|
楼主 |
发表于 2023-9-2 22:31:32
|
显示全部楼层
7But should a society of ministers, say a Church Council, . . . have the right to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable doctrine, in order to secure perpetual guardianship over all its members and through them over the people? I say that this is quite impossible. Such a contract, concluded to keep all further enlightenment from humanity, is simply null and void even if it should be confirmed by the sovereign power, by parliaments, and the most solemn treaties. An epoch cannot conclude a pact that will commit succeeding ages, prevent them from increasing their significant insights, purging themselves of errors, and generally progressing in enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature whose proper destiny lies precisely in such progress. Therefore, succeeding ages are fully entitled to repudiate such decisions as unauthorized and outrageous. The touchstone of all those decisions that may be made into law for a people lies in this question: Could a people impose such a law upon itself? Now it might be possible to introduce a certain order for a definite short period of time in expectation of better order. But, while this provisional order continues, each citizen (above all, each pastor acting as a scholar) should be left free to publish his criticisms of the faults of existing institutions. This should continue until public understanding of these matters has gone so far that, by uniting the voices of many (although not necessarily all) scholars, reform proposals could be brought before the sovereign to protect those congregations which had decided according to their best lights upon an altered religious order, without, however, hindering those who want to remain true to the old institutions. But to agree to a perpetual religious constitution which is not publicly questioned by anyone would be, as it were, to annihilate a period of time in the progress of man's improvement. This must be absolutely forbidden.
8A man may postpone his own enlightenment, but only for a limited period of time. And to give up enlightenment altogether, either for oneself or one's descendants, is to violate and to trample upon the sacred rights of man. What a people may not decide for itself may even less be decided for it by a monarch, for his reputation as a ruler consists precisely in the way in which he unites the will of the whole people within his own. If he only sees to it that all true or supposed [religious] improvement remains in step with the civic order, he can for the rest leave his subjects alone to do what they find necessary for the salvation of their souls. Salvation is none of his business; it is his business to prevent one man from forcibly keeping another from determining and promoting his salvation to the best of his ability. Indeed, it would be prejudicial to his majesty if he meddled in these matters and supervised the writings in which his subjects seek to bring their [religious] views into the open, even when he does this from his own highest insight, because then he exposes himself to the reproach: Caesar non est supra grammaticos. 2 It is worse when he debases his sovereign power so far as to support the spiritual despotism of a few tyrants in his state over the rest of his subjects.
9When we ask, Are we now living in an enlightened age? the answer is, No, but we live in an age of enlightenment. As matters now stand it is still far from true that men are already capable of using their own reason in religious matters confidently and correctly without external guidance. Still, we have some obvious indications that the field of working toward the goal [of religious truth] is now opened. What is more, the hindrances against general enlightenment or the emergence from self-imposed nonage are gradually diminishing. In this respect this is the age of the enlightenment and the century of Frederick [the Great].
7但如果一个牧师协会,比如教会理事会,…… 。 。 是否有权宣誓遵守某种不可改变的信条,以确保对其所有成员并通过他们对人民的永久监护? 我说这是完全不可能的。 这样一个旨在阻止人类进一步启蒙的契约,即使得到主权国家、议会和最庄严的条约的确认,也是无效的。 一个时代不可能缔结一项协议,该协议将承诺随后的时代,阻止他们增加重要的见解,清除自己的错误,并在启蒙方面普遍进步。 这将是对人性的犯罪,人性的正确命运正是在于这种进步。 因此,后世完全有理由否认这种未经授权和令人愤慨的决定。 所有可能成为人民法律的决定的试金石都在于这个问题:一个人民能否将这样的法律强加于自己? 现在,有可能在一定的短时间内引入某种秩序,以期获得更好的秩序。 但是,在这一临时命令继续存在的同时,每个公民(首先是每个作为学者的牧师)都应该可以自由地发表对现有机构缺陷的批评。 这种情况应该持续下去,直到公众对这些问题的理解达到如此程度,通过联合许多(尽管不一定是全部)学者的声音,改革提案可以提交给主权者,以保护那些根据自己的最佳看法做出决定的会众。 改变的宗教秩序,然而,不妨碍那些想要忠于旧制度的人。 但是,同意一项不受任何人公开质疑的永久宗教宪法,可以说是抹杀了人类进步的一段时期。 这是必须绝对禁止的。
8一个人可以推迟自己的启蒙,但只能推迟一段有限的时间。 完全放弃启蒙,无论是为了自己还是为了子孙后代,都是对人类神圣权利的侵犯和践踏。 人民自己不能决定的事情更不可能由君主决定,因为他作为统治者的声誉正是在于他将全体人民的意志团结在他自己的意志之中。 如果他只确保所有真正的或假定的[宗教]进步与公民秩序保持一致,那么他就可以让他的臣民独自去做他们认为拯救灵魂所必需的事情。 拯救与他无关; 他的职责是防止一个人强行阻止另一个人尽其所能决定和促进他的救赎。 事实上,如果他插手这些事务并监督他的臣民试图公开他们的[宗教]观点的著作,那么即使他是出于自己的最高洞察力这样做,也会对国王陛下造成损害,因为这样他就暴露了 他自己也受到了责备:凯撒不是语法上的。 2 更糟糕的是,他贬低自己的主权,以支持其国家中少数暴君对其他臣民的精神专制。
9当我们问:我们现在生活在一个启蒙时代吗? 答案是:不,但我们生活在一个启蒙时代。 就目前的情况来看,人们已经能够在没有外部指导的情况下自信而正确地在宗教事务中运用自己的理性,这还远非事实。 尽管如此,我们还是有一些明显的迹象表明,朝着[宗教真理]目标努力的领域现已开放。 更重要的是,阻碍普遍启蒙或摆脱自我强加的未成年人的障碍正在逐渐减少。 从这方面来说,这是启蒙时代和腓特烈大帝的世纪。 |
|