按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
ve there conceived that never to want princes of the blood royal； they ought to take the children of the eldest sister of the king。
A general maxim： it is an obligation of the law of nature to provide for our children； but to make them our successors is an obligation of the civil or political law。 Hence are derived the different regulations with respect to bastards in the different countries of the world； these are according to the civil or political laws of each country。
7。 That we ought not to decide by the Precepts of Religion what belongs only to the Law of Nature。 The Abassines have a most severe lent of fifty days； which weakens them to such a degree that for a long time they are incapable of business： the Turks do not fail to attack them after their lent。＇18＇ Religion ought； in favour of the natural right of self…defence； to set bounds to these customs。
The Jews were obliged to keep the Sabbath； but it was an instance of great stupidity in this nation not to defend themselves when their enemies chose to attack them on this day。＇19＇
Cambyses； laying siege to Pelusium； set in the first rank a great number of those animals which the Egyptians regarded as sacred； the consequence was that the soldiers of the garrison durst not molest them。 Who does not see that self…defence is a duty superior to every precept？
8。 That we ought not to regulate by the Principles of the canon Law Things which should be regulated by those of the civil Law。 By the civil law of the Romans；＇20＇ he who took a thing privately from a sacred place was punished only for the guilt of theft； by the canon law； he was punished for the crime of sacrilege。＇21＇ The canon law takes cognizance of the place； the civil laws of the fact。 But to attend only to the place is neither to reflect on the nature and definition of a theft； nor on the nature and definition of sacrilege。
As the husband may demand a separation by reason of the infidelity of his wife； the wife might formerly demand it on account of the infidelity of the husband。＇22＇ This custom； contrary to a regulation made in the Roman laws；＇23＇ was introduced into the ecclesiastic court；＇24＇ where nothing was regarded but the maxims of canon law； and indeed； if we consider marriage as a thing merely spiritual； and as relating only to the things of another life； the violation is in both cases the same； but the political and civil laws of almost all nations have； with reason； made a distinction between them。 They have required from the women a degree of reserve and continency which they have not exacted from the men； because in women； a violation of chastity supposes a renunciation of all virtue； because women； by violating the laws of marriage； quit the state of their natural dependence； because nature has marked the infidelity of women with certain signs； and； in fine； because the children of the wife born in adultery necessarily belong and are an expense to the husband； while the children produced by the adultery of the husband are not the wife's； nor are an expense to the wife。
9。 That Things which ought to be regulated by the Principles of civil Law can seldom be regulated by those of Religion。 The laws of religion have a greater sublimity； the civil laws a greater extent。
The laws of perfection drawn from religion have more in view the goodness of the person that observes them than of the society in which they are observed； the civil laws； on the contrary； have more in view the moral goodness of men in general than that of individuals。
Thus； venerable as those ideas are which immediately spring from religion； they ought not always to serve as a first principle to the civil laws； because these have another； the general welfare of society。
The Romans made regulations among themselves to preserve the morals of their women； these were political institutions。 Upon the establishment of monarchy； they made civil laws on this head； and formed them on the principles of their civil government。 When the Christian religion became predominant； the new laws that were then made had less relation to the general rectitude of morals than to the holiness of marriage； they had less regard to the union of the two sexes in a civil than in a spiritual state。
At first； by the Roman law； a husband； who brought back his wife into his house after she had been found guilty of adultery； was punished as an accomplice in her debauch。＇25＇ Justinian； from other principles； ordained that during the space of two years he might go and take her again out of the monastery。＇26＇
Formerly； when a woman； whose husband was gone to war； heard no longer any tidings of him； she might easily marry again； because she had in her hands the power of making a divorce。 The law of Constantine obliged the woman to wait four years； after which she might send the bill of divorce to the general； and； if her husband returned； he could not then charge her with adultery。＇27＇ But Justinian decreed that； let the time be never so long after the departure of her husband； she should not marry unless； by the deposition and oath of the general； she could prove the death of her husband。＇28＇ Justinian had in view the indissolubility of marriage； but we may safely say that he had it too much in view。 He demanded a positive proof when a negative one was sufficient； he required a thing extremely difficult to give； an account of the fate of a man at a great distance； and exposed to so many accidents； he presumed a crime； that is； a desertion of the husband； when it was so natural to presume his death。 He injured the commonwealth by obliging women to live out of marriage； he injured individuals by exposing them to a thousand dangers。
The law of Justinian； which ranked among the causes of divorce the consent of the husband and wife to enter into a monastery； was entirely opposite to the principles of the civil laws。＇29＇ It is natural that the causes of divorce should have their origin in certain impediments which could not be foreseen before marriage； but this desire of preserving chastity might be foreseen； since it is in ourselves。 This law favours inconstancy in a state which is by its very nature perpetual； it shook the fundamental principle of divorce； which permits the dissolution of one marriage only from the hope of another。 In short； if we view it in a religious light； it is no more than giving victims to God without a sacrifice。
10。 In what Case we ought to follow the civil Law which permits； and not the Law of Religion which forbids。 When a religion which prohibits polygamy is introduced into a country where it is permitted； we cannot believe （speaking only as a politician） that the laws of the country ought to suffer a man who has many wives to embrace this religion； unless the magistrate or the husband should indemnify them； by restoring them in some way or other to their civil state。 Without this their condition would be deplorable； no sooner would they obey the laws than they would find themselves deprived of the greatest advantages of society。
11。 That human Courts of Justice should not be regulated by the Maxims of those Tribunals which relate to the Other Life。 The tribunal of the inquisition； formed by the Christian monks on the idea of the tribunal of penitence； is contrary to all good policy。 It has everywhere met with a general dislike； and must have sunk under the oppositions it met with； if those who were resolved to establish it had not drawn advantages even from these oppositions。
This tribunal is insupportable in all governments。 In monarchies； it only makes informers and traitors； in republics； it only forms dishonest men； in a despotic state； it is as destructive as the government itself。
12。 The same Subject continued。 It is one abuse of this tribunal that； of two persons accused of the same crime； he who denies is condemned to die； and he who confesses avoids the punishment。 This has its source in monastic ideas； where he who denies seems in a state of impenitence and damnation； and he who confesses； in a state of repentance and salvation。 But a distinction of this kind can have no relation to human tribunals。 Human justice； which sees only the actions； has but one compact with men； namely； that of innocence； divine justice； which sees the thoughts； has two； that of innocence and repentance。
13。 In what Cases； with regard to Marriage； we ought to follow the Laws of Religion； and in what Cases we should follow the civil Laws。 It has happened in all ages and countries； that religion has been blended with marriages。 When certain things have been considered as impure or unlawful； and had nevertheless become necessary； they were obliged to call in religion to legitimate in the one case； and to reprove in others。
On the other hand； as marriage is of all human actions that in which society is most interested； it became proper that this should be regulated by the civil laws。
Everything which relates to the nature of marriage； its form； the manner of contracting it； the fruitfulness it occasions； which has made all nations consider it as the object of a particular benediction； a benediction which； not being always annexed to it； is supposed to depend on certain superior graces； all this is within the resort of