the american republic-第18章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
That legitimate governments are instituted under the natural law is frankly conceded； but this is by no means the concession of government as a natural development。 The reason and will of which the natural law is the expression are the reason and will of God。 The natural law is the divine law as much as the revealed law itself； and equally obligatory。 It is not a natural force developing itself in na… 98 ture； like the law of generation； for instance； and therefore proceeding from God as first cause； but it proceeds from God as final cause； and is； therefore； theological； and strictly a moral law； founding moral rights and duties。 Of course； all morality and all legitimate government rest on this law； or； if you will； originate in it。 But not therefore in nature； but in the Author of nature。 The authority is not the authority of nature； but of Him who holds nature in the hollow of His hand。
V。 In the seventeenth century a class of political writers who very well understood that no creature； no man； no number of men； not even； nature herself； can be inherently sovereign； defended the opinion that governments are founded； constituted； and clothed with their authority by the direct and express appointment of God himself。 They denied that rulers hold their power from the nation； that； however oppressive may be their rule； that they are justiciable by any human tribunal； or that power； except by the direct judgment of God； is amissible。 Their doctrine is known in history as the doctrine of 〃the divine right of kings； and passive obedience。〃 All power； says St。 Paul； is from God； and the powers that be are ordained of God； and to resist them is to resist 99 the ordination of God。 They must be obeyed for conscience' sake。
It would； perhaps； be rash to say that this doctrine had never been broached before the seventeenth century； but it received in that century； and chiefly in England； its fullest and most systematic developments。 It was patronized by the Anglican divines； asserted by James I。 of England； and lost the Stuarts the crown of three kingdoms。 It crossed the Channel； into France； where it found a few hesitating and stammering defenders among Catholics； under Louis XIV。； but it has never been very generally held； though it has had able and zealous supporters。 In England it was opposed by all the Presbyterians； Puritans； Independents； and Republicans； and was forgotten or abandoned by the Anglican divines themselves in the Revolution of 1688； that expelled James II。 and crowned William and Mary。 It was ably refuted by the Jesuit Suarez in his reply to a Remonstrance for the Divine Right of Kings by the James I。； and a Spanish monk who had asserted it in Madrid； under Philip II。； was compelled by the Inquisition to retract it publicly in the place where he had asserted it。 All republicans reject it； and the Church has never sanctioned it。 The Sovereign 100 Pontiffs have claimed and exercised the right to deprive princes of their principality； and to absolve their subjects from the oath of fidelity。 Whether the Popes rightly claimed and exercised that power is not now the question； but their having claimed and exercised it proves that the Church does not admit the inamissibility of power and passive obedience； for the action of the Pope was judicial； not legislative。 The Pope has never claimed the right to depose a prince till by his own act he has； under the moral law or the constitution of his state； forfeited his power； nor to absolve subjects from their allegiance till their oath； according to its true intent and meaning； has ceased to bind。 If the Church has always asserted with the Apostle there is no power but from Godnon est potestas nisi a Deoshe has always through her doctors maintained that it is a trust to be exercised for the public good； and is forfeited when persistently exercised in a contrary sense。 St。 Augustine； St。 Thomas； and Suarez all maintain that unjust laws are violences rather than laws； and do not oblige； except in charity or prudence； and that the republic may change its magistrates； and even its constitution； if it sees proper to do so。
That God； as universal Creator； is Sovereign 101 Lord and proprietor of all created things or existences； visible or invisible； is certain； for the maker has the absolute right to the thing made； it is his； and he may do with it as he will。 As he is sole creator； he alone hath dominion； and as he is absolute creator； he has absolute dominion over all the things which he has made。 The guaranty against oppression is his own essential nature； is in the plenitude of his own being； which is the plenitude of wisdom and goodness。 He cannot contradict himself； be other than he is； or act otherwise than according to his own essential nature。 As he is； in his own eternal and immutable essence； supreme reason and supreme good； his dominion must always in its exercise be supremely good and supremely reasonable； therefore supremely just and equitable。 From him certainly is all power； he is unquestionably King of kings； and Lord of lords。 By him kings reign and magistrates decree just things。 He may； at his will； set up or pull down kings； rear or overwhelm empires； foster the infant colony； and make desolate the populous city。 All this is unquestionably true； and a simple dictate of reason common to all men。 But in what sense is it true？ Is it true in a supernatural sense？ Or is it true only in the sense 102 that it is true that by him we breathe； perform any or all of our natural functions； and in him live； and move； and have our being？
Viewed in their first cause； all things are the immediate creation of God； and are supernatural； and from the point of view of the first cause the Scriptures usually speak； for the great purpose and paramount object of the sacred writers； as of religion itself； is to make prominent the fact that God is universal creator； and supreme governor； and therefore the first and final cause of all things。 But God creates second causes； or substantial existences； capable themselves of acting and producing effects in a secondary sense； and hence he is said to be causa causarum； cause of causes。 What is done by these second causes or creatures is done eminently by him； for they exist only by his creative act； and produce only by virtue of his active presence； or effective concurrence。 What he does through them or through their agency is done by him； not immediately； but mediately； and is said to be done naturally； as what he does immediately is said to be done supernaturally。 Natural is what God does through second causes； which he creates； supernatural is that which he does by himself alone； without their intervention or agency。 Sovereignty； or 105 the right to govern； is in him； and he may at his will delegate it to men either mediately or immediately； by a direct and express appointment； or mediately through nature。 In the absence of all facts proving its delegation direct and express； it must be assumed to be mediate； through second causes。 The natural is always to be presumed； and the supernatural is to be admitted only on conclusive proof。
The people of Israel had a supernatural vocation； and they received their law； embracing their religious and civil constitution and their ritual directly from God at the hand of Moses； and various individuals from time to time appear to have been specially called to be their judges； rulers； or kings。 Saul was so called； and so was David。 David and his line appear； also； to have been called not only to supplant Saul and his line； but to have been supernaturally invested with the kingdom forever； but it does not appear that the royal power with which David and his line were invested was inamissible。 They lost it in the Babylonish captivity； and never afterwards recovered it。 The Asmonean princes were of another line； and when our Lord came th
