a theologico-political treatise [part iv]-第5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！
natural right。 （105） For the civil right is dependent on his own decree； and
natural right is dependent on the laws of nature； which latter are not
adapted to religion； whose sole aim is the good of humanity； but to the
order of nature … that is； to God's eternal decree unknown to us。
（16：106） This truth seems to be adumbrated in a somewhat obscurer form by
those who maintain that men can sin against God's revelation； but not
against the eternal decree by which He has ordained all things。
（107） We may be asked； what should we do if the sovereign commands anything
contrary to religion； and the obedience which we have expressly vowed to
God？ should we obey the Divine law or the human law？ （108） I shall treat of
this question at length hereafter； and will therefore merely say now； that
God should be obeyed before all else； when we have a certain and
indisputable revelation of His will： but men are very prone to error on
religious subjects； and； according to the diversity of their dispositions；
are wont with considerable stir to put forward their own inventions； as
experience more than sufficiently attests； so that if no one were bound to
obey the state in matters which； in his own opinion concern religion；
the rights of the state would be dependent on every man's judgment
and passions。 （109） No one would consider himself bound to obey laws framed
against his faith or superstition； and on this pretext he might assume
unbounded license。 （110） In this way； the rights of the civil authorities
would be utterly set at nought； so that we must conclude that the sovereign
power； which alone is bound both by Divine and natural right to preserve and
guard the laws of the state； should have supreme authority for making any
laws about religion which it thinks fit； all are bound to obey its behests
on the subject in accordance with their promise which God bids them to keep。
（16：111） However； if the sovereign power be heathen； we should either enter
into no engagements therewith； and yield up our lives sooner than transfer
to it any of our rights； or； if the engagement be made； and our rights
transferred； we should （inasmuch as we should have ourselves transferred the
right of defending ourselves and our religion） be bound to obey them； and to
keep our word： we might even rightly be bound so to do； except in those
cases where God； by indisputable revelation； has promised His special aid
against tyranny； or given us special exemption from obedience。 （112） Thus we
see that； of all the Jews in Babylon； there were only three youths who were
certain of the help of God； and； therefore； refused to obey Nebuchadnezzar。
（113） All the rest； with the sole exception of Daniel； who was beloved by
the king； were doubtless compelled by right to obey； perhaps thinking that
they had been delivered up by God into the hands of the king； and that the
king had obtained and preserved his dominion by God's design。 （114） On the
other hand； Eleazar； before his country had utterly fallen； wished to give a
proof of his constancy to his compatriots； in order that they might follow
in his footsteps； and go to any lengths； rather than allow their right and
power to be transferred to the Greeks； or brave any torture rather than
swear allegiance to the heathen。 （115） Instances are occurring every day in
confirmation of what I here advance。 （116） The rulers of Christian
kingdoms do not hesitate； with a view to strengthening their dominion； to
make treaties with Turks and heathen； and to give orders to their subjects
who settle among such peoples not to assume more freedom； either in
things secular or religious； than is set down in the treaty； or allowed by
the foreign government。 （117） We may see this exemplified in the Dutch
treaty with the Japanese； which I have already mentioned。
＇17：0＇ CHAPTER XVII … IT IS SHOWN THAT NO ONE CAN； OR
NEED； TRANSFER ALL HIS RIGHTS TO THE SOVEREIGN POWER。
OF THE HEBREW REPUBLIC； AS IT WAS DURING THE LIFETIME
OF MOSES； AND AFTER HIS DEATH； TILL THE FOUNDATION
OF THE MONARCHY； AND OF ITS EXCELLENCE。 LASTLY； OF
THE CAUSES WHY THE THEOCRATIC REPUBLIC FELL； AND WHY
IT COULD HARDLY HAVE CONTINUED WITHOUT DISSENSION。
＇17：1＇ （1） The theory put forward in the last chapter； of the universal
rights of the sovereign power； and of the natural rights of the individual
transferred thereto； though it corresponds in many respects with actual
practice； and though practice may be so arranged as to conform to it more
and more； must nevertheless always remain in many respects purely ideal。 （2）
No one can ever so utterly transfer to another his power and； consequently；
his rights； as to cease to be a man； nor can there ever be a power so
sovereign that it can carry out every possible wish。 （3） It will always be
vain to order a subject to hate what he believes brings him advantage； or to
love what brings him loss； or not to be offended at insults； or not to wish
to be free from fear； or a hundred other things of the sort； which
necessarily follow from the laws of human nature。 （4） So much； I think； is
abundantly shown by experience： for men have never so far ceded their power
as to cease to be an object of fear to the rulers who received such power
and right； and dominions have always been in as much danger from their own
subjects as from external enemies。 （5） If it were really the case； that men
could be deprived of their natural rights so utterly as never to have any
further influence on affairs ＇Endnote 29＇； except with the permission of the
holders of sovereign right； it would then be possible to maintain with
impunity the most violent tyranny； which； I suppose； no one would for an
instant admit。
（17：6） We must； therefore； grant that every man retains some part of his
right； in dependence on his own decision； and no one else's。
（7） However； in order correctly to understand the extent of the sovereign's
right and power； we must take notice that it does not cover only those
actions to which it can compel men by fear； but absolutely every action
which it can induce men to perform： for it is the fact of obedience； not the
motive for obedience； which makes a man a subject。
（17：8） Whatever be the cause which leads a man to obey the commands of the
sovereign； whether it be fear or hope； or love of his country； or any other
emotion … the fact remains that the man takes counsel with himself； and
nevertheless acts as his sovereign orders。 （9） We must not； therefore；
assert that all actions resulting from a man's deliberation with himself are
done in obedience to the rights of the individual rather than the sovereign：
as a matter of fact； all actions spring from a man's deliberation with
himself； whether the determining motive be love or fear of punishment；
therefore； either dominion does not exist； and has no rights over its
subjects； or else it extends over every instance in which it can prevail on
men to decide to obey it。 （10） Consequently； every action which a subject
performs in accordance with the commands of the sovereign； whether such
action springs from love； or fear； or （as is more frequently the case） from
hope and fear together； or from reverence。 compounded of fear and
admiration； or； indeed； any motive whatever； is performed in virtue of his
submission to the sovereign； and not in virtue of his own authority。
（17：11） This point is made still more clear by the fact that obedience does
not consist so much in the outward act as in the mental state of the person
obeying； so that he is most under the dominion of another who with his whole
heart determines to obey another's commands； and consequently the firmest
dominion belongs to the sovereign who has most influence ove
