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！
carnal mind。
Natural developments cannot in all cases be even allowed to take their own course without injury to nature herself。 〃Follow nature〃 is an unsafe maxim； if it means； leave nature to develop herself as she will； and follow thy natural inclinations。 Nature is good； but inclinations are frequently bad。 All our appetites and passions are given us for good； for a purpose useful and necessary to individual and social life； but they become morbid and injurious if indulged without restraint。 Each has its special object； and naturally seeks it exclusively； and thus generates discord and war in the individual； which immediately find expression in society； and also in the state； if the state be a simple natural development。 The Christian maxim； 96 Deny thyself； is far better than the Epicurean maxim； Enjoy thyself； for there is no real enjoyment without self…denial。 There is deep philosophy in Christian asceticism； as the Positivists themselves are aware； and even insist。 But Christian asceticism aims not to destroy nature； as voluptuaries pretend； but to regulate； direct； and restrain its abnormal developments for its own good。 It forces nature in her developments to submit to a law which is not in her； but above her。 The Positivists pretend that this asceticism is itself a natural development； but that cannot be a natural development which directs； controls； and restrains natural development。
The Positivists confound nature at one time with the law of nature； and at another the law of nature with nature herself； and take what is called the natural law to be a natural development。 Here is their mistake； as it is the mistake of all who accept naturalistic theories。 Society； no doubt； is authorized by the law of nature to institute and maintain government。 But the law of nature is not a natural development； nor is it in nature； or any part of nature。 It is not a natural force which operates in nature； and which is the developing principle of nature。 Do they say reason is natural； and the law of 97 nature is only reason？ This is not precisely the fact。 The natural law is law proper； and is reason only in the sense that reason includes both intellect and will； and nobody can pretend that nature in her spontaneous developments acts from intelligence and volition。 Reason； as the faculty of knowing； is subjective and natural； but in the sense in which it is coincident with the natural law； it is neither subjective nor natural； but objective and divine； and is God affirming himself and promulgating his law to his creature； man。 It is； at least； an immediate participation of the divine by which He reveals himself and His will to the human understanding； and is not natural； but supernatural； in the sense that God himself is supernatural。 This is wherefore reason is law； and every man is bound to submit or conform to reason。
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 ma