WIND

We have already proved that the care of souls does not belong to the magistrate. Not a magisterial care, I mean (if I may so call it), which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments. But a charitable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The care, therefore, of every man's soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills.
我们已经说明：对灵魂的关心不属于法官的事情。不是法官关心的事，我的意思是（如果我可以这样说的话）：法官的事情是由法律规定并由惩罚来强制的。但是一种仁慈的关怀，是指教导，劝诫和说服，是不会被每个人拒绝的。所以，这种对每个人灵魂的的关怀属于他自己并且留给他自己。但是，如果他对自己的灵魂漠不关心呢？我的回答是：如果他对自己的健康或者他的财产漠不关心呢？这种事情不是比别的事情与法官管辖的关系更近吗？法官能够用明文的法律条文来保证这样的人不该变穷和生病？法律最大可能保证的，是国民（一个国家的人）的财产和健康不因他人的欺骗和暴力遭受损害；它们不能保护这些人自己的随意和错误的农事管理。不论一个人愿意与否，都不能强迫他富裕或者健康。没有，上帝也不会违背一个人的意愿来拯救他。

WIND

Let us suppose, however, that some prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate riches, or to preserve the health and strength of their bodies. Shall it be provided by law that they must consult none but Roman physicians, and shall everyone be bound to live according to their prescriptions? What, shall no potion, no broth, be taken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in a Geneva shop? Or, to make these subjects rich, shall they all be obliged by law to become merchants or musicians? Or, shall everyone turn victualler, or smith, because there are some that maintain their families plentifully and grow rich in those professions? But, it may be said, there are a thousand ways to wealth, but one only way to heaven. It is well said, indeed, especially by those that plead for compelling men into this or the other way. For if there were several ways that led thither, there would not be so much as a pretence left for compulsion.
然而，让我们假设一下：某个君主欲强迫他的臣民积累财富或者保持身体的健康和力量。应当通过法律以让这些臣民只能找罗马的医师吗？并且每个人只应当根据他们的药方而活下去吗？想想，除了瓦提肯（Vatican），或者基尼瓦（Geneva）药店里的药物，禁止到其他地方去买，会怎么样？或者，为了使臣民富裕，应当通过法律强迫他们成为销售商或者音乐家？或者，每个人都应当开饭店，做铁匠，因为有人通过这些行业富足的供养了他们的家庭并变得富裕？但是，有人可能会这样说：创造财富的途径有上千种，通往天堂的路只有一条。确实，这话说得好，特别是那些为宗教上强迫他人走这条或那条路的人辩护的人。因为如果有好几条路通往天国，那么就不会留下那么多的强迫借口了。

WIND

But now, if I be marching on with my utmost vigour in that way which, according to the sacred geography, leads straight to Jerusalem, why am I beaten and ill-used by others because, perhaps, I wear not buskins; because my hair is not of the right cut; because, perhaps, I have not been dipped in the right fashion; because I eat flesh upon the road, or some other food which agrees with my stomach; because I avoid certain by-ways, which seem unto me to lead into briars or precipices; because, amongst the several paths that are in the same road, I choose that to walk in which seems to be the straightest and cleanest; because I avoid to keep company with some travellers that are less grave and others that are more sour than they ought to be; or, in fine, because I follow a guide that either is, or is not, clothed in white, or crowned with a mitre? Certainly, if we consider right, we shall find that, for the most part, they are such frivolous things as these that (without any prejudice to religion or the salvation of souls, if not accompanied with superstition or hypocrisy) might either be observed or omitted. I say they are such-like things as these which breed implacable enmities amongst Christian brethren, who are all agreed in the substantial and truly fundamental part of religion.
但是现在，如果我正依据那个引导人到耶路撒冷的神圣地理学劲头十足的开始我的长途跋涉，为什么要被他人暴力虐待和折磨？可能因为：我没有穿高统靴；或者我的头发未按某种样式修剪；或者我未按某种方式受洗；或者在路上我吃了肉或其它很对我胃口的食物；或者我绕开了一段在我看来要导向荆棘或悬崖的路；或者在几条通向目的地的路中我选了一条在我看来最近最好走的路；或者我避免与不怎么严肃的人以及过于酸腐的人为伴；或者，最后，因为我跟随了一个穿或未穿白衣，戴或未戴主教头冠的人。其实，如果我们考虑正确的话，我们会发现：这其中的大多数都是非常琐碎的（如果不带迷信或伪善，对信仰或灵魂的拯救而言就不会有任何伤害）可遵守可不遵守的事情。我说，就是诸如此类的事情在基督徒弟兄之间激起不可宽容的仇恨，而本来基督徒在信仰的实质内容和真实的基础部分都是意见一致的。

WIND

But let us grant unto these zealots, who condemn all things that are not of their mode,that from these circumstances are different ends. What shall we conclude fromthence? There is only one of these which is the true way to eternal happiness:but in this great variety of ways that men follow, it is still doubted which isthe right one. Now, neither the care of the commonwealth, nor the rightenacting of laws, does discover this way that leads to heaven more certainly to the magistrate than every private man's search and study discovers it unto himself.

但是假如我们承认这些不合他们模式就要遭受惩罚的宗教狂热者的意见：这些不同的条件将导致不同的结果。我们又会得出什么结论呢？这其中只有一条路是通向永恒幸福的路：但是在这许多条路之中，哪一条路对还是不能确定的。现在，不论法官是对共同利益的关心，还是正确的立法，都不能比每个私人探索和研习他自己的路更确定的发现引向天堂的路。

WIND

I have a weak body, sunk under a languishing disease, for which (I suppose) there is one only remedy, but that unknown. Does it therefore belong unto the magistrate to prescribe me a remedy, because there is but one, and because it is unknown? Because there is but one way for me to escape death, will it therefore be safe for me to do whatsoever the magistrate ordains? Those things that every man ought sincerely to inquire into himself, and by meditation, study, search, and his own endeavours, attain the knowledge of, cannot be looked upon as the peculiar possession of any sort of men.
我身体虚弱，因为疾病而情绪低落，这种病（我猜想）只有一种治疗的方法，但是我还不知道。所以，应该由法官来为我规定一种治疗的方法，因为只有一种，而又不知道？因为对我而言只有一条路逃离死亡，所以安全的方法就是按法官的指令去做？所有那些事情，每个人应该真诚的询问他自己，通过沉思，研习，探索，和他自己的努力而获得相关的知识，不能视为某种人的独特财产。

WIND

Princes, indeed, are born superior unto other men in power, but in nature equal. Neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry along with it the certain knowledge of other things, and least of all of true religion. For if it were so, how could it come to pass that the lords of the earth should differ so vastly as they do in religious matters? But let us grant that it is probable the way to eternal life may be better known by a prince than by his subjects, or at least that in this incertitude of things the safest and most commodious way for private persons is to follow his dictates. You will say: "What then?" If he should bid you follow merchandise for your livelihood, would you decline that course for fear it should not succeed? I answer: I would turn merchant upon the prince's command, because, in case I should have ill-success in trade, he is abundantly able to make up my loss some other way. If it be true, as he pretends, that he desires I should thrive and grow rich, he can set me up again when unsuccessful voyages have broken me. But this is not the case in the things that regard the life to come; if there I take a wrong course, if in that respect I am once undone, it is not in the magistrate's power to repair my loss, to ease my suffering, nor to restore me in any measure, much less entirely, to a good estate. What security can be given for the Kingdom of Heaven?
君主们在权力上确实生来就比其他人更具威望，但是在自然本性上大家是平等的，权利和统治的手段都不会必然的带来别的某种知识，与真正的信仰就更没有关系了。因为如果有关系，那怎么解释地球上的君主在宗教事务上会有如此大的分歧？但是如果我们承认君主比他的臣民更可能知道那条永恒生命的道路，或者至少承认在这种不确定的事情上私人最安全最可行的方法就是按照君主的命令行事。你会问：“那意味着什么？”如果他命令你去从商，你能因为担心不会成功而拒绝吗？我的回答是：我会按照君主的命令去从商，因为，如果我在贸易上失败了，他完全有能力用其它的途径弥补我的损失。如果他声称的是真实的，是想要我兴旺致富的，当我因为失败而破产的时候他会让我再一次站立起来的。但是，在考虑将来的世界的问题上不是这么回事；如果我走错了路，并因此而毁了自己，对于一个好人，是不能通过法官的权力来修复这种损失，缓和我的痛苦的，也不能使我得到任何程度的恢复，更不必说完全恢复了。对于天国君主能够给与什么保证呢？

WIND

Perhaps some will say that they do not suppose this infallible judgement, that all men are bound to follow in the affairs of religion, to be in the civil magistrate, but in the Church. What the Church has determined, that the civil magistrate orders to be observed; and he provides by his authority that nobody shall either act or believe in the business of religion otherwise than the Church teaches. So that the judgement of those things is in the Church; the magistrate himself yields obedience thereunto and requires the like obedience from others. I answer: Who sees not how frequently the name of the Church, which was venerable in time of the apostles, has been made use of to throw dust in the people's eyes in the following ages?
有人可能会说：他们并不认为这种完全可靠的判断——在信仰上所有人应该被限制服从——在于世俗的法官，而认为在于教会。教会决定的事情，世俗的法官命令遵守；他用他的权柄保证在信仰的事情上除了教会教导的任何人不得去做或相信别的。所以那些事情的断定在于教会；法官本人只是做到服从，并要求其他人服从而已。我的回答是：自教会备受尊重的使徒时期开始，谁没有看到后世教会的名义经常的被用来向人们的眼里扔尘土？

WIND

But, however, in the present case it helps us not. The one only narrow way which leads to heaven is not better known to the magistrate than to private persons, and therefore I cannot safely take him for my guide, who may probably be as ignorant of the way as myself, and who certainly is less concerned for my salvation than I myself am. Amongst so many kings of the Jews, how many of them were there whom any Israelite, thus blindly following, had not fallen into idolatry and thereby into destruction?
但是，在目前的情形中，这样解释对我们没有帮助。引导到天堂的只有一条狭窄的路，法官并不比私人了解得更多，因此我不能放心的由他来指导我，对这条路他可能和我一样无知，他当然的不会比我更关心自己的拯救。在那么多的犹太国王中，有多少国王盲目跟从古以色列人，而没有堕入偶像崇拜并因此灭亡？

WIND

Yet, nevertheless, you bid me be of good courage and tell me that all is now safe and secure, because the magistrate does not now enjoin the observance of his own decrees in matters of religion, but only the decrees of the Church. Of what Church, I beseech you? of that, certainly, which likes him best. As if he that compels me by laws and penalties to enter into this or the other Church, did not interpose his own judgement in the matter. What difference is there whether he lead me himself, or deliver me over to be led by others? I depend both ways upon his will, and it is he that determines both ways of my eternal state. Would an Israelite that had worshipped Baal upon the command of his king have been in any better condition because somebody had told him that the king ordered nothing in religion upon his own head, nor commanded anything to be done by his subjects in divine worship but what was approved by the counsel of priests, and declared to be of divine right by the doctors of their Church? If the religion of any Church become, therefore, true and saving, because the head of that sect, the prelates and priests, and those of that tribe, do all of them, with all their might, extol and praise it, what religion can ever be accounted erroneous, false, and destructive? I am doubtful concerning the doctrine of the Socinians, I am suspicious of the way of worship practised by the Papists, or Lutherans; will it be ever a jot safer for me to join either unto the one or the other of those Churches, upon the magistrate's command, because he commands nothing in religion but by the authority and counsel of the doctors of that Church?
然而，你还是要求我鼓起勇气并告诉我现在一切都安全可靠了，因为法官现在要求服从的不是他自己在信仰上的法令，而是教会的法令。请问你：是什么教会的法令？当然是与他最相似的了。在这件事情上，似乎他用法律和惩罚强迫我加入这间或那间教会，并不混杂他自己的判断。由他自己亲自来引导我，或者将我交由别的人来引导，这有什么区别呢？这两种方式我都将依赖他的意志，都是由他来决定我的永恒的情形。一个在国王的命令下敬拜巴力神（Baal）的古以色列人，会因为有人告诉他国王的命令中没有他自己的意志或者他的臣民的影响，只是被教士们商议承认并由教会长老们宣布的神圣权利而得到更好的条件？所以，如果任何教会的宗教信仰可以变成真实和拯救的信仰，只是因为那个教派，主教和教士们的首领以及那个部落的宗教首领们竭尽所能的吹捧和颂扬它，那么究竟还有什么宗教能够被认定是错误，虚假和毁灭性的？我怀疑索悉尼派（Socinians）的教义，我也怀疑天主教派（Papists，教皇信奉者）或者卢瑟派（Lutherans，以前译为路德派）的敬拜方式；对我来说，在法官的命令下加入那些教会中的这个或那个会略微安全些吗？因为在宗教信仰的问题上除了教会长老们的商议和权柄他并没有命令别的。

WIND

But, to speak the truth, we must acknowledge that the Church (if a convention of clergymen, making canons, must be called by that name) is for the most part more apt to be influenced by the Court than the Court by the Church. How the Church was under the vicissitude of orthodox and Arian emperors is very well known. Or if those things be too remote, our modern English history affords us fresh examples in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, how easily and smoothly the clergy changed their decrees, their articles of faith, their form of worship, everything according to the inclination of those kings and queens. Yet were those kings and queens of such different minds in point of religion, and enjoined thereupon such different things, that no man in his wits (I had almost said none but an atheist) will presume to say that any sincere and upright worshipper of God could, with a safe conscience, obey their several decrees. To conclude, it is the same thing whether a king that prescribes laws to another man's religion pretend to do it by his own judgement, or by the ecclesiastical authority and advice of others. The decisions of churchmen, whose differences and disputes are sufficiently known, cannot be any sounder or safer than his; nor can all their suffrages joined together add a new strength to the civil power. Though this also must be taken notice of — that princes seldom have any regard to the suffrages of ecclesiastics that are not favourers of their own faith and way of worship.
但是，要说事实的话，我们必须承认：教会（如果一个由牧师组成，制定教规的会议必须这样称呼的话）中的大多数更易于受王室的影响而不是相反。在正统派和阿里乌斯派（Arian，由亚历山大里亚的基督教牧师阿里乌斯Arius[AD250——336]提出，其争论的焦点是三一理论。阿里乌斯认为耶稣并不是一个完全的神，而是三一中较低的一位。）皇帝交替统治下的教会是个什么样子，已经为人所熟知。或者如果那些事情太过久远的话，我们近现代的英国历史提供了鲜活的例子：在亨利八世，爱德华六世，玛丽，以及伊丽莎白的统治下，牧师们是多么容易而圆滑的改变他们的教规，信条和敬拜的形式，任何事情都根据那些国王和女王的意愿。然而那些国王和女王在宗教信仰的观点上如此的不同，颁布的法令相去甚远，以至于没有人凭他自己的理智（我可以说除了无信仰者几乎没有人）能够说：一个诚实和正直的上帝的敬拜者能够以可靠的道德心遵守他们几个的教规。所以结论就是：一个国王不论是宣称以他自己的判断规定他人的信仰，还是宣称以教会的权柄和他人的建议，这是一回事。教士们的决定——教士之间的分歧和争论早已为人所熟知——并不会比国王更安全可靠；即令他们完全的一致也不会增加新的世俗权力。当然，还必须注意这样的事实：国王对于那些他不喜好的信仰和敬拜，很少理会。

WIND

But, after all, the principal consideration, and which absolutely determines this controversy, is this: Although the magistrate's opinion in religion be sound, and the way that he appoints be truly Evangelical, yet, if I be not thoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind, there will be no safety for me in following it. No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed. I may grow rich by an art that I take not delight in; I may be cured of some disease by remedies that I have not faith in; but I cannot be saved by a religion that I distrust and by a worship that I abhor. It is in vain for an unbeliever to take up the outward show of another man's profession. Faith only and inward sincerity are the things that procure acceptance with God. The most likely and most approved remedy can have no effect upon the patient, if his stomach reject it as soon as taken; and you will in vain cram a medicine down a sick man's throat, which his particular constitution will be sure to turn into poison. In a word, whatsoever may be doubtful in religion, yet this at least is certain, that no religion which I believe not to be true can be either true or profitable unto me. In vain, therefore, do princes compel their subjects to come into their Church communion, under pretence of saving their souls. If they believe, they will come of their own accord, if they believe not, their coming will nothing avail them. How great soever, in fine, may be the pretence of good-will and charity, and concern for the salvation of men's souls, men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore, when all is done, they must be left to their own consciences.
总而言之，完全决定这种争论的首要考虑是：尽管世俗法官在信仰上的观点可能可信，他指出的道路也可能确实是真正的福音（Evangelical：福音派新教徒，我的理解是偏重于对福音书的理解），然而，如果我不是完全的被他的观点说服，那么我跟从它就不是安全的。无论我走哪条路，只要违背我的道德心的指示，就不可能到达那蒙福的所在。我可以通过我不喜欢的手艺获取财富；我可以通过我不确信的药物治愈一些疾病；但是，我不能通过一种我不相信的信仰和一种我憎恨的敬拜方式获得拯救。一个不信者接受另一个人声称的外在形式是没有意义的。只有信仰和内心的诚实才可能获得上帝的悦纳。如果一个病人服药马上就吐出来，那么很可能有效很被他人认可的药物对他也没有效果；如果你猛灌一个病人药物而他特殊的条件使它转变为毒药，那是不可能治好的。一句话，信仰上无论什么都可以怀疑，但是有一点是确定的：我相信不为真的信仰就不会为真，对我也没有用。所以，国王们在拯救灵魂的借口下强迫他们的臣民加入他们的教会团体，是没有用的。如果他们相信，他们会自愿加入，如果他们不相信，他们的加入又有何用。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。

WIND

Norman Rockwell的那幅画（自由敬拜）要表达的意思，洛克在几百年前就非常明白的表达并论述了。

WIND

Having thus at length freed men from all dominion over one another in matters of religion, let us now consider what they are to do. All men know and acknowledge that God ought to be publicly worshipped; why otherwise do they compel one another unto the public assemblies? Men, therefore, constituted in this liberty are to enter into some religious society, that they meet together, not only for mutual edification, but to own to the world that they worship God and offer unto His Divine Majesty such service as they themselves are not ashamed of and such as they think not unworthy of Him, nor unacceptable to Him; and, finally, that by the purity of doctrine, holiness of life, and decent form of worship, they may draw others unto the love of the true religion, and perform such other things in religion as cannot be done by each private man apart.
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。每个人知道并承认：应当公开的敬拜上帝；那为什么他们要彼此强迫参加这种公开的聚会呢？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。

WIND

These religious societies I call Churches; and these, I say, the magistrate ought to tolerate, for the business of these assemblies of the people is nothing but what is lawful for every man in particular to take care of — I mean the salvation of their souls; nor in this case is there any difference between the National Church and other separated congregations.
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。
But as in every Church there are two things especially to be considered — the outward form and rites of worship, and the doctrines and articles of things must be handled each distinctly that so the whole matter of toleration may the more clearly be understood.
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。

WIND

Concerning outward worship, I say, in the first place, that the magistrate has no power to enforce by law, either in his own Church, or much less in another, the use of any rites or ceremonies whatsoever in the worship of God. And this, not only because these Churches are free societies, but because whatsoever is practised in the worship of God is only so far justifiable as it is believed by those that practise it to be acceptable unto Him. Whatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith is neither well in itself, nor can it be acceptable to God. To impose such things, therefore, upon any people, contrary to their own judgment, is in effect to command them to offend God, which, considering that the end of all religion is to please Him, and that liberty is essentially necessary to that end, appears to be absurd beyond expression.
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。这一点，不仅因为教会是自由的社团，也因为人们在敬拜上帝时无论做什么，仅仅是那些敬拜者相信这样做可被上帝悦纳。没有信仰的保证无论做什么自己既不认可，也不会被上帝接受。所以，仪式的强迫对于任何人，若与他们内心的判断相对立，只会命令他们去触怒上帝，考虑到所有宗教信仰的目的都是为了取悦上帝，而信仰自由对此目的又是十分必要，这样做就显得无法表达的荒谬了。

WIND

But perhaps it may be concluded from hence that I deny unto the magistrate all manner of power about indifferent things, which, if it be not granted, the whole subject-matter of law-making is taken away. No, I readily grant that indifferent things, and perhaps none but such, are subjected to the legislative power. But it does not therefore follow that the magistrate may ordain whatsoever he pleases concerning anything that is indifferent. The public good is the rule and measure of all law-making. If a thing be not useful to the commonwealth, though it be never so indifferent, it may not presently be established by law.
但是，可能人们会由此推断：我否定法官在无关紧要的事情上的所有形式的权力，如果不承认这种权力，整个立法的针对目的都拿掉了。不，我当然愿意承认那些无关紧要的事情，可能还只是这些事情，是立法权力的针对目的。但是并不因此推论出在这些无关紧要的事情上法官可以随意颁布他高兴的法律。公益是立法的约束规则和评判尺度。如果一件事情不影响共同利益，就算它不那么无关紧要，也不可以用法律来干预。

WIND

And further, things never so indifferent in their own nature, when they are brought into the Church and worship of God, are removed out of the reach of the magistrate's jurisdiction, because in that use they have no connection at all with civil affairs. The only business of the Church is the salvation of souls, and it no way concerns the commonwealth, or any member of it, that this or the other ceremony be there made use of. Neither the use nor the omission of any ceremonies in those religious assemblies does either advantage or prejudice the life, liberty, or estate of any man. For example, let it be granted that the washing of an infant with water is in itself an indifferent thing, let it be granted also that the magistrate understand such washing to be profitable to the curing or preventing of any disease the children are subject unto, and esteem the matter weighty enough to be taken care of by a law. In that case he may order it to be done. But will any one therefore say that a magistrate has the same right to ordain by law that all children shall be baptised by priests in the sacred font in order to the purification of their souls? The extreme difference of these two cases is visible to every one at first sight. Or let us apply the last case to the child of a Jew, and the thing speaks itself. For what hinders but a Christian magistrate may have subjects that are Jews? Now, if we acknowledge that such an injury may not be done unto a Jew as to compel him, against his own opinion, to practise in his religion a thing that is in its nature indifferent, how can we maintain that anything of this kind may be done to a Christian?

进一步说，就其自身性质而言不那么平常的事情，一旦进入教会被用于敬拜上帝，就超出了世俗法官的管辖范围，因为这种用途不再和世俗事务有关联。教会唯一的事务是拯救灵魂，采用这种或其它的仪式不关乎世俗的共同利益或者任何成员的世俗利益。在信仰聚会中采用或不采用某些仪式都不有助或有损于任何人的生命，自由，或者财产。举例来说，假定用水洗婴孩其本身是一件平常的事情，也假定法官知道对于婴孩而言这样的洗浴有益于治疗和预防一些疾病，于是认为这种事情足够重要应当用法律来关注。在这种情况下，他可以命令这样做。但是有谁会因此说：法官有同样的权利用法律规定所有的婴孩为了洗净他们的灵魂应当由牧师放入圣水盆里受洗呢？这两种情形之间的巨大差别，每个人一眼就可以看出。或者让我们将这种情形应用于犹太人的婴孩，事情就更加清楚了。因为有什么可以阻止基督徒法官管制犹太人的呢？现在，如果我们承认不应如此违背一个犹太人的观点强迫他必须遭受这种耻辱，去实行一种就其本身性质来说很平常但却是信仰中的仪式，那么我们怎么能够认为这类事情可以对一个基督徒实行呢？

WIND

Again, things in their own nature indifferent cannot, by any human authority, be made any part of the worship of God — for this very reason: because they are indifferent. For, since indifferent things are not capable, by any virtue of their own, to propitiate the Deity, no human power or authority can confer on them so much dignity and excellency as to enable them to do it. In the common affairs of life that use of indifferent things which God has not forbidden is free and lawful, and therefore in those things human authority has place. But it is not so in matters of religion. Things indifferent are not otherwise lawful in the worship of God than as they are instituted by God Himself and as He, by some positive command, has ordained them to be made a part of that worship which He will vouchsafe to accept at the hands of poor sinful men. Nor, when an incensed Deity shall ask us, "Who has required these, or such-like things at your hands?" will it be enough to answer Him that the magistrate commanded them. If civil jurisdiction extend thus far, what might not lawfully be introduced into religion? What hodgepodge of ceremonies, what superstitious inventions, built upon the magistrate's authority, might not (against conscience) be imposed upon the worshippers of God? For the greatest part of these ceremonies and superstitions consists in the religious use of such things as are in their own nature indifferent; nor are they sinful upon any other account than because God is not the author of them. The sprinkling of water and the use of bread and wine are both in their own nature and in the ordinary occasions of life altogether indifferent. Will any man, therefore, say that these things could have been introduced into religion and made a part of divine worship if not by divine institution? If any human authority or civil power could have done this, why might it not also enjoin the eating of fish and drinking of ale in the holy banquet as a part of divine worship? Why not the sprinkling of the blood of beasts in churches, and expiations by water or fire, and abundance more of this kind? But these things, how indifferent soever they be in common uses, when they come to be annexed unto divine worship, without divine authority, they are as abominable to God as the sacrifice of a dog. And why is a dog so abominable? What difference is there between a dog and a goat, in respect of the divine nature, equally and infinitely distant from all affinity with matter, unless it be that God required the use of one in His worship and not of the other? We see, therefore, that indifferent things, how much soever they be under the power of the civil magistrate, yet cannot, upon that pretence, be introduced into religion and imposed upon religious assemblies, because, in the worship of God, they wholly cease to be indifferent. He that worships God does it with design to please Him and procure His favour. But that cannot be done by him who, upon the command of another, offers unto God that which he knows will be displeasing to Him, because not commanded by Himself. This is not to please God, or appease His wrath, but willingly and knowingly to provoke Him by a manifest contempt, which is a thing absolutely repugnant to the nature and end of worship.
另一方面，就其自身性质而言平常的事情也不能依靠人类的权力而成为敬拜上帝仪式的一部分——恰恰由于这个原因：因为它们平常。因为，既然平常的事情没有能力凭借自身的美德去愉悦上帝，那么就没有任何人类力量或者权力能够赋予它们如此的高贵和优点使它们有能力承担这一点。在平常的生活当中，行上帝未予禁止的事情是自由和合法的，所以在这些事情上人类的权力还是有位置的。但是在宗教事务上就不是这么回事。这些平常的事情，如果不是被上帝亲自制定，如果不是被上帝用肯定的命令规定可以做为敬拜的一部分，这些祂允诺可从可怜的罪恶的人类手中接受，那么，用于敬拜就是不合法的。当盛怒的上帝斥问我们：“是谁从你们手上要求这些东西的？”我们回答祂这是世俗法官的命令就不够了。倘若世俗的管辖权可以扩张得这么远，那还有什么不能合法的引入宗教信仰领域？无论多么混杂的仪式，无论多么迷信的编造，依靠这种法官的权力，不会违背上帝敬拜者的道德心而强加于他们？因为这些仪式和迷信的绝大部分都在于将本来平常的事情用于宗教用途；这些之所以邪恶并不是因为别的原因，只是因为它们并非来自上帝。洒水，吃面包，饮葡萄酒就其自身来说，或者在生活当中都是平常的事情。所以，谁能说如果不是因为神所制定这些事情能够引入宗教并成为敬拜仪式的一部分？如果任何人类权柄或者世俗权力能够这样做，那么为什么不可以命令在圣餐上吃鱼喝啤酒并成为神圣敬拜的一部分？那为什么不可以在教堂里洒动物的血，用水或火来赎罪，以及诸如此类的事情？因为这些事情，无论在通常情况下是多么的平常，一旦被用于神圣的敬拜，而没有神的权柄，就会像献祭狗一样变得为神所憎恨。而为什么献祭狗如此可憎？在神性上同样远离敬拜的狗和羊，仅仅因为上帝选择这一个而未选择另一个，有什么不同吗？由此我们可以看到：平常的事情，无论它们怎样受到世俗法官的管辖，也不能被宣称引入宗教并强加于信仰聚会，因为，在敬拜上帝时，它们不再平常。一个人敬拜上帝，为的是愉悦上帝并获得祂的帮助。但是他不能在另一个人的命令之下，将他知道因为不是来自上帝不会愉悦上帝的奉献给祂。这不是愉悦上帝，或者平息祂的愤怒，而是用明显的蔑视去故意激怒祂，这绝对是与敬拜的性质和目的背道而驰的。

WIND

But it will be here asked: "If nothing belonging to divine worship be left to human discretion, how is it then that Churches themselves have the power of ordering anything about the time and place of worship and the like?" To this I answer that in religious worship we must distinguish between what is part of the worship itself and what is but a circumstance. That is a part of the worship which is believed to be appointed by God and to be well-pleasing to Him, and therefore that is necessary. Circumstances are such things which, though in general they cannot be separated from worship, yet the particular instances or modifications of them are not determined, and therefore they are indifferent. Of this sort are the time and place of worship, habit and posture of him that worships. These are circumstances, and perfectly indifferent, where God has not given any express command about them. For example: amongst the Jews the time and place of their worship and the habits of those that officiated in it were not mere circumstances, but a part of the worship itself, in which, if anything were defective, or different from the institution, they could not hope that it would be accepted by God. But these, to Christians under the liberty of the Gospel, are mere circumstances of worship, which the prudence of every Church may bring into such use as shall be judged most subservient to the end of order, decency, and edification. But, even under the Gospel, those who believe the first or the seventh day to be set apart by God, and consecrated still to His worship, to them that portion of time is not a simple circumstance, but a real part of Divine worship, which can neither be changed nor neglected.
这里人们可能会问：“如果在属于神圣敬拜的事情上没有给人类留下任何的选择余地，那么教会他们自己如何拥有规定敬拜的时间地点以及诸如此类的权力？”对此我的回答是：在宗教信仰的敬拜中我们必须辨别什么是敬拜本身，什么是敬拜的细节。敬拜本身的部分须相信要由上帝来指定并能为祂所悦纳，所以那是必须的。细节是诸如此类的事情，虽然一般它们不能与敬拜相分离，然而特别的情况或修改并未禁止，因此它们就显得无关紧要。这一类的事情诸如敬拜的时间和地点，信徒敬拜的习惯和姿势。这些就是细节，完全的无关紧要，在这些事情上上帝没有明确的诫令。举例来说：在犹太人中，他们敬拜的时间和地点以及习惯就不仅仅是细节，而是敬拜本身的一部分，在这些当中，如果任何事情有缺陷，或与惯例不同，他们就不能期望为上帝所接受。但是这些事情，对于享有福音书的自由的基督徒来说，只不过是敬拜的细节，对此每个教会都可以将它们用于他们认为最有用的诫令，庄重和教诲的目的。但是，即使在福音书之下，那些信守第一或者第七天为上帝专门规定的信徒来说，仍然是敬拜本身，对他们来说这个时间的规定就不是简单的细节问题，确实是神圣的敬拜的一部分，即不能更改也不能忽略。

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。

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.

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。

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。

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

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。