WIND

In the next place: As the magistrate has no power to impose by his laws the use of any rites and ceremonies in any Church, so neither has he any power to forbid the use of such rites and ceremonies as are already received, approved, and practised by any Church; because, if he did so, he would destroy the Church itself: the end of whose institution is only to worship God with freedom after its own manner.
其次：既然法官没有权力用他的法律在任何教会强制实行任何的仪式，所以他也没有任何的权力来禁止这些已经被任何教会接受，确认和实行的仪式的使用；因为如果他这样做，他就会毁灭教会本身：教会创立的目的仅仅是用它自己的方式自由的敬拜上帝。

小只只

这个要顶。有时间来看。

WIND

这个要顶。有时间来看。
小只只 发表于 2009-10-6 10:26

呵呵.我在想一个问题:以前的思想家在阐释一个问题的时候,一封信三万字就可以说明白,今天的中国人,例如任继愈,季羡林之流,整个三千万,却一个问题也不能说清楚.

小只只

呵呵.我在想一个问题:以前的思想家在阐释一个问题的时候,一封信三万字就可以说明白,今天的中国人,例如任继愈,季羡林之流,整个三千万,却一个问题也不能说清楚.
WIND 发表于 2009-10-6 10:30

我觉得与学术有关，学术嘛一定要学术回顾的，把前人所有的对与错的论述都得回顾一遍，头大呀；再就是写书嘛，以前包括现在是以字数计费的，不够字数怎么好算有学问呢？也是没办法的事。古人能“述而不论”，今人能吗？马上给你来个剽削，起码也得学术不规范吧！所以就必须去引用，旁证再旁证。
马克思、毛选、鲁迅著作都要进行注释，这普通的作者有这个精力么？
任是学术，季老不好说了，基本上是说些与其最牛的专业不搭界的文字，自然也是话越多钱越多，名声越大了。季老说西游记是印度的，呵呵。

小只只

再说季老，就是这个最著名的印度猴子，先前胡适、陈寅恪已有论述，其也是在吃别人嚼过的馍而已。

WIND

94# 小只只
任继愈的学术,我之前对此人是陌生的,上次他死后在燕谈有一次叽叽喳喳的讨论,有一位朋友,好像是章星球兄,提到了他的一篇文章的链接,我仔细看了.杰斐森在两百多年前明确表达的＂教会与政府的分离（separation from church and state）＂以及他起草的维吉尼亚宗教自由法，使这一意识成为了社会常识。两百年之后，任继愈竟把它曲解为别的东西，这就是寄生了一大把中国文人的“国学”，令我对他的其余毫无兴趣。——除非某天有人诚实的表明任在这一点上只是无意识的。

WIND

You will say, by this rule, if some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants, or (as the primitive Christians were falsely accused) lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous uncleanness, or practise any other such heinous enormities, is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a religious assembly? I answer: No. These things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; and therefore neither are they so in the worship of God, or in any religious meeting. But, indeed, if any people congregated upon account of religion should be desirous to sacrifice a calf, I deny that that ought to be prohibited by a law. Meliboeus, whose calf it is, may lawfully kill his calf at home, and burn any part of it that he thinks fit. For no injury is thereby done to any one, no prejudice to another man's goods. And for the same reason he may kill his calf also in a religious meeting. Whether the doing so be well-pleasing to God or no, it is their part to consider that do it. The part of the magistrate is only to take care that the commonwealth receive no prejudice, and that there be no injury done to any man, either in life or estate. And thus what may be spent on a feast may be spent on a sacrifice. But if peradventure such were the state of things that the interest of the commonwealth required all slaughter of beasts should be forborne for some while, in order to the increasing of the stock of cattle that had been destroyed by some extraordinary murrain, who sees not that the magistrate, in such a case, may forbid all his subjects to kill any calves for any use whatsoever? Only it is to be observed that, in this case, the law is not made about a religious, but a political matter; nor is the sacrifice, but the slaughter of calves, thereby prohibited.
你会说，按照这种规则，如果某些宗教团体欲献祭婴孩，或者（正如宗教改革前的基督徒被错误的指控那样）在混乱的不洁性关系中纵欲性的糟踏自己，或者行其它的诸如此类的可憎的恶行，也必须强制法官宽容他们，因为他们加入了宗教团体？我的回答：不。这些事情无论在平常的生活当中还是在任何私人的住宅里都是不合法的；所以无论在敬拜上帝的仪式中还是在任何宗教聚会中都是不合法的。但是，确实，如果有人基于信仰的原因聚会想要献祭小牛，我反对用法律加以阻止。如果小牛是Meliboeus的，他就可以在他的家里合法的杀牛，并烧烤他认为适当的小牛的任何一部分。因为并未因此而造成对他人的伤害，也未对他人的财产造成损坏。同样的原因，他也可以在宗教聚会中宰杀他的小牛。至于这样是否愉悦上帝，则由他们自己去考虑。法官的职责仅仅是看好共同利益不要遭受损坏，以及任何人在生命和财产上不要遭受伤害。这样，凡是可以用在宴会上的东西都可以用在献祭上。但是，如果偶然处于这样的状态：共同利益要求所有的动物宰杀克制一段时间，以弥补因非平常瘟疫导致牛数量的下降，那么，在这种事件中，谁会认为法官不能禁止他的臣民因任何用途而宰杀幼牛呢？仅仅需要注意的是，在这个事件中，法律的制定不是针对宗教事务，而是政治事务；不是针对献祭，而是针对小牛的宰杀，因此而禁的。

小只只

94# 小只只
任继愈的学术,我之前对此人是陌生的,上次他死后在燕谈有一次叽叽喳喳的讨论,有一位朋友,好像是章星球兄,提到了他的一篇文章的链接,我仔细看了.杰斐森在两百多年前明确表达的＂教会与政府的分离（separ ...
WIND 发表于 2009-10-6 13:04

当是任批判儒教的说法，这能算是剽削？虽然我对任把儒学说成儒教有看法，但不会认为任在剽杰弗逊的说法。杰弗逊是对基督教而言，那确实是宗教。任是对儒教，算是半宗教。不同国家和民族很多时候会遇到相类似的问题，不能说是剽削观点，有的可以借鉴，有的借鉴也谈不上。任的现实意义的说法我觉得与杰弗逊的提法不搭干。美国才多少年历史呀？因为杰弗逊说过别人就不好说了？那么其他人其他古老的类似说法有过，是不是杰弗逊就是剽削呢？

尤其在哲学方面，很多西方相当时代的思潮与中国类似的，现在多是以西方之学为标准，但是想当古代的中国要比西方早些，那么按照学术规定，是不是西方哲学家在抄中国古代的呢？这种看法显然很荒唐。

值得一提的是，在我们抛弃传统的时候，西方一些优秀的哲学学派在中国古代哲学中汲取了大量的营养为之所用，最明显的弗洛伊德、荣格的学说，对人类的发展产生了巨大的积极地影响。

伟大的哲学家尼采的学说中在批评中国专制，把中国当作专制的代名词的同时，也关注到中国的传统哲学，给予了很高的评价。

其实，这种问题--学术是一个标准化的问题，现在用的是西方的学术标准，中国的传统文化吃亏也是必然的，这根源即在于文化的是否强势。虽然已经这样了，现实是如此，我们认了，但是心里要明白是怎么回事，如果心里也不明白，那么就是真糊涂了。是不是这样呢？

WIND

当是任批判儒教的说法，这能算是剽削？虽然我对任把儒学说成儒教有看法，但不会认为任在剽杰弗逊的说法。杰弗逊是对基督教而言，那确实是宗教。任是对儒教，算是半宗教。不同国家和民族很多时候会遇到相类似的问题，不能说是剽削观点，有的可以借鉴，有的借鉴也谈不上。任的现实意义的说法我觉得与杰弗逊的提法不搭干。美国才多少年历史呀？因为杰弗逊说过别人就不好说了？那么其他人其他古老的类似说法有过，是不是杰弗逊就是剽削呢？
小只只 发表于 2009-10-6 15:30

只只兄严重误解了我的意思,而且这种剽窃说或者相关的新见解说非常的荒唐.我的意思是:杰斐森的"教会与政府分离原则"是任何一个文明社会的基本准则,任氏为什么要杜撰另一个谬论呢?如果重申杰斐森的原则,只要不是大叫:这是我第一次提出来的,就没有任何的问题,学术一点,再注明它出自杰斐森的哪本书或记录就行了.

WIND

已译二分之一强,现将前面的文章的关节之处整理如下:

WIND

文章的关节处：

#关于不同教派基督徒之间的宽容问题我的看法如何，我必须坦率的回答你，我认为宽容是真正的教会首要的特征。
#一句话，没有人可以用忠诚和服从地上的王，或者温顺和诚挚的敬拜上帝为借口来强迫自己或他人；我认为在一切必要性之上的，是精确的区分宗教信仰的事务和世俗政府的事务，解决两者之间恰当的边界问题。
#世俗法官的责任是，通过平等法律的公正施行，在一般的意义上来保护所有的人，以及保护属于每个单独的国民的正当财产。
#法官的整个审判权仅仅涉及那些世俗事务，并且所有的世俗权力，权利和统治权，被限制在关心促进这些东西上；它不能也不应当用任何方式侵入灵魂拯救的领域，下面的考虑我以为足够说明这一点。
    *首先，因为关心灵魂的事情没有比他人更多的委托给世俗的法官。
    *其次，对灵魂的关心不能属于世俗的法官，因为他的权力仅仅在于外在的强制力；但是真与拯救的宗教信仰在于内心的思想的说服力，舍此没有别的可以为上帝所接受。
    *第三，对人们灵魂的关心的事情不能属于世俗的法官；因为，虽然法律的严厉和惩罚的强制力有能力去说服和改变人们的思想，还是完全无助于他们灵魂的拯救。
#现在让我们考虑教会是什么。教会，我认为是人们自愿组成的社团，基于他们自愿而将他们自己结合在一起，用他们断定的可以为上帝接受的方式来共同敬拜上帝，并认为能够拯救他们的灵魂。
#接下来我们考虑这种教会的权力是什么，以及它服从什么样的法律。
    *使教会成员保持不逾越其职责的手段是规劝，告诫与忠告。如果通过这些手段这些罪人还不能悔改，错误还不能说服，那就没有别的办法了，如此倔强和顽固的没有给他们的改正留有丝毫的希望的人，只有驱离这个教会了。这是最后和最大的一项教会权力。
#这些问题这样解决之后，下面让我们探讨：宽容的职责到底有多大的范围？到底要求每个人宽容什么？
    *首先，我认为：教会不能因为宽容的职责而容纳那种劝告之后仍然不断顽固的违反教会法律的人。
    *其次，没有私人有任何权利用任何方式损害另一个人的世俗享乐，仅仅因为这个人属于另一个教会或者信仰。
    *我所说的在信仰上不同的私人之间的互相宽容，依我的理解不同的教会之间也应如此：任何一个教会对其它的教会都没有任何方式的审判权；即使当世俗的法官（如有时发生的那样）加入这个或那个团体，也不例外。
    *第三，让我们来探讨一下对那些以某些教会的特征和神职区别于其他人（区别于俗人，如他们乐于对我们的称呼）的人，宽容的职责有什么要求；不管是主教，神父，长老，牧师，还是其他威严或者高贵的人们。•••无论是拥有多么威严的教会职位，他也不能以他们之间宗教信仰的不同为借口，而剥夺另一个不属于他的教会和信仰的人的自由或财产。•••但是这不是事情的全部。仅仅教士自身放弃暴力和掠夺以及所有迫害的方式还是不够的。自称使徒的继承人并接过教导职务的人，也有义务去告诫他的听众有责任和平和善意的对待所有的人，对待谬误者也和对待正统者一样；对待那些在信仰和敬拜方式与他们不同的人也和对待在这些方面赞同他们的人一样。并且他还应当勤勉的劝诫所有的人务必仁慈，顺服和宽容，不论是私人还是法官（如果教会中有这样的人的话），努力的致力于化敌为友和缓和那些狂热和无理性的思想对抗，不管是为他自己教派狂热还是被煽动起来的对反对者的狂热。
    *最后，让我们来考虑在宽容的事情上世俗法官的职责，这当然是非常重要的。•••我们已经说明：对灵魂的关心不属于法官的事情。•••总之，无论善意，仁慈以及对灵魂拯救的关心的借口是何等的伟大，不能不管人们的意愿而被强迫得救。所以，这些事情人们必须留给他们自己的道德心去决定。
#至此，在宗教信仰的事情上终于解脱了彼此间的支配权力，下面让我们来考虑他们应该如何去做。•••所以，自由结合的人们加入某个信仰团体，在一起聚会，不仅仅是为了相互教导启发，也是向世界表明他们敬拜上帝以及向祂神圣的权柄献上他们自己问心无愧的和他们认为值得并会被上帝接受的这种敬拜；最后，通过纯正的教义，圣洁的生活和得体的敬拜形式，他们可以把其他人吸引到对真正的信仰的爱中来，完成每个分离的个人做不到的其他宗教信仰事宜。
#这些信仰团体我称之为教会；我认为，世俗的法官应当对教会宽容（至此，洛克所说的宽容我理解为不使用强制），因为这些人聚会的事情，每个人独自处理完全是合法的——我的意思是对他们灵魂的拯救；国家教会和其他分离的信仰团体在这种事情上没有任何不同。
#但是，因为每个教会都有两件特别的事情需要考虑——外在形式和敬拜仪式，以及教义和信条，这二者必须分开并阐释清楚，才能更明白的理解整个的宽容。
    *关于外在的敬拜仪式，我说，首先，法官没有权力用法律去强制实行任何一种敬拜上帝的仪式，不管是在他自己参加的教会，还是其它的教会。
    *其次：既然法官没有权力用他的法律在任何教会强制实行任何的仪式，所以他也没有任何的权力来禁止这些已经被任何教会接受，确认和实行的仪式的使用；因为如果他这样做，他就会毁灭教会本身：教会创立的目的仅仅是用它自己的方式自由的敬拜上帝。

小只只

只只兄严重误解了我的意思,而且这种剽窃说或者相关的新见解说非常的荒唐.我的意思是:杰斐森的"教会与政府分离原则"是任何一个文明社会的基本准则,任氏为什么要杜撰另一个谬论呢?如果重申杰斐森的原则,只要不是大叫 ...
WIND 发表于 2009-10-6 16:35

没看你说的那篇文章，也不明白你说的什么谬论。能不能链接一下看看怎么剽窃的吗？

我知道的是任继愈写过哲学史，搞过佛教，提出过儒教。当然他的有些说法或提法与时代有关，但能把那些系统化，也是要功力的。

但，我对于您讲杰氏的“教会与政府分离原则”是任何文明社会的基本准则也有疑问，请问您说的文明社会的标准是什么？还是随口说说没有标准呢？

WIND

102# 小只只
1,此帖的43和46楼
http://yantan.org/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=92436&page=2#pid358084

WIND

2，至于为什么政教分离是文明社会的基本原则，请读读维吉尼亚宗教自由法，千字而已。
这是我的译文：
http://www.zmw.cn/bbs/thread-99380-1-1.html

小只只

呵呵，看过了任继愈的无神论宗教观，也看过您译的杰弗逊大作。我觉得你把任老高抬了，他要是剽窃杰弗逊的宗教观那倒好了，章星球也不会直眉瞪眼稀里糊涂声讨了。任继愈那篇首先是种无神论的宣传，杰弗逊不会也不敢大张旗鼓宣传无神论吧？其次，任说的是官话用的是马克思主义的观点-科学，这个杰弗逊没有学过不说马克思主义，那种“科学”学过么？
我觉得二者没有可比性，根本风牛马不相及。如果像你说的搞个注释说是来自杰弗逊的那不是笑话吗？任老愿意，杰老还不同意呢！

WIND

105# 小只只
只只兄还是误解我的意思，也误解了真正需要惩罚的那种剽窃。如果按你的理解，两个人之间根本就不可能还有什么共同的沟通了，因为不是我剽窃你，就是你剽窃我。

WIND

By this we see what difference there i：（etween the Church and the Commonwealth. Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth cannot be prohibited by the magistrate in the Church. Whatsoever is permitted unto any of his ：（cts for their ordinary use, neither can nor ought to be forbidden by him to any sect of people for their religious uses. If any man may lawfully take bread or wine, either sitting or kneeling in his own house, the law ought not to abridge him of the same liberty in his religious worship; though in the Church the use of bread and wine be very different and be there applied to the mysteries of faith and rites of Divine worship. But those things that are prejudicial to the commonweal of a people in their ordinary use and are, therefore, forbidden by laws, those things ought not to be permitted to Churches in their sacred rites. Only the magistrate ought always to be very careful that he do not misuse his authority to the oppression of any Church, under pretence of public good.
由此，我们看到了教会与共同体的区别。凡在共同体中合法的事情法官就不能禁止在教会中采用。凡允许他的臣民可用于通常用途的事情，不能也不应当禁止任何教派的人们用于宗教信仰。如果任何人可以合法的在他自己的屋子里坐着或跪着吃面包或饮葡萄酒，那么法律就不应当限制他在宗教敬拜中同样的自由；虽然在教会面包和葡萄酒的使用目的非常的不同，在那里是用于信仰和神圣敬拜仪式的神秘性。但是如果那些事情会对人们的共同利益造成损害因而被法律禁止用于通常的用途，他们也就不能被允许用于教会的神圣仪式。只是法官必须总保持非常的谨慎不在公众利益的借口下滥用他的权力去压制任何教会。

WIND

It may be said: "What if a Church be idolatrous, is that also to be tolerated by the magistrate?" I answer: What power can be given to the magistrate for the suppression of an idolatrous Church, which may not in time and place be made use of to the ruin of an orthodox one? For it must be remembered that the civil power is the same everywhere, and the religion of every prince is orthodox to himself. If, therefore, such a power be granted unto the civil magistrate in spirituals as that at Geneva, for example, he may extirpate, by violence and blood, the religion which is there reputed idolatrous, by the same rule another magistrate, in some neighbouring country, may oppress the reformed religion and, in India, the Christian. The civil power can either change everything in religion, according to the prince's pleasure, or it can change nothing. If it be once permitted to introduce anything into religion by the means of laws and penalties, there can be no bounds put to it; but it will in the same manner be lawful to alter everything, according to that rule of truth which the magistrate has framed unto himself. No man whatsoever ought, therefore, to be deprived of his terrestrial enjoyments upon account of his religion. Not even Americans, ：（cted unto a Christian prince, are to be punished either in body or goods for not embracing our faith and worship. If they are persuaded that they please God in observing the rites of their own country and that they shall obtain happines：（y that means, they are to be left unto God and themselves.
人们可能会说：“如果一个教会搞偶像崇拜也被法官宽容，会怎么样？”我的回答的是：授予法官什么样的权力能够抑制一个偶像崇拜的教会，而又不会随时随地的被用来毁灭正统的教会？因为必须记住：世俗的权力到处都一样，每个君主的宗教对他自己均为正统。所以，如果精神上这样的权力被授予世俗的法官，比如在基尼瓦（Geneva），他可能会用暴力和血去毁灭他认为偶像崇拜的宗教，同样的规则，邻国的另一个法官，可能会压制改革派宗教，在印度，会压制基督徒。世俗的权力能够依君主的意志改变宗教信仰中的一切，或者什么都不能改变。如果一旦允许用法律和惩罚的方式将任何东西引入宗教领域，宗教领域就没有边界了；用这样的方式，根据世俗法官自己制定的真理的规则就可以合法的改变一切了。所以，无论是谁，都不应当因他的信仰的原因被剥夺世俗的享乐。即使美洲人，成为了基督徒君主的的臣民，也不应当因为没有皈依我们的信仰和敬拜而遭受身体和财产上的惩罚。如果他们被说服相信遵守他们自己国家的仪式能够愉悦上帝并获得幸福，就把他们留给上帝和他们自己吧。

小只只

天主教徒，不可以不生（孩子）。---谁给解释一下这句话，为什么?

WIND

109# 小只只
这个第一次听说,也不懂.只只兄自己谷歌一下?

WIND

Let us trace this matter to the bottom. Thus it is: An inconsiderable and weak number of Christians, destitute of everything, arrive in a Pagan country; these foreigner：（eseech the inhabitants, by the bowels of humanity, that they would succour them with the necessaries of life; those necessaries are given them, habitations are granted, and they all join together, and grow up into one body of people. The Christian religion by this means takes root in that country and spreads itself, but does not suddenly grow the strongest. While things are in this condition peace, friendship, faith, and equal justice are preserved amongst them. At length the magistrate becomes a Christian, and by that means their party becomes the most powerful. Then immediately all compacts are to be broken, all civil rights to be violated, that idolatry may be extirpated; and unless these innocent Pagans, strict observers of the rules of equity and the law of Nature and no ways offending against the laws of the society, I say, unless they will forsake their ancient religion and embrace a new and strange one, they are to be turned out of the lands and possessions of their forefathers and perhaps deprived of life itself. Then, at last, it appears what zeal for the Church, joined with the desire of dominion, is capable to produce, and how easily the pretence of religion, and of the care of souls, serves for a cloak to covetousness, rapine, and ambition.
让我们对这件事追本溯源。事情是这样的：一群不值一提的羸弱的基督徒，一无所有，来到了一个非基督教的国家；这些外来者恳求当地的居民，诉诸于他们的人道关怀，给与他们生活的必需品；他们得到了必需品并被允许定居下来，然后一起生活，成为了一个共同体。这样基督宗教也在那个国家扎下根并传播开来，但是一时还不能变为最强大的宗教。在这种情况下，他们尚能保持和平，友好，信任和平等的正义。后来法官成为了基督徒，这样他那一派变成了最强有力的派别。然后所有的契约立即被撕毁，所有的世俗权利被侵犯，偶像崇拜者可能被灭绝；除非这些无辜的非基督徒，平等规则和自然法的严格遵守者，无力冒犯社会的法律，我说，除非他们愿意放弃他们古老的宗教然后皈依一种新的陌生的宗教，否则将被逐出这片土地并失去他们从先辈那里继承的财产，甚至可能失去生命。由此我们终于可以看到：对教会的狂热，与统治他人的欲望连在一起，究竟能带来什么？宗教和关心他人灵魂的借口多么容易成为贪婪，掠夺和野心的掩饰。

WIND

Now whosoever maintains that idolatry is to be rooted out of any place by laws, punishments, fire, and sword, may apply this story to himself. For the reason of the thing is equal, both in America and Europe. And neither Pagans there, nor any dissenting Christians here, can, with any right, be deprived of their worldly good：（y the predominating faction of a court-church; nor are any civil rights to be either changed or violated upon account of religion in one place more than another.
现在无论是谁坚持认为应该用法律，惩罚，火与剑来根除任何地方的偶像崇拜，可以将这个故事用到他自己身上。因为在美洲和欧洲，这种事情的道理是一样的。无论是那里的非基督徒，还是这里的不从国教的基督徒，教会法庭居于统治地位的派别都没有权利剥夺他们世俗的财产；无论在哪里，任何世俗的权利都不能因宗教信仰的原因被改变或被侵犯。

WIND

翻译到这里，我想起了一个关键的问题，那就是权力的问题。一个由人组成的社会，问题不在于要毁掉一切的权力，这样做的结果只能导致堕入更深的深渊。伯克说：“我们敬畏上帝，我们揣着畏惧面对国王；怀着感情面对国会；背负责任面对法官；抱着崇敬面对牧师；带着尊重面对贵族。”他说的也是这个道理。问题在于：我们应当追问，理性的追问：何者为正当的权力？这才是我们这些若不藉着对上帝的信仰便永远不能自我拯救的人类尚有能力做到的一件事。

WIND

But idolatry, say some, is a sin and therefore not to be tolerated. If they said it were therefore to be avoided, the inference were good. But it does not follow that because it is a sin it ought therefore to be punished by the magistrate. For it does not belong unto the magistrate to make use of his sword in punishing everything, indifferently, that he takes to be a sin against God. Covetousness, uncharitableness, idleness, and many other things are sin：（y the consent of men, which yet no man ever said were to be punished by the magistrate. The reason i：（ecause they are not prejudicial to other men's rights, nor do they break the public peace of societies. Nay, even the sins of lying and perjury are nowhere punishable by laws; unless, in certain cases, in which the real turpitude of the thing and the offence against God are not considered, but only the injury done unto men's neighbours and to the commonwealth. And what if in another country, to a Mahometan or a Pagan prince, the Christian religion seem false and offensive to God; may not the Christians for the same reason, and after the same manner, be extirpated there?
但是有人会说：偶像崇拜是一种罪，所以不应当宽容。如果他们说因此偶像崇拜应当避免，这个推论是不错的。但是不能由此得出结论：因为这是罪就应当由世俗的法官加以惩罚。通常的，法官将他的剑用于惩罚那些冒犯上帝的罪已经超出了他的职责范围。贪婪，不仁慈，懒惰，以及许多其它人们公认的罪，以前还没有人说过应当由世俗的法官来惩罚。其原因在于：这些罪并没有对他人的权利造成侵害，也没有破坏社会的公共的和平。不，即使撒谎和伪证也并不应当由法律来惩罚；除非在确定的事件中，考虑的不是实际上的不道德和对上帝的冒犯，而是对邻居和共同体的损害。试想，如果在其它的国家，在穆罕默德信徒或者其它非基督徒的君主看来，基督信仰是错的并冒犯了上帝，会怎么样？难道在那里可以因为同样的原因用同样的方式消灭基督徒？

WIND

But it may be urged farther that, by the law of Moses, idolaters were to be rooted out. True, indeed, by the law of Moses; but that is not obligatory to us Christians. Nobody pretends that everything generally enjoined by the law of Moses ought to be practised by Christians; but there is nothing more frivolous than that common distinction of moral, judicial, and ceremonial law, which men ordinarily make use of. For no positive law whatsoever can oblige any people but those to whom it is given. "Hear, O Israel," sufficiently restrains the obligations of the law of Moses only to that people. And this consideration alone is answer enough unto those that urge the authority of the law of Moses for the inflicting of capital punishment upon idolaters. But, however, I will examine this argument a little more particularly.
但是有人仍会进一步争辩说：按照摩西的法律，偶像崇拜者被根除了。按照摩西的法律，确实是这样的；但是摩西法律对我们基督徒并没有强制性。没有人宣称摩西的法律一般意义上禁止的事情基督徒也应当照此实行；没有比人们通常使用的对道德法，审判法和仪式法的通俗区分更轻佻的事了。因为没有任何肯定性的法律（positive law）能够强制所有的人，而仅仅只针对它所给与的人。“听着，以色列人，”这足够限制了摩西的法律的强制性仅仅针对那个族群。仅此一点，就足以反驳那些争辩说摩西的法律权柄能用于残酷的惩罚偶像崇拜者的观点。然而，我还是想再具体考察一下这种论点。

WIND

The case of idolaters, in respect of the Jewish commonwealth, falls under a double consideration. The first is of those who, being initiated in the Mosaical rites, and made citizens of that commonwealth, did afterwards apostatize from the worship of the God of Israel. These were proceeded against as traitors and rebels, guilty of no less than high treason. For the commonwealth of the Jews, different in that from all others, was an absolute theocracy; nor was there, or could there be, any difference between that commonwealth and the Church. The laws established there concerning the worship of One Invi：（ Deity were the civil laws of that people and a part of their political government, in which God Himself was the legislator. Now, if any one can shew me where there is a commonwealth at this time, constituted upon that foundation, I will acknowledge that the ecclesiastical laws do there unavoidably become a part of the civil, and that the ：（cts of that government both may and ought to be kept in strict conformity with that Church by the civil power. But there is absolutely no such thing under the Gospel as a Christian commonwealth. There are, indeed, many cities and kingdoms that have embraced the faith of Christ, but they have retained their ancient form of government, with which the law of Christ hath not at all meddled. He, indeed, hath taught men how, by faith and good works, they may obtain eternal life; but He instituted no commonwealth. He prescribed unto His followers no new and peculiar form of government, nor put He the sword into any magistrate's hand, with commission to make use of it in forcing men to forsake their former religion and receive His.
关于犹太人共同体中的偶像崇拜者的案例，可以从两个方面来考虑。第一，那些接受摩西仪式的人，成为那个共同体的公民，后来又放弃了对以色列的上帝的敬拜。这些人被当作背信者和反抗者对待，其罪行不亚于叛国罪。因为犹太人的社会共同体，与其它的都不同，是一个绝对神权统治的国家；在共同体和教会之间没有，也不可能存在任何的区别。在那里建立起来的关于敬拜一个不可见的神的法律是他们的世俗法律，也是他们的政治政府的一部分，在这个政府中上帝自己是立法者。现在，如果有人能够向我出示在我们这个时代某处还存在这样一个共同体，基于那样的原则建立，我才会承认：教会的法律确实不可避免地要成为世俗法律的一部分，这个政府的臣民可以并应当用世俗的法律严格的保持与教会的一致。但是作为一个基督化的共同体，在福音书下绝对没有这样的事情。实际上，有许多城市和王国皈依了基督信仰，但是他们仍保持他们古老的政府形式，而基督的法律对此完全的不予干涉。实际上，祂也教导人们通过信仰和良好的劳作如何去获得永恒的生命；但是，祂没有创立社会共同体。祂没有向祂的门徒规定新的和独特的政府形式，也没有把祂的剑交付任何的世俗法官之手，委托他们用于迫使人们放弃其之前的信仰然后接受祂的。

WIND

Secondly, foreigners and such as were strangers to the commonwealth of Israel were not compelled by force to observe the rites of the Mosaical law; but, on the contrary, in the very same place where it is ordered that an Israelite that was an idolater should be put to death,[7] there it is provided that strangers should not be vexed nor oppressed. I confess that the seven nations that possessed the land which was promised to the Israelites were utterly to be cut off; but this was not singly because they were idolaters. For if that had been the reason, why were the Moabites and other nations to be spared? No: the reason is this. God being in a peculiar manner the King of the Jews, He could not suffer the adoration of any other deity (which was properly an act of high treason against Himself) in the land of Canaan, which was His kingdom. For such a manifest revolt could no ways consist with His dominion, which was perfectly political in that country. All idolatry was, therefore, to be rooted out of the bounds of His kingdom because it was an acknowledgment of another god, that is say, another king, against the laws of Empire. The inhabitants were also to be driven out, that the entire possession of the land might be given to the Israelites. And for the like reason the Emims and the Horims were driven out of their countrie：（y the children of Esau and Lot; and their lands, upon the same grounds, given by God to the invaders.[8] But, though all idolatry was thus rooted out of the land of Canaan, yet every idolater was not brought to execution. The whole family of Rahab, the whole nation of the Gibeonites, articled with Joshua, and were allowed by treaty; and there were many captives amongst the Jews who were idolaters.
第二，那些对以色列共同体而言属外邦人及诸如此类的陌生人，并没有被强迫遵守摩西法律的仪式；相反，在规定一个偶像崇拜的以色列人必须处死的地方，同时也说明了陌生人不应受刁难和强迫（《出埃及记》22：21）。我承认：七个国家拥有神所应许的土地的以色列人后来都完全的被剪除了；但是这不仅仅因为他们是偶像崇拜者。因为如果这就是原因，为什么摩押和其他一些国家又保留下来了？不，原因是这样的：上帝用一种独特的方式成为了犹太人的国王，祂不能容忍在迦南的土地上对任何其祂神的崇拜（这当然的是对祂的背叛行为），迦南是祂的王国。因为如此显见的背叛没办法与祂的权柄相容，在那样的国家这样的权柄完全是政治性的。所以，所有的偶像崇拜者在祂的王国的范围内被剪除了，因为这是对其祂神或者说其他国王反对祂的帝国的法律的一种承认。原住民也被赶出去了，这片土地上的所有财产将赐予以色列人。同样的原因，埃米姆人（Emim）和霍利姆人（Horim）也被以扫（Esau）和罗得（Lot）的孩子赶出去了；他们的土地，基于同样的理由，被上帝给与了入侵者（《申命记》2：12）。但是，尽管迦南的偶雄崇拜被如此的剪除，却并非将每个偶像崇拜者都加以处决。与约书亚订立契约的整个拉哈布（Rahab）家族，整个吉布尼特（Gibeonite）国家，都通过契约而被允许保留下来；而且在犹太人的俘虏中间，也有许多偶像崇拜者。

WIND

David and Solomon ：（ed many countries without the confines of the Land of Promise and carried their conquests as far as Euphrates. Amongst so many captives taken, so many nations reduced under their obedience, we find not one man forced into the Jewish religion and the worship of the true God and punished for idolatry, though all of them were certainly guilty of it. If any one, indeed, becoming a proselyte, desired to be made a denizen of their commonwealth, he was obliged to ：（t to their laws; that is, to embrace their religion. But this he did willingly, on his own accord, not by constraint. He did not unwillingly ：（t, to show his obedience, but he sought and solicited for it as a privilege. And, as soon as he was admitted, he became ：（ct to the laws of the commonwealth, by which all idolatry was forbidden within the borders of the land of Canaan. But that law (as I have said) did not reach to any of those regions, however ：（cted unto the Jews, that were situated without those bounds.
大卫和所罗门在应许之地的边界之外征服了许多国家，远致幼发拉底河。在他们管辖之下的如此多的俘虏和如此多沦陷的国家中，我们没有发现一个人被强迫皈依犹太教并行对上帝的敬拜仪式，以及因偶像崇拜而被惩罚，虽然他们所有的人在这一点上都有罪。实际上，如果一个人改依犹太教，希望成为那个共同体的归化居民，他被强制去服从的是他们的法律；也可以说是皈依他们的宗教。但是这样做他是出于自愿，而非出于强制。他并不是为了表明他的顺从而不情愿的服从，而是作为一项基本权利来寻找和请求的。一旦被接纳，他成为这个共同体的法律的臣民，在那样的法律中，在迦南的边界内禁止所有的偶像崇拜。但是那样的法律（如我已经说过的）并没有到达那些迦南以外的区域，虽然他们已经向犹太人臣服。

WIND

Thus far concerning outward worship. Let us now consider articles of faith.
外在的敬拜就讲到这里。现在让我们仔细考虑信仰的教义。

WIND

The articles of religion are some of them practical and some speculative. Now, though both sorts consist in the knowledge of truth, yet these terminate simply in the understanding, those influence the will and manners. Speculative opinions, therefore, and articles of faith (as they are called) which are required only to be believed, cannot be imposed on any Church by the law of the land. For it is absurd that things should be enjoined by laws which are not in men's power to perform. And to believe this or that to be true does not depend upon our will. But of this enough ha：（een said already. "But." will some say; "let men at least profess that they believe." A sweet religion, indeed, that obliges men to dissemble and tell lies, both to God and man, for the salvation of their souls! If the magistrate thinks to save men thus, he seems to understand little of the way of salvation. And if he does it not in order to save them, why is he so solicitous about the articles of faith as to enact them by a law?
宗教信条，有些是应用性的，有些是推测性的。虽然两者都包含有真相的知识，然而后者简单的局限于理解，前者影响人的意志和行为习惯。所以，推测性的观点以及信仰的教义（如人们所称呼的）仅仅要求人们相信，而不能通过世俗的法律强加于任何的教会。因为用法律规定那些本不在人类权力之内的事情是荒谬的。并且，相信这个或那个为真并不依赖于我们的意志。但是关于这一点已经说得够多了。“但是，”有人会说，“至少应该让人们宣称一下他们所相信的。”一种可爱的宗教！实际上，那只会强迫人们为拯救他们的灵魂向上帝和世人伪装和撒谎！如果法官认为可以如此拯救世人，看起来他对拯救的道路理解得很少。如果他那样做不是为了拯救他们，那他为什么如此急切与这些信仰的教义以至于用法律来规定它们？