博客

中文下载

Rutherford was chosen as one of the four main Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly of Divines in London taking part in formulating the Westminster Confession of Faith completed in 1647.
卢瑟福被选为前往伦敦参加威斯敏斯特神学大会的四位主要苏格兰委员之一，参与制定了于1647年完成的《威斯敏斯特信条》。

Rutherford’s political book Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince (1644) was written in response to John Maxwell’s Sacro-Sanctum Regus Majestas and presented a theory of limited government and constitutionalism.
卢瑟福的政治著作《法律与君王》（或译《法即王》，1644年）是为回应约翰·麦克斯韦的《神圣王权》而写的，提出了有限政府和宪政主义的理论。

It raised Rutherford to eminence as a philosophical thinker.
这使卢瑟福作为一位哲学思想家声名鹊起。

After the Restoration, the authorities burned Lex, Rex and cited Rutherford for high treason, but his death intervened before the charge could be tried.
王政复辟后，当局焚毁了《法律与君王》，并以叛国罪传唤卢瑟福，但在该指控审判之前，他已离世。

It is considered one of the greatest books on political philosophy ever written.
它被认为是将被写出的最伟大的政治哲学著作之一。

Samuel Rutherford’s teaching, taken from Scripture, argued against the doctrine of the “divine right of kings, while promoting equality under law, (including kings), inalienable rights, government by consent, separation of powers and the right to resist and revolt againt lawful authority.
塞缪尔·卢瑟福源自《圣经》的教导，反驳了“君权神授”的教义，同时提倡法律面前人人平等（包括君王）、不可剥夺的权利、被治者同意的政府、权力分立以及抵抗和反抗合法权威的权利。

He argued that Scripture was the standard by which to judge the actions, beliefs and constitutions of civil government.
他主张《圣经》是判断公民政府的行为、信仰和宪法的标准。

a charter of liberty against all forms of civil tyranny — vindicating the Scriptural duty to resist tyrants as an act of loyalty to God.
这是一份反对一切形式的公民暴政的自由宪章——证明抵抗暴君的圣经责任是对神忠诚的行为。

Subtitled: “A dispute for the just prerogative of King and people: containing the reason and causes of the most necessary defensive wars of the kingdom of Scotland, and their expedition for the aid and help of their dear brethren of England; in which their innocency is asserted, and a full answer is given to a seditious pamphlet, entitled, … The Sacred and Royal Prerogative of Christian Kings…”
副标题：“关于君王与人民之正当特权的争辩：包含苏格兰王国最必要的防御性战争及其为援助亲爱英格兰弟兄而远征的理由和起因；其中断言了他们的无辜，并对名为……《基督徒君王的神圣与皇家特权》的煽动性小册子给予了详尽的答复……”

Murray, in his Life of Samuel Rutherford (1827) notes,
默里在其《塞缪尔·卢瑟福生平》（1827年）中指出，

“The work caused great sensation on its appearance.
“这部作品一经问世便引起了巨大的轰动。

Bishop Guthrie mentions, that every member of the Westminster assembly ‘had in his hand that book lately published by Mr. Samuel Rutherford, which is so idolized, that whereas Buchanan’s treatise (de jure Regni apud Scotos) was looked upon as an oracle, this coming forth, it was slighted as not anti-monarchical enough, and Rutherford’s Lex Rex only thought authentic…’
格思里主教提到，威斯敏斯特大会的每一位成员‘手中都拿着塞缪尔·卢瑟福先生最近出版的那本书，它受到如此崇拜，以至于布坎南的论文（《苏格兰王权法》）原被视为圣言，而此书一出，那本书便因不够反君主制而受到冷落，唯有卢瑟福的《法律与君王》被认为是可靠的……’

TABLE OF CONTENTS
目录

SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF RUTHERFORD
卢瑟福生平概述

AUTHOR’S PREFACE
作者序

QUESTION I: Whether government be by a divine law
问题一：政府是否依据神圣法而立

How government is from God.—Civil power, in the root, immediately from God.
政府如何出于神。——民事权力，在根源上，是直接出于神的。

QUESTION II: Whether or no government be warranted by the law of nature
问题二：政府是否由自然法所担保

Civil society natural in radice, in the root, voluntary in modo, in the manner.—Power of government, and power of government by such and such magistrates, different.—Civil subjection not formally from nature’s laws.—Our consent to laws penal, not antecedently natural.—Government by such rulers, a secondary law of nature.—Family government and politic different.—Government by rulers a secondary law of nature; family government and civil different.—Civil government, by consequent, natural.
公民社会在根源上（in radice）是自然的，在方式上（in modo）是自愿的。——统治的权力，与由这类或那类长官统治的权力，是不同的。——公民的臣服并非形式上源于自然法。——我们对刑罚法律的同意，并非先天地属于自然。——由这类统治者治理，是次级自然法。——家庭治理与政治治理不同。——由统治者治理是次级自然法；家庭治理与公民治理不同。——公民政府，作为结果，是自然的。

QUESTION III: Whether royal power and definite forms of government be from God
问题三：王权和特定的政府形式是否出于神

That kings are from God, understood in a fourfold sense.—The royal power hath warrant from divine institution.—The three forms of government not different in specie and nature.—How every form is from God.—How government is an ordinance of man, 1 Pet. 2:13.
君王出于神，可从四重意义上理解。——王权有神圣设立的担保。——三种政府形式在种类（in specie）和本质上并无不同。——每种形式如何出于神。——政府如何是人的制度，彼得前书2:13。

QUESTION IV: Whether or no the king be only and immediately from God, and not from the people
问题四：君王是否仅直接出于神，而非出于人民

How the king is from God, how from the people.—Royal power three ways in the people.—How royal power is radically in the people.—The people maketh the king.—How any form of government is from God.—How government is a human ordinance, 1 Pet. 2:3.—The people create the king.—Making a king, and choosing a king, not to be distinguished.—David not a king formally, because anointed by God.
君王如何出于神，如何出于人民。——王权以三种方式存在于人民之中。——王权如何根本地在于人民。——人民设立君王。——任何形式的政府如何出于神。——政府如何是人的制度，彼得前书2:3。——人民创造君王。——设立君王与选择君王，不应加以区分。——大卫并不因受神膏抹而形式上成为君王。

QUESTION V: Whether or no the P. Prelate proveth that sovereignty is immediately from God, not from, the people
问题五：那位主教是否证明了主权直接出于神，而非出于人民

Kings made by the people, though the office, in abstracto, were immediately from God.—The people have a real action, more than approbation, in making a king.—Kinging of a person ascribed to the people.—Kings in a special manner are from God, but it followeth not; therefore, not from the people.—The place, Prov. 8:15, proveth not but kings are made by the people.—Nebuchadnezzar, and other heathen kings, had no just title before God to the kingdom of Judah, and divers other subdued kingdoms.
君王由人民设立，尽管其职分，在抽象意义上（in abstracto），是直接出于神。——人民在设立君王时有实际的行动，而不仅仅是认可。——将某人立为王的行动归于人民。——君王以一种特殊的方式出于神，但这并不推导出：因此，不限于人民。——箴言8:15这处经文，并不否定君王是由人民设立的。——尼布甲尼撒和其他外邦君王，在神面前对犹大国和其他各种被征服的国度没有正当的头衔。

QUESTION VI: Whether or no the king be so allenarly from both, in regard of sovereignty and designation of his person, as he is noway from the people, but only by mere approbation
问题六：就主权及其人选的指定而言，君王是否如此唯独（allenarly）出于神，以至于他绝非出于人民，而仅仅是经过人民单纯的认可

The forms of government not from God by an act of naked providence, but by his approving will.—Sovereignty not from the people by sole approbation.—Though God have peculiar acts of providence in creating kings, it followeth not hence that the people maketh not kings.—The P. Prelate exponeth prophecies true only of David, Solomon, and Jesus Christ, as true of profane heathen kings.—The P. Prelate maketh all the heathen kings to be princes, anointed with the holy oil of saving grace.
政府的形式并非通过单纯的护理之举出于神，而是通过祂认可的旨意。——主权并非仅通过认可而源于人民。——尽管神在创造君王时有特殊的护理作为，但这并不推导出人民不设立君王。——那位主教将仅适用于大卫、所罗门和耶稣基督的预言解释为适用于世俗的外邦君王。——那位主教使所有的外邦君王都成为受了救赎恩典之圣膏油膏抹的王子。

QUESTION VII: Whether the P. Prelate conclude that neither constitution nor designation of kings is from the people
问题七：那位主教是否断定君王的设立与指定皆非出于人民

The excellency of kings maketh them not of God’s only constitution and designation.—How sovereignty is in the people, how not.—A community doth not surrender their right and liberty to their rulers, so much as their power active to do, and passive to suffer, violence.—God’s loosing of the bonds of kings, by the mediation of the people’s despising him, proveth against the P. Prelate that the Lord taketh away, and giveth royal majesty mediately, not immediately.—The subordination of people to kings and rulers, both natural and voluntary; the subordination of beasts and creatures to man merely natural.—The place, Gen. 9:5, “He that sheddeth man’s blood,” &c. discussed.
君王的优越性并不能使他们仅仅由神设立和指定。——主权如何在于人民，如何不在。——一个共同体并未将其权利和自由让渡给统治者，如同让渡其行事的主动能力和承受暴力的被动能力那样。——神借着人民藐视君王这一中介来解开君王的束缚，这反而反驳了那位主教，证明主是间接地，而非直接地夺去和赐予王权威荣。——人民对君王和统治者的从属，既是自然的也是自愿的；兽类和受造物对人的从属仅仅是自然的。——创世记9:5，“凡流人血的”等经文的讨论。

QUESTION VIII: Whether or no the P. Prelate proveth, by force of reason, that the people cannot be capable of any power of government
问题八：那位主教是否通过理性的力量证明了人民不可能具有任何统治权力

In any community there is an active and passive power to government.—Popular government is not that wherein the whole people are governors.—People by nature are equally indifferent to all the three governments, and are not under any one by nature.—The P. Prelate denieth the Pope his father to be the antichrist.—The bad success of kings chosen by people proveth nothing against us, because kings chosen by God had bad success through their own wickedness.—The P. Prelate condemneth king Charles’ ratifying (Parl. 2, an. 1641) the whole proceedings of Scotland in this present reformation.—That there be any supreme judges is an eminent act of divine providence, which hindereth not but that the king is made by the people.—The people not patients in making a king, as is water in the sacrament of baptism, in the act of production of grace.
在任何共同体中都有统治的主动权力和被动权力。——大众政府并非指全体人民都是统治者。——人民在本质上对所有三种政府形式都是同等中立的，并非天生处于任何一种形式之下。——那位主教否认他的父教皇是敌基督。——人民所选君王的糟糕结局并不能证明我们是错的，因为神所选的君王也因其自身的邪恶而有糟糕的结局。——那位主教谴责查理国王批准（1641年第二届议会）苏格兰在当前改革中的全部进程。——存在最高法官是神圣护理的一个显著作为，但这并不妨碍君王是由人民设立的。——人民在设立君王时并非被动接受者，不像洗礼圣礼中的水在产生恩典的行为中那样。

QUESTION IX: Whether or no sovereignty is so in and from the people, that they may resume their power in time of extreme necessity
问题九：主权是否如此在于人民并源于人民，以至于他们在极度必要时可以收回其权力

How the people is the subject of sovereignty.—No tyrannical power is from God.—People cannot alienate the natural power of self-defence.—The power of parliaments.—The Parliament hath more power than the king.—Judges and kings differ.—People may resume their power, not because they are infallible, but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves as one man may do.—That the sanhedrim punished not David, Bathsheba, Joab, is but a fact, not a law.—There is a subordination of creatures natural, government must be natural; and yet this or that form is voluntary.
人民如何是主权的主体。——没有暴政权力是出于神的。——人民不能转让自卫的自然权力。——议会的权力。——议会拥有比君王更大的权力。——法官与君王不同。——人民可以收回他们的权力，并非因为他们是无误的，而是因为他们不像一个人那样容易毁灭自己。——公会没有惩罚大卫、拔示巴、约押，这只是一个事实，而非一条法律。——受造物有自然的从属关系，政府必然是自然的；然而这形式或那形式是自愿的。

QUESTION X: Whether or not royal birth be equivalent to divine unction
问题十：王室出身是否等同于神圣恩膏

Impunged by eight arguments.—Royalty not transmitted from father to son.—A family may be chosen to a crown as a single person is chosen, but the tie is conditional in both.—The throne, by special promise, made to David and his seed, by God, (Psal. 89,) no ground to make birth, in foro Dei, a just title to the crown.—A title by conquest to a throne must be unlawful, if birth be God’s lawful title.—Royalists who hold conquest to be a just title to the crown, teach manifest treason against king Charles and his royal heirs.—Only, bona fortunæ, not honour or royalty, properly transmitable from father to son.—Violent conquest cannot regulate the consciences of people to submit to a conqueror as their lawful king.—Naked birth is inferior to that very divine unction, that made no man a king without the people’s election.—If a kingdom were by birth the king might sell it.—The crown is the patrimony of the kingdom, not of him who is king, or of his father.—Birth a typical designment to the crown in Israel.—The choice of a family to the crown, resolveth upon the free election of the people as on the fountain cause.—Election of a family to the crown lawful.
被八个论据反驳。——王权不从父亲传给儿子。——一个家族可能被选为王，就像一个人被选中一样，但在两者中这种联系都是有条件的。——神通过特别应许将王位赐给大卫和他的后裔（诗篇89篇），但这并非使出身在神面前（in foro Dei）成为王位正当头衔的理由。——如果出身是神所定的合法头衔，那么通过征服获得的王位头衔就必然是不合法的。——那些认为征服是王位正当头衔的保皇派，是在教导针对查理国王及其王室继承人的明显叛国罪。——只有身外之财（bona fortunæ），而非荣誉或王权，才可以恰当地从父亲传给儿子。——暴力征服不能规范人民的良心去顺服征服者为他们的合法君王。——单纯的出身次于那神圣恩膏，而那恩膏若无人民的选举并未使任何人成为王。——如果王国是基于出身，君王就可以出卖它。——王冠是王国的产业，不属于作为君王的人，也不属于他的父亲。——在以色列，出身是王位的一种预表性指定。——选择一个家族继承王位，归结于人民的自由选举作为源头起因。——选举一个家族继承王位是合法的。

QUESTION XI: Whether or no he be more principally a king who is a king by birth, or he who is a king by the free election of the people
问题十一：究竟是凭出身为王的人，还是凭人民自由选举为王的人，更主要地是君王

The elective king cometh nearer to the first king. (Deut. 17)—If the people may limit the king, they give him the power.—A community have not power formally to punish themselves.—The hereditary and the elective prince in divers considerations, better or worse, each one than another.
选举的君王更接近最初的君王。（申命记17章）——如果人民可以限制君王，就是他们给了他权力。——一个共同体没有形式上的权力惩罚自己。——世袭的君王和选举的君王在不同的考量中，彼此互有优劣。

QUESTION XII: Whether or no a kingdom may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest
问题十二：王国是否可以合法地仅凭征服的头衔获得

A Twofold right of conquest.—Conquest turned in an after-consent of the people, becometh a just title.—Conquest not a signification to us of God’s approving will.—Mere violent domineering contrary to the acts of governing.—Violence hath nothing in it of a king.—A bloody conqueror not a blessing, per se, as a king is.—Strength as prevailing is not law or reason.—Fathers cannot dispose of the liberty of posterity not born.—A father, as a father, hath not power of life and death. Israel and David’s conquests of the Canaanites, Edomites, Ammonites not lawful, because conquest, but upon a divine title of God’s promise.
征服的双重权利。——征服若转变为人民的事后同意，就成为正当的头衔。——征服并不是神认可之旨意对我们的表明。——单纯的暴力统治与治理的行为相悖。——暴力之中没有任何君王的成分。——血腥的征服者本质上（per se）不是祝福，而君王是。——力量作为优势并非法律或理智。——父亲不能处置未出生后代的自由。——父亲作为父亲，没有生杀大权。以色列和大卫对迦南人、以东人、亚扪人的征服之所以合法，并非因为征服，而是基于神应许的神圣头衔。

QUESTION XIII: Whether or no royal dignity have its spring from nature, and how it is true “Every man is born free,” and how servitude is contrary to nature
问题十三：王室尊荣是否源于自然，以及“人人生而自由”如何为真，奴役如何违背自然

Seven sorts of superiority and inferiority.—Power of life and death from a positive law.—A dominion antecedent and consequent.—Kings and subjects no natural order.—A man is born, consequenter, in politic relation.—Slavery not natural from four reasons.—Every man born free in regard of civil subjection (not in regard of natural, such as of children and wife, to parents and husband) proved by seven arguments.—Politic government how necessary, how natural.—That parents should enslave their children not natural.
七种优越与低下的关系。——生杀大权源于实定法。——先行的统治权与随后的统治权。——君王与臣民并非自然秩序。——作为结果（consequenter），人出生在政治关系中。——基于四个理由，奴隶制并非自然。——每个人在公民臣服方面生而自由（并非在自然方面，如子女对父母、妻子对丈夫），这由七个论据证明。——政治政府如何必要，如何自然。——父母奴役子女并非自然。

QUESTION XIV: Whether or no the people make a person their king conditionally or absolutely; and whether the king be tyed by any such covenant
问题十四：人民立某人为王是有条件的还是绝对的；以及君王是否受此类盟约的约束

The king under a natural, but no civil obligation to the people, as royalists teach.—The covenant civilly tyeth the king proved by Scriptures and reasons, by eight arguments.—If the condition, without which one of the parties would never have entered into covenant, be not performed, that party is loosed from the covenant.—The people and princes are obliged in their places for justice and religion, no less than the king.—In so far as the king presseth a false religion on the people, eatenus, in so far they are understood not to have a king.—The covenant giveth a mutual co-active power to king and people to compel each other, though there be not one on earth higher than both to compel each of them.—The covenant bindeth the king as king, not as he is a man only.—One or two tyrannous acts deprive not the king of his royal right.—Though there were no positive written covenant (which yet we grant not) yet there is a natural, tacit, implicit covenant tying the king, by the nature of his office.—If the king be made king absolutely, it is contrary to Scripture and the nature of his office.—The people given to the king as a pledge, not as if they became his own to dispose of at his absolute will.—The king could not buy, sell, borrow, if no covenant should tie him to men.—The covenant sworn by Judah (2 Chron. 15) tyed the king.
如保皇派所教导，君王对人民负有自然义务，但无公民义务。——盟约在公民层面约束君王，由《圣经》和理由通过八个论据证明。——若一方在没有该条件就绝不会订立盟约的情况下，该条件未被履行，则该方从盟约中解脱。——人民和领袖在各自的位分上对正义和宗教负有义务，不亚于君王。——只要君王将虚假的宗教强加于人民，在此范围内（eatenus），他们就被理解为没有君王。——盟约给予君王和人民相互的强制力来彼此强迫，尽管地上没有比两者都高的一位来强迫他们中的每一个。——盟约约束作为君王的君王，而不仅仅是作为人的他。——一两个暴政行为并不剥夺君王的王权。——即使没有明文的书面盟约（虽然我们不承认这一点），仍有一个自然的、默示的、隐含的盟约，按其职分的性质约束君王。——如果君王被绝对地立为王，这就违背了《圣经》及其职分的性质。——人民交给君王是作为质押，并非仿佛他们成了他的私有物可由其绝对意志处置。——若无盟约将他与人联系起来，君王就不能买、卖、借。——犹大所起的誓（历代志下15章）约束了君王。

QUESTION XV: Whether the king be univocally, or only analogically and by proportion, a father
问题十五：君王究竟是单义地，还是仅仅类比地并按比例地为父

Adam not king of the whole earth because a father.—The king a father metaphorically and improperly, proved by eight arguments.
亚当并不因是父亲而是全地的王。——君王是隐喻性和非恰当性的父亲，由八个论据证明。

QUESTION XVI: Whether or no a despotical or masterly dominion agree to the king, because he is king
问题十六：专制或主人的统治权是否因为他是王就归属于他

The king hath no masterly dominion over the subjects as if they were his servants, proved by four arguments.—The king not over men as reasonable creatures to domineer.—The king cannot give away his kingdom or his people as if they were his proper goods.—A violent surrender of liberty tyeth not.—A surrender of ignorance is in so far involuntarily as it oblige not.—The goods of the subjects not the king’s, proved by eight arguments.—All the goods of the subjects are the king’s in a fourfold sense.
君王对臣民没有主人的统治权，仿佛他们是他的仆人，由四个论据证明。——君王不是在作为理性受造物的人之上进行辖制。——君王不能像处置私有财产那样送掉他的王国或人民。——对自由的暴力放弃没有约束力。——出于无知的放弃在非自愿的范围内没有约束力。——臣民的财产不属于君王，由八个论据证明。——臣民的所有财产在四重意义上属于君王。

QUESTION XVII: Whether or no the prince have properly the fiduciary or ministerial power of a tutor, husband, patron, minister, head, master of a family, not of a lord or dominator
问题十七：君王是否恰当地拥有监护人、丈夫、庇护人、仆人、头、家主的信托或服事权力，而非领主或统治者的权力

The king a tutor rather than a father as these are distinguished.—A free community not properly and in all respects a minor and pupil.—The king’s power not properly marital and husbandly.—The king a patron and servant.—The royal power only from God, immediatione simplicis constitutionis, et solum solitudine causæ primæ, but not immediatione applicationis dignitatis ad personam.—The king the servant of the people both objectively and subjectively.—The Lord and the people by one and the same act according to the physical relation maketh the king.—The king head of the people metaphorically only, not essentially, not univocally, by six arguments.—His power fiduciary only.
君王是监护人而非父亲，正如这些是被区分的。——一个自由的共同体并不恰当地在各方面都是未成年人和被监护人。——君王的权力并非恰当的婚姻和丈夫权力。——君王是庇护人和仆人。——王权仅出于神，这是指单纯设立的直接性，且仅指第一因的独特性，但并非指将尊荣应用到个人身上的直接性。——君王在客观上和主观上都是人民的仆人。——主和人民根据物理关系通过同一个行为设立君王。——君王仅仅是隐喻上的人民之头，而非本质上，并非单义上，由六个论据证明。——他的权力仅是信托的。

QUESTION XVIII: What is the law or manner of the king (1 Sam. 8:9, 11) discussed fully
问题十八：充分讨论什么是君王的律法或方式（撒母耳记上8:9, 11）

The power and the office badly differenced by Barclay.—What is משפת חּמלּךָ the manner of the king, by the harmony of interpreters, ancient and modern, protestants and papists.—Crying out (1 Sam. 8) not necessarily a remedy of tyranny, nor a praying with faith and patience.—Resisting of kings that are tyrannous, and patience, not inconsistent.—The law of the king not a permissive law, as was the law of divorcement.—The law of the king (1 Sam. 12:23, 24) not a law of tyranny.
巴克莱错误地把权力和职分区分开来。——什么是משפת חּמלּךָ（君王的方式），基于古代和现代、新教和天主教解释者的一致意见。——哀求（撒母耳记上8章）不一定是暴政的补救，也不一定是带着信心和忍耐的祷告。——抵抗暴虐的君王与忍耐并不矛盾。——君王的律法不是像离婚法那样的许可法。——君王的律法（撒母耳记上12:23, 24）不是暴政法。

QUESTION XIX: Whether or no the king be in dignity and power above the people
问题十九：君王在尊荣和权力上是否高于人民

In what consideration the king is above the people, and the people above the king.—A mean, as a mean, inferior to the end, how it is true.—The king inferior to the people.—The church, because the church, is of more excellency than the king, because king.—The people being those to whom the king is given, worthier than the gift.—And the people immortal, the king mortal.—The king a mean only, not both the efficient, or author of the kingdom, and a mean; two necessary distinctions of a mean.—If sin had never been, there should have been no king.—The king is to give his life for his people.—The consistent cause more excellent than the effect.—The people than the king.—Impossible people can limit royal power, but they must give royal power also.—The people have an action in making a king, proved by four arguments.—Though it were granted that God immediately made kings, yet it is no consequent, God only, and not the people, can unmake him.—The people appointing a king over themselves, retain the fountain-power of making a king.—The mean inferior to the end, and the king, as a king, is a mean.—The king, as a mean, and also as a man, inferior to the people.—To swear non-self-preservation, and to swear self-murder, all one.—The people cannot make away their power, 1. Their whole power, nor 2. Irrevocably to the king.—The people may resume the power they give to the commissioners of parliament, when it is abused.—The tables in Scotland lawful, when the ordinary judicatures are corrupt.—Quod efficit tale id ipsum magis tale discussed, the fountain-power in the people derived only in the king.—The king is a fiduciary, a life-renter, not a lord or heritor.—How sovereignty is in the people.—Power of life and death, how in a community.—A community void of rulers, is yet, and may be a politic body.—Judges gods analogically.
在什么考量下君王高于人民，以及人民高于君王。——手段作为手段低于目的，这如何为真。——君王低于人民。——教会因其为教会，比君王因其为君王更尊贵。——人民作为被赐予君王的对象，比礼物更贵重。——而且人民是不朽的，君王是必死的。——君王仅是手段，不既是王国的动力因或作者，又是手段；手段的两个必要区分。——如果罪从未存在，就不应该有君王。——君王要为人民舍命。——构成因比结果更优越。——即人民比君王更优越。——人民若非同时也给予王权，就不可能限制王权。——人民在设立君王中有行动，由四个论据证明。——即使承认神直接设立君王，也不能推导出只有神而人民不能废黜他。——人民在自己之上设立君王，保留了设立君王的源头权力。——手段低于目的，君王作为君王是手段。——君王作为手段，且作为人，低于人民。——发誓不自我保护与发誓自杀是一样的。——人民不能放弃他们的权力，1. 不能放弃全部权力，2. 也不能不可撤销地放弃给君王。——当议会委员滥用权力时，人民可以收回给予他们的权力。——当普通司法机构腐败时，苏格兰的委员会（Tables）是合法的。——讨论“使某物成为这样的原因，其本身更是这样”，人民中的源头权力仅是衍生在君王身上。——君王是受托人、终身受益人，不是领主或继承人。——主权如何在于人民。——生杀大权如何在于共同体。——没有统治者的共同体仍然是，且可能是一个政治体。——审判官类比地被称为神。

QUESTION XX: Whether inferior judges be essentially the immediate vicegerents of God, as Kings, not differing in essence and nature from kings
问题二十：下级法官是否本质上和君王一样是神的直接代理人，在本质和性质上与君王无异

Inferior judges the immediate vicars of God, no less than the king.—The consciences of inferior judges, immediately subordinate to God, not to the king, either mediately or immediately.—How the inferior judge is the deputy of the king.—He may put to death murderers, as having God’s sword committed to him, no less than the king, even though the king command the contrary; for he is not to execute judgment, and to relieve the oppressed conditionally, if a mortal king give him leave; but whether the king will or no, he is to obey the King of kings.—Inferior judges are ministri regni, non ministri regis.—The king doth not make judges as he is a man, by an act of private good-will; but as he is a king by an act of royal justice, and by a power that he hath from the people, who made himself a supreme judge.—The king’s making inferior judges hindereth not, but they are as essentially judges as the king who maketh them, not by fountain-power, but power borrowed from the people.—The judges in Israel and the kings differ not essentially. Aristocracy as natural as monarchy, and as warrantable.—Inferior judges depend some way on the king in fieri, but not in facto esse.—The parliament not judges by derivation from the king.—The king cannot make or unmake judges.—No heritable judges.—Inferior judges more necessary than a king.
下级法官是神的直接代表，不亚于君王。——下级法官的良心直接从属于神，而非间接或直接从属于君王。——下级法官如何是君王的代表。——他可以处死谋杀者，因为神把剑交托给他，不亚于君王，即使君王命令相反的事；因为他执行审判、解救受压迫者并非有条件地取决于必死的君王是否允许；无论君王愿意与否，他都要服从万王之王。——下级法官是王国的仆人（ministri regni），而非君王的仆人（ministri regis）。——君王设立法官并非作为一个人通过私人善意的行为；而是作为君王通过王家正义的行为，并根据他从人民那里获得的权力，人民使他自己成为最高法官。——君王设立下级法官并不妨碍他们在本质上与设立他们的君王一样是法官，这并非通过源头权力，而是通过从人民那里借来的权力。——以色列的士师与君王在本质上没有区别。贵族制与君主制一样自然，且一样正当。——下级法官在形成过程中（in fieri）某种程度上依赖君王，但在实质上（in facto esse）则不然。——议会作为法官并非源于君王。——君王不能随意设立 or 废除法官。——没有世袭的法官。——下级法官比君王更必要。

QUESTION XXI: What power the people and states of parliament hath over the king and in the state
问题二十一：人民和议会等级对君王和国家拥有什么权力

The elders appointed by God to be judges.—Parliaments may convene and judge without the king.—Parliaments are essentially judges, and so their consciences neither dependeth on the king, quoad specificationem, that is, that they should give out this sentence, not that, nec quoad exercitium, that they should not in the morning execute judgment.—Unjust judging, and no judging at all, are sins in the states.—The parliament co-ordinate judges with the king, not advisers only; by eleven arguments.—Inferior judges not the king’s messengers or legates, but public governors.—The Jews’ monarchy mixed.—A power executive of laws more in the king, a power legislative more in the parliament.
长老由神设立为审判官。——议会可以在没有君王的情况下召集并审判。——议会本质上是审判官，因此他们的良心既不取决于君王，就具体判决而言（quoad specificationem），即他们应该做出这个判决而不是那个，也不就执行而言（nec quoad exercitium），即他们不应该在早晨执行审判。——不公正的审判和完全不审判，是各等级的罪。——议会是与君王平级的审判官，而不仅是顾问；由十一个论据证明。——下级法官不是君王的信使或特使，而是公共治理者。——犹太人的君主制是混合的。——执行法律的权力更多在于君王，立法的权力更多在于议会。

QUESTION XXII: Whether the power of the king, as king, be absolute, or dependent and limited by God’s first mould and pattern of a king
问题二十二：君王的权力，作为君王，是绝对的，还是依赖并受限于神最初对君王的塑造和模式

The royalists make the king as absolute as the great Turk.—The king not absolute in his power, proved by nine arguments.—Why the king is a living law.—Power to do ill not from God.—Royalists say power to do ill is not from God, but power to do ill, as punishable by man, is from God.—A king, actu primo, is a plague, and the people slaves, if the king, by God’s institution, be absolute.—Absoluteness of royalty against justice, peace, reason, and law.—Against the king’s relation of a brother.—A damsel forced may resist the king.—The goodness of an absolute prince hindereth not but he is actu primo a tyrant.
保皇派使君王像土耳其苏丹一样绝对。——君王的权力并非绝对，由九个论据证明。——为什么君王是活的法律。——作恶的权力不是出于神。——保皇派说作恶的权力不是出于神，但作为可被人惩罚的作恶权力是出于神。——如果君王按神的设立是绝对的，那么君王本质上（actu primo）就是灾祸，人民就是奴隶。——王权的绝对性违背正义、和平、理性和法律。——违背君王作为弟兄的关系。——被强迫的少女可以抵抗君王。——绝对君主的良善并不妨碍他本质上（actu primo）是个暴君。

QUESTION XXIII: Whether the king hath a prerogative royal above law
问题二十三：君王是否拥有高于法律的皇家特权

Prerogative taken two ways.—Prerogative above laws a garland proper to infinite majesty.—A threefold dispensation, 1. Of power; 2. Of justice; 3. Of grace.—Acts of mere grace may be acts of blood.—An oath to the king of Babylon tyed not the people of Judah to all that absolute power could command.—The absolute prince is as absolute in acts of cruelty, as in acts of grace.—Servants are not (1 Pet. 2:18, 19) interdicted of self-defence.—The parliament materially only, not formally, hath the king for their lord.—Reason not a sufficient restraint to keep a prince from acts of tyranny.—Princes have sufficient power to do good, though they have not absolute to do evil.—A power to shed innocent blood can be no part of any royal power given of God.—The king, because he is a public person, wanteth many privileges that subjects have.
特权有两种理解方式。——高于法律的特权是属于无限威荣的冠冕。——三重豁免：1. 权力的；2. 正义的；3. 恩典的。——单纯恩典的行为可能是血腥的行为。——向巴比伦王起的誓并没有把犹大人民束缚于绝对权力所能命令的一切。——绝对君主在残忍行为上与在恩典行为上一样绝对。——仆人并没有（彼得前书2:18, 19）被禁止自卫。——议会仅在实质上，而非形式上，以君王为主。——理性不足以限制君王不做出暴政行为。——君主有足够的权力行善，虽然他们没有绝对权力作恶。——流无辜人血的权力绝不可能是神所赐任何王权的一部分。——君王，因他是公众人物，缺乏臣民拥有的许多特权。

QUESTION XXIV: What relation the king hath to the law
问题二十四：君王与法律有什么关系

Human laws considered as reasonable, or as penal.—The king alone hath not a nemothetic power.—Whether the king be above parliaments as their judge.—Subordination of the king to the parliament and co-ordination both consistent.—Each one of the three governments hath somewhat from each other, and they cannot any one of them be in its prevalency conveniently without the mixture of the other two.—The king as a king cannot err, as he erreth in so far, he is not the remedy of oppression intended by God and nature.—In the court of necessity the people may judge the king.—Human laws not so obscure as tyranny is visible and discernible.—It is more requisite that the whole people, church, and religion be secured than one man.—If there be any restraint by law on the king it must be physical, for a moral restraint is upon all men.—To swear to an absolute prince as absolute, is an oath eatenus, in so far unlawful, and not obligatory.
人类法律被视为合理的，或刑罚的。——唯独君王没有立法权。——君王是否作为法官高于议会。——君王对议会的从属与协作是一致的。——三种政府形式中的每一种都有来自彼此的成分，若无其他两种的混合，任何一种都无法便利地发挥其优势。——君王作为君王不能犯错，当他犯错时，他就不是神和自然所意图的压迫的补救。——在必要性的法庭上，人民可以审判君王。——人类法律并不像暴政那样晦涩，暴政是可见和可辨识的。——确保全体人民、教会和宗教的安全比确保一人更必要。——如果法律对君王有任何限制，那必须是物理上的，因为道德限制适用于所有人。——向绝对君主发誓视其为绝对，这种誓言在此范围内（eatenus）是不合法的，且无约束力。

QUESTION XXV: Whether the supreme law, the safety of the people, be above the king
问题二十五：最高法律，即人民的安全，是否高于君王

The safety of the people to be preferred to the king, for the king is not to seek himself, but the good of the people.—Royalists make no kings but tyrants.—How the safety of the king is the safety of the people.—A king, for the safety of the people, may break through the letter and paper of the law.—The king’s prerogative above law and reason, not comparable to the blood that has been shed in Ireland and England.—The power of dictators prove not a prerogative above law.
人民的安全优先于君王，因为君王不应求自己的事，而应求人民的益处。——保皇派制造的不是君王而是暴君。——君王的安全如何是人民的安全。——君王为了人民的安全，可以突破法律的字句和条文。——君王高于法律和理性的特权，无法与在爱尔兰和英格兰所流的血相比。——独裁官的权力并不证明有高于法律的特权。

QUESTION XXVI: Whether the king be above the law
问题二十六：君王是否高于法律

The law above the king in four things, 1. in constitution; 2. direction; 3. limitation; 4. co-action.—In what sense the king may do all things.—The king under the morality of laws; under fundamental laws, not under punishment to be inflicted by himself, nor because of the eminency of his place, but for the physical incongruity thereof.—If, and how, the king may punish himself.—That the king transgressing in a heinous manner, is under the co-action of law, proved by seven arguments.—The coronation of a king, who is supposed to be a just prince, yet proveth after a tyrant, is conditional and from ignorance, and so involuntary, and in so far not obligatory in law.—Royalists confess a tyrant in exercise may be dethroned.—How the people is the seat of the power of sovereignty.—The place, Psal. 51, “Against thee only have I sinned,” &c. discussed.—Israel’s not rising in arms against Pharaoh examined.—And Judah’s not working their own deliverance under Cyrus.—A covenant without the king’s concurrence lawful.
法律在四件事上高于君王：1. 设立；2. 指导；3. 限制；4. 强制。——在什么意义上君王可以做凡事。——君王在法律的道德性之下；在基本法之下，不在由他自己施加的惩罚之下，也非因其位分的尊贵，而是因其物理上的不协调。——君王是否以及如何惩罚自己。——君王若以可憎的方式违背法律，就处于法律的强制之下，由七个论据证明。——加冕一位被认为是公正君主但后来证明是暴君的王，是有条件的且出于无知，因此是非自愿的，因而在法律上没有约束力。——保皇派承认实行暴政的暴君可以被废黜。——人民如何是主权权力的所在。——讨论诗篇51篇“我向你犯罪，惟独得罪了你”等经文。——考察以色列未起兵反抗法老。——以及犹大在居鲁士之下未谋求自己的解救。——没有君王同意的盟约是合法的。

QUESTION XXVII: Whether or no the king be the sole, supreme, and final interpreter of the law
问题二十七：君王是否是法律的唯一、最高和最终解释者

He is not the supreme and peremptory interpreter.—Nor is his will the sense of the law.—Nor is he the sole and only judicial interpreter of the law.
他不是最高和强制性的解释者。——他的意志也不是法律的含义。——他也不是法律的唯一司法解释者。

QUESTION XXVIII: Whether or no wars raised by the estates and subjects for their own just defence against the king’s bloody emissaries be lawful
问题二十八：各等级和臣民为正当自卫而发起战争，抵抗君王的血腥爪牙，是否合法

The state of the question.—If kings be absolute, a superior judge may punish an inferior judge, not as a judge but an erring man.—By divine institution all covenants to restrain their power must be unlawful.—Resistance in some cases lawful.—Six arguments for the lawfulness of defensive wars.—Many others follow.
问题的状态。——如果君王是绝对的，上级法官可以惩罚下级法官，不是作为法官，而是作为犯错的人。——按神圣设立，所有限制其权力的盟约必然是不合法的。——抵抗在某些情况下是合法的。——防御性战争合法性的六个论据。——随之还有许多其他论据。

QUESTION XXIX: Whether, in the case of defensive wars, the distinction of the person of the king as a man, who may and can commit hostile acts of tyranny against his subjects, and of the office and royal power that he hath from God and the people, can have place
问题二十九：在防御性战争的情况下，区分作为人的君王个人（他可能且能够对臣民实施敌对的暴政行为）与他从神和人民那里获得的职分和王权，是否成立

The king’s person in concreto, and his office in abstracto, or, which is all one, the king using his power lawfully to be distinguished (Rom. 13).—To command unjustly maketh not a higher power.—The person may be resisted and yet the office cannot be resisted, proved by fourteen arguments.—Contrary objections of royalists and of the P. Prelate answered.—What we mean by the person and office in abstracto in this dispute; we do not exclude the person in concreto altogether, but only the person as abusing his power; we may kill a person as a man, and love him as a son, father, wife, according to Scripture.—We obey the king for the law, and not the law for the king.—The losing of habitual and actual royalty different.—John 19:10, Pilate’s power of crucifying Christ no law-power given to him of God, is proved against royalists, by six arguments.
具体的君王个人，与抽象的他的职分，或者（这是一样的）君王合法地使用他的权力，应当加以区分（罗马书13章）。——不公正的命令并不构成更高的权力。——个人可以被抵抗，但职分不能被抵抗，由十四个论据证明。——回答保皇派和那位主教的相反反对意见。——在这场争论中我们所说的个人和抽象职分是什么意思；我们并不完全排除具体的个人，而只排除滥用权力的个人；我们可以作为一个男人杀死一个人，却作为儿子、父亲、妻子爱他，根据《圣经》。——我们为法律顺服君王，而不是为君王顺服法律。——失去习惯性的王权与失去实际的王权是不同的。——约翰福音19:10，彼拉多钉死基督的权力并非神给他的法律权力，这由六个论据反驳保皇派来证明。

QUESTION XXX: Whether or no passive obedience be a mean to which we are subjected in conscience by virtue of a divine commandment; and what a mean resistance is. That flying is resistance
问题三十：被动服从是否是我们凭借神圣命令在良心上必须服从的一种手段；以及什么是中间状态的抵抗。逃跑即抵抗

The place, 1 Pet. 2:18, discussed.—Patient bearing of injuries and resistance of injuries compatible in one and the same subject.—Christ’s non-resistance hath many things rare and extraordinary, and is no leading rule to us.—Suffering is either commanded to us comparatively only, that we rather choose to suffer than deny the truth; or the manner only is commanded, that we suffer with patience.—The physical act of taking away the life, or of offending when commanded by the law of self-defence, is no murder.—We have a greater dominion over goods and members, (except in case of mutilation, which is a little death,) than over our life.—To kill is non of the nature of self-defence, but accidental thereunto.—Defensive war cannot be without offending.—The nature of defensive and offensive wars.—Flying is resistance.
讨论彼得前书2:18这处经文。——耐心地承受伤害与抵抗伤害在同一个主体身上是兼容的。——基督的不抵抗有许多稀有和非凡之处，并非我们的主要准则。——受苦或是仅比较性地命令我们，即我们宁可选择受苦也不否认受真理；或是仅命令其方式，即我们要忍耐受苦。——夺取生命或在自卫法命令时进行攻击的物理行为，并非谋杀。——我们对财物和肢体（除了残缺的情况，这是一种小死亡）比对生命有更大的支配权。——杀人并非自卫的本质，而是其偶发事件。——防御性战争不可能没有攻击。——防御性战争和进攻性战争的性质。——逃跑即抵抗。

QUESTION XXXI: Whether self-defence, by opposing violence to unjust violence, be lawful, by the law of God and nature
问题三十一：通过以暴力对抗不公正的暴力来进行自卫，依据神的律法和自然法是否合法

Self-defence in man natural, but modus, the way, must be rational and just.—The method of self-defence.—Violent re-offending in self-defence the last remedy.—It is physically impossible for a nation to fly in the case of persecution for religion, and so they may resist in their own self-defence.—Tutela vitæ proxima and remota.—In a remote posture of self-defence, we are not to take us to re-offending, as David was not to kill Saul when he was sleeping, or in the cave, for the same cause.—David would not kill Saul because he was the Lord’s anointed.—The king not lord of chastity, name, conscience, and so may be resisted.—By universal and particular nature, self-defence lawful, proved by divers arguments.—And made good by the testimony of jurists.—The love of ourselves, the measure of the love of our neighbours, and enforceth self-defence.—Nature maketh a private man his own judge and magistrate, when the magistrate is absent, and violence is offered to his life, as the law saith.—Self-defence, how lawful it is.—What presumption is from the king’s carriage to the two kingdoms, are in law sufficient grounds of defensive wars.—Offensive and defensive wars differ in the event and intentions of men, but not in nature and specie, nor physically.—David’s case in not killing Saul nor his men, no rule to us, not in our lawful defence, to kill the king’s emissaries, the cases far different.
自卫在人是自然的，但方式（modus）必须是理性和公正的。——自卫的方法。——自卫中的暴力反击是最后的补救。——一个国家在因宗教受迫害时逃跑在物理上是不可能的，所以他们可以在自卫中抵抗。——生命的直接保护和间接保护（Tutela vitæ proxima and remota）。——在间接自卫的姿态中，我们不应采取反击，就像大卫在扫罗睡觉或在洞里时没有杀他一样，这是出于同一个原因。——大卫不愿杀扫罗，因为他是主的受膏者。——君王不是贞操、名誉、良心的主，因此可以被抵抗。——根据普遍和特殊的本性，自卫是合法的，由各种论据证明。——并由法学家的证词所确立。——爱我们自己，是爱邻舍的尺度，并强化了自卫。——当官长缺席，且生命遭到暴力时，自然使私人成为他自己的法官和官长，正如法律所言。——自卫是如何合法的。——从君王对两个王国的态度中推测出的，在法律上是防御性战争的充分理由。——进攻性战争和防御性战争在事件和人的意图上不同，但在性质和种类上，以及物理上并无不同。——大卫不杀扫罗及其手下的案例，并非我们在合法防御中不杀君王爪牙的规则，这两种情况截然不同。

QUESTION XXXII: Whether or no the lawfulness of defensive wars can be proved from the Scripture, from the examples of David, the people’s rescuing Jonathan, Elisha, and the eighty valiant priests who resisted Uzziah
问题三十二：防御性战争的合法性是否可以从《圣经》中，从大卫的榜样、百姓解救约拿单、以利沙以及八十位英勇祭司抵抗乌西雅中得到证明

David warrantably raised an army of men to defend himself against the unjust violence of his prince Saul.—David’s not invading Saul and his men, who did not aim at arbitrary government, at sub-version of laws, religion, and extirpation of those that worshipped the God of Israel and opposed idolatry, but only pursuing one single person, far unlike to our case in Scotland and England now.—David’s example not extraordinary.—Elisha’s resistance proveth defensive wars to be warrantable.—Resistance made to king Uzziah by eighty valiant priests proveth the same.—The people’s rescuing Jonathan proveth the same.—Libnah’s revolt proveth this.—The city of Abel defended themselves against Joab, king David’s general, when he came to destroy a city for one wicked conspirator, Sheba’s sake.
大卫正当地组建了一支军队，以保卫自己抵抗其君主扫罗的不公正暴力。——大卫没有进犯扫罗和他的人，扫罗并不旨在专制统治、颠覆法律、宗教，并根除那些敬拜以色列的神和反对偶像崇拜的人，而只是追捕单单一个人，这与我们现在苏格兰和英格兰的情况大不相同。——大卫的榜样并非特殊的。——以利沙的抵抗证明防御性战争是正当的。——八十位英勇祭司对乌西雅王的抵抗证明了同样的事。——百姓解救约拿单证明了同样的事。——立拿的反叛证明了这一点。——亚伯城自卫抵抗大卫王的将军约押，当时他因一个邪恶的阴谋者示巴的缘故而来毁灭一座城。

QUESTION XXXIII: Whether or no Rom. 13:1 make any thing against the lawfulness of defensive wars
问题三十三：罗马书13:1是否反对防御性战争的合法性

The king not only understood, Rom. 13.—And the place, Rom. 13, discussed.
罗马书13章不仅指君王。——并讨论罗马书13章这处经文。

QUESTION XXXIV: Whether royalists prove, by cogent reasons, the unlawfulness of defensive wars
问题三十四：保皇派是否通过强有力的理由证明了防御性战争的不合法性

Objections of royalists answered.—The place, Exod. 22:28, “Thou shalt not revile the gods,” &c. answered.—And Eccles. 10:20.—The place, Eccles. 8:3, 4, “Where the word of a king is,” &c. answered.—The place, Job. 34:18, answered.—And Acts 23:3, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall,” &c.—The emperors in Paul’s time not absolute by their law.—That objection, that we have no practice for defensive resistance, and that the prophets never complain of the omission of the resistance of princes, answered.—The prophets cry against the sin of non-resistance, when they cry against the judges, because they execute not judgment for the oppressed—Judah’s subjection to Nebuchadnezzar, a conquering tyrant, no warrant to us to subject ourselves to tyrannous acts.—Christ’s subjection to Cæsar nothing against defensive wars.
回答保皇派的反对意见。——回答出埃及记22:28，“不可毁谤神（或译：审判官）”等经文。——以及传道书10:20。——回答传道书8:3, 4，“王的话在哪里”等经文。——回答约伯记34:18。——以及使徒行传23:3，“你这粉饰的墙，神要打你”等。——保罗时代的皇帝按其法律并非绝对的。——那个反对意见，即我们没有防御性抵抗的实践，且先知们从未抱怨过对君王抵抗的疏忽，已得到回答。——先知们呼喊反对不抵抗的罪，当他们呼喊反对审判官时，因为他们不为受压迫者施行审判。——犹大对征服的暴君尼布甲尼撒的臣服，并不是我们臣服于暴政行为的担保。——基督对凯撒的臣服并不反对防御性战争。

QUESTION XXXV: Whether the sufferings of the martyrs in the primitive church militant be against the lawfulness of defensive wars
问题三十五：初代战斗教会中殉道者的受苦是否反对防御性战争的合法性

Tertullian neither ours nor theirs in the question of defensive wars.
图尔真在防御性战争的问题上既不支持我们也不支持他们。

QUESTION XXXVI: Whether the king have the power of war only
问题三十六：是否唯独君王拥有战争权

Inferior judges have the power of the sword no less than the king.—The people tyed to acts of charity, and to defend themselves, the church, and their posterity against a foreign enemy, though the king forbid.—Flying unlawful to the states of Scotland and England now, God’s law tying them to defend their country.—Parliamentary power a fountain-power above the king.
下级法官拥有佩剑的权柄，不亚于君王。——人民有义务行慈善，并抵御外敌以保卫自己、教会及其后代，即使君王禁止。——逃跑对现在苏格兰和英格兰的各等级来说是不合法的，神的律法约束他们保卫自己的国家。——议会权力是高于君王的源头权力。

QUESTION XXXVII: Whether the estates of Scotland are to help their brethren, the protestants of England, against cavaliers, proved by argument 13
问题三十七：苏格兰各等级是否应当帮助他们的弟兄，即英格兰的新教徒，对抗骑士党，由第13个论据证明

Helping of neighbour nations lawful, divers opinions concerning the point.—The law of Egypt against those that helped not the oppressed.
帮助邻国是合法的，关于此点有各种意见。——埃及针对那些不帮助受压迫者之人的法律。

QUESTION XXXVIII: Whether monarchy be the best of governments
问题三十八：君主制是否是最好的政府形式

Whether monarchy be the best of governments hath divers considerations, in which each one may be less or more convenient.—Absolute monarchy is the worst of governments. Better want power to do ill as have it.—A mixture sweetest of all governments—Neither king nor parliament have a voice against law and reason.
君主制是否是最好的政府形式有各种考量，其中每一种都可能或多或少便利。——绝对君主制是最坏的政府形式。缺乏作恶的权力比拥有它更好。——混合制是所有政府形式中最甜美的。——君王和议会都没有违背法律和理性的发言权。

QUESTION XXXIX: Whether or no any prerogative at all above the law be due to the king. Or if jura majestatis be any such prerogative
问题三十九：是否有任何高于法律的特权归于君王。或者主权权利（jura majestatis）是否是此类特权

A threefold supreme power.—What be jura regalia.—Kings confer not honours from their plenitude of absolute power, but according to the strait line and rule of law, justice, and good observing.—The law of the king, 1 Sam. 8:9, 11.—Difference of kings and judges.—The law of the king, (1 Sam. 8:9, 11,) no permissive law, such as the law of divorce.—What dominion the king hath over the goods of the subjects.
三重最高权力。——什么是皇家权利（jura regalia）。——君王并非根据其绝对权力的丰满，而是根据法律、正义和良好遵守的准绳与规则来授予荣誉。——君王的律法，撒母耳记上8:9, 11。——君王与审判官的区别。——君王的律法（撒母耳记上8:9, 11），并非像离婚法那样的许可法。——君王对臣民的财物拥有什么统治权。

QUESTION XL: Whether or no the people have any power over the king, either by his oath, covenant, or any other way
问题四十：人民是否因君王的誓言、盟约或任何其他方式而对君王拥有任何权力

The people have power over the king by reason of his covenant and promise.—Covenants and promises violated, infer co-action, de jure, by law, though not de facto.—Mutual punishments may be where there is no relation of superiority and inferiority.—Three covenants made by Arnisæus.—The king not king while he swear the oath and be accepted as king by the people.—The oath of the kings of France.—Hugo Grotius setteth down seven cases in which the people may accuse, punish, or dethrone the king.—The prince a noble vassal of the kingdom upon four grounds.—The covenant had an oath annexed to it.—The prince is but a private man in a contract.—How the royal power is immediately from God, and yet conferred upon the king by the people.
人民因君王的盟约和应许而对他拥有权力。——盟约和应许被违反，在法律上（de jure）推导出强制，虽非事实上（de facto）。——在没有优越和低下关系的地方可能存在相互惩罚。——阿尔尼修斯提出的三个盟约。——君王在宣誓并被人民接受为王之前不是王。——法国君王的誓言。——雨果·格劳秀斯列下了七种情况，人民可以指控、惩罚或废黜君王。——君主基于四个理由是王国的高贵附庸。——盟约附有誓言。——君主在契约中只是一个私人。——王权如何直接出于神，却又由人民授予君王。

QUESTION XLI: Whether doth the P. Prelate with reason ascribe to us doctrine of Jesuits in the question of lawful defence
问题四十一：那位主教在合法防御的问题上将耶稣会士的教义归于我们是否有理

The sovereignty is originally and radically in the people, as in the fountain, was taught by fathers, ancient doctors, sound divines, lawyers, before there was a Jesuit or a prelate whelped, in rerum natura.—The P. Prelate holdeth the Pope to be the vicar of Christ.—Jesuits’ tenets concerning kings.—The king not the people’s deputy by our doctrine, it is only the calumny of the P. Prelate.—The P. Prelate will have power to act the bloodiest tyrannies on earth upon the church of Christ, the essential power of a king.
主权最初和根本地在于人民，如在源头中，这在事物本质（in rerum natura）中出现耶稣会士或主教之前，就由教父、古代博士、纯正神学家、律师所教导。——那位主教认为教皇是基督的代表。——耶稣会士关于君王的信条。——按我们的教义，君王不是人民的副手，这只是那位主教的诽谤。——那位主教要把在地上对基督教会实施最血腥暴政的权力，作为君王的本质权力。

QUESTION XLII: Whether all Christian kings are dependent from Christ, and may be called his vicegerents
问题四十二：是否所有基督徒君王都依赖基督，并可被称为祂的代理人

Why God, as God, hath a man a vicegerent under him, but not as mediator.—The king not head of the church.—The king a sub-mediator, and an under-redeemer, and a sub-priest to offer sacrifices to God for us if he be a vicegerent.—The king no mixed person.—Prelates deny kings to be subject to the gospel.—By no prerogative royal may the king prescribe religious observances and human ceremonies in God’s worship.—The P. Prelate giveth to the king a power arbitrary, supreme, and independent, to govern the church.—Reciprocation of subjections of the king to the church, and of the church to the king, in divers kinds, to wit, of ecclesiastical and civil subjection, are no more absurd than for Aaron’s priest to teach, instruct and rebuke Moses, if he turn a tyrannous Achab, and Moses to punish Aaron if he turn an obstinate idolator.
为什么神，作为神，有人作为祂下面的代理人，但并非作为中保。——君王不是教会的头。——如果君王是代理人，他就是次中保、次救赎者和次祭司，为我们向神献祭。——君王不是混合人。——主教们否认君王受福音约束。——君王绝不可凭皇家特权在神的崇拜中规定宗教仪式和人类礼仪。——那位主教给予君王一种任意的、最高的、独立的权力来治理教会。——君王对教会的顺服与教会对君王的顺服在不同种类上的互换，即教会的和公民的顺服，这并不比亚伦派的祭司在摩西变成暴虐的亚哈时教导、指示和责备他，以及摩西在亚伦变成顽固的偶像崇拜者时惩罚他更荒谬。

QUESTION XLIII: Whether the king of Scotland be an absolute prince, having a prerogative above laws and parliaments
问题四十三：苏格兰君王是否是绝对君主，拥有高于法律和议会的特权

The king of Scotland subject to parliaments by the fundamental laws, acts, and constant practices of parliaments, ancient and late in Scotland.—The king of Scotland’s oath at his coronation.—A pretended absolute power given to James VI. upon respect of personal endowments, no ground of absoluteness to the king of Scotland.—By laws and constant practices the kings of Scotland subject to laws and parliaments, proved by the fundamental law of elective princes, and out of the most partial historians, and our acts of parliament of Scotland.—Coronation oath.—And again at the coronation of James VI. that oath sworn; and again, 1 Parl. James VI. ibid and seq.—How the king is supreme judge in all causes.—The power of the parliaments of Scotland.—The Confession of the faith of the church of Scotland, authorised by divers acts of parliament, doth evidently hold forth to all the reformed churches the lawfulness of defensive wars, when the supreme magistrate is misled by wicked counsel.—The same proved from the confessions of faith in other reformed churches.—The place, Rom. 13, exponed in our Confession of faith.—The confession, not only Saxonic, exhibited to the Council of Trent, but also of Helvetia, France, England, Bohemia, prove the same.—William Laud and other prelates, enemies to parliaments, to states, and to the fundamental laws of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland.—The parliament of Scotland doth regulate, limit, and set bounds to the king’s power.—Fergus the first king not a conqueror.—The king of Scotland below parliaments, considerable by them, hath no negative voice.
根据苏格兰古代和近代的法律、法案以及议会的惯常做法，苏格兰君王受制于议会。——苏格兰君王在加冕时的誓言。——基于个人天赋给予詹姆斯六世的所谓绝对权力，并非苏格兰君王拥有绝对性的理由。——根据法律和惯常做法，苏格兰君王受制于法律和议会，这由选举君主的基本法、以及最偏颇的历史学家和我们苏格兰议会的法案所证明。——加冕誓言。——以及在詹姆斯六世加冕时再次宣誓；以及詹姆斯六世第一届议会同上及后续。——君王如何在所有案件中是最高法官。——苏格兰议会的权力。——经多项议会法案授权的苏格兰教会《信条》，向所有改革宗教会清楚表明，当最高长官被邪恶建议误导时，防御性战争是合法的。——这同样由其他改革宗教会的信条所证明。——我们《信条》中解释的罗马书13章这处经文。——不仅呈交给特伦特会议的萨克森信条，而且瑞士、法国、英格兰、波希米亚的信条也证明了同样的事。——威廉·劳德和其他主教是议会、国家以及英格兰、苏格兰和爱尔兰三国基本法的敌人。——苏格兰议会确实规范、限制并设定君王权力的界限。——第一位君王弗格斯不是征服者。——苏格兰君王低于议会，受他们审议，没有否决权。

QUESTION XLIV: General results of the former doctrine in some few corollaries, in twenty-two questions
问题四十四：前述教义在一些推论中的一般结果，共二十二个问题

Concerning monarchy, compared with other forms—How royalty is an issue of nature.—And how magistrates, as magistrates, be natural.—How absoluteness is not a ray of God’s majesty.—And resistance not unlawful, because Christ and his apostles used it not in some cases.—Coronation is no ceremony.—Men may limit the power that they gave not.—The commonwealth not a pupil or minor properly.—Subjects not more obnoxious to a king than clients, vassals, children, to their superiors.—If subjection passive be natural.—Whether king Uzziah was dethroned.—Idiots and children not complete kings, children are kings in destination only.—Denial of passive subjection in things unlawful, not dishonourable to the king, more than denial of active obedience in the same things.—The king may not make away or sell any part of his dominions.—People may in some cases convene without the king.—How, and in what meaning subjects are to pay the king’s debts.—Subsidies the kingdom’s due, rather than the king’s.—How the seas, ports, forts, castles, militia, magazine, are the king’s, and how they are the kingdom’s.
关于君主制，与其他形式的比较。——王权如何是自然的产物。——以及官长作为官长如何是自然的。——绝对性如何不是神威荣的光线。——抵抗并非不合法，因为基督和他的使徒在某些情况下没有使用它。——加冕不是仪式。——人可以限制他们未曾给予的权力。——共和国并不恰当地是小学生或未成年人。——臣民受制于（obnoxious）君王，并不超过委托人、附庸、子女受制于他们的上级。——被动臣服是否是自然的。——乌西雅王是否被废黜。——白痴和儿童不是完全的君王，儿童仅是预定中的君王。——在不合法的事上拒绝被动臣服，并不比在同样的事上拒绝主动服从更羞辱君王。——君王不可转让或出卖其领土的任何部分。——人民在某些情况下可以在没有君王时集会。——臣民如何以及在什么意义上要偿还君王的债务。——补贴是王国应得的，而不是君王应得的。——海洋、港口、堡垒、城堡、民兵、军火库如何属于君王，以及如何属于王国。