a theologico-political treatise [part iv]-第15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！




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；　and　were　therefore　considered



unclean；　a　reservation　which　would　have　no　force　in　a　Christian　community。







（19：65）　We　cannot；　therefore；　doubt　that　the　daily　sacred　rites　（whose



performance　does　not　require　a　particular　genealogy　but　only　a　special　mode



of　life；　and　from　which　the　holders　of　sovereign　power　are　not　excluded　as



unclean）　are　under　the　sole　control　of　the　sovereign　power；　no　one；



save　by　the　authority　or　concession　of　such　sovereign；　has　the　right　or



power　of　administering　them；　of　choosing　others　to　administer　them；　of



defining　or　strengthening　the　foundations　of　the　Church　and　her　doctrines；



of　judging　on　questions　of　morality　or　acts　of　piety；　of　receiving



anyone　into　the　Church　or　excommunicating　him　therefrom；　or；　lastly；　of



providing　for　the　poor。







（19：66）　These　doctrines　are　proved　to　be　not　only　true　（as　we　have　already



pointed　out）；　but　also　of　primary　necessity　for　the　preservation　of　religion



and　the　state。　（67）　We　all　know　what　weight　spiritual　right　and　authority



carries　in　the　popular　mind：　how　everyone　hangs　on　the　lips；　as　it　were；　of



those　who　possess　it。　（68）　We　may　even　say　that　those　who　wield　such



authority　have　the　most　complete　sway　over　the　popular　mind。







（19：69）　Whosoever；　therefore；　wishes　to　take　this　right　away　from　the



sovereign　power；　is　desirous　of　dividing　the　dominion；　from　such　division；



contentions；　and　strife　will　necessarily　spring　up；　as　they　did　of　old



between　the　Jewish　kings　and　high　priests；　and　will　defy　all　attempts　to



allay　them。　（70）　Nay；　further；　he　who　strives　to　deprive　the　sovereign　power



of　such　authority；　is　aiming　（as　we　have　said）；　at　gaining　dominion　for



himself。　（71）　What　is　left　for　the　sovereign　power　to　decide　on；　if　this



right　be　denied　him？　（72）　Certainly　nothing　concerning　either　war　or



peace；　if　he　has　to　ask　another　man's　opinion　as　to　whether　what　he



believes　to　be　beneficial　would　be　pious　or　impious。　（73）　Everything　would



depend　on　the　verdict　of　him　who　had　the　right　of　deciding　and　judging　what



was　pious　or　impious；　right　or　wrong。







（19：74）　When　such　a　right　was　bestowed　on　the　Pope　of　Rome　absolutely；　he



gradually　acquired　complete　control　over　the　kings；　till　at　last　he　himself



mounted　to　the　summits　of　dominion；　however　much　monarchs；　and　especially



the　German　emperors；　strove　to　curtail　his　authority；　were　it　only　by　a



hairsbreadth；　they　effected　nothing；　but　on　the　contrary　by　their　very



endeavours　largely　increased　it。　（75）　That　which　no　monarch　could　accomplish



with　fire　and　sword；　ecclesiastics　could　bring　about　with　a　stroke　of　the



pen；　whereby　we　may　easily　see　the　force　and　power　at　the　command　of　the



Church；　and　also　how　necessary　it　is　for　sovereigns　to　reserve　such



prerogatives　for　themselves。







（19：76）　If　we　reflect　on　what　was　said　in　the　last　chapter　we　shall　see　that



such　reservation　conduced　not　a　little　to　the　increase　of　religion　and



piety；　for　we　observed　that　the　prophets　themselves；　though　gifted　with



Divine　efficacy；　being　merely　private　citizens；　rather　irritated　than



reformed　the　people　by　their　freedom　of　warning；　reproof；　and　denunciation；



whereas　the　kings　by　warnings　and　punishments　easily　bent　men　to　their　will。



（77）　Furthermore；　the　kings　themselves；　not　possessing　the　right　in　question



absolutely；　very　often　fell　away　from　religion　and　took　with　them　nearly　the



whole　people。　（78）　The　same　thing　has　often　happened　from　the　same　cause　in



Christian　states。







（19：79）　Perhaps　I　shall　be　asked；　〃But　if　the　holders　of　sovereign　power



choose　to　be　wicked；　who　will　be　the　rightful　champion　of　piety？　（80）　Should



the　sovereigns　still　be　its　interpreters？　〃I　meet　them　with　the　counter…



question；　〃But　if　ecclesiastics　（who　are　also　human；　and　private　citizens；



and　who　ought　to　mind　only　their　own　affairs）；　or　if　others　whom　it　is



proposed　to　entrust　with　spiritual　authority；　choose　to　be　wicked；　should



they　still　be　considered　as　piety's　rightful　interpreters？〃　（81）　It　is　quite



certain　that　when　sovereigns　wish　to　follow　their　own　pleasure；　whether　they



have　control　over　spiritual　matters　or　not；　the　whole　state；　spiritual



and　secular；　will　go　to　ruin；　and　it　will　go　much　faster　if　private



citizens　seditiously　assume　the　championship　of　the　Divine　rights。







（19：82）　Thus　we　see　that　not　only　is　nothing　gained　by　denying　such　rights



to　sovereigns；　but　on　the　contrary；　great　evil　ensues。　（83）　For　（as　happened



with　the　Jewish　kings　who　did　not　possess　such　rights　absolutely）　rulers　are



thus　driven　into　wickedness；　and　the　injury　and　loss　to　the　state　become



certain　and　inevitable；　instead　of　uncertain　and　possible。　（84）　Whether　we



look　to　the　abstract　truth；　or　the　security　of　states；　or　the　increase　of



piety；　we　are　compelled　to　maintain　that　the　Divine　right；　or　the　right　of



control　over　spiritual　matters；　depends　absolutely　on　the　decree　of　the



sovereign；　who　is　its　legitimate　interpreter　and　champion。　（85）　Therefore



the　true　ministers　of　God's　word　are　those　who　teach　piety　to　the　people　in



obedience　to　the　authority　of　the　sovereign　rulers　by　whose　decree　it　has



been　brought　into　conformity　with　the　public　welfare。







＇19：5＇　（86）　There　remains　for　me　to　point　out　the　cause　for　the　frequent



disputes　on　the　subject　of　these　spiritual　rights　in　Christian　states；



whereas　the　Hebrews；　so　far　as　I　know；　never；　had　any　doubts　about　the



matter。　（87）　It　seems　monstrous　that　a　question　so　plain　and　vitally



important　should　thus　have　remained　undecided；　and　that　the　secular　rulers



could　never　obtain　the　prerogative　without　controversy；　nay；　nor　without



great　danger　of　sedition　and　injury　to　religion。　（88）　If　no　cause　for　this



state　of　things　were　forthcoming；　I　could　easily　persuade　myself　that　all　I



have　said　in　this　chapter　is　mere　theorizing；　or　akind　of　speculative



reasoning　which　can　never　be　of　any　practical　use。　（89）　However；　when　we



reflect　on　the　beginnings　of　Christianity　the　cause　at　once　becomes



manifest。　（90）　The　Christian　religion　was　not　taught　at　first　by　kings；　but



by　private　persons；　who；　against　the　wishes　of　those　in　power；　whose



subjects　they；　were；　were　for　a　long　time　accustomed　to　hold　meetings　in



secret　churches；　to　institute　and　perform　sacred　rites；　and　on　their　own



authority　to　settle　and　decide　on　their　affairs　without　regard　to　the　state；



（91）　When；　after　the　lapse　of　many　years；　the　religion　was　taken　up　by　the



authorities；　the　ecclesiastics　were　obliged　to　teach　it　to　the　emper