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！
e 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 objects； that the author has advised idolatrous princes； not to admit the Christian religion into their dominions。 To this he answers first by referring to a passage in which he says； ＇6＇ that the best civil and political laws are； next to Christianity； the greatest blessings that men can give or receive； and adds； 〃If then Christianity is the first and greatest blessing； and the political and civil laws the second； there are no political or civil laws in any state that can or ought to hinder the entrance of the Christian religion。〃
His second answer is； 〃That the religion of heaven is not established by the same methods as the religions of the earth； read the history of the church； and you will see the wonders performed by the Christian religion： was she to enter a country； she knew how to open its gates； every instrument was able to effect it； at one time God makes use of a few fisherman； at another he sets an emperor on the throne； and makes him bow down his head under the yolk of the gospel。 Does Christianity hide herself in subterranean caverns？ stay a moment； and you see an advocate speaking from the imperial throne on her behalf。 She traverses； whenever she pleases； seas； rivers； and mountains； no obstacles here below can stop her progress： implant aversion in the mind； she will conquer this aversion： establish customs； form habits； publish edicts； enact laws； she will triumph over the climate； over the laws which result from it； and over the legislators who have made them。 God acting according to decrees which are unknown to us； extends or contracts the limits of his religion。〃
______
1。 The present Kind of Sardinia。
2。 Book i。 Chap。 1。
3。 Book xvi。 Chap。 4。
4。 Book xvi。 Chap。 4。
5。 Book xxv。 Ch。 10。
6。 Ibid。 Ch。 1。
The Spirit of Laws
by Charles de Montesquieu
CONTENTS
Preface
Advertisement
Book I。 Of Laws in General
1。 Of the Relation of Laws to Different Beings
2。 Of the Laws of Nature
3。 Of Positive Laws
Book II。 Of Laws Directly Derived from the Nature of Government
1。 Of the Nature of the T