九船城

WIND兄大才。
找个整段时间，再慢慢看wind兄的翻译作品。

WIND

Further, the magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching or professing of any speculative opinions in any Church because they have no manner of relation to the civil rights of the ：（cts. If a Roman Catholic believe that to be really the body of Christ which another man call：（read, he does no injury thereby to his neighbour. If a Jew do not believe the New Testament to be the Word of God, he does not thereby alter anything in men's civil rights. If a heathen doubt of both Testaments, he is not therefore to be punished as a pernicious citizen. The power of the magistrate and the estates of the people may be equally secure whether any man believe these things or no. I readily grant that these opinions are false and absurd. But the business of laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the commonwealth and of every particular man's goods and person. And so it ought to be. For the truth certainly would do well enough if she were once left to shift for herself. She seldom has received and, I fear, never will receive much assistance from the power of great men, to whom she i：（ut rarely known and more rarely welcome. She is not taught by laws, nor has she any need of force to procure her entrance into the minds of men. Errors, indeed, prevail by the assistance of foreign and borrowed succours. But if Truth makes not her way into the understanding by her own light, she will be but the weaker for any borrowed force violence can add to her. Thus much for speculative opinions. Let us now proceed to practical ones.
进一步说，世俗的法官不应当禁止任何推测性的观点在任何教会布道或宣称，因为它们与臣民的世俗权利没有任何的关系。如果一个罗马天主教徒相信另一个人所称呼的面包确实是基督的身体，他并未因此对他的邻居造成伤害。如果一个犹太人不相信《新约》是上帝的话语，他并未因此在人的世俗权利上变更任何东西。如果一个不信仰上帝的人对新旧约都怀疑，他也不能因此而作为一个有害的公民遭到惩罚。无论任何人相不相信圣经，世俗法官的权力和人们的财产都是一样的安全。我毫不迟疑的承认不信仰上帝的观点是错误和荒谬的。但是，法律事务并不提供观点的正确性，而只能保证共同体以及每个独立的个人的财产和人身的安全可靠。事情本来就应当这样。因为只要让真理自己去运行，她就会做得很好。她很少得到，我担心，她永远不会得到有权力的大人物的多一点的帮助，她很少为他们所知，更谈不上受他们的欢迎。她不是靠法律来教导，也不需要任何的强制来进入人们的思想中。事实上，谬误的盛行倒是依靠外来的帮助和支援。但是，如果真理不依靠她自己的光在人类的理解力上开辟道路，她就只能做个弱者，任凭外借的强制暴力篡改。推测性的观点就讲到这里。现在让我们继续考虑应用性的宗教信条。

WIND

A good life, in which consist not the least part of religion and true piety, concerns also the civil government; and in it lies the safety both of men's souls and of the commonwealth. Moral action：（elong, therefore, to the jurisdiction both of the outward and inward court; both of the civil and domestic governor; I mean both of the magistrate and conscience. Here, therefore, is great danger, lest one of these jurisdictions intrench upon the other, and discord arise between the keeper of the public peace and the overseers of souls. But if what ha：（een already said concerning the limits of both these government：（e rightly considered, it will easily remove all difficulty in this matter.
一种良好的生活，即使其中没有宗教信仰和虔诚的成分，也与世俗的政府相关联；灵魂和共同体的安全都寓于其中。所以，道德行为的审判权同时属于外在和内在的法庭；同时属于世俗和内心的统治者；我指的是同时属于世俗法官和道德心。所以这里，存在一种巨大的危险，以免其中的一种审判权侵入另一种之中，在公共和平的看守人和灵魂的监管人产生不协调。但是如果前面已经说过的关于这两种管理权的边界能够正确考虑的话，这类事情的困难是容易解决的。

WIND

Every man has an immortal soul, capable of eternal happiness or misery; whose happiness depending upon hi：（elieving and doing those things in this life which are necessary to the obtaining of God's favour, and are prescribed by God to that end. It follows from thence, first, that the observance of these things is the highest obligation that lies upon mankind and that our utmost care, application, and diligence ought to be exercised in the search and performance of them; because there is nothing in this world that is of any consideration in comparison with eternity. Secondly, that seeing one man does not violate the right of another by his erroneous opinions and undue manner of worship, nor is his perdition any prejudice to another man's affairs, therefore, the care of each man's salvation belongs only to himself. But I would not have this understood as if I meant hereby to condemn all charitable admonitions and affectionate endeavours to reduce men from errors, which are indeed the greatest duty of a Christian. Any one may employ as many exhortations and arguments as he pleases, towards the promoting of another man's salvation. But all force and compulsion are to be forborne. Nothing is to be done imperiously. Nobody is obliged in that matter to yield obedience unto the admonitions or injunctions of another, further than he himself is persuaded. Every man in that has the supreme and absolute authority of judging for himself. And the reason i：（ecause nobody else is concerned in it, nor can receive any prejudice from his conduct therein.
每个人都有一个不死的灵魂，能够享受永恒的幸福或遭受无尽的痛苦；这幸福依赖于他在此生中相信并行那些为获得上帝的恩赐所必需，为着那个目的为上帝所规定的事情。由此可以引出如下的结论：首先，遵守这些规定是人类最高的职责，我们应当在探索和履行这些规定中应用最大限度的关注，专心和勤勉；因为在今生这个世界上没有比永恒更值得考虑的事情。其次，既然一个人不会因为他错误的观点和不恰当的敬拜方式侵犯另一个人的权利，也不会因为他的灵魂堕入地狱而对他人造成损害，所以，对每个人的灵魂的关心仅仅属于他自己。但是，我不希望这被误解为好像我的意思是要谴责所有的为着他人少犯错误而做的仁慈的劝告和深情的努力，事实上这是基督徒最伟大的职责。为着促进他人灵魂的拯救，任何人只要高兴都可以使用规劝和辩论。只是暴力和强制应当避免。不要专横的行事。除了他自己被说服而相信外，在这种事情上任何人都不应当被强迫屈服于他人的规劝和命令。在灵魂拯救的问题上每个人都有审判自身的最高和绝对的权柄。其原因在于他人与他的灵魂无关，他人也不会因他的行为遭受损害。

WIND

But besides their souls, which are immortal, men have also their temporal lives here upon earth; the state whereof being frail and fleeting, and the duration uncertain, they have need of several outward conveniences to the support thereof, which are to be procured or preserved by pains and industry. For those things that are necessary to the comfortable support of our lives are not the spontaneous products of nature, nor do offer themselves fit and prepared for our use. This part, therefore, draws on another care and necessarily gives another employment. But the pravity of mankind being such that they had rather injuriously prey upon the fruits of other men's labours than take pains to provide for themselves, the necessity of preserving men in the possession of what honest industry has already acquired and also of preserving their liberty and strength, whereby they may acquire what they farther want, obliges men to enter into society with one another, that by mutual assistance and joint force they may secure unto each other their properties, in the things that contribute to the comfort and happiness of this life, leaving in the meanwhile to every man the care of his own eternal happiness, the attainment whereof can neither be facilitated by another man's industry, nor can the loss of it turn to another man's prejudice, nor the hope of it be forced from him by any external violence. But, forasmuch as men thus entering into societies, grounded upon their mutual compacts of assistance for the defence of their temporal goods, may, nevertheless, be deprived of them, either by the rapine and fraud of their fellow citizens, or by the hostile violence of foreigners, the remedy of this evil consists in arms, riches, and multitude of citizens; the remedy of the other in laws; and the care of all things relating both to one and the other is committed by the society to the civil magistrate. This is the original, this is the use, and these are the bounds of the legislative (which is the supreme) power in every commonwealth. I mean that provision may be made for the security of each man's private possessions; for the peace, riches, and public commodities of the whole people; and, as much as pos：（, for the increase of their inward strength against foreign invasions.
但是在不死的灵魂之外，在地球上人们也有他们的世俗的生命；这种生命的状态脆弱，短暂，寿命不能确定，因此人们需要一些外在的便利条件的支持，这些条件的获得或保持依赖于人们的辛劳和勤勉。因为那些提供我们舒适生活的必需品并非自然界的自然生成品，它们也不会刚好为着我们的使用要求而提供。所以，这部分就引出了另一种关心，必然的提供了另一种职业。但是人类堕落如此，他们宁肯有害的掠夺他人的劳动果实也不愿意自己生产劳作，于是就有了保护人们正直劳动所获得财产的必要性这种要求，以及保护他们获得进一步预期的自由和力量，这使得人们不得不与他人结成社会，通过互相帮助和联合的力量来确保彼此的有助于此生舒适和幸福的财产安全，同时把对他自己永恒幸福的关心留给每个人，这种幸福的获得不能通过他人的劳作，它的失去也不会对他人造成伤害，对它的渴望也不能用任何外在的暴力夺去。但是，鉴于人们基于在保护他们世俗财产上互相帮助的契约而进入社会，也有可能因为他们自己的同胞抢劫或欺骗，或者外来入侵者的暴力掠夺而丧失他们的财产，后者的补救措施包括武器，财富和大多数公民；前者的补救措施则是法律；而关系到两者社会则授权法官予以照看。这就是每个社会共同体立法权力（最高权力）的来源，用途和边界。我的意思是，应当制定法律来保障：每个人的私有财产；所有人的和平，财富和公共用品；以及，尽可能的增强抵御外来侵犯的力量。

WIND

These thing：（eing thus explained, it is easy to understand to what end the legislative power ought to be directed and by what measures regulated; and that is the temporal good and outward prosperity of the society; which is the sole reason of men's entering into society, and the only thing they seek and aim at in it. And it is also evident what liberty remains to men in reference to their eternal salvation, and that is that every one should do what he in his conscience is persuaded to be acceptable to the Almighty, on whose good pleasure and acceptance depends their eternal happiness. For obedience is due, in the first place, to God and, afterwards to the laws.
这些事情作了上述解释之后，对于应当将立法权力引向什么样的目的以及用什么样的尺度进行调整的问题就易于理解了；那就是社会世俗的财产和繁荣；这也是人们进入社会唯一的原因，以及他们寻找和追求的唯一目的。然后在人们的永恒的灵魂拯救方面还保留有什么自由就显而易见了，那就是每个人应当做那些在他的道德感上被说服能被全能的上帝所接受的事，他们的永恒的幸福依赖于上帝的悦纳。因为顺服，首先是服从上帝，然后才是服从法律。

WIND

But some may ask: "What if the magistrate should enjoin anything by his authority that appears unlawful to the conscience of a private person?" I answer that, if government be faithfully administered and the counsels of the magistrate：（e indeed directed to the public good, this will seldom happen. But if, perhaps, it do so fall out, I say, that such a private person is to abstain from the action that he judges unlawful, and he is to undergo the punishment which it is not unlawful for him to bear. For the private judgement of any person concerning a law enacted in political matters, for the public good, does not take away the obligation of that law, nor deserve a dispensation. But if the law, indeed, be concerning things that lie not within the verge of the magistrate's authority (as, for example, that the people, or any party amongst them, should be compelled to embrace a strange religion, and join in the worship and ceremonies of another Church), men are not in these cases obliged by that law, against their consciences. For the political society is instituted for no other end, but only to secure every man's possession of the things of this life. The care of each man's soul and of the things of heaven, which neither doe：（elong to the commonwealth nor can be ：（cted to it, is left entirely to every man's self. Thus the safeguard of men's lives and of the things that belong unto this life is the business of the commonwealth; and the preserving of those things unto their owners is the duty of the magistrate. And therefore the magistrate cannot take away these worldly things from this man or party and give them to that; nor change propriety amongst fellow ：（cts (no not even by a law), for a cause that has no relation to the end of civil government, I mean for their religion, which whether it be true or false does no prejudice to the worldly concerns of their fellow ：（cts, which are the things that only belong unto the care of the commonwealth.
但是有人可能会问：“如果世俗的法官靠他的权柄规定一些在个体的道德心看来是非法的事情，那该怎么办？”我的回答是：如果政府是被忠实的管理并且法官的建议确实是为了公共利益，那么这种事情是很少发生的。但是，如果真发生了这种事，我认为这样的个人应该拒绝去做他认为非法的事，并接受对他而言不是非法的惩罚。因为任何人对政治事务中制定的法律的个体判断，对于公共利益而言，并不能解除那个法律的约束力，也不应当给与他免受约束的特权。但是，如果事实上这个法律关联的事情已经超出了法官的权柄所管辖的范围（比如，举例来说，强迫人们或任何派别皈依一种陌生的宗教，强迫他们参加另一个教会的敬拜仪式），在这种情形中人们就不该违背他们的道德心而被法律强制。因为政治性社会的建立没有别的目的，仅仅是确保每个人所拥有的生命和财产。对每个人灵魂以及天堂的事情的关心，既不属于共同体，也不能臣服于它，完全的留给每个人自己。这样，保障人们的生命以及属于生命的财产就是共同体的事务；保护那些财产归于他们的所有者就是法官的职责。所以，法官不能从这个人或这个派别手中拿走任何世俗的财物然后给与那个人或那个派别；也不得改变臣民的习俗（依靠法律改变也不应当），因为那与世俗政府的目的没有关系，我的意思是：因为他们的宗教信仰无论是正确或错误，都不妨碍臣民的世俗利益，只有世俗利益才是共同体关心的事情。

WIND

But what if the magistrate believe such a law as this to be for the public good? I answer: As the private judgement of any particular person, if erroneous, does not exempt him from the obligation of law, so the private judgement (as I may call it) of the magistrate does not give him any new right of imposing laws upon his ：（cts, which neither was in the constitution of the government granted him, nor ever was in the power of the people to grant, much less if he make it hi：（usiness to enrich and advance his followers and fellow-sectaries with the spoils of others. But what if the magistrate believe that he has a right to make such laws and that they are for the public good, and his ：（ct：（elieve the contrary? Who shall be judge between them? I answer: God alone. For there is no judge upon earth between the supreme magistrate and the people. God, I say, is the only judge in this case, who will retribute unto every one at the last day according to his deserts; that is, according to his sincerity and uprightness in endeavouring to promote piety, and the public weal, and peace of mankind. But What shall be done in the meanwhile? I answer: The principal and chief care of every one ought to be of his own soul first, and, in the next place, of the public peace; though yet there are very few will think it is peace there, where they see all laid waste.
但是如果法官相信他所制定的法律是为了公共利益，那怎么办？我的回答是：既然任何个体的私人判断，如果错误，并不免除法律对他的约束力，那么，法官的私人判断（我可以这样称呼的话）也没有给他任何新的权利去强加法律予他的臣民，这种权利，既没有在政府的宪法中授予他，也从来没有被人们的权力所赋予，至于将掠夺来的财物喂养他的追随者和跟班作为他的职业根本没有这回事。但是，法官相信他有权利制定这样一些法律，是为了公共利益，而他的臣民的看法却相反，那又怎么办呢？谁应当成为他们之间的审判者？我的回答是：只有上帝。因为在地上，在最高的法官和人们之间没有审判者了。我认为，在这种情形中，上帝是唯一的审判者，祂将根据每一个人的所作所为在末日给与回报；即根据他在促进对上帝的虔诚，公共利益和人类和平的努力中的诚实和正直。但是，当下我们该怎么做呢？我的回答是：每个人主要和首先应该关心的是他自己的灵魂，然后是公共和平；虽然当他们看到一切都很糟糕的时候，很少有人认为还会存在和平。

WIND

There are two sorts of contests amongst men, the one managed by law, the other by force; and these are of that nature that where the one ends, the other alway：（egins. But it is not my business to inquire into the power of the magistrate in the different constitutions of nations. I only know what usually happens where controversies arise without a judge to determine them. You will say, then, the magistrate being the stronger will have his will and carry his point. Without doubt; but the question is not here concerning the doubtfulness of the event, but the rule of right.
在人们当中存在两种类型的争夺，一种靠法律来调整，另一种靠暴力；依其本性，法律停止的地方，暴力通常就开始了。但是我在此并不是要讨论不同国家宪法中法官的权力。我只知道，当争论发生而又没有审判来裁决它们的时候，通常会发生什么。你会说，那么，法官作为强者，就会拥有他的意志并支持他的观点。这一点没有疑问；但是这里的问题与这种疑问无关，而是权利的规则问题。

WIND

But to come to particulars. I say, first, no opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society, are to be tolerated by the magistrate. But of these, indeed, examples in any Church are rare. For no sect can easily arrive to such a degree of madness as that it should think fit to teach, for doctrines of religion, such things as manifestly undermine the foundations of society and are, therefore, condemned by the judgement of all mankind; because their own interest, peace, reputation, everything would be thereby endangered.
至于说到规则的细节，我认为，首先，与人类社会或者维持世俗社会所必需的那些道德规则相背离的观点，都不应受到法官的宽容。不过这一点，实际上在任何教会都很少见。因为没有那个派别会容易达到这样疯狂的程度，认为教导明显的破坏社会基础的宗教信条是适当的，从而受到全人类审判的谴责；因为他们自己的利益，和平，声望，他们的一切都会因此而处于危险之中。

WIND

Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to the commonwealth, is when men arrogate to themselves, and to those of their own sect, some peculiar prerogative covered over with a specious show of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the civil right of the community. For example: we cannot find any sect that teaches, expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise; that princes may be dethroned by those that differ from them in religion; or that the dominion of all thing：（elongs only to themselves. For these things, proposed thus nakedly and plainly, would soon draw on them the eye and hand of the magistrate and awaken all the care of the commonwealth to a watchfulness against the spreading of so dangerous an evil. But, nevertheless, we find those that say the same things in other words. What else do they mean who teach that faith is not to be kept with heretics? Their meaning, forsooth, is that the privilege of breaking faith belongs unto themselves; for they declare all that are not of their communion to be heretics, or at least may declare them so whensoever they think fit. What can be the meaning of their asserting that kings excommunicated forfeit their crowns and kingdoms? It is evident that they thereby arrogate unto themselves the power of deposing kings, because they challenge the power of excommunication, as the peculiar right of their hierarchy. That dominion is founded in grace is also an assertion by which those that maintain it do plainly lay claim to the possession of all things. For they are not so wanting to themselves as not to believe, or at least as not to profess themselves to be the truly pious and faithful. These, therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals, in civil concernments; or who upon pretence of religion do challenge any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in their ecclesiastical communion, I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may and are ready upon any occasion to seize the Government and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow ：（cts; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?
另一种更加隐秘却对共同体更加危险的邪恶是：当人们为他们自己或者他们自己的派别谋取一些特有权利的时候，往往外覆华丽的欺骗语言，而实际上却与共同体的世俗权利相背离。举例来说，我们找不到任何一个派别公开和明确的教导：不应强制人们遵守他们的诺言；在宗教信仰上与君主不同的人可以废黜君主；或者说所有事物的支配权仅仅属于他们自己。因为这些事情如此赤裸和明白的提议，立即会引起法官的注意和行动，然后唤起共同体的警觉以防如此危险的邪恶的扩散。然而，我们发现有人在用另一种语言说同样的事情。那些教导说“对异端不需要遵守承诺”还有什么别的意思吗？他们真正的意思是：背弃承诺的特权属于他们自己；因为他们将所有不属于他们团体的都宣布为异端，或者至少可以在他们认为合适的时候这样宣称。那些主张国王被逐出教会就丧失了他的王位和王国又是什么意思呢？很明显他们因此想谋求废黜国王的权力，因为他们把逐出教会的权力当作了教士阶层的特有的权利。支配权基于上帝的恩典也是一种主张，通过这种主张明显的觊觎对所有事物的占有权。因为他们还没有愚蠢到那种地步，不去相信或至少不去表白自己是真正的虔诚和有信仰。所以，这些人及诸如此类，将自己归于有信仰，有宗教虔诚和正统一类，用通俗的话来说，对于他们自己，在与世俗相关的事情上，认为自己对他人拥有任何特有的权利或权力；或者以宗教为借口对那些宗教团体中与他们有异见的人要求任何方式的权柄，我认为：他们没有权利要求法官给与宽容；就像那种人没有权利要求宽容一样：他们在仅关宗教的事务上不承认和教导宽容所有人的职责。因为所有这些以及类似的教义所表明的，除了他们可以并准备利用一切机会篡夺政府权力然后占有他们臣民的财产，以及他们仅仅是在发现他们自己足够强大到实现这个目的之前要求法官的宽容，还有什么呢？

WIND

因为所有这些以及类似的教义所表明的，除了他们可以并准备利用一切机会篡夺政府权力然后占有他们臣民的财产，以及他们仅仅是在发现他们自己足够强大到实现这个目的之前要求法官的宽容，还有什么呢？
WIND 发表于 2009-10-19 13:03

马氏曾经热血沸腾的写过一系列的文章，包括《评普鲁士最近的书报检查令》。可是事实却让人只能哑口，凡在挂他头的地方，无不建立起人类史上空前的媒体审查制度。是我们这些贱民卑贱到了血液和骨髓里，还是我们远离上帝，失去了基本的辨别是非的能力？

WIND

Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally ：（ct to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful ：（ct to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.
其次，如下的教会没有权利要求法官的宽容，即：它建立的基础是，凡入会者事实上都是把他们交付另一个君主的保护和服务之下。因为通过这种方式法官将在他自己的国家容许一个国外管辖权的存在，并允许他的臣民被登记，比如去参加国外的军队来反对他自己的政府。这种在法庭和教会间所作的轻率和错误的区分对这个问题没有提供任何的解决办法；尤其是当教会和法庭都臣服于一个人的绝对权柄的时候，他不仅拥有权力说服他教会的成员去登记做任何事情，也许是纯宗教的（自愿性的），也可能是命令，而且还可以以炼狱之火的痛苦来发号施令。任何人这样做都是荒谬的：在信仰上宣称他是穆罕默德信徒，而在其它的事情上他又是基督徒法官的忠实的臣民；同时他又承认盲目的服从于君士坦丁堡的穆夫提（在奥托曼帝国时期，君士坦丁堡的穆夫提是伊斯兰国家的法学权威，总管律法和教义方面的所有事务。随着伊斯兰国家现代法律的发展，穆夫提的作用日益减小。如今，穆夫提的职权仅限于遗产继承、结婚、离婚等个人案件。//大英袖珍百科），此人完全的服从于奥托曼帝国，并随心所欲的假托那种宗教的神的旨意颁布律令。但是这个生活在基督徒中间的穆罕默德信徒如果承认政府的最高法官也是他教会的领袖，那么很明显就是拒绝承认他们的政府。

WIND

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.
最后，那些否认上帝存在的人，是完全谈不上被宽容的。承诺，契约，以及誓言，这些都是人类社会的结合剂，对无神论者却没有约束力。虽然仅仅只是在思想上摒除上帝，却使一切化为乌有；除此之外，那些通过无神论来破坏和毁灭一切宗教的人，便没有宗教的借口来要求宽容的权利。至于其它应用性的观点，虽然不是绝对的没有错误，如果它们不会趋于建立对他人的支配权，或者向他们所在的教会要求免于世俗的惩罚权，也就没有理由不对它们宽容。

WIND

It remains that I say something concerning those assemblies which, being vulgarly called and perhaps having sometime：（een conventicles and nurseries of factions and seditions, are thought to afford against this doctrine of toleration. But this has not happened by anything peculiar unto the genius of such assemblies, but by the unhappy circumstances of an oppressed or ill-settled liberty. These accusations would soon cease if the law of toleration were once so settled that all Churches were obliged to lay down toleration as the foundation of their own liberty, and teach that liberty of conscience is every man's natural right, equally belonging to dissenters as to themselves; and that nobody ought to be compelled in matters of religion either by law or force. The establishment of this one thing would take away all ground of complaints and tumults upon account of conscience; and these causes of discontents and animositie：（eing once removed, there would remain nothing in these assemblies that were not more peaceable and less apt to produce disturbance of state than in any other meetings whatsoever. But let us examine particularly the heads of these accusations.
在信的末尾我说说那些集会，它们通俗这样称呼有时候可能也是“宗教派别分立和社会骚乱的秘密聚会与温床”，被认为是为反对宽容提供了依据。（比如：英格兰国会在1664年通过了一个秘密聚会法案：禁止在国教之外超过五人的宗教聚会。）但是这种事情之所以发生，并不是因为这些聚会有什么特别之处，而是因为受压制或者病态的自由所造成的不幸环境。只要宽容的法律一确立：强制所有的教会将宽容作为他们自己自由的基础，并教导道德心的自由是每个人的自然权利，不从国教的基督徒与国教的一样平等；任何人在宗教信仰的事情上不得被法律或暴力强制，这些指控立即就消失了。只要确立这一件事，那些因为道德心而产生的抱怨和骚乱的根源就可以消除；这些不满和仇恨的原因一旦消除，这些集会较之任何其它的聚会就不会再有更不和平和偶尔容易引起政府混乱的东西了。不过还是让我们对这些指控的罪名个别的深究一下吧。

WIND

You will say that assemblies and meetings endanger the public peace and threaten the commonwealth. I answer: If thi：（e so, why are there daily such numerous meetings in markets and Courts of Judicature? Why are crowds upon the Exchange and a concourse of people in cities suffered? You will reply: "Those are civil assemblies, but these we object against are ecclesiastical." I answer: It is a likely thing, indeed, that such assemblies as are altogether remote from civil affairs should be most apt to embroil them. Oh, but civil assemblies are composed of men that differ from one another in matters of religion, but these ecclesiastical meetings are of persons that are all of one opinion. As if an agreement in matters of religion were in effect a conspiracy against the commonwealth; or as if men would not be so much the more warmly unanimous in religion the less liberty they had of assembling. But it will be urged still that civil assemblies are open and free for any one to enter into, whereas religious conventicles are more private and thereby give opportunity to clandestine machinations. I answer that this is not strictly true, for many civil assemblies are not open to everyone. And if some religious meeting：（e private, who are they (I beseech you) that are to be blamed for it, those that desire, or those that forbid their being public! Again, you will say that religious communion does exceedingly unite men's minds and affections to one another and is therefore the more dangerous. But if thi：（e so, why is not the magistrate afraid of his own Church; and why does he not forbid their assemblies as things dangerous to his Government? You will say because he himself is a part and even the head of them. As if he were not also a part of the commonwealth, and the head of the whole people!
你会说那些集会和聚会使公共和平处于危险之中并威胁共同体。我的回答是：如果是这样的话，为什么有日常的频繁的在集市和法庭的聚会呢？为什么容许交易所和城市的人群呢？你会回答：“那些都是世俗的集会，但是我们反对的这些是宗教性的。”我的回答是：实际上这是相似的事情，这些看似与世俗无关的集会多半还是因为与世俗的牵扯。Oh,只不过世俗集会是由宗教信仰相异的人组成，而宗教聚会则由同一种观点的人组成。似乎在宗教信仰上的一致就会导致共谋反对共同体；或者好像人们少一点集会的自由在信仰上就不会如此真诚的一致。但是有人仍会极力辩护：世俗集会是开放的，任何人都可以自由的加入，但是这些宗教聚会更私人化从而给秘密计划提供了机会。我的回答是：严格来说，这一点并不真实，因为许多世俗聚会也不是对任何人都开放。并且如果一些宗教集会是私人性的，那么请问：谁该受指责呢？是那些想要私人化的人，还是那些禁止他们的聚会公开化的人？还有，你会说：宗教性的聚会将人们的感情强烈的连接在一起因而更加危险。但是如果是这么回事，为什么法官并不担心他自己的教会；为什么他不把他们自己的教会作为对政府有危险的东西而加以禁止呢？你会说因为他是其中的成员甚至是他们的首领。好像他不是共同体的成员和全体人们的首领一样。

WIND

Let us therefore deal plainly. The magistrate is afraid of other Churches, but not of his own, because he is kind and favourable to the one, but severe and cruel to the other. These he treats like children, and indulges them even to wantonness. Those he uses as slaves and, how blamelessly soever they demean themselves, recompenses them no otherwise than by galleys, prisons, confiscations, and death. These he cherishes and defends; those he continually scourges and oppresses. Let him turn the tables. Or let those dissenters enjoy but the same privileges in civils as his other ：（cts, and he will quickly find that these religious meetings will be no longer dangerous. For if men enter into seditious conspiracies, it is not religion inspires them to it in their meetings, but their sufferings and oppressions that make them willing to ease themselves. Just and moderate governments are everywhere quiet, everywhere safe; but oppression raises ferments and makes men struggle to cast off an uneasy and tyrannical yoke. I know that seditions are very frequently raised upon pretence of religion, but it is as true that for religion ：（cts are frequently ill treated and live miserably. Believe me, the stirs that are made proceed not from any peculiar temper of this or that Church or religious society, but from the common disposition of all mankind, who when they groan under any heavy burthen endeavour naturally to shake off the yoke that galls their necks.
所以，还是让我们直言不讳的来谈谈这个问题。法官担忧别的教会却不担心他自己的，因为他对他自己的教会友好并支持，却对别的教会苛刻冷酷。他对这一个如同自己的孩子，迁就他们到放纵的程度。对另一个却如同奴隶，无论他们如何贬低自己到无可指摘的地步，回报他们的无非是厨役，监狱，剥夺财产和死亡。对这一个珍爱保护；对另一个不断的折磨压迫。假如他交换一下这二者的位置呢？或者让那些不从国教者也享受和他其他的臣民一样的权利，他立刻就会发现：那些宗教聚会不再有危险了。因为人们参加骚乱性的秘密计划，并不是聚会中的宗教信仰鼓动了他们，而是他们的忍受和压迫驱使他们来解脱自己。公正并能自我克制的政府，在任何地方都是平静安全的；而压迫将引起动乱并使人们奋力挣脱痛苦和暴虐的轭。我知道，骚乱常以宗教为借口而发生，但是臣民因为宗教信仰而常遭受虐待，生活悲惨，这也是事实。相信我，骚乱的发生并非由于这个或那个教会或者宗教团体的独特脾气，而是因为所有人类所共有的性情：在重压下呻吟的人，自然的会努力挣脱套在脖子上的重轭。

WIND

Suppose thi：（usiness of religion were let alone, and that there were some other distinction made between men and men upon account of their different complexions, shapes, and features, so that those who have black hair (for example) or grey eyes should not enjoy the same privileges as other citizens; that they should not be permitted either to buy or sell, or live by their callings; that parents should not have the government and education of their own children; that all should either be excluded from the benefit of the laws, or meet with partial judges; can it be doubted but these persons, thus distinguished from other：（y the colour of their hair and eyes, and united together by one common persecution, would be as dangerous to the magistrate as any others that had associated themselves merely upon the account of religion? Some enter into company for trade and profit, others for want of business have their clubs for claret. Neighbourhood joins some and religion others. But there is only one thing which gathers people into seditious commotions, and that is oppression.
假如我们先把宗教信仰的事情放在一边，在人与人之间依据如下的特征作出区分：肤色，外形和相貌，然后规定：那些黑发（举例）或者灰色眼睛的人不得享受和其他公民一样的权利；禁止他们买或卖，或通过职业生活；父母对他们的子女没有监护和教育权；所有的一切，不是被排除在法律的保护之外，就是遭遇不公正的审判；这些人，因为他们头发和眼睛的颜色而被区别开来，然后因为同样的迫害而联合在一起，与那些仅仅因为宗教信仰的原因而联合在一起的人，对法官而言，不是毫无疑问的同样危险吗？一些人为了交易和利润加入公司，另一些人为了喝红葡萄酒而拥有他们的俱乐部。地域的邻近使一些人结合在一起，宗教信仰使另一些人结合在一起。但是只有一件事情使人们聚集骚乱，那就是压迫。

WIND

You will say "What, will you have people to meet at divine service against the magistrate's will?" I answer: Why, I pray, against his will? Is it not both lawful and necessary that they should meet? Against his will, do you say? That is what I complain of; that is the very root of all the mischief. Why are assemblies less sufferable in a church than in a theatre or market? Those that meet there are not either more vicious or more turbulent than those that meet elsewhere. The business in that is that they are ill used, and therefore they are not to be suffered. Take away the partiality that is used towards them in matters of common right; change the laws, take away the penalties unto which they are ：（cted, and all things will immediately become safe and peaceable; nay, those that are averse to the religion of the magistrate will think themselves so much the more bound to maintain the peace of the commonwealth as their condition i：（etter in that place than elsewhere; and all the several separate congregations, like so many guardians of the public peace, will watch one another, that nothing may be innovated or changed in the form of the government, because they can hope for nothing better than what they already enjoy — that is, an equal condition with their fellow-：（cts under a just and moderate government. Now if that Church which agrees in religion with the prince be esteemed the chief support of any civil government, and that for no other reason (as has already been shown) than because the prince is kind and the laws are favourable to it, how much greater will be the security of government where all good ：（cts, of whatsoever Church they be, without any distinction upon account of religion, enjoying the same favour of the prince and the same benefit of the laws, shall become the common support and guard of it, and where none will have any occasion to fear the severity of the law：（ut those that do injuries to their neighbours and offend against the civil peace?
你会说：“什么？你想让人们利用敬拜上帝聚集起来反对法官的意志？”我的回答是：为什么是反对他的意志呢？他们聚会不是既合法又必要的吗？对了，你是说反对他的意志吗？那正是我所抱怨的；那正是所有灾难的根源。为什么法官面对教会聚会要比剧院或市场更缺乏忍耐和克制呢？那些聚会并不比其他任何聚会更凶残狂暴。教会的事情是他们受到了虐待，所以他们不能忍受。在普通权利的事情上拿掉那些针对他们的偏袒；改变法律，去掉那些他们需要服从的惩罚，这样一切事情立即就和平安全了；不仅如此，那些厌恶法官的宗教的人会认识到他们自己更有义务来维护共同体的和平以让他们的条件比其它的地方更好；以及所有分立的宗教团体，会像许多公共和平的守护人一样，互相监督，以防政府形式的改变，因为他们不能期待比他们已享受到的更好的东西了——即，在一个公正并能自我克制的政府之下，与其它臣民享有同等的条件。如果现在那些与君主一致的教会被认为是世俗政府的主要支撑，而其原因（如已经说明的）仅仅是君主对其仁慈法律对其支持，那么如下的政府会是多么的安全：在那里，所有善良的臣民，无论其属于哪个教会，不分信仰，都能享受君主同样的帮助和法律同样的救济（法律并不生产财富，只是补偿损失），都会成为政府共同的支撑和保卫；并且在那里，除了伤害邻居和破坏和平，没有人会恐惧法律的严格。

WIND

That we may draw towards a conclusion. The sum of all we drive at is that every man may enjoy the same rights that are granted to others. Is it permitted to worship God in the Roman manner? Let it be permitted to do it in the Geneva form also. Is it permitted to speak Latin in the market-place? Let those that have a mind to it be permitted to do it also in the Church. Is it lawful for any man in his own house to kneel, stand, sit, or use any other posture; and to clothe himself in white or black, in short or in long garments? Let it not be made unlawful to eat bread, drink wine, or wash with water in the church. In a word, whatsoever things are left free by law in the common occasions of life, let them remain free unto every Church in divine worship. Let no man's life, or body, or house, or estate, suffer any manner of prejudice upon these accounts. Can you allow of the Pre：（erian discipline? Why should not the Episcopal also have what they like? Ecclesiastical authority, whether it be administered by the hands of a single person or many, is everywhere the same; and neither has any jurisdiction in things civil, nor any manner of power of compulsion, nor anything at all to do with riches and revenues.
至此我们可以作出结论。我们的全部意图就是为了说明：每个人应当享有与他人同样的权利。允许用罗马的方式敬拜上帝吗？那么也请允许用基尼瓦（Geneva）的方式。允许在集市上说拉丁语吗？那么也请允许他们在教会说拉丁语。任何人在他自己的屋子里可以合法的跪，站，坐，或者用其它的姿势；可以穿白色或黑色，短或长的衣服吗？那么就别让在教会中吃面包，喝葡萄酒或受洗变成非法。一句话，如果在通常的生活中法律给与了自由的事情，请让它在每个教会的敬拜中仍保留自由。不要让任何人的生命，身体，房屋，财产因为这些原因遭受任何形式的伤害。你允许长老制的教义吗？那为什么主教制教会（英格兰教会）不能有他们自己的喜好呢？教会的权柄，无论是由一个人还是许多人行使，任何地方都是一样的；对世俗事务既没有审判权，也没有任何方式的强制权力，与财富和收入完全的没有关系。

WIND

刚才看了一下杜兰特的《文明的故事》中洛克一章.杜兰特在末尾提到一个德国人奥斯瓦德·斯彭格勒，以《西方的没落》而为人所知。他说：西方的启蒙，来源于英国，欧陆的理性主义，完全来自于洛克。我想起网事兄曾提到阿伦特说过与后一句意思差不多的话。在上个世纪前半期之前，不但中国与英国完全隔阂，欧陆对英国的理解也基本是一个误解。

WIND

而实际的情况是：英国和洛克有着相当的互动关系，他的有关宗教宽容的思想基本与英国的光荣变革同步。而洛克对美国的影响可以说是基础性的，他的思想在那些美国之父那里耳熟能详，杰斐森把洛克，牛顿，培根当作他们那个时代最伟大的三个人。

WIND

Ecclesiastical assemblies and sermons are justified by daily experience and public allowance. These are allowed to people of some one persuasion; why not to all? If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, it is to be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market. These meetings ought not to be sanctuaries for factious and flagitious fellows. Nor ought it to be less lawful for men to meet in churches than in halls; nor are one part of the ：（cts to be esteemed more blamable for their meeting together than others. Every one is to be accountable for his own actions, and no man is to be laid under a suspicion or odium for the fault of another. Those that are seditious, murderers, thieves, robbers, adulterers, slanderers, etc., of whatsoever Church, whether national or not, ought to be punished and suppressed. But those whose doctrine is peaceable and whose manners are pure and blameless ought to be upon equal terms with their fellow-：（cts.
宗教集会与布道已经由日常经验和公共默许证明为正当。但是只有某一种信仰被允许；为什么不允许所有的信仰？如果在宗教聚会中发生了什么骚乱，破坏了公共和平，它将受到与集市上的骚乱同样的惩罚。这些聚会不应成为帮派斗殴和凶残的人的庇护所。但是也不应当使教堂的聚会比大厅的聚会缺少合法性；或者让一部分臣民认为在一起聚会比别的聚会更应受到指责。每个人对他自己的行为负责，没有人因为他人的错误而置于被怀疑和责难的境地。那些骚乱者，谋杀者，偷窃者，抢劫者，通奸者，诽谤者，等等，无论属于什么教会，无论是否属于国教会，都应当受到惩罚和约束。但是那些教义和平以及行为纯净而无可指责者，就应当受到与其他的臣民平等的称谓（搞一个敌我，然后以国家的名义将要谋害的人称之为敌人，并不是什么新伎俩。）

WIND

Thus if solemn assemblies, observations of festivals, public worship be permitted to any one sort of professors, all these things ought to be permitted to the Pre：（erians, Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and others, with the same liberty. Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and a：（ecomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Gospel commands no such thing. The Church which "judgeth not those that are without"[9] wants it not. And the commonwealth, which embraces indifferently all men that are honest, peaceable, and industrious, requires it not. Shall we suffer a Pagan to deal and trade with us, and shall we not suffer him to pray unto and worship God? If we allow the Jews to have private houses and dwellings amongst us, why should we not allow them to have synagogues? Is their doctrine more false, their worship more abominable, or is the civil peace more endangered by their meeting in public than in their private houses? But if these things may be granted to Jews and Pagans, surely the condition of any Christians ought not to be worse than theirs in a Christian commonwealth.
因此，如果允许任何一种宗教信仰的庄严的集会，节日的庆祝，公共的敬拜，那么所有这些都应该给与长老会，其它分立教会，再洗礼派（16世纪欧洲宗教改革运动中的激进派。该派最突出的特点在于主张惟成年洗礼方为有效。他们遵循瑞士宗教改革家H.茨温利的说法，认为婴儿不应受到罪恶的惩罚，只有到了人能够区别善恶之后才可以，那时他们才能行使自由意志、认罪悔改而接受洗礼。//大英袖珍百科），阿米念派，贵格派（17世纪中期兴起于英国的新教教派。•••他们的信仰源自福克斯（1624.7～1691.1.13）等巡回牧师，强调，“内在之光”或对上帝的内在理解是宗教权威之根源。贵格会的集会特点是成员在沉默中耐心等待启发而布道。•••有些人移民到美国，他们在那里受到马萨诸塞湾殖民地迫害，但在宾夕法尼亚的贵格会殖民地和罗得岛得到容许，1681年在佩恩支持下由查理二世授予特许权状。成为贵格主义特点的其他标志是：简朴的语言和穿着、和平主义、反对奴隶制度。该团体还强调博爱，尤其是帮助难民和饥荒受害者；1947年，美国公谊服务委员会和(英国)公谊服务理事会共获诺贝尔和平奖。//大英袖珍百科），以及其他教派同样的自由。不仅如此，如果我们一个人对另一个人可以坦率的说真话，那么，无论是无信仰者还是穆罕默德信徒，或者犹太教徒，都不应当因为他的信仰而被剥夺共同体的世俗权利。福音书没有规定这样的事。“不审判教外的人”（《哥林多前书》5：12）的教会并不想这样做。平等的接纳所有诚实的，和平的与勤勉的人的共同体也不会这样做。难道我们容忍无信仰者同我们贸易，却不能容忍他向上帝祷告和敬拜？如果我们允许犹太人在我们中间拥有私人住宅和房屋，那为什么不允许他们拥有他们的教堂？因为教堂的公共集会而使他们的教义更荒谬，他们的敬拜更可恶，或者世俗的和平更危险吗？但是，如果这些事情可允许犹太教徒或无信仰者，那么，在一个基督化的共同体中基督徒的处境就不应当比他们更差。

WIND

You will say, perhaps: "Yes, it ought to be; because they are more inclinable to factions, tumults, and civil wars." I answer: Is this the fault of the Christian religion? If it be so, truly the Christian religion is the worst of all religions and ought neither to be embraced by any particular person, nor tolerated by any commonwealth. For if thi：（e the genius, this the nature of the Christian religion, to be turbulent and destructive to the civil peace, that Church itself which the magistrate indulges will not alway：（e innocent. But far be it from us to say any such thing of that religion which carries the greatest opposition to covetousness, ambition, discord, contention, and all manner of inordinate desires, and is the most modest and peaceable religion that ever was. We must, therefore, seek another cause of those evils that are charged upon religion. And, if we consider right, we shall find it to consist wholly in the ：（ct that I am treating of. It is not the diversity of opinions (which cannot be avoided), but the refusal of toleration to those that are of different opinions (which might have been granted), that has produced all the bustles and wars that have been in the Christian world upon account of religion. The heads and leaders of the Church, moved by avarice and insatiable desire of dominion, making use of the immoderate ambition of magistrates and the credulous superstition of the giddy multitude, have incensed and animated them against those that dissent from themselves, by preaching unto them, contrary to the laws of the Gospel and to the precepts of charity, that schismatics and heretics are to be outed of their possessions and destroyed. And thus have they mixed together and confounded two things that are in themselves most different, the Church and the commonwealth. Now as it is very difficult for men patiently to suffer themselves to be stripped of the goods which they have got by their honest industry, and, contrary to all the laws of equity, both human and divine, to be delivered up for a prey to other men's violence and rapine; especially when they are otherwise altogether blameless; and that the occasion for which they are thus treated does not at all belong to the jurisdiction of the magistrate, but entirely to the conscience of every particular man for the conduct of which he is accountable to God only; what else can be expected but that these men, growing weary of the evils under which they labour, should in the end think it lawful for them to resist force with force, and to defend their natural rights (which are not forfeitable upon account of religion) with arms as well as they can?
你可能会说：“是啊，就应当这样；因为它们更倾向于派别之争，骚乱和世俗的战争。”我的回答是：这是基督宗教信仰的过错吗？如果是这样，那确实基督宗教是所有宗教中最坏的，不但不应被任何个人所接纳，也不应被任何共同体所宽容。因为如果基督教的本性和作用就是使世俗和平暴躁和毁灭，那世俗法官所纵容的教会也不会是无罪的。但是，那种宗教远不是我们所说的这样，它最强烈的反对贪婪，野心，内斗，争夺，以及所有形式的过度的欲望，并且从来就是最谦逊和和平的宗教。所以，我们必须在这些指控之外寻找那些罪恶的原因。并且，如果我们正确考虑的话，我们应该会发现这些原因已经完全包含在我们的讨论之中了。这不是观点的差异（这不能避免），而是拒绝宽容那些不同观点的人（这可以允许），从而产生了所有基督教世界的宗教原因的喧嚣和战争。教会的首领，被贪婪和不可满足的支配他人的欲望所驱使，利用法官的过度的雄心和辨别力不强的多数群众的易受骗的迷信心理，违背福音书律法和仁慈的训令，向他们讲道说宗教派别分立者和异端应当剥夺他们的财产并毁灭之，以此激怒和煽动他们反对与他们观点分歧的人。这样，他们就混淆了两种就其性质来说完全不同的事物：教会和共同体。现在，因为人们很难有耐心忍受自己正直劳动获得的财产被剥夺，并且没有耐心，违背所有人或神的公平法律（laws of equity，吴译为平衡法），而甘愿成为他人暴力和掠夺的牺牲者；特别是当他们完全的无可指责的时候；加之他们遭遇如此待遇的时候完全不属于世俗法官的管辖范围，而完全的属于每个个体的道德心所管辖，其行为他只需向上帝交待；对于他们劳动境况中的邪恶越来越感到厌恶，除了最终认为用暴力反对暴力，尽其所能的武装保卫他们的自然权利（不会因为信仰的原因而丧失）是合法的，还能期待他们做什么呢？

WIND

That this ha：（een hitherto the ordinary course of things is abundantly evident in history, and that it will continue to be so hereafter i：（ut too apparent in reason. It cannot indeed, be otherwise so long as the principle of persecution for religion shall prevail, as it has done hitherto, with magistrate and people, and so long as those that ought to be the preachers of peace and concord shall continue with all their art and strength to excite men to arms and sound the trumpet of war. But that magistrates should thus suffer these incendiaries and disturbers of the public peace might justly be wondered at if it did not appear that they have been invited by them unto a participation of the spoil, and have therefore thought fit to make use of their covetousness and pride as means whereby to increase their own power. For who does not see that these good men are, indeed, more ministers of the government than ministers of the Gospel and that, by flattering the ambition and favouring the dominion of princes and men in authority, they endeavour with all their might to promote that tyranny in the commonwealth which otherwise they should not be able to establish in the Church? This is the unhappy agreement that we see between the Church and State. Whereas if each of them would contain itself within its own bounds — the one attending to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, the other to the salvation of souls — it is impos：（ that any discord should ever have happened between them. Sed pudet hoec opprobria. etc. God Almighty grant, I beseech Him, that the gospel of peace may at length be preached, and that civil magistrates, growing more careful to conform their own consciences to the law of God and less solicitous about the binding of other men's conscience：（y human laws, may, like fathers of their country, direct all their counsels and endeavours to promote universally the civil welfare of all their children, except only of such as are arrogant, ungovernable, and injurious to their brethren; and that all ecclesiastical men, who boast themselves to be the successors of the Apostles, walking peaceably and modestly in the Apostles' steps, without intermeddling with State Affairs, may apply themselves wholly to promote the salvation of souls.
迄今为止的历史中这通常的事件过程屡见不鲜，而且显而易见以后也将继续如此。只要宗教迫害的原则继续存在，如迄今法官和人们所做的那样，只要那些本来应当成为和平和和睦的布道者的人继续尽其全力鼓动人们拿起武器和猛吹战争的号角，这种状况就不会改观。但是，法官如此容忍这些破坏公共和平的教唆者和干扰者，禁不住让人有理由怀疑：他们是不是被邀请参与这种掠夺？而那些掠夺者认为利用法官的贪婪和狂妄作为增加他们自己的权力的手段是不错的选择。因为谁看不到：这些“好人”更多的不是传播福音的牧师，而是政府大臣，他们通过奉承和支持君主和掌权者的野心和权力，竭尽所能的促进共同体的暴政，否则暴政是不能在教会中建立的。这就是我们看到的教会和政府之间不幸的一致。然而，如果每一方都将自己限制在各自的边界内——一方关注共同体的世俗利益，另一方关注灵魂的拯救——那么任何两者之间的冲突都不会发生了。Sed pudet hoec opprobria. etc.（为拉丁文）我祈求全能的上帝应允：和平的福音最终得以传扬；世俗的法官，越来越谨慎的让他们自己的道德心遵从神的法律，不再热心用人间的法律来约束他人的道德心，像他们的建国之父那样，把他们所有的主张和努力都用于促进他们的子孙后代的普遍的世俗利益，只有那些狂妄的，肆无忌惮的，危害自己同胞的人不在此列；所有自诩要做使徒的继承者的教会神职人员，和平谦逊的跟随使徒的脚步，不干涉政府事务，全心全意地从事促进灵魂拯救的工作。
FAREWELL.
再见。

WIND

信的正文部分翻译完了.吴先生将magistrate翻译成官长,这个很中国化,我之前译成法官,现在想来翻译成:管理者,更恰当.

WIND

最后说明:

WIND

1，中文圣经参照版本：《圣经新译本》，新约全书在1976年面世，旧约的部分于1992年完成。
2，参考吴玉贵先生82年译本。
3，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。
#世俗管理者的责任是，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。
#管理者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管理者。
    *其次，对灵魂的关心不能属于世俗的管理者，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管理者；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；即使当世俗的管理者（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，不论是私人还是管理者（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管理者的职责，这当然是非常重要的。•••我们已经说明：对灵魂的关心不属于管理者的事情。•••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，世俗的管理者应当对教会宽容（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，管理者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：既然管理者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。
    *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。
    *进一步说，世俗的管理者不应当禁止任何推测性的观点在任何教会布道或宣称，因为它们与臣民的世俗权利没有任何的关系。
    *（应用性的宗教信条）这些事情作了上述解释之后，对于应当将立法权力引向什么样的目的以及用什么样的尺度进行调整的问题就易于理解了；那就是社会世俗的财产和繁荣；这也是人们进入社会唯一的原因，以及他们寻找和追求的唯一目的。然后在人们的永恒的灵魂拯救方面还保留有什么自由就显而易见了，那就是每个人应当做那些在他的道德感上被说服能被全能的上帝所接受的事，他们的永恒的幸福依赖于上帝的悦纳。因为顺服，首先是服从上帝，然后才是服从法律。
    *（应用性的宗教信条）现在来说说一些个别的情况。
        ^我认为，首先，与人类社会或者维持世俗社会所必需的那些道德规则相背离的观点，都不应受到管理者的宽容。不过这一点，实际上在任何教会都很少见。•••另一种更加隐秘却对共同体更加危险的邪恶是：当人们为他们自己或者他们自己的派别谋取一些特有权利的时候，往往外覆华丽的欺骗语言，而实际上却与共同体的世俗权利相背离。
        ^其次，如下的教会没有权利要求管理者的宽容，即：它建立的基础是，凡入会者事实上都是把他们交付另一个君主的保护和服务之下。
        ^最后，那些否认上帝存在的人，是完全谈不上被宽容的。•••至于其它应用性的观点，虽然不是绝对的没有错误，如果它们不会趋于建立对他人的支配权，或者向他们所在的教会要求免于世俗的惩罚权，也就没有理由不对它们宽容。
#在信的末尾我说说那些集会，它们通俗这样称呼有时候可能也是“宗教派别分立和社会骚乱的秘密聚会与温床”，被认为是为反对宽容提供了依据。
#至此我们可以作出结论。我们的全部意图就是为了说明：每个人应当享有与他人同样的权利。