three Gospels we can still recognize the basic structure used by Peter to report Jesus' sayings and doings during the public ministry. This basic structure is a combination of time-space coordinates, resulting in a four stages development:

Stage One: The Preaching and Baptizing of John the Baptist.

Stage Two: The Preaching and Doing of Jesus in Galilee.

Stage Three: The Journeying of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem.

Stage Four: The Preaching and Doing of Jesus in Jerusalem.

It is evident that this is a simplified presentation of the time-space coordinates involved in Jesus' ministry. So, for example, during his public ministry, Jesus went up many times from Galilee to Jerusalem to attend the great festivals, while in this structure only one such going up is recorded. This simplification was the work of Peter, as the book of Acts bears witness. It was a catechetically motivated simplification, intended to make it easier for the listeners to grasp the essential significance of the Jesus Event. It was also a theologically motivated simplification, intended to strengthen the concentration of the Good News on the Pascal Event. The Synoptics, being all directly or indirectly dependent on the witness of Peter, all accepted this simplification as normative. Only John, which relies on an independent eye-witness as good as Peter, could do without this spatio-temporal simplification and arrange the gospel material in his own independent way, a way probably closer to the actual run of events.

3.5 The Pauline Usage of the Word "Gospel" in Mark.

Among the four Gospels, the shortest, Mark, is the Gospel that has the most numerous occurrences of the word "Gospel". This word appears 8 times in Mark (only 4 times in the much longer Gospel according Matthew, never in Luke and John!) We have seen already how Mark begins his Gospel: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1) When Mark starts to present Jesus' preaching, he uses this word again twice: "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the Gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the Gospel." (Mark 1:14-15). "The Gospel of God", as we have seen, means "the Good News that comes from God". The absolute use of "Gospel" in verse 15 refers to the content of the Good News, the content fully and concisely expressed in the chiastically correspondent verse 1: "the Good News which is Jesus Christ, the Son of God".

This usage of the word "Gospel" is very similar to Paul's usage. The fact that Luke never records Jesus using the word "Gospel" may allow us to see in the wording of "Repent and believe in the Gospel" a touch of Marcan redaction. Jesus' own wording must have been something like this: "Repent and believe what I say", or "Repent and believe what I announce", or "Repent and believe me". The word "Gospel" is Mark's way (derived from Paul, of whom Mark was a disciple) to stress that what Jesus announces is tremendous good news for us.

The other five instances in which the word "Gospel" appears in the Gospel according to Mark also bear signs of Marcan redaction. In all these instances the word "Gospel" means "the announcement of the Good News of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God". Let us take, for example, Mark 8:35: "Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it." This sentence is recorded also by Matthew and Luke. But the word "Gospel" does not appear in Matthew and Luke. Probably, therefore, this word has been added by Mark. Why? To emphasize that to lose one's life for the announcement of the Good News is to lose one's life for Jesus himself. Thus Mark establishes here the same equivalence he established in the opening line of his Gospel: Jesus himself is the Good News. But the stress here seems to have shifted somewhat. This shift of stress could be expressed thus: the Good News is Jesus himself. That is, the announcement of the Good News makes Jesus present again in history. The announcement of the Good News is a new form of incarnation for Jesus. Through the announcement of the Good News man comes again in contact with Jesus. Consequently, to die for the spreading of the Gospel message is to die for Jesus himself. In these delicate redactional touches by Mark we have the first theology of evangelization.

3.6 The Gospel of Mark and the Infancy Gospels of Matthew and Luke

Before leaving Mark, the Gospel of the " One Gospel", we may deal with the problem of the Infancy Gospels (this is the right way to call them) in Matthew and Luke. The Infancy Gospel is conspicuously absent from Mark (and John). Why? Because the material recorded in the Infancy Gospels according to Matthew and Luke were not present in the One Gospel as announced by Peter and Paul. Does this mean that the material of the Infancy Gospels is less reliable historically and theologically than the material in the rest of the Gospel? Not at all. It only means that this material derives from other sources than the announcement of the Good News made by Peter, by the Twelve, by Paul.

Where does the Infancy Gospel according to Matthew come from? It comes from the "Joseph Circle" of the primitive Church in Jerusalem. This Joseph circle was made up by the relatives of Jesus on the side of Joseph the carpenter of Nazareth. We know the names of four of them: James, Joses (= little Joseph, to distinguish him from Joseph the carpenter, the foster-father of Jesus), Judas and Simon. We know also that the first, James, succeeded Peter in the leadership of the Jerusalem Church after Peter was compelled to leave Jerusalem (Acts 12). It was this circle of Jesus' "brothers" who kept the memories of Jesus' childhood as seen through the eyes of Joseph his foster-father. Now Matthew is the Gospel of the Jerusalem community. This Church was led by the brothers of Jesus. So it is only natural that this community should preface the announcement of the Good News with Joseph's memories of Jesus' childhood.

As for Luke's Infancy Gospel, it originates from the "Women Circle" of the primitive Jerusalem community (Acts 1:14). At the centre of this circle was Mary of Nazareth. The "we passages" in Acts let us know that Luke (that is, the author of the Gospel of Luke and of Acts) was in Jerusalem around 58 A.D. In Jerusalem Luke came in contact with the circle of women who preserved the memories of Jesus' childhood as seen through the eyes of Mary, Jesus' virgin mother (Luke 2:19, 51). We must be for ever grateful to Luke for having prefaced his record of the Good News with these memories of Mary.

Was this redactional decision of Matthew and Luke related to the One Gospel, to the announcement of the Good News? Of course it was. As they stand now in the Gospels, the Infancy Gospels according to Matthew and Luke are both a "Gospel-in-a-nut-shell". Both Infancy Gospels are wonderfully complete presentations of the total mystery of Christ, his incarnation-passion-death-resurrection-exaltation. Of course, this presentation is done not directly by using words like incarnation, death and resurrection. It is done indirectly by recording the memories of Mary and Joseph, while at the same time underlining their divine and paschal significance. Concrete historical details of the Infancy Gospels assume a paschal significance in light of the completed Christ event: the manger of the child Jesus recalls the cross of the adult Jesus; the sword that pierces Mary's heart gives us a vision of the stabat Mater dolorosa juxta crucem; the Herod of Jesus' birth is not too dissimilar from the Herod of Jesus' passion; and the exodus to and from Egypt is an image of the exodus Jesus will accomplish on Passover Day in Jerusalem. In Luke the divinity of Jesus is most explicitly expressed in chapters 1 and 2, while in the rest of the Gospel Jesus' prophetic-messianic mission is stressed. In Matthew 1 and 2, instead, it is the suffering humanity of Jesus which is particularly expressed, while in the rest of the Gospel there shines forth Jesus' divine authority. Consequently, we could say that we have not four but six different presentations of the One Gospel: the Gospel according to Mark, the Gospel according to John, the Gospel according to Matthew 3-28, the Gospel according to Luke 3-24, the Infancy Gospel according to Matthew 1-2 (or better, the Infancy Gospel according to Joseph of Nazareth), the Infancy Gospel according to Luke 1-2 (or better, the Infancy Gospel according to Mary of Nazareth).

4. The Four Gospels from the One Gospel

When did the One Gospel begin to be put into writing? Nobody knows. As Pope John Paul II in one of his weekly catecheses says, "scholars fix the composition of the Gospels in the second half of the first century" (General Audience of May 22nd, 1985). But we can surmise the reasons for putting the One Gospel traditions into writing. One reason could be this: even though oral tradition was a perfectly safe way of transmitting the Good News (oral tradition was an institution with very strict requirements, not the rough-and-tumble affair that is sometimes imagined), the words and deeds of Jesus were felt to be too extraordinary not to enlist also the service of the pen to ensure their preservation. This need of the pen must have been felt especially when the first eyewitnesses started to be mowed down by persecution, as in the case of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:1-5). The year A.D. 42 may be fixed as a possible terminus a quo of the writing down of the Gospel traditions.

Scholars have done a lot of detective work regarding the writing and editing of the four Gospels. But all their good-will notwithstanding, what we really know about the process of Gospel-writing is really very little. The words of A. Plummer regarding the Prologue of Luke's Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) are still valid today: "This prologue contains all that we really 'know' respecting the composition of early narratives of the life of Christ. Luke's Prologue is the test by which theories as to the origin of our Gospels must be judged. No hypothesis is likely to be right which does not harmonize with what is told us here." What does Luke's Prologue tell us? He tells us the following things:

1. Many writers have preceded him in writing.

2. The subject matter of their writing was "the events that have been fulfilled among us".

3. Their writing was based on the oral preaching of the Twelve, "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word".

4. Luke decides to do the same thing.

5. Luke has investigated everything carefully from the very first.

6. Luke intends to write an orderly account.

7. Luke's purpose in writing is to convince the reader that the things about which he has been instructed are based on fact.

The most important things here seem to me to be two. Firstly, Luke tells us that his Gospel is a writing down of the oral preaching of the Twelve. This is as good a description of the four Gospels as can be had. Secondly, Luke tells us that reading the Gospel will convince one of the historical reliability (this is the meaning, in modern terms, of the word asphaleia used by Luke) of the contents of Christian instruction. This is also as good a purpose for reading the Gospels as can be thought of. Unfortunately, this purpose is largely neglected today, but to our own disadvantage.

At the beginning of Acts, Luke refers back to his Gospel as the account of "all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven" (Acts 1:1-2a). This, again, is as good a definition of a written Gospel as can be had.

Some additional information as to why the four Gospels were written may be gleaned from the two conclusions of the Gospel of John. The first conclusion tells us: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:30-31) The second conclusion chooses to stress a) the reliability of the apostolic witness in writing, and b) the incompleteness of the written Gospel account. "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:24-25). What a wonderful hyperbole this last sentence is! A hyperbole that shows that the written four Gospels share the respect for Jesus' mystery that we have seen characterize the original unwritten oral One Gospel.

5. Why Two, Three, Four Written Gospels?

5.1 Why Two Written Gospels?

In the last paragraphs above I think I have explained why there are written Gospels at all. Now we have to explain why there are more than one written Gospels. Firstly, we have to ask why there are two basically different written Gospels. These two Gospels are those according to Matthew and Luke. The reason why the early Church produced these two different Gospels was that the early Church was composed of two totally different kinds of people, namely Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. These two kinds of people had very different sensibilities, customs, frames of mind, ways of thinking and behaving. The two Gospels according to Matthew and Luke reflect the two great families that made up the early Church. Matthew wrote down the One Gospel primarily for Jewish Christians, drawing upon the oral tradition stemming from the primitive Jerusalem Church. Luke wrote down the One Gospel for Gentile readers, relying on Jewish traditions with an eye to the needs of the Gentile world. Different readers, different written Gospels. But all readers were, at least potentially, Christians. Hence different written Gospels, but containing the same One Gospel of tradition.

The Gospel according to Matthew, or at least part of it, is said by the early Church tradition to have been written originally in Aramaic. The Matthew now we have in hand is written in Greek, and very good Greek at that. The content, though, is still very Jewish. It is reasonable to hold that our Matthew is a very good Greek translation or even re-edition of the original Aramaic Matthew. Be that as it may, one fact is evidenced by the vigour of the Jewish concerns present in this Gospel and by the frequent hints at an oppressed Jewish Christian community: while Greek Matthew may originate in Antioch of Syria, the material contained in this Gospel originates from the primitive Jerusalem Church. Whether Matthew is the Matthew-Levi called by Jesus to be an apostle is disputed but possible. In any case, the designation of a Jewish scribe (publicans were all too secular scribes!) as the author of this Gospel is extremely apt. Matthew, therefore, is the Gospel of Jewish Christianity. Whatever the date of its final edition, this Gospel preserves the Gospel tradition of the Jerusalem Mother-Church which was led first by Peter and then by James the brother of the Lord.

The Gospel according to Luke can be said to be a Pauline reading of the One Gospel, that is, it is a recording of the Gospel traditions (originally stemming from the Jerusalem and Palestinian communities) done in a non-Jewish context (but not necessarily non-Semitic context!). Luke is the Gospel of the non-Jewish Gentile Church. When compared with Matthew, we can see that Luke has added a lot of traditional material which he had painstakingly collected and which is not present in Matthew. It is probable that the Church behind the Gospel of Luke is the Church of Antioch of Syria, the first not-exclusively-Jewish Christian Church. Luke himself may well have been an Antiochean Syrian. This would explain both his mastery of Greek and his deeply Semitic thinking. Luke's Greek is better than that of the other three Gospels, but at the same time he shows an appreciation for semitisms which only a Semite would be capable of. Syrians are Semites and Syriac is a Semitic language very close to Aramaic. The author of the Gospel of Luke is certainly also the author of Acts. Is this author the Luke mentioned by Paul? It is very possible. The "we passages" in Acts confirm this possibility.

By now I think I have explained why there are two different written Gospels, namely, the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Luke.

5.3 Why Three Written Gospels?

The Gospels according to Matthew and Luke reflect the two great sections of the primitive Church. Then why should not two written Gospels suffice? Why should there be also Mark? The reason is that the relationship between the two great sections of the primitive Church was far from easy. This relationship was actually the single greatest problem met by the primitive Church. The twofold Gospel according to Matthew-Luke just shows how distinctive these two forms of Christianity were. The problem consisted precisely in how to preserve the unity of two so distinct groups. Each group having its own written Gospel only compounded the problem. Would there not be the danger that each group insist on the differences in their Gospels, instead of highlighting the fundamental unity? How to prevent schisms from happening? These hypothetical questions were not necessarily formulated like this by the 1st century Christians. However, these questions bring out some crucial concerns of 1st century Christians.

The Gospel of Mark fulfills the extremely important and urgent function of grounding the unity of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christianity. How does it fulfil this function? By providing the witness of Peter, the eye-witness par excellence, the Rock on which Jesus founded his Church. The witness of Peter in Mark is preeminently a witness to hard facts. Compared with the witness of Peter, Matthew is proved a very faithful transmitter of the apostolic tradition. Compared with the same witness of Peter, Luke also is revealed as an equally faithful recorder of the One Gospel. In this way, the two apparently so different Gospels are reconciled into a deep underlying unity. But this reconciliation is achieved only through common reference to a third Gospel, the Gospel according to Mark, Peter's Gospel, written in Rome. It is Rome that keeps Jerusalem and Antioch united! It is Peter's witness, as recorded by Mark, that reconciles Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity!

Whether Mark precedes Matthew and Luke or whether Mark is preceded by them, is still a disputed question. A majority of contemporary exegetes agree that Mark precedes Matthew and Luke and is used by them. But there is still a minority of exegetes whose arguments against the priority of Mark have never been really adequately answered. They hold that Matthew and Luke precede Mark who uses them. Personally, I think that for our present purpose whether Mark is first or not is not so important. What is important is that Mark acted as the touchstone of authenticity both for Matthew and for Luke. This holds true whether Matthew and Luke had Mark under their eyes while compiling their Gospels, thus recognizing Mark as the common standard reference for a Gospel writer. This also holds true if Mark came after Matthew and Luke and was written with the express purpose of providing a confirmation for the historical and theological accuracy of them both. It is clear, therefore, that whether Mark preceded or followed Matthew and Luke, Mark in any case fulfilled the function of grounding their unity upon the universally recognized witness of the apostle Peter.

It seems to me that we have here a profound answer to the question: why three similar written Gospels and not one only? The answer outlined above can be summarized as follows: these three Gospels arose out of three very specific needs of the primitive Church: 1) the Gospel of Matthew met the needs of Jewish Christianity; 2) the Gospel of Luke met the needs of Gentile Christianity; 3) the Gospel of Mark met the need of keeping these two wings of the primitive Church together. Please notice that all three Gospels met these needs by offering a reliable account of the One Gospel announced by Peter, by the Twelve, by Paul, and by the other apostles.

5.4 Why Four Written Gospels?

We have explained the multiplicity of the Synoptic Gospels. But why should there be a fourth written Gospel besides the Synoptics? What is the purpose of the Gospel according to John?

The Gospel according to John is the testimony of a second universally recognized eye-witness. In some sense, for all their differences, the three Synoptic Gospels constitute one single witness, ultimately Peter's witness. But "a single witness shall not suffice [...]. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained." (Deut 19:15) The requirement of at least two independent witnesses is basic to all court proceedings and to all historical research. The primitive Church responded to this concern by placing beside the written witness of Peter (Mark-Matthew-Luke) the written witness of John. The historical dimension of the One Gospel demanded such a double written attestation, Synoptic and Johannine.

Besides such a fundamental historical function, the Gospel of John fulfills also a fundamental theological function. The witness of Peter, as I have already mentioned, stresses the factual-historical dimension of the Christ event. The witness of John, on the contrary, stresses the mysteric-theological dimension of the Christ event. In the Synoptic-Johannine duality we have a reflection of the most fundamental twofold dimension of the One Gospel as reflected already in the faith formula of 1 Cor 15:3b-5: history and theology, outward fact and inner mystery. This twofold dimension, on the one hand, is the basic characteristic of each written Gospel. On the other hand, it is also the reason for John's Gospel standing besides the Synoptics. Each of the four Gospels bears witness to the totality of the Good News that is Jesus Christ. But the Synoptics do so stressing the empirical facts in which the mystery of Christ is revealed. John does so, instead, by stressing the mystery revealed in the empirical facts.

Conclusion

At the end of our enquiry, we can say that we have seen both the wood and the trees of that wonderful phenomenon which is the apostolic witness to the mysterious reality of Jesus, Son of God, Son of man, Messiah and Saviour. The wood is the fourfold Gospel, the trees are the four Gospels. The wood is the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the trees are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. To conclude, I think, we may pause for one further moment on the basic twofold shade of the One Gospel which we noticed in the last paragraph. This twofold shade is the unified duality of outer and inner vision.

The Gospel of John, and so also the four Gospels, close with a reflection on this duality of outward and inward vision. "Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them[...]. When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, 'Lord, what about him?' Jesus said to him, 'If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" (John 21:20-22).

Jesus wants John to remain until he comes again. Almost 2000 years have passed since Jesus pronounced these words. Throughout these years Peter and John have remained as the two crown witnesses of the Jesus event. Peter with his outward public proclamation. John with his inward personal contemplation.

While distinguishing between the two apostles, we must not separate them. There is John in Peter, and there is Peter in John. Through them, the One spoken Gospel and the Four written Gospels, or better the Fourfold Gospel, call upon us to become contemplatives in action of the Good News, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of man. Only by being such contemplatives in action shall we also be good evangelizers. To be such contemplatives in action we must imitate both Peter and John. Imitate Peter's courageous witness to the facts: "We cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4, 20) Imitate John, the Beloved Disciple, for, as Origen says: "[T]he Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, but [...] of the Gospels, that of John is the first fruits. No one can apprehend the meaning of it except he have lain on Jesus' breast and received from Jesus Mary to be his mother also."

方奉天原著　陈继容编译

译者的话

三年前当方奉天神父把一册义文的《信仰小引导》(Piccola introduzione alla fede)寄给我，(1)希望我能够把该书译成中文。收到书的那一刻颇有些犹疑，除了时间的问题外，主要原因是要把一本外文的神学书译成中文，不论从任何角度看，都是件很费气力的事。除非真是一本很值得推介的书，否则犯不着吃这种苦头。然而，把书仔细看了一遍后，我立即通知方奉天神父我会做这个工作。因为，作为一个中国人，我觉得很值得把这本书介绍给我的国人；而作为一个天主教徒，我切愿通过这些文字，把自己教会信仰之本质和信息，带给一切善意寻求真理与平安的人，这是答应翻译此书之目的。

既是翻译，当然要忠于原着，这是从事翻译工作的第一守则。可是在翻译过程中，发觉很多地方实在没法直译，有些词句和章节，甚至连意译都不行，非重写不可。其中最明显的例子，是『前言』部份关于哲学家解释天主存在的论证。作者以不能再简短的摘要式几句话，来介绍圣多玛斯和圣安瑟莫的哲学思想。为了方便中国的读者，尤其是那些没有西方哲学基础的人士，能了解此段的意思，只好把这部份重写。

至于名词、称号等，都尽可能直译。因为第一，神学始终传自西方，绝对不可能被『全面中国化』，能够直译的地方，最好直译，以保持其原来意思；第二，总相信每位作者写作时对于字与句之选用，都有他非常个人的用意。若为了文化或习惯的问题，硬要将某字某句用别的字眼来代替，可能文章的意思会因此被扭曲，或至少削弱了原文的说服力。

为避免发生这种情形，读者在阅读此文时，会发现其中有很多直译的名称，特别是有关圣三的名号。例如称天主父为『爱人』(l’Amante)；基督为『被爱』(l’Amato)，『被生育者』(il Generato)，永恒的居所(l’eterna Accoglienza)；圣神为『生活的天主之超拔』(l’estasi del Dio vivente)，『永恒爱情的连系』(il Vincolo dell’Amore eterno)等。作者其实刻意选用这些称谓来突出天主即是爱这一事实，为了忠于作者的原意，没有比直译更好的选择。

整篇文章的结构如下：除前言与结论外，全文依照宗徒信经的内容，分成十五个论题，各论题均以一端祷文作结束；文末并有一附录，其中罗列了数项帮助读者从事《分辨》的问题。

是否真的如某些人所想的，每种宗教都是一样，本质上大同小异，只为教人避恶行善而矣。天主教会的信仰是否也只是为导人向善，抑或她还给人带来「一点别的东西」？作者尝试以一个当代神哲学家的经验和观点，通过对《宗徒信经》－－教会信仰的内涵－－中各端经文的分析，给上面的问题找出答案。

喜见这篇文字能呈教于读者前，心中有无限的感恩。

宗徒信经

我信天主，全能的父，

天和地的创造者；

及信耶稣基督，

祂唯一的子，我们的主，

祂因圣神成孕

生于童贞玛利亚

受难于般雀比拉多执政时，

被钉在十字架上，死及被埋葬，

且下到冥府；

第三日自死者中复活，

升了天，

坐在全能者天主父的右边

从那里祂还会降来审判生者死者，

我信圣神，

圣而公的教会，

诸圣的共融，

罪的赦免，

肉身的复活，

永生。

亚孟！

前言── 谈论天主．爱的叙述

如何向人讲解天主、那个比我们超越无限倍的「奥迹」？如何在生活中引发与这位生活的天主相遇的经验？这经验将改变人的整个生活。应该怎样谈论天主，是从祂开始，抑或从人开始？

最后这问题的答案其实很明显，除非从天主为我们所造的一切开始：从人类的救赎开始，没有可能谈论天主。而无论是创造或救赎，均是出于天主的自由意愿及祂对人类那份无条件的爱。所以人心由于对自己的造物主的思念而显得不安，因而不停的在追寻这位造物主的面容。

这正是圣经所用的方法。圣经并不用抽象的方式讲论天主，它一开始便向我们叙述天主为我们而造的一切，从宇宙和人类的创造，到人类如何背弃天主，最后以天主对人类的拯救作结束。所以圣经其实是一部人类自己的史书。里面记载着天主怎样创造了人后再召叫他进入祂所准备的救恩和永生，人怎样背离天主，天主怎样救赎他。而这一切在人的心中留下不可磨灭的经验，使他不断反省天主创造的力量和祂对宇宙所拥有的权能。对人而言，这位为自己的子民造了伟大奇事、这位压抑权贵却举扬弱小的天主，不可能不同时是那位创造了日与夜、星辰、穹苍和海洋，与及一切生物的天主。因此，救恩的天主即是造物主和天上地下的主宰；圣祖的天主即是历史的天主。换句话说，圣经的天主是一位被叙述的天主。而圣经、这本记下天主为了爱自己的子民所行的一切事迹之总册，亦是一部记述以色列之信仰的书，是这民族的希望之粮。

新生的教会既出自以色列文化，很自然地亦跟随这「叙述」的传统，她更以纳匝肋人耶稣的生平和言行丰富了这叙述的内容。教会最古老的信仰宣示，即复活喜讯的宣示「耶稣是基督、耶稣是主」其实便是一种叙述。因为这些宣示要带出的讯息，是那位被遗弃和钉死在十字架上的耶稣，即是被父举扬于光荣中的基督；忍受十字架耻辱的那位被父复活起来并立为主及基督。

若问旧约及新约的天主子民为什么用「叙述」的方式来宣认他们的信仰，这其中可有特别的原因？对于这问题只有一个答案：为服从天主启示的必然态度。因为天主先选择了「叙述」这方式将自己介绍给人。天主利用一些被此互相牵连的事件和话向人叙述祂自己和祂的爱。所以我们可以说天主是位「被叙述的神」。既是这样，要讲论天主便非采用「叙述式」不可。而整个叙述的内容便是人类的救恩史。所以谁若希望以相称的方式谈论天主，一定要「叙述」祂。即是说，一定要忆述祂为了人所作的一切伟大奇事。这样从叙述中常能引发出新的和充满信与爱的事件。为什么会这样呢？因为当一个人叙述某件事时，他不可避免地将自己所叙述的向外宣扬，于是一件事常会牵引出另一件事来，因而往往带出不可思议的结果。「叙述」所拥有的这份改变事物的力量，可从下面这则美丽的《查思添喻言》(Parabola di Chassidim)得到证明。(2)

「那些流落他处的虔诚希伯来人都尽力在异乡保持以色列的信仰。《那时我祖父本来瘫痪，一天有人请他讲述他的老师，即那伟大的『善名先生』的故事。于是祖父开始叙述他老师如何习惯在祈祷时手舞足蹈。祖父边说边站起来，竟忘记了自己原是瘫痪。原因是他所叙述的故事在推动他，使他感到有必要让大家看看他的老师当时是怎样手舞足蹈。而从那一刻起，他的瘫痪也就不药而愈》」。这是叙述故事的唯一方法，这亦是滋养及传播信仰的唯一方法。因为正如我们刚在前面说过，叙述引发叙述，故事带出故事。这样一个传一个，一个接一个，从天主和祂为了爱了而所造的一切，到人对祂以爱还爱，接受祂的救恩，进入祂内并为祂而活。所以亚巴郎、依撒格和雅各伯的天主是位被叙述的天主。这位天主永不可能是哲人和智者们辩论题中的天主。即是说，天主不可能是一种理论或学说，只供学者专家作案头或文字上的研究之用。

当然，人在认知层面上常要求划一及清楚，因为统一及整体是人对一般事物的基本要求。为此，有关我们的信仰，即有关天主的叙述，历代的注疏者和批评家一直在找寻一个彻底的统一，好让人们可以从他们的研究成果中找到很多关于天主、关于人和历史的答案，而神学中不同类别的划分，亦显示这种研究是必需的。

尤其是当人不断要面对世上永不止息的痛苦和生命的有限时，他不得不质疑天主的存在及祂的无限美善，这时人会问：在宇宙和历史中真的有什么标记或符号能证明这位天主的存在吗？有没有任何途径能让人直探这位天主的奥迹之最深处？

于是哲学家开始探究天主的存在，他们从人所生活的世界和这世界所包容的事物开始。他们注意各种事物的变动，因果的循环，事物之偶有性，万物的等级和每一种东西存在之目的等，在云云证明天主存在的哲学论证中，较重要的是圣多玛斯(1224-1274)的「五路论证」。圣多玛斯所提出的「五路」：变动律，因果律，偶然与必然性，美善之等级，秩序与目的，均全部指向独立于「其他因」之外的「最后因」。为的是「其他因」不论怎样无穷无尽，都必有其来源而非自有，只有这「最后因」是自有的没有来源，且是宇宙万物的根源。所以这「最后因」亦称「第一动者」，是「第一个」，是「唯一的必要」，是「最完善的」，是「宇宙最高理性秩序安置者」──这便是天主。祂是人类避免坠入虚无的最稳固基础，是人类及整个宇宙能永恒地憩息于其中的怀抱，是万物存在的意义及其归宿。而几时当人想认识这位天主时，他不应从外面，从存在于世界上的事物入手。他应反回自我，进入自己的内心，从自己的思维开始，然后才伸展到身外的事物。至于原因，让我们看看圣安瑟莫(1033-1109)的解释，根据他的着作《本体论证明法》所说，天主是一个「最高实有」，人不能想象出有比此「最高实有」更高的「实有」(3)，所以天主存在。原因是一个「最完善的实有」，不可能只存在于人的思想内，也该存在于事物中。换言之，「最完善的实有」同时存在于人的思想及外界的事物内。所以要寻找天主，人得先回到自己的思想内，然后再走出自我，在四周的事物中去发现天主。因为正是天主，这至高无上的「主体」构思并创造万有，为此祂不可能只存在于我们的思想中，祂是绝对超越我们的想象。即是说，人的思想有其极限，他不可能完全了解天主，这便是「奥迹」。

然而对一位信友来说，跟随圣多玛斯或跟随圣安瑟莫的论证都是一样，因为虽然前者带领人从外界事物去发现天主的存在，而后者则主张人只要回到自己的思想内便能找到天主。可是他们的论证并不彼此互相抵触，相反，他们的论证帮助我们发现天主正是人心中所追求的，那位无限的「自有者」，从而认出祂便是那到来寻找人，把人从自己的孤独和权力欲中释放出来的那位。

这些不同接近天主的方法让我们看到要谈论天主，除了需要叙述祂外，也需要论辩。因此我们除了忠于圣经的叙述传统外，尚要忠于人对「统一感」的追求，即哲学理性的追求。这等于说，一个全面性的认知历程，不可能缺少这两种方法之任何一种。

信经正是以叙述天主的爱作为谈论天主的方法。藉叙述父的故事宣认祂是永生之主，是天和地的创造者和主；藉叙述子的故事，使人知道祂是为我们而降生成人、死亡及复活的人类救主；藉叙述圣神的故事，使人晓得祂付给教会生命，祂更是时间与永恒共融的连系。

所以，愿意谈论天主叙述祂的爱，同时表示希望藉着论辩，和思度这叙述对人类每日生活的劳累到底有什么意义。而信经正好给我们提供了一个简短却极浓缩的指引，让我们更了解所相信的三位一体之天主的故事，并在每日平凡的生活中经验祂的临在。

生活和神圣的天主，

你透过你因爱

而完成的奇妙化工

将自己向我们一一陈述。

求你赏赐我们

在你圣神的光照下

晓得在整个宇宙及在人类的历史中认出你的善良

和你眷顾我们的记号，

请使我们懂得接纳

你为我们在你的救世行动中所行的奇迹异事，

接受被钉在十字架上、死而复活之子的爱情，

让这爱情改变和治愈我们。

祂是我们唯一的希望，

亦是我们独一、真正的神学。

2. 《查思添喻言》(Parabola di Chassidim)是希伯来神修运动其中一支的作品，查思添一字出自希伯来文chasid，众数chasidim，意即虔诚、善良。这神修运动曾出现于不同时代，而今日当提到查思添主义时，一般所指的由以色列宾依理赞(Israel ben Eliezer，约生于1700至1760)，于1740年左右在保度利亚(Podolia)发起的运动。人们通常不用以色列宾依理赞的姓名称呼他，而尊称他为「善名之主」或「善名先生」(il Baal Shem Tov)，这运动出现后立即在加理之亚(Galizia)、伏利尼亚(Volinia)和乌克兰(Ucraina)等一带传开。文中接着所说那位老师，指的正是以上所提的，十八世纪查思添运动的创立人以色列宾依理赞。

3. St Anselmus Augustanus, Argumntum Ontologicum, Proslogion, c.2: 『Id quo magis cogitari non potest』.

1. 我信

「宗徒们向主说：请增加我们的信德罢！」主说：「如果你们有信德象芥子那样大，即使你们给这棵桑树说：你连根拔出，移植到海中去！它也会服从你们的」(路17:5-6)。「我实在告诉你们：假如你们有象芥子那样大的信德，你们向这座山说：从这边移到那边去！它必会移过去的；为你们没有不可能的事」(玛17:20)。

可是，没有任何一棵桑树听我们的话自动移到海中，更没有任何一座山服从我们而移动过。在这世界上，信德究竟在那里？是在那些饱受暴力蹂躏，既无力自卫，复苦不得申的弱者、临终前向天主发出的哀号中吗？抑或是在那些被同类的不义和凶残所压榨的人的悲鸣中？是人的信德薄弱，还是神的冷漠无情？是人心已硬化，还是天主的心更硬？为什么天主存在的记号少得如此令人无法忍受？为什么奇迹的出现会稀罕得如此令人心痛？

同类的问题我们可以不断继续问下去，它们是那些已无法再相信天主的人的心声之回响，因为这些人的信德在面对我们上面所说的痛苦时已全部瓦解。

然而正是这些问题给予我们机会解说什么是信德和什么不是信德。首先，相信并非对一个已经清楚和明显的论证、或一件完全没有隐晦和矛盾的事件表示同意。没有人会去相信一件自己能全部拥有，且又非常有把握，可随自己的意思操纵或经营的事。相信是将自己交给「某一位」，回应这位「陌生者」的邀请；相信是将自己的一生放在「另一位」的手上，以祂为唯一真正的主。中古世纪的字源学对「相信」这词给予一非常有意义的解释「交心」，将心交出来；毫无条件地将心放在「另一位」的手上。所以，照这解释，谁相信天主，便会让自己成为这位看不见的天主的俘虏，让自己的听命服从和整个心均为祂所占有，换句话说，信德即是投降、交付、放弃、不占有、没有保障和缺乏安全。因此「相信」并非逃避不幸和危险，每日在风和日丽中生活。相信的人不怕面对坏事和困难。相反他们向这些恶事困厄挑战；谁相信便有如深夜上路的旅人，一直朝着黎明前进。可是一路上，他心中所能见的只是个晦暗的意识，犹如夜里的漆黑，就如圣奥斯定和圣多玛斯所说，他尚未拥有一个晨曦的意识，让他能在光耀中看到一切。

齐克果(4)也曾说过，「相信」好比身处一个黑暗深渊的边沿，然后听到有一「声音」在大喊说：「跳下去，我会张开双臂把你接住！」。正是在身处深渊边沿的那一刻，出现这些使人不安疑虑的问题：假如接你的不是一双手臂而是一堆锋利的尖石？又或下到去除了发现一片黑暗外仍是一片虚无的黑暗？因此，所谓相信就是要能坚忍并承受这些问题所带来的压力，不企盼任何记号，却只是对那位召唤自己的、无形无象的「至爱」交出自己的心。

相信即是接受那跟着而来的十字架，不是那个由我们自己选择，舒服且让我们有满足感的那个，而是那卑贱、隐暗，分配给我们的那个，为的是要在我们身上，为基督的身体－－教会，「补充基督的苦难所欠缺的」(哥1:24)。

因此，相信的人虽然在他眼中天主的爱并不明显，却仍然宣认这爱；相信的人在完全绝望中仍存有希望。相信的人情愿把自己期待的钉在基督的十字架上，而不是反过来把基督钉在自己所期待的十字架上。当人要接近信仰时总是怀着敬畏和战栗，把鞋脱下，准备认识那不在暴风中，不在地震或烈火中，却在轻微细弱的和风中说话的天主，就如厄里亚在曷勒布圣山上所遇到的一样，相同的境遇也曾发生并继续发生在一切圣者及先知的身上(列上19:11-13)。

这样说来，岂非表示「相信」等于失去一切？等于再没有任何保证，没有后代，亦没有家园？等于对每一个记号、梦想及奇迹的完全放弃？要是这样，我们禁不住要问，这位天主竟如此妒忌自己的信众？祂的火竟如此具毁灭性？祂的夜是如此黑暗？而祂的缄默是如此彻底？

若我们对上面这堆问题的答案是个「是」字的话，我们便有如那些不惜一切代价找寻记号的人一样，走进另一个极端，把天主的温和与慈爱忘得一干二净。其实在每一条路上都有一座大博尔山在照亮着，我们实在拥有一个很大的征兆，就是复活的基督，祂仍生活在祂的教会内，以恩宠和爱支持拔涉于路上的旅人，作疑惑者的慰藉和把迷途的引回正路。基督把祂的恩宠和爱赐给我们不是要我们将它们收藏起来，不是为麻木我们的意志，叫我们不用再奋斗抵抗，却是要给予我们力量，唤醒及激励我们努力于爱的工作，每日生活在爱中。所以爱是天主在世临现的记号，更是那些不愿意或无法相信爱的力量的人一个明显的记号。

主，我信：

请增加我的信德！

你认识我的心

你看到在我内的恐惧，

请帮助我迷失般地将自己交给你。

你晓得我心中那份

希望由自己计划生活中的一切

的欲望是如此强烈，

致令我多次

回避你！

然而，我相信：

你完全了解我的愿望

和我的软弱。

请做这愿望的导航灯，

成为这软弱的力量，

请帮助我使自己的

每一个梦想、

期待与计划

都在你内覆没，

好使我只信任你而不是我自己

和这世界上那些转瞬即逝的

假定的证据。

请使我会得和你竞争

却不容许我得胜！

我的恐惧、

我的期待、

我的愿望

和我的希望的主，

求你增加

我的信德！

4.KIERKEGAARD Soren Aabye (1813-1855)，丹麦哲学家，被视为存在主义之父。

2. 天主

「可爱的诸位，我们应该彼此相爱，因为爱是出于天主；凡有爱都是生于天主也认识天主，那不爱也不认识天主，因为天主是爱」(若一4:7-8)。新兴教会这席描述信德的话清楚指出，对一位信友而言，相信天主，并不单单表示相信祂的存在而矣，相信天主，犹如用口和心宣认天主即是爱。这等如承认天主并非独自一个，因为要爱最少要有两位，需要将自己向另一位开放。天主－－爱，是三位的共融，即「爱人的一位」、「被爱的一位」及那份付出和被接受的爱情，亦即是父、子及圣神。因此相信天主－－爱，表示相信天主是三位一体，祂们三位是如此完美无瑕的结合着，所以祂们是真真正正地在爱中成为一体。另一方面，祂们彼此的关系又是这样真实和明显，所以祂们又实实在在的是三位在付出和接受爱情，彼此相遇并互相在爱中向另一位开放自己。

然而这端有关圣三的道理，对我们的生活及人类的历史到底有什么意义？意义可大得很。相信天主－－爱，表示肯定我们之中没有人在天主前只是个数目字。因为这位三位一体的天主不但个别认识我们，而且藉着降生成人的基督，在圣神内，我们每一个人，个别地被万爱之源的父永远地爱着。

或许有人会问，上面所引述之《若望一书》的作者，他是怎样知道天主是爱呢？答案在紧接着的章节可以找到：「天主对我们的爱在这事上已显出来：就是天主把自己的独生子打发到世界上来，好使我们藉着祂得到生命。爱就在于此：不是我们爱了天主，而是祂爱了我们，且打发自己的儿子，为我们做赎罪祭」(若一4:9-10)。

这便是天主对人的无限爱情之最高表征；天主为爱我们而受苦；天主使我们的痛苦成为祂自己痛苦，祂不把我们单独留在痛苦的黑夜里，如果父曾经在圣周五伸开双臂环抱被钉在十字架上的基督，祂同样会把双臂伸向我们每一个人，不论我们有什么罪、受了什么苦或如何死去。这部对希腊人来说是「愚妄」，对犹太人来说则是「绊脚石」的宣扬十字架的福音，对一切人，及每一个人说：你不是孤独的，「我永远爱你」(耶31:3)，我把你抱在怀中(咏131:2)。「我把你刻在我的手掌上」(依49:16)。纵然一位母亲能忘掉亲生的儿子，我也不会忘掉你(依49:15)。

在基督的十字架下，我们才发现天主是一股流向我们的爱，是爱的本身！而圣三就是我们得救的福音，这福音在圣周五那天无言地向我们打开。因此相信天主的人不但相信天主存在，他们更宣认他们所相信的天主是位有「位格」的天主(Dio personale)，是一体，因此是唯一的，亦是三位：父、子和圣神，三位在爱中永远地互相交流。他们三位以一份恒久常新和个人的爱，爱着我们。这份爱是如此强烈地催迫着天主，以至祂愿意为人死于十字架的极刑，这可说是痛苦的极限。所以，假如祂是位只会从天上俯视人间以惩罚世人的判官天主，那我们大可以对这位神明掉头不顾。但事实并非这样，我们看到的这位天主形象卑微，无声地承受着圣周五的耻辱。面对一位如此卑下的天主，我们再不能拒绝祂。因此，我们所相信的天主是位自甘变成弱小的天主，为了我们而被舍弃；是位不愿惊吓我们，只愿向我们显示祂无限爱情与温馨慈和的天主。十字架上的天主是位仁爱的天主，祂爱人是逐个逐个地爱，因为爱总是一个人与另一个人的事。为此，十字架让我们看到圣三，即天主的本来面目是－－爱！

作为「爱」。天主三位中的第一位是耶稣的父，祂从开始便爱了我们，甚至为了我们而让自己的儿子死去：「他没有怜惜自己的儿子」(罗8:32)。父是爱的永恒之源，是仁爱最终的「根本」，是永不止息的「赠与」。「天主并非因为我们好或漂亮而爱我们，天主因为爱我们而使我们变好和变得漂亮」(路德)。天主绝不会由于厌倦而不爱我们，因为祂不是因为我们值得祂爱而爱我们，而是因为祂从开始便爱了我们，并会一直爱到底。所以为什么当你爱人时不要说：「我有天主在我心内」，却应该说：「我在天主内」(加里乔宾)。(5)因为是天主把爱感染给我们：是天主在我们内开始了我们自己永远无法开始的事－－爱。圣奥思定曾说过：没有事情比诱导人去爱更伟大，因为诱导人的那位先要爱了被他诱导的人。(6)天主正是用这办法使我们有能力去爱：祂先爱了我们，且永不会对我们厌倦而不再爱，因为祂自己就是这份永不会终结的爱情，这爱情历久常新，永不凋零。而几时我们相爱时，是祂使我们有能力去爱。于是我们明白为什么圣奥思定说，只有新人才会唱新曲，而只有那些愿意让天主爱他们的才堪称为新人！这首新曲即是人在与「永恒的爱」天主相遇后所改变的生活。因此父是我们永恒的「爱人」，这位「爱人」从开始便爱了我们，亦正是祂这份爱在我们内带出我们的爱情故事。

如果父是「永恒的爱人」，那么子便是「永恒的被爱」，即从开始便让自己被父爱着的那位。子的这重身份让我们明白到，不单只去爱是件神圣的事，让别人爱你，接受爱情亦同样神圣；不是只有赠予才神圣，感恩也一样神圣。所以连天主也晓得说感谢！这位圣子，这位被父所爱着的，这位「永恒的居所」，是祂从开始便一直对「爱情」回答「是」。所以每一次当我们懂得说「谢谢」，即接受别人的爱的时候，正是圣神使子临于我们内。因为懂得去爱还不够，尚需要让自己被别人爱，在别人的爱前变得卑微，在自己的生命中，为接待另一位而留下空间，如此，我们才可以成为子的肖象，成为「爱的居所」。谁若不能接纳另一个人，尤其是异己者，那他也不能接受天主，亦无法成为子的肖象。就如父－－「永恒的爱人」把去爱的能力感染给我们，这位子－－「永恒的被爱」，也把「感谢」，即接受别人的爱的能力传给我们。

在「永恒的爱人」－－父和「永恒的被爱」－－子之间的是那位结合和释放的圣神。西方教会的传统，从奥思定开始，都以圣神为「永恒的爱人」－－父和「永恒的被爱」－－子之间那份永恒爱情的「连系」。因为圣神正是这份神圣爱情的平安与合一。为此圣神进入我们内，把我们连结起来，当我们修和时，祂事实上是将我们与天主及其他人连结一起。这位圣神赐给我们共通的语言，使我们缔结和平之盟，令我们可以团结一致，因为祂是「两人之间的爱情」，是永恒仁爱的连系，由「一位」付出再由「另一位」接受。至于东方教会的传统，则认为圣神是「天主的超拔」(l’estasi di Dio)，是使天主走出自我的那位。祂来是为使人明白，相爱并不表示两人彼此四目交投，而是大家都望向同一的目的(狄圣苏比利)。(7)圣神不单只将「爱人」与「被爱」即父和子结合在一起，祂更令天主从自我中走出来。所以，圣神是天主给人的礼品、是天主的爱的一个没有回头的「出谷」、是天主的生命的溢出。因此，当我们接受圣神并让祂改变我们的时候，我们再也不能仍然停留在四目交投的阶段，我们感到需要走出自我、需要「出发」、需要将这份自己接受了爱带给其他人。

而宣认天主是「三位一体」即是相信上面所说的一切，并愿意为此而献出生命，使我们的历史沉浸在圣三无限的爱情内。为此，对三位一体的天主的信仰并非是天主教会的无中生有，或蓄意要将教义复杂起来。却是教会整个信仰的中枢和心脏，因为这端教义使人确实知道天主是爱。难道我们实实在在需要向世界宣扬的，不正是这喜讯吗？

三次被称为圣的天主，

爱情的三位，

请使我用口和心

宣扬你们这神圣而永恒

之爱的故事

的无限美丽。

父，我承认你

是一切完美恩赐的源头，

是「永恒的爱人」。

子，我宣认你

是那位接受一切

并交出一切的「被爱」。

圣神，父与子授受的爱情，

永恒仁爱的「连系」，

永恒爱情的「超拔」，

请与「爱人」－－父和「被爱」－－子一起接受我的朝拜。

我渴望在你内把自己隐藏起来，

这样我便永远被你迷失般地爱着，

也向你学习如何去爱。

5. GIBRAN Khalil，一位于本世纪初广受西方读者欢迎的亚拉伯诗人和作家。乔宾原藉黎巴嫩，父母均为热心的玛乐尼得教教友。他在西方受教育，成年后决定回国服务。其作品都是针对事弊，尤其是有关亚拉伯地区那时在宗教和政治上的不义，乔宾都毫不客气地予以批评，因而被迫留亡国外。他一九三一年逝世时，只有四十多岁。其殡葬礼极备哀荣，各不同教派都有派代表出席：除了他本人所属的玛乐尼得教外，尚有天主教、个别的基督教派，回教、希腊东正教、犹太教等。为表示对他的敬仰，人们把他的遗体葬在他儿时常去的圣堂Bsherri那里的萨奇海修道院中(Monastery of Mar Sarkis)。

乔宾的着作不算多，但几乎每部书都是震炫一代之作。他去世已六十多年，今日西方仍不断把他的作品重印。本文中所引用的那句话出自他的《先知》(The Prophet)一书，亦是乔宾最受欢迎的作品，另一名着是一九四七年出版的《反叛的心灵》(Spirits Rebellious)。

玛乐尼得教会的意文是Chiesa Maronita，是出自安提约基雅教会的一支，属东方礼，有自己的玛乐尼得礼仪(Liturgia Maronita)。十字军东征时玛乐尼得教会开始跟罗马教会接触，并自一二一六年起，与罗马教会保持关系至现在。由于与罗马教会的密切关系，玛乐尼得教会的礼仪曾经被大幅度的拉丁化，这种《同化》行动之最高峰期，要算罗马与玛乐尼得教会于一七三六年在黎巴嫩山一起举行的主教会议。不过，从一九四二年出版的玛乐尼得礼书所见，他们教会的礼仪已渐渐返回昔日之安提约基雅传统。

6. St Augustine of Hippo, De Catechizandis rudibus.

7. DE SAINT EXUPERY Antoine，亦即是自四十年代疯魔文坛之《小王子》一书的法藉作家。

3. 全能的父

到底我们所相信的全能的父，可该怎样容形祂呢？首先祂是天主，是耶稣之父；是一旦开始去爱便永远不会因厌倦而停止爱下去的那一位，所以我们其实应该称祂为爱的全能之父！

究竟圣父这份爱的勇气从何而来？特别是当我们一想到世界上种种的不义、罪恶和死亡的威胁等时，我们越加惊异于祂这份爱的不可思议。到底这位生活的天主怎能对我们的拒绝与逃避一再容忍、对这些软弱，偶象崇拜及手染血腥的人类仍然有信心？

对于这些问题，除非我们懂得深入探究圣父这份爱的两大特征，即天主对人的爱是无限的赠与和自发的，我们永远不会找到答案？「爱就在于此：不是我们爱了天主，而是祂爱了我们，且打发自己的儿子，为我们做赎罪祭。我们认识了，且相信了天主对我们所怀的爱」(若一4:10.16)。

父是「永恒的爱人」，祂爱人是绝对出于自发和自动，完全不受任何外界事物的牵制或引发。祂从永恒便开始爱人，并会继续一直爱下去。祂在爱中是全能的，祂永远忠贞不二：「我的救恩永远常存，我的正义永不会废除」(依51:6)；祂爱的计划「永恒不变，祂心中的谋略万世常传」(咏33:11)。

正是这份永恒和信实忠诚的特质显示出天主的爱的绝对自发性、完全的付出和伟大：「人啊」，主说：「想想是我第一个先爱了你，那时你仍未来到世上，而这世界也尚未形成，可是我已爱了你，就因为我是天主，我爱你！」(圣亚丰索)。(8)而这自发的爱，这无条件的赠与，正是天主创世行动的基础：「因爱而创造，是爱所创造」：「Ipso amore creatur」，「爱情使事物存在」(庞迪)。(9)正是因为这份无条件的付出，天主爱那些迷途的羊(玛15:24；路15:4-7)，爱罪人与病弱者(路5:31-32)和失足的(路19:20)。一句话，祂爱那些卑微没有人爱的人。圣保禄说得好，「天主偏召选了世上愚妄的，为羞辱那有智慧的；召选了世上懦弱的，为羞辱那坚强的；甚至天主召选了世上卑贱的和受人轻视的，以及那些无所有的，为消灭那些有的」(格前1:27-28)。

天主是父这一事实要宣扬的是「天主是爱」这喜讯。为此，永远没有任何过失，可以给祂作为放弃与忘记我们的动机和藉口，让我们跌进那个因祂的离去而引起的无限忧伤中。天主是父这事实亦解答了另一个问题，即天主为什么继续信赖人。因为这事实让我们看到天主自己本身是一种怎样不可言喻的爱情及祂如何爱了我们：天主作为父，祂对自己的爱的忠诚是无法改变和万古常新。这从下面这则精彩的通俗文学所记可见一斑。「有一个人在海边走着，偶然转过头往后望，见到沙上除了他自己的脚印外，尚有属于另一个人的脚印。于是他想：这是天主的脚印。怎知当他往前稍远再看时，却只见到一个人的脚印。于是他又想：那是当天主遗弃我的时候！可是天主却对他说：不对，那是当我把你抱在我双臂中的时候」。

然而，问题却发生在这里，我们越发现天主慈父的面容，便越觉得迷惘不安。因为面对世界因痛苦邪恶而引起的一连串问题，越感到一筹莫展。我们禁不住问：如果天主爱我们，怎会有痛苦出现？为什么祂看到世界的痛苦仍保持缄默？当祸患和恶势力蹂躏大地时，这位正义仁慈的天主何在？这位在爱中是全能的父到底跑到那里去？

「奥斯韦兹」(Auschwitz)第二次世界大战期间德国设于波兰的着名集中营，一个象征痛苦和死亡的名字，因为成升千上万的无辜者曾在那里被杀害。当营中一位最年轻的囚犯在那里为求生而与死亡搏斗时，只听得另一位囚犯在问：「天主到底在那里？」。即时有另一位喊叫着回答说：「看，祂就被悬在那里，在那绞刑架上」。(10)这答案包含了一切可能的解释。第一个解释是当一个无辜者死时，天主也在他内死去。因为面对世界如此巨大的苦难，没有可能相信天主的存在，为的是没有任何解释能令人接受让一个无辜者受苦甚至死去。所以根据这答案，人只是为了那将一切都化作乌有的死亡而生存。在死亡和死亡之间是生存的日子，但这日子短暂又易逝。所以全人类都注定归于虚无。一切无神论者的抗辩都归入这解释。有这种思想的人，如果他们的生存只为了等待死亡的到临好自蹈其中，他们的不幸则是在于宣称人生并没有任何事物是真的有意义。因此甚至一般人用来聊以自慰的「今朝有酒今朝醉」这套所谓哲学，也不能稍减他们那无可解脱的悲哀。剎那间的欢愉，又岂能补偿所有的伤痛，于是无可避免地，人心中每一个对生命的渴想都自行幻灭。结果是连他们的抗辩也在整个宇宙均迈向死亡这一明显事实前俯首投降。

这答案的第二个意思见诸于与上述无神论抗辩刚好相反的另一种态度：放弃。对人类的痛苦不作任何置评，对这位「神圣的陌生者」天主，祂那不可抗拒又难解的旨意逆来顺受，这正是约伯的朋友的态度。他们给约伯的解释，表面看来象在安慰他，实际上加给他更大的困扰。对约伯的朋友而言，上主的决定覆及万有，绝不顾惜任何人。于是《奥斯韦兹》那位囚犯的呼喊，可以有这第二种解释：在死亡的无辜者身上，我们见到一个没有心肝的天主与他一同死去。而这些义人和无辜者最大的不幸，是他们过份相信这位天主，相信祂会维护他们的权利，对世界的不义和痛苦作出公平的处理。约伯的朋友的态度当然不对。没错，面对那些横加于身的不幸与祸患，义人的反应是消极的，他们逆来顺受。可是他们心中始终坚信，天主不会以人类的死亡来光荣自己。

「奥斯韦兹」集中营内那位惨受迫害的囚犯的呼喊，是否尚有第三种解释：「看，祂就被悬在那里，在绞刑架上！」？有，但是这第三种解释要从圣经里找，亦正是这份天主自己的启示，给上面这段僵硬的文字抹上一层新的意义：「天主竟这样爱了世界，甚至赐下自己的独生子」(若3:16)。「祂没有怜惜自己的儿子，反而为我们众人把祂交出了」(罗8:32)。「基督由法律的咒骂中赎了我们出来，为我们成了可咒骂的，因为经上记载说：凡被悬在木架上，是可咒骂的」(迦3:13)。「因为祂曾使那不认识罪的，替我们成了罪，好叫我们在他内成为天主的正义」(格后5:21)。

因此挨着那正在死去的无辜者，与他并肩一起且在他内的，是十字架上的天主。这天主不是一位高高在上的判官，或对人间的苦难完全麻木的旁观者，祂就近在人的身旁，对他的苦难怜悯同情。就如十四世纪时的意大利文所形容的，是位将世界的痛苦变成自己的痛苦的天主，好给人类的痛苦带来意义和慰藉。那部有关被钉在十字架上的耶稣的福音，即是天主痛苦的福音。祂为了爱我们而被交于死亡。因此这部福音所宣讲的并不是一位在经历了世界的苦难和死亡之后复活，从此脱离人间，高高在上，以保持本身的超越性的天主。却是位甘愿分担人的痛苦，与他形影不离的天主，而十字架就是最佳的证明。所以，与其如无神论者般孜孜于宣判天主的死刑，我们情愿要这位被困于世界的痛苦中之天主。为此，与无神论者正好相反，我们不宣判天主的死，却宣扬死于天主圣三内。因为如此一来，当人宣认基督的苦难时，世界的苦难在基督的苦难中触到天主奥迹的最深处，把「圣三」三位，按各自的身份和方式卷入其中。结果是世界的苦难史被嵌入天主圣爱的永恒历史内，而人类的苦难所代表的那份无限尊严也得以被肯定。这尊严是如此巨大，致令这苦难要由父的永恒之子来承担。这等于说，在人类每一个痛苦事件中，天主父均临现在旁，给予受苦者补偿、慰藉和希望。

所以，十字架的福音并不操心于对「天主的沉默」这问题给予答案，因为在十字架震撼人心的静默中，不用发言，这问题便自动地被相信天主接近受苦的人这信念所克服。这位近在咫尺的天主，以只有祂自己才知道之玄秘方法召叫所有的人，要他们将痛苦变作爱情，辱骂化为呼求；将世界的痛苦史更易为一部爱的史书。祂邀请他们帮助别人背负十字架，及不论何时何地，为消灭引致人类受苦的种种不幸因素而奋斗。

真的，如果我们想知道天主是谁，我们得跪倒在十字架下(穆特曼)。(11)

父啊，请赏赐我们

认识你在爱中是全能的。

请使我们在面对你那份

爱的能力

时懂得惊叹，

就如你在天地初辟的第一个早晨开始

一直继续到永恒肇始那天的黎明，

整个宇宙将成为你的家园，

一切都在你内。

也请让我们即使在十字架下，

或甚至面对淹盖大地

的严酷苦难时，

依然宣认你爱的忠贞。

　

8. St ALFONSUS MARIA DE LIGUORI (1696-1787)，教会的主教与圣师，创立赎世主修会。

9. BLONDEL Maurice (1861-1949)，法藉哲学家，是现代主义的中坚份子。

10. 参看WIESEL E., La notte (Firenze 1980) 67.

11. MOLTMANN Jurgen，一九二六年生于德国安贝格(Amburgo)，德藉誓反教(基督教)神学家。

4. 天和地的创造者

天主是天和地的创造者是什么意思？

在回答这问题前，让我们看看这端信德的道理是怎样形成。教会从成立之初便将创造与救赎这两件事连在一起。正如古以色列一样，教会也是从自己对天主救世主的经验而获得她对天主造物主的信德。事实上，在天主造物主身上可以看到天主、人类救主的反映，亦正是在逾越事件，即基督的苦难、死亡和复活中，宇宙的历史被当作圣三的历史而重新研究。

首先创造是父的工作，祂是每一个生命的来源，所有存在的事物，都是出于祂永不止息的源头。「上天下地的一切父道，都是从祂而来」(弗3:15)。因此对于父，我们宣认祂是全能的，是天与地和一切有形无形之物的创造者和主……」。

至于子，祂是一切受造物被造的动机，一切都是在祂内受造的，一切都是藉着祂，并且是为了祂而受造的(哥1:16)。因为，在天上和在地上的一切，可见的与不可见的，或是上座者，或是宰制者，或是率领者，或是掌权者都是在祂内受造的」(哥1:16)。「天主圣三三位之间的关系是如此辽阔，以至整个世界能居于其内」(汪诗贝) 。(12)在一切受造物的首生者」(哥1:15)，即父所钟爱之子的永恒居所内，更栖息着整个受造界的使命，爱的使命。

最后，正如在圣三的生活中圣神是结合父与子的爱情，使祂们在自由和慷慨中彼此相爱，同样，圣神也把受造物和造物主结合起来。祂一方面巩固这关系，维持受造物得自造物主那份原来的美善；另方面，祂确保受造物的自主，让他永远在自由中成为有别于造物主的「另一位」。「天主的神在水面上运行……」(创1:2)；「请派遣你的神，地面将创成及更新」(咏104:30)。一切都是父藉基督在圣神内所创造，一切都仍要经由基督在圣神内再回归到父那里。圣三是一切受造物的根源和家乡，是孕育「创造」之可敬和超越的「怀抱」。

因此，所有存在的事物，无论这些事物以何种形式、或在何时何地存在，因为不是自有、实有或自立体，所以均被视为是唯一、独一的天主的受造物。这位天主既是世界上我们已知的一切，可见或不可见的事物的主和父。祂亦是，如我们承认的，宇宙中那些我们尚未认识的世界的主和父。我们不可能以自己的知识尺度来量度天主全能的创造力量，因为这力量所拥有的无限可能性，不能被我们所限：天主就是天主，受造物并非天主。所以，无论何时何地与在何种情况下，都该保持造物主和受造物这重关系！而最足代表天主创造能力的深远和广阔的，是对天使界存在的信德。「天使」是提醒我们尚有一个比人类世界更超越的境界之永恒记忆，这境界在人的理智所能想象之外，因而迫使人不得不承认其理智和思想之不足与卑微。事实上，在一个成熟和自由的世界内，即今日世界所代表的，我们又再听到「天使往来的扰攘」(贝津)。(13)因为人们重新发现他们需要有一个更大和更超越的境界，去帮助他们克服由于人类理智的过份自信及人心的过份以自己为中心所带来的苦恼和困难。同样地，失足的天使、即撒旦(魔鬼)的存在，则显出受造物面对其造物主可能有的另一种极端态度，那种对造物主致命性的完全拒绝和刻意以行动反抗祂和祂的计划，却又无可避免地依然永远隶属于祂绝对的权力之下的事实。

至于降生成人之子，其救世行动亦一样惠及一切存在之物，不论是甚么或于何时何地存在。因为正如圣保禄说：「天上和地上的万有，总归于基督元首」(弗1:10)。而藉着教会、基督奥迹的传讯者、「天上的率领者和掌权者，得知天主的各种智慧」(弗3:10)。因此可以说万物都被「基督化」，因为万物不但都是藉着祂而造成，而且带着祂的印号，并指向祂的降生。在基督降生后，祂更亲自把一切都收归在自己内，好使一切都能得救。

最后，圣神的行动亦一样伸延到每一个受造物身上。这位「随意吹到那里」的圣神(若3:8)填平那分隔开造物主和受造物的空隙，以确保一切由「爱人」父在「被爱」子内所创造的，都在爱中与祂们结合一起。多得有圣神，我们才可以说何处有生命，何处便有爱，而所有一切存在的事物在天主爱情的永恒共融中，不只曾经被爱过，更将会永远蒙受眷顾。

在这种情形下，整个受造界就如一个婴儿被母亲拥抱在怀中一样，被包卷在天主圣三的怀抱内。正是这份肯定，令到信友心中对永生忠诚的天主生出无条件的信赖，相信祂能够使自己摆脱任何恐惧，帮助自己克服因面对覆盖大地的祸患时，内心由于无助而产生的绝望。「上主是我的牧者，我实在一无所缺。……纵使我应走过阴森的幽谷，我不怕凶险，因你与我同在」(咏23:1.4)。此外，这份知道自己和万物都是在圣三内的意识，尚会自然地催迫人爱护和尊重一切受造物，我们可称之为一种以关心和照料为基础的「生态神修」或「环保神修」。

以上所说的经验，事实上一直存在于信友团体内，因为在慈母教会的怀抱中，信友都体味到天主父的慈祥和忠诚，于是在与其他弟兄一起走向天主所预许之家园的路上，终于明白到维护正义和平，保护受造界与抵抗祸患是我们这段「流徙之旅」的一部份，并非为瘫痪我们的行程，而是要使我们在旅程中更为警觉，就好象进入造物主许诺的福乐与光荣之前，先接受的一项军事预习。

父，

你为了爱而创造

并为了爱而继续

赐下生命。

在你面前是你所创造的一切，

这一切都收集在你永远爱着之「被爱」－－子

的爱情中。

这一切亦都被结合

和保守于

你的圣神的忠信内，

好使你的受造物中没有一个

会缺乏你父爱

的保护

和喂养。

请帮助我在一切事情上总晓得

接受、

爱惜和保守

那来自你的生命。

在屡次把人包围起来

的黑暗的日子内请让我

认出在黑夜丰饶的怀抱内

那把你结合于

子和圣神

的爱之连系。

　

12. von SPEYR Adrienne，天主教女神家。

13. 参看BERGER P.L., Il brusio degli Angeli. Traduzione di Alfonso Prandi = Saggi 95 (Bologna, il Mulino 1970).

5. 及信耶稣基督

祂唯一的子，我们的主。

教会的信仰宣认纳匝肋人耶稣，即被钉死在一根可耻的木柱上的加里肋亚先知被天主复活起来，并向世界指出祂就是主和基督。祂既是真人，亦是真天主，因为祂是永恒之父的子。

在过去，对基督的身份曾一度有趋势把重点偏放在祂的天主性上，以至把祂的人性掩蔽起来。然而，设若耶稣在世时所作的一切，只纯粹是天主子的行动，那么，正如有些学者所说，我们所相信的，只是一位昙花一现、过境式的天主，对人间的一切无知无觉。

反驳这说法的是一种走向另一极端的言论；把耶稣绝对人性化而完全摈弃祂的天主性。根据这理论，今日的世界是个处于危机的世界，似乎越来越不需要天主。然而，正是在这个人们好象已不再思念天主的「世俗之城」内，大家却渐渐发现对一位人性耶稣，人类旅途上的同伴和兄弟的需要，他们感到只有这样的一位基督才懂得与现代人沟通，因为祂是位自由的先知，是位为爱舍生的义人；祂对有权势的人构成威胁，使他们寝食难安；对穷人则跟他们一样穷，且乐意亲近他们。对持这言论的人来说，纳匝肋人耶稣最珍贵之处是使他们看到人的「完全自我满足」，不用再往一个陌生的天主的世界去寻求庇护之可能性。所以对于他们，耶稣在十字架上死的那刻是个决定性时刻，因为正是在那刻天主的形象死去，代之而起的，是一个成熟和具权威的人的形象。于是圣周五是天主死于耶稣内，让人生活的一天。以基督的十字架为基础，而建立起来的，这份对人的新估价所引致的结果，是人从此不再属于任何一位，不再受制于任何教条或所谓神圣。换句话说，藉着建立一个教会，耶稣使人摆脱每一个教会。于是人从此完全是自己的主人，可以昂首面对世界和历史。而「只要耶稣，不要教会」这句标语，正是对「人耶稣」的再发现，和抵抗一切能损及由祂给人类赚得的这份绝对自由的结果。

面对着这些不同的理论，首先要承认的是它们都有若干价值。如果天主真的降生成人，那么耶稣的人性不但不会与祂的天主性互相竞争或抵触。恰好相反，祂的人性该是天主向我们展示自己面貌的最核心点。正是这张福音为其作证，圣人爱慕有加的谦卑却又不能完全看透的面孔，在耶稣完全人性的生活中，让我们认识到三位一体的天主是如何接近人类，对我们的爱是何其深刻。这一切帮助我们终于明白人其实拥有一份无可比拟的尊严，而人类的伟大与希望正是建基在天主的人性上。天主接受了人性这一事实表示天主接受人类生活中所有的境遇，并使这些境遇成为祂在历史中临现和使历史进入祂内之场地。正由于天主降生成人这事实，我们才有可能向人宣扬这喜讯：「生活的人是天主的光荣」。(14) 一个善良正直和快乐的人类，是活人之天主的光荣。

对天主之人性的重新发现，无可避免地同时使人重新再检视自己的人性。这等于把注意力再放在基督的天主性上。教会的复活喜讯，一个既让人物议却又振奋人心的讯息所宣扬的，是这位卑微的、被当权者钉在十字架上、三日后复活的纳匝肋人，正是天主之子。假如没有这讯息，由耶稣基督、这位为了爱我们而把自己交出的永生之子开始，人类这份被再发现的尊严会变得一文不值外，我们所相信的原罪之赦免和对永生之光荣的希望亦变得毫无意义。

如果这位纳匝肋人只是一个「普通人」，那怕他是人类中最伟大最纯洁的，也不可能救得了我们，不可能把那来自天上的永生给予我们。即是说，死亡和罪恶都没有被消灭。人类历史中那隐晦的未来仍是个没有答案的问号，那与生俱来重重压迫着每一个人的原罪，亦不可能被赦免。这等于说历代中一切因原罪而被束缚的，都没有被赎的可能。只有如果耶稣是人又是天主、只有如果在祂内真的完成了那从未有过的天地合一，整个人类的救援才有答案。而我们也可以肯定藉着恩宠，从这一刻起，我们可以免陷于一切凶恶和罪过中；肯定良善、正义及爱情终必得胜。

只有在为我们而死的天主子身上，我们才能保证战胜私心和罪恶；才能爱和在爱中克服死亡，并肯定人生和历史的最后一句话并非不义和痛苦，而是正义和无尽的喜乐所带来的平安。藉着祂－－这位降生成人并活在我们中间的天主子，生活及献出自己的生命都是美好的，因为只要能在祂内，连承受每天的辛劳都是有意义的，甚至似乎已经幻灭的希望都仍有将来。而祂的教会，一个属于那些在已复活之主内复活的人的团体，更自愿成为生活的圣神临现之地，尤其是在宣读圣言和擘饼礼中，让圣神再次带来自由，使人类的历史能预尝天主所许诺的光荣。

如果真是这样的话，为什么对于相信耶稣是人又是天主这事实仍有这许多阻力？对于宣认耶稣默西亚及天主之子的主要困难到底在那里？这些困难可归纳为四种，分别以不同形式在历史中出现：即是人对天主的概念，人自己的问题，对教会的要求与爱德生活之实践。

第一种困难，这困难出自人在未认识基督前对天主所拥有的概念。为那些欲维护天主之绝对超越性的人，基督人性与天主性合一的身份肯定引起非议。因为这位忍受十字架可耻屈辱，又遭其同时代之所谓明智之士拒绝承认为天主子的纳匝肋人，如果他真是历史之主的话，那这位天主与他们心目中一直所想像的天主实在相差得太远。他们心中所想象的，是位遥不可即，与人径渭分明，对人来说完全陌生的绝对神明，这样的一位神明不可能过人的卑微生活。然而，开解这些人心中之疑惑的，正是那一直到现在仍引起争论的喜讯：天主降生成人，为爱而使自己成为卑微的，甘愿与罪人和社会中最下层的人生活在一起。我们的天主正是透过这桩扰乱明智之士及使那些自以为是天主专家者不安的事实，来向我们表示祂是如何疯狂地爱着我们。圣经早就写得清清楚楚，不正是这「天主的愚妄」比人的智慧更明智吗？

第二种困难来自人自己。从历史的伤痕中，人不断在抗议，抗议那位降生成人的天主并没有给人消减生活的劳苦；没有消减死亡，尤其是无辜者的死亡之惨伤。当「奥斯韦兹」集中营的刽子手在杀害那些无辜者时，当各种暴政与残虐的极权主义在践踏着人的最基本权利时，当爱滋病人孤单地死在收留他们的隔离医院时，天主究竟在那里？谁若看过「奥斯韦兹」和「南京大屠杀」那种撕裂大地的苦难惨痛，他们的眼再也看不到天主！因此，似乎唯一的答案是这位天主根本便不存在(史汤达尔及尼采)。(15)然而，我们知道祂是存在的。那位为爱而被钉在十字架上的基督，正以自己谦卑的沉默面对这些质疑。因为我们的天主不在胜利利者的一边，祂亦不与那些自意为掌管着别人命运之钥的人联成一线。因为祂是位穷人的天主，甘愿在生活和痛苦中与他们厮守在一起，这位与人同在的天主并非来判决世人，而是来服务并拯救他们。圣经上说得非常明白，不正是天主这份软弱比有权势者的势力更有力吗？不正是基督苦难所带来的震撼比那些没有希望的人的话和抗议更具说服力吗？

第三种困难来自对教会的责难和非议。固然，教会作为基督无穷恩宠和爱情的守护者与传授者，屡次因她子女的罪过和不忠而蒙垢。可是，为某些人，他们最不能接受的，是众多信友在世界的不义和邪恶势力面前所表现的那种有若同谋者的沉默。于是他们问，福音所带来的那股崭新之气究竟在那里？这些人大概忘记了，基督在世上建立了这教会，正是要她世世代代负起圣人之母和罪人之慰的职责。说得更清楚一点，基督的教会永远是个圣人和罪人的教会。教会内固然不乏圣人，然而教会的门永远为罪人开着。因为等待罪人的回头，正是天主进入世界把自己交付给人类的原因。这事实肯定会令到那些对宗教与道德苛求得有如「清教徒」的人士不安，却绝对能回应与满足罪人与贫弱者的欠缺。设若天主不把自己交给脆弱和一身罪恶的人类，如教会中某些成员所表现的，祂又怎能成为接近人的天主和亲身体验人类那许多的不幸。所以，如果我们想深一层，我们便会发现，正因这教会并非只为一群经过挑选，完全毫无缺点，完美无可指摘的人士而设，相反的，天主把这个教会完全放在人的手中与权能内，而显出天主对人类爱情的无畏和挑战性。

最后一种困难来自我们的信仰对信友在爱德生活上的要求。为某一些人，他们固然非常欣赏福音的精神，亦钦佩历代的殉道者和圣贤的作证生活。然而他们自己却完全没有意思要追随福音的教导而生活，即为了爱主而甘愿牺牲和放弃一切。一个最佳的例子便是玛尔谷福音所记载的富少年。这少年人在耶稣给他指示出跟随自己的条件后，虽然心中非常仰慕耶稣，却因舍不得那庞大的财富，只好忧戚戚地丢下耶稣而去(谷10:17-22)。对于这些人，福音的评语不错是相当严厉：如果人失了自己的灵魂，就算能得了整个世界为他也没有用。可是福音也一再向这些人保证，只要他们愿意接受这份邀请和召叫，那位与人同在的天主在向他们有所要求之前，一定会先赐给他们力量和一颗喜乐的心，以完成他们被要求去做的事。我们所相信的，并非是位专作无理苛求和动轧便惩罚人的天主，却是位忍耐慈祥的天主，祂给罪人回头的机会，支援软弱者再提起步来重新在爱中开始一个新生活。耶稣这位拥有绝对人性的神之一生，正是天主对人这邀请或甚至可称作挑战的最佳写照。而对那些明白这邀请或挑战的真正意义的人而言，他们除了跟随耶稣的榜样，迷失般地成为天主爱情的俘虏，为了爱祂而舍弃一切外，别无其他选择。

可是人们不禁要问，这项对基督无条件的接纳包含些什么？是否除了相信耶稣是主外便没有其他得救之路？人对耶稣的信仰是否只是云云众多信仰中的一种？如果答案是「是」的话，那为什么需要如此迷失般地相信祂？若答案是「否」的话，那天主教会的信仰与别的宗教到底有何不同？

以上这些问题对我们之跟随基督一事具决定性的影响，因为它们显示出基督这名字所代表的「非常性」、「绝对重要性」和「必然性」。换言之，这些问题关系着基督本身对人类的救赎。首先，我们愿意从人的现状开始，即是人永远无法感到满足，总是感到尚欠缺某种东西，人心永远无法享有那份绝对的平安这事实开始。正如圣奥思定所说：「你为了自己而造了我们的心，因此一直到能在你内憩息为止，我们的心永不安宁」。(16)所以我们每一个人注定永远是个「天的追寻者」，寻求那有别于我们，比我们超越的另一位－－我们称祂为天主。这份对「绝对超然」的渴想，对「另一位」的思念(何夏曼)，(17)就如人心怀念那绝对完美和彻底实行的正义一样，因为这正义根本没有任何人力能实行。这被士林神学家称为「想见天主的自然愿望」，是世上每一种宗教的根及原动力。撇开每种宗教各自拥有的价值不谈，我们该承认存在于每一种宗教内那份对神的开放和为改善人生所作的努力，本身已是一种价值。因此每一个人都有责任以尊重和真正友善的态度去对待一切宗教和它们的传统。就算纯粹从历史的层面来看世上的宗教，人们也不得不承认这些宗教实在都具有积极的一面。所以几时我们需要去接近一个人或一个民族的宗教时，都应该学梅瑟走近那堆燃烧着的荆棘时所作的一样，要赤足，因为那是一块圣地(出3:5)。

然而，这并不表示历史上所有宗教都是为提升人类和光荣天主而存在。这需要我们的分辨。事实上，有不少例子让我们知道，很多人利用宗教作工具，去达成他们离间和操纵个人甚至整个民族和阶层的目的。因此，为了能正确地分辨这些宗教，需要有另一种答案的提供，这答案正是天主在历史中的自我启示－－即在耶稣基督身上。换言之，基督正是我们所要的准则，以明辨存在于人心的价值，和给予这颗心一真正机会去享有圆满的生命。天主教教会正是在纳匝肋的耶稣、主和基督身上，从祂的言行认出这准则；正是在祂内，天主毫无保留地直接跟我们说了话；正是在祂内，天主向我们述说天主父如何爱人，天主子为父所爱且我们都在子内被父爱着，与及天主圣神是爱的生活的经历；正是在祂内我们得以进入天主爱的生命中，使我们也因而变得有能力去爱。所以教会带给人类的信息－－关于耶稣的宣讲，自拥有一份绝对的独一和唯一性。因为这宣讲的内容是天主降生成人，天主与我们同在。祂，这位近在咫尺的天主，是人类历史的力量、判决和希望。

因此人类对救恩的期望和他对另一位绝对神明的思念，由于耶稣基督的出现而划上句号。因为祂正是这期望和思念的最后答案。原因是祂是天和地的衔接点，是人神相遇之处，这相遇是在祂的死和复活的逾越事件中完成。基督的十字架固然让我们明白到人类的众多问题都该钉在我们的天主的启示内，然而，基督的复活却向我们保证，在那无可避免和带净化作用的死亡之后，这些问题会找到它们最真实的答案。

对于那些知道自己在黑暗中摸索，并接受跟耶稣一起死去这耻辱的人来说，基督的光为他们照亮着。为此，接受福音是个完全绝对自由的选择，而不是一件无理性的事实；是一项提议，即丝毫没有强迫性；是一份生命的恩赐。这一切要求接受的人敢于冒险和有勇气，原因是在他作出选择的那一刻，将来尚未在他的掌握之中。而这正是我们的信仰崭新之处。即天主是爱和人类在对基督的信仰中向天主开放自己。不错，我们固然可以向所有人宣扬我们的宗教这种「独一性」，这根本便是推广教会传教事业的原动力，我们却绝对不能强迫任何人接受这信仰。齐克果有句话说得非常好：从基督身上「出发的有两条路，一条会使人绊倒，另一条则直趋信仰所在。只是若不经过绊倒的可能，人永远不能抵达信仰」。

主耶稣

在你内天地

相交接，

你是盟约的人格化，

是那位使人的历史

成为天主的历史的

永恒之子，

因而使光荣的世代

为我们开放。

请赐给我们信德好相信你，

并让我们在工作的真理内

和今世的日子中

都跟随你。

愿我们能以唇

和心宣认你是

我们生命的主。

并请令我们懂得

以谦卑与温和，

以爱的感染力和放射力

成为你堪可相信的见证人。

　

14. St IRENAEUS, Adversus haereses, IV,14,1:「Gloria enim Dei Vivens homo」.

15. STENDHAL (1783-1842, Marie Henrie Beyle之笔名)，法国作家；NIETZSCHE Friedrich Wilhelm (1844-1900)，德国哲学家。

16. St AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, De Confessiones, I,l: 「Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te」.

17. HORKHEIMER Max (1895-1973)希伯来与德裔的美籍社会学家。

6. 祂因圣神成孕，生于童贞玛利亚

玛利亚是「奥迹」的女性肖象。要明白这句话的意思首先要知道什么是奥迹。「奥迹」二字在圣经和历代教父的思想中是个含义非常丰富的名词。所谓「奥迹」就是指天主自永恒便已计划好之整个救世工程，一件非任何人类语言能描述的奇妙事工。这「奥迹」曾一度秘而不宣，现在却在耶稣基督身上完全彰显出来(参看罗16:25；格前2:7-9；弗1:9, 3:3, 6:16；哥1:25-27；弟前3:16)。这「奥迹」、一份隐藏在历史征兆下的光荣同时包含可见和不可见两部份。可见的是那些使这「奥迹」得以实践的事件，不可见的是在这些事件内而完成的天主的工作。而最卓越的「奥迹」当然是降生成人之「圣言」。「他出现于肉身，受证于圣神，发显于天使，被传于异民，见信于普世，被接于光荣」(弟前3:16)。由此可见，这奥迹涵盖属于天主的真理和属于人的真理，这人不但是天主所造，亦是祂所救赎，而这两种真理同时存在于这位指明自己就是「道路」、「真理」和「生命」的耶稣之内(若14:6)。

为什么我们说玛利亚是「奥迹」的女性肖象呢？因为她关系着这奥迹的满全。事实上，在「天使报喜」那一刻(或惯称的「圣母领报」)，即逾越事件的序幕，已可以看出玛利亚是如何被天主的奥迹包围着，和她怎样同意藉圣神的德能把这奥迹接待到自己内。所以「天使报喜」其实是非常「圣三化」的一幕：出于父的恩宠，玛利亚将受圣神的荫庇，使她从此成为那降生成人的永恒之子的母亲。所以「天使报喜」这一幕不但让我们看到玛利亚是天主的怀抱，因为圣子居于她内；亦同时让我们看到天主三位怎样把这位贞女接纳到祂们的怀抱内。为此，对天主圣三而言，玛利亚是唯一的童贞－－母亲－－净配。

以她童贞的身份，玛利亚在天主父前是完全的接受，所以她是天主第二位－－子的肖象。因为自永远，子便是「爱的居所」，祂接受父的爱，让自己被父爱着；祂是那位被「生育者」，「被爱」，是子、是那位出于「寂静」之「言」。

以她降生成人的圣子之母的身份，玛利亚从天主父－－赋予生命的「爱情之源」手中白白地接受了恩典。为此，她是这位从永远便开始爱着，且不停地爱下去的父的肖象，因为她反映出父是一切受造物的绝对根源，是完全的付出，是那位「生育者」，是一切事物的「第一因」，是永恒的「爱人」。

玛利亚是天地相交的「结约之柜」，因为在她内天主将自己和人类的历史结合在一起，使她成为自己充满奇恩异宠的净配。因此，玛利亚不但自己进入父和子的共融中，更使世界藉着她的关系，也进入父和子的共融内，所以玛利亚亦成为圣神的肖象。因为圣神正是永恒的「婚盟」，无限爱情的「连系」，是天主的奥迹进入人类历史的「出口」。从上面所说的，我们可以看到这位童贞母亲、全能者的卑微使女身上，充份反映出天主三位之间的关系，在玛利亚身上印有天主三位圆满生命的印记。

再者，由于圣三的共融亦反映在教会奥迹内，因为教会本身亦是「圣三的肖象」，所以在玛利亚、主的母亲、圣三之居所的身上，教会看到自己的奥迹，即是她在天主的救世计划中的真正身份和角色。教会不但在玛利亚身上看到贞洁的信德，母爱和婚盟的模范，教会正是为了这些而被召；教会也在玛利亚身上认出母亲这身份真正的原型，即她应该成为的理想形象：圣神的殿宇，在子内受生的众子女之母，基督的身体，为服从父而在信德的路上前进的天主子民。

玛利亚，这位如此真实的受造物，这位拥有一份如此独一和不可重覆的女性型象的女人，被天主选为交谈的对象。在这交谈中，我们发现同时属于「创世」和「救赎」这两大事件之一切特色。首先，圣神荫庇着她，使人想起在创世之始「上主之神运行于水面」(创1:2)；在玛利亚身上又似乎可以看到天地初造成时第一个女人的影子(参看创3:15和若望福音以「女人」一词来称呼玛利亚)；她是蒙受祝福的「主之俾女」，因为「她相信全能者的话会在她身上成就」(路1:45)；她是那位获全能者垂顾并在她身上行了大事的卑微婢女(路1:48-49)，为此她在女人中是蒙祝福的(路1:42)。所以从这位童贞女对天使回答的「是」字，反映出受造物的尊贵，因为她藉天主圣宠的帮助，自由献身参与「永恒者」的救世计划，这使她在某种程度上，成为天主的合作人。另一方面，从玛利亚口中说出的这个「是」字，亦帮助我们看到天主的「真面目」。这位拣选了玛利亚，又获得她满怀信德地答允，毫无保留地把自己交给祂的天主，并非人类的竞争者，而是那位无需我们便把我们创造出来，没有我们出于自由选择的同意却救不了我们的「永恒者」。

「永恒者」从创造第一天的黎明便为受造界所拟下的计划在玛利亚身上展露无遗。特别是天主圣三各自在这计划中所担任的角色和工作，我们可以在玛利亚身上看得清清楚楚。首先，她反映子的身份，她接受，她是贞女，是那位在信德中聆听、接受和允诺完全相信天主的贞女。其次，她亦是母亲，是父慷慨博施者的肖象；是在爱中付出、奉献、传送生命的「生育者」。最后，她更是净配，是圣神结合能力的象征，是生活在希望中的受造物，因为她晓得将人的今生与天主所许诺的未来合在一起。因此，作为人类的一份子，玛利亚藉着自己对天主的信德、爱情和希望，反映出人类对来自天主圣三的救世计划所表示的深切同意，和这计划在玛利亚身上所留下之不可磨灭的戮印。这位贞女母亲自献成为依照天主的计划而塑造出来的人之肖象：即一个满怀信德、希望和爱情的人。这个人亦是那造他和救他的天主的肖象，并被天主召叫，为自由和无保留地分担祂救世的工作。

因此，我们从「天主圣三的肖象」玛利亚身上，学习如何去经验这位爱的天主之临在和接受祂。玛利亚在未看见前已体验了天主肉身的临在。她在听到生命之言之前，已先在自己幽暗的胎中听到祂的心跳。所以，玛利亚是先感到天主之后才听到和看到祂。玛利亚是天主的母性与女性慈蔼的一面，是五光十色的黎明吐艳前，那孕育着众生之相的黑夜。玛利亚邀请我们在自己的心坎深处，在生命的源头，在静默的死寂中，及在等待上主临现之企盼中，生活天主的经验。

可是我们一直在说的天主的经验到底是什么？玛利亚便是这问题的最佳答案。从玛利亚那里，我们看到所谓「天主的经验」即是接受。换句话说，一个人想要有天主的经验，他一定要去接受天主，把祂迎接到自己内，让祂在自己身上工作，就如祂曾经在玛利亚身上所行的一样。所以，是天主在工作，只有祂是全能的，祂的恩宠战胜人类的无限软弱，丰富祂的受造物的绝对贫乏。因此，天主工作，人类接受。而在这接受中，有人类自己的抉择及创新精神，这正是童贞受孕的真正意义。为此，基督生于童贞玛利亚，主要有下面的双重意义。一方面，是天主以自己的恩宠盖过祂的受造物的贫乏，另一方面，天主以这行动否定人类所有的自夸和自负。即是说，在玛利亚对天主的召叫所回应的「是」中，有天主回答世界上一切「巴贝耳塔」的大大的「不」字。从玛利亚口中说出的「是」，是天主压抑强者，并以自己的恩宠提升弱者的「是」。为此可以说，玛利亚藉着自己回答天主的「是」，邀请我们在各人贫乏的饿渴中，将自己放在天主的「是」内。

从基督生于童贞玛利亚这件事，我们不但看到天主对人的怜悯，亦看到玛利亚如何以爱情去回应天主那份因世界的罪恶而忧戚不已的爱情。玛利亚因爱情及信德而接受，她切愿为了世界的得救将天主的痛苦变成自己的痛苦，于是甘愿把自己献出，作为天主拯救世界的工具。所以接纳天主的召叫是天主爱中的爱，是对天主救世计划的积极回应，这回应闪耀着奉献与恩赐光芒。只有爱能接受和付出，而玛利亚教我们如何接受爱的天主，以便给世界孕育出为救世人而降生成人的「爱之言」－－基督。作为母亲，玛利亚在父前为我们转求，帮助我们如她一样。作个有信德的人，期待并爱慕天主。

玛利亚，聆听的贞女，

你是「静默」，

在你的静默中

生命的「永生之言」为我们再响起来。

请帮助我们成为「圣言」的听众，

成为一块接待「将临」

的甘饴和静寂的土地。

圣子肉身的母亲，

你是父的纯净之爱

最美和光耀

的肖象；

请为我们取得

爱德之恩，

使我们在现世中

成为永恒的建筑者。

你是净配、

盟约的肖象，

是天地「结约之柜」，

请为我们求取圣神的恩典，

作为未来生命之保证

和使我们在现世中

成为正义与和平的工作者。

7. 受难于般雀比拉多执政时，被钉在十字架上、死及被埋葬且下到冥府

根据福音所载，耶稣临死前所说的其中一句话是圣咏第二十二篇：「我的天主，我的天主，你为什么舍弃我？」(谷15:34；玛27:46)。耶稣被父遗弃于十字架上，一直都是那些想为圣周五：这不可解之谜找出一个合理解释的人的一块绊脚石，亦是一切所谓「天主痛苦之神学」的中心。这些人希望能够从被钉于十字架上的耶稣那里，找出能解答人类受苦的最后意义。

由于圣咏第二十二篇是篇表示对天主之信心的圣咏，传统的释经学均在这句呼号中看到耶稣对父无条件的依赖，然而圣史路加却用截然不同的字眼来表达这份信心：「父啊！我把我的灵魂交托在你手中」(路23:46)。所以，若要理解耶稣被遗弃于十字架上的谜，我们应从耶稣自己的经验来解说这篇圣咏，而不是相反地，用圣咏来阐释耶稣在十字架上的呼喊。只有这样，此历史事件的具体性和独一性才能被保存下来，而这份具体性及独一性，是浓缩在几乎如新闻报道的几个字中：「受难于般雀比拉多执政时」。

根据玛尔谷及玛窦所记载，十字架上的耶稣称天主为「厄里」(Eli)。这称谓当然没有「父啊」二字所表现的亲切和洋溢着孺慕之情，却是充满惶恐惊惧对神的呼喊，是将死的人对这位崇高的天主之质疑：「为什么？」(希腊文作「为何目的？」)，所以，玛尔谷和玛窦所记载耶稣在十字架上的呼喊，是个满是忧伤疑惑的问句，因为受苦的人在折磨痛苦中，完全看不到其目的所在。因此这句话是吐自一个有真正被弃经验的人之胸臆。纳匝肋人耶稣在十字架上那刻深切企盼的是父的临现，然而，祂在当时却只感到被父遗弃和完全的静默。耶稣以子的身份深刻体验到的这份「被弃感」，与圣咏作者所想的正好是个对比。根据后者，一切义人都有权受到上主的保护，而十字架上的耶稣，正是世界上愁苦人中最愁苦的那个，因此祂有绝对权利接受父的保护，可是祂一点也感受不到。

纵然如此，面对这被弃的痛苦，耶稣仍以奉献作为回应。不错，祂的确是被遗弃，可是祂不绝望！路加的叙述正好表现出十字架上的耶稣之痛苦的另一面，耶稣亲切地称天主为「父」；「为什么」三字亦变成一句充满信心的「交托在你手中」，于是被父所弃的感受遂变成自我遗弃于父的双臂内。被拋弃的耶稣在痛苦中深深地融入大地上一切被钉于十字架上的人之痛苦中。同时为了祂对世界的爱，祂充满信心地将自己献给父作祭品。为了爱而服从并把自己的灵魂交给父(参看若19:30)，十字架上的耶稣因而与世界上那些没有天主的人，即那些因为他们自己的罪过而脱离圣神，被放逐于爱的国度之外的人团结一起。

可是父呢？难道祂真是完全置身于子的痛苦之外吗？祂「并没有怜惜自己的儿子，反而为我们众人把他交出了」(罗8:32)；父「竟这样爱了世界，甚至赐下自己的独生子」(若3:16)。在子的痛苦中其实蕴含着父的痛苦。在十字架上天主以子的身份受苦，因为祂是被钉的那位；天主亦以父的身份受苦，因为祂把子交了出来；至于圣神，祂本来便是父与子共发之爱情。故此，当父与子均受苦时，圣神更是无可避免地受这痛苦感染。因此十字架其实是部圣三对世界的爱情史。不是那种被迫接受痛苦的爱情，是甘愿选择痛苦的爱情，与西方希腊思想所想象，那种被动的痛苦截然不同。因为是被迫承受的痛苦，所以是不完美的代表。可是天主是绝对的完美，因而这被动的痛苦假设天主的不能受苦性。然而，我们的天主所显示的，是种主动的痛苦，那种出于自由选择的痛苦，因此是完美爱情的完美表现：「若为朋友舍掉生命，再没有比这更大的爱情了」(若15:13)。由此可见，耶稣基督的天主，并不是一位置身于世界痛苦之外，对此痛苦毫无感觉的天主。相反，祂承担并赎回此痛苦，把这痛苦作为流溢出世界新生命的礼品和供献。

自从二千年前那第一个圣周五起，我们知道人类痛苦的历史亦即是天主与人同在的历史。天主临现于人类的痛苦中与人一起受苦，把因为爱而受苦的无限价值传给人。天主「爱的国」自愿被「放逐」到罪恶、痛苦及死亡中，以便将这一切变成祂自己的，使人类的历史和自己修和。天主甘愿接受死亡，好让世界获得生命。祂不是那位被人类的痛苦所咒骂的隐蔽对手，却是那位在受苦的人中呼喊，与他一起的非常「人性的天主」。这位天主为了人的缘故，在自己无声的苦难中，以自己的十字架拯救人(穆特曼)。祂是那使世界的痛苦变得有意义的天主，因为祂承受了这痛苦并拯救了它，这意义便是爱。

由此可见，基督在十字架上的死亡确实是死亡的灭绝。在那可耻的木架上，是天主子为了付予我们生命而将自己交给死亡。在静默的圣周六中，基督下到死亡的最深基地并将其吞并。祂的「下到冥府」，对那些被囚的灵魂是救恩的宣布(参看伯前3:19)，是祂已把整个宇宙及那些在祂降生前在历史中生活过，愿意开放自己，并期待着与天主结盟的人与父修好的保证。所以十字架带来的释放福音和圣周六的而且确给一切人提供了获得救恩的可能性。

主耶稣，

为了世界的生命而

被钉在十字架上的天主，

请帮助我们聆听

你的苦难那份

胜于万语千言的动人的静默。

这苦难让我们看到天主对人无限的爱情。

请使我们在你的死亡中认出

死亡的灭亡，

在你的被弃中看到

把你拋弃的父对人的厚爱。

此外，在施慰者

圣神的力量中，

在第九时辰

那份无边无际的痛苦中，

请使我们晓得和你在一起将自己放在

父的双臂内，

以便能在那战胜死亡

的爱的历史中

改造

我们痛苦的历史

及人生的每一种苦难。

8. 第三日自死中复活升了天，坐在全能者天主父的右边，从那里祂还会降来审判生者和死者。

如果子在十字架上将自己的灵魂交给父，以天主的身份进入被弃的深渊中(参看若19:30)。那么在复活事件中，则是父把灵魂赐还给子，藉此让世界在子内并与子一起进入与天主的完全共融。事实上，当新生的教会向外宣扬复活是圣三的工作时，所见证的正是这端信德。

新约以广大篇幅记载基督已经复活：「天主使祂复活了」(宗2:24)。在《宗徒大事录》一书中这句话连续不断出现，明显地要指出复活是由父肇始，是天主、「光荣的父」大能之行动；和指出在复活一事上，人们能看见父的「德能是怎样的伟大」(弗1:19)。父藉着复活制造了历史，介入被钉的耶稣的生活，宣称祂是主和基督：「天主已把你们所钉死的这位耶稣立为主立为默西亚了」(宗2:36)。同时父亦介入人类的历史，包括过去、现在和将来。

就过去而言，透过「解除率领者和掌权者的武装，把他们公然示众，使他们尾随于为十字架所举行的凯旋仪式」(哥2:15)，父宣布「否定」世界罪恶的「不」字；宣示那位卑微被钉在十字架上者的胜利。就现在而言，祂以天主及慈悲之父而自献，这样通过祂对钉于十字架上的耶稣所说的「是」字，释放一切被罪恶和死亡囚禁的人。「富于慈悲的天主，因着他爱我们的大爱，竟在我们因过犯死了的时候，使我们同基督一起生活，且使我们同祂一起复活」(弗2:46；参看罗5:8；哥2:13)。就将来而言，祂以许诺的天主之身份出现，即那位忠信地履行了「藉众先知的口所预言的」天主(参看宗3:18-20)，那位将会到来审判生者和死者的天主。由此可见，复活是父的历史，是生活的天主向祂的子，并在子内向我们－－死亡的囚徒，所说的伟大的「是」字。为此，复活是教会宣讲内容的主题和教会信仰的基础，更是我们生活和工作的希望和动机。保禄说得好：「假如基督没有复活，那么我们的宣讲便是空的，你们的信仰也是空的」(格前15:14)。

除了是父的历史外，复活更是子的历史。这可从教会传统丰富的引证看出来：「基督已复活了」(参看谷16:6；玛27:64, 28:7；路24:6.34；得前4:14；格前15:3-5；罗8:34；若21:14等)。事实上在受难前耶稣曾说过：「你们拆毁这圣殿，三天之内我要把它重建起来」。对这句话，圣史若望的解释是：「耶稣所提的圣所，是指祂自己的身体」(若2:19.21)。子在复活事件中的活跃角色，跟父是此事件的肇始者并没有任何抵触。因为「耶稣是主」这宣示永远是「以光荣父」为指向(斐2:11)！基督复活起来，对祂自己个人和对整个被祂拯救的人类的命运，都起着决定性的作用。如果祂的十字架是罪恶、法律和权力的凯旋，原因是祂曾经为了不忠的爱情而被「交付」(被犹达斯「出卖」：谷14:10)；为了代表执法者对祂的憎恨而被「交付」(公议会的「解送」：谷15:1)；被代表凯撒的当权者所「交付」(彼拉多把祂交给群众：谷15:15)。那么祂的复活便是罪恶、法律和权力的溃败，是自由恩宠与爱情的凯旋。在复活的基督内，生命战胜死亡。人们终于看到这位被人遗弃、被诬告为辱骂天主的人和颠覆者，竟然是生命之主(请参看宗5:12-7:25如何介绍基督怎样把人从罪恶死亡和法律中释放出来)。

就过去而言，复活的基督肯定了十字架的价值，混乱了智者的智慧(格前1:23-25)，把不义之果－－仇恨的墙推倒(弗2:14-18)。就目前而言，祂自献为「活着的那位」(宗1:3)和生命的赋予者(若20:22)。就将来而言，祂是光荣之主，是新人类的初果(格前15:20-28)。所以，复活既是子的历史亦是我们的历史。因为复活的主是为了我们而战胜死亡及把生命赐给我们。至于祂的升天(宗1:6-11)，正是祂会光荣再来的许诺，同时亦是祂常活着并在父前为我们转求的保证(希7:25)，更是那从高处降下的施慰者－－圣神在我们中间工作的肯定。

最后，复活亦是圣神的历史，因为基督是藉祂的德能而复活：「就肉身说，祂固然被处死了，但就神魂说，祂却复活了(伯前3:18)。藉着从死者中复活，耶稣被父以圣化之神的德能立为天主之子(罗1:4)。这位圣神即是父赐给子的那位，好让被羞辱的子能被举扬。于是被钉的耶稣从今开始其复活的主之新生活。圣神同时亦是基督许诺要赐下的那一位：「这位耶稣，天主使祂复活了，我们都是祂的见证人，祂被举扬到天主的右边，由父领受了所恩许的圣神；你们现今所见所闻的，就是祂所倾注的圣神」(宗2:32-33)。

在复活事件中，圣神在天主父与基督、和复活的基督与我们之间筑起双重的关系：在这事件中，圣神将父结合于从死者中复活的子，又把人与复活的子结合。使人因而开始一个崭新的生活。圣神更保证逾越事件中两个互相矛盾的现实之绝对一致。换句话说，圣神使被钉的耶稣成为得胜的基督，使那些被禁固于惊恐和死亡的人成为自由和勇敢的见证人，为生命及爱情作证。圣神祂不是父，因为祂是父所派遣的那位；圣神亦非子，因为复活的子得接受祂和把祂赐给世人；圣神是永远不会和父及子分开的那一位。在行动上，祂有别于父和子，而且是自由的，这一点可以从基督派遣门徒往训万民，并「因父及子及圣神之名给他们授洗」这句话可得到证明(玛28:19)；或从初期教会在礼仪中用的致候词：「愿主耶稣基督的恩宠，和天主的爱情，以及圣神的相通，常与你们众人相偕」(格后13:13)可得知。

由此可见，耶稣从死者中复活实际上是天主圣三，即父、子及圣神的事件。在这事件中，圣三以「使子复活的父」，「被父复活的子」和「被赋予及被接受的复活与生命之神」三位所共成的一个单元出现。这位历代圣祖所相信的天主在此事件中，在自己的圣神内将生命赐给被钉在十字架上的耶稣。宣称祂是主及基督。至于基督，祂从父那里接受了圣神，再把祂赐给人类，让他们可以偕同祂和父一起分享圣神内的生命。

为此，我们可以从复活事件看到在圣三内的双线行动：在圣神内从父到子，及由父经子在圣神内到达人类的行动。也是基督的行动和我们在祂内的新生命。逾越事件所显示的，是圣三如何在爱情中把自己完全向我们开放。逾越事件是救恩的赠与，使人能参与在父子和圣神内的生命。至于天主圣三，逾越事件所揭示关于祂们三位的历史，根本上便是人类的救恩史，是我们的历史。

初期的信友便是这样经验了复活事件，那些在圣周五被吓得逃跑无踪的，都变成复活事件勇敢的见证人，随时为了对那位曾经死去，现在活着，被他们宣认是生命之主的基督之爱而交出自己的生命。初期信友这种态度上的转变使我们不禁要问，在耶稣被钉于十字架上，祂完全被遗弃的那一刻，和新生教会开始她这份传教冲力的这段时间内，到底发生了什么事？而所谓逾越经验，历史中教会传教事业的起源到底包含些什么？

要回答这些问题，我们得回到圣经。有些女人和男人曾经遇见复活的主，这是新约有关耶稣复活后显现的记述。对于相遇的地点与时间，这些记述有时会互相冲突。可是，有一点在所有记述中都是完全一致的，而这亦是最重要的一节，因为它让我们了解逾越经验所代表的特色。

在所有关于复活基督显现的记述中，每一次都是基督自己主动出现。这表示什么呢？表示教会的信仰并非出自人一时的极端感受，却是天主的行动，是曾作死亡囚徒的耶稣向人显示自己还活着(宗1:3)。由聆听生出信德，信德是从外而来，藉着聆听使人得救的「话」，我们与「生命之言」相遇。

其次，在全部「复活显现」记述中，均记载了门徒们如何「承认」见到复活的主。正是这份肯定推动他们充满恩宠和自由，喜悦地向人宣称：「是主！」。这改变人生的「与基督相遇」是在毫无条件之认可中，在需要冒着被迫害的危险中，和在信德的交付中完成。

最后一点，从相遇生出「使命」。与基督相遇过的人再不是未相遇前的那个。他们的生活已被改变。他们现在是活着的基督勇敢和忠信的见证人，是热爱喜讯的宗徒。说得更具体一点，这「相遇」是一种具有改造力量的接触，是充满思念和热情的新生活的源头。

对初期教会的信友来说，逾越便是与基督相遇，是复活的主向他们显现，完全改变他们的生活，使他们甘愿失却自由，将自己整个向祂开放。这正是教会心中的逾越，不是对一件远古事件的僵硬回忆，而是那位活着的基督，为更新世界，为改变那些愿意在信德中以一颗自由成熟的心接纳祂的人的生活，今日主动地再显现自己。

主耶稣

你从父那里接受了

新生命的圣神，

你为了爱我们而死去，

请让我们在你内接受

施慰者的力量，

好能活在你内。

教会初期的见证人

由于与你－－复活的主相遇

改变了他们的心和生活。

请帮助我们

也如此与你相遇，

让我们被你遇上，

和被你复活奥迹

的宣讲和恩赐

所改变，

并藉着你，父的至爱之子，

生活在圣神内

成为永恒「爱情」－－父的子女

参与祂无尽的喜乐。

主耶稣，请来！

9. 我信圣神

「我去为你们有益，因为我若不去，『护慰者』便不会到你们这里来」(若16:7)。从上面这段话，可以看出耶稣在暗示天主许诺的实现只有在圣神的恩典中能完成。即是说，若缺乏这位降临于基督身上，再从祂那里倾注到每个人身上的圣神，人类的救赎将无法完成。在现世把我们从逾越事件分开的深渊亦无法填平。对我们而言，耶稣也只不过是个遥不可及，光辉耀目的模范而矣。他永不可能成为那进入我们内、与我们一起生活的基督。因此，是这位护慰者在实行基督的工作，使这工作在人类历史各不同阶段中进行并带来成果。祂是「真理之神」，即是那位在不同情况境遇出现的上主真理之神，是祂以自己所拥有那无穷造化的力量和炽热之情，将这些情况一一治愈和改造。

事实上，正是复活一事给我们揭示了圣神的奥秘。当耶稣在十字架上「交付了灵魂」(若19:30)，祂对人类之爱表现最极致的那一刻，祂正是在圣神内把自己献给父。父亦是如此，当祂从死者中复活了耶稣基督，我们的主，并以圣化之神立祂「为具有大能的天主之子」时(罗1:4)，父正是在圣神内将生命赋给被钉的耶稣。所以，在圣神内天主为创造另一个，并使他在自己爱的力量中充满生气而「走出」自我。天主亦令到一切远离祂的「再回到」自己内。圣神将天主三位的心向世人「开放」，不惜让子进入罪人流徙之地。祂也把分散的重新「聚集」起来，甚至完成了人类历史中最极致的行动－－「逾越修和」，使人重新被纳入天主圣三之内，圣神是令人自由的恩典，亦是把人结合的爱情。实际上，教会中不论东方或西方的神学传统，对圣神均有如此的体验。

为东方的智士，圣神是「天主的超拔」，因为在祂内，父和子双方为了献身于爱中而走出自我。事实上，我们从启示的见证知道天主每次都是在圣神内完成其走出自我的行动。例如在创世行动中：「上主之神运行于水面」(创1:2)；在先知的预言中：「我要将我的神倾注在一切有血肉的人身上；你们的儿子们和你们的女儿们要说预言」(岳3:1；宗2:18)；在基督降生成人的奥迹中：「圣神会临于你，至高者的能力会庇荫你」(路1:35)；在教会内，在第一个五旬节、圣神临于教会中：「但当圣神降临于你们身上时，你们将充满圣神的德能，要在耶路撒冷及全犹太和撒玛黎雅并直到地极为我作证人」(宗1:8)。

「圣神所代表的，是位丰盈得过剩而要向外流溢的天主；是位涌出爱情和恩宠的天主(贾西柏)。(18)正因为这样，所以祂是填满信友心灵的创造者圣神，是救援和安慰的施慰者圣神，是至高天主的恩宠，是活泉，是火，是来自天上不可见的傅油，就如教会在咏唱「求造物主圣神降临」这首歌所说的一样。

在圣神内，天主爱那些遥远、卑微、没有人爱的人。所以圣神被称为「穷人之父」，即是那些除了期待造物主天主和祂那份出人意表的爱情之外，再没有任何希望的人之依持。

为此，圣神是那些相信天主的人心中之喜乐和慰藉；是人在前路黑漆一片时对天主之忠信的绝对肯定；是信友在步向不可知的未来时对天主之许诺坚信不疑。「圣神的作用是要人远离家园，为一个完全意想不到的将来上路」(杜果）。(19)在圣神内，自天主那里溢出的爱，把人心引离自我而走向另一位……。

根据西方教会的神学反省，圣神是永恒爱情的「连系」，是将父和子结合起来的那一位：「看，就是这三位：爱人、被爱和爱情」。(20)如果是这样的话，可以说圣神是父与子所共发，因为是祂们之间那份授与受的爱情之「连系」，是祂们爱的永恒对话之「空间」和力量。

作为天主个人的爱情，圣神将信友结合于父并且令到他们彼此团结。是祂将从上降下的恩宠输入人心，是祂把天主的爱倾注在我们内(罗5:5)。感谢祂我们才懂得去爱。这位护慰者不但将暂时与永恒结合，祂亦将现在与过去和将来结合。因为在我们所庆祝和生活的感恩祭－－信德的奥迹内，基督的救恩事件在我们的纪念行动中重现。「那护慰者，就是父因我的名而要派遣来的圣神，他必要教训你们一切，也要使你们想起，我对你们所说的一切」(若14:26)。圣神把现在与将来结合，让人在现在已能看到天主的未来：因为祂是初果，是保证，是那永不会令人失望的担保，是祂将信友团结起来作为教会合一的最深厚基础。祂是救恩之神，是基督的奥体－－教会的共融与源头。因为是祂把教会内不同的肢体结合起来而不影响他们之间的差异。或更好说，是祂激发及滋养各肢体之不同神恩及功能，好让他们的实效和服务获得最高的发挥。感谢圣神的行动，教会－－救恩的圣事－－成为「圣三的肖象」，成为体验父与子内那份平安丰饶经验的场地。

天主把自己这位释放和结合之神放在人的面前，祂让人选择被爱及去爱，或完全拒绝这爱。福音中基督所指「亵渎圣神」之罪，就是人彻底地拒绝这份来自天上的爱。对人的得救而言，这当然是个很大的危险，但同时是人类尊严之最高表现。因为只要这世界上仍有人出于自由选择而不肯宽恕，这表示在他的创造者天主前，人有他的自由和尊严。就如圣奥思定所说：「天主，不错，无需你便创造了你，可是若你不愿意，祂可不能救你」。的确，天主尊重并等待由人心中说出的「是」，祂是如此无限富裕，却甘愿接受做个最穷的人，为的是要让原是无限贫乏的人，能因自己的自由选择而成为富裕。而面对人这份自由，连天主炽热的爱也得却步。原因是祂不能强迫人做他自己没有选择的事。祂虽是无限慈悲，却不能宽恕一个不愿被宽恕，不愿意谦下地把自己开放给那份从上而来的恩典的人。相反，谁若愿意将自己开放给圣神轻柔的嘘气，让祂带领自己及把自己塑造，那天主的慈悲则无所不能，甚至一些人认为绝对没有可能的事也变得可能。「因为凡受圣神引导的，都是天主的子女」(罗8:14)。

天主圣神，请降来！

永恒爱情的「连系」

请来将我们结合于平安内：

让我们与天主修好，

并更新我们的五内，

请使我们在众人前

成为从天上降来的合一

之见证人及工人。

你，生活的天主之「超拔」，

「爱人」－－父和「被爱」－－子

的完美恩典，

在创造者和救世者的爱内

请降临使我们向

「永恒者」令人惊叹的奇工异事开放自己。

让我们这些贫乏的旅人

能预尝天国的光荣，

这光荣我们现时隐约能见却未能拥有。

穷人之父，

人灵温和之客，

甘饴之慰藉，

你是我们内在的

自由和平安，

是合一的更新和连系，

这合一战胜

死亡所带来

的痛楚和静默。

18.KASPER W.，德藉天主教神学家，生于1933年。

19.DUQUOC C.，法藉天主教神学家，生于1926年。

20. St AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, De Trinitate Dei, VIII,X,14: 「Ecce tria sunt, amans et quod amatur et amor」.

10. 圣而公的教会

教会──现世旅途中的天主子民的诞生，并非出于某种人类的共同兴趣，或出于部份人士慷慨的推动。教会是从天上来的恩典，是由天主肇始。这个父从永远便在祂的救世计划中构思之教会，在父与以色列人立约时，祂已把她准备好，以便时期一到，她可以藉子的来临与圣神的倾注而诞生。所以教会是出于天主而非出于人。正是基于她这份特别的本质，我们永远不能只以人的角度来看教会：她是存在于天主和人之间的「奥迹」，是永恒之神在现世的居所。教会不能自己发明或制造任何事物，她只是接受，因为她本身便是份恩典：她在施恩和谢恩的行动中产生，而这行动是在一种默观式和感恩式生活内完成。

由于始自圣三，所以教会是圣三在现世的肖象，是天主爱情的共融之活生生肖象。教会因圣三之名而施行的洗礼，圣神将受洗者结合于基督内，并令到他们因接受父为他们每一个人所准备的神恩而变得丰裕。而各人所得之不同神恩，正显示他们之间的合一。这合一建基于唯一的圣神及唯一的主内，且通过各成员爱德之交谈和彼此的分工合作活于教会内，就象存在于父、子及圣神之间的永恒对话一样。所以信友的合一是圣三合一的肖象。信友在圣三内之生命的成长，和他们彼此间之共融的圆满之实践，有赖特别的滋养。这滋养来自忠实地聆听上主的话、参与感恩祭；来自给见证者盖上成年印号之坚振圣事；来自赦免在领洗后所犯的罪之修和圣事；来自把人祝圣为基督司祭及牧者的圣职圣事；来自令一男一女成为基督与教会婚盟之活圣事的婚配圣事；来自支持病弱者，并使他们分担救主苦难之救赎价值的病人傅油圣事。

作为天主在现世分施恩宠之可见场地，教会是圣神在历史中工作的记号及特别工具。因为她是基督的圣事，就如基督是天主圣父的圣事一样。而最能显出教会这份全面圣事性的是感恩祭 ── 教会整个生活的高峰和源头。因为感恩祭不但是基督逾越之纪念，且藉着这纪念行动，在不同时空内重行基督的逾越带来之救恩，所以感恩祭使人与天主修和同时令他们彼此和好。感恩祭是合一的圣事，藉圣神的力量，在感恩祭中，自唯一的饼生出唯一的基督奥体 ──教会，因此可以说感恩祭形成教会。

而感恩的教会首先是个地方教会，即在一特定时空内在主教带领下的一个特别会众，这地方教会是个绝对完整的教会。因为「至公」一词的原文Kath'olou，从字源学上解释是「完全的」、「完整的」。所以在唯一的基督圣体内及在唯一的圣神内教会是至一和至圣的。她同时亦是从宗徒传下来，她一直忠于基督交给祂的宗徒的使命：「你们要为记念我而举行这事」。同一位基督和同一位圣神再令每一个地方教会彼此连结，以形成全球各地方教会之间的普世共融。在这普世教会内，每一个地方教会都在别的地方教会身上看到自己的身份。因为她们在这些地方教会内认出那临现于圣神及圣体内之唯一的主。

然而，如果我们说感恩祭形成教会，在另一方面教会亦形成感恩祭。因为设若没有宣讲，便不可能传扬天主的话；假使没有人听主命接受祂的委托，逾越之纪念也就庆祝不成。所以圣言的宣讲和圣事的举行都需要教会的服务，即宣讲的服务，举行纪念基督十字架上之祭献的服务，及把分散世界各地之人类大家庭重新聚集在天主神圣子民共融中的服务。事实上，教会一直为她这三项使命：先知、司祭及王者使命而努力。这些服务亦伸延到每一位信友身上。因为每一个受了洗的人都藉圣神的力量成为基督的先知、司祭和王者之摹象。每一位受了洗的人都被召与所有弟兄一起在自己的生活中宣扬天主的话，庆祝感恩祭及在历史中实践天主之国的正义。这召叫以圣神所赐之神恩为基础，在不同团体内，通过各种特别职务的委派和执行而得到实践，这些职务都是为团体的某项需要而设置，并且得到团体认可和接受。因此可以说这个全面「职务化」的教会，等如是以服务为本质的全面「神恩化」教会。

最能显出教会这职务性的是由圣职圣事所授予之「三等级圣职」：主教、司铎和执事。这些职务是由宗徒及他们的继承人传下来，即我们所称的「宗徒传承」，并构成教会的圣统制。所谓圣统制是指那些为履行下面这些职务而从圣职圣事领受特别神恩的人。这些职务是宣讲圣言，以基督，教会之首的身份(in persona Christi Capitis)举行感恩祭，藉分辨及调和各种不同神恩以显示和保持基督奥体 ──教会的合一。他们的职务有别于其他任何一种职务，因为他们使基督以教会之首的身份临现，其他职务则以基督奥体的肢体之身份执行不同的工作。为此教会的「三等级圣职」是合一性职务，不是一切职务的综合，而是把其他统摄起来的职务。因此「三等级职务」，特别是主教及司铎之主要神恩是藉着执行教会委派给他们的先知、司祭和牧者之角色，分辨与协调不同的神恩。即主教在各地方教会，司铎则在主教委派给他们的地区内，懂得把适当的工作托付给适合的人，不论对内和对外，主教均是地方教会合一的记号及仆人。这地方教会由圣神在感恩祭中形成。对内而言，主教以关注，坚忍，警愓的态度，听取圣神在司祭班及整个团体所显示的一切征兆；对外来说，藉着主教团的成立，主教通过与别地主教之交往，尤其是罗马主教 ── 教宗 ── 的联系，他保持与其他地方教会，即普世教会的关系。

总括言之，以罗马，即安提约基雅的圣依纳爵所称「爱中之教会」的主教为中心之主教团，是各地方教会共融的记号和力量。而罗马主教，即教宗，他更是普世教会牧者之首，并且是他们合一的仆人。他是天主的众仆之仆(servus servorum Dei)，他是在一切地方教会的感恩聚会中先知性宣扬上主的话，奉上祭品，并为了他们的益处而自献的那一位。因此，不论对个别信友或各地方教会来说，与罗马主教──教宗── 的共融，是隶属于从宗徒传下来至一、至圣、至公的教会之最后准则。

然而，圣职圣事所授之「三等级职务」并非教会职务的全部。因为如果所有领了洗的信友都同时领受了圣神，那么他们每一位都有义务把自己所领的圣神带给别人。因此在教会内存有多元性，包括短期或长线的服务。这些服务由信友按各自领受的神恩、自己的地位和能力而执行。服务的性质可以是先知性，即是负有教导功能，例如神学家、要理导师和家长，因为他们是信德最初之见证人；可以是司祭性，譬如祭台辅理和以自己的病苦作为祭品而自献的病人；亦可以是管理性，像分担团体牧民工作之人士或担任政务之人士等，圣神正是藉着这丰富的多元性服务，在教会内工作，不断更新她和使她在共融与服役中成长。

教会这份出自圣父，藉着基督在圣神内的共融，这份以圣三之共融为模式，由神恩与服务之异同而构成的共融，并非止于现世，却是指向它所发端之根源，它的家园──圣三那里。换句话说，藉着基督，在圣神内走向圣父。教会是旅途中之天主子民，朝着父所许诺的福地前进。为此，任何一种以为「已经抵步」，「已经到达终点」的假设都不能被接受。因为教会需要「永远不断更新」，她被召要继续洁净及不停地革新自己，没有任何人类的成就能满足她。正是因为这伟大的目标，教会不对世界上一切短视的现实采取对立及批判态度。再者，既然每种人类社会和环境都有教会存在，而教会尤其维护贫穷和被压迫者，她根本不可能将自己的希望与人类历史中的某一种希望认同。然而，这并非表示面对人类的历史，教会只是个旁观者，或她只是对这历史随便加以批评。正因为人类的历史同时是救恩史，因此人类的历史也就是教会的历史。所以教会对这历史之责任是沉重的，为了保守这历史，教会不惜付出任何代价。即是说，教会承担起一切人类的希望，再将这些希望在她救主基督的筛子中过一过。这等如说，教会一方面积极支持每一种真正致力于使人类获得自由的努力，可是另一方面，教会反对任何一种完全「世俗性」的目标。教会所作一切并非为任何一种现世的理想，因为她知道自己的「将来」不在此世，她目前只是这俗世之过客，她最后要「回家」。而这个使教会与她的子女成为世界之外方人和旅者的「家」，绝对不是一个与现实脱离之梦境。对教会来说，这个「家」正是催迫她为今日的世界努力争取正义与和平的动力，同时亦使她充满希望和喜乐。

「这就是基督唯一的教会，我们在信经内所承认的至一、至圣、至公，从宗徒传下来的教会，我们的救主在复活后交由伯多禄治理的教会(若21:17)，也就是托给伯多禄和其他宗徒去传扬与管理的教会(玛28:18-20等)，基督把她立为『真理的柱石和基础』(弟前3:15)」(《教会宪章》8)。这份对天主教教会至一性的绝对肯定，亦是天主教信仰的要素，无可避免地引起一问题：怎样处理天主教与其他基督教派的关系。譬如说，如果我们真的如此肯定天主教的确是基督所建立唯一的教会，那么怎样在天主教和别的基督教派之间建立起一种非工具性的对话？只为把这些离栈之羊「带回」羊栈。回答这问题其中一个决定性要点，我们可以在梵二的文件中找到。上面所引述的《教会宪章》第八节，接下去的一段是：「这个在今世按社会形式组织的教会，存在天主教教会内，即由伯多禄的继承人及与此继承人共融的主教所管理的教会」。这段话中的那句「存在天主教教会内」，「存在」这两字的拉丁原文是subsistit in，意思是「居于其中」，「存在」等等。梵二在这句话中用了subsistit in「存在」，而放弃另一个更简单的字est，即「是」不用，意思非常明显。梵二以一句「存在天主教教会内」代替「是天主教教会」，让人知道基督所建的教会圆满地临现于天主教教会内。然而，因为圣神亦在教会以外不断工作，为此，「在教会可见的组织以外，仍有不少圣化及真理的要素存在，它们都是教会本有的恩典，这些恩典把人推向大公的合一」(《教会宪章》8)。如此一来，天主教教会忠于自己的身份，不用放弃自己的地位，仍然可以毫无困难地承认那些与罗马没有任何关系的基督教教派，也获得圣神分施的恩宠和圣德，因此能够用一种真诚而非工具性的态度和他们交谈，带给他们自己特有的恩典，并认出上主在他们身上所做的工作，为使他们可以和我们一起在祂内成长。

正是在这精神的感召下，即是忠于自己的身份地位，也就是听命于那位生活并在我们不能见到的领域内工作的天主，教会重新发觉与以色列交谈的迫切需要，因为她知道自己和这民族有种优先和独一的关系。原因如圣保禄宗徒所说的，以民是「初熟的麦面」被基督信仰这枝橄榄树枝接上去的「圣的树根」(罗11:16-24)。重新发现和研究我们信仰中之希伯来根源，深切相信希伯来民族的信仰和宗教生活有助于我们了解教会生活之某一部份，和一同迈向天主许诺完成的满全，这几点该是教会与以色列，这个给我们产生了耶稣的民族彼此间的关系之特色。如此一来，教会、天主的新子民，不用放弃逾越讯息，仍然可以与旧的以色列民族，一起在救赎奥迹的认知中，和在对天主的希望之经验里成长，并与他们一同沐浴在天主选民之恩宠内。

最后，今日世界另一个特色是不同的宗教彼此相遇，共同携手致力于建设人类社会，及为神的临现于历史中作证。为避免这相遇和合作变成一种表面化的大混合或无用的混同，我们先要诚恳地找出存在于各宗教之共通点，和那些使一个宗教有别于其他宗教之决定性因素。然而，这共通点到底是什么？就是神主动亲近人和人对神的接待而使自己成为一个信徒。因此，可以说世界上所有宗教均有一共同特性，我们称之为「听的灵修」。「听」要求人向那位与自己说话的神完全开放自己的心，并要求人为了爱而服从，直至把自己完全放在神的手中，由祂计划自己的生活。如果这正是存在于各宗教的共通点，是建立起他们彼此间之对话的基本条件，我们同样不要忘记他们的相异处。这些相异处一般都涵盖在有关圣三的教义内。为那些相信基督的信友，「听」并非只是人面对天主的态度，而是在某种程度上，人被纳入天主内，即是人在圣神内相结合于子而站在父跟前。我们所相信的永生之主自愿藉降生的圣言和圣神之派遣进入人类历史，并以一种特恩式方法，在教会内生活和工作。这位三位一体的天主愿意以这方式让人的历史生活在祂内，并朝着天主成为万有之中的万有，这圆满时期迈进，届时整个世界将成为祂的家园(格前15:28)。

天主，至圣的三位，

教会，这出自你们

为不停赞美、颂扬

你们的光荣而拔涉于现世的子民，

她生活于你们内。

是你们三位爱的肖象，

亦是你们的对话

和服务之共融。

她一直走向你们，

她是你们与世界修和

与及带给世界历史平安

的记号和工具。

请使我们如爱我们的母亲般

爱这教会，

以满腔的热情

思慕她。

这位属于基督的无玷、不带一丝绉纹

美丽的新娘，

她是至一、至圣、至公从宗徒传下来，

是永恒「爱情」之生命

介入和闪耀于人类历史中

的场地。

11. 诸圣的共融

教会是诸圣的共融。「诸圣的共融」这句话之拉丁文Communio Sanctorum可作三种不同解释。首先可解作「置身于唯一的圣化者──圣神之内」(Communio Sancti)。其次，因为这共融是藉聆听主的话和领受圣事完成，而不论是圣言的宣讲或圣事的施行，都是在教会内进行，所以教会是使信友成圣的团体(Communio Sanctorum)，是人进入神圣现实之管道。最后，领了洗的信友，运用自己从圣神那里所受之不同神恩，大家一起为整个团体的益处而努力，他们因而无形中构成一个「圣人的团体」(Communio Sanctorum)，即一个被圣神护慰者抓住和圣化的人所组成之子民。

传统上「诸圣的共融」所表达的，正是这最后一项意义。换句话说，「诸圣的共融」是指教会，这个由已领洗之信友所组成的天主子民，他们一方面在共融及服务中彼此担待和共同负责，另方面时刻不忘在天主所行的奇工异事前开放自己。因着所受的洗礼，每一个信友都为了光荣父在圣神内成为基督的摹象，他被召认出和接受主为他所准备的礼品。这些礼品因为是白白的赠予，是圣宠和圣神自由想象的成果，一般被称为「神恩」。为促进整个基督奥体的成长，圣神把这「神恩」丰厚地赐给我们：「圣神显示在每人身上虽不同，全是为人的好处」(格前12:7)。因此，所有领了洗的人都责无旁贷，因为他们都从圣神那儿分得一份神恩，以促进教会的共融和服务，亦没有人有权搅分裂，因为每一个人所领受的神恩均来自同一的主，为建设唯一的奥体──教会(格前12:4-7)；也没有人有权投闲置散和整日缅怀过往，因为圣神是一直不停地生活和工作，祂是天主的新事物，是未来的主。

一个开放给圣神和祂的奇迹异事的教会，同时是一个时时战胜个人与社会罪恶之顽抗的教会，这教会除了常常不忘革新和净化自己外(semper reformanda et purificanda)，在分辨圣神的神恩时，她应该亲切温和，尤其那些领受了分辨和分配神恩之职的人士，即领了圣职圣事的神职：「不要消灭神恩，不要轻视先知之恩，但应当考验一切，好的应保持」(得前5:19-21)。每一位信友除了这种对天主的开放态度外，对教会亦要有责任感。因为如果他们都领了圣神，那么他们都有义务将所领的圣神带给别人，在共融及服务中为教会的成长一同努力。

然而，除了上述所说的意思外，「诸圣的共融」所指的诸圣，亦包括那些已经完成了他们的「不回归之旅」的圣人，他们现今在天主永不消逝的光耀之喜乐中生活。为我们这些仍活在世上的人，这些圣人是我们的模范和帮助。正为了在成长的历练中，我们常需要有新的榜样和助力来鼓励我们，所以教会不断册封新圣人，他们是我们现世旅途上不可或缺的良伴。因为他们不只有活在世上的经验，现在更已成为平安的专家，这份平安正是我们目下正在追求，要到将来才能享有。为此，没有别的人比他们更能妥善地把我们带领到天主那里。

事实上，有好几种动机催促教会册封圣人。第一种属神学性。上面我们曾引述圣依内利那句名言：「活人是天主的光荣」。(21)即是一个完全依照天主的意旨生活的人是天主光荣的反映。因为他虽是个脆弱不堪和能力有限的受造物，然而在这人身上，即是一个承行主旨的生活，别人可以认出天主之生命和爱情的完全实践，因此他的生活是对天主的光荣之宣认。换言之，天主在圣人身上受到光荣，因为圣人以自己的生活反映至高者天主之无限美善，他们以自己的生活向人讲述天主其实就是爱。又因为天主的爱是无限的，所以反映这爱情的可能性亦是无限的。即是说，有无数途径可以使人成圣。甚至我们可以说，每一位圣人，都是教会这首赞美天主的交响乐，其中的一个音符和新调。为此，正如信友不能停止颂唱赞美生活之天主的赞歌，教会也不能停止册封那些以自己的生活赞美光荣天主的人为圣人或真福，因为册封他们可以说是爱情的要求，是感谢和光荣众圣之圣的天主的一个必然行动。

册封圣人的第二个动机属人类学方面：圣人让我们领悟到享见天主如何是人的生命。(22)说得清楚一点，透过自己的生活，圣人让别人看到一个以天主之恩宠为滋养的生命，如何藉着这恩宠的帮助，让人的潜能得以无限地发挥，使人可以完全实践那刻铸于他心灵深处之上主的旨意。而圣人之德表，更令人看到天主召叫人那数不尽的可能性。所以，如果教会从不倦于册封圣人，其中一个原因亦是为了提醒人，让他知道自己原来拥有一份无可估计的潜能，和那千百种可以建树自己的途径，藉此使人摆脱由于任何一种意识型态之偏差所引致的近视，因为它们只晓得用压力强迫人类把自己禁固于一些字面上的，抽象和僵硬的架构内。最后，为了自由，为了人心和人类丰富的潜能，圣德反对任何形式的集团主义，极权主义和使用暴力。

第三种动机则因为我们在圣人身上看到希望。因为圣人已完成了我们尚待实践的一切工作。圣人的存在一再证明天主从无悔意地在人类生活中践行祂曾作的许诺。对那些尚在流徒之地的旅人而言，圣人向他们见证了家园的美丽，并非为引诱他们逃避现世，而是因为人常有族弃希望的倾向，更多时候会看不清自己所走这段人生旅程之价值所在。于是圣人以自己的生活给这些旅者的希望作见证，帮助他们，令他们懂得从今世的痛苦中提炼出和平与对明日的希望。教会不断册封圣人，正是要不间断地给我们心中所怀之希望一个理由(伯前3:15)。圣人身上反射着我们将抵达的目的地之光华，他们令到我们相信在人力达不到之处，天主却能予以完成。

最后则是由历史的角度观看，从历史艰辛复杂的演变，从时间及需求、痛苦和喜乐之交替，这一切都催迫着教会册封并敬礼圣人。因为每一位圣人都是教会在不同历史环境的一个特别讯息。正是对一位昨日的圣人之发现，给今日那些活生生的问题带来解决方法。同样，册封一位新圣人为一个时代，为一个特定地方的人所带来的影响，比很多别的讯息都更具说服力。教会的圣人今日仍在说话，为我们而说话，他们是天主唯一的「圣言」的声音，这「圣言」在他们身上成为事件、生命和分享，而聆听他们所宣示那既崭新又古老的讯息，需要一个能够领悟天主旨意的赤子之心。

祈祷则是最能让我们在时间和永恒中经验到诸圣共融的时刻。根据教会历代持续不断的礼仪传统，教会的祈祷之特色不在于向某一位神祇祈求，而在于在神内祈求。在圣神内，藉着基督向父祈求，承认祂是一切恩宠的根源，感谢和呼求祂。这祈祷只能藉降生成人的子、偕同祂并在祂内完成。因为正是祂与父那份从无间断之爱的对话，带给我们圣洗的恩典。基督是教会的祈祷之中保、表样和场地，「他常活着为他们转求」(希7:15)。最后，教会的祈祷只能够在圣神内完成，祂是「永恒的爱人」及「永恒的被爱」，即父与子结合之「连系」；祂亦是永恒进入时间和时间进入永恒之门。因为圣神，信友才可以祈祷说：在祂内我们呼求说亚爸，父啊！「同时圣神也扶助我们的软弱，因为我们不知道我们如何祈求才对，而圣神却以无可言喻的叹息代我们祈求」(罗8:26)。

因此我们的祈祷是一个子女的祷告，当一个信友说：「我们的天父」时，他不但用言语，而是以生活配合自己的祈祷，在生活中对主的话唯命是听。所以谁祈祷说：「藉着基督，偕同基督，在基督内，并在圣神的团结中，一切荣耀都归于你全能的天主父，直到永远，亚孟」。他整个祈祷出自父，祂是子及圣神的根源和万有的创造者，最后再藉着基督在圣神内回归父那里。为此，祈祷使人进入圣三和使圣三进入人内。祈祷的人他的生命已藏于天主内(哥3:3)，另一方面永生的天主亦寓于祈祷的人之五内。因此，祈祷等如让天主父、在祂的子、我们的主耶稣基督内爱我们，好让圣神临于我们中间，使我们偕同基督站于父前。

正是在如此紧密的圣三行动中，祈祷让我们深切体味到「诸圣的共融」这深厚的联系，不只把旅途中和天上的教会系于圣三内，也在现世使我们为各人的痛苦和需要彼此代祷。即是说，将自己托付给至圣无玷童贞圣母玛利亚，请圣人为我们转求，要求别人代祷同时为别人的需要大方地献上自己贫乏的祈祷和痛苦。

以上所说的请童贞圣母和圣人转求，并谦卑且恒心地为别人祈求，所有这一切行动都在天主内完成，而这样祈祷的人他的祈求会被献给天主父，并获得圣三无限爱情赐下的鸿恩。

我们的生命和我们的历史

之至高无上的主，

你在你的圣人中获享光荣。

请帮助我们以他们为榜样

并藉他们的转求

令我们迷失般地

投向你，

好能在现世旅途

的工作和日子中，

在正义和圣德中

庆祝你光荣的辉耀。

也请让我们

因为获得在你内与诸圣共融

的慰藉，

而能建树教会。

她因与唯一圣者──基督的共融，

并从圣言

和生命的圣事内

吸取滋养，

为了在服务和爱德

的交谈中

赐给我们力量，

使我们成为

生活的诸圣之共融，

成为永恒的「爱情」──天主

之卑微肖象。

　

21. St IRENAEUS, Adversus haereses, IV,14,1:「Gloria enim Dei Vivens homo」.

22. St IRENAEUS, Adversus haereses, IV,14,1:「Vita autem hominis visio Dei」.

12. 罪的赦免

所谓罪的赦免究竟是什么意思？只是纯粹简单地把罪一笔勾消？抑或天主还一直继续记着我们的罪？

要回答这问题先得立即交待一点，就是天主的记忆亦即是祂的爱和忠信之另一称谓。天主不能忘记祂的子民，因为这些子民是祂以永恒之爱拣选来，并以永恒的忠信持守这盟约。不论人怎样远离祂，不论我们这些在耶稣基督内被选和被爱的人，怎样忘记了感谢祂这爱之恩赐，天主永远忠信且永不会忘记自己的受造物：「熙雍曾说过：『上主离弃了我，吾主忘掉了我。』妇女岂能忘掉自己的乳婴？初为人母的岂能忘掉亲生的儿子？纵然他们能忘掉，我也不能忘掉你啊？」(依49:14-15)。「天主把我们刻在自己的手掌上」(依49:16)。为此，无论天主做什么，祂都不可能把我们忘掉，祂那慈祥宽恕的记忆有如一个让我们可以平安地休息的怀抱，把我们整个生活包围着。

天主这份记忆也包容我们的罪：祂宽恕我们。这不等于说天主把我们所作的一切撤消，祂只是把我们的罪承担过来。祂尊重我们，因此面对天主无条件给予我们的宽恕，需要有一颗逐步皈依的心。天主不会袭击人，祂给人绝对的自由，祂寻找人，祂等待他，爱他和宽恕他。天主宽恕的不是一个行为，而是那个对此行为负责且表示全心同意的人。为此，一个庆祝宽恕的宴会最能反映真与美：「再把那肥牛犊牵来宰了，我们应吃喝欢宴，因为我这个儿子是死而复生，失而复得了」(路15:23-24)。

所以，对罪的记忆是构成重聚之欢乐的一部份。因为一方面这记忆是天主父爱的记号，无论祂的受造物离祂多远，天主都没法忘记他。另一方面，这记忆也让我们看到回头的浪子之决心和认真。这位浪子并非若无其事地，象什么事都没有发生过的跑回父家，而是深切地知道自己的错误，而且明白这错误所呼求的，是一份无限和白白地给予的爱，这份爱将让他铭感终身：「我要起身到我父亲那里去，并且要给他说：父亲！我得罪了天，也得罪了你。我不配再称作你的儿子，把我当作你的一个佣工罢！」(路15:18-19)。

因此不能忘记并不等于不能宽恕。相反，真正宽恕人的人都不会忘记，他们只是用一种新的形式将过去存进爱的记忆中。而天主，祂正是以这种方法宽恕我们。祂没有把我们的过去毁灭，就算这过去都是些不忠和不幸的事件。他把我们这些过去存入祂心中的平安内，以便我们一生常活在祂爱的修和中。甚至那位被天主宽恕的罪人，他自己也不会忘记，过去的不忠和错误不会成为他内心的一种折磨，相反，随着日子的消逝，会令他越加认清自己所领受的恩典之伟大，而使他变得谦卑，设法以一颗热切和忠诚的赤心回报这份如此浩大的爱。他更因记忆的提示而看清楚自己的罪给予别人造成的伤害，从而令他今后不断向人传述天主在他身上所行的异事，尽力消灭仇恨，建设和平。因此宽恕和记忆永远并存，就如正义与和平彼此常交织在一起一样。

这份宽恕来自天主，并由天主自己藉着圣子降生的奥迹显示出来，再经耶稣托付给宗徒，由宗徒再以悔罪圣事的形式传给教会。因此，任何罪人都无可避免地要面对自己的罪，明确地认清其具体性和严重性。每一次当他们被宽恕时，他们同时与父和教会，即这个在时间中实践救恩的团体修好。若要明白天主这宽恕行动的伟大，我们首先要问罪是什么？罪对人和人生有何影响？

当我们谈罪的时候，我们所指的是那层存在于生活的天主和生活的人之间的个人关系。这关系因为人不再爱天主而受到破坏或甚至完全被捣碎。不要以为人和天主的关系只属边缘性，对人的生活无关重要，事实刚好相反，这关系对人的生活有绝大影响，它的存在与否影响到人生的真实性，影响着我们个人人格的成长或摧毁。所以当我们谈罪的时候，我们所触及的，是一个关系着人生成败的问题，牵涉到人生的痛苦和爱。只有那些强烈地感到人在天主前的尊严和永生之重要的人，才能明白罪是如何悲惨的一回事。而几时当人失去罪的感受时，即是说，人已失去一切真正让人成为人的东西。

罪所指的既是存于生活的天主和生活的人之间的关系，因为人拒绝天主的爱而受到破坏，这表示罪除了影响人外也影响天主。面对因为人拒绝接受祂的爱所带来的罪，天主并非如一位冷面天帝，或是只懂分辨好与坏之铁面无情的判官。我们的天主，即浪子回头譬喻里所记载的父亲，是位满怀希望，热切期待祂的受造物回家的父亲，而一旦等到这个儿子归来，祂是这样高兴地大事庆祝欢宴喜乐。

浪子回头譬喻中那位父亲的希望和喜乐，让我们知道我们的天主会因世界的罪，因我们的罪、因为被我们每一个人所拒绝而受苦。所以，祂会因为我们的回头与祂修好而喜乐。当然天主的痛苦有别于人类的痛苦，天主的痛苦并非被动、被迫接受的那种。天主的痛苦是主动，是祂自己所拣选的。当祂把人创造成一个有自由意志的受造物时，祂已经知道这个祂所造出来的人有能力拒绝祂，令祂痛苦。

所以天主的痛苦亦即是祂的爱之另一种称谓。因此，天主并非一个站在世界历史边缘无动于衷的旁观者。相反，祂自愿被卷入其中，甚至把自己的儿子也交出来：「天主竟这样爱了世界，甚至赐下了自己的独生子，使凡信他的人不至丧亡，反而获得永生」(若3:16)。「他既然没有怜惜自己的儿子，反而为我们众人把他交出，岂不也把一切与他一同赐给我们吗？」(罗8:31)。

所以，只要看看罪在三位一体之天主的心中所反映的深度，便可知罪的严重性，其实我们从基督的十字架已看到人对天主的拒绝越彻底，他在天主的爱中所划下的那道伤痕也越深和越阔。

为清楚指出拒绝天主的爱有不同程度的差别，我们可以借用教会一直沿用的办法，把罪分为死罪和小罪。当然，这划分法永远都是以天主与人之个人关系为准则。因此无论是死罪或小罪都含有深远的意义。死罪指的是人对天主的拒绝不论从任何角度看，在自觉的深度上，在人所享有的自由之多寡和事件之严重性，都扼杀了人心中全部的爱。天主是如此尊重人的尊严，以至祂甘愿为了维护这份尊严：让人完全自由而接受无尽的痛苦。相反，小罪则多因每日生活的劳累而引起，即我们在日常生活中一些细微的事情上拒绝天主。这些小罪代表的是我们的软弱，更证明我们不断需要天主，呼求祂，请祂把自己的忠信赐给我们作为力量。

在分辨一项罪的等级时，我们需要清楚知道当事人的个人情况。他的内心世界，他成长的过程和他自觉性的深度。所有这一切并非为否定罪的事实，而是为了能够严谨地面对这罪，且常应以天主与人，和人与人在天主内的关系做唯一衡量罪的尺度。

正是为了这原因，教会一直没有停止过向世界宣扬修和的福音，当然教会不会无视于罪在今日世界所做成的破坏和带来的痛苦，教会的目的不是要肩负起那只属于天主的判官角色，只有祂才能洞察人心的奥秘。教会只是要让世人知道罪的严重性，并劝勉及陪伴世人走上悔改与和平之路，甚至使那些最顽硬的人也能把心扉打开，以经验天主慈悲所带来的自由。因此，我们的教会不是一个软弱、轻易放弃自己责任的教会，她是慈母教会，她慈祥而坚毅，她向人类宣扬罪所造成的伤害及修和的恩宠，并耐心地帮助人走上修好之路。

在爱的希望中等待浪子回家

的慈悲之父，

请时常不断赐给我们

体味欢庆获得你宽恕的喜乐。

请让我们进入你圣神的平安内，

因为只有祂能释放我们，

并使我们与自己的过去修和。

让我们成为你慈悲的见证人，

这慈悲在为我们被钉于十字架的圣子身上

显示无遗。

让我们藉着自己的言语和行动向人宣布

被你宽恕是件多么美好的事

并在你内开始一个爱的新生活。

也让人知道无论我们有过什么罪，

你心中那份记忆

会晓得赦免这罪和把它化成

感恩的动力

和对每一个与我们走在一起的人之体谅。

13. 肉身的复活

对一位信友而言，只有在被钉于十字架的基督身上，才能明白肉身的复活这端道理。所以基督的复活为我们的信仰，是件决定性事件，一个人的信或不信全系于这件事上：「如果基督没有复活，那么我们的宣讲便是空的，你们的信仰也是空的」(格前15:14)。从圣父于圣神内复活了被钉死的耶稣这一事实。信友明白到整个人类的历史已注定了是为光荣圣三而存在，这件历史中的历史在主基督的逾越中照耀四方！基督的复活不但是人类等待复活之最后基础，这事件更让我们了解到世界的最后归宿毫无疑问地并非死亡，而是战胜死亡的复活。就如保禄宗徒所说的：「假如死人复活是没有的事，基督也就没有复活；因为如果死人不复活，基督也就没有复活；如果基督没有复活，你们的信仰便是假的，你们还是在罪恶中，那么，那些在基督内死了的人，就丧亡了。如果我们在今生只寄望于基督，我们就是众人中最可怜的了。但是基督从死者中实在复活了，做了死者的初果」(格前15:13.16-20)。由此可见，基督逾越让我们看到，人类和世界最后的归宿是生命，不是死亡。

这未来的生命与现世的关系，就如基督的复活与十字架的关系一样：「因为我们若是信耶稣死了，也复活了，同样也必信天主要领那些死于耶稣内的人同他一起来」(得前4:14)。基督的复活是个新经验，这经验抗拒及扰乱每一种明显存在的所谓成就，使它们不得不向天主开放并进入祂内。所以基督的复活不但建立起对人类最后复活的希望，更深深地影响着尚在等待这最后复活的世人，成为他们生活之最终目的，即如保禄宗徒所说：「我将一切都看作损失，因为我只以认识我主基督耶稣为至宝；为了他，我自愿损失一切，拿一切当废物，为赚得基督，……我只愿认识基督和祂复活的德能，参与他的苦难，相似他的死，我希望也得到由死者中的复活」(斐3:8.10-11)。因此，教会所作证的信仰自基督的复活看到人类和世界之最后归宿，从而建立起自己独特的希望，以保卫基督所救赎的一切，并向人揭示在基督内生活是如何美妙的一回事，这生活始于现世，在世界终结时仍然真实地以两种不同的形式永远继续下去：或是生活在与天主共融的喜乐中，或是因为个人曾向基督所作的无可挽回的拒绝，而活在永无尽头的痛苦中。

每一个人对自己死后之终向的希望，正是来自这份肯定和信仰：与基督相遇。基督既是新生命的源头，祂不会不把那永生的未来向我们启示。当然圣经也曾论及这未来，不同的是现在把重点放在与被钉和复活的主之关系上。对于这点，最好的证明莫如路加福音所载那段耶稣在十字架上与其中一个同钉凶犯的话：「我实在告诉你，今天你就要与我一同在乐园里」(路23:43)。另一个证明来自保禄：「因为我们知道，我们几时住在这肉身内，就是与主远离── 因为我们现今只是凭信德往来，并非凭目睹 ── 我们放心大胆，是为更情愿出离肉身，与主同住」(格后5:6-8)。保禄宗徒固然愿意承担主交给他的繁重使命，然而他却毫不掩饰他渴求解脱今生的一切，好能尽早与基督在一起(斐1:23)。他话中所隐藏的是一份坚强的信念，相信死亡会立刻把我们带入一个与基督一起的境界，这境界不但是我们一直渴念的，且犹胜于现在。

正是这观点使人明白为什么教会相信谁不与基督结合为一，并在祂内进入永生表示远离祂，被摈弃于外，被逐于婚宴之外，进入死亡的悲惨中等等。即是新约中所指的「被投入永火中」(玛18:9)，「扔在火窑里」(玛13:50)，「到那不灭的火里」(谷9:43)，「那里火也不灭」(谷9:48)，「被扔到那用硫磺燃烧的火炕里」(默19:20)。这些图象对教会初期的信友并不陌生，它们道尽了那无可挽回的错误所造成的悲惨下场，即人拒绝接受天主的恩赐和这拒绝所带给人的结局，一个影响现在和死后最终命运的决定性结局。

基督复活这事件使我们不得不好好地从圣三奥迹的角度来看人类历史的终结(格前15:20-24.28)。如果万有都是在基督内，藉着祂并因祂而被创造，那么宇宙的圆满和整个受造界与父的修好都得在基督内完成并留在祂内：「因为天主乐意叫整个圆满居在他内，并藉他使万有无论是地上的，是天上的，都与自己重归于好，因着他的十字架的血，立定了和平」(哥1:19-20)。要完成这项工作，当然少不了圣神的一份，因为祂「是我们得嗣业的保证，为使天主所置为嗣业的子民，蒙受完全的救赎，为颂扬他的光荣」(弗1:14)。

因此，新约所作证的信德从现世的逾越直指向那决定性永恒的逾越。换句话说，那个为生活在今日的我们来说尚是隐晦未明和猜疑不定的未来世界，在死而复活的基督身上，在圣三启示的光照之下，我们只能稍窥其华彩。在这个我们期待于未世出现的新天新地里，人类及宇宙将完全被纳入天主的永恒爱情内，进入圣三的生命中。那时在基督最后判官的胜利中，整个受造界将豁然开朗，基督将到来审判生者死者，所有存在的都会被展示于天主充满怜爱之目光下。届时一切有别于天主的受造物都因圣神的力量与祂结合一起。所有一切将一次而永久地走进圣三的生活中，进到天主那深不可测并永不消逝的合一里，进入天主万有中之万有内。而这一连串事件的最后一项，将是触及每一个血肉之躯的末世复活，并通过人的躯体而涵盖整个存在于时空的受造界。

届时，天主的许诺，即天主给人的赏赐：正义、修好、和平与自由，将按每一个人在世时对基督的态度是接受或是拒绝而加以定断。即是说，人的最后结局可以是永福也可以是永罚。这永罚将令人绝对且永远失却爱的能力，即失去唯一可以使人获得快乐的途径。要是这样，为什么要有永罚这回事？答案是永罚的存在是必要的，因为设若没有永罚，那么整个以基督的复活为基础之希望，将只是一个虚无的幻想，因为没有事实的根据，它只是人把自己的渴望向外投射所得的幻象而矣。所以除非人能够有自由，可以在永生与永罚之间作出选择，他才能够意识到这两种选择的真实性，及憧景永生的荣福之美丽。

我们的希望既有事实根据，为了获得这希望中的事实，即永生，我们会督促自己过一个称职的生活，做好对天主、对别人、对世界的本份，并勉力于伦理和灵修上的修持。好使整个宇宙居于天主圣三内，世界变成圣三的家园。这并非为逃避现世而虚构出来的梦想，却是激发我们努力不懈的指标，和突出造物主赐给每一个人的尊严。因此，有别于任何一种轮回学说，根据这些学说人死后，他将以另一个崭新和完全不同的身份，再投生到世界重新做人(或甚至转生为禽兽)。我们的信仰相信人死后其肉身会复活。这信仰所肯定的，是每一个人所拥有的那份绝不可重复的价值与他那独一无二的个人历史。这历史只属于他，因此他得对它负起全部责任，并于最后为它作出交待。所以天主所爱和所救赎的每一个人，都拥有他自己个人独有并不可重复之心理和生理特征与个人经历。因此，当末世复活时，不只人自己会进入永生的光荣，所有与他有关的一切属于所谓「肉身界」的任何有形之历史关系和事物，都将一并被纳入这光荣内。每一个人都被召叫在自己的个人的生活和历史中，与天主建立一份永恒的忠信之约。

主，

你召叫我们参与那末来的光荣

并与我们每一个人

建立一份个人的爱之盟约。

请使我们虽然一心向着

那个你切愿

在未来和我们一起建立的新天新地，

却仍热爱这时代和这大地。

请让这份对最后归宿 ──永生

和最后家园 ──天堂

的希望

帮助我们

在每日的生活中

添上味道和色彩。

好令我们在现世的平凡里

在圣神的力量中

和在你圣子的复活内

与你一起建设一个

光荣的新时代。

而你将是这时代中

一切的万有，

届时整个世界亦将成为

你的家园。

14. 永生

教会的信仰在逾越事件中认出圣三战胜死亡的行动：「基督既从死者中复活就不再死，死亡再不统治他了」(罗6:9)。因为基督的原故，死亡再不能对任何受造物有绝对的统制权：「最后被毁灭的仇敌便是死亡，因为天主使万物都屈服在他脚下」(格前15:26-27)。而耶稣在世时所行的复活奇迹，正是这胜利的预象。所以死亡在被基督征服之后，转变成为它的反面 ──生命。就如圣保禄宗徒所说的：「『在胜利中，死亡被吞灭了。』『死亡！你的胜利在那里？死亡！你的剌在那里？》感谢天主赐给了我们因我们的主耶稣基督所获得的胜利」(格前15:54-55.57)。为此，由于基督的复活，死亡再不能统制人，它只是把人引离本身极限的那一刻，就如基督从死亡走向生命，所以这已被祂超越的死亡，只是人走向另一个生存境界的通道，是人从现世进入由复活的主所开启之未来的逾越之旅而已。

对新约来说，这个从逾越事件开始，即在死亡之后开始的新生命即是与基督成为一体。这端初期教会信仰上的定则，不单暗示人一死立刻被接进救赎之最后决定性阶段，更指出基督的复活是唯一能令人明瞭这决定性阶段的情况之钥匙。因此，不论是个人或团体的存亡都和被钉而复活的基督有着不可分割的关系，因为我们在基督身上看到三位一体的天主，正是在这三位一体的天主内，可以找到最后能够帮助我们明白死亡和紧接死亡之后开始的生命是什么？这生命藉着从死者中复活的基督显示给我们，并以祂的德能为基础。

从这角度来看那在死亡之后出现的生命，尚可以帮助我们了解另一个词汇：灵魂。这里所说的灵魂，是指人死后他与基督永留于天主内的位格或个人的特性，以期待于天地终穷时，与自己被再造的身体复合。所以几时采用这词时，要避免引起混乱，令人无从明白，人死后没有肉体如何仍能存在。或避免引起误解，使人以为人的内在性，即精神的和他的外在性，即肉体的，是两个互不相容的抗体，而忘了人的整体性，即人是精神和肉体的结合。这一直是教会的信仰所坚持的。可能为了这原故，今日的人在用灵魂一词时比较小心，甚至放弃不用它而偏向于采用人死后继续存在和活跃于圣三之玄奥关系中的说法。

我们的信仰所展示的死亡，尚剖白另一事件：那紧接死亡之后的审判。谁在死后能和基督一起证明他在世时的生活是个圆满的生活。象显影液一样，审判将人在世时所作的尽显无遗，将人曾作的基本抉择，即是接受还是拒绝天主之子，完全揭露出来。基督判官，祂的注视将使人能完全透视自己的一切，让他完全认清自己在天主为他所准备的爱的历史中，曾经怎样生活。这不是人的一种「自我审判」，而是一种最个人的相遇。人要面对面地见到真理本身 ──基督，人将对自己过去一生所经验的一览无遗，没有什么再能隐藏或作伪。然而，届时的基督判官不会是个暴虐的公证，为了某些不愉快事件而怒不可竭。相反，祂是天主的慈颜，帮助和鼓励那站在自己面前的人彻底地看清自己：即如保禄所说：「谁能控告天主所拣选的人呢？是使人成义的天主吗？谁能定他们的罪？是那已死或更好说已复活，现今在天主右边代我们转求的基督耶稣吗？」(罗8:33-34)。当人死后去到基督跟前时，基督让他整个进入父的爱中，使他能完全冲量和体味自己曾经对基督的接受所带来的幸福有多大，或相反的，自己对基督的拒绝所招至的是一个怎样悲惨的结局。至于圣神，审判的恩保，祂将会帮助人去面对天主的注视，让自己整个人被天主所爱，且完全洞悉自己在世时曾经怎样回报这爱情，是接受抑或拒绝。偕同基督和藉着基督，并在祂无限的宽容中，那个「脱离了自己肉体」的人将被引到父前，在圣神内获悉自己的最后归宿：自己将被纳入生命和美善的永恒之源内，或是被摈弃于这美善之源外。

除了让我们了解「审判」的真象外，我们的信仰对逾越事件的诠释更帮助我们明白教会传统对「炼狱」的训导。正如我们在上面所说的，如果人死后立即与基督相遇，面对面地站在祂跟前，接受我们所说的「审判」，即让人毫无掩蔽、赤裸裸地看清自己在世时对天主三位的爱之召唤所作的回应是接受或拒绝。然而，有时会发现人的回应并非是个完全的接受或断然的拒绝，却是接受或拒绝互相交织着，或甚至可能接受多过拒绝。在这种情况下，天主、祂既降生为人，把人的历史变成自己的历史，祂了解人，知道他的软弱，所以祂愿意再给人一个机会，让他甚至在死后，仍然可以继续完成他那尚待完结的爱之抉择，好把他迎进圣三永恒的共融中。由此看来，炼狱的教义让我们认真的看到圣经上所说的天主，的确是希望的天主，这位天主居然把人的希望一直伸延到死亡之后的生命中。至于炼狱到底是怎样的一回事，那就只能诉诸比喻或假借等手法来形容了。

除了炼狱的道理外，同样的逾越信仰亦帮助我们了解天堂和地狱，教会信仰的另外两端道理。基督以自己的复活战胜罪恶和死亡，让我们看到天主整个救世行动的目的。就是在天主的拯救计划中，永生和幸福的存在之绝对必然性，人的最后归向该是荣福的永生，与天主是无限的爱情完全协调，因为他们本来便出自爱情。于是我们明白为什么天主「愿意所有的人都得救，并得以认识真理」(弟前2:4)。保禄也说过：「因为我深信：无论是死亡，是生活，是天使，是掌权者，是现存的或将来的事物，是有权能者，是崇高或深远的势力，或其他任何受造之物，都不能使我们与天主的爱相隔绝，即是与我们的主基督耶稣之内的爱相隔绝」 (罗8:38-39)。如果事实的确如此，表示地狱只是为那些蓄意寻求它的人而存在，这些人在绝对自由的情况下，经过反省，而依然选择一种远离天主的生活方式。依此推断，我们排除没有地狱的说法。某些人以天主愿意拯救普世为根据，主张在时间的尽头，即天地终穷之际，一切人类都要与天主和好。这种以天主的救世计划之目的──拯救全人类──为根据而产生的所谓「整个受造界之最后复活论」，所带来的唯一结果是大大地削弱了造物主赐给人的自由之重要和价值，亦空虚了全人类藉着这自由而创造之历史的内容。如果一切万有，不论在何种情况下，甚至在人类蓄意反抗或屡屡犯罪之后，依然注定要接受同一的结局，那不但因拒绝天主而带来的悲惨下场人无法目睹，人因为爱天主而付出的代价和所作的牺牲亦变得一文不值。要知道，否定地狱的存在等于否定造物界的自主权，结果是把造物主的爱情也一并否定。因此，以一种看似自相矛盾的说法，我们可以肯定地下结论，设若没有地狱，天主也不可能是爱，因为祂只造了一些没有自由的生物，他们完全不能自主或有所决定，所以根本就没有可能与天主订什么约。

因此，地狱的存在是受造物自由选择的「一种结果」：自绝于造物主和救世主的爱之恩典之外。关于这个对人的永恒归宿起着决定性作用的选择：接受天主或拒绝天主，耶稣基督在祂的宣讲中不断提及，而且解说得非常清楚。如果一个人在完全自觉和自由的情况下选择拒绝天主爱的恩典，他的决定将成为对他自己的判决。这些彻底拒绝天主的人之最后归宿，耶稣以犹太传统默示录式的景象来形容：火，黑暗，哭泣和切齿，被摈弃于婚宴之外，被排除于宴会之外等。这些景象或形容词所着重的，是一个无可挽回，无可补救的损失，亦即是当人处于一个永不止竭的欲望，和不能实现这欲望的矛盾斗争中的情景。因此地狱就正如「第二个死亡」(默20:6)，一份永不能获得的安静，一个被不能实现的欲望之火不断燃烧的生命。

所以当一个人死后在审判中与基督相遇，痛苦地发现原来自己曾经如此彻底地拒绝祂的爱时，他将会因为自己所作的一切而陷于瘫痪，因为那时他已完全无能为力，再也不能作出任何补救。那时他在基督内和藉着祂站在无限爱情之源父的跟前，父因为爱而创造他，并在这同样的爱内召叫他。然而一切都已太晚，对这爱情他再不能作出任何回应，他已没有再爱的能力。地狱正是当人知道自己已不能再爱而感到的悲哀，是人对自己不懂感恩而至失落这恩典的无限追悔。所以，我们可以明白为何天主从不停止爱那些已被宣判的人，因为不然的话，这些人根本便没法存在。在结合与分辨的圣神内，谁曾经严峻地拒绝了天主的爱，在最后终会知道和认清天主如何爱了自己，而自己竟然一点不晓得还爱，于是从此将因为这再也无法补救的失落，而永远生活在绵绵无断期的痛苦和饮恨中。

基督的复活事件最后要向我们揭示的是天堂的事实。天堂一词来自波斯语，意指花园。这词第一次于圣经出现是在创世纪一书中，圣经作者用它形容天主在伊甸东部种植的园地(创2:8-9)。这词所指的是人所处的一种从此再一无欠缺，充满喜乐和无限安祥的状态，这一切均受到生活的天主，活人的天主之忠信所保障。就如福音所说的：「关于死人的复活，你们不曾念过天主对你们所说『我是亚巴郎的天主，依撒格的天主及雅各伯的天主』的话吗？他不是死人的而是活人的天主」(玛22:31-32)。换句话说，天堂即是当一个人死后与基督相遇并结合在祂内，这人在天主真光的烛照下，完全看清楚自己在世时接受了天主所带来的结果之全部真相，他被迎进圣三的永恒爱情中，在子内被父永远地爱着，他自己亦自动地回爱父并在圣神内与祂结合在一起。

因此，谁曾经以爱还爱，在他们死后，子将会让他们整个进入自己内。所以别以为每一个人的个人历史毫不重要，相反，这历史对我们的永生起着决定性作用。因为不只圣三得尊重它，这历史的每一个阶段更与我们的永生有着深切的关系。为那些被迎进天堂，即进入天主无限爱情的人来说，这是他们那非笔墨所能形容的喜乐的开始。他们从此感到自己是被一份恒久常新的爱所爱着，这种感受在他们心内引发出一种无可言喻的美妙新动力。这时候，人们将看到圣三的确是每一个人和世界之最后目的和满全。只有在圣三，永恒的爱情之内，一切因爱而存在的人，才能够完成他们生存的目的。所以从圣三身上所反映的爱，正是每一个人和世界的使命。换言之，我们每一个人和整个世界都是为了爱而存在，因为只有爱能使我们的生命和历史有意义：「爱永存不朽」(格前13:8)。

生命的天主，

是你召叫我们

在一个永恒和个人的盟约之

忠信内

与你结合一起，

请使我们于现世

已生活在永生

的希望中，

并藉此而令

我们在这浮光掠影的今生

所作的每项抉择

都是重要和悦你意

好为我们预先准备

在进入永生那日

即被纳入你爱情中

那永不消逝的喜乐之内。

届时，我们将在你圣神的平安中

不停地欢唱那首

为一切复活的人而谱

的赞歌，

他们将与你的子结合在一起，

祂是我们的生命和历史的主，

是唯一战胜罪恶和死亡

的胜利者。

15. 亚孟

感谢这「亚孟」！这个从那些在我们之前相信了天主的人口中所说出的亚孟，我们才可以获得救恩的讯息，从而改变了我们的心和生活，使我们变为将来的希望之见证人。

当我们说「亚孟」时，表示愿意接受那传给我们的信仰，迷失般地把自己交给那位把我抓住的天主，使我们也成为这信仰的见证人。

在结束前，我愿意根据自己在教会的传统与信仰中所聆听的「启示之言」，再次以「宣认信仰」的方式表白这份白白赐给我，而我亦是在完全自由和满心喜乐中接受的信仰，这信仰的内容是父、子及圣神的爱。

父，耶稣基督

的天主，我信你，

我们祖先的天主和我们的天主

你竟这样爱了世界 (若3:16)

没有怜惜

自己的独生子

反而为罪人把祂交出了， (罗8:32)

你是天主，即是爱。 (若1:4, 8, 6)

你是那没有开始的爱情

之源头，

你为了爱所带来的喜乐

而毫无条件地爱了人。

你是那从永恒已开始的爱，

是一切完善的恩赐之 (雅1:17)

根源。

你为了你自己而造了我们，

在我们内印上你爱情

的思慕，

并在我们心中倾注你的爱 (罗5:5)

好给我们那受惊扰的心带来平安。

主耶稣基督，我信你，

你是被父永远地爱着的子， (谷1:11)

父更派遣你到世上来 (罗5:10)

为使罪人能与祂修旧好。 (格后5:19)

你是爱的纯净居所 (谷17:23)

你在无限感恩中去爱，

使我们明白到接受也是一件神圣的事，

因此，让自己被爱与

爱人同样神圣。

你是在起初便已存在的永恒之言 (若1:1等)

从起初便开始与父那永不停止的对话，

你是那位完全接受及完全付出 (若20:21)

的被爱者。

当你还是血肉之身时， (希5:7等)

你完全听命于父，

纳匝助的宁静岁月，

加里肋亚的春天，

往耶路撒冷的路上，

苦难的经历，

复活后的新生命。

你藉这一切把感恩的爱传给我们，

并使我们成为你的门人，

相信天主对我们所怀的爱 (若一4:16)

并期待你的再来。 (格前11:26)

我信你，圣神，

主及生命的付予者，

你在创世之初 (创1:2)

曾运行于水面，

你又临于童贞玛利亚内， (路1:35)

和降到刚受完洗的基督身上。 (谷1:10等)

你是永恒爱情的连系，

是父与子

在永恒爱情中之对话

的合一与平安。

你是天主的超拔和恩赐，

是你使天主永恒的爱

在自由中外溢。

为引发和感染爱情的那一位，

你的临现使我们成为教会 (宗1:8)

爱德的子民 (宗2:1等)

这教会的团结是世界的团结

之记号和预象。

你使我们成为自由的教会， (格后3:17)

向新事物开放

并等待你在爱中感动

而产生的奇恩奇迹。 (格前12)

你是我们五内炽热的希望， (罗8)

是你把时间结合于永恒，

把旅途的教会结合于天上的教会。

是你打开天主的心，

使其成为没有天主的人之居所，

和打开我们这些贫乏和罪人的心，

好接受天主永不止息的爱情

之恩赐。

我们在你内领受了生命的活水江河 (若7:37-39)

领受了天上的食粮， (若6:03)

和获得罪的赦免， (若20,22等)

我们亦在你内得到那将要到来

的幸福的保证。 (格后1:22)

唯一的爱之天主，

永恒的「爱人」 ── 父，

永恒的「被爱」 ── 子，

永恒爱情之合一与自由 ──圣神

我信你。

不论是工作或休息我都在你内，

谨将我的心交给你，

并请把我收藏于你内 (哥3:3)

和使我成为你的居所。 (若14:23)

亚孟！

结语

为那些因听了有关父、子和圣神的叙述而接受了信仰，相信了天主──爱情的人，他们的爱不再可能是消极，逃遁式的，却是积极的参与，就如天主先爱了我们的那份爱一样。天主毫不迟疑地为我们把手弄污，变成如我们一样的贫寒，分担我们的痛苦。我们在耶稣基督，这位取了人性的天主的生活和死亡中，完全看清天主对人的爱竟是如此伟大和具体。上主对祂的受造物说：「我对你的爱可一点都不儿戏」，这是历史上神修家留给我们的见证。拉丁美洲亦有一句相似的谚语：「谁爱便会一直让步到底」。而天主正是这样爱我们，祂将我们那充满泪水、罪恶和希望的历史当做祂自己的历史。

因此，谁相信这关于永恒的爱──天主的叙述，谁学会了在天主心中去爱，完全相信圣父在基督身上所显示的仁慈和忠信的爱情，并由圣神把这爱情倾注给我们，他没有可能再以一种「置身度外」，「与己无关」的态度去爱，因为这爱该是谦卑、平淡和适度的。

这爱应该是谦卑的，所以他不判断别人，而是接受别人，与他所爱的人团结一起，做他旅途上的同伴，即如布希奉所说，谁就算在生活中只经验过一次天主的仁慈，他再也不会希望坐在判官的高席上，而只愿意处身于他发现天主慈悲的所在，即是与贫贱的人和罪人在一起。(23)

这爱亦该是平淡的，所以他所生活和接触的，都是日常的琐事。然而，在每日平凡和单调的生活中，爱给这些不断重覆的动作和事物添上新的色彩和意义。谁能够这样去爱的话，他在所爱的人身上每日都有新的发现，他可以看透他的心，原因是爱情会使人看到别人看不到的事物，因为有爱的人以心代目。

最后，这爱该是适度和细心的，他不会把既存的条文强加于别人身上，亦不会随便向别人提出现成的意见，方法或规劝。而是尝试与别人一起成长，尽量瞭解别人生活的担子和艰辛。所以一份适度细心的爱与一般的所谓「泛爱」是两回截然不同的事。「泛爱」主张爱所有的人而骨子里却一个也没爱到。天主可不是这样爱人，圣人也不是以这种方式去爱，因为爱情等如忠于别人的生活和历史，就算有时不得不对对方的某些事表示异议或提出劝告，认真彻底爱人的人，不会随便把爱情付出。因为真爱本来便得付出重价，且要求极高，原因是这爱愿意接受与别人一起背负他们的担子。

在天主爱的学校内，我们均柀召叫如祂爱了我们一样去爱我们的近人。无论这近人是怎样的一个人或处于何种境况，是贫是富，是喜乐是忧愁，是满怀希望或是孤独无依，我们要毫无条件地爱他整个人。一份这样的爱能充实人心和生活，使每日的争扎和疲累变得有意义和怡愉，可以说是人继续生存的唯一目的。就如基督在福音中所说的：「正如父爱了我，同样我也爱了你们；你们应存在我的爱内。如果你们遵守我的命令，便存在我的爱内，正如我遵守父的命令而存在他的爱内一样。我对你们讲论了这些事，为使我的喜乐存在你们内，使你们的喜乐圆满无缺」(若15:9-11)。

这样的爱不会忽略或排斥别人，尤其是那些有别于我们，或不受我们欢迎的人。另外，这种爱也帮助我们明白和认清谁不懂得真正去爱，或谁以为自己在爱别人，而其实他只是以一种「置身度外」的爱情去爱。要知道那爱我们的天主既把爱情感染给我们，祂当然晓得也给我们勇气、忍耐和恒心，让我们能爱那些不易爱的人。只有这样，我们心内的爱才会充实，希望也不会幻灭，结果是每日生活中的辛劳也会变得更为轻松。一份全身投入的爱情能战胜分裂和死亡，亦正是这样的爱情使我们的生活充满生气，令我们那颗不安宁的心充满幸福与平安。也正是这样的爱让我们此刻彷佛已能约略窥见永生的神妙美丽。

谁相信有关父、子和圣神之爱情的叙述，并从基督的死亡和复活看到天主为了爱人而编写的爱之历史，会自愿被卷入这历史内，受其感染。结果是天主的生命点燃他的生命，而他所听到的叙述更催迫他把这叙述继续下去，以无声却胜于千言万语的行动、具体的工作和平安的岁月所反映的真理，向人述说天主即是爱。

你们该热切追求那更大的恩赐，

我现在把一条更高超的道路指给你们。

我若能说人间的语言，和能说天使的语言；

但我若没有爱，

我就成了个发声的锣，或发响的钹。

我若有先知之恩，

又明白一切奥秘和各种知识；

我若有全备的信心，甚至能移山；

但我若没有爱，我甚么也不算。

我若把我所有的财产全施舍了，

我若投火被焚；

但我若没有爱，为我毫无益处。

爱是含忍的，爱是慈祥的，

爱不嫉妒，不夸张，不自大，

不作无礼的事，不求己益，

不动怒，不图谋恶事，

不以不义为乐，却与真理同乐；

凡事包容，凡事相信，

凡事盼望，凡事忍耐。

爱永存不朽，

而先知之恩终必消失；

语言之恩，终必停止；

知识之恩，终必消逝。

……现今存在的，

有信、望、爱这三样，

但其中最大的是爱。(格前12:31-13:8.13)

　

23. BONHOEFFER Dietrick (1906-1945)，德藉牧师及神学家。

附录──几个有助「分辨」的问题

下面的问题可以帮助那些阅读本书的朋友进行他们的神修分辨。

1. 我怎样生活这份白白赏给我的爱？我并没有等别人先爱自己便先主动地去爱人，且不期待人家的回报？我爱那位爱我爱到愿意为我而将自己的儿子交给死亡的天主吗？我是否迷失般地把自己完全交给祂？

2. 我怎样感谢别人对自己的爱？我让别人爱自己吗？我晓得以言语和行动对别人说谢谢吗？我知道感谢天主──爱吗？我肯让自己被祂爱，在祂造物主那看透人心的目光下继续等待吗？我是否愿意随时且自由地接受祂的话和祂的静默？

3. 我如何处理上主为我安排下的爱的关系？这些关系都是自由且令人觉得自由吗？是爱把我和别人联合起来，还是有其他别的因素令到别人接受我？我是否以祈祷和领受圣事来滋养这爱？在团体中我是否积极、负责和尊重每一个人的神恩？

4. 我有没有占有欲，这占有欲将使天主白白赐下的爱瘫痪下来？我是否不知感恩，而剥夺了别人因接待而带来的喜乐？我是否把别人当俘虏或战利品，以至失去自由而没法对天主和别人开放自己？在我所生活的信望爱的团体内，我所带来的是分裂抑或是建树？

5. 在我的生活中，我对圣三的认识和神修经验有几多？这些认识和经验将帮助我获得真理，并去掉我的占有欲、忘恩与封闭，令我可以随时自由地开始重新再爱一切的人。

6. 我是否愿接受天主透过圣经对我所说的话，并忠诚地奉行，而且以修和圣事及感恩祭滋养自己，为学习在爱中和在教会的共融中去爱和成长？

作者：周景勋

1. 导言

从历史事实的鉴证中，我们不难发现：无论在西方或东方，都发生了宗教迫害、宗教战争、宗教排斥和宗教抗衡，做成了宗教间的水火不相容；至论宗教交谈实在鲜矣。(1) 过往的宗教现象和思维往往是对异己者的排斥，于是在思维上出现了「异端」一词，便产生了争议。

在宗教的争议上，过去常常会问：「那一个宗教是『真』的宗教？」在这种处境下，不同的宗教家及其信徒都会回答：「我所信奉的宗教是真的，其他宗教都不是真的。」不相信宗教信仰的人则说：「宗教只是生命的安慰品与麻醉剂。」这些相对的反思形成了唯我独尊的排他性；于是，人在自我的思想领域中划定了界限－－凡与我的思想雷同的才是真的，否则便是伪假的，一定要将之剔除。

今天，人的思维在分析体系、价值体系、信仰体系和政治策略的完备的意识型态下，已由狭隘的思域跳向一个广阔的思域。(2)于是，人的思维也从狭隘的「不容」中跳出来，进入一种宽宏磊落的「能容」气度里；尤其是「宗教」的言论，如何在不同的文化和环境中有真诚的相遇呢？且如何在相遇时能保存着「能容」的气度？因此，我们可以在「自然、人生、社会」的不同层面上发掘思维的另一个表达，好能突破生命的局限，藉以说明人可以在异中求同，在不同中求和，使生命的思维不再是互相排斥，即不排斥异己者，反之能互相欣赏、尊重和接纳；更在宗教与宗教的相遇中慷慨地开放自己，展开交谈；透过互相真诚的交谈为宗教重建新的资源和理念，且在交谈中看到宗教与宗教的思想可以互相影响、互相补充和互相治疗。由是，我们深信宗教交谈实在是当今思维上的一种突破，帮助人在「自然、人生、社会」中解决其本身所面对的危机、战争、灾祸和迫害，更促使新生与平安。(3)我们也深信历史的经验与事实赋予活在今日的人一份启迪和训示；宗教与宗教间的斗争破坏了宗教的内涵，也违反了人性；而宗教交谈则将宗教与宗教间的疏隔拉近，还将重点放在各宗教的伟大贡献上，在合作上有着互补性的动力以造福人群。

因此，我们有一个理念：宗教交谈必须先确定宗教的普遍性和共通性的内涵才能有沟通的共识。因为在宗教的特殊性及独特性上是不可能有沟通和交谈的。当有了沟通的共识，便可引发交谈的动机；此时，我们才可探讨宗教在互补性中需要有交谈的必要，再说明交谈有理论与实践的两个幅度，继而为宗教与宗教之间发掘一条共同的道路。

  1.张春申，「有关宗教交谈」，《神思》n27，香港　思维出版社　1995年11月　1。

在历史沿革中可以发现各宗教间没有交谈而是战争。由宗徒大事录可见初期基督徒受犹太教迫害的情形，等到罗马皈依而保护基督宗教后，却反过来迫害犹太教，甚至兴起反犹太主义，彼此之间不仅不合，还形成对立状态。中古世纪的回教和基督宗教也是对立，着名的十字军东征就是彼此争战的实例。近代基督宗教传到美洲，对当地的信仰不仅未尊重，反而唯我独尊地力求将其他宗教连根铲除。有名的传教士利玛窦在中国虽成功地与儒家思想密切结合，但由其着作中窥知，他对于佛道间的不相容，也非交谈的态度。今日，人们深受历史的经验与事实，认为宗教间的对立与战争都违反人性，唯有交谈与合作才能造福人类，因此提出了「宗教交谈」的新观点。

2.现代学者对于意识型态(ideology)的分析研究，已经相当的细密。一般的行为科学研究者，共同承认的是：意识型态含有四种组成系统。我们可以日本学者高桥彻和田中义久两人的说法来介绍这四个系统。

第一是分析体系：针对现实生活的社会情景(包括经济、政治、社会各方面)，从事科学及客观的分析和判断，赋予意识型态追随者，对于理论内容和外在环境间，建立合理的认知。同时，也建立了自己和世界环境间合理的认识。

第二是价值体系：表明团体的积极且具有创造性存在的理由，指示团体的目标或方向，对于成员灌输神圣的使命感。在此之中，有一评价的力量，说明追求的理想价值目标，并赋予其追随者每个人生活的根本意义。

第三是一神话体系或信仰体系：描给出一个理想远景，在此一体系内，含有浓厚的情绪色彩，因为其远景得到人们的共同向往，而生追求的意志，而此追求意志则有使此一远景实现的倾向，所以此一体系有高度的行动取向。

第四是政治策略：这是根据其理想远景所拟订出来的具体策略，此一策略往往包含远程策略和近程行动步骤。

所以一套完备的意识型态往往含有认知和评价的理念，将这些复杂的、规范的、抽象的思想与观念，转化成行动取向力量，必须具备逻辑的联贯，而后落实于政治的政策网中，改变政治社会和其成员的生活。

参阅：陈明仁撰，《先秦儒家价值思想中天人观念的演变》，辅仁大学哲学研究所博士论文　1991年5月　7-8。

又参阅：巨克毅，《意识型态传播与国家发展》，正中书局　1987年5月台初版　31。

3.参阅：沉清松，《现代哲学论衡》，黎明文化事业公司　1985年8月　15。

吾人以类比的思考方式探索沉清松在书中所提出的「善哉相遇、善哉交谈」，藉以应用在宗教的交谈中：「今日西方文化的危机似乎日愈转剧，其科技发展已经造成个人与社会生活极端之转变，以至个人与社会只能继续跟进，不知如何在其中主导自己的命运，于是便意识到有与其它文化相遇的必要，希望透过其它文化之不同理趣，找到能解决自己内在危机之新资源，以促使自己新生。但真正的相遇，假定了真正的对比。必须先能确定共享的普遍性与各自的独特性，始能有意义地相遇。海德格关心当代各种问题，尤其关心西方文化的前途，他亦表白了这种相遇的必要性：『为了重建全世界，须能思及各种相遇的来临，今日那些所谓相遇者皆尚未达到此一高度，无论他们所站的是那一边。这话对于欧洲的言论以及对于东亚的言论，皆一样有效，亦适用于两方终须交谈的范围。任何一方皆不能单凭己力就展开或奠立此一交谈的范围。』」

2. 基本问题－－思维的扩充

在东西方的传统文化中，普遍地都强调「人文精神」和「宗教意识」，以保存人性价值的真善美。现代的社会则透过科技和经济的发展来保障人的生命，于是强调工具性和生产性的价值，人的生命便变得机械化和物质化了，造成人性的空虚，人与人的疏离感等。因此，在人的思维中形成了这样的一个问题：「为什么会是这样的呢？」

在物极必反的生生大易下，人的良知醒觉到「心灵」与「人性」的重要性；于是，人在思维反省下意识到：如何推进人的生存条件，使科技与经济的发展可以配合人性与心灵而作出调和，使之更合理与完整的发展。此时，人的理智反思与意志行动都在问：「科技与经济的发展是否完全与人性心灵无关？」「人性的意义究竟何在？」这些问题正是社会上的呼唤，藉以唤醒「人文精神」在现时代开发一个文化的新方向；(4)也给予「宗教意识」在思维上和沟通上的新观点，好能为「自然、人生、社会」造就一个和谐的启发：「宗教交谈」就是要求宗教与宗教间跳出自家已固定的框子，尝试找出宗教义涵的普遍性与共通性的整合。诚如文化人类学家基辛(R.M. Keesing)所说：

"宗教强化了人类应付人生问题的能力，这些问题即死亡、疾病、饥荒、洪水、失败等，在遭逢悲剧、焦虑和危机之时，宗教可以抚慰人类的心理，给予安全感和生命意义。因为这个世界「从自然主义的立场而言，充满了不可逆料，反复无常的和意外的悲剧。"(5)

然而，基辛的说法乃将宗教反面的境况导引出来，骤然看来，宗教似是在遭逢悲剧、焦虑和危机时才发挥其力量。反之，我们若从正面积极点作出发时，宗教的普遍而共通点是指向「人性」，即各宗教有一普遍而共通的价值指向：「每一个宗教都在寻找人生的意义，在他们的寻找及回答人生问题上均反映出唯一的真理。」(6)这个共通的真理肯定了宗教的价值在于帮助人面对生命的终极；在生命终极的关怀里，人可以经验到自身的有限性，于是渴望着走向一个无限的生命根源，便流衍出一种生命的归依；这份归依要求人在生命的学习中：即常长善而救其失的学习中有一生命的投向，务使生命的反省能专注在生命的根源上，且与生命根源相密合，藉以提升与转化人有限的生命。而在投向的过程里，即在归依历程里，人必须以积极的态度和行动活出宗教的精神。

宗教的基本态度是「坚信」、「慈悲」、「仁爱」、「希望」、「宽恕」。这也是宗教间普遍落实于「自然、人生、社会」的态度；使人活在科技与经济的发展中不失去心灵的平衡。因此，宗教信仰必须重视其宗教生活：

"宗教生活以祈祷为首务，人在祈祷中与神建立起位格的关系。祈祷以崇拜为第一仪，也就是虔敬地在神的无限崇高及绝对荣耀之下低头。崇拜最庄严的外在表示即系祭祀：人在祭祀中把一样自己所珍视的礼品献给神，作为献身的象征；为了表示献身是绝对而无可反悔的，往往把祭品焚毁。感恩很自然地跟随着崇拜而来；人一再经验到自身力量的限度，因此也感到求恩的需要。真正的宗教生活不仅是内心的，也必须表现于外在行动；对人的仁爱即宗教生活的果实和征验。由于对神的密切关系，道德生活有了内心的基础，不会祇以家庭、朋友等小圈子的利害关系为准则，更不会一味依赖社会的奖惩。"(7)

可见，宗教生活是诚中形外的表达，而且是与人的生活环境及社会息息相关的；它不单帮助人探讨人生的基本问题：如「生何来？死何去？」「人性的意义？」「人生命的超越层面」等；还帮助人在不同的社会中活出仁爱的果实，调协社会给人生命带来的挑战。因为宗教思想在不同的时代中都有「觉醒」的启迪，给社会提供了令人信服的确证；宗教也在不同的遭遇下，有能力适应、同化和融合于时代的需要，几千年的历史可以证明宗教有这种能力。(8)这也说明了宗教与人的历史是不可分割的，宗教在人类历史中扮演着重要的角色，给人类提供一颗充满希望的历史心，帮助人在社会的转变中，依然有希望地在切实中配合生活，不怕活出真我，追求生命的终极以显示「真」。

宗教也具体地指明人要自我舍弃，以实践「仁爱」、「慈悲」与「宽恕」，即在无执与无私下，活出生命的「善」，给社会带来「和平」与「共融」，好能与生命终极的神契合为一。

宗教更能提升人的有限性生命，帮助人在科技和经济的发展下不出卖自己的人格，反而在其中找出合理的人格整合与调和，且使人格升华以达到生命的圣境，即在修德中展露生命的光明，活出生命之「美」。

我们从宗教意涵的普遍性与共通性发挥了思维的扩充，就是要说明宗教的基本问题在于整合宗教的普遍性意义作出发点；因为宗教的终极思维是指一个历史性生命表达，指出人对「自然、人生、世界(社会)」的意义之终极关怀，并将人的生命投向最终的根源，且与之融合为一体。这种宗教交谈与合作的理念，天主教会在梵蒂冈第二次大公会议中已作出思维的革新和扩充，且呼吁在全世界不同的地区、不同的文化中落实地执行：

"自在迄今，各民族都意识到，某种玄奥的能力，存在于事物的运行及人生的事故中，有时竟可体认此一「至高神明」或「天父」。此种意识与体认，以最深的宗教情感贯澈到他们的生活中。但是，与文化进步有关联的宗教，更以较精确的概念和较文明的言词，设法解答同样的问题。……世界各地的其他宗教，也提供教理、生活规诫，以及敬神礼仪，作为方法，从各方面努力弥补人心之不平。……因此，教会劝告其子女们，应以明智与爱德，同其他宗教的信徒交谈与合作，为基督的信仰生活作见证，同时承认、维护并倡导那些宗教徒所拥有的精神与道德，以及社文化的价值。"(9)

  4. 这实在是传统文化与现代思潮的衔接问题。因为西方的文化在法国大革命后，受到很大的冲击，许多第三世界国家更为了发展科技，有将自己的文化传统忘遗危机。至论中国的悠久文化传统，实在与西方国家或发展中国家不同，我们有着文化的道德精髓。因此，今后如何开发原有文化资源，以便一方面既能保存历史文化之连续性，另一方面又能供给新文化之创造一个历史经验的富藏，不但是关系中华文化前途的问题，亦是涉及全世界文化前途的问题。因为中华文化若能成功地对自家传统再诠释，将可以提供未来世界文化发展以一个新方向。(参阅《现代哲学论衡》　40-41)这个问题，在本文内不作探讨。

5. 基辛(KEESING R.M.)，《当代文化人类学概要》，杭洲　浙江人民出版社　1986年中译本　215。

6. 张春申，「宗教交谈的神学基础」，《神学论集》n45，辅仁大学附设神学院编　光启出版社　1980年10月　332。

7. 布鲁格编着 (项退结编译)，《西洋哲学辞典》，先知出版社　「宗教」　354。

8. 秦家懿、孔汉思合撰，《中国宗教与西方神学》，联经出版事业公司　1989年7月初版　251。

9. 梵蒂冈第二届大公会议文献，中国主教团秘书处出版　1975年12月初版　644。《教会对非基督宗教态度宣言》　2。

3. 从不同的思维理念谈论宗教交谈

当我们确定了宗教有其普遍性和共通性的内涵后，我们有一个共识：在现时代，宗教与宗教之间不能唯我独尊的排斥在其他宗教中有真理的思维；而思维的扩充就是要走出自己的框子，接纳有异己思维的存在者，以找出殊途同归的互补资源，且透过其它宗教宝贵的思维治疗自家的不足。由此共识，我们可再确定：宗教与宗教之间有交谈的必要。《人的宗教向度》(The Other Dimension)一书的作者Louis Dupre在「中文版」的序言中说：

"西方的宗教如果一仍其旧地忽视东方，势将难以继续存在。今天，即使是罗马教廷也不会再反对与中国作宗教上的交谈；由利玛窦与南怀仁所开启的交谈之道，应该予以发扬光大。当前西方人之所以不易全盘接受自己的传统信仰，主要即是因为完全相异的传统公然存在这一事实。我猜测，东方人也为同样的问题所苦。未来的宗教将容许各大传统互相交谈，否则无一能够幸存。"(10)

这实在是一个很中肯而具有鼓舞性的思维理念，在宗教的语言上可说是：「先知性」的启发，为今日的宗教思潮泛起挑战，要求着思维上的革新和改变。我们从历史经验中可肯定：变是危机，也是创新与成长；变是转化，也是创生的力量。宗教交谈要求先走出自己的唯我独尊的执着，然后开放和接受挑战，表面上看来是一项危机，但若能化解「自然、人生、社会」的苦难，引导「人」进入互爱共融的生活，也就展现了宗教的神圣使命，即共同在交谈与合作中为人类谋求幸福：

"现在的重点当放在各宗教伟大的贡献的特色，以及其相互间可能有的互补性。尤其在现代科技挂帅，金钱至上，权力追求的社会中，宗教的这些特长，如何落实下来，成为迷失和疏离的人生指点迷津，提出化解之道的有效方案。当然，在诸事之先，宗教间的通力合作，化解歧见，化解自我设限，共同面对当前的人生危机，共同体认：宗教的目的不是为了宗教，亦不是为了教士或主持，而是为了信徒，化解信徒的苦难，拯救信徒的罪孽，使人人获得救赎(得到生命的解脱)，共同抵达「宗教求圣」的目标，带领人人超凡入圣，引领社会进入平安、和谐、互爱的理想境界。"(11)

宗教与宗教间为能通力合作，化解歧见和自我设限，必须开放自己进入交谈，增进认识和了解，才能面对社会中的种种问题，消除思维上种种的障碍和排斥，共同导引人类抵达「圣、美、善、真」之理想境界。为了强调宗教交谈的重要性，我们可以从五个不同的思维理念作探讨和分析，以加强我们研究的信念。

3.1 哲学的理念

简单的说：哲学是在于「培养智慧，发现真理，印证价值」；藉此帮助人：「以理性探讨宇宙与人生的根本真相，从而指引现实生活，评估文化生态」；(12)更帮助人走向绝对的必要性，使心灵得到解脱；且反省自己，学习如何判准生命的行为，选择生命的路向，即在思维中给生命一个定位，把握自我生命存在的「一、真、善」之性。于是，哲学的真谛在于启发人的思维，助人在「自然、人生、社会」的不同层面中寻求真理，也于其中唤醒人的意识，更使人与人之间有思维上的交流。无怪乎苏格拉底强调人与人之间在生活中要有所交谈，好能找出人生的不同问题，以建立自己的思想系统，藉以改变生命的现状；故他要求人真诚的回到内心作思维的反省，且强调「没有经过反省检讨的人生，是不值得活的」。(13)这种生命的对话交谈、反省检讨、寻找与判准，以及生命的唤醒都是从古至今所强调的哲学理念。

3.2 信仰的理念

信仰的理念源于人的宗教意识，也是透过人内心的反省，经验到在自我的有限和软弱的背后有着无限和力量的存在，使人对这无限与力量充满希望，愿意不惜牺牲一切地投入这无限的终极关怀中。在投入终极关怀的途径上，人要将关怀化作生活的动力：「爱的启发」，将「爱」化作善行以表现信仰的落实。于是，信仰要求人与人有所沟通和分享，以扩展和增强人的爱(慈悲)，更使人明白爱(慈悲)是生命的心，也是每一宗教对话的核心。因为人在爱(慈悲)中看到生命的超越与光明，而与爱(慈悲)的根源相契合一。(14)

3.3 科学的理念

科学与哲学的思维是息息相关的。因为科学的开始是人类对自然界的物理现象的好奇与困惑，由此进一步作「客观的」探讨，以了解自然事件的法则与其因果关系。(15)所以，科学必然在人的经验活动中探求事实的真相，以建立其思维上的真理和价值，藉以给人类提供探索世界的途径和探索自然界中的每一种事物的理性要求。这就是说：科学强调以经验事实作为准绳，再以理性的理论判准为依据，探求出其统一性为目标；可见，科学的目标不单在解释自然与世界的种种事实，也要在思维的统一中改造自然与世界。因此，科学在时代的演变中有其新发展，在新发展中提出新的问题才能有所进步，诚如爱因斯坦所指出：

"提出一个问题往往比解决一个问题更重要；因为解决一个问题也许仅是一个数学上的或实验上的技能而已，而提出新的问题，新的可能性，从新的角度去看旧的问题，却需要创造性的想像力，而且标志着科学的真正的进步。"(16)

既然科学在探求自然的统一性和对自然与世界的事实成果，把握有明确的希望的信念，便不断地与自然与世界对话，发掘新的问题。为什么宗教与宗教间不可以提出挑战性的新问题而作出对话交谈呢？其实，宗教与宗教间在找出宗教的普遍性和共通性的背后，也可以透过交谈发掘新的进展，探索宗教间的融合性或统一性内容吧！

3.4 艺术的理念

艺术是人心灵内在之美与外在之美的表现，即人从思想、感触和经验中，将内心世界的意象、景物、思绪，透过不同的方式表现出来。这是一种对「真善美」的追求和探索，用不同的语言媒介和技术来畅所欲言，使生命在「诚于中，发于外」作出生命的跳跃和赞叹，也在「真善美」中作出生命的突破和超越。(17) 可见，艺术也是在「自然、人生、社会」的层面内表达出人性之美及其圆融性。徐复观教授强调：「在人的具体生命的心、性中，发掘出艺术的根源，把握到精神自由解放的关键。」(18) 这种精神的自由解放正表现了宗教感情的内心体验是崇高的和庄严的，同时是对自然规律的和谐所感到的狂喜的惊奇。(19)人的心灵便自然地与世界上的存在物有一种直接的沟通，且能感受万事万物之生命之美，和帮助人的生命活得更高尚和优美，也更充实；所以，艺术的最大价值就在于它能提高人们的精神境界。(20)人在艺术中不再是作生命的比对或较量，而是互相的欣赏和包容、互相的交谈与分享、互相的学习和共融，使「自然、人生、社会」皆处于和谐之境－－艺术(音乐)能容纳(生命、自然、社会)全部的经历，从感觉成分到最终的精神和谐。这份和谐的理念实在可以给宗教与宗教间的交谈一个豁达而宽敞的借镜，就是在欣赏和包容中有尊重、在交谈和分享中有真诚、在学习和共融中有革新。

3.5 社会的理念

社会是由人在共同的团结理念中所组成的；因此，社会为维持一个和谐的人际关系，便在人的共识认同下制订了社会规范，要求人人同心同德地尊重个人的生命、尊重私有的财产；同时在社会规范中唤醒人的道德意识，提升人格，使人在道德中创造善的行为，发扬人性的价值。尤其在科技发达的社会中，人与人的互动频率不断的提高，人与人的交往也自然地在经济、政治、宗教有密切的关系，人更必须怀有道德情操与担负道德责任，才能建立一个有意义的新社会。国父孙中山在面对人民、社会、智识和精神的幸福时，提出了「民生」的思想：

"民生是一种道德的努力，而不是阶级间的斗争。它既是实际的，也是理想的。……民生远比其它二大主义(民族、民权)更重视我们的伦理传统：在中国人信仰民族主义和民权主义后，想藉自己人格的觉醒，作为一个有益人类幸福的媒介；此一自觉，将使他变成爱群乐群的君子。在这个对世界具有价值的自觉感中，利己主义遂为利他主义所替化。……民生便是一种伦理力，是运用伦理的方式，使各阶级合作和谐。"

这种为人民、社会所倡导的民生理念，有着整体的、包容的深入思想，在文化、精神和道德上提升人的生命，也给人提供了新的出路。(21) 所以在谈社会理念时，我们要确定社会的基本问题，在于推进人的生存条件所系的科技发展，经济政策，使之更合理、更完整，以便为人类带来更大的幸福；因此，在科技发展及经济政策下，不能对人性，及人际关系造成伤害，故必须提供社会中人与人的沟通和交谈机会，以认知不同阶层的人的真正需要。在此同时，社会理念亦当关注到传统与现代的衔接和配合问题，好能成功地给传统一个正确的再诠释，为未来的社会发展提供新的方向。

***********

我们从以上的五个理念：哲学的理念、信仰的理念、科学的理念、艺术的理念和社会的理念中，看到生命的沟通与合作在于人面对「自然、人生、社会」时，有着互相的推动力和交流，这为宗教的普遍性的内涵带来了一股开放与创新的动力，使宗教间有对话和交谈，好能丰富宗教的内涵，这交谈不在转化或归化或同化其他宗教，而是互相间的对话、聆听、陈述、欣赏、沟通，共同在光明中寻找真理，(23) 为人类求幸福，为社会带来共融与和谐，为人的生命开启成全的路。为达到交谈的目标，我们尝试从「理论」的幅度探讨其根据，从「实践」的幅度说明宗教间的合作。

  10. DUPRE L. (傅佩荣译)，《人的宗教向度》，幼狮文化事业公司　1986年12月初版。原作者「中文版」序　5。

11.邬昆如，《道、儒在东亚的共融：「从彼此优点建立个人共识」》，(宗教哲学)季刊第二卷第三期，中华民国宗教哲学研究社　1996年7月1日　12。

12.傅佩荣，《哲学入门》，正中书局　1994年1月台初版第二次印行　1-5。

13.傅佩荣，《心灵的曙光》，洪建全基金会出　1994年11月第一版　21-75。

14.邬昆如，《道、儒在东亚的共融：「从彼此优点建立个人共识」》，(宗教哲学)季刊第二卷第三期，中华民国宗教哲学研究社　1996年7月1日　参阅第十一章和第十二章　443-531。

15.成中英，《科学真理与人类价值》，三民文库192，三民书局　1979年再版　7。

16.爱因斯坦、英费尔德合着，《物理学的进化》，上海　科学技术出版社　1962年3月第一版　59。

参阅林定夷，「论科学的目标与科学进步」，《分析哲学与科学哲学》论文集，香港中文大学哲学系编辑委员会主编　新亚书院出版　1989　321-339。

17.陈鸿基，《宗教与艺术》神思n29，思维出版社　1996年5月　29。

18.徐复观教授，《中国艺术精神》，学生书局　1976年9月五版　自叙　1。

19.赵鑫珊，《艺术．科学．哲学断想》，丹青图书有限公司　127-128。

20.同上，第70页。在234页中提出黑格尔的美学思想：「艺术的美高于自然。艺术的美是由心灵产生和再生的美，心灵和它的产品比自然和它的现象高多少，艺术的美也就比自然美高多少。」第235页则引贝多芬的话说：「继续努力吧！不要单从事艺术，还要渗透到它的最深的内容中去；它是值得我们去追求的，因为只有艺术同科学才能把人提高到神明的境界。」

21.沉清松，《为现代文化把脉》，光启出版社　1985年7月初版　第二编　77-129。

22.参阅：沉清松，《现代哲学论衡》，黎明文化事业公司　1985年8月　38-41。

23.张春申，「宗教交谈的使命」，《教会的使命与福传》，光启　1995年元月初版　85-87。

4. 宗教交谈的两个幅度－－理论与实践

中国儒家的哲学思想很重视人的生命和价值；而人的生命与禽兽不同之处乃因人有「心思之官」，而禽兽没有；至于「耳目之官」，人与禽兽皆有。所以，人「当先立乎其大者(大体－－心思之官)，则其小者(小体－－耳目之官)不能夺也，此为大人(生命的理想价值)而己矣。」(孟子告子上篇)可知，儒家思想强调「存养」心性－－精神生命：「仁义礼智根于心」(孟子尽心上篇)。为使理论的思维根据与实践的行为表达能互相配合，孟子提出：「尽心知性知天」和「存心养性事天」的理念。

西方的哲学思想也很强调人的精神生命：

"正常人的生命好似一所三层楼的房子。上层是精神生命，中层是觉性生命，下层是物质生命。这三层相辅相成，但当尊重它们彼此间的次序；物质生命在最下层，精神生命在最高层，它最为尊贵，最为重要。如果此一价值次序被颠倒，人的结构便被破坏，人便失去平衡，成为不正常的人。"(24)

精神生命之所以重要乃因它赋予人生命的目标和生活的意义，而「宗教」所注重的乃帮助人寻找生命的终极目标，充实人的精神生命，培养人的生活品格，提高人性的伦理道德情操，劝人为善和教人避恶，也即是助人「求真、求善、求美、求圣」。曾仰如教授在《宗教哲学》书中强调：

"宗教是人凭藉的一种信念，方法与力量，藉此创造群体幸福的生活与环境，以磨炼或塑造圆满与高尚人格，使人对生命真谛及其价值的认识、肯定和追求。"(25)

因此，宗教交谈当本着一个信念，即为社会谋求幸福，为世界祈求和平，为每一个人探索高尚的生活品格等。故在下列，我们将从「理论」的幅度：反省和探索宗教本身的性质与宗教交谈的原则；和「实践」的幅度：以香港六宗教的结谊和合作为实例，说明如何落实于社会的交谈中。

4.1 理论的幅度：思维上的根据和整合

宗教的特色在于宗教是神圣的和圣洁的；因此，信徒在信仰的氛围(神的氛围、宗教气氛)下，当有生命的觉俉，且有自觉的回应。

宗教在理论上也有思维的根据，就是肯定人有人性的尊严，这份尊严强调人除了肉体外，还有精神性，也就是理性。「理性促使人类追求生命的真谛，即真理。因此，人有追求真理的权利和义务。……所谓人有追求真理的权利，就是说人性寻找真理、宗教、信仰的自由，应被尊重。人也有寻找真理的义务。这义务不是来自任何国家、团体或其他人，而是出自自己的人性。人有义务专注去学、去探讨、去应用方法寻找真理。宗教交谈就是人寻找真理的方法之一，在不侵犯他人、不影响社会安宁中，藉互相学习、研究及分享，完成人追求宗教真理的权利及义务上。由此可见，宗教交谈是建立在人性的基础上，且应承认真理不是任何人或团体所能掌握的，必须一起寻找。」(26)

然而，人在寻找真理上如何在不同宗教中发现其所要寻找的内容呢？因此，我也必须相信：真理存在任何导人向善而有神圣性的任何一个宗教内。再者，各宗教在表达其信仰和真理时，都有本身的一套信仰系统，这系统乃基于宗教的基本因素：教义、教规和教礼。思维上的整合帮助我们有共同的了解：

「教义」所肯定的是「真理」或「道理」，乃信徒必信的内容；可见，「教义」是属于「真」的向度。

「教规」乃宗教的规条、戒律或章程，乃信徒必须遵守和作警愓的；所以，「教规」是属于「善」的向度。

「教礼」则是信徒在崇拜上所必须实行的礼仪，以表示其「信仰和宗教情感」，故「教礼」是属于「美和善」的向度。

信仰透过对教义的认识，相信该宗教的道理，遵守戒律或诫命，且奉行规定的礼仪，使能臻于至善和圆融的境界，与神有密切的关系，得到真正的幸福和永恒的生命。

再者，宗教的性质必须透过宗教团体在「信」、「解」、「行」、「证」上所信的见证表现出来，即在信仰中引导信徒的道德行为和崇拜活动，使之能把握生命的价值、生命的意义和生命的终向，且抱着共通的同一性真理思想，在团体内渡爱的、慈悲的生活。

在交谈中，各宗教依然保持着各宗教的「教义」、「教规」和「教礼」，不能作好坏的比较，也不能以自己的准则或规律作武断式的评论；因此，在宗教交谈中必须有交谈的原则，那就是：在宗教间相聚交谈时，必须剔除偏见。尤其在观念、理论、名称形式等上都有很多相异之处，若要去异求同，实在不容易。因此，在宗教交谈时，为巩固互相间的共融和友谊，自然而然地要有以下的共识和认同：

－「平等、自由、博爱」的精神。

－互相爱慕和尊重，互让和互谅。

－互相欣赏和接纳，信任和保密。

－要有坦诚、开放和豁达的胸襟。

－共同目标以追求「真、善、美、圣」。

－同心维护社会的和谐与繁荣。

－态度上保持：谦卑、明智、慎思。

－心灵的平衡在于：不唯我独尊、不自私、不偏激。

－在思想和行为上不怕有净化、改进和革新。

－交谈不是辩论而是分享。

－不排斥异己者(包括人或思想)，尽异在异中求同。

－彼此交换经验和学习，好能互相贡献和补充。

4.2 实践的幅度：宗教与宗教之间的结谊和合作

我们深信宗教的理论和实践是相辅相承的；在实践上一定要有理论作为依据，而在理论上也需要有实践作为展现。所以，我们可以说：理论是实践的基础推动力，是导向理想(真理)的指标；实践是理论的落实肯定力，是呈现理想(真理)的行动。因此，在宗教交谈上，各宗教必须先愿意打开自己深锁的大门，跨出门槛，实际地走向其他宗教。我们尝试以香港六宗教团体之结谊和合作为例作说明。

一九七二年香港天主教成立「教区宗教联络委员会」，便开始了「拜访」香港其他的宗教团体，更邀不同宗教来访天主教及参加天主教的重要庆典，就因着不同的活动和聚会的交流，香港天主教教会便与其他宗教团体交上了朋友。

4.2.1 成立和举办宗教思想交谈会

从一九七二年至一九七六年的四年间，香港不同宗教团体的交往已逐渐频密；于是，大家的开放也较宽大，便有相同的感觉：倘若只着重在社交接触会流于表面的交谈，便不能深入；如要深入交谈，非从思想上开始不可。因此，在一九七七年初，六宗教选派代表，着手筹备宗教思想交谈会，商讨「思想交谈」的可能性及推行方法；期间共举行了四次会议，确定了宗教思想交谈会的目的和举办方法。

目的：为不同信仰的六宗教教友善信提供更广博知识，藉以增加大家各宗教之教义、始创、演变及其文化背景等之认识和了解；因此，交谈会是以促进互相尊重，彼此瞭解及共同欣赏为目的。

至于举办方法，乃由香港佛教联合会，香港孔教学院、中华回教博爱社、香港基督教协进会、香港天主教教会及香港道教联合会派出代表组成筹备委员会、议定交谈会之日期、时间、地点及有关详细应办事项。思想交谈会由开始每年举办二至三次，至今改为每年举办一次，最近的一次在一九九五年十二月九日为向应国际宽容年举办的思想交谈会，主题为：「宽容」。

4.2.2 成立宗教领袖座谈会

不同宗教团体的接触，已经在一九七七年间成立的「宗教思想交谈会」中跨进了一步。然而，宗教团体在接触上的希望不作形式上的交谈，大家更希望可以落实在对香港社会的一些贡献上能互相齐心合作，这也是将宗教上爱和慈悲的精神作具体的推动，希望能在多元化的宗教交往中发挥不同的推动力，而最能给予支持和鼓励的就是各宗教的领袖愿意携手合作，为社会大众树立一个共融的见证。

这个事实终于在一九七八年六月十六日在筹划小组精细的安排下，举办了第一次的「宗教领袖座谈会」，为香港的宗教历史创造了宗教合作的首页。

其后，每年都会举办二次的「宗教领袖座谈会」，讨论有关宗教、社会公义、道德、教育、青年、老人福利、家庭等问题，并会针对社会的各种需要，向全香港市民发表每一年一度的新年文告；更会举办有益世道的活动，如宗教青年营、家庭营、慈善步行等活动。最近更举办宗教界人士庆祝国庆的活动，及邀请国务院宗教事务局局长率团访港的盛会，更将策划与公益金合作举办宗教慈善步行筹款等活动。在每次的座谈会和活动中，大家都能保持着互让互欣赏互尊重的精神，使不同宗教的朋友能共融相聚和交谈，正显示了宗教求真求善求美求和谐的本质。(27)

24.郑圣冲，《三度生命》，光启　1978年再版　2。

25.曾仰如，《宗教哲学》，台湾商务印书馆　1989年二版　4。

26.张春申，《有关宗教交谈》神思n27，香港　思维　1995年11月　2。

27.周景勋，「历史中新的一页－－记香港六宗教团体结谊之始源及其反思」，《神思》n27，香港　思维　73-81。

5. 结论：宗教交谈使宗教走向一体关系的共同道路

我们从宗教交谈的理论幅度和实践幅度清楚地把握了宗教与宗教间的相聚与合作，实在就是在不同中找到共通性的交谈；也从不同的理念中看到交谈重要性及思维的扩大。其实，在「自然、人生、社会」中，一切事物都是相对的，也是独特而各不相同的，然而在相对下所形成的一体关系是很清晰的，如因果关系、上下、内外、痛苦与快乐、人与神，都成为一体的关系，若没有这一体关系，两者之间的关系都可说是不能存在，即没有因就没有果，没有上就不能有下的认识等。所以，当人否定神存在时，正是人否定自己存在的时候。在相对下所指向的是绝对的一体意识，这便形成了人追索生命终极的一体动力。同样地，人透过推理能力作出生命的思维上的追索所要显示的终极境界，正是宗教中所言的共同道路：终极关怀的无限境，此无限境根本是不能诉说出其多向性或多面性的，而终极关怀所达的境界必然是人世间相对的两极之统一。

就是这个统一性的理念，为宗教交谈打开了一条宽敞的共同道路。香港佛教联合会会长：释觉光法师和黄允畋居士在「伟大宗教」的献文中指出：

"香港六大宗教领袖明乎时代的精神和需要，打破宗教限止的框框，相互尊重，携手合作，本和衷共济之旨，为社会谋福利而努力。香港六大宗教的合作精神，为世界各地宗教徒树立了揩模，为各自宗教发挥了巨大作用，造福人类不浅。"

在现时代的社会变迁中，科技、经济和政治成为人生命的核心点，影响着人的思想和生活方式，但在其中却隐藏了不可逆料、反复无常和意外的悲剧与危机；因为科技、经济与政治不能捕捉人的心灵，也不能带给人永恒的平安与喜乐，更不能在失败、痛苦、焦虑、悲剧、危机和死亡等之中抚慰与安定人心。而「宗教」在一体关系的思维统一中，可以统合人的生命与万事万物的存在价值，指示出一个超越人在现实的迷惘不能自拔的方向，因为宗教若丧失了这个统合价值的能力，则注定会失去其本质而要归于消灭。因此，宗教信仰也是人生命的全面统合之要素，帮助人觉悟生命的全部经验具有一种超越的层面，且给人一个创新生命的肯定，因为信仰可以扩展及增强人的爱(慈悲)，使人明白爱是生命的核心，而神明的临在正是要用无私的爱来圣化所有的人。所以，现时代的精神和需要是先打破生命因科技、经济和政治所做成的生命隔阂，取出人生命本有的善与爱，积极地进行有意义的文化和宗教的交谈与合作；因为我们相信：心灵的永恒关怀和无私之爱是不受时间和空间所限制的。所以，我们在「爱」中可以摒弃敌对的成见，且「信望爱」三种德性在不同的宗教思想中是可以找到的，在其内更可以看出不同人与文化都同样地分沾了神的救恩计划。

同样地，因着爱的宗教交谈是一个先知性的启发，可以使各宗教走向更新；每一宗教若能虚怀若谷的与不同宗教交谈合作，一定可以丰富各宗教的神学思潮和反思探索，更刺激教会内的信徒的反省，使之更明白神明超验的奥秘。

最后，让我们一齐反省陆象山的一段具有先知性的话，他为我们现时代打开了一个既广阔又不受时间空间限制的心，并启示了一体关系的玄妙：

"东海有圣人出焉，此心同也，此理同也；西海有圣人出焉，此心同也，此理同也；南海北海有圣人出焉，此心同也，此理同也。千百世之上有圣人出焉，此心同也，此理同也。千百世之下有圣人出焉，此心同也，此理同也。"(28)

　

28.周景勋，「历史中新的一页－－记香港六宗教团体结谊之始源及其反思」，《神思》n27，香港　思维　73-81。

作者：沈清松

觉悟与救恩－－佛教与基督宗教的交谈注

论文摘要

在世纪末的氛围当中，整个世界正踏入虚无主义的幽谷。从此一人类的窘境看来，佛教和基督宗教应该致力于开发它们共同的灵修资源，透过交谈，贡献他们的理念、价值和实践的方法，促使人类的生活重新恢复意义。一方面可以提炼它们各自精神传统当中最好的事物，另一方面也可以共同面对人类的命运，以便摸索出一条走出虚无主义幽谷的大道。

在本文当中，我处理基督宗教和佛教的交谈的方式，是运用本人所谓的「对比哲学」。对比哲学是一种思维与实践的基本途径，必须在表面的差异或对立情境当中发现互补性，一方面尊重差异，一方面寻找互补。我所谓的「对比」是在差异和互补、连续与断裂、采取距离和共同隶属之间的辩证游戏，它构成了我们所研究的对象的结构及其动态的发展。

带着这样的一种对比的视野和思维方式，本人倾向于把基督宗教和佛教视为是不同，但是仍可互补，相互采取距离，但仍可共同隶属，的两个宗教。在本论文当中，我主要是集中在佛教所谓的「觉悟」和基督宗教所谓的「救恩」两项重要教理，并且把两者的创造性诠释视为是有助于人类走过现代／后现代的虚无主义幽谷。我将集中探讨的问题包涵以下四点：

1. 基督宗教和佛教对于人类痛苦的共同关心－－无论是身体的痛苦，或是心灵的痛苦－－及其在人性上的根源。

2. 基督宗教所谓的「救恩」，与佛教所谓的「觉悟」之间的对比，主要集中于所谓「超越性原则」与「内在性原则」。

3. 基督宗教所论「存有的圆满」和佛教所谓的「空性」，或「无所住于空」。

4. 德行伦理学对于基督宗教和佛教皆为共法，可以视为一种克服虚无主义、宰制与异化的实践道路。

一. 引言

在世纪末的氛围当中，整个世界可谓正踏入虚无主义的幽谷。从此一人类的窘境看来，佛教和基督宗教应该致力于开发它们共同灵修的资源，透过交谈，一起贡献他们的理念、价值和实践的方法，来使人类的生活重新恢复意义。我个人认为，由于现代化的冲击，尤其加上后现代解构趋势的挑战，人类的存在，虽然有文化表现的不同，大体说来，率皆承受着宰制、异化以及生命无意义的威胁和扭曲，而翻腾于焦虑与苦恼之中。在今日，所谓的「虚无主义」(Nihilism)一词早已失去其原先在十九世纪末、二十世纪初，所谓「重估一切价值」的深刻意义。在今天，虚无主义的概念已然肤浅化、轻挑化、无意义化。人们不再有值得生命奉献的理想，相反地，却沉溺在对眼前可见的利益和快乐的追求之中。(1) 从这个角度看来，无论是基督宗教，或是佛教，都可以相互合作，甚至相互滋润，为人类再度形构一个有意义的存在。一方面可以提炼它们各自灵修传统中的精华，另一方面也可以共同面对人类的未来命运，以便摸索出一条走出虚无主义幽谷的大道。

在此一考量之下，所谓佛教和基督宗教的交谈，诚然必须面对一些基本的概念，像「上帝」与「涅盘」，「救恩」与「觉悟」，「存有」与「空无」……等等这些基本概念。这些概念的辨明，对于澄清彼此教义上的立场是十分必要的。不过，也必须注意到，只沉溺在概念的讨论以及教义的分辨当中，也会使得所谓宗教的交谈变质、退化，成为只是宗教彼此之间口头上的比较而已。做为一个哲学的学者，本人认为，在当代世界当中，意向性、生活世界和实践行动……等层面，对于宗教的交谈可以说是十分必要的。此一想法是来自胡塞尔(E.Husserl)的现象学和实用主义的启发的结果。按照胡塞尔的想法，真理必须透过我们的体验向我们揭露，藉此，我们才能够经由意向性指向意义的行动来构成意义。此外，也必注意到意义在生活世界中形成的历程。(2)按照实用主义的想法，真理必须透过行动来检证其自身。诚如史密斯(John Smith)所说，「我们所相信的与我们行动的方式是相互依赖的」。(3)

也因此，宗教交谈今天是处在一个对比的情境当中。一方面为了厘清彼此教义的立场，必须要进行概念的分析和比较。另外一方面，各种宗教对于人类在现实世界的共同处境，对于生活世界的现况，有必要共同予以关怀。在基本的宗教学、哲学概念方面的厘清，可以有助于澄清不同的宗教的立场。但是，单单只是厘清不同宗教在概念层次的相容或不相容，仍然不能够说出宗教交谈的真正意义。换言之，体验与行动若没有概念的厘清，会是盲目的；然而，只有概念而无体验和行动，也会是空洞的。从此一对比观点看来，基督宗教和佛教的交谈也必须把它们放在现代与后现代的生活世界脉络与人类的共同处境之中，一方面能够厘清、分析并对比各自教义的立场，另外一方面也必须共同关怀并且投入共同生活世界的建设。

在本文中，我处理基督宗教和佛教的交谈的方式，是诉诸本人所谓的「对比哲学」。对比哲学是一种思维与实践的基本途径，必须在表面的差异或对立的情境中发现互补性，一方面尊重差异，一方面寻找互补。我所谓的「对比」是在差异和互补、连续与断裂、采取距离和共同隶属间的辩证游戏，构成了我们所研究的对象的结构及其动态的发展。因此，所谓「对比」包涵了「结构对比」和「动态对比」，两者构成了经验、历史和存有的内在结构与辩证动力。(4)我之所以提倡对比哲学，是用它来代替一切二元对立的思考，像结构主义(Structuralism)就太过强调对立元彼此的差异性，而且化约历史性于结构之中；至于黑格尔的辩证法虽能兼顾历史性，但却太过强调否定性(Negativity)，因此就忽视了存有的创造的积极性。

对比的智慧在中国哲学传统中有其根源。《易经》有谓，「一阴一阳之谓道。」老子在《道德经》中也说，「万物负阴而抱阳，冲气以为和。」这些都显示出一种对比的思考，一方面有结构性的对比，如「万物负阴而抱阳」便显示结构性的对比。另一方面又有动态性的对比，如「一阴一阳之谓道」、「阴长则阳消，阳长则阴消」都显示出动态的对比。简言之，对比的哲学要求我们去看出所研究的对象的另一面，无论是就其结构而言，或是就其历史而言，都必须能兼顾其它面向与其它可能性。

带着这样一种对比的视野和思维方式，本人倾向于把基督宗教和佛教视为是两种虽然不同，但仍可互补，虽相互采取距离，但仍可共同隶属的宗教。在本文当中，我将处理以下的教义问题：主要是集中在佛教所谓的「觉悟」和基督宗教所谓的「救恩」，并且把两者视为是有助于人类走过现代／后现代的虚无主义的幽谷。我所探讨的问题包涵以下四点：

1. 基督宗教和佛教对于人类痛苦的共同关心，无论是身体的痛苦，或是心灵的痛苦，及其在人性上的根源。

2. 基督宗教所言的「救恩」，与佛教所谓的「觉悟」之间的对比，主要涉及所谓「超越原则」与「内在原则」的对比。

3. 基督宗教所论存有的圆满和佛教所谓的空性，或「无所住于空」的对比。

4. 德行伦理学对于基督宗教和佛教都是共法，并且可以视为一种克服虚无主义、宰制与异化的实践道路。

注:本文乃沈清松教授于一九九六年九月三日至五日在北京大学成立宗教学系的国际宗教研讨会中所发表的论文，本年刊主编征得沈教授同意在本学院的《神学年刊》中刊登，本文也于一九九七年一月刊登于《哲学与文化》月刊内。

1.关于「虚无主义」概念，参见GOUDSBLOM J., Nihilism and Culture (New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield 1980) 3-18。在本文中对「虚无主义」的定义则是本人的说法。

2. E. HUSSERL, Ideas I: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology, translated by KERSTEIN F. (the Hague: Martinis Nijhof 1982) 199-201; Vincent SHEN, Life-world and Reason in Husserl‘s Philosophy of Life, in Analecta Husserliana, Vol.XVII (Dordrecht: D. Reidel 1984) 105-116.

3. SMITH J.E., The Spirit of American Philosophy (Albany: State University of New York 1983) 44.

4.沈清松，「方法、历史与存有－－对比哲学概观」，《现代哲学论衡》，台北　黎明文化公司　(1986)　1-28。

二. 人类的痛苦与人性的构成

我所提供的宗教会通的起点，是基督宗教和佛教对于人类的痛苦的共同关怀。它们是在世界上最为关心人类的痛苦和罪恶，甚至关心一切众生所面对的痛苦和罪恶的两个宗教。事实上，基督宗教之所以讨论「救恩」，其最肯切的理由，是为了拯救人类于痛苦和罪恶之中。而佛教所言的「觉悟」，则是透过一种自觉的方式，来从痛苦和罪恶之中解放人类。而且，无论是基督宗教或佛教的教义，都解释痛苦和罪恶的源起，并且是参照人性的构成问题来加以讨论。

基督宗教(5)认为人与神的关系，是人的其它关系的根源。这看法是立基于其以上帝为万物之造物主和对人类的痛苦和罪恶的关怀与同情。(6)从《圣经》看来，这些包含忌妒、仇杀、战争、病痛、死亡、奴隶、流离失所、天灾人祸……种种痛苦和罪恶，其本质皆在于人与人、人与自然的和谐关系的破灭和冲突，而这些都是来自于人和神原初关系的破裂。基督宗教对于痛苦和罪恶的源起的解释，也是诉诸于人性的构成，并以神人关系作为人性结构的基本要素。

当我们讨论到基督宗教对于人性论的看法之时，马上会想到原罪的学说。对于有些神学家而言，原罪代表人性中的幽暗面，是继承自人类的原祖。原罪的源起是来自亚当和厄娃违反了上帝颁布的一条禁令。然而，当我们把原罪的故事放进《圣经》的文本中加以解读，便可以看出，所谓的原罪其实是原初上帝创造为善的人性的堕落和玷污，使得人、神关系破裂，更由此原初关系之破裂导致人从与自然的和谐状态分离，进而造成人与人关系的冲突。

在我看来，在圣经旧约《创世纪》当中，关于亚当和厄娃的堕落的整个叙事文本，恰好显示人性原初是被造为善的，但由于在人性发展过程当中的一些倾向，使得人的主体性趋向于自我封闭，因而断绝了与上帝的和谐关系，成为痛苦和罪恶的源起。诚如吕格尔(Paul Ricoeur)所言，原罪的神话区分了罪的根源(Origine radicale)和万物与人性之善的源起(origine originale)。他说，「该神话以人为罪之根源，这是发生在创造之后，而创造在上帝的创造行动中有其绝对源起。」(7)在我看来，人性的原初是善的，整个创世纪所提出来的一个善的存有论和神的肖像(Imago Dei)的神学，两者都支持人性的原初之善。

第一，人的存在的环境是由万物所构成的。这些万物，按照《创世纪》的文本，当每一次上帝创造它们之后，都宣称它们是「善的」。这一点奠定了人得以兴起的一个存有论基础，人是从善的存有论的基础上兴起的。

第二，人是上帝按照祂的形像所创造的，正如《创世纪》上所谓：「天主于是按照自己的肖像造了人，就是照天主肖像造了人；造了一男一女。」(创1:27)(8)既然天主本身是至高的善，祂的肖像本身也应该是善的，而不是恶的。所以人性的被造本然也是善的。

第三，人性天生就具有认知的能力和自由意志，也因此必须要为自己的行为负责。这些认知的能力和自由意志就奠定了所有道德的善的先验基础。

至于恶的来临，是由于人滥用他的自由意志，并且割裂了他与上帝之间互为主体的关系。这个关系，原先是由一个行动的盟约所表现的。但由于人打破了这个盟约，于是断绝了人和上帝之间的关系，使得人封闭在自己主体的薄幸和武断之中，把自己从与上帝的和谐关系之中割裂开来，也就是在这神人和谐关系中断之后，人开始有痛苦、罪恶和死亡。痛苦、罪恶和死亡，是由于原为神的肖像的人性自我封闭，因而堕落的结果，也是人拒绝了与上帝之间的关系之后的结果。

换言之，在基督宗教看来，人性既是按照上帝的肖像而造，原初即是善的。然而人在经验领域中，在运用其自由意志的时候，就有可能、而且实际上会选择自我封闭，甚至否定了与上帝的和谐关系，也因此出现了堕落的情况。

从《圣经》上的叙述看来，人在堕落之后，必需经由劳动，才能生存；经由努力，才能维系良好关系。不像从前在乐园里，可以自发地享有存在，无邪地活在良好关系之中。更可悲的是，从此开始发生像加音妒忌、谋杀其亲弟亚伯尔之罪恶，以及尔后无穷的痛苦。

在中国哲学里，这种人性会堕落的情况是经由道家对儒家的反省显示出来的。儒家肯定人性在先验方面是本善的，然而老子的批评却指出这个本善的人性，在现实的社会当中，会逐步地变质和堕落。「失道而后德，失德而后仁，失仁而后义，失义而后礼。失礼者，忠信之薄而乱之首。」换言之，人性在现实界当中的堕落与变质的过程，是由于对道的遗忘和迷失的结果。经由道家的反省，显示出本善的人性也有堕落的倾向和可能。而在基督宗教《创世纪》的人性论，一方面既指出存有学上和先验上人性的本善，另一方面又指出其堕落和变质的倾向。

比较起儒家与道家来，基督宗教肯定每一个个人有更多的自由意志，也因此必须对其行为负更多的责任。在这种情况之下，基督宗教承认了人主体性的自律性。但也指出，人对主体的自律性的不妥善运用，甚至会导至与他者的断裂，把自己从他者，甚至是绝对的他者－－上帝－－相割离，甚至拒斥了与上帝的和谐关系。(9)

不过，如果人可能自我封闭于上帝之外，上帝的爱是无限宽广，甚至这样自我封闭的状态，也不可能阻止祂的爱的穿透。圣奥古斯丁(St Augustine)如是说：「即使我在地狱里面，你也会在地狱中。因为即便我下到地狱，你也在地狱中。」(10)这就表示天主的爱也会穿透地狱。而且如果人不断地拒绝天主，天主也不会拒绝认可的存在。由于祂无限的爱，祂会救援任何一个存在。而所谓的救恩，就是神的恩宠和人性自我提升、自我转化，朝向无穷的完美的历程，相互合作的结果。在这个过程当中，人性总有堕落的机会，甚至会步入纯粹的主体自我封闭、自我膨胀的情境，这正是「原罪」观念所要提防的。

当我们转向佛教时，也可以看出，事实上佛教的兴起，是为了唤醒人们觉悟，以使人从一切痛苦中解脱。释迦摩尼由于体验了人的生、老、病、死，因而觉悟，他也以此觉悟来自渡渡人。这是所谓「苦、集、灭、道」四圣谛的原初意义之所在。所谓的「苦」、「集」前两谛解释人类的痛苦以及世界的形成。人的出生及其后一生的条件，是由生、老、病、死种种痛苦构成的。除此之外，还有怨憎会、爱别离、求不得，以及忧、悲、哀伤……等等种种身心苦楚，皆是由于无常或是因缘所造成的痛苦。

至于世界之所以形成，是由于种种因素的集结或是分离，它们彼此皆是因缘相依的，即所谓「此有故彼有，此生故彼生，此无故彼无，此灭则彼灭」。佛说十二因缘，由无明而行，由行而识，由识而生名色，由名色而生六入，由六入而生触，由触而生爱，由爱而取，由取而有，由有而生，而有老死，无明又起，循环无已。可见，由最原初无明兴起的十二的因缘，无论是经由同时的连系，或是在时间中的因果，都决定了生命和世界的形成。简言之，痛苦是来自于因缘生灭，因缘生灭起自因缘互依，而因缘的互依是由原初无明所启动的。面对由此所生种种痛苦，只有透过缘觉、自觉与他觉，觉悟一切皆属因缘生灭，才能够使人从痛苦当中获得解脱，出离世间，永断烦恼惑业。

若要从痛苦中解脱，则必透过另外两谛之实践而达成－－此即「灭」、「道」两谛。所谓「灭」谛是从原初的无明中解脱，灭除因缘之决定，从痛苦中解放，而达至涅盘的境界。至于所谓的道谛，则是实践「八正道」，也就是「正见、正思、正语、正业、正命、正精进、正念、正定」，实现为一个有德行的人，并达成无上正等正觉。

不过，从哲学上说，人求得解脱的可能性以及达成自觉的可能性，都假定了人性在其原本的内在本性应是纯粹而善的，如此才能使自觉成为可能，盖自觉实乃人内在善性之展现。也因此，一个纯粹而善的人性，或所谓「佛性」的概念，随后便在大乘佛学，尤其在中国大乘佛学中发展出来。所谓「众生皆有佛性」，肯定了人与众生自和解脱的先验条件，也就是说，在人的主体性或是众生的本性当中，早已经存在着能达成觉悟与解脱的先验条件。

就如同在基督宗教中的情形一样，我们可以从上述对四圣谛的讨论中，析辨出一种对比的张力。一方面，佛教认为在人性中有一种原初的「无明」，是造成一切痛苦的根源。但另外一方面，则又发展出「佛性」的概念。佛性是纯然是善的，如此一来，解脱和自觉才会成为可能。人性中原初的无明与本然的佛性，两者的对比所形成的一种紧张的关系，给佛教带来更为均衡而动态的视野，以便面对人的痛苦。一方面，佛教认为人必须面对痛苦，解除无明，得大解脱；另一方面，佛教也鼓励人应自觉本有善性，并加以全面展开。

也因此，我们可以简归结如下：在佛教里面，所谓的「觉悟」就是佛性本身的自觉和展开。然而，在基督宗教里面，所谓的「救恩」则是神的恩宠与人的精神提升相互合作的过程，以便摆脱并克服根源于人的有限性和自私的自我封限，最终达至神性的完美。

  5.在此「基督宗教」(Christianity)一词泛指天主教、基督教、东正教和英国圣公会。

6.在本文中，「神」「天主」「上帝」通用，不另作区分。

7. RICOEUR P., La symbolique du mal (Paris: Aubier-Montaigne 1960) 219.

8.《圣经》，台北　思高圣经学会　(1992)　10。

9. 在基督宗教的要理中，「地狱」所代表的就是一种个人拒绝上帝，完全切断与他者的关系，排斥他自己完美的可能性的一种存在的状态，而以之为人性最大的痛苦所在。

10. St Augustine, Confessions, translated by PINE-COFFIN R.S. (London: Penguin Classics 1961) 4. Italics in the text.

三. 超越的救恩对比内在的觉悟

对于基督徒而言，人除非在绝对的他者之中达至终极的完美，否则人的存在的焦虑是会与时俱增的，正如同圣奥古斯丁所说的：「我们的心灵除非安息在你的怀中，不会感到平安。」(11)换言之，除非人在天主的临在和恩宠之中，人的心灵不会真正彻底安宁。这样的思想在哲学上的意义，在于对人性潜能的实现，设定了一个超越的原则。基督教义的重点就在于体察出人的主体性终有自我封闭的倾向，也因此这超越的原则是必要的。然而，人的心灵在其最深刻的内在当中，仍然与上帝有某种关系。就这点而言，基督宗教也认为必须肯定内在的原则。

人实际上是处在这样一个对比处境中：一方面，人性本身的动力对于迈向成全而言是必要的，因为人本身的完美需要人的自由意志的决断和德行的养成；但就另一方面言，人性本有的这一个内在动力，却不能只是封闭在自己之内，而不向他者开放，且人性唯有在绝对的他者之中始能达至终极的完美。否则，人性是无法全盘自我实现的，也因此就谈不上救恩。所谓「救恩」，就是人性在绝对的他者之中达到的全面实现。

就这一层意义而言，基督宗教也体现了一种对比的智慧，深刻地把握到人性的动力以及神、人关系之中的动态张力。耶稣清楚地表达了这一点。他说：

到时候你们将不在这座山，也不在耶路撒冷朝拜天父。……然而时候要到，且现在就是，那些真正朝拜他的将以心神、以真理朝拜天父。因为父就是这样寻找朝拜他的人。天主是神，朝拜他的人应当以心神以真理去朝拜他。(若4:21-24)(12)

在以上这段话当中，耶稣宣示了一个普遍的救恩史，透过耶稣这一段话欣揭露的，是用心神和真理来朝拜天主。那些用心神和真理来朝拜天主的人，并不被限制于朝拜的地点、种族、或是文化族群等外在因素。他们是运用内在的原则，以心神和真理来朝拜天主。就这一层意义来讲，所谓的朝拜、信仰，其实是一种将自己内在精神当中最真诚的部份揭露出来的方式，是一种体验在人性的主体中所开显的真理的方式。这就是基督宗教的内在原则。它肯定在人和天主的关系当中，需要人以最深切的内在、最真诚的精神动力的参与。

就基督宗教而言，所谓的内在原则是奠基在所有的人都是上帝的肖像而言的。正如儒家以人人可为尧舜，佛教以众生皆可以成佛，对基督徒而言，在每一个人的心灵当中都有某些神性，也因此可以不断加以发展，以至于完美，甚至如同天父那样完美。耶稣肯定人性当中的神性，他在《若望福音》中说：

在你们的法律中不是记载着：「我说过，你们是神」吗？如果那些承受天主话的，天主尚且称他们是神－－而经书是不能被废弃的。(若10:34-35)(13)

耶稣在新约当中所说的这些话，本身就指向了旧约法律书。而且我们也可以在《圣经》当中看到类似的话。在《圣咏》第82首上面说：「我亲自说过，你们都是神，众人都是至高者的子民。」(咏82:6)(14)可见，人本身就具有神性，也因此可以趋向于完美。这是在犹太教和基督宗教、旧约和新约传统当中的共同肯定。人是按照天主的肖像而造的，都是至高者的儿女，就在这一层意义之下，可以被视为是神。人性当中的这一层神性，在存有学上就是与神本身相互有关系的，犹如父子的关系一般。这个关系可以视为是人内在的光明，是一切开悟、启明的内在根源，是人性自觉了悟、观照真相的场所。

不过，就基督宗教而言，此一内在的原则本身就诉求于一个超越的原则，好使得人不会自我圈限、封闭在自己的主体性当中。当代新儒家唐君毅在论及「归向一神境」时，对此一超越自我圈限的需要，甚有体会。他说：

使人我各自超越其限制封闭者，而后有此一心灵之呈现与存在……见其超越在上，而又不离人我。……而由此以透视其「无一切天地万物与人及我之一切存在上德性上之任何限制、任何封闭」。(15)

人和天主的动态关系，使得人不会封闭在自我的主体性当中。而人的真理和心灵都朝向天主而开放的。人精神上的光照、开悟与启明从不会限制在自身之内，也不会只是藉着自身的自力而来，因为就在人性的光明当中，就有着神性光照的参与。我就是在这层意义之下，来解读圣奥古斯丁的话。他说：

天主创造人类心灵，使其成为理性和智性的，藉之人可以参与神的光明。而天主如此地从神自身来光照了人的心灵，好使得人的心灵之眼不但可以觉察到真理所展示的一切万物，而且可以觉识到真理本身。(16)

人的心灵和精神若能向着天主而开放，因着来自天主的光明，决不会自我封闭，尤其不会封闭在太过人性化人文主义当中。就这一层意义来讲，信仰天主、朝拜天主的意义，是提升自我的心灵，直升到天主的精神和真理，发挥并穷尽自己最深沉的内在，在其中迎接天主的光明。这就表示在基督宗教当中，内在的原则一定是与超越的原则相关，也经由超越原则而提升。内在原则不离超越原则，正如同超越原则不离内在原则。

当我们转向佛教的时候，则可以看出，对佛教而言，内在的原则可以说是占极大的优势。佛教认为，众生和人皆寻求觉悟，也透过觉悟与光照，才能够从一切的痛苦和人的有限性当中获得解脱。然而，觉悟与解脱只有透过人或众生内在所拥有的佛性，自我省觉，才成为可能。虽然这种自我省觉也应可以超越任何感性的经验，超越经验的世界，并超越认何自私的自我，以便为利他的、为普世的理由而奉献。然而，这种自我超越的资源基本上是内在于每个人的自我之中，而其体现也是人的内在佛性全盘展开。也因此，似乎没有必要去承认任何超越的上帝，更无需以上帝的恩宠来介入人的觉悟。就此意义而言，在佛教中似乎没有必要成立或设置任何的超越原则。

不过，即使在内在原则的优势当中，佛教信徒也仍然有某种倾向去崇拜佛，或是佛的某种形像，将其视为是神圣而超越的，而且有必要去诉求祂的恩宠。我们可以在佛教的发展当中找到这样的一个对比的情境。

例如，在净土宗里面敬礼阿弥陀佛，而阿弥陀佛就有一点类似位格神的意味。人们可以向祂唱歌和祈祷，甚至只是经由敲打木鱼和不断重覆祂的圣名，颂念「阿弥陀佛、阿弥陀佛、阿弥陀佛……」，就在佛教徒的每日生活当中，尤其是在紧急危难状况出现的时候，如此地诉求于阿弥陀佛，可以获取祂的恩宠和协助。也因此，诉求于阿弥陀佛的名号，就类似于向他祈祷，求取恩宠。其最后的结果，就是达至净土。在此所谓「净土」，就有如基督宗教所言的「天堂」一般。除此以外，无论是僧侣或是佛教徒，也都每日祈求佛祖保佑、菩萨保佑。这其中所隐涵的心理的意义，决不只是内心的自觉而已，也有诉求某种超越的神明，与之交谈的意思。

不过，即使在这种情况之下，向一个类于位格神的祈祷，或是诉求于他的名号，也都可以仅仅视为是一种灵修的技巧，而毋需视为诉求于超越界的位格神。也就是透过不断颂念阿弥陀佛，化万念为一念，将纷然杂沓的思想，简化成一个虔诚的重覆颂念阿弥陀佛神圣之名的动作。如此地诉求阿弥陀佛的圣名，因此也可以视为是一种简单的灵修作为，是以极单纯的方式来觉省内在于个人心中的佛性。也因此，所谓的「净土」其实就是「净心」。并非是土净，而是心净。透过这种简单的方式，化心念之杂，为心念之净，这是最容易达到觉悟的途径。其所达至的，仍然是觉悟，而非基督宗教所谓的天堂。这就是净土宗之所以被视为是简便之门的意义所在。换言之，即使在这里似乎有一种祈祷的性质，然而其目标仍然是在觉悟，而非在于恩宠。这表示：即使在佛教中类似净土宗这样有神论的倾向，仍然可以用内在原则的方式来加以诠释。

事实上，将佛予以神性化的趋势，并不仅限于净土宗。早在佛教发展的最初阶段，就已经出现这种拜佛如拜神的倾向，而且一直持续发展到今天，仍然有之。例如，在台湾今天的佛教界里面，也出现对于将佛予以神性化的现象的批判，因为在今天的佛教运动当中就存在着这种现象。像印顺法师和杨惠南教授，都大力批判佛教里面这种以佛的神性化作为在现实世界中扩充佛教的策略。而且他们都追溯这种神化倾向到佛教第二次集结，当时形成了上座部和大众部的分裂，而大众部就采取了这种将佛神性化的策略，以便扩张佛教在广大信众中的影响力。

印顺法师指出，上座部和大众部首次分裂的主要原因，是发生在他们对于佛的本性的诠释上面。对于上座部而言，佛教是一种人性化、人间的宗教，比较关怀现世，较属实在论的倾向。印顺指出，在上座部的立场，「佛是现实人间的，与一般人相同，要饮食、衣着、睡眠、便利，病了也要服药。佛的生身是有漏的，佛之所以为佛，是佛的无漏功德法身」。(17)另一方面，印顺也指出，大众部倾向于认为「佛身无漏，是不会生病的，当然也就不需要服药。所以说佛有病服那是方便，为世人作榜样，如比丘有病，就应该服药。大众系的说大空宗以为，佛示现身相，其实佛在兜率天上，所以也不说法。……佛是无所不在的，无所不能的，无所不知的，而寿命是永远无边际的。」(18)由此可知，大众部也有以佛为全知、全能、无所不在，而且是永恒之神的想法。这点显示与基督宗教所信仰的上帝的特性有某些类似性。

杨惠南教授也跟随印顺的解释，追溯「佛的神性化」现象至印度佛教大众部的传教策略，主张佛是全能，在一切场所，一切剎那，以便使佛教能够为更多数的信徒所接纳。杨教授将它称为一种返回婆罗门教的趋势，并且认为这是佛教之所以衰败的主要原因。(19)

佛教也有这种将佛神性化，视佛为某种全知、全能、无所不在的神明的趋势，也构成了在佛教中一个对比的情境。一方面主张内在的原则，所谓觉悟就是自证其内在佛性。另外一方面，则又设置了一个超越的佛，宛如神明一般。这点也显示，从宗教心理看来，人内心终究有与超越的神交谈的倾向。也因此，当一个佛教徒进入佛殿，敬礼佛像，其本意应在于以佛之光明，映照我内本有佛性之光明，而不在于敬礼一超越的神明。然而，在佛教徒内心，应仍存在着与一超越的神明的关系，以及与之交谈的倾向。

不过，我们必须指出，无论如何，佛教的本质最主要还是一个觉悟的宗教。也因此，它更倾向于从内在原则来理解觉悟和解脱。为了这个理由，中国的大乘佛学才不会发展所谓「佛的神性」概念，却进而将它转代成众生皆有的「佛性」概念。如此一来，就转向强调内在原则。此种想法一旦引进中国哲学之中，就逐渐地影响中国哲学，发展成各种的内在哲学。其后无论是中国各宗佛教，以及后来的宋明理学，都是属于内在的哲学。

  11. Ibid., p.1.

12.《圣经》，台北　思高圣经学会　(1992)　1645。

13.《圣经》，台北　思高圣经学会　(1992)　1660。

14.《圣经》，台北　思高圣经学会　(1992)　929。

15. 唐君毅，《生命存在与心灵境界》下册，台北　学生书局　(1977)　742。不过需注意，唐君毅以我法二空、众生普度境(佛教)和天德流行、尽性立命境(儒家)为更高境。

16. In Ps. 118, Serm., 18, 4, quoted from COPLESTON F., A History of Philosophy, Vol.II (Westminster: The Newman 1960) 63.

17. 印顺，《印度佛教思想史》，台北　正闻出版社　(1988)　62。

18. 同上。印顺此言正如《异部宗轮论》所说，「如来色身实无边际，如来威力亦无边际，诸佛寿量亦无边际。」「一剎那心相应般若知一切法」，见日本大正新修大藏经四九．一五中－－下。

19. 杨惠南，《佛教思想发展史论》，台北　东大书局　(1993)　6-9。

四. 展现存有和无住于空的对比

对于基督徒而言，上帝是位格性的终极实在，是最完美的精神性的存有，他是整个宇宙的创造者，人类其他一切有生之物以及其他无生之物皆来自于祂。上帝本身是不能够用一切人为的论述，包涵哲学、科学和神学来解释和言喻的。即便是现存的任何对于宇宙的源起的科学或哲学或宗教的论述，都还不能满足人在这方面的好奇。就基督宗教而言，最后的说明，就在于以上帝作为整个宇宙的第一因和终极目的。上帝创造了在宇宙中的一切万物，在万物之中又兴起了人。而人类在成长过程中，达到某个阶段之后，会倾向于自私、自我中心，甚至沉溺在武断的自我当中，排除与天主的任何关系，这就是痛苦与恶的开端。为了使人类从这种状态中获得解脱，基督宗教相信上帝本身来到世界，取得人形，以便以人的形相将人从他的自我封限和自我武断当中拯救出来。基督宗教认为，神是用在十字架上的苦难和死亡，这一普世的利他性，来承担人的苦难，并拯救人，使其从自我封限的状态当中破壳而出。人的生命及世界发展的终极目的，都是在于成为完美的，以便回归上帝。到时将有新天新地的来临。

不过，就哲学上言，说上帝就是一切万物的创造者和完美实现的目的所在，并不是把上帝与存有相等同。有些士林哲学家，像吉尔松(E. Gilson)、马利丹(J. Maritain)……等人，倾向于把「神」与「存有」相互等同，而且认为其神学依据是在于圣多玛斯。其实，圣多玛斯本人区别了「存有」与「上帝」。多玛斯认为存有(Esse)或存有本身(Ipsum Esse)是一切存有者的存在活动(Actus existentiae)。而存有者则是一切存在活动的主体。至于上帝则是独立自存的存在活动本身(Ipsum Esse Subsistens) 。(20)存有并不是独立自存的实体，而上帝独立自存的存在活动。除此以外，在这样的独立自存的存在活动当中，有无可穷尽、无可言喻的理想、可能性，它们都可能存在，但尚未存在。就这一点而言，正如「否定神学」(negative theology)所言，只能用负面和否定的方式加以瞭解。我们很难找出其它语词，只能把这些无可言喻的可能性称之为「无」。如果没有这些「无」充斥于存有者的领域当中，存有就不可能再可进一步的实现了。也因为神不可言喻的丰富性，使我们不能把上帝和存有加以等同，因为上帝既是存在活动，但是同时上帝也超越了存有、超越了存在活动。也因此，上帝超越了有、无的区分，而且上帝是从无中创造(creatio ex nihilo)了万物。

我们可以说，上帝是位格的，这个意义在于上帝是有意识的、精神的，他既能够认识，也能够爱。但我们也可以说上帝不是位格的，这个意义是说，天主并不是像我们人类的意识和精神那样的位格之意。上帝认知一切，但他认知并不像我们的认知。上帝爱一切生命，但他的爱并不像我们的爱这般。因此跟据肯定之路(Via positiva)，我们可以说，上帝是存有，是位格。然而按照否定之路(Via negativa)，我们也应该说，他不像我们所设想的那般地存有或位格。上帝既是位格，而且也超越位格。在这里，或许可以使用德日进(Teihard de Chardin)的「超越位格」(hyperpersonal)一词来加以表达。

就佛教而言，虽然在佛教的传统里面也有一种将佛神性化的趋向，视佛宛如上帝一般，但是，更深刻地说，佛教宣称它自己免除于任何上帝或神明的观念。换言之，它所宣称的觉悟和解脱如此彻底，以至于甚至须从信奉位格神明的必要性当中解脱。这点构成了佛教觉悟和解脱的经验中非常重要的一部份。即使在净土宗的佛教当中也有诉求于阿弥陀佛，求佛保佑，甚至能够接引西天，往生西方极乐世界，宛如基督宗教的天堂一般。然而，即使如此，阿弥陀佛也仍然不像基督宗教的上帝，阿弥陀佛也不是世界的创造主。阿弥陀佛虽能实现净土，但他本身并不介入世界的历史当中。总之，祂既不无中生有，创造世界，也不介入世界的历史当中。即使是从「净土」的观念，也不能逻辑地推衍出任何如基督宗教所谓「新天新地」的观念。正如前面所论，诉求于阿弥陀佛的名字，其实是一种化万念为一念的灵修技术。它的真正意义在于获得一种纯净的心灵状态，而不在向一超越的、位格的神明祷告。

佛教的禅定可以达致一种纯粹的空的经验，一种绝对的空的境界。「空」似乎是佛教中最深刻的经验，甚至超越过任何对于位格神的崇拜的经验，换言之，连此位格神亦须加以空之。也因此，佛教不同于基督宗教的重要一点，在于基督宗教强调上帝是最高善(Summum Bonum)，万物的善皆可在上帝的存在当中得到实现，并藉此体现万物的命运。然而，佛教却比较强调空的经验，作为一切觉悟和解脱的本质所在。

对佛教而言，空并不能等同于存有，也不等同于虚无。为了达致解脱，必须彻底到能将觉悟的经验中所隐涵的自由，加以扩大，甚至不执着于空，无住于空。《金刚般若波罗蜜经》所谓「应无所住，而生其心」，其意在阐明「缘起性空」之义。按吾人的诠释，心之自由应彻底至毫无执着，是为心无所住，甚至应无住于空。换言之，连空也必须加以空之。这体验十分接近海德格所讲的「离本」(Ab-grund)，(21)是不断地从一切基础离去的体验。就海德格而言，基督宗教的上帝观是其所谓的「存有．神．学」(Onto-theo-olgy)。(22)一方面肯定存有作为一切万物的存有学基础，另外一方面又肯定神作为存有的第一因，也因此成为一切万物的神学基础。相反地，佛教比较接近一种「反基础主义」(Anti-foundationalism)，不执着于任何存有学基础或神学基础，甚至不以「空」为基础。应无所住，亦无住于空，没有认可基础，而且要不断地离开一切基础，以便人的心灵尽可能地自由，再无任何执着。

不过，我们可以说，空的体验虽然是非常深刻，足以展露人心灵的自由。但这并不代表并没有存有的全盘实现。即便我们要使人常保心灵的自由，使人的自由彻底到没有何人的言说－－无论是哲学的、科学的或神学的学说－－可以作为人的自由的基础。但没有一个现成的学说或教义，可以成为人自由的基础，并不代表整体存在是无根的、无基础的。就基督宗教而言，一定要有存有和进一步发展的可能性，即便是无，也还是有其基础，虽然这个基础本身是无可言喻，也因此人对于所有的哲学、神学和科学的学说，终究皆须加以解释，使得人的心灵及其基础常保自由。

不过，由于佛教强调觉悟和解脱，因此不会将佛性的实现和存有等同，而且也不承认佛是一个位格的神。似乎对于佛教而言，神的位格化是一个存在上较为低级的表示。换言之，比较起一种无位格的空的丰富经验而言，将神位格化却是一种执着。就如同甘易逢(Yves Raguin)所说的，对于佛教而言，「非位格」是比「位格」更为丰富，更为伟大，更为绝对的。(23)我认为在甘易逢的说法里面，有一个值得重视的论点。他说，

如果基督宗教要和佛教交谈的话，不能够只向他们说：「不可能和你们交谈，因为你们不相信一个位格神。」相反地，在交谈当中，必须能够使佛教瞭解到，在基督宗教的信理当中，也有对于天主的非位格性的信仰。「非位格」和「位格」并不是相反的。它们却是互补的。(24)

我想，甘易逢在此强调的「非位格性」是十分重要的。但是，我比喜欢德日进(Teihard de Chardin)所使用的「超位格」的概念，远胜所谓「非位格」的概念。不过我仍然认为，把神视为是位格的，更合乎人性。神是位格的，表示祂能够认识，能够爱，而且我们也能够向他祈祷。虽然神的非位格性也有一种深刻的意义，但是如果太坚持非位格性的论题，也会掉入一种无对应的崇拜，没有交谈和互动。我认为人性最深刻的内在，除了自觉与自由，还需要和超越界的交谈，才能够超脱自我封限。如果太过崇拜非位格性，将神作非位格的解释，将佛作非位格的解释，都会沉溺于对这种交谈的需要的冷漠当中。

就基督宗教而言，上帝有其非位格性。首先，上帝既然创造了宇宙，宇宙也自有其法则，而上帝也在宇宙当中，就这一点而言，上帝的非位格不但是表现在否定神学，表现在神的不可言喻性上面，同时也表现在上帝所订定的宇宙的创造性与法则性当中。上帝创造了宇宙又遍在于宇宙；而宇宙的创造与法则是不以人的意志为转移的。可见，在上帝当中应有某种的非位格性。上帝的非位格性和祂的位格性并不相矛盾，两者虽然有别，但却也是互补的。

当然，就基督宗教而言，与其说上帝是非位格的，不如说上帝是超位格的。对人本身来讲，设想一个能够认知一切、能够爱万物、而且人能够向祂祈祷的有位格的神，更是合乎人性。如果毫无弹性的、僵硬的在哲学上坚持上帝的非位格性，也会导向一种无情和冷漠的思想。这种心态就如耶稣在《玛窦福音》中所说的：

我可把这一代比作什么呢？他像坐在大街上的儿童，向其他的孩童喊叫说：「我给你们吹了笛，你们却不跳舞；我给你们唱了哀歌，你们却不捶胸。」(玛11:16-17)。(25)

对于哀号欢乐皆无反应，这是一个非位格的概念所可能带来的冷漠与悲惨的世界。从基督宗教看来，对于人而言，说上帝是位格的，意义是在说，上帝的确能够认知万物、爱万物，而且我们可以在心灵中向他祈祷，与他交谈。但这一点并不表示说祂的爱、祂的认知和倾听我们的祈祷，是以我们人所设想、太过人性的方式来进行的。就这一重意义来讲，上帝并不是位格的，而是超位格的。这并不是说天主或上帝无能力认知、无能力爱，而只是说祂的认知和爱是以超越的、卓越的方式来进行的。

对于这一点，在基督宗教中可以分两面来考量：一方面上帝创造了宇宙的法则。神的意志虽是爱的意志，但其表现于宇宙中则为宇宙的法则，在人性当中则展现为正义。这些都是不以个人的意志为意志的。另一方面，在基督宗教的密契主义、神秘主义中，上帝是一切万物的奥秘。在圣十字若望(St John of the Cross)和圣大德勒莎(St Theresa of Avila)的神秘经验当中显示，在人与上帝最深层的关系中，在某一个阶段人会进入到空虚自己，进入所谓「灵魂的黑暗」(Darkness of the Soul)，甚至被动地被一个不知名的韵律带走，在这余波荡漾的韵律当中，上帝并不展现为位格般的亲切。此一经验宛如道家密契经验中的阴性、受动状态，被道带走，随道流转一般。不同的是，在基督宗教的密契经验中，除此以外还有与上帝亲密的交谈和爱的共融。总之，神既是位格的也是非位格的。就在这样的一个对比的情况当中，人和神的关系才会愈趋于深刻，终抵于与神的交融。

五. 德行伦理作为克服虚无主义与宰制的实践之道

最后，但也是最重要的，面对当前世界正步入虚无主义幽谷，各地充满着政治、社会的冲突与宰制，而非人性之科技与制度正造成各种异化现象之时，佛教与基督宗教，以及其它精神文明传统，皆可发挥其德行伦理的胜义与实践，予以克服。这是其它伦理思想，诸如效益论与义务论，所无法达成的。

面对虚无主义的苦恼，追求最大效益的效益论无济于事。(26)效益论最大的问题在于：往往最大的效益很可能是违反正义的。此外，为了追求最大的效益，心中就要不断地计算，才可能在政策或投资上达到最大的效益。效益论既然以追求效益为唯一的目的，心中又常在盘算效益，这样一来只会加强虚无主义的倾向，解决不了问题。因为人所追求的若只是效益，仍无法提供人们心灵上值得奉献的理由。虽然企业获益，业务推展了，但没有理想，没有卓越感，伦理关系搞不好，也没做过什么好事，所以心灵上还是不满意。因此效益论无助于人类走出虚无主的黑暗，反而助长了虚无主义的风气。

其次，义务论也无益于克服宰制与异化。现在是重新思考德行论对于义务论的优先性的时候了。今日世界亦正承受过度强调道德与法律义务之苦。这可追溯到近代世界形成时，康德义论思想的提出。康德认为道德就是人自律地按照道德义务的无上命令而行动。所谓德行，只是克服、否定个人的欲望，以服从道德义务的要求。(27)

康德在个人道德领域重视义务，而在国家的领域则提出『法治』的概念，即『法治国』(Rechtstaat)。『法治国』这概念是康德最先提出来的。他认为人在个人领域应该遵守道德义务，而在国家的领域则应该遵守法治。所以义务论包涵两个层面：一是道德的义务，一是法律的义务。由于现代化的加深，义务论一直在现社会中延伸、发展，因为它颇能配合现代化的宰制与规范建立的需要。

在比较世界的伦理学时，有些学者认为儒家的思想是一种强调意志「自律」的伦理学，(28) 并认为西方的基督宗教，是「他律」的伦理思想，因为他们认为像十诫的颁布是外在于人意志的上帝来颁定律则的。但是，无论是讲「自律」或是「他律」，都只见规范与义务，都是从义务论的伦理学出发的见解。然而，这种义务论至多只能成为政治社会宰制的意识形态帮闲甚或帮凶，无力克服宰治与虚无主义。

其实，在我看来，无论是儒家、佛教或基督宗教的伦理学，都是德行论的伦理学。儒家重视人本有善性的卓越化，也重视人良好关系的满全。基督宗教也是，其诫律是在神人的关系中成为可能，例如十诫的颁布是神与人盟约的结果，而新约中的耶稣也说：「你们如果爱我，就遵守我的命令。」可见爱的关系优先于义务(命令)的遵守。若只从自律、他律的观点比较儒家与基督宗教的伦理学，不但是自陷于义务论的窠臼，而且会失去儒家与基督宗教伦理学的真实本意。

就德行论伦理学言，基督宗教与儒家、佛教是一致的。在《圣经》上，亚当和厄娃在乐园中所遵守的规定，目的是为了表示尊重神人关系，因而有了约定。其后，十诫中的伦理诫律实乃维系人神关系、人人关系之盟约，尊崇上帝的正义与关系的和谐是遵守义务的目的所在。因此不宜以他律视之。「自律」与「他律」的区分仍是义务论的概念。但基督宗教与儒家一样，皆是以关系和谐化为目地，以德行优先于义务。这在《新约》中耶稣所言「如果你们爱我就遵守我的命令」，更清楚显示：爱的关系优先于义务的遵守。在基督宗教中，信、望、爱、正义、仁爱、智慧、勇敢、节制……皆是关涉善性卓越化，关系和谐化之德行。在面对当前规范解构、虚无主义横行，效益论与义务论无法赋予人生命以意义之时，儒家和基督宗教的德行论伦理学，既能有益人的能力卓越，又能使关系和谐。

同样地，佛教也很强调德行伦理。所谓的八正道，就是迈向觉悟和解脱之道，以便从一切的痛苦、因果当中解脱。实践八正道的结果，应该是一种德行的生活，而不只是在行为上服从义务而已。在八正道中，正语、正业、正命，都是与戒律或道德规范有关。但是，所谓五戒，－－也就是不杀生、不偷盗、不邪淫、不妄语、不饮酒－－这些并不只是一些消极的戒律或义务而已，因为服从它们的目的，正是为了能够积极展开人的智慧和对万物的慈悲，以便达致利他的品行，以至于完美。换言之，服从义务基本上是为了陶成德行，为了达致能力的卓越化和与万物关系的和谐化，而不是说培养德行只是为了服从义务。至于八正道的其它各正道，例如正精进、正念、正定，三者是为了实现一种高度的禅定生活。而正见、正思则是为了达致智慧。

戒、定、慧是佛教生活中三项基本的要素。其主要的目的是利他的能力的卓越化，和与众生关系的和谐化。这两点应为佛教的德行伦理的核心。不同的是在佛教中没有与上帝或是位格神关系的合谐化。

在佛教中，觉悟的生活是一种德行的生活。在基督宗教中，也是透过德行的生活导向属灵的救恩。两者都是同意德行是人本能力的卓越化和关系的和谐化。佛教的觉悟比较是与自我关系，就是与自己本有佛性的关系，以及与万物的和谐化，但其中并不包涵与上帝的关系。在基督宗教中，并不只有人与自我的关系，人与自然的关系，人与其他人和万物的关系，此外还必须加上与上帝的关系的和谐化，而且这点是作为所有其它一切关系的最后基础。

  26. Utilitarianism一词旧译为「功利主义」，但如今中文「功利主义」一词已有贬意，用来骂人。Utilitarianism既然追求效益，似以改译为效益论为佳。

27. 然而，正如麦金泰所指出，「有德的行动并非如以后的康德所想，否定本性倾向而行动；而是根据经由德行教养过的本性倾向而行动。」McINTYRE A., After Virtue (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame 1984) 149.

28. 例如当代新儒家从义务论的角度解释孔孟，把儒家思想解释为义务论的伦理学，比如将孔子所说：「三军可以夺其帅，匹夫不可夺其志」，解释为重视意志的自律；又将所谓杀生成仁，舍身取义，解释为人可以为道德命令失去生命，因此认为儒家的道德义务是一种无上命令。其实，儒家虽然讲究道德义务，但它的目的是为让人本有善性展开，并使良好的关系能得到实现与满全。换言之，守义务是为了德行，而不是以德性就在于克制欲望，以便服从义务。而「德行」的意义，基本上可以归纳：一、本有善性的实现。如仁、义、礼、智之德行是恻隐之心、羞恶之心、辞让之心、是非之心等本有能力的卓越化。二、良好关系的满全。夫妇和顺、父慈子孝、兄友弟恭、朋友有信、君臣有义，皆是关系和谐化的结果，也是德行。

六. 结语

我认为，佛教强调觉悟，应可有益于人类在今日世界有自觉地开展出人性中最好的一部份(即所谓佛性)。这对于基督宗教亦颇为重要，因为如果没有觉悟的体验，也不会有对上帝的深切经验。就如同海德格所言，有存有之开显，始知神圣之本质，知神圣之本质，始知神之本质。同样的，只有在对本性的自觉之基础上，吾人始能在真理与善的光照中与上帝合作。就此而言，佛教所提倡的佛性与觉悟，实为一切宗教心灵奠下了人学基础。不过，就另一方面言，佛教所言「觉悟」亦需由基督宗教所言的「救恩」来提升和完成。在此，所谓救恩是由无限的上帝来转化并极成人的有限存在，而上帝本身是超越存有与虚无，位格与非位格的昐别。若无此一无穷奥密之神，开悟与解脱之经验将缺乏存有学基础。(29)「设若」缺乏存有学基础，「众生皆可成佛」一语将成为只是宗教性的励志话头而已。

当然，在此我只用「设若……」的条件句。我想从佛教的缘起论应可发展出某种宇宙论和存有学解释。(30)需知佛教中「信、解、行、证」四者，仍以「解」为最重要，然而宇宙论和存有学解释亦应视为「解」的重要因素。若后者仍付阙如，亦应视为人的无明的一部份。也因此，宇宙论和存有学解释，不能仅以「戏言」视之，却要用创造性的诠释予以开展。佛陀自己将这类问题视为「戏言」，亦可诠释为他承认人的理性的有限性。就基督宗教言，人的理性既然有限，就需要其它资源以补其知(例如神的启示)。

无论如何，面对今日人性处境之艰难，加上非人性的科技正在制造种种人性异化之苦境，佛教与基督宗教应发挥其整全而开放的人文关怀，致力于救世救人。尤其值此黑暗的虚无主义幽谷，佛教与基督宗教更应灵活其价值创造动力。此一动力首先是深植于两者对人性之善的肯定上，此即佛教所谓「众生皆有佛性」，基督宗教所谓「人是上帝的肖像」。

此外，面对当前社会各种宰制现象严重，佛教与基督宗教不宜主张效益论与义务论，以免成为政治与商业宰制推波助澜的意识型态。相反的，它们应透过对于本有的德行伦理思想的发杨与实践，超克效益论伦理学与义务论伦理学之不足，致力于人性的卓越化与关系的和谐化。

总之，在接近本世纪末与迎接人类第三个一千年来临之际，佛教与基督宗教在各自发挥特色，尊重差异之时，仍可相互济补，共同为人类的觉悟与救恩而奋斗。

29. 在此，所谓「存有学基础」指一切存在者的终极根，而非限于如海德格所谓人的存有理解。人不宜将「存有学基础」人学化。「存有学基础」是一切无根基者终极而自由的根基，其意甚至要比海德格所谓Abgrund更为深刻。

30. 觉悟之时，虽可在主观上自缘起论所揭示的因果连锁中跳出，由于自觉而不再受其决定，但并不表示因此就可否认或取消因果连锁之客观存在。

https://books.ziliaozhan.org/files/article/attachment/0/160/8312/1.jpg(264K)

作者：伍国宝

1. 妥拉的神圣启示地位

在三大唯一神宗教(基督教、回教及犹太教) 中，妥拉torah所占的地位是非常重要的。三者都以亚巴郎为祖先、信仰楷模；梅瑟为组织国民的典范。(1) 基督教深信耶稣是基督、天主子，即妥拉所预示要来的默西亚，现在已完成救赎工程，祇待其光荣再来；犹太教则仍等待这妥拉所预言的默西亚；而回教则以为耶稣是一位伟大先知。很明显他们是同一根本启示而分出的宗教。基督教在梵二大公会议中决定以大公精神鼓励世界和平联合一起UR4。(2) 二次世界大战后，人类痛定思痛，亦深切明白大同天国理想的需要。教会在圣神引导下努力发展，并已渐渐开始凝聚合一气候。在唯一神降凡近二千年，世界首领从人民的取向中都认同和平民主、经济互利的重要而贬低恐布暴力与灭族争战。三大宗教崇奉的唯一神所赐给人类的祝福是天主与人类是一家人。要保持宗教对人类的祝福，三教的信徒必须藉着圣子寻根索源于天父，在其圣神内团结一致，否则舍本逐末，各执一端就成为宗教战争，亦是宗教分裂的之始，这是人类的咒诅。大家和平共处的最好方法是彼此瞭解，而彼此瞭解的最好方法是在大家都从互信同根的经文开始。

在犹太教圣经中，妥拉亦称为梅瑟五书：即创世纪、出谷纪、肋未纪、户籍纪和申命纪。犹太人的塔耳慕德(Talmud) 有以五本五份之一的书来标示出天主的祝福。基督教与回教都是从这宗教繁衍出来的。无论犹太教或基督教都以妥拉为圣的，是天主启示的内容(若5：39，46；路24：25－27，44)。犹太人流徙巴比伦后建立第二圣殿时(约于公元前458年)，由厄斯德拉公开宣布妥拉成为正典(厄下8－10)。(3) 基督教会一向以之为圣，但于十六世纪面对马丁路德改革教会时，才确定妥拉的正典性。

1.《圣经辞典》，思高圣经学会　(1975)　1171。

2.《梵蒂冈第二届大公会议文献》大公主义法令4，中国主教团秘书处(1975)　566－568。

3.R. Hammer, The Classic Midrash. Tannaitic Commentaries on the Bible. (Paulist 1995) 1.

2. 马尔谷幅音的历史性及宗教意义

马尔谷在教会传统上是与玛窦、路加为对观福音。若望福音与马尔谷迥然不同在于刻意承接马尔谷的天启之余。但过去基督教会都认为马尔谷是最不重要的一本福音。

它是最短的，被公认为文笔最差的，历来以为是玛窦福音与路加福音的简化或重写。直到十九世纪末，在圣经文学批判研究下，才发现马尔谷是最早写成的福音。

最近二十年(1970－90年) 的圣经研究中，学者有趋势对马尔谷编纂耶稣的历史放在教会反省层面中，其属性应是一些教会最原始的神学资料。这样使马尔谷福音等同了玛窦福音及路加福音，亦编放其反思于保禄书信之后，最迟约于公元67－70年写成。近这十年，圣经学者更以为它是于公元70年编写而成13：2；cf. 14：58；15：29。(4)这时正是教难时期(64年)，亦是罗马兵捣毁耶京与圣殿的时刻(67－70年)。

有一些较晚期的记录：即此福音的大字体抄本(uncials) 及小书写体抄本(minuscules) 的羊皮卷认为马尔谷是写于公元42－44年间。约于耶稣升天后十年至十二年左右。(5)这论点亦很相近教难开始期，约于公元42年，即若望的哥哥雅各伯被黑落德用剑杀了的时期(宗12：1－5)。(6) 教难发生后，加速了宗徒写福音的工作，笔传福音已渐渐形成(宗6：1－4)。马尔谷福音载有最早的笔传，即最接近历史中的耶稣，它比路加与玛窦更详尽记述有关耶稣行奇迹的报道5：1－20；9：14－29。明显地，无论从历史角度或经文角度，马尔谷是处于新约的纵学之首(the head of the diachronic study)。

4.R.E. Brown, The Death Of The Messiah, Vol. 1 (Doubleday 1994) 4.

5.H.B. Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Macmillan 1908) xl.

6.L.M. Fedrigotti, "The Gospel and the Gospels : " Theology Annual 16 (Hong Kong Holy Spirit Seminary College 1995) 203.

3. 马尔谷的文学结构与妥拉的内在关系

表面上马尔谷的文笔是急就章1：12；18；20。全书像没有一定规律及结构。细心阅读后才可以见其文气及文采，并可见到清晰的一组组同类资料。(7) 马尔谷的写作目的是证明耶稣是天主子，而这根据完全在于初期教会的圣经。若从第一世纪第一本基督徒作品的历史背景来瞭解，当时基督徒的妥拉有自己的书名。他们如同我们中国人一样以经书的首句命名，而非如希腊文化般以经书的核心内容为书名。妥拉的第一本书的希腊名称为创世纪，实在希伯来原文称为「在起初」(Bareshit) (创1：1)；妥拉的第二本书的希腊名称为出谷纪，实在希伯来原文称为「这些名字」(Shemot) (出1：1)；妥拉的第三本书的希腊名称为肋未纪，实在希伯来原文称为「祂叫了」(Wayyiqra) (肋1：1)；妥拉的第四本书的希腊名称为户籍纪，实在希伯来原文称为「在旷野」(Bammidbar) (户1：1)；而妥拉的第五本书的希腊名称为申命纪，实在希伯来原文称为「这些说话」(Devarim)，这是梅瑟依天主吩咐所讲的(申1：1－3)。(8) 奇怪的，这些希伯来原文的词汇及书中的述文，不约而同地一一出现在马尔谷福音中，并成为主段及发展内容(cf. Bacon on Matthew)：(9)

1：1 (祂的「开始」)?3：12；

3：13 (祂想要的十二人的「名字」)?6：6；

6：7 (「祂叫了」)?8：21；

8：22 (在这「荒野」里8：4；在村外8：23，26；「在路上」10：52)?10：52；

11：1 (11：6门徒就按照耶稣所吩咐的(话) 对他们说了)－－16：20 (16：19主耶稣给他们说了「这些话」以后，就被接升天，坐在天主的右边。)

在1：1及6：7中，很明显见到梅瑟五书的第一及第三个书名形成重要的段落之首字辞：「开始」及「呼召」。在3：13有明确的十二名字与出谷纪的第一句所论及的名字相同意义，而以3：16及3：17重覆提及起名的动词。故这第二段亦可以名为「名字篇」或「起名篇」。在8：22－10：52中，虽然起首几节没有明确出现所假设的「在旷野」这词汇，但在8：4早已开始了这在旷野的路程the way。事实上，妥拉中的户籍纪强调以民出离埃及往福地的路程on the way。同时，在11：1开始就好像没有「这些说话」这词汇，但有一个重要的事实就是「耶稣打发两个门徒，对他们说」的说话内容，并有耶稣在耶路撒冷中所讲的说话，以11：6及16：19的「吩咐」和「这些话」两个词汇作为前呼后应笔法inclusio。

从这些纲领词汇来发挥天主子耶稣基督福音的开始到复活升天1：1－16：20，就可知道马尔谷福音与旧约，特别是与妥拉息息相关。有可能历史中的耶稣真是如此刻意地生活过妥拉的内容，但圣神帮助神圣作者记录起来，实在如是的发生了，至少若望福音是如此瞭解及证明(道成肉身)，而路加及玛窦都没有大更改马尔谷所写下的。正如犹太人深信妥拉是神圣笔授了天主的说话，同样，基督徒深信这活妥拉的耶稣就是生活天主的神圣启示，这亦是犹太人所深信的神圣口授。祂讲出天主的心意，由过去到现在，直到永远。在马尔谷福音中，神圣作者指出耶稣的教训才是真正的神圣口授，具有权威，不像那些经师一样1：22，27。祂的说话在新盟约中，即在感恩礼仪中，继续与门徒通传。祂将在旧约面前命令以色列的一切事，都告诉了人类(出25：22)。这旧约的约柜实在祇是耶稣显圣容时的模拟。耶稣就是活天主，而梅瑟与厄里亚是左右的活革鲁宾9：2－8。(10)

马尔谷与旧约所启示的一贯性，可细节地划为三与五之分

三分是以旧约圣经三个重要正典部分所预言的内容而分出来：即妥拉、先知书及圣卷。神圣作者很巧妙的安排他们的预言在耶稣身上一一实现(路24：44)。这样的三分法不是我们现在思高圣经的旧约分法及排序，故我们祇能回到初期教会对希伯来文原经的分法与排序的意识。

教会以a－先知书丛中最后一本?玛拉基亚先知书来指明天主将亲自来审判人类的日子，而这「时间」正就是旧约的终结。这就是所有先知努力预言快要来临的上主日子(拉3：19－23)；以b－妥拉的最后一部份?申命纪的最后的一句结语来断言有「一位好比梅瑟的先知」会到来(申34：10－12；cf.申18：15－19)；以a'－圣卷书丛中的终结，即编年纪下一书来指出在「一地方」将有一位比居鲁士王更伟大的国王会亲自带领选民及全人类迈向「耶路撒冷圣殿」，在那里天主必与人同在(编下36：22－23)。

在马尔谷福音中，很容易见到这三重诏书，神圣作者禀奏人类历史已于耶稣身上成就了天主预定的计划：1.「那日子」，2.「有一位人物」，3.「在某处」完成救恩工程(路24：25－27，44；玛5：17－20)。

五分是在于与妥拉五书相贯穿，而达到一个犹太文学的文互表达笔法chiastic结构：

a 甲
＼ ∕
b－ (乙)
∕ ﹨
a' 甲'

若加上妥拉所分五而一的标示词汇及犹太的核心圆交互对称笔法来假设马尔谷福音的写作方法，可见到一个很有系统的文学结构。在细节方面，马尔谷本身的文学结构亦有其内在关系来证明这些文学主段的存在，细心阅读后，可见其文笔紧奏，思路精巧：

a－耶稣是天国临于选民中的福音?先知书所预言1：1－3：12 → 开始篇(新酒旧皮囊)

b－祂是比梅瑟大的天主子？妥拉所预言3：13－10：52 (新酒新皮囊)

          ∕ 甲－祂开始天国的工程3. 13－6. 6 → 名字篇
这天主子  －乙－祂与门徒开始天国征途6. 7－8. 21 → 呼召篇
          ＼甲'－祂启发门徒跟随自己受苦，步武默西亚的行程8：22－10：52 → 旷野篇

a'－祂到耶京为使天国临现普世－圣卷所预言11：1－16：20 → 说话篇 (两者得保存) (11)

现在尝试将梅瑟五书的传统犹太书名放于马尔谷福音中作细节分析，并附上考证：

3.1 开始篇：耶稣就是天国临现于选民中的福音

　　－－先知所预言1：1－3：12

一A天主所预定的默西亚已来到了，世界应准备好迎接祂1：1－8

一B这默西亚的身份是天主子1：9－13

一C祂的目标是与门徒建设天国1：14－20

一B' 祂的一天正如先知所预言的「上主的日子」1：21－45

一A' 世界领袖因妒忌而拒绝祂2：1－3：12

3.1.1 细节分析

一A若翰洗者在旷野准备天主所预定的默西亚的到来1：1－8

a1　书目1：1

a2　先知所预言l：2－3

a3　若翰洗者为祂的前驱1：4－8

一B耶稣受洗时已揭示了自己是天主圣子的身份1：9－13

b1　耶稣受洗1：9－11

b2　耶稣受试探1：12－13

一C祂在加里肋亚开始宣讲天国及召选首批门徒1：14－20

c1　时间1：14－15

c2　地点及人物1：16－20

一B' 祂一天的工作是驱逐魔鬼，治病及宣讲天国1：21－45

b' 1　祂在会堂教训人和驱魔：治好一男人1：21－28

b' 2　祂在家中治好伯多禄的岳母：治好一女人1：29－31

b' 3　日落后仍治病1：32－34

b' 4　祂的一天概况是在会堂里宣讲天国并驱魔1：35－39

b' 5　祂治好癞病人，但祂不愿公开宣传自己l：40－45

一A' 祂因运用天主子权力赦免人罪，而被世界的宗教领袖妒忌和拒绝，他们指摘耶稣的五个错误2：1－3：12如下：

a' 1　祂治好瘫子，但因显示了自己的神力而被拒绝2：1－12

a' 2　祂召选玛窦税吏能与罪人共餐同饮而被拒绝2：13－17

a' 3　祂论禁食，并宣传新生命的喜讯，不合传统意思2：18－22

a' 4　祂表明自己是安息日的主人，并以权威默许门徒不守安息日2：23－28

a' 5　在安息日，祂在会堂治好枯手人，法利塞人因而要谋害祂3：1－6

a' 6　总结：祂的医治是驱魔工程3：7－12

3.1.2 考证

一A的1：1－8与一A' 的2：1－3：12形成第一重的首尾紧扣的对称文学Inclusio。

例一：在1：4与2：5中，前者有「此时若翰出现在旷野里施洗，并宣讲悔改的洗礼，以赦免罪过」；后者有「耶稣一见了他们的信心，就对瘫子说：『孩子！你的罪赦了』」。扣准前后文章的同义字是罪赦。

例二：在一A的1：3－5与一A' 的2：6－7中，前者有「旷野中有呼号者的声音……犹太全地和耶路撒冷的群众都出来，到他那里，承认自己的罪过，在约但河里受他的洗」；后者有「那时，有几个经师坐在那里，心好想：『怎么这人这样说话呢？他说了亵渎的话；除了天主一个外，谁能赦罪呢』」。扣准前后文章的同义词有旷野呼声及心里忖度声。

例三：在一A的1：7－8与一A' 的3：11中，前者有「他宣告说：『那比找更有力量的，要在我以后来，我连俯身解他的鞋带也不配。我以水洗你们，他却要以圣神洗你们』」。后者有「邪魔一见了他，就俯伏在他面前，喊说：『你是天主子』」。扣准前后文章是相同的权威，无论若翰或邪魔都俯伏于耶稣的权下。

一B的1：9－13与一B' 的1：21－45是第二重的首尾紧扣文笔。

例一：1：11与 1：23－24，前者有「此时有声音从天上说：『你是我的爱子，我因你而喜悦』」。后者有「当时，在他们的会堂里，正有一个附魔的人，他喊叫，说：『纳匝肋人耶稣！我们与你有甚么相干？你竟来毁灭我们！我知道妳是谁，你是天主的圣者』」。扣准前后文章的是指明相同的身分，无论天上神明或邪魔都证明耶稣是天主的爱子及天主的圣者。

例二：一B的1：12－1：与一B' 的1：35其中相同的扣准词是在旷野。

3.1.3 这开始篇中与创世纪最突出的相同寓意意境 (typological sense) 有

1. 耶稣与教会是新人的关系一如亚当与亚娃(创1－3) 及雅各伯与黎贝加(创29)；

2. 蛇与世界的领袖的狡猾尤如魔鬼一样，不断试探耶稣及选民(创3－50)；

3. 安息日的主与耶稣的权力相同：天主创世时休息的一天等同耶稣赎世时显圣的一天(创1：1－2：3)。

4. 洪水灭世与洗礼的罪赦有共同洁净罪恶的效果(创6－9)。

3.2 名字篇：祂在加里肋亚开始天国工程

　　－－妥拉所预言三之一3：13－6：6

二A这是祂所想要的十二人的名字，以取代了原本的十二支派3：13－19

二B这些人与祂是真亲属家人关系，但本家却不尊重祂3：20－35

二C这新的家庭关系如比喻指标着宣讲的天国4：1－34

二B' 这家主有超越大自然、魔鬼及生命的权力，新家人很尊重祂4：35－5：43

二A' 因为祂是玛利亚之于，自己乡亲的拒绝了祂，本来不是祂家人的反跟随了祂6：1－6

3.2.1 细节分析

二A祂选了十二人取代了以色列十二支派的名份3：13－19

二B祂的真亲属(以自己身分破亲疏的界限) 3：20－35

b1 耶稣受自己家人及经师的毁谤3：20－30

b2 耶稣的真亲属3：31－35

二C祂以比喻宣讲天国(以言论破智愚的界限) 4：1－34

c1 撒种的比喻4：1－9

c1.1 解释用比喻的原因4：10－12

c1.2 解释这撒种的比喻4：13－20

c2要如何聆听4：21－25

c2.1 灯的比喻4：21－23

c2.2 尺的比喻4：24－25

c3 种子自长的比喻4：26－29

c4 芥子的比喻4：30－32

c5 总结：取譬设教的用意是使众人明白4：33－34

二B' 祂有惊人的大权能，连大自然、魔鬼及人的生命也要听祂的话(以自己身分破洁与不洁的界限) 4：35－5：43

b' 1 平息风浪4：35－41

b' 2 治好革辣撒附魔人?治好一(外邦) 男人5：1－20

b' 3 治好血漏病人?治好一(外邦) 女人

b' 4 复活雅依洛女儿5：21－43

二A' 祂因是玛利亚的儿子而受自己乡人所拒绝6：1－6a

a' 1 祂周游四处福传6：6b

3.2.2 考证

二A的3：13－19与二A' 的6：1－6是第一重的首尾紧扣文笔。

例一：在3：13与6：1中，前者有「随后，耶稣上了山」；后者有「耶稣从那里起身，来到自己的家乡」。扣准的同义词是耶稣的上了及起身的行动。

例二：二A的3：16－17与二A' 的6：3，前者有「西满、雅各伯」；后者有「雅各伯、若瑟、犹达、西满」。

例三：在二A的3：14－15与二A' 的6：2－3，扣准同义字词及句子为「权柄」及「奇能」，「为同在一起」与「也都在我们这里吗」；反义词有「宣讲」与「听了」。

二B的3：20－35与二B' 的4：35－5：43形成第二重的首尾紧扣。

例一：在3：22与 5：2中，前者有「他附有邪魔，贝耳则步」；后者「有附邪魔的人」。

例二：在二B的3：31与二B' 的5：19中，前者有「耶稣的真亲属玛利亚出来找耶稣」；而后者有「你回家到你的亲属那里」。

例三：在二B的3：24－26与二B' 的4：38中，前者有「灭亡」而后者有「丧亡」。

3.2.3 这名字篇中与出谷纪最突出的相同寓意意境

1.十二支派与十二人的召叫在于天主的名显圣(出1－3)。

2.法郎是附魔的，同样选民亦是；埃及人对以色列以怨报德与耶稣的乡里厌恶耶稣相同(出4－14)。

3.梅瑟带领选民出谷等同耶稣带领门徒出离世俗(出4－15)。

4.天主降十灾给埃及人以显其名为圣，耶稣以食物祝福信者以显其名为圣(出16)。

5.天主子民的成立与耶稣真亲属的确立(出16－40)。

3.3 呼召篇：祂与门徒开始天国征途

　　－－妥拉所预言三之二6：7－8：21

三A祂差遣那十二人出外福传6：7－29

三B祂增饼饱食五千人，步行水上及治病6：30－56

三C祂突破犹太法律中洁与不洁的界限7：1－23

三B' 祂第二次增饼饱食四千外邦人7：24－8：10

三A' 法利塞人试探祂，同样自己的门徒亦误解了祂8：11－21

3.3.1 细节分析

三A祂差遣那十二人出外福传6：7－29

a1 祂要求门徒福传时，要过着简朴的生活(与城镇会堂相对) 6：7－13

a2 若翰之死(前驱完成了，后继有自己的门徒) 6：14－29

三B祂增饼饱食五千人，步行水上及治病6：30－56

b1祂增饼饱食五千人6：30－44

b2 祂步行水上助门徒6：45－52

b3 总结：祂的工作是喜讯6：53－56

三C祂突破犹太法律中洁与不洁的界限的意义7：1－23

c1 祂指出经师们错解法律的精神，废天道而尊人事7：1－13

c2 祂又用比喻教训所有人，以解释洁与不洁的界限7：14－15

c3 祂给门徒解释这些比喻的真正意义7：16－23

三B' 祂第二次增饼饱食四千外邦人7：24－8：10

b' 1 在外邦人区，祂医好一附魔女子7：24－30

b' 2 在外邦人区，祂医好一聋哑男子7：31－37

b' 3 在外邦人区，祂第二次增饼饱食四千人8：1－10

三A' 祂被法利塞人试探及被自己的门徒所误解8：11－21

a' 1 祂拒绝法利塞人的试探8：11－13

a' 2 祂的门徒仍然不瞭解祂8：14－21

3.3.2 考证

三A的6：7－29与三A' 的8：11－2；形成第一重首尾紧扣文笔：

在6：10－12与8：12－13中的紧扣字词是有相同意思的：「出去」与「离开」及「作为反对」与「必不给」。

在6：20与的8：17－18，其中紧扣的字词是相反的，即「黑落德知道并听若翰的话」，反而「门徒仍然未瞭解耶稣」。

三B的6：30－56与三B' 7. 24－8. 10形成第二重首尾紧扣。

这里的内容非常明显地互扣：「饱食五千人」与「饱食四千人」；「犹太人」与「外邦人」；「五个饼」与「七个饼」。在犹太中，「有黑落德的女儿附魔」；在外邦中，「有客纳罕妇人的女儿附魔」。

3.3.3 这呼召篇与肋未纪最突出的相同寓意意境

1.门徒如肋未支派为别人侍立于天主前(肋1－10)。

2.他们被召为突破洁与不洁的界限(肋11－15)。

3.肋未供十二派的饼为天人之约，门徒则侍立耶稣前以供洁与不洁的人吃饼为约(肋17－26)。

3.4 旷野篇：祂启发门徒跟随自己受苦仆人的默西亚方法

　　－－妥拉所预言三之三8：22－10：52

四A祂开启贝特赛达瞎子(喻门徒) 的眼8：22－26

四B第一次预言受苦及复活8：27－9：29

四C第二次预言受苦及复活9：30－10：31

四B' 第三次预言受苦及复活10：32－45

四A' 祂医好耶里哥瞎子10：46－52

3.4.1 细节分析

四A祂开启贝特赛达瞎子的眼(喻门徒或慕道者) 8：22－26

四B第一次预言受苦及复活8：27－9；29

b1 祂问门徒：「我是谁？」，伯多禄明认耶稣为默西亚8：27－30

b2 第一次预言8：31－38

b3 祂给门徒解释跟随祂的后果?十字架苦路8：34－38

b4 祂显圣容以鼓励门徒不要怕苦跟随祂9：1－13

b5 祂医好附魔的小孩子9：14－29

四C第二次预言受苦及复活9：30－10：31

c1 第二次预言9：30－34

c2 祂教训门徒跟随祂进天国的两个条件9：35－41

c2.1 有小孩子的心及愿作最微小的人9：35－37

c2.2 愿与其他人一起行善9：38－40

c3 五个真正跟随祂的教训9：41－10：31

c3.1 真正跟随祂是要受火试炼出来的9：41－50

c3.2 真正跟随祂的是不可拆散婚姻10：1－12

c3.3 真正跟随祂的是被祝福的小孩10：13－16

c3.4 真正跟随祂的是必须放弃所有一切10：17－27

c3.5 真正跟随祂，才有真财富10：28－31

四B' 第三次预言受苦及复活10：32－45

b' 1 第三次预言10：32－34

b' 2 门徒渴望在天国中坐于耶稣的左右10：35－40

b' 3 祂鼓励门徒做谦卑仆人10：41－45

四A' 祂医好耶里哥瞎子10：46－52

3.4.2 考证

四A的8：22－26与四A' 的10：46－52形成第一重的首尾紧扣文笔。

明显的是医好瞎子，细节中很多是互扣的不在话下。

四B的8：27－9：29与四B' 的10：32－4'形成第二重的首尾紧扣。

很明显的，三次的预言受苦及复活是相关的，细节中很多是互扣的不在话下，而突出第二次的内容：作祂门徒的条件及要求。

3.4.3 旷野篇与户籍纪最突出的相同寓意意境

1.天主给梅瑟进入福地前的吩咐与耶稣给门徒起程进入天国前的吩咐(户1－10)。

2.梅瑟与同行者对将来要发生的事是盲目的，尤如门徒对将来是盲目的一样(户10：11－21：35)。

3.巴郎的神示与耶稣预言将来受苦(户22－25)。

3.5 说话篇：祂在耶京开始普世救赎工程

　　－－圣卷所预言11：1－16：20

五A祂以天主子身分来到耶京最末的一周11：1－12：44

五B祂预言末世事件：神权必胜世权13：1－37

五C面对反对者，祂的不抵抗行动使门徒迷离14：1－42

五B' 祂的神权被世权所侵吞，致使当时世人迷离 14：43－15：47

五A' 祂在新的一周的第一天复活了(突破生死关系)16：1－20

3.5.1 细节分析

五A祂以天主子身分来到耶京的一周11：1－12：44

a1 第一天祂荣进耶京，达味圣城11：1－11

a2 第二天祂洁净圣殿11：12－25

a2.1 诅咒无花果树11：12－14

a2.2 祂洁净圣殿11：15－19

a2.3 第三天无花果树真的枯死了11：20－25

a3 祂舌战耶京权贵11：27－33

四个当时宗教上的难题12：1－34

a3.1 祂以比喻揭示自己独生圣子的身分，并控诉当时的领导人12：1－12

a3.2 祂要求人真正归属自己的主12：13－17

a3.3 祂解释真有复活的生命12：18－27

a3.4 祂解释法律的真正精神12：28－34

a4 祂反问权贵与民众有关自己达味之子的身分12：35－37

a5 祂的审判12：38－44

a5.1 祂指控经师的恶行12：38－40

a5.2 祂称赞穷寡妇的信德12：41－44

五B祂预言将来的末世事件(突破现在与未来) 神权必胜世权13：1－37

b1 祂离弃圣殿13：1－2

b2 祂分享祂所知道的未来事件13：3－23

b2.1 末世的先兆13：3－8

b2.2 门徒必受迫害13：9－13

b2.3 在犹太要发生的事13：14－18

b2.4 人子的来临13：19－23

b3 在末世时祂要光荣回来13：24－37

b3.1 祂来临时的可怕现象13：24－27

b3.2 祂用无花果树的比喻提醒这来临的时刻13：28－32

b3.3 祂教训门徒应醒寤不寐13：33－37

五C祂最后面对反对者的行动使门徒迷离14：1－42

c1 两天后(即第五天) 在伯达尼的傅油14：1－11

c2 最后晚餐14：12－25

c3 预言门徒的失信14：26－31

c4 山园祈祷14：32－42

五B' 祂的神权被世权所拒败，使世人迷离14：43－15：47

b'1 祂被拘捕的时日是赤身而逃的日子(亚毛斯先知所预言天主惩罚以色列的日子，亚2：16) 14：43－52

b'2 祂被大司祭和众人所拒绝14：53－65

b'3 祂被伯多禄所背弃14：66－72

b'4 祂被比拉多判死刑15：1－15

b'5 祂被侮辱15：16－20

b'6 祂被钉在十字架上死15：21－41

b' 6.1 西满助背十字架15：21－22

b' 6.2 祂被钉的过程15：23－28

b' 6.3 悬在十字架上仍然受人侮辱15：29－36

b' 6.4 祂断气死在十字架上15：37－41

b'7 (第六天) 祂被埋葬15：42－47

五A' 新的一周的第一天祂复活了(突破生死关系) 16：1－20

a'1 坟穴空了，但有天使报告他复活了16：1－8

a'2 一周的第一天祂复活后的显现16：9－18

a'3 祂升天并坐于天主的右边16：19－20

3.5.2 考证

五A的11：1－12：44与五A' 的16：1－20形成第一重首尾紧扣文笔。

例一：11：11「一周的第一天进耶京，时辰已晚，」与 16：2「一周的第一天她们来到了坟墓」；

例二：11：1「将近耶路撒冷」与 16：7「先往加里肋亚去」；

例三：11：20「无花果树连根也枯干了」与16：6「他已经复活了」；

例四：11：18「全群众对他的教训都惊奇不已」与16：8「妇女就非常惊恐」；

例五：11：23「他心里若不怀疑反相信祂说的心成就」与16：11「他们却不相信她见了耶稣」；

例六：12：41－44「穷寡妇的信德」与 16：1－11「妇女的信德」；

最后的12：1－37，在五个难题上，耶稣显示自己的身份与16：9－18的复活显现及五个奇迹以证明复活的主偕同门徒的事实。

五B的13：1－37与五B' 14：43－15：47形成第二重首尾紧扣文笔。

例一：耶稣离弃人手所做的圣殿13：1－25与伯多禄离弃耶稣生活圣殿14：43－72；

例二：耶稣预言受迫害13：9－13与耶稣受迫害15：1－41。

3.5.3 这说话篇与申命纪最突出的相同寓意意境

1.梅瑟的说话会一一应验，同样耶稣在耶京所讲的每一句话亦要一一应验(申1－34)。

2.梅瑟所见的福地与耶稣复活永生的福地相同(申32－33)。

3.选民进福地与耶稣偕门徒进耶京(苏1－24)。

4.天主的话与旧约有连系，耶稣的话与新约有连系。

  7.V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Macmillan 1972) 105-113.

8.傅和德，《旧约的背景》圣神修院神哲学教材2，香港　(1994)　304.

9.B.W. Bacon, "The Five Books Of Matthew Against The Jews" The Expositor 15 (1918) 56-66.

4. 总结

妥拉与马尔谷是有一定的文学结构关系。若读者能走入神圣作者心神次序而理解福音的堂奥，就不容易迷失于字面上的内容。从正典品评角度(Canonical approach)，神圣作者写下福音时已有一共学上的处理手法(a synchronic touch)。(12) 启示是一整体，新旧约的关系不能因人的误解而改变了其纵向性，导致人类分裂。当信徒彼此瞭解，就发现耶稣基督的福音与犹太宗教的妥拉是唯一神与全人类建立的同一爱情盟约。这样基督教会更尊重犹太宗教，而犹太宗教更能帮助人类发现天主原本给人类祝福的伟大。就让大家更坦诚地与世界分享天父对人类的救恩。

　

11.R.A. Guelich, Mark 1-8 : 26 World Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34A (Word Books 1989) vi-vii.

12.E.S. Malbon, 'Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark. 3-13' The Biblical Seminar (JSOT 1991).

作者：黄凤仪

前言

保禄在他的真实书信中，好像没有多少讨论性爱(sexual love)。他多番谈论的，反而是邪淫(sexual sins, sexual immorality，参看罗 1：24；13：13；格前 5：1；6：13，18：10：8；格后12：21；迦5：19：得前4：3)，或与此相关的表现(淫荡，参看格前5：9，11；6：9)。而且他看来是比较集中于格林多人前书讨论关乎性的问题，其中首要的为格前6：12－20。

在格前6：12－20，保禄极力反对纯肉欲的结合(比方召妓)。他说这等于犯邪淫，极之不当。人犯邪淫冒犯基督，冒犯自己的身体，冒犯圣神。(1)

除了格前6：12－20以外，还有其他的吗？不难发现，保禄在格前7：1－7续谈两性的关系。这极可能是团体向他提出的一个问题。团体似乎在问人应否婚嫁以及夫妇应否禁欲或类似的问题。只是，他们为甚么会这样问呢？

一．格前7：1－7的写作背景

「男人不亲近女人倒好」(格前7：1b)。(2) 这句看来相当浅明的话在释经方面备具争议。保禄是否在推崇独身生活而轻视婚姻生活？或许更该问，这句话是否出自保禄的口？

有关这句话的来源，意见不一，基本上可归纳为三种不同的看法：(1) 这是保禄所说的，他在表达自己对婚姻生活的见解；(2) 保禄在引用某些格林多人的说话，并表示自己接纳他们的见解；(3) 保禄在引用某些格林多人的说话，但随即辩证自己完全不同意他们的见解。(3)

不少人选择第三种看法，(4) 且对他们坚持的看法有以下的解释。(5) 他们说，格前7：1b反映的实是团体内某些激进份子的谬论，保禄在发表自己的真知卓见时，综合地重提他们所说的。故此他在格前7章纠正他们的错误思想，正如他在格前 12章纠正某些团体成员对神恩的看法一样。面对独身生活为唯一的理想生活的问题，保禄的答覆是多方面的。他首先陈明，一般人过的应是婚姻生活(7：2)，除非为了祈祷的缘故，否则夫妻不应禁欲(7：5)。保禄如此恳请信众乃是为他们着想，免得他们因不能节制而犯淫乱(7：2，5)。的确，保禄愿意看见他们像他一般过独身生活(7：7a，8)，但这是不可强求的，因为各人所得的恩宠不同(7：7b)，所领受的神恩亦各异(12：11)。

亦有人认为，格林多团体成员面对的疑惑，也有可能源自外界的影响。(6) 总的来说，昔日基督徒面向外面的花花世界，一定会感到某程度上的张力。因着与外间的距离以及其它社会因素，维护教会的训导定必然的。如是，一些人可能在设想，甚么是理想的基督徒婚姻生活？不过就在这种追寻中，出现了偏差，以为理想的基督徒婚姻生活就是一种禁欲的生活。于是，保禄必须加以纠正。他的基本论调可能是：当基督徒度一种纯正的生活时，别人就能把他们从这个罪恶世界中识别出来。他早在得前4：3－8已如此说(特别是得前4：4－5；亦参看哥3：5)：信众在言行举止上应与别不同，整个生活应植根于基督，并以悦乐天主为重；亦即是说，基督徒的婚姻生活有更深层的意义，应与世俗的不一样。他也在格前7：2示意，对那些没有被召去度独身生活的未婚人士来说，淫乱构成一种威胁。若与前面的章段5：1一起看，屈服在这种威胁下就相等于过渡到外面罪恶的世界中(再看得前4：5)。基督徒应以外面世界的败坏道德生活为鉴，并藉此较正自己的伦理道德准绳(参看格后6：14－7：1)。

视格前7：1b为引文者同时辩论说，这样念格前7章比较合理，经文本身亦较与其上下文吻合。(7) 先说其上文。在6：12－20，保禄引用创世的故事，因为天主在造人时曾说：人独处不好(6：16)。他亦把男女的结合喻作基督徒与基督的结合(6：15，17)。最后，他视人的身体为「圣神的宫殿」，藉此把身体圣洁的结合和与娼妓的结合形成一个强烈对比(6：15，19)。再说其下文。若保禄真的在大声疾呼禁欲，也与下文不合。他在7：2，5视婚姻性生活为避免淫乱诱惑的良方。此外，在7：3－4他清楚确认婚姻性生活为夫妻的权利和义务。

也有人提示，在研究格前7章的时候，必须肯定两个事实。(1) 格林多可能是世界上最不道德的城市，旧的格林多声名狼藉，而新的格林多就像当代的大海港和经贸中心一样，有其繁荣，但亦有其堕落的一面。保禄所建的基督徒团体就居住在这样的环境中，四面受诱。可以想像，保禄给他们写信时，采取的可能是宁可严格，不可放松的态度。(2) 保禄仍受基督快要再来信念的影响(参看7：31)。早期基督徒相信基督第二次再来迫在眉睫。虽然这种盼望迟迟没有实现，不过保禄致书给格林多团体时，还是受它的影响。基于基督快要再来的信念，他所给的指示纯粹是临时性的。假若他所看到的，不是临时的，而是比较永久的话，他所给的指示，可能会有所不同。(8)

更有人相信，基督再来的信念，也影响着团体。(9) 团体可能在致书给保禄时从这个角度向他提出一连串的问题。基督即将再来，我们应当如何作准备？夫妻藉着禁欲来作准备？未婚的无论如何也要过独身生活作准备？在那种情况下才能嫁娶而又与这种准备无抵触？我们但见保禄谨慎地且从牧民的角度去尝试答覆这些问题，心中怀着三个要点：(1) 首要的乃这个大原则：「各人在甚么身份上蒙召，就该安于这身份」(7：20；亦参看7：24)；(2) 各已婚或未婚身份的境况和需要都不一样；(3) 独身生活作为一种基督徒身份具极大的价值。最后的一点亦正是保禄的烦恼所在。在格林多的基督徒团体中，可能有一小撮人，对于性，就像往后的清教徒一般，抱有一种要征服的心态。他们过于自信，以为可以自制，不为私欲偏情所支配。他们欠缺的，乃自知之明，也高估了自己的修炼功力。故此保禄有必要向他们解释清楚，他所提出的乃是一个广泛的原则，不具任何约束力。他没有说一位未婚人士接受基督信仰时，便与婚姻绝缘。

这些学者总括他们的见解说，保禄写格前7章的目的乃为帮助部份团体成员明白，就算在基督快要再来的催迫下，人仍必须小心选择自己的身份。这完全是个人的选择，无人能代行。他虽然对独身生活怀有较大的敬意，但却没有轻视性爱或婚姻生活的意思。他比较看重独身生活的理由似有两个：(1) 在末世考验时，已婚人士要遭受更大的痛苦(7：28b；亦参看谷13：17及其平行文)；基督徒已要面对「现时的急难」(7：26)，无谓再增添有一头家的「挂虑」(7：32)。(2) 独身者有更大的自由献身于基督徒职务，可以一心一意「挂虑主的事」(7：32－35；亦参看罗15－17；格后11：28；斐2：20)。(10)

1.参看拙文，「从格前6：12－20看保禄的性爱观念」，《神思》32　(1997) 1－9。

2.思高版念：「我认为男人不亲近女人倒好」。

3.参看W.E. Phipps, "Is Paul's Attitude Toward Sexual Relations Contained in 1 Cor 7.1? ", NTS 28 (1982) 125-131, p. 125.

4.参看R.F. Collins, "The Unity of Paul's Paraenesis in 1 Thess 4.3-8 ; 1 Cor7.1-7. A Significant Paralle", NTS 29 (1983) 420-429, pp. 424, 429 n.34 ; M.Y. Macdonald, "Women Holy in Body and Spirit : The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7", NTS 36 (1990) 161-181, p.162 ; J.Murphy-O' Connor, "The First Letter to the Corinthians", NJBC, p.804.

5.比方：R.F. Collins, pp. 424-425.

6.参看M.Y. Macdonald, "The Ideal of the Christian Couple : Ign. Pol. 5.1-2 Looking Back to Paul", NTS 40 (1994) 105-125, pp. 110-111, 113, 117 ; 及其另一篇着作，参看R.F. Collins, "The Unity of Paul's Paraenesis in 1 Thess 4 : 3-8 ; 1 Cor 7 : 1-7, A Significant Parallel", NTS 29 (1983) 420-429, pp. 424, 429 n. 34 ; M.Y. Macdonald, "Women Holy in Body and Spirit : The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7", NTS 36 (1990) 161-181, p. l62 ; J. Murphy-O' Connor, "The First Letter to the Corinthians", NJBC, p. 804.

7.参看W.E. Phipps, p. 128.

8.比方W. Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Edinburgh : St. Andrew rev. ed. 1975) 58.

9.参看M.L. Barre, "To Marry or to Burn : πυρουσθαιin 1 Cor 7 : 9", CBQ 36 (1974) 193-202, p. 198.

10.参看M.L. Barre, p. 201.

二．格前7：1－7释义

格前7章整章的思想，可能已涵括在其首段7：1－7中，值得细看。

1. 格前7：1－7的上文下理和内在结构

在格前7－1'章，保禄像是在答覆格林多教会团体透过函件向他提出的问题。他在7：1这样说：「论到你们信上所写的事……」。团体提出的问题可能包括：婚姻生活和独身生活的问题(7章)；吃祭邪神祭品的问题(8－10章)；信众聚会、崇拜的问题(11－14章)；以及基督徒复活的问题(15章)。

若是从格林多团体诸多提问的角度去看格前7章，那么整章经文的结构可以分析如下，从中看到保禄给团体的多个答案：(11)

给那些以为基督徒不应当结婚的人的劝告(7：1－2)；

给那些认为尽管是已婚的也要分房的人的劝告(7：3－7)；

给未婚者和寡妇的劝告(7：8－9)；

给那些认为已婚的也应当分开的人的劝告(7：10－11)；

给那些认为在混合婚姻中，基督徒和非基督徒双方应当离婚的人的劝告(7：12－16)；

给基督徒的指示，无论其身份为何，都要善度基督徒生活(7：17－24)；

给贞女的劝告(7：25，36－38)；

给信众的劝谕，劝告他们不要让任何东西妨碍自己事奉基督，因为日子不久了，他快将再来(7：26－35)；

给那些有意再嫁的寡妇的劝告(7：38－40)。

若接受团体只向保禄广泛地提出关于婚姻生活和独身生活的问题，那么格前7章可有如下所见的另一种结构分析。(12) 对于这两种不同的生活，保禄作了多方面的讨论：论婚姻中的性生活(7：1－7)；论寡妇、鳏夫再嫁娶(7：8－9)；论离婚(7：10－16)；基督徒应安于蒙召前的身份的劝谕(7：17－24)；给未婚者的劝谕(7：25－35)；论贞女出嫁(7：36－38)；论寡妇再婚(7：39－40)。

至于格前7：1－7的内在结构，则有建议分析如下：互爱的婚姻生活(7：1－4)；禁欲的问题(7：5－7)。(13)

2. 格前7：1－7背后的大前提

有人认为，若要了解格前7：1－7甚或整章第7章，对当时的思想网络，要有一定的认识。(14) 在希腊人的思想里，有一种强烈的趋向，就是轻视身体和有关身体的东西。这种趋向会使人采取以下的立场：身体是完全不重要的，我们可以为所欲为，让它的肉欲完全得到发泄。不过这种趋向也会产生与此完全相反的观点，就是：身体是罪恶，我们必须制服它，甚或完全除掉它；我们必须起码消除一切身体的本能和欲望。保禄在格前7章所讨论的似乎是第二种观点。格林多的信徒，至少他们中有些人，在劝诱别人，一个人假若要做完全的基督徒，就必须拋弃物质的东西，必须拒绝嫁娶。

保禄在格前7章的回答非常切合实际。事实上，他不外在说：「了解你们的环境所在，切记你们是居于格林多，就算是走在街上，到处都是试探、诱惑。更要认识你们身体的构造和天生的本能。你们嫁娶远比跌在罪中好。」

这种说法，听起来似乎保禄有轻看婚姻之嫌，视婚姻为避免日后不幸遭遇的途径。事实上却不是这样。保禄实在忠诚的面对事实，定下四海皆准的规则。人不应当尝试不自然、不适合自己的生活；人不应当有意的把自己置身于四围都是试探引诱的境况中。保禄知道得很清楚，人是不一样的。他似乎在说：「细问你自己，拣选一种最能让你活出真实基督徒生活的方式；不要尝试不自然的标准；你能力所不及的，为你也就是错误的。」

3. 释经

「……我认为男人不亲近女人倒好」(7：1b)。这是思高版的翻译，RSV的翻译为：It is well for a man not to touch a woman。原文本来没有连系动词「is」，且较早期的手抄本是没有标点符点的。从句子本身不易辨认出这是保禄自己的陈辞或是格林多人信中的引文。句子本身与在7：8及7：26所念到的相近但不完全一样。这节经文首部的短句「论到你们信上所写的事」(7：1a) 的「论到」二字，就如在其他经文看到的一样(7：25；8：1；12：1；16：1，12)，本身不含一个可以带出一句引文的动词。故若要认识句子的本质，需从其上下文看。保禄若真的在这里表达自己的意见，那么句子本身就似乎与下文不十分吻合。若是从中念出连系动词「is」，即是说格林多团体中人在表达自己的见解，从其上下文去看，也是怪怪的。比较合情理的念法乃是，保禄在引用团体中部份人士向他提出的一个有关修炼的问题：「是否男人不亲近女人倒好？」(Is it well for a man not to touch a woman?) 这即是说，在句于中加上一个连系动词及一个问话符号。(15)

此外，「好」在新约有「正确」或「必要」的意思。Is it good (well) 就是：是正确的吗？是必要的吗？而「男人／女人」则包括在婚姻内或婚姻外的男女，且看保禄在随后的答覆中也分开来讨论(7：2－7；7：8－9)。(16) 他给夫妇的指示是命令式的：「男人当」，「女人当」，(17) 故在这里的男女应是已婚的男女。「有」指向两性的关系，意即夫妇要过正常的性生活，理由是为了避免淫乱。(18) 婚姻中的性生活不是可有可无的，它是一种义务，男女双方都应尽的，更不能为了宗教上或苦身克己的原因而感到迟疑不安。(19) 一朝结合，个人已完全放弃自己身体的主权而让对方拥有，拥有这个身体已成为对方的权利。如是，在婚姻生活中，男女双方完全平等，对于房事，各有相同的权利和义务(7：2－4)。

「你们切不要彼此亏负……」(7：5)。男女在婚姻生活中，应持续房事，这是一种「债项」(debt)，是互欠的，必须偿还。(20) 不过也可有例外。若相方同意，可以为了专务祈祷而禁欲一段时期。(21) 保禄没有说可禁欲多久，但他则有说明，时期一满，二人便应重新过正常的性生活。在禁欲一事上，若没有过之而无不及，就不会受撒殚的诱惑了。(22)

在格林多可能有人在教唆，凡已婚，要做真正的基督徒，不可同房。这是视身体与本能为罪的伙伴的另一种表现。保禄则宣告一个非常伟大的原则。婚姻乃共甘苦的生活。丈夫不能不顾妻子而单独行动；妻子也是这样。二人必须随时随地采取一致的行动。在特别锻炼时期，比方为要专心祷告，或可把身体的事，暂时放在一边；不过这必须先得双方同意，并只能实行一段短时期，不然必会造成一种局面，让试探有机可乘。(23)

「我说这话，原是出于宽容。并不是出于命令」(7：6)。实质上，「这话」指向他往后所说的。(24) 保禄又好似轻视婚姻？他说，这不是一种合乎理想的命令；有好多地方是因着人的软弱而让步。(25) 他宁愿每人达到一种思想，像他一样。这到底是甚么呢？我们只能推测。肯定的是，他的心愿，按照理想，是其他的人要效法他。这完全是出于他相信基督第二次再来的日子，迫在眉睫：时间是这样短促，我们不可有太多的牵制及物质的阻碍。其实，保禄并不轻视婚姻；他坚定地主张人要把一切精力集中预备基督的再来。(26)

「如同我一样」(7：7) 的本意要到下文才见明显。保禄极之可能曾娶妻，因为在归化之前，作为一位犹太领袖，他应是有家室的。但在从事宗徒传教活动时，他已是独身了。从他的书信可见，他可能是一位鳏夫，或是他的妻子在他归化之前后。跟他异离。(27)

「……得自天主的恩宠：有人这样，有人那样」(7：7)。保禄常论及天主的恩宠。他将在格前 12章整章讨论不同的神恩。在格前7：7，重要的还是他如何看两者的价值。他明显地说，无论是独身生活或是婚姻生活(包括性生活)，同样来自天主的恩宠。对于信众作何等的选择，他不强求。且深信若是他们忠于自己作选择，天主的恩宠就在其中。(28)

11.参看W. Barclay, pp. 57-58 ; 类似分析见H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia : Fortress1975) 114.

12.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, 1 Corinthians, The Anchor Bible (New York-London-Toronto-Sydney-Auckland : Doubleday 1976) 205-226.

13.参看同上，p. 205。

14.参看W. Barclay, pp. 58-59 ; H. Conzelmann, pp. 114-115.

15.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, pp. 205-206 ; H. Conzelmann 认为他们提出的问题可能是："Is sexual intercourse allowed (at all)?", p. 115.

16.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 208.

17.参看同上；但H. Conzelmann则认为这里涉及的是一个concession，有"may have" 的意思，pp. 116，118。

18.H. Conzelmann 指出保禄在这里没有提供在婚姻中维持正常性生活的正面理由，p. 116。

19.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 208 ; H. Conzelmann, pp.116-117.

20.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 208 ; J. Murphy-O' Connor, p. 804.

21.J. Murphy-O' Connor指出，祈祷只是其中的一个理由而已，p. 804。

22.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 209.

23.参看W. Barclay, p. 60.

24.参看W.F Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 207 ; J. Murphy-O' Connor, p. 80..

25.参看H. Conzelmann, p. 118 : J. Murphy-O' Connor则说保禄只在提供意见，p. 804.

26.参看W. Barclay, pp. 60-61.

27.参看同上；W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 209 ; J. Murphy-O' Connor, p. 804.

28.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, pp. 207, 209 ; J. Murphy-O' Connor, p. 804.

结语

由格前6：12－20所见，保禄对性爱有一定的看法，且是相当正面的。人具有一个身体，意即他能与别人建立起一种关系。这个身体具性的本能和欲望。在性爱行动中，男女合成一体。「二人成为一体」是这种行动的终向，在性的结合中把对伴侣的信与爱完全流露，并在交融中表达对天主的爱与信靠。把性的行动孤立起来不能达致以上的目的，当这种行动纯粹是一种交易而不存有关怀、忠信、和爱时(比方召妓)，就会变成一种偏差的行径，纯粹是性行为而不是性爱了。

查看格前7：1－7后，发觉保禄在此对性爱持有同样正面的看法。(29) 首先，他极可能在7：1没有说「我认为男人不亲近女人倒好」。再者，在余下的章节他更采取不同的语调去表达自己的概念。他命令已婚者应尽亲近伴侣的义务(7：2－5)，但就在个人身份的选择上，他则没有出命，看出无论是婚姻生活或是独身生活，同样能够彰显天主的恩宠(7：6－7)。

由此可见，保禄给团体关于婚姻生活的答覆是很清楚的。婚姻乃共甘苦的旅程。无论作甚么，做丈夫的或是妻子的都不能不顾及对方而单独行动。夫妻无论作甚么都必须一致。在性生活方面亦是如此。做丈夫的不可把妻子当作自我满足的工具，反过来说亦是一样。夫妻在整个婚姻生活中，在精神与肉体方面，都应得到满足。亦即是说，夫妻不可终止性生活。在婚姻生活中，夫妻平等，二人都有应得的权利和应尽的义务。一朝结合，人不再全权支配自己的身体，这个身体已为对方而赐予，二人在爱中满全对方的需要。这样婚姻中的亲密接触实在不是「性生活」而是「性爱生活」了。

29.有关格前6：12－20与格前7章的紧密关系，参看B. Byrne "Sinning against One's Own Body : Paul's Understanding of the Sexual Relationship in 1 Corinthians 6 : 18", CBQ 45 (1983) 608-616, pp. 614-616.

作者：黄淑珍

爱的跳跃伯纳《雅歌讲道集》的再读--(神学硕士论文纲要)

1. 论文题目

顾名思义论文的研究对象是伯纳．明谷(1090－1153) 的《雅歌讲道集》。为什么取题《爱的跳跃》？论文作者(以下简称作者) 初读《雅歌讲道集》后就有这样的感受?伯纳以「爱」来贯穿整辑讲道集，因此论文也以「爱」的脉络来研读雅歌。选择「跳跃」一词是取其灵活性。心中充满爱意的人活力充沛，《爱的跳跃》就是尝试探讨爱如何充满活力在我们的生命中跳动着。论文的研究范围是伯纳在此讲道集论述的爱。

「跳跃」在论文也有另一个用法，就是跟随伯纳从一个思想领域跳到另一个。为能自如地在不同的思想领域上跳跃，我们需要「跳板」。这些准备工夫在论文中称为「跳板」寻找法，包括明白：文本与背景的关系(text and context)、文本与模式(text and pattern)和模式与词汇(pattern and word)。「跳板」又有二用：一是从人间跳跃到天人的层次，二是从天上跳回人间……下文再述。

题中的「读」有多层的意义：(1) 汲取文本的意义，(2) 欣赏文本，(3) 宣和外扬。作者愿意透过汲取意义和欣赏文本而进入伯纳的意境，从那里再看人性的经验，之后将读过的宣示、铺叙出来。

2. 论文结构

前言
缩略语
伯纳重要作品一览表
目录
第一章导言
第二章活力非凡的伯纳
伯纳出生的世代
伯纳-----熙笃会的先锋
伯纳的写作生涯
伯纳的面面观
伯纳的两根思想支柱
第三章天人恋曲
体裁
写作特色
神学意念
第四章妙桨三章
亲吻
卧室
结合
第五章曲终情未了
伯纳神学思想的串联
性爱的神学意义
「综合」与「探索」
第六章结论
书目

3. 论文内容

论文以六章的篇幅来陈述。

第一章导言介绍论文的写作动机、研究方法和架构。

第二章名为活力非凡的伯纳，是介绍伯纳的生平及着作，及《雅歌沟道集》产生的背景(text and context)。

学者认为十二世纪是一个人文复兴的时代，其特色是认识自我，在灵修方面已经达到中世纪的高峰，而人文精神又已经发展到一个整合和平衡的阶段。伯纳一方面秉承了优良的传统，另一方面又开拓新路向。不论在文化、灵修及文学上，十二世纪所取得的辉煌成就，而伯纳活在其中，实是功不可没。

伯纳是熙笃会的先锋，他是充满魅力的，年青时入隐修院，他的兄弟、舅舅和朋友也被他吸引而愿意随他一起进入熙笃会。他的一次讲道就成功地引致巴黎的一班神职修士决意进入明谷修院度默观的生活。

当了十五年本笃会院长的威廉．圣提里(William of St. Thierry) 也是因为伯纳的缘故而从本笃会转到熙笃会。然而，他支持十字军的行动和与伯多禄．亚培拉(Peter Abelard) 的争论却引来一些微言。对于支持十字军的行动，伯纳问心无愧。至于他与亚培拉的争论，问题的症结可能是他们基本上对圣经有着不同的态度。

亚培拉的读经法，以明瞭为主：诵读(lectio)、提问(quaestio)、讨论(disputatio)、宣讲(predicatio)，这种做法称为「神圣的卷页」(sacra pagina)。伯纳的讲经法，着重进入祈祷的境界：读经(lectio)、喃喃的读法犹如牛反刍其食物(ruminatio)、默想(meditatio)、进入高度祈祷境界(oratio)、宣讲(predicatio)，这种做法传统称为「神圣的诵读」(lectio Divina)。

伯纳是一位天才横溢、豪情奔放的多产作家。伯纳的主要思想在他早期的两篇作品已可见到，它们是《论爱天主》(De diligendo Deo, 1126) 和《论恩宠与自由抉择》(De gratia et libero arbitrio, 1127)。前者是他的爱情神学，而后者是他的人学的基础。伯纳的作品和书信，使他本来已是多采多姿的一生，更形丰盛。

第三章是天人恋曲，集中看《雅歌讲道集》，尝试对此集的体裁、写作特色及神学意念作一探讨。86篇讲道是一丰富的爱情宝藏。《雅歌讲道集》的讲道与其说是一系列，不如说是散文。因为很可能从没有在群众面前讲论过的。这些散文是环绕雅歌1：1－3：1论述天人之爱。

在探讨《雅歌讲道集》的写作特色中，作者察觉到伯纳是以寓意方式来诠释雅歌的。

《雅歌讲道集》是用了十八年(1135－1153) 时间写成的，既有深度，又多元化。书中有很多模式(pattern) 伯纳用来表达其思想。此举因为他重视经验，尤其是神契经验，用模式的好处就是将零散的资料集中起来。由于论文的研究范围是爱，因而选择三个有关系性爱的模式：亲吻、卧室和结合。

伯纳虽然予以经验相当的权威，但他同时指出单靠经验的不足。经验需要信仰的扶持，和圣经的规范。在这一节的探索所得到的结论是：信仰产生经验、规范经验，经验丰富信仰、体现信仰；圣经提升经验，经验丰富圣经。

第四章是妙乐三章，作者根据伯纳的模式扮演演绎者的角色。

伯纳以模式为铺陈方法，内中具备了特殊的装置，就是指他运用词汇多层意义的技巧(pattern and word)。一个词汇可有两至三层意义：(1) 公用的(conventional)，(2) 专用的(idiomatic)，(3) 功能性的转移(functional)。例如卧室一词，它的公用意义是指一处可供人休息的空间；它的专用意义是指夫妇独处的空间，也可以是亲密性生活的场所；在它的功能意义上，伯纳展现了他将词汇转向(bending) 的技巧，伯纳将「真正的卧室」变成默观的最高境界。在伯纳的情形，这种转移是建基于他个人的默观经验之上。一个模式通常是透过几个关键性的词汇，和它们所含蕴的多层意义而得以建立的。

「亲吻」模式的着眼点是恩宠的充盈；「卧室」模式将人带进默观的最高境界，在那里人有参透天地奥秘的可能；在「结合」模式里，伯纳带领人逐步迈向与圣言结合，也展示了与圣言结合的意境。在介绍伯纳的模式当中，作者给予读者一个视框，透过这个视框帮助读者进入伯纳的思想和明白他的经验。

第五章拟题曲终情未了。伯纳的思想天马行空，他诠释雅歌至3：1「夜间我在床上，寻觅我心爱的」。天主就让他走入光明的处所之中，正如伯纳书中的结语：「我们不是黑夜和阴暗之子，我们行走如光明之子。」第86篇讲道是未完成的。另一方面，这天人恋曲令人荡气回肠，陶醉其中，虽然是曲终但却情未了。

在第五章作者使用了「跳板」二用法。作者进入了伯纳从男女之爱跳到天人之爱的意境，并尝试在意境中找出它的脉络，这是第一跳。接着作者再从天人之爱跳到人间之爱?从天人之爱折回看性爱的本质，这是第二跳。第五章旨在综合熟悉的题材和探索新的洞悉。

在综合部份，作者以伯纳神学中一个主调「刺痛神学」(theology of compunction) 串联讲道集的思想。「刺痛」是天主于人之内所作的行动，藉此来唤醒沉迷的人。「刺痛」是源于两个共存的内在根由：罪，及对天主的渴求；意谓人意识到自己罪恶的同时也发现天主伟大的慈爱；人本因自己的罪而失望，现在的刺痛又因天主的美善而满怀希望。所以「刺痛神学」基本上是乐观的。

在替伯纳神学思想作串联上，作者以三个课题来演绎：旅途、恩情和默观。

旅途点出人在迈向与圣言结合的进度，亦即人在爱的成长及迈向成全路上的不同阶段。在模式的铺叙里，伯纳好像曾勾画出多个的旅途，但基本上是殊途同归。由于人有不同的角度、感受、或强调，因而产生不同的描述和道理。

恩宠是伯纳神学的主导思想，这意识在「结合」模式中尤为突出。虽说是恩宠主导，但在起点及通往与圣言结合的路途中，伯纳展示了天主的恩宠与人的自由不断交织，以致难以辨认哪一刻的行动是恩宠的效应，和哪一刻是自己的抉择。到最后，新娘因着爱竟将自己的意志符合新郎的意志，祂的旨意就是她的抉择。

默观为伯纳虽是极高的享受，但总离不开爱德工作，他在两者中不断寻求平衡。新娘既是情人又是母亲，要以乳液?宣讲天主的话语?来喂养婴儿。与情人互相凝望固然使人悦乐，但照顾孩子不竟是母亲的天职。但在另一处，伯纳却直言孩子当然是母亲深爱的，然而最能满足新娘的，还是新郎的亲吻。其实新娘的情人和母亲的双重身分不但没有矛盾，反而能相辅相成。爱德服务也是祈祷的一种，属于天主的工程。

当人决定不再自我封闭而愿意开放于天主时，也同时向其他人开放，愿意让圣神倾注的恩赐从自己身上外溢，使人受惠。爱德的服务美化了新娘，新娘的美貌吸引圣言的造访。最后，伯纳以垃匝禄、玛利亚和玛尔大同是一家人，来比喻新娘的三重美善：懂得为自己的处境而痛哭(如拉匝禄)，和在天主之内而喜乐(如玛利亚) 与此同时又有力量去帮助别人(如玛尔大)。新娘愿意在这三方面取悦天主，成为圣言眼中最漂亮的新娘。

在探索部分，作者尝试从性爱作为天人之爱的象征，看性爱的神学意义。男女爱可算是天人之爱的自然象征，此自然象征的功能：男女之爱肖似、反映、预尝，象征、体验天人之爱。这一节的探讨是颇为特别，因为作者除了善用伯纳的专长外，也揉合了其他方面的资料，如：心理学和真实经验，作反思。这一节的探讨也受天人之爱的光照。作者希冀藉这探讨给今日的基督徒夫妇一些启迪，也愿意给论文带来一点时代的气息。

性爱的本质在这里有八个意义：性与爱形影不离、在结合中享受爱侣、爱得出神、爱情的专一、相敬如宾、情投意合、爱情的结晶、爱的动力就是天主。在述说人灵与圣言结合的情境时，伯纳强调在结合中享受圣言、及结合境界可达至出神(ecstasy)。为此，在论述性爱的神学意义时，性高潮及性爱中的享受幅度是无可避免的课题。这些课题都是在神学上较少触及的。

伯纳视子女为夫妇爱情的甜美果实，将婚姻的承诺伸延到生育和教养子女之上。新娘和新郎在爱内共享平等这课题更是从天人之爱中演绎过来的，唤回了夫妇之爱中一个重要但又较忽视了的一环。作者更在这一节中提出了所谓「初夜的灵修」。

第六章是论文的结论，包括：交代、分享和邀请。在交代中，作者答覆在导言中所提出的挑战、看好奇心换来些甚么及回顾论文可有不足的地方。在分享中。作者愿意将这次在论文钻研上所得着的与读者分享。三个心得是：神学与灵修、繁忙中作默观、无边的止境。最后作者邀请读者投入生命经验的跳跃?延续那停不了的跳跃。

论文的整体结构有点儿像「漏斗」，先是最宽阔的，然后逐渐收窄，最后让伯纳的影响力流进我们的生命里。

论文评语

韩大辉

　

作者以「跳过山岗，跃过丘陵」(歌2：8) 设题为＜爱的跳跃＞。副题＜伯纳《雅歌讲道集》的再读＞说明所用的资料。现在先谈读后四个感受：爱中寻真我、智美相辉映、天人两面看、言尽意无穷。

1. 爱中寻真我

神学不但做学问，重要的是寻真理。十二世纪的欧洲处于复兴和更新的时代，作者标榜当时的人文关怀：「认识自我」(know myself)，因而将寻真理升到寻真我的存在性层面。伯纳天才横溢，在那世代中，有非凡的贡献。作者深入了解伯纳熙笃会的灵修「寻找天主」(quaerere Deum) 和个人心历「刺痛」(compunctio)，并以此作为自己研究的基本态度：意识罪性、渴求天主。论文充满伯纳的灵感，作者不忘诠释者的角色，指出《雅歌讲道集》的隐喻的要义，过程中作者深感天主的大爱，在字里行间流露出来，宛如从「灌注」(infusio) 到「外溢」(effusio) 一般。这是「爱中寻真我」。

2. 智美相辉映

伯纳论述基督净配，「虽黑犹美」(歌1：5 nigra sum, sed formosa)，她「长期流徙，疲惫黝黑，天生丽质，美艳照人」(SC 27 : 14 quam etsi labor et dolor longi exsilii decolorat, species tamen caelestis exornat)。当然，这「天生丽质」是指天主的恩宠。论文的作者大概因交文考试而疲惫，但仍不忘天主的爱，「新娘的美貌就是爱」(decor sponsae ... charitas est)。「教使人博学、爱令人生智」(instructio doctos reddit, affectio sapientes)。天主连同智慧将美貌赐给人，就是以德行和神恩装饰其灵魂，使能肖似天主降生的圣言。这样爱智(philosophia) 与爱美(philokalia) 成为灵魂的渴求，而智与美正好揉合在默观中，那里「新娘摸索新郎神秘魅力的所在，此刻新郎完全属于新娘。」

3. 天人两面看

作者的跳板二用法，显然仿效了伯纳的寓意读经法，「以此言彼」(allegory)，就是在读经时，作意义的转移(locutio tropica)，以文字(史实) 为基础、正确伦理的训导为屋顶，这样以寓意为墙壁的建筑，才不会瓦解。作者在描写伯纳的背景、文本、摸式及词汇时，建立「跳板」，从经验的领域，跳到伯纳所言的天人之恋，轻轻从经验跃进永恒。然而，在同样的跳板，作者也从天人之恋跳回人间之情(第五章第二部份)。作者对伯纳的文本，可说「入乎其内、出乎其外」，人则观天人之爱，出则顾人间之情。一朵小花里看出一个天堂，天堂却隐藏在小花中。

此外，作者强调个人经验和读圣经两者相辅相成。「圣经随着阅读的人而增长」(Scriptura cum legente crescit)，在信仰(regula fidei) 的光照下，圣经提升经验，经验提升圣经。由此引申神学必须与灵修并存。单靠神学的理据，只会擦出斗咀的精灵，只有配合灵修的神学，才能闪出智慧的光亮。

4. 言尽意无穷

伯纳的灵感源于其读经法(Lectio Divina)。作者在解释这方法时，亦指出其默观的一面，是圣言来寻找人，「道寻知音」。圣言与人同步，有「说不完的事」。

事实上，整辑《雅歌讲道集》熬了伯纳十八个年头，没有完成整个雅歌的诠释，最终停在雅歌三章一节：「夜间我在床上，寻觅我心爱的」，天主便召他回去，让他在天上找到「心爱的」。伯纳的思想，天马行空，其86篇道理所述之事，可说「多而杂」，再多十八年，恐怕也说不完，但全书并非杂乱无章，反而恒常地返回在「刺痛」(compunctio)中寻找天主(quaerere Deum) 的脉络。诚然，那寻找的心，面对天主的圣言，确有「释不完的经」。

论文第五章，以「曲终情未了」为题，正好指出，人生于世，不论处于何种生活环境，只要有爱，甚么事都可从有涯到无涯。甚至，爱可转化人的身分，提升人的承诺，「连死亡也不能将我们分开」，神学寻找生活经验的解释(meaning)，若没有爱，就会失去意义(meaningfulness)。有了爱，神学才可成为「出神」的默观、「爱不完的情」。

结论

论文共viii + 102页，分六章，除导言和结论外，中间四章包括伯纳生平、背景、资料来源、分析、综合。论题清晰，层次分明、行文工整。神学用语，驾轻就熟。方法论的应用，亦渐趋成熟。以中文资料而论，这份研究有助认识中世纪的神学和灵修，值得出版。然而，文中间中有些牵强之处和手民之误，幸无伤大雅，如日后出版，须作更正。

作者：周景勋

诸言

1. 引子

有一次，侄儿的布乌龟失掉了，我急忙往商店跑，很辛苦才找到一只与失掉的布乌龟一模一样的。但小侄儿拿在手人总是叫着：「不是原来的一只！」我问他有什么不同？形状一样，大小一样，颜色一样。他愈叫愈大声：「不一样就不一样！只是相似。」哭着的小侄儿一定要找回那只从他一岁半开始便陪伴在床边的布乌龟，他只知道现在拿着的布乌龟不是陪他两年的那一只……。

2. 问题

究竟世界上有没有两件东西是完全相同一样的呢？

究竟世界上有没有完全不相同的两件东西呢？

为什么在小侄儿心中只有那「一」只陪伴他两年为布乌龟呢？而在商店中，不是有很「多」同模样、同大小、同颜色的布乌龟吗？

为什么新买来的布乌龟与失掉的一只只是「相似」，而不是相同呢？

3. 说明

要解答以上的问题，我们必须从形上学的观点，因为形上学是探讨「存有」的知识，也如亚里斯多德在《形上学》一书的开始就提出：「人人生而有求知的欲望」，即《大学篇》中所强调的：「格物致知」的求知路向；这可以说是从经验开始，把握事物的真相，找出最普遍的概念：我们从经验中不同的事物－－「多」的层面，找出最普遍的「共相」－－「多」的层面，即「存有」的概念(其实，在研究「存有」时，亦当注意到「存有」的经验层面，即人能直觉到「存有」。)，作为基本的对象，成为一切知识的基础，也是一切现实的基础。而在「一」与「多」不同的层面中谈论「存有」，我们会发现事物间：一方面是相同而为一的，一方面不相同而为多，这种奇异的特征在形上学中称为「存有」概念的类比性。在中国哲学中有言：「形而上者谓之道，形而下者谓之器」(易系辞传)，「道」与「器」都是类比性的概念，「道」乃万物之所宗，故为形而上的「一」；「器」乃万物之所散，故为形而下的「多」。

因此，我们在下列要分别探讨的内容如下：

一．类比的意涵

1. 类比概念的意义

2. 类比的种类

二．「一」与「多」的问题剖释

三．「存有」是「一－－同」又是「多－－异」的类比概念的说明

一．类比的意涵

1. 类比概念的意义

类比(ANALOGY) 的字源出自希腊文ανα-λογοζ(ana-Logos) / αναλογια(analogia)，它有相似、类似、互相比照、类同、类比等意思；若用在哲学上，「类比」一词更深奥地指向「存有」的概念上作形上的说明；在士林哲学上更强调在类比词的意义之下，来探讨「神与受造物」的关系，若对类比的概念不清楚，便无法深入研究形上学，以及神学了。

因为「类比」意谓着：「两物或多物之间的比例或相似。」(1) 即根据某一存有物与另一存有物的关系而领会该物；更好说是：一个存有物的存有是由于别的存有物相比之下而显示出来，至少会显得更清楚一些，而且能了解两者间的同与异；故若两物完全相同则不用比较，若完全不相同亦不必比较；即两物若无相同之处，根本无法加以比较，若无相异之处，则比较只是重覆而无意义。然而，存有物在存有上往往同时相同又相异，这才产生「类比」的概念，即以「类比词」来描述「存有的类比概念」。一般而言，「类比词」(Analogous term)乃介于「两极端之间」，此两极端即是「同义词或单义词」(Univocal term)，和「异义词或多义词」(Equivocal term)。(2) 而「存有」本身就是「类比词」；就「存有之为存有」来说是「一」也是「多」，即在「存在」上指一事物与其他事物是相同的(统一性)；若从「本质」上言，则指殊多不同的事物是相异的(个别性)。(3) 由于形上学乃研究「存有之为存有」的学问，故形上学所有的概念都可以说是类比概念。

类比概念在希腊早期的哲学家思想中已有应用柏拉图更用以表达事物间的相似地方，但没有详细的阐明。到亚里斯多德时，他在《形上学》一书第四卷第二章中有明显的阐述和发挥，定断了类比概念的重要性，亚氏说：

「存有」可以用许多不同方式去谈论，但是常与一个唯一的原理，与某一个唯一的本质有关；「存有」的意义不是单纯多义的，例如当我们用「健康的」一词时，可以形容许多束西，但皆与健康有关，或因一物能保持健康，或因一物能产生健康，或因为是健康的征兆，或因为是承受健康者……「存有」的情形也是如此，可以用许多方式去谈论，但每一方式皆与唯一的原理有关。(释：此唯一原理指自立体，因为自立体是充实的，主要的存有，本身即是存有，而依附体是次要的存有，因为须依附自立体，才能存在。)有些束西被称为存有，因为是自立体，有些是自立体的变化，以及所有归属于自立体的：毁灭、缺乏、性质，那些使自立体发生和产生的束西，那些与自立体有关东西或这些东西的否定，或自立体本身的否定。为了这个理由我们才说「非有」是「非有」。(释：某物的缺乏和非有可视为自立体的依附体，例如盲和无知的存在，只有被视为自立体的缺乏或非有，才可以理解。没有视力，也不会有视力的缺乏，即盲。没有知识，也不会有知识的缺乏，即无知。) (4)

亚里斯多德从一个被应用的词汇，如「健康的」，在应用时就具有多种意义，表达了既同一而又有异多意义的类比概念；所以亚氏在《形上学》第十一卷第三章中又有清楚的说明：

因为哲学普遍地讨论「存有之所以为存有」，而不是讨论存有的某些部份；且「存有」一词不仅用于一种意义，更用于多种意义；由此，若「存有」乃用于多义时，就不在共同的意义中，「存有」就不会隶属一门学术(因为多义词不会有共同等级的)。但若，「存有」一词乃根据一个共同意义而被应用时，「存有」就会隶属于一门学术。所以，「存有」一词犹如「医疗的」和「健康的」，就如上述所强调的，各有多种的意义……。(5)

然而，亚氏以「存有」一词作为类比概念的展示，只是从「存有」的功能上加以述说；当然在形上学上所谈论的「存有」本身，潜能与现实，自立体与依附体，一与多等问题都是类比概念，但亚氏未能将之有系统地发展成为一个类比原理。但到多玛期时，类比概念更能清楚详细的阐述说明，我们可以从多玛斯诠释亚氏的形上学中得到证实，且明确地明示类比的知识基于存有的类比。

多玛斯在诠释中说：「这是很明显的，所谓类比词乃介于同义词与异义词的中间的一种应用方法。就同义词而论乃意味着不同事物有绝然同一和完全相同的意义；例如：「动物」一词，乃包含了「马」和「牛」，表示有生命的，有感觉的自立体。就异义词而论，则同一的名词意味着不同的事物与完全不同的意义，例如Canis(狗) 一词，很清楚是可以指星座，同时确实是指动物的一种；故在类比词的含意中，同一的名词应用于不同的事物时，其意义是部份相同，部份却不相同。」(6)

其实，多玛斯在诠释亚氏《形上学》卷四第二章及《伦理学》中都有确定：无论是同义词或异义词，其表示「同」与「异」乃根据对一物的不同关系而言，就是类比说法；其所肯定的：类比概念乃表达事物，特别指「存有」，在同一名词的应用中，有「相同而一」又有「相异而多」的说法，即「部份相同及部份不同」的意义，更好说：类比概念乃肯定「存有」不是同义的，也不是异义的，因为「存有」在形成万物时，有其「同」的一面，也有其「不同」的一面。

2. 类比的种类

类比概念既然是一物与另一物的相连关系而成立的，因此，类比概念也因物的同异区分而有不同的种类。一般来说，类比的种类分为二种：即「归属类比」(Analogy of Attribution) 与「比例类比」(Analogy of Proportionality)。然而，葛慕兰教授在研究亚里斯多德与类比的关系上，提出了：「范畴类比」(Predicamental Analogy)。(7) 今分述于下：

2.1 范畴类比

范畴一词始于亚里斯多德，因亚氏的哲学以解释范畴之殊多与统一为目标。他将基本的范畴分为两类，一为「自立体」，另一为「依附体」。自立体是「在己之有」，它是正式的存有，是第一类比者；反之，依附体则是「在他之有」。它是由于自立体的缘故而存在和统一的。这一种类比，称为「范畴类比」。(8)

2.2 比例类比

亚里斯多德在伦理学中曾说过：「悟性在心灵中，如同视觉在身体内。」(9) 这句话实在就是一句「比例类比」的话，因为比例类比乃指出「相涉事物间关系的类似」。(10)比例类比文可以分为「原义的」(Proper Proportionality) 和「非原义的」(Improper Proportionality) 两种：

2.2.1 原义的比例类比

名词所表达意义，实际上在所有类比极(11) 里出现，而彼此间无独立与依赖、原因与效果等关系，所以没有主要与次要类比极之分，如「存有」说明造物主、受造物；自立体、依附体。

2.2.2 非原义的比例类比

又称为「比喻类比」，名词所表达的意义实际上只在主要类比极埋出现，在次要里完全找不到，如微笑的草坪。(12)

2.3 归属类比

归属类比概念乃对事物互相关涉的同一点中，指出其不同的关系。(13) 这可从内在的和外在的分别说明：

2.3.1 内在的归属类比

名词所表达的意义实际上在主要与次要类比极里都会出现，但彼此间有独立与依赖、原因与效果等关系，故有主要与次要类比极之分，如「存有」说明造物主与受造物、自立体与依附体，强调彼此间的不同关系。

2.3.2 外在的归属类比

名词所表达的意义实际上只在主要类比极出现，在次要类比极里则找不到，但与主要类比极有些关系，通常是原因或效果的关系，如「健康的」，说明人体、食物、药物、皮肤的颜色。(14) 而人体乃主要的类比极(者)；食物、药物、皮肤的颜色则为次要的类比极。归属类比在此不指出次要类比极的任何内在特性，只指出它们与主要类比极之间的外在关系：因果、条件、标记等关系。

1.布鲁格编著(项退结编译)，《西洋哲学辞典》，国立编译馆印行：见「Analogy类比」36。

2.曾仰如著，《存有者的类比概念之探微》(上)　哲学与文化月刊164，第十二卷第七期，8，9。

所谓『同义词』，乃指一个名称或名词所指的主要内容。在『同一意义下』可以适合于不同的每一个别物。即不同的个别物的实质意义－－本质，就是该名词所指的主要内容。换言之，不同的个别物的实质意义－－本质，与一个名词所表达的内容是完全相同的。譬如：『人』是一个名词，其实质意义是『理性动物』，那么，『理性动物』即是此名词所指的主要内容，当它指张三、李四、王五、赵六时的意义是完全相同的，他们都是『人』－－理性动物；在此意义下，他们是完全相同的，他们都具有完全相同的人性，都是『理性动物』。『人』的名词所指的主要内容之所以能在完全相同的意义下，适合于他们的理由，是因为人藉着理智的抽象作用，把他们原有的共同点抽出，形成适合于他们的『普遍概念』。既是每一个别物的原有共同点，自然对他们也能完全相同地适合。也因此，所有真正、正式或严格的普遍概念(共相) 都是同义词，譬如『桌子』，当说明饭桌、书桌、办公桌；『花』，当说明菊花、桂花、玫瑰花；『生物』，说明植物、动物和人类；『狗』，说明狼狗、狮子狗和哈巴狗；『金属品』，说明金、银．铜、铁时。均为『同义词』。

至于『异义词』：异义词与同义词的意义恰恰相反，是另一个极端，也可以说是模棱两可的名词，它所指涉的不同对象，有完全不同的意义。换言之，同一名词有两个以上完全不同的意义，由于它所指涉的对象有完全不同的本质之故，所以也称为『同名异义词』，除了音与字体相同外，名词所指明的意义则完全不同，譬如『黄牛』这个名词，指拉车或耕田的动物，及指以高价出售入场卷或车票的不法之徒时。即是『异义词』，因为前者为非理性动物．后者则为理性动物，两者在本质上是风马牛不相及的。

3.「本质」与「存在」两个名词，因意义复杂，容易引起误解。无论如何，在论有限实体之结构原理时。用「存在」一词意指有限实体与其他有限实体的相同或统一性。相反，「本质」一词则指殊多有限实体的相异或个别性。见：葛慕兰教授著，「第五章『一』与『多』的问题」，(形上学)，先知出版社　民63年十月初版　96-97。

4.李震著，「第六章　存有的类比性」，《中外形上学比较研究》(下册)，中央文物供应社　民71年　91，102，103。

参阅St. Thomas Aquinas, (translated by John P. Rowan), Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Library of Living Catholic Thought, Vol. 1, Book IV, Lesson 1, Aristotle's text, Chapter 2, p. 125.

5.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's text Book XI, Chapter 3, p. 786. (先知出版社)

6.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's Book XI, Chapter 3, p. 786 (先知出版社)。多玛斯诠释，No. 2197, p. 788。

7.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　134。

8.同上。

9.同上，165。(Nicomachean Ethics I 1096, b 25.)

10.李震著，「第六章　存有的类比性」，《中外形上学比较研究》(下册)，中央文物供应社　民71年　94。

11.所谓「类比极」(Analogato) 乃是指类比关系的当事者，譬如「存有」概念应用于神与受造物；自立体与依附体，此四者即是「存有」的类比极。

12.葛慕兰教授著，「第五章　『一』与『多』的问题」，《形上学》，先知出版社　民63年十月初版　17，录自18页。

13.李震著，「第六章　存有的类比性」，《中外形上学比较研究》(下册)，中央文物供应社　民71年　94。

归属类比对于不同事物相涉之点指出同一性，对于涉及此点的各种关系则指出不同性；换言之，此种类比观念对于同一的相涉之点指出不同的关系。

14.葛慕兰教授著，「第五章　『一』与『多』的问题」，《形上学》，先知出版社　民63年十月初版　17，录自18页。

二．「一」与「多」的问题剖释

在宇宙间存在着万事万物，但最奥秘的一点是：在万事万物中，我们不可能找到二件事物是完全相同的，也就是说：「我」的存在是唯一的，人世间找不到一个与「我」一模一样、完全相同的「我」；尽其量，只可以找到一个「相似」的「我」。而「我」却只是万物中的「一」个，在万物中有着无数的「我」、「你」、「他」。这就是形上学所谈论的「一与多」的问题。

形上学既然是讨论「存有」的学问，而「存有」这个事实，一方面显示万物为「一」，因为它是万物所共同具有者；另一方面又显示万物为「多」，因为经验告诉我们，「存有」分成许多不同的个体而存在着。那么，万物便成为「一」，又成为「多」了，此一「一」与「多」的二律背反，是一个不可以否认的事实。如是者，我们如何解释呢？实在是形上学的基本问题，其基本目标，在于将「多」归于「一」。(15)

要解决「一」与「多」的问题，我们必须证明「多」不是虚无幻想的，而是「存有」。

亚里斯多德在解释「一」与「多」时说：「『多』谓凡已区分或可以区分的意思，『一』则意谓不可区分或未区分的意思。」(16) 当然，可不可以区分所指的是事物，更好说是一个「个体」；换言之，谈「一」与「多」必须先证明「个体」是存有的一种方式。譬如说：一个人、某一事物，其所指的是一个「个体」的存在，这「个体」是「存有」；而人、事物，其所指的不是一个「个体」，却包容了所有人的个体，所有事物的个体而为「多」，然其所指的也是「存有」。

再者，在我们的经验中，我们可以从亚里斯多德的「十范畴」去了解事物的「一」与「多」的关系；我们在经验中所看见的事事物物，如一张桌子，我们可以直接看到它的大小、形状、颜色；用手去摸，可以感到软、硬、冷、热。在分析下，我们可以说，一张桌子是「自立体」，而看见的大小形状颜色，感受到的软、硬、冷、热都是依附体。这一张桌子是一个「个体」，但其属性却有很多；而且，倘若没有「桌子」这个自立体，则其属性：大小形状等都没有义意而不存在；相反的，一个自立体没有了属性，它也是空泛的；所以，我们可以说，个体是受限定的，也是固定的，亦是有限的，不是绝对的；因此，我们可以说：「一」属于「多」，「多」属于「一」，「一」与「多」是分不开的。无怪乎亚里斯多德的形上学(哲学) 必须谈论「范畴」，以解释范畴的「多」与「一」为目标。更将自立体－－在己之有，即正式的存有比寓作第一类比者；而依附体－－在他之有，即由于自立体的缘故而存在和统一者，这种类比称为「范畴类比」(Predicamental analogy)。(17) (有些学者认为「范畴类比」是矛盾的，其原因在于内容上所表达的乃又是「一」，又是「多」，但事实上是没有矛盾的，因为「存有」概念「明晰地」(explicitly) 表达了「一」，同时「含蓄地」(inplicitly) 包括了「多」。)

由上所言，我们可以肯定，要解决「一」与「多」的问题，必须证明「个体」是存有的一种方式(上面也曾提过，这里再强调一次)。葛慕兰教授所着的《形上学》一书中，很强调这一个思想，而且有很清楚的说明，今引述于下：

「个体」(individual) 一词系指具有单一性的超越特征；也就是说个体虽与其它个体分明或殊异(即有所区分)，但内里却完整。……我们从经验方面来描述与分析个体存在的事实。

(1)自我或内在世界

内在经验，即以反省的方式来讨论自我时，其单一性与自律皆直接而显明地呈现出来。

(a)单一性(Unity)

我认识自己是单一而非殊多的实体。

我的行为分散在时空里，我心中有不同的愿望，我的意识不断地发生变化。虽然，在某程度内，自我受此分散于时空内的行为的影响，但自我却能控制这些行为，保存自己的同一性。

(b)自律(Autonomy)

即我对自己与周围的一切事物，能分辨清楚。

只要注意我的身体对于周围事物的行为，这分明性就清晰地显示出来，因为我的身体对它们的移动，有自己的生活、对周围的影响亦有反应。

此自律性，在精神活动，即思考与意愿中，努力克服由它们而来的限制时，特别明显。我的意识决定我自己的行为，并且知道在决定时，非受任何物理的强迫，或受决定动机无法抵抗的压力以及本能的冲动等，而是我自己的自由自主所致。

结论：

在内在经验里出现的「自我」，无疑地具有「个体」的特征。又，自我也可以改称为「位」。

「位」一词意指：「能够过理性生活的个体」。换言之，「位」指特殊的个体，它的单一性与自律达到理性意识。但在另一方面，自我的个别性并不完全，它也是复杂而有限的。

(c)复杂(Complexity)

如上所述，自我的复杂性似乎分散在时空内，自我包含了许多同时发生，并且屡次互相对立的殊多行为与倾向。这种现象多少破坏了人格的单一性，又由于自我不断地变化，似乎也影响了它的恒存。

(d)有限(Finiteness)

自我在与其他事物对立的时候才分明；但也因与他物对立，自我亦受周围的影响。这样看来，自我不能完全自律，而与周围有密切的关系。自我的受限在活动中表现得最为清楚。又自我的活动除了外在条件所遇到的困难而外，也受到本身的限制。

(2)「非我」或外在世界

宇宙中有许多与自我不尽相同的类比实体，例如：他人、动物、植物等。必须注意的是个体的美善愈低于人类的美善，其个别性或单一性与自律也就愈减弱，此称为「个别性降级律」。

植物的活动没有知觉，动物有知觉与欲望，但其活动是由个体所限定。至于无机体虽也是个体，但其个别性极微小，且由于它能做其他个体的成份，故确定其中那一份子是个体，并非易事。

结论：

由上述的事实可知有限实体是实在且分明的个体，即单一的实有，实际上分为殊多个体。(18)

既然我们可从上面所言的「个体」中了解「一」与「多」的内涵；其实也就是了解事物的「不变与变化」「限定与不限定」、「整全与分散」。

因此，我们本着哲学的基本目标：在于把「多」归于「一」、「分散」归于「整合」，「不限定」归于「限定」、「变化」归于「不变」，以谈论「存有」这个事实，一方面显示万物为「一」、「整合」、「限定」、「不变」，因为「存有」是万物所共同具有者；另一方面又显示万物为「多」、「分散」、「不限定」、「变化」，因为经验告诉我们，「存有」分成许多不同的个体而存在着。(19)

然而，「存有」的「相同」与「相异」所容的「一」与「多」等概念，都是形上学的「类比概念」，故我们在下一节中详细地说明「存有」是「一－－同」又是「多－－异」的类比概念说明之。

15.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月134。

16.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's Book X, Chapter 3 : 1054a, p. 786. (先知出版社)

17.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　134。

18.葛慕兰著，「第五章　「一」与「多」的问题」，《形上学》，先知出版社　民63年　88-91。

19.参阅葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　134。

三．「存有」是「一－－同」又是「多－－异」的类比概念说明

我们曾说过：「存有」既非多义，亦非一义的，于是我们肯定它乃是「类比的」。而一般说来，「类比」一词意指：乃将不同但相似的实在物体，予以统一，即将「多」归于「一」。按照亚里斯多德和多玛斯的认为，实在物体是由「质料」与「形式」两个内在原理，互相结合而成的。但在宇宙间，实在物体很多，而且不尽相同，那么如何才具有相同性呢？这就是说：「存有」与「存有」之间如何表明其「相同性」与「相异性」？

在多玛斯所着的《论自然原理》一书中(De Principiis Naturae 1253-1255)，将宇宙万有的相同性分成不同的层次，此乃从万有的相异性中，给予统一起来：

(1)「个体」，这是数目上的统一；例如孔子，他是一个人；孟子，他也是一个人……。

(2)「种」的统一，亦即不同的个体同属于一「种」；例如孔子、孟子、荀子，这几个不同的个体同属于「人」这一「种」。

(3)「类」的统一，亦即不同「种」的个体同属于一「类」；例如墨子(他是一个人)，小花(牠是一只猫)，小白(牠是一条狗)，这三个不同「种」的个体，皆属于「动物」这一「类」。

(4)「类比」的统一，此即不同「类」的事物，相互之间具有相同性。例如「自立体」与「分量」，它们虽分属于不同的范畴(亦即不同的「类」)，但相互之间仍有「存有」这相同性，由此可见，「存有」一词不是一义的，也不是多义的，而是类比的。(20)

其实，多玛斯所言的统一乃是「存有」的类比概念的相同，这都是从亚里斯多德的形上学引用而加以说明的，如：

(1)内在原理的相同性与相异性，说明万物的原因与原理，一方面不相同，另一方面，以类比的方式说却都相同。(21)

(2)统一件(相同性) 为：有的因做为数目上之单位而统一，有的因同属于一种或一类而统一，有的因类比而统一。(22)

(3)存有的意义是殊多的，但由于它们与基本的意义－－即自立体－－关系密切，故具有统一性。(23) 这类比说的主要根源乃来自亚里斯多德之肯定形上学的对象具有统一性。

然而，多玛斯在《论存有与本质》(On Being and Essence) 一书中提出「存有」的范畴类比，将依附体和自立体联合起来－－自立体是基本的存有，因为它在本体论上是独立的；反之，依附体则仅是相对的存有，因为它完全倾向自立体，必须靠着自立体而存在；还有，自立体是依附体存在的原因，因为自立体是主要的类比极，乃是层次高且真实的存有，不单是依附体的「主体」，更是具备一切作为依附体所要分享的美善；故，在范畴类比的范围里，存有之层次的统一，是以「分享」的关系为基础。

层次的统一力在元形元质上立言的，即从现实与潜能结合而成，凡元形－－现实高的，其层次便高，所有的存有都包含在这些层次里，自纯粹的现实以下，到形质结合成的存有，皆在这层次里；而至纯粹的现实，本质即是存有本身，其存有便为单纯，乃层次中最高者－－这便是「神」的存有。(24) 而「神」的存有与「万有」的存有亦是一个类比关系，我们如何调和两者之相同(统一) 和相异呢？这实在必须从「超越」的关系类比上去谈，其内容涉及「创造」与「受造」，即万有是神所创造的，故能「分享」神的美，与神「相似」(但「神」不相似人)，并「隶属」于神。(25) 我们在本文中不加以讨论和说明。

话说回来，范畴类比乃由于依附体与自立体之间的关系而统一的，故「存有」的类比不是「一义」或「异义」的，而是用两种甚为相似、而又互相补充的方式表示出来的：自立体与依附体皆为存有，但自立体是首要的，且是本性所要求的存有；依附体则是次要的，由「分享」所致的存有。

无怪乎有人如此形容：「类比乃哲学的救恩。」因为「存有」的概念实在很奥妙，给予人的思考很大的挑战，也是人反省的刺激，以及是追根究底的理知的诱惑。(26) 所以，历代的哲学家对「存有」的探索也层出不穷，而以「类比」概念来表达是最清楚的。

20.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　138-139。

21.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's text Book V, Chapter 4, 5, 1070, a31. (先知出版社)

22.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's text Book V, Chapter 6, 1016, b31-1017, a2 ; Chapter 9, 1018, a13. (先知出版社)

23.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's text Book IV, Chapter 2, 1003, a33-b10 (先知出版社)。可参阅葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　136-137。

24.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　141-142。

25.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　143-152。

26.G.B. Phelan, St. Thomas and Analogy (Milwaukee : Marquette University 1943 Second printing).

结论

为解决「存有」的「一与多」之问题，我们提出了类比说，特别将亚里斯多德的形上学思想中的类比概念加以说明，也将多玛斯所言的类比说作为亚氏思想的补充描述出来，使我们了解到「存有」的类比概念实在是一种实体事物的统一；而这个统一的功能，若要发展下去，必然是到达「神」的存有问题上，类比在这问题上也必然显得更重要，正如李震教授在《中外形上学比较研究》一书的下册中说：

「存有」的类比性使万有可以互相沟通，万有在「存有」的基础上不再互不相干。有限存有与无限存有、物质存有与精神存有，天、人和自然皆可融通，合为一体。另一方面，万有又可维持各自的本性，使同中有异，异中有同，共同勾画出一个多彩多姿的世界或景象。(27)

同样的，在「绪言」中，我们曾提过中国哲学中的「道」和「器」都是类比性的概念，倘若能将这思想发挥研究，必定能有精采的内涵意义和价值，因为中国哲学中，尤以儒道思想，都是从人的生命作一超升的路向，以打通人与天与道的通路，即要由有限到无限的终极，达至「天人合一」、「道通为一」的境界，而类比的方式是最合宜有理的，也适合人性的要求，以及人反思的了解。

　

附录

王秀谷着，《多玛斯思想中的「一」及其他》　辅仁大学神学论集22，471-482。

多玛斯应用了亚里斯多德的「元形－－元质」的思想来讲解奥斯定的「灵魂－－肉身」间的关系。其目的在于解释「存有」之「一与多」的问题，特别是「人的统一性」问题，故多玛斯认为：一如在「元形元质学说」(Hylomorphism) 中，每「一」有形之物，均应由「元形－－元质」的形上原理来领悟它是此「一」有形之物，同样人之为人，因人有「元形－－元质」关系的灵魂和肉身。多玛斯在奥斯定思想上所增益的，不是灵肉之「别」，而是灵肉之「合」，即是「灵魂肉身」共成「一」人，其功能也是「整个人」的功能。多玛斯甚至说：「灵魂没有功能，而是『人』透过灵魂才有其功能」(anima non operator, sed home operatur per animam-Comm. X, Ethics., lectio 6)

为更进一步欣赏多玛斯的「人之统一性」，我们可以将它放进多玛斯的整个「一的理论」中来看。原来，天下皆「一」也，世间的形形色色无不是「一」。这些「一」来自何方？多玛斯说：正像天主是太一，他创造了世间的小一(sicut Deus est unus, ita et unum produxit-De potentia, Q. 3, art 16 ad 1)。「一」是宇内万品来自天主的痕迹，尽管世物之「一」都是「合成」之一，都不是纯然之「一」－－因为只有天主才是纯然的太一。此「太一」造生了万物，很自然地万物便带有太一的痕迹。万物在「一」方面相似天主，一则因为每一物都是「一」；二则因为一切受造物又有「秩序之一」(unitas ordinis)；三则因为受造物在「一」的工夫上可以模仿，接近天主。故我们也可说「一」是「存有特征」之首。(至于「存有的其他特征」－－「真、善」皆出于「一」之肯定，故必返于「太一」－－「人之真」是「具体人的可认知的一面；而「人之善」是「具体人的可爱的一面」。在多玛斯思想中「一、真、善」的「一」，是三者中最基本的。)

多玛斯「一」的看法极为辽阔：由太一开始，整个宇宙之内莫非「一」，我们仅就「人」之「一体」而稍予发挥。现在，我们不谈「夫妇之一」、「家庭之一」、「民族之一」、「人类之一」，仅稍谈一谈「宇宙之一」。前曾谈过「太一创造出许多小一」，而今可说「这许多小一相合而成大一」。古人说：「至大无外，谓：大一……天地一体也」(庄子天下篇)；这里的「大一」，正好可与多玛斯用的UNIVERSUM相参照，而「天地一体」也正好与多玛斯视「宇宙」为一有秩序而又有相互关联的一体相参照。

27.李震著，「类比观念的功用」，《中外形上学比较研究》(下册)，中央文物供应社　民71年　95。

作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio

有了信仰，便防碍哲学吗？用了哲学，便毁掉神学吗？

本文尝试简单回答这两个问题。首先，论述为何有人称哲学是信仰的绊脚石；第二，论述哲学与信仰的和谐；第三，哲学可为神学服务；第四，哲学于神学的作用。

人不断在寻找，总想将呈现出来的问题，一一解答，最后能把握和活出真实的人生意义，这个过程，就像回应一个召唤一般。从基督信徒的角度看，那召唤我们的就是天主。祂创造了我们，给予生命，从没有离开过我们的生活，而人与生俱来，就从心底里，不断要寻找祂，并在其历史和文化中，感受到祂的临在。

当人察觉到天主就在历史中，尤其透过基督事件，显示自己，人就把自己的理智和意志完全交给天主，接纳祂启示的真理，即祂为委身和依附的对象，并全人向祂表示自己的同意，这就是信仰。

活出信仰，有不同的方式和层面，例如：参加礼仪庆典(弥撒)，积极传福音，善度良好的道德生活，以基督的爱心参与社会建设等。礼仪，福传、道德、爱心就像信仰的外衣，人们看见这外衣，就会看出这是信徒。当然，我们假设或希望，穿这件外衣的人都是诚于中，形于外。

另一方面，人活在此世，亦会按其理性，在自己生活中，了解世界，寻找人生的答案，并按自己所确定的活出来。我们暂且不谈这些答案是否真确、融通、完整、严谨、科学，而笼统地称按此努力得出来的答案为哲学。信仰和哲学都同样地提供人生观，不过，前者源于启示，后者依靠理性。事实上，信仰和哲学提供的人生观有时会很不同。

这里不期然会冒起一些问题：假如信仰是真的，难道哲学就是假的吗？两者是必然彼此对立的吗？假如是不的话，哲学作为严谨的学问对信仰可有益处？何种益虚？

一．哲学是信仰的绊脚石

「你们要小心，免得有人以哲学，以虚伪的妄言，按照人的传授，依据世俗的原理，而不是依据基督，把你们勾引去了。」(哥2：8) 有些人藉保禄这番话来劝人慎防哲学的误导，因为哲学是异端之根源。一些教父，如戴先(Tatian) 和戴都良(Tertullian) 亦引用此言严厉抨击哲学，督促教友，为保全基督教导的纯美，绝不该受哲学的沾染。

「属血气的人，不能领受天主圣神的事」(格前2：14) 有些人认为哲学全赖人的理性，而人在罪的污染下，理性本身也是败坏的。故此，哲学只会阻碍信仰。此外，哲学使人骄傲，因为人会企图以自己的思维取代圣经，甚至以作工取代恩宠。自宗教改革后，不少新教徒从这神学角度去否定哲学的重要性。

有信仰的人只该传达其所接受的真理，为基督徒来说，就是传福音。「我若不传福音，我就有祸了。」(格前9：16)「我没有用高超的言论或智慧，给你们宣讲……我曾决定，在你们中不知道别的，只知道耶稣基督，这被钉在十字架上的耶稣基督。」(格前2：1－2) 因此，为有些人，传基督就不该讲人的智慧，哲学是信仰的绊脚石。

到了所谓现代，笛卡儿为建立哲学体系的必然性，对任何知识全面疑惑，将信仰的真理搁置一旁。休谟则将知识只规范在感官经验中，任何超出此经验的，都不得而知。康德声称纯粹理性不可知悉物自身，只可将宗教作为现象研究，但不能对神自身作理性的肯定，只有透过信仰，人才可接受神。哲学不能达到任何有关神的真理。这理论不知不觉地成为现代哲学的基本预设。

在这启蒙运动下，冒起很多近代哲学的研究，将信仰和理性对立起来，就好像信仰是理性的坟墓。若要运用理性，非要假装没有信仰不可。总之，搁置信仰，理性才可得到释放。这样，所谓「基督徒哲学」为现代的「唯理主义者」简直荒谬绝伦。

拒绝信仰渗入哲学，免得哲学受损，这种戒心以不同的方式一直伸延到近代。例如，海德格认为哲学本身的功能就是提问，若有人自以为已有答案，又如何真实地提问，为此，基督徒哲学是一个悖理。雅士培宣称谁有先存的答案，在哲学上必注定失败，因为哲学是向超越开放的进程，任何理念上固有的绝对肯定必会阻滞此进程。

二．哲学与信仰的和谐

究竟哲学和信仰是否势不两立？于此问题，硬要塞一个答案，很容易会擦出斗咀的精灵，但平心反省，也许会擦出妙悟的光亮。本文无意省略这问题的复杂性，其企图以有限的篇幅作些基本的肯定。

首先，保禄说过：「我们在成全人中，也讲智慧」(格前2：6)，成全的人是指属神的人，已归主的人。智慧是指天主奥秘的智慧，就是基督。为此，教父中也有人称基督徒的教义为真正的哲学，犹思定(Justin) 便是一例，因为他认为这教义正好答覆所有人最基本的问题。哲学家的要务是对现世、来生、神和人的问题提出答案，其次该按真道生活和见证。基督就是真道，就此而论，基督徒是哲学家，其教义是真正的哲学。也有教父把信仰看成基督徒的慧境(Christian gnosis)。亚力山大的克莱孟(Clement) 是其中一个，他认为保禄在哥2：8所述的，仅指错误的哲学(如：享乐主义、物质主义) 而言，故不能一概而论地排斥哲学。相反，为使人接受宗徒的宣讲，该将之套以正确的哲学(如：柏拉图的思想)，因为天主给犹太人法律，外邦人哲学，两者都为助人接受基督。

第二，人的理性虽受罪的败坏，但不至连天主的声音也听不到。创世纪在描写人犯罪后，上主天主呼唤他，「你在那里？」(创3：9)。当然。信仰与哲学之间的和谐最终建基于神与人的关系。天主给人自由可辨别祂的召唤，能认出那召唤是指向神的慈爱生命，自由是神让人作回应的选择，而回应是信仰的行动。就此而论，信仰既是人性行为又是神的恩宠，它和人的自然理性互不对立。

第三、哲学可成为信仰的前导。信仰主要是因福音和恩宠而产生。基督要门徒往普天下传福音，是因为福音可使人信耶稣，而信耶稣可得永生。这表示信仰本身亦须有普遍为人接受的特性。这信仰的普及性，按多玛斯的意见，是指人共通的理性。信仰的内容至少不与理性发生矛盾，为众人是可接受的。初接触信仰的人，难以即时接受全部圣经，故向初学基督道理的人，可先诉诸信仰的普及性，亦即人共通的理性。于此而言，哲学可作信仰的前导，即借助哲学的探索，肯定人性是向无限的超越开放，说明理性不足悟透超性的真理，指出基督教义的可信性，和指向信仰的领域。

第四，有了信仰，并不损害理性。换言之，即使将信仰看成答案，仍不会使基督徒做假哲学。这由于信仰提供答案，哲学寻找问题。有了答案，不等于没有问题。人在生活上碰到的问题如此之多，从信仰中悟出的答案，未必能对号入座。基督徒无法从信仰找到答案，除非先弄清楚问题是甚么。哲学按其提问的本质，正好助人把握问题实在的症结，这样，基督徒才容易从圣传和圣经的「信仰宝库」中，寻找合宜的答案。

第五、信仰可提供哲学一些意念，而不损害哲学的独立性，因为哲学本身不可能没有任何先存意念而得以启动，至少哲学家要选择信任或不信任自己的理性，休谟和康德等人选择的知识论是反对形上学的，故无从以理性对神作任何肯定，可是这种选择既非唯一，亦欠说服力。此外，还有另一个事实，不论中外古今，哲学之所以兴盛，乃因宗教信仰与理性不断进行交谈，是批判而有建设的交谈。就人类思想发展而论，宗教信仰和哲学不得不讨论对方和自身关系的问题，两者虽有时互相排斥，但仍可彼此丰富。

三．哲学可为神学服务

上文提过，哲学既不限信仰对立，那么哲学是否有助信徒对自己的信仰仲有系统的反省？

有人认为，神学已有严谨的治学方法去研究启示，再者，他们认为哲学企图以人的思维取代天主的启示，这只会使神学败坏。因此，神学为了维护自己本质的纯美而须排斥哲学。

的确，我们承认，神、哲学各有本身的方法，但不同意所有哲学都不能帮助神学。这里我们要注意，他们所排斥的是「以人的思维取代天主的启示」的哲学，这种「取代」意味人在信仰的主动性，而非天主的主动性，这固然不对，但他们并非针对所有的哲学。其实，问题的重心该是，何种哲学才可为神学服务？

首先是那肯定人推理能力的哲学，因为神学需要推理。我们须解释神学的基本推理。神学是研究启示的学问，它的大前提是对天主的信赖，祂确保其自我启示的真确性，当这学问专注某个课题。以启示的内容为起点，并引申其义，只要推理没有出错，神学结论的真确性便可奠基于启示的真确性。

此外，既然天主按其肖象造了人，使人真有理性，又按人的理解程度而降生，启示自己，那么只要神学有正确推理，其结论应是真实无妄的，除非人在推理时出错，或天主给人理性根本是为骗人的。神学的冒升，诚如多玛斯所言，是因为天主赐人信仰和理性，让人能进入天主自我的认识中，犹如天主给犹太法律，外邦人哲学，为帮助他们接受基督。即使人可因为疏懒而在推理上出错，但并不表示理性一无是处，正由于理性是天主所赐，本身是可信靠的。为此，就人的理性，神学需要那些寻找正确推理的哲学。

由于神学不是纯粹象征性的谈论，与事实无关。神学可贵之处，在于能说出与事实相符的真理，那么其谈论必须指涉神本身的存有。假如耶稣关乎三一之神的宣讲不是空谈，那么为了解其内容，自然就需要形上学的协助。在最初几个世纪，基督二性结合于一位和天主三位一体的道理，已在圣经之外，寻找哲学语言的辅助。事实上，神、哲学的共同点是对真理的敬爱，就此而言，两者不必背道而驰。从神学观点而否定哲学功能的人，与其说排除哲学本身，毋宁说企图摈弃形上学或本体论(即谈论所有存在物本身的学问)，或拒绝以形上学论天主。这里我们要声明，形上学不是全能的，不足以表达天主整全的奥迹，但也不至一无是处，连部分的真理也得不到。假如神学要助人了解天主存在的方式，便须接受肯定形上学的哲学。

四．哲学于神学的作用

首先，让我们肯定一下神学的作用。神学诞生于信仰，并在信仰中发展，为信仰而服务。信仰不排除哲学，只有与哲学合作，神学才可成为真正的学问。这说法有几个含义。

第一，人以信仰接受天主的启示，信仰是人生答案，但这答案并不取消问题；哲学使问题更尖锐，使推理更准确；神学使信仰更贴合人生。

第二，信仰论及天主的存有；哲学确立人意识对存有的开放，这开放拥有彻底批判理性自身的价值，洞悉理性的局限，对天主认知的不足；神学则进入信仰的领域，让信仰光照理性，探求天主自我启示的意义。

第三，传福音预设信仰的普及性，此特性超越众多宗教和文化的表象，而诉诸人共通的理性；哲学可确立圣言的聆听者有起码的理性，足以辨别启示的可信性；神学则开发启示的内容，藉以加深信仰。

换言之，假如神学是信仰追求明瞭(fides quaerens intellectum)，那末，哲学可助神学为信仰追求文化、真理和智慧(fides quaerens culturam, veritatem, sapientiam)。

1. 追求文化

就如以色列民离开埃及获得解放时，按梅瑟吩咐，同埃及人要求金银和衣服，因为这是他们应得的；同样，基督徒为表达那解放性的真理，亦大胆地取用教外人的文化和哲学，因为凡能表达真理的，就是道的种子(logoi spermatikoi)。原应属于成为人身的道－－基督真理。教父们很有智慧地采用了希腊的哲学来说明基督徒的信仰，也因此以信仰而丰富了希腊哲学的内涵。

哲学的培育在于领导学员(不论平信徒或将来成为神父的修生)，从经验开始，对现象进行观察、反省和推理，根据万古常新的哲学真理，对人、对宇宙和对天主，获得一个有根据而又和谐的认识。同时亦应熟习当代的哲学潮流，尤其那些在其本国影响较大者，认识现代科学的进步，建立与现代人交往的能力。

2. 追求真理

早期基督徒的艺术有很好的提示。在第三世纪，基督徒石棺上，常刻有三个角色：牧者、祈祷者和爱智者(哲人)。这三个角色都与基督有关，而且对死亡提出的问题，能给予答案。牧者使人记起圣咏23篇，「上主是我的牧者……纵使经过死荫的幽谷，我也一无惧怕。」祈祷者指出人所渴求的最高境界，是在祈祷中达到。爱智者本来代表那四处宣讲智慧的人，在面对死亡的事实，提出生命的意义，而基督作为真理，就是最完美的爱智者，因为祂的答案并非推理出来，而是祂本人。祂就是复活和生命。

在天主教神学院中，智能培育不可脱离人格、灵修、牧民的幅度，其关键在于读哲学的阶段。哲学的重要性不容低估，它一方面保证客观真理的确切性，另一方面指出启示真理的可信性，真理是人将自己完全奉献给基督和教会的基础。了解事情不算太难，但若不能保证真理的确切性，或指出启示的可信性，就难于作彻底的奉献。哲学的探索与其说确定真理，倒不如说在于加强对真理的敬和爱，使人领悟真理非人所创造或主宰，而是天主赐给人的礼物。

由于目前的文化对宗教冷漠，人强调主观的判准，欠缺对客观理性的信任，高科技又带来新的困惑，那么哲学的训练，应注意人基本的需要，即分享天主理性的光辉，寻求智慧，渐渐向天主和人更开放。这要强调人对心灵与真理之间关系的基本觉醒，藉此，启发学员严格地探索真理，承认人的限度，关注哲学与生活之间的和谐，以及激发学员进入问题中，务使将来读神学时，在信德的光照下，能以救赎奥迹构思符合人生的答案。

3. 追求智慧

敬爱真理的人，容易活出爱智者的气质。他们在忧患意识启迪中，澈悟生命之可贵，在内心良知督导下，常以悲天悯人之情行事，在动心忍性考验里，孕育豁达的风骨。这样，智慧油然而生，使人以纯然真我之心深深融入天地宇宙的幽邃奥秘中，与万物生机相通，将其璀灿的生命景象投射到实际人生中。追求真、善、美的人自然对人生慧境心仪。

在第十二世纪，西方的经院神学开始强调理性、逻辑的运用，当时的寺院(隐修院) 神学为平衡过分的理性幅度，仍坚持虔敬的心性，基本上是指以祈祷的态度研读圣经(Lectio Divina)，目的主要不是求知识，而是求取与降生圣言的造访(Visit from above)，与祂亲密相聚的神契经验(mystical experience)。这一点对今日从事神学工作者来说，不容忽视。

奥思定的传统也是为了追求智慧，「我相信为了解，我了解为相信」，「我希望用理性去看我所相信的，所辩论过的和所辛苦耕耘过的。」(1)。

中世纪的寺院神学，多次引用圣咏的话：「敬畏上主是智慧的开端」(initium sapientiae timor Domini咏110：10) 假如神学工作者以天主为大前提而推理的，那末，他(她) 必须在主前满怀敬畏。这只是智慧的开端，但智慧逐渐在爱内增长。最后，圆满的爱会驱除怕惧(若一4：18)。

安瑟莫认为由于爱(affectio)，人才从信仰追求了解。同样伯纳认为，「教使人博学，爱令人生智。」(2) 确实，哲学的外文字源是解作爱智(philosophia)。智慧一向被视为德行，无非是强调一种以爱为主导的灵修生活。

伯纳又说：「那里有爱，就没有辛劳，却令人回味不已。也许智慧(sapientia) 一词源于滋味(sapor)，正因为智慧加于德行，犹如在无味或苦涩的东西上加入调味品一般，使之美味非常。若将智慧定义为好事的滋味，亦无可厚非。」(3) 辛劳是指做学问的过程，但有爱的陪伴，就有滋味(智慧) 了。

做学问尽管很重要，但追求智慧更重要。卢柏说：「我并不遣责做学问的工作(七艺)……但那些不用学问来追求智慧果实的人，显然有罪，因为天主将研究学艺的功夫赐给我们，正是要我们在认知中拥有天主，和将荣耀归于祂。」(4)

为此，文德说：「

千万不要这样想：

只求阅读，不求热诚，

只求推敲，不求灵性悦乐，

只求工作，不求虔敬，

只求知识，不求爱德，

只求了解，不求谦逊，

只求钻研，不求天主恩宠，

只求认识自我，不求天主倾注的智慧。」(5)

追求智慧的人，必会寻找与耶稣亲密的时刻，就像那位被选的宗徒，在最后晚餐时，将自己的头靠着主的胸膛，在那里拥有一切的洞悉和智慧的宝库。主说：「玛利亚选择了更好的一分，是不能从她夺去的。」(路10：42) 基本上，神学中的哲学幅度，也是为打好智慧灵修的基础。

作为本文结论，我们可说：有了信仰，并不防碍哲学。甚至会丰富哲学的内涵。用了哲学，绝不毁掉神学，反而助长神学的智慧。不过，这一切该以爱为起点，以爱为终点，如保禄说：「在爱中，追求真理。」(弗4：25)

　

1. "Credo ut intelligarn, intelligo lit credam". Augustine, Sermones 43, 7, 9.

"Desideravi intellectu videre quod credidi, et multum disputavi et laboravi", De Trinitale XV 28.

2. "Instructio doctos reddit, affectio sapientes". Bernard of Clairvaux Sermones super Cantica Canticorum 23:14)

3. "Ubi autem amor est, labor non est, sed sapor. Forte sapientia a sapore denominatur, quod virtuti accedens, quoddam veluti condimentum, sapidam reddat, quae per se insulsa quodam modo et aspera sentiebatur. Nec duxerim reprehendendum, si quis sapientiam saporem boni definiat". (Ibidem 85:8)

4. "Non ergo studia condemnat (...) sed hoc in eis culpat, quod non quaesierunt ex eis sapientiae fructum, propter quern artes istae a Deo data sunt, id est in notitia habere Deum et glorificare sicut Deum". Rupert of Deutz, De operibus Spiritus Sancti, 6:6.

5. S. Bonaventura, Itinerarium mentis in Deum, Prol. 4

参考书目

1. 罗光，《士林哲学．理论篇》，台北　学生书局　1988。

2. 曾仰如，《十大哲学问题之探微》，台北　辅大　1991。

3. 李震，《基本哲学探讨》，台北　辅大(二版)　1996。

4. 李震，《中外形上学比较研究》，台北　中华文化复兴运动推行委员会　中央文物供应社　1989。

5. 邬昆如，《哲学概论》，台北　五南图书出版有限公司(第四版)　1992。

6. 尹大贻，《基督教哲学》，四川人民出版　1987。

7. Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis (6 January 1970).

8. Idem, The Theological Formation of Future Priests (22 February 1976).

9. John Paul II, Pastores dabo vobis Apostolic Exhortation (Vatican 1992).

10. Maurice Nedoncelle, Existe-t-il une philosophic Chretienne? (Paris : Artheme Foyard 1956).

11. Hans Urs von Balthasar, On the task of Catholic philosophy in our time, in Communio 20 (Spring 1993) 147-187.

12. Joseph Ratzinger, Faith, philosophy and theology, in Communio 12 (Fall 1985)351-361.

13. Mark D. Jordan, The terms of the debate over "Christian philosophy", in Communio 12 (Fall 1985) 293-311.

14. Giovanni B Mondin, Relazione tra filosofia e teologia, in Seminarium 29 (1989) 26-36.

15. Rino Fisichella, Oportet philosophari in theologia. Delineazione di un sentiero per una valutazione del rapporto tra teologia e filosofia, in Gregorianum 76, 2 (1955) 221-262.

by T.McIntyre S.J.

THE JUBILEE YEAR AGAINST ITS OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND

The Holy Years

a. The sabbatical year

Yahweh spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai and said: 'Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When you enter the country which I am giving you, the land must keep a Sabbath's rest for Yahweh. For six years you will sow your field, for six years you will prune your vineyard and gather its produce. But in the seventh year the land will have a sabbatical rest, a Sabbath for Yahweh. You will neither sow your field, nor prune your vineyard nor reap grain which has grown of its own accord, nor gather the grapes from your untrimmed vine. It will be a year of rest for the land. But what the land produces in its Sabbath will serve to feed you, your slave, male and female, your employee and your guest residing with you; for your cattle too. and the wild animals of your country, whatever it produces will serve as food. ' (Leviticus 25:1-7)

b. The year of jubilee

You will count seven weeks of years -- seven times seven years, that is to say a period of seven weeks of years, forty-nine years. And on the tenth day of the seventh month you will sound the trumpet-call; on the Day of Expiation you will sound the trumpet throughout the land. You will declare this fiftieth year to be sacred and proclaim the liberation of all the country's inhabitants. You will keep this as a jubilee: each of you will return to his ancestral property, each to his own clan. This fiftieth year will be a jubilee year for you; in it you will not sow, you will not harvest the grain that has come up on its own or in it gather grapes from your untrimmed vine. The jubilee will be a holy thing for you; during it you will eat whatever the fields produce. (Leviticus 25:8-12)

Introduction

I suggest that you first read the whole of chapter 25 of the Book of Leviticus. However, enough of the chapter has been quoted above to give the feel for the great liberation intended by this piece of legislation. Every 7th year in the Promised Land is to be a sabbatical year - a year of rest for the land - in which the land will lie fallow and will not be worked by human hands. The 7th sabbatical year, i.e. every 49th year, is to be a very special sabbatical year. Moses is to sound the trumpet throughout the land of Israel, declare this 49th/50th year to be sacred, proclaim the liberation of all Israelites: "each of you is to return to his ancestral property, each to his own clan". The beginning of the Jubilee year then was to be a period of great rejoicing. Leviticus gives the impression of a great home-coming celebration.

Reading the passage just like that and at the same time keeping in mind verses one and two, we might furrow our brows trying to picture the whole situation. Yahweh is speaking to Moses in the third month after the Israelites' great liberation from Egypt. Moses is on Mount Sinai, which is a long way from the Promised Land. The Israelites, camped at the foot of the mountain, have yet to break camp and set out on the long journey, murmur against Yahweh and Moses many times on the way and as a result spend 40 years in the desert - as is described in the Book of Numbers. Furthermore the conquest of the promised land, as described in the Book of Joshua, has not yet taken place. Why then should there be this great rejoicing in the 49th/50th year after entry into the land? And what is this talk of liberation and of each one re- turning to his own inheritance and his own clan? Even Moses would have been perplexed.

Later in chapter 25 there is mention of buying and selling land "among yourselves" [v.l4], saying it is not to be sold outright [v.23]. Next there is mention of an Israelite being reduced to poverty [vv.25, 35, 39], and a question of loans without interest and even of a man having to sell himself [v.39]. All these things happen among Israelites, but in v.47 there is the possibility of an Israelite selling himself to a person who is not an Israelite. These references show that, in fact, the chapter is closely connected with the economic life and the structure of a society based on a land economy.

This suggests that a long story has to be told if we are to grasp the full import of chapter 25 of the Book of Leviticus and the kind of liberation the Jubilee Year was meant to bring.

God, A People and A Land

The story of the Old Testament is a story of how God, under the name Yahweh, chose an insignificant people, the descendants of Abraham, to be his own people and promised them a land. The Book of Exodus opens with this people of God's predilection as slaves in the land of Egypt. God called Moses to lead this people out of Egypt, through the Reed Sea and out into the desert. In the third month after leaving Egypt they arrived at the foot of Mount Sinai. There God made a covenant with them: Yahweh would be their God and they would be God's people. It was here at the foot of this mountain that the Israelites became a people. Up to this they had been slaves of the Pharaoh of Egypt, now they were God's own people, and the living God would guide and teach them.

God could not be seen but worked through a chosen representative, Moses. God spoke to Moses and Moses spoke to the people. It was on Mount Sinai that God gave to Moses the Ten Commandments, the basic law by which the people were to live. This law made known the demands of the liberating God on the Israelites and sketched in broad outline the structure of their society, which should be liberating, too. The people are to be assimilated to God and not God to the people.

To show that the law came from God, the Bible tells us that it was written on two tablets of stone, "inscribed by the finger of God" [Exod 31:18]. This law is to be found in two books of the Bible, the first version in the book of Exodus [20:1-17], and the second in the book of Deuteronomy [5:6-21].

The Ten Commandments

The first two commandments spell out clearly that Yahweh is their God, the one who brought them out of Egypt. They must never forget that primitive experience and the God who brought them into being. They must give themselves wholly to God, the hidden God who spoke out of fire and smoke. Neither must they dull the primitive experience by making images of God as other people had of their gods. Neither could they try to use God's name to obtain an advantage for themselves. They were consecrated to God alone and so were a Holy People, separated from all other peoples [Exod 20:1-7].

The third commandment, concerning the Sabbath day, had similarly far reaching implications. Every seventh day was a 'holy' day. It was a tithe from the time allotted them by God. It was a day of rest not only for the heads of the clans but also for their sons and daughters, for men or women servants, for their animals and the alien living among them [Exod 20:8-11]. The Book of Deuteronomy expands this, but drops the motive of God resting on the seventh day, and adds another: "Remember that you were once a slave in Egypt, and that Yahweh your God has commanded you to keep the Sabbath day". Even without this addition in Deuteronomy the promulgation of the Sabbath institution, which belongs to the basic law, brought liberation into the daily lives of all the people. Truly, Yahweh is a liberating God. We may note that about 30 years ago i.e. 3,000 years after Moses, the employers of Hong Kong could not afford to give their workers one day's rest in seven.

The other commandments can be noted in passing. They protect the life, good name and property of individuals, and the well being of the family.

Not much reflection is required to see that the Ten Commandments are not irrelevant to the Year of Jubilee. The law codes found in the Pentateuch can be said to be expansions of the Ten Commandments. These law codes are: the Code of the Covenant [Exod 20:22-23:19]; the Holiness Code [Lev chapters 17-26], and Deuteronomy [Deut chapters 12-26]. Each of these codes works out in a certain amount of detail how the Israelites were to live out their lives according to the Ten Commandments in the changed circumstances in which they found themselves. The Jubilee Law comes towards the end of the Holiness Code [Chapter 25 and 27:17-21]; the only other mention of Jubilee is in Num 36:4 and Ez 46:17.

Entry into the Promised Land

The Book of Joshua deals with the entry of the people of Israel into the Promised Land. Some of the tribes [Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh] were already settled on the far side of the Jordan, but all the tribes were to take part in the conquest of the land given to them by God.

When the time came for the remaining tribes to receive their inheritance, Joshua sent men to survey the country. "The men left, went all over the country and surveyed it by towns, in seven sections, writing down their findings in a book, and then went back to Joshua in the camp at Shiloh. Joshua cast lots for them in Yahweh's presence at Shiloh, and there Joshua divided the country between the Israelites, share by share" [Josh 18:9-10]. This is a very short summary of the apportioning of the Promised Land and we can take it for granted that it was much more complicated than that. However, what comes across is that Yahweh had sovereign dominion over all the land and so assigned to the tribe, the clan and the family the land they possessed. This is put very simply in Lev 25:23 -- "the land is mine". The casting of lots was simply a way of making known what Yahweh had already decided.

The Land: Necessary for a Family's 'Shalom'

Probably some of the land was held in common for pasturage and a portion of land suitable for growing crops was assigned to each family. For many generations the ideal in Israel was each man taking his rest under his own vine and fig tree with no one to trouble him [1 Kgs 5:5; Mic 4:4; Zech 3:10]. This plot of land was probably passed on to the eldest son and preserved in the family. If a property owner died without any sons to succeed him the land passed on to his daughters if they married within the tribe [Num 27:7-8]. The law which bound a man to marry his widowed and childless sister-in-law, the Law of Levirate, had the purpose of providing heirs and the continued possession of the land by the family [Deut 25:5-10]. If an Israelite fell into poverty and had to sell his inheritance, his nearest male relative [go'el] had the right to acquire it [Lev 25:25, 47-49]. All these laws had the purpose of preserving intact the family inheritance which was necessary for the family's 'shalom'.

The story of Naboth's vineyard is an indication of how highly the landowner valued his property. "Naboth of Jesreel had a vineyard close by the palace of Ahab, king of Samaria. Ahab said to Naboth, 'Give me your vineyard garden, since it adjoins my palace; I will give you a better vineyard for it, or if you prefer, I will give you its value in money.' Naboth, however, said to Ahab, 'Yahweh forbid that I should give you my ancestral heritage'" [I Kings 21:1-3]. Naboth paid for his stubbornness with his life.

In Psalm 16 the faithful man says that it is Yahweh who is his in-heritance. This also shows the place that the inheritance had in the hearts of the people [Ps 16:5-6], for a man's inheritance was his most prized possession.

The March of Time

This section and those immediately following give a bird's eye view of about eight hundred years of Israel's history. Its purpose is to show the continued necessity of updating the applications of the basic law given by Yahweh to Moses.

Israel Under Judges and Kings

During the days of the Judges [about 1200-1050 B.C.E.] Israel was loosely structured politically. The tribes came together at a central shrine like Shiloh and then went back again to a peaceful way of life. They came together at other times to repel marauders. That way of life seems to have been a very modest one. It is found even at the beginning of the monarchy. The first king of Israel, Saul [about 1020 B.C.E.], was anointed by Samuel when he was out searching for his donkeys [I Sam 9:1-2]. Saul also ploughed his own fields [1 Sam 11:5]. David's family seems to have belonged to the same solid stock because David as a youth was a shepherd boy. Furthermore the present he brought to king Saul was a very modest one from a farming family, "five loaves, a skin of wine and a kid" [1 Sam 16:20]. After the conquests of David [1000-962 B.C.E.] and the consolidation of the state under Solomon [961-922 B.C.E.], changes in life style became obvious. The oppressive nature of the state under Rehoboam [922-915 B.C.E.] and the revolt by Jeroboam 1 [922-901 B.C.E.] with the consequent division of the kingdom into Israel and Judah foreshadowed greater changes to come.

Yahweh Speaks Through the Prophets

Here we are interested only in the social changes brought about under the reign of a later king of Israel, Jeroboam II [783-743 B.C.E.]. "His long and prosperous reign set the stage for the gross social and religious conditions that provoked the tirades of the prophets Amos and Hosea" [NJBC, 75:99]. In the light of the faith of their fathers they condemned luxury, sexual immorality, insincere worship and idolatry. This situation was not confined to Israel; to a lesser extent it was also true of Judah.

The prophets give ample evidence of the social changes of the age. Prosperity was the order of the day, to get rich was glorious. '"How rich I have become!' says Ephraim, 'I have made a fortune'" [Hos. 12:9]. Isaiah is similarly explicit, "The land is full of silver and gold and treasures unlimited" [Is 2:7]. The prophets condemn displays of luxury in several forms, e.g. in dwellings [Hos 8:14; Amos 3:15, 5:11], inentertainment [Is 5:11-12; Amos 6:4], and in dress [Is 3:24].

This new spirit abroad in the land had a profound effect on Israel's ancient ideal of each man under his own vine and fig tree with no one to disturb him. The prophets also condemned the buying up of land and houses. Isaiah has a powerful passage: "Woe to those who add house to house and join field to field and there is nowhere left and they are the sole inhabitants of the country" [Is 5:8]. Micah speaks of evil-doers as "seizing the fields they covet ... owner and house they seize alike, the man himself as well as his inheritance" [Mic 2:1-2; Amos 8:5]. Judges who took bribes must have contributed greatly to this injustice, [Is 1:25; Jer 5:28; Mic 3:11. 7:3]. Creditors who knew no pity also make their appearance: "They have sold the upright for silver and the poor for a pair of sandals" [Amos 2:6-8, 8:6].

From these quotations we see that those who had the misfortune to fall into poverty were liable to lose not only their land but their freedom as well. This situation is well illustrated by the story of the widow's oil which is to be found among the stories about the prophet Elisha [2 Kgs 4:1-7]. The wife of a dead prophet came to Elisha saying, "A creditor has now come to take my two children and make them his slaves". That was because she could not pay her debts, and she had pledged her children against the payment of the debt. All she had left was a jar of oil. Elisha told her to borrow empty jars from all her neighbours and then keep pouring oil from her own jar into the borrowed jars. When this was done she went to Elisha again who said to her: "Go and sell the oil and redeem your pledge; you and your children can live on the remainder ".

The Punishment for Sin

"When Solomon fell asleep with his ancestors, he was buried in the City of David his father; his son Rehoboam succeeded him" [I Kgs 11:43]. Rehoboam's attitude to the people brought about a political split among the tribes. The kingdom of David was split into Israel and Judah. The City of David, Jerusalem, which had been the political and religious capital of the whole of Israel, was now in Judah. Jeroboam I [922-901 B.C.E.], king in the northern kingdom, Israel, feared for the stability of his kingdom and his own life if the people continued to "go up to the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices" [I Kgs 12:26]. To offset the attraction of Jerusalem, he set up two golden bulls at each end of his kingdom, one at Bethel and one at Dan, as symbols of Yahweh. The bull happened to be the symbol of the god, Baal, of Canaan. This was the 'sin of Jeroboam'. It meant assimilating Yahweh to Baal. This apostasy on Jeroboam's part had the effect of unravelling the moral and religious life of the Northern Kingdom, Israel; it was to have disastrous consequences. The Bible does not have many words of praise for the northern rulers. When Samaria, the capital, was taken by the Assyrians, in 721 B.C.E., and the kingdom itself incorporated into the Assyrian empire and its people deported, the biblical writers fairly and squarely laid the blame on Jeroboam's act of rebellion against Yahweh [2 Kgs 17:7-23].

We might be inclined to think that the 'sin of Jeroboam' with its rejection of Yahweh was like the act of a politician in modem times switching to a new political party. Life then goes on as before - the politician is still working for the 'common good'. That is not so. It was a total rejection of God and God's Covenant. The writer of 2 Kgs puts things very clearly. The destruction of the northern kingdom happened because the king and its people rebelled "against Yahweh their.

God who had brought them out of Egypt, out of the grip of Pharaoh king of Egypt" [2 Kgs 17:7]. Overnight the Israelites were back again in Egypt as slaves and under the whiplash of the overseers. Jeroboam I [922-901 B.C.E.] and his advisers were probably in high spirits at the success of their political and religious policies. Jeroboam II [786-746 B.C.E.] and his advisers at the end of his long reign must have been equally happy at the prosperity and security they had achieved. The only trouble was that the two Jeroboams and the other kings in between were the new Pharaohs, and their overseers with their whips were the greedy landowners, the corrupt judges and the pitiless creditors. It is hardly an accident that the prophet Amos appeared during the reign of Jeroboam II, and that he should have been the most uncompromising critic of the apparent prosperity and stability of the kingdom. It was as bad if not worse than the states round about it; both it and they would be destroyed. Yahweh was as good as his word; what Amos saw so clearly happened in the next generation.

JUDAH, TOO, FALLS SHORT. Judah fared somewhat better in the eyes of the Biblical authors. Some kings feared Yahweh, particularly Josiah [640-609 B.C.E.], who carried out far-reaching reforms. It was during his time that a copy of the law, probably incorporating the contents of chapters 12 to 26 of the present Book of Deuteronomy, was found in the Temple [2 Kgs 22:3-10]. The contents of this book [One God, One People, One Sanctuary] opened the eyes of Josiah, so that he decided to put it into practice. The reformation was not wholly successful.

Josiah's successors followed the path of rebellion. Josiah was killed while opposing the advance of the Egyptian Pharaoh, Necho, towards the north. Josiah's son, Jehoiakim [609-598 B.C.E.], after a short break succeeded to the throne. Jeremiah has harsh words for Jehoiakim. The passage is too long to quote in full: "Disaster for the man who builds his house without uprightness ... who makes his fellow-man work for nothing, without paying him his wages. ... Are you more of a king because of your passion for cedar? ... You have eyes and heart for nothing but your own interests, for shedding innocent blood and perpetrating violence and oppression" [Jer 22:13-17].

In due time the fate that befell the Northern Kingdom became the fate of the southern portion, too. This time it was the Babylonians who carried out Yahweh's will, for the Assyrian empire had fallen before the onslaught of the Babylonian armies. Nebuchadnezzar, head of the new superpower, attacked Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E., destroyed the temple and carried off the upper class into captivity in Babylon.

The Exile [587-539 B.C.E.]

In the thought of the time, when one nation conquered another the victory was due not only to the superiority of the army and its general; it was due above all to the superiority of the victor's god. This was the god to be cultivated in future. The destruction of Jerusalem with the Temple of Yahweh would have meant to the peoples round about that Yahweh was powerless. It must have been a shattering blow to the exiles in Babylon. They had been removed from the land promised them by Yahweh and in their daily lives looked on in perplexity at the processions of the 'victorious' gods of Babylon. The temptation to doubt Yahweh was ever present.

Their faith in Yahweh was shaken. Nevertheless, it stood the test and came out purified and strengthened. Yahweh had said that if the people did not stop committing sin, did not stop going after false gods and did not stop oppressing the poor, punishment was sure to follow. Everything happened as Yahweh said it would. Yahweh had kept the Covenant; the people on the other hand had not.

Certain institutions, like circumcision and the sabbath, held them together as a people and at the same time separated them from others. Circumcision was a sign of who belonged to God's people and who did not. Strict observance of the sabbath, with its readings from Scripture, its songs of praise, lamentations, and petitions became all important in reminding them weekly of Yahweh, who brought them out of Egypt.

They were also spurred on to carry on the work of trying to understand what God wanted of them as a people and embody this in concrete rules of life intelligible to all and covering all aspects of their life. It was a massive undertaking. It meant sifting through the writings of the past and preserving them not only for their own sake but also as God's Word to them. It seems that it was there in the Exile that at least a 'draft' of the Torah [Genesis - Numbers] was produced, the Deuteronomic history [Joshua - Kings] was 'edited', and collections were made of the writings of the prophets.

They were greatly encouraged by a prophet of their own. He was "Deutero-lsaiah" -- to give a name to this nameless prophet. He spoke God's word to the exiles, which in their situation could only be a word of consolation, forgivenness, salvation, and liberation. The period of punishment was over. They would embark on a new Exodus. The gods of the Babylonians were powerless, Cyrus of Persia would prove that. They were encouraged to put their trust Yahweh.

Cyrus occupied Babylon in 539 B.C.E. That event signalled the end of the Babylonian empire just as the Assyrian empire had ended with the capture of Nineveh in 612 B.C.E., less than one hundred years before. The enslaving empires were dead but the people of God lived on; however, they were still in exile.

The Return and Restoration

In 538 B.C.E., Cyrus issued a decree permitting the exiles to return to Jerusalem, and granting permission to rebuild the Temple at state expense and restoring the sacred vessels plundered by Nebuchadnezzar. For the returning first wave the approach to Jerusalem must have been a very joyous occasion. It was another experience that they would not forget. In their enthusiasm they built an altar and began laying the Temple foundations, but it was 515 B.C.E. before the building was completed.

About 445 B.C.E., Nehemiah, a Jewish eunuch in the Persian court, returned to Jerusalem. He rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem and instituted social reforms. Ezra, the scribe, around the same time was responsible for the religious reform and an edition of the Bible. At a celebration of the feast of Shelters [='Tabemacles' or 'Booths' in some translations] the returned exiles gathered in the square in front of the Water Gate in Jerusalem and "they asked Ezra to bring the Book of the Law of Moses which Yahweh had prescribed for Israel" [Neh 8:1]. That day they renewed the Covenant with Yahweh. There was great rejoicing for eight days complete with shelters made of "branches of olive, pine, myrtle, palm and other leafy trees" [Neh 8:15].

Their Vision

What was the vision that enabled the small group to keep the faith and establish a new Israel, albeit much smaller than before? It was the vision that inspired Moses - God's Covenant still held. God had given them back their land. Never again could they waver between their own living, holy, jealous and liberating God and the gods of the nations surrounding them. Those gods were falsehoods that could not be relied upon.

The people had failed to take God seriously and destruction had followed. This time God's word to Moses and to the Prophets had to be made known to the people. The three codes mentioned above and other laws were now given their final edition. Here we are interested only in the ordering of the economic life in the Promised Land.

The Jubilee Spirit

The Code of the Covenant [Exodus 20:22-23:33]

This is so called in modem authors because of the mention of Moses in Exod 24:7 reading the book of the Covenant. Scholars believe that the nucleus of that was the Ten Commandments. However, mention of slaves, fields, cattle and vineyards suggests that it was written for a settled population. The contents best fit the period of the Judges inisrael [c.1200-1025 B.C.E.]. The code could have been promulgated during assemblies like the assemblies mentioned in Josh 8:30-35 or Josh 24. It applied the basic law to the settled population in Israel during the end of the second millennium B.C.E.

CONCERNING THE FALLOW YEAR. Intensive cultivation of crops impoverished the soil, resulting in greatly reduced harvests. Even in the very early days of agriculture farmers came up against this phenomenon and devised various means of improving harvests. One of these means was to allow the land to lie fallow for a year. The first mention of the fallow year in the Bible is in Exod 23:11: "For six years you will sow your land and gather its produce, but in the seventh year you will let it lie fallow and forgo all produce from it." The same law was applied to the vineyard and the olive grove. The reason given in the code for the fallow year has nothing to do with agricultural sfience; instead it was to benefit poor people and wild animals.

Why the seventh? Immediately following this law there is reference to resting on the sabbath day, i.e. every seventh day. So, it would seem that the sabbatical year was modelled on the seven-day week.

LIBERATION EACH SABBATICAL YEAR. Mention was made of the poor in connection with the fallow year. The Covenant Code tries to mitigate another more serious evil, the loss of freedom as a result of poverty and loss of land. "When you buy a Hebrew slave, his service will last for six years. In the seventh year he will leave a free man without paying compensation" [Exod 21:2-3]. Verses 1-11 deal with slaves, male and female. If the man preferred to stay with his master because e.g. he was given a wife from one of his master's women slaves, there was a special rite authenticating this desire. His ear was pierced with an awl at the door. This symbolic act indicated the slave's obedience [ear] to the master of the house [door].

The Deuteronomic Code

Roland de Vaux (1961, p. 144) suggests that fundamentally the Deuteronomic Code was the law' reported to have been discovered in the Temple in the time of Josiah [2 Kgs 22:8f]. It contains a number of ancient elements which seem to have originated in the Northern kingdom, but it is difficult to say how long before the reign of Josiah [640- 609 B.C.E.] they were collected and completed. Possibly they were brought to Judah after the fall of Samaria [721 B.C.E.] and put together under Hezekiah [716-687 B.C.E.] The same author suggests that it was designed to replace the old code. As we saw above, there were tremendous political, social, economic, and religious changes from the time of David to the capture of Samaria. The new code was designed to apply the basic law to these changes. Here we are interested only in the structuring of the socio-economic life of the Israelites.

POOR AND NEEDY. Lohfink (1996) has submitted the Book of Deuteronomy to a very close linguistic analysis and has found that the words "poor" and "needy" are confmed to chapters 15 and 24, which deal with laws related to indebtedness. In these chapters he finds five laws which deal with the different stages by which a free Israelite, man or woman, loses his or her house of land and ends up being a slave.

Following Lohfink's analysis, we can set out these different stages as follows:

Stage 1: A farmer, due to crop failure or for some other reason, finds that he needs a loan in order to provide food, clothes and shelter. "The law in Deut 15:7-11 calls on his brother Israelite to give him an interest-free loan. Such a loan may be enough to solve his problem.

Stage 2: If this is not enough and the farmer is later compelled to work for another farmer as a farm hand in order to make some money, the law in Deut 24:14-15 provides him and his family with a daily wage. Jeremiah would have approved of the law.

Stage 3: This may not be enough and his creditor may be inclined to seize the poor farmer's goods as a pledge. Deut 24:10-13 protects him to the extent that the farmer's face is saved when the creditor comes to collect the pledge.

Stage 4: If the taking possession of the pledge is not enough to ensure the payment of the loan, the legal system of the time provided that the debtor would have to sell one of his family members to the creditor to settle the debt. The story in 2 Kgs 4:1-7 gives us a graphic description of the dilemma of the debtor.

Stage 5: In this case Deut 15:1-6 says that no one be enslaved at least in the sabbatical year. It a person is enslaved in any other year, Deut 15:12-18 says that he or she should be released in the sabbatical year. Furthermore the released person should be provided with all the necessities to start off anew on the farm.

As Lohfink says: "The problem of indebtedness is thought through systematically. The legal system is attempting to bring every aspect of this practice to an end". This ideal is expressed in Deuteronomy as, "There must be no poor among you" [Deut 15:4]. According to these laws the 'poor' are not a definite group of people accepted as fomiuig a part of Israel. They are like individuals who have become sick through some disease; the cause of the disease must be removed right away. The indebtedness mentioned above is such a disease; it cannot be tolerated, it must be removed from Israel. Israel' and 'shalom' should be synonymous. That is only possible if Israel "obeys Yahweh your God by carefully keeping these commandments which I lay upon you this day" [Deut 15:5].

GROUPS WITHOUT LANDED PROPERTY. There is another set of laws which provide for groups of people without land. These were provided for by other laws. They were not mentioned along with the poor, because their support was guaranteed by the structures of society and were given a share in all the festivals of the land. They were part of Israel; there may be Levites, aliens, orphans and widows in Israel, but there must be no "poor" [Deut 15:4] It is surprising to find slaves mentioned among the other four and not with the 'poor'. They were part of the house or family to which they belonged. It is presumed that the slave will be well treated and may not want to leave his master, "because he loves you and your household and is happy with you". The rite mentioned in the Code of the Covenant [Exod 21:5-6] can then be performed. A female slave was dealt with in the same way.

UTOPIA? Some Scripture scholars regard this vision of Israel as a dream conjured up by the Deuteronomists. But, as Lohfink says, they believed that this impossible society could turn into a reality. Israel was called by Yahweh. It was Yahweh who kept it in existence down the centuries and who brought it back from exile as earlier out of Egypt. The society outlined by Deuteronomy was not a dream but a promise.

THE FEAST OF SHELTERS. Towards the end of the Book of Deuteronomy we are told that Moses committed the Law [== Deuteronomic Code] to writing and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of Yahweh's covenant, and to all the elders of Israel. Moses then commanded the Israelites: "At the end of seven years, at the time fixed for the year of remission, at the feast of Shelters, when all Israel assembles in the presence of Yahweh your God... you must proclaim this Law in the hearing of all Israel" [Deut.31:9-13]. The feast of Shelters began on the 15th day of the seventh month, and was the climax of the agricultural year when all the crops including the grapes had been gathered in. It was a time of great rejoicing [Deut 16:13-14].

The Holiness Code [Leviticus 17-26]

This Code, like that of Deuteronomy, begins with rules about sacrifices and ends with blessings and curses. It seems to have come into being as an independent literary complex towards the end of the monarchy and the early days of the exile, but in a different milieu from that of Deuteronomy. Since it shows a preoccupation with rites and the priesthood it is regarded as belonging to the priestly tradition.

The name of the Code comes from the stress on Yahweh's holiness: "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Say to all the congregation of the people of Israel, You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy"' [Lev. 19:1]. Yahweh is separated from all other gods, and all forms of immorality are an abomination; Israel take note!

Like the other codes before it, the Holiness Code 'updates' the application of the basic law to the daily lives of the Israelites in new circumstances. So customs from the distant past were included together with additions that were found necessary after the return from Babylon. An example of an addition to a piece of legislation from the past is found in chapter 23:1-36, which deals with the feasts of Israel. Then in 23:37-38 comes a summary conclusion which signals the end of the section on the calendar. However, the section then continues with two items of legislation about the feast of Shelters. The first piece is about waving palm branches and rejoicing before Yahweh for seven days. The second is about living in shelters for seven days to remind all Israelites of their coming out of Egypt [Lev 23:39-43]. It is clear that these two ancient customs were passed on in the legislation after the Exile with the purpose of reminding those who returned that it was Yahweh who brought them out of Egypt - and out of Babylon. While they were rejoicing during the harvest festival the Israelites were to keep in mind that Yahweh was the Lord of the Harvest, the Lord of the Covenant and the Lord of History. The legislation looks to the past and to the future. We might note in passing that the celebration just mentioned reminds us of Chinese festivals like the Dragon Boat and Mid-Autumn festivals.

The Jubilee Year [Leviticus 25]

In this chapter, the old laws connected with the economic and social life of Israel have been collected and reinterpreted. We have seen above that the Sabbath rest goes back to the earliest days of Israel. That was already a major advance in the liberation of God's people.

However, it did not meet the built-in uncertainties of daily life where people fall into poverty and where debts and loans bring new relationships that complicate social structures. The institution of the Sabbatical Year [Deut 15:1-18] with its remission of debts and the manumission of slaves was meant in large part to deal with those situations. This institution, however, was also found to be lacking.

Hence the institution of the Jubilee Year. There is disagreement among scholars about the meaning of the word 'jubilee'. Since the year is inaugurated on the Day of Atonement with the sound of a trumpet [shopar], some scholars think that the institution was in existence in the past when the Hebrew word yobel was used for a trumpet. Others think that a word similar to yobel with a possible meaning of 'remission' lies behind the word jubilee.

The purpose of this Jubilee Year was to get to the root of the problem of poverty and to restore once and for all the rights of ownership to the land. The rightful owners were those to whom Yahweh had allotted the land in the first place. Only Yahweh is the true owner of all the land. [25:23]

The Jubilee Year is a very special instance of the Sabbatical Year. It is to be celebrated on every 7th sabbatical year [v.8] and ends a cycle of 49 years. In v.lO it is called "the 50th year", possibly because the number 'fifty' was a familiar number in the agricultural year. To have two fallow years in a row, both the 49th and the 50th, would have been an impossible burden for a farming community.

THE FALLOW YEAR: 25:1-7. The introductory verses tell us that God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, with a message for the people of Israel. It was a message about the land which God was about to give them, "The land shall keep a sabbath to the Lord" [v.2b]. Just as the people of Israel kept a day of rest in every seven, so the land was to keep a year of rest in every seven. There is a stress on the land "resting". The land belongs to Yahweh [v.23] and that ownership is to be acknowledged. The people can work on it for six years, but on the seventh it is sacred - not to be touched with farming tools.

What the land produces by itself will supply them with food. The message seems to be: "Trust Yahweh". This message is reinforced by vv.l7-23.

THE JUBILEE YEAR: 25:8-12. The jubilee year was a specially sacred period. It was calculated exactly, in the 49th year [7x7]; it was to begin on the 10th day of the 7th month, the day of atonement, and liturgically introduced with the sound of the trumpet "throughout all your land". "You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants; it shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his family" [v.lO]. There is a general liberation from some kind of burden, which allows a man to get back his stake in the land and at the same time to join his clan; it is a restoration to his previous and, we might add, his ideal way of life. From the sketch of the history of Israel we can see that the burden under which the poor laboured was debt. In Deuteronomy we saw that the words 'poor' and 'debt' were closely connected.

What is the meaning of 'jubilee' in verse 10? From the context it appears as a solemn home-coming after the general release from debt or slavery. Perhaps the release of the Israelites from their exile in Babylon sparked the imagination of the author [Jer 31:9; Is 55:12].

CHANGING ISRAELITE ATTITUDES 25:13-16. In this section the author, still speaking of the jubilee year, wants to lay bare the attitudes that led to the loss of property and a stake in the land in the first place. Some take advantage of their strong position and drive a hard bargain. The poor have to agree or starve; they have to hand over their right to use their own property to another. The jubilee legislation wants to change that attitude. What is actually being sold or bought is a number of harvests, where the number depends on the number of years since the last jubilee year. The jubilee meant that there could be no outright buying or selling of property.

THE LAND IS YAHWEH'S : 25:13-16. Here it is repeated that the Israelites are not to wrong one another, and that is followed by an exhortation to fear Yahweh by keeping the commandments. Then they will live in security in the land and the land will supply them with what they need. The tone of exhortation in this passage suggests thafthe author is not interested in a mere legal prescription but has in his mind a rosy picture of the state of things when everybody is following the spirit of Yahweh's law.

During the fallow year, they are not to worry about eating their fill, for Yahweh will bless them during the sixth year by increasing the yield. They will have enough food during the fallow year and until the next harvest. Here we may note in passing that in the author's mind there is a close connection between the sabbatical year and the jubilee year.

IF YOUR BROTHER BECOMES POOR: 25:24-55. The rest of the chapter deals with a number of cases beginning with the phrase, "If your brother becomes poor" [vv.25, 35, 39 and 41],

1. 25:25-34. What happens if a landowner can no longer support himself and his family and is obliged to sell the land allotted to him by Yahweh? The next-of-kin has a right to step in and acquire the land. Originally the purpose of this law was to ensure that the land was not alienated from the extended family or clan. However, according to the jubilee legislation, the property had to revert to the original owner in the 49th year.

2. 25:35-38. If an Israelite has lost his stake in the land what are the duties of a brother Israelite? His 'brother' has a duty to take him in and give him hospitality as he would to a stranger or alien. "You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit" [v.37]. No doubt the poor brother is expected to work for the man who has taken him in. In v.38 there is the reminder that Yahweh brought them out of Egypt and gave them this land.

3. 25:39-46. In W.35-38 the ideal put before the Israelites could be summed up with a quotation from Matthew's Gospel: "Be you perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" [Mt 5:48]. This is Matthew's reformulation of Lev 19:2: "Speak to the whole community of Israel and say, 'Be holy, for I, Yahweh your God, am holy'. St Luke has, "Be merciful, just as your Father is mercifal"" [Lk 6:36].

The Israelites obviously fell short of this ideal. In this section the poor man has to sell himself to his brother Israelite in order to survive. He is not to be treated in the same way one treats a slave taken from the surrounding nations, i.e. with harshness. His status is that of the hired hand or the alien living with the people of Israel. In the jubilee year he and his children are to return to his own family and to the possession of his fathers.

This piece of legislation seems to ignore the slave laws of Exod 21:1-11 and Deut 15:12-18 in which a 'Hebrew' slave had to be liberated after six years of service. But the jubilee legislation allows that a man might be a slave for 40 or more years. Is this a backward step or a concession to reality? Or is it something else?

The reasons given for this piece of legislation are very informative. "For they are my servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him with harshness, but shall fear your God" [vv.41-42]. An Israelite cannot be the 'possession' of a fallow Israelite -- he belongs to Yahweh.

4. 25:47-55. This piece of legislation concerns the Israelite who sells himself not to a brother Israelite but to a non-Israelite. His situation is similar to that of the man in vv,39-46. However, in this case special mention is made of the right of redemption; any blood relation can redeem him, or he may redeem himself.

LEV 27:16-25. This passage is the only other passage in Leviticus which speaks of the jubilee year. It concerns land dedicated to Yahweh.

An Impossible Dream?

The provisions of the Jubilee Law have puzzled many scholars. Could its provisions have been put into effect? It speaks of the 49th and the 50th years as being jubilee years for the whole land of Israel. Two fallow years over the whole land of Israel would seem to place an intolerable burden on the food supply.

The buying and selling of land [v.l4], the taking of interest on loans and enslavement for non-payment of debts appear to have been a regular practice after the Exile, as it was during the time of the monarchy. The general return of lands after a long period of alienation would be a difficult if not impossible task. Land reform is not achieved by the blowing of a trumpet; the walls of vested interest do not tumble so easily.

The liberation of those enslaved for debts would have to be postponed for an intolerably long period in some cases; the slave himself might be dead by that time. Furthermore the law conflicts with the liberation mentioned in Deuteronomy for the sabbatical year.

Putting the Jubilee Law into effect would mean not only a reordering of the socio-economic life of the whole society. It would also mean a change of attitudes. It would mean removing sin and rebellion against Yahweh or, to use Ezekiel's turn of phrase, replacing hearts of stone with hearts of flesh [Ezek.36:26-27]. That is more than the law can do.

The Real Purpose of the Jubilee Year

THE AUTHOR'S FAITH. The whole of chapter 25 deals with land and those who have lost a stake in the land. We have to keep in mind the faith-vision of the priestly writer. It is already indicated in the First two verses of chapter 25: "Yahweh spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai and said: 'Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ..."'. Those two verses are the author's way of summarising the doctrine of the Book of Exodus.

1. Yahweh was the God of the Israelites who chose them when they were the slaves of the Pharaoh of Egypt. He wanted them to recognise him as their God by being holy as he is holy.

2. Yahweh liberated them, he is their liberator and they are his 'slaves'.

3. Yahweh gave them a basic law to live by, namely the Ten Commandments, and a land to live in.

These three points are cardinal to the author's faith. They are his Covenant faith. Yahweh, the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt and who made the covenant with them on Mount Sinai, is the same God who brought them back from Babylon and restored Jerusalem to them. Yahweh always remembers the covenant [Ps 105:8] and everything is in Yahweh's hands.

THE AUTHOR'S OWN EXPERIENCE

1. The author had been poring over all the laws up to that time and saw how they applied the basic covenant law in various historical circumstances. He reflected how he could pass on the gist of these laws and the spirit they embodied to his own and succeeding generations.

2. He was also a man of the Old Testament world which until a very late period did not see any life beyond the grave. Yahweh's promises would have to be fulfilled in this world, not necessarily in the lifetime of an individual, but certainly in the lifetime of Israel. Another characteristic of the Old Testament world was its stress on family solidarity. As Ezekiel chapter 18 and other texts show us, around the time of the Exile family solidarity began to accommodate individual responsibility. The author of Leviticus could then see the jubilee year as the fulfilment of the aspirations of all those alienated from their land and enslaved because of debt. It would be Yahweh's gift to them and their families.

3. The joy of the feast of Shelters which took place after the ingathering of the harvest, and which commenorated Israel's Exodus from Egypt would also have left an impression on him. The return from Babylon would have the same effect as is suggested in Isaiah 55:12, which is the conclusion to the Book of Consolation. In fact that proclamation of liberation and the home-coming celebration seems to have fired his imagination.

4. The author was probably in contact with ideas similar to those found in Isaiah 61:1-3, which is quoted by Lk 4:19. There, the prophet says that the Spirit of Yahweh has sent him to proclaim liberty to captives and a year of favour from Yahweh. If this text of Isaiah was written before Lev 25 and the author knew of it, he would have felt that he was giving effect to God's word.

SO LET IT BE ENACTED, SO LET IT BE DONE. The past, present and future, the whole of history, is in Yahweh's hands. Yahweh is a liberating God, a God of the individual, the family and the people of Israel, and a God of joy for the individual and the family. The ideal situation in the lifetime of Solomon is God's will for the people of Israel: "Judah and Israel lived in security, everyone under his vine and his fig tree, from Dan to Beersheba, throughout the lifetime of Solomon" [I Kings 5:5]. Nothing is impossible for God [Lk 1:37].

The society outlined by Deuteronomy and Leviticus 25 was not a dream but Yahweh's promise awaiting fulfilment. St Luke tells us that this promise is fulfilled in Jesus Christ [Lk 4:16-21].

作者：伍维烈 William NG O.F.M.

FRANCISCAN PERSPECTIVES ON ECCLESIOLOGICAL MODELS

Introduction

Two anecdotes in the early biographies of St Francis of Assisi describe the deep ecclesial character of Franciscan spirituality. In the dilapidated church of San Damiano, Francis heard the crucifix asking him to 'rebuild my house'. (1)Naively, Francis went out to renovate the church buildings immediately. In another account. Pope Innocent III had a vision of Francis holding up a church falling down and in his dream this church was the Lateran Basilica, the Mother Church of the West. (2) In these narratives, the mediaeval authors employed the imagery of the Church as a building to illustrate the contribution of St Francis' charism to the life of the Church. Vatican II ecclesiology reminds one that indeed the Church is sometimes portrayed as a building of God (aedificatio Dei). (3)

The inseparable ecclesiological link of St Francis is also expressed eloquently by Julian of Speyer in the liturgy for the Feast of St Francis. The first antiphon of First Vespers reads:

Franciscus vir catholicus et totus apostolicus, ecclesiae teneri Fidem Romanae docuit, Presbyterosque monuit. (4)

After the Vatican II renewal of the Liturgy, the new Liturgy of Hours (Proper for Franciscans) retains the first half of this antiphon:

Franciscus vir catholicus et totus apostolicus, missus est in praeparationern Evangelii pads. (5)

It is clear that catholicity and apostolicity are distinctive traits of a particular ecclesial quality of St Francis. (6)Being ecclesial may imply a certain ecclesiology, implicit or explicit, for St Francis, his followers and all those inspired by him throughout the ages.

This short paper attempts to test if it is possible to construct a Franciscan ecclesiology. Specifically it will deal with a basic ecclesiological study -- the model of the Church -- with the assistance of Franciscan insights, i.e. from writings by Francis, his biographies and exhortative stories (pseudo-biographies) about him. This approach is made possible with the Vatican II ecclesiological trend of new methodological options. The new methodological options emphasise the word of God which is alive and is transmitted in the teachings of the Fathers, the Councils and the magisterium as well as the testimony of the liturgy and the Christian life of the People of God. (7) From a historical-salvific perspective, the life of this well-loved saint, as captured by the Franciscan sources, can be considered a particular testimony of the Christian life and indeed a methodological option. However, textual criticism of the Franciscan sources is a highly specialised field and is beyond the scope of this short essay.

The bulk of this paper is a typological study of the Church. Classical models such as People of God and the Body of Christ, Herald and Servant, will be reviewed from a particular Franciscan view. An alternative ecclesiological model will also be proposed. Before this, it is necessary to give a short exposition of how the Franciscan fraternity or indeed any community of a religious congregation or order - can be an expression of the Church. This is to establish the validity of using the experience of the Franciscan movement as a source for theological enrichment.



1. 2 Celano 10; Legenda Major 2:1; Legend of Three Companions 13c. In Habig, M. (ed.), St Francis ofAssisi: Writings and Early Biographies (English Ominibus of the Sources for the Life ofSt Francis) (Chicago: Franciscan Herald 1972).

2. 2 Celano 17b; Legend Major 3:10; Legend of Three Companions 51. In Habig.

3. Lumen gentium (LG) 6. In Abbot, W. (ed.). The Documents of Vatican II (London: Geoffrey Chapman 1966).

4. Antiphonale Romano-Seraphicum pro Horis Diurnis (Paris: Desclee 1928) 967.

5. Proprium Liturgia Horarum pro sodalibus Ordinis Fratrum Minorum (Madrid: OFM 1974)200.

6. See introductory notes in Armstrong, R. and Brady, 1. (eds.), Francis and Clare: The Complete Works (New York: Paulist 1982) 15-17.

7. Antbn A., Postconciliar Ecclesiology: Expectations, Results and Prospects for the Future. In Latourelle, R. (ed.),Vantican II : Assessment and perspectives ,Assessment and Perspectives, Vol.I (New York: Paulist 1989) 407-438; cf.412.

The Religious Community and the Constitutive Elements of the Church

Would it be possible to draw out an ecclesiology from the Franciscan vision? This is only permissible if it can be demonstrated that the outflow of Franciscan spirituality - especially through the community of friars - is not merely a part of the Church but an expression of the Church. For the part regarding religious life, both postconciliar and New Testament concepts must be examined with regard to Franciscanism.

In the Vatican II understanding of religious life itself, any order or congregation belongs to, and is inseparable from, the life and the holiness of the Church. (8)The same article of the Constitution on the Church states: 'the profession of the evangelical counsels, then, appears as a sign which can and ought to attract all the members of the Church to an effective and prompt fulfilment of the duties of their vocation.' Avery Dulles' sixth model of the Church -- the Church as a community of disciples-- brings out the relationship of religious community and the Church well: 'the possibility of a more radical style of discipleship was offered by the religious life.' (9) In other words, religious life is a radical expression of the Church; and, even within the Church, the religious state appears to be a contrast society. Certainly, this is an image of the Church herself, being a contrast society in relationship to the

world. Therefore, Dulles observes that 'communities of this type religious orders or basic communities] are, in a very important sense, realizations of the Church.' (10)

Religious communities, in this case the Franciscan community, suit this postconciliar ecclesiological understanding. Francis wrote in the Rule of 1221 to his friars: "The rule and life of these brothers is this: to live in obedience, in chastity and without anything of their own, and to follow the teaching and footprints of our Lord Jesus Christ...' (11) It is following Jesus Christ which gives Franciscan brotherhood an ecclesial expression in the model of a disciple-community. Indeed, this imitation of Jesus is a central thesis for the model of discipleship, as observed by Dulles: 'The discipleship model motivates the members of the Church to imitate Jesus in their personal lives.' (12) The keyword 'disciple' was used by Francis in his admonitions regarding perfect obedience, a virtue proper for one in dealing with the Church, 'The Lord says in the Gospel: He who does not renounce everything he possesses cannot be my disciple; and he who wishes to save his life must lose it.' (13)

One important New Testament understanding of the Church hinges on the constitutive elements of the Church. The 'summary of summaries' of Acts 2:42-47 is held here as the yardstick of what makes a Church perse. Four elements are seen as the prime qualities of the early Church in Jerusalem:

．the apostles' teaching

．the communion/fellowship

．the breaking of bread

．the prayers

St Francis did not start a new Church, in'the way Luther or Calvin did. Instead, he founded a brotherhood of men religious within the Catholic Church. Besides this, many lay people were attracted to his spirituality and "Third Orders' were developed. Unlike other Gospel movements of the day, Francis never asked these seculars to leave the Church or join his fraternity. Instead they were encouraged to remain obedient to the Church and to deepen their Christian commitment in the Church.

Rightly understood, the apostles' teaching refers to the teaching of Jesus himself. On the surface, the foci of teaching were different: Jesus focused on the coming of the Kingdom and the apostles focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet because the paschal mystery was precisely the realisation of the Kingdom, the apostles' teaching was the same as that of Jesus. Francis referred his order to the direct source of the apostles' teaching: 'Listen, sons of the Lord and my brothers [...]. Incline the ear of your heart and obey the voice of the Son of God.' (14)

By Francis' time, the breaking of bread had long already evolved into the Eucharistic celebration. In the same Letter to the Entire Order, Francis suggested 'only one Mass be celebrated each day in the places in which the brothers stay.' (15) Elsewhere in his admonitions, rules and letters, Francis showed great Eucharistic piety, not uncharacteristic of the culture of the time. (16) For the lay faithful, Francis saw the need of receiving the Body and Blood, especially in the context of the confession of sins. (17)

It is significant that in the above quotation Francis suggested only one Mass be celebrated, and there was no concelebration. Celebration of only one Mass -- even when there were more than one sacerdotal brother -- meant a realisation of the communion. In other words, the Mass was more important as a communion than as a source of stipends or even as an obligation of the priestly order. In this, the above two constitutive elements, apostles' teaching and breaking of bread, found their ritual celebration as the Liturgy of the Word and as the Eucharist. No wonder Francis cautioned the clergy to 'be aware of the great sin and ignorance [...] toward the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and His most holy written words which consecrate [His] Body.' (18)

An important actualisation of the fellowship finds its expression in the vow of poverty. Although Francis would not allow even communal property, sharing of material things for use would be natural. Yet for the general faithful, Francis recalled the basic attitude which formed the backbone of communion: love. He reiterated Christ's commandment of love: 'And let us love our neighbours as ourselves. And if there is anyone who does not wish to love them as himself, at least let him do no harm to them, but rather do good. [...] Let us then have charity and humility [...]. (19)

Francis saw prayer as fundamental not only for the friars but also for all of the faithful. Both the First and the Second Rules for the friars contain a detailed description of the norms regarding the Divine Office and fasting. (20) For the faithful, Francis exhorted: 'Let us praise Him and pray to Him day and night, saying "Our Father, Who art in heaven," since we should pray always and never lose heart.' (21)

In Francis' writings, certain images are used to describe the fraternity which are also valid images for the Church. For instance, there is a strong theme that the brotherhood has to be in via. In the First Rule, when explaining poverty, Francis used the phrase 'when [the brothers] go through the world' (22) to denote the itinerant nature of the friars, whereas the Second Rule borrowed a Scriptural reference (23) to describe the brothers 'as pilgrims and strangers in this world, who serve the Lord.'(24) This 'pilgrims and strangers' was again taken up in Francis' last Testament. (25) This pilgrim church image of being in via is echoed in Lumen gentium: 'While on earth she journeys (peregrinatur) in a foreign land away from the Lord, the Church sees herself in exile.' (26) One can thus boldly propose that the Franciscan expression of a community friarhood is an expression of the Church. If this is accepted, the spirituality related to the saint can be used to complement ecclesiology.



1. 2 Celano 10; Legenda Major 2:1; Legend of Three Companions 13c. In Habig, M. (ed.), St Francis ofAssisi: Writings and Early Biographies (English Ominibus of the Sources for the Life ofSt Francis) (Chicago: Franciscan Herald 1972).

2. 2 Celano 17b; Legend Major 3:10; Legend of Three Companions 51. In Habig.

3. Lumen gentium (LG) 6. In Abbot, W. (ed.). The Documents of Vatican II (London: Geoffrey Chapman 1966).

4. Antiphonale Romano-Seraphicum pro Horis Diurnis (Paris: Desclee 1928) 967.

5. Proprium Liturgia Horarum pro sodalibus Ordinis Fratrum Minorum (Madrid: OFM 1974)200.

6. See introductory notes in Armstrong, R. and Brady, 1. (eds.), Francis and Clare: The Complete Works (New York: Paulist 1982) 15-17.

7. Antbn A., Postconciliar Ecclesiology: Expectations, Results and Prospects for the Future. In Latourelle, R. (ed.),Vantican II : Assessment and perspectives ,Assessment and Perspectives, Vol.I (New York: Paulist 1989) 407-438; cf.412.

8. LG44.

9. Dulles, A., Models of the Church, Expanded Edition (Garden City, NY: Double- day 1987).

10. Dulles, 62.

11. First Rule I: I in Armstrong. Subsequent quotations of writings by St Francis are from this book. The numbering system to each paragragh is in accordance with that in the book.

12. Dulles, 222-223.

13. Admonition 3.

14. Letter to the Entire Order 5-6.

15. Letter to the Entire Order 30.

16. Ample examples can be found, such as: Letter to the Entire Order 12, 27; Testament 4,6,8, 10, 13, Admonition I and Second Letter to the Faithful 34. All these will be elaborated later.

17. Second Letter to the Faithful 22.

18. Letter to the Clergy 1.

19. Second Letter to the Faithful 26,27, 30.

20. First Rule Chapter 3; Second Rule Chapter 3.

21. Second Letter to the Faithful 21.

22. First Rule 14.

23. 1 Peter 2:11.

24. Second Rule 6.

25. Testament 24.

26. LG6.

Models of the Church: Introduction

The reality of the Church is essentially a mystery. A language of signs and symbols -- including images, models and paradigms -- can mediate the understanding of something abstract. Throughout the ages, images have been used to gain a better understanding of the mysteries of faith. (27) Dulles pushes the methodology further and suggests that 'when an image is employed reflexively and critically to deepen one's theoretical understanding of a reality it becomes [...] a model.' (28) Models become paradigms when they are successful in solving many kinds of problems and can be used for future problems. (29)

Two aspects of the use of models as mediation in ecclesiology for the discussion of St Francis and the models of the Church are important. Firstly, the historical Francis may have had a clear and distinct understanding of the essence of the Church, i.e. intentionally subscribing to only one or two 'models' of the Church. This may have been simply because that was the 'official ecclesiology' (although not necessarily a dogma) and he -- without the benefit of a liberal environment or Vatican II -- could not have chosen otherwise. That is to say, Francis may have had only one or two direct ecclesiological 'models' because they were immediate to his understanding of the Church.

Secondly, there may be other ecclesial views, besides the immediate ones, inherent in Franciscan spirituality. These views could also be expressed through the use of other models, although Francis might not have been concerned with all these sophisticated theological nuances. His own spirituality was often brought about as if based on some other particular ecclesiological models, or even paradigms. In other words, because Francis was such an ecclesial man, his spirituality could not be divorced from the mystery of the Church: any particular concept must tie in with an intermediate vision of the church, which may not have been the same as his immediate ecclesial view. Nevertheless in reality the distinction between these two is never sharp. There is an overlap between them. Francis' contribution to ecclesiology is often a mixture of these direct and indirect mediations.



27. cf Dulies, 26.

28. Dulies, 27.

29. Dulies, 29.

The Church as an Institution

In this model, the mystery of the Church is manifested as societas perfecta. As Dulles observes, 'the notion of the Church as society by its very nature tends to highlight the structure of government as the formal element in the society. [... Nevertheless,] institutionalism [...] is not the same thing as the acceptance of the institutional element in the Church.' (30) A usefill aspect of this ecclesiology is that the powers and functions of the Church [are] divided into three: teaching, sanctifying and governing.' (31) The consequential distinction into the teaching Church versus the taught Church, the sanctifying Church versus the sanctified Church and the governing Church versus the governed Church (32) truly reflects the institutional character. Yet it may, and it often does, degenerate into institutionalism.

In the history of ecclesiology, only a few such models were developed and dominated theology for each given period. St Francis lived in mediaeval times, when the institution model of the Church as societas perfecta reigned -- the Church seeing herself as an institution. Naturally Francis acquired a similar ecclesiology. This was reflected in his understanding of the magisterium, the clergy and the hierarchy. Francis had a clear idea that the friars had to conform to the teaching of the Church, i.e. being part of the taught Church. The First Rule outlined the primacy of the magisterium: 'All the brothers must be Catholics, [and] live and speak in a Catholic manner. But if any of them has strayed from the Catholic faith and life, in word or in deed, and has not amended his ways, he should be completely expelled from our frater-nity.' (33) Regarding the conditions for the acceptance of candidates, Francis wrote: "The minister should diligently examine them concerning the Catholic faith and the sacraments of the Church.' (34)

The sanctifying / sanctified Church quality was brought out by Francis in his descriptions of the clergy. He asked all the faithful to visit churches frequently and venerate and show respect for the clergy because they alone administered the holy words and blood of our Lord Jesus. (35) Therefore those who sinned against the clergy committed a greater sin than against all other people of this world. (36) Without a taint of inclination to clericalism, Francis' concern for the clerics was not due to their own merit but because their ministry concerned the Body and Blood of our Lord, the only source of our sanctification.

There are more examples of the governing nature of the Church in Francis' own writings. His concern for approval and accordance manifested the institutional function well:

I command the ministers through obedience to petition the Lord Pope for one of the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, who would be the governor, protector, and corrector of this fraternity (Second Rule 12:3-4).

No [candidate] should be accepted contrary to the form and the prescription of the holy Church (First Rule 2:12).

The brothers shall not preach in the diocese of any bishop when he has opposed their doing so (Second Rule 9:1). No brother should preach contrary to the form and regulations of the holy Church [...] (First Rule 17:la).

The clerical [brothers] shall celebrate the Divine Office according to the rite of the holy Roman Church (Second Rule 3:1).

Taking these three functions as a whole, the 'institutional' Church --rather than an institutionalistic Church -- for Francis was not an obstacle to faith but instead became an expression of faith in terms of an object of obedience, a source of identity and a motivation of missions. Seeing the Pope as the visible head of the church, Francis proclaimed in the rule: 'Brother Francis and whoever will be the head of this order promises obedience and reverence to the Lord Pope Innocent and to his successors (First Rule Prologue).'

Dulles recognises the strong sense of corporate identity resulting from the institutional model as an asset. (37) No wonder Francis stated in the letter to the faithful that 'we must also be Catholics'. (38) In explaining why he wrote a Testament in addition to the Rule, he said, 'so that we may observe in a more Catholic manner the Rule.' These two uses of the word "Catholic" include not just the three functions of being taught, sanctified and governed but also a sense of pride. Dulles recognises that 'the institutional model gives strong support to the missionary effort [...] to save [non-believers'] souls by bringing them into the institution.' (39) On the surface at least, Francis' great interest in sending friars to Muslim places to preach and to convert them seems to confirm his ecclesiological leaning, although his true motivation may have been more salvific than institutional.

Although Francis' ecclesiology may have been institutional, it does not follow that Francis himself was institutionalistic or that he was thereby clericalist, juridicist and triumphalistic. (40) This is proved by the fact that Francis never received the holy order of priesthood, as well as that he was more concerned with compassion than punishment (41) for brothers at fault. Moreover, his own ecclesiology was richer than the institutional model -- it was supplemented by other models, as described below.



30. Dulles, 34.

31. Dulles, 37.

32. Dulles, 37.

33. First Rule 19:1, 2.

34. Second Rule 2:2

35. Second Letter to the Faithful 33 and 35

36. Admontion 26 : 3-4

37. Dulles, 42

38. Second Letter TO THE Faithful 32.

39. Dulles, 42.

40. Three criticisms of the institutional Church by Emile de Smedt, quoted in Dulles, 39.

41. This will be elaborated later.

The Church as People of God

The People of God model is straightforward, realistic and practical. With a strong Biblical base and a concrete image, this model expresses the organicity of the human aspect. Vatican II theology has restored this model to its proper place: we may note the precedence of The chapter title 'People of God' before "The Hierarchical Structure of the Church'. For St Francis, the Church as People of God possibly was not an ecclesiology per se but a reality. In the last chapter of the First Rule, Francis invited ('begged') the whole Church (and beyond) to give God thanks. (42) Mico analysed this as essentially a 'universal vision' of The People of God, corresponding to the two parts of the triumphant church in heaven and the pilgrim church in via. (43) This glorious church in heaven is referred to by Francis in a quasi-litany of saints:

the glorious Mother, Blessed Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, and all the blessed angels, saints, John the Evangelist, Peter, Paul, patriarchs, prophets, innocents, apostles, evangelists, disciples, martyrs, confessors, virgins, blessed Elijah and Henoch, saints past, present and future. (44)

After this comes a litany of the members of the pilgrim church on earth, which is similar to the one in Lumen genfium:

St Francis : First Rule 23:7ff  Lumen gentium 41
   (number indicating the order)
  1.  shepherds Of Christ's flock
Priests; 2. Priests
Deacons, 3. Deacons
Subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, Lectors, porters, and all clerics  4. Clerics
All religious men and women, 　
All lay brothers and youth, the poor and the needy, 8 Those oppressed by poverty, infirmity, sickness or other hardship
Kings and princes,
Workers and farmers, servants,  Labourers
And masters
All virgins and continent and married women, 6 Married couples and Christian parents, windows and single people,
All lay people, men, women, children, adolescents, the youth and the old 5 Laymen, the healthy and
The healthy and
The sick,  8 (those oppressed by poverty, infirmity, sickness or other hardships,)
All the small and the great


　　
Under this 'pilgrim Church' (not a term Francis used), the litany includes a cosmic dimension that is definitely beyond an institutioal understanding:

all peoples, races, tribes, and tongues, all nations and all peoples everywhere on earth who are and who will be.

Such a vision supplements the ecclesiological model of the Church as People of God. Mice's analysis of this as 'universal vision' of the people of God aptly describes Francis' understanding of ecclesial catholicity.

Besides the poetic litany offered in the hymn of Thanksgiving, within the Franciscan tradition this 'People of God' view of the Church found its graphic imagery in the San Damiano crucifix, the one which asked Francis to rebuild God's house -- the Church. This Byzantine icon had many human figures (as well as angels) around Jesus in the centre. The graphic portrait has indeed two strong ecclesiological character, depicting the model of the Church as people of God: Jesus in the centre with the church triumphant of saints on the top and at the side of Jesus. The people at the side of Jesus acquire a more humanistic figure, more easily identified as 'pilgrims', although they are indeed saints. The smaller figures are 'sinners' who crucified Jesus. This may correspond to the axiom that the people of God model does not only include saints but also sinners, the weak, the rebellious and the anti-witness too. This vivid representation again can be connected with the breadth of the universal character of Francis' ecclesial view.



42. First Rule 23:7

43. Mico, J., The Spirituality of St Francis: Holy Mother Church. Greyfriars Review 8(1) (1994) 17.

44. First Rule 23:1-6 paraphrased, because Francis used many adjectives for the saints.

The Church as Body of Christ/ Sacrament/ Mystical Communion

The Church as Body of Christ is characteristically a conception of Pauline theology, with numerous Scriptural references. (45) It is a strong image of such essential features of the church as Christ being the head and the dependence of each member of the church on each other. The Church as Sacrament, on the other hand, is a relatively new concept. (46) The Church is the Sacrament of Christ in the same way that Christ is the Sacrament of God. By definition, a sacrament is more than a sign of grace; it is a full sign, meaning in it is the grace which it signifies. With this model, the goal of the church is made clear: 'to purify and intensify man's response to the grace of Christ.' (47) The Church as a mystical communion speaks about the other side of the institutional church - that the Church is a not just a Gemeinschaft (society) but also a Gesellschaft (community). Such a model emphasises the vertical dimension of 'divine life disclosed in the incarnate Christ and communicated to men through his Spirit' rather than the horizontal aspect of a secular community. (48)

Although these three models are used separately, they supplement each other. Of these three ecclesiological models, it is not apparent that St Francis subscribed to one in particular. Actually, one aspect of Francis' understanding of the Church refers to a combination of these models. The great Eucharistic devotion in Francis' spirituality can be a source for ecclesiological investigation in connection with these three models. "This is even more true with postconciliar ecclesiology. Before analysing his version, these three are treated separately.

Lumen gentium points out, with the model of the Church as mystical communion, that: 'Celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice, therefore, we are most closely united to the worshipping Church in heaven [...].'(49) Bekes proposes that before the Church celebrates the Eucharist, it is the Eucharist that makes the Church. An examination of the origins of the Eucharist, particularly that of the Passover meal being constitutive of the ecclesial community, makes clear the two aspects of the essence of the Church. There is a vertical sense: divine communion through Christ in the Spirit with the Father, and a horizontal sense: human and ecclesial communion with all those who live in divine communion. (50) This thesis combines two models together: the vertical sense emphasises the sacramentality of the Church whereas the horizontal sense highlights the communion of the Church. Compared with Hamer's concept of vertical and horizontal dimensions of communion, (51) Bekes' thesis is more transcendent and integrates the mystery of the Church better, as the following diagram represents.

DIVINE COMMUNION  DIVINE COMMUNION

Human

Communion

(Secular)
  Human Communion of Those who Share the Same Divine Communion
COMMUNION MODEL  EUCHARISTIC MODEL

No wonder the New Catechism states that "The Church is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. (CCC 752)' This is just another interpretation of what is said in the Vatican II documents: 'Really sharing in the body of the Lord in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread, we are taken up into communion with him and with one another.' (52) This postconciliar ecclesiology centred on the Eucharist has the breadth of being integrative. Diagrammatically, one can draw:

Three separate ecclesiologies

Body Of Chritst Communion Sacrament

An inegrated ecclesiology

Eucharist = Communion + Sacrament

Such Eucharistic ecclesiology perhaps is paradigmatic as not only the communion and the sacrament models can be integrated, but also the models of Church as Body of Christ and as the community of disciples. For instance: "The divine and human communion is the theandric unity of Christ as brought about mystically in his body, which is the Church.' (53) "The community of disciples encounters Jesus under the symbolic forms as the crucified and risen Lord, and thus as the sacrifice that reconciles sinners to God.' (54)

Now with a Eucharistic understanding of what the Church is, everything which Francis has written about the Eucharist may suitably become ecclesiological. For instance, piety towards the Eucharist in reality reflects the sacramentality part of the vertical mystery: the presence of Christ in the Church through the Eucharist.

"Therefore, kissing your (brothers') feet and with all that love of which I am capable, I implore all of you brothers to show all possible reverence and honour to the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ...

O admirable heights and sublime lowliness!

O sblime humility!

O humble sublimity!

That the Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God, so humbles Himself that for our salvation He hides Himself under the little form of bread. (55)

And the Lord gave me such faith in churches that I would simply pray and speak in this way: 'We adore you, Lord Jesus Christ, in all Your churches throughout the world, and we bless You, for through Your holy cross You have redeemed the world.' [...] I see nothing corporally of the Most High Son of God in this world except His Most holy Body and Blood... (56)

[See,] daily He comes down from the bosom of the Father upon the altar in the hands of the priest. [...] And in this way the Lord is always with His faithful, as He Himself says: "Behold I am with you even to the end of the world." (57)

Likewise the mystical communion ('horizontal' for Bekes but 'vertical' for Hamel), finds its expression in the fraternal ideal of St Francis for his brotherhood -- as well as for the Church, humankind and finally the whole creation. One particular actualisation -- more on the human relationship level -- is the concern for showing mercy and compassion in dealing with brothers who have sinned. Such clemency waseven written into the Rule -- not so much as a legal requirement but a form of life: If [...] there should be some brother who wishes to live according to the flesh and not according to the Spirit, the brothers with whom he is [living] should admonish, instruct and correct him humbly and diligently.' (58) Stretching the evangelical fraternity to a mystical communion level, Francis even asked of the Ministers, as Jesus asked of Peter on forgiveness: 'And if [the brother who has sinned and hasbeen forgiven] should sin thereafter a thousand times before your very eyes, love him more than me so that you may draw him back to the Lord.' (59)

"These quotes are not simply indicative of a medieval Eucharistic piety or a radical evangelical movement. They are representative of a sense of:

the sacramental presence of Christ in the mystery of the Church in a vertical direction; and,

agape within a fellowship in a horizontal direction. These are the two aspects of a Franciscan ecclesiology of Eucharist. As Bekes observed, the two are linked: 'the very mystery of divine redemption is made sacramentally present and constantly accomplished within the Christian community.' (60)



45. I Cor6:12-20; 10:14-22; 12-4:31; .Col l:3ff;Eph 1:10,21-23,5:25-26.

46. Theologians such as Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, E Schillebeeckx and Yves Congar as well as the Vatican II Council Fathers employed such a concept. See Dulles, 63ff.

47. Dulles, 73

48. Dulles, 49-50

49. LG 50

50. Bekes, G.J., The Eucharist makes the Church: the Ecclesial Dimension of the Sacrament. In Latourelle, R. (ed.), Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives (New York: Paulist 1989) 356-363.

51. Quoted in Dulles, 49-50.

52. LG 7.

53. Bekes, 356

54. Duties, 216.

55. Letter to the Entire Order 12 and 27.

56. Testament 4-5, 10.

57. Admonition 1:18, 22

58. First Rule 5:5

59. Letter to a minister 11.

60. Bekes, 356

The Church as Herald

In this model, the Word of God is held central. The act of proclamation, in addition to the profession, of the word to the whole world characterises the mission of the Church. (61) Francis always had high regard for the word: 'Let us hold onto the words, the life, and the teaching and the Holy Gospel of Him.' (62) in the time of great Eucharistic devotion during the Middle Ages, Francis revolutionarily reemphasised the importance of the Word. Unlike the original version of this model, which is undoubtedly very Protestant in placing the word over the sacrament, (63) Francis highlights the dual importance of both. There is a strong kerygmatic element in the Franciscan movement. Religious before his time were almost uniformly monastic, both coenobitic and eremetic; the Franciscan movement, not unlike some other Gospel movements of the time, stressed preaching. The difference was that Francis and his brothers remained in the Church.

For Francis, his heraldic ecclesiology positively complemented the institution mentality: Francis himself went to preach to the Muslims and he was open for his brothers to do likewise. (64) On preaching to the Saracens, i.e. the Muslims, Francis said, there were two ways to live among the non-believers. Besides not being engaged in arguments or disputes but acknowledging that they are Christians, 'another way is to proclaim the word of God when they see that it pleases the Lord, so that they believe in [...] God [...] and that they be baptised and become Christians.' (65) The concern for proclaiming is heraldic and the consideration for having converts baptised and becoming Christians shows signs of an institutional Church model. This is echoed in the twentieth century presentation of the herald model: the intention of the preacher is not to improve the world, but to summon it to belief in Jesus Christ and to bear witness to the reconciliation which has been accomplished through Him and His dominion. (66) Indeed, as Francis wrote, 'Blessed is that religious who takes no pleasure and joy except in the most holy words and deeds of the Lord, and with these leads people to the love of God in joy and gladness.' (67) This admonition of Francis for the individual friar can be applied on a corporate level to the entire community, the Church. Thus the word, which includes the recording of the deeds, being so central for this ecclesial community is a reflection of the heraldic ecclesiology. As shown earlier, Francis' respect for the clergy, because of their tie with the sacrament, reflects the institutional ecclesiology. A similar case for the heraldic ecclesiology is manifested in his concern for honouring and respecting 'all theologians and those who minister the most holy divine words as those minister spirit and life to us.' (68)

Yet he nevertheless recognised the profundity of the word. This was demonstrated in the following remarks:

Those religious who do not wish to follow the spirit of Sacred Scripture, but only wish to know [what] the words [are] and [how to] interpret them to others are killed by the letter. (69)

All brothers should preach by their deeds. (70)

Although this awareness originally works on an individual level of admonition, it indeed enriches the heraldic ecclesiology by pointing out that the proclamation is not an absolute end. This insight substantiates a missiological concern: following what one preaches and preaching by one's deeds are no less important than the act and content of the proclamation; the proclaimer on his own is a personified sermon.



61. Richard McBrien, quoted in Dulles, 76.

62. First Rule 22:41.

63. Dulles, 76.

64. Second Rule 12.

65. First Rule 5:6-7

66. Dulles, 94.

67. Admonition 20.

68. Teastament 13.

69. Admonition 7:3, word order changed to bring out the meaning better.

70. First Rule 17:3

The Church as Servant

In this model the Church is seen to be bounded by a 'sense of brotherhood that springs up among those who join in Christian service towards the world.' (71) This is related to two New Testament concepts: κοινωνια (brotherhood "(72) /fellowship) and διακονια (service). This model, by its very name 'servant', bears three unfortunate ambiguities, namely the implication of working under orders, or the work itself being demeaning, or serving to the good of others. (73) Nevertheless, three useful aspects can concurrently be made clear: for the service of God, out of love and to 'wash each other's feet' (meaning humility and commitment within aκοινωνια). (74)

This model, as an ecclesiological one, has an indirect reference in the Scriptures, namely the Songs of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. (75) Franciscan sources, although not concerning the Church explicitly, can greatly supplement the understanding of the servant Church by elevating the individual servanthood to a collective servanthood of the Church. In particular, one important set of Francis' writings is the Admonitions and almost two thirds of these are known as 'Servant of God Admonitions'. These 'beatitudes', originally meant to be 'criteria of a true friar', (76) can also enrich the many aspects of the servant Church ecclesiology.

For instance, on the issue of ministry within the order, Francis himself writes: 'Those who are placed over others should glory in such an office only as much as they world were they assigned the task of washing the feet of the brothers.' "(77) 'And let the ministers and servants remember what the Lord says: I have not come to be served, but to serve.' (78) This can be applicable to the ministry of the Church, particularly regarding the hierarchy, which requires an attitude of humility.

The instrumentality and theocentricity as servant of God are brought out by another Admonition: It is a great shame for us, servants of God, that [...] we wish to receive glory and honour by recounting our deeds.' (79)

The servant image in Francis' Servant of God Admonitions can complement many other ecclesiological aspects:

The Church as a humble servant

The humble servant may be an image of a humble servant Church:　

'A servant of God may be recognised as possessing the Spirit of the Lord [.,.] if the flesh does not pride itself when the Lord performs some good through him [...]' (80)

'Blessed is that servant who does not pride himself on the good that the Lord says or does through him any more than on what He says or does through another.' (81)

Such an understanding is an important complement to a victorious Church triumphant and brings out the minority image of a contrast society.

Love in a communion

Francis wrote:

Blessed is the servant who would love his brother as much when he is sick and cannot repay him as he would when he is well and can repay him; (82) [and] who would love and respect his brother as much when he is far from him as he would when he is with him, (83)

This can be related to the importance of fellowship-love in a mystical communion of the Church. On a personal level, each member of the Church - as a servant - must bear his brothers. On a corporate level, the Church herself as a servant must bear all humanity, or even the entire creation, as a brother when it is sick and do this with love and respect. This is an important notion for how the Church relates to the world.

Patience during suffering

the circumstance of suffering and the attitude of patience are relevant for the Church, especially in time of trials and persecution. Francis wrote:　

But when the time comes in which those who should do him justice do quite the opposite to him, he has only as much patience and humility as he has on that occasion and no more. (84)

The true peacemakers are those who preserve peace of mind and body for love of our Lord Jesus Christ, despite what they suffer in this world. (85)

By sharing suffering, the church participates in the paschal mystery of Christ and thereby Christ continues to be present in the Church. This aspect balances a triumphant image of the Church.

Penance for sins

A strong theme in Franciscan spirituality was the concern for doing penance, as seen by the early name for the friars, the "Penitents from Assisi". This theme was carried out too in the Servant Admonitions:　

He is the faithful and prudent servant who for all his offences does not delay in punishing himself, inwardly through contrition and outwardly through confession and penance for what he did. (86)

Blessed is the servant who would accept correction, accusation and blame from another as patiently as he would from himself. (87)

Therefore, blessed is that servant who having such an enemy in his power, will always hold him captive and wisely guard himself against him, because as long as he does this, no other enemy, seen or unseen, will be able to harmhim. (88)

This is indeed an important complement to an integral ecclesiology. The Church is at the same time sinful and sanctifying. With such stress on the servant as a penitent, one can appreciate the need of the servant Church -- not just the individual members -- to accept its own vulnerability to make mistakes and the need to convert continuously.

Word in the herald image

The servant is at the service of the word. Francis borrowed and applied the beautiful imagery of Our Lady to the servant:

Blessed is the servant who keeps the secrets of the Lord in his heart. (89)　

The Church should take this as an example of keeping the word. Furthermore, this servant cannot be careless with his own speaking because his true nature should be heraldic in proclaiming the Word of God:

Blessed is the servant who [...] is not quick to speak but wisely weighs what he should say and should reply. From such an exposition of these sources, a Franciscan ecclesiology of the servant Church does not dwell too much on the kind of service but on the substance of service, namely the theocentricity, the humility, the communion aspect, the suffering, the penance and the relation concerning the word.



71. Dulles, 97.

72. The Brotherhood finds its radical and concrete expression in religious life. Nowonder the Francisicans -- and other mendicant religious, such as Dominicans -- are known as friars, meaning brothers.

73. Dulles, 99.

74. Dulles, 99.

75. Indirect because the songs point to Christ, and the Church is onky a continuation of His presence.

76. Armstorg, 31, footnote

77. Admonition 4:2

78. First Rule 4:6

79. Admonition 6:3

80. Admonition 12:1-2

81. Admonition 17:1

82. Admonition 24.

83. Admonition 25.

84. Admonition 13:2

85. Admonition 15:2

86. Admonition 23:2

87. Admonition 22:1

88. Admonition 10:3

89. Admonition 28.

Our Lady as a Model of the Church

The Vatican II Constitution on the Church devotes an entire chapter to Our Lady to show the Marian dimension of ecclesiology. This is in accordance with the Patristic tradition: 'As St Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a model of the Church in the matter of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ.' (90) St Francis has a profound understanding of Our Lady in relation to the Church )) in her relationship with the Trinity, the significance of the mystery of incarnation and the realisation as a family.

In the Antiphon for the Office of Passion (Francis' own writing), in Lumen gentium, as well as in the postconciliar catechism, a triad of Marian images is made with an ecclesiological mind:

Lumen gentium

52 on Our Lady
CCC 796 on the Church St. Francis' Antiphon of the Office of Passion
God Of The Father 2. Favourite daughter of the Father 1. [People of God] 1. The daughter and the servant of the most high and supreme King and Father of heaven
God the Son 1. Mother of the Son Of God 2. Body Of Christ --Son Of Christ 2. The Mother of our most holy Lord Jesus Christ
God Of The Holy Spirit 3. Temple of the Holy Spirit 3. Temple Of The Holy Spirit 3. The Spouse of the Holy Spirit

This matrix tabulates the various Trinitarian visions of the Marian model of the Church. For Francis, the Church is portrayed with the images of Our Lady as daughter, servant (ancilla), (91) mother and spouse. All these images are illuminative for grasping an aspect of the mystery of the church. For instance, the ancilla aspect definitely relates to the servant model but at the same time adds a feminine dimension as well as a Marian element.

With such a litany of familial relationships, one immediate consequence of this Marian ecclesiology is a family vision of the Churcli. In Francis' conception, all the faithful are children of the heavenly Father, and more specifically,

when faithful souls are joined to our Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, they become spouses of Christ;

when they do the will of Christ, they become brothers to Him;

when we carry Him in our heart and body through divine love and a pure and sincere conscience and when we give birth to Him through holy manner of working, we become mothers of Christ. (92)

It is interesting to note that in this version the family vision has a definite Christocentric focus. Although Francis was not consistent in deciding if the Church is the spouse of Christ or of the Holy Spirit, it is certain that he regards the entire community of faith as a spiritual family. This is made more clear for the friars: 'Let the brothers give witness that they are members of one family.' (93) On a collective level, the Church is indeed a household (familia) of God in the Spirit, as Lumen gentium points out.

Another important Marian devotion of St Francis is expressed in the Salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary which bears a definite ecclesiological element:

Ave Domina, sancta Regina, sancta Dei genetrix Maria, quae es virgo ecclesia facta...

(Hail, 0 Lady, holy Queen, Mary,, holy Mother of God; you are the virgin made Church...). (94)

The ecclesiological significance of this prayer cannot be overemphasised. Mico analysed that this meant Mary's dignity as an anticipatory image of the Church because Our Lady was at God's disposal so that the Son of God could take flesh in her womb. (95)

At the centre of this salutatory prayer is a climax of six Aves: Ave palatium eius, ave tabernaculum eius, ave domus eius, ave vestimentum eius, ave ancilla eius, ave mater eius. (Hail, His Palace; Hail, His Tabernacle; Hail, His Home; Hail, His Robe; Hail, His Servant; Hail, His Mother.) (96) The first four of these titles refer to the mystery of the incarnation and Our Lady's role in co-operating with God to make it possible. This can be said to be dignity of the Church -- 'the place where humanity meets the Trinue God'. (97) The first two Aves, palace and tabernacle, relate to both dimensions of being triumphant and being pilgrim. The home and the robe concern both an interpersonal and a personal dimension of God among and with humanity. All four of these conform to the Vatican II appreciation of the solidarity of Godwith humankind: "The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple (in templo habitat).' (98) Needless to say, the servant and the mother images refer to a horizontal mystical communion model, contrasting with the first four images, which refer to the vertical sacramental model.

Although the Church is a dwelling place which God has prepared for humankind, it is also the place where humankind prepares to meet God. As we have seen earlier in the Eucharistic ecclesiology the Eucharist makes the Church when the Church celebrates the Eucharist. Francis wrote: 'And let us make a home and dwelling place for Him who is the Lord God Almighty, Father and Son and Holy Spirit.' (99) The Church's loving acceptance of the indwelling of the Three Divine Persons is what makes it the true temple of the Trinity, the place where it is possible to live out the saving mystery of God.' (100) In short, a Franciscan-Marian ecclesiology is integrative. Using Our Lady as a focus, various models can be interlinked.



90. LG 63.

91. Latin version of the Antiphon in Esser, C. (ed.), Opuscula Sancti Patris Francisci Assisiensis (Rome: Collegii S Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas 1978).

92. Firast Letter to the Faithful 7.

93. Second Rule 6:7

94. Salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary (SBV)

95. Mico,15.

96. SBV. Latin version in Esser.

97. Mico, 15.

98. LG 4.

99. First Rule 22:27

100. Mico, 16.

The Church as Lady Poverty

Francis did not write about Lady Poverty in connection with the Church. Yet with the fruits of postconciliar ecclesiology as described above, this favourite theme in the Franciscan tradition can be used as an image, if not a model, of the Church. The term Lady Poverty (Domina paupertas) did not appear often in Francis' writings. It is found in the Salutations of the Virtues: 'Hail, Queen Wisdom [...], Lady holy Poverty.' (101) Elsewhere this Lady Poverty only appears in other sources, namely the biographies and pious stories. Francis 'panted with all his heart after Lady Poverty.' (102) Its direct link to the preferential option for the poor is a strength of this image. The option for the poor -- not just Francis' -- is 'derived from an earlier option: the option for Jesus Christ, Lord of History.'(103) These are the two dimensions of Francis' same commitment. A discussion of Franciscan poverty is beyond the scope of this paper but it is enough to note that Francis opts for neither a material poverty nor a spiritual poverty but a synthesis of the two -- an evangelical poverty. (104)

On a mural in the St Francis Basilica in Assisi, Francis is portrayed as being married to the Lady Poverty by Christ. If Francis -- the alter Christus -- is espoused to her. Lady Poverty must also represent to some extent the Church, just as the Church in the Bride of Christ. (105) A closer examination of the idea of Lady Poverty can enhance a Franciscan ecclesiology. Although Francis did not write further on Lady Poverty, one pious story stands out as a source: Sacrum Commercium (The Love Story) between Francis and the Lady Poverty. Although it was not written by Francis himself and is not a historical account, the story captures the essential spirit of Franciscan poverty. Throughout the story, various passages about Lady Poverty can be extrapolated to become ecclesiological, although the original intent of the author may have only been to personify a highly regarded virtue.

Bride of Christ

At one point, Lady Poverty is addressed as 'a most faithful spouse, a most tender lover of Christ.' (106) Further, the story recalls how Christ himself led a life of poverty: 'while he was in the world he clung to [Lady Poverty] alone and proved that [she was] completely faithful in all things.' (107)

Sacrament of Christ -- Mystery of Incarnation

That the Lady prepared in the human person a place and a dwelling of God (108) could refer to the sacramentality of the Church. This ecclesiological quality of sacramentality is made obvious when the Marian dimension is brought forward again in the story: the Lady Poverty 'prepared a place that would be satisfactory to [Christ], a throne upon which he would sit and a dwelling in which he would rest, namely, the most poor virgin.' (109)　

Church as Servant -- Church as Herald -- Church as Contrast Society

The Lady spoke with Francis in the story and her speech contained a reference to the Suffering Servant, which is already used as a model of the Church: '[I am] a poor little one, tossed with tempest, without all comfort.' (110) And then, on a kerygmatic note, 'When [Jesus] chose certain necessary witnesses of his preaching, [,.,] he chose [...] poor fishermen. ' (111) ' If the Church is meant to continue the presence of Christ, certainly the Lady Poverty is an image qualified to supplement the heraldic model. When Lady Poverty is described as hated bitterly by the sons of Adam, (112) this points to a contrast society image of the Church being distinct from the world.

Church as Body of Christ

Further in the story of Lady Poverty, the poverty of Christ is highlighted in connection with the Body: 'when [Christ] hung there naked, his arms outstretched, his hands and feet pierced, [Lady Poverty] suffered with him, so that nothing in him should appear more glorious than [she].' '(113) The body imagery here - made strong by the stark nakedness and the emphasis on the arms, hands and feet - can supplement the doctrine of the Body of Christ as the Church -- and this Body includes the dimension of poverty.

Church as Eucharistic Community and as Community of Salvation

The story of Lady Poverty ends with 'when everything was ready, the brothers constrained Lady Poverty to eat with them.' ' (114) The banquet is a very beautiful Eucharistic image because it signifies convivium -- as in Thomas' hymn to the Eucharist (115) -- eating the agape meal, sharing of the life-giving bread and the cup of salvation. Further, Lady Poverty is said to have been given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. ' (116) In this way, the Church is a community of salvific grace.

The benefits of this image of Lady Poverty are numerous. One obvious positive use of this image is the emphasis that the Church has to be a church of the poor. According to liberation theology, the poor are 'sacrament of God'. (117) There is a strong evangelical root: Jesus affirms that if one does a work of charity to the least of the brothers it is done to himself. The relationship is that of immediacy, not intermediary:

The poor are the sacrament of Jesus: the manifestation and communication of this mystery, the setting for his revelation and dwelling. [...] In the poor, God is met precisely in poverty. This sacrament of the poor [...] remains the only sacrament necessary for salvation. The way to God goes necessarily, for everyone without exception, through human beings -- human beings in need [...]. (118)

In this image, because the Church of the poor is emphasised, a deep reflection on the Church as Lady Poverty is bound to lead to a constant renewal of institutional structures and questioning of the Church-world relationship. Therefore, this image successfully relates to two of the ecclesiological issues listed as belonging to postconciliar theology. (119)

There are also weaknesses with this model. For instance, in the story the Lady Poverty is portrayed as standing on the summit of a mountain, (120) which gives a false impression of being inaccessible. Secondly, this image has a definite Franciscan ring which is not helpful outside the movement. Nevertheless, at least this can serve as an example of drawing upon alternative sources for doing theology.



101. There is a Marian dimension. Some manuscripts call this piece 'The Virtues possessed by the holy Virgin'. See notes quoted in Armstrong.

102. 2 Celano 55 (This version is a translation by Bodo).

103. Boff, C. and Pixley, G., The Bible, the Church and the Poor (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 1989)115.

104. This differentiation of poverty is found in Chapter 7 in Boff and Pixley, 139-158. The attribution to Francis of doing so is mine. 'Christian poverty is not just an ideal for individuals, the community and the Church; it is also an ideal for humankind and for a society that seeks to operate on the level of human beings and their mystery.' Boff, 156.

105. Borrowing an image first used by Irenaeus in Adv. haer., LG 4 states that 'Constantly [Christ] renews [the Church] and leads her to perfect union with her Spouse.'

106. Sacrum Commercium 20. In Habig. Subsequent references to Sacrum Commercium are also from this version.

107. Sacrum Commercium 19.

108. Sacrum Commercium 1.

109. Sacrum Commercium 19.

110. Sacrum Commercium 15.

111. Sacrum Commercium 20.

112. Sacrum Commercium 5.

113. Sacrum Commercium 21.

114. Sacrum Commercium 59.

115. O Sacrum convivium, in quo Chrislus sumilur. recolitur memoria passionis ejus.mens impleturgralia etfuturaegloriaepignus nobis datur.

116. Sacrum Commercium 4.

117. BoffandPixley,114.

118. BoffandPixley,113-114.

119. Eight issues are listed in Anton, 407.

120. Sacrum Commercium 14.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to prove that it is possible to construct a single Franciscan ecclesiology. It has looked at the different models of the Church from Franciscan perspectives. This is possible because the Franciscan movement is an expression of the Church, and shares the same ecclesial constitutive elements. The Franciscan sources can enrich the appreciation of the various models of the Church. Directly, St Francis did see the Church in an institution model, a people of God model as well as a Marian model. These three models were classic theological themes and Francis' direct use of these was natural.

Indirectly, the postconciliar models -- the Eucharistic, herald and servant -- can be approached too through the writings of Francis. Finally, the image of Lady Poverty is suggested as an alternative model to bring out the Church of the poor in particular. No wonder the whole Church, not just the Franciscans, could and should sing the antiphon -- Franciscus vir catholicus et lotus apostolicus -- wholeheartedly: not simply to celebrate this medieval saint but to celebrate the mystery of the Church, as Francis saw it and lived it out so deeply and so well.

by Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti S.D.B.

MARTINO MARTINI'S DE BELLO TARTARICO :

LATE MING AND EARLY QING CHRONICLE, A VALID POINT OF REFERENCE FOR A "HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE"

1. Introduction : Chronicles and Histories

1.1 Is Martino Martini (*) a chronicler or a historian? The answer to this question will depend on the meaning we attach to the terms "chronicle" and "history". For the purpose of our investigation, a simple differentiation between these two kinds of historical accounts will do. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, C.W. Jones, under the word "chronicle", gives this description of the genre: "Chronicles, records of noteworthy events both natural and cultural, arranged in chronological order, represent a more detailed and sophisticated form of annals [...]. Insofar as they are bare statements of fact, given without comment and compiled without inductive purpose, chronicles differ essentially from history (Gr. historia, "inquiry"), which is understood as being concerned not only to describe but also to interpret the actions of men. Nevertheless few chronicles are entirely free of tendentiousness; from the earliest times their compilers began to select data in order to exalt a reigning house or a religion, or to provide moral exempla." (1) Even a superficial reading of Martini's De bello tartarico shows that both this description of the genre "chronicle" and the proviso attached to it are relevant to Martini's work. How relevant are they? Is Martini "a chronicler with a purpose"? "These are the kind of questions that I am going to deal with.

1.2 The starting point of my research is the article which the late Chinese historian Ma Yong wrote for the First International Congress on Martino Martini. (2) This article is, as far as I know, the first and the best concise presentation of Martini's De bello tartarico to the world. At the beginning and at the end of his presentation, Ma Yong expresses a twofold judgment which will form the backbone of my own discussion. At the beginning Ma Yong says: "The De bello tartarico is not a truly historical work, but is rather a non-systematic collection." (3) At the end of the article Ma Yong says: "[The De bello tartarico] remains a reference work of excellent historical value." (4) So in Ma Yong's view, Martini's book on the final struggle of the Ming against the Qing is "not a truly historical work", but "a reference work of excellent historical value." The title and the content of my article are simply meant to illustrate this careful judgment of the distinguished Chinese historian.

1.3 Martino Martini, for his part, considered his own work to be a true "history", in the sense, of course, given to this term in his own times. The De bello tartarico reads much like the continuation of the Tongjian Gangmu, the supplement to the official Chinese history of the Song and Yuan dynasties, parts of which Martini probably had occasion to read. (5) Today, however, we understand the word "history" in a stricter sense, and distinguish history-writing from chronicle-writing and other literary forms. If I may elaborate somewhat in a personal way the distinction given above between "history" and "chronicle", I would say that the most striking difference between the two forms lies in this: history-writing is essentially a communitarian enterprise; it presupposes an as wide as possible search for documents, a comparison and an interpretation of these documents, and the offering of this interpretation to the scrutiny of scholarly criticism. Chronicle-writing, instead, is a highly individual enterprise; its purpose is to offer a valuable historical document to posterity regarding persons and events that the chronicler deems memorable; its contents consist mainly (if the chronicle is to be valuable) of eye-witness reports, whether the eye-witness is the chronicler him/herself or people directly contacted by him/her. So, on the one hand, a chronicle shares somehow the highly individual character of a diary. But, on the other hand, it is different from a diary, in that the focus of attention in a chronicle is not introspection but interested observation of the events and persons of the surrounding world. This 'public' interest is something the chronicle shares with history. A final point distinguishing chronicles from histories is that it is essential for the chronicler that he or she be contemporary or almost contemporary with the events he or she describes. Instead, for true history writing, it is essential that there be a certain time lag between the history-writer and the events he or she describes, so as to ensure independence and objectivity of judgment. If not "the mother of truth", time is at least "the midwife of historical truth". This point was well taken by the European editor of the Qing history published in Europe in 1780 while emperor Kang Xi was still alive: "[It is] impossible to have the authentic history of the Qing, because such a history can appear only when another dynasty has succeeded the present one." (6)

1.4 From this elementary outline of the literary forms of history-writing and chronicle-writing it is already rather clear where Martino Martini and his De bello tartarico stand. (7) Contemporary with most of the events he describes, often passing a very personal judgment on persons and events, he is one of the many primary sources (8) for the history of this period, when China saw the dramatic, even tragic, dynastic change from Ming to Qing. This is a crucial period whose claims to be treated as the beginning of the history of Modem China are at least as good as those of the Opium Wars period.(9) In the rest of my paper I will illustrate how Martini's "Chronicle" of the Ming-Qing succession wars differs from a standard "history" of the period. I shall concentrate especially on one aspect: the judgments Martino Martini passes on several personalities and events, judgments which I have found to be at odds with the findings of contemporary historiography.(10)



* Martino Martini, S.J. was born in Trent in 1614; he went to Rome in 1632 to continue his studies and in 1636 he joined the Society of Jesus. In 1640 he left Rome for China as a missionary and reached Macao in 1643. In Europe, in the sixth decade of the seventeenth century, he published his main historical and geographical works on the Chinese Empire. He returned to China and died in Hangzhou in 1661. Martini's three main works are the following: 1) De bello tarlarico, 2) Novus alias sinensis, 3) Sinicae historiae decas prima. In recent years scholarly interest in the person and work of Martino Martini S.J. has been stimulated by international congresses jointly organized by the University of Trent (the city of the Council!) and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. The proceedings of these congresses have been published in book form and constitute a precious reference material for the study of the Martino Martini: 1) Giorgio Melis (ed.), Martino Martini: geografo, cartografo, storico, teologo, Trento 1614－Hangzhou 1661, Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Italian-English edition (Trento: Provincia Autonoma, Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali 1983) 248-262; 2) Franco Demarchi and Riccardo Scartezzini (eds.), Martino Martini: A Humanist and Scientist in Seventeenth Century China, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Martino Martini and Cultural Exchanges between China and the West, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 5-6-7 April 1994 (Trento: Universita Degli Studi 1996). This book has been published also in Italian and in Chinese. The writer of this article happens to hail also from Trent, Martino Martini's fatherland. This research is meant as a humble contribution to the knowledge of this great Catholic missionary of the Society of Jesus in the turbulent China of the mid-seventeenth century.

1. C. W. Jones, "Chronicle", Encyclopedia Britannica (1972 edition). Volume 5, 713. This current meaning of 'chronicle' is somehow the reverse of the meaning current in classical antiquity. As C.W. Jones points out in the same article, "some grammarians followed Verrius Flaccus [...] in distinguishing chronicles (annales) and history (historiae) as accounts respectively of past or of current events: Tacitus, for instance, in his Annals wrote of events that occurred before his birth or in his early childhood, and in his Histories described his own times. This specific terminology, however, was not followed by the medieval historiographers of western Europe, whose work the word 'chronicle' particularly denotes. [...] Their scribes described such works indiscriminately as chronica or historiae. In the main, however, chronicles continued to provide succinct dry records of indisputable events and phenomena such as legations, councils, coronations, deaths, earthquakes, eclipses and wars, securely set in a framework of time." (Ibidem, 713-714). I think this quotation goes a long way to explain in what spirit Martino Martini wrote the De bello tartarico and why the early translations were entitled, for example, Histoire de la guerre des Tartares contre la Chine.

2. Ma Yong, "Martino Martini's activity in China and his works on Chinese history and geography", in Giorgio Melis, Martino Martini, 248-262.

3. Ibidem, 255.

4. Ibidem, 257.

5. This Chinese historical work, which ends with the Yuan dynasty, has been available to me only in the French translation of De Mailla (cf. note 6). This translation seems to have supplemented the original work with other material concerning the Ming and Qing dynasties (perhaps the Tungjian Man, published with the approval of emperor Qian Long in 1759). Ma Yong surmises that the original Tongjian Gangmu by Zhu Xi was probably one of the sources of Martini's Sinicae historiae decas prima. Chapters 1-22 of the Tongjian Gangmu deal with the Song dynasty; chapters 23-27 with the Yuan dynasty.

6. My translation from the French of Joseph-Anne-Marie de Moyriac de Mailla (trans.), Histoire Generate de la Chine, Tome Onzieme: Vingt-Deuxieme Dynastie. Les Tsing. (Paris: Ph.D. Pierres & Clousier 1780) 1, note 1. Here the European editor (Le Roux des Hautesrayes) is merely echoing a standard principle of Chinese historiography, namely, that the history of a dynasty can be written only by historians of the next dynasty. The reason for such a principle of Chinese historiography is well illustrated in the period under consideration by the tampering with historical records at the hands of the infamous imperial eunuch Wei Zhung Xian, cf. Fredrick W. Mote and Denis Twitchett (eds.). The Cambridge History of China, Volume 7: The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part I (Cambridge, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University 1988) 607-608.

7. Ma Yong, p.255, calls Martini's De hello tartarico "a documentary book of things he has seen and heard.".

8. Martino Martini's De hello tartarico is listed among this period's Primary Sources (as distinct from Secondary Sources) in at least one of the recent historical works on the end of Ming and the beginning of Qing which I have consulted in the library of the University of Hong Kong. Unfortunately I have been unable to retrace this reference.

9. Cf. Immanuel C.Y. Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, Second Edition (New York, London, Toronto: Oxford University 1975) 4.

10. Since unfortunately I have been unable to gain access to the Latin original of Martini's De bello tartarico, in the following sections, when quoting from Martini's work, I shall have to translate from the (early, but already second) French translation of the De hello tartarico published as an Appendix to the Histoire Universelle de la Chine by Alvarez Semedo, Lyon: Hierosme Prost, 1667, with this title: Histoire de la guerre des Tortures, centre la Chine. Contenant les revolutions estranges, qui soni arrivees dans ce grand Royaume, depuis quaranie ans. Traduite du Latin du P. Martin Martini. For some passages I have used the partial English translation of Martini's work given in the History of the Two Tartar Conquerors of China, Including the Two Journeys into Tartary of Father Ferdinand Verbiest, in the Suite of the Emperor Kang-Hi, from the French of Pere Pierre Joseph D' Orleans of the Company of Jesus, to which is added Father Pereira 's Journey into Tartary in the Suite of the Same Emperor, from the Dutch of Nicolaas Witsen. Translated and Edited by the Earl of Ellesmere. With an Introduction by R.H. Major, Esq., of the British Museum, Honorary Secretary of the Hakluyt Society, London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society (1854). The original work of Pierre Joseph D'Orleans is entitled Histoire des Deux Conquerans Tartares qui ont subjuge la Chine (Paris: Claude Barbin 1688). Therefore, this English translation, I sometimes use, is a second-hand translation like mine. In this second-hand translation of mine, for the proper names I have kept the phonetic system of the French translation, providing as far as possible the Chinese equivalent (in pin yin between square brackets). This is necessary because some of the transliterations used in the French translation are very different from current ones. When no equivalent is provided, I will add a question mark between square brackets, thus [?], meaning that I have been unable to find the corresponding Chinese characters. In the following notes I shall refer to the French translation as the Histoire. When quoting from contemporary historical works, I shall keep the phonetic system of each work without adding the pin yin equivalent.

2. A Chronicler's Judgment on People and Things

2.1 Martino Martini's judgment on the Wan Li Emperor (1573-1920)

2.1.1 Martino Martini offers a twofold judgment on the last great emperor of the Ming dynasty, who died on August 18, 1620, and was followed on the throne by only minor figures. The first time he mentions him, Martini delivers a very flattering judgment indeed: "In this way the Empire was solidly established. The Chinese enjoyed peace for almost 250 years under the rule of the family Thamin [Da Ming]. While the seven little sovereigns who had divided among themselves Eastern Tartary were carrying on a cruel [internal] war, the whole of China obeyed Vanlie [Wan Li], the thirteenth emperor of this family, who was not only one of the most just and wise princes of the world, but also one of the happiest. His reign, in fact, begun in the year 1573, did not end until 1620, so that he governed this powerful monarchy for forty- seven years, to the incredible satisfaction of all his peoples." (11) The chronicler's emphasis is all too clear in such a passage. On the other hand, Martini is too much of a realist not to see some black spots in all this light. Moving towards the end of the reign, Martini becomes more critical. Commenting on Wan Li's reception of Nu Er Ha Chi's "Seven Grievances", Martini remarks: "Vanlie in this confrontation did not make use of his habitual prudence. For, having received this letter, he did not care to handle the matter himself, but handed it over to the Mandarins. This emperor, who was so experienced in the management of affairs, by such a negligence committed a totally irresponsible mistake." (12)

2.1.2 The last time Martini mentions Wan Li, he blames him for another fault, but this time the fault is something in which Martini feels personally involved, both as a Catholic missionary and as a member of the Society of Jesus: "This same year [1518] some persons pressured the Emperor Vanlie to expel from China the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, who were announcing the Gospel in his kingdom. The love he had for the Christian Religion, and for the Fathers who taught it, made him reject several times this proposal; but finally, having let himself be overcome by the ceaseless demands of Xinqui [?], who was one of the major Mandarins and one of the greatest enemies of the true Religion, he issued an edict by which he ordered all the Fathers in charge of the churches throughout China to leave the kingdom. [...] The emperor did not stop at that. He denied to all his subjects the right to embrace the Christian Religion. By this denial he gave the opportunity to all true Christians to prove their perseverance. But this is not the place to relate exactly all that happened during this persecution; I have mentioned it only to show how God's providence is admirable in its doings. It is God's providence that by hidden means has stirred up this cruel war against the Chinese, precisely when they refused to accept the peace of the Gospel." (13)

2.1.3 On the whole, therefore, Martini's judgment on the emperor Wan Li is positive. The last word is rather negative, but the motivation is historical-theological, not strictly historical. (14) If we turn to contemporary historiography, we find that it judges Wan Li in a way diametrically opposed to that of Martini. The judgment of present-day historians on the last great Ming emperor is mainly negative, with some positive remarks. The Cambridge History of China (1988), which draws also upon recent Chinese historiographical research, blames Wan Li for his 'extravagance' and 'profligacy'. (15) His last few years are judged "disastrous, politically, economically, and particularly militarily." (16) His stinginess, leading to an unnecessary increase in taxes, "caused great unhappiness at court and throughout the empire." (17) This view of Wan Li is not something totally new. K.S. Latourette (1954) had already judged Wan Li to be simply 'incompetent', with few wise decisions to his credit. (18)

2.1.4 From this comparison between Martini's judgment and that of present-day historians we can conclude that the individual chronicler is on the losing side when he is called upon to give a general judgment on a whole period and on the overall performance of a person. The total picture escapes him, many crucial data are unknown to him, and so his judgment is inevitably relative and subjective. All this notwithstanding, his judgment is not useless. By his or her judgment the chronicler makes an essential contribution to historiography in that he or she bears witness to attitudes current in his or her time with regard to the facts and the persons chronicled. Thus Martini's emphatically positive judgment on Wan Li's reign tells us how at least part of the Jesuit community in China viewed the emperor that granted a piece of burial ground to the Jesuit pioneer Matteo Ricci, when the latter died in 1610. Perhaps Martini's judgment also reflects the nostalgic impression of Wan Li's reign lingering in the hearts of the Chinese people who were confronted with the chaotic situation during the forties in mid-17th century China.

2.2 Martino Martini's judgment on Nu Er Ha Chi's "Seven Grievances"

2.2.1 When addressing the topic of the "Seven Grievances", strangely enough, Martini seems to go out of his way to stress the sincerity of Nu Er Ha Chi when writing his letter to Emperor Wan Li: "It was in 1516 that [Nu Er Ha Chi] entered Chinese territory and took possession of this city. When he had conquered it, he wrote to the king of China a letter which had nothing barbarian but the alphabet. In this letter [...], in terms full of respect and submission, he reported that he had started the war in self-defense against the violence of the Mandarins, who had cruelly assassinated his father; however, he was ready to lay down arms and to return the city he had taken by surprise, if [the emperor] would give him an audience and do him justice." (19)

2.2.2 Martini's judgment on the above-mentioned response of Wan Li to Nu Er Ha Chi indirectly contains an additional positive assessment of the content of Nu Er Ha Chi's letter. However, contemporary historiography does not divide the praise and the blame so neatly. Martini must have known the content of the famous letter. Impressed by the form, he may have not reflected enough on the content. The Cambridge History of China has this to say about Nu Er Ha Chi's "Seven Grievances": "Still claiming to desire a peaceful settlement, Nurhaci now publicized his Seven Grievances [...]. These grievances could be redressed only by a cession of territory to him and by annuities of gold, silver, and silk fabrics－in effect, a tribute from Peking. Those conditions were calculated to be unacceptable to Peking." (20)

2.2.3 Behind this modem appreciation of Nu Er Ha Chi's letter, there is the awareness that, however diplomatic the form, the substance of the message was that the relationships of emperor and tributary vassal had to be reversed. In my opinion, this awareness is the fruit of four hundred years of mutual contacts between China and Europe. Only gradually have Europeans become aware of imperial China's expectation of a "tributary consciousness" on the part of nations coming into contact with her. (21) Perhaps this is a point worth researching: were the 17th century Jesuits in China aware of this fact? Since the time of Matteo Ricci they were aware of the importance of precious gifts in dealing with the Chinese authorities. But did they perceive the true significance of these gifts in the eyes of the Chinese imperial court? Only if Martini had been aware of this true significance, could he have guessed the real import of Nu Er Ha Chi's letter. Time, after all, is a great clarifier.

2.3 Martino Martini's judgment on Yuan Chung Huan (1584-1630)

2.3.1 With regard to Yuan Chung Huan, Martini's judgment is particularly open to criticism, since he turned a national hero into a scoundrel. Or shall we say that a chronicler's scoundrel sometimes may unexpectedly become history's hero and vice versa? This is what Martini has to say of the great Chinese general: "Yuen [Yuan] was a spirit of tricks and intrigues, equally eloquent in the discourses he pronounced vocally and in those he concocted on paper. [...] It must be admitted that, if he had as much fidelity to his king and love for his country, as he had eloquence and savoir-faire, he could have rendered to the public invaluable services. But his insatiable avarice made him accept a prodigious amount of gold and silver offered him by the Tartars. Consequently, he used all his ingenuity to advance their designs." While describing in detail how he collaborated under cover with the Manchus, Martini calls him 'traitor' and twice "this perfide." (22)

2.3.2 To issue such a clear-cut description of the personality of Yuan, Martini, we may surmise, must have relied on first-hand information from someone among his fellow-Jesuits who had some dealings with Yuan. (23) Or he may have taken for granted the impression, which must have been current among the people, of Yuan as a traitor, since he was executed by the emperor precisely on a charge of treason. However, Martini seems to have overlooked the fact that the Manchus were also able to play dirty tricks. Historians today are of the opinion that all that Martini says about the intentions of Yuan were, in reality, nothing but rumours started by the Manchus. "Fearful of Yuan's military prowess, the Manchus hoped to discredit him in the eyes of the Ch'ung-chen emperor. The rumors gained credibility because Yuan had negotiated a temporary truce with Abahai several years earlier. On 13 January 1630 he was arrested and charged with treason. [...] The emperor [,.,] had his most talented general, Yuan Ch'ung-huan, cut to pieces in the capital on 22 September 1630." (24)

2.3.3 Not only is the supposition of treason wrong in Martini's account, but several of the details also seem to be inaccurate. The timing of the whole event is not clear. Here Martini is relating facts that happened a dozen years before his arrival in China. For his account he had to rely on other people's reports, which, in this case, contained a very strong bias against Yuan Chung Huan. Martini's unsuspecting acceptance of this bias may be due to the fact that Mao Wen Long (1576-1629) died in suspicious circumstances while in the company of Yuan Chung Huan. Now Mao was held in the highest esteem by the Jesuits in China. Martini calls him "the incomparable Maouenlung." (25) One reason for such an esteem was that Mao Wen Long was a Christian sympathizer. (26) Martini uncritically records as a proven fact the unprovable rumour about his death: "[Yuan Chung Huan] invited this great captain to a feast and poisoned him." (27)

2.4 Martino Martini's Judgment on Dorgon (1612-1650)

2.4.1 With regard to Martini's judgment on Dorgon, if we compare the text of the De bello tartarico in the first edition and the Appendix added to it in the second edition, we realize that Martini makes a dramatic turn-about in the Appendix. In the text of the first edition, Martini's assessment of Dorgon is extremely positive. Since Martini was at the Peking court in 1650 before Dorgon's death, he might have known the great Manchu personally. In the De bello tartarico Martini says that he saw the return to Peking of the triumphant army which Dorgon personally led to conquer the fortress of Da Tong. (28) After recording the news of his death, Martini eulogizes him in these terms: "For the rest Amauang [that is, Dorgon] died at the beginning of the year 1651, after obtaining so many victories, which have been as advantageous to the Tartar cause as his death will be disastrous. In fact, he was an admirable man, whose government was so just that the Tartars and the Chinese loved him equally. Moreover, one cannot deny that his loss has dealt a terrible blow to the power of the conquerors." (29)

2.4.2 It is evident that Martini was unaware of the power struggle that followed that death of Abahai, eighth son and second successor of Nu Er Ha Chi and Dorgon's brother. Martini's report of Dorgon's coming to power is idyllic: "[Abahai] when dying adjured his brothers to contribute with all their might to the enterprise that he had started and that could not be brought to a successful end except through their courage. He then chose the eldest brother as tutor to his son, to be the Regent as long as the latter was a minor. The last words of this dying king had so much effect on the spirit of these ambitious princes, that they all worked together with an admirable unity for the establishment of the greatness of their nephew."(30) As a matter of fact, Abahai had appointed two regents, "Jirgalang, a nephew of Nurhaci, and Dorgon, Nurhaci's fourteenth son." (31) Jirgalang was stripped of power by Dorgon's political manoeuvring. I think it is reasonable to surmise that behind Martini one can hear the voice of Dorgon explaining to the foreign missionaries how he came to power.

2.4.3 Martini goes so far in his admiration for Dorgon as to excuse him for the tragic death of Haoge (the child emperor's elder brother and Dorgon's rival): "Dorgon not only imprisoned Haoge but also took his wife as one of his concubines. [...] The imprisonment and the subsequent death of Haoge (which followed immediately after imprisonment) had the immediate effect of making Dorgon look like a tyrant." (32) Martini is aware of the problematic nature of Haoge's death, but he has this to say: "For the rest, this general [that is, Haoge], after obtaining such a decisive victory, and having been badly received by his brother Amauang [that is, Dorgon], found death, where he had reason to expect only a triumph. [...] This prince, who was truly generous and who did not deserve to experience the rigor of such bad fortune, not wishing to be the first Tartar to suffer such an ignominy, strangled himself in his palace. Someone has said that Amauang in a fit of jealousy had provoked his brother on purpose. But it is more probable that Amauang used such severity towards him only because he was worried that his brother would be a danger to the empire, given his too vehement temperament." (33) Again, one must say that Martini's report appears to reflect only too closely the machiavellian Dorgon's own version of the whole affair.

2.4.4 Strange to say, on the very same page of his work Martini ends the text of the first edition of his "History" and, in the second edition, adds some news which he had received in Europe from China. The last paragraph of this page reads as follows: "After the death of Amauang, the young Nunchi [Shun Zhi], of whom he had been the tutor, took charge of all affairs as soon as he was crowned. Then the hidden designs and the secret practices during the regency of this uncle of the emperor were discovered. The prince, intending to establish his authority by a just and severe punishment of the crimes of his uncle, ordered the destruction of his tomb which had been beautifully constructed in his honour. After his corpse was taken out of the tomb, he had it beheaded and dishonoured, in the manner in which corpses of criminals are usually treated. The anger of the emperor did not erupt only against his uncle, but it made its effect felt also on people in power who had been his confidants." (34) Martini's turn-about is surprising. Reacting hurriedly to the news, the chronicler, who had had such great admiration for Dorgon, goes to the other extreme and accepts without more ado the blackening of Dorgon's character at the hands of his enemies. Martini, though aware of Jirgalang's vengeful behind-the-scenes activity, (35) does not doubt. In reality, this is how 20th century historians describe the situation at the court of Peking after Dorgon's death: "Policy-making in 1650-1651 was dominated by Jirgalang, with the child emperor and the three administrative princes playing supporting roles. The immediate concern of the Jirgalang-controlled government was the removal and punishment of Dorgon's men." (36) Unlike the chronicler, the historian doubts the factual nature of many reports: "Dorgon's coffin was found upon excavation to hide a yellow robe (which only befitted an emperor). Whether the yellow robe was planted to substantiate [the accusations] or not remains questionable [...]." (37)

2.4.5 Was Dorgon then black or white? Chronicles are easily peopled by black and white characters, history by grey ones. Our contemporary historians support the claim that Dorgon was an extremely clever politician. An aspect of this cleverness was a curious mixture of ruthlessness and tolerance. But where Li Zi Cheng failed, Dorgon succeeded: "Dorgon possessed [...] a forgiving sense of exigency (ch'uan) that contrasted sharply with the crude and overbearing righteousness that had betrayed Li Tzu-ch'eng [Li Zi Cheng]'s original intent." (38) Another historian, who initially almost echoed Martini's earlier judgment but then proceeded to criticize Dorgon, views the Manchu Regent thus: "Dorgon's contribution to the young dynasty cannot be ignored [...]. In reaching the summit of power at a relatively early age, Dorgon in effect halted his own career; he seems to have experienced the frustration of having no higher estate to reach for. He began to indulge himself in pleasure-seeking." (39) As for the posthumous vilification of Dorgon, this must be noted: "It was not until 1778 when Emperor Ch'ien-lung (1736-1795) re-examined the merits and faults of the dynasty's founders that his good name was restored and he was exonerated." (40)

2.4.6 Martino Martini's volte-face with regard to his judgment on Dorgon raises the question why, in his second edition, he did not modify the eulogy of Dorgon in the first edition, in order to make it fit in more neatly with subsequent news and his later negative judgment. In my view, by omitting to do so (or shall we say, refusing to do so), Martini proves himself a true and reliable chronicler. As it now stands, the text of Martini's 'History' bears witness to the way in which the chronicler viewed the personality of Dorgon before and after the news of his posthumous degradation. By keeping the two judgments distinct, Martini has made his chronicle more valuable for the historian than if he had harmonized them.

2.5 Martino Martini's judgment on the cause of the Peasant Rebellions

2.5.1 Martini wastes no sympathy on the rebel leaders whom he regularly calls 'bandits'. The immense success they enjoyed at first, with which they initially met, would seem to suggest that we add some qualification to this radically negative designation by our chronicler. Martini follows more closely the movements of one of them, Li Zi Cheng. (41) As for Zhang Xian Zhong, after a first brief mention, Martini seems to forget him, until he devotes the last pages of his 'History' (42) to the rebel leaders. Unlike Martini, who must have been horrified by the eye-witness accounts he received about the atrocities perpetrated by the rebels, present-day historians credit the two rebel leaders with at least an initial sense of justice, which won them a large measure of popular support.(43)

2.5.2 As for the causes of these rebellions, Martini mentions famines, local injustices, greed for easy profit, but above all the policy of over-taxation: "These bands grew more and more, because the emperor drew people to despair by the severity with which he demanded the payment of the tributes that were normal during the years of bumper harvest." (44) Actually, the problem was much vaster. Environmental, climactic, demographic, economic and political factors combined to precipitate the situation. (45) The first movements of rebellion appeared already in the early 1620s. (46) In the mid-30s the rebellions gathered momentum. (47) In the end the pervasive social injustice brought all causes of social unrest to a head. Increasing taxes reflected increasing hardships, but no rebellion would have erupted without the linkage of taxation with social injustice. The following conclusions by a modem historian on the causes of the T'ung-ch'eng uprising of 1634 agree with this pinpointing of the root causes of the rebellions: "Other observers were less surprised at the violence, and suggested that the wealthy members of the community had brought it upon themselves by their outrageous and often illegal treatment of social and economic inferiors. And although the T'ung-ch'eng uprising was put down rather quickly, the tensions between rich and poor that existed there also existed in other parts of southeastern China during the mid-1930s, tensions resulting from, among other things, the collusion among local officials, corrupt yamen functionaries and powerful landowners. Many landowners had for years falsified tax records, and evaded a substantial portion of their tax obligations. With the continual pressure from the central government to fill the local tax quotas, an even greater share of the burden was shifted to smaller property owners who lacked the financial resources and political connections to defend themselves against unfair exactions." (48) Such an analysis is evidently the fruit of a cooperative effort by generations of historians who painstakingly collected and studied socioeconomic evidence relevant to the Peasant Rebellions. Nobody will blame Martino Martini for not stressing the connection between over-taxation and social injustice. It is interesting to note, however, how close Martini comes to such an analysis when he too, besides over-taxation, indicates the local injustices, the excessive greed and the famines as the spark that ignited the great fire of the Peasant Rebellions. (49) Martini is only a chronicler, yes, but a remarkably observant one!



11. Histoire, 379.

12. Histoire, 380.

13. Histoire, 382-383. It should be noted that Martini is aware that such an extended theological reflection is a 'digression' in a history book.

14. By 'theological' I mean a judgment based on convictions derived from religious faith.

15. Cambridge History of China, 589.

16. Ibidem, 590.

17. Ibidem.

18. K.S. Latourette, The Chinese, Their History & Culture, Vol. 2, 3rd ed. (New York: Maemillan 1945)307.

19. Histoire, 380.

20. Cambridge History of China, 577.

21. Cf. Alain Peyrefitte, The Collision of Two Civilisations: The British Expedition to China in 1792-4, Translated from the French by Jon Rothschild (London: Harvill 1993). The original French is entitled L'Empire Immobile ou Le Choc des Mondes (Libraire Artheme Fayard 1989).

22. Histoire, 393-394.

23. Hsu, Rise, 23 says that in 1626 Yuan repelled Nu Er Ha Chi "using cannons cast by Jesuit missionaries."

24. Cambridge History of China, 616-617. Cf. Hsu, Rise, 24.

25. Histoire, 389.

26. D' Orleans, Histoire, 13-14: "Many similar examples occurred during this war in which the Christian religion was honoured, either by her open professors, or by those who, having associated with them, had adopted their precepts. A celebrated chief called Mauvenlon was amongst the latter."

27. Histoire, 393.

28. Ibidem, 441. Martini left Peking before the death of Dorgon (Ibidem, 445). That Martini was at the court during Dorgon's regency can be inferred from what he says about two Jesuits from Sichuan: "The uncle of the Emperor [wanted] them to come to the court of his nephew, where I left them in the year 1650." (Ibidem, 454).

29. Ibidem, 445. Martini having already left Peking before Dorgon's death (cf. note 27), his date of Dorgon's death lacks precision. Dorgon actually died in 1650. Cf. Adam Lui, Two Rulers in One Reign: Dorgon and Shun-chih 1644-1660 (Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University, 1989) 41. However, Martini must have heard of Dorgon's death and the subsequent turmoil before he left China. Cf. Histoire, 445.

30. Histoire, 408.

31. Hus, Rise, 27.

32. Lui, Two Rulers, 10.

33. Histoire, 454-455.

34. Ibidem, 456.

35. Histoire, 445.

36. LUI, Two Rulers, 41.

37. Ibidem, 36.

38. Frederic Wakeman Jr., "The Shun Interregnum of 1644". In Jonathan D. Spence and John E. Wills Jr., (eds.). From Ming to Ch' ing: Conquest, Region, and Continuity in Seventeenth-Century China (New Haven and London: Yale University 1979)75.

39. Hsu, Rise, 32.

40. Ibidem, 33.

41. Histoire, 392-393, 397-400, 403-406, 412.

42. Ibidem, 445-457.

43. Cf. Wakeman, "The Shun Inteiregnum", 50-58. Compare James B. Parsons, Peasant Rebellions of the Late Ming Dynasty (Tucson: University of Arizona 1970).

44. Histoire, 398.

45. Cambridge History of China, 585-590.

46. Ibidem, 602-605, 610-611, 615-616.

47. Ibidem, 621-640.

48. Ibidem, 626.

49. Histoire, 398.

3. Conclusion: Martino Martini, A True Chronicler

3.1 In the body of my paper I have concentrated on certain points of Ming-Qing history where Martino Martini's judgment appears to be defective in some respects. However, I would not like to leave the impression that Martini is a careless judge of people and events. On the contrary, it is not without difficulty that I have succeeded in tracing these four or five instances in which his judgment is at variance with that of 20th-century historiography. Of course, all along I have assumed contemporary historical judgment to be the more correct one. I think this assumption is right insofar as 20th-century historians can observe 16th-century events from a vantage point which was not available to Martino Martini. "Was it true glory? We must leave this arduous judgment to posterity" writes Alessandro Manzoni, the author of The Betrothed, in the ode written upon hearing the news of the death of Napoleon Bonaparte. (50) Only time makes it possible for us to come to know at least something of what has been going on behind the scenes and to assess the relative greatness of historical personalities. "This observation, far from belittling Martino Martini's contribution to history-writing, makes us wonder all the more at the basic correctness of the great majority of his historical judgments. In fact, there are dozens of evaluations in the De bello tartarico which have been vindicated as correct by modem historiography. In my opinion, therefore, Ma Yong's description of Martino Martini as a balanced and impartial judge of historical events and persons remains unshaken. Martini, Ma Yong writes, is a recorder of facts who "does not give excuses for the Ming nor for the Qing dynasties." (51)

3.2 The ground for such an independence and balance of judgment can perhaps also be probed. It seems to me that this ground is the staunchly ethical approach Martino Martini adopts in evaluating people and happenings. It is this ethical standpoint that allows him consistently to praise loyalty and condemn treachery, on whatever side they may show up. A sure sense of morality is what makes him condemn the Ming practice of executing unsuccessful generals and officials, (52) while at the same time condemning the Qing conquest as 'insolent' and the extermination of the previous dynasty at the hands of the Qing conquerors as 'tyrannical'. (53) Zhang Xian Zhong is criticized most harshly because "he [involved] the innocent in the punishment of the guilty." (54) Abahai is praised because he "tempered the cruelty which [his predecessors] had used against the conquered peoples, in order to gain their allegiance through love as well as by the force of arms. [...] So true is it that, in order to gain a kingdom, love is a machine more powerful than any weapon. On the contrary, cruelty causes the loss of empires which power joined to kindness seems to have established on unshakeable foundations." (55) It is clear that it is the absoluteness of moral values that enables Martini to steer a safe course in his endeavour to sift good from evil in the complexity of the human condition.

3.3 There is one kind of judgment in Martino Martini's 'History' which perhaps causes some problems and, therefore, calls for some interpretation. It is the kind of judgment which we could call 'theological'. We have seen one instance of such a theological judgment in Martini's explanation of the cause of the decline of the Ming dynasty after emperor Wan Li's reign. These theological judgments are based on Martino Martini's world-view, which was essentially shaped by the Christian faith in God as the Lord of History and the Judge of Human Destiny.(56) With regard to this kind of judgment I shall point out that our chronicler is as sincere and as convinced as in making his ethical judgments. Martini's theological judgments are not superstitious nor are they to be understood as a Christian's simple-minded, self-serving approach. Martini's theological judgments are of a piece with his ethical judgments. This can be seen from the fact that, for Martini, "being favourable to Christianity" is not of itself a sufficient ground for a positive judgment on a person. It is necessary that this pro-Christian attitude be united to moral behaviour. Martini's theological and ethical judgments share a common root. This root is the unshakeable conviction that there is a real difference between right and wrong, between good and evil, between true and false, and that this difference is absolute. So, for example, Martini's opinion of the rebel leader Zhang Xian Zhong is firmly negative, notwithstanding the latter's sympathy for Christianity. Listening to him in conversation, Martini says, one would think "that he was a Christian well instructed in the mysteries of the faith. As a matter of fact, he had a good knowledge of Christianity, drawn from books in print, in which the maxims of the Christian religion are explained in the Chinese language; but these explanations helped only to make him a more vicious criminal, because he knew the will of his heavenly Lord and despised it." (57)

3.4 Do Martino Martini's judgments show some kind of cultural limitation or time conditioning? Such a limitation and conditioning, of course, cannot be totally avoided. We are all children of our own times! Contemporary historians are no longer so reluctant to recognize this. On one particular point Martini seems to me to be unconsciously influenced by the social consciousness of his time and age. Martino Martini appears to take for granted the legitimacy and the validity of constituted authority. This is especially apparent in his uncompromising condemnation of the Peasant Rebellions. But it also crops up throughout his 'History' in the form of a certain incapacity to doubt the truth of the motivations of official decisions. He does not doubt that the Chong Zhen emperor's treatment of Yuan Chong Huan could be unjust. He does not doubt the justice of Dorgon's treatment of Haoge. Finally, he does not doubt the truth of the slanders against the memory of Dorgon. (58) In each case, the reluctance to doubt may be related to the fact that constituted authority is involved. And Martini's respect for constituted authority may be related to his theological and ethical convictions. Martini seems to think that authority cannot be properly constituted without the providential help of God who cares for the well-being of all peoples. Consequently, as long as authority is 'constituted' it is thereby also legitimate' and under God's special providential design. Perhaps this is the reason why Martini practically never doubts the motivation of legitimate authorities. Today, however, we are aware that such a way of thinking is a kind of "theological short-circuit". God wants his people to supervise its authorities, not to trust them too generously, because "power tends to corrupt". These limitations notwithstanding, however, Martino Martini's chronicle successfully shares in history's mission to be magistra vitae.

3.5 I must admit that possibly I have dwelt too long on the analysis of Martino Martini's historical judgments. After all, the value of a chronicler for history lies more in the factuality of his or her reports rather than in his or her value judgments. Martini himself is aware of this and so several times he points out that he personally witnessed the events he narrates. (59) At other times he tells us the source of his information. (60) Moreover, he is careful to indicate how far his information extends. Often he ends an account by practically saying: "This is what I know for sure. How events have further developed I don't know." (61) Martini shows himself well-informed also about what happened in the thirty years before his arrival in China, that is, before the year 1643. He had done his research work well, painstakingly and meticulously, that is, with the same scientific attitude that inspires his other works. Only by relying on more direct witnesses can one challenge some of his statements. (62) By now, therefore, I think we can confidently assert that Martini's qualifications as a chronicler are impeccable. Further, is he "a chronicler with a purpose"? Again, I think by now it is clear that we can reply: yes. But this purpose is the inescapable purpose of all true history, namely, to be a report of the past that opens the way to the future by pointing to the enduring validity, for man's dignity, of moral absolutes and of social justice under God.

3.6 In conclusion, we may say that Martino Martini is the kind of chronicler that historiography needs to obtain an adequate view of an era. Martini has only rarely been referred to in later European historiography of China. "This is perhaps due to the fact that he was the earliest European chronicler of the events of the Ming-Qing watershed and his accounts very soon entered into other better known presentations of Chinese history. (63) With regard to Chinese historians, Ma Yong states that the De bello tartarico "is of first-hand historical value and it is not ignored by Chinese scholars who are interested in the Qing dynasty." (64) Besides being a precious primary source for historians, I think Martino Martini can also be a model for contemporary chroniclers. Contemporary historians cannot dispense with the help of chroniclers of Martini's stature. Such chroniclers assist the historian to see things from the point of view of ordinary people. Only with an abundance of such chroniclers will history not be 'royal' or 'dynastic' or 'elitist' history, but truly what it should be, a "history of the people."



50. "Fu vera gloria? Ai posteri l'ardua sentenza!" Ode "5 maggio" by Alessandro Manzoni, poet and novelist. Manzoni's The Betrothed (I promessi sposi) is the greatest novel in Italian literature.

51. Ma Yong, 256.

52. Histoire, 387, 395.

53. Ibidem, 416-417, 436.

54. Ibidem, 446.

55. Ibidem, 315.

56. Cf. Ibidem, 382-383, 386, 444-445, 456, 458.

57. Ibidem, 448. It seems to me that Ma Yong somehow underestimates the depth of Martino Martini's moral and religious convictions when he says: "when taking sides, his main criterion was faithfulness to the Roman Curia." (Ma Yong, 257) On the other hand, Ma Yong is right in perceiving that fidelity to the Roman Pontiff is for Martini an ethical and religious imperative.

58. Histoire, 394, 454-455.

59. Histoire, 413, 418, 441.

60. Ibidem, 428. 446, 456, 457.

61. Histoire, 425, 426, 436, 444, 445, 454, 455.

62. This is what Pierre Joseph D'Orleans does regarding the response of the old father of Ming general Wu San Gui (1612-1678) to Li Zi Cheng's blackmail. Martini relates that Wu San Gui's father gave in to Li Zi Cheng's pressures (Histoire, 406-407). Pierre Joseph D'Orleans, instead, relying on the more direct witness of Adam Schall, has this to say: "This is the account which father Adam's letters give of the transaction; by which it is evident that the father Martini's recollections were not so exact, for he relates that Us [Wu San Gui's father] showed symptoms of weakness and entreated his son to submit to the tyrant. The father Adam, who was in the country, and even in the capital, at the time, is the more credible of the two." (D'Orleans, History, 17-18).

63. So, for example, one third of the first thirty pages of D'Orleans' History is an almost direct translation from Martini's De bello tartarico. D'Orleans acknowledges his debt to Martini in the Preface thus: "I follow in many things the fathers Martini and de Rougemont; but more especially the letters of father Adam Schall [...]." (History, iv) Another interesting use made of Martini's 'History' is the (Abdallae Beidavaei) Hisloria Sinensis. Persice e gemino Manuscripto edita, Latine quoque reddita ab Andrea Mullero Greiffenhagio. Accedunt eiusdem Notae nwrginales...Harmonia Abdallianae & Martinianae. caeterneque Europaeis traditae Historiae Sinensis perpetuis testimoniis ob oculos ponitur. Berolini, Typis Christophori Rungii, Anno MDCLXXVII, expressa, nunc vero una cunri additainentis edita ab Antonio filio. Quovultdeo Abrahain Mullero. Jenae, Prostat apud Johannern Bielkivm, 1689. This volume is no. 710 in the Section Latine of the Catalogue de la Bibliotheque du Pe-Tang (Pekin: Imprimerie des Lazaristes 1949). A copy of this Catalogue is kept in the library of the Interregional Catholic Major Seminary of Sheshan (Shanghai).

作者：梁雅明

前言

圣神年谈圣神，这是理所当然的。我们对祂的认识实在太少了！

我们现在从新约中提供有关圣神的资料，好让读者们直接从天主的启示中强化对天主第三位的认识和交往，因为是祂要领导我们进入一切真理。

但我们得声明：这篇东西只是资料的提供(本文原先是今年司铎学习营中的一次分享)，至于深入和整合，则由读者在圣神和教会领导下去发掘内蕴的全部真理。在谈新约中的圣神之前，我们愿意先指出新旧约中有关圣神的不同点：

一. 在旧约中，圣神一般来说，是「非位格的」，只指「上主的德能」(创11:2)；但在新约中，圣神是「有位格的」：「我要求父，祂要赐给你们一位护慰者，使祂永远与你们同在」(若14:16)。这里我们看到三个位格：「我 - 父 - 祂」。

二. 在旧约中，圣神常是独立地被提及的；但在新约中，每次提及圣神，都同耶稣基督有关。

我们就在这框子里，谈谈新约中的圣神。这圣神在新约中又有其他的称号，如：天主自己儿子的圣神(迦4:6)、耶稣的神(宗16:7)、基督的圣神(伯前1:11)、耶稣基督的圣神(斐1:19)、光荣的神(伯前4:14)、天主的神(伯前4:14)、天主的七神(默3:1; 4:15; 5:6)。

1. 圣神与耶稣基督个体

1.1 圣神与耶稣的童年生活

圣言降生成人时，天使对玛利亚说：「圣神要临于妳，至高者的德能要庇荫妳」(路1:35)。这里的「临于」和「庇荫」，与创1:2的「运行」，有同样意义。那就是说：耶稣人性的生命来自天主圣神。因此，天使要解若瑟对玛利亚的疑惑时，直接了当地对他说：「你不要怕娶你的妻子玛利亚，因为那在她内受生的，是出于圣神」(路1:20)。

既然是圣神将耶稣带到这世上来，圣神也负起责任给有关人士显示耶稣的身份。因此依撒伯尔发现表妹是「吾主的母亲」(路1:43)和匝加利亚歌颂天主「兴起了大能的救主」时(路1:69)，路加刻意指出他和她都「充满了圣神」(路1:41.67)。尤其是当年老的世默盎手抱着婴孩耶稣而肯定「祂」就是自己一生期待的「上主的受傅者」而自觉死而无憾时(路1:25-32)，路加更刻意三次强调圣神的临在(路1:25.26.27)。

1.2 圣神与耶稣的公开生活

1.2.1 与耶稣的关系

耶稣领受若翰的洗礼踏入公开生活时，对观福音都记载圣神藉着鸽子的形状临在耶稣头上(玛3:16；谷1:10；路3:22)，若望也有同样记载，但好像刻意强调圣神的临在，因为三次重覆「圣神」的字眼：「我看见圣神彷佛鸽子从天降下……你看见圣神降下，停在谁身上，谁就是要以圣神施洗的人」(若1:32-33)。圣神不但参与耶稣公开生活的开幕礼，而且更成为耶稣传教工作的动力：「以圣神施洗」。因此若望有感而说：「天主所派遣的，讲天主的话，因为天主把圣神无限量地赏赐了祂」(若3:34)。值得注意的，是「无限量地」的字眼，因为「天主圣神住在祂内」(玛12:18)。

从此我们可以说：圣神参与耶稣整个传教生活，并作耶稣传教工作的动力。事实上，领洗后，是圣神领耶稣进入旷野(玛4:1)，也是圣神领耶稣前往加里肋亚(路4:14)。同样，耶稣以圣神的德能(天主的手指)驱魔(路11:20)，以圣神施洗(谷1:8；若1:33)，也因圣神而欢欣歌颂上主(路10:21)。对圣神在自己生活上的临在，耶稣也有全面意识(路4:16-21)。这就是日后圣保禄在他的赞歌里所说的：「受证于圣神」(弟前3:16)。

1.2.2 耶稣有关圣神的启示

对观福音只记载耶稣在四次场合下提及过圣神。祂告诉我们：圣神是天父大方主动赐与的恩惠(路11:13；玛7:11)；祂是我们的发言者，在挑战和迫害我们信仰的人面前，祂会教我们应说什么(路12:12)，甚至是祂代我们说话(玛10:20；谷3:11)。但耶稣提醒我们千万不要犯上亵渎圣神的罪(路12:10)，因为「出言干犯圣神的，在今世和来世，都不得赦」(玛12:32)，必成为「永久罪恶的犯人」(谷3:29)。此外，派遣门徒四出传福音及给人施洗时，耶稣也提及过圣神：「因父及子及圣神之名给他们授洗」(玛28:19)。

若望福音对耶稣有关圣神的启示，却有相当详尽的记录。在若望福音里耶稣告诉我们：圣神从永恒就发自圣父(若15:26；参阅默11:11)，但在时间里，却是祂由父那里所派遣(若14:15.26; 16:18)。这圣神是有位格的(若14:16)，是耶稣自己的接班人(16:12-14)；祂是「真理之神」(14:17; 15:26; 16:13)，是「护慰者」(14:16.17.26; 15:26; 16:7)；这两个身份，是耶稣所非常强调的。这由三翻四覆的提及，可见一斑。

圣神的使命，对子来说，是为耶稣作证(若15:26)、光荣子(若16:14)和传递由子所听来的一切(若16:13-14)。对门徒来说，是与他们同在(若14:17)，叫他们记起耶稣的话(若14:26)，引他们进入一切真理(若16:13)。对世界来说，祂虽不被世界所认识(若14:17)，但却要「指证世界关于罪恶、正义和审判所犯的错误」(若16:8-11)。

1.2.3 圣神与耶稣的逾越

圣保禄说：「假如基督没有复活，那么我们的宣讲便是空的，你们的信仰也是空的……如果基督没有复活，你们的信仰便是假的，你们还是在罪恶中……但是，基督从死者中实在复活了……」(格前15:14.17.20)。

耶稣的复活，为我们来说，是信仰的基础；但为耶稣来说，可视为祂的「第二次诞生」。就如第一次诞生，由于圣神的「庇荫」(路1:35)，圣言降生成人，取得人性的生命；同样，耶稣藉圣神献出了自己以后(希9:14)，也是圣神「使耶稣从死者中复活」(罗8:11)，也就是说，再得回生命。这就是「再生」。不但如此，而且使祂从死者中复活以后，圣神还使祂「被立为具有大能的天主之子」(罗1:4)，升天后，「由父领受了所恩许的圣神」(宗2:33)。由此我们明白为什么保禄说：「最后的亚当成了使人生活的神」(格前15:45)。

既然成了使人生活的「神」，因此也成了分施圣神的「人」。事实上，复活的基督显现给门徒时，向他们嘘了一口气，说：「你们领受圣神吧！你们赦免谁的罪，就给赦免；你们存留谁的，就给存留」(若20:22)。赦免罪恶就是使人一再生活在天主内。就在这事例上，耶稣基督因着圣神，同时使人生活，也同时分施圣神：祂是分施圣神使人生活的「人而天主」！

2. 圣神与基督奥体

教会是耶稣基督的身体(弗1:23)，耶稣是头(哥1:18)，我们是肢体(格前12:27)，我们与祂结成一个身体(格前12:12-14)。圣神既然给生命与耶稣的个体，祂也同样是耶稣奥体生命的泉源。

2.1 宗徒大事录

耶稣升天时曾授命宗徒们走遍普世传扬福音，可是初期的教会仍是死气沉沉的一群，没有生气。但是，圣神降临给教会行了一个隆重的开幕礼(2:1-13)，更把新的气息给了教会，使宗徒们先后如出两人，勇敢大胆地走出晚餐厅宣讲被钉死的耶稣基督(2:14-47; 3:11-26等)，虽死不辞(4:1-22等)。立时，隐匿在晚餐厅里的小教会(若20:19)，成了一个世界性的信仰团体(宗2:9-11)。

教会藉圣神的降临向世界大开中门后，圣神就成了教会的最高领导者和有力的支柱。祂充满了要服务教会的执事的心灵(6:3.10; 7:55)，藉宗徒们的覆手坚固刚领洗的信友(8:15-17; 19:1-6)，叫斐理伯开导厄提约丕雅的太监(8:29)，认可保禄的回头(7:19)，训示伯多禄向外教人开放(10:19)，也降到外教人身上，诱导他们信仰耶稣(10:44-47; 11:15-16)，认可巴尔纳伯(11:24)和阿加波先知(宗11:28)，给保禄禁止(16:6-7)或指示传教的路线(13:3.4.9; 20:22-23)，决定宗徒会议的议案(15:28)，选立教会牧者(20:28)，鼓励教会的发展(9:31)，在信仰考验中支持殉道者(6:10)……。

2.2 保禄书信

保禄提及圣神的经句不少，大致可综合为两点，就是(1)圣神是教会合一的基础，因为谈及圣神时，除了罗8:2; 9:1；格前7:40关乎他个人外，都是指向团体，指向「我们」(格前12:13)、「你们」(格后3:3；迦3:3)「你们众人」(格后13:13)或所有人「凡……」(罗8:14)。因此他非常强调彼此的合一：「所以我……恳求你们……凡事要谦逊、温和、忍耐，在爱德中彼此担待，尽力以和平的联系，保持心神的合一，因为只有一个身体和一个圣神，正如你们蒙召，同有一个希望一样；只有一个主、一个信德、一个洗礼；只有一个天主和众人之父……」(弗4:1-6)。

但同时(2)圣神也是教会多元化的基础，因为「神恩虽有区别，却是同一圣神所赐……这一切都是这唯一和同一的圣神所行的，随祂的心愿，个别分配与人」(格前12:4.11)。但「多元化」的危机就是混乱和自我膨胀。因此保禄也定下些必要须遵守的原则，就是：神恩人人都有(弗4:7)，因此必须尊重自己及他人身上的神恩，不可消灭它(得前5:19)，因为圣神是神恩多元化的主干(格前12:4-6)，但神恩的使用必须是「为人的好处」(格前12:7)，对教会有所建树(格前14:1-12.17.26；参阅弗4:7-16)。要有效地到达这神圣目的「建树教会」，必须有教会合法权威的认同、指导和派遣。只有如此，教会才能在圣神内进到天主父面前(弗2:18)，成为天主的住所(弗2:22)。

保禄自己就是个很好的榜样：他虽获得了极大的神恩，由仇教者变成耶稣基督「拣选的器皿」(宗9:15)，可是他并没有因此自把自为，却先求得教会权威的认同和派遣，才放胆传扬福音(迦2:1.2.9)。这就是充满神恩的保禄的成功秘诀。

2.3 其他书卷

若望的其他着作相当强调「圣神是真理」(若一5:6)。他以相当形像化的字眼称圣神为「傅油」(若一2:27)。油有渗透、滋润、防腐、治疗、发热、温暖等作用。这正好是「圣神是护慰者」形像化的表达。可是若望却特别强调真理那一面。他说：「至于你们，你们由祂所领受的傅油，常存在你们内，你们就不需要谁教训你们，而是有祂的傅油教训你们。这傅油是真实的，决不虚假。所以，这傅油怎样教训你们，你们就怎样存留在祂内」(若一2:27)。经文中所说的「祂」，就是那「圣者」(若一2:20；参阅格后1:22)。因此圣神的特别使命就是「教训」教会，祂是「预言之神」(默19:10；参阅伯后1:21)，即「代言之神」(参阅若16:14-15)，祂要「作证」(若一5:6)，为真理(＝耶稣)作证(默19:10)。这圣神是非常富有的，祂是「天主的七神」(默3:1; 4:5; 5:6; 1:4)。因此教会必须「听圣神向各教会说的话」(默2:7.11.17.29; 3:6.13. 22)。值得注意的是默示录一连七次反覆这同一句说话，可见「听圣神的话」的重要性。(这句话也叫我们看见保禄所强调的同一思想，即在同一圣神领导下，教会是至一的，却同时是多元化的：整个教会或地区教会得听圣神向「各」教会说的话)。圣神不但在现世教导教会，祂更领导教会迈向永生，因为，正如初期教会与圣母一起热切祈祷，期待圣神降临(宗1:13-14)；同样，圣神也与教会一起热切期待耶稣基督的再来：「你来吧！」(默22:17)。可见圣神实在是教会的最高领导人，必须听从祂。正因如此，若望郑重提醒我们要明智：「不要凡神就信，但要考验那些神是否出于天主，因为有许多假先知来到了世界上」(若一4:1)，更给我们提供分辨「真理的神」和「欺诈的神」的原则(若一4:2-6)。

3. 圣神与基督肢体

3.1 圣神对教友

3.1.1 天主的恩赐

身为教友，我们是「受圣神祝圣的」一群(伯前1:1)。这圣神是天主给人最好的恩赐(路11:13；参阅玛7:11)。这是「恩赐」，不是应得的，而是白白施与的。新约虽然也说天父给我们「派遣」祂的圣神(若14:25; 16:7；迦4:6；伯前1:12)，但更多用「赐与」的字眼(若14:16；格后1:22; 5:5；迦3:5；得前4:8；若一3:34; 4:13)，而且这赐与是慷慨大方的，是「倾注」下来的(宗2:17.18.33；罗5:5；铎3:6「丰富地倾注」)，使人可以拥有(罗8:9；格前7:40)，甚至整个人「充满圣神」(若7:38-39；宗：很多例子)，而且由充满而涌溢(若7:38-39)；圣神还居住在人内(罗8:9；格前3:16)，使人成为祂的宫殿(格前6:19; 3:16-17)。

3.1.2 生命之神

耶稣个体和基督奥体的生命来自圣神，奥体的肢体也不能例外。事实上，我们是「透过重生和更新的洗礼」(铎3:5)，「由水和圣神」得到新生命(若3:5)，成为有份于圣神(希6:4)和天主性体的人(伯后1:4)，成为自由人(罗8:2；格后3:17)，能怀有成义的希望(迦5:5)。实际上，透过洗礼我们「实在洗净了、祝圣了、成了义人」(格前6:11)，更成为天父的女子(迦4:4)，天国的继承人(迦4:7；罗8:17)，因此今世生活在圣神的喜乐中(罗14:17)，不断在灵性生活上长进(弗3:16)，来世更获得劳苦的赏报(默14:13)，且得永生(迦6:8)。

3.1.3 真理之神

天主藉圣神给我们启示一切(格前2:10；若16:13)，因为祂认识天主的一切(格前2:11)；祂教我们称天主为「阿爸」(迦4:6；罗6:16)，教我们正确地认识基督(格前12:3)，在教难时教我们说话(玛10:20)，祂更作我们的「抵押」(格后1:22; 5:5)。

3.2 教友对圣神

3.2.1 消极一面

不可欺骗圣神(宗5:3)，不可使圣神忧郁(弗4:30)，不可成「没有圣神的人」，分党分派(犹19；参阅格前3:1-3)，不可由圣神开始由肉结束(迦3:3；格前2:14)。希伯来书的这段经文，很值得我们细嚼：「那些曾一次被光照，尝过天上的恩赐，成了有份于圣神，并尝过天主甘美的言语及未来世代德能的人，如果背弃了正道，再叫他们自新悔改，是不可能的，因为他们亲自又把天主子钉在十字架上，公开加以凌辱……如果我们认识真理之后，还故意犯背信的罪，就再没有另一个赎罪祭了，只有一种等待审判的怕情，和势将吞灭叛逆者的烈火。谁若废除梅瑟法律，只要有两三个证人，他就该死，必不得怜恤。那么，你们想一想，那践踏了天主子，拿自己藉以成圣的盟约的血当作了俗物，而又轻视了赐恩宠的圣神的人，应当受怎样更严厉的惩罚啊！……落在永生天主手中，真是可怕！」(希6:4-8, 10:26-29)。

3.2.2 积极一面

要进行出于「神」的心中的割损(罗2:29)，拥有耶稣的精神(罗8:9)，学习为耶稣吃苦，使圣神安息在我们内(伯前4:14)，怀着圣神的喜乐接受真道(得前1:6)，在圣神内祈祷(弗6:18；犹20；罗8:26-27)，以圣神作利剑(弗6:17)，尤其是应随从圣神的指引而生活(迦5:16-26；罗8:1-17)。如此，才真是天主的子女(罗8:14)，使人属于基督(罗8:9)，导人进入生命与平安(罗8:6)，藉着住在我们内的圣神而得肉身的复活(罗8:11)，拥有圣神的佳果，那就是仁爱、喜乐、平安、忍耐、良善温和忠信、柔和、节制(迦5:22-23)。这样，天主也藉着圣神住在我们内(若一3:24)，而我们也存留在祂内(若一4:13)。

作者：陈继容

前言

香港教区这个夏季由于公教报一些文章而引起某些神学问题的争论，使得本来已经酷热的天气，因为争论的热切而再升温。这篇文字的产生，(1) 非为趁热闹，加入论战行列，因为实在看不到有此需要，而是因为是次争论的主题牵涉到研究神学的方法，但从参与讨论的文章之内容看，发现似乎多数都未能把握到要点，只在问题的边缘绕圈。结果是越多人讨论，意见也跟着多起来，众说纷云之下，不少人看了那些文字后，觉得比前更加无所适从。

是否如某些人所想，任何问题都可以从几个人，或甚至几十人的讨论得到结果和解决办法，而不用理会参与讨论的人，对该问题是否有相当程度的认识？答案是：不一定。没错，王充于其《论衡》中之「物势篇」内说过：『一堂之上，必有论者；一乡之中，必有讼者。讼必有曲直，论必有是非。非而曲者为负，是而直者为胜。亦或便辩口利舌，辞喻横出为胜；或诎弱缀跲，蹇不比者为负』。王充的思想当然是对的，生活的经验告诉我们的确如此，甚至放到一般学术研究上有时也可行，除了神学之外。

此文之目的，是希望根据历代教父与圣师的训示，和教会教授神学的缘因，握要地解释什么是教会的信仰，及为这信仰服务的神学。包括神学之内容、目的、方法，教会对从事神学研究者：神学家、神学教授和神学生有何要求，并为什么有这些要求。让对教会的信仰和为这信仰服务的神学，及其相关问题有兴趣的人士，能够有更清晰的观念。另外，本文所讨论的信仰和神学，专指天主教会，即英语所称The Roman Catholic Church的信仰及神学。其他的，一概不在本文讨论范围，谨此声明。

全文除前言和结论外，共分七点：一. 神学要求方法，二. 奥思定的神学方法，三. 信德作前导，四. 神学方法的内容，五. 信仰的托管，六. 托管的方式，七. 没有训导，便没有「圣事的团体」。(2)

1. 这篇文章曾以「信仰、神学和教会训导」为题，以普及形式自本年9月26日起，一连七周，刊载于《公教报》。又「信仰、神学和教会训导」这题目及文中之小标题乃《公教报》编辑所改。

2. 本文之主要参考资料计有：教会训导文献：Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II To the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Relationship between Faith and Reason, 14, September 1998, Vatican; 其他资料：中文：方奉天着、陈继容编译「信仰小引导」，《神学年刊》n17 (1996) 1-103；蔡元培着，《中国伦理学史》，台北，中央文物供应社1950；外文：B? GUERIE Philippe-DUCHESNEAU Claude, How to Understand the Sacraments, London, SCM Press Ltd. 1991; CAPPELETTI Lorenzo, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, in 30 Giorni, n. 1 (1998), 68-75; CORALLO Gino, Il lavoro scientifico. Fondamenti e metodi, Bari 1966; Dizionario di Spiritualita‘ biblico-patristica. I grandi temi della S. Scrittura per la “Lectio Divina”- l:Abba’-Padre, diretto da Salvatore A. Panimolle, Roma, Borla 1992; DULLES Avery, “Orthodoxy and Social Change”, in America, Vol. 178, No. 21 (1998), 8-17; FARINA Raffaelo, Metodologia. Avviamento alla tecnica del lavoro scientifico = Biblioteca di scienze religiose 71, Roma, LAS 19944; FISHER George Park, History of Christian Doctrine = The International Theological Library, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark 1949; Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, hrsg. von Michael Schmaus, Leo Scheffczyk, Aloys Grillmeier, 5 vol., Freiburg Br. 1956ss; KAVANAGH Aidan, “Liturgical inculturation: Looking to the Future”, in Studia Liturgica, Volume 20, Number 1 (1990), 95-106; SPICQ Ceslas, Saint Paul. Les Epitres pastorales, Paris, Ed. Gabalda 1947; TIXERONT Josef, Histoire des dogmes, 3 vol., Paris 193011; TRAPE‘ A., “Agostino di Ippona”, in Dizionario patristico e di antichita‘ cristiane, diretto da Angelo Di Berardino, Volume I, Casale Monferrato, Marietti 1994, I Ristampa, 91-103.
另外，本文所用之略语如下列：ACO = SCHWARZ E., Leonis Papae I Epistularum Collectione: ACO II, IV, Berling-Leipzig 1932; CCL = Corpus Christianorum, series latina; PL = MIGNE Jean Paul, Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina; TD = SILVA-TAROUCA, Textus et Documenta, series theologica 9, 15, Roma 1932-1934.

一. 神学要求方法

任何人接触教会的神学时，要谨记不可拿神学和一般大学同专上学院提供的任何学科比较。因为两者不论在本质、内容、目的，尤其是学习态度和研究方法，都截然不同。神学不是知识的传授，神学老师授课的目的，不是要学生听课后，只曾长其学问便够，而无须理会他们如何生活。

固然，知识和学问的增长，可以改善个人道德和伦理生活，但并非必然。广东俗话不是有句「斯文败类」吗？所以，除了一些会严重伤害到自己和别人生命的行为，例如自杀或杀人等，世界上没有一个国家立法严格规限每个国民的生活方式(回教国家可能除外)。主要为两个原因：首先，没有任何立法机构拥有这份绝对权力，因为组成这些立法机构的成员都是人。而人不只有生老病死，且常常为了一己之私和感受，改变其思想及原则。个人如此，国家亦然，连联合国这些国际组织都不能例外；其次，人的生活方式不但随着时代的更替不断在变，不同的地域环境，亦形成不同的生活方式和观念，很难选定那一种方式作模式。届时被选中的故然高兴，选不中的肯定抗议，与其如此，不如任其自由。

事实上，不能以人，而须要以神的意愿，或天道为社会法则之思想，我国古已有之，例如墨子对这问题便有非常独特的见解。以下所引载的，是着名学者蔡元培先生就墨子的《法仪篇》中法天的思想之分析：

『天下从事者不可以无法仪，无法仪而其事能成者，无有。虽至士之为将相者皆有法，虽至百工从事者亦皆有法，百工为方以矩，为圆以规，直以绳，正以县，无巧工不巧工，皆以此五者为法，巧者能中之，不巧这虽不能中，放依以从事，犹逾已。故百工从事皆有法所度，今大者治天下，其次治大国，而无法所度，此不若百工办也。然则吾人之所可以为法者何在？墨子曰，当皆法其母奚若，天下之为父母者众而仁者寡，若皆法其父母，此法不仁也。当皆法其学奚若，天下之为学者众，而仁者寡，若皆法其学，此法不仁也，当皆法其君奚若，天下之为君者众，而仁者寡，若皆法其学，此法不仁也，法不仁不可以为法。夫父母者，彝伦之基本，学者，知识之原泉，君者，于现实界有绝对之威力，然而均不免于不仁，而不可以为法。既在此世界中，势不能有保其绝对之尊严者也。而吾人之所法，要非有全知全能永保其绝对之尊严，而不与时地为推移者，不足以当之，然则非天而谁？故曰，莫若法天。天之行广而无私，其施侯而不德，其明久而不衰，故圣王法之。既以天为法，动作有为，必度于天，天之所欲则为之，天所不欲则止。由是观之，墨子之于天，直以神灵视之，而不仅如儒家之视为理法矣』(3)

至于神学，包括教理传授，其目的是「生活方式的传授」，而非知识的交流。为什么会这样呢？因为神学的内容：教会的信仰，即英语的Christianity，不是一套人自己思考出来的理念或学

说，却是「某一位」- Someone。这「某一位」就是降生成人的天主子 - 耶稣基督。而耶稣督和祂的父及圣神，今天不但仍然生活着，而且通过祂自己创立的教会，以一种目前我们无从理解的方式，与祂的信徒一起生活，为全人类的得救，继续不停地在世上工作。

对于这一点，两位国际着名的神学家Philippe B? guerie和Claude Duchesneau在他们合着的一部讲论圣事的书中清楚指出“Christianity is first and foremost a way of life, an ethic, before it is a philosophy or a theology”.

并且进一步澄清他们所说的a practical exercise, 并非指一种宗教、礼仪或圣事行动，而是指「与其他人类生活在一起时的一种生活方式和态度」：

“When we say‘a practical exercise’, we do not just mean a religious, liturgical or sacramental practice, but a type of behaviour, a way of living amongst other human beings”.(4)

因此，神学的目的只有一个：帮助那些听到福音的宣讲，相信基督，并愿意接受祂为主的人，进入圣父从创世之初，便已为他们准备好的永福内。要达到这目的，神学传授的并非知识资讯，而是一种能导引人进入三位一体的天主内的生活方式。即是明确地要求那些相信，并愿意接受基督为主的人，依照基督的要求，也就是依照福音的要求生活。

福音要求我们怎样生活呢？最简单的，比方福音要求我们要懂得爱人和爱自己，因为生命来自天主。每一个人都是天主照着自己的肖像做出来，信友不但是圣父的子女，他们的身体更是圣神的圣殿。所以我们要尊重、爱惜每一个人。进而尊重生命、爱情、家庭，彼此相爱、互相照顾。为此，时下流行的一夜情、人工避孕、安乐死及堕胎等；和索罗斯之辈那样，精研经济、金融等问题后，发动一个跨国队伍，跑到别人的地盘，把该处整个国库的钱抢过来，弄到人家一国哀鸿遍野。所有这一切，是绝对不符合福音的要求。

为了确保神学能达到其目的：令一切接受教会信仰的人，都依照福音的要求生活。所有神学工作者，即神学家、神学老师和神学生，在讲授和处理神学问题时要讲究「方法」。换句话说，神学的「传与受」，都要采用属于神学的「正确方法」。事实上，今日从事学术研究的人都知道，每一种学科的专家及研究员，都应该认识清楚属于自己范围的研究方法。否则无从研究、无法解决问题，永远不会有成果。所以，没有人会用医学方法来研究历史，文学方法也不适用于哲学。正为了这原故，今日的学术界非常注重「方法学」。

3. 蔡元培著，《中国伦理学史》，34-35。

4. B? GUERIE-DUCHESNEAU, How to Understand the Sacraments, xiii.

二. 圣奥思定的神学方法

神学所用的方法有别于哲学和数学，不以明显的逻辑为根据，即一般所指的Metodo teorico-deduttivo -「理论演绎法」；亦不同于其他实验科学，例如化学、物理、生物等所用的，以经验或实验为基础的Metodo sperimentale「实验方法」。神学所用的方法跟历史学一样，称为Metodo storico -「历史方法」以「原泉的权威」- Autorita‘ delle fonti 为基础，「原泉」(fonti，即英语 sources) 主要指圣经、教父和训导。(5)

教会采用「历史方法」来研究神学，始于一千五百多年前。这方法由圣奥思定 (354-430) 提倡。圣奥思定自己的整个神学思想，和他在神学方面的成就，(6) 便是根据这方法研究所得的成果，奥思定之后至今这十多个世纪的神学研究，基本上都是采用这方法。

圣奥思定为什么会提出，须要用特别的方法来处理神学问题？这方法内容又如何？为什么经过一千五百多年，这方法仍然被教会奉为圭臬？下面我们会握要地介绍。

读过教会史的人都知道，公元四至五世纪时，教会如何因为异端的影响而埋伏着分裂的危机。当时最重要的异端有好几派，譬如亚略派(Arianism)、多拿狄派(Donatism)、摩尼派(Manichaeism)，特别是白拉奇派 (Pelagianism)等。正是在如此纷乱扰嚷，一片嘶杀声的喧闹叫嚣中，圣奥思定为了保持教会信仰之完整和纯净，加入反驳这些异端的行列。他以圣经为凭藉，尤其是以保禄的思想为导引，开始认真和深入地探究一些重要的神学问题，例如圣三、原罪、恩宠等。结果不但给教会留下宝贵的神学作品，奠定教会的神学基础，更以其反省、深思所得，为教会的神学研究，提供了一套模式。

是什么事情令到圣奥思定明白，处理信仰和与其相关的神学问题，须要采用特别的方法？答案是他个人追寻信仰的经验。对圣奥思定生平稍有认识的人，都知道他的皈依过程不只漫长，经过十多年，而且相当于迥曲折。皈依前可谓障碍重重，而这些障碍的产生，正是因为他在追寻信仰一事上，用错方法。圣奥思定一直以怀疑论的方法，去解决天主教会的信仰与相关的神学问题。结果是把他带进摩尼派，并依附其中几近十年。

幸好他终于发现自己的错误，明白怀疑论的方法并不适用于信仰和神学研究。即是说，在处理教会的信仰与神学问题时，他不能采用怀疑论的方法，在信德与理性之间选择其一，却是信德与理性兼容并用，(7) 而且该以信德作前导。这发现最后更成为他研究神学的第一守则：「为了要明白先要相信」：“Credo ut intelligam”。(8) 奥思定这思想对后世影响之大，可能连他自己都估计不到。例如中世纪的士林神学家，都是依着这守则，从事他们的神学研究，其中的表表者有被誉为「士林学派之父」的圣安瑟莫(St. Anselm of Canterbury 1033-1109)。(9)

5. 参看CORALLO, Il lavoro scientifico, 84-85. 180-195; FARINA, Metodologia, 41.

6. 圣奥思定是西方教父中最重要的一位，其神学上的成就，可以说后无来者。他给教会和整个西方思想界带来的贡献，一直流传到现在。教会大部份教义的神学依据及灵修传统，均来自圣奥思定，例如圣三、创造、原罪、基督学、教会学、救恩论、末世论、祈祷等。

7. 说到信德与理性的关系，现任教宗若望保禄二世最新的一篇通谕《信仰与理性》当然不可不读。参看：Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II To the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Relationship between Faith and Reason.

8. 圣奥思定，Sermo CCXII,1=PL XXXVIII,1059: “Credite, ut intelligatis, Nisi enim credideritis, non intelligetis”. 同样思想见于圣人的另一篇讲道，Sermo CCIV,10=PL XXXVIII,1071: “Hoc audiendo credite, ut intelligatis; ut quod creditis, intelligere proficiendo valeatis”.

9. 参看圣安瑟莫著，Proslogion。

三. 信德作前导

然而，不知是否有人对这方法感到疑惑。什么？「为了要明白先要相信」。那怎么可能呢？不明白又如何能相信？可是，事实的确如此。有很多事情，除非我们先相信，没办法明白，我们每天实际上是这样子生活。

本年七月号的《读者文摘》有段小文章，或许能够帮助我们明白圣奥思定的思想，谨引载于下。『妻子和我都是社会工作者。四岁儿子对我们的工作一知半解，无论我们如何解释，对儿子来说，我们的工作毕竟不如计程车司机、售货员或老师来得具体。不久前，电视肥皂剧内有社会工作者的角色，儿子边看边问：「爸爸，你和妈是否像他一样工作？」我们说是，然后问他：「你现在知道社工做些什么了吧？」「知道了，」儿子自信地说：「你们都是拍戏的」』。

的确，要一个四岁幼儿明白成人社会的事，根本没有可能。所以我们都是在孩子能够明白之前，给他们安排整个生活：衣食住行外，当然还有教育、医疗等。社会上也从来没有人批评成人这样做不对，因为经验告诉他们，若不如此，一切待孩子长大，都明白后才决定，已经太迟。所以，在生活中有很多事情，我们会要求孩子相信我们，不要问「为什么」，但照我们的要求和意思去做，到他们长大时自然会明白。

神学也是一样。神学故然是人的事，因为神学的目的正是要救人。不过，神学更加是神的事。因为策划、执行和完成这件救人工作的，是神自己。而人跟神的距离，又岂只是一个四岁幼儿与生育他的父母的距离。四岁幼儿长大后，可能在各方面都超越生育他的父母。人，却永远无法超越创造他的神。

因此，要研究一个神学论题，绝对不能单从人的角度去理解分析。只看某些人，以至某个社会、年代的人之文化背境、内心感受、生活情况及方式，某个时代之潮流和思想形态等。所有这一切，肯定都是研究神学问题时，应该参看和考虑的资料，却永远不能作为解决神学问题的基础和最后依据。谁要是坚持非这样做不可的话，他只是一厢情愿地，硬要把神变成一个和自己有同一思想的人而已。

既然神学要处理的是人的救赎，而救人的又是天主，不是任何一个人，包括教宗和所有神学家与神职在内。那么，教宗和所有神学家与神职，在处理神学问题时，理所当然要以神的计划和旨意为依据。若是神的旨意，肯定超乎人的理解，否则也不能称为神。

依此推断，若在处理神学问题时，一定要好像处理生活上其他事情般，要对这些神学问题完全掌握理解后才相信，那无异于要求前面所提的四岁小孩，一定要他明白什么是社工，尤其是要他明白为何社工可以由演员来做，大家都知道完全没有可能。

所以，圣奥思定所说的：「为了要明白先要相信」，不只合理，根本上我们每天是这样生活。

四. 神学方法的内容

现在让我们回头看看圣奥思定的神学方法，究竟这方法内容如何？这方法包括以下各点：1. 依附着基督的训导权，(10) 2. 热爱所接受的信仰，3. 明白奥迹的意义，4. 对基督宗教之创新的信服。即是说，研究神学的人，他们要意识到，自己有责任和义务保守传统所称的「信仰的托管」，必要时甚至加以捍卫。

以下谨逐点解说：

1.依附着基督的训导权。由于在形体上，我们现在无法见到基督。因此，基督的训导权，是透过以下这几处显示出来：在圣经中，圣经不但是神学的灵魂，更是第一处把基督的训导权显示给世人的地方。圣奥思定更声明并非任何圣经，而是教会所传授和诠释的圣经。关于这一点，圣奥思定曾说过，如果要他相信一部福音，除非该部福音能够把他带引到天主教会的权柄那里(The Authority of the Catholic Church)，他不会相信该部福音；“Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae commoverent auctorias”.(11) 在传统内，即是从宗徒传下，那个来自远古，并且是普世性的传统；(12) 在教会内，即是由基督亲自创立，订定圣经「正典」，(13) 和把承接自宗徒的传统，向千秋万代的后世传下去的教会。教会更同时肩负起解释两者，即圣经和传统的责任。

换言之，自第五世纪初叶，研究天主教会神学的方法就是：依附着基督的训导权。即是依据教会传授和诠释的圣经，依据教会的传统，依据教会的训导。

2.热爱所接受的信仰。(14) 这点比较简单，意思也很清楚，无需要再解释。

3.明白奥迹的意义。(15) 然而，奥迹是什么？我们试以圣人的「教会学」为例，解说一下何谓奥迹。圣奥思定把这个属于基督、由基督亲自创立并显示的教会，分成若干团体：a)以宗徒为基础的信友团体，b)自亚伯尔直到天地终穷时，生活于世上的义人团体，c)现今已活在永生福乐中的真福者团体。

a. 以宗徒为基础，尤其是以伯多禄这盘石为基础(玛16:18)的信友团体。奥思定称它作「圣事的团体」(communio sacramentorum)。如我们的圣人所说，这团体的成员虽然良莠不齐，大家一起在主教、(16) 公议会(Councils)(17)和伯多禄的继承人(18) 的带领下，一起生活在世上。不过，好信友的圣德并不会受到坏信友的玷污。此外，由于教会的圣事在本质上是基督和圣神的工作。因此，后者所领受的圣事都有效，但不带来应有的效果。

b. 自亚伯尔直到天地终穷时，生活于世上的义人团体。这团体虽然在基督降生成人之前已经存在，并指向末世，这并不代表基督不在这团体内。因为作为圣言，基督自始就与这团体一起生活。

c. 现今已活在永生福乐中的真福者团体，即是圣奥思定所称的，蒙甄选者的团体。这团体由那些在世时忠信地为基督和祂的教会作证的信友组成，代表天主光荣的国度。

4.对基督宗教之创新的信服。意思是，研究神学的人要有这个最基本的观念：要知道教会的信仰跟其他宗教信仰完全不同，这信仰的内容是天主自己亲自启示和教导，而非来自人。所以，被基督选作传信者的，都是忠诚地，一代一代，完整无缺地把这信仰传下去。简言之，每一个神学工作者的身份，是保禄所称的「信仰的托管人」。若是如此，他们便有责任和义务保守传统所称的「信仰的托管」，必要时甚至加以捍卫。(19)

10. 此处所指的训导权，英语可译作 Teaching Authority。

11. 参看圣奥思定，Contra epistolam Manichaeum 5,6 = PL XLII,176; 另请参看Contra Faustum 28,2 = PL XLII,486.

12. 参看圣奥思定，De baptismo contra Donatistas IV,XXIV,31 = PL XLIII,174.

13. 参看圣奥思定，Contra epistolam Manichaeum 5,6 = PL XLII,176; Contra Faustum 28,2 = PL XLII,486.

14. 圣奥思定，Epistola CXX,III,13 = PL XXXIII, 459: “Intellectum vero valde ama”。

15. 圣奥思定，Sermo XXVII,III,4 = PL XXXVIII,179:“Melior est enim fidelis ignorantia, quam temeraria scientia”。

16. 参看圣奥思定，Sermo CXLVI,1 = PL XXXVIII,796.

17. 圣奥思定，Epistola LIV, 1 = PL XXXIII,200: “Primo itaque tenere te volo, quod est hujus disputationis caput, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, sicut ipse in Evangelio loquitur, leni jugo suo nos subdidisse et sacrinae levi (Matth. XI,30): unde Sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, societatem novi populi colligavit, sicuti est Baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus, communicatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius, et si quid aliud in Scripturis canonicis commendatur, exceptis iis quae servitutem populi veteris pro congruentia cordis illorum et prophetici temporis onerabant, quae et in quinque libris Moysi leguntur. Illa autem quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe servantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis conciliis, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri, sicuti quod Domini passio et resurrectio et ascensio in coelum, et adventus de coelo Spiritus sancti, anniversaria solemnitate celebrantur, et si quid aliud tale occurrit quod servatur ab universa, quacumque se diffundit, Ecclesia“.

18. 圣奥思定，Epistola XLIII,7 = PL XXXIII,163: “Cum se videret et Romanae Ecclesiae, in qua semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus”.

19. 参看TRAPE‘, “Agostino di Ippona” , 100.

五. 信仰的托管

关于这最后一点，有详细说明的必要。因为这其实是圣奥思定所提的神学方法的基础，直接影响前面几点，特别是第一点。

这最后一点的关键，完全涵容在「信仰的托管」这句话内。何谓「信仰的托管」？「信仰的托管」译自拉丁文Depositum Fidei，这句话通常译成「信德的宝藏」或「信德的宝库」。其实最好译作「信仰的托管」，因为最贴近Depositum Fidei完来的意思。

「信仰的托管」这词有段长远的历史，这词并非出自别人，却是出自圣保禄宗徒。在保禄的书信中，有两封写给弟茂德，他的爱徒，就是我们熟悉的《弟茂德前后书》。在这两封书信中，保禄先后两次勉励弟茂德要「保管所受的托管」。第一次出现在《弟茂德前书》的结语，(20)第二次在《弟茂德后书》的信首。(21) 在这之前，保禄从未用过这词。事实上，其他新约经书的作者，也一次都未用过。

要明白「保管所受的托管」这句话的意义，先要理解这句话里面所说的「托管」到底是何所指。「托管」之原文是拉丁文depositum (思高圣经译作「寄托」)。保禄在写给弟茂德的两封信中，将depositum译成希腊文。(22) 在保禄所生活的罗马社会，depositum是法律词汇，意思是一个人把一些物品交托另一位看管。答应代人看管物品者，于物主要求时，会无条件地原物奉还物主。换言之，所谓depositum即是中文的「托管」：一人答应暂时替另一人保管一些物品，而非物权的转移。代人保管物品者，并不拥有托管物之主权，物品仍然百份之一百属于托物者。为了这缘故，托管之事一般都是请相熟的友好代劳。由于托管时，托物的一方只是简单地将物品traditio -「交给」代保管者，完全不用签署任何文件，或经过任何法律程序、形式。所以整个托管事件并不受任何法律的管制，也不具有任何法律效能。(23)

保禄在罗马居住期间，当时社会上正流行此种托管物品方式，虽然算不上是个新兴事物，历史却也不长。据史家研究，这种方式大概始于罗马皇帝奥古斯都在位期间，即公元前30至公元14年之间。(24) 其最新颖之处，是这种无法律约束力的托物方式，实际上可以说是非正式合约的滥觞。因而引起保禄的注意，并把他深深地吸引起保禄的注意，并把他深深地吸着。最后，令到他在信仰处于考验、危险之时，将这方法应用到信仰的保管上。(25)

事实上，在这之前，保禄一直执着的，是对本身所接受之职务的忠心，和对自己门人的诚信。可是现在，他眼见有些异端开始出现，于是担心这些异端会危害到教会所相信之「健全道理」(弟后4:3)的完整，而他自己正是被立作传授这真道的先锋、宗徒及导师。(26) 当年基督亲自在往大马士革途中，把这信仰交给他，正是要他把这信仰传留下去。这信仰并非他所有、并不属于他。于是保禄开始意识到，他对这信仰其实有一个很重要的责任：他一定要好好捍卫这信仰的完整、他要把这信仰完好地保管着，不能让其丝毫受损。换句话说，直到天主所定之时刻来到前，他一定要好好保管这-「信仰的话」(弟前4:6)，不让这话受到任何错误或腐败的损害。

保禄会有这种心态，其实很容易理解。自从于往大马士革的路上相遇后，在主基督和保禄师徒之间产生了一份默契。什么默契呢？是主和保禄师徒二人心灵上的一个共识。而这共识，正是保禄对自己在传授福音，即主交给他的托管物时，应有之责任的根源：他对这托管物没有任何权力。因为通常在一个类似的托管行为中，非特别立约，书写清楚，否则保管人不得随意处理任何交他保管之物。所以，面对基督交托他保管和传授的信仰，保禄一向都只把自己看作一位uJphrevth"-管理人，和oijkovnomo" - 分施者。(27) 因此，有别于一个学派的创始人，将自己所发明的新学说教给自己的门生，保禄晓得他只不过是个受委托者。他所传受的，并非他自己发明，却是接受自另一位。所以，为了不负所托，他有责任将这托管之物 - 信仰 - 完整地传给别人。

另一个使保禄有这种思想的缘因，是保禄知道自己离世的日子已不远。再过不久，他便会见到天上那位把信仰交托他保管的主，向祂交待一切。有如保禄自己说的，他的仗已打完，赛跑已跑到终点。(28) 因此，保禄迫切感到有需要提示弟茂德，勉励他在自己离开世界后，好好地保管所接受的托管物。(29)

10. 此处所指的训导权，英语可译作 Teaching Authority。

11. 参看圣奥思定，Contra epistolam Manichaeum 5,6 = PL XLII,176; 另请参看Contra Faustum 28,2 = PL XLII,486.

12. 参看圣奥思定，De baptismo contra Donatistas IV,XXIV,31 = PL XLIII,174.

13. 参看圣奥思定，Contra epistolam Manichaeum 5,6 = PL XLII,176; Contra Faustum 28,2 = PL XLII,486.

14.圣奥思定，Epistola CXX,III,13 = PL XXXIII, 459: “Intellectum vero valde ama”。

15. 圣奥思定，Sermo XXVII,III,4 = PL XXXVIII,179:“Melior est enim fidelis ignorantia, quam temeraria scientia”。

16.参看圣奥思定，Sermo CXLVI,1 = PL XXXVIII,796.

17. 圣奥思定，Epistola LIV, 1 = PL XXXIII,200: “Primo itaque tenere te volo, quod est hujus disputationis caput, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, sicut ipse in Evangelio loquitur, leni jugo suo nos subdidisse et sacrinae levi (Matth. XI,30): unde Sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, societatem novi populi colligavit, sicuti est Baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus, communicatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius, et si quid aliud in Scripturis canonicis commendatur, exceptis iis quae servitutem populi veteris pro congruentia cordis illorum et prophetici temporis onerabant, quae et in quinque libris Moysi leguntur. Illa autem quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe servantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis conciliis, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri, sicuti quod Domini passio et resurrectio et ascensio in coelum, et adventus de coelo Spiritus sancti, anniversaria solemnitate celebrantur, et si quid aliud tale occurrit quod servatur ab universa, quacumque se diffundit, Ecclesia“.

18. 圣奥思定，Epistola XLIII,7 = PL XXXIII,163: “Cum se videret et Romanae Ecclesiae, in qua semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus”.

19. 参看TRAPE‘, “Agostino di Ippona” , 100.

20. 保禄给弟茂德写道：『弟茂德啊！要保守所受的托管，要躲避凡俗的空谈，和似是而非的知识之名的反论。有些人自充有这知识，但终于失落了信德』(6:20)。

21. 保禄勉励弟茂德说：『你要以信德及在耶稣基督内的爱德，把从我所听的健全道理奉为模范，且依赖那住在我们内的圣神，保管你所受的美好托管』(1:13-14)。

22. 弟前1:14『且依赖那住在我们内的圣神，保管你所受的美好寄托』的原文是：

23. 参看 SPICQ, Saint Paul, 331.

24. 此处所说的罗马皇，即是路加福音第二章有关耶稣出生在白冷的记载中，所提到的那位出了一度上谕的凯撒奥古斯都 (Augustus)，参看路2:1。

25. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 329.

26. 弟后1:11:『为这福音，我被立为宣讲者，为宗徒，为导师』。

27. 参看格前4:1

28. 弟后4:6-7:『因为我已被奠祭，我离世的日期已经近了。这场好仗我已打完；这场赛跑，我已跑到终点。这信仰我已保持了』。

29. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 332-333.

六. 托管的方式

然而，对年轻及羞怯内向的弟茂德来说，保禄几句激励的话，是否就已足够帮助他保管所受的托管物呢？答案当然是否定的。所以保禄除了鼓励弟茂德好好保管所接受的信仰外，更指点、教导他忠于职务的方法。保禄首先告诉弟茂德这差事并不好办，(30) 加上有很多人放弃信仰，(31) 保禄自己又快要离开此世。可是，保禄依然充满信心地告诉他的爱徒，圣神居住在教会内，祂自会光照及坚强祂的圣职人员。让我们听听保禄怎样跟弟茂德说：

『为了这个缘故，我提醒你把天主藉我的覆手所赋予你的恩赐，再炽燃起来，因为天主所赐给我们的，并非怯懦之神，而是大能、爱德和慎重之神』(弟后1:6-7)。

以上这两节经文，是天主教会一切与传统有关之教导的基础。宗徒们从主那儿接受了基督宗教信仰的真理，之后他们以口传的方式，把这真理再传给那些跟他们合作的人，尤其是那些继承他们职务的继任人。为此，这些宗徒的继任人，有责任保存这份他们从宗徒那儿得来的真理之完整和纯净。而且不可以随便把这真理传递给人，除非他们肯定对方以后有能力忠诚地把这真理传留下去。一如保禄对弟茂德所要求的：『应把你在证人前由我所听的，传授给忠信可靠的人，使他们也能够教导别人』(弟后2:2)。

从保禄的话，可以见到他非常清楚，这个保管和忠诚地传授教会信仰的工作，只靠人力是绝对办不到，唯有圣神才能负起这个责任。因为实际上，是圣神一直在教会内工作，避免让这真理遭受到任何更易或替代。或更正确点说，根据上面所引载第7节经文的意思，圣神这个保管信仰的行动，在教会的圣职人员身上，即是在那些藉着覆手礼领受了牧职的人身上，特别显着和有效。(32) 也就是说，为了要做好保管所接受的「托管」，弟茂德一定要，并且应该依靠那份来自保禄藉着覆手礼授予他牧职的神恩。事实上，保禄这样告诉弟茂德：

『为了这个缘故，我提醒你把天主藉我的覆手所赋予你的神恩，再炽燃起来，因为天主所赐给我们的，并非怯懦之神，而是大能、爱德和慎重之神。所以，你不要以给我们的主作证为耻，也不要以我这为主被囚的人为耻，但要依赖天主的大能，为福音同我共受劳苦。天主拯救了我们，以圣召召叫了我们，并不是按照我们的行为，而是按照祂的决意和恩宠：这恩宠是万世以前，在基督耶稣内赐予我们的，如今藉着我们的救主基督耶稣的出现，显示了出来；祂毁灭了死亡，藉着福音彰显了不朽的生命。为这福音，我被立为宣讲者，为宗徒，为导师。为了这个原故，我现在受这些苦难，但我并不以此为耻，因为我知道我所信赖的是谁，也深信祂有能力保管我所受的托管，直至那一日。你要以信德及在耶稣基督内的爱德，把从我所听的健全道理，奉为模范；且依赖那住在我们内的圣神，保管你所受的美好托管』(弟后1:6-14)。

在这两封写给弟茂德的信中，保禄两次向弟茂德提到覆手礼，即上面第六节和弟前4:14。33 保禄称天主藉着覆手礼赋予牧者的礼物为 - 神恩，(34) 而这两段经文都与牧职(或铎职)有关。为了这缘故，圣经学界都同意保禄选择这字一定别有用意。根据圣保禄，是一种特别的 - 恩宠(grace)。而保禄要突显的，是天主白白把这赐给一位牧者的缘因：非为领受者个人之用，却是为了团体的益处 - l'utilit? comune (格前12:4-11)，和为建立教会 - per edificare la Chiesa (格前14:12)。(35)

弟茂德因为领受了这成为教会内一个具有公职的人物，即英语所称的official。这等如说，教会的神职在圣秩圣事中，藉着覆手礼所领受的正是此圣事的「圣事印记」- il carattere sacramentale。换言之，教会的圣统制乃来自一种超自然的，即是神的权力和能力。(36)

尚有一点不能忽略，保禄在弟茂德后书1:6-7节所说：『天主... 赋予你的神恩；天主所赐给我们的...神』这两句话，(37) 其实和我们一直所提的托管 παραθ?κη有相当密切的关系。因为如前面所说，这托管工作正是由『那住在我们内的圣神』完成：“δι? Πνευματο? ?γ?ουτο? ?νικο?υτο? ?υ ?μ?ν“ (弟前1:14)，这表示是圣神在教会内，确保教会正统教义之永恒性。(38)

当然，没有人会否认，在保存教会教义的完整一事上，如保禄告诉弟茂德，部份实有赖神职们『不要教授异端道理』﹣﹣ mh; eJterodidaskalei'n (弟前1:3)。然而，说到底，最重要和首席保管者还是圣神自己，亦只有祂能够保护教会的神职免陷于错误。因此，在某程度上，可以把藉着覆手礼给予的神恩，等同圣神那份内在的，保护教会接受自基督的「托管」- 信仰 - 避免损毁和被别的事物取代的行动。综结上述，可以肯定地说，教会的牧者，藉着从圣秩圣事所获得的神恩，在宣扬和保管福音真理一事上，享受着圣神的特别帮助。所以保禄称教会为『永生天主的教会，真理的柱石和基础』：“Ekkhlsiva qeou' zw'nto", stu'lo" kaiv eJdraivwma th'" ajlhqeiva"“(弟前3:15)。正是基于这份肯定和信心，弟茂德既然领受了覆手礼，保禄知道圣神一定会赋予他这个徒儿力量和才能，让他妥善地完成其牧职。(39)

换句话说，神职因圣秩圣事的神恩而得的力量，并非他们个人苦修而得的成果，却是他们对天主藉着此圣事赋予他们的神恩的忠贞 (弟后1:6-8, 12)。在这事上，保禄的思想非常清楚，并把这思想向弟茂德解释。保禄告诉弟茂德，虽然明知在履行自己的牧职时，免不了要辛劳受苦，但他一点都不用胆怯和担心，他只要尽己所能，好好地运用天主藉着圣秩圣事赐给他的神恩和力量，他一定能够保管所接受的托管，并且忠诚无误地把这托管传递下去。(40)

圣保禄这两封牧函除了指出教会信仰的保管，是受到教会建制 (l'istituzione ecclesiastica) 中之圣事印记(il carattere sacramentale) 的保证外，尚让我们看到另一点，亦是最重要的一点：保禄以他这些牧函为基础所构成的「建制教会」(Chiesa-istituzione)，并非为把教会自俗世中孤立起来。相反地，是要以一种鲜明和强烈的乐观和肯定，将教会植根于俗世中。因为教会的存在，正是为邀请每一个人于入教成为信友后，回到社会上，继续和他们那些依然耽搁于罪恶或歧途中的旧伙伴生活在一起，不是为攻击或向他们显示不屑，而是为了让他们看到，天主的恩宠如何改变一个人。因此，可以说，保禄这些牧函是教会大公精神的一个最极致表现，一如他在弟前2:1-5所写的：(41)

『首先我劝导众人，要为一切人恳求、祈祷、转求和谢恩，并为众君王和一切有权位的人，为叫我们能以全心的虔敬和端庄，度宁静平安的生活。这完是美好的，并在我们的救主天主面前是蒙受悦纳的，因为祂愿意所有的人都得救，并得以认识真理，因为天主只有一个，在天主与人之间的中保也只一个，就是降生成人的基督耶稣』。

30. 参看弟后1:8。

31.参看弟后1:15。

32. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 320; CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 70.

33.弟前4:14:『不要疏忽你内心的神恩，即从前因预言，藉长老团的覆手赐予你的神恩』。

34. 思高版圣经这两节经文用两种不同译法，弟前4:14译作「神恩」，弟后1:6则译成「恩赐」，但希腊文圣经则两处都用

35. 参阅SPICQ, Saint Paul, 325; CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 71.

36.“La gerarchia sacra e‘ fatta di autorita’ e di capacita‘ ugualmente soprannaturali”: CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 71.

37. 原文：“τοχ ?ρισμα το? θ?ο?...?υ σο?...: ?δωκ?υ ?μ?υ οθ?? ? πυ??μα“.

38. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 325-326; CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 72.

39. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 325-326; CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 72.

40. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 340; CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 72.

41. 参看CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 72.

七. 没有训导，便没有「圣事的团体」

看完上面这段详尽的解释，相信没有必要重申教会训导的重要、教会训导和信仰与神学的关系，特别是教会的训导，如何影响着每一个信友的生活方式。亦无须重覆神学工作者需接受教会训导的缘因。尤其是，为何圣奥思定提出，研究天主教神学的方法是依附着基督的训导权：即是依据教会传授和诠释的圣经，依据教会的传统，依据教会的训导。

可是，明白一件事，并不代表就可以同意，甚至甘心情愿地接受该事。尤其是关于教会的训导这一点，或许有人仍然觉得教会这种训导方式，实在低估，甚至莫视今日信友，尤其是神学生的智慧。事实却恰好相反，正因为教会肯定和信任自己的子女，有足够的智慧明白自己的用心，她才会向他们作这要求。而教会之所以如此肯定，是因为她对自己所事奉的主有信心，晓得祂一定会以祂的恩宠帮助信友，圣神亦会光照扶助他们。教会尤其肯定的，是圣父对人的情与爱。(42) 教会知道天主正是因为爱人，才会到来救人，才会定下一个救人计划，并且以种种方法，帮助人通过个人的生活，切实参与这计划而获救。天主对人的爱，才是教会全部希望的所在。教会永远不会把自己的希望放在任何人身上，包括教宗、神职、神学家和神学生。

又有些人或许会怀疑，照着上面所说的方法研究神学，如此服从教会的训导，教会的神职和神学家，岂不是都变成教会的传声筒、变成一件工具，还能做什么学术研究呢？对于这问题，有几点先要弄清楚。

首先，打从教会正式开始工作的第一天：圣神降临节翌日，宗徒们作什么呢？他们不是坐下来撰写一篇洋洋大观的神学论文、一本教理书，或一部神学手册。他们有一个使命：他们要向人宣讲一个讯息。于是他们走到街上，向人传报喜讯。一如保禄在致格临多人前书中说的：把「从主那儿领受到」的传给别人 (11:23)。(43)

所以，学术研究成果并非教会的神学家从事神学研究的目标。自第二世纪神学出现到现在，可以说教会的神学研究都是为解决信仰，或教义上的问题，而非为获得或提升个人的学术成就。(44)所以，正如B? guerie及Duchesneau这两位神学家所说，在处理神学问题时，「从主那儿领受到」这基础，比一切其他的理性解释和神学反省都更为坚固。(45)

其次，是否神学家服从教会的训导，就不能在学术研究上更上层楼？似乎历史给我们的答案，刚好相反。试列举一些大家熟悉的名字，比方圣奥思定，圣安瑟莫，圣文德、圣多玛斯等，相信没有人怀疑他们的神学成就。尤其是圣奥思定，实际上他是教会的神学方法之肇始者，这方法不但没有影响其神学研究工作，适得其反，圣人在神哲学上的成就，至今好像还没有人能望其背项。就连其他基督教派的学者，对圣奥思定在神哲学上的成就，同样推崇备至，兹在下面摘录其中一位有关圣奥圣定的评语：

“Augustine is the most influential of all the teachers of the Church since the Apostolic age. Pre? minent in the West, as Origen was among the theologians of the East, his sway was not like that of Origen, disputed and broken. It was of far longer continuance. This unrivalled influence grew out of the depth and variety of his powers, and the sincerity, energy, and fervor of his religious character. In him the dialectical and mystical elements. He was at once a philosopher and a saint. At the same time he was a man of letters and an orator. His Confessions are an outpouring of his heart in the form of a converse of his soul with God. Yet among devotional expressions full of ardor we find him interweaving distinctions respecting the divine attributes. The subtilty of his genius and his dialectical turn, together with his doctrine respecting faith and knowledge, not to speak now of others parts of his teaching, made him the founder of the mediaeval theology“.(46)

复次，教会从来没有要求任何人作她的传声筒。教会永远不会、亦不能这样做，她没有这个权。因为教会本身也只是个工具而矣。(47)教会是从天上来的恩典，是天主所肇始的。教会是基督为了在自己升天后，通过训导，即是福传，和礼仪行动，在世上继续其救世工作，特别「生产」- generate - 的工具，而且正如教宗圣理奥一世所说的，生产过程非常痛苦：在十字架上。(48)

根据教宗圣理奥一世的教会观，教会的出生分两个阶段。第一阶段在基督降生时：Incarnation，由于基督是教会的头(或元首)，所以当基督出生时，理所当然的，其肢体 - 教会 - 已在基督内潜在性出生：potential birth；(49)教会实际的出生：effective birth，是在第二阶段，在加尔瓦略山上；而教会正式投入救世的行动，则是在圣神降临节开始。(50)

从以上的分析，可以理解为何教会没有权更改任何基督决定的事。她唯一能做的，就是服从基督，听祂的话行事，如同基督服从圣父一样。(51) 所以，教会的训导来自基督。换言之，基督是教会整个福传工作，及导师身份的基础：『天上地下的一切权柄都交给了我，所以你们要去使万民成为们徒，因父、及子、及圣神之名给他们授洗，教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切。看！我同你们天天在一起，直到今世的终结』(玛28:18-20)。这正是圣奥思定所说的，依附着基督的训导权之意。而自宗徒时代开始，教会内每一位传信者都非常清楚自己的身份，知道他们所传的是谁的信息：

『我们不断地感谢上主，因为我们所传授的天主的信息，你们已听到了，也接受了，没有把它视为人的信息，而确实当作天主的信息，这信息在你们信徒身上发挥着效力』(德前2:3，常年期第三十周「日课」，星期一晚祷之短经诵读)。

为什么我们说教会的训导，即是教会的福传呢？相信大家不难从以上引载的两段经文找到答案。实际上，所谓福传，即是向人，包括非信友和信友，(52) 介绍、讲解、教导教会的信仰。这信仰的内容是耶稣基督和祂的福音。目的则为了让一切相信耶稣基督，并接祂为主的人，依照福音所要求的方式生活，以获得救恩。

如果是这样的话，我们可以作出另一个推断，一如美藉神学家达拉思 (Avery Dulles, SJ) 神父在最近一篇以《正统与社会改变》为题的文章中指出，教会的训导永远不会投大众所好，只教导人们爱听的话。因为如此一来，这训导会丧失其全部可信性：“The Magisterium was never intended to seek popularity. It would forfeit all credibitlty if it taught only what people wanted to hear”.(53)

然而，为何相信耶稣基督，并接受祂为主的人，一定要依照福音的要求生活，才可以得救？因为所有相信耶稣基督，接受祂为主的人，藉着所领受的入门圣事，不但成为信友，成为教会的一份子，基督奥体的一个肢体。他们同时成为天主圣父的子女。即是说，这些人的身份，有了一个本质上的改变：是人，亦是圣父 - 神 - 的子女。而福音的要求，正是要这些同时是圣父子女的人，不但跟普通人一样过活。他们的生活方式，更应该与他们天主子女的身份相称。

可是，信友从何得知要怎样生活，才算与自己的天主子女的身份相称呢？答案是藉着教会的训导，即是教导。所以，训导其实就是前面，圣奥思定所说的「圣事的团体」之存在，其中的一个主要缘因。(54) 保禄写给厄弗所人书中的一段，对这问题有很清楚的解释，兹引载于后供各位参考：

『为此我说，且在主内苦劝你们，生活不要再像外邦人，顺从自己的虚妄思念而生活；他们的理智受了蒙蔽，因着他们的无知和固执，与天主的生命隔绝了。这样的人既已麻木，便纵情恣欲，贪行各种不洁。但你们却不是这样学了基督。如果你们真听过祂，按照在耶稣内的真理，在祂内受过教，就该脱去你们照从前生活的旧人，应在心思念虑上改换一新，穿上新人，就是按照天主的肖像所造，具有真实的正义和圣善的新人。

所以你们应该效法天主，如同蒙宠爱的儿女一样；又应该在爱德中生活，就如基督爱了我们，且为我们把自己交出，献于天主在为馨香的供物和祭品。至于邪淫，一切不洁和贪婪之事，在你们中间连提也不要提：如此才合乎圣徒的身份。同样，猥亵、放荡和轻薄的戏言，都不相宜；反要说感恩的话，因为你们应该清楚知道：不论是犯邪淫的，行不洁的，或是贪婪的 - 即崇拜偶像的 - 再天主和基督的国内，都不得承受产业』(弗4:17-24; 5:1-5)。

话说回头，虽然教会从来没有要求任何人作她的传声筒，当日基督为了展开其传教工作，确实选了十二位宗徒(谷3:13-19)，连同保禄一共十三人(宗9:1-9)，帮助祂的传教工作，基督称他们作「器皿」，并且旦白告诉他们，让他们了解自己的身份，从来没有隐瞒过他们。宗徒大事录第九章关于保禄的归化，其中一段这样写着：『主却向他(阿纳尼雅)说：「你去吧！因为这人是我所拣选的器皿，为把我的名字带到外邦人、国王和以色列子民前」』(15节)。而且还加上一句：『因为我要指示他，为我的名字，该受多么大的苦』(16节)。(55)

可以想像阿纳尼雅一定把基督向他所说的每一个字都告诉保禄。所以，打从一开始，保禄对自己被召的身份，心中是清清楚楚的。他不但晓得自己只不过是基督手中的一件传教工具；他更一早就知道，为了基督的名字，他不知要吃多少苦头。

所以，教会从来没有要求任何人作她的传声筒。倒是基督，祂却真的清楚告诉那些愿意为祂服务的人，他们只是祂手中的一个「器皿」而矣。

当然，并非每一个被基督选中的人，都一定要接受祂，福音中的富少年，就没有接受基督的邀请；也不是所有接受基督的邀请的人，之后就不能再改变主意，甚至反对祂、出卖祂。茹达斯虽然被选中，也跟随了基督，却也没能慎始慎终。

可是谁若被基督看上，又真的愿意接受祂的「拣选」，作祂的「器皿」的话。那最好能谨记自己的身份，明白自己只是基督手中的一件工具而矣，传声筒也好，录音机可能更贴切。因为他们的工作，就如他们的前辈 - 十二位宗徒、保禄、弟茂德等曾经做过的一样：依照基督所那所吩咐的，教训其他人：『教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切』(玛28:20)。他们这样作，并非如有些人所想的，为了维护某种权力或权势，却是他们的责任感所催迫。被基督和天主圣父选作祂们的教会的牧者的，都自觉到本身面对universam fraternitatem - 普世弟兄 - 的责任。一如教宗圣理奥一世所直言，他们所讲授的，都是他们学自历代教父的教导。(56)

42.著名义藉神学家方奉天神父 (Bruno Forte) 称圣父为「永恒的爱人」，圣父爱人是绝对出于自发和自动，完全不受任何外界事物的牵制或引发。圣父从一开始便爱人，并会一直爱下去。圣父在爱中是全能的，祂永远忠贞不二：『我的救恩永远常存，我的正义永不会废除』(依51:6)，参阅方奉天着、陈继容编译「信仰小引导」21-31。此外，有关圣经及历代教父对天主圣三的第一位：圣父的训导、介绍和理解，请参看：Dizionario di Spiritualita‘ biblico-patristica. I grandi temi della S. Scrittura per la “Lectio Divina”, 1: Abba’-Padre.

43. B? GUERIE-DUCHESNEAU, How to Understand the Sacraments, xiii.

44. 请参看有关天主教会教义的历史：Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, hrsg. von Michael Schmaus, Leo Scheffczyk, Aloys Grillmeier, 5 vol.; TIXERONT, Histoire des dogmes, 3 vol.

45. “But receiving them from the Lord has always had a much more solid basis than rational explanation or theological reasoning” : B? GUERIE-DUCHESNEAU, How to Understand the Sacraments, xiii.

46. FISHER, History of Christian Doctrine, 176.

47. 有关基督与教会的关系，可参看保禄的书信，例如致厄弗所人书5:21-33，见常年期第三十周，星期二，双数年读经一。

48.“De Spose carne prodiit quando ex latere crucifixi manante sanguine et aqua sacramentum redemptionis et regenerationis accepit”: ACO II, IV p. 36; TD 15 15b, p. 45. 基于主基督生产教会的缘因，教宗圣理奥一世称经历降生、苦难、死亡、复活、升天的基督为「历史基督」，称教会为「奥秘基督」。而紧随着教会 3/4 「奥秘基督」的出现，圣神亦开始其圣化使命。

49. 教宗圣理奥一世，Tractatus 26,2 = CCL 138, 126 = “Generatio enim Christi erigo est populi christiani et natalis capitis natalis est corporis”.

50. 教宗圣理奥一世，Tractatus 78,1 = CCL 138A,494 : “Principibus nascentis Ecclesiae tota Patris Filiique Diuinitas in praesentia sancti Spiritus Praesidebat”.

51. 有关教会的本质，请另参看参阅方奉天着、陈继容编译「信仰小引导」，62-70。

52. 注意以上所引载经文的内容，『教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切』这句话的对像主要是指已受洗的信友。说真的，若非信友，根本没有义务要听从福音的要求生活。

53. DULLES,“Orthodoxy and Social Change”, 8.

54. 另一个主因当然是举行圣事等礼仪行动，玛28:19-20:『你们要去使万民成为们徒，因父、及子、及圣神之名给他们授洗，教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切』。

55. 事实上，主耶稣一早已说过，跟随祂的人都会受迫害：『你们自己要谨慎！人要把你们解送到公议会，你们在会堂里要受鞭打，并且也要为我的原故，站在总督和君王面前，对他们作证』(谷13:9)。

56.“Non aliud nos praedicare repperies quam quod sancti patres nostri toto orbe docuerunt” = TD, 9,3, p.57.

结论

着名美藉礼仪学家贾蕴能 (Aidan Kavanagh, OSB) 神父，多年前在一次国际会议中，曾就礼仪本地化一事，向与会的学者提出几项忠告。由于礼仪学是神学的一门，所以贾神父的忠告对任何从事神学工作者都适用，特别是其中一点。谨节译于下，供各位参考，并作为这篇文字的结语。

贾神父提醒大家，不要忽略中产阶层给今日社会带来的影响，特别是中产阶层基督徒给教会做成的影响。从实质上说，中产阶层基督徒之宗教生活，或宗教热诚的动力来自「文明宗教」，即英语所称的civil religion，而非来自福音。可以说，这些中产阶层基督徒把福音「再次本地化」到他们的中产阶层价值观内。这些价值观的特性包括：要有足够的舒适和方便，只参与自己认可的团体，消费主义，只注重现实。

这些价值观使人变成失忆和近视，往昔的事故然不复记得，未来更是遥不可及，于是人都把注意力集中在眼前的生活上。结果是无可避免地，人对福音那股震撼人心，向人的彻底要求，完全失却了品尝的能力。(57)

如大家所知，基督真的非常爱人，也极其体贴人。然而，基督对人的要求亦相当高。所以贾蕴能神父说福音对人的要求是震撼性的，说得一点不错。除非一个人真的很爱基督和祂的教会，并有足够的智慧去理解，否则面对福音那些要求，尤其是现代人，一定感到十分迷惘甚至不安。

『于是耶稣对门徒说：「谁若愿意跟随我，该弃绝自己，背着自己的十字架来跟随我」』(玛16:24；谷8:34；路9:23)。

主，你实在不理解现代人的心理。难道你不知道，今日的人都不爱吃苦，也不能受苦吗？无论什么事，包括宗教在内，一定要够「好玩」，合他们心意。所以，如果今日的人再不肯背自己的十字架跟随你，你只好怪你自己，怎么两千年前建立教会时，没有把现代人的心理，也考虑在内。

『正在耶稣出来行路时，跑来了一个人，跪在祂前面，问祂：「善师，为承受永生，我该作什么」？耶稣对他说：「你为什么称我为善？除了天主一个外，没有谁是善的。诫命你都知道：不可杀人，不可奸淫，不可偷盗，不可做假见证，不可欺诈，应孝敬你的父母」。他回答耶稣说：「师傅，这一切我从小就都遵守了」。说耶稣定晴看他，就喜爱他，对他说：「你还缺少一样：你去，变卖你所有的一切，施舍级穷人，你必有宝藏在天上，然后来，背着十字架跟除我」！因了这话，那人就面带愁容，忧郁地走了，因为他有许多产业』(谷10:17-22；路18:18-23)。

主，你真是不食人间烟火，完全不晓得人间疾苦。你大概没看过近期报章的新闻，也没有留心电台或电视的报道。所以不知道这一阵全世界都在为钱伤透脑筋。你晓得吗？香港的股市和楼价都跌了很多，有一阵「恒指」一泻万点，楼价则下调超过五成。而你竟然说，如果我们想跟随你，守那一大堆诫命还不够，竟然要连我们所有的，也要我们卖掉。还说你爱我们你，主，请问这算是那门子的爱呢？

『有些法利塞人来到祂跟前，试探祂说：「许不许人为了任何缘故，休自己的妻子」？祂回答说：「你们没有念过，那创造者自起初就造了他们一男一女；且说：“为此，人要离开父亲和母亲，依附自己的妻子，两人成为一体”的话吗？这样，他们不是两个，而是一体了。为此，凡天主所结合的，人不可拆散」。他们对祂说：「那么，为什么梅瑟还吩咐人下休书休妻呢」？耶稣对他们说：「梅瑟为了你们的心硬，才准许你们休妻；但起初并不是这样」。如今我对你们说：无论谁休妻，除非因为姘居，而另娶一个，他就是犯奸淫；凡娶被休的，也是犯奸淫』(玛18:2-9)。

主，说起这一点，非要大吐苦水不可。一听你这样说，主，就知道你是生于什么年代。只有两千年前的人，才会有这样「老土」(广东俗话，意指过时)、不合潮流、不近人情的思想。

告诉你吧，主，如果今日还有人肯正正式式结婚，不乱搞男女关系、随便同居，或搞同姓恋等，已经非常给你面子。所以，主，请你最好设法迁就一下，顺应「人意」，尤其是体贴一下那些怨偶。你没有结婚，你的神职也是独身，你们当然不能明白，和一个自己已经不爱，或一个已经不爱自己的人，生活在一起是什么滋味。

甚么『凡天主所结合的，人不可拆散』。老实说，主，我们从来没有亲眼见过天主如何结合一对男女，我们却天天见到受不幸婚姻折磨的兄弟姊妹，你完全不能想像他们的境况。

因此，虽然你是天主，主，也拜托你，请别再唱如此「和寡」的「高曲」，说甚么信友的婚姻是圣事。如果你不想你的信友徨徨恐恐、凄凄、惨惨、戚戚地，带着沉重的罪恶感进入第三个千年的话，主，请你最好也学学我们特区政府，懂得听取民意。最近香港因为经济低迷，特区政府马上作出回应，减了好些税项，以纾缓民困。请你也学习听取「人意」，赶快给你那个宝贝教会下一度命令(闻说教会不能改变任何你决定的事)，叫她up date 一下自己的mentality (对不起，香港人讲话，总是这样子，半中半英的)，修改修改她的训导。不但准许信友离婚，其他诸如人工避孕，安乐死，甚至堕胎等，最好通通都准许人可以随自己意思，选择做或不做。

不过，最教人震撼，或该说，最要命的，还是这一句：

『吃完早了饭，耶稣对西满伯多禄说：「若望的儿子西满，你比他们更爱我玛？」』(若21:15)。

看吧，不只要爱祂，尚要比别人爱得更多。而且连续把问题重覆问三遍(若21:16-17)，唯恐人们听不到一样。

主，我们终于发现，原来你竟然与时代脱节得这么励害。你要不是活在广寒宫里，就是住在九宵云外，不知人间已过了几多回的汉唐风月。

主，难道你竟然不知道，今日很多人，不但不爱人，他们有时连自己都不爱吗？现在的人，特别是香港人，就算父子、兄弟、父妻之间，都只会讲金，不作兴讲心啦。要求他们比别人更爱你，唉，主，你真是在痴人说梦话！怪不得你的教会年年闹圣召荒。恐怕踏入第三个千年后，所有圣堂都会门堪罗雀。

可是，福音记载伯多禄回答主说：『主，是的，你知道我爱你』(若21:15)。并且重覆回答三次 (若21:16-17)。

『主，是的，你知道我爱你』。整个天主教会信仰的核心，都包容在这句话内；同样地，教会的神学和伦理，亦是从这句话开始。

57. 参看KAVANAGH, “Liturgical inculturation: Looking to the Future”, 102-103.

作者：周景勋

为香港宗教历史

注下结谊与交谈的光辉史实－－六宗教的脉膊互动

一. 导言：香港六宗教的共识与认同

在「香港六宗教袖座谈会十周年纪念特刊」中，六宗教领袖都强调了：「当明乎时代精神和需要，打破宗教间限止的框框，相互尊重，彼此交谈合作，建立友谊，和谐共融，和衷共济地为社会谋求幸福，推动文化交流，重整和提升人的生命道德等」。转瞬间，六宗教领袖座谈会于今年(一九九八年)十一月二十六日庆祝二十周年纪念，这证实了不同宗教在互相尊重、互相欣赏、互相接纳中，保持坦诚开放的胸襟，是可以和衷共济，携手合作，为社会谋福利。

同样地，在面对着新纪元的来临，香港六宗教领袖们本着二十年来一直关心着教内外的转变，也有一份新的期望，以配合时代的转变和挑战，且对社会带来的冲击，作出适当的回应；更将宗教所关注的「心灵提升」和「道德理念」融化在社会文化中，希望人人能在宽容中走向相亲相爱，让社会享有安宁，世界能实现和平。因此，宗教应该同心迈向二十一世纪，使人人认清生命的价值与生存的意义；宗教间的交谈当以真与善的实践作共鸣；如此，各宗教要自我改变，以智慧和勇气回应社会民生的需求，保障人权和致力社会正义，更要「自觉」地本着信仰自由，以「仁爱」、「慈悲」、「民主」、「平等」等信念，齐心发挥合作与友爱的精神，弘扬「宽容精神」为共识，促进社会的整合与济世渡人的服务。

二十年来，六宗教为巩固互相间的共融和友谊，自然而然地已找到了交谈的共识和认同：

共同以维护与追求「真、善、美、圣」为目的。

发扬「自由、平等、博爱」的宽容精神。

大家要有坦诚、开放和豁达的胸襟。

态度上保持：谦卑、明智、慎思的智慧。

互相爱慕和尊重，互让和互谅。

互相欣赏和接纳，信任和保密。

在思想和行为上不怕有净化、改进和革新。

不排斥异己者(包括人与思想)，尽在异中求同。

彼此交换经验和学习，好能互相贡献和补充。

同心维护社会的和谐、民主与繁荣。

我们相信：宗教交谈在不同的时代中都有「觉醒」的启迪，不单是使宗教与宗教之间的距离缩短，建立共融的友谊，更可以为社会提供令人信服的确证，同时也给人类提供一颗充满希望的历史心，帮助他们在社会的转变中，切实地配合生活的改变，追求生命的终极以显示宗教的「真」。在「真」中，宗教具体地指出一个方向，要求人作自我的空虚，实践「仁爱」、「慈悲」与「宽恕」，活出生命的「善」，给社会带来「和平」，藉以提升人的生命，使人在科技和经济的发展下就不会出卖自己的人格，反而整合与调和人的生命，使人格升华以达到至善的圣境，即在修德中展露生命的光明，活出生命之「美」。

二. 香港六宗教结谊与交谈的缘起

每一件事情的发生，或每一个组织的形成，必有其前因缘起，六宗教领袖座谈会在二十年来能有卓着的成就和真诚的交往，亦有其因缘的。

1.天主教梵蒂岗第二届大公会议的启发

香港天主教在六十年代的末期，已深深感到有随着时代变迁的需要，加上梵蒂岗第二届大公会议后的更新指示，便落实地执行《教会对非基督宗教态度宣言》的内容－－

自古迄今，各民族都意识到，某种玄奥的能力，存在于事物的运行及人生的事故中，有时竟可体认此一「至高神明」或「天父」。此种意识与体认，以最深的宗教情感贯澈到他们的生活中。但是，与文化进步有关联的宗教，更以较精确的概念和较文明的言词，设法解答同样的问题。……世界各地的其他宗教，也提供教理、生活规诫，以及敬神礼仪，作为方法，从各方面努力弥补人心之不平。天主公教绝不摒弃这些宗教里的真的圣的因素，并且怀着诚恳的敬意，考虑他们的作事与生活方式，以及他们的规诫与教理。……因此，教会劝告其子女们，应以明智与爱德，同其他宗教的信徒交谈与合作，为基督的信仰生活作见证，同时承认、维护并倡导那些宗教徒所拥有的精神与道德，以及社会文化的价值。(《宣言》2)

大公会议鼓励也劝告所有天主教徒，应以明智、了解和接纳的态度与其他宗教的信徒交谈与合作；因此，凡因种族、肤色、生活方式或宗教不同而产生任何歧视与虐待的，都视作是违反基督精神，而当予以谴责；教会剀切吁请全体基督信徒要真挚地与所有的人和平相处。(《宣言》5)

2. 天主教香港教区会议的强调和落实

一九六九年一月，徐诚斌主教发表召开教区会议的原因说：

召开教区会议的目的，乃根据第二届梵蒂岗大公会议的精神，检讨本教区的工作，并拟订将来的发展方针。……(《香港天主教掌故》58)

于是，香港教区会议在一九七○年至一九七一年两年间召开，在〈福音传播〉的条目中之「教会和其他宗教」的内容里，强调教会当尊重其他宗教所有的教训、生活规律和礼仪：

教会实在很殷切地希望能从这些(不同)宗教的精神宝库中，学习并丰富她自己，以更清楚地明白她自己的使命……。由此，基督信徒的生活，始能与不同文化的优秀部份和对立部份，尤其是那些能接受福音之光启示的文化传统，取得调协和适从。同时在这个协调中，教会与非基督宗教的关系，亦可作为一项为对方的服务。(《香港教区会议文宪》之一、参)

在会议中，大家肯定了对不同宗教的尊重，和积极地作出彼此的联络与交谈是必须的，藉以帮助我们欣赏生命的价值；因此，在神学的新观点下，教会相信天主亦会将自己显示给其他的宗教团体；于是，为落实与不同宗教的交谈，会议的结果便作出两项具体的建议：

i. 我们提议当地的教会，尽力与这些(不同)宗教人士，在社会福利方面合作，共同研究，寻找东方社会神学的表达方式，希望藉着本地人民的文化传统，而将基督的喜讯清楚和简易地表露无遗。

ii. 我们建议香港的教会能与非基督徒的团体共同商讨、策划、厘定一些在信仰表达上所通用的礼仪，为使所有崇拜上主的人能合而为一。(《香港教区会议文宪》之一、建议)

为能实现梵二精神和教区会议的建议，香港教区主教(已故徐诚斌主教)便在一九七二年初成立了「天主教教区非基督宗教联络委员会」(现称「天主教教区宗教联络委员会」)，委员们随即「拜访」香港其他的宗教团体，更邀请各宗教来访及参加天主教的重要庆典；各宗教的反应都很积极和主动，就在「拜访 -- 回拜」的互相联系中组织了「教际」的不同活动和聚会交谈；渐渐地，六宗教团体便交上了朋友，互相推动了「宗教思想交谈会」，也组织了「六宗教领袖座谈会」。

三. 宗教思想交谈会

从一九七二年至一九七六年的四年间，香港的六宗教团体透过「拜访 -- 回拜」的交往，互相的接触逐渐频密，互相间的开放亦较宽大，便有相同的感觉和意见：倘若六宗教只着重在社交的接触，便会流于表面的交谈，不能有深入的对话和认识；如要深入交谈，非从教理与心灵持修的思想上开始不可。因此，在一九七七年初，六宗教选派代表：天主教的杜逸文神父和冼梓林先生、佛教的源慧法师和永惺法师、道教的梁省松道长、基督教的李景雄牧师、回教的脱维善先生和羽智云先生，以及孔教的梁隐盦先生。天主教还邀请了田英杰神父和周景勋修士等在中环公教进行社的会议室开会，着手筹备宗教思想交谈会，商讨「思想交谈」的可能性及推行方法；期间合共举行了四次会议，确定了宗教思想交谈会的组织、目的和举办方法。

组织：

由六宗教选派一至二位代表组成「宗教思想交谈会」筹备委员会，商讨思想交谈会的主题，举办地点和日期。至于讲者，则由各宗教各自安排或邀请。

目的：

为不同信仰的六宗教教友善信，提供更广博的知识交流，藉以增加大家对各宗教的教义、始创、演变及其文化背景等的认识和了解为首要和终极的目的；因此，交谈会更以促进参与者之间互相尊重、彼此瞭解、共同欣赏和接纳为基本的目的。

举办方去：

由六宗教(香港佛教联合会、香港孔教学院、中华回教博爱社、香港基督教协进会、香港天主教教会及香港道教联合会)派代表组成的筹备委员策划、议定主题、交谈会之日期、时间、地点及有关详细应办的事项。在意见交换下，大家都认为每年举办交谈会三次至四次，由六宗教派代表轮流担任交谈会主席，每次交谈会则由另二教敦请教内德高望重或学者为主讲作演说，其后由听众自由发言作交流；至于会场及茶点便由另一宗教提供。周而复始地举办思想交谈会。及至一九八六年，由于每年举办三次思想交谈会，在安排上有些困难，故经商议后，改为每年举办一次思想交谈会，每次皆由六宗教敦请教内人士为主讲，由六位讲者就不同的思想角度发表演说；此外，每次讲座都由宗教思想交谈会筹备委员会邀请一位会内的委员出任主席；这期间，筹备委员会成员皆由六宗教领袖座谈会的秘书处成员担任。近年来，由于其他事务之故，宗教思想交谈会乃每隔一年至二年才举办一次。

历年举办思想交谈会的主题如下：

一九七七年「祈祷」、「修持」与「祷告」
一九七八年「礼拜」
一九七九年「七件圣事」、「三位一体」、「成道三法」、「佛之三身」、「伊斯兰教之五功」与「三达德五达道」
一九八○年「教育」
一九八一年「灵修与修身之道」
一九八二年「教会办福利事业 -- 其原则及哲学或教理背景」
一九八三年「成圣之道」
一九八四年「宗教自由」
一九八五年「鬼神」
一九八六年「来生」
一九八七年「命运」
一九八八年「苦与乐」
一九八九年「神与偶像」
一九九○年「心灵的环保」
一九九三年「生命何价」
一九九五年「宽容」
一九九八年「宗教同步迈向二十一世纪」

四. 宗教领袖座谈会的成立及其发展

香港六宗教团体的接触交往，已经在一九七七年间成立的「宗教思想交谈会」中跨进了一步。然而，六宗教团体在接触交往上的希望不是作形式上的交谈，也不愿意只停滞在基层的思想交流，或一些有心于宗教交谈的人士的趣致表达；大家更希望透过宗教团体间的团结，可以落实地为香港社会作出一些贡献，以发挥宗教间的推动力，而最能够代表六宗教，且给予支持、鼓励和发挥实效的就是六宗教领袖的携手合作、齐心关注社会的精神需要，为香港社会大众树立一个共融的见证。于是，六宗教代表在思想交谈会中更呼吁各宗教团体的首长组成「宗教领袖座谈会」。其实，这呼吁已在一九七三年的「互访」中提出，但未能有六宗教的代表作整体而全面的探讨。在一九七七年间获六宗教团体首长的支持和赞同，组织了「六宗教领袖座谈会」的筹划小组，且派代表作策划与筹备；六宗教代表如下：

天主教李亮神父、冼梓林先生
基督教协进会郭乃弘牧师
佛教及孔教区洁名先生
道教梁省松道长
伊斯兰教羽智云先生

代表们经过数月的细心筹划与考虑，把握了「友谊第一」的共识，打开了宗教领袖间的沟通结谊渠道，且意识到真诚的友谊可将隔膜消解于无形中。为了使小组能更有效力作出维系，小组便推举天主教冼梓林先生为召集人，负责联络和召集等工作。

筹划小组为使领袖们在座谈会中顺利进行和交谈讨论，便预先提供六个可能讨论的主题，其内容大致着重于宗教间的互相合作、为社会服务和思想交谈等：

(1)传播媒介之道德水准问题。

(2)青少年问题。

(3)宗教团体目前面临的困难。

(4)宗教之发展在本港面临的问题。

(5)西方文化对宗教的冲击。

(6)宗教思想交流。

除了提供座谈会的会议内容主题外，必须关注的就是在举行时之「主席权」和座位安排的问题；因此，筹划小组经过详细的商议后，决定第一次的「六宗教领袖座谈会」不设主席权，以自由发言方式进行。至于座位安排，则决意根据各教团体的英文名称之字母次序排列：

香港佛教联合会 (Hong Kong Buddhist Association)

香港基督教协进会 (Hong Kong Christian Council)

香港孔教团体联会 (Hong Kong Confucian Association) (现为：香港孔教学院)

香港中华回教博爱社 (Hong Kong Chinese Cultural Fraternal Association)

香港天主教教会 (Roman Catholic Church of Hong Kong)

香港道教联合会 (Hong Kong Taoist Association)

另一个问题就是探讨有关首次座谈会会议的日期和举行地点。于是，在筹划小组精细的安排下，第一次的「六宗教领袖座谈会」便于一九七八年六月十六日在香港会议中心召开，为香港的宗教历史创造了不同宗教合作的首页，亦为香港历史打开了中西方宗教领袖对话的新一页。

其后，「六宗教领袖座谈会」每年举办二次会议，由不同宗教的领袖轮流担任「座谈会」主席，会议记录则由该委任秘书负责；会议后的半年(至下次会议)期间所要署理的事务及联络都由该教负责。至于开会地点亦以轮流的方式，到各宗教所安排的场地举行。会议内容的安排则由六宗教领袖各派代表组成的「六宗教联合秘书处」，将各宗教的意愿和期望，在「联合秘书处」的会议中策划与商议，制订会议内容的讨论和程序，再由各宗教领袖核定，方能在「座谈会」作讨论；过去曾讨论过的问题很广泛，如：宗教、社会公义、道德、教育、青年、老人福利、家庭、环保等问题。每年为针对社会的种种需要，更向全香港市民发表一年一度的新年文告。在实践宗教共融的交往上，更举办有益世道的活动，计有宗教青年营、家庭营、慈善步行、植树等活动。同时为了保存宗教间的情谊和尊重，互相参与个别宗教团体的特殊庆典，也支持各宗教的持别庆日，如支持佛诞成为公众假日、孔诞为学校的教师日等。其他还有参与香港回归庆典、致函恭贺香港首任特区首长的当选、庆祝国庆、以及赤立角新机场祈祷室的设计等。

在每次的座谈会和活动中，大家都能保持着互相礼让、互相欣赏、互相尊重的精神，使不同的宗教朋友能共融相聚和交谈，正显示了宗教求真求善求美求圣求和谐的本质。

六宗教领袖座谈会自一九七八年开始至今，已有二十年了。二十年所建立的「友谊」已经根深蒂固，且扎根于真诚的尊重与信任的精神上，更确定了共同目标－－为社会的安定和福利作出贡献，更为了消除教与教之间的障碍作出了努力的改善。香港六宗教领袖能跳出自己宗教的框框，以宽容与开放的心与其他宗教领袖交谈结谊，实是历史上罕有的事实。

五. 结语：六宗教同步迈向二十一世纪的新纪元

面对着新纪元的来临，人人都有着新的期望。香港六宗教领袖们二十年来一直关心着教内教外的转变，亦面对着香港的回归祖国和特区的新政策，好能配合时代的挑战给宗教及社会所带来的冲击，作出适当而有益于社会的回应，希望将宗教所关注的「心灵环保」、「人格提升」和「道德的正确理念」融化在社会文化中，希望人人能在困境中自强不息，努力奋斗；在工作中不要存着侥幸心理，贪求不劳而获的利益；在生活中能以宽容走向相亲相爱，使社会享有安宁，世界能呈现和平，人心光明伟大。

倘若香港六宗教领袖欲为新纪元打开幸福之门，实在是任重而道远的，必定要继续保持「有容乃大」及「和为贵」的精神，唤醒人的「自觉」性，在教育上帮助人认清生命的价值与意义，不怕正视社会的种种问题，如：现代化与传统文化的冲突、文明进步不能提高人的生活质素、人与人之疏离、道德伦理的分歧与崩溃、宗教的言行不一等作出剖释与落实地面对，以宗教智慧和勇气回应社会民生的需求，不流于形式上依时依节内部的联谊。既然宗教的精神可以作为社会的良心，唤醒人的生存意识和道德意识，助人发扬人性的精神价值，为社会的发展提供新的方向；六宗教领袖当从过去历史上的纷争得到启迪和觉悟，为香港市民的益处，为香港社会的人权与正义等，作出有具体表现与实质贡献的事，使香港这块土地化作人间净土。

作者：周景勋

摘要
本文为作者在1998年出席台湾中央研究院”中、港、台、澳”二岸四地的近代历史研讨会会议中所宣读的论文。文章内容乃根据历史事实，刻划了自一八四零年至今的近代中国－－中、港、台两岸三地的护动关系，特别是「香港」这一块土地，在两岸三地上所扮演的角色。于是文中所强调的是：同脉相连的中港台两岸三地，大家都是中华民族的子孙，拥有中华文化的五千年瑰宝，究在此时此刻，大家希望中华祖国会变成如何的祖国呢？再者，在同根护动下探索近代中国历史的变化，即从历史悲刻中看到香港是两岸三地护动关系的桥梁。其后更从两岸三地的历史脉络中作另类的反思，以描述两岸三地的实况。在结论中则也能在异中求同，不怕面对改变，好能达到统一的认同，且提出了切诊的方法。

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

　

一. 导言
黄仁宇教授在其《新时代的历史观》一书的结论中，有这样的一段精湛且发人深省的话语：

古人说「继绝世举废国，柔远人，来百工」，虽然免不了自高的语气，却为其他世俗文学里所无，只有宗教的经典里才有类似的说法，尚且未曾说得如是割切。今日中国为着本身之安全和对全人类的贡献，都有继续着此传统精神之必要。可是将这些响亮的名目付诸实施前，台湾海峡的两岸三方务必增强互信。过时的名号可以就此放弃，打破许多不能评议的禁忌。以历史代替意识型态，也就是接收历史的仲裁。

因为每一民族和每一国家，在其发展的过程中，已经用整个民族的血汗，将其文化精髓，每论是好是坏，都刻划成生命的历史，且创造其本身的独特风格；而历史乃整个民族以具体的生活在文化中长期累积而成的，实不容临时制造之凭藉，也不容强权所否定或篡改的。(1)

再者，历史是人心迹的记录，也是人与人共同生活的具体事迹的记录；历史的智慧就是人的智慧，都是活生生具体的事实，不是神秘虚玄的。虽然有些历史学家认为历史不过是一大堆偶然事件和人物的巧合，谁也无法寻觅到一条历史演进的规律作为未来的明鉴；但我却接纳另一些史学家的思想：

历史乃根据历史哲学循序而变的，自有其完整的逻辑系统成为重要的渊源，亦有其事实性的互联系统作为重要的证据。(2)

就是这些重要的渊源和证据提升了历史的价值，唤醒人心底的意识。意识乃是人对自我内心生命状态的瞭解，对自我经验的认知，能分辨出「自我、行为与对象」的价值与意义，好使自我在个别的经验中有着不变的原则，且能维持自我、自我与别人、自我与社会彼此之间有明显的互相连接的关系；于是，每一个活在历史中的人，都有责任地维护历史的确实性，亦参与为历史作监督的判断。(3)现代人对历史的体认不够深刻，对自己的生命历史演进也没有深刻的体认，故未能意识到历史的重要性，更不会明白以历史代替意识型态，(4)也就是接收历史的仲裁。无怪乎先圣贤人为人留下了对历史仲裁的「忧患意识」。

孔子说：

德之不修，学之不讲，闻义不能徙，不善不能改，是吾忧也。(论语．述而)

孟子亦说：

知生于忧患，而死于安乐。(告子下篇)

范仲淹则说：

先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐。

直到今日，我们可以从历史实况中，看到历史智慧的累积，作为前车之鉴，亦能得到思想上的启发，作深堪的反思，以建立美好的家国。反之，人若太过享受逸乐，专权霸道，会趋向颓废与糜烂，便会招致灭亡。

二. 同脉相连的中港台两岸三地
历史告诉我们，中港台两岸三地本是中国不可分割的版图。中国大陆与香港本来就是在同一块土地上；由于中国地大物博，香港这块位于珠江流域的滨海地带，数千年来就是一块没有被注意的边区土地。可是，这块边区土地因满清政府的腐败，让英国政府看在眼中，便随着危害人心人身的鸦片战争，被满清政府放弃了，在不平等的南京条约中将「香港」这块土地割让了，给了英国政府；又在第二次鸦片战争的北京条约中，将九龙割让给英国政府(一八六○年)；又在一八九八年春，英国政府以法国政府租借广州湾为危害香港之理由，要求租借九龙半岛以北的新界地区。如此，香港便在中国的同一块土地上，却被英国所占有，变成英国的殖民地；但生活在香港这块土地上，百分之九十或以上皆是流着中华民族同一血源的中国人。

至于台湾，在地理上乃一海岛，但在经营开发中，几乎都是闽南漳泉人与粤省客家人，皆由中原迁徙而至的。在历史上说，自远古至第十七世纪，台湾与中国已成为一体的关系。我们可从追溯到尚书中所言的「禹贡」中所提及的「岛夷卉服，厥篚织具，厥包橘柚，锡贡」的记事中作引证；又从陈寿的「三国志」及范晔的「后汉书」东夷传中所记载的「夷洲」可明之为现今的台湾。再者，自隋唐至元朝的「流求」时代，期间亦有留仇、流　、　求、或琉球之称。到了明朝，台湾的地位逐渐开朗，不再以「琉球」称之，另以「小琉球」述之，以别于琉球群岛的「大琉球」。期间亦出现过不同的名称：鸡笼山、大鸡笼、北港、东番、台员、大湾、大冤、台湾等不同的名字。最值得一提的乃荷兰侵入台湾，台湾初次沦陷，时为一六二二年(天启二年)的七月。荷兰占据台湾达三十八年，到一六六○年六月十七日(永历十四年)，郑成功初次光复台湾，便更清晰地证实台湾乃属于中国的领土。其后，台湾这块美丽的土地受到列强的侵扰，尤其在十九世纪鸦片战争以后，台湾的危机逐渐地升级，如一八五八年的天津条约已直接地涉及台湾，此时英美法俄四国要求与台湾通商；一八六一年以后，德、荷、丹麦、西班牙等国相继与中国订约，均享有通商之权。由此，台湾与外国的纠纷愈来愈频，如一八六七年的美国商船罗发(Rover)在红头屿冲礁击碎，船长与十三人驾划逃生，在琅　登陆，被龟仔角生番戕害事件等。最忍痛的一次乃是甲午战争中，北洋海军大败，而与日本签订「马关条约」，便将台湾割让给日本，时为一八九四年四月十七日，自此，台湾乃受日本统治达五十一年，至一九四五年日本在第二次世界大战中失败投降为止；台湾在中华民国政府于一九四五年十月二十五日在台北接纳日本的投降，于是台湾又回祖国怀抱。(5)现时的台湾，在中华民国政府的治理下，已是亚洲经济富裕，人民生活稳定的地方。在这块土地上居住的都是中华民族的子孙，也是中华文化的保存地，除了一部份人要求台湾独立自治外，大部份人都盼望着中国能统一。

从历史上肯定，两岸三地的人民生活、经济、政治体系、文化教育都不同，却都流着同一的血源，却因政治的意识型态所束缚着，不能反省历史的教训，只是从推翻帝制的封建社会，但却走入另一个专制的自我独尊的政府，不能活出文化中的「和为贵」与「有容乃大」的民族精神。究竟中华民族的子孙们心底渴求的是怎样的政府？盼望活在什么制度下的国家？两岸三地的中国人是爱中国、爱香港、爱台湾、爱资本、爱共产、爱共产党、爱国民党、爱民进党、爱自由、爱极权专政、爱民主、爱斗争、爱和平……这都是「夹缝想像」，两岸三地的政府都会说：

我们都拥有中华文化的五千年瑰宝，渊源流长；我们的执着和倔强是一份的涵养；我们是礼仪之邦，也是孝道的恩义民族；我们经济富裕，大家都能舒舒服服地享受吃的文化……

就在同脉相连的语气下，分成了两岸三地的不同政府，而美其名为「一国二制」、或「一国三制」……再发展下去，会不会又在「夹缝想像」提出「六点八点」，以至于「一制二国」、「三制二国」；然后，大家都会说：「安定繁荣」、「平稳过渡」、「循序渐进」、「以不变应万变」等等，口号多多，最后的一句永远都是以「回归祖国怀抱」作为结论。究竟是什么祖国？??传统历史文化熏陶下的祖国？党政下的祖国？同一天空下的这块土地的祖国？抑或是中华民族血脉相连相融的祖国？大家心中有一个答案，不必多问了。

三. 从历史悲剧中栽种了同根护动的机缘
从一八四○年的近代中国史实中，我们看到中国在满清政府的腐败下，孕育了中国的种种悲剧，也在悲剧中塑造了以「香港」为桥梁的两岸三地之护动关系。

1. 中国历史中悲剧的序幕
一八四○年一月，英国政府因林则徐禁烟事件，认为这是破坏了通商的法律，故决定对中国用兵；经过二次的北犯，战胜了中国，于一八四二年八月廿九日在英舰高华丽号上签了中国的第一条不平等之南京条约，将香港割让给英国，从始香港的中国人便生活在殖民主义权威下的统治。然而，事实上，英国军队早在一八四一年一月二十六日，已在香港岛西北部登陆，举行了隆重的升旗仪式，宣布占领香港；当时，满清政府向英国宣战，却战败，所以不能有所作为；英国政府更在一八四一年二月一日以统治的姿态，张贴第一张告示：「准许居民有宗教信仰或集会结社的自由」，又在当年六月七日，正式宣布香港为远东第一个自由港，以吸引更多外来的居民，带来资金和劳动力，以凑成香港宝贵的资源；「南京条约」签订后，在一八四三年六月七日砵甸乍爵士(Sir Henry Pottinger Batt)乘炮艇「女王号」抵港，宣誓就职成为第一任香港总督，此时便正式宣布港岛为「香港殖民地」(The Colony of Hong Kong)。(6)

虽然香港割让给英国是中国历史上的悲剧；幸好，在这块殖民地上，由于是自由港，中国人要出入香港都很方便；于是，香港便成为中国大陆广东区沿海人民的避难所，有很多人逃来香港发展。

2. 香港成为辛亥革命成功的护动踏板
从历史的记载得知：领导辛亥革命的同盟会创立于一九○五年八月，期间，孙中山先生是最重要的革命领袖，他的行踪是清政府所不容的。话说回来，孙中山先生在一八九二年毕业于香港西医学院，随后在澳门和广州两地行医，日益关心国家民族的安危，酝酿了反清政治活动。一八九五年，孙中山在香港成立香港兴中会，决定举行武装起义，夺取广州为革命根据地。但起义失败，便在一八九六年流亡海外，是年九月，在伦敦被中国驻英公使逮捕，经过他的老师康德黎(在香港读书时的老师)的营救才得脱险。可见，孙中山先生的革命精神乃在香港读书时渐渐地孕育在心中，一九○五年八月二十日，中国同盟会在东京召开成立大会，会中通过以孙中山先生提出的「驱除鞑虏、恢复中华、建立民国、平均地权」为纲领；其后，孙中山先生在同年的十一月十七日提出了民族、民权、民生的三民主义，作为同盟会领导革命的方向。至于后来在一九一一年四月二十三日所策划的起义，乃是黄兴在香港秘密安排，再到广州作策划。一九一一年四月二十七日，黄花岗起义爆发，黄兴率领党员一百多人攻总督衙门，与水师提督部队相遇，起义失败，这是同盟会的第十次起义。然而，同盟会没有因为失败而放弃理想，于是，在一九一一年十月十日爆发了武昌起义，且获得各省纷纷的响应，两个月内，有十五个省先后宣布成立革命政权，满清政府终于解体，革命党员组织「军政府」，建立「中华民国」，史称「辛亥革命」。是年十二月廿五日，孙中山先生从海外回国，到达上海，十二月廿九日，十七省代表会议，大家通过选举孙中山先生为临时大总统，又议决改用阳历；一九一二年一月一日孙中山先生在南京就任临时大总统，宣告中华民国成立。(7)

虽然，香港是殖民地，但也为中国带来了西方自由的文化，也是革命的后援跳板。及至辛亥命成功，香港的中国人在生活方式和服装上很自然，也很容易地作出改变，在适应上也较容易。

然而，在中华民国成立后的十年中，广州陷于军阀割据与混战的大乱中，民生不安，香港便成为广东一带人民的避难所，发展了两地护动的力量。

3. 香港扮演国共两岸分治的中介与收容所
在第二次世界大战结束后，日本在中国的破坏很多，国民党与共产党皆希望内战亦可以结束，而且在一九四五年的十月十日国共相方却感到需要定下协议，共同为国家的和平而努力，故双方签订了〈双十协定〉，强调了：

坚决避免内战，建设独立，自由和富强的新中国。

可惜，好景不常，双方未能根据协定行事而形成了国共的斗争；于是，内战开始，其结果便是国民政府战败，退守台湾，共产政府在一九四九年十月一日由毛泽东以人民革命军事委员会主席身份，发表中华人民共和国中央人民政府成立公告，向全世界宣布中央人民政府为中国唯一合法政府。

此刻，香港自由港的地位便吸纳了反对共产政权的人，也吸纳了国民政府军来港，在调景岭设立了反共基地；于是，香港便成为两岸的中介。尤其在共产政府下所发起的种种政治斗争的运动，使很多人逃难到香港，特别是五十年代的大逃亡潮，为香港带来了上百万的生产与消费的人口，还有很多教育文化界的学者，他们带动了香港学术界的起步，特别是在中国文化、历史与哲学方面的兴起；也有学者专家来回港台两地作学术交流，如罗香林、钱穆、唐君毅、牟宗三等，现简单地介绍共产政府的十项政治斗争运动于下：

抗美援朝：中共全力支援韩战中的北韩。(一九五○年)

土地改革：乃一场改变农村生产关系(即所有制)的斗争，中共所实行之土地改革所遵循的路线是：「依靠贫雇农、团结中农、孤立富农、消灭地主」；具体的做法是没收地主、富农的土地和财产，分配给贫雇农和中农。改革的时间约为一九四八年至一九五二年间，(北部地区较早，南方地区约一九四九年下半年才开始)。其目的在于提高农民的生产积极性，进行经济改革，实现对农业、手工业和资本主义的工商业的社会主义改造。而在对农业、手工业和私营的商业的社会主义改造，(即三大改造)，是在一九五三年开始于第一个发展国民经济的五年计划，即镇压反革命，土地改革、民主改革、三反五反之后，完成于一九五六年初；其具体做法为在农村成立农业生产合作社；城市之手工业改造为集体所有制、私营商业改造为公私合营的企业。事实上，所谓「三大改造」也是中共继续其生产关系(即所有制)变革的步骤。在城市，则是中共与民族资产阶段的第二次较量。(第一次是三反五反)

镇压反革命份子：对反对共产党及其政权者，特别是未及撒退而留在大陆的原国民党军政人员，实行残酷之镇压措施(即大部份被枪毙)。(一九五○年至一九五二年)

民主改革：为实现社会主义，以确立工人阶段的领导，以工农联盟为基础的人民民主国家政体。(一九五二年至一九五三年)

三反五反：三反乃反贪污、反浪费、反官僚主义，对象乃针对国家机关的工作人员，即政府的公务员；五反则针对资本家而言，就是反行贿。反偷税漏税、反骗窃国家资产、反偷工减科、反盗窃国家经济情报。「三反五反」是中共与城市中之民族资产阶级的第一次较量。(一九五二年至一九五三年)

肃清反革命份子：针对共产党内部的队伍，清查出一批暗藏的敌对份子。(一九五五年)

反右派份子：中共党政府在一九五七年间提出「百花齐放、百家争鸣」方针，号召人民帮助党整风，一些右派份子在鸣放中提出反对共产党领导，和反对走社会主义道路。于是中共发起了全国的进行反右派斗争，其中所针对的人乃文化教育界、科技界、医务界及民主党派等人。(一九五七年至一九五八年)

三面红旗：中共政府提出「鼓足干劲、力争上游，多快好省地建设社会主义」的「总路线」；全国生产出现了「大跃进」，和农村推行的「人民公社」。(一九五八年至一九六二年)

反右倾：主要是党内部的思想肃清，凡不与党思想配合的都被套上右倾的帽子。(一九六四年)

文化大革命：这是中共建国以来最重大的政治运动，目的在于「整党内走资本主义道路的当权派」，乃从「社会主义教育运动」中再出现的大斗争，掀起了轰动世界的无产阶级专政的大革命，斗争甚为激烈，其斗争规模之大包括了文化教育、科技、宗教、政治、经济……等等。

4. 两岸三地的三通问题在香港的中途站上产生护动
国共分治两岸，却不能分隔人民心灵中的亲情互通，于是，香港便肩负了这份互通的中途站，在护动中变成了亲情互通的转运点。所谓三通就是「通邮、通航、通商」。虽然国共分治的两岸至今还未达成三通的协议，但暗地里由香港扮演了凑合三通的角色。究竟何时开始有三通？我们可说自一九四九年国共分治二岸至今，若要明确地说，则由一九七二年中华民国在国际政治上失利而离开联合国席位，中华人民共和国被接纳成为联合国一员起，三通开始频密，尤其是八十年代至今，中共实行经济开放政策后，虽说未能直接三通，三通也算是直接的，究竟何时能两岸直接三通，不必由香港作为护动的转运，相信在不久的将来必能实现。

我们可由香港被不平等条约中割让给英国的悲剧事实作反省：若以神话的思域言之，那一刻根本没有想到中国会产生了国民党和共产党之争，更没有想到两党分别产生中华民国及中华人民共和国，这是同根的分治两岸，而香港则被上苍安排作两岸的护动的中介联络。香港的地位表面上是殖民地，内里却是一个自由港，代表着政治跳板的力量，经济跳板的互通，思想与文化自由的交流，两岸相通的踏板；香港能不能再扮演两岸统一的红丝线(月下老人囊中的赤绳)，就让我们拭目以待吧！

四. 二岸三地历史脉络的另类反思
－－以中国近代历史(1842-1980年)中所引发的护动所看到的影响为焦点
从一八四二年南京条约中，落实了满清政府将香港割让给英国，到一九一二年孙中山先生领导辛亥革命取得成功，建立了中华民国；其后又历经国共两党的军事及政治斗争，却由于日本侵华导致全民进入八年抗战，形成国共两党暂时的合作；而且到一九四五年八月日本战败无条件投降也保持了合作的景况。其后，国共又再出现大规模的军事冲突，以至席卷全国，直到一九四九年十月一日共产党控制全大陆而成立中华人民共和国，中华民国政权则偏居于台湾、澎湖、马祖、金门地区。自此两岸进入了关闭时期，互不往来；自此，近五十年来，形成了两岸三地的情怀、思想、习惯、及心理与政治意识之差异很大，实在是尽在不言中。

国父孙中山先生领导辛亥革命成功，建立中华民国，乃以三民主义为立国大纲，其思想意识基本上是属于中华民族的道统：儒家思想。加上期间至四十年代，西方物质文明、文化思想和宗教精神传入中国，对国民之心理状态和文化素养有很大的影响，我们可从北平、南京、上海、武汉和广州等大都会的社会现况可见一斑。

不能忽视的一点：满清政府末期之腐败，引致列强入侵；以至民初的军阀混战所导致战祸频凡、民不聊生，社会矛盾之激化而引致马克思主义之入侵。在当时的教育界(尤其是高等学府)、文化界等都是马克思主义的广泛市场。一九一九年之「五四」运动所提倡的新文化运动，虽有其反封建、争民主的一面，但潜在的另一面实是马克思主义之「左派」思潮开始公开地登上中国历史的政治舞台，这是中国共产党极力推崇「五四」运动是中国新民主主义革命之开端的原因；此新民主主义乃有别于孙中山先生领导的旧民主主义的革命(即辛亥革命)和中国资产阶级的革命；共产主义因此而发动日后的无产阶级的革命。

从一九一九年「五四」运动到一九二一年「七一」中国共产党在上海成立，以及一九二七年四月十二日蒋介石取得中国国民党之绝对领导权，发起「清党」命令，在上海发动政变，逮捕和杀死共产党人和工农群众五千多人等，国共便形成决绝关系。其后，一九二七年八月朱德之「南昌起义」，到建立江西井岗山根据地；其后数年，蒋介石发动五次围剿江西井岗山，而导致在一九三四年十月中央红军被迫退出中央革命根据地，实行战略大转移，开始了中外闻名的二万五千里长征，至一九三五年十月到达陕西的吴起镇，中共便另外开辟了陕甘宁边区根据地；直至一九三六年十二月十二日的「西安事变」为契机，国共双方再度合作全面投入抗日战争，期间虽有多次的摩擦和斗争，(如一九四一年一月四日的「皖南事变」，国民党发动第二次反共高潮，在皖南地区包围九千余新四军，大部份的军民牺牲)，但抗日终可获得胜利。抗日战争刚刚结束，国共双方又马不停蹄地进行备战，由东北之争夺 ??辽沉战役开始，便爆发了全面的内战，最后结果便是二岸的分治。

我们再以一九四九年十月一日中华人民共和国成立的时期开始，反省两岸三地的中国人，大家都是中华民族炎黄子孙，但生活在完全不同的社会政治制度之下：共产党的社会主义政权、殖民地政权、国民党的三民主义政权，政治意识、宗教意识和道德意识之不同与分歧是显而易见的，但也互相影响。大陆的共产党政权基本上向全民推行极「左」之所谓社会主义思想教育的政治路线，强调「统一意志」，也强调「集体主义」，这实际是当年德国希特勒的法西斯主义的翻版；在共产政权之初期，此类教育颇有成效，但随着大陆推行大规模政治运动(如抗美援朝、镇反、土改、民主改革、肃反、三反五反、反右派份子、三面红旗、反右倾、文化大革命等。)社会矛盾进一步激化，中共开始借助警察及保甲制度去镇压和控制百姓。至于对香港及台湾之存在认识，乃通过无线电波(香港电台、绿村电台、自由中国之声)及有限度的往来(大陆与台湾的往来几乎是完全隔绝的)。大陆民间颇为向往香港丰足的资本主义社会(对台湾的三民主义制度则颇不了解)，故除了五十年代的逃港潮外，在六十年代初期(一九六○年至一九六二年)及七十年代末八十年代初(一九七九年至一九八一年)，再引发了二次大规模的逃港潮，每次逃港人数皆以拾万人计算。此期间，大陆南方地区及华东沿海地区民间老百姓，甚至共产党之党政内部之所谓「社会主义思想意识」已逐渐淡化，资本主义的意识和物质享乐思想逐渐渗入社会的各阶层。

至于台湾，在七十年代中期，蒋经国实行开放政策，走民主路线，以及推动十大建设，期后更开放党禁，于是在经济上突飞猛进，人民生活富裕，尤其有土地的暴发户增多，虽然与大陆不能有三通的交往，在暗地里却透过香港的护动，已间接地与大陆亲友互通，也在经济上给予很大的支援。

以一九七八年中共十一届三中全会为契机，中共组织部长胡耀邦拋出了：「实践是检验真理之唯一标准」，贬废了华国锋(党主席、总理、军委主席)，一大批被毛泽东打倒的高干及开国元勋得以回朝；其后，邓小平第三次正式复出，高举开放和改革之大旗，推行为拯救共产党衰亡的新政治路线，即所谓「设计有中国特色的社会主义」，强调坚持一党专政、一党独裁，但经济则推向「市场经济」的策略，于是在经验上需要香港作为转运站，亦欢迎台港两地商人回大陆经营；香港便自然地成为台商转入大陆的踏板。

大陆南方地区及华东沿海地区由于自七十年代中已开始受到「港风」的影响，遂逐渐加强「自由经济」及伴随着的自由经济文化之侵入也日渐明显，促使自一九七八年中共实行开放改革以后，这些地区之经济发展特别迅速的原因和效果。目前大陆的社会，特别是较开放的东南沿海各省及城市，受香港之独特资本主义意识的影响颇为广泛和全面，甚至无论在社会、文化、教育以及生活习惯，更甚的连常用的口语等方面，都在模仿香港的做法。

由于台湾方面的开放比较迟，尤其是对大陆的开放皆有条件性的开放，故台湾的文化、教育和社会对大陆的影响要到八十年代中末期才得以加强。饶有趣味的乃是邓丽君的歌曲，在七十年代末已在大陆广为传播，且甚受欢迎，这对于当时大陆仍是流行歌曲之沙漠来说，无疑是一股甘露的滋润，故当时大陆民间有此一传言：「日间是邓小平，夜间是邓丽君」。

近廿年来大陆奉行之改革开放政策，及台湾开放；中、港、台三地在刻划护动的历史意识，以及在经济意识和文化交流的意识上的互动和渗透是明显的。首先是大陆不断地从香港和台湾吸收自由经济的精髓，以及其附属之上层建筑 ??文化、教育和民主、自由的思想体系。香港和台湾也逐渐地了解曾经封闭了卅年的大陆社会之政制架构，及其社会、文化、教育的面貌，特别是其独特的社会主义思想体系之意识型态。加上台湾及香港所保存的传统儒家思想渐渐被大陆的文化智识界所接纳，而且唤醒学术界的文化前辈的重新反省思索，这对于在大陆社会中千千万万被历次政治运动(特别是文化大革命)所扭曲或吓怕了的人性之矫正，肯定发挥了正面的影响。

尽管共产党强调他们是无神论者，其宗教政策是「有信教的自由，但没有传教的自由」。就在开放的廿年以来，大陆人民自身已有或祖传的宗教信仰也由地窟中走出来；加上各类宗教透过不同渠道进入大陆，也给予支援；于是，使原来颇为低调的或在暗地里生存的各类宗教，都能在民间蓬勃的发展。再者，除了传统上已存在中国文化中的道教、佛教和儒教，外来的天主教、基督教、回教外，民间不同的各类宗教(民间宗教)及新兴的宗教都不断地发展，台湾某些新兴宗教或教派亦在福建及广东一带均有一定程度的发展；发源于大陆而传入台湾的民间宗教也回大陆寻根和迎神。虽然，有部份宗教依然屡被取缔，但这些植根人心与发自人心的宗教是无法予以禁绝的。

五. 结论
当我们览观中国历史时，都可发现每一个新朝代新政府上任时，都必定有新的改革，这正是应验了易经所言的「生生之谓易」了；宇宙在变、天在变、地在变，人也在变，一切万事万物皆在变，「变」也就是「改革」吧！

然而，在「变」中，究竟是产生「相合」的变，抑或是「分散」的变；「统一」的变，抑或是「分裂」的变。中国谚语有云：「合久必分，分久必合」，这是一个大道理吧！现今的中国正处于国共的「分」治情况，这个「分」算是「久」抑或「不久」？也有一句话笼括着中国今后动向，也宣扬着继蒋介石、毛泽东后中国长期革命中第三阶段的主题，那就是：「只有改革才是大道理」(8)。美国记者白修德(Theodore White)在他的书中提出：「中国若不改革，只有灭亡」(9)，不改革就是不变，不变就不能生生，不能生生，就只有灭亡，实在也是易经的大道理。

因此，在历史的反省中，我们要分辨清楚：「脓头要根除」的意思。也肯定了：若不是脓头，就不必根除，而要好好地护理，不使它受伤而含脓。(10)现今中港台二岸三地的分歧实是共产主义与资本主义的分歧，这些分歧能否截长补短呢？或者，是重要的不在于截长补短，而是要正视背后的真正问题呢？于是，我们可以简单地说：「资本主义为了利润，利用一切价值包装人的欲望；共产主义为了权力，利用一切价值包装人的理想。一个是经济性的异化，一个是政治性的异化。」(11) 如此，人心会失调、历史也会因人心的失调而失调；社会文化也会失调。人心便没有希望，历史也没有希望了。

所以，本文所强调的「同根」，就是要强调中港台的人民都是同出一源的中华民族，有着血脉相连的历史文化，若在血脉中有受伤而含脓，便要忍痛地根除脓头，以保存一体的生命；若中港台有分歧之处，便要以「和为贵」地作出协调，以达到有同一的共识。至于「护动」，则有着两种不同的情况，其一为互相排斥的抗争，这种情况重点放在「动」中。另一则是互相包容的爱护与互相帮助的互动，虽然中港台二岸三地在意识上有不同之处，也能在异中求同，不怕面对改变，好能达到统一的认同，这也是本文的希望。于是，我们尝试提出切诊的方法：

放弃唯我独尊的历史包伏，走向民主的共融，使人人活出自由、平等与博爱的精神；其原则在于「贞定其异，感应其同」与「同则相感，异则相动」，就是要人开放心胸，尤其是当权者；然后不断地寻找生命与政制体系中的相同点，在变中走向同；若有异，则彼此学习。(12)

从历史中吸取经验，保护传统文化的优良点，开创现代化的动力；同时也接收历史的仲裁，使传统与现代化产生互动关系，其内发挥纠正(修正)作用与续程作用，发展互信、自由与开放；就是说，传统可以帮助现代化的发展，现代化可以促成一些传统的复兴。(13) 所以，千万不要破坏历史中的传统文化，让传统文化本身可以再发展下去，吸纳现代化的精华，作出一种互动的交谈。

发展历史性的全人教育，与全民教育，培育新的一代，以开创新纪元。其实，教育的重点在于发展人性，使人人能尽性而行；其次是使人明瞭社会文化的需求，且学习哲学的思考，创新和解决问题等方法。同时，必须加强民主教育，因为民主的真缔是「自由」与「平等」；「自由」与「平等」的基础是「真理」。(14)

懂得在历史中定位，所谓「名实相符」，而不是妄自菲薄。因此，知行合一，言行一致是很重要的。

　

注释
黄仁宇，《新时代的历史观 ??西学为体，中学为团》，台湾　商务　1998年初版　71-74, 58。

王逢吉，《人生之旅 ??绿川随笔精选》，叶强出版社　1988年初版　「历史的心」92-95。

周景勋，《让自己成为自己 ??心灵的追索》，台北　上智　1994年初版三印　128-131。

所谓「意识型态」(ideology)，其意义异常混杂，纷歧含混，扑朔迷离，学者对它的定义和主张很多。故国内有以译名说明之，如译作「主义」、或「意理」、或「观念丛」，亦有音译为「意底牢结」。因为「意识型态」影响了廿世纪人类的思潮，一般以为意识型态是国际间政治对抗的因素；实际上，它的影响广及人类生活的各个层面，他不只存在于政治层面指导政治斗争，甚至跨过界指导人的经济活动，即使在纯学术活动中，也能发挥巨大的影响力。其实，意识型态理论的产生和发展的时间并不很长；首先提出意识型态这个字的人是十八世纪法国唯物论哲学家德拉西(Antvine Claude Destutt de Tracy)。他在一八○二年创用这一名词时，原意是用来表示一种对哲学思想的研究方法，要求以自然科学严密实证的方式，来研究人类的思维活动。他更依据洛克(John Lock)和康第拉克(EB de Condillac)的感觉论观点，说明意识型态(思想、观念、科学)是由三部份组成：一是合理的意识型态、二是生理的意识型态、三是比较的意识型态。然而，在廿世纪，意识型态此一名词又和极权主义信仰相结合，使此名词令人望而生反感。这种视意识型态为可恶反感的情形，在民主国家中，尤其普遍。若就政治层面来说，政治意识型态是一信仰的体系，它为既存的或构想中的社会，解释与辩护为人所喜好的政治秩序，并且为其实提供策略(过程、制度、计划)。政治意识型态包括一套与人性、与社会有关的规范性与经验性的基本命题。这些命题用来解释与辩护人类的情况，及指导与维护人们所喜好的政治秩序之发展。因为它是一种信仰，所以它能引起信仰者的狂热，为了维护其主张，为它牺牲、为它奉献，使他们的生活行动，对反对者予以反击，或设法使之同化。现代学者一般认为：意识型态含有四种组成系统。现以日本学者高桥彻和田中义久两人的说法作介绍：

分析体系：针对现实生活的社会情景，从事科学及客观的分析和判断，建立合理的认识。

价值体系：表明团体的积极且具有创造性存在的理由，指示团体的目标或方向，对于成员灌输神圣的使命感。其内，有一评价的力量，以说明理想价值目标及个人的根本意义。

信仰体系(神话体系)：描绘出一个理想远景，其内含有浓厚的情绪色彩，使人有共同向往的追求意志，而为高度的行动取向。

政治策略：乃根据其理想远景所拟订出来的具体策略，此包含了远程策略和近程的行动步骤。

参阅(1) 陈明仁撰，《先秦儒家价值思想中天人观念和演变》，1991年5月　辅仁大学哲学研究所博士论文　罗光教授指导。
    (2) 斐鲁佝(Lucian W. Pye)，《中共的改革与方励之》，台湾联合报　民77年11月21日三版。
    (3) 巨克毅，《意识型态传播与国家发展》，台湾　正中书局　民76年5月初版　31。
    (4) 思格尔等着(张明贵译)，《意识型态与现代政治》，台湾　桂冠图书公司　民75年　5。

郭廷以，《台湾史事概说》，台湾　正中书局　民43年三月初版。

张月爱，「香港一八四一至一九八○」，《香港与中国》历史文献资料汇编，广角镜出版社　1981年12月版　82-88。

《中国近百年历史图集》，香港天地图书有限公司出版　1979年二版　第八章　辛亥革命　153-201, 687-688

黄仁宇，《新时代的历史观 ??西学为体，中学为团》，台湾　商务　1998年初版　54。

同上，17。

王镇华，《百年中国的反省 ??源头既清，波澜自阔》德简文集(1)，德简书院．觉觉出版社　1992年11月出版　3。

同上，7。

王镇华等，《两岸文化的关怀》，德简书院．觉觉出版社　1993年九月初版　15。

王镇华等，《两岸文化的关怀》，德简书院．觉觉出版社　1993年九月初版　18。

林生传，《新教学理论与策略》，五南图书出版公司　民77年　30-37。

by Fr. Lionel GOH O.F.M.(吴岳清)

“... The Holy Spirit came to an end in Israel... ”
Some Aspects of the Holy Spirit in early Judaism

Abstract
The author analyzes the attitude to the Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Bible, with particular attention to the differences in Pre-exilic and Post-Exilic Israel. Before the exile the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was richer and more extensive, for there were the Prophets who spoke on behalf of God. After the Exile, given the absence of prophecy, there was a difference in attitude to the Holy Spirit but a greater theological openness.

摘要
本文從舊約中分析聖神的看法，尤其是在以色列民充軍前後都有不同。充軍前因為有先知作上主的代言人，故對聖神的看法很豐富也廣闊；在充軍後，因沒有了先知的預言，看法上又有不同，但神學的開放性比較大。

* * * * * * * * * *

　

In Israel’s history, the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 AD) and after marked an interesting development in the understanding of the Holy Spirit. Once considered the divine inspiring force behind the ministry of the prophets, the Spirit was active and common among the Jewish community. In Second Temple Judaism (till the end of the Tannaitic period, i.e. c.300 CE) a flourishing of various ideas regarding the Holy Spirit occured.

The common view is that the Holy Spirit during this period was said to cease. This cessation of the Spirit of prophecy occurred because prophecy had fallen badly into disrepute. The prophet Zechariah in 13:2-6 speaks of the Day of Yahweh when the prophetic ministry will end, possibly because of the abuses of false prophets. Such abuses are recorded as early as the time of Jeremiah (23:11-40). In the Second Temple period, 1Macc 9:27 affirmed the belief that prophecy had ceased. Hence the Holy Spirit, the source of prophecy, is said to have ceased to be active. The tractate Sotah 13:3a in the Tosefta.(1) reiterates this belief: When the latter prophets died, that is, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, then Holy Spirit came to an end in Israel. Interestingly, however, it also adds: ”but even so, they made them (Israel) hear [God] through an echo.

This “echo” or mysterious voice was identified in earliest Judaism as the Bat Kol or “daughter of a voice”. God’s communication with Israel was not totally severed by the absence of the Holy Spirit after the end of prophecy. This Bat Kol was a substitute means of communication. It was a disembodied voice and was so called probably to “avoid saying that men heard the actual voice of God”.(2) A Second Temple period example of the working of the Bat Kol is found in Dan 4:28-29, when a voice from heaven rebuked Nebuchadnezzar. Ancient records preserved in the Tosefta Sotah also tell of the time when the High Priest Yohanan (John Hyrcanus 135-104 BC) heard a Bat Kol in the Holy of Holies announcing the victory of the Jewish young men warring against Antiochus (13.5a). It also tells of a time in 41 AD when the High Priest Simon heard in Aramaic a Bat Kol announcing the death of the Emperor Caligula (13.6).

It is interesting to note that the Gospels record a voice from heaven during the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22) as well as during the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-8; Mk 9:2-8; Lk 9:28-36). What is striking about the Baptismal scene is that the Holy Spirit descends and then the voice speaks. Traditional Judaic belief, on the other hand, is that the Bat Kol speaks only because there is no Holy Spirit. The voice from heaven in Jn 12:28 is inferred from the context to be that of the Father, although in v. 30 Jesus refers to it as simply “this voice” and not “my Father’s voice”, as would have been expected. Judeo-christians accept this voice in the Gospels to be Bat Kol.(3) Acts 9:4 also records a disembodied voice speaking, but this time it is identified with Jesus.

After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Bat Kol was noted to continue to function on several occasions in Judaic history. A gathering of sages in Jamnia to settle a halakhic dispute between the followers of Hillel and Shammai was ultimately settled in favour of the former by the intervention of a Bat Kol. In Jericho, a Bat Kol declared Hillel the Elder to be worthy of receiving the Holy Spirit.(4)

But contrary to this idea that “the Spirit ceased in Israel”, other alternative views of the Holy Spirit of prophecy also exist. These views maintain that the Spirit never really ceased in activity but existed or functioned differently from that of prophecy with which it is traditionally associated.

One such view holds that the Spirit of prophecy was given to a group of persons other than the prophets. This is tersely pronounced by Rabbi Yohanan ben Nappaha (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Baba Bathra 121b) in the late 3rd century CE: Since the destruction of the Temple, the gift of prophecy has been taken away from the prophets and given to fools and children.

No doubt the “Temple” here refers to the Second Temple. That the gift of prophecy was taken away from the prophets was no doubt due to the reasons spelled out above. There is no Bat Kol. The Holy Spirit of prophecy does not cease but is said to be given to fools and children. No doubt this concept drew its inspiration partly from Joel 3:1 and perhaps also from Jeremiah as the “madman” who was the true prophet (Jer 29:26).

Lest it be said that this pronouncement regarding the Spirit of prohecy is dated to the late 3rd century CE, it should be noted that a parallel idea is found in Mt 11:25: I bless you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for hiding these things from the learned and the clever and revealing them to mere children. We may also elicit 1Cor 1:26, where Paul explains the role of the foolish in God’s plans. The essence of the Spirit of prophecy as inherited by fools and children is hence an ancient concept developed before the destruction of the Second Temple.

Yet another Second Temple concept of the Holy Spirit holds that while prophecy is ended, the Holy Spirit now is given to only the virtuous. This seems to be a reaction against unworthy persons who claimed to be prophets. In Wis 1:4-5, we hear of the Holy Spirit of instruction as shunning deceit, and disassociating itself from reckless purpose and iniquity. An interesting fact suggested by the Book of Wisdom is worthy of note: the Spirit is now identified with Wisdom (1:4.6). It does not reside in crafty souls “nor stay in a body that is in debt to sin” (1:4). Wisdom is a spirit and a friend to man (1:6), i.e. the virtuous man. It refuses to pardon the blasphemer. In 7:22-23, Wisdom is described as a spirit with 21 positive attributes. Taking up the concept of spirit as ruah, 7:25 says that Wisdom is a breath of the power of God.

This identification of Wisdom with the Spirit continued after the destructuion of the temple in 70 AD. It functions primarily as an instructor, as the Canticle of Canticle Rabbah (5) notes in 1.8: Rabbi Judan said: It is to teach you that whoever preaches on the Torah in public merits that the Holy Spirit should rest on him. From whom do you learn this? From Solomon; for, because he discoursed on the Torah in public, he earned the privilege that the Holy Spirit rested on him and he composed three books, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Songs of Songs.

The virtuous here are said to be those who preached or taught the Torah publicly, and the reward for such an act was the gift of the Holy Spirit. In keeping with tradition, the Spirit here is understood to be the inspirer of Holy Scriptures.

This concept of the Holy Spirit as gift is found also in the synoptic Gospels and especially in John’s Gospel. However a major difference is immediately noted. While in the gospels the gift of the Holy Spirit is totally gratuitous, in Judaic literature it is a reward to be merited by virtuous persons. A virtuous life hence is a prerequisite to the attainment of the Holy Spirit.

Rabbi Phinehas ben Jair (2nd century CE) adds an interesting note in his famous “steps of holiness” (Sotah 9.15): (6) Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, and cleanliness leads to purity, and purity leads to abstinence, and abstinence leads to holiness, and holiness leads to humility, and humility leads to the shunning of sin, and the shunning of sin leads to saintliness, and saintliness leads to the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead. And the resurrection of the dead shall come through Elijah of blessed memory. Amen.

The Holy Spirit is seen as a gift but based on the requisite of saintliness, of a virtuous life wihtout sin. But in turn this Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead. That the Spirit is life-giving is nothing new in ancient Judaism. Genesis presents the creative, life-giving power of the ruah of God. In Ezekiel 37, the role of the Spirit to revive the dry bones is noted, albeit a metaphor for the restoration of the House of Israel. These texts have not been explicit in associating the role of the Holy Spirit with the resurrection. R. Phinehas’ dictum spells out in no uncertain terms the direct relationship between the resurrection of the dead and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Frederic Manns *10* has done extensive research on another view of the Holy Spirit. No longer a gift to prophets, this Spirit is described through the image of water. Based on ancient biblical texts, e.g. Isaiah 32:15-20; 44:3-4; Joel 3:1 etc., it can be seen that, from the Second Temple period onwards, this Spirit-Water functioned to purify people (Qumran), and acted to bring about a virtuous life (not the reward) of justice and integrity. *11* An interesting aspect of the Holy Spirit is associated with the Water Libation Ritual celebrated on the last day of Sukkot (Sukkah 5.4). According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 5.1, 55a) the joy of the participants during this festival was the result of the Holy Spirit. Such joy was possible only when one was inspired by the Spirit. The Spirit-Water image also assumes the other various views of the Holy Spirit mentioned above but always in terms of water.

This cursory look at the many aspects of the Holy Spirit as understood during the Second Temple period and beyond has merely scraped the surface of the prolific literature that merits greater study on this topic: from the Deuterocanonicals and the Apocrypha to the Jewish legends of the Tannaitic period. To those who were disillusioned with the abuses of the false prophets, the Spirit ceased in Israel. No one was found worthy of this gift. To others, more optimistic of God’s fidelity and love for his Chosen People, the Spirit continued to exist though no longer for the purpose of prophecy. Prophecy ceased but the Spirit of joy, wisdom and life continued to be active.

*10* Le Symbole Eau-Esprit dans le Judaisme Ancien. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1983.

*11* Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18, 116-117.

　

Note
Neusner, The Tosefta translated from the Hebrew: Third Division Nashim. New York: Ktav, 1979. All quotations from the Tosefta are taken from this series by Neusner.

G. F. Moore, Judaism, vol. 1. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1960. p. 422.

D. H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary. Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992.

Tosefta Sotah 13:3c

Midrash Rabbah. Song of Songs. (H. Freedman & M. Simon eds., M. Simon trans.). London / New York: Soncino, 1983.

The Midrash (H. Danby ed.). London: Oxford Uni.versity Press, 1933.

by Gianni Criveller (柯毅霖)

Trinitarian and Christological Bases for a Christian Theology of Inter-religious Dialogue

Abstract
This article discusses the modern attitude of the Church towards inter-religious dialogue. Especially in the 1980s, the Church had a more open attitude, perceiving the advantages of inter-religious dialogue. Nowadays the attitude tends to be more conservative, stressing rather the dangers in inter-religious dialogue. For this reason, The author approaches a discussion of inter-religious dialogue from the perspectives of a theology of Trinitarian communion and a theology of the Cross of Christ. He hopes that this consideration will facilitate a more open attitude within inter-religious dialogue. He stresses that those engaged in inter-religious need to remember several things. Part of the meaning of the suffering encountered in inter-religious dialogue stems from the fact that, within the dialogue, Christians cannot forfeit their Christian identity. From the perspective of faith, the reason for religious suffering lies in the fact that Christ suffered for us. On a human level, human beings suffer, and therefore there is a need for a liberation of life, and a need to suffer on behalf of those who suffer and are oppressed.

摘要
本篇以天主教圣三论基督论观点来讨论宗教交谈的论文，内容分析了现今教会对宗教交谈的观念，尤其在八十年代，教会的态度比较开放，注意到宗教交谈的好处。现今的教会则比较保守，强调在宗教交谈上的危险。因此，作者从圣三共融神学和基督十字架神学与宗教交谈上立论，希望为宗教交谈打开一个解放性的态度，也强调在交谈中使人了解到：宗教受苦的意义，故基督徒在宗教交谈上不可失去自己的身份，在信仰上也要明白宗教受苦的原因，因为基督为人受苦，从人的现象上看，人也受苦，因此，需要有生命的解放，也具体地为穷苦者，受迫害者受苦......。

* * * * * * * * * *

　

Part I: The Theological Problem of Inter-religious Dialogue
1. The present-day debate on inter-religious dialogue
Inter-religious dialogue arouses a certain amount of interest in the Church as a whole and in the missionary world in particular. At the same time, it sparks off widely diverse reactions, which can be loosely synthesized in two opposing views. The first sees in dialogue a royal road to relativism, with the risk of undermining not only the absolute value of Christianity but also the need for missionary work and conversion to Christ. A leading Protestant theologian of the present day, E. Jungel, states significantly with regard to dialogue: “I believe that there are many roads which lead to Rome, but few which lead to God. The New Testament tells us there is just one: ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”(2)

The second attitude grants to dialogue an enthusiastic reception, not only as a solution but also as a substitute for all missionary endeavors. Those who hold this view include Catholic and Protestant authors such as P. Knitter, R. Pannikar, J. Hick, D. Cupitt, W. C. Smith and others. These authors affirm, though in different ways, the urgency of replacing traditional Christ-centred theology with God-centred or Salvation-centred theology.

P. Knitter states in direct opposition to Jungel: “There are therefore, not just various paths leading to the summit of Mount Fuji, but these paths must criss-cross and learn from one another, if they want to continue on their journey.”(3)Other authors, while taking care not to distance themselves from New Testament Christological positions, propose a thorough revision of traditional Christology. These include among others, H. Kung, A. Pieris, T. Balasuriva, G. M. Soares Prabhu, I. Puthiadam. Catholic Theologians who are from the Asiatic region propose a clear-cut distinction between the Christ of History and the Cosmic Christ. The first is the founder of Christianity and, insofar as he was a historic personage, just one of the many religious prophets, while the second is the ultimate fulfillment of religions, of humanity and of the cosmos.

From what we have briefly mentioned above, it is evident that the Christological question is the central and determining one in this debate. Here it follows the two apparently opposite aspects of the Christological dilemma. On one hand we have the absolute value of the Paschal Kerygma, the impossibility of evincing the mystery of Christ from the collective hopes of humankind and the unique salvific mediation of Christ. On the other hand we have the great esteem and trust in the human religious experience that reveals and mediates the Absolute to human beings.

2. The Church takes an active part in inter-religious dialogue
The Catholic Magisterium has issued several strong pronouncements in favor of dialogue, in particular two documents from the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. The first, issued in 1984, is entitled The attitude of the Church towards the followers of other religions. Reflections and guidelines on Dialogue and Mission. In this document, dialogue is seen, together with evangelization, as a constituent part of the mission of the Church.

The second document, published in 1991, Dialogue and proclamation, Reflections and Guidelines on inter-religious dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, offers mostly explanations of technical terminology. Mission and Evangelization are seen as synonyms embracing the whole ambit of the Church’s action in the world.

According to this second document the Church’s mission of evangelization comprises various activities, including dialogue and proclamation. These two activities are distinct, each possessing its own status and enjoying its own value. Proclamation naturally constitutes the foundation, the center and summit of evangelizing, since the knowledge of Jesus Christ is the aim at which the entire evangelizing mission of the Church is directed. Other religions are viewed in this document with great open-mindedness: their adherents are saved by Christ, not in spite of their religion but through the faithful practice of that religion, and in some wondrous manner, precisely by virtue of that religion (n. 29). According to J. Dupuis, this last affirmation is a theological novelty in the official teaching of the Church.(4)

There were also extraordinary events which one would have deemed impossible of realization until a few years ago, events which marked memorable moments in the field of official dialogue. Let us mention here only some of the most important. The Prayer Meeting at Assisi in 1986; the meeting at Trastevere in October 1996 marking the 10th anniversary of the Assisi meeting; the meeting “Buddhism and Christianity: Points of agreement and disagreement” held at the monastery of Fo Kuang Shan in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, in the summer of 1995, which was organized by Cardinal F. Arinze and the venerable Hsing Yun, the Abbot of the monastery.

The 1986 meeting in Assisi attracted world-wide attention because of its strong symbolic significance and evocative appeal. Through its emotional impact, John Paul II gave a powerful boost to inter-religious dialogue. On 22 December 1986, the Holy Father spoke to the Roman Curia about the Assisi meeting and its spirit, replying to criticisms and quandaries which had arisen within the Church. He expressed himself in words which, in my opinion, are amongst the most significant he has ever spoken on the subject of inter-religious dialogue: “The Church is called upon to work, to the limits of its strength, (including Evangelization, Prayer and Dialogue) to settle the divisions and partitions among men (¼ ). What took place at Assisi can be seen as a clear illustration, a factual lesson, a catechesis understood by all, of what the ecumenical concern and the concern for inter-religious dialogue, both recommended and championed by the Vatican Council, presuppose and signify. The very identity of the Catholic Church and the Church’s knowledge of herself were both strengthened at Assisi. Indeed, the Church, and all of us in the light of that happening, came to understand more clearly the real meaning of the mystery of unity and reconciliation that the Lord has entrusted to us, and which he himself was the first to practice when he offered his life ‘not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God’ (Jn 11:52).”(5)

In this statement of the Holy Father, in his symbolic gestures, and also in the documents of the Secretariat for Dialogue, we notice that an emphasis is now placed on the need for the dialogue, and that dialogue is also defended against criticism and proposed for general practice.

3. Recent misgivings about inter-religious dialogue
Recent expressions of theological opinion on dialogue seem to have slightly changed their tone, becoming more thoughtful and more subdued.(6) See the series of editorials in La Civilta Cattolica under the title “Christianity and other religions,”(7) an article of H. Waldenfels which also appeared in La Civilta Cattolica,(8) and an exacting article of Cardinal Ratzinger.(9) While affirming the good points of inter-religious dialogue, these articles mention also the risks, the difficulties, the dangers and the limits of dialogue, especially when it is motivated by theological suppositions which are a betrayal of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith.

In the worst of the scenarios described by critics, inter-religious dialogue is depicted as a constituent element of religious pluralism and modern syncretist tendencies, a form of modern relativism and the product of the failure of ideological certainties.

4. The theological question of inter-religious dialogue
Is inter-religious dialogue indeed a species of relativism spawned by extreme forms of syncretism such as the New Age? To put this problem in its proper perspective it is necessary to make various distinctions. First of all, we must distinguish between inter-religious dialogue and the theology of religions. Though they are in a certain sense inter-related, they are two entirely different matters. The theology of religions consists in a theological interpretation of other religions; it explains the role they play in the Catholic outlook of the world and its salvation. It is also necessary to distinguish the theological question of the salvation of non-Christians from the theology of inter-religious dialogue.

The theology of inter-religious dialogue must in turn be carefully distinguished from the problems raised by liberation theology, even though some promoters of inter-religious dialogue (such as P. Knitter,(10) A. Pieris and T. Balasuriya) are also proponents of the Asian version of liberation theology. Moreover, the evolution of contemporary Church-consciousness towards inter-religious dialogue is totally unrelated to the collapse of formerly widely held ideologies and the consequent rise of modern day relativism. This evolution commenced, if we wish to fix a date, with the Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam of Paul VI (1964) - the encyclical of dialogue. Most certainly, it was not the aim of this encyclical to establish inter-religious dialogue. From that very moment, however, this new attitude towards other religions, which then developed and matured with the Council, “acquired the name of Dialogue, and from that moment this word, as a name and an ideal, began to be used frequently in the Council and in ecclesiastical speech.”(11)

In order to appreciate the value of inter-religious dialogue it is quite important keep in mind the Church’s first steps in this direction, such as the encyclical Ecclesiam Suam. It is also important to keep alive the memory of the pioneers of dialogue, such as Paul VI and other prominent figures of the Council Vatican II. One should also properly distinguish the specific problems of inter-religious dialogue from those of the theology of non-Christian religions, liberation theology, religious pluralism, and contemporary religious syncretism and relativism. Only after such clear distinctions will one avoid lumbering inter-religious dialogue with problems that are not its own, or accusing it of defects it does not have.

5. Two distinct directions and objectives
Inter-religious dialogue, I think, proceeds simultaneously in two directions, to which correspond two distinct yet complementary aims.

The first aim is fundamental: it takes faith as the starting point and reflects, according to theological principles, on the legitimacy or otherwise of dialogue. This method can be called deductive since it starts from the principles of Christian theology and must remain faithful to these principles. The second aim has to do with content, and has to do with the direct encounter of religions. The theology of dialogue is the arena where Christianity is directly confronted and compared with other religious traditions, and their correspondences, similarities, differences and contrasts are reflected upon. One can also choose one particular aspect of the doctrine of Christian life (such as the transcendence and the uniqueness of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Commandment of Love, morality, rites, monastic life etc.) and, in a comparative study, investigate its affinities with and diversities from other religions.

This second concern of the theology of dialogue evidently requires a certain competence in both areas of reference, Christianity and other religions. It also requires inter-disciplinary work. Hence, the contribution given by sciences such as phenomenology, the philosophy of religious, and cultural anthropology, can offer great help. This last mentioned theological procedure is quite stimulating since it calls for both team-work and field-work and a sharing of concrete experiences. It is a process that may be described as inductive, since it proceeds from the particular, arguing from the plurality of religious experiences.

Both of these procedures have their legitimacy and validity but, as is to be expected, their limits also. The first runs the risk of remaining no more than a premise failing to reach the concrete religions. The second faces the danger of becoming so disperse that it would be incapable of reaching a theological conclusion in accordance with Christian doctrine.

It is in this sphere, then, that missionaries can make a valid contribution, formulating from their experience a global theology, which would have as its method both the praxis of dialogue and reflection upon it.

6. The charism and ministry of dialogue
Although there is much talk about dialogue, some of it alarmist and some favorable, it is my opinion that in reality dialogue is little practiced. My own limited experience in a Taiwan Buddhist monastery is, to the best of my knowledge, almost unique in that island.(12) Yet Taiwan is ideally suited as a place for dialogue, especially with Buddhists. Among the many missionaries with whom I am acquainted in Asia, in areas where almost the whole of the population belongs to other religions, the number of those who have undertaken any significant projects in dialogue is minimal.

While we do not lack good theological and missiological magisterial documents, still there are several open questions for the theology of dialogue. In the first place there is the problem of the relationship between dialogue and mission, and between dialogue and proclamation. In this regard, I believe that the most urgent problem is not that of finding theoretical solutions. Perhaps we shall never reach a solution that will convince all parties. There will always be those who stress the urgency and the originality of proclamation, and those who defend the dignity and the proper status of dialogue. Such being the case, what is needed is not so much theoretical solutions as multiple experiments. When the day comes that the praxis of mission and dialogue is widespread and effective there will be no lack of guidelines, originating from these experiences, to bring about a correct theological approach to the problems. Perhaps what is required is Christians who, in a prophetic manner, live out meaningful experiences of inter-religious dialogue, and are capable of reflecting on them. Dialogue ought to be lived in the Church as a charism, a gift from on high. The actual living out of the charism ought to become a shining lamp for the protagonists of dialogue themselves, for the Church and for the adherents of the religions. In the mission of the Church the charism and the ministry of dialogue must be ever more clearly delineated. There must be those who make dialogue the aim of their service to the Church and their fellows. If that does not come about, no matter how many publications are printed or demands are made, dialogue will always remain no more than an exercise in theological discussion.

With this I do not intend to make any unreasonable claim for the supremacy of praxis. There is still the problem of formulating a theology that will serve as a sure guide for dialogue so that it may be carried out as a charism and a ministry within the Church and thus be well founded in fidelity to the faith.

7. Theology of Dialogue and Theology of the Cross
I mentioned earlier that the greatest stumbling block is the absoluteness of Christ, the Christian paradox: We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (¼ ). I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1Cor 1:23; 2:2). An investigation should be made into the link between Christology (and, in particular, of the most Christological and paradoxical of all theologies, the theology of the Cross) and the theology of inter-religious dialogue. It would seem that the theology of the Cross was for a long time either neglected by the theology of dialogue, or considered only in contrast with it. A link between the theology of the Cross (the bulwark of Christology) and the theology of dialogue is now needed. This would prevent the theology of dialogue from debarring Christology and so, in the long run, emptying the Christian faith of its fundamental mystery. On the other hand it would prevent the theology of the Cross from falling into the “Christological Straits”, an expression used by H. Von Balthasar in his critical synthesis of the thought of K. Barth.(13) In Barth’s interpretation, the catchword ‘solo Christo, sola scriptura, sola fide’ leads inevitably to the elimination of all other religious experiences.

But what kind of link can be forged between the theology of the Cross and the theology of dialogue? This question will be dealt with in part two of this paper.

Part II: Theology of the Cross and theology of inter-religious dialogue
8. Theology of the Cross as Christian Theology
The theology of the Cross can be understood in such a way as to present the Christian message in a one-sided or biased manner. The theology of the Cross, or of the Crucifix or of Christ Crucified and Forsaken,(14) to which I am referring cannot be understood except in conjunction with the resurrection. The centre-point of Christian faith is best expressed in the words of the kerygma of the New Testament: God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:36). The theology of the Cross, as I understand it, moves from the kerygma of the primitive Church. Moreover, the Cross makes known to us the depths of the love of the Trinity(15) so that the theology of the Cross is at the heart of Christian theology.

9. God’s forbearance
The Cross of Jesus makes it impossible to create an image of God that is simply in accordance with our own ideas: No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him (Jn 1: 18). The New Testament bears witness that the revelation of God as Father came about substantively on the Cross. In the Gospel of St. John, the Cross is seen as the glorification of the Father, ‘Abba’ (Jn 17:1-6) as he is called by Jesus. The Christological canticles of Paul (Col 1:15; Eph 1:3) explain further this profound relationship between the crucified Jesus and the Father. God the Father (1Tim 1:2) wishes that everyone be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1Tim 2:4). Indeed the Epistle goes on to say that Jesus Christ gave himself as a ransom for all (1Tim 2:6). Now the universal salvific will of God cannot be considered theologically as anything but efficacious. How should this efficacy be judged? Y. Raguin states: “God in the person of Jesus appeared at a relatively late stage in the history of humankind, at least so it seems to our way of thinking. Every nation had its own patriarchs and prophets. When Christ came among us he did not rush headlong in all directions, as though there was no time to lose. In fact he had ample time, and never gave the impression that the salvation of the world depended on his frantic activity. Yet he was aware that he was bringing salvation.(16) His followers, too, are invited to live their lives and mission with the same sense of freedom and the same gratuitous service. Dialogue is an expression of that gratuitousness and freedom which Jesus first employed. Only God knows the times and the seasons. The document issued by the Secretariat for Non-Christians in 1984 defines the times in which salvation will be efficaciously brought about as “the times of the forbearance of God (... ), since no-one can oblige God to act more hurriedly than He chooses."(17)

The theme of God’s forbearance, which was already figured in the Old Testament, is developed in a special manner by the authors of the New Testament. They take up the theme of God's forbearance and expound it more deeply, in the light of the death and resurrection of Christ. These two events, insofar as they initiate the final stage of human history, are considered the objective towards which the forbearance of God was directed. At the same time, insofar as they mark the beginning of a new era of waiting, they are presented as the starting point of a new manifestation of God’s forbearance.(18)

There are two types New Testament passages which speak of God’s forbearance. Some refer to the period before Christ (Rom 2:3-5; 3:25-16; 9:22-24; 1Pet 3: 9-15). The second type tries to assign a theological value to the delaying of the Parousia. During this period of delay the Lord exercises forbearance, not wishing that any should perish (2Pet 3:9). Therefore, consider the patience of the Lord as salvation (2Pet 3:14). The time of this forbearance is the time of salvation (Cf. 2Pet 3:9-15). Now the fruit of God’s forbearance is that patience which the believer in turn exercises towards all (Cf. 1Thess 5:14). According to Hebrew (6:11-15) patience is the same as faith, the faith exercised during the time until the promise is fulfilled. In the letter of James (5:7-11) patience is depicted as a virtue at the core of Christian life: Be patient therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. You also be patient. (... ) Indeed we call blessed those who have persevered with patience. You have heard of the patience of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, because the Lord is compassionate and merciful. In this weighty text of James the forbearance of God is shown as synonymous with mercy and compassion.

The Biblical theme of God’s forbearance sheds special light on theological reflection on inter-religious dialogue. The patience, mercy and compassion shown by God when passing judgment on history and on human affairs, become the patience, mercy and compassion exercised by the believer. Forbearance, therefore, is not a lightweight virtue. On the contrary, it is a virtue which calls for a deep spiritual maturity which enable one to penetrate, so to speak, into God’s own way of thinking. Dialogue, first of all, requires forbearance to enable us to approach the spiritual identity of those with whom we dialogue. Dialogue, to use a powerful and suffered expression coined by P. Monchanin, calls for a geological patience.(19) Patience requires that we die to ourselves, and be detached from our own timetables, deadlines and programs, while awaiting the early and the late rains. Patience means surrounding oneself completely to the Father, the only Lord of history, and the only one who knows the ways of salvation. Indeed, the crucified Christ gives us the most sublime and exemplary manifestation of patience. On the Cross, he renounced his desire to comprehend the mystery, abandoning himself instead to the times and ways decreed by the Father. In a word, the theological value of the patience of God and of the believer is revealed to us in all its fullness by Jesus on the Cross, our supreme model of patience.

10. The Messianic Secret
The ‘messianic secret’ deeply marks the Gospel of Mark. The true identity of Jesus, the meaning of his mission, the value of his words and miracles will be revealed only on the Cross. The signs and words of Jesus are not self revelatory but are only revealed in their time and profound significance at the supreme moment of the crucifixion. Only at that moment is the ‘messianic secret’ made known. It was not made known, however, to the priests and to the scribes (religious officials), to the passers-by (devoted believers on their way to the Holy City for the Passover) nor to the two criminals condemned with him. All these people challenged Jesus to come down from the Cross. A spectacular gesture which would have provided sensational evidence for them to see and believe. They were prisoners of a religious sense based on outward show, on the spectacular, on force, on victory over others. Jesus had rejected that kind of religiosity. The secret was revealed instead to one who officially was not a religious person, to a Roman centurion, a member of a pagan nation. He had witnessed the darkness which descended on Jesus and on the world which had condemned him as a criminal is condemned. This man, a pagan, heard the cry of Jesus forsaken and dying. Then and then only, in the darkness, a prey to helplessness and in the presence of a man who had died alone and forsaken, this unknown soldier from a far distant, pagan and enemy land, proclaimed the wondrous identity of Jesus: Truly this man was the Son of God (Mk 15:39). This is the crowning point of Mark, the first Gospel.

The Messianic secret is revealed sub contraria specie, in a manner precisely contrary to the religious and human expectations of the priests and scribes, the passers-by and the malefactors condemned with Jesus. It was revealed instead to a man who had no part in established religion. Only the Cross, the scandal of the Cross reveals in unexpected ways and to unexpected persons the messianic secret, the true identity of Jesus. Yet Jesus had, over a long period and with meticulous care, prepared his disciples to come to the knowledge of his mystery. In the second part of Mark’s Gospel (and also in Luke) Jesus no longer works miracles. Instead, he concentrates his attention on teaching his little band of disciples in unequivocal tough language. Yet not even they understood the mystery of the Cross. It was not they who revealed the messianic secret.

Reflection on the messianic secret and on the Cross of Jesus seems particularly fitting when interpreting the figure of Jesus in the context of the theology of inter-religious dialogue. It is only through the Cross that Jesus reveals his identity. It is not possible to reduce Jesus to a religious concept, to any abstract interpretative category. Within the scope of the theology of religions and theology of dialogue, it is not only possible and legitimate but also necessary to speak of Christ the Liberator (preacher of the Kingdom, not of himself) with P. Knitter; of the cosmic Christ with R. Pannikar and T. Balasuriya; of Christ the prolepsis of history with W. Pannenberg; of Christ the critical catalyst with H. Kung; and of Christ the Eternal Word (as distinct from Jesus of Nazareth) with C. Molari.(20) Be that as it may, however, we must never distance ourselves from the Cross as the theological center which reveals to us the identity of Jesus. No manner of theological interpretation of Jesus’ identity can ascribe to him any aspect or function which did not have its origin in the scandal of the Cross. This holds good also for a truly Christian theology of inter-religious dialogue. So let it never happen that, while we are pondering wise solutions, the Cross of Christ be emptied of its meaning (1Cor 1:17).

The theological value of the messianic secret revealed in the Cross stands out in clearer relief when considered in conjunction with the patristic concept of seeds of the word. The word seed has a deep biblical significance. In the synoptic gospels, in various parables, the seed is presented as a synonym of the Word (Lk 8:9), and of the kingdom (Mk 4:31). In John (12:20-24), Jesus describes his destiny, using the figure of the grain of wheat or seed, which can only bear fruit if it dies. In the first epistle of Peter (1:25) the immortal seed which regenerates and remains for ever, is nothing other than the word that has been proclaimed to you. In short, the seed of the New Testament signifies, at various times, the Word of God, the Gospel proclaimed, the kingdom of God or Jesus who dies. In all of these examples the seed is considered as potent and active. The smallest of all seeds is destined to become the largest of all plants. The seed (i.e. the Word, the Gospel, the Kingdom, Jesus himself) though small in its origins, is destined to increase to a great size. The inference here is not merely that of a fragment compared with the whole, of a percentage compared with the totality, the particular compared with the total, of one minute coloured plug conferred with the completed mosaic. No! The seed has the intrinsic dynamic force to devolope, to be reborn, to be transformed and to grow into a plant. The generative force of the seed lies in its dying in order to produce fruit, a reproduction which occurs in spite of, or perhaps precisely because of, the gap between life and death. For this reason Jesus foretells the meaning of his forthcoming death and resurrection using the forceful expression of the “fruit-bearing seed.”

The seeds of the Word scattered throughout the world among peoples and religions should be viewed against this New Testament background. They are not scattered fragments to which it would be difficult to assign any theological significance. They are, rather, an entity which has an inner strength of growth and possesses within itself the power of signifying the logic of the Cross, the Word, the Gospel and even Jesus Christ himself. As seeds of the Word, they are seeds of Christ.

The seeds of the Word are not related merely to human religious research. They rather express an authentic Christology in the religions and, in a certain sense, they denote the presence of the mystery of the Cross in all human affairs and in the various religious experiences and traditions. As Jesus imposes the messianic secret in the Gospel, so the seeds of the Word scattered in the non-Christian world take on the characteristics of concealment and secrecy. The seeds of the Word reveal their secret as signs of Christ’s presence only in the light of the Cross and according to the logic of sub contraria specie. Through the Cross, Jesus experienced, in his own person, the scandal of evil: the betrayal of his friends, the perjury of false witnesses, the hypocrisy of his judges, the torture of the soldiery, the injustice of his condemnation, the mockery of the crowds, the pain of crucifixion, the abandonment not only of his followers but even of God, and also loneliness, helplessness, humiliation. There are no human sufferings that cannot be united to the sufferings of Jesus. Through them Jesus revealed, to the utmost degree, the mutual love of the Blessed Trinity when, from the depths of his abandonment, he offered himself to the Father in full and trusting obedience. Giving his life on the Cross to give life to the world just like the Good Shepherd, Jesus manifested in his total self-giving the greatest love that one could possibly conceive. The seeds of the Word are scattered precisely where individual or communities suffer torment yet place complete trust in God, and are capable of making the ultimate gift of themselves. In the light of the above reflections, we find revealed in the last discourse of Jesus before his passion (a discourse on the final judgment, Mt 25:31-46) a wealth of theological and salvific doctrine of which we would otherwise be unaware. Any exegesis of this discourse based merely on natural ethics would not do justice to its dramatic context, nor adequately explain the reasons for the radical conclusions it draws.

11. The Cross’s critique of Religion
At the foot of the Cross the messianic secret is made known by the Roman centurion, a national enemy, an alien to the official religion. According to the Synoptics, at the very moment of Jesus’ death, the veil of the temple was rent in two (Mk 15:38 and parallel verses). Jesus entered into the place reserved to the high priest and opened up the way into the new sanctuary (Heb 9:8), being the first so to enter in (Heb. 10:19-20). The theologians J. Moltmann and P. Coda have conducted more investigation than others into the theme of the Crucified Jesus ‘cast out’ of the Jewish religion. They show how Jesus, overcoming all religious exclusiveness, embraces everyone. He dies as one cursed by God, made to be sin (2Cor 5:21), outside the gate (Heb 13:12), outside the community of God, outside the Holy City, outside the vineyard which is Israel, outside the encampment consecrated by God. In this way, the crucified Jesus concentrates in himself the divine presence freed from the constricting limits of the Jewish religion. It is thanks to him that the dividing wall of enmity (Eph 2:14) between Jews and Greeks was broken down. Thanks also to him, God’s blessing to Abraham was extended to the whole of humankind (Gal 3:14). Thus Jesus succeeds in reaching from the inside all those outside of Israel and outside the visible structure of the Church. Therefore the starting point of the Christian theology of inter-religious dialogue will be that to which the Epistle to the Hebrews invites us: Let us then go to him outside the camp (Heb 13:13). “Let us go towards the Crucified and forsaken Christ who, far from denying and condemning the religions without any right of appeal, makes of these, instead, so many grounds for theological reflection (loci theologici).”(21)

However, we must bear in mind that in the thinking of the authors of the New Testament for the Cross of Christ to be “outside” signifies “outside” of the Jewish religion. It is only in a subsequent manner that the relationship between the Cross and Judaism can be identified with the relationship between the Cross and religions in general. In my opinion there are two reasons why it is legitimate to apply the essential form of the Cross-Judaism relationship to the Cross-religions relationship.

The first reason is based on the New Testament’s unanimous affirmation that the Cross of Jesus reaches out to all people. The many mentioned in the Synoptics (Mt 26:28 and parallel verses) for whom Jesus gives his life are the multitudes, i.e. all peoples.(22) He has tasted death for everyone (Heb 2:9). God handed his son over for us all (Rm 8:32). He gave himself as ransom for all (1Tim 2:5-6). Lifted up on the Cross, Jesus will draw all people to himself (Jn 12:32). This reaching out and drawing all by means of the Cross is certainly not just a manner of speaking. It must rather be seen as something real, actual and effective. This is what a well known deliberation of the Vatican Council affirms: “We must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS n. 22). It would seem to me that the reflection I propose above does not allow a loose interpretation of the Council’s deliberation, one lacking in practical efficacy. Instead it offers an interpretation which reflects the importance and incisiveness of that deliberation.

The second reason I suggest for extending the form of the Cross-Judaism relationship to the Cross-religions relationship is based on my opinion that the theology of the Cross which is presently developing as a product of this reflection calls religion ‘into scrutiny’. The theology of the Cross makes us rethink the faith-religion relationship in a new and dialectical manner. The crucifixion of Christ, who died outside of the established religion, is a dramatic epilogue of Jesus’ long drawn out and persistent critique of religiosity, and of his mortal conflict with the religious (allied with political) authorities. Jesus resists and unmasks that religious piety which too easily degenerates into unwarranted presumption, such as can be seen, for example, in the episode of the woman who was a sinner in Simon’s house (Lk 7:36-50), or in the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector (Lk 18,:9-14). Jesus sternly criticizes religion when it is reduced to hypocrisy and exhibitionism (Mt 6:1-17), into a credulous search for sensationalism prompted by lack of true faith, into the enslavement to personal or social conventions, into a smug legalistic observance which is an end in itself or which, even worse, harms humanity (Mk 7:1-13 and parallel passages), or into a quest for dominance (Cf. Lk 11:46). Jesus goes on to unmask a religiosity which has become an ideology and which, in the name of God and Law, seeks to justify itself, adhering to the letter of the law rather than to its spirit and seeking to wield power over others, while legitimate religious expectations become bigoted and incapable of adapting to new ideas. In a word, Jesus denounces that excessive religiosity which leads to hardening of the heart (Mk 3:5, 12:13; Lk 6:10). In the Gospels Jesus is consistently seen to be on the side of the victims of religion: sinners, publicans, lepers, prostitutes, the sick, the handicapped, the possessed and children. Hardness of heart brings about the rejection and blacklisting of these who should be made welcome, forgiven and loved. The pervading religious outlook and religious structures played a decisive role in this turmoil in which man loses what he holds most dear: love. Jesus did not meet the messianic expectations of his contemporaries. He was different. Passages of the Gospel which describe episodes of criticism, invective and argument between Jesus and religious groups are neither few nor far between. There were painful rifts that, in the space of a few short months, brought about violent attacks on Jesus and led to his execution.

At the present time, too, all religions, whether Christian or not, run the same risk of becoming ideologies which are opposed to the true welfare of the person. How many examples can be found of this in both Christianity and other religions. Even in the 90s religions have too often become vehicles of suffering and death instead of salvation and life. Today in many parts of the world, the groans of those undergoing hardships caused by religion are rising up before the throne of God, as Nicholas of Cusa stated as far back as 400 years ago.(23) However, I am certainly not unaware that religion also has many positive aspects and qualities. But religiousness, since it is a human phenomenon, is ambiguous and may posses negative qualities. The effects of religious ideology may even be aberrant: The time will come when anyone who kills you will think he is doing a holy duty to God (Jn 16:2).

Violence in and of religion is a topic which neither a Christian theology of inter-religious dialogue nor inter-religious dialogue itself can, with any semblance of decency, avoid. In my estimation, it is precisely the theology of the Cross which can offer a contribution which, though uncomfortable at time, goes to the heart of the matter and is indispensable for dialogue between followers of difference religious. The Cross, on which Jesus was hung as an enemy of religion, transcends any religious particularity. At the same time, it reaches out for and attracts to itself all varieties of religion, to judge them and cleanse them. The Cross has the power to distinguish true faith from religious ambiguity.

12. Dialogue at the foot of the Cross
The theology of the Cross extends an open invitation to those who engage in inter-religious dialogue, to overcome their reticence and to abandon their self-assuredness. We cannot hide ourselves behind our religion, while at the same time standing at the foot of the Cross. We are called upon to leave our encampment and to go out to meet Christ (Heb 13:13), and thus avoid seeking the comfort of a religion that tends to become an ideology. Those who engage in dialogue are invited to look on the one whom they have pierced (Jn 19:39). This requires a continual conversion, a courageous change and a humble openness to criticism.

At the foot of the Cross, dialogue becomes a reciprocal evangelization on account of the cleansing of one’s faith and the increase in the sincerity of one’s actions which it promotes. We do not clearly know what will be ultimately achieved by the dialogue between people of different religions which Jesus arouses by drawing everyone to himself. John Paul II suggests the possibility that “the firm belief of the followers of non-Christian religions (... ) might, somehow, put Christians to shame.”(24) At the foot of the Cross no one is a master, but rather all are disciples, whatever religion they may profess, disciples primarily of Christ, but also of one another.

On the Cross, God revealed in the Crucified Jesus his weak aspect, his vulnerability, his decision to show himself sub contraria specie. At the foot of the Cross dialogue too reveals its limits and weaknesses. Inter-religious dialogue often appears to rest on shaky ground, with motivations which are sometimes ambivalent, mutual acquaintance which is scant or even biased, and aims which are not always clearly defined. Dialogue is often dogged by suspicion and fear, both among these inside and those outside the Church. Inside the Church there is a fear of compromising the truth or of starting a gradual descent into syncretism or indifferentism. Adherents of other religions are sometimes unenthusiastic or fail to take part, or have reservations because of the fear that dialogue may be just a method of proselytism updated to suit the times. Significant and successful attempts at dialogue are indeed rare. For the most part, the attempts are timid and the results fitful, not to say, delusory.

Objectively speaking, dialogue encounters dilemmas which seem to have no solution. The chief of these, in my opinion, is the relationship between the necessity of proclaiming Jesus Christ and the very nature of dialogue. Now I am of the belief that in a very important sense there is an irreconcilable divergence between dialogue and proclamation. Inter-religious dialogue cannot shrink from the judgments put forward by the Cross of Christ nor from the judgment which the Cross of Christ lays down. There is a demarcation line beyond which the Crucified Christ can no longer be engaged in dialogue. The scandal and the foolishness of the Cross take precedence over the claims of dialogue. But this does not denote that the dialogue has terminated or that it is an impossible and useless undertaking. It has merely shown its limits, just as all religious activities and theological discussions have their limits. Dialogue is both possible and necessary, because it is not held between abstract systems and religious theories but among flesh and blood believers. These believers, touched and attracted, more or less consciously, by the Cross of Christ, plunge themselves in the daily round of those who share, as Jesus did, the crucified reality of the people.

13. Dialogue of Liberation
In Jesus Christ, God did not merely become man, he became an infant, the son of simple folk. He knew poverty and made common cause with the poor and oppressed. He was humbled and suffered the shame of the Cross. Jesus is indeed the man of sorrows and his Gospel is the Gospel of the suffering.(25) The scourged Jesus, with his face disfigured by blows and by the crown of thorns, is brought out before his tormentors: Behold the man, says Pilate (Jn 19:5). Indeed, in that unsightly face which they behold, and from which men hide their faces (Is 53:3), there is the face of suffering people, of all those on earth who have been crucified. In that face can be seen the sufferings of the whole of humanity. There is no human suffering which has not been united with Christ crucified, nor is there any human suffering which has not been borne by him. Jesus makes common cause also with those who throughout the course of history have been, so to speak, nailed to the Cross. On that Cross, all disparities between human beings vanish. On the Cross, Christ achieved to the full what he had chosen as his aim in life: to announce the Gospel to the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind and to let the oppressed go free (Lk 4:18-19).

At the present time, to follow Jesus bearing our cross means to make the same choice that Jesus made, to throw in our lot with those who, like Jesus, are humbled, downtrodden and put to death. The face of the Crucified One is seen today in those who are nailed to the Cross with Christ, for in the sufferings of those lowly ones Christ is present. It is also certain that even those who have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of Christ (Lord, when did we see you hungry¼ cf. Mt 25:3-46) encounter Christ when they show love for the poor and solidarity with the needy, and are judged by Christ with encomium (Crux omnia probat). For it is the crucified Jesus who passes judgement on each one‘s responsibility in one’s dealings with the world, and in one‘s cooperation in evil and in the unspeakable sufferings of so many human beings. It is the Crucifix which brings us face to face with the fearful consequences of sin, of pride, of injustice and of power. The suffering now inflicted on a great part of humanity may, at times, be no less devastating than that borne by Christ himself.

While suffering, on the one hand, reveals the reality of the Cross of Christ and his continuing solidarity with the crucified ones, on the other hand it seems to constitute the overriding problem of humankind and religions alike. Inter-religious dialogue, which does not confront this challenge, and does not heed the cry of the crucified ones nor stand shoulder to shoulder with the poor and downtrodden, is a dialogue that is tragically flawed. It is not even theo-logical nor, for a Christian, is it authentic in its Christianity. The theology of the Cross prevents inter-religious dialogue from becoming merely academic, inconclusive and wrapped up in itself. Instead, the theology of the Cross points out the common ground of inter-religious dialogue in solidarity with the crucified, which will become the theological meeting point for common concerns. In the face of suffering, dialogue is no longer a mere discussion, nor even a summit meeting of religious authorities, but a practical commitment undertaken together as a sign of hope for the liberation of people.

Pope John Paul II himself has stated that “the human person is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission. We are not dealing with the human person in the abstract, but with the real, concrete, historical human person. We are dealing with each and every human person, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption.”(26) The inter-religious dialogue that the Holy Father calls for does not aim at doctrinal convergence nor at solutions based on religious syncretism or indifferentism, which he decisively rejects. It aims rather at mutual understanding, respect and esteem which will lead to combined efforts for justice and peace and worldwide reconciliation. The aim of the Assisi meeting - and of those which followed it - was peace, and, whenever he meets followers of other religions, the Holy Father promotes common efforts for the good of humankind.

In this respect liberation theology makes a valuable contribution. It shows that salvation history becomes a concrete reality in the liberation of the people. It expresses the concerns and the engagement of local churches as they come together with people who are struggling for deliverance. Liberation theology and the theology of dialogue make common cause insofar as they demonstrate different aspects of the evangelizing mission of the Church. They collaborate more closely in Asia where they address the fundamental challenges which confront the Asian peoples: poverty and religions.(27) It should be noted that nowadays less is being said about liberation theology, even though the Holy Father himself has stated that this theology is not only legitimate, but even necessary. Unfortunately, less is being said also of the poor and of the Church of the poor. Since communist ideology has ignominiously failed, and Marxist philosophy can no longer defile the minds of Christians who struggle for justice, it is to be hoped that liberation theology will reacquire its dignity and importance in the efforts of all believers to bring about justice and peace. This should be done in conjunction with the believers of all religions and all men and women of good will who have at heart the well-being of humankind.

14. Christ Crucified and the Holy Spirit
At times, in the course of theological debate on inter-religious dialogue, we tend to assign to the Holy Spirit all-embracing attributes, with no barriers or restrictions. This raises the risk of losing theological understanding of the Holy Spirit, who then becomes so abstract and indeterminate that anything may be attributed to him. I shall now try to show the strong bonds which unite the Spirit with Christ: Pneumatology united with Christology and particularly with the theology of the Cross.

In the Gospel of John we read that Jesus on the Cross bowed his head and yielded up the spirit (Jn 19:30). The use of the Greek word paredoken is unusual. It is not used in any other Greek text to denote the idea of expiring. The Synoptics themselves use more common words. According to exegetes, “in using such an unfamiliar word to announce the death of Jesus, John intends to tell us that Jesus’ death had the effect of granting the Holy Spirit to the Community.”(28)

In St. John’s account of the death of Jesus (Jn 19:34), there is another allusion to the Holy Spirit: a soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. The water is a symbol of the Spirit and recalls the words of Jesus (Jn 7:38-39): Whoever believes in me, as scripture says, Rivers of living water will flow from within him! He said this in reference to the Spirit which those who came to believe in Him were to receive. There was of course, no spirit yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. The moment of glory in John’s Gospel is the moment of the Cross and Resurrection. The true outpouring of the Spirit was the work of Jesus crucified and risen again. The Spirit comes with the breathing of the risen Christ, and our thoughts turn to the Cross from which flowed forth the water of the Spirit. If the outpouring of the Spirit began from the Cross, the Spirit is radically bound up with the death of Jesus, and bears the signs of the paschal mystery.

A further reflection leads us to the conclusion that the action of the Holy Spirit is the same as that of Jesus on the Cross. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit the Comforter was pre-announced by Jesus during the Last Supper on two occasions.

The first is Jn 15:26-27: When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. And you also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning. The Holy Spirit Paraclete, sent not to the world but to the disciples, is called upon to take part as a crucial witness in that great trial between Jesus and the world, which forms the background against which the whole life of Jesus is set. This trial leads to the condemnation of the world and to the exaltation of Jesus on the Cross. The Spirit’s role is to testify to the fickleness of the world and to help in safeguarding the faith of the disciples.

A little later, John returns to the same theme: It is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Paraclete will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation (Jn 16:7-8). Here again we see that the role of the Spirit in this great trial, which is contested in the full light of human history, is to bear witness for Jesus against the world by revealing the world’s guilt, its empty pride and its inconsistency. Exegetes have difficulty in clearly defining the terms: sin, righteousness and condemnation. But it is clear that the presence of the Spirit in the process corroborates what was achieved on the Cross: the triumph of Jesus and the exposure of the falsity and injustice of the world which obstinately rejects him. The work of the Spirit is carried on in total continuity with the work of justice and judgement achieved on the Cross. Later statements in John’s Gospel do no more than confirm the perfect communion between Jesus and the Spirit. The teaching of the Spirit will be that of Jesus, who will not speak on his own, but will speak what he hears (16:13-15). Moreover the subject of the Spirit’s teaching will be Jesus: He will glorify me, because he will take from me what is mine and declare it to you (Jn 16:14). Finally, the Spirit will guide the disciples to and into the fullness of truth (Jn 16:13). This, according to B. Maggioni, is the exact meaning of the Greek expression hodogesei eis: towards and into the fullness of truth. According to exegetes, in this revelation of the Holy Spirit we do not look for new truths, but for a progressive deepening of our knowledge by working from the exterior towards the interior, into the centre which is Jesus.

This analysis of the role of the Holy Spirit does not intend to exhaust all the aspects that may be developed in Biblical or Johannine Pneumatology. What is intended here is to establish the point that the Holy Spirit’s role is never separated from that of the crucified and risen Christ. There can be no divergence or alternativity between Logos and Spirit, as some theologians of inter-religious dialogue would seem to suggest.(29) Opinions which consider the Holy Spirit as engaged in a role that either distances him from the role of Jesus, or is mutually exclusive of the role of Jesus crucified, or in which attempts are made gradually to abandon the concrete, historical fact of the Cross of Jesus in favour of a cosmic view of Christ, are all definitely groundless. On the contrary, it is precisely the Holy Spirit, who was gifted to us from Christ’s death on the Cross, who guarantees the identity between the crucified Jesus and the risen Jesus, between the crucified Jesus and Christ Pantocrator. “When the Holy Spirit leads us onwards it is always, in effect, a leading us back to Jesus.”(30)

We should always bear in mind the intimate link between Jesus and the Spirit when, in the light of the same Holy Spirit, we read of the signs which foreshadow the Gospel (preparatio evangelica). These signs may be the influence of the Spirit on the founders of religions, on the drawing up of the sacred texts of the various religious, and also on the prayer experiences and schools of prayer in the various religious traditions. The Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the non-Christian religious world, not in spite of Christ, but exactly starting from the crucified and risen Christ, and in sight of him.

The salvation which, even in the non- Christian world, comes as a gift through the mediation of Christ, finds “the transcendental-theological condition for its realization”(31) in a theology which conceives the Holy Spirit as a gift of Christ crucified and risen. The special bond between the Spirit and the crucified Jesus suggests that there is an additional route through which salvation can reach every single human being. “It is the history of suffering in the world. Ever since the Cross of Christ was first raised on earth there has been no human suffering which has not in some measure been touched by the Holy Spirit and united with Christ’s Cross.”(32)

Even prayer as part of inter-religious dialogue must be subjected to scrutiny. Is it right to pray together? How should we pray? When organizing the Assisi meeting - and other meetings which followed -, this problem was raised. The Spirit comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groaning. And the one who searches the heart knows the intentions of the Spirit for the Spirit intercedes for the holy ones according to God‘s will ” (Rom 8: 26-27). I am of the opinion that no other passage from Scripture sheds greater light than this on the question of prayer in inter-religious dialogue. The Holy Spirit himself urges us to adopt an attitude of trust. Notwithstanding our dullness of understanding and uncertainly, during our prayers the Holy Spirit may awaken certain words and desires that not even we ourselves can fully comprehend but that are nevertheless the work of the Holy Spirit. It is quite right, therefore, that prayer should be considered one of the foremost experiences of inter-religious dialogue. It may, moreover, be said that, so far, the principal experiences of inter-religious meetings have been prayers in common for peace.

We can, furthermore, without hesitation, pinpoint the moment of prayer in common as a goal in the meetings of the followers of the various religions. Their reciprocal dialogue is the fruit of that dialogue which together they establish with God under the assistant and unutterable action of the Spirit. Prayer guarantees that the nature of the dialogue is spiritual, and prevents it from becoming an instrument of power and predominance over others. And it is, in all probability, thanks to the unsuspected fruits of our weak and spasmodic prayer, bolstered by the Spirit who searches the heart, that God’s designs may, somehow, lighten the path of believers, since all things work together for the good for those who love God (Rom 8:28).

15. Three brief thoughts in conclusion
The reflections presented above lead to the consideration that, when participating in an inter-religious dialogue, there must be no relinquishing nor deflating of one’s personal identity. Such a manner of acting could give rise to a sense of personal insecurity and even of insecurity regarding what one has to offer. It could even result in an inability to receive fully what others offer. Dialogue presupposes humility and a deep awareness of one’s own faith.

Christ crucified is not an inconvenient and embarrassing obstacle to be overcome by ridding ourselves of Christ-centred theologies. On the contrary, while revealing to us the Triune face of God, the crucified Lord also reveals clearly the foundation, the terms of reference and the objectives of our dialogue with people of all religions. The theology of the Cross declares unequivocally that the doctrine of the Triune God cannot be pared down. God is God and the human is the human. This bears out the conviction that, for the purpose of engaging in dialogue, it is by no means necessary to betray one’s faith, nor to hold it in abeyance, nor to consider it as having merely a relative and not an absolute value. Instead, it is necessary to acknowledge humbly that the ways of God toward humankind are not always known and understood by humanity.

Concern for the afflicted, for the liberation of the poor and for reconciliation among people is the principal aim of inter-religious dialogue at the present time. The spiritual nature of dialogue is highlighted and safeguarded by prayer is common.

作者：吴智勋

前言

在培育修士成为司铎的过程中，传统认定哲学与神学是不可或缺的。普通的做法是先哲学，后神学，哲学是神学必然的准备；哲学的基础不好，神学也受影响而不稳固。可是，哲学与神学若比较其重要性，主客立见，神学显然是主，哲学只属陪衬，过去就有哲学是「神学的婢女」(ancilla theologiae)的说法。这种讲法，大受哲学家责难，认为有损哲学的独立自主。另一方面，现代的知识有爆炸性的趋势，每门学科都有特飞猛进的发展，对人的行为甚至人的存在本身提供不少可贵的资料。尢其是人类学、社会学、心理学、医学的进步、使人大大增加了对自己及其周围环境的认识。教会不能不对这些学科重新评估：「历代的经验、科学的进步、潜在于各式文化内的宝藏，都是人性所赖以更充份地表达自身，并替人们开拓迈向真理的新途径。1」「攻读哲学、数学、自然科学及艺术，颇有助于提高人类对于真、善、美的理解力，对于普遍价值的判断力。于是人类为那永远与天主同在、并与祂一同治理万物、且活跃于尘寰、欢乐于人间的奇妙智慧，更光明地受到照耀。2」在这个大气候底下，哲学在司铎培育过程中的重要受到考验。哲学是否神学必然的伙伴？它的重要性是否为其他学科削弱或取代？神哲学院是否该增加其他学科的课？这是神哲学院培育者关心的问题。

着名的神学家拉内在梵二后曾出惊人之言：「神学未来的主要交谈伙伴不再是传统意义的哲学，而是非哲学的、多元的学科与及由它们直接或间接带来的对存在的理解。3」拉内的意思自然不是放弃哲学，而是说明仅透过一个哲学架构去研究神学显然不足了，今天的神学需要多种学科的成果。

面对各种学科的挑战，教会没有减轻对哲学在司铎培育中的重视，要求在培育第一期中，哲学是读神学必修的科目4。教宗若望保禄二世1998年颁布他的第十三个通谕《信仰与理性》(Fides et Ratio)有意为哲学定位，希望为哲学带来一个真正的复兴。

《信仰与理性》通谕是教宗良十三世《永恒圣父》通谕(Aeterni Patris 1879)后另一讨论哲学的通谕。从标题及致候词中，教宗若望保禄二世是向天主教内的主教发言；但在内文中，他是向着主教、神学家、哲学家及所有追求真理的人发言。5换句话说，这个通谕其实是向所有人讲的，因为人就有追求真理的本性，不过主教、神学家和哲学家就其本身的角色，更是通谕呼吁的对象。

教宗若望保禄二世本身是一位哲学家，甚受圣十字架若望、谢勒(Max Scheler)及圣多玛斯的影响。6他曾在鲁宾天主教大学(Catholic University of Lublin)哲学系教伦理学，也出版过哲学作品。首先是《爱与责任》(Love and Responsibility, 1960)，其后是他的主要哲学作品《行动的人》(The Acting Person, 1969)。他以哲学家的眼光，看出哲学对人之所以为人的重要、对追求真理的重要、对神学发展的重要、对司铎培育的重要。现代人对生命意义模糊，甚至只追求物欲，不理会生命的终极意义或永恒的价值。人对于真理不是没有兴趣，就是甘心停留于局部的、暂时的真理为满足。神学家不加辨别的引进各式各样的思想也做成一片混乱，令人对是否获得真理失去信心。这些缺失的原因，主要不在神学而在哲学。哲学失去它应有的功能，故必须为哲学定位，才能拨乱反正，恢复人之所以为人、人追求真理、人作神学研究及培育司铎过程中应有的秩序。

　

（一）哲学与真理

通谕以人作出发点，人与其他受造物不同的地方，就是人有反省问问题的能力。在生命的某一刻，人会问：我是谁？我从何来，往何处去？此生过后又如何？这些问题显示出理性的能力，同时反映出人总是追求生命的意义。人知道有关自己生命的真理后，便能更了解自己、实现自己。哲学就其特殊的方法，表达人这种普遍的渴求，渴求知道自己命运的真理。

通谕特别重视普遍的、绝对的真理：「真理若是真理，必以普遍形象出现，即使它非全部真理。东西若是真的，必定为所有人，在任何时间都是真的。除了这个普遍性外，人们也追求绝对，好使他们的渴求有意义及有答案；这个终点可作所有事物的基础。换句话说，他们追求一个最后的解释，一个最高的价值，以便不再向其他东西索求，同时也结束所有的问题。7」有了这普遍的、绝对的真理，人才达致确定性，不再怀疑。哲学就是把握这种普遍的、绝对的真理的一个途径。

哲学可以找到这种普遍的、绝对的真理吗？通谕认为是肯定的。历代哲人以其理性发现了一些核心的哲学理念：「不矛盾律、目的律、因果律，与及人的概念：人是自由的、理性的主体，有能力认识天主、真理和美善；此外还有一些为所有人共有的基本的伦理规律。8」这是普遍的、绝对的真理的一些例子。这些人所共有的东西，通谕称为「隐含的哲学」(implicit philosophy)，是人类灵性的遗产。理性一旦写定这些存有第一普遍原则，并据此引伸出正确的结论时，它就被称为「正直的理智」(recta ratio)。9哲学既是了悟人生命基本真理的途径，它也成为深入了解信仰不可缺少的帮助。

人的理性本来有一种超越的能力，如他能无限地问问题，他能知道自己知道。天主让人的理性有能力超越感性与料，到达事物的根源－－天主。可是，人的软弱、人的惰性、人的叛逆使这超越性无法发展，反而拘限于感性的、局部的、有限的事物当中。圣保禄早就说明此：「其实，自天主创世以来，他那看不见的美善，即他永远的大能和他为神的本性，都可凭他所做的万物，辨认洞察出来，以致人无可推诿。他们虽然认识了天主，却没有以他为天主而予以光荣或感谢，而他们所思想的，反成了荒谬绝伦的，他们冥顽不灵的心陷入了黑暗。」(罗1:20-21)人的确需要基督的拯救，才可使软弱的理性，恢复它的自由，不再堕入不可知论、相对主义或怀疑主义，使理性超越自己的局限，发现人存在的意义，从而把握人生命最终的真理。

　

（二）理性与信仰

理性与信仰本在不同的层面运作，各有其自主性。带着超越性的理性本可达致生命最终的真理，但人在世途中，其理性难免受其他俗世因素影响着。科学的成功，大大改善人的生活，这是理性不可磨灭的成就，但也做成理性不可一世的气焰，只相信科学的、实证的东西，扬弃一切形上的、超越的事情。不少哲学家也放弃追求生命终极的真理，不重视永久的承诺，但求主观的确定、眼前的成功，更甚的会认定生命是荒谬的、虚无的。要矫正理性的偏差，信仰非介入不可。

信仰的介入并非消除理性的自主，亦非限制它的活动，而是使脱序的理性纳入有秩序的轨道中。理性要求绝对的独立自主，只做成人孤立自己，自己想成为天主。信仰纠正这个错误，因为信仰要求信任、要求交托。基督信仰的基础就是信赖耶稣基督，相信祂的话，把自己交托给祂。历代的殉道者就是最好的例子，他们相信基督的话，相信生命的真理来自基督，没有东西可以动摇这个确定的信念，他们把自己的生命交付出来，为这个真理作证。通谕把这个理性与信仰的关系讲得很好：「在信仰中，我们相信别人获得的知识。这里包含一种重要的张力。一方面这种由信仰获得的知识好像不完美，要慢慢的通过证据的累积而得到改善；但另一方面，从人性而言，信仰要比证据丰富得多，因为它牵涉人际关系，不光是人认知能力的运作，更是把自己交托给别人这种深入能力的运作。10」的确，由信仰而来的知识，建基于人际间的信赖。基督徒信赖基督的话，相信祂就是「道路、真理、生命」(若14:6)。这个来自启示的真理，光照人的理性，使人发现事物最深入的意义，特别人存在的意义。信仰使理性从迷惘和孤立中走出来。

通谕用两句话连起信仰与理性的关系：「我相信好使我了解」(credo ut intellegam)、「我了解好使我相信」(intellego ut credam)。11这两句话表面上好像包含了恶性循环，实际上，通谕是想强调两者并不对立，而是相辅相成，缺一不可。创造万物的天主与救赎人类的天主是同一的天主，天主保证由理性达致的真理与启示的真理并不矛盾对立。通谕认为缺乏信仰，理性会走旁门左道，有失去自己最终目标的危险；另一方面，缺乏理性，信仰流于讲求感受和经验，有失去普遍命题，堕入神话和迷信的危险。12

通谕历举教会历史上的人物：圣依勒内、圣戴都良、圣犹思定、圣克来孟亚力山卓、奥利振、卡帕多细亚教父、圣奥思定、圣安瑟莫、圣多玛斯等人，他们都认定信仰与理性间的和谐，使信仰与理性对话。信仰信赖理性，不害怕理性，而理性接受信仰的光照，使自己由脆弱及有限中释放出来。

　

（三）哲学与司铎的培育

在晋铎以前，修士必须经过哲学与神学的培育，这是教会长期以来的传统。教宗在通谕中明显地关心这个传统受到挑战，连在天主教会的学科中，不但士林哲学，而是整个哲学研究本身也有不受重视的趋势，有些神学家干脆对哲学没有兴趣。究其原因，首先是现代哲学放弃形上学对人生最终问题的研究，转而专注于其他局部狭窄的问题。其次是过份着重人类科学而把哲学贬至边缘学科，最后是把兴趣都放在信仰本地化的问题上，这本来是好的，不过必须与哲学探究同步，才能使本土的智慧与福音的宣讲相连。

梵二为教会带来众多的改革，但在司铎的培育上，并无减轻对哲学的重视。修士在开始攻读教会学科之前，自须接受人文与科学的知识；但一踏入教会学科时，哲学就是神学前必然的学科：「哲学课程之讲授，首先应在于领导修生，根据万古常新的真理，对人、对宇宙、和天主，获得一个有根据而又和谐的认识；同时亦应注意当代的哲学潮流，尢其是那些在其本国影响较大。．．．亦应帮助修生自己去瞭解，哲学问题与将来读神学时，在信德的光明下要研究的救赎奥迹中间的关连。13」梵二只是重新肯定这个经历中世纪丰富经验的传统，教会早在1513年拉特朗大公会议第八期会议就已经肯定这个传了。14梵二后，教会训导一再重复这个肯定。当今教宗若望保禄二世《基督徒的智慧》宗座法令、《我要给你们牧者》劝谕、现在的《信仰与理性》通谕就是明显的例子。15

《信仰与理性》通谕不光是申述一个教会的传统，它还给予坚持这个传统的理由。要培育一位司铎作为基督的牧者，必须作多方面的培育，即人格、灵修、知识、牧灵的培育，而它们要连成一个整体。知识的培育当然可有多方面，但以哲学和神学最能配合一位牧者的需要。教宗曾说过；「哲学的研读导人进入对人格，人格的自由，人与世界，人与天主之间的关系，作深入的了解与诠释。适当的哲学训练是必要的，不仅因为重大哲学问题与救恩奥迹有关......只有健全的哲学，才能帮助司铎候选人，发展他对存在于人的心灵与真理间基本关系的醒觉，这真理在耶稣基督内完全启示给我们。16」《信仰与理性》通谕更进一步发挥哲学如何成为神学必然的伙伴。哲学追求人生的终极意义，连高科技的发展也要问终极意义和价值问题，否则它只有暂时的、局部的功用价值而已。哲学证实人有认知真理的能力及得到客观真理的能力。有形上幅度的哲学，在追求真理的途中，能够超越实证与料，到达绝对的、终极的、基础的东西。17这种哲学助人从现象返回根源，从经验走向属灵的核心。神学没有这种带着超越及形上幅度的哲学难以超过宗教经验的分析，或对启示真理的普遍超越价值，难有协调的描述。没有任何其他学科能为神学带来这个效果，故此没有任何学科可取代培育司铎过程中哲学的地位。

神学需要靠语言、概念、思考模式去表达。要了解教会的传统与训导，必须明白教会在那特定时刻所用的哲学系统是甚么。教宗多次声明他无意钦定某一特别的哲学作为教会法定的哲学：「教会没有一个属于她的哲学，也没有在众多哲学中钦定任何一种哲学。18」原因是每种哲学皆有它自己的原则与方法，没有一种哲学拥有真理的全部，没有一种哲学可以不加辨别、不加修饰地应用在不同时代所有神学科目中。连沿用多时的士林哲学也不是教会历史上唯一采用过的哲学系统。

每个神学科目都需要哲学。教义神学需要人的哲学、宇宙哲学、存有哲学。教义需要哲学概念才能解释天主的三位一体、基督是真天主亦真人。伦理神学也需要哲学伦理中有关自由、良心、罪过、责任、规律等概念，才能把道德主体与道德世界讲清楚。基本神学更是关乎信仰与哲学思想间的关系。基本神学表明有些真理早已被理性靠自己本身的能力认知，不过启示使这些真理获得圆满的意义，例如有关天主的自然神学。这些例子，在在说明哲学与神学间的内在关系。其他学科能对神学科目某一问题有帮助，但哲学所提供的整体性、普遍性、超越性、绝对性就不是其他学科所能取代的了。

　

（四）《信仰与理性》通谕的反思

基于导师的责任，教宗在通谕中指出现代神哲学的错失，例如唯信论(fideism)中的圣经主义(Biblicism)，漠视理性与哲学对了解信仰的重要，以阅读及注释圣经为唯一真理的标准，圣传是没有地位。19此外，折衷主义(eclecticism)选取不同哲学系统的思想放在一起，不理会能否有内在的统一性；历史主义(historicism)认为哲学的真理只在某一时代、某一环境是真；科学主义(scientism)认定只有实证科学的知识是可信的；实用主义(pragmatism)做决定时，以大众意见为依归，不理会伦理原则和不变价值；虚无主义(nihilism)反对所有根基或客观真理的存在，亦反对存有本身的意义。20教宗指明神哲学上的错失，并不表示他把哲学固定在一特定的框框里，他只要求哲学必须要与信仰调和。他多次明言哲学必须有它的自主性，有它自己的原则与方法。多玛斯的士林哲学得到他的垂青，是因为圣多玛斯最能把信仰与理性连起来，且能经得起时代的考验。

教宗坚持一个向信仰开放的哲学，我们可从他所推举的人物中，看出多种哲学系统。在教父中，他把奥思定与卡帕多细亚教父额我略．纳祥(Gregory of Nazianzus)并列，后者带诗意的思想与奥思定明显不同。中古的圣安瑟莫、圣文德与圣多玛斯各自有其思想系统；在解释良心时，圣文德有他的「意志说」，而圣多玛斯有他的「理智说」。21从十三到十九世纪，教宗举苏亚雷(Francis Suarez 1548-1617)和巴斯葛(Blaise Pascal 1623-1662)。苏亚雷自成一家之言，他对法律的解释明显与圣多玛斯不同，至今仍为学者津津乐道。22至于巴斯葛的哲学，则带有浓厚的数学及科学的色彩。十九至二十世纪的哲学家，他提及的有由基督教转到天主教的纽曼枢机(John Henry Newman 1801-1890)，有曾为教宗良十三世谴责过的义大利哲人罗斯米尼(Antonio Rosmini 1797-1855)，有法国哲人马里旦(Jacques Maritain 1882-1973)和祁尔松(Etienne Gilson 1884-1978)，有号称第一位俄罗斯哲学家查代耶夫(Petr Chaadaev 1794-1856)及接踵而来的俄罗斯哲人苏罗夫约夫(Vladimir S. Soloviev 1853-1900)、弗罗伦斯基(Pavel A. Florensky 1882-1940)与罗斯基(Vladimir N. Lossky 1870-1965)，也有一位犹太裔的波兰女哲学家斯但因(Edith Stein 1891-1940)，她是加尔默罗会修女，在纳税集中营被煤气毒死。最后连基督教的存在主义哲学家祁克果(Kierkegaard 1813-1855)也受到赏识。这些人中，没有多少个是士林哲学家，他们以不同的哲学思想，把信仰与理性连起来。我们可以结论说：教宗只是推崇一种向信仰开放的哲学。

在向信仰开放的前提下，我们再看看为什么教宗特别推荐圣多玛斯的士林哲学。圣多玛斯生活的第十三世纪是哲学思想的黄金时期，欧洲的大学纷纷成立，人们对五花八门的学术感到兴趣，教会自然受到冲击。圣多玛斯了不起的地方是把神学放到一个高学术水平的层面上，使神学可以和其他学科交谈，在大学里占一重要地位。从这方面来看，他是成功的，奠定神学在欧洲着名大学里有一巩固崇高的地位。既然要和其他学科交谈，他的思想是开放的、活跃的、动态的、在当时是具挑战性的。教会的神学院未能立刻采用他的思想，就是因为它在当时是太新颖了、太开放了。正因为这种开放的灵活性，使教宗特别垂青圣多玛斯的思想。教会的哲学思想已经在学术界退到一个边缘境界，外界大学的哲学系，少有教会哲学立足的地方，神学更不用说了。教宗希望在这所谓后现代时期，人们不满于对真理的模棱两可，能藉着一股多玛斯旋风，像从前新士林哲学一样，把教会的思想，以新的包装带进学术界，带进人群中，而非退缩到教会神哲学院的小天地而已。

有鉴于读教会哲学的人，不少是准备做司铎的，这个通谕第一个接触的对象，就是那些在培育中的修士们。他要修士们重视哲学，不光是因为这是教会的传统，或因为到目前为止还未有一个学科可以取代哲学的地位，成为神学最佳伙伴，而是受信仰光照的哲学碰到人生命的最深处，与人的生命息息相关，激荡着人的心灵，使人产生共鸣。这种哲学，不再是学院式的理智游戏，而是心灵的相通与提升，对理性的信任，对别人的信任。这种哲学是具有生命力，通向真理，通向绝对的。人对哲学文字的表达能因为心理因素而产生厌倦，但哲学所包含理性的活力、真理的渴求、人际关系的建立，却是万古常新的，在培育中的修士应把握此。

中国文化中的诗，以唐诗最受欢迎，最经得考验。新诗的发展已近一百年了，多少诗人竭尽心力去创作，虽然也有成果，但影响力及受欢迎的程度，远远不及唐诗。究其原因，唐诗写得实在太好了，诗人的生命活跃在文字上。文字虽然过了千多年，但我们仍能捉摸到诗人的想像力和生命力，与他心灵相通。修士们若能了悟哲学的生命力，像哲人一样把握到生命的真理，那么，无论那一个时代的哲学，都能助他宣讲生命的福音。

1. 《论教会在现代世界牧职宪章》44。

2. 同上57。

3. Rahner, Karl, "Philosophy and Philosophising in Theology", Theological Investigation, Vol.9, 1972,60.

4. 参教宗若望保禄二世的《基督徒的智慧》宗座法令(Sapientia Christiana 1979), 72 条a 项，亦参圣部为该法令而定下的《实施规则》51 条 1a项。

5. 参《信仰与理性》通谕6。

6. 教宗在罗马Angelicum大学的博士论文就是《圣十字架若望的信仰》。参Buttiglione, Rocco, Karol Wojtyla: The Thought of the Man Who Became Pope John Paul II, (William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K., 1997), 45.

7.《信仰与理性》通谕27。

8. 同上4。

9. 参同上4。

10.同上32。

11.这两句话分别是《信仰与理性》通谕第二章及第三章的标题。

12. 参《信仰与理性》通谕48。

13. 《司铎之培养法令》15。

14. 参《信仰与理性》通谕62。

15. 参《基督徒的智慧》宗座法令72-73,79-80；《我要给你们牧者》劝谕51-53,56。

16. 《我要给你们牧者》劝谕52。

17. 参《信仰与理性》通谕81-83。

18. 同上49。

19. 参同上55。

20. 参同上86-90。

21. 参周克勤《道德观要义》上册，台湾商务，1970，202-203。

22. 参吴智勋「从中国人的正统观念看法律的解释问题」，《神学年刊》第十三期，1991-92，23-25。

作者：周景勋

一. 导言：人文主义与教育

谈到「人文主义」（Humanism），我们必须尊重人的生存价值和意义，且肯定人是理性的存有（being），因为「人」本身的生命是分享了天主「美好」的生命，天主用爱充实了人的生命，充实就是「美」１，故人的本性生命是「善」的，有恻忍的仁爱心，有辨别善恶是非的真理心，有羞恶的忏悔心，有辞让的正义心；由于仁爱、真理、忏悔和正义乃出于人的本性，便不属于外在任何的权威，乃由人自主地发挥的，这也是「人文主义」可贵之处，因其主张：「人的理性并不从属于任何外在权威，其目的为将人之大善，体现于有限度的存在之中。2」

我们生长在二十世纪的末期，经验到的是：物质重于生命、功利大过人格、经济发展是权利的基石、金钱可使鬼推磨，形成了心灵的失调，信仰精神的败落，人文精神只是政治手段上的一份施舍。因此，在进入二十一世纪的新纪元，我们应该有新纪元的精神，重新为人的生存价值和意义作定位，即以新纪元的精神来认识自己、认识时代的需要、认识社会的革新方向、认识信仰的落实、认识教会的开放与创新；这是一种积极而进取的态度，更是一种新的教育理念，好能开拓理想的信仰精神和新的文化路向，以建立新基督徒的人文精神。

然而，新的开拓不是无中生有的，而是必须从道统的传承中溯源，以奠定基础；但，在新与旧的交接过程，一定会产生冲突，有其「舍」才能有所「得」。于是，我们强调人文主义教育的重要性，如梵蒂冈第二届大公会议文献中的《天主教教育宣言》中提及：「教育应符合人生目标，又应适于各人性格、性别、文化背景、以及祖国传统，且应向其他民族友爱交往而开放，为能促进世界之精诚团结，和平共处。而真正教育之目的，乃为培养人格，以追求其个人终极目的，同时并追求社会的公益；盖因人乃社会之一员，及其成长，亦应分担社会的职责。」（GE1）可见，人文主义教育重视人性的价值，人性的发展具有其潜质，可以配合天赋的能力，建立「完人」的生活，以人性的圆融、人格的完美，人生的幸福为其终极关怀。3无怪乎，教宗若望保禄二世在谈到天主教大学规程时，也将之与人文主义连贯而言：「在不忽视追求其他有用的知识之外，天主教大学应该以自由追求有关自然、人、神的最后真理为己任，现代的社会正面临着这种服务的殷切需要，也就是说，伸张真理意义的需要，没有它，自由、正义及人性尊严将不复存在。在普遍人文主义下，天主教大学当全力寻求与最高真理((天主有关的一切知识与真理。它将毫无畏惧地，并满怀热忱地去投入各种知识之路。4」

在寻求真理的学习上，人肯定了自我生存的价值，更肯定了人生的精神价值，这份肯定乃人文主义的一大长处。加上人文主义教育也重视人性的种种价值，便说出了，人生的一切努力都在实现一种本身的价值，如：「科学与哲学实现『真』、艺术文学实现『美』、道德教育实现『善或爱』、宗教实现『神圣』、政治实现国家中的『和谐』、经济实现一种社会的『公平』，以至饮食男女名誉权位之要求，都本于一种价值实现的要求，除了实现价值外，人生没有内容了。5」因为每一种的价值实现都能丰富人的生命，完成人的人格，满全人的幸福。可见，人文主义教育重视「人」的教育及其发展，其目的乃「全人的发展」，针对人与人之间的共同性，提高人的德性和智性的开拓，即在提升人的存在意识与生存价值，使真实的生命导引生活中的一切行动与实践。

1. 「充实之谓美」乃出自《四书》中的《孟子尽心篇上》。

2. 陈锦子，《人文主义的教育哲学((以纽曼、赫钦斯、马里旦为例的探讨》见《哲学与文化》288　第廿五卷第五期469页　一九九八年五月出版。

3. 同上，269页。

4. 教宗若望保禄二世，《天主教大学规程》，中文版编译召集人：许诗莉　辅仁大学出版社　3页　一九九二年。

5. 唐君毅，《人生之体验》，人生出版社　一九五六年重印　78页。

二. 现时代的滥人权主义破坏了人文精神的基础

圣经中有言：「真理必会使你们（人）获得自由。6」（若望福音八章32节）人文主义精神也强调人有生存的权力、在真理中有自由的权力、人性尊严的权力、思考的权力、创作的权力、宗教的权力、维护道德的权力、公平竞争的权力，平等民主的权力等，这些权力来自「天赋人权」的思想，相应于一个生存的目的((「幸福的追求」。保障人权，可说是近代民主主义运动的目的，然而此运动的精神不能脱离人文主义的基础精神：保护真理、培养人格和智慧、印证幸福价值、容许宗教自由等。可见，在人文主义下，人权思想是非常可贵的，更是人类文明进步的一个重大标志，亦是人类创造事幸福的一个肯定，但危险的地方在于它慢慢地变了质和被掌权者所压榨，这是时代的悲剧。人权变了质就是人将人权的概念滥用以至失去了人文主义的基本精神，只顾自己的权利，而忘掉了他人及社会的平衡和需要，甚至到达了走火入魔的地步，我们称之为「滥人权主义」，这是时代的盲潮，在思想层面上须有所警惕。在一些落后的地区或暴政的国家，常有压榨人权的现象，故做成了反人权；反人权是历史遗迹，在实践层面上有待清扫。7

在中国的人文主义精神中，易经所强调的生生之变易，在天、地、人三才里是有一份美的大和谐，而天、地、人正代表着自然、社会、人生三个层面的互联互动都能适得其宜，恰到好处地达至中庸之道的美善。于是，中国人文精神在中庸之道与五伦关系的规范下，自然地要求人必须注意修「德」的工夫，便造成了君权至上和父权庄严的现象，故很少谈到人权的问题。人权思想从西方引进中国，能开始落实的时期，可说是从国父孙中山先生发动革命，推翻满清王朝，建立中华民国，以「自由、平等、博爱」的口号救中国为先锋，但由于中国人的传统保守思想，人权思想一直不能普遍地行于中国，再加上受共产主义或中国式的社会主义所影响，在此不必多言。国父的民权精神（其内容不乏人权思想）只流行于中华民国所管治的台湾，以及曾被英国统治，而受西方思想影响的香港，和被葡萄牙政府统治即将回归中国的澳门都很重视人权。

然而，人权思想在未成熟地与人文主义配合之际，现代的社会思潮因太注重物质的享受，已经将人性的伦理道德观念解放，泛起功利与享乐的个人主义，人走向自私自利，只顾自己而不顾及别人的需要和社会的规律，例如：一句歧视或一句为什么不先问我意见便说自己的人权不被尊重。以下数则例子可以表达出滥人权的现象：

1. 在一则国际新闻中说：某一国家订立了一条法则，规定家长若要看子女的学业成绩，只要小孩的年纪到了六岁或以上，就必须经小孩子签名同意，否别就是歧视儿童，侵犯了他的私隐权和人权。

2. 又一位被判刑的强奸犯在法官前的抗辩：「法官大人，这是歧视，为什么那些人结婚就可以？你们为什么阻止我追求快乐！」

3. 最近的一则香港新闻，一名残疾人士控告的士司机有残疾歧视，就是指司机冷言嘲讽而没有给她提供特殊照顾和服务，协助她上车。结果的士司机被法官判罚款，其款项相等于他的三个月收入。这位残疾人士胜诉后，便公开鼓励所有残疾人士要争取自己的权益，和公平待遇。其实帮助与不帮助乃人道原则，不是公平或平等原则；多给爱心的帮助不是公平或平等的问题。

4. 再者，今日的人以「人有出生权」和「人有不出生权」作讨论。现在有很多不良的孩子常问自己的父母：「谁叫你们生了我到世界来？又不是我要到这世界来的！我就是喜欢这样！」如美国校园鎗杀案便是一个例子。8

还有很多滥人权或反人权的例子:「有宗教信仰的自由，也有反对宗教信仰的自由」，「我愿意放纵自己，我愿意吸毒，我愿意((这是我的权利，你们管不了！」这些都是破坏人文精神的常例，显示了滥人权主义对人权的曲解，和不能保障人的幸福，维护真理，培养人格道德的价值等，使自然、社会、人性不能展现其和谐性。

6. 亚里斯多德对幸福的定义：「幸福是在于根据美德而生活的完全一生，以及与由外界环境所适当提供的外在善事物相伴随的完全一生」。见Mortimer J. Adler（蔡坤鸿译），《六大观念：真、善、美、自由、平等、正义》，第十三章　104页　一九八六年　联经出版事业公司（Six Great Ideas）。

7. 李天命主讲（苏剑华记录），《第二盲潮：滥人权主义》见《明报月刊》，一九九九年八月号　第二十四卷第八期　总四零四期　25页。

8. 同上，26-33页。

三. 重整人文精神的价值

「中国的人文主义，乃是精巧而纯正的哲学系统，它明确宣称『人』乃是宇宙间各种活动的创造者及参与者，其生命气象顶天立地，足以浩然与宇宙同流，进而参赞化育，止于至善。9」因着中国人文主义的伟大理想，人的生命便自然地被尊重，生命与生命也有着互联互动的发展，以发展自我的精神生命，务能播种生命之善和融合万物的生命。人努力的发展，都是为实现「真」、「善」、「美」、「爱」、「神圣」、「和谐」和「公平」等价值；这些价值的实现乃在于丰富人的生活，完成人的人格。10人能肯定生命中不同的价值，就是肯定了自我生命的精神价值，这是人文主义的理想和长处。11

然而，人文精神如何落实在新纪元的二十一世纪的中国呢？我们可以反观二十世纪的中国，先从清王朝的解体而由国父倡导的三民主义（民生、民权、民族）所关心的民主、自由、平等、博爱和法治的问题外，也深入探讨人文及社会教育，伦理秩序、道德精神、宗教现象等问题，因而展现了对人文主义的重视和关怀。可悲的是：中国在近百年来没有稳定的社会环境，在二次的大战中，尤其在第二次世界大战和八年的抗日战争中，使国民活在贫苦和被压迫侵略的痛苦里；期后又有国民政府与共产政权的斗争，以至分治台湾和中国大陆；在战争期间，人人生活困苦，自然对人文精神和文化的创作都表现的冷漠和不闻不问；这种心态在分治后，活在社会较安定的知识分子，日渐减少并有改善。再者，「二十世纪的中国，先有新文化运动，后有文化大革命，把宗教和以儒家为主的伦理、道德传统当作与科学、民主对立的迷信；另方面许多搞政治革命的野心家与政客，又把政治权力与统治当作无上的真理与法宝。希望跨入二十一世纪的中国同胞，尽快自科技万能、政治权力至上的迷信或迷思中跳出来，重新秉持科际整合的精神和客观中庸的方法，为科学、政治、经济、伦理秩序、道德精神、宗教信仰等领域定位，使改造、革新、充实中国文化，推动社会完整，全面的社会进步及现代化，谋求全民福利与幸福之理想真正能够实现。12」

事实上，人活在天地间，人观望「天」，始觉「天」何其大；再观看「地」，亦觉「地」何其宽；人在天地间能做什么呢？天地无私地容纳了人，人也本于天性之善，唱出心底本有的爱歌，以回应生命的呼唤。人文精神就是强调了人的本性中有「善」与「爱」，故必尊重生命，发展生命，好能使人人在天地间活出和谐共融，因而实现生命的互相关怀，也就是对社会的关怀，积极参与社会建设，奠定文化价值，使在不同的时代中展现新的面貌。故在面对二十一世纪的新纪元，人人都有任重道远的使命，一方面必须重新寻索生命的活水源头；另一方面则需要推动人与社会的互联互动，发展人与自然的和谐，鼓励人与自我的修和。于是，人人当谨慎地关注到：

－在谈人权时，当注意到滥人权的祸害，以及反人权的不自由。

－人要重新整顿人性尊严的意识，不要让自己成为物质、金钱、名誉和地位的奴隶。

－整个国家社会要注重道德教育、艺术品味以及宗教情操。

－尊重生命，不能使生命物质化，也不能走上精神的极端，多调协人的「物质与精神」生活。

－生存意识的强化，使人人能在「自然、社会、人生」三层面上做到互动互调的平衡。

－经济与科技的发展不能忽略人性的真朴，提高人有否极泰来与物极必反的警觉性，且以中庸之道来调协贫富的均衡。

－政治乃治理人民的事务，使之走上合宜的正轨，而不是权力至上的欺压，让人人能活出真理中的自由。

－新的人文精神当指向心灵的环保、社会的和谐，世界的和平；推而注意生态环保和大自然的保护。

既然我们生在二十世纪结束，二十一世纪的开始，即生在新纪元的时代，我们便要有新纪元的精神，以此来认识新纪元、认识自己、认识社会与自然、认识时代的需要，就是应有一个理想开拓新文化的路向，新人文精神的价值，新的宗教信仰精神。为基督徒来说，就是要建立新的基督徒人文精神；然而，新的开拓是必须反观其根源与基础的，这便是要由「道统的传承」中作新的开展，按照圣经所言，所指：－－

「该脱去你们照从前生活的旧人，就是因顺从享乐的欲念而贩坏的旧人，应在心思念虑上改换一新，穿上新人，就是按照天主的肖像所造，具有真实的正义和圣善的新人。」（弗四:22-24）

除了「除去旧人，穿上新人」外，还要除去使「人、社会、自然」成长的破坏，而穿上珍惜和尊重生命，有心灵环保精神的新人。为此，人必须放眼四方，看看世界的发展，现代人的思维方向，才能了解新时代的需要。要记住，新纪元不是封闭式的人文精神时代，而是开放式的互相交谈与文化互联互动的新时代。加上「今天的时代是世界性的，我们不能关着门不认识这个世界，而来瞭解我们自己的时代，这是不可能的。13」所以，我们不应以旧观念来应付或解释新纪元，要先由自我革新做起，就是要先解放「人心」，使现今物质化了的心，回复自然真朴的善心－－爱。

新世纪给人带来新希望，这希望由二十世纪的战争、科技进步、经济发达、到物质超越精神，金钱挂帅的不同转化，使人心变得物质化了，心也便死了！这一刻，我们要重新在心灵的爱中作反省：

心兮归来！

人啊！你的心跑到那儿去？

　你的精神在物质中被关销了。

是不是要仰天长叹！

谁可以做「世纪良心」呢？

　我希望公平、却是哀号！

　我希望正义，竟是血腥！

　我希望有善心人的帮助，只有贪心害命的人逞强施暴！

孔子死了，却留下了人文主义的善与仁，

老子死了，留下了慈、俭、让三宝，

佛祖死了，开拓了从苦到乐的生命超脱，

耶稣死了，却留下了爱的救恩；且复活了，为人带来了新的祭献和永远的生命；

历代的圣贤，也为了爱而奉献交付，为世界揭开了一份爱的考验和挑战；

给无情的世代，打了响响的一巴掌

但－－

　人依然沉醒不醒

　心也因忙于物质事务而显得心死。

人呀！你的心跑到那儿去！

找回它来，

让爱心常伴你我之旁！

为此，在基督诞生二千年的新纪元，我们要在生存的忧患意识下，发掘生命的警觉性，务使人活出「心灵的环保」，就是免受物质贪婪的污染、不放纵于自私冲突的污染、不以自我为中心的危机的污染，因为人的心灵受到污染，大自然的生态也会受到破坏；更甚的乃破坏了人本身的人性、自身的尊严和使命。于是，警觉性引导人不被物质所牵锁，且能认同生命只有活在真理中才有自由，和信仰的转化，提升人发动为真理自由抗衡的「责任感」；唤起人为建树和谐共融平等的社会而努力的「使命感」；呼吁人人为爱而服务，愿意投入参与保卫社会道德及心灵与生态环保的「参与感」。

从「责任感」、「使命感」和「参与感」，我们可以看出人先天人文的「分别性」，这是自然地肯定人的个体存在，人要自我尊重，也当尊重和欣赏别人的个别存在；同时，人也看到自己是不能单独存在，故人类由后天人文的原故组成了家庭、社会与国家，在其内产生了人伦关系，使人与人互相配搭而有一种「和合性」。人的先天人文的「分别性」要求人有一份修养：「明明德」；而后天人文的「和合性」则强调「亲民」、人要在「明明德」上达到至善境，亦要在「亲民」上达到至善，才能整合先天自然人文和后天人文的融贯：「人类由后天人文所组成的社会，仍并不能离开先天自然而独立，只有在先天自然之上，加进了后天人文，所以先、后天亦应是合一的。这纔是人类天性的完成。这里面包括着分别与和合，在其和合中则仍还有分别。14」

中国文化中的儒家思想影响了历代的中国人，其所关注的「明明德」与「亲民」人文精神，有着共同的目标：「大同」的家庭与世界，这是一个人文精神的重新提升；此刻，人是不会失去天赋人性的分别性，却保存了「人之初、性本善」的价值肯定，也看出其平等性；同时，也强调了后天的导向：「性相近、习相远」，故后天正确的教育是不可忽略的，尤其是「文化教育」与「心灵道德教育」有启导人在「亲民」中走向和合性。

由是，基督信仰中的十字架神学可以作为我的跨进二千新纪元的反思；因为十字架爱的精神正是标记着爱的分别性与和合性的相融；就是说：十字架有「纵的一面」与「横的一面」的相交融。「纵的一面」表达了信仰基督的人要做个脚踏实地，与大地广土的世界有着息息相关的生命气息，和顶天立地的活在地上，不是在虚幻的妄念里，且常仰天盼望，寄望永远生命祝福的基督徒，此际的基督徒必常与天主会晤谈心，务使自己多认识天主和天主的计划。

「横的一面」揭示了基督徒要用只手拥抱世界，将心中的爱倾流与人分享，好导引人相亲相爱，在自我的奉献与祷告中建立共融的教会，和谐的社会，和平的世界。

从十字架神学的反思中、实在要说明：「人类社会的存在，即一本个人求真求美求善之心，当此心真实的表现为一客观的求真求美求善的精神时，刀能创造出文化。((人类心灵求真美善之要求，在实际生活中，在创造人类文化之过程中，有种种不同的表现。((这表现分作九个领域，即知识技术、生存技术、艺术、文学、经济、政治与法律、道德、宗教、教育。总之，人生之一切努力，都为实现一种价值。15」

中国基督徒在儒家的「明明德」和「亲民」以至于大同的至善，正与十字架神学的纵横反思作一个调协，说出了中国基督徒对人对神对各种文化价值都作了一正确的肯定，盼望着人的精神生活与物质生活可以重新整合，使人的心灵得到安定与幸福，因为：「如果丧失了人文精神的支撑，财富的追求欲望就必定会丧为纯利欲的冲动，导致人们动物性的膨涨，人性的泯灭，社会秩序的混乱和财富的浪费。16」

9. 方东美，《中国人生哲学》，黎明文化事业公司　一九八五年二月六版　86页。

10. 同注5。

11. 李震，《理性与信仰：追求完美的双翼》，辅仁大学出版社　一九九九年六月　哲学篇　226页。

12. 同上，《盼中国知识分子之人文主义精神更上层楼》，343页。

13. 钱穆，《从中国历史来看中国民族性及中国文化》，中文大学出版社　一九九三年第一版第八次印　引言　5页。

14. 同上，21-23页。

15. 同注11，210页。

16. 同上，350页。

四. 寄语：中国基督徒在本土文化中活出基督

中国儒家思想「人文精神」的内容强调「德成于内，文见乎外」，就是除了重视礼乐教化外，更注意人与人之间的人伦和谐关系，标立个人的自我道德修养：「明明德」，以及生命发扬之亲爱人人的「亲民」精神。为展示二个不同层面的人文理念之互联互动，我们可以有二点的强调：

其一是在于转化个人的气质，使之合乎伦理道德的规范，成为有道德的人。

其二则规范整个社会、国家的秩序，使之和谐而治，安居乐业。17

这二个中国道统的理念乃奠基于真美善上的，有历久不衰的真理，与基督信仰有着一份融通的开放性，正等待着与基督信仰的介入。笔者深信基督信仰是超越文化的，且基督降生神学有着阔面的思域，即基督的降生是进入文化中，复活后的基督再降生就已经超越了犹太文化，而融为希腊文化、再融合罗马文化，融入世界各民族、各地域... ...也融入中国文化中。这种融通推动了宗教的交谈，教会也欣赏其他宗教，如回教、印度教、佛教、道教、孔教等宗教的真理启导，且能与不同宗教合作，齐心为社会谋求幸福，推广心灵道德的教育，为世界创造和平等，这些思想与行动导使教会落实于本地文化，使不同的文化也能活出基督的真貌。

故此，在新纪元的中国基督徒人文主义必须重新启导人对人性与真我的了解；中国基督徒的人性观基础在基督的爱与中国文化中的强调的仁爱与慈悲：－－

爱是生命的本质

因为天主是爱......

爱也是中国文化的精髓

爱所开显的生命活力就是宽恕

　－－推己及人与正己正人

宽恕为人带来共融与互动

爱的精神是人性尊严的被重视

人性尊严赋予人生存的权力

　让人在「真理」中活现自由

　使人在「生存」上有平等与人权

为尊重人性的真美善

为重视生命的定整

　生命要有觉醒

　人要有受教的心

　精神的跳跃

　发扬生命的光明面

人要不断地更新自己以至发展自己

　创新一切以求进步

指向着－－

　自我生命的超越

　无执于物我

... ...于是

人明白万有总归于基督（弗1:10）

在十字架上作爱的奉献

一个杀身成仁、舍生取义的心－－

中国基督徒的人文精神

超越人、地、事物

默默无言

超越不同民族、社会、文化、万物... ...

静观中的等待

建立世界的和平

　心灵的和谐

　社会的共融

　自然的平衡

「天地之大德曰生」之生生仁德

泽及万有

万有以德配天之通贯相融为准

－－立真处

明善处

知美处

于是，我们本着人文精神，将信仰配合个人的灵修修养，社会与国家的秩序，为自我生命的立德，社会国家的和谐作一些信仰与文化交融的反省：

1. 中国文化中的修养工夫，历代都强调修德成圣，其方法不离反省、改过、静观、返朴归真、养心寡欲、心斋坐忘、明心见性等，这正是灵修的工夫，正等待基督信仰的融入，作一个超越文化的交融。为新纪元的来临，灵修的交融可展现为新时代伦理道德的重整和基督徒人文精神的反思。

2. 我们肯定：在中国人文精神中有其民族性的文化表达，其中的宗教、哲学、文学、历史、艺术等的表达，都记载了中国人的心路历程与文明进步。

3. 基督信仰展示了救恩的临现人间，这救恩是普世性的，如「月印万川」般地覆盖整个世界，融入不同文化中，却保留不同文化的特质和独特性，如道德意识，生活价值等；也显示了信仰与文化的共通性，即在同一的终向下共同朝向一个大目标，相辅相成的交融，使人的生命趋向至真至美至善的境界，所谓「天下殊途而同归、百虑而一致。」

4. 中国文化的开放性远自二千年前已有文化的大综合：原以道德修养为首的儒家思想和以意境消遥为主的道家文化，接纳了从印度传入的佛教，且让佛教的精神融入中国儒道的文化中，故有引道释佛、引儒解佛的现象，形成了中国文化中儒、道、佛的合流互动。今日，我们中国基督徒也以一个开放的态度，以尊重信仰与文化的交融，接纳基督信仰的介入中国文化，引儒解释基督信仰，也引道佛与基督信仰作互动的融通。培育中国基督徒有不断学习的意识，对文化和社会变化有敏锐的应变与回应的能力，视信仰与文化交融为福传基要，亦是每一位基督徒的责任，还要积极参与推进关社的互联互动、关怀弱小贫困的兄弟姊妹；这样，我们要以「基督中国化」的口号落实在中国人的生活里，让世人在中国基督徒身上看到基督，让教会也在中国基督徒身上看中国人。

5. 在新纪元中，我们在生存的忧患意识下，要有生命的警觉性，人不可再被物质所牵锁；要认同生命在真理中的自由，美善中的修和，信仰中的转化，发动为真理自由抗争的「责任感」；唤起心灵美善而为建树和谐、共融、平等的社会共同努力的「使命感」；呼吁人人为爱而服务，愿意投入参与保卫社会道德及心灵上世纪良心与自然生态环保的「参与感」。因为「道与之貌，天与之形，无以好恶内伤其身」（庄子德充符篇）。但，为什么我们都常因自己的好恶而伤害自己的天性，也伤害大自然的和谐与社会的共融呢？中国基督徒的抉择本是积极的；所以，在新纪元的来临，当有一个「爱」与「舍」的抉择：－－

我要将自己的血洒下，

　为换取新生、自由、爱情、平安、宁静...

我要将自己的肉留下，

　作为粉碎虚伪、欺诈、暴政、剥削、不义...的见证。

教宗若望保禄二世在《跨越希望的门槛》书中说：「公元二千年是我们应该更团结的时候，更乐意开步走向基督在受难前夕所祈祷的那种团结。这种团结的价值无穷，在某种意义上，这涉及世界的未来，也是天主的国在世上的未来。人类的脆弱和偏见不能破坏天主对世界和对人类的计划。如果我们确认这一点，我们就能怀着某种乐观的情怀展望未来。我们也能够全心相信『在我们中间开始这美好工作的那位，必予完成。』（参阅斐一:6）」

愿我们将自己与社会放在爱的洪流中，得享生命的共融合一：「仁者浑然与天地万物一体」；

愿我们将自己和社会放进希望里，使世界得享幸福与和平；「仁者，天下之正理。失正理则无序而不和」；

愿我们将自己和社会放在朴素里，使大自然的和谐为万有的生命带来生生不息的创新：「天地絪缊，万物化醇」，「万象斐然，永恒不息」；

愿我们的世界，不同民族、不同宗教、不同信仰、不同文化、不同制度、不同理念((都能彼此对话，放下偏见，为真理共同服务，使人人活出真善美圣。「澹然无极而众美从之。此天地之道，圣人之德也。」

　「道者，万物之所由也；庶物失之者死，得之者生。为事逆之则败，顺之则成。故道之所在，圣人尊之。」（庄子渔父篇）

　「我的肉身和我的心灵虽已憔悴；

　天主却永是我心的福分和盘石。

　看，远离你的人必将趋于沉沦，

　你必消灭一切背弃你的人民。

　亲近天主对我是多么的美好，

　只有上主天主是我避难所。」（咏73:26-28）

17. 《哲学大辞书》，第一册　辅仁大学出版社　一九九三　「人文化成」　69页　「人文化成论」乃唐代吕温之文，大意指依凭人自身之德能，制作一套文化规范，用来教化世人，使之完成文化之要求。

作者：范晋豪

巴柏与柏拉图：

柏拉图理想国的蓝图是开放社会的敌人！？

导言

柏拉图（Plato, 427-347BC）乃古希腊哲学巨匠。他留传下来的着作甚丰，在西方哲学史上影响极为深远，其中《理想国》（Republic）最为人熟悉，也最惹人争议，尤以当中的政治思想，在当代亦激起热烈的讨论。当代哲学家卡尔．巴柏（Karl Popper, 1902-94）虽以科学哲学闻名，然而他在政治哲学上的成就也不容忽略。巴柏对历史主义的批判与及在其巨着《开放社会及其敌人》（The Open Society and its Enemies）对以柏拉图为首的乌托邦政治理想作出极尖锐的批判，其思想对当代政治哲学发展贡献极大。

柏拉图善于以对话方式表达其哲学思想，本文亦尝试把不同时空，地域的柏拉图与巴柏带进作者虚拟的空间进行对话。本文的目的不但希望透过这场对话，评论巴柏对柏拉图理想国的批判公允与否，一窥政治与哲学之关系；此外，作者更希望透过对话的表达方式，在文学上突显作者心目中两位哲人的个性，这是一次把哲学讨论与文学表达综合的尝试。

本文分成四卷，在卷一中，作者尝试交代讨论的原由，提供一个虚构的空间进行讨论；关于巴柏对柏拉图的批评，作者只能在卷二极浓缩地表达出来。碍于篇幅所限，作者只能在散乱而又繁多的批评里，选取较重要和易于掌握的批评。不能全面剖释巴柏对柏拉图之批评是本文一大限制。另外，柏拉图在卷三的自辩，是作者按者《理想国》内容，把他可能的答覆内容和方式设想出来。这是蛮有趣的一卷。至于作者对巴柏论点之批判和柏拉图理想国之理解便要看卷四了。

值得一提的是在文中《理想国》是书名；而理想国则表示其思想，在此声明，避免混淆。

卷一

人物：卡尔．巴柏（以下简称「巴」）

柏拉图（以下简称「柏」）

公证（以下简称「公」）

地点：灵魂移居地1

　

巴：柏里克里斯（Pericles）2说得对！在这里果然找到你！

柏：敢问阁下贵姓大名？找我有何贵干？

巴：我是卡尔．巴柏，不久前我的灵魂才移居到这好。3尊师说得妙极，死亡确是一件兴奋可喜的事！历代哲人济济一堂，实在不愁没有讨论对象。

柏：相信这里的人也有同感，能超越时空和语言限制4向各先哲请教，实是你学习的好机会。

巴：（颇生气）这也是先哲们向我们这些青出于蓝的晚辈学习的良机！前一阵子我才跟赫拉克里图斯（Heraclitus）、黑格尔（Hegel）和马克斯（Marx）5见过面，今回终于轮到你了。

柏：哦！你找我的目的就是要指教我了。

巴：不敢，只是想跟你讨论一下你那本《理想国》罢了。

柏：那么，你想怎样讨论？讨论的内容是什么？讨论的形式又如何？

巴：（想了一想）论题为『柏拉图《理想国》的蓝图是开放社会的敌人』吧！至于讨论的形式，读过你假借师名而写的对话录6，对你的诡辩又怎能不提防？因此，我提议分两回合讨论，第一回合主要是作为正方的我解释这论题，并提出支持论题的理据；第二回合则轮到作为反方的你反驳，指出反对论题的理据。还有，在整个讨论中我们需要一个公证，为我们作判决。在判决前，他要提出其判准的理由。对于这提议，你有没有异议？

柏：听来挺有趣。接着我们要解决的是往哪里找这公证？这公证又要符合什么条件？

巴：这方面你又有何意见？

柏：好，让我们首先剔除一些不适合的，然后再找适合的公证，这样行吗？

巴：行。

柏：我认为有四种人不适合作我们的公证。第一种是西方人，怀德海（Whitehead）认为整个西方哲学史都是我的哲学注脚。虽然他们可能言过其实，但我相信我对西方人的影响也颇大，若找西方人作公证，恐防对你不公。第二种是这里的人，我来了灵魂移居地两千余年，所相识的人不但比初来报到的你较多，也更为熟落。若找他们作公证，难免对我有偏袒之嫌，故此他们也不是最佳人选。第三种是研究我们哲学的专家，这类人可能一早便对我们思想有个人「意见」7，听我们辩论前可能早有定论。相信我们也不想因其个人好恶而左右了辩论结果。最后，我们当然不能选择知识水平太低，不能透过讨论过程分析我们论点的人。你认为这四种人是否不适合当我们的公证？

巴：不适合。换句话说，我们要找还在生的东方人。唔……他还要是大学生，对我们思想既没有深入认识，却拥有基本分析能力。然而，我们往哪找这公证？我们又如何找在生的人作公证呢？

柏：我提议找香港的大学生，香港的大学训练不算好，也不算最差，相信我们也能找到符合条件的公证。至于第二个问题，难道你还没发觉自己拥有一股「新力量」？

柏：这是我们死去的灵魂独有的力量，可以在梦中与人相会。运用这力量，我们便能在梦中找到公证。

巴：挺神奇！

【于是，两人便进入香港中文大学一位学生的梦中，当他了解一切后……】

公：小辈不才，又怎配当两位先哲讨论的公证呢？这事万万不能。

巴：我们既然找了你，就证明你符合条件，难道你以为我们看错不成！？

公：不敢！不过……

柏：（插咀道）无需『不过』了，年轻人，就当这是一个学习机会吧！

公：（迟疑了一会）这实在是向两位先哲学习的好机会。两位既然不嫌小辈不才，小辈必克尽己职，在讨论过程中仔细分析两位先哲的论点，务求作出能力范围内最客观中肯的判准。若小辈有何错漏，还望两位赐教。

巴：好，那么我们开始吧！

柏：乐意奉陪！

  1.这地方是根据柏拉图的《自辩篇》（Apology）40c至41c虚构出来的。

2.他是西元前430年代雅典民主政制的人民、巴柏十分抬举之。详见卡尔巴柏，：《开放社会及其敌人》上册　庄文端，李英明合译，台北，桂冠图书公司　1985，页11，英文本，Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies vol. 1, (Princeton University Press, 1971) 页7。

3.卡尔巴柏在1994年尾逝世。

4.这是为了方便讨论而设的。

5.这三位和柏拉图一样，在《开放社会及其敌人》上、下册中被巴柏批评的对象。

6.这里巴柏嘲笑柏拉图的对话录以苏格拉底为主角，假借苏格拉底一角表达自己思想。

7.在柏拉图的思想中，「意见」不是真知识，是不实在的，详参《理想国》（Republic）505d。

卷二

公：那么，现在请正方卡尔．巴柏先生首先发言。

柏：严正的公证人！亲爱的巴柏先生，在辩论之前能否让巴柏先生解答我一个问题？

公：（望向巴柏，巴柏点头示意）请发问？

柏：在讨论之先我希望弄清楚你我讨论的动机何在？何以要把我入罪，说成什么开放社会的敌人呢？

巴：柏拉图啊！难道你不知道你在西方思想史上有多么重要的影响力，你的影响力有如「符咒」8一般，对于你的思想，在西方哲学上往往照单全收，缺乏有效的批评。因人们没有正视你思想上危害社会的部份便照单全收，导致今日社会种种问题，我提出这次讨论，就是要对你的社会政治思想提出批评，看看你那幅透过「历史主义」（historicism）建构出来的「乌托邦社会工程」（Utopian Social Engineering）理想国蓝图，如何与进步的「开放社会」（Open Society）9为敌。你作好心理准备没有？

柏：随时奉陪！

巴：柏拉图，你知道你在社会观察上犯了什么错误吗？你的错误就是相信了贫乏的历史主义。「历史主义」所指的是一种研究社会科学的方法，这种方法以历史预测（historical prediction）为目标，并且认为只要发现历史演进底下所隐藏的「律动」（rhythms）、「型式」（pattern）、「法则」（laws）或「趋向」（trends）就可以实现这个目标10。在《理想国》里我们可清楚看到你是一个「历史主义者」（historicist）。观看《理想国》543c-592b，我们便能看到你历史的预测，虽然颇抽象，对政治发展却作出了有系统的陈述。你的设想是悲观的，由哲君（philosopher kings）11统治那与社会原始理型相似之起点，由于受着赫拉克里图斯所谓推动一切的斗争12驱动，国家开始变动，由追求智慧的哲君统治堕化成追求荣誉的「荣誉统治」（timocracy）13，当道德与金钱相争，富人得势建立政权，荣誉统治便堕落为贪财的「寡头政治」（oligarchy）14。当贫富阶级悬殊酿成内战，穷人得胜的话，无节制的「民主政治」（democracy）15便取而代之。最后民主政治的群众领袖更利用国家贫富斗争，建立自己私人武力，肆意发动战争，让人民发觉需要一位统帅，这样，最不幸的暴君政治（tyranny）16便出现了17。根据以上你设想的人类社会五个堕落阶段，我们不难找到你对历史诊断得出的两个政治方案18：一.阻止一切政治的变动，因为变动带来的是罪恶的政制，唯有静止才是最好。二.回到自然，回到先祖时相似原型的统治形式，就是由少数聪明人统治无知者的自然阶级统治时代。（望向柏拉图，自信的笑了一笑）我们的公证，听过以上的证据，柏拉图以历史主义建立自己的社会政治学说不是很清楚吗？

现在，该让我们看看柏拉图所相信的历史主义何等贫乏！何等站不住脚！我只须用简单的五句话就能对历史主义驳斥。留心听着吧：

『（1）人类的历史是强烈地受到人类知识成长的影响。

（2）我们不论用理性的或科学的方法，都无法预测科学知识之未来发展。

（3）因此，我们无法预测人类历史的未来。

（4）这意味着我们必须排斥建立理论历史（theoretical history）的可能性??也就是说要排斥建立和理论物理（theoretical physics）相当的历史社会科学（historical social science）的可能性。我们无法找到任何历史发展的科学理论足以做为历史预测的基础。

（5）因此历史主义者的方法所想要达到的基本目标乃是一种错误的见解；历史主义于是崩溃。19』

看啊！柏拉图！你所依仗的历史主义是那么不堪一击！不要以为这只是无害的书生议论，它可以成为统治者强而有力的武器！事实上，在《理想国》中我们也可看到你按你理解的历史规律的预测，进一步提供改造社会的全盘计划，这就是我所谓的乌托邦工程20。在368e-543c中我们可以看到你的理想国蓝图。简单来说，你称这个「城邦」（polis）21为「正义」22的、「健康」23的、「理想」24的。它由三种等级组成25：哲君以智慧实行贵族统治；辅助者以勇敢护卫城邦；生产者则以节制服从上级，勤劳供养城邦。「正义在于三种人在国家里各做各的事。26」这种理想可说是整体主义（holism）27，就是个人服膺于整体利益的阶级统治（Class Rule）28。」为着巩固这种阶级统治的理想，你认为统治者可以用政治「宣传的谎言」（prapaganda lie）29，引进「血统与乡土神话」（myth of blood and soil）30「说服」……哈！不如说是诓骗生产者继续接受上层统治31。（柏拉图按奈不住，似乎有话要说）哈！别心急！下一回合才轮到你！（巴柏越加兴高采烈）另外，为着培养新一代的统治阶层，「城邦中大事中最大的事」就是教育32。你更提出一套十分具体的方案以供理想国之需33。此外，为防止贵族政制蜕变贪财的寡头政制，更提倡统治阶层「妇女公有、儿童公有、全部教育公有」34这些政策。

以上，我大约地勾划了柏拉图的蓝图，听起来是多么动听美丽；实行出来却成为开放社会难缠的敌人。接着，我会介绍开放社会的原则，以便指出柏拉图理想国的蓝图在方法和内容上如何与开放社会为敌。我所指的「开放社会」是与信仰巫术禁忌的「封闭社会」35回异，已懂得批判禁忌，依靠理性来做抉择的社会36。在开放社会里，就算是政府政策，也能透过自由讨论予以理性批评。另外，它的制度是为着人民的平等、自由、保护穷人与弱者而设37。关于它们的「开放」（openness）程度与该社会的历史、文化、政治和教育有关。我们可以看到开放社会是变动的，可以变得更好或更坏，最重要的是人能把制度灵活运用38。

基于开放社会相信理性，平等与自由，每个成员对社会也有其责任，因此它提倡的是民主政治39。此外，它扬弃历史主义建立的乌托邦工程，以符合科学方法的「细部社会工程」（Piecemeal Social Engineering）取代之，这方法了解到社会环境之复杂性，主张以渐进和细部的改良方法，逐步改革社会制度，以「灾祸减到最小」40为目的。关于开放社会，我只能说到这儿，但这已是足够把你的理想国蓝图比下去。

现在，让我们看看你的理想国蓝图如何与开放社会相违背？如何与之为敌？

首先从方法上看，如上所说，历史主义根本没有科学理论基础。因此，从中发展出来的乌托邦工程也是反科学的。试想想社会制度的建设是不能忽略具体环境因素，这些因素既复杂且多变，绝对不是抽象的通盘社会计划所能应付的，你的蓝图绝不奏效。相反，开放社会那合符科学的细部社会工程对应具体环境问题进行细部改革，在目标不断调整修正中社会才会逐渐趋向开放和进步。假若笃信并运用你那与科学相违的方法，不但不奏效，更与开放社会背道而驰，成为一股敌挡社会发展及进步的反动41。我们的公证，当我们细心观察他的蓝图时，我们可以看到这反理性，反科学的开放社会敌人若真的实行，它带来的祸患必定是无可估计的。

朝着整体主义的信念，依这蓝图建立的国家必以全体（即国家）的利益为上。于是，无论是向各人民施暴，或攻击其他国家，凡对国家有利，能提高其力量的都是对的，善的42。另外，为了巩固阶级统治，当权的不惜以各种政治「宣传谎言」欺骗国民，如下「猛药」43迷惑他们安于自身阶级，免于与当权竞争，保护统治阶级的利益44。不能不提的是45，这国家必然有种族主义，它赖以立国的神话教导「人类生而不平等」的信条，不同阶级，甚至种族也生而有贵贱之分。那么，卑贱种族的命运便落在统治阶级那高贵种族手上了。这国家当然不信奉民主政制46，更挖苦它为暴民纵欲统治。这样的政府必会以教化人民为己任，视教育为培训统治继承者的政治工具47，它们还会奢望达成「最大多数的最大幸福」这虚拟的妄想，却不懂切实地「将灾祸减到最少」48。

这样的国家，不是曾在本世纪出现过吗？第二次大战时信奉法西斯主义（facism）的纳粹德国不正是依你蓝图建立的「理想国」吗？乌托邦工程师啊！你这种反科学，反理性的政治社会思想，以恐布、谎言、种族歧视建立的国家蓝图，难道不是阻碍开放社会发展的敌人吗？

我们的公证，我已充份指出柏拉图《理想国》蓝图是开放社会的敌人。这是支持我论点的《理想国》文本证据。

相信我们的公证会给予公正的判决。

  8.出自《开放社会及其敌人》上册，页9-10，The Open Society and Its Enemies vol.1，页70。

9.参考了《开放社会及其敌人》上册和卡尔巴柏，《历史定论主义的贫乏》，李丰斌译，台北联经出版社，1981的译名，选用了前者的译名。

10.引自卡尔巴柏，《历史定论主义的贫乏》，页2-3。

11.柏拉图，《理想国》535a-541b。

12.卡尔巴柏，《开放社会及其敌人》上册，页21-30，The Open Society and Its Enemies页11-17。

13.柏拉图《理想国》545c-548a。

14.同上注550c-553a。

15.同上注555b-562a。

16.同上注562a-569c。

17.卡尔巴柏，《开放社会及其敌人》上册，页88-92，The Open Society and Its Enemies vol. 1，页39-42。

18.同上注，中译本，页209；英译本，页86。

19.引录自卡尔巴柏《历史定论主义的贫乏》页VII-VIII；Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (New York: Harper and Rows)，页vi-vii。

20.卡尔巴柏，《历史定论主义的贫乏》，页55；The Poverty of Historicism，页67。

21.柏拉图《理想国》，他的用语不是国家，而是城邦。

22.同上注，《理想国》一书以正义的城邦和正义的人作类比。

23.同上注，373b。

24.同上注，543a。

25.同上注，412b-415d。

26.同上注，441e。

27同注22中译本的译名，详看页62。

28Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism，页49，54。

29卡尔巴柏，《开放社会及其敌人》上册，页323；The Open Society and Its Enemies vol. 1，页141。

30同上注，中译本，页141；英文本，页324。

31同上注，中译本，页141；英文本，页324；指的是《理想国》414b的神话。

32柏拉图《理想国》，535a-541b。

33同上注，543a。

34同上注，543a。

35「开放社会」和「封闭社会」出自柏格森（Henri Bergson）,但巴柏用法有所不同，卡尔巴柏，《开放社会及其敌人》上册。

36同上。

37同上注，庄文端，〈论《理性与开放社会》〉，页16-17。

38同上注，页18-19。

39同上注，页20。

40同上注。

41卡尔巴柏，《历史定论主义的贫乏》，页52-62；Karl Popper: The Poverty of Historicism，页64-75。

42卡尔巴柏，《开放社会及其敌人》上册，页227-235；Karl Popper: The Open Society and Its Enemies vol. 1，页99-106。

43同上注，中译本，页324；英文本，页140。

44同上注，中译本，页100-101，107-108；英文本，页49，54。

45同上注，中译本，页90-93，英文本，页40-43。

46同上注，中译本，页107-108，英文本，页54。

47同上注，中译本，页97。

48参柏拉图，《理想国》，592b。

卷三

【公证仔细看过巴柏呈上的《理想国》，反覆思量了好一会，才开第二回合的讨论。】

公：现在轮到柏拉图前辈发言，可以开始了。

柏：谢谢亲爱的公证。听过巴柏贤弟的滔滔雄辩后，心情实在十分矛盾。一方面惊叹其词锋锐利，才思敏捷；另一方面却暗自担心你对我的控诉，先是「开放社会敌人」还不只！什么「历史主义者」，「乌托邦工程师」的罪名，纷纷为我冠上！不过，在倾听你那醉人的说辞，我幸运地发现一些疑点。让我们讨论讨论，看看是我弄错了你的意思，还是你误解歪曲了我的思想。

（望向巴柏）和你不同，我不喜欢伟论滔滔，我爱对话。因此，我不会像你禁止我答辩，也不会自问自答49，以下的讨论，欢迎你加入。

好，现在我们开始吧！今日讨论的是「柏拉图《理想国》的蓝图是开放社会的敌人」。正方的你为了论题成立必须努力建设支持理据；相反，反方的我只须找你理论的「基石」，把它拆毁。那么，你的论点根基便会动摇，经不起风吹雨打便倒下来。

那么，现在开始我的「拆毁」工程。你认为我的理想国蓝图是由什么人设计的呢？

巴：当然是你这个乌托邦工程师！除了你还有谁？

柏：那么，作为一个工程师，设计蓝图又有何目的呢？他关心的又是什么？

巴：乌托邦工程师设计蓝图的目的是要按照既定计划来重新塑造整个社会，他关心的当然是他的蓝图能否切实地在社会执行，改革社会。

柏：那么，你所指的是工程师设计蓝图，希望藉具体实行蓝图的方针而改进社会，对吗？

巴：没错。

柏：好，现在假设有一幅美丽的图画，它到底从何而来？

巴：当然是由出色画家画出来！你问来干什么？

柏：请你稍安无躁。容我继续问，画家画美丽图画的目的是对美的寻索和表达，还是别的呢？

巴：不是别的，是对美的追求。

柏：那么，画家最重要的工作是要把画画得美，即使所画的在具体世界中不存在也没有关系，对吗？

巴：不错。

柏：依你所说，一个画家的本份是要画好他的画。假若别人批评世界上没有他在画里缯画那么美的女子，甚至他画的世界与这世界相违，这些批评也是不合理的。只要画得好，画得美，就尽了作为画家的本份。对吗？

巴：对。

柏：那么，你一定接受工程师和画家有以下分别：工程师设计蓝图不能天马行空，而是要对应具体环境以及真实的需要而定，相反，画家绘画是一种对美的追求，假若现实不美，他不需要照着画，当他脑中浮现出现实生活中不可能存在的美，即这世界不可能见到，他也有责任把它画出来。

巴：是又怎样？不要带我们绕圈子！快说回主题！

柏：什么？我不是一直努力为自己辩护吗？难道你不发现我的苦心吗？以上我们已看到工程师的蓝图与画家的画有何分别，现在我要问：我到底是画家？抑或工程师？理想国是图画？抑或蓝图？

巴：那还用说？难道你没听清楚我的辩辞吗？让我再重覆一次，你是乌托邦工程师，理想国当然是你的乌托邦蓝图了。

柏：你说得这么言之凿凿，难道你在《理想国》中找到我自认为工程师，把理想国喻为蓝图的证据吗？

巴：你虽然没有这样写出来，但很明显是建设理想城邦的蓝图。

柏：我既然没有这样写，你又怎能用这种坚定的语调说我是乌托邦工程师呢？看来，把理想国视为蓝图只是你的猜测罢了。相反，在《理想国》500d-502c，我不是清清楚楚地把理想国比喻为一幅由「制度画家」所画「最好的图画」吗50？难道你看不见吗？还是你明知我的理想国是图画，却硬要把它视为蓝图，借助打击我来抨击你不满的政权，杆卫你深爱的开放社会？

巴：别胡扯了！你的确有作为政治方案，改进社会制度的动机！

柏：那么，你怎样理解书中以下的对话：

『格：我知道合意的城邦你是指我们在理论中建立起来的那个城邦。但是我想这种城邦在地球上是找不到的。

苏：或许天上建有它的一个原型，让凡是希望看见它的人能看到自己在那里定居下来。至于它是现在存在还是将来才能存在，都没关系。反正他（哲君）只有在这种城邦才能参加政治，而不能在别的任何国家参加。』51（巴柏没有回答）

柏：既然你不回答，那唯有我代答吧！显然，我绘画理想国这幅最美最善的图画，重点并不在乎它能否在现实世界中的实现，它到底是现在还是将来才能在现实世界存在都没有关系，而是因为它的美和善，我才把它绘画出来。其实，理想国成为改进社会的蓝图不是不可能，问题是没有这样的需要。对我来说，历史发展是悲观的，当这些理想的政策制度真的在这变动的世界中实施，完美的哲君统治也会变坏，甚至堕落为暴君统治，正如你所描述那法西斯主义的纳粹德国一样。因为，绘画这幅图画的原因是要把理想国建立在天上，这些完美理型不须实现，而是作为衡量和批评现实世界的准则，这才是它的真正目的。

以上，我们清楚看到理想国是一幅制度画家画的最好的画；把理想国歪曲为蓝图只是巴柏贤弟一厢情愿罢了！那么，既然理想国是图画而非蓝图，便没有什么「柏拉图理想国的蓝图」这回事。既然没有这么一个蓝图存在过，「柏拉图理想国的蓝图是开放社会的敌人」这一辩题又怎能成立呢？（望向公证）我们亲爱严明的公证啊！希望你能仔细分析，到底谁是谁非？

公：放心！我会尽力寻求一个客观合理的判准。

巴：不管怎样，按你的理想国思想只能发展出二次大战时那种暴虐的纳粹统治，对于这一点，你是难辞其咎的！

柏：真是喘不过气来！满以为刚洗脱了开放社会的敌人这罪名，谁知又陷入了教唆后辈建立暴虐政权这罪名。对于这样的指控，我认为是基于巴柏贤弟对理想国的误解。

巴：什么？你说是我对你的误解！

柏：没错，是误解，你以为我的理想国是建立在种族主义与政治宣传谎言之上，用以压制人民，谋取上层利益，理想国可以发动战争，情况就如那纳粹德国一样52。你是否这样认为？

巴：事实如此，不容狡辩。

柏：然而，事实并非如此。设若理想国真的是种族主义，为何选择新一代护卫者不以血统世袭，而是选择有智慧、有能力、真正关心国家利益者呢53？设若理想国的高贵谎言真是政治宣传谎言，那么，为何它的对象不是其他种族或被统治的人民，而是护卫者本身呢54？设若理想国的阶级统治是压制人民，谋取上层利益，那么，为何他们的子女未必能继任为护卫者55？为何护卫者不能像普通人那样获得土地，不能拥有金银财宝，不能过奢侈的生活呢56？设若理想国为了整体利益而开战，那么，为何我又自相矛盾地主张「战争使城邦在公私两面遭到极大的灾难」57？（巴柏没有回答）【柏拉图拿起一本《理想国》，圈了以上引用的内容，递给公证。】

柏：我们亲爱严明的公证，请仔细看看我的《理想国》吧！事实上任何仔细阅读本书的人也不会把它和法西斯主义拉在一起！设若法西斯主义是开放社会的敌人，我的理想国理念也绝不会是他的共犯。既然与法西斯主义没有关系，教唆后辈建立暴虐政权这罪名也不应成立。以上，我已尽力为巴柏贤弟的两项控诉自辩，以求摆脱开放社会的敌人这污名，唯盼我们亲爱严明的公证能明察秋毫，教我洗脱罪名，沉冤得雪。

  49在本文第一回讨论中，卡尔巴柏经常自问自答。

50柏拉图《理想国》，500d-502c。

51柏拉图《理想国》，412e；John Wild, 'Popper's Interpretation of Plato, (The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Paul Arthur Schilpp, ed, La Salle: Open Court, 1974) 页863-864。

52柏拉图《理想国》，414d; John Wild: 'Popper's Interpretation of Plato'，页865。

53参柏拉图，《理想国》，412e; John Wild: 'Popper's Interpretation of Plato'，页865。

54参柏拉图，《理想国》，419b; John Wild: 'Popper's Interpretation of Plato'，页866-867。

55参柏拉图，《理想国》，313e。

56同上注，419。

57同上注，373e。

卷四

公：（想了一想才开声道）听毕两位先哲的讨论，现在该是小辈履行公证职务之时，换句话说，我须要仔细分析两位的论点，以后作出能力范围内最客观中肯的判准。然而，唯恐有负所托，在分析之先，小辈希望弄清楚有没有误解两位的意思。若有错漏，务请指正。

（望向巴柏）在第一回合，巴柏前辈把柏拉图理想国视为按着历史主义以作为建设理想国蓝图背后的理论根据；接着，前辈又批评以这贫乏理论建立起来的乌托邦工程式理想国蓝图在方法上与开放社会细部工程相违背，既反科学又阻碍开放社会的进步；最后，前辈更把法西斯主义的纳粹德国视为二十世纪实行理想国蓝图的例子，进一步指控柏拉图理想国蓝图是开放社会的敌人。前辈，这是否你的意思呢？

巴：大概如是。

公：（望向柏拉图）那么，在第二回合，柏拉图前辈指出巴柏前辈的指控是基于两个误解，第一是误把图画视为蓝图，第二是误读理想国内容，硬把法西斯主义和理想国混为一谈。前辈指出的第一个澄清，否定了「柏拉图理想国蓝图」的存在，指出视不存在的「东西」为开放社会敌人的荒谬。在第二次澄清，前辈指称理想国图画跟法西斯主义绝无关系，理想国图画并没有教唆后辈发展法西斯主义，不应被视为开放社会的敌人。前辈，这是否你原来的意思？

柏：唔。

公：谢谢两位前辈的忍耐。综观两回合的讨论，小辈认为判准的关键在于哪位前辈对理想国的理解较为恰当。显然，两位前辈对理想国的理解截然不同。换言之，巴柏前辈以社会政治向度（social-political approach）注释理想国为蓝图；而柏拉图前辈则从哲学关怀（philosophical concern）解释自身的理想国为图画。要知道是蓝图还是图画，便要好好审查。

首先，我们看看巴柏前辈的理解有没有问题。巴柏前辈把柏拉图理想国的建立，视为从社会政治发展观察得出的历史预测，设计出对应历史规则的政治方案和社会建设蓝图，对于前辈这样的理解和批评，我们可以提出两个问题：前辈从社会政治角度下的批评是否公允？以社会政治角度理解理想国，视它为蓝图有没有可靠的原典证据支持？

第一个问题可说是对巴柏社会政治向度作出内部批判。以下，小辈尝试以三个例子指出巴柏前辈对柏拉图理想国批评本身有何矛盾和错误。

【例一】前辈对历史主义的批判极其量只能指出历史规律不是严格的因果律，这不表示它不存在。因为并不能说明从观察社会现象反映出来的历史趋势，不是一种规律。故前辈只是指出其有限性，没有把它击溃，对柏拉图的历史主义批判显然是言过其辞。

【例二】前辈指斥理想国蓝图反民主，是开放社会敌人。这妄视了柏拉图前辈所反对的民主制与现代民主制之间的区别。柏拉图前辈反对的是雅典当时民智未成熟而实行的直接民主制（direct democracy）58；而巴柏前辈所指的是现今西方预设了民智成熟而推行的代议民主制（representative democracy）。两者无论在形式和民智方面也有不同。巴柏前辈以现代观点批判理想国的反民主无疑是基于对柏拉图前辈所处环境和思想误解或歪曲。这批评显然是错误和不公允的。

【例三】前辈把理想国的哲君统治和法西斯主义的专制统治联在一起，同样犯了【例二】的错误。我们仔细翻阅《理想国》，也能看到当中的护卫者跟法西斯的独裁者相去千余里，批评明显是对柏拉图前辈理想国的误解。从以上的例子，我们可以回答第一条问题：巴柏前辈以社会政治向度提出对理想国蓝图的批评并不公允，是基于对理想国的误解和歪曲。

第二个问题就是寻找「理想国蓝图」的文本支持。诚然，我们不能排除柏拉图前辈有提供社会政治方案蓝图的动机，然而在文本中，不能找到足够证据去支持；相反，把理想国视为图画却有典可考。因此，把理想国视为蓝图，只能算是巴柏前辈一厢情愿的猜测；如柏拉图前辈所言，把理想国视为图画似乎更为恰当。以上，我们解决了视理想国为蓝图或图画，何者较为恰当的问题，现在我们要问的是：柏拉图前辈是否真的以哲学关怀角度绘画理想国图画？而非从社会政治向度建构蓝图？

如前辈在第二回合所说，理想国图画建立在天上的目的，是作为一种批判现实世界的理型，作为现实世界衡量的基准。显然，这图画的存在目的和形式不是改良现实社会的具体社会政治方案，它存在的目的是作为对现实社会制度作出反省，批判的方向。另外，在前辈的历史主义中我们也可看见其哲学的关怀。根据《理想国》描写的「人类政制堕落史」我们可以看到前辈不是以观察历史演进过程来找出这个历史堕落规律，前辈是根据逻辑原理，层层推理而发展出这历史规律的。故此，我们有理由相信柏拉图前辈绘画这幅「图画」是基于其哲学的关怀。

柏：巴柏贤弟，这次讨论的结果似乎十分明显了。

公：的确，巴柏前辈提出的辩题是基于对柏拉图前辈理想国的误解，确是不能成立的。然而巴柏前辈在讨论中的意见对小辈也有很大的提醒。

巴：（面有不悦之色）是吗？说来听听！

公：虽然柏拉图前辈并没有把理想国图画视为蓝图，但巴柏前辈的讨论提醒我们，设若硬把从哲学关怀出发的理想国图画解读为社会政治变革的具体蓝图，可能带来的灾祸是不可估计。另外，从巴柏前辈对伟大的思想领导者柏拉图前辈的抨击中，小辈可以学习到一种开放批判精神；学习到不应盲目顺从伟人的思想，须知道越伟大的人犯的错则越可怕，影响也越大。故此，常以开放批判的眼界去看世界，可免于迷信59。

柏：哈！看来这次讨论中，你也获益良多。

公：不止如此，在整个讨论过程中，小辈更学习到人与人沟通所产生的误解，往往是基于对同一事物的不同理解和诠释、却又不自知所致。真正的对话是从这个「自知」开始，寻求进一步的共识，否则，彼此的误解只会造成纷争和混乱，不会达到真正的知识。

巴：唔……

公：言归正传。作为公证人，我希望对「柏拉图《理想国》的蓝图是开放社会的敌人」提出修正，把它改为「柏拉图《理想国》的图画被歪曲为一套具体的社会政治蓝图的话，它可能成为开放社会的敌人」。两位前辈认为如何？

巴：我没有意见。

柏：我们亲爱严明的公证，就按你的意思修正吧。

【接着，他们又谈了一回，柏拉图和巴柏也教导了公证好些东西，随着梦醒，公证回到人间，而这场超时空界限的讨论就此结束。】

58参邝健行在「苏格拉底辩词」注解70和71，柏拉图，《柏拉图三书》，邝健行译，香港学津书店，1993，页152-153。

59卡尔巴柏，《开放社会及其敌人》上册，页1。

Gianni Criveller （柯毅霖）

A Historical Review of the Concept of Revelation

FIRST PART The Postmodern Condition

An Introduction to Postmodernism

'Postmodern' means different things to different people1, so that it is difficult to define. More than a clear-cut movement of thought, postmodern can be defined as a 'mood', an 'atmosphere', in which different strategies or approaches coexist and overlap2. The postmodern world is composed of a number of self-meaning-generating agencies, without horizontal or vertical order, which do not claim supracommunal authority. Postmodern thought is then irrevocably and irreducibly pluralistic, complex, contradictory and destabilizing. Therefore, the word 'bewilderment' (spaesamento)3 has been used to describe the condition of the postmodern person. 'Fragmentation' is another term often connected with the postmodern condition, and certainly is one of its key characteristics.

The use of the term 'postmodernism' may be traced back to as early as the 1880s, when it was used by the British artist John Watkins Chapman. In 1917 Rudolf Pannwitz again used this term.4 In the 1930s the term was employed to describe the major historical transition already under way and the latest developments in the arts in reaction to modernism. The use of 'posts', as in post-impressionism (1880s) and post-industrial (1914-22), developed steadily in the 1960s, when the 'posts' were multiplied: post-structuralism; post-anthropological, post-metaphysical, post-rationalistic, post-ideologies, post-Marxism, post-Christianity etc... These 'posts' were used to designate the radical changes that were taking place first of all in architecture, and subsequently in the various arts, in literature, social thought, economics, science, philosophy and religion. The concept of postmodernism gained widespread attention as a broader cultural phenomenon in the 1970s.

According to Charles Jencks, the most influential authority on architectural postmodernism, Postmodernism was born in St. Louis, Missouri, on July 15, 1972, at 3:32 p.m.5 The Pruitt-Igoe housing project was more than a landmark of modern architecture, it was a symbol that epitomized "modernity itself in its goal of employing technology to create a utopian society for the benefit of all."6 The government, however, could not prevent the buildings from being vandalized and could not renovate the project, in spite of much effort and the millions of dollars put into the plan. In an era of symbols, the razing of the housing project symbolizes the death of modernism and birth of post-modernism.

In this article I distinguish between postmodernism and postmodernity. The first is the intellectual development that, as the name obviously indicates, goes beyond modernism. Post-modernity indicates the historical phase that succeeds the age universally called 'modernity.' 'Postmodern' is a general term that, in my presentation, comprises both the concept of postmodernism and of postmodernity.

Modern and Postmodern

If postmodern is defined in relation to the modern, we should first define what 'modern' means. But this task would take too much of our time here. While I take the complex notion of modernity as understood, I simply summarize some of its content as follows. 'Modern' means: 1. The absolutization of human reason as the only and supreme subject of knowledge; the modern subject is self-grounded and self-understanding, the principle of totality; 2. The emancipation of the individual from any constraint which limits his/her supreme freedom and dignity, or, in other words, modernity is the process in which the ultimate liberation of the human being unfolds; 3. Opposition to tradition and to the church as the chief enemies of emancipation and freedom; 4. Nationalism and statism as the sovereign regulative principles of human existence and co-existence; 5. Unlimited trust in science, economic and technological expansion, industrialism.

Postmodernism is described not by what it is, but what it is not: it is not modern. What does 'it is not modern' mean? Is the postmodern a result of modernism? Or is it the aftermath of modernism? Or the afterbirth of modernism? Is postmodernism a development of modernism? Or its denial? Or the rejection of modernism, or its surrogate? Is it a form of late-modernism? Is postmodernism all these things together?

Postmodernism may find it uncomfortable to define itself negatively in reference to modernism. If modern (from Latin modo: just now, presently) means what is happening now, then it will be, by definition, modern until the end of history. But modernism, like the Pruitt-Igoe project, is falling apart and unable to meet the challenges of a new epoch. Modernism, addicted to the defensive-conservative illusion that nothing will transcend itself, is finally waning.7 What is waning is the presumption, implied in the very word 'modernism', that modernity is the definitive emancipation of the human condition and an irreversible process. There is no choice, until a more suitable term is found, but to call such a phenomenon post-modernism, since whatever outlasts modernity is, by linguistic definition, postmodern. At the same time postmodernism expresses a cry of protest against the pretence of modernism to be the ultimate category of the human spirit and of history.

The Postmodern Condition

The Postmodern Condition by French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard is the title of a short book which appeared in 1979 and which put postmodernism into the arena of philosophical debate.8 Postmodernity is characterized, according to Lyotard, by incredulity toward metanarratives, the grand narratives of history. The 'great stories' of progress were based on the modern postulate that history is moving toward a positive end, as indicated by the emancipation of the various political movements. After Lyotard, others have tried to describe the features of the unfolding of postmodern society and the complexity of the postmodern condition. The contemporary world is still in the turmoil of the transition, unable to propose a new project. From the status quo into which modern history had fallen, the postmodern is still in a fluxus quo, in the process of deconstructing history, its determinateness and finality. The status quo of modernity, imbued with historical determinateness and finality,9 generated the various totalitarian ideologies and political tyrannies.

With the dissolution of history and its linear meaning, we entered into a society saturated with communication, in which the mass media play a decisive role. The uninterrupted flux of information seems to make society more complex, confused, chaotic and oscillating. Society seems now made to the measure of the mass media, history has disappeared: what remains is spectacle. We live in 'hyperreality',10 where everything is in excess of itself, piles of images that represent nothing but themselves, in which reality and truth have become irrelevant. The generalized communication and proliferation of images generates, by means of disorientation,11 a multicultural and pluralist world. An infinite number of other possibilities of existence become part of our daily experience, so that 'otherness' is realized before our own eyes. "To live in this pluralistic world means to experience freedom as continual oscillation between belonging and disorientation."12 According to Gianni Vattimo it is exactly from these characteristics of chaos and oscillation that the hope for a society finally human derives.13

Postmodern Arts

As has been mentioned above, architecture played a pivotal role in the affirmation of the postmodern mentality. The postmodern architects' harsh criticism of modern architecture set an intellectual trend which many exponents of other artistic, cultural and scientific disciplines would soon follow. Postmodern architects advocated not simply a change of direction, but "a refusal, a rapture, a renouncement" of modern architecture, whose "main article was precisely an annihilation of tradition, the obligatory renewal, the theology for the new, (...) the perpetual invention of and search for the new at all costs".14 Postmodern architects denounce the dogmas of functionalism, anti-traditionalism and technologism, which reduce Modern Architecture to being an accomplice of bureaucracy and totalitarianism. Thomas Oden15 has offered an illuminating scheme to summarize the characteristics of the transition from modern to postmodern architecture, as described by postmodern architects, especially Jencks. The scheme is basically applicable to other arts which have made the transition to the postmodern: Music, Painting, Literature, Theater, Photography, Film, Television, Dance, Fashion etc...16The scheme corresponds surprisingly to the transitions being experienced in other fields, including theology.

Modern Architecture Postmodern Architecture
Utopian popular
Idealist pluralist
Zeitgeist (spirit of the time) traditional
Purist eclectic
Anti-ornamental ornamental
Anti-representational representational
Anti-metaphor pro-metaphor
Anti-historical memory pro-historical memory
Anti-humor pro-humor
Anti-symbolic pro-symbolic

Postmodern arts, however, do not escape the decadent and nihilistic inclination of postmodernity. On a critical note, Fred Lawrence accuses postmodern artistic trends of having reached the reductio ad absurdum of Romantic expressionism. Postmodern art promotes "promiscuity in styles and codes, mixing parody, pastiche, irony, and playfulness, and insisting on the absence of depth and the paradoxical importance of superficiality."17

Postmodern Science

Even science, whose ultimate power to explain and solve all problems was one of the strongest beliefs and fundamental pillars of modernity, is under severe criticism. People realize that science cannot be the only language to describe reality. Life becomes meaningful and beautiful thanks to values, ideas, hopes and aims that go beyond the achievements of science. Moreover the postmoderns question whether science and technology are, instead of being the solution to every human problem, the principal danger to humanity. Scientific and technological development has been poisonous to humanity, generating a worsening of the quality of life, uncontrolled genetic engineering, weapons of mass destruction, resource imbalances and shortages, environmental damage that has reached the point of no return. A growing number of people and groups call for a return to nature and a rejection of modern science since the very possibility of a future on the planet has been endangered. Ever larger groups of naturalists repudiate the modernist project of employing science as the instrument for making human beings "the masters and possessors of nature" (Descartes). 18They accuse the scientists of practicing terrorism against defenseless nature, the experts and technologists of being the modern inquisitors of the authoritarian rule of science and technology.19 Ecology has become the 'ideology' of many postmoderns, who no longer dream about the future earth, the fruit of the progress, but rather lament the earth of the 'good old days,' when it was still uncontaminated by human manipulation. In the postmodern age, conservation is preferred to change, the green colour of nature is preferred to the red colour of revolution. If people in the sixties believed in a better future (see the New Frontier of Kennedy), people in the nineties believe that, thanks to the impending nuclear and ecological menaces, there might be no future at all. The science that should have liberated humanity created the means to destroy it, and the technology that should have humanized nature, devastated it.

One of the claims of postmodernist scientists is that modern Western scientific knowledge is culturally influenced, that is, it is not purely objective. The entire world picture described by modern physics, such as the view that time is linear or the belief that reality is purely physical, is a culturally specific way of looking at reality.20 Philosophers of science are now claiming that many indigenous knowledge systems, such as those of the Australian Yolngu Aborigines, the Yoruba of Nigeria or the Native American Blackfeet, include a genuine alternative scientific understanding of the world.21 This being the case, "science turns out to be a term as multifaceted and problematic as religion" affirms philosopher of science Margaret Wertheim.22

The quantum theory offers a radical new way of understanding the nature of reality, which according to its supporters, often baffles and bemuses mainstream modern scientists.23 Quantum physics challenges the materialistic vision of the world, formulating the theory that everything we perceive and experience is not pieces of matter but living energy, emitted in nonlinear waves or particles. Einstein called this non-continuous emission of energy packets quanta. According to the scientists who developed this theory, the nature of the quantum (particle-wave) is indeterminate, undefinable, and they postulated the phenomenon of the 'wave packet', wherein the subatomic particles are neither particles nor waves. The wave packet defies precise measurement, so that uncertainty and probability are the qualities of this deeper quantum level. The wave function can simultaneously offer several different possibilities, but when observation has been made, only one of these possibilities materializes. The perception of reality can be described as a set of relationships, so that the observer will always influence the process of observing and the object observed. In quantum theory there is no such thing as objective reality. On the contrary, the observer becomes not only part of the process, but he or she brings about what is being observed. We are in a participatory universe, and, according to some of the advocates of quantum theory (the so-called School of Copenhagen), we create our own reality, we are the masters of creation. Other quantum 'scientists' recently overcame the concept of humans as creators of the universe, which still postulates a dualism between observer and being observed, and expanded 'wholistic consciousness.' Everything is interpreted according to a complex model of giving and receiving, observing and being observed, so that the concept of relationship becomes central in the co-creative process of the universe, in which humans are not masters but participators.24 The modern scientific model of cause and effect and determinism is severely rebuffed by 'postmodern' quantum theory.

The Philosophy of Postmodernism

Some authors, like Hugh J. Silverman, Gregory B. Smith and F. F. Centore, think that postmodernism is not simply the refusal to accept modernist principles and perspectives; it is rather its straightforward extension,25 its extreme result, "the latest and most intense form of modern self-dissatisfaction",26 a distorted form of hyper-modernism.27 Other theoreticians define this time as 'late-modernity', or modernity which has come to reflect on itself.28 Among them Jesus Ballesteros, Robert Spaemann and Alejandro Llano especially distinguish the concepts of postmodernity from late-modernity.29 While the first term indicates a genuine epochal turn, the second refers to the attempt of powerful political and cultural centers to delay the death of the Enlightenment and of the subsequent ideologies. According to them (Ballesteros, Spaemann and Llano), thinkers like Rorty, Derrida, Deluze, Foucault, Vattimo, Borges, Habermas and Apel are not postmodern but rather late-modern. In the same line of thought, Gianfranco Morra notes that both modernity and postmodernity are atheist, and as a consequence he states that postmodernity is not a new era, not after-modernity, but rather modernity of the after, modernity in its dissolving and nihilistic phase.30

If the line of demarcation between modernism and postmodernism is not well defined for the theoreticians mentioned above, such a line is much clearer for other authors, like Todd Gitlin, who claims that "postmodernism is more than a buzzword or an esthetic (...). It is a way of seeing, a view of the human spirit and an attitude toward political as well as cultural possibilities."31 Thomas Oden salutes postmodernism as the liberator from oppressive modernism, which is the mother of all modern disasters and sufferings. The Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce, who anticipated the collapse of Marxism when it was still glorified by the mainstream culture, defines modernity as the age of 'catastrophe,' in its literal meaning of 'turning upside down.' The thesis that Del Noce calls the 'heterogenesis of the ends' (eterogenesi dei fini) states that the ends of modernity produced results which were the exact opposite of the original intentions.32 The totalitarian ideologies that aimed to liberate human beings from religions turned themselves into 'secular religions.' The evils and horrors that followed are there for everyone to see.

My assumption in this study is that postmodernism has brought the modernist philosophical hegemony to a close. Postmodernism reveals the outcome of the 'parable' of modernity. The modern emancipated adult reason, which was at once the agent and the aim of modernity, finds itself in a grave crisis.

Where modernism asserts centering, focusing and continuity, postmodernism is fragmented, de-centered, discontinuous, multiple, dispersed, without identity and unity.33 "Contemporary postmodernism is fundamentally a sign of disintegration, of transition, of waning faith in the modern ideas of Reason and Progress,"34 the heritage of the Enlightenment. The modern confidence about the subject's ability to dominate and change the world has vanished, and no other 'strong thoughts' seem to be available. This disintegration characterizes this age with irrationalism, anxiety and lost hope. Such a condition was powerfully anticipated by (pre post-?) modern authors when they described these as times of 'dis-aster' -without guiding stars- (Maurice Blanchot), 'the lands of sunset', from which 'gods have fled' (Martin Heidegger), where 'everything is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance' (Jean-Paul Sartre).35 This nihilistic stance provides an explanation of the attitude of indifference and avoidance. In the age of generalized communication, in the society of the mass media and fiction, the postmoderns live in a world of abstractions, where the concrete world withdraws and triviality reigns. Gianfranco Morra calls it the culture of the 'fourth man.'36 After the man of the Greek culture, the man of Christianity, the man of Modernity, the 'fourth man' is the man of consumerism, of the mass-media, of the esthetic. The fourth man does not reject religion, science and philosophy, but rather considers them linguistic games of knowledge without real consistency. Milan Kundera seems to have captured such a situation with the striking phrase 'the unbearable lightness of being', the title of his successful (postmodern?) novel.37

The postmodern respond to this 'condition' by adopting a defensive posture, an attitude of detachment, a nihilistic stance. The crisis of modern reason shows itself mainly in the shape of a 'collapse of meaning': whereas enlightened reason had clear and obvious solutions worked out within the context of an all-comprehensive and transparent meaning, postmodern thinking rediscovers the dark recalcitrance of life with respect to any ideal clarification. The outcome of modern reason's crisis is a farewell to security, a reinstatement of death, the abandoning of any basis, in order to voyage towards the unknown, towards nothingness, even finally liberation from the lure of a meaning.38

Three principal postmodern philosophers, Michael Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Richard Rorty, develop their thought in the footsteps of their modern philosophical mentors: respectively Friedrick Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger and John Dewey, whose thought leads directly to contemporary skepticism. Foucault, echoing Nietzsche's proclamation of the death of God, declares the 'end of man', which follows the eclipse of man as a ground of thought. Derrida's deconstruction, in opposition to and overcoming structuralism, takes place since differance will never disappear wherever there 'is' something. In such a way the texts are liberated from any ontological foundation, from any concept of embodied meaning derived by western logocentrism. Deconstruction points toward that which philosophy is unable to say. Rorty's neo-pragmatism, elaborated around the concepts of contingency and irony, constitutes a postmodern development of Dewey's thought. 'Ironic' is the person who does not take anything too seriously, not even him/herself, since he or she is too conscious of the linguistic contingency of all affirmations.39

Postmodern thinkers, like their modern precursors, have rejected the modern reigning epistemological principle of the 'correspondence' between language and the world it represents. Consequently postmodern people have given up the search for universal and objective truth. "They are convinced that there is nothing more to find than a host of conflicting interpretations or an infinity of linguistically created worlds."40 The denial of the 'ontological' God as the extreme consequence of the rejection of the 'correspondence theory' was anticipated by Nietzsche: "Alas, I fear we still believe in God because we still believe in grammar."41 The Italian postmodern philosopher, Gianni Vattimo, proposes the adoption of a 'weak thought,' (pensiero debole) against all the unjustified and outdated pretences of the 'strong thoughts.'42 'Weak thought,' which I would call the 'philosophical heart of postmodernism' taking over from the failure of enlightened identity, seems to result in an utter collapse, in a permanent fall into the void. A weak thought can be defined as the position that one holds valid as long as it is useful here and now. Such a position might not be good for another person, it might not be good for tomorrow. The postmodernists deliver no message, bear no truth, bring no revelation, and do not speak for those who remain in silence. While modern ideologies were revolutionary, weak thought represents something that is not worth fighting for, since it is not valid for others, not something that one wants or should impose on others. We have entered into the age of the 'ontology of decline,' as another Italian philosopher, Pier Angelo Rovatti, put it. This decline is best described in the successful 'postmodern' novel of Umberto Eco The Name of the Rose: "the mission of those who love mankind is to make people laugh at the truth, to make the truth laugh, because the only truth lies in learning to free ourselves from the insane passion for the truth."43 Eco here gives what is possibly the best description of the 'ironic individual' of Richard Rorty.

Postmodernity as the Post-ideological Era

According to Arnold Toynbee, postmodernity is the fourth and last phase of Western history: postmodernity is the name given to the epoch that succeeded modernity. As mentioned above, postmodernity overcomes the status quo into which modernity has fallen: if modernity means what is happening now, then it will be modern until the end of time. Francis Fukuyama reaches the epitome of the thesis that there is nothing beyond modernity with his theory of the 'End of History'.44 With the collapse of Marxist communism, liberal capitalism has achieved a global victory, signaling nothing less than the end of history. But postmodern thinkers refuse to take modernity as the final expression of history, as the ultimate, irreversible, untranscendable stage of historical progress.45 They reject the notion that we have arrived at the inevitable end of history. But they also reject, especially with Lyotard, the 'metanarratives,' the dogma that states that history is linear, unitary and progresses toward its destined end.46

If postmodernism was born in St Louis on July 15th 1972, postmodernity was born 17 years later, in Berlin, on November 9, 1989. The fall of the Berlin Wall symbolized the collapse of the last ideology still dominating Europe. This date signaled the end of the 'short century', which started with the First World War (1914). Postmodernity means very much post-Marxism, as the book of the (post-) Marxist sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, Intimations of Postmodernity (1992), is meant to demonstrate. The collapse of communism in 1989 is actually the end of modernity "because what collapsed was the most decisive attempt to make modernity work; and it failed. It failed as blatantly as the attempt was blatant."47 The crisis of ideologies was the inevitable consequence of the crisis of modern reason. The 'short century' witnessed both the triumph and the collapse of the political ideologies, in 1945 the demise of the Right, in 1989 that of the Left.

The post-ideological outcome of postmodernity highlights the rejection of the Hegelian program of totality and the Marxist ideological attempt to reduce reality to Hegelian idealism, suppressing contradictions and difference as the residue of negativiness. The crisis of modern ideologies is rooted exactly in the presumption of the absoluteness of the will to power of the subjects who endowed themselves with the historical mission of synthesizing the ideal and the real: emancipated reason, emancipated ideology, emancipated party and state. The program of forcing the ideal to be real inevitably ended up in the violent totalitarianism of a party which claimed to combine in itself society, the state and knowledge. The ideological pre-comprehension of the real in the name of the programmed ideal produced new totalities, which we have already described above as 'secular religions.' They proved to be extremely costly, in human as well as in social and ecological terms.

    1. Bauman, Z. (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge, p. vii.

2. Tosolini, T. (1998) Postmodernity and Mission, offprint of a lecture given by the author in Arriccia (Rome), p. 1.

3. Mucci, G. (1997) Il Postmoderno e la Compagnia della Cultura Cristiana. La Civilta Cattolica II, p. 236.

4. Appignanesi, R. and Garatt, C. (1995) Postmodernism for Beginners. Cambridge: Icon Books, p. 3.

5. Jenks, C. (1984) The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. London: Academy Editions, p. 9.

6. Grenz, S. J. (1996) A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge U. K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 11.

7. Oden, T. C. (1990) Agenda for Theology. After Modernity...What? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 76.

8. Lyotard, J. F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge. Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

9. Tracy, D. (1994) On Naming the Present. God, Hermeneutics and Church. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, pp. 14-15.

10. Baudrillard, J. (1988) Simulacra and Simulation. In M. Poster (ed.), Selected Writings. Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 170.

11. Vattimo, G. (1992) The Transparent Society. Trans. David Webb. Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 8.

12. Ibid., p. 10.

13. Ibid., pp. 4-11.

14. Portoghesi, P. (1982) After Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, p. 7.

15. Oden. Agenda for Theology, p. 73.

16. Silverman, H. J. (1990) Postmodernism - Philosophy and the Arts. New York and London: Routledge.

17. Lawrence, F. (1993) The Fragility of Consciousness: Lonergan and the Postmodern Concern for the Other. Theological Studies 54, p. 55.

18. Ibid., pp. 57-58.

19. Messori, V. (1992) Pensare La Storia. Milano: Edizioni Paoline, p. 396. Mucci, G. (1997) L'Assenza di Dio nel Postmoderno. La Civilta Cattolica XI, pp. 544-545.

20. Wertheim, M. (1999) The Odd Couple. The Sciences, March/April, p. 42.

21. Ibid. p. 43.

22. Ibid.

23. 'O Murchu, D. (1998) Qantum Theology. Spiritual Implication of the New Physics. New York: Crossroad, p. 27.

24. For this presentation of quantum theory I referred to ibid., pp. 27-36 and Wentzel Van Huyssteen, J. (1998) Duet or Duel, Theology and Science in a Postmodern World. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinitarian Press International, pp. 58-68.

25. Smith, G. B. (1996) Nietzche, Heidegger, and the Transition to Postmodernity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, p. 6.

26. Ibid. p. 8.

27. Centore, F. F. (1991) Being and Becoming, A Critique of Post-Modernism. New York / Westport, Connecticut / London: Greenwood Press, p. xii.

28. Junker-Kenny, M. (1999) Church, Modernity and Postmodernity. Concilium 1, pp. 94-95.

29. Mucci, G. (1997) La Postmodernita Buona. La Civilta Cattolica I, pp. 435-443.

30. Morra, G. (1994) Dio nella Filosofia Post-moderna. Studi Cattolici 38, pp. 620-626.

31. Gitlin, T. (1988) Hip-Deep in Post-modernism (Book Review). New York Times November 6. Quoted by Silverman, H. J. The Philosophy of Postmodernism. In Silverman, Postmodernism - Philosophy and the Arts, p. 8.

32. Del Noce, A. (1978) Il Suicidio della Rivoluzione. Milano: Jaca Book. Quoted by Messori, Pensare La Storia, pp. 661-671.

33. Silverman, The Philosophy of Postmodernism, p. 5.

34. Smith, Nietzche, Heidegger, and the Transition to Postmodernity, p. 8.

35. See Tosolini, Postmodernity and Mission, p. 19.

36. Morra, G. (1996) Il Quarto Uomo. Postmodernita o Crisi della Modernita? Roma: Armando, pp. 11-23.

37. Ibid. p. 10.

38. Forte, B. (1997) Speaking of God in Post-modern Europe. Religion and Culture 2, pp. 210-211.

39. Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

40. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, p. 163.

41. Quoted by MacKenna, J. (1997) Derrida, Death, and Forgiveness. First Things 71, p. 34.

42. Vattimo, G. (1983) Il Pensiero Debole. Milano: Feltrinelli.

43. Eco, U. (1984) The Name of the Rose. Trans. W. Weaver. Picador, p. 491.

44. Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Basic Books.

45. Oden, Agenda for Theology after Modernity, p. 76.

46. Vattimo, G. (1988) The End of Modernity. Nihilism and Hermeneutics in Postmodern Culture. Trans. John R. Snyder. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 7-13.

47. Bauman, Intimations of Postmodernity, p. 222. See also Blanquart, P. (1992) 'Post-Marxism and Post-Modernity': What is the Church's Presence? Concilium. 6, pp. 115-123.

SECOND PART Postmodernism and Christianity

Long-standing Catholic Criticism of Modernity

Catholicism and Reformed Christianity had a very different relationship with modernity. Protestantism, in a very important sense, maintained close ties with modernity. The Reformation and the modern age were born about the same time from the same intellectual premises, for example, the anti-traditional and anti-authority attitude which favoured the primacy of subjectivity. Hegel affirmed that Protestant Christianity is the religion of modernity because it is also the religion of freedom.48 Modernity and Evangelism, although not always in agreement (as in the cases of Pietism, of Karl Barth's criticism of Liberal Theology, and of evangelical opposition to secularism), were partners and friends in the shaping of the modern world. Liberal Theology and the demythologization of Rudolf Bultmann are examples of theological expressions of modernism.

If Reformed Christianity was considered capable of integration into the modern world, Catholicism was, on the contrary, often reviled as anti-modern and reactionary. According to a model often called 'intransigent Catholicism', the Catholic Church is generally believed to have condemned and rejected modernity, at least until Vatican Council II.49

I would just mention three major clashes of the Catholic Church with modernity: the Galileo Galilei case (1615-1640), the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX (1864) and the fierce anti-modernist campaign of Pius X (1901-1914). An attentive study of the three cases will reveal that some of the pronouncements of Catholic authorities correspond closely to the post-modern critique of modernism I summarily illustrated above.

Although Church theologians erred in their formal condemnation of Galileo's scientific opinions (a condemnation that was merely temporary - donec corrigatur - until it is corrected), they were right to refuse to turn a mere hypothesis into a fact to be accepted uncritically, even at the cost of rejecting the then common interpretation of the Scriptures. The famous sentence about the meaning of the Bible, which is about how to go to Heaven and not about how heaven goes, comes not from Galileo, but from Cardinal Baronio. What Galileo was asked by remarkable scholars like Bellarmine and Baronio was, in the first instance, not to renounce his theories, but simply to hold them as hypotheses, since in those days they could not be considered otherwise. It well known, in fact, that the only evidence that Galileo was able to produce (the cause of the tides) was wrong, while his opponents were right. Galileo tried also to impose a vision of nature based on mathematical principles, so that the inner workings of nature can be expressed only in mathematical language. Anything which was not to be expressed mathematically was considered secondary, subjective or non-existent. This approach, which can be considered the origin of modern scientific arrogance, is, in fact, the denial of the possibility of natural philosophy and theology.

Pius IX effectively denounced the totalitarism of the 'order of reason' in the Syllabus, possibly the earliest and most fully articulated anti-modern document. Among the modern errors he included the assertion that "human reason is the principal norm by which man can and must attain knowledge of all truths of any kind whatsoever" (No. 4). In propositions No. 28-38 Pius IX denounces the totalitarianism of the state, considered by modernists as the origin and font of all rights (No. 39), to which the Church should submit herself and give up her legitimate rights. Among the rights the state reserves for itself are: to give permission to bishops to promulgate apostolic letters (No. 28); the establishment of national Churches independent of the Roman Pontiff (No. 37); to fix the method of studies used in seminaries (No. 46); to prevent bishops and faithful from communicating with the Pope (No. 49); to present, install and depose bishops (No. 50-51); to permit admission to solemn religious vows (No. 52). One cannot but notice that contemporary 'modern' totalitarianisms are imposing the same arbitrary restrictions on the Church.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries modernism developed within the Catholic Church, prompting a forceful reaction from Pius X, who called modernism 'the synthesis of all heresies' in two documents issued in 1907 (Lamentabili and Pascendi). Influenced by Kantianism, which advocated the subjective nature of natural knowledge and the unknowableness of God by natural reason, the modernists considered religion a matter of 'feelings', of personal and collective experience, a 'motion of the heart' not expressible intellectually. As a consequence some extreme modernists denied revelation in favor of immanentism, the authority of the magisterium of the Church and the divinity of Jesus. They also reduced Scripture to literature and the Church to a sociological institution undermining the credibility of the Christian faith as supported by historical documentation and miracles.

The three major episodes of anti-modernist polemics, which show that time proves that going against the current is not necessarily a sign that one is reactionary or obtuse, can be considered an anticipation of the collapse of modern thought. Defenders of the Catholic Church do not, however, rejoice at the intellectual victory over modernism. No one has any illusions that the postmodern condition will necessarily bring success to Catholicism.

Post-Modernity and Post-Christianity

The present religious situation in Europe and North America is often described as secular, where many people no longer believe, and therefore are defined as post-Christians.50 Post-Christianity is an expression to describe a 'secular' status in which Christianity is losing its central role in shaping the lives of the people. Although the majority is baptized, only a minority retains meaningful ties with the traditional Churches. Most people live their lives independently of the Christian faith and the teachings of the Churches they (used to) belong to. The churches have become extraneous to them. Someone has noticed a 'submerged schism', particularly within the Catholic Church: a significant number among those still practicing, silently (or in a few cases openly), distance themselves from doctrines and moral obligations required by the ecclesiastical authorities. The estrangement of Christian faith from the world is the outcome of modern positivism, which reduced religion to the degraded sphere of the emotions and feelings. Religion was considered by modern critical reason pre-, extra-, or anti-scientific, something unworthy of the emancipated and adult subject. The only admissible authorities were those of science and of the avant-guard party, the necessary instrument that would transform the (ideological) ideal into (political) reality. In the modern era religions and churches have become superfluous.

The post-Christian situation is however a not an unfamiliar one for the Church. Throughout the two thousand years of its existence, the Church has often experienced the dolorous passage of peoples and nations from the Christian faith to other beliefs. Christian communities founded by Paul himself, some of the Churches of the Fathers or great saints like Augustine, have almost disappeared. Syria was the first and a glorious Christian nation, which sent missionaries to the entire East and as far as China, but the number of Christians has been drastically reduced there. The diminishing of Christianity in one place does not mean a crisis of Christianity as such. In fact, history shows that when Christianity was losing somewhere, it was gaining elsewhere. This is very much in evidence today as well.

The significance of the departure of Western people from the traditional Christian denominations should not, however, be overestimated. These Churches show signs of crisis, but are far from near total collapse. In several cases they are holding their ground, if not advancing.51 Powerful evidence can be found in the Catholic Church. Never in history has a Pope attracted such worldwide attention and respect, or drawn such vast crowds of people from various nations, races, languages, cultures, and even religious beliefs as the present Pope John Paul II. Never has a Pope exercised such an indirect but profound influence on the unfolding of secular events. From being a victim of political pressure and even oppression in past centuries the Pope has, in the last few decades, acquired probably the highest moral and independent authority on the planet.

The postmodern condition is not, by any means, a post-religious age. Quite the contrary, postmodernity is witnessing the resurgence of the religious sense, which was thought to be dead along with the proclamation of the death of God. In the sixties, radical theologians such as William Hamilton, Thomas J. Altizer and Harvey Cox had developed the theology of the 'death of God' and of the 'secular city.' These theologians were prophesying the 'eclipse of the sacred' following the lead of the Marxists. But the decline of religion did not come about. On the contrary, while Marxism is dead, there is a growing expansion of religious practice. But the religious revival is not necessarily a Christian revival or even the return of God within the human horizon. The powerful spread of the religious spirit can be classified under various categories: 1. Neo-fundamentalist Christianity; 2. Neo-Orientalism; 3. Various forms of human potential movements and forms of trans-personal psychology influenced by both Oriental and Christian fundamentalist religious thought. In such a context the New Age movement has a special influence and relevance. The New Age movement can be considered the religious expression of Postmodernity. I will dedicate another study to this theme.

Postmodern Theological Challenges

The debate on modernity and post-modernity that is characterizing the end of this century has an immediate relevance to the fate of Christianity in the contemporary world. In fact, the debate is not only sociological, philosophical or historical: it has become a theological one. The fragmentation of postmodernism has been experienced through the fragmentation of the 'religious' science of theology. In the last three decades, starting from the Second Vatican Council in the case of the Catholic Church, much of the theological development seems to lack a common ground. The significance of theology as comprehensive discourse on the faith of the Church, once guaranteed by the uniformity of the neo-thomist treatises, has been lost. We have witnessed instead the bringing forth of a large number of theologies of the 'of' type', of the particular, of the fragment. For instance, the theology of Secularism, of Religions, of Liberation, of Inculturation, of Interreligious Dialogue, of Feminism, of the Environment, of Ecology, of Creation, etc...

Perusing the immense output of contemporary theologians, one is puzzled by the method and the research object of some of them. It seems, in fact, that much of this enterprise is not properly theo-logy (discourse on God) any longer, but rather an exaltation of modern or postmodern themes, to which theological discourse should readily adapt itself. What really matters to a number of contemporary theologians is not faithfulness to the sources and nature of theological discourse, but rather the reinterpretation of postmodern phenomena in a somewhat vague religious mode. The variegated and scattered status of theological research might hint at the existence of a post-modern condition in Christianity. The conflict between a number of (postmodern?) theologians and the ecclesiastical authorities might give a glimpse of the complexity and disunity of the postmodern (post-Christian?) condition of the Church.

A very recent example of what I am referring to here is the work of Diarmuid , Quantum Theology, in which the quantum theory of physics is exalted as one of the most ingenious scientific discoveries of our times. Fr.  elevates this theory into a 'theological norm' and emphatically declares that theology has no choice but to submit to it. The resemblance of  'theological invitation' to the New Age religious program is quite startling: "Bring all the reserves you can of imagination, intuition, creativity, and your capacity to marvel. And please bring along your wild (wo)man, your deep feminine part, your hurt child, your wounded parent, and, above all your flamboyant artist."52 The 'theological implications' illustrated by , which are as old as Gnosticism, would need to be analyzed in a separate study devoted to New Age and Christianity. Here I anticipate just few of them:53

-God and the divine (terms used indifferently and sparingly because these are just human constructs) are described as creative energy.

-In the divine-human unfolding of co-creation, light and shadow always intermingle. Quantum theology seeks to outgrow all dualisms, especially that of good against evil.

-Each religion is a particular crystallization of divine revelation. Revelation is ongoing process that cannot be subsumed under any religion.

-The doctrine of the Trinity is a human attempt to describe God's fundamental relational nature.

-Sin is a destructive collusion between people and systems. The major sin of our time is specieism, the assumption that humans are the ultimate form of life under God and are entitled to lord it over the rest of creation.

-We live in a world without beginning and end. Our dead ones are all around us, living within a different plane of existence.

-Resurrection/reincarnation are not facts, but mental/spiritual constructs.

-Theology no longer belongs to Christianity; it has become an agent for global transformation.

If 'O Murchu can be described as a post-modern post-Christian New Age type of theologian, there are 'conservative' theologians who see in postmodernism a chance to reinstate evangelical orthodoxy. Thomas Oden salutes with enthusiasm postmodernity as a liberator from deceptive modernity, mother of all evils, including liberal theology. According to Oden evangelical orthodoxy is finally vindicated by postmodernism as the only way forward. His proposed postmodern orthodoxy is contiguous to the countercultural resistance to modernity expressed by Reformation orthodoxy, the Counter Reformation and Pietism. He accuses the postmodern philosophers who do not even take into consideration his proposal (postmodernism = pre-modern orthodoxy) to be, in fact, 'ultra-modernist', guilty of the same arrogance as modernity.54

Mark C. Taylor, who is a philosopher, professor of religion and humanities and theologian, attempted a Postmodern A/theology, as he calls it.55 Taylor elaborates the theological implications of the principal philosophical tenets of postmodernism: the Death of God, the Disappearance of the Self, the End of History, the crisis of the authority of the Bible (the Closure of the Book).56 But he especially tried to develop a decontructive theology based on Derrida's literary critical theory of deconstruction. Taylor exposes the faults of the totalizing structures of truth of modern philosophical projects, and explores their remains. From this perspective of 'otherness' offered by the deconstructing mode, Taylor reconsiders errant notions. In a subsequent article, The End(s) of Theology57 Taylor takes issue with the development of theology in the 20th century, which has been wavering between divine transcendence, carried to extremes, according to Taylor, by Karl Barth and divine immanence, carried to extremes by Thomas Altizer. In response to this dilemma Taylor again proposes a deconstructing mode which keeps "open to a difference we cannot control and another we can never master."58 Such a mode can be thought of if there is a 'nondialectical third that lies between the dialectic of either/or and both/and' transcendence and immanence. "Might this third be neither transcendent nor immanent? Does this neither/nor open the time-space of a different difference and another other - a difference and an other that not merely invert but actually subvert the polarities of Western philosophical and theological reaction."59 One notices here how Derrida's deconstruction program has acquired a theological dignity.

Other theologians perceive postmodernism as an opportunity to renovate the preaching of the gospel, and to reaffirm the apologetic function of theology. Among them, Stanley Grenz has a quite optimistic approach to postmodernism, which is perceived as an opportunity to Christians to present the gospel in a post-individualistic, post-rationalistic, post-dualistic and post-neoticentric fashion. Consequently Grenz advocates a preaching of the gospel communitarianism, the intellectual dimension of human experience, the holistic vision of the human being in relation, and the attainment of inner wisdom.60

Paul Lakeland investigates how to reaffirm Christian identity in the fragmented age of Postmodernity. Taking up three key philosophical issues of postmodern thought; subjectivity, relativism and otherness, Lakeland examines how to speak of God, church and Christ in such a context. He resumes the apologetic discourse as the way in which theological tradition and the postmodern world should meet. The initiative for this meeting lies in the Church's irrenounceable mission. The language to be used should be that of the postmodern world, such as the concepts of otherness and difference, which the Church should therefore assume in its evangelization of the 'postmodern'.

Lesslie Newbigin, who is, together with David Bosch, the most important Protestant missiologist, is the first of a series of theologians who look on postmodernism not with contempt, but certainly with apprehension. Newbigin is concerned with the collapse of divine authority in the postmodern vacuum and proposes, as a response, all four aspects of authority: the Bible, tradition, reason and experience.61 The four must be kept together if one wishes to avoid the kind of abusive authority that postmodern thought rejects. Experience alone, without the discernment of the other three, can validate any religious behavior. Reason when considered autonomous excludes diversity and wholeness and becomes a tyranny as modern reason has proved. Tradition must be rooted in Scripture if it does not want to wander away, while Scripture must be read into the living experience of the Body of Christ led by the Holy Spirit, otherwise it will become a dead and oppressive letter.62

The problem of the authority of the Bible as the Word of God in a postmodern age is also a theme debated by Terence Fretheim and Karlfried Froehlich.63 Fretheim notices that in the postmodern context the authority of the Bible suffers along with the crisis of authority of the culture, the churches and the academy. At the end of a lengthy piece of reasoning Fretheim affirms that in the postmodern context the Church cannot demonstrate the authority of the Bible, but can call people to enter into living communities where the Word of God is thought and lived. Only then, affirms Fretheim, will the Bible be seen as having an authority worthy of our attention. In his response Froehlich defends the Bible as the Word of God, questioning the legitimacy of the postmodern hermeneutic attack on the authority of the Bible. Froehlich concedes that the Bible might have became an embarrassment for the postmoderns, so that they would prefer to emigrate into women-church, New Age communities and other hosts who promise more access to the Spirit who is obscured in the Book. But for his part, Froehlich would still consider it a privilege to struggle with the instrument that God has chosen to initiate an eternal dialogue for our benefit.

A serious dialogue with postmodernism, without any ingenuous submissions or prejudicial rejection, is offered in the theological reasoning of David Tracy. According to Tracy, Christian theology in the postmodern era is challenged to take seriously the category of 'present', definable as interruptive eschatological time before the living God.64 The message of the gospel is not modern, anti-modern or post-modern, but rather the healing and transformative message of justice and liberation for historical subjects living in the concrete present. The postmodern era is the time in which Christian theology must listen to the voices of the 'others.' Otherness and difference are two features of the postmodern condition, and are two challenges both promising and threatening the growth of Christian theology. The promise resides in the necessity of having progressive theologies which meet the challenges of the pluralistic world. The threat is that the postmodern Christian generation might sever itself from the resources of tradition, from their identity and from the incarnational and sacramental forms of Christian life. Tracy also invites the Church to reevaluate a mystical and apophatic approach as a suitable one to understand and present Christianity in the postmodern age.65

Mark Kline Taylor, a Liberation theologian in dialogue with North American cultural challenges, identifies three major traits in postmodern thought, from which he delineates a theological trilemma. Acknowledgment of one's own tradition, celebrations of plurality, and resistance to domination are three elements which must stay together in postmodern theologizing. Tradition alone might turn into traditionalism; plurality alone might turn into nihilism; resistance to dominance alone might fail to actualize, or turn into another domination.66 One notes that this approach is similar, although independently developed, to that of Newbigin described above.

Jonathan Wilson67 argues that fragmentation is the distinctive characteristic of postmodernism and a difficult challenge to the Church and her mission. In fact, the postmodern forces are so radical that the Church herself runs the risk of being changed. Together with John Hall,68 Wilbert Shenk69 and Alan Roxburgh,70 Wilson calls for a new monasticism, as a time of dis-engagement and re-forming. The purpose is not an exit from the world but an authentic re-engagement. The unification of the 'daily common life' principle and monastic element is the proposal of Pierangelo Sequeri for a spirituality in the postmodern age.71 Sequeri suggests that monasticism should overcome the gnostic temptation of separation from the world, while the Christian 'daily common life' should be one of evangelical radicalism. Frankly, I find the proposal of Sequeri, illustrated after a long and difficult elaboration, quite disappointing. I wonder when was Christian monasticism polluted with gnosticism, did Sequeri ever hear of the 'ora et labora' of Benedict? Is the vocation to evangelical radicalism in the daily life of non-consecrated Christians a discovery of our age?

Jack A. Bonsor asserts that the postmodern perspective can help towards stressing the historical character of Christian truth.72 According to Bonsor, who developed his reasoning from the thought of Hans-Georg Gadamer, the postmodern point of view helps theologians to make a more modest claim about how much we know. It also reminds us "that the divine Word spoken into history remains a mystery, a mystery only history can disclose."73 The long and exacting study of Bonsor is meant to respond to Thomas Guarino (see below) and to the 1989 document of the International Theological Commission On the Interpretation of Dogmas.

Tiziano Tosolini analyzes the challenges of postmodernism from a missiological point of view.74 The 'nomadic' nature of postmodernism "allows the world to speak for itself, to give voice to specific demands, to liberate diversity, singularity and multiplicity"75 against the presumption of the grand theories. The postmodern context gives the church the framework to meet the other in his/her otherness and uniqueness. Quoting St. Paul (1 Cor 9:19-27) Tosolini proposes the "evangelization of the fragment": "it is by sharing the 'nomadic' journey without certanties and reassurance, without preconceived answers and ready-made solutions, that we come to appreciate unexpected solidarities and gratuitous expressions of love."76 But, reaffirms Tosolini, the Word of God, which is essentially love, is not dispelled in the fragment, the Word retains its capacity for judgment, criticism and liberation.

Fred Lawrence, in a long and exacting study, finds that the thought of Bernard Lonergan shares many of the deepest concerns of postmodernism.77 Lawrence claims that the radical decentering of the modern subject carried out by postmodern philosophers has to be taken seriously by Christian theology. These deconstructivist strategies offer to Christianity an opportunity to display concern, respect and love for the 'other:' the other of nature, of fellow human beings, and of God. Similar views are expressed by Maureen Junker-Kenny, who re-interprets the notions of 'difference' (Derrida) and 'alterity' (Lyotard) in the light of the paradoxical message of the gospel.78

David Bosch, the author of the 'summa missiologica' Transforming Mission, illustrates his concerns with mission in the postmodern context in two of his writings: chapter 10 (The Emergence of a Postmodern Paradigm) of Transforming Mission79 and Believing in The Future.80 Postmodernity is a time of crisis, without sense of past or future and is not interested in the classic grand ideologies. The programmed society is run under the direction of teams of technocrats. Various forms of Christianity ambiguously cohabit with such a context, often camouflaged under harmless forms of civil religion, in which the moral imperative is overridden by relativism and indiscriminateness.81

A severe criticism of postmodernism has also been launched by J. Buttom. According to him postmodernism is still in line with modernism, "as rebellion against rebellion is still rebellion, as an attack on the constraint of grammar must still be written in grammatical sentences, as a skeptical argument against the structures of rationality must still be put rationally."82 Moreover, the postmodern critique of modernity tends to reject rationality instead of surpassing it. Christians, however, should not come to the help of a modernity that is bankrupt and which despises them anyway. Buttom sees in the postmodern theoretical deconstruction of modern anti-Christian assumptions a vindication of the rightness of Christian thought, although Christian postmodern views come to radically different conclusions. The postmodern critique has reopened the debate on several basic questions. For instance, the very possibility of knowledge without God and the question of truth that rests on a faith that has itself been the object of attack in modern times. Postmodernism reopens also the problem that, when God is denied, what remains is the will of power and consequently that "every attempt to call something true or beautiful or good is actually an attempt to compel other people to agree."83 Thomas Guarino also rejects the idea that postmodernism, with its emphasis on the historicity of knowledge, can in any way serve Christian theology, which is based on foundational points offered by revelation. Postmodern hermeneutical theories are therefore inconsistent with Christianity's truth claim.84

Gustavo Gutierez is quite plain in denouncing the progressivist theologies of the postmodernity. The points of departure of Liberation Theology and postmodernism are not the same; they are, in fact, contradictory. The postmodern world is not the real world of the suffering and oppression of the poor, from which the Theology of Liberation moves. "To speak of 'the postmodern world' is a superficial response and of little help."85

Very critical is the approach of the Italian theologian Bruno Forte. He harbors no illusions about postmodernism, and proves to be as critical of postmodernity as he is of modernity. According to Forte, the loss of meaning, which stems from the crisis of the totalizing answers of modem reason, is carried forward in postmodern thought on waves of refusal and increasingly becomes a loss of the desire even to put the question of meaning. What is in dispute is not so much the answer as the very legitimacy of the questioning. Indifference or disinterest in even asking about meaning, rather than the actual lack of a meaning, seems to be the 'mortal illness' that pervades Western societies at the end of this millennium.

Forte declares that "when a strong, ideological foundation, all-inclusive and reassuring, collapses and gives way to a complete absence of critical foundations, the result is no less vast and total. (...) The future once again loses its obscurity: it will be a continuation of the present, a perpetuation of weakness, a free fall simply prolonged. 'Weak thought' deduces the future from the present in an equally totalitarian way as 'strong thought' identifies real history and the ideal world. It is incapable of any wonder or of any receptiveness to the new, and insofar as it remains incapable of these, manifests the same totalizing presumption as ideological reason."86

Forte affirms that the new and non-deducible traits of the future call, then, for a different kind of thinking, one which is able to leave behind the prisons of ideology, but is also alert enough not to fall into the trap of its own nihilist reversal. To open oneself up to such a way of thinking involves relying on the very newness of the future. Theological thought - in so far as it assumes a reason open precisely to things both last ('eschata') and new ('novissima') and is rooted in the 'memoria futuri', grounded in the promise of God's revelation - could present itself with a surprising actuality and could exercise a strong critical reserve in relation to the crisis of modernity and its nihilist results. The crisis of modem reason and the weakness of post-modem 'decadence' challenge theology to think of a God who is beyond all closed horizons of completeness as the only possible alternative to the triumph of nothingness. God beyond God, or - more precisely - God beyond the God ideologically captured and beyond the negative God of nihilism.87

Theology as a 'new thinking,' open to the non-programmed and non-deducible newness of the future is the thought that can break the impasse of critical reason. The question of the future gives new vigor to all aspects of theological investigation and invites it to tackle what overcomes both strong and weak reason. Karl Barth, continues Forte, must be credited with having rediscovered the eschatological content of Christian faith in all its objectivity: against the presumptions of liberal theology. The ultimate source of the absolute primacy of the eschatological element - against the totalizing presumptions of ideological reason - lies in the transcendent God, in his being the living God, not reducible to the limits of the investigating human subject. Christianity is completely and in every dimension eschatological, insofar as it has to do in every way with the ungraspable sovereignty of the God of revelation, who communicates himself to humankind under the form of promise and of hope. God's self-communication breaks the closed horizon of idealistic totality as well as of every possible triumphant nothingness. God is the wholly Other, standing over against the human subject and not reducible to it. Ideological reason captures the divine within its own limits. Theological thought keeps the mind and the heart open to listen to the Word of the living God.88

So the present time is marked by the dialectical tension between the "already" revealed, and the "not yet" accomplished, of God's work in history. Therefore, the meaning which theology offers is neither a tranquillizing certitude nor an illusory possession, but challenge and trust, struggle and contemplation, watchfulness and hope. To think of God between critical reason and the crisis of reason means to exercise a kind of 'docta spes,' a new thought open through continuous self-transcendence to God's eschatological self-communication.89

Postmodern and the Everlasting Good News of the Gospel

I have analyzed above a range of theological reactions to postmodernism. From a total submission of theology to the 'postmodern-new age' scientific theory of 'O Murchu to a rejection of post-modernity by Forte who, in the name of the irreducibly eschatological reserve, accuses postmodernism of being as ideological as modernism since it (postmodernism) deduces the (impossibility of) the future from the (nothingness of) the present. 'O Murchu' s redundant enthusiasm for the 'scientific discoveries' of quantum physics reminds us a little of Galileo's case, when a scientific hypothesis was assumed to be an obvious fact to which biblical hermeneutics and theology had to pay devout respect. Even more startling, and frankly upsetting, is the total disregard for 'theological method', for the specific statute of theological discourse. 'O Murchu's theology has nothing to do with the sources of any Christian theology, the faith of the people of God as witnessed in the Bible and Tradition. Theology is not a participation in the mission of the community of Christ, but rather an exploratory journey into the vast postmodern lands of the New Age. What matters is not loyalty to the Christian faith received in the Church while struggling to make it intelligible (and not necessarily acceptable) to our fellow women and men, which I still believe is the only reason why one should bother to do theology, but rather to dissolve exhaustively any Christian intimations into the eternal flux of energies.

While I agree with Forte's exacting and dense theological critique of postmodernism in the name of the future of God, I would also dare to assume the hypothesis that postmodernism is not only hyper-modernism, but an epochal turn with challenges and opportunities. Strong thoughts that seemed to have conquered the masses of the world have indeed been finally wiped away. Postmodernity, declaring the end of ideological certainties, is looking for new directions. Theology is called to renew the effort to meet the quest for new directions. The climate seems favorable for speaking about God without defensiveness and self-consciousness, and for escaping the modern dogma that politics is the fundamental category to which religion has to submit.90 Postmodernism seems to allow more cultural room for Christianity than the rationalistic tyranny of modernism. "Postmodernism unmasks problems that modernism tried to hide, but postmodernism can by no mean solve them."91 We should try to approach postmodernism without ingenuousness and submissive devotion, always keeping in mind that the task of theology is not to satisfy the spirit of the times, but rather the ever-challenging apologetic effort to make faith understandable. The mission of theology is to be missionary theology. If postmodern relativism and nihilism are unacceptable by Christian theology, still the questions raised need to be engaged. Christian theology should explore a path that "takes relativity seriously, without being relativistic; and takes the absurdity and apparently random and chaotic dimensions of our world experience fully seriously without capitulating to nihilism in any form."92 In fact, in a time of distrust of human rationality, Christian theology is called to reaffirm the positive capability of human thought to contrast irrationality and nihilism. Christian thought does not condemn human rationality (as postmodernism does), but rather the pretension of (modern) rationality, which arrogated the right to be the only foundation of knowledge and value, becoming then omnipervasive and totalitarian.

A path on which Christian theologians might be willing to venture is to rethink the category of Christian faith as a mystery. In modern times theology has spent much energy on the task of defending and demonstrating the credibility of the Christian faith to a culture that glorifies reason and science. Therefore theology has often privileged the intellectual approach and rational argumentation to appeal to the reasonableness of Christian tenets in order to answer modern challenges. The excessive emphasis on the 'ontological' idea of God led to Nietzsche's proclamation of the death of God. The postmodern context calls Christian theology to go beyond a rationalistic presentation of Christian doctrine. The understanding of Christian faith as mystery might become a category of dialogue with postmodern thought.

While Christian tradition has always attested to the doctrine of the incomprehensible God who comes to us as a mystery, in the context of modern challenges there was the danger of regarding the mystery of God as something that can be understood through the objective doctrine taught by the Church; there was the tendency to subject God to systematization. But reason does not have all the answers. Rason itself wants to remain reasonable, acknowledges its limits, and opens itself to the transcendent dimension. The effort that is required here is the same for any person in the world, no matter where or when he or she lives: to investigate the mystery by using reason, and to accept a mystery that goes beyond the capacity of human understanding and explanation. Mystery is a complex concept. It must be perceived not simply as something profound and difficult, but also as a fascinating religious experience that leads into a new dimension of living: a life of faith. The perception of mystery both attracts the person to the religious sense of life and transcends his or her terrestrial horizons.

Theology in the postmodern age can assume the characteristics already mentioned by Oden: popular, pluralist, traditional, eclectic, spiritual, ornamental, representational, pro-metaphor, pro-historical memory, pro-symbolic. A presentation of Christian faith as mystery can meet the quest for values and meanings beyond the critical reason and strong ideologies. Postmodern criticism of logocentrism (Derrida) might help Christian theology to re-discover non-rationalistic, parabolic approaches to the reality as was initiated in the tradition of the negative theology. The inapprehension of God was emphasized in this century especially by Karl Barth: "God's hiddenness tells us that God does not belong to the object which we can always subjugate to the process of our viewing, conceiving, and expressing."93

Postmodern theology might be more attentive to dimensions, values and meanings neglected by modernity: beauty, freedom, happiness, spirituality, symbolism, harmony, suffering, death and destiny. It is time to re-discover the value of religious sense and experience, in particular the contemplative and joyful aspect of the life of faith; the profound significance of signs, symbols, rites and celebrations, which point to beyond-rational realities; the rich humanity of popular expressions of faith; Christian existence as communitarian existence; the basic human need of belonging and participation; the source of traditions and tradition; the preciousness of enthusiasm and charisma. Again, while modernity built on concepts like unity, agreement, universalism and reason, postmodern theology might elaborate on concepts like difference and others, dissent and plurality.

Postmodernism fills up the void left by the failure of modernity and replaces the narrative of the death of God with a spectacular resurgence of a vast, confused, syncretistic religious spirit. The 'weak thought' gave way to various irrational forms of religiosity, from the mythic-magic to the astral and signic-symbolic of the horoscope. But there is no cause for celebration for an attentive Christian. In fact, most of the postmodern religious revival has post-Christian characteristics. Here lies one of the most serious challenges of postmodern thought: to reduce Christianity to a gnosis, where the salvation of Christ is transformed into the mysterious almost occult and gnostic-like process of elevating the human mind. This is the basic post-Christian answer to postmodern thought offered by the variegated nebula of the New Age and the new religions. Christian faith will always remain something before, and more than an answer to, human needs. Christian faith is an unexpected, overabundant, and gratuitous grace from above, which transcends and subverts human expectations and questions and is accepted by the free obedience of human beings.

The gospel announced with frankness by Christians can never be reduced merely to being an answer that gives meaning to a generation that has lost it; it eschews imprisonment into systems, ideological or anti-ideological; it always challenges the darkness of nihilism. The gospel reaffirms its gratuity, its novelty, its capacity for wonder and surprise. As consequence, the theologies of the postmodern era should never reduce the Christian faith to the filling up of the void of the postmodern condition and of the lonely hearts of contemporary men and women. Christian faith should never be reduced to psychologism, the empowerment of human capacity, the radicalization and extension of the human spirit.

Theologizing in a postmodern context might require reflection upon the meaning but also on the ambiguity of religion. A distinction between theological faith and religious phenomena might be helpful in delineating the limits and denouncing the mystification and abuses of religion. In this respect the contribution of the Theology of the Cross and the Liberation Theology remain very precious.

The theology of the Cross, the bulwark of Christology and the most paradoxical of all theologies, will always function as the critical standpoint which distinguishes religious ambiguity and deception from true faith. The cross, on which Jesus hung as an enemy of religion and political powers, transcends any religious particularity, at the same time attracting, judging and cleansing them. In the postmodern debate the distinction between religion and faith might assume a new light and relevance. This distinction might in fact help theology to engage challenges from postmodern intimations such as 'difference', 'otherness,' 'alterity.' As some authors mentioned above have already noticed, there is room here for the paradoxical and radical message of the gospel. Some interpreters have proposed that Christianity is the religion 'of the departure from religion.'94

The Theology of the Cross remains the most radical critical challenge to the postmodern-New Age atmosphere which overemphasizes the beauty of nature, the harmonious order of the universe, the human logos and wisdom. But nature can be cruel, and the Cross on which Jesus was abandoned by friends and felt abandoned by God Himself, is a very disharmonious drama. On the Cross human abilities, wisdom, expectations and performances are contradicted, confused and denied rather then affirmed. The Cross of Jesus will never be domesticated into ontological or grand narrative schemes. We cannot elaborate the conception of God and the idea of history of salvation from a standpoint different from that of Calvary. Jesus has identified himself with the victims of evil, with those who are relegated to the 'reverse side of history.' On this point, the Theology of the Cross might find common ground with the postmodern opposition to ideological metanarratives.

The postmodern gnostic religious atmosphere, where individual emotional welfare is paramount, runs the risk of resulting in a bourgeois exercise of harmonization, solipsism and selfishness. The Theology of the Cross and the Liberation Theology provoke us to reject any presumptuous 'end of history,' which might sound absurd and a mockery to those who are victims of history, poverty and oppression. I mentioned above the missionary character of any Christian theology. The ultimate task of theology is not making the Christian faith acceptable whatever the cost. The Christian message of the Cross and Liberation will always be a scandal and foolishness, even in the postmodern world, as it was in ancient and in modern times.

The parable of modernity shows that systems of thought, historical phases and phenomena pass, but the Gospel always remains good news, ever fascinating women and men with its simple yet demanding message. The Gospel keeps, as ever, its freshness and novelty, attracting new disciples of Jesus generation after generation. The gospel of Jesus is very much alive in the world. This is a simple phenomenological consideration. But it is also a consideration of faith. The Gospel that the Church has transmitted and does not cease to proclaim, is coming from afar, and has resisted all sorts of human upheavals. In an age that declares the end of the metanarrative of history, the central message of the Gospel is Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today and for ever. The witness of the Gospel has survived the declaration of the death of God, the death of man, and will survive the death of history, of truth, reason, morality and reality. Believers "will even survive the death of postmodernism,"95 when it comes.

In fact, the very same assumption that history must be classified and divided into periods is a modernist dogma that a genuine postmodernist should reject. It was modernism which created the notion of 'the middle ages,' arrogantly attaching a sinister connotation to them. The theology of history, which moves from the Christian notion of 'history of salvation', has become central since Irenaeus, who introduced the distinction between the history of humankind and the history of Salvation. A postmodern theology of history should be elaborated beyond arbitrary and artificial divisions of the history of humankind typical of modernity.

A theology of history from the standpoint of the Cross rejects any facile optimism about the progress of humanity. Jesus himself seemed to be anti-metanarrative: "When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on Earth? (Luke, 18:8). Not a few theologians claim that it is not possible to narrate the 'great stories' of the theology of history after Auschwitz. The concept of the 'history of salvation' might be re-elaborated also in the light of the fact that many people have only recently adhered to the biblical faith while glorious ancient churches, as I mentioned earlier, have been reduce to 'little flocks.' Most of the theology of history and mission up to the XVI century was elaborated according the theory of 'mission accomplished,' that Christianity and the world were one and the same.

The theology of history should underline a profound unity of humankind, a unity which certainly is not given by a succession of successes and does not produce uniformity. It is a unity generated, first of all, by the Trinitarian origin of the dialogue between God and humanity. As consequences, the very trans-epocal and trans-national presence of the universal church among women and men of time and space can be understood as a notable symbol of the Trinitarian origin of our salvation. Against the counter-positions of modernity and the fragmentation of postmodernity, the universal Church, spread through history and throughout the globe, is a symbol of deep unity and conciliation. In the midst of the diversities in the history of humankind, the Church stands out as "a sign of contradiction confounding the pretensions of modernists and postmodernists alike."96 Moreover, if the story of modernism and postmodernism is, generally speaking, a phenomenon of Western societies, the Christian Gospel has proved, for two thousand years, to be of universal significance. People of every culture and language on the planet have been able to accept the Christian message, a sign of freshness and newness lasting for 2000 years. Christian faith is by no means at the mercy of the development of Western civilization. Christianity preceded and will outlive the various developments of Western history.

    48. See Principles of the Philosophy of Right, § 124 and 185, quoted by Jeanrond W. G. (1992) Between Praxis and Theory: Theology in a Crisis over Orientation. Concilium 6, p. 109. Freedom, in the Hegelian context, means essentially emancipation.

49. For this discussion see Poulat, E. (1992) Catholicism and Modernity: A Process of Mutual Exclusion. Concilium 6, pp. 10-16.

50. For this debate see Milbank, J. (1992) The End of Enlightenment: Post-Modern or Post-Secular. Concilium 6, pp. 39-47.

51. This point is well illustrated by Italian sociologist Garelli, F. (1996) Forza della Religione e Debolezza della Fede. Bologna: Il Mulino.

52. 'O Murchu, Quantum Theology, p. 5.

53. Ibid., pp. 197-203.

54. Oden, After Modernity...What?, pp. 76-77.

55. Taylor, M. C. (1984) Erring. A Postmodern A/Theology. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

56. See also previous work by Taylor, M. C. (1982) Deconstructing Theology. New York: Crossroad and Scholar Press.

57. Taylor, M. C. (1991) The End(s) of Theology. In S. Davaney (ed.), Theology and the End of Modernity. Philadelphia, PA: Trinity University Press.

58. Taylor, The End(s) of Theology, p. 242.

59. Ibid.

60. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, pp. 161-174.

61. Newbigin, L. (1996) Truth and Authority in Modernity. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

62. Lee Hertig, P. and Y. (1999) "The Christian Mission and Modern Culture" Trinity Press International Series. Missiology: An International Review 2, pp. 261-262.

63. Fretheim, T. E and Froehlich, K. (1998) The Bible as the Word of God In a Postmodern Age. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

64. Tracy, On Naming the Present, pp. 18-19.

65. Ibid., p. 10.

66. Taylor, M. K. (1990) Remembering Esperanza, A Cultural-Political Theology for North American Praxis. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, pp. 23-45.

67. Wilson, J. R. (1997) Living Faithfully in a Fragmented World. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

68. Hall D. J. (1997) The End of Christendom and the Future of Christianity. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

69. Shenk, W. R. (1995) Write the Vision: The Church Renewed. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

70. Roxburgh, A. J. (1997) The Missionary Congregation, Leadership, and Limitality. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

71. Sequeri, P. (1998) La Spiritualita nel Postmoderno. Il Regno-Attualita 18, pp. 637-643.

72. Bonsor, J. A. (1994) History, Dogma, and Nature: further Reflections on Postmodernism and Theology. Theological Studies 55, pp. 295-313.

73. Ibid. p. 297.

74. Tosolini's thought is expanded in his book, (1997) To Speak of God in the Twilight. Toward a Theology of Mission in the Postmodern World. Leominster: GraceWing.

75. Tosolini, Postmodernity and Mission, p. 18.

76. Ibid.

77. Lawrence, The Fragility of Consciousness, pp. 55-94.

78. Junker-Kenny, Church, Modernity and Postmodernity, pp. 93-99.

79. David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission, Paradigm Shift in Theology of Mission, Orbis Book, Maryknoll, NY, 1991, pp. 349-367.

80. Bosch, D. J. (1995) Believing in The Future: Toward a Missiology of Western Culture. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

81. Lee Hertig, "The Christian Mission and Modern Culture", pp. 266-267.

82. Bottum, J. (1994) Christians and Postmoderns. First Things 40, p. 28.

83. Ibid. p. 31.

84. Guarino, T. (1993) Between Foundationalism and Nihilism: Is Phronesis the Via Media for Theology? Theological Studies 54, pp. 37-54.

85. Gutierrez, G. (1988) The Power of the Poor in History. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, p. 213.

86. Forte, Speaking God in Post-modern Europe, p. 212.

87. Ibid., pp. 212-213.

88. Ibid., pp. 213-222.

89. Ibid.

90. Bottum, Christians and Postmoderns, p. 31.

91. McClay, W. M (1994) After Modernity, What? Book Review of Veith, G. E. Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. First Things 12, p. 55.

92. Lawrence, The Fragility of Consciousness, p. 56.

93. Quoted by McKenna, Derrida, Death, and Forgiveness, p. 35.

94. See Geffre C. and Jossua, J. P. (1992) Towards a Theological Interpretation of Modernity. Concilium 6, p. viii.

95. Himmelfarb, G. (1992) Tradition and Creativity in the Writing of History. First Thing 11, p. 36.

96. MacClay, After Modernity, What?, p. 55.

Conclusions

After re-reading this study of mine I realize that it is very 'fragmented,' in a perfect postmodern fashion! I recognize that not all the questions which I have gradually opened were later developed. In the first part, I pointed to some major elements in art, science, culture, philosophy and history of such a complex and variegated phenomenon as postmodernism. In the second part I tried to exemplify conflicts between Catholicism and Modernism, conflicts that are relevant to the postmodern debate. Then followed an ample presentation of different theological approaches, which range from enthusiastic acceptance of postmodern tenets to a severe criticism of them. Then I added some personal provisory and disorganized intimations, hoping that some readers, or I myself, will be able in future to formulate a more organic reflection on postmodernism and Christianity.

As conclusions I will just try to summarize aspects of my thought in two points.

1. Postmodernity, like everything worldly, is an ambivalent phenomenon, presenting positive and negative aspects. The positive aspect is the overcoming of the arrogant pretensions of modern reason, science and ideologies. The negative aspect of postmodernism is its resemblance, under too many aspects, to a late-modern phenomena, the logical outcome of the premises of modernism. This is noticeable especially in the inclination toward decadence, nihilism and death of the late/post-modern generation.

2. Postmodernity both challenges and is challenged by Christianity. Postmodernity challenges Christianity with its pluralism and relativism, a pluralism and relativism which are not only of fact, but also of right, before the state, culture and society. Christianity cannot be accredited as the true religion in the public forum. The existence or not of God are considered equally indifferent options, which enjoy the same irrelevant plausibility in the pluralistic and relativistic postmodern condition. Rational discourse about the existence of God does not appeal to the postmodern man and woman. In such a context Christianity is challenged to re-discover the weakness of its faith 'from the Cross,' its defenseless proclamation of the paradoxical gospel of liberation and to contemplate God who gratuitously comes to us as mystery.

At the same time Christianity challenges postmodern dark pessimism with the joy of its enduring good news, which is timeless and boundary-less. Christian theology is called to renovate its apologetic mission to announce a refreshing and joyful message which is rational but not only rational, which is spiritual but also historical and concrete, which meets the deep aspirations of human heart, but also provokes, subverts and challenges them.

by Yip Hing Wah (叶庆华)

After Marcel: Ricoeur's Reconstruction of the Dialectic of Mystery and Problem

In response to a question in a recent interview concerning his use of analytic philosophy in the book Oneself as Another, Ricoeur says that a passage through the outside is necessary, given the intimist tendency of phenomenology. It is a passage justified by the fundamental fact that the body is both my body and a body among bodies; therefore, the approach of objectification is not to be ignored.1 If the analytic tradition, which Ricoeur calls "the thought from outside" (la pensee du dehors) is so important, one cannot help but ask: why his comments in the book on analytic philosophy are far more negative than positive? Why his point is always to show its inadequacy with regard to the understanding of the self? On the other hand, is the double reading of the corporeal phenomenon not already suggested by Gabriel Marcel whom Ricoeur always regards as his master? Does Gabriel Marcel not see body in terms of mystery-that in which the distinction between the interior and the exterior loses its meaning? Could a deeper understanding of Oneself as Another be attained by a detour through Ricoeur's interpretation of Marcel's distinction between mystery and problem?

This essay is written precisely with the purpose of examining Ricoeur's main works on Marcel, in order to demonstrate that there is really a significant connection between Marcel's thought and Oneself as Another, so that a Marcelian reading of Ricoeur through the latter's own account of the former may be established. To accomplish this goal, I shall consider in depth the critical remarks made by Ricoeur in "Gabriel Marcel and Phenomenology" in the 70s and then relate them to his argument in " primaire et seconde chez Gabriel Marcel" (Primary Reflection and Secondary Reflection in Gabriel Marcel) written later in the 80s before Oneself as Another was published. Ricoeur's earliest work Gabriel Marcel et Karl Kaspers (Gabriel Marcel and Karl Jaspers) will also be consulted on certain points.2 Both of the aforementioned articles are concluded with the suggestion that the relation between mystery and problem has to be understood in terms of the dialectic between secondary reflection and primary reflection. My contention is that this suggestion is in fact the principle of Ricoeur's methodology in Oneself as Another; it allows us to see more about the necessity of the analytic philosophy in the book. Along the way of my exposition, I also want to show that there are other important features in Oneself as Another which can be traced back to Marcel's philosophy.

From the Characterizable to the Uncharacterizable

The most important comments of Ricoeur on Marcel's philosophy are found in the article entitled "Gabriel Marcel and Phenomenology", originally presented in a colloquium on Marcel's philosophy in 1973 just a few months before Marcel's death. In this article, Ricoeur compares Marcel's philosophical method with Husserl's. The focus of his exposition is on Marcel's attitude towards conceptualization. He starts with the point that both Marcel and Husserl maintain the value of conceptualization. In both philosophies, there is an inherent tendency of refusing any "system", but at the same time there is a persistent concern for subtle distinctions and clarity of thought. In order to make comparison with Husserl, Ricoeur brings up Marcel's "Outlines of a Phenomenology of Having" in Being and Having where he distinguishes "what one has" from "what one is". Ricoeur remarks that by trying to make conceptual distinctions between these two phenomena, Marcel shows the non-psychological character of his approach which is not unlike that of Husserl's. In Marcel's attempt to clarify the notion of having-as-possession (l'avoir-possession), a genuinely eidetic style of analysis can be observed in which meaning is directly read from well-chosen examples. Ricoeur also indicates that in his distinction between the qui and the quid, Marcel does not fail to take advantage of the significant relations suggested by ordinary language (GMP 473/55).

All the above features in Marcel's phenomenology of having enable us to put him on the same track as Husserl's until at a point in the text where Marcel speaks about "reduction".3 Marcel states that the point of his analysis is not a reduction, rather it has to do with the presence of an opaque and irreducible datum which resists our full possession. This little word "reduction", marks the profound difference Marcel and Husserl, according to Ricoeur. He admits that in the context where the word appears, "reduction" does not convey the same meaning as in Husserl. The irreducible of Marcel is the primordial dimension of being which "eludes the framework of an idea that one can have and therefore can circumscribe and dominate intellectually" (GMP 473/55), whereas in Husserl reduction is a notion connected with the epoche and designates the subject's withdrawal of his or her natural attitude to the world. Yet such an idea of the irreducible, which arises from the opposition of being and having, has the effect of moving the whole analysis "away from the plane of notional distinctions-from the eidetic plane, in Husserl's terms-to a more existential plane" (GMP 473/55).

For Marcel, "having" denotes a global way of being which is made possible by one's own body. My body, as the mediation between myself and the world, creates a tension between interiority and exteriority, manifested by the link between the desire to have and the fear to lose. But what I claim to possess and attach to exercises a tyranny over me; it devours me eventually. "Having as such seems to have a tendency to destroy and lose itself in the very thing it began by possessing, but which now absorbs the master who thought he controlled it" (Marcel, Being and Having, 164). Among my possessions are my own body, things, ideas and opinions-even characterization is a kind of possession. The findings of the phenomenology of having drive it to a reflection on the conditions of characterization in general: what makes characterization possible? An object can be characterized only when it is placed at a certain distance in front of an uninvolved observer. Hence, characterization relies on a pretension of being able to cut oneself off from the living links with things and stand before them as mere observer and dominator. Nevertheless, this is precisely the condition under which eidetic description operates. Therefore, Ricoeur remarks that "the idea that being is uncharacterizable brings an end to eidetic phenomenology, which cannot help appearing to be prompted by the will to characterize" (GMP 474/56).

This divergence from eidetic phenomenology continues in the famous distinction between mystery and problem. Treating something as a problem is to see it as data placed before me as if I were not implied in it. Mystery is rather that in which the distinction between in me and before me loses its meaning. Hence, we have the having, the characterizable and the problematizable on the one hand, and being, the uncharacterizable and mystery on the other; but the relation between them is again not characterizable. In Marcel's phenomenology, there is an ascending dialectic from the examination of examples to the recognition of the irreducible-irreducible to characterization (GMP 475/57). Ricoeur mentions that although Marcel's phenomenology stays close to Husserl's in the use of description, eidetic analysis and even imaginative variations, but this inward transcending movement from the characterizable towards the uncharacterizable seems to be lacking in Husserl's phenomenology. Marcel's phenomenology of having starts with examples and descriptions but the internal dialectic of the inquiry eventually turns back upon the conditions under which the whole inquiry begins. This ascending dialectic is for Ricoeur the most essential feature of the Marcelian style of thought which he illustrates with a quotation from "On the Ontological Mystery": "A mystery is a problem which encroaches upon its own data, invading them, as it were, and thereby transcending itself as a simple problem".4 This quotation is so dear to Ricoeur that it appears in almost all of his works on Marcel (GMP 475/57, GMKJ 361, L2 66, 95). And it is also in the interpretation of this statement that I discover the major disagreement between Marcel and Ricoeur; it shows both Ricoeur's dependence on Marcel and his critique of the master. This point will be further elaborated as my exposition proceeds. An initial comparison of the two possible interpretations of the quotation can be made by a detour through the way how the master and the disciple understand the term "transcendence". A more Marcelian interpretation may be established on the meaning of the word "transcendence" which Marcel himself defines in Being and Having as " rather than Aufhebung" (Marcel, Being and Having, 119). In that case, the statement quoted above would be the last one we can make before ending up with the ineffable. On the other hand, referring to the same passage in an early work, namely Gabriel Marcel et Karl Jaspers, Ricoeur remarks that if transcendence is seen as "rather than Aufhebung", then metaphysics would be a discipline that "does not aspire to maintain a tension, but to solve it" (GMKJ 269). Later we will see that the difference between Marcel and Ricoeur lies precisely in whether a certain tension should be acknowledged between the lower and the higher levels of transcendence, and whether the relation between problem and mystery is just a simple either-or.

Ricoeur explains the difference between the two philosophers in terms of their "initial gestures" by which they enter into philosophy. For Husserl, the initial gesture is reduction whereby the subject suspends its belief of the natural world. The benefit of reduction is twofold. First, the objectivity of the object is revealed as the identical meaning towards which different intentional aims of consciousness converge. Secondly, the subjectivity of the subject is revealed as an intentional consciousness that is caught up in a temporal flux in which it is capable of retaining and anticipating its own identity in the flux. This twofold benefit of reduction characterizes the phenomenology of the early Husserl as "a kind of reflection, a descriptive analysis, applied to the correlations established between the structures of the object and those of the subject" (GMP 476/58). The object, or noema, is that which intended by the mind; the subject, or noesis, is that which signifies by intending meaning. Ricoeur remarks that Husserl's initial gesture of reduction, which favours a clear distinction between the subject and the object, is diametrically opposed to Marcel's. The latter starts with "situation" which he defines in the beginning of The Mystery of Being as "something in which I find myself involved".5 For Ricoeur, to be involved excludes first and fundamentally "both the distance characteristic of reduction and the promotion of a 'disinterested spectator', the very subject of phenomenology" (GMP 476/58). The situation does not only affect the subject from outside but also qualifies it from within. The opposition of the outer and the inner loses its meaning, and along with it, the typically Husserlian correlation of the noematic and the noetic is called into question. One may notice that in Ricoeur's Oneself as Another, the process of the determination of the self also begins with a situation, namely, the situation of interlocution. The self first appears as the one of whom the interlocutors speak (OA 31/44)

1."Paul Ricoeur: Reflexions sur la philosophie morale", interview by Monique Canto-Sperber, Magazine litteraire, no. 361 (January 1998): 39.

2.RICOEUR, P. (1949) Gabriel marcel et Karl Jaspers. Paris. Editions du Temps Present Cited as GMKJ.

RICOEUR, P. (1976) Gabriel Marcel et la phenomenologie. In: M. Belay et al. (eds). Entretiens autour de Gabriel Marcel. Neuchatel. La Baconniere. Pp. 53-94. Cited as GMP.

RICOEUR, P. (1984) Gabriel Marcel and Phenomenology. In: P.A. SCHILPP and L. E.HAHN (eds) THE Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel. Chicago. Open Court. Pp. 471-498.

RICOEUR, P. (1984) Reflexion primaire et reflexion second chez Gabriel marcel. In: P. RICOEUR (1992) Lectures 2. Paris, Editions de Seuil. Pp. 49-67. Cited as L2.

RICOEUR, P. (1990) Soi meme comme un autre. Paris. Editions de Seuil. English translation: K.

BLAMEY (1992) O neself As Another. Chicago. The University of Chicago Press. Cited as ON.

For tFor texts that have a standard English translation, all page references are first to the English translation and then to the French text. For texts that do not have an English translation, all translations are my own.

3.GMP 473; Gabriel Marcel, Being and Having: An Existentialist Diary (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 157.

4.Gabriel Marcel, "On the Ontological Mystery", The Philosophy of Existentialism, trans. Manya Harari (New York: Citadel Press, 1956), 19.

5.GMP 476/58; Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being, trans. Rene Hague (Chicago: Regnery, 1960), 1:10.

Subject, Object and "You"

Hereafter, Ricoeur proceeds to compare Marcel and Husserl according to the position of the object, the position of the subject, and their correlation. The part on the object mainly has to do with the way we see the world. Ricoeur first defines the term "object" as "the ensemble of distinctive characteristics underlying things we can name, and these things in turn give to the logical subject a basis for attribution in perceptual judgements and in scientific knowledge" (GMP 477/58). Hence, object has to do with the characteristics of things in the face of a logical subject which looks at them from the perspective of scientific knowledge. The definition of object provides a kind of background for Ricoeur's introduction of Marcel's critique of the primacy of objectivity in "Existence and Objectivity" published at the end of his Metaphysical Journal. Marcel's movement from objectivity to existence is for Ricoeur the opposite of Husserl's movement from natural belief to the structure of meaning. Marcel's anti-Cartesian arguments in the essay are equally anti-Husserlian. While the term "existence" appears to be quite elusive in Marcel's text, Ricoeur gives it a rather clear definition: "Existence designates the fund of massive, indivisible, undeniable presence attested to by the sensuous presence of the world at the most radical level of feeling" (GMP 477/59). Experience of the world is therefore inextricably bound up with my embodiment. Existence is a global experience of the world in which the embodied subject is indivisibly involved; existence is felt rather than rationally thought, and it is the massive and dense assurance of existence that qualifies its indisputability. Ricoeur describes it in Marcelian terms as the "absolute presence" and the "nonproblematic" (GMP 479/61). More importantly, this sensuous presence of the world to an incarnate person is what first allows an "object" to be present to a spectator. Ricoeur indicates that it is a return to an indubitable foundation, "not in the sense of something resisting doubt or subsisting after doubt, but in the sense of a presence precluding doubt; what is indubitably given to me is the confused and global experience of the world as existing" (GMP 477/59). Existence, as opposed to objectivity, has also a different sort of certainty. This observation is helpful for understanding the distinction between "truth" () and "veracity" () which Ricoeur uses-without much explanation-to criticize both Descartes and the analytic philosophers in Oneself as Another (OA 22/34, 72/91). In the case of Descartes, the first "truth" of the cogito is contrasted with the "veracity" of God. In commenting on the analytic approach, he contrasts the "truth" of description with the "veracity" of attestation. I would suggest that "truth" is understood in terms of validity; it is that which resists doubt or subsists after doubt-doubt that presupposes the distance of a spectator. "Veracity" refers to the evidence that is based on a preceding relation of participation in which the subject has always been involved; it is something to be recognized rather than to be proved.

With regard to the position of the subject, Ricoeur notices that what Marcel defends is the primacy of being over knowledge to the effect that knowledge is enveloped by being and is in some way within being (GMP 480/62). When the modern self-affirming cogito sets itself up as the guarantee of objectivity, the meaning of the subject is greatly impoverished. It is also from this perspective that Husserl falls under Marcel's critique of the cogito (ibid). While Marcel is concerned with justifying human existence, Husserl, like the modern philosophers, strives to found scientific knowledge (GMP 481/63). The "I" resulting from the reduction is a thinking I, situated at the opposite pole of a thinkable object. Unlike Kant, the thinking I born of reduction is an individual and retains all features of singularity in accordance with the temporal flux; on the other hand, the subject also bears the mark of universality since it has the role of providing the final justification of knowledge. Nevertheless, the universal validity of knowledge cannot be guaranteed by the singular cogito alone, therefore, Husserl needs a philosophy of the alter ego in order to complete his philosophy of the ego. A community of subjects that share the same perceived world is what Husserl seeks to establish in order to ground the universality of science. This is what we find in the famous fifth Cartesian Meditation. For Ricoeur, the solipsistic starting point of the whole project presents an intractable difficulty which resembles that of "the squaring of a circle" (GMP 65/483). I shall not go into the details of Ricoeur's analysis of Husserl's arguments but just want to make one point: according to Ricoeur, the problem of solipsism is the summary of all other discordance between Marcel and Husserl and it is a basic difference that arises from the initial gestures of the two philosophers. His point is that "if one does not start from the undeniable presence of the other, one will never overtake this presence" (GMP 65/483).

But what does it mean to recognize the presence of the other? With this question Ricoeur turns to Marcel's theory of intersubjectivity. In the encounter with other people, Marcel speaks of "recognition". It is not a mode of knowledge through object, but what arises in the experiences of love and fidelity which presuppose one's dynamic openness to other people. The one whom I love is a "you" (toi) and not a "him/her" (lui). The third person vocabulary is the means of objectification, the beginning of reducing the other into some sort of information amenable to characterization. Further, Marcel rejects any derivation of the other from the certainty of the cogito. For him, the other is already present in the "first surging forth of existence"; the you is there in the initial situation from which any philosophical reflection begins. Thus, "the first ontological position is neither I existing nor you existing but the co-esse-the being-with-that engenders us simultaneously" (GMP 484/66). That is to say, in the affirmation of my existence, the existence of you is co-affirmed. The you is "not only before me, he is also within me-or, rather, these categories are transcended, they have no longer any meaning" (GMP 484/66; Marcel, "Ontological Mystery", 38). This is precisely what Marcel means by mystery, and that is why the co-esse is "the nonproblematic par excellence" (GMP 485/66).

How is Mystery to be Recognized?

At the end of his account of the two thinkers' approaches to phenomenology, Ricoeur admits that although it may give an impression that he is more sympathetic to Marcel than to Husserl, Marcel's approach does not leave him without any question. And this eventually leads him to reconsider the work of Husserl. But let us first look at Ricoeur's criticism of Marcel. In the foregoing comparison, his emphasis has always been on the intellectualistic distinction of subject and object. Husserl's way of reduction favours such a distinction and the spectator's perspective that follows, whereas Marcel's insistence on starting with a situation forbids both: existence and co-esse are non-problematizable. The movement from problem to mystery requires a "complete reversal of the question" (GMP 485/66). This is also where Ricoeur's criticism comes in:

The fundamental difficulty that has continually beset Marcel's existential ontology concerns the status of its own statements. In this regard a simple, non-dialectical opposition between mystery and problem could not be established without immediately destroying the philosophical enterprise as such, threatened with a shift to a philosophico-religious fideism...If the ontological affirmation were in no way an intellectual act, then it could not be elevated to philosophical discourse (GMP 498/70).

Here Ricoeur suggests a kind of dialectical relation between mystery and problem. How this dialectical relation is to be conceived is precisely my concern. But before we can go to that point, we should first understand better the question raised by Ricoeur. Just as the intellectualists have to face the questions posed to them by the existentialists, the reverse is also unavoidable. The strictly anti-epistemological approach of Marcel will finally leads to the question of its own truth. In fact, Ricoeur asks the intellectualists' questions already in his earliest book Gabriel Marcel et Karl Jaspers (78) in 1947: how would Marcel respond "to the criticism of subjectivism in the experiences of existence and to that of fideism in the experiences of transcendence"? The first question is not asked any more in "Gabriel Marcel and Phenomenology", probably because Marcel himself addressed the question of universality later in The Mystery of Being which was originally delivered as the Gifford Lectures in 1949. With regard to the charge of fideism, Ricoeur's point is that if the recognition of transcendence is not an intellectual act, it can hardly be handled by philosophical discourse. In order to avoid all sorts of fatal duality, Marcel takes the confused and global situation of existence as the point of departure. The basic insight that being is uncharacterizable protects mystery from turning into problem. However, this manoeuvre of overcoming oppositions institutes by itself a new opposition, namely the opposition between problem and mystery. Difficulties now arise not so much with undue distinctions as with insufficient distinctions which may lead to the question of how misunderstandings of being can be avoided.　

Indeed if being is the uncharacterizable, "the unqualified par excellence", how is it possible that it is not also the pure indeterminate (Being and Having 36)? In Marcel's work this difficulty assumes a specific form; the global affirmation of existence can, indeed, be indistinctly that of my embodiment, that of the universe taken in a global and undivided way, and that of God called the Supreme You. Although Marcel has not ignored this difficulty, he attributes it to the affirmation of being in general in neo-Thomism (ibid 27-40). But could this not be turned around? What distinguishes the immanence of thought to being from the immanence to the whole of the world's existence, which is, as in Heidegger, the horizon of every determined object? Marcel admits: "The uneasiness I feel on these subjects is partly due to my old difficulty in seeing the relation between being and existing" (ibid 37). And indeed the same philosophy of the uncharacterizable holds for "my body", for "you", and for "God". Existence is what revealed by feeling as well as by fidelity and by the recourse to being as opposed to despair (GMP 489/71).

The critical comments made by Ricoeur here appear already in Gabriel Marcel et Karl Jaspers, and the connection of these comments with the themes in Oneself as Another is not to be taken lightly (Cf. GMKJ 355). The comments here include an ontological question and an epistemological question; the two are closely bound up with each other. The ontological question is the relation between being and existence which is the source of Marcel's difficulties; the epistemological question is about the implementation of "secondary reflection" which, according to Ricoeur, is the proper Marcelian solution to the problem of fideism. In "Gabriel Marcel and Phenomenology" Ricoeur treats only the epistemological question and it occupies the rest of the article after the passage quoted above. With regard to the ontological question of being and existence, he does not write anything further. The following account of Ricoeur's view on these two questions is reconstructed from different works of his.

The Ontological Question: Existence and Being

Let us look at the ontological question first. According to Ricoeur's reading, the difference between existence and being is the difference between the human condition and transcendence; the latter leads finally to God. They are the two foci of Marcel's thought (GMKJ 32, 218, 265). Existence designates our human condition in the world which is embodied, free and dialoguing with others. But existence is not being; it is not transcendence. Existence comes about only by virtue of being, and this is how the idea of participation comes in. It is only in the case of authentic existence-one which recognizes the fullness of transcendence-that existence is indistinguishable from being (Cf. Marcel, Mystery of Being, 2:31). Once this distinction is made, the idea that the same uncharacterizable covers both existence and being in an undifferentiated way is not without difficulty. In an interview with Marcel, Ricoeur brings up this question and makes a further clarification of the terms. He notices that in Marcel's thought, existence and being easily overlap one another, but they can be distinguished in terms of the different preoccupations of Marcel. The question of existence is raised in relation to that of objectivity; it is the zone where doubt is no longer possible. The question of being is raised from the perspective of ontological exigence which, according to Marcel, bears us towards a fullness that resists functional and abstract determinations.6

In Gabriel Marcel et Karl Jaspers Ricoeur attempts to trace the source of Marcel's difficulty. He begins with an examination of the first part of Being and Having where Marcel explains why he accepts the neo-Thomistic affirmation of being in general (GMKJ 352-358; Being and Having 27-40). Ricoeur indicates that the whole struggle of Marcel starts with his determination to break with idealism. He has now a deep conviction that we are linked to being and not just to ideas. Upon reading Garrigou-Lagrange's book on God, he agrees with the author that the affirmation of being in general explains the structure of thought in our relation to being. The neo-Thomistic view that we affirm being in general every time when we affirm any particular thing shows the immanence of thought to being; it is in this light that a necessary relation can be conceived between existence and being, between the individual and transcendence. After a reflection on the principle of identity, Marcel is further convinced that this formal affirmation is not just a kind of "rule of the game" which thought must observe in order to function. Rather, it states the fact that thought is not a relation with itself; it transcends itself in knowing something.

But Ricoeur observes that very soon Marcel comes up with a real difficulty: how can one be sure that this being in general is a positive infinite, an ens realissimum which would be the height of the determined and not the pure indeterminate, the apeiron of the ancients, of which one can hardly say it is such or such? It is only in the first case that the principle of identity can assure us of the ontological meaning mentioned above. Ricoeur draws attention to the hesitations of Marcel in Being and Having and to fact that in spite of certain rectifications, the problem is not completely solved. All the other formulations do not exceed the vague knowledge of the self-transcendence of thought. It is difficult to tell whether being in general is a pure indeterminate or an ens realissimum which possesses all reality. Even if it can be shown to be the latter, question still remains as to whether it transcends the world as a whole or not. This is probably the point of Ricoeur when he asks for the difference between the immanence of thought to being and the immanence of thought to the "world" understood in the Heideggerian sense. Ricoeur ascribes the difficulty of Marcel concerning this distinction to the "purely logical path" inherent in the Thomistic affirmation of being (GMKJ 355). Marcel does try other way out, such as the distinction between thinking (penser) and thinking of (penser ), and it is finally incorporated into Marcel's notion of "fidelity" which is introduced in Being and Having precisely after his reflections on the Thomistic understanding of being in general. The notion of fidelity, according to Ricoeur, represents Marcel's true reaction to the difficulties met by a reflection that is based on the form of thought alone.

The whole problem arises from the fact that Marcel needs an ontological background against which the existing individual stands, but at the same time he does not want this background to be mutilated by objective and functional categories. This explains the hesitations and tensions in Being and Having between the abstract approach of being in general and the concrete path of fidelity. The question whether there can be a way of understanding the ontological ground so that both of Marcel's conditions can be safeguarded brings us back to the epistemological question.　

6.Gabriel Marcel, Tragic Wisdom and Beyond (including conversations between Paul Ricoeur and Gabriel Marcel), trans. Stephen Jolin and Peter McCormick (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973), 225.

The Epistemological Question: Primary and Secondary Reflection

While in Thomistic philosophy being is affirmed implicitly and formally every time when we affirm something of the particular, in Marcel, it is affirmed in concrete experiences like fidelity, hope and love. I affirm being when I stop treating my body as something external to me but recognize that I am my body; I affirm being when I stop treating my friend as an object but recognize him as a presence and be open for him; I affirm being when I resolve to have hope in the depths of my despair. Ricoeur's question is whether one can explain in intelligible terms how the ontological affirmation is made. Indeed, if being is uncharacterizable, how can I be sure of what I affirm in these experiences? This question is particularly crucial in an ontology like Marcel's in which being is less observed () than recognized (GMKJ 78). A potential fideism is inherent in this way of philosophizing.

Ricoeur deems that each of the experiences of existence in fact has a structure that distinguishes it from others and renders it thinkable. Following Kant's distinction between reason and understanding, he proposes that the work of determination, which belongs to reason, should not be confused with that of objectification performed by understanding (GMP 489/71). Ricoeur is sympathetic with Marcel's reservations about this approach because a rationality that would not be understanding, would not be the rationality of objectifying science can hardly be found today. That is why any re-conquest of the ontological dimension has to be made against the propensity to problematize and to characterize. But Ricoeur finds that in order to render the ontological affirmation understandable we have no other way but to deliver reason from its modern reduction. The production of limit-concepts (concepts-limite) by reason should be encouraged and be considered as inseparable from the strategies of negating the objective view and making positive global affirmations. This suggestion, Ricoeur claims, is not without roots in Marcel: "My critique is therefore not outside Marcel's work. I would even say that it has an ally in his work" (GMP 490/72). He seems to suggest that in Marcel's philosophy there is already the apparatus to articulate in a more intellectual way how mystery is recognized in our experience, but just Marcel has not taken full advantage of it. The method that Ricoeur refers to is "secondary reflection". It provides us with a kind of rationality which is not an expression of having, that is, not a totalizing rationality, so that we can speak about mystery without reducing it to the content of a concept.

First of all, the term reflection is understood by Ricoeur as "a return to (retour sur) the experiences of transcendence with a view to understanding and articulating them" (GMP 489/71); more specifically it is "a return to the conditions of affirmation" (GMKJ 80). In this sense all metaphysics is reflection, and being is the real stake (enjeu) of reflection (GMKJ 80, 34). Ricoeur observes that Marcel is concerned more with the conditions of affirmation than with the structure of being. In this connection, Marcel remains faithful to his idealist formation, since the Greek and the medieval philosophers pay more attention to the being that is affirmed than to the immanent conditions of affirmation (GMKJ 363). Reflections are of two kinds which correspond to two levels of affirmation: primary and secondary. In Gabriel Marcel et Karl Jaspers, Ricoeur explains primary reflection in terms of the Kantian "understanding": it looks for the a priori conditions of the validity of objective knowledge in the impersonal subject from which embodiment and social condition have been stripped off (GMKJ 80-81). Primary reflection reduces the object to the subject-who is now the master of the objective world-but pays the price of detaching both from existence. Primary reflection is identified with the objective way of thinking and the hardening of the self. On the other hand, secondary reflection is a recuperation of the concrete, a reflection of the integral "I" in its concrete links. Secondary reflection reconsiders the very conditions of primary reflection; it exposes its purity as exile, as loss of existence and its mastery as a triumph in the void. In this sense Ricoeur defines the dialectical nature of secondary reflection as a "reversal" (retournement), as an "overflowing from inside" (debordement par l'interieur) where the subject of affirmation finds itself betrayed by its own affirmation (GMKJ 81). At the same time, this overflowing of the immanence from inside is what Marcel means by transcendence (GMKJ 363). It is being itself that rejects any reductive formulation from inside; and secondary reflection is the manifestation of this protest. Secondary reflection is therefore the epistemological condition of transcendence.

The dialectical character of secondary reflection is further illustrated in Gabriel Marcel et Karl Jaspers in a rather Hegelian fashion by the fact that it is negative. It indicates that being is not objective, not problematic, not representable, not characterizable etc. Nevertheless, these negations are made against a reduction, a reduction in the sense of a denial of participated existence; they resist a resistance and deny a negation-"it is this double negation that conjures rationally a fullness of presence" (GMKJ 82). Two things are said in this statement: first, by virtue of its laborious process of double negation secondary reflection proves itself to be a rational act; secondly, secondary reflection is not purely negation of objectivity, for it is founded on an immediate positive experience of "presence". The negation of negation is supported by something that is not negative, but positive, namely the intuition of being. Ricoeur is not interested in the neo-Thomistic affirmation of being which he considers to be purely logical, but he admires very much the idea of "original affirmation" (l'affirmation originaire)-coined by Jean Nabert who comes from the French reflective tradition. When Ricoeur speaks about intuition of being, he speaks in terms of Nabert's "original affirmation" or Marcel's "presence" which are associated with concrete human experiences. That ontology begins with an intuition of being is one of Ricoeur's earliest convictions; being is the ultimate principle which the mind posits without being able to grasp it like things.7

It is in this positive dimension of secondary reflection that a strong link between secondary reflection and mystery can be seen. This relation is visible already in Marcel's own work, but Ricoeur clarifies it, structuralizes it and stabilizes it. The original affirmation is indeed a "blind intuition" (intuition aveugle); mystery is that which cannot be captured in front of me for my description. The question is how the transition between problem and mystery can be understood without being seen as a kind of philosophical fideism; and here the dialectic of primary and secondary reflection provides a clue. We have to admit that secondary reflection is a reflexive motion of the mind and not a heuristic process, as Marcel himself holds; it confirms being without being able to display it in a clear vision; the intuition remains blind (Marcel, Being and Having, 121). However, a rigorous labour of thought-negation of negation, resistance of resistance-is required before that blind intuition can be posited. This is how Ricoeur understands Marcel's point that "in order to begin understanding again, we are always bound to refer back to the order of the problematic" (GMP 491/73; Being and Having 112). [YHW1]Mystery as "metaproblematic" can only be recognized as such in the very process of overpassing the problematic; mystery is the problem that is turned inside out by a reflection that examines its very condition of possibility. And in this dialectical relation, the importance of the work of concept is finally re-established.　

7. Paul Ricoeur, "Renouveau de l'ontologie", Encyclopedie francaise XIX, Philosophie et religion (Paris: Larousse, 1957), 19.16-15.

Secondary Reflection and the Discontinuity of Experiences

The idea of secondary reflection is further developed by Ricoeur in his another article on Marcel published some ten years later in 1984 entitled "Reflexion primaire et reflexion seconde chez Gabriel Marcel". This essay was written at a time when Ricoeur had just finished writing Time and Narrative and before the writing of Oneself as Another. The chronological order is noteworthy because the major themes that Ricoeur treats in this article appear again in Oneself as Another and the related essays. These themes, as Ricoeur himself discloses, are the results of his recent reading of Marcel's works (L2 51). Right in the beginning of the article, secondary reflection is introduced as "constitutive of the properly philosophical moment of Marcelian thought" (L2 49). It is described as a labour of thought and a work of rectification that consists in an unceasing attempt to suggest the closest concepts and the less inadequate words in order to reproduce the reflective equivalence of the ontological experiences (L2 50). That secondary reflection is a work of concept and language aiming at reconstructing the experiences where the ontological affirmation is made brings the relationship between secondary reflection and these experiences to the focus of inquiry, and it is precisely from this very perspective that the full meaning of secondary reflection can be defined.

The experiences of transcendence are now called "foundational experiences", "cardinal experiences", "major experiences" or "nucleuses-experiences" (); the change in terminology already suggests that these experiences are taken here as the ground, the foundation or the nucleus of something; and that something is secondary reflection. The recuperative work of secondary reflection is guaranteed () or magnetized () by these experiences held to be irreducible (L2 50, 51, 55). As foundations, these foundational experiences are the sole reason for the different locations where the resistance of primary reflection and its critical moments take place; and the ontological weight of the foundational experiences provides the sole dynamism that presides over the transition from primary reflection to secondary reflection. The significance of this understanding is that it excludes two sorts of deductive reasoning. First, there is not any connection of implication between the different places of emergence of the foundational experiences where the dialectic of primary and secondary reflection operates. Secondly, it is not by any deduction or restrictive implication that one passes from primary reflection to secondary reflection; the critique of primary reflection is provoked solely by the irreducible fullness that the foundational experiences unfold. This view of the foundational experiences allows Ricoeur to argue for the "discontinuous character of philosophical front" which is for him the key point in Marcel's non-systematic approach (L2 51). The foundational experiences that Ricoeur analyses in this essay, namely embodiment, freedom as gift and invocation, are discontinuous or "incoordonnable"; they do not form a systematic whole in which every element are linked to one another by implication. Thus, "there is not experience, but experiences, multiple experiences" (L2 64). The fact that secondary reflection is in every case just a localized and recuperative operation prevents it from developing into a totalizing rationality. However, Ricoeur also admits that experiences participate in one another: there are bridging experiences that permit certain connections and thereby certain tensions between the foundational experiences. It is the job of secondary reflection both to restore the foundational experiences and to discern the bridging experiences. Most of Ricoeur's effort in this essay is invested in illustrating the discontinuous feature found both on the level of existence and between existence and being, and how secondary reflection functions in each of the foundational experience discussed.　

The Experiences of Existence

Three major Marcelian themes of the human condition are chosen by Ricoeur. The first one is Marcel's evaluation of the Cartesian cogito which is read through Kant and is considered to be the ancestor of all modern idealism. The transcendental subject claims itself to be the master of meaning and the ground of objectivity, but this critical approach is based on the subject-object relation. Marcel's critique, now a critique of critique, consists in showing the primacy of embodiment and feeling which all idealism neglects. He seeks to reveal their mistake of seeing sensation as a message to be captured by a disinterested subject and the body as an instrument which an uprooted subject can claim to manipulate from nowhere (L2 55). The task of secondary reflection is to recuperate the foundational experience of "indubitable existence" from the cogito. But just as in the previous article, Ricoeur criticizes Marcel's whole statement () on existence as extremely fragile and that it runs the risk of passing into silence (L2 54). Thus, the following comment becomes ambiguous: "The indubitable can only be recovered by oratio obliqua, that is, by showing the inconsistency of every reformulation in terms of transcendental objectivity and of subjectivity (they are the same), and of sensation and of one's own body" (ibid). The emphasis made in last part of the sentence may certainly refer to the view of sensation and body prescribed by the subject-object relation, but it may also refer to the unsatisfactory formulations of sensation and body suggested by Marcel! It is possible that both meanings are intended by Ricoeur. If this is true, then secondary reflection is not just a critique of primary reflection as previously understood, but also a critique of any attempt to formulate the foundational experiences by means of concepts, including Marcel's own. It seems that Ricoeur has come up with the idea that the critique of inconsistency or inadequacy is the central mechanism of secondary reflection: "In this sense, a certain obligation of not to contradict oneself, of keeping a coherent discourse is always presupposed. If it is required of the thesis of the cogito and of its correlate, namely objectivism, it is no less required of the thought that aims at accounting for, or making sense of the nucleuses-experiences" (L2 55). If language and concepts are just approximations of the original affirmation of being, the latter remains the ultimate condition of any ontological statement; it overflows from inside of any particular formulation and exposes its inadequacy. Reflection as the return to the condition of affirmation is inescapably an effort without end.

The second theme is that of freedom. On this point, Marcel attacks Kant's notion of autonomy by challenging the very alternative of autonomy and heteronomy. For Marcel, freedom is essentially the joyful response to the liberating appeal rather than the anxious power of choosing between alternatives. Freedom is defined by and ordained to the transcendence that takes hold of me (GMKJ 224-225, 297). The internal critique of the idea of autonomy goes together with the evidence that freedom as gift has the primacy over freedom as choice. Secondary reflection consists in pulling together all the experiences, such as readiness, admiration, consent, that bear witness to freedom as gift and in the attempt of articulating them conceptually. On the negative side, as resistance to resistance, secondary reflection seeks to show that the autoposition of the free action is destructive in the sense that it is the gesture of cutting myself off from the creative powers in which I participate and of which I am not the master. But once again, the requirement of consistency turns back against Marcel in the sense that the vocabulary of freedom as choice is hardly avoidable in the transition between despair and hope, and between betrayal and fidelity in his own philosophy.

The third theme has to do with the tension between the you (toi) and the him/her (lui). The same rhythm of recuperating the foundational experience and resisting the resistance operates here. The attestation of the second person has to be re-conquered unceasingly from the reduction of the you to the him/her-understood as a repertoire of information or an inventory of predicates. Since much has been said about the mechanism already in the previous two examples, Ricoeur moves his focus to the discontinuity of front. In a certain sense, the reduction of the you to the him/her might be considered as a case of objectification which brings the question of the second person close to the recovery of existence from objectivity, but there are specific differences between the two types of concrete approaches. The theme of feeling concerns the gnoseological question, whereas the theme of other people has to do with the dramatic aspect of existence (dramaturgie de l'existence) which is first explored by Marcel in theatre before being re-inscribed in philosophical reflection (L2 58-59). There exists no compelling implication that leads the theme of feeling to that of other people, but only a parallelism in the dialectical treatment. It is not the indubitable experienced in the global existence or in my embodiment that resists the resistance in the case of the second person; it is an evidence of another kind, namely the reciprocity in the relation between question and response. Ricoeur even says, "I insist here: one cannot say that the you is indubitable; a source of doubt other than that proceeds from the thought of object erodes the confidence (confiance) in other people" (L2 59). The order of the "indubitable" is not the same as that of "confidence"; the latter hinges upon my openness to the capacity of other people to respond to me and to respond to me sincerely (L2 60).

Drawing upon the kind of proportionality expressed in Marcel's statement that "the you is to invocation what the object is to judgement", Ricoeur argues for a "dialectical parallelism" that links the diverse orders of investigation without confusing them (L2 62). In all these investigations, there is the same localized procedure of critique of resistance, emergence of major experiences that incites the investigations and their restoration in secondary reflection. Some reciprocal reinforcement between the recuperative attempt on the different fronts is also conceivable owing to the similarity of style. Having established the discontinuity between the different major experiences on the plane of human existence, Ricoeur proceeds to deal with Marcel's difficulty of the relation between existence and being in a similar way.　

The Discontinuity between Existence and Being

The three themes of existence, taken together, or as a whole, are bound up with a movement of transcendence that drives them to a philosophy of being in which participation plays a crucial role. Nevertheless, no matter how close they intertwine with one another, one cannot ignore the fact that they are two different planes of inquiry in Marcel. The question of being is inspired by the question of God. It has the starting point in the negative experiences where one suffers from despair, betrayal or the reduction of human relation to utility. The meaning of being is the reply to these temptations. Already at the time of Gabriel Marcel et Karl Jaspers Ricoeur speaks of three levels of transcendence according to an ascending dialectic. The "I" is transcended from below (par en bas) towards my nourishing and enigmatic body, then transcended at the sides (par les cotes) towards my friends and anyone who may become for me a you, and finally transcended from above (par en haut) towards the supreme You (GMKJ 26). The overpassing of existence is "a gesture of reconciliation in view of renewing a pact, of retaking roots and of recovering the sources" (GMKJ 27). But now referring to the same schematization in "Reflexion primaire et reflexion seconde chez Gabriel Marcel", he sees it as a way of systematization and warns that it could be detrimental to each of the terms. His point is that when one reads the schema as a Platonic ascending movement that goes from the lower to the higher, it may create a wrong impression that the lower stages are lower in value and hence dispensable. However, our own body is not a tomb; fidelity and hope are not ways of escape from life; each of the terms bears its own ontological weight and its own specificity. "It is therefore necessary to leave the relation between existence and being undecided and refuse all that could be put together in a systematization which may transform the surpassed regions into abandoned sites" (L2 64). Once again, Ricoeur insists that all the fronts are important; they are parallel experiences and there is no way of sacrificing any one of them for the sake of another.

Now, if the foundational experiences are independent from one another and a dialectical parallelism is the only relation between them, they would come very close to Leibnizian monads; but Ricoeur has not gone as far as that. On the basis of the respect of a certain heterogeneity of the foundational experiences, he admits some "bridging experiences" (experiences-passerelles) that mediate between them (ibid). Between feeling and the transcendence of being, there is the experience of test or temptation (); it is the link between the despair arises in our embodied condition and the resources of hope. On the other hand, feeling also has a bearing on intersubjectivity: embodiment provides a "space", a "milieu" of hospitality which is expressed by the preposition "at" chez (chez moi, chez toi), joined by the "in" (dans) of incarnation and the "with" (avec) of communication (L2 65). The third example of bridging experience is attestation; it joins the me who attests, the you who is called to bear witness and being that is attested. To trace these bridging experiences is again the role of secondary reflection, but unfortunately, Ricoeur's exposition of the bridging experiences is very brief and no further explanation is given about this new function of secondary reflection. According to the foregoing study, secondary reflection is the critique of a previous reduction in a primary reflection. However, the restoration of the foundational experiences is already the result of the recuperative secondary reflection. Ricoeur does say that the effort of secondary reflection is an endless one, but it is mainly due to the deep-rootedness of the resistance of primary reflection (L2 53, 57). It seems to me that this new task of uncovering the bridging experience is in fact a recuperation of recuperation-to regain connections between foundational experiences after the first recuperation of their irreducibility that favours a discontinuity. Ricoeur is careful not to leave any irreconcilable opposition.

Just as the major experiences in Marcel are discontinuous, the series of studies in Oneself as Another are held to be "fragmentary" by Ricoeur (OA 19/30). We find there the same antipathy of system and of undue simplicity. The different ways of asking the question "who?" (with respect to speaking, doing, narrating etc.) present a certain "contingency of questioning" that comes from the contingency inherent in the grammar of natural languages and the historicity of questioning. Having a fragmentary feature seems to be an inescapable consequence of any inquiry by way of "concrete approaches" which Marcel advocates. However, given the fact that all the studies centre around the theme of action, the author of Oneself as Another admits a thematic unity-one which does not give rise to an abstract deductive system. The logic of continuity and discontinuity inherent in Oneself as Another is made even more evident by Ricoeur in his recent article "From metaphysics to Morality Philosophy" where the relation between ontological experience and moral experience is at stake.8 It seems to me that this style of investigation is what allows Ricoeur to pull together theories from a variety of schools and recontextualize them in the hermeneutics of the self. For him, borrowing theories from other traditions is not a question, the essential thing is to have a "proper rule of coherence" or a firm "line of construction".9

8.Paul Ricoeur, "From Metaphysics to Moral Philosophy", Philosophy Today (Winter 1996): 443-458; "De la metaphysique a la morale", Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale 4 (1993): 455-477.

9."Paul Ricoeur: Reflexions sur la philosophie morale", interview by Monique Canto-Sperber, Magazine litteraire, no. 361 (January 1998): 39.

The Dialectic of Mystery and Problem

Same as in "Gabriel Marcel and Phneomenology", Ricoeur concludes the essay "Reflexions primaire et reflexion seconde chez Gabriel Marcel" with the theme of the dialectic of problem and mystery, but this time in even more powerful terms. Ricoeur's contention is that this dialectic is inseparable from that of primary reflection and secondary reflection otherwise its dialectical nature will be destroyed and substituted by an impoverishing disjunction. Mystery has to be held as a term of secondary reflection and it is only in this sense that a non-dogmatic discourse of being can be proposed. Ricoeur takes two points from Marcel's work to conclude his interpretation. Referring to Marcel's argument in "On the Ontological Mystery" that the recognition of being is made in an affirmation which I am rather than I utter, and that by uttering it I break it and on the point of betraying it, Ricoeur states firmly, "And nevertheless, I utter it, but in secondary reflection; by doing so, I re-inscribe it in discourse as meta-problematic" (L2 66). There can be a discourse of mystery in terms of the overpassing of the problematic. It is by bringing the problematic to the point of rupture that the primacy of the original affirmation is recognized. Then, drawing upon his favourite words of Marcel's that a mystery is a problem which encroaches upon its own data, invading them and thereby transcending itself as a simple problem, Ricoeur reinstates his position that the detour of the problematic is indispensable for the question of being. The position of mystery, though remains a blinded intuition, can only be attested to in the struggle of recovering from problematization and with the resources of this problematization (L2 66-67). Hence, the problematic is not the same kind of negativity as the Heideggerian das Man, which, when overcome, does not contribute to the authentic awareness of being. For Ricoeur, the problematic is not to be overcome and thrown away; it is just brought to its limit by secondary reflection and it is precisely by looking with the resources of the problematic which have been brought to the limit that we have a hint of mystery. This process is what allows the transition from problem to mystery to be verbally articulated and stabilized.

To sum up, the dialectic of secondary reflection on which the dialectic of mystery and problem is built is in its essence an internal critique: it challenges from inside of any conceptual formulation of our fundamental experience of being with regard to its adequacy; it repudiates any formulation that do not do justice to the original affirmation of being. The mystery of being is recuperated as mystery only in and through this labour of thought. In both articles we have read, Ricoeur applies the same internal critique to Marcel's own theory as well. This has already been felt in the early comments on the discrepancy between the neo-Thomistic view of being in general and the concrete approaches to being, and in the criticism of the incoherence between the insistence on the uncharacterizable and the suggestion of secondary reflection. All through the two articles, he argues in Marcel's own terms to show the necessity of going through conceptualization and the problematic before mystery can be posited.

Conclusion: Towards a Marcelian Reading of Oneself as Another

The foregoing account covers the main views of Ricoeur's on Marcel's philosophy from the early period of his career up till the 80s. The main concern of Ricoeur has always been the way how the original intuitive affirmation of being can be intelligibly retrieved. The dialectic of problem and mystery which is supported by the dialectic of primary reflection and secondary reflection is what he obtains from his critical reading of Marcel's works. This dialectic provides the necessary background for understanding the use of analytic philosophy in Oneself as Another.

In Oneself as Another, Ricoeur sets for himself the aim of a hermeneutics of the self which is characterized by the "indirect manner of positing the self" (OA 17/29). The self understands itself only via certain detours and never directly as in the case of Descartes. The basic methodological detour is "reflection by way of analysis". It is a detour taken by all the studies of the book that belong to what he calls the first order discourse, namely those which have the accent on the phenomenological aspects of the self. But what does it mean by reflection by way of analysis? And why is it necessary? I think an adequate answer can only be found on the basis of the dialectic of mystery and problem. The relation between reflection and analysis as a "constructive confrontation" or a "competition" is not different from the relation between primary reflection and secondary reflection as presented above (OA 17/29).

The work of "analysis" is carried out with the help of analytic philosophy which is precisely the kind of philosophy well known to be committed to the analysis of language and concepts; and even more importantly, it is the method that treats action as thing-like objects which can be observed and characterized from a neutral point of view. The aim of analysis in the hermeneutics of the self, as is indicated in the beginning of the first study, is precisely to "determine" the self according to a "general framework" () based on Strawson's theory of basic particulars-an approach which would be rejected by Marcel as treating existence like a problem (OA 31/43). In Ricoeur's earliest work on Marcel, namely in Gabriel Marcel et Karl Jaspers, language does not receive particular attention; but in the later ones which are analysed above, language is always the issue. I admit that the reconstruction of the dialectic of mystery and problem and the underlying dialectic of primary and secondary reflection are affected by Ricoeur's analytic turn which took place in the early 70s. But the use of the latter cannot be understood without the former. The reason is that Oneself as Another is not a work that just uses analytic philosophy, but rather a critique of the latter. It is exactly by virtue of this critique that the deeper reality of the self can be recognized. In the book, Ricoeur does not juxtapose the interior view with the exterior view, but sets them in a dialectic, so that the being of the self can be reached only when the exterior view is overpassed in a secondary reflection.

With regard to the meaning of "reflection", it has a lot to do with Ricoeur's understanding of what reflection means in Marcel. As mentioned above, reflection designates the reconsideration of the conditions of affirmation-but affirmation of what? In Oneself as Another, it is the affirmation of action and its agent. As his critique of the Cartesian cogito in the "Introduction" shows, Ricoeur is faithful to Marcel's insight about the embodied nature of the self. According to Marcel, reflection is to be performed either on feeling or on action.10 While Marcel reflects more on feeling, Ricoeur puts the emphasis on action, and the self is reflexively implied in its action. I think this decision on the part of Ricoeur is not without reason, since feeling is less amenable to objective analysis. Furthermore, a reflection on action may also include that of feeling but not the other way round, as there can be feeling without action but rarely action without feeling. The theme of action may do a better job than that of feeling in providing a dynamic philosophy of being which Marcel himself favours. In what sense is the reflection in Oneself as Another a recourse to the conditions of affirmation of action and person? A brief overview of how Ricoeur introduces the task of the first two groups of studies may illustrate.

The whole inquiry of the self has the question "who?" as the guiding thread; but the identification of someone starts with the identification of something in general, be it a person or an object. The Strawsonian concept of basic particular is introduced in the first subset (study 1 and 2) as that without which "nothing at all can be identified" (OA 31/43). Ricoeur refers explicitly to Kant, the critical philosopher, for the necessity of this step: "What we are going to undertake is indeed a sort of transcendental deduction of the notion of person, by showing that if we did not have available to us the schema of thought that defines this notion, we could not engage in the empirical description that we make in this regard in ordinary conversation and in the human sciences" (OA 31/43). Therefore, the conceptual framework of basic particulars has a "transcendental status"; it prescribes the condition of possibility of any statement about an individual. In the second subset of studies (study 3 and 4) the theme is theory of action. Ricoeur speaks of a conceptual schema that consists of notions like circumstance, intentions, motives, deliberations, voluntary or involuntary motions etc. which form a "network" of intersignifying terms. This conceptual network of action "shares the same transcendental status as the conceptual framework of basic particulars...the entire network serves to determine what 'count as' an action" (OA 58/75). That means one cannot make sense of an action without referring to this conceptual framework of action. Therefore, reflection is first of all the reflection on these conceptual frameworks which are the conditions of any knowledge of the person and its action. These two examples do not only show what reflection means in Oneself as Another, but also illustrate what is called primary reflection, given the fact that they presuppose the subject-object relation. The conceptual frameworks are taken as that by means of which the person and its action can be grasped objectively. In this connection, the question "who?" is the question of secondary reflection; it keeps challenging the different analytic approaches of person and action, exposing their incoherence [YHW2]and the difficulties they create. Oneself as Another demonstrates how the self is recuperated through a critique of the analytic tradition and in the process enriched by its linguistic resources.

10."C'est ainsi que le role de la reflexion-qu'elle s'exerce sur le sentir ou sur l'agir-consiste non point a morceler, a demembrer..." Gabriel Marcel, Journal metaphysique (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1927), 324.

by Stephen Tong S.J.

A Rahnerian Appropriation To The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

A. Introduction

In 1997, the Catholic Church and Lutheran Churches successfully articulated and issued the final version of a Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification (JD) after long years of preparation and discussion.1 Though admitting nuances in understanding the doctrine, the Churches achieved a consensus on its basic truth, which is presented in seven assertive statements. This achievement serves as a milestone in ecumenism.

The doctrine of Justification has become the divisive cause and the crux of all theological disputes since the Reformation. Any attempt towards reconciliation inevitably brings this Pauline doctrine to the forefront. There may be two ways of releasing the tension. First, by setting this doctrine within a greater and more integrated whole so that its divisive significance diminishes. According to contemporary theological understanding, Justification is only one among other Pauline doctrines, and it may not even be the most important one.2 Secondly, by viewing this doctrine from a higher viewpoint so that its problems and difficulties are not solved but dissolved. The following attempt to interpret the meaning of the seven assertions in the Joint Declaration adopts this latter approach. The higher viewpoint, I think Rahner would agree, is the theo-anthropological understanding of the human being. Theology is also anthropology. Many disputes and arguments can, it would appear, be attributed to our compartmentalized understanding of God and human beings. Here, Rahner will be our competent guide in discovering that anthropocentricism is not necessarily incongruent with theocentricism. From here, our journey begins.

The first part of this paper is dedicated to delineating Rahner's anthropology and his view on the development of dogma. The underlying contention is that misunderstandings often come from a lack of clarification of some basic terminology, which is taken for granted as some congealed form of ideas. In the issue of justification, the protagonist is the human being. So, to understand what it means to be human is crucial. The second part of the paper presents an interpretation of the Joint Declaration and an attempt to dialogue with the latest comments on it by the Catholic Church3 and the Lutheran circle.4 I hope that the Doctrine and the Joint Declaration will be understood more coherently and be given a wider perspective than the actual text provides.

    1. The actual process is succinctly outlined in #3 of the Joint Declaration

2. Cf. FITZMYER, J.A. (1988). Pauline Theology. In: R.E. BROWN, J.A. FITZMYER and R.E. MURPHY (eds) The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs N.J. Prentice Hall. #82. Fitzmyer lists ten effects of the Christ event in Paul, namely, justification, salvation, reconciliation, expiation, redemption, freedom, sanctification, transformation, new creation, glorification.

3. Response of The Catholic Church To The Joint Declaration of The Catholic Church And The Lutheran World Federation On The Doctrine of Justification" (RCC.).

B. The Rahnerian Horizon

1. The human being as person and subject

From ancient times, human beings have wondered about the fundamental question, "What am I?" or "Who am I?" One of the classical answers tells us that the human being is a rational animal. As sciences progress, modern science, anthropologies, whether physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, cultural anthropology, psychology, offer various approaches and standpoints from which to define their distinctive characteristics so that common features and patterns of behavior among human beings can be explained more accurately. Their basic attention and methodology focus on certain modes of cause and effect. However, the factors they consider are outside the human self, no matter how great their influence is on the person, for example, parents, social environment, cultural background. These, however, cannot tackle the fact that it is the human being as person and subject who is collecting all the data and considering various factors about the self, aiming towards understanding the self's totality and unity.

Therefore, being human means exactly to transcend all compartmentalized standpoints which seek to understand the self from external factors and elements. We may state this in a Kantian question, namely, what is the condition of possibility that renders human beings capable of making inquiry of any kind? Undoubtedly, what influences human beings can be understood quite well by experimental approaches in analyzing our world and history. These approaches, however, cannot illuminate the unity and totality of the self. Human beings can transcend all particulars and raise the question of questioning itself. Therefore the human being as person and subject is not some objective data awaiting analysis, but the center of existence which takes "self-possession as such in a conscious and free relationship to the totality of itself."5

2. The human being as transcendent being

The human being as person and subject aims to grasp the self in its totality, yet at the same time everyone experiences his or her own finitude and fragility in daily life. These two aspects make up the paradox that human beings intend transcendence, an infinite horizon which surpasses any complacency of finite achievement, whether in knowledge or action. Every answer is just the beginning of a new question, so the human being is always on the way to self-transcendence. In the dimension of acting, we experience the intentionality of higher values. Weak as we all are, surprisingly we have also heard the inner invitation towards higher values, though remaining with the lower ones is much more enticing to our spontaneous appetite. If we respond to this inner voice, it may imply struggle, sacrifice, misunderstanding, marginalization, suffering, persecution or even death. This kind of endurance for the higher reveals the human capacity for self-transcendence towards something or someone, named or unnamed, other than the self. Of course, one can choose to ignore or evade this intentionality, interpreting it as absurd or unanswerable, sticking to one's workaday life and let its current carry one along. This possibility relates to human freedom and will be elaborated later. However, our interest here is to raise the question, namely, what is the condition of possibility for this ongoing transcendence in human beings?

Rahner tells us that "the movement of transcendence is not the subject creating its own unlimiting space as though it had an absolute power over being, but is the infinite horizon of being making itself manifest."6 In other words, in our incessant questioning we experience ourselves as one who receives being, which is grace in our Christian sense, and which renders the person capable of transcending every complacency in order continually to discover the objective world and categorical truths. Serving as mystery, this infinite horizon of being remains hidden within the human being. One can only open up to its revelation in silence and reverence, where one becomes conscious of oneself as person and subject.　

3. The human being as responsible and free

A person who is open to the undetermined possibilities of self-transcendence immediately experiences, thematically or unthematically, the freedom within and at the same time responsible for the self. That is, one takes one's destiny in one's own hands, not only in acquiring knowledge, but also in decision and action. We cannot deny that modern discoveries and research in human sciences render human freedom very controversial, since human behavior seems to be explained away by cause and effect in the world. All choices can be traced back to some original and relative factors. Therefore, what comes from the human free will seems almost a mere illusion. According to Rahner, our "responsibility and freedom are not a particular, empirical datum in human reality alongside other data."7 Therefore, there is no need to find their proof in empirical science. Rather, they emerge when the "I" experiences the self as the subject who is given over to oneself. But what does this mean?

First, freedom does not remain hidden in an interior disposition, but is always mediated by the concrete reality of time and space, by the subject's history in the world. Second, freedom is a fundamental characteristic of a personal existent, in contrast to being a neutral power that one has and possesses as something different from oneself, especially when the subject experiences that one has to give an account and is responsible for what one does. Here, the subject takes a stance towards oneself and the world, or even makes some movement towards the ultimate transcendence and mystery, whether in acceptance or in rejection. This stance is the expression of one's transcendental freedom, though Rahner reminds us that it is not without ambiguity in our reflection and objectification. So, even if one uses all the evidence of cause and effect to try to deny oneself as a free subject, one is actually affirming one's freedom as a subject who is given over to oneself in this stance. Therefore, freedom is understood not so much as power to do this or that but as the power to decide about oneself and to actualize oneself.　

4. The human being is dependent as a creature

This is the other side of being free and responsible. In our transcendental experience and Christian faith, we human beings discover that we are free to open up towards an absolute being and mystery, which is the ground of every knowing and action. This infinite horizon and abyss, being silent and spiritual, is thus infinitely different from the knowing subject and finite known object. In this sense, God is absolutely different from the world and from us. In other words, we are a genuine reality different from God. This difference implies two points of understanding. First, human beings and this world are both God's creation. Our creatureliness is not just expressed in some remote origin and causality in time, but in the experience of both transcendence and historical conditionedness, which are experienced every moment. Second, human transcendentality is not established by one's own power, but is experienced as something established by and at the disposal of another as the abyss of mystery. We always find our subjectivity as a historical conditioned and we never completely realize our possibilities in the world and in history. What overcomes this finitude is not leaving it behind or being free from its constraint, since that is never possible. On the way towards the definite moment of death, however, every person draws from God the power as source and infinite horizon to pursue knowledge and action in freedom. In this sense, the human being is totally dependent on God.8　

5. The human being as a being threatened radically by guilt

As we have already noted, the human being is free and responsible, not in the sense of being a neutral subject as if one could choose and act among some categorical possibilities while remaining uninfluenced oneself. Rather, being free and responsible is experienced as something final and definitive for the subject. In freedom, one does not do something, but does oneself. However, as a person, everyone is subject to openness to the infinite horizon and mystery that constitute oneself so that one's freedom should correspond to this movement. This holy mystery mediates itself in finite and created reality, in the spectrum of categorical and hierarchical values in the world. In this sense, the human being is supposed to open up to these categorical values, from lower to higher, in responding to a vocation as genuine person and subject. Yet, because of freedom, the human being in reality may say "yes" or "no" to this call. A person who says "no" experiences something which contradicts the human constitution as oriented towards the ultimate mystery, and this is guilt in the Christian perspective.

Of course, according to Rahner, in reflection no one can be fully transparent whether in one's categorical choices one is saying a definite "no" to this infinite horizon or mystery, which is God. Yet it always remains a possibility. So, "we never know with ultimate certainty whether we really are sinners, we do know with ultimate certainty that we really can be sinners."9 "Sinner" here does not mean just committing some moral wrong but is taken in a definite and final sense. As we progress towards death, our categorical options in values will finally make an eternal stance as "yes" or "no" to God.　

6. The human being as the event of God's free and forgiving self-communication

What was discussed above gradually converges to this assertion. Rahner tells us that "God's self communication means that what is communicated in grace is really God in his own being, and in this way it is a communication for the sake of knowing and possessing God in immediate vision and love.".10 In this sense, there is no understanding of the human being in so-called "pure nature". Existentially, the human being cannot but enjoy the supernatural dimension of the human constitution, not simply as one characteristic alongside but permeating the whole human being. Therefore, the human being is a supernatural existential. That is, the human being fundamentally participates in the divine, in God-self.　

Rahner clarifies the word of "God". This word

"says nothing about what it means, nor can it simply function like an index finger which points to something encountered immediately outside ... In any case, the present form of the word reflects what the word refers to: the 'ineffable one', the 'nameless one' who does not enter the world we can name as a part of it. It means the 'silent one' who is always there, and yet can always be overlooked, unheard, and, because it expresses the whole in its unity and totality, can be passed over as meaningless."11

The key words here are unity and totality. Rahner leads us to ponder what would happen if this word "God" or its equivalent ceased to be in our language. Then one would never again face the totality of the world and the unity of oneself. At most, one could indulge in wonder at all things around, but would be incapable of wondering at this wondering. One would then regress to the level of a clever animal. In short, we cannot imagine ourselves being human without this intentionality of God, where "God" does not mean some kind of transcendental being apart from us, but is the source and horizon in which we can aim towards the totality of the world and the unity of ourselves.

To follow this understanding, we can infer that if, as supernatural existential, the human being is fundamentally called to be divine, though in freedom one can say "no" to it and make an absolute contradiction of one's existence, then the acceptance of God's self-communication is still based upon God's offer itself. That is exactly what we understand theologically by the notion of grace. "The giver in his own being is the gift... the giver gives himself to creatures as their own fulfillment."12 When one responds with "yes" to this offer in a concrete situation, one becomes a justified person, a being justified by God. In congruence with traditional teaching, this grace is absolutely gratuitous as "unmerited", initiated by God's highest personal freedom, different from what we experience in tangible causes, which produce a necessary effect. This grace is originally implicit and unthematized in our daily life. Through our reflection in concrete experiences we discover certain incarnated effects of this grace, but not the grace as such. For Rahner, grace is the unthematized horizon of transcendence in which we try to thematize certain appropriations to understand and ponder this grace as such, but never in its totality. In our perspective, grace is as wide as God's presence.

The word "grace", on the other hand, makes our relationship with God thematic, namely, the total gratuity of God to us that we have no merit to deserve or earn. This giver as gift produces the emptiness in the human being that only the fullness of God can fill. It is also prior to human freedom. When human freedom mediates through actualizing categorical values, this self-communication appears at least as an offer in an unthematic way, inviting the person towards the absolute mystery in knowledge and love. Therefore, in transcendental experience and freedom, a potential sinner who has rejected the genuine freedom mediated in categorical values, though not in reflective clearness, can return to the invitation of this mystery immediately, an experience of conversion and forgiveness in love. This ability to come back is already due to the grace itself which grants the subject the "re"-cognition of his own infinite horizon towards the truth and love itself.　

7. The development of dogma

Dogma is the formulation of faith in the Church and in her history. It represents Christians' understanding of the original revelation of Jesus Christ in their historicity, under the stamp and authority of the Church. Its existence already betrays the necessity of development in understanding God's revelation in Christ. This fact is not due to God as speaker acting freely in history, but is due to the fact that the human being as listener is a historical being. As long as human beings further their own history, there must be a history of dogma, even though revelation is complete. Accepting this fact, we face rather the challenge of finding new formulations of dogma congruent with the original doctrine in Scriptures and Church's authoritative teaching. This process can be compared to a young man who has fallen in love and tries to articulate the experience and understanding of his love in clearer and clearer terms and propositions, yet remaining faithful to the richness of the original and global experience. Theologians are doing a similar thing in articulating faith in and love of Christ in contemporary terms. The basic requirement is that the new formulation should not undo the past, but should explicate more what is still implicit in the old. Second, there is no surpassing of the revelation in Christ, which is closed in its plenitude. Finally, the development of dogma involves necessarily a unity of all elements constituting its development as revelation, such as spirit and grace, the Church, tradition.13

The Joint Declaration on the Dogma of Justification represents the development of the understanding of justification from St. Paul to the time of Luther and the Council of Trent, and down to the present moment. The seven points in the formulation, which represent the common effort and good will between the two Churches, have provided a greater space of dialogue in clarifying certain stances and terminology, and recognizing some different emphases between them. Yet, from a Rahnerian point of view, there are some areas which need to be clarified and re-interpreted in contemporary terms so that the doctrine itself can shed more light and meaning on our Christian faith.　

    5. RAHNER, K. (1976). Foundations of Christian Faith. NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company. p. 30.

6. Ibid. p. 34.

7. Ibid. p. 36.

8. Cf. ibid. p. 42-43.

9. Ibid. p. 104.

10. Ibid. p. 118.

11. Ibid. p. 46.

12. Ibid. p. 120.

13. Cf. ROBERTS, L. (1967). The Achievement of Karl Rahner. NY. Herder & Herder. p. 67.

C. A Rahnerian Hermeneutics on the Joint Declaration

1. Human Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification (JD 4.1)

We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God's judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God's grace.

Rahner would certainly agree that all persons as creatures are totally dependent on God. This creatureliness is specially experienced in every effort towards transcendence in knowledge and exigency in categorical values, though it is not necessarily conscious or thematic. This is a moment of grace, but this grace is not an external offer as seemingly implied in the statement above. It is the infinite horizon implied in every questioning and effort in life. The point of departure may be the notion of "pure nature". It might be conceptually convenient to describe the daily banality of the human situation in the world as pure nature, in contrast to the total gratuity of the order of grace from God. However, can a person be existentially conceived of as living in a natural order, while all the transcendent experiences are extrinsically delivered to him from the supernatural one?14 Hardly! As Gaudium et spes (#22) affirms, ".... the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with the paschal mystery." Rahner goes even further to believe that the human being is a supernatural existential, as we have already noted, who enjoys the self-communication of God in the very constitution of a human being. In other words, the human being potentially participates in the divine and supernatural realm in pre-freedom towards the infinite horizon and categorical values.

This statement also distinguishes two types of freedom, namely, freedom of choice, related to things and persons in daily life, and the transcendental freedom to decide one's stance towards God and to accept God, that is, one's salvation. If our reading above is correct, freedom of choice may simply be an illusion and explained away by modern science through cause and effect. Therefore, it is certainly right to say that it has nothing to do with human salvation. Moreover, the more one is wrongly and distortedly conditioned in the generic process of growth, the less one is capable of turning to God by oneself, and the easier one would understand God's unmerited grace in one's conversion. On the other hand, in one's unthematic effort towards categorical values and knowledge, in other words towards justification, one is already opening up to and enjoying God's self-communication. There is no such thing as pure human effort. Therefore, it is absolutely right to claim that justification takes place solely by God's grace.

It is noteworthy that such terms as "solely" or "only" always imply a solid mysterious dimension in Catholic tradition. That is, they involve the tension of paradox, the tension of motherhood and virginity in Mary, of the scandal and glorification of the cross, of bread and Christ's presence in the host. We might use the word "solely" to emphasis one dimension of any pair, but we can never ignore the mysterious other. This applies similarly to the dynamic between God's omnipotence and human cooperation. Therefore, "solely by God's grace" does not cancel out human effort in the history of salvation.

No doubt, this simple analogy cannot dispel the tension and disturbance felt by both Churches concerning their different attitudes towards the human role in cooperating with God in the work of salvation.15 It seems that, with our certain limitation in language or thinking, we are still under the spell of either of the two distinct levels of truth in Platonism, namely the shadow and the really real, or even worse, the Cartesian Cogito, Ergo Sum. Both of them share the same thrust to emphasize one side of reality as independent and self-subsisting. Even in the traditional proof of God's existence, the closing line is self-subsisting Being. The limitation of ratio of this kind, apart from possible loopholes which have left it open to attack since Modernism, has to be complemented by the dimension of revelation, whose fundamental truth is that God, apart from self-subsistence, is also relation. Accepting humbly the limitation of human discourse, we have to say that God is One but also Three, though we may easily fall prey to rigorous human logic. In this sense, a certain tension and paradox in our ratio cannot but be the point of departure in theology. Nowadays, saying that the Father creates, the Son redeems and the Holy Spirit sanctifies, cannot any longer hold ground in serious discourse, though it is still a convenient and practical way in which to bring out different emphases. God's every action is always Trinitarian, in other words, in relation. As St. Augustine has already said, "In God there is no accident, but only substance and relation."16 Therefore, any metaphysics of substance must be accompanied by a metaphysics of the I-Thou. From this entry point, in line with Rahner's transcendental anthropology, Gen 1:27 and the Incarnation propose a possibility of discourse on "cooperation" for humanity as such. Of course, a qualification must be made here that, while Jesus possessed this unity with God by nature, we do so by God's unmerited grace. Furthermore, the tricky point, as recognized by the LTS commentary, seems to be the weight of human sinful nature, but this reality, Rahner might argue, is not as basic as the human constitution seen as supernatural existential. At least the latter can never be entirely overpowered and consumed by the former. The human being still has the capacity to say yes' to God due to God's prior self-communication.　

2. Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making Righteous (JD 4.2)

We confess together that God forgives sin by grace and at the same time frees human beings from sin's enslaving power and imparts the gift of new life in Christ. When persons come by faith to share in Christ, God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love. These two aspects of God's gracious action are not to be separated, for persons are by faith united with Christ, who in his person is our righteousness (1Cor 1:30): both the forgiveness of sin and the saving presence of God himself.

The main point of this statement is that the two aspects of God's gracious action, namely forgiveness of sin and the gift of new life, are not to be separated. This goes back to the controversy over the understanding of imputation justice at the Reformation. According to former Lutheran teaching, God declares the forgiveness of sins towards the sinner because of Christ's merit. That is, God no longer imputes sins to the sinner, and yet the sins actually remain. The action of forgiveness is thereby totally one-sided: it causes no change in the person. Now, a new insight seems to come from a better understanding of God's word and action. In contrast to human limitation and fragility, there is no discrepancy between what God speaks and acts. "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light..." (Gen 1:3ff). If God declares a person to be just in Christ, that person is also made righteous in his or her actual being. Therefore, "the restoration of the relationship between humanity and God, and of restoration of human life often named sanctification" (LTS commentary, comments on 4.2) are two sides of the same coin, namely, justification by God. Nobody comes to faith in Christ in the abstract. In exercising personal transcendental freedom, a person responds to the call to be a supernatural existential by actualizing the exigency of categorical values in concrete situations. This achievement is what the Catholic Church understands by human virtue, being righteous before God, without ignoring the fact that this initiation to be virtuous comes from God's self-communication in the first place. Rahner would probably go further and say that this sharing in Christ by faith may not be thematic or reflective in one's life, even when one is open to the calling as supernatural existential. This has nothing to do with watering down the role and importance of Christ in salvation history, because God's self communication always involves the Trinitarian dimension. In human language, from eternity the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are communicating their selves to each other in their immanence. In other words, the Father always forgives through the Son in their common expression and revelation in the economy of salvation. This forgiveness is fully known and grasped by human beings through the Son, through his participation in human history.

3. Justification by Faith and through Grace (JD 4.3)

We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christiancannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.

This statement mainly discusses the dynamics between faith and work. In the Catholic tradition, in contrast to the Lutheran sola fide, there is little inclination to discuss faith, hope and love independently. These three supernatural virtues are always seen as an organic whole in constituting a justified person. A Rahnerian horizon seems to be conducive to dissolving the tension between faith and work.

The confusion comes from the preoccupation to decide the causative relationship between the two, whether justification by faith leads to good works or good works render a person justified. The temporal sequence is implicitly indicated here, too.

So, we raise the question, namely, what does having faith in God mean in the first place? To have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God,17 the ineffable or nameless one. This commitment is an act of one's transcendental freedom in deciding about oneself as who one definitively is, though it is not completely transparent in reflective consciousness. This ineffable one, we have already noted, is not some transcendental being totally apart from us, but is the source and horizon in which we can aim towards the totality of the world and the unity of the self. The person recognizes the presence of the possibility of this totality and unity as the heart and ultimate meaning of all categorical values in a trans-categorical intuition, though not necessarily in a thematic way. The actualization of these categorical values is what we mean by good works. In this sense, surrendering oneself to the ineffable one and performing good works are intimately united. They both come from God's self communication in the first place, and there is no temporal priority between the two.

Paul says that "we are justified from the faith of Christ" [Gal 2:16]. Contemporary exegetes tell us that this phrase, "the faith of Christ", is more probably a subjective rather than an objective genitive. That is, it means the faith or faithfulness of Jesus Christ rather than (our) faith in Christ.18 Therefore, believers are justified through and on the basis of Christ's faith. In this sense, Lutherans are certainly right to say that God alone effects faith (JD, #26) since Christ himself is the prototype of faith itself in his submission to the Father. Similarly, with reference to the human relationship with God, Catholics are also correct in seeing faith in God and good works going hand in hand, as demonstrated by the Rahnerian perspective set out in the previous paragraph.

Noteworthy also in the statement is the assertion "By the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation." Rahner would argue that "membership in the Church is not only a means for the purpose of attaining salvation, but rather it receives its own meaning from baptism."19 Actually, the purpose of salvation is often achieved without the tangible intervention of the Church, though it is oriented towards her by God's command and will in history. Yet, in the concrete there is one thing that is not possible without the Church and sacraments, namely, "the grace of God in Christ ... present in the world as an event, as an ongoing event with historical tangibility and with incarnational corporeality."20 In other words, the meaning of baptism is better understood as making the baptized person a messenger of the word, a witness of the truth, and a representative of the grace of Christ in the world, which has already implicitly enjoyed God self-communication and love.

Moreover, the statement above is mainly confined to the Christian circle. If the logic of our foregoing discussion is acceptable, the unity of faith and work can also be applied to people not explicitly sharing our Christian expression of faith because God's self-communication is the constitution of every human being, who is always potentially capable of surrendering to the ineffable one in categorical values.

4. The Justified as Sinner (JD 4.4)

We confess together that in Baptism the Holy Spirit unites one with Christ, justifies, and truly renews the person. But the justified must all through life constantly look to God's unconditional justifying grace. They also are continuously exposed to the power of sin still pressing its attack (cf. Rom 6:12-14) and are not exempt from a life-long struggle against the contradiction to God within the selfish desires of the old Adam (cf. Gal 5:16; Rom 7:7-10). The justified also must ask God daily for forgiveness as in the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:12; 1Jn 1:9), are ever again called to conversion and penance, and are ever again granted forgiveness.

As we have already noted, the human being is radically threatened by guilt, a constant possibility of saying "no" to God in one's attitude and action with reference to categorical values. The human being as person and subject is an evolving process, from the peripheral level to that deepest level which constitutes a person as such. In this process of life-long growth and struggle, one cannot, because of the influence of concupiscence,21 constantly respond absolutely to categorical values, which call upon one's personhood. In this sense, one remains a sinner though justified, but not in the definitive or final sense that only happens at the time of death. Since God's self-communication is the basic constitution of human being, so the Lutheran rightly emphasizes that, "despite sin, the Christian is no longer separated from God." (Joint Declaration, #29) When one turns to the ineffable one implied in one's actualizing of categorical values, one is forgiven, in the sense that one comes once again to harmony and congruence with one's fundamental constitution in transcendental freedom.

In the Catholic tradition, this call to conversion and penance is explicitly established in the sacrament of reconciliation, whose prototype and source is Jesus' unconditioned and irrevocable love and forgiveness towards us in the historic event of the cross. Now, this love and forgiveness are uttered through the Church and her representatives, an efficacious sign of God's tangible presence in history, and thus this utterance becomes an event again when an individual seeks this sacrament to be reconciled to the holy mystery, the human community and the world.

However, the latest statement by the Catholic Church (RCC #1, 2) openly expresses dissatisfaction over certain terminology used by the Lutheran churches and still appearing in the Joint Declaration; "The Justified as Sinner"(JD, 4.4), "Believers are totally righteous .... they remain also totally sinners"(JD, #29), "Opposition to God"(JD, #29).

The Catholic Church feels that these words seem to overlook or bypass the transformed and elevated reality experienced by the sinner in conversion, signified in the sacraments of Baptism and Reconciliation. On the other hand, the LTS commentary on JD, 4.4 expresses satisfaction that simul justus et peccator and its significance have been maintained.

Here we see clearly the two different emphases concerning justification and sin. While Catholics focus more on the objective effect of grace and sacraments, Lutherans focus more on subjective experience similar to that of St. Paul in Rom 7:17, 20. Thinking in terms of God's unity in word and action as explained above, and of the Father-children relationship resumed by grace, Catholics are more consistent in seeing human transformation through the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:14-17, Gal 4:4-7, RCC #7). Not denying this objective status and transformation by justification, however, the Lutheran tradition attains a very deep insight into the human and personal condition radically threatened by guilt, inherited by Luther from the experience of St. Paul, St. Augustine. This insight overcomes the somehow too one-sided and physical understanding of sin in the Catholic tradition as something from which to be cleansed, like dirt. It is still possible for any Christian to say a definite "no" to God, absolutely contradicting his own constitution, though this may not be transparent in his reflective consciousness and only disclosed at the time of death. Here, a common effort has to be made to clarify more the mutual understanding of the meaning of "concupiscence" and "ruled sin". Or, can the tension between "The Justified as Sinner" be resolved by the category of "already but not yet" as expounded by Vat. II in her self-understanding of the Church from the Catholic perspective?　

5. Law and Gospel (JD 4.5)

We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the Gospel "apart from works prescribed by the law" (Rom 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation. We also confess that God's commandments retain their validity for the justified and that Christ has by his teaching and example expressed God's will which is a standard for the conduct of the justified also.

The conflict between Law and Gospel seems not to have been tackled or explained very clearly in the Scripture. On the one hand, the Law, signified in the Ten Commandments, comes from God. It is God's utterance and thus, is a presence of the Logos. That is why Jesus reiterated, "Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them." (Mt 5:17) Here we do not see any antagonism between the two, Law and Gospel. The Gospel uttered by Jesus is nothing but the fulfillment of the Law. On the other hand, the conflict really does run through the ministry of Jesus, and later through that of Peter and of Paul, in their interaction with the Pharisees and Scribes, the advocates of the Law.

Therefore, the entry point for tackling this question is the interpretation of the Law. The Law is an expression of categorical values which govern human relationships with each other and with God. First, the Law is not the only such expression. Second, categorical values are not a self-enclosed system. If Rahner's reading is correct, the human arch-encounter with God has its Sitz im Leben in the encounter with categorical values."22 That is, values are within and thus discovered within an infinitive horizon, or within the ineffable one, who reveals himself to human beings in these values in concrete time and space. The philosophy of language helps us understand that, within different cultural horizons, words have different nuances in meaning and implication. This is no less true of statements of law. Therefore, law is not self-sufficient in itself. Rather, its meaning and application need to await the ever-greater horizon that comes forward in history. This is the horizon of love, signified and culminated in the historical person of Jesus, who is the Gospel itself.

This brings us to our next consideration. Law by its wording is nothing but a congealed form of categorical values revealed in definite time and space. What is congealed loses actual power and life. Then, the transcendental question arises, namely, what is the condition of possibility of recognizing and actualizing the relevant law in the concrete here and now? Without this condition of possibility, as St. Paul experienced, law merely serves as demand and accusation of my sins (Rom7:7-12). Therefore, as Rahner points out, the condition of this possibility is the self-communication of God. Only if one opens oneself to one's very constitution and mystery through a loving and personal relationship, whose prototype and destiny have already been revealed in Jesus Christ, can one can find life and power in fulfilling the law.23

6. Assurance of Salvation (JD 4.6)

We confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God. In spite of their own weakness and the manifold threats to their faith, on the strength of Christ's death and resurrection they can build on the effective promise of God's grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of this grace.

According to Rahner, a person can be sure of the grace of salvation because God's self-communication has already been granted to human beings as the constitution of their being. This assurance is even intensified and explicitly expressed in Jesus' Incarnation and Paschal mystery, cf. Jn 3:16. This historical event, as God's definite showing of forgiving love towards human beings, serves as an objective reference for our immediate but implicit knowledge of and love for God's self communication. Jesus' final resurrection and glorification by the Father makes him the finest exemplar of our destiny. In this sense, our individual salvation is sure.

However, Rahner reminds us that the human being is also inevitably threatened by guilt. A definitive "no" to God's self-communication and an absolute contradiction to one's own actual constitution as supernatural existential is still an open possibility for everyone. When the LTS commentary on JD 4.6 states that"Therefore every individual, not humanity in general, should look to God's salvation alone," the word"should" has already indicated that the person may not in fact turn to God for salvation even though objective assurance is granted. Of course, this saying "no" and the contradiction acted out in one's core freedom is never unambiguous during one's life. It is only fully disclosed at the time of one's death. Therefore, in Catholic realism, so far we can definitely say that God intends our salvation.

7. The Good Works of the Justified (JD 4.7)

We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope, and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit.

Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.

As long as one opens oneself up to God as supernatural existential, one is a justified person. As already noted, discovery of this 'given'24 opening to God occurs in pursuing greater knowledge or in actualizing the exigency of categorical values in the concrete world. In this sense, justification and doing good works happen together. The word follow' in the statement above seems not very accommodating because faith and good works do not appear in a temporal sequence,25 but occur simultaneously. On the other hand, if we take God's self-communication to be the very constitution of the human person as its formal cause, in this sense the wordfollow' is right to describe good works as an effect.

According to Rahner, the human being is a potentia obedientialis, in line with the scholastic description capax Dei. That is, the human being is potentially open to God and capable of reaching God. This is the constitution and destiny of the human being. However, the greatest potentiality cannot compare with the least actuality. If a person is not open to this potentiality, it does him or her no good. That is why St. James reiterates that faith without works is quite dead and useless. (Jms 2:14-26) From a Catholic point of view, the more one is conscientious in responding to the absolute demand of categorical value, the deeper one's core freedom develops, then the stronger yes' one is saying to God's self-communication, the more one's potentiality converts into actuality. In this sense, good works contribute to growth in grace."(JD, #38) This understanding is in line with the LTS commentary on JD, 4.7, which similarly recognized that "through good works one develops a constantly deeper relationship with God, much as the love of a husband and wife deepens throughout a marriage. Finally, the supernatural virtues, faith, hope and love, are inter-connected as a whole. (1Cor13:13)

    14. This understanding reflects a certain affinity with Platonic idealism, where the human lives as a fettered slave in a cave, the natural order. Liberation then comes when the other world of Ideas, the really real symbolized as the sun, is 'seen' by the person.

15. The LTS commentary on JD, 4.1, clearly expresses a feeling of disturbance towards the Catholic use of"cooperation", while The Response of The Catholic Church (#3)obviously affirms it again.

16. Enarrationes in Psalmos. PL 36, 845.

17. Cf. Dei Verbum #5.

18. MATERA, F.J. (1992). Galatians. (Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. (ED) Sacra Pagina, vol. 9). Collegeville, Minnesota. The Liturgical Press: A Michael Glazier Book. pP. 100-102. Six points are illustrated to prove this thesis.

19. RAHNER (1976). p. 416.

20. Ibid.

21. This understanding is linked to the Church's doctrine on Original Sin. As Rahner interprets it, we are people who must inevitably exercise our freedom subjectively in a situation which is co-determined by objectification of guilt, and indeed in such a way that this co-determination belongs to our situation permanently and inescapably. Taking the advantage of buying bananas at a low price may already involve one in the injustice and exploitation imposed on the banana pickers. Cf. Ibid. p. 110.

22. GLASER, J.W. (1969). Man's Existence: Supernatural Partnership. Theological Studies, Vol.30 (3). p. 482.

23. This thinking is in line with the LTS commentary on JD, 4.5, which states that "The Law reveals our need for the Gospel...Without the continuous demand of the Law we do not realize how necessary the Gospel is."

24. The use of the word 'given' is to emphasize that one's opening up is itself a grace of God in the first place.

25. A qualification is needed here that, if justification is by the faith of Christ, with subjective genitive as discussed above (p.17), a temporal sequence certainly makes sense because all of our justification comes from him.

D. Conclusion

In the foregoing lines, a dialectic is at work, trying to strike a delicate balance between God and human beings. Rahner's understanding of supernatural existential as his starting point for the theology of grace grants us a secure approach and foundation upon which to resolve the tension between the two. Not only is this understanding congruent with the traditional teaching of the Church; it also successfully infuses a spiritual and religious dimension into modern anthropology.

The doctrine of justification is the Pauline insight into the dialectic between Christology and Anthropology. First, salvation is not a second thought after the Fall. As St. Paul exhorts us, "Before the world was made, he chose us, chose us in Christ."(Eph 1:4). God created us for full communion with him through the Incarnated Logos. This understanding gives the biblical ground for Rahner's doctrine on God's self-communication as the capacitas Dei of the human being, who is now like God as person and subject. This capacity for transcendence, as the basic human constitution, leads to the other side of the coin, namely, freedom and responsibility in human destiny. However, freedom involves the possibility of saying "no", the absolute contradiction of one's own being. The actually sinful situation of the world forms the stage for the preparation, expression and final fulfillment of the Incarnated Logos in the whole salvation history.

Therefore, since the Christ event is the axis and pivot of history, the human being has nothing to boast about with reference to salvation because all the achievement, in openness towards the infinite horizon either of knowledge or of categorical values, comes from God, the uncreated grace itself. In response by faith to this call of grace mediated through categorical values, one becomes forgiven, righteous, and justified in God's sight, whether or not one has previously said "no". Yet, Rahner reminds us that we are not fully transparent in the reflexive process, concerning our definite response to this call of God. It is only revealed at the time of our death when we will take our final stance. So, in this sense, salvation is truly intended, but not fully assured as such. If this is so, this life must have something important and significant to contribute to our final stance towards God. Consequently, there comes the understanding of the potential sinner and good works, now in the context of Gospel rather than of Law. Work, expressed in response to the categorical and hierarchical values, renders one thematic in saying "yes" in the inner core of one's constitution as person and subject, where one's final stance is taken. The demand of works, however, should not come from the enforcement of Law which has no life or power, but from the recognition of the Gospel, namely, the love and invitation of Jesus Christ fully expressed in his life and Paschal Mystery.

In relating to the latest response on the JD from the Catholic Church and Lutheran circle, the effort of reaching the fusion of horizons for both sides is affirmed again, while recognizing honestly the want of full communion due to some substantial differences in understanding the doctrine of justification. If communion is the sign of deepest relationship, is that also a sign for us to reflect deeper on categories of relation in our ongoing theological discourse? The doctrine of justification is not the only doctrine of the Christian faith. Its significance should be illuminated by and related to other dogmas, especially the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Contemporary re-focus on the dynamics between the immanent and economic Trinity contributes no little insight to ecclesiology, missiology and spirituality. Our God is a God-in-Relation, and so any doctrine of God should also be doctrine-in-relation. Therefore, the criterion and significance of the regula fidei (RCC. #2) need to be explored more deeply by both sides. Furthermore, the notion of sin should be viewed more from a relational perspective between God and human beings than as something "physical" or "material" as if some kind of dirt needed to be or could be wiped out. Forgiveness of sin is actually, not superficially, the wounded relation restored, where human beings become the genuine children of God again. Finally, in this context, the notion of imputation cannot but appear inadequate to describe the whole picture of justification, which grants human transformation and sanctification by God's grace.

As a model, Rahner's transcendental anthropology tries to find suitable categories to describe the relation between God and human beings for better insight and integration into our faith. As a whole, a thorough and well-grounded understanding of the doctrine of justification depends on a sound anthropology, in order to avoid any too one-sided bias, either on the powerlessness or on the merit of work by human beings in attaining salvation. I think the recent Joint Declaration has achieved a delicate balance, while a Rahnerian interpretation may even expand the vision. All this effort and achievement towards a better understanding of the doctrine of justification, and reconciliation between the two Churches can, once again, only be attributed to the grace of God.

作者：张春申

两千禧年之初，圣神修院举办这样的一个研习会，实在很有意义。我在这里仅是报导自己的经历与经验，如果能够拋砖引玉，为第三千年的神学本地化共同编织美梦，足堪满意。因此，本文包括长短不匀的二大部份；第一部分回顾需要大家补充；第二部分，前瞻更是今次研习会的集体创作。

正文之前，先把三个彼此相关的名词澄清一下。神学本地化是建设地方教会的一项工作，1它假定降生奥迹的原则，即基本上肯定福音与文化应当结合的关系。在此，我们认为不必为「文化」定义，至于福音与它的结合，至少有三个名词值得先把它们提出来，即是「适应」、「本地化」与「福音化」。三者之间的差别，自神学而言，「传道人员，根据适应之道，将他的神学翻译成另一文化所用的语文，可是神学本身却仍旧是西方人的神学。基于本地化的做法，地方文化将本乎自己的思想模式，给此神学新的说明。真正的后果并不是将多玛斯或拉内，翻译成中文，而是中国神学家在自己的文化基础上，以另一种形式诠释信仰；就像多玛斯和拉内，为西方社会所做的。」2至于「福音化」诚是「本地化」的后果，因为信仰不能不同时为文化开启新的出口或视野。耶稣会前任总会长雅鲁培神父曾说：「我们可以视本地化为福音生活和它的信息，在某一特定文化中的具体呈现，而该文化的成员不仅只以该文化表达基督经验……且能使之变成灵感、方向和统一的源头，以转变、再造该文化；带来一新的创造，不仅足以充实此特定文化，同时也充实普世教会。」3也许梵二大公会议之后拉丁美洲的解放神学比较符合「本地化」与「福音化」之间的关系。无论如何，这也是讨论本地神学时必须注意到的事。

这样澄清与说明之后，现在言归这次研习会的课题，分为二大部分。1.本地化神学（灵修）的回顾；2.本地化神学的前瞻。

1. 本地化神学（灵修）的回顾

为了使这部分的内容比较有些头绪，我由三节陆续叙述。1.1 有关教会与神学本地化的几个重要里程碑；1.2 本地化神学的方法之探讨；1.3 本地化神学尝试的成果。

1.1 有关教会与神学本地化的几个重要里程碑

神学本地化包括在教会本地化之内，4因此必须回忆一下中国教会与神学本地化的几个重要日子，虽然最初「本地化」这个名词实在尚未出现，5不过无论如何在我们回忆时不免能够立刻想到这次研习会正在处理的问题。

i. 一九二六年十月二十六日六位国藉主教在罗马伯铎大殿为教宗比约十一世祝圣；一九四六年二月十八日田耕莘荣升枢机，同年四月十一日，教宗比约十二世建立中国教会圣统制，这些都是中国教会本地化的重要里程碑，而且也是后人继续不断重说的故事。

ii. 我们必须承认中华人民共和国建立之后的五十年阻碍了中国教会正常的本地化，虽然今日看来，它为教会本地化有教训，也有「成果」，甚至还有挑战。我们不是为这召开会议，但若自神学本地化的角度来说，至少尚未对此事件产生救恩意义的普遍反省。也许在前瞻部分可加考量。

iii. 此后具有决定性的重要事件该是一九六二至一九六五召开的梵二大公会议了，尤其它在教会学上的贡献。具体而论，地方教会的观念补充了梵一大公会议的罗马教宗神学。至于「教会传教工作」法令第三章详述建设地方教会之余，同时也为神学本地化有所指示。6我们的回顾实际而论，多属梵二之后的事，虽然之前偶有蠕动的迹象。7

iv 梵二大公会议之后，神学本地化开始普遍受到注意；东亚方面，一九七零年春，中、日、韩、越四国，以及港、澳的主教代表第一次在香港为此集会，决定各国主教团分别鼓励本地神学工作者对此研究，并推台南教区主教成世光为召集人。一九七三年各地代表在台湾召开第二次会议讨论同一问题。此后不再集会，大概由于一方面决定各地自己从事此项工作，另一方面亚洲主教团协会已经建立之故。

v. 无论如何，一九七六年在台湾的中国主教团秘书处研究设计委员会发出一项文件：「建设中国地方教会草案」。应用我们的名词来说，它的内容要求地方教会自「适应」走上「本地化」。有关神学本地化，该文件说：「神学反省对建设本地教会的重要性是众所皆知的。本位神学建立不只在领导地方教会的生活与行动上，在解决地方教会所面临的各种困难及问题上，能给予很大的帮助，而且可以对整个教会，尤其亚洲教会的神学发展，有所助益及影响。」（神论42，432页）此后比较重要的事件该是在一九七九年二月，在香港召开过一次「中国神学探讨会」了。8

以上可以说明有关教会与神学本地化的重要里程碑，有的仅是象征，有的确具实质。我们根据里程碑的实质，以下把神学本地化的回顾部分分为两个阶段。第一阶段自一九五九至一九七九（六）为二十年；第二阶段自一九七九（六）至一九九九为第二个二十年。回顾部分的第一段都引证我在二十年前写的一篇长文，那时的题目是「中国教会的本位化神学」，发表在《神学论集》的第四十二期（405-456页）。这里的书面报告相当扼要，太多需要参阅该文。

1.2 本地化神学的方法之探讨

i. 有关本地化神学的方法，倒是讨论得很早的事，而且非常热烈地持续一段时期（神论42，408页），但自此以后到现在，似乎不再受到重视。我认为今天仍旧值得再次注意德籍温保禄神父，根据梵一大公会议的训导（DS3016），引申出来的三条神学本地化路线：即以现代中国文化表达奥迹、研究奥迹之间的连结性、以及探讨奥迹与人生的关系。（神论42，411-413页）事实上，同一时期早有人构想以「孝」为本编排中国神学。（神论42，409-410页）另一位则是谷寒松神父，「建议将天主教之基本真理在『道』的范畴中表达：天主在古新经的启示?道；天主因着基督『道』而在宇宙中的内在性；人类因着接受基督『祂是『道』路、真理、生命』的得救；教友在『道』中之生活与他们永远在天主圣三中之光荣生活，这也是人『道』的完成。」（神论42，411页）如此启示奥迹一一都以「道」的范畴连结起来，此即梵一的三条路线中的第二条，具体落实在中国文化领域。

ii. 有一个非常显明，但往往被误解的想法还值得予以强调。本地化涉及的文化该是现代的；它与传统连接，但决不是已被淘汰的生活方式。为此本地化实在即是现代化。（神论42，412-414页）

iii.有关神学本地化在方法论上的话题，大致已似上述，综合起来也不太困难。（神论42，418-419页）今天如果真要在这方面发挥，大概应该先从神学方法论开始，但这是高难度的工作。至于那时相当特殊的一个见解即是放弃西方神学的分类，如信理神学、伦理神学、灵修学等等。或拟熔合为一、或拟另起炉灶，但当时已受简单与合理的批判。今天看来直接并不有关本地化的方法问题。（神论42，415-416页）

iv. 本地化神学的方法论多在本文所分的第一阶段受到注意。一九七六年之后，台湾方面神学本地化也进入第二阶段，几乎不多研究方法论，除了对于本地化观念继续有些澄清而已。（神论42，433-434页）另一方面在一九七九年二月在香港召开的「中国神学探讨会」中，9同时牵涉对「在华人中诠译经学」，10它为神学本地化显然也有关系。不过在此不拟多加介绍。（参阅神论42，437-438页）

v. 神学本地化第二阶段，如上所述不多探讨方法论，但在灵修本地化方面，却出现了一体范畴与位际范畴之分。本地化灵修根据一体范畴推行静坐；其实一体范畴也可用在神学本地化上。（神论42，438-441页）另一方面，这个阶段的神学工作者的文化观点，显明地自人文重点转向社会关怀。这会在下节中适时指出。

1.3 本地化神学尝试的成果

这节的资料为了容易清楚简介，分为三段：i. 纵贯两阶段的集体成果，ii. 第一阶段的示范成果，iii. 第二阶段的示范成果。

1.3.1纵贯两个阶段的集体成果

这段除了介绍集体成果之外，也提出若干工具书的翻译，虽然不能严格称为本地化神学，但对它非重要。

首先，具有划时代意义的是台湾台南碧岳神哲学院，台北辅大附设神学院，以及香港的圣神修院神哲学院，在创办之初即以中文教学，这为走向神学本地化跨出一大步。至于中国大陆的修院由于创办较晚，不包括在这里。梵二之前多以拉丁文上课，诚是本地化的极大阻碍。但此一大步的跨出也遭遇困难，主要是教授的不足。在此情况下，本国教授多忙于教学，无能兼顾写作。即使上课内容，不免尚属翻译性的「适应」而已。不过应用本地言语，无形中为本地化神学播种。

集体成果中，今日尚继续进行的，台湾方面有辅大的《神学论集》期刊，辅大《神学丛书》；香港方面有《鼎》双月刊，《神思》期刊，以及圣神修院神哲学院的《年刊》。碧岳神哲学院停办之前，也有《碧岳学社思想丛书》。在此也得承认其中「本地化」、「福音化」的着作并不丰富，介绍西方神学思想倒也不少。

其次，中文编着或翻译的神学工具书也得一提。圣经不在话下；其他则如《圣经神学辞典》，《圣经辞典》，《神学辞典》等等。不过最令人称许的大概是施安堂神父一手翻译的《天主教会训导文献选集》，《拉丁希腊教父神学选集》，以及《教父灵修选集》；他们都是神学院不可缺少的工具。

最后也不能忘却的是梵二大公会议以来的教会重要训导文件，大多已有中译。

1.3.2第一阶段的示范成果

神学本地化第一阶段的作品倒是三位前辈分别出版的三本书，成世光主教的《天人之际》，李善修神父的《天主教中国化的探讨》；赵宾实神父的《天人一家》。前二本书牧灵意义非常之强。赵神父的书神学气质比较明显，方法也比较清楚。由于它相当代表第一阶段的中国神学，可以略为介绍。整体而论，《天人一家》倾向于比较中国文化与基督宗教相同的思想，也即是应用前者阐明后者，所谓理智寻找或解释信仰。首编所称「天学」即「天主论」，中国人所称的「天」即至上神，祂是宇宙万物的根源与教会信仰的唯一天主是相同的。次编有关「天父」，赵神父非常明白地说，我国先人根据伦理推出的天父观，与新约中的天父观有所差异。而第三篇却说儒家「天人一家」的思想，与基督的「天下一家」不谋而合，这似乎忽略了「天父观」的差别了。末篇他却以大学之道阐述天国的「新人」，他认为保禄所说的「新人」即中国儒家的「新民」等等。这样的尝试足以显出本地化的初步努力，可能批判工作略嫌不够，因此予人更上一层楼的要求。（神论42，427-439页）

同一阶段，对中国传统文化中的二个重要德性「仁」与「孝」的研究，都显出少有的深度。罗光总主教有关儒家之仁与基督宗教的爱所作的研究都有可靠的基础，发表了多篇文章，他比较了二者，当然不难看出文化与福音的来源上的差别，他说：「一、儒家认为仁来自天地之心，天地之心即上帝之心。教会信仰中，天主本性是爱。二、儒家认仁为生生之理的身体力行，表现在保全及发展生命。教会则以天主圣言降生成人，予人丰富的生命，此为爱的流露高峰。三、仁之最高境界为参天地的化育，发扬万物生命，达到一体之仁。在基督的爱中，宇宙与人类逐渐进入新天新地的生命境界。」（神论42，422页）根据这段比较，不难以「仁」表达「爱」作为「福音化」，事实上，一首圣歌所唱「那里有仁，那里有爱，天主便与人同在。」11即是二者皆备的例子。

至于「孝」道，如同「仁」都是中国文化重视的德性，经过陆续讨论，不知不觉导向爱的两条最大诫命（玛22:34-40），于是本地化的「孝」道不只超越欧洲文化的权利与义务，同时也不限于「父母配天」的超性动机，而是植根于内心的爱德流露。有了这样的孝，才能超过生理的限制，突破自私，扩及人类的爱。本地化的「孝道」结合两条最大诫命，那么耶稣对跟随他的人之要求（路9:26），也将不难解释了。（神论42，419-421页）

另一方面，对于中国传统文化，笔者自天主救恩计划开始另类反省，这即是梵一大公会议所指的奥迹与人生的关系。在此抄录一段文字，大概足以发现那个时代注意的问题。「在救恩史上，天主特选以色列民准备基督的来临，同时也公布给他们得救之道；所以这是一个『民族』与天主的关系。天主因着梅瑟启示以色列民族应信的真理，应守的诫命和应行的礼仪；民族中的个人接受梅瑟的启示而得救。这是最普遍的社会性方法；因此我们相信天主在基督福音传入之前，对于教外民族的得救，也采取相仿的社会性途径。具体而论，对于中华民族，他启示孔子超自然的得救之道；而由他传播整个民族。中国人在福音传入之前，『耳朵』因着听到孔子传播的『启示真理』，心中因着天主赋予的圣宠，便能致义得救。所谓孔子传播的『启示真理』不该导致我们呆板地去搜寻信理式的条件，它更该具一种精神与实践，也便是孔子藉之而生的信仰……」（神论42，425页）事实上最后提出的一个课题，在亚洲不同的文化区也在同时进行，而在中国方面，虽然不失为颇有创意的本地化神学思考，但却也引起教会外面的反弹。12另一方面，今日宗教多元意识强烈，以及重视交谈的新处境时代，大概又得寻找更为妥当的反省之道了。我们回顾第一阶段本地化神学的成果，在此结束。至于其得失如何，一九七九年有了评估。13

1.3.3第二阶段的示范成果

虽然本文对于神学本地化分为两个阶段简介，但二者之间也有重叠，譬如儒家与基督宗教的彼此比较，继续是本地化神学的一个方向。房志荣神父的「儒家思想的天与圣经」中的上帝之比较便是一例，但文章的批判精神比前一阶段来得高了。（神论42，434-436页）

一九七六年主教团发表「建设中国地方教会草案」之后，台湾的神学界在一体范畴的灵感下，兴起了一股灵修本地化的热潮；这也受到日本教会在这方面发展的「基督徒的禅」之影响。不过，最初对禅的反应还是审慎的分辨，以及客观的比较。（神论42，442-444页）至于一九七八年笔者所着的《中国灵修刍议》，顾名思议便是一本灵修本地化的书，「旨在为中国教会提出一个道地的灵修，它既与西方教会的传统不同，又与日本教会一些本位化神学家所着的「基督徒的禅」不同。（神论42，444；参阅444-447页）这个与日本「基督徒的禅」不同的「中国基督徒的静坐」的重要发展是在笔者一九八二年发表的「中国人的气论与神学上的几个课题」14之后。其间「中国灵修刍议」在台湾圣功修女会的实践与推行下，已经为不少天主教信徒介绍出了灵修与祈祷的途径。但由于「中国人的气论」的影响，笔者更进一步尝试将静坐的调身、调息与调心配合于圣三模型的静坐祈祷。15这在一九九七年基督年的研习会中，由李纯娟修女「显身说法」，后来成文发表。16至此，灵修本地化大体告一段落，虽然徐可之神父也在这方面尝试另辟新径。17

但不论一体范畴，或者「中国人的气论」，除了有助灵修本地化之外，对本地化的基督论18与圣神论也产生了些影响，非常显明的是邝丽娟修女去年在巴黎耶稣会神学院通过的博士论文：「人在气中，气在人中」，副题是「在中国世界里迈向一个圣神内的人学」；19第三章中可以读到一个「气的基督论」。论文由法文写成，将来定会以中文陆续发表。

回顾这个阶段的同时，不能不承认华人天主教会中几乎没有一个神学工作者全职投身于本地化的领域，因此缺少比较突破或创造性的思想与着作。偶而发表的文章，大多延续第一阶段的模式，而且产量也不丰富。20

不过我们的介绍至此必须清楚指出一个重要的变化，严格而论，它并非关于方法，而更是对于「文化」的转变注意力。神学本地化工作八十年代之前，注意的往往是人文意义的文化；之后，社会意义的文化逐渐受到注意。事实上，一般所说的「本地化」往往指的前者，后者则以「处境化」来代替。本文不拟应用两个名词，又是说八十年代之后更是注意文化的社会意义。二个重要事件与此有关，一是大陆的中国社会主义阶段的开始，另一是台湾国民党政府的「解严」。政治事件这里没有需要去说，但台港两地的神学工作者的注意力明显地因此转变。

转变出的成果无法整合，只能笼统地一说，事实上也难推出代表性的作品。大体而论，对于中国在共产主义下的教会，其历史处境与其信仰生活，一九八一年一月香港圣神研究中心的刊物《鼎》，一直担任报导、分析、支持以及批评的功能，所谓「关注新中国动态，反省基督徒使命」是也。整体而论，《鼎》可以称为神学本地化的一本刊物，将近二十年汇集立场多元的作者群，发表非常丰富的不同类型文章。至于台湾方面，在处境变迁过程中，神学工作者的意识也有觉醒，不免时有神学反省的文章发表，不论针对台湾时事，根据教会社会训导发表文章，或者检讨教会自身的立场。在此也可以提出二位辅大神学院教授参与的具体成果，由于他们各自出了些书。首先，笔者自己代表性的有三册《关怀社会》，21由主教团社会发展委员会出版，所有文章都在外界时报上发表过的。房志荣神父由益世评论杂志社为他出版了二册《书生问政》，22内容方面比较芜杂，但其处境意识也油然可见。

总之，与第一阶段的示范成果比较起来，第二阶段的本地化神学涵盖的内容更加多样，不过整体说来，我们并无引人瞩目的系统特色。西方人士曾经介绍过天主教的中国神学家，却没有具体的中国神学。23

最后有关示范成果的简介，由于笔者身处台湾，未能涉腊与提出香港方面的诸多作品，这也是难免的事。至于台湾方面的本地化工作的概况，一九九七年有一位基督教牧师曾经简介，该文在神学与灵修之外，并且包括牧灵实践方面的本地化，大概可作参考之用，为本次研习会提供一位旁观者的反应。24

1. 梵二「传教」n22　第三章。

2. 钟鸣旦（陈宽薇译），「第三章　本地化之特征」，《本地化－－谈福音与文化》，台北　光启出版社　民国82　43。

3. 同上，43-44。

4. 梵二「传教」n22号　第三章。

5. 钟鸣旦，「序」，5。

6. 梵二「传教」n22　第三章。

7. 张春申，「中国教会的本位化神学」，《神学论集》n42，台北　光启出版社　民国69　409。

8. 谷寒松，「两次神学会议的报告－－中国神学探讨会」，《神学论集》n40，台北　光启出版社　民国68　222-229。

9. 谷寒松，「两次神学会议的报告－－中国神学探讨会」，《神学论集》n40，台北　光启出版社　民国68　222-229。

10. 房志荣，「在华人中谈释经学」，《神学论集》n40，台北　光启出版社　民国69　245-258。

11. 《泰泽共融祈祷歌咏16》，民国80　再版　32。

12. 张春申、唐端正，「有关孔子的解说」，《神学论集》n7，台北　光启出版社　民国60　33-49。

13. 张春申，「近三十年来中国神学的得失」，《神学论集》n40，台北　光启出版社　231-244。

14. 张春申，「近三十年来中国神学的得失」，《神学论集》n40，台北　光启出版社　231-244。

「中国人的气论与神学上的几个课题」，《神学论集》n53，台北　光启出版社　民国71　341-368。

15. 同上。「中国灵修讲习会又三讲」，《神学论集》n60，台北　光启出版社　民国74　265-293。

16. 李纯娟，「天主经：基督徒祈祷模式」，《神学论集》n115，光启出版社　台北　1998　101-108。

17. 徐可之，《中国灵修未来》（上、下册）辅仁神学丛书（41）（42），光启出版社　民国86。

18. 张春申，「一个生命的基督论」，《神学论集》n112，台北　光启出版社　民国86　171-178。

24. 刘锦昌，「台湾天主教『本位化』概况：以《神学论集》来观察」，《神学论集》n111，台北　光启出版社　民国86　19-29。

2. 本地化神学（灵修）的前瞻

本文之初，早已表示两大部分的篇幅前后不等，因此有关前瞻部分这里只能限于笔者个人的揣测，更应由这次研习会的成员一起提出，以期共同努力。当然过去已经开始的工作还得继续下去。

有关方法论，笔者仍旧以为根据梵一大公会议，由三个方向从事本地化神学的工作，也即是温保禄神父曾经为此工作具体提供的途径。因此这里只是在三个方向的指南下，简单地揣测一下。

第一：本地化该是现代化，因此中国各地的神学工作者势必采用本地的现代思维、现代想像、现代处境的言语来解释天主的启示。现代不必一定与传统冲突，其实文化具有连绵性，不少传统的言语继续出现于当代，虽然内涵方面也能有演变。这个方向下的工作空间很大，而且今日正在接受神学培育的人来自中国各地各个层面，未来的本地化神学定将多彩多姿。同时福音化的效果也该大有可观，如同过去对「仁」与「孝」所做的讨论。

第二：有关启示奥迹之间的连系，更需由本地特质的模型来建构。西方的位格主义以及象征主义为奥迹之间的连系继续发挥功能。我们又有什么样的模型呢？笔者相当重视汉斯昆对我们的建议。25宗教分为：先知、神秘、与智慧三类模型，即使基督宗教传统之中，先知与神秘二类确有不同的神学代表，至于智慧模型，汉斯昆却又待中国神学来发展。的确孔孟与宋明理学更属智慧模型，而当代中国人素以东方智慧引人注意。其实圣经的智慧传统，尤其在旧约中非常显明，而新约基督论也有智慧一派，仅是尚未发扬。也许未来中国神学可以自此陆续发挥。

第三：在救恩计划的光照下，诠释中华民族的故事，这大概是梵一大公会义所指的第三种理性与信仰的会通之道。现代中国人民的历史经验不论在何处都是可歌可泣，天主教神学工作者尚未写出来自信仰的反省与诠释。如果我们相信天主是历史的主宰，这里所指的神学资料，应当可以开垦的。比如自鸦片战争至九七的回归，香港的中国人是否能够自以色列民族的故事产生灵感呢？

以上是笔者个人对未来中国神学的揣测，这次研习会之召开，一定可以集思广义地共同前瞻。

最后有关所谓「文化基督徒」的问题，不免也会成为我们的话题。基督教对此问题，发表的言论很多；天主教方面几乎看不到任何反应，台湾更加如此。26这已经表示天主教神学与基督教神学，在方法上已有差别，而「文化基督徒」的神学更加特树一帜。笔者以为「文化基督徒」采取的「基督反文化」的模型，因此基本上不接受本地化神学的观点，当然这是非常基本的差异，不过在神学研究广阔的领域中，大家互相参考是理所当然的。

https://books.ziliaozhan.org/files/article/attachment/0/160/8352/3.jpg(81K)

https://books.ziliaozhan.org/files/article/attachment/0/160/8352/5.jpg(35K)

作者：邝丽娟

「神」的神学──「美的神学」

从中国美学灵感初探

张春申神父原是我的神学启蒙老师，今天在老师演讲后，作徒弟的很高兴，能有机会给他一个回应。限于时间，在这里，我只简短地从三点来作分享。

首先，我想谈谈神学是什么。跟着，看看文化的问题。最后，我想试从中国美学的灵感初探一个另类形式表达的神学──「美的神学」──「神」的神学的可能。这是一个非常初步的探索，一个新的尝试，也许只是些「痴人梦话」，在此敢提出来和大家分享，只为拋砖引玉，期盼引发更多的回响，同时希望大家不吝赐教。在今次的研讨会中，张神父希望我们不单停留在回顾过去，而且更要多往前瞻，所以就让我们在这儿做个梦，看看能否有天梦境成真？

1. 神学是两个故事相遇的「重写」

神学是什么？神学为什么要谈「本地化」？事实上，神学本质上就应该是「本地化」的，「本地化」并非附加在神学上的一个外在因素，因为「本地化」原是神学本身的一个内在要求。如果我们理解「神学」是一个活在具体时空中的信仰团体之信仰实现和表达的话，那么，又有何需要再强调「本地化」呢？因为本地化就是神学的本质内涵──在当下，此时此地，我们信仰经验的了解、诠释和表达。为此，在神学作为「诠释」这意义下，神学永远是一个「重写」的新行动。它同时是「回忆」，也是「创新」。所有类型的神学，都应该是本地化和处境化的。1

神学作为一个新的「重写」行动，它是一个生活在具体时空中的信仰团体，对天主救恩经验的「重写」。因为，我们生活在时空中的人有他的历史性，我们的信仰也有她的历史性，而神学就是这两个故事、历史的相遇，2即传统信仰──天主子民信仰的故事，和当下我们每个人和团体的信仰故事，在时空中发生接触。就像当两块石头相碰时，自然会激发出一些火花，神学就是这两个叙述的相遇，在相激相荡中焕发出的一个成果。

其实，天主的启示是同时拥有两面的。一方面，它是天主在人类历史中的自我通传，同时也是活在时空中的人，对天主行动的经验、了解和诠释。在这意义下，我们可以说，天主的启示是有「感」有「应」的，有给予和接受两面。除非有「受」的一面，即有人在信仰中是如此经验到天主的行动，并且如此接受了，否则，天主的启示还没有达到它的「圆满性」3。因为，如果只有天主在历史当中自我通传，而没有人这一方的回应，即「有感」而「无应」，或者，人不是如此地经验到，也没有如此地表达出来时，那么，天主启示的「圆满性」可以说就仍有所「缺」！为此，人的回应答覆是重要的，人对天主救恩行动的经验、了解、诠释和表达，同属启示的内容、启示事件本身。4如此说来，每一个信仰基督的团体，在瞻仰默想福音喜讯的同时，都被召去继续写他的第五部、第六部、......福音书。由此，我们知道「本地化」并非信仰上或神学上的一个「额外」的要求，而是内在必然的事。

今天，如果我们感到「本地化」是一个「额外」的要求时，也许是因为我们还没有真正地做神学工夫，没有「此时此地」刻骨的信仰生活经验，没有整个人经验和答覆天主在我们生命中的行动。很多次，我们可能只是重覆着「他人」的本地化神学，覆述着别人的生命与传统信仰相遇的故事﹙如：第四、五世纪教父们，或中古时期、或近代西方神学家们的信仰表达﹚，我们还没有完全真正地碰到神学最核心、最本质的部分。

其实，神学作为「诠释」的意义，它本身就应该是「本地化」的，每一个时代的神学诠释工夫，一方面它需要回忆过去，见证传统信仰的内涵，另一方面，它又是当下信仰团体所在世界和自身经验的诠释。「神学本地化」是一个活生生的「重读」和「重写」信仰的动态过程。它是整个地方教会生生不息的信仰历程，在圣神的启动和默感下徐徐展开。除非这个团体在圣神内有活泼而深刻的救恩经验，同时又真实地活在时空中，否则，这两个故事是很难真正地相遇的。为此，「神学本地化」是一个不断经验降生、死亡和复活的过程，它是一个有血有肉、多维度生活的交织：家庭生活，社会生活，教会生活，礼仪、祈祷生活互动的成果，同时，它也是多重身份的揉合：基督徒，社会公民，文化人……等等身份，意即生命整体和全部，各个幅度交融溶合。「本地化神学」就在这里诞生，它是一个新创造、新经验、新了解、新诠释、新表述。

基督教神学家宋泉盛曾说：其实「上帝不期望我们为祂作神学，而是期待我们为人类作神学。」5如果我们从这角度出发，那么，文化和历史都必然会成为我们神学的家乡。6今天，我们如何能够创造出动人心弦的神学呢？

1. 参Edward Schillebeeckx (Trad. du neerlandais par Helene Cornelis-Gevaert), L'histoire des hommes. Recits de Dieu. (Paris: Cerf 1992) 75.

2. 同上，72.

3. 参Claude Geffre*, Le christianisme au risque de l'interpretation, Cogitatio Fidci, 120 (Paris: Cerf 1983) 20.

4. 同注1，80-81.

5. 宋泉盛（刘小枫主编），「开拓亚洲基督教神学的新领域」，《道与言──华夏文化与基督文化相遇》，上海　三联出版社 1995　749。

6. 同上，751。

2. 文化的三重结构

接着，我们进入回应的第二部分，看看文化的问题，因为如果要谈「神学本地化」，自然就会问：什么是我们的「本地化」？如果我们说「本地化」就是「现代化」，那么，请问：什么是今天的现代思维、现代想像和现代语言呢？是否速食、即食文化？数码文化？抑或经济发展文化？到底什么是今天的中国文化？那一个人或那一家学说可以代表我们今日的中国文化？或者是否有些文化因素是历久常新、虽不自觉却潜在人心的？

中国文化作为世界文化巨流中的一个支流，就如其他文化一样，面对着今天重重的挑战，无可抗拒的现代化潮流，经济科技的突飞发展，物质和消费主义的泛滥，物欲主义的放纵，人对自身无穷欲望的盲目追求满足，失去了理性的控制和基础，带来了生态环境的严重破坏和污染。再者，社会和家庭结构的急剧转型，道德体系的崩溃，带来整个社会失衡，人的内心失调，人与人间的关系变得疏离扭曲，造成人的异化、物化。的确，今天，我们处于一个无根迷惘的时代，中国文化也在流徙充军中……我们深感中国文化极需「创造性的再生」。要重新再造，就需要先「净化」，这包括发扬保存文化中的正面因素，和扬弃文化中的某些负面因素。

中国传统文化是一种以「人」为中心的价值体系，尤其注重协调人的内心平和，人与人之间关系的谐和，及人与自然之间关系的平顺。换言之，是渴求天地人「整体」的和谐协调。经过几千年流变的中国传统文化，已经构成一个各种成份浑然一体的系统。现试将这一体系中的各种成份分为三层结构：﹙1﹚ 操作成份，﹙2﹚核心价值，﹙3﹚原本精神。并尝试把每一层次的某些特征描写如下7：

2.1 操作成份：

操作成份可以说是一个文化里较为表面、也较易变化的一层结构。属于它的一些成份，可以因应不同环境而有所改变，有所扬弃，为了协调个人或社会的需要，不同的人也可以提出一些不同的思想观念。如：孔子倡行「仁政」、「为政以德」。老子却主张：「无为而治」、「我无为而民自化」。墨子则推崇「视人之国，若视其国。…… 视人之身，若视其身。」我们可以看到，这些操作内容是如何迥然不同，丰富而又多元。

2.2 核心价值：

核心价值是指贯穿整个传统文化演变过程的一些基本价值观念，它是操作成份赖以存在的基础。大部份的操作成份都是从不同角度需求去解释核心价值。因应操作的需要，核心价值观念在不同的时代被赋予不同的面貌和内涵，但却能一以贯之地持续发展。也可以说，它是当时人们对「原本精神」的提炼和表达。具体地说，我们可以从原典﹙如五经﹚中找到一些核心价值的观念，如：道、天等。原典是中华民族对原本精神最早的系统性表述，但在原典之外，我们也可以找到原本精神之痕迹。由于儒家学说长期以来一直居于正统地位，所以其核心价值影响尤甚。在儒家学说中也较早得到系统性的表达，诸如：天道、人道、仁、义、礼、智、忠、孝、恕等等，久而久之，这些核心价值甚至被提到原本精神的地位上。其实，核心价值和操作成份，都可以随时代的变迁，在历史的洪流里消失。那么，「原本精神」的命运又将如何？现在我们就看看，到底什么是「原本精神」？

2.3 原本精神

原本精神是指最本原的文化精神，「百姓日用而不自觉」，它表述了人们对自身、人与人、人与自然、人与社会的最基本态度，它更是一种跃动的生命力。原本精神是较难确定其成份的，它更多地体现为协调这些关系的基本态度。原本精神先于各种理论化和系统化的学说而存在。8儒家学说就是将这种精神具体化和实用化。在不同的时代，原本精神不断地被赋予新的解释和新的价值，同时不断外化为一些具体的社会存在，如：政治制度、社会结构、道德规范、风俗习惯、基本传统等。它也构成一种心理结构、观念结构、信念结构等，持续地代代绵传，虽然它不像学说体系那样完整明确，但它经久不散，潜移默化地作用于个人和社会，它是文化传统中活生生的动力。

那么，我们文化里的「原本精神」到底是什么？整合而言，中国文化突显的原本精神可以包括为：一天人、合知行、同真善、兼内外，即协调人生「整体」的基本动向和态度。我们可以说，这就是先贤先哲们所追求的「天人合一」的理想境界，这境界在生命整体和各个层面中展现：天人间、知行间、真善间、内外间，整体地交融溶合，达到一种整全的和谐平衡。也可以说，这就是张春申神父提到的「一体范畴」9的境界；在中国文化中，天与人处处显出和谐一体。方东美教授曾以一首情词来比喻：「尔侬我侬，忒煞情多，情多处热似火，把一把泥，捻一个你，塑一个我。将咱两个一齐打破，用水调和，再捻一个你，再塑一个我，我泥中有你，你泥中有我。……」10张神父认为，「一体范畴」表达的天人之间的宇宙与人生，自有一番中国思想的情调，中国人心灵会为之神往、陶醉。我们可以把中国人内心深处所渴望追求的「合」、「无间」、「一体」，描写为「整体和谐」、「整体美」。在完美的整全和谐中，我们会找到最深的美、善、真。

中国文化本原精神所追求的「一体和谐」境界，不但流露在各家各派的思想学说中，而且更洋溢在中国美学的精神里，在「美」的创作活动中，我们可品尝到这境界的一个体现。

8. 所有的核心价值和操作成份，都是不同的人对原本精神的阐释和说明。所有其他后来的学说和思想都是对原本精神的演绎。这些演绎都受时代客观条件的限制，也受阐释者主观条件的限制。在显示原本精神的同时，也赋予了它时代和自身的色彩。

9. 张神父以为「一体范畴」是中国文化的特性，表达天人之间的基本方式是「合」，「无间」，「一体」。他更引证方东美教授《中国人生哲学概要》和罗光总主教《中国哲学的特性和基本精神》的解释，说明在中国文化中，突显天与人和谐一体。中国人所认识的宇宙，处处都是和谐一致，毫无间隔。「天的好生之德流行万物，遂成宇宙。我们托足宇宙中，与天地和谐，与人人感应，与物物均调，无一处不随顺普遍生命，与人合体同流。」参阅：张春申，「位际范畴的补充」，《辅仁大学神学论集》n32，台北　光启出版社　314-315。

10. 方东美，《中国人生哲学概要》，台北　先知出版社　民国63年10月　再版　37。

3. 「神」的神学──「美的神学」初探

现在，我们进到回应的第三部分，尝试从中国文化本原精神所追求的整体和谐、整体美的境界，及从中国美学在这境界上的体现，或许可以从中取得一点灵感和启发，应用到神学工作上，来创造一个具有中国品味的神学！

过去，我们在神学本地化的努力上，大多集中在文化体系中第一和第二层结构上，作一些概念或经文的比较分析研究。前辈们的这些努力，为当时都是极有贡献的成就。然而，我们神学本地化的路是辽阔而多元的，今天，我们可以尝试开辟另一个空间，不单从事思想上的分析比较，更可尝试多用「心」，多用心中的「情」，来作神学反思。其实，人本来就是一个整体，当情和理，头和心能够和谐地结合起来创作时，不是更能散发出绚烂的光芒吗？

张春申神父在《神学论集》一百一十一期，曾发表过一篇文章〈圣神论刍议〉11，说明「基督纪元的第三个千年将是圣神论时代」的具体意义，同时指出了未来神学发展的一个方向。他认为，一直以来，西方圣神论患有贫血症，「也许缺乏“独立”的圣神论，致使西方神学始终陷于“言”的领域而不可自拔，无法深入“神”的氛围」。12「圣神论的突破同时需要重新考虑“神学”这门学科。……既有“言”的神学，也该有“神”的神学。这里的“言”与“神”建基于圣经中天主圣言与天主圣神。」

他接着解释说：「言」的神学即是西方的神学，……。它是：我信，为了寻求理解（Credo ut intelligam）。但由于圣神的特质，「言」的神学只能贫乏地「说」祂。难道不可以有「神」的神学吗？它将是：我信，为了寻求深爱﹙Credo ut diligam﹚。圣神学必须依此出发。它也需要「说」，但是「说」爱，也许由此可以另辟神学之道。13

张神父也提到：「神」的神学当然也自圣经出发，不过，触目的不是天主的启示，而是天主的灵感。于是，圣神的灵感成为基本神学。救恩史中圣神的作为或灵感，成为信仰之情经验天主之爱的证据。至于「神」的神学方法，首先在实证神学方面，由于针对圣神的灵感，于是所有的「神学资料」（Loci Theologici）应该另有诠释的方法，为发现天主竟这样爱了世界。对已有的「神学资料」，也许该有重点的转移，特别隐修院神学与神修作品以及圣贤传记，将是「神」的神学偏爱的丰富材料。14

张神父说：既然「神」的神学注重圣神的灵感，它的实证资料更该重视传承中的礼仪、祷词、歌曲、建筑、圣像等等。至于「系统」工作方面，由于美学、文学、象征学、戏剧学、电影学等等中的理论，将是表达与经验天主灵感的媒介与模式，同时也是「寻找深爱」的方法。它不只是为了灵修，而是赞叹、惊讶、渴慕等情愫。15

事实上，「言」和「神」是同样重要，天主的言离不开祂的气──神。救恩是天主藉着祂的「双手」圣言和圣神的自我通传，双手互助，然而仍有左右之分。张神父再进一步解释说：「言」的神学和「神」的神学，都需要言说与表达，也都出自「思」。但「言」的神学之思是理性，为了寻求理解，我们的表达也常用概念的语言，而「神」的神学之思是智慧，为了寻求深爱，这是「说爱」的神学，自然它需要另一种形式的表达语言了。「言」的神学和「神」的神学，二者应当互补。张神父认为，「其实，像奥斯定那样的神学家是二者兼有的，而士林神学以来，直到今日的西方神学明显地是「言」的神学，令人不能不问我们东方神学是否应该开辟「神」的神学呢？…或许这也是圣神论时代的关键呢！」16

我们相信从中国美学所体现的「美」的意境17之启发，会为神学带来一个新的意境之追寻。不单会在神学方法论上更新──多用信仰之「情」，而且在信仰的内容上──我们会更凝视仰瞻天主之「美」，甚至在神学的表达方式──也可试用艺术的表达形式──诗的语言、画的意境。事实上，神学不单可以借用抽象的哲学概念来表达信仰的内容，表达的工具同属表达的内容，为什么不可以把神学写成像一首诗、一幅画、一阙歌？一个蕴含中国品味的「美的神学」──「神」的神学？

中国的艺术家﹙诗人、画家、书法家等等﹚，在美的创作活动中，强调的是：把心和物，情和景，主体和客体，人性与自然，抒发与描摹，善与真，内在与超越，水乳交融地紧密交织。18他们所追求的整体和谐、整体美的「意境」，其根基正是中国先哲的天人合一精神，只不过它更强调的是天人之间的情感关系。王国维说：「昔人论诗词，有景语、情语之别，不知一切景语，皆情语。」19；王夫之说得更清楚：「情中景，景中情。」「景中生情，情中生景。故曰景者情之景，情者景之情。」「情景一合，自得妙语。」20这里，情与景交融互渗，相互生发，你中有我，我中有你，富含生机，充满活力。将主体生命的情思寄寓于客观的形象，使外界景物情感化，变成我的存在，这就是所谓的「移情」﹙入神﹚作用。在我们的神学创作上是否也可以多一点「入神」作用，使神学作品情理并茂呢？「情景交融」的境界，这是「天人合一」的理想在中国艺术创作上的具体表现；借有限以表无限，造化与心源合一，一切形象都成了象征境界。

司马光曾说过「情内有道」，情和道是一致的。中国人对「美」的体会渗透着浓厚的道德理性和宗教情操，不是片面的的感官享受和快感，而是一种理性与感性结合的精神和谐愉悦的境界。这种超越层面的「情」，表现为一种情操、情境、情趣、气象，一种至高的精神境界，达到万物归一的灵境。事实上，中国人的「天」是有多重意义的。21中国伦理学上所谈的「天」是个「义理之天」，追求天道与人道契合，万物一体之仁。而中国美学上的「天」是个「情感之天」。这个兼有自然和超越意义的「天」和「人」建立起一种「你中有我，我中有你」的交感和合的关系，充满着生机活力。22

中国美学创作所追求的意境，是一种难以言喻、蓬勃无尽的「意境美」。「美」不是静止的，「美在动中」，这是中国人的审美观念。23《易》曰：「天地捆缊，万物化醇」。这「生生」的节奏是中国艺术境界的最后源泉。这种观念渗透到一切艺术活动中。诸如：建筑、雕刻、绘画、书法、舞蹈等，处处都表现出一种「神动之美」。美就是生命，美就在生命的飞跃。试看，中国的建筑是静中寓动，那带有俏丽飞檐的屋顶，恰似一只即欲振翅起飞翱翔的雁鸟。中国的雕刻着意表达的是流动的线条。中国的绘画亦以线条为主，着重轮廓美，线条美。因为线条是流动的，最能表现动力之美。中国舞蹈的优美之处，也恰恰在于轻盈的襟袖飘带随着舞者美妙的姿态，在空中画出的有韵律的线条。的确，流动的线条最易呈露动态之美，使人感到音乐的韵律、舞蹈的节奏。

《易传》说：「一阴一阳之谓道。」「道」就在一虚一实、一明一暗、一起一伏的波动之美中，「道」寓于动态的功能中，这是中国艺术推崇的「神动之美」的形上基础。在艺术创作上，这观念则表现为重「神似」而不重「形似」的审美标准。所以在创作中重「传神」，要显示事物内在的一种「生生」律动──「神动之美」。但如何才能够达到「传神」的境界呢？

这里，我们触及中国人一个很深的生命经验，就是对「气」的体验和认识。一切艺术的奥秘，就在「气韵」的问题上。中国艺术的「传神」所要传达的，就是在万物内流溢着的生动的气韵。南齐画家谢赫在其着作《古画品录》中，把「气韵生动」列为「六法」24之首。一千多年来，「气韵生动」成为中国艺术审美的最高评价。着名美学史家张彦远曾说：「以气韵求其画，则形在其间矣。」25「气韵生动」是一种绘画﹙或其他艺术创作﹚上的「整体感应」，是共鸣时生命力的灵动。大诗人杜甫有两诗句写出了中国艺术的时空意识：「干坤万里眼，时序百年心。」中国传统人物画强调「传神」、「神气」，而山水画重视「意境」、「气象」、「境界」，花鸟画则重「意趣」、「生机」，所有这些都离不开「气韵生动」这一千古绳律。总之，画中皆有「气」──从画家的人格涵养到画的风格面貌，再到具体之创作方法以至表现技巧，处处都洋溢着「气」。26

在这美学最高价值标准的背后，蕴含着一个流动的整体宇宙生命观──「通天下一气耳。」《庄子．知北游》。中国人相信从草、木、瓦、石，到生灵、鬼、神，整个宇宙都是由「一气」所贯通。万物彼此相通，相互感应交流，真是「你中有我，我中有你」！中国画家诗人，将自己全情投入这个一气相通的世界，经验到在每一万物里面，都有一气在流动。气就是生命，是生生不息的动力。因为美就在「动」中，整个大自然在在洋溢着一种生命力的震动，所以大自然是美的。27山川草木花鸟虫鱼之所以为美，因为它们有一种波动的暗示。试看一枝梅花的姿态，它是何等自在，何等天然的优美，又何等艺术的不规律！即使一枝已剥落了花朵的枝条，还是美丽的，因为它具有生气。它展露着一种生长的活力，一股冲向未来的动力，等待下一个花蕾的绽放。每一棵树的轮廓都表现着一种发于有机的冲动的气韵。试看一棵松树，生长的渴望意求，推动它将树枝条伸向阳光，又为求抵抗风的凌暴，就会集中生长的全力，去维持树干每一部的平衡。任何树木都含有一种美感，因为它展现着一股推动力，它从未意欲求美观，它不过渴求生活，但其结果却是完美的和谐，和广大的满足。再看看在原野奔驰的马，那连结身躯和四腿的线条，所呈现谐和而协调的形体，牠是美的，因为牠揭示着跃动的敏捷性。猫行动的柔软，显示着一种柔和的动态美。而一只哈巴狗蹲踞的轮廓，却有一种纯然稳固力的美。竹，它不是树也不是草，无花也无果。但它却含藏着一份天地正气，常被喻作仁人君子，虚心、隐逸高尚的气节。石，本是外表坚实而静态的东西，但在中国画家笔下，它常被描摹成是中空的。这里暗示在它内有一气在流动着；它有如一棵树一样充满生气活力，也如同流水般灵活。在中国山水画里，云气之生处常是在崇山深处，山岩乃云气之根﹙唐岱﹚。大自然无处不充盈着活泼丰溢的「气韵」，波澜变化，万千姿态，这是最高灵境的启示。

当代着名女作家张秀亚教授曾在一篇文章中，谈到我国文学的「正气」传统。28她认为我国的文学史，简直可以称之为一部正气的文学史。29古今多少仁人、志士、英雄，豪杰所表现的那股至大至刚的正气，乃是澄澈的心灵与坚贞的意志之所盟发的。张女士这样描述：「这股正气，在一些作者的精神生活中，回旋、激荡、酝酿、生发──至其极处，写出来的东西，已不是一张白纸，数行墨痕，而是和着血、和着汗、和着泪。…达到了人类灵性境界的最高点。至此，一篇充满了浩然正气的文章，其中所揭橥的，所启示的已突破了文艺的范畴，而达到了道德的境界，进入了宗教的领域。」30唐白居易也曾说：「天地间有粹灵气焉，万类皆得之，而人居多，文人得之又居多。盖是气，凝为性，发为志，散为文。」31曹丕早也曾说过：「文以气为主，气之清浊有体。」《典论．论文》论文以「气」，实则是以「气」论人。不管怎样，画中、文中皆有气，而气却有清有浊，你有怎样的气，你表达出来的就是怎样的气。若你心中有股正气、逸气、灵气，你自然就会散发出一份清气；相反的，若你有的是俗气、戾气、市井气，你流露出来的就是一份浊气。所谓：「文如其人」。

不论在中国艺术或文学创作中，都要求创作者的人格要清高，胸怀要旷达。因为「人品既已高矣，气韵不得不高。」32人品若高，气韵就会自然四散洋溢。人品不高者，则难以有清新俊逸、高风劲节的作品。是故中国文人画家重精神修养，也爱游历，沉浸于山水之间，静穆观照，吸取其中灵气，洗净心思念虑。一代大师董其昌说得好：「读万卷书，行万里路，胸中脱去尘浊，自然丘壑内营，立成鄞鄂，随手写出，皆山水传神。」有人品评杜子美诗「专以气胜」《宋张戒岁寒堂诗话》，梁钟嵘《诗品》即谓：曹植之诗「骨气奇高」，梁武帝萧衍品评「蔡邕书，骨气洞达，爽爽如有神力」33石涛也说过：「作书作画，……先以气胜得之者，精神灿烂，出于纸上。」34一言以蔽之，诗中、文中、画中之气，是诗人、作家、画家个人的道德涵养、精神气质，乃至作品的美感风格、文思灵感之流露。章学成说得妙：「凡文不足以动人，所以动人者，气也；凡文不足以入人，所以入人者，情也。」一篇文章所以能动人心者，不是它的文字，而是文章所散发出来的那上下与天地同流之气，和它所洋溢的真挚之情。他接着说：「气积而文昌，情深而文挚；气昌而情挚，天下之至文也……。」35是故《礼记》曰：「情深而文明，气盛而化神」36。

中国文化很重经验和直觉，重整体超过局部，你看一幅画，就能观气而知人，这是深邃的「整体感应」！其实，「气韵生动」所呈现的，就是一种「整体感应」；画家﹙作家﹚个人的品格气质与天地的灵气，相互感应交流而浑然为一，遂反映在作品中，继而传达到观赏者，于是激起心灵情感的共鸣，一波接一波，一浪接一浪的回响……这是一种连续不断的生命灵动，整个过程是流动的、持续的、且充满互动的跃动，以和谐而有韵律的方式环环相扣。

既然中国艺术着意于「气韵传神」，「以神统形」的美学原则，致使中国的艺术空灵而意远，优美而隽永，那飘然的神采泛起作品整体上的魅力，使作品整体散发出一种「言有尽而意无穷」的意境，在有限的事物中涵盖无限的意趣，使人深思、玩味无穷。在中国艺术创作里，令人最神往陶醉、最能吸引人的，相信就是这「言有尽而意无穷」的意境美，所谓「意存笔先，画尽意在」。是的，「书不尽言，言不尽意」。「留白」是中国绘画上的另一大特色，让气韵在画中长「流」，也流到万世万代你我之间。所谓「唯道集虚」，这「空白」不是真空，而是充满生机、生气，凝聚着一种可感不可见的「气韵」。创作者留下「余韵」，世世「传神」，让你「回味」……留下空间，让我们每个人都可以进去，带着自己的生命经验投入、融溶。这不正是「妙在画外」！

说到这里，我的最终目的不在介绍中国美学，只是深感在中国美学的精神里，会带给我们一些灵感启发，或许可以启动我们开辟另一条神学创作之路──「神」的神学；具有中国特色的「美的神学」，似乎很有「神」的神学的味道。中国美学所追求的气韵传神、整体和谐感应的意境美，那灵气飘逸，情系物我，万有息息相通感应，这不仿似圣神在宇宙中的灵动运化？这位圣三内在生命交融互渗的「爱」流，生生不息地在天上人间，宇宙万有中不停流转，牵起一波又一波的爱浪，不断汇合众川迈向整体和谐、整体美的圆满境界──天主成为「万有中的万有」。

是的，「深沉的静照是飞动的活力的源泉。……，也只有活跃的具体的生命舞姿、音乐的韵律、艺术的形象，才能使静照中的“道”具象化、肉身化。」37希望我们神学工作者也能在静穆的观照和飞跃的生命中间进行创作，同时把「道」的生命与「艺」的生命交融、体合无间；犹如「庖丁解牛」般，让「道」的生命进乎「技」，「技」的表现启示着「道」。我们的神学需要一种洋溢生命力的表达方式，才能焕发起生命的灵动与共鸣，充满「神动之美」和「神动之真」，方能激发起我们对人间大地更多的感应，对天主更深的情与爱。一位当代法国有名的圣神论专家Yves Congar曾说过：「最高的神学境界是赞颂！」让我们在深爱中不停地赞颂……

以上只是我个人一个小小的回响，一个非常初步的尝试，从中国美学的灵感出发探索一个不是神学的神学，仍有很多地方有待继续深究和验证，当然极需要大家的补充、修正和批判，希望会有更多交流的机会，多谢大家。

11. 参阅张春申，「圣神论刍议」《神学论集》n111，台北　光启出版社　1997年春　57-68。

12. 同上，60。

13. 同上。

14. 同上，61。

15. 同上。

16. 同上，62-63。

17. 参阅宗白华（叶朗彭锋编选），「中国艺术意境之诞生」，《宗白华选集》，天津　人民出版社　1996　171-188。

18. 刘长林，《中国系统思维──文化基因透视》，中国社会科学出版社　1990　392。

19. 《人间词话》。

20. 《姜斋诗话》。

21. 张岱年认为，中国传统的天有三种涵义：一指最高主宰，二指广大自然，三指最高原理。参「中国哲学中“天人合一”思想的剖析」，《北京大学学报》（哲学社会科学版）n1，1985。

与此相关，中国的“天人合一”思想也包含多种意思：宇宙观上的人与自然的统一，宗教上的神与人的合一，伦理上的天道与人道的合一，以及艺术上的景与情的统一。

22. 中国美学所表达的就是：中国先哲所观照的宇宙不是一个物质的机械系统，而是一个充满生机的生命系统。宇宙既是生命的宇宙，天人合一也不是机械性的合一；而是生命与生命的互动交流，交融合一，彼此内在，彼此相属。

23. 参阅刘长林，《中国系统思维──文化基因透视》，中国社会科学出版社　1990　394-400。

24. 「六法」是作画、赏画、评画时之六个经典原则，优劣的标准参考依据。六法第一则就是「气韵生动」，它不仅限于画法，它是一切中国艺术追求的目标。

25. 张彦远，《历代名画记．论画六法》。

26. 梅墨生，「论画之〝气〞」《美术观察》总第5期，第4期，中国艺术研究院主办　美术观察杂志社出版　1996　53。

27. 参林语堂，《吾土吾民》，台南　船坞书坊出版　民国75　再版　299-301。

28. 张秀亚，「中国文学中表现的正气」《写作是艺术》，台北　东大图书公司印行　1978　18。

29. 同上，24。

30. 同上，19。

31. 《故京兆元少尹文集序》。

32. 宋代郭若虚，《图画见闻志》。

33. 《古今书人优劣评》。

34. 《石涛题画》。

35. 《文史通义．史德》。

36. 《礼记．乐记》。

37. 参阅宗白华，同注17，181。

作者：徐锦尧

刚才邝修女很想带领大家进入一个境界，一个另类的境界。现在我想借一个小故事来描写一下这个境界。

有位老师问一班小学生；「小朋友，雪溶了变成什呀！」「变水！」大家都说。但有个小女孩天真地说：「老师！不是变水，是变春天！」这是一个充满灵气的回答。我在想，本地化应该也是属于这种境界，我们得自传承的信仰是「雪溶了变水」，本地化的结果是「雪溶了变春天」。

张春申神父可说是我在教会本地化方面的启蒙老师，我很喜欢看他所写的书，并肯定他对本地化的看法。但自从修院毕业之后，我思考了很多，也走了很长的路，可能现在已和老师有少许不同的主张，但因为张神父刚才也鼓励神学家之间的对话，虽然我不敢说自己是神学家，不过也许亦可以作个短短的对话吧？

我赞成张神父的观点：本地化是一个「新创造」。但这「新创造」是双向的，可以充实文化，亦可以充实普世教会。新儒家最反感的一点就是，我们总是说，儒家好是好，但不完满，欠缺终极关怀，而需要基督的宗教去提升等等。

我们的教会当然有启示??圆满的启示，但我们对启示能了解多少呢？能实践出来又有多少呢？所以教会也是要被提升的。我又赞成他说中国文化是「智慧型的文化」。中国文化实在很有智慧，这方面我会后来再进一步说明。然后神父又说教会过去在本地化上的成就，无论在质和量方面都十分有限，我听了有些黯然神伤，我在这里希望的是，在这研讨会结束之后，我们都要大力的推动教会本地化。我相信在这里的都是有心人，我们不要再容许我们的教会只是长期的「说」本地化，而「不」落实本地化，我们要说出我们的心声，道出我们的要求。

年前，我曾跟几间大学的天主教同学会举行了一台「中国化的弥撒」，又唱中国歌，又有三牲祭礼。但礼仪完结前，我略带「预言」的口吻说：「这次完了以后，就是完了，不会再发生什么。」果然不幸而言中。如果我们问：为什么不会再发生什么？因为没人会再作什么本地化的要求，我们觉得现在一切都好，毋须再发生什么。

刚才邝修女也说中国文化重「情」，今天我们对教会中国化这事也应该动情，「感觉到」教会需要本地化，不要老是只停留在理性的、干枯的探讨上。这是第一点。

第二点我要提的是「现代化」这词。我赞成现代化，不过我很害怕这「现代化」就如刚才有人所提的，等于科学化、电脑化、追求时尚、ICQ、满口俚语、甚至入乡随俗等等。因为现代化绝不等于「庸俗化」！近代一位学者徐复观曾说过「文化是一种道德力量」；专栏作家陶杰也说：「我们要多接触中国文化，尤其是那些深层的高尚文化，这样，我们的生活才有品味。」把现代化当作庸俗化的人，他们认为中国古书，如四书五经、诗词歌赋等，只不过是故纸堆的文化。这完全是一种无知，或至少是误会。中国文化如果能经历几千年的考验，它在人生智慧的追寻上，一定会有其独特的贡献，本地化要追寻的，就是这些能经历时间考验的「智慧」。

第三点，我们也要检讨一下，为什么我们未能本地化？我很喜爱中国文化，也曾尝试用中国文化去写书。但我也听过不少人（包括老师在内）对我说：「神父，你写的书很好，不过我不懂，里面有太多中国的东西了，所以也很难用来教学生！」当他说不懂时，表现得很开心、很自豪：不懂中国文化，多好呀！其实，既然认为我写的东西「好」，为什么不努力学习，由「不懂」到「懂」，然后再去教懂学生呢！

我的一位朋友的儿子四岁，前些日子一口气给我念了四首中国的唐诗；另一位老师的女儿也是一样，她也是只得四、五岁，却对我说：「徐神父，我不要给你念『床前明月光』那么浅的诗，我要念首深一点的诗给你听。」然后，她以一位快乐的表演者的姿态，给我展示了她小小脑袋中的丰盛文化修养。我在三四岁时，由于接触了中国文化，于是在我的小小心灵中，便感觉到人生是有韵律的、铿锵的、有节奏的，生活里有英雄豪杰、有江山美人。生命的确很美，中国文化真好！文化能够陶冶性情、提升生命，所以中国人才说：「一日不读书，言语无味；三日不读书，面目可憎。」

第四点我想提的是，许多中国人，包括基督徒在内，都对自己的文化没有信心，使中国文化在中国教会内，长期都是处于「有价无市」的状态。我们都说中国文化好、中国文化妙，但有什么「市场」呢？教会在她的日常生活中，真的重视中国文化吗？以中国文化去渗透教会道理的书籍，真的有「市场」吗？

第五点，神学本地化其实还有教会内部因素的障碍，那就是教会内对「正统」、「大一统」和「神职中心」的执着。这三点本来都是好东西，也是天主教的特点，但一不小心，它们都会产生十分严重的负面影响。例如，「正统」很可能会与「多元」对立；「大一统」会与「本地」产生矛盾。在这「双统齐下」的局面中，要「创新」就十分、十分的困难了。「神职中心」更是和「发挥教友活力」的理想几乎水火不容。今天研讨会中的十人，便有七位是神职人员和修女，教友只得三位，而那三位教友，也许老早已经「半神职化」了！没有真正教友的参与，神学便很难与生活挂勾，也很难像佛教那样，在来到中国后便变成成禅宗，创造了中国佛教自己的语言，然后又再被定为正统的佛教。在今天的教会里，如果有人胆敢以佛教创造禅宗的精神去弄个真正的「中国神学」出来，不被视为「异端」才怪哩！

在这里，我想和大家具体地分享我自己走「本地化」的经验。话说我于一九七八年作本堂神父时，我们堂区有三间空房间，我将每间房改造成一个可住五人的房间，三间房便可让十五位教友住宿。我们主办了好几届「三周宿营」，在这三个星期内，这十五人每天照常上班或上学，下午六时回来一同吃饭，七时上课，八时反省或小组活动，第二天又照常上班或上学。

有了几次这种类型的培训经验以后，我特别选出十五位年青朋友和知识份子，希望大家一起生活、一起研究、一起反省一下，我们信的究竟是什么？什么信仰的内容真的对我们的生命有意义和有影响？什么能提升我们生命等等。三周以后，我们认为还不够，要再来一个三周。然后我们就把那些我们一起研究的资料整理出来，再加上一些教会最基本和最必要的「教理」，就变成了五十二篇的教理课课文。我们拿着这些课文去教慕道班，过了一年再修改，再去教……。这就是我那本《正视人生的信仰》（天主教成人教理）的篮本了。这真可算是一本十分「本地化」的教理书。但这本书差点不能出版，因为跟传统的不尽相同。幸好，看重这种「创作」的人还是不少，所以这书除了有香港版外，还有台湾版和大陆版，至今已印行了二十六万册。回想起这书的曲折命运，可见本地化绝不是一项容易的工程，因为你所谈的，并不是一般人耳熟能详的东西。

本地化的路还有两个取向，一个是比较抽离的，即所谓Detached的取向；另一个是比较投身的，即所谓Committed的取向。我们有时会强调客观、本意、学术性、传统等等，重点是以思想、理论、概念为主，这是比较西化的一种取向，这取向比较「抽离」，是香港人所谓的「不够埋身」。另一个可能性就是强调「对我」（Tome）的意义，即我要问：这和我有什么关系？对我有何意义？这是一种边找寻、边接纳，边学、边做、边成长的取向，它以圣经为重心，却以「我」为主体。这种方法比较接近中国化。张载认为「力行方有真知」，孔子说：「行有余力则以学文」，陶渊明「好读书不求甚解」，中国的艺术广泛的主张「意在言外」。这一切都没有把「理论」放在绝对的地位上，反而要求「知」和「行」相照应，理论和实践相关连，信仰和生活相结合。

我觉得马克斯有一句话很有意思，他说：「philosophersinterprettheworlddifferently,butthepointishowtochangeit」。我们可以把世界讲得天花乱坠，但其实怎样才能改变它呢？我们「讲」本地化，但怎才能「做」出本地化呢？我真希望，我们开完了这个会以后，真的能去做、去付诸实践。

那么，我们的路是什么呢？我觉得有两大前题我们先要注意。

第一、我们一定要对中国，和对中国的一切有一份「温情和敬意」。九七回归后，我每年七月都为学生办「回归营」，因为我感觉到香港人直到今天，仍是人心未回归、情绪未回归、思想未回归。究其原因，是因为今天我们做中国人做得并不「痛快」。我们赖以炫耀的「文化」，似乎都是一些我们以为过了时的「古文化」，而我们今天在享用的「文化」，如衣、食、住、行等各方面，差不多没有一样是中国化，连穿鞋、穿西装，都是外国的。记得我们六零年代在罗马传信大学读书时，凡是有综合晚会，我们中国、香港、台湾的同学都拿不出什么有中国特色的东西来表演，最后终于只能找几位修士扮女孩跳宫灯舞。要找一样属于中国典型的东西，真难！

「对中国有一分温情和敬意」的意思，不是要保留从前那种「天朝上国」的思维，不是自以为是、自我中心，更不是自大自满、不思进取和目中无人，「对中国有一分温情和敬意」的意思，是肯定自己中国人的身份，以作中国人而感恩和自豪，摆脱自己那种莫明其妙的文化自卑感，认真地面对自己的一切优点和缺点，发扬民族文化的长处，矫正自己的不善，以能对世界多元文化的发展作出应有的贡献。我们有自己的文化，我们中国的文化主要也应由我们自己去发扬，这是我们应有的最基本心态。

第二、我认为所谓信仰与文化的「交流」，主要是指一个中国人要同时爱上中国文化，亦同时爱上圣经，让两者在自己的真实生命中，自然地用互相启发的方式，去彼此丰富。我所讲的「启发」方式，不是向对方教训或训话，也不是互相的「对照」，例如「天」是否等于「上帝」，「道」是否等于「圣言」等等。这种方式很需要极专业的训练，那不是你或我或一般人能做得到的。我下面举一些例子，也许能说明什么叫「启发」。

我很喜欢一首小诗：「我有明珠一颗，久被尘牢关锁；一朝尘尽光生，照破山河万朵。」我会因这首小诗的启发，而更肯定我是天主伟大的创造，是上主所爱的子女，我确是上主心中的一颗宝贵的「明珠」！可惜的是，这明珠已蒙尘，它需要清洁、更新，好能成为地上的盐、世界的光，在黑暗的世界中照耀。这首诗不是可以「启发」我们去在四旬期中，如何去思考我们的「更新」和「踰越」么？

又如果要对那位无限的「天主」多一点认识，或作多一番的思考，下面那首诗也可以进一步「启发」我们：「造物无言却有情，每于寒尽觉春生；千红万紫安排着，只待新雷第一声。」我有一次在台南讲学，于春节期间突然听到一声春雷，便想起这首诗。是春雷唤醒了世界，使万物欣欣向荣，那是天主的造化，但这位天主却是一位「无言而有情」的神，是孔子所说：「天何言哉，四时行焉，百物生焉，天何言哉」的造物主。祂管理世界，化育万物，但却「无声无臭」，这就是我们的天主，或至少是我们在传统中所认识的天主之外的另一面。这也是启发。

下面还有我最喜欢的一个思想。保禄说：「谁能使我们与基督的爱隔绝？」（罗8:35）我便想起孔子有句话；「天之将丧斯文也，后死者不得与于斯文也；天之未丧斯文也，匡人其如予何？」孔子的意思是，如果老天爷要「丧斯文」，即要让中国的文化毁灭，「后死者」即指还未死的人，也即是指孔子自己，这个「后死者」就不会「与于斯文」，就不会接触到这个「文」、这个文化了。反过来说，既然我（孔子）已接触到这个文化，那就证明老天爷不想这个文化平白的丧失。既然是「天之未丧斯文」，是老天爷自己不愿这文化消灭，那么「匡人」即使要难为孔子，又怎么能成功呢？那些有心迫害孔子的人，又怎可奈何孔子呢？孔子这话，不是也可以「启发」我们去明白保禄宗徒的心境吗？

我在大陆，常与修女、神父们分享这个孔子的抱负。我们能否对自己的圣召满怀信心而这样说：「天之将丧重庆教区也，后死者不得进此教区也；天之未丧重庆教区也，主教/长上/属下/同辈/教友/政府/仇教者其如予何！」就连一个不好的主教、一个不好的属下、一个不好的任何东西，都奈何不了我的圣召！保禄宗徒和孔子不是志向相同、抱负相当的两位异地英雄吗？这也是我所讲的信仰与文互相「启发」的一个很好的例子。

我很欣赏刚才张神父所说的，其实在我们的固有文化里，也有「启示」。基督降生前，人又怎能认识天主和生命中的一切真善美圣？感谢天主，他给我们中华民族赏赐了如孔子这样的圣贤，他们都能用自己的眼睛、自己的耳朵，去接触到生命和在那真实生命中的救恩，然后再传给后人。所以有一位无名氏才这样说：「天不生仲尼，万古长如夜」，即是说，如果没有孔子（仲尼），我们便不会了解世界、了解生命，我们便好像是活在万古的漫漫长夜之中。于是，孔子就成了天主送给我们中华民族的一个大恩典，是天主给我们的救恩。

我深信中国文化对明白天主教信仰的重要性，所以我于一九八六年公教教研中心成立开始，在我们每周的主日弥撒中，我便引入了中国的文化，去帮助我们对圣经的了解，到现在已结集成书，成了甲、乙、丙三年的《主日八分半》。在这三本书中，我在每一主日的道理中，都尝试找到一首中国诗歌或故事，去和福音的精神相呼应，尝试把教友们带进一种境界，即福音和文化同时要带我们进入的那种人生的境界，那里有的是真、善、美、圣，和天主无限的大爱、慈悲、安排和创造。

其实，上面的看法是源于我所喜欢的一个思想：「立体的人生观」。「立体人生观」就是说：圣经『启示』真理；文化、其他宗教和一切的人文科学『发现』真理；我们还要『活出』真理。

当我表达这意见时，在赤柱玛利诺会院演讲的一位世界知名神学家JacquesDupuis,S.J.便对我说：「徐神父，你为何不说文化也『启示』真理？」我回答他说：「神父，我不敢这样说；说了，后果不堪设想！」因为还有许多人认为信仰比文化高一线！其实，当我说「立体的人生观」时，在我心中是没有大小先后的，我们最重要的是热爱和怀抱这一切，让它们在我们的生命中发酵、互动，互相引证，亦互相提升，还要互相挑战，互相修正。但更为重要的，是我们要按着所认识的真理去实践和生活，然后再把我们经验的结果，用我们自己的话去表达出来。这时，我们才有了真正的、扎根于生活的本地化神学。

我有一次去中国东北的辽宁省抚顺市讲学，那里是雷峰的故乡，中国大陆的政府常宣传要「学雷峰」，因为他有很大的为人牺牲的精神。我参观完那个雷峰博物馆后，馆长就拿出一本纪念册，请我题字。我想了一想，就提下了：「我喜欢立体的人生观，所以无论是基督的博爱，佛佗的慈悲，孔子的仁爱，或者是雷峰的牺牲，都值得长照宇宙，永留人间。」然后签上我的名字。那位无神论的馆长很喜欢这几句话，他说：「神父，我很喜欢这个思想，如果人人都相信这种立体的人生观，世上就不会有那么多纷争。」我说：「对，我很相信这些思想。作为一位神父，我肯定我自己，但我又可以向你学习；学了你以后，我会更加充实我自己、成为我自己。」

有次我和某地的一位宗教局局长吃饭，吃饭时我对他说：「我们天主教最近发展了一种很有趣的思想，我们已不怕向基督教徒学习圣经，向佛教徒学习灵修，向无神主义者学习如何建设这世界。」不过我补上了几句说：「我向基督教学习，不是想做牧师；向佛教学习，不是想做和尚；跟你们学习，不是要放弃信仰！我作为一个神父，如果能够在重视礼仪的同时，再兼备基督教的圣经修养；在天主教的灵修根基上，再加上佛教的灵修；在致力建设天国的同时，再培养我们对世界的热爱。我便是一位更好的、更全面的、更『立体的』神父。我向你们学习的重要目的，就是要成为我自己！」

在这世界上，无论从历史整个的纵面来说，或从全世界地域的横面来说，都有很多事物值得我们欣赏和学习。教会要学习如何『降生』在历史和空间之中，并要用武侠小说中的『吸星大法』，去吸尽不同文化、不同宗教中所有的真善美和一切的能量，去成就我们的今日和未来。这为我而言，就叫做本地化。

下面我想和大家简单的分享一下，我自己在本地化上的一点小努力。

神学对我来说，就是信仰生活的反思和整理。我们热爱信仰，我们喜乐地渡着热诚的信仰生活，然后我们对这生活不断的加以反思、批判和继承，再用自己所熟悉的语言、文字和文化去承载和表达。这种努力不能只是理论，而需要有一个「支持系统」去让它实现出来。对我来说，这支持系统要展现在日常生活之中，尤其是我们的主日礼仪。我的主日讲道集《主日八分半》，就是在这个理想的催迫下，经过了十多年的生活、尝试和努力的结果。

第二，我也希望这些结合了我们的现实生活的信仰，能渗透我们教会的工作，尤其是我们的教育系统，因为这是我们香港天主教在人力和物上最大的投资。我和天主教教育事务处合作出版的天主教公民教育系列《香港情、中国心》，也是在这理想下促成的。我不是想介绍这套书，而是想介绍写成这套书的方法。

这套书的所有三十三个主题，起先都是只有题目，没有预设的内容。跟着我便找几位老师，一齐研究：「我们的学生现在需要些什么？他们在想着什么？怎样才能有效地帮助他们？」我们全组人都齐齐的「讲」，根据我们的知识和经验，天南地北的讲，感叹时事，畅论古今，无所不谈。然后整理出全章的脉络，定出全书的结构，再分工合作一齐去找资料，找些社会科学上的、生活的、圣经的、中国文化的资料。然后分头去写出一段一段，最后由我执笔总其成。全书所有的三十三个单元都是这样写成的。这套书每单元都必有三部份：人文科学和现实的生活情况、中国文化、宗教信仰（特别是圣经）。对我来说，这也是一种信仰本地化和教会本化的努力，我已经这样努力了十多年。

最后，我相信真正的本地化，其实就是对普世教会的最大贡献。

我们常说中国有四、五千年的文化和文明，最近我到渖阳，更参观了那里最近出土的「新乐文化」，那已是七千年前的事，即中国其实已可以说有七千年的文化和文明。但这个文明古国，对普世教会似乎一点贡献和影响都没有，那是十分可惜的事。刚才张神父所说，我们有本地神学家，却没有本地神学。其实我们只能说有本地神学工作者，因为我们也有一些关心本地神学的人，张神父就是其中的表表者。但张神父所说「没有本地神学」，听起来却是令人黯然神伤的。我们已有一群人，大家都很着紧于本地神学的发展，为什么却只限于「说说」呢？为什么不能一起努力，去发展出一套自己的神学呢？老子所谓「千里之行，始于足下」，我们一定要由今日开始，努力去走这一条本地神学、本地教会之路，无论是礼仪或圣艺，都要本地化。这是我们坚决不疑的大方向。

我在大陆问过许多神父：「如果你要建新圣堂，你会建一座什么样的圣堂？哥德式的（西式的）或者是中国式的？」我得到的回答几乎是千篇一律的「哥德式」！老教友不能接受中国式的教堂，这是事实，但这只能说明我们的「西化教育」（不敢说成是「殖民教育」或「奴化教育」）是十分的成功而已！另一原因，也是因为在事实上，西方的圣教艺术确是远胜于中国圣艺。理由很简单，别人发展了千多年的圣艺，必然比较完美，我们刚刚起步的创造当然会显得比较粗糙。许多教友都不喜欢中国式的圣母或中国式的圣堂，仅有的一些中国式圣艺，也不过是用来点缀一下而已，成不了中国教会的主流。

我深信，中国教会的其中一个优次，就是要发展本地神学，建立一个能够打动中国人心的「中国教会」。我们今天刻意发展的事物，无论是礼仪或圣教艺术，一百年、三百年之后，一定可以和西方的名家如米开兰基罗、达文西等争一日之长。本来，以前来华的着名传教士，就有很重视中国化的，一位意大利来华的画家朗世宁修士，他的画就是中、西结合的，画得很美，可惜到现在似乎是失了传，因为许多人不喜欢、不重视，所以这种中、西结的东西也成不了主流。

我希望今天与会的人，大家都能坐言起行，对这个问题给予应有的重视。我不希望在这个研讨会完结以后，就什么都「完了」。普世的教会应是一个多姿多采的教会，里面应有中华民族和这个民族文化的贡献和烙印。

作者：关俊棠

「既济」与「未济」－－中国神学的「有」与「无」

「既济」与「未济」是《易经》的第63和第64「卦」，也就是最后的两卦。「济」是渡河的意思，「既济」就是已经过了河，「未济」则是仍未过河。由此引申出去，「既济」与「未济」可理解为「已经完成而又尚未完成」，用福音的讲法，正就是「经已临现又尚未完满」的意义。《易经》不把「既济」作为最后一卦，却在其后加上一个「未济」作为结束，实际上是把历史与自然、与人生看为一个周而复始、徐徐上腾的螺旋，既不是一条一去不返的直线，又不是一个首尾相接的封闭环路。这正是中国文化生生不已、自强不息、不甘固步自封精神的哲学基础。用「既济」和「未济」作为本文的主线，旨在说明在此要阐述的，是中华天主教会在那些方面与中国传统文化相融，在那些方面仍待努力。

天主教神学历来均建筑在四根柱石上，即启示、传统、教会训导和实践或经验上；梵二后，文化因素曾一度成为热门的话题，神学本地化亦被讨论得如火如荼，简直有把文化加入成为建筑神学的第五条柱石的趋势。然而，尽管讨论热烈，但教会当局对文化及经验这两点上，始终保持着一种若即若离、欲拒还迎的姿态。犹记得一位参加过上届亚洲主教会议的台湾朋友向我覆述某名梵谛冈的官员的话：「神学本地化？！那算是什么？最重要的，是教义的纯正性（purity of doctrine）！」这番话，正好显示了各地教会在做神学本地化工作时的底线和极限。然而，什么是教义的纯正性?或纯正性的指标是什么﹖这又是一个神学的问题!

要建设神学或启动神学的思维，若不基于上主的启示，不以圣经作为任何一个神学观点的「注脚」则无神学可言；不参考传统的智慧和否认教会训导的合理和合法性，就不算是天主教神学；但一个不把文化和历史纳入作为反省思维的神学，则是一种残缺不全的神学，非有机（non-organic）的神学，更无所谓本地化神学。交代了上述两点后，现在我们可进一步看看中国神学的「有」与「无」。

首先，谈中国神学，绝不意味着它要摆脱或排斥长达二千年的门徒教会所累积丰富的属灵财富。只是，不作盲目排斥的同时，也不宜盲目照搬。当上主的启示、基督的福音进入特定的文化时，必然要「穿上」这一文化的「肉身」；而当这一特定文化熏陶下的人理解、诠释启示与福音时，又必然带有这一文化所特有的哲学、伦理、宗教等观念，并以之作为不同于其他民族神学家的着眼点与视角。所以，教会的基本信仰和信条是一回事，教会神学则是另一回事。前者在历史沧桑中甚少变动，后者则因时因地而异。基于这观点，雄据普世教会并以之作为主流神学达数世纪之久的西方神学仍只是神学辽阔天地里其中的一枝。一如上面所指出，尽管西方神学有其精彩及独到处，但作为东方神学的工作者，仅仅能够覆述前人或他人的东西是不够的，重要的是善于吸取消化对建树中国神学有益和有帮助的东西；其次，中国基督教知识份子总不应固步自封，停滞不前，无所作为。

中国神学所「有」的，是中国文化本身已经提供了的「硬件」和「软件」。前者是我国古文化的渊源。今天，这些渊源若隐若现地仍被保存在中国文化的「原典」，即《诗》、《书》、《易》、《礼》、《春秋》和先秦诸子百家的述着里面，并被积淀在中国人的文化心理之中。后者则是延绵了数千年发生在华夏子孙身上的历史和这民族在每次面对生命的挑战时所曾作过回应的实践。当我们认真地面对上主是历史的主宰这个事实时，我们没法不把神透过历史向世人显露祂自己这回事拼入我们神学的反省范围内。而中国基督徒所经历过的历史和他们所作过的回应，可以说是举世无双的。唐宋、元朝、明末、清初、清末至二十世纪50年代的三起三落，特别是文革期间的入死出生，更是世界教会史上所罕见的。此外，中国传统文化在过去整整一个世纪中曾受过三次严峻的挑战。一在「五四」运动：期间，旧伦理被拋却了，但旧伦理的精神也被拋弃。忠孝节义等德行，被物竞天择、适者生存的进化论打倒了，连忠孝节义背后的毅力、决心、奋斗、眼泪和热血都给淘汰了……。二是在「文化大革命」期间，中国传统文化遭遇到灾难性的破坏。其严重性不只是无数珍贵的历史文物古籍被毁，更严重的是，中国文化中的伦理道德、价值观念，不分青红皂白，统统被彻底批斗、彻底否定、彻底拋弃。其后果，几乎做成了中国文化史上的断层，并使当时许多年青人失去了接受传统文化教养与陶冶的机会，成为轻浮、浅薄、无根的一代。三是在79年中国执行改革开放过程中，三十年的闭关后忽然国门大开，使许多人的利欲突然膨胀，并视传统文化为中国贫穷落后的原因，从而追求一种没有精神在其内的纯物质富裕。上述的三度的文化冲击以及由唐宋至清末以至70年代中国教会种种的遭遇，都是极丰富的神学思考素材，再加工后能提炼成为具中国特色的神学理论，作为中国教会在中国迈向现代化过程中自身的可为与不可为的指引，并以此作为一份礼物献给普世教会。这是中国神学的「有」及「既济」。

可惜，中国教会在这方面没交准了功课。中国神学仍停滞在原始的资料上，迟迟未有人投身上路。国人自我的反省不及传教士们来得积极。「五四」运动中，中国基督徒眼睁睁看着包括马克思、无神论……等西方思潮涌入中国，唯独基督思想未能在当时的知识份子中占一席位……；「文革」结束至今已二十多年，国内外，仍未有人发表过与此有关的、有深度的神学反省……；改革开放为中国社会带来的不少负面影响，人所共知；对于这些负面的现象，教会却噤若寒蝉。基督信仰曾三度进入中国，但最终仍未能落地生根，没有人对此作详尽的研究，上神学课时亦未有作认真的讨论并以此为鉴；大陆教会这四十多年来走过的路，无数信徒所受过的苦，未有成为活生生的神学教材。我们若连这些摆在眼前的经验和实践都不去珍重，并以之作为反省及讨论的教材，我们又如何去建设本地神学﹖！这是至今中国神学中的「无」，也是中国神学工作者的「未济」。

做成中国神学至今仍未成气候是有其原因的。依笔者的浅见，先天和后天均各具因素。首先，是先天的不足。鸦片战争（1840）之后，天主教与基督教凭藉不平等条约的保护向中国人传教，这是基督宗教第三次进入中国。从这时期开始、直至上世纪五十年代，由于某些原因，国籍神职人员一般均受训不足，中西文化都是普通水平。又由于长久以来，甚至时至今天，仍有不少人认为，教区司铎?当然也就是国籍司铎?无须接受较深入的神学训练，因为他们的专职是牧民。于是，这一批又一批的福音前线工作者，空有丰富的牧民经验，却缺少了反思、综合、推展的能力，错失了为建树本地神学一班大好的人才。南京金陵神学院教授汪维藩前辈观察得好：想在中国从事神学研究，或想搞出一点具有中国特色的自己的东西，若无「具本国风格的学养与德操」，则无中国神学之建树可言。

另一个先天因素是百年来中国政治的动荡。翻开中国近代史，到处都是血和泪。由鸦片战争开始，随后的八国联军，不平等条约，黄花岗起义，辛亥革命，军阀割据，北伐，日本侵华，八年抗战，国共之争，国共分治，三反五反，大跃进，文化大革命……令整个民族长时间处于动乱与不安之中。中国教会也同样分担着这个历史命运。虽说，集中营里曾产生发人深省的哲理，劳改营中可孕育出伟大的文学作品，但人总得离开了这些生活环境后，有足够的安全和空间，才能把那些经验整合成为思想作品。中国教会老一辈的信徒和神职人员，大部份都在颠沛流离中度过了大半生，就算其中有些人学贯中西，但环境的不稳定，也直接影响了做学问的功夫。英、美、德、法的神学工作者比较幸运，他们虽然也经历过二次世界大战的蹂躏，但战后短时间内已享有一个较安定的治学环境，这点正是大多数中国学者所缺的。

除了上面两个先天因素外，后天也有两个因素令中国神学本地化的工作停滞不前，或进展缓慢。拙见以为第一个原因是，四十多年来，地上地下教会之间的争议，直接间接削弱了国内外多少信徒的精力，增添了中国天主教徒之间不少的怨悔和猜忌。可能有人认为愈是在一些大是大非的问题上争持，他的信仰就愈坚定，立场便愈清晰。但依笔者多年来的观察，信仰再稳定，立场再清楚，也不会自动有神学产生出来。坚定的信仰、明确的立场，是做神学的原始素材，但不是神学。神学，是一门需要不断反思探究，议题研讨，合作学习，不太快下断然，不攻讦，在真理前谦虚自处的功夫。四十年来，中国教会所欠缺的，正是培植这种功夫的胸襟和气候。

第二个原因是我国教会的事工性太重，灵气不足。以笔者熟识的香港教会为例，教区很强调牧民的重要性，但我们对这群「待牧」的人民的生活，他们实际的需要和每天面对的挑战，体会实在不多，于是许多时我们所提供的生活指引或支援，往往会有货不对办的情况。我们也谈灵修，但却不把灵修与人其他的幅度如身体、感情、思维、精神……等作整体看待，于是乎，尽管我们在堂区教区内不停地筹办各式各样的灵修活动，但始终划不到深处；一个快乐祥和的灵修人并不常见。这些年来，教会也十分重视礼仪的培训，可惜较缺乏的，是礼仪的灵魂，即庆典的内容。因为欠缺庆祝的内容，因为灵修活动并未有进到人的深处，因为我们的牧民服务与平民老百姓的实际需要不配套，故此，虽然教区上下人人都忙碌不已，但真正能提供的灵性滋养却不多。每主日出席弥撒教友的百份率，对社会问题关注的冷淡，信仰知识的贫乏……以至共负参与教会责任的浅薄，都教我们相信我们仍停留在一个以事工为主导而非以现代人内心的走向和渴求为优先考虑的福传模式中。而这正是做神学的大忌。

那么，我们下一步应怎么辨？笔者的看法是：创造一个适合神学发展的环境。为创造这样的环境，我们必需要在下列四个元素上下工夫：一是「远象」（vision）。当教会关注的不只是当前，而是未来；不只是一己教会的得失，而是全体人类的成败；不把精力只放在内部思想检查，而让多元神恩成为建设教会的活泼元素……时，教会就是一个有远象的教会，神学就必然会蓬勃起来。梵二就有这种远象。二是「胸襟」（attitude）。不以真理或真理的唯一代言人自居，是做神学工作的人的基本态度。太快去分辨是非，太急于下断论，太热衷于提供答案，容易窒息神学研究的空间。三是「学养」（knowledge）。就如前面有提到的，若想在中国从事神学研究，若无「具本国风格的学养和德操」，则无中国神学之建树可言。对中国文化「硬件」和「软件」的认识，对普世教会神学动态的了解，都是中国人能否建立出有自己特色的神学的一项必备条件。顺带一提，能有这种学养的不一定都要是中国人，如唐代生在中国的景净原是叙利亚人，但已熟读当时的经书，短短一篇《大秦景教流行中国碑》不足二千字，却涉及《易经》、《诗经》、《春秋》及其他经书、史书、子书多处……。利玛窦是意大利人，为寻求基督信仰与明末中国文化的融合点，不仅换上儒服，更是贯通儒学，力行儒道。我们这些后辈，真的要多加把劲才是！最后第四个元素是「投资」（investment）。没有人力物力的投资，很难会有神学本地化的出现。平信徒、教区神父、修会会士都应有均等的机会和资源为神学本地化作出贡献。七十年代初已故徐诚斌主教派教友到比利时攻读神学，就是一个十分出色的先例。掌权的和掌财的人如果不认识到这种需要，吝惜于眼前的财力物力和人力，再过一个世纪，中国神学很可能仍在原地踏步。

最后，想把上述的反省归纳成下面数点：

（一）中国文化里已蕴藏着为建设中国神学丰富的原始素材。这些素材，一方面被保存在我们的文化经典里；另一方面，却刻划在民族和教会的历史当中。这是中国神学的「有」和「既济」。

（二）然而，至今中国教会仍未有把这些素材转化、加工、提炼成为建筑中国神学的材料；我们的文化和历史仍未能堂堂正正进入神学的殿堂；这是中国神学的「无」与「未济」。

（三）「未济」是有其原因的。我国神职人员普遍在中西文化学养上培训的不足，是一个颇为关键性原因。其次是中国政治近百年来动荡不安，缺少了一个做学问的基本环境。此外，四十年来，中国教会地上地下的争辩，耗费了我们多少的精力，堵塞了多少的创意！最后，中国教会长期以来都只是着重事工性的发展，而严重缺乏文化传教，文字传教；不着重信仰知识的培育，不鼓励多元思想的交流……凡此种种，都使中国神学这棵幼苖，迟迟未能茁壮的原因。

（四）中国神学的未来，也不一定是灰暗的；不过，也不能是一厢情愿。我们总得要多下点工夫。远象、胸襟、学养和投资，为创造一个合适神学发展的环境，是必备的条件。

（五）《易经》中的「既济」与「未济」原本就是中国人对生命生生不息的写照。生命本身就是一个不断由有到无，又由无到有的逾越过程。《心经》中有一则很美丽的故事：「枯木将死，但他死得很安宁……。这是树的死，这也是碳的生，只是法相不同。我荫凉了人们的身，当我是树的时候。我温暖人们的心，当我是碳的时候。白云问：烧成灰烬之后又如何？我将还原再化为尘土，滋养树木。」中国教会的前辈，已经完成了他们在历史中的「既济」，中国神学的「未济」，就要看我们这群后辈愿意为此投身的意欲如何。然而，意欲之上，更迫切的，还是那份耶稣基督的胸襟和教会内手足的情谊，只有这样的胸襟和情谊，才真能使「神恩虽有不同，但都是为建设同一的教会」成为事实。诚心为此祝愿。

作者：周景勋

「莫道人为无感召，从来天意亦分明」－－

对「中国教会的本位化神学」的回应

1. 导言：

圣神修院神哲学院在二千禧年之初，庆祝学院成立三十周年，特别邀请中国神学家张春申神父，为学院主持一个「神学本位化」的研习会1。张神父提出了《神学（灵修）本地化的回顾与前瞻》的论文，为是次的研习会打开了共同编织神人梦的话题，导引我们回顾着中国教会过去五十年来，在神学方面本位化的资料，和研究的不同方法。张神父更强调的乃是本位化神学的前瞻部份，在研究上为我们指出三个方向：

i. 本位化该是现代化；

ii. 有关启示奥迹之间的连系，更需本地特质的模型来建构；

iii. 在救恩计划的光照下，诠释中华民族的故事，此乃理性与信仰的会通之道。

这三个方向也是教会在梵二大公会议中所特别强调的：教会的福音、神学探讨、礼仪与灵修都可以配合当地的文化，且肯定了「在福音及人类文化间存在着许多联系。」（论教会在现代世界牧职宪章58）。但由于教会的开放和改革、带来了很大的冲击，也面对了很多的挑战，尤其在人性的尊严上不同的诠释、社会伦理道德的开放、宗教信仰的自由与人权、如何与不同文化、与习俗、与不同宗教的沟通等都有不同的思想反应。于是教宗若望保禄二世提出了《信仰与理性》通谕，作出一次开放性的交流。2教宗为了确立信仰的真理，也为了更新传统固有的神学方法，不怕面对哲学思潮的挑战，好能指出信仰与理性的和谐。藉此，我们也以和谐的精神，尝试在信仰与文化中作一些思想上的探索。

张神父的文章正展现了他那广大精博的学识，与豁达包容的心境，盼望在这次研习会中作出集体创作的功效，这可谓有着张载的回顾与前瞻的伟大理想：

　　「为天地主心，为生民主命，为往圣继绝学，为万世开太平」

  1. 所谓「本位化」，又称之为「本地化」。按张春申神父的解释乃：「积极的意义包括采用今日中国人的思想，发扬光大天主的启示，同时以启示的内涵，创造新的中国文化。大家虽然特别提出今日中国思想，同时也承认它必然与传统连线的。至于本位化该是大公教会之内的，与西方神学互相在共融中彼此补充。因此，消极方面，本位化的神学不是复古运动，不是孤立主义，最后当然不是过去修道院中的经院神学。但是中国神学的建立，并不只是神学院中教授的责任，而更是整个地方教会的创造。神学是教会生活的反省与表达；除非本地教会的生活是活泼的，在信仰中力谋变化环境，根据环境而说明信仰，我们便无法创造一个代表本地的神学。」

李景雄牧师认为：「在本色化阶段中，神学工作者设法将基督教的教义、礼仪、制度等套上出自中国本土的传统文化素材。当时没有多少人懂得神学方法论，所以做出来的本色化神学，不是过时中国文化外表包装的『洋教』，便是不咸不淡的神学产品或教会枝节。」

所谓「本地化」乃指神学融入当地现时的文化，与当地人民的生活互联互动，其发展如南美洲的解放神学。亦有意指「本位化」。然而，「本地化」与「处境化」相似：所谓「处境化」乃基督神学研究者、或亚洲神学家认为「『本色化』运动只重视传统文化，主张将注意力放在目前的处境。亚洲人身处的境遇是社会剧变、政治动荡、经济发展、本土文化受冲系。今日亚洲人所需要的神学必须在千变万化的现实情况下产生，这就是处境化神学。」

「文化化」则有言「文化融入神学」与「神学融入文化」两方向进路之说。

以上请参阅张春申，「中国教会的本位化神学」，《神学论集》n42，台北　光启出版社　1980　408。

李景雄，「香港神学界的反省与中国亚波罗的出现」，《文化基督徒：现象与论争》，香港　汉语基督教文化研究所出版 1997　126。

2. 教宗若望保禄二世致主教之《信仰与理性》通谕。参网址：

http://www.vatican.va/holy_Father/john_pa...p_ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-radio_en.shtml

教宗若望保禄二世为帮助信徒探求真理，肯定了人要对自己的理性恢复一份的信赖，提出人要多多认识自己，也要明瞭上主智慧的启示；于是，出版《信仰与理性》通谕，强调了「相信是为了明白真理」，和「明白真理是为了相信」，以便带出「信仰与理性」的关系，因为哲学中的理性思考对信仰的反省有重要影响，其内容涉及对人性的肯定，其中包括了人性的尊严、生命的自由、伦理价值与道德意识等；所以，教会对哲学的关心是很清晰的，必须明认神学与哲学是互动的，且只有哲学才可在不同文化中，超然地辨别何者是主观的想法，何者是客观真理；更显示了在不同文化中的哲学可预备接受启示的真理；再者，哲学的理性功能可以帮神学的发展；哲学的成果可以丰富神学的领域和创新。

2. 厘定人文与人本的意涵，好能寻找一个正确的方向。

由于近代中国的新儒家学者从传统的人文主义解放出来，走向人本主义，而创立了以道德主体等同天道思想的人本主义。因此，若不厘定人文与人本的意涵，便会引起不必要的争论与误解。

所谓「人文」一词，普遍地说乃指人类的文化，或指在人的生活中之礼乐教化，《易经．贲卦》有说：「观乎天文以察时变，观乎人文以化成天下。」其后在《北齐书．文苑传序》亦有言：「圣达立言，化成天下，人文也。」实有指人的文化现象。因此，由人的生活文化现象所形成的事事物物，如人事、人情与习俗亦可称之为「人文」。3其实，在中国儒家思想「人文精神」的内容强调「德成于内，文见乎外」，就是除了重视礼乐教化外，更注意人与人之间的人伦和谐关系，标立个人的自我道德修养，故后来更有「人文化成」之说，展示了二个不同层面的人文理念：其一是在于转化个人的气质，使之合乎伦理道德的规范，成为一位有道德的人；其二则规范整个社会、国家的秩序，使之和谐而治、安居乐业。4

至于「人本」，其意义乃指人为宇宙的主宰，宇宙间的一切皆以人为中心；这种说法与「人文」思想所言之「万物本乎天，人本乎祖」之说不同。5再者，有学者认为儒家之言「人本」乃根据孟子所说的：「民为贵，社稷次之，君为轻」（尽心下篇）；充其量「民贵」的思想只能称之为「民本」，「民本」所针对的乃「君轻」，这是人文精神上的社会幅度之人伦关系。若从西方的哲学或神学而言：「人文」精神乃在文化的发展过程中，以人文价值为核心的探索，研究人性的问题，此代表着一种文化和思想革新的取向与努力，以求得人性价值的复建和提升，其中以「爱」作为人神的相互融通的特性，这从希腊哲学至中世士林哲学都很重视这一思路。但在启蒙运动及其后的思潮都在于要排斥传统的权威，当时的学者对基督信仰和神的概念抱着怀疑、破坏和打系的心态，乃至黑格尔、费尔巴哈和马克思出现，对人的重新诠释，人性的表现在人的精神活动上，这精神是无限的，神性原是深藏在人性之内，其发展更指向物质化，神是人在有限与贫乏中幻想出来的心理投射的产物；于是，人性吞并了神性，在神哲学上发展了人本主义取代传统的神本主义。6可见，「人本」所针对的是「神本」，其结果就是排斥「神」的存在而走向无神的思想，因为人是一切价值的最高原理，也是宇宙、人类一切行动的唯一目的。7

我们厘定「人文」与「人本」的重点在于避免在解释信仰的教义时，过于偏重了新理解、新说明、新意义等的确认，便放弃信仰原有的真理和义意，或流于只看重耶稣的「人性」层面，而忽略（或忽视）基督的「天主性」（神性）层面，即蔑神重人的思想；无怪乎有学者认为「人本主义」是「基督教思想上的一次大革命，将以神为中心变成以人为中心」作为时代感的新号召。8但这号召使人在信仰中失去平衡，太强调「人」的主导性，而忘怀了天主的创世和救世计划，透过恩宠引导人回归生命终极的父家。我相信：信仰是双向性的，天主的创世与救世是爱的流露，为人的生命存在给予机会；同时天主给人自由意志，让人在回应上有方向和抉择，不流于宿命。所以，教会在面对「人本」主义的冲击下，要开放对话，深入明瞭和洞察人心深处的迷惘与困惑，也了解时代思潮的价值观，好能寻求「人、社会、自然」有横面的共融，和「人－－神」有纵面的融通；而不是以「神本」主义的权威性训导降命于人，因「神本」主义已不能融入时代的转变中，也不能吸引人踏上寻真之路。教会生存在现时代中，对人活在现世的问题和终极问题必须常常关注和探讨；这就是说，教会要清晰地表明「信仰的尊严」在于肯定「人的尊严」，肯定人的高贵乃按照天主（神）的肖像而受造的，人能认识并热爱天主。人从「人的尊严」中发掘人之所以为人的特质在于人有：理智的尊严，良心的尊严和自由的尊严。藉此，人必须作出对社会关怀的回应，以展现人文精神的「德成于内，文见乎外」的「化成天下」的精神，故教会的信仰不是一套学术理论，而是针对人的生命发展的活的神学，是由基督的生命中得到启迪，使人的生命在互爱中获得转化，以寻得真善美的终极。因此，教会在从「人文精神」与「社会关怀」中谈信仰，必有其信仰的原则9：

i. 维护信仰中永恒不变的真理、人性尊严与人伦道德，培育智慧和印证价值。

ii. 过去的冲突，时代的危机与现代的包容必须从互相对话中排除偏见：今日面对廿一世纪新纪元，我们要有先置自己于死地而后生的勇力和经验－－就是先撇开过去思想的不成熟与误识所带来的冲突，再作生生自强不息的推进和革新。

iii.宗教信仰与政治的分离：基督信仰必须深入了解社会，帮助社会走向和谐共融，千万不可被政治所利用或支配；因为若信仰被政治利用或支配时，就会形成分化与分裂。

ｉv. 在多元社会文化和宗教的并存下，互相尊重的对话、和而不同的欣赏、及互访交流的认识是时代感的使命。

3. 参阅罗竹风主编，「人文」字条，《汉语大词典》（卷一），

香港　三联书店与上海辞书出版　1987　1036。

林尹高明主编，「人文」辞条，《中文大辞典》（卷一），香港中华学术院印行　中国文化大学出版社　民国71　740。

4. 「人文化成」辞条，《哲学大辞书》（第一册），辅仁大学出版社1993　69。「人文化成论」乃唐代吕温之文，意指依凭人自身之德能，制作一套文化规范，用来教化世人，使之完成文化之要求。

5. 参阅韦政通，「人本」辞条，《中国哲学辞典》，水牛出版社　1988　14-15。

马晓宏，《天．神．人》（第一章），国际文化出版社　1988　５。

6. 《哲学大辞书》，同前　69-78。「人文主义」辞条，李震对「人本」与「人文」的诠释，以西方哲学史作一种分析和界定。

7. 同上。周景勋（又从注二至注七的内容乃录自杨熙楠编），「浅谈中国文化与基督信仰的融通互动」，《汉语神学刍议》，汉语基督教文化研究所出版　2000　317-320。

8. 参阅张西平、卓新平编，「交融与会通」，《本色之探》，代序中国广播电视　1999　18。

9. 周景勋（杨熙楠编），「浅谈中国文化与基督信仰的融通互动」，《汉语神学刍议》，汉语基督文化研究所出版　320-322。

3. 「天意分明」的启示－－「从来天意亦分明」10

我们相信：在人的心里有着一股生命知觉的力量，使人能明辨是非黑白；这股力量为孟子来说，就是天命所赋予人的良知良能，不必学而知而能的。既然是天赋的力量，便可以说是「天意分明」的启示，因为在基督徒的信仰中有所谓的「普遍启示」，这是「在人心里有某些宗教及伦理道德的知觉；他们意识到真理与虚假，良善与邪恶，公平与不义，美丽与丑恶；他们在婚姻关系中生活，在婚姻与家庭关系中生活，在社团与国家的关系中生活；他们有来自外在的与内在的控制，防止他们沦于野蛮的兽性。」11可见，普遍启示为多元文化有着重大的价值，且为人的生活和生命存在作出绵延发展的历史肯定。中华文化中所提出的「天意分明」也蕴藏着对人生命的启示，为人揭示生命终极的目标与方向；这便是「天意分明」的天道无私下贯于人，人在感召中作出回应，即「以德配天」的人道上扬与天道契合。具体的说：在一片大地广土辽阔的视野里，我们看到「天」在「地」之上，一望无际，「人」则活在「天」与「地」的中间，人便要脚踏实「地」，头顶青「天」和伸张双手拥抱这个宇宙。这是因为「天」降旨于地于人，此即谓之为「天命」或「命」；人应天命而立于天地之间而为「王」者，古代的「王」者乃「圣」之所致，而为「圣王」，「圣王」将天所降之旨在地上活现和播种，使天旨在地上得到传扬，且导引人（民）顺应天道，回归于天，与天相契合，复合为一体之「圣」。

中华文化中的「天道」与「人道」的思想配合，不单是人在反省生活经验中得到的思想，而是人在有限的探索里，发觉那在生命的背后，有着一个无限的力量导引着人，且默默无言地从「自然、社会、人（人性）」中降命启示于人，且赋予人良知良能，使人感悟到生命的是非黑白，而作出自由的抉择。可见，人在「天意分明」中所体验的是启示的「内容」（题材），即天意的内容，其内包括了「信仰的内容」、「真理的内容」、和「道德的内容」。这可说是属于人认识的「对象」。为清晰地辨别认知天道启示，中华文化的宝藏在于文化思域中的范畴思想；藉着对范畴的认识，我们更能精确地把握天意的内容；如天道、人道、天启、仁、爱、性、命、善、恶、道德、礼、乐、义、智等内容范畴。12因为在中国哲学的范畴中，我们可探究其发展中的整体特征，其内包涵整体的和谐性、传统的延续性和结构的有序性，这些特征能深深地扎根在中国的土地上和民族的心性中，可与外来形形色色的思潮渐渐地作交融，形成新的文化思域，但不失去本根内容。13

10. 明朝王阳明诗：「昨朝阴雾埋元日，向晓寒云迸雨声。莫道人为无感召，从来天意亦分明。坐对残灯愁澈夜，静听晨鼓新晴。」

11. 莫理昂（汇思译）《我信启示》，天道书楼出版　1992年9月　初版　37。

12. 张立文，「天道篇」，《中国哲学范畴发展史》，中国人民大学出版社　1988　3-25。

中国的范畴思想早于尚书的洪范篇中所陈述的洪范九畴开始，与易经中的八卦，引申至先秦诸子的思想，到宋明的理学，其间朱熹的弟子陈淳作了《北溪字义》，为了保卫师门，疏释阐述程朱道学，从《四书》，《五经》中选取与道学相关的重要范畴，如：道、理、德、太极、皇极、中和、中庸、礼乐、经权、义利、鬼神、佛老、性命、心、情、才、志、意、仁义礼智信、忠信、一贯、诚、敬、恭敬等廿六个范畴，对此廿六个范畴，陈淳说明：「当随本字各逐件看，要亲切、又却合做一处看，要得玲珑透彻，不相乱，方是见得明。」，《北溪字义》（卷上）是按一定逻辑次序排列的，而又相互联结的范畴体系。

13. 同上，25-34。

4. 人生命回向的感召－－「莫道人为无感召」

天道下贯必然透过「自然、社会、人（人性）」给人各方不同的启迪，将其所要呈现的「内容」展示出来，故人在不同的理念角度所获得的内容便有所不同；如：

从文化的理念角度上说：人的生活发展使人有「自然、社会、人（人性）」的不同层面的发展，如生活习惯、风俗等。

从信仰的理念角度上说：人对天地间的伟大的一种赞叹、产生了敬天崇天的行动，这便是宗教的形成，人有不同的宗教向度。

从哲学的理念角度上说：人能将「自然、社会、人（人性）」的三幅度作和谐与共融的探究，找出其因果原由。

从历史的理念角度上说：人透过历史的事迹，整合人类在不同时代变化所产生的天人关系，伦常的人际关系。

从社会的理念角度上说：人在社会性的团聚中，肯定人的互联互动关系的最后力量，以建立稳固和平的社会。

从心理学的理念角度上说：人在心理上对「自然、社会、人性（生命）」不理解的奥秘所产生的反应。

我们从不同的理念角度说明了：人在现世所面对的事事物物的确是多姿多采的，我们可从宇宙间的事事物物中获得「天意分明」的启示，这些启示有警世、醒世、救世、造世等的内容。然而，人如何明彻了解这些启迪呢？那就是心灵的感召、或感应了。「人」是受感召的主体，从何处得到感召，这便是「对象」的问题，既是「天意分明」，故感召的根源便是「天」，「天」对万物的意旨分明，正显示了「天」是有位格的，也展现了「天」是主宰万物的，亦临现在万物中。故「人」与「天」是有着密切的关系，人在行动上作为对「天意」的回应或投向，为使回应能符合天意，人要先认识才能有回应。因此，在这一节中，我们是从人认识的「行动」（方法）方面来说，如：认识自然、认识社会、认识真理、认识道德、认识信仰、认识自己等。而中国哲学中，人从「行动」上表达认识的范畴可有：

「观」：圣人观天象以定八卦、观心观物观过、以道观之。

「知」：知天命、知性、知善知恶。

「思」：思善、思恶、思诚明。

「明」：明明德、明心见性、明志。

「行」：行道、行仁（践仁）。

「养」：养心、养性、养志。

「敬」：敬天、敬人、居敬、诚敬。

「虚」：虚一而静、致虚极、虚心、虚怀若谷。

「静」：万物静观皆自得、守静笃。

从上所引述的只是人在回应天意上的一些行动、要探索的方法还有很多，然其内涵所相应于人的生活中的表现可具体的说明，藉以迎接和配合基督宗教信仰的灵修和生活福传，如：

「安身立命、顺天应人」：宗教上的生活规范，哲学上的伦常道德的要求和修养。

「与天相应、与人相和」：文学上的心灵透示，如诗、词、歌、赋等。

「上应于天、下融于人」：艺术上的生命涟漪，如书画、音乐、建筑等。

「上事天、下治人」：政治上的「自然、社会、人（人性）」之生命认同，自由、民主、平等、博爱。

5. 回应张春申神父所提及的「文化基督徒」

当我们提及「文化基督徒」时，我们必须先对「基督徒」这个名称作一些说明14：

有关「基督徒」的界定，我们可从《圣经》中获得正确的指引或答案：「在安提约基雅最先称门徒为『基督徒』。」（《宗徒大事录》11:26）也就是说，「基督徒」这个名称原指：由外教人给透过洗礼（天主教会现称之为「入门圣事」，即领受圣洗、坚振和圣体三圣事），加入信友团体成为基督门徒的具有轻视性之称呼；其后，伯多禄宗徒劝谕当时的信友（门徒）当以「基督徒」这名称光荣天主。15今日，教会中的门徒乃指信徒或教友；当然，基督徒这名称是肯定的，亦可称为基督信徒，天主教的信徒本亦称为基督徒，但为了与基督新教的兄弟姊妹作一些区别，便称之为天主教徒，这些名称总的说，都是「基督徒」，乃指慕道者（有意思学习基督信仰者）经过学习和认识基督及教会等，在适合的时刻，表达愿意坚信基督救赎的信仰，向教会申请愿接受入门圣事而成为基督徒；在入门圣事中，必须当众宣誓信仰，才被接纳，透过洗礼而成为教友。这些基督徒在生活中坚持信仰的原则和特质：

i. 对基督信仰这讯息的答覆与回应，表示接受与赞同。

ii. 表达信仰和皈依，就是宣认信仰与弃绝邪恶。

iii.在信仰中实践敬礼、参与教会的「礼仪」，且在生活中将自己的一切完全交托和奉献给主。

iv. 以信经为准绳的信仰乃是基督徒的标记。

v. 基督徒的信仰须具有个人的幅度，也须具有团体度，有个人的责任也有团体的归属。16

以上所说的「基督徒」，吾人称之为「信仰」基督徒，在这些基督徒中间不乏有知识份子，他们从事思想研究、科技发展、经济探索、或从事艺术创作和政府官员等。

笔者用「信仰」基督徒一词乃区别于刘小枫所用的「文化」基督徒，他的界定：「文化基督徒指的并不是中国大陆的大学和学术建制中从事基督教历史及文化研究的人士，而是指有个体信仰转变的知识－－文化人。认信基督者方可称是基督徒，而非从事基督教文化研究即是基督徒，这是不言而喻的。从基督徒认信来讲，文化基督徒与一般基督徒并没有本质上的不同。文化基督徒之称因此更多是一个社会学含义的称谓，它指的是知识人阶层中的基督徒，他们的社会身分、文化教养和伦理担当，决定了他们的宗教认信的旨趣和取向。」17从这观念的发展，文化基督徒的主要取向只是认信耶稣基督，至于接受洗礼或不接受洗礼都不重要，因为「认信」只在自己个人内心的转变上立言，不必参与教会，更好说是超越教会或教派的。18这与上面所说的「信仰基督徒」实在不同，但与拉内（Karl Rahner）提出的「无名基督徒」有类似之处，19这思想乃出自拉内的普世恩宠神学：「这就是他把教会想成是一种圣事的起源，这项道理被第二次梵蒂冈大公会议所接纳。这也是他的多受诋毁的『无名基督徒』一词的根据。虽然他不坚持使用这个名词，他却坚信这种现实，不知道用什么更好的方法称呼它。反对使用这名词的评论者，也不能给这种现实起一个更好的名字。『无名基督徒』代表拉内为了使耶稣中介的独特性，和天主普救世人的意旨，以及第二次梵蒂冈大公会议的教导能够协调所做的一种努力。就是甚至在观念上，自认为无神论的人们，也能做出具有救恩价值的信望爱行为。慈悲的天主的治愈力量，不但是教会中能为人自觉地体验到；有些人也能不自觉地、不思想地体验到。凡是有勇敢，信赖和爱情的所的幅在，天主就能在『每日生活的奥秘中』被体验到。」20拉内的普世恩宠神学乃配合于他的灵修生活反省，以及他的人学思想，因此他特别注重人信望爱的行为，就是实实在在做一个完人，有着生命的终向，这思想与德日进（Teilhard de Chardin）的影响；拉内发挥了德日进的跃向无限与太极（Point Omega）汇合的完人思想，而称这些勇敢和充满爱的完人为「无名基督徒」。刘小枫在谈「文化基督徒」的思想中，也受到「无名基督徒」思域的熏陶影响：「按照拉内的见解，基督教的普遍要求乃是：做基督徒即明确地做人，真实地做人就是匿名地做基督徒……由此看来，人的超越性或基督性能以不同的方式，在种种不同的名称之下表现出来。」21

笔者认为「称谓」只是一个识别，使在人际交往中作出互动的沟通与分享；最重要的乃有实际的信与爱的共融，才能为生命开拓美好远景；有建设性的思域，可以导引人迈向真理的终极；有知行合一的具体生活，才不会做成人与人的斗争；反之，则能为世界带来「尊重」、「平安」与「和谐」。现今，「文化基督徒」的现象已在中国大陆出现，我们不着意问：文化基督徒是否在中国大陆的现代化社会主义改革下，将自己放在「有神论」与「无神论」中间，藉着基督宗教的基督精神作为自己生命－－心灵与肉身－－的调整，即在「内调心性，外敬他人」的皈依上寻找自我心灵（精神）终极的归属；但却能分清楚其与「信仰基督徒」不同之处：不透过洗礼作具体的信仰皈依的表态。当然，在「基督徒」身分上，我们也盼望着人人能在基督福音的感召下，以具体的信、爱和望实践基督的精神，发扬生命。

基督徒可以不执着「称谓」，但如何才能成为「信仰基督徒」有其必要性的原则，即基督徒不可以失去其信仰的本质。同样的，文化基督徒亦有其内在的基督原则与要求，才能被接纳入文化基督徒的范畴中。但在此我们要强调的是一个信念的问题：如何活出基督徒真我的善的面目？它不是一套理论，而是生命的肯定、生命的终极追求、心灵的自然投向。

  14. 文章内容的说明乃给「信仰」基督徒与「文化」基督徒作清晰的界定，内容乃录自：周景勋（杨熙楠编），「浅谈中国文化与基督信仰的融通互动」，《汉语神学刍议》，香港　汉语基督教文化研究所出版　2000　322-326。

15. 参阅「如果你们为了基督的名字，受人辱骂，便是有福的，因为光荣的神，即天主的神，就安息在你们身上，惟愿你们中谁也不要因做凶手，或强盗，或坏人，或做煽乱的人而受苦。但若因为是基督徒而受苦，就不以此为耻，反要为这名称光荣天主。」，《伯多禄前书》（四章14-16节）

16. 温保禄讲述（吴美慧笔录），「基督徒信仰的特质」，《神学论集》n73 ，台北　光启出版社　1987　407-422。

17. 刘小枫（杨熙楠编），「现代语境中的汉语基督神学」，《汉语神刍议》，25。

18. 许志伟，「『文化基督徒』现象的近因与神学反思」，《基化基督徒－－现象与论争》，香港　汉语基督教文化研究所出版　 1997　25。文中强调：「刘小枫在一九九五年进一步发展这观点（作基督徒并非必须宗教化，必须披上宗教的外衣，信仰乃是整个生命的行为……），认为『文化基督徒』的主要标志是信仰耶稣基督，积极参与，但不受洗礼或参加某一教派，超乎教会、教派之上。」

19. 「无名基督徒」在基督教神学中译作「匿名基督徒」。

20. Ronald Modras（许易风译），「八十岁的卡尔．拉内仍在问问题」，《神学论集》n63，台北　光启出版社　1985　22。

21. 刘小枫，「倾听与奥秘」，《读书》n3，1989　118。

6. 神学本位化的议述

信仰既然不是一套理论，而是生命的肯定，生命的终极追求，心灵的自然投向，也是生活的实践。我们在此共识下，再寻找其理论基础，藉以配合生活实践和多元文化的发展，于是我们发掘出一个简单的问题：如何信仰本位化？这是信仰的发展，也是福音的广传，其中便涉及文化的问题，即在多元文化中，基督信仰如何定位？由这个定位的问题，我们以神学的探究方法加以说明。因此，信仰本位化进一步而言神学本位化，神学本位化便成为信仰本位化的基础和指标。由是，当今的神学思潮中有说：「让文化融入神学」，也有说：「神学融入文化」22。其实这是「方法」与「题材（内容）」的处理问题，如张春申神父在《中国教会的本位化神学》一文中引傅佩荣先生的十点：

－－性善论与原罪论

－－自力与他力

－－内存与超越

－－天人合一与神人合一

－－总体和谐与异合于神

－－参赞化育与受造物意识

－－孔子与基督

－－儒家的仁与基督的爱

－－宗教依于道德与道德依于宗教

－－知行合一与信行合一23

以上所论十点都是个别的题材的发挥研究和比较，研究的方法也是资料的比较，和互相配合，再作反省。笔者认为未能作出一个整体性架构的融合，只将「文化」的一些思想融入「神学」的一些信理上。

在这问题上，笔者的意见强调：基督宗教（包括天主教、东正教和基督教）的信仰是超越文化的，基督宗教所谈的降生神学当有阔面的思域，即基督的降生是进入文化中，复活后的基督再降生就已经超越了犹太文化而融为希腊文化，再融合罗马文化、融入世界各民族、各地域……和中国文化中：

在我的认识和反思中，我相信基督信仰是介入人类的文化中，一如天主介入人类的历史中，为拯救人类一样。救恩史就是记述天主介入犹太文化与历史中，藉以拯救人类；历史更告诉我们，当基督信仰介入希腊文化时，就变成希腊文化的一部分；同样，今日的罗马天主教，所表现的都清楚地呈示了基督信仰的罗马化；然而，罗马化的思想太强硬，一直在侵略别的文化，希望产生同化现象。教会当局也因着持守这个传统而固步自封了十多个世纪，本是仆人的角色作为给人服务，却变成官僚主义的统辖和压抑人，一直没有突破和革新。梵二大公会议的伟大就在于要突破不合时代演进的执拗，故提出革新，可惜的是：梵二的革新已过了二十多年，各地方教会还未能完全执行改革，步代缓慢，实在追不上时代要求；抚心问一问，今日社会与科技的演进实在太快了，梵二的内容已有些赶不上时代了，梵三也应当召开；可是，梵二的革新还未（完全）实行，怎能……！？24

虽然说：梵二的革新还得再反省，但梵二的贡献可不少，它能强调教会的本位化，神学的本位化，对中国教会来说更平反了「礼仪之争」，让教会的礼仪能落实于本地，以本地语言作宣讲，更体验地降生神学的超越时空性，呼吁地方教会进行本位化的研究。更甚者，教会的开放强调：基督宗教的合一性，主动而积极地向基督新教的兄弟姊妹伸开双手，共同探索合一的可能性，可惜的是：基督新教的派别太多，未能完全接受这一份好意。又梵二更强调与不同宗教的交谈，也欣赏其他宗教，如回教、印度教、佛教、道教、孔教等宗教的真理启导；且能与不同宗教合作，齐心为社会谋求幸福，为世界创造和平等。这些思想导使教会落实于本地文化的基础。25

从具体落实的开放到与不同文化和宗教的互相对话，就是要将信仰（神学）融汇在文化中，以发展本位化神学，也不怕与不同宗教对话，好能吸纳其他宗教的精髓，互补不足。事实上，每一个文化都已在时间的累积下，结合了不同思域的精神，这都是前人生命经验的生活宝藏，这些宝藏能传留到今日，必然有其存在的价值，且已在不同的时代传承下，形成了文化本身独特的系统和范畴，这些系统和范畴为人来说都有一个向度，导人走向一个生命终极的善，即由「生」，经过痛苦与喜乐、健康与疾病，青春以至老化，到「死亡」，都问着一个问题：「生何来？死何去？」其中形成了一个因果关系的警世名言：「善有善报，恶有恶报，若然未报，时候未到！」于是，不同文化便会探讨「天意」的内容，也会在人的行动上作出由感召而来的回应，其内产生了不同的思想内容与行动的范畴，而形成了「本位化文化」；若神学要本位化，不是要消灭一个民族的「本位化文化」，而是让复活基督的救恩降生在「本位化文化」中，与之融合，这便是笔者认为神学的超越性在于「神学融入文化」，以丰富文化的不同。同样地，一民族的「本位化文化」亦可以扩阔神学的领域，让救恩普世化。

  22. 参阅《文化基督徒：现象与争论》

李景雄，「神港神学界的反省与中国亚波罗的出现」，香港　汉语基督教文化所研究出版社　126-127。

李秋云，「神学与文化的互动」，香港　汉语基督教文化所研究出版社　1997　139-140。

23. 张春申，「中国教会的本位化神学」，《神学论集》n42，台北光启出版社　1979　449-450。

24. 周景勋，「明德之修」，《神思》n3，香港　思维出版社 1985　18。

25. 同注14，326-327。

7. 结论－－基督宗教的信仰与中国文化的交融26

基督宗教的信仰是超越文化的，基督的降生神学亦当有阔面性的思域，复活基督的再降生－－即传播福音的种子是撒在不同的土地上的－－是超越时空的福传；在福传工作上，我们强调信仰的内心发展，也强调落实文化的学术探讨；于是我们本着人文精神，将信仰配合社会、国家的秩序，为社会国家的和谐而治与安居乐业作出贡献。由是，我们可作一些信仰与文化交融的可能性之反省：

i.我们肯定每一个民族有其民族的文化，在其文化内有其本有的宗教、哲学、文学、艺术等的表达，这些皆记载了该民族的心路历程与文明进步。

ii.基督宗教在于展示基督救恩的临现人间，这救恩是普世性的，也是整体性地覆盖一切的文化，如「月印万川」般地融入不同文化中，而不是一个民族的特别恩宠；当然，基督的降生必须透过一个一神思想的民族文化，藉以具体地临现人世，但这临现在复活基督身上已不受到时空文化的束缚，却是大公性与普世性的无私表现。

iii.基督信仰与文化的交融点不是要来改变或毁灭文化，而是要来满全文化，即与不同文化交融，使之在基督完满的救恩下走向完满，使每一个文化更丰富和更接近救恩，即每一个文化都有其生命力，在生命力的走向上，都有一个生命的终极点，以组成文化的延续性和坚韧性；于是，当基督信仰在进入不同文化时，它要融化自己而成为该文化的一部分，发挥汇通融贯的功效，这就是救恩的功效；因为基督信仰的基础动力在于基督死于自己，在十字架上牺牲，为了爱人而复活，就是这份复活的恩宠，使文化开显了一个新的向度，这新向度是朝向一个生命的超越，也是文化的超越，不再执着自己的死胡同，而是迈向「至真至善至美」的境界。

iv.文化在与基督信仰交融下，不同文化会保持其文化的独特性，同时也有其共通性。独特性展示不同文化有其本根的内容，如道德意识，生活价值等等。共通性展示不同文化在同一的终向下是朝向同一的交融－－使人的生命趋向至善，这就是所谓：「天下殊途而同归、百虑而一致」。

v.天下一家的启示：天下一家不是说要大家同在一个火炉中熔为同体而失去个别性，却强调「家」的互融关系，即一个「家」中有每个独立的个体，如父、母、子、女等的一体关系，故人与人、文化与文化可在基督信仰里成为兄弟姊妹－－「四海之内皆兄弟」的一家一体关系。

vi.文化的开放性：中国文化在二千年前已有文化的大综合：原以道德为首的儒家思想和以意境为主的道家文化下，接纳了从印度传入的佛教，佛教就是以一个开放的态度融化入中国的儒道文化中，有引道释佛、引儒解佛之说，而形成了中国文化中儒、佛、道的合流互动。在西方的文化大综合里，罗马以征服者和执政者的姿态，并吞了希腊和希伯来的地方，基督信仰自然地进入罗马文化中，于是基督信仰便融化入罗马文化中，入主了欧洲，成为欧洲的文化。今日，我们也可以一个开放的态度，接纳基督信仰的介入中国文化，引儒解释基督信仰，也引道佛与基督信仰作互动的融通。故在基督信仰融入文化中，我们要以「基督中国化」的口号落实在中国人的生活里，让世人在中国基督徒身上看到基督，让教会也在中国基督徒身上看到中国人。27

26. 同注14，327-329。

27. 邬昆如，「天主教会在文化方面扮演的角色」，《教友生活周刊》，1998年6月21日　副刊版。邬教授在文章中强调「文化融入」，这个方面与笔者有些不同，笔者强调Inculturation乃基督信仰「融入文化」，故以「基督中国化」为正，而不是「中国基督化」。

作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio

张春申神父的演讲，发人深省，有关神学本位化的回顾已简洁地作一综合报告，至于前瞻他则鼓励我们共同构想。神学部主任劳伯埙神父邀请本人在「礼仪篇」中作回应。本文只想粗略勾划一个粗略的蓝图，尝试说明礼仪庆典于福音本位化的作用，希望能藉此拋砖引玉。

研习会主题是神学本位化，本人较偏向用福音本位化。这两个观念并不对立，而且多次同义。后者较为着重教会在亚洲宣讲的境况。耶稣身为亚洲人，反而多次被亚洲人视为从西方来的「进口货」。这至少使我们怀疑，在介绍或宣讲耶稣和祂的福音时，连「包装」都是「进口」的，并没有充分借用本土文化的有利元素。

早在一九九零年，《救主的使命》通谕已标榜「福音本位化」。（nn52-54）最近《教会在亚洲》亚洲主教会议后的劝谕也谈「福音本位化」,这是整个天主子民的任务，着眼福音须植根本土文化．由此须指出关键的领域，并请教长们在神学反思、礼仪、司铎培育、修道培育、教理讲授、灵修方面要多注意。（n21）这些关键领域是指基督学、礼仪、圣经（普及化）、福传者的培训等。

本文谈「福音本位化」,并非忽略本位化的神学的反思，而想强调神学的反思须集中于福音如何在文化降生，如何与悠久的中国传统文化、宗教和现代文化交流，务使我们所宣讲的福音更关乎生命，当然，本文预设本位化是跟随「降生」原理，由此也肯定福音的三个特性。一是普世性，即无论在那一个文化，福音都能植根。二是交谈性，即福音可与任何宗教和文化交谈。三是超越性，即福音超越并可提升其他的文化。

这里尝试以有限的篇幅指出在那些文化因素和神学基础，礼仪庆典成为福音本位化的支点，为达成此功效，礼仪庆典所需的神韵与貌相。1

1. 庆的情与思

人生有很多喜庆，有些的确令人回味不已，每次忆起都会牵动内心。对基督徒来说，这些喜庆可能是自己的入门圣事礼、婚礼、发愿礼、晋秩礼、病傅礼、修和礼、感恩祭等。一次美妙的庆祝会引发不少的情与思，而精神价值由此得以引发和传扬。

礼仪确是基督徒生活和使命的泉源和高峰，很自然也是「福传」与「本位化」的关键。尤其在亚洲，很多人在不同宗教的氛围下，有惯常的敬拜、宗教庆节、民间信仰的习俗，礼仪的套上本土文化极有利福传的工作。2

人要活生生地面对福音，就离不开文化的领域。就如文化是社群生命的产品，人亦深受其所居之文化所影响。就如人会改变，文化亦会转型。文化转型也导致人改变。由此，传福音和本位化自然息息相关。天国来临人间之始，就不得不借用文化的因素，正因为人深受文化所影响。教会在传福音之始，不但勉力传递真理、价值和更新文化，也借用文化的价值。3可是，当文化和福音格格不入之时，教会就要找新的途径去传福音。4福音新传正有此意。5

梵二后的教会极重视福传与礼仪，两者相辅相成，也愈来愈将礼仪视为「宣讲」。既然所宣讲的是喜讯，很自然地将礼仪的举行（administration）视为庆典（celebration）或庆祝，如：隆重及正式的授予圣秩礼，喜气洋溢的婚礼，简单诚朴的圣道礼，济济一堂的感恩礼，甚至连令人悲伤的丧礼也都冠以庆典或庆祝一词。

礼仪庆典今日成为惯用语。这些庆典是由标记、仪式和祷文组成。标记是指一些物品，诸如：水、油、饼和酒等。仪式是指庆典团体所采用的行动，诸如：注水、傅油、领圣体和宝血。祷文也有不同的层次，通常这些都会记载在礼规书上的。6

基督徒自必有自己的神学及文化原理，将标记、仪式和祷文纳入礼仪庆典中，使庆祝的会众，能各职其位，热切参与。基督徒也深信这种庆典指向基督的巴斯卦奥迹，而奥迹具有永恒的动力，使发生的事摆脱时、空的规范。礼仪固然能让基督巴斯卦点燃生命，使参与者从平淡进入永恒，但作为庆典，充满喜庆的秉性，能有效地表达和塑造文化。

2. 庆中知真味

「君子义以为质，礼以行之。」（论语　卫灵公）中国人着重「礼」，是因为它表达人的内在仁义。「礼」可使人产生成仁取义的自觉，这自觉使人改良礼的表达，渐渐形成塑造中国文化的一股力量。同样，教会的礼仪庆典一方面，不得不以百姓的文化来表达，但另一方面，也能创新并塑造文化。

文化是由于人按其心智活动对生活环境有所反应，因而渐渐形成一种生活模式，包括：语言、心态、民生、律法、艺术、交往方式、风土人情等这些模式能有效地标榜出有关社会群体的特性和价值。普遍来说，一个社会由于有不同阶层的人（如：富人、穷人；士官、庶民；知识分子、文盲等），也会有共通的主流文化，也有分殊的次文化。

文化虽然包罗万有，但并非每个要素都是价值。只有那些使人得到身心健全发展的东西才有价值，其关键在于「化」。这些要素能形成「教化」、「濡化」的氛围，人生活在其中，能将其人性更活得通透。例如，中国人传统的婚嫁习俗标榜忠孝仁义。这些习俗会使个体的「人化」进入有机的、多元的、甚至相互矛盾的社会整体中，同时使「人化」在个体的思想、感情、行为模式各方面，与社会的氛围相适应、相和阶，因而实现真、善、美高度统一的、自由的境界。

庆典藉其固有特质将「人化」的真实价值传递整给个社群，而成为文化的一般塑造力。人有不同的生活层面，有时专注工作，有时则会嬉戏，不论怎样总会找些空间来想想人生的问题；如何领悟终极的权能和尊严，化解爱和恨的张力，寻找平安与欣悦，整合善与恶的经验，稳定自己的希望，想不通就可能自嘲或幽默一下，乐于其中的消遥。这些生活的空间就像竹子中间的节，把所过的生活稍为总结一下，使下一段的生活更充实。这就是人生的节日。人很有智慧，在过节时常伴以一些庆典，为使那节日生活较诸平日生活更有生气。

庆典在喜庆的活动下其实隐藏一些秩序，首先是自然的秩序，即万物与生俱来变化的规律，如：春夏秋冬、出生、成长、衰老、逝去等，但人，也只有人，在自然的秩序上，建立自己的生活秩序。这些人为的秩序渐渐演变成生活的框框。在框框成立的过程中，有两个方向，一是人生顺应自然，二是自然迎合人生。

人生顺应自然是明显的事实，因为人属大自然的一部份，其生活节奏基本上是与整个自然同步。在黎明破晓之际，万物欣欣向荣，人身体的机能也活跃起来，开始工作，日中要得到适度食物的滋养。到了晚上太阳西沉，大地昏暗，身体也要休息。除了每日的变化，也有星宿的转移，如：月圆月缺，影响生计和天气。顺应自然是人生存的框框之一。

使自然迎合人生是人之为人的特质。正如人可以从自然之物制作出生活的器物，人可以对自然秩序加以划分、区隔、标定、显示、甚至乎作某程度的改变来迎合自己的方便、或整个社团的需要。这点尤其在每个民族所设立的庆典看得出。人固然会春耕夏耨秋收冬藏，但同时也可用季节的转变来庆祝人生，诸如：婚嫁、祭祀、登基（就职）、甚至出生、成年、举丧。到了节日或遇有特别的事，人便会制造适合的仪式来庆祝，日积累月人的生活便逐渐具有规律，也愈增添人文生活的内涵。

就此而论，庆典有不同的特色和向度：

第一，庆典具有嬉戏的秉性，可使人摆脱日常刻板生活的压迫，为自己腾出一些闲与情。每天重复同样的事，往往使人困倦。暂时卸下日常生活的规律，在一些高兴的纪念日上，以另一种心态，另一种方式去体会那深藏在日出而作、日落而息的意义，并为日后留下美好的回忆。

第二，庆典可使人更感受团体的共融，因为聚集在一起的人，会有同样的目标，同样的语言，同样的仪式，同样的庆祝对象，同样的溯源故事（aetiology）。

第三，庆典具慎终追远的向度。群体的信仰或信念会在自发和喜庆气氛中得以唤醒，往往令人追问「为甚么？」。为答覆这问题，庆典往往藉着一些溯源故事，这些故事并不着重「究发生了甚么」，而是提醒人「今天庆祝的是甚么」（祭天、敬祖、婚嫁、求风调雨顺等）。

第四，庆典助人接触自己的内在世界。所谓「诚于中、形于外」，每个庆典都会有特别的祝文、食物、装饰、音乐、舞蹈、游戏……这些都是外表的包装，重要的是庆祝者内心的「诚」。有了诚，人们可透过外在的仪式，进入自己内心的自由、恩赐、博爱、正义的世界。

第五，庆典使个人在团体中成长。从个人的生日庆祝到机构的奠基礼、开幕仪式、周年纪念等都指出，个人的成长到某一地步会对社会和国家负起回馈的责任。

第六，庆典有利宗教信仰的形成和稳定。信仰是一个族群所共有的思想、感受、生活情趣的整体反映，包括神人观、伦理观、价值观、审美观、人生观和世界观。例如：中国传统民族信仰7的庆典，包括各种礼俗（祭礼、冠礼、婚礼、丧礼等）、节庆（端午、乞巧、中秋、新春等）。神祠和庙堂是举行庆典的地方，这一切都与民族信仰有密切的关联。这些庆典或庆祝并非是个人的创作，而是整个民族信仰的具体呈现。

第七，庆典具备表达和塑造文化的向度。它最能把共同的信念落实在日常的生活中，渐渐生活就产生特殊的次序和框框，成为民族世代相承的传统和文化。

任何庆典都有文化的框框，因素和固有的讯息或内容。框框是维系讯息的无形边界，如果一成不变，就会化成愈积愈厚的硬壳，那么原来庆典活化的内容也会受到威胁。8

3. 礼仪庆典体现福音本位化的支点

就外在形式而论，礼仪庆典是由教会所指定的标记、经文、仪式而组成，但所彰显的却是奥迹。教会的指示通常记载在礼书中，并以此为标准，但由于庆典是为了满全具体会众的需要或喜好，故这些礼书的标准通常是有弹性和可灵活处理的，标准是为保证礼仪的事效性，而非禁锢奥迹的彰显。当然缺乏创新和灵活的礼仪庆典也会使奥迹的彰显受到威胁。

就教会团体行动而论，圣事庆典是会众用来敬礼天主，并使人获救。会众透过恭听圣言、一些标记、祷文和仪式「纪念」基督大司祭，而祂则按其建立圣事的意愿在庆典中临现和圣化。

就信仰生活而论，参与庆典的人首先赖天主的感召而产生信德，在教会内并藉教会，联同基督在圣神内光荣天父，并因此而分沾天主的圣德，和特殊的恩宠，按照基督逾越奥迹的模式，赖圣神的助佑，得以提升到超性的生命。

就目标而论，庆典就像在世界旅途上的驿站，在那里人们走完一段路，到了一个小目的地，便可休息、吃喝一下，回顾自己走过的路，遥望将要走向的目，调校行程的方针，和同路的人彼此勉励，分享得失，预尝并迈向天国的圆融。9

就神学研究而论，礼仪庆典并非只是研究的「佐证」，而是「泉源」。无庸置疑，神学诞生于信仰，在信仰中发展，并为信仰服务。信仰的对象是天主美妙的、叫人惊叹不已的工程，亦即是奥迹。奥秘的理解，除了付出耐心外，所达的境界往往还有局限的，因为现在是「藉着镜子观看，模糊不清……所认识的，只是局部的」（格前13:12），不过那局部的神学知识却是真实的，而且正因为是局部的，便有进展的空间，由于是真实的，便可激发心中的信赖，藉以细味天主的智慧和慈爱。礼仪庆典本身虽不是神学研究，但较诸神学这面「镜子」更活生生地进入天主的奥迹中。当然我们可以说，神学并不替代庆典，反而诞生于庆典，在庆典中发展，并为庆典而服务。

综合上述礼仪庆的意义，可见它于福音本位化有举足轻重的角色。从教会的角度来说，福音本位化的基本意念是指福音在个别本土文化上「降生」（incarnation），同时指将这些文化引入教会中。本位化意味着，基督的奥迹具有超凡的能力，既能在不同的文化扎根，又可补充它们不足之处，使真实合乎人性的价值得到提升和转化。10

由于礼仪庆典按其事效性（ex opere operato）能使奥迹临现，11教会既要传福音和举行圣事，自然成为推动福音本位化的主体。12庆典通过祷文、仪式、标记，使参与者对这些标记感到「亲切」，和让耶稣的临在和喜讯，显得更为触摸得到的事实。

圣神降临后，早期的教会团体便开始传福音，他们虽然承继犹太人的文化传统和吸纳不少希腊色彩的智慧，却要在这框框中注满基督福音的内容。其中有些重要的阶段和因素：第一，保存犹太人的文化传统。13第二，将福音的内容伸延到非犹太人的文化领域中。14第三，是尽量保持基督徒信仰的特质创造新的文化，以满足民众的各项需要。15

由此可见，教会推动福音本位化须有两个方向：一是将福音价值揉合在文化中，二是将人们引导到教会的团体中，这团体以礼仪庆典作为集结合一的象征。16福音在某个文化层中要产生教化的效应，就是从人的内心着眼，加强、补足和提升人文精神和文化。教会须吸纳这些负载文化价值的要素，为使福音传播和礼仪庆典更容易深入民心。就此而论，梵二的礼仪更新，早已注意到所谓适应各民族性和传统的问题。17

适应（adaptation）意谓采纳一个民族的本土文化，使基督能降凡在这民族中，以奥秘的方式真正地为他们主持礼仪。所谓奥秘的方式是指庆祝的团体，按基督的意愿采用那民族的语言、象征和仪式，为能积极地、有效地参与基督的敬礼。就方法而论，此种适应可分两个阶段，一是迈向文化（acculturation），二是深入文化（inculturation）。第一阶段是地方教会以罗马礼为本，吸纳一切与之相符合的本土文化因素，套用在罗马礼之中。第二阶段是地方教会引用非基督徒的礼节，但赋予基督徒的意义，但仍以保持罗马礼的基本统一性为主。18

罗马礼亨有特殊地位，不仅因为它是一个远古、悠久和丰富的传统，也因为这地方属伯多禄继承人所牧养，而在他身上建立了信仰及精神共融的、永久可见的中心与基础。19

4. 礼仪庆典的神韵与貌相

为维系礼仪庆典的神韵，要注意三个原则。20一是坚守礼仪庆典的内在意义，就是逾越奥迹。21二是维系各地庆典基本的一致性，藉以确保教会大公的面貌。22三是忠于圣统的共融，接纳教会权威的训导。23

在礼仪上，庆祝奥迹是使人纪念天主的救恩计划，和人对仁慈而忠信的天主的回应。任何礼仪庆典，不论以何种貌相出现，须保持这固有的神韵。由于庆祝的会众因场合和性质而异，同样庆典自然有不同的貌相。以下所列的七个范围，尝试概括地说明「装扮」礼仪庆典的貌相应注意的地方。24

第一，要着重语言。圣言宣读、主礼者的祷文、讲道、圣咏、欢呼词等，务须应用本土文化的表达，适当的言词（并不是硬绷绷地将罗马礼翻译过来）是宣认奥迹临现的要素。

第二，是歌咏和音乐。这可说是带动圣事成为庆典的灵魂。就现象而论，好的音乐是庆典成功的一半。民族音乐可增添本土情怀，但须注意从圣经取得灵感，和避免与其他宗教音乐混淆。

第三，是参与礼仪的姿态。不论是坐、立、伸手、鞠躬、默静、舞蹈、宣讲、朝拜、赞美、平安礼等都要顺应个别的民族情感，和庆典的场合。

第四，是艺术。天主堂由建筑外形到内里的圣洗池、祭台、读经台、圣体柜、圣像及各种摆设都要顾及整体的和谐，该注重艺术品的材料和手工，务使它们能承载礼仪行动所表达的奥秘、庄重和惊叹。

第五，是民族的礼节，诸各婚嫁、丧礼、祭祖等，要尊重本土民情和仪式。年中的民间节日为信友，也是庆祝奥迹的好时机：新春的谢恩、中秋的团聚、清明的追念亡者等。

第六，是灵修的滋养。灵修生活是重生于圣神、肖似基督、走向天父的成长路。是那复活基督的生命在我们中发芽，有赖圣神的灌溉，得以在教会的共融中成长，并期盼基督的再来。这新生命必然和礼仪有密切关系。它的起点是入门圣事。今日的入门圣事已跳出个别庆典的框框，走入灵修旅程的范畴，分三阶段、四时期，循序渐进，在教理讲授、基督徒生活（祈祷和伦理）、礼仪和使徒性的见证上作培育。就此而论，入门圣事须成为所有礼仪庆典的典范。25圣秩圣事在这方面已有指定的方式安排灵修旅程，但为婚姻圣事的灵修旅程，本人则认为极为急切要做的事。

第七，是天国价值的发挥。耶稣的言行一向以天国为中心。天国是指天主为每个人而安排的丰盛生命。真福八端正具体地展示这生命的特性：神贫、哀恸、温良、饥渴慕义、怜悯、心里洁净、缔造和平、为义受迫害等都是天国来临的场所。天国，就灵修而言，是内在的，它在我们之内会成长、滋生、从个人到普世。天国，就恩赐而言，是天主圣三在降生圣言的内在生命，它已在基督的人性中来临，而且仍不断藉着基督的身体－－教会－－在世上发展。天国，就庆典而言，是教会在旅途中的驿站，与基督相会的特殊时刻，是祂领导我们的祈求：「愿你的国来临！」

礼仪庆典是综合艺术，各项要素都要迎合人内心的呼声：希冀得到神的仁慈、安慰和爱情的欣悦。加强礼仪庆典本土文化的色彩，并非是一种可有可无的选择，而是本位化必须的一环，和急不缓容的任务。它可助人在其熟悉的标记、象征中深化人生的终极意义。忽略这一点，也就会漠视天主救恩的普世性。

1. 本文部份资料取自拙作《与基督有约：从庆典到奥迹》圣神修院神哲学院 - 神学教材（3），香港　公教真理学会　1995。

2.参阅《教会在亚洲》（Ecclesia in Asia 21），亚洲主教会议之后的宗座劝谕1999。

3.参阅《教会在亚洲》（Ecclesia in Asia 21），亚洲主教会议之后的宗座劝谕1999。

4.参阅《新世界传播福音》Evangelii Nuntiandi (EN) 20。

5. 参阅《救主的使命》Missio Redemptoris (MR) 3:我感觉到把教会的全新精力投入新的福音传播和向万民传教的时刻已经来临。MR 52:透过本土化，教会使福音在不同的文化中降生，同时连同他们的文化，一起进入她自己的团体中。教会将自己的价值传递给他们，同时摄取于他们内已有的良好成分，并从内部加以更新。

6. 梵二后所有更新的礼仪典籍都用celebratio\celebrare来描写仪式的。中文方面较为接近celebrare/celebratio的语词有庆祝和庆典。

7.这里所论的信仰，不仅是指宗教上的，也泛指神话、礼仪、道术、祭典、节日等背后的信念。一般而论，民族信仰较诸民间信仰更为广泛，因为民间信仰容易导致下层与上层人士的对立，在这里我们集中论述民族的共有信念，而非底层和高层文化的分别。

8.参阅冯佐哲与李富华，《中国民间宗教史》8-11；王孝廉，《中国的神话世界》下册，（478-479）。

9.教父，甚至后期的圣多玛斯，都在耶稣所说的善心撒玛黎雅人的比喻（路10:30-36）中，看到圣事在天主救恩计划中所的意义。参阅Irenaeus of Lyon, ,Adv. Haeres. 3, 17 St. Thomas, STH I-II, q.85 a.1, sed contra. 此处引自Leeming, xxxi-xxxvi。

耶路撒冷是以色列民的圣城，在山巅之下，可比作天主的居处或天堂。耶里哥地势低于海拔，喻意凡间。那从耶路撒冷下来的人代表亚或当整个人类，他来自天主。强是嫉妒人类的魔鬼。人受到袭击，被强盗（魔鬼）剥去衣服、和打得半死半活，这喻意「原罪」的伤害。人的本性受到重创，其原貌已不成人形。

正巧一个司祭走过，又有一个肋未人走过。他们代表旧约的敬礼和法律。他们虽然经过那里，却无济于事。不过，旧约展示天主预许那要来的一位。结果，善心的撒玛黎雅人来了，这代表了基督的来临。他是异乡客，意思是说，就其天主性而论，他来自另一个世界，路过那里，一见那人，就动了怜悯的心，那是天主的慈悲。他主动地上前来接近受伤的人。

他用油和酒为伤者包扎伤口，油可以止痛，酒可以消毒。这代表基督本人藉圣事所施予的治疗之恩。他把伤者放在自己的牲口上。这牲口代表基督的人性，在此人性上，他背负所有的人。客店则代表教会，那里要延续基督的照顾。他离开时，将两个银元交给店主，就是福音宣讲和圣事庆典，直到他再来，教会可将之尽量应用。

一.圣事是为一切受过原罪创伤的人而设。

二.旧约已开始天主的救援，重点是预备那要来的一位。

三.基督来了，祂藉自己的人性将天主的恩宠传给人，圣事主要是祂的行动。

四.教会受托延续基督的救援工程，直到祂再来。

五.福音宣讲和圣事庆典两者相辅相成都是教会最主要的行动。

10.基督奥迹的丰饶是如此深不可测，任何礼仪传统都无法予以完全表达。不同的礼仪传统的萌生和发展历史，见证了令人惊奇的互补性。当各教会共融在信仰和信德的圣事中，生活出这些礼仪传统时，她们彼此充实，并在忠于整个教会的大传统及共同使命之下，不断成长。（EN 63-64）

11.《礼仪宪章》SC 7。

12.教会由于本有的使命，产生了多元的礼仪传统。地域和文化相同各个教会，共同以富有特殊文化风格的表达方法，庆祝基督的奥迹……由于教会被派遣到各民族及文化中，并于其中扎根；所以，基督－－万民的光明和救赎－－得以透过各地教会的礼仪生活，向当地的人民和文化显示自己。教会是至公的，因此，她能将各文化中所有的真正丰饶予以净化，最后把此富饶整合于她唯一的奥迹中。（参阅《教会宪章》LG 23；《大公主义法令》（UR 4.）

13.以敬礼的地方为例，犹太人最初是以「会幕」，亦即安放结约之柜的「帐棚」，作为人民集结和敬礼天主的地方，后来撒罗满建造耶路撒冷的「圣殿」主要为举行各种祭礼，当犹太人被充军到巴比伦后，便渐渐又建筑「会堂」，作为祈祷和听圣经的圣所。耶稣来了，祂的「身体」取代耶京的圣殿，因为「真正朝拜的人，将以心神以真理朝拜父。」（若4:23）新约的敬礼着重基督所奠立的天人关系，故此，人的身体被喻为帐棚（格后5:1）、圣殿（格前3:16），建成属神殿宇的活石（伯前2:5）。《默示录》四章所描写的天廷相似举行礼仪庆典的地方，并突显了基督的祭献。这无非是说明在旧约敬礼中，加入了新约的意义。为此，早期的基督徒仍然按照习俗「每天成群结队前往圣殿，也埃户擘饼。」（宗2:46）保禄传教时，也首先往「会堂」宣教。时至今日，天主堂内的设置都有犹太文化的痕迹，如圣体柜，至圣所等。

14.伯多禄和保禄在罗马的殉道，意味着基督的信仰已进入世界的文化，因为罗马当时被视为世界的中心。「挨户擘饼」，表示基督徒以家居为举行感恩祭的地方。有些基督徒家境富裕，可以提供很大的地方作聚会，在第三世纪（250年）已有文献描写这些地方的划分：聚会的礼堂有主教的座位，周围环绕司铎（长老），执事襄礼的位置，然后有平信徒，男女分开，礼堂隔壁有一个房间为慕道者用，另一间房则为洗礼用，兼有浸洗池。这表他们实在将「罗马式的家居」真的注入福音所指的内容。

15. 头三个世纪，基督徒聚会的地方主要是为信徒。当时这宗教并未受到一般人的接受，而且所经历的教难不下十数次。由于他们聚会地方（圣堂）并非是公开的，往往造成人们的猜疑，谣传他们聚会时吃婴儿的肉和饮血等。由于君士坦丁帝在年，颁下米兰谕令，给予教会宗教自由，可公开传教、集会。罗马大帝还建造了（中文译作圣殿），原意是指属于皇帝的宫廷，让基督徒在这些地方聚会时有更大的保护和特权。当然在这期间，基督徒人数多了，愈有需要建造聚会的圣堂。随着历史的发展，不同文化色彩的圣堂应运而生。

16. 教会实现感恩祭，感恩祭实现教会。"Ecclesia facit Eucharistiam, Eucharistia facit Ecclesiam."这句话源于De Lubac H., Corpus Mysticum. L'eucharistie et l'eglise au moyen age (Paris 2 1994)作者以此综合了教父和中世纪的圣事与教会的神学。

17.SC 37-40: Normae ad aptationem igenio et traditionibus populorum perficiendam.

18.SC 38: "Servata substantiali unitate Ritus romani."

19.参阅LG 18。

20.参阅圣礼和圣事部，年之训令，《罗马礼仪和本位化》34-37. Congregazione per il culto divino e la disciplina dei sacramenti, La Liturgia Romana e L'inculturazione. IV istruzione per una corretta applicazione della costituzione conciliare sulla sacra liturgica (nn37-40). II 25 gennaio 1994。

21.参阅《天主教教理》CCC 1205「在礼仪中，尤其在圣事礼仪中，含有不能改变的成分，那是由天主所建立的，并由教会保管。然而，礼仪也含有可变的成分；教会可以有权，甚至有时也有义务加以改变，以适应最近接受福音的各民族文化。」（参阅 SC 21）

22. 礼仪的多元性能成为更丰富的泉源，但也可能挑起紧张、误会、甚至分裂。在这一方面，要清楚了解礼仪的多元性，不应损害教会的团结合一。礼仪之多元性只有忠于共同的信仰，忠于教会从基督所接受的圣事标记，忠于圣统的共融，才能表达自己。（参阅SC 21）

参阅《罗马礼仪和本位化》37，列明礼仪本位化的教会权威是指：圣座（通常透过圣礼和圣事部行使权威），地方主教团，教区主教。

在适应不同文化时，需要心灵的皈依，且在必要时，要放弃一切有违大公信仰的积习。经合法承认的各种不同礼仪传统或仪式，由于它们都标志并通传同一的基督奥迹，因而能表达教会的至公性。

23.参阅《罗马礼仪和本位化》38-45。

24.事实上在革新的罗马礼仪书必有提到，因场合与性质不同，须作相称的适应，然后也说明圣部、地方主教团、正权主教、牧者、主礼司铎的权限。

25.参阅拙作On the Journey of Faith of the Adult-Catechumens, in Ephemerides Liturgicae 103(1989)3-41。

作者：陈继容

由于「本地化」在某种程度上，其实是现代化，这一点相信很多人都同意。除了现代化外，因为实际情况的影响，今日在世界各地，尤其是在东方及一些所谓第三世界的地区，没有人可以摆脱正横扫整个世界的全球化的影响。而事实让我们看到，今日人们面对现代化及全球化的现象时，似乎难得听见有所谓「本地化」引起的冲突。于是我们觉得有必要在对中国礼仪本地化之发展的一般性看法之外，再就现代化及全球化对现代人的影响，看今日在中国地区实施礼仪本地化的必需性，让大家可以从另一个角度反省「本地化」问题，这在梵二发动的礼仪改革三十多年后的今年来说，不但晓有意义，而且是一种需要。反省内容主要为以下两点：一.现代中产阶层价值观对社会的影响，二.在全球化的影响下看中西文化的差异。

1. 现代中产阶层价值观对社会的影响

根据不少学者的意见，所谓现代人的文化，实际上是现代中产阶层的文化，这种文化对今日社会的影响，绝对不容忽视。至于这文化的内容，可以从今日的中产阶层的价值观得窥全豹。美藉礼仪学家，本笃会士贾蕴能神父多年前在一次讨论本地化问的国际会议中，曾就中产阶层，特别是美国中产阶层基督徒的价值观，及这价值观与礼仪本地化的关系，作了深入的分析，他的分析非常具启发性，值得我们参考。

贾神父先提醒大家，绝不能忽略中产阶层给今日社会带来的影响，尤其是给教会做成的影响，接着分析这种价值观。从实质上说，中产阶层基督徒之宗教生活，或宗教热诚的动力来自「文明宗教」，即英语所称的 civil religion，而非来自福音。可以说，这些中产阶层基督徒把主耶稣基督的福音「再本地化」到他们中产阶层的价值观内。这些价值观的特性包括：要有足够的舒适和方便，只参与自己认可的团体，消费主义，只注重现实等。

神父接着解释，这些价值观使人变成失忆和近视，自然地人对往昔的事故然不复记得，于是可以理解传统对他们是如何缺乏吸引力；至于未来，更那是遥不可及，结果人都把注意力集中在眼前的生活上，最后是无可避免地，现代人对福音那股震撼人心，向人的彻底要求，完全失却了品尝的能力，可以想像他们心中也再没有神圣感（sense of sacred），这点从他们所安排的礼仪最能见到。比方说，进堂礼已失了原有的「礼」─Rite─的特性，变成一个在特别工作人员带领下，为中产阶层认可的团体，提供让他们可以聚集一起和发表意见的行动：

"A third reminder is that the modern middle-class has its own . I do not find it self-evident that this is intrinsically Christian, but it certainly serves as a powerful motive of inculuration even among Christians who belong to this class. This middle-class piety draws its power more from civil religion (which is itself the detritus of inculturated Western Christianity) than from the gospel; indeed, it re-inculturates the gospels to new middle-class values, i.e., values such as comfort in affluence, participation in approved groups, consumerism, and a general optimism which seems to have lost its grip on reality. It amounts to a very sedated way of life which has only a short memory, a tendency towards the dialectically abstract, and no taste for the astonishingly radical demands of the gospel. Such an inculturation of the liturgy has been called by some an embourgeoisement of the Church, and I find very little if any counter-culturalism in it.

Some signs of this in the churches of my own country are the tendency to 'ministerialize' the middle-class laity; to turn the entry rite into an act of gathering and hospitality conducted by such new ministers so as to produce the approved sort of community which celebrates middle-class values of joining, meeting, and 'speaking out'; to use these two endeavours as means to 'create community' (beyond that which the Church already is by virtue of its common baptism into Christ); to move away from the art of ceremony and symbol towards verbalization as the assembly's main medium of communication within itself. Iconography is disappearing in our new church buildings, giving way to potted plants and shopping-mall-like spaces. These tendencies obscure a sense of sacramentality and of the divine presence as something distinct from and transcending the community at worship. When one adds to this the understandable if often aggressive and ill-considered attempts unilaterally to alter liturgical language and the ways it names God according to conciliar and biblical precedents, which are deeply embedded in the traditions of both east and west, the liturgy becomes perceived by many as less an obedient standing in the alarming presence of the living God in Christ than a tiresome dialectical effort at raising the consciousness of the middle-class groups concerning ideologically approved ends and means". 1

除此之外，现代人的「主日文化」，是另一个可以明显地让我们看到中产阶层对教会生活的影响的例子。相信没有人会否认，在我们所生活的社会，主日正不断被俗化，失了其原来的宗教精神及意义。从字源学说，主日─Dies Domini，意思原是「主的日子」，是教会纪念她的主耶稣基督复活，2与信友一起举行晚餐─感恩祭的日子。即是说，是个属于基督徒的日子。可是，对今日的人来说，主日却是假期，不需要工作。于是主日代表休息、可以与家人朋友相聚，或各自寻欢作乐，或从事一些在其他六日无法抽出时间做的事情，比方莳花种植，运动旅游等。易言之，主日已完全被俗化，从「主的日子」变成「人的日子」；从纪念主复活的庆日，变成休假日、娱乐日；从纪念天主创造天地的「一周的第一天」，变成一星期的最后一天，六日劳苦工作之后的「周末」。因此，人会按自己的情况，照自己的意思喜好，自由地「过」这「周末」，解放一下自己，补偿过去六日的辛苦工作。所以很多信友，特别是青少年，都视主日早上到圣堂参加感恩祭为苦差。好端端的一个假日，不用上班又不用上学，为什么不能赖在床上睡到日落西山，或相约三五友好出外散心娱乐，却偏偏一定要先到圣堂参加感恩祭。他们都忘记了，或可能不知道，当初不是因为有感恩祭，今日根本就不会有「主日」。3

这样的价值观和文化，是否值得我们的基督信仰认同并接受？若答案是否的话，那么，我们是不是应该考虑一种「另类本地化」工作，就是将现代人的文化，「本地化」到我们的基督信仰文化内、「本地化」到的基督的福音中？事实上，我们的主耶稣基督之所以要降生为人，不正是要把我们提升为神，作祂父亲的子女吗？

2. 在全球化的影响下看中西文化的差异

相信没有人会反对，在第三个千年开始之际，全球化应该是独一和最具威力的一股横扫全世界的力量。今日的全球化已非止于商贸，尚包括财政及其他服务的全球化。全球化其中的一个特性是新事物的出现，包括新的市场、新的规则、新的演员、新的工具、新的生活习惯及模式等。此外，由于资讯的影响，主导性文化渐趋全球化，于是少数族裔的文化更趋边缘化。这点大家有目共睹，美国文化今日真是无孔不入地影响着地球的每个角落。可以说，中西文化的差异在全球化的影响下已日趋薄弱，透过媒体及资讯科技，世界正在进行着一种文化「同化」行动，不论那一方面，东西方的差距已越来越少，请看我们日常生活的衣食住行中，有那方面可以不受西方文化的影响？以下是一些明显的例子，先说语言，今日英语几乎已成为世界的共通语言，就算香港回归中国后，仍然在大力推行两文三语运动；4还有饮食，现今不论年青年老，大家吃汉堡饱炸薯条可乐等美式快餐几乎多过吃米饭；甚至衣着，一如去年某期的《读者文摘》所说，街上触目所及，男女老幼几乎一种打扮：牛仔裤或运动裤，配一件汗衫或运动衫，前后印着可笑的卡通人物、动物，或其他通俗文化偶像的肖像，又或似通不通句子，一双五彩缤纷，缀着锯齿边的皮条或布条的运动鞋，再加一个背囊。这种打扮，完全是西方潮流，一点都不东方，但从来没有听过什么人因此批评过。

说真的，甚至在五四运动当中国饱受西方列强欺压之际，在国内仍然流行中学为体，西学为用之说。而在更早之前，陆征祥神父的师傅，许景澄老先生，曾经要陆神父有机会到欧洲时，要把欧洲最老的宗教学好、研究好，之后把这宗教带回中国，以强富国家。让我们看看许老先生当年怎样跟陆神父说：

「许师说：欧洲的力量，并不在于他的枪炮。也不在于他的科学，乃在于他的宗教。你日后当外交官，你必有机会就地研究基督的宗教。基督的宗教，分有多数宗派，你选其中最古的一宗，能直接上溯到教会的根源，你便进这宗。研究教义，力行教律，考察教会组织法，观察教会各种事业。日后你退休时，或许还能进一步，你选择一个最古的修会，若可能，你就进会，成一会士研究会士精神生活的秘诀，等你明白了这种精神生活的秘诀，把握了基督宗教的精髓，你便把所心得者，输进中国，传之国人」。5

许老先生是政治家，着眼的是社会成效，想当年他观察欧洲各国，看到他们的文化，无一不深受基督信仰的影响，而至令他有以上的思想。欧洲的强大，是否真如老先生所想的，与基督信仰有直接关系，不在本文讨论之列。6发人深省的是，自开放以来，中国大陆一直视基督信仰为推行现代化的一个重要工具，故这方面的研究，最近几年在国内发展得很快，研究重点放在基督信仰与中国现代化的关系一事上。而基督信仰，如大家所知，是个彻头彻尾的西方产品。西方对东方的影响果真如水银泻地，无孔不入；如咒语魔幻，法力无边，大家都似乎丧失了抵抗力，生活中事事都讲求西化，连政治上都视基督信仰为实践中国现代化的一个重要工具。在这种情况下，礼仪本地化的必需性到底有多大，似乎值得我们反省反省。

结论

作为这篇文字的结论，我们特别选了两位当代作家的两段文字。第一位是2000年诺贝尔文学奖得主高行健，另一位是国内名作家余秋雨。两位均不是基督徒，大家可以从所引载的文字中，看到他们对文化的看法。两位都是高级知识份子，高行健更是获得世界肯定的作家。因此，他们公开对文化所表达的态度，不但具有相当的代表性，对我们来说，尤其有启发作用。

高行健于2000年十二月七日在瑞典发表诺贝尔演讲，谈到民族文化时，他说：

「现今一个作家刻意强调某一种民族文化总也有点可疑。就我的出生、使用的语言而言，中国的文化传统自然在我身上，而文化又总同语言有密切相关，从而形成感知、思维和表述的某种较为稳定的特殊方式。但作家的创造性恰恰在这种语言说过了的地方方才开始，在这种语言尚未充分表述之处加以欣说。作为语言艺术的创造者没有必要给自己贴上个现成的一眼可辨认的作家民族标签。

文学作品之超越国界，通过翻译又超越语种，进而超越地域和历史形成某种特定的社会习俗和人际关系，深深透出的人性乃是人类普遍相通的。再说，一个当今的作家，谁都受过本民族之外的多重文化的影响，强调民族文化特色如果不是出于旅游业广告的考虑，不免令人生疑。」7

的确，为我们这一代在世界村成长、生活的人，故然我们都个别来自某一种文化，可是我们却也不断受着各种外来文化的影响及熏陶，最明显的例子，香港的辛辛学子，可以说从小便接受英语教育。所以这一代的中国人，特别是香港这一群，不觉中已成一个中西混种文化族类，而这种情况会日益严重，没有任何人能抵抗或阻止。

所以，文化并非如有些人所想的，如此重若泰山，除了文化之外，人还有更重要的东西：他的生命，所以余秋雨这样比较生命和文化：

「最有意义的旅游，不是寻找文化，而是冶炼生命。我们要明白，人类所作所为，比之于茫茫自然界，是小而又小的；人类几千年文明史，比之于地球形成，生命出现，是短而又短的；人类对于自身生存的理解能力，是弱而又弱的。因此，我们理应更谦虚、更收敛一点。在群峰插天，洪涛卷地的景象前，我们如果不知惊惧、不知沉默，只是一味叽叽喳喳地谈文化，实在要不得」。8

正因为人类对于自身生存的理解能力，是弱而又弱。尤其是对于天主圣父藉着祂的爱子耶稣基督，恩赐给人的超性生命，人更是一无所知。所以，神学和礼仪的目的，正是为帮助我们在这段人间旅程中，冶炼这超性生命，而非一味表扬抬举那些我们人自己制造出来，随我们的爱恶不断改变，今世将要消灭的文化。

1.KAVANAGH, "Liturgical inculturation: Looking to the Future", op. cit., 102-103.

2.「主日」即星期日，拉丁文Dies Domini，意思就是主的日子。而主日(或星期日)放假，亦是当年罗马帝国的传统，是君士旦丁大帝于第四世纪所定，其动机正是因为主日是主的日子，庆祝主的复活，所以应视之为庆日。

3.参看陈继容，「第三诫『守瞻礼主日』」，《神思》n46，香港思维出版社　2000　12-30。

4.两文是中文和英文，三语是粤语、英语及普通话。

5.罗光，《陆征祥传》，70-71。

6.欧美的强大，是否因为受基督宗教信仰的影响，是个相当有趣的课题，值得深入研究。但无论如何，许景澄老先生百多年前已有这种识见，则实在叫人心折。

7.参看《明报月刊》，2001年1月　68-69。

8.余秋雨，「掩卷沉思」，《读者文摘》（第七十二卷第一期），2000　117。

作者：黄凤仪

踏入21世纪，我们有与趣知道，在研读圣经方面会有什么进展。我们更想知道，在未来的日子里，对一般人来说，在阅读圣经方面能有什么突破。答案会否在于「解读」与「通读」？

1.解读

阅读圣经，每人因文化背景和社会处境不同而所得各异1。故有人倡议「解读」的方法2。这基本是跨越经典的阅读，即从经典甲的角度去阅读经典乙，然后让经典乙向经典甲说话，提出挑战和启迪。如是，两个经典互相辉映，相得益彰，激发新的思潮与想像，并催迫人去作整合。

理论上，「解读」的方法没有对读者作出额外的要求，而是，这样的整合出现于每次阅读圣经的过程中。人不是带着空白的思想与心灵去阅读的，皆有预设和背景。不同的视野在阅读的过程中会产生张力与调和，且让人最后在整合时达到认知与体悟。

「解读」的实质建议是：在阅读圣经中，起用「另一文本」。这「另一文本」可以是自己文化的典故或当前的社会实况。

无疑，「解读」带来的挑战是很大的，它要求我们熟读中国的典籍以及时刻观察审视身处的世界。目前，能够做到者为数极少，故正是众人要勉力的地方。只是，这是否最理想、最自然的做法？答案会否指向「通读」这方面？而「通读」似乎是与文化分不开的，特别是强势文化。何谓强势文化？早期的不同教会团体可给予一些提示。

2.强势文化

耶稣离世后，新约基督徒信仰很快就从巴肋斯坦传至外面的希腊、罗马世界。在很短一段时间内，便见三种不同的教会团体出现3。

2.1犹太基督徒团体

新约基督徒团体始自犹太教，由一群信主的犹太人组成。他们相信耶稣就是默西亚，他被钉在十字架上，但天主使他复活并把他提升到天上，他将快从天上降来，成为世界的判官和救主。从宗徒大事录及保禄的书信得知，当时有一群犹太基督徒生活在耶路撒冷，他们是虔敬的，勉力实践他们的犹太宗教信仰，谨守犹太律例，每天按时到圣殿祈祷，看重割损，严守安息日和饮食等规条。他们同时亦相信纳匝肋人耶稣，接受他为默西亚，天主的受傅者，这位耶稣圆满地解释了天主的法律，其中启示了天主的旨意。

路加在宗2:42-47报道，早期耶路撒冷教会的团体生活具四大特色：共融、祈祷、擘饼、听取宗徒训诲。这四个特色显示，犹太基督徒的信仰生活与犹太宗教是仍有紧密连系的4。比方他们没有终止犹太人的祈祷，按时往圣殿祈祷，而慢慢加进的新的祈祷也是照犹太形式形成的，其中路加福音中童年史内的赞歌，本身就有旧约的回响。此外，天主经内部份的祷告让人想起犹太会堂中的祷告。团体举行的擘饼仪式也是由犹太人的牺牲祭献演变而成的。宗徒在他们的训诲中则把团体的生活与旧约圣经和耶稣的教导作一对照。

保守、严守犹太法律可能便是这个教会团体的写照。这个团体在犹太思想和文化方面没有多大的改变，只不过加进了对基督信仰的元素，可算是一个强势文化。

2.2希腊化犹太基督徒团体

虽然基督徒信仰始自巴肋斯坦，但巴肋斯坦犹太文化不是新约的世界，外间的希腊文化才是新约的世界。虽然当时已是罗马的天下，但人们还是生活在浓厚的希腊文化中。

希腊文化包罗万有，且吸纳力强，而它不着意的影响力更强。任何宗教信仰或哲理，一朝进入了这文化中，便会被它潜移默化，慢慢改变容貌，犹太宗教也不例外。犹太人分布于整个希腊文化世界中。这些在外的犹太人说希腊语，同时亦以能在家中保存自己民族的语言和传统而自豪。他们也把圣经翻译成希腊文。

希腊化犹太教并不限于侨居于外的犹太圈子，实质上希腊文化也进入了巴肋斯坦，故此在那里也见到它的踪影。

其实，犹太宗教文化本身对外面的世界也有一定的影响。他们的一神论和伦理道德范例吸引了不少外邦人，而结果便是在地方犹太团体的周围，总有一些非犹太人像他们一样，过着虔敬的日子。基于未能接受割损和对一些饮食规条有所保留的缘故，这些外邦人还未完全加入这个宗教。在宗徒大事录中这些人被称为「敬畏天主的人」。

从起初，希腊化的犹太基督徒便已很积极传福音，相信他们从耶路撒冷被逐后，更是如此。他们在身处的世界中，满腔热忱地传扬福音。他们理所当然地以希腊化犹太人为传福音的对象，同时亦向那些「敬畏天主的人」，以及普罗大众宣讲天主的道理。教难加速整个传教过程，我们可以下结论说，是希腊化的犹太基督徒把福音带进希腊世界的。

希腊化犹太基督徒因着传福音的需要在信仰表达方面大胆创新，把犹太、希腊、以及发展中的基督徒信仰传统灵活地融汇在一起，成为我们今天的神学基础。比方，在论及基督时，巴肋斯坦犹太基督徒强调他是「默西亚」，即天主的受傅者，天主所选拔的人；他是「人子」，即末世的审判者和救主；他亦是「主」，在亚剌美语中这是一位有权审判者的称号。希腊化犹太基督徒则不然。希伯来文的受傅者「默西亚」变成希腊文的受傅者「基督」，且逐渐失却其本意，最终差不多成为耶稣名称的一部份。「人子」的称号亦弃而不用，因为在希腊文中它没有甚么意义，取而代之是「天主子」或「主」。在当代希腊文化中，「天主子」指向具有神的素质，展示着神才拥有的超然力量。而希腊文的「主」又别具意义，指向一切有权能的神、帝皇、或人。在希腊化犹太基督徒中，「耶稣基督是主」慢慢成为一种信仰宣言，乃是这位「主」，而不是巴肋斯坦犹太基督徒的「人子」将要从天上再来。

总的来说，昔日的希腊化犹太基督徒活在两个强势文化中，且活得很好。

2.3外邦基督徒团体

基督徒信仰通过希腊化犹太基督徒的宣讲进入了外邦世界。当此信仰一朝稳站在这个世界时，它便按照它的取向弹性地及自由地发展。面对新环境的挑战时，它会重新反观自己以作回应，而结果就是对自己有新的了解，且同时对其信仰的对象「主」亦有新的了解。这种新的了解是从希腊外邦文化孕育出来的。基督徒信仰始于犹太宗教的一个派别，现今则是希腊宗教世界中的一份子，沾上不少这个世界的哲理及其他宗教的色彩。

就是在这世界里，基督徒信仰在挑战中发展，所面对的挑战包括：(i)首先，它很难保持传统犹太基督徒对末世希望的看法，即相信耶稣快将以人子的身份再来，审判并改变这个世界。反之，它慢慢受希腊文化的影响，相信世界的拯救在于把它提升到更高层次的存在。(ii)另一困难乃复活的问题。基督徒深信基督的复活以及信众死后将要复活，且对他们来说，复活乃肉身的复活。但在希腊世界所讲论的却是灵魂的不死不灭。(iii)重要的是，外邦基督徒创作了不少基督颂。这些基督颂跟随同一的思想模式：一位救主从天而降，在世完成他的救世计划，然后回升到天上。如此思想实质而言，很受外邦世界神话故事的影响。(iv)再者便是对耶稣为「天主子」的了解。耶稣亦神亦人之论为团体带来一定的困难，因为部份基督徒很容易相信，他们跟随的是克胜死亡的基督，他们分沾他的光荣，只要具有信心，便能在生命中克服一切，就像基督在世时克服了死亡一样。对基督死亡的看法，重心并非在于苦难祭献，而是在于更光荣的存在。

这种外邦文化是另一种强势文化。在「因信成义」的道理上与犹太文化打了一场拉锯战。在保禄书信及宗徒大事录中，但见保禄必须维护他的信仰观点以及向外邦人传福音的方式。希腊化犹太基督徒向外邦人传福音的工作异常成功，可是问题跟着来了。部份犹太基督徒要问：这些外邦人真的能得到救恩吗？必须要求他们犹太化，比方接受割损和守饮食法吗？在归化的外邦人当中，部份为前面提到的「敬畏天主的人」，他们之所以被希腊化犹太人感化，正因为这些传福音者不要求他们接受割损和守其他梅瑟律例。争议的结果是：向外邦人传福音的方式可以有别于向犹太人传福音的做法。在这事上，犹太文化和外邦文化均显示，自身是强势文化。

3.通读

「通读」指向在阅读圣经时文化上的领悟，同时亦指向在生活中对圣经内涵的领悟。这是双向的，不论从哪个方向走，走法都应是自然的，因为是生活的一部份，是生活的一种表达，是圣经与文化自然的贯通，可比拟文学上所说的「通感」5。

「通感」是钱钟书先生从中国诗文中看出来的一种描写手法，所列举的其中一个例子是：「红杏枝头春意闹」。「闹」，他说，不形容其杏之红，但形容其花之盛。「闹」字是把事物无声的姿态说成好像有声音的波动，仿佛在视觉里获得了听觉的感受。这便是「通感」。

他更接着说，这种手法实质上是与日常生活有关的。在日常经验里，视觉、听觉、触觉、嗅觉、味觉往往可以彼此打通或交通，眼、耳、舌、鼻、身各个官能的领域可以不分界限。颜色似乎会有温度，声音似乎会有形象，冷暖似乎会有重量，气味似乎会有体质。诸如此类，在普通语言里经常出现。比方「热闹」和「冷静」表示「热」和「闹」、「冷」和「静」在感觉上有通同一气之处。

若「解读」是刻意的追求理解，那么「通读」则是不经意的融汇贯通。在「通读」中，圣经与文化并存，自自然然地互相呼应，容容易易地进入对方的意境中。当然「通读」预设人热爱自己的文化，并以它而自豪。若人人如是，这必然是强势文化，有整体身份的认同、整体的认知、整体的执着。

期望在21世纪，通过努力认知自己的文化，一种新的读经大气候会出现。

1.参阅BROWN R.E. & SCHNEIDERS, "Hermeneutics", NJBC, 1158-1160。

2.参阅李炽昌，《古经解读》，香港　香港基督徒学会出版　1997 4-8。

3.参阅GUTHRIE D., New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity rev. ed. 1990) 。

4.参阅BROWN R.E., An Introduction to the New Testament (New York-London-Toronto-Sydney-Auckland: Doubleday 1997) 286-289。

5.参阅钱钟书，「通感」，《钱钟书散文》，杭州淅江文艺出版社1997　253-268。

作者：嘉理陵

FORM CRITICISM, REDACTION CRITICISM AND INCULTURATION

A Response to Fr. A. B. Chiang S.J.

INTRODUCTION

The process of writing about Jesus of Nazareth, from the Gospel of Mark to the 19th century, as instanced in Renan's life of Jesus, may be described as a decline from the epic, the great celebratory prose poem, to the novel (ETOM, 81).1 In Renan,2 or his modern Japanese equivalent, Endo Shusaku,3 perhaps more than in any other "biographer of Jesus", style is certainly an "alibi, a technique of evasion and of eluding the profounder levels of meaning, an excuse, an absolution from everything, especially from historical reflection" (ETOM 71). It may be suggested that more jejune and banal types of "inculturation" fall into the same trap, succumb to the same temptation to substitute style for meaning in an unhistorical attempt to be relevant.

The present response is part of an article I have been trying to write for almost 20 years, an illative attempt to take some insights from the French writer on communication systems, Roland Barthes, and to suggest their relevance to an understanding of Form Criticism and Redaction Criticism, as a prelude to some exploratory remarks on the form of a genuine inculturation. Not originally conceived as a response to Fr. Chiang's paper, my remarks, nevertheless, do have a bearing on at least some of his points.

THE GOSPEL AS MESSAGE

Inasmuch as the Gospel is a message, one may consider its source of emission, its channel of transmission, and its point of reception (cf. IMT). A study of the Gospel's source of emission includes a study of the provenance of the Gospel in the widest sense, including: background, authorship, purpose, occasion, time, place. Such a study is basically a certain kind of sociology.

The same is true of the Gospel's point of reception. A study of the point of reception is a kind of sociology, though here we might rather say that there is required a sociology of sociologies, in as much as the Gospel, and even, we may say, any one of the four Gospels, attains a new understanding, actual or potential, in a new age and new culture. Inculturation of Christianity, then, is in some degree an insertion into a certain social order, with all its complexities and with the complexities inherent in the task of insertion itself.

When one speaks of the Gospel's channel of transmission, however, some precisions have to be made. The Gospel, including but not exclusively the written Gospels, is the message and not just a vehicle of the message - and so Redaction Criticism replaces Form Criticism. Hence, to quote Barthes speaking about the photograph in contrast to the film, the movie, we may affirm that a Gospel is "not simply a product or a channel but also an object endowed with a structural anatomy" (IMT, 15). In virtue of the incarnation principle, then, the "Johannine nature" for example of the Gospel according to John is not merely an instance of possible or actualized alternatives (IMT, 82, note 1). No Gospel is to be accepted as an alternative to the others, and hence the "Johannine nature" of the Gospel according to John is part of the message of the Gospel, though not part of John's message. Whatever inculturation means, it cannot mean the insertion of the Gospel into a culture in ways which would destroy or even simply ignore the Matthean, Markan, Lukan or Johannine nature of the written Gospels.

When K.L.Schmidt in 1919 distinguished the Markan framework and the contents of that framework, he was proposing an image that could have been exploited in terms either of framework or of content, or as heuristic structure intent upon the meaning inherent in either. This image itself could be further elaborated in terms of architecture as in McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible,4 and this elaboration allows us to use Barthes' comment on architecture to push forward our understanding of the relationship between Form Criticism and Redaction Criticism: "Architecture is always a dream and function, expression of a utopia and instrument of convenience" (ETOM, 6).

The obvious application of this would be to consider Form Criticism on the one hand as concerned with the dream and the utopia inherent in the contents, and Redaction Criticism on the other hand as concerned with the function and the instrument of convenience. It would, in fact, appear to have been this obvious application which, formally if not materially, drove biblical criticism along the way of Form Criticism first.

Nevertheless, I would suggest that the opposite of this obvious application is the truth: the ultimate expression of the dream and the utopia was in the framework, in that which became the central concern of Redaction Criticism, while the concern of Form Criticism was the function, the instrument of convenience.

This last point is perhaps only open to proposition and not to exposition. But there are enough implications in the literature of biblical criticism to suggest, if not to persuade, that over-concern with the Sitz im Leben der Kirche meant that Form Criticism should concentrate on the function and instrumentality of the pericope and should derive its understanding from that concentration: in the beginning was the sermon (Dibelius).

Be that as it may, we may continue to suggest that Form Criticism was concerned with the "obvious" meaning of the text of Scripture in Barthes' sense of the word, the meaning which, as it were, leaps out from the page to confront the reader.5 Here, too, however, I would add the modification that it is not precisely meaning as clarity but meaning as clarion (challenge) which arrested the attention of the existentialist Form Critics. They revealed specifically that the Gospel pericope is presented not for clarification but for adherence. An over-insistence on the pericope as its own totality, however, tended to ignore what Barthes calls the "obtuse" meaning, the "third meaning". For Barthes suggests that there are three meanings in any text, whether the text is literary or visual. The first meaning is informational, the second meaning is symbolic, the third meaning marks the passage from language to significance.6 In as much as Matthew is exegete as well as recorder, conveyor, evangelist, catechist, he reveals to us his aesthetic skill in presenting the Gospel to us not only as informational, not only as symbolic, but also as propaedeutical, not only as imperative but also as reflexive (IMT, 70). Perhaps any inculturation of Christianity must be concerned with the third meaning inherent both in the Bible and in Christianity as a religion, while the inculturation of theology must be concerned with the third meaning inherent in the classical theologies of the Fathers, the Scholastics, and then, if necessary, in modern theologies of liberation, feminism or whatever.

Thus, following Barthes' analysis of drama and films (IMT, 70-71), we could say that Form Criticism insisted on the tableau, the still, the single photograph, whereas what is finally important in a film is not the individual frame but the filmic, the "movement" which is the "framework of a permutational unfolding", constituted by an "inarticulate third meaning". By insisting on the pericope and ignoring the framework as integrative, the Form Critics were asserting what Barthes finds in the work of the German playwright Brecht and the Russian film director Eisenstein, namely:

"All the burden of meaning and pleasure bears on each scene, not on the whole. At the level of the play itself, there is no development, no maturation; there is indeed an ideal meaning (given straight in every tableau), but there is no final meaning, nothing but a series of segmentations each of which possesses a sufficient demonstrative power. The same is true in Eisenstein: the film is a contiguity of episodes, each one absolutely meaningful, aesthetically perfect, and the result is a cinema by vocation anthological …… (IMT, 72).

It is the validity of Redaction Criticism that it demonstrates that the Gospels are not "by vocation anthological". As a theory of the still photograph is necessary in order to talk properly about what constitutes a film as an artistic form (IMT, 67), so, of course, Form Criticism was necessary to reveal the centre of gravity within the "shot" (the pericope), the peculiar "accentuation" within the fragment. It is for this reason that Form-critical terminology is still valid in as much as it is descriptive, and invalid where it sets out to be evaluational (cf. IMT, 85, note 2).

By the same token, inculturation must not be "by vocation anthological". Continuing our metaphor, it must be concerned not with the still photographs of particular moments of God's truth but with the filmic of salvation history.

If there is a continuity between Jesus and the Gospel, as between object and image in the photograph, and if this analogy allows us to call the Gospel a first-order, denoted, message, then (perhaps) the mistake of Form Criticism is precisely in the transposition of its analysis from the second-order, connoted, message(s) to the first-order one. Have attempts at inculturation made the same mistake, attempting to make a second-order concern into a first-order one? I ask the question to help further reflection.

Furthermore, since Mark, for example, meant to present to us Jesus and not what the early Christians were saying about Jesus, it follows that the Sitz im Leben der Kirche of any passage is not the objective correlative of the image which is the Gospel, but rather part of the "surround". It follows also that we do not have any record of what the Sitz im Leben der Kirche was - we only have Mark's individual and unthematic, and hence unconscious and unselfconscious indication, compared with that of Matthew, Luke and John, of what the Sitz im Leben der Kirche might have been. The Stiz im Leben der Kirche would be to the Gospel as the film is to the photograph, for example, or perhaps as the "pose" is to the "message" (IMT, 22). Therefore we have no revealed Sitz im Leben der Kirche. Inculturation would consequently be a discovery, perhaps a creation, of a new and relevant Sitz im Leben der Kirche.

In the connoted message of the Gospel there is a plane of expression and a plane of content, thus necessitating a decipherment (IMT, 20), a hermeneutic and its consequent exegesis. However, we must for the purpose of this response, part ways with Barthes' analysis. For Eisenstein formulated his concept of the shift in centre of gravity from "between the shots" to "inside the shot", in reference to the possibilities of audio-visual montage, whereas, as Barthes' analysis presupposes, there is no audio-visual montage in the still. The Gospel pericope is not "still life" but quite radically audio-visual, even if the auditor is reader and the organ of vision is the eye of the mind. Thus it is important to affirm that the Gospel pericope, as with the still, is, to use again Barthes' terms, "not a sample but a quotation" (IMT, 67).

REDACTION CRITICISM AND THE THIRD MEANING

In his analysis of Eisenstein's films, Barthes suggests that it the third meaning which "structures the film differently without …… subverting the story" (IMT, 64). Form Criticism demonstrates that the Gospel writers were free and able to structure the message differently without subverting the story. Inculturation can do no less.

Redaction criticism, we might say, is an attempt to recover the obtuse meaning, the third meaning, of the Gospel pericopes. While that is simple, and simply put, however, the relationship of Redaction Criticism to the third meaning is not quite so simply delineated, for the third meaning is,in Barthes' words, "theoretically locatable but not describable" (IMT, 65), whereas Redaction Criticism sets out, not merely to locate, but to demonstrate and describe or explicitate.

CONCLUSION

I have made some passing remarks on inculturation, but you may still ask what all of this has to do with the topic of inculturation. It would take several more hours, days, to elaborate everything in detail, but let me make two concluding remarks, the first one somewhat brief, the second one rather longer and complex.

My first concluding remark is to repeat in a different mode something I have said earlier. If the inculturation of Christianity in China has not yet succeeded as we would have hoped, perhaps it is because, in the various suggestions for using ren, or tao, or li, or qi, etc., as the inculturating principle, we have been unconsciously following the path of Form Criticism and have yet to discover how to develop the systematic of Redaction Criticism and apply it to the task of inculturation. That would require a disjunction of theological, religious and cultural parameters which would be far beyond the scope of this seminar. I may venture to suggest that Sr. Maria Kwong's doctoral thesis (in press) is a major step in that direction, at least but not only in the fact that she has distinguished, in a significant and significative way, the realms of meaning within which elements from Chinese cultural thought can provide the basis for an inculturated theology of the Holy Spirit. Sr. Kwong has already graciously acknowledged Fr Chiang's inspiration and his influence on her thought.

My second concluding remark concerns an inculturated theology. If '"Hellenistic Theology", or indeed any theology including "Pauline Theology" or "Johannine Theology", can be reduced to the simple sum of its sentences, then perhaps an inculturated theology could be attained by the substitution, for example, of Chinese sentences for Greek sentences, and would eventually end in the reductio ad absurdum of mere transliteration - an expedient that has been tried in the transliteration of Buddhist terms from Sanskrit into Chinese, the early transliteration of Christian terms from Portuguese, Latin, Spanish, Italian into either Japanese or Chinese.

Any such reduction, blatant or subtle, explicit or implicit, ignores the fact that any theology is a hierarchy of instances, where horizontally linked statements relate to a vertical axis (IMT, 87) and where there is a higher integrating viewpoint.7 A mere understanding of instances within any theological system is no guarantee that the reader has understood the vertical axis (objective pole) and much less that he or she has accomplished the personal appropriation which constitutes a higher integrating viewpoint within his or her intellectual pattern of experience, where that personal appropriation is to be identified with the conversion which marks the transition from theology in oratione obliqua to theology in oratione recta, from mediated theology to mediating theology.8 If it is true that there is a similar formal (homological) organization ordering all semiotic systems (IMT, 83), and if theology is a semiotic system, then, while there are many theologies (systems), there can be only one Theology or homological organization. As the relationship between the (uncreated) Word of God and the disparate (created) words of God, between Verbum and adverbium in Eckhart's terminology, can be expressed as unicity of proposition in relation to a plurality of expressions,9 so too the one Theology is the proposition while the theologies are the expressions, and only deserve the analogical name "theology" in as much as they are adequate and authentic expressions of that Theology.

In this case, Theology would not be "faith seeking understanding" (fides quaerens intellectum) for that would be a definition of the disparate theological systems or theologies. Theology would rather be what come from God's side and would essentially be identified with the biblical (and possibly cosmic) word of God, and finally with the incarnate Word of God. In the term "Theology", then, the element "Theo-" would be subjective not objective.

Inculturation, then, cannot simply be the replacing of one expression (for example, a supposed "Hellenistic theology") with another (for example, a "liberation theology" or a "Chinese theology"), bereft of some profound consideration of whether the parameters of Theology can be discerned in whatever theology (or, it may be, theologies) was original and therefore originating in the actual historical development of the Church's understanding and doctrinal expression of its faith in the Apostolic and immediately consequent ages. This makes inculturation an ethical and doctrinal affair.

If inculturation were merely a sociological question, or, worse, merely a social question, merely localization, then anything would do. Precisely, however, because inculturation is an ethico-dogmatic question, only that which is perennially, and hence transcendentally, true will do.

1. For the purposes of this reply, the following works of Barthes will be quoted: BARTHES R. (transl. by HOWARD R.), The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies (NY: Hill and Wang [abbreviated here as ETOM] 1979).

BARTHES R. (transl.by HEATH S. ), Image, Music, Text (London: Fontana [abbreviated here as IMT] 1977).

2. RENAN E., Life of Jesus (1863).

3. Endo Shusaku, (transl. by SCHUCHERT R.), Life of Jesus (Tokyo: Tuttle 1978).

4. McKEnzie J.L., Dictionary of the Bible (Milwaukee: The Bruce , s.v. Literary forms 1965) 513.

5. The obvious is that "which comes ahead …… which comes to seek me out", IMT (54).

6. "blunted, rounded in form", IMT (55); it is the "passage from language to significance", IMT (65).

7. On higher viewpoints, cf. Lonergan, B.J.F., Insight (London: Longmans, Green 1957) 13-19, 233-234, 257, 374, 439. There is also the danger of a merely higher viewpoint. A higher viewpoint which does not integrate lower viewpoints would be merely a "superior" viewpoint, with the unacceptability which that term implies.

8. Cf. Lonergan, B.J.F., Method in Theology, Ch. 5 (London: Darton, Longman & Todd 1972)

9. On the distinction between proposition and expression, cf. Insight (141, 271).

作者：郑生来

香港基督徒21世纪的信仰

－－人与宇宙在天主内一起运行

首先多谢大会，给我机会与大家分享。

我今天选取的题目是，「香港基督徒21世纪的信仰－－人与宇宙在天主内一起运行」。

在21世纪的新科学和生态危机所促成的生态神学，我想用一句话，开始谈天主的奥秘和香港神学本地化？我最后选择了以下的句子：

道可道，

非常道；

名可名，

非常名。

为表达神与他的创造和救赎的奥秘，神学的语言和概念是很有限，可表达某实情或事物，但不能完完全全地表达一切，甚至某方面表达了以后，也可变成是另一回事。我以一次的体会做例子作分享。

1.体会神的例子

我有一次用呼吸来做冥想，过程中，我轻轻留意着那经验的历程。我的焦点放在我的呼吸和呼吸中的气，慢慢留意「气」在呼吸中的运行，让那气徐徐地由上而下，围着我，在我内，重复地有节奏地、感受那经验。倾向神的感觉渐渐地浮现出来。我感受到与神同在，感受神在「气」中，又意识这气是神。

在圣经中，「气」（ruah）也是圣神的名称，但我当时没有想这事情，也刻意不作任何理性的思索、分析或反应，只留意事情的发生和自由地演变。我体会这「气」的亲切、接近、能量、动力、与我汇合、团在一起，我正在经验神与我一起，所以慢慢地，我把这「气」转称为「天主」，用了「天主」的名号来命名这个体会，但即时觉得这名称格格不入，好像是一团外在的东西，冷的而没有任何关系或亲切的感受，根本表达不到那经验，这个名号当时是象一个比较局限和受规限的个体，而不能形容完全渗透和包容我的神的体会。所以我放弃了「天主」这名称，返回「气」那里(不知是否可以这样说)。我当时感觉到「气」是更适合我正在体会的神，感受到「气」可以表达这渗透性和密切的体会：「气」围着我，渗透我，在当中感受神同在，这是我经验对神的感受，所以就用了「气」的名号来命名神，在这体会中我有节奏地说「气」…「气」…「气」… 来命名我正在体会的神，也觉得很配合。

过了一段时间，我渐渐感受到在「气」中有所转移，我开始觉得「天主」这个名称变得有了「气」这种内涵，不再局限在一种有规限的个体，而是渗透和围绕着我的「奥秘」、「能量」、「气」、「神」。

到了这个时刻，在我的体会中，「天主」这个名称已变得有了以上的内涵，同先前我用了「气」的体会有相同的内涵，而天主这个名称也可混合在「气」的体会当中，这时，我转用「天主」这名词，而感受这名称与「气」的内涵是一样，这次便可以用上了「天主」这名号，同时又多了一层的经验，「天主」这个名称，在这时刻就增加了一层亲切感的体会和内涵，之前的经验没有那么透彻，可能基于我已往对「天主」这个名称的体会。「气」、「天主」与我混为一体了！

然而，这次「气」的体会，广阔和加深了我对神的意识、认识和体会。我的确要感谢在「气」运行的「天主」，在我之内运行的「气」的「天主」，在宇宙不断运行的「气」的「天主神」！

过后的反思自问，何以在我第二次有内涵地用上了「天主」的名称时，会多了一份更深刻的亲切感﹖可能是因为我从小就用了这个名称，而时常都会经验这种亲切体会。这次「气」的体会，起了一些变化，丰富了我过往的体会，同时也使我更明白，「名可名，非常名」，中国文化这奥妙和充满智慧的句子。「名」是去表达一种经验，下一次未必可用得上这个「名」子，这便是「名可名，非常名」。我用概念去理解这句话──「名可名，非常名」，也是可以的，但经过了这次冥想经验，心灵体会得更深更阔了。「名」背后还有更深、更高、更阔的奥秘，爱是这样，圣事的标记亦是这样。

2.做本地神学的基础之一：本地教会的团体和个人的灵性体会

当我们谈及天主，我们需要从我们对天主的亲身经验而谈，特别我们的灵性体会/灵修的经验（mystical experience）。我们亦需要与他人沟通商谈，与他们对神的体会整合，与他们的经验有所交流对话，也可回应他们这些经验，并作出反思。这也包括他们对神的适当、亲切和具体的表达。

本地教会团体和个人灵性的深层核心体会，是建设本地神学的基础之一。如果我们的神学，停留在书本，搬字过纸为主，我们很难会建立起本地神学。我们需要细致、详尽地引出自己、他人和教会团体对神的体会。神学培育，也必须教导神学生，留意和表达他们个人对神和神的运行的体会，从而学习辨认其他人和教会团体的信仰经验和实践，继而作出神学反省。这种培育，是同时刻在建设本地神学。

3.角度

从甚么角度看事物是重要的，理念式、概念式去看，抑或从心灵的角度去看，是有所不同的（虽然彼此有关和互相配合）。若你憎恨一个人，便只会看见他的坏处，但若你喜欢一个人，他做任何事也会成为好事。若真的能比较客观地喜欢，好的坏的也看见，那是真正关心这人。从基督徒的信仰幅度来看，祝福这个人，愿意他好，认识他的好与坏，态度不只是赏罚，而是愿意肯定他的好，也愿意他不停滞在他的不良习惯，愿意他从他的好坏中学习和成长。这就是不同的角度影响我们对事物有不同看法。

信仰的角度，也会有天主的爱、救恩、恩宠、死亡与复活、宽恕与重生，不是压抑人的软弱和缺点，而是协助、带领或鼓励人在他的好坏、优点和缺点中学习和成长，在天主的毫无条件、白白施予的恩宠下成长。这是福音的喜讯；有时候我们所讲的道理或神学，与上述不一样，亦未必真正带出基督的喜讯。

4.心灵的角度

昨天有人提及心中有屎，便看到屎，心中有佛，便看到佛。

屎若聚在一起，便是臭的，但若分开，便有变化，可成肥料。所以，任何概念其实也会有变化，不能一成不变或局限于某时空的体会。

愈是研究神学，愈要紧记这原则。越有权的人士，越有权威的神学家，更要紧记这原则，否则便会失去最重要的重心。

基督徒神学是向基督徒和其他人，讲天、地、人（天主、人和大自然），但所用的语言和概念，是有局限，只可协助解释和表达，但不能完全表达、代表、代替 --- 可道出，但不能完全道尽；可名名，但所象征的，不能完全作代表，尤其关乎无限的天主本身。

中国文化，其中一样是要从心灵去看，从大自然生态去看，像张春申神父昨天的金句：「仁来自天地之心」。若单从理念去看，是不能透彻地和深入地掌握，因为古典文化，必须从心灵及大自然中发现其心得，涌现和发掘，所以要从这角度去了解，否则会有所误会。我觉得可从此，体会天主的爱，不一定每次搬圣经来了解和体会。

如果用中国文化，但不谈大自然生态，主要的东西便欠缺了，所以深层地谈及绿色环保的人士，也借用易经、道学、佛教等。

在大自然中有美与和谐，这是邝修女前天所提及的。孙神父说有些和谐是建基在某方被压迫、保持被动、不能做他们想做的事，那么，问题在那里？

在大自然中，是最容易体会美与和谐的。但当返回家中，和谐好像留下在大自然中，没有带回家。人际关系与大自然里的体会，似乎是分割了的，两者处在不同的世界，这就可形成人与大自然脱节。我们要返回大自然，得平安喜乐和谐，让大自然协助我们个人与他人的关系。人原本是大自然一部分，但不知不觉分割了。在这两日，我注意这礼堂好像没有植物，大自然似乎留在外面，我们对这方面不在意，表明人的习惯与大自然分割。我们需要提升对大自然的意识和关系。在大自然中有生气、生命力，吃也要吃有生命力的，不能全吃死的。天与人是互动、互相影响，是动态式的；本地化是要这样建设，不是要说很多，而是要体会，心灵的体会，表达方式可以是说话可以是创作、画画、图案等。

5.「天地人」的生态神学和「天地人合一」的图形和艺术

21世纪的本地化神学，某程度上也要演进为本地化的生态神学，会包括人的『身心灵』的整体性，以及宏观的『天地人』，不欠缺任可一方。

图形化来说，有人以圆圈的图形来形容「天」，以三角形代表「人」，正方形代表「地」。另外，亦有人把代表人的三角放在圈内，表达天对人的影响，构成很多三角形在很多圈内，很有动感，很美，人在天内，天在人内。同样地，把代表人的三角形，放在代表地的正方形内，产生另外代表地影响人的构图，很有意思，也很有趣，感觉有一种内在互相的影响，出发点是天和地影响人，但图案的结果，也有人影响天和地！这种结合和艺术，也可协助建设本地神学。

6.奥秘与圣事（sacrament）

天主教会可作一个很重要的贡献，就是推广「圣事」（sacrament, mysterion）的意识，在有限的事物或事情里，体会无限的天主，以有形的标记，辨认和显露无形的恩宠、爱、救恩、生命力等（invisible grace within a visible sign symbol）：

从外在的事物，领会内在的事理；

以外在的记号，指向内在的奥秘；

从可见的标记，体会不可见的恩宠；

有限的实物，潜伏着无限的灵光；

在有限的媒介里，活着救赎性的爱；

指向带来释放的爱。

这是在教会七件圣事内的，

教会也是，

个人也是，

人之间的爱也是，

大自然更也是。

体会天主，

是要以这样去看；

地可说出天主的真善美，

我们要倾听地的呼声；

地的智慧，

就是在地里潜伏着神的智慧，

也是潜伏着在人心灵深处的神的智慧；

人是地的一份子，

人与地汇合，

地在人内汇合，

在人心深处汇合，

潜伏着天主的智慧

天主的爱，

天主的好。

这样

在本地时空和环境，

建设本地化神学。

7. 研究曼陀罗的应用

在天主教会和不同宗教，可找到带给人顿悟、治疗、和自我表达的「曼陀罗」(Mandala)图形，也是不可忽视的，值得在这方面作更多研究。地球和不同物体的电磁场所产生的图形也像「曼陀罗」图像，很奥妙地与宗教及心灵的体会有着密切的关系，在未有现今科学前，人的心灵早已体会宇宙里此等的奥秘和动态。

8.全球化的划一化（uniform globalization）或伙伴式的一体化（global partnership）

现今说全球化是指英语化，英语化即美国化，也即是划一的一体化。电脑方面的全球化，也倾向垄断的一体化，所以免费而可自行发展的Linux 操作软件系统是比微软公司的垄断，为中国是来得更好。

全球化和一体化应是怎样呢？应是全球伙伴一体化（global partnership），不是划一化的全球一体化（globalization）。一体化对穷国不公平，有钱人和跨国公司对穷国不公，所以应是多元性的伙伴式的一团化（pluralistic global partnership），大家一起全球化，不只是我跟随你而变成一体化，这一点和本地化很有关系。普世教会，不是指单一化的关系，而是多元化的普世性，是伙伴式的关系。新的科学所带来的共同的新宇宙论，会与生态系一起强调多样性的一体化。

9.跨文化的价值观和图像（cross-cultural values）

另一种的全球性的共通性，是跨文化的价值观和图像，有人研究全球不同和多元化的文化中，有五种形状是共通的。这些图形有治疗、启发作用，若要说本地化的独特但不与其他地方分割，就需学习懂得应用这些图形，应用在我们生活中。不只是讲话，然后写书，更要加上应用以改变自己，协助我们成长，治疗和更新我们，与信仰生活可有密切关系。在培育、礼仪和灵修方面可以是受用。

我很简单地列出这五类图形和其意义可有的作用：

i.圆圈的形状：意味和指向完整性和合一的经验；渴求：独立、个体性；

需要：空间、找寻自己、找寻身份。

　

ii.十字形（加号）：指向关系与整合的过程

强调：质素、有时间与人分享、喜欢合作

需要：支持

　

iii.旋转型：指向成长、改变与进化的过程不断回到同一点，但在不同的层次上；对事情、人和地方有新的透视

需要：多元化、新奇的事物、改变。

　

iv.三角形：目标：梦、远景；金字塔、箭头、圣山、自我发现、启示；

需要：跟从自己的梦境。

　

v.四方形：指向安定、可靠、安全；

愿意：建设、进行计划

需要：持续性、有所交代、完成事务。

还有心理学所讲的「原型」或「原始型」（Archetype），在信仰培育、团体文化、礼仪和灵修是没有得到应有的重视，因而有了多方面的忽略。

最近兴起及发展不错的「超人格心理学」（transpersonal psychology），视宗教传通和灵性一面为最基本的重要性，是值得注意和参考。

10.「天地人」和「身心灵」缺一不可

探讨神学，是要说关于天、关于人、关于地，缺一不可。神学的一个盲点是有关「地」，生态环境，因而无意中疏忽了大地和创造者天父的特质。这盲点也使台湾主教团的新天主经，缩窄了奉行天父的旨意的范围，从原本的「地上」（整个创造）缩窄到只在「人间」。天主的计划和旨意，是运行在整个宇宙里，希望会很快改回用「地上」，因为不少人每天都在念基督所教导的祷文，每次的感恩祭也是必念的。

任何本地化神学都需要包括本地化的生态神学，是信仰的基要部分。在每次的聚会中，要留意有没有忽略「天地人」任何一方。在个人层面，也要留意有否遗漏「身心灵」的任何一面。这可以帮助我们在信仰生活和神学方面，保持其整全性和完整性。

11.创世纪的关键重要性

21世纪的本地神学，需要重新探讨创世纪的创造故事，特别在天主创造中有关天主的「好」，天主的欣赏、珍惜和尊重的态度。基督徒需要培养同样的心态和精神。

人治理、管理大地，若从控制角度去看，我们会以统治、霸道、官僚的心态去做。绝对的控制是不对的，是最差的霸道。人有天主的肖像，要有天主的态度，懂得欣赏。欣赏是最前提，治理和管理是在后，有所需要才做，如风暴后的重建、引水入沙漠让草可生长等等。一般来说，是接受大自然所赐予，天主在大自然中所赐予的一切。不是廿四小时也在管，是有问题才管，其他时间是欣赏配合，以伙伴式与天主和大地一起运行。如果我们接受大爆炸和新科学的理论，人与大地的一切，都是息息相关。

12. 范式转移（Paradigm shift）

21世纪也带来一些范式转移，这个转移是本地神学不可忽视的重要一环，以下列出几方面：

i. 从「人为中心」（homo-centred, anthropocentric）转移到，以「生态为中心」（eco-centred）或以「天主为中心」（theo-centred）。这种关系会是像蜘蛛网络的多元多线式的关系。

世界不是从人的意愿及创作力产生出来的。宇宙是先于人类存在，亦不属于人类的，是属于天主的。

人是在宇宙的运作和进化而出现，人是宇宙的一份子。人是宇宙不同物种之一。另一方面，人是宇宙进化而达到觉醒和自我意识（the universe attaining conscious self-awareness）的要素，人的出现，是宇宙深层幅度的演进。人以欣赏和喜乐庆祝宇宙的奥秘，是宇宙中出现的新功能。人的身体是与星球息息相关；人组成的要素，早在50亿年前，已在星球产生了。人不是宇宙的中心，是宇宙的一分子，亦有他们特有的功能。

ii. 经济范式转移：

a）从无限和不断的增长，转移到可持续的增长（sustainable growth）；

b）从视自然界只是为人所应用的资源，转移到视自然界为互相扶持的生命系统；

c）从一个男性直线式方法看事物，转为以生态的循环式。

d）我们的经济模式也要从「人为中心」和剥削性转移到以「生态系为中心」（eco-centred）。

廿一世纪所需要的范式转移，是从「无限和无止境的经济增长」，转移到「可持（sustainable）的发展。

我们需要从一种视自然界只是为人所应用的资源，转移到视自然界为互相扶持的生命系统，而人在其中寻找自己扮演的角色。

一个关闭式的商业交易过程，会只顾及生产和产品交易，不多考虑自然界不断的贡献。发展错误地被认为是无限和无止境的不断增长。

在「发展」的概念里，忽略了地球资源是有限，而盲目地视无限发展增长和方便，作为理想目标，加速消费和浪费，亦同时制造了不断增长、堆积而难于处理的垃圾，使海洋、河流、土地变成庞大的垃圾缸。

我们也需要从一个男性直线式方法看事物，转为以生态的循环式看宇宙和生活。每天睡觉、起床、梳洗、吃饭、再睡是循环式。若用直线式看事物，便会和宇宙及生活本质上脱节。宇宙、人、生活便会分割。这样做神学，肯定会脱离人生，肯定脱节。从人为中心，演变以生态为中心，天主为中心。从直线式经济，无止境的增长，不断消费（如拉橡皮圈一样，拉断了或再没有弹力），转为循环式的息息生辉。要有循环，维持弹性，成为可持续更生，增长不要耗尽，可留有余。

iii.历史和团体的范式转移：

从局限于「人类」的历史，转移到宇宙和宇宙中不同物种的共同历史，需要转移扩阔到物种之间、人类与地球的共同历史的探讨。只局限于写人类的历史，会使我们不够大体，所写的历史要兼顾整个创造才得体和完整。天主的创造史是与整个创造有关，所以完整的历史是整个宇宙的历史，包括宇宙间所有不同物种共同的历史。

地球团体也不只是局限于人类的团体，而是地球上的一切所组成的团体。雀鸟、花草树木等，都是我们的团体的组成分子。

iv.神学的范式转移：从由上而下，转移到也重视由下而上

神学不能只是由上而下，而更重要是由下而上。神学经常是由上而下的概念来看待宇宙（hierarchical conception of the cosmos），把人类放在「宇宙的中心」或在一切之上。

我们需要转移到视基督为治疗一切分割的那一位，无论是人与天主的分割，或是人与其他受造物的割离。

从16世纪，西方强调了与可见的世界脱离，而倾向于神圣永恒的世界，才可达到人类真正的命运和完美境界。这样，自然界便成为人可剥削的物品，是为满足人的理性，美感的享受，任由人类的摆布和应用。

进入21世纪，生态神学指出，自然界与人类一起，才是一个地球团体，一个整全的宇宙团体。

v. 科学的范式转移：

a）从机械式概念转移到动态式、精神物质并存的概念

b）从斩件式、局部式（parts mentality）转移到整全性（holistic）概念

c）从机械式概念转移到动态式、精神物质并存的概念，也从斩件式、局部式（parts mentality）转移到整全性（holistic）概念。

过往一般的科学范式，认为世界是一机器。西方医学也有受机械的观念所影响，倾向于「换零件」的做法来处理身体的病痛，忽略身体本身的再生、自我治疗和自我演进的能力。

整个世界是动态式，精神物质并存。机械式之科学只是局部式（parts mentality）处理问题，需要转移到整全性（holistic）方法处事。

我们需要从机械式物质进化过程的构想，转移到视自然界为动态式精神和物质的转化过程。现在的科学研究，例如新物理学和量子学，已到达了不可思议的地步，难以形容的体会，机械式的物理语言已不足够用，科学家在物理实验中，遇到了宇宙奥秘，而不得不惊叹，使得某些科学家转移到东方的玄妙哲学和宗教语言，来表达他们的体会。这促使西方宇宙论、科学家、哲学家、宗教人士等，也重新找回西方的神秘主义的灵性传统（mysticism），个中的智慧和启示。

新物理学等科学，体会到宇宙万物的一体性和多元性。

另一方面，世界中一半的科学家，正在与战争有关的机构，研制杀害和破坏生命与环境的方法和工具。

vi. 从局限于左脑的理性分析，转移到左右脑的整全运用：克服二元论的分割。

我们现在也正在从局限于左脑的理性分析，转移到左右脑的整全运用，克服二元论的分割。左脑会处理分析和理念，与理性化、逻辑、思维、疑问、右手、接受宽容、中立的讯息等等有关。右脑方面会带动绘画、艺术、唱歌、跳舞、笑，与创作力、直觉性、灵性感觉、更高意识知觉、左手、接受强硬、命令的讯息等等有关。

vii.从性别歧视转移到也重视妇女贡献的得着

这是本地教会和神学，绝对不容忽视的一面。妇女对生态意识、深层了解和投身，是不可抹杀。男女平等，不单对妇女更公平，对男士和整个社会都有好处，妇女的心得和贡献是无可限量的。

以上种种的转移，在深度上，妇女有突破性的贡献和启发。妇女习惯性用右脑多于男士，男士可以从中学习。

13. 本地化神学之建设

以下我提出几个建设本地化神学的要素：

i. 贫穷弱小者 = 基督

建设本地化神学的其中一个基础，是关心贫穷弱小者，这是信仰不可或缺的组成部分。每个地区都会有贫穷弱小者，而本地神学，不能不包括他们在这地方教会的信仰反省，辨认天主在他们身上所发出的呼召，以及教会对社会正义的行动和实践。

本地神学，需要学习在贫穷弱小者身上体会基督，以及在这实况中怎样去传基督的喜讯。本地神学更需要尝试，从天主特别偏爱的贫穷弱小者的角度和实况中，学习了解基督的福音，也就是愿意基督在他们的身上和实况中，向做神学的人士和当地教会传福音的讯息。教会学习怎样泛爱世人，需要从贫穷弱小者开始，并作为出发点和方向。彻底关心贫穷弱小者，会带领教会和神学，为整体人类(整个社会和世界)作出贡献。21世纪的贫穷弱小者，也包括所有被残害的生命。基督徒不能对其他生物残忍，也不能支持这样的做法(如屠宰家禽的方法和过程)，我们这方面的意识，仍需要培养和提高。

ii. 重视个人的「心身灵」

神学家和神学生，需要学习体会和关心自己的「身心灵」，因而学习教导信徒，渡健康的身心灵的生活、习惯和治疗。健康的饮食，是对自己和家人的身心灵的关心，也是直接关心土地和环境，更是为后代子孙着想。选择健康的食物，是配合祈祷和饭前经的感恩和祝福。如果我们选择不健康的饮食，我们怎样可以感谢天主﹖难道我们可以对天主讲：「天主，谢谢你赐给我和我的家人，这些不健康的食物！」这与神学有直接的关系，与本地神学更有关系。以往会讲 "Think globally, act locally" （全球性思虑，地方性实践行动）。现在已加了另一句： "Think globally, eat locally!" （全球性思虑，地方性饮食），尽量吃当地的新鲜「当造」（按季节性的产物）的健康食物。

iii.教友民间的礼节仪式

信仰的礼节仪式，具有关键的重要性，但只依靠圣堂内为教友所组织的礼仪仪式，是不足够的（虽然堂区内的圣事仪式是不可或缺）。

每日早晨，起床、伸懒腰、洗脸、刷牙、穿衣服、吃早餐、看报纸等等，都是每日惯例的仪式，也是必须的事情。

早祷、与天主讲早晨、划十字等，也是日常的信仰礼节和仪式，问题是这些日常的礼节较少和薄弱。堂区的礼仪，用上了很多大自然的东西，同样日常的信仰礼节和仪式，也可用上大自然的事物，事实民间的礼节，是会与大自然息息相关，仪式可由自己创造。

我们在这里举一个例子，协助自己与大自然接触，也希望体会温暖、光和改变。我们需要先决定这次要有这种体会，简单的程序（包括引言式的祈祷和结尾）和用具，如蜡烛（为表达光）和温水（为体会温暖和洗手洁净），如果需要，也可以先写下引言的祷文。

开始和天主谈话（引言），看着蜡烛的光静下来，觉得适合时，放双手在温水里洗手，望着天、地、大自然配合来做，体会光、温暖、洁净的改变。结束的祷文，可以综合体会和感恩等。

这类简单的仪式是很有用的，若只是去圣堂，靠神父组织，施行圣事，这样就本地化不来。我们需要有民间对这样仪式的意识和尝试，个人的或小组形式的，甚至更多人参加的都可以。在这方面，可以建设天主教邻居小组的礼节和天主教家庭文化。晚上，幼儿睡觉前，在他们的额头划个十字祝福他们，会是个很好的信仰习惯，也配合幼儿受洗时由神父、父母、代父母等的同样的祝福。

iv. 与不同宗教交谈

香港不同的宗教，各具有不同的传统文化和实践，蕴藏着深度的智慧，也有不少是与中国文化有关。不同宗教的共通点，也可协助我们掌握到神的生命以及神的基本要素，更可以激励我们重新了解天主教的信仰。

v. 圣事与标记

圣事是指向神和他的爱，以及他救赎性的行动，在有形可见的事理体会无形的恩宠；这样，天主教的圣事观，为21世纪可有很大的贡献。因为可见证着一种心态和方向。就是一切事物都含有不可思议的内涵和意义，期待着显露的时刻，宇宙的一切，有天主的含蓄性，让我们体会他和他的神圣，他和他的奥秘、智慧和爱。

所以七件圣事，不只停滞在教堂和教会组织内，而是指向一切事物，这点在讨论生态环境和天主的创造，尤其合适。

vi. 圣经：信仰的个人、团体、民族灵性经历和故事，神话，「原始型」

为21世纪的香港教会和整个中国教会，以至普罗大众，我们需要在圣经中找寻信仰的内涵以及灵性经历的故事，无论是个人（如约伯）、团体（如书信里的）或是民族性的（如在出谷纪所记载）。我们可以取材于这些经验，细致地、详尽地看其中的精神，整个的经历、演变过程、发展的途径、奋斗中的突破等等，然后，再回看我们个人、团体和民族、数千年的文化和经历。应有不少可以应用，成果也可能会出人意表。

圣经怎样应用「神话」（myths）和「原始型」（archetypes），也可以给我们提供一些启发，有关我们的社会和生活中的「神话」，寻回并体会最重要最需要的「原始型」。这些会给我们不少的启发，无是神学方面或是礼仪和信仰培育方面。

vii.礼仪本地化

我建议礼委每年带出一样与礼仪本地化有关的东西，无论怎样细微也可以，重要的　每年有一些可以累积下来的建设，60年后便会见不少的成绩，所以，这建议不是只向某几个人提的，而是整个教会，也不只是这一代的人，而是与下几代的人都有关连。

viii.圣神修院神哲学院一年一度的本地化研讨

神学本地化是一件艰巨的工作，但是必须做的事。我建议圣神修院神哲学院，每年　次举办。这可以累积神学本地化的探讨和结果。神学本地化是要刻意做才会出现，不能轻浮地掠过就算。

xi. 辅助原则（Principle of Subsidiarity）

建设本地化神学，与建设本地化教会，是相息相关不可分割的事。建设本地化教会　中一个基本原则，是『辅助原则』（principle of subsidiarity），要让有关组织、团体、地方教会等自行运作、发挥和成长，不必要时不作任何干涉。这与天主创造的大自然运作的方法一样。大自然基本上已经可以自我组织、自我治疗、自我演进，而这些潜质应受到尊重。在有必要时(例如不能自我治疗的严重创伤)，人才需要插手介入。介入的方法仍保持尊重这种种潜质，协助回复这些自我运行的能力。这是天主创造中的运行，最高智慧的表现。所以，这「辅助原则」在建设本地化神学工作上，无论运用在思想、行为和结构等方面，都很配合。

x. 生态环境

在1990年，教宗若望保禄二世指出，关心生态环境是信仰之基要部分。因为我们尚未做，所以要提醒。现今是科学时代，又进入生物科技时代，而现时的危机演变，正带引着我们走向另一新世代：生态时代。如果我们的讨论，仍停滞在科学、科技时代，我们只是留踏在将会过气的年代，现今科学科技，要与生态时代相适应地作出贡献。

神学需要对这些范畴有所醒觉。

最后，想提一下有人指出：面对现今年代的危机，我们需要think globally, act locally（全球性考虑，地方性实践和行动），这是因为现今危机的情况是涉及全球性问题，而我们又疏忽这幅度。亦有人体会，在当地行动中，重要的一环是吃当地的菜种（更经济和环保，围范大，普罗大众直接有分），所以提出think globally, eat locally（全球性考虑，地方性饮食）！

有人觉得行动也要全球性，于是提出think globally, act globally，其后又发现，为一些人，全球性问题太大，不一定能掌握到，或者会觉得压力过重，事实上，个人在各自的地方和情况中，作出细小的承诺与实践是同样重要，所以提出： think locally, act locally（地方性考虑，地方性实践和行动）。

放在一起，我们要多方面考虑和实践：

Think globally, act locally

Think globally, eat locally

Think globally, act globally

Think locally, act locally.

四方面是同等重要，视乎情况而界定着重那一方面，更好是可以为本地和全球着想而有所实践的行动。

我再次多谢圣神修院，恭贺修院在共庆30周年之际同时迈向新世纪！

作者：容若愚

捕捉神的影子－－数码空间的追寻

圣经中那位患血漏病的女人，心想只要一摸主耶稣的衣服，就会痊愈。她往挤迫的人群里钻, 她终于摸着耶稣衣服的繸头……广东人叫<摸衫尾>，今日我亦有幸在此<摸衫尾>，因为本人并非神学教授, 尽管叨叨光. 另外, 互联网内交通繁忙，人流频密，欲寻找耶稣，确有捕风捉影的感觉；但愿至少摸着衫尾, 然后见到衪回首一望说：<是谁摸我衣裳﹖> 那时我会自豪地说： <主啊！ It's i-dotcom！>

今日，一半以上的香港人是上网一族，大部份属专业人士、知识份子、以及15-18岁的青少年。这族群每晚在电脑前坐上一二小时，当然不只在享受click click click 的手部运动，也不只满足于萤光幕二度空间所提供的资讯娱乐。互联网最引人入胜处在于萤光幕后面偌大之数码空间。是个无疆界、潜力无尽的新领域. 到底是个怎样的空间﹖与我们熟识的物理空间或心灵空间可有关联﹖是否与宗教及灵性空间也搭上关系﹖

作家 Margaret Wertheim 爱探讨西方文化中物理学与宗教的关系，其新作"空间地图"(The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace)指出网路空间具有浓厚的宗教意味，因为能填补现代人心灵的空虚。西方文化一向崇尚二元论哲学，以及纯物质的宇宙观，把非物质的<我>、<精神>、<灵魂>摒弃科学门外，其实纯物理主义断绝了人性某种根本要义，导致心灵出现空隙，以致近期的西方社会渴望精神价值，一旦非物质空间出现，往往招引<精神的>甚至<天国的>梦想。

首先，数码空间提供一种<家>的感觉，人人可以拥有个人的网页，可以在高度自由的气氛里上网滑浪，所谓 surfing the net。在这里，现代人找到意想不到的避难所，因为互联网跨越物理空间之外。虽然上网也要靠物理学副产品，例如光纤、电脑等，但网路空间本身却不在物理世界内，互联网之玄妙处在其本质属性大过其各部份之总和，所以尽管其所属元素在不断扩张，数码空间丝毫不见有尽头。

另外，网路空间活像一种有思考的电子实体。上网时，我身体静坐着，却同时被带进另一境界。这境界绝对是真实的。试问成千上万在ICQ及Chat-room内的网友，谁相信自己活在虚无梦幻中！反之，人人相信数码空间具备人工智能，由个人及族群的心智不断参与创造而成。

网路空间固然不是什么宗教神学的产品，可是它的吸引力显然具有一定宗教性。网路具备不少基督教义的条件，能触动向往灵性之情。Michael Benedikt认为数码空间揉合了两种基督徒情操：渴望原罪前的无邪，梦想末日后的救恩。所以最能体现新耶路撒冷，及新天新地的蓝图。Hans Moravec甚至憧憬有一天，我们可以把思维智能下载，那时便可跳出血肉之躯，在数码天地生活。

诚然，网路空间确有宗教魅力：它令人超越烦恼的物质世界；它取缔界限, 广纳任何人。数码空间到底有何特性﹖在内里可找到神的影子﹖下列将简介一些学者的研究，他们对空间理论都有原创的解构。

空间space，我们一直知其然，只是不知其所以然。以往哲学家对空间有两极化的概念。Democritus 认为空间只有物理性，拥有长阔高等数学元素，像个大容器，让其他物体在其内移动。相反，康德(Kant)否认空间拥有物性。认为空间只是人官感的发明，加诸物理世界的一种"理" (Anschauungsform a priori)，目的令感觉有条理有意义。

传统的西方教会也把精神与物质空间对立起来，而且壁垒分明。以佛罗伦斯诗人但丁的<神曲>为例，他由地球出发，走遍地狱、炼狱、和天堂。他走过当时的物质宇宙，也走过灵界的非物质领域。诗人的肉体既像去了，同时也像没去过，虚虚实实！最后连但丁本人也着迷了。到了<神曲>之末，他竟然疑惑自己究竟是带着肉身旅游抑或是自己灵魂出了窍。显然是根深柢固的二元空间作祟！

士林哲学家较为中肯。认同空间的真实向度，却否认其独立性。即是一种<建基于实体的理性实体 a being of reason founded on real being>，也就是说，空间既属理性也属物性。Jacque Maritain认为：一直以来，理性实体被认为只属逻辑性概念，是谬误的想法。他指出在数学（无理数），物理学（原子、电子），文学（"罪恶的凯旋"），天文学（爱因斯坦式"时间"）等学术语言中，都沿用同属理性与物性的理性实体。

新士林哲学喜欢用理气 matter-form 二元论解释宇宙的变易。Space is comprehended as indefinite and indeterminate (matter), once it takes place (i.e. it actualises), it becomes visible and perceivable (form). Maritain 接受不同层面的存在实体，近乎不同程度的存在。例如同时接纳欧氏几何及罗氏几何（Euclidean and Riemannian geometry）的数学空间；也同时容纳牛顿及笛卡儿式的物理空间（Newtonian and Cartesian physics）；这些空间具有不同程度的真实性。

事实上，我们在日常生活中喜欢用<空间>来指物质世界以外的事物，例如：个人空间、心灵空间、文学空间、想像空间；而科学界本身也拥有一大堆非物性的实有空间；例如：分子空间、进化空间、（数学的）拓朴学及矩阵空间、变异空间、病毒空间等，都属非物性的实有空间。1984年，小说家William Gibson首次创作了cyberspace 一词，当年，晓得网路空间的人甚少。以后几年，互联网迅速起飞，初时只被视为另一个新的资料空间；时至今日，已发展成一个多向、互动、公开的网络空间，而且正以惊人速度无定向地扩张。因此，不论数码或虚拟空间都属真实，与物理空间比较，只在其真实程度不同而矣。

按 Maritain 的理论推敲，数码空间最重要的特色在其潜能/可塑性（virtual state），具体一点说，空间一直处于潜能状态，待上网、流通、亘动开始，空间也开始变成现实（actualised），并继续拓展。

Maritain 对空间的研究纯属哲学，与他同时的德日进神父则集自然科学、考古学、神学、及灵修学于一身，以跨科系方法做研究工夫。德日进 Teilhard de Chardin，法籍耶稣会神父，廿世纪着名人类学家，在中国工作多年，1931年，在周口店发现并鉴定了<北京智人Homo Sapiens Pekinensis>。德神父的宇宙空间属全动感，他把进化的概念连结着物理与精神空间。他说：<基督徒把整个现实世界的一切，贯连在一个同心轴上，轴线的一端是天主: 对他来说，宇宙构成一个整体，当然这只在天地终结时才完成。>

德日进把教会传统的二元论切底改写，他提出<神的氛围>（The Divine Milieu）、<宇宙基督> （Cosmic Christ）等宏观理念，把物质与精神连结起来，令绝对的界线消失了。他相信"天主透入宇宙，就如同光线透过水晶体；因着形形色色不能胜数的受造物，我们遂处处见到祂在工作；祂是那么亲近, 同时又是那么遥远。" "祂是这样包围，渗透着我们的里里外外"。这一来，天主而人的基督进入历史后，当天地终穷之日，也就是救赎完满之时，基督将把整体受造物带回完美的境界。

当日，保禄到雅典传教，当地人着他到亚高拉（Agora）人民广场去，就是着名的Areopagus人民法院，是个人人可以发言、公开辩论的地方。保禄在人民广场宣讲雅典人<尚未认识之神>。德日进在<神的氛围>里引用了当时保禄的证道："天主是我们生活于其内，像大气一样无所不包，密契不离的神。祂四面八方地包容着我们，就如世界包容着我们。你要拥抱祂还需什么呢﹖只一件事：看清祂。"

要看清天主, 我们还得须要天主帮忙。德日进晚年时说："世界渐渐在我眼前照明起来，灼热起来，直到我周围的一切，从深处变得完全通明。基督便是宇宙的心脏，衪是足以深透一切的火，衪渐渐蔓延到各处。"

按照德日进的宇宙蓝图推敲，数码空间里尽是主的影子。

德日进提及保禄在雅典人民广场Areopagus的证道。无独有偶，当今教宗在1998年世界传播节的牧函中，也提到这广场，他说："大众传播在现今社会其实担当着「大众论坛」的角色，好像古代雅典的人民论坛（Areopagus），藉着互相交流真理、意见及价值观，以助建设社会。" 教宗提及的人民论坛，实指新一代的网路文化，互联网的确像个无边际的人民广场，教宗呼吁教会人士接受其挑战。

网路空间除了具备物性、理性、以及宗教元素，主要也是个社会性空间。研究social space 的权威也来自法国，Henri Lefebvre 的名作 La production de l'espace (1974, The Production of Space, tr., 1991) 是研究社会空间的经典。他为任何社会空间定下三个标准：空间里的活动(物性空间)，空间的符号(理性空间)，以及生活的空间(社群空间)。任何社会空间的产生与延续，都与这三项元素息息相关。那末，网络空间又如何呢﹖首先，上网一族的活动必须电气、晶片、光纤、萤光幕、modem、通讯卫星、与及有关工业，均属物性空间里的元素；其次，上网一族必须熟习的语言、软件、程式、学理等则属理性空间的元素；第三，上网一族的族类文化习惯、身份认同、艺术、娱乐、通俗文化、资讯交流等活动都属社群空间的部份。所以，网路空间是典型的社会空间，既属物性，同时跨越物性。还有， Lefebvre指出更重要的一点：空间的扩展完全系于这三项元素之间的互动。即是说：网上的交通、网民的交流、资讯的流通等令数码空间在不断地扩张。

与 Maritain，德日进及 Lefebvre 差不多同期的 Deleuze 及 Guattari 对空间理论有革命性的贡献，其<千高台>一书（A Thousand Plateaus/Mille Plateaux）为现代非线性空间的研究提出划时代的根基。两人也来自法国。<高台>是个没有起点没有终点的空间，永远在 "其间/中间"，存在于实与虚之间，an inter-being! 每个高台由多学科的观念，<千高台>本身是个开放系统，作者鼓励读者随意由任何一点任何一个高台进入系统，即由任何一章开始阅读。

"根茎 rhizome"是<千高台>内最重要的概念，也正是<千高台>本身的系统模式。根茎埋于地下，布满网状的无定向根须，向四方八面扩展。每个高台代表一个多元体（multiplicity），多元体与其它多元体的根须连结，伸展成一蔟根茎。Deleuze 强调的是个开放系统、开放空间。这空间的逻辑不在乎先后高低，而是一种 "与及、兼容"（and）的逻辑，一种建立平等关系的文化，打破因果的直线关系，改变时间顺序的概念，强调多样性互动关系。<千层台>活像一道无比高大的电视墙，由无数电视机组成，影像由不同组合的电视机随意组合，由一部至多部，不时也会由整度幕墙组成"一个"钜大的影像。整个组合既点阵又零碎！Deleuze 强调这类开放系统充满创意思维，但并非说系统本身能思想，思想乃来自系统以外（cf. Foucault），像塞外奔跑飞驰而居无定所的游牧族群，入闯中原，制造新的动力（cf. Nietzsche），Deleuze 形容这种空间是虚拟的（virtual），所谓虚拟空间并非不真实，而是它对既定现成的真实不断地抗争。所以像<千高台>的空间催生思维，开发新的思想领域，发现新的功能。事实上，Deleuze心目中的虚拟空间没有预定的目的地，像一辆的士，有时慢驶闲逛，有时短暂停泊，总之没有固定预定的目的地。也正因此，虚拟空间充满潜能，充满生机。Deleuze的虚拟空间反对分划领土（deterritorialisation），打破边缘/中心的对立（decentralisation），挑战任何界限（destratification）。可惜他生不逢时，未能亲身体验互联网上无疆界的空间。话虽如此，他身体力行，示范如何打破哲学与实践之间的界线，把自己原创的时空理论应用于电影研究，撰写了近年革命性的电影哲学 Cinema 1: The movement-image 及 Cinema 2: The time-image。

提起电影，我想起传媒，也联想到当代传理学的先知：麦鲁汉 Herbert Marshall McLuhan，虔诚天主教徒，文学教授。以精辟独到的眼光分析随着电气化而起的现代资讯革命；他的学理都聚焦在几句着名隽语中。例如：<地球村>（The global village），<媒体就是讯息>（Medium is message），<媒体也是按摩>（Medium is also massage），<媒体是人的伸延>（Media are extension of mankind），<热媒体排斥，冷媒体涵括>（Hot media exclude, cool media include）， <立即全部以及全部整体>（All-at-onceness and all-at-oneness）。

麦鲁汉于1980年去世，当时互联网还在酝酿中，可是麦鲁汉先知式的言论已多次触及数码空间的边缘。其中以他对"音响空间acoustic space"的描述为最接近。先说视觉空间，由于是眼睛的伸延，拥有专一焦点，所以视觉空间是划一的、顺序的、连续的、理性的、线性的、并擅于生产封闭的空间。相对来说，音响空间没有中心、没有边缘，而且能产生回声及共鸣，属直觉而又综合性。人的视线擅于占有，说话则倾向表露。后现代文化以视觉空间为主，所以创造出一个极度零碎化、强烈个体主义、逻辑主导、专门化、以及冷静超脱的环境；相反，以口传为主的文化(例如：古经早期的族裔)生活多姿釆、凝聚力强、率性纯真、情感丰富、且重视精神价值。

目前，网路空间仍然以视觉文化主导，不过，音响空间早已在迅速成长中，今日的ICQ一族不断发明拼音式的语言(例如: icu la; b4; how ru)，另外live chat很快将成为电脑的基本装置。网上的视、听文化势将达致平衡。

以上简介的学者，除德日进外，都属思想家，没有生产空间的实际经验。自古以来，生产空间的专业首推建筑师。Lebbeus Woods 是当代的建筑学教授，承接着Deleuze 及 Guattari 的空间哲学，为数码空间提出重要的理念。Deleuze 二人曾讨论 Garin de Troyes 建筑歌德式教堂的故事，这位中世纪隐修士兼建筑师摒弃了蓝图式建筑法，邀请朝圣者及过客协助凿石，不用遵照预定的图则，可按现场的空间即席雕凿石块，背后的理论可归纳为两点：第一他们相信理气二元的动量关系，因而发展更高更长的拱顶，拱顶不只是新的图形，而是石块线条的绵延变奏；第二，他们相信石块拥有无穷的潜能，能缔造成任何形状，就像后来的米高安哲罗要从大理石中把梅瑟解放出来。这套理念其实与前述 Maritain 的新士林宇宙论一脉相承，只是这位隐修士早来了几个世纪。

身为建筑师的Woods完全了解上述建筑哲学，由这里发展了他两个重要的建筑空间理念：freespace and heterarchy （自由空间及另外空间）。

首先，他反对建筑学对空间的功能定义。传统的则师在设计每个空间时一向只问其用途，设计师无非只为把原来没有意义的空间变成有用。其实设计无非为要控制人的行为，更令控制持续。因此建筑落成后, 空间的功能不可以变更，例如课室不可用作寝室，所以上课不准睡觉或唱K. Woods十分推崇建筑大师 Mies van der Rohe，后者的万向空间 universal space 的确创意非凡。原来古代不少神庙最能体现万向空间这意念，庙内空间宽敞而极少人类功能。宽敞的空间邀请人主动参与，邀请人以自己的内涵价值填满空间，也就是说把整个自我交托予宇宙主宰。

Woods 指出："现代人拥有数不尽的空间－－由原子到宇宙，由数码空间到外太空，由郊外别墅到闹市中的空地－－可是，以当代科学与艺术所生产的意义，都不可能把空间填满。不论是大众媒体或消费文化，不管是学术讲座抑或政治伟论，每日生产愈多，空间内的空位反而也愈大。" 因此他呼吁不但要重估空间的价值，甚至要重估价值本身。

Woods 由此推敲其自由空间的概念。于1990年完成Berlin Free-Zone（柏林自由区）计划，首次落实自由空间这概念。建筑物之下隐藏着一个高科技智慧型都市，人们活在光速电子传讯系统内，资讯流通与人际关系完全摆脱传统的束缚。所有纪念东西柏林合并的建筑都异乎现有的历史建筑物。自由空间要求全新的活动模式，不能有先例可循。

Woods 的第二个重要概念：< heterarchy 另外空间>，与< hierarchy建制空间>相对。如果建制代表权威，heterarchy 乃指另外的权威，也就是众多的权威，并暗示权威不停转手。可是另外空间也是动态的，空间内的人与物、有机体与无机组织在不停对话，空间内外亦在不断交流，另外空间因此不断扩张。一般认为， Berlin Free-Zone 最具备数码空间的条件。

三年后，Woods完成了Sarajevo Free-Zone计划。内战期间，Sarajevo 的公屋完全失去其功能，公屋的建筑蓝图原由政府统筹，一切水电通讯设计均中央化，设计首先方便政府，其次才方便住客。由于空袭延续，居民只住最低层，形成高层单位全部空置。可见当设施失去功能，建筑物也失去价值。所以Woods十分强调空间的自由性。对他来说，空间的"空"字实则与"自由"同义。

他的自由空间及另外空间实则也是今日的网路空间之最佳写照。

以上我尝试做导游，带大家在数码空间的边缘游走半圈－－由于行也匆匆，未提爱因斯坦及霍金的多维空间，只算游了半圈。可是此刻，游纵却好像刚刚开始; 在数码空间里滑浪冲浪的感觉很好，动态中的景象看的不稳定，好像王家卫惯用的偷格（strobe）效果，带强烈的跳跃感。不时更来个dissolve，真个浪漫，有点渐臻化境的感觉。到底甚么是"化"的境界﹖所谓"睇化"，"本地化"，"现代化" ……是否暗示"停下来歇歇"的意思﹖

当然不是！"化"充满动态，代表界线的消失，代表过程，而并非成果，意味着不断的变易，不停upgrade！管它是本族、本国、本位、本地、本港、本院、本人……这个"化"境形成一股动力，促使空间里的个体不断生产，并向四方八面融化！

网路空间本来就不分国土疆域，也没有界限，人人可以自由自主地滑浪，不分种族，与任何网友say hi！这样的大公文化大概在挑战一般谈"本地化"人士。我想网路文化本质具兼容性，根本不可能对任何研究构成威胁。反过来说，今日"本地化"的研究也宜走向跨科、跨系、跨文化的方向。数码空间势将成为教会本地化的新平台。

当年，圣母说"我愿意Fiat"的一刻，造物主进入人类历史，天主而人的耶稣也同时进入了希伯来文化。祂选择了一位母亲，马上成为一个族类的成员，沿用一种语言，继承一种职业，祂接受了一个受造物躯体的全部限制。以后，祂跨越了可朽的躯体，让教会也跨越民族国界，走向普世。Incarnation 也是一种界线的消失！

数码空间一直给与我某种宗教感觉，好像德日进神父描述的一种"神的氛围"。他曾用音乐描绘"神的氛围"的空间："在神的氛围的怀里，各受造物的个别音响虽不混同，却同唱一个主调，构成悦耳的和弦，在一片和谐中，连不协和弦也融合在壮丽的大合奏中。" 那天在大球场，在圣伯多禄大殿广场，成千上万的声音，同唱 "Amen, Amen, Amen"，不管是高八度，低八度，不协调音效，全部融合在和谐中，从物理空间，伸延至另一向度 ……。

感谢蔡校长让我在此<摸衫尾>，很荣幸能参加母校的30周年庆典，转眼间，原来自己已经有20多届的师弟师妹！过去几年，我对学院依然有不解的情意结。每次找不到外景场地，同事马上想起它，在那宽敞辽阔的空间，总会找到合适的场景(最多改改剧本罢！)。修院的外围，最令我心仪的是它的入口，好像数码空间，也无铁闸也无门！总是欢迎我们回去，好一种家的感觉！在此，我诚心祝福学院，继续发挥无限的学术空间。但愿有一天，看见衪回首一望：<是谁摸我衣裳﹖> 到时我们都自豪地说：<主啊！It's i-dotcom！>

作者：林瑞琪

谢谢蔡惠民神父的邀请，容我有机会参与今次难能可贵的研讨会，并且与我二十多年来一直敬慕不已的张春申神父一同为大家探讨教会本地化的出路，实在是我的荣幸。我们应特别感谢上主，赐下了张春申神父在我们中间，带领我们作很深入的探索。

张神父在其主稿「神学（灵修）本地化的回顾与前瞻」一文中，特别强调了「灵修」二字，明显表示出今次研讨会的重点。我以下的讨论，则尝试离开灵修以外，甚至首先走出教会这一实体，而从社会演变本身，反过来思考教会所可能受到的挑战。在这里容我首先致歉，以下的分析与神学没有直接关系，与灵修更没有直接关系。是属于另类的思考。

在处理「现代处境下中华教会如何本地化」这个问题之前，我们不妨先看看中华教会所处身的二十一世纪的特色。有许多今天我们认为极之重要的问题，地上地下的纷争，政府认可与不认可的问题，中华教会的地缘范围、民族范围的问题（平地人与山地人以至外来人与本地人）之间的纷争，在二十一世纪可能变得不太重要。有许多问题需要重新理解及诠释，然后有回答的可能。当前两大问题必须解决：

（一）在世界一体化之下，「中国的」身份是否依然存在？

（二）在资讯革命的巨轮之下，教会如何面对冲击？

1.在世界一体化之下，「中国的」身份是否依然存在？

第一个问题牵涉到一连串复杂的历史问题，何谓「中国化」？哪一个中国较为「中国」？是共产主义在中国生根之前倾向于传统中国文化的中国，抑或是以推翻传统中国价值为己任的共产主义中国？另一方面，在全球一体代的潮流下，如何「重拾」（如何有必要的话）「中国」的身份。（我这个问题全不牵涉到政治得失批判，这是日后有机会与大家再分享的问题。现在要解决的，是「中国化」的定义问题。）

在这里请容我稍稍离题，借助一个与教会没有关系的问题去和大家一同思考：当下的中国都市社会的市民，穿怎样的衣服才可以代表她的（或他的）中国人身份。我带出这个问题，是希望和大家一同思考一个理念上的吊诡。在一九七八年中共推行改革开放之前，上述这个问题比较容易处理。一个中国大陆上城市的中国人，应该是身穿灰蓝色的解放装。这种衣服反映着他的身份：「一个经历革命洗礼的中国人。」

服饰时常是身份及文化的反映。改革开放之前的服饰，无论大家是否欣赏，都代表着当时的价值观。（共产主义革命至上的时期，中共与越共与朝鲜共产党在衣饰上基本没有分别。）问题是，在今时今日，假如人们穿着灰蓝色的解放装，十九会被视为赶不上潮流，更甚者会被视为思想极左的表现。（李鹏和杨尚昆在一九八九年五月二十日宣布北京戒严的一刻，即放弃西装而改穿解放装，当中带给传媒及公众的讯息至为明显。）

然而，今时今日的中国人应穿甚么衣服呢？身穿西装可否作为一个「现代都市的中国人」应有的服饰呢？不穿西装，就与现代化接不上；穿了西装，又如何算得上中国化呢？我们不要辩说衣服的国际化这是举世皆然的问题。在印尼，新当选的总统瓦希德能够穿着传统印尼服饰（甚至传统到不用穿鞋）去出席公众活动。当一九七九年伊朗的什叶派教长科米尼带头推翻亲西方的巴列维国王时，衣服再一次显明是文化的重要表征。

2. 双重舍弃

中国传统文化经历一项由彻底革命所完成的舍弃，这场彻底革命所要进行的舍弃，在毛泽东手下开始，并在文化大革命中完成。这次对传统文化的舍弃，为的要是向新的革命文化让路。但这舍弃之后，却又经历一次自一九七八年以来对这「彻底革命」的彻底舍弃。在这双重舍弃之后，中国文化变得方向尽失。在这里，容我又离题一点，中国共产党曾经有过努力尝试建构一套新的文化。尽管这项尝试最终归于失败，尽管这项尝试为中国人带来不少创痛，但为这项尝试所作的努力是值得正视的。然而，共产党人自己也出卖了他们前辈所作的努力，将先前的尝试弃之如敝屣。（我暂且引用一位时事评论家的说法，毛泽东一再骂邓小平是走资本主义路线的共产党叛徒，骂得实在有远见。）

一九七八年中国经历三十年与外界隔绝然后重新开放，深感自己与外界的现代化世界严重脱节，于是拚命地赶上外界的世界。中国拚命要「现代化」，但「现代化」过程中却出现「本位文化」消失的危机。（举另一个例子，全方位的生活保障正是「革命文化」的重要内容，但改革开放的结果却彻底取消了这种方面的保障。）究竟在双重舍弃之余，中国人的文化特色如何定位，是整个中国社会全体成员所要共同面对的问题。

中国人未找到其文化特色之前，中国教会的本位化如何落实，实在是笔者所无法想像的事。作为一个现代的中国人，就是一个拚命地模仿西方世界的人。当我们追问中国教会如何本色化时，首先就会遇到中国的「本色」是甚么的问题？中国是否在现代化，「现代化」与「中国本位化」是否矛盾？「中国教会应如何表现自己」与「中国应如何表现自己」是息息相关的问题。

3. 在资讯革命的巨轮之下，教会如何面对冲击？

与中国现代化所造成的危机产生的同时，教会面对另一个更严峻的挑战，网络世界的挑战。在Cyber World 的年代，传统社会面临解体，教会既以传统社会作为载体，教会是否同样面临解体的危机？

面对全球的网络化，世界会变因着与电脑科技的应用关系而分成社会的三个层次：

社会分层与资讯科技的关系社会比例
宰制者 1. 政府，掌握资讯立法权力及裁判权力者；
2. 资讯科技的硬件及软件设计者及拥有者人数少，参与者竞争甚大。
使用者有能力适应科技发展（或宰制）的人人数甚多，理论上可以包括世界上绝大多数的人。
被遗弃
没有能力适应科技主流者，成了社会上边缘化的一群。绝对人数可能钜大，但相对比例会不断下降，而剩余群体的处境会因之而愈来愈恶劣。

杜佛勒（Alvin Tofler）的《第三波The Third Wave》其实早已说出了部份事实，但许多当时未有意想到的问题在今天纷纷浮现。这样的三层社会模式并非一个金字塔，因为底层人数并不多，而且底层者不断受到压力驱使其中有些人努力攀上第二层。然而，他们的努力离场，却倒过来使到底层余下的人境况更不幸。

在这个三层的模式之下，「钱」、「权」分配绝不平均。大部份金钱掌握在最上一层，大部份由选票兑现出来的权力归于第二层，当中能够「鼓动」选票流向者，又上升为第一层的利益份子；第三层完全是「无权」、「无势」的边缘团体。

4.教会如何抗衡权力架构对「人」的宰制

这个未来社会的三层结构，各自带给「教会」不同的挑战。第一层的社会的形成，促成社会权力的进一步集中，其中对教会的挑战是：教会能否独善其身，而不成为第一层既得利益者的伙伴。（或「帮凶」？）

第一层社会既以少数控制第二层的多数（并同时排挤第三层的余数），则警察力量成了可预期的事实。文化工作者马国明提及网络文化在初兴时实在有其乌托邦式的理想，希望实现资讯的公开，知识的免费传递及意见的自由表达，然而，网络世界一旦形成，则参与的人迅速聚集，引起资本家的垂涎，结果才弄成一场商战。

笔者完全同意这项分析，而且要更进一步说明，既然牵涉到庞大的市场，则动辄改变整个经济及社会的生态环境，于是政府的介入成了必然的事。北京当局近日在互联网使用上加设的种种关卡，正好反映出政治对网络世界的干预。（至于该等干预有否成效则属另一回事。）

另一方面，科技发展表面上提供了大量选择，但同时却不断扼杀新科技以外的其他选择，于是乎，科技带来的生活改变美其名为带给人更大的自由，实质上是以工具规限人性自由。结果是人性受到更严厉的压制。

5.教会面对「社会」的解体

第二层所提出的挑战来自社会组成本身。二十世纪社会赖以维持的主要组成部份－－中产阶级，在二十一世纪将隐身为没有个人身份的网上人。Cyber World 介入社会，彻底地「打乱」了现实世界的地理及时空距离。（感谢李满开教授在一月二十八日的「多玛斯哲学思想与现代思潮关系」的哲学分享会所带来的启发。）这种地理及时空的大混转，驱使传统社会逐步解体。目前，教会既以传统社会作为载体，教会是否同样面临解体的危机？

也许，「解体」这个字眼是太过耸人听闻，不过，随着社会网络化，教会的信众团体会否也一同网络化。传统社会将会简约为没有明显社群的个体集合体。个体集合体与社会团体不同，他们隐身于社会，令到人与人之间的关系全面数码化。容若愚博士所提的网上灵修，无疑是十分美丽的图像。但这处于虚拟与真实之间的数码世界，正是笔者感受到教会最大的威胁。（Mark Slouka 的新着War of the Worlds-Cyberspace and the High-Tech Assault on Reality对此有精辟的分析及震撼人心的描绘。）

目前天主教会所深重倚赖的群体，是一个传统的、「邻社化」的群体（或称为「邻舍化」的群体，这是一个农村味道更浓的字眼。）读者大概没有忘记胡振中枢机在「迈向光辉的十年」牧函中所寄予厚望的教会团体模式。寄望这邻社化关系能长久维持，显然是不切实际的事（等如小孩拒绝长大一般。）当「本地」这个概念遇到冲击时，「本地化」这个概念有甚么意义，是我们无法回避的问题。

「邻社化」的解体对教会群体而言并非没有正面的意义。相反，这也许反是教会在社会中成为标记的最好机会。数码化革命与十八世纪以来的产业革命一样，促使人与其本质疏离，教会是否能「治疗」社会人群因「疏离」所造成的创伤，也是我们值得探索的问题。

6.教会如何寻找被遗弃者

第三个层次，传统社会中的弱势社群，在Cyberised Society当中变得更加边缘化，他们是备受排挤的一群。他们无力改变世界，也无力接受世界，他们被世界「遗弃」，甚至被世界所忘记。他们当中即使有少数人成功地上升为第二层的成员，但却令到剩下来的其他人处境更悲惨，相对于第二层的人，他们的力量是「小」而又「少」。多一个人离场，就多一分的忽略。（共产主义老祖宗马克思预言受苦阶级会不段扩大，以致聚积成爆炸性的力量，反过来将压迫阶段完全摧毁。但这项预言却在Cyber World 出现之后完全落空了。）

数码化世界的扩张，不单令到他们的处境日愈孤立及无数，另一方面亦令到他们的生活趋困难。数码化世界之所以能够高速扩张，其中一个十分重要的原因是它能大幅地降低参与者及使用者的运作成本，通讯的成本是其第一个明显的例子，网上交易的成本是另一个重要的例子。然而，网上运作的成本在下降之余，将逐步迫使网外（传统的运作形式）的成本不断上涨，上涨的原因一方面来自市场的萎缩导致每一个体的运作成本增加，同时亦出于网外运作体系的瓦解。

7.网上文化取代原有的互动模式

网外成本的上升及运作的退化，不单有经济上的影响，亦有政治上的损害。在网络以外的社会（假设「社会」依然存在的话）公民，连政治权利也会受到剥削。以普选为例，在网上投票尚未通行的今天，票站的设立大致以小型社区的范围为依归，即使年老力弱，大部份也有能力投自己所运用的一票，因此成为政治上不可忽略的一群。然而，一旦网络投票风行，则网上投票机制的成本将大大低于在社区上设立票站，则主持选举的政府，必然受到财务上的压力，倾向于将票站集中。假设香港二百五十万合资格选民中，有百分之九十表示将使用网上投票，只余二十五万人使用票站，则相对于每一票站选票的运作成本差不多会上升十倍。票站单位投票成本持续上升，势必迫使政府收缩票站数目，结果，本来就近的票站纷纷取消，投票成了一次「长途」旅程。网上的人投票成本大降之余，网外的人投票成本却火速上涨。

网上文化并非提供另一人类互动的模式，而是取代原有的互动模式。以上述的网上投票为例，由于网外选票所占比重愈来愈低，则拉票（「洗楼」及「扫街」，以至派车接送投票，）的个体成本相对不断上涨，政党及参政人士在衡量资源分配的时候，必然倾向「本少利大」的网上宣传而被迫减少甚至取消网外宣传。于是，网外的选民同时受到政府及政党的双重离弃。网外一族的政治力量既失，在社会上的声音亦随之而消失。

假如读者认为网上投票是太遥远的事，笔者在此愿意提供一个十分近期的真人真事。一九九九年九月，笔者为了评论香港法律改革委员会辖下「私隐问题小组委员会」所撰有关官定报业评议会建议，专程前往政务署索取一份谘询文件。过往政府的谘询文件由于印数庞大，动辄在五万份以上，所以篇幅控制一向偏严，即使是影响深远的九十年代政改白皮书，也仅仅是数十页纸而已。然而，今次的「私隐小组」谘询文件，由于按照网上的版式编印，而又因为网页成本甚低，以至于编成的谘询文件长达一百八十七页。

不过，这样一来，白纸黑字印出来的谘询文件印刷本显得沉甸甸不便存放，政府印务局亦无法为单一项谘询文件耗费大量资源，结果政府当局被迫仅能提供少数印刷本在少数地方供市民取阅，派完即止。过后，市民若不打算在网上「下载」（这个古怪的译名真要命！）则只能在政务署等机构内影印，费用是每页港币六元。读者可以想像影印整份谘询文件成了差不多没可能的事。故事的结果是：未能上网者，则连了解及评论政府政策的基本公民权利也遭到剥夺。人在网外，就是在「互动社会」之外，听不到外界的声音，也没有人会聆听你的声音。

笔者一连用了多个「被迫」，用意是指出这与个别人士的善意并不相关，而是网络文化一旦形成，社会内的人士无可奈何的唯一出路。

教会在这里所遇到的挑战是：教会如何与他们同在。教会在这里遇到两难的问题，教会不随众而数码化，则会遭「社会」排挤；教会随众而数码化，则会排挤了「社会」上弱势的弟兄姊妹。当然，这矛盾当中同样存在着机遇，成了与弱势者同行的标记。

8.痛苦与喜乐的问题

最后，为我个人来说，一切所有本地化经验，都必须植根于本地群众的感受及感觉。（又打岔路一次，Cyberised Society正令到我们的个人感觉及集体感觉变得混乱而含糊。）一个本地化的教会，就是一个分享本地人喜悦与痛苦的教会。要分享（及分担）本地人的喜悦与痛苦，就必须参与本地人的集体记忆，认真地感受本地人在心底里最深处的诉求，了解本地人在最深处的忧虑，而与本地人一同克服这些忧虑。在一切都变得不实在的网上时代里，人类的痛苦与忧虑成了生命最真实的实在。

教会为了参与这份集体记忆，必须亲身经历本地人在历史中的生活，要有这份经历，教会必须脱离政治、经济及文化的保护罩。本地化意味着教会不再规限自己于外在既有的一切，包括其现有的社会地位、资源及人脉，而专注于受苦的群众。教会现有的保护罩，在历史中有其形成的原因及过程，我们无须刻意否定；但面对未来的世界，我们得警醒这些保护罩会反过来成为负累。

在这里，容我借用沙田道风山莲花洞的两句横批作结，教会要实现本地化，就得「放下重担，背起十架。」

作者：陈继容

前言

圣神修院神哲学院为纪念学院成立30周年，于2000年2月8日至10日，邀得我国着名神学家，耶稣会士张春申神父到港主持一个有关中国神学本位化的研习会，主题为「神学本地化的回顾与前瞻」。张神父更建议，由于他对香港不熟悉，故他的演讲主要集中在回顾部份，前瞻部份则由学院的教授及本港的神学工作者一起研究。学院于是邀请了多位教授、神职及其他人士，从不同角度，对中国神学本地化的前瞻问题作回应。之后，学院更将这些回应，连同张春申神父的文章，结集成文，分别刊登于第21及22期的《神学年刊》。这篇文字从礼仪方面探讨。1

梵二蒂冈第二届会议(下称梵二)于三十多年前推行礼仪改革及本地化，三十多年后的今天，整个世界已起了很大变化。今日的世界已是个地球村，不论大家赞成与否，全球化席卷每个角落，几乎没有一处地方不受其影响。甚至我国，也开始踏足国际舞台，在经过15年艰苦谈判后，于2001年12月11日正式加入世贸，成为这个世界最大经贸组织的第143个成员国。由此可见我国锐意革新、建设一个现代化中国，与西方列国看齐的决心。因此，可以预见今后在中国社会，不论任何一方面，东西文化差距会日趋薄弱。

所以今日谈本地化，不论从那方面看，与三十多年前比较，肯定会有差异。因此是次学院举行的研习会，正好给大家提供一个检讨及重新探索本地化问题的好机会。作为当代的中国天主教徒，在全球化这巨浪不断的冲击下，我们到底该如何在西方和中国之间、在革新与保守之间、尤其是，在教会的普世性和地区性之间，掌握平衡？真是门不大不少的学问。

研习会举行过后，在《公教报》曾出现一些谈礼仪本地化的文字，正好与我们的题目有关，所以我们也就这些文字及思想，作了一些反省与回应。全篇除前言及结论外，原来共分四点：词汇研究，从事本地化须有的基本概念，中国礼仪本地化展望，在现代化及全球化的影响下看本地化的必需性。第四点「在现代化及全球化的影响下看本地化的必需性」，已刊载于第21期的《神学年刊》2，所以此文只集中讨论余下三点。

1. 我们参照王维贤女士所译《天主教史》一书的做法，以基督徒(Christians)指所有信仰基督的人，特别指天主教友。至于Protestants，即十六世纪马丁路得所开始的誓反教派，则统称新教徒。参看海侻令著，王维贤译，《天主教史》上册，台南\香港，征祥出版社\香港公教真理学会联合出版，1965，页13。又本篇所用略语如下列：CCL= Corpus Christianorum, series latina (Turnholti 1953ss); PL = Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina (Parisiis 1844-1864).

2. 参看陈继容著，「在现代化及全球化的影响下看本地化的必需性」，《神学年刊》n21(2001) 页105-115。

词汇研究

本文讨论的，既是中国礼仪本地化的展望。那么，在正式探讨之前，先弄清楚与本地化工作有关的一些词汇，例如传统、文化、皈依，特别是本地化等词的内容及意思，相信对问题的理解有一定的帮助。

1. 传统

从宗教角度，尤其是从基督信仰的本质来说，传统是个非常重要的课题。传统不但与宗教有关，更是个人学(Anthropology)的论题。比之于其他动物，人的自卫及照顾自己的本能均较弱，不少事情，例如饮食、防卫、延续后代等基本生存之道，其他动物无须学习，便天生有这种本能。人却不同，人需要经过一段长时间的教育期，学习这一切，然后他才能融入人类的文化，并如一个自由、有理性、有伦理意识和文化制造者的「实体」─Being─般生活。这过程我们从婴儿的成长中看得最真切。

人要学习讲话，学习与所生活的环境及周围的人建立关系；学习善用自己的自由，学习认识真正的价值等。为了得到这一切，人需要有一个适当环境把这一切传给他。否则，他日后会变成一个「人性发育不全」的人。根据很多专家研究得出的结论，一个人如果自小生活在一个没有人讲话的地方，他就没有机会学习讲话，长大后也就不会讲话。易言之，讲话是人需要从传统中学习的一种让他可以和别人沟通的技巧。同样地，如果人不是自小就从别人那儿学习直立，并用两条腿走路，他终身都会如其他动物般，走路时用「四脚爬行」。即是说，人如果没法生活在一个不论在文化及人格上，都可以帮助他不断学习和成长的传统中，他所拥有的很多天生的潜质，将会被埋没。

综括上述，大家可以看到，我们每一个人，无论我们愿意与否，我们都是传统的「负债人」─Debtor。因为我们一出生，便注定要在一个传统中成长，并学习与人生有关的一切学识、理论、习惯、价值或非价值等事物。因此，我们每一个人，真的要好好地感谢我们所生活于其中的传统。因为，如果没有传统，实在不敢想像人一出生后、他怎么可以自己一个人「独自」成长起来，并继续生活。那会是如何艰辛及费气力的一回事，根本就不可能。

事实上，在我们成长的过程中，传统不知替我们省掉多少困难及辛劳，给我们省回多少气力，让我们摘取前人的经验，可以更好地运用个人的自由，并计划未来。为了这缘故，今日的哲学家、人类学家、及教育家等，他们为了要人明白传统的重要，进而懂得保护他们的传统而费索苦心。因为诚如他们所说，传统好比人的记忆，一个人没有了记忆，他肯定也没有将来。3

如果从人学的角度来看，传统已经这样重要，那么，大家可以想像传统在基督信仰中的地位。事实上，在基督信仰中，传统除了负起传递信仰的功能外，更是帮助信友固守在真信仰内的工具。早于第五世纪时，当异端如雨后春笋一个接一个出现之际，雷岸的圣文生(St. Vincent of )就已经在其《备忘录》4中指出，他曾多次向教会内德学超卓的人士请教，如何分辨真正的天主教信仰(或公教信仰)和异端。这些人都几乎一致地回答他说：如果我们想发现隐藏于异端中的欺诈，避免跌入他们的圈套，使自己可以完整和不受损伤地固守在真正的信仰内，我们一定要用双重的防御来保护自己，这双重的防御就是天主法律的权威，即是天主所启示的圣经，和天主教会的传统："Divinae legis auctoritate, tum deinde Ecclesiae catholicae traditione"。5

接着圣文生对这双重防御作进一步的解释，首先是关于圣经，圣文生跟随圣奥思定的思想，清楚指出信友并非任何圣经都接受，而是教会所传授和诠释的圣经。事实上，圣奥思定曾说过，除非该部福音能够把他带引到天主教会的权威前，他不会相信那部福音："Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctorias".6易言之，只有教会才有解释圣经的权柄。之后，为了让众人明白为什么只有教会才有权解释圣经，圣文生解释说，虽然教会已经编订了圣经的正典(Canon)，似乎无需再由教会来解释圣经，但事实却不然，因为并非所有人对圣经高超和神圣的内容都有相同的理解而作出唯一的解释。历史告诉我们，同一句话，不同的人往往有不同的解释，可以说，有关圣经的解释和释经者的数目几乎时时都是相等的。实际上，大家可以见到，教会历代几个重要异端之发起人如萨培里(Sabellius)，多拿狄(Donatus)，亚略(Arius)，白拉奇(Pelagius)，聂思多(Nestorius)等，无一不是按自己的意见来解释圣经，结果导致异端一个接一个出现。因此，以普世和教会意识为基础而定下一些解释圣经的守则，是必须的。7

圣文生这种见解并非出于他自己，而是来自宗徒的教导。圣伯多禄在其第二篇书信中，关于解释圣经的事有这样的指示：「最主要的，你们应知道经上的一切预言，决不应随私人的解释，因为预言从来不是由人的意愿而发的，而是由天主所派遣的圣人，在圣神推动之下说出来的」。8

因此，根据圣文生，确定真理的原则有三点：普世性、沿自远古的根源、全体的认同。为此，天主教会自己要用尽一切方法保守那唯一的，自教会成立之始，不论何时何地一直被所有人宣认的信仰："In ipsa item catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est".9

圣文生所提的这三项原则 "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" 之后传诵千古，成为后代研究神学的一个重要指标。圣文生依据这原则，清楚指出，教会在面对天主托付给她的教义时应有的态度。他说基督的教会，作为托负给她的教义的小心和谨慎的看管者，她永远不会改变这些教义，或对这些教义作任何增删，教会只会造一件事，将一切已经肯定和阐明的，保存下来：

"Christi vero Ecclesia, sedula et cauta depositorum apud se dogmatum custos, nihil in his unquam permutat, nihil minuit, nihil addit, non amutat necessaria, non apponit superflua, non amittit sua, non usurpat aliena; sed omni industria hoc unum studet ut vetera fideliter sapienterque tractando, si qua sunt illa antiquitus informata et inchoata, accuret et poliat; si qua jam expressa et enucleata consolidet, firmet; si qua jam confirmata et definita, custodiat".10

正是为此原因，连公议会的召开，其目的也并非为提出或制定新的教义，而是为回应某个环境或时期的特别需要，用新的言词或方式来讲解一端旧的教义，使人更容易明白该端教义的意思。11

总括以上有关传统的分析，正如一位当代礼仪学家，美籍本笃会士贾蕴能神父在一个讨论本地化问题的国际议会中说的，教会之所以能够不断地在这世上生活了两千年，全靠她的传统？Tradition？把教会一代一代地传递下去。因此，假若没有传统，基督所创立的教会也不能存在。因为一个没有传统的教会，基本上已丧失其奥迹的本质，沦为一个与社会上其他组织没有分别的社团，结果是人再也不能通过她认识基督。所以在本地化问题上，特别是礼仪方面的本地化工作，最重要是拥有这正确的意识：教会、传统、基督是一个整体，永远不能分开，否则影响深远。12

2. 文化13

如果我们说，所有人都承认文化的存在，但真正懂得解释文化是什么的人却不多，相信没有人会反对。1934年有位英国学者罗伦斯卢伟(Lawrence Lowell)曾这样形容文化：「世界上没有比文化更难解释的事物。由于文化的组织成份和表达方式多得数之不尽，因此你既无法分析它，复不能形容它」。14

卢伟的言论于六十年代被另一位学者古豪(C. Kluckholn)收进他的新书《文化概念》中。古豪在此书内所列举有关文化的定义及解释，不下二百多条。15若连专家学者都觉得要给文化一个清楚准确的定义如此困难，其他人更不用说了。

虽然文化是如此难解释，但由于这篇文章的主题是基督信仰与不同文化的接触，这要求我们对文化要有起码的认识，否则无从讨论。或纵然勉强东拉西扯的把纸张涂满，始终触不到问题的核心，更不会有任何结论。因此，我们自不量力地尝试把学术界对文化这词的一般意见及解释，握要地整理出来，以飨读者外，也作为本文的研究资料。

正如大家所知，中文「文化」一词译自英文字culture，但太家可能没有留意，原来英文字culture也非「文化」一词的原文，「文化」一词的原文来自拉丁文cultus。Cultus是拉丁文动词colere的过去分词(past participle)。Colere即是英文的cultivate，有培养，修养，花心思、时间发展某事的意思，16Culture─「文化」，正是从cultivate引伸出来的名词。

根据一般拉丁文专家及学者的分析，colere这字有两个重要思想。第一个指的是人的培育，改善自己，使自己变得有修养等，是较古的用法。第二个则指这培育的结果或成果，其中包括人的生活方式，及他用以生活的工具。由此可见，文化并非如有些人所想，是种新兴事物。实际上，可以说自有人便有文化。文化不但跟人类的历史一样远古，而且人之所以被称为人，有别于其他生物，完全是文化做成。

而从cultivate引伸出来的名词culture─文化─这词的应用，略先于启蒙时代的出现，主要被当作「配词」用，以区别和显示不同学术范畴的特性，比方义籍学者拓贵多戴素(Torquato Tasso)于16世纪末便曾经有过「文学文化」的讲法。

但文化真正引起学术界注意，并进行严肃的研究，却还只是近百年间的事。二十世纪初叶，由于一些新兴学科，例如社会学、人类学及心理学等的出现，西方学术界开始对人类文化产生兴趣，由是掀起一片研究文化的热潮。并为文化的研究开辟新领域，除了以上的传统解释外，更把文化视作「人类生活的实况」。而所谓「人类生活的实况」就是一个族群的特性，其中包括该族群的思想、心理、情绪，他们的生活方式，比方宗教生活，和他们特有的，运用和管理自己的生活环境的方法等。

可以说，直到上世纪末，仍没有人从「社会与历史」(social-historical) 角度谈文化。那时人们口中所说的文化，都是与知识和美学有关的事。易言之，文化指的是学问、修养、个人的气质风度，和艺术或文学上的成就等。因此，那时文化一词，基本上是指那些有学问和修养的个别人士及阶层。我们姑且称这为文化一词的古典或人文(classicism or humanism)意义。可是，时间的更迭也给文化一词带来新发展。今日文化一词除了还保持以上的古典和人文意义外，尚多了另一种意思，就是社会及历史意义。这可以从我们日常用的词汇或表达得到证明，譬如「文化认同」 (cultural identity)，不同文化的交谈(dialogue between different cultures)，「文化支配」或「文化自由」(cultural domination or liberation)；教会也不断谈论向文化福传(evangelization of cultures)和本地化(inculturation)工作。

总结上述，有关文化这词的思想，今日西方学术界大致有两种解释或定义：第一种是古典或人文方面的解释，具规范性、标准性(normative)，是人要追求的目标。第二种则是一种全新的理解，以人类学为基础，属于社会及历史的层面，包括人的衣、食、住、行和宗教习俗等整个生活，属描述性(descriptive)。这第二种解释除了上面的一般性意念外，又根据人与事的类别和范畴，再区别出不同类型的文化。例如与生产经济有关的「工业文化」，「消费文化」；与电脑及高科技有关的「网络文化」，「硅谷文化」；一个国家、地区和时代的世界观、价值观或生活型态，例如「法国文化」，「文艺复兴时代的文化」，「台湾山地人文化」，「中产阶层文化」，「香港人的饮食文化」；学术或艺术方面的，比方「哲学文化」，「历史文化」，「音乐文化」等。

这种区分很清楚让我们看到，文化是人的产品，是人制造出来的，而人是不停地在变，所以文化永远都不会如柏拉图(Plato)的意念(idea)一样，永恒不变，却是跟着人不断改变。文化既是人的产品，人不单只不断改变，人更是不完美的。影响所及，世界上也没有完美的文化。可以说，文化的存在，跟人的存在一样，就是要被提升。17最后，由于民族与民族间不但存在着差异，有时这差异还相当悬殊，于是不同民族制造出来的文化也有程度上的分别。基本上，当一个民族能够给自己整个生活和生命一个满意的解答，能够使自己的民族接受认同一的价值体系，这民族可以说已经拥有一个发展良好的文化。而一般而言，文化体系越优良的民族，因为都有自己的宗教，作为团结民族的力量，于是越难接受外来的思想，特别是宗教，中国便是一例。

3. 皈依

简略地分析过文化这词的内容后，现在让我们看看文化与福传，即文化与人接受基督信仰的方法的密切关系，亦即是文化与皈依(conversion)的问题。由于福音的传播永远都是在两种文化中进行，第一种文化是福音的传递者，第二文化种则是福音的接受者。易言之，福音传播永远不可能在一个「文化真空」的状态下进行，而是牵涉两种文化，第一种文化已经接受了福音，成为福音的传递者。第二种文化则尚等待接受福音。因此，福音的传播工作在本质上是两个既丰富又不简单的现象(phenomenon)的接触或相遇，个中情况的错综复杂委实难以言喻。至于它们相遇的模式，一般而言不外三种，我们称这为三种皈依方法，18谨在下面逐一说明。

第一种方法是完全放弃自己本来的文化，全盘接受传递福音者的文化，美洲诸国接受基督信仰的过程便是一例。第二种方法与第一种刚好相反，一些生活在等待接受福音的地区的人，他们可能因为看到一些西方基督信徒的行为或作风，是他们所不能认同的。于是他们只把基督信仰的教义，当作可以补足他们本有的宗教或文化的一种哲学体系或伦理观念，择其适者取用之而已。换句话说，这第二种方法，是以基督信仰迁就本地文化，这情形在文化发达地区最常见。因为当地人觉得福音的讯息，很多都可以在他们固有的传统思想中找到，这等如说，基督信仰可以随时被取代，没有什么绝对价值。这方法最终导致的后果，是放弃基督信仰。第三种方法是将基督教义「降生」到不同的文化中，十七世纪到中国传教的罗明坚神父和利玛窦神父等，用的正是这方法。19当然，比他们更早用这方法的，还有我们的教父，教会最早的神学家。

4. 本地化20

以下我们尝试透过对本地化─inculturation─这字，及某些同义词的分析，简略地介绍学术界对本地化的一般理解，及本地化出现的过程。本地化的出现，可以说是由皈依的问题所引致。我们刚才解释皈依的时候，曾经指出皈依有三种模式，第一种是完全放弃本来的文化，第二种则是以基督信仰迁就本来的文化，第三种，亦是最理想的一种，是将基督信仰「降生」到不同的文化中。这方式虽然是最理想，并不表示之后便没有问题。正好相反，问题还真不少。因为一般来说，当某个人，或某个群族皈依后，他们都会继续在他们原来的文化环境中生活。那么，他们应该如何开始他们的基督徒生活呢？于是有些人开始研究，尝试找寻一些适当的名称来解释这「过程」，由此产生所谓本他化的问题。这些名称计有「适应化」─adaptation，「本土化」─indigenization，「处境化」─contextualization，和「本地化」─inculturation四个。

4.1 「适应化」─adaptation

第一个被采用的名称是adaptation，意思是「适应」「配合」，甚至「改作」。可是这样的解释，时常使人误会，以为适应的意思就是改变地方传统中所用的一些象征或事物，以便引进教会或甚至教会的礼仪中。例如将北欧人在冬至那天装饰得五光十色的杉树或枞树称为圣诞树，以象征基督带来的生命，光和温馨等；或把爱尔兰及英国人在春分时燃点新火习惯，引进复活前夕的礼仪中等。

更重要的，是adaptation这字常让人有种错觉，以为这字的意思是要具有西方形式的基督信仰迁就各地的本地文化。于是一般西方学者或信友在用这字的时候，总觉得他们是在对其他地方的人，尤其是一些比较落后的地方的人的作出让步，因为他们容许这些人不用完全接受西方那套在形式上已经算得上发展完善的信仰生活，其中包括举行敬礼的方式。

其实这种想法并不正确，因为生活的价值不在于其水平的高低。很多时候，居住在落后地区的人，由于他们生活简单，物质需求不大，容易满足。于是伪善、冷漠、自私等普遍存在于进步地区的人际关系，在这些所谓落后地区内，几乎不存在。所以严格来说，这些住在落后地区的人的生活，比进步的工业国家的人的生活更有价值，因为他们更容易让人看到甚么是真善美，他们更能活出人与人之间的谐和情爱。

事实上，这正是基督信仰的精神，而这些所谓落后地区的人的生活，亦正好让我们看到基督的恩宠如何超越时空，活在各类型的社群中。这情况亦印证了另一个思想：基督信仰从来不会与任何文化认同（identify），却是超越所有文化。

整体来说，与前人比较，今天生活在这个被称为「后基督化」─Postchristian─的当代信友，他们在宗教生活适应方面，不论是敬礼方式，神学思想及教义的表达，抑或日常生活的态度等，都容易得多。这一点在西方尤其明显，因为今日的西方社会，特别是那些传统上是基督信仰的地区，现在都已变成「非基督信仰地带」。这些地区的基督信仰精神或色彩已几乎被完全淘空，取而代之的，是其他宗教或学说。所以做基督徒与否，连身为基督徒的人都觉得没有什么分别。这正是今日很多人问为什么要信天主教的原因，因为信与不信，不论从那一方面看，都好像没有任何分别。所以今日谈宗教适应已没有多大意义。而值得一提的是，在世界上另两个信奉一神的宗教，犹太教和回教内，这种情况至今仍未出现。

我们说在今日这个「后基督化」社会中，「宗教适应」问题已几乎不存在。原因是自宗徒时代起，在各个别的信友团体中，「宗教适应」一直是个问题。因为那时西方仍然是个外教社会，故此当一个人皈依后，他立即要面对很多转变，这些转变全部触及他的生活，而且影响重大。例如这些新皈依的信友能否继续服兵役、能否继续充当税吏、能否继续进剧院或浴场、能否继续保持家中的奴隶，如果有些奴隶也领了洗的话，作为基督徒的主人，要怎样对待他们、能否继续把子女送到外教学校，学习外教哲学，及其他对基督信仰有害无益的事物等。

所以，此处所牵涉的，并非只是新信友入教前的某些生活习惯，却是他们整个生活。我们知道一个社群要长久生存，不能没有固定的规条法律、习俗机制，以带领及管治每个人的日常生活、以期维持整个社群的秩序，让大家可以安定生活，人类学及社会学有很多这方面的研究结果。所以，我们依此类推，当人接受基督信仰，进入教会后，他们的生活也应该依照教会的要求，作出改变，否则教会迟早会在这地球上消失。

因此，为了让新信友能够开始他们大新生活，在信仰中不断成长，晓得怎样过他们的基督徒生活，有关方面有必要创造一些新事物，包括娱乐，消闲，集会等，以取代这些新信友在进教前习惯做的一套，让基督信仰切切实实降生到他们整个生活中，再从个人影响他们生活的群体及社区，而这已超越适应的范围。

4.2 「本土化」─indigenization

当代宗教及文化界最大的特色是「宗教多元化」及「文化相对论」的盛行，教会自不免深受这些言论的影响，更因此意识到有必要深入研究各不同类型文化吸收基督信仰的目的。七十年代开始这方面的研究，为了避免不必要的误解，特别在词汇方面下工夫，以便找出最能显示这过程的称谓，于是开始出现「福音本地化」(indigenization of the Gospel)及「福音处境化」(contextualization of the Gospel)等名词。1974年的主教会议及教宗于1975年颁布的Evangelii nuntiandi也曾提到这些思想。

什么叫indigenization─「本土化」？以下是喀麦隆(Camenun) 雅奥云地(Yaounde)教区的主教左雅(Jean Zoa)，在1974年的主教会议中，对此字的解释。根据他的意思，从文化历史角度看，一个地区的人接受福传的过程，离不开这三个步骤：

a）先是传递。在这传递过程中，最重要的部份是福音讯息，这讯息一定要忠于教会的教导，不过也该认识及尊重其听众，这第一阶段，我们称之为适应。

b）第二吸收。这涉及个人的问题，即各个别人士按自己的条件，深入并理性地理解及反省所听到的福音讯息。

c）最后重整或重新表达(reformation or re-expression)。收到福音讯息的团体，尝试根据自己的理解，再根据自己的智慧、性格及文化，将福音讯息再表达出来。这最后一步工作，左雅主教称为「本土化」。

因此今日在非洲，已再没有人谈「适应」。他们改为把注意力集中在如何忠于福音及教会的传统及训导，再以非洲生活，活出福音讯息。一般而言，本土化的过程很愋慢，而且时起时落，因为一切都取决于接受福音讯息的团体的信仰培育的深浅。

4.3 「处境化」─contextualization

1974年的主教会议除了提到「本土化」外，不少来自传教区的主教也曾提出，一些新成立的地方教会非常需要神学家，甚至是外国的神学家也无所谓，原因是他们需要这些神学家帮助在「本土化」的问题上从事研究，提出建议，或作出假设，让这些新成立的地方教会，尤其是他们的主教，能够对这问题有深入的理解。但这些神学家千万不要替他们作出任何决定，指示他们该怎样做。并解释原因。因为各不同文化对基督信仰的吸收过程，并非学术研究的结果，而是透过一个信仰团体的不同成员，依各人的具体处境─context，慢慢在生活中逐渐呈现；是各人在圣神的带领、在圣经及圣事中的基督的光照和滋养中，在各自的具体处境中结出的成果。

这提议产生颇大影响，尤其是不少人都认为，一个团体的处境─context，不但是本土化的结果，亦是产生本土化的场地。于是他们觉得，contextualization─「处境化」这字比「本土化」更能显出基督信仰降生到各不同文化的过程及本质，于是舍「本土化」取「处境化」。

4.4 「本地化」─inculturation

第四个要处理的词是inculturation─「本地化」，亦是本文的主题。现在看看inculturation成为最后被采用的字的经过及原因。

Inculturation是个非常复杂的字。上面提及的三个词，「适应化」、「本土化」及「处境化」都只惊鸿一瞥，昙花一现的没能存留太久。究其原因，先说「本土化」，不少人认为，indigenous这字使人忆起一些不愉快的殖民地经验；其次，这字习惯上只应用于较落后的地方，发达地区便不适用。试举一例，如果我们谈康德时，说他是东欧以前的普鲁士(Prussia)土着─indigenous，相信谁听了都会感到好笑。至于处境─context一字，则会让人误会，以为天主的话，在走出巴肋斯坦之前，并不生活于任何处境中。

衡量过不同的因素后，各方均认为在相关的课题上，inculturation及其同义词acculturation和transculturation比较适合。而所有这些字都是美国人类学中的用词，五十年代己开始在传教学的领域内流传。21教会方面，虽然多年前保禄六世已在《祂的教会》这份文件中，22谈及本地化工作，却没有采用任何专门名词形容这工作。因为正如教宗自己说，他的原意只是准备大家的心灵，而非讨论事情。本地化一词正式在教会的文件上出现，是十三年后，即1977年的主教会议。两年后，教宗若望保禄二世在其宗徒劝谕《教理教授》这文件中，正式批准使用此词。23从那时起，这词便一直沿用至今。

说到这词的意思，就词本身的意义来说，大家可以从「将基督信仰本地化到各不同文化中」这句话，看到这个词的含意。根据一般学者的意见，这词最可贵的地方，是让人立即明白，当面对各种文化时，基督信仰是完全客观，完全属于自己的一种事物。甚至当这信仰降生到任何不同文化中时，仍然保持它这份特性，不会被任何文化同化。

至于有关本地化的定义，大家都认为郭理奥斯(A. Roest Crollius)的解释最好。这位学者认为，本地化─inculturation的意思，就是「把基督信仰的讯息及生活，带进一个具体的文化环境内，让这文化不但能透过自己特有的特质和方式，将基督信仰的讯息及生活表达出来，也让这讯息及生活对这文化发挥其鼓励，制衡及统摄作用，最后改变和再造这文化，使之成为一个全新的文化」。24

易言之，本地化的一般过程包括以下三个步骤：

a）起点是将基督信仰带进一个具体文化中。

b）于是这文化开始接受基督信仰，同时受到这信仰影响，开始改变。

c）最后出现新制度、新文化。这个有关本地化的定义，其实是各地的学者就皈依的本质的研究而得的结果，其最重要之处，是可以帮助我们知道从事本地化要注意的地方。第一，是找出基督信仰的核心，即不可变部份，及其他在历史进程中加入的事物，比方教义发展、神修派别、教会制度等。第二，分辨普世教会与地教会的关系，特别是明白地方教会的自主权的底线。第三，由于本地化的真正主角是信友团体，这团体生活着基督的生命，并且是在一特定文化中生活，这文化与初期教会的文化表面上已很不同。纵然如此，今日这个信仰团体却又明显地受着一些历史上的圣人，历代的教父圣师等人的带领。那么，未来的教会领袖应如何准备自己。最后一点是传教与教育的问题。

3. 参看ARDUSSO Franco, "La Tradizione", Vita pastorale 4 (1999) 94-95.

4. ST. VINCENT OF LERINS, Commonitorio = PL L,637-686.

5. ST. VINCENT OF LERINS, Commonitorio II = PL L,639-640.

6. ST AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, Contra epistolam manichaeum 5,6 = PL XLII,176; 另请参阅圣人的另一篇作品Contra Faustam 28,1 = PL XLII,486.

7. 参看ST. VINCENT OF LERINS, Commonitorio II = PL L,640.

8. 伯后1:20-21，常年期第三十二周，主日第一晚祷简短读经。

9. ST. VINCENT OF LERINS, Commonitorio II = PL L,640.

10. ST. VINCENT OF LERINS, Commonitorio XXIII = PL L,669.

11. 参看ST. VINCENT OF LERINS, Commonitorio XXIII = PL L,669.

12. KAVANAGH Aidan, "Liturgical Inculturation: Looking to the Future", Studia Liturgica 20/1 (1990) 103-104: "What the Church is cannot be anything other than the very nub of inculturation. It is not a definition of the Church which is the nub, not a description or an analysis or a model of the Church which is the nub. It is the reality of the Church itself as revealed in the Word of God both written and incarnate, and as received faithfully in that Tradition, as Vincent of L＿ins noted long ago, of what is believed always, everywhere, and by everyone which is the nub. Anything less is just sectarian palaver. The scope of the matter and its importance may be grasped when we realize that not only is the Church a mystery at its core, but so are the Word which reveals the Church and Tradition which conveys the Church to all generations. All three - Church, Word, and Tradition - are fundamental mysteries of divine grace upon which rest the reconciliation of our race with the Father in Christ by the Holy Spirit. All three mysteries interlock and compenetrate, being in one sense a single mystery of grace by which the triune God manifests itself among us to hallow, reconcile, and save. To know the Church apart from the Christ of God is not to know the Church except as a social entity. To know the Christ of God apart from the faithful Church which worships is not much different from knowing Anthony of Egypt or Elvis Presley [...]. And to know neither the Church nor the Christ is to have no idea of where or how far inculturation can go, nor of how deeply a divine counter-culturalism has penetrated our worship forms".

13. 有关这部份的资料及内容，主要来自下列作者的作品：ALSZEGHY Zoltan, "Il problema teologico dell'inculturazione del Christianesimo", in Angelo AMATO-Andrzej STRUS, Inculturazione e ormazione salesiana (Roma, LAS 1984) 15-39; CARRIER Herv? Avvenire e cultura. Identit?culturale e Identit?cristiana (Roma, Citt?Nuova 1988) 159-177; Id., Vangelo e Culture da Leone XIII a Giovanni Paolo II (Ivi 1990) 13-26; VACCA Raffaele, "Proviamo a parlare di cultura!", Presenza cristiana (2001) 28-42.

14. VACCA, "Proviamo a parlare di cultura!", op. cit., 29.

15. 参看KLUCKHOLN C., Il concetto di cultura. Edited by A.T. Kroeber (New York 1963).

16. 一般英语字典对cultivate一字有以下的解释1.农业：fertilize, till, work； 2.文明(civilize): develop, discipline, elevate, improve, refine, train；3.研究 (investigate): prosecute, pursue, research, study, cherish, foster, nourish, patronize, promote等意思。

17. 这是美藉礼仪学家，本笃会士贾蕴能神父在某次研讨本地化的国际会议中，谈到礼仪本地化时说过的一句话: "In Christ there is no race, sex, ethnicity, economic level, or state, [...] and culture exists to be transcended": KAVANAGH, "Liturgical Inculturation: Looking to the Future", op. cit., 101. 教廷万民福音传播部的秘书查高主教，最近在一篇谈论本地化的文章中亦表达了同样的思想，他说："Therefore it is a question of reaching and transforming the heart of a culture, which is the philosophical and religious expression of a people": ZAGO Marcello, "The Inculturation of reason according to the encyclical Fides et Ratio", Omnis Terra 306 (2000) 143.

18. ALSZEGHY, "Il problema teologico dell'inculturazione del Christianesimo", op. cit., 21-28.

19. 参看CRIVELLER Gianni, Preaching Christ in Late Ming China. The Jesuits' presentation of Christ from Matteo Ricci to Giulio Aleni = Ricci Institute Varietes Sinologiques New Series 86. Fondazione Civilt?Bresciana Annali 10 (Taipei, Ricci Institute For Chinese Studies 1997).

20. 此部份思想请参阅ALSZEGHY, "Il problema teologico dell'inculturazione del Christianesimo", op. cit., 15-39.

21. 参看CHARLES P., Missiologie et Acculturation", Nouvelle Revue Th＿logique 75 (1953/I) 15-32; SAENZ DE SANTA MARIA C., La acculturacion religiosa en el indigeno civilizado hispanoamericano, Razon y Fe 157 (1985/I) 453-464.

22. 参看Pope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam，1964年8月6日颁布。

23. 参看Pope John Paul II, Catechesi tradendae，1979年10月16日颁布。

24. AA.VV., Inculturazione, concetti, problemi, orientamenti (Roma, LAS 1979) 37.

从事本地化须有的基本概念

讨论过传统、文化、皈依及本地化等词汇后，接着要说的，是从事礼仪本地化该有的基本概念，我们认为最重要有下面两个。第一，明白教会提倡本地化的主要原因；第二，认清基督信仰与其他宗教在本质上的分别。

1. 教会推动本地化的主要原因

我们在文首的词汇研究部份，握要地介绍了本地化出现的经过，下面我们会再深入一点看看教会当年推动本地化的主要原因。

在分析传统时我们曾指出，福传工作永远不可能在一种「文化真空」状态下进行，永远都牵涉两种文化。第一种文化是福音的传递者：基督信仰，第二文化是福音的接受者：各国或各地的文化。因此大家可以想到，教会之所以推动本地化，有两个基本原因。首先，希望那些生活在一个本身文化与基督信仰这文化相差太大的人，可以更容易皈依；其次，希望这些人皈依后，可以在生活中活出基督信仰。所以，教会推动本地化有一个很清楚的目标，这目标就是人的皈依。易言之，本地化，包括礼仪方面的本地化，其动机永远是信仰，而不是任何其他事物，包括文化、经济和政治。关于这点，贾蕴能神父在前面提及的礼仪本地化国际会议中，说了一段很发人深省话，他说：

"Although Christian worship, like all other forms of religious ritual, inevitably has political repercussions, its primary and irreducible motive is not politics but faith: we believe because, when we find ourselves [...] summoned into the presence of the living God, faith in such a God is not an option but an inevitability if we are to survive the encounter. What stands at the core of Christian worship is not a political agenda but a living and revealing Presence refracting itself in a community of people who have no choice but to believe such unsettling and deracinating things as 'here we have no abiding city', 'our hearts will not rest but in God', 'in Christ there is no race, sex, ethnicity, economic level, or state', 'the pope fields no regiments', 'this world is moribund', and 'culture exists to be transcended'. None of these are notions to which any sane politician would subscribe. All of them are, rather inconvenient conclusions to which faith in the living God in whose presence we stand drives us implacably, however unwillingly, and in which our liturgical worship is awash. Whatever else liturgical inculturation may be, it jettisons all this at our peril as a people of faith in such a deity, who manifests itself consummately in that Jesus whom the Holy Spirit alone reveals in our hearts to be the Christ of God and Son of the Father".25

的确，基督信仰敬礼的核心并非政治、文化或任何其他事物，却是一位把自己的 "living and revealing Presence" 折射到举行敬礼的子民身上的神─基督。而这些子民之所以要向基督和祂的父行敬礼，是因为他们深感 "here we have no abiding city"，"our hearts will not rest but in God"；是因为他们明白在基督内，一切有关种族、性别、经济情况或身份地位的分歧、差异都不复存在；是因为他们晓得，世界和其中的一切，包括文化在内，都将要消灭，所以人类文化存在的目的，是为了要被提升。而以上这些思想，如贾蕴能神父所说，任何心智正常的政治家都没有可能赞同，只有在信德光照下的人，方能得窥端倪。

由于教会推动本地化的目的是人的皈依，而非别的事物。因此梵二对改革一事非常谨慎，提醒从事改革工作的人在实施任何礼仪上的修订时，要先作神学、历史及牧灵方面的详细研究，不可脱离传统，否则不应轻言改革：

「为保持优良传统，并同时开放合法进展的门户，对应修订的礼仪各部份，需要先作神学、历史及牧灵方面的精细研究。此外，还要考虑与礼仪的结构和精神有关之一般法则，以及从最近礼仪改革与各处所得的特准而收到的经验。最后，除非证实对教会的确有用，并且肯定新的形式，是由现存的形式中，有系统地发展出来，不可轻言改革」。26

相信大家可以从前面有关传统的解释，理解梵二为何对传统如此执着，声明所有改革工作都要以保持传统为首要原则。因为这不但影响信友的信仰生活，同时影响教会的存在。没有传统，非但人无法学习怎样做个基督徒，教会也无法让自己一代一代的相传下去。

2. 基督信仰与其他宗教的分别

在今天这个非常高调地谈论宗教多元化的年代，人们不但常常把不同的宗教拿来比较，而且宗教交谈，神学本地化，礼仪本地化也已经成为一种趋势。为了大家在进行本地化工作时，能够在基督信仰及其他宗教之间，作出正确的比较。特别是分辨出基督信仰是否宗教这么简单，其内容及敬礼方式，是否可以随意被其他宗教或文化中的思想或事物取代，深入地探讨一般宗教的本质及基督信仰跟一般宗教的分别，似乎是无可避免的事。27我们研究的问题主要为下面几个：2.1 宗教的定义，2.2宗教的产生，2.3 基督信仰是否宗教。

2.1 宗教的定义

「宗教」即英文的religion，原出自拉丁文名词 religio，其动词是religere。28Religere有十分关注、十分专注、尊重等意思。因此对relgiere的名词religio，西塞罗有以下的解释：「认真并尊敬的遵守一切与神的敬礼有关的事宜」。易言之，religio指慎重处理与神有关的神圣事物(sacred things)；指面对「神圣」(sacred)时，人产生自内心的虔敬及惊惶。简言之，正如西塞罗所说，宗教就是人对神的敬礼。正为了这原因，在古罗马，一般的宗教仪节，均称为religiones。而对这些宗教仪节有深入研究及认识的人，则被称为 diligentissimus religionum cultor：「热诚的宗教崇敬者」。

正因为宗教是有关「神圣」的事物，所以「宗教性」─religiosus─这字，也有被「隔离的」(separated)、「不可触及的」(unreachable)、「不可亵渎的」(inviolable)等意思。分析到此，仍有一问题未解决：宗教─religio─这字所欲表达的实况─reality─到底是什么。

在回答这问题之前，先要指出常被人忽略的一点。由于宗教─religio─这字原是拉丁文，属于西方文化的事物，所以在其他文化中，并没有相似的字可以表达相同的意思，包括希腊文的threskeuein和latreuein，或亚拉伯文的din，都无法完全表达religio的意义。这一点很重要，因为这表示在西方文化中被视为religio和sacro的事物，在其他文化未必有同样的看法。

为此，关于宗教，唯一被所有文化都接受及承认的一点，是人从自己的生活经验，肯定在自然界有一超自然力量(power) 或实况(reality) 存在，人绝对受其影响及支配。因此，人天生与这力量或实况有一份或深或浅的关系。至于这力量或实况到底是什么，则人言人殊。有些人视其为非位格化的法律，有些人则视之为人无法捉摸的命运，其他人则视之为「神明、「掌管宇宙的至高者」、「绝对超然者」、「至一者」、「另一位」、「绝对者」，「宇宙的全部」，甚至「虚无」等等。而宗教也者，就是人与这力量或实况的关系。

人与这力量或实况的关系不论是信任或惊惶，都具有以下特性。易言之，这些特性都以不同程度，存在于所有宗教内。

a）首先，承认在可见的世界之外或之上，有一位或多位超然的，不可见的神明(力量或实况)存在。

b）其次，承认人及这可见的世界受这些神明支配，要依赖他们才能生存。易言之，人都与这些神明有一份密切的关系，或是造物主与受造物的关系；或是立法者与守法者的关系。所以大家都要遵守一些宗教礼规，这样才可获得他们庇佑。否则会被这些神惩罚，甚至降灾。

c）复次，人有必要向这些神明行敬礼，献上礼物和举行祭祀。祭品可以是牲畜，甚至人。祭祀的类别也是多元性，有赎罪的，求恩的等等。这些祭祀要由司祭主持。祭司除了献祭外，也负责制定教义，并笔之于书。他也安排行礼的仪式、时间、地点、用品等。所以，一般而言，祭司也同时是一个族群的宗教领袖。

d）最后关于宗教经验。宗教经验是一种很特别的经验，与其他「人的经验」非常不同。因为藉着这宗教经验，人可以进入那使人神往、赞叹，并同时惊惶的神明的生活或氛围中。人面对神的时候感到惊惶，因为当人面对神的伟大、神圣、神的超然力量的时候，人完全看到自己的渺少、无能，脆弱。另一方面，人也会神往及喜乐。因为，人终于领略到神那份深不可测的爱，祂的慈心，祂的美善。所以这相遇可能使人生出与神不断交往的渴想，希望与祂结合成一体，进入祂生命的深处。因此，这些人神相遇的时刻，往往会使人得到一种生命达于完满的感觉，尤其可以帮助人找到人生的最后归宿及目的。

2.2 宗教的产生

解释过何谓宗教之后，现在我们看看宗教怎样产生。一般来说，学者及专家都同意，宗教最基本的来源，是人生活中的不同经验。

a）首先是个人经验，特别是人面对某些自然灾难时感受到的软弱及无助，使人意识到他不能保护及帮助自己，甚至其他的人也帮不了他。或更好说，他最终发现这世界上没有一种力量可保护、帮助自己，于是他转向一个不属于这世界的力量或「存在」─being─求助，他称这力量或「存有」为神，而他自己是强烈地相信，这位神或这些神是存在于这可见的世界之外。

至于人如何意识到有神明存在，主要来自一些好的或不好的自然力量或自然事件，好的例如太阳的光，星星，高山，大地，树木，动物等，不好的如雷电，大海，猛兽，毒蛇等。

由于人发现这些神明对自己可以是福，也可以是祸，于是便设法安抚，宠络这些神明，用的方法是祈祷、行敬礼，甚至向他们奉献礼品或祭献，给他们造像、造庙宇、殿堂、制定节日等，以光荣他们。人举行这些礼节的动机，主要出于恐惧，但很多时则是希望获得神的庇佑及祝福。

b）除了个人的经验外，另一个宗教的来源是普世性经验，例如世界的灾祸，痛苦，尤其是死亡。死亡是个让人震惊的问题。人与一切生物一样会死，不同的是人作为人，他明白死亡带来的悲伤，人一生出来便等待死亡，不能作任何事也不能制止，更不知死亡何时到来。

c）宗教的另一个源头是人内心的空虚。人虽说是万物之灵，却不能完全掌握自己生存的意义，不少人常有人生缺乏意义的感觉，感到生命空虚。而世间上没有任何东西：财富，名誉，声色犬马，成功，光荣，甚至爱情，能把这空虚填满。于是人受这份空虚的推动，不断寻找那绝对超自然的至高者。

d）第四种促成宗教产生的原因，是某些人心中的使命感。有些人觉得自己被某种神秘力量呼召，并肯定这神秘力量并非来自这世界，因此很难诉诸感官，也描述不来。这些全部是人的经验，而且是内心深处的感受。这现象解释了为什么「宗教」一直被视为是人类生活中的普遍现象，任何人类历史中都可以发现，甚至在史前师代，只是形式及程度上有所差别而矣。而这些差异，一般都是由于各民族所生活的地域及年代的不同所引致。他们按照自身所生活的境况及具备的条件、感受、想象、理解这个比他们有力的「超然存有」─Trascendent Being─再用他们认为最适当的图象，符号，记号，语言表达出来。

总结所说，大家可以见到，宗教跟我们在前面提过的文化一样，都是人制造的。而人就其本质而言，生来就是个「宗教人」，即拉丁文所称的homo religiosus。用教会的语言来说，人生来是个天主的追寻者。学术界称人这种与生俱来的宗教倾向为「人的主观性宗教幅度」(The subjective religious dimension of the human person)。易言之，在各个别的「客观宗教」里，都有一个共同的基础，即「人的主观性宗教幅度」，正是这个「人的主观性宗教幅度」，把人带进那不属于这世界的超然现实中。

人在这世界中经验到脆弱、经验到人生的短暂及世事的变幻，万物最终全归于虚无。所有这一切，人都从自己的生活中体验到。于是人内在的宗教倾向便发挥作用，将那位超然、绝对的神明向人展现，并带领人走近祂。当然，人并非时常都能成功地跟随这宗教倾向的指引，看到在他面前展现的神明。或就算看到祂，也未必一定愿意走向祂。在这种情况下，人自动选择做个「非宗教人」─non religious person，这可以从人的生活中看到。从经验得知，「非宗教人」一般内心常感匮乏，甚至在他们最成功的时候，仍然不快乐、不满足，总觉得他们的生活未臻完美，他们所拥有快乐只是暂时的，且欠缺深度。

这种「非宗教人」，或宗教意识薄弱的人，每个年代都有，但只是一少撮，占社会上的少数。今日的情况有些不一样，越来越多人有「非宗教人」的倾向。但与此同时，也常出现「非宗教人」的「宗教回归」。只是他们所回归的，并非传统宗教，却是些新宗教，例如「新世纪」之类。一般而言，在今日的文化思潮影响下，人并不一定反对宗教，但其「宗教感」变得越来越「稀薄」，却是不争的事实。

为什么会有这种情况出现呢？学者都同意很难给予一个清楚的答案，只能说其中一个原因是当代的思潮、文化，的确很有减弱，甚至消灭人内心天生的宗教倾向的能力。至于其他原因，学者们尝试从历史中寻找，最后归咎于17世纪有关文化与宗教之间的抗争。西方社会自17、18世纪开始，有所谓反抗宗教运动的兴起。这运动视宗教为迷信和魔术，目的为奴役人，所以应该消灭。特别是那些钳制人某方面的自由的教义，比方性生活、娱乐、财富的运用，和物质生活的管制等，全部都要扬弃，让人享有彻底的自由。这样经过二、三百年的「绝对自由」后，影响到今日的人已几乎失去反省人生存的真正目的能力。

导致的结果，是当代人把全部精力和注意力都集中在感性层面上，一切都要自己有感受，尤其是要自己觉得好，其他的都不理会。这使得当代人的宗教及灵性意识越来越稀薄，结果很多传统的伦理道德观念，对他们是越来越难于接受，譬如男女的贞操观念，婚前不该有性行为等。为了使自己的良心好过，于是他们不得不开始否认宗教所含的真理。事实上，我们不时会听到有人说：「啊，我不反对宗教，或反对神。我只是没有宗教倾向，并不需要宗教，也不需要神」。简言之，这些人觉得自己就是「非宗教的」，这么简单而已。

3. 基督信仰是否宗教？

根据前面有关宗教的定义及宗教产生的分析，基督信仰是否宗教？要回答这问题，我们需要先看看基督信仰初出现时，它对自己有什么看法。我们发现在最初的时候，基督信仰不但不当自己是宗教，它甚至设法与其他宗教，尤其是犹太教及希腊罗马宗教保持距离。因此，对当时的人来说，做基督徒的意思是「皈依」，即是与自己过去的宗教完全脱离关系，再通过圣洗，重新再经历「新的出生」。这解释了为什么最初的基督徒，一直被外教人指责为无神论者，因为他们不但拒绝朝拜希腊罗马的神祗，也拒绝在任何城市向当地的任何神祗献祭。

关于这事，圣保禄在格前8:4-6有很清楚的记载。我们看看他怎样说：

「至论吃祭邪神的肉，我们知道：世上并没有什么邪神；也知道除了一个天主外，没有什么神。因为虽然有称神的，或在天上，或在地下，就如那许多「神」和许多「主」，可是为我们只有一个天主，就是圣父，万物都出于祂，而我们也归于祂，也只有一个主，就是耶稣基督，万藉祂而有，我们也藉祂而有」。

从上面所引的经文，大家可以看到基督信仰的本质，就是对天主父及主耶稣基督的信德。易言之，基督信仰不是来自人内心的「宗教感」(religious sentiment)，为了让人可以接触到他所欲寻找的神。基督信仰是天主先把信德及圣宠赐给人，让人在信德的带领及圣宠的帮助下，将自己整个交托在祂，人类救主的手中的行动。在这行动中，人接受天主的启示认识天主和祂的奥秘。人本来永远无法接触这奥秘人，但天主却主动通过圣经把这奥秘启示给人，让人可以认识祂，并邀请人进入祂的生活中。所以保禄在写给罗马人的信中，这样对他们说：

「愿光荣归于天主，祂有能力坚固你们，使你们合乎我所传布的福音，和所宣讲的耶稣基督，并合乎所启示的奥秘─这奥秘从永远以来，就是秘而不宣的，现今却彰显了，且按照永恒天主的命令，藉着先知的经书，晓谕万民，使他们服从信德」(罗16:25-26)。

因此，在基督信仰中，不是人先走向天主，却是天主先走向人。福音中失钱、迷途的羊等譬喻，都很清楚表达出这思想。而天主之所以走向人，寻找人，则是出于祂那无限的爱情。所以天主要把人从很凶恶、从罪恶中救出，并使人成为祂子女，分享、参与祂的神性。

从这简单的解释，大家可以看到基督信仰是完完全全改变了前面所说的，一般宗教行动的内容。因为一般宗教行动的内容是人通过自己的能力，悟出那存在于世界的超然力量，并尝试以一己之力与这力量有所接触。基督信仰刚好相反，在基督信仰中，不是人设法寻找神，不是人给自己有关神的概念、想象。而是天主，神把自己显示给人，使人看到祂、认识祂；是神自己主动走近人，与人相遇，邀请人相信祂，最后甚至会爱祂。

基督信仰与其他宗教这种本质上的分别，直接影响他们的礼仪生活：祈祷，敬礼和祭献。大家都知道，祈祷，敬礼和祭献 (或祭礼)，存在于所有宗教内，是各宗教的信徒与他们所信奉的神交往的方法。这三种人神交往的方式同样出现在基督信仰中，只是形式及内容都有很大的分别。以下是它们在这三方面的比较。

3.1 先看祈祷─Prayer，当然，基督徒也像其他宗教人士一样，会在祈祷中求天主的救助及赐给他们恩典，脱免灾难等。但是，基督徒的祈祷主要是赞美天主，至于祈求，我们所求的主要是神益方面的事，例如帮助我们得到救恩、罪的宽恕等。最特别的，是所有基督徒祈祷时，都称天主为父。而天主作为信友的父亲，当然晓得祂的子女的需要，并会如慈父般关爱信友。所以基督信仰的祈祷的基础是爱：天主对人的爱，及人对天主的回爱。这跟其他宗教的祈祷就有很大的分别。事实上，没有一个宗教的祈祷会是这样的：「父啊！请不要照我所愿意的，而要照您所愿意的」(谷14:36)。

3.2 第二敬礼─Cult，与其他宗教的敬礼比较，基督徒的敬礼也很特别。所谓基督徒的敬礼，不是指一般宗教仪式，而是把个人的生命与生活奉献给天主，一如圣保禄宗徒在罗马人书中所说的：「弟兄们！我以天主的仁慈请求你们，献上你们的身体，当作生活，圣洁和悦乐天主的祭品」(罗12:1)。

保禄所说的「献上你们的身体」的意思，就是献上我们自己，我们整个人。

易言之，基督徒的敬礼就是信友的圣洁生活，而圣洁的生活就是在天主的爱中的生活、承行天主的意旨的生活。这样的生活在对近人的爱中最明显可见。所以保禄致希伯来人书中有这样的话：「我们应藉着耶稣时常给天主奉献赞颂的祭献，就是献上我们咀唇的佳果，颂扬祂的圣名。至于慈善和施舍，也不可忘记，因为这样的祭献是天主所喜悦的」(希13:15-16)。

3.3 第三祭献─Sacrifice，基督徒的祭献也很特别，有异于其他宗教。在基督信仰中，只有唯一的一个祭献能蒙圣父悦纳，就是耶稣基督在十字架上给祂的父亲所献上的祭献，这祭献中所用的祭品，就是主耶稣自己的身体。其他一切祭献，除非结合于这唯一的祭献，都不会得到父的悦纳。此处所说的其他祭献所奉献的祭品，也不是牲畜或别的东西，却是我们上面说过的，信友所过的圣洁生活：「人整个自己」。所以信友要将自己整个结合于主耶稣基督在十字架上的牺牲，与主耶稣一起献给父，这才算满全了基督信仰中有关祭献及祭品的要求。正因为这样，在本质上，基督徒的祭献永远都是对主耶稣在最后晚餐及十字架所做的事件的「记忆」，特别是主在最后晚餐中，借着饼酒的记号，让宗徒们预尝祂的体血，并对宗徒们说：「你们要为记念我而举行这（路22:19）。

除了以上所说的，还有对「神圣」─Holy的观念，基督信仰与其他宗教的态度也有非常不同。一般宗教把很多事物，例如庙宇、日子及祭品等，视为「神圣」，并会把这些神圣事物与大众隔开，成为大众的禁忌─Taboo。谁若冒犯了这些禁忌，会受到严重的惩罚，甚至被消灭。因此，通常只有一些特别人士，比方祭司等，才能接触这些神圣事物。

基督信仰则把一切都「非圣化」─desacralized，甚至连天主自己，都放弃祂的神圣，取了奴仆的形体降生成人，与人同在： Emmannel─「天主与我们同在」。为此，基督徒并不怕接近他们的神。相反，他们每次都是怀着喜悦的心与他们的神相遇。

而事实上，基督信仰的神 ? 天主，在本质上，就是一位慈悲、充满恩宠和爱的神。圣保禄曾这样对弟铎说：「的确，天主救众人的恩宠已经出现。」(铎2:11)；又说：「但当我们的救主天主的良善，和祂对人的慈爱出现时，祂救了我们，并不是由于我们本着义德所立的功荣，而出于祂的怜悯，藉着圣神所施行的重生和更生的洗礼救了我们」(铎3:4-5)。说这话的保禄，是主基督亲自拣选的宗徒。我们相信他这番话，尚未能把他对天主的爱的全部感受表达出来。总言之，基督信仰的神－－天主－－是人的父亲。

基督信仰除了连神都屈尊就卑降生成人外，基督信仰的司祭也不像其他宗教的司祭那般神圣不可侵犯。新约记载，基督不是出于肋味支派，基督是以默基瑟得的品位永为司祭，所以基督以自己的司祭职改变了人类宗教司祭职的历史。

此外，主基督也改变了犹太传统有关庙宇的神圣观念，包括耶京的圣殿在内。若望福音记载主对撒玛黎雅妇人说，时候到了，他们将不在这座山也不在耶路撒冷朝拜父，29真正朝拜的人，将以真理，以心神朝拜父，因为父就是寻找这样朝拜祂的人」。主耶稣也同时说出要以这方法朝拜父的理由，因为天主是神，所以朝拜祂的人也应当以真理及以心神，而不是以物品朝拜祂。30

司祭圣殿之外，基督也使某些日子的神圣性消失，例如犹太人的安息日，主耶稣清楚指出「安息日是为人立的，并不是人为安息日」(谷2:27)。所以圣保禄可以对哥罗森的教友说：「为此，不要让任何人在饮食上，或在节期或月朔或安息日等事上，对你们有所规定」(哥2:16)。食物方面，也没有洁与不洁，圣与不圣之分，对主基督来说，一切食物都是洁净的。31

综合我们有关一般宗教及基督信仰的异同的分析，大家可以见到基督信仰将一般宗教中的重要事物，从本质到形式，包括司祭、地方（圣殿）、祭品、祈祷、敬礼、食物、日子等，全部倒转过来，没有一点是相同的。所以从这角度看，基督信仰并非宗教。事实上，若翻开历史，大家会看到初期的基督信仰对自己周围的宗教有很严厉的批评。首当其冲的是希腊和罗马人的宗教：都是偶像崇拜和迷信。因为这些宗教都不认识，因此也不朝拜唯一的主，和真天主耶稣基督，却去朝拜偶像和魔鬼，并向他们举行敬礼。所以在写给得撒洛尼教友的第一封书信中，圣保禄一开头便向他们说：「你们怎样离开偶像，归依了天主，为事奉永生的真天主。」（得前1:9)。同样思想也出现在保禄写给格林多教友的信内：「我说的是，外教人所祭祀的，是祭祀邪魔，而不是祭祀真神。我不愿意你们与邪魔有分子」(格前10:20)。

至于犹太教，他们最重要的是法律─Torah。基督则清楚指出祂自己是这法律的完满，或更好说是其「终向」。亦即是说基督已取代了法律。所以保禄在致罗马人书中说：「法律的终向是基督」(10:4)。事实上，这句话中的「终向」一词的原文 Τ3fOζ，据圣经学者的解释，保禄特别选用这字，他的意思指「为相信基督的人而言，基督事件已经取代了法律，成为通往救恩的路」。再者，在最初，基督信仰一直自称謑_Oζ ─「道路」（或「途径」），即英语的way，从没有自称为「新宗教」。

纵然如此，在过去两千年漫长的发展过程中，基督信仰也吸收了一些宗教形式，发展出一套有系统的神学、教义；也设有司祭职，和制定仪节礼规，也建筑了行礼的地方：圣堂、大殿等。所以从另一方面看，特别是从外表看，基督信仰可以说是个宗教。事实上，在很久之前，已有些教父称基督信仰为宗教，而且是唯一的「真宗教」。奥思定有篇作品，其书名正是《论真宗教》。易言之，在历史的发展中，基督信仰的确选择了一些宗教形式来表达自己。这种做法，到底是好还是不好？真是见仁见智。一般而言，新教方面因为受他们「只有信德」(sola fide)的思想的影响，对此比较抗拒。例如巴特Karl Barth (1886-1968)便曾指出，他觉得给基督信仰加了这么多「人为」的东西，使得基督信仰变成一件没有天主(gottlos)的工作」，自然也再没有什么可信性。

天主教会的立场则宽容得多，也积极得多。因为教会觉得，为了让人能看得到她的信仰，并让这信仰有实际的效能产生，这信仰非要降生到「历史中」不可。也就是说，基督信仰非要采用「宗教的形式」，采用一些语言，行为，动作来表达自己与天主的关系不可。而这一切均以基督的降生为模式及基础，可称之为「降生律」─ The law of incarnation。天主子要救人，祂便得降世成人，进入人类历史中。于是天主的话在历史中降生成为教义，而天主的恩宠则在历史中降生成为圣事。同样地，基督信仰也通过一般宗教的形式：教义、仪式、敬礼等，降生到人类历史中，并成为一个有形可见的宗教团体─教会。正因为这样，我们常说教会是个「人─神的现实」─ A divine-human reality。

当然，不可忽略的是，在这些「宗教形式」遮盖下的内容，却是「非宗教的」，因为这内容并非来自人。比方前面提过的祈祷，我们祈祷的内容不但有圣三幅度，并且以基督为中心。这些特性都是其他宗教的祈祷所没有。基督信仰中的祈祷永远出于圣神，藉着基督，向圣父而发。可是，从外表看，便很难看出这特性。

现在我们回答前面的问题。由于基督信仰是超自然的、超越人类力量所及，是天主主动向人显示自己，召叫人归向祂，并且用自己的恩宠帮助人走近祂。所以，从基督信仰的内涵而言，我们不能简单地称它为宗教。可是，从其所用的宗教形式看，我们可以将基督信仰归入宗教之列。

简言之，基督信仰可以称为宗教，却拥有一些特性，使其有别于其他所有宗教。基督信仰的形式是宗教形式，其内涵却是「非宗教性」的。

综观前面的分析，对于基督信仰是否宗教的问题，简单地可归纳出下面两个主要思想。首先，不可以拿基督信仰跟任何文化或宗教比较。因为宗教跟前面提到的文化一样，是人制造的事物，基督信仰却来自天主。其次，也不能拿基督信仰跟任何伦理思想传统比较。因为基督信仰不是伦理这么简单，它是天主在纳匝肋人耶稣身上降生为人。易言之，当我们说基督信仰的时候，我们并非指某些教条或意识，而是指那位降生成人、死而复活、今日仍旧在世界上，尤其是在祂自己所建立的教会内生活及工作的天主圣言─耶稣基督。

因此，为相信耶稣基督的人来说，祂并非世界上不同宗教所信奉的众多救主中的一个，却是那唯一的一位。祂更是父的「言」，父在祂内，并藉着祂，创造一切，所以一切都指向祂。耶稣基督又透过自己的逾越奥迹，使人与父修好，进而分享并参与祂天主子的名号和身份，成为父的义子。为此，这位基督跟其他宗教所信奉的救主，有很大的分别。祂是降生成人的圣言，两千年前，祂曾经确实地在巴勒斯坦跟某些人一起生活过，这些人亲眼见过祂、亲手触摸过祂、亲耳听过祂讲话。这些人在祂复活升天后，通过教会的宣讲，为祂作见证，证明祂确实是主、是基督，昨日、今日、永远都是，32一如2000年圣年的标语所示：Christus hodie, heri, semper，这是「基督信仰」这词最重要的意思。

此外，基督信仰也指基督徒与这位基督交往的个人经验，即英语所称的Christian experience，是基督徒独有的特性。因为这是一个人皈依主耶稣基督后，与祂建立起的亲密的个人关系，这关系使他成为圣父的子女，并从此以这新的身份在世上生活。这经验的源头来自圣神，因为正如保禄宗徒所教，是圣神在我们内，呼喊天主「阿爸，父啊」。33亦是圣神在我们内，使我们一生不断追随基督，跟祂形影不离，爱慕、事奉祂和祂的教会。

作基督徒既有这样的意思，难怪两位法藉神学家贝季理(Philippe B＿uerie)及杜舍劳(Claude Duchesneau)在他们合着的一部论圣事的书中曾说过，基督信仰在成为哲学及神学之前，这信仰首先是一种生活方式，一种实际的训练，一种人类行为准绳的体系：

"Christianity is first and foremost a way of life, a practical exercise, an ethic, before it is a philosophy or a theology". 34

他们并且进一步解释何谓「实际的训练」－a practical exercise。A practical exercise所指的并非宗教、礼仪或圣事的训练，而是「与其他人类生活在一起时的生活方式和态度」：

"When we say 'a practical exercise', we do not just mean a religious, liturgical or sacramental practice, but a type of behavior, a way of living amongst other human beings".35

除了以上两位欧洲神学家外，另一位美藉神学家耶稣会士杜勒(Avery Dulles) 枢机，亦表达出同样的意见，他说：

"Christian faith, [...] is much more than an intellectual assent. It is a complex act involving the whole person─mind, will, and emotions. In believing I entrust myself to God as He makes Himself known by His word. Faith includes a cognitive element, for it could not arise unless one were intellectually convinced that God is, has spoken, and has said what we take to be His word. But in believing I entrust myself to this God and, if I am sincere, commit myself to live according to that word".36

作为基督徒，我们绝对尊重其他宗教及文化。然而，由于我们相信主耶稣基督是降生成人的天主子、是人类唯一的救主。于是我们也明确地，肯定基督信仰的超然性。所以，就算在一个拥有悠久文化，和伦理道德思想的地方，例如中国，一样有接受基督信仰的必要。

25. KAVANAGH, "Liturgical Inculturaion: Looking to the Future", op. cit., 101-102.

26. 《礼仪宪章》23条。关于改革的其他指示，请参看《礼仪宪章》37-40条。

28. 也有些学者说来自另一动词religare，但学术界一般不接受这说法。

29. 参看若4:21-23。

30. 参看若4:24。

31. 谷7:19：「祂这是说一切食物都是洁净的」。

32. 参看PENNA Romano, I ritratti originali di Gesu. Inizi e sviluppi della cristologia Neotestamentaria. II: Gli sviluppi (Cinisello Balsamo, Milano, Edizioni San Paolo 1999). 有关耶稣基督是人类主唯一救主的论说，当然不能不看教廷信理部所发表的「主耶稣」宣言。

33. 参看罗8:14-16。

34. BéGUERIE Philippe-DUCHESNEAU Claude, How to Understand the Sacraments (London, SCM Press Ltd. 1991) xiii.

35. BéGUERIE-DUCHESNEAU, How to Understand the Sacraments, op. cit., xiii。事实上，当今不少我国学者都同意，使人归依接受一种信仰，并非只是接受一些信条这么简单，而是需要人在整个生活中作出改变，参看傅佩荣著，《文化的视野》，当代人文修养四讲：文化、爱、美、宗教，台北，文绪文化事业有限公司出版 1997，175-178页。

36. DULLES Avery, SJ, "Evangelizing Theology", First Things (March 1996) 28.

中国礼仪本地化展望

梵二于六十年代中推行的礼仪改革，并由此引发的本地化工作，中国天主教会很快就积极回应，至今三十年有多。礼仪方面，就所得资料显示，最重要和全面性的本地化工作是语言，现今说华语的地方，包括中港台及海外华人信友团体，都用中文举行礼仪。其他则属地区性，例如香港教区于农历新年印制基督信仰思想的晖春派给教友张贴，除夕谢主弥撒中加入祭祖仪式，仪式中会献上新年食品，有些堂区甚至安放历代先祖牌位，并向这些牌位上外教人惯用的支香；新春求恩弥撒中，预备礼品时献上的礼品会有新年食品；清明及重阳节到天主教坟场举行感恩祭。此外，香港某些堂区把佛教的一种法器「磬」搬进圣堂，以取代传统的钟等。所以严格来说，全面的中国礼仪本地化工作，可以说仍未展开。此中原因当然很多，相信不同的人士，都有他们的看法及意见，但无论如何，如果我们说其中一个主要原因是缺乏人才，相信很多人都会同意。

由于缺乏人才，除了影响中国礼仪本地化工作多年来未能全面展开外，在推行梵二的改革工作时，也引发不少问题。诚如我国前辈学者所说，大的运动犹如医生治病，免不了有其并发症和后遗症，乃至其他未能预料的疾病。37梵二亦是一样，不能避过此关。我们绝对不会怀疑梵二的价值，特别是礼仪改革所作的贡献。可是另一方面，我们也不得不承认，在各不同层面的改革及本地化工作中，真的出现不少问题，甚至带来后遗症，其中很多更是推行改革工作的有关方面所始料不及。可是，问题并非出在梵二，而是因为参与革新及本地化工作的人，他们为客观条件所限，或许对中国传统宗教礼俗有点认识，(很多连这方面的认识都没有)却缺乏对教会的神学，尤其是礼仪学的研究，对这方面的书籍之浏览涉猎并不广博，没有机会下苦工夫。影响所及，他们对理解梵二礼仪改革和本地化的真正及深邃意向，免不了出现偏差。结果导致大家对梵二很多改革及本地化工作的指示，不但未能掌握其意义，有时甚至误解，或曲解了这些指示。

其中最明显的，就是部份人士对「牧民」一词及对「本地化」的本质的误解，引来不少混乱。以致梵二之后，在教会内流行一种严重的「后梵二牧民及本地化热症」。以香港为例，不少人以为牧民的意思就是投一般人所想、所好，就是要迁就当代人的文化；以为本地化的意思，就是什么都要加些中国色彩，或能够表现香港特色。比方以礼仪方面的感恩祭为例，对香港有些教友来说，最上承的本地化材料，及最够牧民性的做法，就是采用香港人最熟悉的叉烧饭和普洱茶祝圣为圣体圣血，以代替主耶稣基督亲自选择的面饼和葡萄酒。而不用理会神学、传统、训导、圣经等高高在上的东西，这是去年四月《公教报》上一篇文章的提议。38

梵二之后，各地的信仰团体积极回应梵二的邀请，高度关注本地化及牧民问题。在团体的信仰生活中，一般皆以凸出本地色彩，以照顾信友的牧民需要为依归。这原来没有什么不好，也确实有此需要。问题出在很多时候从事这方面工作的人士，由于缺乏一个深入和全面性的培育，于是都误会了，以为照顾信友的牧民需要，就等如凡事都要听从信友的意见，满足他们的感受和要求；以为本地化就是完全不用理会圣经、传统、训导和神学的要求。不知道牧民本来就是神学的一环。而牧民神学，邹保禄神父说得好，是永远都不能与圣经、传统、训导和神学分开的，否则便失去意义。39

在适应时代变迁这思想的影响下，这种情况正有日趋严重之势。今日有种风气，为了迁就当代的人，吸引他们接受教会的信仰，或继续留在教会内做个信徒，不少神学家和从事培育工作的人，不惜削弱甚至牺牲某些教会一直执着的重要神学思想或礼仪传统，并美其名曰「回应牧民需要」，要本地化不得不如此云云。于是大家都一窝风的刻意求新、求变，设法制造一些迎合当代人，甚至只是迎合少数信仰团体口味的「本地化神学」或「本地化礼仪」。所以，今日不少人提出本地化，并非因为福传工作有困难，纯粹因为他们觉得教会应该配合时代的变易，配合当代的文化特色。因此教会的生活，特别是礼仪生活，需要有一些当代和本地色彩、需要为信友「度身订做」。

再加上梵二之后，信友不但积极参与礼仪，很多时更会直接参与礼仪的安排和策划，礼仪成为一件他们非常「熟悉的事」，于是他们开始发生错觉，以为他们已很「懂得礼仪」，根本不知道礼仪是一门学问。结果大家都俨然以教会礼仪的主人自居，动辄「修改」教会的礼仪，对礼仪的举行方式或应用物品，随时提出个人的意见，任意增删取代，并称之为牧民上的要求或趋势。结果出现我们在前面所说的「后梵二牧民及本地化热症」。

走笔至此，想起多年前读过梁实秋先生一篇谈文学批评的文章，对我们很有启发作用。梁先生他说文学批评是一门学问，因为这工作需要专业知识，所以不是懂得看文章，懂得写文章的人，甚至高级知识份子，就可以随便拿起笔来做文学批评。想作文学批评要先接受专门训练，其中最重要的当然是文学及语言学、语意学、语史学、文法学，以及各别语言的特征等；此外，哲学、历史、人学、社会学、心理学等与人类生活有密切关系的学科，也是必须旁及的；最后，艺术及美学这方面的基础同样不可或缺。有了这些个人的基本培育和修养后，批评起来，才能有超卓的识见及精确的议论，才能有所贡献。

如果文学批评是一门讲求高度严肃性的学问，神学则是一门比文学批评更复杂、更严肃的学问。因为比之于文学批评，神学要求的训练更专门和更学术。此外，神学还要求有信仰基础。换言之，跟文学批评一样，不是识字的人就能做文学批评。同样道理，不是凡是信友，甚至神学生，就有能力讨论和处理神学问题。一个人除了有信仰之外，尚要经过特别训练，才知道怎样做，才能够提出可行的提议，才会有贡献。否则只是自暴其短，因为凡所论列，止于常识，或将一些个人杂感，聊代牧民工作的准则及本地化理论。梵二至今这几十年中，一些小孩子和稀泥式的文字经常出现，揆其原因，正因为缺乏有识之士。

1. 培养人才

要解决这问题，唯一的方法，是从事中国礼仪本地化工作的人，都接受特别的培养。他们对中国文化及基督信仰，尤其是对我国本土宗教的礼俗和教会的礼仪，要透切理解，同时有深入的信仰经验。易言之，若中国教会希望她的礼仪生活，真真正正在本地化的工作上能结出果实，首要工作是培育人才，即是要从最基本的一步做好工夫。培育的内容，最主要有以下两项。第一是认真研究教会的礼仪，即是对教会的礼仪的本质及教会的礼仪传统，有精确的认识，及明白教会推行本地化的动机。第二，深入研究我国的文化，特别是有关我国本土的宗教礼俗。

1.1 认真研究教会的礼仪

不论是新教的弟兄或外教人士，他们一般都觉得天主教会太注重仪式、太讲究繁文缛节。他们有这种看法，是因为大家都将基督信仰当成一般宗教，于是顺理成章地，天主教会的礼仪也就被当成一般的宗教仪式看待。可是我们从前面基督信仰与一般宗教的比较中看到，教会的礼仪并非仪式这么简单，却是天主圣三拯救世人的行动的实践，梵二对这问题有很清楚的指示：「犹如基督为父所派遣，同样祂又派遣宗徒们充满圣神，不仅要他们向一切受造物宣讲福音，宣报天主圣子以其死亡与复活，从撒殚权下，并从死亡中，把我们救出来，移置在天父的王国内，并且要他们以全部礼仪生活所集中的祭献与圣事，实行他们所宣讲的救世工程」。40梵二另一处的思想更清楚：「藉着礼仪，尤其在感恩祭中『履行我们得救的工程』」。41

从以上的话，大家可以明白，教会的礼仪表面看是人的行动，因为有人的参与。然而，这礼仪更加是天主圣三的行动，因为在这行动中完成人的救赎工作的，是天主自己。所以，任何革新和本地化工作，千万不要让天主圣三无法参与。今日很多人将信友不再到圣堂参加礼仪，特别是不再参加主日感恩祭的原因，归咎于礼仪中的仪式千篇一律，过于死板，没有变化，不够热闹，不够好玩等等。其实真正的原因，除了因为一般信友缺礼仪教理的培育，不认识所参加的礼仪的意义，于是提不起兴趣参加外。另一个原因是因为我们的礼仪很多时已没有天主的参与，内容完全贫乏，只剩下一些仪式。我们很同意一些学者的批评，他们说现在很多信友只是把礼仪当成一出有关天主的戏剧来上演，天主只沦为这出戏剧的「主题」，至于编剧、导演、演员、道具等全是人自己一手包办。在这出戏剧中所表达的，全是「人」有关天主的意见、感受、经验、期待和忧虑等。结果是礼仪已非天主圣三的工作，只是人的自我表演而已，42既是这样，又怎会再有吸引力。43

除了是天主圣三的工作外，礼仪同时是教会的行动和工作。《礼仪宪章》花了颇长篇幅详细解释教会礼仪的团体特性，44明确地指出礼仪实在是整个教会的行动，而非私人行动，以下谨引载其中一段：

「礼仪行动并非私人行动，而是教会的典礼，教会则是「团结的圣事」，在主教的领导下聚集、组织起来的神圣子民。因此，礼仪行为属于教会全体，表达教会全体，并涉及教会全体；但是教会每一个成员，按其身份、职务和当时的参与，其对礼仪行为的关系也不同」。45

礼仪行动的团体幅度尚展现教会的另一个特性：普世性，天主教会是个普世性教会。所以，各地方教会从事本地化工作时，要注意不可影响到这普世性。每个地方教会都要知道自己的身份，他们要记得，基督的教会只得一个。因此，所谓亚洲教会、欧洲教会或美洲教会，只是基督的教会在亚洲、欧洲和美洲的那部份，是属于普世教会的一份子，即是圣保禄所说的，是基督奥体的一个肢体而已。因此在进行本地化工作时，绝不能忽略此普世性。这并非为维护教会的什么利益或权威，相反，是为了各地方教会的好处，免得他们因为脱离基督的奥体而不能生存。

既说到教会的普世性，无可避免地牵涉到另一个问题：各地方教会与罗马教会的关系，即是有关罗马教会的首席─principalitas问题。由于罗马教会是伯多禄开创，即是伯多禄宗座─Sedes Apostolica─所在。因此自第一世纪起，罗马教会便已经是其他教会之首，享有上面所称的首席地位，肩负带领及指导其他地方教会的责任。这完全为了卫护整个教会的唯一性及团结。历史告诉我们，过往其他地方教会若发生严重事故的时候，大家都会以罗马教会的决定为依据。在这事上，戴都良给我们留下宝贵的见证，他于主历202年曾说过：「如果你到亚洲，你会见到厄弗所教会；如果你往义大利，你会找到罗马教会，我们都在其管理下」。46两百年后圣奥思定重复同样的思想，他说「从那个自起初，就因为宗徒长之位，而拥有管理权的罗马教会，福音传到了非洲」。47

由于礼仪本地化工作，基本上是依照教会的指示，适度地在教会的礼仪行动中，采用一些本地，或各人本来文化中的记号、行动表达当地教会对天主圣三的敬礼和信仰，这是个非常复杂和困难的工作。因为天主教会的礼仪，并非只是一个将不同象征、动作、语言、经文等的拼凑起来的仪式这么简单，却是天主藉以履行我们的得救的工具。所以礼仪行动中的各部份，特别是那些重要部份，都有其神学思想，不能随意增删或改变，否则会影响到整个礼仪行动的意义和举行该仪的目的。因此，任何欲从事礼仪本地化工作的人，对教会礼仪的本质及其传统，需要有相当透切的理解和认识。

而要真正认识教会的礼仪，除了深入钻研外，别无他法。若缺乏了这第一步，非但无法落实礼仪本地化工作，并且会将天主教会的礼仪弄到非驴非马，什么都不是。我们试举个例子，在某次神学会议中，讨论到基督信仰与亚洲文化的关系时，有些新教徒的团体，指出他们现在的主日崇拜，已不再选读圣经，却以他们的传统经典(有如我们四书五经)代替，并问笔者的意见。当时笔者答覆说，由于不清楚他们的教派，对在主日崇拜中读圣经，是否有其神学理据或思想，所以无法提供任何意见，只是在我们天主教会，「圣道礼」，特别是感恩祭中的「圣道礼」，是绝对不可以用任何其他典籍代替圣经。因为教会的「圣道礼」有很清楚的神学思想，其中涉及参加感恩祭的会众的身份问题，和教会举行「圣道礼」这礼仪行动的目的。

其实，只要细心一想，这种做法本身便已很值得商榷。为了听一篇论语、孟子或道德经，我们有必要为此隆而重之举行一个「圣道礼」吗？一个礼仪会众的出现，到底是寻求圣父的教导，以祂所赐的智慧分辨世事，48还是为寻求中国先贤的教导，以他们的智慧分辨世事？到底是为回应上主，我们的创造者和救主的话，还是为回应孔子、孟子、老子或其他先哲的话？到底是基督为救我们流尽自己的血，死在十字架上？还是中国历代先贤先哲中的一人为救我们流尽他们的血，死在十字架上？礼仪所庆祝的，是基督所完成的救赎奥迹？还是中国历代先贤先哲的事迹或教诲？

再者，我们固然不否认任何一个民族所拥有的某些经典约章、法律、规条、甚至仪节、习俗等，都具有很高的教育和伦理价值。纵然如此，今日神学界都一致承认，这些经典、法规、仪节本身并不能给人救恩，它们并不能等同由天主亲自默感写成的经书，它们中并不含有「启示」，它们并非「圣事」。可见圣经和各民族传统中的经典约章，存在着本质上的差异，这差异不是单凭人的一厢情愿就能够修正，因为中间有天主自己在工作。这些例子还可以继续列举下去，比方感恩祭的奉献是另一个非常混乱之处，而做成此种混乱的主因，是因为有关方面不明白感恩祭的神学，特别是感恩祭的举行与参加感恩祭的信友的关系。

1.2 深入探究我国文化

从事中国礼仪本地化的人要研究处理的，既然是如何让基督信仰降生在中国文化中，特别是如何创造一个「中国天主教礼仪」，那么这些人除了要通晓教会的礼仪传统外，当然也应该熟悉的我国文化，尤其是我国文化中的祭典仪节，这是不容或缺的。执笔至此，想起一位前辈，或许可以在这事上给我们多少启发，他就是十九世纪末二十世纪初，在中国外交界和教会中同享盛名的陆征祥神父。关于陆神父如何从中国的外交总长，变成比利时一座圣本笃隐修院的隐修士的经过，恕不在此详述。只想在这里给大家介绍他刚晋升神父后，儒家的孝道如何帮助他进入基督的孝道，让他克服每天举行感恩祭，面对天地大主时，那股惶恐不安的惊惧之情。

陆征祥神父一生当官，清帝和外国的君主不知见了多少次，知道上朝礼仪是怎么回事。当了神父后，每天得举行弥撒，赞颂钦崇宇宙的大主，虽说教会的感恩祭没有，也不必如昔日中国王帝朝礼那般严阵以待，可是总是上朝天主，心中该有的专诚致敬，陆神父比任何人都更清楚，那是绝对不能下于朝见君主的。于是他每早举行弥撒时都非常认真地肃敬己心，过得几天，以往上朝见君王的恐惧战栗慢慢浮上心头，结果对登坛举祭萌生恐惧，还为此病了一场，卧床不起四十日。幸好病中不能举祭，心下安宁，反复思量下，他才发现自己的恐惧和战栗都不应该有。下面谨引述陆神父自己写下的那段回忆：

「四十天内，天主既然光照我心，叫我明嘹，当我忧虑我的职务时，我忘记了祂另面的慈心，我敬祂为主，我却没透识他乃一慈父。从那时以后，我看清了我向天主献祭，是向父亲献祭，我就再也不以登坛为惧了。于是每天清早，隐院四处宁静时，举行弥撒圣祭，已成了我每天最大的事件。这桩事极平庸，但也是唯一的尊严，我能面对面的上朝天主，执行『耶稣替身』司铎的神职」。49

天主是我们的慈父不但让陆神父克服了自己举行弥撒时，面对天主的惊惶不安；主耶稣基督事奉天主圣父的孝道，更是陆神父整个皈依的核心，他曾写道：「单单为爱自己的圣父，单单为听自己圣父的命，耶稣才爱我们，才自己降世成人，然后授给我们以圣神，使我们得有生命之源。因此我们真真正正成了天主的儿女」。50所以他下结论说：「耶稣的孝道乃我们救赎的根源，乃我们神恩的起点，乃我们常生的根基」。51

陆征祥神父更将主耶稣基督的孝道与儒家的孝道作比较，他认为孔门的孝道好似长江的洪流；主耶稣的孝道却是孝道的海洋。长江东流入大海，于是孔门的孝道汇于主耶稣的孝道，浩浩淼淼，莫测涯岸。神父自觉身处这种田泽汪洋之中，每一个毛孔，都被主耶稣的超性孝道所浸入。这使得陆神父在老年发觉自己赤子之心，在天父面前，转成一个温柔的小孩。52

说起孝道，张春申神父在「神学本位化的回顾中」一文提到，有位前辈田良神父，曾主张从中国儒家的孝开始中国神学本位化的工作。后来因为「祭之以礼」的问题，这提议结果不了了之，实在有点可惜。因为在中国儒家思想中，孝不但指儿女与父母的关系，也是伦理的标准：一切义事都称为孝，一切恶事都称为不孝。是故孝道如《孝经》所说，乃「德之本，教之所由生也」。因此陆神父的老师，许景澄先生(同治七年进士)，给陆神父的遗训，就是一个「孝」字。而陆神父一生谨记师训，进教前，事父至孝(其母早逝)，进教后，更将孝父母之孝一变而为孝天主之孝，于是儒家本性之孝，遂被提升成主耶稣超性的孝，而这一切的出发点，正是主耶稣基督对圣父的孝爱。陆征祥神父为了表扬主耶稣一生的言行和举动，都是为孝爱天父，逝世前曾写了一篇名为孝字章注解的小品文，中有一段说：「主孝为百行先，我们之明训。耶稣降生，遵圣父之旨，成大孝之典型」。53

然而，这孝与教会的礼仪又有什么关系？若我们细心想想教会每次举行礼仪庆典时所用的经文，会发现这些经文都是向圣父而发，一般的开端句是「仁慈的圣父」，或「慈爱的圣父」等。由此看出，教会的礼仪，其实是个双线行动。一方面是圣父显示祂对我们的大爱，另方面是教会带领着自己的子女，偕同基督，向天主圣父表达他们的孝爱。易言之，在这行动中，有圣父的慈爱，及各个举行礼仪的团体，回应圣父的召唤，向祂表示的孝爱。所以，若能以「孝」作为香港教会，或至中国教会礼仪本地化其中一个主题，除了能够完全表达出教会礼仪行动的精神和本质外，更可以使这行动披上浓厚的中国文化色彩。尤其重要的，复能针对香港今日的时弊。因为孝、孝道、孝爱等，不晓得在中国其他地方是怎样一回事，但在香港，可能已经是一件属于博物馆收藏的「过时物品」。事实上不久前，有香港立法局议员提出，希望政府立法，强迫子女要奉养年老的双亲，使其老有所依，满全个人的孝道。因为今日在香港，有很多子女不愿照顾父母，当中有些固然因为力量做不到，但更多时候，却是因为作子女的，觉得自己没有这个本份。

提倡孝，除了可以唤起子女对父母的关爱外，同样能唤醒父母对子女的责任，进而改变他们对子女的态度。说起来实在有点悲凉，今日香港很多家庭，一家人是父非父，母非母，子非子，女非女。近年香港的青少年问题越趋严重，若翻阅这些问题青少年的档案，会发现他们几乎都来自破碎家庭，或问题家庭。在很多父母心目中，子女只是个负担，动轧呼喝打骂，用的尽是难听字句。正如张春申神父所说，本地化也包括「福音化」。所以，若我们从表扬主基督对圣父的大孝开始，落实香港教会的礼仪本地化工作，相信一定能够另创新局面。因为如我们在前面提过，孝并非只限于父母子女之间，而是覆盖整个人类社会中的人际关系。试想想，设若我们人人都做到在家中父慈子孝，出外时谦和有礼，我们会有一个多么祥和友爱的社会。之后我们尚可以再从「孝爱神学」发展出「天父的慈悲神学」。

2. 不要纯粹因为觉得没中国天主礼仪而进行本地化工作

除了培育人才外，从事礼仪本地化的有关方面，更要掌握好教会推动本地化的动机，这动机是信仰：为了让人更容易接受基督信仰并活出这信仰，而不是因为缺乏中国天主教礼仪。易言之，不要纯粹因为觉得没有中国天主礼仪而进行本地化工作。所以，对今日欲从事中国礼仪本地化的人而言，与其挖空心思，刻意为某个地区创造一些「中国化礼仪」，其中可能把大量中国民间宗教的迷信习俗，「混进」礼仪内，使到教会的礼仪不但变得不伦不类，更严重的，是因此引起信友的厌恶和反感，减低他们的热诚，结果不但得不偿失，而且完全违反梵二推动礼仪本地化的原意。

最好的做法，是不妨先冷静一点，深入观察有关团体的礼仪生活，再研究该如何开始。这对中国内地的信友尤其重要，因为他们中有些团体，已经有过百，甚至几百年的礼仪传统，如果我们硬是因为那些礼仪是梵二之前的「西方遗物」，而坚持需要扬弃。我们其实是在做着另一种本地化工作，要这些信友团体，本地化到我们自己的一套文化中。结果可能给他们造成无法弥补的破坏。让我们再重申一遍，教会中任何本地化工作，都只有一个目的：让人更容易接受基督信仰并活出这信仰。所以，如果一个团体已接受了这信仰多年，尤其是，如果他们己经有了自己一套礼仪传统，是否就因为要进行「本地化」，便非要他们从头再来不可，这是个值得任何从事礼仪本地化的人士细心思考的问题。

多观察各地的民间宗教习俗，能让我们得益良多，因为这样可以帮助我们明白，今日这些习俗，在当地人的生活中，是否还保持其宗教特性，抑或已变成一种社会习惯，甚至充满迷信色彩。这点对礼仪本地化工作相当重要，因为如果有些中国传统宗教习俗已失去其宗教性，只成了「社会习惯」或「迷信」。那么，我们是否还要把这些「社会习惯」和「迷信」，用到教会的礼仪中呢？这是另一个须要谨慎思考的问题。

以下谨举一例，关于上香及「烧衣」(把一些纸元宝等焚烧给死者，以接济他们)的问题。「烧衣」目前仍未成为礼仪本地化的一个项目，但两三年前也曾热闹地讨论过一阵。至于上香，即在圣堂举行祭祖仪式时，如外教人一样，向所安放的历代先祖牌位插上几支燃着的香的做法，则已行之有年。纵然如此，今日有不少信友，特别一些「老教友」，仍未能接受。

关于这事，最近从一些新教弟兄那儿得知，九龙的志莲静苑已向他们的善信发出呼吁，不要在静苑烧香，献花便成。以免香灰把地方弄脏外，主要理由是根据佛教传统，例如在斯里兰卡，香其实指花(不知是否因为花一般都是香的)。所以献香，即是献花。54此事若属实，则我们因为要礼仪本地，而把向历代先祖牌位上香这习俗引进教会的礼仪中的做法，岂非人弃我取？

3. 停止把礼仪「私有化」，先将其「正常化」，再谈「本地化」

我们在前面说过，由于当年不少人未能在推行梵二的改革前，获得足够的培育及准备，做成部份从事礼仪改革的人，对梵二很多改革的指示，没能正确地掌握其真正意义。其中最严重的一点，是大家都以为梵二既把礼仪「还归于民」，这表示礼仪是属于信友的事，于是人人都可以按己意改动之，结果制造出不少「私人礼仪」。所以，目下的另一个要务，是先停止继续把礼仪私有化，使之回复正常，之后再谈礼仪本地化。

那些地方需要先将其正常化呢？下面随便列举些例子。第一个涉及圣道礼的读经。举行圣道礼时要选读圣经不在话下，读完福音后，如大家所知，读福音的神职会说「这是上主的话」，或「这是基督的福音」。现在闻说有些团体在读毕福音后，读福音的神父会根据该篇福音作者的名字，改说「这是玛窦(玛尔谷，路加或若望)的福音」。他们的解释是，没有人可以给他们证明，基督的确亲口讲过福音中的话。如果他们真的这样想，他们根本连「这是玛窦(玛尔谷，路加或若望)的福音」这句都不能说，因为他们又怎么知道所读的福音，的确是玛窦、玛尔谷，路加或若望所写，谁告诉他们呢？

可能因为受到个人主义高涨的影响，以致大家都几乎忘记了，基督信仰的信德─Faith─除了是个人的信德外，更加是团体─整个教会─的信德，这是基督信仰的一个最大特性。事实上，感恩祭的「交平安经」这样说：「主耶稣基督，你曾对宗徒们说：『我将平安留给你们，将我的平安赏给你们』。求你不要看我们的罪过，但看你教会的信德，并按照你的圣意，使教会安定团结，你是天主，永生永王」。

此外，从圣经学者最新的研究得知，四部福音的写成年代，最先要推《玛尔谷福音》，此福音约成书于主历48至52年间，这表示当此经书开始在各地的信友团体，包括耶路撒冷的母教会中流传时，那些有机会认识基督的人都仍健在。因此，如果福音中有什么失实的报导或记载，一定会被这些人指出来。然而，我们知道事实这些福音却一直流传到现在。

第二个例子有关圣道礼中主礼的讲道，教会很多文件都清楚写明讲道是圣道礼的一部份，是主礼的职务，主日及大节日的感恩祭中，读福音后主礼要讲道。只是香港不少团体主日或节日的感恩祭中，主礼不讲道，改由信友证道。结果把好端端一个圣道礼，弄到既不是圣道礼，又不是圣经分享，复非祈祷会或甚至新教徒的布道会的「四不像」，委实可惜。

不知让信友在感恩祭的讲道时间中证道是怎样并于何时开始，我们也无意探究，只想指出一点，这现象的产生，显示有些人对教会的圣道礼，特别是感恩祭的圣道礼，尤其是圣道礼中的讲道的本质及特性等，没有深入研究过，于是以为可以随便将其改变，或以其他事物取代之。以下谨引用当代欧美着名教父学家及拉丁文专家，荷兰籍女学者姬思丁莫雯(Christine Mohrmann)，就讲道─preaching─此字所作的研究，简略地分析圣道礼中的「讲道」的本质和特性。

根据莫雯的研究，55英语preaching一字，与另外几个英文字expositions, homilies, sermons，及拉丁文tractare 和tractatus二字的意思差不多，都是指以书面或口述方式解释圣经。第四世纪开始，人们较多用 sermo这字而舍弃tractatus，但两字的意思却是一样，所以当时的人都把这两个字作同义词使用。比方圣奥思定，他称自己早期的讲道为sermo，后期的讲道为「对民众的讲道」：tractatus populares。56

莫雯更从其研究中注意到，一般而言，当要突显讲道的「牧民特性」─pastoral character时，即是当主教(或神职)「向聚集在圣堂内的信友讲道时」，这些讲道就称做sermo或tractatus populares。相信从以上的简单解释，大家都可以看到，讲道和证道在本质上有很大的分别，不能因个人的意见和喜好，甚至团体的需要，随便以彼代此或以此代彼。

在主日及节日的感恩祭中，以信友的证道代替主礼讲道，除了显示有关方面不清楚「讲道」这礼仪行动的本质外，尚显示他们缺乏对礼仪行动中的职务的基本认识。我们在前面曾指出，礼仪在本质上是天主圣三的行动外，同时是教会的行动，更是基督司祭职的履行，而非任何信友及其团体的私人行动。在礼仪中，基督以永恒大司祭的身份，执行祂天人中保的职务，与信友一起朝拜父，并使他们因而获父的祝福，得以成圣。所以礼仪的核心是基督、祂的司祭职，以及生活于基督内，各自按照自己的身份，分担其司祭职的会众。如果真是这样，那么，显而易见的，在一个礼仪行动中，每位参礼者，各按其身份，都有属于他的职务，不能乱来。57比方主教、司铎和执事有专属他们的职务外，信友亦有属于他们的工作，例如辅礼、读经、唱经、送圣体等。

事实上，梵二有考虑到在职务分配上可能引起的混乱，以至各人的身份混淆不清。因此，梵二提醒大家，不论司祭和信友，在职务的执行上都不可踰越，应按照事情的性质和礼规，只作自己的，而且要作得齐全：「在举行礼仪时，无论是司祭或信友，每人按照事体的性质和礼规，尽自己的任务，只作自己的一份，且要作得齐全」。58

梵二更不厌其详地解释，把参与礼仪的人的职务，分得如此清楚的原因：「礼仪行为属于教会全体，表达教会全体，并涉及教会全体。然而，教会的每一个成员，由于他们的身份、职务和个人实际的参与彼此有别，于是他们对礼仪行为的关系也就不同」。59

其实早在半个世纪之前，梵二举行前二十年，教宗庇护十二世已经在其《天人中保》通谕中，就教会礼仪是基督司祭职的实践这事实，清晰地解说礼仪行动中的统序特性(hierarchical character of the liturgy)。该文件指出，由于教会的礼仪是基督司祭职的执行(Liturgy is the exercising of the priesthood of Jesus by the Church)，因此在礼仪的崇祀范围内(cultual domain)，每一个统序行动(every hierarchical action) 都包括三种特性：即团体特性(communitarian character: in nomine Ecclesiae)，职务特性(ministerial character: legitime ad hoc deputatus)，及职权特性 (official character: per actus ex institutione Ecclesiae)。

正是礼仪这份统序特性，让大家理解到，为何梵二一再强调礼仪是教会的行动，礼仪是属于教会的，而不是任何人的私有物产。既是教会的行动，我们当然只会采用教会所提供的礼仪，而不是任何人「所制造的礼仪」，一如着名礼仪学者本笃会士乐舒神父(Adrien Nocent)，在其ARereading of the Renewed Liturgy一书的导言中所说的。任何人，除非得到地方教会或教区最高当局的许可，否则，那怕他们的意向如何正确、理由如何充份，或所提供的的革新好得足以改善信友在礼仪方面的参与，都不能擅自在一个公开的礼仪庆典中，实行任何改革及适应。没有人有权私下改变教会现行的礼仪，这是一切从事礼仪工作者，包括本地化工作者在内，都应该知道和注意的事：

"We would remind the reader that while it is unquestionably permissible to suggest corrections and certain innovations, it is nonetheless true that no one may actually put such into practice in an official liturgical celebration so long as the competent authority has not yet made any relevant decision. The celebration of the liturgy remains as the Church teaches, and it is not the property of any individual no matter how well-intentioned, even if it could be proven that his or her initiatives are excellent in themselves, and that they would further the fruitful participation of the faithful in the liturgy".60

乐舒神父的意思并非说我们不能提出意见，他只是要我们注意，在这些提议得到地方主教及主教团的批准之前，任何人士，包括司铎，决不能擅自将这些提议随便用到礼仪中去。而这也不是乐舒神父的意见，却是梵二的指示：

「管理圣教礼仪，只属于教会权力之下：就是属于宗座，及依法律规定，属于主教会权下。

根据法律所赋予的权力，在规定的范围内，管理礼仪事项，也属于合法组成的各种地区性的主教团权下。

因此、任何其他人士，即便是司铎，决不得擅自增、减，或改变礼仪的任何部份」。61

若我们妄顾前辈的教导及教会的指示，在礼仪本地化和神学研究上坚持置各自的意见于首位，以为礼仪和神学都是我们发明的，于是各依己见，将教会的礼仪随意增删替换，实行把这个属于教会的「产业」─property─来个「私有化」，完全忘记礼仪是属于教会的。我们不但会丧失了礼仪，把神学变成一门普通学科，我们最后连主耶稣基督都会一并失掉，一如美国芝加哥总主教方济艾奥真佐治枢机(Francis Eugene George)于2001年6月20日，在罗马圣若望大殿为圣体大会主持的一次教理讲授中所说的：「当我们以为礼仪是我们的一项发明时，我们不但以经丧失了该仪式，我们连耶稣基督都一并失掉」。62

乐舒神父及美国芝加哥总主教面对教会礼仪时，所表现的尊诚崇敬，尤其是他们对教会传统的尊重，可能很多现今生活于港台的人会觉得莫名其妙，甚至认为有点夸张。这不能怪他们，因为大家可能从没有机会参加过中国传统的祭典，对我国传统祭祀一无认识，根本就不能想像其隆重及庄严，晓得该等礼仪对主祭、辅祭，对所用仪式和举行程序，均有非常严格的要求及规定，完全要根据传统作安排，没有人胆敢擅自作出丝毫的改动。所以，环顾现今某些团体在感恩祭方面所作的更改，实际上是为迁就这一代人的「口味」，与我国传统的祭祀完成扯不上关系。事实上，若这些团体对我国传统的祭祀稍有认识的话，肯定他们在改变感恩祭某部份的举行方式时，会谨慎得多。

说起我国传统的祭祀大典，想起《儒林外史》第三十七章有一段这方面的记载，内容讲述书中主角杜少卿游南京时，机缘巧合地，参加了当地乡绅在泰伯祠向泰伯举行的一次隆重祭典的经过。由于是这方面难得的资料，虽然文章颇长，仍将全文引载于下，供大家参阅：

「又过了几日，门上传进一副大红连名全帖，上写道：『晚生迟均、马静、季萑、蘧来旬；门生武书、余夔；世侄杜仪同顿首拜。』虞博士看了道：『这是甚么缘故？』慌忙出去会这些人。只因这一番，有分教：先圣祠内，共观大礼之光；国子监中，同仰斯文之主。毕竟这几个人来做甚么；且听下回分解。

话说虞博士出来会了这几个人，大家见礼坐下。迟衡山道：『晚生们今日特来，泰伯祠大祭商议主祭之人，公中说，祭的是大圣人，必要个贤者主祭，方为不愧，所以特来公请老先生。』虞博士道：『先生这个议论，我怎么敢当？只是礼乐大事，自然也愿观光。请问定在几时？』迟衡山道：『四月初一日。先一日就请老先生到来祠中斋戒一宿，以便行礼。』虞博士应诺了，拿茶与众位吃。吃过，众人辞了出来，一齐到杜少卿河房里坐下。迟衡山道：『我们司事的人，只怕还不足。』杜少卿道：『恰好敝县来了一个敝友。』便请出臧茶，与众位相见。一齐作了揖。迟衡山道：『将来大祭也要借先生的光。』臧蓼斋道：『愿观盛典。』说罢，作别去了。

到三月二十九日，迟衡山约齐杜仪、马静、季萑、金东崖、卢华士、辛东之、蘧来旬、余夔、卢德、虞感祁、诸葛佑、景本蕙、郭铁笔、萧鼎、储信、伊昭、季恬逸、金寓刘、宗姬、武书、臧茶，一齐出了南门，随即庄尚志也到了。众人看那泰伯祠时，几十层高坡上去，一座大门，左边是省牲之所。大门过去；一个大天井。又几十层高坡上去，三座门。进去一座丹墀。左右两廊，奉着从祀历代先贤神位。中间是五间大殿。殿上泰伯神位，面前供桌，香炉、烛台。殿后又一个丹墀，五间大楼。左右两傍，一边三间书房。众人进了大门，见高悬着金字一匾：『泰伯之祠』。从二门进东角门走，循着东廊一路走过大殿，抬头看楼上悬着金字一匾：『习礼楼』三个大字。众人在东边书房内坐了一会。迟衡山同马静、武书、蘧来旬，开了楼门，同上楼去，将乐器搬下楼来；堂上的摆在堂上，堂下的摆在堂下。堂上安了祝版，香案傍树了麾，堂下树了庭燎，二门傍摆了盥盆、盥帨。

金次福、鲍廷玺，两人领了一班司球的、司琴的、司瑟的、司管的、司?的、司祝的、司敔的、司笙的、司镛的、司箫的、司编钟的、司编磬的，和六六三十六个佾舞的孩子，进来见了众人。迟衡山把钥、翟交与这些孩子。下午时分，虞博士到了。庄绍光、迟衡山、马纯上、杜少卿，迎了进来。吃过了茶，换了公服，四位迎到省牲所去省了牲。众人都在两边书房里斋宿。

次日五鼓，把祠门大开了，众人起来，堂上、堂下、门里、门外、两廊，都点了灯烛；庭燎也点起来。迟衡山先请主祭的博士虞老先生，亚献的征君庄老先生；请到三献的，众人推让，说道：『不是迟先生，就是杜先生。』迟衡山道：『我两人要做引赞。马先生系浙江人，请马纯上先生三献。』马二先生再三不敢当。众人扶住了马二先生，同二位老先生一处。迟衡山、杜少卿，先引这三位老先生出去；到省牲所拱立。迟衡山、杜少卿回来，请金东崖先生大赞；请武书先生司麾；请臧茶先生司祝；请季萑先生、辛东之先生、余夔先生司尊；请蘧来旬先生、卢德先生、虞感祁先生司玉；请诸葛佑先生、景本蕙先生、郭铁笔先生司帛；请萧鼎先生、储信先生、伊昭先生司稷；请季恬逸先生、金寓刘先生、宗姬先生司馔。请完，命卢华士跟着大赞金东崖先生。将诸位一齐请出二门外。

当下祭鼓发了三通，金次福、鲍廷玺，两人领着一班司球的、司琴的、司瑟的、司管的、司?牧满B司祝的、司敔的、司笙的、司镛的、司箫的、司编钟的、司编磬的，和六六三十六个佾舞的孩子，都立在堂上堂下。

金东崖先进来到堂上，卢华士跟着。金东崖站定，赞道：『执事者，各司其事！』这些司乐的都将乐器拿在手里。金东崖赞：『排班。』司麾的武书，引着司尊的季萑、辛东之、余夔，司玉的蘧来旬、卢德、虞感祁，司帛的诸葛佑、景本蕙、郭铁笔，入了位，立在丹墀东边；引司祝的臧茶上殿，立在祝版跟前；引司稷的萧鼎、储信、伊昭，司馔的季恬逸、金寓刘、宗姬，入了位，立在丹墀西边。武书捧了麾，也立在西边众人下。金东崖赞：『奏乐。』堂上堂下，乐声俱起。金东崖赞：『迎神。』迟均、杜仪，各捧香烛，向门外躬身迎接。金东崖赞：『乐止。』堂上堂下，一齐止了。

金东崖赞：『分献者，就位。』迟均、杜仪出去引庄征君、马纯上，进来立在丹墀里拜位左边。金东崖赞：『主祭者，就位。』迟均、杜仪，出去引虞博士上来立在丹墀里拜位中间。迟均、杜仪，一左一右，立在丹墀里香案傍。迟均赞：『盥洗。』同杜仪引主祭者盥洗了上来。迟均赞：『主祭者，诣香案前。』香案上一个沉香筒，里边插着许多红旗。杜仪抽一枝红旗在手，上有『奏乐』二字。虞博士走上香案前。迟均赞道：『跪。升香。灌地。拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴。复位。』杜仪又抽出一枝旗来：『乐止。』金东崖赞：『奏乐神之乐。』金次福领着堂上的乐工，奏起乐来。奏了一会，乐止。

金东崖赞：『行初献礼。』卢华士在殿里抱出一个牌子来，上写『初献』二字。迟均、杜仪，引着主祭的虞博士，武书持麾在迟均前走。三人从丹墀东边走，引司尊的季萑，司玉的蘧来旬，司帛的诸葛佑，一路同走，引着主祭的从上面走。走过西边，引司稷的萧鼎，司馔的季恬逸，引着主祭的从西边下来。在香案前转过东边上去。进到大殿，迟均、杜仪，立于香案左右。季萑捧着尊，蘧来旬捧着玉，诸葛佑捧者帛，立在左边；萧鼎捧着稷，季恬逸捧着馔，立在右边。迟均赞：『就位。跪。』虞博士跪于香案前。迟均赞：『献酒。』季萑跪着递与虞博士献上去。迟均赞：『献玉。』蘧来旬跪着递与虞博士献上去。迟均赞：『献帛。』诸葛佑跪着递与虞博士献上去。迟均赞：『献稷。』萧鼎跪着递与虞博士献上去。迟均赞：『献馔。』季恬逸跪着递与虞博士献上去。献毕，执事者退了下来。迟均赞：『拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴。』

金东崖赞：『一奏至德之章，舞至德之容。』堂上乐细细奏了起来。那三十六个孩子，手持钥、翟，齐上来舞。乐舞已毕。金东崖赞：『?下与祭者，皆跪。读祝文。』臧茶跪在祝版前，将祝文读了。金东崖赞：『退班。」迟均赞：『平身。复位。』武书、迟均、杜仪、季萑、蘧来旬、诸葛佑、萧鼎、季恬逸，引着主祭的虞博士从西边一路走了下来。虞博士复归主位，执事的都复了原位。

金东崖赞：『行亚献礼。』卢华士又走进殿里去抱出一个牌子来，上写『亚献』二字。迟均、杜仪，引着亚献的庄征君到香案前。迟均赞：『盥洗。』同杜仪引着庄征君盥洗了回来。武书持麾在迟均前走。三人从丹墀东边走，引司尊的辛东之，司玉的卢德，司帛的景本蕙，一路同走；引着亚献的从上面走。走过西边，引着司稷的储信，司馔的金寓刘，引着亚献的又从西边下来，在香案前转过东边上去。进到大殿，迟均、杜仪，立于香案左右。辛东之捧着尊，卢德捧着玉，景本蕙捧着帛，立在左边；储信捧着稷；金寓刘捧着馔，立在右边。迟均赞：『就位。跪。』庄征君跪于香案前。迟均赞：『献酒。』辛东之跪着递与庄征君献上去。迟均赞：『献玉。』卢德跪着递与庄征君献上去。迟均赞：『献帛。』景本蕙跪着递与庄征君献上去。迟均赞：『献稷。』储信跪着递与庄征君献上去。迟均赞：『献馔。』金寓刘跪着递与庄征君献上去。各献毕，执事者退了下来。迟均赞：『拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴。』

金东崖赞：『二奏至德之章，舞至德之容。』堂上乐细细奏了起来。那三十六个孩子，手持钥、翟，齐上来舞。乐舞已毕。金东崖赞：『退班。』迟均赞：『平身。复位。』武书、迟均、杜仪、辛东之、卢德、景本蕙、储信、金寓刘，引着亚献的庄征君，从西边一路走了下来。庄征君复归了亚献位，执事的都复了原位。

金东崖赞：『行终献礼。』卢华士又走进殿里去抱出一个牌子，上写『终献』二字。迟均、杜仪，引着终献的马二先生到香案前。迟均赞：『盥洗。』同杜仪引着马二先生盥洗了回来。武书持麾在迟均前走。三人从丹墀东边走，引着司尊的畲夔，司玉的虞感祁，司帛的郭铁笔，一路同走；引着终献的从上面走。走过西边，引司稷的伊昭，司馔的宗姬，引着终献的又从西边下来，在香案前转过东边上去。进到大殿，迟均、杜仪，立于香案左右。余夔捧着尊，卢感祁捧着玉，郭铁笔捧着帛，立在左边；伊昭捧着稷；宗姬捧着馔，立在右边。迟均赞：『就位。跪。』马二先生跪于香案前。迟均赞：『献酒。』余夔跪着递与马二先生献上去。迟均赞：『献玉。』虞感祁跪着递与马二先生献上去。迟均赞：『献帛。』郭铁笔跪着递与马二先生献上去。迟均赞：『献稷。』伊昭跪着递与马二先生献上去。迟均赞：『献馔。』宗姬跪着递与马二先生献上去。献毕，执事者退了下来。迟均赞：『拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴。』

金东崖赞：『三奏至德之章，舞至德之容。』堂上乐细细奏了起来。那三十六个孩子手持钥、翟，齐上来舞。乐舞已毕。金东崖赞：『退班。』迟均赞：『平身。复位。』武书、迟均、杜仪、余夔、虞感祁、郭铁笔、伊昭、宗姬，引着终献的马二先生从西边一路走了下来。马二先生复归了终献位，执事的都复了原位。

金东崖赞：『行侑食之礼。』迟均、杜仪，又从主祭位上引虞博士从东边上来，香案前跪下。金东崖赞：『奏乐。』堂上堂下，乐声一齐大作。乐止。迟均赞：『拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴。平身。』金东崖赞：『退班。』迟均、杜仪，引虞博士从西边走下去，复了主祭的位。迟均、杜仪，也复了引赞的位。金东崖赞：『撤馔。』杜仪抽出一枝红旗来，上有『金奏』二字。当下乐声又一齐大作起来。迟均、杜仪，从主位上引了虞博士，奏着乐，从东边走上殿去，香案前跪下。迟均赞：『拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴；拜，兴。平身。』金东崖赞：『退班。』迟均、杜仪，引虞博士从西边走下去，复了主祭的位。迟均、杜仪，也复了引赞的位。杜仪又抽出一枝红旗来：『止乐。』金东崖赞：『饮福受胙。』迟均、杜仪，引主祭的虞博士，亚献的庄征君，终献的马二先生，都跪在香案前，饮了福酒，受了胙肉。金东崖赞：『退班。』三人退下去了。金东崖赞，『焚帛。』司帛的诸葛佑、景本蕙、郭铁笔，一齐焚了帛。金东崖赞：『礼毕。』众人撤去了祭器，乐器，换去了公服，齐往后面楼下来，金次福、鲍廷玺，带着堂上堂下的乐工和佾舞的三十六个孩子，都到后面两边书房里来。

这一回大祭，主祭的虞博士，亚献的庄征君，终献的马二先生，共三位。大赞的金东崖，司祝的臧茶；卢华士，共三位。引赞的迟均、杜仪，共二位。司麾的武书一位。司尊的季萑、辛东之、余夔，共三位。司玉的蘧来旬、卢德、虞感祁，共三位。司帛的诸葛佑、景本蕙、郭铁笔，共三位。司稷的萧鼎、储信、伊昭，共三位。司馔的季恬逸、金寓刘、宗姬，共三位。金次福、鲍廷玺，二人领着司球的一人，司琴的一人，司瑟的一人，司管的一人，司?的一人，司祝的一人，司敔的一人，司笙的一人，司镛的一人，司箫的一人，司编钟的、司编磬的二人；和佾舞的孩子，共是三十六人。－－通共七十六人」。

大家从上面引述的文字，可以看到我国传统祭典的隆重庄严。先是人选问题，由于祭祀的对象泰伯被视为大圣人，因此「必要个贤者主祭，方为不愧」；然后是献祭的团体对祭典所用事物和排场的讲求，及整个过程的严格要求。单是乐器就有十多种：球63、琴、瑟、管、?、祝64、敔65、笙、镛66、箫、编钟67、编磬68。献祭前一日，有关人等先巡视屠宰作祭品用的牲畜及场地；祭祀时用的祝文(祝颂词)，不能随便写在纸张或布帛上，却要写在一种叫祝板的横阔素木板上，然后插在朱漆饰金的架子上；至于参与献祭的人，更要先一日到举行祭典的祠中留宿斋戒，以便翌日行礼。行礼时各人，连主祭在内，一言一行，均要照足指示，进退有度，一步不能逾越。

这一切，对今日凡事，包括宗教敬礼在内，都只求好玩，够热闹，够气氛，够通俗，够吸引人，几乎把感恩祭当私人party来安排的人，不知能否带给他们一些反省？而以上所引载的，还不是最隆重的祭典，因为只用六佾舞，最隆重的祭典用的是八佾舞，例如祭孔子的时候，至于天子祭天，那就更不用说。而不论泰伯又好，孔子也好，始终是人，甚至天子祭天时，所献者亦无非太牢少牢。反观教会每次奉献的感恩祭，是代表整个人类及造物界祭祀天地大主：圣父，而且所献的祭品，诚如罗光主教所说，并非太牢少牢，却是圣父的亲生儿子，我们的主，耶稣基督的圣体圣血，那该比我国传统的祭典，要神圣和隆重多少倍呢？

37. 参看赵滋番著，《文学与艺术》，台北，三民书局 1970，页44-45。

38. 详细内容请参阅2001年4月8日《公教报》所载冯一冲君的「叉饭普洱．圣体圣血」(下称「叉饭」)一文。

该文见报不久，邹保禄神父从圣经传统、牧民、灵修等层面作回应说，用香港人最常吃的叉烧饭普洱茶祝圣为圣体圣血，「可以当为讨论的材料，但实际上是难于实现的」。因为从圣经传统看，主耶稣基督诞生的目的，是为实现先知们在圣经的预言，有关默西亚的事迹。因此旧约所记载天主在旷野?给以色列民玛纳，和新约记述耶稣在最后晚餐以面饼和酒成为自己的体血，都有连带的关系。至于教会的牧民工作，亦有其牧民神学，而牧民神学不能与传统、训导、神学，尤其是圣经分开，否则便失去意义。甚至从信友的灵修生活而言，教会不仅相信主耶稣基督临于圣体中，并且有不少圣体敬礼，表示对主的恭敬，如果使用叉烧饭普洱茶放入圣体柜内，能保证这些叉烧饭普洱茶一星期不变坏吗？请参看邹保禄神父撰写，「评『「叉饭普洱．圣体圣血」，见2001年5月20日《公教报》。

39. 参看邹保禄神父撰写，「评『「叉饭普洱．圣体圣血」，见2001年5月20日《公教报》。

40. 《礼仪宪章》6条；有关天主教会礼仪的本质，请参看《礼仪宪章》1-13条。

41. 《礼仪宪章》2条。

42. 参看陈继容，「现代天主教神学动向：礼仪」，《神思》n41(1999) 页61-67。

43. 参看陈继容，「现代天主教神学动向：礼仪」，页64-65，特别是61页的参考书目。

44. 参看《礼仪宪章》26-32条。

45. 《礼仪宪章》26条。

46. Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum XXXVI = CCL I, 216,7-8: "Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum; si autem Italiae adiaces, habes Roman unde nobis quoque auctoritas praesto est".

47. St. Augustine of Hippo, Epistola XLIII,7 = PL L,163: "Cum se videret et Romanae Ecclesiae, in qua semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus, et caeteris terris, unde Evangelium ad ipsam Africam venit".

48. 将临期第一周，星期二，领圣体后经：「上主，我们参与了这个奥迹，领受了神粮。求你教导我们，以你所赐的智慧分辨世事，乐于寻求天上的幸福。因主耶稣基督之名，求你俯听我们的祈祷」。

49. 罗光著，《陆征祥传》，香港，香港真理学会 1949，页212-213。

50. 罗光著，《陆征祥传》，页167。

51. 罗光著，《陆征祥传》，页167。

52. 参看罗光著，《陆征祥传》，页167。

53. 罗光著，《陆征祥传》，页166。

54. 关于这点，尚待求证。

56. 参看St. Augustine, Epistola 234,2.

57. 有关礼仪职务的问题，请参看CONGAR Yves, "My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministries", in The Jurist 2 (1972) 169-181; GIURIATI P./LEONARDI G./TURA R.-SARTORI L./DONI P., I misisteri ecclesiali oggi (Borla 1977); KROSNICKI Thomas A., "Liturgical Ministries", in Anscar J. Chupungco (ed.), Handbook for Liturgical Studies, Volume II: Fundamental Liturgy. The Pontifical Liturgical Institute (Collegeville, Minnesota, The Liturgical Press 1997) 161-171; McBRIEN R., "Church and Ministry: the Achievement of Yves Congar", Theology Digest 32 (1985) 203ff; O'MEARA Thomas F., "The Expansion of Ministry: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow", in Eleanor Bernstein, CSJ/Martin F. Connell (edd.), The Renewal That Awaits Us (Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications 1997) 91-103.

58. 《礼仪宪章》28条。

59. 《礼仪宪章》26条。

60. NOCENT Adrien, OSB, A Rereading of the Renewed Liturgy. Mary M. Misrahi Translator (Collegeville, Minnesota, The Liturgical Press 1994) x Introduction.

61. 《礼仪宪章》22条。

63. 玉磬。

64. 形似方斗的木制乐器，用木椎打击作声。

65. 伏虎形的木制乐器，背上装有二十七个金属片的栉齿，用＿刷拨作声。

66. 大钟。

67. 十六口小铜钟，分两排悬在架子上，依钟的厚薄，打出不同的音律。

68. 十六面小石磬，分两排悬在架子上，依磬的厚薄，打出不同的音律。

结论

20世纪初欧洲文学及艺术界曾出现过一种运动，名为「未来主义」。这主义于1909年由义大利诗人马里奈蒂(Filippo Tommaso Marinetti)发起，标榜反抗传统，粉碎文学与艺术的界限，把文学、音乐、绘画等熔为一炉。未来主义甫一出现，吸引了不小人，但不及半个世纪便灰飞烟灭，原因是过份标新立异，完全不理会文学与艺术传统的规范，结果经不起时间考验，终被历史淘汰。未来主义如何标新立异法？下面试转载一段马里奈蒂的所谓诗，据说是诗结合绘画的代表作之一：

「重量+臭气

正午 3/4 笛尖锐的叫声拥抱哗噪含嗽破爆前进倒囊枪啼钉炮鬣车辎重犹太人果实涂油面包俗谣恶臭天竺玉桂[...]」。

任何人读到这些句子都会问，这是什么诗？因为没有人看得懂，难怪未来主义最终不得不随风而逝。69当未来主义在西方流行之际，中国也出现了五四运动。70五四运动出现后两个世代，天主教会召开梵二，从此教会内括起一股强烈的改革风，这股改革烈风对今日教会的影响，颇有点像当年「五四」带给对中国的冲击。从文学的角度而言，「五四」是个文艺复兴运动，它给当时的中国引进白话文和国语文学，贡献实在不少。这是学术界所公认的，可是中国文坛数十年来，震烁一代的作品始终如凤毛麟角。据很多前辈学者的冷静分析，最主要的原因，是当年参与运动的人，未能下苦工夫好好钻研学问，欠缺应有的准备和修养，加上思想激进，逢旧必反。这种作风，非但未能令「五四」在文学上结出丰硕的果实，尚遗下很多不好的影响，更把「五四」带进一个没有出口的死胡同。

正由于一部份当年推行「五四运动」的人对文学艺术的认识过于皮毛，只为迁就时代而求变，看不出传统具有的价值，缺乏「历史的透视」：historical perspective。他们这种单只求变革而无保存的精神，所带来的新是无根的，是条从无到无的路。他们忽略了，正如我们的文坛前辈所说，一切文学运动都以传统文学为基础，再针对时弊，一点一滴的设法改进及整理，才有建树和成果。71否则一阵热闹过后，因为无根，开不成花，亦未结果，就这样不了了之。72

跟随潮流风尚、喜新厌旧，甚至标新立异，原是人的天性，本来无可厚非。历史上一些运动及主义的出现，故然有其政治社会因素，但也不能否认，多少与人这种天性有关。可是，诚如我们的前辈所说，文学艺术的路不同科学，不可以在一根直线上循序渐进，而是迂回曲折的，因为文学艺术触及人的心灵。所以，一刀切式的将过去全盘否定，只会带给人跛脚的进步，并使人精神虚脱。如果文学艺术是这样的话，神学就更加不用说了。

这些前辈讲得好，生活并非一杯白开水，清可鉴底。生活中任何事物，从最简单的到最复杂的，里面都有其历史渊源和社会影响。前者凝固成风俗习惯，后者则决定行为标准，这点对基督信仰─Christianity─而言，尤其真实。再者，教会的生活里面除了有其传统─历史渊源和社会影响外，更有天主直接的介入。教会的工作，特别是教会的礼仪，表面看只是人的工作，实际上，真正在工作的是天主自己。73如果只为迎合时代的改变而本地化、而求变、求新，失掉个人独立思考反省的能力，忽略宗教信仰该有的虔敬与神圣，漠视基督信仰中那些放诸四海皆准，证诸百世不移的成份和特性。这种态度对人生真理的探索，对永恒价值的追求，都有害无益。

历史上不少运动开始时轰轰烈烈，然而过不多久，便无疾而终。西方的「未来主义」74和中国的「五四运动」都是很好的例子。但愿从事中国礼仪本地化工作的人，不会重蹈当年参与这些运动的人的覆辙。

69.参看赵滋番著，《文学与艺术》，页21-23。

70.五四运动于1908年在中国开始。

71.梁实秋著，《文学因缘》，页160：「就文学而论，自古自今，有其延续性，有所谓『传统』，从各方面一点一滴的设法改进，是可行的，若说把旧有的文学一脚踢开，另起炉灶，那是不可能的」。

72.参看赵滋番著，《文学与艺术》，页39-45；梁实秋着，《文学因缘》，页159-165。

73.《礼仪宪章》说得很清楚，天主藉着礼仪，尤其在感恩圣祭中，履行人类得救的工程(2条)。

74.除了「未来主义」，尚有鞑鞑主义文学艺术运动，此主义于1916年于瑞士的苏黎世开始，发起者是罗马尼亚人托利斯坦沙拉(Tristan Tzara)。当时正值第一次世界大战期间，战火把一切涂上灰色，使人丧失希望，于是这些人忿然高呼推翻艺术的一切标准与传统，为得到短暂的成就，他们大概想不到，连这运动的寿命也是非常短暂。参阅赵滋番著，《文学与艺术》，页24-26。

https://books.ziliaozhan.org/files/article/attachment/0/160/8365/6.jpg(20K)

https://books.ziliaozhan.org/files/article/attachment/0/160/8365/7.jpg(24K)

https://books.ziliaozhan.org/files/article/attachment/0/160/8365/8.jpg(17K)

作者：高夏芳

1. 贯通东西的丝绸之路

以海外华人的身份第一次来到祖国的西北，来到兰州，自然会燃起一股对祖国远古文化的敬仰与爱慕之情，也自然想起二千多年前通过这里的丝绸之路。

大家都承认，古代文明的起源总在大河流域，发展水利与文明进步有密切的关系，但也不可轻视建城、筑墙、修路的重要性。我国古代每个村寨都有土墙围绕，每个城市的内围外郭都有墙垣保卫，甚至整个国家的北面都被一条宏伟壮丽的万里长城包住，把中原土地与游牧族群分隔；同时城与城之间有道路相通，点与点之间有线相联。中国文化的扩张随着道路的延伸而进展，在本土内交织成一个网，脉络分明，还迂回曲折地绵延向外，一直伸展到西方，甚至伸展到罗马帝国中心。城墙是凝聚、集中、保卫与异类界别的象征，道路则表示联系，沟通，多元互动。丝绸之路除了它的历史，它的实效之外，也极具诗意，神秘诱人，更独特的是它透露出一份中国人的智慧，一个超越自我的理想，一个发掘新意的梦，一股克服困难的毅力，一个高深的信念，认为宇宙的本身就是一个能「通」的宇宙，人与人之间也能互相感应。

今日万里长城仍雄壮地屹立，丝绸之路却早已消失。路就是这样，是走出来的，也要用脚步来滋养。

在这新千年的开始，大家都在谈地球一体化。我们觉得这个我们居住的地球变得愈来愈小，愈来愈圆。无论在政治、经济、科技、文化、艺术各方面，我们都强调交流、对话，中国和西方都摒弃了自我中心的天朝观念，超越围墙，更坦诚开放地走向对方，更相信多元并进、互补互助、共融合作的重要，更珍惜人类共有的宝贵资源，更尊重人性的共有品质。尤其在精神文化方面，东方和西方都加深了彼此的认识及互相欣赏，大家都希望能建立一条新的丝绸之路，让彼此之间的关系轻盈柔韧，珍贵如丝，让双方的思想都能有更广阔的奔驰空间。

相信我们这几天的共聚也为创造这丝绸之路踏出一步。我们远溯原创文化，去寻找那催使人互敬互通的根源，去重温古人的思想情怀，去发掘那些潜藏在世纪的尘土中，但却万古常新的智慧宝库。

我是天主教神学研究者，想从基督宗教的角度去反省这主题。虽然，构成基督宗教背景的两种文化－－希伯来文化及希腊罗马文化－－都算不上是最原始的文明，同时这宗教与中国文化接触也只在最近这五六个世纪才较显着，但它二十世纪以来对西方文化影响深厚，同时它本身也是东西两种不同的古代文化的交汇点，故有其独特性。我这里只简单肤浅地谈谈基督宗教在其发展初期如何与当时当地的文化交往。

2. 由耶路撒冷到地极

基督宗教一向被视为西方的宗教，它的教义教理、神学思维、礼仪、组织架构、传教方法都依照西方的模式典范；但自上世纪中叶，尤其自梵蒂冈第二届大公会议以来，教会这种以西方为中心的意识已逐渐淡化，反而极力强调其大公性、普世性，努力投入各种文化当中，与不同的宗教交谈，深信每个文化都是天主圣言的种子植根、茁壮的良好土壤。每个文化中都蕴藏着来自同一源流的智慧宝藏（参阅梵二《教会传教工作法令》22）。

事实上，这一切均属教会的原始信念，在圣经中，尤其在耶稣的言行中都已相当清楚。耶稣离世升天前，留下给门徒们的最后一句话是：“……你们要为我作证，从耶路撒冷……直到地极”（《宗徒大事录》1:8）。他被钉死时，在十字架上挂着一个写上犯人罪状的牌子，若望圣史以反讽的手法指出耶稣的“罪状”实在是他的“尊荣”。牌上写着：“纳匝肋人耶稣，犹太人的君王”（《若望福音》19:1-22），是以三种语言写成的，就是希伯来文，希腊文和拉丁文，这三种除了是当时当地最流行的文字外，还代表着三个氛围：宗教传统、文化思想、社会政治体系。这意味着基督的讯息不局限于单一的文化或生活范畴，世界各地不论操什么语言或生活在什么环境中的人，都可了解基督的启示。

去年，即2000年，天主教为记念耶稣降生的二千年，举行了一连串活动及反省，其中一个是世界五大洲的洲际主教会议。在1998年举行的亚洲主教会议中，主教们明确地指出耶稣是亚洲人，他的出生、生活、死亡并复活，都发生在亚洲西部的一片细小的土地上。整部《圣经》也是在亚洲写成的，有着东方的思考及表达特色（参阅若望保禄二世《教会在亚洲》宗座劝谕）。在教会内，愈来愈多神学家承认：十数世纪以来，基督宗教以西方为发展基地，同时参与建设西方文明，成绩裴然；但亦不免采用了单一的西方思想架构，使教义过于理性化、系统化，基督讯息的多姿多采未能充份表现出来，也冲淡了基督奥迹那不可言喻、只可领悟的玄妙意境。踏入“后现代”，教会不但应努力关注神学思想的和谐，也该重新走入东方，让东方文化为自己注入更新的挑战及活力。教宗若望保禄二世也呼吁教众用左右两片肺叶来呼吸，即以东西两种文化来滋养自己的信仰，使之和谐活泼。天地交而万物通，人类可以共融，文化可以多元契合：这也是基督徒的基本信念。

3. 耶路撒冷及雅典

公元二世纪末，一位很杰出的基督徒作家戴都良（Tertullian）曾提出这个问题：“耶路撒冷跟雅典有何关系？基督徒与哲学家、天国的追随者与希腊的崇尚者又有何相干？”（De Praescriptione haereticorum 7:9-10）这问题点出了基督徒最初数世纪在信仰与文化互通上的摸索：信仰要植根于文化，但实际上应如何履行？有何限度或准则？这问题本身已不易，加上当时的文化背景十分复杂，使这番努力更艰钜，更富挑战性。

基督宗教源自犹太文化氛围，犹太人虽自公元前六世纪灭国后，一直受异族统治，但他们的民族意识很强，坚守传统，把持信仰，谨守天主透过梅瑟颁布给他们的法律，所以巴肋斯坦这一小片土地，虽经过几番政权转易，却仍能保存其本有的犹太特色，就算在亚历山大大帝建立马其顿帝国后，将希腊文化、语言推广至整个地中海东岸，巴肋斯坦境内的犹太人亦没有受到太大的干扰，仍能继续他们的传统及文化。但在巴肋斯坦以外散居的犹太人却不同，他们的希腊化程度较高，也更易被不同的思想潮流所感染、同化。

基督宗教首先在巴肋斯坦发展，第一代基督徒的犹太根底较深厚，但基于他们的宇宙意识及传教使命感，这新宗教很快便传到罗马帝国各大城，在教会内信徒的来源也很快改变，那些散居各地的希腊化犹太人数目渐增，皈依基督的非犹太人也不少。所以，随着时间的推移，教会显着地逐渐远离犹太文化；却相对地，与希腊、罗马文化的关系愈趋密切。不过，疏远不等于抗拒或隔绝，接近也不等于为之全然陶化。

4. 从宝库中抽取新的和旧的东西

耶稣曾把自己的门徒比作“一个家主，（他）从自己的宝库里提出新的和旧的东西”（《玛窦福音》13:52）。有关他自己，他也说过：“我来不是为废除法律或先知，而是为成全”（玛5:17）。初期的基督徒与本身的犹太文化之间的关系，可概括地描写为延续与超越、承传与突破。他们的信仰与祖先的信仰一脉相承，只是被耶稣推到高峰。他们虽应时势之需，用希腊文写作，但他们的思想模式仍有很浓的犹太气色；他们的希腊文也夹杂着不少希伯来词汇（如撒旦、亚孟、亚肋路亚等），也有很多基督徒的基本词汇、字面是希腊语，但内容概念却属希伯来文化，而且是相当粗硬的翻译呢（如apostolos, baptizein, eucharistia, ekklesia等）。连Christ＿－－基督－－这名称，也是由希伯来语的Messia－－默西亚，即受傅者－－一词直接翻译过来的。新约书本的文学体裁亦深受希伯来文学影响，如福音的叙事方式可与希伯来的叙述文学相比。在耶稣的训言中，犹太人喜用的比喻频频出现，还有先知性言词，智慧性箴言等，都是在希伯来文学的独特表达模式。《默示录》一书更显着地沿用了一种公元前数世纪在犹太人中非常流行的默示录文体。

在礼仪方面，基督徒最早期的节日庆典，都是建基于犹太传统上的。犹太会堂的读经、讲道、诵念圣咏，都为基督徒所采用。

在教仪及思想方面，基督徒的宇宙观、人观、天主观，基本上都溯源于旧约，但在承传之余亦注入了崭新的意义，那就是把一切都聚焦于降生成人的天主子耶稣基督身上)。《希伯来书》的作者这样解释说：“天主在古时，曾多次并以多种方式，藉着先知对我们的祖先说过话；但在这末期内，他藉着自己的儿子对我们说了话”（希1:1）。换言之，天主在旧约中对以色列民所作的预许，都在耶稣身上得以满全、应验、突破及扩展。而耶稣不只是犹太人的默西亚，更是普世的救主、整个宇宙的核心。他不只是犹太宗教内的一个先知、一个传达天主启示的工具；他本身就是天主的启示、绝对的真理。基督徒们愈深入反省基督的救恩奥迹，愈觉得犹太的传统及文化框框太狭窄；希腊思想反而更有助于描写耶稣在整个宇宙、整个历史、天主的整个救恩计划中的位置。所以，基督宗教逐渐走近并走进希腊文化，是理所当然之事。早在第一世纪末，若望已开始将"罗葛斯”（logos）概念应用到基督身上，说明基督是天主的“言”，从太初就已存在，万物都是赖他而造成的（《若望福音》1:1-18）。保禄也指出“天上地下的一切都总归于基督”（《厄弗所书》1:10）。

基督徒之所以走进希腊文化，还有一个实际的因素。由于基督徒的传教范围已愈来愈广阔，传教对象也从起初的犹太人转为非犹太人，因此运用希腊文化作为传递工具，更是在所难免了。保禄也曾走进雅典，在广场上作了一篇非常希腊式的宣讲（《宗徒大事录》15:15-21）。

希伯来文化与希腊罗马文化根本上有很大的差别，且在此之前还未有机会真正相遇。虽然，早在公元前一、二世纪这两种文化已开始有较深入的接触，比如亚历山大里亚的犹太哲学家菲洛（Philo）就曾作过努力，使这两种文化能彼此互识互通，但这并不排除初期基督徒任务之艰钜及在东西两种文化交汇上的独特贡献，他们无形中透过对耶稣基督的信仰建立了一条贯通东西的丝绸之路。

5. 创造新文化

公元首五个世纪的欧洲历史见证了基督宗教如何带着一个东方的希伯来文化背景及一个崭新的基督意识投入一个已有的希腊罗马文化氛围中，跟着由宾至主，自四世纪初君士坦丁大帝政变后，慢慢成为主流文化，奠定了一个新的文明基楚，为欧洲以后十数世纪定下了思想方向及生活原则。

从一世纪下半叶开始，基督徒要面临不同类型、不同层面、不同方向的挑战。他们与犹太人的关系日形疏远恶劣。犹太人视基督徒为叛逆者，基督徒也怪责犹太人茅塞固执。罗马人本来相当开放宽容，但面对这迅速发展且自言具有普世性的宗教也猜疑日深，怕它会成为帝国政权的威胁。在社会上，基督徒也备受抨击，虽然一般人对他们的教义及信仰不甚了解，但见他们生活严谨、对伦理道德要求高、与俗世格格不入，就讥讽他们愤世疾俗，漠视社会公益。有学养的人更以文字来指控攻击（如柏拉图派哲学家采斯（Celsus）的《真理之言》）。不过，外来的挑战往往会引发出潜伏的冲力；基督徒在这四面楚歌的情况下，不但仍能迅速发展，还吸引了更多有才学的人加入他们的行列，并与当代文化开展更深一层的交谈。

基督徒深信，基督的教理包藏着一个启示的真理核心，这核心应成为启发人类智慧、促进文化及辨别真伪的标准。本着这个信念，第二世纪的基督徒学者，尤其那些被称为“护教者”的教父们，在吸纳希腊文化的同时，也批判这文化的某些弱点，抗拒它的绝对性。比如达济安（Tatian）指出，希腊文化本身也有许多外来的成份，不应将它的价值夸大。例如，希腊人的天文学来自巴比伦，几何学来自埃及，字母来自腓尼基。这文化的历史亦不及犹太文化久远；而且希腊哲学家们往往都彼此矛盾，演讲者也往往只顾运用修辞学来辩驳取胜，而不着重内容；他们的诗篇多歌颂诸神，意境狭窄（参阅达济安，Oratio ad Graecos, 1）。戴都良（Tertullian）也认为希腊哲学是制造异端邪说的温床，虽然他对这文化并不绝对抗拒，他本身的哲学造诣也不浅。

然而，大部份教父及基督徒学者都开明而感恩地接受哲学，视之为出自同一的智慧之源－－天主，及祂透过耶稣基督给人的启示。比如第二世纪的儒斯定（Justin），他认为信仰与理智、基督教理与哲学不但毫无冲突，而且前者更是后者的高峰及满全，换言之，基督的真理是最完美的哲学。全人类都可参与这真理的宝库，不过基督徒与非基督徒的参与有所不同。透过基督，基督徒的参与是全面性的、直接的；非基督徒则只可作局部的参与，他们拥有“言的种子”（logos spermatikos），都有一点灵犀可与基督相通。

公元三世纪，埃及的亚历山大里亚地方诞生了第一所由教会领导的神学学府，把已开始了的交谈更向前推进。亚历山大里亚本是一个活力充沛的多元化城市，各种思想潮流都可在那里找到适于蕴酿、生存的肥沃土壤。事实上，这片土地见证了希腊及希伯来两种文化数世纪以来的汇合经验。同一的土壤也为基督教义提供了一个优良的发展基地。亚历山大学府的一位大师克来孟（Clement），在向文化开放的路程上，步伐坚定而大胆，他认为文化与哲学不单与基督教义毫无抵触，而且更是带人进入真理的工具，“有如梅瑟法律领导过犹太人，同样哲学也领导希腊人达到基督”（Stromateis I, 5, 28）。基督徒要由“信”达到“知”，不让自己的信仰滞留于对教理粗劣了解、肤浅相信的阶段，就要勉力建基于圣经，植根于文化，以求对信仰真理达到精密思考、融汇贯通的境界。另一位亚历山大里亚的伟大学者奥力振（Origen）更指出启示、理性思考及人格修养应和谐并进。他把希腊人的教育理想（paideia）融入基督徒的治学及神修中。真理的最高峰是圣经的启示，但要明瞭圣经，就必先由人文学科入手，以训练人的思维及推理能力，而哲学更能把人提升到超物质的境界，为领悟启示的真理预备道路。

亚历山大里亚学派对基督宗教的神学反省影响极大，信与知、启示与理性、宗教与文化、神学与哲学等，在理论上已可和谐共融，而基督教义的基本系统亦慢慢奠定下来。犹太、希腊两种文化汇流在其中并找到适当的定位。比如在基督学中来自旧约的默西亚观念与来自希腊文化的罗葛斯构思并不互相排斥，还有柏拉图的“世界的灵魂”、斯多亚（Stoa）的“理”（nous）、及末期犹太思想的“智慧”，也可同时助人领悟基督的本性。

以后数世纪，特别通过奥斯定等西方神学家的钻研，这个已略有雏型的教义体系便得到进一步的巩固、发展，随着罗马帝国的灭亡及希腊文化的式微，基督宗教更成为一种新兴的主流文化，为往后十数世纪的西方思想掌舵。

6. 结语

这些零碎的反省很肤浅粗陋，所谈及的基督宗教初期的发展，与我们的中国文化也看似无关，但事实上，它对今日中国的精神文明有很大的启发性。在这短文中我未能将之发挥，只把它视作一个值得研究及反省的主题向大家提供，并希望能与大家分享一个信念，那就是，正如为中国人一样，为基督徒这个宇宙是一个能“通”的宇宙，天人可通，人与人之间可通，文化与文化之间可通，一切找寻真理的道路都可相通。这理念可鼓励我们，使我们怀着信心去踏上这新纪元，面对今天的地球一体化，努力去修建多些有助人类走向大同的丝路。

作者：周景勋

1. 源头活水

朱熹曾提过「为有源头活水来」的诗句，这使我反思到任何的一个文化、一种思潮、一个民族、一个学说、一种宗教、一个主义、一个社会都有其不同的源头，即开始或本根；也有其活水的流向，即传承与发展。若从「因果律」来说，我们可从「活水」，即文化或思想的传承所发展出的效果，推索出其必有源头本根的原因。于是，我们必须：

i. 查究源头的原创文献；按儒家的文献，可追溯到尚书中的洪范等内容，其原始面貌带有神话的色彩，却叙述了期间的民族生活经验的人文精神原创之迹，其内容不乏有神话中的宗教思想，徐复观也肯定地说：「人类文化，都是从宗教开始。」1罗光更说：

宗教的信仰在人类历史里，为一个普遍的现象。……又以神话为各民族文学和哲学的根源，这一项肯定乃历史事实，不是一种推测，大家必须接受。……这项事实则应生于人性的良能，不是经过思考而建立。……宗教信仰也是出于人性的自然，不是社会制度所构造。2

儒家思想追溯思想源头的原创文献，如「天乃锡禹洪范九畴，彝伦攸叙」（尚书），「天命靡常」（诗经大雅）等为据，以发展其人文精神，建立「天道」与「人道」相应的「以德配天」的人性论。

ii. 从儒家经典所言的内容得悉其思想转化的流向，有着一贯道统的传承，与原创思想不能分割，故孔子自己也说了：「述而不作」（论语述而），这个「述」字必有其内容依据，中庸篇清楚交代了：「仲尼祖述尧舜，宪章文武；上律天时，下袭水土。群如天地之无不持载，无不覆梼；辟如四时之错行，如日月之代明。万物并育而不相害，道并行而不相悖。」其后，儒家思想经过时代的转变，将原创文化的神话色彩转化，加上人的实际生活行动和思想体验的反省，开创了人文精神的德化宗教观。3

2. 由神话说起

神话的成立往往是将一个民族的原始体验，在未有文字记载时，以口谕的形式流传下来的，这体验解释了当时（时间）在不同的境地（空间）的认知课题，如神话可以「解释世界是如何产生的、世界上的居民如何出现的，以及世界为什么会拥有道德、精神及物质属性。」4神话的存在正是要揭示一个民族在「自然、社会、人性」的奥秘中所要寻找的答案，也显露了原始民族有意识的生活实践，和在生命现象中所要追求的终极关怀，从而刻划出一个民族的文学、哲学与宗教信仰的根源；在原创文化的根源里，我们可以「找到古圣先贤等的政治、道德的传统和道统观的基础。」5因为从神话的原始资料中，我们可以看到人类是怎样由文化的较原始阶段演进，而走向较文明的阶段，人类也逐渐地将自己在政治上和生活上的愿望掺入神话内，且化成传说流传下来，所以神话传说是一个民族精神文化的重要部分，它不仅表达一个民族的感情，「同时更能深一层地蕴含着一个民族对于宇宙存在的看法，对人类生活的愿望，以及对伦理、价值标准的判断。」6

然而，中国神话在文化中所要反映出的社会结构和价值体系之重点，在于伦理道德的人际关系上的集体意识，再以思维主体在观察的事实上，变成可体验的事实，即以主体的感觉、感情、欲望等体验，投射到有形的经验事实上，将「物」或「形」化作「灵」或「神」，这可说是「万物有灵」或「灵物有神」的论说，形成了不同的神话。7这些神话的表达有其本身的思维方式，都是原始民族的生活体验，和追求的终极关怀，展现生命的一种有限与无限的交感思想，尤其在人的生死之间所产生的矛盾与焦虑所形成的渴望，心理上要求生命的提升，好能产生高度的情感内容与信仰力量，这可说是民族宗教与社会信仰的呈现。8因为神话反映出人在自然和社会中的关联，就是反映出「自然」的神秘力量在人的思想中产生了一个动力，即人在无能为力与自然和社会互相抗衡下，宗教的观念随着人的思维，丰富了人的想像力，为自己创造了各种各样众多的神和一个变化万端、多姿多采的神的世界，这在中国历史中形成了「造神」的活动。9无怪乎研究中国神话的日本学者森三树三郎氏认为：「中国古代神话，以诸神列传开头，然后整理和叙述自然神话，人文神话，可是却没有试着去建立中国神话体系。」10中国神话虽然没有日本学者认为的整体体系，但中国神话有着自身的模式，且肯定了，神话是活在传统之中，有其实践性的礼仪为基础，这种仪礼信仰便是活的表现；从这表现中，我们可以看到一种「神格化」的内容的存在，如古代的占卜和祭祀。11从仪礼信仰中可看出「天、地、人」的宇宙三分的观念：天神世界、人间世界、地下世界。12在神话中，「天神」的宗教信仰是很重要的，人在生死中，因「生存意识」的自然流露，对「天神」的仪礼和祭祀在生活中作出表示。我们可从殷商时代甲骨文中所见对自然神的供奉，在祭祀用的器皿上面有动物的形象以作奉献的表示，这在原始民族的「生存意识」下，人盼望死后能继续生存，便是延续生存的宗教信念，「神话」便被创造出来。在人的文明进化中，人的思想理念变得更清晰，对自然的观察也更深邃，于是，「神话」的内容渐渐被人的反思转化为哲学的变体，如易经系辞中对「天、地、人」的诠释，孔子之「天道」与「人道」的德化思想，有其生命终极的追求和思维的哲学反省。

1. 徐复观，《中国人性论史（先秦篇）》，台湾　商务　民58（1969），「第二章　周初宗教中人文精神的跃动」，15。

2. 罗光（中华文化复兴运动推行委员会主编），《中西宗教哲学比较研究》，中央文物供应社发行　1982年2月版，「绪论」，1。

3. 徐复观，《中国人性论史（先秦篇）》，台湾　商务　民58(1969)，「第十四章　结论－－精神文化在开始时期的诸特性」，456-459。作者释：在探索源头和思想发展的过程中，必有启发和创新；源头的原创文化便是一种启发，加上时代的转变和生活的需求不同而有创新；原创文化有其不足之处，此便成为「启发与创新」的一种互补作用，才能形成「传承」之丰富思维。

4. 王平、张广保、沈培、李淑珍译，（美）克里斯蒂安．乔基姆，《中国的宗教精神》，中国华侨出版公司　1991，152。

5. 白川静（王孝廉译），《中国神话》，长安出版社　1986年二版，197。

6. 段芝，《中国神话》，地球出版社　1994年5月修订版，160-161。

7. 邓启耀，《中国神话的思维结构》，重庆出版社　1996，189-190, 274-284。神话的不同种类如：「图腾神话」、「人类起源神话」、「文化英雄神话」、「性或生殖神话」、「创世神话」等。

8. 参阅郑志明，《中国社会的神话思维》，谷风出版　1993，6-8。

9. 马晓宏，「中国传统文化中的造神运动」，《天、神、人》，国际文化出版　1988，「引言」，1-3。

10. 白川静（王孝廉译），《中国神话》，长安出版社　1986年二版，28-29。

11. 同上，200-201。

12. 叶舒宪，《中国的神话哲学》，中国社会科学出版社　1992，36-42。

3. 报本返始的追索

「万物本乎天，人本乎祖，此所以配上帝也。郊之祭也，大报本反始也。」（礼记．郊特性）

在神话的思维中，一切事物都有生命，有人性或灵性，有意志和感情；因此，报本返始的追索是寻觅本源的要求。我们可在神话中看到物我同一、天人交感的特征，这正是原始宗教－－万物有灵的功能，使人与自然有着一份平衡和协调；人为了与自然诸神、社会诸神取得一致，为了向神灵和始祖进行文化认同和心理认同，原始的自然崇拜、精灵崇拜、动植物崇拜、图腾崇拜、祖先崇拜、生殖崇拜等，仪礼的表达便演变成祭祀；祭祀的目的有着报本返始的追索，好使「天、地、人」重返和谐，「自然、社会、人性」展现融和均衡。在「人」的心理本性言，则有一种归属神明的崇拜，归属越彻底，心灵便越有实质的依靠，「天君」即心灵自得安和，这便是一种原始的宗教现象，先人便有祭祀天地山川和祖先崇拜的仪礼。然而，在历史的演变和人文精神发展的需求，祖先崇拜亦在社会的变形下，有所演进，如由氏族到部落以至国家，祖先神也由此而变成统一不同民族之祖先神的至上神所取代。－－「殷商时代，敬神、造神和乞神活动进入一个新的阶段；《礼记》〈表记〉云：『殷人尊神，率民以事神，先鬼而后礼。』在此期间完成了中国历史上泛神论迈向一神论的过渡，创造出『上帝』这个最高神祗，并且视上帝为自己的祖先。13上帝观念的出现，意味着国家统一以后，地上人间社会帝王的君权反映在天上的上帝，许多神的全部自然属性和社会属性，都转移到一个万物的神身上。」14

到了周代，更迈向了形而上的哲学思维，将殷人的上帝称为「天」，「天」更有创造和管理万物的力量：「天何言哉！四时行焉，百物生焉，天何言哉！」和「天生蒸民，有物有则，民之秉彝，好是懿德。」（诗经）可见，人若要事天敬天，必须有德，即「以德配天」。所以，周人提出「天命靡常」而须「敬德」以配，才能保天命于不坠的思想；且人因有德，便获天的垂眷，有德之人便能与天相契合，这与殷人相信祖先死后升天－－「宾于帝」的观念互相吻合。周人的敬天思想是从原始祖先崇拜的宗教信仰的转化中，赋予更超越「自然、社会、人性」的层面的形上诠译，「天」便变成了「人格神」，为万理之存有性基源的「实体」。15

由是，周人以「祭」探索生命的「本」和「始」，具体上必须以活生生的行为表达一份「报谢」的心意，和一份「返归」的渴求，好能配上帝；这份心意和渴求的实现在于「祭」。荀子清楚说出了「祭」的意义是人的一种崇德报恩的根本情感：「祭者，志意思慕之情，忠信爱敬之至矣。」（礼论）

「祭」既然是人表示饮水思源之感恩报本之情，就是将「天」或「上帝」视作自我主体外，超越主体的「客体」，能使万物有秩序地展现一统的和谐，这与神话中所要表示的「原始和谐」是一样的，如神话中的「女娲补天」便是说明了宇宙和谐的例子。故《礼记》〈祭义〉中有说：「圣人反本复始，不忘其所由生也。」就是要求人不忘生源之本的和谐；这份和谐有自然的一面，更有社会的一面，和「人性」的一面。

自然的一面可从「天何言哉！四时行焉，百物生焉，天何言哉！」得以确定。

社会的一面可从「凡治人之道，莫急于礼；礼有五经，莫重于祭。」（礼记．祭统）确立了「礼」乃使人走向和谐之治之道。人性的一面则在于「以德配天」。16孝能配天乃与「祭」有关，因《礼记．祭统》有言：「祭者，所以追养继孝也。」

「自然、社会、人性」的和谐在人的日常生活中是非常重要的，而中国古代宗教祭祀活动所求的也在于「和谐」，藉此展现了人类的「信仰」和「崇拜」的宗教意识，其内容不离乎「礼」与「德」，我们可从「礼有五经，莫重于祭」和「追养继孝」的「祭」可认知。17

儒家思想，由孔子开始，便作出更深入的反思；孔子继承了周初的「天命靡常」和「皇天无亲，惟德是辅」的思想，将「天道」无私的德化思想落实在人的道德生活中，又强调报本返始的重要，故有言：「慎终追远，民德归厚焉」（论语学而）的思想。我们亦可从中庸篇所言的：「祖述尧舜，宪章文武」找到孔子的「德化」思想有其根源之述，所以孔子说：「述而不作，信而好古」（论语学而），表示了孔子的思想乃继承殷周或以前的道德观念、礼制和宗教文化遗产，且取其益去其损的作出革新：「殷因于夏礼，所损益，可知也；周因于殷礼，所损益，可知也。其成继周者，虽百世，可知也。」（论语为政）在周代文化中强调了周公言德制礼，而孔子则说：「周监于二代，郁郁乎文哉！吾从周」（论语八佾），又言：「甚矣，吾衰矣！久矣，吾不复梦见周公」（论语述而）；可见，孔子崇敬周公的「兴正礼乐，度制于是改，而民和睦，颂声兴」（史记．周本纪），而推崇德化之治、礼乐之正人心，孝德配天和知天命等问题，以发挥其仁德配天的德化宗教观。

4. 儒家「以德配天」的德化宗教观

－－原始宗教思维的转化

儒家道统精神是以「尧、舜、禹、汤、文武、成王、周公、孔子」的一贯思想为根据；然而，此一贯思想在不同的时代转变与文化背景下，有着思维上的流动转化。在转化的过程上乃承接着原始宗教的神话色彩，如神话中的宗教观念及其表象的发达变化，使人能在「自然、社会、人性」的不同遭遇中把握一份更强化的生存意识；且在文化环境的变化下，神话中的宗教崇拜的对象也有所转变，即由现象界的实物崇拜演变为「人」的神化崇拜，如后稷因教人播植百谷之功而变成「农神」等。因着凸显了人的重要性，人的思维反省促成人的共通意识的变化，以及个人意识的强大化，于是，在生存意识中对「人与人」、「人与社会」的关系上产生一种统一整秩序的观念之要求－－「道德观念」的深化、「伦常意识」的显化：「在道德观念深化的意识下，神话的主角从威灵的纯化中被洗炼出来成为高贵化的道德王，如古代的尧（太阳神）、舜（农神）到了此时变成了修平治天下的仁君。……社会组织、政治组织的统一整序观念的兴起，使神话群也有了整齐化的系统，比如舜成了尧的臣子，禹又成了舜的臣子，而且彼此之间又有禅让的故事。」18

其实，在人的思维转化中，「道德观念」与「伦常意识」不是凭空驾驶出来的，乃人透过具体事物及现象的表呈所作出的思维反省和抽象作用，探索其缘起的根由，故有「形而上者谓之道，形而下者谓之器」（易系辞）的思想。由是，神话的内容在变化的过程中，渐渐地由形而上学来解释，更发挥了强大个人意识的宗教的目的和艺术的目的。19这种解释和目的促成了人在「自然、社会、人性」的不同层面下，寻求一个强化「生存意识」的信仰与理念，便形成了对「天」的信仰，和建立了「天道」的理念。例如书经和诗经中有记载：

有夏多罪，天命殛之。（书经汤誓篇）

天纹有典；……天秩有礼；……天命有德；……天讨有罪；……天聪明；……天明畏……。（书经陶谟篇）

天用剿绝其命，今予恭行天之罚……。（书经甘誓篇）

今予发，惟恭行天之罚。（书经牧誓）

维天之命，于穆不已。（书经维天之命）

自天降康，丰年穰穰。（诗经烈祖）

天命玄鸟，降而生商……。古帝命武汤，正域彼四方。（诗经玄鸟）

上帝既命，侯于周服。侯服于周，天命靡常。……殷之未丧师，克配上帝。……上天之载，无声无臭。……（诗经大雅文王）

天生蒸民，有物有则。民之秉彝，好是懿德。（诗经大雅蒸民）

天保定尔，亦孔之固。……天保定尔，俾尔戬谷。……天保定尔，以莫不兴。（诗经小雅天保）

昊天疾威，敷于下土。（诗经小雅小旻）

悠悠昊天，日父母且。无罪无辜，乱如此怃！昊天己威，予慎无罪；昊天泰怃，予慎无辜。（诗经小雅巧言）

明明上天，照临下土。……（诗经小雅小明）

从书经与诗经的内容中，我们可以看出「天」的信仰已有「唯一、至尊、无形无象、生人物、监临于人物、操赏罚」的思想。20可见，对「天」的信仰，大约在尧的时代或以前，就已经成为古代人类的主要宗教意识。然而，「天」的宗教观念会因不同的时代或不同的哲学思维而转化成不同的思想含意；这些转化可从书经与诗经在不同时代所言的内容得悉：从夏朝时代，「天」已被尊为至高无上的神，天命不可违背，帝王受命于天代管臣民，臣民服从帝王便是服从天命，其地位是不可动摇的。在殷周时代，已逐渐将「天」的信仰配与祖先信仰，提出「以德配天」的思想，「德」成为「天」的具体行动，如「天无私覆」的「无私之德」成为祖先、帝王与百姓共同的行为规范，凡违反「德」，即无德者，便会遭受天的惩罚，「天命」也会转移。落实人的行为，帝王称为「天子」，「德」便成了天子治理人民，教化人民的道德标准。尤其在周朝时代，「天」的观念已与人的行为和道德结合，21 更制定「礼乐」，建立「人与神」、「人与社会（家庭与国家）」、「人与人」的生活秩序和礼仪，于是人必须「敬天法祖」、「祭天以明天道」、「守天命以率性」。22

孔子承接了原始宗教思维的转化，更实事求是地把握了「天」的自然生化规律，及其高远莫测的伟大和无私之德－－「天何言哉？四时行焉，百物生焉，天何言哉？」（论语阳货）；于是，人的生活也当落实在生活规律中所要求的「德」上，藉此「德」以配天德。无德者便是与「天」相违背而逆理，他们在宗教仪式上的祭祀与祷告都是没用的，故孔子曰：「获罪于天，无所祷也。」（论语八佾）因此，孔子举了一个实例赞美尧之德能与天相配相准：

大哉，尧之为君也！巍巍乎，唯天为大，唯尧则之！荡荡乎，民无能名焉！巍巍乎，其有成功也！焕乎，其有文章！（论语泰伯）

另一方面，孔子更随周代的崇尚天道之下降于人的反思，以捕捉夏商周三代的「天道」与「人道」相应的根本精神：「周监于二代，郁郁乎文哉！吾从周。」（论语八佾）因为在周朝这个伟大的时代中：「天道观念比易书诗时代有更丰富的发展，范围更扩大，意义也更显着。……及其后引伸而成的『以天为统摄万有』的概念看；到春秋时代，当时人以为天道不仅生成及规范了人类万物，就是人文社会的一切，也都统摄在天道之内了。人生处处不可能离开天道，人也惟有依天道才能生存发展。人生在天地间顺天道而行当然是对的，但天道也是人所发现的，就这项事实说，人自身也该有其不可抹灭的价值……春秋时代的天道观念一面又有人对这种发展的本身加以反省，从而提出了由人自身开出的对天道反省的看法。」23再加上孔子所处的时代正是周代的「礼坏乐崩」的时期；因此，孔子最要紧的任务在于导引人由具体生活的规范里，寻回道德的准绳，于是孔子强调「焕乎，其有文章！」（论语泰伯）即尧所制订的「礼乐」，以及「吾从周」之「礼」。因为「礼」（合指礼乐）正代表了「人道」，24使人随「礼」修德，用「德」显礼以祭祀「天」。无怪乎中庸篇有言：

仲尼祖述尧舜，宪章文武；上律天时，下袭水土。群如天地之无不持载、无不覆梼：辟如四时之错行，如日月之代明。万物并育而不相害，道并行而不相悖。小德川流，大德敦化，此天地之所以为大也。

所谓「祖述尧舜」有道统义之「远宗尧舜的道理和礼乐而传述显扬之」的意思；亦有在生命根源的追溯上寻求生命终极的反省，即「万物本乎天，人本乎祖」的探求；故论语学而篇上有言：「慎终追远」的祭祀之礼，要人不忘本祖以发显祖先崇拜的宗教意味；然而，祭祖之礼在于「民德归厚矣。」的德化要求，好能使家国的生活道德风俗日趋于笃厚，如天之大德能敦厚化育，衍生无穷。

至于「宪章文武」的思想，已经是社会转化的内容，也就是说明孔子取法周礼而加以阐明，好能转化人的生命，使人人行礼而发扬本性之善性，活出仁德。因为孔子在「礼坏乐崩」的境况下再提出「礼」，故必须以「仁德」作为思想上的联系。

「礼」原是宗教性祭祀的仪节，我们可从字源上之「示」所代表与神祗有关得悉，也可从许慎「说文解字」所释了解：「礼者履也，所以事神致福也。」虽然，孔子时的周礼已将「礼」的范围扩大以涉及政治制度、社会规范和人行为的准则，但这绝不表示礼的宗教性被取代了。25反之，孔子以「仁德」（朱熹注：仁乃统摄诸德、或德之全者）涵统「礼」，以「仁德」配「天德」；由是，「礼」所追的便由「人」对「天」（神）的祭献，推而为「人」对「人」、「人」对「社会」的伦常道德的要求，修德成圣便是人的首务。然而，儒家思想视「德」是人与天相联结的内在因果基础，在「德」内具有宗教的性格：

德字原指人对天定法则所持的一贯态度；理想的德，是指这种态度表现于格遵天定法则的日常行为中。个人与天的交往要靠这种态度来维持；因此，德具宗教性格。到了周朝，德字进一步代表统治者所赏赐的恩惠（或者简单说来：仁慈），因为人们相信这种作法符合天的一项主要命令。于是，德自然而然在百姓心中产生敬爱与忠诚，并群起归向行德的人。26

其后，孟子更将「天」与人心相应，仁德乃人之善心善性，故有言：「夫仁，天之尊爵也，人之安宅也。」（公孙丑上篇）和「君子所性，仁义礼智根于心。」（尽心上篇）为了强调「心」之重要；孟子在肯定天生万物的终极根源：「且天之生物也，使之一本。」（滕文公上篇）之后，孟子更说出：「人之所以异于禽兽者几希！」这个「几希」就是「由仁义行」之仁义之心的天性（离娄下篇）；因此，孟子要求人必须「存心」以成为君子：「君子以仁存心，以礼存心。」（离娄下篇）倘若，一个人不能「存心」，便会放失「心之四端」，而为「非人」也：

无恻隐之心，非人也；无羞恶之心，非人也；无辞让之心，非人也；无是非之心，非人也。（公孙丑上篇）

可见，孟子由天所赋予人的善心善性，配以仁义礼智之「德」，好能揭开一个「天德」之本善落实于人心，而转化为人心之德的奥秘，由此奥秘中，我们可以看到孟子要求人明善诚身以把握「天道－－人道」之相合一体之道（尽心下篇），好能从人心之德中认知而体验天之内在人心的信仰，以把握生命终极的本源。所以孟子说：

尽其心者，知其性也；知其性，则知天矣。存其心，养其性，所以事天也。（尽心上篇）

我们由「尽心 (知性）知天」的认知进路中肯定孟子所言的「天」是内在于人而与人合一的；然而，在「天人合一」中，我们也可看出人要存养心性，即透过修身才能事奉「天」，又这便是修养的进路。「存心→养性→ 事天」；由修养进路可以肯定孟子所言的「天」又是超越的天。孟子这种「天」既内在于人又超越「天人合一」的奥秘的面纱。

5. 和谐衍生

反观中国的神话，实在是从人的「生存意识」中获得了奠基，也在共存精神下发挥潜在性的互融互通的包容性，其落实在中国文化中，给中国人带来多姿多采的宗教空间和神的世界。因此，我们从「神话」中可以探索中国原始宗教在「生存意识」下所表达的宗教信念，以及其所创造的神的世界，显示了神的多元化，更将宗教信念灌注在实际生活中，发展出一些生活的道德规范和准则，为其原始社会揭示出和谐的伦常关系，建立中国原创的人文精神和宗教向度，这可说是中国文化的「源头」。儒家便从「源头」的文化中找到了思维上的启迪，即从多元化的「神的世界」上找出一条综合的路向，将神话的生存意识转化成一种崇高的精神生活，那就是「天」的信仰，以天道下贯，人道上扬说明了：「天道－－人道」的相合一体的一元化关系，而以「德」作为思想信念的贯通，故人必须以「德」，即自我本性之善的「明德」，配合天之无私之德，说明了「以德配天」的关系，就是要表明「人」与「天（神）」的融通关系、「人」与「世界（社会）」的参赞化育关系、「人」与「人」的互爱关系，以建立和谐的大同理念。

和谐的大同理念像「活水」般在历史的洪流中，生生不息地流衍，也在人的内在生命中呈现和衍生；我们中国人自身便要肩负将文化活水的和谐，在新的历史中衍生的使命，而不是破坏或倒塞；因为破坏渡向灭亡，倒塞活水便成死水潭，必会发臭，不然，便会制造泛滥的大悲剧，因泛滥会做成破坏，终必灭亡。

13. 笔者按：文中所提出的「创造出『上帝』这个最高神祗」，实在不是创造，而是发现宇宙间有一个统管万有的「上帝」，这种发现依然与祖先神的观念相配合。到了周代，更迈向了形而上的哲学领域，且称上帝为「天」，「天」更有创造的力量，如诗经上所言：「天何言哉！四时行焉，百物生焉，天何言哉！」和「天生蒸民，有物有则，民之秉彝，好是懿德。」人若要事天，必须有德，即「以德配天」。所以，周人提出「天命靡常」而须「敬德」以配，才能保天命于不坠。其后更有天眷顾有德的人，因有德之人能配天，故能与天契合，这与殷人相信祖先死后升天－－「宾于帝」的观念互相吻合。

14. 王祥龄，《中国古代崇祖敬天思想》，台湾　台湾学生书局　1992，2-3。

15. 同上，4。

16. 王晖，《商周文化比较研究》，人民出版社　2000年5月，4。「《孝经．圣治》说：『人之行莫大于孝，孝莫大于严父，严父莫大于配天。』其书《感应》篇也说：『子曰：昔者明王，事父孝，故事天明；事母孝，故事地察。……天明地察，神明彰矣！』《孝经》谓严父配天，并把事奉父母和事奉天地联系起来，是周代人的思想，周厉王所做　簋铭文就说『有余虽小子，余亡康昼夜，经庸先王，用配皇天』。」我们由「严父配天」可推想为「慈德」配天和「孝德配天」，儒家思想的「以德配天」亦是由此而来。

17. 王祥龄，《中国古代崇祖敬天思想》，台湾　台湾学生书局　1992，23-24。为何言：「礼有五经，莫重于祭」？笔者认为这与「信仰」和「崇拜」有关，即「礼」不只是人与人的治道和人际关系的规范，而是与殷商的「上帝」，周代的「天」或祖先亡灵、自然崇拜、祖先崇拜等有关，如王祥龄着，《中国古代崇礼敬天思想》中所言：「根据文字记载，我国古代宗教祭祀活动在人们的日常生活中，占着相当重要的地位，《左传》成公十三年云：『国之大事，在祀与戎。』就是对祭祀文化的重要性所作的记载。且在《礼记》〈祭统〉里更将祭祀视为礼之经，并尊祭礼为五经之首，故云：『凡治人之道，莫急于礼；礼有五经，莫重于祭。』郑康成注云：『礼有五经，谓吉礼、凶礼、宾礼、军礼、嘉礼也。莫重于祭，谓以吉礼为首也。大宗伯职曰：「以吉礼事邦国之鬼神祗。」』由知，吉礼乃对创国立业之鬼神祗的祭祀。换言之，也就是对立国之先人－－祖先之鬼神祗的祭祀。在论及祭祀时，必涉及到宗教活动中的『信仰』与『崇拜』两个既有联系又有区别的概念。……信仰是一种思想的信念；必然涉及到人的意识活动，透过人的意识活动所展现于外的崇拜，都是这些信念的表现形式，并且围绕这些信念而旋转。因此，各种崇拜皆是以一定的信仰为其前提条件，信仰和崇拜共同构成了宗教意识的活动。……中国古代先氏们透过宗教祭祀活动，认识世界，认识人自身以及人与自然的关系……。」

18. 王孝廉，《中国的神话与传说》，联经出版事业公司　1985，1-4。

19. 同上，4-5。

20. 罗光（中华文化复兴运动推行委员会主编），《中西宗教哲学比较研究》，中央文物供应社发行　1982年2月版，23-61。罗光教授认为：「从商朝到民国，对于『天』或『帝』的信仰，乃是我中华民族的正式宗教信仰。」（第49页）又说：「中华民族从有史以来，即表现信仰一位至高的尊神，这位尊神称为『帝』，又称为『天』；在历史上越往上溯，对于尊神的信仰越深越诚。」（第21页）

21. 马晓宏著，「中国传统文化中的造神运动」，《天．神．人》，国际文化出版公司　1988，35-36。

22. 罗光（中华文化复兴运动推行委员会主编），《中西宗教哲学比较研究》，中央文物供应社发行　1982年2月版，63-66。

23. 黄湘阳，《先泰天人思想论述》，文史哲出版社　1984年初版，63-65。

24. 傅佩荣，《儒道天论发微》，台湾　台湾学生书局　1985年10月初版，96。

25. 傅佩荣，《儒道天论发微》，台湾　台湾学生书局　1985年10月初版，98。

26. 孟洛（Donald Munro）在《德概念之起源》一文中所确定的内容。此文乃录自他的着作：《早期中国的人概念》（The Concept of Man in Early China），史丹福大学　1969，185。（参阅傅佩荣，《儒道天论发微》，台湾　台湾学生书局　1985年10月初版，45。）

作者：谭沛泉

引言

每一个热切地灵修的信徒都希望常常在生活中感受到上主的同在。这是一个容易理解的愿望。然而，灵修却不一定带来甜蜜的经验；学习灵修的信徒也应该同时学习接纳「灵枯」的经验。「灵枯」的意思是心灵枯竭。当我们落在「灵枯」状况的时候，我们会对恒常的灵修工夫失却了兴趣，也不能在生活中处处体验上主的临在。

为甚么会有「灵枯」的经验出现呢？灵枯状况主要由三个因素所形成的。第一个因素是出自人的本身。当一个信徒疏于灵修操持，没有积极热切的渴慕上主，又或者是因为受过去负面的经历的影响，以致祈祷、灵修生活出现困难时，他/她极有可能落在「灵枯」的境况。第二个因素是出自「那恶者」的诡计。「那恶者」往往从人成长中的负面经验入手来作出试探，使人在罪中作乐，盲目地追求过去未完成的欲望；又或者使人产生无故的焦虑和沮丧。被试探所胜的信徒与上主疏远，心灵干涸。出自第一及第二种因素的「灵枯」是比较容易理解的。依纳爵罗耀拉（Ignatius Loyola, 1491-1556）在他的属灵操练（Spiritual Exercises）中提出了辨别这两类「灵枯」的原则。最后，形成「灵枯」的第三个因素是出于上主的恩典；意思是，上主引导那些恒切专心祈祷的人进入「灵枯」。出于上主恩典的「灵枯」经验并不比其他因素所造成的「灵枯」容易面对；它同样带来心灵的疲惫和空虚。然而，这种「灵枯」是一个洗炼信心和爱心的过程，是一个「伪装的祝福」。

毫无疑问，「灵枯」是一种心灵的痛苦；对于那些热切渴慕上主的人而言，不能够感受到上主的临在是一种极大的悲哀。旧约诗篇第四十二篇充份流露出一个人在「灵枯」中的心灵吶喊：「我几时得朝见神呢？我昼夜以眼泪当饮食，人不住的对我说，你的神在那里呢？」（诗42:23）旧约圣经约伯记故事中的主角不单祇经历到肉身的苦楚，还进入了极深的「灵枯」。约伯咒诅自己的出生，多次求死，以了断一切心灵及肉身的痛苦，因为他在自己的处境中看不见上主的临在。事实上，约伯记的故事中包含了以上所提出的三个造成「灵枯」的因素。约伯的朋友认为约伯无故受到身心之苦的原因是出自约伯本人，是约伯「自食其果」。然而，约伯记故事的开始却暗示了另一个造成约伯受苦的「凶手」，是撒但那「幕后主脑」为约伯制造一个又一个的苦难。但是，约伯记的故事峰回路转，到了故事的末段才揭开苦难的真相；约伯终于明白过来，上主使一切发生的苦难，成为他更深地认识上主和认识自己的媒介。同样地，出自上主恩典的「灵枯」可以使我们的信仰更趋成熟，成为更加爱人及爱神的人。

为甚么心灵枯竭的经验是上主的祝福呢？将「灵枯」和「恩典」放在一起不是一种矛盾吗？在甚么情况之下才会出现所谓「出自上主恩典的灵枯」呢？以下让我先介绍基督教传统中的两个祈祷进路，继而再借用十架约翰（John of the Cross, 1542-1591）和亚维拉的杜丽莎（Teresa of Avila, 1515-1582）的见地，来勾划祈祷进展的不同阶段。最后，我会探讨上主如何引领信徒进入「灵枯」及信徒如何在「灵枯」的境况中学习自处。

祈祷的进路

在基督教的灵修传统中，有所谓「光明与黑暗」，或者是「肯定与否定」的祈祷进路的划分。所谓「光明之路」，就是基督徒的灵程越走越光明。生于二世纪末的希腊教父俄利根（Origen, ca. 185-255）就是「光明之路」的提倡者。他用以色列人出埃及、入迦南的历程来比喻信徒的属灵行踪。俄利根认为我们的灵程要走过三段路，而且一段比一段更光明。第一段路是出埃及、过红海，比喻我们的悔改经历，包括如何离开罪恶，洗心革面，立愿追随上主。第二段路是以色列人漂泊在沙漠的饥渴日子中，仍然有上主及时的凉水和食物的供养。这比喻我们在世上寄居的日子仍然可以在灵修、祈祷中经验到上主抚慰心灵、加添力量。第三段路是进入迦南应许之地，永远作上主的子民，这比喻我们终有一天可以离开寄居之地，进到上主应许的乐园里，永远与上主同在。以上所描述的就是一条由黑暗而渐渐进入光明的灵修进路。相信这个光明的进路是很多信徒都不会觉得陌生的。

但是，在俄利根死后不足一百年，基督教历史中出现另一位对灵修祈祷的理论和实践影响至巨的教父。尼撒的贵哥利（Gregory of Nyssa, ca. 355-395）同样用摩西领以色列人出埃及的故事来形容信徒祷告的心路历程。但是他所提出的是一条由光明渐渐进入黑暗之路。他解释说，起初摩西从荆棘火焰中经验到上主的临在（出3章），这是个光明的开始。但继续的历程则不是那般的甜蜜；摩西进入一层比一层更深的黑暗中。在出埃及记19章18节，摩西上了西乃山，山上烟气上腾如烧一般，摩西就在这种黑暗中接受了上主的吩咐。到了出埃及记33章，摩西进入更深的黑暗，他在云柱遮盖的会幕门前，祈求认识那位呼召他的上主，但上主却说，他不能见到上主的面。这比喻信徒的祷告历程，是始于光明甜蜜的经历，继而渐次进入黑暗灵枯的状况中。

这个「黑暗之路」的理论其实是可以颇为贴切地用来描绘我们的祈祷经验。在一般的情况之下，我们在相信主的初期在祈祷中常常有「灵慰」的经验，感到上主很亲近；但当我们相信主已经有一段颇长的时间之后，我们很可能逐渐失去了起初甜蜜的祈祷生活；虽然我们仍然恒常的祷告、灵修，却感到心灵枯竭，彷佛是上主与我们远远疏离。

另一个形容祷告经验的对比是「肯定之路」与「否定之路」（via positiva和via negativa）。「肯定之路」是藉所造之物来参透上主的临在，是从造物的美善和人高尚的情、义、爱顾中联想到上主的永能和神性。「肯定之路」是具体、积极和甜蜜的，因为祈祷者积极地运用理性思维的能力，从上主的造物和《圣经》这些具体的事物中，悟思上主的永能和神性，继而心受感动地回应上主的同在。而「否定之路」并不是否定上主所造万物的价值；其重点乃在于放弃将上主和万物作绝对的类比，因为上主的永能和神性远远超越于人从造物中所能联想到的真、善和美。

六世纪的伪狄奥尼西亚（Pseudo-Dionysius）就是「否定神学」（Negative Theology）的先锋。他指出，最适切用来描述神的语言，不应该是肯定的，因为神是超出我们的联想。我们当然可以借助联想来认识神，但至终必须完全承认，人的联想不能局限神。例如，我们可以形容神为君王，以表达神的主权和威荣；但我们必须同时承认，神不是人所能够想像到的君王。这样做法的结果是，人祇能对神有否定性的认识；即是说，神不是君王，不是牧者，不是父亲等等。明显地，「否定之路」是较为抽象、沉静和令人不安的。采取否定进路的祷告者会歇止强硬性的思维联想，不依赖形象的帮助，默默地处于对上主无知的心灵黑暗状态之中。

到此，让我们总结一下两种不同进路的祈祷经验。首先，具积极性的「光明/肯定之路」强调以下几点：（1）越积极的默想或做灵修工夫，越能体会上主的临在；（2）默想大自然和《圣经》是有效的，往往产生甜蜜的经验﹔（3）上主的临在是形象化的，祈祷者很容易描述上主和自己的关系；（4）在情感上感受上主的临在是重要的，且被视为属灵经验的证据。我相信「光明/肯定之路」是大部份信徒所熟悉和采取的灵修进路。但是，一般信徒对「黑暗/否定之路」就比较陌生。「黑暗/否定之路」的特点刚刚与「光明/肯定之路」的相反：（1）越进深的灵修，越不敢断言上主是如何亲蜜的同在；（2）对各种的默想操练无积极、甜蜜的反应；（3）不能形象化地联想上主；（4）没有轰烈感人的宗教情感。以上两个进路的对比也可以用「灵慰」和「灵枯」来表达。「光明/肯定之路」相信祈祷至终必定带来「灵慰」，而「黑暗/否定之路」相信「灵枯」是祈祷进深的特征。然而，我们怎样界定一个信徒是进入了「否定/黑暗」的心灵之旅呢？「光明/肯定」和「否定/黑暗」这两个进路是否互相排斥的呢？我希望在下文探讨这些问题。

祈祷的成长

迦密修会（Carmelite）的两位修道者十架约翰和亚维柆的杜丽莎，对于基督徒祈祷的进深历程有颇深入的阐释。他们均认为，一个基督徒的灵修生活一般是以「思维默想」（discursive prayer）开始的。在这阶段中，祷告者运用记忆、理解和意志去祈祷默想，渴望亲近上主。而默想的内容往往包括自己的罪和上主的恩佑。依纳爵的「属灵操练」就是以默想自己的罪作为起步的。根据杜丽莎的祈祷象喻，「思维默想」这个默想阶段就好像人用桶打水，去浇灌花园，工夫虽然花了很多，但心灵的花园仍然干涸。1

当一个基督徒在灵修、祈祷上日渐进步，就不再需要刻意地运用记忆、思维和想像力去默想上主。这时候，默想来得自然轻省，灵修的人也慢慢地感觉到自己开始向往安然地静默在上主之内，无需刻意去想某些经文或从造物中联想上主。这就是所谓「情感的祈祷」（affective prayer）阶段。在这祈祷阶段的基督徒自发性地作爱心服事的工作，充满感激之情，热切地渴慕上主。杜丽莎认为在这阶段的信徒很多﹔但是他们并非没有弱点，他们应该注意自己有自满和好作师傅的倾向。但很可惜，认真自省的祈祷者不多。结果是，很多信徒就停留在这甜蜜而热心的阶段。

但假若有人虚心渴求，就会「更上一层楼」。2这时，那人的祈祷就越来越简单，对于多样化的默想已有点扰乱心神的感觉，却满足于祇以一字一语向上主倾吐心意。东方教会的「耶稣祷文」（Jesus Prayer）是这类「简朴祷告」（prayer of simplicity）的其中一个例子。这个阶段称为「达至的静观」（acquired contemplation），意思是人所能追求操练而达到的「静观」。3

在未谈到比「达至的静观」更深入的祷告经验之前，先简单介绍「静观」一词的意思。中文「静观」或「默观」（contemplation）一词是译自拉丁文contemplatio一字。而拉丁文contemplatio是译自希腊文theoria一字。其实最早谈及「静观」和实践「静观」的人并不是基督教徒。早自柏拉图的哲学思想中，「静观」的概念和实践已经清楚可见。基督教在希腊的社会文化中渐渐自成一家的过程中，不断和希腊的哲学思想对话。教父如亚力山大的革利免（Clement of Alexandria）、俄利根（Origen）及尼撒的贵哥利（Gregory of Nyssa）等均吸纳新柏拉图主义的思想，但却巧妙地把它融合于基督教的信仰体系之中，使之基督化。于是本来纯粹是哲学意味的theoria一字，在教父们的笔下转化成为一种出自爱而体验得到的知识，并非纯粹是人理性思维的结果。而这种知识的对象是三位一体的神，不再是不能命名、抽象或非位格化的真、善和美。再者，教父们强调，人能静观超越的神是因为神成为肉身，在基督里把神与人中间的鸿沟废除。换句话说，人可以静观神，因为神先静观我们。

拉丁教会后来则用contemplatio一字来描写人对神的静观。拉丁文的contemplatio在一般的用法上，是指人对神的专注和相交。4但当contemplatio一字要用来表达一种人与神密契式的关系时，往往会附加形容字在前。多玛．阿奎拿（Thomas Aquinas）就用「倾注的静观」（infused contemplation）一词来形容人对神深入而直接的认识。这种神人密契式的相交的产生是因为神作主动。从人的角度看，这是神倾注自己，进入祈祷者的生命中，绝非人靠自力、本能可以追求达至的。总括而言，「静观」一词有广义及狭义两种用法。从广义的角度而言，「静观」可以和「祈祷」一词共通，因为它是指基督徒深度的沉思静祷、专注仰慕上主的一种修持和情操；静观的狭义意思是指一个迈向神人密契的相交经验和历程。

现在我们继续探讨祷告的进展阶段。从「达至的静观」阶段再进展的话，就有可能进入「倾注的静观」阶段。但是，从「达至的静观」而过渡到「倾注的静观」是非静观者所能支配的，也非静观者所能渴望、期待而获得的。「倾注的静观」是「达至的静观」自然所结的果子，是上主恩典的作为。意思是，静观者继续不断作简朴的祷告，专注心中对上主的向往；慢慢地，需要言语的感觉减到很低，甚至爱不言不语，就默默地处于一片空灵之中。此时，静观者意识到上主的临在，但不能言喻；形像式的语言无法表达所意识到的上主，况且也不想用言语去规限倾注于心灵中的上主。有时候静观者的理智和思维能力因为上主完全的倾注而瘫痪，甚至不能如常地活动及思考。「倾注的静观」往往是在不为祈祷者所预期的情况下发生，全然是上主的恩典。

「倾注的静观」又被称为「黑暗或模糊的祷告」（dark or obscure prayer），因为人的心思失去对神清晰的形像和观念，彷佛在黑暗中「看见」神，但却「看不见」神是怎样的；或者说，「知道」上主，但却不知道自己「知道」甚么。这正正是「黑暗/否定之路」的祈祷经验。

初尝黑暗、灵枯滋味的祈祷者彷佛觉得被云雾包围，不能清楚地描述神的形像，不能作概念性的祷告，只能在黑暗中呼叫所信的主。这是一种颇为痛苦的属灵经验。有些操练静观的人不能忍受黑暗、灵枯所带来的不安和无助，就极力再做思维的默想，盼望再度「看见」神，重新「感受」神的同在。但十架约翰劝勉说，这些人不知道这些痛苦是上主在我们心中燃点爱火的必然结果﹕「当母亲要亲自抱他们（祈祷的人）在怀中时，他们却要哭着挣扎落地行走。」5所以，十架约翰又说，虽然静观的经验会造成心灵的不安，甚至痛苦，但基督徒不应抗拒，只管接纳和回应上主的爱。

当静观者不回避黑暗不安的感觉，继续专注于心中微微燃点的爱火的时候，慢慢地，那爱的火花会蔓延成为熊熊烈火，焚烧静观者整个内在的生命。结果，静观者的每一个行动和决定都出自爱的源头。「老我」已化为灰烬，剩下的祇有上主的爱。就如十架约翰所用的比喻说：「一块潮湿的木头，放在火中，起初引起浓烟；较后，水份烧干，然后裂开，这时，木头已化成火焰了。」6又如保罗所说的﹕「不再是我，乃是基督在我身上活着。」（加2:20）「倾注的静观」是一种神人密契的经历，虽然祈祷的人在理性、思维上全然黑暗，却能意识到上主就在自己里面，与自己密契成一。十架约翰和杜丽莎均形容这种神人合一的经验为「神婚」。

总括而言，静观祷告的进展阶段连接了「光明/肯定」和「黑暗/否定」的两个进路。若没有先经过「光明之路」，「黑暗之路」是不会出现的；若有人没有好好地操练默想祈祷，就说自己正走在黑暗灵枯之路上，他就是自欺欺人，亲手制造无知的黑暗疑团把自己和别人都困在里面。另一方面，若有人只向往光明、积极和甜蜜的灵修经验，而不知道尚有黑暗否定之路可行，他就会试尽一切的默想祷告方法去保持或重拾光明、甜蜜的感受，并认为只要努力祈祷、灵修，就可以更感到上主的亲近。但当有一天对灵修默想感到疲乏和觉得淡而无味之时，就不知如何是好；结果可能是放弃灵修，甚至乎放弃信仰。

1. Saint Teresa of Avila (trans. Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez), The Book of Her Life, in The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Carmelite Studies 1987) 114-115.

2. 其实应该说是「更内进一层楼」，因为杜丽莎在《内心楼台》（ Interior Castle）一书中比拟基督徒的祈祷成长历程为螺旋式地渐渐进入最深入、最核心的楼房。

3. 大约三十年前在美国有几位熙笃会的修士（Cistercian monks）先后推动所谓「归心祈祷」（Centering Prayer）的运动，他们相信这种发展自属灵阅读（Lectio Divina）的祈祷有助我们从思维和感受性的祈祷阶段过渡到「静观」的祈祷阶段。参M. Basil Pennington, Centering Prayer: Renewing an Ancient Christian Prayer Form (New York: Doubleday Image, 1980)

Gustave Reininger (ed.), Centering Prayer in Daily Life and Ministry (New York: Continuum, 1998).

4. 例如，当contemplatio用来描述「属灵阅读」（Lectio Divina）的第四部份时（第一是lectio，第二是meditatio，第三是oratio），是指阅祷的人安享于上主的临在，让心思言语歇止于上主默然同在的一刻。

5. Saint John of the Cross (trans. Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez), The Ascent of Mount Carmel,in The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Carmeliate Studies 1991) 115.

6. Saint John of the Cross, Living Flame of Love, ibid., 648

灵枯的成因

当我们对基督徒祈祷生活的进路理论及成长阶段有所认识之后，就比较容易回答最初所提出的一连串问题：为甚么上主会领我们进入「灵枯」呢？为甚么心灵枯竭的经验是上主的祝福呢？在甚么情况之下才会出现所谓「出自上主恩典的灵枯」呢？

「出自上主恩典的灵枯」是一种莫大的祝福，因为这表示上主全然临在我们的生命中，纵然我们不能在情感和思维上感受或联想上主。或许我们可以用光作类比来形容这种表面上是咒诅，实质上是祝福的灵枯经验。我们处于这种灵枯状况就好像被强烈耀眼的光芒照射眼睛，以致短暂失明，不能「看见」上主。但是，那道强烈耀眼的光芒就是上主的临在。因为上主的临在，正如那度光一样，是那么的完全、具体，人的肉眼，就是我们的理性、情感，不能抵受，以致失明。换句话说，这种灵枯经验所指的「不能看见」上主，并不是说上主离开了，乃是说上主太接近了，超出我们有限的理性和情感所能容纳的幅度。

上主赐予这种灵枯的恩典，为要拆毁我们心中对上主的形象，以致我们不再规限上主于我们的认知或经验上。很多时候，我们没有开放心灵容让上主以祂的方式来与我们相遇；于是，寻找上主变成只是寻找一个为满足自己的假象。梁宗溢神父说得好，「天主按自己的肖像造了人，但人往往却以自己的形象去塑造天主。我们以自己的方式把天主定型，我们渴望遇见一位我们心中认为是如此这般的天主。」7「灵枯」的出现就正正教导我们，要让神真正作神，不是作我们的偶像﹔既然上主不是我们的偶像，我们就不能清楚界定说上主是怎样的。这种对上主的信心就是所谓「不知道的知道」（knowing in unknowing）。

甚么人才会经历到上主所引导的灵枯呢？十架约翰相信，出自上主恩典的灵枯只会发生在祈祷生活十分成熟的人身上。他认为在祈祷生活上成熟的人是经过了思维默想的阶段，也曾经持之以恒地作简朴的祷告，而最后乃安于静默归心的祷告。他们没有刻意地追求进入「倾注的静观」阶段，他们只是专心渴慕上主。他们就这样慢慢地在祈祷的经历上不断演变，直到一天当他们回顾过去的祈祷经历时，才知道自己已进入了「倾注的静观」所带来的灵枯经验。事实上，只有在祈祷生活上成熟的人才能够承担这种灵枯的经验，因为他们有足够的信心和爱心去接受上主的洗炼。当他们不能再以情感去感受上主的临在的时候，他们仍相信上主没有离开他们。当他们不能再以过去认知的形象来描述上主的时候，他们不会被那「不知之云」夺去心中对上主的爱。

除了在祈祷生活上成熟的人会经历上主引导的「灵枯」之外，受苦难打击的人也同样会体验到类似的「灵枯」。苦难的拆毁性是难以招架的。但从信仰的角度来看，苦难的拆毁性也有一点好处（可能是唯一的好处）。这话何解？当苦难破碎我们的身心、夺去我们所珍惜的东西时，也同时将我们心中的「偶像」拆毁了。在面对苦难的过程中，我们感到上主遥远而沉默，不再有甜蜜的祈祷经验，过去对上主的认识和信念大受冲击。我们问：「上主在那里？」「上主是一位怎样的主﹖」苦难迫使我们放弃过去对上主的认识和信念，我们彷佛感到过往所信的上主是不真实的，同时发现心中一直存在的上主的形象完全与现实的经历脱节。我们顿时对上主感到陌生，甚至觉得上主是难以捉摸。换句话说，我们不能再相信过去所相信的「上主」；但不是因为过去所相信的「上主」不再可信，只是因为过去所相信的「上主」不是「上主」自己，而是我们所向往和依赖的「偶像」。换上约伯的表达方式，就是我们「从前风闻有你，现在亲眼看见你。」（伯42：5）苦难不是上主对我们的咒诅；但发生在我们身上苦难可以是上主的伪装祝福，引领我们更真实地认识上主和自己的本相。

十架约翰也曾经受过相当大的痛苦和折磨，但他却在苦难中写下最深奥的灵修诗章－－《属灵情歌》（Spiritual Canticle）。十架约翰被同一修道会的弟兄出卖，被同门师兄弟软禁、鞭打，被困在漆黑的小房间中忍受自己排泄物的臭味。在身心饱受煎熬的几个月内，他反覆思想。但最终他也没有失去对上主的信心，反而在苦难、黑暗的日子中学会了不断的放弃，包括放弃过去对上主的认识。正因为他如此地放弃对上主的认知，他可以认识真正的上主；当他过去所认识的「上主」消失了，不再占据他的心灵，那位真正的主就如爱人一般临近，进入他内心的密室。他在《登上迦密山》（The Ascent of the Mount Carmel）卷一中这样分享他对「舍弃」这门功课的体会：「要在万物中得到满足，就要渴望甚么都不拥有；要认知万物，就要渴望甚么都不知道；要得到万有，就要渴望无所拥有；要成为万有，就要渴望成为无有。」8

近代研究成长心理学和灵修之间的关系的学者们提出了一点：静观的祈祷与静观者的生理、心理成长阶段及其品性、气质有密切的关系。一般认为，进入静观祷告阶段的基督徒占大多数是中年或以上的人，而静观祷告的方式比较适合内向个性和富强烈直觉的人。因此，我们可以这样总结地说，在受上主引导之下而经历「灵枯」的人很可能是中年以上，并且在祈祷生活上不断追求进深的人；而假如苦难临到这样的人的时候，心灵枯涸的经验能够催使他们反思信仰、检视与上主的关系，继而甘愿放弃对上主偏执的认识，让上主真正作他们生命之主。

7. 「从神操中的对祷（53号）看基督徒的皈依」，《神思》（6），（1990）21-28。

8. Op cit., 110.

在灵枯中自处

因为「灵枯」并不是一种舒服的经验，想办法逃避「灵枯」是很自然的反应。但是，逃避的做法使我们不能成长。假若我们真的经历「灵枯」，就应尽量学习与之共处，忍耐地从「灵枯」的经验中更深的认识上主和认识自己。我在以下提出一些具体的建议：

1. 首先，假若我们是相信主多年并且是步入中年的信徒，我们要学习接纳自己在信仰和灵修的观念和实践上有所转变。我们无需惊惧自己的灵修方式、兴趣或经验已经不像昔日的热切和甜蜜。转变本身并不是一件坏事，乃在乎我们转变的方向和自己对上主渴慕的心是否减退。

2. 假若我们开始对口祷感到赘累，或对思维默想失去反应，我们要学习顺其自然，不要强迫自己多做一点，以求重寻昔日的甘甜滋味；也不应立即放弃，认为自己已经「升级」，进入另一更高境界。我们的注意力要集中于上主，不要与别人比较，只要脚踏实地，让上主引导我们活每一天。

3. 假若我们喜爱静祷或心祷，也不要自视超群，「众人以为美的事，要留心去作。」（罗12：17）我们要学习与喜爱默想和口祷的人一同祈祷，尊重别人的祈祷生活、经验和方式，因为「不爱他所看见的弟兄，就不能爱没有看见的神。」（约壹4：20）常常标榜自己的祈祷境界的人容易走错方向，因为他们以追求境界来取代追求上主，或只管自己祈祷、独处，而不愿关顾邻舍和朋友。我们不可忘记，真正的虔诚是看顾在患难中的孤儿寡妇（雅1:27）。

4. 当「灵枯」的经验着实地出现的时侯，不要妄下断语，说自己是受上主洗炼信心、是上主的祝福。我们务必小心分辨。引至「灵枯」的原因可以是多方面的；「灵枯」可能是出于我们自己对灵修工夫的疏懒，可能是我们的身体疲乏、心灵的创伤未愈，也可能是我们患上慢性抑郁病，又或者是出自「那恶者」的试探。因此，我们要常作良心省察，检视自己的心灵动态是否有所偏倚。我们或许需要找一位灵修导师分享经验，来帮助自己分辨「灵枯」的成因是否出自上主的恩典，抑或是源于其他因素。

5. 在经历「灵枯」时，我们仍要保持祈祷和敬拜的习惯，纵使我们对这些活动可能全无感触。与此同时，我们不适宜在这期间作重大的决定。我们在这些特别混乱及矛盾的日子中，极需要学习温柔和忍耐地对待自己、对待别人和对待上主。总言之，我们要学习以平常心来面对「灵枯」。

6. 上主引导的「灵枯」为要净化我们的生命和洗炼我们对上主的信心，因此，我们应当在「灵枯」的境况中学习放手，不再执着过去上主同在的甜蜜感受，要甘心让心中故有、既定的神形象消失。这需要我们对上主极大的信心，而这种信心不是建基于理性上对上主的认识，也不是因为在情感上感受到上主亲近我们；这是一种在没有安全感、没有把握之下对上主的信仰。

7. 当我们在「灵枯」的状况中，极需要一位灵修导师与我们一起同行。但我们寻求灵修指导的目的并不是因为灵修导师可以有办法带领我们离开「灵枯」的状况。一位有经验的灵修导师会帮助我们分辨「灵枯」的性质，和提醒我们如何在「灵枯」的经历中自处，并鼓励我们耐心地接纳和跟随上主的引导。

by John F. Ahearn M.M.(杨正义)

Some Reflections Concerning

The Process of the Indigenization of the Liturgy with

Special Reference to the Diocese of Hong Kong

In recent years, there has been much written concerning the question of adaptation or more properly indigenization of the Litury. There have also been many experiments or attempts at such, but all too often such attempts have not necessarily been informed by theology, liturgical science or in-depth understanding of culture and its relationship to the liturgy.

In this short paper, I shall offer no new theories of how to indigenize the Liturgy, but rather offer some reflections towards a method of adaptation or inculturation. I wish not to establish a method but rather to raise some of the seminal questions that I feel should precede any further attempts at experimentation or proclamations that particular rites or ceremonies are "truly Chinese" or "truly local".

I believe that the need to examine the underpinnings of this question is crucial lest we make mistakes that will eventually warp or even disfigure the true development of worship here in China.

The Inculturation of the 'Faith'

The first question that I think should be faced and examined very carefully is the very question of the need to inculturate the FAITH -- that is, the lived Gospel message into a particular community and culture. This is the basic question - how and in what ways is the Catholic Faith rooted in a people, specifically the peoples of Hong Kong and China? How is the Faith proclaimed? In what ways is the Faith allowed to break loose from its cultural vehicle and develop by very fact of being rooted in Chinese culture?

The question of how the faith is communicated, received and embraed points to the perception of God in Christ and lived out in a community of this Faith. The Body of Faith cannot be reduced to simply ethical moral values or "laws" or "commandments" but should rather express itself primarily in "relationship" that transforms and focusses all aspects of human life.

The Experience of God

It seems to me that the "experience of God" which should take hold of a person during the conversion process, as in the case of a catechumen, or in the case of a person baptized in their youth, as faith develops must be that which is longed for again and again in worship. This of course points to the contemplative dimension of Christian life which sadly seems to be lacking in most approaches to catechesis in parish life. It is safe to say that unless the Christian life is interiorized, Christian worship remains simply compulsive actions that do not express the Chrsitian purpose which is to be with God.

This is a particularly telling problem for Hong Kong Christians who have a background, culturally, of traditional religious practice and customs. It would be very interesting to conduct a survey of the various perceptions of God that exist among our Catholic faithful. There are many whose faith might be said to be a veneer over a "cultural" perception of God akin to the Old Testament concept or God as one of many in the pantheon of Taoist influence.

How is the "experience of God" communicated or prepared for seems to me to be one of the primary, if not the basis for beginning to unfold an incultured faith as expressed in worship. One often wonders at the 'artistic' representation of Jesus or the Blessed Mother as germanic or nordic types - with blonde hair and blue eyes that is so appreciated by those faithful searching for something to hang in their homes. Is it the 'foreigness' of such representations that is appreciated or is it the desire, albeit in a vicarious way, for an 'experience of God'? Overtly Oriental or so-called inculturated representations of Jesus or the Saints are oftentimes rejected. To me, this phenomenon points to a serious absence of the 'experience' of God. This is not a judgement. It might be very well true that people have experienced God but how is that expressed or explained or communicated? It is not enough and downright wrong to think that by simple creating art pieces with oriental features or building Churches that resemble temples that the experience of God is expressed. It must come from within. This is a serious task for our catechists and preachers all.

The Scriptures

The adaption or inculturation of worship necessarily demands that a Christian be conversant and comfortable with the Word of God in Scripture and holds such Scripture as paramount. There have been advocates of replacing Scripture with classical Chinese texts, or poetry and the like. This seems to be an easy way of abandoning the willingness to 'listen' to God's word - as difficult as it may be to wade through terms and experessions that are 'foreign' -- yet are still the expression of the word of God for the Church and for the world. Again, this points to tremendous and far deeper demands on those preparing for Baptism as well as those responsible for their preparation. This entire question of the understanding of Scripture is often neglected when discussing indigenization of the liturgy. This lack of such understanding is all too often the root cause of so much discontent with liturgical experiences of all sorts. All liturgical activity begins with or is predicated upon the proclamation of the Word. Without such proclamation, in fact, no liturgical action can really take place or if it does is badly misunderstood. It is not simply understanding the 'language' of the Scriptures but also the attitudes and even emotion of prayer that is so ingrained and essential to any liturgical action, and are drawn forth by the proclamation and 'receiving'of the Word of God.

Some examples of these seem so simple -- thanksgiving, adoration, praise, supplication, or even so 'complicated' such as Trinitarian doxology, the paschal mystery, salvific suffering, the pneumatic elements etc. Yet unless such Scriptural elements are truly embraced and inculturated, true Christian liturgy is nigh well impossible.

Words VS. Actions (Ritual)

Since the close of Vatican II, the Diocese of Hong Kong, as all Dioceses, has engaged in a vast 'publishing' endeavor and in recent years in the revision of previous publishing efforts. The demands of a 'reformed' liturgy were seen as primarily 'textual' and resulted in many additions to the liturgical library. The task was seen as that of 'translation'- i.e. the attempt to faithfully render the official Latin texts of the liturgy into Chinese. This was achieved with varying degrees of success. Granted, texts were and are important, but the unfortunate result was that the Liturgy has become 'texts' -- words to be read or recited or sung. Liturgical celebrations are today almost impossible to conduct wihtout books, booklets, pamphlets or the like.

Forms of liturgical participation and celebration that could be termed 'indigenous' were eliminated in one vast publishing tidal wave. Examples of these as found in Hong Kong, Macau and Mainland China were the types of chanted, memorized prayers -- some following closely liturgcal actions or prayers, others more devotional. It is true that these acts of prayer were memorized and often chanted continuously during the 'official' liturgy celebrated in Latin. In other words, a particular, localized form of liturgy existed parallel to the official liturgy and was the chief form of participation. These were for the most part eliminated and remain today only in some ever-rare gatherings of Chiu Chow or Shanghai elderly faithful. Even more astonishing is how this destruction of 'indigenous' forms of worship was and is taking place among the communities in mainland China, who in their fascination and desire for all things from Hong Kong and Taiwan are devouring these 'outside' liturgical texts with a passion.

What should have taken place was a long, detailed study and reflection on EXISTING forms of prayer, devotion and liturgy with the aim of developing a truly indigenous form of worship.

In Hong Kong some attempts were made to 'create' texts -- e.g., encoffining rites, cremation rites, Lunar New Year etc. These indeed filled a void and showed a daring in the act of 'creating' such texts, but were only texts. There were some attempts made to add certain 'ritual' actions to these texts, most noticeably the addition of a 'veneration of ancestors' to the Lunar New Year liturgy. But, for the most part this and other actions were not of any great popular appeal. It does seem that any attempts at indigenizing the liturgy were relegated to 'additions' or 'accretions' to a text rather than something that flowed from the cultural experience into a liturgical and thus 'sacred' level.

I think that attempts at breaking away from a 'text' centered liturgy should begin with the funeral and wedding liturgies and for the time being to steer away from 'additions' to the Eucharistic liturgy. However, there are other elements in this 'foundation in ritual that should be examined. These are as follows:

1. Music -- at present the repertoire of liturgical music contains very, very little of a Chinese nature. Those hymns or music composed in the Chinese style for Chinese instruments are largely ignored and attempts at using or developing Chinese music and instruments in the Liturgy are usually rejected by clergy and choirs. Chinese music seems to represent the totally 'secular' for many. Thus, liturgy music remains a predominantly 'foreign' noise. However, when attempts are made to try and 'force the issue' - by using some Chinese music in the liturgy, the results are usually astounding and well-appreciated.

2. A Sung Liturgy -- Hong Kong catholics are usually mightily impressed by the impact of a sung Byzantine or Eastern litury when they have the rare opportunity to participate in such a liturgy. The idea of a completely sung liturgy consisting of chants, repetition and rarely varying texts that are sung is quite a freeing and comfortable way of worship. The usual 'sung' liturgy in our pariishes or other celebrations consists of four hymns and some acclamations -- a hymnbook is thus essential. Repetition is essential but in a harmonious and fully participatory way. Litanies and dialogue chanting are mainstays in Eastern-rite forms of worship. It seems that such forms existed in pre-Vatican 2 China with chanted prayers and devotions of the laity. This is not new but a return to a form that engaged entire congregations-young and the old-literate and illiterate.

3. Song and Action -- one only has to participate at a Chiu Chow Catholic funeral to realize that there is a chant to accompany each step in the funeral proces -- e.g. the entrance of the body into the Church, the last farewell, the sealing of the coffin, the carrying of the coffin out of the Church, the placing of the coffin in the grave etc. Each action is 'sanctified' by song. We would be well to re-think emntiurely the ways in which song is used in our typcal parish or Diocesan liturgy and to encourage composers to use much more ryhthmic types of sound to accmpany particular actions as well as to proclaim certain 'essential' texts. I truly believe that what we need in the Liturgy are solid sets or chants that rarely vary but are of such quality that their freshness does not fade. I further believe that we have composers who are quite capable of such acts of composition but have never been encouraged.

Conclusion

I have attempted in these short pages to point out what I consider some of the basic underpinnings of the question and process of cultural indigenization of the liturgy--viz, the question of the inculturation of the Faith as such -- as a way of life in the Church rooted in the experience of conversion and the knowledge of God in a personal and comunitarian way. In other words, a relationship of the individual Christian to God in Christ lived out in the Body of the Church. How this is done is the mighty task of reflection for all those responsible for the communication of the Faith -- our teaching authority, our catechists and our preachers.

I have touched on the question of the experience of God and how this must be achieved and explained in ways and words that are truly from the heart - not couched simply in the rote words of 'knowledge of faith' but achieved through the contemplative, meditative, rhythmic experience of prayer as individuals and in a community.

The Scriptures as 'foreign' as they might be for most Christians anywhere in the world must be studied and reflected upon using a 'local' point of view in conversation with the tradition and teaching of the Church. If the Word of God is to speak to people gathered for worship, the hearts of people must be prepared and welcoming to God's Word.

Finally. I have raised the all too critical problem of the tension or even dare to say the conflict of text and ritual. Until we begin to explore the vast richness of ritual action and acknowledge its essential and paramount importance, indigenization is impossible. It was most interesting to observe the incorporation of distinct ritual actions, unaccompanied by words or texts, during the liturgy for the Opening of the Holy Door by the Holy Father at Christmas 1999. Stunning in its simplicity, universal in its symbols, the ritual gestures were astonishing.

What I would truly hope for is that in the Diocese of Hong Kong there would be a very serious attempt to bring together competent people of various disciplines of liturgy, theology, music, art, catechetics, anthropology, sociology, psychology etc. to begin a process of reflection and experimentation that will give impetus to a movement of creativity and Spirit-inspired expression of Worship for the Chinese people.

作者：黄克镳

前言

老子的道与若望福音的圣言颇有相似的地方，这曾引起不少学者的注意，如近日学者吴经熊便是把若望福音的开端译作「太初有道」。笔者相信，以若望的圣言与老子的道比较，能有助于从道家思想背景了解降生的圣言－－基督，是一种有意义的神学本地化尝试。近期神学界对本地化问题表现新的兴趣，纷纷探讨神学本地化的意义及应采取的路向。1 本地化的方法该是多元化的，但由于传统思想对中国文化有如此深远的影响，笔者认为基督宗教与儒、道、释等传统思想的对谈与融通，始终是神学本地化不可缺少的要素之一。

道是中国哲学思想的主要范畴，在老子以前，道一般指天道或人道，有规律或准则的意义。老子首先给予道形上学的意义，以道为万物的本体或本原。2 老子的道基本上具有对于宇宙（cosmological）及有关人生（anthropological）的两种意义，其宇宙意义表示道对宇宙生成及运行的作用，有关人生的意义表示道是人伦理行为及修养的准则。这两种作用彼此连贯，在《道德经》有平均的论述。

若望福音「圣言」的希腊原文是logos，如同道在中国哲学有特殊的地位，logos也是希腊哲学的重要观念，包含「言」和「理」的意思。若望的圣言主要是来自犹太圣经传统，但大概也受了希腊思想的影向。旧约圣经希腊文译本以logos翻译希伯来文的dabar；dabar有动态意义，除了「说话」的意思外，也包含行动和事迹等意义；「上主的话」表示祂启示的圆满。3 像老子的道，若望序言的圣言也具有对于宇宙和人类救恩的双重意义，4 但序言对圣言的宇宙性任务只是简略提及（若1:3, 10），却偏重于圣言对人类救恩的意义。福音本身更专注于降生的圣言有关启示和救恩的任务；序言所用的圣言一词，在福音中也不复出现了。

老子虽然讨论道的形上意义，但他真正关心的还是道对于人生的意义：道引导人成为「圣人」。本文的主旨在于从道家圣人的角度观看若望福音的基督，藉此展示基督容貌的一些道家风采。圣人的基本特点，如与道同体、归根复命、自然无为、柔弱不争等，都反映在基督身上。但因基督是圣言降生成人，而圣人是道的化身，为此也须讨论圣言和道的意义，对照两者的异同，格外比较道和圣言的宇宙性意义。在比较时遇到的困难是双方资料的不均衡，老子对道的宇宙性意义有深入的论述，而若望序言有关圣言这方面的描述却不多。但如下文显示，若望序言主要来自旧约智慧文学传统，因此，本文首先介绍若望序言与智慧文学的关系，以便在与道比较时可以引用智慧文学资料作补充。5

本文分为两部分，第一部分讨论和比较若望序言的圣言与老子道的异同，主要是关于两者对宇宙的意义。第二部分是从道家圣人的角度看若望福音的基督；在反思时专注于道和圣言对人生或人类救恩的意义。笔者的用意是描绘基督面容的一些东方色彩；具体来说，是要显示若望福音的基督带有的一些道家风格。6

1. 有关神学本地化不同路向的讨论，参阅杨熙楠编，《汉语神学刍议》，香港汉语基督教文化研究所 2000；张春申，〈神学(灵修)本地化的回顾与前瞻〉，《神学年刊》 (n.21) 2000 1-17页；吴智勋，〈神学本地化的原则〉，《神思》 (n.47) 2000 1-21页；黄瑞俊，〈现代多元处境中的汉语基督神学：承载、转化和期待创造〉，《神学论集》（n.131）　2002　134-157页。

2. 参阅冯友兰，《中国哲学史》，增订本上册，台北　商务　1990 218页；有关「道」在中国哲学思想史的演变，参阅张立文编，《道》，台北　汉兴　1994。

3. 参阅Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (Anchor Bible 29) (Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1966) 520-521.

4. 参阅Thomas Tobin, "The Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990) 257-261.

5. 张春申神父建议以「智慧基督论」作为基督论本地化的题材；参阅〈基督论本地化尝试〉，《神学论集》 (n.133) 2002 401-408页。有关若望福音序言与智慧文学的关系之探讨可视为「智慧基督论」的准备工夫。

6. 本文部分资料已以英语发表，参阅Joseph H. Wong, "Tao-Logos-Jesus: Lao Tzu, Philo and John Compared," in Roman Malek (ed.), The Chinese Face of Jesus Christ (MSMS 50) vol.1 (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica 2002) 87-125.

1. 若望福音的圣言与老子的道

1.1若望序言的圣言

圣经学者大都同意，若望采用了一首现成的「圣言诗歌」编写成福音的序言；但关于诗歌的思想背景却有不同的意见。7 这些意见大概可以分为两类：一.圣言诗歌属犹太圣经传统，特别是智慧文学传统；二.这诗歌来自希腊化犹太思想背景，格外是以亚历山大的斐洛（Philo of Alexandria, ca. 20B.C. - A.D.50）为代表的。若望的圣言诗歌显然是属于犹太智慧文学传统，但也有一些因素不是智慧文学可以解释的，其中主要是这首诗歌的主题－－圣言。按照智慧文学，智慧有时也称为圣言，但不会被圣言取代；若望序言却没有智慧一词，智慧被圣言代替了，这是智慧文学中找不到的例子。8 为此不少学者认为序言的诗歌来自希腊化犹太思想背景，并指出若望的圣言与斐洛的逻各斯（logos）有不少相似的地方。9

但犹太圣经传统，尤其智慧文学，本身已受到希腊文化的影向；晚期的《智慧篇》大概也是在亚历山大以希腊文写成的。10 为此布朗（Raymond Brown）认为旧约圣经传统应视为若望和斐洛思想的共同来源。11 因此，在探讨若望圣言的意义时，本文主要依据圣言与智慧文学的关系；需要时也引用斐洛有关逻各斯的思想作补充。

若望圣言与旧约智慧文学

与若望序言的圣言最接近的思想背景是犹太智慧文学，尤其是《箴言》，《德训篇》和《智慧篇》；以下是一些若望序言与智慧经书有较显着关连的章节。12 若望序言的开端说明「在起初已有圣言，圣言与天主同在」（若1:1）。智慧从起初便与天主同在这思想也可见于上述智慧经书；《箴言》载有以下美妙的「智慧颂」：

大地还没有形成以前，远自太古，从无始我已被立；深渊还没有存在，水泉还没有涌出以前，我已受生……当他建立高天时，我已在场。（箴8:23-27）

《德训篇》智慧自称在世界未有以前已受造：「起初，当世界未有以前，他就造了我，我永远不会消灭」（德24:14）。

若望序言第三节扼要地指出圣言对创造世界的角色：「万物是藉着他而造成的；凡受造的没有一样不是藉着他而造成的」（若1:3）。13 有关智慧创世的任务，《智慧篇》称智慧为「造万物的技师」：

所有或隐或明的事，我（撒罗满）都知道，因为教导我的，是造万物的技师－－智慧。（智7:21）

《智慧篇》又说:：「智慧与你同在，她洞悉你的工作；当你创造世界的时候，她已在场」（智9:9）。上文引述的《箴言》「智慧颂」也说明，当天主创造天地时，智慧「已在他身旁，充作技师」（箴8:30）。

若望序言继续描述圣言与世界和人类的关系，他进入世界﹕

他来到了自己的领域，自己的人却没有接受他。但是，凡接受他的，他给他们，即给那些信他名字的人权能，好成为天主的子女。（若1:11-12）

《箴言》指出智慧乐于亲近世人：智慧「欢跃于尘寰之间，乐与世人共处」（箴8:31）。智慧也遭到愚昧人的拒绝：「但是，我呼唤了，你们竟予以拒绝；我伸出了手，谁也没有理会」（箴1:24）。但那些接纳她的，智慧使他们成为天主的朋友：

她世世代代，进入圣善的灵魂，使他们成为天主的朋友和先知；因为，天主只爱那与智慧同居共处的人。（智7:27-28）

在序言的高潮，若望宣称「圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间」（若1:14）。降生奥迹是新约启示的精华，超出了旧约智慧文学。但有关智慧寓居于天主子民当中的观念，在《德训篇》也可以找到：

那造化我的，给我的帐幕指定了位置，说道：你要住在雅各伯那里，在以色列中建立产业，在我的选民中生根。（德24:12-13）

除了圣言降生的启示超越智慧文学外，还有以下两点也是智慧文学找不到的。若望序言称圣言为父的「独生者」（monogenes）（若1:14, 18）；智慧文学说智慧受造或受生于天主，但没有把「儿子」的名称加给智慧。斐洛却称逻各斯为天主的「首生者」（protogonos）或「长子」，这与若望序言更接近了。14 此外，序言第一节宣称「圣言就是天主」（kai theos en ho logos）；这也超越了旧约智慧文学。若望这里用的天主一词是没有冠词的，而「圣言与天主同在」的「天主」郄是有冠词的：“kai ho logos en pros ton theon”； 15 斐洛也有类似的语句，以没有冠词的天主用于逻各斯，却把有冠词的天主留给那「自有者」。16

最后，我们还须讨论智慧或圣言的位格问题。旧约的智慧表示天主的思想和德能，虽然智慧文学往往把智慧人格化，但事实上智慧仍是天主的属性，没有独立的位格。斐洛以逻各斯为天主的理智，包含了万物的「观念」；他也称逻各斯为天主的「长子」和「首席使者」，位居于天主与世界之间。但斐洛对于逻各斯的真正身份没有一贯的见解，表现模棱两可的立场。但可以说，斐洛继承了旧约把智慧人格化的趋向，并把这趋向带前了一步。17

及至若望序言，智慧或圣言位格化的过程便圆满完成。若望清楚地说明「圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间」，圣言成了一位具体的历史人物－－耶稣基督。因此，序言开端的证词：「在起初已有圣言，圣言与天主同在，圣言就是天主」，在降生奥迹的光照下也有了更明确的意义，这起初已有的圣言从永恒便具有独立的位格，因为降生奥迹与圣言位格的先存性（pre-existence）是连在一起的；若望序言是新约有关基督的先存性及降生奥迹最明确的见证。18

圣言的宇宙性意义－－创造与启示

若望圣言的宇宙性意义仅在序言简略提及，并未加以发挥。为此在讨论时，我们也引用了犹太智慧文学有关智慧与创造的资料。论及圣言对于创造的任务，序言说：「万物是藉着他而造成的」（若1:3）；又说：「世界原是藉他造成的」（若1:10）。首先要问，这「藉着他」（di'autou）一词有什么意义？圣言对于世界创造的角色在于什么？他可能是使万物生成的能力，或是天主创造世界时所按照的模型，又或包含了这双重任务；「藉着他」一词对以上几种解释都可以适用，19 表示创造时圣言是天主与世界之间的中介。

从智慧文学来看，智慧似乎兼有这两种任务。上主的智慧也称为「上主的神」，表示天主的德能，也是创造的能力。但智慧更普遍地表示世界所反映的秩序与和谐，这可见于《箴言》的「智慧颂」：

当他上使穹苍稳立，下使渊源固定时，当他为沧海划定界限，令水不要越境，给大地奠定基础时，我已在他身旁，充作技师。（箴8:28-30）20

智慧既是秩序与和谐的来源，为此在智慧文学往往被视为协助天主创造的「技师」（智7:21; 8:6）。《智慧篇》指出智慧洞悉天主的工作，在创造时她已在场，使天主的计划实现（智9:9）。前一节经文提及撒罗满受命按照「起初所预备的圣幕的式样（mimema）」，在耶路撒冷建造圣殿（智9:8）。这使人想起出谷纪所载，梅瑟受命按照在山上看到的模型建造会幕的情景（出26:30）。21 因此，《智慧篇》这经文（「智慧洞悉天主的工作……」）暗示智慧对于创造的任务，格外在于提供每一事物的模型。这思想在斐洛尤其显着，逻各斯是天主的「肖像」，同时也是人的理智和世界的「模型」。22

智慧不但是创造的能力，以及具有每一事物的模型，她也内在于万物，维持世界的秩序与和谐：智慧「是如此精纯能渗透深入一切……她世世代代，进入圣善的灵魂」（智7:24, 27）；「智慧施展威力，从地极直达地极，从容治理万物」（智8:1）。

这些也是若望的圣言有关创造的主要角色，天主藉着圣言创造万物，这圣言一面表达天主的思想，一面也说出每一事物的「名称」，即每一事物的本性；因此，圣言是万物的模型，万物是圣言的反映。23 但天主的话也是命令，能产生事实；在创造世界时祂一命即成。为此圣言也有能力的意思，是使一切事物存在的原因。综合来说，若望序言所说的「藉着他」兼有「模型因」(exemplary cause)及「动力因」(efficient cause) 这两种意义。此外，像智慧一般，圣言不但创造世界，他也进入这世界，并居住在我们中间，是内在于世界的。

智慧或圣言是无形天主的表达，具有启示的任务。为此《智慧篇》称智慧为「永远光明的反映，是天主德能的明镜，是天主美善的肖像」（智7:26）；反映、明镜、肖像等词都表明智慧是那看不见的天主的显示。这显示格外是藉着世界的创造实现，因此，人可以透过这世界的美善认识造物主；通过工程，认识工程师（智13:1）。24

若望的圣言也有启示的作用，言是思想的表达，当天主藉着圣言创造时，这言首先是天主的自我表达，是沉默的天主的自我流露；同时这言也说出每一事物的名字或本性。这样，万物是圣言的反映，而圣言是天主的自我表达，为此万物也是无形天主的显示。有关圣言启示的任务，若望序言不把重点放在世界的创造，却放在降生的圣言身上：「圣言成了血肉……我们看见了他的光荣（doxa），正如父独生者的光荣」（若1:14）。doxa是希伯来文kabod的译文，原来有具体的临在及自我显示的意思。25 在基督身上我们看见了父独生子的真实临现。

序言最后一节对启示的意思格外重要：「从来没有人见过天主，只有那在父怀里的独生者，身为天主的，他给我们详述了」（若1:18）。天主本身是隐晦不可见的，降生成人的独生子给我们启示了父，带来了新约启示的圆满。但父本身仍是不可见的，若望在福音中重复提出这犹太圣经的传统信念（若5:37; 6:46）。26 这信念特别来自天主对梅瑟求见祂的圣容时给予的回答：「你将看见我的背后，但我的面容却无法看见」（出33:23）。日后在最后晚餐，门徒也请求耶稣把父显示给他们，耶稣却回答说：「谁看见了我，就是看见了父」（若14:9）。这表示父本身仍是不可见的，但透过降生的圣言，门徒可以看见父的反映──父独生者的光荣。27 圣言启示父的过程以降生奥迹达于圆满，但在创造世界时，圣言已开始了启示的任务，创造便是天主自我启示的开端。在讨论启示时，我们已由圣言的宇宙性意义进入祂的救恩意义了。

1.2老子的道与若望圣言的异同

若望序言的圣言主要来自犹太智慧文学传统，与智慧的意义和作用相似，具有对于宇宙和人类救恩的意义。从圣言的宇宙意义看，万物是藉着他而造成的，这表示圣言是天主与世界之间的中介，是万物按照着受造的模型，也是使世界存在的能力。同时，这圣言是天主的话，表达天主的思想，透过世界的创造显示那看不见的天主；为此圣言的创造和启示之作用是连在一起的。

道是老子哲学的中心观念，老子的道含有多种意义，学者意见不一；但一般认为可以把道的意义归纳如下：道是形上的终极实体；使宇宙生成的动力；促使万物运动的规律；作为人伦理行为的准则。28 像若望圣言一般，老子的道具有对于宇宙和人生的意义。29 道的宇宙性意义是基于一项重要的预设：为了使宇宙万物生成，必须有一先于一切的总原理，即道的存在。

有、无与万物

如同圣言或智慧，道是万物生成的原因。《道德经》廿五章描述道的存在及与万物的关系：

有物混成，先天地生。寂兮寥兮，独立而不改，周行而不殆，可以为天地母。吾不知其名，强字之曰「道」，强为之名曰「大」。

这段文字概括了老子的宇宙生成论，说明道存在于一种浑朴或混沌不分的状态；静而无声，动而无形。在天地之先已存在，且是天地万物生成的原理，因此，「可以为天地母」。30 老子自认不知其名，王弼加以注释说：「名以定形。混成无形，不可得而定，故曰『不知其名』也。」31

《道德经》强调道是没有形体，不可见，及不可思议的：\视之不见，名曰「夷」；听之不闻，名曰「希」；搏之不得，名曰「微」。32此三者不可致诘，故混而为一。其上不曒，其下不昧，绳绳兮不可名，复归于无物。是谓无状之状，无象之象，是谓惚恍。（《道德经》十四章）

道是无色、无声、无形的，幽而不显，不是感官所能把握的；由于道超越我们的感官，它也是不可思议的，为此老子说它「不可致诘」。但这无形的道并非一无所有；这里所说的「无物」并不是指「空无所有」（nothingness），却是说道是没有形像，不具名相的实存体。33

老子强调道是无形、无名、不可见、不可知的。若望虽然也一再声明：「从来没有人见过天主」，但没有说天主是不可知的；因为降生的圣言给我们详述了。在这方面，斐洛似更接近老子，他不但指出天主是没有形体，不可见的；也强调天主是不可知，及不可名言的。斐洛大概是把这两个否定形容词套用在天主身上的第一人；34 可视为日后基督宗教「否定神学」传统的先声。

正如创造是天主的自我启示，无形的道也是透过造生万物把自己显示出来。智慧文学和若望序言说天主藉着智慧或圣言创造万物，指示智慧或圣言是天主与有形世界之间的中介，是天主创造的助手和工具。《道德经》却没有提及道藉着什么造生万物；但老子也在反思类似的问题，即那隐晦超越的道与现象世界彼此间关系的问题。《道德经》四十章载有老子关于宇宙生成的综合表达：「天下万物生于有，有生于无。」「有」便是「无」，或隐晦无形之道，与万物之间的中介。

学者一般同意，《道德经》第一章是全书的提纲挈领，格外讨论道为无、有的观念，及道与万物的关系：

道可道，非常道；名可名，非常名。

无，名天地之始；有，名万物之母。

《道德经》开始便声明，道是隐晦深远，不可名言的。王弼本关于本章第二句有不同的读法：「无名，天地之始；有名，万物之母。」前人多循王弼，以「无名」、「有名」作解；近日学者大多依从王安石，以「无」、「有」为读。35 但王弼虽以「无名」、「有名」分句，事实上也是以「无」、「有」解释「无名」、「有名」；36 因此，这两种不同的读法，意义上还是基本相同的。

如果我们采用王安石的分句，「无」、「有」便是道的两个不同的名称。本章的道是形上的实存之道，无、有是用来指称道的。无并不等于空无，许慎《说文解字》言：「无、丰也。」无即丰满的意思；但后来又被解作没有、空虚。老子的无兼有这两种意义；道的空虚是建于丰的基础上的。37 道是一种潜藏力，在未成为现实性时，它隐伏着了。这个幽隐末形之道不能为我们的感官所认识，所以老子用「无」来表示这不见其形之道。但这无形之道却充满无限的生命力，能产生天地万物；为此老子又用「有」来形容形上的道向下落实时，介乎无形质与有形质之间的一种状态。可见老子的「无」是蕴藏着无限生机和无限之「有」的。38 因此，《道德经》四十章说：「天下万物生于有，有生于无。」「有」便是「无」与万物之间的中介；道首先由无生有，然后再生成万物。这种过程与天主生圣言，然后藉着圣言创生万物的过程相似。

《道德经》第一章继续说：

故常无，欲以观其妙；常有，欲以观其徼。39 此两者，同出而异名，同谓之玄。玄之又玄，众妙之门。

意思是说：常处于「无」以观照道体之幽深精微；常处于「有」以观照道用之广大无边。「无」是道隐晦的本质；「有」是道透过万物的自我显示。「此两者，同出而异名」，无与有同出于道，代表道的不同两面：无是道之体，有是道之用；有、无异名，而道通为一。40 「玄」是指幽昧深远的意思，意味着无与有均属于形而上的层面。

「无」和「有」是道的两个不同的名称，更好说是道不同的两面。在造生万物时，道首先由无生有，然后再生成万物；道包含无和有，即隐晦和显示的两面。因此，若望的圣言不可以简单地比作道，道是更广泛的观念，可以含括圣言和隐晦的天主。圣言可比作「有」──道显示的一面；而看不见的天主却可以比作「无」──道隐晦的一面。如同天主藉着圣言把自己显示于万物，无也是透过有才展示于万物；因此，圣言或「有」同是天主或道与世界之间的中介。

德者道之舍

有、无代表道显与隐的两面，道和德却表示道的另一种相对特性：超越与内在。上文引述《道德经》廿五章有关道的描述：「寂兮寥兮，独立而不改。」这表现道的超越性；但这超越的道也内在于世界。老子以「德」表示内在于万物的道；德是《道德经》下半部的主题。就如道是天地万物所以生的总原理，德便是一物所以生的原理，《管子心术上》说：「德者道之舍，物得以生……故德者，得也」（《管子》卷十三）。德是道寓居于物者；管子以「得」解释「德」，德即是一物所得于道而成为该物的原理。41

《道德经》五十一章阐述道和德与万物的关系：

道之尊，德之贵，夫莫之命而常自然。故道生之，德畜之；长之育之；亭之毒之；养之覆之。生而不有，为而不恃，长而不宰，是谓玄德。

道使万物生成，德畜养万物，维持各物的本性。老子刻意显示德的母性：「长之育之；亭之毒之；养之覆之。」42 道与世界的关系格外表现于「夫莫之命而常自然」，道是无意识、无目的地造生万物，为此对于万物也不会发号施令，却保持自然无为的态度：「生而不有，为而不恃，长而不宰，是谓玄德。」这是老子对于无为的描述，他认为这是道最基本的属性。

天主的创造却是有目标和有计划的，祂藉着智慧或圣言创造万物，这智慧或圣言可视作万物的模型，世界反映智慧或圣言的秩序与和谐。转过来看，道创生万物虽是出于无心，顺任自然；但也依循恒常的规律，在各种变化中保持不变的常轨，可称为「常道」。道的常轨主要表现于万物的复归：「夫物芸芸，各复归其根。归根曰静，静曰复命。复命曰常，知常曰明」（《道德经》十六章）。归根复命是万物普遍而共同遵守的法则，万物既本始于道体的虚无，亦复归于道体的虚静。43 由道生成的世界不是没有秩序的，因为道的常规已自然地进入了天地万物，万物反映道的规律。因此，廿五章介绍宇宙生成论是这样结束的：「人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。」可见天地反映道的法则，人必须法地，法天，以便能法道；而道本身的法则在于自然。老子又说：「孔德之容，惟道是从」（《道德经》廿一章）。德既是一物得于道而成为其本性者，那么，每一事物都成了道的流露，按照各自的本性，在样态及运作中遵循于道及反映道的特性。44

道是既超越，亦内在的；德是道内在于万物，并以母性的关怀照顾、养育万物。同样，智慧也是内在于世界的，智慧「喜悦于尘寰之间，乐与世人共处」（箴8:31）；她「能渗透深入一切……进入圣善的灵魂」（智7:24, 27）。如同智慧一般，永恒的圣言也进入这世界，来到自己的领域，并居住在我们中间。因此，圣言和智慧也内在于万物，维持世界的秩序，使万物潜移默化，可以和「德」相提并论。

道的位格问题

在比较老子的道与若望的圣言时，其中关键性的一点是有关道的位格问题。若望的天主以及祂的圣言都是有位格的，老子的道是否也有位格？大部分学者会给予否定的答案，但笔者认为这问题是值得讨论的。《老子河上公注》是古代对于《道德经》的主要注释之一，河上公形容道具有人格的特征。他对《道德经》卅三章「强行者有志」一语有以下解释：「人能强力行善，则为有意于道，道亦有意于人。」45 河上公所撰的注释成为日后道教的主要经典之一；道教崇奉「道」为有位格的至高神明。

道的位格问题自然与创造的观念相连，一般认为道的创造是无意识、无目标的；与其说「创造」（creation），道的创生更接近新柏拉图哲学的「流生」（emanation）。46 世界的生成既是道自然无为的结果，这无为的创生也影向道对于世界的基本态度：即「生而不有，为而不恃，长而不宰」的无为态度。老子以无为是道的主要特征，也以此为「圣人」必须向道学习的基本特性。

天主的创造却是有意识和有目标的，但问题是有意识和目标的行动是否必定是有为的？如果答案是肯定的话，那么圣人便难于取法道的无为。事实上无为应以自然为标准，行动处事合乎事物的本性，不强作妄为。依老子的看法，道虽然无心地造生万物，但万物却自然地遵循道的常轨，其中最重要的是「归根复命」。天主创造世界的目标也是愿意万物归根返本，以祂为归宿。万物既出自天主，也本能地归向天主。落叶归根，万物朝宗，这是发自本性，出于自然。天主创造的目标既与万物的本性符合，因此，有目标的创造也可以称自然无为。

这讨论把我们带回道的位格问题，老子最关注的是道无为的态度，他深恐位格及意识会损害这无为的特性，假如位格本身与无为没有抵触的话，相信老子也无意讨论道是否有位格的问题了；老子既以无为作为圣人的特征，这表示他相信无为与位格是可以共存的。由于道的玄奥深远，笔者认为道超越了有位格与无位格的范畴，可以称为「超位格的」（transpersonal）。「超位格」一词表示道享有属人格的基本要素，即具有意识，思维，和意志。人是有思想及意识的，假如说作为这思想及意识的根源之道，其本身却是没有意识和思想的；那是令人难于信服的。但「超位格」一词也指出道的超越性，表示道不是有限的个别存有，而是一切存有的根基；道是充塞天地，贯通寰宇，包罗万象的。

7.参阅C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge UP 1953) 263-285; Brown, Gospel According to John, 519-524; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1 (Freiburg: Herder 1968) 481-493; Tobin, "Prologue of John," 252-269.

8. Tobin, "Prologue of John," 254.

9. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 276-278; Tobin, "Prologue of John," 255-256.

10. 不少圣经学者同意，《智慧篇》大约于公元前一世纪的后半期，在埃及的亚历山大城以希腊文写成；参阅Addison Wright, "Wisdom," in Raymond E. Brown & Others (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (London: G. Chapman 1989) 510.

11. Brown, Gospel According to John, 520-523.

12. 参阅Thomas Tobin, "Logos," in David N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4 (New York: Doubleday 1992) 353-354.

13. 序言第十节也重复这思想：「世界原是藉他造成的。」

14. De Confusione Linguarum 28, 146; 14, 63; 以下简作Conf.；本文有关斐洛的引述取自Philo, vol. I-X, Loeb Classical Library, trans. F.G. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP 1929-1962).

15. 这表示圣言是天主，但有别于天主父：祂「与天主同在」，是父的「独生子」；参阅L. William Countryman, The Mystical Way in the Fourth Gospel: Crossing over into God, rev. ed. (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press 1994) 16.

16. 参阅Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 280.

17. 斐洛提出有关「人的双重创造」理论，认为在创1:27天主按自己的肖像造了「天上的人」，然后在创2:7天主以这「天上的人」为模型创造了「地上的人」﹛]De Opificio Mundi 46, 134-135；简作Op.）；斐洛说明逻各斯便是这「天上的人」，是没有形体的（Conf. 28, 146）。Thomas Tobin认为斐洛有关「天上的人」的观念把智慧或圣言位格化的过程带前了一步；参阅Thomas Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Intrepretation (Washington, DC: CBAA 1983) 58; id., "Prologue of John," 265-267.

18. 参阅James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press 1989) 213-250.

19. 参阅M.E. Boismard, St. John's Prologue (Westminster, MD: Newman 1957) 102-105.

20. 类似的思想可以见于《约伯传》:「惟独天主认识她的道路……当他划定风的重量，规定水的定量，厘定下雨的季节，规定雷电的路线时，他已见了她，讲述了她，立定了她，考察了她」（约28:23-27）。

21. 参阅David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (Anchor Bible 43) (Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1979) 203-205.

22. 参阅Op. 6, 24-25; Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 48, 230-231.

23. 参阅Boismard, St. John's Prologue, 85.

24. 保禄在罗马书声明天主「那看不见的美善……都可凭他所造的万物，辨认洞察出来，以致人无可推诿」（罗1:20）。

25. 参阅Brown, Gospel According to John, 503-504.

26. 参阅Schnackenburg, Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1, 278.

27. 奥力振以基督比作出谷纪那盘石的裂缝，从那里梅瑟可以看见天主经过时的背后（出33:21-23）。参阅Origen, Commentary on the Song of Songs IV, 15; 见The Song of Songs: Commentary and Homilies, trans. R.P. Lawson (New York: Newman 1956) 250.

28. 参阅陈鼓应，《老子今注今译及评介》，台北　商务　1997　52页。唐君毅列举「老子言道六义」，参阅《中国哲学原论: 导论篇》，台北学生书局 1974 348-365页。有关近日中国学者对老子的「道」的各种诠释，参阅刘笑敢，《老子》，台北　东大1997　184-198页。

29. 这一节讨论道对于宇宙的意义，本文第二部分将讨论道有关人生的意义。

30. 通行本作「天下母」，帛书甲、乙本均作「天地母」。

31. 袁保新编，《老子王弼注》，台北　金枫　1986　82页。

32. 河上公对此三句作以下注释：「无色曰夷，言一无采色，不可得视而见之。无声曰希，言一无音声，不可得听而闻之。无形曰微，言一无形体，不可搏持而得之。」见王卡，《老子道德经河上公章句》，北京　中华书局　1993　52页。

33. 「是谓无状之状，无象之象，是谓惚恍。」这几句话是描述「无物」并非真的一无所有，而是无状、无象而已。河上公解释「惚恍」为「若存若亡，不可见之也。」见王卡，《河上公章句》，54页。

34. 参阅John Dillon, The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (London: G. Duckworth 1977) 155.

35. 参阅高亨，《老子正诂》，台北　新文丰　1981　2页；高亨赞同梁启超之说，以「有」、「无」为读，并引四十章为证。也参阅陈鼓应，《老子今注今译》，48-49页。

36. 王弼注释此句说：「凡有皆始于无，故未形无名之时，则为万物之始。及其有形有名之时，则长之、育之、亭之、毒之，为其母也。」见袁保新编，《老子王弼注》，7页。

37. 参阅王清祥，《老子河上公注之研究》，台北　新文丰　1994　28页；有关「无」的观念和文字发展过程，参阅庞朴，「说无」，深圳大学国学研究所编，《中国文化与中国哲学》，北京　东方1986　62-74页。

38. 参阅陈鼓应，《老子今注今译》，5-6页。

39. 「常无欲以观其妙，常有欲以观其徼。」王弼以「无欲」、「有欲」为读。「无欲」还可以解通，但「有欲」却难于解释。如严灵峰说：「老子观物方法，以虚静为本……常常有欲之人，自难虚静，何能『观徼』？」；见陈鼓应，《老子今注今译》，50页。

40. 冯友兰引述《道德经》第一章时，也以「无」、「有」及「常无」、「常有」分句；并说明「道兼有无」：「道乃万物所以生之原理，与天地万物之为事物者不同。事物可名曰有；道非事物，只可谓为无。然道能生天地万物，故又可称为有。故道兼有无而言；无言其体，有言其用。」见冯友兰，《中国哲学史》，增订本上册，220页；也参阅冯友兰，《中国哲学史新编》，第二册，台北蓝灯 1991 46-49页。

41. 张岱年也以「得」释「德」，并说「德实即是一物之本性」；参阅张岱年，《中国哲学大纲》，北京　中国社科　1982　23-24页。

42. 「亭之毒之」：河上公本作「成之熟之」。但王淮指出「亭毒」有「滋养」之意；参阅王淮，《老子探义》，台北　商务　1969 204页。

43. 王淮注说：「常者，自然之常道，亦即道所运行之常轨，万物普遍而共同遵守之法则（自然律）是也」（《老子探义》，70页）。本文第二部分对这十六章将有更详细讨论。

44. 「孔德」，即「大德」之意；「容」，即「容貌」、「形容」之意；但高亨却说：「容，疑借为榕、动也。」参阅王淮，《老子探义》，88-89页。

45. 王卡，《河上公章句》，134页；参阅王清祥，《老子河上公注之研究》，36页。

46. 以下是有关柏罗丁（Plotinus, ca. 205-270）「流生」理论的扼要解释："This process of emanation is a process of 'overflowing', the potent simplicity of the One 'overflows' into Intellignece, and Intelligence overflows into Soul……Emanation is the One's unfolding its simplicity;" 见Andrew Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys (Oxford: Clarendon 1981) 38.

2.从道家圣人看若望福音的基督

本文第一部分讨论了若望序言的圣言与老子道的异同，讨论的重点在于圣言与道的宇宙性意义。老子虽然探讨道的形上意义及其对宇宙的关系，但他主要关心的仍是道对于人生的意义，包括个人及社会层面。老子格外以「德」的观念表明道对人生的意义，德是一物所得于道而成为其本性者；在人来说，人由于「得道」、「体道」而成为「圣人」，为此圣人可视为道的化身或道的反映。在这第二部分，本文将描绘道家圣人的轮廓，然后以这圣人的素描与若望福音的基督对照。道家圣人的基本特性，如与道同体、归根复命、自然无为、柔弱不争等特点，也呈现在若望福音的基督身上；在比较时笔者也会指出基督与道家圣人主要不同的地方。

2.1道家圣人──道的化身

道家「圣人」也称为「真人」或「至人」，与儒家圣人不同，后者是道德型人物，主要在于修养仁义道德；道家圣人的特征却在于反朴归真、与道合一。老子一般以圣人为一国之君，或理想的统治者；但他也相信众人皆可能成为圣人。

与道同体

圣人的基本特色是善于观察道透过宇宙运作所表现的规律，并悉心遵循。这思想格外见于《道德经》廿五章下半部：

故道大，天大，地大，人亦大。域中有四大，而人居其一焉。人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。47

「道法自然」不是说道之上还有一个「自然」；若然，该是域中有五大了。「自然」乃是道的基本特性，天地的无不覆载，反映了道的无不生成；而道生万物是无目的，无私心的，一切顺任自然。圣人便是留心观察天地的运作，从中发现道的法则，并尽心遵从。

老子指示人必须通过法地、法天，才能法道，但这取法的意思不该仅限于外在或伦理行为的层面；老子所说的「法道」更包含「存有」（ontological）的意义，这种意义可从「抱一」、「得一」等词语看到。老子说：「是以圣人抱一为天下式」（《道德经》廿二章）。48「一」是道的别名，「抱一」即「抱道」；圣人若能「抱道」，意即与道合一，便能成为天下的表率。老子又有「得一」之说，并列举各种事物由于「得一」而达成其本性：

昔之得一者：天得一以清；地得一以宁；神得一以灵；谷得一以盈；万物得一以生；侯王得一以为天下正。（《道德经》卅九章）49

「得一」正好解释「德」的意义，「德」是一物得于道而达成其本性者。因此，天、地、神、谷、万物之所以能清、宁、灵、盈、生，各成其本性，是由于「得一」；侯王或圣人之所以能为天下之正长，亦是由于得道之故。「德者道之舍」，「得一」表示享有道的「寓居」之意。

老子又说：「故从事于道者，同于道」（《道德经》廿三章）。50 王弼注释说：道以无形无为成济万物，故从事于道者，以无为为君，不言为教……与道同体，故曰「同于道」。51

照王弼的意思，「同于道」不但指与道的规律配合，更包含与道合一，与道同体的存有意义。因此，透过「抱一」、「得一」、「同于道」等描述，老子的「圣人」可视为道的化身：圣人与道同体，在生活行事中表现道。

归根复命

为了「从事于道」，以及达致与道合一的境界，圣人必须观察道藉着天地运行所表现的规律，以便在生活中法道。《道德经》十六章提出「静观」的方法，这章对于了解圣人之道格外重要，前面已部分引述，现把全章载于下：

致虚极，守静笃。万物并作，吾以观复。夫物芸芸，各复归其根。归根曰静，静曰复命。复命曰常，知常曰明。不知常，妄作凶。知常容，容乃公，公乃王，王乃天，天乃道，道乃久，没身不殆。

本章虽然没有明言圣人，但末段「知常客……没身不殆」，描述圣人的特性，52 这特性尤其在于「知常」，「常」表示道在万物运动变化中所表现的不变规律；圣人为了要法道，便须认识道运行的常轨。为了达到「知常」，老子首先提出「致虚」、「守静」的修养工夫，务使心灵清净空明，然后能观照万物。53

「万物并作，吾以观复」；「复」即「反复」或「反本」，是万物活动的共同法则。王弼注曰：「凡有起于虚，动起于静，故万物虽并动作，卒复归于虚静。」54 修道之人其心灵所呈现的智慧，主要在于观照万物活动的共同法则──「复」；万物出有入无，既本始于道体之无，亦复归于道体之无。

「夫物芸芸，各复归其根。归根曰静，静曰复命。」「根」有两种意义，可以解作「本性」：「归根者，反本心之虚静也」。55「根」也可以解作万物的本源，即是道；56「归根」即复归于道体的虚无寂静。以上两种解释皆可说「归根曰静」。「静曰复命」的「命」也有两种意义，河上公把「复命」解作「复还性命」；以下是他对归根复命的注释：「言万物无不枯落，各复返其根而更生也……言安静者是为复还性命，使不死也。」57 但这「复命」的「命」也有「天命」或「使命」的意思，58 王淮案：「而万物之复归于道体（虚无）之活动，是乃完成道（自然造化）所赋予之使命。」59 我们也可以把「生命」和「天命」两种意思综合起来：当万物反本归根，回到道的虚静时，一面达到生存的归宿，完成道赋予的使命；一面也开始新的生命，即以个体的生命回归并融入自然的大生命中，如此生生不息。

「复命曰常，知常曰明」；「常」指自然之常道，亦即道在天地运行的常轨。归根复命是万物普遍而共同遵守的法则；万物由道而生，亦复归于道。圣人便是藉着观照万物而真正了解事物发展的必然之理。「明」是悟，或智慧；有此智慧便能一切顺乎自然，而不会妄求妄执。

自然无为

「自然无为」是老子哲学最重要的观念，「自然」的观念表示事物本身具有潜在性及可能性，应该顺任它自身的情状去发展，不必加上外界的力量去制约它。老子说：「人法地……道法自然。」所谓「道法自然」是说道以它自己的状况为依据，以它内在的原因决定了本身的存在和运作。「自然」一词即形容「自己如此」的一种状态，而「无为」的观念就是指顺其自然而不强作妄为的意思。因此，无为可说是自然的写状，自然与无为这两个名词是二而一的。60

老子以「无」作为道的本体，「无为」便是道运作的法则：「道常无为而无不为」（《道德经》卅七章）。这里「无为」是道之作用的属性，「无不为」是道之作用的效果；「无为而无不为」，即是说不强作妄为就没有什么事情做不成的。或如冯友兰指出：就其生万物说，道是「无不为」，就其无目的、无意识说，道是「无为」。61

无为既是道的特征，也该是圣人的标志。无为并不表示什么都不做，却表示静心观察道在万物运动变化中的轨迹，尊重每一事物受自道的特性及其发展程序，一切顺应自然而不加以人为的干预。老子提倡无为格外是为了针对统治者的有为，所谓「有为」是指统治者强作妄为，以致弄得民不聊生。老子说：「民之饥，以其上食税之多，是以饥；民之难治，以其上之有为，是以难治」（《道德经》七十五章）。为此老子呼吁为政者要实施无为之治：「是以圣人之治……为无为，则无不治」（《道德经》三章）。这无为之治主要在于以身作则：

故圣人云：「我无为，而民自化；我好静，而民自正；我无事，而民自富；我无欲，而民自朴。」（《道德经》五十七章）

上述「好静」、「无事」、「无欲」都是「无为」的内涵；「无欲」并不表示继绝一切欲望，却表示清心寡欲，淡泊有节的作风。

《道德经》第二章描述圣人无为的基本态度：

是以圣人处无为之事，行不言之教；万物作焉而不辞，生而不有，为而不恃，功成而弗居。夫唯弗居，是以不去。62

第十章也讨论圣人的无为，并作类似的描述：「明白四达，能无为乎？生之畜之。生而不有，为而不恃，长而不宰，是谓玄德。」63「不有」、「不恃」、「不宰」含义都是相通的，即要消解一己的占有欲，达到「无私」或「无我」的境界；这是无为的要旨。令人惊奇的是，老子在别处重复使用这段有关无为的写照，但把它贴合于道本身：「故道生之，德畜之……生而不有，为而不恃，长而不宰，是谓玄德」（《道德经》五十一章）。虽然有些学者怀疑第十章的文字是本章错简重出，应予以删除；但也有认为这两处的重复描述是有其用意的，64 这表示老子心目中，圣人是道的化身：圣人由于得道、抱道，及与道合一，因而在生活行事中反映道自然无为的特性。

「反者道之动，弱者道之用」

老子又提出与自然无为相关连的，道的另外两种特性：「反者道之动，弱者道之用」（《道德经》四十章）。这里先看「反者道之动」。老子的「反」字有两种用法：一作反，事物向相反方向运动；一作返，指事物返复循环的运动。65 老子把这两种意义融贯起来，如张岱年解释说：

事物由无有而发生，既发生乃渐充盈，进展以致于极盛，乃衰萎堕退而终于消亡；而终则有始，又有新事物发生。66

「反」的规律出现于自然界，道往往以有余补不足，保持平均调和的状态：「天之道，其犹张弓与？高者抑之，下者举之；有余者损之，不足者补之」（《道德经》七十七章）。这「反」的规律也应用于祸福的交替：「祸兮，福之所倚；福兮，祸之所伏」（《道德经》五十八章）。

自然现象依从「反」的法则，圣人深明此理，为此在生活中采取退隐及处下不争的途径，郄往往反而受到显扬；这并不表示老子教人欺诈的手段，却是描述事实的真相：

是以圣人抱一为天下式。不自见，故明；不自是，故彰；不自伐，故有功；不自矜，故能长。夫唯不争，故天下莫能与之争。（《道德经》廿二章）

老子也指出，圣人由于没有自私心，因而能达成自己的理想：「是以圣人后其身而身先；外其身而身存。非以其无私邪？故能成其私」（《道德经》七章）。

「弱者道之用」的意思其实已包含在「反者道之动」一句内，是一种具体的运用。弱的反面是强，一般人都爱好刚强胜于柔弱，却不知道刚强潜伏着的危险性：

人之生也柔弱，其死也坚强。草木之生也柔脆，其死也枯槁。故坚强者死之徒，柔弱者生之徒。是以兵强则灭，木强则折。（《道德经》七十六章）

老子柔弱的主张，主要是针对逞强的作为而提出的；逞强者刚愎自用，也就是老子所说的自矜、自伐、自是、自见、自彰，是构成各种纷争的原因。老子主张「柔弱胜刚强」（《道德经》卅六章），但他所推崇的柔弱不是通常所说的软弱无能的意思，却表示坚韧不克的性格，及自我控制的能力。67 老子以水为例，说明「柔之胜刚」：「天下莫柔弱于水，而攻坚强者莫之能胜」（《道德经》七十八章）。老子喜欢以水为喻，因为柔弱的水还具有居下不争，及利物的特性。

2.2若望福音的基督与道家圣人

若望福音序言带来了新约启示的高峰：「圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间」（若1:14）。这启示超越了斐洛的希腊化犹太思想，完成了旧约智慧文学将智慧或圣言位格化的过程。若望序言宣认圣言从永恒便享有独立的位格，是父的独生子，藉着降生成了历史中的具体人物；圣言的主要任务是藉着创造及降生奥迹启示天主。

在《道德经》也可以找到道降生成人的观念吗？老子描述的圣人可以称为「道的化身」，圣人得道、抱道、与道同体，在生活行事中反映道的特性；日后道教更以老子本人为道的「降生」，尊奉为神明。68 就可以说，道家圣人（道的化身）与圣言降生成人的基督，颇有相似的地方，可以互相对照。本文这部分将从道家圣人的角度讨论基督的复归与无为，柔弱胜刚强，以及基督与父同体的深刻经验；讨论时会同时指出基督与道家圣人相同及相异之处。

复归与无为

归根复命，自然无为，这些是道家圣人的主要特点。无为表示不随一己的私见，不强作妄为，却顺乎自然，遵从道赋予万物的共同法则；这法则在于归根复命，复归于道，为此无为与复归是连在一起的。这两种特点在基督身上格外显着，基督生平的基本心态在于舍弃自己的私意，悉心随从父的旨意，不断回归天父；这便是基督的无为与复归。

若望福音序言最后一节说：

从来没有人见过天主，只有那在父怀里的独生者，身为天主的，他给我们详述了。（若1:18）

圣经学者波泰里（Ignace de la Potterie）指出，「在父怀里」的希腊原文“eis ton kolpon tou patros”含有动态意义，应译作「向着父怀」。同样，序言第一节说圣言「与天主同在」，原文是“pros ton theon”，也含有动态意义，应译作「向着天主」。69 如此，序言首尾呼应，清晰地把序言划分出来。这两句经文的意思是说，如同圣言从永恒便是在爱的对话中面向着父，在降生后，那在世生活的耶稣也藉着对父的服从与交付，不断归向父怀，这样启示了永恒中圣言与父的密切关系。70

由此看来，若望序言的最后一节不但是序言的结语，也表达了全部福音的主题。若望十三章开始最后晚餐的叙述时，也明显地提出这回归天父的主题：

在逾越节庆日前，耶稣知道他离此世归父的时辰已到……也知道自己是从天主来的，又要往天主那里去。（若13:1-3）71

在耶稣心灵的深处蕴藏着这种由父而来，又要回到父那里去的意识；祂与父的密切联系便是基于父是祂的根源与归宿的深刻意识。若望福音描述的基督「自我意识」，很可能受了圣史在基督复活的光照下所作神学反省的影向；但基督生前享有基本的自我意识，这是无可否认的。拉内（Karl Rahner）依据圣多玛斯的思想，认为「存有」（being）包含了内在的光明，即对其本身的意识；因此，圣言成了血肉的事实，以及对这事实的意识，是同一降生奥迹包含的不同两面。72 但拉内也指出基督的自我意识，如常人一般，也有其从隐含达至明显层面的发展过程。73

基督视祂的在世生活为父的派遣，祂称父为「派遣我来者」，而自称为「被父派遣者」。74 基督被派遣是为了完成父委托的使命，这使命的高潮称为祂的「时刻」（hora）；75这「时刻」包括基督要通过死亡与复活，从这世界回到父那里去的逾越奥迹。耶稣声明自己便是为了这「时刻」而到这世界上来（若12:27）。若望福音的基督不慬在祂生命的最后阶段，才显示对自己的根源与归宿的意识；在祂的传道生活中，尤其与犹太人争辩时，耶稣一再提出祂与父独一无二的密切关系，这成了祂与犹太人辩论的主题（参：若7:28-29; 8:23; 10:36）。

耶稣这种由父而来，又要回到父那里去的深刻意识，与道家复归的思想非常配合，圣人致虚守静，观察万物的运作，体验自己和万物都是由道生成，又要返归于道。老子称万物的复归为道的常轨，而圣人便是具有「知常」的智慧；基督回归天父的趋向正反映了这种智慧，但圣言既是父的「独生者」，因此，基督对于自己的根源──父，也有独特的深刻体验。

由于父是祂的根源与归宿，耶稣表露了对父的完全服属，这可由以下言论看到：「子不能由自己作什么，他看见父作什么，才能作什么；凡父所作的，子也照样作」（若5:19）。子不但作父托付的工程（若5:36），也传授父的教训（若7:16）；他所讲论的，都是依照他由父听来的（若8:26-28）。耶稣的生平可以综合于下面这句话：「我从天降下，不是为执行我的旨意，而是为执行派遣我来者的旨意」（若6:38）。耶稣在说话行事中不断忘却自己，而专注于天父的这种态度，与道家圣人的无为相似；无为格外表现于圣人的「无私」或「无我」，不求满足一己的欲望，只知一心「体道」、「应道」。

但耶稣与道家圣人之间也有重要不同的地方，按照老子的看法：「人法地……道法自然」；圣人观察万物，体认道透过天地万物的运作所表现的法则，而予以遵从。耶稣却体察父在救恩史中所表达对于世界的救恩计划，并作出回应。表面看来，父的救恩计划是「有为」的表现，与道的无为互相抵触。但道的自然无为并不表示世界是没有目标和规律的，却是说这目标和规律不是外来，而是内在于事物本身的：「夫物芸芸，各复归其根……」；道的法则已成了事物的本性。天主的救思意愿与此相似，天主既是人类和万物的根源，祂也愿意万物归根返源，回到祂那里，参与祂丰满及永恒的生命；因此，天主的救恩意愿正好反映万物归根复命的本性，是合乎自然无为的。

柔弱胜刚强

「反者道之动，弱者道之用」，这是圣人取法于道的另外两个特点；这「相反相成」及「柔弱不争」的特点可以由若望福音的一个特殊名词合并起来──「光荣」（doxa）。希腊文的doxa是希伯来文kabod的译文，在旧约中「上主的荣耀」表示天主临在可见的显示，天主特别藉着祂大能的作为把自己显示出来，这是若望福音使用「光荣」一词的背景。76 若望福音有关耶稣受光荣的言论与祂的「时刻」是连在一起的（若12:23,28; 13:32; 17:1）；布朗指出，耶稣的「时刻」包括了祂的苦难、死亡、和复活，为此耶稣受光荣也遍及这全部时刻。77

为了表明耶稣在十字架上受光荣的思想，若望用了以下希腊文动词：hypsothenai；这动词有双重意义：即「被举起」及「受举扬」（若3:14; 8:28; 12:32）。按照若望神学思想，十字架代表耶稣受举扬和受光荣的时刻；透过十字架这标记，谦抑与举扬，屈辱与光荣，死亡与复活等对立观念都被连贯起来，成了「相反相成」的。

除了表现「相反相成」的特点外，十字架的光荣胜利也是「柔弱胜刚强」的标记。被高举于十字架上是一种极度屈辱的「举扬」，是那被称为「犹太人的君王」的戏弄式登基礼。在十字架上耶稣被视为软弱无能的，但如同道家圣人一般，这表面上的软弱无能却包含了无比坚强的韧力，正是「柔弱胜刚强」的例证。耶稣曾声明：

谁也不能夺去我的性命，而是我甘心情愿舍掉它；我有权舍掉它，我也有权再取回它来：这是我由我父所接受的命令。（若10:18）

在最后晚餐临别赠言里耶稣也告诉门徒，这世界的首领就要来到，但他在自己身上一无所能；耶稣甘愿把自己交付在恶人手中，是为了服从父的旨意（若14:30-31）。78 耶稣也宣布：这世界的首领已被判断了（若16:11）；撒旦因着耶稣的死获得的短暂胜利，只能导致由基督复活带来的撒旦的最后失败。基督死而复活的逾越奥迹是显示圣人以柔弱胜刚强的最佳实例。

与父同体

按照若望福音，基督深刻意识到自己是由父而来，又要回到父那里去；这也是祂生命的历程。这种回归天父的描述可能使人以为耶稣在世时，与天父之间有一段距离；其实不然，在回归天父的历程中，耶稣同时体验到与天父密切的结合，可以称为一体的经验。在若望福音第十章耶稣作了以下重要宣言：「我与父原是一体」（若10:30）。在最后晚餐临别赠言里，耶稣以彼此寓居及行动一致解释祂与父的一体；当门徒要求耶稣把父显示给他们时，耶稣回答说：

谁看见了我，就是看见了父……你不信父在我内，我在父内吗？我对你们所说的话，不是凭我自己讲的；而是住在我内的父，作他自己的事业。（若14:9-10）

由这段经文可以得到两个结论：第一，基督与父的结合是这么密切，以致谁看见了祂，就是看见了父；这是基于祂与父的被此寓居。拉内认为全部基督论可以包括在对这句经文──「谁看见了我，就是看见了父」──的诠解。79 按照拉内有关「象征」的神学反思，基督──降生的圣言──是父的「实在象征」（real symbol），这「象征」使父在基督身上真实临现并确切地显示出来；因此，谁看见了祂，便是看见了父。80 第二，基督与父的一体不是静态，而是一种动态的关系；父是耶稣行动的来源，祂本人是行动的近因：「是住在我内的父，作他自己的事业。」

耶稣的行动可以解作服从父的旨意，或效法父的工作；但正如陶德（C.H. Dodd）指出，从更深的层面看，这不仅限于服从或效法父；终极来说，耶稣与父行动的一致是由于祂分享父的生命 81：「就如父是生命之源，照样他也使子成为生命之源」（若5:26）。在生命之粮的言论里，耶稣更说明祂与父拥有同一的生命：「就如那生活的父派遣了我，我因父而生活」（若6:57）；「因父（dia ton patera）而生活」一语有深入的意义，表示父是耶稣生命的根源，耶稣活的是父同一的生命。82

耶稣与父同体的经验可以跟道家圣人与道同体的经验相比，但耶稣的任务却超出了道家圣人的角色。圣人与道合一，成为众人与道合一的楷模，但其他人不必通过与圣人的关系才能与道合一。相反地，耶稣与父的关系不但构成耶稣与门徒，及门徒与父的关系之典范；门徒与基督的结合也是他们与父合一的根基：83

谁爱我，必遵守我的话，我父也必爱他，我们要到他那里去，并要在他那里作我们的住所。（若14:23）

假如门徒愿意参与基督与父的关系，享有父的寓居，便须爱慕基督，及遵守祂的话。基督是门徒通往父的道路：「我是道路、真理、生命，除非经过我，谁也不能到父那里去」（若14:6）。

耶稣以葡萄树的比喻解释祂与门徒一体的关系：「我是葡萄树，你们是枝条；那住在我内，我也住在他内的，他就结许多的果实」（若15:5）。84 枝条与树身分享同一的生命，枝条不可以脱离树身而生存。父既是基督的根源，我们也可以把这比喻引申，称父为葡萄树的根；这样，同一的生命来自父，通过基督，达到门徒身上。这种生命交流的程序可以从生命之粮的言论看到：

就如那生活的父派遣了我，我因父而生活；照样，那吃我的人，也要因我而生活。（若6:57）「因我（di'eme）而生活」与「因父而生活」彼此对称，表示基督是门徒生命的原理，正如父是基督生命的根源一般。85

若望福音序言已指出基督作中保的角色：「凡接受他的，他给他们，即给那些信他名字的人权能，好成为天主的子女」（若1:12）；86 信徒藉着信仰基督，从祂那里接受权能，使能在祂内成为天主的子女。87 道家圣人却不同，圣人是众人的楷模，但老子没有说明众人必须通过与圣人的关系才能与道合一；修道之人与道合一是直接的，不必通过圣人作中保。

基督负有中保的角色，但祂作中保的任务也能使人与天主直接地结合。拉内主张，由于基督是天主的「实在象征」，祂可以实施「直接中保」（mediation to immediacy）的作用。88 天父既然在基督身上真实临现，那么，基督便成了与天主会晤的圣事；当门徒与基督接触时，便能在祂内与天主直接契合。这种奇妙的「直接中保」是基于基督是降生的圣言，而「圣言便是天主」的事实；基督与天主同等的地位也可以由若望福音所载「我是」（ego eimi）的言论显示出来。89 这里读者也许要问，我们所作基督与道家圣人的比较是否需要更进一步，以基督与道本身相比？事实上，这进一步的比较看来是需要的，因为基督是圣言降生成人，而圣言可以与道为「有」的内涵相比。90

在基督与道家圣人之间还有一个重要的分别，在不断回归天父的历程中，耶稣常保持与父爱的对话。藉着救恩史，尤其透过天主与以色列民交往的过程，耶稣体察天父对于人类和世界的救恩计划，并对此计划作出回应。反过来看，按照学者的一般意见，道是没有位格的，91 也没有对于世界或人类的任何计划；道的特色是无心，一切顺任自然。道家圣人是藉着观察天地万物的运动，认识道的行径，然后悉心遵从。因此，圣人与道的关系，跟耶稣与父爱的交往有很大的差别；我们不能说圣人与道彼此间有位际的关系或爱的对话。虽然如此，老子描述圣人体道、应道，因而得道、抱道，享有与道同体的深刻体验；这种体验可称为神秘经验，92 与若望福音所记述耶稣与父同体的神秘经验，可以互相比美。

「位际模式」（personal model）与「一体模式」（unitive model）是用以描述我们与天主，或与「绝对存有」（Absolute Being）之关系的两种基本模式；老子采用一体模式，若望福音却同时采用这两种模式。在谈论耶稣与父的关系时，更显着的是位际模式：天主是耶稣的父及派遣者。在叙述门徒与基督或天父的关系时，位际模式也是较普遍采用的；这可见于若望福音对天主或基督的称呼，如父、主、救主、君王、师傅、牧者……等。但除了这些表达位格的称呼外，若望也以非位格的图像形容基督或天主，如生命、光明、气息、活水、葡萄树……等；这些图像表示门徒与耶稣及与天父之间有着一种一体性或参与性的关系。

上述两种模式不是被此排斥，却是相辅相成的。93 与位际模式同时使用时，一体模式更能表达天人合一，及天地一体的深刻经验。在静观天主这莫可名言的「奥秘」，或静观道为「无」及「天地根」时，一体范畴往往更易引人进入静默无言的神秘经验。

结语

若望福音与老子《道德经》这两本天书分别代表基督宗教启示的精华，及中国传统文化的宝藏，蕴涵着亘古常新，不会消逝的智慧，能向现代人提供合时的信息。在比较这两本经典时，本文重点在于从道家圣人的角度看若望福音的基督。但因圣人是道的化身，而基督是圣言降生成人，为此必须先讨论圣言和道的意义，以及比较两者的异同。本文指出圣言与道互相辉映，彼此引起深邃的共鸣。圣言是隐晦的天主的自我显示，这显示藉着创造及降生实现。道本身却包含了「无」与「有」，隐与显的两面，道为「无」与隐晦的天主相似，道为「有」却可以与圣言相比；在以圣言与道作比较时，这是必须留意的一点。

正如圣言与道为「有」相似，基督与道家圣人也可以互相比美。基督在世时不断归向天父，一心舍弃私意，忠于履行父委托的使命，这态度与圣人自然无为，归根复命的行径可以互相对照；基督在十字架上受举扬及受光荣，也反映了道家圣人以柔弱胜刚强的特点。再者，圣人得道、抱道，与道同体的一体经验，也跟基督与父同体的深刻体验彼此响应。就可以说，道家圣人的轮廓也呈现在若望福音的基督身上。

但基督与道家圣人也有不同的地方，其中主要区别在于历史幅度的问题。圣人是道的化身，是理想的典型人物；老子对圣人的描述虽然透露了一些个人的经验，但他笔下的圣人仍是超越时空的。基督却是一位具体的历史人物，祂的生平深刻地影向了人类历史。道家圣人可以作众人的导师与表率，基督却不但为人师表，更是通往父的道路，神人间的中保。还有，耶稣是透过天主在历史中的作为，体会父对世界的救恩计划，并作出回应；为此耶稣在世时常保持与天父亲密的位际关系。道家圣人却藉着静观天地万物，发现道运行的常轨，并悉心遵循；圣人与道的关系超越了位际范畴，可称为一体模式。

位际模式与一体模式在若望福音同时采用，两者是互相补足的。在与老子对谈时，圣人对于道为「天地根」，及天地一体的深刻体验，能助人更深入了解若望福音一体范畴的意义，体会门徒与基督的关系好比枝条与葡萄树，共同分享来自父的同一生命；因而门徒彼此间也息息相通，一起参与基督奥体的共融。

教会初期为了把基督的喜讯传播给外邦人，教父们作了很大的努力，把基督信息与当时希腊及罗马文化配合，绘制了一幅带有希腊和拉丁文化色彩的基督像。这画像在教会内一直沿用了二千年，今天教会历史已进入新的千年，教会也切盼把基督信息传给亚洲人民，尤其庞大的中华民族。神学本地化是当前急务，神学界务须描绘中国式的基督像，使人产生亲切感。本文试图展示若望福音的基督容貌带有的一些道家风格，深盼其他神学同工不但从道家思想角度，也从儒家及佛教思想背景，绘画中国式的基督画像。这画像该具有以下特色：一面保存圣经启示内容的完整，一面与中华文化韵合，使人看了引发内心的共鸣。

47. 王弼本作「王亦大」及「而王居其一焉」，但下文是「人法地……」；从上下文的脉络看来，两个「王」字均当改正为「人」；参阅陈鼓应，《老子今注今译》，150-151页。

48. 帛书甲、乙本均作「执一」，但意义与「抱一」差别不大。

49. 王弼本作「侯王得一以为天下贞」，今随帛书甲、乙本改作「天下正」，即「天下正长」之意。

50. 全句为：「故从事于道者，同于道；德者，同于德；失者，同于失。」高亨怀疑「失」字是「天」的误字，当改作「天」，谓从事于天者，同于天；见高亨，《老子正诂》，57页。

51. 袁保新，《老子王弼注》，76页。

52. 本段意为：「懂得常道，就能包容一切；能包容一切，就能公正无私；能公正无私，就能为天下王；能为天下王，就能与天通；能与天通，就能合乎道；能合乎道，就能长治久安；这样，就终身没有危殆」；见黄钊，《帛书老子校注析》，台北　学生书局1991　83-84页。

53. 老子也把心灵比作镜子：「涤除玄览，能无疪乎？」（《道德经》十章）。高亨说：「『览』『鉴』古通用……玄鉴者，内心之光明，为形而上之镜，能照察事物，故谓之玄鉴」；见高亨，《老子正诂》，24页。

54. 袁保新，《老子王弼注》，49页。

55. 这句话出自范应元；见陈鼓应，《老子今注今译》，112页。

56. 老子也称道为「天地根」（《道德经》六章）。福永光司指出老子复归思想的特色所在，是承认现象万物之根源有个本体之道的永恒不灭；即是说，一切万物就其自身而言，虽是有限不完全，但其存在之根源，却是稳踏着无限而完全的道；见陈鼓应，《老子今注今译》，113页。

57. 王卡，《河上公章句》，62-63页。

58. 吴经熊，陈荣捷，及林语堂均把「复命」的「命」译作“destiny”；见John C.H. Wu, trans., Lao Tzu: Tao Teh Ching (Boston: Shambhala 1989) 33; Wing-tsit Chan, The Way of Lao Tzu (Tao-te Ching) (New York: Macmillan 1963) 128; 林语堂译，《老子的智慧》，上册，台北，正中书局　1994　277页。

59. 王淮，《老子探义》，70页。

60. 有关老子思想的「自然」、「无为」的详细分析及讨论，参阅刘笑敢，「第三章──自然：老子思想的中心价值」；「第四章──无为：老子思想的原则性方法」，《老子》，68-103页，105-145页。

61. 参阅冯友兰，《中国哲学史新编》，第二册，55-56页。

62. 福永光司对老子的无为有恰当的解释：「老子的无为，乃是不恣意行事，不孜孜营私，以舍弃一己的一切心思计虑，一依天地自然的理法而行的意思」；见陈鼓应，《老子今注今译》，57页。

63. 王弼本作「能无为乎？」，河上公本及多种古本作「能无知乎？」；但下文「……生而不有，为而不恃，长而不宰」，与「无为」的意思更配合。

64. 第十章这段文字在帛书甲本残缺，但乙本却载有「生之畜之生而弗有长而弗宰也……」等文字；再者，第二章的文字一般没人置疑，但在形容圣人无为时也用了五十一章有关道的描述。

65. 返复循环的意思除了见于十六章「吾以观复」外，也见于廿五章：「吾不知其名……强为之名曰大。大曰逝，逝曰远，远曰反。」

66. 老子的「反」一般指「反复」：「事物在一方向上演变，达到极度，无可再进，则必一变而为其反面，如是不已。」因此，「反」既指相反方向，也有往复循环的意思；参阅张岱年，《中国哲学大纲》，101页。

67. 如「胜人者有力，自胜者强」，（《道德经》卅三章）；「守柔曰强」，（《道德经》五十二章）。

68. 参阅袁步佳，《老子与基督》，北京　中国社科　1997　27-29页；作者提出老子笔下「圣人」之谜，认为「圣人」是「大道在人间的化身」，与基督是圣言降生成人可以互相比美。有关道教以老子为道的「降生」的思想参阅Livia Kohn, "Embodiment and Transcendence in Medieval Taoism, " in R. Malek (ed.), The Chinese Face of Jesus Christ, 77-83.

69. Ignace de la Potterie, La v＿it?dans Saint Jean, vol. I (Rome: Biblical Institute 1977) 228; 参阅Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, (Sacra Pagina Series IV) (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1998) 42; 作者说："It is often denied that in the koin蜌憯[?Greek of the New Testament the preposition pros followed by the accusative retained this idea of 'motion toward.' The intimacy of the overall context must determine what is possible, however much the Greek of the time have lost some of these nuances."

70. de la Potterie, La v＿it?dans Saint Jean, vol. I, 228-239; Moloney, Gospel of John, 46-47.

71. 在临别赠言里耶稣也说明祂与父的这种关系：「我出自父，来到了世界上；我又离开世界，往父那里去」（若16:28）。

72. 参阅Karl Rahner, "Dogmatic Reflections on the Knowledge and Self-Consciousness of Christ," in Theological Investigations, vol. V (New York: Seabury 1966) 205-208.

73. 仝上，210-215页；参阅黄克镳，〈卡拉内论基督的意识〉，《神学年刊》（n.7），1983　3-20页。

74. 耶稣自称被父派遣，为了完成父委托的工程，这思想遍见于若望福音；参阅Francis J. Moloney, "Johannine Theology," in New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1420.

75. 有关若望福音「时刻」（hora）的观念，参阅Brwon, Gospel According to John, 517-518。

76. 仝上，503页。

77. 仝上，504页。

78. 在受审判时耶稣也向比拉多声明：「若不是由上赐给你，你对我什么权柄也没有」（若19:11）。

79. Karl Rahner, "The Theology of the Symbol," in Theological Investigations, vol. IV (New York: Seabury 1966) 237.

80. 仝上，237-240页；拉内所创「实在象征」一词有深入的意义，这种象征能使被表征的事物真实临在，并显示出来。有关拉内「实在象征」的形上理论基础参阅Joseph H. Wong, Logos-Symbol in the Christology of Karl Rahner (Rome: LAS 1984) 75-82.

81. C.H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 194.

82. 参阅Brown, Gospel According to John, 283. 布朗指出，"dia ton patera"并不表示「为了父的缘故」，而是说「藉着父」而生活，意即父是耶稣的生命之根源。

83. 参阅Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 195.

84. 门徒与耶稣的彼此寓居反映了耶稣与父的彼此寓居。

85. 以门徒与基督的关系比作基督与父的关系也见于善牧的比喻：「我认识我的羊，我的羊也认识我，正如父认识我，我也认识父一样」（若10:14-15）。

86. 不少学者认为这节经文是若望序言的中心信息，圣言降生成人格外是为了使人参与祂作儿子的身份，成为天父的子女；参阅Bruno Barnhart, The Good Wine: Reading John from the Center (New York: Paulist 1993) 293-295.

87. 斐洛的逻各斯也有中保的任务，逻各斯是天主的「首生者」，谁若愿意成为天主的子女，可以先成为逻各斯的子女；参阅conf. 28, 146-147.

88. 有关「实在象征」的中介作用，拉内有以下言论："For the true and proper symbol, being an intrinsic moment of the thing itself has a function of mediation which is not at all opposed in reality to the immediacy of what is meant by it, but is a mediation to immediacy" ("Theology of Symbol," 244)。拉内认为复活基督的中保作用能使我们与天主直接会晤（mediation to immediacy）；参阅Karl Rahner, "Dogmatic Questions on Easter," ibid, 131-133.

89. 若望福音所载基督的「我是」言论可分两种：没有宾语的及有宾语的，那些没有宾语或独立的「我是」言论是用来表达天主在基督身上的自我启示；那些有宾语的「我是」言论却是为了显示基督的救恩意义的，如：「我是生命之粮」（6:51）；「我是世界之光」（8:12）；参阅Moloney, "Johannine Theology," 1423-24.

90. 这里可以看到「道的化身」与「圣言降生」的意义不尽相同；假如老子认为众人皆可能成为圣人－－道的化身，按照若望的见证，唯独耶稣基督是圣言的降生：基督是父的「独生子」（若1:14, 18），其他人是通过祂才成为天主的子女（若 1:12）。

91. 在讨论道的位格问题时，笔者提出道是「超位格的」（transpersonal）；见本文第一部分。

92. Harvey Egan 对于「神秘主义」有恰当的描述：Mysticism is "the universal thrust of the human spirit for experiential union with the Absolute and the theory of that union"; 参阅Harvey Egan, What Are They Saying About Mysticism? (New York: Paulist Press 1982) 3. 有关老子及庄子的神秘思想参阅Livia Kohn, Early Chinese Mysticism: Philosophy and Soteriology in the Taoist Tradition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP 1992) 4-9.

93. 有关「位际模式」与「一体模式」在神学及灵修上彼此补足的性质参阅张春申，《中国灵修刍议》，台中　光启　1978　142-161页。1

作者：周景勋

绪论

荀子谈「性恶」的资料内容可以从《性恶篇》中完全透射出来，故吾人欲研究荀子的性恶论，必须深切地精读《性恶篇》，才能体味荀子性恶论的内涵要旨。再者，荀子在谈论「性恶」之外，也常单独地讲论「性」的内容本质，这些内容遍及各篇，如《荣辱篇》、《礼论篇》、《不苟篇》、《正名篇》、《天论篇》等，吾人亦不可以忽略，然而，只是当作参考资料，或作为资料之根据之用。

吾人在介绍荀子性恶论时，先将《性恶篇》的结构，分段说明，找出荀子谈性恶的内容、根据、和目标；然后再将荀子对「性」的看法，及将性与情与欲的相连关系说明、分析荀子面对经验反省及他对当时现实生活的看法，再谈性伪之分，好能给荀子性恶论作一个简单的综合说明，这也是性恶论的论证。由性恶论的论证上看到荀子强调「化性起伪」，而了解他提出性恶论乃一个警世的思想，要求人不断强加「矫饰」，也因明礼义而得到「扰化」，是一条由「恶」向「善」的通路，好使人离恶行善，通神明，参天地。

《性恶篇》的结构

荀子在《性恶篇》的开始，便立刻给了一个肯定：「人之性恶，其善者伪也。」

这个肯定实在是一个大胆的断论，也是对「善」的一个判断。倘若说，荀子开宗明言是以「破题」的方法来作肯定，却没有「前题」加以引发；故，不如说，荀子将《性恶篇》之结语的肯定提前放在文章的开始，作为标题，然后按部就班地找出论证，一一作解释和说明。1

吾人分析《性恶篇》的内容，可清楚找出荀子以同一的手法，用不同的论证来说明：「人之性恶，其善者伪也」。

吾人将全篇的论证分作九段，每一段都以同一的肯定作为结论：「用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。」

荀子每次作结论时，都要找出具体的理由，以配合自己的主论和给予理想化的肯定；否则，他不可能说：人的性恶「明」矣！

现简析荀子言性恶的理由于下：

1. 《性恶篇》的第一段言

今人之性，生而有好利焉，顺是故争夺生，而辞让亡焉。生而有疾恶焉，顺是故残贼生，而忠信亡焉。生而有耳目之欲，有好声色焉，顺是故淫乱生，而礼义文理亡焉。然则从人之性，顺人之情，必出于争夺，合于犯分乱理，而归于（暴）；故必将有师法之化，礼义之道，然后出于辞让，合于文理，而归于治。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。

荀子举凡：今人之性，生而有：「好利、疾恶、耳目之欲和好声色」等生活现象，以顺之则「争夺、残贼、淫乱」生，而「辞让、忠信、礼义文理」亡，而归于暴。因而提出了「师法之化、礼义之道」，作为「化性」之用，使人不致顺性之恶而行，便能归于治。荀子没有假设人之性有力量「生而不顺」的可能性，因他乃针对当时社会的现象，以及他对「人性」的体验而立论，认为人性顺于「好利、疾恶、耳目之欲和好声色」乃自然的倾向，于是他以自己心中的理想去评定现实的「恶」。唐君毅说得好：

礼义文理善，则性必不善而为恶；礼义文理为理想，性则为其所转化之现实；唯因理想之善，方见现实之恶。此非孤立此性，而言其为恶，乃就人之顺性，必使礼义理不存，方谓性为恶也。2

可见，荀子实在是以自我心目中的善的理想与现实恶的现象作一个比较，才作出第一次立论。

2. 《性恶篇》的第二段言

故枸木必将待檃栝烝矫然后直；钝金必将待砻厉然后利；今人之性恶，必将待师法然后正，得礼义然后治。今人无师法，则偏险而不正；无礼义，则悖乱而不治。古者圣王以人之性恶，以为偏险而不正，悖乱而不治，是以为之起礼义、制法度，以矫饰人之情性而正之，以扰化人之情性而导之也。使皆出于治，合于道也。今之人、化师法、积文学，道礼义者为君子，纵性情，安恣睢，而违礼义者，为小人。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。

荀子在第二段中，再承上的理想而指出师法能正恶之性，礼义能治恶之性，犹似古圣王之作为。故起礼义、制法度的原因在于矫正和化导人之「恶之性」，目的就是能治和合于道。于是荀子用枸木之曲而不直，及纯金不利之实例说人性之恶偏险悖乱而不正不治；更用君子小人之比较，反映出人性一也，如《荣辱篇》所言：「材性知能，君子小人一也。」其不同者在于君子为「化师法、积文学，道礼义者」，故去恶；小人则为「纵性情，安恣睢而达礼义者」，故恶之性存，而没有君子之善，《不苟篇》曰：「君子，小人之反也。」由此可见：人之性乃恶，其善者乃后天之教化而改之也。

3. 《性恶篇》第三段言

孟子曰：「人之学者，其性善。」曰：是不然：是不及知人之性，而不察乎人之性伪之分者也。凡性者，天之就也，不可学，不可事。礼义者，圣人之所生也，人之所学而能，所事而成者也。不可学、不可事，而在人者，谓之性；可学而能，可事而成之在人者，谓之伪，是性伪之分也。今人之性，目可以见，耳可以听。夫可以见之明不离目，可以听之聪不离耳；目明而耳聪，不可学明矣。孟子曰：「今人之性善，将皆失丧其性故也。」曰：若是则过矣；今人之性，生而离其朴，离其资，必失而丧之。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣。

荀子常常以自己的理想思想作为跟别人比较的方法，他自己很注重「学」，且作《劝学篇》，故将自己的思想套在孟子身上：「人之学者，其性善」；当然孟子也谈「学」，然在性善上则不重「学」，且这句话在《孟子》书中是没有的，荀子在于批评孟子之说，而提出反面的论调：人因为性善而学；不如说：人的性乃恶，故需要「学」，以为善。故荀子很清楚的评说：「是不及知人之性，而不察乎人之性伪之分者也。」于是便给性与伪下定义：「凡性者，天之就也，不可学不可事。」又「不可学不可事，而在人者，谓之性。」也就如《正名篇》所言：「生之所以然者谓之性。」荀子之言性，实在是「生即性也」；由此，荀子便肯定目明耳聪乃天性，不假于学，学乃在于人有恶之性，始需师法以治；藉此以反驳孟子说恶乃人之本性之善失而变成的－－因为人若是性善，任其自然发展，当能不离其质与材，然今之人，不但一天一天离其「质」与「材」，而至于残贼淫乱，这便显易而见：「人之性恶明矣」。（笔者按：在这一段中，荀子没有说：「其善者伪也」，究竟是漏了没写，抑或是故意不写，吾人没有考据，只是惊奇荀子在其他八段中，都强调而言之，惟有这一段没写，是否荀子不排斥性善之可能，只不过在他的经验中，所看到与所接触到的，加上与他的理想之配合，认为性恶较性善之说较确实吧！）

4. 《性恶篇》第四段言

所谓性善者，不离其朴而美之，不离其资而利之也；使夫资朴之于美，心意之于善，若夫可以见之明不离目，可以听之聪不离耳。故曰：目明而耳聪也。今人之性，饥而欲饱，寒而欲暖，劳而欲休，此人之情性也。今人饥，见长而不敢先食者，将有所让也；劳而不敢求息者，将有所代也。夫子之让乎父，弟之让乎兄；子之代乎父，弟之代乎兄；－－此二行者，皆反于性而悖于情也；然而孝子之道，礼义之文理也。故顺情性则不辞让矣，辞让则悖于情性矣。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。

这一段乃荀子连接第三段的内容，以反驳孟子性善之说，再以「饥而欲饱，寒而欲暖，劳而欲休」－－人之常情，与辞让有着相背且反于性的矛盾，故「今人饥，见长而不敢先食者，将有所让也；劳而不敢求息者，将有所代也。夫子之让乎父、弟之让乎兄……」实在是「反乎性而悖于情也」。由此可见：「饥而欲饱……」乃人之常情，没有善恶之分，乃天生自然的需要；荀子之言性恶，在于「顺情性则不辞让，辞让则悖情性」，在这个矛盾互反的关系中，荀子经验到人之性恶在于顺之而为，实在与第一段中所言：「今人之性，生而有好利焉……」是互相呼应的，故言性恶是也。

5. 《性恶篇》第五段言

问者曰：「人之性恶，则礼义恶生？」应之曰：凡礼义者，是生于圣人之伪，非故生于人之性也。故陶人埏埴而为器，然则器生于工人之伪，非故生于人之性也。故工人斲木而成器，然则器生于工人之伪，非故生于人之性也。圣人积思虑，习伪故，以生礼义而起法度，然则礼义法度者，是生于圣人之伪，非故生于人之性也。若夫目好色，耳好声，口好味，心好利，骨体肤理好愉佚，是皆生于人之情性者也；感而自然，不待事而后生之者也。夫感而不能然，必且待事而后然者谓之生于伪。是性伪之所生，其不同之征也。故圣人化性而起伪，伪起而生礼义，礼义生而制法度；然则礼义法度者，是圣人之所生也，故圣人之所以同于众其不异于众者，性也；所以异而过众者，伪也。夫好利而欲得者，此人之情性也。假之人有弟兄相拂夺矣；且化礼义之文理，若是则让乎国人矣。故顺情性则弟兄争矣，化礼义则让乎国人矣。

凡人之欲为善者，为性恶也。夫薄愿厚，恶愿美，狭愿广，贫愿富，贱愿贵，苟无之中者，必求于外；故富而不愿财，贵而不愿执，苟有之中者，必不及于外。用此观之，人之欲善者，为性恶也。今人之性，固无礼义，故强学而求有之也；性不知礼义，故思虑而求知之也。然则生而已，则人无礼义，不知礼义。人无礼义则乱，不知礼义则悖。然则生而已，则悖乱在己。用此观之，人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。

这一段乃荀子面对别人关于「性恶与礼义的关系」的质询作回答。他的回答依然是以经验的实例作出发点，如陶匠以黏土制造陶器，及本匠以木块制成木器，都非生于人之性使然，而是陶匠、木匠后天学习其艺而懂其方法而制成的；荀子藉此实例推论礼义之成亦由人所制造的，而非人性而有的。原则是谁可以创制礼义法度呢？荀子推以「圣人」为之；其目的何在呢？用以「化性」。为什么要「化性」呢？为荀子来说，因「性恶」故，所以必须化之；因必须化改性恶而为善，圣人便「积思虑，习伪故。」（梁启雄案：广雅释诂：故，事也。）而且，圣人之性乃与众人同，其异于众之处在于能「起伪」－－从习思中找出方法以改造人性，变化人性，而礼义法制因之而兴起。可是，荀子没有反省到：制造陶器与木器，以及改造人性而兴起礼义法制，在性质上不同，而且层面上也不同，一为实用层面，另一为心性层面；荀子只以经验的观察说出的结论，再加上自我的理想要求，便作出判断：顺之者悖乱之故也。更以「凡人之欲为善者，为性恶也」的说法来肯定「性恶」，其根据理由是一般人的欲性：「薄愿厚，恶愿美，狭愿广，贫愿富，贼愿贵，苟无之中者，必求于外……人之欲为善者，为性恶也。」由这个肯定看来，荀子实在有些诡辩之强辞夺理。反言之，因为人之欲为善，可以证明人之初，有本善之性，才愿为善也。这与第一段所言：「今人之性，生而有好利焉，顺是故争夺生……生而有疾恶焉，顺是故残贼生……」有出入之处，有矛盾之处。吾人若将其改写：「今人之性，生而有欲为善焉，顺是故礼义生……」如是者，则荀子所言：「今人之性，固无礼义，故强学而求有之也」，亦必改写了。但一切刚好是相反的，荀子以后天的经验，看不到有善的实际状态，故言性恶，而在荀子的理想意念中：人在恶性中必须改化之，故必须学习以知礼义，渴慕去恶成善，这种欲善之想，乃荀子性恶说的产品；因此，荀子才强硬地肯定出－－「用此观之，人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也」－－这一个结论。

6. 《性恶篇》第六段言

孟子曰：「人之性善。」曰：是不然：凡古今天下之所谓善者，正理平治也；所谓恶者，偏险悖乱也；是善恶之分也已。今诚以人之性固正理平治邪？则有恶用圣王，恶用礼义矣哉！虽有圣王礼仪，将曷加于正理平治也哉！今不然：人之性恶；故古者圣人以人之性恶，以为偏险而不正，悖乱而不治，故为之立君上之埶以临之，明礼义以化之，起法正以治之，重刑罚以禁之，使天下皆出于治，合于善也；是圣王之治而礼义之化也。今当试去君上之埶，无礼义之化，去法正之治，无刑罚之禁，倚而观天下民人之相与也；若是，则夫强者害弱而夺之，众者暴寡而哗之，天下之悖乱而相亡不待顷矣。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。

荀子在这一段中，清晰地给「善」与「恶」下定理：「所谓善者，正理平治也；所谓恶者，偏险悖乱也。」然后作假设以言圣王以「有由思虑伪故起之礼义」及「无此而人任其性必致天下于悖乱」的对当比较说出人之性恶明矣；荀子的假设实际上也是天下中执行的教化工夫：「无礼义之化，去法正之治，无刑罚之禁，倚而观天下民人之相与也；若是，则夫强者害弱而夺之，众者暴寡而哗之，天下之悖乱而相亡不待顷矣。」为何是这样呢？荀子断言乃人之性恶的原因吧！而圣王也是因此而：「明礼义以化之，起法正以治之，重刑罚以禁之，使天下皆出于治，合于善也。」不然的话，圣王就不用有所作为了。

7. 《性恶篇》第七段记载

故善言古者必有节于今；善言天者必有征于人。凡论者，贵其有辨合，有符验。故坐而言之，起而可设张而可施行。今孟子曰：「人之性善。」无辨合符验，坐而言之，起而不可设张而不可施行，岂不过甚矣哉！故性善则去圣王，息礼义矣；性恶则与圣王贵礼义矣。故檃栝之生，为枸木也；绳墨之起，为不直也；立君上，明礼义，为性恶也。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。

荀子在第七段中，承第六段所言作发挥而否定性善之说。因为孟子所言之性善未能与「善言古者及善言天者」所有的征兆符验吻合；且不必有圣王及礼义之存在。然今「则与圣王贵礼义」，此乃性恶故。荀子再引用第二段之意，配合实际情况之需要而言：「檃栝之生为枸木也，绳墨之起为不直也，故立君上，明礼义乃为性恶也。」

8. 《性恶篇》第八段言

直木不待檃栝而直者，其性直也。枸木必将待檃栝烝矫然后直者，以其性不直也。今人之性恶，必将待圣王之治，礼义之化，然后皆出于治，合然善也。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。

荀子在这段中，重覆以直木之性直，枸木之性不直，及人之性恶作为同一层面的「性」作比喻，而肯定圣王之治，礼义之化可改变性恶，以合于善作理由，肯定性恶善伪。

9. 《性恶篇》第九段言

问者曰：「礼义积伪者，是人之性，故圣人能生之也。」应之曰：是不然：夫陶人埏埴而生瓦，然则瓦埴岂陶人之性也哉！工人斲木而生器，然则器木岂工人之性也哉！夫圣人之于礼义也，辟亦陶埏而生之也；然则礼义积伪者，岂人之本性也哉！凡人之性者，尧舜之与桀跖，其性一也；君子之与小人，其性一也。今将以礼义积伪为人之性邪？然则有曷贵尧舜，曷贵君子矣哉！凡所贵尧舜君子者，能化性、能起伪，伪起而生礼义，然则圣人之于礼义积伪也，亦犹陶埏而生之也。用此观之，然则礼义积伪者，岂人之性也哉！所贱于桀跖小人者，从其性，顺其情，安恣睢，以出乎贪利争夺。故人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。

荀子在《性恶篇》第九段中，不断重覆引申前面的论证，再一次强调人人之本性乃天生都一样的，不论圣人与恶人，如尧舜与桀跖，君子与小人都没有例外；而为何有圣人君子与恶人小人之分别呢？实因圣人君子能化性起伪，思虑而习礼义，故合于善；恶人小人皆从性顺情，而陷于贪利争夺，未能化除本性之恶。

10. 《性恶篇》最后的一大段

由「天非私曾骞孝己，而外众人也；然而曾骞孝己，独厚于孝之实，而全于孝之名者，何也？以綦于礼义故也……」到「……尧问于舜曰：『人情何如？』舜对曰：『人情甚不美，又何问焉？妻子具而孝衰于亲，嗜欲得而信衰于友，爵禄盈而忠衰于君，人之情乎？人之情乎？甚不美，又何问焉？唯贤者为不然。』」

荀子在此段中，实在只是言人可以为善之理，且言「涂之人可以为禹」，以「仁义法正」作为衡量，故荀子曰：「今使涂之人伏术为学，专心一志，思索孰察，加日县久，积善而不息，则通于神明，参与天地矣。」能不能达到「通神明，参天地」的目的与境界，则要视乎人肯不肯：「故小人可以为君子而不肯为君子，君子可以为小人而不肯为小人。……故涂之人可以为禹，则然；涂之人能为禹，未必然也。……」荀子在最后一段中，根本不再谈性恶的问题与论证，反而提出能为善，为圣人、上勇、中勇、下勇，以及人情等问题，故吾人亦不加以谈论。

由上述的分析，吾人可见荀子之论人性之恶，实在是从实际的、具体的、经验的和感觉的角度来证实，即乃从人性与礼义文理之善作关系上的对当比较，以言人之恶明矣。而且，在九次的论证中，常常重覆提出「礼义」、「思虑习伪」、「化性」、「顺性情则悖乱」等等思想。还常以实例作比喻，来支持自我理想中所界定的思想，以实际的生命（生活）状态作出转化而为善，来肯定性恶之立论。诚如唐君毅在《原性篇》中的评论：

观人之现实生命之状态，即未善而不善，便仍可谓其性之趋向在为不善，而乃为恶。人之欲为禹者，亦未必能实求自转化其现实生命之状态。人果必求转化之，即必意谓此状态为未合于善，而为不善，为恶；不得因其可能被转化而可为善，即不谓其性恶矣。

又

在此人已有一道德文化理想之情形下，对此理想之实现，必待于人对于其现实生命之状态，能有所转化之义，荀子之所认识者，实较孟子为深切。既欲转化之，即不以之为善，而当以之为恶；性恶之论，亦即在此义上，为不能不立者矣。

1. 罗光著，《中国哲学思想史》（先秦篇），学生　639。荀子主张性恶，在书中有「性恶」篇。在这一篇的开端，他就开宗明义地说明：「人之性恶，其善者伪也」，这两句话为这一篇的结论，放在前面，作为标题，他用许多证据去证明……。

2. 唐君毅著，「第二章　庄子之复心言性、荀子之对心言性与《中庸》之即性言心」，《中国哲学原论原性篇》，新亚研究所印行　49, 50。

荀子言「性」的境况

荀子在《性恶篇》中常常说：「今人之性……」，然后引申出性恶的结论。例如在《性恶篇》的开始便说：「今人之性，生而有好利焉，顺是，故争夺生而辞让亡焉。……」又「今人之性恶，必将待师法然后正，得礼义然后治。今人无师法，则偏险而不正……」又「今人之性，饥而欲饱……」等等。荀子强调：「今人」，实因他以「观察」当时社会的情景所得之经验作反省，而由经验的肯定建立他的礼义法制的理想政治，以礼义法制克制人之性恶，化而为善。由是，吾人当视察荀子时代的生活背境，便能一目了然地瞭解为何荀子会提倡性恶说。

《史记》孟子荀卿列传记载：

荀卿，赵人，年五十，始来游学于齐，驺衍之术，迂大而闳辩，　也文具难施，淳于髡久与处，时有得善言，故齐人颂曰：谈天衍、雕龙　，炙毂过髡，田骈之属皆已死，齐襄王时，而荀卿最为老师，齐尚修列大夫之缺，而荀卿三为祭酒焉。齐人或谗荀卿，荀卿乃适楚，而春申君以为兰陵令，春申君死而荀卿废，因家兰陵，李斯尝为弟子，已而相秦，荀卿嫉浊世之政，亡国乱君相属，不遂大道，而营于巫祝，信禨祥，鄙儒小拘，如庄周等，又滑稽乱俗，于是推儒墨道德之行事与坏，序列着万言而卒，因葬兰陵。

而梁任公则假设：荀子当生于西元前三○七年，即周赧王八年，卒于西元前二一三年，即秦始皇三十四年，约九十四岁。3

由《史记》所言，及荀子的生存时代的背境，吾人可知荀子怀着满腹经纶，但未能有所遇，所遇又不如所想，道不能衍，连李斯亦舍他所教之仁义以迎秦：「李斯因荀子议兵以仁义为本，乃谓荀子曰：『秦兵强海内，非以仁义为之也！』荀子斥其舍本求末，『此世之所以乱也』（《议兵篇》）。后李斯被秦所重用，荀子闻之『为之不食，睹其罹不测之祸也』（《盐铁篇》，《毁学》）。」4

又因时势局面之乱，人心求利，求功之切，礼义皆亡，荀子乃退而发愤着书，现传于世的《荀子》一书，共为二十卷三十二篇。5

《性恶篇》的着作日期吾人难以考据，若假设言之，当是荀子退出当时的政治局势，于兰陵隐居时所着，以他对社会政治的理想期望为终旨，而将他一生所观于时局的经验及遭遇为根据，作出反省思虑，终觉得「今人」之性的表现皆自私自利，常常互相争夺，嫉恶残贼没有忠信，欲起淫乱生，礼义文理亡 ?? 这是「为什么」呢？荀子由经验所得，亦由当时的背境局势反映，人人皆顺性而为，自我放纵，社会国家悖乱不治，民不聊生，故将儒学传统的善视作制止恶性泛滥的工具或方法，因而在《性恶篇》中言：「用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。」这可说是荀子面对现实生命与自我理想目标的一个对当比较的成果。

3. 周绍贤著，《荀子要义》，台湾　中华书局　2-3。周绍贤接纳梁任公假设，且认为这较为可信的史实。

4. 周绍贤著，《荀子要义》，台湾　中华书局　2。

5. 陈大齐著，《荀子学说》，中华文化出版事业委员会　2。

荀子「性」论

当吾人论及荀子对「性」的观点时，无不自然而然地想到「性恶论」，可见「性恶」的思想观点已经是荀子哲学的特征，这个特征与孟子的「性善论」是并驾前往的，也就是吾人所莫明的一个疑问：孟子荀子皆同出于儒家，所持的思想路向却是如此的分歧，且有相互对当的局面，真使人费解；然而其分歧的地方，实在是对「性」有不同的看法，和不同的诠释，因不同的看法和诠释而有不同的论证和定义，诚如周绍贤在《荀子要义》一书的自序中说：

至于性善性恶之说，亦不至两相水火，孟子谓「人之所以异于禽兽者几希」（《离娄篇》），并不否认人有恶性；荀子谓「涂之人可以为禹」（《性恶篇》），并未否认人有善性；孟子谓「人之有道也，饱食暖衣，逸居而无教，则近于禽兽」（《滕文公篇》）；荀子谓人「必将待师法然后正，得礼义然后治」（《性恶篇》）；总之皆注重礼义教化，两家之说，殊途同归。

吾人更肯定的一点乃：不论是性善或性恶之说有多大的分歧，其目的在于针对「性」的问题，且将「性」投向一个伦理的形上层面，即达到至善的境界，孟子言性善，在于将人之所以为人的天赋之善，扩而充之，以达到至高的善境；而荀子言性恶，在于将人「生之所以然者谓之性」的性，在生而有好利、嫉恶和欲望的恶中，「化性起伪」，加以教化矫饰，归于礼义，且「专心一志，思索孰察，加日县久，积善而不息，则通于神明，参于天地矣」（《性恶篇》）?? 实在也是达到一个善的境界。

故此，吾人若要瞭解荀子性恶的思想，必须从荀子的「性」论说起。

1. 何谓「性」？

唐君毅先生在《中国哲学原论原性篇》中言：

中国古代之泛论人物之性，通常涵二义：一为就一人物之当前的存在，引生其自身之继起的存在，以言其性；一为就一物之自身之存在，以言其引生其他事物之存在之性。

前者如《诗经》中有「俾尔弥尔性」之性是也；后者如《左传》昭王二十五年：「因地之性」的性是也。6 可见「性」之说早已存在，且广泛地表达了存在的力量，及存有与存有之间的存在关连。及至孔子，在《论语》中说：「子贡曰：夫子之文章，可得而闻也。夫子之言性与天道，不可得而闻也。」（《公冶长篇》）按何晏注释：「性者，人之所受以生也。」而朱熹的解释是：「性者，人所受之天理。」由两者的注释内容看来，何晏之注较合于原始之义。《论语》另一处提及「性」字乃：「性相近也，习相远也。」（《阳货篇》）也是就生之所以然的「性」来谈「性」，除了这两处，《论语》就没有提及「性」字了，无怪乎子贡会说：「夫子之言性与天道，不可得而闻也。」及其后，乃有「就人之面对天地万物，与其人生理想，以言人性。由此所言之人性，在先秦诸子中，或为人当谋所以自节，以成德而与天地参者，如在荀子；或为人当谋所以自尽，以备万物，上下与天地同流者，如在孟子；或为人当谋所以自复自安，以与天地并生，与万物为一者，如在庄子。」7

然单就荀子之论性一事言之，则有「生之谓性」的思想：

性者，本始材朴也。（《礼论篇》）

生之所以然者谓之性。（《正名篇》）

性之和所生，精合感应，不事而自然，谓之性。（《正名篇》）

凡性者，天之就也，不可学，不可事。（《性恶篇》）

不可学、不可事，而在人者，谓之性。（《性恶篇》）

由荀子所言的「性」中，吾人可看出有两个层面的意义：

1.1 「生之所以然者谓之性」的「生之所以然」，乃是「生之谓性」的具体表达，亦即是人求生的力量及根据，不是从生理现象的层面立论，而是先天的层面所表达的自然的「性」。

而「性者，天之就也」，乃是从生理现象的层面作推论上达于天的。荀子所言的天，冯友兰在《中国哲学史》中指出乃自然的天；徐复观在《中国人性论史》（《先秦篇》）中说：「荀子的所谓天，只不过尚未被人能够了解的自然物，但究竟是比人高一个层次。」罗光在对《天论篇》的「天」字作分析归纳后，指出「天」的意义：「一、天字指着人性；二、天字指着天生官能；三、天字指着天地之天；四、天字指着自然；五、天字指着上帝。」8吾人接纳荀子的天乃自然的天，指人性及天生官能而言，故「性者，天之就也」就是「生之所以然者谓之性」的「生之谓性」也。

1.2 第二个层面乃指出「生之所以然」或「天之就」的「性」的表达层面，这可说是生理现象的层面，可以由经验得知，即荀子所说的「性之和所生，精合感应，不事而自然，谓之性」，此乃先天自然的性与生理相合所产生的官能交融，其与外物相合（精合），外物接触（感）于官能所引起的官能反应（感应），如饥欲食，寒欲暖，及目辨色等，都不必经过人为的构想，乃自然如此 ??「不事而自然」，「不可学，不可事，而在人者」，即在经验中可直接把握到的。9

荀子性恶论就是从后天经验的察视人的生理现象反应，所作出的肯定，人的生理现象就在人欲中呈露出来，「欲」在荀子的意念中乃是「情」，都是人之所生而有的：「凡人有所一同，饥而欲食，寒而欲暖，劳而欲息，好利而恶害，是人之所生而有的，是无待而然者也，是禹桀之所同也。」（《荣辱篇》）故吾人进而谈论荀子之言「性」与「情」与「欲」。

2. 性与情与欲

荀子所言的性，常与情与欲互通而言的，这与先秦学者，特别是孔子、孟子所言的不太吻合，因「在先秦，情与性，是同质而常常可以互用的两个名词。在当时一般的说法，性与情，好像一株树生长的部位。根的地方是性，由根伸长上去的枝干是情；部位不同，而本质则一。所以先秦诸子谈到性与情时，都是同质的东西。人性论的成立，本来即含有点形上的意义。但荀子思想的性格，完全不承认形上的意义，于是他实际不在形上的地方肯定『性』，所以把性与情的不同部位也扯平了。」10 吾人可以从荀子所言所说中以予证明：

性之好恶喜怒哀乐，谓之情。（《正名篇》）

性者，天之就也；情者，性之质也；欲者，情之应也。（《正名篇》）

故虽为守门，欲不可去，性之具也。（《正名篇》）

今人之性，生而有好利焉……生而有疾恶焉……生而有耳目之欲，好声色焉。（《性恶篇》）今人之性，饥而欲饱，寒而欲暖，劳而欲休，此人之情性也。（《性恶篇》）

凡人有所一同：饥而欲食，寒而欲暖，劳而欲息，好利而恶害，是人所生有也，是无待而然者也，是禹桀之所同也。目辨白黑美恶，耳辨音声清浊，口辨酸　甘苦，鼻辨芬芳腥臊，骨体肤理辨寒暑疾养，是又人之所常生而有也。（《荣辱篇、非相篇》）

若夫目好色，耳好声，口好味，心好利，骨体肤理好愉佚，是皆生于人之情性者也。感而自然，不待事而后生之者也。（《性恶篇》）

人之情，食欲有刍豢，衣欲有文绣，行欲有舆马，又欲夫余财富积之富也；然而穷年累世不知不足，是人之情也……是人情之所同欲也。（《荣辱篇》）

按上面所言，可见荀子所谓的性，实在是情，也是欲，三者是同一而异名：「情者性之质也」，就是说没有情就没有性之意也；「欲者情之应也」，情欲乃互相相应而生，也就是说欲乃随情而生，没有情也就没有欲了。再者，荀子更以「情性」合言，表示其乃同一义也。由于荀子言性与情与欲同，故其性恶论也因欲多而起争夺的现实生命反映出来的，故由「欲多起争」之显恶肯定性恶，而善者伪也之说。

3. 性伪之分

荀子将性与伪作区分，在于分言恶与善。因性为情为欲，故自然之性是恶的，这是由经验上得到的结论：「生而有好利，生而有疾恶」等。而「伪」字在荀子的思想中，即「人为」之意。王先谦注：「荀书伪皆读为」。「善伪」：乃荀子为生而倾向恶之性作一个转化的提供：「化性起伪」，使人转向善的机会，这也是圣人所生之礼义法度之伪也。

在《荀子》一书中，荀子对性伪之说和界定如下：

不可学，不可事而在人者，谓之性。可学而能，可事而成之在人者，谓之伪。是性伪之分也。（《性恶篇》）

若夫目好色，耳好声，口好味，心好利，骨体肤理好愉佚，是皆生于人之情性者也；感而自然，不待事而后生者也。夫感而不能然，必且待事而后然者，谓之生于伪，是性伪之所生，其不同之征也。（《性恶篇》）

性者，本始材朴也；伪者，文理隆盛也。无性，则伪之无所加；无伪，则性不能自美。（《礼论篇》）

故圣人之所以同于众，其不异于众者，性也。所以异而过众者，伪也。（《性恶篇》）

由「无伪，则性不能自美」可知，伪为「有所加」之意，则可以赋予性力量，使能趋向美善，此因荀子言性恶之故。

「伪」－－人为之作能改善人性，使能学而知，能事礼义而去恶，文理隆盛而合于道，这就是圣人之所以异于众的原因，且「起礼义，制法度，以矫饰人之情性而正之，以扰化人之情性而导之也，始皆出于治，合于道也。」（《性恶篇》）所以荀子强调：「其善者伪也」（《性恶篇》），也就是表达了人由性恶起伪，便可以化性趋善，甚至能如禹一样而为圣人，通于神明，参于天地。荀子曰：

人之性恶，其善者伪也……故必将有师法之化，礼义之道。然后出于辞让，合于文理，而归于治。用此观之……其善者伪也。」（《性恶篇》）

又

今人之性，必将待师法然后正，得礼义然后治，今人无师法，则偏险不正，无礼义则悖乱而不治。古者圣王以人亡性恶，以为偏险而不正，悖乱而不治，是以为之起礼义，制法度，以矫饰人之情性而止之，以扰化人之情性而导之也；始皆出于治，合于道者也。今之人化师法，积文学，道礼义者，为君子。纵性情，安恣睢，而违礼义者，为小人。用此观之……其善者伪。（《性恶篇》）

在《性恶篇》中，荀子凡九次言及「其善者伪」，使吾人肯定他所提倡之性恶说，乃在于警愓当时的人不要顺性而为，当起伪化性：「伏术为学，专心一志，思索孰察，加日县久，积善而不息，则通于神明，参于天地矣。」（《性恶篇》）

6. 陈训章著，《孟子管窥》，黎明文化事业　94。

7. 唐君毅著，「第一章　原性（一）中国人性观之方向与春秋时代之德言性」，《中国哲学原论原性篇》，新亚研究所印行　11。

8. 罗光著，「第八章　荀子的哲学思想」，《中国哲学思想史》（先秦篇），学生　665-673。

9. 徐复观著，「第八章　从心善向心知 ?? 荀子的经验主义的人性论」，《中国人性论史》（先秦篇），台湾商务　229-233。

10. 徐复观著，「第八章　从心善向心知 ?? 荀子的经验主义的人性论」，《中国人性论史》（先秦篇），台湾商务　229-233。

性恶之论证

吾人在分析《性恶篇》的结构中，已分段释说《性恶篇》的内容，亦不断地提出荀子性恶的论证，现只是作综合性的说明。

1. 顺性则乱言性恶

人之性恶，其善者伪也。今人之性，生而有好利焉，顺是故争夺生，而辞让亡焉。生而有疾恶焉，顺是故残贼生，而忠信亡焉。生而有耳目之欲，有好利声色焉，顺是故淫乱生，而礼义文理亡焉。然则从人之性，顺人之情，必出于争夺，合于犯分乱理，而归于暴。故必将有师法之化，礼义之道，然后出于辞让，合于文理，而归于治。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣。（《性恶篇》）

今之人……纵性情，安恣睢，而违礼义者为小人。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣。（《性恶篇》）

顺情性则不辞矣，辞让则悖于情性矣。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣。（《性恶篇》）

为什么顺性的结果是好利、争夺生；嫉恶，残贼生；耳目声色之欲，淫乱生；形成辞让亡、忠信亡、礼义文理亡呢？

荀子肯定地说：「性恶之故。」

由荀子经验所得的反省思索中，人常纵性情，安恣睢，违礼义，今世有多少君子呢？小人当道，国恒乱，民恒苦，由社会现象透视生命现象，由生命现象透视人的生理反应，由人生理反应所产生的现象就是顺性情，故「今人之性，生而离其朴，离其资，必失而丧之，用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣。」（《性恶篇》）

2. 求善去不善乃性恶故

凡人之欲为善者，为性恶也。夫薄愿厚，恶愿美，狭愿广，贫愿富，贱愿贵；苟无之中者，必求于外。……用此观之，人之欲为善者，为性恶也。今人之性，固无礼义，故强学而求有之也，性不知礼义，故思虑而求知之也。然则生而已，则人无礼义，不知礼义；人无礼义则乱，不知礼义则悖。然则生而已，则悖乱在己。用此观之，人之性恶明矣。（《性恶篇》）

凡古今天下之所谓善者，正理平治也；所谓恶者，偏险悖乱也，是善恶之分也已。（《性恶篇》）

古者圣人以人之性恶，以为偏险而不正，悖乱而不治。故为之立君上之埶以临之，明礼义以化之，起法正以治之，重刑罚以禁之，使天下皆出于治，合于善也，是圣王之治而礼义之化也。……用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣。（《性恶篇》）

故性善则去圣王息礼义矣，性恶则与圣王贵礼义矣。故檃栝之生，为枸木也；绳墨之起，为不直也。立君上，明礼义，为性恶也。用此观之，然则人之性恶明矣。（《性恶篇》）

为什么需要礼义呢？礼义在于引人向善。

为什么人欲为善呢？因为希望离开恶。

荀子以薄厚、恶美、狭广、贫富、贱贵的相对作比喻，引申出人之欲厚、美、广、富、贵。犹似圣王之愿国能治一样。荀子的原则：「苟无之中者，必求之于外」，今因人性无善，故必求之也；求之于礼义，求之于法正。

荀子清楚地将善恶之意作区分－－善者乃正理平治也；恶者乃偏险悖乱也。因为人性本恶，就有偏险而不正、悖乱而不治的现象。故古之圣王了解这一点，便以「明礼义以化之，起法正以治之，重刑罚以禁之，使天下皆出于治，合于善也。」事实上，荀子见到时势的现象：「夫强者害弱而夺之，众者暴寡而哗之，天下之悖乱而相之，不待顷矣。」（《性恶篇》）其原因乃：「今当试去君上之执，无礼义之化，去法正之治，无刑罚之禁」；其结果将如何呢？就是强欺弱，众暴寡的现象了。故荀子肯定，若人本性善，根本不需要礼义助人求善，不需要法正及刑罚来规限人之恶；然而，现今的经验告知，实际的现况证之，人不断求善，在于去除本身之恶；人需要礼义、法正及刑罚，使之不陷于恶而趋善，故性恶明矣。

3. 「不治与治、不正与正」谈性恶

故必将有师法之化，礼义之道，然后出于辞让，合于文理，而归于治。（《性恶篇》）

今人之性恶，必将待师法然后正，得礼义然后治。今人无师法，则偏险而不正，悖乱而不治。古者圣王以人之性恶，以为偏险而不正，悖乱而不治，是以为之起礼义，制法度，以矫饰人之情性而正之，以扰化人之情性而导之也，始皆出于治，合于道者也。（《性恶篇》）

古者圣人以人之性恶，以为偏险而不正，悖乱而不治。故为之立君上之埶以临之，明礼义以化之，起法正以治之，重刑罚以禁之，使天下皆出于治，合于善也。（《性恶篇》）

今人之性恶，必将待圣王之治、礼义之化，然后皆出于治，合于善也。（《性恶篇》）

荀子在《性恶篇》中重覆地强调：师法、礼义、正与不正、治与不治，实在要说明性恶对人、对社会、对国家的影响；还有对自己的影响。至于对自己而言，因性恶之故，人便「偏险不正」，故必须先正己，正己之法就是「师法」，即接受教育，不断学习，如《劝学篇》所言：「木受绳则直，金就砺则利，君子博学而日参省乎己，则知明而行无过矣。」由此，人就有能力「矫饰」自我的性恶，使之化而为善，这就是所谓「师法之化」也。

至于对人、对社会、对国家，则在「礼义」上立言，从「治与不治」上作出发点。荀子认为礼义乃圣人所制，以助人不顺性而行，故有法度，刑罚比较消极的方法去约束人之性恶，使能导引人走向善合于道；而明礼义乃积极的方法，使人能去己恶而不起悖乱；如是者，国恒治，诚如《修身篇》所言：「人无礼则不生，事无礼则不成，国家无礼则不宁。」故荀子以「礼义」作为「扰化」人的性情，以引导人、地、事物得以「生、成、宁」，于是悖乱不生而治。

4. 欲多不知足现性恶

今人之性，饥而欲饱，寒而欲暖，劳而欲休，此人之情性也。（《性恶篇》）

人之情，食欲有刍豢，衣欲有文绣，行欲有舆马，又欲夫余财蓄积之富也。然而穷年累世不知不足，是人之情也。（《荣辱篇》）

人生而有欲，欲而不得，则不能无求；求而无度量分界，则不能无事。争则乱，乱则穷。（《礼论篇》）

天下害生纵欲，欲恶同物，欲多而物寡，寡则必争矣。（《富国篇》）

子宋子曰：「人之情欲寡，而皆以己之情为欲多，是过也。故率其群徒，辨其谈说，明其譬称，将使人知情欲之寡也。」应之曰：「然则亦以人之情为欲，目不欲綦声，口不欲綦味，鼻不欲綦臭，形不欲綦佚，此五綦者，亦以人之情为不欲乎？」曰：「人之情欲是已。」曰：「若是则说必不行矣。以人情为欲此五綦者而不欲多，譬之是犹以人之情，为欲富贵而不欲货也，好美而恶西施也。古之人为之不然，以人之情为欲多而不欲寡，故赏以富贵，而罚以杀损也，是百王之所同也。（《正论篇》）

夫人之情，目欲綦色，耳欲綦声，口欲綦味，鼻欲綦臭，心欲綦佚，此五綦者，人情之所不免也。（《王霸篇》）

从「欲」上看，荀子认为性就是情就是欲：「性者天之就也，情者性之质也，欲者情应也。」（《正名篇》）但由于人生而有好利、嫉恶、欲望，故不断地陷于纵欲中－－「人之情欲多而不欲寡」，故「欲不得，则不能无求，求而无度量分界，则不能无争，争则乱，乱则穷」，就是欲不知足的后果。在人的生理现象中，吾人感悟到所谓：「人心（欲也）不足蛇吞象」，这也是在人的衣、食、住、行中表达无遗。人人欲有财富上的拥有，无有则求之，求的方法很多，有正当之法，也有不正当之法，而荀子《荣辱篇》所言的不知足，有乱起的含意，因人的不知足，就不免于争夺残杀，而做成社会的纷乱。因此，荀子从「欲」的不知足以证明性恶论。11

11. 参阅华仲麔等著，《儒家思想研究论集》（二），黎明文化事业。周群振著，《荀子之心术观与性恶论》，215-260。

结论

先秦学者，尤其是春秋战国期间，论及人性的问题的学者很多，其内容不外是详述人性之善，人性之恶，或人性无善无恶，而以孟子性善说、荀子性恶论，告子的性无善无恶为显着，其他如世硕、宓子贱、漆雕开、公孙尼子之徒等皆有论述「性」的问题。吾人可从王充《论衡》中的《本性篇》所记述，得到可靠的资料：「周人世硕，以为人性有善有恶，举人之善性养而致之则善长，恶性养而致之则恶长。如此，则性各有阴阳，善恶在所养焉。故世子作《养书》一篇。宓子贱、漆雕开、公孙尼子之徒，亦论情性，与世子相出入，皆言性有善有恶。孟子作《性善之篇》，以为人性皆善；及其不善，物乱之也。谓人生于天地，皆禀善性；长大与物交接者，放纵悖乱，不善日以生矣。若孟子之言，人幼小之时无有不善也。告子与孟子同时，其论性无善无恶之分，譬之湍水，决之东则东，决之西则西。夫水无分于东西，犹人无分于善恶也。孙卿有反孟子，作《性恶之篇》，以为人性恶，其善者伪也。性恶者，以为人生皆得恶性也。伪者，长大之后勉使为善也。若孙卿之言，人幼小无有善也。」

其后，中国二千年来的哲学，都不断地在「性论」上寻求答案，而以儒家的「性善」说影响较大，当然性恶论、性无善无恶说，以及性有善有恶说也有学者从之，但影响不大；然亦有学者在谈论「性」之时，有新的思维观念，尤其是在汉朝，贾谊、王充、魏荀及唐韩愈的「性三品说，汉杨雄的「恶善混说」，较为特别，但对后世的影响亦不大。12

中国哲学上所谈论的「性」，不论是人性有善有恶说，无善无恶、性善或性恶等学说，其目的皆希望提醒世人，要求人活在善中，或走向善的生活，特别是儒家的思想，更要求人不断走向善，直到「至善」的境界方可停止，此即所谓「止于至善」也。荀子虽然谈论性恶，其目标也是一样，要求人离恶向善：「荀子自己提出了此一问题，也解答了此一问题。－－『涂之人可以为禹，曷谓也﹖曰：凡禹之所以为禹者，以其为仁义法正也。然则仁义法正，有可知可能之理。然而涂之人也，皆有可以知仁义法正之质，皆有可以能仁义法正之具，然则其可以为禹明矣』（《性恶篇》）」13。

荀子所言性恶，实在是一条由恶向善的通路，使人多观察人性的软弱，社会的不安不治，而要求人多多矫饰自我的不正，进而正己；由正己做到安人安百姓的扰化作用，导引人行义明礼；如此，悖乱不生，人人能积善而不息，社会国家也积善而不息，则皆能「通于神明，参于天地矣」，这也是荀子谈性恶所希望导引人达到的境界。实在的，这与《中庸篇》所言：「唯天下至诚，为能尽其性，能尽其性，则能尽人之性；能尽人之性，则能尽物之性；能尽物之性，则可以赞天地之化育；可以赞天地之化育，则可以与天地参矣。」－－不谋而合，只是《中庸篇》言尽性，而荀子则言「矫饰」的师法，去性之恶，而行善显善，明礼正己治人，其最终的目标皆在于「通于神明，参与天地」也。

因此，我们可从荀子《性恶篇》的反思中，寻找一条去性恶以行善显善，和明礼正己治人的明道行道的指向，落实在现时代的社会中，作为现代人的修养、社会道德规范和知性认识的反省与跟进；至于能否达致「通于神明、参与天地」，就必须视乎个人的修维了。

1. 劝学

这是劝人为学，重视认知意识和自我醒觉的教育指导，注意道德和知识互调的全人教育，故荀子强调「学」在于明「礼」：「学至乎礼而止矣。」（《劝学篇》）这在乎人能否专心勤勉，而不在于智与愚，能专心勤勉的人，便可成就：「虽愚必明，虽柔必强」（《中庸篇》）。故此，荀子肯定后天学习的重要；知识是由积累而博的，道德是由修持而得的；这两者是认知的目标，好能培育完善的人格：「君子博学而日参省乎已，则知明而行无过矣。」（《劝学篇》）14 从认知意识引发出的「知明」到自我醒觉的道德实践，就是「行无过」，肯定了知识与道德的「知行」一体。这一个「知行」一体的配合之「能与不能」，「成与不成」不是外在的，而是「人」自身的意识和醒觉，以建立个人的道德修养和实践，同时也设立了社会的道德规范和伦理秩序的运作，荀子说：「可学而能，可事而成之在『人』者。」（《性恶篇》）可见，荀子在教育上重视「知」的认知意识以劝学明礼和「行」的道德修养以践仁成圣；更重要的是「在『人』者」，就是「人」本身的自我意愿－－「认知意识」的「学」以「知」；和自我醒觉的「道德修养」的「践」以「行」，这与化性起伪是相联系的，就是由「学」到「伪」（为）来改造人性之恶，成就道德修养的「行」而为君子，给社会注入伦理秩序，使人能体验「天见其明，地见其光」（《劝学篇》），人便升华到宇宙间的大道，故必修身以致道，「通于神明，参与天地矣」（《儒效篇》）15 这种伟大的理念，为现时代物质化生活的人，究竟能起多大的力量，又可改变人心多少，值得今人深入的反思；千万不要将教育变成物质化的职业培训园地。

2. 虚壹而静

荀子劝人为学以明「礼」，明「礼」必须先知「道」，因为「治之要，在于知道」（《解蔽篇》），知「道」以至体「道」；故荀子清楚地作诠释：「人何以知『道』？曰：心。心何以知？曰：虚壹而静。……谓之大清明。」（《解蔽篇》）

人由「心」以知「道」，因为荀子认为：「心也着，道之工宰也。」（《正名篇》）心能思道亦能察道，也是「道」的主宰，于是人在学习中必须用心专一，排除杂念，摒弃成见，即「不以所已藏害所将受」（《解蔽篇》）的「虚」，和「如盘水，正错而勿动，则湛浊在下，而清明在上，则足以见须眉面察理矣」（《解蔽篇》）的「静」－－静心不动，保持清彻澄明来知「道」。16 可见，荀子论虚静完全是以知「道」为目的，虚静只是存心的方法，要人以醒觉的心去认知和实践「道」，好能化性起伪，培育善的人格，活出真实无妄的「诚」，「诚心守仁」，「诚心行义」（《不苟篇》），由此，荀子提出「养心莫善于诚」（《不苟篇》）的要求，劝人「以仁心说，以学心听，以公心辨」（《正名篇》），务使在自觉自省中，知「道」行「道」－－「君子博学而日参省乎已，则知明而行无过」（《劝学篇》）。知「道」是认知意识的形上目标，知明就是明礼，认知的落实，在道德生活上的实践。行「道」就是依道之向而行的形上要求，随「道」之意而活，行无过就是具体地在生活中活出「道」，使道德和认知的生活在无过失中实践，故不必有所已藏，也不可害所将受。

现今的物质社会不但不养心，更有所已藏的自私自利，更为追求物质科技的发达而忘掉了虚静的精神需要和方向，故人与社会都不虚不静而为躁，「躁则失君」（道德经26章），能静者，可胜躁 17 而养心，心正而专一能知「道」而行无过，所以「清静为天下正」（道德经45章）。

3. 解蔽

人的生命既软弱又有限，加上社会的转变，人的思想认知和道德取向都容易失去目标，放纵行事，以偏盖全，以私遗公，还自以为知「道」，依「道」而行，这实在是无知。荀子在《解蔽篇》中言：「凡人之患，蔽于一曲，而暗于大理。」又在《天论篇》中言：「万物为道一偏，一物为万物一偏。愚者为一物一偏，而自以为知道，无知也。」

再者，在复杂的社会中，一切事物都是互动互系互联的，人在认知上不可一意孤行，虽以客观的判断和推论为要，也当知己知彼，不可蔽于己而不知彼：「有见于此，无见于彼」（《天论篇》），就会陷于片面性或主观性，于是在认知上没有正确的判断，流于偏见的私心和片面之词，荀子说：「故为蔽：欲为蔽，恶为蔽；始为蔽，终为蔽；远为蔽，近为蔽；博为蔽，浅为蔽；古为蔽，今为蔽。凡万物异莫不相为蔽，此心术之公患也。」（《解蔽篇》）以上十种蔽的原因，在于警愓人要对自己的心加以谨慎：「主其心而慎治之。」（《解蔽篇》）

人因偏心便易陷于「情欲动心」，看事处事便不能清明，心不清明便疑心不定：「凡观物有疑，中心不定，则外物不清。……以疑决疑，决必不当；夫苟不当，安能无过乎。」（《解蔽篇》）由是荀子提出隆礼重法，18 作为人思想言论是非得失的准则，个人立身处世的规范，行修正身的工具，调和情欲和治气养心之道，维系社会秩序使之共融合一的基要，社会阶层合理化的依据，节用裕民的合理分配等。19 然而，世事人事无一不变，故明礼亦有其历史性和社会性的不同幅度，便要求「变通」－－「穷则变，变则通」－－「百王之无变，足以为道贯，一废一起，应之以贯，理贯不乱。」（《天论篇》）能「处常」而「应变」，在历史过程中，把握学之要在知「道」，养心在诚，有虚壹而静的觉醒，足以明礼之共理，归纳成一定的准则和统类，处常应变，审视社会的需要，社会才能长治久安，「贯之大体未尝亡。」（《天论篇》）20

12. 参阅滕春兴著，「第二篇第二章　孟子的人性论」，《孟子教育哲学思想体系与批判》，正中书局　29-31。

13. 徐复观著，「第八章　从心善向心知 ?? 荀子的经验主义的人性论」，《中国人性论史》（先秦篇），台湾　商务　239。

14. 惠吉星著，《荀子与中国文化》，贵州人民出版社　1996年1月第1版　226-236页。

15. 赵士林著，《荀子》，世界哲学家丛书，东大图书公司　1999年　68-70页。

16. 惠吉星著，《荀子与中国文化》，贵州人民出版社　1996年1月第1版　212-213页。

17. 陈鼓应著，《老子注译及评介》，中华书局　1984年　四十五章　241-242页。「静胜躁，寒胜热」，原作「躁胜寒，静胜热」，根据蒋锡昌和严灵峰之说改。

18. 罗光著，《中国哲学思想史（先秦篇）》，台湾学生书局　1982年（民国71年）　「第八章　荀子的哲学思想」　627-629页。

19. 李哲贤著，《荀子之核心思想 ??「礼义之统」及其时代意义》，文津出版社　1994年（民国83年）　95-107页。

20. 同上，50-51页。

by Bruno Forte

Faith and Reason "Fides et Ratio" as The Interpretative Key To The Principal Encyclicals of Pope John Paul I

"Faith" and "reason" are the two terms around which John Paul II builds his reflections on the human being and his/her highest vocation. This is true not only of the encyclical on "Faith and Reason" but also of the entirety of his magisterium as both thinker and as pastor. In order to clarify the meaning of this affirmation it is necessary to understand the meaning of the two terms faith and reason in the light of two backgrounds: the background of the time in which Karol Wojtyla worked, and the other one of his heart. Together they constitute the very core of his "theological biography". It is only in this way that the full meaning of these two terms and the motive which John Paul II speaks of as being "like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of the truth" 1 can be fully understood.

1. What reason? The metaphors of modern time

In the events of the twentieth century, "reason" is the singular and decisive protagonist: it lies at the very heart of the parable on the modern era, which sees both its apex and decline in this twentieth century. Opening with the triumph of "strong reason", characteristic of the Enlightenment, modernity has led to the widespread diffusion of the experience of fragmentation and non-sense so typical of "weak reason", which has flourished since the fall of ideologies. Succeeding the "lengthy" century, which began with the French Revolution and ended with the out break of the Great War (World War I), is the so-called "short twentieth century" (E. Hobsbawm), marked by the affirmation of the extreme fruits of totalitarianism and of ideological models, which ultimately led to their downfall and collapse (1989). This process is described by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno through a powerful metaphor at the beginning of their Dialectic of Enlightenment: "The fully enlightened earth radiates disaster triumphant." 2 The Enlightenment - taken in the broadest philosophical sense as a continuous process - had pursued the objective of ridding men and women of all fear and of rendering to them complete control of their destiny, thanks to boundless faith in the possibility of reason. Its final outcome - fulfilled through the dramas of the two world wars and the high costs of totalitarianism - can be recognized in the condition of renunciation, in the denial of questions of meaning and the search for the foundation, which is the condition of the so-called "weak thought". Three stages can be identified in this process, which lies at the origin of the crisis of the European consciousness on the threshold of the third millennium, stages which can be traced back to the metaphor of light, darkness and dawn respectively.

1.1 The light of strong reason and its decline

The first stage is characterised by the metaphor of light, which expresses the principal inspiration underlying modernity, which is the pretext of the adult reason to be able to understand and illuminate every thing. According to this pretext, the ability rationally to embrace the world means to make the human person the master of his/her own identity. Emancipation is the dream that pervades all the great processes of transformation in the modern era. The presumption to triumph over every obscurity through the use of reason is expressed by the total visions held of the world, which are the ideologies. Ideology tries to impose the order of reason on the whole of reality, to the point of establishing a complete equation between the ideal and the real. It excludes any form of diversity and is by its very nature violent. The dream of totality becomes inexorably totalitarian. It is not by chance, nor is it an accident of time, that all forms of modern ideology have resulted in totalitarian and violent forms. Indeed, it is precisely this historical experience of the violence of totalitarian ideologies that has produced the crisis of the absolute pretexts of "enlightened" reason.

1.2 The night of weak reason

If adult reason sought to give sense to everything, then the "weak thought" of the post-modern condition does not recognize the possibility of any sense in anything. It is a condition that can be expressed by way of the metaphor of darkness; it is a period of ruin and of failure, of darkness and uncertainty, a period which has, above all, been marked by indifference. For many people, the rejection of the strong and total horizons offered by ideology bears the inability of posing the question about meaning. This has led to the extreme point of a loss of all interest in seeking out the ultimate reasons for human life and death. The extreme face of the epochal crisis of the European consciousness can be associated with the face of "decadence". This means the loss of value, since there is no longer any interest in comparing or measuring oneself to anything. It is in this way that the passion for the truth has been lost. The "strong culture" of ideology shatters into the fragmentation of "weak cultures", in which the loss of hope folds in on itself and everything is reduced to the narrow horizon of the individual's own particular. In this way, then, the end to ideologies appears more truly as the pallid avant-guard of the advent of the idol, which is the total relativism of those who no longer have any faith in the power of the truth, and as a result seem incapable and uninterested in realising the passage from phenomenon to foundation. This is the extreme face of the crisis surrounding the European consciousness at the close of the "short twentieth century."

1.3 The dawn of an open and questioning reason

In the analysis of this process, which takes us from the triumph of modern reason to its decadence, we cannot exclude some signs of change and of hope, with which we will associate the metaphor of the dawn. There is a "nostalgia for a perfect and consumed justice" (Max Horkheimer), which will enable us to recognize a sort of search for lost meaning. We are not talking about "une recherche du temps perdu", of an operation based in the past, but rather of a diffused attempt to rediscover a meaning that goes beyond that of ruin and failure, one that enables people to discern a horizon that inspires and moves them. Among the many expressions used in relation to this search we should point out the use of the expression: a rediscovery of the other. We are witnesses to a growing awareness of the need for solidarity, at an interpersonal level, as also at social and international levels. We can see a sort of "nostalgia for the Totally Other" emerging (Max Horkheimer), a rediscovery of the ultimate questions and the ultimate horizon. This outlines the need for a new consensus on ethics to motivate a moral involvement, not for the sake of the benefits that arise from it, but rather for the sake of the good it arouses in itself. The nostalgia that is evident in the crisis of our present time has, therefore, the face of the other, not only the face that is near by and immediate but also of the Other, that is the transcendent foundation of life and of living together. Thus we can say that there are in fact some signs of a return to a reason that is open to transcending itself and to seeking out the Other.

1. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio, Preface, Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1998, p. 3.

2. Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, NY, 1969, p. 3.

2. What faith? A theological biography

It is against the background of the time-described above - that the intellectual and spiritual biography of Karol Wojtyla is found. His life resounds naturally within the historical context in which it has developed and on which it has had considerable influence. His profound identity as thinker and as pastor finds its essence in the strong sign of faith: every aspect of his existence and of his work is characterised by a living and fecund relationship with the Christian God. If Wojtyla, as an alternative to the rationalistic pretexts of ideology, develops a strong sense of the Transcendent, which is characterised by a true and pure mystical experience, in response to the renunciation of the very foundation by the "weak reason", he does not hesitate to propose a thoughtful faith, one which does not flee the challenges of the inquiring or searching intelligence. In both of these attitudes the faith of John Paul II is highly responsible. It never calls on one to step outside of history but is rather very much a part of history, with a precise ethical consciousness. In this way the connotations of the faith, to which his magisterium is testimony, are clearly outlined: a mystical faith, a thoughtful faith and a responsible faith.

2.1 A mystical faith

A constant and characteristic motif of the magisterium of the word and life of John Paul II is the sense of the absolute primacy of God. We are not dealing here with merely one element among others, but with a dominant note. We are talking about the horizon and dwelling place within which and from which everything else is born. The motif of the living God is the motive behind the life and work of Karol Wojtyla. A valuable indication of this is given by the very structure of the magisterium expressed in his encyclicals. This structure is radically theological and in particular Trinitarian. The fundamental cycle is represented by the three encyclicals: Redemptor Hominis (1979) on the Son, Dives in misericordia (1980) on God the Father, and Dominum et vivificantem (1986), on the person and work of the Holy Spirit. The Trinitarian structure resounds significantly in Tertio Millennio Adveniente (1994), the itinerary for the preparation of the great jubilee of the year 2000. Everything else finds accordance in the underlying theological note, as seen in his series of reflections: the reflection on anthropology, presented in the three Encyclicals aforementioned, and again in Laborem exercens of 1981 on the dignity of human work; the reflection on women in the apostolic Letter of 1988, Mulieris dignitatem; the reflection on ethics, proposed in Veritatis splendour (1993), Evangelium vitae (1995), and in the Encyclicals on the social question, Sollicitudo rei socialis (1988) and Centesimus annus (1991); and finally the reflection on ecclesiology, outlined in light of the singularity of the Redeemer and of the Trinitarian communion in Redemptoris Missio (1991), Slavorum Apostoli (1985) on the Eastern Christians, and Ut unum sint (1995) on ecumenism. In the reflection on Mary offered in Redemptoris Mater (1987) the various aspects of the Christian mystery are gathered together in the dense icon of the Mother of the Redeemer, in which everything returns to the work of the Trinity and to the glory of God.

From the very beginnings of his research, Karol Wojtyla has borne witness to the strong coincidence of the mystical experience with the truth. Proof of this is evident in his degree thesis on the Doctrine of the Faith according to St. John of the Cross (1948), defended within an academic context-the Dominican one of the Angelicum-marked at that time by the absolute predominance of the neo-scholastic, and therefore towards an elaborate theology which finds its basis in the mystical. It will remain the profound conviction of Wojtyla, man and thinker, that the light necessary to a clear intelligence which desires to discern the divine design for life and history, is drawn from an experience of God, as the following expressions from a great mystic poet, one much loved by Wojtyla, say with the greatest of intensity: "!Oh lamparas de fuego, / en cuyos respandores / las profundas cavernas del sentido, / que estaba oscuro y ciego, / con extra╴s primores / calor y luz dan junto a su Querido!" 3 Truly, as a significant witness from the "Lumen Orientale" affirms, "it is not the conscience that illuminates the mystery, but the mystery that illuminates the conscience. We can only know, thanks to that which we can never know" 4.

2.2 A thoughtful faith

The strong emphasis on the mystical dimension does not in any way take away the questioning and searching character of the faith: the faith of John Paul II is and will always remain thoughtful! "Fides nisi cogitetur nulla est" - "if faith does not think it is nothing": these words of Saint Augustine 5 - quoted in Faith and Reason 6 - express the profound conviction behind the entire existential and intellectual itinerary of Karol Wojtyla, for whom to think means to continually move from the phenomenon to the foundation, taking the two terms of this transcendent movement with the utmost seriousness. In the Encyclical Faith and Reason the Pope writes: "We face a great challenge at the end of this millennium to move from phenomenon to foundation, a step as necessary as it is urgent. We cannot stop short at experience alone; even if experience does reveal the human being's interiority and spirituality, speculative thinking must penetrate to the spiritual core and the ground from which it rises." 7 This concept of thought - which faith can never renounce, if it desires to be as it should be, a faith of historical beings open to the Mystery and entrusted to it-matures in Wojtyla as a result of an encounter with two great authors, to whom he owes his intellectual formation. On the one hand we have Thomas Aquinas, whom he got to know in full during his years studying at the Angelicum, and on the other hand we have Edmund Husserl, the father of Phenomenology, to which the future Pope was to dedicate much research. From Saint Thomas Wojtyla draws on the strong metaphysical question, and therefore the need to base the phenomenon on the foundation in order to avoid falling into the inconsistency of much pragmatic and purely functional thought. From Husserl he learns to give full value and attention to the phenomenon, which is also the exclusive key to gaining access to the metaphysical profundities of all that exists. The sobriety of Husserl's phenomenology and the teaching that it gives on attention to others and to things as they appear to us - another peculiar characteristic of Karol Wojtyla - are expressed for example in the following statement from Husserl's Ideas: "Everything originally offered to us in 'intuition' is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being, but also only within the limits in which it is presented there." 8 To stop at phenomenological observation would, however, reduce reality to the all too narrow horizon of that which can only be experienced. This is why true phenomenological intuition points to the essence, that is to say, to the transcendent ground of the phenomenon in the direction of that which profoundly constitutes it in its identity and relevance. It is at this point that St. Thomas' teaching integrates the study of Husserl: the world of beings is constituted in its intimacy by being immanent to each. Here we have the true and ultimate foundation of reality. In a formulation of great audacity Thomas affirms that: "Esse autem est illud quod est magis intimum cuilibet, et quod profundius omnibus inest" 9 . To summarise, then, the ontological level coincides with the profundity of reality. It is that which gives stability and dignity to what exists and which prevents everything being reduced to a transient moment that is inconsistent and empty. However, if the phenomenon is transcended in the direction of the foundation in order to draw on its profound source and hidden root, then the foundation is only attainable by means of the phenomenon, through history. No devaluation of the worldly reality is therefore admissible. Thoughtful faith will live, therefore, in a twofold and unique fidelity: faithful to the eternal, but equally faithful to the earth, uniting heaven and earth in one unique movement, transcending toward the ultimate mystery and returning to things and their consistency.

2.3 A responsible faith

The third characteristic that qualifies faith in the "theological biography" of Karol Wojtyla is his being responsible: by this adjective we desire to indicate the ethical relevance of the experience of believing. The polemic of the Reformation against "works" as means of merit and salvation, has favoured a certain separation between a life of faith and an active life. We have arrived at this point on the one hand by way of spiritualism, which is characterised by an evasion of history, and on the other hand by pragmatism, which has, above all, exiled God from the sphere of worldly responsibilities. The presence of Wojtyla, the believer, in history has always been acute, involved, from the years of resistance to Nazism to the years when he faced the daily struggle against militant ideological atheism and communist totalitarianism, to the battle against the ethical emptying of consumerist capitalism. Even in this area there was a thinker at whose school the future Pope was to be formed, namely Max Scheler. In response to the "formalism" of Kantian ethics, which ran the risk of reducing moral behaviour to good intentions, Scheler emphasised the value of a "material ethics", which is attentive to the actual contents of actions, and is far from being limited merely to the intentional, formal aspect. The ethics of values moves in this direction because it recognizes a real criterion in them and not just some abstract and theoretical reference, a criterion that takes on a visible form in the actual living of historical choices and responsibilities. John Paul II has always demonstrated a great interest in the ethical dimension of every option, even those that are apparently more speculative. His fundamental theoretical work, Person and Acting, is a rigorous speculative foundation for the indissoluble relationship of the personal being to its moral acting in the concreteness of decisions. From faith, ethics draws on the ultimate horizon, within which the actual value of penultimate choices is situated and qualified. From ethics, faith draws on the real space from within which it can translate itself into history, as well as the living questions that stimulate the search for fundamental orientations in light of the Absolute, in whose horizon the weight and the value of every act is actually qualified.

3. St. John of the Cross, Llama de amor vivo, translated: The Living Flame of Love', 3rd Stanza; "O Lamps of fire! / In whose splendors / The deep caverns of feeling, / Once obscured and blind, / Now give forth, so rarely, so exquisitely, Both warmth and light to their Beloved." Trans., Kieran Kavanagh, The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross. London: Nelson, 1966. p. 579.

4. P. Evdokimov, La donna e la salvezza del mondo, Milano : Jaca Book , 1980, p.13.

5. St. Augustine, De praedestinatione sanctorum, 2, 5 : PL 44, 963.

6. Faith and Reason, p. 116, 79.

7. Faith and Reason, p. 123, 83.

8. E. Husserl, Ideen zu einer reinen Phanomenologie und phanomenologischen philosophie, trans. F. Kersten, Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy. The Hague: Nijhaff, 1982. I, 24. p.44.

9. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I q. 8 a. 1 c.

3. Which kind of encounter between faith & reason? Beyond the "aut-aut", the challenge of an "et-et"

Read in the context of the historical period in which John Paul II grew up and lived, and in light of the figures who played such an influential role in determining his "theological biography", "faith" and "reason" are tightly woven within a vital relationship, by a reciprocal stimulus and enrichment. What the Polish Pope affirms in the Encyclical Faith and Reason, he has, above all, experienced in his intellectual adventure and in his own spiritual experience as protagonist of our time. If the presumptions of enlightened reason excluded every residual element linked to the world of faith from the dominion of rationality, opposing reason and faith in an "aut-aut" relationship without any remission, then the history of modernity has shown how this exclusion has been lethal for reason itself, making it inexorably totalitarian and violent. This is why the recovery of the correct relationship between faith and reason has been emphasised by Karol Wojtyla as being of vital urgency, not only at the service of the proclamation of the faith but also in order to promote the dignity and ethical quality of the human person. The "et-et" relationship which the Pope proposes - and, as has been said, it is found "in actu exercito" in all the works that he has produced as thinker and as pastor - moves in three directions: the first could be defined as a sort of apology for "open reason"; the second refers to a faith that is truly involved in a search ("fides quaerens intellectum"); while the third relates more directly to the actual encounter between these two terms, in an open and reciprocally fecund dialogue.

3.1 A reason aware of its limits and open to transcending them

Fides et Ratio is, first of all, an apology for reason 10. In an era marked by a crisis of trust in the possibility of reason, because of the results of the ideological adventures, such an apology is indeed far from insignificant. Reason is certainly not defended as an absolute knowledge, presumptuously closed in on itself, but in so far as it is the fundamental instrument by which human beings set out to live in the service of the truth to which they are originally called by the very fact that they exist. What is at play here is the idea of truth itself. 11 If the truth is a possession to be manipulated, as ideological reason proposed, then the human being is and remains closed within his/her own horizon of truth, limited to the point of suffocation, as the historical parable of ideology demonstrates. If, instead, truth is not a possession, something that is captured and held within the confines of reason, but is the objective and transcendent Other that also embraces us, then it is not possible to disclose oneself to the truth without posing the ultimate questions and without allowing oneself to listen to the various possibilities by which the transcendent and sovereign truth also reaches us. To summarise then, the truth is not circumscribable from the "cogito ergo sum", from the "I think, therefore I am". It rather has to be grasped from within the experience of the "cogitor ergo sum", of the "I have been thought of therefore I am". Truth is the very guardian of existence, and it alone can open up a flight from oneself towards the Other.

What the Pope emphasizes is a faith in the capacity of reason to open itself up to the truth, of being an "open reason". The refusal is not addressed to the exercise of the reason, but rather to a weak exercising of it, one that renounces the possibility of opening up to the horizon towards the Transcendent. To propose the metaphysical question again, in the etymological sense of that which lies "beyond physical things" and that moves beyond the phenomenon in order to arrive at the foundation, means to propose again the one true question which is worth asking in philosophy, that question to which human beings are predisposed by the radical nostalgia that they bear within themselves from the very first moment of existence. It is at this point that philosophy truly appears not to be concurrent with theology, but appears rather as a discipline united by a thought that searches for the horizons and listens to the various ways by which the Other speaks to us, which is precisely the thought of faith.

3.2 A faith which seeks

The Encyclical clearly affirms that there is no one Christian philosophy, even if it supports the full legitimacy of a "Christian Philosophizing", that is, of "a philosophical speculation conceived in dynamic union with faith" 12. Two thousand years of Christianity bear witness to this speculation. Even the inculturation of the faith in new contexts would be superficial if it were to omit some of the baggage of this two thousand years history that has produced extraordinary fruit in both the Western consciousness and beyond. The reference to the history of the thinking of the faith shows how it is possible to exercise the philosophical quest and to be at the same time open to the gift of revelation. From this point of view, one can understand how philosophy is the ground for possible mutual understanding and of dialogue with those who do not share the faith. Reason is not limited by faith but is, rather, empowered by faith. Neither, on the other hand, is faith dominated or subjected to reason. Reason and faith are two sources of knowledge that are neither identical nor concurrent. One is the pure exercise of our understanding, while the other is the reception of the light that comes from on high through the gift of revelation. These two sources do not annul or suppress each another. Rather they meet, and this encounter of the human flight and the advent of the divine is the thought of faith, which makes the baggage of philosophical questioning its own and enriches it through the heard word of revelation.

Dialogue between reason and faith is, therefore, made possible, in the degree to which each one is itself and both are open to the possibility of being transcended. A philosopher who proposes radical questions does not exclude the possibility of hearing the advent of the Other. A thinker of the faith who recognizes the pronunciation of the divine Name in revelation integrates the philosophical questions with the understanding he has been given. In the light of these premises it is possible among contemporary philosophies to point out three great souls which are linked to this searching faith ("fides quaerens intellectum"). The first one is that of a philosophical thinker who is not only open to transcendence but also to the recognition of it in revelation. We are dealing with the so-called "Christian philosophy", which involves the full use of reason within the horizon that is disclosed by the accepted belief in the Deity's self-communication in history. Then there is a second model, which could be characterised as that philosophy which poses radical questions and is open to the ultimate questions but is not conjugated with obedience to the faith. There are various thinkers who move within this dimension, including some of the greatest nineteenth century thinkers. For this form of thought the Encyclical constitutes an ulterior invitation to enter into a dialogue with the faith in revelation and with theology, in the belief that the truth of revelation is neither concurrent with nor adverse to philosophical research, but open to the wonder of transcendence. A third possibility refers to the so-called "weak thought", that is, to the thought that prejudicially closes itself off from the possibility of transcendence and from the questions that surround it, not recognising any effort of the human reason to transcend itself in a move toward the objective truth. In face of such thought, the Encyclical presents itself as both critical and problematic, and rightly so since a thought which from its very beginnings denies the possibility of an objective truth and of a transcendent movement towards it condemns reason to a sort of "solipsism". In reality the Encyclical challenges the "weak" or "nihilist" thinkers to measure themselves against their own philosophies. Even in this way, however, it presents itself as a challenge and as a testimony that favours the highest dignity of human reason and the possibilities given it to search for and arrive at the truth before ever making a decision about it. In this sense it resumes, in the densest possible way, the entire anthropologic magisterium of John Paul II.

3.3 Faith and reason listening to the Other

The terms in which the Encyclical arranges the dialogue between philosophy and theology, between faith and reason, are, therefore, profoundly respectful of the reciprocal dignity and autonomy of these two worlds, as well as of their necessary and fecund integration. In the spirit of his entire magisterium as thinker and pastor, the Pope affirms that the recognition of the truth which is universally valid - that is the truth of revelation - does not determine any intolerance, since it brings one to recognise the value that exists in every human person, in his/her questions and possible responses, even if it offers criteria in respect of which everyone, beginning with the believer, can measure his/her own affirmations and acquisition of the truth. Dialogue is possible, then, and useful where the interlocutors accept to be measured by the truth that transcends them and to some degree embraces them. This would not be possible where one of the two holds himself/herself to be the exclusive guardian of the truth or indeed even goes so far as to identify himself/herself with it. The Pope affirms the transcendence of the truth also in respect of the very mediation of the thought on the faith, which lives in fact through obedience - that is profound hearing - of revealed truth and not in the presumption to dominate it. Even dogma should not be interpreted as a limit to the progress of human thought, but as the bulwark against its regression, that is, the resistance against moving backwards in respect of the possible openness of reason toward the profundity of the revealed Mystery.

The custody of the message and the freedom of the question are not meant to annul one another, but rather to meet one another. We are not talking about imposing limits to philosophy. Where it is understood to be the exercising of a radical questioning, philosophy cannot but recognise its own limits, which are the same as those of the reason by which the question is posed. If the highest task of reason is that of rendering reason, then it cannot but recognize that it is limited by the incapacity to give a reason for everything, especially before the ultimate mystery of existence. "Why does something exist and not nothing?" This fundamental philosophical question, which has turned up again and again even in contemporary philosophy, coincides with the constancy of the radical impossibility to give a reason why everything exists. For this reason one can say that philosophy is such when it recognizes rather than denies its actual limit. In this Encyclical, and indeed throughout his entire magisterium, the Pope reminds us that revelation is the gift by which God helps reason to open itself up to that which lies beyond the limit which it has already recognized. On the threshold of "the wonder of reason", that is, the admission of the very paradox of existence that cannot find any explanation in reason alone, to dispose oneself to the ear of an Other, to His speech in words and in events, does not lessen reason but makes it rather more thoughtful. Faith in revelation is not concurrent with reason. It is rather that which stimulates reason toward a much higher transcendence and in so doing nourishes and strengthens it, opening it up to horizons that would otherwise remain unknown and impenetrable.

It is here that the history of western philosophy, even in the modern era, confirms the fecundity of the encounter that is possible between faith and reason. How much light has the Christian revelation given to human beings in order to make them more intense searchers, opening them up to horizons that alone can truly correspond to their thirst for meaning and their nostalgia for peace! God is not concurrent with the human person, but is his/her friend, the Creator who came down and drew close to us in order to draw us closer to him, in a covenant that is celebrated fully in the person of the Redeemer. This encounter, fulfilled in Christ, is the true reason for his absolute singularity for the salvation of the world. John Paul II has been called to be its herald through the word and the life of his entire itinerary as thinker and pastor. This task he has entrusted to the Church through this Encyclical, "Faith and Reason". It is precisely for this reason that it can be taken as the dense compendium of all of the coordinated fundamentals of what this Pope, who came from the East, has wanted to say and has said to the Church and to the world, for the glory of God and the salvation of humanity. Indeed it is the interpretative key to his Encyclicals and summarizes the entire message of his word and his life.

　

10. Faith and Reason, p. 87, 56: "Faith thus becomes the convinced and convincing advocate of reason".

11. The word "truth" appears 208 times in the text of the Encyclical.

12. Faith and Reason, p. 110, 76.

by Stephen Tong S.J.

Insight in St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises

Introduction

"I am a knower": Lonergan explicitly makes this first judgment in Chapter XI of Insight, which is commonly recognized among scholars 1 to be the most important section of the whole book. As a knower, one operates within the four levels of consciousness, namely, the experiential, intellectual, rational and responsible levels, to receive cognition about the world or oneself so that objective truth and value is attained. The implication of this judgment is that all kinds of knowledge unite in the same operation of knowing where the subject, in the process of self-appropriation, is commonly attentive, intelligent, reasonable and responsible. Lamenting the split of knowledge after Modernity, when the ground of knowledge loses its objective certainty and cannot help but retreat to the subjective boundary so that empiricism or idealism becomes the only solution, Lonergan sets up his project to rebuild the dignity of knowledge which is rooted in being, yet he transforms the traditional and scholastic categories.

As a child of his time, when historical consciousness prevails, Lonergan affirms that what is at stake is no longer the static nature of knowledge as permanent achievement, but the method of ongoing process of discovery where the authenticity, transcendence and metanoia of the subject become central and critical. 2 Therefore, personal but continual conversion is the issue in theological discourse.Against this basic understanding of Lonergan as background, the purpose of this paper is twofold. First, if various kinds of knowledge, namely, mathematics, science and common sense as illustrated in Insight, follow the same pattern of knowing, this paper tries to for God. Among various spiritualities and figures in history who set up milestones for us to dialogue demonstrate that the same pattern can also be applied and be valid in our interior searching with God and know God, Ignatius' self-appropriation and legacy in his conversion and Spiritual Exercises is destined to be a significant paradigm in congruent very much with Lonergan's categories on self-discovery. In fact, the assumption may not be too naive that as a Jesuit, Lonergan implicitly receives no little insight from the Spiritual Exercises to arrive his own theory of epistemology and method in theology.

Secondly, this paper represents an attempt at my own self-appropriation of the Spiritual Exercises. It is taken for granted as self-evident is that God, though the absolute Other and totally transcendent, wants to show us his way in concrete historical contexts for our own salvation and happiness as long as we are willing to get rid of our inordinate attachments. In fact, nothing in this life is more important and rewarding for us than finding and knowing God's will. However, what is at stake here is a genuine and deep self-knowledge on the one hand, and a personal, intimate yet solid understanding of the incarnated and historical Jesus on the other.

To fulfil these two purposes, chapter I delineates the basic elements of Lonergan's Insight which are relevant and similar to what Ignatius experienced in his life and later organized into his Spiritual Exercises. Chapter II is a succinct presentation of how Ignatius arrived at his own insight. Chapter III, as the major part of this paper, shows how the Spiritual Exercises fits into the Lonerganian pattern of discovery and knowing as discussed in chapter 1, and represents my own understanding of its focal dynamics and content. Finally, chapter IV, as a further reflection, tries to pin down why the need of conversion for the subject is problematic and crucial in the whole process, and to understand more deeply the incarnated elements of, as well as resistance to, God's will in concrete history. It is important to keep these in view for any director to co-discern with the retreatant for a better and more confident grasp of what is possibly happening in the dynamics of the latter's self-discovery of God's will.

1. Cf. David Tracy, The Achievement of Bernard Lonergan (NY: Herder and Herder, 1970), 133; 关永中, "认知者的自我肯定：郎尼根「洞察」第十一章一至六节释义(上)", 哲学与文化第20卷第四期 (93年4月), 375.

2. Cf. Bernard J. F. Lonergan, S.J., Method in Theology (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972), xi, 104, 131, etc.

Chapter I : An Introduction to Lonergan's insight into insight

A. The Elements of Insight 3

Lonergan's basic tenet is that knowing is self-appropriation, a process of raising the question and searching for the unknown, a task that nobody can replace oneself in doing and which everyone should take great pain to achieve. Only then is it possible for the insight into the unknown to emerge, followed by the construction of a cohesive system of knowledge. Taking Archimedes' discovery as an illustration, Lonergan shows that insight comes first from attention to a definite question, namely, how to check the purity of a crown, which is linked to a certain image, the actual crown. This image becomes a thematic presence and inquiry in his consciousness, and thus creates tension and anxiety. With this disposition as basis, insight suddenly and unexpectedly comes as a result, not of outer circumstances like bathing, but of inner conditions, such as raising questions, inquiring and searching with patience so that the banal image and experience of bathing serves as a spark. What follows is that this insight pivots between the concrete and the abstract, from solving the concrete case to making primitive terms like mass and volume, to laying down definitions such as that of density, and finally to constructing the principles of displacement and of specific gravity; which can then be applied to further individual cases.

Insight will then lead to other insights. Lonergan takes positive integers as an example: the insight into addition tables leads to homogeneous expansion like multiplication, powers, subtraction, division, root, etc. However, when this system of knowledge encounters anomalies which cannot be subsumed into it, then the need of a higher viewpoint will emerge. The higher viewpoint includes new operations and rules. "They will be more symmetrical. They will be more exact. They will be more general." 4 In this sense, algebra represents a higher viewpoint of arithmetic.

What is described above is the progress and development of direct insight, which grasps the point or sees the solution. However, there is also inverse insight, corresponding to a more subtle and critical attitude, which denies the possibility of getting the point or solution, in other words, denies intelligibility. Lonergan uses the notion of the square root of two as an illustration of inverse insight, for it affirms the impossibility of obtaining its corresponding fraction. It is an irrational number. Therefore, the meaning of inverse insight grants us the boundary of asking relevant and right questions.

B. The Heuristic Structure

After explaining what insight is, Lonergan points out how to approach insight, namely, following a heuristic structure. "Heuristic is from the Greek word heurisko, to find. In Greek, the ending -ikon denotes the principle. So a heuristic is a principle of discovering." 5 It is a systematic and cohesive procedure of operation, based on what is known to approach the unknown target so that finally the truth can be grasped. Therefore, a heuristic structure is "that structure of concepts by means of which the inquirer gives a preliminary description of what is to be known, such as will serve to direct his inquiry." 6 In classical science, the heuristic structure is 'the nature of...', followed by classification and correlation. In classification, similars are similarly understood since 'the nature of ...' is the universal, not the particular. However, there are two kinds of correlation. The first is the similarities of things in their relation to us, while the second is in their relation to one another. Therefore, there will be two kinds of classification, followed by two kinds of understanding of 'the nature of ...' Thus, there is the nature of colour in its relation to us, in contrast to the nature of the wavelengths of light in their relation to one another. In this sense, the notions of nature, similarity, classification and correlation become the heuristic structure of classical science.

C. Levels of Consciousness

In the past, what was at stake was the objectivity of truth, which was self-evident as long as the conclusion was logically drawn from premises. A subject is needed to arrive at truth, but he is just supposed not to fail to grasp what is self-evident. Once truth is attained, it is beyond the subject as if it were non-spatial, atemporal, and impersonal. Only falsity can contradict it. No doubt, intentionally truth is independent of the subject, but ontologically it resides only in the subject because the latter, under definite psychological, social and historical conditions, must first go through a laborious process of investigating, coming to understand, marshalling and weighing the evidence in time and space before "the fruit of truth can be plucked and placed in its absolute realm." 7 This laborious process is, in fact, that of the self- transcendence of the subject, who is required to go beyond what he feels, what he imagines, what he thinks, what seems to him, in order to arrive what is so.

This neglect of the subject is also due to the notion of the soul. The human soul seems to be as objective and universal as the soul in plants or animals, no matter whether the person is awake or asleep, a saint or a sinner, lazy or responsible. In other words, the study of the human soul in its essence, potencies, and habits has little to do with the study of human consciousness whose operations are the centre of the subject. The implication of this neglect is an anti-historical immobilism. 8 Human knowledge is no doubt expressed in concepts which, however, are abstract and immobile, standing outside the spatio-temporal world of change. Human understanding, subject to its limited yet expandable horizon, changes in different historical contexts. So, while concepts do not change on their own, still they are changed as the mind changes which forms them. 9

An existential subject is a subject by degrees. It discerns different levels of consciousness. In a dreaming state, we are only potentially a subject without freedom to think or act. However, we become experiential subjects, capable of perceiving and feeling the sensible world when we are awake. When we follow our desire for intelligibility and go on to inquire into our experience by raising relevant questions, to understanding its possible meanings and implications, we arise to the level of an intelligent subject. Then the rational subject sublates the experiential and rational when it desires to check if its understanding is correct, marshals the evidence pro and con and finally judges it to be or not to be. Being able to judge what is true means to reach the virtually unconditioned, i.e. all the necessary conditions for making a judgement are fulfilled. Finally, the rational consciousness is sublated by the responsible one when the latter follows the intention of the good, the question of value, to deliberate, decide and act on what is truly worthwhile. Reaching this level means the objective value is embodied into subject. Therefore, a study of the subject looks into the different operations on these levels and their mutual relationships. 10

Here, Lonergan wants to tell us that, first, knowing is a compound of many operations, not a single uniform property. Objectivity in experiencing the immediate world is attained by sensing and intuition, yet it is not the only mode of knowing. In the mediated world of meaning, objectivity is approached by questioning, which governs the exigencies of human intelligence to investigate and understand, and of human reasonableness to judge in its virtually unconditioned. What is grasped in understanding or judging is not some further datum added on to the data of sense. In fact, it is unlike all data but consists in an intelligible or reasonable unity.

Secondly, apart from being a thinker, the subject is also a doer who deliberates, chooses and acts as a free and responsible agent making of himself. If knowing is for the sake of being, acting is for the sake of value. Value here not simply means particular good but ordering goods for the sake of the truly good. Being and value are both transcendental notions, i.e., their entirety is beyond the reach of the subject, yet they are always present in the activities of knowing and acting and guide the subject towards their greater fullness. Just as we can only have limited knowledge of being by knowing this and that and other beings, the actualization of value can only be found in this or that act of a good person. 11 Therefore, what is finally at stake is the subject who, by the effect of self-transcendence, attains objectivity in his knowing and becomes the principle of goodness in his decisions and actions.

Lonergan insists that this pattern of operations in our consciousness is transcendental and normative, i.e. it is valid for any kind of knowing and not open to revision. 12 In this sense, in order to understand better the insight into interior knowledge in the Spiritual Exercises, it is pertinent to see how Ignatius goes through his own appropriation in the first place, an experience and paradigm which is destined to be pedagogical and inspirational for his spiritual sons and daughters.

3. Cf. Bernard J.F. Lonergan, Insight (New York: Philosophy Library, third edition, 1970), 3-25

4. Ibid., 16.

5. Bernard J.F. Lonergan, Understanding and Being (New York & Toronto: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1980), 74.

6. Hugo A. Meynell, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Bernard Lonergan (London & Basingstoke: MacMillan Press, 1976), 173.

7. The Achievement of Bernard Lonergan, 71.

8. Bernard J. F. Lonergan, A Second Collection, ed. by William F.J. Ryan, S.J., and Bernard J. Tyrell, S.J. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd), "The Subject", p.69-86.

9. This difference can be further illuminated by Marcel's categories of problem and mystery. A problem is something like x-1=3: when x is solved, the problem is no longer followed up on or attended to. However, in our mediated world of meaning, love, faith, freedom, etc. belong to the realm of mystery. Mystery carries us to an unending journey of discovering ever deeper and wider truth.

10. Second Collection, 79-81.

11. According to Aristotle, "Virtue...is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which a man of practical wisdom would determine it." (Nicomachean Ethics, II, iii,4; 1150b 5-8) So, there is no definition of virtue without its embodiment in a virtuous person.

12. Cf. Method in Theology, 19.

Chapter II : The Conversion of St. Ignatius

The insight of Ignatius into spiritual exercises came from two major experiences. In 1521, he took the initiative with great courage to lead a group of soldiers to resist the French attack on the fortress of Pamplona, Spain. Unfortunately, he was hit by a cannon ball on the leg. Heavily wounded but treated nicely by the French, he was carried back to his hometown Loyola. During the period of convalescence, the only books he could find to help him kill time were books on the life of Jesus and the lives of the saints. Soon, the images of the saints' heroism and love for Christ, especially those of Saints Francis and Dominic, dawned on him and he began to think of imitating them in all the austerities they performed. This kind of imagination granted him great joy and satisfaction. At other times when he set reading aside, he thought of worldly things and a career through which he desired to win the heart of a royal lady. This also gave him great delight. However, insight arose when he began to notice differences in the two kinds of delight. The afterglow of the worldly joy was dry and unhappy, while that which rose from thoughts of imitating the saints still remained joyful and consoling. This perception of feeling linked to images in experience led him to understand that different spirits were moving him. The former was coming from the devil, and the latter from God. From understanding he then came to the judgment that he needed to reform his life by doing penance for his past sins as the saints had done before him. Finally, when he recovered, he committed himself in a decisive manner to become a pilgrim.

The second important experience happened in Manresa, where he stayed for ten months for prayer and penance after leaving Loyola. At this period, he was deeply troubled by scruples, fearing that he had not entirely confessed his sins to God. He wanted to do away with the scruples by extreme fasting, taking no care of his external looks and spending long hours in prayer, yet without avail. He fell prey to depression and almost came to the point of committing suicide. In this thematic searching for God's help and a knowledge God's will for himself, though making a lot of mistakes, one day insight suddenly poured into his soul, similar to that of Archimedes. "Though he remembered his earlier resolve, still he did not hesitate to decide that he ought to eat meat." 13 Later on the bank of Cardoner, as he sat there the eyes of his understanding were opened and, though he saw no vision, he understood and perceived many things, numerous spiritual things as well as matters touching on faith and learning, and this was with an elucidation so bright that all these things seemed new to him... Now having passed his sixty-second year, if he were to gather all the helps he received from God and everything he knew, and add them together, he does not think they would add up to all that he received on that one occasion. 14

Based on this insight, Ignatius turned to be new man, a spiritual master on mission and for the Church. As is common to the development after insight, Ignatius gradually synthesized what he has appropriated into a general picture and organic whole, namely, the Spiritual Exercises, which lay down a heuristic structure of self-appropriation in finding God's will. Written from his own blood and tears, this book was a gift from heaven, destined to be a milestone in Catholic spirituality.

13. A Pilgrim's Journey - The Autobiography of Ignatius of Loyola, translated by Joseph N. Tylenda. (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1985), 35. This represents an insight, called election in the first time (#175; Cf. footnote 16).

14. Ibid., 38-39

Chapter III The Insight of St. Ignatius

A. The basic insight

Before any elaboration, Lonergan is mindful to tell us, "When we say that the insight grasps necessity and impossibility, we are saying. If one is saying, one has already gone beyond the insight.... Insight is prior to concepts, even to the ones I use here. I am giving an expression of the insight.... The insight consists in the basis from which I can have those concepts and that expression." 15

In the experience of Manresa, especially on the bank of Cardoner, the fundamental insight Ignatius received was a deep understanding of the relationship between human beings and God in salvation history. This insight, initiated by his various images during continual prayers and questioning, gradually emerged through understanding and judging and finally came to concepts and definitions, which were formed and organized into the text of the First Principle and Foundation 16. Its spirit permeates the whole of the Spiritual Exercises. Its truth may simply be similar to the distinct statements in our catechism, such as "why we are created on earth", or other sources 17, but the realities understood profoundly and savoured interiorly (#2) cannot be compared.

In this relationship, the reality is human creatureliness and responsibility, the goal is freedom and salvation, the attitude is indifference, the guiding principle is means and end, the key words are desire and inordinate attachment. This cluster of concepts forms the so-called primitive terms, as Lonergan tells us, "for every basic insight there is a circle of terms and relations, such that the terms fix the relations, the relations fix the terms, and the insight fixes both." 18 In Ignatius' insight these terms are taken as self-evident in the context of our Christian faith.

B. Definitions

1. Principle and Foundation in the spiritual life (#23).

What Ignatius gets in his insight he has to name, giving it a significant nominal sign which underlies and governs all of his thought, and from which flow conclusions of the greatest importance for the spiritual life. This name, this nominal sign, contains in germ the substance of his expansive world-view on God, the universe, and the role of free human beings in God's plan of salvation and spiritual growth. According to Luis de la Palma, "It is called a principle because in it are contained all the conclusions which are later explained and specifically expounded; and it is called a foundation because it is the support of the whole edifice of the spiritual life." 19

2. Spiritual Exercises (#1).

In this elaboration Ignatius delineates two dimensions. The first is the 'what' or means, namely, various methods of prayer analogous to physical exercises. The second is the 'why', the purpose of these activities, namely, negatively to rid the soul of all its disordered affections, and positively to seek and find God's will for the salvation of one's soul.

Here, we see Ignatius' insight into the importance of self-appropriation in the spiritual life. Different from insight in science or mathematics, which can be passed on or taught to others at will as information without the need of the learners making the same effort as the discoverer, the spiritual truth of Principal and Foundation must be owned by each retreatant individually by going through a process of prayer, mediation and contemplation so that personal inordinate attachments can be confronted and got rid of, and they can finally see God's light shed on their own life.

3. Consolation and Desolation (# 316, 317).

Here, the spirit of the Principle and Foundation sets up a clear reference, namely the relationship with God. If its key words are desire and inordinate attachment, Ignatius elaborates two more 'tangible' terms to understand them. While in consolation the soul is inflamed with love of its Creator and Lord. In desolation one feels separated from one's Master. Expressed through inner motion, consolation brings the soul an increase in faith, hope and love, and dwelling in joy, peace and tranquillity, but desolation moves one towards the opposite, disquiet from various agitations and temptations, listlessness, tepidity and unhappiness, a lack of faith, hope and love.

Noteworthy is it that both consolation and desolation dwell within one's experiential level of consciousness. This is this inner experience which Ignatius wants us to focus on, the raw material for our discernment. In his rules for the discernment of spirits (# 313-336), almost all guidelines are about recognizing the dynamics of consolation and desolation. These definitions are mostly comprised of "feeling" words. Therefore, it is not so much thoughts or determinations which count in the initial sphere of spiritual exercises, no matter how good or great they might be. On the contrary, they might just serve as masks to cover, hide or suppress the significance of personal feelings behind and below where the treasure and genuine encounter with oneself and the Lord dwell. 20 These definitions are connected with the insight in Annotation 6, where the director is told what area he should pay attention to: "when the one giving the Exercises notices that the exercitant is not experiencing any spiritual motions in his or her soul, such as consolation or desolation, or is not being moved one way or another by different spirits, the director should question the retreatant much about the Exercises..."

4. Meditation (# 45).

Ignatius does not give a distinct definition of meditation, but simply takes it as "by using the three powers of the soul" in the context of the first, second, and third sins, followed by the indication of these three powers as memory, understanding, and will (# 50). Clearly, the faculty of memory, in Ignatius' intention, puts us into the experience of past events in history, including those of the angels and first parents, the world and the self. Therefore, experience implies a view as holistic and comprehensive as possible, not just taken from a particular or relativized perspective, since partial experience only leads to incomplete or even biased understanding. Then, understanding belongs to the faculty of intellect, a process of drawing out the meaning of these events in history, especially the meaning related to me. For instance, Ignatius encourages the retreatant to reflect during the first exercise on sin: "For one sin they went to hell; then how often have I deserved hell for my many sins!" (#50) Here, as one commentator suggests, "From the beginning to end, the Ignatian experience is sustained, explained and guided by an intellect solidly rooted in the truths of salvation history. Ignatius cautions the retreat director to expose the "true essentials" of this history as faithfully as possible (#2)." 21

Finally, it belongs to the judgment to reach the truth by the faculty of the will. As the function of our consciousness is not content to remain on the level of understanding, the retreatant conceives in order to judge the salvific truth for himself. According to Lonergan, coming to the level of judgment involves a personal commitment, 22 so the will must be moved to give consent. This movement is linked to the signs of deeper emotions. Here, we see the difference between judgment in scientific truth and religious truth. The former usually does not accompany deeper emotion while the latter always does. Only with this appearance can the judgment become one's own. That is why Annotation 6 emphasizes this aspect so much.

5. Contemplation (#101, 106).

As in the case of meditation, so too in the case of contemplation, Ignatius does not give a distinct definition but simply teaches the retreatant to understand its meaning by following his guidelines and doing the prayer itself. Where meditation uses memory, contemplation utilizes our power of imagination, on the experiential level, to put our presence into the actual events of the Gospels and relive them with Jesus Christ. Then, as in meditation, it belongs to our intellect to understand the meaning of the events, and to our will to judge and move our emotion in relishing them.

6. Four Weeks (# 4)

Here, Ignatius clarifies that each week does not necessarily consist of seven or eight days. Its length greatly depends on the progress, capacity and rhythm of the individual retreatants. However, four weeks provide an inherent and heuristic structure for direction and growth. Its design corresponds to the traditional pattern of spiritual progress from the purgative way, whose focus is on purifying ourselves from past sins or inordinate attachments, then progressing to the illuminative way, which guides us to see the light and truth in Christ, and finally to the unitive way, which means an intimate union with God, the ultimate goal of any spiritual life. If this is so, however, what is the reason for dividing the Spiritual Exercises into four weeks, instead of three, if the basic paradigm is the same? Ignatius has no words on this in his definition, yet this is a question worth probing more deeply in the following reflection.

C. The Heuristic Structure of Interior Knowledge

As discussed above, a heuristic structure is a systematic and cohesive procedure which guides the knower to discover the unknown. In interior knowledge, the guiding target is the will of God for me. This correlation mediates into the dynamic between knowing and loving, between self-knowledge and Christ's life on earth, between the director and the retreatant, between the four weeks, and among the rules of discernment.

1. Knowing and Loving.

Insight represents Lonergan's self-appropriation of the structure of human knowing. 23 By illustrating, for pedagogical purposes, the activity of knowing in classical science, statistical science, and common sense, he demonstrates that there are three levels of human consciousness, namely, empirical, intelligent and rational consciousness. Yet, coming to Method in Theology, Lonergan adds a fourth level, responsible level on which "we are concerned with ourselves, our own operations, our goals, and so deliberate about possible courses of action, evaluate them, decide, and carry out our decisions." 24 This level seems to be a further development and refinement of what Lonergan describes about the third level of consciousness, as mentioned already above, "A third determination of the notion of judgment is that it involves a personal commitment." 25 This personal level makes our knowledge not simply an affirmation of something out there, such as mathematics or science 26, but an engagement of our whole person to participate. This is true especially with reference to our knowledge which is interiority.

However, reaching to this level, the leading thrust is love. Only love can render one capable of committing to a value which one affirms, to be consistent with what one knows, finally not to contradict oneself. Sin, on the contrary, either confuses our knowing, or makes one split between knowing and loving as in the experience of St. Paul in Romans chapter 7. Lonergan put it beautifully: "Faith is the knowledge born of religious love." 27 In other words, love is the condition of possibility of our interior knowledge. This love is the self-communication of God Himself as both the Giver and the Gift itself, so that we are the image of God, the place of indwelling of the blessed Trinity. Therefore, it is no wonder that Ignatius urges the retreatant to ask for God's love or to express one's love (# 5, 12, 13, 104) to God, the pre-requisite of any deeper understanding.

Dialectically, we cannot love what we do not know. Love at first sight is only a myth. Even with love towards God, we have to know who God is, a God communicating Himself in human history, especially in the unique event of Christ incarnated. The whole Exercises are typically Christocentric in guiding the retreatant to make long and profound meditation or contemplation on Christ's historical events for the sake of drawing personal meaning out of them. Following St. Jerome's dictum, "The one who does not know Scripture does not know Christ", Ignatius depends greatly on the revelation of Jesus' life in the Gospels. Moreover, "Ignatius emphasized profound theological study because of an authentic conviction that love must know what is loving and why it is loving. Authentic love presupposes intellectual harmony with the truths of faith. A service rooted in discrete charity cannot be theologically blind." 28 In fact, the assurance of knowing makes the whole process of discernment possible and grounded.

Here there is a dialectic or tension. First, according to Ignatius, discernment is "to some extent" (#313). This implies that we have no guarantee of getting the full picture of God's will, as part of the spiritual tradition emphasizes, "for my thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways not your ways ..." (Is 55:8-9) or "God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength." (1Cor 1:25). Ignatius had his own experience of this. After his conversion, in many prayers he felt without doubt that God was asking him to go to Jerusalem, to stay there and even to die there. But history tells us finally God had another plan for him. Was he mistaken in the first place? It seems not. Ignatius' insight includes this total freedom of God who wants us to know His will step by step. What is important is that we are faithful and make an effort in this present moment to find His will. No one can definitely capture God's mind, not even the prophets or saints. God is the totally beyond or absolute other who transcends all our limited knowledge and horizons.

On the other hand, the purpose of discernment is exactly to find what God wants me to do in this particular time and space in history. The presupposition is that we can know God's will. Without this basis, our image of God is either that of a watchmaker who does not care or of a puppeteer who controls our life by whims, without needing our responsibility and cooperation. The implication is either atheism or fideism where predestination becomes a natural conclusion, signified in the idea that what is most unreasonable to human beings is more likely to be God's will. Ignatius, clearly, does not suggest this solution, following the Thomistic realist tradition to affirm that being is intelligible.

In a way similar to Lonergan's epistemology, though perhaps not consciously or thematically in his proceeding, Ignatius' pedagogy in the Spiritual Exercises goes through the four levels of human consciousness. Appealing to the memory of worldly and personal sins and to the imagining of Christ's events in history is on the empirical level. Reflecting on them and drawing out meanings occur on the intellectual and rational level. Finally making an election is on the responsible level. According to Ignatius' experience, this process of searching will finally reach to an intimate understanding of God. So, knowing and loving unites.

2. Self-knowledge and Christ's life on earth

Ignatius' interior transformation starts from insight into himself, acquired when he was in convalescence. Lying in bed and reading the books on Christ and the saints, he began to notice the arousal two kinds of pleasant feelings. Then he understood that the feelings of longing for Christ were much deeper than those for a woman. This experience is the point of departure in Ignatian pedagogy.

First, the Spiritual Exercises create a time and space for a person to face himself in depth. As a scientist has to be at pains to find out and confirm the correlation between thing and thing by doing complicated experiments, no less a pilgrim needs to make an effort to discover who he is. Though he was without modern categories in psychology, Ignatius understands clearly that the self is not immediately transparent to one's consciousness because of the influence of sin and evil spirits. My masks prevent not only others, but also myself, from knowing who I am.

Here, Ignatius has a deep sense of history. In the first week, he invites the retreatant to go back into his own background, by the power of memory, and discover the fact of sin in the world and in his very own person, and then to understand how sin has blocked him from recognizing God's presence in his life. The question may arise, how does one know whether this kind of knowledge is not another kind of mask?29 As Pousset wisely points out, "There is a danger that many people making the Spiritual Exercises get no further than representation. With a great deal of good will and fidelity, they fill their imagination with images, words, stories, and yet nothing or almost nothing happens. St. Ignatius was concerned with this problem in the sixth annotation, but he did not dwell on it at great length." 30 It is clear that inner growth is not like a mechanical process which one can control at ease, since the time of transformation remains in God's hand. Yet, being aware of this problem, Ignatius marks out a clear reference in Annotation 6: "When the one giving the Exercises notices that the exercitant is not experiencing any spiritual motions in his or her soul, such as consolation or desolation, or is not being moved one way or another by different spirits, the director should question...." Here, the reference point is feeling.

Secondly, Lonergan sees feelings as responding to values in accord with a scale of preference in an ascending order, namely from vital values, to social, cultural, personal and religious values. Our discernment is exactly to identify these on their proper levels so that "there are in full consciousness feelings so deep and strong, especially when deliberately reinforced, that they channel attention, shape one's horizon, direct one's life" 31 and "to take cognizance of them makes it possible for one to know oneself, to uncover the inattention, obtuseness, silliness, irresponsibility that give rise to the feeling one does not want, and to correct the aberrant attitude." 32 No wonder that, in the Ignatian heuristic structure of the Spiritual Exercises, the high point is, from an anthropocentric perspective, one's own election, i.e., one's judgment of value. Lonergan emphasizes that "the judgment of value, then, is itself a reality in the moral order...By it the subject is constituting himself as proximately capable of moral self-transcendence, of benevolence and beneficence, of true loving." 33

Ignatius states in Annotation 2: "For what fills and satisfies the soul consists, not in knowing much, but in our understanding the realities profoundly and in savouring them interiorly." Therefore, what is at stake is not so much knowledge by representation as the feeling attached to it. As a matter of fact, though Ignatius sanctions the third time for making a sound and good election (#177), namely, a time of tranquillity and having no special inner movement, when one uses one's natural faculties to calculate the pros and cons for one's decision, he still makes it clear that "When that election or decision has been made, the person who has made it ought with great diligence to go to prayer before God our Lord and to offer him that election, that the divine Majesty may be pleased to receive and confirm it, if it is conducive to his greater service and praise."(# 183) But how does one know whether God is pleased to receive and confirm it or not? One must appeal to one's desolation and consolation of the second time (# 176) Therefore, for Ignatius, self-knowledge properly speaking Ignatius is one's own inner and deeper feeling, from which one can detect either one's own inordinate attachment or one's freedom and joy towards God's will.

However, self-knowledge is not some kind of closed system as are some modern systems or movements like New-Age, which claims that, as long as we are liberated, we are like God or are gods. The ideal may be all right, but the whole process is missing. No doubt, being God's image is asserted in Scriptures, but we have to conform ourselves to this image, whose perfect expression is, in the first place, Jesus Christ. Only Jesus is the condition of possibility of one's true liberation. Thus it is not accidental that Ignatius arranges the whole second, third and fourth week as almost wholly Christocentric, guiding the retreatant to get familiar with Christ's life and teaching on earth. Contemporary categories help us much here to understand his insight. The basic structure of the human being is philosophically I-Thou, or theologically the self-communication of God. There is no such thing as "Cogito, Ergo Sum" or pure human nature. If this basic tenet is accepted, there is no genuine self-knowledge without reference to others. 34 However, the dimension of others is always a corrupted or contaminated reality, as meditated on in the first week. Thus the Christ event, both as prototype as well as fulfilment of human destiny, becomes salvific in its actual sense. Jesus' life and mystery on earth is never just a past event congealed in history, but becomes a constant pivot of reference for one to see what one's true self rests upon.

These two dimensions come back to the dynamics of knowing and loving. In knowing Christ more deeply, we come to love him more dearly. In experiencing love and being accepted unconditionally, we can open up to a greater horizon of knowing ourselves and God's will. This is a circular and unending movement in our pilgrimage on earth, according to Ignatius.

3. Director and Retreatant

Comments on his experience in Manresa, Ignatius says: "During this period God was dealing with him in the same way a schoolteacher deals with a child while instructing him." 35 At first glance this seems to imply a simple I-God relationship, without the involvement of a third person. However, in his presentation of the Spiritual Exercises, the presence of a director is simply taken for granted, without the need of any justification.

In fact, Ignatius himself treasured very much the role and need of a director in his own spiritual journey because a lack of knowledge on spiritual matters made him suffer a lot, fast too much and even come to the point of thinking of committing suicide under the spell of scruples. By experience he also discovered that instruction from the director is helpful, "The confessor ordered him to break off his fast and though he was still feeling strong, he nevertheless obeyed his confessor, and that day as well as the following day he found that he was free of his scruples." 36

As the Exercises are basically designed for beginners in the spiritual life, the presence of a director for the retreatant is presupposed.Yet, Ignatius is very much aware that the whole Exercises are mainly a self-appropriation process engaging the retreatant with his Lord, rather than a course from the director on catechism or spiritual exhortation, no matter how meaningful these may be on some other occasion. Though not as scrupulous as St. John of the Cross, 37 Ignatius sets up clear boundary and advice for the director, whose main task is a faithful companionship in the ups and downs of the retreatant. From Annotation 6 to 15, the director is advised to inquire into the retreatant's experience during prayer; to be patient, kind and gentle towards the retreatant; to explain the rules of discernment according to the retreatant's progress and need; to keep the retreatant living in the present moment and free from worrying about what will come next; to encourage the retreatant to be faithful in prayer even in desolation; to warn the retreatant not to make hasty promises to God during consolation; and not to impose any personal preference and suggestion for a particular state of life, but to let God work directly on the retreatant. In summary, all these guidelines ask the director to be indifferent and pedagogical, implicitly setting up a good example of the Principle and Foundation for the retreatant to imitate. In other words, if the director shows a clear attachment to his own ideas, feelings and wishes for the retreatant, the latter will unconsciously follow this way of proceeding, either blindly adopting the director's prejudice or stubbornly sticking to his own inordinate attachment and spiritual freedom will not emerge.

In parallel manner, Ignatius is mindful of the attitude and disposition of the retreatant towards the director, though the Spiritual Exercises is mainly the former's process of self-appropriation. The basic tenet behind this is that, as a novice in spiritual matters, any retreatant may easily fall prey to self-deception or the tricks of the evil spirits, as affirmed by Ignatius' own experience of scruples and depression. Even an advanced pilgrim is still open to deception by Satan pretending to be an angel of light, "who brings good and holy thoughts attractive to such an upright soul and then strives little by little to get his own way, by enticing the soul over to his own hidden deceits and evil intentions." (# 332) Therefore, the retreatant is advised to examine the whole train of thoughts, if they "end up in something evil or diverting or in something less good than what the soul was originally proposing to do... all this is a clear sign that this is coming from the evil spirit..." (#333).

Undoubtedly, the instruction is clear; but Ignatius foresees implicitly that this is not easily carried out. Therefore, all these principles are not given to the retreatant for a self reading, but are left to the director to explain. Moreover, "the enemy acts like a false lover,... wants his words and solicitations to remain secret....But when the person reveals them to his or her good confessor or some spiritual person who understands the enemy's deceits and malice, he is grievously disappointed."(# 326) That is why Ignatius exhorts in Annotation 5 that the retreatant should enter the exercises with a great spirit and generosity, implying also a great openness and freedom towards the director in one's inner journey, apart from aiming at a lofty desire and ideal for God. In fact, following the structure of I-Thou, one comes to understand oneself through the presence of others. Concerning other responsibilities, Ignatius reminds the retreatant about being faithful in doing the Exercises, more rather than less, especially in time of desolation (#12). The retreatant is to be content in the present moment and not to be agitated or curious to know what is to be done next (# 11). This filial trust is a pre-requisite disposition to let oneself go and then conform oneself to God's will.

4. The Four Weeks

Ignatius structures the Spiritual Exercises in congruency with the traditional understanding of the spiritual life as a progress through the purgative way, the illuminative way, and finally the unitive way (#10). His originality seems to lie in anthropocentrically setting a personal election as the thematic goal, lying between the second and third weeks, signified as the high point of the whole Exercises, while the thrust is totally Christocentric, coming from an intimate understanding and love of Christ.

The first two weeks is the preparation for this election, whose condition of possibility is a heart purged of inordinate attachments and filled with a willingness to follow Christ wholeheartedly. Implicitly following the transcendental structure of human consciousness as discovered by Lonergan, Ignatius sees no benefit in one's spiritual life if the soul, guided by love, does not come to actualize a definite stand and commitment towards God and the world. Starting from personal experience, the interior life cannot be satisfied simply by understanding or so-called illumination, no matter how lofty it is. Even in the first week, Ignatius does not accidentally put the question to the retreatant who may still be troubled by personal inordinate attachments, namely, "What have I done for Christ? What am I doing for Christ? What ought I to do for Christ?" (#53) Therefore the soul should not stop being reasonable in searching for what is true and real, or being responsible in committing to what is truly good. This desire for deliberation and action echoes through the Spiritual Exercises, in the contemplation of the kingdom of Jesus Christ (# 96), the two standards (# 146), the three classes of persons (# 153-155), the three degrees of humility (#165-167), and finally the contemplation to attain love (# 233-237). The key word is "labour", while the conviction is "love ought to manifest itself more by deeds than by words."(# 230)

A question may then arise, namely, if the election is already the fulfilment of the process of our consciousness, why do the Spiritual Exercises not end here, but continue to structure the whole Paschal mystery in the third and fourth week? First, election means one's creating oneself in a definite manner by deliberating on and choosing the genuinely good and the distinctively better. It represents an experience of moral conversion to higher values. "Then is the time for the exercise of vertical freedom, and then moral conversion consists in opting for the truly good, even for value against satisfaction when value and satisfaction conflict."38 However, cooperative grace signified by moral conversion presupposes the pre-eminence of operative grace, which is religious conversion, that "other-worldly falling in love" which is total and permanent self-surrender without conditions, qualifications, reservations."39 In this sense, the moral stage must yield to the religious one as fulfilment. Otherwise, as Kierkegaard suggests, one easily falls prey to pride and arrogance as the self-righteous Pharisees did, an insight already so adequately expounded by Paul: "If I give away all that I possess, piece by piece, and if I even let them take my body to burn it, but am without love, it will do me no good whatever" (1Cor 13:3), Therefore, religious conversion provides "a new basis for all valuing and all doing good. In no way are fruits of intellectual or moral conversion negated or diminished. On the contrary, all human pursuit of the true and the good is included within and furthered by a cosmic context and purpose and, as well, there now accrues to man the power of love to enable him to accept the suffering involved in undoing the effects of decline."40 In this sense, the whole dynamic of the third and fourth weeks is to put this pre-supposition and immediacy of operative grace into a thematic and conscious reflection so that our election is affirmed in love, while we receive the necessary strength to bear the cross as Christ did and open up to the hope of resurrection and glory which Christ experienced.Secondly, through the first week one acquires reformation of oneself, through the second week conformation to Christ, while the election begins the confirmation in Christ as choosing those things which Christ chose. But we will not succeed or be faithful in our election unless we are transformed into Christ. Lonergan tells us: "It is not merely a self-mediation in which we develop, but it is a self-mediation through another. One is becoming oneself, not just by experiences, insights, judgments, by choices, decisions, conversion, not just freely and deliberately, not just deeply and strongly, but as one who is carried along." 41

The one who carries us along is Christ, whose image and example the Father destined for us to conform to and transform into. Therefore, it is a self-mediation through Christ and by Christ. In a deeper reflection, perfection through suffering is no longer an abstract principle as the human lot but becomes an event of mutual self-mediation. "Christ chose and decided to perfect himself in the manner in which he did because of us...the way of the cross is the way in which fallen nature acquires its perfection...; by his own autonomous choices, he was thinking of us and thinking of what we needed to be able to attain our own self-mediation." 42 In this sense, the third and fourth weeks become necessary to achieve a union with Christ, as the unitive way aims at. This union does not just mean making oneself Christ-like. It means letting Christ become man in reference to us and especially to myself in the very Paschal mystery, His and mine. "I live now not with my own life but with the life of Christ who lives in me."(Gal 2:20)

5. Rules for discernment - direct and inverse insight

It is quite true to say that the Principle and Foundation and the rules for discernment are the heart of Ignatius' insight. Concerning the latter, Rahner affirms: "We should even like to risk the assertion that they (the rules) are actually the first and so far the only detailed attempts at such a systematic method."43 Every insight will sooner or later develop into a system, providing certain boundaries and rules. As in the study of Scripture, textual criticism, literary criticism, form criticism and redaction criticism signify both way as well as boundary, beyond which scholarship is not recognized as proper. Similarly, the positivist approach in modern human sciences only tackle value-free statements so that moral or metaphysical statements are not and cannot be treated. Of course, whether the validity of these insights is grounded or not is not our interest here. The basic tenet is that insight follows this dynamic, as Lonergan points out.

As direct insight, the rules for discernment mainly provide guidelines for understanding desolation and consolation, in relation to the good and evil spirits. There is no attempt here to explain the details of each rule, on which many distinguished writers have already contributed a lot. Yet two suppositions are worth noticing in order to grasp these rules in a better way.

First, Ignatius seems to affirm the possibility of an original and deep experience of God, which serves as a prototype and is beyond doubt. This is mentioned as the first time of doing the election (#175) and as consolation without a preceding cause (# 330). The characteristic of this experience is that "it is the prerogative of the Creator alone to enter the soul, depart from it, and cause a motion in it which draws the whole person into the love of His Divine Majesty." (# 330) However, in a 30-day retreat context, "without a preceding cause" cannot mean that consolation is totally without our preparation, effect or expectation, since we are told to ask the Lord for what we want and desire in the second prelude to meditation (##48, 55, 65) and the third prelude to contemplation (##91, 104, and to spend time doing them (#4, 12). Consolation is rather that which is out of proportion to 'what I want and desire', or beyond our conceptual object, a phrase used by Karl Rahner, so that one enters entirely into God's love. "This experience allows the person to judge an experience not only by its fruit, but also by its origin." 44 This standpoint might be arguable, yet Ignatius shows no suspicion about it. What he is cautious about is the after-thought of this experience. (# 333)

The original and deep experience of God mentioned as the first time of doing the election (#175) and as consolation without a preceding cause (# 330) serves as a prototype because other and thinner consolation or desolation take their reference from it, since it is a relationship with God without doubt, like a perfect glass to show the true face of other experiences. In fact, even Jesus asked the apostles to go back Galilee to witness his resurrection (Mk 16:7, Mt 28:7). Does Galilee not signify the undoubted experience of God's calling and love? If that is so important for the interior life, it should not be a rare phenomenon... "An experience of the CSCP (consolation with preceding cause) of varying purity and intensity is certainly to be expected as the normal crowning of the CCCP (consolation with cause) which the exercitant frequently receives during the exercises." 45 Therefore, it is the common effort of the director and retreatant to recognize its happening and presence.

Secondly, discernment deals mainly with "the various motions which are caused in the soul" (# 313). By "motions" is meant desolation and consolation. As discussed earlier, they include mostly feeling words. It is, thus, the feelings which we discern and not the thoughts. "The feelings are crucial: They are the raw material of our experiences of God. But they must be judged, rationally evaluated to distinguish the weeds from the wheat." 46 However, before understanding or judging, the recognition of true feelings is already an important task. Sometimes our true feelings can be masked or moralized into something we wish to be: I should be joyful, or grateful, etc. rather than I actually am joyful or grateful. Or we tend to hide our true feelings from ourselves or the director for various reasons, like the tactics of the false lover (# 326). Here, the words of Jesus are valid: "The truth will make you free."(Jn 8:32)

In fact, it is part of the task in the first week to discover all the historical, cultural and human factors which has been blocking our true self, especially our feelings, from emerging. No doubt, feelings can be treacherous or deceitful. That is where discernment comes in. The convalescent Ignatius had to measure his happiness in searching for the worldly career against the happiness inherent in the heroism of saints like Francis and Dominic. Only then did he discover the latter to be the truer and deeper joy. Later, the Cardoner experience became Ignatius' reference axis for discernment: "After Cardoner, Ignatius easily discerned true from false consolations, as exemplified by his rejection of the serpent-form vision because of diminished colour, his distaste for Erasmus because of diminished fervour, and his decision to reject consolations which prevented him from sleeping." 47 In this sense, the consolation without a preceding cause is the crucial criterion for discernment. In the same line, our fundamental option towards God is also an important criterion. God hardly calls into question one's fundamental commitment, unless it is wrongly made in the first place (# 172).

Let us now turn to inverse insight. It is famous that Ignatius lays down rules for thinking, judging, and feeling with the Church. Though not explicitly mentioned among the individual rules, (##353 to 370), the basic motive seems to be to answer the question whether genuine consolation from God can lead us to go against the authority, doctrines or religious practices in the Catholic Church. Ignatius may be said either to give a definite "no" or perhaps to point out that this is a wrong question, since God cannot contradict Himself by showing a different revelation to the Church and individuals. From this assertion, such consolation cannot be true.

15. Understanding and Being, 46-47

16. The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius, A Translation and Commentary by George E. Ganss, S.J. (St. Louis: the Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1992), #23. References to the text of the Spiritual Exercises are indicated by #. ##1-20 are commonly called Annotations.

17. Cf. Ibid., 211, where Ganss points out that Erasmus' Handbook of the Christian Soldier expresses certain ideas similar to those of Ignatius.

18. Insight, 12

19. The Spiritual Exercises, 149

20. This will be elaborated more in the later part. Cf. Thomas H. Green, Weeds Among the Wheat (Makati: St. Paul Publications, 1984), 98-99.

21. Harvey D. Egan, S.J., The Spiritual Exercises and the Ignatian Mystical Horizon (St. Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1976), 69.

22. Cf. Insight, 272.

23. Cf. Insight, xix-xxiii.

24. Method in Theology, 9.

25. Insight, 272

26. This is not to deny that finally they also involve our commitment, e.g., if we judge something poisonous, we won't take it. But in the process the ideal is only the relationship between thing and thing.

27. Method in Theology, 115

28. Ignatian Mystical Horizon, 70

29. It is clear in the case of Jonah. He fled from God's call, and then was saved by God after three days in the whale. Then he complied with God's will and proclaimed the message to people in Nineveh. But only at the end is his deeper rebellious attitude unmasked. He has actually not been at peace with God.

30. Edouard Pousset, S.J., Life in Faith and Freedom (St. Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1980), 61-62. The meaning of representation is covered in pages 57-63

31. Method in Theology, 32

32. Ibid., 33

33. Ibid., 37

34. Study affirms that without the positive caring and affirmation of others, a person cannot know his worth as a true image of God. Therefore, the presence of others is not only accidental, but also substantial.

35. A Pilgrim's Journey, 36.

36. Ibid., 34.

37. In The Living Flame, John indicates three blind guides who can cause the soul to go into the dark night. While he dedicates only three paragraphs to the devil and two to the soul itself, he devotes many pages to the danger of entrusting oneself to a director whose only goal is to form carbon copies of himself. Cf. Thomas H. Green, S.J., Drinking From a Dry Well (Makati: St. Paul Publications, 1991), 33.

38. Method in Theology, 240

39. Ibid., 240

40. Ibid., 242

41. Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, vol. 6, ed. By Robert C. Croken, Frederick E. Crowe, and Robert M. Doran. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), "The Mediation of Christ in Prayer", 180.

42. Ibid., 181.

43. Ignatian Mystical Horizon, 132

44. Ibid., 15

45. Ibid.,56

46. Weeds Among the Wheat, 99

47. Ignatian Mystical Horizon, 138

Chapter IV: A Further Reflection

In his book Insight, Lonergan provides a set of exercises to help the reader to attain self-appropriation, which is a process of the subject raising questions and seeking the unknown. In the interior life, the unknown is God's will-for-me. Here, what is at stake involves the subject, apart from the objective pole of God's will. These two poles have no temporal, spatial, or sequential priority in the process of self-appropriation, though ontologically God is absolutely prior as my existence is always contingent to and dependent on God. In this sense, what the self is greatly determines the experience, understanding, judging and commitment to God's will.

The Spiritual Exercises, in fact, provide a context for an appropriation of the self, which is a super-natural existential opening to God, overcoming any dichotomy between natural and supernatural, strictly human and divine, etc. As the Ignatian maxim states, "Have faith in God as if all success depended on you, nothing on God; Set to work, however, as if nothing were to come about through you, and everything through God alone." 48 Taking this dialectic as basis, the ongoing discussion follows the traditional categories, namely, subject and object. The conviction behind is that, unless we have a deeper grasp of and greater courage to face the existential disposition of the subject and the forces surrounding him, the insight into doing God's will cannot be clear and commitment in following it cannot be total.

A. Interior Knowledge and its subject 49

Aristotle defines virtue as "a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which a man of practical wisdom would determine it." 50 Therefore, the characteristic of the subject as virtuous person contributes not a little to deciding the right thing to do, apart from the objective guideline of finding the mean. In analyzing the subjective field of common sense, Lonergan describes patterns of experience, namely, biological, aesthetic, intellectual and dramatic patterns, 51 which greatly decide the experience or focus of the subject. The classic example is that Thales was so intent on the stars that he did not see the well into which he tumbled, while the milkmaid was so indifferent to the stars that she could not overlook the well.

In the context of the Spiritual Exercises, it is important to notice and respect the aura of each individual as Ignatius insists in Annotations 7 and 15. The director is to be aware that he is not going to make the retreatant a carbon copy of himself or pursue his own agenda. Yet, it is healthy to call attention to what is missing. As a matter of fact, any pattern of experience is incomplete or even becomes too selective, leading one to lose sight of the whole picture or greater horizon. Thales' example is clear enough. Jesus boldly points to the rich young man, "There is one thing you lack..."(Mk 10:21) Although the director has no need or even authority to be so instructive as Jesus, he should detect where the blind spots lie and so invite the retreatant to bring them out and talk directly with the Lord. (# 15)

Apart from patterns of experience, Lonergan's description of dramatic bias or scotosis seems to be relevant. In a healthy make-up, everyone desires to know, i.e. to look for insight. However, in reality, most of us can be lovers of darkness, not wanting insight. "To exclude an insight is also to exclude the further questions that would arise from it and the complementary insights that would carry it towards a rounded and balanced viewpoint." 52 Then, the whole self-appropriation becomes unauthentic. Lonergan classifies scotosis into aberration of understanding, repression of censorship, inhibition of affects, and aberration of performance. In the context of the Spiritual Exercises, it is precisely the main task of the first week to discover and tackle these. That is why the first week is so crucial in the whole dynamic. Sin is not simply an item or wrong behaviour which one can correct by will, in the sense of cleansing away some dirt. "In Paul it is sometimes a personified might which has entered the world, but it also dwells in men and makes them slaves. In John in particular sin appears as the ultimate unrighteousness, in which individuals, but above all 'the world', is imprisoned." 53

Therefore, sin is an existential power preventing a person from seeing the light and obtaining the insight. Its first tactic is to create contrary insight, similar to Ignatius' description of the evil spirit which makes the great sinner imagine delights and pleasures of the senses (# 314). This explains why some persons apparently committed to moral errors seem to be serene in their wrongdoing because they fall prey to egoism, which is "an interference of spontaneity with the development of intelligence.... [and] is an incomplete development of intelligence...Its inquiry is reinforced by spontaneous desires and fears; by the same stroke it is retrained from a consideration of any broader field." 54 As Caiphas shows, "you fail to see that it is better for one man to die for the people, than for the whole nation to be destroyed."(Jn 11:49)

Meanwhile, sin represses the censorship. Usually, censorship, according to the characteristic of the subject, positively selects and arranges materials that emerge in consciousness in a perspective that gives rise to insight, or negatively leaves other unrelated materials aside. Yet, sin does the contrary, repressing all the possible materials and perspectives that might lead to insight. That is why Ignatius gives advice (##6, 326) that the director should keep an eye on ways in which the retreatant may unconsciously or consciously repress the related and significant images.

Furthermore, sin cultivates an inhibition of affects. Insight comes from imaginative presentation, just like the crown in the water for Archimedes or the falling apple for Newton, not from experience of affects, though both of them might feel the same tension or anxiety of inquiry. In order to prevent any insight from emerging, one just needs to suppress the related images. Affects are suppressed only when linked with unwanted images, so they are usually channelled to another unrelated yet acceptable set of images, and emerge freely and frequently, so that the subject then forgets what is really influencing him. It is common for people to express anger or other negative feelings towards others. Though they recognize that those feelings are inappropriate, mostly in a deeper way they refuse to link this kind of feeling with the original images, especially those of beloved ones or family members. Here, original sin receives its greater import and existential meaning. If we have no shame in dogma to attribute our human misery to some remote ancestors, seeing unwanted images of sinfulness in our family, nation and own cultures grants us ground for suppressing them unconsciously. Here, Jesus surely has great insight, "If any man comes to me without hating his father, mother, wife, children...he cannot be my disciples."(Lk 14:26) While "hating" is a Hebrew emphatic way of expressing a total commitment, 55 the main point is to bring the inordinate attachment into consciousness and focus. Inhibition creates, in fact, some kind of inordinate attachment, since what is suppressed keeps on controlling us without our knowing what or why. We can leave or detach ourselves from only those things which are consciously present to or possessed by us. Otherwise, giving up has no meaning and is beyond our capacity. Only when the original image is liberated can forgiveness, reconciliation, and conversion become possible.

Finally, sin creates an aberration of performance. This scotosis renders us unable to focus on our higher activity, since the energy has dissipated for the sake of repression. It can be detected by our dreams or some fixated body language, like stomach-ache, dizziness, headache, aggressiveness, tiredness, etc. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."(Mt 26:41) This aberration keeps us from reaching the fourth level of consciousness, namely, to commit ourselves to the true values that we uphold and cherish.

In this analysis, scotosis is actually the embodiment of our sinfulness, which should more or less be tackled in the first week. Recognition of its depth and the possibility of healing are, of course, due to God's grace and the openness of the subject itself. However, along with the religious themes to be expounded and the making of one's basic world-view or value-system, it is crucial for the first week that seemingly repressed emotions, affection towards family members and certain physical reactions, be somehow thematized as possible signs of scotosis.

B. Interior Knowledge as Object

God's will never comes out of nowhere. Even the Lord's prerogative entry into one's soul points to a concrete and historical situation where He wants to act through this or that person, as "love ought to manifest itself more by deeds than by words."(# 230) Salvation history, culminating in the event of the Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery, has set up this pivotal axis and paradigm once and for all. The divine will is mediated through human situations, though the latter has often been scandalous or sinful. "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."(Rom 5:21) In this sense, to look for God's will is to put one's historical context, personal, communal and universal, into perspective where one discerns the signs of the time. "When you see a cloud looming up in the west you say at once that rain is coming, and so it does....You know how to interpret the face of the earth and the sky. How is it you do not know how to interpret the present time? Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Lk 12:54-56)

According to Lonergan, in this heuristic progress, two dialectic principles are working in mutual tension, namely, affectivity and intelligence. Affectivity signifies one's desires, interests, ambitions, communal customs, interests, sub-cultures, and finally universal ideologies; while intelligence signifies one's censorship, practical ideas, communal laws, hierarchy of values, proverbial wisdom and universal moral principles. In short, the former represents the principle of life, "I have come so that they may have life and have it to the full."(Jn 10:10), and the latter the principle of truth, "you will learn the truth and the truth will set you free." (Jn 8:32) These two principles are opposed yet bound together in the historical context: the spontaneity of life has to be guided by truth, "...obey his voice, clinging to him; for in this your life consists..." (Deut 30:20), while the revelation of truth depends on the consummation of life, as Jesus offers Himself in the Paschal Event. (Even the truth of virtue depends on the virtuous person) The balance and synthesis of these two principles lies in love. Since God is love, God's will shines through in the dialectic of these two poles.

Our problematic, of course, always lies in losing balance between the two because of sin. Apart from the corruption of personal scotosis as discussed above, the power of sin creates group bias and general bias which form the structure of sin, and thus confuses and restrains the very person from striking the balance. Group bias creates various kinds of division, antagonism, exploitation, discrimination, etc., which unconsciously constitute an individual's attitude and thus are taken for granted. General bias represents the social situation deteriorating cumulatively, the dynamic of progress is replaced by sluggishness and then by stagnation. "Culture retreats into an ivory power. Religion becomes an inward affair of the heart. Philosophy glitters like a gem with endless facets and no practical purpose." 56 This kind of minor surrender may, even worse, lead to a major one when lower viewpoints prevail, allowing human intelligence to give way to all kinds of social surd and totalitarianism, followed by complete disintegration and decay.

To overcome these biases, one has first of all to recognize their presence. 57 The fact of their being taken for granted in individual souls must be challenged by the rationality of Scriptures, especially the life and teaching of Christ. This is exactly the meaning of the meditation on Two Standards. The call of metanoia from Christ is supposed to be a concrete encounter and confrontation with these biases. Only then can the possibility of a radical election for Christ and with Christ as mission emerge, since the Spiritual Exercises were never designed merely for personal piety. As Ignatius exhorted Francis Xavier before the latter's departure for the East, "Go, and set the world on fire!"

48. Faith And Freedom, 238

49. For the following two sections, Cf. Insight, Ch. VI Common Sense And Its Subject and Ch. VII Common Sense As Object.

50. Cf. Footnote 7.

51. Cf. Insight, 181-190

52. Insight, 191.

53. Piet Schoonenberg, "Sin", Sacramentum Mundi - An Encyclopedia of Theology, ed. by Karl Rahner with Cornelius Ernst and Kevin Smyth. (London: Burns & Oates, 1970), Vol. 6, 87-88.

54. Insight, 219-220

55. Jerusalem Bible, Popular Edition, Gospel of Luke, Ch. 14:26, footnote a.

56. Insight, 229.

57. This is what the inner journey of Jonah shows to us. Cf. Footnote 22

Conclusion

After Insight, Lonergan named his next book as Method in Theology, instead of Method of Theology. His idea is clear that there is but one transcendental method operating through the human spirit's four levels of consciousness to approach the being of all beings by our unlimited drive of questioning and knowing. 58 In this sense, theology belongs to part of this most worthy enterprise of being human. Following the master's conviction, I name this paper "Insight in Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises".

There is another Lonerganian reason, though somewhat more implicit. His project shows insight to be adequate with being, then insight understands itself, and finally the primary insight is equal to the notion of God. 59 Therefore, every insight participates in God, comes from God and returns to God. This understanding matches very much what Ignatius' inner journey and his Spiritual Exercises aim for, culminating in the contemplation to attain love.

Since Plato's metaphor of the cave, searching for truth has been signified as a journey, a process of running out from darkness to the light. However, though every human being desires to know, this process is not automatic or mechanical because various contrast forces have corrupted our drive for truth, just as the people in the cave were originally fettered by chains while the darkness and shadows seem to dominate. Therefore, it is an uphill battle to liberate oneself from them. In Christian anthropology, this darkness is our personal, communal and universal, sinfulness and inordinate attachments, which block us from seeing God's will, the light itself. The foregoing chapter IV tries to bring this reality into a thematic and deeper understanding.

Ignatius called himself a pilgrim, signifying an inner journey and struggle within to free himself from sin and become free for God. Yet it is God who initiates the whole process and guides Ignatius to follow the whole heuristic structure, as illustrated above, and so to discover his divine will. Therefore, gratitude is the distinctive Ignatian disposition and characteristic. In the last few months, I myself began the intellectual journey to struggle with what the insight of Lonergan is up to, in the context of my spiritual journey as a son of St. Ignatius. With deep gratitude, coming to the closing line of this little paper, I share very much the sentiment of T.S. Eliot in his beautiful lines:

With the drawing of this Love and the voice of this Calling

We shall not cease from exploration,

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.

Four Quartets

Little Gidding, V

58. Cf. Method in Theology, Ch. I, 3-25.

59. Cf. Insight, Ch. XIX, 657-669.

by Sean O Cearbhallain S.J

Christology of the Letter to the Ephesians :An essay in theological method

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A023E02.pdf

作者：周景勋

1. 导言

形上本体论究竟研究什么？从西方哲学的研究及发展，我们可以肯定的是：由亚里斯多德到圣多玛斯及士林哲学都认为，形上学所探究的是宇宙万物的根本存在理由，即由存在的事物（果）追搜其存在的根由（因），而找出了形上本体论的研究对象：「有」（being），「有」是万物的本根，也是万物的最基本的观念，最普遍而非常单纯的观念，此「有」本身也是「在」，就是存在的有，我们亦可称之为「存有」，存有并非虚无，都有其本质，本质乃存有可被理解和找到的存在的充足理由。可见，形上学最根本的理念有三：就是「存在」、「本质」和「存有」，此理念也是形上学的三种实现，李震教授更强调「存有」（to on, esse, being）是形上学最根本、最原初、最核心的问题；也肯定地说：「形上学（Metaphysics）之名称虽出于一偶然事件，但其背景也指出一个很有意义的看法，因为在『物理学之后的书卷』一说法，很清楚地指出：物理学或自然哲学探讨的对象是形而下的，受时空限制的物质世界及自然世界，而在物理学之后探讨的对象，当然就是物质、自然世界之外之上的形上世界了。依实在论的方法及精神，由形下世界走向形上世界的研究途径，是极为自然、合理而又正确的路子。」1

　　于是，形上学在西方哲学中注重研究一个物体是怎么存在的？即「存有」有其「本质之性」及「存在之理」。本质之性是一个物体之所以是这个物体而不是其他物体的分辨；存在之理是说明物体存在的理据，「存在」是实际的，「理」却是抽象的，两者如何配合而为存有呢？亚里斯多德和圣多玛斯从清楚地提出了：或是「自有」，或是「从他而有」的思想；「自有」者常是绝对的存有，其「本质之性」与「存在之理」是同一的，为一完全的「存有」；「从他而有」者是从另一「存有」而得以存在，追根至始源乃从「自有」者而成就其「有」。因此，「存有」在其形上本体的特征而言有其独一无二的实际存在故为「一」，有其本体存在的「真」，例如这个人，人的本体是这个人的基本，必定要有人之所以是人该有的一切，使之实在的存有，这就是真；每一个实在的存有因有了本体所该有的一切，便成为一个完整的本体，毫没缺憾而是完全的，在本体上这便是「善」；一个完全的本体在其内必然有调协和有次序的，这便是存有本身的充实而为「美」。2

1.2　从「物理学之后」的发现

　　从「物理学之后」发现了形上本体的思域，这是人在生存中，面对具体事物的自觉意识的反思成果，即人在面对「自然、社会、人性」时作出的生命探源的内在要求，而且有目的性的思想反省，我们可称之为人的意识的自觉活动，这使人明白到：人生活在一个现实世界中，不应只是像动物性机械般的顺应和利用自然而生存，人应该有更高尚的思想追寻：「源头活水」和「终极关怀」的智慧，使生命有方向的发展，这一点大概就是超越现实世界的本体论的根据。故此，人必须提高自己的生存能力，自觉反思，不单只为自己开创一个有秩序的、安适的、自由的生活环境，也当关心自己生活的超越、心灵的归宿、思想的源头，这个方向，西方的哲学与神学的思路进展是由物质走向精神、由现实走向超越、由形下世界走向形上世界的研究途径。牟宗三教授在谈中国文化大动脉中关心的问题时，提出了：「现实关心」和「终极关心」，且用了「事」乃现实性的问题，表现民族集体生活的具体业绩；「理」为终极性的问题，是民族集体生活中的动力之原；「理」是「事」的超越根据，「事」是「理」的客观实现，而「动原」的反思正是「文化寻根」的根据。3

　　罗光教授则从生命哲学的探讨中追索生命的归依历程，即由生命具体的「在」出发，认识动作、伦理道德、美和美感、社会国家，提出了生命的主体－－我，即生命的发展，到生命的旋律，最后是生命的超越，与创造者－－神的契合为形上生命哲学的终极思路。4 罗光教授融会了中西哲学与神学的思想，为后学者揭开了「源头活水」的思想探索。

1.3　由形下走向形上的途径

　　李震教授毕身的钻研都很重视「形上学」，他的思路乃：「由形下世界走向形上世界的研究途径」，他很清晰地说：

实际上，中国哲学思想的发展和走向也是如此。在中国的哲学传统中，没有「形上学」一辞，但是不能说没有形上学的概念。在过去，多用「宇宙论、宇宙起源论、玄学、道学」等名称指称探讨形上学问题的学问，一般说来，大多跟道家的学派有关。然而儒家先秦时代的集体作品《系辞传》是最有形上学内涵及精神的作品，而且其中许多话并非出自孔子之口，但大多学者肯定，《系辞传》对《周易》的诠释，是以孔子的思想为主轴和基调的。《系辞传》有：「是故形而上者谓之道，形而下者谓之器。化而裁之谓之变，推而行之谓之通；举而错之天下之民，谓之事业。」（系辞上传第十二章）前二句的大意是：在理论及实际生活的领域中，有一个形而上的世界，它探讨的对象是「道」，与之相对的还有一个形而下的世界，即充满了有形有状的，有变数的形器世界。中间二句的大意是：形质世界的千变万化，经由「道」这唯一的，绝对无待原理的制裁，其多元性不但可以理解，而且可以各顺其性，各适其所。由此可见，天下之大道、至道，若能推行开来，运行无阻的时候，必能开物成务，这就叫作「通」，换言之，「道」即融通万象、万物、万事、万有的大道理与大实现。后二句乃补充前义，指若能将上述道理落实为措施与行动，获得天下万民的肯定与支持，社会势必在安和乐利中发展，迈向繁荣，成就事业。

中国人即使在探讨形上世界的问题时，亦时时不忘将那些极深奥的理念或大道理落实到日常的实践生活中去。这也正是中国传统文化、宗教与哲学思想的，一个非常珍贵的特质！5

虽说由「形下」走向「形上」的探究，似是以「形上」之道作为终极就可以不说了，实际上不是截然而论的，而是要确定「形上」与「形上」的思域是互相贯通的，所以「形上」之道的理念是可以落实到「形下」世界：人的日常实践生活中的；方东美教授说：

在中国，要成立任何哲学思想体系，总要把形而上、形而下贯穿起来，衔接起来，将超越形上学再点化为内在形上学，儒家中人不管道德上成就多高，还必须「践形」，把价值理想在现实世界、现实人生中完全实现。道家固然非常超越，但是到最高境界时，又以道为出发地，向下流注：「道生一、一生二、二生三、三生万物。」道家理想亦须贯注到现实人生中。6

　　由是，我们可以看出：哲学的智慧总是根据过去，启发未来，而对未来的一切理想又能根据现在的生命、行动去创造，就是要贯串过去，透视现在，玄想未来；即在现实中发挥生命精神，以现在为出发点，凝视未来，实践理想、落实行动，眼光放在人类的未来，为未来制造一个完美的蓝图，这便是司马迁所说的：「究天人之际，通古今之变。」7

1.4　中国形上学的三个向度

形上学的内涵所研究不外乎：本体论（Ontology）、宇宙论（Cosmology）、人性论（人类学Anthropology）；这在中国哲学中所研究的就是《易经》中所提的：「天、地、人」的学问。邬昆如教授认为：「整理中国形上学的课题，在中国古代经典中，天地人三才相互间有许多重叠的地方，这种思想的模式，事实上是重综合、重圆融、重整体的思想进路。」8 从《易经》圆融整体贯通的思路，开拓了儒道的思想；9 于是，邬教授从《易经》的思路，以历史纵的发展，形上学的内涵，整理中国哲学的形上学的三个向度：10

1.4.1　「物理之后」的形上学思维：

　　这个思路是透过对感官世界现象的观察，审视感官世界背后的真象，重点在奠立「本体论」。「古者包牺氏之王天下也，仰则观象于天，俯则观法于地；观鸟兽之文，与地之宜；近取诸身，远取诸物；于是始作八卦。」（系辞下传第二章）伏牺由观察所得的功能乃是：「以通神明之德，以类万物之情。」

1.4.2　「伦理之后」的形上思维：

　　中国哲学一直以儒家为主流，伦理道德始终是思想的核心。「伦理之后」的形上学，重点在奠立「伦理学」，以找到伦理规范的最终基础为目标；伦理规范也就是道德规范，规范人在道德行为后的心安或不安的良知情操；故此，儒家除了提出各种德目，劝人行善避恶之外，就是指出「为何道德」的哲学问题，以「德」配「天」的肯定，就是以「天」的概念作为核心的形上内容，人性的根源便也归诸于天，「天」的无私便落实到人生的伦理道德上。

1.4.3　「符号之后」的形上学11

　　道家的形上概念是本体的「道」，「道」是「不可道」的，只能以隐喻或寓言表达出来；故道家努力设法透视《易经》符号系统以前的真象，深入事物的本质，尤其是事物的原因、原理、基础；于是，道家对宇宙万物的默观，认定「道」的本质不可知，即道体不可知，只有道因可观察；道因所呈现的，毕竟是道的外显，是道以万物的原理，呈现在现象界。故此人观察现象，就能推论本体的性质，「道」便成了超越的，无所不在的，内存于万物的；但因「道」的「不可道」，只能透过「隐喻」或「寓言」来理解，其形上学就成为「符号之后」的性格。

　　我们从三个向度分析中国形上思想，其特色不在于形上形下的截然划分，而是互相贯通的，若要分说，则在于心内心外之分，心内的道德心，心内的意境。儒家的丰饶心灵，在于道德实践的表现；道家的丰饶心灵，则在于艺术意境的发挥，两者都是人性的内在超越。12

1.5　本文的探讨思路

　　从上面当代研究中西形上学的学者的思域中，吾人亦取采：由「形下」到「形上」的思想追索的方法来探讨中国哲学的形上思想，然因中国哲学的形上层面有其实存性、超越性和整体性的特征，故形下与形上可以互相贯通，形下的事物追索形上的本根（源头），形上的思想亦必然地落实而内在于形下的事物中（活水），成为生命的终极目标。本论文以庄子的「道」为例，探讨庄子形上哲学的本体意义，以揭示庄子「生命思想」和「精神超越」归向「道」的历程。

1. 李震著，《面对形上学的一些省思》哲学与文化月刊345，第三十卷第二期，台湾辅仁大学　哲学与文化月刊杂志社出版　2003年2月　20-21页。　
2. 罗光著，《形上生命哲学》，学生书局　2001年9月初版　1-4页。
3. 牟宗三讲演录，《中国文化的省察》，联合报出版，联经总经销1986年4次印行　71, 101页。
4. 罗光着，《形上生命哲学》，学生书局　2001年9月初版　1-4页。
5. 李震著，《面对形上学的一些省思》哲学与文化月刊345，第三十卷第二期，台湾辅仁大学　哲学与文化月刊杂志社出版　2003年2月　21页。
6. 方东美著，「第一章　中国哲学精神－－导论」，《原始儒家道家哲学》，黎明文化事业公司　1983年9月　18页。
7. 同上，40页。
8. 邬昆如著，《中国形上学的三个向度》哲学与文化月刊345，第三十卷第二期，台湾辅仁大学　哲学与文化月刊杂志社出版　2003年2月　5页。
9. 高怀民著，《大易哲学论》，成文出版社　1978年6月　9页。高教授认为：中国哲学最重要的二大派：儒、道二家，其思想都渊源于易经。
10. 邬昆如著，《中国形上学的三个向度》哲学与文化月刊345，第三十卷第二期，台湾辅仁大学　哲学与文化月刊杂志社出版　2003年2月　6-14页。
11. 方东美著，「第一章　中国哲学精神－－导论」，《原始儒家道家哲学》，黎明文化事业公司　1983年9月　124-130页。方东美教授曾肯定：《易经》可分为「符号系统」以及「文字系统」二大部份。儒家的努力是对文字的解读部份，设法落实到人生的伦理道德；而道家的关怀则是：符号系统之前的原始状态究竟是什么？
12.邬昆如著，《中国形上学的三个向度》哲学与文化月刊345，第三十卷第二期，台湾辅仁大学　哲学与文化月刊杂志社出版　2003年2月　15页。

2.　庄子哲学中生命历程的终极回归

2.1　庄子内篇的生命精神

吾人在阅读和思考庄子书的内容时，发觉庄子书每篇都围绕着一个与生命历程有关的中心内容，如：

逍遥游篇

　　谈论生命不当有所欲求，当顺应自然之性；离「小大之辩」，遵道而行，优游自如，不被物欲所诱，免受尘网所困；故真正的逍遥在「无己、无功、无名」，这样，才能归于大通。

齐物论篇

　　更以自然之道调和人生命中之是非彼此的分别，使是非不生，物物皆是其所是；由于造成是非彼此乃因人成心妄见狭思，故必去之，从大知以至葆光，在「物化」中忘掉自我，以达「道通为一」境。

养生主篇

言养生当依乎天理，因其固然；以「不伤」为本（抱朴子「极言」中有言：「养生以不伤为本」），诚如庖丁依循之「道」，才能出神入化而不伤。因此，人当「缘督以为经」，守常而不为物役；「安时而处顺」，与道相从，哀乐不能入；如是者，生死泰然，与大化冥合。

人间世篇

要求人不要系缚于大用小用、材与不材之间，当明「无用之用」的超越义；虚心应物，顺任自然必须「养中」「游心」，且安之若命；如此，人在乱世道失的当世才能保真无伤。

德充符篇

强调人要重视精神生命的超越，不为外形之残全所束缚，如「游于形骸之内」、「内保之而外不伤」、「德有所长、而形有所忘」，故能「不以好恶内伤其身」；这样，人便能「常因自然」而体悟生命的妙趣，以死生为一条而通乎大道。

大宗师篇

指出人生命的归宿，给人的生命终向导出一条通达天人一体境界的大道。全篇的核心点在「道」，道是无形、永存及无限性的；人不可须臾离，必须不断「闻道」，继而「学道」以「体道」，「得道」，即同于道。唯有同于道者才能「坐忘」，将生死置于度外，不悦生不恶死，入于不生不死，而「与造物者为人，游乎天地一气」。可见大宗师篇与其他各篇有着密切的相连性，成为庄子哲学的精神之本根和终极。

应帝王篇

主旨在谈「无为无私之治」，更好说是提出「顺物自然而无容私焉」，务使人人能把自性之自然，投向「道」；故不能以有为之治伤己伤人：「日凿一窍，七日浑沌死」；故郭象注曰：「夫无心而任乎自然者，应为帝王也。」只有无心而任自然的帝王才能保存「道」的「无容私」的真面目，使百姓活于自然自如中，与道通一。

除了以上所言的内篇外，外杂篇中亦有很多有关生命的记述，尤其提出不同人物的生命体验或思想精神，来描绘和发挥庄子的生命精神。

由于要描绘生命体验与思想精神，不是单用文字便可以完全表达出来；因此，庄子及其后学者都找出一个特别的文体－－「哲理寓言」，以一种轻松的笔法和哲思，刻划出在紊乱不安、黑暗丑恶、错误荒谬的社会事实中，有一股由「道」所散布的「真、善、美、圣」的力量和境地，启导人努力追寻，以突破黑暗，克服错误，把握生命的真己，超越丑恶的威胁，创造美善的终向；也就是使人「有意识地，自觉地通过联想与想像来反映人们自社会实践中，生发出来的思想和认识，经验和智慧」。(13)

当我们阅读庄子书时，我们可以发觉庄子在表露生命体验和精神境界时，都用寓言来描绘，且每篇文章都采用几则寓言加以说明，构成一个完美的整体；所以我们可说：读了庄子的寓言，就等于读了庄子书，也读了庄子的哲学。无怪乎太史公司马迁在史记卷六十三庄子列传中言：「故其着书十余万言，大抵率寓言也。」所谓寓言就是寓「道」之言。

2.2　庄子的寓「道」之言

然而，在庄子寓「道」之言哲学中有着一些表达「思想」的「名」和「字」；这些「思想」都是庄子对「宇宙万物」的生命，以及「个人生命」的生化流衍的体验；还有，从庄子对有限生命的体验所悟得的生命历程之终极：「道」乃是人生命的归根终极。庄子的思想不是杂乱无章的，而是有着一个清晰的思想架构，构成庄子生命哲学的一个归「道」的历程体系。至于「名」和「字」正代表着一些事物的称谓，以表达一些「概念」和「范畴」；然而，中国古代没有「概念」和「范畴」两个名词，这都是西方哲学翻译来的名词，即相当于中国古代着作中的「名」和「字」。如：

孔子提出「正名」：「名不正则言不顺。」（论语．子路）

管子论形名说：「物固有形，形固有名，名当谓之圣人。」（心术上篇）

庄子说：「名者实之宾也。」（逍遥游）

公孙龙说：「夫名，实谓也。」（名实论）

墨子说：「以名举实。」（小取）

可见，「名」乃一些事物或思想的指谓，以「名」代表某些事物的形式与思想的内容，这就是「概念」；反过来说，有实必待之以「名」，即有了事物或思想内容，等待编列在一个固定的内涵中，这即今日西方所说的「范畴」。

2.3　庄子的思想范畴

我们相信，中国古代的思想家在建立自己的哲学思想时，必然会提出一些基本的思想内容及名词字汇，其内自然会包括一概念和范畴；由这些概念和范畴可以构成思想家哲学思想的一个体系，便成为一家的范畴体系。庄子在他生命的体道历程中，必然有他独特的思想概念和范畴，以构成他的形上思想体系。今试列于下：

「道」：

　　「夫道未始有封」、「道通为一」（齐物论）；「夫道、有情有信」（大宗师），「精神生于道」（知北游）等等。

「一」：

「道通为一」（齐物论）、「一知之所知」（德充符）、「孰知死生存亡之一体者」（大宗师）、「能抱一乎」（庚桑楚）等等。

「气」：

「游乎天地之一气」（大宗师）、「通天下一气耳」（知北游）等等。

「天、人」：

「知天之所为，知人之所为者，至矣」（大宗师）等等。

「理」：

「依乎天理」（养生主）、「顺之以天理」（天运篇）、「是所以语大义之方，论万物之理也」（秋水篇）等等。

「自然」：

　　「常因自然而不益生也」（德充符）、「顺物自然，而无容私焉」（应帝王）、「调之以自然之命」（天运篇）、「莫之为而常自然」（缮性篇）、「自然不可易也」（渔父篇）等等。

「无为」：

「彷徨手无为其侧」（逍遥游）、「逍遥乎无为之业」（大宗师）、「无为为之之谓天」、「无为复朴」（天地篇）、「无为而无不为」（则阳篇）等等。

「朴」：

「雕琢复朴」（应帝王）、「无为复朴」（天地篇）、「吾子使天下无失其朴」（天运篇）、「复归于朴」（山木篇）、「朴素而天下莫能与之争美」（天道篇）等等。

庄子书中许多名词，如「以明」、「道枢」、「物化」、「悬解」、「心斋」、「坐忘」、「游」、「虚」等，没有构成普遍承认的范畴，(14)但这些名词都是庄子生命返归「道」的历程的重要方法和思想概念，我们可以从这些概念和范畴，综合出庄子形上哲学的体系。

2.4　庄子生命哲学中的归「道」历程

在庄子生命回归「道」的体系中，所注意的全在于「道通为一」的超越思想，故有「忘」物我以至「齐」物我，「一」是非，「同」生死，「不分」成毁的思想表达，如庄周梦蝶和妻死鼓盆而歌等寓言，都在展示生命和思想的超越，好使心生命和身生命都不受束缚，与整个自然、整个宇宙，以及万物合而为一，视同一体，故能「未始有物，道通为一」。体验真正生命在「道」中的流衍，即生命一气的流行，而能「安时而处顺，哀乐不能入」（养生主），也能「入水不濡，入火不热」（大宗师）和「御六气之辩以游无穷」，以达到生命圆融终极的「至人，真人，神人」的境界（逍遥游）。

其实，这个回归「道」的体系，也是庄子「生命历程」思想的终极点；所以不论是「游心」工夫，或「游世」工夫都必须复归自然，超越人事；这种因任自然，「乘物以游心，托不得已以养中」（人间世）和「虚己以游世」（山木篇）之举，正是「道」的体现；这与郭象之注庄要先肯定人事，认为人事本身就是自然，实在有出入。(15)因为庄子所关心的不是伦理、政治问题，而是人的身生命和心生命不终身为物奴役，回归自然，而与「道」冥合的问题；就是这个形（身生命）神（心生命）问题终归结于「道」，成为人的理想人格的独立和精神自由，构成了庄子形上哲学的核心和实质。(16)

我们可以从「逍遥游」中那些飘然脱俗的寓言，到提出所谓的「至人无己，神人无功，圣人无名」之极境，表明了庄子所要追求的境界。又在「齐物论」中，庄子最后要建立的是「天地与我并生，万物与我为一」这一个豁大开阔的系统，使我们能看到「大道未始有封」，不会陷入一个封闭的系统里，更好说是为建立「道通为一」的境界；于是，庄子是站在一个无穷阔大的系统里面，采取一个广大的立场，追求一个最高的理想人格，这都是通过对「道」的论证来展开和达成的，故无所不贯，无所不通；这就是庄子哲学的本体论，都是由生命一气的流衍所贯通的，因为「气」使天地万物的生命通为一体：「通天下一气」（知北游）、「游乎天地之一气」（大宗师）。可见，庄子从生命的提升中，要达到的是完全的精神超越，进入逍遥自得，精神无所不住的「无何有之乡，广漠之野」（逍遥游）的境界，不做一切外在世界的奴隶：「物物而不物于物」（山木篇），做一个具有精神自如自适的人，将生命精神提升到「寥天一」（大宗师）处，就是那广阔的「道」境处。这是说，庄子把生命－－人看成一个生命哲学的起点，而不是一个终点；人是在生命历程中不断地自我提升，以至归向「道」，与「道」通合为一之境。方东美说：

道家从老子到庄子，都是把人看成一个起点，不是一个终点。所以说：「人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然」。道家思想是从人出发，但是要把人的极限打破，然后在宇宙的客体里面，找着客体的核心。这个客体的核心就是大道的绝对自由精神。(17)

2.5　庄子的悟「道」

庄子体悟到「道」的无容私，自然无为故能化生万物，覆载万物（天地篇），无为而为之公。因此，人若要归「道」而与「道」冥合同一，必须顺应自然，安之若命，无为游心，泯灭有为之知和有为之欲，即「忘」物我地从吾丧我开始，打破生命极限的束缚，才能跨出「人为」的局限，而顺天任化，而至天人不相胜，天人相和合，即「不必心损道，不以人助天」、「畸于人而侔于天」（大宗师）；实在就是「能两忘而化其道」（大宗师）；人必须依乎天理，虚而待物，展灵生命的超越不在物我，而在于「无为为之谓天」（大宗师）之自然无为中离形去知，使精神生命进入超然之境；这样，「天」便内在于能「忘物我」的真人的生命中；这时便能体验到：

「形莫若就，心莫若和。」（人间世）

「彼有骸形，而无损心。」（大宗师）

「德有所长，形有所忘。」（德充符）

于是，当下悟得「庸距知吾所谓天之非人乎？所谓人之非天乎？」（大宗师）即「天即人，人即天」也，便能「知天之所为、知人之所为、至矣。」（大宗师）而在真人的心中，一切都汇归于一，因为「有真人而后有真知」（大宗师）。有真知的人必然能「乘天地之正，御六气之辩，以游无穷」（逍遥游），是获得绝对自由自如的人，即能自觉地绝对地顺应支配天地万物的「道」，故能做到「有人之形，故群于人，无人之情，故是非不得于身。眇乎小哉，所以属于人也；謷乎大哉，独成其天」（德充符）；既然能与自然同体，必可照之于天，莫若以明，得其环中，以应无穷；当下「忘年忘义，振于无竟，故寓诸无竟」（齐物论），处虚而游。因为「唯道集虚」，所以便能进乎生命一气如流衍中，即能「心斋」地处于生命的超越境。如此，生命之超越乃以其虚、养其和－－「和之以天倪」（齐物论），「游心乎德之和」（德充符）－－在贯通天人而外，亦可沟通物我，涵容万化，何此是破除形累，还可自作生命的主宰。然后，虚己以游世。(18)在此，我们要明白的一点就是：庄子在生命精神上言知天知人通贯为一，乃在于「气」，即生命一气之流衍，实为虚而待物的自然天理之固然；圣人能涵融此生命之一气，故能「登假于道」，即能「两忘而化其道」（大宗师），与「道」为一。

2.6　小结

由上所言，我们可以肯定地说：庄子的寓言，无不扣紧人生命向「道」作回归的亲切体验，与精神所要登假的理格人格，即成为至人、真人、神人的理想。所以，我们也可肯定：庄子的哲学，在回归「道」的历程上，「乃是由人之如何游心于天地万物之中，与人间生活以悟『道』。故其言道，亦恒取喻于种种常人生活中种种实事，如逍遥游之庖人治庖、宋人为洴澼絖；齐物论之南郭子綦隐机而卧、仰天而嘘；养生主之庖丁解牛；人间世之奉命出使、匠石过树；德充符之与兀者同游；大宗师之问病、吊丧；应帝王之神巫看相，初皆人之生活中事。」(19)可见，在人的日常生活之事中，只要人能用心去体悟，无不感悟「道」之行乎其中；故人当专注在自我生命价值的深切反省里面，以体悟生活中的「道」，好能与之契合，使自我的生命不断地攀登「道」境，实现与「道」通为一的理想人格：「至人、真人、神人」之境；也体悟「道」乃内在人的生命人格中；人只是透过天地万物及人间生活中的「道」，将人心中的「道」由生命一气的流衍显扬出来，与万物相合为一，即可体悟：「天地与我并生，而万物与我为一」（齐物论）；此乃「自其同者视之，万物皆一也」之故（德充符）。所以庄子强调「自然」，人要意识到自我的生命与万物的生命都是自然的产物，人必须在自然交互作用的历程中来发展自己，只有达到与自然为一（安时处顺，安之若命），才会感生命的自由自适（顺物自然而无容私＜应帝王＞）。这种在自然历程中发展自己，可说是生命由「自在」而「自越」、「自发」而「自觉」的生命体道得道的历程。(20)

13. 公木著，《先秦寓言概论》，齐愚书社　1984年　42, 46页。
14. 参阅张岱年着，「论中国古代哲学的范畴体系」，《哲学探索集》，中国社会科学出版社　1988 年5月1版　249-251页。
15. 见李泽厚著，「漫述庄禅」，《哲学探索集》，中国社会科学出版社　1988年5月1版　351-353页。
16. 同上，340页。
17. 方东美著，《原始儒家道家哲学》，黎明文化事业公司　1983年9月　281页。
18. 王邦雄著，《庄子哲学的生命精神（下）》，鹅湖月刊31，第三卷第七期，1978年1月15日　8-10页。
19. 唐君毅著，《中国哲学原论（原道篇一）》，学生书局　1984年1月（台四版）　342-343页。
20. 丁祯彦、　宏主编，《中国哲学史教程》，华东师范大学出版社，86页。

3. 庄子哲学的本体思想

中国文字有一种微妙的内涵。我们可以这样说：每一个「字」都是一个符号，代表着一些事物的称谓，或表达一个意义。(21)可见，这个符号所包容的内涵很广泛！但其渊源蕴藏着一门大学问：即每一个「字」都有其来源和根据，有其个别的意)义，也有其深奥的思想；故文字学以「六书」来解释和说明字原时，有四体二用之说：四体者乃指：「象形、指事、会意、形声」也；二用者为：「转注、假借」也。从六书中，我们可以了解所谓文字就是：「记述思想、言语，以明种种事物义理之符号。」(22)

「道」字，在文字学上是代表一个符号；符号乃象征一个行动、一个思想、一个情况、一件事物、或一个概念、一个范畴；在庄子的哲学中，「道」是最基本也是最重要的概念；倘若我们不能理解庄子的「道」，就不能把握庄子的形上哲学，因为「道」是天地万物生命的本根，即天地万物所以生之总原理，亦是宇宙究竟的本根。(23)

3.1　从形上角度探讨庄子书中的「道」

西方哲学的形上学所探讨的问题重点乃「存有」本身的问题，亦即是亚里斯多德所指的第一哲学，讨论万物基本原因的知识。(24)实在地，万物存在的基本原因的探求，必涉及存在的最后根由或终极的问题。这个问题，在中国哲学中也不断地有所探求，只是探求的方法有异于西方理智求知的推理方法，都是以生命的体验，从实际的生活中，透过宇宙万物生命的变化而体悟得来的。尤其是「道家」，从老子开始就清楚地提出宇宙万物生命的本根之「道」的概念。然而，在表达「道」时，始不知如何称之，因为「道可道，非常道」（道德经1）之故，唯有强名之曰「道」：「吾不知其名，字之曰道」（道德经25）。然而这个不知其名的「道」乃是万物生成的本根，其自身是先天地生的：「有物混成，先天地生，寂兮寥兮，独立而不改，周行而不殆，可以为天下母。吾不知其名，字之曰道。」（道德经25）

若就状态说，「道」为「无」，为「有」，即「无」为「道」未生成万物之前的状态；「有」则是「道」生成万物之后的状态，故老子说：「无名天地之始，有名万物之母。」（道德经1）而「无」与「有」的关系是：「天下万物生于有，有生于无。」（道德经40）「道」既是生成万物着，故必定是实存的。

庄子的思想在形上的本体论中，可说是与老子的思想相似，他对「道」的体认是这样的：

「道」不可闻，闻而非也；「道」不可见，见而非也；「道」不可言，言而非也。知形形之不形乎！「道」不当名。（知北游）

于人之论者，论之冥冥，所以论「道」，而非「道」也。（知北游）

既然「道」不可闻，不可见，不可言，却又是生成万物者：「且道者，万物之所由也。庶物失之者死，得之者生。」（渔父篇）「形（物）非道不生。」（天地篇）那么，在万物未生成之前，不可「闻、见、言」的「道」是怎样的呢？从状态上言，庄子认为是：「非物」、「冥冥无形」、「无有」、「无」：

有先天地生者物邪？物物者「非物」。物出不得先物也，犹其有物也；犹其有物也，无已。（知北游）

物而不物，故能物物，明乎物物者之「非物」。（在宥篇）

夫昭昭生于「冥冥」．有伦生于「无形」，精神生于道，形本生于精；而万物以形相生。（知北游）

出无本，入无窍。……有乎生，有乎死，有乎出，有乎入，入出而无见其形，是谓天门；天门者，「无有」也；万物出乎「无有」，有不能以有为有，必出乎「无有」。（庚桑楚）

泰初有「无」，无有无名。一之所起，有一而未形。（天地篇）

「道」的先天地生的状态虽是「非物」，即「无」，却肯定「道」是生化万物的本体，即是「物物者」；而「无有」，「冥冥无形」又是万物生成之原由，然「无有」乃相对于「有」的状态而言，「冥冥无形」亦是相对于「形」的状况而言，犹似道之先于物的状态为「非物」一样，故能为「物物者」，即「道」之先于「有」的状态为「无有」；「道」之先于「昭昭」的状态为「冥冥」；「道」之先于「有伦（形）」的状态为「无形」；「道」之先于「有名」的状态为「无」。故「非物」、「冥冥」、「无形」、「无有」、「无」都是先天地生的「道」的不同情况下的「状态」。然而，不论「道」的状态如何，庄子要肯定的是：「道」是实存的、超越的、整体的。故，庄子所言的「道」与老子所言的「道」是一样的，只是庄子所描绘的「道」的状态较老所描绘的「道」的状态为「无」更广泛和丰富，不但发挥了老子的思想，更创造了自己独特的思想，那就是他特别强调「生命」的超越，与体道得道的生命历程；例如大宗师所记载的一则寓言：「南伯子葵问道于女偊」中，很清楚地说出了：

－－从「学道」到「体道得道」的历程天夫：

外天下 → 外物 → 外生 → 朝彻 → 见独 →无古今→ 不生不死

－－从「闻道」到「体道得道」的传承天夫：

副墨 → 洛诵 → 瞻明 → 聂许 → 需役 → 于讴 → 玄冥 → 参寥 → 疑始

亦如庄子的另一则寓言：

颜成子游谓东郭子綦曰：自吾闻子之言，一年而野，二年而从，三年而通，四年而物，五年而来，六年而鬼入，七年而天成，八年而不知生不知死，九年而大妙。（寓言篇）

这则寓言实与上一则寓言相应，显示出体道的一段生命历程，也说明了庄子的生命思想乃向「道」回归的历程哲学，以达到与道合一的终极大妙之境。

也因为人人体道的方法和体悟不同，故庄子所描绘的「道」状态也特别广泛和丰富，以显示「道」无私的伟大。今分别以实存性、超越性和整体性来介绍庄子的道。

3.2　道的实存性

齐物论有言：「未始有物」。

实在是指出与「非物」、「冥冥无形」、「无有」、「无」一样的状态；在这状态下，可以说什么都没有，即没有界限、没有分别，所以是「未始有封」的，只是一片浑沌：「杂乎芒芴之间」（至乐篇）；「芒芴」相似于老子所言的「恍兮惚兮」（道德经14）的状态，恍惚指「道」(25)。然而，「道」的本体是怎样的呢？大宗师清楚明显地说：

夫道，有情有信，无为无形；可传而不可受，可得而不可见；自本自根，未有天地，自古以固存；神鬼神帝，生天生地；在太极之先而不为高，在六极之下而不为深，先天地生而不为久，长于上古而不为老。

从这一段描述中，我们可以进一步的分析：

3.2.1　「夫道，有情有信，无为无形。」

此乃指出「道」的「真实性」，乃实存的，具体的。「情」就是老子道德经二十一章所言的「精」：「窈兮冥兮，其中有精，其精甚真，其中有信。」(26)而「信」乃验信也。故我们可说「有情」与「无为」相配合，「有信」与「无形」相配合；因为「道」的「真实性」之存在乃：「情」之「实」，即「精」之「真」；人间世篇言：「吾专至乎事之情。」此「情」字乃作「实」解。而「信」之验信亦乃「实」也，如秋水篇就将「信」与「情」连用：「至精无形……是信情乎？」成玄英疏：「信，实也。」所以，我们说：「『有情有信』的『情』字并非感情之情，情若解释为感情，则与下文的『无为』相龃龉。这里的『情』与『信』都是真实之义，说明『道』是真实而不妄的客观实在。」(27)又因为真实存在的「道」是无为的，故也就无目的无作为，也就是自然无心的。又因为真实无妄的「道」是无形的，故超越人的感觉经验，乃「不可受」和「不可见」的「非物」、「无有」；知北游的形容：「道不可闻，闻而非也；道不可见，见而非也。」「道」虽「不可受」却「可传」，「不可见」却「可得」，因为「道」是内在于万物的生命中，人可以从心中领悟之。

3.2.2　「自本自根，未有天地，自古以固存。」

我们可说「道」的实存性在于「道」的「自存性」，即自本自根而固存的，而自本自根有自有的意思，因自有才有「自存性」，也才能作万有之根。于是，这自存性引申出「道」为万物的本根(28)，即生化天地万物。故可说：「自本」是言「道」为万物之本；「自根」则言「道」为万物之根。庄子也曾说：「惛然若亡而存，油然不形而神，万物畜而不知，此之谓本根。」（知北游）「本根」是无形无状的存在，是万物生成变化的基础。(29)此本根所指的就是「自本自根」的「道」，肯定「道」的实存性；更肯定「道」为「自有实体」，否则就是被生者，而不是「物物者」（在宥篇）和「生生者」（大宗师），便不能化生万物。(30)

3.2.3　「神鬼神帝，生天生地。」

　　道既然是万物的本根，能生化万物，故能「生鬼生帝，生天生地。」因为，「神」有「生」的意义，亦有使成为鬼神的意思。章炳麟在「庄子解故」一书中释说：「『神』与生义同。说文：神，天神引出万物者也。『神鬼』者，引出鬼；『神帝』者，引出帝。」以「引出」说明「道」的功用，实在符合「道」为「本根」－－万物生成之根由与原理的传统说法。(31)

张默生亦解释说：「王先谦云：『下文堪坏冯夷等，鬼也；狶韦伏羲等，帝也；其实皆道神也。』神者申也，申者身也，身者也，即有身孕，生之意也。」(32)由此，我们可说：「神鬼神帝」即「生鬼生帝」，与下一句的「生天生地」是对偶句，互相配合。互相配合，乃在于说出「道」是生化天地万物者，乃天地万物（包括鬼与帝）之本根，也就是「物物者」（知北游、在宥篇），「生生者」和「造物者」（大宗师）。故「道」也可以说是万物存在的根据和发展：「况万物之所系，而一化之所待」（大宗师），乃说出道为万物一化之所待所系的大宗师。

3.2.4　「在太极之先而不为高，在六极之下而不为深，先天地生而不为久，长于上古而不为老。」

这四句也是对偶句，在于描述「道」的超时间和空间。「高与深」乃形容「空间」的，即高过太极之上，太极乃指「天」也。(33)又深过六极之下，可包容天地四方之六合，故不为深。这可看出实存的「道」之普遍性存在乃超越「空间」的。「久与老」是形容「时间」的，即久过天地存在的时期，老过上古的时期，明言是指超越时间，故与「自古以固存」是相应的，以说明「道」是永恒的存在，无始终、无衰老、无变化。虽然「道」是超越时空的，却内在于时空、即内在于万物中，不被时空与万物所束缚。(34)

3.3　道的超越性

「道」既然超越时间和空间，那就必定是超越一切事物。所以，「道」的「超越性」乃指其不被万物所束缚，所局限，而是内在于万物中，故李震教授解释：「超越性在于指出道虽然内在于万物，是构成万物的内在成份，例如道在于人，在于树，在于石头；但是任何东西、人、树或石头等，都不能局限道。」(35) 这种内在一切事物又超越一切事物的描绘，庄子在知北游中很清楚，又很微妙、很精彩的说了：

东郭子问「道」于庄子曰：「所谓道，恶乎在？」

庄子曰：「无所不在。」

东郭子曰：「期而后可？」

庄子曰：「在蝼蚁。」

曰：「何其下邪？」

曰：「在稊稗。」

曰：「何其愈下邪？」

曰：「在瓦甓。」

曰：「何其愈甚邪？」

曰：「在屎溺。」

东郭子不应。

庄子曰：「夫子之问也，固不足质。正获之问于监巿履狶也，每下愈况。汝唯莫必，无乎逃物。周－咸三者，异名同实，其指一也」。

由「道」之内在蝼蚁、稊稗、瓦甓、屎溺，却又不是固定在蝼蚁内；在稊稗内却不受其束缚；在瓦甓或屎溺内却又不受其局限或控制，这就是庄子所说的：「无所不在」和「无乎逃物」的超越性；故「周悉普，咸皆有道。此重言至道不逃乎物，虽有三名之异，其实理旨归则同一也。」(36) 罗光教授解释「周咸」三者乃说明「道」的无所不在：

「道」在万物，因「道」有周、、咸三种特性。三种特性，名词不同，意义同是指「道在万物」。周，从上下说，「道」包括整个宇宙；，从平面说，「道」普遍及宇宙万物；咸，从分析说，「道」在每个物体。庄子用这三种特性说明「道」无所不在。(37)

　　其实，庄子从「道」之内在万物，且每况愈下地说明，他的意思是要指出：愈卑下的事物愈能表现出「道」是无所不在的，是不离物的，即说「道」是「周全」、「普遍」和「完全」的。「周」、「偏」、「咸」三者虽从不同层面来说明「道」，但都是表示「道」的周遍于万物的特性，即「其指一也」。

　　庄子在谈「道」之「无所不在」和「无乎逃物」的内在于万物又超越万物之后，更提出「道」超越万物的流转变化，更好说：「道」是不变的，不生不死的，能运作万物而自身却永不消失的。知北游中有言：

物物者与物无际，而物有际者，所谓物际者也；不际之际，际之不际者也。谓盈虚衰杀，彼为盈虚非盈虚，彼为衰杀非衰杀，彼为本末非本末，彼为积散非积散也。

这就是说：「物物者」即「道」，是没有界限的，「道未始有封」（齐物论），内在于万物中是没有分别的，但物却有界限有分别的，如人、树木、石头等是有界限有分别的；「道」则内在于人、又超越人；内在于树木又超越树木；内在于石头又超越石头。至于盈虚衰杀在于说明自然界万物的变化现象，故有盈虚的情状、衰杀的景况、本末的分别，积极的变化。(38)至于「道」，则为非物，不受盈虚、衰杀、本末、积散所影响，这可与大宗师篇所言的：「杀生者不死，生生者不生」的思想互相配合相应，即说明「道」的本身是不死不生的，超越生死变化。所以，庄子说：「彼（道也）为盈虚非盈虚……。」以肯定「道」的超越性：即超越盈虚、超越衰杀、超越本末、超越积散。成玄英疏：

富贵为盈、贫贱为虚；老病为衰杀；终始为本末；生来为积、死去为散。夫物物者非物，而生物谁乎？此明能物所物，皆非物也。物既非物，何盈虚衰杀之可语耶！是知所谓盈虚皆非盈虚。

富贵、贫贱、老病、终始、生死皆大自然中万物的现象，特别是指人生命历程的现象，唯有得道者，才能超越而「忘」去一切富贵、贫贱……而不受其束缚，逍遥自得地与道通合为一。而「道」本身就是「物物者」的非物，一定是超越这一切现象的变化。

3.4　道的整体性

「道」在庄子书中，除了展示出其「实存性」，由自存而至化生万物，成为宇宙万物的本根外；还展示了其内在于万物而又超越万物个别的局限，以及不陷于万物的流转变化中，自身乃不生不死不变的「超越性」的「道」。

　　在此我们要说的是：在「道」的「实存性」和「超越性」的背后，「道」更蕴藏着「整体性」，这在庄子书的齐物论中，很清楚的得到肯定：

物固有所然，物固有所知。无物不然，无物不可。故为是攀莛与楹，厉与西施、恢　憰怪，道通为一。其分也，成也；其成也，毁也。凡物无成与毁，复通为一。

「道」从整体来看，是与万物通而为一的，即万物虽各不同，皆因「道」，而能与本根之「道」共通为「一」。若要详细地描述，就是指万物在「道」内具有「共通性」。我们可以分析「道通为一」的意义作为理解。

3.4.1

在庄子书中，有很多与「道通为一」的「一」之意有关连性的思想，指出万物虽各有不同，却都出于同一的根源，互相可在「道」内相通玄同的：

逍遥游：「旁礡万物以为一。」

齐物论：「天地一指也，万物一马也。」

德充符：「自其同者视之，万物皆一也。」

大宗师：「天地之一气。」

天地篇：「万物一府。」

秋水篇：「万物一齐。」

田子方：「万物之所一也。」

知北游：「通天下一气耳。」

「一」乃意指万物的「共通性」，即万物虽殊而同；因「道」无私地内在于万物中，使万物在「整体性」上，因着「道」而贯通为一。则阳篇说：「万物殊理，道不私」，此即「各物的样态千差万别，然而各物所寓的『理』却有其共通性；『道于私』意谓道具有其普遍性，普遍性的道，或是指万物所共同依循以运行的规律，或系指万物所同出的根源，或系万物所共同含有的原质。」(39)

3.4.2

「道通为一」的「一」就是指万物所具有的共通性；若按其内容言之，更是指「整体」而言。因其是「整体」的，故不分大小；因大是一个整体，小也是一个整体；不分丑美，因「道」的实存性内在万物中，生成之，使之存在，而存在本身是至美善的；故从「道」的角度看之就没有丑与美；犹如贵贱一样，在「道」中没有分别甚么是贵？甚么是贱？「以道观之，物无贵贱」（秋水篇）；同时，也没有成与毁，因万物都在生生不息的变化过程中以显示「道」，一件事物的分离消解，会变成另一件新的事物；例如：一棵树被分割而成为木块，木块被制成桌子；即树被分割（毁）而成木块；木块被毁而成桌子，所以说：「其分也，成也；其成也，毁也。」这在大自然中，不论万物如何变化，是成是毁，其只是一部份，在「道」的整体上看，宇宙万物仍然是一个整体，故说：「凡物无成与毁，复通为一。」

「复通为一」即是说：无论事物的分与成、成与毁，都复归于「道」，归于一个「整体」。(40)

3.4.3

庄子在谈「道通为一」之前，已经从认识的观点上，提出「道」具有全面整体的意义：(41)

－－道恶乎隐而有真伪？言恶乎隐而有是非？道恶乎往而不存，言恶乎存而不可？道隐于小成，言隐于荣华。……（齐物论）

整体性的「道」本是全面的，但往往被事物的「小成」所蒙蔽，即被片面的认识而阻碍了对「道」的全面认识，故不能「体悟」道整体性地内在于事物中，只停留在认识的「小知」的层面上，也就不能「忘」己地离形去知，而不能与道通为一。所以，人若要认识「道」的全面整体，必先去「成心」，不执「小知」，即不执「小成」。

－－彼是莫得其偶，谓之道枢。枢始得其环中，以应无穷，是亦一无穷，非亦一无穷也。（齐物论）

「偶」乃指事物的对立，相对也。「道」是不对立的，尤其在「道」通为一中，一切都是共通的，即以「体道」的「真知」，将一切对立的皆通而为一，因为最高真知，是不分别物我，且与物为一，不见物之在外；对于是非彼此亦能齐一不分，忘生死、无爱憎的，即能超出事物的对立关系，故言「莫得其偶」。而「枢、要也」，其所指乃「道」为绝对的，不是相对的，故以道枢称之。(42)至于「环中」之义：「环非玉环之环，而为之借字。说文：圜，天体也。，规也。圆、圜全也。段玉裁谓许意言天，当作圜；言平圆，当作；言浑圆，当作。今字多作方圆，方员，而字遂废矣。愚按，尔雅释器，环谓之捐。王筠谓尔雅借捐为。据此，则环字即字。(43)……枢始得其环中以应无穷，宛然写出以机翦画圆形之状态矣。」(44)从环、圜、圆、圆四字的意义上看，我们可以说四字互相可以相通，有「全」的意义。(45)这可从寓言篇上所言得知：

始卒若环，莫得其伦，是谓天均。

成玄英疏曰：「均、齐也，谓天然齐等之道。」即「道」乃「圜而全」，也是「天均」，故「道」是整体的、绝对的，由道枢统合万物为一整体，故曰：「得其环中，以应无穷。」然而，我们也不能忽略庄子所言的「环中」的「中」字，中为空，枢始得其环中，即得其圆全之中，得到圆全的中空，才能通于一。因此，从整体上来看，「道」是在自然中通于万物而为一。

3.4.4

「道」既是「整体性」的，就没有界限而是无穷的，不是部份而是全部，不能分割，也就是「道枢」，即「道」是绝对的，不是相对的「偶」；反之，有界限，可分割成为部份，而有所对立的，就不是「道」。故庄子在认识「道」的特性中有言：「夫道未始有封」（齐物论）。「封」是界限、界域的意思，「未始有封」显然就是指「整全无分，完全纯真，且无所不在，荡然无际」(46)的状态。这状态所要说的是：「道」无「彼是」，故人要与「道」相通为一，必须「忘」彼是，即「齐」彼是：「是亦彼也，彼亦是也。」（按：彼是作「彼此」解。）

「道」无「是非」，庄子要人放弃「儒墨的是非」，因为「道」包容一切，且无容私；而「是非」乃人的成心、私心而产生的，故欲达道，必须「忘」是非，即「齐」是非，而「莫若以明」或「照之于天」。

「道」无「物我」，而是内在于「万物」中；因为「道」乃「未始有物」的，「有物」即有「物我」之分；「道」亦「未始有封」，「有封」便有界限之分，即有「彼此」之别。故人要得道，必须「忘」物我，即「齐」物我：「天地与我并生，而万物与我为一。」（齐物论）

「道」更无「生死」，即「不生不死」的「先天地生而不为久；长于上古而不为老」（大宗师），人要与「道」通一，必须了悟「齐」生死：「予恶乎知说（悦也）生之非惑邪！予恶予知恶死之非弱丧而不知归者邪！」（齐物论）此即「忘」生死也。

由是，在「道通为一」的「整体性」观念说，「齐物论」虽以认识的层面来言「道」，「大宗师」则以本根的层面来言「道」，其内容的中心点实际上是「互为表里」，不能分解的，故可以肯定：「庄子站在『道』的立场上来观察现实世界，来认识现实世界；其认识的结论就是『万物齐一』，就是『举莛与楹，厉与西施，恢憰怪，道通为一』（齐物论）。」(47)所以，无论从本体论或认识论，在超越生命的历程中，人不断地迈向与道通合为一，将道开显出来，庄子便要求人应该仿效自然事物，「忘」知「忘」欲，即无知识和无情欲，顺应自然，安之若命以符合「道」的生化，如此才能合于「道」，犹如真人一样能登假于「道」，不伤生也不损道。(48)

21. 这里所言的「字」乃普遍的文字，不一定指哲学的名词，也不一定指思想范畴；其包括的内容是很广泛的，可能只是一个「虚」字，代表一件「事物」，也可能是哲学名词或思想范畴，故可称之为「文字」，即从文字学上立言。
22. 见《正中形音义综合大字典》，正中书局出版　1971年3月初版，「文」字614页又「字」字328页。
23. 冯友兰著，《中国哲学史》，商务印书馆　1961年　280页。
24. 李震，《中外形上学比较研究（上册）》，中央文物供应社发行1982年　6页。
25. 罗光著，《中国哲学思想史（先泰篇）》，学生书局　1982年　506页。
26. 严灵峰编著，《老列庄三子研究文集》经子丛书（第九册），国立编译馆　1983年　505页。
27. 刘笑敢著，《庄子哲学及其演变》，中国社会科学出版社　1988年2月　136-137页。
28. 陈品卿著，《庄子新探》，文史哲出版社　1984年9月　85页。
29. 张岱年著，《中国哲学发征》，山西人民出版社　1981年12月42页。
30. 罗光著，《中国哲学思想史（先泰篇）》，学生书局　1982年　503页。
31. 李震著，《中外形上学比较研究（上册）》，中央文物供应社发行　1982年　10页。
32. 张默生著，《庄子新释》，汉京文化事业有限公司印行　1983年9月　28-29页。
33. 陈鼓应的注释：「『太极』，通常指天地没有形成以前，阴阳未分的那股元气，这里或当指『天』。『六极』，即六合。」在陈鼓应的「庄子今注今译」一书中，已将「太极之先」改为「太极之上」，因此他又说：「『太极之上』，原作『太极之先』，依俞樾之说改。俞樾说：『按下云：＜在六极之下，而不为深＞，则此当云：＜在太极之上＞，方与＜高＞义相应。今作＜在太极之先＞，则不与＜高＞义相应，而转与下文＜先天地生而不为久＞其义相复矣。周易系辞曰：＜易有太极。＞释文曰：＜太极，天地。＞然则庄子原文，疑本作在＜太极之上＞，犹云在天之上也。后来说周易者，皆以太极谓天地未分之前，于是疑太极当以先后言，不当以上下言，乃改＜太极之上＞为＜太极之先＞，而于义不可通矣。准南子览冥篇曰：＜引类于太极之上。＞』按：俞说可从。」参见陈鼓应注译，《庄子今注今译》，中华书局（北京）　1988年1月第3版　182页。
34. 所谓超越时空不是指「超时空」之不在时空之内，而是说「道的超越性」，即不被时空所束缚却又内在于时空中，在老子道德经二十五章中言：「域中有四大。」四大包括了「道大」，即道在域中，可见没有说「道」在空间之外。
35. 李震著，《中外形上学比较研究（上册）》，中央文物供应社发行　1982年　11页。
36. 郭庆藩辑，《庄子集释》，河洛图书出版社　1974年3月　知北游第二十二　咸玄英疏　751页。
37. 光着，《中国哲学思想史（先泰篇）》，学生书局　1982年　525页。
38. 陈鼓应著，「经学、解话、诸子」，《庄子「道」的意义之解析》，大陆杂志语文丛书第三辑第一册，216页。
39. 陈鼓应著，「经学、解话、诸子」，《庄子「道」的意义之解析》，大陆杂志语文丛书第三辑第一册，220-221页。
40. 同上。
41. 吾人在道的本根中提出认识的观点，实在是以「整体性」的「道」，即由「道通为一」的思想作出发，其必包容「本根的道」和「认识的道」，因「以道观之」乃整体性的，可以包括一切不同的概念和范畴。目的要带出的是人的生命历程中的「体道」，以达到「忘」物我的与道合一。
42. 张默生著，《庄子新释》，满京文化事业有限公司印行　1983年9月　50页。
43. 查《中文大辞典（六）》玉部，台湾　中国文化大学印行　517页。
44. 曹受坤著，《庄子哲学》，文景出版社　1970年　19-21页。
45. 查《中文大辞典（六）》玉部，台湾　中国文化大学印行　517页。
46. 玄英疏：「夫道无不在，所在皆无，荡然无际，有何封域也。」李勉释：「道之为体，无是非之界，完全纯真。」（见《庄子总论及分篇评注》台湾商务）
47. 谢祥皓著，《庄子导读》，巴蜀书社　1988年　72-73页。
48. 李泽厚著，《漫述庄禅》哲学探索集，中国社会科学出版社　1988年　343-345页。

4.　结论－－有我与忘我在「道」中的通一

　　在庄子形上哲学的思想看来，「道通为一」的「一」乃是「道」的超然状态，更能显示「道」是「自本自根以固存」的「实存」存有。若人能以「道」观物，那一切的事物都在「一」内成为一个「整体」，万物也便皆一，即德充符篇中所说：「自其异者视之，肝胆楚越也；自其同者视之，万物皆一也。」

　　「自其同者视之」即「以道观之」，万物便没有分别相，秋水篇亦言：「以道观之，物无贵贱」，贵贱是人为价值分别，也因人的「成心」、「容私」而有的拘执，陷入生灭变化中，不能体悟：「凡物无成与毁，复通为一」（齐物论）的境界。

　　因此，人当从大梦中觉悟，好使心灵活动免陷于偏见执着，照看万物的本然状态，大归地返其真：在「道」内成为「一」，因为「『一』即是意指破除封域而达到圆融和谐的境界。」(49)所以，当我们谈「道」的意义时，就是从人的认识上谈「道」，分析「道」，怎样谈也只是显示「道」自身，是「知识」认识的层面，这与庄子的本意似乎不能符合，因为庄子认为「知」是相对的，故强调「大知」（齐物论）和「真知」（大宗师），要求人必须：「堕肢体，黜聪明，离形去知，同于大通」（大宗师）；在宥篇亦言：「堕尔形体、吐（黜）尔聪明，伦与物忘，大同于涬溟，解心释神，莫然无魂。」可见，要从体悟中，先「忘」物我，「忘」知，而有「气虚」之「心斋」（人间世），即能「吾丧我」（齐物论），以至于「无己、无功、无名」（逍遥游），便能「审乎无假，而不与物迁，命物之化而守其宗」（德充符），一切皆「依乎天理」（养生主），达到与「道」的「无私」之境：「游心于淡，合气于漠，顺物自然而无容私焉。」（应帝王）这就是庄子生命历程向「道」回归的「忘我终向」，即由知「道」而进入体「道」得「道」的「两忘而化其道」的境界，也就是庄子生命哲学的终极历程之「道通为一」的妙境。(50)

　　陈鼓应在解析「道」的意义中也这样说：「在庄子看来，『道』是『整体』，就不能分割；有分割，就不是『道』了。有着『整体之道』的认识，自然能产生一种博大的心境；有着『万物皆一』的认识，自然能培养一种开放的心灵。博大的心境与开放的心灵，在精神上是自由自在，无执无系的。这样，庄子谈『道』（从齐物论篇来说），原是从认识论出发；然而，他的兴趣却不在于讨论客观性的知识，而在于藉此检讨主体心灵的境况。他所关注的是人在『体道』之后所达到的精神状态。」(51) 这种生命精神「体道」的境界可说是「道的境界」，是庄子生命精神的终极历程所要达到的「道通为一」的圆融境界，也即是「天地与我并生，而万物与我为一」（齐物论）、「上与造物者游，而下与外死生无终始者为友」（天下篇）的境界。

　　庄子超越生命的历程从「忘」的思路以至与「道」通合为一，实在就是一个「忘我的终向」，终向的目标就是「道」，所以我们可以说：庄子的生命历程是一个「忘我」的历程；庄子的（生命）哲学是「忘我之学」。(52)

　　庄子要关注的是人在日常生活中如何体「道」，然而在体「道」之先，人需「学」道和「闻」道，但不停滞于「学」与「闻」中；故在回归「道」的历程中，庄子更强调由人的日常生活之事里（即形下的现象），要求人用心去体悟，好能放弃使人离道的事与物，思与行，如是者，人无不感悟「道」之行乎人的生活的事事物物中，以体悟生活中的「道」，且与「道」契合，使自我的生命不断地攀假（登）于「道」境（形上的道），实现与「道」通一的境界。

　　庄子的形上哲学不在于主宰世界，而是重视人在欣赏自然的美，走上忘物我的超越历程，与自然融为一体，即将生命转化成道，就是由形下转化成形上的追索，如鲲转化为大鹏，飞向天池，活在天池里的意境般；此刻，就是形下的一切，提升到形上，其提升的方式就是将形上内存于心灵之内，人的主体性行动，也与道的行动合一，共同缔造一个圆融的宇宙和人生。(53) 为现时代的需要反思，我们可以设想一下，庄子那一份忘物我的超然启发，使人与「道」相应通一，就是达到「寥天一」处；此刻，人若能「以道观之」的态度来观世界、观人性，即再回头看世界与人性，必然能互相欣赏和接纳，因为在此境界中，「物无贵贱」之分，以地为天，以天为地，亦必然说：「天之苍苍，其正色邪？其远而无所至极邪？其视下也，亦若是则已矣。」（逍遥游）这正是庄子哲学上一个极重要的转捩点：一个精神解放而走向高超境界的哲学家，同时还要渡着一种平易近人的生活，即尽管一个哲学家达到一种极高的境界，他也要回到现实世界上来；当他回到现实世界再看世界时，对于人世间的许多愚蠢、愚昧、错误的地方才可以原谅。如此，回到人世间，人世间便不是鄙陋世界。(54)

49. 陈鼓应著，「经学、解诂、诸子」，《庄子「道」的意义之解析》第三辑第一册，大陆杂志语文丛书　221页。
50. 严灵峰编著，《老列庄三子研究文集》经子丛书（第九册），国立编译馆　1983年　527-537页。
51. 陈鼓应著，「经学、解诂、诸子」，《庄子「道」的意义之解析》第三辑第一册，大陆杂志语文丛书　221页。
52. 王叔岷说：「庄子重忘我……大智忘我。……庄子，大智人也。庄子之学乃忘我之学。」见《庄学管窥》，艺文印书馆　1978年　11页。
53. 邬昆如著，《中国形上学的三个向度》哲学与文化月刊345，第三十卷第二期，台湾辅仁大学　哲学与文化月刊杂志社出版　2003年2月　15页。
54. 方东美著，《原始儒家道家哲学》，黎明文化事业公司　1983年9月　42-43, 250页。

作者：李子忠

1. 圣经网页

「天国又好像撒在海里的网，网罗各种的鱼。网一满了，人就拉上岸来，坐下，捡好的，放在器皿里；坏的，扔在外面。在今世的终结时，也将如此：天使要出去，把恶人由义人中分开，把他们扔在火里；在那里要有哀号和切齿。这一切你们都明白了吗？」他们说：「是的」。他就对他们说：「为此，凡成为天国门徒的经师，就好像一个家主从他的宝库里，提出新的和旧的东西。」（玛13:47-52）

这段耳熟能详的福音比喻，正好反映出网络神学的情形，尤其是网上圣经的实况。「互联网」好比撒在海里的网，网罗各种鱼类。这些渔获包括各种资讯，有善的、有恶的、甚至带有病毒的，我们都要一一「拉上岸来，坐下，捡好的，放在器皿里（my favorites、add bookmark）；坏的，扔在外面（delete）。」可是这「拣鱼」的行动并不容易，首先因为「网了许多鱼，网险些破裂了」（路5:6）；其次是鱼类林林总总，目不暇给，就如耶稣复活后那次渔获竟有153条（若21:11）：这数字是当时希腊文化概指世上所有鱼类，今日的网页又何止153个？

为了推行网络神学，首先要认识实况，对各种神学资讯加以判辨。神学的基础是圣经，而圣经的研究在最近两个世纪中突飞猛进，加上互联网的协助，圣经学的传播与交流更形迅速。但我们不得不承认，网络资讯虽然是大势所趋，但实际只能触及先进国家和一些发展中的国家，对于大部分第三世界地区而言，这仍是不毛之地。今日世界经济命脉与资讯科技息息相关，而大部分第三世界地区却无法参与，同样网络神学也容易成为富裕国家的基督徒「奢侈品」，与世上大部分兄弟姊妹的实况脱节。尤有甚者，一些基督徒竟以自己富裕的生活，作为基督信仰优越和实效的证据。话虽如此，我们仍不可轻易放过资讯科技（IT）这个天主给现代人的恩赐，我们目前所要做的就是数据整理（Data Processing = DP），亦即若望所说的：「不要凡神就信，但要考验那些神（Dokimazete ta Pneumata = DP）是否出于天主，因为许多假先知来到了世界上。」（若一4:1）这行动亦即保禄所指的「辨别神类（Diakriseis Pneumaton =DP）」（格前12:10）。辨别资讯，可谓今日「辨别神类」的一个具体环节。

网上研究圣经首先要拥有信实可靠的圣经文本，可以随时阅览和下载，并加以处理和应用（如copy、paste）。圣经文本分原文及译文：制作圣经文本的网页，在译文方面则常会涉及版权问题。按一般常例，任何属知识产权的作品，在五十年内均享有版权，随阅览外，不得擅自以任何方式采用。在圣经原文及古译文方面并没有版权问题，只须自行输入，但在网页制作上却有许多技术问题，诸如特殊字库、右至左排序（如希伯来文旧约）、和字体兼容性等问题。目前已有数个圣经原文及古译文的网页，可供自由下载及应用，但部分也列出应用守则及需要预先取得密码。至于圣经译本方面，则要面对版权问题，这不仅是经济收益的问题，尤其更是文责上的问题（许多网上译本的文本错漏百出！）。一些网页提也提供与圣经研究有关的网页连结，并附有圣经文本的搜寻器／检索器，颇像昔日的「圣经词汇索引」（Bible Concordance）的功能。（注意：许多网址经常变更，有时需要用网名或作者来搜寻。本文最初发表于二○○○年五月，至今二○○三年十一月时，许多网页已更改，故需重新撰写，加入最新资料。）

2. 天主教中文圣经网页

本文集中讨论天主教的中文圣经网页：它们全以思高圣经（SBF 1968）为文本，大部分或只有新约全书，或包括全部新约和部分旧约，少数兼具简／繁体新旧约全书。一些网页也有搜寻器。

2.1

现有中文天主教圣经网页，全部都只能下载繁体中文圣经，若要在网上浏览全部简、繁体天主教中文圣经新旧约，可在香港教区的《西环圣母玫瑰堂网页》（Our Lady of the Rosary Church）内找到。这网页的网上圣经分为「繁体旧约圣经」、「繁体新约圣经」、「简体旧约圣经」和「简体新约圣经」。这是目前最齐备的简、繁体天主教中文新、旧约全书。内容全按思高版中文圣经列出，附有标题和分段，经文则采用逐句方式列出。这网页暂未有搜寻器。

该堂区原计划于二○○○年六月，在堂区网页上转载台湾地区主教团的网上圣经。但鉴于当时下载速度非常缓慢，而且教区内一直未有网上简体圣经，因此决定自行制作。二○○○年十一月完成了全部新约和部分旧约，二○○一年一月更在思高圣经学会的协助下，完成其余的旧约部分。该网页原想把简、繁体文本平行对照地列出，但鉴于技术问题未能实现。这网页上的简、繁体中文均可列印出来，但若要利用copy及paste的指令处理简体文本，则可能因字库问题而有所限制。

　　　网址：　http://www.olrchurch.net　或　

　　　　　　　http://olrchurch.catholic.org.hk

2.2

《思高圣经学会网页》（Studium Biblicum Franciscanum），暂时并不提供该会经多次校对及更正的中文圣经文本网上版，只连结至学会正式授权香港西环圣母玫瑰堂所制作的圣经网页（见上述2.1）。学会在过去三年一直全力筹备及制作中文圣经光盘（见下述3、天主教中文圣经光盘），目前只提供以Bible Reader for Palm形式，用于电子手帐的「思高中文译本电子格式」，稍后才考虑发展网上圣经。

　　　网址：http://www.sbofmhk.org

2.3

《九龙华仁圣经网》（Wah Yan Biblenet）由一个学校网页发展而来，虽然网页仍在初步阶段，但其构思颇有创意。网页负责人「邀请和要求学生制作相关的互联网页，让师生在网上浏览时亦有机会接触到基督信仰。」这网页包括「网上圣经」、「圣经研读」和「圣经史略」等项目。

「网上圣经」提供新旧约经书，经文连各书引言、分段、标题和文本，全按思高圣经列出。目前已上网的经书包括旧约中的创、出、肋、户、申、苏、民、卢（兼具注释）。其他三十八卷旧约经书均未有文本，但其中十八卷则已载入引言（撒上下、列上下、编上下、厄上下、多、友、艾、加上下、箴、训、智、依、哀）。新约二十七卷方面，已上网的共有二十四卷（尚欠得后、犹、默），但只有文本而无引言和注释。

「圣经研读」包括「专题研究」和「章节详解」。「专题研究」只有三个主题文章，即耶稣诞生（玛1:1-2:19; 谷1:26-2:20），洗者若翰（玛3:1-12; 谷1:1-13; 路3:1-18）和耶稣受洗（玛3:13-17; 谷1:9-11; 路3:21-22）。至于「章节详解」似乎是一项非常庞大的注释计划，但至今尚未展开。

「圣经史略」列出了一些与圣经有关的历史及教义，包括「新旧约全书总论」、「圣经概说」、「圣传与圣经」（取材自梵二的「启示宪章」）、「天主教中文圣经翻译简史」（取材自思高的《圣经简介》，1981年）、「圣经书卷对照表」（即天主教与基督教圣经各书名称及简称对照，以及英文圣经各书名称及简称）。

　　　网址：http://biblenet.wyk.edu.hk

2.4

天主教台湾地区主教团（Chinese Regional Bishops' Conference in Taiwan）设有精美的《天主教中文圣经网页》（CCbible）。网页载有完整的思高版圣经文本。这圣经网页的版面左栏用作选择新旧约各书。经文内容以逐句方式列出，还附有思高版的大、小标题，各以不同颜色标示：经文及节数为黑色，大标题及章数为红色，小标题为褐色，非常醒目。下载的经文也可透过copy及paste指令，转载到其他软件程式上。

新约部分还附有「思高圣经搜索引擎」，转载自香港大学天主教医科学生会（Medic Cell）的「圣经查询」（http://216.22.148.204/cgi-bin/bible-database.cgi）。只需在search项内键入要搜寻的中文词汇，然后在书名小格中选取要搜寻的书，再按一下页底的「送出查询」指令，便可得出包含该词汇的所有经句。若不指定要查询的书名，便会搜寻全部新约。若对查询方法有疑问，可按版面右上角的「指示」指令，学习使用查询的方法。search项空格右方，有or及and两项选择。若要查询两个或以上的词汇（如格前的「智慧」与「记载」），先在search项空格内键入这些词汇，但词汇与词汇之间要保留一空位，然后选择or便会得出词汇单独或一起出现的经句（如格前1:19,20,21,22……）；若选择and便会得出两个词汇一起（相隔不远）出现的经句（如格前1:19及3:19）。（可惜香港大学天主教医科学生会的「圣经查询」最近似乎已停止运作！）

　　　网址：http://www.catholic.org.tw/bible

台湾天主教会还设有另一名为《天主教资讯小集》（Catholic Information Links）的网页（网址：http://www.cathlinks.org），在其中的「圣经」一栏，除思高圣经外，也载有RSV, NAB, DRB, VULGATE四个外语译本，还有The Bible Gateway的连结，以及一些录自《天主教教理》的圣经教义导论（默感、解释、正典等）。此外，还附上李哲修神父编着的《圣经十讲》和孙茂学神父着的《福音默想》。

另一个台湾天主教网页《天主教之声》（网址：http://www.cathvoice.org.tw），除连结到主教团的「中文圣经」外，还设有一个「天主教圣经函授课程」，提供廿一个新约圣经课程，可供网上报读。

2.5

北京的《上智网站》（Catholic Sapientia Online）提供简体字的思高中文新旧约全书。圣经文本全按思高圣经的分段与标题，以逐句方式列出。虽然许多繁体天主教中文圣经网页尚缺几部旧约经书，这简体中文圣经网页却已齐备。网页也包括「检索器」，是目前唯一可以检索全部天主教圣经词汇的网页。检索器效律颇高，词汇以红色连经句一并列出，十分醒目，而且可同时检索全部新旧约。可惜检索器只能用简体字输入法。例如：「若望」一词因简繁体相同，可用这检索器找到，但「伯多禄」一词的简繁体不同，无法以繁体输入法检索。这网页上的简体中文均可列印出来，或利用copy及paste的方式处理简体文本，但有可能因字库问题而有所限制。网页亦设有称为「了解圣经」的论坛，可发表或转载有关圣经的文章或读经心得。

　　　网址：http://www.shangzhi.org

2.6

海外华人教会方面，新加坡教区的「天主教华文教务委员会」（Commission for Apostolate of Mandarin-Speaking, CAMS），在名为《狮城之光网页》的简体中文网页上，加设了全年的「每日读经」和「网上学圣经」，全部均为简体字。「每日读经」列出平日两篇和主日三篇读经的章节数目，但只附有福音的全部章节内容，和福音前欢呼词经句。「网上学圣经」是个有系统的圣经自学课程，至今已推出了廿八课「新约读要」和十五篇「圣经简介」。最特别的地方，是在「圣经简介」每一课后设有「考一考自己」是非题测验，使这课程兼具互动学习的特性。

　　　网址：http://www.cams.org.sg

3. 天主教中文圣经光盘

酝酿多时的《思高圣经光盘版》（SBOFM Bible CD），终于在二○○三年七月面世。这计划是思高圣经电子电脑化进程之一，是学会亲自和直接制作及发展的电脑及网上圣经计划的一部分。这光盘备有简繁体中文文本，专为互动研经而设（暂不可直接由光盘下载经文备用）。日后预计还会推出其他用途的圣经光盘，以至发展思高圣经学会的「网上圣经」，届时各界人士可自由从网上下载准确的圣经文本，方便在研经时列印出所需经文部分。

《思高圣经光盘版》由四大单元组成，分别是「圣经经文」、「教会圣经训导文献」、「中文圣经译本史」和「旧约经外文献」，现简略分述如下：

3.1 「圣经经文」（Biblical Texts）

这光盘所提供的圣经文本，在输入文字过程中，曾经历不少于十多次的校对，务求尽量避免错误。这工作除有圣经学者、编辑、电脑专业人士参与外，还有数十名热心的志愿工作者协助，他们的努力和专业精神，不下于昔日的圣经抄写员，实在值得向他们致敬。因此，这光盘所载的圣经文本，较诸目前在网上提供的所有思高版圣经更为精确。

「圣经经文」的工作台，是按互动研经的需要而设计，分上列、中列、下列三区。上列是选项，包括〔全文检索〕、〔书目〕和〔经卷章数〕。〔全文检索〕可在新旧约全书中寻找所输入的「词组」。〔书目〕选定要显示的「经书」及有关的「总论」、「引论」或「引言」。〔经卷章数〕决定所选取经卷的「章数」。中列是显示圣经文本的地方，附上不同的「连结」，分为左、中、右三栏。左栏显示「章节数目」，点击之便可得出思高圣经的〔注释连结〕，若「章节数目」旁有「※」号，点击之可得出有关的〔旧约经外文献连结〕。中栏显示思高版中文「圣经文本」，点击文本中的词语，可得出相应的〔辞典连结〕。右栏列出〔经文对照连结〕，点击之可得出相应的「参照经文」。下列是〔附加视窗〕，用作显示「经文注释」、「经外文献」、「辞典条目」和「参照经文」。

3.2 「教会圣经训导文献」（Documents of the Church Magisterium on Holy Scriptures）

这单元是其他网页或光盘所没有的，包括教会自第二世纪至今的所有「圣经训导文献」共124条，按段落分列成2015项。当中四个文献译自希腊文原文（2, 3, 4, 20条），五个译自意大利文原文（42, 47, 77, 82, 108条），六个译自法文原文（89, 107, 117, 121, 122, 123条），一个译自英文原文，其余108个译自拉丁文原文。最后还附上一九二四年首届中国全国教会会议的有关圣经训导。全部文献分成四组，方便检阅：一至五世纪（11条），六至十世纪（6条），十一至十五世纪（8条），十六至廿一世纪（99条），另附录（1条）。

这些教会训导文献，有些来自历届大公会议（如梵二的「启示宪章」1965），有些来自不同的地区会议，有些则来自圣座的平常训导，包括教宗通谕（如「上智者天主」1893、「施慰者圣神」1920）、教廷各圣部文告（如「各教派合作翻译圣经指引」1987）、宗座圣经委员会文告（如「教会内的圣经诠释」1993）等。这些文献让我们认识到教会历来对实践和诠释圣经的态度：由初期专注于「正典」、「无误」和「默感」的课题，后来对基督新教对圣经的立场和释经法的疑虑，及至教宗比约十二世的「圣神默感」通谕（1943）所掀起的革命性和开放态度，以及梵二至今的公教释经学新发展。这些文献大部分属于历史记录性质，除涉及信理和伦理者外，并不一定是教会最后和决定性的训导，仅代表教会对圣经研究态度的演变历程，这点尤其在圣经委员会于一九四八年后的文告中说明了。

3.3 「中文圣经译本史」（History of Chinese Versions of the Holy Scriptures）

「中文圣经译本史」让我们对中文圣经的翻译有一个概括的认识，并附上早期中文译本的珍贵图片。共分为七个条目： 1.最早期景教译经历史、2.孟高维诺主教的传教事业与译经工作、3.十六至十七世纪耶稣会传教士的译经工作、4.十八至二十世纪的圣经翻译、5.思高译本、6.东正教的中文圣经、7.基督教的中文圣经译本（马礼逊译本、马士曼译本、委办译本、和合译本、华人翻译的基督教中文圣经译本、现代中文译本、圣经新译本）。最后以「天主教与基督教中文圣经译本的简略比较」作结束。

3.4 「旧约经外文献」（Extra-biblical Texts Related to the Old Testament）

在光盘中加入「经外文献」的目的，是为圣经研究提供一些历史和文化背境，一如梵二「启示宪章」所要求者：「释经者必需寻找圣经作者在固定的环境中，按他们的时代与他们的文化背景，用当时通用的文学类型，企图表白及表白出来的意思。于是，为正确地了解圣经写作者所欲陈述的，应当注意到圣经写作者的时代所流行的，以及当代习用的感受、说话和叙述的方式，也当注意到同时代的人们，彼此往来惯用的那些方式。」（启示12）

本光盘所收录的古代近东「经外文献」共三十九条，目前只有与旧约相关的部分，并附有大英博物馆所提供的文物图片。文献当中较为人认识的包括：哈慕辣彼法典、阿玛尔纳函件、默乃弗大石碑、阿门摩培训诲篇、革则尔年历、默沙石碑、厄鲁玛厄里市创造史诗、基耳加默市故事、拉基士函件、阿希加训诲篇等。希望日后还可加入一些「新约经外文献」。

值得一提的是，光盘部分内容已分别以单行本方式出书：《圣经》（1968），《圣经辞典》（1975）。另外，《教会圣经训导文献》已在排版中，其余的《中文圣经译本史》和《旧约经外文献》，亦会考虑于不久的将来付印。

4. 基督教中文圣经网页

中文圣经方面，基督教的网页也有不少，仅略举如下：

4.1

《网络圣经》（网络基督使团Chinese Christian Internet Mission）包括英文钦定译本（KJV）、简易英文译本（BBE）、美国标准译本（ASV）、简／繁体中文和合本（UV-GB/UV-Big5）、简／繁体吕振中译本（LZZ-GB/LZZ-Big5）、简／繁体中文新译本（NChV-GB/NChV-Big5）。这网络圣经的各译本均可独立显示，或以中英对照方式显示。在「圣经学习工具」一项里设有搜寻器（圣经查询），供查询句子或词组，并设有经书简介及注释（查经指南）。在「圣经资源」一项里，可以下载不同的圣经译本（下载圣经），查询海外购买中文圣经的地方（圣经书店指引），以及找到一些有用的圣经网址（网络圣经指引）。

　　　网址：http://www2.ccim.org/~bible/hb5.html

4.2

《谭永锋的中文圣经工具》（Frank Tang's Chinese Bible Tool）由一九九七年发展至今已到了第四版，是目前中文圣经工具中最完备者，分为（a）「繁体中文圣经阅读」、（b）「简体中文圣经阅读」、（c）「中英对照圣经阅读」、（d）「中文圣经投影专用版」等四大项。

（a/b）「繁／简体中文圣经阅读」是专为中文研读及查圣经而设的。

－阅读圣经：为阅读一章圣经，先在左上方之〔阅读控制栏〕选取欲读之书名，然后选取欲读之章数，并按下〔阅读〕键，左下方之〔阅读内容栏〕便会显示该章圣经。使用者可用每章章名下的〔〕阅读前或后一章圣经。若按下每章章名下〔〕，电脑便会播放由Family Radio International播放的中文圣经录音档（mp3）。若按下〔〕或〔α〕，便会载入原文（希伯来文或希腊文）圣经资讯：包括原文「语态说明」（可选择列出「Strong条号」与否），「中／希对照」（可选择以条列、表格或整段形式显示）。使用者更可按下每节前的节点，把该节移到页顶，或用此节点在Words或其他html editor中建立连结。

－查询圣经：在右上方之〔查询控制栏〕选取查询之词，然后按下〔查询〕键，右下方之〔查询内容栏〕便会显示该章圣经及所查经节总数，查获经节数。使用者按下每节前的节点，便会把该章圣经载入左下方之〔阅读内容栏〕，以便查清查询结果的上下文。若仅欲列出经节名称，而不要经文内容，可在〔查询文字栏〕左侧作「」使用者可在右上方之〔查询控制栏〕，限定查询范围为「经集」、「单卷」或「单卷单章」；若限定它为「经集」，便可选定「全本圣经」、「旧约圣经」、「新约圣经」、「摩西五经」、「旧约历史书」、「诗歌智慧」、「大先知书」、「小先知书」、「福音及行传」、「保罗书信」或「其他书信」（全、旧、新、五、史、诗、大、小、福、保、他）。若限定它为「单卷」，便可指定一书名。若限定它为「单卷单章」，便可指定一书名和一章数。若想快速修改查询为经集之一，可按右下方查询结果上列的十一个〔快选连结〕。

（c）中英文圣经对照阅读：本项专为用英文圣经对照来辅助中文研读并查考圣经而设。先在上方之〔阅读控制栏〕选取欲读之书名，然后选取欲读之章数，再选取欲读之中英文圣经版本，下方两个〔阅读内容栏〕便会依所选取改换内容。

（d）中文圣经投影专用版：本项专为投影圣经，以供聚会团体观看：设计用了反白大字，方便控制员跟随讲者显示所提及的经文。应用时，先按〔F11〕键切换至全萤幕。切换内容时，先在下方〔书名选单〕选择书名，继在〔章数选单〕选择章数，再在〔节数选单〕选择节数，然后按下〔阅读〕改换显示内容。投影时，可随时切换繁体／简体或变字体大小。当控制员载入「投影专用版」后，右下方的〔快速选单〕原为空白，每次按〔阅读〕后，此〔快速选单〕便会把所显示「经节」记入，以便再次参考，控制员一旦选取某一项，所显示的内容即刻换至选取经节及字体大小。要清除〔快速选单〕内容，只需按Shift键及Refresh来重新载入。若按显示内容中的左方经节号，便会使该节整齐换到荧幕最上方。

　　　网址：http://people.netscape.com/ftang/BIBLE/ v2frame.html

基督教圣经网页还有很多，当中不乏有份量者。当然，也有一些网页摆出基督教的名义，而其内容却甚有问题，对于这些问题网页，不论天主教或基督教的兄弟姊妹，都要十分小心辨别。值得一提的是，大部分基督教圣经网页都不会包括旧约的「次正经」（Deuterocanonical），即多俾亚传、友弟德传、玛加伯上下、智慧篇、德训篇、巴路克这七卷书，以及达尼尔和艾斯德尔的补篇。这些网页的搜寻器或圣经工具，多不包括这些经卷的内容，因此，若只以这些网页作圣经研究的资料来源，便会忽略了这部分的天主启示内容。

5. 网上圣经原文及外语译本

有关圣经原文及外语译本的网页有很多，当中的英语译本更是琳琅满目：

5.1

Bible Gateway（Nick Hengeveld-Gospel Communication Network）包括八个英文（NIV、KJV、NKJV、NASB、RSV、DARBY、YLT、WE）及十五个其他外语译本（法LSG、BDS；德ELB；意CEI、LND；拉VULGATE；挪DNB；葡NVI；西NVI、RVA；瑞SVL、SV；菲BIBINT；阿ARABIC；荷HTB），设有搜寻器。

　　　网址：http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible

5.2

New American Bible（National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference）这个美国天主教主教团的网页，列出美国天主教圣经协会（Catholic Biblical Association of America）所译的NAB，附各书引言及注释。

　　　网址：http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm

最近梵蒂冈官方纲页采用徼logos IntraText把NAB圣经文本转成有互助功能的lexical hypertext，内容包括「文本」、「词汇索引」、「词表」、「词汇频度」。除NAB外，网页也提供意文CEI及拉丁通行本VULGATE，但拉丁版暂没有IntraText之功能。（除圣经外，也以IntraText方式提供《天主教教理》和《天主教法典》，语言包括英、意、法、德、西。）

　　　网址：http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm

5.3

Bible Study Tools on Goshen（Crosswalk）除列出二十个英文译本（NAS、ASV、TMB、KJV、NKJV、NLT、NRS、RSV、TEV、DRB、NCV、GWT、WEB、BEB、DARBY、HNV、WEBSTER、VULGATE、YLT、WES-NT），六个其他外语共十三个译本（阿SVD、法LSG、OST、德ELB、LUTHER、意DIODATI、LND、RIVEDUTI、俄RSP、RST、IOU、西BLA、BRV）外，主要是提供研究圣经的工具：搜寻器，希伯来文及希腊文与英文的遂字对照（Gk & Heb interlinear Bible），圣经辞典（Gk & Heb lexicons），圣经词汇索引（四本），圣经字典（六本），圣经百科全书（两本），圣经平行对照（七个语言共三十三个译本），是目前最齐备的外语（尤其英语）圣经研究网页之一，但鉴于版权问题，许多工具书属过时作品，未能包括最新的圣经学资料。

　　　网址：http://bible.crosswalk.com 　

5.4

All-in-One Biblical Resources Search（Mark Goodacre-BirminghamUniv）正如其网名All-in-One所说，这网页综合了许多圣经网页的搜寻器（见Bible Versions & Translations），当中包括Unbound Bible、Bible Browser、The Bible Gateway、Bible Study Tools on Goshen、Greek & Hebrew Interlinear Bible、Olive Tree Bible Software、Blue Letter Bible、The NET Bible。也综合了其他重要的圣经研究网页（见Biblical Resources Sites），包括The NT Gateway、Resources Pages for Biblical Studies、Bibelwissenschaft、The Text This Week、Felix Just's Biblical Resources、Web Nexus、Second Temple Synagogues、Review of Biblical Literature、Theoldi: Documentation of Theological & Interdisciplinary Literature。又收集了一些与圣经有关的古代世界资料网页（Ancient World），包括Christian Classics Etheral Library、Nag Hammadi Library、Argos、Lindell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon、Ancient/Classical History、The Perseus Project。还有一些有关宗教总论的网页（General Academic & Religion）。

　　　网址：http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/multibib.htm 　

5.5

Resource Pages for Biblical Studies（Torrey Seland-Volda College-Norway）共分为四页：Bible Texts, Translations & Related Texts、Biblical Studies Electronically Published、Aspects of the Mediterranean Social World、Philo of Alexandria Page。

　　　网址：http://www.torreys.org/bible 　

5.6

NET Bible（Bible Studies Foundation）这个圣经网页只有一个英文译本NET，设有章节搜寻器及两种注释（Translator's notes及Study notes）。此外，亦有丰富的圣经问题专论（见Bible Studies），包括OT by book or topic、NT by book or topic、Theology、Spiritual Life、Church History、Pastoral Helps、Prof's Soapbox。

　　　网址：http://www.bible.org

5.7

Theology Library: Sacred Scripture（Jerry Darring-Spring Hill College）提供许多圣经网页资料，包括The Bible Online、Official Documents、The Bible、Hebrew Scriptures、Christian Bibles、Directories。

　　　网址：http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/bible 　

5.8

Bible Browser（Richard Goerwitz）提供RSV、KJV、VULGATE、DARBY、WEY-NT、ASV、BEB、NWAB、YLT九个译本，又可同时平行显示不同译文。其搜寻器有多种搜寻功能，包括phrase（短句）、passage（段落）、keyword or exact string（关键词king）、sub-string（词系king, kings, kingdom……）、word pattern（词序King……, ……king……, ……king）、logical operation（逻辑and, or, not）、multi-word search（多字搜寻）等。（注意：这网页暂时停止运作）

　　　网址：http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/pbeasy.shtml

5.9

ARTFL Project-Multilingual Bible（Mark Olsen-ChicagoUniv）提供KJV、LUTHER、LSG、VULGATE四个文本，并附多功能搜寻器。

　　　网址：http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/public/bibles

5.10

Jewish Publication Society Bible（Breslov Chassidus Movement）提供希伯来文旧约经文（Massoretic, Hebrew, Aramaic）及注释（Hebrew），同时提供两个犹太人的英文译本（JPS、KAPLAN）及注释，并附搜寻器。

　　　网址：http://www.breslov.com/bible

6. 有关网上圣经的一些反思及前瞻

在网络上提供阅览圣经原文及各种译本，实在对圣经和神学的研究有很大的帮助，对天主圣言的广传也有意想不到的效果。圣咏上的话：「高天陈述天主的光荣，穹苍宣扬祂手的化工；日与日侃侃而谈，夜与夜知识相传。不是语，也不是言，是听不到的语言；它们的声音传遍普世，它们的言语达于地极。」（咏19:2-5）网上圣经确是那「听不到的语言」，然而却「传遍普世…达于地极」，无孔不入，无远弗届。

但圣经网页也并非无往而不利的，它最常遇到的问题，就是资源短缺。首先是缺少赞助人，又没有广告收益，再加上技术人材缺乏，往往使这极具潜力的福传和学术工作停滞不前，甚或半途而癈。制作一个网页并不太困难，但往往缺乏（非志愿）全职工作人员按时更新、输入新资料、不断更正错漏……这些因素正是网页寿终正寝的主要原因。为了这原故，我们使用这些网页时，必须多加注意及校对圣经文本，这是运用任何网上资讯都会遇到的问题。

圣经词汇搜寻器（search engine）是这类网页的重要贡献之一，相对之下，翻阅半尺厚的圣经词汇索引（Bible Concordance），实在费时失事。但目前的中文圣经搜寻器未算精密，没有一个可与Bible Browser的搜寻器相比。换句话说，若只利用现有中文圣经搜寻器作研究圣经的工具，往往会有许多遗漏。但即使有强力和多功能的搜寻器，也未必能涵盖某些圣经概念。举个例说，一些有关「天主的公义」这概念的重要章节，可能完全没有采用「公义」的常用词汇，因而逃过了搜寻器的追踪。在这点上，传统的圣经神学辞典仍大有用场。

圣经学并不是一门统计学，词汇索引和网页搜寻器，只能视作一种基础研究工具。这些机械化的圣经研究，若不能配合教父和教会传统的精粹，只会得出令人啼笑皆非的结论。早期出产的圣经电脑软件，就曾有这样一个毛病：某词汇在圣经上出现超过某次数后，便无法用搜寻器检索。这些词汇多是些常用的虚词，没有特殊意义，兼且消耗大量的存储体。这样一来，出现次数极多，而且是最重要的「天主」一词，便无法找到──圣经中竟没有「天主」！一九九七年曾轰动一时的《圣经密码》（Michael Drosnin, The Bible Code）一书，正是电脑圣经研究得出的怪胎，是现代曲解附会（eisigesis）的典型例子。（今日网络上仍可找到专为寻找圣经密码的程式和软件下载！）如果人类的得救确实系于这些密码，那么我们也要像耶稣的门徒般说：「这样，谁还能得救呢？」（玛19:25）但我们相信，天主的话是为叫我们明白的，并藉此而得救，正如耶稣在默示录所说的：「你不可密封本书的预言，因为时期已临近了。」（默22:10）他又说：「那诵读和那些听了这预言，而又遵行书中所记载的，是有福的！因为时期已临近了。」（默1:3）圣经的信息绝非什么秘而不露的密码！

综观时下的圣经网页，很少提供教父和教会传统对圣经的宝贵解释。这些早期的圣经研究，虽然没有我们现代的科技协助，却不比现代的圣经学逊色。因为诚如奥利振（Origen）所说：「与其说圣经写在书卷上，毋宁说首先写在教会的心头上」（Sacra Scriptura principalibus est in corde Ecclesiae quam in materialibus instrumentis scripta）。教会对圣经的这些生活体验和洞识，理应在今日的网络神学上占一席位，否则我们便是浪费了教会的至宝。

要充实现时的天主教中文圣经网页，我们必须提供准确的圣经文本，制作更完善的搜寻器，连结其他有用的中外及教内外的圣经网页，开设讨论群组，罗列有关圣经学的参考资料，加入实用和有学术性的注解、灵修性的导读和默想，附上方便查阅的词汇解释、辞典、地图、历史文化背景导论、圣经语文学习等。

此外，年青的一代对互联网资讯十分敏锐，我们也不可忽略制作适合儿童和青年的圣经网页，既要生动有趣，又有互动学习的机会。犹太人为协助各家庭认识古老的宗教传统，制作了无数网页。例如有关逾越节（Pesach－Passover）的网页就不少于一千个，大部分都设计精美，富有趣味，并且资料充足，实在值得我们借镜，以制作渗入家庭的教理讲授。

这似乎是个很庞大的计划，没有决心、人力和财力，是做不来的。我们需要的除了技术和设计人员外，更重要的是有内涵的圣经学和神学人材。在这方面，教区、教省、全国性、以至全球华人教友的合作，尤其重要。这要视乎我们对这使命的认同：我们是否承认这是一项迫切的任务，与我们的教友使命和福传息息相关？

教宗若望保禄二世在第廿四届世界传播节上谈及电讯时说：「电脑电讯的来临，以及电脑参与系统的出现，使教会有更多完成她使命的工具。这些有助教会成员间沟通和对话的方法，可以加强他们的团结合一。直接收放资讯的技术使教会更有效地与现代世界保持对话……藉着这个新的电脑文化，教会更易于把她的信仰告知全世界，向世人解释她对某些问题及事件所持立场的理由……她能够更清楚听到公众的意见，并与她周围的世界不断进行对话，更直接参与共同寻求解决人类大家庭的迫切问题」（若望保禄二世，「世界传播节文告」，1990年1月24日）。

二○○二年耶稣升天节，教宗若望保禄二世发表了一篇有关互联网的文告。他把这新资讯媒介比喻作古罗马的「市集广场」，他认为教会也应善用这工具来传播福音，尤其作为人们初步接触基督喜讯的机会。但他同时认为，互联网并不能取代传统的福传工作：亲身见证信仰仍是必需的。教宗的这一席话，实在值得我们多加反省。

附注：一些本文论及的圣经译本简称

ASV---American Standard Version

BDS---Bible de Semeur (French)

BEB---Bible in Basic English

BIBINT---Bibles International (Tagalog)

BLA---La Biblia de las Americas (Spanish)

CEI---Conferenza Episcopale Italiana (Italian)

DARBY---Darby

DIODATI---Diodati (Italian)

DNB---Det Norsk Bibelselskap (Norwegian)

DRB---Douay- Rheims Bible

ELB---Elberfelder (German)

GWT---God's Word Translation

HNV---Hebrew Names Version

HTB---Het Boek (Netherlandish)

IOU---Ivan Ogienko Ukrainian Bible (Ukrainian)

KJV---King James Version (=Authorized Version)

LZZ---Lu Zheng Zhong吕振中译本

LND---La Nuova Diodati (Italian)

LSG---Louis Segond (French)

LUTHER---Martin Luther (German)

NASB---New American Standard Bible

NCV---New Century Version

NChV---New Chinese Version中文新译本

NIV---New International Version

NLT---New Living Translation

NRS---New Revised Standard

NVI---Nova Versao Internacional (Portuguese)

NVI---Nueva Version Internacional (Spanish)

OST---Bible Ostervald (French)

RSP ---(Russian)

RST ---(Russian)

RSV---Revised Standard Version

RVA---Reina-Valera Antigua (Spanish)

SBF---Studium Biblicum Franciscanum思高版圣经

SVD---Smith & Van Dyck (Arabic)

SVL---Swedish Living Bible (Swedish)

SV---Svenka 1917 (Swedish)

TEV---Today English Version

TMB---Third Millennium Bible

UV-GB---Union Version in simplified Chinese简体和合本

UV-Big5---Union Version in traditional Chinese繁体和合本

VULGATE---Biblia Sacra Vulgata (Jerome Latin)

WEB---World English Bible

WEBSTER---Noah Webster Holy Bible

WES-NT---Wesley NT

WEY-NT---Weymouth NT

YLT---Young Literal Translation

by Gianni Criveller(柯毅霖)

The New Age World

1. The New Age of the Internet

My lived experiences in Hong Kong, the United States and in Italy have convinced me that New Age is significantly influential in society, in the Church, even in some traditional Catholic communities. However, I also have the impression that theologians and pastors alike underestimate the impact and significance of New Age. I believe that the Christian faithful in general, and pastoral workers and missionaries in particular, should know and understand the New Age phenomenon.

The present article is a revision of a research I conducted in 1999. In the meantime, in February 2003, the Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue jointly have published the document: Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life; A Christian Reflection on the "New Age." I hope that the reader will find this study a good companion to the study of the Holy See's document.

New Age ideas are disseminated on the Internet,(1) and many Web pages carry references to New Age. Both New Age and the Internet seem to be interconnected by being major tools and expressions of postmodernity. New Age and the Internet are a network of networks, nets which connect infinitely different things. New Age is described by New Age writer Marilyn Ferguson in a way that strikingly resembles the description of the power of the Internet: "a network without a guide but full of force is working to bring about a radical change in this world.... This network is a union without political doctrine, without a manifesto."(2) Robert Muller, a former United Nations' vice-secretary and a prominent New Age author, has given philosophical importance to the power of networking, common to both New Age and the Internet: "Network through thought, through action, through love, through spirit. You are the centre of a network. You are free, an immensely powerful source of life... Networking is a new freedom, the new democracy, a new form of happiness."(3)

　

2. New Age's variegated world

New Age, (sometimes also called Next Age(4) and Age of Aquarius,(5) although these terms refer to something somewhat different),(6) is a loosely connected network of people, groups, activities and practices. According to its adherents, it produces beneficial results such as spiritual and personal growth, improvement in relationships, physical and psychological healing, financial success, individual and global peace, and safeguards the environment.

The content of New Age is both vast and vague, an eclectic and somewhat strange mixture of beliefs, practices and lifestyles. Elements from traditional Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism are found together with elements from Christian and Jewish thought. But a relevant role is also played by Gnostic thought and relatively new religious bodies such as Scientology, Unity, New Thought, Religious Science and various occult cults such as Theosophy,(7) Anthroposophy,(8) Rosicrucianism(9) and spiritism.(10) Some New Age adherents accept millenarianism, astrology and pre-Christian teachings such as Celtic, Druidic, Mayan, Native American, mythology and traditional folklore. The spectrum of the practices adopted by New Age circles is also quite vast: from traditional Zen and Yoga meditation to body discipline and relaxation therapies, which include fasting, hypnosis and martial arts. Management training, enlightenment and consciousness-raising seminars, enneagram,(11) visualization and positive thinking are also popular. The latter two are based on the assumption that the mind can accomplish and create what it believes it can. New Age circles claim to experience paranormal phenomena such as astral dreaming, mental telepathy, healing, levitations, clairvoyance, automatic writing, chanting, and energy channelling. Practices of Chaldeans, Egyptians, Babylonians and other ancient peoples; horoscopes, palm reading, crystal ball gazing, water divining, pendulum, divining rod, tarot cards, tea leaves reading, divination, numerology, aura readings, iridology, palmistry, Wiccan rituals, study of animal entrails are also to be found in New Age. Unconventional stories such as UFO abductions, extraterrestrial visits, past-life regression, reincarnation and psychic healing are common subjects in New Age gatherings and literature.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, New Age, under the name 'the Age of Aquarius,' found acceptance in the counterculture of radical movements, particularly radical environmentalism and radical feminism. In the 1980s and 1990s, New Age became a well-known international phenomenon.

Most new religions have recognized leaders, doctrines, 'inspired' scriptures, specific practices, and a very tight control over the members, while New Age has no fixed structure nor is it centrally controlled. There are no headquarters, no official doctrines, standard religious practices, or leaders in official capacities. New Age organized religious bodies such as the Church of Spiritual Healing, the Church of Ageless Wisdom, Radiant Light Interfaith Church, the Church of the Earth Nation and the Church of Truth and the New Age communes are expanding with less success than New Age itself. Centres and masters, which propagate New Age concepts and practices through seminars, channelling training and initiation courses without a distinct religious character, are much more successful.

There are many new products on the market to enhance worship, meditation and body practices: prayer mats, yapa beads, incense, clothing from natural fibres, crystals and special lights to intensify them, health foods, vitamins pills, portable massage tables, meditation goggles, subliminal tapes, herbal teas, New Age music and books.

New Age is especially popular with young, single, upwardly mobile, successful urban adults. Through them New Age ideas and practices have spread among those who are influential in society, especially in the entertainment industry, mass-media and financial world. The impact the movement is making in postmodern life is enormous. According to a survey of 1996, 20% of the American population believes in New Age.(12)

In 1997 there were more than 5000 New Age bookshops in the United States. In Hong Kong there is a least one 'New Age Shop', located in Central, and a large choice of New Age activities, such as 'holistic living' seminars, meditations, public talks, 'energy channelling' courses, etc...(13) A Hong Kong based holistic health consultant told a local magazine: "I listen to soft music that has no lyrics to unclutter my mind, and it's good for the right side of the brain... I swim to feel as though I am inside my mother's womb. We all need to learn how to let go of negativity." The article continues: "She meditates to access her inner voice and pray to a divine power, which she loosely defines as God, the universe or herself, but says is separate from religion-for strength."(14)

　

3. Two New Age streams

I believe that New Age has basically two major streams: the humanistic and the occult.

3.1 Humanistic stream

To many contemporaries, New Age practices are a way to become a better and healthier person, to be in touch with the deeper self, to interact harmoniously with others, to be renewed and reduce stress and fatigue.

New Age enhances awareness of the well being of the individual and the planet, of health and ecology. New Age promotes holistic education, meditation and psycho-training, holistic medicine and health foods.

The New Age humanistic stream sees humankind experiencing the beginning of a new spiritual awakening that will lead humanity into a new era of enlightened spiritual humanism. Writers such as Hermann Hesse, Richard Bach and Paulo Coelho represent this aspect of New Age.

3.2 Occult stream

The New Age occult stream includes a variety of exotic things: pre-Christian beliefs, channelling of healing energy, contacts with spiritual masters, mediums, initiations by gurus and masters, out-of-body experiences, astral travel, UFO abductions, astrology, tarot cards and aura reading, gemstones and crystals, shamanistic traditions, pre-Colombian oracles, magic, witchcraft (now officially recognized as a religion in some Northern countries) and sorcery.

While it is generally assumed that New Age is not an organized force, some conservative Christians claim that New Age expansion in the world follows a precise 'Plan', communicated to Alice Bailey, which consists in infiltrating governments, media, schools and churches with the purpose of establishing a New World Order, a New World Government and a New World Religion.

Moreover, a number of Evangelical and Catholic apologists such as M. Basilea Schlink,(15) Constance Cumbay,(16) Ed Decker,(17) Randall Baers,(18) Carl Raschke,(19) Douglas Groothuis,(20) John P. Newport,(21) and Cornelia R. Ferreira(22) warn that there is a dark side to New Age which includes black magic and even Satanism. Traces of Satanism can be found in the frequent mention of 'Lucifer' by New Age leader David Spangler and in the activities of the Church of Satan, founded in 1966 in San Francisco by Anton LeVey. The latter has somewhat inspired and made a cameo appearance in the horror-satanic cult-movie Rosemary's Baby (1968), directed by Roman Polansky and starring by Mia Farrow. Occultist groups claim that Adolf Hitler was acquainted with secret teachings such as that of occultist Helena Blavatsky and of Satanist Aleister Crowler.

　

4. Precursors of the New Age

The occultist stream in New Age Movement traces its modern roots to the Theosophical Society, founded in New York (1875), by Russian-born occultist Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891). Theosophy is a pantheistic religious system. Its adherents believe that all world religions have basic common truths that transcend the differences. Blavatsky taught that people could contact higher spirit entities called Masters of Wisdom, located in the spiritual realm.

Alice A. Bailey (1880-1949), an Englishwoman who emigrated to America was one of the main figures to emerge from the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society. Bailey broke away from it to found the Arcane Society in 1923. She and her husband Foster Bailey established the Lucifer Publishing Company in 1922. In 1923 the name was changed to Lucis Publishing Company. She claimed to receive messages from the Tibetan Djwal Khul, a Master of Wisdom. He was an 'ascended brother', forming part of the 'Great White Brotherhood,' whose members dwell in Shambala, a mystical realm.

Some consider Blavatsky and Bailey as the founders of the New Age movement.(23) Occultist Annie Besant (1847-1937), a British feminist who was the Theosophical Society's president from 1907 to 1933, proclaimed that the coming World Teacher would be a spiritual master named Lord Maitreya.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), an Austrian, was an active member of the Theosophical Society when in 1912 he broke away from it to found the Anthroposophical Society. Steiner's 'cosmic' Christology will be described below.

　



1. A characteristic of this study is the use of the Internet as one of the sources of information.

2. Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy. J.B.Tarcher, Los Angeles, 1980. Quoted by Michael Fuss, The New Age, in Towards the Jubilee of the Year 2000: New Forms of Religiosity, Challenges for Evangelization. Pontifical Missionary Union, Rome, 1999, p. 9.

3. Robert Muller, Decide to Network, in J. Beversluis (ed.), A Sourcebook for the Earth's Community of Religions. CoNexus, Grand Rapids, MI, 1995, p. 302. Quoted by Fuss, The New Age, p. 9.

4. Next Age is an expression which indicates a second stage of New Age, focused on individual happiness.

5. Astrologers believe that evolution goes through cycles corresponding to the signs of the zodiac, each lasting about 2,000 years. We are now moving from the cycle of the Pisces into that of Aquarius. The Aquarian Age will supposedly be characterized by a heightened degree of spiritual and cosmic consciousness.

6. Massimo Introvigne, New Age & Next Age. Piemme, Casale Monferrato, 2000; Gaspare Barbiellini Amidei, New Age - Next Age. Piemme, Casale Monferrato, 1998.

7. Emily B. Sellon and Renee Weber, Theosophy and the Theosophical Society. In Antoine Faivre and Jacob Needleman (eds.), Modern Esoteric Spirituality. Crossroad, New York, 1995, pp. 311-329.

8. Robert A. Mcdermott, "Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy," in Faivre and Needleman (eds.), Modern Esoteric Spirituality, pp. 288-310.

9. Roland Edighoffer, "Rosicrucianism: From the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century," in Faivre and Needleman (eds.), Modern Esoteric Spirituality, pp. 186-209.

10. Michael W. Homer, Lo Spiritismo. Elle Di Ci, Leumann (Torino), 1999; Antoine Faivre, Esoterismo e tradizione. Elle Di Ci, Leumann (Torino), 1999.

11. The Enneagram is an ancient method of personality typing, now adopted also in Christian circles. Sergio Ferrari - Gianni F. Trapletti, L'enneagramma: alcune domande per un dibattito, Religioni e Sette nel Mondo, No. 5, Gris, Bologna, 1996, pp. 94-118.

12. Statistic reported by George Barnia, The Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators. World Publishing, Dallas, TX, 1996; also found in Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, religioustolerance.org.

13. The periodical, New Age News, gives information on numerous New Age activities in Hong Kong.

14. Hong Kong Magazine, April 30, 1999, p. 10.

15. M. Basilea Schlink, New Age From a Biblical Viewpoint. Evangelic Sisters of Mary, Radlett (Harts), England, n.d.

16. Constance E. Cumbey, The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, The New Age Movement and Our Coming Age of Barbarism. Huntington House, Shreveport, Lousiana, 1983.

17. Ed. Decker, Race Toward Judgement. The New Age Movement. saintsalive.com, 1999.

18. Randall Bears, Inside the New Age Nightmare. Walter Publishing, Merlin, OR, 1989.

19. Carl A. Raschke, Painted Black. Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1990.

20. Douglas Groothuis, Confronting the New Age. InterVarsity Press, Downers Groves, IL, 1988.

21. John P. Newport, The New Age Movement and the Biblical Worldview. Conflict and Dialogue. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, U.K, 1998.

22. Cornelia R. Ferreira, The New Age Movement: the Kingdom of Satan on Earth. Canisius Books, Scarborough, Ontario. 1991; "The One-World Church Emerges." Homiletic and Pastoral Review, January 1999, pp. 6-18.

23. See, for example, Robert A. Herrmann, "A Scientific Analysis of the Writings of Alice A. Bailey and their Applications," March 2001, serve.com/herrmann.

The New Age Religious Beliefs

1. New Age as the Religion of Postmodernity

There are, I believe, two religious reactions to the collapse of modernity. One is religious fundamentalism, which can be found in all major organized religions. The religious fundamentalists oppose modernity and postmodernity alike. They uphold a religious attitude, which is not only radically anti-modern, but even pre-modern. Since modernity has been defeated, fundamentalists, seem to advocate a return to pre-modernity, rejecting even basic and significant achievements such as freedom of conscience, human rights and the impartiality of the state toward religion.

The second reaction to the collapse of modernity is New Age and a number of New Religions. New Age is, in a very important sense, the religion of postmodernity.(24) New Age capitalizes on postmodern attitudes: the rejection of strong political thought, ideologies and conventional religious institutions, concerns with the environment, nuclear power, health and feminism.

The disappointment with modern secular humanism, which reduced God and faith to myths, is a major force behind the spectacular spread of New Age. The failure of secular humanism and of the modern ideologies of Communism and Nazism has created the spiritual vacuum which postmodern men and women experience.

To the postmodern lost individual, New Age proposes a 'paradigm shift', a new holistic perspective, the interconnectedness of all things and the concept of wholeness. Rational, analytical and critical knowledge, which is the basis of the scientific method, gives way to intuitive knowledge, based on non-rational experience. The use of reason does not impress New Age followers. They see dependence on logic and reason as a lack of enlightenment.

New Age adherents expand the theory that the two hemispheres of the human brain operate in two different ways. The left side dominates the logical functions while the right governs the emotional and intuitive aspects: the part of the heart, fantasy, dreams and perceptions. Western people have, supposedly, chiefly developed the left side. Techniques such as meditation, poetry, enchantments, mantras, etc., are now available to enable the development of consciousness and thus to regain balance and synchronization between the two parts of the brain.

Postmodernism and New Age share the assumption that beliefs are secondary to experience; they last as long as they are useful, are a matter of preference and not of truth, and are of equal worth. Postmodern people, isolated and lonely in this difficult and complex society, are ready to accept the idea of looking inward for solutions. In a world 'in crisis' New Age offers solutions to be found 'within yourself,' because, according to New Age adherents, 'the only way out is in.'

Since postmodernity is sometimes described as a post-Christian era, New Age seems to have the characteristics of a post-Christian religion as well. New Age, like postmodernity, rather than being a clearly defined doctrine or organization, is a 'mood', an 'atmosphere', "a metaphor for the new cultural pattern that is emerging in the post-Christian society."(25)

Many feel that traditional Christian churches are inadequate to answer these new existential quests. Instead, small groups seem to offer the individual a sense of belonging which is lost in traditional religious, cultural and political institutions. In a fast paced postmodern society, in which everything is consumed fast, New Age's intense experiences of empowerment attract people more easily than do the traditional teachings of the Christian churches, perceived as constrained by a complicated set of doctrines and a boring life.

New Age centres fulfil functions once covered by Christian communities: spiritual guidance, social gathering, fellowship, recreation, etc... Many people perhaps disillusioned, have left traditional Christian Churches and joined these centres and activities.

1.1 New Age as Postmodern Gnosticism (26)

Authors have pointed out similarities between the postmodern New Age movement and Gnosticism. The Gnostics, 'those who know,' belonged to a religious movement which flourished during the first few centuries of the Christian era.

Some New Age adherents say that Jesus was actually teaching New Age truths, and others add that the long-lost sayings of Jesus have now been rediscovered. One major source of these 'rediscovered' sayings is extracanonical literature.(27) New Age considers the Apocryphal or Gnostic Gospels(28) (2nd and 3rd centuries) counter-current literature suppressed by the early Church. Among them the Gospel of Thomas has become, with its Gnostic content, a hobby-horse of New Age.

Christian Gnostics believed that Christ's humanity was merely an illusion. Christ appeared to die, but did not really die. Christ belongs to a group of semi-divine beings (called aeon) located between God and humanity. Christian Gnostics considered matter as evil, and evil was the God of the Old Testament, creator of the material universe. The God of the New Testament, as taught by Jesus, is the God of Love. Salvation is acquired through secret knowledge, which is imparted only to the initiated. Jesus himself attained 'Christhood' through initiation: he is the 'Great Initiate.'

New Age adherents say the human Jesus attained 'Christhood' by raising his 'Christ-consciousness', 'attuning' him to the cosmic Christ. New Age adherents, like Gnostics, use Christian terminology and symbols, but the content of their teaching does not accord with traditional Christian doctrines.

　

2. New Age religious beliefs

Michael Fuss summarizes New Age religious beliefs as the sum of the interaction of four elements.(29) The first is the Judaeo- Christian tradition, from which New Age draws its terminology and to which it aims to become an alternative. The second element is science, in its anti-Western, anti-material and anti-mechanic form: the quantum science, reality as energy. The third element is the esoteric, occultist and Gnostic tradition. The fourth element comprises the theories of religious pluralism, syncretism and relativism.

These four elements constitute the ideological background of New Age religious beliefs in relation to Christian faith:

2.1 All is one

'Scientific' and religious holism (or wholism) is one of the fundamental tenets of New Age. No distinction is drawn between creation and created reality, humans and nature, God and creatures: such distinctions are illusions. New Age's God is an impersonal Ultimate Unifying Principle, a mystical Oneness, which coincides with the universe. The universe is the source of life and possesses an intelligence that guides and guards everything. God is consciousness, or an impersonal energy force. Expanding on the theory of quantum physics, reality is considered energy. According to the quantum physics that Fritjof Capra advocates, the universe is a living body, governed not by the law of matter and mechanics, but rather by relations of energy. In New Age literature, this energy goes by many names: prana, mana, force, odic force, orgone energy, holy spirit, qi, mind, healing force, reiki.(30) Energy has healing power, can be released and channelled through various forms of meditation, body therapies and magic rites. The Force is with you is the title of one New Age book. For New Age adherents, personal transformation is the process of mystically experiencing oneness with the universe.

Holism is an updated form of monism, a worldview which perceives the totality of all that exists as a reflection of an ultimate oneness. The Ultimate Principle, Higher Self, may assume several material and concrete appearances in history. These appearances in history, the 'lower self,' rather than the 'real self,' are just an illusory phenomenon that has a mere symbolic value. The religious consequence is that history in incapable of authentic revelation. All historical religious expressions have the same limited and vague value.

2.2 Everything is God

As a direct and logical consequence of the previous axiom, New Age adopts the ancient pantheistic view: everything in the universe, plants and humans, partake of the one divine essence. 'Everything is God. You are God. I am God. This microphone is God. This table is God, All is God.' Expressions like this are often heard at New Age lectures and found in numerous New Age books.

Since we are God in disguise, only ignorance (and not sin, which does not exist) keeps us from realizing our divine reality. If the whole is contained in each of its parts, then each part is the whole. "You never knew how beautiful you were, for you never really looked at who and what you are. You want to see what God looks like? Go look in a mirror, you are looking God straight in the face."(31) Judith Hampton-J.Z. Knight, in her website, provides an explanation of spiritual exercises and practical guidelines to attain the science of knowing and super-consciousness. She proclaims that "God lies within us, and there is no other redemption than for mankind to realize their Godhood."(32) She covers topics such as death and ascension, creation and evolution, reincarnation, and the purpose of existence. Again, according to New Age, a human being simply needs to discover and develop his/her divinity by expanding his/her consciousness through meditation and other spiritual practices.

2.3 Consciousness(33)

As just mentioned, the concept of consciousness is a key for understanding New Age's religious transformation. The human being has to overcome illusions and ignorance with a new consciousness. He/she must have a change of consciousness to realize that we are not finite and limited. The human being has to find his/her 'Higher Self' through consciousness expansion. The human condition is hampered by ignorance and various unfavourable cultural conditions. Evils are the result of human-produced factors and/or of the law of karma.

This perspective does not include the biblical and Christian concept of sin, which is a tragic yet real consequence of human freedom and responsibility. It also excludes the necessity of any redemption, reducing Grace and Faith to senseless doctrines. Godhood is within yourself, you have just to remove the veil of ignorance and be enlightened about your true self. Human methods, such as meditation, channelling, initiation will bring you to a superior knowledge of your superior Self.

2.4 Reincarnation and Karma (34)

According to the definition above, 'progressive spiritual evolution', embodying the doctrines of Karma and reincarnation, explains the inequalities and negativities of life, thus doing away with the Christian doctrines of sin, responsibility, redemption, hell and Heaven. New Age can partly be classified as a Western-postmodern expression of classic Hinduism. The latter was welcomed in the West especially during the 1960s, when Hindu masters went to North America and Europe to offer their teachings, and many Westerners went to India in search of the spiritual.

2.5 Channelling and spirit contact

Channelling, which means contact with entities, including angels,(35) allowing oneself to become a 'channeller' and a messenger of spiritual messages, and spirit contact are activities that have had huge success in the New Age movement. Spirit contact is a renewed and developed form of contact with the spirit of the dead, practised in the last 150 years by the occultist societies. The messages are from loving entities, which help humanity to reach perfection through a spiritual evolution. The medium J. Z. Knight (Judith Hampton), claims to be the channeller of Ramtha, a 'Sovereign Entity' who lived on earth over 35,000 years ago, who has ascended to a higher level of consciousness to teach humankind how to rediscover the 'God who lives within you.'(36) In the practise of Reiki, the initiated individuals are said to become channels of Reiki energy.

2.6 New Age and Religious Pluralism

According to the pluralism of New Age, the enlightened ones of all the great religions, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Laozi, Mohamed, Zoroaster etc... have taught an experience of the same oneness. There are many paths to the one truth, many methods to become one with the One. All the differences are superficial and external. Truth can be revealed in diverse ways and through diverse agents. No individual, collective, or church possesses a monopoly on the truth, an attitude shared with postmodern thought. Paulo Coelho in one of his novel writes:

The Buddhists were right, the Hindus were right, the Muslims were right, and so were the Jews. Whenever someone follows the path to faith, sincerely follows it, he or she is able to unite with God and to perform miracles. But it wasn't enough simply to know that you have to make a choice. I chose the Catholic Church because I was raised in it, and my childhood has been impregnated with its mysteries. If I had been born Jewish, I would have chosen Judaism. God is the same, even though He has a thousand names; it is up to us to select a name for Him.(37)

We will return to this point.

2.7 The glorious New Age future

From astrology the New Age derives cosmic optimism, a principle based on evolution and on eventually reaching the Omega Point. We are at the dawn of a new era, characterized by a 'collective enlightenment of human consciousness'. Some foresee the appearance of a 'Greater Christ', a New Messiah, a New Avatar,(38) who will take humanity to the universal experience of cosmic harmony and bliss.

2.8 The cult of Gaia

Women and feminism hold a prominent position in New Age where it is common to refer to God as 'Mother' or 'She.' Some radical New Age adherents take up the ancient belief that equates 'woman' with 'nature,' resuming interest in female gods of pre-Christian cultures such as Iris, Astarte, Demeter, Hera and especially Gaia. The radical vanguard of the New Age feminist movement, dissatisfied with the masculine character of the Biblical God, advocates the introduction of the cult of the goddess Gaia, the Greek 'Mother Earth.'

Gaia is also the name of a scientific hypothesis formulated by James Lovelock. According to the Gaia hypothesis, to put it simply, all living matter on the earth is believed to be a single living organism, and humanity is considered the nervous system of the living earth.(39)

2.9 The Great Mother

There is a Catholic version of the cult of the 'Great Mother' proposed by Paulo Coelho, perhaps echoing a hypothesis of Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff.(40) Coelho offers for consideration the 'Virgin' Mary as the feminine face of God. She is the feminine incarnation of God, as Jesus is the masculine incarnation of God.

"She is the cosmic bride, Earth, which opens to the heavens and allows itself to be fertilized. ... She allowed God to come down to earth, and She was transformed into the Great Mother. She is the feminine face of God. She has her own divinity.... This woman, the Goddess, the Virgin, Mary, the Shechinah, the Great Mother, Isis, Sofia, slave and mistress, is present in every religion on the face of the earth. She has been forgotten, prohibited, and disguised, but her cult has continued from millennium to millennium and continues to survive today.... In every religion and in every tradition, she manifests Herself in one form or another. Since I am Catholic, I perceive Her as the Virgin Mary.(41)

Coelho goes as far as proposing "a Holy Trinity that includes a woman. The Trinity of the Holy Spirit, the mother and the Son."(42) "How wonderful that God may be a woman, I said to myself, as the others continued to chant. If that's true, then it was certainly God's feminine face that taught us how to love."(43)



24. For postmodernity see my articles, The Postmodern Condition and the Enduring Good News of the Gospel. Theological Annual, 1999, pp. 57-102; Mission in Postmodern Times," in Philip L. Wickeri, (ed.), The People of God Among All God's Peoples: Frontiers in Christian Mission. Christian Conference of Asia & The Council for World Mission, Hong Kong-London 2000, pp. 183-203. See also Aldo Natale Terrin, New Age, La religiosita del Postmoderno. Dehoniane, Bologna, 1992.

25. Fuss, The New Age, p. 3.

26. Andrea Porcarelli, Il New Age: una forma di Gnosticismo moderno, Religioni e Sette nel Mondo, No. 6, 1996, pp. 51-77.

27. Some of these texts were discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, a locality in Upper Egypt. Nag Hammadi's writings are fourth-century papyrus manuscripts that formed part of a Gnostic library. Among the writings are the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Paul, and the Gospel of Mary.

28. Bentley Layton (ed.), The Gnostic Scriptures. Garden City, Doubleday & Co., 1987.

29. Fuss, The New Age, p. 4.

30. On Reiki, see: Mauro Roventi Beccari, "Rei-ki, energia che guarisce," Religione e Sette nel mondo, No. 6, pp. 78-114.

31. Transchanneller J. Z. Knight, born Judith Darlene Hampton. See her websites: seekersway.org; ramtha.com.

32.Ibid.

33. Jean Vernette, Dai cambiamenti nella coscienza e nel cervello al risveglio interiore, Religione e Sette nel mondo, No.5, pp. 57-70.

34. Julien Ries, New Age e Reincarnazione, Religioni e Sette nel mondo, No. 5, pp. 45-56.

35. Daniel Gagnon, Gli Angeli e il New Age, Religioni e Sette nel mondo, No. 6, pp. 115-131.

36.See seekersway.org; ramtha.com.

37. Paulo Coelho, By the River Piedra I Sat Down and Wept. HarperCollins, London, 1996, p. 90.

38. An Avatar descends into human form from above as a manifestation of divinity and reveals divine truth to people.

39. David L. Brown, A Brief Dictionary of New Age Terminology, logosresourcepages.org.

40. "The Holy Spirit has made Her (Mary) His Temple, Sanctuary and Tabernacle in so real and genuine a way that She is to be regarded as hypostatically united to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity." Leonardo Boff, The Maternal Face of God. The Feminine and Its Religious Expressions. Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1987, p. 93.

41. Coelho, By The River Piedra, pp. 66-67, 69.

42. Ibid. p.148.

43.Ibid. p.118.

The New Age Jesus Christ

1. Jesus Goes East(44)

Shirley MacLaine in Out on a Limbo recounts a conversation with a friend,

You know that nothing is recorded in the Bible about Christ from the time he was about twelve until he began to really teach at about thirty years old. Those eighteen missing years were spent travelling in and around India and Tibet and Persia and the Near East.(45)

That Jesus travelled East has become one of the 'major secrets' revealed by the New Age adherents. All started with The Unknown Life of Christ, a book published in 1894 by Nicolas Notovitch, a Russian war correspondent, who claimed that in 1887 he had visited the Lama Monastery of Himis (Northern India). There he learned about a Grand Lama named Issa (the Tibetan form of Jesus). A chronicle of the life of Issa, written down in scrolls located at the monastery, were read to and translated for the Russian traveller. Notovitch learned that Jesus had wandered to India and to Tibet as a young man studying the laws of the Buddha. Eventually the priests of Brahma taught him to read and understand the Vedas, to cure, to teach, to preach and to drive out evil spirits. Issa-Jesus had become a perfect expositor of the sacred writings. After long travels in various countries, Issa-Jesus returned to Israel and preached what he had learned to all.

As early as 1894, although partial to oriental doctrines rather than to Christianity, Orientalist Max Muller of Oxford University rebuked Notovitch for his fantastic tale in the scholarly review The Nineteenth Century.(46)

J. Archibald Douglas, Professor at Government College in Agra, India, who visited the monastery of Himis in 1895, also denied the whole story.(47)

Nevertheless Notovitch's book, under the title of The Life of Saint Issa, was republished in New York in 1926. Since then other authors, such as Edgar J. Goodspeed(48) and Per Beskow,(49) Joseph Gaer,(50) Philip J. Swihart,(51) Anne Read,(52) Tal Brooke,(53) and the above-mentioned Douglas Groothuis and Ron Rhodes, have rejected Notovitch's account. But some members of occultist societies, such as Elizabeth Clare Prophet,(54) Nicholas Roerich,(55) Holger Kersten,(56) David Spangler,(57) Janet Block(58) and others have published several books perpetuating the tale. Elizabeth Clare Prophet's book, The Lost Years of Jesus, was made into a movie in 2001.

　

2. The Akashic Records

A major source for the 'Jesus goes East' stories is The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ,59 written by occultist Levi Dowling (1844-1911). This 'gospel' is a transcription from the Book of God's Remembrances, known as the Akashic Records. 'Akasha' is, according to the occultists, a spiritual field that surrounds earth, in which every person's word, thought or act is inscribed in imperishable records, known as Akashic Records. Levi's gospel developed the tale of the travels of Jesus: after having travelled throughout India and Tibet, Jesus arrived in Egypt, where he passed through seven degrees of initiation until he attained Christhood. Other occultists, such as Edgar Cayce (1877-1945), followed in the same line of the Akashic Records, which they claim to have read while in a trance.

It is obvious that 'Jesus goes East' stories and the Akashic Records lack any rational, scientific and historical evidence. These writings cannot be compared to the witness of Jesus rendered by New Testament. Any critical study would exclude the possibility of such travels.

3. The New Age Christ (60)

New Age's own reinterpretations of the person and work of Christ are rooted in esoteric thought from the end of the 19th century. American metaphysicist Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (1802-1866)(61) has played a significant role in New Age Christology. He advocated that the source of physical healing lies in the mind. Physical diseases are caused by wrong thinking or false beliefs, which can be corrected by 'the Christ.' Clearly distinguishing Jesus from the Christ, Quimby credited Jesus with discovering the 'Truth,' elevating him above any man who has ever lived. Quimby's thought greatly influenced Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science.

Quimby also inspired a number of inclusive metaphysical groups that emerged in the 1890s. These were generally described as 'New Thought.' These groups see the Christ is an impersonal Divine Nature or Principle. They believed that Jesus had embodied the Christ-principle, more than any other human had before, fully realizing his Christ-nature. Jesus was not a saviour; he was merely a 'way-shower.'

The success and dissemination of New Thought's Christology has given rise to various offshoots such as the Unity School of Christianity, founded by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore (1845-1931 and 1854-1948) in 1891; and The United Church of Religious Science, founded by Ernest Holmes (1887-1960) in 1926.

Swinburne Clymer (1878-1966), a Rosicrucian,(62) anticipated the New Age pantheistic view of enlightenment. According to Clymer, author of numerous books on Christ, each life is a spark, a germ of the Divine Nature. This spark is the potential Christ within.

Helena Blavatsky thought that the Supreme World Teacher, also known as 'the Christ,' enters the body of a disciple to guide the spiritual evolution of humanity.(63) Each 'incarnation' of 'Christ' reveals something more about God. The five incarnations of Christ were Buddha (in India), Hermes (in Egypt), Zoroaster (in Persia), Orpheus (in Greece), and Jesus. Along the same lines, Annie Besant said that the Christ needed a human form, and did not die on the cross. Salvation in fact is obtained by spiritual evolution, which comes through successive incarnations, which allow every person potentially to become 'Christ.'(64)

Rudolf Steiner, in polemics with Besant, maintained that the death of Jesus has something to do with human salvation. Steiner's Christology is based on Akashic Records, which according to Steiner, says that the incarnation of the Christ in Jesus was the central event of human evolution, and restored humanity to the spiritual realm. The blood that flowed from the wounds of Jesus Christ at the crucifixion flowed into the earth and passed through a process of 'etherisation'. At the moment of his death, the Christ left Jesus' body and 'incarnated' into the etheric earth, and now seeks to 'mass incarnate' into all humanity, for the sake of its redemption. Christ belongs now to the whole earth and can enter all human souls, regardless of nation and religion: this is his true 'second coming.'(65)

For David Spangler, Christ is "a cosmic Christ, a universal Christ, a New Age Christ."(66) He is a cosmic principle, which utilized Jesus' body, "a spiritual presence whose quality infuses and appears in various ways in all the religions and philosophies that uplift humanity."(67) Through the resurrection, the out-flowing of Christ-energies from the etheric earth, and ascension of Christ-consciousness in humanity, the cosmic Christ became saviour since he entered into the process of evolution.

Alice Bailey, differently from Steiner, argued that the 'second coming' referred to the Christ coming in a single Avatar, not in all humanity. Christ will come again in a way that will create no religious, social or ideological divisions. He is 'the World Teacher and not a Christian teacher.'(68)

Guy and Edna Ballard were Theosophists who opted to believe in the 'Ascended Masters,' a reference to those masters who have supposedly reached the highest level of spiritual consciousness, and have become guides of the spiritual evolution of humankind. Jesus is one of these 'Ascended Masters.'(69)

In 1958 Mark Prophet (1918-1973) founded the Church Universal and Triumphant, now headed by his widow, Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Their beliefs include revelations from the 'Ascended Masters,' who guide the spiritual evolution of humanity. They reject the doctrine of Redemption through the death of Jesus. Rather Jesus attained Christhood as did other 'Ascended Masters.(70)

Esoteric and New Age writer Lola Davis affirms that the New Age Christ resides on a different plane of consciousness. 'Christ' is the name given to the leader of the Spiritual Hierarchy of Masters.(71)

New Age's authors M.S. Princess and Helen Schucman (1909-1981) supported the theory of the inherence of Christ in humans and the importance of the rediscovery of one's Christhood.(72)

The interpretation of Christ proposed by New Age adherents Peter Liefhebber and Hilton Hotema goes much further. In the discourse on Christ, they introduced the mystic-legendary figures of Appolonius and Maitreya, which have embodied the Christ principle, and will personify Christ in his second coming.(73)

Famous New Age writer Benjamin Cr╴e expands the theories about Maitreya in a most unique fashion. Maitreya, originally a Buddha figure, is believed to be the one expected by all religions. Christians expect him as Christ in his imminent return; Jews await him as the Messiah; Hindus look for the coming of Krishna; Buddhists expect him as Maitreya Buddha; and Muslims anticipate the Imam Mahdi or Messiah. He is everything to everyone.(74)

In conclusion, in New Age Christology the distinction between Jesus (a mere human vessel) and the Christ (a divine, cosmic and impersonal entity) is fundamental. Jesus embodied the Christ-principle, fully realizing his Christ-nature.



45. Shirley MacLaine, Out on a Limb. Bantam Books, New York, 1984, pp. 233-234.

46. Max Muller, The Alleged Sojourn of Christ in India, The Nineteenth Century, No. 36, October, 1894, pp. 515 ff. Among other arguments, Muller asserted that an old document, like the one allegedly found, would have been included in the Kandjur and Tandjur catalogues in which all Tibetan literature is listed. Muller also cites a visitor to the monastery of Himis in 1894, who inquired about Notovitch, and said that no Russian had ever visited there, and the whole story was nothing but a fabrication.

47. J. Archibald Douglas, The Chief Lama of Himis on the Alleged Unknown Life of Christ, The Nineteenth Century, No. 39, April 1896, pp. 667-678.

48. Edgar J. Goodspeed, Strange New Gospels. The University Of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1931; Modern Apocrypha. Beacon Press, Boston, 1956.

49. Per Beskow, Strange Tales About Jesus: A Survey of Unfamiliar Gospels. Fortress, Philadelphia, 1983.

50. Joseph Gaer, The Lore of the New Testament. Little Brown and Co., Boston, 1952.

51. Philip J. Swihart, Reincarnation, Edgar Cayce, and the Bible. InterVarsity Press, Downers Groves, IL, 1978.

52. Anne Read, Edgar Cayce: On Jesus and His Church. Warner Books, New York, 1970.

53. Tal Brooke, When the World Will Be as One. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1989.

54. Elizabeth Clare Prophet, The Lost Years of Jesus. Summit University Press, Livingston, MT, 1984; Mark L. Prophet and Elizabeth Clare Prophet, The Lost Teachings of Jesus. Summit University Press, Livingston, MT, 1988.

55. Nicholas Roerich, Himalaya. Brentano's, New York, 1926.

56. Holger Kersten, Jesus Lived in India. Element Book, Longmead, England, 1986.

57. David Spangler, The Laws of Manifestation. Findhorn Publications, Forres, Scotland, 1983; Reflections on the Christ. Findhorn Publications, Forres, Scotland, 1981.

58. Janet Block, The Jesus Mystery: Of Lost Years and Unknown Travels. Aura Books, Los Angeles, 1980.

59. Levi Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ. L. N. Fowler & Co., London 1947, (first edition in 1911).

60. For the summary of the various authors of New Age Christology, I am indebted to Ron Rhodes The Christ of the New Age Movement. See also Alessandro Olivieri Pennesi, Il Cristo del New Age. Indagine Critica. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1999. On the New Age Christ, besides the texts mentioned above, see Elizabeth Sand Turner, What Unity Teaches. Unity School of Christianity, Lee's Summit, MO, n.d.; Ernest Holmes, What Religious Science Teaches. Science of Mind Publications, Los Angeles, 1975.

61. Phineas P. Quimby, The Quimby Manuscripts, (ed. by Horatio W. Dresser), University Books, New Hyde Park, NY, 1961.

62. Rosicrucianism is a mystical cult that supposedly originated in the 'Mystery Schools' of Egypt.

63. Helena P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine. Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, IL, 1966.

64. Annie Besant, Esoteric Christianity. Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, IL, 1953.

65. Rudolf Steiner, The Reappearance of the Christ in the Etheric. Anthroposophic Press, Spring Valley, NY, 1983; Jesus and Christ. Anthroposophic Press, Spring Valley, NY, 1976; The Four Sacrifices of Christ. Anthroposophic Press, Spring Valley, NY, 1944.

66. Spangler, Reflections on the Christ, p. 107.

67. David Spangler, Conversations with John. Lorian Press, Middleton, WI, 1983, p. 5. See also David Spangler, Revelation: The Birth of a New Age. Lorian Press, Middleton, WI, 1976.

68. Alice Bailey, The Reappearance of the Christ. Lucis Publishing Co., New York, 1979; The Externalization of the Hierarchy. Lucis Publishing Co., New York, 1957.

69. G. W. and Donald Ballard, Purpose of the Ascended Masters' "I AM" Activity. Saint Germain Press, Chicago, 1942.

70. Mark and Elizabeth Prophet, Climb the Highest Mountain. Summit University Press, Los Angeles, 1974.

71. Lola Davis's book entitled Toward a World Religion for a New Age is often mentioned in New Age Web pages, but I have not found any reference about the place or year of publication.

72. M.S. Princess, Step By Step We Climb. Quoted in The Christ of The New Age, in Let Us Reason, a Christian apologetic web page, www.letusreason.org/NAM17.htm; Helen Schucman, A Course in Miracles. Foundation for Inner Peace, Temecula, CA, 1976.

73. Peter Liefhebber, Jesus of Nazareth and Maitreya the Christ. Lucis Publishing Co, n.d.; Hilton Hotema, Mystery Man, Snowbowl, Missoula, MT, n.d.

74. Benjamin Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom. Tara Center, North Hollywood, CA, 1980.

A Christian response to New Age

1. The New Age Jesus

Several Christian authors have already provided a detailed rebuttal of the New Age interpretation of Jesus Christ, from the story of "Jesus Goes East," to the sophisticated esoteric elaboration of Steiner, or to the absurd fantasies of Creme.(75) Here I will not critique all those theories: not only would it take up too much space, but it also seems quite unnecessary. What I consider illogical is the general "theological" approach to Christ, the disregard of the New Testament, and the unmotivated rejection of Christian tradition. One is also puzzled by the lack of concern for history, objectivity, rationality, science, the critical method and verifiability. In the esoteric interpretation of Christ nothing is stated by reasoning; therefore, it is impossible to apply basic concepts as right or wrong, because evidence presupposes rationality and objectivity. It is impossible to accept an esoteric system of interpreting the Bible, which seeks hidden, inner meanings in Bible verses, that ignores historicity and rejects standard hermeneutics. The Jesus of historical records is abandoned in favour of the Jesus of the Gnostic Gospels, or even of the esoteric Akashic Records and other quixotic, mystic documents. But the Gospels are still the only documents on Jesus able to stand up to critical and scientific analysis. The very same appropriation by New Age authors and their precursors, of the term Christ, while ignoring its original and specific biblical meaning, cannot be justified.

We have seen how New Age, though it has developed outside the mainstream of Christian theology, has often employed Christian terminology and concepts in a confused and confusing fashion. The overlapping of terminology and concepts between New Age and Christian theology occurs over and over again in the field of theological environmentalism, feminism, religious pluralism and inter-religious dialogue. Christian theologians should continue to employ concepts such as Mother Earth, the feminine in God, the spiritual treasures of religions, the Cosmic Christ etc., without being classified as New Age adherents. But they should be aware that there is contamination of the terminologies of the two camps, and consequently it might not be too difficult to pass from Christian to New Age interpretation.

　

2. The Jesus Avatar

In the history of mission in China, learned friends used to ask the missionaries questions which seem to anticipate the difficulties about the acceptance of the singularity of Jesus Christ. In Late Ming China, a friend of Jesuit Giulio Aleni (1582-1649), Zhou Xiaolian, made the following proposal: to unite the religion of the Lord of Heaven with the teaching of Buddha and Laozi.(76)

Another of Aleni's learned friends, Ye Xianggao, affirmed that Jesus might well be "only a great saint born in the world, the same as Kong of Confucianism, Lao of Taoism, and Sakyamuni of Buddhism, etc... and he might not be the true Lord of Heaven."(77) On another occasion, the same Ye Xianggao wrote: "The King of the upper region did incarnate several times here in the East in the person of Yao, Xun, Confucius, and many others... Therefore, he might just as well have incarnated in Europe, as the Fathers of the Society say he did in the person of Jesus. From this it is quite clearly that to the Chinese, Christ in Europe is no more than Confucius, or any other wise man in China."(78)

The syncretistic interpretating proposed by Zhou Xiaolin and Ye Xianggao of Jesus as one of the many possible avatars, anticipates the contemporary debate on religious pluralism and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.

　

3. Religious pluralism in accordance with the New Age

The theology of Matthew Fox(79) has a marked mystical orientation, which leads him to overlook the historical Jesus and refocus attention on a quest for the cosmic Christ, "the pattern that connects."(80) Fox calls for a "deep ecumenism," by which he means a genuine coming together of all persons of all religions at a mystical level, following the Cosmic Christ, the forerunner. While Fox affirms that he does not belong to New Age, which he considers something for rich people, his description of the Cosmic Christ overlaps with New Age's Cosmic Christ.

Catholic priest Diarmuid  author of Quantum Theology, invites his readers to do theology in the following fashion: "Bring all the reserves you can of imagination, intuition, creativity, and your capacity to marvel. And please bring along your wild (wo)man, your deep feminine part, your hurt child, your wounded parent, and, above all, your flamboyant artist."(81)

theology startlingly overlaps the New Age religious programme. In  book God and the divine (terms used indifferently and sparingly because these are just human constructs) are described as creative energy. Each religion is a particular crystallization of divine revelation. Revelation is an ongoing process that cannot be subsumed under any religion. The doctrine of the Trinity is a human attempt to describe God's fundamental relational nature. Sin is a destructive collusion between people and systems. The greatest sin is the assumption that humans are the ultimate form of life under God and entitled to lord it over the rest of creation. We live in a world without beginning and end. Our dead ones are all around us, living within a different plane of existence. Resurrection and reincarnation are not facts, but mental/spiritual constructs.(82)  description of the Cosmic Christ could wholeheartedly be endorsed by New Age's propagators. "Christian theologians tend to argue that the Cosmic Christ makes no sense apart from the particular, historical Jesus.... This is where quantum theology differs radically. It considers the Cosmic Christ ... to be the originating mystery from which we devise all our divine personages and images. All the god-figures of the different religions, including Christianity, emanate from this cosmic originating source."(83)

A clear cut distinction between the historical Jesus and the Cosmic Christ has been proposed by Raimundo Panikkar. After holding an inclusive approach to religious pluralism, in line with Karl Rahner's theory of the "anonymous Christians,"(84) Panikkar has progressively affirmed the non-correspondence between Jesus and Christ. "Christ" becomes a super-name, which includes many names, including the one of Jesus. The Christian can rightly continue to affirm that Jesus is the Christ, but not that the Christ is Jesus, or that only Jesus is the Christ. Panikkar affirms that, with such an interpretation, he wants to go beyond the Western way of understanding the Christ.(85)

　

4. The Cosmic Christ

The depersonalisation of Jesus Christ through expressions such as "Christ Consciousness" or an impersonal Cosmic Christ is the most serious problem I encounter in New Age Christology. Rather then being the Son of God incarnate, "the only name under heaven given" (Act 4:12), as Christians profess, Jesus is one of the many possible Avatars, one of many other Christs.

As mentioned above, the theology of religious pluralism also adopts the category of Cosmic Christ. Exponents of the theology of religious pluralism affirm the need of replacing traditional Christ-centred theology with God-centred or Salvation-centred theology, proposing a clear-cut distinction between the Jesus of History and the Cosmic Christ. The first is the founder of Christianity and, insofar as he was a historic personage, is just one of the many religious prophets, while the second is the ultimate fulfilment of religions, of humanity and of the cosmos. Inter-religious dialogue requires, according to some, that all religions give up the claim of being the only true religion. In particular Christianity should give up the presumption that Jesus is the only incarnation of God.

But such an interpretation of religious pluralism might lead to contamination, assimilation, relativism, lack of differentiation and syncretism. In this way there is "no respect for a genuine pluralism of co-existence between different religions."(86)

Such an interpretation of the Cosmic Christ appears to me to be a dramatic departure from the Christology of the New Testament. The Cosmic Christ is a legitimate and necessary theological category. However, this category cannot be isolated from the whole of the mystery of Christ and given meanings which depart from the content of the New Testament and the Christian faith.

My understanding is that the universality of Christian revelation must be seen within a salvation-history perspective. The doctrine of creation reveals that the creative act is God's self-communication, i.e. revelation. Since the creative act constitutes history, the events of human history reflect such a revelation. All nations, therefore, somehow, have received from God. Moreover through his Incarnation, Jesus Christ has united himself to the world and to every person in the world (John Paul II, Redemptoris Hominis, n. 37); therefore, human history is indeed the place of God's revelation. The events of Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection express the irreducible historical and concrete character of Christianity. The meaning of these events is also universal. It transcends cultures and nations in order to embrace them all. As we exist only as persons in history, our experience of God is historical. The same universal revelation can only exist as told in a specific and singular historical event, which must necessarily have a meaning which is definitive and universal. This event is Jesus Christ, an event that cannot be overlooked or cancelled. God, the invisible One, is known only through what is visible, historical, and concrete. The "concreteness" of Christian revelation cannot be done away with.

Furthermore, the personal character of God as believed by Christians disappears in New Age thought. The Trinitarian nature of the Christian God fades with the cancellation of distinction and otherness. The affirmation that God exists only within humanity self is the denial of the possibility of communication and dialogue between God and humanity. The consequences for Christian faith are quite serious: New Age, somewhat quietly but effectively abolishes not only the concept of history and relationship with God, but also the doctrines of Creation, of Providence and of Redemption.(87)



75. James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting. InterVarsity Press, Downers Groves, IL, 1980; Newport, The New Age Movement; Van Vander Lugt, Kurt De Haan, What's the Appeal of the New Age Movement? RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, MI, 1990; Groothuis, Confronting the New Age; Goodspeed, Strange New Gospels; Romarheim, The Aquarian Christ; Beskow, Strange Tales About Jesus; Rhodes, The Counterfeit Christ.

76. Gianni Criveller, Dialogues on Jesus in China (13): Dialogue versus Syncretism, Tripod, No. 129, 2003, pp. 41-44.

77. Gianni Criveller, Dialogues on Jesus in China (11): Jesus, Buddha and Religious Pluralism, Tripod, No. 127, 2003, pp. 50-53.

78. Gianni Criveller, Dialogues on Jesus in China (10): Is Jesus a Sage like Confucius and Mencius and Other Chinese Sages? Tripod, No. 126, 2003, pp. 57-60.

79. Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ. Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1988.

80. Ibid. pp.133-135.

81.Diarmuid O' Murch? Quantum Theology, Spiritual Implication of the New Physics. Crossroad, New York, 1998, p. 5.

82. Ibid. pp. 197-203.

83. Ibid. p. 178.

84. Raimon Panikkar, The Hidden Christ of Hinduism. (revised edition), Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, 1981.

85. Prologue of a later edition of his The Hidden Christ of Hinduism; I refer to the Italian edition, Il Cristo sconosciuto dell'Induismo. Vita e Pensiero, Milano 1976, pp. 19-32. In the prologue Panikkar affirms that he mercilessly criticizes the original version of his book.

86. Fuss, The New Age, p. 5.

87. See: Carlo Maccari, La 'mistica cosmica' del New Age, Religioni e Sette nel mondo, No. 6, pp. 16-36. The following Christian authours propose a dialogue with New Age: George A. Maloney, S. J., Mysticism and the New Age. Christic Consciousness in the New Creation. Alba House, New York, 1991; Paul Poupard, Editoriale, Religioni e Sette nel mondo, No. 5, pp. 7-13; Paul Poupard, Editoriale, Religioni e Sette nel mondo, No. 6, pp. 7-14; Carlo Maccari, La New Age di fronte alla fede cristiana. Elle Di Ci, Leumann (Torino), 1994; Godfried Danneels, Le Christ ou le Verseau. Malines-Bruxelles, 1990; Ronald Quillo, Companions in Consciouness: the Bible and the New Age Movement. Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994; Catholic Answers to Questions About the New Age Movement. Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1995; Richard Bergeron, Il New Age nel Quebec, Religioni e Sette nel mondo, No. 6, pp. 71-93.

New Age missionary challenges

New Age has profound ramifications in the mentality and behaviour of many contemporaries all around the world, including people born in traditional Christian communities, although some of them might actually not consciously adhere to New Age as such.

New Age has touched you. You've heard its ideas, listened to its music, viewed its artwork, watched its superstars, read its literature and bought its products. You may even have participated in its therapies, shared in its rituals and embraced its philosophies, all without knowing them as New Age.(88)

Furthermore, the phenomenon of globalisation favours a universal impact of New Age, which constitutes a great challenge particularly in Asia, which is spontaneously inclined to religious pluralism. In Asia in fact, people can readily accept a number of New Age ideas because they are partially consistent with and comparable to elements found in ancient religious doctrines, such as Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism.

If people are espousing New Age ideas and shopping around for various religious option, because they are starving for something to fill their spiritual needs, one might admit that, humanly speaking, New Age provides some more suitable answer to the postmodern condition. In times of muddled thinking, when different beliefs are a matter of preference and not of truth, the proclamation of Jesus appears to many to make no sense. They see it as an outdated, arrogant and finally ignorant attitude, since the truth is inside oneself and needs only to be unveiled. Evangelizing in such a context is indeed a difficult challenge, and this may be one of the reasons that many, even missionaries, have given up the direct preaching of Christ.

In the last 30 years or so, particularly in the Catholic Church, inculturation and inter-religious dialogue have been considered the major challenges of doing mission in Asia. I would add that the person of Jesus, the Christological question, is an even greater challenge in our time.

New Age challenges Christians, but they should not be discouraged by the apparent success of this movement. Early Christianity found itself in a somewhat analogous situation in the early centuries. Gnosticism, enigmatic religions, various occult cults, rituals and teachings, a number of heresies that reduced either the humanity of Jesus Christ to a farce or the divinity of Christ to an excess of consciousness, dramatically challenged Christian faith. As mentioned above, in Late Ming China, Jesuit missionaries faced similar questions.

Just as at the beginning of the Christian era, faith in Jesus Christ, as the unique event of God become human, was a scandal and foolishness, so it is in the postmodern era. Jesus' question: 'Who do you say that I am?' continues to be a fundamental challenge to human beings, even at the beginning of the third millennium.

The early Church responded by formulating daring Christological definitions and with the genuine witness of faith, as illustrated by large numbers of generous missionaries and courageous martyrs. Christ's disciples are called today to bear the same witness as were the early Christians, "to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.?Following Jesus may not result in daily exiting experiences, in alteration of consciousness. For the Christian, the mind, rather than altered, is transformed by God's grace. Christian faith is not simply a religious answer to the aspirations of the human mind. It is not (only and primarily) an answer to human needs. Human issues are not prior and above the gratuitous grace of God, who loved us and came to us on his own initiative and in a way contrary to human expectations.

Many people are open to New Age teaching because they are on a quest for meaning, fulfilment, spiritual experiences, stillness, and inner peace. There is a need to respond positively to this search, to rediscover the rich and often unknown tradition of Christian prayer, meditation, spiritual guidance and mysticism. The question of God and the experience of God should become central in the mission of the Church. Many postmodern people perceive the vastness of time and space as cold and impersonal, as if we are alone in the world and living an absurd existence. The New Age quest of spirit highlights the need for reassurance that death is not the complete extinction of life. Christians and missionaries are challenged to propose the oftenobsolete teaching of Christian hope in eternal life.

New Age has an accentuated individualistic character. To a certain extent, it is the religion of the successful, the glamorous and the rich. Its practice can cost a significant amount of money. Christians should rediscover the positive lesson of the Theology of Liberation, and adhere to the gospel of the Beatitudes and bring about a non-bourgeois approach to religion, especially in the so-called economically advanced countries. The church exists for the same mission of Jesus: the mission of evangelization of the poor.

New Age, which has won the sympathy of a lot of women, has a strong feminist outlook. Such a perspective contrasts with the Church's image of an all-male dominated society, which she projects especially in her hierarchy. In fact many sectors of the Church are still afflicted with a patriarchal mentality. The problem of the role of women in the Church cannot be reduced to a no to their ordination to the priesthood. The participation of women in the life and in the leadership of the church is too important and far from being resolved. Moreover, the preaching and the catechesis of the Church have to go beyond the traditional patriarchal and masculine image of God. The New Age feminist outlook genuinely and positively challenges the Church to move beyond the present masculine outlook and become, in all its aspects, a more gender inclusive community.

A personal, sincere witness, as Paul VI noted, is highly valued by contemporary postmodern people. Experience seems to have become the only "authoritative"authority in today's religious world. Christ's disciples and missionaries should propose a discourse on Christian faith which is rational, but which goes beyond rationality. They are called to experience fulfilment, purpose and joy through a personal relationship with Jesus. The communication and sharing of such a life inserted into the mystery of Christ would prove, by experience, that Jesus is neither substitutable nor replaceable.

88. Russell Chandler, Understanding the New Age. Word Publishing, Milton Keynes, (England), 1989, p. 19.

Addendum

1. New Age Books

New Age has its authors. The document of the Holy See (2003) mentions 13 books: William Bloom, The New Age. An Anthology of Essential Writings, London, Rider, 1991; two books by Fritjof Capra, who advocates a New Age science: The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, Berkeley, Shambhala, 1975; and The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture, Toronto (Bantam) 1983. The following authors developed the religious dimension of New Age: Benjamin Cremee, The Reappearance of Christ and the Masters of Wisdom, London, Tara Press, 1979; the very influential book by Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy. Personal and Social Transformation in Our Time, Los Angeles (Tarcher) 1980; Chris Griscom, Ecstasy is a New Frequency: Teachings of the Light Institute, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1987; Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970; five books by David Spangler: The New Age Vision, Forres, Findhorn Publications, 1980; Revelation: The Birth of a New Age, San Francisco, Rainbow Bridge, 1976; Towards a Planetary Vision, Forres, Findhorn Publications, 1977; The New Age, Issaquah, The Morningtown Press, 1988; The Rebirth of the Sacred, London, Gateway Books, 1988.

To the above list I would like to add the following: Baba Ram Dass (born Richard Alpert, a Harvard University Professor of Psychology) who has written various popular books, which in the 1970s effectively launched the New Age, as we know it now, the United States: Be Here Now, Hanuman Foundation Santa Fe, NM (1971); The Only Dance There Is, Bantam Books, Doubleday Dell, New York, NY (1973); Grist for the Mill, Unity Press, Santa Cruz, CA (1977); Journey of the Awakening, Bantam Books, New York, NY (1978); Miracle of Love, Hanuman Foundation, Santa Fe, NM (1979). Helen Schucman wrote the New Age textbook: A Course in Miracles, Foundation for Inner Peace, CA (1976). Shirley MacLaine, with her books Out of a Limb (1984, also a movie) and Dancing in the Light (1986), is one of the most visible propagators of New Age beliefs. Other New Age writers are George Leonard, Jean Houston, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Norman Shealy, Sam Keen and Timothy Leary.

Famous writers of the first half of the 20th century had anticipated themes and sensibilities dear to New Age literature: Hermann Hesse's renowned Siddhartha (1919), Narcissus and Goldmund (1930), and Journey to the East (1932). Richard Bach, who is a student of Silva Mind Control,(89) with his hugely successful Jonathan Livingstone Seagull (1970), has interpreted the myth of mental evolution. I would consider hugely successful Brazilian novelist Paulo Coelho a New Age author of some sort, who has been instrumental in giving a literary and moral dignity to some main New Age ideas.(90) Among his books are: The Pilgrimage (1987), The Alchemist (1988), The Valkyries (1992), By the River Piedra I Sat Down and Wept (1994), Veronika Decides to Die (1998), Eleven Minutes (2003).

The Salem New Age Center (salemctr.com) gives a list of the top selling New Age books. A simple reading of the titles of the books gives a good idea of New Age's focus and interests. Interestingly, most of the authors are women. The titles are: Conversations With God; Cure For All Diseases; Love Is In The Earth; Cure For All Cancers; Seven Spiritual Laws of Success; The Only Astrology Book You'll Ever Need; Animal Energies; Awakening To Zero Point; Heal Your Body; Way Of The Wizard; Infinite Mind; Hands of Light; Sacred Space; Witches Almanac; Kryon Alchemy of The Human Spirit; You Can Heal Your Life; You Are Becoming A Galactic Human; Feng Shui: A Layman's Guide; Reiki: The Healing Touch; Complete Book of Oils and Aromatherapy; Psychic Healing With Spirit Guides and Angels; Celestine Prophecy: An Experiential Guide; Into A Timeless Realm; Relax: God Is In Charge; Wicca: A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner; All Women Are Healers; Way of the Peaceful Warrior; Many Lives, Many Masters; Open Your Mind to Prosperity; Embraced By The Light; Creative Visualization; The Complete Ascension Manual.

The same website also gives lists of top selling inspirational, health and healing, UFO, Wicca and New Paganism books.

　

2. New Age Music

New Age music was born some twenty years ago. It has quickly become immensely popular. It is one of the major tools of New Age propagation in contemporary society. There is no major music shop without a section devoted to New Age music.

New Age music derives elements from electronic music, "new acoustic" instrumental music, therapeutic music, selected sacred styles, Celtic music, and various other hybrids. New Age music is generally tranquil, dreamy, soft, evocative and somewhat spiritual and mysterious, intended for ambience and mood control. It is mainly bought by 'yuppies', young, successful single people.

There are a number of recognized artists who have also produced New Age-like music, among them: Brian Eno, Enigma, Paul Winter, Peter Gabriel and Secret Garden. Celtic New Age music has been particularly successful. It was born as a distinct genre with the 1988 solo debut of Irish singer Enya. Celtic New Age music is recognizable by its ethereal and haunting sounds from traditional Irish instruments. Clannad and Loreena McKennitt are also well-known artists of this genre.

In his performances David Arkenstone provides music of galactic voyages, while Yanni projects a sort of mystical sex appeal. Flutist R. Carlos Nakai creates relaxing music rooted in Native American culture, while George Winston works on compositions that are deeply poetic. Other New Age musicians are Philip Aaberg and Adiemus.

　

3. New Age movies and TV series

New Age concepts and practices are popular with famous pop and movie stars. Top stars often mention how good and negative energies affect their lives and careers. To neutralize the negativity and relieve the stress of being a mega-fame star, they secure guru guidance, practise meditation, delve in astrology, carry crystals and other energy and good fortune objects.

New Age has expanded especially in California, where many of its centres, leaders, sympathizers and supporters are located. As a consequence it has influenced not only the electronic-media industry, but also the world of entertainment. The movie industry, especially in Hollywood, has been producing an enormous quantity of movies based on themes connected with New Age beliefs although this is not always explicitly acknowledged. Movies that touch on the theme of reality and time in New Age fashion are, among others, Matrix, Waking Life, Sliding Doors, Back To The Future, Somewhere In Time, Frequency, and Groundhog Day. Favourite movies that feature experiences of visions are: The Never-ending Story, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Splash, Mr. Peabody, The Muse, and The Mermaid. The subject of life after death such as in Sixth Sense, Ghost, Field of Dream, Meet Joe Black, and After Life is always popular. Also numerous are movies about extraterrestrial encounters and experiences: Independence Day, E.T., Close Encounters of The Third Kind, Contact, and Cocoon. The following movies play up enhanced abilities and sensibilities: Phenomenon, Stir of Echoes, Resurrection, Powder, The Shadow, Altered States and Brainstorm. Angels are the protagonists of City of Angels, Wings of Desire and Michael. Devil-related movies are produced in an increasing number.

Shirley MacLaine, probably the most famous current figure in the New Age movement, plays herself in Out of a Limb, the TV mini-series (1986) that describes her journey into New Age.

In 1994 Michael Tolkin directed a movie entitled The New Age, which describes the American New Age world somewhat critically and ironically.

New Age ideas and beliefs are ever more prominent in many TV programs, where the boundary between reality, fantasy, the fantastic, the magic and the paranormal is blurred. Among the most popular of these programs are Twin Peaks, Ally McBeal and The X Files.

In most television entertainment programmes in 'catholic' Italy, there is an astrologer who, with the seriousness of a scientist, reads horoscopes and tells fortunes. This is nothing new, certainly, but in the past astrology and magic were considered a somewhat decadent and reprehensible phenomenon, limited to a backward minority. Now it has been elevated to an all-time high dignity and popularity, involving the rich, the famous and the glamorous.

　

89. Silva Mind Control was founded in 1944 by a Mexican Catholic, who claimed to have received new revelations from Jesus. The method aimed at increasing consciousness to obtain psychological orientation in accordance with New Age thought. See Fuss, The New Age, pp. 11-12.

90. Ferdinando Castelli, L'Alchimista di Paulo Coelho cammina sui sentieri del New Age. La Civilta Cattolica, No. 1, 1997, pp. 227-238.

by Stephen Tong S.J.(董泽龙)

Introduction

Though Bultmann and Lonergan belong to two different traditions, they share the common concern and effort of trying to accommodate the Christian faith to our modern world. Faithful to his Protestant tradition, Bultmann focuses on the distinctive role of Scripture and kergyma as the word of God. The influence and impact of the word of God on Christian life has unfortunately diminished since the Enlightenment. Baptized by the modern and scientific worldview, Christians nowadays generally find many scriptural messages nonsensical since supernatural intervention in daily life, which is so vivid in the Scriptures, has no longer any role or place in our scientific mindset. Bultmann laments that this kind of stumbling block covers and even suppresses the genuine meaning of the kerygma, which has nothing to do with looking for God's direct intervention in human life. Therefore, his project is to strip off the so-called mythological elements of the Scriptures so that the inherent challenge of God's word can once again confront its hearers.

Appropriating his Catholic tradition, Lonergan is concerned with the congealed understanding of faith and theology in terms of an exclusively classicist mindset and culture. If our world is moving towards the recognition and validation of pluralist cultures and religions, doing theology can no longer remain in the ghetto thinking that the only valid way is to start with self-evident premises, followed by logical deduction and settled in foreseeable conclusions. Otherwise, theology is destined to become irrelevant. Our scientific mindset starts with data and experience. From scattered and random data to attaining truth and value, everything is under the control of method. To develop a good method is to study and discover the inner operations of the subject. That is why Lonergan focuses his study on the transcendental structures of human consciousness. He strongly believes that only when rooted in this solid self-correcting method can a theologian mediate the Christian faith to various cultures and make it sensible to them.

The following pages comprise two parts. The first part is an attempt to study and present succinctly the rationality of Bultmann' project of demythologization and Lonergan's thought on method. Though their directions and categories are very different, their horizons merge in certain area. Thus, in the second part a comparison is presented in order to facilitate an understanding of their similarities and divergences. They both agree on the prior action of God's love or God's word, and the significance of the responsibility of the subject or the hearer of the word. Their disagreement finally dwells on their basic difference in epistemology.

The Meaning and Purpose of Demythologization

1. The Horizon of Eschatology

The starting point and basic assertion of Bultmann's project of demythologization is that "Today nobody doubts that Jesus' conception of the Kingdom of God is an eschatological one,"(1) which is the heart of Jesus' preaching and message. There are two things at stake in this statement, namely, the kingdom of God and eschatology. While the former is a category of space, the latter is one of time. The kingdom of God seems to be an emphasis on the transcendent realm that is in contrast and actually in conflict with the human world, agenda and construct. In this sense, God and God's will are always the Absolute Other that is beyond human reason and grasp. Bultmann once exhorted the assembly in his homily, "Has our old picture of him fallen to pieces? If so, then we must first of all be grateful that we have lost our false conception;... New sides of his infinity constantly emerge, strange and enigmatic;... never static and at rest, but constantly ready to yield anew, to allow itself to be raised anew."(2) This conception of the kingdom of God, logically, renders any present understanding of God inadequate and surpassable. Therefore, no present should simply be an attachment to or a repetition of the past, but should always be opened to the future. This is the rationality for the other side of the same coin, namely, eschatology. Eschatology means the doctrine of the last things, implying the dimension of the future for the sake of shedding light on the present. If the Greek perceives the present as decided and emptied by the future and final destiny, Jesus and the New Testament writers see the present in the light of the final judgment of God at the end of time. If the Greek's vision implies humility and fatalistic submission, Jesus demands of human beings first and foremost responsibility toward God and repentance.(3)

Furthermore, borrowing the insight of St. John, whose Gospel shifts the cosmological eschatology to an historical eschatology, Bultmann affirms the "once-for-all" of eschatology while he denies the legitimacy of other once-for-all statements about God. There is a paradox here. The once-for-all eschatological Christ event affirms that the only genuine encounter with God happens in concrete history and time, rather than in any so-called timeless statements of truth. So, if I follow Christ, I am to let this eschatological moment, as the only timeless truth, reveal itself in me here and now through the kergyma and demand my personal response.(4)

2. The Notion of Freedom

Related to his eschatology, Bultmann situates freedom proper as the bliss after death when Christians have an untroubled relationship with God, which has been mythologically but properly described as a worshipping community that sings hymns of praise and thanksgiving. This kind of freedom, however, is different from the platonic mythological picture of dialogue in the transcendent realm, and from its conception of freedom that the spirit is finally liberated from the body and is satisfied with perceiving the truth. Christian freedom is freedom from sin and the old self, the yeast that is incompatible with the God's holiness. The difference between these two understandings is due to distinct conceptions of human nature. For Bultmann, the Greek conceives human nature as not subject to time or history, while the biblical conception of the human being is essentially temporal and historical. The former understanding directs human ideal living towards static and quiet contemplation, while the latter perceives the ideal Christian life as ongoing towards a future of the totally new. However, this newness is not visible because it is hidden with Christ in God. "It does not yet appear what we shall be." (1Jn 3:2) (5) This tension renders faith, hope and love dominant dispositions for Christians to cultivate by the grace of God.

Dialectically, this eschatological freedom has been achieved once and for all in the Christ event, which is always present in the proclaimed word, not as timeless truth, but as happening here and now. In this sense, the eschatological freedom justifies and demands the existential freedom to take up responsibility here and now. This inner logic grounds the rationality of demythologization, in line with the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. If this doctrine frees Luther from the works of law, it frees Bultmann from the sphere of knowledge and thought through the project of demythologization. Both of them aim to emancipate people from deceived and enslaving security. For Luther, it was the security of good works. For Bultmann, it was the security built on objectifying knowledge, which renders to Christians the illusion that they have got hold of God and thus become blind and deaf to God's word spoken here and now and calling for their action and response. In this sense, established security through reason renders Christians not blessed or free for God as the eschatological vision shows.(6)

3. Demythologization Proper

Bultmann understands demythologization as a hermeneutical method to discover the meaning of the Scriptures. This method dwells within a dialectical tension. Negatively, it is an abandonment of the biblical worldview that has become a stumbling block for understanding God's word for us. "To de-mythologize is to deny that the message of Scripture and of the Church is bound to an ancient world-view which is obsolete." (7) In fact, our modern world is shaped by science, to which a mythological cosmos makes no sense. A modern person does not look for transcendent intervention or miracles, as those in the biblical worldview did, to explain daily events or solve their related problems, whether they might be physical sickness, family finance or national security. If the scriptural message still sticks with non-sensible mythological expressions, its actual and important meaning as God's word to us here and now becomes elusive, if not totally inaccessible. For Bultmann, the essence of the scriptures is "kergyma, that is, a proclamation addressed not to the theoretical reason, but to the hearer as a self." (8) The perennial message of God's word is to challenge the hearer, shaped by whatever worldview, it might be, to give up personal sinfulness and security, and become a new person in Christ. This understanding of giving up is structurally correlated with Bultmann's eschatology and notion of freedom. Bultmann is fully aware that this kind of giving up and option for freedom is a stumbling block for the hearer, as Paul has already acknowledged. If this is a genuine stumbling block inherent in the kergyma, however, the mythological worldview as a stumbling block for our modern Christians is a false one. In order to render the hearers capable of focussing on and being challenged by the genuine one, the mythological worldview has to be removed by demythologization. Here, Bultmann has no intention at all of incorporating the modern worldview into the kergyma, since any worldview for Bultmann, in spite of its usefulness, is simply a human construct or reasoning that shapes and promises illusive security, and falls short of putting our total trust in God.

Positively, demythologization is equipped and engaged by the categories of existential philosophy to sharpen the exigency of the kergyma. Taking demythologization as a hermeneutic method, Bultmann is aware that interpretation is always based on principles and conceptions as its presuppositions since God's word has to be mediated through human language shaped by certain philosophical categories. But two things are at stake. First, if presuppositions cannot be removed from the beginning of interpretation, nevertheless they should not determine or foresee its outcome in advance. "An exegesis which, for example, makes the presupposition that its results must agree with some dogmatic statement is not a real and fair exegesis."(9) This statement is certainly consistent with Bultmann's suspicion towards any human construct or worldview that aims to explain everything in certain logical and foreseeable ways. Second, which are the adequate presuppositions? This question is related to that of the philosophy one should adopt. Certainly, this adoption is not arbitrary, but should contribute to the understanding of the kergyma, which demands an existential response to God's word in freedom from sin and freedom for love. In this sense, Bultmann sees the value of existential philosophy whose categories are not supposed to replace God's word, but can enhance the sensibility and exigency of the hearer towards it. This kind of dynamic is similar to that by which understanding a musical text presupposes one's being musical, or understanding a book on mathematics presupposes one's ability to think mathematically. Unless a person intends to live an authentic life, the essence of God's word does not make sense to him or her. When we Christians encounters a scriptural text, our main interest or purpose is not so much to receive historical or political information as to let it say something to our actual present existence so that we can hear the truth about our life and our soul. Existential philosophy exactly demands the truthfulness of existence too. Its own logic forbids itself to tell anyone how to exist, but affirms that one must exist. While its categories give no answer to the question of our personal existence, they sharpen our awareness of the need to take up personal responsibility and make us open to the word of God. In this sense, Bultmann rejects the criticism that demythologization turns Christian faith into philosophy. An existential analysis of love does not lead a person to understand how he must love here and now, apart from making clear to him the timeless truth that only by loving can one understand love. The response and power to love in a concrete here and now finally depends on the encounter with God's word. Bultmann delineates sharply the difference between faith and theology. While faith is entirely an existential event, theology is a disciplined interpretation of faith, utilizing existentialist categories as tools of thought. It is not too reckless to say that theology is simply a handmaid of faith.

Furthermore, Bultmann's existential concern does not allow any possibility of valid investigation of God's self "because we cannot speak of what God is in Himself but only of what He is doing to us and with us."(10) However, he tries to dispel the fear and accusation of being entirely subjective in demythologization. No doubt, demythologization partly depends on personal experience, perception, and decision, but its objective basis is God's word in the Scriptures. A person cannot discover his human-God relationship by looking into himself; it can only be made real by his encounter with the demythologized word of God.(11)

4. The Understanding of God As Acting

Demythologization is to affirm that God is acting in the world. However, this action does not happen among worldly actions or events; it rather happens within them. The recognition of this reality can only appeal to the eyes of faith, not to the evidence of any causal relationship between events.

Bultmann makes it clear that demythologization does not exempt one from using symbolic language or images, since he acknowledges that "Mythological conceptions can be used as symbols or images which are perhaps necessary to the language of religion and therefore also of the Christian faith."(12) However, he denies the valid use of these symbols and images in a general sense. For example, images such as God as creator or God as acting do not refer to any event without myself being involved in this event. The analogical use of the symbolic language must correlate with a personal or an existential reference. "When we speak in this manner of God as acting, we conceive [of] God's action as an analogue to the actions taking place between men...It is in this analogical sense that we speak of God's love and care for men...and it is in this analogical sense that we call Him Father."(13) Here, Bultmann denies the legitimacy of affirming God as the creator of the world or Jesus as the saviour of the world, apart from my relationship with God as creature and with Jesus as my saviour. The strength of faith is to accept that the former statements in general cannot be proved so that faith transcends the causal relationship that can be proved in this world and thus stands in a privileged position with regard to theoretical reason, without succumbing to the latter's logic and demand.



1. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), 13.

2. Rudolf Bultmann, Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, tr. by Schubert Ogden (New York: Meridan, 1960). This passage is Used by Roger A. Roman, Rudolf Bultmann: Interpreting Faith for the Modern Era (London: Collins, 1987), 48.

3. Jesus Christ and Mythology, 26.

4. Cf. Ibid, 81-82.

5. Cf. ibid, 28-31.

6. Cf. ibid, 82-84.

7. Ibid, 36.

8. Ibid, 36.

9. Ibid, 49.

10. Ibid, 73.

11. Cf. ibid 49-59.

12. Ibid, 67.

13.Ibid, 68-69.

A Presentation of Lonergan's Method Related to Interpretation

1. Cognitive Theory

Lonergan's theology is a theology of the subject. The study of the subject's operation towards truth and value is Lonergan's lifelong project. He sees that an existential subject is a subject by degrees. It discerns different levels of consciousness. In a dreaming state, we are only potential subjects without freedom to think or act. However, we become experiential subjects able to perceive and feel about the sensible world when we are awake. When we follow our desire for intelligibility and go on to inquire about our experience, to understand its possible meanings and implications, we arise to be an intelligent subject. Then the rational subject sublates the experiential and rational when it desires to check if its understanding is correct, marshals the evidence pro and con and finally judges it to be or not to be. Finally, the responsible consciousness sublates the rational one when the former follows the intention of the good, the question of value to deliberate, decide and act on what is truly worthwhile. Therefore, there are four operations in our consciousness, which Lonergan subsumes in four transcendental precepts, namely, be attentive in experience, be intelligent in understanding, be reasonable in judging and be responsible in deliberation.(14) "Transcendental" has two meanings here. First, obedience to the four transcendental precepts is not an automatic process but one that is achieved by the subject's engaging in the process of self-transcendence. Second, every genuine knowing and acting, without exception, has to go through these operations in our consciousness. The self-appropriation of these transcendental precepts is what Lonergan means by method, whereby one approaches truth and value.

In his cognitive theory Lonergan affirms first that knowing is a compound of many operations, not a single uniform property. Objectivity in experiencing the immediate world is attained by sensing and intuition, yet it is not the only level of knowing. In the mediated world of meaning, objectivity is approached by questioning, which governs the exigencies of human intelligence to investigate and understand, and of human reasonableness to judge the virtually unconditioned. What is grasped in understanding or judging is not some further datum added on to the data of sense. In fact, it is unlike all data but consists in an intelligible or reasonable unity. Second, apart from being a thinker, the subject is also a doer who deliberates, chooses and acts as a free and responsible agent for making of the self. If knowing is for the sake of being, acting is for the sake of value. Value here not only refers to a particular good but also to ordering goods for the sake of the truly good. Being and value are both transcendental notions, i.e., their entirety is beyond the reach of the subject, yet always present in its activity of knowing and acting. They guide the person towards their greater fullness. Just as we can only have limited knowledge of being by knowing this and that and other beings, the actualization of value can only be found in this or that act of a good person.(15) Therefore, what is finally at stake is the subject who, by the effect of self-transcendence, attains objectivity in knowing and becomes the principle of goodness in decision and action.

Cognitive theory affirms that human knowing is a dynamic structure. Instead of just being a single part -- sensing, or understanding, or judging -- knowing consists of their combination as a dynamic structure, an immanent moving from one part to another for the whole. Moreover, these parts function differently, so they cannot be understood in an analogous sense. If knowing is like this, so knowing what knowing is follows the same structure. First, it is the experience of one's experience, understanding and judgment on our different levels of consciousness whenever we perform them. Second, through insight comes understanding the experience of these levels as an inevitable elevator if we want to know. Finally, by exigency comes judgment asking whether this understanding of human knowing is true. In order to doubt or reject this understanding, however, the knower has to go through the foregoing process of cognitive structure again, i.e., the denial is self-referentially inconsistent. So the judgment has to be true.

Lonergan succeeds in affirming the irrevocable structure of human knowing. This irrevocable structure of human knowing is important because, first, objectivity is thus granted on three different levels, namely experiential, normative and absolute, corresponding to the three components in the cognitive structure. Second, it refutes the mistaken notion of knowing as seeing, which cannot help but lead to naive realism or idealism. The former affirms reality by generalizing the simple experience of seeing, a naive affirmation often without genuine understanding, while the latter denies knowing reality at all. Third, it provides a critical analysis to situate our knowing on the level of being, namely, reality again, so that the Kantian wound between phenomenon and noumenon is healed. Fourth, it provides the basis for taking human knowing as a continuous and progressive enterprise, overcoming the classic or static approach. Finally, it provides also the justification for functional specialties in a complementary and dynamic whole for method in theology.

2. The Realms of Meaning and Differentiation of Consciousness

If cognitive theory discusses the operation of the human mind and heart, then realms of meaning represent how our mind and heart structure reality. Transcending the animals' life that is merely submerged into the world of immediacy, the human world is basically mediated by meaning. Meaning orients individuals, organizes groups and communities, and forms cultures. Corresponding to his differentiation of human consciousness, Lonergan names the realms of meaning as common sense, theory, interiority and transcendence, and to these four he later adds scholarship and art. This differentiation is another dimension of his anthropology, in addition to cognitive theory.

Common sense deals with persons and things that are related to us. It represents the visible universe that we encounter. By transcendental precepts we reach insight, judgment and decision to meet the exigency of the situation in an appropriate way. Theory, bracketing the usefulness and practicality of things to us, provides the systematic and explanatory view of things in their mutual relationships. Theory develops terms, definitions, formulas, and constructs models with special kinds of technical language, laws and universal principles. Interiority emerges by adverting to and heightening our conscious operations and the dynamic structure that relates them to one another. That is how the transcendental precepts are discovered. Transcendence absorbs the compartmentalized world of meaning into a silent and all-embracing self-surrender to God's love. Scholarship is the realm of language, exegesis, literature and history. By using the subject's common sense language, it aims at understanding the meanings of the words and deeds of other people in different places or times. Its interest is not in a universal explanation, but in the intentions inherent in particular events. Finally, art is the realm of beauty in expressing ideas into objects or movements by commanding form???.(16)

Culture is informed by meaning. Different realms of meaning represent the variety and fecundity of cultures. This analysis is a phenomenological rebuttal of the classic and single notion of culture. If theology is to fulfil its task of mediating between the matrix of cultures and the role of religion within that matrix, the theologian is required to be capable of dexterously shifting from one realm of meaning to another in his studying or communicating the religious message for different readers or audiences. But what is the condition of the possibility of accomplishing this task? It lies in going back to the transcendental precepts, namely being attentive, intelligent, reasonable and responsible.

3. The Notion of Conversion

Conversion is the about-face of one's horizon by renouncing the core characteristics in the old one, leading the subject into a greater depth and breadth in truth and value. There is a hermeneutic circle between transcendental precepts and conversion. It is by the grace and event of conversion that the subject becomes self-transcendent in attentiveness to experience, in the intelligence to reach insight and understanding, in the reasonableness to seek out the virtually unconditioned, and in the responsibility to make a decision. On the other hand, it is the cumulative operations of the transcendental precepts which engender the possibility of conversion.

There are three kinds of conversion, namely, religious, moral, and intellectual conversion. Religious conversion represents a person totally falling in love with God, a recognition or initiation of ultimate concern in one's life. It is a recognition or initiation because any intentionality flows from the eros of the human spirit. As Aristotle says, everyone desires to know. Also, Augustine sighs deeply that his heart is restless unless it rests in God. This eros rooted in us initiates and is prior to all human enterprises, knowing and acting, but we may perhaps not recognize it. We search for the intelligibility of the cosmos but are oblivious to its intelligible ground. In fact, any question about human beings is finally a question about God. When this love is recognized, it signifies a surrender and faith without limits or qualifications, without conditions or reservations. This love is not simply an act but rather a state of self-surrender, from which other acts flow. It gives us a new horizon that transvalues and transforms because it surpasses the old one where originating value is only human beings and terminal value is the good that human beings bring about. Now, the originating value is the divine light and love, while the terminal value is the whole universe. As a result, human concern reaches beyond the human world to God and God's world; and human development is not only in skills and virtues but also in holiness.(17)

On the one hand, this self-transcendence into God's domain represents reaching the utmost outpost. On the other hand, human self-transcendence is ever precarious. In our dialectical advancement we tend to lose balance and downgrade the reality of God. For example, we may overemphasize God's transcendence but neglect God's immanence so that God becomes remote and irrelevant. On the contrary, God's immanence may be so overemphasized and transcendence neglected that the religious symbol becomes idol, ritual becomes magic, and recital a myth, etc. Meanwhile, in religious conversion faith has to discern the value of believing the word of religion, of accepting the judgments of fact and the judgments of value that the religion proposes, because faith is not an isolated or individual affair but has roots in a religious community. This community inherits the tradition initiated by the divine entry of God into human history and calls for a response. This call is expressed in various forms, including imperative ones, such as the command of love of God and neighbour. It might be expressed in narrative, such as the story of the community's origin and development; or in the ascetical, such as the teaching of spirituality; or in theory, such as the teaching of wisdom, the goodness of God and the manifestation of God's intentions. The genuineness of all these expressions has to be under scrutiny.(18) While this kind of discernment in faith constitutes the whole of theology, it should simultaneously enhance the possibility of self-transcendence for the sake of deeper conversion, avoid pitfalls or downgrade God's reality. Here comes a point of methodology, of the "how" which keeps our balance in check.

Moral conversion involves the change of the criteria of one's decision and choices from mere satisfaction to values, opting for the truly good, to a point even against satisfaction if it conflicts with the value to be upheld. It is a time for one to exercise vertical freedom and to set up, or radically change, one's basic horizon. The drive to value rewards success in self-transcendence with a happy conscience and saddens failures with an unhappy one. Here, moral conversion presupposes the judgments of value that differ in content but not in structure from judgment of fact. They differ in content because what is judged to be real need not be approved. However, they share the same criterion, namely, the self-transcendence of the subject to reach what is independent of the subject. In fact, judgments of value are felt to be true or false in so far as they generate a peaceful or uneasy conscience. Of course, the purpose of judgments of value is not merely knowing but also doing. Sin lies in the very dichotomy between knowing and doing, i.e. one does not follow what one affirms to be truly good. Moral conversion implies a decision and choice to make knowing and doing congruent and consistent. Furthermore, judgments of value should occur in a context of growth, i.e., one advances the judgments from agreeable to vital, from vital to social, from social to cultural, from cultural to personal, and from personal to religious value, to being in love with God. In this sense, moral conversion aims unceasingly at following this Ordo Amoris to higher values, until one's love of God is complete. At this point values are whatever one loves, and evils are whatever one hates. At this stage one becomes a self-transcendent person or, in an Aristotelian sense, a virtuous one who represents the incarnated principle of benevolence and true loving. However, as mentioned above, conversion is not an automatically ever-advancing process. Deviation from the order and relapse often occur because of neurotic needs and attachments. Therefore, a normative pattern of recurrent and related operations is revealed to check our deviation.(19)

Intellectual conversion is "a radical clarification and, consequently, the elimination of an exceedingly stubborn and misleading myth concerning reality, objectivity, and human knowledge."(20) Lonergan illustrates the dialectic opposition between naive realism, empiricism, idealism and critical realism as an example of intellectual conversion. He contends strongly that it is necessary to distinguish the world of immediacy, which is reached by our senses, and the world mediated by meaning, which is reached by our consciousness or insight. Knowing the latter is not some kind of inner looking or sensing, as the naive realists believe, as if there were some inner images that we could see or touch. In fact, knowing is achieved by a structure of operations, namely experiencing, understanding, judging and deciding. The reality known is not just looked at; it is given in experience, organized and explained by understanding, posited by judgment and belief. Therefore, knowledge is not restricted to sense experience, as it is by the empiricist, who takes understanding, judging and believing as merely subjective activities, Nor is it as envisaged by the idealist who, includes understanding and sensing as knowing, yet thinks of the world mediated by meaning as not real but ideal. Only the critical realist acknowledges the facts of human knowing and insists that the world mediated by meaning is the real world. This demonstration sets up a paradigm to engender intellectual conversion and rebut intellectual myth. Objectivity in the world of meaning has its appeal to us. It is not reached just by our sensing or by a mental construct, but by a self-transcendent subject who is willing to go through the transcendental structure of operations inherent in our consciousness.

These three conversions occur in a single consciousness and one sublates the other. Sublation means that what sublates goes beyond what is sublated, bringing something new and distinct on a new basis, yet keeping the sublated intact, preserving all its characteristics and carrying them to a fuller realization within a richer context. In this sense, moral conversion sublates the intellectual because it sets the subject on a new, existential level of consciousness and establishes the person as an originating value. At the same time, it does anything but weaken the subject's devotion to truth. In fact, it needs the truth in accord with the exigency of the rational consciousness before the subject can deliberately respond to value. On the other hand, the search for truth now has a richer context and stimulation for the pursuit of all values.

Similarly, religious conversion sublates moral conversion because the subject finds its capacity and desire for self transcendence in fulfilment and joy in this other-worldly love, which provides a new basis for all values and doing good. The originating value goes beyond the human being and takes root in God, the ground of all intelligibility and commitment. This new basis in no way negates or diminishes the fruits attained by moral or intellectual conversion. On the contrary, now all human pursuit of truth and good is placed within a cosmic context and purpose, and this love even grants to the subject the power of accepting the inevitable suffering required to undo the effects of decline due to human inauthenticity towards truth and goodness.(21)

From a causal point of view, however, it is religious conversion, God's gift of divine love, which appears first so that the taste of this love reveals values in their splendour to the subject. The subject, in returning love out of a deep sense of gratitude, is then determined to give up the wrong doings and mere satisfaction of the old horizon, in order to do the genuine good and follow all the commandments which are rooted in this totally Other. Next, this deliberation, or moral conversion, leads the subject to discern the truths taught by the religious tradition, and in such a tradition and belief lie the seeds of intellectual conversion.(22)



14. Cf. Bernard Lonergan, "The Subject", A Second Collection: Papers by Bernard J.F. Lonergan, S.J., ed. By William F. J. Ryan, S.J. and Bernard J. Tyrell, S.J. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974), 79-81.

15. According to Aristotle, "Virtue...is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which a man of practical wisdom would determine it." (Nicomachean Ethics, II, vi, 15; 1106b 36ff) There is, therefore, no definition of virtue without its embodiment in a virtuous person. This whole thrust leads Lonergan to situate personal conversion as the foundation of doing theology.

16. Cf. Bernard Lonergan, Method In Theology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971), 83-84, 273-274

17. Cf. Ibid, 116, 240.

18. Cf. Ibid, 110-111, 118. This attention originates from and corresponds to Ignatius' caution on the afterglow of consolation. The origin from God might not be doubted, but the thinking and acting after it should be checked by the transcendental precepts.

19. Cf. Ibid, 35-39, 240.

20. Cf. Ibid, 238.

21. Cf. Ibid, 242.

22. Cf. Ibid, 243.

A Comparison of Demythologization and Method

The thrust of demythologization dwells on the exigency of being responsible to the challenge of God's word here and now by freeing oneself from attachment to the achieved yet illusive security in certain established worldviews, in the light of the eschatological judgment of God. This kind of operation seems to fit into the fourth level of consciousness in Lonergan's framework, where the subject experiences the love of God flooding his heart by the Holy Spirit and then taking this love as the originating value to decide and be responsible towards one's life. It is a dynamic from religious conversion heading towards moral conversion for higher values and the truly good. Lonergan would agree that this operation does not rely on the attained knowledge in one's worldview. Though the dictum goes that there is no love without prior knowing, Lonergan argues that in religious matters love precedes knowledge and the very beginning of faith is due to God's grace. This love is the cause that leads human beings to seek knowledge of God.(23) Bultmann has a similar understanding: "Man has a knowledge of God in advance, though not of the revelation of God, that is, of His action in Christ. He has a relation to God in his search for God, conscious or unconscious ... The question of God and the question of myself are identical."(24) In line with Pascal's famous insight, the heart has its reasons that reason itself does not understand, Lonergan sees that the heart's reasons are the discernment of, and intentional responses to, values as knowledge attained by faith, distinctive from the factual knowledge achieved by experiencing, understanding, and judging.

If this is granted, Bultmann is certainly right that whatever the outdated mythological knowledge or the prevailing scientific knowledge may be, it has little or even nothing to do with one's encounter with God in faith. Concerning the conditions of the possibility of one's conversion towards higher values or responsible action for God, Lonergan emphasizes the prior love of God, while Bultmann focuses on the power of God's word, its eschatological vision and its inherent judgment. Lonergan seems not to confine the flooding of God's love in our heart to reading the Scriptures or listening to the kergyma only, though they are certainly its privileged mediation. The Holy Spirit, however, is free to grant a similar consolation without previous cause. "Of itself, then, in as much as it is conscious without being known, the gift of God's love is an experience of the holy, of Rudolf Otto's myterium fascinans et tremendum. It is what Paul Tillich named a being grasped by ultimate concern. It corresponds to St. Ignatius Loyola's consolation that has no cause, as expounded by Karl Rahner."(25)

About the problem of myth, Lonergan distinguishes the different functions of meaning, namely, cognitive, efficient, constitutive, and communicative.(26) Lacking distinctions, primitive consciousness blends cognitive meaning insensibly with the constitutive, and the result is myth. The distinction between mere words, the meaning of the words, and the realities meant by the words is a later achievement of the mind. Demythologization seems to represent an effort to recover the cognitive meaning by discarding the constitutive one. The constitutive vision of the end of the world at hand must give way to the eschatological exigency of the present. But the question is: is the eschatological exigency the only cognitive meaning in the Scriptures? Lonergan seems to prefer the polymorphism of human consciousness that can raise different sets of questions towards various actual cognitive meanings. Let us take an example: God is vengeful. In a not-yet differentiated consciousness towards some deep religious experience, a primitive mind stuck in naive realism would definitely perceive God as somebody-already-out-there who does not tolerate injustice and evil deeds. Bultmann would definitely see this proposition as myth and would likely discard the constitutive meaning of an angry God and emphasize the myth's cognitive meaning of a call to abandon sinfulness here and now as our responsibility before God. However, a psychiatrist seems to see something more:

In fact, clinical evidence suggests that atrophy of the religious sense in man results in a distortion of his religious concepts. Or, to put it in a less clinical vein, once the angel in us is repressed, he turns into a demon... for time and again we watch and witness how repressed religion degenerates into superstition. In our century, a deified reason and a megalomanic technology are the repressive structures to which the religious feeling is sacrificed...Soon the only thing that would be left of all his science would be the atom bombs he possessed.

.... In concluding this chapter we might venture to say that God is a 'vengeful God' indeed, for neurotic existence in some cases seem to be the toll that a crippled relation to transcendence takes on man.(27)

From this passage, we can almost see the ontological import of 'God is vengeful' that reacts to the suppressed transcendent dimension that the human being is supposed to be.

As a whole, Bultmann's horizon does not allow the legitimacy of making propositional statements about God or belief. This has much to do with the problem of objectifying conceptuality. Rooted in Neo-Kantianism, Bultmann understands the word 'objectify' as designating the object-making activity of reason. When he uses it, it does not refer to thinking that is oriented towards what is genuinely objective, but to a mental construct that provides a model for external reality. In this sense, Bultmann's thinking is in line with the Kantian distinction of phenomenon and noumenon. What we can know is only the phenomenon, constituted or structured by human reason and categories. The reality remains unknown. In light of this, theology should not pretend to know God or use the objectifying mode of thought. God is not our mental construct, but the 'wholly other' than us. "To speak of God in concepts appropriate to a mere construct of Reason is to make God into an idol."(28)

Therefore, it is Bultmann's epistemology that prevents him from making any general statements about God or belief. This paper cannot make a detailed study, discussion, and critique of the Kantian problematic, but a few points can be made to shed light to the contrast between Bultmann and Lonergan. First, Lonergan does not see knowledge as simply immanent to the subject or as the construct of reason by the subject, though it is attained through the subject's reason. In fact, genuine knowing is a self-transcendent process. In experiencing, the sense data is given to the self that is different from illusion. The subject needs to be attentive. In understanding, the mind raises questions that might be different from the established answers and then forms certain ideas or insights. The subject is to be intelligent. In judging, evidence needs to be marshalled so that the conditions can be fulfilled. The subject is to be reasonable. In this sense, objectivity is reached by authentic subjectivity that goes through the transcendental precepts. Second, there might be a certain confusion about what judgment is. It seems that we need to know all the conditions about the world or God, before we can make a judgment about either. Since it is impossible to know all the inter-related conditions, we cannot then make a judgment. But Lonergan distinguishes two kinds of questions. There are questions for intelligence which ask what, why and how. There are questions for reflection, which ask whether the former answers are correct. The limited commitment of judgment to answer 'is it so?' is different from the ongoing understanding of comprehensive coherence. The latter is the ideal of human intelligence. Judgment is to the effect that no matter what the later understanding of the universe might be, at least this is so. Is God vengeful? If the meaning is about an angry God already out there to punish our wrongdoings, the conditions are not fulfilled. If it means that the violation of our transcendent constitution finally makes us suffer, the judgment is right.

Third, the distinctive fourth level of consciousness in terms of decision and value is not isolated from or in conflict with the other three levels in terms of knowledge. In fact, as Aristotle says, "everyone desires to know." Part of the intentionality of feeling towards values is exactly knowledge itself. Lonergan understands their relationship as sublation. The higher levels of consciousness sublate the lower. In this sense, knowing God has no inherent or a priori conflict with commitment to and responsibility to God. Lonergan surely acknowledges Bultmann's concern about the danger of knowledge as becoming one's attachment to security. The problem is also similar to what the hermeneutic of suspicion uncovers, the so-called orthodoxy as the mask of ideology for self- interest. Lonergan describes it in vivid metaphors:

Such devaluation, distortion, corruption may occur only in scattered individuals. But it may occur on a more massive scale, and then the words are repeated, but the meaning is gone. The chair was still the chair of Moses, but it was occupied by the scribes and Pharisees. The theology was still scholastic, but the scholasticism was decadent. The religious order still read out the rules, but one wonders whether the home fires were still burning...(29)

Lonergan sees the problem as the loss of common meaning due to personal and collective inattention, or failure to understand, or undetected rationalization. The attachment to security or self-interest is as great as the problem of inauthentic knowing. In this sense, conversion is to be threefold, not simply religious, moral, or intellectual, but all three are necessary.

Finally, an existential exigency in terms of decision and responsibility alone is incomplete and often neglects the objective hierarchy of values and the place where the truth lies. Existential commitment can be without a moral face. The incident of Heidegger's life-long and controversial connection with Nazism shows the limitation of his existential philosophy. Certainly, this limitation was already there in his description of Dasein. But the right description does not justify his wrongly actualized philosophical commitment. Applying the existential categories to theology, we still need to be attentive, intelligent, and reasonable to do moral and intellectual discernment for understanding God's will here and now for me as well as for others.



23. Cf. Ibid, 123, 283.

24. Jesus Christ and Mythology, 52-53.

25. Method, 106.

26. Cf. Ibid, 76-81 see their elaboration.

27. Victor E. Frankl, Man's Search For Ultimate Meaning (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing, 1975), 75-76.

28. R.A. Johnson, Rudolf Bultmann, 25.

29. Method, 80.

Conclusion

The contribution of Bultmann's demythologization is to recover and emphasize the cognitive meaning of eschatology and the kingdom of God as the entry point of interpreting the kergyma, transcending the stumbling block of mythological language. It confronts Christian authenticity to have faith in God though living in a mundane world that is short of any horizon of the transcendent. In fact, this reality of secularization is actually the best accommodation for sharpening and fostering the genuineness of faith. For Bultmann, any human construct seemingly facilitating the justification and persuasiveness of faith exactly contradicts the essence of faith. A person of faith has no other support or reliance than God, not even his own intelligence or reason. What dignity of faith and what a noble mission we Christians are called to! We cannot but admire Bultmann's conviction of God's presence in the world without seeing God's trajectory. His scholarly work has no doubt encouraged many to reach up to the splendour of faith.

On the other hand, we acknowledge, from Lonergan's point of view, the limitation of Bultmann's perspective of the Scriptures that focuses only on the cognitive meanings of eschatology and the kingdom of God. The polymorphism of human consciousness and the momentum of human eros, in fact, not only envisage the exigency of human freedom and responsibility here and now, but also raise questions about understanding different dimensions of reality, whether they are social, political, historical, psychological, etc., and marshals evidence in order to make judgments on them. Lonergan sees no conflict between these operations as Bultmann does. Many differences between the two figures can be boiled down to their basic epistemological stands. While Bultmann sees the objectifying process of reason simply as a human mental construct, which falls short of reaching reality as such, Lonergan believes that the transcendental precepts lead the subject to attain truth and value in an ongoing process.

Finally, both Bultmann and Lonergan remind us of possible pitfalls. If in philosophical terms Heidegger understands this pitfall as our forgetfulness of Being, in theological categories Bultmann sees our problem as hanging on to good works in terms of technological and rational achievements, losing sight of forfeiting the established security and instead placing total trust in God here and now. In a similar way, Lonergan understands our progress and authenticity as always precarious due to our refusal to engage with the transcendental precepts. Consequently, truth is ignored and lower values prevail. From different perspectives and using different categories, both of them see the same significance of the authenticity of the subject that can no longer simply be attached to the past. There is no "second hand" faith. Each one has to actualize his or her self-appropriation of faith before God and for God by being attentive, being intelligent, being reasonable, and finally being responsible.

Bibliography

1. Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958.

2. New Testament And Mythology and Other Basic Writings. Edited and translated by Schubert M. Ogden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

3. Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann. Translated by Schubert Ogden. New York: Meridan, 1960.

4. Johnson, Roger A. Rudolf Bultmann: Interpreting Faith for the Modern Era. London: Collins Liturgical Publications, 1987.

5. The Origins of Demythologizing: Philosophy And Historiography In The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974.

6. Lonergan, Bernard. Collected Works Of Bernard Lonergan, Vol. 3: The Insight. Edited by Frederick E. Crowe & Robert M. Doran. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992.

7. Method In Theology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996

8. "The Subject", A Second Collection: Papers by Bernard J.F. Lonergan, S.J. Edited by William F. J. Ryan, S.J. and Bernard J. Tyrell, S.J. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974.

作者：周景勋

1. 前言

庄子在秋水篇中提出「道无终始，物有死生」的思想，实在说明了「道」的超越性，与万物有死生的极限形成了一个无极限的对比。就是「道」的无极限之超越观念，为人刻划了一个突破生死的美丽图像，亦是一个充满希望的终极关怀；因为在「道」的世界中，万物是没有贫富贵贱之分别；藉此，庄子要启导人不断闻学与学道，无执于现世的经验，步步超越，好能迈向「道」，与「道」通融为一。如此，人才能不为物质所劳役：「物物而不物于物」（庄子山木篇），使心境清明净彻，如圣人之用心若镜，能与道相照。

再者，庄子从「物有死生」中经验到自己生命的有限性，形成了生命的压力和束缚，使人感到害怕，故庄子为突破生命的种种压力和束缚，提出了「顺任自然无容私」和「安之若命」的要求，也提出不同的体验，如：「忘」物我生死、「物化」、「无为」、「守宗」和「保始」等，使人能心静无情与欲，虚而离形入于寥天一（庄子大宗师篇）的生命超越。庄子这种生命体验实在是一种「终极关怀」的生命感悟与整合；在感悟与整合中，人可体验到有限生命的始点和终极都是超越一己自我的「道」的存在。「道」在庄子的意念上是一个生命终极追寻的象征性的语言，在「道」内超越万物的现象，亦内在于万物中；庄子藉此表达了自己心底所追索的「基要之关怀」－－生命终极的投向，这种超越生命的投向正显示出一份信仰力量2；也明显地展示了一种「宗教意识」3－－「它透过象征性的语言将超越生命的体验放在人的关怀中，象征着最基要的关怀；然而，在老庄的体道悟道的经验中，『道』本身不是象征，『道』是有其实存性、超越性和整体性的向度（层面）。若从宗教的观点来描述，这三个向度正是信仰的基础象征，以说明『道』是唯一的、内存在万物中的。其实，象征性的语言有一种特色，即以『记号』、『文字』与其『所记』的内容有着内在关系；所以，象征性语言本身是从生命感觉上的事物抽象而成的；加上心灵体验的追索（与认同），作出生命的回应，产生了一个具体的『信息』，以唤醒人的心志，使之觉悟到：在生命的终极追寻中，有着一个具体实存的对象。因此，象征性语言的信息能给人带来生命的希望和目标。」4
我们从老子的思想中可看到信息的希望，也确实地了解信息的目标就是「道」：

道者万物之奥，善人之宝，不善人之所保。（《道德经》62章）

庄子则将「道」视作万物之本根所由，万物不能离道而生，其信息具有一份警愓性的教导，「道」便成为人生命修养的目标、生命探本溯源的对象，也是精神心灵的终极：

道者，万物之所由也；庶物失之者死，得之者生。（渔父篇）

我们从庄子「道无终始、物有死生」的理念，引发出人在生命追索的背后，所带来的生命突破，寄意着人在不同时代的变化中，人要在静思中摸索，虽然漫游于黑暗中，却有着一份与「道」相应的信心，肯定自己在黑暗中也可见到一丝的光明，因为在人的生命中没有绝对的黑暗，只要有一丝的光明，人就有希望而不会绝望。庄子在《齐物论》篇中所提的「大梦」与「大觉」中给人的信息：人生如梦，变化多端；生死忧乐都是梦，人必须在「大觉」中醒悟过来，才知道人的一生是一场大梦；然而，人常常误梦为觉，即常常在自我执着中，一心在分别贵贱，贪慕虚荣的梦中打滚，还自以为自己是「觉醒」的；其实，唯有那些识大化、破生死、泯是非的圣人才能忘掉一切而有「大觉」；然后，归于朴、归于真，即把握生命之「大归」，以归于「道」。人若能辨认「梦、觉、归」，便能达到「以明」，5 游心于道地自明葆光，且善照万方。

1. 本文曾于二零零零年六月刊登在《鼎》（Tripod）的117期，因编者将题目改为「从『道』谈宗教信仰世纪跳跃」，且内容有所删减，故经作者重新修编再刊登。
  2. 田立克、保罗著（罗鹤年译），「第三章　信仰的象征」，《信仰的能力》，台南，东南亚神学院协会出版 1964 初版 34页。
田立克说：「把观念超升到象征是信仰之最基要性的特点，也是信仰的本质。」

  3.  项退结著，「中国宗教意识的若干型态」，《中国人的路》，台北，东大图书公司　1988　146-148页。

  4.  周景勋著，「『归根复命』与『顺生安命』的超越生命－－老庄思想的宗教观」，《哲学与文化》月刊242，第廿一卷第七期，台北　民83年7月出版　621-622页。
  5.  庄子齐物论篇中言：「是故滑疑之耀，圣人之所图也。为是不用而寓诸庸；此之谓以明。」

2. 宗教信仰与文化意识

2.1 从庄子「道无终始，物有死生」的引申

在前言中，我们探讨了庄子为突破生命之有限，投向「道」的生命超越之宗教意识－－以明体道之自明葆光。然而，人的生命是不断地向「文化」开放的；人的心可以变成「历史的心」；故，我们将庄子的宗教理念投诸于人的文化思域作反省，以落实在「人、社会、自然」的人文理念中，即我们从历史经验中肯定：「变是危机，也是创新与成长；变是转化，也是创生的力量。」6 然而，在变化中，宗教的普遍要求就是要常常保持宗教本身的神圣性，不被世俗的理念所污染；所以，人在宗教信仰的氛围下，当有生命的觉悟和自觉的回应；人在回应中凭藉一个寻真的信念，对自我生命有更高理想的认识、肯定和追求，以充实自己的精神生命，培养自己的生活品格。

于是，在飞越历史与文化的时代性时刻，我们抱着同一的人文理念作反省！

有一件事实是我终身深信无疑的，那就是：「如果这个世界没有人的存在，这个世界一定会有所改观，而我也不会存在，世界为我而言也不存在。如果宇宙间没有人的生命，便没有人的文化和宗教信仰。……」
既然在宇宙间有「人」的存在，有「人」的生命，于是便有文化，也有宗教信仰。7其实，所谓「文化」乃「人」的生活，即人的「生命」活动的表现，故其包含了「人」的生命中所具有或拥有的，如语言、宗教信仰、艺术、哲学、政治、科学、经济等等。整体地说，就是人生命的思想、精神、及物质的生活表现。由思想表达出来的是「哲学」－－在于「培养智慧、发现真理、印证价值」，藉此帮助人：「以理性探讨宇宙与人生的根本真相，从而指引现实生活，评估文化生态」；8 且助人在「自然、社会、人」的不同层面中寻求「真、善、美」；于其中，唤醒人的意识，使人与人之间有思维上的交流。故哲学可称为「思想的文化」。

由精神表达的是「心灵的创造」；心灵的创造使人意识到超越生命的一面，以发挥心灵信仰的理念，这信仰理念源于人的宗教意识，也是透过人内心的反省，经验到在自我的有限和软弱的背后，有着一股无限力量的存在，使人对这无限力量充满希望，愿意不惜牺牲一切地投入这无限的终极关怀中。在投入终极关怀的途径上，人要将关怀化作生活的动力：「爱的启发」，将「爱」化作善行以表现信仰的落实。于是，在人的生命中有「信仰的宗教文化」。9

由物质所表达的是人生命的活动成果，这也是人的文明演变，如科学的产物，思想的产物，社会的建设等。其实，科学与哲学与社会的思维是息息相关的。因为科学的开始是人类对自然界的物理现象的好奇与困惑，作进一步「客观的探讨」，以了解自然事件的法则与其因果关系。10所以，科学强调以经验事实作为准绳，以实验为根据，再以理性的理论判准为依归，探求出事物真相的统一性为目标；可见，科学的目标不单在解释自然与世界的种种事实，也要在思维的统一中改造自然、世界与社会。由是，生命在「自然、社会（世界）、人」的层面上必须互相欣赏与包容，交谈与分享，学习与共融，才能处于和谐之境。特别是社会，乃由人在共同的团结理念中所组成的团体；因此，社会为维持一个和谐的人际关系，便在人的共识认同下制订了社会规范，要求人人同心同德地尊重个人的生命，尊重私有的财产，维护经济繁荣；同时在社会规范中唤醒人的道德意识，提升人格，使人在道德中创造善的行为，发扬人性的价值。尤其在科技发达的社会中，人与人的互动频率不断的提高，人与人的交往也自然地在经济、政治、宗教上有密切的关系，人更必须怀有道德情操与担负道德责任，才能建立一个有意义的新社会。11这种从科学与社会发展的文化，我们可称之为「文明的文化」。

2.2 宗教的文化意识

简单地说，文化是在人的生命与生命交织下来的传衍历程所产生出来的，也是人的思想和心灵意识的结晶，故文化必有其传统，传统必有其演进的历程。而宗教信仰是人对有限生命的醒觉意识和生命软弱的肯定，即觉悟在生命的有限中，具有一种超越无限的层面；以及肯定在生命软弱的现象下，有一个具体而刻刻的实在的层面。于是，宗教信仰使生命与超越无限界接上了关系，而赋予生命一种新的意义；又同时对现实的实在界有所把握和认识，给生命创造出一种新的态度，使生命坚强。12

因此，宗教信仰给生命的新意义和新态度的目的，在于突破生命与生命之间的隔离，及不同文化之间的排斥，引导文化超越局限，进入「生命的根源」－－文化的终极中。

我们说宗教信仰是生命进入文化中的觉醒与肯定，诚如佛教东传来中国，变成了中国的佛学，这便是信仰在文化中的觉醒，人能意识到生命的交融不是「封闭式」的，而是「开放式」豁达的包容。其实，整个中国文化是由生命与生命的开放与包容所创演出来的；因此，具有日新又新的生生不息之力量。因为「文化」是日新又新的，不是常在死胎中不变，或裹在襁褓窒息而死的。故此，中国文化一向所关注的终极问题：人之「成德」、「成仁」、「成圣」、「天人合一」、「道通为一」或「圆融一体」－－即「成就人品格」之「理想人格」的问题，我们不可忽略，因为这是文化的精髓，也是宗教终极的核心基要。然而，人生存也必须有赖于「心」「物」的配合，即在修德的智慧之外，人也需要在幸福的环境下的经济和科技里生存，还需要有良好的社会架构、和政治风气。宗教信仰的觉醒和肯定可以帮助人，在从事「心物」的配合中，有一个准则，使人不使「主观唯我」所蒙蔽，也不为「物欲」所吸引；更帮助人了解到「自我」走向极限之际时，必须依靠一些外来的剌激，及内在的反省思索，使生命走向更创新。

文化与生命是息息相关的，所以当文化在演进时停滞不动，便需要有一些外来的剌激，使之能有所突破和创新；但创新不是「除根」，而是将「生命」的「根」发挥扩展。倘若从「文化」方面说起，人的「生命」便是文化的「根」；若从「人的生命」来说，文化便是人生命的「根」。我们是中国人，自然不能将「根」拔除，麻木地追求外国的知识，社会架构，科技，思想等等，形成媚外崇外而除己的病态心理。反之，我们要保护自己文化的根，犹如保护自己的生命一样，使之结好的文化果实，但不是要我们将自己封闭起来，排斥外来的美好文化。既然信仰是生命的觉醒，也是生命的肯定和突破，不管是内在心灵的投向，抑或是外来的影响；不管是基督宗教的信仰，佛教的信仰、儒家的思想或道家的思想，若能使人的生命迈向新的光明，新的创新，我们都要把握；因为宗教信仰不是要侵蚀文化，而是要与文化相融，使能强化文化、创新文化、丰富文化。这样，由人组成的社会便有进展；由人思考所创造的科技有进展；由人所倡行的政治体系，也因着人生命的「善」意而有所进展……。如此，明天的世界便会更加美好！明天的社会也会更加和谐。13

6. 周景勋著，「思维上的突破－－宗教交谈」，《神学年刊》（17），香港　圣神修院神哲学院出版　1996　113页。
7. 休斯顿．史密士著（刘安云译），《人的宗教－－人类伟大的智慧传统》，台北，立绪文化事业有限公司（1995）29。傅佩荣着，《〈导读〉宗教的最佳面貌》，「宗教作为客观存在的事实，无论就时间的延空间的广袤看来，都是人类现象的首要特征。我们可以毫不夸张地说：人群聚居之处，必有宗教痕迹。然而，宗教岂只是外显的象，它其实是人类生活的核心本质。」

8. 傅佩荣著，《哲学入门》，台北　正中书局　1994年初版第二次印行　1-5页。

9. 周景勋著，「思维上的突破－－宗教交谈」，《神学年刊》（17），香港　圣神修院神哲学院出版　1996　115页。
10. 成中英著，《科学真理与人类价值》，三民文库192　台湾三民书局　1979 再版　7页。
11. 周景勋著，「思维上的突破－－宗教交谈」，《神学年刊》（17），香港　圣神修院神哲学院出版　1996　116-119页。
12. 在此，我们可给「意识」作解释，使能配合宗教信仰的理念：
意识乃是人对自我内心生命状态的瞭解，对自我经验（或体悟）的认知，能分辨「自我、行为与对象」的价值与意义，好使自我在个别的经验中有着不变的原则，且能维持自我与自我；自我与别人；自我与团体彼此之间有明显的互相连接、和互动的关系。
见周景勋着，《让自己成为自己－－心灵的追索》，台北　上智出版社　1994 初版三刷　128页。
13. 周景勋著，「宗教信仰与文化意识」，《让自己成为自己－－心灵的追索》，台北　上智出版社　1994　初版三刷　116-120页。

3. 一个在廿一世纪初的「宗教的普遍现象」

从「宗教信仰与文化意识」的探讨中，我们好像只是由积极面带出一份希望的憧憬；由正面带来醒觉的革新，突破的光明和仁爱的美好。然而，廿世纪从第一次世界大战开始，以至世界经济大衰退，到第二次大战，共产主义的唯物思想所否定人性尊严，随之又有恐布主义的出现；经济方面也有了转型，以至廿世纪的经济挂帅的政治局面；其间，科技的进步，资讯的膨胀发达等，使人的心也有所转型，自然地倾向物质的科技资讯，做成了人以「金钱」为生命的核心，有了金钱便有地位、有名誉；「金钱」是现代人心中的偶像。

今天，我们生活在物质繁华的时代，心中所关注和追求的是丰富的生活，人的幸福在于拥有丰富的金钱和产业。

今天，我们的生活深受科技资讯的思想所控制，教育的重点也落实在科技资讯的训练，懂得科技资讯的人称为进步，不然便是落后。

因此，人的心灵随着物质、科技资讯而「忙」，「忙」使人心死而转型。圣经上有言：「你的财宝在那里，你的心也必在那里」（玛窦福音五章21节）；于是，人心也物质化了，人为了追求物质富裕的生活，不惜放弃自己的仁义道德的理念，「宗教」也在人心中被淡化了；「宗教」的「神圣性」也随着人心的自我安慰而「俗世化」了；人为解决心灵中的矛盾和侥幸心理，便思考出多元化的答案，让心灵得到自我蒙蔽的疏导和舒畅；于是，在人的表面上看来，我们可以解决很多问题，但在多元化的探索中，我们越探索也越找不到安全之感，因为未解决或不能解决的问题也会越想越多；人也在不安全感下，与人与社会与自然的距离越来越大，也有不断将之破坏的现象。又在思想多元化的背后，有谁将告诉人：生活的根本义意和价值何在？人所寻求的或拥有的事物中，那些是最重要的呢？人心的安息在那里呢？现代人的心态多不愿解答这些问题，甚至也不会问这些问题，因他们处于「今朝有酒今朝醉」，或「为达到目的，为拥有自己喜爱的东西，可以不择手段」的心态。因着这些心态反应和不同的问题，「宗教」也面对着一些挑战，如「俗世化」现象的考验等，故我们必须反省和正视廿一世纪初的一些事实和现象。

3.1 宗教的本质在于它的神圣性。但在面对入世的需要，宗教必须随着时代的转型而改变自己吗？于是，有些宗教为了顺应世俗的需求，和经济政治思想改变的大趋势，拋弃了较有超自然的神圣思想。另一个与「俗世化」思想并肩而行的思想就是「现代化」，即宗教为了配合现代的转化，如工业化、高科技、经济发展等，自身也当有所改变，以迎合现代人的生活表达。可见「现代化」也是「俗世化」的一个代名词，故有学者（如英国学者韦尔信Bnyan Wilson）认为：俗世化是「现代化」与「宗教衰退」的因果关系，前者是因，后者是果，即是说「现代化」的过程在正常情况下会导至宗教的衰退。由此，若从宗教的角度看：「人类已进入漫长的黑夜，每一代过去的夜色只会更阴沉，我们现在仍未能窥见其尽头。在这黑夜里，上帝的概念或神圣的意识似乎已无处容身，而赋予我们生存意义，助我们面对生死的古老方法，也愈来愈站不住脚。」14

由于宗教的「神圣性」被「俗世化」了，宗教衰退的现象也出现了，如宗教局限在私人的感受上，对公共社会的影响力减退；宗教精神趋向俗世化，神圣性的标准因放任主义而降格了；宗教活力的减退，献身修道的人减少等。15

3.2 整个世界都在迈向现代化，特别是第三世界。在狂热追求现代化的过程中，国与国所倡议和采用的措施，不但使社会结构起了剧变，连传统文化价值也受到冲击；而且现代化是纯用经济观点来界定，而非指向人全面的发展。由于重视经济和科技，结果便不择手段地损耗和破坏了生态环境，还美其名为文明进步的成果在于提高人生活的质素，使人的生命过于物质化，人的心灵也便失去了平衡，做成践踏基本人权和自由、违背伦理道德的规范；社会上便涌现了各式各样的病态心理，同时也出现了一些自以为可以解决失调的处方，宗教便被人滥用，五花百门的邪教因事际而出现，末世主义运动和宗教与文化的原教旨主义影响人心，造成酗酒、吸毒、自杀、暴力和部族战争。又加上最近东南亚的民生因金融危机受到严峻的威胁，种族间的问题也因社会不平衡的发展，贫富县殊，政治的不平衡，种族仇恨引化成宗教的冲突和对立。

3.3 宗教本来是道德的盘石，是爱和正义的守护者，是穷人和弱小者的同行者和朋友；但不少宗教团体表现着上层社会的分子，至少拥有中上层社会的质素；不少宗教人士受不起时代潮流的物质诱惑，他们的行为表现，往往令到善恶混淆、伦理价值颠倒。

3.4 加上廿一世纪初发生了禽流感和SARS的现象，也有地震和大海啸等灾祸，将人的心打入「互不信任」的疏离中，人心怨气严重；此刻，宗教本可安抚人心，但人心怨气做成对宗教猜疑或有奇迹的要求；于是宗教受到时代变化的伦理挑战，未能保持人与人之间的和谐，也被认为宗教有虚拟影像的考验，宗教信仰在终极关怀上也显得淡薄。人在思想上显得太有限和太狭隘，简单地求助于思想的自动售货机，或只要求即食文化，就能够获得所需要的利益，这便形成了宗教的挑战。

再者，宗教本是和平的缔造者，但不少的战争和仇杀，都与宗教派别有关：如爱尔兰、斯里兰卡、印度、印尼和中东一带等多个地方，都充满着宗教的斗争和仇恨。中东的恐布主义者，以宗教为动力，到处破坏和杀戮，使整个世界陷入恐惧之中。各宗教或派别之间的明争暗斗，互相排斥，亦已司空见惯。整部人类的历史，宗教冲突和战争，占了相当大的篇幅，古今中外不相伯仲，但最后的结果，不单自己对真理迷失了方向，丧失了标准，也会令许多人对宗教的反感，什么宗教都不再相信。法国哲学家巴斯噶说过：「以宗教为动机去行恶的人，没有比他们作恶作得更彻底，更得意。」16

从上面所提出的现世纪宗教事实与现象来说，似乎是在挖宗教的疮疤，但事实上言，我们从反面提出宗教的不足处，便是要人正视宗教的本质是不可失去的，即宗教的神圣性是永不能泯灭的，「神圣性」失去了，宗教便不是宗教，故庄子在秋水篇中亦提出：「无以人灭天」。因此，在新世纪的开始，我们要从俗世化中寻回宗教的神圣性，发放宗教信仰中的生命智慧和信念，给人的生存价值和道德价值作坚定的维系；「我相信，每个宗教，在这昏乱的世界里，都能给自己的信徒目光远大的智慧，和对生命的基本意义及道德价值坚定的信念。这是廿一世纪的宗教气息，我称之为宗教的正气，它能弥盖宇宙，充乎人性，支撑人性，带领人去反思，步向人类大部份无逆料的未来。」17 如此，我们才能提升人性，重整道德，和作心灵的环保，好能配合宗教的神圣性理念作新世纪的思想跳跃，望能达至：「或跃在渊、无咎」的革新，进而开创「飞龙在天」的新境界。（易干卦）

14. 关启文著，「宗教在现代社会必然衰退吗？－－世俗化理论的再思」，见《道风－－汉语神学学刊》第九期，香港　汉语基督教文化研究所出版　1998秋　237。
(Acquaviva所言，引自Robin Gill, Competing Convictions《争持的信念》 London: SCM, 1989, p. 26)
  15. 同上，239页。
宗教衰退可分为几方面：
a. 宗教私人化：宗教在公共领域的影响力和重要性日益减退，渐渐成了纯粹私人喜好和选择。
b. 思想的世俗化：着重超越领域，来生福祉，宗教教义和规条的世界观，渐渐被重视自然领域，今生幸福，科学理论和效益主义的思想取代。这不单在社会整体上发生，也在宗教内部的思想转变中出现。
c. 宗教活力的减退：信徒数目减少，信徒委身宗教热诚冷却，参与或捐献也下跌。
16. 陈达明著，「发放廿一世纪宗教气息手－－对宗教交谈的期望」，周景勋主编，《宗教同步迈向二十一世纪》，香港　香港六宗教领袖座谈会印行　1998　5-8页。
17. 同上，8页。

4. 迈向新世纪宗教跳跃的反思

宗教的本质在于它有一个神圣性的终极关怀，说明人生的最后归宿，藉以引渡人追求真善美圣的目标，好能超越人的有限性，随遇而安地活在知足常乐中。庄子在他的「大梦→大觉→大归」追寻历程中，终能体验「道」的超越性与内在万物中不失其神圣性，这也说明了「道」的宗教性本质，实在是千古不朽的，可以跨越时间与空间，给不同世界留下不同的讯息和启发。人在不同的情况或环境中感应与体验到神圣性的讯息和启发呢？这是一个宗教的经验，其本身涉及人对超越的觉醒和委身的回应。18 如果我们从理念上来描绘宗教的神圣性；那么，我们必须对下列的问题作积极正面的反省和体验，如能对宗教信仰的神圣性有深入而实在的了解：

宗教的神圣性能为世界带来什么？
宗教的神圣性为人来说有什么意义呢？
宗教的神圣性如何影响人心与社会？
宗教的神圣性可以肯定人的存在吗？
宗教的神圣性可以唤醒人心吗？
宗教的神圣性能否成为人与人、人与社会、人与自然、人与神的大和谐融通的象征呢？

如此，人要学习「自我检查」，以明瞭自我生存的终极目的与对宗教的期望。然后，人要懂得「自我批判」，也就是说从反省中作自我的解剖，好能明白是非优劣，作出最好的抉择，把握宗教的价值。最后便是人的「自我舍弃」，除了宗教的神圣性，一切都可以无所执着，即择善固执，人便能谦卑地跳出自己生命被物质与欲望所束缚的框框，尊重宗教的真理及可信性，以及其存在的价值和意义。我们可以从李震教授对宗教信仰所体验的心声，藉此帮助我们在新世纪的开始作宗教跳跃的反省，和对宗教神圣性问题的解答：

i 宗教信仰的紧要性在于它能指出人的真正面目，使人知道行所当行，止所当止，因而获得生命的安顿。

ii 宗教信仰给予人无比的自信及道德勇气，敢于认错忏悔，改过自新，活出爱的宽容与慈悲的宽恕。

iii 宗教信仰使人在不安定的廿世纪找到生命的跳跃，突破使人感到威胁的苦闷与焦虑、空无感与失望，且能从不安定的罪恶、邪道与灾祸中找到安定感，也发现生命的尊严及高贵是分享了神之神圣性的美善。

iv 宗教信仰使人有超越精神，发现自我内心的善良和爱，心灵也找到真理中的自由，好能提升生命的力量，在面对困难挫折－－特别是死亡时，能保持坚忍，不断举心向善，投奔那永恒自有自在的大爱。

v 宗教信仰使个人与社会更有爱，且透过爱的分享与实践，使自己活出生命的价值，也乐于协助别人与社会活出生命的尊严。

vi 宗教信仰会使中国社会更好，因为宗教力量可以弥补人心的空虚，重振道德精神；所以，在社会的变化下，我们要积极改造社会，使之变得更好，就必须肯定宗教神圣性的功能。因此，我们中国人一方面要拿出勇气，回归祖先敬天爱人的宗教理想；另一方面，举凡世界上拥有普遍影响力的正信宗教，它们所具有的那些高尚的、合理的、追求至善的、维护生命尊严及天赋基本人权的优良特质，只要能为我们中国文化注入新血及活力，就应以开放、坦荡的胸怀去包容、引进、吸收，以补中国文化之不足。如此，中国的明天会更有希望、有光彩。19

事实上，我们必须相信：「宗教信仰是人生命的全面统合的要素，帮助人觉悟生命的全部经验具有一种超越的层面，且给人一个创新生命的肯定，因为宗教信仰可以扩展及增强人的爱与慈悲，使人明白爱是生命的核心，而神明的临在正是要用无私的爱来圣化所有的人。所以，现时代的精神和需要是先打破生命因科技、经济和政治所造成的生命隔阂，取出人生命本有的善与爱，积极地进行有意义的文化和宗教的交流与合作。」20

然而，在现时代的现实社会变迁中，科技资讯、经济和政治成为人生命的核心点，而不是「爱」，这种唯物享受的倾向正影响着人的思想和生活方，在其内隐藏了不可逆料，反复无常和意外的悲剧与危机；因为科技资讯、经济与政治不能捕捉人的心灵，也不能带给人永恒的平安与喜乐，更不能在失败、痛苦、焦虑、悲剧、危机和死亡等之中抚慰与安定人心。而宗教信仰在同归殊途的一体关系的思维统一中，可以统合人的生命与万事万物的存在价值，指示出一个超越人在现实的迷惘不能自拔的方向；因为宗教若丧失了这个统合价值的神圣能力，败注定会失去其本质而要归于消灭。」21 虽然，在现时代，宗教受到科技资讯、经济及政治的影响与束缚，而呈现出衰退的现象；但宗教毕竟依然存在，还统领着人的心灵，在人败坏的生活中保存着它的神圣性，能统合「自然、社会、人」的存在价值与维系。所以在面对新纪元的开始，我们可以运用科技资讯及经济的发达为人带来了互动互联的方法，将人的心灵互联起来，发挥宗教信仰对精神生命的提升，使人人在爱的互动中建立和平共融的新社会；我们肯定：宗教信仰是人与「自然、社会、人」的生命互动、互爱、互通的力量。

宗教信仰的互动：宗教信仰的力量不是封闭的，而是促使人从心灵中冒出「成圣自己、圣化他人」的使命感，且在坦诚和奉献中创造和平的联系，在爱中彼此担待，保持心神的合一。故「互动的信仰」要求人自我的改变，与不断地更新与修和。

宗教信仰的互爱：这里强调人与人的关系性联系，以及人与万物的和谐交往；故必须珍惜互相亲爱的缘份和爱惜万物的环保，即互爱使人与人、人与万物携手步进和谐的共融中，藉此，活出生命的生机，洋溢出生命的欢欣。

宗教信仰的互通：生命因互爱的奉献可以互通契合，信仰的力量是在「爱」中培育人有「亲和力」和「包容力」，如能「握天枢、通千古」，这是生命的大和谐与心灵的充实和喜乐的肯定。
由是，在面对新世纪，我们要有新的期望，以配合时代的挑战，以及廿世纪给宗教及社会带来的冲击，作适当的回应，希望将宗教信仰所关注的「心灵提升」和「道德理念」融化在社会文化中，给社会作深入的鼓励，唤醒人的生存意识和道德意识，好能提升人格，发扬人性的精神价值，为世界的发展提供新的方向；故宗教团体本着神圣性使命向各政府作出呼吁：

i 廿一世纪的开始，正是我们对文化重寻或重整的好机会。在过去的一世纪中，中国人受西方思想影响甚深，特别是唯物思想、经济的资本主义，使人心物质化了，却忘记了「慎终追远、民德归厚」的宗教溯源，使这一代人变成无根的一代。故宗教信仰可以配合中国本土文化，为教育下一代对中国文化和伦理道德的重要性，多加注意。

ii 宗教信仰导人心灵走向和平与共融，为建树良好的社会，宗教团体和政府当关注青少年的心灵培育；同时，对传媒的监察是必须的，然希望传媒能自我监察，以免不良意识，毒害人心。

iii 宗教劝人积极建设丰盛生命，追求真正的幸福和活出信仰的真理。然而，经济挂帅的社会为人带来侥幸和博彩的心理，使人难于自律，而促成色情、赌博、败毒、走私的不良风气，伤害人的生命，挑战法制，影响安定。故宗教为免陷于俗世化，当保护神圣性的准则，为维护社会道德价值，力斥纸醉金迷的侥幸心态。

iv 宗教信仰维系人的生命，使之活出生命的博爱与慈悲，而家庭就是爱的殿堂；但在离婚率高涨，及堕胎问题上使人失去了真爱的平衡，害怕肩负家庭责任，纵情于性滥交的开放中；如是者，家庭的价值被淡化，传生接代的神圣性之性关系被贬抑，社会的共融也失去和谐；宗教信仰对此世道人心，当有帮助作用。

v 宗教使人信守人性的尊严，也关怀贫病智障弱小，使他们在病苦中不被社会的忽视，仍能活出人性的尊严。

vi 新世纪充满新希望，宗教信仰呼吁人与人、民族与民族、国与国之间放下政治意识心态的执着，为和平与环保，共同努力，建设共融和谐美丽的世界。

18. 贾诗勒著（吴宗文铎），「宗教经验的特征」，《宗教哲学》，香港　种籽出版社　1983　25-26页。
19. 李震著，「如果再活一次，我还是要做基督徒」，《哲学与文化》月刊305　第廿六卷第十期　1999年10月出版　903-906页。
20. 周景勋著，「思维上的突破－－宗教交谈」，《神学年刊》（17），香港　圣神修院神哲学院出版　1996　17页。
21. 同上。

5. 廿一世纪更需要宗教交谈和合作

为加强宗教团体的互动、互爱和互通，好能对「自然、社会、人」发挥更强有力的影响，成为廿一世纪的一盏和平灯，宗教与宗教间必须加强交谈，在「和衷共济，求同存异」的精神下交谈。我们可从艾森斯塔特（Shmuel N. Eisenstadt）反思「现代化」与「超越」之间的「多元化」的文明理想，与建构中如何得到平衡时，强调了不同文化传统与宗教的交谈与传播，这是廿一世纪对文明的深度与广度的思考，其中的重要课题是要重新理解和自主地发展：就是对「人、自然、神、历史、社会」的反思。22

然而，在反思中，我们注意到宗教的取向是不会因为其与社会有密切关系的交谈而失去宗教本身的「神圣性」，宗教会通过与不同社会、不同的人作交谈而建构出一个具有「客观性和道德性」意义的体系，肯定宗教间有其真正的价值，对社会、人的环境、人的生活、人的教育、人的道德等作出具体的关怀和启导。所以，在宗教交谈中，宗教人士不可能怀着排斥异己者的心态，事事挑剔；而是抱着开放的心接纳不同的宗教，尊重不同的宗教；因此斯威德（L. Swidler）从「理智认知」与「心灵感受」的研究中，归纳出十项宗教交谈的基本态度：

i 交谈是一种双向沟通，从中互相学习。
ii 交谈者需要抱持着忠诚的态度。
iii 交谈时，应将我们的理想与对方的理想比较，我们的现实与对方的现实比较，不应将我们的理想与对方的现实相作比较。
iv 彼此在平等的地位才可进行真正的交谈。
v 交谈者应互相信任。
vi 交谈可在自身的团体进行，亦可在不同宗教进行。
vii 交谈前，不应对彼此差异。
viii 对于自身及自身的宗教传统，应保持开放及自我批判的态度。
ix 交谈者应确认自己的信仰，并能于交谈中辨识出自身的信仰内容。
x 交谈者应运用创造性的想像力及知觉，从对方的角度去瞭解他们的宗教信仰。23

从斯威德所归纳的十项交谈的基本态度中，我们可以了解到：每个人所能看到的不过是整个现实世界和真理的一部份，透过交谈，我们才能扩阔视野，就是说，别的宗教的真理可以丰富另一宗教的思维领惑，互相分享思想内容和真理价值；在心灵层次上，互相可作内心的融通，帮助人在灵性上有不同的深层体会，且能在同理心的互融体验中，进入交谈的内心世界。在「实际行动」层面，是建基在对社会、经济、生态的共同需求上，不同宗教可采取共同实践的行动，如在大海啸中齐心关怀和参与人类共同生存的拯救行动，消除苦难和压迫，唤醒人心人灵为真理－－爱的共融作见证，改变世界的冷酷。

由此，我们可肯定交谈本身就是宗教的一项美丽的艺术，不仅能抓住真理的价值和意义，更能在实践中给人类具体的支援。若根据希腊哲学家苏格拉底的传统作解释，交谈具有下列几项重要的意义：

i 交谈所要达成的目标是能彼此了解，不只是抽象观念和想法的相互传递和交换。

ii 为了相互了解，合作性的努力是必须的；在努力的合作中，才能落实地了解。

iii 参与交谈的人必须是一个「有意愿」交谈的伙伴，使在交谈中展现人的自由意志，而不是被强迫交谈的。

iv 交谈的本质是说话、论述。所以，真正的交谈是参与者能享受平等的权利，大家理智的发表言论。

v 交谈与协商不同，也与辩论不一样。协商的目的在于找出双方的分歧异点的解决方法而达成协议；辩论则为自己的道理作解释和保护，也有挑剔异己者思想不是。交谈则必须摒除自己的偏见和成见，欣赏和接纳对方的真理。

iv 真正的交谈必须具有容忍及包涵的条件，且体认对方的信仰价值，尊重对方的信仰，接纳对方的正确行为。24

宗教间有了互相认识和交谈，才能避免宗教间的冲突，而有宗教间的合作和提高个人的心灵安和与团结精神，能共同承担「人、社会、自然」的共融责任，使人保持自我的修身进德，社会上有和平、正义和仁爱的保障，自然的生态获得人的珍视和保护，更能将一九九二年「全球伦理宣言」的原则25 显现于新世纪，给新世纪一个新的方向，盼望宗教间的合作能助人找寻真我，回归人的本位；伦理道德亦可被肯定，不会因为人的放纵、物化与俗化而失其本位；教育方面亦能为「人性、社会、自然」服务，提升人的精神意识，而不要流于职业训练的死胡同；社会福利方面可以提高人性尊严，协助弱小，贫苦的大众，建构公正和仁爱的秩序；且能尊重生命，而发展非暴力、非剥削、非贫富悬殊的文化等。

22. 艾森斯塔特（Eisenstadt, Shmuel N.），《廿一世纪评论：多元现代化与全球化：野蛮主义与现代性》66期　2001年8月　4-10页。
23. 庄嘉庆著，《宗教交谈的基础》，台北雅歌出版社　1997　
77-78页。
24. 宋兴洲著，「论文明冲突与宗教对话」，《宗教哲学》季刊31，台湾中华民国宗教哲学研究社　民93年（2004）11月15日出版61-62页。
25. 詹德隆著，「全球伦理宣言」，《哲学与伦理》上册，台北辅仁大学出版社　(1995)　183。
一九九二年『全球伦理宣言』的四个伦理原则：
一.　要尊重生命，建构非暴力的文化。
二.　要公平交易，建构公正的经济秩序。
三.　要诚实地言行，互相包容。
四.　两性之间要建构具有平等权力和伙伴的关系。

6. 结论：一个梦想

宗教信仰为人的生命给予积极的鼓励，使人活出博爱与慈悲，且以博爱与慈悲拥抱世界。然而，要落实推行宗教，宣传信仰，我们不期然会问：现时在世界的宗教实在很多，在争议上，常会说：「那一个宗教是『真』的宗教？」此刻，我们不争辩宗教的真邪，而肯定地说：凡正信宗教必具有真理，我们要尊重各宗教的真理，以显示其「教义」；亦当接纳其「教规」，教规乃导信徒活出「善」，且具有警愓作用；为凸显宗教本身的教义与教规，「教礼」便是信徒在崇拜上所实行的礼仪，表示宗教的情感，展现了宗教的「美」。

由是，我有一个梦想：在新世纪之际，宗教与宗教间的互认，即认同每一宗教的存在价值，我们可从人的心灵净化上作共识，从社会与世界的和谐上作沟通与努力，从大自然的妙微启发上互相关注，因为宗教带来的是生命的转化，使人寻得真我。因此，我们要承认自己仍有不足之处，需要医疗，也需要革新，不同宗教便可以互补不足；每一宗教真理可以丰富其他的宗教。于是，宗教的世界性交谈是必须的；虽然，在廿世纪的末期，宗教交谈已经在不同地区，部份宗教团体，学术上的研究有所接触，却不能普遍流传，依然未能互相爱慕和尊重，互让和互谅，互相欣赏和接纳，故也不能同心维护社会的和谐与繁荣。故我梦想着：在世界的中央，有一个不被经济、政治、俗世、自私、偏见等所污染的乐园，世界上东南西北各方的宗教领袖都聚集在一起，共同关心世界的现存问题：如心灵环保、生态环保、社会性的不公义、贫穷与痛苦、人权与自由、暴力、伦理道德、教育、信仰意识、战争等等问题。经过大家真诚的交谈，所有宗教领袖同心合意地为世界的和平签署了一份「和平宣言」，许诺在新纪元建立博爱、慈悲、和谐、尊重生命、感恩的精神，共同反对暴力与独裁、战争与侵略；互相关心贫苦大众，帮助弱小者；共同给人的精神生命与心灵需要作培训，鼓励不同宗教的信徒互相交谈和合作。

所有的宗教领袖在签署了「和平宣言」之后，便一起用不同的宗教祈祷方式作结束这一次聚会，然后约定大家回到自己的地方落实地推行，使各信徒都同心奉行，若有困难便透过学者作深入的探讨及更新。

「和平宣言」向世界公布后，以五年为限，各宗教领袖再回到中央的乐园，作互相交流分享和检讨，然后再发表新的宣言……在我的梦想背后，我又出现了一幅图象：「日凿一孔，七日而浑沌死」（庄子应帝王篇）；随后，在我心底又浮现了柏拉图的「理想国」、儒家的「大同篇」、老子的「小国寡民」的国度、佛教的「西方净土」、基督宗教的「天国」、伊斯兰教的「天园（天堂）」……

最后，我从梦中醒过来，莞尔一笑！

作者：冯爱贞

1. 序言

云白沙（Hans Urs von Balthasar）是二十世纪重要神学家之一，他是一位鉴古通今的伟大学者，熟悉圣经、教父、圣师、西方历史、诗歌、古代的及现代的哲学及神学作品，而他的着作所就把这些学问融会贯通。

云白沙把神与人的关系重新定位，透过其「神学三部曲」建立了神学体系。本文将就其「三部曲」的其中二部，探讨他的神学观念，特别是他如何以美及善来讲述圣父及圣子，并人与天主的关系。第一部曲是由七册书组成的《主的光荣：神学的美学》(Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics)，第二部曲是由五册书组成的《神剧：神学的戏剧原理》(Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory)1。遗下没有讨论的一部曲是《神的逻辑：神学的逻辑原理》(Theo-logic: Theological Logical Theory)。

全文分四部份：第一部份是云白沙的生平简介；第二部份是美学的历史部份；第三部份进入主题之一的「神学美学」，美是天主的本体，发出巨大的光芒，令人目定口呆；第四部份是另一主题「神剧」的讨论，天主「善」的表达，在这里我们看见了天主藉耶稣基督与人同在。最后部份是全文的总结：云白沙透过美与善的关系，建立了有活力的神学系统。

  1. 以下为本文的主要参考书：The Glory of the Lord, A Theological Aesthetic, I: Seeing the Form (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1967); Theo-Drama, Theological Dramatic Theory III (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992); A Theology of History (London: Sheed & Ward, 1963); Word and Revelation (New York: Herder & Herder, 1964); Church and the World (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967); Man in History (Dublic: Shed & Ward, Veritas Publications, 1968); Martin Buber and Christianity (London: Harville Press, 1961); A Theological Anthropology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968); The Theology of Karl Barth (New York: Rinehart & Winston, 1971); Love Alone: The Way of Revelation (Dublic: Sheed & Ward, Veritas Publications, 1982); Explorations in Theology, I: The Word Made Flesh (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989); Mysterium Paschale (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990).

2. 云白沙的生平

云白沙1905年8月12日生于瑞士的卢塞恩(Lucerne)，他在苏黎世大学、维也纳及柏林读哲学及德国文学。1929年加入了德国巴伐利亚教区(Bavarian Province)的耶稣会。晋铎后从事出版及堂区牧民工作，直至1950年时因为与安芝莲云史碧医生(Adrienne von Speyr 1902-1967)，成立一信友团体而被迫离开耶稣会，这是一个痛若的决定，但却造成了他日后的成就，从耶稣会专注于士林哲学的学院派，转而发展以《若望福音》为基础的灵修及神学发展。就如神剧中所描述的正是他亲身的经历，是受苦及孤独的经验，他让读者从内心深处亲自感受到，「神学三步曲」是他心血的结晶。他没有被邀请参加梵二大公会议，直至1967年才被委任为宗座神学委员会（Papal Theological Commission）委员。

自启蒙运动以来，传统宗教思想受到很大质疑，十九世纪出现了对宗教的重新检讨，即对宗教本质的追问，而云白沙则重返启示的泉源，天主的光荣是信仰的目标。云白沙没有在大学教书，他从事着作及出版事业，Johannes Verlag是他的出版公司，又与志同道合的狄卢柏（Henri de Lubac）及拉辛格（Joseph Ratzinger）2 于1972年，创立了《共融》（Communio）季刊，宗旨为了以新的精神延续教会传统的信仰，以开放的精神与不同宗教的人士进行交谈。

他的成就得到各方的肯定，在他生命最后的岁月里得到不少的赞赏及信任，于在1984年获得保禄六世奖；教宗若望保禄二世极为欣赏他，于1988年委任他为枢机，但在就职前三天他过世了。在他的葬礼中，拉辛格枢机代表教宗致悼词：「教会宣布云白沙是信仰的导师，他能带领我们找到生命活水的泉源，同时在他的教会生活中亦拥有高尚的品德。」 3

  2. 教宗若望保禄二世于2005年4月2日逝世后，拉辛格枢机于同年同月19日被选为教宗，号称本笃十六世，希望继续与世界各方人士进行友善的交谈。
  3. Communio, vol. 15 (1988), pp. 512-516.
3. 「美学」的历史背境

3.1 美与美学

「美」（）按希腊文原意是指人在感性上对美的认知，探究美在感觉及视觉上之学问。柏拉图（427-347BC）在《会饮》篇中有概括性的描述：「美是奇妙无比的……这种美是永恒的、无始无终、不生不灭、不增不减的。……；它是永恒地自存自在，一切美的事物以它为泉源，有了它一切事物才成为其美。」

「美学」（Aesthetica）一词由德国哲学家鲍姆嘉通（Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, 1714-1762）首次提出，他将「美学」摆在哲学体系上，他说：「美学是关于感性认识的科学。」（1735）4。但是他所说的Aesthetica实际上研究的是美（广义的美），所以这个字最终被认为是有关美的学说的术语，而其研究对象则以具体的艺术为主。

3.2 基督信仰中的「美学」

在历史上，中世纪一般是指主后476年西罗马帝国灭亡至14世纪中叶，文艺复兴运动兴起这一千年左右的漫长时期，基督信仰亦已广为传播，使得中世纪的社会和文化深受其的影响，神学的意识形态成了唯一的思想体系，在神学的发展上，中世纪可以说是一个神学美学的时代，把新柏拉图主义和亚里士多德的一些概念移用到神学上。5 中世纪有美学的实质内容，但没有独立作为科学的研究。在教会的传统思想中，基督信仰的美学是实用和具体的用在建筑、歌曲、礼仪等等之上，所以中世纪的「美学」没有形成学说，但却具体的表现在信仰行为中。

美的本体问题是柏拉图首先提出来的，他相信既然有美这个概念，就必然有与之相应美的本体，即美的本源。其后教父们都采用了这个思想，但内容是丰富了、纯化了：美的本体绝不会是孤立的，必与真及善的本体合而为一，三者结合散播于所有自然事物内。「美是天主的名字」这命题虽然给美涂抹了浓厚的神秘主义色彩，然而也昭示了美的概念有无限深刻的内涵。

圣奥斯定（Aurelius Augustine, 354-430）是神学美学思想的先驱，一生留下许多神学着作，尤其是《忏悔录》（Confessiones）6 是他人生及皈依的心路历程，记述他的信仰和爱的生涯，此书随处可见他对美和艺术的敏锐感觉。圣奥斯定认为天主是「唯一不变的本体或本质」，衪是至高、至美、至能，无所不能，但又无所执持，不变而变化一切，无新无故而又常新。7 圣奥斯定的晚年着作《天主之城》，更明显的描写两个国度：天主之国和地上之国，天主的光荣是这部着作的主题。

圣文德（St. Bonaventura, 1217-1274）是另一位留下不少美学论着的神学家，其中《心灵迈向上主的旅程》（The Mind’s Road to God）写于1259年，而云白沙在美学思想上深受他的影响。8

世界充满着天主的痕迹，万物的美丽、和谐、秩序、能力和运行，就如一面镜子反映天主的无限能力、智慧和善良。「一切受造物与永恒智慧从本质上有一定的相似模样。」9 因此万物在某方面与天主相似，整个自然成为一个完整的体系。在他看来所有受造物都是完美的，而美丽的本质是和谐，但因为人受到幻象蒙蔽而看不到上主。10

  4. Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, Reflection on Poetry (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954, I, 1750 ; II, 1758).（笔者并没有阅读此书，只从一些论及此书的作品中抄录。）
  5. 吴琼着，《西方美学史》，上海人民出版社 2000 165页。
  6. St Augustine, Confessionum opera et studio Monachorum S. Benedicti a Congregatione S. Mauri (Opera Omnia I, Paris 1679), reprinted by J.P. Migne, PL 32.659-868 (Paris 1841).
  7. Ibid., L1, IV, pp. 4, 662-663.
  8. 参看Bonaventura, Opera Omnia, Quaracchi edition, 10 vols. (Quaracchi 1882-1902). “Itinerariun Mentis ad Deum” in vol. 5. 英文翻译参阅George Boas(trans.), “The Mind’s Road to God” (N. Y.: The Liberal Arts Press, 1953). 中文翻译参阅韩山城，文德圣师着《心灵迈向天主的旅程》，台北安道社会学社 1974。
  9. St Bonaventura: The Mind’s Road to God (N.Y.: The Liberal Arts Press, Inc., 1953, p. 14).
  10. Ibid., 4. 1, 28.
4. 云白沙的「神学美学」

4.1 「神学美学」基本概念

云白沙爱好音乐、绘画、戏剧及文学，这些兴趣成为他构思其神学美学的前导。他认真的把「美学的神学」（aesthetical theology）与「神学的美学」（theological aesthetics）驱分：前者取材于普遍自然世界的美，欣赏表面的美丽，词藻上或情节上的结构，这些都不具有超越性，而只停留在世物对美的判断，圣经的最高价值并不是放在「审美」上，甚至可以说「审美」在圣经内并无地位。11 后者谈论美是天主的启示。这位被称为「当代最有文化的人」，不是唯美基督的拥护者，他强调在圣经中并不是为了寻求那些如诗篇、史诗、神话、抒情作品或赞歌之类的美丽，但神学的美学也不尽是谈论理性之学，他是寻找神学理论及基督徒生活的自我重塑。

　　「《主的光荣》卷一尝试表达生活天主的启示，正如我们现在所知到的，衪不单是真及善，而且从永世之前已是美的。世上所有的事物都能显示出天主的美及光荣，其光辉及尊荣突破阴暗而进入存有的深处。完全自由及至高的天主在历史上以圣言启示了自己，与世界的美相比，衪的光辉远超一切。」12

只有在美中真及善才显出其价值，若遗失了美的感觉，神学家就是背弃了教父们的教导。嘉华（Joel Garver）为云氏的神学的美学作了概括的描写：

　　「云白沙称天主是至高的美（God is supreme Beauty），衪在那人不可及的光辉之中，藉着耶稣基督以人的位格显示，使天主成为可见的。信友以信仰的目光注视耶稣基督，并在衪内得见天父的光荣。云白沙美的经验是形上的、超越的，但藉着耶稣基督却又遍布于人间，神学的美学并不是基于现代的哲学，而是对传统信仰的回归并使之现代化。」13

云白沙的美学以信仰角度来观赏天主的光荣，耶稣基督是天主光荣的具体体现，这是他神学思想的最核心。以下是根据云白沙的作品阐释什么是神学美学，及这美学包含了什么讯息。

4.2 「神学的美学」论证

4.2.1 神学美学的对象：形体的观赏（Seeing the Form）

「形体的观赏」对解释「神学美学」是一个非常重要的课题：天主在启示中说，衪自愿施与恩宠，但世人如何能认知或接收这份礼物。

神学美学就是以客观的方式来探讨「认知」（perception）及「出神」（rapture）在我们生活中的丰富及活力。神学美学的内容及方法，表达了那「不可见的」以其光辉照耀世界，透过世物使衪成为「可见的存有」，云氏的《天主的光荣──神学美学》正是要探讨人与形体（form）的相遇、邂逅，及神圣光荣的美丽。

云白沙的神学美学以神圣的启示为主，但也不忽视本性（nature）及人类对自然界的主观经验，目的是为了寻找认知的条件及明白启示的形式。所以他整个神学美学系统包含两种方法：

(1) 认知论（Doctrine of perception），属于基本神学：美学是认知天主自我启示的学说，属理性的研究；透过降生圣言的「形体」，我们能认出天主的奥秘，看见天主就在人类之中。现代神学所讨论「信仰中的基督」与「历史中的耶稣」不是互相对立，二者可重归于一。

(2) 陶醉论（Doctrine of rapture），属于教义神学：美学论述道成肉身的天主的光荣，及人被提升参与天主救赎工程的学说，属感性的研究。14天主对人的美之光照和人感受这种美而表现得出神入迷，这有双重的意义：天主以道成肉身的「形体」参与人世的生活，而人是透过天主的启示和信仰陶醉于美的形体中。

在第一册「形象的观赏」云氏已概述了两个境界：「观赏」（Seeing）指美学的主观根据，云白沙以神学历史为起点，强调「信仰」这观念。而「形体」（Form）指的是美学客观根据，在神学的基础上，天主在耶稣基督内向世界的启示，历史成为中界和证明启示这种方式。云白沙以大篇幅讨论了神学美学的主观及客观证据，他观察了天主教及新教都排斥美学，对他来说「美学」一定不是新的士林系统，他特别痛恨新士林学者的理性推论，这也是他曾受的教育，把美学与神学脱离关系。他尝试从圣人的神秘经验与日常生活中，寻找平衡的神学方法。15

4.2.2 「神学的美学」中形象和光荣

「启示」是云白沙神学美学的主要论题，因为这是神圣行动在世界的根据，人在万事万物中可以体会到和谐合一的意义，云白沙称这种有意义的合一为「形象」（Gestalt / form）。「形象」并不是一个记号或附属品，而是显示事实本身及具有灵气的，是具体的，而不是一个象征性的符号。在云白沙的美学中，耶稣基督是最根本的，也是最终的「形象」。信仰来自对「形像」的认知这一直接的认识，它超乎任何言语，却充满活力而令人信服。在神人相遇的过程中，人首先感觉到的是一种耀眼的「美」，这种「美」使人产生出无惧，勇往直前的动力。人也有自己的「形像」，云白沙认为每一个人都具有「绝对」（Absolute）某方面的美好，但是像一些碎片，而不是全部。一切来自「绝对」，归于「绝对」，人是受众。

「形象」在神学上，涉及启示和基督降生成人的神学问题。所有神学及基督徒生活均以天主的光荣放于首位，寻回神学中美的真谛。他认为天主在「降生成人」中采用了「形象」16的表达方式，因为正是这可以触摸的「形象」才能吸引人、让人心醉神迷，透过形体才能发出永恒的光辉。这种令人神往、让人欣喜的巨大魅力是基督信仰之源，宗徒就是因为被这充满奥秘、深不可测的永恒之美的形象所感动并为之倾倒。如《福音》中耶稣在山上显圣容（谷9:2-8）的「形象」，在自我启示中被见到的、听到的和触摸到。耶稣「成了肉身」而不是精神，在这肉身上，天主得以显现，并能被人看见及触摸。上主的下降不仅体现在纳匝肋的耶稣身上，而且也临现在教会的礼仪及信仰生活中。这「形象」被人「欣赏」，从而成了信仰的感召和魅力。生活若失去对美的欣赏，实际上是脱离了信仰之根源，失去了生命。

一切伟大的艺术都是宗教性的，即对歌颂「存有」（Being）的光荣及表示崇拜。天主降临世界，与人相遇，是具体的，以人的形状，指向那绝对的「神圣超越的形体」17。在基督内天主表达衪的真实本质，显示其「实在的和肯定的」18 方向。「美的范畴……是一个整体、是真实的存有、穿越那神圣的、独立的存有，美是那神秘的、隐藏的根源所散发的光芒。」19

希伯来人认为雅威的光荣就是衪的恩典、正义、仁慈，天主的光荣和神圣不可分，衪说：你们应该是神圣的，因为我是神圣的（肋19:2）。新约拨开了旧约的云雾，天主的正义在耶路撒冷显示。20因着十字架消灭了人类的罪过，我们能看清自己身处的实在境况，就是天主的光荣透过基督带领我们达到圆满的生命。

若望走出了旧约所描绘的期待，他在《福音》序言中：「于是圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间；我们见了他的光荣，正如父独生子的光荣，满溢恩宠和真理。」（若1:1、14）21 若望以「光荣」的观念来描写圣三的关系，并且在人间出现。云白沙就是采用了这一点，耶稣基督跨越旧的盟约转移到新盟约的一刻：就如在戏剧中突然看见雅威（YHWH）降临，居住在我们中间。22

4.2.3 「神学美学」中的形上学

云白沙的神学三部曲：主的光荣、神剧及神的逻辑（Herrlichkeit, Theodramatik & Theologik），是以美、善及真（beauty, goodness & truth）的超越观念来开展，在云白沙的神学中，「超越」并不只是个一般性的观念，他的神学采用了中世纪形上学的哲学思想模式。现代神学视他的「美学」为基本神学，所以需要解释「美」（the beautiful）的形上意义。另外他也采用了「类比」（analogy）作为解释人与受造物的关系。「形上」及「类比」是他解释「神学美学」的两条支柱。

云白沙的形上学源自圣多玛斯的士林哲学，形上学是探讨「存有」的知识。在宇宙万物之上，有一超越的、自有的存有者。美是「存有」或「在」的象征，同时也是本身，美承载着自我照耀的能力。古代教父曾把美理解为神圣天主在世界的显现，并用美的范畴作为其神学的核心，由此发展出来的神学亦曾把「超越」之美作为研究对象。这种美的范畴已超越哲学和神学的界线，也可说美学之超越性涵盖了神学与哲学的领域。天主的光荣是形上之问题：「讨论基督信仰『光荣』这一神学问题，若不考虑运用形上学是无法完成的。」 23

在重整美、善及真的超越观念时，云白沙并不是从抽象方向着手，而是依据其具体的特性来处理。他给「超越」观念的排列次序，在他的三部曲中提供了以下的理据：人类经验到「实体」（reality）就是美、善及真。「存有」（Being）显现给人，他们经验到这可见形体的「美」，因而受到感动，这形体不只是出现于人前，也把自己交给人。因为存有交出自己，所以人们经验到其「善」意。在衪内的美及善也流露了「真」实的一面，整个的进程就是喜悦。超越有其理性方面的认知，也有个人主观的狂喜。如果一切都在美、善及真之内，神学的形上学依据这三种超越性质上，则不能回答有关邪恶、丑陋及失败的问题，因此云白沙以十字架神学及救赎神学来处理这些难题。

概括来说，云白沙运用了存有的超越特质是修改了中世纪有关超越的教义，他也选择不跟随康德的认识论，以哲学的方法套用于神学的超越问题。如此的安排，使「美」成为最开始及贯彻整个神学的概念，这个「美」最基本的观念，促使云白沙的神学美学常与基本神学连上关系。24 他的神学是以现代人重视人学的方法来处理中世纪的形上学，以圣三神学为例，他拒绝以哲学的形上观念用于基本神学上，而以圣三位格间的爱为根源，提供了三位一体动态的关系。

4.2.4 「神学美学」的存有类比

类比在希腊文αναλογια意思是对称、均匀，在传统的逻辑学及形上学则用来作两对等事物的比较。类比是大约相似，在相同处或相异处也有类似的关系。在天主教的基本神学中也常常讲及，因为天主与世界，天主与人类都是运用类比方法。

云白沙的形上神学及有关天主的教义中蕴藏着一个问题：如果天主是万有的，衪拥有一切，为何还要创造世界？也可这样说：无限的圣言如何在有限的世界显示自己，在这有限中其无限性又不会失去意义或重要性？

他的「超越」神学所关心的是天主圣三是世界的根源，而「类比」学说则处理天主与世界关系所遇到的困难，在此他把这两个世界的分歧及对立面拉近。他发展了但丁（Dante）的宇宙观：天与地、旧的及新的纪元、肉身的及灵性的世界、天性与恩宠、知识与信仰、人与神等等的类比关系。在此他答覆了天主的爱为何临现于世界，而世界对衪的爱却毫不对等。在神学美学中，类比学说可把世界的美学与天主的光荣相连起来，但又不会把二者混淆。美是天主的踪迹，衪的光荣却是永远而巨大的。25
在他的研究中发现受造物的世界类比于天主圣三的关系：「世界所有存在物，都能反映天主圣三的内在奥秘生活。事实上，衪向不相称的人公开了自己的身份，我们能进入探索那无以伦比丰盛的神圣面目。」26 他也承认有限的受造物在构造上有着天主圣三的特质，但同时人与天主不同点多于相同点。
云白沙的类比思想来自普茨瓦拉（Erich Przywara, 1889-1972）27，他是云白沙的老师及朋友。普茨瓦拉为了修订「存有类比」（analogy of being）28 的定义，多次与近代的哲学家讨论，例如海德格（Martin Heidegger）就是其中之一。云白沙为了此问题则与卡尔．巴特（Karl Barth）会面，他说：「在真诚对谈中，没有比澄清思想的方法更为重要。」29

普茨瓦拉以「存有类比」来解决创造主与受造物之间有绝对的距离，天主即使在世界自我显示，人类也没有办法彻底认识衪，天主与世界之间有着极大的鸿沟。他认为天主与宇宙的关系只能以信仰的眼睛才能看见。把「存有类比」这思想放在「分享」的定义中，是分享神圣的生命，催迫人面向天主、思索天主、人及世界的关系，人与天主不是站在敌对面，互不相容，而是着重于对存有的皈依及爱。
云白沙给有限的存在物以正面的价值，肯定是天主创造了世界，而人也是因为被创造而归向天主，人能够理解及与天主连系，是因为有天主的启示。启示发生在耶稣基督的身上，及世界的自然环境中，特别以美、善、真展示出来，但天主不会完全被瞭解，衪的神圣超越我们的想像力。天主是一切美善的根源，没有比观赏天主的光荣来得重要。30

与人完全相异（totally other）的天主，毫无计较的透过耶稣基督自我启示，人类白白接受了天主赐给的礼物。衪与人类的完全相异性，就是那最高、深不可测的爱，这份爱是世人从来不敢或不会想像的，但现实却是获得了，人与神的沟壑由耶稣基督来逾越，云白沙指出，这种「至高无上」正好体现在天主「降生成人」这一行为，上主的下降和在十字架上，都是天主在耶稣基督身上表现出对人的至爱之举。

4.3 结论

云白沙「神学美学」是为重新发掘真正美的意义。美曾是基督徒生活、教父们及中世纪一些神学家的神学出发点，但在近代的潮流思想影响下，天主教和新教的神学已失去美的踪影。31 云白沙希望能返回以启示为源头，寻回以光荣形式的光辉。他相信人生的道路就是天路历程，是自由意志的选择，更新要从源头开始。他认识到美学在教会内是很重要的传统文化，尤其是到了今天，从德国的唯心主义（像黑格尔）开始，光荣与美丽已在这世界消灭了，有限的个体好像有能力控制一切，成为不会祈祷，只会自我歌颂光荣。32

神学的美学是探讨「天主的光荣」及「天主就是爱」，因为爱，天主才有如此的行动。是天主主动与人沟通，建立父子、子女的关系，衪对人充满着期待。云白沙写道：「要向非基督徒澄清，基督徒的信仰是勇敢的，是真实而美丽的：存在的奥秘显示了爱的面貌，衪降来清洗了人的脚及心灵，担负了人的一切罪孽，接受了无理的控诉；……衪所忍受的都是为了宽恕受造物所犯的罪过。这是何等的美好，世界无可比拟。」33

天主圣三的光荣在耶稣身上闪耀着，天父在最深的奥秘中，其光荣如水泉般发放出来，所有受造物的美只是圣三远远的回音。在《唯有爱》（Love Alone）的导言中，云白沙说明其神学是为「天主是爱」（若一4:8）这主题而铺路。「爱」本是指天主的荣耀，有宇宙性及个人独特性的意义，包含了真、善、美的元素。

云白沙用的是教会传统对「美」的超越观念，而配以现代的思想方式，所以他解释神学美学的对象时采用了「形像」这词汇，耶稣基督是不可见天主的可见形体。天主是奥秘，以人有限的理解力、思想力，根本不可能想像出真实的神是怎样的，基督就以人的形像显示于人前，告诉人有关天主的奥秘，最重要是这形像表达了天主的爱和怜悯。

美、善及真并不停留在人思想的层面，具有形上的超越性，天主就是美、善及真的根源。现代神学很多时已不采用形上方法来思考，而代之以辩证或实证方法，云白沙的神学美学却十分着重信仰是天主的恩赐，人生的目的是赞美和光荣天主，天主的荣耀为最重要。

论及人与无限的天主的相处，他用了存有类比的方法，这样一方面拉近了天主与人的距离，但另方面也告诉人们，天主是不可完全被了解，被触摸的，衪实在深不可测，现在我们对天主的认知，只是全部事实的零碎片段，当我们说「神不存在时」，并不是事实，而是因为我们愚昧，而天主太伟大，所以感觉不到、找不着罢了。

美学讨论了天主的光荣，是以较为抽象的超越及类比来表达，而天主的实际的行动是耶稣基督救赎的善：圣言成了肉，寄居在人间的大舞台中。云白沙的「神剧」可以说是他的基督学，是美与善的具体展现。

  11. Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, vol. I, 79.
以下缩写为GL I-VII。
  12. GL II, 11.
  13. Joel Garver, The Theological Aesthetics, 1999. On Line Article:http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/glory.html.
  14. GL I, 125.
  15. Stephan van Erp, The Art of Theology, Hans Urs von Balthasar Theological Aesthestics and the Foundations of Faith (Paris: Peeters, 2004, p. 133).
  16. GL I, 146.
  17. GL I, 438.
  18. GL III, 34.
  19. GL III, 337.
  20. GL VII, 202ff.
  21. GL VII, 27.
  22. GL VII, 264.
  23. GL III, 14.
  24. GL I, 9.
  25. Stephan van Erp, The Art of Theology, Hans Urs von Balthasar Theological Aesthestics and the Foundations of Faith (Paris: Peeters, 2004, pp. 108-112).
  26. Theo-logic I, 220.
  27. 参阅卓新平主编《基督教小辞典》：普茨瓦拉是德国天主教神学家，是耶稣会士。他的神学着重信仰的返本归源，坚持以《圣经》为依归，耶稣基督是唯一的信仰根源。天主是超越的，超于人的理解能力，人在天主面前只能保持缄默。但天主的神秘并不与人隔离，因为天主圣子以人的位格降生人间，与人有着密切的联系。天主与人的接触使人感受到天主的爱，若世人自以为是，就是自绝于天主。上海辞书出版社 2001 312-313页。
  28. GL I, 443.
  29. Edward T. Oakes: Theology of Karl Barth, exposition and interpretation (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992, p. 201).
  30. Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford University Press, 1990, Pros 1.3 & 15, 88 & 96).
  31. GL I, 12-127.
  32. GL IV, 643.
  33. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Love Alone: the Way of Revelation (Dublic: Sheed & Ward, 1982, p. 83).
  34. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-drama: Theological Dramatic Theory II (Sans Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988-1998, p. 35-36). 以下缩写为TD I-V.

5. 《神剧》的基本思想

在《神剧》卷一前言中，云白沙交代了「为了更正确的诠释美学，必须以戏剧的理论加以剖析，我们需要阐明自由的不同意义，为了能达到神剧的领域。」34 他透过戏剧的方式探讨「基督学」。《神剧》共有五卷书：《前言》（Prolegomena）；《剧中人─人在天主内》（Dramatis Personae-Man in God）；《剧中人─基督内的位格》（Dramatis Personae-The Person in Christ）及《表演》（The Action）；《最后表演》（The Last Act）。

在云白沙的神学体系中，美、善及真实为一整体，无分先后大小，三者互为补充，因为都同样重要及精彩。在探究了美学之后，他感受到必须深入了解天主圣三之间的关系，及各自所担任角色的不同处，及其相同处，这关乎到天主圣三的伦理行为。云白沙以「神学戏剧学」来谈天主的善。基督作为圣子对父充满感激之爱，从一开始就自愿承担圣父拯救世界的旨意，为拯救那些滥用自由而脱离了天主的世人。衪取了人的肉身降世、死在十字架上，并从死者中复活的过程中向人保证，只要信衪的人便可获得救恩，回归圣父的怀抱。「耶稣基督的一生」这剧本是因我们、为我们而写、而演出的，体现出至善的境界。《神剧》所论的善是有关「有限之人所拥有的自由」与「无限天主的自由行为」的关系，把戏剧众多的元素用于神学的领域，以说明天主与世人行为的戏剧性特点。但要注意云白沙所谈的是神学，而不是戏剧，是以戏剧的观点来看待神学问题。
戏剧是通过人的身体表演，描写人生跌荡起伏、千变万化的过程，是时间空间的艺术，使用对话（有时是独白）、身体动作或眼神现于观众眼前。剧场、舞台、演员艺术、美术和服饰等都是必要件条，戏剧、艺术及美学有着不可分割的关系。云白沙让我们看见神学的美学向着神学的戏剧迈进，剧情就是整个救恩史，所以全体人类，如果愿意参与，也会被牵涉在内，都投入作前台的演员，是自由、自愿的参与。

云白沙认为圣经的启示充满戏剧性，在神学的概念中，《旧约》和《新约》已预先展开了这戏剧现象。35 天主对人所作的一切是善意的，神剧所牵涉的也是善：天主已完成的救赎工程，圣神在基督内使世人与自己和好（格后5:19），纯粹是馈赠之爱。基督的降生和结局也是戏剧性的。在圣经的描绘中看到鲜明的戏剧效果，如天主与世人，神性与人性，天国与世界，基督与亚当，创造与受造，超然与现实，永恒与历史，恩典与自然，拯救与堕落，善行与罪恶。他所指的戏剧性并不停留在戏剧的描述或欣赏，好像神学的美学一样，不是为欣赏世界的艺术，两者最终的目的都是归于基督的救赎。因此「我们感兴趣的是整个戏剧的组合，事物的存在恰似表演和游戏。这一整体应具有神学的形式，对启示一目了然。」36

在此剧本中，第一亚当和第二亚当都是主角。第一亚当代表着人的受造、犯罪和受罚，个体与集体的经历，而剧情涉及到人的有限、时间、生死、自由和罪恶等。第二亚当代表着基督的降生，给人带来了新的希望，是天主道成肉身的行动，及衪爱人救人的种种行为，剧情涉及耶稣的降生、受洗、宣讲、受难、复活及派遣圣神。基督作为神─人，就是神剧的真正解释者，衪既代表天主降生成人，以具体形象和行动与人生活在一起；又代表着人之成圣、获得天父的恩宠和救赎。
云白沙的「基督学」有着巴特的影子。在二十世纪三、四十年代，巴特开始建立自己的神学体系。他都是透过《圣经》编者的见证与教会传统来确立天主的真实存在（actual reality），人才能言说天主和衪的国度。巴特认为天主是至高而超越的存有，人性的理智绝不能认识衪。天主在耶稣基督身上启示了自己，衪是天人之中保。「基督论」清楚的表达了神─人（God-man）之间的关系，他能将两者毫不含糊地，在类比的规律下，没有贬低任何一方或亵渎了天主的至尊性，他坚守天主三位一体至高无上的地位，同时又进入人类的历史中。37 云白沙的基督中心论成为基督学、教会学、圣母学、女性神学、礼仪学、神修学等发展的基础，他所涉及的讨论范围包罗万有。38

  35. 参阅刘小枫主编：《现代性中的审美精神──经典美学文选》，上海学林出版社 1997年 1046-1047页。
  36. 36. TD I, 9.
  37. TD III, 220ff.并参阅云白沙批评布特曼派及黑格尔派（Moltmannian & Hegelian）的神学进程，
TD IV, pp. 321-328, 在此中有不少代表性的言论。
  38. Medard Kehland & Wener Loser (ed.), The von Balthasar Reader (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982, pp. 24-30).

6. 《神剧》中的基督

6.1 圣言的降生

圣言的降生是超越进入了现实，无限进入了有限，绝对进入了相对，在其「下降」中，神取了肉身，成为世人，其超越形体的神圣得以用形象来显现，耶稣是那不可想像之爱的无限奥秘。在云白沙的戏剧中，天主下降到这世界的舞台，并不是唱独脚戏，人在剧场中只是端坐的观众，这戏剧是神人共演的，人必须踏上舞台进入天主的表演中。云白沙认为人必感受到基督之爱，渗透到人的内心深处，因而激发人必须参与而不能成为旁观者。人与天主在这天地之间的舞台上，成为行动的主体，同时扮演着重要的角色。39

云白沙对若望神学有深入的研究，他解释「降生」建立了圣言神学。言语（word）的存在不用质疑，也是显示人与动物有所分别的一种媒介。他认为言语预设应具有三条件：（i）人是主体，是自由的，并且是你─我的对话；（ii）人不可能随意自创新言语，因为没有人会懂其意思；（iii）言语是一份礼物，每当接受之后，人就可以无阻挡的予以发挥。

人能够建立关系是因为人能交谈，正如云白沙常说：人类学的基本事实就因为有「你」（thou）才有我的存在。人不单会聆听，也能回应，所以他说：「人在本质上已具有以语言回应的能力。」40 这意味着人的天性能沟通，首先是与天主，然后与其他人。若不尊重他人的天赋就是自说自话，这也是一种罪。

基督是天主向人说的「话」，但同时衪又是代表着人向天父的回应，衪是言语（word）及回应（response）的结合体。耶稣的一生就是「言」进入了世界，进入了人类的时空中，如果基督是天父语言的自我表达，他一生显示了圣言成为行动，天主以行动表达自己，圣言最后以无言的死亡来显示，天主之言回归静寂，但不是消灭，是以另一种方式存在或通传，那就是圣神的推动，默感工作。云白沙说：「深藏的天主揭开面纱，显示自己，这样衪更能深层的把自己藏于人类中。」41 是衪整个的生活，同时也提升了人的生活具有神圣的意义：

「祂并不是以模糊影像出现，而是以地上的语言来表达天上的真情况，当『天主的仆人』每天辛勤地工作，也有疲劳，低头向天主祈祷，非受造的天主子就这样俯伏在天父的座前。衪的态度就是这样勤劳、受苦、不显眼、没有赞赏，是一个完完全全谦逊的人。」42

6.2 十字架神学

基督学是云白沙的神学中心，而基督学的核心便是「十字架神学」。至高无上的天主下降成为世人，并死在十字架上，衪以降生及死亡来证实其真爱。这至高无上的神圣性与深不可测之爱互相辉映，对人产生巨大的震撼和吸引力。天主子并不保留自我，而是让自己下降，自我奉献。因此亦体现天主之爱那份平易近人，以其谦卑、纯朴来到人间，怀着对世人的挚爱走向十字架，因而更深刻体会天主的难以想象及不可测度。十字架是失败堕落的结果，好像粉碎了衪要求的「超越」。不过与此同时也宣布复活的讯息：耶稣死在十字架上是天主肯定及裁决的新方式。43 通过天主在世上看似「愚拙」、「不需要依据任何理由之爱」世人才会体会「天主的智慧」及「不可掌握性」。

基督的十字架表示天主已将世界的苦难担负在自己的肩上。被钉在十字架上的天主张开双臂拥抱所有的人，如圣经所说：「因为衪愿意所有人都得救，并认识真理。」（弟前2:4）

耶稣基督的「使命」（mission）是要成为天主救赎的圣言，衪生活在圣父所决定的「时刻」之中，并与派遣衪的圣父紧密相连。服从在基督学占首要地位，是在最深层及最基本上如子女一般的依靠，云白沙称之为信赖，回归上主，面向着与衪的联系：「为叫世界知道我爱父，并且怎样命令我，我就照样去行。」（若14:31）耶稣所讲的「我」与服从永不分离，衪拒绝接受光荣或自我夸耀，「我因我父的名而来」（若5:34），基督就如此的接受了为光荣父的使命，并圆满的完成了。44

圣保禄在格林多前书表示基督信仰异于其他宗教的特点是十字架。犹太人要求的是奇迹，亦即德能；希腊人要求的是智慧。为他们被钉在十字架上的基督绊脚石，亦即懦弱，或是愚蠢。但保禄自己不知道别的，只知道被钉死十字架上的基督（格前2:2）。

若望福音以「完成了」（若19:30）作为耶稣在十字架上最后一句话。完成天主的旨意，衪「这样爱了世界，甚至赐下了自己的独生子」（若3:16）的生。「人子照样被举起来，使凡信的人在他内得永生。」（若3:14-19）的生与死，基督出死入生的救援是在十字架上完成的。

十字架神学实在是一篇爱的宣言，云白沙再一次提醒我们应活在天主内，如此才能寻得真正的信仰及神学上的目标。

6.3 历史神学

道成肉身是天主对历史的投入，更是对人的慈爱。为了救赎离弃了衪的人，圣言藉着人的形体进入历史，成为人类历史中的一部份，与所有人密切联系和沟通。「道」把衪的历史与众人的历史交织在一起：为他们的缘故，衪「成了贫穷，好使你们因着衪的贫穷而成为富有」（格后8:9）。只有曾在历史上被杀害的羔羊才配得上揭开人类历史的奥秘（默5:1-14）。因此道成肉身的历史就是所有历史的枢纽。45我们的信仰以基督降生的历史来诠释整个人类历史，并宣示天主对人的恩惠，这情况下普世的历史寻到它的目标及内在更深的意义。46

云白沙的「基督学」衍生自巴特的「历史的神学性」（historical-theological）。因为巴特的「普世预定论学说」（doctrine of universalistic predestination），构成云白沙「历史神学」的骨干。47 巴特的「普世预定论」认为天主创造天地时，已预定圣子的救赎是为整个人类，基督内的恩宠消除了所有罪恶（罗5）。在为所有人救赎中，先选择一少撮人参与救恩史，就是犹太人的历史；在耶稣基督来临之后，就代表着天主的救恩是为整个人类，在衪内天主的慈悲是为所有人，衪召叫所有人加入永远的救恩行列。

　　
云白沙从普遍性救恩作起点，藉着基督，普世和好的历史已完成。云白沙的历史神学综合为：耶稣在人类的历史内圆满了衪的救恩历史，并使二者合成为一，使万物回复原来的本性，衪成为宇宙的核心。48在这唯一「具体」的、在历史内的人，圆满了宇宙性的历史意义，所有的人类及民族都找到了存在的意义和目标，可以有圆满的永恒生命。历史中的道（logos）都在这特殊的道（Logos）。

耶稣成为历史内统一及圆满，衪独自给与的规范及最后的意义，使人类的历史充满着智慧。49 衪的参与并不会约束人的自由，减低人类生命的意义，或掩盖各民族本身的特性。圆满的历史就在衪的降生，成为宇宙性的道，耶稣是历史的规范：「道在人类中生活，衪的死亡、复活及升天，给历史，即人类的生活行为一个标准，不是另一个历史，就是人类的历史。」50

6.4 神剧的结论

云白沙的基督学及救恩学是受着若望及教父神学所熏陶。耶稣基督由爱父而衍生的服从，自愿进入世界，衪是神圣无比，却隐藏了自己，完全是一个无助的弱者死在十字架上。但爱的种子并没有因此而淹没，父对子的爱，使衪光荣的从死者中复活过来，再次显示自己天主子的身份，成为世界的救恩，消除了人与天主之间因罪所形成的阻隔。

在人方面来说，天主造世及救世，都是为了人类的好处，所以天主的计划，必要得到人类自由及自愿的合作及回应才有意义。耶稣基督以自己的死亡消灭了人类的死亡，以自己的复活恢复了人类的生命，由衪与天父立约及回应，人只要参与基督的行动，便会成为衪的人，因此天主与人有了双向的系。所有这些都是在《神剧》的剧情。

云白沙的「基督学」目的只有一个，就是为了表达出「天主是爱」，耶稣基督的悲剧是天主对人至善及至爱的表现。天主对人性的价值和救赎，并非以一位高高在上的救主形象，而是以屈尊就卑，受辱的方式进入罪之深渊，承担人类的苦难。人类的历史因着基督的降生恢复了生气，人的生活、行动有了目标及意义，我们相信跟随基督的脚步，必可赞颂光荣的天主，履行天父的旨意，并可抵达天上的家乡。那份信德及企盼，就是「基督学」所带来的讯息。

云白沙的「基督学」也着重耶稣基督的人性，因为人所能明白的就只有在眼内的事，他认为理解基督的悲剧必须在地上，在人类的历史中，在人性的世界舞台上，悲剧的效果才更为震撼及感动人心。

基督学最后的结论沿承着若望的基督观：「于是圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间；我们见了衪的光荣，正如父独生者的光荣，满溢恩宠和真理。」（若1:14）若望将基督的十字架和光荣视作不可分离的事件──都是由圣父而来，子的一生是为光荣父，在服从中等待光荣的一刻，也是最无助在十字架上的一刻，但衪仍是坚信父的安排。在这无所依据，不合常理的十字架上，天主的光荣能无疆界的向四方散播。受造物所拥有的美丽，只是圣子在圣神内反映圣父的形像和光辉，在世上所有的美都回归圣三的光芒中，一切都统合在耶稣内：世上的形式都能导向天主的光荣。

  43. Medard Kehland & Wener Loser (ed.), The von Balthasar Reader(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982, p. 24-25).
  44. Communio: 14(1987), p. 29.
  45. 江丕盛「从基督看植根于历史的救赎」，n19《道风》，2003，8页。
  46. Hans Urs von Balthasar, The von Balthasar Reader (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982, p. 30).
  47. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Man in History (Dublin: Shed & Ward, Veritas Publications, 1968).
  48. Ibid., 20-21.
  49. Paul E. Ritt: “Current Theology: The Lordship of Jesus Christ: Balthasar and Sobrino”, Theological Studies, 49(1988), pp.713-714.
  50. Hans Urs von Balthasar: A Theology of History (New York: Shed & Ward, 1968, pp. 18-19).

7. 全文总结

《从云白沙的「神学美学」与「神剧」浅释其神学观念》这研究课题，是云白沙神学三部曲之美及善的讨论，从天主神圣之美出发，寻找基督之善；也是因着基督之善，看到天主的美，看到天父的光荣。因为他的神学思想太丰富了，不能一一尽录，本文只是提出数个要点，作为进入他神学思想的钥匙。

他所有的作品，都是搜集各时代精英人士的思想，经过思考和整理，建立了自己的神学思想，所以既有教会传统文化，也不会忘记以现代的语言解说天主的存在。他寻求信仰与理性的平衡，包括了行动与默想，人的自由与服从。他并不是保守份子，但也没有解放式的行动，他总是从基督徒的观点作起点，到达基督徒的观点为终点，以信仰的角度来讲论天主的事。了解他思想的方式，比较容易掌握他为何会有神学三部曲，又为何如此的演绎。

「天主的光荣」是云白沙神学的总纲。他的神学第一部曲解释天主的光荣是：从创造至救赎都是天主光荣的显示。在教会的传统神学中，「美」（Beauty）是天主的名字，是天主的属性，所以云白沙也就在总纲下加了注释，他以神学的角度来讲述天主的美，天主的光荣是属于神学的美学问题。他的「神学美学」思想有以下数个重点：

(1) 神学美学的第一个要点是「具体」：天主的美是透过耶稣基督的「形象」显示给人类，使人可以看见及触摸，又在人的认知范围内。人们从天主的自我启示中认出天主的奥秘，承认天主就在人类之中，这是传统的基本神学概念，近代人所说的「信仰中的基督」及「历史中的耶稣」统一的呈现眼前。

耶稣基督的使命是承行主旨，以光荣在天之父，所以「天主的光荣」也在这具体的形象显示出来。在圣三的位格中，子对父有无限的爱，为了父的光荣，子愿意放弃了本有的光荣，以「虚己」的态度绝对的服从父。父因为也爱世人，为了弥补人对衪的亏欠，宁愿以自己儿子的生命填补人与神不能逾越的鸿沟。因为子自愿的承担这中界的责任，把堕落的人从死亡、失望中拯救出来，重新得见天主的光荣，重新歌颂天主。

美是供人观赏的，但人是否能感受一个艺术品或自然景像之美，则因人而异。至于耶稣基督这位美的根源，也只有在信仰中、在教会内才会被认出来。

(2) 神学美学的美是「超越」的：耶稣基督是天主美的具体表现，但另一方面，云白沙所说的「美」也是形上的、超越的。美是天主的属性，宇宙一切的美都只是天主美的反映，而人也不能逾越或是完全理解天主这超越性。

人以「存有类比」的方式分享神圣的生命，催迫人面向天主、思索天主、人及世界的关系，人与天主不是站在敌对面，互不相容，而是对存有的皈依及爱。

云白沙以「神学美学」作为其「神学三部曲」的序言，陈述了他整个神学的理念、根据及发展路向。在进入其第二部曲《神剧》时，只要掌握「美学」的基本观念，也能明白他的神学进程。
云白沙以善（goodness）来描述耶稣基督的圣子身份。这身份的特色是「天主下降、道成肉身」这一「神圣启示」为基础，并从早期基督徒信仰的实践和教父的神学中，寻回已被遗忘了美的思维。单只是美并不足够，因此美中必须有善和真，三者互相照亮，交织在一起。这也是云白沙对三位一体的神新的理解，或是对天主内在关系新的诠释。从基督被离弃中显示了神圣一体中父、子圣神的区别与距离，但在爱中又体验到三者共存的亲密关系。天主是以父、子及圣神的特质显示「爱」的存在：父透过圣神来爱子，圣神乃父与子之间爱的交流，是父子的共同气息或呼吸，因此「天主就是爱」（若一4:16）。人不是爱的本身，而只能「拥有」爱，或是「没有」爱，从这种超越性、本体性的「至爱」出发，云白沙又证明了「至爱」之「一」，与美善真之「三」的超越关系：美为爱的自我显现，善为爱的自我给与，真为爱的自我言述，三者以各自独特的方式在超越的关系中共建三位一体的状态。

云白沙并不把「美、善、真」只停留在超越的领域来开展，其神学贡献在于以「天主下降」来说明天主之爱是在历史中，是具体的，并对整个人类都有意义，这是在神学美学之后，必须有神学戏剧学的主要原因：天主圣言在世界上演、公开或宣布「天主是爱」。本文并未谈及的《神学逻辑学》，是说明天主的行动，人如何以理智来了解，及人在自我认识中的过程。所以整体而言，云白沙的神学理论定位在人，即以人为主体，是现世的和具历史性的，以人对天主的了解来回应「天主的下降」。但也要强调，这个必须是有信仰的人，才能看见天主的光荣，并接受天主的启示，这种相互关系中，只有在爱内才具有这份意识和能够解说清楚。

基于这认知的关系，在神学美学中以「天主的荣耀」在基督这「形像」中显示出来，因而神学中应具有审美这一特征。在《神剧》中基督的悲剧，使人体认了世界是一个大舞台，并参与演出这台戏，所有人都是当事人，并没有旁观者，在信仰生活中所应具备善的德性。而《神学逻辑学》中分析了对真的认知，人在信仰中选择理性之路，言述了人在无限「真」面前的逻辑性。在天主的显现中，自我呈现（美）、自我给与（善）、自我言述（真），是天主以不同方式把自己传递给人，人的感性和理性可以掌握的对象。

云白沙的神学是在于平衡：天上与人间、神秘与开敞、实体与形象、超越与人性、感性与理性交织在一起。他克服了现代神学中重人性或理性、唯灵或唯理、厚古薄今或唯今是用、从上而下或从下而上等争论，他以人神对话、情理相通、贯穿古今的双向方式作神学的出发点。他的神学像一座迷宫，既幽深，又神秘，其百科全书般的知识，和充满美感的倾向，使人惊讶、折服。51

本文《从云白沙的「神学美学」与「神剧」浅释其神学观念》的结论是：神学美学及神学戏剧学是一个剧本的上、下集（本来还有「神学逻辑学」的第三集），美、善及真分不开的。云白沙不但描述了天主圣三的关系，也包括了启示、基督论、圣神论、教会论等等及其他任何一个教义条目，都能融和在这美、善、真之中，互相关连，互相分享，每个神学议题都不是独立存在，必定与其他学问拉上关系，而云白沙的「美、善、真」的神学方法开拓了广阔的研究空间。

51. Stephan van Erp, The Art of Theology, Hans Urs von Balthasar Theological Aesthestics and the Foundations of Faith (Paris: Peeters, 2004, p. 89).

https://books.ziliaozhan.org/files/article/attachment/0/160/8383/9.jpg(7K)

by MOK Wing Kee, Alex (莫荣基)

A Historical Review of the Concept of Revelation

1. Introduction

Revelation has traditionally been a central idea in Christian faith. Christians believe that revelation is the means by which they know about God and it has provided the epistemological basis for theology. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the primary meaning of revelation is “the disclosure or communication of knowledge to man by a divine or supernatural agency.” This simple idea of revelation, however, has become difficult and theologians today still seek to clarify what revelation means or how it offers us the knowledge of God.

It should first be noted that the general interpretation of revelation has some formal features1. Firstly, revelation means an unveiling or a disclosure2. When revelation occurs, a veil is dropped and what was masked or hidden from sight is now disclosed. Secondly, this incident of disclosure cannot be initiated by any human witness, who is solely the receiver of a mystery, but is totally initiated by the mediator revealed in the incident. Thirdly, revelation always exceeds the grasp of human inquiry and therefore can be understood only by means of grace. The doctrine of revelation is actually concerned with the grace of God. Although most interpretations of revelation contain more or less some of these formal features, there are important differences between the classical understanding of revelation and various contemporary descriptions of the doctrine. One major problem is that there are disagreements about what revelation means and how it provides theology with an adequate foundation for the knowledge of God.

In fact, the theological controversies among different Christian traditions as well as other religions in both ancient and modern times are inevitably related to their ideas of revelation. As Avery Dulles comments, “the great theological disputes turn out, upon reflection, to rest on different understandings of revelation, often simply taken for granted.”3 The task of this paper is to investigate various concepts of revelation in different periods of Christian history4.

  1. George Stroup, “Revelation,” in Hodgson, P. et al. eds. Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 114-140, pp. 114-115.
  2. The Latin word, revelatio, means to remove a veil. It is translated from the Greek apokalypsis.
  3. Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation, 2nd ed. (New York: Orbis, 1992), p. xix.
  4. We will focus on the Catholic tradition.

2. Biblical Concepts of Revelation

For the writers of the Old Testament, "apart from some quite limited concessions, there is no stage at which God is not known."5 The writers of the Hebrew Scriptures plainly presuppose the knowledge of God and their main concern is how the Israelites as the chosen people of God should accept and respond to the divine messages. In the revelation through creation (Ps. 19:1, 8:3-4), the response is one of wonder and humbleness, as echoed by Paul in Rom 1:19-20 with the emphasis that God has made Himself known through the cosmos whose very existence requires an explanation outside of itself. God's character and God's purpose for creation have been made obvious through the creation of the cosmos and all living entities including humankind. Linked to the revelation through creation is the revelation through providence. God's providential care for His creation, particularly human beings, clearly demonstrates the goodness of the Sustainer (Lev 26:4, Ps 147:9, Jer 5:24). In the New Testament, the narratives of "the birds of the air" and "the lilies of the field" (Mt 6:25-32) are gratifying illustrations of God's character and God's provision for human needs. The revelation through history is a particular form of God's care for human beings. The classic example is the liberation of the Israelites from the bondage of slavery in Egypt. In this significant religious event of the ancient Hebrews, God participates in human history simply because He is concerned about them (Ex 3:7). For Paul, Jesus' death and resurrection is the new exodus that liberates the whole humankind from the bondage of sin (Rom 8:1-3, Eph 1:7).

In addition to the laws governing the workings of the cosmos, there are moral laws given to human beings. The revelation through moral laws is emphasized throughout the Old Testament. The laws of God are written in the heart of every person (Deut 30:11-14) and the observation of these laws constitutes the basic element for the covenant between God and His people (Jer 31:33). Paul also speaks of the importance and the true meaning of the laws in great detail (Rom 2:12-27, 7: 1-13, 13: 8-10, Gal 3:10-24; cf. Jas 2:8-12). In fact, the laws can also be seen as the expression of the wisdom from God.

Literature reflects the enthusiastic search for divine wisdom6 and Paul stresses that human wisdom is unable to comprehend divine wisdom (1 Cor 1:17-25), which can nevertheless be revealed to us through the Spirit (1 Cor 2:6-13). For the Hebrews, one way of revelation of the divine wisdom is through the inspired words of the prophets7. In addition, the Israelites and early Christians also received divine messages through dreams and visions8. Although the word revelation is not used in the Old Testament, its concep, which leads to the apocalyptic literature, is clear and deeply diffused in the mind of the biblical writers.

It should be noted that the different types of revelation in the Old Testament have certain characteristics. Firstly, God is always the initiator of revelation and human beings could be called at any time and place chosen by God. Secondly, revelation is an interpersonal event and it is signified by the covenant between God and His people in the Old Testament. Thirdly, the word of God is usually emphasized in revelation, and the Israelites have to listen to it with their heart. Fourthly, the promise of revelation is God's salvation as well as the fullness of life. All of these Jewish concepts of revelation are in harmony with those ideas in the New Testaments that focus on the person of Jesus Christ. For the early Christians, Jesus Christ is the climax of all revelation as well as the key to understanding all forms of revelation.

The New Testament authors make it clear that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the Old Testament (Lk 4:16-23, Jn 19:24, 28, 36-37), particularly as the Messiah who carries out his saving mission through his own suffering (Mk 8:31, Acts 17:3, 1 Pet 1:11). In addition, Paul also identifies Jesus with the Wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:18-25) and the Creator of all creation (Col 1:15-21). In the Apocalypse of John, Jesus is the central figure in the course of cosmic history and is vividly depicted as "the Alpha and Omega who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev 1:8). The traditional Jewish conception of revelation is therefore consistent with the early Christian conception. Both of them acknowledge the revelation of God in creation, in providence, in the laws and in the traditions of wisdom and prophecy. In other words, the Christian idea of revelation is embedded in and evolved from the Jewish Scripture. Nevertheless, for the Christians, Jesus is the continuation and summit of revelation, removing the veil and making what is revealed more lucid and definitive (2 Cor 3:14).

  5. James Barr, Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), p. 89.
  6. For example, Job 28:12-21.
  7. For example, Num 23-24, 1 Sam 10:5-6, 19:20-24, and 1 Cor 14:6, 30.
  8. For example, Gen 28:10-22, Dan 2, 4, Acts 9:10-12, 10:1-4, 16:9-10, and 2 Cor 12:1.

3. Revelation in the Patristic Period

The biblical ideas of revelation continued into the patristic era. During this period the main task of the early Church was to proclaim God's salvation, Jesus had brought into the world through his death and resurrection. The Christians generally recognized that the revelation in Jesus Christ was the hermeneutical key to understanding and judging history and society. A form of contextual theology was then developed by the Church Fathers, who sought to cultivate inculturation in the light of revelation in Jesus Christ. In opposition to Gnosticism and other heresies9, the understanding of revelation in the patristic period exhibits certain weights, particularly on the theology of the Logos.

In the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel, John10 commemorates Jesus as the Logos, or the Word of God, accentuating the hearing tradition of the Jewish community as well as that of the Johannine community: what we hear, see and experience now is the revelation of God. The Word that made the heavens and the earth is the foundation of all creation, as Paul has also proclaimed: "All things were created through him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together" (Col 1:16-17). With a richer and deeper meaning than Genesis, John declares that Jesus not only is the source of all creation, but also is the underlying rational principle of all existing things. In Greek, the term Logos also means the logic or the rational principle underlying the fundamental reality of the universe. In terms of the Greek language, therefore, the rational principle of the universe was a self-expression of God, who now reveals Himself as the Word.

The integration of the dual meanings of the term Logos clearly connects the Jewish creation ideas to the Greek philosophical conceptions about the ultimate operational rules of the universe at the time of the Johannine community. Moreover, it is significant that John identifies the Logos with God:"the Word was God' and personalizes the Logos with Jesus, as witnessed by John the Baptist and the Johannine community. The use of this special word Logos in the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel conveyed to the early Fathers the idea that Jesus is the mediator who now reveals the economy of salvation to creation. Accordingly, the New Testament is the continuity and enhancement of the Old Testament and the integration between the two testaments becomes evident. Opposed to Gnosticism, Irenaeus stressed the historical Christ over the spiritual Christ and he considered that the incarnation is the climax of salvation launched in the Old Testament. In this perspective, revelation is God's plan for salvation and is highly Christocentric. Athanasius of Alexandria also gave emphasis to the concept that revelation is the same as incarnation, which is the manifestation of Christ as a divine person and the communication by Christ of the doctrine of salvation.

The Church Fathers also pointed out the inaccessibility of God and of the knowledge about God. Referred to as "God's darkness", this divine inaccessibility can only be overcome through Christ. As a result, spirituality as the recognizing of the working of the Spirit becomes very important. In his commentary on the Fourth Gospel, St. Augustine identified Jesus Christ as the light of the world, which illuminates the darkness of the human intellect, evokes faith and makes understanding possible. St. Augustine went further to identify the two dimensions of this idea of illumination. On the one hand, the external dimension refers to the life and the teachings of Jesus Christ, as the Evangelists proclaim. On the other hand, the internal dimension encompasses the inner working of the Spirit and the grace of God to believe and to understand. This concept of revelation is clearly contradictory to Gnosticism, which simply equates salvation with the possession of knowledge of the mysteries of the universe.

  9. The most influential anti-Gnostic work is St. Irenaeus, Elegchos kai anatrope tes psudonymou gnoseos, usually called "Adversus Haereses".
  10. Although there is uncertainty about the identity of the author of the Fourth Gospel, we will simply name him as John, following the tradition of Irenaeus (130-200 C.E.).

4. The Middle Ages

It should be noted that St. Augustine established a paradigm which would serve as a structure for medieval theology. His view of the relation between faith and understanding had such a strong influence on Western theological method that the Augustinian synthesis, as it has been called, became normative. It provided the context within which most theological discussions were carried on. Anselm's famous saying in the prologue to his Proslogion, "I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand",11 clearly demonstrated the Scholastic methodological principle within the Augustinian tradition.

As the Doctor Angelicus12, Thomas Aquinas was indisputably the greatest medieval synthesist, who ambitiously embarked on a systematic account of the totality of all knowledge pertaining to God. His Summa Theologiae was the first real attempt to present theology as a science (scientia), that is, to investigate rationally what faith professes on the basis of the authority of divine revelation in the Scriptures13. In the first question of his Summa Theologiae, Thomas employs the Aristotelian distinction of sciences and distinguishes between two kinds of sciences: one proceeds from principles known in themselves by the natural intelligence, such as geometry and arithmetic. The other proceeds from principles known by the light of a higher science in which they stand as demonstrated conclusions. Thomas Aquinas modified Augustine's idea of divine illumination by expressing the human intellect in terms of two faculties: the passive intellect and the agent intellect. The latter originates from the divine light but is not the light itself. For Thomas, faith is an act of accent by the intellect to what has been revealed by God. But the intellect cannot perform this spontaneously unless it is lightened up from within by the grace of God. Thomas then typifies theology, or what he calls sacred doctrine (sacra doctrina), as a science of the latter type (a subalternate science), which "proceeds from principles known by the light of a superior science - the science of God and the blessed"14. This is important because it renders the principles of theology beyond the powers of natural reason to grasp, in themselves or demonstrate them from the principles of any other science. The knowledge proper to sacra doctrina can be known only as given to us by revelation. Therefore, theology is distinctly set apart from the strictly philosophical sciences, whose conclusions are ultimately grounded in principles accessible to natural reason15. In addition to philosophy, revelation is necessary because some of the truths of faith cannot be acquired through human reason. Moreover, revelation guarantees some of the knowledge of God that could be reached by human reasoning and makes it more comprehensible. More importantly, human beings can only attain ultimate happiness by revelation. The content of revelation is actually the goal of human life as divine creation. According to Thomas, this goal, in the end, is God Himself.

There is also a dynamic element in Thomas' idea of revelation in the sense that revelation can take on different forms and human understanding can grow over time. Revelation as the salvation plan of God has its own history and therefore human beings actually know more and more about the intimate life of God. In the Old Testament, the Word of God illuminates the prophets, who are then able to judge what is revealed and what to proclaim. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is the summit of revelation and his apostles and Church continue to pass on the sacred doctrine of salvation to the people of the whole world.

Although the word revelation is not used as a technical term in the patristic period or in the Middle Ages, the idea of revelation is clear and simple: God has revealed Himself in nature and in human history. The Constitutions of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 well illustrate this idea:

"This holy Trinity, which is undivided according to its common essence but distinct according to the properties of its persons, gave the teaching of salvation to the human race through Moses and the holy prophets and his other servants, according to the most appropriate disposition of the times. Finally, the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, who became incarnate by the action of the whole Trinity in common and was conceived from the ever virgin Mary through the cooperation of the holy Spirit, having become true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one person in two natures, showed more clearly the way of life."16

One important feature of revelation, which originates in the communal life of God Himself, is its dynamic and historical evolutionary process. However, revelation is perceived primarily as a doctrine or teaching of salvation, which is a way of life as is demonstrated in the life of Jesus Christ. During the Reformation, as the protestants stress the principle of "sola scriptura" and the concept of personal illumination by the Holy Spirit, the issue of revelation becomes increasingly complicated and difficult. Revelation is then understood not from the perspective of history and incarnation but rather from the standpoint of its origin, of faith and of objective revelation.

  11. Anselm of Canterbury Proslogion, Edited and translated from the Latin by Jasper Hopkins and Herbert Richardson. Toronto: Edwin Mellen Press, 1974, 1976, Prologue.
  12. In 1879, Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris declared Thomas Aquinas to be the leading Scholastic theologian.
  13. In Scholastic theology, the term authority has various meanings, but largely associated with a practice of teaching and arguing. M.D. Chenu, “’Authentica’ et ‘Magistralia’,” Divus Thomas (Piacenza) 28 (1928): pp. 3-31.
  14. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae I, q. i. a. 2.
  15. This separation, however, is not complete. Obviously there can be no intersection of the principles of each science. Nevertheless, since sciences are not differentiated by what they study but by the formality under which they consider their objects, Thomas does allow that some of what is proposed to us in revelation can be demonstrated in philosophy. Examples include the existence of God, that God is one, and that God is good. Such truths, which Thomas called the preambles of faith, constitute an intermediate class of truths lying between those which are inaccessible to natural reason alone, such as truths concerning the Incarnation and the Trinity, and those which are accessible but do not pertain to salvation, such as that the earth moves around the sun.
  16. Norman P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils I (1990), 230.

5. The Reformation and the Council of Trent

Both Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed that there is knowledge of God apart from revelation such as the knowledge drawn from the divine creation. Nevertheless, this kind of knowledge is practically not beneficial to our salvation. What is crucial to our salvation is the revelation from God that can only be known through Jesus Christ. For Luther, the Word of God is Jesus Christ as is indicated in the Fourth Gospel but this Word can never be separated from the Spirit. The Word is the sole content, centre, and unity of scripture but the Spirit is "required for the understanding of scripture, both as a whole and in any part of it." 17 Luther made his interpretation of revelation mainly from the Pauline epistles, particularly from the Letters to the Romans and Galatians. Making use of the Pauline distinction between the "righteousness of faith" and the "righteousness of the law" (Rom 4, Gal 3), he argued that the center of scripture and the true meaning of revelation is the gospel of Jesus Christ, as constituted by the Word and the Spirit, and everything else must be understood in connection with the gospel. For Calvin, scripture is the only means for the attaining proper knowledge of God. The words of scripture remain external to the listeners and will not become revelatory and salvific unless they receive the Spirit's inward testimony that confirms the authority of scripture. From this viewpoint, the Church is not a sound testimony to revelation as it pretends to be.

At the Council of Trent (1542-1563), the Church declared that saving truth and moral discipline "are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand." 18 Accordingly, the Church has the sole authority to interpret scripture:

“No one, relying on his own skill, shall, -- in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -- wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, -- whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, -- hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.”19

The emphasis on tradition and its relation to scripture in the divinely inspired Church is obviously contrary to the protestant viewpoint that God is the author of scripture and that everything necessary for faith and life can be found in scripture or deduced from it. Despite this major difference, both Catholic and protestant models of revelation hold that the content of revelation is truths about God, Who is transcendent and related to the world externally. God is outside the created cosmos, whose order and very existence are contingent upon God. Yet all statements about God have the same cognitive status as human statements about other empirical realities. During the Enlightenment period, the metaphysical view concerning the relation of God to the world and the epistemological view concerning the attributes of God became problematic and received many attacks.

  17. Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, LCC 17:112 (Mich.: Grand Rapids, 1971).
  18. Norman P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils II, 663.
  19. Ibid, 664.

6. The Enlightenment and the First Vatican Council

The emergence of the new science in the seventeenth century stirred up a real crisis for the Christian theology of revelation. Isaac Newton's success in describing nature as a world-machine governed by fundamental physical laws gave rise to an wareness of the power of reason. The new view of nature was deterministic and reductionistic. The ideal of rationality manifest in science became the norm for interpreting reality and experience. Deistic views of God were common, and some thinkers rejected all truths about God and defended atheistic and materialistic philosophies, while some denied any connection between revealed truths about God and empirical reality. The awareness of the historical character of human reason, knowledge and understanding further threatened the universality and uniqueness of revealed religion. Gabriel Daly gives a nice summary of the real crisis in terms of the views of the philosophers:

"Descartes had prepared the way with his methodical doubt and his emphasis on clear and distinct ideas. Hume's radical empiricism awoke Immanuel Kant from his dogmatic slumbers. The result was Kant's "Copernican revolution", with its turn to the subject and its conception of religion as limited by the bounds of human reason."20

To meet the challenges of atheism, deism and rationalism, the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius asserts the First Vatican Council's teaching on revelation. God's existence and some of His attributes "could be known with certainty from the consideration of the created things, by the natural power of human reason"21 Nevertheless, revelation is necessary because "God directed human beings to a supernatural end, that is a sharing in the good things of God that utterly surpasses the understanding of the human mind."22 The goal of revelation is to raise human beings to a supernatural level so that they can"conceive what things God has prepared for those who love him."23 This supernatural revelation is contained objectively in the written scripture as well as in the unwritten traditions "which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us." 24 The Church thus has the authority to judge the true meaning and the interpretation of scripture. In the fourth chapter of Dei Filius, it is claimed that there are mysteries hidden in God that can only be known by revelation and accepted by faith. Reason, when used properly, can achieve some understanding of God's mysteries "whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connection of these mysteries with one another and with the final end of humanity." 25 Although faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between them because they come from the same God. In addition, they mutually support each other because right reason establishes the foundations of faith whereas faith in turns delivers reason from errors.

The First Vatican Council made a clear distinction between the natural knowledge identified by human reason and the supernatural knowledge attained by revelation. Revelation is then regarded as a closed issue, becoming a doctrine that must be kept intact and interpreted in loyalty. This static and propositional notion places emphasis on the objective dimension of revelation, explicitly as something given to humankind in an impersonal way.

  20. Gabriel Daly, Revelation in the Theology of the Roman Catholic Church, in Paul Avis (ed.), Divine Revelation (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1997), 23-44, p. 26.
  21. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 806.
  22. Ibid.
  23. Ibid.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Ibid, 808-809.

7. The Second Vatican Council

The Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation issued by the second Vatican Council noticeably incorporates significant changes in the conception of revelation. The first draft of the document, entitled "On the Sources of Revelation" and completed in 1962, preserved the scholastic trait that revelation is contained objectively in the written scripture and in the unwritten traditions. Nevertheless, the proper relation between scripture and tradition is uncertain and unconcerned. In fact, more weight is put on the latter due to the new insights on it since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Moreover, the first draft stressed on the verbal inspiration of scripture and a very strict interpretation of inerrancy. It espoused a naive historical view that the gospels reproduce the actual words and acts of Jesus Christ. This preparatory document unsurprisingly received a lot of criticism and after several hard discussions a final draft was presented and received the acceptance of an overwhelming majority of the council fathers in 1965. This final document gives full recognition to the rights of scientific exegesis and a broad understanding of inspiration and inerrancy. It reflects on revelation as the self-disclosure of God in the context of human history, reaching its climax in God's definitive self-manifestation in Jesus Christ.

Human beings are called upon to enter into an interpersonal relationship with God:"By this revealing of himself of God, who is invisible, in his great love speaks to humankind as friends and enters into their life, so as to invite and receive them into relationship with himself."26 Vatican II actually revitalized the idea of illumination from the Augustinian tradition, thus advancing a dynamical on-going perception of revelation. This way of thinking underlines God's work in every moment of the Church's history. In addition, the vital role of scripture is restated in Dei Verbum in the sense that

"Tradition and scripture together form a single sacred deposit of the word of God, entrusted to the Church."27

  26. Ibid, 972
  27. Ibid, 975.

8. Contemporary Developments

In the twentieth century, the doctrine of revelation became an important topic in theological discussions. In fact, many of the theological discussions in the last century are more or less related to the interpretations of revelation. For the neo-Reformation theologians, emphasis is placed on the objectivity of Christian faith as God's self-disclosure in the Word of God. Karl Barth, for example, considers that Jesus Christ as the Logos is the foundation for Christian knowledge and language about God. For Rudolf Bultmann, revelation is not only the communication of divine knowledge but also an event in which a Christian is addressed by the truths of faith and is called to respond in obedience. Human existence thus also plays a crucial role in revelation. Dermot Lane maintains that human beings can only understand revelation through their experiences.

"The primary point of contact between God and man in history is human experience. The medium of revelation, therefore, is human experience. The revelation of God to man takes place in human experience. The search for God outside human experience has been rightly described as a search for idols. This particular emphasis on experience is a reaction against abstract and overly intellectualistic approaches in the past to revelation. It also highlights the need for some degree of active awareness and self-consciousness in the recipient who appropriates God's revelation." 28

Karl Rahner's Hearers of the Word presents an interpretation of revelation in the Thomist tradition, yet incorporating ideas from Martin Heidegger's existential philosophy as well as from Immanuel Kant's transcendental method. According to Kant, God is not an empirical object and "all attempts to employ reason in theology in any merely speculative manner are altogether fruitless."29 Rahner thus tried to relate "the universal transcendental features of human openness and response to God"s revelation, on the one hand, to the categorical and particularized revelation embodied in Jesus Christ, on the other."30 Starting with humankind and its constitutive experiences, Rahner insists that God desires everyone to be saved and therefore there is a universal transcendental revelation for all human beings. Nevertheless, this revelation remains purely transcendental and never becomes categorical for those who have by no means encountered the historical revelation embodied in Jesus Christ. In addition, the openness of humanity to being31 is essential in revelation because it makes revelation possible if not actual. In the midst of their openness to being, or their transcendence, human beings may experience God's Word. Accordingly, Rahner regards that, resembling the particular revelation in Jesus Christ, transcendental revelation also has its history. In fact, as Hans K?ng points out, the development of the doctrine of revelation in relation to the category of history is one of the important traits of the Second Vatican Council. In Dei Verbum, one can actually observe the conception that revelation is expressed in both word and event:

"The pattern of this revelation unfolds through deeds and words bound together by an inner dynamism, in such a way that God's works, effected during the course of the history of salvation, show forth and confirm the doctrine and the realities signified by the words, while the words in turn proclaim the works and throw light on the meaning hidden in them."32

However, history is vulnerable to hermeneutical questions because all historical events are based on interpreted experience. For Edward Schillebeeckx, experience is vital for revelation and "we experience in the act of interpreting, without being able to draw a neat distinction between the element of experience and the element of interpretation."33 Therefore, in addition to the objective content of revelation, the subjective dimension of revelation such as the language, texts and life of the Christian community should also be taken into account for theological reflection on revelation. In narrative theology, emphasis is placed on how the faith of the Christian community is appropriated by individuals whose personal identities are reinterpreted and transformed by means of narratives in the community. The hermeneutical nature of revelation has been generally accepted by Roman Catholic theologians nowadays.

Modern science shows that nature is a long dynamic evolutionary process governed by law and chance. Many theologians today hold that this evolutionary worldview should also be integrated with our concept of revelation because the universe is a creation of God and what we find in nature should reveal the wisdom and beauty of the same God who also communicates with us as a person in the incarnated Logos. St. Paul says plainly, "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Rom 1:20) In the incarnation of the Logos, we can discern the nature of the divine creation and the meaning of human existence. The Creation is a long evolutionary process in the light of contemporary cosmology and the historical Jesus is "the continuation and fulfillment of a long cosmic evolution"34. Being the heart of creation, Jesus reveals to us the full meaning of creation. As a man, he shares our cosmic evolutionary history that started from the Big Bang, continued in the creation of heavy elements in the stars and supernovae, and evolved from the early life forms to Homo sapiens. As the Logos, Jesus is the self-expression and the self-revelation of God. He is the origin of all beings in the cosmos as well as the ultimate meaning of the evolving conscious cosmos. The goal of evolution may be perceived as the preparation for the revelation in Jesus Christ who would bring the whole creation into union with God. Teilhard de Chardin even refers to this cosmic dimension of Christ as the third nature of Christ35, demonstrating the significance of this theological idea of cosmic revelation that has grown from modern cosmology. In fact, the cosmic character of the Logos is prominent in Paul's Letter to the Colossians, in which Jesus Christ is presented as the creator, the preserver and the saviour for the entire cosmic creation.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities - all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." (Col 1: 15-20)

  28. Dermot Lane, The Nature of Revelation, The Clergy Review 66 (1981),
p. 93.
  29. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1965), p. 528.
  30. Gabriel Daly, Revelation in the Theology of the Roman Catholic Church, in Paul Avis (ed.), Divine Revelation (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1997), 23-44, p. 38.
  31. Rahner refers being to all possibilities of reality and also to God.
  32. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 972.
  33. Edward Schillebeeckx, Christ: The Christian Experience in the Modern Word (London: Seabury Press, 1980), p. 33.
  34. Ian G. Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), p. 248.
  35. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Heart of Matter (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978), p. 93.

9. Conclusion

The historical understanding of revelation shows a spectrum with the static view of a set of propositions or truths of faith about God given to the humankind at one end and the dynamic view of the self-expression of God in human history and experience at the other. The interpretation of revelation is not only composed of the foundation for the knowledge of God but also the hermeneutical description of how revelation takes place. The historicity of human understanding becomes more significant, although scripture and tradition still play the central role in the theology of revelation. Moreover, future discussions of revelation should be brought into dialogue with science and other religions. Although contemporary theologians have not arrived at a common interpretation of revelation and many questions about revelation are still unresolved, it seems that any progress for the understanding of revelation is itself part of revelation. In fact, revelation is not only a process of experience and interpretation, but also a process of learning as Christian history has clearly shown.

Bibliography

1. Avis, P. (ed.) Divine Revelation. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1997).
2. Barbour, I. G. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997).
3. Barr, J. Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments. (New York: Harper and Row, 1966).
4. Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John. 2 vols. AB 29, 29a, Anchor Bible. (New York: Doubleday, 1966-1970).
5. Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A. and Murphy, R. E. (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. (Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989).
6. Bultmann, R. The Concept of Revelation in the New Testament. In Existence and Faith. (New York: Meridian Books, 1960).
7. Calvin, J. Institutes of the Christian Religion. A New Translation by Beveridge, H. 2 vols. (London: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1962).
8. Dulles, A. Models of Revelation, 2nd ed. (New York: Orbis, 1992).
9. Fackre, G. The Doctrine of Revelation: A Narrative Interpretation. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997).
10. Harris, E. Prologue and Gospel. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994).
11. Haught, J. The Revelation of God in History. (Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1988).
12. Hefner, P. The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
13. Henry, G. C. Logos. (New York: Associated University Presses, 1976).
14. Hodgson, P. et al. (eds.) Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).
15. John Paul II Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998).
16. Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1965).
17. Lane D. The experience of God : an invitation to do theology. (New York: Paulist Press, 1981).
18. McKenzie, J. L. Dictionary of the Bible. (London: Chapman, 1966).
19. Moloney, F. J. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina 4. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998).
20. Morris, L. The Gospel According to John. Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
21. Niebuhr, R. The Meaning of Revelation. (New York: Macmillan Co., 1941).
22. Pannenberg, W. (ed.) Revelation as History. (London: Sheed and Ward, 1969).
23. Rahner, K. Hearers of the Word. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969).
24. Schillebeeckx, E. Christ: The Christian Experience in the Modern Word. (London: Seabury Press, 1980).
25. _____. Revelation and Theology. (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967).
26. Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel according to St. John. 3 vols. HThKNT IV/1-3. (London: Burns & Oates, 1968-1982).
27. Sch?ssler Fiorenza, F. and Galvin, J. (eds.) Systematic theology : Roman Catholic Perspectives. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).
28. Teilhard de Chardin, P. The Heart of Matter. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978).
29. _____. The Phenomenon of Man. (London: William Collins, 1959).
30 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I.
31. Vatican Council II. Dei Verbum. In A. Flannery, ed. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar Documents. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1975).

by Fr. Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti S.D.B(斐林丰)

The Multi-Layered Meaning of "Hypocrisy" in the Gospels

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A025D1_1.pdf

作者：柯毅霖 Criveller, Gianni 静也译

本文对于福音在中国本地化隐喻的研究，无意也不能钜细无遗地论述这巨大而具有挑战性的主题所涉及的全部事情及问题。

在此我集中讨论三个题目。在第一章中，我要向大家介绍文化概念及后现代文化、本地化概念及相关的术语以及目前天主教会内对于本地化的讨论。

在第二章中，我要向大家展示中国天主教会的本地化历史过程中的主要节点。然而，本人将回避以大量篇幅讨论中国礼仪之争问题，因为关于这一话题的文献已经十分全面和广泛。

在第三章中，我首先要总括地介绍因文化基督徒的讨论而激发的本地化争论，然后特别介绍刘小枫的神学建议。虽然这讨论不是特别从天主教的角度出发，但它无疑是中国当代基督宗教和神学领域中最有意义的问题之一。本人认为，为此奉上天主教的声音还是值得的。

第一章本地化在天主教会内的隐喻

何谓文化？

显然，本地化这个概念与文化这个概念是紧密联系在一起的。如果我们不首先对文化展开描述，那么本地化就会难于理解。文化不仅不容易定义，而且学者、哲学家和神学家们之间对这个概念具体应该包括什么内容也没有形成共识。英语中的“文化”（culture）一词与其他罗曼斯语（源自拉丁文的语言）中的相关辞汇很类似，事实上，这个概念在许多西方国家中均有相似的历史。然而，在世界上其他地方，那些能够代表“文化”的后天习得行为和语义学的一些因素也许并不是以同样的方式组合在一起。

当我们讲“文化人”（a person of culture）的时候，我们是指一个受过教育、对某个学科如艺术、文学、诗歌等有专门而广博知识的人。但是文化并不仅仅是一个精英分子的概念。每个人均通过“文化适应”（enculturation）的方式而隶属于某个文化。2这个“文化适应”是一种基本的社会现象，它是人们学会在他们所出生和成长的团体中分享和参与生活的过程。文化由一个意义体系组成，在这个体系中，我们所习得的语言具有根本的重要意义。既然人们学习文化，所以教与学的过程是文化的一个重要组成部分。这种关系并不是绝对的，所传授的某些东西可能会失落，而人们总会有新的发现：文化以一种变化的常态而存在。因而，文化的一个主要特征就是它的动力及它的变化模式，基于各种不同的因素，例如与其他文化的相遇、人口和经济的发展、科学的进步和技术的发现等。

习得的模式包括语言、行为，还有符号及其所对应的意义。文化由各种意义体系组成，但它们并不是根本的、普遍的，而是一种共识的结果，因此不同的人类社会会就不同的关系和意义形成不同的共识。从这种意义上讲，没有任何文化是绝对的，所有的文化均是相对的。各种符号的象征意义必然要经历一个变化的过程，因而保留下来的通常是某种特定的仪式，而其原来的意义已经失落了。

何谓中国文化？

正如前面所提，文化这个术语代表了一个相当复杂多样的概念或现实。文化的复杂性也可以表现为同一文化内的数个次文化的共存，或者同一国家或民族内的多个文化的共存。例如当我们讲中国文化时，我们显得过于概括。何为中国文化？指儒家思想？新儒家思想？道家思想？佛教？民间宗教？风水？传统信仰和实践？毛氏文化？中国特色的社会主义？那么香港、台湾和海外华人呢？

而且，中华民族中还有一些次文化，这些“次”文化并不意味着二级文化，而意味着那些处于主流文化之外的文化。然而这些次文化同样值得人们尊重及拥有尊严。一些次文化包括：少数民族（藏族、彝族、各种依斯兰少数民族等）、又诸如工厂工人、农民、渔人、商人、店主、党员领导、学生等社会团体。我们至少可以这样讲，中国具有许多文化，它们之间可能有很大的差异。鉴于中国文化的不断变化和多元的特性，本地化的实现显然要比人们的凭空臆想要复杂困难得多。我们不能仅仅通过采用某些中国符号和仪式来表达基督奥迹就能实现本地化。问题远比这要复杂和深远。

后现代和新纪元文化

当代男女所处的后现代环境更增加了定义与描述文化的复杂性，甚至使得定义与描述当代文化也变得十分艰巨。后现代文化是由一系列能够自我生成意义的机构或组织组成，而没有横向和纵向的秩序，谁也不能宣称拥有超越团体的权威。通过大众的沟通与分裂，一些诸如后现代主义和全球化等复杂现象迫使不同的文化相遇、共存、混和和重叠。这不仅发生于同一社团内，而且也发生在同一个体内。许多甚或大多数当代男女同时隶属于不同的文化，而常常采取不同的世界观，这使得世界呈现出一种前所未有的矛盾与多元态势。因此，“困惑”这个词便是用来描述生活于地球村中的后现代人。

如上所述，根据定义，文化总是处于一种不断变化和转型的状态中，因此文化不仅拥有过去，而且还迈向将来，并且属于将来。那么所需要的不仅是对某些文化遗产传统展开细致的研究，而且还是一种想像力练习、一种对于“时代标志”有所关注的意识。本地化的任务必须要考虑这种混乱和不幸的情形与局面。

后现代性通过它的多元主义和相对主义向基督宗教提出了挑战－－这种多元主义和相对主义不仅关乎事实，也关乎权利。天主的存在或不存在是两个同样无关紧要的选择。

“新纪元”及一些“新宗教”给后现代属于宗教性的回答。它们利用后现代的态度，拋弃深深持守的信仰、思想和传统宗教制度。后现代主义和“新纪元”也分享同样的假设：信仰不如经验重要；信仰的存在基础只是它的实用性。信仰只是偏好取向的问题，而不关乎真理；各种信仰具有同样的、无意义的平等。

不仅在香港，甚至在中国大陆，全球化现象使后现代主义及“新纪元”心态影响更广泛，然而这些思想在香港已然存在。后现代主义及“新纪元”已经透过其激进的多元主义、相对主义、融合主义、怀疑主义和分裂主义，加深了世界各地以及香港和中国大陆的许多当代人在思想和行为上的分化。许多人也许并没有有意去拥抱后现代主义或“新纪元”本身，但他们却分享它们的一些特征。

  1. 在此本人愿意向Sr. Betty Ann Maheu表达诚挚的谢意，感谢她为修改本文不同版本的草稿而提供的宝贵帮助。因此，本人谨将此文献给她。

何谓本地化？

在过去大约四十年里，“本地化”已经成为天主教神学讨论和传教实践两个领域的一个重要概念。梵二会议（1962－1965年）、“福音传播”世界主教会议（1974年）及之后的教宗保禄六世的《在新世界中传福音》（Evangelii Nuntiandi）宗座劝谕（1975年）等教会事件均唤起了人们注意本地化之必要性。自那之后，宗座和教会均发表一系列文章讨论过本地化这个问题，其中包括教宗若望保禄二世最近的文章：《救主的使命》通谕（Redemptoris Missio, 1990年）、《信仰与理性》通谕（Fides et Ratio, 1998年）和《教会在亚洲》通谕（Ecclesia in Asia, 1999年）。教会文献值得我们注意的是由国际神学委员会于1988年所发表的《信仰与本地化》。除此之外，亚洲主教会议联合会（Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences）已经就此话题发布了许多文献。3

这些有权威的文献将本地化视为启示的一个基本特性，与道成肉身（圣子降生）这奥迹的动力与过程有紧密关系。

天主子的降生发生在特定的历史背景和地理环境中。在纳匝勒人耶稣身上，天主穿上了典型人性特征，包括一个人隶属于某个特定民族及某块特定土地。土地的物理特性及其地理限制与圣言取肉身这一事实紧密不分。4

因着降生圣言的生活、死亡及从死者中复活，耶稣基督现在已经被宣称为所有造化、全部历史及人类对完善生活之渴望的完成与实现。在他内，所有宗教和文化传统的纯正价值，如仁慈、翕合主旨、怜悯和正直、非暴力和正义、孝德及与造化寻求和谐等，均寻获了它们的完成与实现。没有任何个人、民族、文化能够对发自人类情境之核心的耶稣的吁求表现得无动于衷。5

本地化也被认为与教会的使命紧密联系在一起。作为教会精髓的福传使命必须要经历一个本地化的过程。如果福音与文化是不同的两种东西，那么福传与本地化自然就紧密联系在一起。

天主之国降临于那些深深植根于文化的人们，天国的建设不可避免地要借用一些人类文化因素。在与世界不同文化相遇过程中，教会不仅要传扬自己的真理与价值、从中为文化添加活力，而且还要采用不同文化中已有的积极因素。这是福传者在宣扬基督信仰、使其成为民族文化遗产之一部分这一过程中的必经之路。与各种文化进行融合一直均是教会在世旅程的一部分。6

福传与文化相融合的重要后果之一可以从教宗若望保禄二世的教导中显示出来：“教会不能放弃她在与古希腊－－拉丁思想进行本地化过程中所获得的东西。放弃这种遗产就是否认天主那在时间与历史过程中引导教会的计画。这个标准对于各个时代的教会来说均是有效的，即使对将来的教会也是如此，她将会以此得知自己因今日和东方文化的交往融合而获益良多。7

本地化（Inculturation）及其许多名称

自然，本地化这个术语与文化这个术语一样，也显示出复杂的特性。这种复杂性可以从过去四十年里人们用于描述这种现实的众多同义词那里得到很好的展示。一些术语如下：适应化（accommodation）、顺应化（adaptation）、受同化（acculturation）、本土化（nativization）或本国化（indigenization）、跨文化（trans-culturation）、文化相关原则（principle of cultural relevancy）、入世化（incarnation）及最近的文化相互关系（inter-culturality）、处境化（contextualization）和文化间对话（cross cultural dialogue）等。每个词均对本地化（inculturation）这个过程表达出自己独特的理解。

适应化这个词始自利玛窦（1552－1610年），他用这个词来描述耶稣会的传教方法；众所周知，该方法是调整自己的生活方式及向中国儒家文化宣讲福音。为了能使传教努力更为有效，利玛窦及其同伴们采用了一系列与基督宗教信条没有明显冲突的中国文化特征（儒家概念、中国成语、寓言故事、历史风范等等）。

顺应化与适应化的意思大致相同：福传者及福音讯息因应对象文化而作出调整与适应。着名汉学家德礼贤（Pasquale D'Elia）用顺应化这个词来描述利玛窦的方法。8在今天，这对术语（顺应化与适应化）几乎已普遍被弃而不用，尽管它们曾对传教活动的反省有不可磨灭的贡献。它们似乎显示，福音讯息与文化之间的相遇仍很表面。钟鸣旦（Nicolas Standaert）提出，适应化（或顺应化）应该是迈向本地化的第一步。9

本土化或本国化是指教会的地方化（localization），这是一个漫长的过程，鉴于梵二会议的努力，它几乎已经普遍完成。索治（Bartolomeo Sorge SJ）等用“文化调和”（cultural mediation）这种说法来描述利玛窦的方法及教宗保禄六世的相关教导。10

受同化是人类学家所采用的一个概念，一般来说并没有应用于神学领域。该概念演示了一种经常见于福传过程的现象，便是由文化的接触而引起的动力与变化。

跨文化用于指代存在于各种文化中的决定因素，或者指某些因素或个人从原来的文化进入另一个不同的文化。在世界的福传史中，无数归信者均经历了后者的过程。当魏若望（John Wetek SJ）对利玛窦的福传方法进行神学反思的时候，他采用了“文化相关原则”的说法。11

当入世化一词用于传教领域时，它的意思与本地化（inculturation）非常相近。这个词意味着，福音讯息进入某个特定文化的过程应该模仿天主圣子降生成人这一过程。

本地化（inculturation）描述的是文化接受福音讯息这一积极过程。该文化的成员理解福音，然后根据福音的存在、行动及传播方式来展现表达福音。12钟鸣旦还指出，福音不仅要通过文化来表达，而且它还要成为“启迪、指引和团结的源泉，对文化进行升华和重塑，以实现‘新的造化’－－这种新造化不仅能够滋养某个具体的文化，而且还能使普世教会受益。”13

于1992年在香港召开的一次会议上，拉辛格枢机提出了“文化相互关系”的说法，这说法更能概括本地化的活力。文化相互关系表达了这样一种观念：事实上基督宗教信仰和福音，并不是一种抽象而孤立的东西，可以从一个文化传送给另一个文化。福音的讯息总是已经切实存在于福传者的文化中。在福传过程中，福音所接触的是两种文化：宣讲者的文化和聆听者的文化。14

“文化间神学”表达一种有意识的觉察：福音在某个特定文化中运作，而不会使其绝对化。因此，社会背景在此有很大的重要性。15

“处境化”这个词16一直为神学反思所广泛接受，关注的不仅是文化这个（如上面所提过的），难以定义和描述的概念，而且还关注宣讲福音时的特定环境。这特定环境不仅由各种文化因素所组成（未必是一个），而且由社会、经济、政治、种族及其它因素构成。“处境化”这个概念帮助人们在具体情境中作更明确的决定，它允许人们以种族、边际、反潮流和被压迫等群体之一来描述全球化情形。事实上，处境化和本地化（inculturation）这两种说法虽然相关，但它们却描述了不同的概念和行为。

然而，尽管越来越多的神学家们为了清晰和简洁的缘故，而倾向于认为“文化相互关系”、“文化间神学”和“处境化”更为恰切，但本人仍沿用“本地化”这词。继续使用这个词的好处因着它现在是正式的教会用语及教会任务这事实得以加强。“本地化”、“文化间神学”和“处境化”被收录于最近的重大作品《传教辞典》中。17由卡尔滇p勒（Karl Muller）18、钟鸣旦（Nicolas Standaert）、哈威．克里（Harve Carrier）19以及马杰洛．德．斯．阿则维多（Marcello de C. Azevedo）等神学家所作的关于本地化的描述与讨论，基本上与“文化相互关系”、“处境化”和“文化间对话”等所表达的内容一致。

  2. 见钟鸣旦Nicolas Standaert, Inculturation, the Gospel and Cultures (Manila: Saint Paul Publications, 1993) 9-12。
3. 见For All People of Asia: Federation of Asian Bishop's Conferences, Documents from 1992 to 1999。
4. 见Ecclesia in Asia 5。
5. 见Ecclesia in Asia 14。
6. 见Ecclesia in Asia 21。
7. 见Fides et Ratio 72。
8. 见德礼贤Pasquale D'Elia, "Il Metodo di Adattamento del P. Matteo Ricci S. J. in Cina," in La Civilta Cattolica 3 (1956) 174-82。
9. 见Nicolas Standaert, "The Reception of Ricci's Ideas in China," in Lumen Vitae 40 (1985) 57。
10. 见Bartolomeo Sorge, "Il Padre Matteo Ricci in Cina Pioniere di Mediazione Culturale," in La Civilta Cattolica 3121 (1980), 32-46。
11. 见John Witek, "Understanding the Chinese. A Comparison of Matteo Ricci and the Jesuit Mathematicians Sent by Louis XIV," in C. Ronan and B. Oh, eds., East Meets West, The Jesuits in China, 1582-1773 (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1988) 64-65。
12. 见Marcello de C. Azevedo, "Inculturation, I. The Problem," in R. Latourelle and R. Fisichella, ed., Dictionary of Fundamental Theology (New York: Harder & Harder, 1994) 501。
13. 见钟鸣旦Nicolas Standaert, Inculturation, the Gospel and Cultures, 99。
14. 见Joseph Ratzinger, "Non Esiste Fede che non sia Cultura," in Mondo e Missione 10 (1993) 657-65。
15. 见 K. Muller, T. Sundermeier, S. B. Bevans and R. H. Bliese, ed., Dictionary of Mission. Theology, History, Perspectives (New York: Orbis Books, 1997) 219-22。
16. Arnulf Camps证明了此词语在中国福传史上的相关性，见 "Is There a Need for a History of the Reception of Christianity by the Chinese Catholic?," 这是一篇在“纪念汤若望诞辰400周年暨中国天主教会史国际研讨会”（1992年）上宣读的一篇论文。
17. 见Dictionary of Mission, 198-201。
18. 同上。

本地化历史

虽然本地化这种说法在二十世纪七十年代中期才被正式采用，但这说法所要表达的现实如教会本身一样古老。早在使徒时代，适应化就已经付诸实践。所谓的耶路撒冷会议（宗15:1-31）、保禄对外邦人的传教方法以及他在雅典的讲道均是适应化实践的例子。在教会的早期，将各文化与基督宗教信仰进行整合的本地化实践发生在基督信仰与犹太文化、古希腊文化及之后的高卢－日尔曼民族相遇的过程中。早期教会知晓如何将自己插进融入她所遇到的每个文化。完成于西元129年的《致黛奥尼特斯书》（Letter to Diognetus）描述文化与信仰之间的相遇如下：
基督徒与他人的区别，并不在国家、语言或政治制度；他们既不生活在独立的城市里，也不使用某种特定的语言。他们没有特殊的生活方式……然而，尽管他们既生活在希腊城邦中，也生活在夷人城邦之中－－这正如他们的命运所决定的－－尽管他们也遵守衣食及其它日常习惯，但他们同时也会为他们自己国度的杰出而超凡的制度与机构作出见证。20

早期教会神学家们采用了一些诸如“圣言之种”（semina verbi）21和“福音准备”（preparatio evangelica）22等重要神学概念来描述文化与信仰之间的活力关系。

不幸地，在历史的演进过程中，一些传教力量采用了“白板”(tabula rasa)的方法，意即在宣讲福音之前必须摧毁本土文化。这种受残酷的十字军和西班牙重征服所深深影响的传教方法可以被定义为“反对各国”（contra gentes）的传教，而不是“向各国”（ad gentes）的传教。
然而，宗座从未完全忽略本地化的重要意义。宗座曾多次宣导过这样一种观点：尊重文化及与文化对话是传教活动的一个根本组成部分。在601年，教宗大额我略（国瑞一世）向坎特伯雷的奥斯定发了一封信，该信后来成为讨论本地化的一篇经典文献。

告诉奥斯定，他不应该捣毁各种神庙，而应该捣毁其中的各种偶像。让他先用圣水净化这些庙宇，然后在那里搭建祭台及放置圣人的骨髑……当地的人民在看到他们的祭祀之地没有被毁掉之后，可能会更容易消除心中的错误、承认和敬拜真正的神，因为他们来到了他们所熟悉和感觉亲切的地方……他们将不再以向魔鬼奉献的形式来祭献和食用这些祭献品，而是为着荣耀他们称谢为万物之源的天主而祭献。23

1658年，教宗亚历山大七世针对东方的传教团体发布一个重要的宪章。依照该文献，传教士们必须具有足够的语言知识，以当地人民的方言和俚语来履行他们的宣讲职能。不是以武力或以许诺各种好处，而应通过圣言的宣讲和良善行为的模范来使外教人归信。望教者的人格及归信的动机均必须予以调查。领洗前教理讲授必须要坚实牢固，以免新信者将基督之律与外教习俗、真正信仰与偶像崇拜混合起来。在讲授教理的时候，讲授者必须要有极大的耐心和细心，要尽量少地使用或最好不用体罚。24

1659年，传信部向中国的宗座代牧（传教团体的长上）发布了一份杰出的《指示》，该指示这样说：
只要中国各民族不明显反对宗教和良好习俗，不要尝试说服他们改变自己的礼仪、习惯和风俗。事实上，有什么比把法国、西班牙、义大利或任何其他欧洲国家输入中国更愚蠢呢？你们所应输入的不是诸如此类的东西，而应是信仰。信仰并不会反对、也不会毁坏任何民族的权利和习俗－－只要它们并非邪恶，反倒要维护它们。25

1919年，教宗本笃十五世的《夫至大》（Maximum Illud）通谕针对一些传教士的民族主义倾向与做法，明令传教士们要尊重他们所工作的民族的各种文化。众所周知，教宗此通谕的初衷是向中国的传教士们作出指示，因为那里的文化对比格外鲜明。

你们的使命实在神圣，远远高过任何人性层面。主曾对你们每个人教训说：离开你们的人民、你们的土地，动身！你们不必宣扬世间之国，而应宣讲基督之国。26

教宗比约十二世在他的首个通谕《至高司祭》（1939年）中重新肯定了本地化的信条：
教会不能也不应想到要轻视或蔑视各民族的特定特征，这些特征是人民以一份绝对而明智的自豪所珍视、并视之为宝贵遗产而小心地保存着……那些进入教会的人士，无论他们有什么样的出身或讲什么样的语言，他们均必须清楚，他们作为主家里的孩子均具有平等的权利。27

尽管梵二会议上并没有使用本地化这种说法，但却以积极的笔触来描述福音与文化之间的关系：
因为基督之国并不属于这个世界……所以教会并不会褫夺任何人民的世俗福祉。相反，她会滋养和采用人民的能力、资源和习俗－－只要它们是好的。通过采用它们，她会净化、强化和升华它们。28

《教会传教工作法令》（Ad Gentes）中是这样描述本地化这过程：
年轻的教会应该将教会传统因素嫁接到自己的文化上去，从而能够通过相互接触时并发出的活力，强化基督奥体的生命。凡是那些能够用于光荣造物主、来源于他们人民的习俗、传统、智慧、教导、艺术、科学及所有的一切，他们均可借鉴……29

对本地化的反对意见

在过去的几十年里，本地化的概念与实践已经引发了不同的意见与反应。为了简洁清晰的缘故，这些反应也许可以概括为下面两种互相反对的态度。

一些保守的天主教徒摒弃梵二的改革，因而仍将本地化视为对他们所认为的教会正确信条和古老传统的一种叛离。依他们看来，本地化是对纯正及正统信仰的背叛，是对当代相对主义和多元主义精神的致命妥协。我在中国大陆的天主教徒当中也遇到了这种观点，特别是在成年人和老年人当中。他们只能勉强接受用中文而非拉丁文做的弥撒，并且不满意其他礼仪变化。北京主教座堂救主堂（北堂）内悬挂的一幅油画引起了小小的争议，该画的内容是中华圣母，争议的态度可以约略显示天主教徒对采用中式风格的感受。画中圣母与圣婴耶稣均穿着中国满清宫廷精美刺绣服装。这是一位澳门教会艺术家对教会艺术进行本地化的一种尝试（在我看来，这是一次精彩而成功的尝试）。但并不是北京所有的天主教徒能够欣赏童贞玛利亚和圣婴耶稣身上的中国特色。传统的中国教徒认为，耶稣的母亲本身并不是中国人，因而不应该人为地改变为中国人的形象。30

大多数中国人对圣母的理解使人们想起了佛教的观音。“我们来自那个世界，我们已经决定离开那种宗教思想倾向，为什么我们应该再次回归它？”我曾多次注意到，大陆、台湾甚至香港的一些天主教徒反对此种形式的本地化，对传统西方圣像感觉更舒服、更能受到启迪。

激进本地化

对本地化的第二种态度与上面第一种截然相反。一些神学家和牧灵工作者认为，教会的信条构成形式，圣事结构和礼仪传统等均是某个特定文化环境的体现，更具体地讲是古希腊罗马文化的表达。甚至耶稣的行为，如用饼和酒作为圣体象征，也被某些人认为是源自他的文化，因而不具有普世的特性。其结果就是，在他们眼里，本地化就意味着有多少文化，就可以使用多少文化象征。耶稣使用了面饼和葡萄酒，因为他是地中海人，面饼和葡萄酒在那里是人们最基本、最普遍的食物与饮料。但是现在来自不同文化的基督徒团体应该采用各自的基本的食物，如在非洲撒哈拉沙漠南部国家的非洲稷和稷酒。31在中国，依照如此革命性的“本地化”观点看来，最可能的因素将是米饭和茶。在香港，有人说最普遍的午餐要数叉烧饭和普洱茶，它们可以代表本地元素（当然这种建议从未得到官方的认可）。这种激进的建议将会推翻教会悠久的礼仪和信条传统，因而从未实际流行开来，即使在二十世纪七十年代、正值梵二之后的喧嚣时期，教会内正进行着各种各样的试验的时候，情况也是如此。

上面所讨论的两种观点均未能欣赏基督信仰的具体历史特性，也未能意识到文化的复杂和活力特性。然而，关于本地化的争论仍在继续。这讨论在亚洲尤其热烈，因为本地化尝试在这片大陆似乎更为艰巨和具有挑战性。

其中例证之一就是在若望保禄二世于1998年发表《信仰与理性》通谕之后引发的争论。潘彼得（Peter C. Phan）按照阿留索桢撩葩窗]Aloysius Pieris）的亚洲神学，欣赏该通谕所表达的观点：基督信仰既能滋养她所相遇的文化，也能被文化所滋养，但是潘彼得也向通谕中的一些观点提出了挑战。他特别指出，亚洲的本地化并非通过哲学与形而上学的讨论而实现，也并非“通过将非基督宗教的礼仪与寺院的习俗纳入基督宗教而实现。相反，本地化的发生是两个群体（非基督徒和基督徒）透过在人类团体（并非教会团体）中相遇和日常生活分享而得出的结果。而且，因为亚洲的赤贫和深厚的宗教精神，这些人类团体成员的两个标准就是神秘主义和战斗性。”32梯撒．巴拉苏里亚（Tissa Balasuriya）发现，“当基督信仰面对古希腊拉丁世界进行本地化的时候，被束缚于罗马帝国的统治之上；后来，被缚于西欧的王权之上，结果教会或人类没有因此而受益。教会有关绝对真理、唯一得救途径的主张却联击着历史上最严重违反人权和人类尊严的事实：西欧的殖民主义……以古希腊－拉丁思想表达出来的基督宗教神学偏离了耶稣所宣讲的讯息核心，并且不能容以其他方式表达天主召叫，尽管从实质上讲，所传达的讯息是相同的。”33

然而，文化调和总是必要的。世界上根本不存在赤裸的真理，即一种不经过语言和文化介质就能表达的信条。圣经所处的与大多数当代的文化大相径庭，使得同一圣经很难阅读。鉴于圣经是不变的，为了理解圣经，释经学总是必要的。这个标准也适用于确保信仰大公性和使徒性的教会圣传。基督教条是以确定的信条公式、采用古希腊－拉丁文化中的术语、概念和观点所表达出来。显然，这样的历史事实是不可逆转的。

  19. 见Hervee Carrier, "Inculturation of the Gospel," in Dictionary of Fundamental Theology, 510-514。
20. 见"Letter to Diognetus," in Norman E. Thomas, ed., Classic Texts in Mission & World Christianity (New York: Orbis Book, 1995), 5。
21. 见Justin, Apologia，大约西元165年。
22. 见 Clement of Alexandria, "The Stromata," I: 5, 19; 载于 Thomas, Classic Texts in Mission, 6。
23. 见教宗大额我略Pope Gregory the Great, "Leeter to Augustine,"载于Thomas, Classic Texts in Mission, 22。
24. 见 Jos Jennes, Four Centuries of Catechetics in China (Taipei: C. I. C. M., 1975) 58。
25. 万民福音部，载于 POM, Guida delle Missioni Cattholiche, Rome 1989, 12；另见Giuseppe Buono, Missiology. Theology and Praxis (Nairobi: Paulines, 2002) 132-33。
26. 见Maximum Illud (London: Sword of the Spirit, [196-?], AAS 11, 1919, 446。
27. 见Summi Pontificatus (London: Catholic Truth Society, (1954) n. 36。
28. 见Lumen Gentium, 1。
29. 见Ad Gentes (Rome: Edizioni Paoline, (1996) 19, 22。
30. 见Nailene Chou Wiest, "St Saviour's Madonna is Looking for a Cultural Identity," 载于South China Morning Post, Dec. 23, 2002。
31. 当本人于1983年访问喀麦隆北部的教会团体时，有人告诉我，尽管此种形式被教会官方所摒弃，但有时也被人们采用。
32. 见Peter C. Phan, "Fides et Ratio and Asian Philosophies," 载于Science and Esprit 5 (1999) 333-40。
33. 见Tissa Balasuryia, "Asian Thoughts on Fides and Ratio," 载于Sunday Examiner, Dec. 13, 1998。

第二章中国的本地化隐喻

唐朝的基督宗教34

早期的中国基督宗教是复杂而耐人寻味的。最早有文献记载的基督宗教传入中国发生在西元635年。东方叙利亚教会（根据马丁．帕默【Martin Palmer】的说法“东方礼天主教会”）的传教士们开始了一次意义重大，但为时不久且仍不为人所知的文化交流和本地化的经验。将中国最早基督宗教定义为景教（聂斯多略派）充其量是一种简化的说法，中国初期传教事业的发源地是波斯教会，该派教会可以追溯到最初期教会。

中亚国家在将基督信仰传入中国的广袤土地过程中所扮演的核心角色，以及基督信仰和佛教之间的互动普遍被人们所忽略。在七世纪之前，波斯帝国越发变得基督化；七世纪后，阿拉伯征服者引入了依斯兰宗教。当时这个国家拥有杰出的基督徒团体和神学流派。635年时，传教扩张到中国，当时唐太宗（627－649年）在国都长安（今西安附近）接见了来自巴格达、由波斯主教阿罗本（Alopen）所带领的使团。

1623年，在陕西省的省会西安附近的周至，人们发现了一块华丽的带有叙利亚文碑铭的碑。1644年，阳玛诺（Manoel Dias the Younger, 1574－1659年）和艾儒略（Giulio Aleni,1582－1649年）整理发表了带有解释的碑文。艾儒略与中国的知识份子进行了许多对话，他在对话中经常提到西安石碑的伟大发现，称其为中国基督宗教古老临在的具体证据。在十七世纪初期，基督宗教已可以宣称在中国土地上拥有一千年的辉煌历史。

该碑文于781年由波斯僧人写成，记述了阿罗本及其使团抵达中国及之后基督宗教在中国发展的故事。碑文的内容向人们提供了宝贵的历史资料及许多相关的神学和信条观点。在碑文中，我们可以看到基督信仰在一个完全不同于波斯文化的文化背景中所展开的优秀本地化工作，他们借用了道教与佛教中的术语和概念，如奥体、德性、恩人、隐居、僧侣、住持、寺院、普世救恩、全能者等等。在碑顶有莲花造型，这在佛教中代表“四射光华”。事实上，基督宗教被人们称为“光华四射的宗教”（景教）。在莲花上面是基督宗教的象征：十字架。

在这短短150年里所展开的本地化工程给人留下了很深的印象。碑文显示了基督宗教、道教和佛教三种宗教传统在神学上有相当程度的糅合。用来描述三位一体的术语是源自道教的代表“三一”的“三有”。佛教经文中的“分身”一词被借来解释基督降生（道成肉身）。

除了西安的石碑，深受佛教思想和术语影响的讲叙利语的传教士和中国归依者们也给人们留下了一些文献，其中包括二十世纪初在中国西北甘肃敦煌发现的一些文献。这些文献与西安碑文一起，构成了所谓的“中文景教文集”（corpus nestorianum sinicum）－－以中文写成的基督宗教文献集，实际上是东方礼教会在中国唐朝扩张的体现。这些文献显示出对当时中国文化有相当的适应。

在第七和第八世纪的中国，基督教会不论在量或是质方面均有增长。虽然698年出现了短暂的迫害，但其后玄宗（712－756年）、肃宗（756－762年）和代宗（762－779年）等皇帝对教会采取支持态度。然而，自841年以后，基督宗教被卷入儒家官员与道家僧侣对日益增长的佛教的斗争之中。对于渺小的基督教会来说，这次迫害是致命性的。

然而，有证据显示，在第一个千年前后的世纪里，中国教会的一部分在丝绸之路沿路幸存下来。也正是在这个时候，最不寻常的宗教混淆（religious contamination）事件发生。印度男性佛教僧人Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara成为大慈大悲观音，一位在中国最受尊崇的神祗。中国当时的圣母像应该是此转化的唯一影响源泉，因为在当时中国的佛教宇宙观中没有女性形象。

元朝的基督宗教

1206年，征服者成吉思汗所统一的蒙古各部落全是基督徒或以基督徒为主，就像成吉思汗的妻子也是基督徒。元朝皇帝忽必烈（1260－1294年），即成吉思汗的孙子，就是一个虔诚的基督徒公主索加塔尼（Sorkaktani）的儿子。所有这些因素共同为东方礼教会在中国带来了最后一次复苏。
元朝（1260－1368年）的蒙古统治者对宗教采取一种开放政策，从而使得首批罗马天主教传教士于1294年成功抵达中国。由罗马教宗所派遣、由孟维高（John of Montecorvino, 1247－1328年）所率领的方济各会士在很多社会上层和宫廷人士中归依为信徒。新约、圣咏和礼仪文献被翻译成蒙古语。方济各会士曾对蒙古族风俗习惯采取了明显的适应措施，但这一点还没有得到人们的研究。而当民族主义的明朝（1368－1644年）取代了蒙古人的统治之后，所有外国因素均被禁止。
耶稣会的适应方法

利玛窦及其同伴耶稣会士将基督信仰适应晚明儒家宫廷文化的努力，是中西方历史关系中受到人们研究最多的话题。利玛窦和艾儒略（1582－1649年）及其他耶稣会士以他们仅有的神学工具，启动了一个差点导致中国基督宗教形式的过程，然而这亦要归功于中国归信者最初的贡献。35
利玛窦在自己的札记中使用了“适应化”（accommodation）这个词；36他提到，各种团体必须要“按照基督信仰来纠正和适应自己”。37利玛窦此举实际是在模仿耶稣会创始人依纳爵（Ignatius of Loyola）。“愈显主荣”（ad maiorem Dei Gloriam）这个原则强调了这样一种事实－－只有一件事是绝对的，即光荣天主，其他任何事情和这个绝对相比都是相对的。依纳爵将此原则融入耶稣会的生活模式和培育计画中。

因而，我们的会祖曾指示，各处的耶稣会均应讲他们所驻地区的语言：在西班牙，讲西班语；在法国，讲法语；在德国，讲德语；在义大利，讲义大利语，等等；而且，我们的会祖也曾指示，要制定同样的命令，所有地方的耶稣会均应尽力遵守，但要考虑到不同地方和不同人们的性情。38

他还清楚地指示，传教过程中要使用同一的方法，诚如该会座右铭所说：“并不是他们要变得像我们一样，而是我们应该要和他们一样。”39

利玛窦的前辈们

中国现代的传教故事始自杰出的方济各．沙勿略（Francis Xavier, 1506－1552年）。他在日本所创立的传教事业（1549年）对后来的中国传教事业产生了巨大的影响。尽管他在日本的三年福传事业的前景十分光明，但沙勿略希望这个国家的归信来得更快一些。沙勿略尝试了一种将对远东传教事业产生巨大影响的传教方法。他强调传教士必须培养知识，为了有效与儒家和佛教徒相处。他还提倡用科技知识陶成的必要性，意在使传教士所传达的讯息更具吸引力。

沙勿略是第一个意识到某种形式的适应对达到预期效果是必要的。沙勿略的经验对后来中国的传教很有用。他注意到，儒家和佛教对社会及文化和个人均有很强烈的影响力。既然儒家和佛教均从中国传入日本，于是沙勿略决定，有必要首先使中国归依，然后日本的归依就水到渠成。

范礼安（Alessandro Valignano, 1538－1606年）是另一个远东伟大耶稣会传教士。他以印度群岛视察员（监会铎，巡阅使）的身份于1574年抵达日本。他的伟大历史功绩就是实现沙勿略的梦想：适应化方法和开启中国传教事业。既然超过分属不同修会团体的六十多名传教士曾尝试在中国立足而均告失败，于是范礼安对无数的失败尝试进行了反思。和沙勿略一样，范礼安在日本的经验影响了他给中国发出的指示。利玛窦称范礼安为“传教之父”，而钟鸣旦也强调：“没有范礼安，也不会有利玛窦。”40

范礼安充分理解学习中文的重要性，使用翻译的福传是不够的。另外，他还认为，学习口语也是不够的，学写中文和研读中国文学也是必要的。在意识到中国的丰富文化之后，他确信，传教士们必须要研读中国的典籍。他命令罗明坚（Michele Ruggieri, 1543－1607年），也尤其指示利玛窦学习中国的典籍并将其翻译成拉丁文，这样更有利于理解它们并能够在护教和教理工作中引用这些典籍。在他的授意下，罗明坚写出了第一本中文的要理问答，即《天主实录》，于1584年编纂而成。这本书基于在日本已有的一本书再整理而成。不久之后，范礼安命令利玛窦以更多引用中国典籍的方式重写这本要理问答。他还建议，一旦在中国立足之后，传教士们应该穿僧服以突出他们使命中的宗教特性。

范礼安是教会本土化的积极宣导者。与在日本（及在印度）传教士们的普遍趋势形成对比的是，范礼安对地方人士加入圣秩抱有极大的信心。他清楚地看到，教会必须要成为本地的教会，外国传教士绝没有能力独自承担牧灵的重任。

作为首个被允许在中国立足的基督教现代传教士，罗明坚执行了范礼安的新传教政策。他学习中文数年，并与广东省的中国官员成功建立了良好关系。1583年9月，在利玛窦的陪同下，他在广州西边的肇庆永久定居下来。这是中国耶稣会传教事业的起点。罗明坚曾用中文创作58首诗，留下了关于适应精神的着名格言：“我们已经成为中国人，为基督征服中国”（siamo fatti Cini ut Christo Sinas lucrifaciamus）。

  普罗大众近期亦能注意到对于基督宗教首次踏足中国引起的新兴趣。在香港，南华早报South China Morning Post刊登了两篇与上述题目有关的文章：“China掇 Christian Past”（SCMP, Nov. 3, 2000）及“Crossroads of Faith”（Feb. 27, 2001）。义大利的年轻学者Matteo Nicolin Zani提出了对西安石碑新的翻译（Bose, 2001）。Nicolas Standaert在他的Handbook of Chrsitainity in China, vol. I (Koln: Leiden Boston, 2001)中以110页的篇幅讲述唐朝（618-1907）及元朝的基督教（1206-1368）Martin Palmer写了The Jesus Sutras, Rediscovering the Lost Religion of Taoist Christianity (London: Piatkus, 2001)。Betty Ann Maheu写了“The Church of the East in China”载于Sunday Examiner, 25 May 2003, 13。在以下的段落中，我也会谈及我两篇文章：载于Tripod 123 (2001) 43-55的“Christianity掇 First Arrival in China” 及载于Ucan, Hong Kong, 07/13/2001“The First Time of Christianity and China, a Fascinating and Full of Suprises Story.”

我已经在本人的着作中阐述了晚明耶稣会传教士的“适应化”方法：Preaching Christ in Late Ming China. The Jesuits' Presentation of Christ from Matteo Ricci to Giulio Aleni（Taipei: Ricci Institute, 1997），其中译版为《晚明基督论》，成都四川人民出版社 1999。

见Pasquale D'Elia, ed., Fonti Ricciane, 3 vols (Roma: Libreria dello Stato, 1942-1949)。

同上，2: 481-82。

该信起草于1556年，在圣依纳爵的命令之下，发给耶稣会所有会院的院长，由Joseph Sebes转引自Monumenta Ignatiana 10, 451-52, "A 'Bridge' between East and West," 载于罗光所编辑的Collected Essays of the International Symposium on Chinese-Western Cultural Exchange in Commemoration of the 400th Anniversary of the Arrival of Matteo Ricci in China (Taipei, 1983) 16。

见Sebes, "A 'Bridge' between East and West," 73。

见Standaert, "The Reception of Ricci's Ideas in China," 56。

利玛窦

一直以来，利玛窦被誉为“最杰出、最聪颖的历史人物之一”、41“中西方之间最杰出的文化中间人”、“不朽的人物”。42利玛窦不仅精通多种语言、记忆力惊人，而且是迷人的健谈者及杰出的科学家，尤其擅长数学和天文学。利玛窦完成了对《四书》的拉丁文翻译，创立了首个罗马化的文字系统，获得了西方汉学之父的称号。他的灵活性格使他能够吸收大量的中国文化及形成适应化政策，“该政策既是一种大胆的传教战略，也是中欧文化之间相遇的一种精深程式。”43
1595年，利玛窦用中文写成第一本书《交友论》。1596年，他重写了罗明坚的要理问答，但直到1663年时才以《天主实义》的名字正式发表，这是中国天主教史中最重要的书籍。1601年，他在北京定居下来，直到他去世。1610年5月11日，利玛窦因为劳累过度而去世，年仅57岁。他壮严肃穆的葬礼及被允许埋在皇家之地都是一种史无前例的特殊待遇，这标志着利玛窦在中国社会和历史中被接受的程度是极高的。

利玛窦的方法可说是欧洲种族中心主义在全球扩张中仅有的几个例外方法之一。利玛窦为今天的我们来说仍是一个榜样，因为他尝试着为在非基督景环境中形成的礼仪赋予基督的意义，或至少基督的定位。

学者们为利玛窦的适应方法归纳了不同的类型。贝特雷（J. Bettray) 将其整理为六个方面：外在、语言、审美、社会行为、知识和宗教。44而根据塞伯斯（J. Sebes）的说法，45适应化有四个方面：46

生活方式：包括语言、服饰、食物、饮食方式、礼节、出行（如乘学者轿子），等等；

概念的翻译：使用儒家经典及其它中国文化特征如流行谚语或流行故事、文学典故等表达基督宗教信条的某些层面；

伦理：使用那些为中国人所熟悉的伦理道德因素，如友谊的价值；

礼仪：从某种程度上允许参加儒家礼仪。在利玛窦死后，这个问题成为声名狼籍的中国礼仪之争。

根据哈理斯（G. L. Harris）、德礼贤（P. D'Elia）和古撒尼兹（L. Gutheinz）的说法，47利玛窦的适应化传教方法能够通过八重内容框架表达出来：

1. 适应中国人生活方式（包括学说中文和写中文）；
2. 结交精英及培养关系网；
3. 担负起确定的社会角色；
4. 将基督宗教宣讲为中国文化中最优秀元素的自然成就；
5. 对天主教信条中何为当信的信条、何为可以改变的东西进行区分；
6. 利用西方文明中的某些因素，如科学、艺术和哲学等等；
7. 利用中国社会中沟通交流的管道和技巧；
8. 为本土化教会打下基础。

利玛窦的“剔谬”法

晚明时期的中国传教事业可以为深入而广泛研究任何本地化过程所难免遇到的要求、挑战、困难和挫折提供坚实的基础。晚明时期的中国文化丰富而迥异，利玛窦不得不在这许多可能性之中做出选择。在着僧服、讲佛教语汇十年之后，他毅然转而选择有学问的儒士文化。这个选择正确么？选择某种文化作为适应化及本地化程式出发点的选取标准是什么？下面的问题就是适应化和理解正统信条这二者之间的关系。细心的钟鸣旦所提出的一个具有说服力的例子显示出对基督信条保持忠诚的问题。让一个归依的中国信徒接受天主为造物主的信条也许并不困难，但他也许不会接受亚当厄娃作为人类始祖的信条，这是因为在中国文化中先皇五帝才具有如此地位，他们才被认为是真正的人类始祖。利玛窦并没有就此做出让步，因为在当时：

亚当厄娃是人类原祖的理论是正统教导的一部分，每个人都接受这个信条；然而今天没有人再强调这一点。但这种正统教导的变化也在其他文化中出现，因为中国的先皇五帝已经不再被中国人视为人类原祖。48

利玛窦从所发生的事件和错误中吸取教训，从中国友人那里听取建议，并且不断地系统研习中国文化。利玛窦到达中国的时候，并没有提前想好对中国的福传方法。他关于所要采取的方式和方法的判断切实随着他在中国工作时间的推移而改变。利玛窦的态度既忠诚又灵活，利玛窦及其同伴们不仅努力理解和适应中国，而且也被中国所改变。 49

交友之路

值得我们注意的是，利玛窦用中文所写的第一本着作－－《交友论》。如果我们想用一个词来概括利玛窦、艾儒略及耶稣会士在中国传教方法的核心，那么这个词就是友谊。他们欣赏并珍视友谊这个典型人文价值。利玛窦及其中国友人从友谊那里看到了这两个世界之间的首要而宝贵的共同点：双方对生活均采取一种人文化的方法。事实上，利玛窦是应一个朋友的要求而创作了这篇专论。

这本书的重要意义在于，它可以被视为利玛窦计画的宣言：即不通过武力（正如许多人在历史中曾经尝试的）而通过友谊之门进入中国的计画。

利玛窦、艾儒略及其他耶稣会士欣赏友谊这种价值及其在中国人生活所扮演的重要角色，因为友谊是儒家社会思想中所定义的五种关系（五常）之一。在晚明中国，友谊被重新评价为伟大的社会道德。处于明朝衰败时期的十六世纪思想家何心隐（1517－1579年）宣扬友谊是培养团结意识、助人认识到自己对全人类责任。传统的中国人将友谊视为一种自愿的关系，因为关系各方选择了彼此，而并非因为他们被共同的地位或职业而拉到一起。友谊能够促使个人对在家庭及社会阶层中所形成的关系进行补充。

在人文环境中接受教育的耶稣会士发现，中国的学术及文化世界和欧洲的很相似。此次独特的历史相遇的主要共同因素包括：文化人的优越地位、对哲学和科学的热爱、对伦理及实用的讨论胜过教条、基于共同学术兴趣及友谊的社会关系、文化中心诸如城市、学校、学社和协会等的突出地位。中国明朝及欧洲文艺复兴这两个史上最着名的文明通过友谊这个纽带而相遇，这要归功于那些具有人文思想的人们。在儒家的中国，耶稣会士一定感觉和在家里一样自在放松－－对他们来说，中国这个世界既远在天边又近在咫尺。他们的适应化态度不能被简单地归结为一种策略，而是一种更为深层的东西，一种属于人性精神世界的东西。

中国归信者启动了“中国式的基督宗教”

令人惋惜的是，中国归信者的珍贵贡献还不广为人知，包括在天主教徒中间。明末清初的基督徒学者们能够在自己的生活和工作中体现出双重身份：基督徒兼儒家弟子。被誉为“圣教三柱石”的徐光启、李之藻、杨廷筠也许是最重要的几位拥抱基督信仰、对儒家思想和基督信仰进行活力整合的归依学者，但他们绝不是仅有的几位。另外一组学者基督徒也为中国式的基督宗教做出了贡献：瞿汝夔、冯应京（1551－1610年）、黄明桥（音译Huang Mingqiao)、张赓、李九标、王征（1671－1644年)、孙元化（1581－1632年）、严莫（音译Yan Mo)、朱宗元（1609－？年）、韩霖（1600－1644年）、吴历（1632－1718年）、张星曜（1633－1715年）尚虎卿（音译Shang Huqing)。

在教会柱石中，杨廷筠最值得被认为是首位华人神学家。作为学者官员，杨廷筠研读儒家经典多年，但他也对非儒家尤其是佛教思想感兴趣。作为1592年的进士，杨廷筠曾身居要职，其中包括相当于北京市副市长的官职（京兆尹）。他虽然早在1602－1608年间就与利玛窦相识，但直到1613年才领洗入教，即在杭州和郭居静（Lazzaro Cattaneo）及金尼阁（Nicolas Trigault）长谈九天之后才决定入教。直到1627年去世，杨廷筠所从事的活动大多与基督信仰有关，显示出极虔诚的信仰生活。在南京教难期间（1616－1617年），他在家里收留保护了数名传教士，创作了八本有关宗教的书，与耶稣会的刊物进行了多次合作（九篇序和跋）。他是艾儒略的好朋友，也是重要的合作伙伴：他们二人之间的友谊结出了果实：艾儒略为杨廷筠编写了传记：《杨淇园先生超性事迹》。

杨廷筠具有复杂的生活经历，曾是佛教徒、后来是儒家及基督教徒，这种复杂性进一步加强了其经验及性格的独特价值。杨廷筠对重要信条概念具有清晰的理解，在此我只想提到他对中国的神学发展做出贡献的两个例子。杨廷筠对三种不同性质的启示展现出聪慧的把握：启示给所有人的“性教”、通过梅瑟的书面启示的“书教”及通过耶稣基督启示的“恩教”。杨廷筠的这套方案肯定对中国福传问题的正确陈述具有重要意义。杨廷筠也要面对基督的核心角色的问题－－基督来自外国，并且对中国古代的圣人来说是陌生的。杨廷筠对基督的独特性有着清楚的神学理解，坚持“恩教”的观点。而且，鉴于“性教”与“恩教”之间有承继性，所以基督的降生与天主在历史中的启示是联系在一起的，而天主在历史的启示可以回溯到尧、舜、周公和孔子。杨廷筠切实将中华古圣先贤视为“性教”的一部分。性教“被视为正统的传递者，与西方传教士新近所宣扬的完全一样。”50早期教会作家和早期教父们对古希腊和拉丁古典时期的哲学家和圣贤采取了类似的解释方法。

杨廷筠神学的另一个重要而新颖的特征是天主的概念，他将天主称为“大父母”，一些耶稣会士和归信者沿用了这种说法，尤其是艾儒略。这种说法的渊源取自中国的以阴（雌性因素）阳（雄性因素）概念为基础的宇宙演化学说，这个说法既可用来指述皇帝，又可以指地方官员。

杨廷筠从儒家和基督信仰相互关系这个角度解释了这种说法的意义。根据他的观点，将宇宙视为自己的父母意味着这样一种伦理后果：将世界的所有人类视为自己的亲生兄弟姐妹。而且，这种说法还有另一层意思：父母与子女之间的关系可以表示天主对人类的关系。同样的关系还能表达天主与人类间令人欣慰的亲密程度。通过这种发展观点，杨廷筠自己也能克服困难去接受天主子降生成人，最初他视此为对天主尊严的贬低，也是对天主的超越性的侵犯。

另外，大父母的说法也有合理的基督论意义：耶稣是大父母与我们人类之间关系的最伟大表达。在这种情况下，耶稣自己可以被视为众多兄弟中的首位。长兄的概念和角色在中国人的生活和思想中占据很重要的位置，然而这与西方长兄的概念与角色不同。事实上，它可以是耶稣与中国人亲密关系的有效表达方式，可以帮助中国人感受到，耶稣是他们生活的一部分。圣经中有数处提到耶稣是长子，尤其是圣保禄的解释：基督是所有受创物的长子，是众多兄弟中的长兄（格1:15；罗8:29）。

这种说法所带来的另一个好处是它没有性别倾向的外表。众所周知，当代神学所遇到的最棘手挑战之一就是涵容性语言的问题及将天主与男性权威父权等同起来的问题。圣经中有几处将天主的形象描绘为母亲；对耶稣来说，耶稣呼天主为“父”（阿巴，Abba），这个称呼带有亲密和温柔的意思，并没有任何权威的味道。天主的母亲形象散见于基督宗教灵修史中，只不过这种形象从未成为主流形象。在当代神学中，女权事项是相当重要和敏感的。这个词的广泛使用肯定将有助于较少性别倾向、较少男性化的天主形象的建立。

杨廷筠在归依过程中也遇到了反对的压力。他遇到了佛教徒和儒家反对者的大量批评，超过任何其他华人基督徒。这也显示了他对基督信仰的忠信投入程度。和其他基督徒一起，杨廷筠具有理性和伦理方面的训练和准备以发起福音在中国的本地化这一运动，将自己人民的“禀赋”与福音和谐地整合起来。

  41. 见李约瑟Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University of Hawaii Press, 1989) 45。

见Mungello, Curious Land, 44。

见W. Frankle, "Ricci Matteo," 载于L. C. Goodrich and C. Y. Fang, ed., Dictionary of Ming Biography: 1368-1644, 2 vols (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976) 1137-1144; David E. Mungello, Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology. Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989) 45。

见 J. Bettray, Die Akkomodations Methode des P. Matteo Ricci S. J. in China (Rome, 1955)。Bettry将自己的六种适应类型归功于传教学者圣言会士J. Thauren于1927年所写的一篇论文。

见Joseph Sebes, "Matteo Ricci Chinois avec les Chinois," in Etudes 357 (1982) 361-74。

见Sebes, "A 'Bridge' between East and West," 46-54。

见Pasquale D'Elia, I Metodi dei Grandi Missionari della Compagnia de Gesu (Roma, 1942), 217-64; Louis Gutheinz, "What Is so Special in Matteo Ricci's Missionary Approach," 载于East Asian Pastoral Review 20 (1983) 104-16。

见Standaert, Inculturation, the Gospel and Cultures, 60。

见David Mungello, "Matteo Ricci's Accommodation Approach and Contemporary Christian China Interest and Concerns in China," 载于Notes 36 (1978) 37。

见Nicolas Standaert, Yang Tingyun, Confucian and Christian in late Ming China. His Life and Thought (Leiden: Sinica Leidensia, 1988) 200。

礼仪之争

正如本人在序言中所提到的，中国的礼仪之争也许是中国本地化历史中被研究最多的一个话题。此次礼仪之争始于十七世纪三十年代中叶，并且持续了150余年。争论的核心问题是中国归信基督徒参加某些目的在于尊敬孔子和祖先的礼仪的伦理接受性。这些礼仪是宗教性的或仅仅是民间礼仪？此次争论使耶稣会内部及其与其他修会团体（道明会、方济各会、巴黎外方传教会）之间也产生了分歧。在经过数个矛盾的决定、中国派遣至罗马的不同使团及两个赴中国的宗座官方使团之后，宗座最终采用严厉禁令，禁止归依的中国信徒举行此类礼仪。尽管此次争议被教宗本笃十四世于1742年正式结束，但抵达中国的传教士们被命令发誓反对中国礼仪，这种实践一直持续到1939年－－当时教宗比约十二世宣布允许进行中国礼仪。

符号论者

这些所谓的符号论者是十八世纪时一些法国耶稣会士，他们提出非常激进及非常有趣的途径将中国文化和基督信仰本地化联系起来。这些符号论者认为，在中国典籍中，尤其是《易经》中所体现的不仅仅是一种自然宗教，而是（我们通过圣经所获得的）原始启示和默西亚预言的真实痕迹。有“国王数学家”之称、被法王路易十四派往中国康熙朝的白晋（Joachim Bouvet, 1656－1730年）便是符号论派的领导人物。其他活跃的符号论者包括马若瑟（Joseph de Premare, 1666－1736年）和傅圣泽（Francois Foucquet, 1665－1741年）。鉴于其他耶稣会士及长上的反对，他们的方法并没有延续很长时间。

基督宗教艺术在中国本地化的隐喻

罗如望（Joao da Rocha, 1563－1623年）的名字值得我们纪念，因为他于1619年发表了《诵念珠规程》。51该书的重要意义在于它所配的插图，这些插图堪称基督宗教艺术适应中国的首例。在这之前还没有就创立中国基督宗教艺术而进行真正的尝试。
罗如望获取灵感并以之为蓝本的欧洲参考物件是十六、七世纪耶稣会士们所熟知的作品：杰罗姆楔犒F（Jerome Nadal, 1507－1580年）的《福音故事图像》（Evangelicae Historiae Imagines）。
罗如望请当时杰出画家、艺术理论家董其昌（1555－1636年）或者他的弟子以内达的《福音故事图像》为基础蓝本为他的十五端玫瑰经配木刻插图。

因为他们的高超艺术手法，尤其因为他们的独特理解，罗如望所印制的插图确实给人留下了很深的印象。这些带有中国特色的图景显得活灵活现、栩栩如生。人物面部表情、外衣、饰物、建筑以及其他建筑因素的刻画（如园林山水和景物）完全是中国特色。

另外，同样的图画结构，但却以中国画的角度重新阐释表达，例如，将图画的内容简化为单一画面。这些插图完全再现了董其昌的风格：在他看来，绘画是对个人内在存有的表达。在其插图中只有基本的主题，在主景周围留下了许多空白空间。这些空白空间并不是为了强调那单一主题的鲜明轮廓，而是神的临在的一种标志。

其中最能体现我们所讲的杰出例子之一是耶稣被钉这一幅。在这幅插图中，中国画家将内达的两幅图画融成一幅，取得了戏剧性的效果。背景中光秃的荒山取代了原画耶路撒冷城的位置，在其衬托之下，孤兀的十字架被突显出来。另外，两个强盗的十字架也被全部略去。耶稣的十字架戏剧性地矗立于天地之间，被无尽的孤寂所包围，似乎只有天主是这一切的目击者。点缀于十字架前后的人群显示出那些虐待和杀死耶稣的士兵们的残忍和无情、那些宣判耶稣的当权者的冷漠，以及妇女们的无助虔敬和悲哀。经此种艺术处理的结果就是一幅具有强烈感情色彩、对主耶稣的受难经过有深厚的中国式理解与阐述的插图。这个有力证据说明，即使在中国传教的早期，中国精神是如何能够吸收及表达耶稣生活及死亡等奥迹。52在罗如望的插图中，基督被赋予中国人的特征，并且被置于典型的中国环境中。

1637年，在罗如望的《诵念珠规程》发表十七年之后，艾儒略的《天主降生出像经解》53在福州发表，。两年前，艾儒略就发表了八卷本的《天主降生言行纪略》。他的《天主降生出像经解》被认为是对前书的进一步完善。通过此书，中国人能够首次使用自己的语言来阅读耶稣的教导，并且能在图画中瞭解他的主要生活事件。这部作品是一个里程碑使他成为耶稣会中国传教事业中最杰出的传教士之一。

当人们比较罗如望和艾儒略的着作时，他们会惊奇地发现，艾儒略并没有如我们所料的那样在此条适应之路上继续前行。艾儒略认为，和欧洲蓝本较近的版本也许会更为合宜，因此他选择忠实地复制内达的原本。然而，艾儒略并没有照搬欧洲蓝本。该书中体现出数处中式风格的重大变化（如“濯足垂训图”），其中最为有趣的莫过于最后一幅“圣母端冕居诸神圣之上”。在该图底端，与宗徒们和其他欧洲人物在一起的是一组欢庆圣母荣耀的中国人。这些中国人物代表有头戴不同头冠的学者、一个士兵及一个留着刘海儿的小孩。在人物和云彩之间是一系列欧式和亚洲式的建筑物（房屋、宫殿及庙宇）。另外一处具有中国特色的细节之处是耶稣右手所持的地球。整幅图切实给人一种印象：欧洲人和中国人一起见证圣母玛利亚被加冕这一重大事件。通过这幅与其他插图截然不同的插图，艾儒略想要表达这样一种思想：中国人现在已经成为这个教会的一部分，他们具有和其他成员一样的尊严。

然而，十九世纪对该书的重版故意省去了这幅插图，这切实令人意外。54不幸的是，本地化过程出现了某种程度的倒退，传教士的思想和实践变得较为保守，这也许是礼仪之争的许多负面后果之一。

1640年，即艾儒略发表《天主降生出像经解》三年之后，汤若望代表奥地利皇帝玛西米连一世（Maximilian I）向崇祯皇帝进献一些欧洲宗教贡品，其中包括共有45幅插图的描绘耶稣生平事迹的图册。同时，汤若望出版了《进呈书像》一册，共包括带有简短解释的48幅插图，55这些插图是进呈给皇帝的插图的复制品。汤若望的插图并不仅仅是对其欧洲图册的照搬复印，而是带有中式改编与适应的重新阐释，尤其是作为装饰元素的脸部表情。56这是在中国出版的第三部以内达作品为蓝本的画册。汤若望的这本画册之所以变得着名，主要是因为当时反教学者杨光先（1597－1669年）在他的反教文集《不得已》中所摹写的三幅来自汤若望画册中的插图。杨光先撰文指出，这些图画显示，被处以典刑的耶稣是一名罪犯兼谋反之徒。

中国十九世纪的教会艺术几乎均是哥特式风格的翻版，圣母及耶稣圣心的雕像及圣像大多带有十九世纪法国灵修的痕迹。

直到二十世纪二十年代的时候，基督宗教在中国本地化的必要性才再次被纳入各传教团体的议事日程。一些敏锐的传教士如比利时的雷鸣远（Vincent Lebbe）及诸如宗座代表刚恒毅（Cleso Costatini）的教会领袖大声疾呼，提出模仿欧洲绘画、雕塑和建筑设计的教会艺术不适合中国。作为艺术家的刚恒毅意识到，对中国宗教和艺术思想缺乏敏感的态度是建设真正中国教会的主要障碍。他确信，为了能够更合宜地表达中国人的思想及帮助消除基督宗教是外国宗教这种概念，纯正原创的中国艺术必须要进入中国的教堂。建于二十世纪三十年代的香港圣神修院的美丽建筑就是在刚恒毅的指示下完成的。它是通过中式风格所获得的良好结果的永久见证。对雷鸣远来说，他巴不得看到教会采取中式艺术，以致于中国的教会能够看到自己的美丽艺术。刚恒毅强烈支持在北京辅仁大学创立教会艺术学院，从此之后，一群前途光明的中国教会艺术家开始通过调和中式风格和基督信仰的方式来展现自己的才华。

在几十年（1949－1980年）的政治运动之后，中式教会艺术的事业开始复苏。一些艺术家如何其（He Qi) 、江心（Jiang Xin)、Magdalena Liu、Monica Liu、Paul Zhang等在探讨本地化这个问题的同时，他们也在努力促成实现中国式教会艺术。“作为一个中国的教会艺术画家，”何其谈到，“我只能利用有限的时间完成一项任务，即努力创造中国的教会艺术……我想做一些属于我这个时代的事情。我想起了鲁迅曾说过的话：真正的艺术家应该是一个开拓者，不应该做人们想要的事情，而应该开拓新的道路。”57

在今天的中国，天主教会的许多领袖和信徒对发展一种纯正的本地艺术、一种真正中式艺术的需要没有足够的兴趣或不够关心。上面我所提到的一些艺术家感叹，他们没有受到太多的鼓励和欣赏。然而，通过这些才华横溢的中国教会艺术家们，中国教会艺术是有希望最终成功的。58

二十世纪的激烈讨论

从十九世纪末到二十世纪初的几十年里，当时的中国知识份子们一直寻求一种能够挽救国家免受耻辱和衰亡的“新文化”。改革者仔细研究了西方的文化、制度和政治模式，将其作为中国所模仿的对象。然而，当时中国知识份子的思想与当代西方思想不谋而合，他们确信，当代西方文化达到了顶点，恰恰因为西方摒弃了基督信仰。

一九一九年“五四”运动时的大部分学生均将基督信仰视为进步的障碍及帝国主义的工具。当时的许多知识份子认为，反洋教是反对帝国主义及帝国主义文化侵略的一项主要任务。

因而于1922年爆发的经常将敌视变成公开对抗甚至仇恨的反教运动并不显得十分意外。结果，一些中国知识份子开始奋起维护自己的信仰。吴经熊、马相伯、英敛之、陆伯鸿、陆征祥等一些重要天主教思想家担负起杨廷筠、徐光启和李之藻等人所担负起的艰巨任务，即以一种为中国知识份子容易理解的方式表达阐释基督信仰。

吴经熊（1899－1986年）也许尤其值得我们一提，因为他曾尝试在东西方之间、儒家人文思想和基督信仰人文思想之间，以及道教修身及基督宗教灵修之间进行一种和谐的整合。在他的着名专论《爱的科学》（1943年作于香港）这本小书中，吴经熊从儒家人文思想和道教修身的角度高超地阐述了圣女小德兰的经验和着述。吴经熊的给人启迪的思想也见于他在《基督人文和中国人文》（Christian Humanism and Chinese Humanism）一书中所做的饶有趣味的研究。

一些诸如刚恒毅和雷鸣远的天主教传教士们倡导基督信仰在中国文化中的本地化这项迫切的任务以应付剧烈的挑战。中国基督徒知识份子和传教士们对中国的进步及在许多年轻学子中间培养知识等方面做出了巨大贡献。他们建立了无数大学和学校，为妇女提供教育，将西方的医学、科学及其它领域的先进知识带进中国。

关于本地化的争论

本地化的问题是关于中国的基督宗教之争论中最时常出现也似乎无法解决的问题之一。一些中国官员、教会人士及基督宗教研究学者多次指责：基督宗教，尤其是天主教，并没有在中国繁盛起来，这是因为它未能进行本地化。这些人们通常引用两个例子来支持他们的说法：因为中国礼仪之争，以至未能与儒学进行融合及本地化；与佛教进行对比，据他们说佛教显示了更强大的适应能力，因而能够进入中国的主流。尽管这些说法并不全错，但本人仍持一些反对意见。

1. 关于中国礼仪的问题，本人认为天主教未能适应帝皇的思想方式，而中国当代马克思主义的教导则将帝皇的理念定义为封建的理念，而不是儒家的理念。中国礼仪之争的结果未必就是一种失败。不止一个学者正在就此问题提出不同的评价，其中之一就是台北利氏学社的创始人甘易逢（Yves Raguin），他毕生致力于中国文化、宗教和基督宗教之间的灵修相遇的研究。我记得一次与甘神父对话，他说如果礼仪之争当初有一个不同的结果，那么基督宗教恐怕已经成为帝皇儒学理念的一个分支，因而会失去它的定位与身份、它的自由及它的先知性角色。后面我会讨论杨慧林关于基督信仰适应儒家思想这一尝试的批判。

2. 佛教在中国的扩张也被过于简化。佛教徒在中国也时常被迫害及边缘化。即使现在的佛教，至少西藏的喇嘛佛教，也与中国政权不和。总体来讲，佛教缺乏一个中央权力负责监督维护信条，这使它更容易使自己适应各种不同的环境。当利玛窦进入中国开始着僧服的时候（1583年），当时中国的佛教至少有十种派别。其中两个最重要的派别（禅宗和净土宗）就有非常不同的信条与实践。基督宗教，尤其是天主教出于自己的本质，一方面瞄准本地化，但另一方面摒弃任何对基本信条内容的嬗变作法。

3. 我从不同意基督宗教在中国彻底失败这说法。这种说法对于那些日益增多、自四世纪以来一直将福音讯息作为其生活中心的信徒来说是不公平的。许多信徒从未背弃自己的信仰，哪怕生于一个敌对的环境、面对巨大的反抗和迫害。即使在二十世纪五十、六十、七十年代的政治波澜中，在这段时间里，作为一个基督徒不亚于犯罪，而且没有任何世俗利益或没有人性保护，他们也在持守着自己的信仰。对这些中国人来说，信仰比他们的生命更宝贵。他们的见证是最有说服力的证据：基督信仰不是外国信仰，基督宗教没有失败。而且，福音在世界内的传播并不是关乎统计数字和世俗成功。有些“基督政权”－－大多数人自信是基督徒－－也许还不如那些处于少数、没有社会和政治成就和威望的信徒忠实于福音。这些信徒根据真福精神及如芥菜种子一样小的天国精神活出自己的信仰，他们的信仰深度也许超过那些基督徒是大多数、甚至享受宗座外交关系保护的国家的信徒。从福传和神学角度讲，即使一个很小的结果也会具有很大的意义。当人们认真考虑基督宗教在中国曾经及正在面对的困难，人们不禁会惊叹基督徒团体是如何存活四个世纪及如何在今天有如此戏剧性的扩展。

4. 一个不争的事实是，目前在中国最成功的基督徒团体是那些福音派，他们对本地化没有多大兴趣，只以清晰、简洁和直接的方式宣讲救主耶稣基督的原初教导。尽管我们可以对他们的传教方法说三道四，但我们不能否认，他们有效地满足了大量寻求灵性意义的人们的需求。

  在此本人指收藏于Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barberini Orientale, 132。

见Pasquale D'Elia, L'Origine dell'Arte Cristiana in Cina, (1583-1640) (Roma: 1939) 75-77 and "Missionari Artisti in Cina," 载于La Civilta 1 (1939), 130-32. Anna Bujatti, "Incisori e Artigiani Cinesi Presero a Modello le Xilografie Cinquecentesche di Geronimo Nadal," 载于 L'Osservatore Romano 29, July 1994; Paul Rheinbay, "Nadal's Religious Iconography," 载于 T. Lapiello and R. Malek, ed., Scholar from the West, Giulio Aleni S. J. (1582-1649) and The Dialogues between Christianity and China (Monumenta Serica, Brescia-Sankt Augustine) 328-31。

见Biblioteca Apostoloca Vaticana, Barberini Orientale III, 134 (I)。

见收藏于罗马Urbaniana Library的十九世纪版本，Daoyuan Jingcui卷宗。

见Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emmanuele II, Rome, Fondo Cinese 72, B, 299。

见D'Elia, Le Origini dell'Arte Cristiana in Cina, 123-124, note 2。

见Betty Ann Maheu, "Editorial," 载于Tripod 106 (1998) 3。

见Betty Ann Maheu, "Editorial," 载于Tripod 106 (1998) 4。

第三章文化基督徒的中国神学

人文汉语神学

中国大陆特有的文化基督徒现象的出现，在大约过去十年里唤起了人们对于基督宗教在中国出现新文化契机的希望，或更好说是对于一个本地化的神学的希望。根据中国大陆公认的新教领袖，南京的丁光训主教的说法：“自基督宗教最初以景教的形式传入中国以来，她正在获得中国知识份子前所未有的接受。”59

驻扎在伦敦的中国观察家邓守诚同样指出：
本人确信，在近代中国历史中，自利玛窦始，没有哪个时代像今天的中国社会这样对基督宗教保持一种开放的态度。……1987年时，中国政府将其称为“基督宗教热”。60

文化基督徒其实只是由同一批中国学者和中国官员所定义的“基督宗教热”这一更广泛现象的一个独特元素。一些来自中国社会科学院的学者如刘澎的说法是“中国前所未有的基督宗教热潮。”611993年，北京社会科学院的研究员吴瑛承认“基督文化现象”的存在，“一些学者本身不是基督徒，但承认基督宗教的价值，而且相信这种价值观能够在当代中国形成和发展多元文化过程中扮演一个积极角色。”62这也许是来自中国大陆的政府研究员口中最早关于“文化基督徒”的描述。

刘小枫（1951－）被认为是文化基督徒的原型，而且也认为是他创造了文化基督徒这个词。在1988至1989年间，刘小枫为大陆月刊《读书》连续撰写了十篇关于二十世纪神学的文章。在其一系列文章的最后，刘小枫提到了文化基督徒这个概念。

自1995年以来，文化基督徒这种说法在大陆内外引起了人们的热烈讨论。一些知识份子拒绝接受文化基督徒的概念，尤其因他们处于基督徒团体之外。批评者指出：一个人要么是基督徒，要么不是基督徒；那些研究基督宗教的学者也许是、也许不是基督徒，但文化基督徒是一种滥造的说法。另外一些学者干脆指出，这种关于“文化基督徒”的讨论根本对中国的基督宗教研究学者无益，因为它只会引起政府的猜疑。

无论如何，本人认为，“文化基督徒”的定义仍能接受，因为这个定义尝试描述一个在中国大学和学术中心确实存在的现象。我想要表达的是，“文化基督徒”这个术语是对一个复杂现象的模糊定义。

在日益壮大的中国大陆研究基督宗教的学者（SMCSC, Scholars in Mainland China Studying Christianity）群中，有些人培养及发展出对基督宗教的个人兴趣，决定对基督宗教课题做进一步的研究。有些人也许会被基督讯息所吸引，以此成为其个人生活的伦理甚至灵性方向。有些人会将他们称为广义上的“文化基督徒”。定义“文化基督徒”的下一步就是当人从深感兴趣转向接受基督信仰。然而，鉴于这些人在严密监控的学术机构中所处的微妙复杂的地位，或者出于他们个人的种种理由，他们可能不会进入一个教堂而接受洗礼。这些人之所以被称为文化基督徒，主要是因为他们通过一条文化和学术的探索之路而逐渐接受基督信仰。

然而，刘小枫已公开承认自己是一个基督徒，因为他在“上帝”的教会里接受了洗礼。刘小枫喜欢引用魏尔（Simone Weil）的经验作为一个先例：一个人可以是基督徒，但不必具体属于哪个基督徒团体。魏尔（1909－1943年）是着名的法国哲学家、神学家和灵修作家，死于二战期间，年仅34岁。魏尔是一个非常复杂的人：她是一个犹太人、一个神秘主义者及一个信仰耶稣基督的人。当魏尔卧病在床时，她拒绝领受食物与药品，为与她饱受纳粹蹂躏的法国同胞保持团结。最后她死了，以一种极端的方式与她的人民保持了团结。魏尔也拒绝接受洗礼，因为她发现她不同意天主教中的极权因素。将魏尔作为文化基督徒原型的作法诚然有趣。然而，刘小枫还是领了洗，将基督事件变成了他生活的中心。

中国神学和处境化

建设中国神学或汉语神学是文化基督徒现象向神学界（尤其是香港神学界）所提出的最让人兴奋的挑战之一。中国神学计画尤其与刘小枫其人其作联系在一起，直到后来他决定将兴趣转向政治哲学的领域。

按照刘小枫的说法，中国神学不是中国化的神学，即建立于「基督宗教神学这一西方神学必须要适应中国」这观念之上的神学。相反，中国神学是通过使用中国语言世界和经验的形式来表达基督宗教理念神学。如果此举成功，那么中国神学就会与希腊语、拉丁语、法语等语言所构建的神学并肩站在一起，而具有同样的尊严。

刘小枫对中国神学进行了分类：研究存有超越本质的本体论神学（ontological form of theology）和研究存有在时空中的个体－－具体－－特殊的表现的实体论神学（ontic form of theology）。
第一种形式的神学以现存的思想及其表现形式作为出发点来发展中国神学。具体地讲，儒、道和佛思想是将基督神学重新表达为中国神学的工具与手段。这个过程有点类似于西方神学家采用柏拉图思想或亚里斯多德思想的过程。

第二种形式的神学强调存在经验及其语言表达。为了能够理解和表达基督事件，这种形式的中国神学采用的是存在－－个人－－具体－－历史及地方层面的语言表达，而不是采用民族思想体系（见第一种形式的神学）。

刘小枫比较倾向于第二种形式的神学，因为基督事件是对个人的具体存在经验的开放，而不是对民族思想体系开放。基督宗教神学的讨论物件是圣言与个人的具体存在之间的相遇。因而，中国神学是一种本体基督论的神学：基督事件召叫个别存有－－他要以具体的语言经验来接受和表达事件中的恩宠。

本人觉得这种说法相当具有启发性及吸引力，尽管刘小枫的本体基督论神学并不仅仅限于中国神学，而属于所有以基督事件为中心召叫个别存有的处境化神学。本人怀疑这种神学是否应该被称为人文汉语神学或基督论汉语神学。此种提议中具有中国特色的只是其语言，即中文：刘小枫已经提出了一种母语神学的概念。

这种母语神学将神学家的母语作为表达工具，母语神学的内容是该语言所表达的存在经验以及文化资源。母语神学的读者主要是讲此语言的人。

语言在此已经不是外在的沟通模式，一种工具，而是表达自我现实的具体存在形式，这是海德格（Heiddegger）和维根斯坦（Wittgenstein）的理论。语言不是一种中立的选择，它是人们使自己走向概念存在（conceptual existence）的一种途径与方式。语言是存在的寓所、宿主，是它的形式与界限。语言不仅是思想的工具，而它本身就是思想。

杨慧林对本地化的批判

杨慧林63断言，中国人眼中的文化大革命就好像是欧洲神学家眼中的奥斯维兹和种族灭绝。文化大革命怎么可能发生呢？它怎么可能在五千年古老中华文明之后发生呢？两千年的基督化欧洲怎么也会发生那种事呢？在经过文化大革命之后，中国需要一个新的伦理基础，一种绝对的伦理。在中国传统中，人类与神祗、政治与宗教、行为与规范总会混在一起，因而伦理判断也许受到世俗利益的扭曲与操控。

这种绝对的伦理只能通过超验的上帝来保证。基督宗教因着它的绝对善（上帝）的标准，与邪恶彻底决裂能使中国的伦理复兴真正受益。

杨慧林强调，基督信仰是一种全新的东西，完全不同于中国的传统和文化。为了能做出新的贡献，以及能够向中国文化和社会提出激烈的挑战，基督信仰必须保持它的差异性及新颖性。任何“会通”和“本色化”均会扭曲和稀释基督的讯息。根据杨慧林的说法，即使利玛窦的本地化方法也在适应儒家思想的过程中丧失了自己的基督信仰定位；结果，一些耶稣会士及耶稣会士所启发的文献与着作所呈现的基督信仰与儒家思想非常相似。64

何光沪及其来自心的神学

和杨惠林一样，何光沪65也感受到回应中国人民所面临的严重道德危机的紧迫性，但他并不悲观。何光沪相信人类精神并且坚信人类宗教精神的普遍性。
按照何光沪的体会，基督宗教不能被归结为“西方的精神”，或者归结为现代化的工具。究其本质，基督宗教包含一种宗教讯息，一种具有灵性、人性和普遍性的讯息。因而他从这一点上不同于杨惠林，他看到了本地化的可能性和必然性，以及中国和基督宗教之间进行文化对话和宗教对话的益处。何光沪提出的普世宗教精神是以心的概念为中心的，这也是一个非常核心、重要的圣经概念：人类存有的统一核心，也是人类智慧、意志和感觉的寓所。

也许何光沪的观点有些过于乐观，有点类似于前面所提吴经熊的提议，他认为基督宗教与中国传统中最佳的成分具有承继性。

在我看来，中国最伟大的财富莫过于儒家的祭天、佛教的修性及道教的贵生。当我们将祭天与偶像崇拜与算命分开来、将修性与遁世厌世分开来、将贵生与迷信实践分开来，那么我们就离真正的基督宗教不远了。66

从这个普世性的角度看，东西方之间的关系应该以一种全新的、更为积极的态度来看待。
让我们少谈东西方之间的对立，多谈它们的相互依赖；让我们少谈它们的文化模式，多谈它们共有的宗教精神；让我们少谈它们统一中的区别，多谈它们区别中的统一。67

本地化与福音的新颖性

如果我们审视中国的“基督宗教热”的现象，我们会注意到，基督宗教的成功并非因为它对中国文化的适应，而是因为两者的差异。那些在中国最成功的团体是那些大胆宣讲福音讯息、对复杂文化调和没有多少兴趣的团体。这些福音派团体宣讲，“耶稣是你的救主”、并向人们呈现一个热心的信徒团体，去吸引成千上万的新成员。

本人在中国大学和学术机构演讲的经验进一步加强了我这种印象。本人在这些学术中心的第一次演讲题目是关于晚明利玛窦、艾儒略及其同伴们所采用的福传方法。这是我非常喜欢的一个课题，也是本人博士论文所研究的内容。我当初认为这个题目能够打动听众，但出乎我意料之外，在演讲的提问阶段所提出的一些问题对适应化概念甚至对本地化持批评态度。人们的反对意见可以归纳如下：为什么当初传教士们要不厌其烦地尝试适应化？他们应该原原本本地呈现基督宗教，然后让人们自己决定接受与否。即使在北京的中国社会科学院，人们也提出了类似问题。这些学生和学者担心，适应化过程会使基督精神和纯正基督信条黯然失色。

可能另外还有一种引起中国学生和学者们对适应化和本地化进行猜疑的因素。中国政府的官方政策坚持，基督宗教和其他宗教一样，必须要适应中国的社会主义社会。虽然本地化显然是一种合理而必要的神学进程，但政府所提倡的适应化就是一种对宗教自治领域的不合理干预。

当然，本地化说起来容易，做起来难。正如前面提过的，为文化下定义这难题一样，人们必须采取审慎的态度，无须热衷于在本地化过程中追求立竿见影的效果。

根据本人的经验与理解，中国大陆的学人之所以受到基督宗教的吸引，并不是因为它与中国文化的相似性，而是因为它的迥异，尤其是耶稣的人格，更是引发人们的兴趣与沉迷的重要因素。他的人性、生活方式、价值观、他的言行、他的与边际人群为伍、他的苦难与受辱、他的无辜等等，这些都是耶稣身上吸引中国学者的关键。

本地化是一项神学、传教和牧灵的根本任务。然而经验显示，没有任何人曾因本地化而归向基督，而是因为与基督有一份以个人作为存有的接触，即在刘小枫反思中处于非常重要地位基督工程的救赎。换言之，这种对于本地化的关注是合理而必要的，但它不应该取代耶稣的福音教导。基督奥迹的核心是基督的十字架，而十字架是不能“本地化”的。没有十字架的屈辱（Scandal），福音将会失去它的内在能量与威力。

福传必须要保留耶稣基督的“神学”独特性，应该忠实于逾越节羔羊原初教导、忠实于“多样性”、忠实于十字架上的屈辱与愚蠢。基督信仰不能被呈现为对人类问题及需要的简单宗教回答，如在新纪元和新宗教中所实践的那样。在大约过去三十年里，尤其是在天主教会内部，本地化和宗教间对话一直被人们视为对亚洲传教的挑战。本人想要指出的是，耶稣的人格，基督论问题，最近已经成为我们时代真正的传教挑战，在亚洲尤为如此－－因为亚洲在文化上对宗教多元化、本地化和宗教间对话格外敏感。

需要天主教会的更多参予

本人相信，“基督宗教热”、文化基督徒、构建中国神学及本地化教会的任务等是天主教神学界所面对的重大挑战。本人希望，中国教会中越来越多的神学家加入到构建中国神学的努力中。另外，如果中国大陆研究基督宗教的学者们错过与伟大天主教神学传统和当代天主教神学成果相遇的机会，那么将会令人非常遗憾。本人希望，一个天主教高等学府能够接受这个挑战。这里面有更多人们加入的空间，尤其是中国的神学教师们。

本人坚信，一个本地化的基督宗教需要更深厚的灵修与教会经验。个人浸沉入基督的奥迹中是一个新神学的诞生所必须的。伟大的神学家均是属灵之人。相反，当使用的手段仅限于学术和理性方面时，本地化也不可能实现。一些本地化的实验如果不是投入深厚的信仰，可能只会获得有限的成果。本人还坚信，那些接受此圣神奇恩与先知能力的人将会带来神学的革新。那种通过文化方式而真诚怡人地表达出来的信仰本身就是一种从上而来的恩典以及一种极待完成的使命。这些东西不是大家围在桌子旁就能讨论得出的。

本人还真心希望，教会与研究基督宗教学者及文化基督徒们的更多合作和对话，将会有助于对中国大陆的基督宗教做出一个更为平衡和开放的评价。对整体的基督宗教，特别是中国基督宗教历史，形成一种少为意识形态式的、少为偏见的理解，这本身就是一种不小的成就。如果这一切真能实现，那么社会、公众意见及政府官员对基督宗教信仰就会持一种更为积极的态度。基督宗教在中国最终将会享受更多自由、享受更好待遇，这些均是完成本地化任务的先决条件。

  见 K.H. Ting, "Christianity and Chinese Intellectuals: History and the Present,"载于Chinese Theological Review 11, no. 2 (1997) 71-75。

见Edmond Tang, "The Second Chinese Enlightenment: Intellectuals and Christianity Today." 这是一篇在第十六届中国天主教全国大会(National Catholic China Conference)上宣读的论文，1997年10月10-12日, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey。

见刘澎Liu Peng, "Church and State Relations in China: Characteristics and Trends," 载于Tripod 88 (1995) 12。

见Wu Yi, "The Faith and Life of Christians in Beijing. Interviews and Reflections," 载于China Study Journal 8 (1993) 9。

杨慧林，中文系教授，于1995年在中国人民大学建立基督教文化研究所。从1998年开始，该研究所编辑出版《基督教文化学刊》，每年两期。杨慧林的作品包括：《罪恶与救赎－－基督教文化精神论》，北京东方出版社 1995年；《追问“上帝”－－信仰与理性的辩难》，北京北京教育出版社 1999。关于本段文字，来源于本人与杨慧林教授的多次谈话。另外本人还参考了雷立柏Leo Leeb, "Yang Huilin and His View of Christian Culture,"载于Inter-religio 38 (2000) Hongkong, 58-65。

见Leo Leeb, "Yang Huilin," 58-59。

何光沪曾是中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所的研究员。因着他的基督宗教研究方面的成就，已经在国际上获得了赞誉。他的作品包括：《有心无题》，北京三联出版社 1997；以及在Christian Theology and Intellectuals in China (Centre for Multireligious Studies, University of Aarhus, 2003)专辑上所发表的文章: "Religious Studies and Their Connection with Political and Social Circumstances;" "Some Causes and Features of the 'Christian Upsurge' Among Chinese Intellectuals;" "A Religious Spirit: The Hope for Transnationalism in China Today." 关于本段文字，来源于本人对他作品的阅读及与他的多次对话。另外还来源于作者与本人分享的他的博士论文：Matteo Nicolini-Zani: Gli studi cristiani accademici e il fenomeno dei 'cristiani culturali': una finestra aperta sul cristinanesimo nel contesto della cultura cinese odierna (Venezia, 1999)。

见Leo Lebb, "Nach spirituellen Freiraumen suchen. Ein Interview mit He Guanghu," 载于China Heute 96-97 (1998) 57。

见何光沪的《有心无题》，363页。

结语：北京的两个墓地

2001年10月1日，本人到北京参加利玛窦进京400周年纪念（1601年）的活动。与会的人们被邀参观北京的两个“教会墓地”。此次参观带来的是一份惊喜：这两处墓地以一种特殊的方式纪念了过去教会传教士们的临在。

第一处墓地是北京西北、位于北京行政学院（前党校）的栅栏墓地。栅栏墓地环境清幽，为苍松翠柏及挺拔黄杨所环抱。此处墓地拥有四百多年的历史，是北京最早的教会墓地。该处收藏有义大利人利玛窦、德国人汤若望（1591－1666年）、比利时人南怀仁（1623－1688年）的三通墓碑，他们生前为中西之间带来了互惠的交流。其余六十余通墓碑纪念了其他中外杰出的传教士们。
1997年，耶稣会神父马爱德（Edward Malatesta, 于1999年去世）与北京行政学院的研究员高智瑜、余三乐和林华一起整理出版了一本纪念栅栏墓地历史的精美图书，收录了全部墓碑的图片。该书名为《虽逝犹存》，颇能唤起人的思古情怀。

第二处墓地远没有栅栏出名。事实上，它并不是一处独立的墓地，而是来自正福寺的三十六通天主教传教士的墓碑。1710年时，法国耶稣会士曾在正福寺开辟墓地。在文化大革命期间，这处墓地被完全拆毁。北京文物局设法保存了这三十六通墓碑。今天，位于京西美丽的五塔寺（梵文真觉，中文五塔寺）内的北京石刻艺术博物馆保存着这些墓碑。博物馆四周景色宜人，视野开阔。在这里，人们可以看到古老的印度式佛塔、无数民间宗教和道教象征、许多和儒家及中国典籍相关的题字与诗词。在这个汇集中国历史、文化、宗教和艺术的地方，来访者会看到一处专门开辟出来，用以纪念清代的教会传教事业临在的地方。

基督宗教象征与中国传统佛教、道教、民间宗教和儒家的主题与象征放置在一起。这似乎是一种见证、一种标志：基督宗教确实是中国昨天、今天和明天的一部分。明末清初的天主教传教结果在某些人眼里似乎那样的微不足道，以致于被他们认为是一种失败。结果诚然渺小和具争议性，但却打下了良好和耐久的基础。

这些“教会”墓地在今天的北京是一个清晰的标志、一种有力的见证：从福传的角度看，即使微小的结果也会具有重大的意义。北京石刻艺术博物馆的教会墓碑似乎也是一种先知性的符号、一种希望的标志、一个所有中国及世界宗教均应遵循的指路标：这是一条尊重、对话、相互理解和欣赏之路、一条合作与团结之路。在中国及在其他任何地方，宗教、文化和艺术均应该致力于促进人类精神、促进人类愿望，并以各种形式和方式促进人类尊严。从这个角度讲，基督宗教肯定有些重要的东西可以贡献给中国：中国不能没有基督宗教，而基督宗教也不能没有中国。
这两处墓地，或在古剎佛塔的掩映之下，或在苍松翠柏的衬托之中，或在不同时代、不同国籍、不同宗教的人士引人遐思的墓碑的环抱中，为到访者提供了一种美妙独特的氛围，使之对基督宗教在中国的本地化的隐喻进行深刻而有创造性的反思。

作者：弥额尔．斐哲乐 Fitzgerald, Michael 译者：林纯慧

一九六四年五月，天主教会设立了一个专门处理天主教会与其他宗教联系的部门。当时专为联络其他基督徒的「基督徒合一秘书处」早于教宗若望廿三世任内已经开办。教宗保禄六世在此基础上，再设立「非基督徒秘书处」，其后又开设「非信徒秘书处」。这三个办事处正好配合保禄六世的第一份通谕《祂的教会》（1964）中所勾划的宗教交谈蓝图。

教宗若望保禄二世上任后，把「非基督徒秘书处」易名「宗座宗教联络委员会」，其精神源自梵蒂冈第二届大公会议颁布的《教会对非基督宗教态度宣言》。这份文件的草案于一九六四年已开始被详细讨论，翌年十月廿八日在教会神长庄严投票下正式通过。四十年后的今天，当我重读文件内容时，喜见个中意义没有随时间过去而变。这份文件确实启发了天主教会不同阶层的成员促进与其他宗教互相尊重，至今仍然是宗教关系的参照。

1. 人类的基本团结

《教会对非基督宗教态度宣言》开宗明义说：「在我们的时代，人类的结合日益密切」2。很多国家从历史明白到他们的社会是由多元的民族、文化及宗教组成。这正是亚洲众多国家的写照，当中包括中国在内。因此，宣言的开端「在我们的时代」早已预料到今日的世界迈向多元化。且看伊斯兰教徒已占欧洲联盟国家人口相当高的比例，佛教徒、印度教徒及锡克教徒也为数不少。同样，不少基督徒也在伊斯兰教的中心阿拉伯半岛工作，当中的亚洲劳工以印度人和菲律宾人居多。多元主义为争取宗教自由和宗教团体的合法地位注入强心针。

这份文件的第一段道出人的共通之处，引用《圣经》说出全人类同出一源，所有人都包括在天主的救恩计划之内。教宗若望保禄二世的训导经常强调这真谛。例如一九八六年十月廿七日在意大利亚西西举行的「和平祈祷日」，若望保禄二世论及人类的共同起源和共同终结，而在此期间，「我们必须学习在和平与和谐中共同迈进，否则便逐渐疏远，甚至害己害人。」

我们承认人与人之间存在分歧，但也有基本团结的地方，可以说这团结源自人的本性。所有人都会面对相同的问题──生命的意义、苦难和死亡、真正的喜乐，他们会从宗教寻找满意的答案。这些问题万古常新，科学昌明并不能使这些疑团消失，反而能为人性尊严的问题注入新意义。
在过去多年来，不同宗教的人士分享对于人生的见解，强调尊重从受孕一刻以至濒临死亡边缘的生命，现在他们更要表达对胚胎研究及复制生命技术等议题的意见。探索人在受造宇宙地位也逐渐成为宗教交谈另一重要的范畴。宗教人士也分享他们对环保的意见，环境生态已向地球发出警号，要求人类必须改变滥用自然资源的行为。

人是否仍然从宗教寻求答案？或者在今时今日，有些人已经不相信主流宗教，希望自立一个或多个他们认为较适合自己的宗教。这种后现代主义不相信已存在的论说，采用「新纪元」的多来源或汇合论，以期同时从多个主流宗教取得答案。因此，宗座宗教联络委员会不仅关注与伊斯兰教、佛教、印度教等主流宗教的关系，也研究新宗教情操。简单来说，这包括所有「以各种形式具有宗教情操者」（《善牧》宗座宪令，159节）。

2. 宗座与不同宗教交谈

《宣言》的第二段一开始提到有人表示信徒感到「某种玄奥的能力，存在于事物的运行及人生的事故中」。这种宗教表达方式可以称为「传统宗教」3。由于这些宗教组织不强，而且有时带有一些神秘色彩，难以与他们进行正式交谈。事实上与这类宗教背景的人的交流，往往是在他们成为基督徒之后才进行。这是福音与文化持续交谈的事例。例如教宗若望保禄二世致美洲原住民的文告指出：「你们根据福音的训诲会成功带领人民既忠于所属的传统，又会在物质及精神上得以发展……。信仰会使他人爱你、尊重你的特性、与你携手建设一个人人都会积极及负责任地参与的未来，以合乎基督徒的尊严。」（《文告》，1992年10月12日）

我必须承认，本委员会并没有积极与「传统宗教」联络。不过，我的前辈上任委员会主席艾凌志（Francis Arinze）枢机来自传统宗教背景，他曾两度致函主教们，呼吁要给予信奉传统宗教的人牧民照顾。他也在美国举行的特卡奎萨北美洲原住民天主教徒会议上发言，又在印度向部落天主教徒演说。我也想特别指出，美洲原住民代表也有参加一九八六年亚西西的和平祈祷日，并在一九九九年参加本会在梵蒂冈举办的跨宗教大会。我得在此一提，孔教儒学思想家也有参加二零零二年的亚西西大会。

首个在《宣言》提及的宗教传统是印度教。这个传统并没有任何中央领导，因此很难与他们进行有系统的交谈，但是这并不代表没有对话。在印度教徒占大多数的印度，基督徒定期透过教育和医疗机构以至彼此为邻，德兰修女的典范记忆犹新，与印度教徒进行「生命交谈」。此外，印度的天主教会也发展了一个完善的交谈中心网络。

尽管这些中心一般进行多边交流活动，但也能促进天主教徒与印度教徒沟通。近年印度出现印度教徒意识形态（hindutva），断言祇有印度教徒才是真正的印度人，这迫使部分基督徒领袖要与倡议这类运动的领袖展开交谈，以维护非印度教徒的权益。另一方面，好些大学开办了比较宗教研究学院，藉此与世界各地的大学进行正式交谈。印度教徒及基督徒也通过其他渠道，例如普世博爱运动等教友组织来发展友谊。

印度教徒遍布世界每一角落，他们的影响不单在于人数，更在于越来越多人对印度教传统的祈祷和冥想方式感兴趣。基督徒与印度教徒之间有不少友好的接触。英国伦敦有一间新建的印度教庙，游人络绎不绝，庙宇更开设神学交谈，尤其多与国际黑天意识（Krishna Consciousness）协会合作。今年四月，又在该庙举办第七届印度教大神毗湿奴派（Vaishnava）与基督徒交谈的周年大会，由协会及美国天主教主教团基督徒合一及跨宗教事务办事处合办。这些交流并非要达到一致的见解，但是至少透过研究和讨论，可以让双方瞭解彼此的立场。

至于佛教，《宣言》简单描述这个传统所提出的生活方式，是克胜「转变世界中的基本不足」，正正是佛教着重出家生活的理由，使佛教僧侣和比丘尼以及天主教传统中的修道人之间的交谈得到丰富的成果。跨宗教隐修生活交谈在天主教会中已经很有系统，越来越多男、女隐修院也参加这些灵修讨论。在美国新明谷隐修院举行过两个重要的会议，多默．麦纯（Thomas Merton）隐修传统，在二零零三年五月举行的「西方的女修道人」会议上，佛教及天主教的女修道人一起反省女修道人对今日美国的意义，会议的成功促使男修道人进行一次类似的交流，在二零零四年六月在加州有「万佛城」之称的尤凯亚市举行，称为「西方的男修道人」会议。

我想谈谈隐修院及祈祷中心的角色，以回应那些寻觅这种灵修方式的需要。今天很多人受到佛教的吸引，因为佛学已成为一门冥想学派，这种冥想也许被视为现代烦嚣生活的解毒剂，宗座宗教联络委员会联同欧洲主教团在欧洲举行过两次佛教谘询会，讨论如何陪伴寻觅真谛的人。

宗座宗教联络委员会也与小乘、大乘及金刚乘三个主要佛教宗派的信徒进行颇严谨的交谈，希望双方有较实际的合作，例如参与由日本一个佛教运动「妙智会」发起的「全球儿童宗教网络」。此外，曾有佛教徒及基督教徒就和平与修好交流，或者就吸毒者复康问题等交换意见。宗座宗教联络委员会提出四个交谈方式──生命交谈、行动交谈、官式交谈以及宗教经验交谈，在世界各地以不同程度地实践中。

《宣言》在谈论佛教后，进而提及「其他宗教」，它没有指明那些宗教，也许应指那些曾进行宗教交谈的宗教。当中首先是锡克教。锡克教没有被确认为一个独立宗教，而仅被视为印度教的支派，很难令锡克教徒接受为何被列作「其他宗教」，因此有些锡克教徒一直争取教廷发表声明称许锡克教的律法（dharma）。事实上，锡克教在世界上占有一定地位，并确与其他宗教人士交谈，尤其是多边层次交谈。在二零零二年亚西西和平祈祷会上，有一个由锡克教在印度金庙派出的官方代表团参与，以及在金庙所在地一所锡克大学多次举办锡克教与其他跨宗教的交谈会，令人鼓舞。其他有份参与跨宗教交谈而值得一提的有巴哈伊教、神道教、天理教、拜火教及道教。
《宣言》在段末总结带出重要讯息﹕「天主公教不会抗拒这些宗教任何真实和神圣的元素。」值得强调的是第二个形容词「神圣」。这个词表示这些宗教蕴含恩宠的元素，让他们的跟随者得到救恩。教会并非确认这些宗教是另一些得到救恩的渠道。梵二文件称，教会「是一个宣扬基督是『道路、真理和生命』的团体。」天主透过基督与世界修好。但是，本委员会在其他文件明言，圣神可以带领人以天主同意的方法分享逾越奥迹（参阅《论教会在现代世界牧职宪章》，22节），而逾越奥迹是唯一拯救人类的途径。所以，教廷信理部发出《主耶稣》文件一方面坚持在耶稣基督是唯一的主及救世者，鼓励神学家研究不同宗教在救恩工程中扮演的角色。

《宣言》同时呼吁交谈及宣讲，使我们需要反省如何协调这两个教会传教的元素。因此教宗若望保禄二世在一九九零年《救赎使命》总结说﹕「宗教交谈是教会传教使命的一部分……在救恩计划下，教会认为宣讲基督及参与宗教交谈并没有矛盾……两者必须维持密切关系和独立性，不可混淆、受支配、或被看成一模一样、仿如可以互相取代。」（《救赎使命》，55节）这神学考量既为牧民工作提供一个明确的基础，又成为本委员会在过去四十年发出的两份官方文件的内容，第一份是一九八四年发表关于交谈与传教的反省和方向的《教会对待其他宗教信徒的态度》；另一份是在一九九一年发表的《交谈与宣讲》文件；还有一份正在草拟的文件讨论宗教交谈中的灵修探讨。
《宣言》的结论鼓励天主教徒「要与其他宗教进行谨慎及怀有爱德的讨论和合作……同时要见证自己的信仰和生活方式。」我们可以效法若望保禄二世，他严守这个原则，时常开放交谈，又同时是任劳任怨的基督见证人。

1.这是宗座宗教联络委员会主席弥额尔．斐哲乐（Michael Fitzgerald）总主教于2004年11月28日在香港圣神修院神哲学院的演讲辞，主题是梵二颁布《教会对非基督宗教态度宣言》四十年来的成果。

2.原文「人类的结合日益密切」中的「人类」一词英语是men，过去四十年来已改为采用兼容男女的语言。

3.宗座宗教联络委员会的一份文件有以下定义：「传统宗教指那些保持在原来社会文化环境的宗教，不像世界大宗教会传播于很多国家和文化中。」传统一词并非指不变的事物，而是表示本土文化的环境……在非洲，这些宗教普遍称为「非洲传统宗教」；在亚洲则称为「原住民宗教」及「民间宗教」。

3. 与伊斯兰教交谈

《宣言》明言教会「很尊重」伊斯兰教徒4，这确实显示教会完全改变昔日视伊斯兰教徒为敌的态度。或许有人问，究竟在二零零一年「九．一一」事件后这「尊重」是否不变。无可置疑，这些事件勾起很多人内心对伊斯兰的恐惧，往往将这宗教等同于恐怖主义。伊斯兰教坚如盘石的教义加强这恐惧。目前我们确实需要多认识伊斯兰教，幸而九一一事件后，因为好奇心驱使而学习伊斯兰的人激增，这知识对作出适当的辨识很重要。在美国受到恐怖袭击后不久，教宗若望保禄二世在哈萨克斯坦首都阿斯塔那的演说是一个好例子：
「我希望重新肯定天主教会对伊斯兰教的尊重，鼓励祈祷关心有需要的人的真正的伊斯兰教。回想过去的错误，包括最近发生的事，所有信徒必须团结力量，确保天主永远不会成为人类野心的人质。仇恨、狂热主义和恐怖主义亵渎天主的圣名，扭曲人的真正形像。」

哈萨克斯坦阿斯塔那

2001年9月24日
简而言之，本委员会重视伊斯兰教所拥有的价值观：相信一个创造者和审判者真主，重视亚巴郎，朝拜视为先知而非天主子的耶稣，荣耀玛利亚，尊崇道德生活，特别是祈祷、捐献和禁食。到底我们有没有更懂得欣赏伊斯兰教的价值观？也许很少，但是我们可以注意现任教宗训导中的一些内容，他强调需要加强基督宗教和伊斯兰教的灵性连系。这看法肯定十分重要，因为目前双方的接触是从政治出发多于从宗教考虑。基于两教信徒共同的起源和共同的终结，教宗向伊斯兰教徒说话时也刻意用「兄弟」一词来称呼他们。

本委员会怀着此兄弟情谊，由一九六七年起，每年在伊斯兰徒斋戒月结束的开斋节向伊斯兰教徒发出信息。今年发出的信息「儿童──上主给人类的未来的恩赐」为主题。同样，我们也有在排灯节向印度教徒祝贺，以及在浴佛节向佛教徒致意。

梵二《宣言》有一点曾令伊斯兰教徒失望，它没有提及穆罕默德。即使内容如何充实和正面的声明也会被视为负面，所以缄默更明智。也许在若望保禄二世讲及圣神在人类的宗教探索过程中曾含蓄地提到穆罕默德说：
「必须首先记着，人灵对真理和善的每个探索及最后对天主的分析都是由圣神启迪。不同宗教的出现来自对天主基本的开放。在这些宗教的起源，我们往往发现其创始人藉着天主圣神助佑，得到深厚的信仰经验，他们为要把经验传授予他人，会以教义、礼仪和戒律表达宗教的内涵。」
《教宗接见大众的演辞》

1998年9月9日
本委员会处理与伊斯兰教强调他们是由亚巴郎透过依市玛耳传下来的后裔时尤其谨慎。不过，我们认识到他们清晰地把自己信仰与亚巴郎的信仰结合。亚巴郎是一个连系犹太人、基督徒和伊斯兰教徒的人物，并是近四十年所发展的交谈一环，很多组织以亚巴郎的名义发展下来，历史最悠久的也就是法国「亚巴郎的弟兄」，另一个法国组织名为「亚巴郎的婴儿」。在英国，一股类似的动力催生了「三个信仰论坛」。事实上，信奉这三个亚巴郎宗教的信徒确实关系良好。
伊斯兰教的确与基督徒宗派加强了交谈，有时他们也会与犹太人交谈。再者，伊斯兰教徒建立自己的交谈架构，例如在国际伊斯兰义工及人道救济委员会之下建立的国际论坛，它的主席伊斯兰教阿扎尔教长，或者阿扎尔与一神宗教常设委员会，均答应与天主教会成立联合委员会，以开展两教的交谈。
鉴于历史，《宣言》呼吁基督徒和伊斯兰教徒忘记过去的纷争，致力谅解。很多交谈即使针对信仰的交谈都加深了双方瞭解各自的立场。在社会问题上，交谈营造了合作服务人群气氛，但双方仍有很大的合作服务空间。

4. 与犹太人交谈

由于这方面的交谈并非宗座宗教交谈委员会的职责，我不会在此就基督徒与犹太人交谈进展说什么。事实上，过去四十年这联系发展迅速。我可以多谈一点犹太人、基督徒和伊斯兰教徒的三边交流。上一段提及的团体及多方曾作出不少努力，举办过不少次会议及讲座。曾邀请犹太人和基督徒和伊斯兰教徒就题目分别发表意见。或许这些场合不足之处是没有让讲者讨论环节，虽然没有即场辩论，但至少可以书面表达意见和回应。我曾负责由美国天主教马凯特大学发起的研究工作。犹太人教授鲁文．费尔斯通（Reuven Firestone）、伊斯兰教徒教授马哈茂德．阿尤布（Mahmoud Ayoub）及我本人被邀请出席多晚的演讲，发表对阿巴郎宗教的演说，然后互相评论彼此的演说内容及回应。整个交谈内容现正整理，即将辑录成书。
我们也得承认，以色列及巴勒斯坦的冲突持续，为和平的交谈带来障碍。本委员会与梵蒂冈犹太人关系委员会、世界基督教协会以及信义宗联会分别在瑞士和希腊举行过两次会议，探讨对将来和平关系展望。前圣公会坎特伯雷大主教乔治．加雷（Carey）爵士成功建立「亚历山大利亚进程」，召集以色列、巴勒斯坦和世界各地的宗教领袖和政治领袖，为开展和平进程铺路。向仇人伸手需要很大勇气，但各方得法承认在这冲突地带之内，有犹太人、基督徒和伊斯兰教徒表现出这股勇气，他们理应得到应有的支持。

5. 普世弟兄情谊

《宣言》的末段直接谴责各种形式的歧视；不幸地这些歧视至今仍然存在。反闪族主义不断在多个欧洲国家复辟，犹太寺受攻击，犹太人的坟墓遭破坏等；至今有伊斯兰教徒也曾受到类似的袭击，也有很多人谈伊斯兰教色变。同样地，基督徒在伊拉克和其他国家也受到排斥仇视，圣堂被炸毁或纵火。不过，不少宗教领袖在互相尊重的基础上，进行调解以舒缓紧张关系，例如国际知名的跨宗教运动，世界宗教和平议会就曾在备受冲突蹂躏的波斯尼亚与黑塞哥维那，以及塞拉里昂等国，成立跨宗教议会，这就是宗教交谈对世界的一些贡献。梵二《宣言》的目标也在启迪和指导天主教徒多进行交流。

4. 法文本采用estime一字，意大利文本用stima，英语译本用a high regard。

作者：Chau, Edward（周景勋）

1. 打开话题谈宗教

当我们翻开中外古今的历史，就会发现一个自然的游戏规则：人为了生存，必须不断战斗－－人与自己、人与人、人与社会、社会与社会、国家与国家等的战斗；在战斗中，人美其名谓：为了「正义、爱、救世、扶弱、成长、神……」而战，其结果就是：人亡国亡，没有万岁的人，没有万岁的国，留下的只是「立德、立功、立言」的三不朽精神作为人的典范，和奸诈虚伪遗臭万年的警愓。于是，人生于世，便要面对生命变化、环境变化，和生死灭亡的挑战和考验，人对未来不能把握的事迹感到迷惘和疑惑。由是，宗教给人带来新希望，赋予力量助人克服困难，使人有勇气地和积极地面对生命种种的挑战。

宗教帮助人培养智慧、发现真理、印证价值，引导人寻觅生命正确的方向，展现生命内在的真、善、美、圣。

宗教能够提升人的成长，触动人的内在经验，明辨善恶；瞭解在善中以「德」滋润生命；「恶」则破坏人与神、人与人、人与世界的关系，形成疏离；藉此感动人要保持信心，凡事感恩，时刻警醒，不断超越，更新自我。

宗教在实况下，能够跨越民族和国界，超越时代和文化，使人与人能彼此血脉相连，实现一体之仁的互通；于是盼望着人人平等，尊重人权，自由共融。
宗教促进人走向正义、缔造和平、宽宏包容、关爱生命、珍惜大地、家庭融洽、世界和谐。

2. 文化与宗教的沟通和交谈

宗教的产生是由文化中来的，有不同的文化就有不同的宗教，这与人的民族性和地域性有着密切的关系，形成了宗教与文化的沟通，这种沟通是一个人的行动表达，故有日常生活的沟通，即宗教与人的生活的交谈；也有面对生命发展和终极理念作反思的探讨的沟通，即宗教与团体、宗教与宗教之间的彼此了解和交谈，好能促进不同文化与不同宗教的互相交流，更拓展宗教与宗教间的交谈和合作，信徒之间的互相认识和尊重，共同提高对世界，社会的伦理道德与教育的重视和责任。
由是，天主教会在梵蒂冈第二届大公会议文献中提出：

(1)各民族原是一个团体，同出一源。

(2)各民族都意识到某种玄奥的能力，存在于事物的运行及人生的事故中……此种意识与体认，以最深的宗教情感贯澈到他们的生活中。

(3)应以明智与爱德，同其他宗教的信徒交谈与合作……同时承认、维护并倡导那些宗教徒所拥有的精神与道德，以及社会文化的价值。(NAE 1, 2)

可见，每一个宗教都有其本身的文化背境，在见解上自然也有其不同之处，故在宗教交谈上，一方面要忠于自己的宗教信仰及教义，另一面也要有「开放」的精神，认识其他宗教的思想，投入了解和关怀中，互相欣赏和尊重，因为每一个宗教都有其真理的内容；故在宗教交谈中，千万不可抱着「传教」或「说服」的心态，更不可有「贬抑」和「鄙视」的批斗。大家需要赤裸裸地揭示一颗「真诚」的「心」，在「慈悲、仁爱、和平、共融」中放下偏私和执着，在生活行动上，宗教经验的分享中，宗教理念的沟通里、思想研习的欣赏里，作出交谈。由是，在沟通和交谈时，人人都必须做到：

尊重欣赏的齐开放
互助互动的全牺牲
正直诚朴的真爱人
和谐平静的常喜乐
无忧无虑的尽信靠
愉颜传讯的同欢悦
享受希望的永奉献

3. 宗教心的开拓

宗教的现象自古便成为人心中的一种自然表现，可以将生命的奥秘作一个亲切的指示。人透过自然的启迪，也透过自我生命的体验，希望打开生命与宇宙的谜。因此，自古便开始了一种将奥秘的背后揭谜的追寻，「神」的存在也由此而产生。究竟是人追寻了「神」抑或是「神」启示了人，这便成了不同宗教的争论，现存的现象也将这两种不同的体验展现成为「自力」宗教与「他力」宗教的分别。

所谓「自力」宗教，强调人透过人思维的反省与生命的觉悟，可以找到生命的终极，透过生命的修持可以将生命的有限性与局限性超脱出来，达到生命的最高境，可以与生命或宇宙根源相合为一。因此，「自力」宗教重视生命的自我修持及超越。

所谓「他力」宗教则清楚肯定人的有限性及被创造性，天地之始是有一位「神」的存在，宇宙与人的存在是由「神」生命的爱的流露，创造了一切，尤其是「人」可以分享神的生命，人有理性（理智与意志）可以继续神的创造，这一切却是「神」启示人的，神也要求人活出生命本有的真善美，故人在人世间的生命要透过自我的修练，以活出「神」的真善美（爱）的肖像，直到与神合一，分享神的永恒生命。

于是，世界中产生了不同的宗教，在时间的流逝中，也产生了宗教盛衰的现象，例如：古代的图腾信仰、祖先崇拜、生殖崇拜、万物有灵崇拜、太阳神教等宗教。现在已经是历史上所讨论的原始宗教的内容，这些内容在不同的文化中留下了不同的「神话」记载，这些「神话」变成了一些宗教上重要史料，使现代人在研究宗教上有丰富而美丽的图画。其后，在历史演变中，不同文化（民族）在阐释「宗教」上便有不同的描述，然在描述上都保存了人的「生存意识」，在生存意识中引申了人对「自然、社会、人性」的看法，即人与自然（神），人与社会（国家、民族），人与人（个人）在生存上的联系，务使人的生命有更富丰的目标，也可扩宽人的思想和人的生活范围。因此，有启示的他力宗教与自我修持的自力宗教的出现。

历史上世界宗教中，启示的他力宗教，如犹太教、基督宗教（包括天主教、东正教、基督新教）、伊斯兰教。这些宗教的发源都在中东的地方。而自我修持的自力宗教，有佛教、道教、印度教、儒教等，其发源地都在亚洲地方。

无论是他力宗教或自力宗教，在经典中都有着「神话」的内容，而且内容常是从历史的演变中形成的，其后，便有不同的发挥和在不同时代上扩展出符合不同的时代讯息，更有在不同文化与地域下所建立的本地（本位）化的思想发展。可见思想的发展是多元化的，也是丰富的。

既然在世界上不同的文化地区，形成了不同的宗教，在不同宗教中都有不同的宗教经验，这些经验给不同的民族一个爱的动力与终极生命的希望：在不同宗教中都有真理的存在，也有不同的修持方法与内容。究竟那一个真理最真？那一种修持方法或内容最好？这是很幼稚的问题，实在不应有这种想法。我相信每一个宗教的存在都有其意义与价值，在其内有真理，其修持方法与内容也实在可以导引人走向真理和给人带来希望。

然而，为什么在世界上有这样多的宗教战争、宗教排斥、宗教分裂等现象出现呢？我相信这不是「神」的问题，而是人的问题，特别是人的思想问题。常美其名为「神」而做，却是为人自己的利益而做，也为了坚固人的组织、权力而做；有也有为了民族传统与思想的固执而做。在不同宗教中，都有一个共同的思想，那就是说：神是慈悲的，常怜悯人，神爱世人，不希望人毁灭，神常照顾人，保护人等……。

为什么人在不同的遭遇上，会将「神」的特性否定，为了保护自己的宗教而丑化其他宗教或排斥其他宗教美好的一面呢？

这不是「神」的心有问题，而是人的心太狭窄，因而将神的心都封闭起来，为此，我们要反省一下，「人」的「心」，好能拓展我们的「宗教心」。

心大能容
心虚能受
心平能论
心潜能观
心定能应
大其心能容天下事
虚其心能受天下……
同样地宗教心也必须是「大、虚、平、潜（静）、定」的，务使能：－
容纳其他的宗教是人类历史中的一员
承受而尊重其他的宗教
平心地与其他的宗教作出交谈
静心欣赏其他宗教的「真善美圣」的生命
定心地以开放的态度与其他宗教作出心灵上的感应

这样不但能透过互相认识，互相欣赏，互相尊重，互相交流沟通，还可以进一步地作出互相共融，互相……。好能因其他宗教的「真善美圣」的精神，丰富充实自己的思想与精神，以拓展「神」的大同。

为此，我们首要的是先打开自己的宗教心，不要被自己的宗教所束缚，而是一个包容一切的宗教心，更好说是一个「空虚」的宗教心，好能学习和吸纳一切的宗教精神。当然，人心是有限的，不能认知一切，正如庄子所言「吾生也有涯，而知也无涯。以有涯……」（养生主）
但若我们有「登假于道」的心，在生命中努力发挥内在生命的「真善美圣」，自然地，便不会排斥一切，而是在有限中，按部就班地打开自己和接纳、包容、尊重、欣赏宇宙和一切的宗教现象，以充实和丰富自己的宗教体验。
……因为「麦子不死空自留
　　　　　麦子死了百倍收」
我们也当将自己宗教的麦子种在其他宗教（文化）的园地里，我们的麦子必先死在其他宗教的园地里，让麦子有机会生长出来，以收成果。这也是降生神学的启示，因为基督降生在犹太文化中，透过犹太文化和宗教开显了救赎的行动，基督更死在犹太的法律中，才能有复活，富丰了犹太的法律，使之有所转化……。

4. 宗教交谈在香港

自从一九七二年开始，香港天主教教区已故徐诚斌主教成立「教区非基督徒联络委员会」（现称「教区宗教联络委员会」），便开始了「拜访」、「邀请」其他宗教的宗教交谈活动；至一九七六年的四年间，香港不同宗教团体的交往已逐渐频密，各宗教的开放也宽大；于是，大家深切地盼望能深入的交谈，除了「互访」外，也进而在认识不同宗教的思域上作交谈；因此在一九七七年初，六宗教（天主教、基督教、伊斯兰教、佛教、道教和孔教）选派代表筹备「宗教思想交谈会」，其目的如下：

为不同信仰的六宗教教友善信提供更广博知识，藉以增加大家对各宗教之教义、始创、演变及其文化背景等之认识和了解；因此，交谈会是以促进互相尊重、彼此瞭解及共同欣赏为目的。
「宗教思想交谈会」的举办，至今还是宗教领袖们所鼓励和支持的，也得到各宗教的教友善信所认同和参与。

在一九七七年成立「宗教思想交谈会」后，大家更希望在接触上不可停滞于形式或思想上的交谈，若能落实对香港社会作出一些具体的贡献，发挥宗教间的互动与齐心合作，将宗教上的爱和慈悲精神作具体的推动，使能多元化地服务和影响社会，那就更好了！于是，六宗教的代表各回自己的宗教团体，向宗教领袖们提出「宗教领袖」们的合作的理念。结果，顺利地获得宗教领袖们的回应，愿意支持和携手合作，为社会大众树立一个共融交谈的见证，同时也委任了由各宗教派代表组成的筹划小组，为成立「宗教领袖座谈会」而努力。

一九七八年六月十六日在筹划小组精细的安排下，「宗教领袖座谈会」由香港佛教联合会、香港孔教学院、中华回教博爱社、香港基督教协进会、香港天主教教会和香港道教联合会的领袖共同成立和举行第一次的会议，为香港的宗教历史创造了宗教合作的首页。1

二十七年了，香港六宗教领袖明察时代的需要和新时代的和平精神，打破宗教间的分歧和思想的局限，跳出自己的框框，真诚地直接交谈，本着和衷共济的宏旨，互相尊重、携手合作，为社会的演变谋求福利；二十七年来的和平共处、共融见证，不但树立了宗教友谊，更自然地达成了以下的共识和认同：
放弃偏见，互相接纳；
彼此欣赏，促进交谈；
宗教研究，分享对话；
宽容精神，共融相处；
社会福利，携手合作；
道德教育，齐心推广；
和平正义，共同卫护。

事实上，今日的社会不是封闭性的社会，而是开放性的社会；不是专权的社会，而是自由民主、尊重人权的社会；宗教亦然，在开放和创新的动力下，透过自由的和平交谈，好能舍短取长，丰富宗教间的内涵意识；交谈不在于转化或归化或同化其他的宗教，而是互相间的对话、聆听、陈述、欣赏、沟通，共同在「真、善、美、圣」的光明中，帮助社会大众寻找真理，为人类谋求幸福，为社会带来共融与和谐，为人的生命开启成全的路，为人性注入尊严和公义，为世界建立和平等。

透过宗教与宗教的交谈，大家能体验到在真理中的自由、在幸福中的平安、在仁爱与慈悲中的尊贵、在和谐中的美善，故宗教自由与生存自由是不能分割的，也不是一个口号，而是人生命的权利，更好说是人生命的一部份，因为宗教团体是导引人进入真生命的团体，告诉人进入自我心灵内的安宁，好能在物质的社会中找寻生命的平衡，而不致成为物质的奴隶，放弃人本质的善性；反之，能将仁爱、慈悲、宽恕、正义、真朴、清静带给人，建树和平的义务。

5. 宗教交谈使宗教走向一体关系的共同道路

在思想多元化的挑战下，二十一世纪的思想转型，使人的心也自然倾向物质的资讯科技，和经济的开拓；虽有病毒和流感的侵袭，人的心依然未能由「物质化」转化过来，「金钱」是人生命的核心，也是现代人心中追寻的偶像；「宗教」的「神圣性」也随着人心的自我安慰而变得「世俗化」；「宗教」也渐渐变成人的私自喜好和选择，而局限在私人的感受上；自然而然的，宗教的活力有减退的现象，未能保持：「道德的盘石」、「爱和正义的守护者」、「和平的缔造者」的美名；再加上现代化的科技追寻，国与国所倡议和采用的措施使社会结构起了大的变化，传统文化的精神和道德价值受到极大的冲击，以经济观点来衡量和教育人的生命质素，使人的精神发展得不到正确的方向启导，宗教也被人滥用，做成暴力和控制人心的手段。世界上有些国家更以宗教作为政治化的工具，进行恐布行动，伤害人的生命；也有国家自行制定宗教法则，分化和控制宗教的内部权力和组织，以政治手段破坏宗教的统一性和神圣性；法国哲学家巴斯噶说过：「以宗教为动机去行恶的人（国家的领导者），没有比他们作恶作得更彻底，更得意。」同样地，以宗教为政治手段去控制人心、破坏宗教的神圣性、统一性和共融性的人，没有比他们作分裂和破坏宗教本质作得更彻底和可怕。因此，作为宗教人应该从俗世化中为宗教寻回其神圣性，从分裂的破坏中建立强有力的团结和共融，好能发放宗教信仰的生命智慧和信念，宗教与宗教间进行交谈和沟通，维护宗教的尊严，推动宗教的道德和心灵修养，给人的生存价值和道德价值作坚定的维系，与政治划清界线。

我相信：每个宗教有责任在这昏乱的世界里，专制和极权的破坏宗教神圣性和统一性的分化思想和政制中，保持宗教的超越面和神圣性本质，发挥廿一世纪的宗教气息，我称之为宗教的正气，它能弥漫和覆盖宇宙，充塞人性，支撑人灵，带领人作正确的反思，宗教与宗教间和衷共济，求同存异，为人世间注入和平，提升人性尊严，重整道德水平，和强化心灵环保。由是，宗教交谈可以联系着不同宗教的「真善美圣」的内涵，加上宗教在不同文化中所表达的修持精神，作为互补和合作的研究；甚至透过宗教交谈，发挥宗教信仰对精神生命的提升，使人人的心灵互联起来，在爱的互动中建立和平共融的新社会，也在互爱的奉献中展现了信仰的互通，培育人的「亲和力」与「包容力」，肯定了宗教与宗教间的大和谐与心灵的充实及喜乐。于是，我们可作跨一步的宗教交谈的反思：

5.1 认识和肯定不同宗教的存在价值。
5.2 在交谈中共同追求真理与正义。
5.3 宗教交谈是促进思想与生命追索的合一，因此，宗教交谈在人的思想中化成爱的使命。
5.4 不同宗教在交谈的分享中，因着其他宗教的「真善美圣」而产生净化的作用，可补充个别宗教的不足，使之趋向完善。
5.5 交谈的理想在于大家能「和衷共济、求同存异」地创造接纳异己者的「共融性」。
5.6 在人性尊严上，宗教交谈探求生命的超越性，好能在互爱中建立「一体的关系」。

由上所言，我在心底浮现了一个希望：盼望着宗教与宗教之间能摒除分争的成见，在互认中认同每一宗教的存在价值，大家可从人的心灵净化上作共识，从社会与世界的和谐上作沟通与努力，从大自然的微妙启发上互相关注和爱护，因为宗教带来的是生命的转化，使人寻得真理和真我。因此，我们要承认自己仍有不足处，需要医疗，也需要革新，而不同宗教便可以互补不足；每一个宗教的真理可以丰富其他的宗教。于是，世界性的宗教交谈是必须的；虽然，在廿世纪的末期，宗教交谈已经在不同地区、部份宗教团体、学术上的研究有所接触和讨论，却不能普遍流传，依然未能互相爱慕和尊重、互让和互谅、互相欣赏和接纳，故也不能同心维护社会的和谐与繁荣。
由是，在新世纪的开始，宗教间的交谈和合作可塑造一股相融的气氛，所谓「盈虚有序如明月，聚散无常似白云」，又「天无私覆，地无私载，日月无私照，霜雪无私坠」，人心若能如天、地、日、月、霜、雪的相融相合，自然能和谐共融，反之则互相伤害和破坏，宗教间亦然，历史上的教训可作为我们的借镜和反思。因此，宗教间要建立一份「亲和力」，好能「求同」；也要造就一份「超越力」，好能「存异」；在求同存异中，宗教间能发挥其存在的价值和意义，也能在互相充实和调协的合作中，为社会引发正确的道德、福利、教育等方向，使「人性、社会、自然」在不同宗教文化的交谈下，能有适宜的整合，跃进大一统的秩序中，庄子天下篇有言：「圣有所生，王有所成，皆源于一。」

1.周景勋神父，「为香港宗教历史注下结谊与交谈的光辉史实－－六宗教的脉膊互动」，《神学年刊》vol.19，香港　圣神修院神哲学院（1998）58-64。

6. 宗教交谈给新纪元一个正确的导向和光照

新纪元（New Age）作为现时代文化潮流的新发展，从后现代主义对信仰的假定，认为信仰在于人的取向而不在于真理，重视个人的灵性成长，其内容涵摄面很广阔但空泛，且拒绝接纳一个有位格的神；其理论基础对达尔文的进化论普遍地接受，不多考虑宗教和超性体验，一切都顺任自然，爱只是生命的能量，人在转化的灵性旅程上寻求对宇宙、神和自然奥秘的认知，知识相等于生命的救赎；所以，认为一切都靠自力就可达到自我的实现，完美的价值是自我所创造的，否认基督信仰中的恩宠论，连生命的神圣能力都是人扩展心灵的效果，只执着自我满全的私人境界；由是，新纪元强调心灵的修养，称之为「灵修」，乃指整体真实生命取得和谐的内在经验，「神内在于我」，故神是非位格的能量，是生命的力量，是生命的大意识（a great conscionsness）。
新纪元的思想自开始至今已有四十年了，其所关注的：如妇权、环保、灵性、人的潜能发展、适度的科技（Appropriate Echnology）、简朴生活、反中央集权（Decentralist）、世界新秩序（World order）等，都是以人本主义出发，很吸引现代人的需求，暗地里，新纪元的思想隐藏着反宗教、反基督、反传统的文化。

教会的宗教交谈的推展也在梵二之后积极地落实，使宗教间能凝集一股合作的力量，以缔造更好的「自然、社会、人性」关系，且能从多元化的宗教事实中，连结成为「相关的合一」（relational unity），这正好是面对新纪元所关注的「人」的生活问题，宗教交谈正好配合时代的挑战，以及新纪元给宗教及社会带来的冲击，作适当的回应，希望将宗教信仰所关注的「心灵提升」和「道德理念」融化在社会文化中，给社会作深入的鼓励、唤醒人的生存意识和道德意识，好能提升人格、发扬人性的精神价值，寻觅生命的源头活水，以及在神的光照下为世界的发展提供新的方向，故宗教团体本着神圣性使命作出呼吁：

6.1 宗教是文化的一部份，宗教交谈可强化宗教间的具体合作，帮助物质化的人心重拾文化的精髓，教育下一代对「慎终追远，民德归厚」的寻根意识，以及对伦理道德的重视。

6.2 宗教维系人的生命，使人活出生命的博爱与慈悲，好能建树家庭成为爱的殿堂，尤其在性滥交、堕胎、离婚率高涨的时代，家庭价值被淡化，传生接代的神圣性被贬抑，社会的共融失去和谐，宗教间当加强对话，共建社会素质与家庭良缘。

6.3 宗教与宗教间齐心举办「心灵成长」与「宗教面面观」等研讨会或讲座，助人积极建设丰盛的人生，活在真实中以追求真正的幸福。

6.4 宗教领袖同心合力呼吁人与人、民族与民族、国与国之间放下政治意识心态的执着，放下极权主义和暴力行为，放下侵略和压榨的思念，为和平与环保共同努力，建设共融和谐的美丽世界。
6.5 宗教有着其本身的魅力，随了保持其传统的神圣性及本质外，在与人交谈中，开发吸引人的魅力沃土，使人在紧杂忙碌的生活中，找到心灵轻松的喜悦自在。宗教交谈乃帮助人由自发创新走向自觉的创新，使人从宗教的神圣性中，选择「真善美圣」的依据，也使人超越简单的物质利益霸绊，而获得全新的生活内容，甚至为了信仰可以牺牲一切。

6.6 宗教交谈开拓社会的文明，帮助人在精神发展中作开放式的自我推进，提高人的心灵素质，在物质经济主导的社会中，稳定人的道德价值和人性尊严，关注青少年的心灵培育、监察传媒的诚信与健康报导、推动人人（特别是国家社会）关怀贫病智障弱小者。

6.7 宗教可推动文化和社会的教育－－心灵智性的教育，开导人活出一个正确而光明的人生观。

7. 宗教交谈的力量：将危机变为转机

旧约圣经中，申命纪的三十章15-20节记载着梅瑟在训示以色列子民时，提出雅威大义，内容如下：－－
你看，我今天将生命与幸福，死亡与灾祸，都摆在你面前。……我今天指着天地向你们作证：我已将生命与死亡，祝福与诅咒，都摆在你面前；你要选择生命，为叫你和你的后裔得以生存……。

在训示中，实在展现了天主对以色列子民的要求，似是只有一条抉择的路：就是要求以色列子民抉择祝福，即抉择上主是他们的天主；若不抉择天主，就等于离开天主，一定会受到诅咒而失去了生命。在这情况下，骤眼看来，人是没有自由的；但在深层的意义下，说出了自由的根基在于「真理」，因为「真理使人自由」（若11:32）而不是罪恶或放纵使人有自由。

为现代人来说，我们是否也处于「现代性」的祝福或诅咒两者间的选择呢？2 现代人若不抉择真理和仁爱，就是抉择「现代性」的诅咒，因为只有真理使人自由，仁爱使人活出道德的善生命；没有真理和仁爱，便没有自由和道德。存在主义的沙特（Jean-Paul Sartre）有宿命论式的吊诡名言：「自由的诅咒」，以束缚人心，因为人若活在放纵中，乃将自己陷入一个无法逃脱的危机中；同样地，人若只抉择物质而忽略心灵的自由，也陷于另一个危机中，使人离开真善美的本性，孟子称无善心的人为「非人也。」宗教往往要在变化中唤醒人心，助人作出生命的转化：?

人世间的万事万物都顺自然地转变
天气的变化使人活在适应中
不适应的人就会在困苦里病病
植物的生长也随着春夏秋冬的转化而变
动物也在生生中成长
…………
人有灵性和肉身
肉身的变化是生命的过程－－
　生老病死使生命感觉一片苦与乐
由生开始经过病与老走向死亡
其意义何在！
是心灵的转化－－
心灵的变化是生命的修为
有德与无德可给人作评价
有德者怀仁义礼智信……
无德者如禽兽
在修为中
人的理想是与天地相合
　　　　　与道通合为一
人之活与不活在于心性修养
有德者是活着的活人
无德者是活着的死人
故－－人需养心以德
　　必须寡欲以致无欲
在诚中展示言行一致
　　　　　心口如一的真
　　　返朴归真
　　　虚静无为
揭开天地人的互通
人立于天地间而为「王」者
必能博施济众地成为大化之「圣」
基督宗教则强调信、爱、望与正义可以为人揭开一个新天新地，将危机化为转机，因为基督宗教肯定：
信　　乃宗教的主体意识
爱　　乃宗教的入世精神
望　　乃宗教的末世力量
正义　乃宗教的终极目标
圣奥斯定（St. Augustine）在《天主之城》（De Civitate Dei）书中强调了人在信、爱、望和正义上建立一个永恒不朽的幸福，即天国的实现；到中世纪圣多玛斯（St. Thomas Aquinas）时，更强调天主是爱的伟大，且以爱和正义为一个和谐的原则，也是道德行为的标准，且在天主教会的法律中，可以改善人的生活，助人追求永恒的生命，是入世的终极关怀的动力。因为「宗教」所注重的乃「帮助人寻找生命的终极目标，充实人的精神生命，培养人的生活品格，提高人性的伦理道德情操，劝人为善和教人避恶，也即是助人『求真、求善、求美、求圣』。」3可是，现代人对「宗教」有淡而无味的感觉，也有反感的迹象；这也展现了现代人不太注重精神生命的培育，只走向物质享受和个人主义的胡同里，对正义是自由、平等、共生和智慧的思想不作反省，对永恒不变的爱不作许诺，什么是幸福？什么是诅咒？有自己的解释，因此，「人不为己天殊地灭」的解释变成了「人不为自己的金钱与物质利益切想，天殊地灭」与原意的「修德积福」有很大的出入；那是祝福吗？那是诅咒吗？也是现代人的抉择吧了。

现代人可能将宗教信仰扭曲成为字面意义的解释，也有人可能把他们的恐惧投向别人身上，有权势的人亦可能把赚钱变成一种崇拜，完全不考虑这样做可能为他人带来痛苦，这些都是危机与矛盾。一个不断转变的世界，是由于人普遍地信任我们的共同生命的超越根源而成为可能，人要在危机和矛盾中作反省，使人在面对威胁与失望时，仍能不时奋力地保存自己的信心；在被欺骗和压倒时，仍能努力再挖掘，寻找出路。于是，在现代社会中，我们看到社会与人性的危机引起了与宗教信仰的对抗，同时也使人认识到为解决精神问题，也必须与宗教交谈，而宗教与宗教之间也必须有密切的交谈，好能为社会，为人类的正义作出引导性的指引和共负责任，为有危机的社会找到希望及赋予生存的意义。4我们深信宗教能在人与人之间建立尊重和共同利益，制造一种信任，使人感到安全，愿意在不同的境遇中带着希望彼此服务和交谈，使人的生命获得意义，且能与生命之源结合，常以开放与勇气的态度活出生命的信心，化解危机与矛盾。

诚如台湾中华民国宗教哲学研究社巨克毅教授在《论宗教关怀与社会正义》一文中说：「今日人类正处于人性剥落的逆流危机之中，人类正面对历史上最严厉的考验，是否能面对挑战迎向末来，或是沉陷物欲堕入深渊，这是人类必须自悟的重要关键时刻。笔者认为极救人心，引导社会，建立一完善幸福的人生与正义社会，今日必须依靠宗教力量。不论是东西方宗教皆肯定人类是根源于上帝的广大无边的包容爱心所生，人心即道心亦是上帝心，人有善性有良心亦来自宇宙上帝的无限心，这就是人类宗教的积极精神，此一精神动力用之于社会，用之于世间，则可救人救世，自度而度人。当代人类尚能自悟自觉，以宗教的关怀态度，入世精神，牺牲自我救赎众生，则可建立一人间理想正义的社会。宗教绝对是人类社会的希望，亦是人类末来的拯救力量。」5

8. 结语：天高地厚的爱－－宗教交谈的体验

宗教交谈是新世纪的一盏和平灯，可以光照人心，发散温暖的气息，连结每一个人的心灵，发扬「和衷共济，异中求同」的精神，使宗教人活出爱的共融，为世界揭示新希望和契机，作者愿意以一个基督徒的经验，与大家分享：「天高地厚的爱」的诗篇：
上主的爱如天之高地之厚
包容祂所创造的万事万物
乘载祂所创造的万事万物
一切都在祂内死而复生
成为新的受造之物
好的受造物在爱中显得更美善
不好的事物本身是好的
只因受造物不按照爱的指示而生活
自己犯了罪而为不好
在主内，因着主的宽恕
蒙恩宠而转化为美善的
…………
上主的宽赦和上主的忘怀是一体的
当上主宽赦人的罪时
上主也忘掉人的过去
为什么人偏偏要强迫上主记得自己的罪呢
当人不断犯罪时
人就在强迫上主记得罪的存在
人若不再犯罪
罪就不产生能力
自然地会慢慢的消失
可是，人太软弱了
上主才与人订立的救赎的计划
要人体验上主的大爱在于将子牺牲
以感动人心
凡体验到的人，也愿意转变的人
才能把握真理
活在真理的自由中……获得永恒的生命
不再做罪恶的奴隶
这就是上主爱的力量
人愿意悔改归依基督
在基督宝血覆盖下更新
接受圣神的洗礼和傅油
能在宝血恩宠和圣神恩宠下的人
才能有力量从心灵深处
将魔鬼驱逐
若只作一次的修和圣事
可以将魔鬼驱逐
但心灵的脆弱处没有圣神和宝血的保护
很容易会被魔鬼重新占有
魔鬼又会用外在的力量加以打击
加以诱惑
人在贪瞋痴三毒的祸害下
一次又一次的堕落
又在新纪元美丽的谎言下
一次又一次的失去了自己的判断
还以为是追上潮流
　　走在时代的尖端
　　带领人寻觅健康的新天地
殊不知
人在魔鬼美丽的圈套里被束缚着
失去了认识真理的能力
这个世代－－
　需要圣神的充沛和医治
　需要圣体的滋润和疗养
这个世代－－
　需要宗教的交谈
　需要生命的共融
　需要道德的重整
　需要教育的醒觉
　需要世界的和平

2.所谓「现代性」本是以「启蒙」为目的，希冀解放人类免于外在的支配；但是，此一目标并未完成。然而，我们更清楚地认识「现代性」乃指：
「『现代』世界所具有的特殊性质，其与传统世界的表现特征大不相同。不同学者赋予现代性许多不同的涵义。从哲学角度分析，则现代性包含三种不同含义：第一是主体性（subjectivity），肯定人做为自己的主人，在认知、权利、价值方面拥有绝对至上的力量。
第二表象（representation），人透过建构种种表象，以认识外在的客观世界，因此表象是一种代表，亦是一种表演的文化特质。
第三是理性化（rationality），透过有规则的方式控制活动的进行，此种规则益愈走向『工具理性』方式。」
参阅：沈清松，「从现代到后现代」，《哲学杂志》第四期，台北　业强出版社　1993年4月　10-15。
若从知识角度分析，则现代性是指：－－
「第一．知识的理性化与世俗化，
第二．科学知识的无限扩张，
第三．知识的权威性之增加。」
参阅：布莱克（C.E.Black）（郭正昭译），《现代化的动力》，台北　环宇出版社　1974年9月再版　4-6。

3.周景勋，「思维上的突破－－宗教交谈」，《神学年刊》vol.17，香港　圣神修院神哲学院（1996）121。

4.安博（Rex Ambler），《大地神学（Global Theology）》，香港公教真理学会出版（1990）82-103。

5.巨克毅，「现代与后现代思潮的反思」，附录《论宗教关怀与社会正义》，台北　中华民国宗教哲学研究社出版　1999　197。

by MOK Wing Kee Alex(莫荣基)

Abraham's Experience of the Divine Presence

1. Introduction

The encounter of God with the patriarchs is the foundation of Hebraic theology. Abraham being the father of the faithful portrays a unique figure which has a profound influence on the understanding of the divine presence in the human history. Chosen by God from among the peoples of the world, Abraham was called to take the possession of the land of Canaan and to be the father of a great nation (12:1-7)1. His special personal relationship with God has traditionally become a model for his descendents as well as a way for knowing God as the Creator of the universe and the human race.
Nevertheless, recent archaeological discoveries have shown that the literal historicity of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis is questionable.2 There is no evidence that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jacob's twelve sons were genealogically related as depicted in the biblical stories that were written primarily as expressions of Israel's relationship to God.3 Contemporary biblical scholars tend to accept that the Hebrew ancestors were not members of a single family but they were groups of caravan migrants and herdsmen of the semi-nomadic type4 "who practiced seasonal commerce and agriculture in limited areas, moved periodically on the highways of the Fertile Crescent, maintained contact with diverse ethnic and political groups, yet remained rigorously distinct from their cultural environment."5 Based on this understanding of the patriarchal traditions,6 this essay looks into the meaning of the divine presence that occurred to the patriarchs, and to Abraham in particular, and reflects on its theology. I will begin with a brief description of the lifestyles of the patriarchs and then discuss some characteristics of the God of the patriarchs. Having examined the patriarchal traditions in general, the main part of this essay will focus on Abraham and his encounters with God. The question I ask is, what type of God was encountered by Abraham and what type of faith did he have correspondingly? To answer this question, three episodes in Genesis, namely, the call of Abraham (12:1-7), God's covenant with Abraham (15:1-21) and the test of Abraham's faith (22:1-19), will be studied as these passages clearly demonstrate the patriarch's journey of faith.

2. The life of the patriarchs

In Genesis, the patriarchs are clearly depicted as nomadic herdsmen. They lived in tents (12:8; 13:3, 18; 18:1-10; 24:67; 31:25, 33, 34), they reared sheep and goats (30:32-43) and bred them (30:25-42). They dug wells (21:30; 26:15-22) and traveled from place to place with their flocks (12:9; 13:3).
Following the ideas of Alt7, developed further by scholars such as Cross8, Rainer9, Scullion10 and de Vaux11, the patriarchs were leaders of semi-nomadic societies or groups. In Genesis, nevertheless, the relationships among the ancestors of Israel are expressed genealogically. In Canaan, the groups of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob formed the link of one family. Outside Canaan, genealogies were also given to explain the relationships among different groups. For example, Lot, the father of the Moabites and the Ammonites (19:30-38), was the nephew of Abraham (12:5); Ishmael, the ancestor of twelve tribes in the area near the border of Egypt (25:13-16), was the brother of Isaac (25:9). During the patriarchal age, the patriarchs seemed to undergo a transition of life, from being nomadic to being settled.12 They moved into Canaan, lived there and made contact with the original inhabitants - the Canaanites - but did not identify with them (12:5; 13:7, 12; 16:3; 24:3, 4). They began to cultivate the soil and grow crops (26:12), and started to lead a settled life.13 The patriarchs were the heads of their families with utmost authority. For example, Abraham decided whom Isaac should marry (24:3-9) and Isaac in turn commanded Jacob whom to marry (28:1-2). Abraham had absolute possession of his wealth (25:5, 6) as well as power over his wife and concubines (12:11-13; 21:14; 25:6). Moreover, Abraham could freely choose his own successor and he designated his second son Isaac to be his heir (25:5).
According to Rowton, the type of nomadism in the patriarchal traditions is "based on a close symbiosis between pastoralism and agriculture and is conditioned by a physical environment in which economic risk is a dominant factor."14 This means that the nomads traveled through and into the areas occupied by the local residents or the sedentaries. The structure of the patriarchal society is dimorphic, composed of the double process of interaction between being nomadic and being sedentary or between tribe and state.15 The role of the patriarchal leader was like a "link between tribal society and urban society, living, as he did, part of the time within urban society."16 This lifestyle is clearly demonstrated by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Genesis.

3. The God of the patriarchs

All the three sources, J, E and P, in Genesis emphasize that the patriarchs prayed to the same God as Moses (Ex 3:6, 15; 6:3), defending the perception of theological continuity. Moreover, the deity whom the ancestors of Israel worshipped is linked with the personal names such as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob17 (24:12; 26:24; 28:13; 31:53; Ex 3:6, 15, 16, etc.). In other words, the God revealed to Moses as YHWH was also the God of the patriarchs. Nevertheless, both Elohist and Priestly writers maintain that the name YHWH had not been disclosed until the time of Moses at the burning bush (Ex 3:13-15 and 6:2, 3) but the Yahwistic writer holds that "men began to call on the name YHWH" in the pre-patriarchal age (4:26). Therefore, as Terrien and other authors point out, "the relation between the origins of the Hebrew cultus and the actual events of the distant past remains obscure."18
It is noteworthy that in the patriarchal traditions God is linked with the fathers personally. The God of the fathers was not tied to any sanctuary and he led and traveled with the semi-nomadic patriarchs and appeared in different places such as Haran (12: 1-4), Shechem (12:6, 7) and Mamre (13:18; 18:1). In fact, archaeological and topographical findings have shown that the sites of the Palestinian sanctuaries were occupied long before the migration of Hebrews into the land of Canaan.19 The God of the father belonged to the patriarch and his extended family and revealed himself to the patriarch who recognized him and had a special relation with him. Unlike the nature gods who were linked to specific places, the narratives in Genesis portray a personal god who protected and guided the patriarch and his family society.20 He was deeply involved in the life of the patriarch and his social group who should always be faithful to him.21 The patriarchs met God naturally and personally with or without altars (12:7, 8; 13:18; 26:25; 28:22; 35:7; 15:1-7; 16:7-14; 18:1-14; 21:8-14). God knew the patriarchs well and dialogued directly with them (15:1-21; 17:1-22; 18:18, 19; 22:1; 32:22, etc.). There was no priest or ritual mediator. By fulfilling the covenant between God and the patriarchs, God gave promises of posterity and land (17:2-8). These promises were fully compliant with the underlying wishes of semi-nomadic herdsmen - the wish for posterity which would ensure continuity in the clan and the wish for land where they could come to territorial settlement.22 More importantly, these promises expressed the search for the identity of Israel in the context of universalism.23 In the ceremonial commemoration of Yahweh's revelation to their ancestors, the Israelites in the later generations learnt of their special role and purpose in the history of mankind and salvation.
The God of the fathers may therefore be described as a historical god "who enters into a covenantal relationship or kinship with a clan, and who guides the social group in its peregrinations, its wars, in short through historical vicissitudes to its destiny."24 Alt has further demonstrated that the Nabataean and Palmyrene inscriptions from the Hellenistic period very often mention the god of a particular individual. As nomadic clans came into the civilized land, this god of a particular individual was sometimes identified with one of the native great gods, such as Zeus Helios.25 There is also a great deal of evidence of this kind found in the documents from Nuzu and in the Aramaic inscriptions from the eighth century.26 In the same way, when the patriarchs and their clans arrived in Canaan, their gods might then be "identified by common traits or by cognate names with gods of the local pantheon"27 which could even be appropriated.28 The god of a particular individual or "the god of the father" was a common designation of religious faith expressing the relationship between the social group and their god. As Albertz asserts, "patriarchal religion can largely be understood as a form of personal piety, as a typical family piety of the kind that can also be demonstrated from other texts."29 The father as head of the family was like a priest who built altars (12:7, 8; 13:18; 26:25; 33:20; 35:7) and offered prayers as well as sacrifices (12:8, 20:17, 22:13).
It is significant that in the patriarchal traditions the God of the fathers is associated with other divine names frequently formed with the element el 30 followed by a noun or an adjective. The divine name thus illustrates particular attributes or phases of God's being. The common examples are El Elyon, "God Most High", in Salem31 (14:18-22), El Bethel, "God of Bethel", in Bethel (31:13; 35:7), El Olam, "God the Eternal", in Beersheba (21:33), El Roi, "God Who Sees", in the Negeb (16:13), and El Shaddai, "God Almighty"32 (17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; Ex 6:3). All of these names, with the exception of El Shaddai, are always connected to the locations of specific cults.33 According to the Priestly tradition, El Shaddai could have been the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Ex 6:3).34 As mentioned earlier, many contemporary authors35 have come to the conclusion that these El names might be related to the original Canaanite gods who were merged or identified with the God of the patriarchs after they had moved into the Canaanite region.36 It is important to note that in assimilating the El gods into the family religion, the Israelite ancestors did not relinquish any characteristics of their semi-nomadic religion, but rather enriched it with the resemblances between the original El religion and the family religion.37 Albertz further admits that the Canaanite religions with their cultic, local, historical and functional differentiations hardly played any role in the religion of the patriarchal family which had a relatively simple social structure. "The phenomenon can be seen most clearly in the personal family nomenclature: the theophorous elements can change in the names - here the family adapts to the changing religious situation in its environment - but the predicates which express what is experienced from the god remain largely constant."38 Whatever names the family god was given, he was always linked functionally to the family's central needs which were essentially unchanged. Terrain adds that the patriarchal traditions always maintain the religious nature of the Israelite sociological isolation.39 The narratives in Genesis always depict that the God of the patriarchs was not confined to any particular sanctuary. The patriarchs, nevertheless, built altars to commemorate the epiphanic visitations40 of their family god at different places (12:7; 13:18; 26:25; 35:7).

4. The call of Abraham

The history of salvation begins with the narrative of the call of Abraham. This narrative contrasts sharply with the previous episodes in Gen 1-1141 that describe the origin of the nations in the world and exhibit the repetitive theme of the primeval history about the human sin and the divine punishment and mercy. In the story of the Towel of Babel, the peoples of the world continued to choose to rebel against God by building a tower to heaven and God punished such human pride by confusing their language (11:1-9). God, however, continued his blessing to Noah by choosing Abraham as the successor whose descendants would constitute a great nation, Israel, that would then extend God's blessing to all the peoples in the world. Abraham, the founder of Israel, would learn his obedience and devotion to God and become the mediator of God's promises to the later generations of humanity. This explains why the story of Babel is placed at the end of the primeval history and is immediately followed by the genealogy that terminates in Abraham (11:10-32). The call of Abraham essentially brings us to the principle of election. In Noah's time, there had been election of a new race out of an old one given over to destruction. Now one family was taken out of the number of existing Semitic families, and the redemptive work of God was carried forward. This is the significance of the call of Abraham.42
The form-critical analysis of the episode of Abraham's call is the end result of the work of many scholars.43 The poetic structure of the epiphanic speech is especially worth noting:44
12:1 YHWH said to Abram,
"Go forth from your native land
and from your father's home
to a land that I will show you.
12:2 I will make of you a great nation,
bless you, and make great your name, that it may be a blessing.
12:3 I will bless those who bless you,
and curse those who curse you;
and through you shall bless them- selves all the communities on earth."45
12:4 Abram went, as YHWH told him.
There is testimony to this direct call in the New Testament. In Acts, it is added that the God of glory appeared to Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran (Acts 7:2-4). The author of Hebrews emphasizes the obedience of Abraham at the time of receiving the call which involved a special mission of Abraham and his posterity in the world (Heb 11:8). The promise made to Abraham included possession of the land of Canaan, abundant posterity, and through his descendants the blessing of all the families of the earth. Unlike other patriarchal traditions, the discourse here emphasizes the universalism of Israel's mission in the history of mankind.46 As the story of the call of Abraham is placed right after the earth-wide chaos produced by the construction of the Tower of Babel, the Yahwist clearly brings out the meaning of the call - the new blessings for all the peoples on earth (12:3).47 From the beginning, the Hebraic theology of presence had been connected to the salvation of all the peoples in the world. This conviction is reiterated in the festive hymn: "The princes of the peoples gather as the people of the God of Abraham" (Ps 47:9). The mission of Israel in history was to reconcile the world with its Creator.48 Although Abraham was told to renounce his country, his clan and his home, the promise of blessing was made to him and it also went beyond him to his family, his descendents and all the peoples on earth. To the Israelites, it is important that the promise of blessing extended to the future Israel. As Israel continued to search for her identity, her special role in the context of universalism became more prominent and significant.49 The call story of Abraham thus reveals two important features of Israel's God. The first one is that this God exercises choice and the second one is that the choice of Abraham is to be a means of universal blessing.
It should be noted that the promise of blessing is the "blossoming of a moment of divine proximity"50. As the moments of epiphanic visitations are brief and the realization of the blessing often comes at a later time, the Hebraic theology of presence implies also the elements of absence or hiddenness.51 Therefore, similar to other episodes of epiphanic visitations in the patriarchal traditions, the response to the epiphanic discourse always exhibits the Israelite conception of faith, which is usually expressed in terms of covenant theology.

5. The covenant

God's covenant with Abraham and Abraham's faith have always been the central message that the biblical writers say about Abraham52. The covenant (15:1-21) displays a unique and sacred relationship between God and Abraham. Some biblical authors even describe Abraham's special relationship with God as being the "friend of God" (2 Chron 20:7; Isa 41:8; Jas 2:23). Not unlike the episode of the call of Abraham, the encounter of God with Abraham in Gen 15:1-2153 is dominated by an epiphanic speech:54
15:1b "Fear not, Abram,
I am your shield;
your reward shall be very great."
Nevertheless, as Abraham was childless, his opposition was vividly declared by the author:
15:2 "O Lord YHWH, what wilt thou give me,
for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Elie'zer of Damascus?"
The Lord reassured Abraham by giving him a sign:
15:5 And he brought him outside and said,
"Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them."
Then he said to him,
"So shall your descendants be."
The passage concludes with Abraham's reaction to God's promise:
15:6 And he believed YHWH; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.
This verse is the first explicit instance of Hebraic faith in the Bible. Moreover, it is remarkable that this conclusion was a theological reflection of the author in his own times.55 Abraham had faith in God and eventually became the "father of faith" for the later Israelite generations. He rested his entire trust in the epiphanic speech. Terrien says it well, "He responded with the entirety of his being to the articulated thrust of the divine presence... This is not an intellectual assent to a propositional truth. It is the insertion of the wholeness of one's personality into a relation of total openness toward the reality of God"56 Faith was the vital religious act in the life of Abraham. In fact, Abraham's whole life was a divine training of faith as clearly retold by later biblical authors on a number of occasions (Heb 11:8-12, 17-18). The tempering of Abraham's faith actually started in his homeland - Ur of the Chaldeans - where God summoned Abraham and asked him to leave the fertile land and go into a land unknown to him (12:1). The severe famine in the land of Canaan which compelled Abraham to go to Egypt (12:10) intensified this test of faith as it is very natural to wonder what value such a poor land would possess. The test of faith took on new dimensions when Abraham was a hundred years old (and Sarah was barren) but was still able to become a father (17:15-22). Yet the divine promise centered on a child to be born to him at this old age. The climax of the test of faith was the burnt offering of this special child, an act beyond comprehension. This ultimate test of faith will be discussed in details later. It is evident here already that the life of Abraham was actually a school of faith.57 Through all these divine tests "his faith became stronger, was deeply enriched, and revealed for all time the real character of a holy man's trust in God."58
It is remarkable that Abraham's faith is linked to his righteousness in Gen 15:6. As Abraham did not have any law to obey,59 this narrative of epiphanic visitation shows that righteousness is not a merit earned by one's achievement, but it is a way of life conformed to God's nature. Moreover, it specifies a dynamic and harmonious relationship between two human beings, between social groups, or between God and man.60 In the Hebraic theology of presence, the emphasis of righteousness is placed on the ongoing communion between God and man but not on legal judgment as usually misunderstood by the readers of Paul's writings such as Rom 4:1-15.61
It should be noted that God's covenant with Abraham had its basis in a sacrificial rite (15:7-18). The cutting of the animals in two and arranging the halves opposite each other, followed by the smoking firepot with a blazing torch passing between the pieces, would symbolically offer the meaning of the sacrifice. Only the signs of smoke and fire which represented God who could not be seen62 passed between the pieces. But Abraham himself did not.63 This disparity shows that the oath ritual was completely transferred to God. Therefore the ritual curse was actually meant to confirm a promise.64 God made the promise and bound himself to keep it. While Abraham made the sacrifice, he was not quite a party to the covenant but was essentially the beneficiary of the promise.

6. The ultimate test of Abraham's faith

The climax of the training of Abraham in faith is the test of the sacrifice of his son, which is again depicted in the framework of an epiphanic visitation. Although at the beginning of the episode the narrator alerts his audience to the fact that it is only a divine test for Abraham (22:1), he still stirs his audience by the inhuman demand of the God of the patriarchs: "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you" (22:2). It ought to be remembered that, for Abraham, Isaac was not only his beloved son but also a channel and pledge of the fulfillment of all the promises from God. His cruel sacrifice would therefore be totally incomprehensible for Abraham. The author of Hebrews, nevertheless, reflects upon the meaning of this unparalleled test in human history65 and explains that Abraham "considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back" (Heb 11:19). Here the faith of Abraham was a trust in the omnipotence of God,66 who was El Shaddai (17:1). Abraham had never hesitated and his response was always positive even though the divine instruction was completely beyond what he could understand.
The narrator also describes the fear and awe of Abraham: "for now I know that you fear God" (22:12).67 But this is a fear that comes from reverence more than from dread68 and expresses Abraham's specific humility and supreme devotion for a deity who now conceals his godhood in appearances of hostility.69 This fearful experience, however, is not present in other epiphanic visitations70 in which the element of friendship and trust between God and Abraham is always predominant. For example, in the destruction of Sodom (18:16-33), God reflected genially, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" (18:17) and Abraham courageously bargained with God six times trying to save the city. Here Abraham's title of the "friend of God" is definitely an adequate recognition of his special relationship with God.
It is important to note that the faith in the religious life of Abraham and other patriarchs spiritualized their stance toward the divine promises.71 As the fulfillment of the promises might not be realized during his life, Abraham "learnt to possess the promises of God, in the promising God alone."72 The promises were valuable only because they were centered on God: "For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God" (Heb 11:10). The subject of the promises was always God himself. However, as the promises of God were gradually fulfilled in the later generations of Israel, the Israelites started to detach themselves from the spiritual significance and focus only on the material side of the promises.
It should be noted that the faith of Abraham also had a great impact on the idea of monotheism in the patriarchal religion. It is true that monotheism could not have been theoretically formulated at the times of the patriarchs. In fact, most scholars73 agree that the early Israelite families were more or less monolatrous, believing their own god while accepting the existence of other deities. The perfect faith of Abraham, nevertheless, shows that there could be "no room for the cultivation of or interest in any other 'divine' numen that might have been conceived as existent."74

7. Conclusion

The content of the patriarchal religion is determined by the central problems of survival experienced by the semi-nomadic family with its own characteristic group structures. The interpersonal relationship between the patriarchs and their god also reflects the close relations in the family. The God of the patriarchs is portrayed as a personal god of the family, who traveled with them from place to place and spoke to them of the great nation of Israel in the future. Like a father of the family, God protected the group entrusted to him from the changing and difficult environment in Canaan. God's care for the family was direct and unconditional and the faith of the patriarchs was pure and simple. Unlike the Israelite religion in the later generations, the patriarchal religion was pre-cultic, pre-political and pre-moral.75 It was closely linked to individuals and the everyday life of their families but not bound to any places, times and ritual mediators. This conception of the early family religion was handed down and integrated into the religion of the Israelites who would then meet new challenges and gain new experiences in the course of history.
The patriarchal narratives in Genesis present a unique character of the Hebraic theology of presence. The main concern of the Hebraic theologians is the stance of faith in regard to the experience of divine proximity that always points to the mystery of being. In the epiphanic visitations, the Israelites reached a significant theological perception when they learnt the paradox of presence in absence.76 They realized that the hidden God was always present in their history. Moreover, the elusive God, being free of human manipulation, had complete control of the human and cosmic conditions and also had a great intention for humanity in the future that was inconceivable in the ancient world. The God they believed would sometimes forsake them and even stand up as an enemy against them in order to give them lesson of the meaning of selfless devotion.77 The close encounter between God and Abraham not only leads to reorientation and renewal of the life of Abraham but also brings about new hope for the whole nation of Israel. In the Hebraic theology of presence, religion "no longer means the ritual exchange of sacrality with a static cosmos through which man attunes himself to the life of nature but, on the contrary, the courage to face the abyss of being, even the abyss of the being of God, and to confirm, at the risk of assuming all risks, the will to gamble away not only one's ego but even one's hope in the future of mankind.78" The test of Abraham in the epiphanic visitations was actually a tempering of faith which involved a revitalization of the way of living and thinking. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son shows that he was prepared to surrender his love, his hope and even his faith to God, making "all the static hierophanies of sun, moon, water, earth, fertility, and sexuality obsolete."79

In this essay, all biblical references are taken from Genesis unless otherwise stated.

Thomas Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002); John van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975).

Samuel Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Towards a New Biblical Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) 66; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) 31-43.

N. K. Gottwald, "Were the Early Israelites Pastoral Nomads?" in J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler (ed.), Rhetorical Criticism (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974) 223; van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 13.

Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 67.

In fact, contemporary scholars have different views about the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. For example, L. Rost concludes that the three sources, J, E and P, in Genesis present merely an idealized image of the patriarchs' relationship with God, with their own special emphases, and that they hardly have any historical truth. See L. Rost, "Die Gottesverehrung der Patriarchen im Lichte der Pentateuchquellen," Supplements to Vetus Testamentum VII, (Congress Volume, 1959) 346-359. V. Maag, on the other hand, finds that the outline of the patriarchal religion is accurately depicted. See V. Maag, "Der Hirte Israels," Schweizerische Theologische Rundschau XXVIII, (1958) 2-28. This essay will take the middle position as maintained by the following authors: Helmer Ringgren, Israelitische Religion (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1963) 15-24; Theodore Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: Lutterworth Press, 1967) 119-123; Werner Schmidt, Alttestamentlicher Glaube und seine Umwelt (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukircher-Verl. des Erziehungsvereins, 1968) 17-30; Georg Fohrer, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969) 11-27.

Albrecht Alt, "The God of the Fathers. A Contribution to the Prehistory of Israelite Religion," Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966) 3-77.

Frank Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 1-75.

Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1 (London: SCM Press, 1994) 23-39.

John Scullion, S. J., "The God of the Patriarchs," Pacifica 1 (1988) 141-156.

Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978) 221-240.

Ibid., 229-233.

Ibid., 233.

Michael Rowton, "Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 36 (1977) 196.

Michael Rowton, "Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 32 (1973) 202.

Rowton, "Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element," 196.

Scullion, "The God of the Patriarchs," 141-145.

Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 64 and footnotes. Some scholars such as Scullion insist that the Yahwistic writer simply projects the name YHWH back to the very beginning.

G. E. Wright, "The Archaeology of Palestine" in G. Ernest Wright (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays In Honor Of William Foxwell Albright (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1961) 101.

Scullion, "The God of the Patriarchs," 147-148.

de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, 273.

Ibid., 274. Scullion, nevertheless, argues that the promise of land is not necessarily the desire of nomadic groups. He believes that the promises of posterity and divine presence are more important for the nomadic way of life. See Scullion, "The God of the Patriarchs," 149.

Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harpercollins, 1965) 168.

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 6.

Alt, "The God of the Fathers", 68-77.

William Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (Garden City: Doubleday, 1957) 243.

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 12.

Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 93.

Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 29.

Some scholars assert that Elohim is derived from el, which is the most primitive Semitic name meaning "the strong one". See Herbert Lockyer, All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible (Michigan: Zondervan, 1988) 7.

That is, Jerusalem.

Or "God of the Mountains".

Frank Cross, "Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs," Harvard Theological Review, 55 (1962) 225-259.

Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 31.

See, for example, Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 31; Scullion, "The God of the Patriarchs," 156; de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, 272; Georg Fohrer, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion, 23.

Otto Eissfeldt, however, makes a clear distinction between El and the god of the patriarchs. Otto Eissfeldt, "El and Yahweh," Journal of Semitic Studies, I (1956) 35.

de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, 282; Ringgren, Israelitische Religion, 23.

Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 32.

Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 67.

Following Terrien, the expression "epiphanic visitation" rather than "theophany" is used in this essay because the encountering of God in the patriarchal tradition is not limited to visual experience. In addition, the term "epiphanic visitation" implies "the concreteness, simplicity, and swiftness of the divine appearance." Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 68-70 and endnotes.

von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 154; Ephraim Speiser, Genesis (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964) 87.

Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948) 76.

Norman Habel, "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives," Zeitschrift fur Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft LXXVII (1965) 297.

Speiser, Genesis, 85.

Or "All the families on earth".

von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 154; Speiser, Genesis, 86.

Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 100.

Ibid., 74-75.

Berend Gemser, "God in Genesis," Oudtestamentische Studi╴n, XII (1958): 21; Peter Altmann, Erw╴hlungstheologie und Universalismus im Alten Testament (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1964) 9.

Terrien, The Elusive Presence 75.

Ibid., 76.

For example, Rom 4:1-22; Acts 7:2-8; Heb 11:8-12, 17-19.

Whether Gen 15 belongs to Elohistic or Yahwistic tradition is still controversial. See Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 216-217.

The emphasis is on the conversation between two individuals. Note that there is no description of visual perception.

Ibid., 222-223.

Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 77.

The patriarchal narrators actually do not portray Abraham as a perfect person without any flaws. For a couple of times, Abraham tried to save his own life by giving up his wife Sarah (12: 10-13, 20:1-13). He endangered the divine promise by marrying his wife's maidservant Hagar in order to gain a son (16: 1-4). When God promised to give him a son by Sarah, Abraham doubted momentarily (17:15-18).

Chester Lehman, Biblical Theology No. 1: Old Testament (Goshen: Biblical Viewpoints, 1998) 96.

This is clear from the early Yahwistic and Elohistic traditions. In the Priestly tradition, however, there is the law of circumcision in the patriarchal narratives (17: 1-14).

von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 155.

See, for example, John Ziesler, Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

As no person may see God directly (Ex 33:20), the rite was carried out in complete darkness (15:17a).

As stated in Jeremiah 34:18-20, both parties entering into a covenant relationship would pass between the divided pieces of the sacrifice. By so doing they were making up the curse of having their bodies split up should they violate the covenant obligation.

Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 228.

The burnt offering of children as sacrifice for appeasing the deity, however, was not uncommon in the ancient world. See, for example, Judg 11:30-39 and 2 Kgs 21:6.

Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 85.

The fear of God in the language of Hebrew religion meant supreme devotion. See Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 83.

Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 86.

Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 83.

In Gen 15:1, the expression "Fear not, Abram" is a stylized oracle of salvation consisting of a word of encouragement. Such an introduction is usually used to bring out the theme in the factitious narratives. In this case it is a promise to Abraham. See Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 218.

Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 86

Ibid., 87.

See, for example, Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 32.

Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 87.

Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, 39.

Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 83.

von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 233.

Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 83-84.

Ibid., 84; See also Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return (New York: Harper, 1959) 109.

Bibliography

Albertz R., A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1. (London: SCM Press, 1994).

Albright W. F., From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (Garden City: Doubleday, 1957).

Alt A., "The God of the Fathers. A Contribution to the Prehistory of Israelite Religion," in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966) 3-77.

Altmann P., Erw╴hlungstheologie und Universalismus im Alten Testament (Berlin: Alfred T╴pelmann, 1964).

Childs B., Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).

Clements R. E., God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965).

Clements R. E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel. Society for Old Testament Studies. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

Cross F. M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973).

Cross F. M., "Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs," Harvard Theological Review, 55 (1962) 225-259.

De Vaux R., The Early History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978).

Eissfeldt O., "El and Yahweh," Journal of Semitic Studies, I (1956) 25-37.

Eliade M., Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return (New York: Harper, 1959).

Fohrer G., Geschichte der israelitischen Religion (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969).

Gottwald N. K., "Were the Early Israelites Pastoral Nomads?" in J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler (ed.), Rhetorical Criticism (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974) 223-255.

Habel N. C., "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives," Zeitschrift f╴r Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft LXXVII (1965) 297-323.

Lehman C., Biblical Theology No. 1: Old Testament (Goshen: Biblical Viewpoints, 1998).

Lockyer H., All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible (Michigan: Zondervan, 1988).

Maag V., "Der Hirte Israels," Schweizerische Theologische Rundschau XXVIII (1958) 2-28.

Ringgren H., Israelitische Religion. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1963).

Rost L. "Die Gottesverehrung der Patriarchen im Lichte der Pentateuchquellen," Supplements to Vetus Testamentum VII (Congress Volume, 1959) 346-359.

Rowton M. B., "Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 36 (1977) 181-198.

Rowton M. B., "Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 32 (1973) 201-215.

Schmidt W., Alttestamentlicher Glaube und seine Umwelt. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukircher-Verl. des Erziehungsvereins, 1968).

Scullion J. J., "The God of the Patriarchs," Pacifica 1 (1988) 141-156.

Speiser, E. A. Genesis (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964).

Terrien S., The Elusive Presence: Towards a New Biblical Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1978).

Thompson T., The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002).

van Seters J., Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975).

von Rad G., Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995).

von Rad G., Old Testament Theology (New York: Harpercollins, 1965).

Vos G., Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948).

Vriezen T., The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: Lutterworth Press, 1967).

Westermann C., Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985).

Wright G. E., The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays In Honor Of William Foxwell Albright (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1961).

Ziesler J. A., Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

作者：高夏芳

沙士比亚逝世后，他的遗体没有如其他英国大文豪一样，葬在西敏寺教堂，这事在当时引起议论；敬仰他的诗人Ben Jonson这样写：「你是一个没有坟墓的记念碑，只要你的书活着，你便会继续生存，而我们也继续有才智去阅读，有赞赏之言去表扬」1。在圣经中，以色列民也对那位率先把天主之言写下的伟人─梅瑟2，有类似的记述：「直到今日，没有人知道埋葬他的地方」（申34:6）。
本来，写书与死亡有一种微妙的关系3，书籍也多次被比作坟墓。在图书馆里书本静静地，庄严地，安详地排列在一起，盛载着作者凝结了的思想、情怀、感受；留住了一段经过细心过滤的历史，一些生命的雪泥鸿爪。书本刻着作者的姓名，写作年份，出版地点，就如墓碑刻有亡者的名字，生死日期，地点，永远地关上一段过去。不过，书本却比坟墓多了一份希望及期待的气息。作者把自己的思想埋葬在书中不是要让它们永久消逝，而是为了能在读者的生命中复活。每本书都在默默地发出昔日奥斯定听到的奇妙呼声：「拿起来读吧﹗」4，每本书都极具吸引力、诱惑性，但却不霸道，不强求，只是满怀希望地等待，无条件地准备一触即发地把自己的宝藏送出。不管读者是谁，也不管是何时何地，书本都愿意毫无保留地展示自己，交付自己。
每本书都蕴藏着死的深沉及生的愉悦，是死是生，就要看有没有人读它，了解它，有没有读者与作者契情，使自己的思想与作者的思想合流5，体会那种「拍案叫绝」的震撼力，那种「绕梁三日」的甘美，或那种「相逢恨晚」的珍惜。
经典的作者没有坟墓，因为他们的书永不安息，就算他们的生平细节，甚至他们的面目都变得模糊，他们的名字可被遗忘，但他们的书却生生不息，被无数的生命唤醒，被无数的生命滋养。他们的书可超越时间、地域、语言及文化的边界，滋养无数的生命，在新的历史境况中不断涌出新的意义，擦出新的火花，产生新的活力。
这次研究会得到筹备委员会的信任，邀我就此主题发言：圣经的形成与诠释。「形成」与「诠释」本是两回事，有因果之别，先后之分，但从经典的生命及流传过程看来，这两部份是一贯的，延续6；指出经典的「成」与「长」，「生」与「存」，「留」与「传」。容我在这里把「形成」与「诠释」看成一整体。
我想从三个角度去反省这主题：首先从历史角度去简略描写圣经的形成及诠释；继续是神学层面的反省，因为圣经──基督徒的经典，虽与其他文化的经典在形成、传流及诠释各方面有共同之处，但也有其单从历史现象看不出或解不通的特征，需要从神学层面点出圣经的本质7。最后我想从「描写」及「理论」走向图像，用象征及比喻，来显示圣经的形成及诠释。

1. 从历史角度看
基督徒的圣经是一本书，也是一个图书馆，包括七十三本8长短不一，作者不同，写作时代及背景各异，文学体裁及风格也很多元化的书本。这些书本的写作过程相当复杂，其中有些作者在书中略有透露，在新约中尤以路加在这方面表达得最清楚；他所描述的步骤，大致也可引伸至经的大部份书本。在他的序言（路1:1-4）中可察见启示内容的成言，成文，成书及成经典的过程。他写道：

关于在我们中间完成的事迹 -------------------- 事迹
依照那些自始亲眼见过，并为真道服役的人所传给我们的 -------------------- 成言
已有许多人着手编成了记述 -------------------- 成文
我也从起头仔细访查了一切，遂立意按着次第给你写出来 -------------------- 成书
为使你认清给你所讲授的道理，正确无误 -------------------- 成经典

1.1 事迹
路加这里指的是耶稣的事迹，即「耶稣所行所教的一切」（宗1:1）。天主的启示，不是空泛的概念，或抽象的理论，玄妙的知识，而是言之有物，是实在的。他的「发言」是在历史上「发生」的，他的说话（希伯来文的）9，也是行动（speech acts），是事迹（happening, event），是永生的天主介入人类历史，是无限的天主进入有限的人生际遇，使人可体验他，聆听他，回应他。
在旧约中，天主喜欢亲切实在地自我介绍为「亚巴郎的天主，依撒格的天主，雅各伯的天主」（出3:15）。在跟以色列民订盟约时，他说：「我是上主你的天主，是我领你出了埃及地，奴隶之所」（出20:2）。透过先知们，他也经常提醒人：「凡有血肉的人都知道我是上主，是你的拯救者，是你的救主」（依49:26；参阅依60:16；则6:10；7:4，9，27；13:9，14，21，23；25:7等），他是一个在历史上有迹可寻的天主。
在新约时代，天主的介入人间，向人说话，在耶稣基督身上变得更确实，完满，正如希伯来书所说：「天主在古时，曾多次并以多种方式，藉着先知对我们的祖先说过话，但在这末期内，他藉着自己的儿子对我们说了话」（希1:1）。耶稣的生命，言行，死亡，复活，是天主对人说话的精华，高峰，是启示的圆满10；他的事迹就如一道水泉的启源，隐藏着无限动力，在时空中变成洪流。

1.2 成言
路加谈及耶稣的事迹，有人目睹，作见证，并将之传扬。在旧约中也一样，以色列民看见天主在历史中的自我显露及奇妙化工，并能从点到线，从线到面，在一件件的事迹中领略天主的救恩计划，他的旨意，他对人的爱。他们最早的信仰宣证就是在天主前陈述他给他们所做的一切：「我的祖先原是个飘泊的阿兰人，下到埃及……埃及虐待我们，压迫我们……上主以强力的手，伸展的臂，巨大的恐吓，神迹奇事，领我们出了埃及，来到这地方，将这流奶和流蜜的土地赐给了我们」（申26:5-9）。
如此，事迹便渐渐化成说话，成了言，可传扬开去，进入一个口传的阶段。以色列民特别着重口传，叙述，「凡我们所听见，所知道的，我们祖先传报给我们的，我们不愿隐瞒他们的子孙，要将上主的光荣和威能，他所施展的奇迹和异行，都要传报给后代的众生」（咏78:3-4）。不单这样，这口传还被视为天主的命令，成为他们欣然实行的生活律例：「他曾在雅各伯颁布了这诫命，也曾在以色列立定了法令，凡他吩咐我们祖先的事情，都要一一告知自己的子孙，叫那未来的一代也要明悉，他们生长后，也要告知后裔，叫他们仰望天主，不忘记他的工行，反而常要遵守天主的诫命」（咏78:5-6）。
耶稣的门徒也急于将所见所闻，化成言词，传给别人。这是一种内在的催迫，把救恩的喜讯与别人分享：「我们听见过，我们亲眼看见过，瞻仰过，以及我们亲手摸过的生命的圣言─这生命已显示出来，我们看见了，也为他作证……我们将所见所闻的传报给你们，为使你们也同我们相通」（若一1:1-3）；「我们不得不说我们所见所闻的事」（宗4:20）。耶稣自己，在离世升天前这样嘱咐门徒们：「你们将充满圣神的德能，要在耶路撒冷……并直到地极，为我作证」（宗1:8）；「你们要去使万民成为门徒……教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切」（玛28:19-20）。
事实之化成言语，不是机械性的兑换，讲者自己对事实的观点，了解程度，对象的需求，整个历史背景，文化，氛围，都影响这过程。在旧约如是，在新约也不异。门徒们在跟随耶稣时，对他的身份，使命都未有透彻及全面性的明瞭，要等到耶稣的逾越奥迹完全实现及得到圣神的光照，他们才对耶稣，对他们自己，对天主的救恩计划，有更深的了解，正如若望记载：「起初他的门徒也没有明白这些事，然而，当耶稣受光荣以后他们才想起这些话是指他而记载的」（若12:16，参阅若2:22）。自此之后，门徒们便以宣讲基督为己任，并以「见证人」的心态去宣讲。他们的宣讲是忠信的，忠于历史的真实性；是真诚的，因为出自他们深切的信仰体验；他们在与人分享的「喜讯」在触动别人前，首先改变了他们自己的生命；同时也是灵活的，能按宣讲的对象，环境作适应。
除了从耶稣事迹的整体去了解他的个别言行外，初期教会也清楚地意识到耶稣是旧约的满全，他的一言一行都有承旧启新的意义，旧约的记载与耶稣的史实互相映照，互作诠释，正如耶稣自己明确地指出的（参阅路24:27）。
门徒们在各地的宣讲，在内容上都基本保持一致。现在福音中不少的段落，尤其是耶稣训言的记录，还显露出在口传阶段，门徒们靠记忆背诵，使内容不变所作的一番努力（参阅谷9:42-50；玛5:39-42；7:7-8等）。
在把事实化成言语时，初期教会不太紧张依循历史次序重述耶稣的个别言行，如新闻报道一样，他们更关心的是要宣讲一个激发人信仰的喜讯（参阅若20;30-31）；故此，他们首先将耶稣的史实作了一个基本的摘要11，这摘要勾画了初期教会的最早信仰核心，也成为日后福音书的经纬，其重点在于宣认耶稣是默西亚，天主子，他藉自己的言行，奇迹，特别是死亡及复活，给人类带来救恩。随着时间及宣讲活动的发展，这摘要的精简内容渐渐扩展至详细忆述耶稣的言行，再后一步更关注他的童年史（玛1-2；路1-2），及他降生前的「先存」（若1:18）。可以说，初期教会对耶稣的回忆及传述是由后推到前，由结果推到开端的。在这整个口传过程中，叙事，反省与诠释常常互相渗透。

1.3 成文
在讯息的传递方法中，口传较直接，活泼，互动性较强，但若要讯息在量上传流久远，接触到更多人，在质上有更仔细的结构，整理，有保障不失真，就要转用文字12。在圣经的形成过程中，宣讲也渐渐需要文字的辅助；口传渐渐加上笔传，听言辅以看文。
把天主的化工及律例写下，被以色列视为是天主愿意并直接授命的。天主对梅瑟说：「将这些事写在书上作为记念」（出17:14），「梅瑟遂将上主的一切话记录下来」（出24:4）。甚至天主自己把法律写在石版上（出31:18；申5:22；10:2）。
以色列民不但要把天主的法律刻在心版及以传述，也要将之写下：「和今天吩咐你们的这些话，你应牢记在心，并将这些话灌输给你的子女。不论你住在家里，或在路上行走，或卧或立，常应讲论这些话，又该系在你的手上，当作标记，悬在额上，当作徽号，刻在你住宅的门框上和门扇上」（申6:4-9；11:18-21）。梅瑟还吩咐以色列后代的君王要把抄写下的法律「带在身边，一生天天阅读」（申17:18-19）。
法律藉书写变得更确切，事迹化成文字能流传得更远久；就算思想、情怀、感受、反省，也会因书写而更深刻。约伯在饱受煎熬，向主伸诉时说：「惟愿我的话都记录下来，都刻在铜板上，用铁凿刻在铅板上，永远凿在盘石上（约19:23-24）。《训道篇》对训道者的教诲有这样的描写：「训道者不但是智者，而且教人获得知识，在沉思推究之后，编撰了许多格言。训道者费神寻找适当的语句，忠诚地写下了真理之言。智者的话好似锥子，收集的言论好像钉牢的钉子」（训12:9-11）。
在新约中，耶稣述而不作，行而不写，但他的门徒在宣讲他的同时，也「着手编成了记述」（路1:3），这些记述还是篇幅不大，结构松散的局部性文章，后来再汇流成书。
今代释经应用的历史批判法中「源流批判」（source criticism）及「类型批判」（form criticism），就设法探索在圣经书本成书前形成的文学体裁或文字记载，比如学者们推测到梅瑟五书并非一气呵成，而是由四份不同时代产生，在内容上大致彼此平行的记载编织而成；在对观福音形成期间也应该有一个通称为Q的源流存在，收集了一些未经连贯整理的耶稣言论；又或耶稣的奇迹（谷4:35-5:43），耶稣的辩论（谷11:27-33；12:13-37）等资料，很可能在福音成书前已被记录在一起，成为一个个独立的小单元。

1.4 成书
最后，一个或一组修订者，好像路加一样，「从头仔细访查了一切，立意按着次第写出来」（路1:3），使书本达到它们的固定性面貌。当然，这整理过程，不是生硬的收集，砌拼，最后执笔者有他或他们的文学风格，思想形态，神学特征，生活背景，他也要顾及对象及团体的实况。
概括看来，旧约的书本大部份是在以色列民从巴比伦流亡回国后（即公元前五三八年后）才达至它们的固定面目，相继以书本形式面世，最后的如历史书中的玛加伯上、下，智慧文学中的智慧书要在公元前一世纪才诞生；新约书本最早成形的是保禄书信（约公元五十至六十五年），继后是四福音（马尔谷约公元七十年，玛窦及路加约八十年代，若望约九十年代）及其他书本。至公元一世纪末圣经的所有书本都已成书面世。

1.5 成经典
书本之成为经典，从历史角度看来，一定与读者，更好说，与一个读者团体有关13。每本书诞生后就脱离作者，有它自己的生命、发展，被「交付」给读者。路加也在他的序言中将他的书交出，让读者「认清」它的真谛，它的价值（参阅路1:4）。
每个民族或文化语境都奉一些在思想，伦理方面特具权威，影响深远的书本为经典，每个宗教有被视为信仰及生活准则的经典，每个学科，每门手艺，每行专业亦少不了经典之作。教会把七十三本书视为「圣经」，神圣的经典，「天主赐与人类的宝藏，作为人类信仰与道德的最高标准与富源」14。圣经书目被称为「正典」（canon）。初期教会厘定正典的过程，其实也是一个自我意识成长的过程。公元一世纪末，新约书本已陆续全部面世，它们的数目不止于现在正典的二十七本，各教会团体还未清楚在芸芸众书中那些可被视为信仰准则的，不同的团体有不尽同的书目，以后数世纪随着信仰的日趋成熟，教徒们的共识日强，教会也愈经得起挑战，对自己的身份及使命意识愈清晰，也愈容易鉴别正典。大约到第四世纪末，教会无论在东方或西方都已达成了一个默契共识，承认四十六本旧约书本15，二十七本新的书本为正典16。
被视为正典后这些书本有了一个整体性，显露出天主在人类历史中无止无歇，多姿多采，同时又贯彻始终的救恩计划。就从文化，历史角度看来，这些书也是不同文化，传统的聚焦点，凝集了美索不达米亚，闪族，希腊等各不同文化，成书后又向各文化，向历史开放，不断延展17。
时至今日，圣经是全世界书籍中拥有最多手抄本，最多版本，最多译本的书18，它也被演绎成音乐，戏剧，电影，舞蹈，诗歌，图画，建筑，启发了不少艺术作品，并被誉为文学的「基本符号」19。总而言之，两千年来，渗透了整个西方文化的思想模式，世上没有其他书本可与之相比。
正因它活力如此强，影响如此深远，圣经也是引起层出不穷解释及钻研方法20。教父时代的释经偏重寻求文字后面的属灵意义，中世纪将之发展成一个四步的形式：历史（Historia），寓意（Allegoria），伦理（Tropologia），奥秘（Anagogia），分四个层面去深究经文，士林时代的释经则较强调理性逻辑，偏重于追寻圣经中的神学课题。文艺复兴时代学者们都热衷于研究古典文学及语言，这也造成了在释经学上对文字及历史实况特别着重。跟接而来的数世纪，随着启蒙时期对理性的崇尚，自然科学的发展，对历史研究的更严格要求，使释经学又踏上一个新阶段。很多新课题如圣经与历史，圣经与文学，圣经与科学，圣经与理智，都成了讨论及争议的论点。历史批判法（Historical Critical Method）便是在这种气候产生的，这方法以学术的批判态度去研究圣经，特别是它的文学幅度及历史背景。这种释经方法蔚为十八，十九世纪的热潮，一直发展到现在，经过多番改进，去芜存菁，它的基本步骤已普遍性地被应用。
二十世纪下半叶，尤其是梵蒂冈第二届大公会议之后，圣经在教会生活中的地位大大提高，圣经研究的领域愈来愈广阔，释经方法及取向也愈来愈繁多，而且都在继续演变，发展中，这些方法笼统地可归纳成三个类型：
把经文看成窗口：诠释集中注意力去看经文后面的景像，分析它的所以然，显示作者原意及成书过程的不同层次及不同生活境况（Sitz im Leben）。
把经文看成镜子：诠释的焦点不放在经文后面或外面的历史上，而着重经文本身反映出的意义，分析其在书中的定位，实在表露（Sitz im Buch），研究其架构，文字，语气，文气，美感，及各种产生意义的符号。
把经文看成桥梁：较着重在经文中读者的参与（Sitz im Lesen）及其与经文和作者产生的互动。
1993年宗座圣经委员会颁发了一份格调新颖，内容丰富的文件：《教会内的圣经诠释》21，介绍了今代释经的不同取向。教宗若望保禄二世在嘉许这文件时说：「初读这文件，首先触动人的地方，是其开放的精神。文件审察了现时释经学所运用的各个方法，取向和阐释」。他又说：「天主教释经其实没有特定的一套释经方法……天主教释经学善用现时流行的各种方法，从中探取『圣言的种子』」。
从历史角度看来，基督徒的经典就因其不断被阅读，被传递，被诠释而存留不死，万古常新，不过它的活力不可单从历史现象去了解，还有其深一层的神学原因。

2. 从神学角度看
近代诠释学者22大致都有这共同信念：言有尽，意无穷；无论他们所指的「意」属于什么范畴及如何整理「言」与「意」之间的关系。经典的文字，往往是超载的，人言有限，不堪负荷；而诠译学亦超出现代科学方法论所设的界限。在圣经中，这现象更显着，正如说：在其中每一字都是「那无限的一个奇妙的缩写」，读者必须「跨越字句」23，因为在圣经中「人言」所载的是「天主之言」。当今教宗本笃十六世，昔日的拉辛格枢机，在这方面，有很精湛的描写：圣经「融会了天主和人的话语，结合了那一去不复回的历史事件，和那放诸各时代皆准的永恒话语，圣经的话源于过去事实，但并不局限于过去，也源于天主的永恒。圣经带领我们穿过时限，跨越过去、现在和将来，到达天主的永恒中」24。
单从历史现象的角度去看圣经的形成及诠释，不足以解释这个基督徒信仰的基本信念，要从神学角度去体察圣经的本质25。

2.1 天人交谈
梵二《天主的启示教义宪意》开宗明义指出圣经的内容──启示的本质：「天主因祂的慈善和智慧，乐意把自己启示给人，并使人认识祂旨意的奥秘……不可见的天主，为了祂无穷的爱情，藉启示与人交谈，宛如朋友」（DV 2）。直接谈到圣经时，又进一步说：「在天之父藉圣经慈爱地与自己的子女们相会，并与他们交谈」（DV 21）。基督徒的天主是一个创造人，爱人，喜欢与人沟通的天主。祂向人显露自己，也使人因此而对自身的价值及意义，取向，有更深的认识及珍惜。
这启示不是抽象的，而是在历史中实现，是实在的，可体会的。在这交谈中，人能透过一件件事情，一段段的记载，悟出天主的救恩计划。这启示不停留于资讯或认知的层面，而是为使人「分享天主的美善」（DV 6），使天地感通，神人契情。所以阅读圣经不只是把它看作分析或解释的对象，也要与发言的天主相感应，进入这天人交谈的氛围。教会早期教父们十分重视这幅度。大额我略（+604）有此名句：「研读圣经是学习透过天主的说话去认识祂的心」26。

2.2 圣言成人
上面谈及天主的启示在历史中成言，成文，成书，成经典。其实这过程的最终因由在于天主降生成人的奥迹，圣经是这「成人」的延续发展。「圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间」（若1:14）：若望福音序言中有关圣言成人所说，也可贴切地用在圣言成文的事迹上。两者都表露出圣言之居于人间，并以人的方式把天主显示给人。
在圣经内圣言取的不是血肉之躯27，而是文字之躯，但这两个躯体同样受时空、环境所限制，同样有局限、软弱、不圆满。两种「降生」都是天主「自我空虚」的标记。「在圣经内，天主的永远智慧，虽无损于其真理及圣善，却展露了奇妙的“屈尊就卑”。……因为天主的言语，用人的言语表达出来，相似人的言语，恰像往昔天父的圣言，在取了人性软弱身躯之后，酷似我人一般」（DV 13）。
圣言的「成文」预备、陪伴及跟随他的「成人」。旧约书本指向基督、预备他的来临，新约为他作证，传扬他的救恩。基督是整本圣经的中心，他自己也说：「你们查考经典，因你们认为其中有永生，正是这些经典为我作证」（若5:39）。他复活后，他的门徒们把他们「听见过，亲眼看见过，瞻仰过，及亲手摸过的生命的圣言」（若一1:1）传给后世。
正如圣言成人，使人参与天主的美善，圣言成文也把人言提升，不论它是多么不达意，多么有限，仍可被天主视为工具及媒介，能「建设人」（宗20:32），使人「获得得救的智慧」（弟后3:15）。也正因圣经是透过人言表达的圣言，所以人的因素一点也不可忽略。不同的人文学科如语言学，文学，诠释学，训诂学，心理学，哲学，社会学等都能与圣经研究产生互动相益，都是圣经学者必须学习的园地。

2.3 圣神默感
耶稣在离世升天前曾这样应许：「我本来还有许多事要告诉你们，然而你们现在不能担负。当那一位真理之神来到时，他要把你们引入一切真理」（若16:12-13），「那护慰者，就是父因我的名因我的名所要派遣来的圣神，他必要教训你们一切，也要使你们想起，我对你们所说的一切」（若14:26）。更深入了解耶稣，记忆他的言行，使之成言、成文、成书：这整个过程都在圣神的引导下完成；同样圣神也指引教会接受旧约，看出其与基督的关系。故此教会可以明认：「在圣经内以文字记载陈述的天主启示，是藉圣神的默感而写成的」（DV 11）。
保禄已清楚指出圣经是「受天主默感写成」（弟后3:16）。「默感」这词，无论在希腊文或拉丁文（inspiratio）都潜藏着「嘘气」的意义；在圣经中有圣神的气息，有一股动力，催人向善使人迈向成全（参阅弟3:16），使人「获得得救的智慧」（弟3:15）。圣经在默感下写成（inspired），被动地吸收圣神的气息，也处处发散着这股气息并主动地吹读者以气（inspire），启发读者。所以，如奥利振（+254）所说，阅读圣经不可不无圣神临在、辅助，因为读经本身就是：「按圣神之意去聆听圣神之言」28。教宗庇护十二世在他的《圣神默感》通谕中也说：「我们若要了解和解释圣经之意义，便需要同一位圣神降临，需要祂的光照和恩宠」29。默感是圣神在圣经形成阶段的化工，诠释圣经则可说是这化工的延续，虽然方式不同。「圣经既由圣神写成，就该遵照同一的圣神去阅读、去领悟」（DV 12）。

2.4 圣经之道，一以贯之
圣经的七十三本书写成的时间首尾相隔约一千年，有不同作者，不同背景，不同体裁，格调及文学水准，却形成一本书。这个字本身已微妙地同是单数及众数30，意会着圣经的多元合一。它的一贯性基于它有同一的启示者天主，显示同一的救恩计划，受同一的圣神默感，被同一的教会鉴别为正典。最重要的是，它有一个统一及唯一的中心─耶稣基督。
耶稣自己也明认梅瑟所写的一切，都是指着他而写的（若5:46）。诸凡法律，先知及圣咏指着他所记载的话，都要应验（路24:44）。他也是圣经的最理想解释者，他灼热门徒的心，把全部圣经论及他的话都给他们解释（路24:27），只有他才能开启那用一个印密封的书卷（默5:1-10）。
自教会初期至今，这都是一个牢不可破的信念。安博（+397）说：「其实天主只说了一句话，即藉着自己的子发言」31。中世纪的神学家们喜欢称基督为「浓缩的天主之言」（Verbum abbreviatum），因为天主要给世人显露的一切，都综合在基督身上。
基督贯通整本圣经，不但在内容方面如是，在释经原则上也如是。因着他，旧约才有更圆满的意义；因着他，新约才有内容，也因着他，整本圣经才有它的完整性；所以，研读圣经不等于积聚松散的分析资料，或从零碎的经文片段中建立合理的思想系统，而是窥一角而睹全貌，领会一个救恩历史，一个爱的计划，一个连贯性的天人交谈。如是，诠释者能以经解经，让经文互相映照，从个别因素去发掘基督，又在基督内观宇宙，观历史，观天主，观人，从一个核心发展出多元，多层次的意义。归根到底，基督徒跟随的不是一本书，而是基督，「基督宗教并非圣经的宗教，而是基督的宗教」32。

2.5 在教会内一脉相传
圣经是在一个信仰团体中形成，也在一个信仰团体中传流并被鉴定，被诠释，再从这团体向外传扬。在旧约中，是以色列民接受天主的启示，与天主交谈，见证及讲述祂的奇功伟绩，使之成言，成文。虽然在成书的阶段，主要是个别执笔者的工作，但这些最后作者或编订者很多时是以团体名义，或至少以团体意识去编写。书本写成后主要是在团体诵读，「会堂」（Synagogue）就是因团体读经而产生的。依时公读法律书是梅瑟所定：「……当全以色列人来到上主你的天主所选的地方朝拜上主时，你应在全以色列人前，大声宣读这法律」（申31:11-13）。在旧约不同书本中也可找到一些描述以色列全民恭听圣经的片段，如列下22-23；耶36；巴1；最典型的一个是厄下8，记载了以色列民从巴比伦流徙回国后重振士气，聆听主言，悔罪更新。经师「将法律书拿到会众前，……从早晨到中午，在男女和能听懂的人前，宣读了法律，所有的人民都侧耳静听法律书」（厄下8:1-3）。
新约的团体幅度就更显着，更浓。新约的书本全是在教会内产生的，但又塑造了教会，成了教会信仰的根基，生活的准绳。在写成期间，教会团体的礼仪，宣讲，集体忆述，信仰反省，都有很重要的份量；接受旧约，鉴别正典也是在教会内完成。所以，整本圣经可被称为「天主子民的经典」，这经典「交托于信众的团体，基督的教会以滋润信仰，引导仁爱的生活」33。
这一切在圣经诠释上都有其不可忽略的意义，既然是教会的经典，它的最理想研读及理解氛围就是教会团体，读经最自然的「前理解」也应是基督徒信仰，由此领会梵二有关解释圣经的申明：「一切关于解释圣经的原则，最后当置于教会的定断之一，因为教会担任保管及解释天主言语的使命与天职」（DV 12）。不过所谓「教会定断」，并非只是权威性的厘定，也包括了教会活生生的传承及基督徒的信仰意识（sensus fidei）。
「传承」这概念在现代诠释学也相当受重视，它不等于窒息个人的自由思想空间，相反可使人从宏观去了解经文，有一个较深厚稳实的「前理解」。H.G. Gadamer 指出了诠解经文「不是诠释者的主观及个别行动，而是插入一个活生生的历史传递过程，在这过程中，过去与现在常彼此渗透」34，诠释融合了过去及现在，经文与读者两个不同视野（Verschmelzung der Horizonte）。按 Gadamer，经典与传承有不可分割的关系；经典的持久，在于它能在历史中不断显示自己的价值和意义，不断产生效果，经典的「效果历史」（Wirkungsgeschichte）影响着读者的视野，带着某种权威和要求与读者相遇，成为诠释的范例。如此，经文在某世代达成的效果，成了传给下一世代的累积产业。
在圣经方面，传承的重要性除了有诠释学的依据下，还有神学理论的支持。在教会内，传承35指的是教会的整个生活，实在的，多方面的，活生生的，包括了礼仪，神学反省，神修，架构，组织，体制，活动等等。奥利振有此精句：「与其说圣经写在书卷上，毋宁说首先写在教会的心头上」36。在圣神的引导之下，天主的启示就在这心中，在这生命洪流中被保存，不断延续，发展，生生不息。这一切可被视为圣经的「效果历史」，成为诠释圣经的范例及氛围，同时又推进整个教会对圣经不断作深一步的领悟。就如耶稣在福音中把自己的门徒比作「一个家主，从自己的宝库里提出新的和旧的东西」（玛13:52），整个教会及个别圣经读者也应有这份智慧，并好好珍惜自己的「宝库」。
梵二《天主的启示教义宪章》及《天主教教理》都清楚指出：「圣传与圣经彼此紧紧相连并相通，因为二者都由同一神圣泉源流出，好似汇成一道江河，朝着同一目标流去」（DV 9，《天主教教理》81）。既是相连相通，也可彼此互动，共同发展，传承滋养教会对圣经的了解，保持其完整、活泼，圣经又不断丰盛教会的生活，使之充满灵气。

2.6 知─信─行
若望在结束他的福音时这样写：「耶稣在门徒前还行了许多其他的神迹，没有记在这部书上。这些所记录的，是为叫你们信耶稣是默西亚，天主子，并使你们信的人，赖他的名获得生命」（若20:30-31）。如此看来，若望不太在乎让读者对耶稣的生平知道详尽，更重要的是想激发他们的信仰。在整个圣经的形成过程中，每个阶段都是一个信仰见证。以色列民及初期教会所宣讲的是他们深深相信，确切经验过的；圣经的执笔者写下的也是触动，震撼，改变了他们一生的信息。就这样，信仰可引发信仰；但最重要的是透过圣经，天主自己向人呼唤，期待人作回应。梵二指出：对启示的天主应以「信德的服从」（罗1:5；16:24；格后10:5-6）来回应；「人因此服从，自由的把自己整个托付给天主……并甘心情愿顺从由天主而来的启示」（DV 5）。
这信仰当然有其理性幅度及认知的因素37，但它不局限于此，而是人的整体性投入，也包括了情怀，生活实践，对奥秘的领悟等超理性幅度；所以，若望保禄二世强调「释经学者首先需要在经文中意会天主的圣言，若要做到这点，释经学者的学术研究，必须以一个活泼的灵修生活来维系。……天主的圣言邀请每一个人突破自己，生活于信德与爱德之中」38。这个信念，已在保禄书信中可见：「属血气的人，不能领受天主圣神的事……唯有属神的人能审断一切」（格前2:14-15），在教父时代亦根深蒂固，比如奥利振认为对圣经认识的深度，不只视乎学问才智的高超，更重要是生活操守及神修造诣。为他，对天主的最高深认识是爱39。奥斯定也深信需要祈祷，才能领悟圣经40。这信念在教会中至今仍牢不可破。
信与爱，祈祷与灵修能在学术性的操练及理性推敲之外，提高人对圣经的悟性，还有一点不可忽略的就是实践。圣经的启示不是抽离现实生活的，而是十分实在，是「步履前的明灯」（咏119:105），让人「审查自己的行径」（箴14:8）。希伯来传统常见的一句隽语：「把圣经活出来，便能更了解它」，也可应用到基督徒的释经原则上。大额我略曾在一篇讲道中清楚表明：「如果要明白所听到的，便得尽快实践所领会的」41。实行并非常是理解的后果，也可是构成理解的一个元素。知与行之间确是个循环的运作。当耶稣说：「履行真理的，来就光明」（若3:21），也显示这个意思。信与爱在这循环中亦不可缺，耶稣对当代不信他的犹太人的斥责也暗示此理：「你们没有把他（天父）的话存在心中，因为你们不相信他所派遣的那位。你们查考经典，因你们认为其中有永生，正是这些经典为我作证，但你们不愿意到我这；去来，为获得生命……我认得你们，知道在你们内没有天主的爱情」（若5:38-42）。

3. 透过图像看
原创文化智慧的表达方式除了言或理之外，还有神话，故事，比喻，象征，在各种原创文化的交流过程中，之外的沟通模式所提供的空间是不容忽略的，就算在圣经的范畴中，透过图像去看它的本质或它的诠释也有特别的意义。圣经本身就少理论，多图像，多比喻。初期教会的教父们，虽然觉得有需要以理论方式去为圣经诠释定下原则、方法，但仍偏好透过图像及比喻去让人领会圣经的特质及读经应有的内在态度，而且这些图像用得多姿多采，贴切传神。图像不「解」也不「释」，而是把一件熟悉的事物或经验与一件未知，有待了解的事物放在一起（sumbavllw），使之彼此显露，彼此相映照，从中生意，传神，收悟通之效。这里点出一些在圣经本身及在教父着作中较常被应用来介绍圣经或描写释经的图像。

3.1 一座大厦，一个植物园，一条小河
把圣经比作一座有很多房子的大厦，奥利振自己也觉得有趣，他引用这图像来表达圣经不易明，要找到正确的入门方法，但何处找，请看他的描写：
「在开始解释圣咏之前，我们先介绍一个有关圣经的有趣描写，是从一个犹太人传来的。他认为天主默感的圣经，意义隐晦，有如一座大厦，内里有很多上了锁的小房子，每一间房都插着一条钥匙，但都是配对不当的，要花很大工夫去找出正确的钥匙，来配合每一个房子。解释圣经也要费很大工夫，因为经文是隐晦的，不过不要从它之外入手，解释的原则分散在它之内，要在里面找。我认为保禄也提示一个这样的了解圣言的方法，他说：『我们宣讲，并不用人的智慧所教的言词，而是用圣神所教的言词，给属神的人讲属神的事』（格前2:13）」。42
奥利振也多次把圣经比作一块田地，或一个植物园，内有各种不同植物，就如圣经中有不同类型的书本一样。这图像他除了应用在圣经本身，也把它引伸，与读圣经者作比照。他在解释一段取自耶肋米亚先知比较难明的经文时这样写道：
「我认为在圣经内每一个奇妙地写上去的字都有它的任务。谁若精通文字的运用，知道圣经中没有一点一撇不满全它的任务的（参阅玛5:18），正如园中的植物，每一株都有它的功能，为人类健康或为其他用途，不过只有长久地栽培植物的人才能了解每种植物的特性，知道怎样采摘，怎样利用它们；同样，圣者就如灵性的草本专家，懂得吸纳圣经中最小的一撇，发掘它的内蕴，知道如何应用，他最了解圣经中没有什么是多余的。」43
圣经虽不易明瞭，但也不要把它看成专家的专利品，在圣经内圣人与罪人，博学者与无知识者，富有者及贫贱者；不同种族、性别、年代、文化、身份、社会阶层的人都可在同一的圣神光照下，接受同一的天主发出的同一言词，圣经为它的不同读者缔造了共识共融的空间及机缘。大额我略有一个清纯可爱的比喻：
「圣经就像一条河，低浅到小羊也可从那里渡过，却又深到连大象也可在其中游泳。」44

3.2 吃圣言，饮圣言
梵二称圣经为「灵魂的食粮，精神生活清澈不竭的泉源」（DV 21）。以「吃」及「喝」来象征吸纳圣言，让它滋养、渗透，被它同化，这类例子在圣经中屡见不鲜45，教父们也喜欢将之引录及引伸。
圣言好比旧约的「玛纳」，是上天的恩赐，含着各种滋味，适合每人每天所需（参阅出16:16-21）。奥利振将之套用在圣言上：
「让我们去领受这天上来的玛纳，它在每人口中都有每人所期望的味道，就如耶稣说：『就照你所信的，给你成就吧』（玛8:13）。为你也一样，若你在教会以信仰及虔诚接受圣言，圣言便会成为你所期望的一切」。46
「饮圣言」这图像也有圣经根据。依撒意亚先知呼吁说：「凡口渴的，请到水泉来﹗……你们如侧耳，走近我前来听，必将获得生命」（依55:1-3）。在新约中是耶稣赐这活水（若4:14；7:37-38）。安博毫不犹疑地把这活水比作圣经：
「接受基督的水吧﹗这水赞颂天主……。谁多读圣经，并明瞭其中深意，使自己的灵魂润泽并能灌溉别人。」47
水泉对它的享用者一视同仁，无分别、无保留地尽情施与，圣经也是一本开放给天下读者的书；清泉常流永不干涸，圣经的富饫也用之不尽。在叙利亚教父艾弗伦（+ 373）的作品中有这样美妙的一篇。
「主﹗谁能掌握到你说话中仅是单一个字所蕴含的全部宝藏呢？犹如一个口渴的人，饮于滔滔的泉涌，我们能够得着的、吸纳的，与我们让它流失去的相比，实在少之又少。你话语的意义何其广泛、高深，研经之士，常会刷新不同的理解。吾主又以千变万化的色彩粉饰了自己的言词，好让每一个研读的人，都能从中欣赏到自己心爱的色彩。上主在祂的圣言里收藏了不少珍宝，裨益每一个默想它的人。……任何接触到这宝藏一角的人，都不应以为他所发现的就是圣言所蕴含的全部意义，他应知道他所能发掘的只是众多宝物中的一件；他亦不应因为只能拥有其中一部份，而说那圣言是虚无空洞的，而轻视它；反之，他应因不能完全探究它而赞叹圣言的丰盛。你应庆幸自己被圣言所征服；不要因被它征服而感忧伤。一个口渴的人来到水泉喝水时必满怀高兴，但他不会因不能喝尽泉水而沮丧。与其让你的渴耗尽水，不如让水泉竭止你的渴吧。……为了你已领受的，感谢称颂吧。不要因遗漏了更多而鼓噪。你所领受的、你所寻获的已是你的资产，剩下的是你将承继的遗产。有些东西在某些时候因你的不足未能完全接收；但只要你坚持，在适当的时候将可领受到。不要妄想一步可登天，亦不要因懒惰而放弃只能藉逐少积聚方可得到的收获。」48

3.3 一本会走路，会成长的书
圣言能赐与生命，它本身也活力充沛。在厄则克耳先知书中，有关四个活物及四个轮子的异像，给教父们提供了很贴切的借寓，来表达圣言的动力。「靠近那些活物的四面，在地上各有一个轮子。……活物行走时，轮子也在牠们旁边转动；活物由地面升起时，轮子也升起。神力催迫活物往那里去，牠们就往神力催迫的方向去；轮子也同时与牠们一起升起，因为活物的神力在轮子内」（则1:15-21）。
大额我略将轮子和圣言相比，圣言无往而不利，在圣神的推动下活力充沛。
「除了圣经外，这些轮子还可指什么呢？轮子四面转动，圣经也能自如地适应聆听它的人。轮子平滑无角，转动时不受阻碍，圣经也不受错误的障碍而迟滞不前。轮子向各方面旋转，不怕困难，无论顺境或逆境，它都能平稳前进。圣言的教诲如轮子般时而上升，时而下降。属神者或圆满者能洞识的，弱小者也能以字面的方式去理解。」49
保禄在他的书信中也很巧妙地表达这股圣言的动力。福音为他是「天主的德能」（罗1:16）；它要「顺利展开，并得到光荣」（得后3:1）。就算它的传报者身带锁链，「但是天主的道，决束缚不住」（弟后2:9）。是圣神推动圣言的「奔驰」，因为圣神在圣经内发动这股力量。
奔驰、走动与成长分不开。路加在宗徒大事录中常用「天主的言渐渐成长」（宗6:7；12:24；13:49；19:20）来表达初期教会的发展。随着门徒们的增多，随着传教的地域增广，圣言默默地成长，在圣言中显露出的救恩计划也默默地一步步实现。可以说，圣言无声无息地在自己之内成长。
当然，在教会界定正典后，圣经在其实际内容及经文的量方面不会再成长。不过它却在整个教会历史中，从未停息地增长。藉着见证它，活出它的人，圣言在其可信性及真实性不断增加；藉着圣经学者及神学家的研读，它能在深度方面长进；藉着礼仪及牧民，它增广其活力。大额我略还有此妙句：「圣经随着它的被阅读而增长」50。这是一种彼此互长：圣经在读经者内成长，读经者也在圣经内成长。他又说：
「圣言与你一起成长，除非你能在圣言内进步，你不能从圣言得益。若读经者心中充满了对超性事物的爱，他就能更容易地发掘在圣言中潜藏着的奇妙力量。人的心灵指向何处，圣言也指向何处：你若以热爱寻找超越事物，圣言就会与你一起成长，一起登峰造极。人攀登得愈高，圣言对他所说的也愈高超，因为每人都在经文中找到他的理想。你从事活跃的使徒工作？圣言与你共步。你已达到内心的稳定及平衡？圣言与你一起定下来。你赖主恩赐，追求默观生活？圣言与你一同飞翔。」51
这番说话对耶稣在路8:18所表达的，作了很好的诠释：「所以，你们应当留心要怎样听；因为凡有的，还要给他；凡没有的，连他自以为有的，也要从他夺去。」

3.4 一本会灼热，会刺伤的书
圣经不单是被动地被读者阅读，也主动地阅读读者，在他身上发生效应，是天主透过文字在读者身上工作。
天主圣言多次被喻为火，天主在焚烧的荆棘显现给梅瑟（出3:2），梅瑟也提示以色列民：「上主由火中对你们说话」（申4:12）。先知们感受到天主的说话威力无穷，无可抵挡，耶肋米亚先知觉得要在圣言前投降，但又降服得心悦诚服：「上主，你引诱了我，我让我自己受了你的引诱；你确实比我强，你战胜了……在我心中就像有火在焚烧，蕴藏在我的骨髓内，我竭力抑制，亦不可能」（耶20:7-9）。耶稣复活后显示给两位往厄玛鸟的门徒，给他们讲圣经时，他们觉得「心中火热」（路24:32）。耶稣自己也明言：「我来是为把火投到地上，我是多么切望它已经燃烧起来﹗」（路12:49）。
圣言如火，能灼热、焚烧、改变它接触到的一切。大额我略这样写道：
「我应怎样比喻圣经上的说话呢？我只可把它比作火石。你把火石拿在手上时，它是冷冷的，你若用铁锤去敲打它，它就会喷出火花，那先前在你手上冰冷的，现在发出火，愈烧愈猛。圣经上的说话也如是，在书上它们是冷，但若人受天主默感，细心地，理智地去敲它，从它的奥秘中就会发出烈火，使人的灵魂热烘烘的。」52
圣言能焚也能刺，使人震撼，给人一个当头棒喝。希伯来书的作者强调「天主的话确实是生活，是有效的」，他继续用一个图像来发挥：圣言「比多种双刃的剑还利，直穿人灵魂和神魂，关节与骨髓的分离点，且可辨别心中的感觉和思念」（希4:12）。
昔日宗徒们在圣神降临后开始公开地向群众宣讲耶稣的救恩，「他们一听见这些话，就心中刺痛，遂向伯多禄和其他宗徒说：『诸位仁人弟兄﹗我们该作什么？』」（宗2:37）。圣言刺激他们，批判他们，推使他们作决定，作回应，并作出实在的行动。
奥斯定曾有过被圣言震撼的经验，那个奇妙的声音：「拿起来读吧﹗」催使他展开圣经诵读，这深切的与圣言相遇是他皈依过程中的转捩点。后来他激动地说：「主，我绝不犹豫地觉得我爱你，你的话刺透了我的心」53。皈依后，他回想以前对圣经的看法，才觉得自己那时实在离圣言很远，虽有研读，但没有被它的火燃烧起，没有被圣言刺透了心胸。
「我觉得，圣经不是骄傲人所能瞭解的，也不是小孩子所能领会，粗看是平凡的，可是，越读越觉得高超，到处盖着神秘之幕。我不能内进，又不肯俯首……我的观察未能深刻，我的傲气使我轻视它简陋。当知念这书的人愈是谦小，念起来愈透彻。可惜，我不甘谦小，把虚荣认作真正的伟大。」54

结语
行文到这里，要加上另一个角度观看圣经，就是「原创文化研究」的角度，不过我的所知所能已到了尽头，我将这课题呈上给在座各位。在我们2001年在兰州开「第一届原创文化国际学术研讨会」时，杨适教授说：「原创文化研究」好像一个新的大平台，让愿意返本归真，重新发现人类文化智慧的学者们在这平台上对话55。我粗陋地从基督徒的立场，描写了基督徒经典的形成，性质及诠释，将之放在这平台上，激发讨论，批判，创意。基督徒的圣经汇集了犹太、希腊及中东两河流域的文化因素，开创了一个影响深远的新文化，与圣经对话确实能「为今天的中国人开辟一个前所未有的新的文化智慧空间」56。同时，圣经也需要其他的文化去滋养其传流及诠释，当今教会特别努力去发掘「基督宗教的亚洲渊源」57及「耶稣的亚洲人面目」58，中国文化的原创性智慧定会为圣经的「成长」提供独特的宝贵贡献。祝我们在这「大平台」上交谈充实，通畅，愉快﹗

1.“Thou art a monument without a tomb, / And art alive while thy book doth live, / and we have wits to read and praise to give” : Ben Jonson, To the Memory of My Beloved, the Author, Mr. William Shakespeare and What He Hath Left Us, 1623.

2.参阅申31:9：「梅瑟写好了这些法律……」；「梅瑟遂在那一天写下这篇诗歌……（申31:22-24）。

3.保禄也隐约提到这种关系：「文字叫人死，神却叫人活」（格后3:6）。

4.Augustine, Confessions, 10, 29.

5.这里大致可套用现代诠释学谈到的「视野融合」（Vershmelzung der Horizonte），参阅 Gadamer, H.G., Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, Mohr, Tübingen (1960).

6.有时，「形成」与「诠释」也是互相渗透的，在圣经内便有圣经诠释的因素。正因圣经的形成过程是漫长的，多层次的，而以色列民是一个着重历史记忆的民族，不断从过往吸取智慧，对现实生活的指引及对未来的希望，他们习惯将天主过往的化工反覆思念，很多已成形，或已撰写成文的事迹，在新环境、新际遇下会有新意义，这些新反省，后来也被纳入文中；尤其在新约时代，以耶稣基督为解释旧约经典的钥匙，在新约内「古经新释」的现象更清晰常见，正如奥斯定说：「新约隐于旧约中，旧约显于新约中」（novum in vetere latet et in novo vetus patet）。

7.我是天主教徒，自然是按天主教的立场作探讨，也引证于天主教文献，但我相信，在圣经神学上，不同教派的基督徒有相当广泛深厚的共识。

8.或六十六本，按不同基督徒教派，「正典」的书目略有分别。在旧约书目中天主教多出被基督教视为「次经」的七本书。

9.参阅朱修德著，《基督启示的传递》（辅大神学丛书51），台北光启出版社　2000　198页：「在闪族文化中，「话语」通常不只具有「意义的力量」，不只是提供我们一些概念，使我们理解事物的符号而已，同时也具有「生产的力量」，是一个行为事实。换句话说，「话语」不仅是在思想的范围里的理解性象征符号，还是生活的范畴中存在性力量的表现。」

10.参阅梵二，《天主的启示教义宪章》，4。以下用此宪章的拉丁文题目 Dei Verbum，简写为 DV。

11.即所谓「初传」（kerygma），其内容可在宗徒大事录中略见：宗2:14-39；3:13-26；4:10-12；5:30-32；10:36-43；13:17-41。

12.有关口传与笔传，参阅 Ong, Water J., Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen, 1982.

13.参阅洪汉鼎在他主编的一套丛书，《诠释学与人文社会科学》所写的总论：「经典的真理并不是现成的自明的恒常存在，如果没有人的参与，真理就无处涌现和生成，作品的意义也就无法传承和延续。经典的真理和意义的发生及展开是一个密切与人的生存相关联的永不止息，永不封闭的过程。」

14.教宗庇护十二世，《圣神默感》通谕，1943。

15.有关旧约正典初期教会没有做过繁复的厘定工作，只采用了公元前二世纪产生的希腊文「七十贤士」译本中的书目。

16.公元五世纪后在教会内这共识达到后，正典的问题，就再无须谈论，也无须正式透过特别文件，列出书目，直至十六世纪，马丁路德对新约数本书的正典性发生疑问，教会才在脱利腾大公会会议（1545-63）中隆重地，确定地宣布正典书目。

17.参阅Concilium, International Journal for Theology, 1995/7: The Bible as Cultural Heritage.

18.按照圣经公会（Bible Society）的最新统计，圣经已被译为2,303种文字，其中405种文字有全部圣经翻译，1,034种有新约译文。

19.这形容出自William Blake，参阅 Frye, Northrop, The Great Code. The Bible and Literature. London: 1982.

20.中世纪神学家Duns Scotus有云：“Sacrae Scripturrae interpretatio infinita est” (Div. nat. I, c. 20 = PL 122, 560 A)；参阅一本以此为专题的作品 Bori, P.C., L’interpretazione infinita, L’ermeneutica cristiana antica e le sue trasformazione. Bologna: 1987. Barbarglio, G., La Bibbia nella storia, 18 voll. EDB, Bologna: 1985ss; Bray, G.L., Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present. Downers Grove-Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1996; Gilbert, P., Petite Histoire de l' exégèse biblique, Cerf, Paris: 1992; Grant, R.M. ﹣ Tracy, D. , A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984; McKim, D.K.(ed.), Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters. Downers Grove-Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1998; Morgen, T. ﹣ Barton, J., Biblical Interpretation. Oxford, 1988; Reventlow, H.G., Epochen der Bibelauslegung, 3 vols. Beck, München 1990-1997; The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19876. Brown, R.E. & Schneiders, S.M., Hermeneutics, in NJBC 71:1-92.

21.洗嘉仪译，宗座圣经委员会文告：《教会内的圣经诠释》，香港思高圣经学会出版　1995。

22.包括 Schleiermacher, F., Dilthey, W., Gadamer, H.G., Bultmann, R., Ebeling, G. , Fuchs E. , Ricoeur, P. 等。

23.Lévinas,E.,L'au delà du verset, Les Editions de Minuit. Paris: 1982.

24.引自拉辛格枢机以宗座圣经委员会主席的身份为这委员会1993年颁布的文献《教会内的圣经诠释》写的序言。

25.国内第一本，也可说是中文第一本，以神学诠释学为专题的着作，以此为题：《圣言．人言─神学诠释学》（上海译文出版社2002）。作者杨慧林详尽介绍和分析了西方诠释学传统的神学背景，现代诠释学与神学的关系，及神学诠释学在当代的发展。他认为神学诠释学必须进入现代的语境，单单局限在宗教经验或信仰层面并不能回答现代诠释学的挑战；但另一方面，神学诠释学对人文学可提供很重要的贡献，能「在倾向于怀疑主义的现代氛围中守护“意义”」（239页），能在「确认人的有限性，语言的有限性和诠释本身的有限性的同时，确认“奥秘”的真实性」（240页）。

26.Gregory the Great, Letters V, 46.

27.把圣经直接称为「基督的躯体」在教父们的着作中屡见不鲜，如安博：「天主子的身体也是传流给我们的圣经」（Commentary on Luke VI, 33）；奥利振：「圣言隐藏在肉体内，同样也隐藏在文字的面纱下」（Homilies in Leviticus I, 1），奥斯定：「天主既然谦卑自己，甚至取了肉体的腐朽，我们不会奇怪因着同样的纡尊降贵，取纳了我们零碎吵杂的言语」（Explanations of Psalms CIII, 4, 1）；热罗尼莫：「我认为福音就如耶稣的身体……」（Commentary on Psalm 118）。梵二也强调：「教会常常尊敬圣经，如同尊敬主的圣体一样」（DV 21）。

28.Origen, Homilies on Leviticus IV, 1.

29.庇护十二世，《圣神默感》通谕，1943。

30.希腊文 bibliva 是「书」的众数，翻译成拉丁文时变成了单数，被视为书中之极品。

31.Ambrose, Explanation of the Psalms 61, 33.

32.de lubac,H.,Exégèse médiévale,Aubier,Paris 1961,p.197.参阅《天主教教理》108：「基督徒的信仰不是一个“书卷的宗教”，基督教会是一个天主“圣言”的宗教。这圣言不是一个笔录下来沉默的文字，而是降生成人的生活圣言」。

33.若望保禄二世贺辞，《教会内的圣经诠释》，xi。

34.Gadamer, H.G., Wahrheit und Methode. p.130.

35.Tradition，天主教文献的中文翻译一般将之译为「圣传」。

36.Origen, Homilies on Leviticus V, 5.参阅《天主教教理》113。

37.这里会引起一个本文顾及不到，需要专题反省的课题：圣经的真理。梵二提及这真理是天主为我们的得救，而放在圣经内（DV 11）。何谓「得救的真理」？何谓圣经无误？斐林丰从天主教立场对这课题有详尽深入的探讨。他的结论是：天主为我们的得救而倾注在圣经里的真理，「并不限于谈及救恩的段落中的真理，却要指出：天主在耶稣基督内赐予我们的救恩『印证』了整部圣经，换言之，令整部圣经变得真实……纵然人类的作者遗留下种种缺漏，圣经也为天主和整个人类的现实作了一个可靠的见证」。参阅斐林丰，《天主教对圣经真理的探讨》，文章载于韩大辉主编，《圣经无误的再思》，厄玛奴耳团体，香港　1994　14-75页。

38.若望保禄二世贺辞，《教会内的圣经诠释》，x。

39.参阅 Origen, Commentaries on John XIX, 4, 22-23.

40.教宗庇护十二世在《圣神默感》通谕中引了奥斯定一句名句：“Orent ut intellegant”：他们祈祷，俾能了解。

41.Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels 23, 2.

42.Origen, Philocalia 2, 3.

43.Origen, Philocalia 10.

44.Gregory The Great, Moralia, Introduction.

45.Origen, Homilies on Exodus 7, 8.

46.在法律书中如申8:3：「……人生活不但靠食物，而且也靠天主口中所发出的一切言语生活」（此句亦被耶稣引用：玛4:4）；先知书中的亚8:11：「我必使饥饿临于此地，不是对食物的饥饿，也不是对水的饥渴，而是对听上主的话的饥渴」。智慧文学盛赞上主之言的甘美，赋与智慧（咏119:103；智16:26；德24:26-28；箴9:1-6）。最突出的片段是天主命先知们吞下书卷，他命厄则克耳：「人子，你吞下这书卷……要吞到肚子里，要把我给你的书卷充满你的五内」（则3:1-3）。耶肋米亚回忆与圣言相遇的甘饴，说：「你的话一来到，我就吞下去；你的话便成了我的喜悦，我心中的欢乐」（耶15:16）。

47.Ambrose, Explanation of the Psalms I, 33.

48.Ephraem, Diatessaron I, 18-19.

49.Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezechiel I, 5, 2.

50.Gregory the Great, Moralia 20, 1.

51.Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezechiel I, 7, 9. 15-16.

52.Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezechiel II, 10, 1.

53.Augustine, Confessions X, 6, 8.

54.Augustine, Confessions III, 5, 9.

55.杨适，关于原创文化研究的一些思考，见：杨适主编，原创文与当代教育，北京　社会科学文献出版社　2003　8页。

56.仝上，9页。

57.若望保禄二世，《教会在亚洲》宗座劝谕，1999，n.4。

58.仝上，n.20。

作者：劳伯埙

导言
过去二百年来，学者曾以不同角度和方法来研究创1-11章。初期学者尝试把这十一章的内容与历史和考古的资料互相比较。但接着他们把创1-11作为一个整体来研究其源流、成书过程、文学类型和编辑的神学原则。这就是历史批判或跨年代取向（historical-critical or diachronic approach）。学者也比较这十一章和古代近东有关创造和洪水记述的异同。过去数十年，他们从不同角度，例如，妇女神学、解放神学、人类学来解释圣经本文。另一趋势是把圣经本文视为文学着作而研究其主题、文笔特点、大纲或结构等。这是文学或同年代取向（literary or synchronic approach）1。
本文一方面接受创1-11章的内容来自不同历史时期的源流，并且在以色列民族历史中经过了一段颇长的编辑过程，才形成今天我们所见的圣经本文。另一方面，本文也接受创1-11为一个完整的叙述。在这两大前题下，本文将会从创1-11章作为《创世记》和整本圣经的导言来讨论其内容和意义。

创造的叙述（1:1-2:25）
《创世纪》第一及第二章记述了两个创造天地万物的记述，释经学家指出它们源自司祭典（Priestly writer 1:1-2:4a）和雅威典（Yahwist 2:4b-2:25）2。前者记述天主用了六天创造天地万物，而祂在第七天休息，停止工作，这记述很有节拍和规律。第一天至第六天的工程结束时都是这样记述的：「过了晚上，过了早晨，这是第……」（1:5,8,13,19,23,31）到了第七天就不再用这句子了。2:2-3只重复了「第七天」三次，其他叠句出现七次的包括：「天主看了认为好」（1:4,10,12,18, 21, 25,31）和「就有了光」或「事就这样成了」（1:3,7,9,11,15,24,30）。再者，「天主说」共用了十次（1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26,28,29）；「创造」共七次（1:1,21,27[3x]；2:3,4a），而天主先后三次分开光与黑暗（1:4），穹苍以下的水和以上的水（1:6-7）及昼和夜。祂三次命名：昼与夜（1:5）、天（1:8）、陆地与海洋（1:10）；祂三次「各按其类」而创造了植物（1:11-12）、鱼和飞鸟（1:20-21）及动物（1:24-25）。祂也先后三次祝福了鱼和鸟（1:22）、人类（1:28）和第七天（2:3）。这些文笔特点，给人一份庄严的感觉，也和其内容配合：天主一说话，创造就完成了。
在第二个叙述中，天主像一位陶匠用灰土造了人（2:7），并像一位园丁建造了一个果园将人安置在其中（2:8-9），为了找一位「与人相称的助手」（2:18），天主首先造了各种动物，最后才造了女人。这个叙述采用「拟人法」来描述天主，给人一份亲切的感觉。这也和其内容配合：祂不想人单独生活。虽然如此，祂又给人下命令，不可吃知善恶树上的果子（2:16-17）。
这条诫命把第二与第三章连起来而成为一个完整的叙述，因为第三章记述人没有遵守这命令。不过这条诫命和整个第二章却是与第一章相辅相成的。因为天主创造天地万物，目的就是为人和动物创造一个可生存的环境，在这环境里，人和动物有食物维持生命，并且生育繁殖，而人更可在每周的第七天景仰天主，以完成其管理大地和一切生物的使命。以上是第一章的重点。第二章指出人与人和平相处的条件就是按天主定下的善恶标准而行事，而人与人共融地相处正是天主创造的目的，婚姻生活就是最具体的表现。在创造中，天主为人建立了一个新秩序。
在这个新秩序里，造物主和受造物建立了一个恒久的关系。即使人会破坏生存条件或这个新秩序，造物主必会作出补救，使万物得以生存，并达到其创造的目的。以下本文讨论创世纪第一个创造叙述的意义。

第一个创造的叙述（1:1-2:4a）
今天，人和生物都是生存在时间和空间之内，因此在第一天至第四天，天主创造了生存的环境、天空、陆地、海洋和时间，陆地长出植物，作为各种生物的食粮（1:30）。随后，天主在第五天和第六天造了天空中、海洋里和陆地上的各种生物，而创造生物的高峰就是创造人类。
在创造天地前的情况是怎样呢？当然以色列民族没有「无」（nothingness）这思想，不过1:2「混沌空虚」一词也用于耶4:23-26，先知指出大地空虚混沌的情况就是人、生物和植物都消失了，换句话说，就是没有生命。再者，在黑暗和水中，生物又如何能生存呢？因此，「混沌空虚」若不是指「无」的境界，创世纪在此就是描绘一个使生命不能出现的境况。
首先，天主说有光，就有光（1:3）。有光，生命就可出现，光象征生命和天主的临在3，咏36:9更指出光是天主赐人生命的途径，而咏104:2说天主身披光明。在圣经里，衣履反映人的地位和权力（创37:3；41:42），那么，光象征天主的生命和奥秘。这也解释了创1:3并没有说天主创造了光。
随着光的出现，昼和夜便来临，时间出现了。天主在第二天和第三天造了空间：纵的天空、横的海洋和陆地。以色列人相信，雨和露都来自穹苍上的水（约38:22-30）4，陆地跟着长出植物，给生物作为食粮，维持生命（1:30）。
除了每天昼和夜的更替外，时间还包括年、月、日和四季，由此也带来不同的庆节。在第四天，天主创造了天空的两大光体和星辰。这两大光体当然是指太阳和月亮，因为它们控制白天和黑夜（1:16）。圣经没有给它们名字，因此强调了它们只是受造物，不是神。虽然如此，它们却是在一周中间的一天造成的，这反映了它们的重要性。天主让它们管治时间，规定年、月、日、夜和季节，人从此按其规律而生活，日出而作，入夜而息。人不可超越或改变这规律或秩序，只能依规律生活在其中，因为人是属于历史，只有天主才活在永恒中。
在这四天天主把光与黑暗（1:4），穹苍上和下的水（1:7）及日与夜（1:14,18）分开。黑暗和水威胁着生命，带来混乱和死亡，天主把它们分开，带来一个新秩序，一个生物能生存的环境，克服了混沌空虚和死亡的威胁。
在第五天，天主造了天空中的飞鸟和水中一切的生物5。在第六天，天主首先造了陆地上的动物，这些动物包括了家畜、野兽和爬虫6。这样，宇宙中的三个层面：天、地、海洋都各有其动物，而圣经强调天主是各按其种类而造成的；「各按其类」这词句共出现了十次（1:11,12 [2x],21 [2x], 24[2x],25[3x]），由此可见天主的创造是井井有条。不过，天主只祝福了天空中和海洋里的动物（1:22），祂没有祝福陆地上的动物，因为祂祝福了陆地上的人。
天主最后创造了人，这是祂创造的高峰，人的创造和动物的创造共有三个分别。天主在宣告祂创造人的意愿时，祂采用了「议决多数」(deliberative plural)7，如同君王隆重颁布命令一样。天主创造人与创造其他动物不同，人不是各按其类，而是按天主的俏像和模样造成的，目的是「叫他管理海中的鱼，天空的飞鸟，牲畜，各种野兽，在地上爬行的各种爬虫」（1:26）。这份使命在天主给人的祝福中更清楚表达出来：治理大地和管理各种动物（1:28）。因此，地上的人，不论肤色、文化、语言都同属一个人类、一个大家庭。问题是：天主的俏像和模样及治理大地和各种物是指什么呢？
在古代近东，只有君王才被视为神的俏像，但是，根据圣经，每个人不论男女，都是天主的俏像，因此，申4:15-19禁止人为天主雕像。人身为天主的俏像，人和天主必定有一种很亲切的关系，这点也可在1:28见到，祝福天空和海洋里的生物时，圣经只说：「天主祝福它们说」，但祝福人时，原文是：「天主祝福他们，天主对他们说」，有学者指这喻意人与天主可以互相对话8。这些解释，都可作为瞭解天主的俏像和模样的背景，不过，天主按祂的俏像造人，目的是为治理大地和管理各种动物（1:26,28），那么，要理解按天主的俏像造人的意义，必须与天主给人的使命连起来看。
「管理」这动词原文是rdh。这动词常用于指君王统治的权力（列上5:4；咏72:8；依14:6；则34:4）。但在圣经里，君王的权力并不是绝对的。厄则克耳书（34:4）就指责牧者，即君王，用强力和残暴去管理人民，这里所用的希伯来文动词rdh和创1:26,28的是相同的。另一方面，申17:14-20指出君王生活不能太奢华，而且要常常阅读法律书，好能谨守遵行。这样，他和他的子孙才能久居王位。因此，人管理各种动物时，也要按着天主的旨意或法律而行。
不过，「治理」这动词的用法却包括了武力或暴力。原文是。这字可以指：i）作战时征服其他民族（苏18:1;撒下8:11）；ii）强迫别人为奴（编下28:10;厄上5:5）；iii）践踏葡萄（岳4:13），而只有在《岳厄尔》书「治理」这动词才指践踏。因此治理大地可瞭解为征服和强迫大地为人服役，隐含了使用武力或暴力。可是，创世纪第一章的世界是没有暴力的，不论人或兽，大家的食物都是植物（1:30）。再者，肋未纪内的法律是禁止以色列的主人虐待因家贫而卖身为佣工的以色列兄弟（肋25:43,46,53），理由是大家都是天主从埃及领出来的子民（肋25:42）。同样道理，人和大地都是天主的创造，人当然不能虐待大地，他只能如同君王一样，按天主的旨意或法律而行事，除了天主外，连君王的权力都不是绝对的。
故此，rdh和强调了天主给人很大的权力去管治祂的创造，让他成为大地的主人。这情况和天空的光体一样，天主给它们权力主宰时间。当人行使权力时，人成了天主的俏像，让人从人的身上见到天主9。
天主创造了人后，便完成了祂的创造工程，到了第七天，祂停止了工作，休息一天。休息及工作这两个字在安息日的法律中都有出现（出20:10-12；申5:12-15），而出谷纪更指出守安息日的原因，就是因为天主在创世的第七天休息。天主祝福了安息日，并定为圣日（出20:12）。换句话说，守安息日的原因是因为天主在创造的第七天休息。这样，人在安息日休息时，便可找到天主，与祂相遇，分享祂的神圣；人在时间内，在他的历史中，而不是在一个固定地点，例如耶路撒冷的圣殿，找到天主10。
在此，可作出一个综合：创造首先就是从混沌空虚中，带来一个人和动物都可生存的环境。天主创造了人和动物后，天主祝福他们，祝福就是把生命繁殖和成长的能力交给他们，让他们分享天主创造的力量。祝福的内容：生育繁殖、充满海洋和大地，正好反映了圣经中天主祝福的意义。天主更授权人治理祂创造的世界，好让这个生存环境能保存下去，使混沌空虚不会再出现；天主更亲临这世界，每个安息日，人都可以休息、并景仰祂。因此，创造这世界时，天主开展了祂和创造之间的恒久关系，祂会不断赐予生命，并加以保存和护卫。创世记第三至十一章将会清楚指出这点11。
天主的创造是按照祂的意愿而完成的。祂先宣告了祂会做什么，及这些受造物的功用，跟着事情就按照天主的说话发生了12。因此，宇宙每一部份都能各自按天主给其本身的功用而构成一个和谐共处的整体，因此天主七次指出创造是好的。这样，人和天空的光体、人和动物与大地、人和天主的关系都清楚了。可是人与人之间的关系又应该是怎样的呢？第二个创造的叙述就要探讨这问题。

第二个创造的叙述（2:4b-25）
在创世记第二章，天主也为人做了一个理想的生活环境──乐园，同时又给他一份使命：在乐园内耕种，看守乐园（2:15）。更重要的是天主为他造了一位「相称的助手」（2:18），让他们结为夫妇。夫妇的婚姻生活就是人类共融的最高表现。为了达到共融，天主为人颁下了生存的规律，不可吃知善恶树的果子（2:16-17）。本文以下将讨论这条命令和创造女人的意义。
不可吃知善恶树的果子的命令，反映了乐园的果树可分为两类，就是可吃的和不可吃的。这两个分类亦反映了人的愿望和行为也可分为两类。可吃的果树代表一些行为人可随意按其愿望而做的。行为本身并不涉及对与错，例如人饿了便找果子吃。另一类行为是：人不可以依从自己的愿望而行事，因为这行为是恶的，人要为自己的愿望设下规范，作出抉择：什么是善恶？什么可以或不可以做？不可吃知善恶树的果子象征着这些行为。
谁可订下善恶的标准？在圣经里，只有天主才知道什么是善和恶（撒下14:17,20），人单靠自己的力量不能断定善恶，因此天主给人颁下命令，什么可以做，什么不可以作。祂希望人行善，这样才获得生命（申30:15-20）。人若想生存，便要作出抉择，是否听从天主的话。在乐园里，人要面对生命和死亡，善和恶的抉择，人是有自由和判断力，创3-4章告诉读者人的的抉择和抉择所带来的后果。
在乐园里，有水、有食物，人可以有自由运用判断力去抉择善恶，他还缺少了什么？天主知道：他需要一位「相称的助手」（2:18）。「助手」一字除了三次外，每次都是指天主在以色列面对生死存亡时，天主向人施予「援手」，让以民逃出生天，假如天主不对人施予「援手」，以民便会死去13。因此，人在乐园里若没有这位「助手」，他便会死去，这与天主说「人单独不好」不谋而合。在圣经里，单独不是指寂寞，而是指人被家人或朋友遗弃（咏88:19）或耶路撒冷被毁，一片荒凉景象（哀1:1），因此单独是指临于死亡的边缘；在古代的以色列，癞病人被迫在营外独处，与团体隔离（肋13:45-46）就是最好的写照。有了这位「助手」，人才可生存。
从人肋骨而形成的女人才是人真正「相称的助手」。她不是来自尘土，因为由尘土造成的各种牲畜、飞鸟和野兽都是不相称的（2:19-20）。女人来自人的肋骨，正好证明彼此本质是相同的，无分高低，人说：「这才是我的亲骨肉」（2:23），「亲骨肉」原文直译是「我骨之骨，我肉之肉」，这话正好便反映了这点。他们两人结为夫妇，成为「一体」（2:24）。婚姻生活就是人共融生活最佳的标记。
「亲骨肉」和「一体」同样是用来描述家庭和兄弟关系。拉班见到雅各伯时对他说：「你实在是我的亲骨肉。」（创29:14）这词句常用来描述大家同属一个家庭14。犹大提出把若瑟卖到埃及为奴，原因是他是他们的兄弟，他们的「一体」（创37:27），这词句亦会用来指称同一个家庭的兄弟姊妹或亲属15。因此，家庭生活也是人共融生活的具体表现。
最后，他们二人都赤身露体，并不害羞（2:25）。这使人想起人犯罪前纯真的景况。不过，在圣经里，奴隶和战俘常是赤身露体，他们不能保护自己，常常会受攻击和侮辱。赤身露体代表没有社会地位、权益和性命都得不到保障的人16。「害羞」的情况也相似。罪犯被判刑时会感到「害羞」，人战败后人也会如此17，因为没有人来保护他们。但这对夫妻既结为一体，彼此共融，没有高低之分或张力，因此不用防范别人的攻击，所以他们赤身露体，并不害羞，因为他们不用害怕受攻击。
在第二个创造的叙述，人获得丰盛的生活，他活在自由、良知和共融的生活中。但这境况很快就被破坏了。

人类共融受破坏（3:1-4:26）
人选择听从了蛇的话，吃了天主禁止他们吃的知善恶树的果子；加音拒绝承担作为弟弟看守者的责任（4:9），在愤怒中杀死了亚伯尔，自始人类共融彻底受到破坏，生命从此不受到保障。
不可吃知善恶树的果子的诫命，是天主邀请人进入自由和负责任的的世界，选择行善避恶，人便可超越只依从一己意愿的世界，因为人一但凭一己意愿行事，便不能抉择善恶。在乐园里，抉择就是人要面对听从天主的话或蛇的话。蛇邀请人吃知善恶树的果子，便是请人离开自由和抉择善恶的世界，活于意愿的世界，因此人在摘下知善恶树的果子前，他看见这果树实在「好吃好看」（3：6）。那时，知善恶树和其他树没有分别，因为乐园里的果树都是「好吃好看的」（2:9），知善恶的树就成了果树之一棵。
人听从蛇的话，就是人拒绝运用天主给他的自由去明辨善恶，并按意愿行事，拒绝承担责任；反之，人让自己的意愿来主宰自己的行为，在自由和责任的世界里，善与恶的原则将会由人的意愿所取代，而人的意愿常常不会满足和不受人理智的规范。在意愿的世界，人不会为其行为负责。故此吃了知善恶树的果子后，人面对天主时，男人把责任推给女人，女人推给蛇（3:11-13）。
在愿望的世界里，人不再受尊重，他随时会受到攻击，生命没有保障，情况就如同赤身露体的战俘和罪犯。因此，人吃了这果子后发现自己赤身露体便躲藏起来（3:8）；再者，他们害怕见天主的脸，因为他们不愿意面对自由和责任。
蛇因牠所做的事而受咒骂。祝福是把生命的力量交给人，咒骂就是取回生命的力量，让死亡出现。事实上，人的意愿若不受规范便会带来死亡，加音杀亚伯尔就是一个例子。
蛇在泥土中爬行，但也会攻击人，这是每一代人类的经验。人蛇相遇，为了自保，人会踏碎蛇的头，蛇会伤害人的脚跟（3:15）。人与动物间的和谐从此消失。
女人没有受到咒骂，可是她将要受丈夫管辖，过去彼此之间的共融也失去了18。若她与丈夫自由地选择生儿育女，生育将会是快乐的事（若16:21），但如果她怀孕生子是因个人意愿，是一时之快的结果，怀孕可以是一件十分痛苦的事（3:16）。
男人也没有受到咒骂，可是大地却因他的缘故而成了可咒骂的。他要劳苦工作，但辛劳工作却可能得不到成果，因大地只长出荆棘和蒺藜，大地和人的和谐关系也失去了。不过，劳苦工作本身不是惩罚，因为在乐园里，他也要耕种和看守乐园（2:15），这是一份劳心劳力的工作，也是一份使命和荣誉，而乐园也因此长出好吃好看的果树。但若人在工作中找不到意义，生命就像土地长出荆棘和蒺藜，辛劳之后往往一无所成。
以上的经验反映了人面对自己的生命时，就是一份奋斗和挣扎，在意愿、自由、善恶中作出抉择。这份经验可以是十分痛苦的。因此，天主说祂会把仇恨放在人与蛇之间，而人死后将会返回泥土（3:15,19）。若他按自己的意愿行事时，便会发现人生可以是毫无意义的，若他愿意听从上主的话而生活，他会在天主内找到生育子女、劳苦工作和死亡的真正意义19。
人若依从自己的意愿行事，生命便不会受到保障，因此人看见自己赤身露体，便要躲藏起来。加音杀死自己的弟弟亚伯尔就是最好的写照。
天主没有惠顾加音的祭品，加音因此大怒，动了杀机，但天主却呼唤他克服罪恶，不要依从他的意愿或愤怒行事。天主邀请加音好好地运用他的自由，选择生命与兄弟共融相处，避开罪恶，这方面也是天主命令人不可吃知善恶树的果子诫命的意义。加音的父母要面对听从天主或蛇的声音的抉择，现在加音也要决定：听从天主或罪的呼叫（4:6-7）。
很可惜，加音接受了罪恶和愤怒的控制，他不愿意承担兄弟共融的责任，因此他杀了弟弟后对天主说：「难道我是看守我弟弟的人？」（4:9）。人的生命从此不断受威胁，人的共融生活荡然无存。故此，他只能在地上成了个流离失所的人，人遇见加音必要杀他，而他也必要躲避天主的面（4:14）。他与人和与天主隔绝了。与此同时，加音跟随了罪恶与死亡，因此他的耕作只会带来死亡的果实，即使他努力耕作，大地也不会为他生产（4:12），大地回复到创造前的境况（2:5）。人与大地的关系也彻底地破坏了。加音成了「地上所咒骂的人」（4:11）
为什么天主没有惠顾加音的祭品？若天主惠顾了加音的祭品，亚伯尔会否逃过一劫？从人的眼光看，有些人总是特别受眷顾的，才干与成就都比别人优胜，不过这是天主的自由，人也许不会完全明白祂的作为。祂要求人行善，制服罪恶（4:7）。「罪」这字第一次在圣经中出现，其意义并不是指违反天主的诫命，而是指一股强大的力量，如同一只野兽伺机袭击牠的猎物，引人走向恶，不过天主却邀请人制服它。
人与人，人与大地的关系受到破坏了，天主却没有袖手旁观。祂没有为亚伯尔报「血仇」，反而给加音一个记号，以免遇见他的人击杀他（4:15）。这个记号让人记起加音的罪过，也想起天主的公义和天主的仁慈。这记号保护了加音。另一方面，暴力会带来更大的暴力（4:14,23），天主采用严刑峻法，阻止暴力升级，杀加音和拉默客的人要受七倍（4:15）和七十七倍（4:24）的惩罚，天主希望保存人的性命。
最后，天主没有撤回祂对人的祝福，人类仍生育繁殖，加音虽杀了弟弟，但他也有子孙。亚当也再生了孩子，代替了亚伯尔（4:25），而亚当的后代开始呼求天主（4:26）。随着罪恶的扩散和不断加剧，天主带来一个新的开始、新的希望。

洪水（6:1-9:17）
可是，新的开始和希望也带来失望。随着人类繁衍，大地充满了邪恶（6:5）和强暴（6:11,13）20，天主因此后悔造了人，心中很是悲痛（6:6,7）。祂让洪水来消灭了一切坏人，净化这罪恶的世界，只剩下义人诺厄和他的家人。罪恶是否从此就消失？
天主最瞭解祂的受造物，祂知道人从小就思念邪恶，天主意愿祂创造的生存条件能够循环不息，使人能生存下去（8:21-22）。洪水后，祂重复了祂在创造时给人生育繁殖的祝福，和治理大地的使命（9:1-7）。祂与诺厄和与他一起的家人和生物立约，许下不再用洪水毁灭一切生物（9:8-17）。人心没有改变，可是天主却改变了。
天主从混沌空虚中带来了创造的秩序，让人可以生存。现在天主许诺不会毁灭这秩序。可是人的罪恶可破坏了这秩序，使人不能生活下去。面对这一切，天主可做什么呢？

巴贝耳塔（11:1-9）
人心思念邪恶，愿意接受罪恶的束缚，而没有去制服它（创4:7）。要制服罪恶就要接受天主，接受天主所定下善恶的标准才可知善恶，人必需奉行祂定下的标准而行事。人接受罪恶，就是否定了天主的标准，而以自己的意愿作为善恶的标准。这样，他就会把自己比拟为神。因此，蛇诱惑人时便说：「吃了这果子，你们……如同天主一样，知道善恶」（创3:5）。人是受造物，单靠自己的力量，当然不能把自己提升为神。不过，这样做却掩盖不了人对神，人对超越，人对无限的向往！
夫妻相亲相爱、兄弟和睦共处也是人所向往的，可惜创1-9章清楚指出，人单靠自己，结果只适得其反。
人对神和人对人交往的渴求，在人建造一城一塔的计画中可显露出来（11:4）。塔顶摩天，表示人以为可达到神的境界，并为此留名，为免得大家在地面上分散，达到彼此相聚一起。可是，事与愿违，他们却因此分散到全地面。
人类的科技已进步了。巴肋斯坦的房屋常用石头和灰泥盖建，创11:3强调了人可用砖和沥青代替石头和灰泥，这些材料可让人盖更高的楼房。换句话说，人现在有力量可建造高可及天的塔。天是神居住的境界，这座高塔代表了人超越身为受造物的界限，而闯进神的境界，就正如上主天主在拯救以色列人离开埃及时彰显了祂的名字21，现在人也希望能藉此而为自己留下一个名字作纪念。与此同时，他们希望可住在城里，避免在全地面上分散。事实上，天主给人的使命就是生育繁殖，充满大地。充满大地就是要他们在大地上分散，如今，人不想分散，他是否拒绝执行这命令呢？不想承担管治大地的责任？
人想升天，却事与愿违，天主下来，混乱了人的语言（11:7），结果人停止建造那城，分散到各地去（11:8-9）。
人是受造物，必须接受身为受造物的界限。随着人的文明和科技进步，人越来越想超越这界限，把自己变成为神。先知就指责外邦的君王傲慢，自以为神，结果却带来丧亡（依14:13-15；则28:2-9；31:1-14）。人称这建造塔的地方为「巴贝耳」，原文也可指巴比伦城，创世纪也许反映了先知的思想。
天主混乱了人的语言，一方面看来是一个审判，一份惩罚。另一方面，这也是人尝试跨越本身界限的后果。在乐园里，人被训示不可吃知善恶树的果子，他要接受天主颁下善恶标准，不可按自己的意愿行事，人才可和平共处。现在，人在建塔的时候只依从自己的意愿而行事，人的共融自然再次受到破坏，言语不通，这不就是一个最好的写照？
亚当和厄娃被遂出乐园时，天主为他们做了皮衣，给他们穿上（3:21），保护他们。天主给加音一个记号，以免人击杀他（4:15）。在洪水中，天主保存了诺厄和同他在一起的家人和动物，洪水过后，并与他立约，许下不再因人的罪恶而消灭人。过去，人犯罪后，天主都会加以眷顾，保存他们的性命，现在，人分散各地，天主又会做什么呢？

创11:1-9之后记述了闪的族谱，这族谱所记的家族以特辣黑和他的儿子作为结束。人的历史是否从此就陷于罪恶中？人渴求与神人的交往共融又是否会无法达到呢？

天主的救赎：开端与终结
人既然不能藉着自己力量升到天上，那么天主可以亲自从天上下来，以达成人的愿望。因此，祂召叫亚巴郎，使他成为一个大民族，成名及成为一个福源（创12:2）。藉着亚巴郎，人可以成名，满全了人建塔的目的（创11:4），藉着他，人可以得到祝福，换句话说，人因此获得生命的成长和力量，以完成天主在创造时给人的使命。在亚巴郎身上，天主展开了祂救赎人的工作。
在《创世纪》一书中，人已可以在罪恶的氛围中找到希望。兄弟相残，使人的共融受到破坏，而创世纪一书中的圣祖叙述都是和兄弟相处有关的。亚巴郎把长子依市玛耳和他的生母赶出家门，才阻止了妻妾间的纷争（21:9-21）。厄撒乌和雅各伯在母胎中便已开始争取长子的名份（25:19-26），结果在母亲黎贝加摆布下，雅各伯假扮厄撒乌而骗取了长子的祝福。为了逃避哥哥的杀害（27:41），雅各伯只好逃往舅父家。最后，他回家途中，虽然与兄长和解，彼此修好，可是两兄弟却从此分手，居住在不同区域（33:1-17）。若兄弟们不能和平共处，亚巴郎的子孙怎样可以成为一个大民族呢？天主的许诺使他们成为一个大民族又怎样实现呢？
雅各伯共有十二个儿子，多子多孙，本是天主的祝福，可是兄弟们却忌恨若瑟，想把他杀死，最后兄弟们把他卖到埃及为奴，拔去眼中钉。但在天主巧妙安排下，他却为家人准备了食粮，在饥荒时保存了他们的性命。若瑟宽恕了他的兄弟，因为他瞭解这原是天主派遣他先到埃及，以保存他们的性命（45:5-8）。换句话说，他愿意成为兄弟的看守人，不计前仇，在兄弟有困难时施予援手。
在兄弟相认前，犹大也愿意为弟代罪受罚。若瑟把自己的爵杯放在本雅明的粮袋里，及后，再派人把兄弟拘捕回来，在本雅明粮袋搜出爵杯后，犹大自愿代替弟弟留在埃及受罚。他知道若弟弟不回家，爸爸必死无疑，因为他疼爱本雅明，如同过去他爱若瑟一样，这方面超过他对其他儿子的爱。犹大接受了爸爸偏爱的弱点，没有因若瑟的离去而改变，现在能够改变的就是自己，因此他愿意牺牲自己，留在埃及，以保存父亲和弟弟的性命（44:18-34）。人愿意为家庭团聚、兄弟和睦相处而付出自己，人共融生活就有希望了。
亚当和厄娃吃了知善恶树的果子后便害怕起来，因为生命从此不受保障。加音杀了亚伯尔，因为他不愿做兄弟的看守者，但若瑟和犹大都愿意成为兄弟的看守者，因此《创世纪》一书结束时若瑟对兄弟说：「你们不必害怕，有我维持你们和你们的孩子。」（50:21）他不报复。亚当和厄娃犯罪后就害怕。现在人犯罪后，可以不用害怕，因为有宽恕，而天主会把人做的坏事变为好事，带来好的结果。
为别人而牺牲了自己，指向了基督在十字架上的牺牲。《默示录》描述耶稣救赎所带来的新天地、新耶路撒冷时，海首先消失了（默21:1），黑暗也不再存在，因为天主亲自照耀这城（默21:25；22:5），天地初开时象征着混沌空虚，威胁着生存的黑暗和深渊的水（创1:2）彻底地除去了。人过着丰盛完满的生活，那时再没有死亡、泪痕、悲伤、哀号和苦楚。这里没有罪恶（默21:8），因着人的罪过而带来的诅咒不再存在了（默22:3）。人和大地不只回复到创造的完美，并且会超越比创造时的更好，现在生命树每月都结果，而叶子更可治病（默22:2），生命完满地出现。
进入这新耶路撒冷的人民是万民和君王（默21:24），他们曾反抗天主和羔羊（默16:14；17:18；18:9；19,9；20:8），并且被打败（默19:21；20:9）。现在他们带着他们的财富和光荣，即他们的成就，来到天主面前，钦崇祂，景仰祂，因为天主住在他们中间（默22:3-4）。天主给加音一个记号以保护他，现在这城里的人民额上都刻着天主名字（默22:4），他们都是属于天主的人民，这就如同天主造人时，天主不是各按其类而造人的，因为人只有一类，就是天主所创造和救赎的子民。
在新天地里，天主的救恩在人和整个创造中彰显出来。在新天地未完全实现时，人就生活在光明与黑暗中，在美善与罪恶中，但新天地的来临提醒人不要忘记自己的罪过，因为罪会破坏创造的美善与和谐，新天地的来临也挑战人离开罪恶走向善，因为藉着基督的救恩，人有力量可以这样作，完成天主在创造时给他的使命。
新天新地出现，不单只是说受造物返回创造时的完美，而是一个彻底的改变，超乎了人所能想像的。这一切都是天主借着被宰杀的羔羊，即耶稣，而成就的（默21:5-6,23；22:5）。这份救恩已开始了，基督的复活就在一周的第一天，一清早或是天还在黑暗时发生（玛28:1；谷16:2；路24:1；若20:1）。换句话说，他从死者中复活时就是创造的一周的第一天，那时，天主说有光就有光，而创世纪没有说祂造了光，而光象征着天主的生命和奥秘22。在基督新的创造，光就是天主和羔羊的光（默21:23；22:5），照耀着得救的人民。天主是创造者，也是救赎者。

总结
「基督徒的天主是一个创造人，爱人……的天主。祂向人显露自己，也使人因此而对自身的价值及意义，取向，有更深的认识及珍惜。」23阅读创1-11章，人可以重新肯定自己和整个宇宙的价值，天主的创造是美好的。人可以再次反省自己的使命，好好管治大地，人与人共度和谐共融的生活，让生命丰盛地发展。人可以更深刻地瞭解自己境况，不依从天主定下的善恶标准行事而破坏了创造的美好和毁灭了生命，但他亦可以体验天主的包容和关怀，祂不想人丧亡，只愿人能生存的善意。如此，人可以藉阅读圣经，领会天主的救恩历史，体验耶稣基督死亡和复活所带来的救恩，期待新天新地的来临。

1. 1. Rogerson J.W. 在其着作中精简地介绍了这些研究。Genesis 1-11 (Old Testament Guides). Sheffield: Jsot Press, 1989, pp.1-52。也请参阅 Blenkinsopp, J., The Pentateuch: an introduction to the first five books of the Bible. New York : Doubleday, 1992, pp.1-30. Campell, A.F. and O' Brien, M.A., Sourcies of the Pentateuch : texts, introductions, annotations. Minnesota : Fortress Press, 1993, pp.1-20. J. L. Ska, Introduzione alla lettura del Pentateuco Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2000, pp.113-185. 房志荣著，《梅瑟五书批判小史》，台中　闻道出版社　1968。

2.Campbell, A.F. and O’ Brien, M.A., Sources of the Pentateuch, pp.22-23, 92-95.

3.Wenham, G., Genesis 1-15. Texas: Word Books, 1987, p.18.

4.约38:4-11也反映了第二和第三天的创造。

5.思高译本「大鱼」按原文包括了海中的海怪，例如：依27:1海中的「里外雅堂」Leviathan和蛟龙，这些海怪都是受造物。

6.根据1:24的原文。

7.可参阅创3:22；11:7；撒下24:14。

8.傅和德著，《旧约诠释》，北京　宗教文化出版社　2002　26页。 Wenham, G., Genesis 1-15, p.33. Sarna, N.M. , Genesis. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989, p.13. 但在第七天，人可景仰天主。

9.这样解释也可说明，人犯了罪后，仍不会改变他是按天主的俏像造成的事实（创5:1-3; 9:6）。

10.创2:1-3与出25-40在用词上都有不少相同之处。因此我们可推论，拣选了以色列为祂的子民后，天主便住在以色列和他的圣所中，在以色列身上，万民可以见到天主。

11.这个解释也可说明创1:1-3节并不是想说明天主从「无」中创造万物，原文句子的构造在翻译上带来不少困难，一般诠释都有说明，故在此不会重复。

12.第一天，天主说有光，而没有指出光的功用。

13.出18:4；申33:7,26,29；咏20:3；33:20；70:6；89:20；115:9, 10,15；121:1,2；124:8；146:5；达11:34；欧13:9。另外两篇圣经，依30:5和则12:4，是指埃及军队和漆德克雅的士兵不能保护以色列和君王。 Ska, J.L“Je vais lui faire un qui soit son homologue (Gn 2:18). A propos du terme《- aide》”, Biblica 65 (1984) pp.233-238。本文有关创1-3章的讨论也参考了Ska在宗座圣经学院未出版的讲义。

14.民9:2；撒下5:1；编下11:1；撒下19:13-14。

15.厄下5:5；依58:7。

16.撒下10:4；依20:1-6；47:2-3；耶13:22；则16:36-37；欧2:5, 12；亚2:16；米1:8；鸿3:5。

17.咏6:11；83:17-19；米3:7；7:16；北10。

18.在离开乐园时，亚当给妻子起名（3:20）。主人可为仆婢、家畜和产业起名。天主创造了各种野兽和飞鸟后，亚当给它们起名（2:19-20）。但天主造了女人后，亚当没有给她起名。

19.后期犹太和基督徒传统，蛇代表了魔鬼，「因魔鬼的嫉妒，死亡才进入了世界」（智慧篇2:24）。但蛇在创世纪叙述本身并不指魔鬼。蛇在泥土爬行，而人源自泥土，死后也返回泥土，因此蛇与人的起源与死亡有密切的关系，它象征了人生命的奥妙。再者，它喜欢在黑夜活动，神出鬼没地出现。人自己内心的深处也像一个黑洞，这里人找到他的本能、意愿、欲望……人对此并不完全瞭解，蛇神出鬼没地出现，人的本能与意愿也在人不完全明白的状况下影响着他的行为，因此保禄说：「我有心行善，……但实际上却不能行善。因此，我所愿意的善，我不去行，而我所不愿意的恶，我却去作。」（罗7:18-19）蛇是否代表了人无意识本能和愿望的境界呢？

20.圣经没有指出邪恶和强暴的例子，但6:2中天主的儿子，可指君王强夺别人的妻子（撒下11）；另一个解释是人企图攀越人的限制，走向神的境界，就如蛇引诱人时说：「吃了这果子，你们的眼就会开了，将如同天主一样知道善恶。」（3:5）

21.以色列人在埃及受迫害，因新埃及王不认识若瑟（出1:8）。当梅瑟请求法郎让以民离开埃及时，法郎的回答是：「谁是雅威，我该听他的命，放以色列走？」（出5:1-2）在十个灾祸和过红海的事件中，天主彰显了祂的大能，让人认识祂是一位怎样的神，认识了祂的名字就是雅威（出3:14；也请参阅出14:25,30-31）。

22.见本期第40页。

23.高夏芳「圣经的形成与诠释」，见本期第27页。

作者：陈继容

前言1
我国著名学者朱光潜先生在他那本《谈美》的书中有一段这样说：「一篇生命史就是一种作品，从伦理的观点看，它有善恶的分别，从艺术的观点看，它有美丑的分别。善恶与美丑的关系究竟如何呢？就狭义说，伦理的价值是实用的，美感的价值是超实用的；伦理的价值都是有所为而为，美感的活动则是无所为而为。比如仁义忠信等等都是善，问它们何以为善，我们不能不着眼到人群的幸福。美之所以为美，则全在美的形相本身，不在于它对人群的效用(这并不等于说它对人群没有效用)」2。
善恶与美丑的关系如何，美之所以为美真的全在美的形相本身？抑或这世上还有其他「审美观」？下面谨以圣经为基础，就基督信仰──Christianity──对美的理解，作握要的介绍3。

1. 残暴的十字架竟然是「美」的
根据天主教会礼仪年(Liturgical Year) 的读经编排，四旬期第五主日乙年读经所选的第二篇经文是《致希伯来人书》5:7-9节。第7节说耶稣在受难前曾以「大声哀号和眼泪，向那能救祂脱离死亡的天主，献上了祈祷和恳求」。第8节经文继续写道：「祂虽然是天主子，却由所受的苦难，学习了服从」。但最重要的是第9节经文：「且在达到完满之后，为一切服从祂的人，成了救恩的根源」。
从所引的经文，大家可以见到《致希伯来人书》的记载固然让人看到耶稣的苦难的可怖和痛苦。然而，这段经文也同时让人看到，如此可怖的一个苦难行动，正是耶稣为达至完满─给人带来救恩─而需要接受的一个过程。至于同一主日的福音选读，是《若望福音》12:20-33节，其中第27节记载耶稣自己说：「现在我心神烦乱，我可说什么呢？4」耶稣之所以心神烦乱，那是因为祂知道自己很快就要面对苦难和死亡。
纵然这样，祂仍然没有祈求天父拯救祂，使祂不用面对这苦难「时刻」。根据圣若望宗徒，从「复活」时件，即从死后的生命来看，耶稣的「苦难」正是祂被光荣的时刻，而耶稣对整件事件都非常清楚，所以祂甘心情愿接受这「时刻」。有一点值注意，圣若望并没有在他的福音中，提到耶稣在山园祈祷时血汗交流的情境。相反，若望福音中的耶稣肯定地指出，是祂甘心情愿献出自己，接受死亡，没有人能夺去祂的性命：「谁也不能夺去我的性命，而是我甘心情愿舍掉它」(若10:18)。
虽然从整体来说，《致希伯来人书》与《若望福音》有同一的信息。但表面看来，上面引载的两段经文就耶稣面对其苦难的态度时，却好像彼此矛盾。事实却不然，这两段经文所写的，正符合耶稣的双重身份：《致希伯来人书》强调的是耶稣的人性；《若望福音》侧重的，却是耶稣的天主性。此外，这两段经文亦符合新约圣经中，有关十字架的两种彼此相异，但又互相补足的十字架神学思想。
首先，熟识《若望福音》的人都晓得，《若望福音》的十字架神学和圣保禄的思想一样，均视十字架为耶稣因为爱父和爱人，甘愿接受，以满全天主拯救人类的意愿的记号。一如弥撒中第二式感恩经的「成圣体经」所说：「祂甘愿舍身受难时，拿起面饼，感谢了(你)，把面饼分开，交给祂的门徒们说：『你们大家拿去吃，这就是我的身体，将为你们而牺牲』5」。
另一方面，《致希伯来人书》使人想起的，是当时早已流行的另一派十字架神学。这派神学固然也承认十字架的拯救功能，却更侧重十字架给耶稣带来的痛苦。这神学最早见于《宗徒大事录》所记载有关圣伯多禄的两次宣讲中。第一次于圣神降临后所作的首次宣讲，其中一段说：「祂照天主已定的计划和预知，被交付了；你们藉着不法者的手，钉祂在十字架上，杀死了祂；天主却解除了祂死亡的苦痛，使祂复活了，因为祂不能受死亡的控制」(宗2:23-24)。第二次是圣伯多禄上圣殿祈祷时治好胎生瘸子后，在圣殿的「撒罗满廊」下，向百姓的讲话，其中一段宗徒长这样说：「你们却否认了那圣而且义的人，竟要求把杀人犯，恩赐给你们，反而杀害了生命之原；天主却从死者中复活了祂，我们就是这事的见证人」(宗3:15)。
以上两段经文都很清楚显示出，十字架固然是天主救世计划的一部份。然而，其中却含有对立思想：并非天主把耶稣钉死在十字架上，是人类的罪把祂耶稣钉死在十字架上。但最后胜利仍然属于天主，因为天主从死者中复活了耶稣。易言之，十字架来自败坏的人类；复活则是天主战胜败坏的人类的工作的一个凯旋式答覆。
大家会发现，此处涉及来自同一的事实，彼此对立，却并不互相矛盾的两种神学思想。让我们详细解说一下，十字架和耶稣的死并非天主的意愿，而是人的败坏和罪所引致，因此并非好事，绝对没可能受到光荣。然而，这一切却成为天主的救世计划。天主怎样行动呢？天主选择了一个人类永远无法想像和理解的方法，祂没有以奇迹消灭败坏的世人和他们的罪，而是在祂的独生子的合作下，以自己的大能，把这一切加以利用，成为祂的救世计划。易言之，天主从恶中生出善，以复活克制死亡。从这角度看，我们可以说天主是十字架事件的主事者。也是在这情况下，亦只有在这情况下，我们才可以说，因为耶稣甘愿接受十字架，于是使十字架，原本是罪恶和失败的记号，变成救恩的记号6。
对于十字架所代表的这种双重思想，圣保禄宗徒在其《致格林多人前书》第一章18-25节发挥得淋漓尽致，谨把整段经文引载于下：
「原来十字架的道理，为丧亡的人是愚妄，为我们得救的人却是天主的德能，因为经上记载：『我要摧毁智者的智慧，废除贤者的聪明』。智者在那里？经师在那里？这世代的诡辩者又在那里？天主岂不是使这上的智慧变成了愚妄吗？因为世人没有凭自己的智慧，认识天主，天主遂以自己的智慧，决意以愚妄道理来拯救那些相信的人。的确，犹太人要求的是神迹，希腊人寻求的是智慧，而我们所宣讲的，却是被钉在十字架上的基督；这为犹太人固然是绊脚石，为外邦人是愚妄，但为那些那些蒙召的，不拘是犹太人或希腊人，基督却是天主的德能和天主的智慧：因为天主的愚妄总比人明智，天主的懦弱总比人坚强」(格前1: 18-25)。
如果圣保禄所说的都是真实的：「天主的愚妄总比人明智，天主的懦弱总比人坚强」。那么，我们可以肯定的再加一句，「天主的丑陋比人的美更美」。易言之，十字架的美所代表的，是一种「皈正」─convertito─的美。因为十字架迫使我们从新再思索何谓美，改变我们对美的观念，最后令我们以天主的美为美，由是产生「基督信仰的美」：Christian beauty，这美要求人能够领悟十字架的意义，也就是领悟因爱而受苦的意义。谁若真正做到这一点，最终将如云白沙，以其「神学美学」思想饮誉当代天主教神学界的神学家所说的，再也无法忍受世俗的美而将其拋弃7。
事实上，教会从一开始，就指出依撒尔亚先知书中有关「上主的仆人」的四端言论(52:13-53:12)均指向耶稣的苦难，视这四端言论为耶稣的苦难的预言9，这从教会直到今日，仍然在每年圣周五以这几端经文作为第一篇读经一事可见一斑。让我们看看其中一段：「他没有俊美，也没有华丽，可使我们瞻仰，他没有仪容，可使我们恋慕」(依53:2)。
正因为这样，怪不得圣奥思定说，并非因为美，故令人欣喜，而是因为令人欣喜，所以美9。故此当我们说，被人钉在十字架上的耶稣是天主的「美」的最极致的启示时，这句话最重要想指出，由于天主无限超越人，所以我们永远不能亦无法将天主套入人对美的观念中。易言之，天主并非因为与一个高于祂的美的观念相吻合，而被称为美。恰好相反，正因为天主是天主，是至高无上、至善、至美的神，所以美。即是说，天主是一切美的事物、一切有关美的观念的基础和标准，因此是我们要向天主学习何谓美，而非反过来要天主配合我们对美的要求10。亦是基于这原因，教会的教父，特别是圣奥思定，虽然绝对理解认同十字架的凶残和血腥，却仍然坚持它是最美的11。

2. 十字架事件是复活事件的开始：十字架上的死原来是生命
耶稣的死于十字架上并非整个事件的终结，正如我们在前面提过，并非天主把耶稣钉死在十字架上，虽然人类的罪把耶稣钉死在十字架上，但最后胜利却属于天主，因为天主从死者中复活了耶稣。所以耶稣的死于十字架上是另一个事件──祂的复活事件──的开始。换句话说，耶稣的复活才是祂死在十字架上这事的完成，所以十字架不只是死在十字架上的耶稣的十字架，也是复活的基督的十字架。这表示耶稣基督的十字架从今以后将成为生命的记号：把人带入生命中。每一个人都要忍受自己的死，耶稣基督所忍受的死却是为了要让我们获得生命，祂为了人类的罪忍受死亡，自愿被钉死在十字架上以消灭人类的罪。为了这原故，基督从死者中复活这事件向我们展示了一个事实：十字架上的死原来是生命。
更具体地说，十字架上的死其实是天主的生命和为活于天主内，就如圣保禄宗徒在《致格林多人后书》和《致罗马人书》中所说的：「祂虽然由于软弱而被钉在十字架上，却由于天主的德能仍然活着」(格后13:4)；「因为祂死，是死于罪恶，仅仅一次；祂活，是活于天主」(罗6:10)。因此可以说，复活一事同时完成和展现隐藏于耶稣基督的十字架内的两种神秘力量：生命的力量和爱的力量，特别这爱的力量，它大得足以使耶稣甘愿服从天父而背负起别人的罪并接受死亡。怪不得当代着名圣经学者史耐 (Heinrich Schlier)，耶稣被钉在十字架上的死，其实是通向生命的入口12。
耶稣被钉在十字架上的死，不但成为通向生命的入口，耶稣基督的复活更从此彻底改变了人类的命运。因为天主圣父正是在这位因为爱而自愿接受十字架的耶稣基督内，赐给人类悔改和罪赦的大恩，让我们听听圣伯多禄怎样代表众宗徒在犹太人的公会议中的答辩：「我们祖先的天主复活了你们下毒手悬在木架上的耶稣。天主以佑手举扬了祂，叫祂做首领和救主，为赐给以色列人悔改和罪赦，我们就是这些事的证人」(宗5:30-31)。
若把上面圣伯多禄的话和另一段经文一起看，有关思想会更明显。圣保禄宗徒在《致格林多人前书》中有一段说：「如果基督没有复活，你们的信仰便是假的，你们还是在罪恶中」(格前15:17)。可是我们知道耶稣基督已经从死者中复活，所以祂的十字架的确给人类带来「和好」：”riconciliazione”(罗5:10；格后5:18等)；「成义」：”giustificazione”(宗13:39；16:18；罗4:25； 5:9等)和「圣化」：”santificazione”(格前1:30；哥1:21等)。易言之，由于被钉在十字架上并且复活的耶稣基督把人的罪背负在自己肩上，所以谁相信祂，现在就可以拥有和过一个「得救」、「成义」和「圣化」的生命和生活，即是一个真真正正的生命和生活13。因为藉着信德和圣洗圣事，即藉着恩宠，这些人已经以一种奥秘神妙的方式和耶稣基督在一起，一如圣保禄在其《致厄弗所人书》所写的14。
天主藉着复活的基督战胜死亡，而且是以一个出乎人意料之外的方法，祂先把自己的生命交出而获胜，并透过这胜利传递一个喜讯：谁因为爱而献出生命，将会获得生命15。事实上，使人获救，即从此不再受邪恶的控制并把人被提升至天主子女的地位的，是耶稣的十字架而非其他任何事物。而耶稣的十字架的「本质」(sostanza) 是「爱」而不是「痛苦」。正因为这样，人类的最终结局是生活在爱中而不是生活在痛苦中16。

结论
我们透过分析《致希伯来人书》和《若望福音》两段相关经文，向大家介绍了新约圣经中，有关十字架的两种彼此相异，但又互相补足的十字架神学思想。十字架和耶稣的死并非天主的意愿，而是人的败坏和罪所引致，绝对不是好事。然而，这十字架却成为天主的救世工具。十字架使我们看到，当天主面对世人的罪时，祂没有以奇迹消灭这罪和败坏的人，却是交出自己的独生子，并以自己的大能，把这一切加以利用，成为祂的救世计划。换句话说，天主从恶中生出善，以复活战胜死亡，十字架上的死原来是生命。正因为这样，基督信仰视被人钉在十字架上的耶稣是天主的「美」的最极致的启示。亦由此产生「基督信仰的美」：Christian beauty，这美要求世人能够领悟十字架的意义，也就是明白因为爱别人而甘愿受苦的含意。
「基督信仰的美」对当代人还有意义吗？教宗本笃十六世在其就职弥撒的讲道中，向大家解释他所接受的Pallium：「白羊毛披肩」的意义时有一段话，可以给这问题提供一个很好的答案。教宗首先指出，有多少次我们希望天主能显示祂的威能力量，希望祂用严厉的方法将世上一切邪恶、不义、灾祸、战乱等不好事物连根拔起，彻底消灭，使世界可以更美好。事实上今日社会上正充斥着这种思想和做法，将一切被认为对人类的发展和自由构成障碍的，不论什么，都全部铲除。教宗继续说，的确，天主对人的容忍让我们吃苦，但同时我们也明白，我们需要的，亦正是天主的容忍。成为羔羊的天主告诉我们，拯救这世界的是被钉在十字架的那位，而不是把祂钉在十字架上的那些人。这世界因为天主的容忍而得救，却因为人的缺乏容忍而毁灭17。
作为基督徒，我们更清楚知道，天主之所以容忍我们，耶稣基督之所以甘愿接受十字架极刑，忍受极大的痛苦，最后为我们而死，完全因为祂爱我们。在这世界上，唯一可以消除人与人之间、种族与种族之间、国与国之间的仇恨，建立和平的是爱，而不是权力。易言之，无论那一个世代，包括当代，唯一可以拯救我们的世界的是爱，而不是权力。这思想在教会内自耶稣基督，到宗徒，到今日的教宗，代代相传，永不改变。
最后，谨以常年期第十四周星期五的晨祷的读经总结整篇文字，该篇读经选自圣保禄宗徒的《致厄弗所人书》第二章十三至十六节：
「但是现今在基督耶稣内，你们从前远离天主的人，藉着基督的血，成为亲近的了。因为基督是我们的和平，他使双方合而为一；他以自己的肉身，拆毁了中间阻隔的墙壁，就是双方的仇恨，并废除了由规条命令所组成的法律，为把双方在自己身上造成一个新人，而成就和平。他以十字架诛灭了仇恨，也以十字架使双方合成一体，与天主和好」。
十字架有这么大的力量，因为十字架的力量就是爱的力量，于是大家不难明白为何德藉神学家罗万隆．葛丁尼（Romano Guardini）就天主教会的十字圣号(the Sign of the Cross) 的意义，有这么美丽的描述：
「当我们给自己划十字的时候，要划一个真正的十字，而不是做一个完全看不出意义的不经意的动作。让我们从从容容地划一个大大的十字圣号，从前额到胸口，从一边肩头到另一边肩头，好让自己意识到这十字圣号把我们整个人都包在里面，即是把我们的思想、我们的态度、我们的身体及我们的灵魂，我们的每一部份都包围着，并意识到这十字圣号如何圣化我们。十字圣号之有如此能力，因为这是宇宙的记号和我们得救的记号 [...…]，是一切记号中最神圣的一个」。18
当然也是最美的一个！

1.我们参照一般外文书籍的做法以基督徒─Christians─指所有信仰基督的人，特别指天主教友。参看海侻令着，王维贤译，《天主教史》上册，台南\香港　征祥出版社　香港公教真理学会联合出版　1965　13页。

2.朱光潜著，《谈美》，台北　国际少年村　2000　147-148页。

3.本文主要思想来自以下作品: von Balthasar, Hans Urs, La percezione della forma. Introductione e traduzione di Giuseppe Ruggieri. Volume uno: Gloria. Una estetica teologica. Milano: Jaca Book, 1994, seconda ristampa; Convegni sull' di sant' Agostino. Anno accademico 2003-2004. Agostino testimone della Tradizione 《Haec et mea fides est, qando haec est catholica fides》 (De Trinitate I,4,7). Terza lezione Marted?, 23 marzo 2004. Aula E ﹣ palazzo del Bo, Padova. Appunti presi e ordinati dagli studenti. Supplmento al numero di aprile 2004 di 30Giorni. Roma: 30Giorni nella Chiesa e nel mondo 2004; Farley, Edward, Faith and beauty: a theological aesthetics. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2001; Gozzelino, Giorgio, Dio e i mali del mondo = Collana Mondo Nuovo 225. Torino: Editrice Elledici, 2004; Guardini, Romano, Sacred Signs, translated by Grace Branham. St. Louis: Pio Decimo Press, 1956; 《La Chiesa  viva 》, Omelia pronunciata dal nuovo pontefice Domenica 24 aprile 2005 per l’inizio del suo ministero petrino, Potenza e  di Dio, anno XLII, n. 2 (2005 aprile-maggio-giugno) pp.3-8; Navone, John J., Toward a Theology of Beauty. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996; Schlier, Heinrich, Sulla risurrezione di Cristo. Prefazione del cardinale Joseph Ratzinger. Titolo originale dell’opera:  die Auferstehung Jesu Christi, 1968 Johannes Verlag ﹣ Einsiedeln. Traduzione di Lorenzo Cappelletti. Brescia, Morcelliana Quinta edizione riveduta: gennaio, 2005; Stefani, Piero, 《Di fronte al dolore. La consolazione della bellezza》, Il  (12/2004) p.436; Viladesau, Richard, 《Estetica teologica. La bellezza e la Croce》, Il (12/2004) pp.428-435.
另本文所用略语如下：CCL = Corpus Christianorum, series latina (Turnholti 1953ss); PL = Migne Jean Paul, Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina. Parisiis: 1844-1864.

4.为方便大家，谨把若12:20-33整段经文引载于后：「那时候，在那些上来过节，崇拜天主的人中，有些希腊人。他们来到加里肋亚贝特赛达人斐理伯前，请求他说：『先生！我们愿拜见耶稣』。斐理伯就去见安德肋，然后安德肋和斐理伯便来告诉耶稣。耶稣开口向他们说：『人子要受光荣的时辰度到了。我实实在在告诉你们：一粒麦子不落在地里死了，仍只是一粒；如果死了，纔结出许多子粒来。爱惜自己性命的，必要丧失性命；在现世憎恨自己承性命的，必要保存性名入于永生。谁若事奉我，就当跟随我；如此，我在那里，我的仆人也要在那里；谁若事奉我，我父别你要尊重他。现在我心神烦乱，我可说什么呢？我说：父阿！救我脱离这时辰罢！但正是为此，我纔到了这时辰。父阿！光荣您的名罢』。当时有声音来自天上：『我已光荣了我的名，我还要光荣』。在场听见的群众便说，『这是打雷』。另有人说：『是天使同他说话』。耶稣回答说：『这声音不是为我而来，而是为你们。现在就是这世界应受审判的时候，现在这世界的元首就要被赶出去；至于我，当我从地上被举起来时，便要吸引众人来归向我』。祂说这话，是表明她是以怎样的死而死」。

5.见中国主教团礼仪委员会编译，《信友弥撒经书》，香港　真理学会出版　第五版1989年　第75号。

6.参看 Viladesau, 《Estetica teologica. La bellezza e la Croce》. pp.428-430.

7.参阅 von Balthasar, Gloria. p.109: 《E tutto che, per un’estetica mondana [...], viene scartato come non  sopportabile》; Viladesau, 《Estetica teologica. La bellezza e la Croce》. p.430。关于云氏「神学美学」的思想，以下是部份资料：Brown, F.B., Religious aesthetics: a theological study of making and meaning. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989; Elkins, W.W., 《Passion, Drama and Identity: Aidan Nichols on von Balthasar’s Theodrama》, Reviews in Religion and Theology (2001/1) pp.10-14; van Erp, S., The Art of Theology. Hans Urs von Balthasar's Theological Aesthetics And The Foundations Of Faith = Studies in Philosophical Theology 25. Leuven: Peeters, 2004; McGregor, B. and Norris, T. (eds.), The Beauty of Christ, an introduction to the Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994; McIntosh, M.A., Christology From Within, Spirituality and the Incarnation in Hans Urs von Balthasar. London: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000; Nicholas, A., No Bloodless Myth. A guide Through Balthasar’s Dramatics. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000; Nicholsa, Aidan, OP, The Word Has Been Abroad. A Guide Through Balthasar’s Aesthetics. Introduction to Hans Urs von Balthasar. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998; Riches, J. (ed.), The Analogy of Beauty: The Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986)等.

8.关于这一点请参看 Brown, R.E., The Death of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

9.Saint Augustine of Hippo, De vera religione 32,59 = CCL XXXII,.p.226.

10.参看 Viladesau, 《Estetica teologica. La bellezza e la Croce》. p.431.

11.这思想见于圣人多处作品中，例如In Psalmum XLIII Enarratio. Sermo ad plebem = CCL XXXVIII; In Psalmum XLIV Enarratio. = CCL XXXVIII.

12.参看 Schlier, Heinrich, Sulla risurrezione di Cristo. pp.55-59.

13.参看 Schlier, H., Sulla risurrezione di Cristo. pp.69-70.

14.弗2:4-9：「然而富于慈悲的天主，因着祂对我们的大爱，竟在我们因过犯死了的时候，使我们同基督一起生活──可见你们得救，是由于恩宠──且使我们同祂一起生活，在基督耶稣内使我们和祂一同坐在天上，为将自己无限丰富的恩宠，即祂在基督耶稣内，对我们所怀的慈惠，显示给未来的世代。因为你们得救是由于恩宠，藉着信德，所以得救并不是出于你们自己，而是天主的恩惠，不是出于功德，免得有又自夸」。另请参看罗6:1；哥2:12；3:1等章节。

15.参看 Schlier, Sulla risurrezione di Cristo. pp.62-63.

16.参看Gozzelino, Giorgio, Dio e i mali del mondo. p.32.

17.参看“La Chiesa  viva“. p.6.

18.“When we cross ourselves, let it be with a real sign of the cross. Instead of a small cramped gesture that gives no notion of its meaning, let us make a large, unhurried sign, from forehead to breast, from shoulder to shoulder, consciously feeling how it includes the whole of us, our thoughts, our attitudes, our body and soul, every part of us at once, how it consecrates and sanctifies us. It does so because it is the sign of the universe and the sign of our redemption. […]. It is the holiest of all signs”: Guardini, R, Sacred Signs, translated by Branham, Grace. St. Louis: Pio Decimo Press, 1956, 13f. 另请参看Adam, Adolf, The Eucharist Celebration: The Source and Summit of Faith, translated by Schultz, R.C. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1994, pp.20-21.

作者：韩大辉

导言
人生在世，总有所求，只是层次不同，因人而异。后现代有两种特色，不断影响人的追求。一是相对主义，二是虚无主义。相对主义使社会多元、容忍度大，但也使人迷失，因为已没有甚么标准或真理可言。虚无主义，更使人患得患失，生活何用之有？后现代反映人类文明陷入停滞迷惘，但物质生活却日新月异，毫不成比例地高速发展，结果人的追求容易变成一面倒地以物欲为中心，而忽略了精神的追求。的确，人的心灵深处，遗留下了一个急待弥补的空虚。
人的文化并非只局限后现代，还有很多经年累月所积聚的人生智慧，而这些智慧正通过「经典」代代相传。原创文化研讨会也基于此信念，致力研究「经典」，最终要智慧再充实人生。
无可置疑，世界文化从基督徒的经典中积聚很多人生智慧，圣经尤其是这些经典的泉源。本文要介绍的是在十二世纪欧洲的一些有识之士如何从圣经中发掘人生智慧，而他们的作品也成为基督徒世界的经典。由于篇幅所限，这里只焦点集中在一个作者 Rupert of Deutz（卢柏1076﹣ 1129）身上，由此而举一反三，尝试一窥全貌。

1. 十二世纪的背景
欧洲在1050﹣1170之间，有很多变动，不论宗教、政治、经济、法制、科学、教育、文学、建筑等都有长足进步。学者按不同角度对这时期予以命名，例如称之为「十二世纪文艺复兴」（Haskin），「额我略的改革」（Fliche），「商业革命」（Lopez），「欧洲的异见起源」（Moore），「摩登世代」（Gilson的saeculum modernorum）等1。
在圣经和神学方面的研究，这显着地是丰收期，「显着」，因为在嘉禄皇朝没落之后150年来，几乎没有甚么新创作。正在此时，一颗明星在划过十二世纪的长空，他就是Rupert。他和很多大师齐名2。当今学者给他不同的称号：「神秘论者」(Grabmann)、「象征学大师」(Chenu, Dempf)、「寺院神学典范」(Lerclercq)、「经院思维前驱」(Beumer)、「圣经大儒」(Van Engen)3，企图将其贡献能一言敝之，可是每位学者只能强调 Rupert 其中一个强点。

2. Rupert 生平简介
在1076年，Rupert 生于附近的贫农之家，大概在七岁时，由父母送往本笃会着名的圣劳伦隐修院（abbey of St Lawrence）。
在十二世纪是由主教管辖的重要城市。当时的主教是 Henry 亨利皇朝的重臣，城内的 St Lambert 主教大堂，非常宏伟，在 Rupert 有生之年，Henry IV 皇帝埋藏于此，尚末登机的 Henry V在此被封为骑士。在1075年在 Cologne 城之后成为第一个大都会，统管 Lotharingia 和整个日尔曼帝国中心。
当时皇帝 Henry IV 与教宗 Gregory VII 不和，Henry 认为高级神职教士既有国家统治权，其权力须由在俗的君王或诸候所授予或剥夺，在这情况下，很多教士都变成政客，甚至其中不少人趁机以金钱贩卖神职以获实权，而Gregory 则称教士都须效忠基督而非俗世权力，因此，教士的权力最终源于基督在世代表──教宗。Henry不从，Gregory 施予绝罚，革除其教藉，并辖免 Henry属下对其效忠誓愿，而 Henry 则进军罗马迫宫，甚至另立伪教宗。
很自然地成为两个权力所争之地。虽然主教是属皇朝重臣，但教宗 Gregory VII 前身是本笃会隐修士 Benedictine monk，对教会持有崇高理想，不愿见到教会腐败，便立心改革，于是他便发动隐修院 Monastery 的力量，自然包括的隐修院。为此，St Lawrence 也成为对立属于皇朝的教区。
St Lawrence 隐修院则竖立在最高的山丘（Mons Publicanus）之上。其实，隐修院在十二世纪已发展成一种管理大型社区的组织，类似一个城堡，在其四周拥有不少劳动人口和田地，照顾居民的宗教生活，也推行教育、耕种和营商、训练教学和管理人才等。在政治及宗教上具有举足轻重的地位，而且成为当时欧洲文化的主要推动力4，当然也成为 Gregory 革新的阵营。
按当时习俗，父母不论贵贱都可将自己的儿子奉献出来，称为「献子」oblate交给隐修院，以承行神的旨意。当然，并非每个父母都有此崇高意向，其中不少是因为儿子在修院中，至少有稳定的生活，说不定也许有机会熬出头来。隐修院方面，也是需要有新人来补充，由于隐修士都要独身，没有自己的家庭，那么隐修院本身就成为一个大家族，到了人口充足之时，便再分巢，另设分院，当分院成熟后，自己又变成母院，在另处再设分院，如此类推。虽然，每个隐修院在行政上都是独立的，但大家都以圣本笃的会规为生活的蓝本，故此，在制度和精神上大家是一致的。
自1077至1092年，St Lawrence 隐修院在院牧 Abbot Berengar 的领导下，整个修道精神大大提高。当时学风盛行，远自英伦、诺曼弟、西班牙和波哈米亚的学子都前来进修，修院内的图书馆也是饮誉欧洲，再者卢柏在其成长期有大师级的人物如 Heriband 院牧等所教导，Rupert 本人天资聪敏、悟性极高、受人器重。
可是，好景不常。皇帝 Henry IV 享利坚持要控制所有神职人员，罗马教会尤以教宗 Gregory VII 额我略不允，并坚持改革，而是皇帝的管辖地，在那里的主教，一方面要听从于皇帝，在教会内又要服从教宗。于是皇帝千方百计笼络主教。在1091年 Otbert 因投靠皇帝并到处行贿而夺得主教职，当时整个地区只有 St Hubert 和 St Lawrence两间隐修院坚站在教宗改革的立场上，Otbert权势重大，在1092年下令 Berengar 院牧退位，而任命亲皇人士，Berengar只得带领忠心的修士逃难，结果过了三年半的充军生活之后，经当时公爵 Godfrey of Bouillon 调停，他们才能返回 St Lawrence 修院。Rupert 对这事耿耿于怀，不能接受其主教贩卖神职和逆命教宗的行为，不愿在他手上领受司铎品位。
Rupert 认为若没有上天的恩赐，人难以达到智慧。后来在他的自白书中，他提到上天特别对他眷顾，有过一些神秘经验，也因此而经历深度的皈依。其实，在1075﹣1125年间很多着名的宗教人物都有谈到自己的皈依5，这些人的影响力也很大，有时甚至在大批人士会离家然后集体去修道，例如 St Bernard of Clairvaux 一次过就带着30多人去参加较本笃会更严的熙笃会 Cistercians。
那些从孩童期便进修院的人，过着严规的生活，一切的培育在于实践，并无选择可言。有些人根本不适合此类生活，但又怕中途出家，遭人非议，甚或恐怕天主降罪，而失永生，故不敢逃离。修院对那些中规中矩的人，从不过问，遇有行为不羁的，便施予惩罚。
大概在七岁时，Rupert 便在隐修院成长，虽非口衔银匙羹出世，但稚嫩的双手确由「祭台」布所包，每天的生活按高超的宗教理想，接受安排，而非选择。有时他也觉得生活苦闷，天主给他特别的安慰6。不过最令他难忘的是他在1100年9月20日，圣史玛窦瞻礼前夕，他得了一个神视，觉得自己8年之后便会逝世。于是他热心准备了8年，奉上热切祈祷和眼泪。时期到了，他却没有离世，感到有点懊恼。1108年他在圣灰礼仪日上得了一个神妙的异像。他感到胸前涌出金色的液体，满溢泻地，而他心里仍想着死后的审判，此时他听到基督的召唤，要他到惯常祈祷的十字架前，那里救主在十字架上竟深情地亲吻了他。由此，他感到天主召唤他进入一个新的境界，更深入地领会基督的奥迹。终于他愿接受司铎品位，大概在1108年将临期第四个主日领受铎品。在30天之后他又得到非常的神视，觉得自己从圣神那里得到明达之恩（gift of understanding），被召成为作家7。
从此，他致力写作，将他在圣经所寻得的智慧，与人分享。他的作品有百分之九十五以上是取材圣经，在写作时，他针对当时的环境而执笔。首先，他想巩固隐修生活，在他的《论礼赞》De divinis officiis 他诠译了隐修士的精神生活之所在。可是，最代表他思想系统的着作，要以《论圣三及其工程》De sancta Trinitate et operibus eius 为至重要。在信理方面，他不能附和当时一些学者的看法，尤其在圣体圣事、恶和预定论、教会的革新等问题。在治学方面，他也严厉批评那些只管以逻辑、七艺和俗世哲学等方式去推理，而疏忽耶稣在十字架上所显示的智慧。
于1119年 Rupert 被任命为 Deutz 修院的院牧，可是生活并不容易，除了应付神学上的争论外，他仍处身在皇帝和教宗的纷争中。在1129年，他开始执笔写《死亡的默想》，就在那年三月四日，他突然患病身亡，被埋葬在 Deutz 修院内的 St Michael 圣堂内。

3. 圣经灵阅 Lectio Divina 的涵意
在 Rupert 的培育过程中肯定接触很多教父着作8。在二至八世纪，他们要努力带动教友将基督的福音融入社会文化，故此在研读圣经时，不论为讲道或注释，都着重当时罗马的所谓的自由七艺 seven liberal arts 或文学技巧9。当然，他们的生命观是以圣经为对照，而非其他学问。
早在圣本笃（St Benedict +550）的时期，Lectio 是指读出一段圣经的文字，所以与 Sacra Pagina 或 Sacra Scriptura（圣经）是可以互用的。教宗大额我略（Gregory I +604）自幼接受这种熏陶，将「灵阅」描写为「一个朝圣的旅程，走入心灵最内在之处，达致最圆融的静境，超出一切形象之外，为寻找那『心爱者』的面容」10。为能超出一切形象之外，「灵阅」第一个目标是明瞭文字的意义，其后就是与活生生天主圣言的接触，如圣热罗尼莫（St Jerome +419）所说，「圣言是超出一切先知、宗徒、甚至福音之上，要达到那里，就需要有白鸽的翅膀（圣神的扶助），在朝向圣言走时，是他使人内心『激烈如火』。」（德48:1）11因此，从较高的层次来说，由于每句圣经的说话都是指向耶稣基督，衪是活生生的真理和天主圣言，所以 lectio是读出一段圣经的文字，为能聆听和接触天主的圣言。
奥思定和额我略一世的释经模式对整个中世纪都有莫大影响12。Rupert 本人将之分为文字意义和属灵意义。这两个意义建立在启示的天主上，意谓天主在世留下其工程，让人意识而写在经上，但这些工程的记录就成为文字意义的基础，工程的背后是天主本身，为此，关乎天主本身的就成为属灵意义的泉源。
与 Rupert 同期的人都先以研究圣咏和书信为主，可是Rupert 却勇敢地从若望福音开始，当然奥思定写过若望的道理，可说是七百年来没有任何作者敢再写。Rupert 形容奥思定在树上摘果子，自己在地上检余下的。其后，他个人的着作几乎全部以圣经诠释为主，但并非如一般经院学者，将按圣经章节作诠释 gloss 或讲解 lectures，也非如一般隐修大师以圣经为题材的讲道 sermons，然后将之结集成书。他的着作是有主题的，类似神学集成的格式。
在隐修院内的 lectio，是指读圣经的简称。当时圣经并非人手一本，往往是用手写在羊皮纸上，每年的四旬期圣灰礼仪日上，各修士由院牧手上恭恭敬敬地取得圣经中某部分，福音、书信或圣咏集等，当作天主的圣言，在那一年内作灵阅，翌年要交回，再取另一部分，修士在那一年，通常都勉力背诵经上的话，直到啷啷上口为止，因为日后可能再没有机会接触那经卷了。当然，最重要的理由，经上记载的是天主的话语，「譬如雨和雪从天降下，不再返回原处，只有灌溉田地，使之生长萌芽，偿还播种者种子，供给吃饭者食粮；同样，从我口中发出的言语，不能空空地回到我这里来；反之，它必实行我的旨意，完成我派遣它的使命。」（依55:10-11）。现在，隐修士在个人的生活上将之恭恭敬敬地读出来，就像天主的话要实现出来。
由于 lectio 是使天主的话语得以实现，当然是着重读经的态度，divina 正好要指出读经的那种「灵性」的幅度，这是指以一种虔敬的心灵、深厚的谦逊、热切的爱德、清逸的神韵、淡泊的静境、豁达的风骨、高远的憧憬，细阅圣经上的一段文字，涵泳其中意境，渐渐将自我的固执拋开，让圣神，随着天地的气息轻轻飘入自己的内腑。在那里，人达致和谐境界，内忘其心，外忘其形，苍空无云，静水无波，融入宇宙本体，与神契合，神在我内，我在神内。这些都是十二世纪本笃会隐修院作「灵阅」的特色。

4. 理性和信仰
在十二世纪新、旧意识的交替中，当时有两种领导潮流的神学思想，影响了整个时期，特别在1075-1224之间。近代学者称之为学院神学 Theology of the Schools，后期演化为经院神学 scholastic theology 和寺院神学 Theology of the Cloisters 后期演化为隐修神学 Monastic Theology，它们代表了两种不同的社会生活型态和两种探讨同一「启示」的方法。
学院神学的学者很多是有本笃会的背景，不过他们在阅读圣经方面是着重理性分析、探索批判的价值，并将其结果，用作教学的材料。他们从阅读圣经 lectio 开始，引申为对圣经的探索 quaestio 和讨论 disputatio，然后将解决了的疑难记录下来作教学之用（lectio，英文是lecture）。例如：Anselm of Laon（+1117）和 Peter Abelard（+1114），他们都是隐修士，擅用一些早期希腊哲学的逻辑和辩证法寻求出圣经文字中所隐藏着的奥义13。
寺院派则认为圣经既盛载天主的圣言，该受到尊重、奉香、作为祈祷之用，并非拿来随便分析，或将变成课堂的教学材料，所以，有些人却不认同学院派的做法。在阅读圣经方面，寺院神学的重点是放在灵性和默想方面。一些大师如：Rupert of Deutz，St Bernard of Clairvaux（+1153），William of St Thierry（+1148）等，写了很多着作都是他们做圣经灵阅的结果14。
两种神学的分别并非在于应用文学技巧与否，而是两种心态，学院派偏重理性，寺院派偏重信仰。学院神学认为真理只有一个，启示与理智皆导人向真理。当遇上隐晦难明的圣经文字时，理智就该以思维的法则将之破解。
这并非是说寺院神学根本就不屑用这种思维法则，因为大家都承认人有理智是因为人按天主的肖像而受造，不过文学技巧只可成为「智慧」的婢女，他们对所谓「人文学科」都有很深的瞭解和应用。有关这点，Rupert在1117年曾前往 Laon 要和 Anselm 理论，可惜他到步时，Anselm 刚刚死去。
天主圣言是由圣经传留下来，并在礼仪中得到敬重和活化，在学院则着重学术的整理和牧民的应用，在寺院内隐修士们比较专注于祈祷和默观的生活，两者都以有系统的方法去研读圣经的文字。
Rupert 非常尊重和爱护圣经。这里要谈两个缘由。一是他的个人神秘经验。上文已提过他梦见三个人代表天主圣三将他放在代表圣经的书卷上，这梦使他意识自己对圣经拥有明达之恩。他较其他大师更看重圣经，认为隐修生活的最大特色就是读圣经，尤其圣经灵阅 lectio divina。另一个理由，他认为人的提升在于寻得上天的智慧，那只有在圣经内才可找到。当时，他已觉得人们对读圣经的态度有所改变，过份着重理性的推敲。此举不利寻找圣召。
这种改变其实反映信仰和理性之间的张力，其实，这张力从宗徒时代开始，如：十字架的智慧和俗世的智慧，后来，在教父的着作中一直反映出来15，到了 Rupert 的年代已有些院牧抱怨一些年轻修士对人文学科过份重视，人文学科固然重要，但始终是工具，并非智慧本身。
于是 Rupert 用了耶稣在井边和来打水的妇人的对白来比喻耶稣的活水和妇人的井水之分别。
「于是到了撒玛黎雅的一座城，名叫息哈尔，靠近雅各伯给他的儿子若瑟的庄田，在那里有『雅各伯泉』。耶稣因行路疲倦，就顺便坐在泉傍；那时，大约是第六时辰。有一个撒玛黎雅妇女来汲水，耶稣向她说：『请给我点水喝！』那时，祂的门徒已往城里买食物去了。那撒玛黎雅妇女就回答说：『你既是个犹太人，怎么向我一个撒玛黎雅妇人要水喝呢？』原来，犹太人和撒玛黎雅人不相往来。耶稣回答她说：『若是你知道天主的恩赐，并知道向你说：给我水喝的人是谁，你或许早求了他，而他也早赐给了你活水。』那妇女问说：『先生，你连汲水器也没有，而井又深，你从那里得那活水呢？难道你比我们的祖先雅各伯还大吗？他留给了我们这口井，他和他的子孙以及他的牲畜，都曾喝过这井里的水。』耶稣回答说：『凡喝这水的，还要再渴；但谁若喝了我赐与他的水，他将永远不渴；并且我赐给他的水，将在他内成为涌到永生的水泉。』」（若4:5-14）
这井水于活水来说当然一文不值，但井水的价值在于能向耶稣换取真正的活水16。这种思维为后来的经院神学铺路。圣经是启示的记载，神学是对这记载的瞭解，哲学是神学的辅助（神学婢女 ancilla theologiae）。圣经的真理由天主去保证，天主出示的保证有先知，但最大的还是耶稣本人。虽然圣经真理已超出人的理性来瞭解，但人可勉力推展其理性张力，以增加其瞭解的阔度，哲学是推展理性的工具，但理性的推展在于坚强信仰。
有关神的一部分真理固然是人理性范围内可以瞭解，但另一些真理若非神以非凡的方式启示出来，人的理性是无法拿捏。再加上人在原罪的影响之下，其理性更难于领受神的真理。为此，人们要达至真理非得经历一番辛劳不可。「你一生日日劳苦才能得到吃食。」创3:17。不经一番寒澈骨，那得梅花扑鼻香。

5. 圣经灵阅和智慧
人生有许多超乎形象之外的真理，往往只能意会，难以言喻，言有尽而意无穷，能领悟这些真理并能将之活出，便是智慧。换言之，智慧的产生，全凭人心里澄澈的妙悟。Rupert 认为最高的智慧系于天主，愈认识天主，愈有智慧。
可是，认识天主和认识世物不同，前者是无限、绝对和一般感官触及不到的精神，后者则是有限、相对和感官可触及得到的物质。人由于既有精神（灵魂）和物质（肉身），那么认识天主也有两种可能性，第一种是在以自己的精神官能进入天主内认识祂 cognoscitur exsemetipso，第二种是通过天主的工程（即可见之物）认识祂 cognoscitur ex operibus17。前者是直接的，后者是间接的。只有少数被选的人，因天主特殊的恩宠，才获享第一种的知识，因为一般人要应用自己的精神官能（理智），非通过感官不可，只有那些特选的灵魂，因神的提升，才可超出感官，而用精神官能直接与神交往。Rupert承认自己有这种经验，虽然这种认识是局部和霎时间的，但那是非常清晰的。然而，一般人对天主只有第二种的认识，那是模糊不清的。
其实，在保禄书信里，已提过：「我们现在是借着镜子观看，模糊不清，到那时，就要面对面的观看了。」（格前13:12）这面镜子是指世物（包括人本身）、降生的圣言和圣经。这几面镜子有不同的清晰度。在人没有堕落前，人看到世物或作自我反省，很自然会悟到天主的临在，可是人因原罪的影响，即使看到世物和自身，亦不能悟到那惟一的真神，简言之，这本来都是面有效的镜子，但因原罪使人眼目不清，而大幅度地失效。幸好，圣言降生成人──耶稣基督，通过宣讲和奇迹，将天主的真理启示了给人，其中有些人更能亲密地接触降生的圣言，视野变得更为清晰，他们就是那些被选者，尤其是基督的宗徒。毕竟能和耶稣作近接触的人，数目有限，又因为耶稣升天离世，其他人再没有这种机会。幸好祂离开前，要求宗徒要向普天下传扬祂的福音，并应许天天要和他们一起，这样传福音的使命便由教会承担，宗徒先作口传，然后重要的道理写下以作笔传，成为日后所谓的新约经卷，再加上天主在准备圣言降生时，在以色列民中默感了一些人所写成的旧约经卷，两者合成圣经。
严格来说，人无须经过圣经亦可接触到神，「自从天主创世以来，衪那看不见的美善，即衪永远的大能和衪为神的本性，都可凭衪所做的万物，辨认出来，以致无人可推诿」（罗1:20），可是人犯了罪后，他辨认万物，洞悉天主的能力就大大减低，然而「富于慈悲的天主」就决定扭转人类的命运，这是救恩史的关键，衪为了预备圣子的来临而选定了一个民族，在他们身上行了奇事，和他们立了盟约，派遣了先知预告默西亚的来临，耶稣基督就是那默西亚，祂又建立教会团体，要教会宣扬福音。天主在历史上所行事迹，为人所体验得到，圣经其实是一班由天主圣神所默感的人，将这些所体验的事迹写下。
故此，圣经不但记录一切天主的工程18，也成为在世人达至真理的权威性的泉源19，最终包含一切有关天主的奥迹。换言之，圣经并不取消或取代其他「镜子」，而是洗净人的心目，使人恢复辨认万物的能力，最重要的是能洞悉基督的奥迹，再从基督那里受到照明，更能参悟世界和自身的奥秘。圣经内所蕴藏的圣言，并不使人疏离世界或自身，而是转化人心，根据教父们的格言：「与其说圣经写在书卷上，毋宁说首先写在教会的心头上」20。读圣经是将圣言种在心灵上，心上种来心上开。简言之，有了圣经，甚么事情都可以得到照明，「一语天然万古新，豪华落尽见真淳」。

6. 读经和隐修生活
作为本笃会会士 Rupert 甚瞭解隐修生活。这种生活方式建基于圣经，目的是提供人领受救恩的稳妥方法，虽然救恩乃天主白白所赐，但为能承受之，却要完全投入对天主的渴求中，如圣咏所言，渴求见到天主仪容。为此，渴求天主 quaerere Deum 是隐修生活的心态。
由于 Rupert 个人的经验，他甚至视圣经灵阅为隐修生活的最大特色（insigna splendida），因为圣经本身包容了所有基督的奥迹21，虽然教父或同期的大师有其他的主张，如：整全的爱、祈祷、静默或神圣的休息等才是最重要。另一方面，在11世纪，默想圣经愈来愈受重视。基督是降生的圣言，圣经就是圣言的记录。从圣经着手，通过其所描绘的事迹或图像，人可超越世间一切形象，提升到与圣言契合的境界。为此，Rupert 认为真正被选的人（隐修者）须每日以圣体和圣言滋养自己的灵魂。
「君能洗尽尘世念，何处楼台无月明」。这正是隐修士的挑战。首先，他们要「出家」，过独身、清贫和听命的生活，不为所有俗世的关系所系，他们要过清贫的生活，放弃俗世高位的追求，每天勤于修身树德。由于人有惰性和贪念，度这生活的人亦须常常革新 reform。事实上，Rupert 认为革新就是因为人在其生活环境中忘记了天主，因此要净化自己生活的意向，返回到人最原始的召叫和渴求22。隐修士出家只是为生命中腾出更多空间认识天主。他们的圣经灵阅、个人祈祷和日中的静默，就是期待神在他们的思念中浮现出来「水清月影明，心静本体现」。
做好圣经灵阅，须从文字开始，隐修士们自始就要不断接受阅读的训练，当然按各人的能力，先从最基本的发音、文法开始，及至天文、地理、数学、逻辑、古典文学等，当然最重要的还是教父的着作。修士们深信，博学（scientia）能使人开阔视野，进入圣经文字的精髓，向往天上的荣福23。
圣经灵阅不能脱离圣本笃的隐修精神，他认为修道的生活就是学习和实践如何事奉天主24，这理想是透过修士们对长上的服从和兄友弟爱的生活实现出来。他们严格修身的活动是要培育「聆听主言」的心态25，勉力抗拒一切有碍精神生活发展的事，如：好吃懒做、喋喋不休、多管闲事、胡思乱想、忙不过来、好大喜功等26；反之，在修身方面要每日努力，尤其谦抑自己和严守默静27，前者是修爱德的基础，后者是持守天主临在心灵的条件。
每天的生活节奏皆由礼仪唱经来界定，因为礼仪是生活的高峰和泉源，故又称之为天主的工程（Opus Dei）。当人接触到神，惊觉衪的伟大，因而发现自己的渺小，但同时又感到神的垂青，就自然从心底里冒起由衷的敬畏，而教会的礼仪正是透过团体聚会、恭听圣言、仪式、祷文、赞颂、咏唱、标记代表整个教会记念和表达这种人神的关系，而此关系乃由天主在历史中所行的奇事所实现出来。为以色列民，最大的纪念是梅瑟领以民离开埃及，为基督徒，当然是耶稣死而复活的逾越奥迹。隐修士当然明白两者彼此相关连，在所有的礼仪行动中，最隆重的是感恩祭（弥撒），但日中做得最多的是时辰礼赞，又称之为天主的工程 Opus Dei。修士们的生活安排也是随着礼仪年的节令（将临、圣诞、封斋、复活等等）和每日的，演绎成为光荣天主的诗篇。Rupert 在他的《论赞礼》（De Divinis Officiis）一书中就强调了天主的奥秘是如此伟大，它须逐步溶入人间的节令、时辰，让人每年有时间去细味降生、苦难、死亡、复活、升天等奥迹，因此所应用的祷文、读经都企图表达所要庆祝的奥迹。
事实上，从第九到第十二世纪，在本笃会隐修士以圣经、传统的礼仪和教父的着作去编订他们的礼仪和祈祷，他们所辑录下来的礼仪经文和庆典非常丰富。另一角度看，他们的礼仪正好又是教会承传对圣经的诠释。例如：将临期的礼赞选用了很多篇依撒意亚先知书，那么这些片段的诠释亦顺着礼仪的指引用来阐明今日教会期待默西亚的意义。
为此，修士们的圣经灵阅是不能与礼仪分割，而且是彼此互为因果，「灵阅」成了礼仪更新的动力，礼仪将「灵阅」的精髓实现出来。圣经灵阅并不只是个人实践的事，而是被纳入了教会举行礼仪、庆祝圣事的动力内。这表明本笃会会士对天主的首要本份，虽然为了经济的理由，工作是占较多的时间，但绝不可疏忽阅读和礼仪的时间28。
圣经灵阅的作用并不只限于个人的默想和礼仪，而要整合信仰与生活，所以也影响生活上每个重要的成份。事实上，十二世纪的重生并不只标榜人们对生命有强烈的感受，而引发各方面的大跃进，还说明人们阅读圣经时，如何吸纳了其中的智慧而整顿人生、栽植人性。

7. 圣经灵阅的方法
隐修士打开圣经就如蜜蜂进入花园，不可投闲置散，却要气定神闲，不可忙碌杂乱，却要勤奋有恒，停留在花朵上，细心吸取花蜜29。圣经灵阅正好有效的方法，其实它源于远古的传统。骤眼看来是一种读经技巧，因为它着重喃喃背诵、记忆某一段经文，其实它是导人进入奥秘的途径和灵修的泉源，因为它能在那段文字上锤炼心灵，开发人性，扩大心胸，提升境界，将一切都都关连到天主的救恩计划上。作为技巧，这种读法是心性功夫。可是在过程中，圣神会在读者身上潜移默化，洗净尘念，参悟世界，步进高远的静境，促进身心的和谐，充实人格的涵养，感受天人的契合。
第一步称为诵读 lectio。隐修士们已承袭教父的传统，对着圣经一段文字，启动口唇，喃喃诵读，旁人只闻其声，不听其言。奥斯定（Augustine + 430）早已有记载这种做法，这般诵读做自己听到所见的句子，造就一种「内视」的记忆，方法是重复又重复地去背诵一段文字，就像牛进食后不断地反刍 ruminatio，让读者有时间去利用联想，使所读的文字在自己身上产生一种作用，就像闻到香气、听到妙音、看到美景、触到温暖30，渐渐会炽热自己的心灵（参看依55:1-3；耶15:16）。「炽热」正好是将圣经的文字烙在肺腑之内（参看耶31:33；则33:26-27）。
第二步是默想meditatio。默想是将自己的思维专注于文字的涵意，并将之转向自己的生活上，渐渐释放各种心灵牵制、忧虑，从而惊觉神在圣子内流露出来的伟大爱情。这种惊觉重新启动人对神的渴求和期盼。
这期盼不其然使人进入第三步，即祈祷（oratio）。默想是专注自己，但祈祷则投向天主，念及祂的慈爱和自己的卑微，继而悔罪、赞美、感谢和求恩。换言之，就是将读经者连同当下的心情由衷地置身于天主面前。
第四步是默观contemplatio，那是一种企图脱离自身的牵制，尽情闯进天主的氛围之内，热切地感觉天主。隐修士对于这一刻的经验，往往有相当丰富的描写，为有些人心灵感到平安，不其然会心微笑，另一些人可能会热泪盈眶，甚至啜泣或大哭起来，更有些是感到「出神」（ecstasy）的地步，预尝了天国的丰足与欣悦。
由于每个人做圣经灵阅所经历的状态和境界不同，但都会抒发自己对天主的情怀，他们称之为 vacare Deo 或 sacrum otium，在天主之内的闲适31。天主用了六日创造天地，而将第七日定为安息日，隐修生活其实是勉力自在、轻松和放下，无驱无束地进入天主的安息。这种与神的深度接触并非源于愤世嫉俗的精神，或贪图甜蜜的感受，尽管两者可以是初阶和工具，他们仍是生活在这世界上，却不属于这个世界。圣言并不将人从世界中抽离出来，却要光照人的眼目，除去一切虚假、自私的面具，使人参透世界的变幻，勉力将世界转化为新天新地，达至天人合一的理想。
结语
由于圣经藏有上天的奥迹，确实飘渺不定、玄秘幽深；其智慧非有限的经卷所能尽录。Rupert 配备上天赐予的明达之恩，就如带了照明灯，走进圣经的甬道，探入深不可测之处，尝味外之味，求无穷之穷，有所发现时，便记下心头，后笔之于书，与人共用，虽不可言喻，却乐趣无穷 inenarrabilis, sed delectabilis。

1.See van Engen, J.H., Rupert of Deutz. Carlifornia University press, 1983, pp.1 -10. R.L.Benson G.Constable (eds), Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century. Oxford, 1982.

2.如 Anselm of Cantebury (+1109), Anselm of Laon (+1117), Hugh of St Victor (+1141), Peter Abelard (+1141), William of St Thierry (+1148), St Bernard of Clairvaux (+1153), Giblert of Poitiers (+1154), Peter the Venerable (+1156), Peter Lombard (+1160) 等等。参看 Evans, G.R., The language and logic of the Bible. The Earlier middle ages. Cambridge Univ press, 1984, pp.13-26 作者视 Rupert of Deutz 和 Anselm of Canterbury 为当代表人物，两人都是本笃会会士，但神学路向却各走一端，前者是寺院神学，后者是学院神学，下文有述。

3.参看 Hon, T.F., Torrens voluptatis in septem flumina. Towards a Pneumatological Perspective of Rupert of Deutz based on his De Operibus Spiritus Sancti. Rome: Univ Salesiana, 1988, pp.1-3.

4.为此，圣本笃在教会内被称为欧洲的主保，因为通过他的修院，很多教会内外的经典得以保全和推广，同时隐修士在民生、种植、法制、管理等，都有莫大贡献。当时的院牧 Abbot 都是权贵。以 Cluny 为例，院牧官式出巡就像王候一般，坐上豪华马车，由八匹骏马拖着，还有十数位骑士陪伴。参看 van Engen, pp.11-26.

5.van Engen, pp.49-50.

6.van Engen, pp.51-52就是有一次在修院圣堂的地下小堂，供奉圣母像的地方，他亲吻那里的十字架时，他感到说不出的甘饴。可是，日子长了，这甘饴不复再来。一天早上，他赖在床上，不久便进入梦乡，觉得被人召唤入圣堂，他来到门口，听见堂内修士咏唱圣咏50篇求上主的垂怜，和圣咏26篇求主赐光明，可是就在此时，门口出现恶魔，不让他进堂，令他整天甚为沮丧。翌晨奇梦再来，这次来到堂前遇到恶魔时，出现一位年青勇士（后来认出是基督），打退魔鬼，把他带入堂内，然后有三个人（后来认出是三位一体之神），把他高举到打开书卷的地方，就在那时，他醒过来了，却发现自己赤身露体，置身在修院的大圣堂中。他后来认出那青勇士是基督，三个人代表了天主圣三，书卷就是圣经和很多教父圣贤对圣经的见解。

7.同上。

8.参看 Smalley, B., The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Oxford ,1941, 2nd 1952, 3rd 1983, pp.1-26. Evans, G.R., pp.1-12, and van Engen, p.45.

9.所谓自由七艺 seven liberal arts 是分两组，一组是 artes triviales, or trivium,包括文法 grammar，修辞 rhetoric，辩证，二是 artes quadriviales, or quadrivium，包括算术 arithmetic，几何 geometry，天文astronomy，音乐 music。「自由」是指那些不为生计的学子，他们能而自由地研究语意学、科学和哲学等。参看网上天主教百科全书 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01760a.htm。

10.Expositio in I Regum, IV, 49: PL = Patrologia Latina 79, 267.

11.Lettera CXIX, 10: Cola traduzione e note, vol. IV. Citta Nuova, Roma: 1963, p.69.

12.中古时代的一首短诗巧妙地总结了上述四种意义：文字，事之所载；寓意，信之所赖；伦理，行之所依；末世，心之所望。(Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, Moarlis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia) 参看《天主教教理》，香港　1996　n.118.

13.参看 Evans, G.R., pp.31-36. van Engen, pp.96-105，一些有名的着作如 Peter Lombard 的 sententiae, Anselm of Laon 的 Sententiae divinae paginate, Hugh of St Victor 的 De sacramentis christianae fide, Peter Abelard 的 Theologia scholarium 和 Summa sententiarum 等神学集成，虽然并非明显地替代圣经，而只集结一些方法和典范如何研读圣经，人们很容易读了他们的作品，便忘记自己要读圣经或以为读了圣经就是得到这些结论而已。Anselm of Laon 和 Peter Abelard 是两颗巨星，他们都是黑衣的隐修士。

14.同上，并参看 Leclercq, J., L'amour des lettres et le de Dieu. Paris: 1957, 2nd ed., 1963. 作者特别提出十二世纪的隐修神学 monastic theology，并以 St Bernard 为代表人物。

15.参看 Smalley, B., pp.1﹣36，过份着重理性也会产生弊端，如：玄识论 gnosticism 所演绎出的弊异端，幸然奥思定将理性和信仰美妙地两者综合一起 credo ut intelligam, intelligo ut credam。

16.参看 De Operibus Spiritus Sancti VII 9, in CCCM= Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medaevalis 24 (1972) 2048.

17.参看 De victoria verbi Dei I, 3, MGH QGM = Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelaters 5, 8 17.

18.De glorificatione Trinitatis et processione Spiritus Sancti 1.4: PL 169, 17.

19.Idem 1.5: PL 169,18. and De gloria et honores Filii hominis super Matthaeum 7: CCCM 29, 202.

20.《天主教教理》 n. 113: Sacra Scriptura principalius est in corde Ecclesiae quam in materialibus instrumentis scripta

21.De operibus Spiritus Sancti, in CCCM 24, 1429.

22.van Engen, pp.269﹣274.

23.参看 Evans, G.R., The language and logic of the Bible. The earlier Middle Ages. Cambridge University press, 1984.

24.Rule of St Benedictine (=RB) Prologue 45. See also http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02436a.htm .

25.RB Prologue 5:14-27.

26.RB 4.

27.RB 5 -6.

28.RB 48:1。当时的起居时间表，如下：
2.30am　之守夜祈祷（ad matutinum/vigilia）个人退省　休息
5.00am　礼赞之早祷（ad laudes）祈祷结束时刚好是黎明份　　弥撒　阅读　lectio
7.30am　礼赞之晨时祈祷（ad priman）祈祷后　工作
9.00am　礼赞之午前祈（ad tertiam）祈祷后　阅读 lectio
12.00 　礼赞之中午祈（ad sextam）祈祷后　午餐　静默午睡或阅读　　　阅读 lectio　工作
3.00pm　礼赞之午后日间祈祷（ad nonam）祈祷后　工作
4.30pm　礼赞之暮祷（ad vesperas）祈祷后　在日落前进餐
6.00pm　礼赞之夜（completorium）祈祷后　严守默静　人退省　　就寝寝
参看Scheider, E., Les heures benedictines. Grasser, Paris: 1925.

29.Guerrico d’Igny 劝告其弟兄说：「圣经就像一个花园，你们跑了进去，不要闲逛或匆忙，却要在每个文字上吸取其精神，就像一只勤奋的蜜蜂在每朵花上吸取蜜汁一样。」Discursus“Qui Habitas”, 2: PL 185, 211.

30.参看 Hon, T.F., p.58 note 157.

31.RB 7:3 ﹣ 18; 19:1.

作者：邝丽娟

本文意旨不在对经典自身之诠释，也不在对经典所蕴含原初智慧的探讨，或经典与后世神哲学主题之研究。本文是「神学本位化」的一个尝试，一个邂逅，一个相遇；邂逅中国文化的「气」和圣经中用以表达天主圣神的 ruah 和 pneuma。本文旨趣乃在经典诠释以外，它超越「言外」──当「气」与「神」相遇时……，是在另一个意境中相逢！它不「解」，不「释」，却在传「神」，生「意」，「妙在言外」！

从概念飞跃到图像
中国人的「气」与基督信仰中的「神」（ruah, pneuma），在字源上本来就是在述说同样的事情；各自发展多年以后，如今，一旦相逢，一个相遇的故事，两种情怀的「重写」！
把「神的神学」放在「气」的神动之美中解读，我们会发现不论在神学的表达形式和内容上，都会呈现一种新面貌。从概念走向图像，从系统的抽象思维飞跃到艺术境界的超越言外、象外的意境，散发出另一种神韵！
十九世纪法国诗人和神学家认为在整本圣经里找不到一个抽象的字1。许多与天主和教会有关的事，都是用意象和行动的叙述，传达给我们。耶稣用比喻讲论天主的国：「天主的国好像……」圣经启示用不同的意象表达天主圣神，例如：气息、风、活水、火和火舌、天主的手指、鸽子、傅油、圣油和云等。圣经告诉我们，天主是盘石、是狮子、是夫君、……。基督是角石、是羔羊……。这些说法都是意象、象征和隐喻2。启示要向我们指出天主与我们的真正关系，是为了我们人类和我们的得救而作的。天主向我们显示祂像盘石般稳固可靠；天主当然不是矿物，但祂对我们来说，就像一块可以让我们依靠的盘石，这是按着我们对盘石所感受的安全与保障的经验而联想的3。在希伯来文，「信仰」就是「倚靠」之意。圣经透过意象告诉我们，天主对我们所做的事和对我们的意义是什么。
我们只能透过圣三外显的工作以达到永恒的圣三。神学家必须在信仰中按照这方式，利用概念去解释和推断奥秘的意义，至少这是伟大经院学派神学家的传统。不过，也可能从另一个不同的进路研究神学，例如圣伯纳的方式4。事实上，当概念不能准确地表达实相，或把实相分析得支离破碎时，我们可以透过象征瞭解实相；象征更宜显示那精神实相的超越性，在这方面，多玛斯也近于支持这个论点，认为越粗糙的越准确5。或者可以说，愈接近物质的东西，却愈具美丽的启发性。艺术和诗正正就是采用这种表达形式，倾向显示而非界定，着意传达而不致力于阐释6。

一个相遇的故事──经验与诠释
天主启示真理的本源，并不是一套已成体系的教义式的「真理」，而是一个在发生中、实践中的动态的真理7。天主的启示同时拥有两面；它是天主在人类历史中自我通传的行动，也是活在时空中的人，对天主救恩行动的经验、瞭解、诠释和表达8。在这意义下，我们可以说，圣经的表达常是处境化、本地化的，蕴含着一个经验，一个透视，一个解释。人对启示的经验和体悟，就成了天主启示的一部份。天主的启示，在一个民族中间发生了，而且是这样的被瞭解；是这样的经由他们的直觉、感受、思想、心灵状态而吸收，然后，是这样的透过他们的语言表达出来，书写下来。这是一个生活的、动态的互动过程。这是一个很有意义和很有趣的过程，为神学本位化带来一份启迪，这儿不单涉及祝圣了一个原本俗性的字词，成为天主启示的表达语言；同时，也看到了一个平凡通俗的字词所隐含着的人性经验是如何把我们引进一个新领域、新视野；这个新体验，将启迪我们从另一个深度和广度去品尝天主的救恩行动。
基本上，神学作为信仰经验的「诠释」，永远是一个「重读」和「重写」的新表述；「神学本地化」就在这里诞生。所有信仰语言的探索，都必需蕴含一种对信仰内容的重新诠释，而语言就是它的传讯载体；这牵涉到一个包容无数语言的基督徒信仰历史。
神学与文化的相遇，它的结合应该超过「适应之道」和简单的经典或概念的「比较」，它不只是将神学翻译成另一种文化所使用的语词而已。这个相遇，也该超越简单的取代（如将中国人的「气」取代希腊文的 pneuma）。真正的「本地化」应该是一个有血有肉的「降生」，一个再生的创造；过程中同时蕴含着延续和突破。

ruah ─ pneuma ─ 气
中国文化的「气」，与希伯来文化的 ruah 和希腊文化的 pneuma，都不仅是一个思辨性的概念而已，它们同时指出一个生活的、感情的、存在性的事实。这三个字，在字源上都极为相近，全都是来自大自然的现象：风，气息；在应用上，其涵意都特别指示：力，力量，包括自然界，生理、心理和精神层面的能力。总而言之，同时是大宇宙和小宇宙的「生之源」和「动之源」。
── ruah
希伯来文的ruah，其字根首先是指风、暴风、气、气息、空气、氛围、天地间的大气。它是创造和赋予生命的力量。ruah 是使人生活的要素；呼吸之气，成了生命的动发、生命的象征和标记。但人并非自己生命气息的主人，而是上主──生命之源的赐与（参创二7）。人是一个整体，ruah 与身体并不对立，而是与之成为一体。ruah 活化了身体，是人一切知、情、意、行、道德抉择…的原动力，意即人整体精神活动的泉源；人的 ruah 既代表人最深最真的自我，但同时又超越人自身的控制和掌握；它存在于人的最深处，是最根本而又最难以捉摸的部份。再者，ruah「神」是人生智慧与圣德之泉，激发人内心对天主的渴慕，启导人生最终极的方向和目标。
── pneuma
希腊文的 pneuma，原意是指风、流动的气流、天上神明之气息、神性散溢之香气，也指人和动物的呼吸气息。它是宇宙的起源，生命的本体，统合一切内内外外、精神与物质、自然与神性的力量；它是人体内运行之气，也是宇宙大化之气；它是整个大宇宙和谐合一的原则，也是每个个体存在整合和综合的动力泉源。Pneuma 是宇宙一切活动的原动力，渗透整个现实界，有如世界之灵，赋予万有生机；流动的 pneuma 与生命紧密相连，它成了生命的象征和承载者。Pneuma 这辞汇同时交织着具体和象征的意义，在象征意义上，pneuma 是那不可见的人与神交流融通的可感标记和图像。在隐喻和诗意的语言中，具体可触可感的自然现象：风、气息、呼吸…等，竟化成了神性、灵性经验的表达。
十分有趣的是，我们看到这两个原本都是非常普通的日常生活经验的辞汇，如今却变成了圣经用以表达天主启示的辞汇。这些辞汇，从此也注入了新的意涵、新的指向、新的事件；特别用以表达旧约和新约的天主子民所经验到的圣神──天主在世界中的临在和行动，无形无象的主在救恩史中彰显出来的德能和神力，天主创造和转化的力量。天主的神不但是宇宙之源，也是天人交往的仲介，是天主末世性的许诺，实现天主救恩历史的推动力，祂一代一代地塑造、领导着天主的子民，以色列的代表人物，如民长、君王、先知、上主仆人，以至整个民族，都「受圣神感动」，步步迈向救恩的圆满。
── 气
中国人的「气」很接近圣经中的 ruah,pneuma，即天主的气息的意念。
在中国文化史上，相信我们不会否认，「气」是最引人注目的一个文化事实之一。各个学术领域都离不开气，都以气作为建构理论框架的根基，用气来解释各种各样的难题。正是「气」将诸子百家，将多姿多采的中国文化连接成一个整体。中国文化的「气」不属于一家一派，不是时兴于某一个特定的历史时期，也不局限于某一、二个学术领域9，而是赋予整个中国文化以生命的一个要素。甚至连外来的佛学，也由于气概念的渗透而逐渐被中国化了10。
中国人的「气」贯穿了本体论、宇宙论、人性论、……以至伦理、精神、道德、艺术、美学等境界；「气」阳刚而柔美，既可为血肉所感触，同时又难以言喻，言有尽意无穷。在中国文化发展史上，「气」以万千姿态，为各个不同流派学说所吸纳，并透过实践，广为人们所体验吸收。同时以「理性」和「诗心」巧妙地把身与心、天与地、道与器、无与有、形上与形下的世界大一统地相连起来。一个如此丰富的文化事实，给我们揭示了一个鲜明生动、深不可测而又富有活力的「神」的图像，是否值得我们把它纳入神学本地化的研究中，启导我们在中国文化里展开一个信仰的新体验、新诠释？

气的概念起源很早，从它的演变历程11，可以察看到它那整合性、创生性、动态性的丰富内涵12，简言之如下：
1﹒气为云气、天地之气、呼吸之气
2﹒气为浩然之气
3﹒气为元气、精气、有无之气
4﹒气为佛道之气－－为心识所现之境、为导引神气
5﹒气为太虚之气、理之气、良知流行之气
6﹒气为乙太、质点（爱拒力）、电气

综合而言，我们可以看到气的特性如下：
1﹒ 气之本性为「生」，为万物之本，万物构成的共同根基。
2﹒ 气为宇宙「动之源」，万物之生成演化，世界的多样性，皆源于气的运行不息。
3﹒ 世界和谐的统一性、万物内在的整体联系相融，皆在于「气的感应」作用。
4﹒ 气自身具有极大的渗透性、灵活性、可容性与模糊性，无处不入、无所不至，柔软无间隙，穿透一切虚空和有形之体，贯通于天地万物之中。
5﹒ 气为物质、功能（动力）、理（资讯）的合一，同时抽象又具象、阳刚又阴柔、感性与理性之相融。
6﹒ 气为静、动合一，中和虚静而又鼓荡、兴发作用。

在此，我们愿意特别提出「气」在中国文艺创作中的独特意义和影响：
中国人对「美」的体会，渗透着浓厚的道德理性和宗教情操，不是停在片面的感官享受和快感上，而是进入一种理性与感性结合的精神和谐愉悦的境界。这种超越层面的「情」，表现为一种情操、情境、情趣、气象，一种至高的精神境界，达到万物归一的灵境。《易传》说：「一阴一阳之谓道。」「道」就在一虚一实、一明一暗、一起一伏的波动之美中，「道」寓于动态的功能中。所以，在艺术创作中重「传神」，意即要显示事物内在的一种「生生」律动──「神动之美」。
这儿，我们进入审美的核心，触及中国人一个很深的生命经验──「气」的体验，一个流动的整体宇宙生命观──「通天下一气耳」（《庄子．知北游》）从草、木、瓦、石，到生灵、鬼、神，整个宇宙都是由「一气」所贯通。万物彼此相通，相感而动！中国画家诗人，将自己全情投入这个一气相通的世界，经验到在每一事物里面，都有一种「气」在流动13。气就是生命──生生不息的动力；美就在「动」中，整个宇宙在在洋溢着一种生命力的灵动14。
一切艺术的奥秘，就在「气韵」的问题上。中国艺术的「传神」「神似」所要传达的，就是在万物内流溢着的神动之美的气韵。「气韵」是指艺术作品所表现的美感力量15。艺术家应超越形象之外，只有突破有限的形象，才能体现艺术精神的审美境界。它包含着更深刻一层的美学意义是，通过画面形象，表现宇宙本体和「道」之「神」与「妙」的境界。再者，作品的「气韵」，实在取决于创作者的精神品格：「人品既已高矣，气韵不得不高；气韵既已高矣，生动不得不至；所谓神之又神而能精焉。16」
南齐谢赫更进一步把「气韵生动」列为绘画「六法」之首17。「气韵生动」是一种艺术创作上的「整体感应」，是共鸣时生命力的灵动。一千多年来，「气韵生动」成为中国艺术审美的最高评价18。「气韵生动」所呈现的「整体感应」，一言以蔽之，就是诗中、文中、画中之气，乃是诗人、作家、画家个人的道德涵养、精神气质，乃至作品的美感风格、文思灵感之流露，在在都洋溢着「气」。画家（作家）个人的品格气质与天地的灵气，相互感应交流而浑然为一，遂反映在作品中，继而传达到观赏者，于是激起心灵情感的共鸣，一波接一波的跃动，一浪接一浪的回响……这是连续不断的生命力的灵动，整个过程是流动的、持续的相交感应，以和谐而有韵律的方式环环相扣。

当「神」与「气」相遇时……

神的风采
我们要谈论「圣神」实在不易，因为会遇到一个很大的危机，就是很容易把这位来去如风似火的神关闭在文字的局限里。耶稣曾这样描述过祂：「风随意向那里吹，你听到风的响声，却不知道风从那里来，往那里去。」（若三8）
天主圣神的最大特色之一就是：祂不在言语中，却在「感受」中！太逻辑的概念范畴不能完全地论述祂，「信理」式的语言也不能尽情地展示祂。我们不能刻板地「说」祂是谁、祂是怎样的、祂的作为如何如何……，祂是风（气息）、是水（活泉）、是火（舌）、是鸽子、是（圣）油、……...就连圣经作者，都以这些活泼生动的图像、诗意的象征来「说」祂，透视祂的作为。天主圣神没有自己的面容，甚至连一个可以唤起我们联想的人间形象的名号（如〝父〞和〝子〞）也没有，以致我们好像无法认识祂，然而，「蓦然回首，那人已在灯火阑珊处」；祂，就在万事万物中以万千姿态展露祂的风采。

祂是最内在的天主──三一天主内最深藏的一位，但同时祂又是最外显的天主──三一天主生命的向外流溢──祂是天主的「出神」。祂是爱、是自由、是开放、是沟通、是共融；祂是超越的天主在世界中的寓居。祂在圣三内、在教会里、在世界中、在我们内、在天地间、在神人中……祂是桥、是氛围、是相遇的动源、是结合的吸摄力……，天上人间一切的共融合一都源自祂的鼓动，并在祂内完成。
圣神的另一大特质，就是「在」──时时在，处处在，无处不在；而祂的作为，又常带有〝灵感〞特质，以〝灵感〞为媒介──不是强迫、施压、命令，而是从存在深处焕发、感动、吸引──是心与心的相遇、心与心的吸引、心与心的触动、心与心的相连、相依……，神人邂逅，相交感应，灵犀相通，一切尽在不言中……，圣神的经验，不止于理性，也是感性的、血肉的、心灵的，更是艺术和诗意的！

气的风姿
气──丰盈的生命力，遍流天地之间，生生韵律，运行不息，贯注万有；一股不可言喻、无法抗拒的宇宙动发力量，不息地在流动，在众生间牵起万千邂逅的波涛。「通天下者一气」，气「虚而待物」19，「其大无外，其小无内」。气，既超越又内在，阳刚又阴柔，无限小又无限大，包罗宇宙，渗透一切，不断藉着自身来去往返的运动──「感应」，凝聚着无尽相契的氛围，激起万千心灵的触动，相互吸引交感，一浪接一浪，从天边到地极，在天地间无休止地展开……
气的经验，特别是「感应」的经验，可被应用成为我们神学的隐喻，神学的范典，让我们从另一个角度去品尝「神在人内，人在神内」──「人在气中，气在人中」20的意境。气的「感应」作用比「关系」的概念，更能深入灵妙地说明神人相通、万有相连，一切都在交感互流的奥秘。因为「关系」仍是在对立的「我－你」中，而「感应」已进入「一体」范畴的契合之情中。
中国人的〝气〞，在一切之内，又超越一切，贯通一切，又结合一切；启导我们穿越了静态的二元分割鸿沟，舞动起我们整个身心灵更生动地去捕捉天主圣神在世界中的风姿。
在气的「感应」节奏中，我们轻盈美妙地进入神人互动交往的过程中；天主圣神在人身上的临在和行动，不是静态的，由外而来的干预；而是从人存在最深处流溢渗透──一个灵感，一个感动，一个吸引，一个渴慕，一个心迷，一个神醉，一个惊讶、一个震撼、……，滚滚「感应」之流，徐徐遍流人的整个身心灵，直入神魂骨髓，透进每一个细胞，每一寸肌肤，每一个思绪，每一丝感情……。
天主圣神犹如天主在我们内动人心弦的「感」，同时，又好比我们投向天主的「应」。在这同一圣神双向舞动的节奏中，一方面，祂是天主对人的「感」──天主向世界的自我通传，另一方面，祂也是人对天主的回应答复──人对天主自我通传的回响。在这同一圣神感应之流中，天人相互交感和应，生生不息……迈向永恒圆满的共融。在这感应之流的契合中，天人之情已不在「位际」的层面上，而是打破主客对立，进入了神妙的主客交融、浑然一体的境界中，彼此相互的内在。这是难以言喻的奥秘！这是天主的「痴」！长留在无限超越中的祂，愿进入我们内，与我们永相厮守，结为一体！

「神动之美」的神学
这样一个「神的神学」的尝试，包含着另一个方法论，循另一进路作经验和诠释。它尝试融合抽象的本体概念和活泼生动的图像，串连起系统的思辨与诗意的隐喻；从概念的语言跳跃到诗意的语言。我们得承认面对天主圣神本身的丰盈，我们没有足够和适当的方法来表述祂21。但是，无可置疑，中国人的「气」很接近圣经中的「神」ruah,pneuma──天主的气息，天主的嘘气。「气」给我们透视了一个鲜明活泼、灵活生动，而又可触可感的「神」的图像。中国基督徒藉由「气」的经验，能够更细味地品尝「神」在我们每个人生命中、在宇宙万物中、在救恩历史中的临在和舞动──神动之美，尝试把那抽象超越的、不可言说的「神」讲得有声有色、亲切感人！当「气」与「神」相遇时……，借有限以表无限，「气」的气韵传神，画尽意在，舞动起「神」的神韵风姿，焕发起生命的灵动与共鸣，进入了整体感应的意境美中！
正如孔格（Yves Congar）所说：「同一信仰可能有不同的表达，由其他观念起始，并开始其他思想方式。」但人间的语言，无论是概念或图像都有其限度，永远是书不尽言，言不尽意，「言有尽而意无穷」，我们总要「得鱼忘荃」；这岂不是「妙在画外」「妙在言外」！这样的神学进路，不只是为了开启人的头脑明悟，更是为了「感动」人心，激起对天主的渴望之「情」，对天主的惊叹、赞颂、陶醉、神往、共融合一。这是「说爱」的神学，不单是为了明白，更是为了寻求深爱。
中国美学所体现的「美」的意境22，给神学启发了一个新的意境追寻。这不单给我们带来神学方法论上的更新──多用信仰之「情」，同时，在信仰的内容上──我们会更凝视仰瞻天主之「美」，而在神学的表达方式上──也可用艺术的表达形式──诗的语言、画的意境。为什么我们不可以把神学写成像一首诗、一幅画、一阙歌？
我们相信要讲论圣神，最宜应用深富启发性的象征语言和图像。圣经作者也是如此；用以描述圣神的风、火、水、鸽子、……等等的象征图像，使我们联想到一种难以言喻的临在，全然的渗透、倾注，一种不可抗拒的弥漫、扩散，同时具广度、深度的的侵入。这些图像不是用来说「理」，更是用来说「爱」──为唤起我们全人的投入、感受、参与、经验、共鸣……，而隐喻和诗的语言，正是要激发我们整个存在全人进入一个美与情感的艺术境界！而「气」的特性，最能焕发如斯意境，如何能够应用气的经验在神学的反思和研究中，重新「本地化」又「跨文化」地被解读，这不是值得我们继续探寻的课题吗？

1.参 Congar ,Y., La parole et le souffle. Paris:Desclee, 1984, p.17.

2.一个隐喻并不直接从实相本身而界定实相，因此往往会用数个隐喻来比喻同一实相。不过，同一隐喻也可以应用在不同的实相上。一个隐喻直接表达某种物件与它的效用或行动之间的相似点。天主向我们显示祂自己就像盘石那样坚定不移。基督在受苦时像一只全不反抗的羔羊。…都是按我们的生活感受和经验而联想的。参 Congar, Y., p.17

3.参 Congar, Y., p.17-18

4.参 Congar, Y., p.18

5.ST Ia,q.1,a.9,ad 3

6.参 Congar, Y., p.18

7.参 Claude Geffre la pratique de la théologie I, Paris, 1982 , p.124, cf. p.131.

8.参 Schillebeeckx, E. ( Trad. du néerlandais par Hélène Cornelis-Gevaert ), L'Histoire des hommes. Récits de Dieu. Paris: Cerf, p.80-81.
9. 气在哲学、文学、医学、音乐、书法、绘画、玄学、命理学、武学、地理学、养生学、气象学……等一切文化领域中都有所应用和发挥。
10. 刘长林著（杨儒宾主编），〈说「气」〉，《中国古代思想中的气论及身体观》，台北　巨流图书公司　民82　101-140页。
11. 简而言之，略述如下：气这观念起源很早。许慎《说文》：「气，云气也。象形。」段玉裁注：「象云起之貌。」西周末伯阳父认为：「天地之气，不失其序。」（《国语．周语》）用以解释地震，天地动发的原因。春秋时，医和提出：「天有六气。六气曰阴阳风雨晦明也。」（《左传．昭西元年》）突显气功能的动态属性。后来，老子把「气」纳入其哲学体系：「万物负阴而抱阳，冲气以为和。」万物都内在地蕴含着阴阳二气，二气交感，万物化生不已。管子更进一步提出「精气」说：「精也者，气之精也。」「凡物之精，此则为生。下生五谷，上为列星。流于天地之间，谓之鬼神；藏于胸中，谓之圣人。」（《管子．内业》）不但把气视为构成万物的原始材料，还认为人的精神也是由「气」所构成。人禀受精气而生，精气内在于人，使人聪明睿智，具有精神生活。孟子的「养气说」把气带进了道德领域，至大至刚的浩然之气是集义所生。庄子又发挥「通天下一气」之思想，认为：「人之生，气之聚。聚则为生，散则为死。…故万物一也。」（《知北游》）又说：「气也者，虚而待物也。（《人间世》）「唯道集虚」（同上），从而主张「心斋」「坐忘」的精神超然境界。荀子也提出：「水火有气而无生，草木有生而无知，禽兽有知而无义。人有气有生有知亦有义，故最为天下贵也。」（《王制》）的思想。
两汉期间，气的学说吸收了自然科学的成就，有了进一步的发展，但也出现了神秘化的倾向；把气与金、木、水、火、土五行相扣外，还发挥了「天人感应」之说。西汉董仲舒认为：「天地之气，合而为一，分为阴阳，制为四时，列为五行。」（《春秋繁露．五刑相生》）同时，又将「气」赋与道德属性：「阳气仁而阴气戾」（《春秋繁露．王道通三》）将春夏秋冬的变化说成是「气」的喜、怒、哀、乐的表现。东汉王充认为「天地合气，万物自生。」（《论衡．自然》）还强调：「气也，恬澹无欲无为无事者也。」（同上）
魏晋南北朝，受到玄学、道教、佛教的影响，气的涵义逐渐向生命本原、变化过程、道德修养的要素等发挥。隋唐时期，儒释道三家对气的吸纳和演译，既相互融通，又各显其不同特色；继续向坐禅修行的功夫、导引神气、行气胎息的养生之术发展。儒家着重人所禀赋的正气、和气、灵气、刚健之气，与天地的元气浑然一体。
北宋张载对气的学说作了重大的发挥。他以「太虚」「太和」解释气之本体及其运动，认为一切都是一气聚散变化而成，「太虚无形，气之本体，其聚其散，变化之客形矣。」（《正蒙．太和》）「知虚空即气，则有无隐显，神化性命，通一无二。」（同上）又认为「气」恒常在运动变化中：「一物两体，气也。一故神，两故化。」（《正蒙．参两》）万物生成变化的原因都在于气。张载还认为气之本体不生不灭︰「气之为物，散入无形，适得吾体；聚为有象，不失吾常……聚亦吾体，散亦吾体，知死之不亡者，可与言性矣。」（《正蒙．太和》）程颐则认为气有生灭：「凡物之散，其气遂尽，无复归本原之理。」（《遗书》卷十五）
南宋，朱熹认为：「天地之间，有理有气。理也者，形而上之道也，生物之本也；气也者，形而下之气也，生物之具也。」（《答黄道夫书》）又说：「未有天地之先，毕竟也只是理。……有理便有气流行发育万物。」（《朱子语类》卷一）理气对立又结合，理气不离：「但有此气，理本气具」朱子也认为气充盈宇宙，贯穿一切事物之中：「屈伸往来者，气也。天地间无非气。人之气与天地之气常相接，无间断，人自不见。」（《朱子语类》卷三﹚又说浩然之气即血气与道义相结合之气：「只是一气。义理附于其中，则为浩然之气。若不由义理而发，则只是血气。」（《朱子语类》卷五十二）
明清之际，王夫之对气本体论学说作了进一步概括︰「凡虚空皆气也，聚则显，显则人谓之有；散则隐，隐则人谓之无。神化者，气之聚散不测之妙，然而有迹可见；性命者，气之健顺有常之理，主持神化而寓于神化之中，无迹可见，……盖阴阳者气之二体，动静者气之二几，体同而用异则相感而动，动而成象则静，动静之几，聚散、出入、形不形之从来也。」（《张子正蒙注．太和篇》）
清戴震《孟子字义疏证》卷中：「气化流行，生生不息，是故谓之道。」他还作了语法结构上的分析：「一阴一阳之谓道」，「形而上者谓之道，形而下者谓之器」，认为「形而上」和「形而下」的区别，只不过是气的存在不同形式，从而批判和否定了在气之外还有「理」的精神实体存在（见《孟子字义疏证》卷中）
近代，严复以原子论和牛顿力学来说明「气」：「今夫气者，有质点（原子）有爱拒力之物也。」（《名学浅说》）他又曾以气来解释「乙太」。
12. 参张立文主编，《气》，中国人民大学出版社　1990。
13. 在中国画家笔下，就连「石」这本是外表坚实而静态的东西，也常被描摹成是中「空」的。这里暗示在它内有一气在流动；它宛如一棵树的生气蓬勃，也如同流水般灵活跃动。在中国山水画里，云气之生处常是在崇山深处，「山岩乃云气之根」﹙唐岱﹚。大自然无处不充盈着活泼丰溢的「气韵」，波澜变化，万千姿态，这是最高灵境的启示。
14. 参林语堂著，《吾土吾民》，台南　船坞书坊　民七五年再版　299-301页。
15. 五代荆浩著《笔法记》：「气者，心随笔运，取象不惑；韵者，隐迹立形，备遗不俗。」
16. 宋郭若虚《图画见闻志．论气韵非师》
事实上，孟子的「养气说」对历代艺术创作中体现艺术家和文学家的道德精神品格，具有深远的影响。魏晋南北朝时期的「文气说」就是把「养气说」应用到文艺创作中，以气之清浊说明作品风格与作者气质之关系。曹丕更直指：「文以气为主，气之清浊有体，不可力强而致。」《典论．论文》论文以「气」，实则以「气」论人，古典文论重视人文精神，着重文中心中那股不可磨灭之气。到了清代，以气论文之势可说臻至顶峰。如章学诚所言：「凡文不足以动人，所以动人者气也；凡文不足以入人，所以入人者情也。气积而文昌，情深而文挚；气昌而情挚，天下之至文也……夫文非气不立，而气贵乎平。」《文史通义．史德》
17. 《古画品录》把「气韵生动」列为「六法」之首。「六法」是作画、赏画、评画时之六个经典原则，优劣的标准参考依据，它是一切中国艺术追求的目标。
18. 着名美学史家张彦远曾说：「以气韵求其画，则形在其间矣。」《历代名画记．论画六法》强调审美物件和艺术家自身及其作品表现的音乐境界和富有生气的美感力量。陈姚最在《续画品》中也提到：「气韵精灵，未穷生动之致。」表示艺术作品的内在生命力。
19. 罗光总主教对此有如下说明：「气在感官和理智以上，感官止于感觉，心﹙理智﹚止于和客体相符合，气则虚以待物，和物直接相合，即是人的最深部份和物的最深部份相合，或说人的本体和物的本体相结合，和西洋哲学的直观相彷佛。这种气是虚的，虚便没有物质性的力量，而是精神性。」﹙罗光着：《中国哲学思想史﹙一﹚》，台北　先知出版社　民六十四　409页﹚。
20. 葛洪著，《抱朴子》。
21. 显然，我们不是说气就是圣神。气的含意永远不等同于基督徒信仰中启示的圣神。我们也无意用气的概念来阐明「及由子」，即圣神生发这不可言喻的奥迹。
22. 参阅宗白华著（叶朗彭锋编选），〈中国艺术意境之诞生〉，《宗白华选集》，天津人民出版社　1996　171-188页。

作者：周景勋

1. 导言
二零零五年五月廿七日在香港「明报」的专讯中有这样的一段报导：
一名中国加拿大混血儿，童年时常被她的华裔妈妈责备，感到甚沮丧。长大后，她成为一名社会学者，展开一段「学术寻亲之路」，远赴上海研究华人的孝道行为，将之和西方数据比较，结果发现，中国人和西方人对父母一样孝顺，只是表达形式不同。她自己亦有所领悟：「我明白，妈妈责备我不是因为我蠢，只是中国文化里，母亲不敢赞赏子女，以免我被宠坏，我知道她心里是为我好。」……
近日，这位「孝道专家」Neena Chappell 访港，在港大举行「孝的中西文化」讲座。……为了揭开「孝的疑惑」，她展开跨文化的孝道研究，在一九九九年亲身到上海进行研究：「我才知道，原来中国人不会像西方人一样赞赏子女，以免他们恃宠而骄，我的妈妈的成长背景，令她这样对待我，她的用意是希望我好，并不是因为我又蠢又丑，我虽然不同意她的看法，但我明白了她许多。」
另一方面，西方子女照顾父母不遗余力，近六成西方长者的主要照顾者是子女，至于中国人只有二成多由子女亲自照顾。Chappell 说：「西方不会把『孝道』挂在嘴边，我们仍会关心父母、报答父母的养育之恩。1」
从报章的报导中，我们肯定「孝」的理念发自人心，中西文化都很重视，只是文化的表达方式不同而有异；但骨子里要强调的是「孝」的实践，不单是报恩的外在行为，更是人性道德修养的具体表现，即儒家所言发自「亲亲」的「孝」以照顾父母的身心。看了 Chappell 所说的：「西方不会把『孝道』挂在嘴边。」和「至于中国人只有二成多（的父母）由子女亲自照顾。」我感到心酸，心中问说：「中国的文化精神不是『道德』精神吗？2」「中国伦理道德文化不是很重视『孝道』吗？3」「为什么现时代的中国人对『孝』的精神是如此的薄弱？只是挂在嘴边，只是思想的理念，在实际的生活中是如此的无孝？4」由是，唤醒我的良知良能，在本文中探究「孝」的本源意义；反思中国人的「生存意识」5，更了解到人的生存原则除了维护自我的存在外，人的个体是由群体──家庭而生存，即个体的生命是群体生命的体现。因此，在中国的文化演变中，儒家强调：人的个体生命必须融合在群体中而成为一体的关系，而形成了宗族；宗族便是唯一能保障人生存的群体组织，宗族的存在由有血绿关系的人联系起来，好能面对生命中的种种挑战，尤其在遭到各种自然和社会力量打击时，宗族中的领导人：族长以其能力、智慧和道德将全族的生存能量聚合成一股力量，以抗衡自然和其他宗族的人。对宗族生存作出贡献的族长，在其死后，便得到族人的尊重和纪念；为表示尊重和纪念，便给「祖有德，宗有功」而被称为「祖宗」的族长加以「崇拜」；祖先的崇拜是因为祖宗被视为宗族生存的标志，也可作为整体宗族生命合力共存的象征，自强不息的力量，可使宗族的生存意识增强；子孙为了保持祖先的伟大形像就要努力发展本族的生命力，由是，子孙首先要珍惜已有的生命，所谓「身体发肤，受之父母，不敢毁伤，孝之始也。」（《孝经》开宗明义章第一），将爱护自己的生命列为「孝」的出发点，是因为这生命来自父母祖宗，子孙保存生命以崇拜祖先，保重生命也是为了宗族生命力的强大，好让祖宗永久地享受祭祀──崇拜，子孙也必须努力生育繁衍下一代，给本族增添更多的生命，否则就是「不孝」──「不孝有三；无后为大」，违背宗族群体的生存精神，就是世间最大的罪恶6。
「孝」的始发在祖先崇拜中可以得到追溯，因为在祖先崇拜中，个人的责任放在奉祀死者（祖先）的身上，而自身却隐没在列祖列宗的祭献仪式中，祖先的灵位都是一家一族的中心。从祖先崇拜发展到人死为鬼为神的思想而为鬼神崇拜，在孔子时期有提到「敬鬼神而远之」（论语．雍也），这并不能说孔子否定鬼神的存在，反可说孔子提出了敬鬼神的思想乃源于殷周：「殷人尊神，率民以事神，先鬼而后礼……周人尊礼尚施，事鬼敬神而远之。」（礼记．表记）实际上，孔子也重视对鬼神要有诚敬之心，犹如对祖先有孝心一般，孔子在《中庸16章》上说：
鬼神之为德，其盛矣乎！视之而弗见，听之而弗闻，体物而不可遗。使天下之人斋明盛服，以承祭祀。洋洋乎如在其上，如在其左右。诗曰：「神之格思，不可度思，矧可射思。」诚之不可如此夫。
孔子提对鬼神当「诚之」之后，更教导人当对父母祖先做到「事死如事生；事亡如事存」，然后再补充一句说：「孝之至也。」（中庸19章）孔子希望将「孝」之「德」作为人生存的道德原则，藉此可配合祭祀的礼仪和生活的行为，故孔子敦促其学生弟子在父母生时，事之以礼；死时，葬之以礼（论语．为政）；可见，孔子将祭祀礼仪与「孝」联系起来7，提高人的道德素质。
事实上，儒家在探讨「孝」时，离不开中国人的「生存意识」；人的「生存意识」在面对「自然、社会、人性」三个层面时，便会产生「关系」的接触，即：
人与自然（神）的关系
人与社会（宗族）的关系
人与人性（自我）的关系
「关系」的原创性可追索到神话时代的原始崇拜（图腾）与夏商时代的尊神以礼所发展的上帝观（祖先崇拜），以至周初提出「天命靡常」以「敬德」配「天」的「天」的思想；其间所发展出的肯定皆落实在「人」的回应上；儒家思想在追索其本源时提出：
万物本乎天，人本乎祖，此所以配上帝也。郊之祭也，大报本返始也。（礼记．郊特性）
人的祭天祭祖乃发自报谢天恩和祖先之庇荫；在祭祀中要求人「追养继孝」，「孝」之为「德」便可配天。由是，《孝经》提出了「天经、地义、民行」的反思，导引人的生命走向「自然、社会、人性」的三个「关系」的层面，扩阔了「孝」的领域，说明「孝」不单停留在父母子女的「关系」上，而是在：
自然 ── 天地间
社会 ── 五伦中
人性 ── 自我德性内
作出三方面的调合，以达至「天、地、人」的和谐共融。
再者，《孝经》的「孝」和儒家的「孝」是一脉相承的，其建立实非单依据理论的体系，亦非单靠文字的表达，而是依于「躬行实践」；因此，「孝」的生命智慧的发展在于「德」，强调人的实际的道德教育，以揭示「天道」与「人道」之间的仁德相配，和谐相应互补；也揭示了「地道」与「人道」的互通融合，使人效法地坤之德之虚，能容天地万事万物，能乘载天地万事万物。
由是，本文的内容将从「孝」的根源来探讨；其后，综合诠释《孝经》的内容和意义；谈论儒家「孝」的思想及如何落实，其对现代的中国文化的影响；最后讨论和反思《孝经》生命智慧给现代人的启发，如何教育下一代人明瞭这生命智慧。

2. 由神话到报本返始的「孝」
「孝」的原创性的追溯可直指原创文化的神话：「神话的成立往往是将一个民族的原始体验，在未有文字记载时，以口谕的形式流传下来的，这体验解释了当时（时间）在不同的境地（空间）的认知课题。8」因为神话的存在是要揭示一个民族在「自然、社会、人性」的奥秘中所要寻找的答案，显露了原始民族的生存意识和生活实践，以及在生命现象中所要追求的终极关怀，纵而刻划出一个民族的文学、哲学与宗教信仰的根源；在原创文化的根源里，我们可以「找到古圣先贤等的政治、道德的传统和道统观的基础」9。亦可以透过神话「解释世界为什么会拥有道德、精神及物质属性」10。
「在神话的思维中，一切事物都有生命，有人性或灵性，有意志和感情；因此，报本返始的追索是寻觅本源的要求。我们可在神话中看到物我同一，天人交感的特征，这正是原始宗教──万物有灵的功能，使人与自然有着一份平衡和协调；人为了与自然诸神、社会诸神取得一致，为了向神灵和始祖进行文化认同和心理认同，原始的自然崇拜、精灵崇拜、动柤物崇拜、图腾崇拜、祖先崇拜、生殖崇拜等，礼仪的表达便演变成祭祀；祭祀的目的有着报本返始的追索，好使『天、地、人』重返和谐，『自然、社会、人性』展现融和均衡。在『人』的心理本性言，则有一种归属神明的崇拜，归属越彻底，心灵便越有实质的依靠，『天君』则心灵自得安和，这便是一种原始的宗教现象，先人便有祭祀天地山川和祖先的礼仪。11」我们可从祖先崇拜中看到人的孝敬之心，从报本返始的思维中肯定「孝」的意识，这与原始民族的「生存意识」是相连的，即人盼望透过对祖先的孝敬，在死后能继续生存下去。殷商时代，创造了「上帝」，意味着国家的统一。到了周代，更迈向形上的哲学思维，将殷人的上帝称为「天」，「天」更有创造和管理万物的力量；由是，周人提出「天命靡常」而须「敬德」以配，好能达至「天人合一」，才能保天命于不坠，因有德的人能获天的垂眷，可与天相契合，这与殷人相信「宾于帝」──即祖先死后升天，返回上帝怀中的观念互相吻合。
原始民族的「生存意识」注重「自然、社会、人性」的和谐，这「和谐」在人的日常生活中是非常重要的；而中国的古代宗教祭祀活动所求的也在于「和谐」，藉此展现了人类的「生活」、「文化」、「信仰」和「崇拜」的一体性，其内容不离乎「德」与「礼」，我们可从「礼有五经，莫重于祭」和「追养继孝」的「祭」可认知。因为「根据文字记载，我国古代宗教祭祀活动在人们的日常生活中，占着相当重要的地位。12」周人更以「祭」探索生命的「本」和「始」，具体上必须以活生生的行为表达一份「报谢」的心意，和一份「返归」的渴求，好能配天；这份心意和渴求的实现在于「祭」；「祭」的意义说明了人的一种崇德报恩的根本情感，也是人表示饮水思源的感恩报本之情怀，使「自然、社会、人性」走向和谐，如《礼记．祭义》中说：「圣人反本复始，不忘其所由生也。」从人性上言则重视「以德配天」，孝之为德故能配天乃与「祭」有关，《礼记．祭统》有言：「祭者，所以追养继孝也。」可见，追养继孝之祭乃将「孝」和「宗教」贯通为一体，说明了祖先崇拜的信仰乃发自人心本性之孝德，也要求人对祖先的慎终追远的孝敬。
「《孝经．圣治》说：『人之行莫大于孝，孝莫大于严父，严父莫大配天。』其书《感应》篇也说：『子曰：昔者周王，事父孝，故事天明；事母孝，故事地察。……天明地察，神明彰矣！』《孝经》谓严父配天，并把事奉父母和事奉天地联系起来，是周代人的思想。13」我们由「严父配天」可推想为「慈德」配天和「孝德」配天，儒家思想的「以德配天」亦是由此而来。又由「追养继孝」和「慎终追远」确定孝德的重要，乃由「孝德」配天，故孔子在继承周初的「天命靡常」和「皇天无亲，惟德是辅」的思想中，将「天道」无私的德化思想落实在人的道德生活中，又强调报本返始的重要时，提出了「慎终追远」的推动，不是停留在「追养」或「报本返始」，而是在于「孝德」的落实在活着的人的身上，教育后一代的人不可忽略「孝德」乃「追养」祖先，更可以「配天」的要素，故孔子说：「慎终追远，民德归厚焉。14」（论语．学而）
在推崇最完美的仁人圣君中，孔子虽视尧舜为圣王，但孔子亦说出其有不足之处：
子贡曰：「如有博施于民而能济众，何如？可谓仁乎？」子曰：「何事于仁！必也圣乎！尧舜其犹病诸！」（论语．雍也）
子路问君子。子曰：「修己以敬。」曰：「如斯而已乎？」曰：「修己以安人。」曰：「如斯而已乎？」曰：「修己以安百姓。修己以安百姓，尧舜其犹病诸！」（论语．宪问）
以上所述的两则记载中，我们可知孔子所认定的尧舜亦有不足之处：「病诸」，大概是尧舜尚未能安治天下之民。其实，孔子心目中最推崇的人是禹，这一点不可不察：
子曰：「禹，吾无闲然矣！菲饮食而致孝乎鬼神，恶衣服而致美乎黻冕，卑宫室而尽力乎沟洫。禹，吾无闲然矣！」15（论语．泰伯）
从孔子赞美禹之「无闲」,即无可指摘乃在于「孝乎鬼神」、「美乎黻冕」和「力乎沟洫」，其重点乃肯定了「孝德」、「祭祀」和「力行仁爱」。
到了孟子，「《孟子》书中更不惮其烦，事若亲见地叙述舜的家庭故事，其目的主要在于将舜塑造成一个『孝』的典范。16」
孟子曰：「天下大悦而将归己，视天下悦而归己，犹草芥也，惟舜为然。不得乎亲，不可以为人；不顺乎亲，不可以为子。舜尽事亲之道而瞽瞍底豫。瞽瞍底豫而天下化，瞽瞍底豫而天下之为父子者定，此之为大孝。」（孟子．离娄上）
由孟子所言：「不得乎亲，不可以为人；不顺乎亲，不可以为子」，我们可知孟子对「孝德」的重视；更赞美舜能尽事亲之道，堪称为大孝。再加上「尧舜之道，孝弟而已矣。」（孟子．告子下），可知「孝」正是孟子思想的核心。人有了「孝德」便能「尊贤」而让，有孝有让，仁义显而互通。「尧舜之行，爱亲尊贤。爱亲，故孝；尊贤，故让。爱亲忘贤，仁而未义也；尊贤遗亲，义而未仁也。……爱亲尊贤，虞舜其人也。17」「孝德」可以助人揭示心中之善德：「孝弟也者，其为仁之本与。」（论语．学而）又「夫孝，德之本也，教之所由生也。」（孝经．开宗明义章）因此，人有了「孝德」，其他的高尚品德都能从其修身中自然而然地展现出来，如《孟子》书中记载舜之品德：
──「与人为善」。孟子曰：「大舜有大焉，善与人同，拾己从人，乐取于人以为善。」自耕稼、陶、渔以至为帝，无非取于人者。取诸人以为善，是与人为善者也。故君子莫大乎与人为善。」（孟子．公孙丑上）
──「宠辱不惊」。孟子曰：「舜之饭糗茹草也，若将终身焉；及其为天子也，被袗衣，鼓琴，二女果，若困有之。」（孟子．尽心下）
──「奉行仁义」。孟子曰：「人之所以异于禽兽者几希，庶民去之，君子存之。舜明于庶物，察于人伦，由仁义行，非行仁义也。18」（孟子．离娄下）
我们从孔孟推崇的舜禹之「孝」与「祭」与「善」与「仁」之相应，实在是从神话中的天地父母和祖先崇拜的信仰流传下来的，而敬天尊祖也就成为古代中国人安身立命的根本观念19。儒家的安身立命精神乃由「尧、舜、禹、汤、文、武、成王、周公、孔子」的一贯思想作为根据；然而，此一贯思想因时代的转化而有所改变，其在转化的过程中乃承接着原始宗教信仰的神话色彩，只是将神话中的现象界的实物崇拜演变为「人」的神化崇拜．且在生存意识的追索下，使人的思维扩阔而为「人与人」、「人与社会」的关系上，产生一种统一整体秩序的观念，即视天为父，地为母，以「天地父母」的思想要求人的敬孝，对于祖先亦当追孝而加以祭祀；藉此而推出礼乐，助人修德配天地，渐渐地在人的思维中形成了深化的「道德观念」，也显化了「伦常意识」。王孝廉在研究神话和道德关系时说：
在道德观念深化的意识下，神话的主角从威灵的纯化中被洗炼出来，成为高贵化的道德王，如古代的尧（太阳神）、舜（农神）到了此时变成了修平治天下的仁君。……社会组织、政治组织的统一整序观念的兴起，使神话群也有了整齐化的系统，比如舜成了尧的臣子，禹又成了舜的臣子，而且彼此之间又有禅让的故事。20
儒家在道统上推崇「尧、舜、禹」，且视之为「孝德」配天的表表者，如《论语．泰伯》中孔子因禹能「致孝乎鬼神」和「致美乎黻冕」而赞颂禹是无可指摘的。孟子更推崇：「尧舜之道，孝弟而已矣。」（告子下）在《中庸》里更说：「子曰：『舜其大孝也与！德为圣人，尊为天子，富有四海之内，宗庙飨之，子孙保之。』」这都是将神话体系中的人物演化为「道德王」，其本身能以「孝德」配天，而开显了「以德配天」的推崇，「德」便成了天子治理人民和教化人民的道德标准21。在周朝时代，「天」的观念已与人的行为和道德结合22，儒家便将「孝德」→「德」与天相连为一体，更制定「礼乐」，建立「人与天（神）」、「人与社会（家庭与国家）」、「人与人」、「人与自我本性」的生活秩序和礼仪，于是人必须「敬天法祖」、「祭天以明天道」、「守天命以率性」23。这一切都是由报本返始的「孝德」作为导向，演变成为生命的修身养性、立德明道、齐家治国、敬天祭祖的道德伦理规范。
3. 孝的诠释
「孝」字的诠释，按正中形音义综合大字典的说明：
孝：（会意）（形声）甲文孝字阙。金文孝：林光义氏以为「象子承老形」。小篆孝：老省（省老为）子，老谓亲即父母，子承亲顺其意，奉养以尽子职为孝，其本义作「善事父母者」解，（见说文许箸）即爱好父母而善事父母使其悦乐之称。24
「孝」字在甲骨文中是没有的，即说明了「孝」字未见于殷代的卜辞25。由是，我们可以质疑「孝」字的源流不古，与神话中所言之祖先神的孝敬有出入。这就是我们要解释之处。我们不可单说无「孝」字，就等于人的生存意识中没有「孝」的思维与行动。我们可从孝之为德的「德」作探索，相信可为我们揭开疑虑。按正中形音义综合大字典的说明：
德（会意）（形声）甲文德：罗振玉氏以为与金文德同；李敬斋氏以为「行得正也，彳，声，、古直字。一曰直行为德，会意，直亦声。」金文德：吴大澄氏以为「、古直字，相心为德，得于心而形于外也。」小篆德：彳、声，本义作「升」解，（见说文许箸）乃渐进之意，故从彳。又以从直心会意，本为道德之德的本字，升须内得于心而现于行，须平实不欺，故德从声，惟吴楚氏以为「德止一字；德为之异体耳！直心为，此心会意也，加彳为德，此见诸行事会意也」；吴说精到，并引参证。26
我们综合以德字的造字本义来说，许慎在《说文解字》卷十解说字时清楚说了：「，外得于人，内得于己也。」内得于己也就是说内得于己之心，乃说明了「端正心性，反省自我」之意；而直字乃有「举目正视」之意，指人之正直，中正是也。故「德」字从心从直，本义即是正见于心，所谓端正心思，从说出「德者性之端也者。27」人在内心确立正直的准则，加强心性的修养，指导和约束个人行为以求达到「外得于人」的要求；这便可称为有「德」。我们从殷代卜辞记录的史实看；殷人的确非常崇拜上帝鬼神：「殷人导神，率民以事鬼」（礼记．表记）在「尊神事鬼」的行为中即「现于行」，其所要求的是正视一切，端正心性的行，故其内的含意有对祖先神──上帝的孝敬心性。到周初，「为了调整宗族内部的关系，缓和矛盾冲突，于是大力提倡内心反省，引导人们端正心性，强调『德』。周人所讲的德，中心内容就是『孝悌』即享孝祖先，孝事父母，友爱兄弟。如《克鼎》铭文说：『天子明德，显孝于神。（大意说天子彰明美德；对祖先神灵明显其孝道）』又《历鼎》铭文说：『肇对元德，孝友唯型。（大意说：称扬大德，以孝友为楷范）』前者以享孝祖先神灵谓之『明德』；后者以孝事父母友爱兄弟为效法楷模而谓之『元德』28。先秦古籍如《礼记．礼运》说：『天子以德为军。（孔颖达疏：谓孝悌以自载也。德，孝悌也。）』『德』观念的精髓是孝悌。孝悌要落实到现实的政治生活中，即所谓『孝乎唯孝，友于兄弟，施于有政。』（论语．为政）周人讲孝悌，鼓吹『德』。29」
从殷周所讲的「德」乃指孝悌可肯定：为何儒家赞美尧、舜、禹时皆以「孝」称之，又言「夫孝，德之本也。」（孝经）加上在祭祀祖先神时所表达的追养继孝的思念：「祭者，所以追养继孝也。」（礼记．祭统）人更透过「慎终追远」的孝心，可以使生命的「德」归厚（论语．学而）得以肯定，原始的「德」字乃指「孝德」，而孝德可以配天，启发了儒家「以德配天」的思想，作为「人道」与「天道」通贯的桥梁。
我们由「德」之意指「孝」到会意地创造了「孝」字，由其「老省，子」而推出真意为：「善事父母」以至「子承老也」（说文解字卷八）。按刘翔的研究说明：
许慎把孝字看做会意字是正确，但说「老省」则非是。因为老字的构形在殷代卜辞的甲骨文上所写的乃像躬背长发老人之形，且有像老人扶杖之状（此构形与考字同，说明老考本为一字）。但到西周金文，则将手杖之形演变成「匕」的符图，此便是小篆之字。由此可知老字本不「匕」，而与孝字所老符同；许慎所谓「老省」乃因其未能得见老字初文的局限致误。不过，许慎说「子，子承老」，则一语揭示出「孝」字造文的本义所在。「孝」字老子，以见子息承养老人之意。「孝」字造文的构思，与考、长等字出自一源，皆老符相似，其构思亦与老人相关联，考、长老（或做匕），皆取意于老人扶杖之垂老之状，后来两者字义分化，考字孳乳出父考之义，长字则引伸为尊长等义。「孝」字老子，取意于老人依靠子息赡养，是为本义。由此本义再引伸出孝顺父母，即许慎所谓「善事父母者」，进而成为美德的通称，发展为孝道的观念；更进一步则推崇为孝敬他人长辈，做为善处人际关系的准则。对活着的长辈要孝顺，同样对死去的祖先也要尽孝道，事死犹事生，称为「追孝」。在周代金文里充斥着关于「孝」的记录，孝敬尊长，享孝祖先，便被赞誉为有「德」，「孝」是第一位的伦理道德观念30。

4.《孝经》的生命哲学
我们探讨「孝」的问题时，不能单停留在说「孝」和解「孝」的理性思考的美化上，而是整体生命的参与，就是「观」其源与流，「思」其价值，「明」其本义，「学」其真髓．「行」其善道。而「孝」能成为中国哲思上第一位的伦理道德观念，实非依于其理论体系，亦非单依于语言文字的表达，而是依于「躬行实践」31。亚里斯多德（Aristotle）在其《尼可马卡斯伦理学》（Ethica Nicomachea）中的主张：「我们探讨（伦理），目的不在于知晓美德者为何物，而在于为善。不然，探讨便成徒然。」在同样的精神下，我们探讨「孝」也确切地要使人为善；儒家清楚地说出「善」乃人的本性，即人本身的善性足以提供一切价值的基础与标准，这就是中国实践伦理的终究课题，其肯定的内容不单是「人」与「人」的问题更是「自然、社会、人性」的一体向度；因此，中国哲学认定人与自然、宇宙、天地具有同一本根，人成为万事万物的中心点；由是，中国生命哲学所最感兴趣和重视的问题是人之本性、人伦（人际）关系，以及人格的发展，其终极点就是「止于至善」，即使人升华到最完善或完美的境界，而与天地宇宙合一，道通为一或圆融一体的境界32。
当人的思想发展到有系统和探索方向时，就已经不停留在人性自然的倾向与流露。在祖先崇拜中自然流露于人心的「孝」，到了儒家思想崛起，「孝」转化为由人的善性所要求的伦理行为及精神；于是，在理念上强调人的实际的道德教导，其中心观念一则是揭示「天道」与「人道」之间的相连关系，由孝德配天而言「以德配天」的阳刚之德，和谐相应互乘，如「天行健，君子以自强不息」（易传．干文言）。另一则也揭示了「地道」与「人道」的融合相通相载，人要效法其阴柔之德，好能容物与载物：「地势坤，君子以厚德载物。」（易传．坤文言）在「天、地、人」三才的时空中，人处于天地间，必须顶天立地的做人；「孝德配天」乃指人追养继孝的祭祀祖先（天），在地则指「善事父母，子承老」的「孝」和孝敬尊长，以及「继述先人之志」33。由此，我们可以亲验到：「孝道同时具备了内外两重的意义：对内是藉以启发仁心的自觉；对外是藉以象征对整个人类社会以及历史文化的关顾。在孔子心中，一个理想的人格是应朝这内圣外王两面都充分推扩的，而其培养训练的始端便是孝道。34」
「孝」的内圣在于启发仁心的自觉，就是要求人能认识自我和修练自我，这与《大学篇》所言的「格物、致知、诚意、正心、修身」相应；亦如孟子所言的「善端」，必须扩而充之，在扩充时，人必须有学习和受教的精神；故《孝经．开学明义章》有言：「夫孝，德之本也，教之所由生也。」
「孝」的外王在于关顾人类社会及历史文化，要求人能「亲亲、仁民、爱物」以达「齐家、治国、平天下」（大学篇）的理想；孟子则言由仁义行以至于行仁政。
由是，《孝经》在春秋战国的无道乱世中出现，作者35为化解当时政治的霸气、社会的混乱与贫苦、人心惶惶的局面，孔子及其门人以「孝」调和人心，平息焦虑，希望自天子以至于庶民都能返求诸己之善性，为己修德，明善诚身，以孝德配天，好能成己成人、立己立人、修己安人、安身立命，因此《孝经》强调：「夫孝，天之经也，地之义也，民之行也。」（三才章）又「夫孝，德之本也，教之所由生也。」（开宗明义章）可见「孝」的重要性在于贯通「天、地、人」的力量，可扭转干坤，参赞天地化育。以「天之经」形容「孝」，乃指「孝」的神圣性，内在于人之善性，又超越时空，历久常新，为不变的真理，出于天道。至于「地之义」则指「孝」的适应性，人要取法于地道之顺承天道般孝顺父母，奉养终身。「民之行」乃指人处于天地间、顶天立地而为王者，上得天道覆庇的恩惠，下得地道恭顺的孕育，人必须效法天道和地道的大德真理，以孝为先，善事父母才能享有家庭的和睦、国家的安定36。故「孝」能发扬诸德而为德本，教化之源。可见，孔子为使无道的乱世转化为有道的治世，提出「孝」以转化人心，才能使人人（自天子以至庶民）信服，其原因：
i. 我们可从「孝」的宗教性信仰立言，就是祖先神的崇拜，由祭天祭祖的行为作肯定，人要追孝祖先，继述先人之意，便能精诚感应以通神明，不违天道天意。
ii. 人活在人世间，当如地道之顺承天道孕育万物以养人，故人亦当「善事父母」和「孝敬尊长」，推爱敬亲而安分尽责，德加于民而民赖之，才能家和国安，不违地义。
iii. 在于要人爱惜身体（生命）而谨言慎行，不使生命有所毁伤，更要做到修身不辱，践性尊严，以孝德配天法地，才能安身立命。
在无道乱世中，人心盼望有转运的机会，故由传统留下的祖先神──上帝或天的信仰自然是人心中所向往，在祭祀中祈求福佑；在政治上感念先圣王「尧、舜、禹、汤、文、武、周公」的德政，使家国兴旺和谐；在人与人方面，特别注重人伦关系，藉此指示人当行之路，以及做人当有的善德37；而在殷周之际已视「孝」作为道德的规范和伦理的重要思想，当时的「不孝」皆被视为大罪38。孔子明察时势的需要，知悉乱之因是在位者的无道失德，加上自己的体验：「不惑、知天命、耳顺、从心所欲不踰距」的德修，故有志改善在位者的修为而写《春秋》，为转化人心使人人成为有德者而写《孝经》。
孔子说：吾志在春秋，行在孝经。（孝经．钩命诀）
孔子说：欲观我褒贬诸侯之志在春秋，崇人伦之行在孝经。（孝经．纬说）

4.1 「德之本」的孝在转化人心
《孝经》的重要性乃肯定了「孝」为「德之本」，此「德」乃指「有至德要道」的先王所启发的，好能转化「天子、诸侯、卿大夫、士、庶人」的心，使他们在其位中修德致孝；于是：「自天子以至于庶民，壹是皆以修身（修德）为本，其本乱而末治者，未之有也。」（大学篇）因此，人人都必须接受「教化」，即教敬和教爱，好能达成「事亲、事君、立身」．以发扬先王的美德。我们从「开宗明义章」中可列表如下：

人必须先爱惜自己的生命，以确定自己有事亲的孝德，由推己之孝德及于「事君」上，即尽心孝敬尊长；其间，人人都必须在变幻的人世间接受教化，虚心学习修德，使自己成为一位有德的人，在上位者便能以德教加于百姓，即修己以安百姓，且法先王之德以立己立人，做个顶天立地的王者（人），以配合「天之经也，地之义也，民行也」的「孝」（《孝经．三才章》），展示了「孝」的神圣性，可成为人恒常不变的道德规范，亦是人伦的根基，故先王以效法天道、地道和人道的教化，使人民趋向善德；先王亦因自身的崇高德行，使四方的人都来归顺，这就是先王（明王）以孝治天下的妙用，可以感化和转化人心。因此，孔子所言以「孝」治天下乃在于确保「人性」内在的善德的发展，使人人（自天子以至于庶人）都能「孝顺父母、至亲长辈」而为有德者，亦只有在位的有德者才能平治天下，如《诗经》大雅仰之篇上说：「有觉德行，四国顺之」（见《孝经，孝治章》）；在位的有德者如周公等圣人，皆能以「孝德」配天故能以德教化人（《孝经．圣治章》），教人事亲以孝而不骄、不乱、不争（《孝经．纪孝行章》）；教民亲爱（《孝经．广要道章》）；教以孝、教以悌、教以臣（《教经．广至德章》）当孝子丧亲时，教民无以死伤生、毁不灭性；强调「生事爱敬、死事哀戚。」（《孝经．丧亲章》）
孔子在《孝经》中以圣王之德政教当时的「天子、诸侯、卿大夫、士、庶人」当以「孝」配天，是以「孝」感化人心，使上下皆治，人人修身慎行，不辱祖先；人人不忘亲而到宗庙致敬祭祀，必能「通于神明，光于四海，无所不通。」（《孝经．感应章》）
《孝经》作为儒家的经典，其重点要说「孝」乃「德之本」，是「天经、地义、民行」的道德生命的规范，可贯通「天道」与「人道」的融通契合，故以「教化」为基础，以孝德感化和转化「天子、诸侯、卿大夫、士、庶人」五等不同身份的人之心，以达到爱亲、敬亲、事亲、事君。若天子有庆有德，兆民赖之；诸侯有孝德，可长守贵、长守富、保社稷、和其民人；卿大夫有孝德，能守其宗庙；士有孝德，能保其禄位，守其祭祀；庶人有孝德，能用天之道，分地之利，谨身节用，以养父母。就是要人守中正位，发掘人人的自觉心以保其善，如孟子所言的行「仁政」，对人性的尊重，对劳心者与劳力者的尊重。《孝经》之作实非有学者所言：「《孝经》保证封建统治的稳固……把统治者对自身利益的维护，如『守富贵』、『保社稷』、『守守庙』、『保禄位』等也融入孝的内容，这就在理论上淆乱了孝的内涵。39」
吾人认为：《孝经》是一本教化、感化、转化人心的书，此心包括了国家社会中各等级的人，即「天子、诸侯、卿大夫、士、庶人」，人人必须修德持孝，孝德配天。故「自天子至于庶人，孝无终始而患不及者，未之有也。」（《孝经．庶人章》）（《孝经．三才章》）
又《孝经》是一超越人伦的书──「夫孝，德之本也，教化所由生也。」（《孝经．开宗明义章》）「夫孝，天之经也。」（《孝经．三才章》）「孝悌之至，通于神明，光于四海，无所不通。」（《孝经．感应章》）
《孝经》也一本贯通人伦，在人伦内的书──「身、体、发、肤、受之父母，不敢毁伤，孝之始也；立身、行道、扬名于后世，以显父母，孝之终也。夫孝，始于事亲，中于事君，终于立身。」（《孝经．开宗明义》）「教以孝，所以敬天下之为人父者也。教以悌，所以敬天下之为兄弟也。教以臣，所以敬天下为人君者也。」（《孝经．广至德章》）

4.《孝经》的内容及其诠述40
《孝经》乃儒家诠述孝德的经典，历代帝王与学者都很尊崇此书，对中国社会、人心的都影响甚深。此书之所以称为「经」，据《汉书艺文志》所言：「夫孝，天之经，地之义，民之行也。举大者言，故曰《孝经》。」邢昺《孝经正义》引皇侃《义疏》说：「经者，常也，法也。此经为教，任重道远，虽复时移代革，金石可消，而为孝事亲常行，存世不灭，是其常也；为百代规模，人生所资，是其法也。言孝之所教，使可常而法之。《易》有〈上经〉、〈下经〉，《老子》有〈道经〉、〈德经〉。孝为百之本，故名曰《孝经》。41」可知，《孝经》之所以称经，实为教化以感化人心，其作百行之本实强调德行之实践，可作人生活行为的准则，人人皆当行孝，故「自天子至于庶人，孝无终始，而患不及者，未之有也。」（《孝经．庶人章》）
今文《孝经》的内容分为十八章，以说明孝德之崇高和重要，可作为人伦十义的行为模范，皆阐明人伦关系的「天子、诸侯、卿大夫、士、庶人」与「君臣父子」生活行为所寄依的德范，人人皆当知此德范，修德而行；至于天子亦当先修孝德，才能以德治国化民。因此，每章的内容都环绕着「孝德」的宗旨和终向，互相连串而为一，却又是独特彰显每章各自的内容，我们分诠分述于下：
开宗明义章第一
此章是全书的纲领，开示孝道的宗旨，显明孝德的义理，更肯定孝是德之本，教之所由生的道理；先王得之以顺天下，使民和睦无怨不悔；内容更强调：孝之始在于事亲，故不致毁伤身体发肤，其次事君行孝道，其终乃立身显名以荣父母。
天子章第二
于〈开宗明义章〉虽将孝德之纲领说出，但只「通贵贱，未迹未着」，往后五章乃说明五等人，即为人人如何行孝奉亲而立教化之说。而天子乃一国之尊，受命于天而得尊位，故必须以德配天；孝既为德之本，天子自当尽行孝德，博爱广敬，感化人群。因为天子居位于上，若能行孝立身，必影响在下者，这便是以身作则的身教感化，方能以孝治国：「一人有庆，兆民赖之」就是此意了。
诸侯章第三
诸侯是指周朝时代所封立的爵位：「公、侯、伯、子、男」。此章强调：「在上不骄，制节谨度」的基要，以肯定诸侯应以谦逊戒慎的态度，战兢地遵照礼教法度行事，谨慎节约行道，以保全家国人民的和睦同乐相处。
卿大夫章第四
卿大夫乃进贤能达者，乃周朝廷的高官，以辅佐天子成诸侯；因此，其职位次于诸侯，有治民护士之责，对人民的影响很大。由是，在言行举止及服饰上必不能越礼，即必须符合先王（周室）的礼法；在孝德上，更是人民的榜样，透过具体的生活，即言语和行为以示范人民，以德服民心，才能领导群民，辅助天子。
士章第五
所谓士者乃能通古今，辨然不然的任事者。故士有两种意思：
一指读书人称为士，即有知识的知识份子可称为士。
另一指任官职者，及为国服役的军人亦可称为士。
这一章所言的乃指士的孝德，即任官职的士者（等于现时代的公务人员）当以孝德之爱情作为事君敬君的爱情和敬心，忠诚地肩负责任，坚守岗位，顺从礼法，尽忠职守，尊敬长上──以爱事君，以敬事长。
庶人章第六
庶人者乃指天下众人，即一般的平民老百姓。《书经》有言：「民为邦本，本固邦宁」，肯定了人民的本根性，即人的善性；本根能稳固责实安定，家国便能共平宁。倘若按照《大学篇》所言：「自天子以至于庶民，壹是皆以修身为本，其本乱而末治者，未之有也」来说，我们可以看出其重点和本根性放在「德」上立言；两者作配合，即：
i. 民（为邦） → 本（善性）→ 宁
ii. 君∕民（修身）→ 本（德）→ 治
两者虽在不同的层面上说，然为本根都指向德的教化，扩充人的善性之德：仁、义、礼、智。在此教化下，肯定了「修身」乃人人之本，而修身在于修己之德，《孝经》的思想乃指出「夫孝，德之本也」（开宗明义章），故修己之德之本在「孝」，人人能修得「孝」德，善用天时：即春生、夏长、秋收、冬藏的生生的自然规律；地利：分别指五土──山林、川泽、丘陵、坟衍、原隰之高下，取其所宜用之；人若能按天时地利努力开发生产，加上人和，必能供养父母，且在修德上谨慎致诚，不伤己身亦不伤人身，不伤己心也不伤人心，恭敬小心，节俭用慈，以侍奉天地父母。
三才章第七
曾子听完了孔子陈说五等孝的微妙意义和教化后，来一个很大的赞叹：「甚哉，孝之大也」，孔子即时回应说出：孝乃天经、地义、人行之事，可以教化人，且人与天地的紧密关系，故此章以「三才」名之。「三才」者，乃《易传．系辞》中所说的「天、地、人」，按天之才是无限无量的，能照物，能生物，能覆物。地之才亦是无限无量的，能化物，能载物。人之才是否又是无限无量的呢？实言之，人之才能与天地齐一，故能知天地万之理，能顺应天地万物之性，亦能用天地万物之所有，《中庸篇》说了：「圣人可以赞天地之化育，可以与天地参矣」。《孝经》中在此章中提及三才，其理在于说出「孝」道精神之本源，乃取法于天地之无私，立为教诲，以教化世人，故人能见天之所能：包罗万象；亦能察地之所能：孕育万物。因此，夫之孝乃德之本，百行之首，可以扭转干坤，参赞天地化育，孝亦能充塞天地间。《易传．系辞》有言：「易之为书也，广大悉备，有天道焉，有地道焉，兼三材而两之。」圣人能贯通三才而成教于民，可以转化人，也可以感化人，使人人能因孝而博爱与德，敬让不争，和睦相处。
孝治章第八
此章提出的「明王」实指「有德者」，其因有孝德而被称之为「明王」。此章说明有德的明王用孝道精神治天下而天下平，展现将孝道施行于社会国家；教化而治的妙用，故有言：「有觉德行，四国顺之」。可见，在上位者若能活现「德」表孝心，人人必然顺应而效法之，且因有德而懂得以百姓心为心，造福人民，必使人民欢心受教而敬重之；由是，人人生活安和，灾害不生，祸乱不作。
圣治章第九
此章顺应孝治章所言：明王以孝治平天下，再深入说明圣人之治天下。孔子强调圣人以德治天下，再没有比孝德更大的；因为：天地之性，人为贵；人之行，莫大于孝；此德可以配天和配上帝；其意亦表达了先圣王以慎终追远的孝德祭祀祖先，追孝的祭祀有认祖归宗的溯源肯定和答谢祖先的庇荫之心意。因此，圣人教人以敬以爱，立德行孝，而圣人爱亲敬亲的德表乃人的榜样，他的德教使人心服，也使他能顺利地推行圣治而无所执着；无怪乎孟子有这样的描述：「大而化之之谓圣」（尽心篇）。
纪孝行章第十
此章以孔子之言说明孝行的实际活现，即孝子事亲之行，必须透过行动的表达，使能做到五项当做的：致敬、致乐、致忧、致哀、致严，这五项能做得好，才配得起是事亲。另外的，孔子又说出事亲时有三项不当有的表现：即居上不骄，为下不乱，在丑不争；骄则亡、乱则刑、争则兵，故必须戒之。

1.我们从《明报》的报导中了解中西孝道当由子女推己及人之德出发，其理同，皆由「心」之善德推动；但现时代的中国人的孝心如何表达，值得我们反思。在反思中不要忘记人之所以为人的本性本德，此德由内而外的诚（诚中形外）所展现，加上近日（2005年7月21日）在香港《明报》又有一项大新闻：「死前痛苦呻呤，途人视而不见，北京站老妇流血3小时亡。」其内容如下：「《明报专讯》据《新京报》报道：一名流浪老妇前天（19日）在北京火车站广场突然下身出血，痛苦呻呤3小时，但路过的人都未能在意该老妇，无人出手相助。结果，这名年约七旬的老妇在北京人来人往的公众场所就此死亡。消息曝光后，内地网民大感不可思议，其中有人痛心地说道：『冷漠到这种程度，人和动物已经没有区别，甚至还不如动物，中国人的耻辱，北京人的耻辱。』」
又香港《明报》在2005年7月22日有另一段专讯指出：「推母落海淹死，子控谋杀──疑因不欲痪瘫病母再受病魔折磨，前日涉嫌在土瓜湾海傍将母亲绑在轮椅推下海中『安乐死』的男子……疑凶被捕后对欲杀害母亲直认不讳，并深信自己所做之事是为了母亲。」
作者从《明报》的报导中，愿意反省「孝」之为「德」的人性意义。常言说：「中国文化是孝的文化」、「中国文化是道德的文化」；但为什么现代的中国人的「孝的意识」与「德的意识」是如此的薄弱，如何能唤醒人心？实在值得深入探讨。

2.钱穆著，「第七讲：中国历史上的道德精神」，《中国历史精神》，台湾　东大图书公司　1986　114-127页。
「有人问中国的文化精神是什么呢？我认为中国文化精神，应称为道德的精神。中国历史乃由道德精神所形成，中国文化亦然。这一种道德精神乃是中国人所内心追求的一种做人的理想标准。乃是中国人向前积极争取蕲向到达的一种理想人格。因此中国历史上、社会上、多方面各色各类的人物，都由这种道德精神而形成。换言之，中国文化乃以此种道德精神为中心。……我们必从此两理论（不朽论和性善论）出发，乃能把握到中国道德精神最深沉的渊泉。道德并非由外面给我们束缚，而是人类自己的内心要求。我们的天性，自要向那里发展，这是人类的最高自由。孔子孟子均教人『孝』，这不是孔孟存心要把『孝』的道德来束缚人，『孝』亦只人心一种自然的要求。……」

3.东海大学哲学系编译（谢幼伟著，黎登鑫译），「孝道与中国社会」，《中国人的心灵──中国哲学与文化要义》，台湾　联经出版事业公司　民国73年9月（1984）　139-159页。
「由于儒家道之教导在中国伦理中居于最重要之地位达四千年之久，作者因而选为中国首要之道德原则。……
孝道之教义在中国伦理与中国文化传统里，乃居于最重要之地位。……
孝道乃是首要之中国伦理典范，且以如此塑造之德性，孝道在中国道德上亦居于重要地位。……
优良道德之理想发展，必来自其真实源泉，亦即来自开阔而广义之孝道，至为明显。此可解释古代中国哲学家为何强调孝道为众善之源。……」

4.见注1。

5.「生存意识」乃指人在思想上有具备维护生存的能力，且在不同的文化型态下，其与人的生存，人类社会的结构有密切的关系；即人类为了自己的生命的存在及其发展，人便开始拥有思想；透过思想，人对自身生存的维护产生心灵的勇气，愿意积极地活下去，这种最初的意识就是「生存意识」。
参阅严耀中著，《中国宗教与生存哲学》，学林出版社　1991　1-9页。

6.参阅严耀中著，《中国宗教与生存意识》，学林出版社　1991　22-25页。

7.参阅陈荣捷著（黎祭鑫译），《中国宗教中之个人》，见东海大学哲学系编译，《中国人的心灵──中国哲学与文化要义》，台湾　联经出版事业　民73年（1984）　271-275页。

8.周景勋著，「从『神话』的宗教观转化到儒家『德化』宗教观的反思」，《神学年刊》n.22（2002）97。

9.白川静著（王孝廉译），《中国神话》，长安出版社　1986　二版　197页。

10.（美）克里斯蒂安．乔基姆着，王平、张广保、沉培、李淑珍译，《中国的宗教精神》，中国华侨出版公司　1991　152页。

11.周景勋著，「从『神话』的宗教观转化到儒家『德化』宗教观的反思」，《神学年刊》n.22（2002）100。

12.王祥龄著，《中国古代崇祖敬天思想》，台湾　学生书局　1992　23-24页。

13.王晖著，《商周文化比较研究》，人民出版社　2000年5月　4页。

14.周景勋著，「从『神话』的宗教观转化到儒家『德化』宗教观的反思」，《神学年刊》n.22（2002）102-104。

15.陈泳超著，《尧舜传说研究》，南京师范大学出版社　2000年8月26页。

16.陈泳超著，《尧舜传说研究》，南京师范大学出版社　2000年8月30页。

17.陈明著，「唐虞之道与早期儒家的社会理念」，《郭店楚简研究》，辽宁教育出版社　1999　246页。

18.陈泳超著，《尧舜传说研究》，南京师范大学出版社　2000年8月30-31页。

19.马晓宏著，《天．神．人──中国传统文化中的造神运动》，北京　国际文化出版社　1988　2页。

20.王孝廉著，《中国的神话与传说》，台湾　联经出版事业公司　1985　1-4页。

21.周景勋著，「从『神话』的宗教观转化到儒家『德化』宗教观的反思」，《神学年刊》n.22（2002）107。

22.马晓宏著，《天．神．人──中国传统文化中的造神运动》，北京　国际文化出版社　1988　35-36页。

23.罗光著（中华文化复兴运动推行委员会主编），《中西宗教哲学比较研究》，台湾　中央文物供应社发行　1982年2月　63-66页。

24.高树藩编纂，王修明校正，「孝」字，《正中形音义综合大字典》，台湾　正中书局　民66年（1977）八月增订二版　973页。

25.刘翔著，《中国传统价值观诠释学》，上海三联书局　1996　115页，166页见注79。
《甲骨文编》卷八收入一个「孝」字，与商周全文在构形上有差异，当非为孝字。李孝字《甲骨文字集解》；除中舒主编，《汉语古文字字形表》，均不予收录，是正确的。

26.高树藩编纂（王修明校正），「德」字，《正中形音义综合大字典》，台湾　正中书局　民66年(1977)八月增订二版　449页。

27.《礼记．乐记》。孔颖达疏：「德者性之端也者，言德行者是性之端正也。」

28.《诸经．大雅．卷阿》：「有孝有德，……岂弟君子，四方为则。」以有孝道为有德，便可称之为君子，立为人的楷模。

29.刘翔著，《中国传统价值观诠释学》，上海三联书局　1996　90-97页。

30.同上，115-119页。
孝字表示孝顺父母的语义再进一步引伸，即为孝道观念，成为中国人特有的尊重长辈的美德之通称。这种情形在西周金文已有记录。当时已有「追孝」一词来表达孝道的观念。如《买簋》铭文说：「买自作尊簋，用造孝于朕皇祖啻（帝）考。」（大意说：买自己制作这件祭祀用簋，用以追行孝道于伟大的祖父和父亲。）
又《颂壸》铭文说：用作朕皇考龚叔皇母龚姒宝尊壸，用追孝。（大意说：用而制作这件祭祀我的伟大的父亲龚叔母亲龚姒的宝壸，用以追行孝道。

31.东海大学哲学系编译（谢幼伟著，黎登鑫译），「孝道与中国社会」，《中国人的心灵──中国哲学与文化要义》，台湾　联经出版事业公司　民国73年9月(1984)　139-159页。
「由于儒家道之教导在中国伦理中居于最重要之地位达四千年之久，作者因而选为中国首要之道德原则。……
孝道之教义在中国伦理与中国文化传统里，乃居于最重要之地位。……
孝道乃是首要之中国伦理典范，且以如此塑造之德性，孝道在中国道德上亦居于重要地位。……
优良道德之理想发展，必来自其真实源泉，亦即来自开阔而广义之孝道，至为明显。此可解释古代中国哲学家为何强调孝道为众善之源。……」

32.梅贻宝著（东海大学哲学系编译），「中国哲学之社会、伦理与精神价值基础」，《中国人的心灵──中国哲学与文化要义》，台湾　联经出版事业公司　1984　120页。

33.《书经》「文侯之命」有言：「追孝于前文人。」「传」：「继先祖之志为孝」。

34.曾昭旭著，「骨肉相亲．志业相承──孝道观念的发展」，《天道与人道》中国文化新论　思想篇二，联经出版事业公司　民82年初版七刷（1993）　220页。

35.《孝经》的作者是谁？关于这个问题，古来有种种不同的说法，可归纳出下列的几种看法：
一. 孔子编著说：主张此说的有孝经纬决、史记仲尼弟子列传、白虎通五行篇、邢昺孝经正义、以及俞樾古书疑义举例等。
二. 曾子集录说：相传为古文孝经孔安国序说。
三. 七十子徒之遗书：四库全书总目说。
四. 曾子门人编录说：宋司马光、胡寅、晁公武等人。
五. 汉儒伪作说：宋汪应辰、朱熹等。此说不足取。因为据吕氏春秋孝行、察微诸篇均有引用孝经诸侯章数句；可知先秦时代确有孝经，绝无问题。
综合以上各说，孝经撰作之本意，出自孔子，是没有错的。而将其述说集录起来，着于竹帛，传诸后世，系出于曾子门人之手，这种看法，较为恰切而稳当。

36.黄得时注译，「孝经之流传与今古文之争（代序）」，《孝经今注今译》，台湾　商务印书馆　1999年修订六次印刷　2页。
黄得时注译，《孝经今注今释》，台湾　商务印书馆　1999年修订六次印刷　15-16页。

37.作者释：中国文化中所言的人伦乃放在人与人不同层面的关系上立言，这关系显然就是「五伦」关系，其所做成的社会组织重点是在「家族」（宗族）上，个人的生活必定处于家族的规范之内的；于是，在家族社会中，「五伦」的规范自然便成为人生活的指标；这指标也变成了人的伦理道德的方向。五伦中的「父子、夫妇、兄弟」三伦乃家族的伦理，而「君臣、朋友」二伦则为社会的伦理。要知道，社会伦理的基础始源于家族伦理；因此，《礼记．礼运篇》将五伦目标及要求称为「十义」或「人义」（「义者，人路也」，指五伦乃指示人当行之路）：「何谓人义：父慈、子孝、兄良、弟躬、夫义、妇听、长惠、幼顺、君仁、臣忠十者，谓之人义。」可见，「人义」在家族伦理中乃指示了做人之路向，也就是做人的美德。古人的生活，由石器时代开始，人的生存就以「家」为本，以「部落」为聚；其后的生活，进而为农业的生活方式，农林生活是以「家」为本的生活；继之，由「家」而「族」，由「族」而「社会」……而「国家」而「天下」。可见，生活的转化看到人的伦理生活的不同。儒家的传统伦理生活中心便是以「孝」统贯一切善德，《孝经．开宗明义章》有言：「孝也者，德之本也。」

38.柴文华、孙超、蔡惠芳著，《中国人伦学说》，上海古籍出版社2004　19页。

39.柴文华、孙超、蔡惠芳著，《中国人伦学说》，上海古籍出版社2004　107页。
作者释：此说非也。实未明《孝经》所言之教化在于感化和转化人心之意；儒家的孔孟若有此无德的政治思想，就不是孔子所言的圣人之德政，和孟子所言的仁政了，即非孔孟了。

40.内容参阅黄得时著，《孝经合注今译》，台湾　商务印书馆　1999年修订第六次印刷。
赖炎元、黄俊郎注译,，《新译孝经读本》，台湾　三民书局　2002年7月初版四刷。
李学勤主编，《孝经注疏》，台湾　古籍出版　2001年9月初版。
东方檽著，《读孝经的方法学》，玄同文化事业　2000年5月初版。

41.见赖炎元、黄俊郎注译，「孝经略说」，《新译孝经读本》，台湾　三民书局　2002年7月初版四刷　1。

INHUMAN AND HUMAN POVERTY.
From Poverty as Indigence to Poverty as Self-contentedness and Sharing.
The Semantic Complexity of  and Synonyms in the Christian Bible.

by Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti S.D.B.(斐林丰)

In this article1 I intend to point out an interesting shift in the way the Christian Bible (Greek-Hebrew OT + Greek NT) treats the perennial reality of poverty. Given the fact that God consistently takes the side of the poor, the very concept of poverty undergoes a transformation. A split in its connotation takes place. One is compelled to distinguish two kinds of poverty: on the one hand, “inhuman poverty” or “man-degrading poverty” or “dehumanizing poverty”2, detested by God and by the godly Israelite; on the other hand, “human poverty” or “man-upgrading poverty” or “humanizing poverty”, beloved of God and the godly Israelite. It is important to make this distinction because the reality of “humanizing poverty” would seem to be the only way to solve, or at least to tackle in a more effective way, that fundamental economic problem which seems to plague every age of human history, namely, the ever-widening gap between the extravagantly rich and the destitute poor.
1. Three Terms That Refer to the Poor: Their Usage
To begin with, we may analyze the biblical use of the three words most used to refer to the poor (the first two in a strict sense, the third in a larger sense), namely, the terms  (materially poor, needy, mostly translating Hebrew or ),  (poor man, poor, mostly translating Hebrew ) and  (lowly, of no account, humble, oppressed, afflicted, mostly translating the various forms of Hebrew  and  /)3. These three words are often used in an almost synonymic way in the Greek Bible, so much so that in the manuscript tradition they can be interchanged4. Moreover, they often show up in the two halves of synonymic parallelism5.
The term  occurs in the Greek Bible about 160 times (LXX 124, NT 34), the term  80 times (LXX 79, NT 1), the term  78 times (LXX 70, NT 8). The biblical usage of each of these terms has certain common characteristics that can be summarized as follows:
1. For a majority of times, they refer to the poor as the object of due care, whether on the part of God6 or of man7, in a variety of forms: God cares for the poor; godly people care for the poor; God commands to care for the poor; God reproaches human beings for lack of care of the poor; God is appealed to as one who cares for the poor.
2. This does not mean that one should be partial to the poor. Care for the poor is rooted in justice. No partiality is to be shown whether to the rich or to the poor (Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15)
3. Only rarely do these terms express the reality of poverty as such, without direct connection with the expected response to this reality on the part of God or man8.
4. Even more rarely is the poverty expressed by these terms perceived as the result of improper behaviour (for example, being  in Sir 18:33-19,1 is seen as caused by prodigality and  is seen as the result of loose living in Prov 23:21)9.
5. Sometimes, but only in the Old Testament, the disadvantages of being poor are highlighted10.
6. Both in the Old and in the New Testament, appreciation is sometimes expressed for virtue and wisdom in the midst of poverty11.
This simple analysis shows that in the Bible the reality of poverty is closely related to God and his relationship with human beings. It is this particularly close relationship that grounds the Bible’s distinctive view of poverty and gives it that particular twist that is the subject of my paper. It matters to God whether human beings are poor and how they are poor. Poverty makes a difference to God and God makes a difference to poverty. To show how this is so, I will proceed in ten long steps for the OT and two short steps for the NT.
2. Ten OT Steps towards a Fundamental Distinction in the Meaning of Poverty
Firstly, in the very beginning of his relationship with his people at the Exodus and at Sinai, YHWH, the God of Israel, reveals himself as the liberator (Exod 2:23-25) and as the protector (Exod 22:21-27; Deut 10:18; Ps 67[68]:6-7) of the oppressed poor (Deut 26:7). This initial revelation is picked up and developed by the prophets sent by God to Israel as champions of the rights of the poor (e.g. Amos 8:4-7) and by the psalmists who proclaim God's concern for the poor (e.g. Ps 9:19-21; 9,38-39[10:17-18]).
Secondly, given such a basic characteristic of YHWH, the God-fearing Israelite imitates God in His concern that justice be done to the poor and that good care be taken of them (e.g. Ps 40[41],2; Job 29:11-17; 31:16-22; Sir 4:1-10).
Thirdly, the God-fearing Israelite at the same time cherishes abundant riches as a gift from God, as a sharing in God's bounty, and as a reward for his/her virtuous life (e.g. Ps 111[112],1-3).
Fourthly, the converse of the God-fearing Israelite’s appreciation of material abundance is his/her conviction (noted above) that, at least sometimes, being poor is the result of laziness or prodigality or outright wickedness (Job 36:8; Prov 6:6-11=24:30-34; 10:15; 14:23; 21:17; 23:21; 28:19; Sir 18:33-19,1).
Fifthly, the God-fearing Israelite is aware that the latter conviction, if generalized, would clash with the facts of history. How many times he/she finds him/herself poor and weak (e.g. Ps 39[40]:18; 69[70]:6; 85[86]:1) and confronted by wicked people who are rich and powerful (e.g. Ps 72[73]:2-9; Jer 12:1-3)!
Sixthly, at the heart of this historical experience of conflict between the godly poor and the wicked rich there takes place the crucial intervention of God. In this conflict, God does not remain impartial. As in the time of the Exodus, God chooses to side with the godly poor. This divine choice is proclaimed by the prophets (Isa 29:17-21; 49:13; 66:2; Zeph 2:3; 3:11-13) and is celebrated by the psalmists (Ps 21[22]:27; 33[34]: 3.7; 36[37]:10-11; 68[69]:33-34; 149:4).
Seventhly, the way God’s option for the poor is expressed by prophets and psalmists is worth pondering upon. When speaking of certain kinds of poverty (as revealed in human deficiencies like blindness, deafness, hunger, etc.), they clearly speak of a “reversal” that gives light to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and food to the hungry (Isa 29:18; Ps 21[22]:27; 33[34]:7; 36[37]: 10-11). This way of speaking reminds one of the “reversal” by which the poor become rich and the rich poor, as proclaimed in the Canticle of Hannah (1Sam 2:4-8)12.
Eighthly, sometimes the prophets and psalmists appear, instead, to predicate joy and peace to the poor as they are (Ps 68[69]: 33-34; Isa 29:19). In Zeph 2:3; 3:11-13; and Isa 66:2, God’s word addressed to the humble and poor of the earth even seems to confirm them in their present state. It would seem that God's side-taking with the poor endows poverty with such value that the poor, far from having to be delivered from their poverty, are instead to be confirmed in it. God’s closeness to the poor and distance from the rich operates a reversal of values (and not of economic situation) that turns the person of the poor into a blessed person, because “God is with you” and not with the rich. God's “being-with” is what really matters, after all, providing human beings with all they really need13. Still, why should God sometimes deliver people from poverty and sometimes confirm people in it?
Ninthly, the double way with which God deals with poverty obliges us to distinguish two kinds of poverty: a) Inhuman poverty, i.e. dehumanizing poverty (better called: indigence, i.e. the lack of essentials)14 from which God wants to deliver the poor; b) Human poverty, i.e. humanizing poverty15, in which God wants to confirm the poor.
Tenthly, how can poverty be humanizing? What kind of poverty is such a good as to demand confirmation in it? The answer to this question is incipiently given in the Wisdom texts that praise the poor who know how to live a godly, wise, healthy, and frugal life (Prov 19:22 28:6; Sir 10:22.30; 29:22; 30:14). In these texts, the ideal life is seen as contentedness with essentials and generous sharing of the surplus, if any, with the indigent. For a more complete answer to the above questions, however, we must turn to the New Testament.

2. Two Fundamental NT Steps towards Evangelical Poverty
In the New Testament the divine intervention on behalf of the poor, already proclaimed by the OT prophets and celebrated by the OT psalmists, assumes a supreme intensity with the gracious coming, in poverty, of Jesus Christ, “the Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32), the “Emmanuel, God-with-us” (Matt 1:23). In what follows, though the term  and synonyms do not necessarily appear, the reality they express is always present.
The first fundamental NT step is precisely the advent of a poor of YHWH16, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Most High, the Emmanuel God-with-us who chooses to be born “in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7). His parents offer for him the poor people's sacrifice: “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons” (Luke 2:24; cf. Lev 12:2-8). His Sermon on the Mount opens with the Beatitude of the Poor: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt 5:3; in the version of Luke 6:20: “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God”)17.
During his public life, his lifestyle is that of the utterly poor, who have to depend on the sharing of others: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head” (Matt 8:20=Luke 9:58). The same life-style He demands of his messengers: “Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the labourer deserves his food” (Matt 10:9-10=Mark 6:8-9=Luke 9:3). This life-style is a public sign of confidence in the unfailing care of the heavenly Father who takes care of the birds of the air and of the lilies of the field (cf. Matt 6:25-34).
The same confidence, signified by poverty, is demanded also of all those who intend to follow Him: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Matt 19:21=Mark 10:21). That this is not an elite requirement, issued only to the rich young man, but a requirement valid for all His followers, Jesus explicitly states in the Gospel according to Luke: “So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33).
The example of Jesus shows that these demands do not mean that one should not satisfy one’s basic needs. Basic needs should be satisfied by generous mutual sharing. If Jesus has nowhere to lay His head, still He is followed by some women “who provided for him out of their means” (Luke 8:3). Moreover, the manner of renouncing one’s possession can take different forms: total open renunciation (e.g. Matt 19:27-29=Mark 10:28-30), partial open renunciation (Acts 4:34-3)18, a style of administration of personal property characterized by solidarity, and so by justice (e.g. Luke 19:8; John 13:29), etc.
When announcing the Last Judgment, Jesus, the Son of God and Son of man, identifies in a most special way with people afflicted by dehumanizing poverty: “I was hungry and you gave me food… Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matt 25:35.40)19.
The second fundamental NT step is how the community of Jesus’ followers responds to the un-heard of mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God and his identification with the poor in poverty.
One early expression of this mystery is couched in terms of poverty and richness: “our Lord Jesus Christ, […...] though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (2Cor 8:9)20.
The earliest Christian community organizes itself on the basis of Jesus’ public life-style: contentedness with essentials, sharing the surplus with the needy, and receiving from the brethren’s surplus when in need: “And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44-45); “Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need” (Acts 4:32-35).
This is true not only of the Mother Church in Jerusalem, but also of the new Churches born of the evangelizing endeavours of the Apostles. St. Paul writes to his Corinthian Christians, encouraging them to support economically the indigent: “I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality. As it is written, ‘He who had gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack’” (2Cor 8:13-15; cf. 9:8-10)21. For Paul, the OT quotation from Exod 16:18 means that “in the church [we would add: and in the world] as in Israel there should be an equal sharing of resources”22. Of course, all this cannot be done under duress, but spontaneously, from the heart: “Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2Cor 9:7).
Writing to his disciple Timothy, St. Paul encourages him to “teach and urge” (1Tim 6:2) this same ideal: “There is great gain in godliness with contentment (auvta,rkeia)23: for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world; but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content” (1Tim 6:6-8). As for the rich in this world, Timothy is to charge them “not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches but on God [...…]. They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1Tim 6:18-19)24.
Before demanding sharing from others, Paul lives out its preconditions in his own life, as he tells us in Phil 4:11-13: “Not that I complain of want; or I have learnt, in whatever state I am, to be content. I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound; in any and all circumstances I have learnt the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want. I can do all things in him who strengthens me”25.
The Letter to the Hebrews in its conclusion urges the same ideal of evangelical self-contentedness: “Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, ‘I will never fail you nor forsake you'” (Heb 13:5)26.
In the NT, this kind of “common poverty” so that none need be indigent is not so much a sociological strategy, as an experience of the heart that finds its source in unconditional reliance on God. The poverty of the Son of God, His universal call to evangelical poverty, His identification with the poor, and the consequent life-style of the Christian community draw exclamations of wonder from NT writers. St. Paul says: “For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God” (1Cor 1:26-29). St. James says: “Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?” (Jas 2:5). St. James also stresses that the Christian mystery entails the exaltation of the poor and the abasement of the rich: “Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation” (Jas 1:9-10)27.
It may not be perfectly to the point, then, to comment some of these NT words as follows: “Jesus did not glorify poverty; rather, He lifted up the poor”28. A linguistic phenomenon that bears witness to the rehabilitation of the reality of poverty itself in the NT is this: throughout the NT the word is overwhelmingly used to refer to someone to whom loving care and respect is due, or given, by people at large and by Jesus himself. In the NT, the only neutral use of the word  would seem to be Rev 13:16, and the only NT negative uses are in symbolic contexts (Gal 4:9; Rev 3:17). That is, the connotation of ptwco,j in the NT has become basically positive, so that this word cannot be used in purely negative contexts. For example, the clause quoted above in Acts 4:34 (“There was not a needy person among them”) uses the word ,not the word  It says: “There was not a needy person among them”; it does not say: “There was not a poor person among them”. Luke avoids using the word  in a negative context. Being poor is no longer a bad thing; it is basically a good thing. The same word  is used in Deut 15:4 to express God's will for the community of Israel: no one must be needy within it. In Deut 15:11 the same word is used to point to the fact that this will of God, dependent on Israel’s free obedience, will never be fully realized. The latter point is made also by Jesus, but using the word ptwco,j, in Matt 26:11: “”For you always have the poor with you” (=Mark14:7=John 12:8). Accepting this point may help Christian liberation theologies avoid excessive claims29. It may also help us avoid claiming, in contemporary speech, that we should or could “eliminate”, “destroy” poverty. What should be destroyed is “indigence”, not “poverty”.
After walking these two short NT steps, we may conclude that humanizing poverty consists either a) in contentedness with the possession of bare essentials and the voluntary lack of superfluous things; or b) in the possession of essential and superfluous goods but in such a way that one knows oneself to be the rightful possessor only of the essential goods; as for the superfluous goods, these are seen not as one’s property, but as goods given in trust by God so that one may administer them (cf. 2Cor 8:20) in favor of the poor who are afflicted by dehumanizing poverty, i.e. by the lack of essential goods30. The sharing of a brother blessed with humanizing poverty delivers another brother suffering from dehumanizing poverty. Here, in a nutshell, we have the Gospel's remedy for the economic ills of every age. If, for a person or for a community, the b) type of poverty is totally out of sight, then one will have to put up with the horrific sight of rich people unconcerned with the plight of the needy.

3. Conclusion
Humanizing poverty (i.e. contentedness with essentials and generous sharing) is a Gospel ideal that, I believe, needs to be presented to contemporary humankind in all its attractiveness. If necessary, we may make some adjustments in the terminology used. For example, instead of speaking of “humanizing poverty”, we may speak of life styles characterized by “simplicity and solidarity”, by “frugality and generosity”. Whatever form of language we use, the important thing is that the ideal may shine forth in all its brightness. If this is done, a wide resonance will be aroused, even beyond the boundaries of Christian faith and culture31. Throughout human history and throughout the world there have never been lacking people drawn to the ideal of “humanizing poverty”, i.e. of a life-style characterized by simplicity, frugality, contentedness, and loving solidarity with the needy. In Chinese culture, this ideal is beautifully expressed by the four-character idiom: An Pin Le Dao (安貧樂道). In the Chinese Zen tradition, the Holy Rule of Pai-chang (百丈清規) with its “universal duty of working in the fields” (普請) and the five “pure rules”32 (五戒) bears witness to the value of humanizing poverty. That this ideal is valid even today was borne out, I believe, in the remarkably simple and frugal personal life of the late great Chinese entrepreneur and philanthropist Sir Tang Shiu Kin (鄧肇堅).
In the tradition of the Salesian Society of St. John Bosco (1815-1888), of which I am a member, I recall the splendid example of Don Bosco’s mother, popularly called Mamma Margaret (1788-1856). When his son was considering what vocation to follow in his life, Mamma Margaret went to see him and told him: “My son, don’t worry about me. I ask nothing of you, and I expect nothing from you. Remember this: I was born poor, I have lived poor, and I want to die poor. What is more, I want to make this very clear to you: if you decide to become a secular priest and should unfortunately become rich, I will never pay you a single visit! Remember that well!”33. For this peasant woman, humanizing poverty was certainly a very high value!
Even though we live in an era that has seen the demise of all utopias, we should not hesitate to present to the world the utopia of evangelical poverty. In the distinction between two kinds of poverty and in the active promotion of the second kind lies the evangelical utopia of a true economic equality between persons and peoples. When all human beings freely accept to be poor in the sense of humanizing poverty whether of the a) or b) types, then there will be no more human beings afflicted by inhuman, man-degrading, dehumanizing poverty. Past excesses in remote and recent history (I am thinking of the Peasant Wars in Europe, of the Taiping Tianguo and the Cultural Revolution in China), should not make us lose faith in the ideal of evangelical poverty. These excesses were based on compulsion and submission, not on persuasion and conviction.
Since, however, people can only be invited, not compelled, to accept humanizing poverty, we must accept the fact that this evangelical utopia will fully become a reality only in the “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2Pet 3:13). Suppose, however, that all human beings freely accept humanizing poverty, would it then mean that Jesus’ words spoken shortly before his death (“You always have the poor with you”, Matt 26:11=Mark 14:7=John 12:8) are no longer true? My answer is: No, these words of Jesus will be always true. Were all people to accept freely the call to humanizing poverty, these words would be as true as ever, but in an unexpected new sense. That is, the “inhumanly” poor would be blessed by God by being liberated from the evil of inhuman poverty and introduced into the good of humanizing poverty, while the “humanly” poor would be blessed by God by being confirmed in that humanizing poverty that alone bestows enduring spiritual freedom, joy, and peace.

  A Chinese version of this article is being published in Mainland China in the Acts of The 3rd International Philarchisophia Symposium held at Holy Spirit Seminary College, Hong Kong, August 16-18, 2005.

This is the term used by Duncan MacLaren, the secretary-general of Caritas Internationalis, in connection with the UN World Summit held in New York on September 14-16, 2005 to review the Millennium Development Goals on alleviating poverty. See Sunday Examiner, October 2, 2005: “Caritas head calls United Nations world summit a ‘missed opportunity’”, p.4.

For the English meaning of these terms see Lust, J., Eynikel E. and Hauspie, K., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, II. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996, pp.411, 365, 469.

In Sir 29:9 MS A1 has where MSS A2 B S have Similarly, in Amos 8:6 R (the 1587 Sixtine Edition of the LXX) has pe,nhj where MSS A B have In Ps 101[102]:17[18] where MS S1 has  MSS S2 A B have tapeino,j; idem in Sir 13:21 S1 and S2 A B respectively; conversely, in Isa 61:1, where MSS S2 A B have MS S2 has

In their various grammatical forms,  and occur together in 1Sam 2:7; Ps 81(82):3; Sir 11:12; 13:20; Amos 2:7; 8:6; and  in Ps 9:38-39[10:17-18]; 81(82),3; Prov 30:14; Jer 22:16; and , in their various grammatical forms, occur together at least 31 times in the LXX.

LXX 59, NT 15; LXX 48; LXX 30, NT 5.

LXX 51, NT 18; LXX 36, NT 1; LXX 9.

LXX 11, NT 6; LXX 1. This neutral attitude to poverty is reflected in the prayer of Prov 24:31[30:8]: “Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me” (RSV).

Under the noun peni,a in Prov 6:6-11=24:30-34 and Prov 28:19 poverty is seen as the result of laziness, under the noun evndei,a in Prov 14:23 as the result of loose living, in Job 36:8 and Prov 10:15 as the result of wickedness.

LXX 13; LXX 4; LXX 3. With the noun / this is the majority use.

LXX 6, NT 4; LXX 3; LXX 4, NT 3.

The Canticle of Hannah is taken up in the NT by the Canticle of Mary (Luke 1:51-53), but with a shift in emphasis, as we will see.

This is the meaning of the “reversal” in the Canticle of Mary. See Cantalamessa, R., The Mystery of Christmas. A Comment on the Magnificat, Gloria, Nunc Dimittis. Slough: St. Paul Publications, 1988, pp.11-31.

Indigence, rather than poverty, corresponds to the definition of “poverty” given by the World Bank (1990): Poverty is “the inability to attain a minimal standard of living”. See Townsend, P., “Poverty and Human Rights: Multi-dimensional Measurement” (Paper presented first in August 2005 at an International Conference in Brasilia, later also in Hong Kong), 4.

This kind of poverty is called humanizing in the sense that it positively builds up not only the poor person itself but also others as well. For the latter aspect see 2Cor 6:10.

See Gelin, A., The Poor of Yahweh. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1964, pp.75-90.

Matt’s formulation is not essentially different from that of Luke 6:20. Cf. Daves, W.D. and Allison, D.C. , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, The International Critical Commentary I. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, p.443: “the religious meaning of ‘poor’ does not exclude the economic meaning […]. Rather do the two go together”.

For the probable partial character of this renunciation see Fitzmyer, J.A., The Acts of the Apostles. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible 31. New York – London – Toronto – Sydney – Auckland: Doubleday, 1998, pp.312-314.

For “the least of these my brethren” as meaning the poor in general see Sabourin, L.,  selon Saint Matthieu et ses principaux . Roma: Biblical Institute Press, 1978, pp.330-332.

While Jesus’ impoverishment primarily refers here to his self-emptying in the Incarnation, an at least implicit reference to his poor style of life should not be excluded. See Barrett, C.K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: A & C Black, 1973, p.223.

“Paul means that there is, or ought to be, equality of supply (verses 13 f.) because the more fortunate give away their surplus, and the less fortunate receive it” (Barrett, C.K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: A & C Black, 1973, p.227). “It is the ideal of Christian partnership () as that is presented, for example, in Acts 2:44-45 […]” (V.P. FURNISH, II Corinthians, The Anchor Bible 32A. New York – London – Toronto – Sydney – Auckland: Doubleday, 1984, p.419).

Thus Furnish, V.P., II Corinthians. p.420.

Regarding “contentment”, see Phil 4:11-13; Matt 6:34; Luke 3:14 and Kittel, G., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament I. pp.464-467. Sir 5:1 warns against a wrong understanding of

Again, this is an echo of the in Acts 2-4. See Quinn, J.D. & Wacker, W.C., The First and Second Letters to Timothy. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 2000, p.554.

“Paul has the right attitude to both [want and abundance] so that even when he has more than enough for his needs he does not succumb to the temptation of finding his satisfaction in such material abundance” (O’Brien, P.T., The Epistle to the Philippians. A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eeerdmans, 1991, pp.524-525).

The problem with the love of money is that it “can keep Christians from helping their fellow-men who are in need” (Lane, W.L., Hebrews 9-13, Word Biblical Commentary 47B. Dallas Texas: Word Books, 1991, p.518).

The exaltation derives from God’s choice of the poor. See Davids, P.H., The Epistle of James. A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982, p.76.

Verhey, A.D., “Poverty”, in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, III, 924. The same reservation should be made about what is said in Bammel, E.- Hauck, F., in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament VI, pp.902-903: “In Mk. 10:17ff. the life of the poor is commended to the landowner; he is summoned to distribute all his possessions to the . It would not seem, however, that the author has any intention of exalting the poor as such or in principle”.

See Pixley, G.V. & Clodovis, Boff, The Bible, The Church, and the Poor. Tr. P. Burns: Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1989, pp.121-122.

This is ultimately the only valid use of wealth: “[T]here is need to see fiduciary and trust arrangements not as mere opportunities for personal gain, or the stock market as a rich man’s lotto, but to see wealth as a community-trust to benefit all” (Oakman, D.E., “The Radical Jesus: You Cannot Serve God and Mammon”, BTS 34, p.128).

While the motivations of evangelical poverty in the NT are specifically Christian, the ideal of self-contentedness is, for example, a “commonplace of traditional Greek morality” (Attridge, H.W., The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989, p.388 with note 62).

Wu, John C.H. , The Golden Age of Zen. Taipei: United Publishing Center, 1975, pp.109-110.

Lemoyne G.B., The Biographical Memoirs of Saint John Bosco, An American Edition Translated from the Original Italian, ed. Borgatello, D., I, New Rochelle. NY: Salesiana Publishers, 1965, pp.221-222.

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/Vol.27/Vol.27/A027G1.htm

by O’Cearbhallain, Sean (嘉理陵)

Inasmuch as any text – classical or otherwise -- performs, or is intended to perform, a noetic, cognitive or communicative function1, it may be regarded as literature, whether major or minor. On the presupposition that a text is intelligently composed and therefore intelligible, any text is the expression, or aggregate of expressions, of an insight, or of a manifold of insights. If we accept the validity of the insight, grounded in the epistemological doctrine of Bernard Lonergan, that expressions, linked to one another, are more fundamentally linked in their source and that consequently any discussion “of the radical meaning of literature, of myth and mystery, of ritual and dance must be genetic,”2 it will follow that a discussion of any text must be genetic. Such a discussion, however, can only be genetic because the text has a genesis. Furthermore, any text, classical or otherwise, is an expressed expression, as distinct from an expressing expression3, of which of course it is the fruit. It may therefore be accepted as axiomatic that a text is the objective correlative of a subject-centred reality, where the subject is precisely the attentive, intelligent, rational and responsible knower and as such is the location and the originating origin of the genesis of any text. It is here that we learn to distinguish the transcendental method from any of an increasing multiplicity of categorial methods, for the attentive, intelligent, rational and responsible subject operates within a particular context, or cluster of contexts, within the space-time continuum of our human reality, and it is these contexts, singularly or in conjunction, which call forth the particular categorial methods which are the fruit of the transcendental method. The transcendental method then is to be identified as the human spirit, specifically the human spirit in its mode of operation, specifically in its inquiry.
Inasmuch as Biblical Hermeneutics is a category within the wider field of hermeneutics or the search for textual meaning in general, it is a fruit of the transcendental method. This paper, then, extrapolates from the relationship between transcendental method and the multiplicity of categorial methods to examine the importance of genetic method in biblical hermeneutics.
To illustrate this understanding of Biblical Hermeneutics and its importance, we might take a close look at Pauline scholarship and at the questions of the Pauline corpus and of Pauline theology, and so raise the question of the binding and unbinding of Paul. It would take a lot of time and effort to illustrate in fine detail the thesis proposed here, namely that, in determining the parameters of the Pauline Corpus in the New Testament and in interpreting the theology of that Corpus, there frequently appears to be an imposition of extraneous horizons on the vocabulary, literary style, and theology of the relevant texts, and that this imposition raises the question of the probability of a methodological invalidity, equivalent to eisegesis, in allowing a categorial, perhaps even a personalized, methodology, less than fully reflectively named “Pauline”, to replace the transcendental method, to the detriment of the emergence of a viable construct which might intelligently, rationally and responsibly be named either “The Pauline Corpus” or “A Pauline Theology” as the case may be. The probability of the invalidating imposition suggested here goes beyond anything Gadamer and others would attentively, intelligently, rationally and responsibly call a “horizon”, since such a horizon is an a priori constituent of all human understanding, whereas the imposition suggested here is usually thematically adopted and frequently, if not always, confessionally motivated.
I have said that it would take a lot of time and effort to illustrate this thesis, not because it is difficult but because the literature to be examined is rather vast, the tendency is fairly pervasive and so subtly woven into the texture of argument and explanation that it would require an attentiveness both time-consuming and challenging to one’s talents of analysis. I have offered a minor example of how the thesis may be examined, elaborated and evaluated in an article in Theology Annual, The Christology of the Letter to the Ephesians. 4
It remains to say something about genetic method. I quote here from my summary of Lonergan's doctrine as presented in the article I have just mentioned.
Following the teaching of Bernard Lonergan, a genetic method is one which finds its heuristic notion in development.5 Expression is a function both of controlling meaning and of underlying psychic flow.6 While the underlying flow is the ground of the inadvertent recurrence of characteristic patterns, hence allowing a systematic component in expression which grounds the possibility of investigation, there are the further genetic and incidental components in expression. These components, it would seem, are grounded in the controlling meaning. For the genetic component arises from the fact that the system which the dynamic structures of the psyche strive to satisfy is not a static system but one on the move, and the controlling meaning is just such a system. The incidental component arises from the possibility of the intervention of the principal acts of meaning interrupting the sensitive automatism so that, for now irretrievable and unverifiable reasons, there is produced a difference in usage or an unexpected turn of phrase. These irretrievable and unverifiable reasons mean that, as in any science, so also in hermeneutics, total explanation is at best an ideal towards which our ever more probable penultimate and provisional explanations converge, and at worst a beguiling myth, or a theatre of the self. Thus it is hazardous to presume to know how to answer every question which might be raised about any text.
Let us say something about some at least of the elements called for in this description in order to apply them to Biblical Hermeneutics, specifically in the field of Pauline Studies. Lonergan speaks of [1] controlling meaning; [2] underlying psychic flow; [3] the ground of the inadvertent recurrence of characteristic patterns; [4] a consequent systematic component in expression; [5] genetic components in expression; [6] incidental components in expression; [7] moving system.
[1] In the case of Pauline Hermeneutics, I think that the controlling meaning can be fairly termed “Pauline Theology”, where the word “theology” primarily denotes an activity and only secondarily a content. For giving primacy to content immediately begs several questions: [a] what precisely is “Pauline Theology” as content? [b] How do we determine the parameters of that theology? [c] Who, if anyone, has the authority to determine exclusively the construct of that theology, if indeed “exclusively” is not a detrimental impediment to hermeneutics?
Therefore theology as theologizing, “Pauline Theology” as controlling meaning, is to be located within our second isolated element, namely [2] Underlying psychic flow. Some attention is paid to this when it is remarked that Paul's upbringing in Tarsus must have sparked within his soul a concern for those who did not belong to Israel and the vision on the road to Damascus was the revelatory answer to that concern. The underlying psychic flow in question did not come into existence on the road to Damascus. No matter how much of an unprecedented experience that vision was for Paul, it nevertheless occurred to Paul precisely at that stage in his career, that stage in his psychological, intellectual, spiritual and theological development.7 That psychic flow did not cease or become petrified when Paul attained the insight that Gentiles could be and in fact were saved outside the economy of the Law no matter how unique that economy was.
If we may analogously understand Paul's underlying psychic flow as the central potency of Pauline theology, and the actual Pauline writings as the central act of that theology, it is to be acknowledged that there can be no presumption that the central potency was totally and absolutely elevated to central act, least of all in any particular writing such as Romans or Galatians8.
In passing, as a cautionary reminder of what we may or may not affirm about Paul or about his theology as content, we might pay attention to Fitzmyer's remark on the comparative absence of the Covenant notion from Paul's writings.9 Part of the dynamism of Paul's psychic flow was, of course constituted by all the autobiographical elements which he refers to in his Letters: hereditary elements in Philippians 3:4-6 and 2Corinthians 11:22; vocational elements in Philippians 3:7-14 and other texts; and experiential elements in 2Corinthians 11:23-29.
While the underlying flow is the ground of the inadvertent recurrence of characteristic patterns, hence allowing a systematic component in expression which grounds the possibility of investigation, there are the further genetic and incidental components in expression. These components, it would seem, are grounded in the controlling meaning, in Paul's activity of theologizing, of having recourse systematically to the Christic horizon to deal with human and Christian life in the world.
Inasmuch as he is consistent in his faith and hope, in his theology and his apostolic ministry, there are of course in Paul's texts the third and fourth elements isolated above, namely [3] the inadvertent but congruent recurrence of characteristic patterns and [4] the consequent systematic component in expression. A study of presentations of Pauline Theology can help us to understand both questions and answers, the questions being the determination of the recurrent characteristic patterns and the determination of the elements which go to make up the consequent systematic component. The answers are attained by attentive, intelligent, rational and responsible study of the contents of the many presentations of Pauline Theology available. Let us offer a very simple example. In his original study of Pauline Theology in the 1968 Jerome Biblical Commentary10, Joseph Fitzmyer isolated four systematic components in Pauline Theology, namely reconciliation, expiation, redemptive liberation and justification. In the revised version of his study for the 1990 New Jerome Biblical Commentary11, he isolated ten elements which, with varying degrees of importance, we may fairly denominate as elements in the systematic component of Pauline Theology, namely justification, salvation, reconciliation, expiation, freedom, sanctification, transformation, new creation, glorification. We might perhaps add union to this list.
Fitzmyer's 1968 study called attention to the non-exclusiveness of justification as the only systematic component in Pauline Theology, while his 1990 study is a clear reminder that our study of Paul is, and must be, a moving system, where achieved results may give rise to higher or wider viewpoints.
In determining the Pauline corpus and consequently the expanding parameters of Pauline Theology, we must not allow our sixth isolated element, namely [6] incidental components in expression, to assume a determinative importance which overrides all other considerations. An example might be Paul's apparent ambivalence towards circumcision: it is an advantage [Romans 3:1], something to be understood as “more than a physical operation” [Romans 2:25-29], or it is something secondary and subordinate [Romans 2:29]; it is something to be railed against in several important sections of his writings, or it is something to be dismissed as essentially irrelevant [Romans 3:30, 1Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 5:6, 6:15, Colossians 3:11]. The importance and the irrelevance as expressed in writing may be fairly subsumed under “incidental components in expression” whereas concrete missionary or theological settings would call forth a consideration of the wider salvific question and hence the question of how much of a systematic component the matter of circumcision was in Paul’s entire theological vision. It will be obvious of course that he would maintain that circumcision does not guarantee salvation nor does it of itself constitute a hindrance to salvation in any particular case. Obvious though this is, we still have a methodological obligation to ask the questions. These methodological questions also look to terms rarely used by Paul: is this rarity to be given a determinative force or is it merely one of many incidental components?
Nowadays, it is surely a platitude to remark, as Cambier did over 40 years ago12 that, like any creative thinker, Paul is not bound to his images. Consequently, any attempt so to bind him in the interpretation of his thought is an instance of that bias which is the almost inevitable shadow of perspective. Yet one can only feel that his interpreters seem to tend to bind Paul eternally both to the specificity of the theological content of his teaching and even to a certain literary form which includes, sadly, a restricted vocabulary. To put it in somewhat simplistic and obvious terms, in writing Romans, Paul was not suggesting, much less determining or defining, the limits of his theological imagery or vocabulary. How much more so must we affirm this with reference to the entire body of his theological thought or to his theology as a moving system.
Again in dealing with texts from a creative thinker such as Paul, given that the isomorphism of knowledge and expression is not an identity13, it should be clear that the insights the author is striving to convey may well not be not commensurate with the literary form chosen, or indeed any literary form, for presumably the insight could be conveyed in any one of a manifold of expressions, even textual ones. Diversity of literary forms, even incongruity of literary forms, where there is no contradiction on the conceptual level – in Paul's case, the theological level – can scarcely be a criterion for founding theories of authorship or provenance, for denial of a potency for diversity to an author is effectively a denial of the validity of the transcendental method, since it presumes a lack of diversity, even the impossibility of diversity in new experiences, as well as a lack of any possible diversity in degree of attentiveness either called forth by the objective experience or by the subjective exigencies of the particular human spirit called to attentive awareness by a new experience set against a cumulative background of insights.
In paying attention to the necessary consequences of positing the transcendental method, one must take into account the distinction between the systematic, genetic and incidental components of any expression, that is to say – within the context of the present discussion – of any text. The contention, for example, that Paul could not have said things in a certain way is a hazardous one. To put it simply, any affirmation of what Paul could or could not have said must be examined very carefully, not only on the basis of Paul's own experience and situation, but perhaps more importantly on the basis of the various contexts of the person making the affirmation. I have often felt that a sociological study of the full complex of life situations of each biblical scholar might reveal how a very particularized, let us say confessional, mindset determines to a disquieting extent the interpretation of texts being offered. The same could be suggested in calling for an analysis of the fidelity with which an interpreter, consciously or unconsciously clings to the transcendental method and avoids any reduction of that transcendentality to a categorial personally constructed Pauline methodology or Pauline Theology.

CONCLUSION
If I were to set a sub-title to this paper, in the light of what I have been saying, such a sub-title could well be “Paul Unbound”or“The Unbinding of Paul”. However, that could be misleading in that the focus of what I am saying is not only Paul. My intention is rather a plea for a more extensive reflection on a methodology for Biblical Hermeneutics which would more congruent with the“spirit as inquiry” notion of transcendental method and so liberated from its historical enmeshment in psychological, personal and political factors deriving from sixteenth century Europe.
Though it may be contentious to suggest so, perhaps Luther's reformation tells us more about Luther than about Paul. Perhaps Bultmann's theology of the New Testament tells us more about Bultmann than about the New Testament writers. Mutatis mutandis, the same may be suggested about others. The configuration of a construct to determine what is definitively “non-Pauline” may run the risk of subjecting the transcendental method to categorialization by giving to incidental components a transcendental value, by grounding the systematic component, not in the genesis of Paul's thought, but in the second order genesis of thought about Paul's thought, and so leading to a neglect of the relevance of the genetic component, thus binding Paul, when he himself would not be so bound.

1.On these functions, see Lonergan, Bernard J.F., Method in Theology. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972, pp.786, 78-79, 89-90, 104. In general, this paper applies to hermeneutics the teaching of Lonergan as instanced in his two works, Insight. A Study of Human Understanding. London: Longman, Green, 1965, and Method in Theology.

2.Navone, J., Ongoing Collaboration: The First International Lonergan Congress. Gregorianum 51(1970) p. 553. See further, note 5 below.

3.The rather awkward phrases “expressed expression” and “expressing expression” are, of course, based on the pairs intentio intenta and intentio intendens, pensée pensée and pensée pensante noesis and noema, with a similar intention. On these pairs, cf. Insight, pp. xviii, xxv-xxvi, 73, 81, 320-321, 324-325, 349, 369, 371,452, 486, 515, 644.

4.O Cearbhallain,S.,The Christology of the Letter to the Ephesians. Theology Annual 23 (2002) p.153-199.

5.On the notions of development and genetic method, cf. Insight, pp.451-483. On possible development in Paul's teaching, cf. briefly Fitzmyer, JBC 79:8 and, more critically, NJBC 82:9; further JBC 79:13, NJBC 82:15. On Paul's background, cf. Fitzmyer's convenient and succinct treatment of “five factors that influenced Paul's theology” [NJBC, 82:10-23], especially 82:14 on the contrast between an underlying basic theology and a differentiated Christology, and 82:15 on the implicit recognition of a development from a basic insight attained on the road to Damascus to “all the implications” of this vision which “was to color all that he [Paul] was to learn about Jesus…...” Full bibliographical data for Fitzmyer's two studies in notes 10 and 11 below.

6.For this statement and what follows, cf. Insight, p. 593.

7.On the debate about development in Paul's thought, cf. note 5 above. What is debated about possible developments in Pauline texts suggests we may move from this objective correlative of texts to discuss the subjective dynamic of Paul’s personal development in all the relevant aspects of his being, psychological, personal, spiritual, theological, missionary, apostolic.

8.On central potency, central act (and central form) in discussing genetic method, cf. Insight, p.459.

9.Fitzmyer, NJBC 82 :14.

10.Fitzmyer, J.A., “Pauline Theology”, JBC #81.

11.Fitzmyer, J.A., “Pauline Theology”, NJBC #82.

12.Cambier, J. La Signification Christologique d' Eph 4:7-10. New Testament Studies 9(1962-1963) p. 274, note 4.

13.On the distinction, isomorphism and interpenetration of knowledge and expression, cf. Insight, pp.554-555. In this regard also, cf. note 3 above.

The Problem of Hermeneutics and Contextualization:
Confucian and Christian Canonical Writings On Human Relationships

by Patrick Taveirne C.I.C.M.

The Chinese word for a classic or canonical writing (jing 经) originally meant the long warp threads in a fabric, an apt metaphor for the continuity of transmission. Later it meant rules or norms. The Greek word  is traceable through Babylonian to Sumerian (kaneh,  “reed”). The word came to signify a measuring stick. Later it also meant a norm or standard. The Greek word  was used to cover a broad scope in the process of clarification: interpretation by speech itself, process of translation, and interpretation by commentary and explanation1.

Hermeneutical Circles
The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur observed, “When interpreting a text, something is lost, irremediably lost, that is, the immediacy of belief.2” Since the European Renaissance, people cannot adhere to something without also being critical of it. They cannot believe without understanding (fides quaerens intellectum), but we have to believe in order to understand (intellectus quaerens fidem). Modern and post-modern people in Europe have asked themselves three different questions: what is in the given text itself (historical philology and textual criticism); what is behind the text (the plain and intended meaning of the text within its historical context); and what is in front of the text (meaning as created by the reader in the act of reading). Readers create anew the books they read.
The three questions or phases in the art of interpretation can be summed up in terms of the hermeneutical circle (the circularity of part and whole, the continuous going back and forth movement between the matter of the text and the speech to convey it, and between the reader and the text). The social location of the present interpreter, his or her pre-understanding and existential positioning have a potential to shape the hermeneutical process of receiving as well as reviewing the original context of the text. Modern hermeneutics insists on the historical succession of interpretations rather than on the permanence of meanings. We have to overcome conflicts of interpretation.
Early and mid-Qing Classicism, according to Chow Kai-wing 周佳荣, resembles the humanist movement of the Renaissance in its philological devotion to the recovery of Han classical antiquity. But in contrast to the European humanists, Han Learning scholars did not undertake philological endeavors to improve their speaking or writing skills. Their intellectual energies were totally consumed by their attempt to reconstruct an ancient model of social order and its patterns of behavior through, for instance, ritual research, Classical learning, textual criticism, and phonetic studies. The strong anti-heterodox sentiment and persistent purism of the Qing classicists, as well as the strong ritualism and its connection to Classicism were absent in Renaissance humanism 3.

Canonical Writings and Inspiration
The Confucian teaching (rujiao 儒教) is embodied in the Five [Six] Classics (Wujing 五经) and the Four Books (Sishu 四书), and in a certain, but shifting, sense, the commentaries of the Confucian greats. For Confucians, the authority of the jing rested on the person of the teacher and the model of behavior he presented. According to Matteo Ricci, Confucians regard the sages as authoritative examples (zong 宗), and the sages used the canonical writings and their authoritative commentaries (jingzhuan 经传) as media of instruction (shijiao 示教)4.
But whence did the Confucian sage draw his inspiration? From Heaven (tian 天) seems to be Confucius’ answer in the Analects. But how? Confucius said: “I don't want to speak any longer.” Zigong said: “If you don't speak, what could we, your disciples, pass on?” Confucius said: “Does Heaven speak? Yet the four seasons go their way, and everything flourishes. Does Heaven speak?” (Analects 17:19) Heaven does not speak; its commands must be understood from the workings of the physical and moral universes. Even more emphatic that Heaven does not speak is Mencius: Wan Zhang said…“Since Shun got the Empire who gave it to him?” (Mencius) said: “Heaven gave it to him.” “If Heaven gave it to him, did Heaven give specific orders?” Mencius said: “No! Heaven does not speak but reveals its will through actions and deeds.” (Mencius 5A: 5) It is the moral nature of humankind, for Mencius a Heaven-given, innate sense that discloses the will of Heaven.
In the early Qing, the classical scholar Zhu Yizun 朱彝尊 (1629-1709) in an essay titled “The Original Meaning of Teaching” (yuanjiao 原教) argued that the Confucian teaching was self-sufficient. Based upon the Confucian canonical writings, he posited that only the teaching on human relationships (renlun 人伦) is entitled to the name of jiao. A similar approach could also be found in the essay of Li Fu 李绂 (1673-1750). He repeatedly advocated: “Under Heaven there is no such a Way (dao 道) beyond that of human relationships, thus there is no human being who might exclude himself from the Way. Since under Heaven no one can exclude himself from the Way, there should be no teaching external to the realm of human relationships.” Another scholar Ji Yun 纪昀 (1724-1805) once noted in a court lecture, the sages' “ruling/order” (zheng 政) is exactly the sages' learning (xue 学), which is also exactly the sages’ teaching (jiao 教)5. In a similar vein, the 1958 neo-Confucian Manifesto claimed that the whole of Chinese culture comes from one single root (“single-rooted-ness” yibenxing 一本性). The single root lies in the notion that “Chinese culture stresses the moral relationship between one human being and another, but not the religious relationship between human beings and God.6”
The Christian teaching is embodied in the Bible or Sacred Scripture (shengjing 圣经), that is the Old and New Testaments (jiu/xinyue 旧/新约 “covenant”) and the Magisterium (xundao 训导), that is the collective memory of the Church and the communion of Churches. Revelation for Christians, at least in the seventeenth century, was conceived primarily as locutio Dei, “God speaking out of the treasury of his own understanding, communicating to human beings truths which otherwise would be attainable by them only with difficulty or not at all.” This was the language of the Bible: “You came down also upon Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them right ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments.” (Nehemiah 9:13)
Today Catholic theologians see Sacred Scripture as the Word of God in the words of human beings. Because God is its author, it is not reducible to a human discourse about God; rather, it is a word addressed by God to human beings. But because a human being is the author as well, this word addressed by God to human beings is authentically a human word that only would be intelligible to them. To elucidate the mystery of God and the human being as coauthors, Catholic theology has recourse to the concept of divine inspiration. Therein the universal influence of the Holy Spirit (Hebrew , Greek pneuma), blowing where it wills (John 3: 8), is crucial. Together with Saint Justin's concept of “seeds of the Word” (Greek sperma tou logou, Latin semina Verbi), it widens the Jewish and Christian concepts of sacred scripture and revelation. The “seeds of the Word” contained in the canonical writings of other teachings, such as the Confucian one, are seminal words uttered by God, from which the influence of the Spirit is not absent. To recognize the complementarity of sacred scriptures is one of the elements that make an “open theology” possible without loss of Christian identity7.
In a similar vein, during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties some Chinese Christian scholars argued that the Confucian canonical writings too were open-ended. They advocated the idea to read the Bible in the context of the Chinese tradition. For example, Xia Dachang 夏大常 asserted that “the sage-kings of China were also enlightened by the Lord of Heaven,” while Qiu Sheng 丘晟 put forward his theological position about God's revelatory work in Confucius and that he could teach on God's behalf8. Yves Raguin asked himself the question: could not the Confucian Classics be reinterpreted from the perspectives offered by the Christian faith? One could as well ask whether Confucian and other beliefs could reinterpret the Bible.

Cultural Contacts
The Chinese Rites Controversy (Zhongguo liyi zhi zheng 中国礼仪之争) was perhaps the most bitter and long-lasting religious controversy in the history of Sino-Western cultural contacts. And it echoes up to present-day debates about religious contextualization and hermeneutics. Why should ritual (li 礼) have been the contested ground rather than belief systems, morality or law? Contemporary ritual theory has demonstrated the centrality of issues of orthopraxis over against orthodoxy. As James Watson aptly remarked, “If anything is central to the creation and maintenance of a unified Chinese culture, it is the standardization of ritual.9”
Several scholars have studied the methodology in view of contact among cultures. Some have challenged the very possibility of cross-cultural understanding, due to linguistic incompatibility and alienating cultural contexts, while others have demonstrated the possibility of cross-cultural interaction or communication and cross-textual reading. Different terms have been coined to describe these cross-cultural contacts such as accommodation or acculturation (adaptation of language and external elements), localization or inculturation (the creative and dynamic relationship between the message and cultures), “glocalization” (a hybrid of globalization and localization) and contextualization (a principle that goes beyond adaptation and inculturation). All these new concepts can be analyzed within four different frameworks (transmission, reception, invention, and interaction) of communication. Five different factors (transmitter, receiver, message, means, and observer) play a role in cultural communication. Ritual, whether symbolic (liyi 礼义) or performative (lijie 礼节), is an important means or mode of communication in which a message is transmitted, interpreted and contextualized10.
This framework of communication does not entirely escape the idealization of a communication that is not subject to authority (Herrschaftsfreie Kommunikation). It belongs to the very nature of science not to forcibly exclude any possible conversation partner. The demand for an ideal community of communication as a presupposition for authentic scientific method is, on the one hand, absolutely necessary; but on the other hand, it has never been completely realized because again and again power determined the “truth.”
Perhaps a preliminary and tentative exploration of the topic of human relationships from the perspectives of the Confucian Classics and the Christian Bible offers a good example of the different hermeneutical and contextual issues.
Human Relationships according to the Confucian Classics
Matteo Ricci wrote, “All doctrines about making the whole world peaceful and governing a country rightly are focused on the principle of uniqueness. Therefore, worthies and sages have always advised the ministers to be loyal that is not to have a second [lord in their mind]. Among the Five [Human] Relationships the most important is that regarding the king, and the first of the Three Bonds in Human Relations is that between the king and the minister. A just man must understand this and act accordingly.11”
The core values of Confucian social ethics since the Han dynasty have been the Three Bonds (sangang 三纲): the obligations of official to monarch, son to father, and wife to husband. Despite their strong interest in metaphysics, Song and Ming neo-Confucians continued to espouse the Three Bonds, often included within the variant term Five Human Relationships (wulun 五伦), and continued to practice rituals that expressed these values. Insofar as core values are concerned, Qing scholars were as Confucian as their Song and Ming predecessors. What distinguished them was an unprecedented rigor in demanding the expression of these values through ritual practice grounded in pure Confucian doctrine12.

Ritual and Law
“Rites and music” (liyue 礼乐) stands for the Confucian approach to moral self-cultivation, sociopolitical and cosmic order. The Confucian Classic of Rites includes the Institutes/Rites of Zhou (Zhouguan 周官), the Ceremonials/Book of Etiquette and Decorum (Yili 仪礼), and the Book/Records of Rites (Liji 礼记). The latter is further divided into the Records of Rites by the Senior Dai (Da Dai Liji 大戴礼记) and Junior Dai (Xiao Dai Liji 小戴礼记), which had the greatest impact on later generations. According to the Records of Rites, rites are a question of life and death13. During the Spring-Autumn Period, the rites and music of the ancient Three Dynasties (sandai yitong 三代一统) collapsed (lihuai yuebeng 礼坏乐崩). The Confucian moral interpretation of the rites originated from the ceremonies of offering sacrifices to Heaven, gods and ancestors (jisi zhi yijie 祭祀之仪节) and from cosmological-divinatory practices. The focus of ritual shifted from man’s relation with the supernatural to the relationship among members of human society, and their application was extended from the court to all levels of civilized society14.
The English word ritual inadequately renders the broad range of meanings of li. Li (ritual/rites) has come to mean all patterns of behavior and their symbolism. Of the major interpreters of the teachings of Confucius—Mencius and Xunzi荀子—Xunzi has been known for an emphasis on the regulative function of li in his approach to the sociopolitical order. “The rites”, says Xunzi, “are the means by which persons steady their step.” (荀子，27，大略) In contrast to the law, which punishes misdeeds that have been committed, rites are the mould for the behavior that is the cause of these acts. “The rites prohibit beforehand, while the law prohibits after the act”, says the Records of Rites by the Senior Dai (Da Dai Liji 大戴礼记，礼察，46). It is in conforming myself to the model of rites that I behave as I should. This model or form is an external matrix that conditions me by imprinting suitable sentiments within me. In contrast to music, which is an expression of an emotion within me, rites are an impression of a ceremonial that takes place outside of us. “Music acts within us; the rites act outside of us,” notes Chapter 19 (on music) of the Records of Rites (Liji 礼记). The importance given to the self in ritual behavior sharpens the feeling of face, that is to say, the sensitivity towards anything that might sully the image that others have of us. “When it is the rites that assure good order (instead of penal law),” says Confucius, “it is the sense of shame that acts as the regulator.” (Analects 2:3) In other words, thanks to the sharpening of the feeling of face, social pressure is enough to establish order by means of rites.

Ritual and Family
Chinese (Huaxia 华夏) agricultural society strengthened the family system as a model of all social behavior15. According to the French scholar  Vandermeersch, the cosmological-divinatory interpretation of the rites led men to realize that the matrix of all social relationships was to be found in the family (jia 家). Is not indeed the family the origin of the generation by the yin 阴and yang 阳of the human race? The Baihutong says: “Man assists Heaven’s putting into play the yin and the yang by the ritual institution of marriage and thus reinforces human relationships (renlun 人伦) in the increasing of posterity.” The relationships aimed at here are those symbolizing the relations of the members of the family among themselves that the 37th hexagram of the Book of Changes (Yijing) accords to the positions of the father, the son, the elder, the younger, the husband and the wife. The most important of these relationships is that between father and son, keystone of Chinese society much more so than the relationship between husband and wife. This is why filial piety is the cardinal virtue of Confucian ethics. The relationships between members of the family, however, are by no means the only relations taken into account by Chinese ritual. This ritual exalts above all ren 仁, that is to say what it means to be a human being16.

Ritual and Social Harmony
In order to establish social harmony, Confucius advocated “the rectification/ordering of names” (zhengming 正名) (Analects 13:3, 12:11), humanity/benevolence (ren 仁) by “subduing/restraining the self and restoring the rites” (keji fuli 克己复礼) (Analects 12:1), and reciprocity/deference (shu 恕), what you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others (Analects 15:24, 4:15, 12:5)17. In other words, when people recover the lost sense of their own identity, forsake the pursuit of self-interest and love one another, confusion about one’s own identity and conflicts over interests would disappear and injustice also. When people regard the interests of others as their own they enable an equal distribution of profit.
The Analects relate the Confucian ethical ideal of humanity/goodness/love (ren 仁) and righteousness/duty/justice (yi 义) to ritual/rites (li 礼) (Analects 3:3, 15:18, 12:1), but the exact nature of the relationship between ren and li is not spelled out clearly. Therefore Confucius’ conception of this relationship has been interpreted differently. Although the ideal of ren is shaped by the actually existing li practices, according to some scholars, it is not totally determined by li because advocacy of the ideal allows room for departing from or revising an existing rule of li18. “Ren is the man himself,” says the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong 中庸), which a canonical glossary explains in these terms: “This refers to humanity in the relation of reciprocity between one human being and another.” The character for the word shows human beings taken two at a time. The duty that dictates our behavior is called yi 义 (righteousness or appropriateness) in Chinese, the character which is composed of the first person pronoun, wo, and the pictogram of a sheep, yang, which here actually signifies xiang (to resemble) a model. All people were to be shown humanity (ren); evil ones were, however, to be given justice. “If a person has no humanity, what can he or she have to do with rites? If a person has no humanity, what can he or she have to do with music?” (Analects 3:3)
The basic Confucian view is that human beings are by nature good (xingshanshuo 性善说). But like Saint Paul many years later, Confucius realized that people know goodness and that they have the actual capacity to enact it—the problem is that he or she has no real desire to do so. The Master said, “I have never seen a human being who truly loved goodness and hated evil. Whoever truly loves goodness would put nothing above it; whoever truly hates evil would practice goodness in such a way that no evil could enter him. Has anyone ever devoted all his strength to goodness just for one day? No one ever has, and yet it is not for want of strength—there may be people who do not have even the small amount of strength it takes, but I have never seen any.” (Analects 4:6)

The Cosmic Rhythm of the Rites and Music
In the eyes of the Christian scholar Han Lin 韩霖 (1600-1644), one cannot preach the Way (dao 道) and the Christian teaching outside human relationships (renlun 人伦), because these relationships are rooted in the nature of Heaven (Tianxing 天性). According to the 1958 neo-Confucian Manifesto, Westerners never discovered that the inner spiritual life behind the ethical rules also contained religious feelings. Confucian morality is based upon the idea of an immanent moral order that is not only present in society and the cosmos, but also in human beings themselves. Mencius argued that in moral conduct one should follow one’s nature (shuaixing 率性). According to the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong 中庸), “What Heaven imparts to human beings is called nature.” Mencius said: “He who has exhausted all the capacities of his heart, knows his nature. Knowing his nature, he knows Heaven.” (Mencius Book 7 jinxin 盡心) If we understand the notion of heart-and-mind (xin 心) and human nature (xing 性) properly, we will see immediately that they form the link between Heaven and humankind19.
Within a Confucian perspective, there should be continuity between Heaven and humankind (tianren heyi, tianren buer 天人合一，天人不二). The moral and social orders are related to the whole universe. The trinitarian relationship between Heaven, humanity and all things could never be severed. Everyone can cultivate the Way and fully develop one’s nature and participate in the transforming and sustaining rhythm of Heaven and Earth (zan tiandi huayu 贊天地化育). As a result of this participation, human beings form a trinity with Heaven and Earth (yu tiandi can 與天地參). This is the basis of their morality, which is realized in the present world.
Confucianism stresses the importance of rites and music, which are rooted in the Way or cosmic rhythm of Heaven and Earth. Most references to ritual in the Classics should be read with music understood as an integral aspect. Music shares with ritual the participatory, personal character of order sensitive to diversity and the insistent particularity of its constituents. The relationship between music and ritual is universal. The playing of music involves a quest for excellence, and the quest for excellence involves those virtues or qualities, which are traditionally associated with the quest for good life, fulfilled life, and happiness. The Chinese character 樂 can be read either as yue meaning “music” or le/yao meaning “enjoyment.” It is an indication of an association between the quality of achieved harmony and the consequent possibilities for enjoyment. The innovative or creative side of music is captured in the Analects where Confucius is instructing the music master of Lu: “What we can know of music is only this: first, there is an opening passage with all instruments playing in unison, and then one goes on to improvise with purity of tone, distinctness and flow, thereby bringing it to its completion.” (Analects 3:23) Music is described in the Records of Rites, Chapter 17 as the supreme state of value-consciousness and the expression of the harmonious interaction between Heaven and Earth20.

Human Relationships according to the Christian Bible
Matteo Ricci wrote, “Every state or country has [its own] lord; is it possible that only the universe does not have a lord? A country must be united under only one [lord]; is it possible that the universe has two lords? Therefore, a superior man cannot but know the source of the universe and the creator of all creatures, and then raise his mind [to God].21”
The religious relationship between God (Yahweh) and humankind (the people of Israel) comes first in the Hebrew Bible (Tanach). This personal relationship of trust was then institutionalized in the covenant 盟約 (Hebrew  is derived from biritu “between”) and relationship of promise expressed in the “covenant formula”: “I will be God for you and you shall be a people for me.” (Leviticus 26:12) Because the merciful initiative is always from God, the Greek translation, the Septuagint, usually renders the Hebrew  with the Greek . This word seldom means covenant, but rather a special, free disposition, a last will. This Greek translation is the origin of our use of the word testament instead of covenant today.
A covenant represents always a gratuitous initiative on the part of God, who freely enters into a personal relationship with human beings without any merit on their part. It is a pact of friendship unilaterally initiated by the divine partner, which calls on the human partner for commitment and fidelity in response to God's gracious love22.

Covenant and Law
The historical origins of Israel are still a bone of contention among scholars. According to G. E. Mendenhall, the very unity of the Israelite people and its relationship with God was founded on covenant, and this covenant was in its original form a religious affair that concerned all the aspects of a people’s life. There was no trace of a civil machinery to enforce the law. With the coming of the monarchy the Near Eastern legal traditions of the covenanted people were displaced by the activity of the king and the court. The prophets kept alive the true idea of the covenant and the Deuteronomic reform returned to the ancient Mosaic concept of the covenanted people23.
In Israel, a whole series of laws was drawn up which are now found in the Pentateuch (Greek Septuagint he pentateuchos biblos “the book of the five scrolls”). The Hebrew word for these five books is , often inaccurately translated as law, but better rendered as “teaching.” The three basic law codes are the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22-23:33), the Deuteronomic Code (Deuteronomy 12-26), and the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26). The Israelite law codes show a great deal of concern with the plight of the deprived (the poor, widows, fatherless children, and sojourners). The laws attempt to rectify this problem by preventing the mistreatment of the poor and by mandating improvement of their lot through giving and equalizing wealth and privileges. The codes also provide secondary motivation to stimulate people to obey these regulations through retribution for disobedience, recognition of God’s authority, compassion, and gratitude to God's saving actions, and imitation of God's concern for the weak. Similar to the ancient Chinese rites, God's covenant with his people is no trivial matter, but a question of life and death (Deuteronomy 30:19). Everything depends on observing the laws of the covenant.
The perplexity (aporia) of the Mosaic Teaching (Law) is developed in the Pauline writings: “It is not what I wish that I do, but what I hate that I do… For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.” (Rom 7:14-25) Like Confucius, Saint Paul experienced the problem of human beings knowing the good, but not willing to enact it. Paul stresses that his will is bound, that the law of sin holds him prisoner so that he is not capable of acting, as he would like to. Redemption is thus necessary for human beings to be freed and redeemed from their incapacity to will the good.

Covenant and Ritual (Worship)
Similar to the Chinese ritual development, the covenant was originally related to a sacrificial cult, but without cosmological-divinatory practices. The covenant between Yahweh and Israel described in the Sinai narrative was a covenant based upon some sort of blood (symbol of life) and sacrificial rite (sprinkling the blood of sacrificial animals on the altar and on the people), or in another version, a covenant meal uniting Yahweh and his people, through which a quasi-kinship relation was set up between the two. (Exodus 24:1-11) The Israelite Passover was a sacred meal taken in family groups at which Jews remembered the key events in their history that freed them from servitude and made them into a people. On the feast day of Unleavened Bread they sacrificed the Passover lamb in the Jerusalem Temple, which had become the sole seat of sacrificial cult. After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, the now non-sacrificial ritual of the Passover was connected with the synagogue of rabbinic Judaism. The non-sacrificial ritual (liturgy) of the Christian community developed from Jesus' Last Supper into a memorial of the definite event of Jesus' life—his passion and resurrection (“Lord's Supper,” Luke 22:15-20) and a thanksgiving meal (“Eucharist,” Hebrew , Greek eucharistia 1 Cor 11:23-26)24.
The prophet Isaiah lamented, “This people honor me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me.” (Isaiah 29:13) The disconnection between lips and heart symbolizes the opposition between the exterior (face) and the interior (heart) of human beings. The Gospels (Mark 7:1-23, Luke 4:31-37, 11:23-25) denounce this preoccupation with external ritual purification and lack of inner purification. The Hebrew Bible sees the human heart-and-mind () as the source of defilement, violence and sin as well as the seat of change and renewal. (Ezekiel 36:25-27, Hosea 2, 36:25-27) The cup of the Lord’s Supper was not just a renewal of the Sinai covenant. It was “the new covenant,” a reference to a “new covenant” in Jeremiah (31:31-34) with the law inscribed not on tablets of stone but on people's hearts and with God forgiving the people’s sins. The Judeo-Christian awareness of sin (Hebrew ’ pesha‘, the root ht',  “to miss the mark,” Greek hamartia and anomia) and God’s unconditional love and forgiveness differs from the Confucian feeling of face and sense of shame. The discovery and forgiveness of sin make it possible to be free from all anxiety, whereas the feeling of face and sense of shame apparently do not provide a way out25.

Covenant and Family
The Hebrew Bible presents the covenant in terms of father-son (adoption) and groom-bride (matrimony) analogy. The prophet Hosea introduced the metaphor of matrimony to denounce the infidelity of God's covenanted people. It is contrasted with the steadfast love (Hebrew chesed “kindness,” Greek eleos “mercy,” charis “grace”) and fidelity (Hebrew ’emet “durability,”  “truth,” pistis “trust”) of God. Chesed means a way of behaving which results in a relationship, which is regulated and governed by rights and duties such as the Confucian five relationships. Applied to God, chesed means covenantal love. But its deeper meaning extends beyond what is obligatory and a matter of course to an interpersonal relationship: overwhelming, unexpected kindness, which is forgetful of itself, completely open and ready for “the other.” Chesed is concerned with an abundance of mutual love or grace. In the Hebrew Bible chesed often appears in the twin formula chesed we'emet, in which 'emet means reliability with the connotation of truthfulness.
God's covenant is not the central focus in Israelite wisdom literature. Everything revolves around the human person: how his or her behavior can reasonably be integrated in the great order of nature and interpersonal relations (the five human relationships can also be found in Proverbs 19:26, 23:22, 30:17 and Ben Sira 3:1-16). Nevertheless, much as in the Confucian example, the religious dimension is not excluded. The “fear of the Lord” is called the “beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7), and wisdom is regarded as gift of God. Like Confucian wisdom in China, Israelite wisdom was severely criticized too. Examples of this protest are the “preacher” Qohelet of Ecclesiastes and the didactic story of Job. They both refuse to correlate piety and good fortune, fault (evil deed) and suffering (punishment). The innocent Job confronts first his friends, then God with his suffering. He demands a judgment. His appeal to God against God gives him neither an explanation for his suffering nor God's justification. Instead, in a remarkable reversal, it transforms him from one who asks God to one whom God asks26.

Covenant and Social Justice
The covenant at Sinai reveals an intrinsic connection between the nature of Yahweh and the demands of social justice. Violence () in the Bible refers to the ruthless violation of one's fellow human that can go as far as murder. All inter-human transgressions are summed up under the term “violence”; no human being is exempt from this violent urge. According to the French scholar  Girard, fundamental human desire has no fixed object. A human being covets the good that his or her model designates by their own desire. Two desires thus aim at the same good. This causes jealousy. But since the rival remains a model, even his or her jealous feelings are imitated. Under the influence of this mimetic desire (Greek mimesis “imitation”), rivalry increases until it ends in violence27. Some biblical stories like King Solomon's verdict show how this rivalry can be overcome. Two women (prostitutes) each had a child. One child was smothered, and a quarrel ensued about the surviving one. Solomon ordered it to be cut into two parts and each party to be given a half. The woman who was not the true mother agreed with this decree, for she was not concerned with the child but was absorbed in total rivalry with the other woman. The true mother reacted differently. Out of love for her child she overcame the rivalry and was willing to give up her right in favor of her enemy. Thus she saved her child’s life and won it back. (1 Kings 3:16-28)
The prophets fiercely condemned all forms of violence and strongly criticized Israel's sacrificial ritual. (Amos 5:21-25, Hosea 10:1-15, Micah 6:6-7, 7:5-6) They constantly referred to the covenant as the only valuable basis for Israel’s life. They demanded justice (Hebrew ) and righteousness (in the masculine tsedeq “straight,” in the feminine , Greek ) (Isaiah 1:10-20, Jeremiah 7: 21-23), as well as steadfast love and knowledge of God (Hosea 6:6), instead of sacrifices.  can mean judgment when a person judges or justice when someone brings a situation to an appropriate resolution. The implication of  is that rights are due to every individual in the community so that when a person “judges” , those rights are to be upheld. Thus, is the restoration of a situation, which promoted equity and harmony in the community. Tsedeq, derived from the root tsdq (righteousness), refers to a relationship between two parties and implies behavior, which fulfills the claims arising from such an involvement. There is no norm of righteousness outside of that personal involvement. When people fulfill the conditions imposed on them by relationships, they are righteous. Like the five relationships, every relationship in Israel had specific obligations. Each party owed something to the other, but righteousness made a greater claim on the stronger person28.
The suffering servant in the text of Second Isaiah (Isaiah 42:1-9, 49:1-6, 50:4-9, 52:13-53:12) adds a new element to our understanding of violence, justice and righteousness in the Bible. The suffering servant is innocent and a disciple of God. He does not respond with counter-violence to the violence of his enemies. (Isaiah 50:5-6) He suffers through and for others, suffering accepted as a voluntary sacrifice of life for others (Isaiah 53:4-9). This new notion of nonviolent behavior and redemptive or vicarious suffering will bring the vicious circle of violence and the need for scapegoats (Leviticus 16:21-22) to a decisive end29. The new covenant (this cup) established by Christ, the Passover Lamb, is not made in the blood of animals, but in his own blood, “which will be shed for you.” (Luke 20:20b) In the Johannine symbolic narrative of the foot washing (John 13:1-10), Jesus says that the new commandment, and the sign of authentic discipleship, viz., that we love one another as Jesus has loved us, has no more perfect form than the laying down of one's life for one's friends (John 13:34-35, 15:12-14). To lay down one's life is the ultimate preferring of another's good to one's own30.Like in the example of the two women before Solomon, only a love that loves the other as its own life can overcome the tendency towards rivalry at its very roots.
Service [Greek diakonia “table service”] by its inmost structure is capable of expressing ultimate love, and the love commanded by Jesus has the inner form of service. Every act of service, however ordinary, because it consists in preferring another to one self, is essentially an act of self-giving and, therefore, an expression of love, which, in principle, tends toward total self-giving. Chinese distinguishes between fuwu 服務 “service” and yiwu 義務 “voluntary service.” Like the Chinese loyalty to one's friend (yiqi 義氣 “personal loyalty”), when you treat someone as a friend, that someone might be happy to go all out to serve you regardless of the cost.
Within the context of rites, the Confucian Classics emphasize the continuity between Heaven and humankind and the ethical ideals of humanity and righteousness (renyi 仁義). Within the context of the covenant, the Christian Bible stresses the continuity between the love (Hebrew chesed) of God and humankind and the charity (Greek  “universal love” du'ai 篤愛) and justice among human beings (Leviticus 19:11-18 and Mark 12:31 and parallels). We are made in God's own likeness (Latin imago Dei, Genesis 1:26-28). To be an image is to reflect another who comes first, another to whom we are tightly bound in relationship. The key link in this relationship between God and humankind is love, which originates from the ultimate love of the Trinity31.

The Trinitarian Rhythm of the Divine Covenants
The relationship of equality between Jesus and his disciples in the New Testament is based on the Trinitarian Relationship. “No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.” (John 15:15) Jesus changed the master-disciple relationship, which is always in danger of slipping into rivalries, into one of pure friendship (Latin amicitia, youyi 友誼) and communication. But before the disciples become friends, they have to renounce all selfish ambitions and human desires. (Mark 10:17-27, Luke 1:51-52) Jesus reconciles (Greek katallage “reconciliation”) us to the Father and to one another through “repentance” (Greek metanoia) and boundless “forgiveness” (Greek aphesis) like in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-31). The power of the Holy Spirit gathers the people by respecting diversity, directs the threefold divine love towards community, and communicates through the word. The Holy Spirit's fruits are “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” (Galatians 5:22-23)
In the fourth century Gregory of Nazianzus described the Trinitarian rhythm of God's self-revelation or the economy of the progressive revelation of the mystery of God's inner life to humanity. Every divine covenant with humankind necessarily involves the active presence of God, of his Word, and of his Spirit. As the tradition has persistently sought and found “traces” of the Trinity (Latin vestigia Trinitatis) in creation and, more specifically, in the spiritual activity of a human being, so must we search for and discover similar traces, outside the biblical tradition, in the life of individual persons and the traditions to which they belong.
Several seventeenth-century Chinese Christians invoked a theory of stages of revelation in order to reconcile the natural and supernatural, Confucian tradition and Christian revelation. Later Jesuit writings presented a sequence of the revelation of nature (xingjiao 性教), the revelation of the book (shujiao 書教), and the revelation of love or grace (enjiao 恩教). Similarly, early Church Fathers like Irenaeus perceived that the history of salvation is not limited to a chosen people but extends to all humankind and human history. Thus Irenaeus wrote:
Four covenants were given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the Law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates the human being, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing human beings upon its wings into the Heavenly Kingdom32.

1.A classic is essentially a text that is open-ended—in the sense that it lends itself constantly to new developments, new commentaries, and different interpretations. With the passing of time, these commentaries, interpretations, and glosses form a series of layers, deposits, accretions, alluviums, that accumulate, accrue, superpose on one another, like the sands and sediments of a silting-up river. A classic allows for countless uses and misuses, understandings and misunderstandings, it is a text that keeps growing—it can be deformed, it can be enriched—and yet it retains its core identity, even if its original shape cannot be fully retrieved anymore. Ryckmans, Pierre, The Analects of Confucius. Translation and Notes by Leys, Simon. New York: 1997, pp.xvii-xviii.

2.Raguin ,Yves, Ways of Contemplation East and West: Part Four: Chinese Spirituality. Taipei: 2001, p.17.

3.Chow, Kai-wing 周佳榮, The Rise of Confucian Ritualism in Late Imperial China: Ethics, Classics, and Lineage Discourse 儒家禮教主義. Stanford University Press, 1994, pp.228-230.

4.Ricci, Matteo, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. no. 21, pp.66-67.

5.Chen, Hsi-yuan, “Confucianism Encounters Religion: The Formation of Religious Discourse and the Confucian Movement in Modern China” , unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. Harvard University, 1999, pp.24-27.

6.Raguin, Ways of Contemplation East and West. Taipei: 2001, pp.4-5.

7.Dupuis, Jacques, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. New York: 1997, pp.235-253.

8.Lee, Archie C.C., “Cross-textual Reading Strategy: A Study of Late Ming and Early Qing Chinese Christian Writings,” Ching Feng (New Series 4-1, 2003) pp.1-28.

9.Chow, The Rise of Confucian Ritualism. p.9.

10.Standaert, Nicolas, “Methodology in View of Contact Between Cultures: The China Case in the 17th Century,” CSRCS Paper No. 11, Hong Kong.

11.Ricci, Matteo, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. Paris: 1985, pp.56-57.

12.Chow, The Rise of Confucian Ritualism. pp.10-11, 230.

13.李學勤主編《十三經注疏(標點本)》，《禮記正義(中)》，《禮運第九》，北京大學出版社　1999　662頁.

14.Hall, David L. & Roger, T. Ames, Thinking Through Confucius. Albany, 1987, pp.85-89, 171-173 and Xiao, Hong’en 蕭宏恩, “Kongzi zhi yan「Tian」zhi wenti—chaoyan fangfa yu「Tian」孔子之言《天》之問題—超驗方法與《天》,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Furen University, Taipei: 1994.

15.Zhang, Haiting 張海廷, “Chinese Culture and the Rule of Law in China 中國文化與中國《法治》,” 神州交流 Chinese Cross Currents (2-1, 2005) pp.58-81 and Andrew Chih, Chinese Humanism: A Religion Beyond Religion. Taipei: 1981, pp.24-28.

16.Vandermeersch,Léon, “Ritual and Law in Chinese and Western Traditions,” 神州交流 Chinese Cross Currents (2-1, 2005) pp.8-24 and Giuseppe Ruan, Guozhang 阮國璋, “Un Intento di Inculturazione Cristiana in Cina: il Rapporto tra Confucianesimo e Cristianesimo intorno alla Pietà Filiale,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation Pontificia Universitas Lateranensis, Academia Alfonsiana. Rome: 2004.

17.Qian, Xun 錢遜, “The Interpretation of Confucian Reciprocity,” 對〈夫子之道, 忠恕而已矣〉的理解 The History of Chinese Philosophy 中國哲學史 (Quarterly) (1-2005) pp.48-50.
18. Shun, Kwong-loi 信廣來, “Ren and Li in the Analects,” pp.53-72 in van Norden, Bryan W., ed., Confucius and the Analects: New Essays. Oxford University Press, 2002.

18.Raguin, Ways of Contemplation East and West. pp.4-6.

19.Chih, Andrew, Chinese Humanism. Taipei: 1981, pp.265-283 and Hall ,David L. and Ames, Roger T. Thinking Through Confucius. pp.275-283.

20.Ricci, Matteo, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. pp.56-57.

21.Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. pp.211-234.

22.McCarthy, D.J., Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions. Oxford, 1976, pp.10-11.

23.LaVerdiere, Eugene, Dining in the kingdom. Chicago: 1994, pp.121-141.

24.Kim,Agnès, Mi-Jeung.Péché et et harmonie: pour une du Péché dans le contexte confucéen. Paris: 2003, pp.132-136, 187-231, 346-347.

25.K?ng, Hans and Ching, Julia, Christianity and Chinese Religions. New York: 1989, pp.167-171.

26.See Girard,René, La violence et le sacré. Paris: 1972. English translation Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: 1977.

27.Hendrickx, Herman, Social Justice in the Bible. Quezon City: 1985 and Malchow, Bruce V., Social Justice in the Hebrew Bible. Minnesota:1996.

28.Schwager, Raymund, Must There be Scapegoats? Violence and Redemption in the Bible. New York: 2000 and Kim,Agnès Mi-Jeung.Péché et harmonie. Paris: 2003, p.334.

29.Schneiders, Sandra M., “The Foot Washing (John 13: 1-20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981) pp.76-92.

30.Forte, Bruno, “The Meaning of the Christian Faith in the Western Culture” 西方文化中基督教信仰的含意, pp.232-254 in Chen, Fucun, ed., Religion and Culture 宗教文化 (3), Beijing: 1998.

31.Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. pp.33, 41-42, 60-66, 77-83.

作者：周景勋

1. 导言
当我们谈「价值观」时，作者愿意在此与大家分享报纸上的报导，以反映现代人的价值取向和意识的表达。

1.1 「中国价值要扬威西方」1
这一则在苹果日报论坛中的文章，以陈冯富珍竞选世卫总干事的内容作评论，是否陈冯富珍能当选就可以把中国文化「汉化」此世界组织，使「中国价值」得以抗衡「新美帝主义」？作者更要问：「中国价值是什么？」「得到权位就代表中国文化或中国价值吗？」「究竟价值建基在权位上吗？」

1.2 「澳门未来社会水平堪忧」2
这一则「濠江点评」问：「今天的澳门巿民是否达到令人满意的水平？我们不能因为旅游博彩业给全澳门带来空前繁荣，而忽视澳门人力资源水平低下的问题。」内容更指出：「澳门社会上的外语水平、会展经验、客运和空运效率等，都处于劣势；而近年博彩业的高速膨胀也改变了新一代人的价值观。」人若将「价值观」建基在拜金主义上，那是生命的悲哀！因为「这种以金钱为目标的价值观不单影响着家庭，更蚕食青少年人的上进心，使他们无心向学，目光短浅，唯钱是岸。长此下去，在澳门成长的年轻人将来为澳门建构一个怎样的社会？相信十二年免费教育和各式各样的社会福利都不能消灭这种唯利是图的价值观。这是澳门要付上的代价。」3

1.3 「中共定和谐强国保证」4
中共十六届六中全会于二零零六年十月十一日在北京闭幕，发表了会议一致认为的目标：「和谐社会中国特色社会主义的本质属性；是国家富强、民族振兴、人民幸福的重要保证。」更订定了构建和谐社会六原则和五项具体部署，以及有确定的目标理想，即定下「到二零二零年构建和谐社会九任务」。内容有跳出往年以经济为重的理想，以中国儒家的「和谐观」为基要，提出协调发展、建设和谐文化等为横梁，更关注良好道德风尚；实在与中西方的宗教思域有着不谋而合的理念；只是中国对宗教自由的看法有自己固步自封的解释和执行，达不到「世界伦理宣言」中的宗教自由要求；再加上中国人的通病：「多说少做」或「只说不做」的陋习，故人人放长双眼的窥视下去，希望有喜出望外的果效。

从以上的三则近期的报章报导，我们可以看到现时代的人或国家的「价值取向」，其背后目标不外乎谋求：权力、金钱、地位的稳固等物质（物资）的追求，认为有了物质才能化解矛盾。在此，我们可引余英时教授对今日中国「价值取向」的看法：

上世纪九十年代我曾读过一部关于中国文化的基本价值在「党天下」统治下遭受毁灭的调查报告。调查的地区是上海附近的乡镇，研究方法是社会科学中最常用的问卷。据研究者说，不但仁义、道德、慈孝、中庸、和谐、容忍等等传统价值失去效用，而且一切宗教信仰，包括敬祖先的意识，也都在若存若亡之间。这种精神状态在各年龄层都是一样。这些价值的衰亡都发生在一九四九年以后，而以「文化大革命」为最重要的关键。最后研究者指出：中国正处于文化危机之中，旧的价值系统已残破不堪，但新的价值系统却未出现。……

一九九三年以后中国巿场经济一天比一天活跃，大陆俨然已是经济大国，但是价值「荒原」（wasteland）或「废墟」（ruins）的状态不仅没有改变，而且日益暴露了出来，官商勾结和腐败的普遍化、学术界抄袭作假的风气、「一切向钱看」的心理等等都是价值荒原的明确表征。这一类不道德的行为，自不是从今天始，也不限于中国大陆。但最大不同之处在于以前或别处有此等行为，一旦被揭发之后，当事人必感羞愧，无面目见人。今天大陆上的贪官、奸商、知识窃贼等等，不幸事发受惩，则只怨自己运气太坏或「关系」不够强大，却全无羞愧之感。这才是价值荒原的中国特色。

在这个价值荒原上如何把儒家价值重新整顿起来，和现代社会系统进行有机的配合，最后使它们能进入多数人的识田之中，这实在是一个艰巨无比的大工程。价值意识毁之易而建立难；这是因为价值必须内化，成为实际行为的指南，才可以当得起「价值」两个字。否则不过是一些空洞的话语而已。5

我们实在要肯定：人之所以为人，在于人能思考，有自由意志，是自主的，不断追求「真、善、美、圣」，有爱的力量等；……但我们不能否定人有毁灭自己，毁灭他人或家国的潜力，所谓「一言兴邦，一言丧邦」的道理。（大学篇）人在生活中，不断探讨生命的问题，也探讨与生命有关的种种问题：例如真理、宗教、宇宙万物、环境生态、心灵环保、道德律、社会正义、基本人权、和谐生活等问题。于是，人有哲学和宗教神学的反思，在理论上建构一个完整的价值体系；在实践上则肯定人能在生活中寻得幸福，有勇气为真理服务，且能臻于至善。这就是要我们明白余英时教授所说的：「价值意识毁之易而建立难；因为价值必须内化，成为实际行为的指南，才可以当得起『价值』两个字。」6

反思价值的内化性作为实际行为的指南，实在需要有「知耻近乎勇」的气概，这种文化气概就是「文化自觉」，我们必须肯定中国文化中有好的东西，使之与西方的文化，特别是基督宗教的文化接触，使中国文化变成世界性的文化，好能为西方文化带来新机，也为自己带来新机。费孝通教授在研究「文化自觉」中强调中国文化的特点，以肯定在西方文化的强烈冲击下，现代中国人「要」和「能」继续保持原有的文化认同，努力创造现代的中国文化，了解和认识他人的文化，学会解决处理文化提引出来的问题，为全人类的「新的一天」作出贡献：－

中国文化的特点之一，我想是在世代之间联系的认识上。一个人不觉得自己多么重要，要紧的是光宗耀祖，是传宗接代，养育出色的孩子。二是「一国两制」的实践不光具有政治上的意义，而在不同的东西能不能相容共处的问题，所以它还有文化的意义。这就是说中国文化骨子里还有这个东西可以把不同的东西凝合在一起，可以出现对立面的统一。三是「多元一体」的思想也是中国式文化的表现，包含了各美其美和美人之美，要能够从别人和自己不同的东西中发现出美的地方，才能真正的美人之美，形成一个发自内心的，感情深处的认知和欣赏，而不是为了一个短期的目的或一个什么利益。只有这样才能相互容纳，产生凝聚力，做到民族间和国家间的「和而不同」的和平共处，共存共荣的结合。四是能想到人家，不光想到自己，这是中国人际关系中当一条很重要的东西，老吾老以及人之老，幼吾幼以及人之幼，设身处地，推己及人，我说的差序格局就出来了。这不是虚拟的东西，是切切实实发生在中国老百姓日常生活里的真情实事，是从中国悠久的文化里边培养出来的精髓，文化大革命对这一套的破坏得太厉害，把这些东西都否定了，我看这是不能否定的，实际上也否定不了。7

我们从了解和认识中国文化特点中发挥文化的精神，好能加强文化转型的自主能力和不失价值的内化性，且明白「正己正人」、「自觉觉人」、「修己安人」、「推己及人」、「达己达人」的道理，藉此反省自己的「思、言、行为」。故此，余英时教授在「价值荒原」中很庄严的说：－
大陆官方和一部分学术界人士想恢复儒家价值，无论其动机为何，也不论其能否收效，就事论事，我还是愿意乐观其成。儒家价值最初是以「治人者」和「士」为对象的，要他们「修己」然后「治人」，最后这些价值才有机会传播到民间社会。今天提倡儒家价值的在位者和辅治者也必须先从自己做起。套用一句汉代的老话：「儒家价值不在多言，顾力行如何耳！」8

2. 价值的意义
在「导言」中，我们提过「价值」、「价值观」、「价值取向」等与「价值」有关的词汇，究竟这些词汇所要说明的内容、意义、用义、作者的理解等，都会因其不同的「背境、文化、政治」等而有异，但其客观的意义内涵大致是相同的。我们尝试从国内外不同的辞典或学者所作的解释可见其对「价值」等看法作分析，了解其取向：

2.1 《哲学大辞典》（上海辞书出版社）
2.1.1 价值（value）
最初系经济学概念，指凝结在商品中的一般的、无差别的人类劳动。为商品基本属性之一。在质上完全相同的价值，是商品的社会属性，体现着商品生产者之间的社会联系。商品的价值由生产商品的社会必要劳动时间决定。后这一概念泛化到哲学、伦理学、社会学、美学等各学科。西方社会学家将价值看作是一种受到社会制约的愿望的不易获得的目的物，它分配不平均，有不同等级区别，并认为价值对于每一个个人来说是给定的数据，而且迫使社会行为指向价值。在美学、伦理学、认识论中，价值常与功利联系在一起，指能带给人们的某种实际功效或利益。马克思主义哲学认为，真、善、美是统一的，最基本的是「真」。真理对人类的活动具有价值效应，即通常所说有用。但是，真理的有用性来源于它的客观性，即对客观事物及其本质和规律的正确反映。在社会历史领域内，唯物史观认为不能离开社会发展的具体情况，离开人的社会中的劳动，离开个人同他人、集体、阶级和社会的联系，抽象地孤立地谈论人的价值。在社会主义社会中的个人和社会联系上，人的价值包括两方面内容，即社会对个人的尊重和满足；个人对社会的责任和贡献。9

2.1.2 价值观
在一定社会条件下，人的全部生活实践对自我、他人和社会所产生的意义的自觉认识。与世界观和人生观密不可分。其核心是对人生目的的认识、对社会的态度和对生活道路的选择。它可以是肯定的积极的，也可以是否定的消极的。它涵括公私观、义利观、荣辱观、苦乐观、幸福观、美丑观、生死观、友谊观、爱情观、自由观等等。一定的价值观对社会的存在和发展起着重要作用，它提供动力功能、导向功能、评价功能、聚散功能和调节功能。一个人不能没有价值观，一个健康的社会不能没有带有普遍适用性的积极向上的价值观。价值观思想政治教育和精神文明建设的根本，理想和信念教育是价值观的核心。毛泽东、邓小平、江泽民都十分重视爱国主义、集体主义、社会主义教育，要求引导人们树立正确的世界观、人生观、价值观。10

2.2 《剑桥哲学辞典》（台湾猫头鹰出版社）

价值（value）
指某物之所值。哲学家们已经区分出以下这几种主要的形式：内在的（intrinsic）、工具的（instrumental）、固有的（inherent）和关系的（relational）价值。内在的价值被认为是基本的，许多其他的价值要根据它来界定。在许多详细解说内在价值概念的尝试中，有些主要是处理价值的根源，而另一些则将某种情绪和欲望的「合宜性」（fittingness）或「适切性」（appropriateness）的概念应用在价值上。穆尔（Moore）赞同第一种，而布伦塔诺（Brentano）则赞同第二种。支持第一种观点的人认为，X的内在价值是只有X依赖其内在本质才拥有的价值。因此，若某事态──例如史密斯感受到快乐──具有内在的价值的话，其主要的根源只能来自于内在的本质。第二种观点的追随者则根据适合一个事物「在己和为己」（in and for itself；或者说为了自身的缘故〔for its own sake〕）的各种情绪和欲望来解释内在的价值。因此，若且唯若X在己且为己地值得欲求，或者说，任何人在己且为己地喜爱X本身是合宜的或者适当的，就可以说X具有内在的价值（或者X本质上是好的）。因而，只要史密斯感受到快乐的事态在本质上是有价值的，那么这个事态是由于它自己的缘故，或是任何人在己且为己地喜爱那种事态是合宜地这一点而值得欲求的。

关于其他价值的形式，我们可以说，若且唯若X对某个具有内在价值的事物而言是一种手段，或者在因果关系上导致了该事物，那么X即具有工具性的价值（instrumental value）。而洗个热水澡是使他达到快乐目的的手段，或者在因果关系上使他产生快乐，那么洗热水澡具有工具性的价值，或者「具有作为一种手段的价值」。同样，如果健康是内在地有价值的话，而运动是获得健康的一种手段，那么运动具有工具性的价值。若且唯若对于X的体验、知觉或默观具有内在的价值，则X具有固有的价值（inherent value）。如果对一幕绚丽晚霞的经验是内在地有价值的话，那么这幕绚丽的晚霞就具有固有的价值。若且唯若X是某个整体W的一部份，而X对于W的价值有所贡献，那么X具有贡献的价值（contributory value）。如果W是由史密斯满意与布朗满意的事实构成的整体，那么史密斯满意的这个事实对W的价值产生贡献，因而史密斯的满意就具有贡献价值。我们的例子说明了，某事物可能具有贡献价值却没有工具价值，因为史密斯满意不是构成W的一种手段，严格说，它不引致或者在因果关系上对W产生贡献。由于工具价值和贡献价值之间的区分，我们可以说某种经验和活动如果内在地是有价值的生活的一部分，而且对生活的价值有贡献的话，那么它们能具有贡献价值，即使它们不是达成生活价值的手段。最后，若且唯若X藉由其与另一事物的某种关系而拥有价值，我们可以说X具有关系的价值（relational value）。工具价值（Instrumental）、固有价值（inherent），与贡献价值（contributory value）等都可以被解释为关系价值的一种形式。然而，我们还可以接受其他形式的关系价值，譬如，我们或许可以认为，X藉由被S所欲求，或者假设S「得到充分的资讯」（fully informed）并且「是理性的」（rational），S就会欲求X，因而X对S有价值。

有些哲学家为内在价值的有机性（organicity）辩护。譬如，穆尔认为，一个整体的内在价值并不必然等同于其各部分内在价值的总和。根据这种看法，一个具有内在善的部分之临在或许会贬抑了其整体的内在价值，而一个内在为恶的部分之临在反倒可能提升其所属整体的内在价值。有机性的辩护者有时举出同乐（Mitfreude）和幸灾乐祸（Schadenfreude）的例子来说明他们的观点。假设钟斯误信史密斯生活幸福，而布朗误信葛雷遭到不幸，但是钟斯为史密斯生活幸福感到高兴，布朗则为葛雷的不幸幸灾乐祸。前者是同乐的事例，后者则是幸灾乐祸的例子，即使二者都是一种高兴的情绪且二者整体中都没有内在为恶的部分，但前者显然比后者具有内在善的价值。每一个整体的价值都不是其部分价值的「总和」。11

2.3 《探索生命的价值》（台湾天下远见出版社）

价值是什么？
价值（Value）来自于选择，没有选择就没有价值可言。我们常说：「这个东西很有价值。」正是因为有人选择它。由此可知，如果这个世界上没有人类，那么一切东西也就没有价值高低的分别。

《庄子．齐物论》中提到：「毛嫱、丽姬，人之所美也；鱼见之深入，鸟见之高飞，麋鹿见之决骤。」毛嫱和丽姬是一般人眼中的美女，然而鱼看到却吓得潜入水里；鸟看到吓得飞上天空；麋鹿看到吓得迅速奔走。这说明了，其他动物并没有和人类相同的审美观点，因此如果人类不存在，这个世界上就没有价值问题，而只有事实问题。

人类按照自己的好恶来改造世界，就是一种价值选择。譬如：人类会特别去保存某种树木与某种动物，因为人类认为这些树木与动物是稀有的、珍贵的。换句话说，人类以自身的标准来衡量什么比较实用、什么比较美、什么比较具有正面的效益等。

然而，这样一来就出现了问题：究竟何谓「价值」？它是否有一个客观的标准？或者，只要一时一地的人都认为好的就是好的？换言之，价值问题是很难取得共识的。……

总的来说，谈到价值，要注意两个部份：一是选择的人；一是被选择的东西。此二者为价值的构成条件。举例来说，一盒面纸本身看起来没什么价值，但是如果有人用了这盒面纸，面纸就会因为被使用而显示出它的价值。再举一例来说．我们平常都不觉得水有什么价值，然而一旦遇到干旱，或是身处沙漠之中，就会迫切感受到水的重要性。由此可知，价值会因时、因地、因人的不同而改变。

被选择的东西有时候是只有个人想要，有时候则是大家都想要的，一般认为这是价值的主客观之分。主观价值是指：因为我喜欢，所以它变得有价值；客观价值则是指：无论我喜不喜欢，它本身有其一定的价值，譬如钻石。赞石是在正常情况下，每个人都会想要的，所以它在社会上的价值就比较高。

这种分法基本上是有问题的，因为它将主客一分为二，变成两个完全不同的领域。思考问题时，除了要懂得分，还要懂得合。如果只有分而没有合，会让人觉得不知所云。如果我们说「价值都是主观的」，就变成人人的价值观都不一样，那么这个社会岂不是要分崩离析吗？如果说「价值都是客观的」，那也是很奇怪。在空无一人的教室里，讲台有什么价值？麦克风有什么价值？换言之，如果没有人使用这些东西，那么它的价值就无法被感受到。

构成价值的三个特色是：非实在性、两极性、层级性。

2.3.1 非实在性：价值并不像桌子、椅子一样是客观实在的物体，它是某些经验的性质。譬如：我今天在车上让座给一位老太太，这是一个经验。这个经验有一种性质，因而就有价值。换句话说，价值是在行为选择之后所出现的一种性质。……

2.3.2 两极性：任何价值一定有正反两端，不可能有中立立场。譬如：有善必有恶、有美必有丑等。这都说明了价值的评断必有两极性。一般习惯将价值做正负的区分，因为如果价值没有正负的区分，就等于作任何选择都没有压力，因为根本没什么太大的差别。譬如：与孝相对的就是不孝，不可能有人既不孝也无不孝，如此将无法让人理解。……

2.3.3 层级性：价值有优劣、好坏的先后顺序，就像爬楼梯一样。譬如：好之上还有更好，更好之上还有最好；美也是一样，美之上还有更美，更美之上有最美。这就是价值的层级性。12

2.4 综合反思
从上面三种不同的解释，我们可以清楚地了解到：不同人的思考，在不同的背境、不同的政治领域、不同的生活、不同的文化等影响下，其所要表达的思想都受到主观的限制，但在主观限制下不失其客观的内涵，因为「价值」是存在事物的本身所呈现出来的，其建基在与人发生关系的最重要的性质；因此，人在选择中展现事物的价值，而在众多的事物对象上便有一种价值取向，乃指人所持的价值观，显示人在选择中的定位，即人透过理性反思，对事物作出真实的掌握。哲学的探讨，就是从理性进入理想的层次，使人在选择中知道自己的需要，能自觉地求真、求善、求美，以实现个人的价值肯定；人自我价值肯定后，进而拓展自己的理想，为丰富自己的生活内容，将价值实现在人群中。人的自觉就是哲学的探索，从价值的体系到人生体系和文化体系所发展出来的成果，故一方面是「对自己的肯定」，另一方面是宗教的超越，即是「自我的升华」；理论上就是人在认知的价值上追求真理、在道德的价值上追求善、在艺术的价值上追求美。在宗教的价值上追求神圣；真、善、美、圣如何实现在人的生命中，就是价值的落实而成为生命修养的方法。13

倘若我们从人的哲学来探讨，我们可通过人行为的现象学的和先验的分析，认知人行为的独特性和发现人的存在的真理，以认知人的核心价值是什么？也问：由人与人所组织而成的家庭、社会，甚至是国家或全世界，其核心价值又是什么？那我们可由人的活动现象中，分析得出最重要和最有意义的特征，以确定人的生命价值和价值取向：

2.4.1 肉体性：人的活动始终是肉体性、物理性、物质性的，它所有的表达（生命、知识、意志、语言、文化、劳动）都要通过物质性的器官发展，在可以被感官察觉的结果中显现。（感性价值和生命价值）

2.4.2 精神性：除肉体性外，人的活动的独特尤其在于它充满了精神性：在知识、意志、话语、文化、技术中，始终有什么东西是不属于物质领域的。（精神价值：包括理智价值、审美价值、伦理价值）

2.4.3 优越性：人的活动通过思想、意志、语言、文化、技术等方面太大。甚至是无限地优越于动物活动。（社会价值）

2.4.4 超越性：在人的活动中有一个持续的要求不断超出已经实现的结果的张力，也就是一个超越、向前的冲动，一个指向最高水平的意志。（宗教价值）

从人的活动的这四个特征，我们能够发现两个与人的存在相关的重要结论。第一个结论是：人是一个具体化了的精神，因为只有如此才能实施那些同时具有物质性和精神性的活动。第二个结论是：人是一个开放的、未完成的、朝向无限的谋划。因为只有一个开放的、未完成的谋划才能像人这样不断地超越自己。14

人在具体化的精神展现中，自觉求真理，也自觉求善，其朝向的目标是至真至善，此即人之仁心，及人的最高的道德心，人当在此心中建立自我的信仰，肯定个人的价值。人类精神的自身即我们信仰的对象，即我们发现祈求之神。15「神」即「人类精神之全般价值理想，他即是至真至美至善完全与无限。你代神工作，即是为实现人类精神之全般价值理想底工作。实现人类精神之全般价值理想，即出于你之要以你心与一切人类的心连接，而成为普遍心，你的心所以要成为普遍心，由于你不愿只限于个体心。你之不愿限你心之本性，代神工作，即是完成你真实的自己。」16

人的真实自己就是在已完成其本身的「一」、「真」、「善」、「美」和「圣」的特征，这些特征正是构成西方古典基督徒哲学所向往的至高价值体系，更「由圣多玛斯形上学给予奠立、说明，并且澄清其在存有与精神两方的基础，以达到存有与精神结合之至境，使价值不偏主观亦不偏客观。价值体系之建立，使人在文化创造中追求存有并实现其人性存有。价值为连结人与存有之桥梁，这可以说是圣多玛斯形上学最重要的贡献之一。」17

林和立著，「中国价值要扬威西方」，香港　苹果日报论坛A22　2006年8月10日。

赵玲著，「澳门未来社会水平堪忧」，澳门　巿民日报澳闻第4版2006年8月11日。

邓耀祖著，「澳门繁荣．三地代价」，香港　明报论坛A32　2006年10月20日（星期五）。

明报中国评论，「中共定和谐强国保证」，香港　明报要闻A24　2006年10月12日（星期四）。
(1) 构建和谐社会6原则：
．坚持以人为本　　．坚持民主法治
．坚持科学发展　　．坚持正确处理改革发展稳定关系
．坚持改革开放　　．坚持在中共的领导下全社会共同建设
(2) 构建和谐社会5项具体部署
．坚持协调发展、加强社会事业建设，扎实推进社会主义新农村建设，落实区域发展总体战略，实施积极的就业政策，坚持教育优先发展，加强医疗卫生服务，加快发展文化事业和文化产业，加强环境治理保护
．加强制度建设、保障社会公平正义，完善民主权利保障制度、法律制度、司法体制机制、公共财政制度、收入分配制度、社会保障制度
．建设和谐文化、巩固社会和谐的思想道德基础，建设社会主义核心价值体系，树立社会主义荣辱观，培育文明道德风尚，营造积极健康的思想舆论氛围，广泛开展和谐创建活动
．完善社会管理、保持社会安定有序，建设服务型政府，推进社区建设，健全社会组织，统筹协调各方面利益关系，完善应急管理体制机制，加强安全生产，加强社会治安综合治理，加强国家安全工作和国防建设
．激发社会活力、增进社会团结和睦，发挥人民群众的首创精神，巩固和壮大最广泛的爱国统一战线，维护香港、澳门长期繁荣稳定，推进祖国统一大业，坚持走和平发展道路
(3) 到2020年构建和谐社会9任务
．社会主义民主法制更加完善，依法治国基本方略得到全面落实，人民权益得到切实尊重和保障
．城乡、区域发展差距扩大趋势逐步扭转，合理有序的收入分配格局基本形成，家庭财产普遍增加，人民过上更富足生活
．社会就业比较充分，覆盖城乡居民的社会保障体系基本建立
．基本公共服务体系更加完备，政府管理和服务水平有较大提高
．全民族思想道德素质、科学文化素质和健康素质明显提高，良好道德风尚、和谐人际关系进一步形成
．全社会创造活力显着增强，创新型国家基本建成
．社会管理体系更加完善，社会秩序良好
．资源利用效率显着提高，生态环境明显好转
．实现全面建设惠及十几亿人口的更高水平的小康社会的目标，努力形成全体人民各尽其能、各得其所而又和谐相处的局面

余英时著，「价值荒原上的儒家幽灵」，香港　明报世纪（人文、关怀、视野）D4　2006年9月4日（星期一）。

同上。

费孝通著，「我为什么研究『文化自觉』问题？」，香港　明报世纪D4　2002年12月17日（星期二）。

余英时著，「价值荒原上的儒家幽灵」，香港　明报世纪（人文、关怀、视野）D4　2006年9月4日（星期一）。

冯契主编，《哲学大辞典》，上海　上海辞书出版社　2001　619　修订本。

冯契主编，《哲学大辞典》，上海　上海辞书出版社　2001　619　修订本。

罗伯特．奥迪（Robert Audi）著，《剑桥哲学辞典》（The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy），台湾　猫头鹰出版社　2002　1271-1272。

傅佩荣著，《探索生命的价值》，台湾　天下远见出版股份有限公司　2003　176-183。

邬昆如著，《哲学概论》，台北　五南图书出版公司　1994　344-345。

巴蒂斯塔．莫迪恩著，李树琴∕段素荣译，《哲学人类学》，哈尔滨　黑龙江人民出版社　2005　155-156。

李震著，《理性与信仰──追求完美的双翼》，台北　辅仁大学出版社　1999　208。

唐君毅著，《人生之体验》，台北　台湾学生书局　1980（民69）修订版　161。

沉清松著，《物理之后──形上学的发展》，台北　牛顿出版社1987　153-154。

3. 从「一、真、善、美、圣」谈基督宗教（天主教）的教理精神

我们在价值的意义反思中，曾提过存有的「一」、「真」、「善」、「美」、「圣」的特征是基督徒哲学的至高价值体系，使人在文化创造中实现其人性价值。人为完成人性价值，人便要开放自己，朝向无限，不断地超越自己而与「神」契合。

在天主教的教理中，清楚地说了：在基督徒宣认信仰时，已经表示对天主的渴求，而天主也不断透过万事万物吸引人；人只有在天主内才能找到他不断寻找的真理和幸福。在信仰中，基督徒明白天主向人启示自己，并把自己赏赐给人，同时又给寻求生命终极意义的人充沛的光明，而信仰就是人对天主的回应。18

因此，人藉着对真理和美善的开放，也藉着伦理道德的意识，藉着自由和良心的声音，以及藉着对无限和幸福的渴望，也就是在问自己：天主是否存在？不过人不愿意承认和承担吧！圣经中有言：「愿寻求上主的人，乐满心中。」（咏105:3）梵二《论教会在现代世界牧职宪章》中肯定：
人性尊严的最崇高之处，在于人被召叫与天主共融。自出生之初，人被邀请与天主交谈。如果不是天主以圣爱造生并保存他，人便不存在。除非人自由地承认这圣爱，并将自己完全委身于天主，否则不算完全地依照真理而生活。（GS19,1）

基督徒都明白人是活在天主的爱和真理中，因人按天主的肖像而受造，又奉召认识和爱慕天主；故人有天主本质之善，即人性是本善的，原罪之形成只不过是人在自由意志的运作下，人错误地选择了自我的封闭而堕落，这堕落便是原罪的根源，至于自由意志本身则是善的；由是，我们可说：「就存有学的角度看来，基督信仰眼中的人性，是浸润着本体之善，从这原有的本体之善，可以动态地创造和发展出所有的价值，如『一』、『真』、『善』、『美』、『爱』和『正义』等等。」19

我们从信仰──「信」的行为中，对天主作出自由的回应，且反思「一」、「真」、「善」、「美」、「圣」的价值，肯定救恩只来自天主。

3.1 信仰只有一个和教会是唯一的
天主教教理中强调：「教会自古以来，就透过许多语言、文化、民族和国家，不停地宣认唯一的信仰来自一个主，由一个洗礼传下来，深信众人只有一个天主和大父。圣依勒内．里昂是这种信仰的见证人，他声明说：『事实上，教会虽已传遍普世，直到地极，但她从宗徒及其门徒们接受了信仰……并小心保存这信仰和宣讲，犹如同住一屋；以同一的态度去信奉，好像只有一个心灵；以一致的声音去宣讲、教导和传授，就如具有同一的口舌。……我们从教会领受的这个信仰，须小心地保管。因为它像一个极有价值的宝藏，藏在一个珍贵的器皿内，在天主圣神的推动下，能不断地充满朝气，连容纳它的器皿，也变得日新又新。……所以教会的讯息是真实和稳固的，因为她给整个世界指出了得救的唯一途径。』」20

梵二《教会宪章》中强调在这唯一的信仰中，肯定来自天主圣子：耶稣基督所建立的教会也是唯一的，且聚集了不同民族和文化的同一个天主子民：「这是基督的唯一教会，就是我们在信经中所承认的唯一。至圣、至公，从宗徒传下来的教会。」（LG8）

唯一的教会聚集了全世界不同民族和文化的天主子民，使大家共融团结，「以和平的联系，保持心神的合一。」（弗4:3）而合一的联系除了和平外，更要「在一切之上……尤该有爱德，因为爱德是全德的联系。」（哥3:14）

为使教会唯一性在现世得以保存，使教会迈向合一，梵二《大公主义法令》提出了好的回应：
持续的革新
内心的皈依
公共的祈祷
彼此的认识
大公主义的培育
不同教会的对话和接触
彼此的合作和服务21

3.2 生活在真理中为真理作证和蒙召享真福

基督徒相信天主是一切真理之源，天主的话是真理；祂的法律是真理，祂的「信实，代代流传」（咏119:90），因为天主是「真实的」（罗3:4），祂的子民被召生活在真理中。在耶稣基督身上，天主的真理全部彰显出来，在祂内「满溢恩宠和真理」（若1:14）；祂就是真理，也是世界光（若8:12），使人活出真理的自由和在光明中行走。因此，活在信仰中的人，在基督内认识「使人自由和成圣」的真理；所以，我们也当爱慕真理：「你们的话应当是：是就说是，非就说非。」（玛5:37）于是，真理使人活在诚实而不虚伪中，也使人互相相信和尊重。

梵二《信仰自由宣言》中说：「人有其尊严，因他们是人……受其天性的驱使，负有道德责任去追求真理，尤其是宗教的真理。每人也有责任固守已认识的真理，遵循真理的要求而处理其全部生活。」

故此，基督徒在参与教会生活上，应当「对天主和对人时常保持良心无愧」，（宗24:16）为真理作证，也为福音作证。22好能分享天主的性体（伯后1:4）和永生的福乐。

3.3 善的展现：爱你的近人如你自己和心灵净化

在基督信仰内，爱的价值是无比尊高的，最有爱心的人被视为最肖似无限的奥迹，显然在信仰团体中也有不少人把其他价值置于「爱心」上，如守规矩、争权位等，有时为减少麻烦，避免牺牲吃苦而息事宁人维持表面的和谐。23 但教会在耶稣基督的领导下，清楚地指出「爱永垂不朽」，且永远是最重要的。耶稣对门徒说：「你们该彼此相爱，如同我爱了你们一样。」（若13:34）
爱的落实是在家庭中，因为家庭是一个信、望和爱的团体，在这团体中反映天主的爱，故家庭奉召分享基督的祈祷和牺牲，每天的祈祷和天主圣言的诵读使家庭中的爱德坚强，且能维系着人性的尊严，在互相爱的尊重下，子女能持修「孝德」，父母能持修「慈德」，好能共建幸福的家庭生活。24

因着「爱」，基督徒肯定人的生命是神圣的，必须尊重他人的生命，不伤害他人的生命；且因尊重他人而不立坏榜样。善的榜样是维护和平的活力。故教宗若望保禄二世说：「爱是每一个人基本的和天赋的召叫。」（＜家庭＞宗座劝谕II）要求人活出生命的召叫，让和平、正义、真理、自由可以在人世间呈现出来。因此，人要常保持心灵的净化、纯朴、天真，如像小孩子一样，就是不失赤子心和本心。「心里洁净的人是有福的，因为他们要看见天主。」（玛5:8）「心里洁净的人」是指那些理智与意志配合天主圣善的人，特别在三方面：爱德、贞洁或性的正直、爱真理与正统的信德。为能保持洁净的心灵，基督徒需要祈祷、参与感恩祭、实行贞洁、意向和眼目的纯洁，且常保持坚忍、朴素和审慎。25

3.4 新天新地的希望和充实之美
面对作为真理的基督，在十字架上流露出爱的宽恕的耶稣，基督徒深感充实着新天新地的希望，因为基督徒相信：「从启示得知，天主将替我们准备一个新的住所、新的天地，那里正义常存，幸福将要满足并超出人心所能想到的一切和平的愿望。」（GS39,1）26

为成就幸福与和平的愿望，行善便是愿望的实现，活在真理中也是愿望的肯定。《天主教教理》中清楚地说明了：

行善带来自然的心灵快乐与道德的美丽。同样，真理包含着心灵之美的喜悦与光辉。真理本身是美的。……真理可以找到其他的人性表达方式，这些表达的方式是补充的，特别能唤起那些无法音传的事，人心灵的底蕴，灵魂的提升、天主的奥秘。在天主藉着真理之言语启示于人之前，祂先藉着受造界的普遍语言，就是祂圣言的工程、祂智慧的工程，启示给人：宇宙的秩序与和谐，连小孩子和学者都会发现，「受造物的伟大和美丽使他们以类比方式认识创造者」，（智13:5）「因为全是美丽的根源所创造的」。（智13:3）27

基督徒的生命，更好说是人的生命是按天主的肖像所受造的，故可说人是天主美丽的艺术品，可以表达出天主的爱（善）和真理，显示人内心丰富的渴望，就是对真理及万物的热爱，使人也透过生命艺术展现生命的「真、善、美」，以反映在基督身上的真理与仁爱的不可见的卓越美丽，人自身也因基督的救恩而活出灵性的美丽，在共融的祈祷中共建充满爱情的新天新地。

3.5 至圣的教会在显扬主名

梵二《教会宪章》肯定地表示：「我们相信教会……是圣善的，毫无缺陷。因为与父和圣神被称为『唯一圣者』的天主子基督，爱慕教会有如自己的净配，为她舍弃了自己，为能圣化她；又为了天主的光荣，祂使教会与自己结合而成为自己的身体，并使她充满圣神的恩宠。」（LG39）使人在教会内「藉着天主的恩宠而获得圣德」；（LG48）更使人明白「教会已在世拥有圣德，虽不完善，却是真正的圣德」（LG48-3）因为一切都在天主的恩宠下成就的，因此教会是「天主的圣民」，教会的成员──天主子民也被称为「圣者」。28

教会的「至圣」和基督徒的「圣」在于分享天主的至圣；因此，基督徒要诚心诚意地承认天主之名的神圣性──愿主的名被尊为圣，且在朝拜中呼求天主的圣名，必须「以心神以真理朝拜天主」；（若4:24）故此，耶稣为门徒祈祷说：「圣父啊！……我为他们祝圣我自己，为叫他们也因真理而祝圣。」（若17:19）同样的，圣保禄宗徒肯定基督徒在圣神的洗礼中，已经被净化、圣化成为义人，因为当我们结合在耶稣基督内时，「我们的父召叫我们成圣」。（得前4:7）「成圣」或「圣化」乃侧重内心的尊敬和诚意，使基督徒不断有生活的赞颂和感恩，且有祝愿的含意，即祝愿主名永受显扬，带领我们进入「祂在爱子内所预定的计划」，为使「我们在祂面前成为圣洁无瑕疵的」。（参阅弗1:9,4）所以，「成圣」的生活与祈祷有无法分开的密切关系：「我们祈求天主使祂的圣名受显扬，因为天主是藉祂的圣德而拯救、并圣化整个受造界……。祂的名将救恩赐给堕落的世界，我们祈求祂这圣名因我们的生活而在我身上受到显扬。因为我们生活有圣善，天主的名就受颂扬；我们生活有不善，天主的名受亵渎。」29

《信仰的宝藏》一书中的诠释：「成圣是所有天主教基督徒的圣召和目标。《教会宪章》用了一整章来谈『教会内普遍的成圣使命』。文中提到，每一个天主教会的成员都被劝勉要留意天主的召叫，经由耶稣基督的恩宠和福音，达至基督徒的成全和圣化。『你们在各方面的行为都该是圣的，就像召叫你们的那一位是圣的一样；记住经上说：你们该是圣的，因为我是圣的。』」（伯前1:15-16）接着，书中更开显了当代成圣的事实来肯定天主不断给我们成圣的恩赐，打破「罪恶」的束缚：──

尽管所有的天主教徒都是罪人，但天主教会的神圣性，在历史中许多它的成员的生活上也表露无遗。天主教会透过宣圣，公开承认并声明这类非凡圣化的见证。每年，教宗都会将那些具有为教会的神圣性作证的英豪德行的男女列入圣品。在每个时代中，天主教会也能指出它的一些「活圣人」──像今日加尔各答的德蕾莎姆姆──以具体证明所有天主教徒所切望的圣德。最后，很少教会能像天主教一样，建立并推动那么蓬勃的修会生活，也没有任何其他教会，拥有那么多献身于宗教的神父和修女。天主教徒在多得不可胜数的教会成员身上彰显了上主所给的成圣恩赐。30

3.6 综合反思
从上面所介绍的内容，我们相信教会存在的价值有其重要的任务：──
宗教的任务，在于引导人类，走向真、善、美、圣的境界，使人类生活，真化、善化、美化和圣化。人生若充满真、善、美、圣，就成了圆满的幸福生活了。31

由是，我们可以从教会的教义、教规（戒律）和礼仪作反思；这也是人类文化中的各大正信宗教都具备的，即都具完整而有系统的教义，就是信徒必须相信的基本道理或教理；而教义的出处都基于各宗教的经典和神学。再者，正信宗教必有教规或戒律，帮助信徒走向成圣之路，指示信徒应该遵守的规律，都是与敬天爱人的伦理秩序和道德规范有关；由此可见，宗教信仰与道德生活有密切的关系。至于宗教礼仪则包括崇拜至上神的祭祀、对圣贤、祖先的祭拜、敬礼，以及念经、祈祷和与生活有关的种种礼仪，如洗礼、婚礼、葬礼等与宗教信仰相关的典礼；由于宗教礼仪是有形可见的，又是庄严肃穆的，都是可以帮助信徒体会宗教信仰的重要，以及信仰与生活的密切关系。在反思下，我们可以了解宗教信仰的内涵都与「真、善、美、圣」的价值有关；即是说：教义与「真」有关、戒律与「善」有关、礼仪则与「美」有关，而三者皆与「圣」有关。总体性的要求就是，信徒必须努力认知，并信徒教义、尊守教规和参与礼仪的生活，好能追求达至天人合德或神人合一，就是达到一个最有价值的圆满境界和至福的实现。32

「一、真、善、美、圣」的价值既是宗教信仰的根基，使人在伦理秩序、道德生活和灵修生活中找到意义和价值，也为教会奠定基础，使信徒在当今的物质俗化思潮中，不致失去方向和目标而陷于诱惑。前辅仁大学校长李震教授面对当今的中国和台湾作出了严峻的吶喊：──

当代中国社会在现代化过程中，逐渐遗忘、远离数千年文化中「敬天爱人」之优良特质，走唯物主义、非理性主义、虚无主义、无神人本主义或人本无神主义的路子，造成当代社会与传统文化优良特质及神圣价值之间的矛盾和断层，台湾社会上遂出现种种惊世骇俗，前所未见的乱象。尤其伦常及道德的破产，已经到了不可思议的地步。不得不令人怀疑，我们的文化及社会的迷失与恶质化已经到了病入膏肓的程度了。为此，如果我们再不认真反省，痛定思痛，严肃面对重整重振人民之宗教生活、道德生活及灵修生活，彻底改造个人的心灵及社会的命脉和命根，再任由我们的文化烂下去，我们将要面对的危机恐怕是台湾能不能生存下去的问题了。33

《天主教教理》，香港　公教真理学会出版　1996年10月初版　15。

沉清松著，「第六章　儒学与基督宗教的会通」，《传统的再生》，台北　业强出版社　1992　137。

《天主教教理》，47。

参阅《天主教教理》，200-204。
「因为只有一个身体和一个圣神，正如你们蒙召，同有一个希望一样。只有一个主，一个信德，一个洗礼；只有一个天主和众人之父，他超越众人，贯通众人，且在众人之内。」（弗4:4-6）

《天主教教理》，「生活在真理中」560，「为真理作证」562，「尊重真理」565。

谷寒松著，《神学中的人学》，台湾　光启出版社　1991（民80年）再版　304。

《天主教教理》，507-519。

《天主教教理》，570-572。

「论教会在现代世界牧职宪章」，梵蒂岗第二届《大公会议文献》，台湾　中国主教团秘书处出版　1975　240。

《天主教教理》，567。

《天主教教理》，204。

《天主教教理》，638-640。

亚兰．施勒克（Alan Schreck）著，刘德松译，《信仰的宝藏──天主教的传承与教导》，台北　光启文化事业出版社　2004　97。

杨绍南著，《宗教哲学概论》，台北　商务印书馆　1969年初版24。

李震著，《理性与信仰──追求完美的双翼》，台北　辅仁大学出版社　1999　452-454。

同上，464。这吶喊为香港、澳门的中国人也当作深入的反省。

4. 儒家的人文价值及其当代的启发

儒家思想从先秦的春秋战国时代开始，一直影响着中国的文化，而且处于「显学」的地位。因为儒家十分重视个人的价值和人格的尊严；我们可从孔子所言的：「女为君子儒，无为小人儒」（论语．雍也）得知，人当有修养的道德自觉，且要明白：「为政在人，取人以身，修身以道，修道以仁」。（中庸20章）由是，修德便成为人立身处世的基本价值要求，故孔子常说「修己」，如「修己以敬」、「修己以安人」、「修己以安百姓」，（论语．宪问）好能活出「君子之道」的「仁者不忧、知者不惑、勇者不惧」，（论语．子罕）以展现个人的道德修养。

到孟子时，以「仁义礼智根于心」的心性思想发展出的性善论，肯定了人的生存价值和尊贵在于「善」，要求人依循形上的基础与天相应：「尽心 → 知性 → 知天」；人在上回向的探索中，也当下回向的落实于存养心性以事天：「存心 → 养性 → 事天」。（孟子．尽心上）

荀子的「性恶论」表面上与孟子的「性善论」是相反的；但荀子不因提出「性恶」思想而贬抑人的生存价值或尊严；反之在于揭示后天人为之伪和人有向恶之欲；故强调礼义文理习俗，好能化性起伪，使人走向善：「性也者，吾所不能为也，然而可化也。……注错习俗，所以化性也。……习俗移忠，安久移质，并一而不二，则通于神明，参于天地矣。」（荀子．儒效篇）可见，荀子的「性恶论」在于警愓人不可忘记走向「善」的价值和尊严。

其实，孔孟荀所展现的儒家人文精神是很重视人的「可完美性」（perfectilibity）而不在于人的「个体性」（individuality）；反之，是从可完善性来诠释人的个体性，才有人人向道德至善迈进的思想，且强调人的「修德、好学、闻义、观过」的实践工夫，以展现人的生存价值和人性尊严。34这正正是开启了「中国传统之人文中心的文化精神，加以自觉了解，而抒发其意义和价值。」35儒家的人文价值在于：「重『人』过于重其所表现于外之礼乐之仪『文』，而要人先自觉人之所以成为人之内心之德，使人自身先堪为礼乐之仪文所依之质地。……对于中国传统的人文精神如周代的『礼乐精神』，孔子之重『人德』，孟子之重『人性』，荀子之重『以人文世界主宰自然世界』，汉人之『历史精神』，魏晋人之『重情感表现之具艺术的风度』，唐人之『富才情』，宋明人之重『立人极，于人心见天心，于性理见天理』，清人之重『顾念人之日常的实际生活』，这些精神，皆可互相和融，互为根据。我看不出其不能保存于中国未来文化中之理由。但是我们认为情感才情之发抒及人日常生活之安排，如真要求合理，而表现人文价值，以助人德性之养成，必须赖于人对人之天性与本心，有切实之觉悟。故孟子与宋明理学之中之心性之学，吾人必须对之先有认识，而发挥光大之。否则我们无论讲中国过去或未来之人文思想，皆为无根之木、无源之水。」36

人要有切实的觉悟才能表现人文价值及帮助人德性的养成，这是从「根」与「源」说起。我们作为中国哲学的教育工作者，或作为中国基督宗教的传道者，也必须从文化的「根」与「源」的融通，开拓一个开放对话的园地，以谦虚的心境追寻、肯定、接受真理，为真理服务；也培养智慧，扩充善性，印证价值，使人文价值和人文素质得以发扬，因此：「我们应该拥抱谦德，在我们身上发挥谦谦君子的情怀与风范。再透过对人性及个人人格的尊重及关怀，藉思想的交流，真诚的聆听与交谈，对话，实行位格际的沟通与共融，一起努力去接近、投靠真理，追求完美，包括永恒的完美！如此，哲学（或宗教）的探讨及教育工作，才会成为对社会群众最有意义，也令人口服心服的服务。」37

由是，我们在研究儒家思想时，也必须从「根」与「源」说起：我们可根据孔子说：「吾从周」（论语．八佾）一语获得资料，即儒家思想的起源乃与周代宗法制度有关连，而周代宗法制度乃统合家庭、社会、政治、礼乐、道德和宗教的精神而为一体。唐君毅教授清楚的说：「依吾人之见，孔孟固对周代之文化极其赞叹。孔孟固未尝否认传统宗教中之天。而孔孟之所谓仁，即原为天德而又自觉为人德者。」38再说：「儒家之教包涵宗教精神于其内，既承天道以极高明，而归极于立人道，以致广大，道中庸之人文精神所自生；故谓儒家是宗教者固非，而谓儒家反宗教，非宗教，无天无神无帝者尤非。儒家骨髓，实唯是上所谓『融宗教于人文，合天人之道，而知其同为仁道，乃以人承天，而使人知人德可同于天德，人性即天命，而皆至善；于人之仁心与善性，见天心神性之所存。人至诚而皆可成圣如神如帝』之人文宗教也。」39

我们从宗教角度了解儒家思想的起源在于孔子之立人道和承天道的关系，即孔子自觉天就是天之道，且以仁道来说明天道，其后的发展更以人道与天道视作同一的仁道，能立人道便能继天道以达通天人合德之境。然而，我们若从人的具体生活上说立人道，就是从「事实判断」中看人的究竟「是如何展开」，落实于理智所追求的真伪判断。若我们从人的理想生活上说继天道，那就是从「价值判断」中看人的究竟「如何展开」；其要探求的是人的本性的内在性的善恶肯定，以追寻「一、真、善、美、圣」的价值。中庸篇中所言的「诚者，天之道也；诚之者，人之道也」，可以作为参考反思。因此，我们尝试以事实判断和价值判断来探讨孟荀的人性论，从中了解孟荀的共通性皆从具体的生活中作观察和反思，却皆不在讨论「性善」与「性恶」的事实判断上，其重点毅然地投向价值的判断；为孟子来说，这价值的开显是「尽心 → 知性 → 知天」；为荀子来说，则言「明于天人之分 → 形具而神生 → 制天命而用之」，其本意要人明白：若违反自然法则或行为怠惰，会遭受不幸；其目的要人向圣人学习，好能化性起伪。可见孟荀在人性探讨上有互补相通的一面，在价值取向上呈现出深层的相通性和相同性：－

对人性问题的探讨可以是事实层面的，也可以是价值层面的。事实式的探讨围绕人性是如何展开，注重事实之真伪，对客观性情有独钟；价值式的探讨围绕人性如何展开，关心善恶之价值，洋溢着主观情怀。面对事实与价值这两种不同的思维方式和致思理路，孟子和荀子对人性的研究都毅然决然地投于价值之麾下。

孟子和荀子在价值而非事实层面对人性的探主要表现在三个方面：其一，在对人性的认定和判断上，不仅认定人性是什么，而且更热衷于对人性的善恶判断。正如《孟子》书中明确地说「孟子道性善」、把性与善联系在一起一样，荀子明确宣布人性恶，致使「故人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也」成为名言名句。同时，荀子还着有《性恶》篇，直接申明自己的性恶判断和主张，并从各个角度进行了论证。这表明，孟子和荀子对人性的认定和探讨都属于价值判断而非事实判断。其二，在理论侧重和言说方式上，对人性的阐释始终围绕着善恶展开，不仅使性善、性恶成为着名的命题和响亮的口号，而且对之倾注了极大的热情，都有对人性究竟是善还是恶的证明。孟子对性善的论证从逻辑推理和行为经验同时进行，使两个方面的结论相互印证，可谓用心良苦。荀子对性恶的论证始于性伪、善恶的逻辑概念，又包含对人性的本然状态、后天追求以及圣凡比较等内容，构成其人性哲学的主体内容。与对性善、性恶的过分关注和热衷相对应，孟子和荀子对人性具体内容的说明显得单薄，且很多时候是作为性善或性恶的证明材料出现的，显然不是关注的焦点。其三，孟子和荀子没有停留在人性是什么上，而是始终对人「应是」什么充满期待，通过人性的作为而成为道德完善的圣人是其宏图大愿和共同理想。价值判断与事实判断是两种不同的思路，体现了不同的思维方式和价值取向。循着这个逻辑，孟子和荀子对人性进行价值判断的同时，已经流露了扬善抑恶的价值取向和人生追求。40

虽然荀子所言的「天」乃自然的天，但在荀子的思想中，「天」是一个理念，展示自然法则的不可违，实在也是一个价值的判断，要人顺自然而流露扬善抑恶的价值取向，在人生追求上不违儒家的目标而为圣人；如孟子所言「人皆可以为尧舜」，荀子亦言「涂之人可以为禹」，乃至王阳明更言满街满巷都是圣人，即「个个人心有仲尼」，都是理想人格之价值取向，重在立人道以见天道，中庸篇中言圣人之道：「肫肫其仁，渊渊其渊，浩浩其天」，展现了致广大极高明的价值理念，这理念乃人生命自觉之道德意识，可贯通宗教、哲学与道德精神而为一，此即「中国宗教精神之极高明而敦笃厚之至诚。诚之至也，则吾之一切行为，皆可质诸天地鬼神而无疑，而与天地鬼神之德其流行，为形上精神实在之真接呈现。」41

由于儒家思想强调：「终乎为圣人」，（荀子．劝学篇）故在人的生命活动中，无论是个人的活动，家庭的活动，或是日常生活的一见一闻、一饮一食、一呼一吸，以至于人性流露、社会政治、工作社交、宗教信仰都有本身的目的和价值存在，故任何事情都与「天道」和「人道」相应，若「不以其道得之」（论语．里仁）则不处也不去，必须「求之有道」。（孟子．尽心上）孟子除了从人性论上作价值的判准外，更有为人的价值肯定：「善、信、美、大、圣、神」的标准诠释：

可欲之谓善，有诸己之谓信，充实之谓美，充实而有光辉之谓大，大而化之之谓圣，圣而不可知之谓神。（孟子．尽心下）

因此，我们可综合说明，儒家人文价值精神有其价值取向的意义，亦可回应孔子面对「无道」社会之礼乐崩溃的现况，所产生的忧患意识：「德之不修、学之不讲，闻义不能徙，不善不能改，是吾忧也！」（论语．述而）我们可作深入的反思，藉以为当今之人作价值取向的借镜和启发。

价值取向的意义内容如下：
4.1 有其教化的意义：强调心灵的教化观过知仁，明善诚身，规范人心和正人心，重德性修养。

4.2 有其自由平等的生命尊重：不失心灵的尊重：以民为本的人文精神诉说，虽有亲疏之别，却无贵贱之分，以和为贵，善与人同与和而不同的互相接纳。

4.3 使人不断地开创自己崭新的生命，以「定静安虑得」的反思过程作「荀日新，日日新，又日新」的新人，注重心灵的更新。

4.4 有其生命一致性的目标：心灵的目标，扬善抑恶而成圣的理想，达到「仁者不忧、智者不惑、勇者不惧」的至善，好能以德配天。

4.5 有其生命自觉投向超越的至善之境；心灵的超越，依人者之仁以通天地，天人合德，保合太和的心灵自由，展现极高明而致博厚的宗教精神。42

五. 结论言新机

5.1 宗教信仰与人文信仰的相遇：改造人心

我们从当代的中国人一些具体的事例，刻划出中国人对价值的理解，和现代人的价值取向和意识；引发我们探讨价值的意义和价值观定位，而以基督徒哲学和士林哲学作说明，以「一」、「真」、「善」、「美」、「圣」存有特征的价值来说明天主教的教理精神，帮助信徒透过对教理的认识，能从伦理秩序、道德生活和灵修生活中找到生命的意义和价值，使之在当今的物质俗化思潮中，不失其生存方向和目标。其后，我们讨论儒家的人文价值及其当代的启发，目的希望能透过研究儒家的思想，把握中国文化的传统精髓和根源，好能从中作互融汇通的对话，以及引发思考。我们不作比较，因为在比较中容易产生优次差劣、好坏等排斥现象；反之，我们从不同文化、宗教、经济、政治、教育等价值内涵作求同存异，和而不同的沟通与互补，好能为当今金钱挂帅、权利不均、自私自利和个人主义为重的社会作心灵的改造．诚如李震教授所言：「心灵改革的最基本层面；应属思想及观念的改造、道德的重振及重整和正信宗教信仰的提升与活力的展现。这就需要靠学术界、教育界及宗教界人士的通力合作了。尤其为实现社会与人心的彻底改革，宗教的角色非常重要，我们可以从宗教的功能分数点说明：

5.1.1 宗教信仰使人有超越精神：世界上各大正信宗教莫不追求超脱尘俗的精神，使人在短暂的生命中，寻求永恒的价值。这包括以上天、上帝为造物主及人生终极目的的犹太教、天主教、基督教、印度教、回教、道教、中国三代以来敬事上帝的传统信仰和先秦儒家以修身立命为本的道德性准宗教，以及建立在人性、佛性基础上的自力宗教，即佛教各宗派，莫不强调此超越原理的紧要性，这使信徒心中认定，那些以人性和天命为基础的道德戒律是神圣不可侵犯的，人若明知故意地去违反，必为天理所不容。此一超越精神成为提升生命的力量，使人在遭受诱惑、挫折、打击、痛苦的时候，仍能坚忍不拔，奋力向善，体会自己是一个自由的、道德性的主体，而不是一个只求满足占有欲望的自私存在。

5.1.2 宗教信仰给人抵抗人间邪恶的力量：有宗教信仰的人相信、投靠一个绝对的神性存在，即我们祖先所敬事的至上神或上帝，并肯定神才是一切真理、美善及价值的根源。此一信仰给他无比的信心及耐力，去与人间的邪恶，仇恨博斗。在个人生活中，一个全心信赖、投靠并甘心为绝对真理服务的人，在神的指引下，不会轻易向人间的恶势力及罪恶的诱惑妥协和投降。

5.1.3 宗教信仰助人谦虚而勇于认错：一个宗教信徒，比别人更清自己的限度、软弱及可怜的一面，面对邪恶的诱惑及考验，他一样会失足、犯罪和堕落。但是他比一般人对于罪恶的可怕、良心的警告及指责更为敏感，易于受教，他更能勇敢认错与悔改，而真诚的忏悔与改革不但容易获得别人的同情与谅解，也更会使他从上天获得宽恕及重新向善的力量。

5.1.4 宗教信仰使人有安定感：宗教信仰藉天人或人神关系的建立与发展，推动人关怀生命的终极意义，带领他在变幻无常的万事万物中，寻求一个不变的，绝对真实的本根或天命之所在。再从天意、天志、天心的永恒光辉中，回过头来看世界与人生，便不难发现生命之可贵，正因为它分享了神性的美善。为此合理的人神关系会带给人安定感，因为在终极目标的指引下，暂世的罪恶与灾祸不是不能理解的，更不是不能克服的。

5.1.5 宗教使人心中有爱：宗教莫不以仁爱之道教人。儒、道、墨三家皆重传统敬天爱人的大道理。孔子肯定上天仁民爱物，人应法天之德，实行仁爱，于是倡导仁道。孔子给『仁』下的最好定义即『仁者爱人』。老子讲慈：『我有三宝，持而保之。一曰慈……天将救之，以慈卫之。』（老子，六十七）墨子讲兼爱：『若使天下兼相爱，爱人若爱其身，犹有不孝者乎？』（兼爱上第十四）『爱人若爱其身』一句，让我们想到耶稣的『爱人如己』。天主教给神下的定义是：『天主是爱』（若一4:8）佛教讲慈悲，讲普渡众生。一个宗教信徒的生命充满活力，不断扩大爱的圈子，去为更多的人服务。当他不断付出爱心的时候，不会疲惫，因为他藉天人合德的功夫，以人心上接天心，在上帝那里找到爱心与活力的泉源。他能不断地再出发去为别人、社会、国家及人类服务。透过仁爱的实践，他不但自己活出生命的尊严，也乐于帮助别人活出生命的尊严。」43

宗教可以改造人心，使人心有所转化，回复本来的善的面目，不受罪恶的污染；我们在天主教教理中的价值取向得知，天主教强调信仰中的唤醒，让人能自觉生命的尊贵，在诱惑多的人世间要不断战胜诱惑，免陷于心灵的死亡，这便是天主教信仰的救恩，不断更新人心。至于儒家思想有没有宗教思想，我们可以罗光教授的研究作肯定：「若说中国儒家哲学拋弃了上天信仰，成为无宗教信仰的哲学，则是一桩学术上的错误，更是实际生活上的一桩大错误。我曾写了一篇研究报告，肯定孔子的宗教信仰，现在更要说上天的信仰，为中国传统哲学的一种精神，为研究这问题，我分为五点去说明：天命、天理、天地好生之德、祭祀、赏罚。……儒家不像西洋传统哲学，明明讲皇天上帝的信仰，然而在骨子里则隐藏这种信仰，而且作为全部思想的基础。儒家讲人生之道，以同天地合其德，赞天地化育，为最高目的；以亲亲仁民爱物作生活的规范，这种生活必要假定有化生万物的造物主，造物主以生物为心，有生生的大德。造物主的大德由天地的变易而表现，而且贯通在万物的生命里；人心乃有仁，以仁而和宇宙万物相通。整个宇宙是一个生命的宇宙，又是一个仁爱的宇宙。」44

儒家的宗教信仰由祖先敬天爱人的德化精神而来，充满着爱的生命力，「只要我们拿出勇气，不分中外的宗教和正信思想，只要是合理的、高尚的、追求至善的，能助人成圣的，且可打击邪道邪恶，只要能为我们的传统宗教信仰和道德精神，注入活力，我们就应以开放坦荡的胸怀去接触、了解、引进、吸收，使之与我们的文化生命和现代化生活，藉交流而融通。」45当今我们应该尊重儒家人文价值的宗教信仰精神，让仁爱的生命力唤醒和改造人心。

5.2 基督信仰的开放性与儒家人文价值的融通性

基督信仰的启示确定了救恩的无私性，为不同文化打开了爱的包容；当救恩的爱进入文化时，便会融合在文化中，使文化更趋完美，我们从基督信仰进入犹太文化，希腊文化以至罗马文化后，给整个欧洲带来了新的局面，而为基督信仰的文化，其中发展了哲学和神学，给整个文化奠下了「一」、「真」、「善」、「美」、「圣」的精神价值取向；同样地，基督信仰如何融入中国文化，或说中国的儒家人文精神如何迎接基督信仰？我们相信，信仰永远是开放的，也是一股深入人心的生命力，以创新和启发的机缘与不同文化接轨；我们可从中国的文化演变中了解，儒家的发展到宋明清理学，便与道家和佛教的思想互融互通，传统所言的「引儒入道」或「以儒释佛」等，使中国人文精神都包摄了儒、道、佛的终极思想和生命力，展现了生命的共融性与和谐性；如此，我们可以明认中国文化人文精神有其深度的体系，可以发展而为一个好的思想架构，让基督信仰的救恩介入，给予文化生命的滋润，使文化的生生不息的生命力更能发挥其自然的真善美，且得到保证。我们清楚了解中国拥有数千年优越的记忆，产生了悠久的和一脉相通的历史，历史是人的行为印鉴，在历史的演进中转化成为知识，反应在传统的人文价值里，就是智慧的「真」。再者，中国人有温柔敦厚的教化，涵养笃实，性情能与大自然相通，反应在传统的人文价值里，就是心灵的「美」。重要的是中国人仰慕上天磅礡的生生之德，在至诚纯真的德行实践里，纵面是人以德配天命，横面则为人与人的交往，而以德立人伦，形成刚健的伦理道德思想和宗教信仰，伦理道德是人的生活程序，宗教信仰是人的生活超越，反应在传统的人文价值里，并不是僵化的教条，而是仁爱之「善」。46儒家从人性的要求中，也从真、善、美、正义、和谐、仁爱等等中，实现了生命意义的价值；在以德配天的纵面里，展现了其宗教信仰，就是将生命意义的最后根基投向一个超越的天，因此，生命的价值具有其神圣性的超越。方东美教授确认：

作为一种崇高的精神生活方式，宗教乃是人类虔敬之心的表达，人藉着宗教，可以发展三方面的关系：

首先是与神明之「内在融通」的关系
其次是与人类之「互爱互助」的关系
第三是与世界之「参赞化育」的关系
藉着神，我们得以存在于世，并且提升人性；
在神内，我们得知泛爱万有，尤其普爱人类；
经由神，我们更能观照大千世界的无穷义蕴。
要言之，宗教生活就是以炽烈凝炼的情感投入玄之又玄的奥秘中，那奥秘是超乎理性的，有时亦是内潜于理性的。任何人，无论其天生资质有何不同，知识程度有何不同，文化背景有何差异，社会地位有何差异，就其为「人」而言，都是平等的价值与尊严──只要他们能入于炽烈凝炼情感经验的深处，即可由各种途径，各个方向，臻于密契神明之境界。47

我们从开放性和融通性反思说明，实在是基督信仰与儒家人文精神信仰的对话新机，盼望能带出：
大公性的思想转机
合一性的思想融通
神圣性的思想超越
统摄性的思想互联
藉此，我们可以跨越宗教与文化之间的藩篱，我们相信十字架的象征是「爱人」，永远耸立在山岗上，让所有的人瞻仰，也让所有文化与之对话和会通；基督徒因着十字架愿意作出牺牲、奉献和服务。尤其是，我们愿十字架所展示的「基督的福音和天主的启示」能净化和圣化中华文化，使中华文化的品质更卓越；天主的圣道能修补和改造中国人心，使中国人能自觉「知耻近乎勇」和「观过知仁」的更新；反之，中华文化的精髓亦可充实基督徒的修养和补充教会的不足。

5.3 日用粮的新机

耶稣在圣经中教导门徒应当这祈祷：「我们在天的父！……我们的日用粮，求你今天赐给我们……。」（玛6:9-11）

「日用粮」所揭示的内涵是指我们每日必需的食粮，以养活我们的生命。「赐给我们」是儿女「信赖」父亲的口吻，是很美的表达；另一点也是「盟约」的表示：我们是祂的，祂是我们的，也是为我们的。

「日用粮」也意味着「一个」面包是为「众人的」。要求人有「分享」的美德：即要求我们出于爱心，而不是出于勉强，在互通中分享我们所有精神和物质的财富。「今天」也是一种「信赖」的表达，为使我们能坚定于「毫无保留」的信赖中。从质的一方面来说，这词是指生活上的必需；或就更广的意义来说，则指为生存所需要的一切。照字面来解释，是「超越本质」，直指生命之粮，基督的身份，常生的良药，没有此灵药，我们就没有生命。48

因此，我们可将宗教信仰中的「一」、「真」、「善」、「美」、「圣」的价值比喻作「日用粮」，不可「只说不做，只想不理」，却要身体力行，不断认错、悔改、修德、祈祷、成圣；使人人的生命都能有静虚的一、诚明的真、可欲的善、充实的美、大化的圣，以发扬生命价值的持久性、基础性和不可分性，最后更达至神圣的价值。

我们从儒家孟子的「若刍豢之悦我口」的「可悦」价值来说「日用粮」，则比喻「仁、义、礼、智」的「可悦」，展示孟子的「舍生取义」的神圣。既然是「可悦」价值，便是「日用粮」，我们将「日用粮」转化为「日用常行」，49藉以整合基督宗教的信仰价值与儒家的人文价值，将之化作当今「培养智慧、发现真理、印证价值」的具体行动，肯定「以身作则」的重要性，好能在当今之世作出伦理道德的整合，重建人生的尊严、关注贫富悬殊应有的福利、宗教自由的新释、生命教育的确立。

5.4 「和谐社会论」不讲宗教是否缺失？

在回应「导言」中「中共和谐强国保证」的内容，我们看到「明报」在「宗教活动也是投资环境」中提出的质问：「和谐社会论」不讲宗教是否缺失？其内容如下：

内地过去强调优化投资环境，只着重地价与税率优惠，如今提倡环境保护，是一大进步，但仍鲜有介绍当地的宗教状况，本身原有宗教信仰的投资者及管理人员，如果没有圣灵生活的渠道，就是一个缺失；中央最近大力倡导和谐社会，连人与大自然的和谐关系也有长篇论述，但就不讲宗教与和谐社会的关系，是否也是缺失呢？外国对宗教力量如何促进经济有所研究，如果有学者研究在京港人基督教徒遵纪守法、事业成功率，可能会促使当局将宗教政策作为改善投资环境的措施。50

当我们探讨基督宗教（天主教）与儒家人文价值时，我们盼望可以为当代的中国揭示「价值」的内涵，离不开「一」、「真」、「善」、「美」、「圣」的基础或根源，其中提出尊重人性尊严外，更探讨宗教信仰的融通互补，且能改造人心，成就圆满幸福的生活，要求人人革新，家国也要革新。我们可引用易经革卦彖辞的革新内容作为反思和检讨，以收益张：

巳曰乃孚，革而信之，文明以说，大享以正，革而当，其悔乃亡，天地革而四时成，汤武革命顺乎天而应乎人，革之时义大矣哉！

李震教授的诠释的大意是：「天命已到，乃能取信于天下，天下人皆能相信改革者，便能使文明振兴，民心大悦。革令因能合于正当法则，就不会产生令人后悔的事。天地四时在变化中运行，商汤及周武王的革命能做到顺平天命，又符合人民的要求，展示了真正革命意义的伟大呀！」51

最后，我们诚心祝祷，盼望在位者、有权势者、有金钱富有者、有道学知识者等能正视：
不要将宗教变成经贸背后的点缀
不要将宗教变成投资环境的布置
不要将宗教变成错误良心的安慰
不要将宗教变成不正义和不道德背后正义和道德的赞美
不要将宗教变成自我放纵后的避难所
不要将宗教变成政治口号，表面给予自由，以收买人心而控制人心
不要将宗教变成制造分裂，以颠倒是非的自我斗争，好收渔人之利…………
更高的人生，是在俗情世间名位财色之世间之外，看见真善美神圣的世界；这是一永恒普遍纯洁而贞定的世界。52
「明目而视之，不可得而见也。倾耳而听之，不可得而闻也。」
耶稣说：「你们先该寻求天主的国和它的义德，这一切自会加给你们。」（玛6:33）

沉清松著，《传统的再生》，台北　业强出版社　1992　91-93。

唐君毅著，《中国人文精神之发展》，台湾　学生书局　1974（民国63）　24。

唐君毅著，《中国人文精神之发展》，台湾　学生书局　1974（民国63）　25, 40。

李震著，《理性与信仰──追求完美的双翼》，台北　辅仁大学出版社　1999　316-317。

唐君毅著，《中国文化之精神价值》，台湾　正中书局　1960（民国49）台再版　32。

同上，38。

魏义霞著，《七子视界──先秦哲学研究》，中国社会科学出版社　2005年12月1版　440-441。

唐君毅著，《中国文化之精神价值》，台湾　正中书局　1960（民国49）台再版　344。

唐君毅著，《中国人文精神之发展》，台湾　学生书局　1974（民国63）　395。

李震著，《理性与信仰──追求完善的双翼》，台北　辅仁大学出版社1999　371-374。

罗光著，《中国哲学的精神》，台湾　学生书局　1990（民国79）　101, 119。

李震著，《理性与信仰──追求完善的双翼》，台北　辅仁大学出版社　1999　374。

王逢吉著，《文学心灵与传统》，台北　康桥出版事业公司　1984（民国74）　22-23。

方东美著，《生生之德》，台北　黎明文化事业公司　1985（民国74）323-324。

《天主教教理》，644-646。

余英时著，《现代儒学的回顾与展望》，北京　三联书店　2004　182。
「明清儒家所开辟的新方向，我想称之为『日用常行化』或『人伦日用化』；这正是他们界定儒学的特质时所最常用的名词。」

阮纪宏著（明报驻京记者），《宗教活动也是投资环境》京港快讯　港闻A18，香港　明报　2006年10月29日（星期日）。　

李震著，《理性与信仰──追求完美的只翼》，辅仁大学出版社1999　439-440。

唐君毅著，《人生之体验续编》，台湾　学生书局　1996（民国85）　64。

作者：柯毅霖

第一部分：新纪元世界

1. 互联网的新纪元

我在香港、美国和义大利的生活经验使我确信新纪元在社会团体、教会、甚至一些传统的天主教社群都有重要的影响力。而在我印象中，不论神学家还是牧师同样低估了新纪元的影响力和重要性。我相信一般的基督信徒，特别是牧民工作者和传教士，都应该知道和明白新纪元现象。

这篇文章是对我在1999年所做的研究的修订。与此同时，宗座文化委员会及宗座宗教交谈委员会联合发表了一份文件，名为「耶稣基督是带来活水者：天主教对新纪元的反省」。希望读者在阅读宗座的文件时，能以拙文为伴读。

新纪元的思想在互联网上散播1，而很多网页也跟新纪元有关。新纪元和互联网两者亦因着同为后现代的主要工具和表达方式而联系起来。新纪元和互联网都是网络中的网络，都是跟不同的事物无止境地联系着的网。新纪元作者玛丽琳．弗格森（Marilyn Ferguson）所描述的新纪元跟描述互联网力量极之相似：「一个没有领导但充满力量的网络正为世界带来彻底的改变……这网络是一个没有政治教条，或者任何宣言的联盟。2」前联合国助理秘书长及着名的新纪元作者穆勒（Robert Muller）为网络的影响力添上哲学上的重要性，这点对新纪元和互联网来说是共通的：「透过思想、透过行动、透过爱、透过灵性互联起来。你就是网络的中心。你是自由的，极为有力的生命之源….网络是新的自由、新的民主、快乐的新形式。3」

2. 多变的新纪元世界

新纪元（有时也称为下一世纪4或宝瓶年代5，虽然这些名称所指向的有些不同）6是一个松散地联系着的网络，这网络包括人、团体、或者是活动、习惯。根据它的支持者，它提供的益处有：心灵和个人的成长、人际关系的改善、生理和心理的治疗、经济上的成功、个人和全球的和平、保护环境等。

新纪元的内容既广泛亦模糊，把不同的信仰、习惯和生活模式奇怪地融合一起，互不排斥。把传统东方信仰如印度教、佛教和道教的元素跟基督教和犹太思想的元素放在一起。其中充当重要角色的还有诺斯替派（Gnostic）的思想、和其他较新的宗教团体如科学论派（Scientology）、合一教派（Unity）、新思想（New Thought）、宗教科学（Religious Science），还有各样不同的神秘教派如神智学（Theosophy）7、人智学（Anthroposophy）8,蔷薇十字主义（Rosicrucianism）9，心灵学（spiritism）10。有些新纪元的支持者接受千禧主义、占星术，还有前基督（pre-Christian）的教义如塞尔特族的、德鲁依族的、马雅族的、美洲土着的神话和传统民间传说。新纪元圈子所认同的行为也很广泛：由传统的禅和瑜珈的冥想，到身体训练及放松治疗，当中包括节食、催眠、功夫等等。管理训练、启蒙以及提升意识研讨会、性格轴心类分法11（enneagram）、观想（visualization）以及正面思维都非常流行。上述最后两个基于一个假设，就是思想可以创造和完成个人所相信他能做得到的。新纪元声称能经验奇异的现象例如神魂超拔（astral dreaming）、心灵感应（mental telepathy）、治愈（healing）、浮游空中（levitation）、超感视觉（clairvoyance）、自动书写（automatic writing）、唱颂（chanting）、与及能量通流（energy channelling）。还有迦勒底人的（Chaldeans）、埃及人的（Egyptians）、巴比伦人的（Babylonians）、及其他古时的人的习惯；占星术（horoscopes）、读掌纹（palm reading）、水晶球探视（crystal ball gazing）、占卜水源（water divining）、锤摆（pendulum）、占卜杖（divining rod）、塔罗牌（tarot cards）、读茶叶（tea leaves reading）、预言（divination）、命理（numerology）、色光分析（aura readings）、虹膜学（iridology）、手相术（palmistry）、维根仪式（Wiccan rituals）、研究动物内脏（study of animal entrails）等等都在新纪元中找到。非传统的故事如受到不明飞行物体绑架、来自外星的探访、回到前生、灵魂再生、精神愈合等等都是新纪元着作或聚会的普遍话题。

在60年代末至70年代初，新纪元以「宝瓶年代」为名，受到一些反传统文化的激进运动接受，特别是激进的环保主义者、女权主义者。在80年代90年代，新纪元成为广为人知的国际性现象。

大部分新的宗教都会认同一些领袖、教义、「受启发」的经文、特有的习惯，对成员也有非常严密的管理，但新纪元既没有一定的架构，也不会有中央管理。它没有总部，没有正式的教义，没有宗教习俗，或者正式的领袖。新纪元中有组织的宗教团体如Church of Spiritual Healing, the Church of Ageless Wisdom, Radiant Light Interfaith Church, the Church of the Earth Nation, the New Age communes等的发展全都不及新纪元本身成功。而透过研讨会、通灵训练和一些没有明显宗教人物的启蒙课程，来散布新纪元概念和习惯的中心和大师，都比较成功。

市场上有很多新产品用来加强崇拜、冥想和身体训练，如：祈祷垫、yapa小珠、香熏、天然纤维做的衣服、水晶及用来强化它的特别灯光、健康食品、维他命丸、便携式按摩桌子、默想护眼镜、潜意识录音带、草本茶、新纪元音乐和书籍等。

新纪元特别在年轻、单身、向上层社会移动、以及成功的城市人中流行。透过他们，新纪元概念和习惯在社会上有影响力的人当中扩散，特别在娱乐工业、大众传播、和金融世界之中。它对后现代生活的冲击是巨大的。跟据1996年所做的调查，美国有百分之二的人口相信新纪元12。

在1997年，在美国的新纪元书店超过5000间。在香港，至少有一间「新纪元商店」，它位于中环，当中有一大堆新纪元活动可供选择，例如「全人生活」（holistic living）研讨会、冥想、公开讲座、「能量通流」（energy channelling）课程等等……13。一位在港的全人健康顾问向本地一份杂志说：「我聆听没有歌词扰乱我思维的柔和音乐，这对右脑是有益的……我以游泳去感受，去想像自己回到母亲的胎中。我们都需要学习放弃负面思想。」该文章继续说：「她由冥想去接触自己内在的声音，向一超越的能力祷告，她宽松地定义这能力为神、宇宙、或她自己，但她说这跟以宗教为力量是有分别的」14。

3. 新纪元的两个流派

我相信新纪元基本上有两个主要流派：人文主义的（humanistic）和神秘的（occult）。

3.1 人文主义的流派

对于很多当代人来说，新纪元的实践是让人变得更好更健康的途径，让人去接触深层的自我，去跟其他人和谐地沟通，让人更新，减低压力和疲劳。

新纪元提高了对个体和整个地球、对健康和生态的福祉的关注。也推广全人教育、冥想和精神训练、全人医疗和健康食品等。

新纪元的人民主义流派认为人类正开始经验一个新的心灵醒悟，这将会带领人类迈向一个新时代，一个受了启蒙的精神人道主义的时代。作家如海文赫斯（Hermann Hesse），李察巴哈（Richard Bach），和保罗科尔贺（Paulo Coelho）便是这方面的代表。

3.2 神秘流派

新纪元神秘流派包括各样异乎寻常的事物：前基督信仰、治疗能量的通流（channelling of healing energy）、与灵魂的主宰（spiritual master）接触、灵媒、接受精神导师或大师的启发、离开身体的经验、飞越灵界（astral travel）、不明飞行物体的绑架、占星术、塔罗牌、色光分析、宝石和水晶、萨满教的传统（shamanistic tradition）、前哥伦比亚人的神谕（pre-Colombian oracles）、魔术、巫术（在某些北方的国家，巫术目前被正式承认为一种宗教）、和魔法（sorcery）。

虽然一般都假定新纪元并不是一个有组织的力量，但有些保守的基督徒认为新纪元的扩大是有一「特定」的计画，透过贝利（Alice Bailey）的传播，这计画包括向政府、传媒、学校、和教会渗透，目的是建立一个新世界秩序（a New World Order）、一个新世界政府（a New World Government），和一个新世界宗教（a New World Religion）。

而一些新教和天主教的护教者例如M. Basilea Schlink15, Constance Cumbay16, Ed Decker17, Randall Baers18, Carl Raschke19, Douglas Groothuis20, John P. Newport21和Cornelia R. Ferreira22等人警告，新纪元有一黑暗面，当中包括黑魔法和魔鬼崇拜。从大卫史宾加（David Spangler）这位新纪元领袖和由Anton LeVey于1966年在三藩市建立的撒旦教会（the Church of Satan）所举行的活动中经常提及「撒旦（Lucifer）」，可见魔鬼崇拜的种种迹象。Anton LeVey曾启发由波兰斯基（Roman Polansky）执导，美亚花路（Mai Farrow）主演的恐怖魔鬼崇拜电影「魔鬼怪婴」（Rosemary's Baby 1968），并在片中出现。神秘主义组织声称希特拉熟识神秘教义，如神秘主义者布拉亚兹基（Helena Blavatsky）和撒旦教派的艾利斯达（Aleister Crowler）所说的教义。

4. 新纪元的前身

新纪元运动的神秘流派近代的根源可以追溯到创立于纽约（1875）的神智会（Theosophical Society），创立人为俄国出生的神秘主义者布拉亚兹基（Helena Petrovna Blavatsky 1831-1891）。神智学是一泛神宗教系统。他的信奉者相信全世界的宗教都有基本共同的真理，超越他们之间的差异。布拉亚兹基教导人们接触存在于精神领域的高等精神个体－智慧的主宰（Master of Wisdom）。

贝利（Alice A. Bailey 1880-1949）是一位移居美国的英国妇人，她是把秘教部分从神智会中脱离出来的其中一个重要人物。1923年贝利离开神智会创立通神会（Arcane Society）。她跟丈夫科士达．贝利（Foster Bailey）在1922年成立了”Lucifer”出版社，1923年改名为”Lucis”出版社。她声称能接收由一位来自西藏，名叫Djwal Khul的智慧主宰的信息。他是「白光兄弟团」（Great White Brotherhood）中的“优越”（ascended brother）兄弟，他们定居于一神秘领域叫Shambala。
有人认为贝利和布拉亚兹基是新纪元运动的始创者23。神智会于1907年至1933年的主席贝桑特（Annie Besant）是一位女权主义及神秘主义者，她曾公开说未来的世界导师（World Teacher）将会是名为弥勒（Lord Maitreya）的精神大师。

史达纳博士（Dr. Rudolf Steiner），奥地利人，曾是神智会的活跃成员。他在1912年离开神智会并创立人智会（Anthroposophical Society）。在下一节会再详述史达纳的「宇宙」基督论。

第二部分：新纪元的宗教信仰

1. 新纪元作为后现代宗教

我相信对于现代性（modernity）的崩溃有两种宗教上的反应。第一种反应在全部有组织的主要宗教都会出现，就是宗教的原教旨主义（fundamentalism）。宗教的原教旨主义者对现代和后现代皆反对。他们所持守的宗教态度不单是激进的反现代（anti-modern），他们甚至要走回去前现代。由于现代性已破灭，宗教的原教主义者提倡回到去前现代（pre-modernity），甚至抗拒基本并重要的成就如良心的自由、人权和国家对宗教的不偏不倚。

第二个对现代性崩溃的反应是新纪元和一些新宗教的出现。新纪元在某重要程度上是后现代的宗教24。新纪元运用了后现代的态度：舍弃强烈的政治思维、意识形态、及传统宗教组织，而关注环境、核能、健康和女权主义。

新纪元广泛壮大地传播，将神和信仰化约为神话，其背后的主要力量来自对现代现世人道主义（modern secular humanism）的失望。现世人道主义和现代共产主义及纳粹主义的意识形态的失败，为后现代的男女带来精神上的真空。

对于迷失的后现代人来说，新纪元提出了「范型的转移」（paradigm shift），那就是一个新的全人的角度，万事万物之间的互相关连和整全的概念。作为科学方法的基础，那以理性、分析和批判得来的知识，退让给由非理性经验而来的直觉知识。运用理性无法再影响新纪元跟随者，他们认为依赖逻辑和理性是缺乏启迪（enlightenment）的。

新纪元的信从者把人的左右脑分别运作这理论进一步扩充。左脑主理逻辑功用而右脑控制情绪和直觉方面：心情、幻想、梦想、认知等。西方人按推测，主要发展左脑。冥想、诗歌、着魅（enchantments）、真言（mantras）等等，现在可以用来帮助意识的发展，这样可以使左右脑恢复平衡、同步发展。

后现代与新纪元两者都假设信仰比经验次要；它们的存在基于它们是否有用，是一种选择而不是真理，两者价值相等。后现代人隔绝和孤单地处于这既困难又复杂的社会，他们已准备接受向内在找寻解决方法的想法。这世界在「危机」当中，新纪元提出「从自己内在」找寻解决方法，根据他们的说法「唯一的出路在内在」（the only way out is in）。

由于后现代有时候会被称为后基督年代，新纪元似乎有后现代宗教的特征。就像后现代，与其说新纪元有清楚界定的教条或组织，不如说它只是一种「情绪」（mood），或者一种气氛（atmosphere），「一种在后基督社会浮现、对新文化模型的隐喻。」25

很多人觉得传统基督教会在面对新的存在问题时无法提供合适的答案，反而那些小团体似乎能给人一份归属感，一份在传统宗教、文化或者政治组织中失落了的归属感。在这个步伐急速的后现代社会，每样事物都被急速地消耗，新纪元给予人能力的强烈经验，比起基督教会传统的教导更加吸引人，后者令人觉得被一套复杂的教条和沉闷的生活所压抑。

新纪元中心的工作也曾是基督团体所做的：灵性指引、社交聚会、友谊团体、康乐等等……很多人可能幻想破灭，离开传统教会而加入这些中心和活动。

1.1 新纪元作为后现代的诺斯替主义（Gnosticism）26

有些作者已经指出新纪元运动与诺斯替主义之间有相似的地方。诺斯替派，即「知道者」，属于一个宗教运动，该运动在基督纪元最初几个世纪非常活跃。

有些新纪元支持者说基督所教导的其实就是新纪元所讲的真理，有些还说基督失去已久的教导从新被发现了。这个说法的主要来自非正典的文献27。新纪元认为伪经或诺斯替福音28（2至3世纪）是被早期教会所压抑的。其中多默福音，以其诺斯替的内容，成为新纪元喜爱的话题。

基督诺斯替派的人相信基督的人性只是一种幻觉。基督看似死了，但实际上没有死。基督属于半神性存有一类（名为aeon，意即永久），位于神与人性之间。基督诺斯替派认为物质是邪恶的，而在旧约中创造物质宇宙的天主是邪恶的。而依照基督所教导，新约中的天主才是爱。救赎是透过神秘知识而来，只会给予那些受教者，耶稣自己也是透过启蒙（initiation）才获得「基督性」（Christhood）：他是「伟大的受教者」（Great Initiate）。

新纪元认为人性的耶稣透过提高他的「基督意识」（Christ-consciousness）来得到「基督性」，将自己「调适」为宇宙基督（Cosmic Christ）。新纪元信徒像诺斯替派一样，用了基督教的名词与标记，但所教导的内容却跟传统基督教条不相符。

2. 新纪元的宗教信仰

米高霍斯（Michael Fuss）总结新纪元宗教信仰为四个元素的相互作用29。首先是犹太基督宗教传统，新纪元从这传统取得所用名词并以成为其替代者为目标。第二个元素是科学，在其反西方、反物质和反机械的形式中：量子科学、实体就是能量（reality as energy）。第三个元素是秘教的（esoteric）、超自然的、诺斯替传统。第四个元素包括宗教多元主义（religious pluralism）、混合主义（syncretism）、和相对主义（relativism）。

这四个元素建构成新纪元宗教信仰，与基督信仰的意识形态背景相关。

2.1 万有归一
「科学」与宗教的全人论（holism / wholism）是新纪元的基本教条。创造与受造的现实、人与自然、神与受造物，全部无须有所分别，他们之间的分别只是幻象。新纪元的神是非位格的最终统一原理（Ultimate Principle），一个神秘的「一」，跟宇宙是一致的。宇宙是生命的源头，拥有智慧去引领和指导万事万物。神是意识，或者是无位格的能量。由量子物理学的理论扩充开来，新纪元认为现实就是能量。基于卡巴（Fritjof Capra）所倡导的量子物理学，宇宙是一个生命体，并不是由物质和机械的定律所控制，而是由能量的联系所统涉。在新纪元的着作中，这能量以不同的名称出现：百那（prana），曼那（mana）、力量、奥高（orgone）能量、圣灵、气、心灵、治愈能力、灵气（reiki）30。能量有治愈的能力，可以被释放出来，透过不同形式的冥想、身体疗法、和魔法仪式互相通流，《能力与你一起》便是新纪元其中一本书的名字。对于新纪元信徒来说，个人的转变就是跟宇宙去经验那「一」的神秘过程。
全人论其实是一元论的更新版，这世界观视一切存在的整体为那最终的「一」的反映。那最终的原理，或者那高层次的我（higher self），可以装扮成为在历史上出现的各种不同的具体物质面貌。这些在历史上出现的面貌，即所谓低层次的我（lower self），而不是那「真我」（real self），只是虚幻的现象，只有象征性的价值。宗教的结论就是历史没法有真确的启示。历史上所有宗教的表现，其价值只是有限的和不明确的。

2.2 万物都是神
作为以上定律的一个直接和必然结果，新纪元采纳了古代的泛神论：每样在宇宙的事物、植物和人类，都是那神圣本质的一部分。「万物都是神。你是神，我是神。这个显微镜是神。这张台是神，全部都是神。31」以上的说法在新纪元的讲座经常听到，也可以在很多的新纪元书本中看到。

由于神隐藏在我们内，因着无知（不是罪，罪是不存在的）我们不知道自己的神圣真相。如果整体包含在它每一部分之中，那每一部分就是整体。「你永不知道你是何等美丽，因为你从未真正看到你自己是如何的，你想看看神是怎样的？去对着镜子，你便正面看到神。」奈特（Judith Hampton-J.Z. Knight）在她的网址中，对达至知识的科学和超级意识的灵性训练和实习指引，提供了一个解释。她公开说：「神就在我们内，人除了明确地了解自己的神性之外，并无他法可得到救赎。」32她提到的题目还有死亡与升天、创造与进化、轮回、及生存的目的。同样，根据新纪元，人所需要的是透过冥想和其他灵性的训练，来扩展自己的意识，由此去发现和发展他/她的神圣性。

2.3 意识33
正如上面也提到，意识这概念，是明白新纪元的宗教转化的重要概念。人要用新的意识去克服误解与无知。他/她的意识必须有所改变才能明白我们不是被限定的。人要透过意识的扩张去找出他「更高的自我」（Higher Self）。人被无知和各种不利的文化条件所阻碍。罪恶是人为的因素或者因果定律所做成的结果。

这观点并不包括圣经或基督教中罪的（sin）观念，即罪是可悲的但实在是人的自由和责任的结果。这观点也排斥救赎的必要性，并把恩宠和信德化为无意思的信条。神性就在人自己之内，只要你把无知的面纱移除，对自己的真我有所顿悟，便能体会内在的神性。冥想、通灵、接受启蒙等方法都可带领人对高级的我（superior Self）有高层次的认知（superior knowledge）。

2.4 再生转世和因果34
正如上面所述，「渐进的精神进化」包含着因果和轮回的信条，解释了为何人生有不公平和负面的情况，也同时废除了基督教信条中的罪、责任、救赎、天堂、地狱等。新纪元在某程度上可被视为传统印度教的西方后现代表现。传统印度教一直受西方欢迎，尤其在60年代，当时印度教的大师走到北美和欧洲去传扬他们的教义，而很多西方人为了灵性的追寻而走去印度。

2.5 通灵和灵界接触
通灵，意即与灵体接触，当中包括天使35。通灵容许人成为「通灵者」及精神讯息的传递者，而跟灵界接触在新纪元运动中获得很大的成功。接触亡者灵魂的做法在一些秘教组织已施行了150年，新纪元的灵界接触其实是这做法的发展和更新。那些信息都是来自充满爱的灵体，他帮助人透过灵性的进化而达致完美。灵媒奈特（J.Z. Knight / Judith Hampton）自称是蓝沙（Ramtha）的通灵者，他是一个「有至高权力的灵体」（Sovereign Entity），已生活在世上35,000多年，亦已提升至高层次的意识，可以教导人去重新发现「活在你内的神」36。透过灵气（Reiki）的练习，被启蒙的人便可成为灵气力量的媒介。

2.6 新纪元与宗教多元主义
根据新纪元的多元主义，所有大宗教的启导者如耶稣、佛陀、克里修那、老子、穆罕默德、琐罗亚斯德等等，所教的都是同一个「一」的经验。有很多途径可走向那唯一真理，很多方法与「一」合一。所有的分别都只是外在和表面的。真理可透过不同的途径和媒介来揭示。没有一个人、团体、或者教会拥有通往真理的唯一道路，这态度与后现代的思想是共通的。保罗科尔贺（Paulo Coelho）在他的小说中写道：

佛教徒是对的，印度教徒是对的、回教徒也对、犹太教徒也对。凡任何人跟随信德之路，他便可以与神结合而行奇迹。单是知道自己要做一个决定并不足够。我选择天主教因为我在那里长大，在我童年时已灌输了她的奥秘。如果我生来是犹太人，我会选择犹太教。神可能有千个名字，但其实都是同一个神，名字是我们选给祂的。37

我们在下面会再谈到到这点。

2.7 新纪元光辉的未来
新纪元从占星术推演出对宇宙有一个乐观的看法，这论说基于进化的发展以至最后达至奥米加点（Omega point）。我们正在一个新纪元曙光初现的时候，其特征是「人类意识集体的开悟」。有些甚至预测一个「更伟大的基督」（Greater Christ）、一个新的默西亚、一个新的艾华达（Avatar）将会出现38，他会带人去领会宇宙的和谐和幸福。

2.8 对盖雅（Gaia）的崇拜
在新纪元中，女性及女权主义有很重要的地位，他们通常以「母亲」或「她」来称谓神。有些激进的新纪元信徒取用古老的信条，把「女性」与「大自然」等同起来，对前基督文化中的女神如爱丽丝（Iris）、亚斯达提（Astarte）、狄米特（Demeter）、希拉（Hera）恢复兴趣，尤其是对盖雅。新纪元女权运动的激进先驱者，对以男性为中心的圣经中的神不满，倡导对盖雅女神的崇拜，盖亚在希腊文中就是「大地之母」。

盖雅也是卢夫乐（James Lovelock）的科学假设的名称。简单来说，盖雅假设相信所有在地球上的生物是一个单一的有机体，而人类就是这有生命的地球的神经系统。39

2.9 伟大的母亲
保罗科尔贺（Paulo Coelho）对「伟大的母亲」的崇拜有一套天主教的说法，这说法可能回应了一位巴西的神学家波夫（Leonardo Boff）所提出的假设40。科尔贺提出可考虑以「童贞」玛利亚为天主的女性的一面。她是天主的女性化身，正如耶稣是天主的男性化身。

「地球，她是宇宙的新娘，她对天堂开放并容许自己丰饶。……她让天主降临地上，而她转化为伟大的母亲。她是天主女性的一面。她有自己的神圣性……这女人、女神、童贞玛利亚、住所（the Shechinah）、伟大的母亲、爱西斯（Isis）、索菲亚（Sofia）、奴隶及女主人，在世上每一宗教都会出现。她曾被遗忘、被禁止、被隐藏，但对她的崇拜却延续千万年，延续到现在…….在每一宗教、每一传统，她以不同的面貌呈现。由于我是天主教徒，我理解她为童贞玛利亚。」41

科尔贺甚至提出「圣三中包括一个女人，就是圣神、圣母和圣子。42」「当其他人在咏唱时，我对我自己说，天主可能是一个女人，这是多么奇妙。如果这是真的，那一定是天主女性的一面教我们如何去爱。43」

第三部分新纪元的耶稣基督

1. 耶稣走到东方44

莎莉麦莲（Shirley MacLaine）在Out on a Limb一书中详细地叙述她与朋友的一段对话：
你知道圣经并没有记载有关耶稣十二岁到他大约三十岁开始传教这段时间的事。在这遗失了的十八年，其实他走遍印度、西藏、波斯和近东。45

这个游历东方的耶稣成为新纪元信徒揭露的「主要秘密」之一。这些全由一位俄国战争的特派员，名叫尼古拉（Nicolas Notovitch）所写的一本书《基督未为人知的生活》（The Unknown Life of Christ）开始。他声称在1887年到访印度北部的一所喇嘛寺院（Lama Monastery of Himis），在那里他认识了一位名叫依沙（Issa）的大喇嘛。依沙的年史写在卷轴上，放在寺院内。透过翻译，这位俄国旅者得知耶稣曾流浪至印度和西藏，以一个年轻人的身分修读佛陀的法理。最后，梵天（Brahma）的僧侣向他教授吠陀，又教他医治、教导、传教、和驱魔。依沙基督成为这神圣着作的完美传释者。经过在各个国家漫长的游历，依沙基督回到以色列向世人传播他所学的一切。

最早于1894年，牛津大学东方学者穆拉（Max Muller）在一本名为《十九世纪》（The Nineteenth Century）的学术评论中对Notovitch荒诞的故事作出谴责，虽然部分是为了东方教义多于为了基督宗教。46

印度亚格拉政府书院（Gonvernment College of Agra）的一位教授J. Archibald Douglas曾于1895年到过位于Himis的寺院，也否定这个故事47。

不过Notovitch的书，名为《圣依沙的生平》（The Life of Saint Issa），于1926年出版。自此，也有其他作者反对Notovitch的说法，当中包括Edgar J. Goodspeed48和 Per Beskow49, Joseph Gaer50, Philip J. Swihart51, Anne Read52, Tal Brooke53，以及上面曾提过的Douglas Groothuis和Ron Rhodes。但有些神秘社团的会员例如Elizabeth Clare Prophet54, Nicholas Roerich55, Holger Kersten56, David Spangler57, Janet Block58，还有其他，他们出版了好几本书，为使这故事永存不朽。而Elizabeth Clare Prophet的《耶稣失去的岁月》（The Lost Years of Jesus）甚至在2001年被制作成电影。

1.这研究的一个特征是利用互联网为取得资讯的其中一个源头。

2.见Ferguson, M. The Aquarian Conspiracy. Los Angeles: J.B. Tarcher, 1980. Michael Fuss 转述于“The New Age.” In Towards the Jubilee of the Year 2000: New Forms of Religiosity, Challenges for Evangelization, 9. Rome: Pontifical Missionary Union, 1999.

3.见Muller, R. “Decide to Network.” In A Sourcebook for the Earth's Community of Religious, edited by J. Beversluis, 302. Mich.: Grand Rapids, 1995. Fuss转述于 The New Age, 9.

4.下一世纪指新纪元的下一阶段，专注于个人的快乐。

5.占星家相信进化的周期与黄道十二宫相符合。每一周期维持大概2000年。我们现在由双鱼周期转移到水瓶周期。而水瓶年代的特征是对宇宙和精神有高度觉知。

6.见Introvigne, M. New Age & Next Age. Casale Monferrato: Piemme, 2000. Barbiellini Amidei, G. New Age-Next Age. Casale Monferrato: Piemme, 1998.

7.见Sellon, E. B. and R. Weber. “Theosophy and the Theosophical Society.” In Modern Esoteric Spirituality, edited by A. Faivre and J. Needleman, 311-329. New York: Crossroad, 1995.

8.见Mcdermott, R. A. “Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy.” In Modern Esoteric Spirituality, edited by A. Faivre and J. Needleman, 288-310.

9.见Edighoffer, R. “Rosicrucianism: From the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century.” In Modern Esoteric Spirituality, edited by A. Faivre and J. Needleman, 186-209.

10.见Homer, M. W. Lo Spiritismo. Torino: Elle Di Ci, Leumann, 1999; Faivre, A. Esoterismo e tradizione. Torino: Elle Di Ci, Leumann 1999.

11.性格轴心类分法是一种古老的个性分类法，在基督教圈子也受取用。见Ferrari-Gianni, S. and Trapletti, F. “L'enneagramma: alcune domande per un dibattito.” In Religioni e Sette and Mondo, #.5, 94-118. Bologna: Gris,1996.

12.统计由Barnia, G.报导。见The Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators. Dallas, TX: World Publishing, 1996；亦见于Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, religioustolerance.org.

13.一分名叫New Age News的期刊提供各类在香港的新纪元活动的资料。

14.见Hong Kong Magazine, April 30, 1999, p.10.

15.Basilea Schlink, M. New Age From a Biblical Viewpoint. Harts, England, n.d.: Evangelic Sisters of Mary.

16.Cumbey, Constance E. The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, The New Age Movement and Our Coming Age of Barbarism. Shreveport, Lousiana: Huntington House, 1983

17.Decker, Ed. Race Toward Judgement, The New Age Movement. saintsalive.com, 1999.

18.Baers, Randall N. Inside the New Age Nightmare. Merlin, OR: Walter Publishing, 1989.

19.Raschke, Carl A. Painted Black. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990.

20.Groothuis, D. Confronting the New Age. Downers Groves, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

21.Newport, John P. The New Age Movement and the Biblical Worldview. Conflict and Dialogue. Grand Rapids / MI, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company / Cambridge, 1998.

22.见Ferreira, Cornelia R. The New Age Movement: the Kingdom of Satan on Earth. Scarborough, Ontario: Canisius Books, 1991; “The One-World Church Emerges.” In Homiletic and Pastoral Review (January 1999) 6-18.

23.可参考如Herrmann, Robert A. 的“A Scientific Analysis of the Writings of Alice A. Bailey and their Applications,” March 2001, serve.com/herrmann.

24.有关后现代可参阅本人的文章 “The Postmodern Condition and the Enduring Good News of the Gospel.” In Theological Annual (1999) 57-102; Wickeri, Philip L., ed. “Mission in Postmodern Times.”, In The People of God Among All God’s Peoples: Frontiers in Christian Mission, 183-203. Hong Kong-London: Christian Conference of Asia & The Council for World Mission, 2000。也可参阅Aldo Natale Terrin, New Age, La del Postmoderno. Bologna: Dehoniane, 1992.

25.见Fuss, The New Age, p.3

26.见Porcarelli, A. “II New Age: una forma di Gnosticismo moderno.” In Religioni e Sette nel Mondo, # 6 (1996) 51-57.

27.部分文献于1924年在位于埃及北部的拿戈汉马地（Nag Hammadi）被发现，这批手稿于四世纪以莎草纸写成，成为诺斯替派文库的一部份。当中包括若望伪经(Apocryphon of John), 菲理伯福音（the Gospel of Philip）, 多默福音（the Gospel of Thomas）, 保禄默示录（the Apocalypse of Paul），玛达肋纳福音（the Gospel of Mary）。

28.见Layton, B. ed. The Gnostic Scriptures. Garden City: Doubleday 7 Co., 1987.

29.见Fuss, The New Age, p.4.

30.有关灵气，可参考：Mauro Roventi Beccari, “Rei-ki, energia che guarisce.” In Religione e Sette nel mondo, # 6, pp.78-114.

31.通灵者（Transchanneller）奈特（J. Z. Knight）, 原名Judith Darlene Hampton. 可参考她的网址：seekersway.org; ramtha.com.

32.同上。

33.见Vernette, J. “Dai cambiamenti nella coscienza e nel cervello al risveglio interiore.” In Religione e Sette nel mondo, # 5, pp.57-70.

34.见Ries, J. “New Age e Reincarnazione.” In Religioni e Sette nel mondo, # 5, pp.45-56.

35.见Gagnon, D. “Gli Angeli e il New Age.” In Religioni e Sette nel mondo, # 6, pp. 115-131.

36.看seekersway.org; ramtha.com.

37.保罗科尔贺（Paulo Coelho）《我坐在琵卓河畔哭泣》（By the River Piedra I Sat Down and Wept）, 90. London: Harper Collins, 1996.

38.艾华达Avatar降生为人作为神的呈现，并向人揭示神的真理。

39.见Brown, David L. “A Brief Dictionary of New Age Terminology”, logosresourcepages.org.

40.‘圣神把她（玛利亚）作为祂的圣殿，至圣所及圣体柜，这是那样的真实，因而她可被具体地视为与天主圣三的第三位结合一起'见 Boff, L. “The Material Face of God.” In The Feminine and Its Religious Expressions, 93. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.

41.见科尔贺＜我坐在琵卓河畔哭泣＞，66-67, 69。

42.同上，148。

43.同上，118。

44.关于「耶稣走到东方」的故事，见Rhodes, R. The Counterfeit Christ of the New Age Movement. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990；也可看Rhodes, R.在网上的文章 “The Jesus of the New Age Movement” In Reasoning From the Scriptures Ministries，一个基督教的护教网页, home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes;还有Romarheim, A. The Aquarian Christ, Jesus Christ as Portrayed by New Religious Movements. Hong Kong: Good Tidings, 1992.

45.莎莉麦莲（MacLaine, S.）Out on a Limb, 233-234. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.

46.Muller, M. “The Alleged Sojourn of China in India.” In The Nineteenth Century, # 36 (October 1894) 515ff。在各论点中，Muller, M.断言如果有一份这样的古老文献，必定包括在Kandjur及Tandjur书录当中，因它们记录了有所有西藏的文献。Muller, M.亦曾引述一位曾到过Himis寺院的房客的话，他曾询问有关Notovitch，但原来从未有俄国人到过那里，而整个故事只是谎言。

47.见Douglas, J. A. “The Chief Lama of Himis on the Alleged Unknown Life of Christ.” In The Nineteenth Century, # 39 (April 1896) 667-678 .

48.见Goodspeed, E. Strange New Gospels. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1931; Modern Aporypha. Boston: Beacon Press, 1956.

49.见Beskow, P. Strange Tales About Jesus: A Survey of Unfamiliar Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

50.见Gaer, J. The Lore of the New Testament. Boston : Little Brown and Co., 1952.

51.见Swihart, Philip J. Reincarnation, Edgar Cayce, and the Bible. Downers Groves, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

52.见Read, A. Edgar Cayce: On Jesus and His Church. New York: Warner Books, 1970.

53.见Brooke, T. When the World Will Be as One. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1989.

54.见Prophet, E. C. The Lost Years of Jesus. Livingston, MT: Summit University Press, 1984; Prophet, M. L., and E. C. Prophet. The Lost Teachings of Jesus. Livingston, MT: Summit University Press, 1988.

55.见Roerich, N. Himalaya. New York: Brentano's, 1926.

56.见Kersten, H. Jesus Lived in India. Longmead, England: Element Book, 1986.

57.见Spangler, D. The Laws of Manifestation. Forres, Scotland: Findhorn Publication, 1981.

58.见Block, J. The Jesus Mystery: Of Lost Years and Unknown Travel. Los Angeles: Aura Books, 1980.

2. 亚加识记录（The Akashic Records）

「耶稣走到东方」这故事主要来自一位名叫利维（Levi Dowling 1844-1911）的神秘学者的「耶稣基督宝瓶年代的福音」（The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ59）。这部「福音」抄录自「天主的记忆册」（Book of God’s Remembrances），名为亚加识记录。根据神秘学者，亚加沙（Akasha）是一个围绕地球的心灵领域，其中每个人的词、思想或行动都刻在不朽的记录中，名为亚加识记录。利维的福音发展了耶稣游历的故事：在游历过印度和西藏之后，耶稣到了埃及，在那里他通过了七层的启蒙直到他达到基督性（Christhood）。其他神秘学者，例如基斯（Edgar Cayce 1877-1945），就是依据着亚加识记录的路线，他们声称在昏睡状态中读到这记录。
很明显「耶稣走到东方」这故事和亚加识记录缺乏任何理性的、科学的和历史的证据。这些着作无法跟新约中所提供对耶稣的见证相比。任何重要研究都会排除类似这种游历的可能性。

3. 新纪元的基督60

新纪元对基督的为人和工作的从新理解根自19世纪末的神秘思想。美国的形上学家昆比（Phineas Parkhurst Quimby 1802-1866 61）在新纪元基督论中扮演了重要的角色。他提出肉体的痊愈源自心灵，身体上的疾病来自错误的思想或者不正确的信念，这些都可以让「基督」来纠正。昆比把耶稣和基督清楚地分开，他认为耶稣可以发现真理，把他提升至高于世上任何其他的人。昆比的想法深深地影响了基督科学论的创始者玛莉比加爱迪（Mary Baker Eddy）。

昆比也启发了一些在1890年代冒起的内聚形上团体，这些团体通常被称为「新思想」（New Thought）。这些团体视基督为无位格的神圣性质或原理（impersonal Divine Nature or Principle）。他们相信耶稣比任何人更体现了基督原理，完全实现了基督性质。耶稣不是一个救世者，他只是一个「路途指示者」（way-shower）。

新思想的基督论的成功和散播带来不同的支派例如由查理及蔓桃费尔摩（Charles and Myrtle Fillmore 1845-1931及1854-1948）于1891年创立的基督教统一学院（Unity School of Christianity）；以及由贺斯（Ernest Holmes 1887-1960）于1926年创立的宗教科学联合教会（The United Church of Religious Science）。

佳玛（Swinburne Clymer 1878-1966）是一位蔷薇十字会员（Rosicrucian）62，他期待新纪元的泛神启示。根据这位曾写过多本有关基督的书的作者，每一个生命都是一个火花，一个神圣性质的胚芽，这火花隐藏着潜在的基督。

布拉亚兹基（Helena Blavatsky）认为至高的世界导师也就是「基督」，他进入了一个门徒身上去指引人类灵性的进化63。每一次「基督」的「降生为人」便是神向人多一点的揭示。基督五次降生为人，分别为佛陀（在印度）、汉密斯（Hermes）（在埃及）、琐罗亚斯德（Zoroaster）（在波斯）、奥菲斯（Orpheus）（在希腊），和耶稣。同样，贝桑特（Annie Besant）认为基督需要一个人的形态，他并没有死在十字架上。救赎实际上来自灵性的进化，并需要经过连续的降生为人，这样使每个人都有潜能成为「基督」64。

史达纳（Rudolf Steiner），却跟贝桑特争辩，坚持耶稣之死跟人类的救赎有点关系。史丹拿的基督论基于亚加识记录，他认为基督降生为耶稣便是人类进化的中心事件，并把人类回复到精神领域。耶稣基督在十字架上流的血流到世上，并经过一个精气化（etherisation）的过程。在他死的一刻，基督离开耶稣的身体，化身（incarnate）到这个苍穹大地（etheric world），为了救赎的原故，现在寻求在人类中「大量化身」（mass incarnate）。基督现在属于全世界，可以进入所有人的灵魂，不论国籍和宗教，这才是他「第二次来临」（second coming）的真正意义。65

对于大卫史宾加（David Spangler）来说，基督是「宇宙的基督，普世的基督，新纪元的基督」66。他是宇宙的原理，运用了耶稣的身体，「是一精神存有，其属性依不同的方式灌注并呈现在所有提升人类的宗教和哲学中。67」透过他的复活、透过基督的能量由苍穹大地的流溢，和人类基督意识的提升，这宇宙基督成为救世者，因为他已进入进化的过程。

贝利（Alice Bailey）跟史达纳的看法不同，她认为基督的第二次降临会是一个化身（Avatar），而不是临到所有人当中。基督再来时将不会再有任何宗教、社会或意识形态的区分。他「是世界的导师而不是一个基督教的导师」68。

盖和厄娜巴肋（Guy and Edna Ballard）这两位神学家选择相信「卓越大师」（Ascended Master）。耶稣便是其中一位「卓越大师」69，这些大师，他们的灵性意识已经达到最高层，而且成为人类灵性进化的指导者。

在1958年马克波法兹（Mark Prophet 1918-1973）创立了普世得胜教会，现在由他的遗孀伊丽莎伯（Elizabeth Clare Prophet）领导。他们所相信的包括由那些指导人类灵性进化的「卓越大师」而来的启示。他们抗拒因着耶稣的死而得到的救赎这信条。耶稣得到基督性，就跟其他「卓越大师」一样70。

秘教和新纪元作家罗拉戴维斯（Lola Davis）确信新纪元基督存在于不同的意识层面。「基督」是灵性大师阶级组织中（Spiritual Hierarchy of Masters）的领袖的名字71。

新纪元作家 M.S. Princess 和海伦舒敏（Helen Schucman 1909-1981）支持基督本来就存在于人之中，我们要重新发现我们的基督性是很重要的72。

新纪元信徒利费伯（Peter Liefhebber）和葛替玛（Hilton Hotema）对于基督的理解更进一步。在论述基督时，他们提出神秘传说中的人物亚普罗尼斯（Appolonius）和弥勒（Maitreya），两者具有基督的真理，并会在基督第二次再来时具体化成为他73。

着名的新纪元作家甘美（Benjamin Creme）将有关弥勒（Maitreya）的理论以独特的方式加以发展。弥勒（Maitreya）原本是佛教的人物，被认为是每个宗教所期待的人。他是基督教所期待的再来的基督，是犹太教所等待的默西亚（Messiah），是印度教所盼望的克利修那（Krishna），是佛教所期待的弥勒菩萨（Maitreya Buddha），回教的麦迪或救世主。为一切人来说，他就是一切。74

总括来说，在新纪元基督论中，耶稣（仅是一个人的载体）和基督（一个神圣的、宇宙的、非位格的个体）之间的分别是基本的。耶稣具体地体现了基督的真理，完全实现了基督的本性。
第四部分基督徒对新纪元的反应

1. 新纪元的耶稣

不少基督徒作家已经对新纪元这般理解耶稣基督提出了详细的反证，不论是「耶稣走到东方」的故事，还是史达纳复杂的阐述，或者是甘美（Creme）荒谬的构想75。在这里我不会批评这些理论，不但因为这将会花太多时间，而且也似乎没有必要。我认为不合理的是他们对基督所用的「神学」手法，他们忽视了新约，也毫无理由地拒绝基督教传统。而他们忽略历史、客观性、理性、科学、批判方法和验证等等也令人莫名其妙。在对基督的神秘的解释中，没有一部份是诉诸理性的，因此也不可能应用对和错这概念，因为证据预设了理性和客观性。要接受以一个神秘的系统来解释圣经是不可能的，他们寻找圣经章节中隐藏的、潜在的意义，但忽略历史性和拒绝标准的释经学。他们舍弃了历史记录上的耶稣，转投向诺斯替福音上的基督，甚或神秘的亚加识记录和其他虚幻的、不可思议的文献。不过福音还是唯一记录耶稣的文献，而又经得起批评和科学分析的。新纪元作家和先导者，他们挪用了基督的名号却忽视他原初和特定的圣经意义，这是不能开释的。

我们已经见到新纪元基督教神学的发展虽然与主流脱离，但经常用基督教名词和概念，引用起来既混乱又令人困惑。新纪元和基督教神学所用的名词和概念在不同的范畴中一次又一次地重叠，例如在神学环境保护主义、女权主义、宗教多元主义和宗教交谈之中。基督教神学家应该继续运用概念如地球之母、神内的女性元素、宗教作为灵性的珍宝、宇宙基督等等，而不因着用这些词而被分类为新纪元的信徒。但他们要留意到在这两个阵营中在名词上的混淆，到最后由基督教过渡到新纪元的演译可能变得并不困难。

2. 基督的化身（The Jesus Avatar）

在中国传教的历史中，有学问的朋友常常问传道者一些问题，似乎预计到要接受唯一的耶稣基督的困难。在中国晚明时代，艾儒略（Jesuit Giulio Aleni 1582-1649）的朋友周孝廉（音译Zhou Xiaolian）曾提出以下的建议：把天主教与佛教和老子的教导合并起来。76

艾儒略另外一个有学问的朋友，叶向皋（音译Ye Xianggao）断言耶稣可能「只是世上一个伟大的圣人，就如儒家的孔子、道家的老子、佛教的释迦牟尼等等，他可能不是真正的天主。77」在另一地方，这位朋友这样写道：「在上层领域中的皇实在曾多次在东方降生为人，成为尧、逊、孔子，还有其他其他….。因此，他可能也在欧洲降生为人，成为教会中神长们说的耶稣。对于中国人来说，很明显欧洲的耶稣也不过像孔子，或者中国的其他智者一般而已。78」

3. 与新纪元一致的宗教多元主义

霍斯（Matthew Fox79）的神学明显有神秘的方向，使他忽略了历史性的耶稣，而转向专注追求一个宇宙基督，一个「联系的模式」80（the pattern that connects）。霍斯要求一个「深层的普世教会主义」（a deep ecumenism），他的意思是要把各种宗教的各种人汇聚在一神秘的层次，追随着宇宙基督这位先驱者。虽然霍斯不认为自己属于新纪元，他说这是有钱人的东西，但他对宇宙基督的描述却与新纪元的宇宙基督不谋而合。

天主教的神父Diarmuid O'Murchu'，他也是量子神学（Quantum Theology）的作者，他邀请读者用以下的方式做神学：「请倾尽你一切的想像力、直觉感知能力、创造力、和能够惊讶的能力。也请带同你的野性的一面、你心深处娇柔的一面、你受屈的孩童、你受伤的双亲、最重要的是你那浮夸的艺术家。81」

O' Murchu'的神学与新纪元宗教的纲领相似得令人吃惊。在他的书中，天主和神性（用甚么词语都无关重要，因为它们都只是人所编造的）都是创造的能量。每一宗教都是神性启示的特殊结晶。启示是一个持续的过程，并不能够纳入任何一个宗教。圣三论是人类尝试去解释神基本的相对关系，罪恶是人和各系统之间共谋的破坏。最大的罪是人以为自己是神之下最终的生命模式，而因此有权成为其他创造物的主宰。我们生存的世界无始无终，已离世者其实在我们周围，活在另一维度之中。复活或轮回再生并不是事实，只是精神/心灵的创作82。O' Murchu'对宇宙基督的描述被新纪元宣传者全盘接受。「基督教神学家倾向主张，如果宇宙基督与那独特、历史上的基督分开的话，便变成毫无意义。……这便是量子神学彻底不同的地方。它认为宇宙基督……是原始奥秘，由此我们得到含有神性的人性和形象。各个宗教之中的神的形态，包括基督教，都是源自这宇宙源头。83」

Raimundo Panikkar也曾对宇宙基督和历史基督提出明确的分别。他的看法跟卡尔拉耐（Karl Rahner）的「匿名基督徒」理论相同，对宗教多元论抱包容的态度84，Panikkar逐渐肯定耶稣与基督间是不相符合的。「基督」是一个超级名称，当中包括很多名称，而耶稣是其中之一。基督徒可以继续认为耶稣是基督，但不是基督就是耶稣，或者唯有耶稣是基督，Panikkar肯定这样的理解，是为了要超越了西方对基督的了解85。

4. 宇宙基督

以「基督意识」（Christ Consciousness）或者非人格的宇宙基督来把耶稣基督去人格化（depersonalisation），是我接触新纪元基督论中发现的最大问题。与其说耶稣是天主子降生为人，是「唯一从天赐下的名字」，正如基督徒所承认的，新纪元会说耶稣只是众多可能的化身之一，众多的基督之一。

正如上述，宗教多元论的神学也采用宇宙基督这分类。宗教多元神学的倡导者断言有需要以天主为中心或救赎为中心的神学来代替传统以基督为中心的神学，他们提出把历史上的耶稣与宇宙基督明确地分开。首先是基督教的创始者，只要他是历史人物，他便只是宗教众先知之一；第二是对宗教、人类和宇宙的终极满全。对某些人来说，宗教交谈要求所有宗教放弃明认自己为唯一真正的宗教。基督教尤其应放弃以耶稣为唯一降生为人的天主。

但这样理解宗教多元论可能引起混淆，引起同化、相对主义、混合主义和缺乏区别。这样便无法「尊重各宗教共存的真正多元主义。86」

对宇宙基督这样理解，我觉得是跟新约的基督论戏剧性地分开了。宇宙基督是一个正统的和必然的神学范畴。这范畴不能从整个基督奥秘分割开来，也不能赋予一个脱离了新约和基督信仰的另外意义。

我的理解是这样的，基督启示的普世性一定要从一个救赎的历史角度去看。创世的教条显示了创造的行动是天主的自我沟通，也即是启示。由于创世的行动构成了历史，因此人类的历史也反映了这启示。所有民族都以某种方式从天主中接受。再者，耶稣基督透过降生为人而跟世界和世界上每一个人结合在一起。（若望保禄二世，人类救主，n.37 Redemptoris Hominis）；因此，人类的历史事实上是天主显示其启示的场所。耶稣降生为人、受难、复活表达了基督教特性中，其不可化约的历史性和具体性。这些事情的意义也是普世性的。他跨越了文化和民族，为的是要拥抱他们。我们存在于历史中，我们对天主的经验也是历史性的。这样的一个普世的启示只会如此这般地存在于这特定及唯一的历史事件之中。这事件就是耶稣基督，这事件是不能被忽视或取消的。天主，这不可见的「一」，只能透过可见的、历史性的、实质的事情去了解。基督启示的「实质性」是不能被忽略的。

再者，基督徒所相信的，天主人性的特征在新纪元思想中消失了，在取消了差别和他者性之后，逐渐淡化了基督信仰中天主圣三的特性。在肯定天主只存在于人的自我当中的同时，也否定了天主与人类之间沟通和对话的可能性。这对基督信仰来说，后果是严重的：新纪元静静地，但有效地彻底破坏了不单是历史中的概念、人与天主的关系，也破坏了创造（creative）、天主的眷顾、救赎等教理87。

5. 新纪元的传教挑战

新纪元对当代人在精神和行为上的影响可说是深入民心，当中包括那些在传统基督团体长大的人，虽然他们只是不自觉地跟随了新纪元88。

新纪元曾触动你。你听过它的意念、听过它的音乐、看过它的艺术品、见过它的超级明星、读过它的文学作品，和买过它的产品。你甚至参加过它的疗程，参与过它的礼仪，接受它的哲学，却不知道它便是新纪元。

不但如此，全球化的现象助长了新纪元所带来的冲击，对亚洲的挑战尤其重大，而这地区对宗教多元论有一份自然的倾向。事实上亚洲人欣然地接受不少新纪元的意念，因为它们有部分跟古老的宗教教条，如印度教、道教、和佛教等一脉相承。

对于一些拥护新纪元概念的人，或一些因着心灵的渴求而到处寻找宗教选择的人，无可否认，新纪元在人性上可以为后现代提供一些合适的答案。在一个思想混乱的时代，当不同的信仰只是一种选择而不是真理的时候，颂扬基督对很多人来说是没有意义的。他们视之为过时的，傲慢的，甚或是无知的态度。因为真理已经在人内，等待被揭露。在这环境下传福音是一个很大的挑战，这可能是很多人，甚至是传道者，都已放弃了直接宣讲基督。

在近这三十年来，尤其在天主教，跨文化接触和宗教交谈已经被视为在亚洲传教的一项重要挑战。我想加上一点，耶稣本人，这个基督论的问题，在我们这个时代，是一个更大的挑战。

新纪元挑战基督教徒，但他们无需要因着新纪元表面的胜利而气馁。早期基督教也曾遇上类似的情况，诺斯替派、各样令人迷惑的宗教、各种神秘的崇拜、礼仪和教导、异教，这些都把耶稣基督的人性贬低为一个闹剧，或者视基督的神圣为过度的意识，戏剧性地挑战基督信仰。如上所述，在明末，耶稣会的传教士也面对相似的问题。

就正如基督纪元开始的时候，信从基督为天主降生为人这独特事情，也被视为羞耻的和愚蠢的，但在这后现代环境中，就算第三个纪元已经开始，耶稣的题问：「你说我是谁？」继续成为人类基本的挑战。

早期教会的回应，便是无畏地把基督论定义有系统地陈述，还有由无数高洁的传导者和勇敢的殉道者以信德真实地作见证。今日基督的门徒也像昔日的基督徒一样被召叫做同样的见证---「去成为地上的盐和世界的光」。跟随基督未必使你每天的经验都是刺激的，或为你带来意识的变更。作为基督徒，他们的心不是被变更（alter），而是被天主的恩宠转化（tranform）。基督信仰并不是对人类心灵期望的简单宗教答案，也不是人类的需要（an answer to human needs）的答案（唯一及原始的）。人类的问题不会高于或重要过天主白白给予人类的恩宠，祂主动地去爱我们，来到我们中间，所用的方法可能跟我们所期待的相反。

很多人对新纪元的教导采取开放的态度，因为他们正寻找意义、满足、灵性经验、宁静、和内在的平安。对这些探求有需要正面地面对，去重新发现基督祷文、默想、灵修和奥秘中丰富的地方，甚或未为人知的传统，对天主的问题和经验应该是教会传教的核心。很多后现代的人视广阔的时空为冷漠的、不相关的，好像我们只是孤单在世，我们的存在是荒谬似的。新纪元对灵性的探索强调有需要保证死并不是生命的完全终结，对基督徒和传教士提出基督徒永生的希望这陈旧的教导作出挑战。

新纪元有一份突出的个人利己主义的特性。在某程度上，它是成功人士、有魅力者、富有人的宗教，实践它可花费不少。基督徒应重新揭发解放神学（Theology of Liberation）的正面教导，同时跟从基督山中圣训的福音，使宗教走向非资产阶级的路上，尤其在所谓经济发达的国家中。教会的传教任务跟耶稣的一样：向贫穷的人传播福音。

新纪元有很强的女性观点，这点赢得很多女性的共鸣。这方面跟教会一直以男性为主导的形象相反，这形象特别反映在教会的阶级中。事实上，教会的确很多方面还是受着家长式的思维方法所带来的苦。女性在教会的角色不能被化约。女性参与教会的生活及领导是非常重要的，也是遥遥未能解决的问题。再者，福音的传播与教义的讲授，在教会内也要跨越传统上天主的家长与男性形象。新纪元的女性面貌真实地、正面地挑战教会跨越目前男性的面貌，而在各方面成为包容不同性别的团体。

正如保禄六世所提到，个人的、真诚的见证对后现代人来说是宝贵的。经验在现今的宗教世界里似乎成为唯一「有权威性」权威（authoritative authority）。基督的门徒和传导者应该提出对基督徒信德一套既合乎理性，又跨越理性的论说。他们要透过与耶稣的个人关系而经验到满足、目标和欢愉。把这种生活中的沟通与分享放在基督的奥秘中，会由经验中证实耶稣是无可代替的。

附录

1. 新纪元的书
新纪元有它的作家。宗座的文件（2003）提及13本书：包括威廉布鲁的《新纪元之精华作品集》（William Bloom, The New Age. An Anthology of Essential Writing, London, Rider, 1991）；卡巴（Fritjof Capra）写的两本书，倡导新纪元科学：《道的物理学：探究现代物理和东方神秘主义之间的异同》The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, Berkeley, Shambhala, 1975; 《转捩点》The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture, Toronto (Bantam)1983。以下作者发展新纪元的宗教层面：甘美（Benjamin Creme）的《基督的再临与智慧大师》（The Reappearance of Christ and the Masters of Wisdom, London, Tara Press, 1979）；还有弗格森那本有影响力的书《宝瓶同谋》（The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in Our Time, Los Angeles Tarcher 1980；基思（Chris Griscom）的《狂热就是新的频率》（Ecstasy is a New Frequency: Teachings of the Light Institute, New York, Simon & Schuster 1897）；汤玛斯（Thomas Kuhn）的《科学革命的结构》（The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970）大卫史宾加（David Spangler）写的五本书：《新纪元的远景》（The New Age Vision, Forres, Findhorn Publications, 1980），《启示：新纪元的诞生》（Revelation: The Birth of a New Age, San Francisco, Rainbow Bridge, 1976），《向着星际的远景》（Towards a Planetary Vision, Forres, Findhorn Publication, 1977），《新纪元》（The New Age, Issaquah, The Morningtown Press, 1988）《神圣的重生》（The Rebirth of the Sacred, London, Gateway Books, 1988）

在上列的名单之上，我想加上以下的人和书：达斯（Baba Ram Dass, born Richard Alphert），一位哈佛的心理学教授，他曾写过一些非常流行的书，在70年代的美国开创了新纪元，其中有《现在这里》（Be Here Now, Hanuman Foundation Santa Fe, NM 1971）；《唯一的舞蹈在这》（The Only Dance There Is, Bantam Books, Doubleday Dell, New York, NY 1973）；《磨坊的谷物》（Grist for the Mill, Unity Press, Santa Cruz, CA 1977）；《醒悟的旅途》（Journey of the Awakening, Bantam Books, New York, NY 1978）；《爱的奇迹》（Miracle of Love, Hanuman Foundation, Santa Fe, NM 1979）。海伦舒敏（Helen Schucman）写的新纪元教科书有：《奇迹的课程》（A Course in Miracles, Foundation for Inner Peace, CA 1976）。莎莉麦莲（Shirley MacLaine）的《险境》（Out on a Limb 1984，也是一套电影）和《光下共舞》（Dancing in the Light 1986）是最为人所见的新纪元信仰的传播者。其他新纪元作家还有左治（George Leonard）、珍休斯顿（Jean Houston）、芭芭拉（Barbara Marx Hubbard）、诺文（Norman Shealy）、森建（Sam Keen）和提莫泰（Timothy Leary）。

在20世纪的前半，着名的作家已料到有不少的主题和情感是新纪元文学所喜爱的：例如海文赫斯（Hermann Hesse）着名的《释赫发》（Siddhartha 1919），《那西赛斯与高密特》（Narcissus and Goldmund 1930），还有《东方之旅》（Journey to the East）。李察巴哈（Richard Bach）跟他非常成功的《天地一沙鸥》（Jonathan Livingstone Seagull 1970），李察曾为Silva Mind Control89的学生，他也曾解释精神进化的神话。我认为那位非常成功的巴西的小说家保罗科尔贺也是一位新纪元作家，为新纪元的主要概念提出文学上与道德上的价值90。他的书有《朝圣》（The Pilgrimage 1987）、《炼金术师》（The Alchemist 1988）、《斐琪瑞》（The Valkyries 1992），《我坐在琵卓河畔哭泣》(By the River Piedra I Sat Down and Wept 1994)、《薇若莉卡看不开》(Veronika Decides to Die 1998)、《爱的十一分钟》(Eleven Minutes 2003)。

赛伦新纪元中心（The Salem New Age Center）（salemetr.com）列出最畅销的新纪元书籍。单看书的名称就能让人知道新纪元的焦点和兴趣。有趣的是，大部分的作家都是女性。书名如下：《与主对话》（Conversation with God）；《治疗所有疾病》（Cure For All Diseases）；《爱在世上》（Love Is In The Earth）；《七种致胜的精神法则》（Seven Spiritual Laws of Success）；《你唯一需要的占星书》（The Only Astrology Book You’ll Ever Need）；《动物能量》（Animal Energies）；《零点的醒悟》（Awakening To Zero Point）；《治愈你的身体》（Heal Your Body）；《巫师之道》（Way Of The Wizard）；《无限的心灵》（Infinite Mind）；《光明之手》（Hands of Light）；《神圣的空间》（Sacred Space）；《女巫年鉴》（Witches Almanac）；《人类心灵的炼金术》（Kryon Alchemy of The Human Spirit）；《你能治疗你的生命》（You Can Heal Your Life）；《你将变成星际人类》（You Are Becoming A Galactic Human）；《风水-入门指南》（Feng Shui:A Layman’s Guide）；《灵气》（Reiki）；《治愈的接触》（The Healing Touch）；《香油香熏完全手册》（Complete Book of Oils and Aromatherapy）；《让心灵使者和天使作精神治疗》（Psychic Healing With Spirit Guides and Angels）；《天堂的预言》（Celestine Prophecy）；《经验的指引》（An Experiential Guide）；《走入无时间的国度》（Into A Timeless Realm）；《放松》（Relax）；《天主话事》（God Is In Charge）；《维加：对孤独开业者的指南》（Wicca: A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner）；《女性就是药物》（All Women Are Healer）；《和平战士之路》（Way of Peaceful Warrior）；《多少生命、多少大师》（Many Lives, Many Masters）；《向成功之路开启心灵》（Open Your Mind to Prosperity）；《被光拥抱》（Embraced By The Light）；《创意视象化》（Creative Visualization）；《完全升天手册》（The Complete Ascension Manual）。

在同一个网址中还看到最畅销的有关启示的、健康和治疗、不明飞行物体、维加和新的异教书籍。

2. 新纪元的音乐

新纪元音乐大概在二十年前出现，很快变得非常流行。这是新纪元在当今社会用来宣传的主要工具。大型的音乐商店没有一间不为新纪元音乐另辟一角。

新纪元的成分来自电子音乐，「新的听觉上的」器乐曲（new acoustic instrumental music），治疗音乐、精选的神圣风格（selected sacred styles）、塞尔特音乐（Celtic music），还有其他不同的组合。新纪元音乐通常是平静的、梦幻的、柔和的、召唤的，有几分灵性和神秘的，为了帮助营造气氛和控制情绪。主要的顾客是「优皮」一族、年轻的、成功的单身人士。

有不少有名的艺人都曾制作类似新纪元的音乐，当中包括：Brian Eno, Enigma, Paul Winter, Peter Gabriel和Secret Garden。塞尔特音乐尤其成功，它在1988年一位名叫Enya的爱尔兰歌手的初次登台中出现时，已别树一帜。凭那传统爱尔兰乐器所奏出的轻妙、萦绕心灵的音乐，便能辨认得出赛尔特式的新纪元音乐。随此之外，Clannad, Loreena McKennitt都是在这音乐范畴中有名的艺人。
David Arkenstone所表演的音乐如在银河漫游，而George Winston所作的曲却充满诗意。其他新纪元音乐家有Philip Aaberg和Adiemus。

3. 新纪元电影和电视剧

新纪元概念和习惯在着名的流行歌手和电影明星中非常流行。那些明星常常提到能量（energy）如何正面或反面地影响着他们的生活和事业。为了中和那些反面的影响，及从作为一个天皇巨星的压力中释放出来，他们藉着印度教大师的指引、练习冥想、钻研占星术、佩带水晶，备有其他能量和带来好运的物件。

新纪元的扩大在加州尤其显着，那里有很多新纪元中心、领袖、赞同者和支持者。结果它不单影响电子媒体工业，也影响娱乐世界。电影工业（特别在荷里活）曾制作大量电影，其主题跟新纪元的信念有关，虽然他们并不经常明确地承认这点。以新纪元模式中的现实和时间为主题的电影有：20世纪杀人网络（Matrix）；半梦半醒的人生（Waking Life）；缘分两面睇（Sliding Doors）；回到未来（Back To The Future）；时光倒流七十年（Somewhere in Times）；隔世救未来（Frequency）和偷天情缘（Groundhog Day）。讲述视觉幻影经验的受欢迎电影有大魔域（The Never Ending Story）；星球大战（Star Wars）；法柜奇兵（Raiders of the Lost Ark）; Splash: Mr. Peabody；第六感女神（The Muse）；美人鱼（The Mermaid）。以死后生命为题材的有：鬼眼（Sixth Sense）；人鬼情未了（Ghost）；梦田园（Field of Dream）；情约今生（Meet Joe Black）；重生（After Life）等等都很流行。还有无数提及与外星人接触的电影，如：天煞-地球反击战（Independence Day）, E.T.；第三类接触（Close Encounters of the Third Kind）；超时空接触（Contact）；天茧回归（Cocoon）等。以下的电影宣扬增强能力和感觉能力：不一样的本能（Phenomenon）；灵异骇客（Stir of Echoes）；生死奇迹（Resurrection）；闪电奇迹（Powder）；魅影奇侠（The Shadow）；变形博士（Altered States）；大惊小怪（Brainstorm）。以天使为主角的电影有天使多情（City of Angels）；欲望之翼（Wings of Desire and Michael）。制作跟魔鬼相关的电影的数目也日渐增加。

莎莉麦莲（Shirley Maclaine）可能是目前最有名的新纪元人物，她自己也曾在电视迷你剧集Out on a Limb 中演出，当中说出她加入新纪元的路程。

在1994年Michael Tolkin导演了一部电影叫〝新纪元〞（The New Age），以批评讽刺的手法描述美国的新纪元世界。

新纪元的思想和信念在电视节目中更为明显，在电视节目中，对于现实、虚幻、怪异、魔法、超自然等之间的分界是含糊的。最受欢迎的节目中有Twin Peaks, Ally McBeal, X-档案等。
在以「天主教」为主的义大利，在数电视娱乐节目中，有一位占星术家，以科学家的严肃态度读解星座和预测未来。当然这不是新鲜事，但在过往，占星术和魔法会被视为是堕落的、是该被指摘的现象，只限于小数落后的人。现在却已被完全提升为高尚的、流行的东西，而富有的、闻名的、有魅力的人都投入其中。

59.利维（Dowling, L）. The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, 1st ed. London: L.N. Fowler & Co., 1947.

60.对不同作者有关新纪元基督论的摘要，有很感激Rhodes, R.的The Christ of the New Age Movement。也可参考Pennesi, A.O. II Cristo del New Age. Indagine Critica. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999.有关新纪元的基督，除了上述的各篇文章，也可看Tuner, Elizabeth Sand. What Unity Teaches. Lee’s Summit, MO, n.d.: Unity School of Christianity ; Holmes, E. What Religious Science Teaches. Los Angeles: Science of Mind Publications, 1975.

61.Quimby, Phineas P. The Quimby Manuscripts, edited by Horatio W. Dresser. New Hyde Park, NY: University Books, 1961.

62.蔷薇十字主义是一种神秘崇拜，应该源自埃及的「神秘学校」（Mystery School）.

63.见Blavatsky, Helena P. The Secret Doctrine. Wheaton, Ill.: Theosophical Publishing House, 1966.

64.见Besant, A. Esoteric Christianity. Wheaton, Ill.: Theosophical Publishing House, 1953.

65.见Steiner, R. The Reappearance of the Christ in the Etheric. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1983; Jesus and Christ. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1976; The Four Sacrifices of Christ. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1944.

66.见Spangler, D. Reflections on the Christ, p.107.

67.见Spangler, D. Conversation with John, 5. Middleton, WI: Lorian Press, 1983, 也可参考Spangler, D. Revelation: The Birth of a New Age. Middleton, WI: Lorian Press, 1976.

68.见Bailey, A. The Reappearance of the Christ. New York: Lucis Publishing Co., 1979; The Externalization of the Hierarchy. New York: Lucis Publishing Co., 1957.

69.见G.W. and Donald Ballard. Purpose of the Ascended Master “I AM” Activity. Chicago: Saint Germain Press, 1942.

70.见 Prophet, M., and E. Prophet, Climb the Highest Mountain. Los Angeles: Summit University Press, 1974.

71.Davis, L. 的书 Toward a World Religion for a New Age 经常在新纪元的网页中出现，但我找不到有关出版的地点和年分的资料。

72.Princess, M.S. Step By Step We Climb. 引述于The Christ of The New Age, Let Us Reason, 一个基督教的护教网址www.letusreason.

73.见Liefhebber, P. Jesus of Nazareth and Maitreya the Christ. Hilton Hotema, Mystery Man, Snowbowl, Missoula, MT, n.d.: Lucis Publishing Co.

74.见Creme, B. The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom. North Hollywood, C: Tara Centre, 1980.

75.见Sire, J.W. Scripture Twisting. Downers Groves, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1980; Newport. The New Age Movement; Van Vander, L. and K. De Haan. What’s the Appeal of the New Age Movement? Grand Rapids, MI: RBC Ministries, 1990; Groothuis, D. Confronting the New Age; Goodspeed, E.J. Strange New Gospels; Romarheim. The Aquarian Christ; Beskow, Per. Strange Tales About Jesus; Rhodes. The Counterfeit Christ.

76.见Criveller, G. “Dialogues on Jesus in China (13): Dialogue versus Syncretism”. Tripod # 129 (2003) 41-44.

77.见Criveller, G. “Dialogues on Jesus in China (11): Jesus, Buddha and Religious Pluralism.” Tripod #127 (2003) 50-53.

78.见Criveller, G. “Dialogues on Jesus in China (10): Is Jesus a Sage like Confucius and Mencius and Other Chinese Sages?” Tripod # 126 (2003) 57-60.

79.见Fox, M. The Coming of the Cosmic Christ. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.

80.同上 pp. 133-135。

81.见O'Murchu’, D. Quantum Theology, Spiritual Implication of the New Physics, 5. New York: Crossroad, 1998.

82.同上 pp. 197-203。

83.同上 p. 178 。

84.Panikkar, R. The Hidden Christ of Hinduism, revised ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1981.

85.见 Panikkar, R.的The Hidden Christ of Hinduism后期的版本的序言。我指向的是义大利文版本, II Cristo sconosciuto dell’Induismo, 19-23. Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1967. 在序言中Panikkar承认自己无情地批评原初版本。

86.见Fuss, The New Age, p.5.

87.见Macari, C. “La “mistica cosmica” del New Age.” Religioni e Sette nel Mondo # 6, pp.16-6。以下的基督教作家提议与新纪元交谈：Maloney, George A. Mysticism and the New Age. Christic Consciousness in the New Creation. New York : Alba House, 1991; Poupard, P. “Editoriale.” Religioni e Sette nel mondo # 5, pp.7-13; Poupard, P. “Editoriale.” Religioni e Sette nel mondo # 6, pp.7-14; Maccari, C. La New Age di fronte alla fede cristiana. Torino: Elle Di Ci, Leumann, 1994; Danneels, G. Le Christ ou le Verseau. Malines-Bruxelles,1990; Quillo, R. Companions in Consciousness: the Bible and the New Age Movement. Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994; Catholic Answers to Questions About the New Age Movement. Liguori, MO: Liguori Publication, 1995; Bergeron, R. “II New Age nel .” Religioni e Sette nel mondo, # 6, pp. 71-93.

88.见Chandler, R. Understanding the New Age, 19. Milton Keynes, England : Word Publishing, 1989.

89.Silva Mind Control于1944年由一位墨西哥天主教徒创立，他宣称自己受到耶稣新的启示。他用的方法目的在提高意识，以达到符合新纪元思想的定位。见Fuss, The New Age, pp. 11-12.

90.见Castelli, F. “L' Alchimista di Paulo Coelho, cammina sui sentieri del New Age.” La Cattolica # 1 (1997) 227-238.

by MOK Wing Kee, Alex

The Human Person and the Incarnate Word in
Light of Contemporary Cosmology 1

1. Introduction

Ever since the dawn of civilization, human beings have been searching for their origins and their destinies. Philosophy, science, religions and even superstitions are part of the human quest for existential meanings and truth. Certain crucial questions about human life have preoccupied our ancestors: How did life begin? What is the purpose of life? What is the best kind of life? Does God exist? Do other kinds of life exist in the universe? Why must we suffer? Can we be immortal? What is the good? What is the essence of justice? What is human dignity? The human identity and the fulfillment of the human person are actually the primary concern of these intellectual questions that have challenged the greatest minds2.
In the quest for human origin, modern science has given us a partial answer – Human beings are part of nature incorporating a long dynamic evolutionary process governed by law and chance. This evolutionary worldview should be integrated with our religious beliefs so that we can acquire a deeper understanding about humanity and our relationship with God and nature. In fact, theology is faith seeking understanding and therefore, as with science, its contents should be reexamined whenever there is new supportive or incongruous knowledge. The exploratory nature of any theological investigations should always allow us to find new descriptions about the Christian faith as well as the reality and experiences of human beings. Although Christian theology is necessarily founded on historical revelation and religious experience, many scholars hold that it should be consistent with the physical reality discovered by scientists. The universe is a creation of God and what we find in nature should reflect the wisdom and the beauty of the same God who communicates with us through the incarnate Logos. St. Paul says plainly, “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom 1:20) In this paper, we will first show that the concept of the human person in the Bible is largely consistent with the findings of contemporary science. We will then investigate the basic ideas in the anthropic cosmological principle, a seemingly new design argument for the existence of God, and explore its implications for the theology of creation. We will illustrate that this modern anthropic principle is coherent with the doctrine of the Logos. In the light of the new discoveries in science, we will explore the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence and its theological implications, trying to give a coherent picture of the evolving cosmos in the end. We will also attempt to reformulate the doctrine of original sin in the language of evolutionary biology, as an example to demonstrate the possible integration of modern science and Christian faith. Finally, we will discuss the role of the cosmic Christ in God's creation and the fulfillment of human life in our new cosmic picture. We will point out that creation and salvation are two interrelated concepts in the Bible. Jesus Christ, the Logos, is the manifestation of the divine creative work and the incarnation can be considered as part of the cosmic evolution that involves the direct participation of the Creator. The salvation of Jesus Christ is the continuous creation of God in the evolutionary perspective. Our participation in the creation leading to a new stage of evolution is part of the fulfillment of the divine creative work.

2. The Biblical View of Human Nature
In the Bible, particularly in Genesis, we can trace four features of the concept of human nature3, as outlined below4.

2.1 A unitary person, not a body-soul dualism
The Hebrew word  (usually translated as soul) in the Old Testament and the corresponding Greek word  in the New Testament refer to the inner self or the life principle in accordance with the whole person and they do not mean the immortal separable soul.5 The bible looks upon body and soul as different aspects of the same personal unity. Joel Green states clearly, “It is axiomatic in Old Testament scholarship today that human beings must be understood in their fully integrated, embodied existence. Humans do not possess a body and soul, but are human only as body and soul.”6 According to Oscar Cullmann, “the Jewish and Christian interpretation of the creation excludes the whole Greek dualism of body and soul.”7 In the Bible, there is no actual dichotomy between body and soul. The person is always regarded as an integrated embodied self. Lynn de Silva writes:

Biblical scholarship has established quite conclusively that there is no dichotomous concept of man in the Bible, such as is found in Greek and Hindu thought. The biblical view of man is holistic, not dualistic. The notion of the soul as an immortal entity which enters the body at birth and leaves it at death is quite foreign to the biblical view of man. The biblical view is that man is a unity; he is a unity of soul, body, flesh, mind, etc., all together constituting the whole man.8

In 1 Corinthians 15:38-58, Paul stresses the resurrection of the total person, but not of the immortal soul separate from a body. He affirms, however, the transformation of the body in the future life, which he describes as “the spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44).

2.2 A Unique Creature in Nature
The first creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a clearly depicts humanity as part of nature, shaped with limitedness not unlike other creatures. All living things are related to one another, forming an interdependent life matrix. As the divine creation is good, the natural world has its own inherent value which is independent of human beings. Nevertheless, the Priestly tradition also asserts that only humanity is created in the image of God (Imago Dei):

Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen 1:26-27)

Of all the creatures, only man is able to know and love his creator. He alone is called to share in God's own life9. This is the fundamental reason that humanity is unique within the natural world and each human individual possesses the dignity of the person. Humans alone are free moral beings who can choose between good and evil and be responsible for their choices. They not only have the command over all the creatures but also have the privilege of speaking directly to God. They are responsible selves integrated with moral and spiritual capacities and bodily instincts. Although the biblical authors divided the creation of God into six days or periods10, they certainly did not intend to portray an evolutionary worldview to their readers. Nevertheless, the biblical descriptions of the similarities and differences between the human species and all the other creations are largely coherent with contemporary scientific findings.

2.3 The Social Self
“It is not good that the man should be alone.” (Gen 2:18)
As Green argues11, the biblical anthropology emphasizes the holistic and social character of human beings. For the Israelites, God’s covenant that created the unity of their nation was with one people, but not with a sequence of individuals. Moreover, in the Scriptures, individuals were always placed in the context of a community which has its own traditional anthology of sacred stories and rituals. God is concerned not only with the motives and actions of each individual but also with the integrity of the life of the community. Human beings are not independent individuals, but are related to one another as members of a family, citizens of a nation and children of the same personal God.'

The nature of the human person in the Gospel of Luke hinges on the understanding of Jesus' salvific ministry, which is essentially the major theme of Luke's writing. Luke's concept of salvation implicitly leads us to the meaning of authentic human existence. In Luke's narrative of Jesus'healing of the woman suffering from the hemorrhage (Lk 8:42b - 48)12, we can find a vivid depiction of a holistic and social anthropology. The healing of the woman whose sickness was socially distressing13 involves not only reversal of her physical malady, but also restoration of her place in the society as well as provision of new relations in the community of Go's people. This conception of the holistic and social character of the human person can also be found in other Synoptic writings. For example, in the Gospel of Matthew, cleansing a man with leprosy offers him new access to God and to the community (Mt 8:1-4, Lev 13-14); healing a paralytic is equivalent to forgiving his sins (Mt 9:2-8); extending the grace of God to tax collectors and sinners exhibits the work of Jesus as a healer (Mt 9:9-13); and restoring the sight of two blind men is linked to the manifestation of their faith (Mt 9:27-31). Similar accounts abound in the Synoptic Gospels, “where spiritual, social and physical needs are simply regarded as human needs.”14

2.4 The Image of God and the Fall
As mentioned earlier, humanity is created in God's own image. But what exactly is this image? And how much has man lost this image since Adam's fall? Although human beings as God's image have dominion over all other creatures, the meaning of the divine image should reflect the true nature of humanity but not just the wardenship of the natural world. In fact, the dominion of humanity over the creation on God's behalf should be exercised in a way that would reveal God's purposes for his creation. Moreover, being in the image of God the human individual is capable of entering into communion with other people, who as a family are called by grace to a covenant with God15. The nature of humanity therefore emanates from their relatedness to God as Creator. “The concept of the Imago Dei, then, is fundamentally relational, and takes as its ground and focus the graciousness of God's own covenantal relations with humanity and the rest of creation.”16

It is a well-known biblical story that Adam and Eve committed the first human sin by eating the fruit “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9). This story symbolizes the abuse of freedom and our first parents’ disobedience toward God, resulting in a break-up of the original harmonious relationship between them and their Creator. One of the tragic consequences of the first sin is the loss of the grace of the original holiness and justice that was a free gift of God. “Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendents human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called the original sin.”17 By this first sin, “Death makes its entrance into human history” (Rom 5:12) and “human nature is weakened in its powers; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin.”18 All men and women are now born in a deteriorated state deprived of the original holiness and justice. Like a chain reaction, the descendents of Adam and Eve continued to sin19 and each person is affected by the sins of his or her predecessors and commits his or her own sinful acts. In other words, we are effectively exposed to “the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29) and we are all prone to sin and evil.

The fall of Adam and Eve affects us all by infecting us with this original sin, resulting in a loss of the image of God. The only cure to this inherited disease of human nature is baptism instituted by the new Adam, Jesus Christ, who has conquered death and is the only way to the eternal life of God. “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God.”20 The grace of baptism is another free gift of God superseding that of Adam and Eve. Through the first sacrament we express our recognition of the love and the presence of God. It is a symbolic action that reflects our acceptance of God's grace that has existed in our lives, even before we realize it. The washing and the cleansing by the waters of baptism symbolize the new life out of death, when one turns away from sin and evil and follows the Christian way of living. “As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men” (Rom 5:18). If one nonetheless is to ask why God did not prevent us from sinning, the best answer might be that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20)21.

The Yahwist creation narratives in Gen 2:4-3:24 reveal to us a great perception of the human condition that is actually an authentic experience for each of us. The fall story only provides a mythological reason for the current sinful human condition. It should be noted that the Yahwist, however, does not portray sin as something that is inherited or illustrate a doctrine of original sin. The second creation story cannot be understood in isolation and it must be grasped with other stories in the Scriptures. The ultimate meaning of the creation story or the fall of Adam and Eve can only be appreciated in the light of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. “The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the reverse side of the Good News that Jesus is the Saviour of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Christ.”22

The four features of human nature outlined above are to a great extent in harmony with the findings of modern science. In particular, current studies in neuroscience tend to support the view of nonreductive physicalism – the metaphysical position that “the person is a physical organism whose complex functioning, both in society and in relation to God, gives rise to higher human capacities such as morality and spirituality.”23 In his classic book on science and religion, Ian Barbour offers a nice summary:

It would be consistent with both the scientific and the biblical outlook to understand the person as a multileveled unity who is both a biological organism and a responsible self. We can escape both dualism and materialism if we assume a holistic view of persons with a hierarchy of levels. Some of these levels we share with all matter, some we share with all living things, some with all animal life, while some seem to be uniquely human. The person can be represented by the concept of the self, conceived not as a separate entity but as the individual in the unified activity of thinking, willing, feeling, and acting. The self is best described, not in terms of static substances, but in terms of dynamic activities at various levels of organization and functioning. In the biblical view, it is this integral being whose whole life is of concern to God.24

The new coherent understanding is that the human person is a multileveled unity emerging from the basic elements of the material world, participating in social activities with other persons, and being able to share in the eternal life of God.

3. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle 25
Before we delve into the creation concepts in the Scriptures, let us take a look at the modern cosmological theory that might be relevant to the creation ideas. In contemporary cosmology, the Big Bang is the most firmly founded model26 that describes the evolution of the cosmos from its early history to the present observable universe. In this model, the universe began about 14 billion years ago27 with a gargantuan explosion, from which all matter, energy, space and time came into being. Today scientists do not yet know how this explosion occurred. The scientific explanation of the Big Bang28 itself might require a complete marriage of the two most fundamental physical theories – general relativity and quantum mechanics. The unification of these two theories29 has actually been the final dream of many physicists30 since three quarters of a century ago. Without a complete theory, scientists can only give us some details about the evolving universe after it was about 10-43 seconds old31. In the Big Bang scenario, the universe has been expanding and its temperature has been falling ever since the extremely hot primordial explosion. One of the consequences of the cooling process is that matter was formed out of the hot radiation. Some of this matter later evolved into galaxies, stars, planets and even life and consciousness that we observe today in compliance with the laws of nature.32

For a long time, many great thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274) with his “Five Ways” have been trying to demonstrate the existence of God in a rational way. Surprisingly, modern cosmology points to an apparently new teleological argument and offers a great deal of evidence indicating that the universe has to be “fine-tuned” in order that life and consciousness can exist. The evolution of life depends on the laws of nature as well as the fundamental physical constants33 governing the interactions in the cosmos. Over the past few decades, scientists have discovered that the existence of life and consciousness is extremely sensitive to the delicate balance of these natural laws and physical constants. A slight change in the properties of elementary particles and the laws of nature would result in a lifeless universe34. Therefore there is an intimate link between the nature of the universe and our own existence. This so-called anthropic principle35 certainly has a profound philosophical implication for the biblical creation ideas.

The most frequently discussed scientific explanation for the many remarkable coincidences in the universe leading to the evolution of intelligent life is the multiple-universes idea, in which many universes could exist simultaneously or successively with different natural laws and values for the physical constants. Most of these universes are uninhabitable because of the inappropriate laws or physical constants. But a few out of many of them might harbor life because of the appropriate conditions. So it is not very surprising that we find our universe having some very special laws and physical constants because our universe is just the one with the favorable conditions, out of the many unsuccessful ones. There could still be a winner for the next lottery although the odds are extremely small. Nevertheless, I maintain that one might still imagine the existence of numerous universes, all of which have no life at all because there could be an infinite number of possible sets of physical laws and constants that are hostile to the existence of life. Large number of universes might not guarantee the existence of life. There could indeed be no winner for the next lottery if the odds approach zero.

Furthermore, as argued by John Leslie, the many-universes hypotheses are highly speculative and without any scientific evidence36. In fact, the major philosophical problem about the multiverse idea is that all these other universes are in principle unverifiable and hence non-falsifiable. The multiverse is indeed as elusive as God.

It seems more appealing to believe in a universe designed by a supreme creator whose existence is palpably supported by the religious experience in the human history. Does it follow that the anthropic principle provides evidence for the existence of God? This is not necessarily so. Our belief is not based on any scientific proof, but it is based on the revelation of God, as the New Testament emphasizes. However, one can contend that the new cosmology is consistent with the theistic worldview. Modern science shows that not only our universe is contingent, but also it has a high degree of rationality. Einstein said it well: “the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”

4. The New Cosmology and the Logos
It is worth noting here that the Scriptures were written with an old cosmological conception. In fact, the cosmological view of the biblical authors was more influenced by their theological thinking than the natural observations in their times. The earth itself was already the whole static material universe. Above it were the stars and the heaven governed by God and below it were the abysses and the hell resided by the devils. In the age of science and technology, however, we should reformulate some of the theological contents in the Scriptures in light of the new scientific understandings about the cosmos. Biblical themes such as the creation, the providence and the salvation of God should be correlated with modern cosmological ideas that may bring new theological insights.

Contrary to the seven-day creation story in the Old Testament (Gen 1.1-2.3), cosmologists tell us that our solar system was formed out of the solar nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. The most primitive life on earth appeared about 3.8 billion years ago and later evolved into the diversity of life that we observe today.37 Homo sapiens were latecomers and first appeared about 400,000 years ago, following the Homo erectus that had their origins in Africa about two million years ago. Molecular biology and fossil discoveries have found that human beings and the modern African apes share 99% of their DNA, indicating that both species are descended from common ancestors38 who appeared about four to six million years ago. We are indisputably part of nature and, more significantly, have a long cosmic and biological evolutionary history. To develop a theology of nature that is compatible with the discoveries of modern science, the idea of the Logos is particularly important as it encloses the cosmic dimension of the incarnate Christ.

Rationality of the universe is the fundamental principle for science, without which scientific investigation becomes impossible. In the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel, John39 particularly speaks of the origin of Jesus to a cosmological extent. The parallel of the use of language between the Prologue and Genesis in the introductory verses is obvious and it connects the cosmic dimension of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, to the foundation of the divine creation. Jesus was with God in the beginning, before God’s creation and therefore before the existence of time, space and matter40. John commemorates Jesus as the Logos, or the Word of God, accentuating the hearing tradition of the Jewish community as well as the Johannine community: What we hear, see and experience now is the revelation of God. The Word that made the heavens and the earth is the foundation of all creation, as Paul has also proclaimed: “All things were created through him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:16-17). With a richer and deeper meaning than Genesis, John declares that Jesus not only is the source of all creation, but is the underlying rational principle of all existing things as well. In Greek, the term Logos also means the logic or the rational principle underlying the fundamental reality of the universe41. In terms of the Greek language, therefore, the creation and the rational principle in the creation were self-expressions of God who now reveals Himself as the Word, in whom we can find the true meaning of the divine creation.

The integration of the dual meanings of the term Logos clearly connects the Jewish creation ideas to the Greek philosophical conceptions about the ultimate operational rules of the universe at the time of the Johannine community. Moreover, it is significant that John identifies the Logos with God: “the Word was God” and personalizes the Logos with Jesus, as witnessed by John the Baptist and the Johannine community. The use of this special word Logos in the Prologue remarkably conveys to the readers the idea that Jesus was the divine creator who now brings salvation to his creation. In this respect, salvation may be regarded as a continuing process of the divine creation. In other words, creation and salvation are the same activity of God. For the Johannine community, God's creation had never stopped but had been continuing since the beginning of the cosmic history, particularly through the death and resurrection of Jesus and the receiving of the Holy Spirit that they had experienced. Jesus plainly said, “my Father is working still, and I am working” (Jn 5:17). Creation is not a one-time action but an on-going activity of God42.

5. The Rational and the Anthropic Principles
Does it follow that the anthropic principle is one of the self-expressions of the Logos? Scientists and theologians have not arrived at a conclusive answer to this question. On the one hand, one has to be cautious of taking too seriously the possible theological implications of the contemporary cosmological theories because scientific theories or hypothesis are by nature provisional. As mentioned earlier, we do not yet have a unified theory about the universe. In fact, according to Karl Popper43, we can never be sure about obtaining such a complete theory. If the current theory is to be replaced by a future one, we may then have to rethink our theological inferences.

On the other hand, what is philosophically significant is that our cosmos44 is rational and unified, whether we can eventually find a complete theory or not. The work of scientists is after all to study the natural laws reflecting the rational and unified beauty of the universe. Indisputably, the anthropic principle shows us the wonder of our cosmos. This aesthetic experience of scientific exploration was also the conviction of the Greeks or the Stoics in the first century.

Nevertheless, the Stoic philosophical view about the rational principle is static, and impersonal, whereas the Johannine experience of the Logos is dynamic and personal. John celebrates the pre-existent Logos as the life-giver and the light of the world. All things exist in him and through him. The Logos is the light that enlightens people and gives power to all his believers to become the children of God (Jn 1:12). In the beginning he was with God and now he becomes flesh and blood and tabernacles among us (Jn 1:14). The incarnation of the Logos brings glory to God and raises all existing things to a new stage of creation. In John's writings, the glory is always associated with the love of God; this is the “glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world” (Jn 17:24).

According to John, to be in unity and in love with God is embedded in the nature of creation.45 The incarnation of the Logos effectively marks a new level of existence for the creation. This is a new vision for the nature of the created cosmos that has been evolving from pure radiation46 to the complexity of life and intelligence.

6. Extraterrestrial Life
Before we turn to the discussion of the human condition in the evolutionary framework, let us now investigate the possibility of the existence of other intelligent beings in the universe in a scientific way. It is because the existence of extraterrestrial life will give us a new perspective on human nature within a cosmic context. The quest for the presence of intelligent life beyond the earth has its roots stretched back into antiquity47 and has a strong influence on both the scientific and the religious communities, serving as a good meeting point for the dialogue between them in the modern time. Christian theology should be implicitly involved in this ancient quest because it will naturally provoke us to ponder the relation between God and humanity and, in particular, the mystery of the incarnation of the Logos.

6.1 The Drake Equation
In the scientific context, the American astronomer Frank Drake48 proposed in 1961 his famous equation, N = R* x fp x ne x f1 x fi x fc x L , for estimating the number of technologically advanced civilizations in our galaxy that are presently capable of communicating with us (N). This so-called Drake equation contains a series of factors representing the probability of some major steps in the evolution of such civilizations. These factors are the average rate of formation of suitable stars in our galaxy (R*), the fraction of stars having planetary systems (fp), the average number of habitable planets per planetary system (ne), the fraction of those habitable planets on which life actually arises (f1), the fraction of such life-bearing planets on which intelligence develops (fi), the fraction of those intelligent-life planets that develop electromagnetic communications technology (fc) and, finally, the average lifetime of these communicating civilizations (L).

Scientists, however, do not have sufficient information and knowledge to determine, even approximately, some of these factors that have remained highly speculative ever since they were proposed. The actual value for N may be any number from zero to billions49. The contemporary advocates for a large value of N are mostly astronomers and physicists including Carl Sagan, Frank Drake and Philip Morrison50 who are very optimistic about the two biological factors f1 and fi whose values are simply taken to be one. Many leading evolutionary biologists such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Gaylord Simpson, Jacob Francois, Francisco Ayala and Ernst Mayr51 have opposed this oversimplification and argued that the development of intelligent life is extremely improbable even in the primate lineage. The evolutionist Owen Lovejoy explains clearly:

The evolution of cognition is the product of a variety of influences and preadaptive capacities, the absence of any one of which would have completely negated the process, and most of which are unique attributes of primates and/or homonids. Specific dietary shifts, bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity, control of differentiated muscles of facial expression, vocalization, intense social and parenting behaviour (of specific kinds), keen stereoscopic vision, and even specialized forms of sexual behaviour, all qualify as irreplaceable elements. It is evident that the evolution of cognition is neither the result of an evolutionary trend nor an event of even the lowest calculable probability, but rather the result of a series of highly specific evolutionary events whose ultimate cause is traceable to selection for unrelated factors such as locomotion and diet52.

The general consensus among evolutionists is that the emergence of intelligent beings involves a reasonably large number of improbable evolutionary steps53 that will make fi (and hence N) practically equal to zero and therefore the earth may be the only planet that harbors intelligent life in our galaxy or even in the entire universe. Consequently, as intelligent life actually exists on our planet, life of lower forms ought to be statistically plentiful in the universe. Although these different kinds of extraterrestrial life should expand exponentially within their environmental limits54, none of them may give rise to intelligence according to modern evolutionary theory. It is therefore not very surprising that astronomers will discover other primitive life forms in the solar system and other extrasolar systems in the future.

6.2 Carter's Argument
Based on the Copernican Principle55 one may still dispute that as intelligent life could actually develop on this planet in spite of the improbability in evolution, it should also happen again on other extrasolar planets that may be numerous in the universe56. To respond to this question, it is important to note that the observation of intelligence on earth is necessarily restricted by the weak anthropic principle57 (WAP) – what we observe in nature must satisfy the conditions required for our existence, otherwise we would not be here to discuss it. In other words, whether intelligence is everywhere or nowhere in this universe with the immensity of space and time58, we must find ourselves on this planet now. This is actually a consequence of the so-called ‘selection effect’. In fact, as first suggested by Brandon Carter59 in 1983, WAP supports the viewpoint of the evolutionists that the emergence of intelligence on a habitable planet is extremely improbable.

The basic idea in Carter's argument is to define three different time periods: tav (unknown) is the average time needed to evolve ‘intelligent observers’ on an earth-like planet, te ( 4x109 years) is the actual time taken for evolution to produce intelligent beings on earth, and tms ( 1010 years) is the lifetime of the sun which is classified as a G2 main sequence star60. Although we do not know tav, we would expect a priori that tav should belong to one of these three cases: (1) tav << tms , (2) tav tms and (3) tav >> tms. The second case should be statistically ruled out because it represents a very narrow part of the entire hypothesis space and there exists no physical relationship between the average time for evolution of intelligence and the lifetime of a main sequence star. Nevertheless, both case 1 and case 3 are not consistent with the observed fact that te tms (to within a factor of 2.5). This means that the actual observed time to evolve intelligence on earth (te) does not draw near to the average time needed to evolve intelligence on an earth-like planet (tav). Now if the first case, tav << tms, were true, we could have observed te tav with high probability. Therefore, combined with WAP, the observation that te tms implies strongly that tav >> tms and hence tav>> te. The fact that we observe te < tms is a necessary outcome of the WAP selection effect in spite of its minimal likelihood of occurrence. We must evolve successfully before the sun depletes its hydrogen fuel in the core, or else no observation could be made. In short, WAP inevitably leads us to conclude that the third case, tav >> tms, is most likely. This conclusion also implies that the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life is highly improbable.

6.3 The Fermi Paradox
In their controversial book, Barrow and Tipler also develop the so-called space-travel argument against the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life and come to the conclusion that
the probability of the evolution of creatures with the technological capability of interstellar communication within five billion years after the development of life on an earthlike planet is less than10-10, and thus it is very likely that we are the only intelligent species now existing in our galaxy.61

The basic idea of their argument, also known as the Fermi paradox62, is straightforward: If extraterrestrial intelligent beings exist and they possess a modest amount of rocket technology, they would colonize the entire galaxy for various reasons63 in less than 300 million years64 and should therefore have visited the solar system. Since we have not found them here on earth, this implies that they do not exist. The absence of evidence would actually be the evidence of absence.

6.4 Scientific Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
The discussions above are consistent with the null results (up till now) of over a hundred scientific projects in different parts of the world on searching for extraterrestrial intelligent life65. For example, Project Phoenix66, carried out during the late 1990s, was the most sensitive and comprehensive search for extraterrestrial civilizations. Using large radio telescopes, it scrutinized radio signals67 originating from the vicinities of about one thousand sun-like stars within a distance of two hundred light years from the earth. Yet no meaningful signals have been received. In fact, our earth has been broadcasting radio signals into space ever since the advent of radio and television technologies. The radio radiation from the earth is now more intense than that from the sun as seen by a distant observer in space. These terrestrial signals have reached a distance of 70 to 80 light years from the earth, revealing our presence to more than a thousand stars. As we have not received any responses thus far, we may conclude that no extraterrestrial civilizations exist within a distance of 35 to 40 light years, or if they exist they are not interested in replying to our signals.

As mentioned before, the existence of other intelligent beings beyond the earth would raise some interesting theological questions, especially in connection with Christology: Do extraterrestrial beings have original sin even though they are not descendants of Adam and Eve? Would there be multiple incarnations of the Logos in the other worlds?68 These questions unavoidably compel us to reexamine the doctrine of original sin and the meaning of the incarnation of the Logos, in particular with respect to the evolutionary worldview.

  A short version of this paper was published in the fourth issue of the Australian Ejournal of Theology. The website of this journal is http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal.

On 15 June 2006, the world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking delivered an inaugural lecture for the Institute for Advanced Study at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology on “The Origin of the Universe”. At the beginning of his wide-ranging lecture, Hawking introduced his theme by asking two big questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?

Eichrodt, W. Man in the Old Testament, translated by K. and R. Gregor Smith. London:SCM Press, 1951; Frederick Grant. An Introduction to New Testament Thought, 160-170. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950.

There may be other ways of analyzing the various dimensions of the human person. For example, in his article “Artificial Insemination: Ethical Considerations” (Louvain Studies (1980), pp. 3-29), Louis Janssens suggests that there are eight fundamental dimensions of the human person, namely, (1) a subject, (2) an embodied subject, (3) part of the material world, (4) interrelational with other persons, (5) an interdependent social being, (6) historical, (7) equal but unique, and (8) called to know and worship God. Our emphasis, however, is placed on the biblical interpretations.

Porteous, N. W. “Soul.” In Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, 428. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.

Green, J. B. ‘“Bodies—That is, Human Lives”: A Re-Examination of Human Nature in the Bible.’ In Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature, edited by W. S. Brown, N. Murphy, and H. N. Malony, 158. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

Cullmann, O. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? 30. New York: MacMillan, 1958.

de Silva, L. The Problem of Self in Buddhism and Christianity, 75. London: MacMillan, 1979.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 356.

In Gen 1:3-31, the Priestly writers divide the strophes into two parallel sections. Each section has three parts which emphasize on the separation of different objects such as the light and the darkness, the heavenly water and the earthly water, the seas and the land, the day and the night, the birds and the fish, and the man and all other creatures.

Green, J. B. “Restoring the Human Person: New Testament Voices for a Wholistic and Social Anthropology.” In Neuroscience and the Person: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, edited by R. J. Russell, N. Murphy, T. C. Meyering, and M. A. Arbib, eds., 3-22. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1999.

This story is also depicted in Mark’s Gospel (Mk: 5: 25-34) and Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 9: 20-22).

Lev 15: 25-30 “If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean. Every bed on which she lies, all the days of her discharge, shall be to her as the bed of her impurity; and everything on which she sits shall be unclean, as in the uncleanness of her impurity. And whoever touches these things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. But if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the tent of meeting. And the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before the Lord for her unclean discharge.”

Green. “Restoring the Human Person,” 14.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357.

Green. “Restoring the Human Person”, 7.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 417.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 418.

For example, Cain’s murder of his brother Abel. The story of the flood and Noah’s ark further symbolizes the widespread of evil.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405.

The Easter Proclamation (the Exultet) of the liturgy for the Easter Vigil has such a joyful verse: “O happy fault… which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 389.

This definition is given by Nancey Murphy who advocates a nonreductive physicalist account of human nature. Murphy, N. “Human Nature: Historical, Scientific, and Religious Issues.” In Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature, 25, edited by W. S. Brown, N. Murphy, and H. N. Malony. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

Barbour, I. G. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 272. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.

The anthropic principle was first proposed by astrophysicist Brandon Carter in Poland in 1973, during a special meeting commemorating Copernicus’s 500th birthday.

The 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to two American scientists, John C. Mather and George F. Smoot, for their work that offered increased support for the Big Bang theory of the universe.

According to the latest astronomical findings, the universe is 13.6 + 0.2 billion years old (Science News, vol. 166 (July 31, 2004), 69).

Still, scientists cannot answer the limit questions: Why is there a Big Bang? Or why does the universe exist?

Currently, the most promising unified theory is the superstring theory, in which the most fundamental ingredients of the universe are vibrating strands of energy, known as strings, which make up all the constituents of nature including all the force carriers such as gravitons and photons, and all the elementary particles such as electrons and quarks.

For example, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. Einstein, however, did not like quantum mechanics owing to its statistical nature. His unsuccessful unified theory only incorporated the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force and did not take into account the two nuclear forces, namely, the weak force and the strong force.

This is a ten-million-billion-billion-billion-billionth of a second from the beginning.

For a more comprehensive description of modern cosmology and the anthropic principle, see Russell, R. J., N. Murphy, and C. J. Isham, eds. Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Physics. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1996; Barrow, J. D., and F. J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

There are about a dozen physical constants whose values have to be determined from experiments. For example, the electron mass is equal to 9.1093826 (16) x 10-31kg.

For example, if the ratio of proton to electron mass (1.836 x 103) were very slightly varied, DNA replication would become impossible.

As stated by Barrow and Tipler, there are three primary versions of the anthropic principle: (1) Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): “The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.” (2) Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): “The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.” (3) Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): “Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.” Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 15-23. In this paper, we will focus on WAP which is the most acceptable version.

Leslie, J. Universes. London and New York: Routledge, 1989.

The discoveries from paleontology indicate that more than 99% of the species of life have developed and become extinct in the evolutionary history.

For example, the Australopithecus Africanus (the southern ape from Africa).

Although there is uncertainty about the identity of the author of the Fourth Gospel, we will simply name him as John, following the tradition of Irenaeus (130-200 C.E.).

This is hard to define the meaning of the temporal word “before” here, as time itself did not exist before the creation. St. Augustine answered well the question: “What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?” His answer was “God was preparing hell to those who pry into mysteries.” Augustine, Confessions, XI.xiii.14.

The emphasis of the Logos in the Johannine Prologue has been well explained by many authors. See, for example, Morris, L. The Gospel According to John, rev. ed., 102-111. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1. London: Burns & Oates, 1968; and Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John, vol. 1. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1966.

In addition to the concept of creation-out-of-nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo), this idea of continuing creation (Creatio Continua) can also be found in the Hebrew writings, for example, Psalm 104.

Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

In Greek, cosmos means orderliness.

This is interesting to note that in Hebrew, the words God and Nature have the same numerical value, and so do the two words love and one. Therefore, some modern scholars argue that to love implies being in one with God.

Light is one kind of electromagnetic radiation. In scientific terms, the phrase in Genesis, “let there be light”, can be interpreted as “let there be radiation”! Gerald Schroeder gives an interesting scientific analysis on Genesis in his book Genesis and the Big Bang. New York: Bantam Books, 1990.

Two fine books on the historical studies of extraterrestrial life are Dick, S. Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial life Debate from Democritus to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982; and Crowe, M. The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900. Mineola: Dover, 1999. For a short historical review, see Crowe, M. “A History of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate.” In Zygon 32 # 2 (June 1997) 147-162.

Drake, F. “Project Ozma.” In Physics Today 14 (April 1961) 40-46.

Drake’s original calculation gave N=100,000.

Barrow and Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 576.

Barrow and Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 133.

Lovejoy, C. O. “Evolution of man and its implications for general principles of the evolution of intelligent life.” In Life in the Universe, edited by J. Billingham, 326. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981.

The Human Genome Project, completed in 2003, found that the number of genes in the human genome is about 30,000 and each contains an average of 3000 nucleotide bases (A, C, T and G), of which about 10% are immutable for building proteins. The probability against assembling the human genome spontaneously is then , (4-3000x0.1)30000 10-5000000,an exceedingly small number.

Simpson, G. G. The Meaning of Evolution, 512. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.

The Copernican Principle states that we do not occupy a special position in the universe.

As of 16 October 2007, astronomers have discovered 255 extrasolar planets in 218 separate extrasolar systems – 192 single-planet systems and 26 multiple-planet systems. All of these planets except one (named PSR 1257+12 b) are more massive than earth. NASA's proposed Kepler mission, scheduled for launch in February 2009, will search for earth-sized planets around 100,000 sun-like stars over a period of 4 years. It is expected that several hundreds of terrestrial planets in the habitable zone (where liquid water can exist on the planets) will then be detected. But if Kepler fails to find any terrestrial planets, then such planets must be rare and life might be uncommon in the universe.

See footnote 35.

The vastness of space is no waste because of our own presence. Our universe must be old enough for the stellar production of heavy elements necessary for the evolution of life and consciousness. But an old expanding universe has to be very huge. This is another example of the anthropic principle.

Carter, B. “The Anthropic Principle and Its Implications for Biological Evolution,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 310 (1983) 347-363.

A G2 star has a surface temperature of about 6000°C while a main sequence star burns its hydrogen fuel in the core in a stable state. A star like our sun will stay on the main sequence for about 10 billion years.

Barrow and Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 576.

One day in 1950 during a mealtime at Los Alamos National Laboratory, when his fellows were discussing the advanced civilizations in the galaxy, the famous physicist Enrico Fermi asked, “So? Where is everybody?” The colloquial saying adopted by most authors is “If they existed, they would be here.”

The motivations for interstellar communication and exploration include information exchange and survival needs. Barrow and Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 590-601.

This is a short period when compared to the age of the galaxy which is more than ten billion years. A more optimistic calculation will give a period of less than 4 million years. Barrow and Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 578-590. See also Tipler. The Physics of Immortality, 54-55. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Sullivan, W. “Alone in the Universe?” Nature 380 (21 March 1996) 211.

The official website is http://www.seti-inst.edu/Welcome.html.

Two billion channels in the range of 1 to 3 GHz for each target star were simultaneously monitored with a bandwidth of only 1 Hz. This radio range corresponds to the wavelengths of 10cm to 30cm, which, as the astronomers believe, is the best part of the electromagnetic spectrum for interstellar communications.

In his popular book, The Age of Reason, first published in 1793, the deist Thomas Paine rejects Christianity for a number of reasons. He argues that it is ridiculous for him to believe that the Son of God would have to die many times on different planets harboring intelligent beings: “are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer? In this case, the person who is irreverently called the Son of God, and sometimes God himself, would have nothing else to do than to travel from world to world, in an endless succession of death, with scarcely a momentary interval of life.” Paine, T. “The Age of Reason.” In Thomas Paine; Representative Selections, edited by H. H. Clark, 283. New York: Hill and Wang, 1961.

Teilhard de Chardin, P. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.

7. The Human Condition in the Evolutionary Context

In his famous book “the Phenomenon of Man”69, Teilhard de Chardin simply divides the evolution of the universe into three interrelated stages, from matter to life and then to human. Important and critical transitions happened in these evolutionary processes and the entire universe was created with a potential to move from the inanimate stage to the conscious stage. The historical Jesus was the summit of divine creation and was also a new stage of creation that became a perfect model for humankind. According to Teilhard de Chardin, Jesus is a unique symbol of the union of the divine and the created human, which is indeed the goal and fulfillment of the divine creation. The incarnation of Jesus was not primarily to redeem us from the bondage of sins, but essentially to unite us with God through love. In the gospels, the coming of the kingdom of God, a perfect scene in which God reigns with his full intention of creation, is always the central missionary message of Jesus. We are called to authentic existence and to become a perfect image of God full of grace, truth and love70.

The Logos is the empowerment within the emergent universe that drives the evolutionary processes conforming to the laws of nature. He is present in every creation process and he works through the natural laws he has established. In the first transition, order was shaped out of the chaos towards the complexity of life. In the second transition, life evolved through the biological laws towards even greater complexity that brought about the emergence of intelligence and consciousness71. Nevertheless, each phase of evolution possessed a certain degree of “freedom” and therefore the development of complexity was not carried out in a pre-determined way. In the initial inanimate universe, the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics was the autonomy in the interactions of small particles. Before the advent of intelligence, there were the statistical laws of random mutation and natural selection in biological evolution. There is now the free will for human beings who certainly have a much more profound influence on the course of evolution. Being self-conscious and intelligent, we could actually destroy the long history of evolution by just pressing a nuclear button or contribute to our future development in a constructive way. The evolution is still going on and the current phase becomes more crucial owing to our greater complexity and freedom.

In this crucial phase of evolution, the incarnation of the Logos became necessary for revealing to us the nature of creation so that the present social and cultural evolution might lead us to true humanity. In Philip Hefner's terminology, we have now evolved into a symbiosis of genes and cultures72. Hefner regards original sin as the discrepancy we experience between the information coming from our genes and from our culture and also as the fallibility and limitation that are part of the human evolution. We are fallible in a sense that we move forward only through trial and error. Nevertheless, as emphasized by Denis Edwards, discrepancy and fallibility are not of themselves sins73. Using Karl Rahner's clarification of the theological concept of concupiscence74, Edwards stresses that there are two major disorders associated with original sin. The first kind of disorder comes from the current sinful condition that is a result of the long history of the human rejection of God. We were born and brought up in a sinful world which affects us and which is the framework for making our own decisions. We are more or less shaped by other people and by history. As social and cultural beings, we actualize ourselves in a situation that has been contaminated with the sin of the world. “The sin of others is a universal and permanent part of the human condition from the beginning and is in this sense original.”75

The second kind of disorder is not a result of sin but is intrinsic to us as a spiritual being and simultaneously as a fundamentally physical and limited creature. Owing to our bodiliness and finitude, “we human beings are never fully autonomous, integrated and in control.”76 Nevertheless, Rahner does not think that we can overcome these human characteristics, as they are actually part of the divine creation. This kind of concupiscence is a consequence of our finitude and, as Rahner insists, is morally neutral. It may keep us not only from doing good things but also from doing bad ones. In other words, we are inherently fallible because as finite evolutionary creatures we are subject to our limitations and past evolutionary routes. This is the way that God has created us as free responsible selves. Unfortunately our ancestors did fall and they created a sinful environment for us.

Traditionally, sacraments are regarded as the symbolic instruments for conveying the grace of God to believers. The sacramental rituals are special moments in which the finite humanity encounters the infinite divinity. Jesus Christ is the primordial sacrament of God and the Church, founded by Jesus, is the consequential sacrament of Christ. In the sacrament of baptism we acknowledge Jesus Christ as our savior through the grace of God and we begin our new life in the Christian way. In the evolutionary context, it means that one has to conquer concupiscence by joining the Christian community whose people are witnesses to the perfect life of Jesus and also by making right choices in his or her life within human limitations. Humanity is a new species with the greatest freedom in the evolutionary history and now we can find the meaning of the cosmic evolution in Jesus Christ, the Logos, who will enable us to make the quantum leap. Nevertheless, our own participation in creating ourselves is important because we have become God's “created co-creators”77 who are evolving into a new creation not only through the salvific work of Jesus but also by our own efforts.

8. Jesus Christ in the Evolutionary Perspective

Our being human signifies a new evolutionary step towards the union with the Creator. Before the appearance of human beings, all created entities with their lower levels of freedom are in harmony with each other and they form an ecological system. However, the non-human creations do not have the moral and spiritual capacities that are unique to human beings. Now humanity, as part of nature, has remarkable abilities and potentialities far greater than its pre-human ancestors. We have evolved into self-conscious and spiritual beings with free wills and moral judgments. In the context of evolutionary biology, the fall of Adam can only be a symbolic story for the goodness of the on-going creation. Each level of creation has new challenges directing to the ultimate goals of creation. Using the terminology of Charles Birch and John Cobb, human beings are “falling upward” that “identifies the occurrence of a new level of order and freedom bought at the price of suffering.”78 Adam’s fall denotes not only an authentic experience of every person from being innocent to committing sins, but also the alienation from harmony or the break-up of relationships when the creation moved from the pre-human stage to the human stage. In this perspective, should there be extraterrestrial intelligent beings, they would also have their own fall and inherit their own original sin.

It is important to realize at this point that creation is not a single event in time but is an unfinished continuing process. The concept of continuing creation is not foreign even in the Old Testament, though it may not be one of the central ideas. We, being created, are invited to participate in the continuing creative work of God (Gen 1: 27-28). Like Teilhard de Chardin, Philip Hefner maintains that Jesus is the perfect model of true humanity. Jesus, as fully human and fully divine signifying the unity of the creation and the Creator, denotes a new stage of cosmic evolution and divine self-communication that requires our free decisions and our active involvement. We are called to be in perfect relationship with the cosmos, with others and ourselves as well as with the divine mystery. If “sin, in all its forms, is a violation of relatedness”79, then the salvation of Christ is to help us live out all these relationships to a superb extent. As the Logos placed order out of the chaos in the beginning of the cosmic history, he now places order out of evil and sin in the human history. Like the two faces of a coin, creation and salvation are one plan of God in this cosmic sense.

The grace of God offered to us in the sacraments is therefore part of the continuing creation of God. We are summoned to participate in God's creation by building up qualitative relationships with God, people and nature through the love of God manifest in Jesus the Christ. Grace, as a self-communication of God, is not only individual and communal but also environmental. We live in a world of grace because the universe itself is sacramental.80 The emergence of self-consciousness in the universe is also the gradual awareness of the presence of the divine love in this universe full of grace.

In the incarnation of the Logos, we can discern the nature of the divine creation and the meaning of the human existence. The creation is a long evolutionary process in the light of contemporary cosmology and the historical Jesus is “the continuation and fulfillment of a long cosmic evolution”81. Being the heart of creation, Jesus reveals to us the full meaning of creation. He as a man shares our cosmic evolutionary history that started from the Big Bang, continued in the creation of heavy elements in the stars and supernovae, and evolved from the early life forms to Homo sapiens. As the Logos, Jesus is also the self-expression and the self-revelation of God to creation. He is the origin of all beings in the cosmos as well as the ultimate meaning of the evolving conscious cosmos. The goal of the cosmic evolution may be perceived as the preparation for the incarnation of the Logos who would bring the whole creation into union with God. As a corollary, the assumption of human nature by the Logos implies two possibilities. The first one is that we may be the only intelligent species in the whole universe and the other one is that we may be the intelligent species that has first attained the capacities for making moral judgment and spiritual reflection. This result is consonant with our earlier scientific discussions on the (non-)existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. To put it another way, the absence of extraterrestrial intelligence conforms to our understanding of the incarnation of the Logos in the evolutionary perspective.

The uniqueness of humankind is in fact a “classical” solution which is now shown to be in agreement with the weak anthropic principle. The stance that only one world existed was taken by Thomas Aquinas when he, following the Aristotelian tradition, tried to refute the many worlds hypothesis put forward by earlier theologians including St. Augustine. Although the plurality of worlds could exhibit the greatness and the glory of the Creator who, being omnipotent and absolutely free, could have created other worlds82, St. Thomas rejected the pluralist model because it seemed to deny the orderly unity of the Creator. In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas argues:

The very order of things created by God shows the unity of the world. For this world is called one by the unity of order, whereby some things are ordered to others. But whatever things come from God, have relation of order to each other, and to God Himself... Hence it must be that all things should belong to one world.83

Although the human race might be alone in the universe, we are not the final stage of evolution but we are emerging into a new mode of creation and becoming more like Christ, “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), through the divinizing grace of God. Using the terminology of Teilhard de Chardin, we are in the phase of Christogenesis in which we are creating ourselves with empowerment from the pre-existing and eternal Logos who is the “alpha-point” of all existing things as well as the “omega-point” of the evolutionary cosmos. The human person is more who one becomes than who one is. The ultimate goal of the evolutionary cosmos is the harmony of all creation in the Logos who, as a person, discloses perfect dynamic relationships with God, with humanity and with nature. This is the true humanity for us and this is also the joyful revelation that the Johannine community experienced in the resurrected Jesus. The doctrine of original sin may then be understood as part of the inevitable process for the transcendence of human beings who have a long history of evolutionary legacy. Through the ritual of baptism, the recipient has a new life and becomes a new creation in Christ, as emphasized by St. Paul. In his book on the sacraments of initiation, Kenan Osborne writes:

The Christian does not merely have life without sin, but a wholly new kind of life which is for God and in Christ Jesus… unifying the baptized more strongly with one another, but above all more deeply unifying the believers with Christ, with the Spirit, and with the Father.84

As pre-human ancestors evolved through natural selection and mutation, humanity now evolve through human freedom and decision of accepting the grace of God that has existed ever since the primordial creation and the dawn of consciousness. Rejecting the traditional concept of original sin, the theologian Matthew Fox even writes that Genesis actually portrays the “original blessing” of humanity85 and this should become the new paradigm for our time.

9. Jesus as the Cosmic Savior

Human beings are made in the image of God and we can now say that this image is Jesus Christ who has restored the cosmic order and has transformed the entire creation through His death and resurrection. This character of the image of God is universal and transcendental. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul clearly presents Christ as the creator, the preserver and the savior for the entire creation:

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities – all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1: 15-20)

It is important to note that Christ’s salvation is for all things, whether on earth or in heaven86. All things, from the elementary particles to the galactic systems, and from the microbes to the intelligent beings, were created by him and for him. This important concept of Paul is consonant with John's conviction that Christ is the alpha and the omega of all creation (Rev 1:8). In the letter to the Romans, Paul emphasizes that the Passover of Jesus is a single historic event, “The death he died, he died to sin once for all.” (Rom 6:10) The incarnation of Jesus Christ is indeed part of the divine creation plan that is scheduled for the appropriate social and cultural settings in human history87. As mentioned earlier, the incarnation in the evolutionary perspective is not primarily for the forgiveness of human sin, but is essentially for the union of the cosmos with its creator. In other words, the salvation of Jesus Christ in this broader sense is a divine creation activity that has made its way into human and cosmic history. The Logos would become human whether we have sinned or not, although our earlier analysis shows that sin may be an inescapable phenomenon in the evolutionary context. It should be pointed out that this concept of incarnation has its root in the scholastic tradition. When Duns Scotus (1266-1308) tried to explain the concept of the unio hypostatica88, he affirmed that it was the intention of God that the world was created for Christ in the very beginning and the world should be united with Christ by the closest possible relationship – the incarnation89.

The cosmic character of the Logos is prominent in Colossians 1:15-20 90. The salvation of Jesus Christ is a once-for-all incident and its efficacy extends not only in time but also in space. This cosmic Christology of Paul is consistent with the conception of evolution that we have so far developed. Teilhard de Chardin even refers the cosmic dimension of Christ as the third nature of Christ91, demonstrating the significance of this idea that has grown from modern cosmology. The universal redemption of Christ essentially applies to all created beings, including any extraterrestrial intelligent life that might exist elsewhere in the universe. Multiple incarnations of the Logos in these other worlds are unnecessary because the earthly once-for-all incarnation of the Logos with the “blood of his cross” has made available the reconciliation of the alien beings with God. In the same way as the Israelites were chosen by God to represent the salvation of God for all nations and peoples in the Old Testament, Homo sapiens are now chosen by God to designate the reconciliation of God with the Christocentric universe. Being the very first intelligent species in the universe, we now take on the mission to bring the good news to the alien civilizations should they exist. This is scientifically feasible on account of the colonization of the galaxy by our own species in less than 300 million years. Applying the space-travel argument to ourselves, we would have colonized the entire galaxy well before other intelligent beings could successfully evolve on their home planets92. Nevertheless, as noted by Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, the participation of the Christian redemption, be it earthly or extraterrestrial, must be guided by the Holy Spirit, “who also works in a way which is mostly unknown for us, but certainly the only one able to secure the universality and interiorization of salvation.”93

10. The Fulfillment of Human Life

From the biblical anthropology, a Christian can reflect on the way to fulfill the purpose of human life as created by God. The moral actions that he takes should correspond to the inherent values of the human person. This is the basic concept of morality94. Although an atheist can also be a moral person by recognizing the goodness of creation through natural reason, he may still fall into error by human ignorance95. The true humanity can only be known as it is given to us by the revelation of God as the Creator, especially in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Logos. As God himself became one of us in our history, we are assured of the goodness and value of the divine creation and more importantly the ultimate meaning of human existence.

In his book on abortion and euthanasia, Ronald Dworkin maintains that for religious people all human beings are sacred because they are the beloved children of God. He also argues that for the non-religious people every human being is nevertheless sacred because each individual human life is the highest product of natural creation as well as the masterpiece of human creation96. Scholars such as Michael Perry and Robert Grant97 disagree that Dworkin has successfully laid the foundation for the sacredness of human beings in the objective way and therefore they attempt to employ alternative secular justifications for human rights. I propose that one possible response to this opposition is to resort to the new discoveries in modern cosmology. As we have discussed earlier, evolutionary and cosmological scientists today have shown that human beings are the products of some highly improbable evolutionary processes that may happen once and for all in the history of the universe. Moreover, as Teilhard de Chardin pointed out, human beings are significant and precious because we have the greatest complexity and the highest level of organization in the universe98.

As the children of God, we should live a coherent life showing our special status and relationship among ourselves. As repetitively commanded by Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, our response to accepting God’s love is to love our neighbors as ourselves including our enemies and persecutors. In fact, the self-realization of the human person takes place through our moral acts towards other people and ourselves. The Jesuit, Joseph Fuchs, writes nicely, “…believers must translate their living faith, that is, their ‘Christian intentionality,’ into concrete living and manifest it in their lives. This is the reality of the human person…”99 The fulfillment of the human person is simply “that he live as man, that he discover himself and his world as well as their latent possibilities, that he understand them, that he shape and realize himself as genuinely human, as bodily-spiritual being.”100 I believe this is the best response to the recognition of the anthropic principle.

11. Concluding Remarks

In this paper, we have examined our current understandings of the cosmic evolution and the divine creation and presented a possible integration of these two ostensibly contradicting concepts. By investigating specific questions which concern both disciplines, science and theology can contribute to a coherent vision of reality. In particular, our investigation shows that the evolutionary worldview can help us better understand the original plan of the divine creation, the meaning of the human person as the imago Dei, and the salvific universality of the incarnation of the Logos. This is in agreement with the thought of St. Thomas that “nature, philosophy’s proper concern, could contribute to the understanding of divine Revelation.”101 The ultimate goal of scientific research is to discern the work of God and, more importantly, to know God Himself. This is also the conviction of the author of the Book of Wisdom: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5).

Our free determination to accept God's invitation becomes part of the fulfillment of the divine creative activity in the cosmic Christology. The sacrament of baptism is a symbol of the acceptance of the recipient to the invitation of this cosmic construction through the grace of God. It removes original sin in a sense that it transforms us from the state of concupiscence to a new state of creation with the fulfillment of relationships with God, other people, ourselves and nature. The transcendent and immanent God creates us not only to be the most advanced creatures in the universe but also to be His sons and daughters. This is the salvation that Jesus has brought us. It is actually a great honour for us to be able to participate in the divine creation that has taken place for 14 billion years. Nonetheless it is not an easy task and accordingly Jesus promised to send us the Holy Spirit as our spiritual guidance. God has never rested from his creative work but has been recruiting us to join the construction of His kingdom. The present realization of this kingdom under construction is also the experience of the Johannine community whose people were baptized with water and the Spirit from above. Many scholars hold that this kind of realized eschatology in the Fourth Gospel emphasizes the response of the believer who can experience the fullness of humanity now. In the cosmic Christology, the real Sabbath in the Genesis creation story is established only if the whole creation is consummated in union with the Logos at the end of the cosmic evolutionary history. This is also the time that the kingdom of God genuinely comes upon us who will then become fully the image of God. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul concludes with such an evolutionary vision: “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” (1 Cor 15:49) This is our true humanity.

  In fact, Jesus summarizes his sermon on the mount by asking his followers to “be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48).

It is interesting to note that intelligence and consciousness are not vital capacities for the survival of the fittest in nature.

Hefner, P. The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion, 102. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Edwards, D. The God of Evolution, 65. New York: Paulist Press 1999.

Rahner, K. “The Theological Concept of Concupiscentia.” In Theological Investigations I, 347-382. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961.

Edwards. The God of Evolution, 67.

Edwards. The God of Evolution, 65.

Our role as created co-creators is well explored by Philip Hefner in his book The Human Factor.

Birch, C., and J. B. Cobb. The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community, 138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Barbour. Religion and Science, 270.

Temple, W. “The Sacramental Universe.” In Nature, Man and God. Macmillan: London, 1934.

Barbour. Religion and Science, 248.

For this reason, the Bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, condemned in 1277 the Aristotelian proposition “that the First Cause cannot make many worlds”. Dick. Plurality of Worlds, 28.

Thomas, A. Summa Theologiae I, q. 47, a. 3.

Osborne, K. The Christian Sacraments of Initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, 46. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.

Fox, M. Original Blessing, 18-19. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2000.

The words “all things” or “everything” appear seven times in this Pauline passage.

In Mark's Gospel, Jesus began his mission by first proclaiming the fulfillment of time: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.” (Mk 1:15)

The hypostatic union is a theological term asserting the one person subsisting in two natures, the divine and the human, of the incarnate Christ.

Minges, P. “Duns Scotus, Blessed John.” In The Catholic Encyclopedia (online). New York: Appleton, 1907-12; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05194a.htm.

See also Eph 1: 3-10.

. Teilhard de Chardin. The Heart of Matter, 93. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978.

The idea that we might transmit the knowledge of the salvation of the Logos to other planets via radio communication is obviously out of place here.

Tanzella-Nitti, G. “Extraterrestrial Life.” In Interdisciplinary Encyclopaedia of Religion and Science, edited by G. Tanzella-Nitti and Alberto Strumia. (online English version) http://www.disf.org/en.

For Aristotle, morality is to live a virtuous way of life in fulfillment of a moral tradition; for Kant, it is based on reason and freedom; and for utilitarians, a moral action should bring the greatest happiness for human beings.

This is emphasized by Thomas Aquinas, for example, in his Summa Theologiae I, q. i. a. 2.

Dworkin, R. Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia and Individual Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1993.

Perry, M. J. “Is the Idea of Human Rights Essentially Religious?” In Doctrine and Life 45 (April 1995) 284-296. Grant, R. “Abortion and the Idea of the Sacred.” In Times Literary Supplement, June 18, 1993, 11.

Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, 226-228.

Fuchs, J. “Is There a Specifically Christian Morality?” In The Distinctiveness of Christian Ethics – Readings in Moral Theology, no. 2, edited by C. E. Curran , and R. A. McCormick, 8. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1980.

Fuchs, “Is There a Specifically Christian Morality?”, 10.

John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998) 43.

Bibliography

Barbour, I. G. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.

Barrow, J. D., and Tipler, F. J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Billington, J., ed. Life in the Universe. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981.

Birch, C., and Cobb, J. The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John, 2 vols. AB 29, 29a, Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1966-1970.

Brown, R. E., J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy, eds. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.

Brown, W. S., N. Murphy and H. N. Malony, eds. Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

Carter, B. “The Anthropic Principle and Its Implications for Biological Evolution.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A 310 (1983) 347-363.

Clark, H. H., ed. Thomas Paine; Representative Selections. New York: Hill and Wang, 1961.

Clayton, P. God and Contemporary Science. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Crowe, M. The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900. Mineola: Dover, 1999.

Crowe, M. “A History of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate.” In Zygon, 32 # 2 (June 1997) 147-162.

Cullmann, O. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? New York: MacMillan, 1958.

DeGidio, S. “What is a Sacrament?” In Sacraments Alive: Their History, Celebration and Significance, 4-20. Mystic CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1991.

Davis, J. J. “Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Christian Doctrine of Redemption.” In Science and Christian Belief 9 # 1 (1997) 21-34.

Davies, P. Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life. New York: Basic Books, 1995.

Davies, P. The Mind of God. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992)

de Silva, L. The Problem of Self in Buddhism and Christianity. London: MacMillan, 1979.

Dick, S. Life on Other Worlds: The 20th-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Dick, S., ed. Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life, and the Theological Implications. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2000.

Dick, S. Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial life Debate from Democritus to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Drake, F. “Project Ozma.” In Physics Today 14 (April 1961) 40-46.

Drees, W. Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God. La Salle: Open Court, 1990.

Dworkin, R. Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia and Individual Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1993.

Edwards, D. Breath of Life: A Theology of the Creator Spirit. Maryknoll N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2004.

Edwards, D. Jesus and the Cosmos. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1991.

Edwards, D. The God of Evolution. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1999.

Eichrodt, W. Man in the Old Testament, translated by K. and R. G. Smith. London:SCM Press, 1951.

Evans, C. A. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Gospel, JSNTup 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Finn, T. M. “General Introduction.” In Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: West and East Syria, 1-27. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992.

Fox, M. Original Blessing. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2000.

Fox, M. The Coming of the Cosmic Christ. Melbourne: Collins Dove, 1988.

Fuchs, J. “Is There a Specifically Christian Morality?” In The Distinctiveness of Christian Ethics – Readings in Moral Theology, # 2, edited by C. E. Curran and R. A. McCormick, 3-19. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1980.

Grant, F. An Introduction to New Testament Thought. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950.

Harris, E. Prologue and Gospel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Haught, J. F. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.

Hawking S. The Illustrated A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam Books, 1996.

Hefner, P. The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Henry, G. C. Logos. New York: Associated University Presses, 1976.

John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio. 14 September, 1998.

Leslie, J. Universes. London and New York: Routledge, 1989.

MaGrath, A. E. Science and Religion: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1999.

McKenna, J. “Symbol and Reality: Some Anthropological Considerations.” In Worship 65 (1991) 2-27.

McKenzie, J. L. Dictionary of the Bible. London: Chapman, 1966.

Moloney, F. J. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina 4. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Morris, L. The Gospel According to John, rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Osborne, K. B. The Christian Sacraments of Initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.

Osborne, K. B. “Official Church Teaching on the Sacraments” In Sacramental Theology: A General Introduction, 100-118. New York: Paulist Press, 1988.

O'Murchu, D. Quantum Theology. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1998.

Pannenberg, W. Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

Peacocke A. Theology for a Scientific Age. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Perry, M. J. “Is the Idea of Human Rights Essentially Religious?” Doctrine and Life 45 (April 1995) 284-296.

Polkinghorne J. Belief in God in an Age of Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.

Polkinghorne J. The Faith of a Physicist. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

Porteous, N. W. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4 Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.

Rahner K. “The Theological Concept of Concupiscentia.” In Theological Investigations I, 347-382. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961.

Richardson, M., and W. Wildman, eds. Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Russell, R. J., N. Murphy, and C. J. Isham, eds. Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Physics. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1996.

Russell, R. J., N. Murphy, T. C. Meyering, and M. A. Arbib, eds. Neuroscience and the Person: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1999.

Russell, R. J., W. R. Stoeger, and F. J. Ayala, eds. Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1998.

Russell, R. J., W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, eds. Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, 2nd ed. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1995.

Schillebeeckx, E. “Christ the Primordial Sacrament.” In Christ the Sacrament of Encounter with God, 13-47. London: Sheed and Ward, 1963.

Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel according to St. John, 3 vols., HThKNT IV/1-3. London: Burns & Oates, 1968-1982.

Schroeder, G. L. Genesis and the Big Bang. New York: Bantam Books, 1990.

Schmitz-Moormann, K. Theology of Creation in an Evolutionary World. Cleveland: Pilgram Press, 1997.

Simpson, G. G. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.

Sullivan, W. We Are Not Alone: The Continuing Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, rev. ed. New York: Dutton, 1993.

Teilhard de Chardin, P. The Phenomenon of Man. London: William Collins, 1959.

Teilhard de Chardin, P. The Heart of Matter. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978.

Temple, W. Nature, Man and God. Macmillan: London, 1934.

Tipler, F. The Physics of Immortality. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Worthing M. W. God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

第一卷（1977年）
从中国人观点看－－基督信仰的授受	创造论的不同趋势	田立克的历史和天国观	从敬礼圣像到敬礼祖先神位的探讨
天主教与佛教入门礼仪的比较	婚前聚会的两份纲要	圣神修院神学部简史	The Meaning of Historicity
Which Bible	JOY FROM A THEOLOGICAL VIEWPOINT	A POPE FOR THE ANGLICANS?	Catechetical Trends in Hong Kong
Documentation
第二卷（1978年）
若望福音中的「记忆」	静默的见证－－圣殓布向当代的挑战	以色列与巴勒斯坦仇杀的探讨	景教有关「天主」的翻译
评介「人怎样认识神」一书中	教会语言本地化研讨会专辑	Man as the way to God	THE RELIGIOUS DIMENSION IN MAO TSETUNG THOUGHT
CATHOLIC BOOKS IN CHINESE ABOUT THE BIBLE	BASIC CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES	PHILOSOPHY IN THE SEMINARY CURRICULUM
第三卷（1979年）
论巴特 (Karl Barth )的成义神学	奥古斯丁在「论神之城」一书中对解释学的贡献	迈向一个现代的婚姻圣事神学	东方教会金口圣若望的感恩祭礼典
Christ Our Hope From The Letter To the Colossians	To Do Justice Is To Know Yahweh	Religion in contemporary Chinese Politics	Dynamics of Presence
Theory and Practice	Giuseppe Castiglione
第四卷（1980年）
马克斯主义所许诺的「天国」	从「天主实义」一书评介利玛窦几个重要的思想	现代系统神学论耶稣复活	The Regional Seminary, Aberdeen, (1931-1964)
A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Soul	The Effectiveness of Contemporary Christian Philos	The Devotion of the future According to Karl Rahne	基督徒也能在共产中国做个好国民吗？
第五卷（1981年）
耶稣复活与显现奥迹的探讨	沉默	「圣神在教会内」－－希坡利忒的「宗徒传统」	效果论
香港仔华南总修院(一九三一至一九六四)	香港华南总修院参考书目录(一九三一至一九六四年)	IN PRINT: A BIBLIOGRAPHIC SKETCH OF THE REGIONAL S	Heresy and Tolerance
FROM ANCIENT HERESIES TO MEDIEVAL RELIGIONS: A GUI	CHRIST AND HOPE	The Confessor as Mediator Between Magisterium and
第六卷（1982年）
旧约中天主之言的神学	救恩的「圣事标记」－－卡．拉内论基督的死	地区自主与中央集权	圣体圣事中的赦罪
基督徒伦理的特征	The Analytic Philosopher and the Theologian	The Waning of a Medieval Society	Some Speculations on the Psychology of St. John's
第七卷（1983年）
卡．拉内论基督的意识	自然律伦理探究	一位先进的教合人物－－马尔斯枢机主教	雷鸣远与利玛窦
The Doctrine of Love in the Cloud of Unknowing	Shiuhing 1583: Matteo Ricci's Account of What Happ	Luther and Catholic Church Order
第八卷（1984年）
简介利马文献论圣洗	圣经与伦理神学的关系	保禄教会观的探讨	Faith and Praxis in the Political Theologies of J.
An Outstanding Palabontologist Who Discovered Pek	Initial Critico-integral Essay on Kants' Approach
第九-十卷（1985-86年）
伦理神学的方法论	耶稣在向我们讲故事	「礼仪」一词的商榷	THE PASSION PREDICTIONS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK
ON THE JOHANNINE CHRIST IN THE TRIAL	A THEORY OF CHRISTIAN AND BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS	教宗职务与至公教会的共融	从伦理角度看教宗不能错的训导
伯多禄盘石	THE ROMAN PRIMACY IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES OF	教会最初三世纪的罗马首席权
第十一卷（1987-88年）
有关童贞受孕的一些反省	敬礼圣母的历史治革和意义	MARY AS THE SANCTUARY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT	MARY, THE MOTHER OF OUR FAITH part one
MARY, THE MOTHER OF OUR FAITH part two	WHAT TO ME ...? (Jn 2:4)
第十二卷（1990-91年）
从礼仪运动看圣事神学	乾坤揭主荣．碧空布化工	从救恩的角度看基督徒伦理生活的本质及其最终基础	天国与正义社会的关系
活出历史与历史学的先知性幅度	HISTORIZING AND HISTORIOLOGY AS PROPHECY	MARK'S COMMUNITY	MATTHEW'S COMMUNITY
THE "HOUSE CHURCH" IN PAUL'S LETTERS	THE JOHANNINE COMMUNITY	BASIC CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES	LOCAL CHURCHES
第十三卷（1991-92年）
圣神与基督奥迹	从中国人的正统观念看法律的解释问题	宗教与中国文化	神学中的哲学--圣文德的心灵哲学
从「奥迹礼仪化」看教父的圣事观	THE EUROPEAN ROOTS OF THE MODERN MISSIONARY ENTERP	病人傅油圣事的历史、目前的礼仪与牧灵反省	REVELATION
第十四卷（1992-93年）
藉误解至悟解	咏十九诠释	后现代和新编教理	使命神学的二路
圣奥斯定「忏悔录」的生命哲学	德日进神父的进化论与神观	编写《创世论》神学教材的背后	CATHOLIC CRITICAL EXEGESIS
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON IN AFRICAN BELIEF	Why and How I Wrote The Theology of Creation
第十五卷（1994年）
读主言，入主心	圣多玛斯论天主存在的外一章	道教生死观	伊斯兰教的人生观
从杜勒斯之《教会模式》看其神学方法	从杜勒斯之《启示模式》看其神学方法	从杜勒斯之《神学的工艺：由象征到系统》看其神学方法	浅谈今日神学
The Glorification of the Father by the Son in the	Dialogue In A Cave
第十六卷（1995年）
从《论语》和《圣经》的启发中说「会友辅仁」及其整合	天国、尘世、教会之间的关系	江文也及其宗教圣乐作品的介绍	孔格的《我信圣神》
韩大辉的《与基督有约：从庆典到奥迹》	The Problem of the Universal	The Gospel and The Gospels
第十七卷（1996年）
信仰小引导	思维上的突破－－宗教交谈	觉悟与救恩
第十八卷（1997年）
以妥拉来了解马尔谷	格前7：1－7的性爱观	爱的跳跃伯纳《雅歌讲道集》的再读	从「一」与「多」谈「存有」的「类比概念」
浅谈信仰、哲学和神学的关系	THE JUBILEE YEAR AGAINST ITS OLD TESTAMENT BACKGRO	FRANCISCAN PERSPECTIVES ON ECCLESIOLOGICAL MODELS	M. MARTINO MARTINI'S DE BELLO TARTARICO
第十九卷（1998年）
新约中的圣神	信仰的「传与受」和神学方法	为香港宗教历史注下结谊与交谈的光辉史实	同根护动－－中国近代历史脉动切诊
The Holy Spirit came to an end in Israel...	Trinitarian and Christological Bases for a Christi
第二十卷（1999年）
从《信仰与理性》通谕看哲学在司铎培育中的重要	开拓新纪元的中国基督徒人文主义精神	巴柏与柏拉图	The Postmodern Condition and the Enduring Good New
After Marcel	A Rahnerian Appropriation To The Joint Declaration
第二十一卷（2000年）
神学（灵修）本地化的回顾与前瞻	「神」的神学──「美的神学」	圣神修院神学本地化研习会	「既济」与「未济」
「莫道人为无感召，从来天意亦分明」	礼仪庆典于福音本位化的点睛妙用	在现代化及全球化的影响下看本地化的必需性	从「解读」到「通读」
FORM CRITICISM, REDACTION CRITICISM AND INCULTURAT	香港基督徒21世纪的信仰	捕捉神的影子	网路文化冲激下中华教会如何本地化
第二十二卷（2001年）
中国礼仪本地化展望	无形的丝绸之路－从基督宗教最初的发展看东西文化的交流	从「神话」的宗教观转化到儒家「德化」宗教观的反思	灵枯－－伪装的祝福
Some Reflections Concerning The Process of the Ind
第二十三卷（2002年）
从道家思想看若望福音基督论	荀子生命哲学中「性恶论」析微	Faith & reason “Fides et Ratio”as the interpretati	Insight in St. Ignatius’spiritual exercises
The Christology of the letter to the Ephesians ：an
第二十四卷（2003年）
由形下走向形上的思想追索谈庄子的道	网上圣经：实况与前瞻	New Age and Christian Faith	Bultmann's Demythologization and Lonergan's Method
第二十五卷（2004年）
从「道无终始，物有死生」谈宗教信仰的世纪跳跃	从云白沙的「神学美学」与「神剧」浅释其神学观念	A historical review of the concept of revelation	The multi－layered meaning of“hypocrisy”in the Gosp
第二十六卷（2005年）
福音在中国本地化的隐喻：天主教的一个观点	回顾宗座宗教交谈四十载	新世纪的一盏和平灯－－宗教交谈	Abraham's experience of the divine presence
第二十七卷（2006年）
圣经的形成与诠释	创1 - 11：圣经和《创世纪》的导言	圣经中「美」的管窥	人生智慧 ──Rupert of Deutz对圣经的诠释
妙在言外－－当「气」与「神」相遇时…	「孝」的生命智慧──以《孝经》作反思和诠述	Inhuman And Human Poverty	Transcendental Method and Hermeneutics
The Problem of Hermeneutics and Contextualization
第二十八卷（2007年）
基督宗教 (天主教) 与儒家人文价值的新机	新纪元与基督信仰	The Human Person and the Incranate Word in Light o
第二十九卷（2008年）
从司铎培育的角度看「圣经的研究视作神学的灵魂」的原则	The New Testament Apocrypha: The Gospel of Judas a	Patrisic Studies in Contemporary China: A Survey w	Preliminary Bibliography on Patristic Research in