theologico-political treatise p4(神学与政治专题研究4)-第16节
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！
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
49
… Page 50…
A Theologico…Political Treatise
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
50
… Page 51…
A Theologico…Political Treatise
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
51
… Page 52…
A Theologico…Political Treatise
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 of this
chapter）； except in the single particular that they were not allowed to
administer in person the sacred duties in the Temple； inasmuch as they
were not of the family of Aaron；
