I ended my last chapter with the idea that in the Moral Law somebody or something from beyond the material universe was actually getting at us. And I expect when I reached that point some of you felt a certain annoyance. You may even have thought that I had played a trick on you—that I had been carefully wrapping up to look like philosophy what turns out to be one more "religious jaw." You may have felt you were ready to listen to me as long as you thought I had anything new to say; but if it turns out to be only religion, well, the world has tried that and you cannot put the clock back. If anyone is feeling that way I should like to say three things to him.

上一章结束时，说到道德律，指出物质世界之外，有种力量左右着我们。我也知道，只要我提出这样一个论点，你们当中一定会有人觉得不耐烦，甚至生气，认为我在玩把戏，把分明是“宗教的空话”刻意装扮成哲学大道理。你本来打算听下去，以为我会讲点时髦新事物，谁知仍是宗教上那一套。可不是吗，这套东西我们早已试过了，你何必拨转时钟，走回头路。要是真有人这样想，让我向他说叁件事。

First, as to putting the clock back. Would you think I was joking if I said that you can put a clock back, and that if the clock is wrong it is often a very sensible thing to do? But I would rather get away from that whole idea of clocks. We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. We have all seen this when doing arithmetic.

第一，先讲拨转时钟。时钟是可以拨转的，不要以为我在讲笑话。要是时钟上的指针指的时间不对，将指针拨回有什麽不好？这是我们常常做的合情合理的事。且放开时钟不谈，让我讲一讲进步。进步的意思是一步步走近你希望去的地方。要是你转错了一个弯，假若再向前走，当然不会走向你要去的地方。走在错路上的人，必须回头，走回到对的道路上，这才叫做进步。在这种情况下，谁最先回转头，谁便是最进步的人。这个道理也可以从做数学的经验中看出。

When I have started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this and go back and start over again, the faster I shall get on. There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.

要是我做加法，开头已经加错，我发现得越早，便可以越快回头重新来过，我得到正确答案的机会也越多。死不认错，死硬到底，是得不到进步的。你若肯正视一下今天的世局，谁都看得出，人类一直走在错路上。我们做错了，走错了，必须回头走。回头走才是踏上正路、走向目的地最快的方法。

Then, secondly, this has not yet turned exactly into a "religious jaw." We have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the God of that particular religion called Christianity. We have only got as far as a Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law.

第二，这当然不是什麽“宗教的空话”。我们离任何宗教讲的上帝还很远，离基督信仰讲的上帝更远。我们只讲到道德律後面的某种力量。

We are not taking anything from the Bible or the Churches, we are trying to see what we can find out about this Somebody on our own steam. And I want to make it quite clear that what we find out on our own steam is something that gives us a shock. We have two bits of evidence about the Somebody. One is the universe He has made. If we used that as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude that He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place). The other bit of evidence is that Moral Law which He has put into our minds. And this is a better bit of evidence than the other, because it is inside information.

我们没有从圣经里或者教堂里搬什麽东西出来，我们只不过在靠自己的力气，希望找出这种力量究竟是什么。我得说清楚，我们凭自己的气力找出来的东西，的确令我们大吃一惊。我们有两点证据，证明这力量确实存在。一是他所造的宇宙。要是宇宙是唯一用来找寻他的线索，我们得出的结论，不外说他是位伟大的艺术家（因为宇宙确很美丽），但也很没有怜悯心，对人类不友善（因为宇宙也是很危险、很可怕的地方）。另外一个证据就是他放在人里头的道德律。这个证据比第一个更好，因为属内在的资料。

You find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built. Now, from this second bit of evidence we conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested in right conduct —in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty and truthfulness. In that sense we should agree with the account given by Christianity and some other religions, that God is "good." But do not let us go too fast here. The Moral Law does not give us any grounds for thinking that God is "good" in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic. There is nothing indulgent about the Moral Law. It is as hard as nails. It tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do. If God is like the Moral Law, then He is not soft. It is no use, at this stage, saying that what you mean by a "good" God is a God who can forgive.You are going too quickly. 

从道德律中比从大宇宙中，可以更有效地认识上帝。就像你要认识一个人，听他谈吐当然比观察他造的房子更有效。从第二点证据中，我们得到的结论是：宇宙後面的那个存在十分关注人的正当举止─他注重公平、无私、勇敢、善良、诚实、忠心。在这种意义上，我们不能不同意基督信仰和某些宗教所说的话，这就是上帝是“善”的。让我解释一下。这个道德律并没有提供任何基础，可以据以说上帝因为宽容我们，或者他手软，他有同情心，所以是“善”的。道德律可一点也不宽容人，他铁面无情，他要你做正事走正路，不理你做时多痛苦，多危险，多困难。上帝若像道德律，他决不会手软。说到这里，你若说你所谓的“善”的上帝是因为这位上帝愿意饶恕人，你推想得太快了。

Only a Person can forgive. And we have not yet got as far as a personal

God—only as far as a power, behind the Moral Law, and more like a mind than it is like anything else. But it may still be very unlike a Person. If it is pure impersonal mind, there may be no tense in asking it to make allowances for you or let you off, just as there is no sense in asking the multiplication table to let you off when you do your sums wrong. You are bound to get the wrong answer. And it is no use either saying that if there is a God of that sort—an impersonal absolute goodness—then you do not like Him and are not going to bother about Him. Only a Person can forgive. And we have not yet got as far as a personal God—only as far as a power, behind the Moral Law, and more like a mind than it is like anything else. But it may still be very unlike a Person. If it is pure impersonal mind, there may be no tense in asking it to make allowances for you or let you off, just as there is no sense in asking the multiplication table to let you off when you do your sums wrong. You are bound to get the wrong answer. And it is no use either saying that if there is a God of that sort—an impersonal absolute goodness—then you do not like Him and are not going to bother about Him.

只有“人”才能饶恕人，我们还没有讲到一位个人的上帝，只讲到道德律後面的那个力量，最多是一种具有意志的力量，但不可能是一个“人”。如果那是一种不受个人情感影响的意志力量，要他来宽容你，放过你，有什么用呢？就像你做算术时做错了，要求九九乘数表原谅你一样没有用，因为你得出来的答案仍旧是错的。要是你说，假若上帝是那个样子——不带一点人的感情的绝对的善，你便不喜欢他，也不去理他。你这样说也同样没有用，

For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and really agrees with His disapproval of human greed and trickery and exploitation. You may want Him to make an exception in your own case, to let you off this one time; but you know at bottom that unless the power behind the world really and unalterably detests that sort of behaviour, then He cannot be good. On the other hand, we know that if there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do.

因为在你里头有一半是站在他那一边，赞成并且支持他的立场反对人贪婪、欺诈、剥削。你希望他对你网开一面，放过你一次，但是你心底里明白，宇宙後面这种力量，假若不是真正的毫无变通地厌恶你那种行为，他就不配称为“善”。同时，我们也知道，要是世界上的确有这种绝对的善，他一定十分憎厌我们的所作所为。

That is the terrible fix we are in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again. We cannot do without it. and we cannot do with it. God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible-ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again.They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger—according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way. 

我们就是陷在这种可怕的困境中。要是宇宙不是由绝对的善来管理，我们一切的努力到头来都没有希望。要是这绝对的善的确存在，那我们便天天与这善为敌；就是到了明天，也决不可能改善，仍是在无望中。我们没有了他既不行，有了他也做不出什麽来。上帝是唯一的安慰，也是最高无上的恐惧：我们最需要的是他，我们最想躲避的也是他。他是我们唯一的盟友，我们却把他变成了敌人。有人说和绝对的善碰碰面是很好玩的事。说这种话的人应该叁思，因为他们把宗教信仰当儿戏。善可以是你的伟大的安全居所，也可以是你的极大的危险所在，全看你怎样回应他。可惜，我们人类的回应是错误的。

Now my third point. When I chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I was not trying to play any kind of trick on you. I had a different reason. My reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced the sort of facts I have been describing.

现在再讲第叁点。我绕了这么一个大圈子才回到本题，决非玩弄你。我有一个堂堂正正的理由，你若不肯面对我所提出的这些事实，和你讲基督信仰是没有用的。

Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realised that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power—it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know you are sick, you will listen, to. the doctor.

基督信仰要人悔改，并答应宽恕肯悔改的人。要是一个人不知道做了什麽应该悔改的事，也不认为需要什么宽恕，对这种人，基督信仰有什么可说的呢？只有当你认识到有一个真正的道德律在那里，在这个律後面有一种力量，而你已经破坏了这个律，又和那力量敌对。你认识到这一切之後，不早也不迟，基督信仰才开始向你说话，才对你有意义。你生了病才肯听医生的话，

When you have realised that our position is nearly desperate you will begin to understand what the Christians are talking about. They offer an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. They offer an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind at the back of the Moral Law and yet also a Person. They tell you how the demands of this law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf, how God Himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God. It is an old story and if you want to go into it you will no doubt consult people who have more authority to talk about it than I have. All I am doing is to ask people to face the facts—to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts. I wish it was possible to say something more agreeable. But I must say what I think true.

你要到明白我们的情况已经接近不可救药，才会明白基督徒所讲所信的那番道理。这道理解释人类怎样陷入目前的困境，既恨恶善却又喜欢他。这“道理”向你解释，何以上帝就是这条道德律後面的不带人的感情的意志，但也同时是有人情的“人”。他们要你晓得，你我都不能达到这条道德律的要求。上帝他自己成为人身来替我们满足这个律的要求，来将人从上帝的忿怒下拯救出来。这件事说来很古老，你若希望听多点，可以向那些比我更权威的人讨教。我只能请大家面对这些事实，面对基督信仰可以提供解答的那些问题。我要你们面对的事实是十分可怕的，我多么希望不把他们说得那么可怕，但我得说实话，道出真相。

Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth— only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair. Most of us have got over the prewar wishful thinking about international politics. It is time we did the same about religion.

不错，基督信仰到头来的确令人心灵舒畅，得享安慰。不过，开始相信时并不舒服，而是沮丧和惊愕。若希望不经历灰心丧胆而能达到内心安慰的地步是没有用的。接受一种宗教信仰，像参加打仗一样，不能单凭期待就能得到你希望得到的和平与安宁。你若肯找出真相，面对事实，终必能得到内心的和平与安慰：你若只想得和平、得安慰，却不肯面对事实，你既得不到内心的和平，也认识不到事实；也许开初能得到一点空幻的期望，到末了，是大大的失望。我们在二次大战前，对国际政治都抱有几许天真的希望。今天，大家都已放弃了。现在也是我们诚实地面对基督教信仰所要求於人面对的事实的时候了