І. Сведения за Томас Хобс (1588-1679)
Живее като частен учител. Пише (обикновено на латински) изследвания по физика (движение на телата, оптика) и математика (изчисление на повърхности и обеми). Превежда Тукидид (1628) и Омир (1675 ) на английски. Прекарва няколко години като емигрант във Франция, запознава се с Декарт, влиза в писмен философски дебат с него. Съвременник е на Английската революция (и екзекуцията на Джеймс І - 1649).
През 1651 публикува “Левиатан” (Leviathan, or the Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil), писан под влияние на впечатленията му от гражданските смутове. Прави аналогия между нея и "Държавата" на Платон.
And thus I have brought to an end my discourse of civil and ecclesiastical government, occasioned by the disorders of the present time… (а review and conclusion)
But a man may here object that the condition of subjects is very miserable, as being obnoxious to the lusts and other irregular passions of him or them that have so unlimited a power in their hands…not considering that the estate of man can never be without some incommodity or other; and that the greatest that in any form of government can possibly happen to the people in general is scarce sensible, in respect of the miseries and horrible calamities that accompany a civil war… (of the rights of sovereigns by institution - 18)
And now, considering how different this doctrine is from the practice of the greatest part of the world, especially of these western parts that have received their moral learning from Rome and Athens, and how much depth of moral philosophy is required in them that have the administration of the sovereign power, I am at the point of believing this my labour as useless as the Commonwealth of Plato: for he also is of opinion that it is impossible for the disorders of state, and change of governments by civil war, ever to be taken away till sovereigns be philosophers. But when I consider again that the science of natural justice is the only science necessary for sovereigns and their principal ministers, and that they need not be charged with the sciences mathematical, as by Plato they are, further than by good laws to encourage men to the study of them; and that neither Plato nor any other philosopher hitherto hath put into order, and sufficiently or probably proved all the theorems of moral doctrine, that men may learn thereby both how to govern and how to obey, I recover some hope that one time or other this writing of mine may fall into the hands of a sovereign who will consider it himself (for it is short, and I think clear) without the help of any interested or envious interpreter; and by the exercise of entire sovereignty, in protecting the public teaching of it, convert this truth of speculation into the utility of practice (of the Kingdom of God by nature - 31).
1. Естествени закони и принуда
Принципите на живота в държава могат да бъдат извлечени еднакво от разума и от Писанието. С помощта на разума можем да узнаем, че държавата възниква и се поддържа на основата на естествени закони и по силата на властта.
The first and fundamental law of nature is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, is: by all means we can to defend ourselves. There followeth a third, which is this: that men perform their covenants made. And is the fourth law of nature, which may be conceived in this form: that a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace endeavour that he which giveth it have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will. A fifth law is complaisance; that is to say, that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. A sixth is this: that upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that, repenting, desire it. A seventh is: that in revenges (that is, retribution of evil for evil), men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow. In the eighth place: that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. For the ninth law of nature, I put this: that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. On this law dependeth another: that at the entrance into conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right which he is not content should he reserved to every one of the rest. And from this followeth another law: that such things as cannot he divided be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right. It is also a law of nature: that all men that mediate peace he allowed safe conduct. And therefore it is of the law of nature that they that are at controversy submit their right to the judgement of an arbitrator.
These are the laws of nature, dictating peace, for a means of the conservation of men in multitudes… they have been contracted into one easy sum, intelligible even to the meanest capacity; and that is: Do not that to another which thou wouldest not have done to thyself.
(of the first and the second natural laws and of contracts; of other laws of nature – 14,15).
For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all (of the causes, generation and definition of a commonwealth – 17).
2. Причина за възникване на държавата
При пълна индивидуална свобода хората са в състояние на война и това е тяхното естествено състояние. Така те стигат до взаимно унищожение.
За да бъде избегнато унищожението, човек предава част от свободата си на държавата и става част от нейния организъм. Държавата е гигантско живо тяло, “смъртен бог”. Държавното управление и неговата “душа”.
Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man (of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery - 13).
For by art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (in Latin, CIVITAS), which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body (Introduction)
3. Разпадане на държавата
За да бъде едно тяло здраво и в безопасност, то трябва да се подчинява на душата си.
Но понякога държавната душа не е в състояние да управлява добре тялото и следователно не може да осигурява безопасността на най-малките му части (индивидите). Тогава държавата се разпада или бива завладявана, и всеки индивид има право, стига да иска, да премине към друга държава (примерно, държавата на завоевателите), която ще се грижи по-добре за безопасността му.
Така той влиза в ново държавно тяло и се подчинява на нова “душа”.
The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them… If a monarch subdued by war render himself subject to the victor, his subjects are delivered from their former obligation, and become obliged to the victor (of the liberty of the subjects - 21).
ІІІ. Християнската държава
1. На земята е имало само едно “Божие царство”
Най-съвършената държава в историята е била държавата на еврейския народ, докато е бил предвождан от Мойсей (и след него от Елеазар). В действителност тя е била управлявана от Бог, а Мойсей само е посредничел между него и народа.
След един период на безвластие (кн. Съдии) народът пожелава да има цар. Оттогава, според Хобс, доколкото юдейският народ изобщо е имал държава, върховната власт е била в ръцете на царя, а свещенството му е било подчинено.
And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their sovereign a new covenant, made, not with men but with God, this also is unjust: for there is no covenant with God but by mediation of somebody that representeth God's person, which none doth but God's lieutenant who hath the sovereignty under God (of the rights of sovereigns by institution, 18).
It is therefore manifest enough by this one place that by the kingdom of God is properly meant a Commonwealth, instituted (by the consent of those which were to be subject thereto) for their civil government and the regulating of their behaviour, not only towards God their king, but also towards one another in point of justice, and towards other nations both in peace and war; which properly was a kingdom wherein God was king, and the high priest was to be, after the death of Moses, his sole viceroy, or lieutenant… In short, the kingdom of God is a civil kingdom, which consisted first, in the obligation of the people of Israel to those laws which Moses should bring unto them from Mount Sinai; and which afterwards the high priest, for the time being, should deliver to them from before the cherubim in the sanctum sanctorum (of the signification in Scripture of Kingdom of God, of holy, sacred and sacrament – 35).
Aaron being dead, and after him also Moses, the kingdom, as being a sacerdotal kingdom, descended by virtue of the covenant to Aaron's son, Eleazar the high priest: and God declared him, next under Himself, for sovereign, at the same time that He appointed Joshua for the general of their army… After the death of Joshua, till the time of Saul, the time between is noted frequently in the Book of Judges, "that there was in those days no king in Israel"; and sometimes with this addition, that "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." By which is to be understood that where it is said, "there was no king," is meant, "there was no sovereign power," in Israel. And so it was, if we consider the act and exercise of such power. For after the death of Joshua and Eleazar, "there arose another generation that knew not the Lord, nor the nor the works which He had done for Israel, but did evil in the sight of the Lord and served Baalim" (Judges, 2:10 -of the rights of the kingdom of God, in Abraham, Moses, the high priests, and the kings of Judah - 40)
And again, after Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and that generation which had seen the great works of God in Israel were dead, another generation arose and served Baal (Judges, 2:11). So that Miracles failing, faith also failed. Again, when the sons of Samuel, being constituted by their father judges in Beer-sheba, received bribes and judged unjustly, the people of Israel refused any more to have God to be their king in other manner than He was king of other people, and therefore cried out to Samuel to choose them a king after the manner of the nations (I Samuel, 8:3). So that justice failing, faith also failed, insomuch as they deposed their God from reigning over them (of religion - 12).
And after the people of the Jews had rejected God, that He should no more reign over them, those kings which submitted themselves to God's government were also his chief prophets; and the high priest's office became ministerial. And when God was to be consulted, they put on the holy vestments, and enquired of the Lord as the king commanded them, and were deprived of their office when the king thought fit (of the word of God, and of Prophets – 36).
2. Държавата на християните
Християнска държава е тази, чиито граждани изповядват християнството. Те се обединяват в църква, но тази църква не би трябвало да бъде противник на върховната власт (независимо дали тя е монархическа или друга).
Суверенът в Хобсовата държава трябва да бъде глава и на Църквата или поне да я контролира (примерно, да назначава епископите). Не съществува универсална църква, която да има право да се намесва във вътрешните дела на коя да е държава.
According to this sense, I define a Church to be: a company of men professing Christian religion, united in the person of one sovereign; at whose command they ought to assemble, and without whose authority they ought not to assemble. And because in all Commonwealths that assembly which is without warrant from the civil sovereign is unlawful; that Church also which is assembled in any Commonwealth that hath forbidden them to assemble is an unlawful assembly… It followeth also that there is on earth no such universal Church as all Christians are bound to obey, because there is no power on earth to which all other Commonwealths are subject. There are Christians in the dominions of several princes and states, but every one of them is subject to that Commonwealth whereof he is himself a member, and consequently cannot be subject to the commands of any other person. And therefore a Church, such a one as is capable to command, to judge, absolve, condemn, or do any other act, is the same thing with a civil Commonwealth consisting of Christian men; and is called a civil state, for that the subjects of it are men; and a Church, for that the subjects thereof are Christians (of the signification in the Scripture of the word “church” - 39).
3. Свободата в Хобсовата държава
Античните автори често твърдят, че гражданите трябва да противостоят на “тиранията”, което е подвеждащо и вредно за всяка държава. В действителност и античността не гражданите, а само държавите са били “напълно свободни” - сиреч, намирали са се в “естествено състояние”. Не е добра идея властта да бъде контролирана от други сили в държавата.
Не може да има свобода, който противоречи на грижата за безопасността. Суверенът не се подчинява на гражданските закони (той е над закона ). Не бива да има разделение на властите.
The liberty whereof there is so frequent and honourable mention in the histories and philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and in the writings and discourse of those that from them have received all their learning in the politics, is not the liberty of particular men, but the liberty of the Commonwealth: which is the same with that which every man then should have, if there were no civil laws nor Commonwealth at all. And the effects of it also be the same. For as amongst masterless men, there is perpetual war of every man against his neighbour; no inheritance to transmit to the son, nor to expect from the father; no propriety of goods or lands; no security; but a full and absolute liberty in every particular man: so in states and Commonwealths not dependent on one another, every Commonwealth, not every man, has an absolute liberty to do what it shall judge, that is to say, what that man or assembly that representeth it shall judge, most conducing to their benefit. But withal, they live in the condition of a perpetual war, and upon the confines of battle, with their frontiers armed, and cannons planted against their neighbours round about. The Athenians and Romans were free; that is, free Commonwealths: not that any particular men had the liberty to resist their own representative, but that their representative had the liberty to resist, or invade, other people… And as Aristotle, so Cicero and other writers have grounded their civil doctrine on the opinions of the Romans, who were taught to hate monarchy: at first, by them that, having deposed their sovereign, shared amongst them the sovereignty of Rome; and afterwards by their successors. And by reading of these Greek and Latin authors, men from their childhood have gotten a habit, under a false show of liberty, of favouring tumults, and of licentious controlling the actions of their sovereigns; and again of controlling those controllers; with the effusion of so much blood, as I think I may truly say there was never anything so dearly bought as these western parts have bought the learning of the Greek and Latin tongues... If a monarch, or sovereign assembly, grant a liberty to all or any of his subjects, which grant standing, he is disabled to provide for their safety; the grant is void, unless he directly renounce or transfer the sovereignty to another (of the liberty of the subjects - 21).
Thе office of the sovereign, be it a monarch or an assembly, consisteth in the end for which he was trusted with the sovereign power, namely the procuration of the safety of the people, to which he is obliged by the law of nature, and to render an account thereof to God, the Author of that law, and to none but Him. But by safety here is not meant a bare preservation, but also all other contentments of life, which every man by lawful industry, without danger or hurt to the Commonwealth, shall acquire to himself (of the office of the sovereign representative – 30).
The sovereign of a Commonwealth, be it an assembly or one man, is not subject to the civil laws. For having power to make and repeal laws, he may, when he pleaseth, free himself from that subjection by repealing those laws that trouble him, and making of new; and consequently he was free before (of civil laws - 26)
There is a sixth doctrine, plainly and directly against the essence of a Commonwealth, and it is this: that the sovereign power may be divided. For what is it to divide the power of a Commonwealth, but to dissolve it; for powers divided mutually destroy each other. And for these doctrines men are chiefly beholding to some of those that, making profession of the laws, endeavour to make them depend upon their own learning, and not upon the legislative power (of those things that weaken or tend to the dissolution of a commonwealth - 29).
ІV. Християнинът в Хобсовата държава
Ако властта забрани вярата в Христос, поданикът трябва да се подчини, поне външно. Това действие може да се смята за действие на суверена, сиреч отричащият се не носи отговорност пред Бога за отричането си.
Същото е и в случая, когато властта (суверенът) прави нововъведения.
But what, may some object, if a king, or a senate, or other sovereign person forbid us to believe in Christ? ... And, if it be further asked, what if we be commanded by our lawful prince to say with our tongue we believe not; must we obey such command? Profession with the tongue is but an external thing, and no more than any other gesture whereby we signify our obedience; and wherein a Christian, holding firmly in his heart the faith of Christ, hath the same liberty which the prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman the Syrian (II Kings, 5:17-18). Here Naaman believed in his heart; but by bowing before the idol Rimmon, he denied the true God in effect as much as if he had done it with his lips. But then what shall we answer to our Saviour's saying, "Whosoever denieth me before men, I will deny him before my Father which is in heaven?" (Matthew, 10:33) This we may say, that whatsoever a subject, as Naaman was, is compelled to in obedience to his sovereign, and doth it not in order to his own mind, but in order to the laws of his country, that action is not his, but his sovereign's; nor is it he that in this case denieth Christ before men, but his governor, and the law of his country... (of a christian commonwealth, 42).
But suppose that a Christian king should from this foundation, Jesus is the Christ, draw some false consequences, that is to say, make some superstructions of hay or stubble, and command the teaching of the same; yet seeing St. Paul says he shall be saved; much more shall he be saved that teacheth them by his command; and much more yet, he that teaches not, but only believes his lawful teacher. And in case a subject be forbidden by the civil sovereign to profess some of those his opinions, upon what just ground can he disobey? Christian kings may err in deducing a consequence, but who shall judge? (of what is necessary for a man’s reception into the Kingdom of heaven - 43)
V. Следствия от тази препоръка
По отношение на вярата и изобщо религията християнската държава на Хобс не се отличава съществено от коя да е друга държава. Вярата остава лична работа на вярващия; освен това той може да я изповядва публично и да участва в живота на църквата, стига суверенът да не забранява това.
Като властващ над църквата, суверенът има право да се намесва в нейния живот. Ако гражданите откажат какво да е подчинение на суверена на основание вярата си (догмата, традицията), той ще бъде оправдан да ги преследва за това.
Така се оказва, че християнската църква (и всеки неин член), ако иска да остане християнска, има само една възможност – да бъде във война с държавата.
Законът на Бог (така както е разяснен от Спасителя) не се отличава от естествения закон. Суверенът е върховен пастир, само той може да разяснява Писанието, доколкото той (кралят, християнският владетел) го е утвърдил. Същевременно се приема, че днес вече не може да има пророци – доказателството е, че в днешно време няма чудеса.
If they please, therefore, they may, as many Christian kings now do, commit the government of their subjects in matters of religion to the Pope; but then the Pope is in that point subordinate to them, and exerciseth that charge in another's dominion jure civili, in the right of the civil sovereign; not jure divino, in God's right; and may therefore be discharged of that office when the sovereign for the good of his subjects shall think it necessary. They may also, if they please, commit the care of religion to one supreme pastor, or to an assembly of pastors, and give them what power over the Church, or one over another, they think most convenient; and what titles of honor, as of bishops, archbishops, priests, or presbyters, they will; and make such laws for their maintenance, either by tithes or otherwise, as they please, so they do it out of a sincere conscience, of which God only is the judge. It is the civil sovereign that is to appoint judges and interpreters of the canonical scriptures; for it is he that maketh them laws. It is he also that giveth strength to excommunications; which but for such laws and punishments as may humble obstinate libertines, and reduce them to union with the rest of the Church, would be contemned. In sum, he hath the supreme power in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil, as far as concerneth actions and words, for those only are known and may be accused; and of that which cannot be accused, there is no judge at all, but God, that knoweth the heart. And these rights are incident to all sovereigns, whether monarchs or assemblies: for they that are the representants of a Christian people are representants of the Church: for a Church and a Commonwealth of Christian people are the same thing(of power ecclesiastical - 42).
They believed the Apostles, and after them the pastors and doctors of the Church that recommended to their faith the history of the Old and New Testament: so that the faith of Christians ever since our Saviour's time hath had for foundation, first, the reputation of their pastors, and afterward, the authority of those that made the Old and New Testament to be received for the rule of faith; which none could do but Christian sovereigns, who are therefore the supreme pastors, and the only persons whom Christians now hear speak from God; except such as God speaketh to in these days supernaturally. But because there be many false prophets gone out into the world, other men are to examine such spirits, as St. John adviseth us, "whether they be of God, or not" (I John, 4:1). And, therefore, seeing the examination of doctrines belongeth to the supreme pastor, the person which all they that have no special revelation are to believe is, in every Commonwealth, the supreme pastor, that is to say, the civil sovereign.(of what is necessary for a man’s reception into the Kingdom of heaven - 43)
Seeing therefore miracles now cease, we have no sign left whereby to acknowledge the pretended revelations or inspirations of any private man; nor obligation to give ear to any doctrine, farther than it is conformable to the Holy Scriptures, which since the time of our Saviour supply the place and sufficiently recompense the want of all other prophecy; and from which, by wise and learned interpretation, and careful ratiocination, all rules and precepts necessary to the knowledge of our duty both to God and man, without enthusiasm, or supernatural inspiration, may easily be deduced (of the principles of the Christian politics - 32).
Prof. Vasilka Tapkova-Zaimova
Преди 6 години