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