|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
BY SAMUEL RUTHERFORD 由塞缪尔·鲁瑟福德撰写
BY SAMUEL RUTHERFORD 由塞缪尔·鲁瑟福德撰写IN EPUB, .MOBI & .PDF FORMATS
在 EPUB、.MOBI 和.PDF 格式中
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. 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. It raised Rutherford to eminence as a philosophical thinker. After the Restoration, the authorities burned Lex, Rex and cited Rutherford for high treason, but his death intervened before the charge could be tried. It is considered one of the greatest books on political philosophy ever written. 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. He argued that Scripture was the standard by which to judge the actions, beliefs and constitutions of civil government. a charter of liberty against all forms of civil tyranny — vindicating the Scriptural duty to resist tyrants as an act of loyalty to God.
鲁瑟福德被选为威斯敏斯特神学会议的四位主要苏格兰代表之一，参与制定于 1647 年完成的威斯敏斯特信条。鲁瑟福德的政治著作《法律与君主》（1644 年）是对约翰·麦克斯韦尔的《至圣至尊君权》的回应，提出了有限政府和宪政理论。这使鲁瑟福德成为一位杰出的哲学思想家。恢复王政后，当局焚烧了《法律与君主》，并指控鲁瑟福德犯有高度叛国罪，但他在受审前去世。这被认为是有史以来最伟大的政治哲学著作之一。塞缪尔·鲁瑟福德的教导，以圣经为依据，反对“君王神权”的教义，同时提倡法律平等（包括君王）、不可剥夺的权利、同意治理、权力分立以及抵抗和反抗合法权威的权利。他认为圣经是评判公民政府的行为、信仰和宪法的标准。 反抗一切形式的公民暴政的自由宣言——认定抵抗暴君作为对上帝忠诚的行为的圣经责任。
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…” Murray, in his Life of Samuel Rutherford (1827) notes,
字幕：“关于国王和人民公正特权的争议：包含苏格兰王国最必要的防御战争的原因和起因，以及他们为帮助英格兰亲爱的兄弟而进行的远征；在其中，他们声称自己的清白，并对一本名为《基督教国王的神圣和皇家特权》的煽动性小册子给予了充分回答…”穆雷在他的《塞缪尔·拉瑟福德的生平》（1827 年）中指出，
“The work caused great sensation on its appearance. 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…’这项工作一经问世就引起了巨大轰动。Guthrie 主教提到，威斯敏斯特会议的每个成员“手中都拿着萨缪尔·拉瑟福德先生最近出版的那本书，它备受崇拜，以至于布坎南的著作（《苏格兰国王权利论》）曾被视为神谕，而这本新出版的书却被轻视为不够反君主制，只有拉瑟福德的《法律君王》被认为是真正的权威……”
TABLE OF CONTENTS 目录
SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF RUTHERFORD
卢瑟福德生平简述
AUTHOR’S PREFACE 作者的前言
QUESTION I: Whether government be by a divine law
问题一：政府是否应遵循神圣法律？
How government is from God.—Civil power, in the root, immediately from God.
政府如何来自上帝——民权，根源上直接来自上帝。
QUESTION II: Whether or no government be warranted by the law of nature
问题二：政府是否受自然法律的保证
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.
公民社会在根源上是自然的，在方式上是自愿的。政府的权力和由某些特定的官员行使的政府权力是不同的。公民的服从并非来自自然法的形式。我们对刑法的同意并非先天自然的。由这样的统治者来进行统治是自然法的次要规则。家庭的统治和政治是不同的。由统治者来进行统治是自然法的次要规则；家庭的统治和公民的统治是不同的。因此，公民政府是自然的。
QUESTION III: Whether royal power and definite forms of government be from God
问题三：皇权和明确的政府形式是否来自上帝？
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.
国王是来自上帝的，以四重意义理解。皇权得到了上帝的设立的保证。三种政府形式在种类和性质上并无不同。每种形式都是来自上帝。政府是人的制度，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：国王是否仅仅是来自上帝，而不是来自人民
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.
国王的权力是来自上帝，也是来自人民。——民族中的皇权有三种方式。——皇权在人民中根本。——人民塑造国王。——任何形式的政府都是来自上帝。——政府是人类的约章，彼得前书 2:3。——人民创造国王。——制造国王和选择国王，无法区分。——大卫不是正式的国王，因为他是被上帝膏立的。
QUESTION V: Whether or no the P. Prelate proveth that sovereignty is immediately from God, not from, the people
问题五：主教是否证明了主权是直接来自上帝，而不是人民？
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.
人民制造国王，尽管职位本身是直接来自上帝。——人民在制造国王方面有实际行动，不仅仅是赞同。——将一个人封为国王归功于人民。——国王特别是来自上帝，但这并不意味着不来自人民。——箴言 8:15 的地方并不能证明国王是由人民制造的。——尼布甲尼撒和其他异教国王在上帝面前对犹大王国和其他被征服的王国没有正当的称号。
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：无论国王是否因主权和个人身份的确定而与两者完全分离，他与人民之间并没有任何区别，只是通过纯粹的认可
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.
政府形式不是由上帝的裸露意愿而来，而是经过他的批准意愿而来。主权不是由人民的唯一赞同而来。尽管上帝在创造国王方面有特殊的神迹，但这并不意味着人民不能创造国王。主教解释了只适用于大卫、所罗门和耶稣基督的预言，将其解释为适用于亵渎的异教国王。主教将所有异教国王都视为王子，受到拯救恩典的圣油的膏立。
QUESTION VII: Whether the P. Prelate conclude that neither constitution nor designation of kings is from the people
第七个问题：P. Prelate 是否得出结论，既不是宪法也不是国王的指定来自人民？
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.
国王的卓越并不意味着他们是上帝唯一的构成和指定。——主权是属于人民的，也不是属于人民的。——一个社区不是将他们的权利和自由完全交给统治者，而是将他们的积极行动和被动遭受暴力的能力交给统治者。——上帝通过人民蔑视他来解除国王的束缚，这证明了主通过间接方式夺取和赋予王权的事实，而不是直接方式。——人民对国王和统治者的从属关系既是自然的，也是自愿的；而动物和其他生物对人类的从属关系仅仅是自然的。——创世记 9:5 中的“流人血的”，等等。进行了讨论。
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：P. Prelate 是否通过理性的力量证明了人民不能拥有任何政府权力。
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.
在任何社区中，政府有积极和消极的权力。——民主政府并不是整个人民都是统治者的政府。——人们天性上对这三种政府都一样漠不关心，并且天性上不属于任何一种。——P. Prelate 否认教皇是敌基督。——由人民选择的国王的不良结果对我们没有任何证明，因为由上帝选择的国王由于自己的邪恶而遭受不良结果。——P. Prelate 谴责查尔斯国王在 1641 年议会第二次会议上批准苏格兰在当前改革中的全部行动。——有任何最高法官是神圣的普遍行动，这并不妨碍国王是由人民选出的。——人民在选择国王时不是被动的，就像洗礼的圣事中的水在产生恩宠的行动中一样。
QUESTION IX: Whether or no sovereignty is so in and from the people, that they may resume their power in time of extreme necessity
第九个问题：主权是否完全属于人民，并且他们可以在极端紧急情况下恢复他们的权力
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.
人民是主权的主体。没有暴政的权力来自上帝。人民不能剥夺自卫的自然权力。议会的权力比国王更大。法官和国王是不同的。人民可以恢复他们的权力，不是因为他们是无误的，而是因为他们不能像一个人那样轻易地毁灭自己。圣会没有惩罚大卫、拔示巴和约押，这只是一个事实，而不是一条法律。有一种自然的层级关系，政府必须是自然的；然而，这种或那种形式是自愿的。
QUESTION X: Whether or not royal birth be equivalent to divine unction
问题 X：皇室出生是否等同于神圣的膏抹
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.
被八个论点所质疑。——王权不会由父亲传给儿子。——选择一个家族来继承王位，就像选择一个人一样，但这种联系是有条件的。——上帝特别应许给大卫及其后裔的王位（诗篇 89），并不能成为在上帝的法庭上，出生成为王位的正当理由。——如果出生是上帝的合法称号，那么通过征服获得王位的称号必定是不合法的。——认为征服是合法的王位称号的王党派，明显是在教唆反对查尔斯国王及其皇室继承人的叛国行为。——只有财富，而不是荣誉或王权，才能从父亲传给儿子。——暴力征服不能规范人们的良心，使他们服从征服者作为合法国王。——裸露的出生地位低于那种没有人民选举就不能成为国王的神圣膏抹。——如果一个王国是通过出生来决定的，国王可能会出售它。——王冠是王国的家产，而不是国王或他的父亲的个人财产。——出生是以色列王冠的象征性指定。——选择一个家族来继承王位，是基于人民的自由选举作为根本原因的合法行为。——选择一个家族来继承王位是合法的。
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：无论是出生即为国王的国王，还是由人民自由选举产生的国王，哪一个更主要？
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.
选举国王更接近第一位国王。（申命记 17 章）如果人民可以限制国王，他们就给予了他权力。一个社区没有正式惩罚自己的权力。世袭和选举的王子在各种考虑中，有的比另一个更好或更差。
QUESTION XII: Whether or no a kingdom may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest
第十二个问题：一个王国是否可以通过征服的唯一权利来合法购买？
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。征服经过人民的事后同意，成为正当的称号。征服对我们来说并不意味着上帝的赞同意愿。纯粹的暴力统治与治理行为相悖。暴力本身并不具备国王的特质。一个血腥的征服者并不像国王一样是一种祝福。力量的胜利并不等同于法律或理性。父辈不能决定尚未出生的后代的自由。作为父亲，他没有生杀予夺的权力。以色列和大卫对迦南人、以东人、亚扪人的征服并不合法，因为这是基于上帝的应许。
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
第十三问题：皇室尊严是否源自自然，以及“人人生而自由”如何成立，以及奴役如何违背自然
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.
七种优劣之分。正面法律赋予生死权力。先前和随后的统治。国王和臣民没有自然秩序。一个人出生后，随之而来的是政治关系。奴隶制不是自然的，原因有四个。每个人在公民服从方面都是自由的（不是在自然方面，比如儿女和妻子对父母和丈夫的服从），通过七个论证证明。政治统治是多么必要，多么自然。父母奴役他们的孩子不是自然的。
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：人民是否有条件或绝对地选择一个人作为他们的国王；国王是否受到任何此类契约的约束
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.
国王在自然界下，并无对人民的民事义务，正如王党所教。——通过圣经和理由，以八个论点证明契约在民事上约束国王。——如果没有达到一方进入契约的条件，那么该方就可以解除契约。——人民和君主在他们的职位上对正义和宗教有义务，与国王一样。——只要国王向人民强加错误的宗教，人们就理解他们没有国王。——契约赋予国王和人民相互强制的权力，尽管地球上没有比他们更高的人来强制他们中的任何一个。——契约约束国王作为国王，而不仅仅是作为一个人。——一两个暴虐的行为并不剥夺国王的王权。——即使没有明确的书面契约（我们并不否认），根据他的职位的性质，国王也有一种自然的、心照不宣的契约。——如果国王被绝对地成为国王，那就违背了圣经和他的职位的性质。- 作为抵押品交给国王的人民，并不意味着他们成为他完全支配的财产。 – 如果没有契约将国王与人民联系在一起，国王不能买卖、借贷。 – 犹大所宣誓的契约（《历代志下》15 章）将国王束缚住。
QUESTION XV: Whether the king be univocally, or only analogically and by proportion, a father
问题十五：国王是单义的父亲，还是只是类比和比例上的父亲？
Adam not king of the whole earth because a father.—The king a father metaphorically and improperly, proved by eight arguments.
亚当不是全地之王，因为他只是一个父亲。——王者只是在比喻和不恰当的意义上被称为父亲，这通过八个论点得到证明。
QUESTION XVI: Whether or no a despotical or masterly dominion agree to the king, because he is king
问题十六：一个专制或主宰的统治是否适合国王，因为他是国王
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.
国王对臣民没有像对仆人那样的主宰权，这可以通过四个论点证明。国王不能像对理性生物那样支配人类。国王不能把他的王国或人民当作他的私人财产来分配。自由的强制放弃是无效的。对无知的放弃在某种程度上是强制性的，因为它不强制人们遵守。臣民的财产不属于国王，这可以通过八个论点证明。臣民的所有财产从四个方面来说都属于国王。
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：无论王子是否适当地拥有导师、丈夫、赞助人、部长、家庭主人的信托或部长权力，而不是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.
国王是一位导师，而不是父亲，因为这两者是有区别的。——一个自由社区并不完全是未成年人和学生。——国王的权力并不是婚姻和丈夫的权力。——国王是赞助人和仆人。——王权只来自上帝，通过简单的构成方式，仅仅通过原因的孤立，而不是通过尊贵的应用方式。——国王既客观地又主观地是人民的仆人。——上帝和人民通过同一行为根据物理关系使国王成为国王。——国王只是象征性地成为人民的头，而不是本质上的，也不是一词多义的，通过六个论证。——他的权力只是信托的。
QUESTION XVIII: What is the law or manner of the king (1 Sam. 8:9, 11) discussed fully
问题十八：关于国王的法律或方式（撒母耳记上 8:9, 11）进行了详细讨论。
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.
巴克利对权力和职位的区别有很大的不同。根据古代和现代的解释者、新教徒和天主教徒的和谐，”משפת חּמלּךָ”是国王的方式。在撒母耳记上第 8 章中大声疾呼并不一定是对暴政的治疗方法，也不是带着信心和耐心的祈祷。反抗暴政的国王和忍耐并不矛盾。国王的法律不是一种允许性的法律，就像离婚法一样。国王的法律（撒母耳记上 12:23, 24）不是暴政的法律。
QUESTION XIX: Whether or no the king be in dignity and power above the people
问题十九：国王是否在尊严和权力上高于人民
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.
国王高于人民的地位、人民高于国王的地位是出于哪种考量 —— 一个手段作为手段，相对于目的而言，是低于其目的地位的，这是正确的。 —— 国王低于人民。 —— 教会，因为它是教会，比国王更卓越，因为国王。 —— 人民是国王所给予的，因此比这份礼物更有价值。 —— 人民是永恒的，国王是有限的。 —— 国王只是一个手段，不是王国的创造者或起源，一个手段需要两个必要的区分。 —— 如果没有罪存在，就不应该有国王。 —— 国王应该为他的人民献出生命。 —— 原因与结果相比，原因更为优秀。 —— 人民比国王更为优秀。 —— 人民不可能限制王权，但他们必须给予王权。 —— 人民在选举国王方面有作用，这可以通过四个论点证明。 —— 即使承认上帝直接制定国王，也不能得出结论，只有上帝而不是人民才能废黜他。 —— 人民在选举国王后，仍保留着选举国王的权力。 —— 手段相对于目的而言是低于其目的地位的，因此，作为一位国王，国王是一个手段。 —— 作为一名国王，国王是一个手段，同时也是一个人，相比之下低于人民。-发誓不自保，发誓自杀，都一样。-人民不能剥夺他们的权力，1.他们全部的权力，也不能 2.无法收回给国王。-当议会委员会滥用他们所获得的权力时，人民可以收回他们所给予的权力。-当普通法院腐败时，苏格兰的桌子是合法的。-Quod efficit tale id ipsum magis tale discussed，人民的源头权力只能归于国王。-国王是一个受托人，一个终身租户，而不是主人或继承人。-人民如何拥有主权。-生死权力在一个社区中如何存在。-一个没有统治者的社区，仍然可以成为一个政治实体。-法官在类比上是神。
QUESTION XX: Whether inferior judges be essentially the immediate vicegerents of God, as Kings, not differing in essence and nature from kings
问题 XX：次级法官是否本质上是上帝的直接代理人，就像国王一样，本质和性质与国王没有区别？
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.
下级法官是上帝的直接代理人，与国王一样重要。下级法官的良心直接服从上帝，而不是国王，无论是直接还是间接。下级法官如何成为国王的代理人。他可以处死杀人犯，因为他被授予了上帝的剑，与国王一样，即使国王命令相反；因为他不是根据国王的许可来执行审判和救济被压迫者的，而是无论国王是否愿意，他都要服从万王之王。下级法官是王国的仆人，而不是国王的仆人。国王不是以个人意愿的行为来任命法官，而是以王室正义的行为来任命法官，并且是通过他从人民那里获得的权力来任命自己为最高法官。国王任命下级法官并不妨碍他们作为法官的本质，他们与任命他们的国王一样，不是凭借自己的权力，而是凭借从人民那里借来的权力。以色列的法官和国王本质上没有区别。贵族制与君主制一样自然，也同样合法。下级法官在某种程度上依赖国王的未来，但不依赖国王的现实。-议会不由国王的血统来评判。 -国王无权任命或解除法官。 -没有世袭法官。 -次要的法官比国王更为必要。
QUESTION XXI: What power the people and states of parliament hath over the king and in the state
第二十一题：人民和议会所拥有的对国王和国家的权力是什么？
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.
上帝指派的长者作为法官。-议会可以在没有国王的情况下召集和审判。-议会本质上是法官，因此他们的良心不依赖于国王，无论是在具体规定上，即他们应该发出这个判决，而不是那个判决，还是在行使上，即他们不应该在早上执行判决。-不公正的审判和根本不审判都是国家的罪过。-议会与国王是同等的法官，而不仅仅是顾问；通过十一个论点。-下级法官不是国王的使者或代表，而是公共管理者。-犹太人的君主制是混合的。-国王在执行法律方面的权力更大，议会在立法方面的权力更大。
QUESTION XXII: Whether the power of the king, as king, be absolute, or dependent and limited by God’s
第二十二个问题：国王作为国王的权力是绝对的，还是受上帝的制约和限制的？
first mould and pattern of a king
第一个国王的模具和图案
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.
王党派使国王变得像大土耳其人一样绝对。——国王的权力不是绝对的，有九个论据证明。——为什么国王是活法。——做坏事的权力不是来自上帝。——王党派说做坏事的权力不是来自上帝，但是做坏事的权力，作为人所惩罚的，是来自上帝的。——如果国王按照上帝的安排是绝对的，那么国王在实际上是一种灾难，人民是奴隶。——君权的绝对性违背了正义、和平、理性和法律。——反对国王作为兄弟的关系。——被强迫的少女可以反抗国王。——绝对君主的善良并不妨碍他在实际上是一个暴君。
QUESTION XXIII: Whether the king hath a prerogative royal above law
问题二十三：国王是否拥有超越法律的皇家特权
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.
特权有两种方式。超越法律的特权是无限威严的合适花环。三重豁免，1. 权力；2. 正义；3. 恩典。纯粹恩典的行为可能是血腥的行为。对巴比伦王的誓言并没有将犹大人束缚在绝对权力所能命令的一切事情上。绝对的君主在残忍行为和恩典行为上一样绝对。仆人们没有被禁止自卫（彼得前书 2:18, 19）。议会只在实质上，而不是形式上，拥有国王作为他们的主人。理性不能足以约束君主不从事暴政行为。君主有足够的权力去行善，尽管他们没有绝对的权力去作恶。有权力流无辜之血不可能是上帝所赋予的任何王权的一部分。国王因为是公众人物，所以缺少许多臣民所拥有的特权。
QUESTION XXIV: What relation the king hath to the law
问题二十四：国王与法律之间的关系是什么？
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或惩罚性。国王独自拥有非法律性的权力。国王是否高于议会作为他们的法官。国王对议会的从属和协调既一致。三个政府中的每一个都有一些来自其他两个政府，没有其中任何一个政府的主导地位，都不能方便地混合其他两个政府。作为国王，他作为国王不会犯错，但他在某种程度上犯错，他不是上帝和自然所期望的压迫的解决办法。在紧急情况下，人民可以判断国王。人类法律不像暴政那样隐晦，暴政是明显可见的。保护整个人民、教会和宗教比保护一个人更重要。如果国王受到法律的限制，那么这种限制必须是物质上的，因为道德上的限制适用于所有人。对绝对君主发誓，作为绝对君主，这是一种非法的誓言，不具有约束力。
QUESTION XXV: Whether the supreme law, the safety of the people, be above the king
问题二十五：最高法律，人民的安全，是否高于国王？
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.
人民的安全应优先于国王，因为国王不是为了自己而是为了人民的利益。——皇室主义者只制造暴君而非国王。——国王的安全即是人民的安全。——为了人民的安全，国王可以打破法律的字句和纸面规定。——国王的特权高于法律和理性，但无法与爱尔兰和英格兰所流的血相比。——独裁者的权力并不能超越法律的特权。
QUESTION XXVI: Whether the king be above the law
问题二十六：国王是否高于法律
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.
国王之上的法律有四个方面：1. 宪法；2. 指导；3. 限制；4. 协同行动。——国王可以做所有事情的意义。——国王受法律道德约束；受基本法律约束，而不是受自己施加的惩罚约束，也不是因为他的地位的卓越性，而是因为其物理上的不协调性。——国王是否可以惩罚自己，以及如何惩罚自己。——国王以极其恶劣的方式违反法律，受到法律的协同行动，通过七个论证得到证明。——被认为是公正君主的国王加冕后，却被证明是暴君，这是有条件的，是出于无知，因此在法律上不具有约束力。——君主派承认在实践中的暴君可以被废黜。——人民是主权权力的所在地。——诗篇 51 中的地方，“我只得罪了你”等进行了讨论。——以色列人没有起来反抗法老的行为进行了审查。——犹大人在古列统治下没有争取自己的解放。——没有国王参与的契约是合法的。
QUESTION XXVII: Whether or no the king be the sole, supreme, and final interpreter of the law
问题二十七：国王是否是法律的唯一、至高和最终解释者
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.
他不是至高无上、专横的解释者。——他的意愿也不是法律的意义。——他也不是法律的唯一和独立的司法解释者。
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
第二十八个问题：由于庄园和臣民为了自己的正当防卫而发动的战争是否合法
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。如果国王是绝对的，一个上级法官可以惩罚一个下级法官，不是作为一个法官，而是一个错误的人。根据神的安排，所有限制他们权力的契约都是非法的。在某些情况下，抵抗是合法的。六个支持自卫战合法性的论点。还有许多其他的。
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：在防御战中，是否可以区分国王作为一个人，他可能会和能够对他的臣民进行敌对的暴行，以及他从上帝和人民那里获得的职位和王权？
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.
国王的本人具体而言，他的职位抽象而言，或者说，国王合法行使权力与区分（罗马书 13）——不义地命令并没有使权力变得更高——本人可以被抵抗，但职位不能被抵抗，证明了 14 个论点——反王室主义者和 P. 主教的反对意见得到了回答——我们在争论中所指的本人和职位抽象，并不完全排除个人，而仅仅是滥用权力的个人；我们可以因为圣经按照儿子、父亲、妻子的身份杀害一个人，并因他们而爱他们——我们听从国王是因为法律，而不是因为国王——习得和实际的王权的丧失是不同的——约翰福音 19 章 10 节，彼拉多在钉耶稣在十字架上的权力不是上帝赐给他的法律权力，这一点通过 6 个论点来反对王室主义者得到了证明。
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 XXX：无论被动顺从是否是我们在良心中受到神命令约束的一种方式；以及什么是一种抵抗的方式。逃避就是一种抵抗。
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.
地方，彼得前书 2:18，讨论。忍受伤害和抵抗伤害在同一个主体中是兼容的。基督的不抵抗有许多罕见和非凡之处，并不是我们的主导规则。受苦只是相对地被命令给我们，我们宁愿选择受苦而不是否认真理；或者只是命令我们以耐心忍受。在法律允许的情况下，夺取生命或者在被命令时犯罪并不构成谋杀。我们对财产和身体有更大的支配权（除了残害的情况，这是一种小小的死亡），而不是对我们的生命。杀人不是自卫的本质，而是偶然的结果。防御性战争不能没有冒犯。防御战和进攻战的性质。逃跑是一种抵抗。
QUESTION XXXI: Whether self-defence, by opposing violence to unjust violence, be lawful, by the law of God and nature
问题 XXXI：根据上帝和自然法，自卫是否合法，即通过对不公正的暴力进行反抗？
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.
自卫在人类中是自然的，但方式必须是理性和公正的。自卫的方法。暴力的再犯是自卫的最后手段。在宗教迫害的情况下，一个国家在物理上不可能逃离，所以他们可以为了自卫而抵抗。生命的保护是最近和最远的责任。在远程的自卫姿态中，我们不应该采取再犯的行为，就像大卫不应该在扫罗睡觉或在洞穴里杀死他一样，原因是相同的。大卫不会杀死扫罗，因为他是上帝的受膏者。国王并不是贞操、名誉和良心的主宰，所以可以被抵抗。通过普遍和特殊的自然法，自卫是合法的，通过多种论证得到证明。并且由法学家的证词支持。自爱是对邻居爱的尺度，并强调自卫。当执法官不在场，对他的生命进行暴力威胁时，自然使得一个私人成为自己的法官和执法官，正如法律所说。自卫是多么合法。国王的行为对两个王国的假设是进行防御战的足够依据。进攻战和防御战在人们的事件和意图上有所不同，但在本质和种类上并无差异，也不涉及身体上的差异。大卫不杀扫罗及其手下的人的情况对我们没有规定，我们在合法防御中杀死国王的使者是不同的情况。
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 32：是否可以从圣经、大卫、人民拯救约拿单、以利沙和抵抗乌西雅的 80 位勇敢的祭司的例子中证明防御战的合法性？
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.
大卫合法地组建了一支军队来保护自己免受不公正的暴力行为，这是为了对抗他的君王扫罗。大卫并没有入侵扫罗和他的人，他们并不追求专制政府，不破坏法律、宗教，也不消灭那些崇拜以色列上帝并反对偶像崇拜的人，他们只是追捕一个单独的人，与我们现在在苏格兰和英格兰的情况大不相同。大卫的例子并不特别。以利沙的抵抗证明了防御性战争是合法的。八十位勇敢的祭司对乌西雅王的抵抗也证明了同样的事实。人民解救约拿单也证明了这一点。利巴拿的叛乱也证明了这一点。亚伯城在大卫的将军约押来摧毁一个邪恶的阴谋者示巴的缘故下自卫。
QUESTION XXXIII: Whether or no Rom. 13:1 make any thing against the lawfulness of defensive wars
问题 XXXIII：罗马书 13:1 是否对防御性战争的合法性有任何限制？
The king not only understood, Rom. 13.—And the place, Rom. 13, discussed.
国王不仅理解，罗马书 13 章。而且地方，罗马书 13 章，被讨论。
QUESTION XXXIV: Whether royalists prove, by cogent reasons, the unlawfulness of defensive wars
问题 XXXIV：国王党是否能够通过有力的理由证明防御战的非法性？
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.
王党派的反对意见得到了回答。出埃及记 22:28 中的“不可亵渎神”等地得到了回答。以及传道书 10:20。传道书 8:3,4 中的“王的话在何处”等地得到了回答。约伯记 34:18 得到了回答。使徒行传 23:3 中的“神要击打你这粉饰的墙壁”等地。保罗时代的皇帝并非根据他们的法律拥有绝对权力。那种我们没有为自卫抵抗的做法，以及先知们从未抱怨君王未采取抵抗行动的反对意见得到了回答。先知们对不抵抗的罪行进行了谴责，当他们谴责法官们因为不为受压迫者伸张正义而哭泣时。犹大对征服者尼布甲尼撒的屈服，并不能成为我们屈服于暴政行为的依据。基督对凯撒的屈服并不能反对自卫战争。
QUESTION XXXV: Whether the sufferings of the martyrs in the primitive church militant be against the lawfulness of defensive wars
问题 XXXV：原始教会中殉道者的苦难是否违反了自卫战的合法性？
Tertullian neither ours nor theirs in the question of defensive wars.
特尔图利安在防御战问题上既不属于我们，也不属于他们。
QUESTION XXXVI: Whether the king have the power of war only
问题 XXXVI：国王是否只有战争的权力
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.
下级法官与国王一样拥有武力权力。人民被束缚于慈善行为，保护自己、教会和后代免受外敌侵害，即使国王禁止。现在，苏格兰和英格兰的人民被上帝的法律束缚，要保卫自己的国家是合法的。议会权力是高于国王的源泉权力。
QUESTION XXXVII: Whether the estates of Scotland are to help their brethren, the protestants of England, against cavaliers, proved by argument 13
第三十七个问题：苏格兰的财产是否应该帮助他们的兄弟，即英格兰的新教徒，对抗骑士派？证据 13 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，关于这一点有不同的观点。埃及法律针对不帮助受压迫者的人。
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.
无论君主制是否是最好的政府，都有各种考虑因素，其中每个因素可能更或更不方便。——绝对君主制是最糟糕的政府。没有权力去做坏事比拥有权力更好。——混合制度是最甜蜜的政府——国王和议会都不能违背法律和理性。
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 XXXIX：国王是否有任何超越法律的特权。或者，jura majestatis 是否是这样一种特权。
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.
三重至高权力。——什么是王权特权。——国王不是根据他们绝对权力的充沛来授予荣誉，而是根据法律、正义和良好的遵守的严格准则。——国王的法律，撒母耳记上 8:9, 11。——国王和法官的区别。——国王的法律（撒母耳记上 8:9, 11）不是允许性的法律，比如离婚法。——国王对臣民财产的统治。
QUESTION XL: Whether or no the people have any power over the king, either by his oath, covenant, or any other way
问题 XL：无论是通过他的誓言、契约还是其他方式，人民是否对国王有任何权力
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.
人民因国王的契约和承诺而对其拥有权力。违反契约和承诺会导致法律上的强制，尽管事实上可能没有。在没有上下级关系的情况下，可以进行相互惩罚。阿尼塞乌斯进行了三项契约。国王在宣誓并被人民接受为国王时并不是国王。法国国王的宣誓。雨果·格罗蒂乌斯列举了七种情况，人民可以在其中控告、惩罚或废黜国王。王子是王国的贵族附庸，有四个基础。契约附带了誓言。在合同中，王子只是一个普通人。王权如何直接来自上帝，又是由人民授予国王的。
QUESTION XLI: Whether doth the P. Prelate with reason ascribe to us doctrine of Jesuits in the question of lawful defence
第 41 个问题：大主教是否有理由将合法防卫的教义归因于我们耶稣会士？
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.
主权最初和根本上属于人民，就像泉水一样，这是由父辈、古代医生、合格的神职人员和律师们教导的，在耶稣会士或主教出生之前，就在自然界中存在着。——P. Prelate 认为教皇是基督的代理人。——耶稣会士关于国王的信条。——根据我们的教义，国王不是人民的代表，这只是 P. Prelate 的诽谤。——P. Prelate 将拥有在地球上对基督教会实施最血腥的暴政的权力，这是国王的本质权力。
QUESTION XLII: Whether all Christian kings are dependent from Christ, and may be called his vicegerents
问题 XLII：是否所有基督教国王都依赖于基督，并可以被称为他的代理人？
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.
为什么上帝作为上帝，给了人类一个副主的地位，但不是作为调解者。国王不是教会的头。国王是一个副调解者，一个下级救赎者，一个为我们向上帝献祭的下级祭司，如果他是副主。国王不是混合人物。教士否认国王受福音的管辖。国王不能凭借王权特权规定上帝崇拜中的宗教仪式和人类仪式。主教给予国王一种任意、至高和独立的权力来管理教会。国王对教会的服从和教会对国王的服从在不同种类中相互交替，即教会和国家的服从，不比亚伦的祭司教导、教育和责备摩西更荒谬，如果他变成暴君亚哈，摩西惩罚亚伦如果他变成顽固的拜偶像者。
QUESTION XLIII: Whether the king of Scotland be an absolute prince, having a prerogative above laws and parliaments
苏格兰国王是否是绝对的君主，拥有超越法律和议会的特权
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.
苏格兰国王受苏格兰古代和近代议会的基本法律、法令和惯例的约束。苏格兰国王在加冕时宣誓。詹姆斯六世被赋予的所谓绝对权力，并不能成为苏格兰国王绝对统治的依据。根据法律和惯例，苏格兰国王受法律和议会的约束，这一点可以从选举君主的基本法和最偏袒的历史学家以及苏格兰议会的法案中得到证明。加冕宣誓。詹姆斯六世加冕时再次宣誓；再次在詹姆斯六世的第一届议会中宣誓。国王在所有案件中拥有最高法官的权力。苏格兰议会的权力。苏格兰教会信仰的告白，经过苏格兰议会的多项法案授权，明确表明当最高统治者被邪恶的建议误导时，进行防御性战争是合法的。其他改革宗教教会的信仰告白也证明了这一点。罗马书 13 章在我们的信仰告白中得到解释。- 坦赛尔会议展示的忏悔，不仅来自撒克逊人，还有来自瑞士、法国、英格兰和波希米亚的忏悔，证明了同样的事实。- 威廉·劳德和其他主教，他们是议会、国家和英格兰、苏格兰和爱尔兰三个王国的基本法律的敌人。- 苏格兰议会对国王的权力进行调节、限制和设定界限。- 第一位国王费尔格斯不是征服者。- 苏格兰国王在议会之下，由议会认可，没有否决权。
QUESTION XLIV: General results of the former doctrine in some few corollaries, in twenty-two questions
第 44 个问题：前述学说的一些普遍结果，以 22 个问题的形式进行推论
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，与其他形式相比——君权如何是一种自然问题——以及行政官员作为行政官员是如何自然的——绝对权力不是上帝威严的一束光芒——抵抗不是非法的，因为基督和他的使徒在某些情况下没有使用抵抗——加冕不是一种仪式——人们可以限制他们没有给予的权力——共和国不是一个合适的学生或未成年人——臣民对国王的服从并不比客户、封臣、子女对上级更加服从——如果被动服从是自然的——乌西雅国王是否被废黜——白痴和儿童不是完全的国王，儿童只是在命运上是国王——在不合法的事情上否认被动服从，对国王来说并不比在同样的事情上否认积极服从更加不光彩——国王不能出售或出让他的领土的任何部分——人民在某些情况下可以在没有国王的情况下召集——臣民应该如何支付国王的债务——补贴是王国的应得，而不是国王的——海洋、港口、堡垒、城堡、民兵、军械库是国王的，也是王国的。
—–