a theologico-political treatise [part iv]-第16章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
our natural faculties； or through prophets； do not receive immediately from
God the force of a command； but only from those； or through the mediation of
those； who possess the right of ruling and legislating。 （34） It is only
through these latter means that God rules among men； and directs human
affairs with justice and equity。
（19：35） This conclusion is supported by experience； for we find traces of
Divine justice only in places where just men bear sway； elsewhere the same
lot （to repeat； again Solomon's words） befalls the just and the unjust； the
pure and the impure： a state of things which causes Divine Providence to be
doubted by many who think that God immediately reigns among men； and
directs all nature for their benefit。
＇19：3＇ （36） As； then； both reason and experience tell us that the Divine
right is entirely dependent on the decrees of secular rulers； it follows
that secular rulers are its proper interpreters。 （37） How this is so we
shall now see； for it is time to show that the outward observances of
religion； and all the external practices of piety should be brought into
accordance with the public peace and well…being if we would obey God
rightly。 （38） When this has been shown we shall easily understand how the
sovereign rulers are the proper interpreters of religion and piety。
（19：39） It is certain that duties towards one's country are the highest that
man can fulfil； for； if government be taken away； no good thing can last；
all falls into dispute； anger and anarchy reign unchecked amid universal
fear。 （40） Consequently there can be no duty towards our neighbour which
would not become an offence if it involved injury to the whole state； nor
can there be any offence against our duty towards our neighbour； or anything
but loyalty in what we do for the sake of preserving the state。 （41） For
instance： it is in the abstract my duty when my neighbour quarrels with me
and wishes to take my cloak； to give him my coat also； but if it be thought
that such conduct is hurtful to the maintenance of the state； I ought to
bring him to trial； even at the risk of his being condemned to death。
（19：42） For this reason Manlius Torquatus is held up to honour； inasmuch as
the public welfare outweighed with him his duty towards his children。 （43）
This being so； it follows that the public welfare is the sovereign law to
which all others； Divine and human； should be made to conform。 （44） Now； it
is the function of the sovereign only to decide what is necessary for the
public welfare and the safety of the state； and to give orders accordingly；
therefore it is also the function of the sovereign only to decide the limits
of our duty towards our neighbour … in other words； to determine how we
should obey God。 （45） We can now clearly understand how the sovereign
is the interpreter of religion； and further； that no one can obey God
rightly； if the practices of his piety do not conform to the public welfare；
or； consequently； if he does not implicitly obey all the commands of the
sovereign。 （46） For as by God's command we are bound to do our duty to all
men without exception； and to do no man an injury； we are also bound not
to help one man at another's loss； still less at a loss to the whole state。
（47） Now； no private citizen can know what is good for the state； except he
learn it through the sovereign power； who alone has the right to transact
public business： therefore no one can rightly practise piety or obedience to
God； unless he obey the sovereign power's commands in all things。 （48） This
proposition is confirmed by the facts of experience。 （49） For if the
sovereign adjudge a man to be worthy of death or an enemy； whether he be a
citizen or a foreigner； a private individual or a separate ruler； no subject
is allowed to give him assistance。 （50） So also though the Jews were
bidden to love their fellow…citizens as themselves （Levit。 xix：17； 18）； they
were nevertheless bound； if a man offended against the law； to point him out
to the judge （Levit。 v：1； and Deut。 xiii：8； 9）； and； if he should be
condemned to death； to slay him （Deut。 xvii：7）。
（19：51） Further； in order that the Hebrews might preserve the liberty they
had gained； and might retain absolute sway over the territory they had
conquered； it was necessary； as we showed in Chapter XVII。； that their
religion should be adapted to their particular government； and that they
should separate themselves from the rest of the nations： wherefore it was
commanded to them； 〃Love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy〃 （Matt。 v：43）；
but after they had lost their dominion and had gone into captivity in
Babylon； Jeremiah bid them take thought for the safety of the state into
which they had been led captive； and Christ when He saw that they would be
spread over the whole world； told them to do their duty by all men without
exception； all of which instances show that religion has always been made to
conform to the public welfare。 ＇19：4＇ （52） Perhaps someone will ask： By what
right； then； did the disciples of Christ； being private citizens； preach
a new religion？ （53） I answer that they did so by the right of the
power which they had received from Christ against unclean spirits （see Matt。
x：1）。 （54） I have already stated in Chapter XVI。 that all are bound to obey
a tyrant； unless they have received from God through undoubted revelation a
promise of aid against him； so let no one take example from the Apostles
unless he too has the power of working miracles。 （55） The point is brought
out more clearly by Christ's command to His disciples； 〃Fear not those who
kill the body〃 （Matt。 x：28）。 （56） If this command were imposed on everyone；
governments would be founded in vain； and Solomon's words （Prov。 xxiv：21）；
〃My son； fear God and the king；〃 would be impious； which they certainly are
not； we must therefore admit that the authority which Christ gave to His
disciples was given to them only； and must not be taken as an example for
others。
（19：57） I do not pause to consider the arguments of those who wish to
separate secular rights from spiritual rights； placing the former under the
control of the sovereign； and the latter under the control of the universal
Church； such pretensions are too frivolous to merit refutation。 （58） I
cannot however； pass over in silence the fact that such persons are woefully
deceived when they seek to support their seditious opinions （I ask pardon
for the somewhat harsh epithet） by the example of the Jewish high priest；
who； in ancient times； had the right of administering the sacred offices。
（59） Did not the high priests receive their right by the decree of Moses
（who； as I have shown； retained the sole right to rule）； and could they not
by the same means be deprived of it？ （60） Moses himself chose not only
Aaron； but also his son Eleazar； and his grandson Phineas； and bestowed on
them the right of administering the office of high priest。 （61） This right
was retained by the high priests afterwards； but none the less were they
delegates of Moses … that is； of the sovereign power。 （62） Moses； as we have
shown； left no successor to his dominion； but so distributed his
prerogatives； that those who came after him seemed； as it were； regents who
administer the government when a king is absent but not dead。
（19：62） In the second commonwealth the high priests held their right
absolutely； after they had obtained the rights of principality in addition。
（63） Wherefore the rights of the high priesthood always depended on the
edict of the sovereign； and the high priests did not possess them till
they became sovereigns also。 （64） Rights in matters spiritual always
remained under the control of the kings absolutely （as I will show at the
end
