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 SPIRIT OF LAWS
By Charles de Secondat； Baron de Montesquieu
Translated by Thomas Nugent； revised by J。 V。 Prichard
The Translator to the Reader
by Thomas Nugent
1752
The following work may with the strictest justice be said to have done honour to human nature as well as to the great abilities of the author。 The wisest and most learned man； and those most distinguished by birth and the elevation of their stations； have； in every country in Europe； considered it as a most excellent performance。 And may we be permitted to add； that a sovereign prince ＇1＇ as justly celebrated for his probity and good sense； as for his political and military skill； has declared that from M。 de Montesquieu he has learnt the art of government。 But had the illustrious author received no such distinguished honour； the numerous editions of this work in French； and their sudden spreading through all Europe； are a sufficient testimony of the high esteem with which it has been received by the public。
But notwithstanding the deserved applause which has been so liberally bestowed on the author； there have been some who have not only endeavoured to blast his laurels； but have treated him with all that scurrility which bigotry and superstition are apt； on every occasion； to throw out against truth； reason and good sense。 These M。 de Montesquieu has himself answered； in a separate treatise intitled； A Defense of the Spirit of Laws； from whence we have thought proper to extract； for the sake of such as have not seen that treatise； the principal of those objections； and the substance of what has been given in reply： Only first observing； that this defense is divided into three parts； in the first of which he answers the general reproaches that have been thrown out against him； in the second he replies to particular reproaches； and in the third； he gives some reflections on the manner in which his work has been criticized。
The author first complains of his being charged both with espousing the doctrines of Spinoza； and with being a Deist； two opinions directly contradictory to each other。 To the former of these he answers； by placing in one view the several passages in the Spirit of Laws directly levelled against the doctrines of Spinoza； and then he replies to the objections that have been made to those passages； upon which this injurious charge is founded。
The critic asserts that our author stumbles at his first setting out； and is offended at his saying； that Laws in their most extensive signification； are the necessary relations derived from the nature of things。 To this he replies； that the critic had heard it said that Spinoza had maintained that the world was governed by a blind and necessary principle； and from hence on seeing the word necessary； he concludes that this must be Spinozism； tho' what is most surprising； this article is directly levelled at the dangerous principles maintained by Spinoza： That he had Hobbes's system in his eye； a system； which； as it makes all the virtues and vices depend on the establishment of human laws； and as it would prove that men were born in a state of war； and that the first law of nature is a war of all against all； overturns； like Spinoza； all religion； and all morality。 Hence he laid down this position； that there were laws of justice and equity before the establishment of positive laws： hence also he has proved that all beings had laws； that even before their creation they had possible laws； and that God himself had laws； that is； the laws which he himself had made。 He has shewn ＇2＇ that nothing can be more false than the assertion that men were born in a state of war； and he has made it appear that wars did not commence till after the establishment of society。 His principles are here extremely clear； from whence it follows； that as he has attacked Hobbes's errors； he has consequently those of Spinoza； and he has been so little understood； that they have taken for the opinions of Spinoza； those very objections which were made against Spinozism。
Again； the author has said that the creation which appears to be an arbitrary act； supposes laws as invariable as the fatality of the Atheists。 From these words the critic concludes that the author admits the fatality of the Atheists。
To this he answers； that he had just before destroyed this fatality； by representing it as the greatest absurdity to suppose that a blind fatality was capable of producing intelligent beings。 Besides； in the passage here censured； he can only be made to say what he really does say： he does not speak of causes； nor does he compare causes； but he speaks of effects and compares effects。 The whole article； what goes before and what follows； make it evident； that there is nothing here intended but the laws of motion； which； according to the author； had been established by God： these laws are invariable； this he as asserted； and all natural philosophy has asserted the same thing； they are invariable because God has been pleased to make them so； and because he has pleased to preserve the world。 When the author therefore says that the creation which appears to be an arbitrary act； supposes laws as invariable as the fatality of the Atheists； he cannot be understood to say that the creation was a necessary act like the fatality of the Atheists。
Having vindicated himself from the charge of Spinozism； he proceeds to the other accusation； and from a multitude of passages collected together proves that he has not only acknowledged the truth of revealed religion； but that he is in love with Christianity； and endeavours to make it appear amiable in the eyes of others。 He then enquires into what his adversaries have said to prove the contrary； observing that the proofs ought to bear some proportion to the accusation； that this accusation is not of a frivolous nature； and that the proofs therefore ought not to be frivolous。
The first objection is； that he has praised the Stoics； who admitted a blind fatality； and that this is the foundation of natural religion。 To this he replies； 〃I will for a moment suppose that this false manner of reasoning has some weight： has the author praised the philosophy and metaphysics of the Stoics？ He has praised their morals； and has said that the people reaped great benefit from them： he has said this； and he has said no more： I am mistaken； he has said more； he has at the beginning of his book attacked this fatality； he does not then praise it； when he praises the Stoics。〃
The second objection is； that he has praised Bayle； in calling him a great man。 To this he answers； 〃It is true that the author has called Bayle a great man； but he has censured his opinions： if he has censured them； he has not espoused them： and since he has censured his opinions； he does not call him a great man because of his opinions。 Every body knows that Bayle had a great genius which he abused； but this genius which he abused； he had： the author has attacked his sophisms； and pities him on account of his errors。 I don't love the men who subvert the laws of their country； but I should find great difficulty in believing that Caesar and Cromwell had little minds： I am not in love with conquerors； but it would be very difficult to persuade me to believe that Alexander and Jenghiz…Khan were men of only a common genius。 Besides； I have remarked； that the declamations of angry men make but little impression on any except those who are angry： the greatest part of the readers are men of moderation； and seldom take up a book but when they are in cool blood； for rational and sensible men love reason。 Had the author loaded Bayle with a thousand injurious reproaches； it would not have followed from thence； that Bayle had reasoned well or ill； all that his readers would have been able to conclude from it would have been； that the author knew how to be abusive。〃
The third objection is； that he has not in his first chapter spoken of original sin。 To which he replies： 〃I ask every sensible man if this chapter is a treatise of divinity？ if the author had spoken of original sin； they might have imputed it to him as a crime that he had not spoken of redemption。〃
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