the spirit of laws-第2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！



The　next　objection　takes　notice；　that　〃The　author　has　said　that　in　England　self…murder　is　the　effect　of　a　distemper；　and　that　it　cannot　be　punished　without　punishing　the　effects　of　madness；　the　consequence　the　critic　draws　from　thence　is；　that　a　follower　of　natural　religion　can　never　forget　that　England　is　the　cradle　of　his　sect；　and　that　he　rubs　a　sponge　over　all　the　crimes　he　found　there。〃　He　replies；　〃The　author　does　not　know　that　England　is　the　cradle　of　natural　religion；　but　he　knows　that　England　was　not　his　cradle。　He　is　not　of　the　same　religious　sentiments　as　an　Englishman；　any　more　than　an　Englishman　who　speaks　of　the　physical　effects　he　found　in　France；　is　not　of　the　same　religion　as　the　French。　He　is　not　a　follower　of　natural　religion；　but　he　wishes　that　his　critic　was　a　follower　of　natural　logic。〃

These　are　the　principle　objections　levelled　against　our　author；　on　this　head；　from　which　our　readers　will　sufficiently　see　on　what　trifling；　what　puerile　arguments　this　charge　of　Deism　is　founded。　He　concludes　however　this　article；　with　a　defense　of　the　religion　of　nature；　and　such　a　defense　as　every　rational　Christian　must　undoubtedly　approve。

〃Before　I　conclude　this　first　part；　I　am　tempted　to　make　one　objection　against　him　who　has　made　so　many；　but　he　has　so　stunned　my　ears　with　the　words　follower　of　natural　religion；　that　I　scarcely　dare　pronounce　them。　I　shall　endeavour　however　to　take　courage。　Do　not　the　critic's　two　pieces　stand　in　greater　need　of　an　explication；　than　that　which　I　defend？　Does　he　do　well；　while　speaking　of　natural　religion　and　revelation；　to　fall　perpetually　upon　one　side　of　the　subject；　and　to　lose　all　traces　of　the　other？　Does　he　do　well　never　to　distinguish　those　who　acknowledge　only　the　religion　of　nature；　from　those　who　acknowledge　both　natural　and　revealed　religion？　Does　he　do　well　to　turn　frantic　whenever　the　author　considers　man　in　the　state　of　natural　religion；　and　whenever　he　explains　any　thing　on　the　principles　of　natural　religion？　Does　he　do　well　to　confound　natural　religion　with　Atheism？　Have　I　not　heard　that　we　have　all　natural　religion？　Have　I　not　heard　that　Christianity　is　the　perfection　of　natural　religion？　Have　I　not　heard　that　natural　religion　is　employed　to　prove　the　truth　of　revelation　against　the　Deists？　and　that　the　same　natural　religion　is　employed　to　prove　the　existence　of　a　God　against　the　Atheists？　He　has　said　that　the　Stoics　were　the　followers　of　natural　religion；　and　I　say；　that　they　were　Atheists；　since　they　believed　that　a　blind　fatality　governed　the　universe；　and　it　is　by　the　religion　of　nature　that　we　ought　to　attack　that　of　the　Stoics。　He　says　that　the　scheme　of　natural　religion　is　connected　with　that　of　Spinoza；　and　I　say；　that　they　are　contradictory　to　each　other；　and　it　is　by　natural　religion　that　we　ought　to　destroy　Spinoza's　scheme。　I　say；　that　to　confound　natural　religion　with　Atheism；　is　to　confound　the　proof　with　the　thing　to　be　proved；　and　the　objections　against　error　with　error　itself；　and　that　this　is　to　take　away　the　most　powerful　arms　we　have　against　this　error。〃

The　author　now　proceeds　to　the　second　part　of　his　defence；　in　which　he　has　the　following　remarks。　〃What　has　the　critic　done　to　give　an　ample　scope　to　his　declamations；　and　to　open　the　widest　door　to　invectives？　he　has　considered　the　author；　as　if　he　had　intended　to　follow　the　example　of　M。　Abbadye；　and　had　been　writing　a　treatise　on　the　Christian　religion：　he　has　attacked　him；　as　if　his　two　books　on　religion　were　two　treatises　on　divinity；　he　has　cavilled　against　him；　as　if　while　he　had　been　talking　of　any　religion　whatsoever　which　was　not　Christian；　he　should　have　examined　it　according　to　the　principles；　and　doctrines　of　Christianity；　he　has　judged　him　as　if　in　his　two　books　relating　to　religion　he　ought　to　have　preached　to　Mahometans　and　Idolators　the　doctrines　of　Christianity。　Whenever　he　has　spoken　of　religion　in　general；　whenever　he　has　made　use　of　the　word　religion；　the　critic　says；　'that　is　the　Christian　religion'；　whenever　he　has　compared　the　religious　rites　of　different　nations　and　has　said　that　they　are　more　conformable　to　the　political　government　of　these　countries；　than　some　other　rites；　the　critic　again　says；　'you　approve　them　then　and　abandon　the　Christian　faith'：　when　he　has　spoken　of　a　people　who　have　never　embraced　Christianity；　or　who　have　lived　before　Christ；　again　says　the　critic；　'you　don't　then　acknowledge　the　morals　of　Christianity'；　when　he　has　canvassed　any　custom　whatsoever；　which　he　has　found　in　a　political　writer；　the　critic　asks　him；　'Is　this　a　doctrine　of　Christianity？'　He　might　as　well　add；　'You　say　you　are　a　civilian；　and　I　will　make　you　a　divine　in　spite　of　yourself：　you　have　given　us　elsewhere　some　very　excellent　things　on　the　Christian　religion；　but　this　was　only　to　conceal　your　real　sentiments；　for　I　know　your　heart；　and　penetrate　into　your　thoughts。　It　is　true　I　do　not　understand　your　book；　nor　it　is　material　that　I　should　discover　the　good　or　bad　design　with　which　it　has　been　written；　but　I　know　the　bottom　of　all　your　thoughts：　I　don't　know　a　word　of　what　you　have　said；　but　I　understand　perfectly　well；　what　you　have　not　said。'〃

But　to　proceed。　The　author　has　maintained　the　polygamy　is　necessarily　and　in　its　own　nature　bad；　he　has　wrote　a　chapter　expressly　against　it；　and　afterwards　has　examined　in　a　philosophical　manner；　in　what　countries；　in　what　climates；　or　in　what　circumstances　it　is　least　pernicious；　he　has　compared　climates　with　climates；　and　countries　with　countries；　and　has　found；　that　there　are　countries；　where　its　effects　are　less　pernicious　than　in　others；　because；　according　to　the　accounts　that　have　been　given　of　them；　the　number　of　men　and　women　not　being　every　where　equal；　it　is　evident；　that　if　there　are　places　where　there　are　more　women　than　men；　polygamy；　bad　as　it　is　in　itself；　is　there　less　pernicious　than　in　others。　But　as　the　title　of　this　chapter　＇3＇　contains　these　words；　That　the　law　of　polygamy　is　an　affair　of　calculation；　they　have　seized　this　title　as　an　excellent　subject　for　declamation。　Having　repeated　the　chapter　itself；　against　which　no　objection　is　made；　he　proceeds　to　justify　the　title　and　adds：　〃Polygamy　is　an　affair　of　calculation　when　we　would　know；　if　it　is　more　or　less　pernicious　in　certain　climates；　in　certain　countries；　in　certain　circumstances　than　in　others；　it　is　not　an　affair　of　calculation　when　we　would　decide　whether　it　be　good　or　bad　in　itself。　It　is　not　an　affair　of　calculation　when　we　reason　on　its　nature；　it　may　be　an　affair　of　calculation　when　we　combine　its　effects；　in　short；　it　is　never　an　affair　of　calculation　when　we　enquire　into　the　end　of　marriage；　and　it　is　even　less　so；　when　we　enquire　into　marriage　as　a　law　established　and　confirmed　by　Jesus　Christ。〃

Again；　the　author　having　said；　that　＇4＇　polygamy　is　more　conformable　to　nature　in　some　countries　than　in　others；　the　critic　has　seized　the　words　more　conformable　to　nature；　to　make　his　say；　that　he　approves　polygamy。　To　which　he　answers；　〃If　I　say；　that　I　should　like　better　to　have　a　fever　than　the　scurvy；　does　this　signify　that　I　should　like　to　have　a　fever？　or　only　that　the　scurvy　is　more　disagreeable　to　me　than　a　fever？〃

Having　finished　his　reply　to　what　had　been　objected　to　on　the　subject　of　polygamy；　he　vindicates　that　excellent　part　of　his　work　which　treats　of　the　climates；　when　speaking　of　the　influence　these　have　upon　religion；　he　says；　〃I　am　very　sensible　that　religion　is　in　its　own　nature　independent　of　all　physical　causes　whatsoever；　that　the　religion　which　is　good　in　one　country　is　good　in　another；　and　that　it　cannot　be　pernicious　in　one　country　without　being　so　in　all；　but　yet；　I　say；　that　as　it　is　practiced　by　men；　and　has　a　relation　to　those　who　do　not　practice　it；　any　religion　whatsoever　will　find　a　greater　facility　in　being　practiced；　either　in　the　whole　or　in　part；　in　certain　circumstances　than　in　others；　and　that　whoever　says　the　contrary　must　renounce　all　pretensions　to　sense　and　understanding。〃

But　the　critic　has　been　greatly　offended　by　our　author's　saying；　＇5＇　that　when　a　state　is　at　liberty　to　receive　or　to　reject　a　new　religion；　it　ought　to　be　rejected；　when　it　is　received；　it　ought　to　be　tolerated。　From　hence　he