,sentence ,numbers1 shown thus 7#a71    
have been added by volunteer4           
,a ,theologico-,political ,treatise     
,part ,,iv of ,,iv - ,chapters ,,xvi to 
,,xx    by ,baruch ,spinoza             
,,table ,,of ,,contents3 ,search strings
 are shown thus #af3x4                  
,search forward and back with the same  
string4        #af3j ,,chapter ,,xvi -  
,of the ,foundations of a ,state2     of
 the ,natural and  ,civil ,rights of    
,individuals2     and of the ,rights of 
the ,sovereign ,power4    #af3a  ,in    
,nature right co-extensive with power4  
#af3b  ,this principle applies to       
mankind in the state of ,nature4        
#af3c  ,how a transition from this state
 to a civil state is possible4    #af3d 
,subjects not slaves4    #af3e          
,definition of private civil right - and
 wrong4    #af3f  ,of alliance4    #af3g
  ,of treason4    #af3h  ,in what sense 
sovereigns are bound by ,divine law4    
#af3i  ,civil government not            
inconsistent with religion4        #ag3j

  ,,chapter ,,xvii4- ,it is shown1 that 
no one can or need     transfer all his 
,rights to the ,sovereign ,power4 ,of   
the     ,hebrew ,republic1 as it was    
during  the lifetime of ,moses1     and 
after his death till the foundation of  
the ,monarchy2     and of its           
,excellence4 ,lastly1 of the ,causes why
 the     ,theocratic ,republic fell1 and
 why it could hardly have     continued 
without ,dissension4    #ag3a  ,the     
absolute theory1 of ,sovereignty ideal -
 ,no one can          in fact transfer  
all his rights to the ,sovereign power4 
,evidence of this4    #ag3b  ,the       
greatest danger in all ,states from     
within1          not without4    #ag3c  
,original independence of the ,jews     
after the ,exodus4    #ag3d  ,changed   
first to a pure democratic ,theocracy4  
#ag3e  ,then to subjection to ,moses4   
#ag3f  ,then to a ,theocracy with the   
power divided          between the high 
priest and the captains4    #ag3g  ,the 
tribes confederate states4    #ag3h     

,restraints on the civil power4    #ag3i
  ,restraints on the people4    #ag3;,a 
,causes of decay involved in the        
constitution          of the ,levitical 
priesthood4        #ah3j  ,,chapter     
,,xviii4- ,from the ,commonwealth of the
 ,hebrews and     their ,history certain
 ,lessons are deduced4    #ah3a  ,the   
,hebrew constitution no longer possible 
or desirable1          yet lessons may  
be derived from its history4    #ah3b   
,as the danger of entrusting any        
authority in politics          to       
ecclesiastics - the danger of           
identifying          religion with      
dogma4    #ah3c  ,the necessity of      
keeping all judicial power with         
the sovereign - the danger  of changes  
in the          form of a ,state4       
#ah3d  ,this last danger illustrated    
from the history of          ,england - 
of ,rome4    #ah3e  ,and of ,holland4   
#ai3j ,,chapter ,,xix -  ,it is shown   
that the ,right     over ,matters       
,spiritual lies wholly with the         

,sovereign1 and that the ,outward ,forms
 of     ,religion should be in          
accordance with ,public     ,peace1 if  
we would worship ,god aright4    #ai3a  
,difference between external and inward 
religion4    #ai3b  ,positive law       
established only by agreement4    #ai3c 
,piety furthered by peace and obedience4
    #ai3d  ,position of the ,apostles   
exceptional4    #ai3e  ,why ,christian  
,states1 unlike the ,hebrew1            
suffer from disputes between the civil  
and ecclesiastical powers4    #ai3f     
,absolute power in things spiritual of  
modern rulers4        #bj3j  ,,chapter  
,,xx -  ,that in a ,free ,state every   
man  may ,think what he ,likes1 and ,say
 what he ,thinks4    #bj3a  ,the mind   
not subject to ,state authority4        
#bj3b  ,therefore in general language   
should not be4    #bj3c  ,a man who     
disapproving of a law1 submits his      
adverse opinion          to the judgment
 of the authorities1 while acting in    
accordance  with the law1 deserves well 

of the ,state4    #bj3d  ,that liberty  
of opinion is beneficial1 shown from    
the history of ,amsterdam4    #bj3e     
,danger to the ,state of withholding it4
 -          ,submission of the ,author  
to the          judgment of his         
country's rulers4        ,author's      
,endnotes to the ,treatise4             
#af3j ,,chapter ,,xvi - ,,of ,,the      
,,foundations ,,of ,a ,,state2 ,,of     
,,the  ,,natural ,,and ,,civil ,,rights 
,,of ,,individuals2 ,,and ,,of ,,the    
,,rights ,,of ,,the ,,sovereign ,,power4
    7#a7 ,hitherto our care has been to 
separate philosophy from theology1 and  
to  show the freedom of thought which   
such separation insures to both4 7#b7   
,it is  now time to determine the limits
 to which such freedom of thought and   
discussion may extend itself in the     
ideal state4 7#c7 ,for the due          
consideration of this question we must  
examine the foundations of a ,state1    
first turning our attention to the      
natural rights of individuals1 and      

afterwards to religion and the state as 
a whole4    7#af3d7 ,by the right and   
ordinance of nature1 ,i merely mean     
those natural  laws wherewith we        
conceive every individual to be         
conditioned by nature1 so  as to live   
and act in a given way4 7#e7 ,for       
instance1 fishes are naturally          
conditioned for swimming1 and the       
greater for devouring the less2         
therefore  fishes enjoy the water1 and  
the greater devour the less by sovereign
 natural  right4 #af3a 7#f7 ,for it is  
certain that nature1 taken in the       
abstract1 has  sovereign right to do    
anything she can2 in other words1 her   
right is  co-extensive with her power4  
7#g7 ,the power of nature is the power  
of ,god1  which has sovereign right over
 all things2 and1 inasmuch as the power 
of nature  is simply the aggregate of   
the powers of all her individual        
components1 it  follows that every      
individual has sovereign right to do all
 that he can2 in  other words1 the      

rights of an individual extend to the   
utmost limits of his  power as it has   
been conditioned4 7#h7 ,now it is the   
sovereign law and right  of nature that 
each individual should endeavour to     
preserve itself as it is1  without      
regard to anything but itself2 therefore
 this sovereign law and  right belongs  
to every individual1 namely1 to exist   
and act according  to its natural       
conditions4 7#i7 ,we do not here        
acknowledge any  difference between     
mankind and other individual natural    
entities1 nor  between men endowed with 
reason and those to whom reason is      
unknown2 nor  between fools1 madmen1 and
 sane men4 7#aj7 ,whatsoever an         
individual does by  the laws of its     
nature it has a sovereign right to do1  
inasmuch as it  acts as it was          
conditioned by nature1 and cannot act   
otherwise4 #af3b 7#aa7  ,wherefore among
 men1 so long as they are considered as 
living under the sway  of nature1 he who
 does not yet know reason1 or who has   

not yet acquired the  habit of virtue1  
acts solely according to the laws of his
 desire with as  sovereign a right as he
 who orders his life entirely by the    
laws of reason4    7#af3ab7 ,that is1 as
 the wise man has sovereign right to do 
all that reason  dictates1 or to live   
according to the laws of reason1 so also
 the ignorant  and foolish man has      
sovereign right to do all that desire   
dictates1 or to  live according to the  
laws of desire4 7#ac7 ,this is identical
 with the  teaching of ,paul1 who       
acknowledges that previous to the law - 
that is1 so  long as men are considered 
of as living under the sway of nature1  
there is  no sin4    7#af3ad7 ,the      
natural right of the individual man is  
thus determined1 not by  sound reason1  
but by desire and power4 7#ae7 ,all are 
not naturally  conditioned so as to act 
according to the laws and rules of      
reason2 nay1 on  the contrary1 all men  
are born ignorant1 and before they can  
learn the  right way of life and acquire

 the habit of virtue1 the greater part  
of their  life1 even if they have been  
well brought up1 has passed away4 7#af7 
,nevertheless1 they are in the meanwhile
 bound to live and preserve  themselves 
as far as they can by the unaided       
impulses of desire4 7#ag7 ,nature  has  
given them no other guide1 and has      
denied them the present power of  living
 according to sound reason2 so that they
 are no more bound to live by  the      
dictates of an enlightened mind1 than a 
cat is bound to live by the laws  of the
 nature of a lion4    7#af3ah7          
,whatsoever1 therefore1 an individual   
7considered as under the sway  of       
nature7 thinks useful for himself1      
whether led by sound reason or  impelled
 by the passions1 that he has a         
sovereign right to seek and to take  for
 himself as he best can1 whether by     
force1 cunning1 entreaty1 or any  other 
means2 consequently he may regard as an 
enemy anyone who hinders  the           
accomplishment of his purpose4          

7#af3ai7 ,it follows from what we have  
said that the right and ordinance of    
nature1 under which all men are born1   
and under which they mostly live1 only  
prohibits such things as no one desires1
 and no one can attain3 it does not     
forbid strife1 nor hatred1 nor anger1   
nor deceit1 nor1 indeed1 any of  the    
means suggested by desire4    7#af3bj7  
,this we need not wonder at1 for nature 
is not bounded by the laws of  human    
reason1 which aims only at man's true   
benefit and preservation2 her  limits   
are infinitely wider1 and have reference
 to the eternal order of  nature1       
wherein man is but a speck2 it is by the
 necessity of this alone  that all      
individuals are conditioned for living  
and acting in a particular  way4 7#ba7  
,if anything1 therefore1 in nature seems
 to us ridiculous1 absurd1  or evil1 it 
is because we only know in part1 and are
 almost entirely  ignorant of the order 
and interdependence of nature as a      
whole1 and also  because we want        

everything to be arranged according to  
the dictates of our  human reason2 in   
reality that which reason considers     
evil1 is not evil in  respect to the    
order and laws of nature as a whole1 but
 only in respect to  the laws of our    
reason4    7#af3bb7 ,nevertheless1 no   
one can doubt that it is much better for
 us to live  according to the laws and  
assured dictates of reason1 for1 as we  
said1 they  have men's true good for    
their object4 7#bc7 ,moreover1 everyone 
wishes to  live as far as possible      
securely beyond the reach of fear1 and  
this would be  quite impossible so long 
as everyone did everything he liked1 and
 reason's  claim was lowered to a par   
with those of hatred and anger2 there is
 no one  who is not ill at ease in the  
midst of enmity1 hatred1 anger1 and     
deceit1  and who does not seek to avoid 
them as much as he can4 #af3c 7#bd7     
,when we  reflect that men without      
mutual help1 or the aid of reason1 must 
needs live  most miserably1 as we       

clearly proved in ,chap4 ,v41 we shall  
plainly see that  men must necessarily  
come to an agreement to live together as
 securely and  well as possible if they 
are to enjoy as a whole the rights which
 naturally  belong to them as           
individuals1 and their life should be no
 more conditioned  by the force and     
desire of individuals1 but by the power 
and will of the  whole body4 7#be7 ,this
 end they will be unable to attain if   
desire be  their only guide 7for by the 
laws of desire each man is drawn in a   
different  direction72 they must1       
therefore1 most firmly decree and       
establish that they  will be guided in  
everything by reason 7which nobody will 
dare openly to  repudiate lest he should
 be taken for a madman71 and will       
restrain any  desire which is injurious 
to a man's fellows1 that they will do to
 all as  they would be done by1 and that
 they will defend their neighbour's     
rights as  their own4    7#af3bf7 ,how  
such a compact as this should be entered

 into1 how ratified and  established1 we
 will now inquire4    7#bg7 ,now it is a
 universal law of human nature that no  
one ever neglects  anything which he    
judges to be good1 except with the hope 
of gaining a  greater good1 or from the 
fear of a greater evil2 nor does anyone 
endure an  evil except for the sake of  
avoiding a greater evil1 or gaining a   
greater  good4 7#bh7 ,that is1 everyone 
will1 of two goods1 choose that which he
 thinks  the greatest2 and1 of two      
evils1 that which he thinks the least4  
7#bi7 ,i say  advisedly that which he   
thinks the greatest or the least1 for it
 does not  necessarily follow that he   
judges right4 7#cj7 ,this law is so     
deeply  implanted in the human mind that
 it ought to be counted among eternal   
truths  and axioms4    7#af3ca7 ,as a   
necessary consequence of the principle  
just enunciated1 no one  can honestly   
promise to forego the right which he has
 over all things  ,endnote #bf1 and in  
general no one will abide by his        

promises1 unless under  the fear of a   
greater evil1 or the hope of a greater  
good4 7#cb7 ,an example  will make the  
matter clearer4 7#cc7 ,suppose that a   
robber forces me to  promise that ,i    
will give him my goods at his will and  
pleasure4 7#cd7 ,it is  plain 7inasmuch 
as my natural right is1 as ,i have      
shown1 co-extensive with  my power7 that
 if ,i can free myself from this robber 
by stratagem1 by  assenting to his      
demands1 ,i have the natural right to do
 so1 and to pretend  to accept his      
conditions4 7#ce7 ,or again1 suppose ,i 
have genuinely promised  someone that   
for the space of twenty days ,i will not
 taste food or any  nourishment2 and    
suppose ,i afterwards find that was     
foolish1 and cannot be  kept without    
very great injury to myself2 as ,i am   
bound by natural law and  right to      
choose the least of two evils1 ,i have  
complete right to break my  compact1 and
 act as if my promise had never been    
uttered4 7#cf7 ,i say that ,i  should   

have perfect natural right to do so1    
whether ,i was actuated by true  and    
evident reason1 or whether ,i was       
actuated by mere opinion in thinking ,i 
had promised rashly2 whether my reasons 
were true or false1 ,i should be in     
fear of a greater evil1 which1 by the   
ordinance of nature1 ,i should strive   
to avoid by every means in my power4    
7#af3cg7 ,we may1 therefore1 conclude   
that a compact is only made valid by its
  utility1 without which it becomes null
 and void4 7#ch7 ,it is1 therefore1     
foolish to ask a man to keep his faith  
with us for ever1 unless we also        
endeavour that the violation of the     
compact we enter into shall involve for 
the violator more harm than good4 7#ci7 
,this consideration should have very    
great weight in forming a state4 7#dj7  
,however1 if all men could be easily    
led by reason alone1 and could recognize
 what is best and most useful for a     
state1 there would be no one who would  
not forswear deceit1 for everyone  would

 keep most religiously to their compact 
in their desire for the chief  good1    
namely1 the shield and buckler of the   
commonwealth4 7#da7 ,however1 it  is far
 from being the case that all men can   
always be easily led by reason  alone2  
everyone is drawn away by his pleasure1 
while avarice1 ambition1  envy1 hatred1 
and the like so engross the mind that1  
reason has no place  therein4 7#db7     
,hence1 though men make promises with   
all the appearances of  good faith1 and 
agree that they will keep to their      
engagement1 no one can  absolutely rely 
on another man's promise unless there is
 something behind  it4 7#dc7 ,everyone  
has by nature a right to act            
deceitfully1 and to break his  compacts1
 unless he be restrained by the hope of 
some greater good1 or the  fear of some 
greater evil4    7#af3dd7 ,however1 as  
we have shown that the natural right of 
the individual  is only limited by his  
power1 it is clear that by transferring1
 either  willingly or under compulsion1 

this power into the hands of another1 he
 in  so doing necessarily cedes also a  
part of his right2 and further1 that the
  ,sovereign right over all men belongs 
to him who has sovereign power1         
wherewith he can compel men by force1 or
 restrain them by threats of the        
universally feared punishment of death2 
such sovereign right he will  retain    
only so long as he can maintain his     
power of enforcing his will2  otherwise 
he will totter on his throne1 and no one
 who is stronger than he  will be bound 
unwillingly to obey him4    7#af3de7 ,in
 this manner a society can be formed    
without any violation of  natural right1
 and the covenant can always be strictly
 kept - that is1 if  each individual    
hands over the whole of his power to the
 body politic1 the  latter will then    
possess sovereign natural right over all
 things2 that is1  it will have sole and
 unquestioned dominion1 and everyone    
will be bound to  obey1 under pain of   
the severest punishment4 7#df7 ,a body  

politic of this  kind is called a       
,democracy1 which may be defined as a   
society which wields  all its power as a
 whole4 7#dg7 ,the sovereign power is   
not restrained by any  laws1 but        
everyone is bound to obey it in all     
things2 such is the state of  things    
implied when men either tacitly or      
expressly handed over to it all  their  
power of self-defence1 or in other      
words1 all their right4 7#dh7 ,for if   
they had wished to retain any right for 
themselves1 they ought to have taken    
precautions for its defence and         
preservation2 as they have not done so1 
and indeed could not have done so       
without dividing and consequently       
ruining  the state1 they placed         
themselves absolutely at the mercy of   
the sovereign  power2 and1 therefore1   
having acted 7as we have shown7 as      
reason and  necessity demanded1 they are
 obliged to fulfil the commands of the  
sovereign  power1 however absurd these  
may be1 else they will be public        

enemies1 and  will act against reason1  
which urges the preservation of the     
state as a  primary duty4 7#di7 ,for    
reason bids us choose the least of two  
evils4    7#af3ej7 ,furthermore1 this   
danger of submitting absolutely to the  
dominion  and will of another1 is one   
which may be incurred with a light      
heart3 for we  have shown that          
sovereigns only possess this right of   
imposing their will1  so long as they   
have the full power to enforce it3 if   
such power be lost  their right to      
command is lost also1 or lapses to those
 who have assumed it  and can keep it4  
7#ea7 ,thus it is very rare for         
sovereigns to impose  thoroughly        
irrational commands1 for they are bound 
to consult their own  interests1 and    
retain their power by consulting the    
public good and  acting according to the
 dictates of reason1 as ,seneca says1   
violenta  imperia nemo continuit diu4   
7#eb7 ,no one can long retain a tyrant's
 sway4    7#af3ec7 ,in a democracy1     

irrational commands are still less to be
 feared3 for  it is almost impossible   
that the majority of a people1          
especially if it be a  large one1 should
 agree in an irrational design3 and1    
moreover1 the basis  and aim of a       
democracy is to avoid the desires as    
irrational1 and to bring  men as far as 
possible under the control of reason1 so
 that they may live in  peace and       
harmony3 if this basis be removed the   
whole fabric falls to ruin4    7#af3ed7 
,such being the ends in view for the    
sovereign power1 the duty of  subjects  
is1 as ,i have said1 to obey its        
commands1 and to recognize no right     
save that which it sanctions4    #af3d  
7#ee7 ,it will1 perhaps1 be thought that
 we are turning subjects into  slaves3  
for slaves obey commands and free men   
live as they like2 but this  idea is    
based on a misconception1 for the true  
slave is he who is led away  by his     
pleasures and can neither see what is   
good for him nor act  accordingly3 he   

alone is free who lives with free       
consent under the entire  guidance of   
reason4    7#af3ef7 ,action in obedience
 to orders does take away freedom in a  
certain  sense1 but it does not1        
therefore1 make a man a slave1 all      
depends on the  object of the action4   
7#eg7 ,if the object of the action be   
the good of the  state1 and not the good
 of the agent1 the latter is a slave and
 does  himself no good3 but in a state  
or kingdom where the weal of the whole  
people1 and not that of the ruler1 is   
the supreme law1 obedience to the       
sovereign power does not make a man a   
slave1 of no use to himself1 but a      
subject4 7#eh7 ,therefore1 that state is
 the freest whose laws are founded on   
sound reason1 so that every member of it
 may1 if he will1 be free ,endnote  #bg2
 that is1 live with full consent under  
the entire guidance of reason4          
7#af3ei7 ,children1 though they are     
bound to obey all the commands of their 
parents1 are yet not slaves3 for the    

commands of parents look generally to   
the children's benefit4    7#fj7 ,we    
must1 therefore1 acknowledge a great    
difference between a slave1 a  son1 and 
a subject2 their positions may be thus  
defined4 7#fa7 ,a slave is one  who is  
bound to obey his master's orders1      
though they are given solely in  the    
master's interest3 a son is one who     
obeys his father's orders1 given  in his
 own interest2 a subject obeys the      
orders of the sovereign power1  given   
for the common interest1 wherein he is  
included4    7#af3fb7 ,i think ,i have  
now shown sufficiently clearly the basis
 of a  democracy3 ,i have especially    
desired to do so1 for ,i believe it to  
be of all  forms of government the most 
natural1 and the most consonant with    
individual  liberty4 7#fc7 ,in it no one
 transfers his natural right so         
absolutely that he  has no further voice
 in affairs1 he only hands it over to   
the majority of a  society1 whereof he  
is a unit4 ,thus all men remain as they 

were in the state  of nature1 equals4   
7#af3fd7 ,this is the only form of      
government which ,i have treated of at  
length1 for it is the one most akin to  
my purpose of showing the benefits of   
freedom in a state4    7#fe7 ,i may pass
 over the fundamental principles of     
other forms of  government1 for we may  
gather from what has been said whence   
their right  arises without going into  
its origin4 7#ff7 ,the possessor of     
sovereign power1  whether he be one1 or 
many1 or the whole body politic1 has the
 sovereign  right of imposing any       
commands he pleases3 and he who has     
either  voluntarily1 or under           
compulsion1 transferred the right to    
defend him to  another1 has1 in so      
doing1 renounced his natural right and  
is therefore  bound to obey1 in all     
things1 the commands of the sovereign   
power2 and will  be bound so to do so   
long as the king1 or nobles1 or the     
people preserve the  sovereign power    
which formed the basis of the original  

transfer4 7#fg7 ,i need  add no more4   
#af3e 7#fh7 ,the bases and rights of    
dominion being thus displayed1 we shall 
readily be able to define private civil 
right1 wrong1 justice1 and  injustice1  
with their relations to the state2 and  
also to determine what  constitutes an  
ally1 or an enemy1 or the crime of      
treason4    7#af3fi7 ,by private civil  
right we can only mean the liberty every
 man  possesses to preserve his         
existence1 a liberty limited by the     
edicts of the  sovereign power1 and     
preserved only by its authority3 for    
when a man has  transferred to another  
his right of living as he likes1 which  
was only  limited by his power1 that is1
 has transferred his liberty and power  
of  self-defence1 he is bound to live as
 that other dictates1 and to trust to   
him entirely for his defence4 7#gj7     
,wrong takes place when a citizen1 or   
subject1 is forced by another to undergo
 some loss or pain in contradiction  to 
the authority of the law1 or the edict  

of the sovereign power4    7#af3ga7     
,wrong is conceivable only in an        
organized community3 nor can it ever    
accrue to subjects from any act of the  
sovereign1 who has the right to do  what
 he likes4 7#gb7 ,it can only arise1    
therefore1 between private persons1  who
 are bound by law and right not to      
injure one another4 7#gc7 ,justice      
consists in the habitual rendering to   
every man his lawful due3 injustice     
consists in depriving a man1 under the  
pretence of legality1 of what the  laws1
 rightly interpreted1 would allow him4  
7#gd7 ,these last are also called       
equity and iniquity1 because those who  
administer the laws are bound to show   
no respect of persons1 but to account   
all men equal1 and to defend every      
man's right equally1 neither envying the
 rich nor despising the poor4           
#af3f7ge7 ,the men of two states become 
allies1 when for the sake of  avoiding  
war1 or for some other advantage1 they  
covenant to do each other no  hurt1 but 

on the contrary1 to assist each other if
 necessity arises1 each  retaining his  
independence4 7#gf7 ,such a covenant is 
valid so long as its  basis of danger or
 advantage is in force3 no one enters   
into an engagement1  or is bound to     
stand by his compacts unless there be a 
hope of some accruing  good1 or the fear
 of some evil3 if this basis be removed 
the compact thereby  becomes void3 this 
has been abundantly shown by experience4
 7#gg7 ,for  although different states  
make treaties not to harm one another1  
they always  take every possible        
precaution against such treaties being  
broken by the  stronger party1 and do   
not rely on the compact1 unless there is
 a  sufficiently obvious object and     
advantage to both parties in observing  
it4  7#gh7 ,otherwise they would fear a 
breach of faith1 nor would there be any 
wrong done thereby3 for who in his      
proper senses1 and aware of the right of
  the sovereign power1 would trust in   
the promises of one who has the will and

  the power to do what he likes1 and who
 aims solely at the safety and          
advantage of his dominion8 7#gi7        
,moreover1 if we consult loyalty and    
religion1 we shall see that no one in   
possession of power ought to abide by   
his promises to the injury of his       
dominion2 for he cannot keep such       
promises  without breaking the          
engagement he made with his subjects1 by
 which both he  and they are most       
solemnly bound4 7#hj7 ,an enemy is one  
who lives apart from  the state1 and    
does not recognize its authority either 
as a subject or as an  ally4 ,it is not 
hatred which makes a man an enemy1 but  
the rights of the  state4 7#ha7 ,the    
rights of the state are the same in     
regard to him who  does not recognize by
 any compact the state authority1 as    
they are against  him who has done the  
state an injury3 it has the right to    
force him as best  it can1 either to    
submit1 or to contract an alliance4     
#af3g 7#hb7 ,lastly1 treason can only be

 committed by subjects1 who by  compact1
 either tacit or expressed1 have        
transferred all their rights to the     
state3 a subject is said to have        
committed this crime when he has        
attempted1  for whatever reason1 to     
seize the sovereign power1 or to place  
it in  different hands4 7#hc7 ,i say1   
has attempted1 for if punishment were   
not to  overtake him till he had        
succeeded1 it would often come too late1
 the  sovereign rights would have been  
acquired or transferred already4        
7#af3hd7 ,i also say1 has attempted1 for
 whatever reason1 to seize the          
sovereign power1 and ,i recognize no    
difference whether such an attempt      
should be followed by public loss or    
public gain4 7#he7 ,whatever be his     
reason for acting1 the crime is treason1
 and he is rightly condemned3 in  war1  
everyone would admit the justice of his 
sentence4 7#hf7 ,if a man does  not keep
 to his post1 but approaches the enemy  
without the knowledge of his  commander1

 whatever may be his motive1 so long as 
he acts on his own motion1  even if he  
advances with the design of defeating   
the enemy1 he is rightly  put to death1 
because he has violated his oath1 and   
infringed the rights of  his commander4 
7#hg7 ,that all citizens are equally    
bound by these rights in  time of peace1
 is not so generally recognized1 but the
 reasons for obedience  are in both     
cases identical4 7#hh7 ,the state must  
be preserved and directed  by the sole  
authority of the sovereign1 and such    
authority and right have  been accorded 
by universal consent to him alone3 if1  
therefore1 anyone else  attempts1       
without his consent1 to execute any     
public enterprise1 even though  the     
state might 7as we said7 reap benefit   
therefrom1 such person has none  the    
less infringed the sovereign's right1   
and would be rightly punished for       
treason4    7#af3hi7 ,in order that     
every scruple may be removed1 we may now
 answer the  inquiry1 whether our former

 assertion that everyone who has not the
  practice of reason1 may1 in the state 
of nature1 live by sovereign natural    
right1 according to the laws of his     
desires1 is not in direct opposition to 
the law and right of ,god as revealed4  
7#ij7 ,for as all men absolutely        
7whether they be less endowed with      
reason or more7 are equally bound by the
  ,divine command to love their         
neighbour as themselves1 it may be said 
that  they cannot1 without wrong1 do    
injury to anyone1 or live according to  
their  desires4    7#af3ia7 ,this       
objection1 so far as the state of nature
 is concerned1 can be  easily answered1 
for the state of nature is1 both in     
nature and in time1  prior to religion4 
7#ib7 ,no one knows by nature that he   
owes any obedience to  ,god ,endnote    
#bh1 nor can he attain thereto by any   
exercise of his reason1  but solely by  
revelation confirmed by signs4 7#ic7    
,therefore1 previous to  revelation1 no 
one is bound by a ,divine law and right 

of which he is  necessarily in          
ignorance4 7#id7 ,the state of nature   
must by no means be  confounded with a  
state of religion1 but must be conceived
 as without  either religion or law1 and
 consequently without sin or wrong3 this
 is how  we have described it1 and we   
are confirmed by the authority of ,paul4
 7#ie7 ,it  is not only in respect of   
ignorance that we conceive the state of 
nature as  prior to1 and lacking the    
,divine revealed law and right2 but in  
respect of  freedom also1 wherewith all 
men are born endowed4    7#af3if7 ,if   
men were naturally bound by the ,divine 
law and right1 or if the  ,divine law   
and right were a natural necessity1     
there would have been no need  for ,god 
to make a covenant with mankind1 and to 
bind them thereto with an  oath and     
agreement4    7#af3ig7 ,we must1 then1  
fully grant that the ,divine law and    
right originated  at the time when men  
by express covenant agreed to obey ,god 
in all things1  and ceded1 as it were1  

their natural freedom1 transferring     
their rights to  ,god in the manner     
described in speaking of the formation  
of a state4    7#ih7 ,however1 ,i will  
treat of these matters more at length   
presently4    #af3h 7#ii7 ,it may be    
insisted that sovereigns are as much    
bound by the  ,divine law as subjects3  
whereas we have asserted that they      
retain their  natural rights1 and may do
 whatever they like4    7#af3ajj7 ,in   
order to clear up the whole difficulty1 
which arises rather  concerning the     
natural right than the natural state1 ,i
 maintain that  everyone is bound1 in   
the state of nature1 to live according  
to ,divine law1  in the same way as he  
is bound to live according to the       
dictates of sound  reason2 namely1      
inasmuch as it is to his advantage1 and 
necessary for his  salvation2 but1 if he
 will not so live1 he may do otherwise  
at his own risk4  7#aja7 ,he is thus    
bound to live according to his own laws1
 not according to  anyone else's1 and to

 recognize no man as a judge1 or as a   
superior in  religion4 7#ajb7 ,such1 in 
my opinion1 is the position of a        
sovereign1 for he  may take advice from 
his fellow-men1 but he is not bound to  
recognize any as  a judge1 nor anyone   
besides himself as an arbitrator on any 
question of  right1 unless it be a      
prophet sent expressly by ,god and      
attesting his  mission by indisputable  
signs4 7#ajc7 ,even then he does not    
recognize a man1  but ,god ,himself as  
,his judge4    #af3i 7#ajd7 ,if a       
sovereign refuses to obey ,god as       
revealed in ,his law1  he does so at his
 own risk and loss1 but without         
violating any civil or  natural right4  
7#aje7 ,for the civil right is dependent
 on his own decree2 and  natural right  
is dependent on the laws of nature1     
which latter are not  adapted to        
religion1 whose sole aim is the good of 
humanity1 but to the  order of nature - 
that is1 to ,god's eternal decree       
unknown to us4    7#af3ajf7 ,this truth 

seems to be adumbrated in a somewhat    
obscurer form by  those who maintain    
that men can sin against ,god's         
revelation1 but not  against the eternal
 decree by which ,he has ordained all   
things4    7#ajg7 ,we may be asked1 what
 should we do if the sovereign commands 
anything  contrary to religion1 and the 
obedience which we have expressly vowed 
to  ,god8 should we obey the ,divine law
 or the human law8 7#ajh7 ,i shall treat
 of  this question at length hereafter1 
and will therefore merely say now1 that 
,god should be obeyed before all else1  
when we have a certain and  indisputable
 revelation of ,his will3 but men are   
very prone to error on  religious       
subjects1 and1 according to the         
diversity of their dispositions1  are   
wont with considerable stir to put      
forward their own inventions1 as        
experience more than sufficiently       
attests1 so that if no one were bound to
  obey the state in matters which1 in   
his own opinion concern religion1  the  

rights of the state would be dependent  
on every man's judgment  and passions4  
7#aji7 ,no one would consider himself   
bound to obey laws framed  against his  
faith or superstition2 and on this      
pretext he might assume  unbounded      
license4 7#aaj7 ,in this way1 the rights
 of the civil authorities  would be     
utterly set at nought1 so that we must  
conclude that the sovereign  power1     
which alone is bound both by ,divine and
 natural right to preserve and  guard   
the laws of the state1 should have      
supreme authority for making any  laws  
about religion which it thinks fit2 all 
are bound to obey its behests  on the   
subject in accordance with their promise
 which ,god bids them to keep4          
7#af3aaa7 ,however1 if the sovereign    
power be heathen1 we should either enter
  into no engagements therewith1 and    
yield up our lives sooner than transfer 
to it any of our rights2 or1 if the     
engagement be made1 and our rights      
transferred1 we should 7inasmuch as we  

should have ourselves transferred the   
right of defending ourselves and our    
religion7 be bound to obey them1 and to 
keep our word3 we might even rightly be 
bound so to do1 except in those  cases  
where ,god1 by indisputable revelation1 
has promised ,his special aid  against  
tyranny1 or given us special exemption  
from obedience4 7#aab7 ,thus we  see    
that1 of all the ,jews in ,babylon1     
there were only three youths who were   
certain of the help of ,god1 and1       
therefore1 refused to obey              
,nebuchadnezzar4  7#aac7 ,all the rest1 
with the sole exception of ,daniel1 who 
was beloved by  the king1 were doubtless
 compelled by right to obey1 perhaps    
thinking that  they had been delivered  
up by ,god into the hands of the king1  
and that the  king had obtained and     
preserved his dominion by ,god's design4
 7#aad7 ,on the  other hand1 ,eleazar1  
before his country had utterly fallen1  
wished to give a  proof of his constancy
 to his compatriots1 in order that they 

might follow  in his footsteps1 and go  
to any lengths1 rather than allow their 
right and  power to be transferred to   
the ,greeks1 or brave any torture rather
 than  swear allegiance to the heathen4 
7#aae7 ,instances are occurring every   
day in  confirmation of what ,i here    
advance4 7#aaf7 ,the rulers of          
,christian  kingdoms do not hesitate1   
with a view to strengthening their      
dominion1 to  make treaties with ,turks 
and heathen1 and to give orders to their
 subjects  who settle among such peoples
 not to assume more freedom1 either in  
things secular or religious1 than is set
 down in the treaty1 or allowed by  the 
foreign government4 7#aag7 ,we may see  
this exemplified in the ,dutch  treaty  
with the ,japanese1 which ,i have       
already mentioned4          #ag3j       
,,chapter ,,xvii - ,,it ,,is ,,shown    
,,that ,,no ,,one ,,can1 ,,or  ,,need1  
,,transfer ,,all ,,his ,,rights ,,to    
,,the ,,sovereign ,,power4  ,,of ,,the  
,,hebrew ,,republic1 ,,as ,,it ,,was    

,,during ,,the ,,lifetime  ,,of ,,moses1
 ,,and ,,after ,,his ,,death1 ,,till    
,,the ,,foundation  ,,of ,,the          
,,monarchy2 ,,and   ,,of ,,its          
,,excellence4 ,,lastly1 ,,of  ,,the     
,,causes ,,why ,,the ,,theocratic       
,,republic ,,fell1 ,,and ,,why  ,,it    
,,could ,,hardly ,,have ,,continued     
,,without ,,dissension4    #ag3a 7#a7   
,the theory put forward in the last     
chapter1 of the universal  rights of the
 sovereign power1 and of the natural    
rights of the individual  transferred   
thereto1 though it corresponds in many  
respects with actual  practice1 and     
though practice may be so arranged as to
 conform to it more  and more1 must     
nevertheless always remain in many      
respects purely ideal4 7#b7  ,no one can
 ever so utterly transfer to another his
 power and1 consequently1  his rights1  
as to cease to be a man2 nor can there  
ever be a power so  sovereign that it   
can carry out every possible wish4 7#c7 
,it will always be  vain to order a     

subject to hate what he believes brings 
him advantage1 or to  love what brings  
him loss1 or not to be offended at      
insults1 or not to wish  to be free from
 fear1 or a hundred other things of the 
sort1 which  necessarily follow from the
 laws of human nature4 7#d7 ,so much1 ,i
 think1 is  abundantly shown by         
experience3 for men have never so far   
ceded their power  as to cease to be an 
object of fear to the rulers who        
received such power  and right2 and     
dominions have always been in as much   
danger from their own  subjects as from 
external enemies4 7#e7 ,if it were      
really the case1 that men  could be     
deprived of their natural rights so     
utterly as never to have any  further   
influence on affairs ,endnote #bi1      
except with the permission of the       
holders of sovereign right1 it would    
then be possible to maintain with       
impunity the most violent tyranny1      
which1 ,i suppose1 no one would for an  
instant admit4    7#ag3f7 ,we must1     

therefore1 grant that every man retains 
some part of his  right1 in dependence  
on his own decision1 and no one else's4 
7#g7 ,however1 in order correctly to    
understand the extent of the sovereign's
  right and power1 we must take notice  
that it does not cover only those       
actions to which it can compel men by   
fear1 but absolutely every action  which
 it can induce men to perform3 for it is
 the fact of obedience1 not the  motive 
for obedience1 which makes a man a      
subject4    7#ag3h7 ,whatever be the    
cause which leads a man to obey the     
commands of the  sovereign1 whether it  
be fear or hope1 or love of his country1
 or any other  emotion - the fact       
remains that the man takes counsel with 
himself1 and  nevertheless acts as his  
sovereign orders4 7#i7 ,we must not1    
therefore1  assert that all actions     
resulting from a man's deliberation with
 himself are  done in obedience to the  
rights of the individual rather than the
 sovereign3  as a matter of fact1 all   

actions spring from a man's deliberation
 with  himself1 whether the determining 
motive be love or fear of punishment2   
therefore1 either dominion does not     
exist1 and has no rights over its       
subjects1 or else it extends over every 
instance in which it can prevail on  men
 to decide to obey it4 7#aj7            
,consequently1 every action which a     
subject  performs in accordance with the
 commands of the sovereign1 whether such
  action springs from love1 or fear1 or 
7as is more frequently the case7 from   
hope and fear together1 or from         
reverence1 compounded of fear and       
admiration1 or1 indeed1 any motive      
whatever1 is performed in virtue of his 
submission to the sovereign1 and not in 
virtue of his own authority4    7#ag3aa7
 ,this point is made still more clear by
 the fact that obedience does  not      
consist so much in the outward act as in
 the mental state of the person         
obeying2 so that he is most under the   
dominion of another who with his whole  

heart determines to obey another's      
commands2 and consequently the firmest  
dominion belongs to the sovereign who   
has most influence over the minds of    
his subjects2 if those who are most     
feared possessed the firmest dominion1  
the firmest dominion would belong to the
 subjects of a tyrant1 for they are     
always greatly feared by their ruler4   
7#ab7 ,furthermore1 though it is        
impossible to govern the mind as        
completely as the tongue1 nevertheless  
minds are1 to a certain extent1 under   
the control of the sovereign1 for he    
can in many ways bring about that the   
greatest part of his subjects should    
follow his wishes in their beliefs1     
their loves1 and their hates4 7#ac7     
,though such emotions do not arise at   
the express command of the sovereign    
they often result 7as experience shows7 
from the authority of his power1 and    
from his direction2 in other words1 in  
virtue of his right2 we may1  therefore1
 without doing violence to our          

understanding1 conceive men who  follow 
the instigation of their sovereign in   
their beliefs1 their loves1  their      
hates1 their contempt1 and all other    
emotions whatsoever4    7#ag3ad7 ,though
 the powers of government1 as thus      
conceived1 are sufficiently  ample1 they
 can never become large enough to       
execute every possible wish of  their   
possessors4 7#ae7 ,this1 ,i think1 ,i   
have already shown clearly enough4      
7#af7 ,the method of forming a dominion 
which should prove lasting ,i do not1   
as ,i have said1 intend to discuss1 but 
in order to arrive at the object ,i     
have in view1 ,i will touch on the      
teaching of ,divine revelation to ,moses
 in  this respect1 and we will consider 
the history and the success of the      
,jews1  gathering therefrom what should 
be the chief concessions made by        
sovereigns  to their subjects with a    
view to the security and increase of    
their  dominion4    #ag3b 7#ag7 ,that   
the preservation of a state chiefly     

depends on the  subjects' fidelity and  
constancy in carrying out the orders    
they receive1 is  most clearly taught   
both by reason and experience2 how      
subjects ought to be  guided so as best 
to preserve their fidelity and virtue is
 not so obvious4  7#ah7 ,all1 both      
rulers and ruled1 are men1 and prone to 
follow after their  lusts4 7#ai7 ,the   
fickle disposition of the multitude     
almost reduces those who  have          
experience of it to despair1 for it is  
governed solely by emotions1 not  by    
reason3 it rushes headlong into every   
enterprise1 and is easily corrupted     
either by avarice or luxury3 everyone   
thinks himself omniscient and wishes  to
 fashion all things to his liking1      
judging a thing to be just or unjust1   
lawful or unlawful1 according as he     
thinks it will bring him profit or loss3
  vanity leads him to despise his       
equals1 and refuse their guidance3 envy 
of  superior fame or fortune 7for such  
gifts are never equally distributed7    

leads him to desire and rejoice in his  
neighbour's downfall4 7#bj7 ,i need  not
 go through the whole list1 everyone    
knows already how much crime  results   
from disgust at the present - desire for
 change1 headlong anger1  and contempt  
for poverty - and how men's minds are   
engrossed and kept  in turmoil thereby4 
7#ag3ba7 ,to guard against all these    
evils1 and form a dominion where no room
  is left for deceit2 to frame our      
institutions so that every man1 whatever
  his disposition1 may prefer public    
right to private advantage1 this is the 
task and this the toil4 7#bb7 ,necessity
 is often the mother of invention1 but  
she has never yet succeeded in framing a
 dominion that was in less danger  from 
its own citizens than from open enemies1
 or whose rulers did not fear  the      
latter less than the former4 7#bc7      
,witness the state of ,rome1 invincible 
by her enemies1 but many times conquered
 and sorely oppressed by her own        
citizens1 especially in the war between 

,vespasian and ,vitellius4 7#bd7 7,see  
,tacitus1 ,hist4 bk4 iv4 for a          
description of the pitiable state of the
 city47    7#ag3be7 ,alexander thought  
prestige abroad more easy to acquire    
than prestige  at home1 and believed    
that his greatness could be destroyed by
 his own  followers4 7#bf7 ,fearing such
 a disaster1 he thus addressed his      
friends3  ,keep me safe from internal   
treachery and domestic plots1 and ,i    
will front  without fear the dangers of 
battle and of war4 7#bg7 ,philip was    
more secure  in the battle array than in
 the theatre3 he often escaped from the 
hands of  the enemy1 he could not escape
 from his own subjects4 7#bh7 ,if you   
think over  the deaths of kings1 you    
will count up more who have died by the 
assassin  than by the open foe4 7,q4    
,curtius1 chap4 vi47    7#ag3bi7 ,for   
the sake of making themselves secure1   
kings who seized the  throne in ancient 
times used to try to spread the idea    
that they were  descended from the      

immortal gods1 thinking that if their   
subjects and the  rest of mankind did   
not look on them as equals1 but believed
 them to be  gods1 they would willingly 
submit to their rule1 and obey their    
commands4  7#cj7 ,thus ,augustus        
persuaded the ,romans that he was       
descended from neas1  who was the son of
 ,venus1 and numbered among the gods4   
7#ca7 ,he wished  himself to be         
worshipped in temples1 like the gods1   
with flamens and  priests4 7,tacitus1   
,ann4 i4 #aj47    7#ag3cb7 ,alexander   
wished to be saluted as the son of      
,jupiter1 not from  motives of pride but
 of policy1 as he showed by his answer  
to the invective  of ,hermolaus3 ,it is 
almost laughable1 said he1 that         
,hermolaus asked me to  contradict      
,jupiter1 by whose oracle ,i am         
recognized4 7#cc7 ,am ,i responsible    
for the answers of the gods8 7#cd7 ,it  
offered me the name of son2             
acquiescence was by no means foreign to 
my present designs4 7#ce7 ,would that   

the ,indians also would believe me to be
 a god6 7#cf7 ,wars are carried through 
by prestige1 falsehoods that are        
believed often gain the force of truth4 
7,curtius1 viii14 ,para4 #h47 7#cg7 ,in 
these few words he cleverly contrives to
  palm off a fiction on the ignorant1   
and at the same time hints at the motive
  for the deception4    7#ag3ch7 ,cleon1
 in his speech persuading the           
,macedonians to obey their king1        
adopted a similar device3 for after     
going through the praises of ,alexander 
with admiration1 and recalling his      
merits1 he proceeds1 the ,persians are  
not only pious1 but prudent in          
worshipping their kings as gods3 for    
kingship  is the shield of public       
safety1 and he ends thus1 ,i1 myself1   
when the king  enters a banquet hall1   
should prostrate my body on the ground2 
other men  should do the like1          
especially those who are wise 7,curtius1
 viii4  ,para4 #ff74 7#ci7 ,however1 the
 ,macedonians were more prudent -       

indeed1 it is  only complete barbarians 
who can be so openly cajoled1 and can   
suffer  themselves to be turned from    
subjects into slaves without interests  
of their  own4 7#dj7 ,others1           
notwithstanding1 have been able more    
easily to spread the  belief that       
kingship is sacred1 and plays the part  
of ,god on the earth1 that  it has been 
instituted by ,god1 not by the suffrage 
and consent of men2 and  that it is     
preserved and guarded by ,divine special
 providence and aid4  7#da7 ,similar    
fictions have been promulgated by       
monarchs1 with the object of            
strengthening their dominion1 but these 
,i will pass over1 and in order to      
arrive at my main purpose1 will merely  
recall and discuss the teaching on  the 
subject of ,divine revelation to ,moses 
in ancient times4    #ag3c 7#db7 ,we    
have said in ,chap4 ,v4 that after the  
,hebrews came up out of  ,egypt they    
were not bound by the law and right of  
any other nation1 but were  at liberty  

to institute any new rites at their     
pleasure1 and to occupy  whatever       
territory they chose4 7#dc7 ,after their
 liberation from the  intolerable       
bondage of the ,egyptians1 they were    
bound by no covenant to any  man2 and1  
therefore1 every man entered into his   
natural right1 and was free  to retain  
it or to give it up1 and transfer it to 
another4 7#dd7 ,being1 then1  in the    
state of nature1 they followed the      
advice of ,moses1 in whom they  chiefly 
trusted1 and decided to transfer their  
right to no human being1 but  only to   
,god2 without further delay they all1   
with one voice1 promised to  obey all   
the commands of the ,deity1 and to      
acknowledge no right that ,he did  not  
proclaim as such by prophetic           
revelation4 7#de7 ,this promise1 or     
transference of right to ,god1 was      
effected in the same manner as we have  
conceived it to have been in ordinary   
societies1 when men agree to divest     
themselves of their natural rights4     

7#df7 ,it is1 in fact1 in virtue of a   
set  covenant1 and an oath 7see ,exod4  
xxxiv3#aj71 that the ,jews freely1 and  
not  under compulsion or threats1       
surrendered their rights and transferred
 them  to ,god4 7#dg7 ,moreover1 in     
order that this covenant might be       
ratified  and settled1 and might be free
 from all suspicion of deceit1 ,god did 
not  enter into it till the ,jews had   
had experience of ,his wonderful power  
by  which alone they had been1 or could 
be1 preserved in a state of prosperity  
7,exod4 xix3#d1 #e74 7#dh7 ,it is       
because they believed that nothing but  
,god's power could preserve them that   
they surrendered to ,god the natural    
power of self-preservation1 which they  
formerly1 perhaps1 thought they         
possessed1 and consequently they        
surrendered at the same time all their  
natural right4    #ag3d 7#di7 ,god      
alone1 therefore1 held dominion over the
 ,hebrews1 whose state  was in virtue of
 the covenant called ,god's kingdom1 and

 ,god was said to be  their king2       
consequently the enemies of the ,jews   
were said to be the enemies of  ,god1   
and the citizens who tried to seize the 
dominion were guilty of treason  against
 ,god2 and1 lastly1 the laws of the     
state were called the laws and          
commandments of ,god4 7#ej7 ,thus in the
 ,hebrew state the civil and religious  
authority1 each consisting solely of    
obedience to ,god1 were one and the     
same4  7#ea7 ,the dogmas of religion    
were not precepts1 but laws and         
ordinances2 piety  was regarded as the  
same as loyalty1 impiety as the same as 
disaffection4 7#eb7  ,everyone who fell 
away from religion ceased to be a       
citizen1 and was1 on that  ground alone1
 accounted an enemy3 those who died for 
the sake of religion1 were  held to have
 died for their country2 in fact1       
between civil and religious law  and    
right there was no distinction whatever4
 7#ec7 ,for this reason the  government 
could be called a ,theocracy1 inasmuch  

as the citizens were not bound  by      
anything save the revelations of ,god4  
7#ag3ed7 ,however1 this state of things 
existed rather in theory than in        
practice1 for it will appear from what  
we are about to say1 that the  ,hebrews1
 as a matter of fact1 retained          
absolutely in their own hands the  right
 of sovereignty3 this is shown by the   
method and plan by which the  government
 was carried on1 as ,i will now explain4
    7#ag3ee7 ,inasmuch as the ,hebrews  
did not transfer their rights to any    
other  person but1 as in a democracy1   
all surrendered their rights equally1   
and  cried out with one voice1          
,whatsoever ,god shall speak 7no        
mediator or  mouthpiece being named7    
that will we do1 it follows that all    
were equally  bound by the covenant1 and
 that all had an equal right to consult 
the ,deity1  to accept and to interpret 
,his laws1 so that all had an exactly   
equal share  in the government4 #ag3e   
7#ef7 ,thus at first they all approached

 ,god  together1 so that they might     
learn ,his commands1 but in this first  
salutation1 they were so thoroughly     
terrified and so astounded to hear ,god 
speaking1 that they thought their last  
hour was at hand3 full of fear1         
therefore1 they went afresh to ,moses1  
and said1 ,lo1 we have heard ,god       
speaking in the fire1 and there is no   
cause why we should wish to die3  surely
 this great fire will consume us3 if we 
hear again the voice of ,god1  we shall 
surely die4 7#eg7 ,thou1 therefore1 go  
near1 and hear all the words  of our    
,god1 and thou 7not ,god7 shalt speak   
with us3 all that ,god shall tell  us1  
that will we hearken to and perform4    
7#ag3eh7 ,they thus clearly abrogated   
their former covenant1 and absolutely   
transferred to ,moses their right to    
consult ,god and interpret ,his         
commands3  for they do not here promise 
obedience to all that ,god shall tell   
them1 but  to all that ,god shall tell  
,moses 7see ,deut4 v3#bj after the      

,decalogue1 and  chap4 xviii3#ae1 #af74 
7#ei7 ,moses1 therefore1 remained the   
sole promulgator  and interpreter of the
 ,divine laws1 and consequently also the
 sovereign  judge1 who could not be     
arraigned himself1 and who acted among  
the ,hebrews  the part of ,god2 in other
 words1 held the sovereign kingship3 he 
alone  had the right to consult ,god1 to
 give the ,divine answers to the        
people1 and to see that they were       
carried out4 7#fj7 ,i say he alone1 for 
if  anyone during the life of ,moses was
 desirous of preaching anything in the  
name of the ,lord1 he was1 even if a    
true prophet1 considered guilty and a   
usurper of the sovereign right 7,numb4  
xi3#bh7 ,endnote #cj4 7#fa7 ,we may here
  notice1 that though the people had    
elected ,moses1 they could not          
rightfully  elect ,moses's successor2   
for having transferred to ,moses their  
right of  consulting ,god1 and          
absolutely promised to regard him as a  
,divine oracle1  they had plainly       

forfeited the whole of their right1 and 
were bound to  accept as chosen by ,god 
anyone proclaimed by ,moses as his      
successor4 7#fb7 ,if  ,moses had so     
chosen his successor1 who like him      
should wield the sole right  of         
government1 possessing the sole right of
 consulting ,god1 and consequently  of  
making and abrogating laws1 of deciding 
on peace or war1 of sending             
ambassadors1 appointing judges - in     
fact1 discharging all the functions of a
  sovereign1 the state would have become
 simply a monarchy1 only differing  from
 other monarchies in the fact1 that the 
latter are1 or should be1  carried on in
 accordance with ,god's decree1 unknown 
even to the monarch1  whereas the       
,hebrew monarch would have been the only
 person to whom the  decree was         
revealed4 7#fc7 ,a difference which     
increases1 rather than  diminishes the  
monarch's authority4 7#fd7 ,as far as   
the people in both cases  are concerned1
 each would be equally subject1 and     

equally ignorant of  the ,divine decree1
 for each would be dependent on the     
monarch's words1 and  would learn from  
him alone1 what was lawful or unlawful3 
nor would the fact  that the people     
believed that the monarch was only      
issuing commands in  accordance with    
,god's decree revealed to him1 make it  
less in subjection1  but rather more4   
#ag3f 7#fe7 ,however1 ,moses elected no 
such successor1 but  left the dominion  
to those who came after him in a        
condition which could not  be called a  
popular government1 nor an aristocracy1 
nor a monarchy1 but a  ,theocracy4 7#ff7
 ,for the right of interpreting laws was
 vested in one man1  while the right and
 power of administering the state       
according to the  laws thus interpreted1
 was vested in another man 7see ,numb4  
xxvii3#ba7  ,endnote #ca4    7#ag3fg7   
,in order that the question may be      
thoroughly understood1 ,i will duly  set
 forth the administration of the whole  
state4    7#fh7 ,first1 the people were 

commanded to build a tabernacle1 which  
should  be1 as it were1 the dwelling of 
,god - that is1 of the sovereign        
authority of  the state4 7#fi7 ,this    
tabernacle was to be erected at the cost
 of the whole  people1 not of one man1  
in order that the place where ,god was  
consulted  might be public property4    
7#gj7 ,the ,levites were chosen as      
courtiers and  administrators of this   
royal abode2 while ,aaron1 the brother  
of ,moses1 was  chosen to be their chief
 and second1 as it were1 to ,god their  
,king1 being  succeeded in the office by
 his legitimate sons4    7#ag3ga7 ,he1  
as the nearest to ,god1 was the         
sovereign interpreter of the  ,divine   
laws2 he communicated the answers of the
 ,divine oracle to the people1  and     
entreated ,god's favour for them4 7#gb7 
,if1 in addition to these  privileges1  
he had possessed the right of ruling1 he
 would have been neither  more nor less 
than an absolute monarch2 but1 in       
respect to government1 he  was only a   

private citizen3 the whole tribe of     
,levi was so completely  divested of    
governing rights that it did not even   
take its share with the  others in the  
partition of territory4 7#gc7 ,moses    
provided for its support by  inspiring  
the common people with great reverence  
for it1 as the only tribe  dedicated to 
,god4    7#ag3gd7 ,further1 the army1   
formed from the remaining twelve tribes1
 was  commanded to invade the land of   
,canaan1 to divide it into twelve       
portions1  and to distribute it among   
the tribes by lot4 7#ge7 ,for this task 
twelve  captains were chosen1 one from  
every tribe1 and were1 together with    
,joshua and ,eleazar1 the high priest1  
empowered to divide the land into       
twelve equal parts1 and distribute it by
 lot4 7#gf7 ,joshua was chosen for the  
chief command of the army1 inasmuch as  
none but he had the right to consult    
,god in emergencies1 not like ,moses1   
alone in his tent1 or in the            
tabernacle1 but through the high priest1

 to whom only the answers of ,god  were 
revealed4 7#gg7 ,furthermore1 he was    
empowered to execute1 and cause the     
people to obey ,god's commands1         
transmitted through the high priests2 to
  find1 and to make use of1 means for   
carrying them out2 to choose as many    
army captains as he liked2 to make      
whatever choice he thought best2 to     
send ambassadors in his own name2 and1  
in short1 to have the entire control  of
 the war4 7#gh7 ,to his office there was
 no rightful successor - indeed1 the    
post was only filled by the direct order
 of the ,deity1 on occasions of  public 
emergency4 7#gi7 ,in ordinary times1 all
 the management of peace and  war was   
vested in the captains of the tribes1 as
 ,i will shortly point out4  7#hj7      
,lastly1 all men between the ages of    
twenty and sixty were ordered to  bear  
arms1 and form a citizen army1 owing    
allegiance1 not to its                  
general-in-chief1 nor to the high       
priest1 but to ,religion and to ,god4   

7#ha7 ,the army1 or the hosts1 were     
called the army of ,god1 or the hosts of
  ,god4 7#hb7 ,for this reason ,god was 
called by the ,hebrews the ,god of      
,armies2  and the ark of the covenant   
was borne in the midst of the army in   
important  battles1 when the safety or  
destruction of the whole people hung    
upon the  issue1 so that the people     
might1 as it were1 see their ,king among
 them1  and put forth all their         
strength4    7#ag3hc7 ,from these       
directions1 left by ,moses to his       
successors1 we plainly  see that he     
chose administrators1 rather than       
despots1 to come after him2  for he     
invested no one with the power of       
consulting ,god1 where he liked and     
alone1 consequently1 no one had the     
power possessed by himself of ordaining 
and abrogating laws1 of deciding on war 
or peace1 of choosing men to fill       
offices both religious and secular3 all 
these are the prerogatives of a         
sovereign4 7#hd7 ,the high priest1      

indeed1 had the right of interpreting   
laws1  and communicating the answers of 
,god1 but he could not do so when he    
liked1  as ,moses could1 but only when  
he was asked by the general-in-chief of 
the  army1 the council1 or some similar 
authority4 7#he7 ,the general-in-chief  
and  the council could consult ,god when
 they liked1 but could only receive ,his
  answers through the high priest2 so   
that the utterances of ,god1 as reported
  by the high priest1 were not decrees1 
as they were when reported by ,moses1   
but only answers2 they were accepted by 
,joshua and the council1 and only  then 
had the force of commands and decrees4  
7#ag3hf7 ,the high priest1 both in the  
case of ,aaron and of his son ,eleazar1 
was chosen by ,moses2 nor had anyone1   
after ,moses' death1 a right to elect to
  the office1 which became hereditary4  
7#hg7 ,the general-in-chief of the army 
was also chosen by ,moses1 and assumed  
his functions in virtue of the          
commands1 not of the high priest1 but of

 ,moses3 indeed1 after the death of     
,joshua1 the high priest did not appoint
 anyone in his place1 and the  captains 
did not consult ,god afresh about a     
general-in-chief1 but each  retained    
,joshua's power in respect to the       
contingent of his own tribe1  and all   
retained it collectively1 in respect to 
the whole army4 7#hh7 ,there  seems to  
have been no need of a general-in-chief1
 except when they were  obliged to unite
 their forces against a common enemy4   
7#hi7 ,this occurred  most frequently   
during the time of ,joshua1 when they   
had no fixed dwelling4  place1 and      
possessed all things in common4 #ag3g   
7#ij7 ,after all the tribes  had gained 
their territories by right of conquest1 
and had divided their  allotted gains1  
they1 became separated1 having no longer
 their possessions  in common1 so that  
the need for a single commander ceased1 
for the  different tribes should be     
considered rather in the light of       
confederated  states than of bodies of  

fellow-citizens4 7#ia7 ,in respect to   
their ,god and  their religion1 they1   
were fellow-citizens2 but1 in respect to
 the rights  which one possessed with   
regard to another1 they were only       
confederated3  they1 were1 in fact1 in  
much the same position 7if one excepts  
the ,temple  common to all7 as the      
,united ,states of the ,netherlands or  
,united ,states of  ,america4 7#ib7 ,the
 division of property held in common is 
only another  phrase for the possession 
of his share by each of the owners      
singly1 and the  surrender by the others
 of their rights over such share4 7#ic7 
,this is why  ,moses elected captains of
 the tribes - namely1 that when the     
dominion was  divided1 each might take  
care of his own part2 consulting ,god   
through the  high priest on the affairs 
of his tribe1 ruling over his army1     
building and  fortifying cities1        
appointing judges1 attacking the enemies
 of his own  dominion1 and having       
complete control over all civil and     

military affairs4  7#id7 ,he was not    
bound to acknowledge any superior judge 
save ,god  ,endnote #cb1 or a prophet   
whom ,god should expressly send4 7#ie7  
,if he  departed from the worship of    
,god1 the rest of the tribes did not    
arraign him  as a subject1 but attacked 
him as an enemy4 7#ie7 ,of this we have 
examples in  ,scripture4 7#if7 ,when    
,joshua was dead1 the children of       
,israel 7not a fresh  general-in-chief7 
consulted ,god2 it being decided that   
the tribe of ,judah  should be the first
 to attack its enemies1 the tribe in    
question contracted  a single alliance  
with the tribe of ,simeon1 for uniting  
their forces1 and  attacking their      
common enemy1 the rest of the tribes not
 being included in  the alliance        
7,judges i3#a1 #b1 #c74 7#ig7 ,each     
tribe separately made war against  its  
own enemies1 and1 according to its      
pleasure1 received them as subjects  or 
allies1 though it had been commanded not
 to spare them on any conditions1  but  

to destroy them utterly4 7#ih7 ,such    
disobedience met with reproof from  the 
rest of the tribes1 but did not cause   
the offending tribe to be  arraigned3 it
 was not considered a sufficient reason 
for proclaiming a civil  war1 or        
interfering in one another's affairs4   
7#ii7 ,but when the tribe of  ,benjamin 
offended against the others1 and so     
loosened the bonds of peace  that none  
of the confederated tribes could find   
refuge within its borders1  they        
attacked it as an enemy1 and gaining the
 victory over it after three  battles1  
put to death both guilty and innocent1  
according to the laws of  war3 an act   
which they subsequently bewailed with   
tardy repentance4    7#ag3ajj7 ,these   
examples plainly confirm what we have   
said concerning the  rights of each     
tribe4 7#aja7 ,perhaps we shall be asked
 who elected the  successors to the     
captains of each tribe2 on this point ,i
 can gather no  positive information in 
,scripture1 but ,i conjecture that as   

the tribes were  divided into families1 
each headed by its senior member1 the   
senior of all  these heads of families  
succeeded by right to the office of     
captain1 for  ,moses chose from among   
these seniors his seventy coadjutors1   
who formed with  himself the supreme    
council4 7#ajb7 ,those who administered 
the government  after the death of      
,joshua were called elders1 and elder is
 a very common  ,hebrew expression in   
the sense of judge1 as ,i suppose       
everyone knows2  however1 it is not very
 important for us to make up our minds  
on this point4  7#ajc7 ,it is enough to 
have shown that after the death of      
,moses no one man  wielded all the power
 of a sovereign2 as affairs were not all
 managed by one  man1 nor by a single   
council1 nor by the popular vote1 but   
partly by one  tribe1 partly by the rest
 in equal shares1 it is most evident    
that the  government1 after the death of
 ,moses1 was neither monarchic1 nor     
aristocratic1 nor popular1 but1 as we   

have said1 ,theocratic4  7#ajd7 ,the    
reasons for applying this name are3     
7#ag3aje7 ,i4 ,because the royal seat of
 government was the ,temple1 and in     
respect to it alone1 as we have shown1  
all the tribes were fellow-citizens4    
7#ajf7 ,,ii4 ,because all the people    
owed allegiance to ,god1 their supreme  
,judge1 to whom only they had promised  
implicit obedience in all things4       
7#ag3ajg7 ,,iii4 ,because the           
general-in-chief or dictator1 when there
 was need  of such1 was elected by none 
save ,god alone4 7#ajh7 ,this was       
expressly  commanded by ,moses in the   
name of ,god 7,deut4 xix3#ae71 and      
witnessed by the  actual choice of      
,gideon1 of ,samson1 and of ,samuel2    
wherefrom we may conclude  that the     
other faithful leaders were chosen in   
the same manner1 though it is  not      
expressly told us4    7#ag3aji7 ,these  
preliminaries being stated1 it is now   
time to inquire the  effects of forming 
a dominion on this plan1 and to see     

whether it so  effectually kept within  
bounds both rulers and ruled1 that the  
former were  never tyrannical and the   
latter never rebellious4    7#ag3aaj7   
,those who administer or possess        
governing power1 always try to  surround
 their high-handed actions with a cloak 
of legality1 and to persuade  the people
 that they act from good motives2 this  
they are easily able to  effect when    
they are the sole interpreters of the   
law2 for it is evident  that they are   
thus able to assume a far greater       
freedom to carry out their  wishes and  
desires than if the interpretation if   
the law is vested in  someone else1 or  
if the laws were so self-evident that no
 one could be in  doubt as to their     
meaning4 #ag3h 7#aaa7 ,we thus see that 
the power of  evil-doing was greatly    
curtailed for the ,hebrew captains by   
the fact that the  whole interpretation 
of the law was vested in the ,levites   
7,deut4 xxi3#e71  who1 on their part1   
had no share in the government1 and     

depended for all  their support and     
consideration on a correct              
interpretation of the laws  entrusted to
 them4 7#aab7 ,moreover1 the whole      
people was commanded to come  together  
at a certain place every seven years and
 be instructed in the law  by the       
high-priest2 further1 each individual   
was bidden to read the book of  the law 
through and through continually with    
scrupulous care4 7,deut4 xxxi3#i1  #aj1 
and vi3#g47    7#aac7 ,the captains were
 thus for their own sakes bound to take 
great care to  administer everything    
according to the laws laid down1 and    
well known to all1  if they wished to be
 held in high honour by the people1 who 
would regard them  as the administrators
 of ,god's dominion1 and as ,god's      
vicegerents2 otherwise  they could not  
have escaped all the virulence of       
theological hatred4 7#aad7  ,there was  
another very important check on the     
unbridled license of the  captains1 in  
the fact1 that the army was formed from 

the whole body1 of the  citizens1       
between the ages of twenty and sixty1   
without exception1 and that the         
captains were not able to hire any      
foreign soldiery4 7#aae7 ,this ,i say   
was very  important1 for it is well     
known that princes can oppress their    
peoples with the  single aid of the     
soldiery in their pay2 while there is   
nothing more formidable  to them than   
the freedom of citizen soldiers1 who    
have established the freedom  and glory 
of their country1 by their valour1 their
 toil1 and their blood4 7#aaf7  ,thus   
,alexander1 when he was about to make   
wax on ,darius1 a second time1 after    
hearing the advice of ,parmenio1 did not
 chide him who gave the advice1 but     
,polysperchon1 who was standing by4     
7#aag7 ,for1 as ,curtius says 7iv4      
,para4 #ac71  he did not venture to     
reproach ,parmenio again after having   
shortly before  reproved him too        
sharply4 7#aah7 ,this freedom of the    
,macedonians1 which he so  dreaded1 he  

was not able to subdue till after the   
number of captives enlisted  in the army
 surpassed that of his own people3 then1
 but not till then1 he gave  rein to his
 anger so long checked by the           
independence of his chief               
fellow-countrymen4    7#ag3aai7 ,if this
 independence of citizen soldiers can   
restrain the princes  of ordinary states
 who are wont to usurp the whole glory  
of victories1 it  must have been still  
more effectual against the ,hebrew      
captains1 whose  soldiers were fighting1
 not for the glory of a prince1 but for 
the glory of  ,god1 and who did not go  
forth to battle till the ,divine assent 
had been  given4    7#ag3abj7 ,we must  
also remember that the ,hebrew captains 
were associated only  by the bonds of   
religion3 therefore1 if any one of them 
had transgressed1  and begun to violate 
the ,divine right1 he might have been   
treated by the  rest as an enemy and    
lawfully subdued4    7#ag3aba7 ,an      
additional check may be found in the    

fear of a new prophet  arising1 for if a
 man of unblemished life could show by  
certain signs that  he was really a     
prophet1 he ipso facto obtained the     
sovereign right to rule1  which was     
given to him1 as to ,moses formerly1 in 
the name of ,god1 as  revealed to       
himself alone2 not merely through the   
high priest1 as in the  case of the     
captains4 7#abb7 ,there is no doubt that
 such an one would easily  be able to   
enlist an oppressed people in his cause1
 and by trifling signs  persuade them of
 anything he wished3 on the other hand1 
if affairs were well  ordered1 the      
captain would be able to make provision 
in time2 that the  prophet should be    
submitted to his approval1 and be       
examined whether he were  really of     
unblemished life1 and possessed         
indisputable signs of his mission3      
also1 whether the teaching he proposed  
to set forth in the name of the ,lord   
agreed with received doctrines1 and the 
general laws of the country2 if his     

credentials were insufficient1 or his   
doctrines new1 he could lawfully be  put
 to death1 or else received on the      
captain's sole responsibility and       
authority4    7#ag3abc7 ,again1 the     
captains were not superior to the others
 in nobility or  birth1 but only        
administered the government in virtue of
 their age and  personal qualities4     
7#abd7 ,lastly1 neither captains nor    
army had any reason  for preferring war 
to peace4 7#abe7 ,the army1 as we have  
stated1 consisted  entirely of citizens1
 so that affairs were managed by the    
same persons both  in peace and war4    
7#abf7 ,the man who was a soldier in the
 camp was a citizen  in the             
market-place1 he who was a leader in the
 camp was a judge in the law  courts1 he
 who was a general in the camp was a    
ruler in the state4 7#abg7  ,thus no one
 could desire war for its own sake1 but 
only for the sake of  preserving peace  
and liberty2 possibly the captains      
avoided change as far as  possible1 so  

as not to be obliged to consult the high
 priest and submit to  the indignity of 
standing in his presence4    7#ag3abh7  
,so much for the precautions for keeping
 the captains within bounds4  #ag3i     
7#abi7 ,we must now look for the        
restraints upon the people3 these1      
however1 are very clearly indicated in  
the very groundwork of the social       
fabric4    7#ag3acj7 ,anyone who gives  
the subject the slightest attention1    
will see that  the state was so ordered 
as to inspire the most ardent patriotism
 in the  hearts of the citizens1 so that
 the latter would be very hard to       
persuade to  betray their country1 and  
be ready to endure anything rather than 
submit to a foreign yoke4 7#aca7 ,after 
they had transferred their right  to    
,god1 they thought that their kingdom   
belonged to ,god1 and that they         
themselves were ,god's children4 7#acb7 
,other nations they looked upon as      
,god's enemies1 and regarded with       
intense hatred 7which they took  to be  

piety1 see ,psalm cxxxix3#ba1 #bb73     
nothing would have been more  abhorrent 
to them than swearing allegiance to a   
foreigner1 and promising him  obedience3
 nor could they conceive any greater or 
more execrable crime than  the betrayal 
of their country1 the kingdom of the    
,god whom they adored4    7#ag3acc7 ,it 
was considered wicked for anyone to     
settle outside of the  country1 inasmuch
 as the worship of ,god by which they   
were bound could not  be carried on     
elsewhere3 their own land alone was     
considered holy1 the rest  of the earth 
unclean and profane4    7#ag3acd7       
,david1 who was forced to live in exile1
 complained before ,saul as  follows3   
,but if they be the children of men who 
have stirred thee up  against me1 cursed
 be they before the ,lord2 for they have
 driven me out this  day from abiding in
 the inheritance of the ,lord1 saying1  
,go1 serve other  gods4 7,i ,sam4       
xxvi3#ai47 7#ace7 ,for the same reason  
no citizen1 as we should  especially    

remark1 was ever sent into exile3 he who
 sinned was liable to  punishment1 but  
not to disgrace4    7#ag3acf7 ,thus the 
love of the ,hebrews for their country  
was not only  patriotism1 but also      
piety1 and was cherished and nurtured by
 daily rites  till1 like their hatred of
 other nations1 it must have passed into
 their  nature4 7#acg7 ,their daily     
worship was not only different from that
 of other  nations 7as it might well be1
 considering that they were a peculiar  
people  and entirely apart from the     
rest71 it was absolutely contrary4      
7#ach7 ,such  daily reprobation         
naturally gave rise to a lasting hatred1
 deeply implanted  in the heart3 for of 
all hatreds none is more deep and       
tenacious than  that which springs from 
extreme devoutness or piety1 and is     
itself cherished  as pious4 7#aci7 ,nor 
was a general cause lacking for         
inflaming such hatred  more and more1   
inasmuch as it was reciprocated2 the    
surrounding nations  regarding the ,jews

 with a hatred just as intense4         
7#ag3adj7 ,how great was the effect of  
all these causes1 namely1 freedom from  
man's dominion2 devotion to their       
country2 absolute rights over all  other
 men2 a hatred not only permitted but   
pious2 a contempt for their  fellow-men2
 the singularity of their customs and   
religious rites2 the  effect1 ,i repeat1
 of all these causes in strengthening   
the hearts of the  ,jews to bear all    
things for their country1 with          
extraordinary constancy and  valour1    
will at once be discerned by reason and 
attested by experience4  7#ada7 ,never1 
so long as the city was standing1 could 
they endure to remain  under foreign    
dominion2 and therefore they called     
,jerusalem a rebellious  city 7,ezra    
iv3#ab74 7#adb7 ,their state after its  
reestablishment 7which was a  mere      
shadow of the first1 for the high       
priests had usurped the rights of the   
tribal captains7 was1 with great        
difficulty1 destroyed by the ,romans1 as

  ,tacitus bears witness 7,hist4        
ii3#d73- ,vespasian had closed the war  
against  the ,jews1 abandoning the siege
 of ,jerusalem as an enterprise         
difficult  and arduous rather from the  
character of the people and the         
obstinacy of  their superstition1 than  
from the strength left to the besieged  
for meeting  their necessities4 7#adc7  
,but besides these characteristics1     
which are  merely ascribed by an        
individual opinion1 there was one       
feature  peculiar to this state and of  
great importance in retaining the       
affections  of the citizens1 and        
checking all thoughts of desertion1 or  
abandonment of  the country3 namely1    
self-interest1 the strength and life of 
all human  action4 7#add7 ,this was     
peculiarly engaged in the ,hebrew state1
 for  nowhere else did citizens possess 
their goods so securely1 as did the     
subjects of this community1 for the     
latter possessed as large a share in the
  land and the fields as did their      

chiefs1 and were owners of their plots  
of  ground in perpetuity2 for if any man
 was compelled by poverty to sell his   
farm or his pasture1 he received it back
 again intact at the year of  jubilee3  
there were other similar enactments     
against the possibility of  alienating  
real property4    7#ag3ade7 ,again1     
poverty was nowhere more endurable than 
in a country where  duty towards one's  
neighbour1 that is1 one's               
fellow-citizen1 was practised  with the 
utmost piety1 as a means of gaining the 
favour of ,god the ,king4  7#adf7 ,thus 
the ,hebrew citizens would nowhere be so
 well off as in their own  country2     
outside its limits they met with nothing
 but loss and disgrace4    7#ag3adg7    
,the following considerations were of   
weight1 not only in keeping  them at    
home1 but also in preventing civil war  
and removing causes of  strife2 no one  
was bound to serve his equal1 but only  
to serve ,god1 while  charity and love  
towards fellow-citizens was accounted   

the highest piety2  this last feeling   
was not a little fostered by the general
 hatred with which  they regarded       
foreign nations and were regarded by    
them4 7#adh7 ,furthermore1  the strict  
discipline of obedience in which they   
were brought up1 was a very  important  
factor2 for they were bound to carry on 
all their actions  according to the set 
rules of the law3 a man might not plough
 when he liked1  but only at certain    
times1 in certain years1 and with one   
sort of beast at a  time2 so1 too1 he   
might only sow and reap in a certain    
method and season -  in fact1 his whole 
life was one long school of obedience   
7see ,chap4 ,v4 on  the use of          
ceremonies72 such a habit was thus      
engendered1 that conformity  seemed     
freedom instead of servitude1 and men   
desired what was commanded  rather than 
what was forbidden4 7#adi7 ,this result 
was not a little aided by  the fact that
 the people were bound1 at certain      
seasons of the year1 to give  themselves

 up to rest and rejoicing1 not for their
 own pleasure1 but in  order that they  
might worship ,god cheerfully4          
7#ag3aej7 ,three times in the year they 
feasted before the ,lord2 on the        
seventh day of every week they were     
bidden to abstain from all work and to  
rest2 besides these1 there were other   
occasions when innocent rejoicing and   
feasting were not only allowed but      
enjoined4 7#aea7 ,i do not think any    
better  means of influencing men's minds
 could be devised2 for there is no more 
powerful attraction than joy springing  
from devotion1 a mixture of  admiration 
and love4 7#aeb7 ,it was not easy to be 
wearied by constant  repetition1 for the
 rites on the various festivals were    
varied and recurred  seldom4 7#aec7 ,we 
may add the deep reverence for the      
,temple which all most  religiously     
fostered1 on account of the peculiar    
rites and duties that they  were obliged
 to perform before approaching thither4 
7#aed7 ,even now1 ,jews  cannot read    

without horror of the crime of          
,manasseh1 who dared to place an  idol  
in the ,temple4 7#aee7 ,the laws1       
scrupulously preserved in the inmost    
sanctuary1 were objects of equal        
reverence to the people4 7#aef7 ,popular
  reports and misconceptions were1      
therefore1 very little to be feared  in 
this quarter1 for no one dared decide on
 sacred matters1 but all  felt bound to 
obey1 without consulting their reason1  
all the commands given  by the answers  
of ,god received in the ,temple1 and all
 the laws which ,god  had ordained4     
7#ag3aeg7 ,i think ,i have now explained
 clearly1 though briefly1 the main      
features of the ,hebrew commonwealth4   
7#aeh7 ,i must now inquire into the     
causes which led the people so often to 
fall away from the law1 which  brought  
about their frequent subjection1 and1   
finally1 the complete  destruction of   
their dominion4 7#aei7 ,perhaps ,i shall
 be told that it sprang  from their     
hardness of heart2 but this is childish1

 for why should this  people be more    
hard of heart than others2 was it by    
nature8    #ag3;,a 7#afj7 ,but nature   
forms individuals1 not peoples2 the     
latter are  only distinguishable by the 
difference of their language1 their     
customs1 and  their laws2 while from the
 two last - i4e41 customs and laws1 - it
 may arise  that they have a peculiar   
disposition1 a peculiar manner of life1 
and  peculiar prejudices4 7#afa7 ,if1   
then1 the ,hebrews were harder of heart 
than  other nations1 the fault lay with 
their laws or customs4    7#ag3afb7     
,this is certainly true1 in the sense   
that1 if ,god had wished their  dominion
 to be more lasting1 ,he would have     
given them other rites and laws1  and   
would have instituted a different form  
of government4 7#afc7 ,we can1          
therefore1 only say that their ,god was 
angry with them1 not only1 as  ,jeremiah
 says1 from the building of the city1   
but even from the founding of  their    
laws4    7#ag3afd7 ,this is borne       

witness to by ,ezekiel xx3#be3          
,wherefore ,i gave them  also statutes  
that were not good1 and judgments       
whereby they should not  live2 and ,i   
polluted them in their own gifts1 in    
that they caused to pass  through the   
fire all that openeth the womb2 that ,i 
might make them desolate1  to the end   
that they might know that ,i am the     
,lord4    7#ag3afe7 ,in order that we   
may understand these words1 and the     
destruction of  the ,hebrew             
commonwealth1 we must bear in mind that 
it had at first been  intended to       
entrust the whole duties of the         
priesthood to the firstborn1 and  not to
 the ,levites 7see ,numb4 viii3#ag74    
7#aff7 ,it was only when all the        
tribes1 except the ,levites1 worshipped 
the golden calf1 that the  firstborn    
were rejected and defiled1 and the      
,levites chosen in their stead  7,deut4 
x3#h74 7#afg7 ,when ,i reflect on this  
change1 ,i feel disposed to break  forth
 with the words of ,tacitus4 7#afh7     

,god's object at that time was not the  
safety of the ,jews1 but vengeance4     
7#afi7 ,i am greatly astonished that the
  celestial mind was so inflamed with   
anger that it ordained laws1 which      
always are supposed to promote the      
honour1 well-being1 and security of a   
people1 with the purpose of vengeance1  
for the sake of punishment2 so that  the
 laws do not seem so much laws - that   
is1 the safeguard of  the people - as   
pains and penalties4    7#ag3agj7 ,the  
gifts which the people were obliged to  
bestow on the ,levites  and priests -   
the redemption of the firstborn1 the    
poll-tax due to the  ,levites1 the      
privilege possessed by the latter of the
 sole performance of  sacred rites - all
 these1 ,i say1 were a continual        
reproach to the people1 a  continual    
reminder of their defilement and        
rejection4 7#aga7 ,moreover1 we may  be 
sure that the ,levites were for ever    
heaping reproaches upon them3 for  among
 so many thousands there must have been 

many importunate dabblers in  theology4 
7#agb7 ,hence the people got into the   
way of watching the acts of  the        
,levites1 who were but human2 of        
accusing the whole body of the faults of
  one member1 and continually murmuring4
    7#ag3agc7 ,besides this1 there was  
the obligation to keep in idleness men  
hateful to them1 and connected by no    
ties of blood4 7#agd7 ,especially would 
this seem grievous when provisions were 
dear4 ,what wonder1 then1 if in times   
of peace1 when striking miracles had    
ceased1 and no men of paramount         
authority were forthcoming1 the         
irritable and greedy temper of the      
people  began to wax cold1 and at length
 to fall away from a worship1 which1    
though  ,divine1 was also humiliating1  
and even hostile1 and to seek after     
something  fresh2 or can we be surprised
 that the captains1 who always adopt the
  popular course1 in order to gain the  
sovereign power for themselves by       
enlisting the sympathies of the people1 

and alienating the high priest1  should 
have yielded to their demands1 and      
introduced a new worship8 7#age7 ,if    
the state had been formed according to  
the original intention1 the rights  and 
honour of all the tribes would have been
 equal1 and everything would  have      
rested on a firm basis4 7#agf7 ,who is  
there who would willingly violate  the  
religious rights of his kindred8 7#agg7 
,what could a man desire more than  to  
support his own brothers and parents1   
thus fulfilling the duties of  religion8
 7#agh7 ,who would not rejoice in being 
taught by them the  interpretation of   
the laws1 and receiving through them the
 answers of ,god8    7#ag3agi7 ,the     
tribes would thus have been united by a 
far closer bond1 if all  alike had      
possessed the right to the priesthood4  
7#ahj7 ,all danger would have  been     
obviated1 if the choice of the ,levites 
had not been dictated by anger  and     
revenge4 7#aha7 ,but1 as we have said1  
the ,hebrews had offended their ,god1   

,who1 as ,ezekiel says1 polluted them in
 their own gifts by rejecting all that  
openeth the womb1 so that ,he might     
destroy them4    7#ag3ahb7 ,this passage
 is also confirmed by their history4 ,as
 soon as the  people in the wilderness  
began to live in ease and plenty1       
certain men of no  mean birth began to  
rebel against the choice of the         
,levites1 and to make it  a cause for   
believing that ,moses had not acted by  
the commands of ,god1 but  for his own  
good pleasure1 inasmuch as he had chosen
 his own tribe before  all the rest1 and
 had bestowed the high priesthood in    
perpetuity on his own  brother4 7#ahc7  
,they1 therefore1 stirred up a tumult1  
and came to him1 crying  out that all   
men were equally sacred1 and that he had
 exalted himself above  his fellows     
wrongfully4 7#ahd7 ,moses was not able  
to pacify them with  reasons2 but by the
 intervention of a miracle in proof of  
the faith1 they  all perished4 7#ahe7 ,a
 fresh sedition then arose among the    

whole people1 who  believed that their  
champions had not been put to death by  
the judgment of  ,god1 but by the device
 of ,moses4 7#ahf7 ,after a great       
slaughter1 or  pestilence1 the rising   
subsided from inanition1 but in such a  
manner that  all preferred death to life
 under such conditions4    7#ag3ahg7 ,we
 should rather say that sedition ceased 
than that harmony was  re-established4  
7#ahh7 ,this is witnessed by ,scripture 
7,deut4 xxxi3#ba71 where  ,god1 after   
predicting to ,moses that the people    
after his death will fall  away from the
 ,divine worship1 speaks thus3 ,for ,i  
know their imagination  which they go   
about1 even now before ,i have brought  
them into the land which  ,i sware2 and1
 a little while after 7xxxi3#bg71 ,moses
 says3 ,for ,i know thy  rebellion and  
thy stiff neck3 behold while ,i am yet  
alive with you this  day1 ye have been  
rebellious against the ,lord2 and how   
much more after my  death6    7#ag3ahi7 
,indeed1 it happened according to his   

words1 as we all know4  7#aij7 ,great   
changes1 extreme license1 luxury1 and   
hardness of heart grew up2  things went 
from bad to worse1 till at last the     
people1 after being  frequently         
conquered1 came to an open rupture with 
the ,divine right1 and  wished for a    
mortal king1 so that the seat of        
government might be the ,court1  instead
 of the ,temple1 and that the tribes    
might remain fellow-citizens in  respect
 to their king1 instead of in respect to
 ,divine right and the high  priesthood4
    7#ag3aia7 ,a vast material for new  
seditions was thus produced1 eventually 
resulting in the ruin of the entire     
state4 ,kings are above all things      
jealous of a precarious rule1 and can in
 nowise brook a dominion within  their  
own4 7#aib7 ,the first monarchs1 being  
chosen from the ranks of private        
citizens1 were content with the amount  
of dignity to which they had risen2  but
 their sons1 who obtained the throne by 
right of inheritance1 began  gradually  

to introduce changes1 so as to get all  
the sovereign rights into  their own    
hands4 7#aic7 ,this they were generally 
unable to accomplish1 so  long as the   
right of legislation did not rest with  
them1 but with the high  priest1 who    
kept the laws in the sanctuary1 and     
interpreted them to the  people4 7#aid7 
,the kings were thus bound to obey the  
laws as much as were the  subjects1 and 
were unable to abrogate them1 or to     
ordain new laws of equal  authority2    
moreover1 they were prevented by the    
,levites from administering  the affairs
 of religion1 king and subject being    
alike unclean4 7#aie7 ,lastly1  the     
whole safety of their dominion depended 
on the will of one man1 if that  man    
appeared to be a prophet2 and of this   
they had seen an example1 namely1  how  
completely ,samuel had been able to     
command ,saul1 and how easily1 because  
of a single disobedience1 he had been   
able to transfer the right of           
sovereignty to ,david4 7#aif7 ,thus the 

kings found a dominion within their     
own1 and wielded a precarious           
sovereignty4    7#ag3aig7 ,in order to  
surmount these difficulties1 they       
allowed other temples  to be dedicated  
to the gods1 so that there might be no  
further need of  consulting the         
,levites2 they also sought out many who 
prophesied in the name  of ,god1 so that
 they might have creatures of their own 
to oppose to the true  prophets4 7#aih7 
,however1 in spite of all their         
attempts1 they never  attained their    
end4 7#aii7 ,for the prophets1 prepared 
against every  emergency1 waited for a  
favourable opportunity1 such as the     
beginning of a  new reign1 which is     
always precarious1 while the memory of  
the previous  reign remains green4      
7#bjj7 ,at these times they could easily
 pronounce by  ,divine authority that   
the king was tyrannical1 and could      
produce a champion  of distinguished    
virtue to vindicate the ,divine right1  
and lawfully to claim  dominion1 or a   

share in it4 7#bja7 ,still1 not even so 
could the prophets  effect much4 7#bjb7 
,they could1 indeed1 remove a tyrant2   
but there were  reasons which prevented 
them from doing more than setting up1 at
 great cost  of civil bloodshed1 another
 tyrant in his stead4 7#bjc7 ,of        
discords and civil  wars there was no   
end1 for the causes for the violation of
 ,divine right  remained always the     
same1 and could only be removed by a    
complete  remodelling of the state4     
7#ag3bjd7 ,we have now seen how religion
 was introduced into the ,hebrew        
commonwealth1 and how the dominion might
 have lasted for ever1 if the just      
wrath of the ,lawgiver had allowed it4  
7#bje7 ,as this was impossible1 it was  
bound in time to perish4 7#bjf7 ,i am   
now speaking only of the first          
commonwealth1 for the second was a mere 
shadow of the first1 inasmuch as the    
people were bound by the rights of the  
,persians to whom they were subject4    
7#bjg7 ,after the restoration of        

freedom1 the high priests usurped the   
rights  of the secular chiefs1 and thus 
obtained absolute dominion4 7#bjh7 ,the 
priests were inflamed with an intense   
desire to wield the powers of the       
sovereignty and the high priesthood at  
the same time4 7#bji7 ,i have1          
therefore1 no need to speak further of  
the second commonwealth4 7#baj7         
,whether the first1 in so far as we deem
 it to have been durable1 is capable  of
 imitation1 and whether it would be     
pious to copy it as far as possible1    
will appear from what fellows4 7#baa7 ,i
 wish only to draw attention1 as a      
crowning conclusion1 to the principle   
indicated already - namely1 that it is  
evident1 from what we have stated in    
this chapter1 that the ,divine right1 or
  the right of religion1 originates in a
 compact3 without such compact1  none   
but natural rights exist4 7#bab7 ,the   
,hebrews were not bound by their        
religion to evince any pious care for   
other nations not included in the       

compact1 but only for their own         
fellow-citizens4          #ah3j         
,,chapter ,,xviii - ,,from ,,the        
,,commonwealth ,,of ,,the ,,hebrews1    
,,and  ,,their ,,history1  ,,certain    
,,political ,,doctrines ,,are ,,deduced4
    #ah3a 7#a7 ,although the            
commonwealth of the ,hebrews1 as we have
 conceived  it1 might have lasted for   
ever1 it would be impossible to imitate 
it at the  present day1 nor would it be 
advisable so to do4 7#b7 ,if a people   
wished to  transfer their rights to ,god
 it would be necessary to make an       
express  covenant with ,him1 and for    
this would be needed not only the       
consent of  those transferring their    
rights1 but also the consent of ,god4   
7#c7 ,god1  however1 has revealed       
through his ,apostles that the covenant 
of ,god is no  longer written in ink1 or
 on tables of stone1 but with the       
,spirit of ,god in  the fleshy tables of
 the heart4    7#ah3d7 ,furthermore1    
such a form of government would only be 

available for  those who desire to have 
no foreign relations1 but to shut       
themselves up  within their own         
frontiers1 and to live apart from the   
rest of the world2 it  would be useless 
to men who must have dealings with other
 nations2 so that  the cases where it   
could be adopted are very few indeed4   
7#ah3e7 ,nevertheless1 though it could  
not be copied in its entirety1 it       
possessed many excellent features which 
might be brought to our notice1 and     
perhaps imitated with advantage4 7#f7   
,my intention1 however1 is not to write 
a treatise on forms of government1 so ,i
 will pass over most of such points  in 
silence1 and will only touch on those   
which bear upon my purpose4    7#ah3g7  
,god's kingdom is not infringed upon by 
the choice of an earthly ruler  endowed 
with sovereign rights2 for after the    
,hebrews had transferred their  rights  
to ,god1 they conferred the sovereign   
right of ruling on ,moses1  investing   
him with the sole power of instituting  

and abrogating laws in  the name of     
,god1 of choosing priests1 of judging1  
of teaching1 of  punishing - in fact1   
all the prerogatives of an absolute     
monarch4    7#ah3h7 ,again1 though the  
priests were the interpreters of the    
laws1 they had  no power to judge the   
citizens1 or to excommunicate anyone3   
this could only  be done by the judges  
and chiefs chosen from among the people4
 7#i7 ,a  consideration of the successes
 and the histories of the ,hebrews will 
bring  to light other considerations    
worthy of note4 ,to wit3    7#ah3i7 ,i4 
,that there were no religious sects1    
till after the high priests1  in the    
second commonwealth1 possessed the      
authority to make decrees1 and  transact
 the business of government4 7#aj7 ,in  
order that such authority might  last   
for ever1 the high priests usurped the  
rights of secular rulers1 and  at last  
wished to be styled kings4 7#aa7 ,the   
reason for this is ready to  hand2 in   
the first commonwealth no decrees could 

bear the name of the high  priest1 for  
he had no right to ordain laws1 but only
 to give the answers of  ,god to        
questions asked by the captains or the  
councils3 he had1 therefore1  no motive 
for making changes in the law1 but took 
care1 on the contrary1 to  administer   
and guard what had already been received
 and accepted4 7#ab7 ,his  only means of
 preserving his freedom in safety       
against the will of the  captains lay in
 cherishing the law intact4 7#ac7 ,after
 the high priests had  assumed the power
 of carrying on the government1 and     
added the rights of  secular rulers to  
those they already possessed1 each one  
began both in  things religious and in  
things secular1 to seek for the         
glorification of his  own name1 settling
 everything by sacerdotal authority1 and
 issuing every  day1 concerning         
ceremonies1 faith1 and all else1 new    
decrees which he sought  to make as     
sacred and authoritative as the laws of 
,moses4 7#ad7 ,religion thus  sank into 

a degrading superstition1 while the true
 meaning and  interpretation of the laws
 became corrupted4 7#ae7 ,furthermore1  
while the  high priests were paving     
their way to the secular rule just after
 the  restoration1 they attempted to    
gain popular favour by assenting to     
every demand2 approving whatever the    
people did1 however impious1 and        
accommodating ,scripture to the very    
depraved current morals4 7#af7 ,malachi 
bears witness to this in no measured    
terms3 he chides the priests of his     
time as despisers of the name of ,god1  
and then goes on with his invective as  
follows 7,mal ii3#g1 #h73 ,for the      
priest's lips should keep knowledge1    
and they should seek the law at his     
mouth3 for he is the messenger of  the  
,lord of hosts4 7#ag7 ,but ye are       
departed out of the way2 ye have  caused
 many to stumble at the law1 ye have    
corrupted the covenant of  ,levi1 saith 
the ,lord of hosts4 7#ah7 ,he further   
accuses them of interpreting  the laws  

according to their own pleasure1 and    
paying no respect to ,god but  only to  
persons4 7#ai7 ,it is certain that the  
high priests were never so  cautious in 
their conduct as to escape the remark of
 the more shrewd among  the people1 for 
the latter were at length emboldened to 
assert that no  laws ought to be kept   
save those that were written1 and that  
the decrees  which the ,pharisees       
7consisting1 as ,josephus says in his   
,antiquities1  chiefly of the common    
people71 were deceived into calling the 
traditions of  the fathers1 should not  
be observed at all4 7#bj7 ,however this 
may be1 we can  in nowise doubt that    
flattery of the high priest1 the        
corruption of religion  and the laws1   
and the enormous increase of the extent 
of the last-named1  gave very great and 
frequent occasion for disputes and      
altercations  impossible to allay4 7#ba7
 ,when men begin to quarrel with all the
 ardour of  superstition1 and the       
magistracy to back up one side or the   

other1 they can  never come to a        
compromise1 but are bound to split into 
sects4    7#ah3bb7 ,,ii4 ,it is worthy  
of remark that the prophets1 who were in
 a private  station of life1 rather     
irritated than reformed mankind by their
 freedom of  warning1 rebuke1 and       
censure2 whereas the kings1 by their    
reproofs and  punishments1 could always 
produce an effect4 7#bc7 ,the prophets  
were often  intolerable even to pious   
kings1 on account of the authority they 
assumed  for judging whether an action  
was right or wrong1 or for reproving the
 kings  themselves if they dared to     
transact any business1 whether public or
  private1 without prophetic sanction4  
7#bd7 ,king ,asa who1 according to  the 
testimony of ,scripture1 reigned        
piously1 put the prophet ,hanani into a 
prison-house because he had ventured    
freely to chide and reprove him for     
entering into a covenant with the king  
of ,armenia4    7#ah3be7 ,other examples
 might be cited1 tending to prove that  

religion  gained more harm than good by 
such freedom1 not to speak of the       
further  consequence1 that if the       
prophets had retained their rights1     
great  civil wars would have resulted4  
7#bf7 ,,iii4 ,it is remarkable that     
during all the period1 during which the 
people held the reins of power1 there   
was only one civil war1 and that one    
was completely extinguished1 the        
conquerors taking such pity on the      
conquered1 that they endeavoured in     
every way to reinstate them in their    
former dignity and power4 7#bg7 ,but    
after that the people1 little accustomed
  to kings1 changed its first form of   
government into a monarchy1 civil war   
raged almost continuously2 and battles  
were so fierce as to exceed all  others 
recorded2 in one engagement 7taxing our 
faith to the utmost7  five hundred      
thousand ,israelites were slaughtered by
 the men of ,judah1 and  in another the 
,israelites slew great numbers of the   
men of ,judah 7the  figures are not     

given in ,scripture71 almost razed to   
the ground the walls of  ,jerusalem1 and
 sacked the ,temple in their unbridled  
fury4 7#bh7 ,at length1  laden with the 
spoils of their brethren1 satiated with 
blood1 they took  hostages1 and leaving 
the king in his well-nigh devastated    
kingdom1 laid  down their arms1 relying 
on the weakness rather than the good    
faith of their  foes4 7#bi7 ,a few years
 after1 the men of ,judah1 with         
recruited strength1  again took the     
field1 but were a second time beaten by 
the ,israelites1 and  slain to the      
number of a hundred and twenty thousand1
 two hundred thousand  of their wives   
and children were led into captivity1   
and a great booty again  seized4 7#cj7  
,worn out with these and similar battles
 set forth at length in  their          
histories1 the ,jews at length fell a   
prey to their enemies4    7#ah3ca7      
,furthermore1 if we reckon up the times 
during which peace prevailed  under each
 form of government1 we shall find a    

great discrepancy4 7#cb7  ,before the   
monarchy forty years and more often     
passed1 and once eighty years  7an      
almost unparalleled period71 without any
 war1 foreign or civil4 7#cc7  ,after   
the kings acquired sovereign power1 the 
fighting was no longer for  peace and   
liberty1 but for glory2 accordingly we  
find that they all1 with  the exception 
of ,solomon 7whose virtue and wisdom    
would be better displayed  in peace than
 in war7 waged war1 and finally a fatal 
desire for power gained  ground1 which1 
in many cases1 made the path to the     
throne a bloody one4    7#ah3cd7        
,lastly1 the laws1 during the rule of   
the people1 remained  uncorrupted and   
were studiously observed4 7#ce7 ,before 
the monarchy there  were very few       
prophets to admonish the people1 but    
after the establishment  of kings there 
were a great number at the same time4   
7#cf7 ,obadiah saved a  hundred from    
death and hid them away1 lest they      
should be slain with the  rest4 7#cg7   

,the people1 so far as we can see1 were 
never deceived by false  prophets till  
after the power had been vested in      
kings1 whose creatures many  of the     
prophets were4 7#ch7 ,again1 the people1
 whose heart was generally  proud or    
humble according to its circumstances1  
easily corrected itself  under          
misfortune1 turned again to ,god1       
restored ,his laws1 and so freed  itself
 from all peril2 but the kings1 whose   
hearts were always equally  puffed up1  
and who could not be corrected without  
humiliation1 clung  pertinaciously to   
their vices1 even till the last         
overthrow of the city4    #ah3b 7#ci7   
,we may now clearly see from what ,i    
have said3-    7#dj7 ,i4 ,how hurtful to
 religion and the state is the          
concession to ministers  of religion of 
any power of issuing decrees or         
transacting the business of  government3
 how1 on the contrary1 far greater      
stability is afforded1 if the  said     
ministers are only allowed to give      

answers to questions duly put  to them1 
and are1 as a rule1 obliged to preach   
and practise the received and  accepted 
doctrines4    7#ah3da7 ,,ii ,how        
dangerous it is to refer to ,divine     
right matters merely  speculative and   
subject or liable to dispute4 7#db7 ,the
 most tyrannical  governments are those 
which make crimes of opinions1 for      
everyone has an  inalienable right over 
his thoughts - nay1 such a state of     
things leads to  the rule of popular    
passion4    7#ah3dc7 ,pontius ,pilate   
made concession to the passion of the   
,pharisees in  consenting to the        
crucifixion of ,christ1 whom he knew to 
be innocent4 7#dd7  ,again1 the         
,pharisees1 in order to shake the       
position of men richer than  themselves1
 began to set on foot questions of      
religion1 and accused the  ,sadducees of
 impiety1 and1 following their example1 
the vilest hypocrites1  stirred1 as they
 pretended1 by the same holy wrath which
 they called zeal  for the ,lord1       

persecuted men whose unblemished        
character and distinguished  virtue had 
excited the popular hatred1 publicly    
denounced their opinions1  and inflamed 
the fierce passions of the people       
against them4    7#ah3de7 ,this wanton  
licence being cloaked with the specious 
garb of  religion could not easily be   
repressed1 especially when the sovereign
  authorities introduced a sect of which
 they were not the head2 they were  then
 regarded not as interpreters of ,divine
 right1 but as sectarians - that  is1 as
 persons recognizing the right of       
,divine interpretation assumed by the   
leaders of the sect4 7#df7 ,the         
authority of the magistrates thus became
 of  little account in such matters in  
comparison with the authority of        
sectarian  leaders before whose         
interpretations kings were obliged to   
bow4    7#ah3dg7 ,to avoid such evils in
 a state1 there is no safer way1 than to
 make  piety and religion to consist in 
acts only - that is1 in the practice of 

justice and charity1 leaving everyone's 
judgment in other respects free4  7#dh7 
,but ,i will speak of this more at      
length presently4    #ah3c 7#di7 ,,iii4 
,we see how necessary it is1 both in the
 interests of the  state and in the     
interests of religion1 to confer on the 
sovereign power the  right of deciding  
what is lawful or the reverse4 7#ej7 ,if
 this right of  judging actions could   
not be given to the very prophets of    
,god without great  injury to the state 
and religion1 how much less should it be
 entrusted to  those who can neither    
foretell the future nor work miracles6  
7#ea7 ,but this  again ,i will treat of 
more fully hereafter4    7#ah3eb7 ,,iv4 
,lastly1 we see how disastrous it is for
 a people unaccustomed  to kings1 and   
possessing a complete code of laws1 to  
set up a monarchy4 7#ec7  ,neither can  
the subjects brook such a sway1 nor the 
royal authority submit  to laws and     
popular rights set up by anyone inferior
 to itself4 7#ed7 ,still  less can a    

king be expected to defend such laws1   
for they were not framed to  support his
 dominion1 but the dominion of the      
people1 or some council which  formerly 
ruled1 so that in guarding the popular  
rights the king would seem  to be a     
slave rather than a master4 7#ee7 ,the  
representative of a new  monarchy will  
employ all his zeal in attempting to    
frame new laws1 so  as to wrest the     
rights of dominion to his own use1 and  
to reduce the people  till they find it 
easier to increase than to curtail the  
royal prerogative4  7#ef7 ,i must not1  
however1 omit to state that it is no    
less dangerous to  remove a monarch1    
though he is on all hands admitted to be
 a tyrant4 7#eg7  ,for his people are   
accustomed to royal authority and will  
obey no other1  despising and mocking at
 any less august control4    7#ah3eh7   
,it is therefore necessary1 as the      
prophets discovered of old1 if one  king
 be removed1 that he should be replaced 
by another1 who will be a tyrant  from  

necessity rather than choice4 7#ei7 ,for
 how will he be able to endure  the     
sight of the hands of the citizens      
reeking with royal blood1 and to        
rejoice in their regicide as a glorious 
exploit8 7#fj7 ,was not the deed        
perpetrated as an example and warning   
for himself8    7#ah3fa7 ,if he really  
wishes to be king1 and not to           
acknowledge the people as  the judge of 
kings and the master of himself1 or to  
wield a precarious sway1  he must avenge
 the death of his predecessor1 making an
 example for his own  sake1 lest the    
people should venture to repeat a       
similar crime4 7#fb7 ,he will  not1     
however1 be able easily to avenge the   
death of the tyrant by the  slaughter of
 citizens unless he defends the cause of
 tyranny and approves  the deeds of his 
predecessor1 thus following in his      
footsteps4    7#ah3fc7 ,hence it comes  
to pass that peoples have often changed 
their  tyrants1 but never removed them  
or changed the monarchical form of      

government into any other4    #ah3d     
7#fd7 ,the ,english people furnish us   
with a terrible example of this  fact4  
7#fe7 ,they sought how to depose their  
monarch under the forms of law1  but    
when he had been removed1 they were     
utterly unable to change the form of    
government1 and after much bloodshed    
only brought it about1 that a new       
monarch should be hailed under a        
different name 7as though it had been a 
mere question of names72 this new       
monarch could only consolidate his power
  by completely destroying the royal    
stock1 putting to death the king's      
friends1 real or supposed1 and          
disturbing with war the peace which     
might  encourage discontent1 in order   
that the populace might be engrossed    
with  novelties and divert its mind from
 brooding over the slaughter of the     
king4  7#ff7 ,at last1 however1 the     
people reflected that it had            
accomplished nothing  for the good of   
the country beyond violating the rights 

of the lawful king  and changing        
everything for the worse4 7#fg7 ,it     
therefore decided to retrace  its steps 
as soon as possible1 and never rested   
till it had seen a  complete restoration
 of the original state of affairs4      
7#ah3fh7 ,it may perhaps be objected    
that the ,roman people was easily able  
to  remove its tyrants1 but ,i gather   
from its history a strong confirmation  
of  my contention4 7#fi7 ,though the    
,roman people was much more than        
ordinarily capable of removing their    
tyrants and changing their  form of     
government1 inasmuch as it held in its  
own hands the power of  electing its    
king and his successor1 and being       
composed of rebels and  criminals had   
not long been used to the royal yoke    
7out of its six kings it  had put to    
death three71 nevertheless it could     
accomplish nothing  beyond electing     
several tyrants in place of one1 who    
kept it groaning under  a continual     
state of war1 both foreign and civil1   

till at last it changed  its government 
again to a form differing from monarchy1
 as in ,england1 only  in name4    #ah3e
 7#gj7 ,as for the ,united ,states of   
the ,netherlands1 they have never1 as   
we know1 had a king1 but only counts1   
who never attained the full rights of   
dominion4 7#ga7 ,the ,states of the     
,netherlands evidently acted as         
principals  in the settlement made by   
them at the time of the ,earl of        
,leicester's  mission3 they always      
reserved for themselves the authority to
 keep the  counts up to their duties1   
and the power to preserve this authority
  and the liberty of the citizens4 7#gb7
 ,they had ample means of vindicating   
their rights if their rulers should     
prove tyrannical1 and could impose  such
 restraints that nothing could be done  
without their consent and  approval4    
7#ah3gc7 ,thus the rights of sovereign  
power have always been vested in the    
,states1 though the last count          
endeavoured to usurp them4 7#gd7 ,it is 

therefore little likely that the ,states
 should give them up1 especially as     
they have just restored their original  
dominion1 lately almost lost4           
7#ah3ge7 ,these examples1 then1 confirm 
us in our belief1 that every dominion   
should retain its original form1 and1   
indeed1 cannot change it without  danger
 of the utter ruin of the whole state4  
7#gf7 ,such are the points ,i have  here
 thought worthy of remark4              
#ai3j ,,chapter ,,xix - ,,it ,,is       
,,shown ,,that ,,the ,,right ,,over     
,,matters    ,,spiritual ,,lies ,,wholly
 ,,with ,,the ,,sovereign1 ,,and ,,that 
,,the ,,outward ,,forms ,,of ,,religion 
,,should ,,be ,,in ,,accordance         
,,with ,,public ,,peace1 ,,if ,,we      
,,would ,,obey ,,god ,,aright4    7#a7  
,when ,i said that the possessors of    
sovereign power have rights over        
everything1 and that all rights are     
dependent on their decree1 ,i did not   
merely mean temporal rights1 but also   
spiritual rights2 of the latter1 no     

less than the former1 they ought to be  
the interpreters and the  champions4    
7#b7 ,i wish to draw special attention  
to this point1 and to  discuss it fully 
in this chapter1 because many persons   
deny that the right  of deciding        
religious questions belongs to the      
sovereign power1 and refuse  to         
acknowledge it as the interpreter of    
,divine right4 7#c7 ,they  accordingly  
assume full licence to accuse and       
arraign it1 nay1 even to  excommunicate 
it from the ,church1 as ,ambrosius      
treated the ,emperor  ,theodosius in old
 time4 7#d7 ,however1 ,i will show later
 on in this chapter  that they take this
 means of dividing the government1 and  
paving the  way to their own ascendancy4
 7#e7 ,i wish1 however1 first to point  
out that  religion acquires its force as
 law solely from the decrees of the     
sovereign4  7#f7 ,god has no special    
kingdom among men except in so far as   
,he reigns  through temporal rulers4    
#ai3a 7#g7 ,moreover1 the rites of      

religion and the  outward observances of
 piety should be in accordance with the 
public peace  and well-being1 and should
 therefore be determined by the         
sovereign power  alone4 7#h7 ,i speak   
here only of the outward observances of 
piety and the  external rites of        
religion1 not of piety1 itself1 nor of  
the inward worship  of ,god1 nor the    
means by which the mind is inwardly led 
to do homage to ,god  in singleness of  
heart4    7#ai3i7 ,inward worship of    
,god and piety in itself are within the 
sphere of  everyone's private rights1   
and cannot be alienated 7as ,i showed at
 the end  of ,chapter ,,vii474 7#aj7    
,what ,i here mean by the kingdom of    
,god is1 ,i  think1 sufficiently clear  
from what has been said in ,chapter     
,,xiv4  7#aa7 ,i there showed that a man
 best fulfils ,god's law who worships   
,him1  according to ,his command1       
through acts of justice and charity2 it 
follows1  therefore1 that wherever      
justice and charity have the force of   

law and  ordinance1 there is ,god's     
kingdom4    7#ai3ab7 ,i recognize no    
difference between the cases where ,god 
teaches and  commands the practice of   
justice and charity through our natural 
faculties1  and those where ,he makes   
special revelations2 nor is the form of 
the  revelation of importance so long as
 such practice is revealed and becomes a
  sovereign and supreme law to men4     
7#ac7 ,if1 therefore1 ,i show that      
justice  and charity can only acquire   
the force of right and law through the  
rights  of rulers1 ,i shall be able     
readily to arrive at the conclusion     
7seeing that  the rights of rulers are  
in the possession of the sovereign71    
that religion  can only acquire the     
force of right by means of those who    
have the right to  command1 and that    
,god only rules among men through the   
instrumentality of  earthly potentates4 
7#ad7 ,it follows from what has been    
said1 that the  practice of justice and 
charity only acquires the force of law  

through the  rights of the sovereign    
authority2 for we showed in ,chapter    
,,xvi4 that in the  state of nature     
reason has no more rights than desire1  
but that men living  either by the laws 
of the former or the laws of the latter1
 possess rights  co-extensive with their
 powers4    7#ai3ae7 ,for this reason we
 could not conceive sin to exist in the 
state of  nature1 nor imagine ,god as a 
judge punishing man's transgressions2   
but we  supposed all things to happen   
according to the general laws of        
universal  nature1 there being no       
difference between pious and impious1   
between him  that was pure 7as ,solomon 
says7 and him that was impure1 because  
there was  no possibility either of     
justice or charity4    #ai3b 7#af7 ,in  
order that the true doctrines of reason1
 that is 7as we  showed in ,chapter     
,,iv471 the true ,divine doctrines might
 obtain absolutely  the force of law and
 right1 it was necessary that each      
individual should  cede his natural     

right1 and transfer it either to society
 as a whole1 or to  a certain body of   
men1 or to one man4 7#ag7 ,then1 and not
 till then1  does it first dawn upon us 
what is justice and what is injustice1  
what is equity and what is iniquity4    
7#ai3ah7 ,justice1 therefore1 and       
absolutely all the precepts of reason1  
including love towards one's neighbour1 
receive the force of laws and           
ordinances solely through the rights of 
dominion1 that is 7as we showed in  the 
same chapter7 solely on the decree of   
those who possess the right to  rule4   
7#ai7 ,inasmuch as the kingdom of ,god  
consists entirely in rights  applied to 
justice and charity or to true religion1
 it follows that 7as we  asserted7 the  
kingdom of ,god can only exist among men
 through the means of  the sovereign    
powers2 nor does it make any difference 
whether religion be  apprehended by our 
natural faculties or by revelation3 the 
argument is sound  in both cases1       
inasmuch as religion is one and the     

same1 and is equally  revealed by ,god1 
whatever be the manner in which it      
becomes known to men4    7#ai3bj7 ,thus1
 in order that the religion revealed by 
the prophets might have  the force of   
law among the ,jews1 it was necessary   
that every man of them  should yield up 
his natural right1 and that all should1 
with one accord1  agree that they would 
only obey such commands as ,god should  
reveal to them through the prophets4    
7#ba7 ,just as we have shown to take    
place in a democracy1 where men with one
 consent agree to live according to  the
 dictates of reason4 7#bb7 ,although the
 ,hebrews furthermore transferred  their
 right to ,god1 they were able to do so 
rather in theory than in  practice1 for1
 as a matter of fact 7as we pointed out 
above7 they  absolutely retained the    
right of dominion till they transferred 
it to ,moses1  who in his turn became   
absolute king1 so that it was only      
through him that  ,god reigned over the 
,hebrews4 7#bc7 ,for this reason        

7namely1 that religion  only acquires   
the force of law by means of the        
sovereign power7 ,moses was  not able to
 punish those who1 before the covenant1 
and consequently while  still in        
possession of their rights1 violated the
 ,sabbath 7,exod4 xvi3#bg71  but was    
able to do so after the covenant 7,numb4
 xv3#cf71 because everyone had  then    
yielded up his natural rights1 and the  
ordinance of the  ,sabbath had received 
the force of law4    7#ai3bd7 ,lastly1  
for the same reason1 after the          
destruction of the ,hebrew  dominion1   
revealed religion ceased to have the    
force of law2 for we cannot  doubt that 
as soon as the ,jews transferred their  
right to the king of  ,babylon1 the     
kingdom of ,god and the ,divine right   
forthwith ceased4 7#be7  ,for the       
covenant wherewith they promised to obey
 all the utterances of ,god  was        
abrogated2 ,god's kingdom1 which was    
based thereupon1 also ceased4 7#bf7     
,the ,hebrews could no longer abide     

thereby1 inasmuch as their rights no    
longer belonged to them but to the king 
of ,babylon1 whom 7as we showed in      
,chapter ,,xvi47 they were bound to obey
 in all things4 7#bg7 ,jeremiah 7chap4  
xxix3#g7 expressly admonishes them of   
this fact3 ,and seek the peace of the   
city1 whither ,i have caused you to be  
carried away captives1 and pray unto    
the ,lord for it2 for in the peace      
thereof shall ye have peace4 7#bh7 ,now1
  they could not seek the peace of the  
,city as having a share in its          
government1 but only as slaves1 being1  
as they were1 captives2 by  obedience in
 all things1 with a view to avoiding    
seditions1 and by observing  all the    
laws of the country1 however different  
from their own4 7#bi7 ,it is  thus      
abundantly evident that religion among  
the ,hebrews only acquired the  form of 
law through the right of the sovereign  
rule2 when that rule was  destroyed1 it 
could no longer be received as the law  
of a particular  kingdom1 but only as   

the universal precept of reason4 7#cj7  
,i say of reason1  for the universal    
religion had not yet become known by    
revelation4 7#ca7 ,we  may therefore    
draw the general conclusion that        
religion1 whether revealed  through our 
natural faculties or through prophets1  
receives the force of a  command solely 
through the decrees of the holders of   
sovereign power2 and1  further1 that    
,god has no special kingdom among men1  
except in so far as ,he  reigns through 
earthly potentates4    7#ai3cb7 ,we may 
now see in a clearer light what was     
stated in ,chapter ,,iv41  namely1 that 
all the decrees of ,god involve eternal 
truth and necessity1 so  that we cannot 
conceive ,god as a prince or legislator 
giving laws to  mankind4 7#cc7 ,for this
 reason the ,divine precepts1 whether   
revealed through  our natural faculties1
 or through prophets1 do not receive    
immediately from  ,god the force of a   
command1 but only from those1 or through
 the mediation of  those1 who possess   

the right of ruling and legislating4    
7#cd7 ,it is only  through these latter 
means that ,god rules among men1 and    
directs human  affairs with justice and 
equity4    7#ai3ce7 ,this conclusion is 
supported by experience1 for we find    
traces of  ,divine justice only in      
places where just men bear sway2        
elsewhere the same  lot 7to repeat1     
again ,solomon's words7 befalls the just
 and the unjust1 the  pure and the      
impure3 a state of things which causes  
,divine ,providence to be  doubted by   
many who think that ,god immediately    
reigns among men1 and  directs all      
nature for their benefit4    #ai3c 7#cf7
 ,as1 then1 both reason and experience  
tell us that the ,divine  right is      
entirely dependent on the decrees of    
secular rulers1 it follows  that secular
 rulers are its proper interpreters4    
7#cg7 ,how this is so we  shall now see1
 for it is time to show that the outward
 observances of  religion1 and all the  
external practices of piety should be   

brought into  accordance with the public
 peace and well-being if we would obey  
,god  rightly4 7#ch7 ,when this has been
 shown we shall easily understand how   
the  sovereign rulers are the proper    
interpreters of religion and piety4     
7#ai3ci7 ,it is certain that duties     
towards one's country are the highest   
that  man can fulfil2 for1 if government
 be taken away1 no good thing can last1 
all falls into dispute1 anger and       
anarchy reign unchecked amid universal  
fear4 7#dj7 ,consequently there can be  
no duty towards our neighbour which     
would not become an offence if it       
involved injury to the whole state1 nor 
can there be any offence against our    
duty towards our neighbour1 or anything 
but loyalty in what we do for the sake  
of preserving the state4 7#da7 ,for     
instance3 it is in the abstract my duty 
when my neighbour quarrels with me  and 
wishes to take my cloak1 to give him my 
coat also2 but if it be thought  that   
such conduct is hurtful to the          

maintenance of the state1 ,i ought to   
bring him to trial1 even at the risk of 
his being condemned to death4           
7#ai3db7 ,for this reason ,manlius      
,torquatus is held up to honour1        
inasmuch as  the public welfare         
outweighed with him his duty towards his
 children4 7#dc7  ,this being so1 it    
follows that the public welfare is the  
sovereign law to  which all others1     
,divine and human1 should be made to    
conform4 7#dd7 ,now1 it  is the function
 of the sovereign only to decide what is
 necessary for the  public welfare and  
the safety of the state1 and to give    
orders accordingly2  therefore it is    
also the function of the sovereign only 
to decide the limits  of our duty       
towards our neighbour - in other words1 
to determine how we  should obey ,god4  
7#de7 ,we can now clearly understand how
 the sovereign  is the interpreter of   
religion1 and further1 that no one can  
obey ,god  rightly1 if the practices of 
his piety do not conform to the public  

welfare2  or1 consequently1 if he does  
not implicitly obey all the commands of 
the  sovereign4 7#df7 ,for as by ,god's 
command we are bound to do our duty to  
all  men without exception1 and to do no
 man an injury1 we are also bound not   
to help one man at another's loss1 still
 less at a loss to the whole state4     
7#dg7 ,now1 no private citizen can know 
what is good for the state1 except he   
learn it through the sovereign power1   
who alone has the right to transact     
public business3 therefore no one can   
rightly practise piety or obedience to  
,god1 unless he obey the sovereign      
power's commands in all things4 7#dh7   
,this  proposition is confirmed by the  
facts of experience4 7#di7 ,for if the  
sovereign adjudge a man to be worthy of 
death or an enemy1 whether he be a      
citizen or a foreigner1 a private       
individual or a separate ruler1 no      
subject  is allowed to give him         
assistance4 7#ej7 ,so also though the   
,jews were  bidden to love their        

fellow-citizens as themselves 7,levit4  
xix3#ag1 #ah71 they  were nevertheless  
bound1 if a man offended against the    
law1 to point him out  to the judge     
7,levit4 v3#a1 and ,deut4 xiii3#h1 #i71 
and1 if he should be  condemned to      
death1 to slay him 7,deut4 xvii3#g74    
7#ai3ea7 ,further1 in order that the    
,hebrews might preserve the liberty they
  had gained1 and might retain absolute 
sway over the territory they had        
conquered1 it was necessary1 as we      
showed in ,chapter ,,xvii41 that their  
religion should be adapted to their     
particular government1 and that they    
should separate themselves from the rest
 of the nations3 wherefore it was       
commanded to them1 ,love thy neighbour  
and hate thine enemy 7,matt4 v3#dc71    
but after they had lost their dominion  
and had gone into captivity in          
,babylon1 ,jeremiah bid them take       
thought for the safety of the state into
  which they had been led captive2 and  
,christ when ,he saw that they would be 

spread over the whole world1 told them  
to do their duty by all men without     
exception2 all of which instances show  
that religion has always been made to   
conform to the public welfare4 #ai3d    
7#eb7 ,perhaps someone will ask3 ,by    
what  right1 then1 did the disciples of 
,christ1 being private citizens1 preach 
a new religion8 7#ec7 ,i answer that    
they did so by the right of the  power  
which they had received from ,christ    
against unclean spirits 7see ,matt4     
x3#a74 7#ed7 ,i have already stated in  
,chapter ,,xvi4 that all are bound to   
obey  a tyrant1 unless they have        
received from ,god through undoubted    
revelation a  promise of aid against    
him2 so let no one take example from the
 ,apostles  unless he too has the power 
of working miracles4 7#ee7 ,the point is
 brought  out more clearly by ,christ's 
command to ,his disciples1 ,fear not    
those who  kill the body 7,matt4 x3#bh74
 7#ef7 ,if this command were imposed on 
everyone1  governments would be founded 

in vain1 and ,solomon's words 7,prov4   
xxiv3#ba71  ,my son1 fear ,god and the  
king1 would be impious1 which they      
certainly are  not2 we must therefore   
admit that the authority which ,christ  
gave to ,his  disciples was given to    
them only1 and must not be taken as an  
example for  others4    7#ai3eg7 ,i do  
not pause to consider the arguments of  
those who wish to  separate secular     
rights from spiritual rights1 placing   
the former under the  control of the    
sovereign1 and the latter under the     
control of the universal  ,church2 such 
pretensions are too frivolous to merit  
refutation4 7#eh7 ,i  cannot however1   
pass over in silence the fact that such 
persons are woefully  deceived when they
 seek to support their seditious        
opinions 7,i ask pardon  for the        
somewhat harsh epithet7 by the example  
of the ,jewish high priest1  who1 in    
ancient times1 had the right of         
administering the sacred offices4  7#ei7
 ,did not the high priests receive their

 right by the decree of ,moses  7who1 as
 ,i have shown1 retained the sole right 
to rule71 and could they not  by the    
same means be deprived of it8 7#fj7     
,moses himself chose not only  ,aaron1  
but also his son ,eleazar1 and his      
grandson ,phineas1 and bestowed on  them
 the right of administering the office  
of high priest4 7#fa7 ,this right  was  
retained by the high priests afterwards1
 but none the less were they  delegates 
of ,moses - that is1 of the sovereign   
power4 7#fb7 ,moses1 as we have  shown1 
left no successor to his dominion1 but  
so distributed his  prerogatives1 that  
those who came after him seemed1 as it  
were1 regents who  administer the       
government when a king is absent but not
 dead4    7#ai3fb7 ,in the second       
commonwealth the high priests held their
 right  absolutely1 after they had      
obtained the rights of principality in  
addition4  7#fc7 ,wherefore the rights  
of the high priesthood always depended  
on the  edict of the sovereign1 and the 

high priests did not possess them till  
they became sovereigns also4 7#fd7      
,rights in matters spiritual always     
remained under the control of the kings 
absolutely 7as ,i will show at the  end 
of this chapter71 except in the single  
particular that they were not  allowed  
to administer in person the sacred      
duties in the ,temple1 inasmuch  as they
 were not of the family of ,aaron1 and  
were therefore considered  unclean1 a   
reservation which would have no force in
 a ,christian community4    7#ai3fe7 ,we
 cannot1 therefore1 doubt that the daily
 sacred rites 7whose  performance does  
not require a particular genealogy but  
only a special mode  of life1 and from  
which the holders of sovereign power are
 not excluded as  unclean7 are under the
 sole control of the sovereign power2 no
 one1  save by the authority or         
concession of such sovereign1 has the   
right or  power of administering them1  
of choosing others to administer them1  
of  defining or strengthening the       

foundations of the ,church and her      
doctrines2  of judging on questions of  
morality or acts of piety2 of receiving 
anyone into the ,church or              
excommunicating him therefrom1 or1      
lastly1 of  providing for the poor4     
7#ai3ff7 ,these doctrines are proved to 
be not only true 7as we have already    
pointed out71 but also of primary       
necessity for the preservation of       
religion  and the state4 7#fg7 ,we all  
know what weight spiritual right and    
authority  carries in the popular mind3 
how everyone hangs on the lips1 as it   
were1 of  those who possess it4 7#fh7   
,we may even say that those who wield   
such  authority have the most complete  
sway over the popular mind4    7#ai3fi7 
,whosoever1 therefore1 wishes to take   
this right away from the  sovereign     
power1 is desirous of dividing the      
dominion2 from such division1           
contentions1 and strife will necessarily
 spring up1 as they did of old  between 
the ,jewish kings and high priests1 and 

will defy all attempts to  allay them4  
7#gj7 ,nay1 further1 he who strives to  
deprive the sovereign power  of such    
authority1 is aiming 7as we have said71 
at gaining dominion for  himself4 7#ga7 
,what is left for the sovereign power to
 decide on1 if this  right be denied    
him8 7#gb7 ,certainly nothing concerning
 either war or  peace1 if he has to ask 
another man's opinion as to whether what
 he  believes to be beneficial would be 
pious or impious4 7#gc7 ,everything     
would  depend on the verdict of him who 
had the right of deciding and judging   
what  was pious or impious1 right or    
wrong4    7#ai3gd7 ,when such a right   
was bestowed on the ,pope of ,rome      
absolutely1 he  gradually acquired      
complete control over the kings1 till at
 last he himself  mounted to the summits
 of dominion2 however much monarchs1 and
 especially  the ,german emperors1      
strove to curtail his authority1 were it
 only by a  hairsbreadth1 they effected 
nothing1 but on the contrary by their   

very  endeavours largely increased it4  
7#ge7 ,that which no monarch could      
accomplish  with fire and sword1        
ecclesiastics could bring about with a  
stroke of the  pen2 whereby we may      
easily see the force and power at the   
command of the  ,church1 and also how   
necessary it is for sovereigns to       
reserve such  prerogatives for          
themselves4    7#ai3gf7 ,if we reflect  
on what was said in the last chapter we 
shall see that  such reservation        
conduced not a little to the increase of
 religion and  piety2 for we observed   
that the prophets themselves1 though    
gifted with  ,divine efficacy1 being    
merely private citizens1 rather         
irritated than  reformed the people by  
their freedom of warning1 reproof1 and  
denunciation1  whereas the kings by     
warnings and punishments easily bent men
 to their will4  7#gg7 ,furthermore1 the
 kings themselves1 not possessing the   
right in question  absolutely1 very     
often fell away from religion and took  

with them nearly the  whole people4     
7#gh7 ,the same thing has often happened
 from the same cause in  ,christian     
states4    7#ai3gi7 ,perhaps ,i shall be
 asked1 ,but if the holders of sovereign
 power  choose to be wicked1 who will be
 the rightful champion of piety8 7#hj7  
,should  the sovereigns still be its    
interpreters8 ,i meet them with the     
counter-question1 ,but if ecclesiastics 
7who are also human1 and private        
citizens1 and who ought to mind only    
their own affairs71 or if others whom   
it is proposed to entrust with spiritual
 authority1 choose to be wicked1  should
 they still be considered as piety's    
rightful interpreters8 7#ha7 ,it  is    
quite certain that when sovereigns wish 
to follow their own pleasure1  whether  
they have control over spiritual matters
 or not1 the whole state1  spiritual and
 secular1 will go to ruin1 and it will  
go much faster if  private citizens     
seditiously assume the championship of  
the ,divine rights4    7#ai3hb7 ,thus we

 see that not only is nothing gained by 
denying such rights  to sovereigns1 but 
on the contrary1 great evil ensues4     
7#hc7 ,for 7as happened  with the       
,jewish kings who did not possess such  
rights absolutely7 rulers are  thus     
driven into wickedness1 and the injury  
and loss to the state become  certain   
and inevitable1 instead of uncertain and
 possible4 7#hd7 ,whether we  look to   
the abstract truth1 or the security of  
states1 or the increase of  piety1 we   
are compelled to maintain that the      
,divine right1 or the right of  control 
over spiritual matters1 depends         
absolutely on the decree of the         
sovereign1 who is its legitimate        
interpreter and champion4 7#he7         
,therefore  the true ministers of ,god's
 word are those who teach piety to the  
people in  obedience to the authority of
 the sovereign rulers by whose decree it
 has  been brought into conformity with 
the public welfare4    #ai3e 7#hf7      
,there remains for me to point out the  

cause for the frequent  disputes on the 
subject of these spiritual rights in    
,christian states2  whereas the         
,hebrews1 so far as ,i know1 never1 had 
any doubts about the  matter4 7#hg7 ,it 
seems monstrous that a question so plain
 and vitally  important should thus have
 remained undecided1 and that the       
secular rulers  could never obtain the  
prerogative without controversy1 nay1   
nor without  great danger of sedition   
and injury to religion4 7#hh7 ,if no    
cause for this  state of things were    
forthcoming1 ,i could easily persuade   
myself that all ,i  have said in this   
chapter is mere theorizing1 or a kind of
 speculative  reasoning which can never 
be of any practical use4 7#hi7 ,however1
 when we  reflect on the beginnings of  
,christianity the cause at once becomes 
manifest4 7#ij7 ,the ,christian religion
 was not taught at first by kings1 but  
by private persons1 who1 against the    
wishes of those in power1 whose         
subjects they were1 were for a long time

 accustomed to hold meetings in  secret 
churches1 to institute and perform      
sacred rites1 and on their own          
authority to settle and decide on their 
affairs without regard to the state1    
7#ia7 ,when1 after the lapse of many    
years1 the religion was taken up by the 
authorities1 the ecclesiastics were     
obliged to teach it to the emperors     
themselves as they had defined it3      
wherefore they easily gained recognition
  as its teachers and interpreters1 and 
the church pastors were looked upon as  
vicars of ,god4 7#ib7 ,the ecclesiastics
 took good care that the ,christian     
kings should not assume their authority1
 by prohibiting marriage to the  chief  
ministers of religion and to its highest
 interpreter4 7#ic7 ,they  furthermore  
elected their purpose by multiplying the
 dogmas of religion to  such an extent  
and so blending them with philosophy    
that their chief  interpreter was bound 
to be a skilled philosopher and         
theologian1 and to  have leisure for a  

host of idle speculations3 conditions   
which could only be  fulfilled by a     
private individual with much time on his
 hands4    7#ai3id7 ,among the ,hebrews 
things were very differently arranged3  
for their  ,church began at the same    
time as their dominion1 and ,moses1     
their absolute  ruler1 taught religion  
to the people1 arranged their sacred    
rites1 and chose  their spiritual       
ministers4 7#ie7 ,thus the royal        
authority carried very great  weight    
with the people1 and the kings kept a   
firm hold on their spiritual            
prerogatives4    7#ai3if7 ,although1    
after the death of ,moses1 no one held  
absolute sway1 yet  the power of        
deciding both in matters spiritual and  
matters temporal was in  the hands of   
the secular chief1 as ,i have already   
pointed out4 7#ig7 ,further1  in order  
that it might be taught religion and    
piety1 the people was bound to  consult 
the supreme judge no less than the high 
priest 7,deut4 xvii3#i1 #aa74  7#ih7    

,lastly1 though the kings had not as    
much power as ,moses1 nearly the  whole 
arrangement and choice of the sacred    
ministry depended on their  decision4   
7#ii7 ,thus ,david arranged the whole   
service of the ,temple 7see #a  ,chron4 
xxviii3#aa1 #ab1 c472 from all the      
,levites he chose twenty-four  thousand 
for the sacred psalms2 six thousand of  
these formed the  body from which were  
chosen the judges and proctors1 four    
thousand were  porters1 and four        
thousand to play on instruments 7see #a 
,chron4 xxiii3#d1 #e74  7#ajj7 ,he      
further divided them into companies 7of 
whom he chose the chiefs71  so that each
 in rotation1 at the allotted time1     
might perform the sacred  rites4 7#aja7 
,the priests he also divided into as    
many companies2 ,i will not  go through 
the whole catalogue1 but refer the      
reader to #b ,chron4 viii3#ac1  where it
 is stated1 ,then ,solomon offered burnt
 offerings to the ,lord 4 4 4  4 4 after
 a certain rate every day1 offering     

according to the commandments  of       
,moses2 and in verse #ad1 ,and he       
appointed1 according to the order  of   
,david his father1 the courses of the   
priests to their service 4 4 4 4  4 4   
for so had ,david the man of ,god       
commanded4 7#ajb7 ,lastly1 the historian
  bears witness in verse #ae3 ,and they 
departed not from the commandment of    
the king unto the priests and ,levites  
concerning any matter1 or  concerning   
the treasuries4    #ai3f 7#ajc7 ,from   
these and other histories of the kings  
it is abundantly  evident1 that the     
whole practice of religion and the      
sacred ministry  depended entirely on   
the commands of the king4    7#ai3ajd7  
,when ,i said above that the kings had  
not the same right as ,moses to  elect  
the high priest1 to consult ,god without
 intermediaries1 and to condemn  the    
prophets who prophesied during their    
reign2 ,i said so simply because the    
prophets could1 in virtue of their      
mission1 choose a new king and give     

absolution for regicide1 not because    
they could call a king who offended     
against the law to judgment1 or could   
rightly act against him ,endnote #cc4   
7#ai3aje7 ,wherefore if there had been  
no prophets who1 in virtue of a special 
revelation1 could give absolution for   
regicide1 the kings would have          
possessed absolute rights over all      
matters both spiritual and temporal4    
7#ajf7 ,consequently the rulers of      
modern times1 who have no prophets and  
would not rightly be bound in any case  
to receive them 7for they are not       
subject to ,jewish law71 have absolute  
possession of the spiritual             
prerogative1 although they are not      
celibates1 and they will always retain  
it1 if they will refuse to allow        
religious dogmas to be unduly multiplied
 or  confounded with philosophy4        
#bj3j ,,chapter ,,xx - ,,that ,,in ,a   
,,free ,,state ,,every ,,man     ,,may  
,,think ,,what ,,he ,,likes1 ,,and ,,say
 ,,what ,,he ,,thinks4    #bj3a 7#a7 ,if

 men's minds were as easily controlled  
as their tongues1 every  king would sit 
safely on his throne1 and government by 
compulsion would  cease2 for every      
subject would shape his life according  
to the intentions of  his rulers1 and   
would esteem a thing true or false1 good
 or evil1 just or  unjust1 in obedience 
to their dictates4 7#b7 ,however1 we    
have shown already  7,chapter ,,xvii47  
that no man's mind can possibly lie     
wholly at the  disposition of another1  
for no one can willingly transfer his   
natural right  of free reason and       
judgment1 or be compelled so to do4 7#c7
 ,for this  reason government which     
attempts to control minds is accounted  
tyrannical1  and it is considered an    
abuse of sovereignty and a usurpation of
 the rights  of subjects1 to seek to    
prescribe what shall be accepted as     
true1 or  rejected as false1 or what    
opinions should actuate men in their    
worship of  ,god4 7#d7 ,all these       
questions fall within a man's natural   

right1 which he  cannot abdicate even   
with his own consent4    7#bj3e7 ,i     
admit that the judgment can be biassed  
in many ways1 and to an  almost         
incredible degree1 so that while exempt 
from direct external control  it may be 
so dependent on another man's words1    
that it may fitly be said to  be ruled  
by him2 but although this influence is  
carried to great lengths1 it  has never 
gone so far as to invalidate the        
statement1 that every man's             
understanding is his own1 and that      
brains are as diverse as palates4       
7#bj3f7 ,moses1 not by fraud1 but by    
,divine virtue1 gained such a hold over 
the popular judgment that he was        
accounted superhuman1 and believed to   
speak  and act through the inspiration  
of the ,deity2 nevertheless1 even he    
could  not escape murmurs and evil      
interpretations4 7#g7 ,how much less    
then can  other monarchs avoid them6    
7#h7 ,yet such unlimited power1 if it   
exists at  all1 must belong to a        

monarch1 and least of all to a          
democracy1 where the  whole or a great  
part of the people wield authority      
collectively4 7#i7 ,this  is a fact     
which ,i think everyone can explain for 
himself4    7#bj3aj7 ,however unlimited1
 therefore1 the power of a sovereign may
 be1  however implicitly it is trusted  
as the exponent of law and religion1 it 
can  never prevent men from forming     
judgments according to their intellect1 
or  being influenced by any given       
emotion4 7#aa7 ,it is true that it has  
the right  to treat as enemies all men  
whose opinions do not1 on all subjects1 
entirely  coincide with its own2 but we 
are not discussing its strict rights1   
but its  proper course of action4 7#ab7 
,i grant that it has the right to rule  
in the  most violent manner1 and to put 
citizens to death for very trivial      
causes1  but no one supposes it can do  
this with the approval of sound         
judgment4 7#ac7  ,nay1 inasmuch as such 
things cannot be done without extreme   

peril to itself1  we may even deny that 
it has the absolute power to do them1   
or1  consequently1 the absolute right2  
for the rights of the sovereign are     
limited by his power4    #bj3b 7#ad7    
,since1 therefore1 no one can abdicate  
his freedom of judgment  and feeling2   
since every man is by indefeasible      
natural right the master of  his own    
thoughts1 it follows that men thinking  
in diverse and contradictory  fashions1 
cannot1 without disastrous results1 be  
compelled to speak only  according to   
the dictates of the supreme power4 7#ae7
 ,not even the most  experienced1 to say
 nothing of the multitude1 know how to  
keep silence4 7#af7  ,men's common      
failing is to confide their plans to    
others1 though there be  need for       
secrecy1 so that a government would be  
most harsh which deprived  the          
individual of his freedom of saying and 
teaching what he thought2 and  would be 
moderate if such freedom were granted4  
7#ag7 ,still we cannot deny  that       

authority may be as much injured by     
words as by actions2 hence1  although   
the freedom we are discussing cannot be 
entirely denied to  subjects1 its       
unlimited concession would be most      
baneful2 we must1  therefore1 now       
inquire1 how far such freedom can and   
ought to be conceded  without danger to 
the peace of the state1 or the power of 
the rulers2 and  this1 as ,i said at the
 beginning of ,chapter ,,xvi41 is my    
principal object4  7#ah7 ,it follows1   
plainly1 from the explanation given     
above1 of the  foundations of a state1  
that the ultimate aim of government is  
not to  rule1 or restrain1 by fear1 nor 
to exact obedience1 but contrariwise1 to
  free every man from fear1 that he may 
live in all possible security2 in  other
 words1 to strengthen his natural right 
to exist and work without  injury to    
himself or others4    7#bj3ai7 ,no1 the 
object of government is not to change   
men from rational  beings into beasts or
 puppets1 but to enable them to develope

 their minds  and bodies in security1   
and to employ their reason unshackled2  
neither  showing hatred1 anger1 or      
deceit1 nor watched with the eyes of    
jealousy and  injustice4 7#bj7 ,in fact1
 the true aim of government is liberty4 
7#bj3ba7 ,now we have seen that in      
forming a state the power of making laws
  must either be vested in the body of  
the citizens1 or in a portion of them1  
or in one man4 7#bb7 ,for1 although     
men's free judgments are very diverse1  
each  one thinking that he alone knows  
everything1 and although complete       
unanimity  of feeling and speech is out 
of the question1 it is impossible to    
preserve  peace1 unless individuals     
abdicate their right of acting entirely 
on their  own judgment4 #bj3c 7#bc7     
,therefore1 the individual justly cedes 
the right  of free action1 though not of
 free reason and judgment2 no one can   
act  against the authorities without    
danger to the state1 though his feelings
 and  judgment may be at variance       

therewith2 he may even speak against    
them1  provided that he does so from    
rational conviction1 not from fraud1    
anger1 or  hatred1 and provided that he 
does not attempt to introduce any change
 on his  private authority4    7#bj3bd7 
,for instance1 supposing a man shows    
that a law is repugnant to sound        
reason1 and should therefore be         
repealed2 if he submits his opinion to  
the  judgment of the authorities 7who1  
alone1 have the right of making and     
repealing laws71 and meanwhile acts in  
nowise contrary to that law1 he has     
deserved well of the state1 and has     
behaved as a good citizen should2 but if
  he accuses the authorities of         
injustice1 and stirs up the people      
against  them1 or if he seditiously     
strives to abrogate the law without     
their  consent1 he is a mere agitator   
and rebel4    7#bj3be7 ,thus we see how 
an individual may declare and teach what
 he  believes1 without injury to the    
authority of his rulers1 or to the      

public  peace2 namely1 by leaving in    
their hands the entire power of         
legislation as  it affects action1 and  
by doing nothing against their laws1    
though he  be compelled often to act in 
contradiction to what he believes1 and  
openly feels1 to be best4    7#bj3bf7   
,such a course can be taken without     
detriment to justice and  dutifulness1  
nay1 it is the one which a just and     
dutiful man would adopt4  7#bg7 ,we have
 shown that justice is dependent on the 
laws of the authorities1  so that no one
 who contravenes their accepted decrees 
can be just1 while the  highest regard  
for duty1 as we have pointed out in the 
preceding chapter1 is  exercised in     
maintaining public peace and            
tranquillity2 these could not be        
preserved if every man were to live as  
he pleased2 therefore it is no less     
than undutiful for a man to act contrary
 to his country's laws1 for if the      
practice became universal the ruin of   
states would necessarily follow4        

7#bj3bh7 ,hence1 so long as a man acts  
in obedience to the laws of his rulers1 
he in nowise contravenes his reason1 for
 in obedience to reason he  transferred 
the right of controlling his actions    
from his own hands to  theirs4 7#bi7    
,this doctrine we can confirm from      
actual custom1 for in a  conference of  
great and small powers1 schemes are     
seldom carried  unanimously1 yet all    
unite in carrying out what is decided   
on1 whether they  voted for or against4 
7#cj7 ,but ,i return to my proposition4 
7#bj3ca7 ,from the fundamental notions  
of a state1 we have discovered how a    
man may exercise free judgment without  
detriment to the supreme power3 from    
the same premises we can no less easily 
determine what opinions would be        
seditious4 7#cb7 ,evidently those which 
by their very nature nullify the        
compact by which the right of free      
action was ceded4 7#cc7 ,for instance1 a
  man who holds that the supreme power  
has no rights over him1 or that         

promises ought not to be kept1 or that  
everyone should live as he pleases1  or 
other doctrines of this nature in direct
 opposition to the  above-mentioned     
contract1 is seditious1 not so much from
 his actual opinions  and judgment1 as  
from the deeds which they involve2 for  
he who maintains  such theories         
abrogates the contract which tacitly1 or
 openly1 he made with  his rulers4 7#cd7
 ,other opinions which do not involve   
acts violating the  contract1 such as   
revenge1 anger1 and the like1 are not   
seditious1 unless  it be in some corrupt
 state1 where superstitious and         
ambitious persons1  unable to endure men
 of learning1 are so popular with the   
multitude  that their word is more      
valued than the law4    7#bj3ce7        
,however1 ,i do not deny that there are 
some doctrines which1 while  they are   
apparently only concerned with abstract 
truths and falsehoods1 are  yet         
propounded and published with unworthy  
motives4 7#cf7 ,this question we  have  

discussed in ,chapter ,,xv41 and shown  
that reason should nevertheless  remain 
unshackled4 7#cg7 ,if we hold to the    
principle that a man's loyalty to  the  
state should be judged1 like his loyalty
 to ,god1 from his actions only -       
namely1 from his charity towards his    
neighbours2 we cannot doubt that the    
best government will allow freedom of   
philosophical speculation no less than  
of religious belief4 7#ch7 ,i confess   
that from such freedom inconveniences   
may sometimes arise1 but what question  
was ever settled so wisely that no      
abuses could possibly spring therefrom8 
7#ci7 ,he who seeks to regulate         
everything by law1 is more likely to    
arouse vices than to reform them4 7#dj7 
,it is best to grant what cannot be     
abolished1 even though it be in itself  
harmful4 7#da7 ,how many evils spring   
from luxury1 envy1 avarice1 drunkenness1
  and the like1 yet these are tolerated 
- vices as they are - because they      
cannot be prevented by legal enactments4

 7#db7 ,how much more then should free  
thought be granted1 seeing that it is in
 itself a virtue and that it cannot  be 
crushed6 7#dc7 ,besides1 the evil       
results can easily be checked1 as ,i    
will  show1 by the secular authorities1 
not to mention that such freedom  is    
absolutely necessary for progress in    
science and the liberal arts3 for no    
man follows such pursuits to advantage  
unless his judgment be entirely free    
and unhampered4    7#bj3dd7 ,but let it 
be granted that freedom may be crushed1 
and men be so  bound down1 that they do 
not dare to utter a whisper1 save at the
 bidding of  their rulers2 nevertheless 
this can never be carried to the pitch  
of making  them think according to      
authority1 so that the necessary        
consequences would  be that men would   
daily be thinking one thing and saying  
another1 to the  corruption of good     
faith1 that mainstay of government1 and 
to the fostering  of hateful flattery   
and perfidy1 whence spring stratagems1  

and the  corruption of every good art4  
7#bj3de7 ,it is far from possible to    
impose uniformity of speech1 for the    
more  rulers strive to curtail freedom  
of speech1 the more obstinately are     
they resisted2 not indeed by the        
avaricious1 the flatterers1 and other   
numskulls1 who think supreme salvation  
consists in filling their stomachs  and 
gloating over their money-bags1 but by  
those whom good education1 sound        
morality1 and virtue have rendered more 
free4 7#df7 ,men1 as generally          
constituted1 are most prone to resent   
the branding as criminal of opinions    
which they believe to be true1 and the  
proscription as wicked of that which    
inspires them with piety towards ,god   
and man2 hence they are ready to        
forswear the laws and conspire against  
the authorities1 thinking it not        
shameful but honourable to stir up      
seditions and perpetuate any sort of    
crime with this end in view4 7#dg7 ,such
 being the constitution of human        

nature1 we see that laws directed       
against opinions affect the generous    
minded rather than the wicked1 and are  
adapted less for coercing criminals     
than for irritating the upright2 so that
 they cannot be maintained without      
great peril to the state4    7#bj3dh7   
,moreover1 such laws are almost always  
useless1 for those who hold  that the   
opinions proscribed are sound1 cannot   
possibly obey the law2  whereas those   
who already reject them as false1 accept
 the law as a kind of  privilege1 and   
make such boast of it1 that authority is
 powerless to repeal  it1 even if such a
 course be subsequently desired4        
7#bj3di7 ,to these considerations may be
 added what we said in ,chapter ,,xviii4
  in treating of the history of the     
,hebrews4 7#ej7 ,and1 lastly1 how many  
schisms have arisen in the ,church from 
the attempt of the authorities to       
decide by law the intricacies of        
theological controversy6 7#ea7 ,if men  
were  not allured by the hope of getting

 the law and the authorities on their   
side1 of triumphing over their          
adversaries in the sight of an          
applauding  multitude1 and of acquiring 
honourable distinctions1 they would not 
strive  so maliciously1 nor would such  
fury sway their minds4 7#eb7 ,this is   
taught  not only by reason but by daily 
examples1 for laws of this kind         
prescribing  what every man shall       
believe and forbidding anyone to speak  
or write to the  contrary1 have often   
been passed1 as sops or concessions to  
the anger of  those who cannot tolerate 
men of enlightenment1 and who1 by such  
harsh and  crooked enactments1 can      
easily turn the devotion of the masses  
into fury and  direct it against whom   
they will4 7#ec7 ,how much better would 
it be  to restrain popular anger and    
fury1 instead of passing useless laws1  
which can only be broken by those who   
love virtue and the liberal arts1 thus  
paring down the state till it is too    
small to harbour men of talent4 7#ed7   

,what greater misfortune for a state can
 be conceived then that honourable  men 
should be sent like criminals into      
exile1 because they hold diverse        
opinions which they cannot disguise8    
7#ee7 ,what1 ,i say1 can be more hurtful
  than that men who have committed no   
crime or wickedness should1 simply      
because they are enlightened1 be treated
 as enemies and put to death1 and  that 
the scaffold1 the terror of evil-doers1 
should become the arena where  the      
highest examples of tolerance and virtue
 are displayed to the  people with all  
the marks of ignominy that authority can
 devise8    7#bj3ef7 ,he that knows     
himself to be upright does not fear the 
death of a  criminal1 and shrinks from  
no punishment2 his mind is not wrung    
with  remorse for any disgraceful deed3 
he holds that death in a good cause  is 
no punishment1 but an honour1 and that  
death for freedom is glory4    7#bj3eg7 
,what purpose then is served by the     
death of such men1 what example  in     

proclaimed8 the cause for which they die
 is unknown to the idle and the         
foolish1 hateful to the turbulent1 loved
 by the upright4 7#eh7 ,the only  lesson
 we can draw from such scenes is to     
flatter the persecutor1 or else to      
imitate the victim4    7#bj3eh7 ,if     
formal assent is not to be esteemed     
above conviction1 and if  governments   
are to retain a firm hold of authority  
and not be compelled to  yield to       
agitators1 it is imperative that freedom
 of judgment should be  granted1 so that
 men may live together in harmony1      
however diverse1 or  even openly        
contradictory their opinions may be4    
7#ei7 ,we cannot doubt that  such is the
 best system of government and open to  
the fewest objections1  since it is the 
one most in harmony with human nature4  
7#fj7 ,in a democracy  7the most natural
 form of government1 as we have shown in
 ,chapter ,,xvi47  everyone submits to  
the control of authority over his       
actions1 but not over  his judgment and 

reason2 that is1 seeing that all cannot 
think alike1 the  voice of the majority 
has the force of law1 subject to repeal 
if  circumstances bring about a change  
of opinion4 7#fa7 ,in proportion as the 
power of free judgment is withheld we   
depart from the natural  condition of   
mankind1 and consequently the government
 becomes more  tyrannical4    #bj3d     
7#fb7 ,in order to prove that from such 
freedom no inconvenience  arises1 which 
cannot easily be checked by the exercise
 of the sovereign  power1 and that men's
 actions can easily be kept in bounds1  
though their  opinions be at open       
variance1 it will be well to cite an    
example4 7#fc7 ,such  an one is not     
very1 far to seek4 7#fd7 ,the city of   
,amsterdam reaps the fruit  of this     
freedom in its own great prosperity and 
in the admiration of all  other people4 
7#fe7 ,for in this most flourishing     
state1 and most splendid  city1 men of  
every nation and religion live together 
in the greatest  harmony1 and ask no    

questions before trusting their goods to
 a  fellow-citizen1 save whether he be  
rich or poor1 and whether he generally  
acts honestly1 or the reverse4 7#ff7    
,his religion and sect is considered of 
no importance3 for it has no effect     
before the judges in gaining or losing  
a cause1 and there is no sect so        
despised that its followers1 provided   
that  they harm no one1 pay every man   
his due1 and live uprightly1 are        
deprived  of the protection of the      
magisterial authority4    7#bj3fg7 ,on  
the other hand1 when the religious      
controversy between  ,remonstrants and  
,counter-,remonstrants began to be taken
 up by politicians  and the ,states1 it 
grew into a schism1 and abundantly      
showed that laws  dealing with religion 
and seeking to settle its controversies 
are much more  calculated to irritate   
than to reform1 and that they give rise 
to extreme  licence3 further1 it was    
seen that schisms do not originate in a 
love of  truth1 which is a source of    

courtesy and gentleness1 but rather in  
an  inordinate desire for supremacy1    
7#fh7 ,from all these considerations it 
is  clearer than the sun at noonday1    
that the true schismatics are those who 
condemn other men's writings1 and       
seditiously stir up the quarrelsome     
masses  against their authors1 rather   
than those authors themselves1 who      
generally  write only for the learned1  
and appeal solely to reason4 7#fi7 ,in  
fact1 the  real disturbers of the peace 
are those who1 in a free state1 seek to 
curtail  the liberty of judgment which  
they are unable to tyrannize over4      
7#bj3gj7 ,i have thus shown3-    7#ga7  
,i4 ,that it is impossible to deprive   
men of the liberty of saying what  they 
think4    7#gb7 ,,ii4 ,that such liberty
 can be conceded to every man without   
injury  to the rights and authority of  
the sovereign power1 and that every man 
may retain it without injury to such    
rights1 provided that he does not       
presume upon it to the extent of        

introducing any new rights into the     
state1 or acting in any way contrary1 to
 the existing laws4    7#bj3gc7 ,,iii4  
,that every man may enjoy this liberty  
without detriment to the  public peace1 
and that no inconveniences arise        
therefrom which cannot easily  be       
checked4    7#gd7 ,,iv4 ,that every man 
may enjoy it without injury to his      
allegiance4    7#ge7 ,v4 ,that laws     
dealing with speculative problems are   
entirely useless4    7#gf7 ,,vi4        
,lastly1 that not only may such liberty 
be granted without prejudice  to the    
public peace1 to loyalty1 and to the    
rights of rulers1 but that it is  even  
necessary1 for their preservation4 7#gg7
 ,for when people try to take it  away1 
and bring to trial1 not only the acts   
which alone are capable of  offending1  
but also the opinions of mankind1 they  
only succeed in  surrounding their      
victims with an appearance of martyrdom1
 and raise  feelings of pity and revenge
 rather than of terror4 7#gh7           

,uprightness and  good faith are thus   
corrupted1 flatterers and traitors are  
encouraged1 and  sectarians triumph1    
inasmuch as concessions have been made  
to their  animosity1 and they have      
gained the state sanction for the       
doctrines of  which they are the        
interpreters4 7#gi7 ,hence they arrogate
 to themselves the  state authority and 
rights1 and do not scruple to assert    
that they have been  directly chosen by 
,god1 and that their laws are ,divine1  
whereas the laws of  the state are      
human1 and should therefore yield       
obedience to the laws of ,god  - in     
other words1 to their own laws4 7#hj7   
,everyone must see that this is not  a  
state of affairs conducive to public    
welfare4 7#ha7 ,wherefore1 as we have   
shown in ,chapter ,,xviii41 the safest  
way for a state is to lay down the rule 
that religion is comprised solely in the
 exercise of charity and justice1  and  
that the rights of rulers in sacred1 no 
less than in secular matters1  should   

merely have to do with actions1 but that
 every man should think what  he likes  
and say what he thinks4    7#bj3hb7 ,i  
have thus fulfilled the task ,i set     
myself in this treatise4  #bj3e 7#hc7   
,it remains only to call attention to   
the fact that ,i have  written nothing  
which ,i do not most willingly submit to
 the examination and  approval of my    
country's rulers2 and that ,i am willing
 to retract anything  which they shall  
decide to be repugnant to the laws1 or  
prejudicial to the  public good4 7#hd7  
,i know that ,i am a man1 and as a man  
liable to error1 but  against error ,i  
have taken scrupulous care1 and have    
striven to keep in  entire accordance   
with the laws of my country1 with       
loyalty1 and with  morality4    ,end of 
,part #d of #d4          ,,author',s    
,,endnotes ,,to ,,the                   
,,theologico-,,political ,,treatise     
,,chapter ,,xvi4    ,endnote #bf4 7#a7  
,no one can honestly promise to forego  
the right which  he has over all things4

 7#b7 ,in the state of social life1     
where general  right determines what is 
good or evil1 stratagem is rightly      
distinguished as  of two kinds1 good and
 evil4 7#c7 ,but in the state of        
,nature1 where every man  is his own    
judge1 possessing the absolute right to 
lay down laws for  himself1 to interpret
 them as he pleases1 or to abrogate them
 if he thinks  it convenient1 it is not 
conceivable that stratagem should be    
evil4    ,endnote #bg4 7#a7 ,every      
member of it may1 if he will1 be free4  
7#b7  ,whatever be the social state a   
man finds himself in1 he may be free4   
7#c7  ,for certainly a man is free1 in  
so far as he is led by reason4 7#d7 ,now
  reason 7though ,hobbes thinks         
otherwise7 is always on the side of     
peace1  which cannot be attained unless 
the general laws of the state be        
respected4  7#e7 ,therefore the more he 
is free1 the more constantly will he    
respect the  laws of his country1 and   
obey the commands of the sovereign power

 to which  he is subject4    ,endnote   
#bh4 7#a7 ,no one knows by nature that  
he owes any obedience to  ,god4 7#b7    
,when ,paul says that men have in       
themselves no refuge1 he speaks as  a   
man3 for in the ninth chapter of the    
same epistle he expressly teaches  that 
,god has mercy on whom ,he will1 and    
that men are without excuse1 only       
because they are in ,god's power like   
clay in the hands of a potter1 who out  
of the same lump makes vessels1 some for
 honour and some for dishonour1 not     
because they have been forewarned4 7#c7 
,as regards the ,divine natural law     
whereof the chief commandment is1 as we 
have said1 to love ,god1 ,i have  called
 it a law in the same sense1 as         
philosophers style laws those general   
rules of nature1 according to which     
everything happens4 7#d7 ,for the love  
of  ,god is not a state of obedience3 it
 is a virtue which necessarily exists in
  a man who knows ,god rightly4 7#e7    
,obedience has regard to the will of a  

ruler1 not to necessity and truth4 7#f7 
,now as we are ignorant of the nature   
of ,god's will1 and on the other hand   
know that everything happens solely by  
,god's power1 we cannot1 except through 
revelation1 know whether ,god wishes  in
 any way to be honoured as a sovereign4 
7#g7 ,again2 we have shown that the     
,divine rights appear to us in the light
 of  rights or commands1 only so long as
 we are ignorant of their cause3 as soon
  as their cause is known1 they cease to
 be rights1 and we embrace them no      
longer as rights but as eternal truths2 
in other words1 obedience passes  into  
love of ,god1 which emanates from true  
knowledge as necessarily as  light      
emanates from the sun4 7#h7 ,reason then
 leads us to love ,god1 but  cannot lead
 us to obey ,him2 for we cannot embrace 
the commands of ,god as  ,divine1 while 
we are in ignorance of their cause1     
neither can we rationally  conceive ,god
 as a sovereign laying down laws as a   
sovereign4      ,,chapter ,,xvii4       

,endnote #bi4 7#a7 ,if men could lose   
their natural rights so as to be        
absolutely unable for the future to     
oppose the will of the sovereign 7#b7   
,two common soldiers undertook to change
 the ,roman dominion1 and did change    
it4 7,tacitus1 ,hist4 i3#g47    ,endnote
 #cj4 7#a7 ,see ,numbers xi4 #bh4 ,in   
this passage it is written that  two men
 prophesied in the camp1 and that       
,joshua wished to punish them4 7#b7     
,this he would not have done1 if it had 
been lawful for anyone to deliver the   
,divine oracles to the people without   
the consent of ,moses4 7#c7 ,but ,moses 
thought good to pardon the two men1 and 
rebuked ,joshua for exhorting him to    
use his royal prerogative1 at a time    
when he was so weary of reigning1 that  
he preferred death to holding undivided 
sway 7,numb4 xi3#ad74 7#d7 ,for he made 
answer to ,joshua1 ,enviest thou for my 
sake8 7#e7 ,would ,god that all the     
,lord's people were prophets1 and that  
the ,lord would put ,his spirit upon    

them4 7#f7 ,that is to say1 would ,god  
that the right of taking counsel of ,god
  were general1 and the power were in   
the hands of the people4 7#g7 ,thus     
,joshua  was not mistaken as to the     
right1 but only as to the time for using
 it1 for  which he was rebuked by       
,moses1 in the same way as ,abishai was 
rebuked by  ,david for counselling that 
,shimei1 who had undoubtedly been guilty
 of  treason1 should be put to death4   
7#h7 ,see #b ,sam4 xix3#bb1 #bc4        
,endnote #ca4 7#a7 ,see ,numbers        
xxvii3#ba4 7#b7 ,the translators of the 
,bible  have rendered incorrectly verses
 #ai and #bc of this chapter4 7#c7 ,the 
passage  does not mean that ,moses gave 
precepts or advice to ,joshua1 but that 
he made  or established him chief of the
 ,hebrews4 7#d7 ,the phrase is very     
frequent in  ,scripture 7see ,exodus1   
xviii3#bc2 #a ,sam4 xiii3#ae2 ,joshua   
i3#i2 #a ,sam4  xxv3#hj74    ,endnote   
#cb 7#a7 ,there was no judge over each  
of the captains save  ,god4 7#b7 ,the   

,rabbis and some ,christians equally    
foolish pretend that the  ,sanhedrin1   
called the great was instituted by      
,moses4 7#c7 ,as a matter of  fact1     
,moses chose seventy colleagues to      
assist him in governing1 because he  was
 not able to bear alone the burden of   
the whole people2 but he  never passed  
any law for forming a college of seventy
 members2 on the  contrary he ordered   
every tribe to appoint for itself1 in   
the cities which  ,god had given it1    
judges to settle disputes according to  
the laws which he  himself had laid     
down4 7#d7 ,in cases where the opinions 
of the judges  differed as to the       
interpretation of these laws1 ,moses    
bade them take  counsel of the ,high    
,priest 7who was the chief interpreter  
of the law71 or of  the chief judge1 to 
whom they were then subordinate 7who had
 the right of  consulting the ,high     
,priest71 and to decide the dispute in  
accordance with  the answer obtained4   
7#e7 ,if any subordinate judge should   

assert1 that he was  not bound by the   
decision of the ,high ,priest1 received 
either directly or  through the chief of
 his state1 such an one was to be put to
 death 7,deut4  xvii3#i7 by the chief   
judge1 whoever he might be1 to whom he  
was a  subordinate4 7#f7 ,this chief    
judge would either be ,joshua1 the      
supreme  captain of the whole people1 or
 one of the tribal chiefs who had been  
entrusted1 after the division of the    
tribes1 with the right of consulting    
the high priest concerning the affairs  
of his tribe1 of deciding on peace or   
war1 of fortifying towns1 of appointing 
inferior judges1 c4 7#g7 ,or1 again1  it
 might be the king1 in whom all or some 
of the tribes had vested their  rights4 
7#h7 ,i could cite many instances in    
confirmation of what ,i here advance4   
7#i7 ,i  will confine myself to one1    
which appears to me the most important  
of all4 7#aj7  ,when the ,shilomitish   
prophet anointed ,jeroboam king1 he1 in 
so doing1 gave him  the right of        

consulting the high priest1 of          
appointing judges1 c4 7#aa7 ,in fact  he
 endowed him with all the rights over   
the ten tribes1 which ,rehoboam retained
  over the two tribes4 7#ab7            
,consequently ,jeroboam could set up a  
supreme council  in his court with as   
much right as ,jehoshaphat could at     
,jerusalem 7#b ,chron4  xix3#h74 7#ac7  
,for it is plain that neither ,jeroboam1
 who was king by ,god's  command1 nor   
,jeroboam's subjects1 were bound by the 
,law of ,moses to accept the  judgments 
of ,rehoboam1 who was not their king4   
7#ad7 ,still less were they under  the  
jurisdiction of the judge1 whom         
,rehoboam had set up in ,jerusalem as   
subordinate to himself4 7#ae7           
,according1 therefore1 as the ,hebrew   
dominion was  divided1 so was a supreme 
council set up in each division4 7#af7  
,those who  neglect the variations in   
the constitution of the ,hebrew ,states1
 and confuse  them all together in one1 
fall into numerous difficulties4        

,,chapter ,,xix4    ,endnote #cc4 7#a7  
,i must here bespeak special attention  
for what was said in ,chap4 ,,xvi4      
concerning rights4      ,end of ,part   
,,iv ,endnotes4