Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes | Modernized Classics

A New Way to Think About Government

Nature is the art God used to create and run the world. And just like with many other things, the art of human beings imitates nature. In fact, human art can even create an artificial animal.

Think about it. Life is just the movement of our limbs, a motion that starts from a central part inside us. So why can’t we say that machines that move on their own—like a watch with its springs and wheels—have an artificial life?

After all:

What is the heart but a spring?
What are the nerves but a set of strings?
What are the joints but a collection of wheels, all working together to move the body as the creator intended?

But human skill goes even further. It imitates humanity itself—the most rational and amazing creation of nature. Through this art, we have created the great Leviathan, which we call a commonwealth or a state.

The State as an Artificial Person

The state is simply an artificial person. It’s much bigger and stronger than a natural person, and it was designed to protect and defend us. To understand this artificial person, we can compare its parts to the parts of a human body:

Sovereignty (the ultimate power to rule) is its artificial soul, giving life and motion to the entire body.
Judges and other officials are the artificial joints, allowing it to move.
Rewards and punishments are the nerves. They are connected to the seat of power and motivate every part of the “body” to do its duty.
The wealth of the people is its strength.
The people’s safety is its main business or purpose.
Counselors who advise the state are its memory.
Laws and fairness are its artificial reason and will.
Unity and agreement among the people are its health.
Rebellion and internal conflict are its sickness.
Civil war is its death.

Finally, the agreements and contracts that first created and united the state are like the moment God said, “Let us make man” during the creation of the world.

My Plan for This Book

To describe the nature of this artificial person, I will explore four main topics:

Its Materials and Maker: I will first look at the material it’s made from and who the creator is. Both are the same: human beings.
How It’s Formed: I’ll explain how a state is made through agreements, what the rights and just powers of a sovereign ruler are, and what keeps a state strong or causes it to fall apart.
A Christian State: I will then describe what a Christian commonwealth looks like.
The Kingdom of Darkness: Lastly, I will explain what the Kingdom of Darkness is.

How to Understand People: “Know Yourself”

To begin, we need to understand the material the state is made of: people.

There’s a popular saying that wisdom comes not from reading books, but from “reading people.” People who believe this, and who often have no other way to prove they are wise, love to show off what they think they’ve learned by harshly judging others behind their backs.

But there is a much better saying, one that isn’t well understood today: Nosce Teipsum, or “Know yourself.”

This advice doesn’t mean that powerful people should act cruelly toward those below them. Nor does it encourage people of low status to be disrespectful to their superiors.

Instead, it teaches us something fundamental about human nature. It tells us that if you look inside yourself and examine your own thoughts and feelings—what you do when you think, believe, reason, hope, and fear—you can understand the thoughts and feelings of all other people in similar situations. This is possible because the basic passions of one person are similar to the passions of another.

I’m talking about the similarity of the passions themselves, like desire, fear, and hope, which are the same in everyone. I am not talking about the objects of those passions—the specific things we desire, fear, or hope for. Those are different for each of us, shaped by our individual personalities and upbringing.

It’s very hard to know what another person truly wants or fears, because people are good at hiding their true intentions through lies and deception. Only the one who can search hearts can truly know what is inside a person.

The Ruler’s Most Important Skill

Even if you get very good at figuring people out by watching their actions, you can only learn about the few people you know personally. This is not enough for someone who has to govern an entire nation.

A ruler must learn to read something much broader. They must look inside themselves and read humankind as a whole, not just this or that particular person.

This is a very difficult skill to master—harder than learning any language or science.

However, in this book, I will clearly and orderly set down what I have learned from reading myself. The only task left for you, the reader, will be to look inside yourself and consider whether you find the same truths. For this kind of knowledge, there is no other form of proof.

How Speech Began and Spread

After the tower of Babel, people were forced to scatter across the world. The many languages we have today must have developed from that time. Little by little, need—the mother of all invention—taught people to create new words, and over time, each language grew larger and more complex.

The Purpose of Speech

The main purpose of speech is to turn our mental thoughts into spoken words. We do this for two key reasons:

To Record Our Thoughts. We can easily forget the connections we make in our minds. By “marking” a thought with a word, we can remember it later without having to figure it out all over again. In this sense, words are markers for memory.
To Communicate with Others. When we use the same words, we can arrange them to show others what we are thinking, what we want, or what we fear. In this sense, words are signs to others.

Four Special Uses of Speech

Beyond this general purpose, speech has four specific uses:

To create knowledge and skills (the Arts). We can record our discoveries about cause and effect.
To teach and advise others. We can share the knowledge we have gained.
To help each other. We can communicate our goals and plans to get mutual support.
To entertain. We can play with words for fun or decoration, as long as it’s harmless.

The Four Abuses of Speech

For each of these uses, there is a corresponding way to misuse speech:

Deceiving ourselves. We misuse words when we use them inconsistently. This leads us to record ideas we don’t truly understand, tricking ourselves.
Deceiving others. We misuse words when we use them metaphorically to mislead people.
Lying about our intentions. We misuse words when we declare we want something, but we actually don’t.
Hurting others. Nature gave animals teeth and horns to attack enemies. Using words to hurt someone is an abuse of speech. The only exception is when you are responsible for someone and need to use words to correct them.

How Words Create Knowledge

The way speech helps us remember is by giving names to things and then connecting those names.

Proper Names vs. Common Names

Proper names are for one specific thing, like Peter, John, or this specific tree.
Common names (or universals) refer to many things that are similar, like man, horse, or tree. The word man is a single name, but it can refer to every individual man.

Only names are universal. The things they refer to are all individual and unique. We create a universal name to group things that share a similar quality. A proper name makes you think of just one thing, while a universal name makes you think of any one of the many things it could refer to.

Some universal names are broader than others. For example, the name body includes more things than the name man. Other names can have the same scope, like man and rational being.

It’s also important to know that a “name” isn’t always a single word. It can be a whole phrase that points to one idea, like the phrase: “A person who obeys the laws of their country.” This whole phrase is just one name, which can be replaced by the single word just.

From Specific Thoughts to Universal Rules

By using names, we can turn our thinking about things into thinking about words. This makes our thinking much more powerful.

Imagine a person who was born deaf and mute and has no language. If you show them a triangle next to two right angles (like the corners of a square), they could figure out that the three angles of the triangle equal the two right angles.

But if you showed them a different-looking triangle, they would have to start all over again to see if the rule still holds. They can’t create a general rule.

However, a person with language can see that the rule works because the shape has three straight sides. They realize this is the only thing that matters. Because they have a name for this—triangle—they can make a bold universal conclusion: Every triangle has three angles that equal two right angles.

This discovery, found in one specific case, is now a universal rule. It saves us from having to do the mental work over and over. What we found to be true here and now becomes true for all times and all places.

The Power of Words in Numbers

The power of words is most obvious when it comes to counting.

A person who can’t learn the number words (one, two, three) might be able to nod at each chime of a clock. But they will never know what hour it is.

It seems there was a time when humans didn’t have number words and had to use their fingers to keep track of things. This is likely why most languages today have number words that repeat after ten (or in some cases, five).

Even if you can count to ten, you will get lost if you don’t say the words in the right order. And you certainly won’t be able to do math like adding and subtracting. Without words, there is no way to calculate with numbers, let alone with concepts like speed, force, or size, which are essential for the well-being of humanity.

Truth, Falsehood, and Definitions

Truth and Falsehood Belong to Speech

When we connect two names in a statement, like “A man is a living creature,” the statement is true if the second name (living creature) includes everything the first name (man) does. Otherwise, the statement is false.

Truth and falsehood are features of speech, not of things in the world. Where there is no language, there is no truth or falsehood. You can be in error—like when you expect something to happen and it doesn’t—but you can’t be accused of being untruthful.

The Importance of Clear Definitions

Since truth depends on the correct ordering of names, anyone who seeks the truth must be very careful about what each name means. If you aren’t, you will get tangled in words like a bird caught in glue—the more you struggle, the more stuck you get.

This is why in geometry (the only true science God has given us so far), people start by defining their words. They place these definitions at the very beginning of their reasoning.

This shows how necessary it is to examine the definitions of others. You must either correct them or make your own. Errors in definitions multiply as you reason, leading you down a path to absurd conclusions. Eventually, you see the absurdity but can’t fix it without starting over from the beginning.

People who just trust books without thinking for themselves are like someone adding up a long list of numbers without checking if the first numbers were correct. When they find a mistake at the end, they don’t know where it came from. They flip through their books, like a bird trapped in a room that flutters at a window, not realizing it needs to go back out the chimney it came in through.

The first use of speech is the acquisition of science, which begins with the right definition of names.
The first abuse of speech is using wrong or nonexistent definitions, which leads to all false and senseless ideas.

People who learn from books without their own deep thought are worse off than ignorant people. A truly scientific mind is far above them, and ignorance is the middle ground between true science and false ideas.

Our natural senses and imagination can’t be absurd. Nature itself cannot make an error. But as people gain more language, they can become either much wiser or much crazier than average. Without writing, it’s impossible for anyone to become exceptionally wise or exceptionally foolish.

For wise people, words are counters used for calculating. For fools, words are money, valued only because some famous person like Aristotle or Cicero said them.

A System for Naming Things

What Can Be Named?

Anything that can be part of a calculation—anything that can be added or subtracted—can be given a name.

The ancient Romans called money accounts Rationes and the act of accounting Ratiocinatio. The items in an account they called Nomina, or “names.” From this, it seems they extended the word Ratio to mean the faculty of reasoning about anything.

The ancient Greeks used a single word, Logos, for both Speech and Reason. This isn’t because they thought you couldn’t speak without reason, but because they believed you couldn’t reason without speech.

Because things can be considered in different ways, we have different kinds of names to show that. We can sort all names into four general types:

Names of Matter or Body. These are names for things themselves, like living, rational, hot, cold, or moving.
Abstract Names. These are names for the qualities or accidents of things. We take the name of the thing and change it slightly. For example, from living we get life; from moving we get motion; from hot we get heat. These names are “abstracted” because they are separated from the thing itself in our calculation.
Names of Fancies. These are names for our own perceptions. When we see something, we can name the sight or the color, which is our mental idea of the thing. When we hear something, we can name the hearing or the sound.
Names of Names and Speeches. We also have names for words and language itself. Words like general, universal, and special are names for other names. Words like affirmation, question, command, and sermon are names for types of speech.

Positive and Negative Names

These four types are all positive names, which point to something that exists in nature or in our minds.

There are also negative names, which tell us that a word is not the name of the thing we’re talking about. Examples include nothing, no man, or infinite. These are still useful for correcting our thinking, as they remind us not to use a name that doesn’t fit.

Meaningless Words

All other names are just insignificant sounds. These come in two forms:

New words without definitions. Philosophers have invented plenty of these.
Contradictory words. This happens when you combine two names that mean opposite things, like an “incorporeal body” (a body without a body). Whenever a statement is false (e.g., “a square is round”), combining the two names creates a meaningless sound (round square). You will find that most senseless words are made from Latin or Greek roots.

What It Means to Understand

When you hear someone speak, and you have the thoughts that their words were intended to create, then you understand them. Understanding is nothing more than the conception caused by speech.

Therefore, if speech is unique to humans (and as far as I know, it is), then this kind of understanding is also unique to humans. You cannot truly “understand” an absurd or false statement, even if you repeat the words to yourself and think you do.

Words with Inconsistent Meanings

The names of things that affect our feelings—things that please or displease us—have inconsistent meanings in everyday conversation. This is because we are not all affected by the same things in the same way.

Even though the thing we are talking about is the same, our different bodies and opinions cause us to experience it differently. This gives everything a “tincture” of our own passions.

Therefore, when reasoning, you must be careful with words that carry emotional baggage, like the names of virtues and vices.

One person calls something wisdom, while another calls it fear.
One calls an act cruelty, while another calls it justice.
One calls spending generosity, while another calls it wastefulness.

Because these names mean different things to different people, they can never be the foundation for true reasoning. Metaphors are also inconsistent, but they are less dangerous because everyone knows they aren’t meant to be taken literally.

CHAPTER V: OF REASON AND SCIENCE

What is Reason?

When a person reasons, they are doing nothing more than calculation. They are either adding things up to get a total, or subtracting one thing from another to find the remainder.

If this is done with words, it means figuring out the consequences of names. For example, you add the names of parts to get the name of the whole.

Although we have different names for operations like multiplying and dividing, they are just forms of addition and subtraction.

Multiplication is just adding the same thing together multiple times.
Division is just subtracting something as many times as you can.

These operations apply to everything, not just numbers.

Geometers teach how to add and subtract lines, shapes, angles, and time.
Logicians teach how to add two names to make an affirmation, and two affirmations to make a syllogism (a logical argument). From the conclusion of a syllogism, they can subtract one part to find the other.
Political writers add up agreements to figure out people’s duties.
Lawyers add laws and facts to determine what is right and wrong.

In short, wherever there is a place for addition and subtraction, there is a place for reason. Where these have no place, reason has nothing to do.

Reason Defined

From all this, we can define what we mean by the word reason when we consider it a faculty of the mind.

So, in this sense, Reason is nothing more than Reckoning—that is, adding and subtracting the consequences of the general names we have all agreed on to label our thoughts. We use these names to mark our thoughts when we think by ourselves, and to signify them when we explain our calculations to other people.

Who Decides What’s “Right Reason”?

Just like in math, where even experts can make mistakes and get the wrong answer, the most skilled and practiced thinkers can also fool themselves and reach false conclusions.

This doesn’t mean that Reason itself is flawed, any more than a mistake in calculation means that arithmetic is flawed. Reason itself is always “right reason,” just as arithmetic is a perfect and certain art.

However, no single person’s reason—and not even the reason of a large group of people—can be the final word on what is true. An account isn’t correct just because many people have agreed on it.

Therefore, when there is a disagreement, the people involved must agree to accept the reason of an arbitrator or judge. They must agree to stand by that judge’s decision. If they don’t, their conflict will either lead to violence or remain unresolved, because there is no natural, built-in “right reason” to settle it.

This is true for all kinds of debates. When people who think they are wiser than everyone else demand that “right reason” be the judge, what they really mean is that things should be decided by their own reason and no one else’s. This is as unfair in society as it would be in a card game to declare that the suit you have the most of is the trump suit.

People who insist that their own passion of the moment should be treated as “right reason” are only revealing their own lack of it.

The Real Use of Reason

The purpose of reason is not just to find a few conclusions here and there. Its purpose is to start from the very beginning—from the first definitions and agreed-upon meanings of names—and then proceed logically from one consequence to the next.

You can’t be certain of your final conclusion unless you are certain of every single statement that it was built on.

Imagine a business owner who gets a stack of expense reports. If he just adds up the totals on each report without checking how each one was calculated, he’s not really gaining knowledge. He’s just trusting the skill and honesty of his accountants.

It’s the same with reasoning. Anyone who accepts conclusions from authors without tracing them back to their first principles (the definitions of words) is wasting their time. They don’t know anything; they only believe.

Error vs. Absurdity

When you reason without words, which can be done with specific things, you can make a mistake. For example, you might see something and guess what came before it or what will happen next. If your guess is wrong, this is called an ERROR. Even the wisest people are prone to error.

But when we reason with general words and arrive at a false conclusion, it’s more than an error. It is an ABSURDITY, or senseless speech.

An error is a wrong guess about something that was at least possible.
An absurdity is a statement about something that is inconceivable. The words themselves are meaningless sounds.

So, if someone talked to me about a “round square,” “the accidents of bread in cheese,” “immaterial substances,” or a “free will,” I wouldn’t say they were in error. I would say their words have no meaning. In other words, they are being absurd.

The Human Privilege of Absurdity

I said before that humans excel above all other animals because we can think about the consequences of things. Now I will add another point: we can use words to turn those consequences into general rules, which we call theorems. That is, we can reason not just with numbers, but with anything.

But this special privilege is matched by another: the privilege of absurdity. No living creature is subject to absurdity except for humans. And among humans, the ones most likely to be absurd are those who call themselves philosophers. As Cicero once said, there is nothing so absurd that it can’t be found in the book of a philosopher.

The reason for this is clear. Almost none of them start their reasoning from clear definitions of the words they use. This is a method that has only been used in geometry, which is why its conclusions have been so solid and certain.

The Seven Causes of Absurd Thinking

Lack of Method. The first cause of absurd conclusions is not starting with definitions. It’s like trying to do math without knowing the value of the numbers one, two, and three.
Confusing Things with Qualities. The second cause is giving the names of physical things (bodies) to abstract qualities (accidents), or vice versa. This happens when people say “faith is infused” or “breathed into” someone. Only a physical thing can be poured or breathed into something else.
Confusing the World with Our Sensation of It. The third is giving the names of qualities in the outside world to the feelings inside our own bodies. This happens when people say “the color is in the object” or “the sound is in the air.” The color and sound are our sensations.
Confusing Things with Names. The fourth is giving the names of physical things to words or speeches. This happens when people say that “universals exist” in the world.
Confusing Qualities with Names. The fifth is giving the names of qualities to words themselves. This happens when people say “the nature of a thing is its definition.”
Using Metaphors as Facts. The sixth is using metaphors and other figures of speech in place of precise, literal words when you are trying to find the truth. It’s fine to say “the road leads to the city” in casual speech, but in serious reasoning, you must remember that a road doesn’t actually move.
Using Meaningless Jargon. The seventh is using words that mean nothing, but are just learned by repeating them from schools. This includes academic jargon like “hypostatical,” “transubstantiate,” and “consubstantiate.”

Anyone who can avoid these seven mistakes will not easily fall into absurdity. By nature, all people reason well when they start with good principles. After all, who is so foolish that they would make a mistake in geometry and then refuse to accept it when someone else clearly points it out?

What is Science?

From this, it’s clear that Reason is not something we’re born with, like our senses and memory. Nor is it something we get only from experience, like common sense (prudence).

Instead, Science is something we achieve through hard work and effort. It requires two things:

First, giving things proper and clear names.
Second, using a good and orderly method to build from those names to create true statements, then connecting those statements into logical arguments, until we arrive at a full knowledge of the subject.

Sense and memory are just knowledge of facts—things that have already happened. But Science is the knowledge of consequences—the relationship between one fact and another. It allows us to know how to produce a certain effect because we understand its causes.

Children do not have reason until they have learned to speak. We only call them “reasonable creatures” because they have the potential to use reason in the future. Most people, even as adults, only use reason in a very limited way, like for simple counting. In their daily lives, they are guided by their experience, memory, goals, and especially by good or bad luck. They do not have Science, or certain rules for their actions. In fact, they are so far from it they don’t even know what it is. They have often mistaken geometry for a type of magic.

People who have no Science are actually in a better and nobler condition with their natural common sense than people who, through bad reasoning, end up with false and absurd rules. Ignorance of causes and rules doesn’t lead you as far astray as relying on false rules.

To conclude:

Clear words, sharpened by exact definitions, are the light of the human mind.
Reason is the stride we take.
The increase of Science is the path.
The benefit of humankind is the destination.

On the other hand, metaphors and meaningless words are like ghost lights (ignes fatui), and reasoning with them is just wandering through countless absurdities. Their only end is conflict, rebellion, and contempt.

Prudence vs. Wisdom (Sapience)

Just as much experience gives you Prudence (practical skill), much Science gives you Sapience (true wisdom).

Let’s imagine two people. One is naturally skilled at handling a weapon. The other has that same natural skill, but has also added the science of fighting—he knows every possible way he can attack or be attacked. The first person’s ability is like Prudence. The second person’s ability is like Sapience. Both are useful, but the second one is infallible.

People who just trust blindly in books are like someone who, trusting the false rules of a fencing instructor, foolishly challenges an expert who then defeats or disgraces him.

The Signs of Science

The signs of Science can be certain or uncertain.

Certain Sign: When someone who claims to have Science can clearly teach it and demonstrate its truth to another person.
Uncertain Sign: When someone’s predictions just happen to come true in some cases.

The signs of prudence are always uncertain, because it is impossible to observe and remember every single circumstance that might change an outcome.

In any situation where you don’t have infallible Science to guide you, abandoning your own natural judgment to follow general rules from a book is a sign of foolishness. We generally mock this by calling it pedantry. Even people who love to show off their knowledge of politics and history in public debates rarely use that same book-learning to run their own private affairs, where their own interests are at stake.

CHAPTER VI: THE INNER SOURCE OF OUR ACTIONS: THE PASSIONS

Two Kinds of Motion in Animals

In animals, there are two kinds of motion:

Vital Motion. This is the motion that begins when we are created and continues our whole lives without stopping. It includes the circulation of blood, our pulse, breathing, digestion, and so on. These motions don’t require any help from our imagination.
Voluntary Motion. This is the motion we choose to do, like walking, speaking, or moving a limb. This kind of motion always depends on a thought that comes first—a thought of where to go, which way to move, or what to say.

It is clear, then, that our imagination is the first internal beginning of all voluntary motion.

Even though these first beginnings of motion are so small that they are invisible, they still exist. Before a visible action like walking or speaking can happen, there are tiny motions inside the body. We call these small beginnings of motion ENDEAVOR.

Appetite, Aversion, Love, and Hate

This internal motion, or Endeavor, can be directed in two ways:

When the endeavor is toward something that causes it, it is called APPETITE or DESIRE.
When the endeavor is away from something, it is called AVERSION.

These motions are real. They are the physical act of approaching something or retreating from it.

The things we Desire, we are also said to LOVE. The things we have an Aversion to, we are said to HATE.

Desire and Love are the same thing, except:

Desire usually refers to the absence of the object we want.
Love usually refers to the presence of the object.

Likewise, Aversion and Hate are the same thing, except:

Aversion usually refers to the absence of the object.
Hate usually refers to the presence of the object.

Some of our appetites and aversions are born with us, like the appetite for food. But most of our desires for specific things come from experience, after we have tried them and seen their effects. For things we know nothing about, we can have no desire beyond the curiosity to taste and try them. However, we can have an aversion not only to things we know have hurt us, but also to things we don’t know yet.

Contempt

Those things that we neither desire nor hate, we are said to hold in CONTEMPT. Contempt is simply an immobility of the heart. The object doesn’t move us one way or the other, either because our heart is already occupied by more powerful things or because we have no experience with it.

Good and Evil are Relative

A person’s body is always changing, so it’s impossible for the same things to always cause the same desires and aversions in him. It is even more impossible for all people to agree on desiring the same object.

Therefore, whatever a person desires, that is what he, for his part, calls Good.

And whatever he hates, he calls Evil.

And whatever he holds in contempt, he calls Vile or Insignificant.

These words—Good, Evil, and Contemptible—are always used in relation to the person using them. Nothing is simply good or evil on its own. There is no universal rule for good and evil that can be found in the objects themselves.

The standard for good and evil comes from:

The individual, in a society with no government.
The person who represents the state (the government), in a commonwealth.
An arbitrator or judge, when people disagree and agree to let him set the rule.

Beautiful and Foul (Pulchrum and Turpe)

The Latin language has two words that are close to “good” and “evil”: pulchrum and turpe.

Pulchrum signifies something that, through outward signs, promises to be good. We might call this beautiful, handsome, honorable, or lovely.
Turpe signifies something that promises to be evil. We might call this foul, ugly, base, or nauseous.

All of these words simply describe the appearance or “countenance” that suggests something will be good or evil for us.

Three Kinds of Good and Evil

We can break down “good” and “evil” into three types each:

Three Kinds of Good:
- Good in its appearance: This is something that seems promising or beautiful.
- Good in its effect: This is the desired outcome, which feels delightful.
- Good as a tool: This is something that is useful or profitable for reaching a goal.
Three Kinds of Evil:
- Evil in its appearance: This is something that seems foul or ugly.
- Evil in its effect: This is the outcome, which is unpleasant or troublesome.
- Evil as a tool: This is something that is unhelpful or hurtful.

Delight and Displeasure

As I said before, what is really happening inside us is just motion caused by objects in the world. But that motion appears to us as light, color, or sound.

In the same way, when the effect of an object travels from our senses to our heart, the real effect is still just an internal motion. This motion consists of an appetite (a movement toward) or an aversion (a movement away).

But the feeling or sensation of that internal motion is what we call DELIGHT or TROUBLE OF MIND.

The motion of appetite, which appears to us as delight and pleasure, seems to be something that strengthens our vital, life-sustaining motion. This is why things that cause delight were appropriately called jucunda in Latin, which comes from a word meaning “helping” or “strengthening.” The opposite, offensive things, were called molesta, from a word meaning “hindering” or “troubling.”

Therefore:

Pleasure (or Delight) is the feeling or appearance of Good.
Displeasure is the feeling or appearance of Evil.

This means that all appetite, desire, and love are accompanied by some amount of delight. And all hatred and aversion are accompanied by some amount of displeasure.

Pleasures of the Mind and Body

We can also separate pleasures and displeasures into two categories:

Pleasures of Sense: These come from sensing an object that is present right now. This includes all pleasant sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches.
Pleasures of the Mind (Joy): These come from expecting a good outcome in the future. This feeling is generally called JOY.

Likewise, displeasures can be divided:

Pain: Displeasure that comes from a sensation in the present.
Grief: Displeasure that comes from expecting a bad outcome in the future.

A Closer Look at the Passions

The simple passions—Appetite, Desire, Love, Aversion, Hate, Joy, and Grief—get different names based on a few different factors: our opinion about achieving our goal, the object of our feelings, or how the feelings follow one another.

Here is a list of these more complex passions:

Hope: The desire for something, combined with the belief that you can get it.
Despair: The desire for something, without any belief that you can get it.
Fear: The aversion to something, combined with the belief that it will hurt you.
Courage: The aversion to something, combined with the hope that you can avoid the hurt by fighting back.
Anger: Sudden courage.
Confidence: A constant hope in your own abilities.
Diffidence: A constant despair or lack of belief in your own abilities.
Indignation: Anger you feel when someone else is badly hurt in a way you think is unfair.
Benevolence (or Charity): The desire for another person’s good. When this is aimed at people in general, it’s called Good Nature.
Covetousness: The desire for riches. This word is almost always used as a criticism, because when people compete for wealth, they are unhappy when others succeed. The desire itself, however, can be good or bad depending on how the riches are sought.
Ambition: The desire for a position of power or to be ahead of others. This is also often used as a criticism for the same reason.
Pusillanimity: Desiring things that don’t really help you achieve your goals, and fearing things that are only minor obstacles.
Magnanimity: The contempt for small helps and hindrances; thinking big.
Valor (or Fortitude): Magnanimity when facing the danger of death or injury.
Liberality: Magnanimity in how you use your wealth; being generous.
Miserableness: Pusillanimity in how you use your wealth; being cheap.
Kindness: The love of people for the sake of companionship.
Natural Lust: Loving people only for the pleasure of the senses.
Luxury: The same kind of love, but one that is fed by imagining past pleasures.
The Passion of Love: Loving one specific person with the desire to be loved back by them alone. If this is combined with the fear that the love is not returned, it becomes Jealousy.
Revengefulness: The desire to hurt someone in order to make them regret something they’ve done.
Curiosity: The desire to know why and how. This passion exists only in humans. A person is distinguished from other animals not just by reason, but by curiosity. For animals, the desire for food and other physical pleasures is so strong that it overrides any interest in knowing causes. Curiosity is a lust of the mind that, through the constant delight of generating new knowledge, is more powerful than the brief intensity of any physical pleasure.
Religion vs. Superstition: Fear of an invisible power. If the power is made up by the mind or imagined from publicly accepted stories, it is Religion. If it is from stories that are not publicly allowed, it is Superstition. When the invisible power is real, it is True Religion.
Panic Terror: Fear without understanding why or what you’re afraid of. This always happens in a crowd, where people run away because they see others running, assuming everyone else knows the reason for the fear.
Admiration: Joy that comes from experiencing something new. This is unique to humans because it excites our curiosity to know the cause.
Glory vs. Vain-glory: The joy that comes from imagining your own power and ability is called Glorying. If this feeling is based on real experience of your past actions, it is the same as Confidence. But if it is based on the flattery of others, or you just imagine it because you like the thought of it, it is called Vain-glory. This is an appropriate name, because real confidence leads to action, while just imagining you have power does not. Therefore, it is “vain” or empty.
Dejection: Grief that comes from the belief that you lack power.
Laughter: Sudden glory is the passion that causes the expression we call Laughter. It’s caused either by a sudden act of your own that pleases you, or by seeing some flaw in another person, which makes you suddenly feel good about yourself in comparison. Laughter is most common in people who are aware of their own lack of abilities and need to feel good about themselves by observing the imperfections of others. For this reason, laughing a lot at the flaws of others is a sign of pusillanimity. Great minds, by contrast, tend to help others, and they compare themselves only with the most capable people.
Weeping: On the other hand, sudden dejection is the passion that causes Weeping. It’s caused by events that suddenly destroy a strong hope or take away a source of power. People who rely mostly on external help, like women and children, are most likely to weep.
Shame (and Blushing): Grief over the discovery of a personal flaw is Shame. It shows itself physically as Blushing. In young people, it’s a commendable sign that they care about their reputation. In old men, it’s a sign of the same, but it is not commendable because it comes too late.
Impudence: The contempt for having a good reputation.
Pity (or Compassion): Grief for the misfortune of another person is Pity. It comes from imagining that the same misfortune could happen to you. That is why it’s also called Compassion or “fellow-feeling.” For this reason, the best people feel the least pity for those who suffer because of their own great wickedness. And people feel the least pity for a misfortune that they think is least likely to happen to them.
Cruelty: The contempt for or lack of feeling about the misfortunes of others is what we call Cruelty. It comes from feeling secure in your own good fortune. I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to take pleasure in another person’s great suffering without some other goal for themselves.
Emulation vs. Envy: Grief for a competitor’s success. If this grief is combined with an effort to equal or surpass them with your own abilities, it’s called Emulation. But if it’s combined with an effort to sabotage or hinder your competitor, it’s called Envy.

How We Make Decisions: Deliberation and Will

When a person’s mind alternates between desires and aversions, hopes and fears, about the same thing, that entire process is called DELIBERATION. We think of the good and bad consequences of doing something or not doing it, and we feel drawn to it one moment and pushed away the next.

This process continues until the thing is either done or considered impossible. We don’t deliberate about the past, because it obviously can’t be changed. And we don’t deliberate about things we know are impossible. This process is called deliberation because it is the “de-liberating” or putting an end to the liberty we had to act or not act. Beasts do this too.

The WILL is the very last appetite or aversion in the process of deliberation—the one that leads directly to the action or the omission. The Will is the act of willing, not a faculty. Since animals deliberate, they must also have a will.

The common definition of the will as a “rational appetite” is wrong. If it were right, we could never perform a voluntary act against our reason. A voluntary act is simply one that proceeds from the will. A better definition is: the will is the last appetite in deliberating.

Even if we say “I had a will to do that, but I didn’t,” what we really mean is we had an inclination. The action did not depend on that feeling, but on the final inclination that won out.

By this definition, it’s clear that actions started from fear are just as voluntary as actions started from ambition or desire.

How Language Expresses Passion

We can express any passion by simply stating it: “I love,” “I fear,” “I command.” But some passions have unique forms of speech. For example:

Deliberation is expressed with “if/then” statements (If I do this, then that will follow).
Desire and Aversion are expressed with commands (Do this; Don’t do that). When the person has a duty to obey, it’s a Command; otherwise, it’s a Prayer or Counsel.
Vain-glory, Indignation, and Pity are expressed with wishes (I wish…).
Curiosity is expressed with questions (What is it? Why? How?).

These forms of speech are expressions of passion, but they are not certain signs, because anyone can use the words without actually feeling the passion. The best signs of a person’s true passions are their facial expressions, body language, and actions.

Apparent Good and Felicity (Happiness)

In deliberation, we are trying to foresee a long chain of consequences. Very few people can see to the very end of this chain. But for as far as a person can see, if the good consequences outweigh the bad, the whole thing is what we call an Apparent Good. If the evil outweighs the good, it is an Apparent Evil. The person who is best at foreseeing consequences is the best at deliberating for himself and giving counsel to others.

Felicity, or happiness, is not a state of permanent calm. Life itself is motion, so we can never be without desire or fear. Felicity in this life is continual success in getting the things you desire over time. It is constant prosperity.

CHAPTER VII: HOW THINKING ENDS: JUDGMENT AND DOUBT

Any train of thought that is guided by a desire for knowledge must eventually end, either by reaching a conclusion or by giving up.

Judgment and Doubt

If the thinking is purely mental, it consists of alternating thoughts: “it will happen” and “it will not happen,” or “it happened” and “it did not happen.” This entire chain of alternating opinions about what is true is called DOUBT.

And just as the last appetite in deliberation is called the Will, the last opinion in a search for the truth is called JUDGMENT. It is the final sentence of the person who is thinking.

No train of thought can ever end in absolute knowledge of a past or future fact. Knowledge of facts comes originally from our senses, and after that, from memory.

And the knowledge of consequences, which I have called Science, is not absolute; it is conditional. No one can know through reasoning that “this is” or “this will be.” You can only know that “if this is, then that is,” or “if this happens, then that will happen.” This is conditional knowledge. And it’s not even a knowledge of the consequence of one thing to another, but of one name to another.

Therefore, when a line of reasoning begins with clear definitions and proceeds logically, the final sum is called the conclusion. The thought in the mind that this conclusion represents is that conditional knowledge, or Science.

If a line of reasoning does not start with clear definitions, or if the definitions are not logically connected, then the conclusion is not Science. It is simply OPINION. This is true even if the opinion is expressed using absurd, meaningless words that are impossible to understand.

On Conscience

When two or more people know the same fact, they are conscious of it—they know it together. Because people who share knowledge of a fact are the best witnesses, it has always been considered a very evil act for anyone to speak against their conscience (what they know to be true).

Over time, people began to use the word “conscience” metaphorically, to mean the knowledge of their own secret thoughts and actions. This is where the saying “conscience is a thousand witnesses” comes from.

Finally, the word was corrupted. People who fall passionately in love with their own new opinions—no matter how absurd—give those opinions the respected name of “conscience.” They do this to make it seem unlawful for anyone, including themselves, to change their mind or speak against the idea. They pretend to know their opinions are true, when at most, they only think they are true.

On Belief and Faith

When a person’s thinking doesn’t start from definitions, it begins in one of two ways:

It starts from some other personal thought. This is still called Opinion.
It starts from what someone else says—a person whose knowledge and honesty you trust. This is called BELIEF or FAITH.

In this second case, the thinking is less about the topic itself and more about the person speaking. When you have faith, you have two opinions: one about what the person is saying, and another about their virtue and honesty.

To “have faith in” or “believe a man” means you trust his character.
To “believe what is said” means you think the statement itself is true.

The phrase “I believe in,” however, is mostly used in a religious context. In the Christian Creed, “believing in God” means accepting the doctrine, not just trusting God as a person.

From this, we can draw a key conclusion: whenever we believe something is true based on the authority of the person who said it—and not on our own reasoning or the facts themselves—then the speaker is the true object of our faith. The honor of our belief is given only to them.

Example 1: The Church. When we believe that the Scriptures are the word of God without having a direct revelation ourselves, our belief, faith, and trust are in the Church, because we are taking its word for it.
Example 2: The Prophet. People who believe what a prophet says in the name of God are putting their faith in the prophet, whether he is true or false.
Example 3: The Historian. It’s the same with all other history. If I don’t believe what a historian writes about Alexander the Great, Alexander’s ghost has no reason to be offended. Only the historian does. If the Roman historian Livy says a cow once spoke and we don’t believe it, we are distrusting Livy, not God.

It is clear, then, that any belief based only on the authority of people and their writings is faith in men alone.

CHAPTER VIII: WHAT MAKES A GOOD MIND (AND WHAT DOESN’T)

Intellectual Virtue

A virtue is any quality that is considered excellent or eminent. We only prize things that are exceptional. If everyone were equal in every way, nothing would be valued.

Intellectual virtues are the mental abilities that people praise, value, and desire in themselves. These abilities are commonly grouped under the name of a “good wit.”

Natural vs. Acquired Wit

There are two kinds of intellectual virtues:

Natural Wit. By this, I don’t mean the ability you are born with. That is just your five senses, in which people differ very little from each other or from animals. I mean the wit that is gained purely through use and experience, without any formal teaching or method. This natural wit consists mainly of two things:
- Quickness of Imagination: A swift succession of thoughts.
- Steady Direction: Focusing those thoughts toward some approved goal. The opposite of this is Dullness or Stupidity, which is a slow imagination.
Acquired Wit. This is wit gained through method and instruction. There is only one kind: Reason, which is based on the right use of speech and produces the sciences.

Fancy vs. Judgment

The flow of our thoughts is guided by our passions—what we love and what we dislike. When we think, we can observe things in a few ways: how they are similar, how they are different, or what they are useful for.

Good Fancy: People who notice rare or uncommon similarities between things are said to have a good fancy.
Good Judgment: People who notice the differences between things are said to have good judgment. When this skill is applied to social situations—knowing the right times, places, and people for an action—it’s called Discretion.

Judgment and discretion are praised as virtues on their own. Fancy, on the other hand, is not considered a virtue unless it is guided by judgment. A great fancy without steady direction toward a goal is a kind of madness. It causes a person to get lost in so many long digressions that they completely lose their point.

The right balance of fancy and judgment depends on the task:

In a good poem, fancy must be more prominent, because poetry pleases with its creativity.
In a good history, judgment must be prominent, because history’s value lies in its method and truth.
In speeches of praise or criticism, fancy is most important, because the goal is to honor or dishonor through comparisons.
In demonstration, council, or any search for truth, judgment does all the work. Metaphors are excluded, because they openly practice deception, and to admit them into reasoning would be foolish.

In any conversation, if a person shows a lack of discretion, their entire speech will be seen as a sign of a weak mind, no matter how creative their fancy is. Judgment without fancy is wit, but fancy without judgment is not.

Prudence and Craft

Prudence is a special kind of wit that comes from experience and memory. When a person has a goal and can observe how many different things can lead to that goal in ways that are not obvious to others, that is prudence. Governing a family and governing a kingdom are not different degrees of prudence, but simply different types of business, requiring different experiences.

If you add the use of dishonest or unjust methods to prudence, you get that crooked wisdom called CRAFT. Craft is a sign of a small mind (pusillanimity), because a truly great mind (magnanimity) has contempt for using dishonest shortcuts.

The Cause of Different Wits: The Passions

The differences we see in people’s wits are caused by their passions. And the differences in passions come from two things: the physical constitution of a person’s body and their education and customs.

The passions that cause the biggest differences in wit are the desires for Power, Riches, Knowledge, and Honor. All of these can be reduced to the first: the desire for Power, since riches, knowledge, and honor are all just different types of power.

A person with no great passion for these things may be a “good” person in that they don’t cause trouble, but they can’t have a great fancy or much judgment. Our thoughts are like scouts and spies for our desires, ranging abroad to find the way to the things we want. All steadiness and quickness of mind comes from this desire.

To have no desire is to be dead.
To have weak passions is dullness.
To have passions directed at everything equally is giddiness or distraction.
To have passions for anything that are much stronger than is ordinarily seen in others is what people call MADNESS.

On Madness

There are almost as many kinds of madness as there are passions. It can be caused by a problem with the body’s organs, or the organs can be harmed by the intensity of a passion. But in either case, the madness is the same.

The passions that, in their extreme form, become madness are either great pride (vain-glory) or great dejection of mind (depression).

Rage: Excessive pride makes a person subject to anger, and the excess of anger is the madness called Rage or Fury.
Melancholy: Dejection makes a person subject to causeless fears, a madness commonly called Melancholy. This can show up as haunting solitary places or having superstitious fears.

In short, all passions that produce strange and unusual behavior are called madness.

This madness can also be collective. Though one person possessed by a strange opinion may not seem very extravagant, when many such people get together, the rage of the whole mob is obvious. What greater argument for madness is there than to attack and stone your best friends? A mob will destroy those who have protected them their whole lives. If this is madness in a crowd, it is the same madness in each individual.

If a man in the Bedlam asylum for the mad spoke to you soberly, and as you were leaving you asked who he was, and he told you he was God the Father, you would need no further proof of his madness. The very act of claiming such a thing is argument enough.

This is what happens with people who claim to have a “private spirit” or divine inspiration. They often stumble upon an idea, forget the rational steps that led them there, and immediately assume that God must have revealed it to them supernaturally.

Ultimately, madness is nothing more than “too much appearing passion.” We can see this in the effects of wine, which are the same as the effects of a diseased mind.

The behavior of people who have had too much to drink is the same as that of madmen. Some become enraged, others loving, others laughing—all of them acting extravagantly according to their dominant passions. The effect of the wine is to remove their inhibitions and take away their awareness of how ugly their passions are.

I believe that even the most sober people, when they are alone and their minds are wandering, would be unwilling for the vanity and strangeness of their thoughts to be made public. This is a confession that our passions, when left unguided, are mostly just madness.

Historical Views on the Cause of Madness

Throughout history, there have been two main opinions about the cause of madness:

Madness from the Passions. Some believed madness came from a person’s internal passions. They called these people madmen.
Madness from Spirits. Others believed it came from demons or spirits, either good or bad, that could enter a person and possess them. They called these people demoniacs or the possessed.

For example, there was an incident in the Greek city of Abdera where, after watching a tragedy on an extremely hot day, many spectators came down with fevers. The heat and the play together caused them to do nothing but recite lines from the play. This “madness,” along with the fever, was cured when winter came. It was thought to have been caused by the passion imprinted by the tragedy.

In another Greek city, a fit of madness seized only the young women, causing many to hang themselves. Most people thought this was the work of the Devil. But one person suspected that their contempt for life came from some passion of the mind. Supposing they did not also have contempt for their honor, he advised the city leaders to strip the bodies of any who hanged themselves and leave them hanging naked. The story says this cured the madness.

On the other hand, the same Greeks also attributed madness to the work of spirits like the Furies or gods like Apollo. And the ancient Jews held this same opinion. They would call madmen either prophets or demoniacs, depending on whether they thought the spirit was good or bad.

Why the Idea of Demonic Possession?

I find it strange that the Jews believed in demonic possession. Their great prophets, like Moses and Abraham, never claimed to be possessed by a spirit. They said they heard the voice of God or had a vision or a dream. There is nothing in their laws that taught them about possession.

When the Bible says the “Spirit of God” is in a person, it doesn’t mean the literal substance of God is inside them. It means the person’s own spirit is inclined toward godliness. When it says God filled men with the “spirit of wisdom” to make garments, it means they had the wisdom and skill for that work in their own spirits—not that an external spirit that knows how to sew was put inside them.

So why did people fall into this opinion of possession? I can imagine only one reason, which is common to all people: a lack of curiosity to search for natural causes.

When people see a strange or unusual ability or defect in someone’s mind, and they can’t see a probable natural cause, they can hardly think it’s natural. And if it’s not natural, they assume it must be supernatural. From there, it’s a short step to thinking that either God or the Devil is inside that person.

This is why, when Jesus was surrounded by a crowd, his own friends thought he was mad. His critics said he had Beelzebub, the prince of demons, inside him. Some people said, “He has a devil and is mad,” while others, believing he was a prophet, said, “These are not the words of someone who has a devil.”

Why Did Jesus Speak to Demons?

If demoniacs were just madmen, why did Jesus speak to them as if they were possessed?

My answer is this: the purpose of the Bible was not to teach us science or philosophy. It was not written to settle disputes about whether the Earth or the Sun is the center of the universe. The Bible was written to show people the kingdom of God and to prepare their minds to become his obedient subjects.

Whether a man’s strange actions come from his own passions or from a devil is all the same when it comes to our obedience to God. Jesus speaking to a disease as if it were a person was a common way of speaking for those who cured with words. Is he not also said to have “rebuked the winds” and “rebuked a fever”? That doesn’t mean a fever is a devil.

And when the Bible speaks of an unclean spirit leaving a man and then returning with seven worse spirits, it is clearly a parable. It’s an analogy for a person who, after a brief effort to quit his bad habits, is overcome by them and becomes seven times worse than before.

I see nothing in Scripture that requires us to believe that demoniacs were anything other than madmen.

Meaningless Words as a Form of Madness

There is another fault in some people’s speech that can be counted as a type of madness: the abuse of words that I have called absurdity.

This is when people speak words that, when put together, have no meaning at all. It’s a sickness that affects those who debate incomprehensible matters, like scholastic philosophers. Common people rarely speak this way.

If you want an example, pick up a book by a scholastic philosopher and try to translate any chapter on a difficult point—like the Trinity, the nature of Christ, or free will—into clear, modern language. You will see that it is impossible.

When people write entire volumes of such meaningless stuff, are they not mad, or at least trying to make others so? This kind of absurdity can rightly be numbered among the many sorts of madness. The only time such people are sane is during their “lucid intervals,” when they stop their pointless writing and focus on their real-world goals.

And that is enough about the virtues and defects of the mind.

CHAPTER IX: THE DIFFERENT SUBJECTS OF KNOWLEDGE

There are two kinds of KNOWLEDGE:

Knowledge of Fact. This is knowing that something is or was. It comes from our senses and memory. It is absolute knowledge. This is the kind of knowledge required in a witness.
Knowledge of Consequence. This is knowing that “if this is true, then that is true.” This is called Science, and it is conditional knowledge. This is the kind of knowledge required in a philosopher or anyone who wants to reason.

The records of the knowledge of fact are called History.

Natural History is the history of the facts of nature (like plants, animals, and metals).
Civil History is the history of the voluntary actions of people in societies.

The records of the knowledge of consequence are called Science or Philosophy. These are books that contain demonstrations of how one statement follows from another. The branches of science are many and can be divided as follows.

The Branches of Knowledge (Science)

All science (Philosophy) can be divided into two main categories:

Natural Philosophy: The study of the consequences of the properties of natural bodies (the physical world).
Civil Philosophy: The study of the consequences of the properties of political bodies (societies).

I. Natural Philosophy

This is the study of the natural world and can be broken down into many fields:

The most basic principles of philosophy come from studying quantity and motion.
From these principles, we get the mathematical sciences:
- Geometry
- Arithmetic
When we apply math to the great bodies of the world, like the Earth and the stars, we get:
- Astronomy
- Geography
When we apply it to the motion of special types of bodies, we get practical sciences like:
- Engineering
- Architecture
- Navigation
We also get sciences that study the qualities of things, which is broadly called Physics. This includes:
- The study of the stars and their light and influence (Astrology).
- The study of our senses, like Optics (vision) and Music (sound).
- The study of human beings, including their passions (Ethics).
- The study of language, which includes Poetry, Rhetoric (persuasion), and Logic (reasoning).

II. Civil Philosophy

This is also called Politics. It is the study of what is just and unjust, and of the rights and duties of both governments and their citizens.

CHAPTER X: OF POWER, WORTH, DIGNITY, HONOR, AND WORTHINESS

Power

The POWER of a person is their present ability to obtain some future good. Power is either original or instrumental.

Natural Power is an excellence of the body or mind, like extraordinary strength, intelligence, artistic skill, or eloquence.
Instrumental Power is the power that is acquired using natural power or good fortune. These powers then become tools, or instruments, to acquire even more power. Examples include riches, reputation, and friends.

The nature of power is like fame: it increases as it goes. It is also like a heavy object rolling downhill, which moves faster the further it goes.

Where Does Power Come From?

The greatest of human powers is the power of a commonwealth, which is the power of many people united by consent into one person. Other sources of power include:

Friends and Servants: They are united strengths.
Riches: When combined with generosity, riches are power because they can buy you friends and servants.
Reputation: The reputation of having power is power, because it attracts people who need protection.
Popularity: Being known for loving your country is power for the same reason.
Being Loved or Feared: Any quality that makes you beloved or feared by many is power, because it gives you their assistance.
Success: Good success is power, because it creates a reputation for wisdom or good luck, which makes others either fear you or rely on you.
Eloquence: This is power because it gives the appearance of wisdom.
Good Looks: This is power because it is a promise of good and recommends you to the favor of others.
Practical Arts: Skills that are useful to the public, like building fortifications or instruments of war, are power.

Science, however, is small power. It isn’t obvious or widely recognized. Only a few people have it, and even they only have it in a few areas. Science is the kind of thing that no one can even recognize as science unless they have already attained it themselves.

Worth and Dignity

The VALUE, or WORTH, of a person is their price. It is how much someone else would pay for the use of their power. Therefore, a person’s worth is not absolute; it depends on the needs and judgment of another person.

A skilled military commander is of great worth during a war, but not so much in peacetime.
A wise and honest judge is of great worth in peacetime, but not so much during a war.

As with all other things, the buyer, not the seller, determines the price. A man can value himself as highly as he wants, but his true value is no more than what others esteem him to be.

The way we show the value we set on one another is by Honoring or Dishonoring them. To value someone at a high rate is to honor them. To value them at a low rate is to dishonor them.

The public worth of a person—the value set on them by the commonwealth—is what we commonly call DIGNITY.

This value set on a person by the government is shown through offices of command, judicial roles, public employment, or by specific names and titles.

How to Honor and Dishonor Someone

To honor someone is to show you value their power. To dishonor them is to show you undervalue it. The ways we do this are natural and common everywhere.

Asking for help honors someone, because it shows you believe they have the power to help. The more difficult the help you ask for, the greater the honor.
Obeying honors someone, because people only obey those they think can help or hurt them. To disobey is to dishonor.
Giving large gifts is an honor because it’s like buying protection and acknowledging power. Giving small gifts is a dishonor because it’s like giving charity and implies they only need small helps.
Working hard to promote another’s good, or flattering them, is to honor them. To neglect them is to dishonor.
Giving way to someone or letting them go first is an honor because it’s a confession that they have greater power. To push ahead of them is to dishonor.
Showing love or fear toward someone is an honor because both feelings mean you value them. To show contempt, or less love or fear than they expect, is to dishonor.
Praising or celebrating someone is an honor. To insult, mock, or pity them is to dishonor.
Speaking to someone respectfully and appearing before them with decency is an honor. To speak rashly or act rudely in front of them is to dishonor.
Believing or trusting someone is an honor, as it shows you have a high opinion of their virtue and power. To distrust them is to dishonor.
Listening carefully to someone’s advice or conversation is an honor, as it shows you think they are wise or witty. To fall asleep, walk away, or talk while they are speaking is to dishonor.
To agree with someone’s opinion is to honor them, as it approves of their judgment. To disagree is to dishonor them, and if you disagree often, it suggests you think they are foolish.
To imitate someone is to honor them, as it shows strong approval. But to imitate your enemy is to dishonor them.
To honor the people that another person honors is a way of honoring them. To honor their enemies is to dishonor them.
To hire or ask for help from someone for a difficult task is an honor, as it shows you have a high opinion of their wisdom and power. To deny them that employment is to dishonor them.

Natural Honor vs. Civil Honor

All the examples above are forms of natural honor. But in a commonwealth, the supreme authority (the sovereign) can create other, official signs of honor.

A sovereign honors a subject with any title, office, or action that the sovereign himself declares to be a sign of honor.

Example: The King of Persia honored Mordecai by having him paraded through the streets wearing the king’s own robes on one of the king’s horses. This was an honor because the king willed it to be so.
Counter-Example: Another time, a king gave someone permission to wear one of his robes but added that he must wear it as “the king’s fool.” The exact same action then became a great dishonor.

Therefore, civil honors—like positions in government, official titles, and in some places, coats of arms—are honorable because they are signs of the sovereign’s favor, and that favor is a form of power.

What Kinds of Things Are Honorable?

Essentially, any possession, action, or quality that is a sign of power is honorable.

To be loved or feared by many is honorable.
Lasting good fortune is honorable, as it seems to be a sign of God’s favor.
Riches are honorable because they are power. Poverty is dishonorable.
Courage, confidence, and hope are honorable because they come from a person’s awareness of their own power. Fear and self-doubt are dishonorable.
Decisiveness is honorable, as it shows a contempt for small difficulties. Indecisiveness is dishonorable because it shows you overvalue small things.
Actions that seem to come from great experience, knowledge, or wit are honorable. Actions that come from error or ignorance are dishonorable.
Seriousness (“gravity”) is honorable if it seems to come from a mind that is busy with important things. But if it’s just a pose to appear serious, it’s dishonorable.
To be well-known for wealth, great actions, or any other eminent quality is honorable. To be obscure is dishonorable.
To be descended from well-known parents is honorable.
It does not matter if an action is just or unjust. If it is great and difficult, and therefore a sign of great power, it is considered honorable. The ancient heathens honored their gods by telling stories of them committing rapes, thefts, and other great, unjust acts. And until great commonwealths were formed, it was not considered a dishonor to be a pirate or a highway thief.
Private duels are considered honorable, even though they are illegal, because they are seen as signs of courage and skill, which are power.

On Titles and Coats of Arms

Coats of arms are honorable only if they come with special privileges or great wealth. Otherwise, their power consists of nothing more than what is honored in other people. This kind of honor, called gentry, was derived from the ancient Germans and was not known in other parts of the world. Lords would paint devices on their armor to be recognized in battle, and these symbols became hereditary.

Titles of honor—like Duke, Count, and Marquis—are honorable because they signify the value placed on a person by the sovereign. In ancient times, these were titles of office and command.

Dukes were generals.
Counts were companions who governed conquered lands.
Marquises were counts who governed the borders (“marches”) of the empire.

Over time, these became mere titles, serving mostly to distinguish the rank and order of subjects in the commonwealth.

Worthiness vs. Worth

It is important to distinguish between three different concepts:

Worth (or Value): This is a person’s “price”—how much would be given for the use of their power. It is determined by others.
Worthiness (or Fitness): This is a person’s aptitude or specific ability for a particular task. A person is “worthy” to be a commander if they have the skills required for the job.
Merit (or Desert): This means you have a right to something because it was promised to you.

A person can be worthy of an office (skilled enough to do it) but not merit it (have no right to it by promise).

CHAPTER XI: OF THE DIFFERENCE OF MANNERS

What “Manners” Means Here

When I speak of manners, I don’t mean etiquette, like how to greet someone or whether to pick your teeth in public. I mean those qualities of humankind that concern their ability to live together in peace and unity.

To understand this, we must first consider the goal of life. The happiness (felicity) of this life does not consist of a peaceful, satisfied mind. There is no “utmost aim” or “greatest good” that can be reached, as the old philosophers wrote. A person whose desires are at an end cannot live, any more than a person whose senses have stopped working.

Felicity is the continual progress of desire, from one object to another. Attaining the first object is just the path to the next one. This is because the goal of a person’s desire is not just to enjoy something once, but to secure forever the way of his future desire.

Therefore, all the voluntary actions of all people are aimed not only at getting a contented life, but also at assuring it for the future.

A Restless Desire for Power in All People

So, in the first place, I state as a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire for Power after power, that ceases only in Death.

The cause of this is not always that a person hopes for a more intense delight than they already have, or that they can’t be content with a moderate amount of power. The reason is that a person cannot secure the power and means to live well that they currently have without acquiring more.

This is why even kings, who have the greatest power, work to secure it through laws at home and wars abroad. And when they have done that, a new desire follows—for some, the fame of a new conquest; for others, a life of ease and pleasure.

Other Qualities That Affect Society

Competition leads to conflict. Competition for riches, honor, or power inclines people to contention, enmity, and war. This is because the way for one competitor to succeed is to kill, subdue, or get rid of the other.
The desire for an easy life leads to obedience. People who want comfort and sensual delight are willing to obey a common power. They abandon the protection they might get from their own hard work in exchange for peace.
The fear of death or injury leads to obedience. This works for the same reason.
The desire for knowledge and arts leads to obedience. To pursue science and art, a person needs leisure and protection, so they are inclined to obey a common power that can provide it.
Needy and ambitious men encourage war. Those who are not content with their current condition, as well as those who are ambitious for military command, are inclined to stir up trouble and war. For a soldier, there is no honor except in war, and for someone with a bad lot in life, there is no better way to hope to fix it than by “causing a new shuffle.”
The desire for praise leads to honorable actions. People will do laudable things to please those whose judgment they value.
Receiving great benefits can lead to hatred. To receive a greater benefit from someone you consider your equal than you can ever hope to repay puts you in the position of a desperate debtor. It disposes you to secret hatred. This is because obligation is a form of bondage, which is hateful to an equal. But to receive benefits from someone you acknowledge as your superior inclines you to love, because the obligation is not a new humiliation, and cheerful acceptance (gratitude) is a form of repayment.

Receiving benefits, even from an equal or someone of lower status, also leads to love, as long as there is hope of paying them back. This is because the person receiving the help intends for the obligation to be mutual. This can lead to a noble and profitable competition of who can benefit the other more—a contest where the winner is pleased with their victory, and the loser is “revenged” by simply admitting defeat.

Other Human Qualities and Their Effects

Hate From Guilt: If you have hurt someone more than you can or are willing to make up for, you will be inclined to hate the person you hurt. This is because you must expect either their revenge or the need to accept their forgiveness, both of which are hateful situations to be in.
A Tendency to Hurt, From Fear: Fear of being oppressed makes a person want to strike first or seek allies in society, because there is no other way to secure one’s life and liberty.
Rashness From Lack of Confidence: In a riot or rebellion, people who distrust their own cleverness are often better positioned for victory than those who think themselves wise or crafty. The “wise” ones want to talk and plan, but the others, fearing they will be outsmarted, prefer to strike first. In a battle, sticking together and using force is a better strategy than any clever plan.
Showing Off, From Vain-glory: Vain-glorious people who enjoy imagining themselves as great, without actually having great ability, are inclined only to show off, not to actually attempt difficult things. This is because when danger appears, they expect their incompetence will be discovered.
Recklessness, From Vain-glory: Vain-glorious people who base their self-worth on the flattery of others or on a past lucky success are prone to rushing into dangerous situations. However, when things get difficult, they are also inclined to retreat if they can. They would rather risk their honor, which can be saved with an excuse, than their lives, for which there is no fix.
Ambition From an Opinion of Wisdom: People who have a strong opinion of their own wisdom in matters of government are drawn to ambition. This is because without a public role in government, the honor of their wisdom is lost. This is why eloquent speakers are often ambitious—eloquence seems like wisdom, both to themselves and to others.
Indecisiveness From Overvaluing Small Things: Cowardice and small-mindedness dispose people to be indecisive, which causes them to lose the best opportunities for action. If you have been deliberating for a long time and still can’t decide what to do, it’s a sign that the difference between the options is very small. To fail to make a decision at that point is to waste the opportunity by weighing insignificant details.
Weakness From Frugality: Being frugal (thrifty), though a virtue in poor people, makes a person unable to achieve great actions that require the strength of many people at once. This is because it weakens their collective effort, which needs to be nourished and kept strong by rewards.

Why People Trust Others

From Ignorance of Character: Eloquence combined with flattery makes people trust those who have these skills, because the first seems like wisdom and the second seems like kindness. Add a strong military reputation to the mix, and people are inclined to follow and submit to such leaders.
From Ignorance of Causes: A lack of science—that is, an ignorance of causes—forces a person to rely on the advice and authority of others. If people who need the truth don’t rely on their own judgment, they must rely on the opinion of someone they think is wiser and has no reason to deceive them.
From Lack of Understanding: Ignorance of the meaning of words disposes people to accept on trust not only truths they don’t know, but also the errors and even the nonsense of those they trust. Without a perfect understanding of words, you cannot detect errors or nonsense. This is also why people give different names to the same thing based on their own passions. For example, if they approve of a private opinion, they call it “Opinion.” If they dislike it, they call it “Heresy.” Yet “heresy” just means “private opinion”—it only has a greater tone of anger.
From Ignorance of Right and Wrong: Ignorance of the original causes of right, law, and justice disposes a person to make custom and example the rule of their actions. They think something is unjust simply because it has been customary to punish it, and something is just if they can find an example of it being approved. They are like little children who have no other rule for good and evil than the punishments they receive from their parents. The difference is that children are consistent with their rule, while men are not. When it serves their turn, men will appeal from custom to reason, and then from reason back to custom. They will abandon custom when their interest requires it, and they will set themselves against reason as often as reason is against them. This is why the doctrine of right and wrong is perpetually disputed with both pen and sword, while the doctrine of lines and figures is not. In geometry, people don’t care what the truth is, because it doesn’t cross anyone’s ambition, profit, or lust. I have no doubt that if the rule that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two angles of a square had been contrary to any man’s right to power, that doctrine would have been, if not disputed, then suppressed by the burning of all books of geometry.
From Ignorance of Remote Causes: Ignorance of remote causes makes people blame everything on the immediate causes they can see. This is why people who are angry about paying taxes often discharge their anger on the tax collectors and other public officials. They then attach themselves to anyone who finds fault with the government.

Human Nature and the Origin of Religion

Credulity From Ignorance: Ignorance of natural causes makes people credulous, willing to believe in impossibilities. They don’t know anything to the contrary, so they think anything might be true. And because people love to be listened to, this credulity disposes them to lying. Ignorance itself, without any malice, can make a person both believe lies and tell them.
Curiosity From Anxiety: Anxiety about the future time disposes people to investigate the causes of things. Knowing the causes makes them better able to arrange the present for their own advantage.
Natural Religion From Curiosity: This curiosity, or love of knowing causes, draws a person from an effect to its cause, and then to the cause of that cause. This continues until they must eventually arrive at the thought that there is some cause that has no former cause, but is eternal—which is what people call God. It is therefore impossible to make any deep inquiry into natural causes without being led to believe there is one eternal God, even though we cannot have an idea of him in our minds that matches his nature. A man born blind can be brought to a fire and feel its heat. He can easily assure himself that something exists there which men call “fire,” but he cannot imagine what it looks like. In the same way, by observing the visible things of this world and their admirable order, a man may conceive that there is a cause of them, which we call God, and yet not have an idea or image of him in his mind.
Fear Creates Gods: People who make little or no inquiry into natural causes are driven by the fear that comes from ignorance itself. Not knowing what has the power to do them good or harm, they are inclined to imagine for themselves several kinds of Invisible Powers. They stand in awe of their own imaginations. In times of distress they pray to them, and in times of success they thank them, making the creatures of their own fancy their gods. This is how, from the endless variety of human imagination, people have created countless sorts of gods in the world. This fear of things invisible is the natural seed of what everyone calls Religion in themselves, and Superstition in others who worship differently.
Religion Becomes Law: Some who have observed this natural seed of religion in people have been inclined to nourish and form it into laws. They have added their own opinions about the causes of future events, by which they thought they could best govern others and make the greatest use of their own power.

CHAPTER XII: OF RELIGION

Religion is Unique to Man

There are no signs or fruits of religion in any creature but man. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that the seed of religion is also only in man. It consists of some peculiar quality, or at least an eminent degree of a quality, not found in other living creatures.

First, it is peculiar to man to be inquisitive about the causes of the events he sees.
Second, when he sees anything that has a beginning, he also thinks it had a cause that determined it to begin when it did.
Third, man observes how one event is produced by another and remembers the order of consequences. When he cannot be sure of the true causes of things (for the causes of good and evil fortune are mostly invisible), he supposes them.

Anxiety: The Natural Cause of Religion

The first two qualities—knowing things have causes and beginnings—create anxiety. Being sure that there are causes for everything that has happened or will happen, it’s impossible for a person who is constantly trying to secure himself against evil and obtain good not to be in a perpetual state of worry about the future.

Every person, especially those who are overly prudent, is in a state like that of Prometheus. As the story goes, Prometheus (whose name means “the prudent man”) was bound to a mountain, where an eagle ate his liver all day, and it grew back all night. In the same way, the man who looks too far ahead in his care for the future has his heart gnawed on all day long by the fear of death, poverty, or other calamities. He has no rest from his anxiety except in sleep.

Fear of the Invisible

This perpetual fear, which always accompanies mankind in the darkness of their ignorance, must have an object. And when there is nothing to be seen, there is nothing to blame for their good or evil fortune but some Power or Agent that is Invisible. In this sense, it is very true what some of the old poets said: that the gods were at first created by human fear.

The acknowledgment of many gods is easily derived from the fear of one’s personal fortune.
The acknowledgment of one God, Eternal, Infinite, and Omnipotent, is more easily derived from the desire men have to know the first cause of all natural things. He who reasons from an effect to its immediate cause, and from there to the cause of that cause, will at last come to this: that there must be one First Mover, a first and eternal cause of all things, which is what men mean by the name of God.

How People Imagine and Worship the Invisible

They Imagine Them as Spirits. When people imagine these invisible agents, they can only conceive of them as being like the human soul. And they imagine the soul is like what you see in a dream or a mirror—a “ghost” or a “spirit.” They think these are real, external substances. The opinion that such spirits are incorporeal, or immaterial, could never enter into the mind of any man by nature. It’s a contradiction in terms. You can say the words, but you can never have an imagination that answers to them.
They Don’t Know How They Work. When it comes to how these invisible agents cause things to happen, men who don’t understand causation have no other rule to guess by than by remembering what they have seen happen before a similar event. They see that B followed A in the past, and so they expect it to happen again, without seeing any real connection. This is why they hope for good or evil luck, superstitiously, from things that have no part at all in causing it—like a lucky person, a special place, or chanting certain words (magic).
They Honor Them as They Honor Men. The worship that men naturally give to invisible powers can be no other than the same expressions of reverence they would use toward powerful men: gifts, petitions, thanks, submission of the body, sober behavior, and swearing by their names.

Beyond these basic instincts, human reason suggests nothing more. It leaves people either to rest with these foundational beliefs or, for any further ceremonies, to rely on those they believe are wiser than themselves.

Lastly, people are naturally at a stand when it comes to how these invisible powers might reveal the future. But because we are used to guessing about the future based on the past, we are very quick to take random coincidences as omens of things to come. We are also quick to believe in similar omens from other people, once we have formed a good opinion of them.

The Four Natural Seeds of Religion

In these four things consists the natural seed of religion:

The belief in ghosts (or invisible agents).
Ignorance of second causes (not knowing how things really work).
Devotion toward what men fear.
Taking random things for omens of the future.

Because of the different imaginations, judgments, and passions of different people, these four seeds have grown up into ceremonies so different from each other that the rituals used by one person are usually ridiculous to another.

How Religion is Shaped

These seeds have been cultivated and shaped by two sorts of people:

Human Inventors: These are people who have organized religion according to their own ideas. This includes the founders of ancient commonwealths and the lawmakers of the pagans. Their religion is a part of human politics, and its purpose is to teach the duty that earthly kings require of their subjects.
Divine Messengers: These are people who have organized religion according to God’s direct command and direction. This includes Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ, from whom the laws of the Kingdom of God have been passed down to us. Their religion is divine politics, containing instructions for those who are subjects in God’s kingdom.

The Absurd Opinions of Paganism

Regarding the pagan religions, there is almost nothing that has a name that has not, in one place or another, been considered a god or a devil.

Worshipping Everything: The unformed matter of the world was a god called Chaos. The sky, the ocean, the planets, fire, the earth, and the winds were all gods. Men, women, a bird, a crocodile, a dog, a snake, and even an onion were made into gods.
Spirits Everywhere: They filled almost all places with spirits: the plains with satyrs, the woods with nymphs, the sea with tritons, every river with a ghost, every house with guardian spirits, and every man with his own personal “genius.” They imagined Hell was full of ghosts and spiritual officers like Cerberus, and the night was full of fairies and boogeymen.
Worshipping Concepts and Feelings: They also built temples to mere accidents and qualities, such as Time, Peace, Concord, Love, Honor, and even Fever. They also worshipped their own feelings: their wit was called the Muses, their ignorance was called Fortune, their lust was Cupid, and their rage was the Furies. There was nothing a poet could imagine as a person in a poem that they did not turn into either a god or a devil.
Creating Gods for Every Job: Observing that people are ignorant of causes, the pagan lawmakers took the opportunity to invent a whole host of “second-string” gods. They assigned the cause of fertility to Venus, the cause of arts to Apollo, the cause of cleverness to Mercury, and the cause of storms to Aeolus. There was almost as great a variety of gods as there were types of business.
Designing Worship: To the natural forms of worship (like prayers and thanks), these lawmakers added images and sculptures. This was done so the most ignorant people—which is to say, the majority—would think the gods were literally housed inside the idols and would fear them more. They also gave these gods human-like passions and vices, like lust, anger, revenge, theft, and adultery—any vice that could be seen as a sign of power or a cause of pleasure.
Superstitious Fortune-Telling: To the natural way of predicting the future (guessing based on past experience), they added countless superstitious methods. They made people believe they could find their fortunes in the ambiguous answers of oracles; in the ravings of madmen; in the stars (astrology); in the flight of birds (augury); in the entrails of a sacrificed animal; in dreams; in the lines on a person’s hand (palmistry); and in unusual events like eclipses, comets, and earthquakes. Men are so easily drawn to believe anything from people who have gained their trust and can cleverly take hold of their fear and ignorance.

The Goal of Pagan Religion

The first founders of commonwealths among the pagans had one main goal: to keep the people in obedience and peace. To do this, they took several steps:

They claimed divine authority. They pretended their religious laws came from a god or a spirit, not from their own minds. This made the laws more easily accepted.
They aligned divine law with civil law. They made it seem that the same things forbidden by their laws were also displeasing to the gods.
They provided a way to appease the gods. They created ceremonies, sacrifices, and festivals. This way, when a disaster happened—a plague, an earthquake, or a loss in war—the common people would blame their own failure to perform the rituals correctly, and would be less likely to rebel against their governors.

By entertaining the people with the pomp and games of festivals, they needed to give them little more than bread to keep them from murmuring against the state. This is why the Romans, who had conquered most of the known world, tolerated almost any religion in their city, unless it had something in it that was incompatible with their civil government. And this is how the religion of the pagans was a part of their politics.

True Religion

But where God himself planted religion through supernatural revelation, he also made for himself a special kingdom. In the Kingdom of God, politics and civil laws are a part of religion. Therefore, the distinction between temporal (earthly) and spiritual power has no place there.

Why Religions Change and Fail

Since all formed religion is founded on the faith that a multitude has in one person, it follows that when the leaders of that religion lose their reputation, the religion itself will be suspected and rejected.

There are four main causes that weaken people’s faith:

Forcing Belief in Impossibilities. When a religion requires people to believe in contradictions, it is a sign of ignorance in its author. This discredits everything else he might claim comes from supernatural revelation. A person can have a revelation of things above natural reason, but not against it.
Leaders Acting Against Their Own Religion. When religious leaders do or say things that show they don’t believe what they require others to believe, it acts as a stumbling block for the faith of others. This includes injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy, greed, and general immorality.
The Appearance of Self-Interest. When the beliefs that leaders require of others seem to mainly benefit the leaders themselves—by giving them power, riches, or special status—people will think the leaders are acting for their own sake, not out of love for others.
A Lack of Miracles. The only testimony men can provide of a divine calling is the operation of miracles, true prophecy, or extraordinary success. New religious doctrines added by people who cannot prove their calling with a miracle will not be believed with any real conviction.

We can see these causes in many historical examples:

When Moses was away for just 40 days, the Israelites, whose faith was built on his miracles, revolted and worshipped a golden calf. When the miracles failed, faith also failed.
When the sons of the prophet Samuel acted as corrupt and unjust judges, the people of Israel lost faith and demanded an earthly king, deposing God from reigning over them. When justice failed, faith also failed.
The Christian religion spread so wonderfully in the Roman Empire partly because the pagan priests of that time had brought themselves into contempt through their greed, corruption, and political scheming.
Likewise, the religion of the Church of Rome was later abolished in England and other parts of Europe partly because of a lack of virtue in the pastors, and partly because of the contradictions and absurdities that scholastic philosophy had introduced into Christian doctrine. This made the clergy appear both ignorant and fraudulent.
Finally, many of the doctrines declared necessary for salvation by the Church of Rome are so clearly to the advantage of the Pope and his spiritual subjects that, if the Christian princes of Europe were not so busy competing with each other, they could easily exclude all foreign authority, just as has been done in England.

For who does not see whose benefit it serves to have it believed that a king’s authority is invalid unless a bishop crowns him? Or that subjects can be freed from their allegiance if the Court of Rome judges their king to be a heretic? Or that a pope can depose a king for no reason and give his kingdom to one of his subjects?

Who does not see whose profit comes from the fees for private masses and payments to get out of Purgatory? These and other signs of private interest are enough to kill the most lively faith. The only reason these religions are sustained is because of the power of the civil government and custom, not because people actually believe in the holiness, wisdom, or honesty of their teachers.

So, I can attribute all the changes of religion in the world to one and the same cause: unpleasing priests. This is true not only among Catholics, but even in those churches that claim to be the most reformed.

CHAPTER XIII: THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND

Men Are Naturally Equal

Nature has made people so equal in their physical and mental abilities that no one can claim for himself any benefit that another person cannot also claim.

Equality of Body: Even the weakest person has enough strength to kill the strongest, either through secret plotting or by teaming up with others who are in the same danger.
Equality of Mind: When it comes to the mind, people are even more equal. Prudence, for example, is nothing more than experience. And given equal time, all people will gain equal experience in the things they equally apply themselves to. The only thing that might make this equality seem incredible is a person’s vain belief in their own wisdom. Almost everyone thinks they have more wisdom than the common person—that is, more than everyone but themselves and a few others they approve of. But the fact that every person is content with their own share of wisdom is perhaps the greatest sign that it is equally distributed.

From Equality Comes Distrust

From this equality of ability, there arises an equality of hope in achieving our goals.

And so, if any two people desire the same thing, which they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies. In order to achieve their goal—which is principally their own self-preservation—they try to destroy or subdue one another.

This is why if one person plants a field, builds a house, or takes possession of a convenient place, he can probably expect others to come with united forces to take it from him, depriving him not only of the fruit of his labor, but also of his life or liberty. And that invader is then in the same danger from another.

From Distrust Comes War

Because of this distrust of one another, the most reasonable way for any person to keep himself safe is through anticipation. That is, by using force or trickery to master every person he can, for as long as it takes until he sees no other power great enough to endanger him. This is no more than what his own self-preservation requires, and it is generally allowed.

Furthermore, some people take pleasure in conquest and pursue it further than their security requires. If other, more modest people did not also increase their own power by invading, they would not be able to survive for long by only standing on their defense. Therefore, increasing one’s dominion over others, being necessary for self-preservation, ought to be allowed.

Finally, people have no pleasure in keeping company with others where there is no power able to over-awe them all. This is because every person wants his friends to value him at the same rate he values himself. And upon every sign of contempt or being undervalued, he will naturally try, as far as he dares, to force a greater value from those who disrespect him through damage, and from others by his example.

So, in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel:

Competition: This makes people invade for Gain.
Distrust (Diffidence): This makes people invade for Safety.
Glory: This makes people invade for Reputation, over trifles like a word, a smile, or a different opinion.

The State of Nature is a War of All Against All

From this, it is clear that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war. And it is a war of every man against every man.

For WAR does not consist only of battle or the act of fighting. It is any stretch of time where the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known. The nature of war is like the nature of bad weather. Foul weather is not just a shower or two of rain, but an inclination toward rain over many days together. Likewise, the nature of war is not actual fighting, but the known disposition to fight, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE.

The Miseries of the State of Nature

In such a condition, where every man is enemy to every man, there is no place for industry, because the fruit of one’s labor is uncertain. Consequently, there is:

No agriculture
No navigation or trade
No comfortable building
No instruments for moving heavy things
No knowledge of the face of the earth
No account of time
No arts
No letters
No society

And worst of all, there is continual fear and danger of violent death. And the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

If this seems strange to you, consider your own actions. When you take a journey, you arm yourself. When you go to sleep, you lock your doors. Even inside your own house, you lock your chests. You do all this even when you know there are laws and public officers to punish any injuries done to you. Do your actions not accuse mankind just as much as my words do?

But neither of us is accusing man’s nature. The desires and other passions of man are not sins in themselves. Neither are the actions that come from those passions, until the person knows a law that forbids them.

It may be thought that there was never such a time of war as this, and I believe it was never generally so all over the world. But there are many places where people live that way now, like the savage people in many parts of America. We can also see what life would be like without a common power by observing how men degenerate into this state during a civil war.

Even if this had never happened with individual men, kings and persons of sovereign authority are, because of their independence, in a continual state of war with each other. They are like gladiators, with their weapons pointing and their eyes fixed on one another at all times.

In Such a War, Nothing is Unjust

In this war of every man against every man, it also follows that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have no place here. Where there is no common power, there is no law. Where there is no law, there is no injustice.

In war, force and fraud are the two cardinal virtues.

Justice and injustice are not faculties of the body or the mind. If they were, they could exist in a man who was alone in the world, just like his senses and passions. But they are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude.

In this condition, there is also no property, no “mine” and “yours.” There is only that which belongs to every man that he can get, and for as long as he can keep it.

This is the ill condition that man is placed in by mere nature. However, he has a possibility of getting out of it, which consists partly in his passions and partly in his reason.

The Passions that Incline Men to Peace: The fear of death; the desire for such things as are necessary for comfortable living; and a hope to obtain them by their industry.
Reason: Reason suggests convenient articles of peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement. These articles are what we call the Laws of Nature.

CHAPTER XIV: THE FIRST AND SECOND NATURAL LAWS

Right of Nature vs. Law of Nature

The RIGHT OF NATURE is the liberty each person has to use his own power, as he sees fit, for the preservation of his own life. It is the right to do anything that, in his own judgment and reason, he thinks is the best way to survive.
A LAW OF NATURE is a general rule, found out by reason, by which a person is forbidden to do anything that is destructive to his own life.

Right consists in the liberty to do or not to do. Law determines and binds you to one of them. They are as different as liberty and obligation.

The Fundamental Laws of Nature

In the condition of war, where every man has a right to everything (even to one another’s body), there can be no security for anyone.

From this, it follows that there is a general rule of reason, which contains the first and fundamental Law of Nature:

“That every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.”

This rule has two parts:

The First Law of Nature: Seek peace and follow it.
The Sum of the Right of Nature: By all means we can, defend ourselves.

From this fundamental law, a second law is derived:

“That a man be willing, when others are so too, as far as is necessary for peace and self-defense, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.”

As long as every man holds the right to do anything he likes, all men are in a condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their rights as well as you, then there is no reason for you to give up yours. To do so would be to expose yourself to prey, which no man is bound to do. This is that law of the Gospel: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Giving Up a Right

To lay down a man’s right to anything is to give up the liberty of preventing another person from benefiting from his own right to that same thing. You don’t give another man a right which he didn’t have before—because every man already has a right to everything by nature. You simply get out of his way so he can enjoy his own original right without hindrance from you.

A right can be laid aside in two ways:

By simply renouncing it, when you don’t care who gets the benefit.
By transferring it, when you intend for the benefit to go to a certain person or persons.

When a man has given away his right, he is then obliged or bound not to interfere. To do so is injustice and injury. Just as it is a logical absurdity to contradict what you first stated, it is an injustice in the world to voluntarily undo an act that you voluntarily did in the first place.

Not All Rights Can Be Given Away

Whenever a man transfers his right, it is because he hopes for some good for himself. It is a voluntary act, and the object of all voluntary acts is some good to oneself.

Therefore, there are some rights that no man can be understood to have abandoned or transferred. A man cannot lay down the right to resist those who assault him by force to take away his life, because he cannot be understood to be aiming at any good for himself by doing so. The same can be said of wounds, chains, and imprisonment.

And finally, the only reason a person renounces or transfers a right is for the security of their own life and the means of preserving that life so that it is not miserable. Therefore, if a person says or does something that seems to destroy that very purpose, we should not understand it as their true will. We should assume they were simply ignorant of how such words and actions would be interpreted.

Contracts and Covenants

The mutual transferring of a right is what people call a CONTRACT.

There is a difference between transferring the right to a thing and delivering the thing itself. Sometimes the thing is delivered at the same time the right is transferred, like when you buy something with cash. Other times, it may be delivered later.

When one person in a contract delivers their part of the deal and trusts the other person to perform their part at a later time, that contract is called a PACT or a COVENANT. When the trusted person performs as promised, it is called keeping their promise or faith. If they voluntarily fail to perform, it is a violation of faith.

A FREE-GIFT is different from a contract. This is when one person transfers a right without any mutual transfer from the other party. They might do this hoping to gain friendship, to get a reputation for charity, or to relieve their own mind from the pain of compassion.

How We Make Agreements

The signs of a contract are either express or by inference.

Express signs are words spoken with understanding.
- Words of the present or past—like “I give,” “I grant,” or “I have given”—transfer the right immediately.
- Words of the future—like “I will give” or “I will grant”—are called a Promise.
Signs by inference can be the consequence of words, silence, actions, or even inaction. It is anything that sufficiently shows what the person intended.

In a free-gift, words of the future (“I will give you this tomorrow”) are not enough to transfer the right. It is just a promise, and the right remains with you until you act. But if you use words of the present about the future (“I hereby give you the right to this tomorrow”), the right is given away today.

In contracts, however, a promise is binding. This is because a contract is a mutual exchange. If you have already received the benefit from the other person, your promise to perform later is understood to be obligatory. They would not have performed their part first unless they understood your words to be binding.

On Merit

When you are the first to perform your part of a contract, you are said to MERIT whatever you are supposed to receive from the other person. You have it as your DUE.

There is also merit in a free gift. If a prize is offered to whoever wins a race, the person who wins is said to merit the prize, and it is due to them. But there is a difference:

In a contract, you merit something through your own power and the other person’s need.
In a free gift (like the race), you are only enabled to merit it by the kindness of the person who offered the prize.

The Rules of Covenants

When Covenants are Invalid: In the state of mere nature (which is a war of every man against every man), if you make a covenant where neither of you performs immediately, that covenant is void if there is any reasonable suspicion that the other person won’t keep their promise. The bonds of words are too weak to control people’s ambition, greed, and anger without the fear of some coercive power. To perform first in the state of nature is to betray yourself to your enemy. But in a civil state, where there is a power set up to force people to keep their promises, that fear is no longer reasonable, and the covenant is valid.
The Right to the Means: Whoever transfers a right also transfers the means of enjoying that right. He who sells land is understood to be transferring the grass that grows on it. He who sells a mill cannot then turn away the stream that drives it.
Covenants with Beasts or God: It is impossible to make a covenant with an animal because they do not understand our speech. It is also impossible to make a covenant with God, unless He speaks to you directly through a supernatural revelation or through his representatives who govern in His name (like a king).
You Can Only Covenant for What is Possible: The subject of a covenant must always be something that is possible for you to perform in the future. To promise what is known to be impossible is not a real covenant.
How Covenants End: A person is freed from their covenant in two ways: by performing it, or by being forgiven.
Covenants Made from Fear Are Valid: In the state of nature, covenants entered into out of fear are binding. For example, if I promise to pay a ransom to an enemy in exchange for my life, I am bound by it. It is a contract where one person receives the benefit of life, and the other receives money or service.
A Prior Covenant Voids a Later One: A man who has given away his right to one person today does not have that right to give to someone else tomorrow. The later promise is null and void.

Rights That Cannot Be Given Away

The Right to Defend Yourself: A covenant not to defend yourself from force, by force, is always void. No one can transfer or lay down their right to save themselves from death, wounds, and imprisonment. The avoidance of these things is the only reason for laying down any right in the first place. This is why criminals are led to prison and execution by armed men, even though those criminals have consented to the law by which they are condemned.
The Right Not to Accuse Yourself: A covenant to accuse yourself, without the assurance of a pardon, is also invalid. In the civil state, accusation is followed by punishment, which is a form of force that you are not obliged not to resist. The same is true for a covenant to accuse those you love, like a father, wife, or benefactor.

On Oaths

The force of words is too weak to hold people to their covenants. In human nature, there are only two imaginable things to strengthen them: a fear of the consequences of breaking their word, or a glory in appearing not to need to break it.

The passion to be reckoned upon is fear. There are two general objects of fear: the power of invisible spirits, and the power of other men.

Before civil society, there is nothing that can strengthen a covenant against temptation other than the fear of an invisible power, which every person worships as a God. Therefore, all that can be done between two people who are not subject to a civil power is to have each other swear by the God he fears.

An OATH is a form of speech added to a promise by which the person promising signifies that if he fails to perform, he renounces the mercy of his God or calls for vengeance upon himself.

However, an oath adds nothing to the obligation. If a covenant is lawful, it binds in the sight of God without the oath, just as much as with it. If it is unlawful, it does not bind at all, even if it is confirmed with an oath.

CHAPTER XV: OF OTHER LAWS OF NATURE

The Third Law of Nature: Justice

From the law of nature that obliges us to transfer rights to others in the interest of peace, a third law follows: That men perform the covenants they have made.

Without this law, covenants are in vain and just empty words. The right of all men to all things remains, and we are still in the condition of war.

And in this law of nature consists the fountain and origin of JUSTICE.

Where no covenant has been made, no right has been transferred, and every man has a right to everything. Consequently, no action can be unjust.
But when a covenant is made, to break it is unjust.
The definition of INJUSTICE is nothing other than the not-performance of a covenant.
And whatever is not unjust, is just.

Justice and Property Begin with the Commonwealth

However, because covenants of mutual trust are invalid wherever there is a fear of non-performance on either side, there can be no actual injustice until the cause of that fear is taken away.

This cannot be done while men are in the natural condition of war. Therefore, although the origin of justice is the making of covenants, there can be no such thing as justice or injustice in the world until a common power is established that can compel men to perform their covenants.

Therefore, before the names “just” and “unjust” can have any meaning, there must be some coercive power. This power is needed to compel people equally to perform their covenants by creating a terror of some punishment that is greater than the benefit they expect to get by breaking their covenant. This power also makes property possible, which people acquire in exchange for giving up their right to all things. Such a power does not exist before the creation of a commonwealth.

We can also see this in the common definition of justice used in schools: “Justice is the constant will of giving to every man his own.” Therefore, where there is no “own”—that is, no property—there can be no injustice. And where there is no coercive power—no commonwealth—there is no property, since all men have a right to all things.

So, where there is no commonwealth, nothing is unjust. The nature of justice consists in the keeping of valid covenants, but the validity of covenants only begins with the creation of a civil power strong enough to compel men to keep them. And that is also when property begins.

Is Justice Contrary to Reason? The Fool’s Argument

The fool has said in his heart that there is no such thing as justice. He argues seriously that since every person’s survival is their own responsibility, there can be no reason why a person might not do whatever they think will help them survive. Therefore, to make or not make, keep or not keep, covenants is not against reason if it leads to one’s benefit.

The fool doesn’t deny that covenants exist or that they are sometimes broken. He just questions whether injustice might sometimes be compatible with reason. For example, if breaking a promise could gain you a kingdom, and in doing so put you in a position where you no longer have to fear other men, would it be against reason to do it? If it is not against reason, he argues, then it is not against justice; or else justice is not a good thing.

From such reasoning, successful wickedness has often been called virtue.

Why the Fool is Wrong

This reasoning, though it sounds convincing, is false.

The question is not about promises made in the state of nature where there is no security. Those are not real covenants. The question is whether it is against reason to break your promise when (a) the other party has already performed their part, or (b) when there is a power to make you perform.

And I say it is not against reason to keep your covenant. Here is why:

Lucky accidents don’t make an action wise. If you do something that can be reasonably expected to lead to your own destruction, it isn’t a wise or reasonable act just because some unexpected accident happens to turn it to your benefit.
You need allies to survive. In the state of war, no one can hope to defend themselves by their own strength alone. You need allies. But if you declare that you think it’s reasonable to deceive your allies, you cannot reasonably expect any other means of safety than your own single power. Anyone who breaks his covenant cannot be received into any society that unites for peace and defense. If he is let in, it is only by the error of others, and he cannot rationally count on their error as a means of security. If he is cast out of society, he dies. Therefore, breaking covenants is against the reason of your own preservation.
Gaining a kingdom by rebellion is against reason. Even if a rebellion succeeds, that outcome could not have been reasonably expected—the contrary is more likely. And by succeeding in that way, you teach others to do the same to you. The attempt is against reason.

Therefore, justice—that is, the keeping of covenants—is a rule of reason by which we are forbidden to do anything destructive to our own life. Consequently, it is a Law of Nature.

Some people argue that you can break faith on earth to attain eternal happiness in heaven (for example, by rebelling against a king). But since we have no natural knowledge of man’s state after death, and only a belief based on what other men say, breaking faith for a supernatural reward cannot be called a rule of reason.

Others argue that while we must keep our promises, we can make exceptions for certain people, like heretics. This is also against reason. If a fault in a person is enough to cancel your covenant with them, it should have been enough to prevent you from making it in the first place.

Justice of Men vs. Justice of Actions

The words “just” and “unjust” mean one thing when applied to men, and another when applied to actions.

Justice of Men: This refers to a person’s character or “manners.” A just man (or a righteous man) is someone who does his best to ensure all his actions are just. He does not lose this title because of one or two unjust actions that come from a sudden passion or a mistake.
Justice of Actions: This refers to a specific act. A just action is one that is in line with a covenant. The injustice of an action is called an injury. It makes a person guilty, not “unjust.”

The injustice of manners is the disposition to do injury. The injustice of an action (an injury) requires a specific person to be injured—namely, the person to whom the covenant was made.

Also, whatever is done to a man that is in line with his own expressed will is no injury to him.

Types of Justice

Writers often divide the justice of actions into two types:

Commutative Justice: The justice of a contractor. It is simply the performance of a covenant, as in buying, selling, lending, and other acts of contract. The common idea that it consists of an equal value of the things being exchanged is wrong. The just value is whatever the contractors are content to give.
Distributive Justice: The justice of an arbitrator. It is the act of defining what is just. If the arbitrator performs his trust, he is said to distribute to every man his own. This is more properly called Equity, which is also a law of nature.

Other Laws of Nature

The Fourth Law of Nature: Gratitude. If someone gives you a benefit out of mere grace (as a free gift), you should try to ensure that the giver has no reasonable cause to regret his goodwill. If people see that their gifts will only lead to bad outcomes for them, there will be no beginning of trust, mutual help, or reconciliation. The breach of this law is called ingratitude.
The Fifth Law of Nature: Mutual Accommodation. Every man should strive to accommodate himself to the rest. In society, people are like stones being brought together for a building. A stone that is so irregular and stubborn that it takes up more room than it fills, and cannot be easily shaped, is thrown away. Likewise, a man who, out of the stubbornness of his passions, tries to keep things that are superfluous to him but necessary to others, is to be cast out of society.
The Sixth Law of Nature: Pardon. Upon receiving a promise of good behavior for the future, a man ought to pardon the past offenses of those who repent and desire it. Pardon is the granting of peace. To refuse it to those who give caution for the future is a sign of an aversion to peace and is against the law of nature.
The Seventh Law of Nature: Revenge Should Look to the Future. In revenge, men should not look at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good that will follow. We are forbidden to inflict punishment with any design other than the correction of the offender or the direction of others. To hurt another person without reason is glorying to no end, which is vain-glory and commonly called cruelty.
The Eighth Law of Nature: Against Insult. Because all signs of hatred or contempt provoke people to fight, this law states: “That no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another.” The breaking of this law is commonly called contumely.
The Ninth Law of Nature: Against Pride. In the state of nature, all men are equal. The inequality that exists now was introduced by civil laws. Because men who think themselves equal will not enter into conditions of peace except on equal terms, that equality must be acknowledged. Therefore, the ninth law of nature is: “That every man acknowledge other for his equal by nature.” The breaking of this rule is pride.
The Tenth Law of Nature: Against Arrogance. From the previous law, another follows: “That at the entrance into conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest.” While it is necessary for all men seeking peace to lay down certain rights, it is also necessary for life to retain some, such as the right to govern one’s own body, enjoy air and water, and all other things without which a man cannot live, or not live well.

If, when making peace, a person demands for themselves a right that they would not be willing to grant to others, they are acting against the previous law that commands the acknowledgment of natural equality. The people who observe this law are what we call modest, and the people who break it are arrogant.

The Laws of Nature (Continued)

The Eleventh Law of Nature: Equity. If a person is trusted to judge between two others, it is a rule of the Law of Nature that he deal equally between them. Without this, controversies can only be determined by war. A person who is partial in judgment becomes a cause of war. The observance of this law is called EQUITY. Its violation is favoritism.
The Twelfth Law of Nature: Equal Use of Common Things. Things that cannot be divided should be enjoyed in common, if possible. If the quantity allows, they should be enjoyed without limit; otherwise, they should be enjoyed proportionally to the number of people who have the right.
The Thirteenth Law of Nature: The Use of a Lottery. For things that can neither be divided nor enjoyed in common, the Law of Nature requires that the right to them be determined by lot. This is because an equal distribution is required by the Law of Nature, and no other means of equal distribution can be imagined.
The Fourteenth Law of Nature: Primogeniture and First Seizure. There are two kinds of lots: arbitrary (agreed on by the competitors) and natural. The natural lots are primogeniture (the first-born inherits) and first seizure (first come, first served). Therefore, things that cannot be divided or enjoyed in common ought to be given to the first possessor or, in some cases, the first-born, as if acquired by lot.
The Fifteenth Law of Nature: Safe Conduct for Mediators. It is a Law of Nature that all people who mediate for peace be allowed safe conduct. The law that commands the end (peace) also commands the means to that end (intercession), and the means for intercession is safe conduct.
The Sixteenth Law of Nature: Submission to an Arbitrator. Because disputes will always arise, the parties in a controversy must agree to submit their right to the judgment of an arbitrator. Unless they do so, they are as far from peace as ever.
The Seventeenth Law of Nature: No Man is His Own Judge. Because every person is presumed to act for their own benefit, no man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause.
The Eighteenth Law of Nature: No Man with a Conflict of Interest Can Be a Judge. For the same reason, no person should be an arbitrator in a case where he would get more profit, honor, or pleasure from the victory of one side over the other. This is like taking an unavoidable bribe.
The Nineteenth Law of Nature: The Use of Witnesses. In a controversy of fact, a judge cannot give more credit to one party than to the other if there are no other arguments. Therefore, he must give credit to a third-party witness, or to multiple witnesses. Otherwise, the question is left undecided and will be settled by force, which is against the Law of Nature.

A Summary of the Laws of Nature

These are the Laws of Nature, which dictate peace as the means for the survival of men in multitudes.

Although this deduction of the laws may seem too complicated for most people to notice (as most are too busy getting food, and the rest too negligent to understand), they have been contracted into one easy rule that is intelligible to everyone:

“Do not that to another, which you would not have done to yourself.”

This shows a person that all they have to do to learn the Laws of Nature is to imagine their actions being done to them. When weighing the actions of others, if they seem too heavy, you should put them into the other side of the balance and your own actions into their place. That way, your own passions and self-love will add nothing to the weight, and all these Laws of Nature will appear very reasonable.

The Laws Bind in Conscience, Not Always in Action: The Laws of Nature always oblige in foro interno, that is, they bind you to a desire that they should be followed. But they do not always bind in foro externo, that is, in your actions. A person who is modest and keeps all his promises in a time and place where no one else does so would only make himself a prey to others and ensure his own certain ruin. This is contrary to the entire basis of the Laws of Nature, which is self-preservation.
The Laws of Nature are Eternal: Injustice, ingratitude, arrogance, pride, and the rest can never be made lawful. It can never be that war will preserve life and peace will destroy it.
The Laws of Nature are Easy: Because they only require a constant endeavor to follow them, they are easy to observe. He that tries to fulfill the law, fulfills it, and is just.

The science of these laws is the true and only moral philosophy. It is the science of what is good and evil in the society of mankind. The writers of moral philosophy before this have acknowledged the same virtues and vices, but they did not see that their goodness consists in their being the means of a peaceable, sociable, and comfortable life.

Finally, these dictates of reason are what men usually call “laws,” but this is improper. They are really just conclusions or theorems about what leads to our own preservation. A “law,” properly speaking, is the word of someone who has a right to command others. However, if we consider these same theorems as being delivered in the word of God, who commands all things by right, then they are properly called Laws.

CHAPTER XVI: OF PERSONS, AUTHORS, AND THINGS PERSONATED

What is a Person?

A PERSON is someone whose words or actions are considered either as their own or as representing the words or actions of another man or thing.

When the words and actions are considered his own, he is called a Natural Person.
When they are considered as representing another, he is called a feigned or Artificial Person.

The word “person” comes from the Latin word persona, which was a disguise or mask used on a stage. From the stage, the word has been translated to mean any representer of speech and action. A Person is the same as an Actor. To “personate” is to act or represent oneself or another.

Actor, Author, and Authority

In the case of artificial persons, some have their words and actions owned by those whom they represent. In this case:

The person acting is the ACTOR.
The person who owns the words and actions is the AUTHOR.
The Actor acts by AUTHORITY. Authority is the right to perform an action, which is given by the Author.

From this, it follows that:

Covenants Made by an Actor Bind the Author: When an actor makes a covenant by authority, he binds the author just as if the author had made it himself.
The Actor is Not Bound: If an author commands an actor to do something that is against the Law of Nature, it is the author who breaks the law, not the actor. The actor’s duty is to keep his covenant to obey the author.
Authority Must Be Shown: A person who makes a covenant with an actor does so at his own peril if he does not know what authority the actor has. If the authority is faked, the covenant obliges the actor only, since there is no other author but himself.

What Can Be “Personated” or Represented?

There are few things that cannot be represented by fiction.

Inanimate things, like a church, a hospital, or a bridge, can be personated by an overseer. But these things cannot be authors; the authority to act for them must be given by their owners or governors.
Children, fools, and madmen can be personated by guardians. They cannot be authors of any actions until they recover their reason.
An idol or a false god can be personated by officers appointed by the state. An idol cannot be an author, because an idol is nothing. The authority comes from the state.
The true God can be personated. He was personated first by Moses, then by Jesus Christ, and thirdly by the Holy Ghost working in the Apostles.

How a Multitude Becomes One Person

This is the most important concept for understanding a commonwealth:

A multitude of men are made One Person when they are represented by one man or one person, so long as it is done with the consent of every single individual in that multitude.

It is the unity of the representer, not the unity of the represented, that makes the Person One.

And because the multitude is naturally not one but many, they must be understood as being many authors of everything their representative says or does in their name. Every single man gives the common representative authority from himself and owns all the actions the representative does.

If the representative consists of many men, the voice of the greater number must be considered as the voice of them all.

There are two sorts of authors. The first is the one I have already defined: the person who simply owns the action of another. The second is one who owns an action conditionally. He promises to perform the action if the original person fails to do so by a certain time. These conditional authors are generally called SURETIES or guarantors.

PART II: OF COMMONWEALTH

CHAPTER XVII: THE REASONS FOR AND CREATION OF A COMMONWEALTH

The Goal of Government: Security

The final goal or purpose that makes men—who naturally love liberty and dominating others—accept the restraints of living in a commonwealth is the desire for their own preservation and a more contented life. In other words, their goal is to get themselves out of that miserable condition of war, which is the necessary consequence of the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe.

Why the Laws of Nature Are Not Enough

The Laws of Nature (like justice, equity, modesty, and mercy) are, by themselves, contrary to our natural passions, which carry us to partiality, pride, and revenge. Without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, these laws are useless.

Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and have no strength to secure a man at all.

Therefore, despite the Laws of Nature, if there is no government erected, or not one great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and cleverness to protect himself from all other men.

In all places where men have lived by small families, robbing and spoiling one another has been a trade. It was so far from being against the Law of Nature that the more they gained, the greater was their honor. Just as small families did then, so now do cities and kingdoms—which are just greater families—enlarge their dominions for their own security. They try to subdue or weaken their neighbors by open force and secret tricks, and they are remembered for it with honor.

Why Small Groups and Divided Multitudes Fail

Small groups are not enough. Joining together with a small number of men does not provide security. In small numbers, even a small addition to one side can make the advantage of strength so great that it is enough to win a victory, which only gives encouragement to an invasion.
A great multitude is not enough, unless it is united. Even if there is a great multitude, if their actions are directed by their own individual judgments and appetites, they cannot protect themselves. They will hinder each other rather than help, and their strength will be reduced to nothing by their mutual opposition. They are easily subdued by a very few who agree together. And when there is no common enemy, they will make war upon each other for their own private interests.

If we could suppose that a great multitude of men could agree to observe justice and the other Laws of Nature without a common power to keep them all in awe, we might as well suppose that all of mankind could do the same. And then there would be no need for any civil government or commonwealth at all, because there would be peace without subjection.

Temporary unity is not enough. It is not enough to be directed by one judgment for a limited time, like in a single battle or war. Afterward, when they no longer have a common enemy, they will surely fall apart due to their different interests and fall back into a war among themselves.

Why Men Are Not Like Bees

Some may ask why mankind cannot live sociably like other creatures, such as bees and ants, without a coercive power. My answer is that there are six key differences:

Men are in continual competition for honor and dignity, which these creatures are not. This leads to envy, hatred, and finally war among men.
Among these creatures, the common good is the same as the private good. By pursuing their own interest, they help the whole group. But a man can only enjoy things that make him seem better than others.
These creatures, lacking reason, do not see any faults in how their society is run. But among men, there are very many who think they are wiser than the rest and try to innovate and reform, which brings distraction and civil war.
These creatures lack the art of words, by which men can represent good as evil and evil as good, troubling the peace at their pleasure.
Irrational creatures cannot distinguish between injury (a breach of covenant) and damage (harm). As long as they are comfortable, they are not offended by their fellows. But man is most troublesome when he is most at ease, for that is when he loves to show off his wisdom and criticize the government.
The agreement of these creatures is natural. The agreement of men is by covenant only, which is artificial. Therefore, it is no wonder that something else is required to make their agreement constant and lasting: a Common Power to keep them in awe and direct their actions to the common benefit.

The Creation of a Commonwealth

The only way to erect such a common power—one that is able to defend people from foreign invasion and from injuring one another—is to confer all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills into one will.

This is to appoint one man or assembly of men to be their Representative. Every person must acknowledge himself to be the Author of whatever their Representative does in those things which concern the common peace and safety.

This is more than simple consent; it is a real unity of them all, in one and the same person. It is made by a covenant of every man with every man, as if every man should say to every other man:

“I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on the condition that you give up your right to him and authorize all his actions in the same manner.”

This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, of that “Mortal God,” to which we owe, under the Immortal God, our peace and defense.

Definition of a Commonwealth

A commonwealth is:

One person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants with one another, have made themselves each the author, so that he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think necessary, for their peace and common defense.

He that carries this person is called the SOVEREIGN and is said to have sovereign power. Everyone else is his SUBJECT.

Sovereign power can be attained in two ways:

By Acquisition: Through natural force, as when a man conquers his enemies in war.
By Institution: When men agree among themselves to submit to some man or assembly voluntarily, trusting them to protect them.

First, I will speak of a commonwealth by institution.

CHAPTER XVIII: THE RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNS BY INSTITUTION

The Act of Creating a Commonwealth

A commonwealth is said to be instituted when a multitude of men agree and covenant, every one with every one, that to whatever man or assembly of men the major part shall give the right to be their representative, every one—both he that voted for it and he that voted against it—shall authorize all the actions of that representative as if they were his own.

The Consequences: The Rights of the Sovereign

From this institution, all the rights and powers of the sovereign are derived.

1. The subjects cannot change the form of government. Because they have made a covenant with each other to own the actions of the sovereign, they cannot lawfully make a new covenant to obey anyone else without his permission. They cannot cast off monarchy. To do so would be unjust, because they would be breaking their covenant with every other man, and they would be taking from the sovereign that which is his own. If the sovereign punishes them for trying to depose him, they are the author of their own punishment.

2. Sovereign power cannot be forfeited. The sovereign makes no covenant with his subjects. The covenant is only between the subjects themselves. Therefore, there can be no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign. Consequently, none of his subjects can be freed from his subjection by any claim of forfeiture. The opinion that any monarch receives his power by covenant or on condition comes from a failure to understand this easy truth: that covenants are just words and have no force to protect any man except that which comes from the public sword.

3. No one can protest the choice of the sovereign. Because the major part has declared a sovereign by consent, he that dissented must now consent with the rest. By voluntarily entering the congregation, he tacitly covenanted to stand by what the major part decided. If he refuses, he acts unjustly, and he can be justly destroyed by the rest because he has been left in the condition of war he was in before.

4. The sovereign’s actions cannot be justly accused by the subject. Because every subject is by this institution the author of all the actions and judgments of the sovereign, it follows that whatever the sovereign does can be no injury to any of his subjects. He who complains of an injury from his sovereign complains of something of which he himself is the author. It is true that the sovereign can commit iniquity (a sin against God or the law of nature), but he cannot commit injustice or injury (a breach of covenant) against his subjects.

5. The sovereign is unpunishable by the subject. Consequently, no man that has sovereign power can justly be put to death or otherwise punished by his subjects. Since every subject is the author of the actions of his sovereign, he would be punishing another for actions committed by himself.

The Rights of the Sovereign (Continued)

6. The sovereign is the judge of what is necessary for peace and defense… Because the goal of the commonwealth is the peace and defense of all its members, and whoever has the right to the end also has the right to the means, the sovereign has the right to be the judge of what is necessary for peace. He can do whatever he thinks is necessary, both beforehand to prevent conflict, and afterward to restore peace and security once they are lost.

…and the judge of what doctrines are fit to be taught. As part of this, the sovereign has the right to judge what opinions and doctrines are harmful to peace and what is helpful. He has the right to control what men are taught, what is said to them in public, and who shall examine all books before they are published. This is because the actions of men proceed from their opinions. To govern men’s actions, you must first govern their opinions. A doctrine that is against peace can no more be true than peace and concord can be against the Law of Nature.

7. The sovereign has the right to make the rules of property. The sovereign has the whole power of prescribing the rules by which every man may know what goods he can enjoy and what actions he can do without being molested by his fellow subjects. This is what men call propriety (property). Before there was a sovereign power, all men had a right to all things, which necessarily caused war. Therefore, property, being necessary for peace, is an act of the sovereign. These rules of property are the Civil Laws.

8. The sovereign has the right of all judicature. The sovereign has the right of hearing and deciding all controversies, whether they are about law or about fact. Without a final decision-maker, laws about property are in vain, and every man is left to protect himself with his own private strength, which is the condition of war.

9. The sovereign has the right of making war and peace. The sovereign has the right to make war and peace with other nations. This includes judging when war is for the public good, determining how great an army is needed, and levying money upon the subjects to pay for it. The sovereign is always the commander-in-chief of the army.

10. The sovereign has the right of choosing all counselors and ministers. The sovereign has the right to choose all counselors, ministers, magistrates, and officers, both in peace and in war. Since the sovereign is responsible for the end (peace and defense), he must have the power to use whatever means—and appoint whatever people—he thinks are most fit.

11. The sovereign has the right of rewarding and punishing. The sovereign has the power to reward his subjects with riches or honor and to punish them with physical or financial penalties. This can be done according to a law he has already made, or, if there is no law, according to his own judgment of what will best encourage men to serve the commonwealth and deter them from doing it harm.

12. The sovereign has the right of giving titles of honor. Because men are naturally apt to value themselves highly and others little, which leads to quarrels and war, it is necessary to have laws of honor and a public valuation of men who have served the commonwealth well. The sovereign, therefore, has the right to give titles of honor and to appoint the order of place and dignity each man shall hold.

These Rights Are Indivisible

These twelve rights are the essence of sovereignty. They are incommunicable and inseparable. If the sovereign gives away his power over the military, his power to judge is in vain. If he gives away his power to raise money, the military is in vain. If he gives away his control over doctrines, men will be frightened into rebellion by the fear of spirits.

“A kingdom divided in itself cannot stand.”

The English Civil War only happened because the people of England had been taught to believe that these powers were divided between the King, the Lords, and the House of Commons. These rights are inseparable, and any grant that seems to give one of them away is void unless the sovereign directly renounces his sovereignty in plain terms.

The Power of Subjects Vanishes in the Presence of the Sovereign

Just as servants are equal and without honor in the presence of their master, so too are subjects in the presence of their sovereign. The dignities of Lord, Earl, and Duke are his creatures. And though subjects may shine with some honor when they are out of the sovereign’s sight, in his presence, they shine no more than the stars in the presence of the sun.

Sovereign Power Is Not as Harmful as the Lack of It

Some may object that the condition of subjects is miserable, as they are subject to the lusts and passions of a ruler with unlimited power. My response is this:

First, the power is the same in all forms of government (monarchy, democracy, or aristocracy) if they are strong enough to protect the people.
Second, the state of man can never be without some inconvenience. The greatest inconvenience that can possibly happen to people under any form of government is barely noticeable compared to the miseries and horrible calamities that accompany a civil war or the lawless condition of masterless men.
Third, the greatest pressure from sovereign governors comes not from any delight they take in harming their subjects, but from the subjects themselves, who are unwilling to contribute to their own defense. This makes it necessary for their governors to draw what they can from them in peacetime so that they may be ready for an emergency.

All men are by nature provided with multiplying glasses (their passions and self-love), through which every little payment seems like a great grievance. But they lack the prospective glasses (moral and civil science) to see from a distance the miseries that hang over them, and which cannot be avoided without such payments.

CHAPTER XIX: THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMMONWEALTH

There Are Only Three Kinds of Commonwealth

The difference between commonwealths is the difference in the sovereign, or the person that represents the multitude. Because the sovereign must be either one man or more than one, it is clear that there can be only three kinds of commonwealth:

Monarchy: When the representative is one man.
Democracy: When the representative is an assembly of all that will come together.
Aristocracy: When the representative is an assembly of only a part of the people.

There can be no other kind of commonwealth, because the sovereign power (which I have shown to be indivisible) must be held by one, more, or all.

Tyranny and Oligarchy Are Not Different Forms of Government

There are other names of government in history books, like tyranny and oligarchy. But they are not the names of other forms of government. They are the names of the same forms, just when they are disliked.

People who are discontented under a monarchy call it a tyranny.
People who are displeased with an aristocracy call it an oligarchy.
People who are grieved under a democracy call it anarchy (which means a want of government).

No one believes that a lack of government is a new kind of government. By the same reason, they should not believe that the government is one kind when they like it and another when they dislike it.

A Comparison of Monarchy with Assemblies

The difference between these three kinds of commonwealth is not in the amount of power they have, but in their ability to produce the peace and security of the people. To compare monarchy with the other two, we may observe:

First, on public versus private interest. Whoever is the representative of the people—whether a monarch or a member of an assembly—also has his own private interests (family, friends, etc.). If the public interest happens to conflict with his private interest, he will usually prefer the private. It follows, then, that the public is most advanced where the public and private interests are most closely united.
- In a monarchy, the private interest is the same as the public interest. The riches, power, and honor of a monarch can only arise from the riches, strength, and reputation of his subjects. No king can be rich, glorious, or secure if his subjects are poor or weak.
- In a democracy or an aristocracy, the public prosperity does not contribute as much to the private fortune of a corrupt or ambitious member as a treacherous action or a civil war sometimes does.
Second, on receiving counsel. A monarch can receive advice from anyone he pleases, whenever and wherever he wants. He can hear the opinion of experts in the matter, of whatever rank or quality, long before the time of action and with as much secrecy as he desires.

A Comparison of Monarchy with Assemblies (Continued)

Third, on constancy. A monarch’s decisions are subject only to the inconstancy of human nature. But in assemblies, besides the inconstancy of nature, there is an inconstancy that arises from the number of members. The absence of a few people, or the diligent appearance of a few with a contrary opinion, can undo today everything that was concluded yesterday.
Fourth, on internal conflict. A monarch cannot disagree with himself out of envy or self-interest. But an assembly can, and to such a degree that it may produce a civil war.
Fifth, on favorites and flatterers. In a monarchy, there is this great and inevitable inconvenience: any subject can be deprived of all he possesses by the power of one man, simply for the enriching of a favorite or a flatterer. But the same thing can happen in an assembly. Their power is the same, and they are just as subject to evil counsel from skilled orators as a monarch is from flatterers. And whereas the favorites of a monarch are few, the favorites of an assembly are many, and their families are even more numerous. Furthermore, a monarch’s favorite can help his friends as well as hurt his enemies. But the favorites of a sovereign assembly—orators—though they have great power to hurt people by accusing them, have little power to save them. This is because, such is man’s nature, it requires less eloquence to accuse than to excuse.
Sixth, on the problem of an infant successor. It is an inconvenience in a monarchy that the sovereignty may pass to an infant, or to one who cannot tell the difference between good and evil. In this case, the use of his power must be in the hands of another person or an assembly, who will govern in his name as a protector or regent. The danger here comes from the competition among ambitious people for such a powerful office. However, this is not a fault of monarchy itself, but of the ambition and injustice of the subjects. The previous monarch can appoint who will be the guardian. If he doesn’t, the Law of Nature provides this rule: the guardianship shall go to the person who has the most natural interest in preserving the infant’s authority, and the least to gain by his death. On the other side, a large sovereign assembly is often in the same condition as a child monarch. Just as a child must accept the advice given to him, an assembly lacks the liberty to dissent from the counsel of the major part, whether it is good or bad. And in times of great danger, sovereign assemblies often need to appoint dictators or protectors—who are temporary monarchs—and these assemblies have been more often deprived of their power by these protectors than infant kings have been by their regents.

”Mixed” Governments Are Not Different Forms

Although there are only three kinds of sovereignty (monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy), some may be inclined to think there are other forms, created by mixing these together. For example:

Elective Kingdoms, where kings have sovereign power for a limited time.
Limited Kingdoms, where the king has a limited power.

But these are not different forms of government.

An elective king is not a sovereign, but a minister of the sovereign. If he cannot choose his own successor, then the sovereignty was always in the assembly that has the power to elect a new king after his death.
A limited king is not superior to the person or assembly that has the power to limit him. Therefore, he is not sovereign. The sovereignty was always in that assembly. This was the case in ancient Sparta, where the kings had the privilege of leading their armies, but the sovereignty was in the assembly of the Ephori.
When a democracy, like the Roman people, governs another country, like Judea, with a president, Judea is not a democracy. The people of Judea had no right to participate in the Roman government. They were governed by one person (which was the Roman people as a whole). This is a monarchy of one people over another people.

The Right of Succession

Because all rulers are mortal, it is necessary for the peace of men that there be an order for an “artificial eternity” of the sovereign power. This is called the Right of Succession. Without it, men would return to the condition of war every time their governor died.

The right to decide the succession is always in the hands of the present sovereign.

In a Democracy, this question has no place, because the assembly cannot fail unless the entire population fails.
In an Aristocracy, when a member of the assembly dies, the election of another to his position belongs to the assembly itself.
In a Monarchy, the difficulty is that it is not always obvious who is to appoint the successor, or who it is that has been appointed. It is clear, however, that the right to decide the successor is always left to the judgment and will of the present monarch. To leave it to a new choice would be to dissolve the commonwealth and return to the confusion of war.

The monarch’s choice of successor is determined in one of three ways:

By Express Words or a Testament. This is when the monarch declares in his lifetime, either by speaking or in writing, who his heir will be.
By Custom. Where there are no express words, the custom is to be followed. If the custom is that the next of kin succeeds, then the next of kin has the right. The fact that the monarch did not change the custom is a natural sign that he approved of it.
By Presumption of Natural Affection. Where there is neither custom nor a testament, it is to be understood that the monarch’s will is that the government should remain a monarchy, and that his own child (male over female) should be preferred before any other.

It is lawful for a monarch to dispose of the succession by will, even to a stranger. While this may sometimes be inconvenient for the people, that inconvenience comes from the lack of skill of the governors, not from the act itself.

CHAPTER XX: OF PATERNAL AND DESPOTICAL DOMINION

Commonwealth by Acquisition

A commonwealth by acquisition is one where the sovereign power is acquired by force. It is acquired by force when men, for fear of death or imprisonment, authorize all the actions of the man or assembly that has their lives and liberty in his power.

How It Differs from a Commonwealth by Institution

This kind of sovereignty differs from sovereignty by institution in only one way:

In a commonwealth by institution, men choose their sovereign for fear of one another.
In a commonwealth by acquisition, men subject themselves to him they are afraid of.

In both cases, they do it for fear. This is important to note for those who hold that all covenants that proceed from fear of death or violence are void. If that were true, no man in any kind of commonwealth could be obliged to obedience.

It is true that once a commonwealth is established, promises made from fear of death are not obliging if the thing promised is contrary to the laws. But the reason is not because the promise was made out of fear, but because the person who promised had no right to give away the thing promised.

When a man lawfully makes a promise, he unlawfully breaks it. But when the sovereign, who is the actor, acquits him of that promise, then he is acquitted by the author of that action.

The Rights of Sovereignty Are the Same for All Forms of Government

The rights and consequences of sovereignty are the same, whether the commonwealth is created by institution (agreement) or by acquisition (force).

The sovereign’s power cannot be transferred to another without his consent.
He cannot forfeit it.
He cannot be accused of injury by any of his subjects.
He cannot be punished by them.
He is the judge of what is necessary for peace and of what doctrines should be taught.
He is the sole lawmaker and the supreme judge of controversies.
He decides the occasions for war and peace.
It is his right to choose all magistrates, counselors, and officers.
It is his right to determine all rewards, punishments, and honors.

The reasons for this are the same as those explained in the previous chapter.

Paternal Dominion (The Power of Parents)

Dominion over another person is acquired in two ways: by generation and by conquest. The right of dominion by generation is the power a parent has over their children and is called PATERNAL dominion.

It Comes Not from Generation, but from the Child’s Consent. A parent does not have dominion over a child simply because he begat him. The right comes from the child’s consent, which is either expressed or declared by other sufficient arguments. Generation involves two equal parents, so if the right came from generation, the child would have to obey two masters, which is impossible.
In the State of Nature, Dominion Belongs to the Mother. In a commonwealth, this question is decided by the civil law, usually in favor of the father. But in the state of mere nature, where there are no marriage laws, the father cannot be known unless the mother declares who it is. Therefore, the right of dominion over the child depends on her will and is consequently hers. Furthermore, the infant is first in the power of the mother. She can either nourish it or abandon it. If she nourishes it, the child owes its life to her and is therefore obliged to obey her. But if she abandons it and another person finds and raises it, the dominion belongs to the person who raises it.
If a Parent is a Subject, the Child is a Subject. If the mother is the father’s subject, the child is in the father’s power. If the father is the mother’s subject (as when a sovereign queen marries one of her subjects), the child is subject to the mother.

Despotical Dominion (The Power of Conquerors)

Dominion acquired by conquest or victory in war is called DESPOTICAL dominion. This is the dominion of a master over his servant.

It is Acquired by the Consent of the Vanquished. This dominion is acquired when the vanquished person, to avoid the present stroke of death, makes a covenant with the victor. He agrees that as long as his life and liberty are allowed him, the victor shall have the use of them at his pleasure.
The Difference Between a Servant and a Slave. After such a covenant is made, the vanquished person is a SERVANT. A captive who is kept in prison or in chains is not a servant but a slave. A slave has no obligation at all and may justly break his bonds, escape, and even kill or carry away his master. A servant is one who has been captured but is trusted with his physical liberty on the promise that he will not run away or do violence to his master.
The Right Comes Not from the Victory, but from the Covenant. It is not the victory that gives the right of dominion over the vanquished, but his own covenant. He is not obliged because he was beaten, but because he comes in and submits to the victor.
The Master’s Power is Absolute. The master of the servant is also the master of all he has: his goods, his labor, his servants, and his children. If the master kills the servant for disobedience, the servant is himself the author of that action and cannot accuse the master of injury.

In sum, the rights and consequences of both paternal and despotical dominion are the very same as those of a sovereign by institution, and for the same reasons. The sovereign is absolute over his people, whether they chose him or were conquered by him. Otherwise, there is no sovereignty at all, and every man may lawfully protect himself with his own sword, which is the condition of war.

The Right of Monarchy in Scripture

Let us now consider what the Scripture teaches on this point. Both reason and Scripture show that the sovereign power is as great as men can possibly make it.

To Moses, the children of Israel said: “Speak thou to us, and we will hear thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we die.” This is absolute obedience.
Concerning the right of kings, God himself, through the mouth of Samuel, said: “This shall be the Right of the King… He shall take your sons… your daughters… your fields… your servants… and you shall be his servants.” This is absolute power.
The prayer of King Solomon was: “Give to thy servant understanding, to judge thy people, and to discern between Good and Evil.” Therefore, it belongs to the sovereign to be the judge of good and evil, which means he has the legislative power.
St. Paul said: “Servants obey your masters in All things,” and “Children obey your Parents in All things.” This is simple obedience.
Our Savior himself acknowledged that men ought to pay such taxes as are imposed by kings when he said, “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
The sin of Adam and Eve was to take upon themselves God’s office, which is the judgment of good and evil. This signifies that the commands of those that have the right to command are not to be censored or disputed by their subjects.

Though men may imagine many evil consequences from such unlimited power, the consequences of the want of it—which is the perpetual war of every man against his neighbor—are much worse. The skill of making and maintaining commonwealths consists in certain rules, like arithmetic and geometry, not just in practice, like playing tennis.

CHAPTER XXI: OF THE LIBERTY OF SUBJECTS

What is Liberty?

Liberty, or FREEDOM, properly signifies the absence of opposition. By opposition, I mean external obstacles to motion.

This definition can be applied to irrational and inanimate creatures just as it can to rational ones.

Water that is kept in by banks or a vessel is not at liberty to spread itself into a larger space.
Any living creature that is imprisoned or restrained by walls or chains is not at liberty to go further.

But when the obstacle to motion is in the constitution of the thing itself, we do not say it lacks liberty, but that it lacks the power to move. A stone lying still or a man fastened to his bed by sickness lacks the power to move, not the liberty to move.

What It Is to Be Free

According to this proper and generally received meaning of the word, a FREE-MAN is:

“He that, in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to do.”

The Proper Use of the Word “Free”

When the words “free” and “liberty” are applied to anything but physical bodies, they are being abused. Something that cannot move cannot be impeded.

When we say “the way is free,” we don’t mean the road has liberty; we mean that the people walking on it are free from being stopped.
When we say a gift is “free,” we mean the giver was free from any law or contract that bound him to give it.
When we speak “freely,” it is the liberty of the man, whom no law has obliged to speak otherwise.
Lastly, from the phrase “free will,” we cannot infer any liberty of the will or desire itself, but only the liberty of the man. This liberty consists in the fact that he finds no obstacle in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do.

Fear and Liberty Are Consistent

Fear and liberty are perfectly consistent with each other. Actions that a person does out of fear are still voluntary and free.

Example 1: A man at sea who throws his goods overboard for fear the ship will sink still does so very willingly. He could refuse to do it if he wanted. It is therefore the action of a man who was free.
Example 2: A man who pays a debt only for fear of going to prison still acts with liberty, because nobody physically stopped him from keeping the money.

Generally, all actions that men do in a commonwealth for fear of the law are actions that they had the liberty to not do.

Liberty and Necessity Are Consistent

Liberty and necessity are also consistent.

Example: Water has not only the liberty but also the necessity of descending down a channel.
Human Actions: In the same way, the actions men voluntarily do proceed from their will, and therefore they proceed from liberty. And yet, because every act of a man’s will and every desire proceeds from some cause, and that cause from another cause, in a continual chain whose first link is in the hand of God, they also proceed from necessity.

To someone who could see the connection of all those causes, the necessity of all men’s voluntary actions would be obvious. Therefore, God, who sees and disposes all things, also sees that the liberty of man in doing what he wills is accompanied by the necessity of doing what God wills.

The Liberty of Subjects

Just as men have made an “Artificial Man” which we call a commonwealth, they have also made artificial chains, called Civil Laws. In relation to these chains only am I now to speak of the liberty of subjects.

Since no commonwealth in the world can possibly regulate all the actions and words of men, it necessarily follows that in all kinds of actions not mentioned by the law, men have the liberty of doing what their own reasons shall suggest is most profitable to themselves.

The common demands for “liberty” are often absurd:

If we take liberty to mean freedom from chains and prison, it is absurd to clamor for a liberty that we so obviously already enjoy.
If we take liberty to mean an exemption from laws, it is no less absurd to demand a liberty by which all other men may be masters of our lives.

The liberty of a subject lies only in those things which, in regulating their actions, the sovereign has not mentioned. This includes things like:

The liberty to buy and sell, and otherwise contract with one another.
The liberty to choose their own home, their own diet, and their own trade.
The liberty to raise their children as they themselves see fit.

The Sovereign’s Unlimited Power

We must not understand this liberty to mean that the sovereign’s power of life and death is abolished or limited. As has already been shown, nothing the sovereign can do to a subject can properly be called injustice or injury, because every subject is the author of every act the sovereign does.

Therefore, a subject may be put to death by the command of the sovereign power, and yet neither has done the other wrong. Even if a sovereign puts an innocent subject to death, as David did to Uriah, it was not an injury to Uriah, because Uriah himself had given David the right to do what he pleased. It was, however, an iniquity (a sin against God), because David was God’s subject and was prohibited from all iniquity by the law of nature.

The “Liberty” of the Ancients

The liberty that is so honorably mentioned in the histories of the ancient Greeks and Romans is not the liberty of particular men, but the liberty of the commonwealth.

It is the same liberty that every man would have if there were no civil laws or commonwealth at all: the liberty to do what the state judges is most beneficial. With this liberty, these states lived in a condition of perpetual war, with their frontiers armed against their neighbors. The Athenians and Romans were free commonwealths, not because any particular man had the liberty to resist his own government, but because their government had the liberty to resist or invade other people.

Whether a commonwealth is a monarchy or a democracy, the freedom is the same. It is an easy thing for men to be deceived by the attractive name of “liberty” and to mistake for their private inheritance that which is the right of the public only. By reading the Greek and Latin authors, men have gotten a habit of favoring tumults and licentiously controlling the actions of their sovereigns under a false show of liberty. There was never anything so dearly bought as these western parts of the world have bought the learning of the Greek and Latin tongues.

How to Measure the True Liberty of a Subject

To come now to the particulars of the true liberty of a subject, we must consider what rights we pass away when we create a commonwealth. Our obligation and our liberty are both derived from the act of our submission. That act of submission has as its goal the peace and defense of the subjects.

1. Subjects have the liberty to defend their own bodies. Covenants not to defend a man’s own body are void. Therefore, if the sovereign commands a man to kill, wound, or maim himself, or not to resist those that assault him, or to abstain from the use of food, air, or medicine, without which he cannot live, that man has the liberty to disobey.

2. Subjects are not bound to hurt themselves. No man can be obliged by covenant to accuse himself of a crime without an assurance of a pardon. It is one thing to say, “Kill me or my fellow, if you please,” and another to say, “I will kill myself or my fellow.” Therefore, no man is bound by the words of his submission to kill himself or any other man.

3. Subjects are not always bound to go to war. A man who is commanded to fight as a soldier may in many cases refuse without injustice, for instance, when he sends a sufficient soldier in his place. An allowance can be made for natural fearfulness. However, a man who enrolls himself as a soldier or accepts money for his service takes away the excuse of a timorous nature and is obliged to go to battle. And when the defense of the commonwealth requires the help of all that are able to bear arms, everyone is obliged, because otherwise the institution of the commonwealth was in vain.

4. The greatest liberty of subjects depends on the silence of the law. In cases where the sovereign has prescribed no rule, the subject has the liberty to do or not do according to his own discretion. Therefore, such liberty is in some places more, and in some places less, and in some times more, and in other times less, according as they that have the sovereignty shall think most convenient.

If a sovereign grants a liberty that weakens his own power to keep the peace, that grant is void unless he directly and in plain terms renounces his sovereignty. It is to be understood that the grant was made out of ignorance, and the sovereignty is therefore still retained, along with all the powers necessary to exercise it, such as the power of war and peace, of judicature, and of levying money.

When Are Subjects Freed from Their Obedience to Their Sovereign?

The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasts by which he is able to protect them.

The right men have by nature to protect themselves when no one else can is a right that can never be relinquished by any covenant. The sovereignty is the soul of the commonwealth; once it has departed from the body, the members no longer receive their motion from it. The purpose of obedience is protection. Whichever power a man sees can provide that protection, whether it is his own sword or another’s, nature applies his obedience to it.

Though sovereignty is intended to be immortal, it is subject to a violent death from foreign war, and it also contains, from its very creation, many seeds of a natural death from internal discord.

The obligation of obedience ceases in the following cases:

In Case of Captivity. If a subject is taken prisoner in war and is given his life and liberty on the condition that he becomes a subject of the victor, he has the liberty to accept this condition. Having accepted it, he is the subject of his captor, because he had no other way to preserve himself. However, if a man is held in prison or in chains and is not trusted with the liberty of his body, he is not understood to be bound by a covenant and may escape by any means whatsoever.
In Case the Sovereign Abandons the Government. If a monarch relinquishes the sovereignty for himself and his heirs, his subjects return to the absolute liberty of nature. Without a sovereign, there is no subjection. The case is the same if he dies without any known kindred and without having declared his heir.
In Case of Banishment. If the sovereign banishes a subject, that person is not a subject during the banishment. (But a person who is sent on a message or has leave to travel is still a subject).
In Case the Sovereign Becomes a Subject of Another. If a monarch is conquered in war and makes himself a subject of the victor, his subjects are delivered from their former obligation and become obliged to the victor. However, if the monarch is held prisoner and has not given away his right of sovereignty, his subjects are obliged to continue yielding obedience to the magistrates he had formerly appointed.

CHAPTER XXII: OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT, POLITICAL, AND PRIVATE

The Different Kinds of Groups (Systems)

Having spoken of the creation and power of a commonwealth, I will now speak of its parts. First, of systems, which are like the muscles of a natural body.

A SYSTEM is any number of people joined in one interest or one business.

Some systems are Regular, and some are Irregular. A regular system is one where one man or an assembly of men is constituted as the representative of the whole number. All others are irregular.
Of regular systems, some are Absolute and Independent. These are subject to no one but their own representative. Only commonwealths are of this kind.
Other regular systems are Dependent, or subordinate to some sovereign power.
Of subordinate systems, some are Political, and some are Private.
- Political systems (also called Bodies Politic) are those which are made by authority from the sovereign power of the commonwealth.
- Private systems are those which are created by subjects among themselves.
Of private systems, some are Lawful (allowed by the commonwealth) and some are Unlawful.
Irregular systems, which have no representative, are lawful if they are not forbidden and are not for an evil design, such as people gathering at markets or shows. But when the intention is evil, or if the number of people is large and the intention is unknown, they are unlawful.

On Political Systems (Bodies Politic)

1. The power of the representative is always limited. In all bodies politic, the power of the representative is limited by the sovereign power. Power that is unlimited is absolute sovereignty, and the sovereign is the absolute representative of all the subjects. Therefore, no one else can be a representative of any part of them except by the sovereign’s permission. The limits of the representative’s power are set out in two places: their official written authorization from the sovereign, and the laws of the commonwealth.

2. Who is responsible for unlawful acts?

If the representative is one man: Whatever he does that is not warranted by his official authorization or by the laws is his own act, and not the act of the body or any other member.
If the representative is an assembly: Whatever the assembly decrees that is not warranted is the act of the assembly itself and of every person who voted for it. It is not the act of any man who voted against it or who was absent.

3. Who is responsible for debts?

If the representative is one man: He himself is responsible for any money he borrows. The members of the body are not obliged to pay the debt. He must pay it out of the body’s common stock, or if there is none, out of his own estate.
If the representative is an assembly: All those, and only those, who voted for the borrowing or for the contract that made the debt are responsible for paying it.

4. Protesting is sometimes lawful (but never against the sovereign). In a subordinate body politic, it is sometimes not only lawful but necessary for a particular member to openly protest against the decrees of the representative assembly. This is so they will not be held responsible for debts contracted or crimes committed by other men. But in a sovereign assembly, this liberty is taken away, because to protest there is to deny their sovereignty.

Examples of Bodies Politic

The variety of bodies politic is almost infinite.

For Government: A province, colony, or town can be governed by an assembly whose power is limited by a commission from the sovereign. In practice, however, people are naturally inclined to commit the government of a distant place to a single governor rather than to an assembly.
For Ordering of Trade: In a body politic created for the purpose of ordering foreign trade (like a corporation), the most convenient representative is an assembly of all the members. The end of their incorporation is to make their gain greater, which is done by establishing a monopoly on buying and selling (“sole buying, and sole selling”), both at home and abroad.

To grant a company of merchants the status of a corporation, or body politic, is to grant them a double monopoly.

One monopoly is to be the sole buyers of certain goods at home for export.
The other is to be the sole sellers of those goods abroad, and of foreign goods back home.

This is profitable for the merchants, because it allows them to buy at lower prices at home and sell at higher prices abroad. But this is bad for the general population, who must pay whatever price the monopoly sets. Such corporations would be very profitable for a commonwealth if they were bound together as one body in foreign markets but were at liberty to compete with each other at home, with every man buying and selling at whatever price he could.

The purpose of these bodies of merchants is the particular gain of each investor, not a common benefit to the whole body. Therefore, it is reasonable that every member should be part of the assembly that has the power to order the business and be acquainted with the accounts.

If a body politic of merchants contracts a debt, every single member is personally liable for the whole amount, because a stranger to the group considers them all as individual debtors.
If a fine is laid upon the body for an unlawful act, only those members who voted for the act are liable.
If a member is indebted to the body, the body may sue him, but it cannot seize his goods or imprison him by its own authority. It must do so by the authority of the commonwealth, because otherwise it would be a judge in its own cause.

Temporary Groups for Giving Advice

There are also bodies whose times are limited by the nature of their business. For example, a sovereign may command the towns in his territory to send deputies to inform him of the condition of the subjects or to advise him on making good laws.

Such deputies, at the assigned time and place, are a body politic representing every subject. But they are a representative only for such matters as shall be proposed to them by the sovereign. When their business is done, the body is dissolved.

If they were the absolute representative of the people, then they would be the sovereign assembly. This would mean there would be two sovereigns over the same people, which is impossible and cannot exist without destroying the peace. Therefore, once a sovereignty is established, there can be no other absolute representation of the people but the sovereign himself.

Private and Unlawful Groups

Regular, Lawful Private Groups: These are groups that are formed without official authorization from the state, but which are allowed by the common laws. The best example is a family, in which the father or master is the representative who orders the whole family. Before the institution of a commonwealth, fathers were absolute sovereigns in their own families; afterward, they lose only as much of their authority as the law of the commonwealth takes from them.
Regular, Unlawful Private Groups: These are groups that unite under one representative without any public authority at all. Examples include corporations of beggars, thieves, and gypsies, who organize to better conduct their illegal trades. This also includes groups of men who unite under the authority of a foreign power within another’s dominion, for the purpose of spreading doctrines and forming a party against the power of the commonwealth.
Irregular Systems (Leagues and Factions): These are leagues or simply gatherings of people without a single representative. They become lawful or unlawful according to the design of the individuals in them.
- Leagues of subjects are, for the most part, unnecessary and unlawful. The commonwealth itself is already a league of all the subjects together. Private leagues are often called factions or conspiracies.
- Secret cabals within a sovereign assembly are unlawful factions.
- Factions for government or religion (such as political parties or religious sects that oppose the state) are unjust because they are contrary to the peace and safety of the people and are a taking of the sword out of the hand of the sovereign.

On Crowds and Assemblies

A gathering of people is an irregular system. Its lawfulness depends on the occasion and on the number of people assembled.

If the occasion is lawful and clear, the gathering is lawful, such as the usual meeting of people at a church or a public show.
But if the number is extraordinarily large, the occasion is not clear. Anyone who cannot give a good and particular account of his reason for being among them is to be judged as being conscious of an unlawful and tumultuous design.

It may be lawful for a thousand men to sign a petition, but if a thousand men come to present it, it is a tumultuous assembly, because only one or two are needed for that purpose. In such cases, it is not a set number that makes an assembly unlawful, but such a number as the present officers are not able to suppress and bring to justice.

In summary, lawful systems are like the muscles of a man’s body. Unlawful systems are like tumors, boils, and abscesses, created by the unnatural collection of evil humors.

CHAPTER XXIII: OF THE PUBLIC MINISTERS OF SOVEREIGN POWER

In the last chapter, I spoke of the similar parts of a commonwealth (systems). In this, I will speak of the organic parts, which are public ministers.

Who is a Public Minister?

A PUBLIC MINISTER is a person who is employed by the sovereign (whether a monarch or an assembly) in any affair, with the authority to represent the person of the commonwealth in that employment.

A sovereign has two capacities: a natural one (as a man or an assembly of men) and a political one (as the commonwealth). Those who serve the sovereign in his natural capacity—such as household servants, stewards, or ushers—are not public ministers. Only those that serve him in the administration of the public business are public ministers.

Types of Public Ministers

Ministers for the General Administration: These are ministers who have been given charge of a general administration, either of the whole dominion or of a part of it.
- Of the Whole Dominion: A Protector or Regent may be given the whole administration of a kingdom during the minority of an infant king.
- Of a Part or Province: A Governor, Lieutenant, Prefect, or Viceroy may be given the general charge of a province. These ministers have no other right but what depends on the sovereign’s will. They are like the nerves and tendons that move the several limbs of a natural body.
Ministers for Special Administration: These are ministers who have been given charge of some special business, either at home or abroad.
- For the Economy: Those who have authority concerning the public treasury—collecting taxes, receiving rents, or taking accounts—are public ministers.
- For the Military: Those that have authority concerning the militia—having custody of arms and forts, levying and paying soldiers, or providing for anything necessary for war—are public ministers.
- For the Instruction of the People: Those that have authority to teach the people their duty to the sovereign and to instruct them in the knowledge of what is just and unjust are public ministers. They do not do this by their own authority, but by the authority of the sovereign.
- For Judicature: Those to whom jurisdiction is given—judges—are public ministers. In their seats of justice, they represent the person of the sovereign, and their sentence is his sentence. All judicature is essentially annexed to the sovereignty.

On Judges and the Courts

If a person appeals a judge’s decision to another judge, that second decision is final. If he appeals to the sovereign himself, that sentence is also final, because the defendant has effectively been judged by his own judges (since every subject is the author of all the sovereign’s acts).

These public persons, with authority from the sovereign to either instruct or judge the people, can be compared to the organs of voice in a natural body.

On Ministers of Execution

Public ministers are also all those who have the authority from the sovereign to:

Procure the execution of judgments.
Publish the sovereign’s commands.
Suppress riots.
Apprehend and imprison criminals.
And perform other acts that help to keep the peace.

Every act they do by such authority is the act of the commonwealth. Their service is like that of the hands in a natural body.

On Ministers Abroad

Public ministers abroad are those that represent the person of their own sovereign to foreign states. These include ambassadors, messengers, and agents.

However, a spy who is sent secretly into another country is a private minister. Although his business is public, he does not have a public “person” to represent. He can be compared to an eye in the natural body. And those who are appointed to receive petitions from the people are like the public ear.

Are Counselors Public Ministers?

A counselor, or a council of state, if we consider it as having no authority other than to give advice to the sovereign, is not a public person. This is because the advice is addressed only to the sovereign, whose person cannot be represented to himself by another.

However, in practice, a body of counselors is never without some other authority, either of judging or of immediate administration.

CHAPTER XXIV: OF THE NUTRITION AND PROCREATION OF A COMMONWEALTH

The Nutrition of a Commonwealth

The NUTRITION of a commonwealth consists of the plenty and distribution of materials that are necessary for life.

Plenty (The Raw Materials): The abundance of matter is a thing limited by nature to those commodities which, from the “two breasts of our common Mother,” land and sea, God gives or sells to mankind. This matter—animals, vegetables, and minerals—is laid before us freely, so that plenty depends almost entirely on the labor and industry of men. These commodities are either native (from within the territory) or foreign (imported from without).
Distribution (Property): The distribution of these materials is the creation of “Mine, and Thine”—that is, in one word, propriety (property). This belongs in all kinds of commonwealths to the sovereign power. In the state of nature, everything belongs to him who can get it and keep it by force, which is uncertainty, not property. Since the introduction of property is an effect of the commonwealth, it is an act of the sovereign alone and consists in the laws he makes.
- A Subject’s Property Excludes Other Subjects, Not the Sovereign. The property that a subject has in his lands consists in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them. It does not exclude the sovereign. The sovereign is understood to do nothing but for the sake of the common peace and security, and any distribution he makes must be in service of that goal.

On the State’s Finances

The State Cannot Have a Fixed Budget. It is a vain idea to set aside a portion of public land or a certain revenue to cover all the expenses of the commonwealth. This is because the expenses of a commonwealth are not limited by its own appetite, but by external accidents and the appetites of its neighbors. The public riches cannot be limited.
Control of Trade Belongs to the Sovereign. Just like the distribution of land at home, the right to decide in what places and for what commodities the subject shall trade abroad also belongs to the sovereign. If this were left to private persons, some of them, for their own gain, would furnish the enemy with things that could hurt the commonwealth.
Laws of Transferring Property Belong to the Sovereign. It also belongs to the sovereign to appoint the manner of all kinds of contracts between subjects (buying, selling, exchanging, borrowing, lending, etc.) and by what words and signs they shall be understood as valid.

Money is the Blood of a Commonwealth

The process of reducing all commodities to something of equal value that is portable—so that a man can have nourishment in whatever place he is—is what we call money.

The Circulation of Money: Gold, silver, and money are like the blood of the commonwealth. This “concoction” is like the “sanguification” (the making of blood) of the state. Just as natural blood is made from the fruits of the earth and circulates to nourish every member of the body, so too does money pass from man to man, nourishing every part of the commonwealth as it goes.
The “Veins” and “Arteries” of the State: The ways by which money is conveyed to public use are of two sorts:
- The veins are the collectors, receivers, and treasurers who carry money to the public coffers (the heart).
- The arteries are the treasurers and other officers who issue the money out again for public payments, to enliven and enable all the members of the state.

The Children of a Commonwealth: Colonies

The procreation, or children, of a commonwealth are what we call plantations or colonies. These are groups of people sent out from the commonwealth to inhabit a foreign country.

Independent Colonies: When a colony is settled, they may be a commonwealth of themselves, discharged of their subjection to the sovereign that sent them. The commonwealth from which they went is then called their metropolis, or mother, and it requires no more of them than what fathers require of their children: honor and friendship.
Dependent Colonies: Or, they may remain united to their metropolis, as were the colonies of the people of Rome. In this case, they are not commonwealths themselves, but provinces and parts of the commonwealth that sent them.

CHAPTER XXV: OF COUNSEL

It is easy to be misled by the ordinary and inconsistent use of words. This is nowhere more apparent than in the confusion between counsels and commands. The phrase “Do this” is used not only by someone who commands, but also by someone who gives counsel and by someone who exhorts. To avoid these mistakes, I will define them.

The Differences Between Command and Counsel

COMMAND is when a person says, “Do this,” or “Do not do this,” without expecting any other reason than the will of the person who says it.
- A command is therefore directed for the benefit of the commander.
- A person can be obliged to obey a command, as when he has made a covenant to obey.
COUNSEL is when a person says, “Do this,” or “Do not do this,” and gives reasons based on the benefit to the person being counseled.
- Counsel is therefore directed for the benefit of the person receiving the advice.
- A person cannot be obliged to follow counsel. The harm of not following it is his own. If he were to make a covenant to follow it, the counsel would turn into a command.

Another difference is that no man can claim a right to be another man’s counselor. To demand a right to counsel another person suggests a will to know his plans or to gain some other benefit for oneself.

Finally, a person who asks for counsel cannot in fairness punish the giver for it, even if the advice turns out to be bad. To ask for counsel is to permit the other person to give such counsel as he shall think best. Therefore, the one who asks for counsel is the author of it and cannot punish it.

What is Exhortation?

EXHORTATION and DEHORTATION are counsel that is vehemently pressed.

A person who exhorts does not use rigorous, true reasoning. Instead, he encourages the person he is counseling to action. He uses emotional tools of oratory—similitudes, metaphors, and examples—to persuade his listeners.

From this we can infer three things:

Exhortation is directed to the good of the person giving the advice, not the one receiving it. This is contrary to the duty of a counselor, who should be concerned with the benefit of the person he is advising.
Exhortation is used only when speaking to a multitude. A single person can interrupt the speaker and examine his reasons more rigorously. A multitude cannot.
Those who exhort when they are asked to give counsel are corrupt counselors. They are, as it were, bribed by their own interest. However, in a situation where a person can lawfully command (such as a father in a family or a leader in an army), his exhortations are not only lawful but also necessary. But in that case, they are not counsels, but commands that have been “sweetened” in their delivery with the tune and phrase of counsel.

Examples from Scripture

We can see the difference between command and counsel in the Bible:

The Ten Commandments (“Have no other Gods but me”; “Do not kill”; “Do not steal”) are Commands. The reason we are to obey them is drawn from the will of God, our King.
Jesus’s words, “Sell all that you have; give it to the poor; and follow me,” are Counsel. The reason we are to do so is for our own benefit: that we shall have “treasure in heaven.”
The words, “Repent, and be baptized,” are also Counsel. The reason is for our own good—to avoid the punishment for our sins—not for any benefit to God Almighty.

The Qualities of a Good Counselor

The virtues and defects of counsel are the same as the intellectual virtues and defects. Counselors serve the person of the commonwealth in the place of memory and mental discourse. But there is one great difference: a natural man receives his experience from objects that have no passion or interest of their own. But those who give counsel to the commonwealth may have, and often do have, their own particular ends and passions that make their counsels always suspected and many times unfaithful.

Therefore, we can set down the following conditions for a good counselor:

His ends and interests must not be inconsistent with the ends and interests of the one he counsels.
He ought to present his advice with clear reasoning and proper language, as briefly as possible. Obscure, confused, and ambiguous expressions, as well as all metaphorical speeches that stir up passion, are useful only to deceive and are therefore contrary to the office of a counselor.
He must have experience and have studied the business at hand. No man is a good counselor except in such business as he has not only been much involved in, but has also meditated on and considered. The wit required for counsel is judgment.
To give counsel on foreign affairs, he must be acquainted with the intelligence, letters, and records of treaties between states. This is something that only those whom the sovereign thinks fit can do. Therefore, those who are not called to counsel cannot offer good counsel in such cases.

Counsel from Individuals is Better than from an Assembly

A person is better counseled by hearing his counselors apart than by hearing them in an assembly. This is for many reasons:

In private, you get every man’s true advice. In an assembly, many are swayed by the eloquence of another or by the fear of disagreeing with the majority.
In an assembly, private interests create passion. The passions of men, which are moderate when they are alone, are like many embers that inflame one another in an assembly, setting the commonwealth on fire under the pretense of counseling it.
In private, you can question and examine the reasons. This cannot be done in an assembly, where a person is more likely to be dazzled by the variety of discourse than informed of the course he ought toto take.
In deliberations that ought to be kept secret, the counsels of many are dangerous.

To conclude, who would take counsel from a great assembly on the question of marrying his children, disposing of his lands, or managing his private estate? A person does his business best by consulting with many prudent counselors, with each one apart in his own area of expertise.

CHAPTER XXVI: OF CIVIL LAWS

What is Civil Law?

By CIVIL LAWS, I mean the laws that men are bound to observe because they are members of a commonwealth. My design here is not to show what the law is in any particular country, but to show what Law is in general.

First, it is clear that law in general is not counsel, but command. And it is not the command of any man to any man, but only of him whose command is addressed to one formerly obliged to obey him. Civil law adds only the name of the person commanding, which is the person of the commonwealth.

This considered, I define civil law in this manner:

CIVIL LAW is to every subject those rules which the commonwealth has commanded him—by word, writing, or other sufficient sign of the will—to use for the distinction of right and wrong.

In this definition, there is nothing that is not at first sight evident. For every man sees that some laws are addressed to all the subjects in general, some to particular provinces, some to particular vocations, and some to particular men. They are laws to every one of those to whom the command is directed, and to no one else.

We can also see that the laws are the rules of just and unjust; nothing can be considered unjust that is not contrary to some law. Likewise, only the commonwealth can make laws, because our subjection is to the commonwealth only. And finally, commands must be communicated by sufficient signs, because a person cannot otherwise know how to obey them.

From this definition of civil law, I can deduce the following truths.

1. The Sovereign is the Only Lawmaker.

The legislator in all commonwealths is only the sovereign, whether he is one man (in a monarchy) or one assembly of men (in a democracy or aristocracy). This is because the legislator is the one who makes the law, and only the commonwealth can prescribe and command the rules which we call law. Since the commonwealth is not a person and has no capacity to do anything except through its representative (the sovereign), the sovereign is the sole legislator.

For the same reason, only the sovereign can repeal a law that has been made, because a law is not repealed except by another law that forbids it to be put into execution.

2. The Sovereign is Not Subject to the Civil Law.

The sovereign of a commonwealth is not subject to the civil laws. Since he has the power to make and repeal laws, he can, whenever he pleases, free himself from that subjection by repealing the laws that trouble him and making new ones. Consequently, he was free before he even did so. A person is free if he can be free whenever he wills it. It is not possible for any person to be bound to himself, because he that can bind can also release.

When a long-standing custom gains the authority of a law, it is not the length of time that makes it authoritative, but the will of the sovereign, signified by his silence. For silence is sometimes an argument of consent. The custom is no longer a law as soon as the sovereign is no longer silent about it.

Our lawyers say that no customs should be considered law except those that are reasonable, and that evil customs should be abolished. But the judgment of what is reasonable and what is to be abolished belongs to him that makes the law, which is the sovereign.

4. The Law of Nature and the Civil Law Contain Each Other.

The Law of Nature and the Civil Law contain each other and are of equal extent.

The Law of Nature is part of the Civil Law. The Laws of Nature—which consist of equity, justice, gratitude, and other moral virtues—are not properly “laws” in the condition of mere nature. They are qualities that dispose men to peace and obedience. When a commonwealth is settled, then they become actual laws, and not before, because they are then the commands of the commonwealth. It is the sovereign power that obliges men to obey them.
The Civil Law is part of the Law of Nature. Justice—that is, the performance of a covenant—is a dictate of the Law of Nature. But every subject in a commonwealth has covenanted to obey the Civil Law. Therefore, obedience to the Civil Law is also part of the Law of Nature.

Civil and Natural Law are not different kinds of law, but different parts of Law. One part, being written, is called Civil; the other, being unwritten, is called Natural. The entire purpose of making laws is to limit the natural liberty of particular men in such a manner that they might not hurt, but assist one another and join together against a common enemy.

5. Conquered Peoples are Subject to the Victor’s Laws.

If the sovereign of one commonwealth conquers a people that have lived under other written laws, and afterward governs them by the same laws they were governed by before, those laws are now the civil laws of the victor, not of the vanquished. This is because the legislator is not the one by whose authority the laws were first made, but by whose authority they now continue to be laws.

6. On Mistaken Ideas About Lawmaking

Seeing that all laws get their authority from the will of the commonwealth (that is, from the sovereign), one may wonder where certain mistaken opinions found in the books of lawyers come from.

One such opinion is, “That the Common Law has no controller but the Parliament.” This is true only where the Parliament has the sovereign power. If there is a right in anyone else to dissolve them, there is also a right to control them, and that person is the true sovereign.
Another is, “That the two arms of a commonwealth are Force and Justice; the first is in the King, and the other is in the hands of the Parliament.” This is absurd. How could a commonwealth exist where the force was in one hand, but the authority to command and govern that force was in another?
A third is that the reason that makes law is the “artificial perfection of reason” gotten by long study and experience, as a judge might have. But it is not the wisdom of subordinate judges that makes law. It is the reason of our “Artificial Man,” the Commonwealth, and his command that makes law.

How a Law Becomes a Law

1. A law, if not also made known, is no law. A law is a command, and a command consists in a declaration or manifestation of the will of him that commands. We may understand, therefore, that the command of the commonwealth is law only to those that have the means to take notice of it. There is no law over natural fools, children, or madmen, any more than over brute beasts.

Unwritten laws are all Laws of Nature. If a law obliges all subjects without exception and is not written or otherwise published, it is a Law of Nature. The Laws of Nature are contained in this one sentence, approved by all the world: “Do not that to another, which you think unreasonable to be done by another to yourself.”
All other laws must be made known. It belongs to the essence of all other laws to be made known to every man that shall be obliged to obey them, either by word, writing, or some other act known to proceed from the sovereign authority.

2. Nothing is law where the legislator cannot be known. It is not enough for the law to be written and published; there must also be clear signs that it proceeds from the will of the sovereign. The author or legislator is supposed to be evident in every commonwealth because he is the sovereign, who was constituted by the consent of every one. The difficulty is not in knowing who the sovereign is, but in the evidence of the authority derived from him. This depends on the knowledge of the public registers, public councils, public ministers, and public seals, by which all laws are sufficiently verified.

3. All laws need interpretation. It is not the letter of the law, but the intention or meaning of the legislator in which the nature of the law consists. Therefore, the interpretation of all laws depends on the sovereign authority. The interpreters can be only those whom the sovereign shall appoint. Otherwise, by the craft of an interpreter, the law may be made to bear a sense contrary to that of the sovereign, by which means the interpreter becomes the legislator.

The Difficulty of Interpreting Law

The unwritten Law of Nature, though it is easy for those who use their natural reason without passion or partiality, is often obscured by self-love. It has therefore become the most obscure of all laws and has the greatest need for able interpreters.

Written laws are also difficult to understand.

If a law is short, its words can be ambiguous and easily misinterpreted.
If a law is long, it becomes even more obscure because of the diverse meanings of its many words.

No written law can be well understood without a perfect understanding of the final cause, or the purpose, for which the law was made. The knowledge of this final purpose is in the legislator (the sovereign). Therefore, there can be no “knot” in the law that is insoluble to the sovereign. He can either use his knowledge of the law’s purpose to untie the knot, or he can simply cut the knot by using his legislative power, which no other interpreter can do.

Who is the Official Interpreter of the Law?

1. Not Philosophers or Writers The interpretation of the Laws of Nature in a commonwealth does not depend on the books of moral philosophy. The authority of writers, without the authority of the commonwealth, does not make their opinions law, no matter how true they are. What I have written in this treatise, though it is evident truth, is not therefore law. It is law only because in all commonwealths, it is part of the Civil Law, and it is by the sovereign power that it becomes law.

2. The Judge, but Only for a Specific Case The official interpretation of the Law of Nature is the sentence of the judge who has been appointed by the sovereign authority. The judge’s sentence is authentic, not because it is his private opinion, but because he gives it by the authority of the sovereign, which makes it the sovereign’s sentence. This sentence is law for the parties involved in that particular case.

Why a Judge’s Sentence Does Not Bind Other Judges (On Precedent)

Because any subordinate judge, or even the sovereign, can make a mistake in a judgment of equity, if he afterward finds in another similar case that a contrary sentence is more in line with equity, he is obliged to give that contrary sentence. No man’s error becomes his own law, nor does it oblige him to persist in it.

For the same reason, a judge’s sentence does not become a law for other judges, even if they are sworn to follow it. The Laws of Nature are the eternal law of God, and all the sentences of previous judges that have ever been cannot, all together, make a law that is contrary to natural equity. No example from a former judge can justify an unreasonable sentence or excuse the present judge from the trouble of studying what is equitable in the case he is to judge, based on the principles of his own natural reason.

For example, it is against the Law of Nature to punish the innocent. Let’s say a man is accused of a capital crime. Fearing the malice of his enemy and the corruption of judges, he runs away. He is later caught and brought to a legal trial, where he makes it clear that he was not guilty of the crime. He is acquitted, but he is nevertheless condemned to lose all his goods because he fled. This is a clear condemnation of an innocent person. No injustice can be a pattern of judgment for succeeding judges.

The Letter vs. the Spirit of the Law

In written laws, people often make a difference between the letter and the sentence (or intention) of the law.

The letter is the bare words, which are often ambiguous and can be argued to have many meanings.
The sentence is the one true sense of the law, which is the intention of the legislator.

The literal sense is the intention of the law, because the legislator is always supposed to intend Equity. Therefore, if the words of the law do not fully authorize a reasonable sentence, a judge ought to supply it with the Law of Nature. Or, if the case is difficult, he should pause his judgment until he has received more guidance from the sovereign.

The Qualities of a Good Judge

The abilities required in a good judge are not the same as those of an advocate or lawyer. A judge ought to take notice of the law from the statutes and constitutions of the sovereign, not from his own prior study. The things that make a good judge are:

A right understanding of that principal Law of Nature called Equity.
A contempt for unnecessary riches and promotions.
The ability in judgment to divest himself of all fear, anger, hatred, love, and compassion.
And lastly, patience to hear, diligent attention in hearing, and the memory to retain, digest, and apply what he has heard.

The Divisions of Law

The laws have been divided in many different ways. One useful division is between Natural and Positive Law.

Natural Laws are those which have been laws for all eternity. They are also called Moral Laws and consist in the moral virtues like justice and equity.
Positive Laws are those which have not been for eternity, but have been made laws by the will of those that have had sovereign power over others.

Positive laws can be further divided:

Human Positive Laws:
- Distributive Laws are those that determine the rights of the subjects, declaring to every man what property he can acquire and hold.
- Penal Laws are those which declare what penalty shall be inflicted on those that violate the law. The command of a penal law is addressed to the public ministers appointed to see the penalty executed, not to the criminal (who cannot be expected to faithfully punish himself).
Divine Positive Laws: These are the commandments of God that are not eternal or universal, but are addressed only to a certain people or certain persons. They are declared to be law by those whom God has authorized to declare them.

How Can We Know a Divine Law is Real?

God may command a man by a supernatural way to deliver laws to other men. But because it is of the essence of a law that the person who is to be obliged must be assured of the authority of the one who declares it, two questions arise:

How can a man, without a supernatural revelation for himself, be assured of the revelation received by the declarer?
How can he be bound to obey it?

For the first question, how a man can be assured of the revelation of another without a revelation particularly to himself, it is evidently impossible. Though a man may be led to believe in such a revelation from the miracles he sees the declarer do, or from his extraordinary sanctity or wisdom, these are not assured evidences of a special revelation.

The Difference Between Law and Right

The words Law and Right are often used interchangeably, even by the most learned authors, but they ought not to be.

Right is liberty—specifically, the liberty that the civil law leaves us.
Civil Law is an obligation; it takes away from us the liberty that the Law of Nature gave us.

For example, nature gave every man a right to secure himself by his own strength. But the civil law takes away that liberty in all cases where the protection of the law can be safely relied upon. In short, Law and Right are as different as obligation and liberty.

The Difference Between a Law and a Charter

Likewise, laws and charters are often mistaken for the same thing.

A Law is a command. Its language is “I command” or “I enjoin.” A law can be made to bind all the subjects of a commonwealth.
A Charter is a donation or a grant from the sovereign. Its language is “I have given” or “I have granted.” A charter is an exemption from law and is granted only to one person or some part of the people. To say that all the people of a commonwealth have liberty in any case is simply to say that in that case, no law has been made.

CHAPTER XXVII: OF CRIMES, EXCUSES, AND EXTENUATIONS

What is a Sin?

A SIN is not only a transgression of a law, but also any contempt of the legislator. Such contempt is a breach of all his laws at once. Therefore, a sin may consist not only in committing a forbidden act or speaking forbidden words, but also in the intention or purpose to transgress.

However, to be delighted in the mere imagination of being possessed of another man’s goods, servants, or wife—without any intention to take them by force or fraud—is not a breach of the law that says, “Thou shalt not covet.” The sin is in resolving to put some act into execution that tends toward that end. To be pleased with the fiction of something that would please a person if it were real is a passion so essential to human nature that to make it a sin would be to make a sin of being a man.

What is a Crime?

A CRIME is a sin that consists in either committing (by deed or word) that which the law forbids, or omitting what the law has commanded.

So, every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime.
To intend to steal or kill is a sin, for God who sees the thoughts of man can lay it to his charge. But until that intention appears in some word or action, it is not a crime, because there is no place for a human accusation.

Where There is No Civil Law, There is No Crime

From this, we can infer three things:

Where law ceases, sin ceases. But because the Law of Nature is eternal, violations of covenants, ingratitude, arrogance, and all facts contrary to any moral virtue can never cease to be a sin.
Where the civil law ceases, crimes cease. Because there is no other law remaining but the Law of Nature, there is no place for accusation, as every man is his own judge.
When the sovereign power ceases, crime also ceases. Where there is no such power, there is no protection to be had from the law, and therefore everyone may protect himself by his own power.

The Sources of Crime

The source of every crime is either:

Some defect of the understanding (Ignorance).
Some error in reasoning (Erroneous Opinion).
Some sudden force of the Passions.

1. Ignorance as an Excuse

Ignorance of the Law of Nature excuses no man. Every man that has attained the use of reason is supposed to know that he ought not to do to another what he would not have done to himself.
Ignorance of the civil law sometimes excuses a man. If the civil law of a man’s own country is not sufficiently declared so that he may know it if he will, and the action is not against the Law of Nature, then ignorance is a good excuse. In all other cases, ignorance of the civil law does not excuse a person.
Ignorance of the sovereign power excuses no man. A person ought to take notice of the power by which he has been protected.
Ignorance of the penalty excuses no man. Whoever voluntarily does an action accepts all the known consequences of it. Punishment is a known consequence of the violation of the laws in every commonwealth.
No law made after a fact is done can make it a crime. A positive law cannot be taken notice of before it is made and therefore cannot be obligatory.

2. Mistaken Reasoning as a Cause of Crime

Men are prone to violate the laws from errors in reasoning in three ways:

By the presumption of false principles. Men observe that in all ages, unjust actions have been authorized by the force and victories of those who have committed them. From this, they take for principles such things as: “Justice is but a vain word,” or “Whatever a man can get by his own industry and hazard is his own,” or “The practice of all nations cannot be unjust.”
By false teachers. These are teachers that either misinterpret the Law of Nature or teach for laws such doctrines of their own that are inconsistent with the duty of a subject.
By erroneous inferences from true principles. This commonly happens to men who are hasty in concluding and resolving what to do, and who have a great opinion of their own understanding. The knowledge of right and wrong is no less difficult than any other subject, and no man should pretend to it without great and long study.

3. The Passions as a Cause of Crime

The passions that most frequently cause crime are:

Vain-glory, or a foolish over-rating of one’s own worth. This leads to the presumption that the punishments ordained by the laws for all subjects ought not to be inflicted on them with the same rigor as they are on poor, obscure, and simple men.
The presumption of riches. Wealthy men are often tempted to adventure on crimes, upon the hope of escaping punishment by corrupting public justice or obtaining a pardon with money.
The presumption of having powerful friends. Popular men, or those who have many powerful relatives, often take the courage to violate the laws from a hope of oppressing the power that is meant to execute them.
The presumption of wisdom. Those who have a great and false opinion of their own wisdom take it upon themselves to criticize the actions of those that govern and to unsettle the laws with their public discourse, so that nothing shall be a crime but what their own designs require should be so.

The people who are the first to start a disturbance in a commonwealth—which can never happen without a civil war—very rarely live long enough to see their new designs established. The benefit of their crimes goes to their posterity, and often to those who would have least wished for it. This proves they were not as wise as they thought they were. And those who commit crimes hoping they will not be discovered usually deceive only themselves. The darkness in which they believe they are hidden is nothing but their own blindness.

Generally, all vain-glorious men, unless they are also naturally fearful, are subject to anger, as they are more prone than others to interpret the ordinary liberty of conversation as a sign of contempt. And there are few crimes that may not be produced by anger.

Other Passions as Causes of Crime

Hate, Lust, Ambition, and Covetousness: The crimes that these passions are likely to produce are so obvious to every man’s experience that nothing more needs to be said of them. They are weaknesses so attached to the nature of man that their effects cannot be prevented except by an extraordinary use of reason or by a constant severity in punishing them. Reason is not always present to resist these perpetual and pressing passions, and therefore, whenever the hope of getting away with it appears, their effects will follow.
Fear: Of all the passions, the one that inclines men least to break the laws is fear. In fact, for most people, it is the only thing that makes them keep the laws when there is an appearance of profit or pleasure by breaking them. And yet, in many cases, a crime may be committed out of fear.
- When Fear Justifies an Action: Not every fear justifies the action it produces. The only fear that justifies an action is the fear of immediate bodily hurt, from which a person cannot see how to be delivered except by that action. For example, if a man is assaulted and fears present death, and he sees no way to escape but by wounding his attacker, it is no crime if he wounds him to death. No man is supposed, at the making of a commonwealth, to have abandoned the right to defend his own life when the law cannot arrive in time to help him.
- When Fear Does Not Justify an Action: To kill a man because from his threats you argue that he will kill you when he can is a crime, because you have time and means to demand protection from the sovereign power. Likewise, to break the law to get revenge for a verbal insult, out of fear that you will fall into contempt, is a crime. The hurt is not physical, but imaginary. Also, to break the law out of fear of spirits, based on your own or another’s dream or vision, is a crime. To allow every private man to follow the imagery of his own brain would be to dissolve all law and the commonwealth itself.

Crimes Are Not All Equal

From these different sources of crime, it appears that not all crimes are equal, as the Stoics of old time maintained. There is a place not only for an EXCUSE, by which that which seemed a crime is proven to be no crime at all, but also for EXTENUATION, by which a crime that seemed great is made lesser.

Though all crimes equally deserve the name of “injustice,” just as all deviations from a straight line are equally “crookedness,” it does not follow that all crimes are equally unjust, any more than that all crooked lines are equally crooked.

Total Excuses (What Takes Away the Nature of a Crime)

That which totally excuses an act and takes away from it the nature of a crime can be only that which, at the same time, takes away the obligation of the law.

A lack of means to know the law totally excuses a person. A law whereof a man has no means to inform himself is not obligatory. (But a lack of diligence to inquire does not count as a lack of means).
When a man is a captive or in the power of the enemy, the obligation of the law ceases. He must obey the enemy or die. Consequently, such obedience is no crime, for no man is obliged, when the protection of the law fails, not to protect himself by the best means he can.
If a man, by the terror of present death, is compelled to do an act against the law, he is totally excused. No law can oblige a man to abandon his own preservation.
When a man is destitute of food or another thing necessary for his life, and he cannot preserve himself in any other way but by some act against the law, he is totally excused. This includes, for example, taking food by force or stealth in a great famine.

Excuses Against the Author

Acts done against the law by the authority of another are excused against that author. From this it follows that when the sovereign power commands a man to do that which is contrary to a former law, the doing of it is totally excused. This is because the sovereign is the author of the act and cannot condemn it himself, and what cannot justly be condemned by the sovereign cannot justly be punished by any other.

The Degrees of Crime

The severity of a crime can be measured on several scales:

By the malignity of its Source or Cause.
By the contagion of its Example.
By the mischief of its Effect.
By the context of Times, Places, and Persons.

A crime that proceeds from a presumption of power (strength, riches, or friends) is a greater crime than one that proceeds from the hope of not being discovered. A crime that arises from long meditation is greater than the same crime that arises from a sudden passion. Those acts which the law expressly condemns, but the lawmaker tacitly approves by his own example, are lesser crimes than the same acts condemned by both the law and the lawmaker.

If we compare crimes by the mischief of their effects, the same act, when it damages many, is a greater crime than when it hurts a few. Therefore, acts of hostility against the present state of the commonwealth are greater crimes than the same acts done to private men. These crimes, such as betraying the strengths of the commonwealth to an enemy or attempting to harm the sovereign, are what the Latines called treason.

Likewise, those crimes which render judgments of no effect, such as receiving money to give a false judgment or testimony (bribery and perjury), are greater crimes than injuries done to one or a few persons, because they make all judgments useless and lead to force and private revenges.

Also, robbery and embezzlement of the public treasure or revenues is a greater crime than robbing a private man, because to rob the public is to rob many at once.

Therefore, we can rank the severity of crimes against private persons based on what is most damaging in the common opinion of men:

To kill against the law is a greater crime than any other injury where life is preserved.
To kill with torment is greater than simply to kill.
Mutilation of a limb is greater than the spoiling of a man’s goods.
To spoil a man of his goods by terror of death or wounds (robbery) is greater than doing so by secret theft.
To steal secretly is greater than to take by consent that was obtained through fraud.
The violation of chastity by force is greater than by flattery.
The violation of a married woman is greater than that of an unmarried woman.

The law does not regard the particular feelings of an individual, but the general inclination of mankind. This is why offenses that come from insults or gestures, which produce no other harm than the present grief of the person being reproached, have often been neglected in the laws of commonwealths. It is supposed that the true cause of such grief consists not in the insult itself, but in the small-mindedness of the one who is offended by it.

A crime is also made much worse by the person, time, and place.

To kill one’s parent is a greater crime than to kill another person.
To rob a poor man is a greater crime than to rob a rich man, because the damage is more sensible to the poor.
A crime committed in a time or place appointed for devotion is a greater crime than if it were committed at another time or place, because it proceeds from a greater contempt of the law.

Public vs. Private Crimes

Because almost all crimes involve an injury done not only to some private person but also to the commonwealth, the same crime, when the accusation is in the name of the commonwealth, is called a Public Crime. When the accusation is in the name of a private man, it is called a Private Crime.

CHAPTER XXVIII: OF PUNISHMENTS AND REWARDS

The Definition of Punishment

A PUNISHMENT is:

An evil inflicted by public authority on him that has done, or omitted, that which is judged by the same authority to be a transgression of the law; to the end that the will of men may thereby the better be disposed to obedience.

Where Does the Right to Punish Come From?

This is a very important question. By what right does the sovereign have the authority to punish? It cannot be intended that any man gave the sovereign the right to lay violent hands upon his own person, because no one can be bound by a covenant not to resist violence to himself.

The right which the commonwealth has to punish is not grounded on any concession or gift from the subjects. Before the institution of the commonwealth, every man had a right to everything and to do whatever he thought necessary for his own preservation, including hurting or killing any man in order to do so. This is the foundation of the right of punishing.

The subjects did not give the sovereign this right. Rather, by laying down their own right, they strengthened him to use his own right as he should see fit for the preservation of them all. So, the right was not given, but left to him, and to him only.

What is NOT a Punishment

From the definition of punishment, we can infer several things:

Private revenges are not punishments because they do not proceed from public authority.
To be neglected or not chosen for a public office is not a punishment because no new evil is inflicted.
Evil inflicted by public authority without a preceding public condemnation is not a punishment, but a hostile act.
Evil inflicted by a usurped power or by judges without authority from the sovereign is not a punishment, but an act of hostility.
All evil which is inflicted without the intention of disposing the criminal, or others, to obey the laws is not a punishment, but an act of hostility.
Natural evil consequences, such as when a man is slain or wounded while assaulting another, are not punishments in the human sense because they are not inflicted by the authority of man.
If the harm inflicted is less than the benefit that naturally follows the crime, it is not a punishment, but is rather the “price” or “redemption” of a crime. It does not deter men but works as a contrary effect.
If a punishment is prescribed in the law itself, and after the crime is committed, a greater punishment is inflicted, the excess is not a punishment, but an act of hostility.
Harm inflicted for an act done before there was a law that forbade it is not a punishment, but an act of hostility.
Harm inflicted on the representative of the commonwealth is not a punishment, but an act of hostility.
Harm inflicted upon a declared enemy or a revolted subject does not fall under the name of punishment. It is done by the right of war. In denying their subjection, they deny the punishments ordained by the law and therefore suffer as an enemy of the commonwealth, according to the will of the representative.

Types of Punishments

Human punishments are either corporal, pecuniary, ignominy, imprisonment, or exile.

Corporal Punishment is inflicted on the body directly, such as stripes or wounds. Capital punishment is the infliction of death.
Pecuniary Punishment is the deprivation of a sum of money or of lands or other goods.
Ignominy is the infliction of such evil as is made dishonorable, such as degrading men of their titles or offices.
Imprisonment is when a man is by public authority deprived of liberty. This is only a punishment after he has been judicially heard and declared guilty. Before his cause is heard, any restraint over and above what is necessary to assure his custody is against the Law of Nature.
Exile (Banishment) seems not in its own nature to be a punishment, but rather an escape or a public command to avoid punishment by flight. A banished man is a lawful enemy of the commonwealth that banished him.

On Punishing the Innocent

All punishments of innocent subjects, whether they be great or little, are against the Law of Nature.

First, it violates the law that forbids all men, in their revenges, to look at anything but some future good. No good can come to the commonwealth by punishing the innocent.
Second, it violates the law that forbids ingratitude.
Third, it violates the law that commands equity.

However, the infliction of any evil on an innocent man that is not a subject is no breach of the Law of Nature, if it be for the benefit of the commonwealth. All men that are not subjects are either enemies or have made some agreement. Against enemies, it is lawful by the original right of nature to make war, wherein the victor does not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.

On Rewards

A REWARD is either of gift or by contract.

When by contract, it is called salary and wages, which is a benefit due for service performed or promised.
When of gift, it is a benefit proceeding from the grace of those that bestow it, to encourage or enable men to do them service.

On Rewards and Salaries

Although men are not bound by the Law of Nature to serve the public without a reward or salary, the sovereign is supposed to be able to make use of all their means. This is why even the most common soldier may demand the wages of his warfare as a debt.

Benefits Given Out of Fear Are Not Rewards. The benefits which a sovereign bestows on a subject for fear of some power that subject has to do hurt to the commonwealth are not properly rewards. They are not salaries, because there is no contract. Nor are they graces (gifts), because they are extorted by fear. Rather, they are sacrifices, which the sovereign makes to appease the discontent of someone he thinks is more powerful than himself. They do not encourage obedience, but rather encourage the continuance of further extortion.
The Danger of “Casual” Salaries. Some salaries are certain and come from the public treasury. Others are uncertain and casual, proceeding from the execution of the office itself (for example, court fees). This latter type is in some cases harmful to the commonwealth, as in the case of judges. When the benefit of judges arises from the multitude of cases that are brought before them, two problems follow: it encourages the nourishing of lawsuits, and it creates contention between courts, with each one trying to draw as many cases to itself as it can.

And thus much shall suffice for the nature of punishment and reward, which are, as it were, the nerves and tendons that move the limbs and joints of a commonwealth.

Hitherto, I have set forth the nature of man (whose pride and other passions have compelled him to submit himself to government), together with the great power of his governor, whom I compared to Leviathan. But because this Leviathan is mortal and subject to decay, I shall in the next following chapters speak of his diseases and the causes of his mortality, and of what Laws of Nature he is bound to obey.

CHAPTER XXIX: OF THOSE THINGS THAT WEAKEN OR TEND TO THE DISSOLUTION OF A COMMONWEALTH

Dissolution Comes from an Imperfect Creation

Though nothing that mortals make can be immortal, if men used the reason they pretend to have, their commonwealths could be secured, at least, from dying by internal diseases. By their nature, they are designed to live as long as mankind itself. Therefore, when they are dissolved not by external violence but by internal disorder, the fault is not in men as they are the matter of the commonwealth, but as they are the makers of it.

Among the infirmities of a commonwealth, I will reckon in the first place those that arise from an imperfect institution, which resemble the diseases of a natural body that proceed from a defective procreation.

The Diseases of a Commonwealth

1. A Lack of Absolute Power The first disease is when a man, in order to obtain a kingdom, is content with less power than is necessary for the peace and defense of the commonwealth. When it later becomes necessary for the public safety to resume that power, the act has the resemblance of an unjust act, which disposes great numbers of men to rebel. This happens not only in monarchies, but also in other forms of government. The ancient Roman commonwealth, for example, where neither the Senate nor the people pretended to the whole power, was plagued by seditions and finally destroyed by civil wars.

2. Seditious Doctrines The second disease is the poison of seditious doctrines, such as:

“That every private man is judge of good and evil actions.” This is true only in the state of nature. In a commonwealth, the measure of good and evil actions is the civil law. This false doctrine disposes men to dispute the commands of the commonwealth, which distracts and weakens it.
“That whatsoever a man does against his conscience is a sin.” A man’s conscience and his judgment are the same thing, and a judgment may be erroneous. In a commonwealth, the law is the public conscience, by which every man has already undertaken to be guided.
“That faith and sanctity are attained by supernatural inspiration, not by study and reason.” If this were true, then any man could take his own inspiration, rather than the law of his country, as the rule of his action. This would lead to the dissolution of all civil government.

3. The Idea that the Sovereign is Subject to the Civil Laws It is a fourth opinion repugnant to the nature of a commonwealth that he that has the sovereign power is subject to the civil laws. It is true that sovereigns are all subject to the Laws of Nature, because those laws are divine and cannot be repealed. But the sovereign is not subject to the laws which he himself makes. To be subject to the laws is to be subject to the commonwealth, which is to be subject to himself. This is not subjection, but freedom from the laws. This error, because it sets the laws above the sovereign, also sets a judge above him, and a power to punish him, which is to make a new sovereign, and so on without end, to the confusion and dissolution of the commonwealth.

4. The Idea that Subjects Have Absolute Property A fifth doctrine that tends to the dissolution of a commonwealth is, “That every private man has an absolute property in his goods, such as excludes the right of the sovereign.” Every man does indeed have a property that excludes the right of every other subject. But if the right of the sovereign is also excluded, he cannot perform the office they have put him into, which is to defend them, and consequently, there is no longer a commonwealth.

5. The Division of the Sovereign Power A sixth doctrine, plainly and directly against the essence of a commonwealth, is “That the sovereign power may be divided.” For what is it to divide the power of a commonwealth but to dissolve it? For powers divided mutually destroy each other.

6. The Imitation of Neighboring Nations The example of a different form of government in a neighboring nation can dispose men to want to alter the form already settled in their own.

7. The Imitation of the Greeks and Romans One of the most frequent causes of rebellion against monarchy, in particular, is the reading of the books of policy and the histories of the ancient Greeks and Romans. From these books, young men get a strong and delightful impression of the great exploits of war achieved by these ancient republics and imagine that their great prosperity proceeded from the virtue of their popular form of government. They do not consider the frequent seditions and civil wars produced by the imperfection of their policies. From the reading of such books, men have undertaken to kill their kings, because the Greek and Latin writers make “tyrannicide”—the killing of a tyrant—seem lawful and laudable. I cannot imagine how anything can be more prejudicial to a monarchy than the allowing of such books to be publicly read without the correctives of discreet masters to take away their venom.

8. The Idea of a “Mixed” Government (Spiritual vs. Temporal Power) Finally, there are those that think there may be more than one sovereign in a commonwealth. They set up a “ghostly” or spiritual authority against the civil authority. But seeing that the civil power and the power of the commonwealth are the same thing, and that supremacy implies a commonwealth, it follows that where one is sovereign and another is supreme, there must be two commonwealths of one and the same subjects. This is a kingdom divided in itself, and it cannot stand. When these two powers oppose one another, the commonwealth cannot but be in great danger of civil war and dissolution.

On Rewards and Bribes

The benefits which a sovereign bestows on a subject out of fear of some power that subject has to do hurt to the commonwealth are not properly rewards.

They are not salaries, because there is no contract.
They are not graces (gifts), because they are extorted by fear.

Rather, they are sacrifices, which the sovereign makes to appease the discontent of someone he thinks is more powerful than himself. They do not encourage obedience, but on the contrary, encourage the continuance and increasing of further extortion.

Finally, salaries that are casual and arise from the execution of the office itself (like court fees) are in some cases harmful to the commonwealth. For judges, this is a particular problem, as it can encourage them to nourish lawsuits and fight over jurisdiction for their own benefit.

And thus much shall suffice for the nature of punishment and reward, which are, as it were, the nerves and tendons that move the limbs and joints of a commonwealth.

Hitherto, I have set forth the nature of man (whose pride and other passions have compelled him to submit himself to government) and the great power of his governor, whom I compared to Leviathan. But because this Leviathan is mortal and subject to decay, I shall in the next following chapters speak of his diseases and the causes of his mortality, and of what Laws of Nature he is bound to obey.

CHAPTER XXIX: OF THOSE THINGS THAT WEAKEN OR TEND TO THE DISSOLUTION OF A COMMONWEALTH

The Diseases of a Commonwealth

Though nothing that mortals make can be immortal, if men used the reason they pretend to have, their commonwealths could be secured, at least, from dying by internal diseases. When they are dissolved not by external violence but by internal disorder, the fault is not in men as they are the matter of the commonwealth, but as they are the makers of it.

The infirmities of a commonwealth often arise from an imperfect institution at its creation. These are like the diseases of a natural body that proceed from a defective birth.

1. A Lack of Absolute Power The first disease is when a founder, in order to obtain a kingdom, is content with less power than is necessary for the peace and defense of the commonwealth. When it later becomes necessary to resume that power for the public safety, the act looks like an unjust act, which disposes great numbers of men to rebel.

2. Seditious Doctrines The second disease is the poison of seditious doctrines, such as:

“That every private man is judge of good and evil actions.” In a commonwealth, the measure of good and evil is the civil law.
“That whatsoever a man does against his conscience is a sin.” In a commonwealth, the law is the public conscience.
“That faith and sanctity are attained by supernatural inspiration.” If this were true, any man could take his own inspiration as the rule for his action, which would lead to the dissolution of government.

3. The Idea that the Sovereign is Subject to the Civil Laws This error sets the laws above the sovereign, which also sets a judge above him, and a power to punish the judge, and so on without end, to the confusion and dissolution of the commonwealth.

4. The Idea that Subjects Have Absolute Property This is the idea that every private man has an absolute property in his goods that excludes the right of the sovereign. If the right of the sovereign is excluded, he cannot perform the office they have put him into, which is to defend them, and consequently, there is no longer a commonwealth.

5. The Division of the Sovereign Power This is a doctrine plainly and directly against the essence of a commonwealth. For what is it to divide the power of a commonwealth but to dissolve it? For powers divided mutually destroy each other.

6. The Imitation of Neighboring Nations The example of a different form of government in a neighboring nation can dispose men to want to alter the form already settled in their own.

7. The Imitation of the Greeks and Romans One of the most frequent causes of rebellion against monarchy is the reading of the books of policy and the histories of the ancient Greeks and Romans. From these books, men get the mistaken idea that the subjects in a popular commonwealth enjoy liberty, but that in a monarchy they are all slaves.

8. Mixed Government (Spiritual vs. Temporal Power) Finally, there are those that think there may be more than one sovereign in a commonwealth. They set up a “ghostly” or spiritual authority against the civil authority. But when these two powers oppose one another, the commonwealth cannot but be in great danger of civil war and dissolution. Every subject is forced to obey two masters, which is impossible.

Analogy: This disease can be compared to epilepsy. In this disease, an unnatural spirit in the head obstructs the nerves and causes violent convulsions. In the body politic, when the spiritual power moves the members by terror and rewards, contrary to the will of the civil power (which is the soul of the commonwealth), it can either overwhelm the commonwealth with oppression or cast it into the fire of a civil war.

Other Diseases of a Commonwealth There are other, less immediate dangers, which can be compared to other diseases of the body:

A lack of money for the necessary uses of the commonwealth is like an ague (a fever with fits of cold and hot).
Monopolies, which gather the treasure of the commonwealth into the hands of a few private men, are like pleurisy.
The popularity of a powerful subject, who can draw the people away from their obedience to the law, is like the effects of witchcraft.
The immoderate greatness of a town or a multitude of corporations are like worms in the entrails of a natural man.
The liberty of disputing against the sovereign power is like the little worms which physicians call ascarides.

The Final Dissolution of the Commonwealth

Finally, when in a war (foreign or internal) the enemies get a final victory, so that the forces of the commonwealth can no longer protect the subjects, then the commonwealth is DISSOLVED. Every man is then at liberty to protect himself by such courses as his own discretion shall suggest to him. The sovereign is the public soul, giving life and motion to the commonwealth. When it expires, the members are governed by it no more than the carcass of a man is by his departed soul.

CHAPTER XXX: OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOVEREIGN REPRESENTATIVE

The Sovereign’s Duty is to Procure the Safety of the People

The office of the sovereign, whether it is a monarch or an assembly, consists in the end for which he was trusted with the sovereign power: namely, the procurement of the safety of the people. To this he is obliged by the Law of Nature, and he must render an account for it to God, and to none but him.

By “safety” here is not meant a bare preservation, but also all other contentments of life which every man by lawful industry, without danger or hurt to the commonwealth, shall acquire for himself. This is to be done not by care applied to individuals, but by a general providence, contained in public instruction and in the making and executing of good laws.

The Sovereign’s Two Main Duties

1. To Maintain the Essential Rights of Sovereignty Because if the essential rights of sovereignty are taken away, the commonwealth is dissolved and every man returns to the calamity of war, it is the office of the sovereign to maintain those rights entire. He that deserts the means deserts the ends.

2. To Teach the People the Grounds of Those Rights It is against his duty to let the people be ignorant or misinformed of the grounds and reasons of his essential rights. This is because men who are ignorant are easily seduced and drawn to resist him when the commonwealth requires the use of those rights.

On Objections to Absolute Sovereignty

Objection 1: There are no principles of reason for absolute sovereignty. Some say that if there were such principles, they would have been found out by now. In this, they argue as poorly as if the savage people of America should deny that there are any principles of reason for building a house that can last, simply because they have never seen one so well built. Time and industry produce new knowledge every day. The skill of making and maintaining commonwealths consists in certain rules, like arithmetic and geometry, which can be found out by industrious meditation.
Objection 2: The common people are not smart enough to understand them. I should be glad if the rich and potent subjects of a kingdom were no less incapable than they! But all men know that the obstructions to this kind of doctrine proceed not so much from the difficulty of the matter as from the interest of those that are to learn. The minds of the common people, unless they are tainted with dependence on the powerful or scribbled over with the opinions of their doctors, are like clean paper, fit to receive whatever by public authority shall be imprinted in them.

If whole nations can be brought to acquiesce in the great mysteries of the Christian religion, which are above reason, shall not men be able, by teaching and preaching, to make that received which is so consonant to reason?

I conclude, therefore, that it is the sovereign’s duty to cause the people to be instructed in these essential rights.

What the People Are to Be Taught

They ought not to be in love with any form of government they see in their neighbor nations more than with their own. The prosperity of a people comes not from the form of government (aristocracy, democracy, or monarchy), but from the obedience and concord of the subjects.
They ought not to be led with admiration for any of their fellow subjects, however high he may stand, so as to give him any obedience or honor that is appropriate to the sovereign only.
They ought to be informed how great a fault it is to speak evil of the sovereign representative, or to argue and dispute his power, or in any way to use his name irreverently.

What the People Are to Be Taught (Continued)

4. To Set Aside Days to Learn Their Duty Fourthly, seeing that people cannot be taught all this, or remember it, without setting aside some time from their ordinary labor, it is necessary that some such times be determined. On these days, they may assemble together to hear their duties told to them and the positive laws read and explained. The Jews had the Sabbath for this purpose, which served to remind them that God was their King.

5. To Honor Their Parents Because the first instruction of children depends on the care of their parents, it is necessary that they should be obedient to them while they are under their tuition. It is also necessary that they should, as gratitude requires, acknowledge the benefit of their education with external signs of honor. They are to be taught that originally, the father of every man was also his sovereign lord, with the power of life and death over him. When fathers of families created a commonwealth, they resigned that absolute power, but it was never intended that they should lose the honor due to them for raising their children. This accords with the fifth commandment.

6. To Avoid Doing Injury Again, every sovereign ought to cause justice to be taught. This means causing men to be taught not to deprive their neighbors, by violence or fraud, of anything which by the sovereign authority is theirs. The things held in property that are dearest to a man are his own life and limbs; after that, those that concern marriage; and after them, riches and the means of living. Therefore, the people are to be taught to abstain from violence to one another, from the violation of conjugal honor, and from the robbery and theft of one another’s goods. This is all intimated in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments.

7. To Do All This Sincerely from the Heart Lastly, they are to be taught that not only unjust acts, but the designs and intentions to do them, are injustice. This consists in the wickedness of the will as well as in the irregularity of the act. This is the intention of the tenth commandment and the sum of the second table of the law, which is reduced to this one commandment of mutual charity: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

The Role of the Universities

How have so many opinions contrary to the peace of mankind become so deeply rooted in people? I mean those which I have already specified: that private men shall be the judges of what is lawful; that their property excludes the right of the sovereign; that it is lawful to kill those they call tyrants; and that the sovereign power may be divided.

Most people are too busy with their trades or too carried away by their sensual pleasures for the deep meditation that is required to learn the truth. They receive their notions of duty chiefly from preachers in the pulpit and partly from such of their neighbors as seem wiser than themselves. And the preachers and other learned men derive their knowledge from the universities and from the schools of law.

It is therefore clear that the instruction of the people depends wholly on the right teaching of youth in the universities. But have the universities not been sufficiently instructed in the truth? It is certain they have not. For in the contradiction of opinions that exists, it is clear they have not known how to plant the true doctrines.

The Other Duties of the Sovereign

1. To Provide Equal Justice The safety of the people requires from the sovereign that justice be equally administered to all degrees of people. The rich and mighty should have no greater hope of impunity when they do violence or injury to the meaner sort than when one of these does the like to one of them. In a court of justice, the inequality of subjects has no more place than the inequality between kings and their subjects in the presence of the King of Kings. The violence and injuries that great persons do are not lessened but made worse by their greatness, because they have the least need to commit them.

2. To Impose Equal Taxes To equal justice also belongs the equal imposition of taxes. The equality of taxes depends not on the equality of riches, but on the equality of the debt that every man owes to the commonwealth for his defense. Life is equally dear to the poor and the rich. Therefore, the equality of taxation consists rather in the equality of that which is consumed, than of the riches of the persons that consume the same. When taxes are laid upon those things which men consume (a consumption tax), every man pays equally for what he uses.

3. To Provide Public Charity And whereas many men, by unavoidable accident, become unable to maintain themselves by their labor, they ought not to be left to the charity of private persons but should be provided for by the laws of the commonwealth.

4. To Prevent Idleness But for those who have strong bodies, the case is otherwise: they are to be forced to work. To avoid the excuse of not finding employment, there ought to be such laws as may encourage all manner of arts and industry, such as navigation, agriculture, fishing, and all manner of manufacturing that requires labor. If the country becomes overpopulated, the multitude of poor and yet strong people are to be transplanted into countries not sufficiently inhabited. And when all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war, which provides for every man by victory or death.

5. To Make Good Laws To the care of the sovereign belongs the making of good laws. But what is a good law? By a good law, I do not mean a just law, for no law can be unjust. The law is made by the sovereign power, and all that is done by such power is warranted and owned by every one of the people. A good law is that which is (1) needful for the good of the people, and (2) clear.

Needful Laws: The use of laws is not to bind the people from all voluntary actions, but to direct and keep them in such a motion as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires. Hedges are set not to stop travelers, but to keep them in the way. A law that is not needful is not a good law.
Clear Laws: The clarity of a law consists not so much in the words of the law itself, but in a declaration of the causes and motives for which it was made. That is what shows us the meaning of the legislator.

6. To Make a Right Application of Punishments and Rewards

Punishments: The end of punishing is not revenge, but correction. The severest punishments are to be inflicted for those crimes that are of most danger to the public. There is a place for leniency for crimes of infirmity, such as those which proceed from great provocation, great fear, or great need.
Rewards: It belongs to the office of the sovereign to apply his rewards always so that there may arise from them a benefit to the commonwealth. To buy off a popular ambitious subject with money or preferment, to make him be quiet, has nothing of the nature of a reward. It is not a sign of gratitude, but of fear. It is a contention with ambition like that of Hercules with the monster Hydra: for every one head that was vanquished, there grew up three.

7. To Choose Good Counselors Another business of the sovereign is to choose good counselors; I mean such whose advice he is to take in the government of the commonwealth.

On Choosing Good Counselors

The choice of counselors is a business that belongs to a monarchy. In a democracy or an aristocracy, the persons who are counseling are the same members of the assembly that is being counseled. A sovereign who does not try to choose the most able counselors is not discharging his office as he ought to do.

The most able counselors are those who:

Have the least hope of benefiting from giving evil counsel.
Have the most knowledge of those things that lead to the peace and defense of the commonwealth.

It is hard to know who expects to benefit from public troubles, but one sign to watch for is men whose personal finances are not sufficient to cover their accustomed expenses, who then try to soothe the people’s unreasonable grievances.

It is even harder to know who has the most knowledge of public affairs. The best signs of knowledge of any art are much experience in it and constant good effects resulting from it. Good counsel does not come by lottery or by inheritance. There is no more reason to expect good advice on matters of state from the rich or noble than on how to design a fortress, unless we think that politics requires no study, which is not so. Politics is the harder study of the two.

Advice is Better Given in Private

The benefit of a counselor’s advice is greater when he gives it and his reasons for it apart from others, rather than in an assembly by way of speeches. This is for several reasons:

In private, you get every man’s own advice. In an assembly, many are swayed by the eloquence of another or by the fear of disagreeing with the majority.
In an assembly, private interests lead to passion, passion leads to eloquence, and eloquence draws others into the same advice, setting the commonwealth on fire under the pretense of counseling it.
In private, you can interrupt and examine the reasons for the advice.
In deliberations that ought to be kept secret, the counsels of many are dangerous.

The best counsel in those things that concern only the ease and benefit of the subjects is to be taken from the general information and complaints of the people of each province, who are best acquainted with their own wants.

On the Commanders of Armies

A commander of an army in chief must be popular—that is, industrious, valiant, affable, liberal, and fortunate—in order to be beloved and feared by his army as he ought to be.

However, this love of soldiers for their captain is a dangerous thing to the sovereign power, unless the sovereign himself is also popular. If the sovereign is revered and beloved by his people, there is no danger at all from the popularity of a subject. Soldiers are never so generally unjust as to side with their captain against their sovereign when they love not only the sovereign’s person, but also his cause.

On the Law of Nations

The law which is commonly called the Law of Nations concerns the offices of one sovereign to another. I do not need to say anything about it here because the Law of Nations and the Law of Nature are the same thing.

Every sovereign has the same right in procuring the safety of his people that any particular man can have in procuring the safety of his own body. The same law that dictates to men without civil government what they ought to do, dictates the same to commonwealths.

CHAPTER XXXI: OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD BY NATURE

The Purpose of the Following Chapters

I have already proven that the condition of mere nature is a condition of war; that the Laws of Nature are the precepts by which men are guided to avoid that condition; that a commonwealth without sovereign power cannot stand; and that subjects owe to sovereigns simple obedience in all things where their obedience is not contrary to the Laws of God.

The only thing that remains for the entire knowledge of civil duty is to know what those Laws of God are. Without that, a man does not know, when he is commanded anything by the civil power, whether it is contrary to the law of God or not. To avoid both the rock of offending God by too much civil obedience and the rock of transgressing the commonwealth’s commands through fear of offending God, it is necessary to know what the divine laws are.

The Kingdom of God

Who are the Subjects in God’s Kingdom? God’s power extends to all things, but to call this power a “kingdom” is only a metaphorical use of the word. A person is only properly said to reign if he governs his subjects by his word, by the promise of rewards to those who obey, and by the threat of punishment to those who do not. The subjects in the kingdom of God, therefore, are those who believe there is a God that governs the world and has given precepts and propounded rewards and punishments to mankind. All the rest are to be understood as enemies.
How God Declares His Laws: God declares his laws in three ways: by the dictates of Natural Reason, by Revelation, and by the Voice of a Prophet to whom he gives credit through miracles.
The Two Kingdoms of God: From this, we can attribute to God a twofold kingdom:
1. A Natural Kingdom, wherein he governs all of mankind who acknowledge his providence by the natural dictates of right reason.
2. A Prophetic Kingdom, wherein he chose out one peculiar nation (the Jews) and governed them not only by natural reason but by positive laws, which he gave them through the mouths of his holy prophets. I will speak of the Natural Kingdom of God in this chapter.

The Foundation of God’s Sovereignty

The right of nature, by which God reigns over men and punishes those that break his laws, is to be derived not from his act of creation (as if he required obedience as gratitude for his benefits), but from his Irresistible Power (Omnipotence).

The right of sovereignty arises from power. In the state of nature, all men had a right to reign over all others, but because no one had enough power to achieve this, they had to set up a sovereign by common consent. But if there had been any man with irresistible power, there would have been no reason why he should not have ruled by that power. To those, therefore, whose power is irresistible, the dominion of all men belongs naturally.

Sin is Not the Cause of All Affliction. The age-old question, “Why do evil men often prosper and good men suffer adversity?” has shaken the faith of many. This question, in the case of Job, was decided by God himself, not by arguments derived from Job’s sin, but from God’s own power. God justified Job’s affliction by arguments such as, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Likewise, our Savior said of the man born blind, “Neither has this man sinned, nor his fathers; but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.”

The Divine Laws of God’s Natural Kingdom

The divine laws, or the dictates of natural reason, concern either the natural duties of one man to another or the honor naturally due to our divine sovereign.

The first are the same Laws of Nature of which I have already spoken: equity, justice, mercy, humility, and the rest of the moral virtues.
It remains, therefore, to consider what precepts are dictated to men by their natural reason only, concerning the honor and worship of the Divine Majesty.

On Honor and Worship

Honor consists in the inward thought and opinion of the power and goodness of another.
Worship consists of the external signs, in the words and actions of men, that show that opinion.

We can distinguish different types of worship:

Natural vs. Arbitrary Worship: Some signs of honor are naturally so, such as the attributes of “good” and “just,” and the actions of prayer, thanks, and obedience. Others are arbitrary, meaning they are honorable only by the institution or custom of men, such as the particular gestures used in prayer, which are used differently in different times and places.
Commanded vs. Free Worship: Commanded worship is when it is such as is required by the one who is worshipped. In this case, not the words or gestures, but the obedience is the worship. Free worship is when it is such as the worshipper thinks is fit.
Public vs. Private Worship: Public worship is the worship that a commonwealth performs as one person. Private worship is that which a private person exhibits.

Public worship, in respect to the whole commonwealth, is free. But in respect to particular men, it is not so, as they are commanded how to worship.
Private worship is free when done in secret. But in the sight of the multitude, it is never without some restraint, either from the laws or from the opinion of men.

The Purpose of Worship

The purpose of worship among men is power. When a person sees another being worshipped, he assumes that person is powerful and is more ready to obey him, which makes his power greater.

But God has no ends or needs. The worship we do for him proceeds from our duty and is directed by the rules of honor that reason dictates the weak should show to the more powerful.

The Attributes of God (According to Natural Reason)

To know what worship of God is taught to us by the light of nature, I will begin with His attributes.

First, we ought to attribute existence to him.
To say that the world is God is to deny his existence, because God is understood as the cause of the world. To say the world is God is to say it has no cause.
To say that the world is eternal is to deny there is a God, because that which is eternal has no cause.
To take from God the care of mankind is to take from him his honor, for it takes away men’s love and fear of him, which is the root of honor.
In those things that signify greatness and power, to say that he is finite is not to honor him. To attribute a figure to him, to say he is in a certain place, or that he moves or rests, is to make him finite. To say there is more than one God is to imply they are all finite.
To ascribe to him passions that involve grief (like repentance or anger) or want (like appetite or hope) is not to honor him, because passion is a power that is limited by something else.

He that will attribute to God nothing but what is warranted by natural reason must either use negative attributes (like infinite, eternal, incomprehensible), superlatives (like most high, most great), or indefinite terms (like good, just, creator). This is done not to declare what God is (for that would be to confine him within the limits of our own imagination), but to show how much we admire him and how ready we would be to obey him.

The Actions of Divine Worship (According to Natural Reason)

The actions of divine worship are signs of our intention to honor God. Reason dictates that such actions include:

Prayers.
Thanksgiving.
Gifts, that is to say, sacrifices and oblations, if they are of the best kind.
To swear by no one but God. This is a confession that only God knows the heart.
To speak considerately of God. This means not using his name rashly or to no purpose, and not disputing his nature with natural reason.
To make our worship the best in its kind. Prayers and thanksgivings should be made in words that are beautiful and well-composed, not sudden or common.
To worship God in public, and not only in secret. Without this, the most acceptable part of honor—procuring others to honor him—is lost.
Obedience to his laws (that is, in this case, to the Laws of Nature) is the greatest worship of all.

Public Worship Must Be Uniform

Because a commonwealth is one person, it ought to also exhibit to God but one worship. This is public worship, and its property is to be uniform. Where many sorts of worship are allowed, proceeding from the different religions of private men, it cannot be said that there is any public worship, nor that the commonwealth is of any religion at all.

Those attributes and actions which the sovereign ordains in the worship of God, for signs of honor, ought to be taken and used as such by private men in their public worship.

Natural Punishments

There is no action of man in this life that is not the beginning of a long chain of consequences. In this chain, there are linked together both pleasing and unpleasing events. He that will do anything for his pleasure must engage himself to suffer all the pains annexed to it. These pains are the natural punishments of those actions which are the beginning of more harm than good.

Intemperance is naturally punished with diseases.
Rashness is punished with mischances.
Injustice is punished with the violence of enemies.
Pride is punished with ruin.
Negligent government of princes is punished with rebellion.
Rebellion is punished with slaughter.

Natural punishments must be naturally consequent to the breach of the Laws of Nature, and therefore follow them as their natural, not arbitrary, effects.

The Conclusion of the Second Part

And thus far concerning the constitution, nature, and right of sovereigns, and the duty of subjects, derived from the principles of natural reason.

Considering how different this doctrine is from the practice of the greatest part of the world, I am at the point of believing this my labor is as useless as the Commonwealth of Plato. For he also was of the opinion that the disorders of the state and the change of governments by civil war could never be taken away until sovereigns became philosophers.

But when I consider again that the science of natural justice is the only science necessary for sovereigns, and that no philosopher has yet put into order and sufficiently proven all the theorems of moral doctrine, I recover some hope that one time or another, this writing of mine may fall into the hands of a sovereign who will consider it himself. And, by the exercise of his entire sovereignty, he may convert this truth of speculation into the utility of practice.

PART III: OF A CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH

CHAPTER XXXII: OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN POLITICS

A New Foundation for the Argument

I have derived the rights of sovereign power and the duty of subjects so far from the principles of nature only. But in that which I am next to handle—the nature and rights of a CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH—much depends upon supernatural revelations of the will of God. The ground of my discourse must therefore be not only the natural word of God (reason), but also the prophetical word of God (Scripture).

But We Must Not Abandon Reason

Nevertheless, we are not to renounce our senses and experience, nor our natural reason. There may be many things in God’s word that are above reason, but there is nothing contrary to it. When it seems so, the fault is either in our unskillful interpretation or our erroneous reasoning.

For the mysteries of our religion are like wholesome pills for the sick: when swallowed whole, they have the virtue to cure; but when chewed, they are for the most part cast up again without effect.

When something written in Scripture is too hard for our examination, we are bidden to captivate our understanding to the words. This does not mean a submission of our intellectual faculty to the opinion of any other man. It means a submission of the will to obedience, where obedience is due. We captivate our understanding and reason when we forbear contradiction and live according to the lawful authority.

How Do We Know Who Truly Speaks for God?

When God speaks to man, it must be either immediately or by the mediation of another man. How God speaks to a man immediately may be understood by those to whom he has so spoken, but how the same should be understood by another is hard, if not impossible, to know.

If a man pretends to me that God has spoken to him supernaturally, and I make a doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it.

To say he has spoken to him in a dream is no more than to say he dreamed that God spoke to him.
To say he has seen a vision is to say that he has dreamed between sleeping and waking.
To say he speaks by supernatural inspiration is to say he finds an ardent desire to speak, for which he can allege no natural and sufficient reason.

Though God Almighty can speak to a man by dreams, visions, voice, and inspiration, he obliges no man to believe that He has done so to him that pretends it. That man, being a man, may err and, what is more, may lie.

How then can he to whom God has never revealed His will immediately know when he is to obey the word delivered by him that says he is a prophet? If one prophet can deceive another, what certainty is there of knowing the will of God by any other way than that of reason? To which I answer out of the Holy Scripture, that there are two marks by which, together and not separately, a true prophet is to be known.

A true prophet is to be known by two marks together, not separately:

He must perform miracles.
He must not teach any other religion than that which is already established.

Neither of these marks is sufficient on its own. The book of Deuteronomy says that if a prophet rises among you and performs a great miracle, but then says, “Let us follow strange gods,” you shall not listen to him, and he shall be put to death. In this case, God is not using the miracle to approve the prophet’s calling, but as a test of your constancy and allegiance to your established king and god. Jesus himself also warned that false prophets would arise and do great wonders and miracles.

Likewise, preaching the true doctrine without the doing of miracles is not a sufficient argument of a direct, immediate revelation from God. If a man who teaches true doctrine should pretend to be a prophet without showing any miracle, he is not to be regarded. The test given in Deuteronomy is whether the thing he foretells comes to pass. But what if he foretells something that is to happen after a very long time? In that case, the mark is useless. Therefore, the miracles that oblige us to believe a prophet ought to be confirmed by an immediate or not long-deferred event.

The Scripture Replaces Prophets

Seeing, therefore, that miracles now cease, we have no sign left by which to acknowledge the pretended revelations or inspirations of any private man. We have no obligation to listen to any doctrine further than it is conformable to the Holy Scriptures.

Since the time of our Savior, the Scriptures supply the want of all other prophecy. From Scripture, by wise and careful reasoning, all rules and precepts necessary to the knowledge of our duty both to God and man may easily be deduced, without any need for new enthusiasm or supernatural inspiration.

And this Scripture is what I will use to take the principles of my discourse concerning the rights of those that are the supreme governors of Christian commonwealths, and of the duty of Christian subjects towards their sovereigns. To that end, I shall speak in the next chapter of the books, writers, scope, and authority of the Bible.

CHAPTER XXXIII: OF THE NUMBER, ANTIQUITY, SCOPE, AUTHORITY, AND INTERPRETERS OF THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

What is Holy Scripture?

By the books of Holy SCRIPTURE, we understand those which ought to be the canon, that is to say, the rules of Christian life. And because all rules of life which men are in conscience bound to observe are laws, the question of the Scripture is the question of what is Law throughout all of Christendom.

I have already proven that sovereigns in their own dominions are the sole legislators. It follows, then, that those books only are canonical (that is, Law) in every nation which are established as such by the sovereign authority.

It is true that God is the sovereign of all sovereigns, and when He speaks to any subject, He ought to be obeyed, whatever any earthly ruler may command to the contrary. But the question is not about obedience to God, but about when and what God has said. For subjects that have no supernatural revelation of their own, this cannot be known except by that natural reason which guided them in the first place to obey the authority of their lawful sovereigns for the sake of peace and justice.

Who Wrote the Books of the Old Testament?

Who the original writers of the several books of Holy Scripture were has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other history, nor can it be by any arguments of natural reason. The only light that can guide us in this question must be that which is held out to us from the books themselves.

The Pentateuch (the first five books) was not written by Moses. The title, “the five Books of Moses,” is not enough proof. The book of Deuteronomy says of Moses’s tomb, “no man knoweth of his sepulcher to this day.” This phrase means that the words were written long after Moses was buried. The book of Genesis says, “and the Canaanite was then in the land,” which must have been written by someone at a time when the Canaanites were not in the land—that is, after Moses’s death. It is evident that the five Books of Moses were written after his time, though he may have written parts of them, such as the “Volume of the Law” described in Deuteronomy.
The Book of Joshua was written long after his time. The writer of this book also uses the phrase “unto this day” when describing monuments set up by Joshua, meaning the book was written long after the events it describes.
The Books of Judges, Ruth, and Samuel were also written after the time of the events they describe. This is clear from similar arguments.
The Books of Kings and Chronicles were written after the captivity in Babylon. This is evident because the history in them is continued up until that time, and they refer to even older books as their sources.
Ezra and Nehemiah were written after their return from captivity.
Esther is of the time of the captivity and was therefore written at that time or after it.
Job seems not to be a history, but a philosophical treatise in verse concerning the ancient question of why wicked men often prosper while good men are afflicted.
The Psalter (the Book of Psalms) was compiled and put into the form it now has after the return of the Jews from Babylon.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles were likely compiled and given their titles by some other godly man who lived after the time of Solomon.
The Prophets. Looking at the inscriptions and contents of the prophetic books, it is clear that the whole Scripture of the Old Testament was set forth in the form we have it today after the return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon. If the books of the Apocrypha may be credited on this point, the Scripture was set forth in the form we have it in by the scribe Ezra.

As for the books of the New Testament, they are equally acknowledged as canon by all Christian churches.

The New Testament

The writers of the New Testament all lived within less than an age after Christ’s Ascension and had all of them either seen our Savior or been his disciples, except for St. Paul and St. Luke. Therefore, whatever was written by them is as ancient as the time of the Apostles.

However, the time wherein the books of the New Testament were received and acknowledged by the Church to be of their writing is not quite as ancient. The authority of these books as a collection cannot be derived from a higher time than that wherein the governors of the Church collected, approved, and recommended them to us as the writings of those apostles and disciples.

The Council of Laodicea, held in the year 364 AD, is the first that we know of that recommended the Bible to the then-Christian churches. At that time, though the great doctors of the Church were ambitious, I am persuaded that they did not falsify the Scriptures. If they had had an intention to do so, they would surely have made the books more favorable to their own power over Christian princes and civil sovereignty than they are.

I see no reason, therefore, to doubt but that the Old and New Testaments, as we have them now, are the true registers of those things which were done and said by the prophets and apostles.

The Purpose of the Scriptures

And although these books were written by diverse men, yet it is clear that the writers were all endowed with one and the same spirit, in that they all conspire to one and the same end: the setting forth of the Rights of the Kingdom of God.

In summary, the histories and the prophecies of the Old Testament and the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament have had one and the same purpose: to convert men to the obedience of God. This obedience was to God as He was represented at three different times:

First, in Moses and the priests.
Second, in the man Christ.
And third, in the Apostles and their successors.

The Question of the Authority of the Scriptures

A question much disputed between the diverse sects of the Christian religion is, from whence do the Scriptures derive their authority? Or, how do we know them to be the word of God?

This question is often improperly worded.

It is not a question of who the original author is; all agree that it is God.
It is not a question of our knowledge of it, because no one can know they are God’s word except those to whom God himself has revealed it supernaturally.
It is not a question of our belief in it, because different people are moved to believe for different reasons.

The question, truly stated, is: By what authority are the Scriptures made LAW?

As far as the Scriptures do not differ from the Laws of Nature, there is no doubt that they are the Law of God and carry their own authority with them.

But for all other parts, a person to whom God has not supernaturally revealed that the Scriptures are His word is not obliged to obey them by any authority other than that of the commonwealth, residing in the sovereign, who alone has the legislative power.

If every man were obliged to take for God’s law what particular men, on the pretense of private inspiration or revelation, should force upon him, it would be impossible that any divine law should be acknowledged.

The authority must be public, and that is the authority of the commonwealth or of the Church. But the Church, if it is one person, is the same thing as a commonwealth of Christians. If the Church is not one person (that is, united under one sovereign), then it has no authority at all.

So that the question of the authority of the Scriptures is reduced to this: “Are Christian kings and the sovereign assemblies in Christian commonwealths absolute in their own territories, immediately under God? Or are they subject to one Vicar of Christ, to be judged, condemned, deposed, and put to death as he shall think necessary for the common good?”

CHAPTER XXXIV: OF THE SIGNIFICATION OF SPIRIT, ANGEL, AND INSPIRATION IN THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

The Meaning of Body and Spirit

All true reasoning is based on the constant meaning of words. Therefore, before I proceed any further, it is necessary to determine, out of the Bible, the meaning of such words as “body” and “spirit.”

The word BODY, in its most general sense, means that which fills or occupies some certain room. It is a real part of what we call the universe. “Substance” and “body” mean the same thing. Therefore, the words “incorporell substance” are a contradiction in terms, as if a man should say, an “incorporeal body.”
The proper meaning of SPIRIT in common speech is either a subtle, fluid, and invisible body (like wind or breath), or a ghost or other phantasm of the imagination.
For metaphorical meanings, “spirit” is often taken for a disposition or inclination of the mind, as when we say “a spirit of contradiction” or “an unclean spirit.” It can also be taken for any eminent ability or extraordinary passion, as when great wisdom is called the “spirit of wisdom” or when madmen are said to be “possessed with a spirit.”

When God is said to be a spirit, the place falls not under human understanding. We understand nothing of what He is, but only that He is. The attributes we give him are not to signify our opinion of his nature, but our desire to honor him.

The Meaning of “The Spirit of God” in Scripture

The phrase “the Spirit of God” is used in the Scripture in several different senses:

For a Wind or a Breath. In Genesis 1:2, “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters.” This is best understood to mean a wind, which might be called the Spirit of God because it was God’s work.
For Extraordinary Gifts of the Understanding. In Genesis 41:38, Pharaoh calls the wisdom of Joseph “the Spirit of God.” In Exodus 28:3, God says He has filled wise-hearted men with the “Spirit of Wisdome” to make Aaron’s garments. This means not a ghost, but an eminent grace that God had given them.
For Extraordinary Affections. In the book of Judges, an extraordinary zeal and courage in the defense of God’s people is called the Spirit of God. When Saul heard of the cruelty of the Ammonites, it is said that “The Spirit of God came upon Saul, and his Anger was kindled greatly.” This probably does not mean a ghost, but an extraordinary zeal.
For the Gift of Prediction by Dreams and Visions. The false prophet Zedekiah asked the true prophet Micaiah, “Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak to thee?”

The Meaning of “The Spirit of God” in Scripture (Continued)

5. For Life The word “spirit” is often used to simply mean “life” or vital motion.

In Genesis, when God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man was made a living soul,” it signifies no more than that God gave him life.
In the book of Job, the phrase “as long as the Spirit of God is in my nostrils” is no more than to say, “as long as I live.”
In Ezekiel, “the spirit entered into me, and set me on my feet,” means “I recovered my vital strength,” not that a ghost or incorporeal substance entered and possessed his body.

6. For a Subordination to Authority The word “spirit” can also mean an authority or a submission to a doctrine.

When God says he will take the “Spirit” that is upon Moses and put it upon the seventy elders, it means that they would receive an authority to govern that was subordinate to Moses’s own.
When it is said that “Joshua was full of the Spirit of wisdome, because Moses had laid his hands upon him,” it means that he was ordained by Moses to continue his work.
When it is said, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,” it means not the ghost of Christ, but a submission to his doctrine.
When it is said that Jesus was “full of the Holy Ghost,” it can be understood as his zeal to do the work for which he was sent by God the Father. To interpret it as a ghost is to say that God himself was filled with God, which is very improper and insignificant.

7. For Aerial Bodies When the disciples of Christ saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed him to be a “spirit,” meaning thereby an aerial body, and not a phantasm. This is because it is said that they all saw him, which cannot be understood of the delusions of the brain (which are singular to one person), but of bodies only.

Some such apparitions may be real and substantial—that is to say, subtle bodies which God can form and make use of as ministers and messengers (that is to say, angels) to declare His will. But when He has so formed them, they are substances, endowed with dimensions that take up room and can be moved from place to place, which is peculiar to bodies. They are therefore not incorporeal ghosts, that is to say, ghosts that are in no place, which is to say, that seeming to be something, are nothing.

What is an Angel?

By the name of ANGEL is signified, generally, a messenger, and most often, a messenger of God. By a messenger of God is signified anything that makes known His extraordinary presence, especially by a dream or vision.

The Scripture does not say how angels were created. It often says they are “spirits,” but as we have seen, this word can mean either a thin body or an image that rises in the fancy. When God raises these images supernaturally to signify His will, they are not improperly termed His angels.

Evidence from the Old Testament. In most of the places in the Old Testament where angels are mentioned, nothing else can be understood by the word “angel” but some image raised supernaturally in the fancy to signify the presence of God.
- The “angel” that went before the army of Israel to the Red Sea was the Lord himself, and he appeared in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. The cloud served as a sign of God’s presence and was no less an angel than if it had had the form of a man. For it is not the shape, but their use, that makes them angels.
Evidence from the New Testament. The New Testament, however, has extorted from my feeble reason an acknowledgment and belief that there are also angels that are substantial and permanent. The words of our Savior himself, where he speaks of the “everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels,” proves the permanence of evil angels. But it is repugnant to their immateriality, because everlasting fire is no punishment to substances that are incapable of suffering, such as all things incorporeal are. It therefore confirms their materiality.

To say that an angel or a spirit is an “incorporeal substance” is to say, in effect, that there is no angel or spirit at all.

What is Inspiration?

On the signification of the word “spirit” depends that of the word INSPIRATION.

The proper meaning of inspiration is nothing but the blowing into a man of some thin and subtle air or wind, in the same way that a man fills a bladder with his breath.
The word is therefore used in the Scripture metaphorically only.
- When it is said that God “inspired” into man the breath of life, no more is meant than that God gave him vital motion.
- When it is said that “all Scripture is given by Inspiration from God,” it is a metaphor to signify that God inclined the spirit or mind of those writers to write that which should be useful.
- When it is said of our Savior that he was “full of the Holy Spirit,” that fullness is not to be understood as an infusion of the substance of God, but as an accumulation of His gifts.
- When God says, “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,” we are not to understand it in the proper sense, as if His spirit were like water. We are to understand it as if God had promised to give them prophetic dreams and visions.

The proper use of the word “infused” in speaking of the graces of God is an abuse of it, for those graces are virtues, not bodies to be carried hither and thither and to be poured into men as into barrels. The “spirit” in Scripture is to be taken for the power of God, working by causes unknown to us.

The wind that is said to have filled the house where the Apostles were assembled on the day of Pentecost is not to be understood as the Holy Spirit itself, which is the Deity. Rather, it was an external sign of God’s special working on their hearts, to give them the internal graces and holy virtues that He thought were necessary for them to perform their apostleship.

CHAPTER XXXV: OF THE MEANING IN SCRIPTURE OF KINGDOM OF GOD, HOLY, SACRED, AND SACRAMENT

The Kingdom of God: A Proper and Literal Kingdom

In the writings of preachers and in treatises of devotion, the Kingdom of God is most commonly taken to mean eternal happiness after this life in the highest heaven. This they also call the Kingdom of Glory.

On the contrary, I find that the KINGDOM OF GOD signifies in most places of Scripture a kingdom properly so named. It was a civil sovereignty, constituted by the votes of the people of Israel, in which they chose God for their King by a covenant made with him.

From the very creation, God has not only reigned over all men naturally by His might, but He also had special subjects whom He commanded by a voice, as one man speaks to another. In this manner, He reigned over Adam.

The Origin of God’s Kingdom by Covenant

Later, it pleased God to speak to Abraham and to make a covenant with him, saying, “I will establish my Covenant between me, and thee, and thy seed after thee… to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee.” This is what is called the Old Covenant, or Testament, and it contained a contract between God and Abraham. By this contract, Abraham obliged himself and his posterity to be subject to God’s positive law. And though the name of “king” is not yet given to God, the thing is the same: an institution by pact, or agreement, of God’s special sovereignty over the seed of Abraham.

This covenant was renewed at the foot of Mount Sinai, where God commanded Moses to speak to the people in this manner: “If you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my Covenant, then you shall be a peculiar people to me… and you shall be unto me a Sacerdotal Kingdome, and an holy Nation.”

“Peculiar people” means an extraordinary people, or one enjoyed in a special manner. The reason God gives is, “For all the Earth is mine.” It is as if he should say, “All the nations of the world are mine by reason of my power; but you shall be mine by your own consent and covenant.”
The title “Sacerdotal Kingdome” (or “Kingly Priesthood”) and “holy Nation” also confirms this.

The Kingdom of God was a commonwealth, instituted by the consent of those who were to be subject to it, for their civil government. In this kingdom, God was King, and the High Priest was to be his sole viceroy or lieutenant.

When the elders of Israel later demanded a human king, God said to Samuel, “they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” This makes it clear that God himself was then their King.

The prophets foretold the restoration of this kingdom by Christ. This is the kingdom that Jesus claimed on Earth, for which he was put to death with the title on his cross, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” This is the kingdom we pray for when we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy Kingdome come.”

On the Words “Holy” and “Sacred”

From this literal interpretation of the Kingdom of God, we can also understand the true meaning of the word HOLY.

In God’s Kingdom, “Holy” corresponds to what men in their kingdoms call “Public” or “the King’s.”
The king of any country is the public person. God, the King of Israel, was the Holy One of Israel. The Jews, who were God’s nation, were called a Holy Nation.
By “Holy” is always understood either God himself or that which is God’s by special ownership, gotten by consent.
The word SACRED refers to that which is made holy by the dedication of men and given to God, to be used only in His public service, such as temples, priests, and sacraments.

On the Word “Sacrament”

A SACRAMENT is a separation of some visible thing from common use and a consecration of it to God’s service for a sign.

The sacrament of admission into the Kingdom of God was Circumcision in the Old Testament and is Baptism in the New Testament.
The sacrament of commemoration was the eating of the Passover Lamb in the Old Testament and is the celebrating of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament.

The sacraments of admission are to be used only once. The sacraments of commemoration need to be reiterated because we have need of being often put in mind of our deliverance and of our allegiance.

CHAPTER XXXVI: OF THE WORD OF GOD, AND OF PROPHETS

What is the “Word of God”?

When there is mention of the Word of God, or of man, it does not signify a single part of speech, like a noun or a verb. It means a perfect speech or discourse, whereby the speaker affirms, denies, commands, promises, or threatens.

Furthermore, the phrase “the Word of God” can be understood in two ways:

It can mean the words spoken by God.
It can mean the words spoken concerning God.

For example, when we say, “the Gospel of St. Matthew,” we understand the gospel was written by St. Matthew.

The phrase “the Spirit of God” is also used in Scripture to mean:

Life itself. The “breath of life” that God inspired into man simply means that God gave him life.
A subordination to authority. When God takes the “Spirit” from Moses and puts it on the seventy elders, it means He is giving them an authority that is subordinate to Moses’s own.
An aerial body. When the disciples see Jesus walking on the sea, they suppose him to be a “spirit,” meaning a real, though subtle, physical body.

It seems that some apparitions may be real and substantial—that is to say, subtle bodies which God can form and make use of as messengers (angels). But if so, they are substances with dimensions that take up room and can be moved from place to place, which is peculiar to bodies. They are not incorporeal ghosts.

What is an Angel?

The name ANGEL generally signifies a messenger, and most often, a messenger of God. It signifies anything that makes known His extraordinary presence, especially by a dream or a vision.

In most of the places in the Old Testament where angels are mentioned, the word can be understood as some image raised supernaturally in the fancy to signify the presence of God. For example, the “angel” that guided the Israelites to the Red Sea was a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. This cloud was no less an angel than if it had had the form of a man, because its purpose was to be a sign of God’s presence. For it is not the shape, but their use, that makes them angels.

However, the New Testament has persuaded me to believe that there are also angels that are substantial and permanent creatures. But to believe they are incorporeal—in no place, which is to say, nothing—cannot be proven by Scripture.

What is Inspiration?

The word INSPIRATION must be understood metaphorically only in Scripture.

When God is said to have “inspired” into man the breath of life, no more is meant than that God gave him vital motion.
When it is said that “all Scripture is given by Inspiration from God,” it is a metaphor to signify that God inclined the minds of those writers to write that which should be useful.
When it is said of our Savior that he was “full of the Holy Spirit,” that fullness is not to be understood as an infusion of the substance of God, but as an accumulation of His gifts.

The use of the word “infused” in speaking of the graces of God is an abuse of it, for those graces are virtues, not bodies to be poured into men as into barrels.

CHAPTER XXXV: OF THE MEANING IN SCRIPTURE OF KINGDOM OF GOD, HOLY, SACRED, AND SACRAMENT

The Literal Kingdom of God

In the writings of preachers, the Kingdom of God is most commonly taken to mean eternal happiness after this life in heaven. But in most places of Scripture, it signifies a kingdom properly so named.

It was a civil sovereignty, constituted by the votes of the people of Israel, in which they chose God for their King by a covenant made with him. This is the kingdom that was cast off in the election of Saul, the restoration whereof the prophets foretold would be accomplished by Christ. And it is the restoration of this kingdom that we daily pray for when we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy Kingdom come.”

The Meaning of “Holy,” “Sacred,” and “Sacrament”

From this literal interpretation of the Kingdom of God, we can also understand the true meaning of other words.

HOLY: In God’s Kingdom, the word “Holy” corresponds to what men in their kingdoms call “Public” or “the King’s.” That which is holy is that which is God’s by special ownership, gotten by consent.
SACRED: That which is made holy by the dedication of men and given to God, to be used only in His public service, is called “Sacred.”
SACRAMENT: A sacrament is a separation of some visible thing from common use and a consecration of it to God’s service for a sign, either of our admission into the Kingdom of God (like Baptism) or for a commemoration of it (like the Lord’s Supper).

CHAPTER XXXVI: OF THE WORD OF GOD, AND OF PROPHETS

What is the “Word of God”?

When we speak of the Word of God, it does not mean a single part of speech, like a noun or a verb. It means a perfect speech or discourse, whereby the speaker affirms, denies, commands, promises, or threatens.

The phrase “the Word of God” can be understood in two ways:

It can mean the words spoken by God.
It can mean the words spoken concerning God.

For example, “the Word of the Kingdom” means the doctrine of the kingdom taught by Christ.

How God Has Spoken to the Prophets

The most frequent use of the word PROPHET in Scripture is for him to whom God speaks immediately, that which the prophet is to say from Him to some other man or to the people. But in what manner does God speak to such a prophet?

We are to interpret God’s speaking to men immediately as that way, whatever it may be, by which God makes them understand His will. The ways He does this are to be sought only in the Holy Scripture.

To the prophets of the Old Testament, God spoke by Dreams or Visions. God appeared to Abraham in a vision. He appeared to Abimelech in a dream. He spoke to Jacob in a dream. After the time of Moses, whenever the manner of God’s speech is expressed, He always spoke by a vision or by a dream.
Only to Moses did He speak in a more extraordinary manner, “mouth to mouth” and “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” And yet, even this was by the mediation of an angel and was therefore a vision, though a much clearer vision than was given to other prophets.

Generally, the prophets of the Old Testament took notice of the Word of God no other way than from their dreams or visions—that is to say, from the imaginations which they had in their sleep or in an ecstasy. In every true prophet, these imaginations were supernatural, but in false prophets, they were either natural or feigned.

Speaking “by the Spirit” or “by inspiration” was therefore not a particular manner of God’s speaking, different from a vision. When extraordinary prophets were said to speak by the spirit, it meant they had received a new dream or vision for their particular commission.

The Different Types of Prophets

Of the prophets that had a perpetual calling in the Old Testament, some were supreme and some were subordinate.

Supreme Prophets. The supreme prophets were first Moses, and after him the High Priest for his time, and after the Jews had rejected God as their king, those pious Kings who submitted themselves to God’s government. Their office was to inquire of God on all extraordinary occasions. But in what manner God spoke to them is not clear. To say it was a dream or a vision is contrary to the distinction God himself made between Moses and other prophets. To say God spoke as He is in His own nature is to deny His infiniteness and incomprehensibility. And to say He spoke by the infusion of the Holy Spirit is either to make Moses equal with Christ or to attribute nothing supernatural to him at all. Therefore, in what manner God spoke to these sovereign prophets of the Old Testament is not intelligible. In the New Testament, there was no sovereign prophet but our Savior, who was both the God that spoke and the prophet to whom He spoke.
Subordinate Prophets. I do not find any place that proves God spoke to the subordinate prophets of a perpetual calling supernaturally. He spoke to them only in the manner that He naturally inclines all other Christian men to piety, belief, and righteousness. When, therefore, a prophet is said to speak “in the Spirit,” we are to understand no more than that he speaks according to God’s will, as it has been declared by the supreme prophet (the sovereign).

God also spoke many times by the event of lots, which were ordered by such as he had put in authority over his people.

Every Person Must Examine a Prophet’s Calling

Seeing that all prophecy supposes a vision or a dream, and that these can be natural as well as supernatural, there is a need for reason and judgment to discern between them.

He that pretends to teach men the way to great happiness, pretends to govern them. This is a thing that all men naturally desire and is therefore worthy to be suspected of ambition and imposture. Consequently, the claims of a pretended prophet ought to be examined and tried by every man before he yields them obedience—unless he has yielded it to them already in the institution of a commonwealth, as when the prophet is the civil sovereign or is authorized by the civil sovereign.

All Prophecy Must Be Judged by the Sovereign Prophet’s Doctrine

There have always been many more false prophets than true prophets. Every person is therefore bound to use his natural reason to apply the rules which God has given us to discern the true from the false.

In the Old Testament, the rules were: 1) the prophet’s doctrine must be conformable to that which Moses, the sovereign prophet, had taught them, and 2) he must have the miraculous power of foretelling what God would bring to pass.
In the New Testament, there was only one mark: the preaching of this doctrine, That Jesus is the Christ, that is, the King of the Jews promised in the Old Testament.

Every man, therefore, ought to consider who is the sovereign prophet—that is to say, who it is that is God’s viceregent on earth and has, next under God, the authority of governing Christian men. He must take the doctrine which that sovereign commands to be taught as the rule by which to examine and try out the truth of those doctrines which pretended prophets shall advance.

For when Christian men do not take their Christian sovereign for God’s prophet, they must either take their own dreams for the prophecy they mean to be governed by, or they must suffer themselves to be led by some strange prince or by some of their fellow subjects that can bewitch them, by slander of the government, into rebellion.

CHAPTER XXXVII: OF MIRACLES AND THEIR USE

What is a Miracle?

By MIRACLES are signified the admirable works of God. They are also called wonders and signs. To understand what a miracle is, we must first understand what works men wonder at.

A miracle must be rare. A work that happens often is no miracle.
A miracle must have no known natural cause. If you know the natural cause of an event, it is not a miracle, no matter how great it seems. The first rainbow that was seen in the world was a miracle because it was the first, and it served for a sign from God. But today, because they are frequent, they are not miracles.
A miracle is relative. Since wonder is consequent to the knowledge and experience with which men are endowed, it follows that the same thing may be a miracle to one man and not to another.

The definition of a miracle is therefore:

A MIRACLE is a work of God (besides His operation by the way of nature) done for the making manifest to His elect the mission of an extraordinary minister for their salvation.

The Sovereign is the Judge of Miracles

A private man always has the liberty to believe or not believe in his heart any act to be a miracle. But he does not have the liberty to profess his belief in such a way that it is contrary to the laws of his country. In every commonwealth, it is the one that has the sovereign power who is to be the judge of whether a work is to be publicly acknowledged as a miracle or not.

CHAPTER XXXVIII: OF THE MEANING IN SCRIPTURE OF ETERNAL LIFE, HELL, SALVATION, THE WORLD TO COME, AND REDEMPTION

The Importance of These Words

The maintenance of civil power depends on the duty that men owe to God’s laws. To understand that duty, we need to know the true meaning of the words used in Scripture, because on their interpretation depends our salvation.

What is “Eternal Life”?

In the Old Testament, the only reward promised by God was a long and happy life in this world, in the land of Canaan. There is no mention in the Old Testament of “eternal life” in the sense of a permanent, happy life after death. The penalty for Adam’s sin was not eternal torment after death, but being deprived of the privilege of living eternally in the Garden of Eden.

Where is the “Kingdom of God”?

The place where men are to live eternally is called the “Kingdom of God.” The common opinion is that this kingdom is in heaven, but the Scripture says otherwise. The Kingdom of God is to be a real, eternal kingdom on Earth, after the general resurrection.

What are “Hell,” “Salvation,” and “Redemption”?

The “kingdom of Satan” and “hell” are also on Earth. The enemies of God shall not be in heaven, but on earth, in the “outer darkness.”
Salvation means to be saved from your enemies. In the kingdom of God, it means to be saved from the enemy, Satan. This salvation is from the sins that draw us into his kingdom.
Redemption means to be bought off from captivity by the payment of a price. Jesus is called our Redeemer because He paid the ransom for our sins with His own precious blood.

The Torments of Hell

The “torments of hell” are described in Scripture metaphorically.

“The worm that dieth not” does not mean a real worm, but the “sting of conscience.”
“The fire” that is “everlasting” does not mean a real, literal fire, but refers to the “indignation of God.”

Ignorant and superstitious men make great wonders of those works which other men, knowing them to proceed from nature, do not admire at all. For example, eclipses of the sun and moon have been taken for supernatural works by the common people, even though there were others who could have foretold from their natural causes the very hour they should arrive.

The Purpose of Miracles

It belongs to the nature of a miracle that it be performed for the purpose of procuring credit for God’s messengers, ministers, and prophets. They are done so that men may know they are called and sent by God and may thereby be the better inclined to obey them.

The creation of the world was an admirable work, but it is not usually called a miracle because it was not done to procure credit for any prophet. The admiration of a work consists not in the fact that it could be done—because men naturally believe the Almighty can do all things—but because He does it at the prayer or the word of a man.

The works of God in Egypt, by the hand of Moses, were properly miracles because they were done with the intention to make the people of Israel believe that Moses came to them as a messenger sent from God.

We may further observe in Scripture that the end of miracles was to create belief not in all men, but in the elect only—that is to say, in such as God had determined should become His subjects. The miraculous plagues of Egypt did not have for their end the conversion of Pharaoh, for God had told Moses before that He would harden the heart of Pharaoh.

The Definition of a Miracle

From that which I have set down, we may define a miracle thus:

A MIRACLE is a work of God (besides His operation by the way of nature) done for the making manifest to His elect the mission of an extraordinary minister for their salvation.

From this definition, we may infer:

The work done is the effect of the immediate hand of God, not of any virtue in the prophet.
No devil, angel, or other created spirit can do a miracle. If they do it by their own power, then there is some power that does not proceed from God, which all men deny. And if they do it by a power given to them, then the work is not from the immediate hand of God and is therefore not a miracle.

On Enchantments and False Miracles

There are some texts of Scripture that seem to attribute the power of working wonders to magic and enchantment. For example, when the magicians of Egypt turned their rods into serpents and the water into blood, a man might be apt to attribute miracles to enchantments.

And yet, there is no place of Scripture that tells us what an enchantment is. If, therefore, enchantment is not the working of strange effects by spells and words, but is instead imposture and delusion worked by ordinary means, then those texts must have another sense than they seem to bear at first sight.

When a rod seems to become a serpent by enchantment, it is not the rod that is enchanted, but the spectator who is deceived. To deceive a man is no miracle, but a very easy matter to do. For such is the ignorance and aptitude to error of all men that they can be abused by innumerable and easy tricks, such as juggling, ventriloquism, or the use of secret intelligence.

How to Judge a Miracle

In this aptitude of mankind to give too hasty a belief to pretended miracles, the best caution is that which God has prescribed: that we do not accept any as prophets who teach any other religion than that which God’s lieutenant (the sovereign) has established, nor any whose prediction we do not see come to pass.

When we hear tell of a miracle, we are to consult the lawful Church—that is to say, the lawful head thereof (the sovereign)—how far we are to give credit to the reporters of it. A private man always has the liberty (because thought is free) to believe or not believe in his heart those acts that have been given out for miracles. But when it comes to the confession of that faith, the private reason must submit to the public reason, that is to say, to God’s lieutenant.

CHAPTER XXXVIII: OF THE MEANING IN SCRIPTURE OF ETERNAL LIFE, HELL, SALVATION, THE WORLD TO COME, AND REDEMPTION

The Importance of These Words

It is impossible for a commonwealth to stand where any other than the sovereign has the power of giving greater rewards than life and of inflicting greater punishments than death. And seeing that eternal life is a greater reward than the life present, and eternal torment is a greater punishment than the death of nature, it is a thing worthy to be well considered what is meant in Holy Scripture by these terms.

The Place of Eternal Life is on Earth

First, we find that Adam was created in such a condition that if he had not broken the commandment of God, he would have enjoyed it in the Paradise of Eden everlastingly. His punishment was mortality and the certainty of death. Jesus Christ has satisfied for the sins of all that believe in him and therefore has recovered for all believers that ETERNAL LIFE which was lost by the sin of Adam.

Concerning the place wherein men shall enjoy that eternal life, the Scriptures seem to make it on Earth.

The Comparison: As in Adam all die (that is, have forfeited Paradise and eternal life on Earth), even so in Christ shall all be made alive. For the comparison to be proper, they must be made alive on Earth.
Zion: The Psalmist says, “Upon Zion God commanded the blessing, even Life for evermore.” Zion is in Jerusalem, upon Earth.
The New Jerusalem: St. John saw the “Holy City, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven.” This suggests that the Paradise of God should come down to God’s people, not that they should go up to it.
Christ’s Return: The angels told the Apostles that Jesus would come back in the same way they had seen him go up into heaven, which sounds as if he will come down to govern them here.
Marriage in the Resurrection: Our Savior’s saying that in the resurrection men are “as the Angels of God in heaven” is a description of an eternal life resembling that which we lost in Adam in the point of marriage.

CHAPTER XXXIX: OF THE MEANING IN SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD CHURCH

What is a “Church”?

The word CHURCH means, in the books of Holy Scripture, a congregation, or an assembly of citizens, called forth to hear the magistrate speak to them. It is used for the assembly of the people of Israel, for a tumultuous assembly of people, and most commonly for a congregation of men professing the Christian Religion, united in the person of one sovereign.

The Meaning of “Eternal Life” and “Heaven”

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would have lived on Earth eternally. And because immortals do not procreate, if they had lived forever, the Earth would not have become overpopulated. The faithful Christian has recovered this eternal life that was lost, though he must die a natural death and remain dead for a time, until the Resurrection.

The common belief that men are to live eternally after the Resurrection in “the heavens”—meaning in the stars or some other place far from Earth—is not easily drawn from any text that I can find.

The “Kingdom of Heaven” means the kingdom of the King that dwells in heaven. His kingdom was the people of Israel on Earth, and the new Kingdom of Heaven will also be on Earth.
The Scripture says that “no man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man.”
And St. Peter says, “For David is not ascended into Heaven.”
The doctrine that the soul of man is in its own nature eternal and a living creature independent on the body is not apparent in Scripture. The book of Job says, “man lyeth down, and riseth not, till the heavens be no more.” St. Peter tells us that the heavens shall be no more at the general Resurrection. This means that immortal life does not begin in man until the Resurrection and day of Judgment.

I conclude, therefore, that the Kingdom of God is to be on Earth. But because this doctrine will appear to most men a novelty, I do but propose it, and I attend the end of that dispute of the sword concerning the authority by which all sorts of doctrine are to be approved or rejected.

The Place of Hell and the Nature of its Torments

Just as the Kingdom of God and eternal life, so also God’s enemies and their torments after judgment appear by the Scripture to have their place on Earth. The names used for the place of the damned—such as the bottomless pit, the congregation of the giants under the water, the lake of fire, and utter darkness—are all metaphors derived from places on Earth where God had inflicted exemplary punishments.

Since no one so interprets the Scripture as that after the day of Judgment the wicked are all eternally to be punished in the literal Valley of Hinnon, it follows that what is said concerning Hell Fire is spoken metaphorically.

The Tormenters (Satan, Devil): The names “Satan” (the Enemy), “Devil” (the Accuser), and “Abaddon” (the Destroyer) are not proper names of an individual person, but only an office or a quality. By the “Enemy” is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.
The Torments of Hell: The torments of Hell—expressed by “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “the worm of conscience,” and “fire”—are metaphors for a grief and discontent of mind from the sight of that eternal felicity in others which they themselves have lost. And because such felicity in others is sensible only by comparison with their own miseries, it follows that they are to suffer such bodily pains and calamities as are incident to those who not only live under evil governors, but have also for an enemy the eternal King of the Saints, God Almighty.
The Second Death: The scripture is clear for a universal resurrection, but we do not read that any of the wicked is promised an eternal life. The fire prepared for the wicked is an everlasting fire, and in that sense, the torments shall be everlasting. But it cannot be inferred that he who shall be cast into that fire shall be eternally burnt and tortured and yet never be destroyed or die. Rather, he will suffer an everlasting death, which is the Second Death.

The joys of eternal life are in Scripture comprehended all under the name of SALVATION, or being saved.

CHAPTER XXXIX: OF THE MEANING IN SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD CHURCH

What is a “Church”?

The word CHURCH means, in the books of Holy Scripture, a congregation, or an assembly of citizens. It is most frequently used for a congregation of men professing the Christian Religion.

A Church is one person, and is the same thing as a civil commonwealth consisting of Christian men. And because a multitude of men cannot be one person unless they are represented by one man or one assembly, it follows that a Church is:

A company of men professing Christian Religion, united in the person of one sovereign, at whose command they ought to assemble, and without whose authority they ought not to assemble.

A commonwealth of Christian men and a Church of Christian men are therefore the same thing.

The Myth of a Universal Church

The dream of a spiritual power superior to the civil power comes from the false belief that the whole multitude of Christians throughout the world are one commonwealth, called the Universal Church, which has a universal sovereign.

But there is on Earth no such universal sovereign, to whom all Christians are obliged to be subject. Christians are the subjects of diverse several sovereigns and states. There is no one person to represent all Christians, and therefore there is no Universal Church that has any authority over them. There are only particular churches, which are the same as the particular commonwealths of Christian sovereigns.

CHAPTER XL: OF THE RIGHTS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD, IN ABRAHAM, MOSES, THE HIGH PRIESTS, AND THE KINGS OF JUDAH

The Covenant with Abraham

The first in the Kingdom of God by covenant was Abraham. God made a covenant with him to be his God and the God of his descendants. Abraham’s family and his seed were obliged to obey what Abraham should declare to them for God’s law. This was because they owed obedience to him as their parent and master. In his own family, Abraham had sovereign power and was God’s lieutenant on Earth. The covenant, therefore, was to obey Abraham in all things.

The Covenant at Mount Sinai

The next time that we read of God’s kingdom by covenant is at the foot of Mount Sinai. This covenant was made between God and the people of Israel. But because an assembly is incapable of being a party to a covenant except through a representative, the covenant must have been made through the representative of the people, who was Moses.

Moses alone went up to the mountain to speak with God; the people were forbidden to approach. They said to Moses, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.” This was a promise of absolute obedience to Moses. By this, the right of being God’s lieutenant was conferred on Moses, and to him was given the sovereign power over the children of Israel. He was the sole judge, he chose all the subordinate ministers, and he was God’s sole prophet for the people.

A Church is the Same as a Christian Commonwealth

From this, it follows that there is on Earth no such universal Church as all Christians are bound to obey, because there is no power on Earth to which all other commonwealths are subject. There are Christians in the dominions of several princes and states, but every one of them is subject to that commonwealth whereof he is himself a member.

Therefore, a Church that is capable of commanding, judging, absolving, or doing any other act is the same thing with a Civil Commonwealth consisting of Christian men.

It is called a Civil State because the subjects of it are Men.
It is called a Church because the subjects thereof are Christians.

The distinction between “temporal” and “spiritual” government are but two words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful sovereign. There is therefore no other government in this life, neither of state nor of religion, but temporal. The governor of the state and of the religion must be one, or else there must needs follow faction and civil war in the commonwealth. The doctors of the Church are called pastors, and so are civil sovereigns. But if pastors are not subordinate to one another so that there may be one chief pastor, men will be taught contrary doctrines. That one chief pastor, according to the law of nature, is the Civil Sovereign.

CHAPTER XL: OF THE RIGHTS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD, IN ABRAHAM, MOSES, THE HIGH PRIESTS, AND THE KINGS OF JUDAH

The Sovereign Rights of Abraham

The father of the faithful and the first in the Kingdom of God by covenant was Abraham. The covenant which Abraham made with God was to take for the commandment of God that which was commanded him in a dream or vision and to deliver it to his family and cause them to observe the same.

In this contract, we may observe that God spoke only to Abraham. He did not contract with any of his family or seed, other than as their wills were involved in the will of Abraham, who was their lawful sovereign.

Abraham had the sole power of ordering the religion of his own people. According to God’s own words, “For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord.”
Abraham’s subjects could not challenge his interpretation of God’s word. No member of his family was a judge of whether Abraham’s commands were from God or not. To have allowed this would have been to make every man the judge in his own cause, which would dissolve the covenant.
The power of Abraham was absolute, under God. The command of God to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac was a trial of his obedience and a confession of his allegiance to God, his absolute sovereign.

The Sovereignty of Moses

After Abraham, the next time that we hear of the Kingdom of God by covenant is at Mount Sinai. This covenant was made between God and the people of Israel, but as an assembly cannot be a party to a covenant except through a representative, it was made through their representative, Moses.

Moses alone went up to the mountain; the people were forbidden to approach. They made a promise of absolute obedience to him, saying, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us,lest we die.”

By this, the people made Moses their sovereign under God. He was God’s Lieutenant and had absolute sovereignty over the children of Israel. He was the sole judge, he chose all the subordinate ministers, and he was the sole prophet through whom God spoke to the people.

The Sovereignty of the High Priests

After the death of Moses, the sovereign power was not in his brother Aaron, but in his successor Joshua. And after Joshua was dead, the sovereign power was in the High Priest. The High Priest was the one who had the authority to inquire of God and to declare His will to the people.

The Sovereignty was Transferred to the Kings

When the people of Israel, grieved with the corruption of the sons of the High Priest Samuel, demanded a king, they rejected God from reigning over them in that special manner. The sovereign power of the Kingdom of God by covenant was laid down and given to their first king, Saul.

After this, the High Priest’s office became ministerial, not magisterial. The High Priest still inquired of God, but he did so at the command of the King. King David commanded the priest to bring him the Ephod to inquire of the Lord, and King Solomon took the priesthood from one man and gave it to another. After the election of Saul, it was the Civil Sovereign who was God’s sole Lieutenant on Earth.

CHAPTER XLI: OF THE OFFICE OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOR

The Threefold Office of Christ

The office of our Savior, the Messiah, is threefold:

A Redeemer, or Savior.
A Pastor, Counselor, or Teacher.
A King, or Sovereign.

His Office as King Was Not to be Exercised at His First Coming

The Kingdom of God, which had been cast off by the Jews in the time of Samuel, was to be restored by Christ. The prophets had announced him as a King, and he himself preached the “Gospel,” which is the “good news” of the Kingdom of God.

But Christ had not yet taken upon himself the office of a King. He said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world,” and he forbade his disciples from proclaiming that he was the King. This is because the end of Christ’s first coming was not to judge, but to save. His second coming, at the end of the world, will be to judge the world and to exercise his kingship.

His office at his first coming, therefore, was to be a Redeemer.

To be saved is to be secured, either from specific evils or absolutely against all evil, including want, sickness, and death itself.

Man was created in an immortal condition, not subject to corruption. He fell from that happiness by the sin of Adam. It follows, then, that to be saved from sin is to be saved from all the evil and calamities that sin has brought upon us. In the Holy Scripture, the remission of sin and salvation from death and misery are the same thing.

This absolute salvation is what the faithful are to enjoy after the day of Judgment, by the power and favor of Jesus Christ, who for that cause is called our SAVIOR.

The Place of Eternal Salvation

Concerning the general salvation, because it must be in the Kingdom of Heaven, there is great difficulty concerning the place. On one side, it seems that this salvation should be on Earth. For salvation is set forth to us as a glorious reign of our King by conquest, not as a safety by escape. And where we look for salvation, we must also look for triumph, and before triumph, for victory, and before victory, for battle, which cannot well be supposed to be in heaven.

This is confirmed by many evident places of Scripture:

The prophet Isaiah says of the state of salvation, “thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down.” He says that “the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King, he will save us.” All this is to take place in Zion and Jerusalem, on Earth.
Our Savior himself, in his discourse with the woman of Samaria, says, “Salvation is of the Jews,” meaning it begins at the Jews, on Earth.
The prophet Joel, describing the day of Judgment, says, “in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem shall be Salvation.”

On the other side, I have not found any text that can probably be drawn to prove any ascension of the saints into Heaven. The kingdom is called the “Kingdom of Heaven” because God, the King, dwells in Heaven, and the Earth is but His footstool. But that the subjects of God should have any place as high as His throne seems not suitable to the dignity of a King.

The Meaning of “The World to Come”

From this, it is not hard to interpret what is meant by the WORLD TO COME. There are three worlds mentioned in Scripture:

The Old World: From Adam to the general flood.
The Present World: Our Savior said, “My Kingdome is not of this World,” for he came only to teach men the way of salvation.
The World to Come: This is that world wherein Christ, coming down from Heaven, shall gather together his elect and from that time forth reign over them on a new Earth, under his Father, everlastingly.

On Redemption

The salvation of a sinner requires a preceding REDEMPTION. He that is once guilty of sin must pay such a ransom as he that is offended shall require. And because the person offended is Almighty God, such a ransom must be paid as God has been pleased to require.

Our Savior Christ, therefore, to redeem us, made that sacrifice and oblation of himself at his first coming which God was pleased to require for the salvation of such as in the meantime should repent and believe in him.

CHAPTER XXXIX: OF THE MEANING IN SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD CHURCH

What is a “Church”?

The word CHURCH means, in the books of Holy Scripture, a congregation, or an assembly of citizens. It is most frequently used for a congregation of men professing the Christian Religion.

And because a multitude of men cannot be one person unless they are represented by one man or one assembly, I define a Church as:

A company of men professing Christian Religion, united in the person of one sovereign, at whose command they ought to assemble, and without whose authority they ought not to assemble.

A Christian Commonwealth and a Church are the Same Thing

From this, it follows that there is on Earth no such universal Church as all Christians are bound to obey, because there is no power on Earth to which all other commonwealths are subject.

Therefore, a Church that is capable of commanding, judging, absolving, or doing any other act is the same thing with a Civil Commonwealth consisting of Christian men.

It is called a Civil State because the subjects of it are Men.
It is called a Church because the subjects thereof are Christians.

The distinction between “temporal” and “spiritual” government are but two words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful sovereign. There is therefore no other government in this life, neither of state nor of religion, but temporal. The governor of the state and of the religion must be one, or else there must needs follow faction and civil war in the commonwealth. That one chief pastor, according to the law of nature, is the Civil Sovereign.

CHAPTER XL: OF THE RIGHTS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD, IN ABRAHAM, MOSES, THE HIGH PRIESTS, AND THE KINGS OF JUDAH

The Sovereign Rights of Abraham

The father of the faithful and the first in the Kingdom of God by covenant was Abraham. The covenant which he made with God was to take for the commandment of God that which was commanded him in a dream or vision and to deliver it to his family and cause them to observe the same.

In this contract, God spoke only to Abraham. Abraham’s family was obliged to obey because their wills were involved in the will of Abraham, who was their lawful sovereign. Abraham had the sole power of ordering the religion of his own people, and his private interpretation of God’s word was the law for his subjects.

The Sovereignty of Moses, the High Priests, and the Kings

After Abraham, the Kingdom of God by covenant was renewed at Mount Sinai through the representative of the people, Moses. The people promised absolute obedience to him, saying, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear.” By this, the people made Moses their sovereign under God.

After the death of Moses, the sovereign power was in the High Priest.

But when the people of Israel demanded a human king, they rejected God from reigning over them in that special manner. The sovereign power was cast off by the people and given to their first king, Saul. After this, it was the Civil Sovereign who was God’s sole Lieutenant on Earth.

From this, we can conclude this first point: they to whom God has not spoken immediately are to receive the positive commandments of God from their sovereign, as the family and seed of Abraham did from Abraham, their father, lord, and civil sovereign. Consequently, in every commonwealth, they who have no supernatural revelation to the contrary ought to obey the laws of their own sovereign in the external acts and profession of religion. As for the inward thought and belief of men, which human governors can take no notice of (for only God knows the heart), they are not voluntary and do not fall under any obligation.

No “Private Spirit” Against the Sovereign’s Religion

From this follows another point: it was lawful for Abraham to punish any of his subjects who should pretend to a private vision or spirit to justify any doctrine which Abraham should forbid. Consequently, it is lawful now for the sovereign to punish any man that shall oppose his “private spirit” against the laws. For the sovereign has the same place in the commonwealth that Abraham had in his own family.

There arises also a third point: as none but Abraham in his family, so none but the sovereign in a Christian commonwealth can take notice of what is, or what is not, the Word of God. For God spoke only to Abraham, and it was he only that was able to know what God said and to interpret the same to his family.

The covenant of God’s kingdom was renewed by Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai. But seeing that Moses had no authority to govern the Israelites as a successor to the right of Abraham by inheritance, his authority had to be grounded on the consent of the people and their promise to obey him.

And so it was. For the people, when they saw the thunderings and the lightnings on the mountain, stood far off and said unto Moses, “speak thou with us, and we will hear, but let not God speak with us lest we die.” Here was their promise of obedience, and by this they obliged themselves to obey whatsoever he should deliver unto them for the commandment of God.

Moses Was the Absolute Sovereign, Even Over Aaron the Priest

Moses had the sovereign power over the people all his own time.

The people promised obedience not to Aaron, but to him.
Moses alone was called up to God on the mountain.
The Lord spoke to Moses in almost all occasions of government and religion, but seldom to Aaron.
The question of the authority of Aaron, on the occasion of his and Miriam’s mutiny against Moses, was judged by God himself for Moses.
In the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, God caused the earth to swallow them alive.

Therefore, neither Aaron, nor the people, nor any aristocracy of the chief princes, but Moses alone had, next under God, the sovereignty over the Israelites. This was true not only in causes of civil policy but also of religion.

From this, we may conclude that whosoever in a Christian commonwealth holds the place of Moses is the sole messenger of God and interpreter of His commandments. The Scriptures, since God now speaks in them, are the new Mount Sinai, and the bounds of interpreting them are the laws of those that represent God’s person on Earth.

The Sovereignty of the High Priests and the Kings

After Moses, the sovereignty was in the High Priest, beginning with Aaron’s son, Eleazar. The supreme power of making war and peace, and of judicature, was in the priest.

To the High Priests succeeded the Kings. When the people rejected God from reigning over them and asked for a king, the sovereignty over the people was cast off by the people, with the consent of God himself. There was no authority left to the priests but such as the King was pleased to allow them. The government of civil affairs was all in the hands of the King, which also included the ordering of religion, for there was no other Word of God in that time by which to regulate religion but the Law of Moses, which was their civil law.

To conclude, from the first institution of God’s kingdom to the Captivity, the supremacy of religion was in the same hand as that of the civil sovereignty. However, the people often did not understand this and, as often as their governors displeased them, they would revolt from their obedience, from which proceeded the civil troubles and calamities of the nation.

After the Captivity

During the Captivity, the Jews had no commonwealth at all. And after their return, though they renewed their covenant with God, they made no promise of obedience to any particular ruler. So far as concerns the Old Testament, we may conclude that whosoever had the sovereignty of the commonwealth amongst the Jews, the same had also the supreme authority in the matter of God’s external worship.

CHAPTER XLI: OF THE OFFICE OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOR

The Threefold Office of Christ

We find in Holy Scripture three parts of the office of the Messiah:

The first is that of a Redeemer, or Savior.
The second is that of a Pastor, Counselor, or Teacher.
The third is that of a King, an eternal King, but under his Father.

Christ as Redeemer

To the office of a Redeemer, it appertains that he was sacrificed and thereby carried away from us our iniquities. Our Savior’s sufferings are figured in the Old Testament by the two goats. One was sacrificed, and the other, the Scapegoat, had the iniquities of the people laid upon its head and was sent into the wilderness to escape. Christ was both the sacrificed goat and the scapegoat: he was sacrificed in that he died, and he escaped in his Resurrection.

Christ’s Kingdom is Not of This World (Yet)

Because a redeemer has no title to the thing redeemed before the ransom is paid—and this ransom was the death of the Redeemer—it is clear that our Savior was not a King during the time he lived bodily on the Earth.

He himself expressly said, “My Kingdome is not of this world.” Seeing that the Scripture makes mention of but two worlds—this that is now and that which shall be after the day of Judgment—the Kingdom of Christ is not to begin until the general Resurrection.

The Purpose of Christ’s First Coming

If Christ, while he was on Earth, had no kingdom in this world, to what end was his first coming? It was to restore unto God, by a new covenant, the kingdom which had been cut off by the rebellion of the Israelites. To do this, he had two offices:

To proclaim himself the Christ, the King promised to them by the prophets.
By teaching and by working miracles, to persuade and prepare men to live so as to be worthy of the immortality that believers were to enjoy when he should come in majesty to take possession of his Father’s kingdom.

Christ as King at His Second Coming

As for the third part of his office, which was to be King, I have already shown that his kingdom was not to begin until the Resurrection. But then he shall be King, not only as God, but also peculiarly of his own elect by virtue of the pact they make with him in their baptism. He is to be King as a subordinate or viceregent of God the Father, as Moses was in the wilderness, as the High Priests were before the reign of Saul, and as the Kings were after it.

Our Savior resembled Moses in many ways: he chose twelve Apostles as Moses chose twelve princes of the tribes; he ordained seventy disciples as Moses authorized seventy elders; and he instituted sacraments of admission (Baptism) and commemoration (the Lord’s Supper) as Moses had done with circumcision and the Passover.

The Threefold Office of Christ

We find in Holy Scripture three parts of the office of the Messiah:

The first is that of a Redeemer, or Savior.
The second is that of a Pastor, Counselor, or Teacher.
The third is that of a King, an eternal King, but under his Father.

To these three parts correspond three times.

Our redemption he worked at his first coming, by the sacrifice wherein he offered up himself for our sins upon the cross.
Our conversion he worked partly then in his own person, and partly works now by his ministers, and will continue to work until his coming again.
And after his coming again, that his glorious reign over his elect, which is to last eternally, shall begin.

Christ’s Kingdom is Not of This World (Yet)

He himself expressly said, “My Kingdome is not of this world.” Seeing that the Scripture makes mention of but two worlds—this that is now and that which shall be after the day of Judgment—the Kingdom of Christ is not to begin until the general Resurrection. His office at his first coming, therefore, was not to be a King, but to be a Redeemer.

The purpose of Christ’s first coming was to restore unto God, by a new covenant, the kingdom which had been cut off by the rebellion of the Israelites. To do this, his office was in two parts:

To proclaim himself the Christ, the King promised to them by the prophets.
By teaching and by working miracles, to persuade and prepare men to live so as to be worthy of the future kingdom.

His office at his second coming will be to be a King and a Judge in that kingdom.

CHAPTER XLII: OF ECCLESIASTICAL POWER

What is Ecclesiastical Power?

The power of the Church is called Ecclesiastical Power. For a Christian sovereign, it is the same as his Civil Power. The central question of all Christian politics is: who is the ultimate judge of which doctrines are necessary for salvation?

If some power other than the civil sovereign is the judge, then every Christian sovereign must be subject to that judge, and every subject must obey the laws of that judge, even against the laws of their own sovereign. The Roman Catholic church claims this power for the Pope. This claim is grounded on certain texts in Scripture. Let us examine them.

Examining the Scriptural Basis for Papal Power

The principal text on which the power of the Pope is grounded is from Matthew 16, where our Savior says to St. Peter, “Thou art Peter, And upon this rock I will build my Church… And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven…”

The “Rock”: By the “rock” is meant not the person of Peter, but the faith which he had just confessed: “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.”
“The Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven”: This is the power of “binding and loosing.” The same power was given not only to Peter, but to all the Apostles.
- “To bind” means to accuse of sin; to leave a man in his sins.
- “To loose” means to absolve or remit sin.
The Power to Forgive Sins: The power to remit and retain sins is not a power to forgive or not forgive by the priest’s own authority. It is a power to declare to the penitent the promise of God for the remission of their sins, and to the impenitent, the retaining of them. The pastors are like heralds, who do not have the power to pardon a criminal themselves, but only to read the proclamation of the pardon that has been granted by the king.

What Power Did Christ Leave to His Church?

The Office of the Apostles was to Teach and Bear Witness The kingdom of Christ is not of this world. Therefore, neither can his ministers, unless they be kings, require obedience in his name. Our Savior was sent to persuade the Jews to return to, and to invite the Gentiles to receive, the kingdom of his Father, not to reign in majesty until the day of Judgment.

The work of Christ’s ministers, therefore, is evangelization—that is, a proclamation of Christ and a preparation for his second coming. They are our schoolmasters, not our commanders, and their precepts are not laws, but wholesome counsels. Their office is to make men believe and have faith in Christ. But faith has no relation to compulsion or commandment. Therefore, the ministers of Christ in this world have no power by that title to punish any man for not believing what they say.

The Power of Excommunication Excommunication is the casting out of the Church of a person who does not obey its teachings. In a Church that is not yet a Christian commonwealth, excommunication has no effect on a man’s goods or his liberty. The only effect is that he is avoided by the company of the Christians. But in a Christian commonwealth, where the civil sovereign is also the head of the church, if the excommunication is by the sovereign’s authority, it can be a true punishment, depriving a man of all his civil rights.

The Civil Sovereign is the Head of the Church All pastors ought to execute their charge in the right of the civil sovereign. A Church and a Christian commonwealth are the same thing. To be the head of the commonwealth is to be the head of the Church. Christ is the King of the Church, but since his kingdom is not of this world, he cannot have a lieutenant who can judge or command men. The only governors that Christ has appointed under him are civil sovereigns.

On Heresy

But what if a Christian king should be a heretic? A heretic is he that holds a private opinion against the public doctrine of the Church. But the Church is the commonwealth. Therefore, a heretic is he that holds a private opinion against the doctrine of the commonwealth.

It follows that a sovereign, being the one who establishes the public doctrine, cannot be a heretic. To make a sovereign a heretic, there must be a judge above him, which means he is not the sovereign. He may be an “infidel” if he does not believe the fundamental article that Jesus is the Christ, but he cannot be a heretic. The authors of heresy are the heathen philosophers, whose vain philosophy was mixed with Scripture by the Schoolmen.

The Pope, in claiming the right to judge whether a king is a heretic or not, claims the right to be the sovereign over all other sovereigns. The Pope’s power is not a spiritual power, but a claim to temporal power.

It is from the civil sovereign that all other pastors in every Christian church derive their right of teaching, preaching, and all other functions. In the institution of God’s kingdom, the sovereignty of religion was in the same hand with the sovereignty of civil policy.

What is a True Martyr?

The word martyr means a witness. Therefore, a true martyr of Christ is a witness of His Resurrection. This means that a martyr, in the truest sense, must be one of the original disciples who conversed with Christ and saw him both before and after he was risen. All others who testify are but witnesses of other men’s testimony and are therefore but second-hand martyrs.

The One Article Worth Dying For. It is one article only which, to die for, merits so honorable a name. That article is this: that Jesus is the Christ, He that has redeemed us and shall come again to give us salvation and eternal life in His glorious kingdom. To die for every tenet that serves the ambition or profit of the clergy is not required.
Who is Obliged to be a Martyr? Only those who have a warrant to preach Christ to infidels are obliged to suffer death for that cause. Christ sent his Apostles and his seventy disciples to preach; he did not send all that believed. He sent them “as sheep amongst wolves” (to unbelievers), not as sheep to other sheep. No man is a witness to him that already believes and therefore needs no witness.

The Limits of the Apostles’ Commission

The points of the commission that Christ gave to his Apostles contain none of them any authority to command the congregation.

1. To Preach and to Teach The twelve Apostles were sent to preach that the “Kingdom of God was at hand.” Preaching is the act which a herald does in publicly proclaiming a king. But a herald has no right to command any man. The disciples were sent as “laborers, not as Lords of the Harvest.” Preachers, therefore, have ministerial power, not magisterial (commanding) power. To teach that Jesus was the King is not to say that men are bound to obey the teachers against the laws of their sovereigns. It is to say that they should wisely expect the coming of Christ in the future, with patience, faith, and obedience to their present magistrates.

2. To Baptize To be baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is to be washed as a sign of becoming a new man and a loyal subject to God. In baptism, we promise to take the doctrine of the Apostles for our direction in the way to eternal life. Since earthly sovereigns are not to be put down until the day of Judgment, it is clear that in baptism we do not constitute over us another authority by which our external actions are to be governed in this life.

3. To Forgive and Retain Sins (The Power of the Keys) This power is a consequence of the authority to baptize or refuse to baptize. The purpose of baptism is the remission of sins. Therefore, the power to declare men received into or excluded from God’s kingdom was given to the Apostles.

This is not an authority to forgive or retain sins simply and absolutely, as God does. It is conditional to the penitent. The Apostles and their successors are to follow the outward marks of repentance. They have no authority to deny absolution if these marks appear, and no authority to absolve if they do not.

The judgment concerning the truth of repentance belonged not to any one man, but to the Church, that is, to the assembly of the faithful. The sentence by which a man was put out of the Church was pronounced by the Apostle or Pastor, but the judgment concerning the merit of the cause was in the Church.

The Power of Excommunication

Excommunication is the casting out of the Church.

Its Use and Effect without Civil Power. The use and effect of excommunication, while it was not yet strengthened with the civil power, was no more than that those who were not excommunicated were to avoid the company of those that were. It was not enough to consider them as heathens; with heathens, they might eat and drink, but with excommunicated persons, they might not.
Its Effect on an Apostate. Upon a Christian that should become an apostate, the effect of excommunication had nothing in it, neither of damage in this world nor of terror.
Its Effect on the Faithful. Excommunication, therefore, had its effect only upon those that believed that Jesus Christ was to come again in glory to reign and to judge, and who would therefore fear being refused entrance into His kingdom.

For What Fault Does Excommunication Lie?

There lies excommunication for injustice and for a scandalous life. But to excommunicate a man that held the foundation—that Jesus was the Christ—for a difference of opinion in other points, there appears no authority in the Scripture nor example in the Apostles.

The text in Titus that says, “A man that is an Haeretique, after the first and second admonition, reject,” does not mean to excommunicate the man. “To reject” in this place means to give over admonishing him, to let him alone, to stop disputing with him, as one that is to be convinced only by himself. St. Peter and St. Paul, though their controversy was great, did not cast one another out of the Church.

A true martyr of Christ is a witness of His Resurrection. This means that a martyr, in the truest sense, must be one of the original disciples who conversed with Christ and saw him both before and after he was risen. All others who testify are but witnesses of other men’s testimony.

The one article of faith that merits the honorable name of martyr is this: that Jesus is the Christ. It is the testimony itself that makes the martyr, not the death.

Only those who have a warrant to preach Christ to infidels are obliged to suffer death for this cause. A person who is not sent to preach is not required to be a martyr.

The Limits of the Apostles’ Commission

The commission that Christ gave to his Apostles contained no authority to command the congregation, but only to teach and persuade.

To Preach and Teach: A preacher is like a herald who publicly proclaims a king. But a herald has no right to command anyone. Their office was to minister, not to be masters. To teach that Jesus was the King is not to say that men are bound to obey the teachers against the laws of their sovereigns. It is to say that they should wisely expect the coming of Christ in the future, with patience, faith, and obedience to their present magistrates.
To Baptize: Baptism is a sign of becoming a new and loyal subject to God. In baptism, we promise to take the doctrine of the Apostles for our direction in the way to eternal life. We do not constitute over us another authority by which our external actions are to be governed in this life.
To Forgive and Retain Sins: This power is a consequence of the authority to baptize. It is not an authority to forgive or retain sins simply and absolutely, as God does. It is conditional to the penitent. The Apostles are to follow the outward marks of repentance. The judgment concerning the truth of that repentance belonged not to any one man, but to the Church, that is, to the assembly of the faithful.

On Excommunication

Excommunication is the casting out of the Church.

Its Use and Effect without Civil Power: While the Church was not yet strengthened by the civil power, the only effect of excommunication was that the other members were to avoid the company of the excommunicated person.
Its Effect on the Faithful: Excommunication, therefore, had its effect only upon those that believed that Jesus Christ was to come again in glory to reign and to judge, and who would therefore fear being refused entrance into His kingdom.
For What Fault Does it Lie? Excommunication was for injustice and for a scandalous life. But to excommunicate a man that held the foundation—that Jesus was the Christ—for a difference of opinion in other points, there appears no authority in the Scripture. The text that says to “reject” a heretic means only to give over admonishing him, to let him alone.

Who Has the Power to Make Scripture Law?

A “canon” is a rule. It becomes a law when it is given by one whom we are bound to obey. The question, therefore, is who has the power to make the Scriptures (which are rules) into laws.

The Ten Commandments were made laws by God himself, but the people of Israel were only obliged to them because they promised obedience to Moses. It was therefore Moses, the civil sovereign, who had the power to make the Decalogue law for the Israelites.
The Judicial, Levitical, and Second Laws were all delivered by Moses only and also became laws by virtue of the same promise of obedience to him.
After Moses, the power of making Scripture canonical was always in the civil sovereign. The books of the Old Testament were confirmed as law by the authority of the pious Kings of Judah. The New Testament was made canonical by the authority of Christian sovereigns.

The Summary of the Argument

The Kingdom of Christ is not of this world; therefore, his ministers (unless they are also kings) have no power to command, but only to teach and persuade. The sum of what is necessary for salvation is contained in two virtues: Faith in Christ and Obedience to the Laws.

The only article of faith which the Scripture makes necessary to salvation is that Jesus is the Christ.
Obedience is owed to the Laws of God. The Laws of God are the Laws of Nature (equity, justice, mercy) and the civil laws of our sovereign.
The command of a sovereign is contrary to the Laws of God only when the sovereign commands a subject to deny Christ. A Christian sovereign can never do this. If an infidel sovereign commands it, the subject ought not to obey, but he is to expect no protection by the laws of his country.

CHAPTER XLIII: OF WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR A MAN’S RECEPTION INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

The One Thing Necessary for Salvation

The cause of the civil wars that have plagued Christendom has been the difficulty of this question: what is necessary for a man’s reception into the Kingdom of Heaven? The most frequent pretext of sedition and civil war has been a difficulty, not of obeying God, but of knowing who it is that God has appointed to be our guide to salvation.

But the things necessary for salvation are simpler than most people think. They are contained in two virtues: Faith in Christ and Obedience to the Laws.

1. On Obedience

The obedience required for salvation is to the Laws of God, that is to say, the Laws of Nature—equity, justice, mercy, humility, and the rest of the moral virtues. The sum of these is, “Do not to another what you would not have done to you.”

The Law of God is also the Civil Law. For justice, which is a Law of Nature, is the keeping of covenants, and every Christian has covenanted to obey his lawful sovereign. Therefore, a Christian man must obey the laws of his sovereign in all things, for the Law of Nature is the eternal law of God and cannot be abrogated by any man.

2. On Faith

The only article of faith which the Scripture makes necessary for salvation is this: that JESUS IS THE CHRIST. The belief of this is a saving faith.

This is proven by the purpose of the Evangelists. St. John says of his own Gospel, “These things are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, you might have life through his name.”
This is proven by the sermons of the Apostles. The whole of their preaching was to prove this one article. When the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip what hindered him from being baptized, Philip answered, “If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.” And the eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
This is proven by the easiness of the doctrine. The preaching of the Gospel was to the poor, who could not have been expected to understand the intricate disputes of theology that have been raised by the vanity of philosophers.
This is proven from the Creeds. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, though longer, were made only for the fuller explication of this one article against the heretics of the time.

To “believe in Christ” is nothing else but to believe that Jesus is the Christ.

Who is a True Martyr?

The word martyr means a witness. A true martyr of Christ, therefore, is a witness of His Resurrection. This means that a martyr, in the truest sense, must be one of the original disciples who conversed with Christ and saw him both before and after he was risen. All others who testify are but witnesses of other men’s testimony and are therefore but second-hand martyrs.

The One Article Worth Dying For. It is one article only which, to die for, merits so honorable a name. That article is this: that Jesus is the Christ, He that has redeemed us and shall come again to give us salvation and eternal life in His glorious kingdom. To die for every tenet that serves the ambition or profit of the clergy is not required.
Who is Obliged to be a Martyr? Only those who have a warrant to preach Christ to infidels are obliged to suffer death for that cause. Christ sent his Apostles and his seventy disciples to preach; he did not send all that believed. He sent them “as sheep amongst wolves” (to unbelievers), not as sheep to other sheep. No man is a witness to him that already believes and therefore needs no witness.

The Limits of the Apostles’ Commission

The commission that Christ gave to his Apostles contained none of them any authority to command the congregation, but only to teach and persuade.

To Preach and to Teach. A preacher is like a herald who publicly proclaims a king. But a herald has no right to command anyone. Their office was to minister, not to be masters. To teach that Jesus was the King is not to say that men are bound to obey the teachers against the laws of their sovereigns. It is to say that they should wisely expect the coming of Christ in the future, with patience, faith, and obedience to their present magistrates.
To Baptize. In baptism, we promise to take the doctrine of the Apostles for our direction in the way to eternal life. We do not constitute over us another authority by which our external actions are to be governed in this life.
To Forgive and Retain Sins. This power is not an authority to forgive or retain sins simply and absolutely, as God does. It is conditional to the penitent. The Apostles are to follow the outward marks of repentance. The judgment concerning the truth of that repentance belonged not to any one man, but to the Church, that is, to the assembly of the faithful.

On Excommunication

Excommunication is the casting out of the Church.

Its Use and Effect without Civil Power. While the Church was not yet strengthened by the civil power, the only effect of excommunication was no more than that those who were not excommunicated were to avoid the company of those that were.
For What Fault Does it Lie? Excommunication was for injustice and for a scandalous life. But to excommunicate a man that held the foundation—that Jesus was the Christ—for a difference of opinion in other points, there appears no authority in the Scripture. The text that says to “reject” a heretic means only to give over admonishing him, to let him alone. St. Peter and St. Paul, though their controversy was great, did not cast one another out of the Church.

Who is Liable to Excommunication?

A person is liable to excommunication only if they are a member of a lawful Christian church that has the power to judge their case.

From this, it follows that one Church cannot be excommunicated by another. For either they have equal power, in which case it is not an act of authority but a schism, or one is subordinate to the other, in which case they are but one Church.

If a sovereign prince or assembly is excommunicated, the sentence is of no effect. All subjects are bound to be in the company of their own sovereign when he requires it by the law of nature. They cannot lawfully expel him from any place in his own dominion.

The excommunication of a Christian subject who obeys the laws of his own sovereign is also of no effect. A true and unfeigned Christian is not liable to excommunication, nor is a professed Christian until his hypocrisy appears in his behavior, that is, until his behavior is contrary to the law of his sovereign.

In sum, the power of excommunication cannot be extended further than the end for which the Apostles and pastors of the Church have their commission from our Savior, which is not to rule by command and coercion, but by teaching and directing men in the way of salvation in the world to come. Excommunication, when it lacks the assistance of the civil power, is without effect and consequently ought to be without terror.

The Interpreter of the Scriptures

Before there were Christian sovereigns, there could be no single interpreter of the Scripture whose interpretation was to be taken for law. When St. Paul preached to the Jews of Thessalonica, every one of them interpreted the Scriptures to himself. He that persuades by reasoning from principles makes him to whom he speaks the judge of his proof.

Even after men were converted, they were not obliged to take any Apostle’s interpretation for law. The Apostles told them to search the Scriptures themselves and to obey their then-heathen princes. This state of private interpretation had to continue until such time as there should be pastors that could authorize an interpreter whose interpretation should generally be stood to. But that could not be until kings were pastors, or pastors were kings.

The Power to Make Scripture Law

The question here is not what any Christian made a law or canon to himself, but what was so made a canon to them that they could not, without injustice, do anything contrary to it.

The Ten Commandments were the first part of Scripture that was law. They were made laws by God himself, but the people of Israel were only obliged to them because they promised obedience to Moses. It was therefore Moses, the civil sovereign, who had the power to make this Scripture law.
The Judicial, Levitical, and Second Laws were all delivered by Moses only and also became laws by virtue of the same promise of obedience to him.
After the time of Moses, the power of making Scripture canonical was always in the civil sovereign.
The New Testament is law only where the lawful civil power has made it so.

The acts of the Council of the Apostles, where they said, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things,” were not laws but conditions proposed to those that sought salvation, which they might accept or refuse at their own peril. For the Apostles had no kingdom in this world and therefore could make no laws.

The Government of the Church in the Time of the Apostles

The Officers of the Church. The first and principal officers were the Apostles, whose essential mark was to be a witness of our Savior’s resurrection. The other magisterial offices—Bishop, Pastor, Elder, and Doctor—were but so many diverse names for the same office in the time of the Apostles. There was then no government by coercion, but only by doctrine and persuasion. The ministerial office was that of the Deacons, who were appointed to the administration of the secular necessities of the Church.
How the Apostles were Chosen. The ordination of Matthias to replace Judas was the act of the congregation in Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas were made Apostles by the particular Church of Antioch.
The People Chose Their Own Pastors. The ordination of elders and pastors in the primitive church was done by the consent of the congregation, signified by the holding up of hands. It was, therefore, in the people.

The power ecclesiastical that was left by our Savior to the Apostles was only the power to teach, not to command. It was a power to persuade men to believe, not to punish any man for not believing. Christ’s ministers are schoolmasters, not commanders, and their precepts are not laws, but wholesome counsels. Their work was to prepare men for the second coming of Christ. The power to bind and loose was a power to declare the conditions of salvation, not to make laws. For these reasons, the supreme pastor of a Church must be the civil sovereign.

How Church Officers Were Chosen in the Time of the Apostles

Having spiritual gifts, like the gift of languages or of casting out devils, did not make a man an officer in the Church. The only thing that made an officer was the due calling and election to the charge of teaching.

The Apostles were elected by the Church. The Apostles Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas were not made apostles by Christ himself after his ascension, but were elected by the Church, that is, by the assembly of Christians. Matthias was elected by the Church of Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas were elected by the Church of Antioch.
The People Elected Their Own Pastors. In the same way, the presbyters (elders) and pastors in other cities were elected by the churches of those cities. When we read in the book of Acts that Paul and Barnabas “ordained Elders in every Church,” the original Greek word used is cheirotonesantes, which means “by the holding up of hands.” This was the common manner of choosing magistrates in the cities of Greece, by a plurality of votes. It was, therefore, the assembly that elected their own elders. The Apostles were only presidents of the assembly, calling them together for such an election and pronouncing them elected.
This was the continual practice. Even the Bishops of Rome were for a long time chosen by the people. The fact that they never pretended to have the right to appoint their own successors is proof that they did not have that right to begin with. The only one who could have that power is the civil sovereign.

Ministers of Christ vs. Ministers of the Church

The word “minister” signifies one that voluntarily does the business of another man.

The pastors of the Church are called the “ministers of the Word.” They are ministers of Christ, whose word it is.
The ministry of a deacon, which is called “serving of tables,” is a service done to the Church, or congregation. The whole congregation could properly call the deacon their minister.

The first deacons were chosen not by the Apostles, but by a congregation of the disciples. The Twelve told the brethren to “look you out among you seven men,” and the text says, “the saying pleased the multitude, and they chose seven.”

How the Church Was Funded

Under the Law of Moses. The tribe of Levi received the tithes (the tenth part of the fruits of the land) for their maintenance. This was the public revenue, assigned to them by God their King. The right of tithes was constituted by the civil power.
In Our Savior’s Time and After. Jesus and his Apostles were maintained by the free gift of those that believed. After the Ascension, the Christians of every city lived in common on money that was made from the sale of their lands and possessions, which was contributed of good will, not of duty. Until after the time of the Emperor Constantine, the maintenance of the bishops and pastors of the Christian Church was nothing but the voluntary contribution of those that had embraced their doctrine.
The Conclusion. St. Paul argues that “they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.” This means that pastors ought to be maintained by their flocks. But it does not mean that the pastors were to determine the quantity or the kind of their own allowance. Before emperors and civil sovereigns had made laws to settle it, their maintenance was nothing but benevolence. They had no courts in which to sue for it. A certain maintenance could be assigned to a pastor only when it could be made a law, which could only be done by emperors, kings, or other civil sovereigns.

The Civil Sovereign is the Head of the Church and Has the Right to Appoint Pastors

Hitherto, it has been shown what the pastors of the Church are; what are the points of their commission (to preach, to teach, to baptize); what ecclesiastical censure is (excommunication); who elected the pastors (the congregation); and what their due revenue was (voluntary contributions). We are to consider now what office those persons have who, being civil sovereigns, have also embraced the Christian faith.

The right of judging what doctrines are fit for peace and ought to be taught to the subjects is in all commonwealths inseparably annexed to the sovereign civil power. Men’s actions are derived from their opinions, and therefore in the well-governing of opinions consists the well-governing of men’s actions.

In all commonwealths of the heathen, the sovereigns have had the name of “Pastors of the People,” because there was no subject that could lawfully teach the people but by their permission and authority. This right of the heathen kings cannot be thought to have been taken from them by their conversion to the faith of Christ. Christ never ordained that kings, for believing in him, should be deposed or deprived of the power necessary for the conservation of peace amongst their subjects.

Therefore, Christian kings are the supreme pastors of their people and have the power to ordain what pastors they please to teach the church, that is, to teach the people committed to their charge.

The Civil Sovereign is the Supreme Pastor

Therefore, Christian kings are still the supreme pastors of their people and have the power to ordain what pastors they please to teach the Church—that is, to teach the people committed to their charge.

Even if we say that the right of choosing pastors is in the Church (the congregation), as it was in the time of the Apostles, the right will still be in the civil sovereign. This is because, in that he is a Christian, he allows the teaching, and in that he is the sovereign (which is to say, the Church by representation), the teachers he elects are elected by the Church. When an assembly of Christians chooses their pastor in a Christian commonwealth, it is the sovereign who elects him, because it is done by his authority.

It follows, then, that it is from the civil sovereign that all other pastors derive their right of teaching, preaching, and performing all other pastoral functions. They are but his ministers, in the same manner as the magistrates of towns, judges in courts of justice, and commanders of armies are all but ministers of him that is the sovereign of the whole commonwealth. The reason for this is not because the teachers are his subjects, but because the people who are to be taught are his subjects.

The Source of Pastoral Authority

If a pastor were asked, “By what authority do you do these things?” he can make no other just answer but that he does it by the authority of the commonwealth, given to him by the king or assembly that represents it.

All pastors, except the supreme pastor, execute their charges by the authority of the civil sovereign, that is, Jure Civili (by Civil Right).
But the king, and every other sovereign, executes his office of supreme pastor by immediate authority from God, that is to say, in God’s Right, or Jure Divino.

Therefore, none but kings can put into their titles the phrase Dei Gratia Rex (By the Grace of God, King), which is a mark of their submission to God only. Bishops who say Divina Providentia (by Divine Providence) in their mandates are slyly denying that they have received their authority from the civil state and are slipping off the collar of their civil subjection.

Christian Kings Can Perform All Pastoral Functions

If every Christian sovereign is the supreme pastor of his own subjects, it seems that he also has the authority not only to preach, but also to baptize, to administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and to consecrate both temples and pastors to God’s service. Most men deny this, partly because kings do not usually do it, and partly because they believe these acts require the imposition of hands from men who have been successively ordained since the time of the Apostles.

Why Kings Don’t Usually Baptize. There is no doubt that any king, if he were skillful, could read lectures in the sciences by the same right that he authorizes others to do so. In the same manner, our Savior, who surely had the power to baptize, baptized none himself but sent his disciples to baptize. The reason why Christian kings do not usually baptize is evident: the greater charge (such as the government of the Church) is a dispensation for the lesser.
Why the Imposition of Hands is Not Necessary for a King. The ceremony of the imposition of hands was an ancient public ceremony among the Jews by which a person or thing was designated and made certain. It is a way to point with the hand to assure the eyes, which is less subject to mistake than speaking a name to inform the ear. The Apostles used this ancient rite to designate the person whom they ordained to the pastoral charge. But every sovereign, before becoming a Christian, already had the power of teaching and ordaining teachers in his own commonwealth. Christianity gives him no new right, but only directs him in the way of teaching truth. Therefore, he needs no imposition of hands (besides that which is done in baptism) to authorize him to exercise any part of the pastoral function.

The Civil Sovereign is the Head of the Church in His Own Dominions

From this consolidation of the political and ecclesiastical right in Christian sovereigns, it is evident that they have all manner of power over their subjects that can be given to a man for the government of their external actions, both in policy and in religion.

It is the civil sovereign who is to appoint judges and interpreters of the canonical Scriptures, for it is he that makes them laws.
It is he that gives strength to excommunications.
In summary, he has the supreme power in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil, as far as concerns actions and words. A Church and a commonwealth of Christian people are the same thing.

A Refutation of the Pope’s Claim to Power

The Pope of Rome’s challenge to this power universally has been maintained chiefly by Cardinal Bellarmine. I have thought it necessary to briefly examine the grounds of his discourse.

On the Best Form of Government. In his first book, he concludes that the best form of government is a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. I have already proven that all governments which men are bound to obey are simple and absolute. The present form of government ought always to be preferred and maintained.
On the Best Form of Government for the Church. His conclusion on this point is irrelevant to the question of the Pope’s power outside of his own dominions. In all other commonwealths, his power, if he has any at all, is that of a schoolmaster only, and not of the master of the family.
On St. Peter as the Monarch of the Church. For his third conclusion, he brings for his chief argument the place of St. Matthew (chapter 16), “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church… And I will give thee the keys of Heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.”

A true martyr is a witness of the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. This means that a witness must have seen what he testifies to. Therefore, a martyr in the truest sense must be one of the original disciples who conversed with Christ and saw him before and after his resurrection. Those who were not so can witness no more than that their predecessors said it and are therefore but witnesses of other men’s testimony.

It is one article only which, to die for, merits so honorable a name, and that article is this: that Jesus is the Christ. To die for every tenet that serves the ambition or profit of the clergy is not required.

Furthermore, he that is not sent to preach this fundamental article, but takes it upon himself by his private authority, is not obliged to suffer death for that cause. None, therefore, can be a martyr except such as are sent to the conversion of infidels.

The Limits of the Apostles’ Commission

The points of the commission that Christ gave to his Apostles contain none of them any authority over the congregation.

To Preach and Teach. A preacher is like a herald who publicly proclaims a king. But a herald has no right to command any man. Their office was to minister, not to be masters.
To Baptize. In baptism, we promise to take the doctrine of the Apostles for our direction in the way to eternal life. We do not constitute over us another authority by which our external actions are to be governed in this life.
To Forgive and Retain Sins. This power is not an authority to forgive or retain sins simply and absolutely, as God does. It is conditional to the penitent. The judgment concerning the truth of that repentance belonged not to any one man, but to the Church, that is, to the assembly of the faithful.

On Excommunication and Church Officers

Excommunication, while the Church was not yet strengthened by the civil power, was no more than the act of avoiding the company of those that were cast out.

The election of elders and pastors in the primitive Church was done by the consent of the congregation, signified by the holding up of hands. The Apostles were only presidents of the assembly.

The ministers of the Church were of two sorts: the Pastors, who were ministers of Christ, and the Deacons, who were ministers of the Church, or congregation, chosen by the congregation to administer their secular affairs.

On Ecclesiastical Revenue

Under the Law of Moses. The tribe of Levi received the tithes for their maintenance. This was the public revenue, and the right to it was constituted by the civil power.
In Our Savior’s Time and After. The maintenance of the bishops and pastors of the Christian Church was nothing but the voluntary contribution of those that had embraced their doctrine. Their maintenance could only be made certain when it could be made a law, which could only be done by emperors, kings, or other civil sovereigns.

The Civil Sovereign is the Head of the Church

It has been shown what the pastors of the Church are and what their commission was: to preach, to teach, to baptize, and to be presidents in their several congregations. We are now to consider what office those persons have who, being civil sovereigns, have also embraced the Christian faith.

The right of judging what doctrines are fit for peace and ought to be taught to the subjects is in all commonwealths inseparably annexed to the sovereign civil power. In all commonwealths of the heathen, the sovereigns had the name of “Pastors of the People” because no subject could lawfully teach the people but by their permission and authority. This right of the heathen kings cannot be thought to have been taken from them by their conversion to the faith of Christ.

Therefore, Christian kings are the supreme pastors of their people and have the power to ordain what pastors they please to teach the Church, that is, to teach the people committed to their charge.

Even if we say that the right of choosing pastors is in the Church (the congregation), the right is still in the civil sovereign. For in that he is a Christian, he allows the teaching, and in that he is the sovereign (which is to say, the Church by representation), the teachers he elects are elected by the Church. When an assembly of Christians chooses their pastor in a Christian commonwealth, it is the sovereign that elects him, because it is done by his authority.

All pastors, except the supreme pastor, execute their charges by the authority of the civil sovereign, that is, Jure Civili (by Civil Right). But the king, and every other sovereign, executes his office of supreme pastor by immediate authority from God, that is to say, in God’s Right, or Jure Divino.

Christian Kings Can Perform All Pastoral Functions

From this consolidation of the political and ecclesiastical right in Christian sovereigns, it is evident that they have all manner of power over their subjects for the government of their external actions, both in policy and in religion. It is the civil sovereign who is to appoint judges and interpreters of the canonical Scriptures, for it is he that makes them laws. In summary, he has the supreme power in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil.

A Refutation of the Pope’s Claim to Power

The Pope of Rome’s challenge to this power has been maintained chiefly by Cardinal Bellarmine. I will now briefly examine the grounds of his discourse.

On the Best Form of Government. Bellarmine concludes that the best form of government is a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. I have already proven that all governments which men are bound to obey are simple and absolute. For the government of the Church, his conclusion is irrelevant to the question of the Pope’s power outside of his own dominions. In all other commonwealths, his power, if he has any at all, is that of a schoolmaster only, and not of the master of the family.
On St. Peter as the Monarch of the Church. His chief argument for this is the place of St. Matthew, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church… And I will give thee the keys of Heaven.” Which place, well considered, proves no more but that the Church of Christ has for its foundation one only article: namely, that which Peter, in the name of all the Apostles, professed, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God.” This is the foundation stone of the Church. As for the words, “I will give thee the Keyes of Heaven,” it is no more than what our Savior gave also to all the rest of his disciples.
On the Pope as Antichrist. I see no argument that proves the Pope is the Antichrist in the sense that Scripture uses the name. The two essential marks of the Antichrist are that he denies Jesus to be the Christ and that he professes himself to be the Christ. The Pope of Rome does neither of these.
On the Pope as the Supreme Judge. Bellarmine brings three propositions to prove this: that his judgments are infallible; that he can make laws; and that our Savior conferred all ecclesiastical jurisdiction on him.
- Refuting Infallibility. He alleges the Scriptures, such as “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not.” But the context of this verse shows that Christ was giving Peter a charge to teach that the Apostles should have no jurisdiction in this world. The other texts he alleges, such as “Feed my sheep,” are commissions of teaching, not of commanding.
- Refuting the Power to Make Laws. He alleges the Scriptures, such as “The man that will doe presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest… even that man shall die.” But we must remember that the High Priest, next under God, was the civil sovereign. These texts are therefore clearly for the civil sovereignty, against the universal power of the Pope.

Our Savior was not sent to make laws in this present world. We may conclude, therefore, that our Savior did not send St. Peter to make laws here either, but to persuade men to expect his second coming with a steadfast faith. In the meantime, subjects were to obey their princes, and princes were both to believe it themselves and to do their best to make their subjects do the same. This is the office of a bishop. This place, therefore, makes most strongly for the joining of the ecclesiastical supremacy to the civil sovereignty, contrary to that which Cardinal Bellarmine alleges it for.

Refuting the Power of the Church to Make Laws

Let us continue to examine the scriptural texts that Cardinal Bellarmine uses to argue that the Pope has the power to make laws for all Christians.

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28): The Apostles wrote, “It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden…” Bellarmine argues that “laying of burdens” signifies legislative power.
- My Answer: The style of speech, “We think good,” is the ordinary style of those giving advice, not making laws (the style of a law is, “We command”). The “burden” is conditional: if you want to attain salvation, you should abstain from these things. The acts of this council, therefore, were not laws, but counsels.
“Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers” (Romans 13): Bellarmine says this applies not only to secular princes but also to ecclesiastical princes.
- My Answer: There are no “ecclesiastical princes” except those who are also civil sovereigns. If the Apostle had meant that we should be subject to both our own prince and also to the Pope, he would have taught us a doctrine which Christ himself has told us is impossible: “to serve two masters.”
“Shall I come unto you with a Rod?” (1 Corinthians 4:21): Bellarmine argues that the “rod” is the power of a magistrate to punish.
- My Answer: The “rod” here is only the power of excommunication, which is not a punishment in itself but only a denouncing of a future punishment that Christ shall inflict at the day of Judgment.
Precepts to Timothy: Bellarmine claims that precepts like, “A Bishop must be the husband of but of one wife,” are laws.
- My Answer: If this is a law, why isn’t “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy health’s sake” also a law? And why are not also the precepts of good physicians so many laws? It is not the imperative manner of speaking, but an absolute subjection to a person, that makes his precepts laws.
“He that heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16): Bellarmine argues that to hear the Apostles’ successors is to hear Christ.
- My Answer: Who are sent by Christ now but such as are ordained by lawful authority? And who is lawfully ordained in a Christian commonwealth except by the authority of the sovereign thereof? It follows, therefore, that he who hears his sovereign, being a Christian, hears Christ. This text proves the exact opposite of what Bellarmine intends.
“Obey your Leaders” (Hebrews 13:17): Bellarmine argues this commands obedience to pastors.
- My Answer: The reason given for obedience is not the will of the pastor, but our own benefit (the salvation of our souls). Furthermore, St. John bids us to “try the Spirits,” which means we may dispute the doctrine of our pastors. But no man can dispute a law.

Nothing, therefore, can be drawn from these or any other places of Scripture to prove that the decrees of the Pope, where he does not also have the civil sovereignty, are laws.

The Question of Superiority: The Pope vs. Other Bishops

The last point Bellarmine would prove is that Christ committed ecclesiastical jurisdiction immediately to none but the Pope. This whole dispute, if considered outside of those places where the Pope has the civil sovereignty, is a contention over nothing. For none of them, where they are not sovereigns, has any jurisdiction at all. Jurisdiction is the power of hearing and determining causes between man and man, and it can belong to no one but him that has the power to make laws and, with the sword of justice, to compel men to obey his decisions. This is a power which none can lawfully do but the civil sovereign.

The arguments by which Bellarmine would prove that bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope are all in vain. However, because they prove, on the contrary, that all bishops receive jurisdiction from their civil sovereigns, I will recite them.

His Argument from Moses and the Seventy Elders. Bellarmine says this shows that authority is derived from one man to many. I agree. But seeing that Moses was the civil sovereign in the commonwealth of the Jews, it is manifest that this place proves that bishops in every Christian commonwealth have their authority from the civil sovereign.
His Argument from the Nature of Monarchy. He says the government of the Church is monarchical. This also makes for Christian monarchs. For they are really monarchs of their own people (that is, of their own Church). The power of the Pope is only for teaching, not for ruling.
His Argument from the Sea of St. Peter. He says that the authority of bishops is derived from the See of St. Peter as the “Head, the Source, the Roote.” But by the Law of Nature, the civil sovereign in every commonwealth is the Head, the Source, and the Root from which all jurisdiction is derived.
His Argument from the Inequality of Jurisdictions. He says that if God had given bishops their jurisdiction immediately, He would have given them equality of jurisdiction. But we see some are bishops of one town, and some of many provinces. This is true. And since it is known that the large jurisdiction of the Pope was given to him by the Emperors of Rome, it follows that all other bishops have their jurisdiction from the sovereigns of the place wherein they exercise the same.
His Argument that the Pope can take away a Bishop’s Jurisdiction. He says that if bishops had their jurisdiction from God, the Pope could not take it from them, but the Pope can take it from them. This is granted, so long as he does it in his own dominions or in the dominions of any other prince that has given him that power. But that power belongs to every Christian sovereign within the bounds of his own empire and is inseparable from the sovereignty.

Refuting the Power of the Church to Make Laws (Continued)

Let us continue to examine the scriptural texts that Cardinal Bellarmine uses to argue that the Pope has the power to make laws for all Christians.

“He that heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16). This proves the opposite of what Bellarmine intends. In a Christian commonwealth, the only lawfully ordained pastors are those ordained by the sovereign. Therefore, he that hears his Christian sovereign, hears Christ. A Christian king, as a pastor, cannot oblige men to believe his doctrines, but as a civil sovereign, he may make laws that oblige men to certain actions.
Texts that use the word “obey” or “commandment.” The Greek words used in these places often mean “hearkening to” or “putting into practice” good counsel, not obeying a command. St. Paul does not bid the church to kill, beat, or imprison those who disobey, which all legislators can do, but only to avoid their company so that they may be ashamed. This shows that the Christians stood in awe of the Apostles’ reputation, not their empire. Christ came to leave doctors in his Church to lead, not to drive, men to salvation.
“Obey your Leaders” (Hebrews 13:17). The reason given for this obedience is not drawn from the will and command of our pastors, but from our own benefit, which is the salvation of our souls. If all that pastors teach were laws, then not only the Pope but every pastor in his parish would have legislative power. Also, St. John bids us to “try the Spirits,” which means we may dispute the doctrine of our pastors. But no man can dispute a law.

Nothing, therefore, can be drawn from these or any other places of Scripture to prove that the decrees of the Pope, where he does not also have the civil sovereignty, are laws.

The Question of Superiority: The Pope vs. Other Bishops

The last point Bellarmine would prove is that Christ committed ecclesiastical jurisdiction immediately to none but the Pope. This whole dispute is a contention over nothing. For where they are not sovereigns, none of them has any jurisdiction at all. Jurisdiction is the power of hearing and determining causes between man and man, and it can belong to no one but him that has the power to make laws and, with the sword of justice, to compel men to obey his decisions. This is a power which none can lawfully do but the civil sovereign.

The arguments by which Bellarmine would prove that bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope are all in vain. In fact, they prove the contrary: that all bishops receive jurisdiction, when they have it, from their civil sovereigns.

His Argument from Moses and the Seventy Elders. Bellarmine says this shows that authority is derived from one man to many. I agree. But seeing that Moses was the civil sovereign, it is manifest that this place proves that bishops in every Christian commonwealth have their authority from the civil sovereign.
His Argument from the Nature of Monarchy. He says the government of the Church is monarchical. This also makes for Christian monarchs, for they are the real monarchs of their own people (that is, of their own Church). The power of the Pope is only for teaching, not for ruling.
His Argument from the Inequality of Jurisdictions. He says that because bishops have unequal jurisdictions (some over one town, some over many provinces), their power must come from man (the Pope), not directly from God. This is true. But since the large jurisdiction of the Pope was given to him by the Emperors of Rome, it follows that all other bishops have their jurisdiction from the sovereigns of the place wherein they exercise the same.

Refuting the Pope’s Claim to Temporal Power

In his last book on this subject, Bellarmine makes four conclusions. The first three are that the Pope is not the lord of all the world, not the lord of all the Christian world, and has no temporal jurisdiction directly in the territory of other princes. These are easily granted.

The fourth is, “That the Pope has (in the dominions of other princes) the supreme temporal power INDIRECTLY.” This is denied. What he means is that this temporal power belongs to him by right as a consequence of his pastoral authority. He claims the right to change kingdoms, giving them to one and taking them from another, when he shall think it conduces to the salvation of souls.

The consequences of this doctrine are dangerous. If it is admitted, the Pope may depose princes and states as often as it is for the salvation of souls—that is to say, as often as he will, for he also claims to be the sole judge of what is for the salvation of souls. Princes must choose: either they hold the reins of government wholly in their own hands, or they deliver them wholly into the hands of the Pope. Men cannot serve two masters. This distinction of temporal and spiritual power is but words.

His arguments for this are as follows:

Argument 1: The Civil Power is subject to the Spiritual. When he says this, his meaning is that the civil sovereign is subject to the spiritual sovereign. But this is a fallacy that confuses the subordination of actions (civil government is a means to spiritual happiness) with the subjection of persons. A saddler’s art is subordinate to a rider’s art, but that does not mean every saddler is bound to obey every rider.
Argument 2: A Spiritual Commonwealth may command a Temporal one. This is true. But a spiritual commonwealth there is none in this world. For it is the same thing with the Kingdom of Christ, which he himself said is not of this world, but shall be in the next world at the Resurrection.
Argument 3: It is not lawful for Christians to tolerate an Infidel or Heretical King. This is false. To not tolerate your king is to violate your faith, contrary to the divine law. And the judge of heresy among subjects is their own civil sovereign, for heresy is nothing else but a private opinion, obstinately maintained, contrary to the opinion which the public person has commanded to be taught. By which it is manifest that an opinion publicly appointed to be taught cannot be heresy, nor can the sovereign princes that authorize them be heretics. For heretics are none but private men.
Argument 4: From the Baptism of Kings. In baptism, kings submit their scepters to Christ. This is true, for Christian kings are Christ’s subjects. But they may, for all that, be the Pope’s fellows, not his subjects, for they are the supreme pastors of their own subjects, and the Pope is no more but a king and pastor in Rome itself.
Argument 5: From the words “Feed My Sheep.” From this, he infers that St. Peter had the power to chase away wolves (heretics) and shut up mad rams (evil, though Christian, kings). To this, the answer is the same: that the power which our Savior gave to St. Peter and to all the other Apostles was not to coerce, but to teach. The power of a pastor is not to command, but to feed. And this power to teach is a power that belongs to all Christian sovereigns in their own dominions by right of their sovereignty itself.

Refuting the Pope’s Claim to Power (Continued)

On the Pope as Antichrist. I see no argument that proves the Pope is the Antichrist in the sense that Scripture uses the name. The two essential marks of the Antichrist are that he denies Jesus to be the Christ and that he professes himself to be the Christ. The Pope of Rome does neither of these.
On the Pope as the Supreme Judge. Bellarmine alleges several scriptures to prove the Pope’s infallibility and his power to make laws. But a close examination of these texts shows that they are arguments not for the universal power of the Pope, but for the ecclesiastical supremacy of civil sovereigns over their own subjects. For example:
- The command “Feed my sheep” is a commission of teaching, not of commanding. A sovereign chooses a schoolmaster to teach his children, but the schoolmaster does not become the sovereign.
- The command to “hearken unto the Priest” in the Old Testament is a command to obey the civil sovereign, for the High Priest was the civil sovereign.
- The phrase “He that heareth you, heareth me” means that in a Christian commonwealth, he that hears his Christian sovereign, hears Christ.

The arguments prove the exact opposite of what Bellarmine intends.

The distinction between temporal and spiritual power is but words. Power is as really divided, and as dangerously, by sharing with another an “indirect” power as with a “direct” one. Princes must choose: either they hold the reins of government wholly in their own hands, or they deliver them wholly into the hands of the Pope. Men cannot serve two masters.

CHAPTER XLIII: OF WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR A MAN’S RECEPTION INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

The Difficulty of Obeying Both God and Man

The most frequent pretext of sedition and civil war in Christian commonwealths has for a long time proceeded from a difficulty, not yet sufficiently resolved, of obeying at once both God and man when their commandments are contrary to one another.

When a man receives two contrary commands and knows that one of them is God’s, he ought to obey that one. The difficulty is that when men are commanded in the name of God, they often do not know whether the command is from God or whether the commander is but abusing God’s name for his own private ends.

But this difficulty is of no moment to those that can distinguish between what is necessary and what is not necessary for their reception into the Kingdom of God.

If the command of the civil sovereign is such that it may be obeyed without the forfeiture of eternal life, not to obey it is unjust.
But if the command is such as cannot be obeyed without being damned to eternal death, then it would be madness to obey it.

All men, therefore, have need to be taught to distinguish well between what is and what is not necessary to eternal salvation.

The Two Things Necessary for Salvation

All that is NECESSARY to salvation is contained in two virtues: Faith in Christ and Obedience to the Laws.

1. On Obedience

The obedience required at our hands by God, who accepts in all our actions the will for the deed, is a serious endeavor to obey Him. Whosoever unfeignedly desires to fulfill the commandments of God has all the obedience necessary for his reception into the Kingdom of God. For if God should require perfect innocence, no flesh could be saved.

But what commandments are those that God has given us? They are none but the Laws of Nature, whereof the principal is that we should not violate our faith—that is, a commandment to obey our civil sovereigns. And this law of God that commands obedience to the civil law consequently commands obedience to all the precepts of the Bible, which is there only law where the civil sovereign has made it so.

2. On Faith

The person whom we believe is, in every commonwealth, the supreme pastor, that is to say, the civil sovereign.

Christian men do not know, but only believe the Scripture to be the Word of God. The ordinary means of making them believe is according to the way of nature, that is to say, from their teachers: their parents in their houses and their pastors in the churches.

The One and Only Necessary Article of Faith

The unum necessarium—the only article of faith which the Scripture makes simply necessary to salvation—is this: that JESUS IS THE CHRIST. By the name of Christ is understood the King which God had promised to send into the world to reign and to give eternal life.

The belief of this article is all the faith required for salvation. This is proven by several arguments:

From the Scope of the Evangelists. The purpose of the Gospels was to establish this one article. St. John expressly makes it his conclusion: “These things are written, that you may know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
From the Sermons of the Apostles. The whole of their preaching, both while our Savior lived and after his ascension, was to prove this one article.
From the Easiness of the Doctrine. If an inward assent of the mind to all the disputed doctrines of Christianity were necessary, there would be nothing in the world so hard as to be a Christian. The thief on the cross was saved for testifying no belief of any other article but this, that Jesus was the King.

Nor could it be said that “Christ’s yoke is easy, and his burthen light,” nor that “little children believe in him.” Nor could St. Paul have said that “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe,” if salvation required an understanding of the many intricate articles now obtruded upon men.

4. From Express and Clear Texts Fourthly, the argument is taken from places in Scripture that are express and have no controversy of interpretation.

John 5:39: Our Savior tells the Jews to “Search the Scriptures” of the Old Testament, for “they are they that testify of me.” The Old Testament has nothing of Christ but the marks by which men might know him when he came. Therefore, to believe that this Jesus was He was sufficient for eternal life.
John 11:26: “Whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall not die eternally.” When our Savior asked Martha, “Believest thou this?” she answered, “Yea Lord, I believe that thou art the Christ.” Therefore, this article alone is faith sufficient to life eternal.
John 20:31: “These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life through his name.”
1 John 4:2, 5:1, 5:5: These verses all state that whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God and overcomes the world.
Acts 8:37: When the Eunuch asked to be baptized, Philip said, “If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest.” And he answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Therefore, this article believed is sufficient for baptism, which is our reception into the Kingdom of God.

5. From this Article being the Foundation of Faith The last argument is from the places where this article is made the foundation of faith, for he that holds the foundation shall be saved.

St. Paul says, “Other Foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, Jesus is the Christ.” He goes on to say that if any man’s work that is built upon this foundation (such as doctrines of “wood, hay, or stubble”) shall be burnt in the fire of the Day of Judgment, he shall suffer loss, but “he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” This means that pastors who teach this true foundation, though they may draw false consequences from it, may nevertheless be saved. Much more may they be saved who are not pastors, but hearers, and who believe what is taught to them by their lawful pastors.

All Other Articles are Contained in This One

But a man may ask whether it is not also necessary to believe that God is omnipotent, or that Jesus Christ is risen. To which I answer, they are necessary, but they are such as are contained in this one article and may be deduced from it. For who is there that does not see that they who believe Jesus to be the Son of the God of Israel also believe that God is the omnipotent creator of all things? Or how can a man believe that Jesus is the King that shall reign eternally unless he also believes him to be risen from the dead?

In sum, he that holds this foundation, Jesus is the Christ, holds expressly all that he sees rightly deduced from it and implicitly all that is consequent to it.

The Two Requirements for Salvation: Faith and Obedience

I have now shown that all the obedience required for salvation consists in the will to obey the law of God (that is, in repentance), and all the faith required is comprehended in the belief of this one article, that Jesus is the Christ. The men to whom St. Peter preached on the day of Pentecost asked him what they should do. St. Peter answered, “Repent, and be Baptized every one of you, for the remission of sins.” Therefore, repentance (obedience) and baptism (believing that Jesus is the Christ) is all that is necessary for salvation.

It is clear, then, that faith and obedience are both necessary to salvation, and it is impertinently disputed by which of the two we are justified.

Justice justifies in that it denominates a man as just in God’s acceptation and renders him capable of living by his faith.
Faith justifies in that it makes our plea of repentance good and accepted by God.

Obedience to God and to the Sovereign are Never Inconsistent

Having thus shown what is necessary for salvation, it is not hard to reconcile our obedience to God with our obedience to the civil sovereign.

If the sovereign is a Christian, he allows the belief of this one necessary article, that Jesus is the Christ. And because he is a sovereign, he requires obedience to all the civil laws, in which are also contained all the laws of God (the Laws of Nature). Therefore, whosoever obeys his Christian sovereign is not thereby hindered from believing or from obeying God. There can be no contradiction between the laws of God and the laws of a Christian commonwealth.
If the civil sovereign is an infidel, every one of his own subjects that resists him sins against the laws of God. For their faith, it is internal and invisible. They have the license that Naaman the Syrian had (to bow in the house of an idol in obedience to his master) and need not put themselves into danger for it. But if they do, they ought to expect their reward in heaven and not complain of their lawful sovereign, much less make war upon him.

And thus much shall suffice concerning the Kingdom of God and Ecclesiastical Policy. In all this, I have endeavored to show what consequences are deducible from the Holy Scriptures in confirmation of the power of civil sovereigns and the duty of their subjects. It is not the bare words, but the scope of the writer that gives the true light by which any writing is to be interpreted.

PART IV: OF THE KINGDOM OF DARKNESS

CHAPTER XLIV: OF SPIRITUAL DARKNESS FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE

What is the Kingdom of Darkness?

Besides the sovereign powers, divine and human, of which I have hitherto discoursed, there is mention in Scripture of another power. This is the power of the “Rulers of the Darknesse of this world,” the “Kingdome of Satan,” and the “Principality of Beelzebub over Daemons.” For this cause, Satan is also called the “Prince of the Power of the Air” and the “Prince of this world.” In consequence, they who are under his dominion, in opposition to the faithful (who are the Children of the Light), are called the Children of Darknesse.

The Kingdom of Darkness

Besides the sovereign powers, divine and human, of which I have hitherto discoursed, there is mention in Scripture of another power: the power of the “Rulers of the Darknesse of this world,” the “Kingdome of Satan.”

This considered, the Kingdom of Darkness, as it is set forth in the Scripture, is nothing else but a “Confederacy of Deceivers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavor by dark and erroneous doctrines to extinguish in them the Light, both of Nature, and of the Gospel, and so to dis-prepare them for the Kingdom of God to come.”

The Church is Still in the Dark

Just as a man who is born blind has no idea of light, no man can conceive that there is any greater degree of spiritual light than that which he has already attained. From this, it comes to pass that men have no other means to acknowledge their own darkness but only by reasoning from the unforeseen mischances that befall them in their ways.

The darkest part of the Kingdom of Satan is that which is outside the Church of God. But we cannot say, therefore, that the Church enjoys all the light which is necessary. Whence comes it that in Christendom there has been, almost from the time of the Apostles, such justling of one another out of their places, both by foreign and civil war? Whence comes such stumbling at every little asperity of their own fortune, and such diversity of ways in running to the same mark of happiness? If it is not night amongst us, it is at least a mist. We are therefore yet in the dark.

The Four Causes of Spiritual Darkness

The Enemy has been here in the night of our natural ignorance and has sown the tares of spiritual errors. He has done this by four means:

By abusing and putting out the light of the Scriptures.
By introducing the daemonology of the heathen poets, that is to say, their fabulous doctrine concerning demons, which are but idols or phantasms of the brain.
By mixing with the Scripture the vain and erroneous philosophy of the Greeks, especially of Aristotle.
By mingling with both of these, false or uncertain traditions and feigned or uncertain history.

The Greatest Abuse of Scripture: Mistaking the Kingdom of God for the Present Church

The greatest and main abuse of Scripture, and to which almost all the rest are either consequent or subservient, is the wresting of it to prove that the Kingdom of God is the present Church.

The truth, as I have proven before, is that the Kingdom of God was first instituted by the ministry of Moses over the Jews only. It ceased afterward in the election of Saul. God promised by His prophets to restore this government to them again at the second coming of Christ. The Kingdom of God is not yet come, and we are not now under any other kings by pact but our civil sovereigns.

Several dangerous consequences follow from this error:

The Pope as Vicar General. If the present Church is the Kingdom of Christ, there must be one man (the Pope) or an assembly of pastors by whose mouth Christ speaks and gives law. This claim to regal power under Christ puts out the light of nature and causes so great a darkness in men’s understanding that they do not see who it is to whom they have engaged their obedience. From this comes the doctrine that a king must receive his crown from a bishop, and that the Pope can absolve subjects of their obedience to a king he has declared a heretic.
The Pastors are the Clergy. From the same opinion, the ministers of the Church take the name of “Clergy,” giving to other Christians the name of “Laity.” “Clergy” signifies those whose maintenance is the revenue of God. The Pope, pretending the present Church is the Kingdom of God, claims for himself and his subordinate ministers the same revenue (tithes) as the tribe of Levi had. By this means, the people everywhere were obliged to a double tribute: one to the State, and another to the Clergy. This also led to the distinction between Civil and Canon Laws, where the Pope’s acts were forced upon emperors and made to pass for laws in their own dominions.

A Second Abuse of Scripture: Turning Consecration into Conjuration

A second general abuse of Scripture is the turning of consecration into conjuration, or enchantment.

To consecrate is to dedicate a thing to God by separating it from common use. It changes the use of the thing, not the thing itself.
To conjure is to pretend that by the saying of certain words, the nature or quality of the thing itself is changed.

This is no other than a conjuration or incantation, by which they would have men believe an alteration of nature that is not, contrary to the testimony of man’s sight and of all the rest of his senses.

Example: The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The priest pretends that by saying the words of our Savior, “This is my Body,” the nature of bread is no more there, but is his very body. This is done notwithstanding that there appears to the sight or other sense of the receiver nothing that did not appear before the consecration. The Egyptian conjurers, who are said to have turned their rods to serpents, are thought but to have deluded the senses of the spectators. But what should we have thought of them if there had appeared in their rods nothing like a serpent, but that they had faced down the king that they were serpents that looked like rods? That would have been both enchantment and lying. And yet, in this daily act of the priest, they do the very same, by turning the holy words into the manner of a charm.
Example: The Sacrament of Baptism. The like incantation is used in the sacrament of baptism, where the abuse of God’s name with the sign of the cross at each name makes up the charm. The priest says, “I conjure thee, thou creature of water…” and “Go out of him, unclean spirit…” As if all children, until blown on by the priest, were possessed by demons.

A Third General Error

Another general error is from the misinterpretation of the words Eternal Life, Everlasting Death, and the Second Death.

Christ was sent to redeem, by his death, such as should believe, and by his own and his Apostles’ preaching to prepare them for their entrance into his kingdom. Since his kingdom is not of this world, he did not send St. Peter to make laws here, but to persuade men to expect his second coming with a steadfast faith. In the meantime, subjects were to obey their princes, and princes were both to believe it themselves and to do their best to make their subjects do the same. This is the office of a bishop.

Refuting the Pope’s Claim to Power (Continued)

Let us continue to examine the scriptural texts that Cardinal Bellarmine uses to argue that the Pope has the power to make laws for all Christians.

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28). Bellarmine argues that the phrase “laying of burdens” signifies legislative power.
- My Answer: The style of speech, “We think good,” is the ordinary style of those giving advice, not making laws. The acts of this council, therefore, were not laws, but counsels.
“Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers” (Romans 13). Bellarmine says this applies to ecclesiastical princes.
- My Answer: There are no “ecclesiastical princes” except those who are also civil sovereigns. To be subject to both one’s own prince and the Pope is to serve two masters, which is impossible.
“Shall I come unto you with a Rod?” (1 Corinthians 4:21). Bellarmine argues that the “rod” is the power of a magistrate to punish.
- My Answer: The “rod” here is only the power of excommunication.
Precepts to Timothy. Bellarmine claims that precepts like, “A Bishop must be the husband of but of one wife,” are laws.
- My Answer: If this is a law, why isn’t “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy health’s sake” also a law? It is not the imperative manner of speaking, but an absolute subjection to a person, that makes his precepts laws.
“He that heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16). Bellarmine argues that to hear the Apostles’ successors is to hear Christ.
- My Answer: This proves the opposite. In a Christian commonwealth, the only lawfully ordained pastors are those ordained by the sovereign. Therefore, he that hears his Christian sovereign, hears Christ.
“Obey your Leaders” (Hebrews 13:17). Bellarmine argues this commands obedience to pastors.
- My Answer: The reason given for this obedience is not the will of the pastor, but our own benefit (the salvation of our souls). Also, we are bidden to “try the Spirits,” which means we may dispute the doctrine of our pastors. But no man can dispute a law.

In summary, this whole dispute over whether Christ left the jurisdiction to the Pope only or to other bishops also is a contention over nothing. For where they are not sovereigns, none of them has any jurisdiction at all. All of Bellarmine’s arguments, when properly understood, prove that bishops receive their authority from their civil sovereigns.

CHAPTER XLIII: OF WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR A MAN’S RECEPTION INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

The Difficulty of Obeying Both God and Man

The difficulty is that when men are commanded in the name of God, they often do not know whether the command is from God or whether the commander is but abusing God’s name for his own private ends.

But this difficulty is of no moment to those that can distinguish between what is necessary and what is not necessary for their reception into the Kingdom of God.

If the command of the civil sovereign is such that it may be obeyed without the forfeiture of eternal life, not to obey it is unjust.
But if the command is such as cannot be obeyed without being damned to eternal death, then it would be madness to obey it.

The Two Things Necessary for Salvation

All that is NECESSARY to salvation is contained in two virtues: Faith in Christ and Obedience to the Laws.

1. On Obedience

The obedience required at our hands by God is a serious endeavor to obey Him. Whosoever unfeignedly desires to fulfill the commandments of God has all the obedience necessary for his reception into the Kingdom of God.

The laws of God are none but the Laws of Nature, whereof the principal is that we should not violate our faith—that is, a commandment to obey our civil sovereigns. Obedience to the civil law is part of the Law of Nature.

2. On Faith

The person whom we believe is, in every commonwealth, the supreme pastor, that is to say, the civil sovereign. The ordinary and immediate cause of our belief concerning any point of Christian faith is that we believe the Bible to be the Word of God. The ordinary cause of believing that the Scriptures are the Word of God is the hearing of those that are by the law allowed and appointed to teach us, as our parents in their houses and our pastors in the churches.

The One and Only Necessary Article of Faith

The belief of this article is all the faith required for salvation. This is proven by several arguments:

From the Scope of the Evangelists. The entire purpose of the Gospels was to establish this one article.
From the Sermons of the Apostles. The whole of their preaching was to prove this one article.
From the Easiness of the Doctrine. If salvation required knowledge of complex theological disputes, it would be impossible for the poor and simple. The thief on the cross was saved for believing only this.
From Express and Clear Texts. Numerous places in Scripture explicitly state that belief in Jesus as the Christ or the Son of God is sufficient for eternal life.
From this Article being the Foundation of Faith. St. Paul explicitly calls this article the “foundation.” He that holds the foundation shall be saved, even if his other doctrines built upon it are like “wood, hay, or stubble” that will be burned away.

All other articles of faith are contained in this one. He that holds this foundation, Jesus is the Christ, holds expressly all that he sees rightly deduced from it and implicitly all that is consequent to it.

Obedience to God and to the Sovereign are Never Inconsistent

Having shown what is necessary for salvation, it is not hard to reconcile our obedience to God with our obedience to the civil sovereign.

If the sovereign is a Christian, he allows the belief of this one necessary article. He requires obedience to the civil laws, in which are contained all the laws of God. Therefore, whosoever obeys his Christian sovereign is not thereby hindered from believing or from obeying God. There can be no contradiction between the laws of God and the laws of a Christian commonwealth.
If the civil sovereign is an infidel, every one of his own subjects that resists him sins against the laws of God. For their faith, it is internal and invisible. They have the license that Naaman the Syrian had (to bow in the house of an idol in obedience to his master) and need not put themselves into danger for it. But if they do, they ought to expect their reward in heaven and not complain of their lawful sovereign, much less make war upon him.

PART IV: OF THE KINGDOM OF DARKNESS

CHAPTER XLIV: OF SPIRITUAL DARKNESS FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE

What is the Kingdom of Darkness?

This considered, the Kingdom of Darkness, as it is set forth in the Scripture, is nothing else but a “Confederacy of Deceivers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavor by dark and erroneous doctrines to extinguish in them the Light, both of Nature, and of the Gospel.” In consequence, they who are under Satan’s dominion, in opposition to the faithful (who are the Children of the Light), are called the Children of Darknesse.

A Third Great Error: Misinterpreting Eternal Life

Although we read plainly in Holy Scripture that God created Adam in a state of living forever—which was conditional upon his obedience—and that Christ’s passion is a restitution of eternal life to all the faithful, the doctrine is now, and has been for a long time, far otherwise.

The erroneous doctrine is that every man has eternity of life by nature, inasmuch as his soul is immortal.

The consequences of this error are enormous. If it is true, then the flaming sword at the entrance of Paradise, though it hinders a man from coming to the Tree of Life, does not hinder him from the immortality which God took from him for his sin. It also means that he does not need the sacrificing of Christ for the recovering of the same. Consequently, not only the faithful and righteous, but also the wicked and the heathen, shall enjoy eternal life without any death at all.

To “salve” this, it is said that the “second and everlasting death” for the wicked is meant to be a second and everlasting life, but in torments—a figure of speech never used but in this very case.

All of this doctrine is founded only on some of the more obscure places of the New Testament. For if we suppose that when a man dies, there remains nothing of him but his carcass, cannot God that raised inanimate dust and clay into a living creature by His word as easily raise a dead carcass to life again and continue him alive forever?

”Soul” in Scripture Means “Life”

The word “soul” in Scripture signifies always either the life or the living creature. The body and soul jointly mean the body alive. From the scriptural texts, if “soul” were meant to be an incorporeal substance with an existence separated from the body, it might as well be inferred of any other living creature as of man.

The souls of the faithful are immortal not by their own nature, but by God’s special grace, to remain in their bodies from the Resurrection to all eternity. And for the places of the New Testament where it is said that any man shall be cast “body and soul” into hellfire, it means no more than “body and life,” that is to say, they shall be cast alive into the perpetual fire of Gehenna.

This Error Opens the Door to Darkness

This window—the doctrine of the natural eternity of separated souls—is what gives entrance to the dark doctrines of:

Eternal Torments.
Purgatory.
The walking abroad of the ghosts of men deceased.
And thereby to the pretenses of exorcism and conjuration of phantasms, as also of the invocation of men dead.
And to the doctrine of Indulgences, that is to say, of exemption from the fire of Purgatory.

For men, being generally possessed by the daemonology of the Greeks of an opinion that the souls of men were substances distinct from their bodies, the doctors of the Church for a long time doubted what place they were to abide in until they should be reunited to their bodies in the Resurrection. But afterward, the Church of Rome found it more profitable to build for them this place of Purgatory, which by some other churches in this later age has been demolished.

Answering the Texts Alleged for Purgatory

Let us now consider what texts of Scripture seem most to confirm these errors.

The Argument from David’s Fasting. Cardinal Bellarmine alleges the fasting of David for Saul and Abner. He says this fasting was for the obtaining of something for them at God’s hands after their death. Since their souls must be somewhere, and they cannot be in heaven or hell, they must be in some third place, which must be Purgatory.
- My Answer: This is a hard straining of the text. It is manifest that the ceremonies of mourning and fasting, when they are used for the death of men, are used for honor’s sake. And so David honored Saul and Abner with his fasting. But in the death of his own child, he recomforted himself by receiving his ordinary food.
The Sin Against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:32). “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Bellarmine will have Purgatory to be the “world to come,” wherein some sins may be forgiven.
- My Answer: This is inconsistent, because it is agreed by all that there shall be no Purgatory in the world to come (that is, after the day of Judgment). The words may be taken as a prophecy, or prediction, concerning the severity of the pastors of the Church after Christ, who would be inexorable against those that denied their authority, which was from the Holy Ghost.
Being “Saved, but as by Fire” (1 Corinthians 3). Bellarmine will have this fire to be the fire of Purgatory.
- My Answer: The words are an allusion to those of the prophet Zechariah, which is spoken of the coming of the Messiah in power and glory, that is, at the day of Judgment and the conflagration of the present world. In that fire, the elect shall not be consumed but shall be refined, that is, they shall depose their erroneous doctrines and traditions and have them, as it were, singed off. In all which there is no color at all for the burning of incorporeal, that is to say, impassible, souls.
Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15). From this, he concludes that prayers for the dead are not unprofitable, and out of that, that there is a fire of Purgatory.
- My Answer: Neither of these is right. Granting that God, at the prayers of the faithful, may convert some of those that have not heard Christ preached, this concludes nothing for Purgatory, because to rise from death to life is one thing, and to rise from Purgatory to life is another.
The Allegory of the Prison (Matthew 5:25). “Agree with thine adversary quickly… lest… thou be cast into prison… thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou has paid the uttermost farthing.”
- My Answer: In this allegory, the offender is the sinner, the adversary is God, the way is this life, and the prison is the grave, from which the sinner shall not rise again to eternal life until he has paid the utmost farthing, or until Christ pays it for him by his passion.
The Three Sorts of Sins (Matthew 5:22). From the words, “Whosoever is angry with his Brother without a cause, shall be guilty in Judgment… But whosoever shall say, Thou Foole, shall be guilty to hell fire,” he infers that there are three sorts of sins and punishments, and that the lesser sins are punished in Purgatory.
- My Answer: Our Savior in this chapter is interpreting the Law of Moses, which the Jews thought was fulfilled when they had not transgressed the grammatical sense thereof, howsoever they had transgressed against the sentence, or meaning of the Legislator.

Answering the Texts Alleged for Purgatory (Continued)

The Allegory of the Prison (Matthew 5:25). In this allegory, the offender is the sinner, the adversary is God, the way is this life, and the prison is the grave, from which the sinner shall not rise again to eternal life until he has paid the utmost farthing, or until Christ pays it for him by his passion.
The Three Sorts of Sins (Matthew 5:22). Our Savior in this chapter is interpreting the Law of Moses. He is not distinguishing between different types of punishment after death, but is showing that even the will to hurt is a sin worthy of hellfire at the Day of Judgment. I cannot imagine what can be drawn from this text to maintain Purgatory.
“Make friends of the unrighteous Mammon” (Luke 16:9). Bellarmine alleges this to prove the invocation of saints who have departed. But the sense is plain: that we should make friends of the poor with our riches, and thereby obtain their prayers while they live.
The Thief on the Cross (Luke 23:42). Bellarmine says this proves that there is remission of sins after this life. But the consequence is not good. Our Savior forgave him then, and at his coming again in glory, he will remember to raise him again to eternal life.
“Loosed the Paines of Death” (Acts 2:24). Bellarmine interprets this as Christ descending into Purgatory to loose some souls from their torments. But it is manifest that it was Christ who was loosed; it was he that could not be held by death. A better translation of the text says “bands,” not “pains,” of death, and then there is no further cause to seek for Purgatory in this text.

CHAPTER XLV: OF DAEMONOLOGY AND OTHER RELICS OF THE RELIGION OF THE GENTILES

The Second Cause of Darkness: Daemonology from the Pagans

The second cause of spiritual darkness is the introduction of the daemonology of the heathen poets, that is to say, their fabulous doctrine concerning demons, which are but idols or phantasms of the brain.

The Origin of the Belief in Demons

The origin of this belief comes from a mistake about the nature of sight and imagination. The impression made on our organs of sight produces in our minds an imagination of the object. This imagination, which is called sight, seems not to be a mere imagination, but the body itself outside of us.

This nature of sight was never discovered by the ancient pretenders to natural knowledge. It was hard for them to conceive of those images in the fancy and in the sense otherwise than as things really existing without us.

Some, because these images vanish away, will have them to be absolutely incorporeal, that is to say, immaterial forms without matter. Others say they are living creatures, but made of air or some other more subtle matter. But both of them agree on one general name for them: DAEMONS.

They thought that the dead of whom they dreamed were not inhabitants of their own brain, but of the air, or of heaven, or of hell. They thought they were not phantasms, but ghosts. This is with just as much reason as if one should say he saw his own ghost in a looking glass. By this means, men have feared these phantasms as things of an unknown and unlimited power to do them good or harm. This gave occasion to the governors of the heathen commonwealths to regulate this fear by establishing DAEMONOLOGY to ensure the public peace.

How This Doctrine Was Spread

The Greeks, by their colonies and conquests, communicated their language, writings, and daemonology to Asia, Egypt, and Italy. This contagion was then derived also to the Jews.

The Jews, however, did not attribute the name “daemon” to spirits both good and evil, as the Greeks did. They gave the name of the “Spirit of God” to the good daemons and “daemon” to the evil ones only. They called “daemoniaques” (that is, possessed by the devil) such as we call madmen or lunatics. It is clear that the Jews had the same opinion concerning phantasms: that they were not idols of the brain, but things real and independent of the fancy.

Why Didn’t Jesus Correct This Belief?

If this doctrine is not true, why did not our Savior contradict it and teach the contrary?

To this, I answer that first, where Christ says, “A Spirit hath not flesh and bone,” though he shows that there are spirits, he does not deny that they are bodies. St. Paul acknowledges that we shall rise “spiritual bodies,” which is not difficult to understand, for air and many other things are bodies, though not flesh and bone.

To command madness or lunacy under the name of “devils,” by which they were then commonly understood, is no more improper than was his rebuking of the fever or of the wind and sea, for neither do these hear. Such speeches are not improper, because they signify the power of God’s word.

But such questions as these are more curious than necessary for a Christian man’s salvation. Men may as well ask why Christ, that could have given all men faith and piety, gave it to some only and not to all. The scope of his preaching was only to show us this plain and direct way to salvation, namely, the belief of this article: that he was the Christ. The opinion of possession by spirits is no impediment in the way to this salvation, though it may be an occasion for some to go out of the way.

The Power of Casting Out Devils

The reason there were many “daemoniaques” in the primitive Church and few madmen, whereas in these times we see many madmen and few daemoniaques, proceeds not from the change of nature, but of names.

But why is it not in the power of every true believer now to do all that the faithful did then, such as to cast out devils, speak with new tongues, and cure the sick? It is probable that those extraordinary gifts were given to the Church for no longer a time than when men trusted wholly to Christ and looked for their happiness only in his kingdom to come. When they sought authority and riches and trusted to their own subtlety for a kingdom of this world, these supernatural gifts of God were again taken from them.

Another Relic of Paganism: The Worship of Images

Another relic of paganism is the worship of images, neither instituted by Moses in the Old Testament nor by Christ in the New. Before our Savior preached, it was the general religion of the Gentiles to worship for gods those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, or phantasms.

This is the reason why St. Paul says, “We know that an Idol is Nothing.” Not that he thought that an image of metal, stone, or wood was nothing, but that the thing which they honored or feared in the image and held for a god was a mere figment, without place or existence, but in the motions of the brain. The worship of these with divine honor is what is in the Scripture called idolatry and rebellion against God. God was King of the Jews, and if the people had been permitted to worship images, which are representations of their own fancies, they would have had no further dependence on the true God, and it would have led to the utter eversion of the commonwealth and their own destruction for want of union.

Scandalous Worship vs. Idolatrous Worship

Besides the idolatrous worship of images, there is also a scandalous worship of them, which is also a sin, but not idolatry. Idolatry is to worship with signs of an internal and real honor. But scandalous worship is but seeming worship and may sometimes be joined with an inward and hearty detestation of the image. It proceeds only from the fear of death or other grievous punishment.

This is a sin in them that so worship, in case they are men whose actions are looked at by others as lights to guide them by, because their example may cause their brother to stumble.
But if an unlearned man, who is in the power of an idolatrous king, is commanded on pain of death to worship before an idol, if he detests the idol in his heart, he does well, though if he had the fortitude to suffer death, he should do better. But if a pastor should do the same, it would be a perfidious forsaking of his charge.

In summary, he that worships the Creator of the world before such an image as he has not made of himself, but has taken from the commandment of God’s Word (as the Jews did in worshipping God before the Cherubim and the Brazen Serpent), does not commit idolatry.

The worship of saints, images, and relics at this day practiced in the Church of Rome is not allowed by the Word of God, but was partly left in it at the first conversion of the Gentiles and afterward countenanced and confirmed by the Bishops of Rome.

CHAPTER XLVI: OF DARKNESS FROM VAIN PHILOSOPHY AND FABULOUS TRADITIONS

The Third Cause of Darkness: Vain Philosophy

The third cause of spiritual darkness is the mixing of false philosophy—especially that of Aristotle and the Greek “Schoolmen” who followed him—and “fabulous traditions” with Scripture. From the universities, there has been a flood of “vain philosophy,” full of “insignificant speech” and “senseless chatter.”

Aristotle’s Metaphysics, with its doctrines of “abstract essences,” “substantial forms,” and “prime matter,” has filled the world with many names that are but insignificant sounds. It is like a “Kingdom of Fairies,” a world of fictions.
Aristotle’s Physics is also vain philosophy. His explanations of motion, sense, and other natural phenomena are based on meaningless jargon rather than on the true principles of mechanics.
Aristotle’s Civil Philosophy has also done great damage. He bases his politics not on the principles of nature, but on the practice of his own commonwealth, which was popular. From his praise of democracy and aristocracy, and his condemnation of tyranny, men have been encouraged to dispute the commands of their sovereigns and to rebel against them.

By mixing this vain philosophy with the Holy Scripture, the power of making laws has been taken from the civil sovereign and given to a “private man.”

CHAPTER XLVII: OF THE BENEFIT THAT PROCEEDS FROM SUCH DARKNESS, AND TO WHOM IT ACCRUES

Who Benefits from this Darkness?

Who benefits from these obscure and erroneous doctrines? The authors, or at least the maintainers of them. In the Roman Church, these are the Pope and the Roman Clergy.

Their goal is to unite the people of all Christendom under one head, so that in case of any disagreement between the Pope and their civil sovereign, the people will be on the side of the Pope. To this end, they have used four main doctrines:

That the Church now on Earth is the Kingdom of Christ. (This has already been refuted).
That the Pope is his Vicar. This gives him a right to be the general teacher of all Christians.
That the Pastors are the Clergy. This makes the clergy a distinct, privileged order, exempt from the jurisdiction of the civil sovereign.
That Faith is Infused supernaturally. This makes the common people dependent on the clergy to tell them what they should believe, and makes it a sin for a man to be of a religion that is not of his country, but of his priest.

The Papacy as the Kingdom of the Fairies

From these doctrines, we may justly call the dominion of the Papacy the “Kingdom of the Fairies.”

For the words of the Schoolmen are but charmed sounds, by which they abuse the people.
The Pope is the King of the Fairies.
The clergy are his enchanted subjects.
The cathedrals, churches, and monasteries are his enchanted castles.
The doctrines are the charms.
The ceremonies are the spells.
The excommunications are the conjurations.

To be brief, the Papacy is no other than the Ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start up out of the ruins of that heathen power.

A REVIEW AND CONCLUSION

From the contrariety of some of the natural faculties of the mind and the contrariety of the passions, it is necessary that there must arise a war. And that war must continue until men are constrained to obedience by a common power. And therefore, I have set down for the first part of this book the nature of man.

In the second part, I have shown what is the nature of a commonwealth, which is the only way to escape the horrors of war.

In the third part, I have declared what is a Christian commonwealth.

And in this fourth part, I have shown what is the Kingdom of Darkness, which is a confederacy of deceivers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavor by dark and erroneous doctrines to extinguish the light of both nature and the gospel.

The whole intention of this work has been to set before men’s eyes the mutual relation between Protection and Obedience. I have grounded this doctrine on the known natural inclinations of mankind and on the uncontradicted testimony of the Holy Scriptures.

And so I have brought to an end my discourse of civil and ecclesiastical government, occasioned by the disorders of the present time, without other design than to set before men’s eyes the mutual relation between protection and obedience, of which the condition of human nature and the laws divine, both natural and positive, require an inviolable observation.

And though I have been moved by the disorders of my country to write this, I have done so without any partiality, without any self-interest, and without any other design than to contribute to the peace of my country. And thus I conclude my discourse of polity, civil and ecclesiastical, with the hope that it may, in some future time, fall into the hands of a sovereign who will be able to establish its principles and thereby convert this truth of speculation into the utility of practice.

Relics of Paganism in the Church

The worship of saints, images, and relics now practiced in the Church of Rome is not allowed by the Word of God. It was left in the Church from the first conversion of the Gentiles and was afterward countenanced and confirmed by the Bishops of Rome. The examples of the Cherubim and the Brazen Serpent in the Old Testament are not valid proofs for the worship of images, because they were set up for the people to worship God before them, not to worship the images themselves.

Other relics of paganism that have been left in the Church include:

The Canonizing of Saints. This is not a new invention of the Roman Church, but a custom as ancient as the commonwealth of Rome itself. The first person ever canonized at Rome was Romulus, the city’s founder. It is the same as the apotheosis of the heathen.
The Name of Pontifex. The Popes have received the name and power of PONTIFEX MAXIMUS from the Roman heathens. This was the title of the head of religion in the ancient Roman Republic, and the Roman Emperors later took this title for themselves. The authority of the Bishop of Rome came not from St. Peter, but from the privilege of the City of Rome.
The Procession of Images. The carrying about of images in procession is another relic of the religion of the Greeks and Romans, for they also carried their idols in processions on sacred chariots.
Wax Candles and Torches. These also belonged to the pagan processions.
Other Ceremonies. Other relics include the use of Holy Water, and the celebration of Holy Days that correspond to the pagan Bacchanalia and Saturnalia.

I doubt not but that a man might find many more of these “old empty Bottles of Gentilisme,” which the doctors of the Roman Church, either by negligence or ambition, have filled up again with the new wine of Christianity.

CHAPTER XLVI: OF DARKNESS FROM VAIN PHILOSOPHY AND FABULOUS TRADITIONS

The Third and Fourth Causes of Darkness

The third cause of spiritual darkness is the mixing of vain and erroneous philosophy—especially that of Aristotle—with the Scripture. The fourth cause is the mingling with both of these of false or uncertain traditions and feigned history.

What Philosophy Is (and Isn’t)

By philosophy is understood the knowledge acquired by reasoning, from the manner of the generation of anything to its properties, to the end to be able to produce such effects as human life requires.

We are not to account as any part of philosophy:

That original knowledge called experience, in which consists prudence, because it is not attained by reasoning.
Any false conclusions, for he that reasons aright can never conclude an error.
That which any man knows by supernatural revelation, because it is not acquired by reasoning.
That which is gotten by reasoning from the authority of books, because it is not knowledge, but faith.

The Unprofitable Schools of the Greeks

The study of philosophy first began in the great and flourishing cities of the East. It came to Greece only after war had united the many lesser cities into fewer, greater ones. When Athens grew wealthy, men with leisure had little else to do but discourse on philosophy. The place where any of them taught was called Schola, which in their tongue signifies leisure.

But what has been the utility of these schools? Scarce anything but what was already known by their own natural reason. The knowledge of the causes of the mind of man, and of the causes of commonwealths, which is politics, was not advanced by them.

The Errors of Aristotle’s Philosophy

The vain philosophy of Aristotle, and of other Greeks, has been like a disease that has spread through the universities of Christendom.

His Metaphysics, with its doctrines of “abstract essences,” “substantial forms,” and “prime matter,” is full of “insignificant speech.” To say, as he does, that the world is eternal is to deny a creator.
His Physics is “rather a dream, than science,” full of meaningless jargon instead of the true principles of mechanics.
His Civil Philosophy is repugnant to government. His praise of popular government and his doctrines on tyranny have been used to justify rebellion against monarchs.

By mixing this vain philosophy with the Holy Scripture, the Schoolmen—the university doctors of the Middle Ages—created a system of theology that was full of absurd and unintelligible doctrines.

CHAPTER XLVII: OF THE BENEFIT THAT PROCEEDS FROM SUCH DARKNESS, AND TO WHOM IT ACCRUES

Who Benefits from this Darkness?

Who benefits from these obscure and erroneous doctrines? The authors, or at least the maintainers of them. In the Roman Church, these are the Pope and the Roman Clergy.

Their goal is to establish a “Ghostly Authority” that is “above the Civill,” allowing them to govern men’s consciences and thereby to gain dominion over them in this present world. The power of the Keys and other spiritual powers are given to the Pope and clergy not by God, but by the “favour of Princes.”

The dominion of the Papacy may justly be called the “Kingdom of the Fairies.” To be brief, the Papacy is no other than the Ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start up out of the ruins of that heathen power. The darkness he speaks of is like the plague of darkness in Egypt, which could be felt. It is an “oppression of the mind” from the fear of being in the wrong.

A REVIEW AND CONCLUSION

I have now brought to an end my discourse of civil and ecclesiastical government, occasioned by the disorders of the present time. I have done so without any partiality, without any self-interest, and without any other design than to contribute to the peace of my country.

The whole intention of this work has been to set before men’s eyes the mutual relation between Protection and Obedience, of which the condition of human nature and the laws divine require an inviolable observation. I have grounded my doctrine on the known natural inclinations of mankind and on the uncontradicted testimony of the Holy Scriptures.

I know that the novelty of this doctrine will make it condemned by many. It will be condemned by those who are for the Clergy, by those who are for the existing aristocracy, and by those who have a “scab of ambition” and want to be demagogues. And though I have little hope that it will become the law of any nation in my own time, I have some hope that it may, “in some future time,” fall into the hands of a sovereign who will be able to establish its principles and thereby convert this truth of speculation into the utility of practice.

For the disorders of the present time, we may say of our country what was said of the punishment of Prometheus. He, by bringing fire from heaven for the benefit of mankind, was bound to a rock and had his liver eaten out by an eagle. So also, our country, by the “restlesse ambition of some private men,” has been brought to the brink of ruin. And I can see no other way to end this suffering than by setting forth the true principles of civil and ecclesiastical power, as I have done in this book. And so I conclude my discourse of polity, civil and ecclesiastical.

The Unprofitable Schools of the Greeks

What has been the utility of the ancient schools of philosophy? For geometry, which is the mother of all natural science, we are not indebted to them. Plato even forbade entrance into his school to anyone who was not already a geometer. The natural philosophy of those schools was rather a dream than a science, set forth in senseless and insignificant language.

Their moral philosophy is but a description of their own passions. They make the rules of good and bad by their own liking and disliking, which leads to the subversion of the commonwealth. Their logic, which should be the method of reasoning, is nothing else but traps of words and inventions on how to puzzle people.

To conclude, there is nothing so absurd that the old philosophers have not, some of them, maintained. And I believe that scarce anything can be more absurdly said in natural philosophy than that which is now called Aristotle’s Metaphysics, nor more repugnant to government than much of that he has said in his Politics, nor more ignorantly than a great part of his Ethics.

The Unprofitable Schools of the Jews

The school of the Jews was originally a school of the Law of Moses. But it is manifest, by the many reprehensions of them by our Savior, that they corrupted the text of the law with their false commentaries and vain traditions. By their lectures and disputations in their synagogues, they turned the doctrine of their law into a fantastical kind of philosophy concerning the incomprehensible nature of God and of spirits, which they compounded of the vain philosophy of the Greeks mingled with their own fancies.

What is a University?

That which is now called a university is a joining together of many public schools in one and the same town or city. In these, the study of philosophy has had no other place than as a handmaid to the Roman religion. And since the authority of Aristotle is the only one current there, that study is not properly philosophy but “Aristotelity.” And for geometry, until very late times, it had no place at all, as being subservient to nothing but rigid truth.

Errors Brought into Religion from Aristotle’s Vain Philosophy

Now, to descend to the particular tenets of vain philosophy, derived to the universities and from there into the Church, partly from Aristotle and partly from blindness of understanding, I shall first consider their principles.

All other philosophy ought to depend on a certain Philosophia Prima, which consists principally in rightly defining the meanings of the most universal names, such as Body, Time, Place, Matter, Form, Essence, and so on. The explication of these terms is commonly called “Metaphysics” in the schools. And indeed, that which is written there is for the most part so far from the possibility of being understood, and so repugnant to natural reason, that whosoever thinks there is anything to be understood by it must needs think it is supernatural.

The Error of Abstract Essences

From these metaphysics, which are mingled with the Scripture to make “School Divinity,” we are told that there are in the world certain essences separated from bodies, which they call abstract essences and substantial forms.

To understand this jargon, we must first understand the world. The world, that is, the universe, is corporeal, that is to say, body. Every part of the universe is body, and that which is not body is no part of the universe. And because the universe is all, that which is no part of it is nothing, and consequently nowhere.

This does not mean that spirits are nothing, for they have dimensions and are therefore really bodies, though that name in common speech is given only to such bodies as are visible or palpable. But the Schoolmen call them “incorporeal,” which is a contradiction in terms, like saying an “incorporeal body.”

The use of words is to register our thoughts and make them manifest to others. Some words are the names of things conceived; others are the names of the imaginations themselves; and others are the names of names, or of different sorts of speech. But the Schoolmen have taken terms like “entity,” “essence,” and “essential,” which are derived from the verb “to be,” and have treated them as the names of things. They are therefore no names of things, but signs by which we make known that we conceive the consequence of one name to another. To be a body, to walk, to be speaking—these infinitives, and nouns like corporeity, walking, and speaking, are the names of nothing.

But to what purpose is such subtlety in a work of this nature? It is to this purpose: that men may no longer suffer themselves to be abused by those that, by this doctrine of separated essences, built on the vain philosophy of Aristotle, would frighten them from obeying the laws of their country with empty names.

It is upon this ground that when a man is dead and buried, they say his soul can walk separated from his body.
Upon the same ground, they say that the figure, and color, and taste of a piece of bread has a being there, where they say there is no bread (transubstantiation).
And upon the same ground, they say that faith and wisdom are sometimes poured or blown into a man from heaven.

All of these doctrines serve to lessen the dependence of subjects on the sovereign power of their country. For who will endeavor to obey the laws if he expects obedience to be poured or blown into him? Or who will not obey a priest that can make God, rather than his sovereign? Or who, that is in fear of ghosts, will not bear great respect to those that can make the holy water that drives them from him?

Absurdities in Natural Philosophy

Then for physics, that is, the knowledge of the causes of natural events, the Schools render none at all, but empty words.

On Gravity. If you desire to know why some bodies sink downwards, the Schools will tell you out of Aristotle that the bodies that sink are “heavy,” and that this “heaviness” is what causes them to descend. But if you ask what they mean by heaviness, they will define it to be an endeavor to go to the center of the Earth. So that the cause why things sink downward is an endeavor to be below. Which is as much as to say that bodies descend or ascend because they do.
On Condensation and Rarity. If we would know why the same body seems greater at one time than another, they say when it seems less, it is “condensed,” and when greater, “rarified.” What is that? Condensed is when there is in the very same matter less quantity than before. As if there could be matter that had not some determined quantity, when quantity is nothing else but the determination of matter, that is to say of body, by which we say one body is greater or lesser than another by thus or thus much.

The Unprofitable Schools

The ancient schools of philosophy, both Greek and Jewish, were for the most part unprofitable. They did not advance the knowledge of geometry, natural science, or politics. Instead, they corrupted their doctrines with vain traditions, fantastical philosophy, and insignificant language. The study of philosophy in the universities of Christendom has for a long time been not true philosophy, but “Aristotelity.”

The Dangers of Vain Philosophy

The errors brought into religion from the vain philosophy of Aristotle are many. They are founded on doctrines such as “abstract essences” and “substantial forms,” which are but insignificant words. The universe is corporeal, that is to say, body. That which is not body is no part of the universe and is therefore nothing and nowhere. Spirits are not nothing; they have dimensions and are therefore really bodies, though subtle ones. The term “incorporeal substance” is a contradiction in terms.

This doctrine of “separated essences” has been used to frighten men from obeying the laws of their country with empty names.

It is upon this ground that they say a man’s soul can walk separated from his body after he is dead.
Upon the same ground, they say that the figure and color of a piece of bread can have a being where there is no bread (transubstantiation).
And upon the same ground, they say that faith and wisdom can be “poured” or “blown” into a man from heaven.

All of these doctrines serve to lessen the dependence of subjects on the sovereign power of their country. For who will not obey a priest that can make God, rather than his sovereign? Or who, that is in fear of ghosts, will not bear great respect to those that can make the holy water that drives them from him?

The Fourth Cause of Darkness: False Traditions

Lastly, for the errors brought in from false or uncertain history, what is all the legend of fictitious miracles in the lives of the saints, and all the histories of apparitions and ghosts alleged by the doctors of the Roman Church to make good their doctrines of Hell and Purgatory? What are all those traditions which they call the “unwritten Word of God,” but old wives’ fables?

With the introduction of false philosophy, we may also join the suppression of true philosophy. Men who have written that there are Antipodes, or that the Earth moves, have been punished for it by ecclesiastical authority. But whatsoever power ecclesiastics take upon themselves in their own right, though they call it God’s right, is but usurpation.

CHAPTER XLVII: OF THE BENEFIT THAT PROCEEDS FROM SUCH DARKNESS, AND TO WHOM IT ACCRUES

Who Benefits from this Darkness?

There was a custom among the Romans for a judge, when the testimony of the witnesses was not sufficient, to ask the accusers, Cui bono?—that is to say, what profit, honor, or other contentment the accused obtained or expected by the act. For among presumptions, there is none that so evidently declares the author as does the BENEFIT of the action.

By the same rule, I intend in this place to examine who they may be that have possessed the people for so long with these doctrines that are contrary to the peaceable societies of mankind.

And first, to the error that the present Church now on Earth is the Kingdom of God, are annexed these worldly benefits: that the pastors and teachers of the Church are entitled thereby to a right of governing the Church and, consequently, the commonwealth. It is by this title that the Pope prevailed with the subjects of all Christian princes to believe that to disobey him was to disobey Christ himself. This benefit of a universal monarchy is a sufficient presumption that the popes who pretended to it were the authors of the doctrine by which it was obtained.

The Papacy as the Kingdom of the Fairies

From these doctrines, we may justly call the dominion of the Papacy the “Kingdom of the Fairies.” To be brief, the Papacy is no other than the Ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start up out of the ruins of that heathen power. The darkness he speaks of is like the plague of darkness in Egypt, which could be felt. It is an “oppression of the mind” from the fear of being in the wrong.

A REVIEW AND CONCLUSION

I know that the novelty of this doctrine will make it condemned by many. And though I have little hope that it will become the law of any nation in my own time, I have some hope that it may, “in some future time,” fall into the hands of a sovereign who will be able to establish its principles and thereby convert this truth of speculation into the utility of practice.

How the Papal Power Was Built and How It Is Unraveled

The inventions of men are woven, and so also are they unraveled. The way is the same, but the order is inverted. The web of papal power began with the reverence people had for the virtues of the Apostles.

The First Knot: The presbyters (elders), assembling to decide on doctrine, made it seem that the people were obliged to follow their decrees. This was the first knot on Christian liberty.
The Second Knot: The presbyters of the chief city or province got authority over the local presbyters and took the name of “Bishops.”
The Third Knot: The Bishop of Rome, because of the importance of the Imperial City, took authority over all other bishops in the Empire. This was the final knot and the whole construction of the pontifical power.

The unraveling of this power, therefore, is by the same way but in reverse order, as we have seen in England. First, the power of the Popes was dissolved by Queen Elizabeth. After this, the Presbyterians put down the Bishops. And finally, the power was taken also from the Presbyterians, and so we are reduced to the independency of the primitive Christians, to follow every man as he likes best.

This is perhaps the best state, if it is without contention. For there ought to be no power over the consciences of men but of the Word itself, working faith in every one. Power is preserved by the same virtues by which it is acquired: that is to say, by wisdom, humility, clearness of doctrine, and sincerity of conversation, and not by the suppression of the natural sciences or of the morality of natural reason.

The Papacy as the Kingdom of the Fairies

After the doctrine that the Church now on Earth is the Kingdom of God was received in the world, the ambition and pomp of those that obtained its principal public charges became so evident that they lost the inward reverence due to the pastoral function. Their whole hierarchy, or Kingdom of Darkness, may be compared not unfitly to the Kingdom of Fairies.

Their Universal King: The fairies have King Oberon; the ecclesiastics, in whatever dominion they are found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.
Their Nature: The fairies are spirits and ghosts; the ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers.
Their Habitation: Fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves; the ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine, in monasteries, churches, and churchyards.
Their Immunity: The fairies are not to be seized and brought to answer for the hurt they do; so also the ecclesiastics vanish away from the tribunals of civil justice.
Their Effect on the Young: The fairies are said to take young children out of their cradles and to change them into natural fools, which common people therefore call elves; the ecclesiastics take from young men the use of reason by certain charms compounded of metaphysics and miracles.
Their Workshops: The workshops of the clergy are well enough known to be the universities.
Their Revenue: The fairies are said to enter into the dairies and feast upon the cream; the ecclesiastics take the cream of the land by donations and by tithes.
Their Currency: The ecclesiastics in their receipts accept of the same money that we do, though when they are to make any payment, it is in canonizations, indulgences, and masses.

Just as the fairies have no existence but in the fancies of ignorant people, so the spiritual power of the Pope consists only in the fear that seduced people have of their excommunication.

It was not, therefore, a very difficult matter for Henry VIII, by his exorcism, nor for Queen Elizabeth by hers, to cast them out. But who knows that this Spirit of Rome, now gone out, may not return, or rather an assembly of spirits worse than he, enter and inhabit this clean-swept house and make the end thereof worse than the beginning? For it is not the Roman clergy only that pretends the Kingdom of God to be of this world and thereby to have a power therein distinct from that of the civil state.

And this is all I had a design to say concerning the Doctrine of POLITICS.

A REVIEW AND CONCLUSION

And though I have little hope that it will become the law of any nation in my own time, I have some hope that it may, “in some future time,” fall into the hands of a sovereign who will be able to establish its principles and thereby convert this truth of speculation into the utility of practice.

Are Human Passions Incompatible with Civil Duty?

Some have argued that because of the contrariety of human passions, it is impossible for any one man to be sufficiently disposed to all the duties of civil society.

They say that judgment makes men censorious, while a quick fancy makes the thoughts less steady.
They say that reason is necessary for deliberation, but so is powerful eloquence, and that these are contrary faculties.
They say that courage inclines men to private revenges, while timorousness disposes them to desert the public defense.

To which I answer that these are indeed great difficulties, but not impossibilities. For by education and discipline, they may be, and are sometimes, reconciled.

Judgment and fancy may have their place in the same man, but by turns, as the end he is aiming at requires.
Reason and eloquence, in moral philosophy, may stand very well together. Wherever there is a place for adorning error, there is much more place for adorring truth, if men have it to adorn.
And there is no contradiction between fearing the laws and not fearing a public enemy.

There is, therefore, no such inconsistency of human nature with civil duties as some think. I have known clearness of judgment, largeness of fancy, strength of reason, and graceful elocution, a courage for the war and a fear for the laws, and all eminently in one man. And that was my most noble and honored friend, Mr. Sidney Godolphin, who, hating no man nor hated of any, was unfortunately slain in the beginning of the late Civil War.

A New Law of Nature

To the Laws of Nature declared in the 15th Chapter, I would have this added: “That every man is bound by nature, as much as in him lies, to protect in war the authority by which he is himself protected in time of peace.” For he that pretends a right of nature to preserve his own body cannot pretend a right of nature to destroy him by whose strength he is preserved. It is a manifest contradiction of himself.

On Conquest and the Duty of the Subject

Because the civil wars have not yet sufficiently taught men in what point of time it is that a subject becomes obliged to the conqueror, I say that the point of time wherein a man becomes a subject of a conqueror is that point wherein, having the liberty to submit to him, he consents, either by express words or by other sufficient sign, to be his subject.

When does a man have the liberty to submit? For an ordinary subject, it is then when the means of his life is within the guards and garrisons of the enemy, for it is then that he no longer has protection from his former sovereign.

What is Conquest? Conquest is not the victory itself, but the acquisition by victory of a right over the persons of men. He that is slain is overcome, but not conquered. He that is taken and put into prison is not conquered, for he is still an enemy. But he that, upon promise of obedience, has his life and liberty allowed him is then conquered and a subject, and not before.
The Danger of Justifying Power by the “Goodness of the Cause.” I put down for one of the most effectual seeds of the death of any state that the conquerors require not only a submission of men’s actions for the future, but also an approbation of all their actions past, when there is scarce a commonwealth in the world whose beginnings can in conscience be justified.
The Danger of Hating “Tyranny.” The name “tyranny” signifies nothing more nor less than the name of “sovereignty,” except that they that use the former word are understood to be angry with them they call tyrants. I think the toleration of a professed hatred of tyranny is a toleration of hatred to the commonwealth in general and another evil seed of its dissolution.

On the Right of Zeal

I have observed a dangerous opinion that any man may kill another, in some cases, by a “Right of Zeal.” But if we consider the texts that seem to favor it, the contrary is true. In all the examples from the Scripture, such as the Levites falling upon the people that had worshipped the golden calf, and Phinehas killing Zimri and Cosbi, the execution proceeded not from private zeal, but from the sovereign command or a presumption of a subsequent ratification. There is nothing in the Bible to countenance executions by private zeal, which, being oftentimes but a conjunction of ignorance and passion, is against both the justice and the peace of a commonwealth.

Final Reflections on This Work

And as to the whole doctrine, I see not yet but that the principles of it are true and proper, and the reasoning solid. For I ground the civil right of sovereigns, and both the duty and liberty of subjects, upon the known natural inclinations of mankind and upon the articles of the Law of Nature. And for the ecclesiastical power of the same sovereigns, I ground it on such texts as are both evident in themselves and consonant to the scope of the whole Scripture.

I am persuaded that he that shall read it with a purpose only to be informed shall be informed by it. But for those that have already engaged themselves to the maintaining of contrary opinions, they will not be so easily satisfied.

In this time, when men call not only for peace but also for truth, to offer such doctrines as I think true, and that manifestly tend to peace and loyalty, to the consideration of those that are yet in deliberation, is no more than to offer “New Wine, to be put into New Cask,” that both may be preserved together.

There is nothing I distrust more than my elocution, which nevertheless I am confident is not obscure. That I have neglected the ornament of quoting ancient poets, orators, and philosophers, contrary to the custom of recent times, proceeds from my judgment, grounded on many reasons.

First, all truth of doctrine depends either upon Reason or upon Scripture, both of which give credit to many but never receive it from any writer.
Second, the matters in question are not of fact, but of right, wherein there is no place for witnesses.
Third, there is scarce any of those old writers that does not sometimes contradict both himself and others, which makes their testimonies insufficient.
Fourth, such opinions as are taken only upon the credit of antiquity are not intrinsically the judgment of those that cite them, but are words that pass, like gaping, from mouth to mouth.
Fifth, it is many times with a fraudulent design that men stick their corrupt doctrine with the cloves of other men’s wit.

Are Human Passions Incompatible with Civil Duty?

Some have argued that because of the contrariety of human passions, it is impossible for any one man to be sufficiently disposed to all the duties of civil society.

They say that a quick fancy makes the thoughts less steady than is necessary to discern exactly between right and wrong.
They say that reason is necessary for deliberation, but so is powerful eloquence, and that these are contrary faculties.
They say that courage inclines men to private revenges, while timorousness disposes them to desert the public defense.

To which I answer that these are indeed great difficulties, but not impossibilities. For by education and discipline, they may be, and are sometimes, reconciled. Judgment and fancy may have their place in the same man, but by turns. Reason and eloquence may stand very well together in moral philosophy. And there is no contradiction between fearing the laws and not fearing a public enemy.

An Additional Law of Nature

On Conquest and the Duty of the Subject

Because the civil wars have not yet sufficiently taught men in what point of time it is that a subject becomes obliged to the conqueror, I will clarify:

When does a subject become obliged? The point of time wherein a man becomes a subject of a conqueror is that point wherein, having the liberty to submit to him, he consents, either by express words or by other sufficient sign, to be his subject. A man has this liberty when the means of his life is within the guards and garrisons of the enemy, for it is then that he no longer has protection from his former sovereign.
What is Conquest? Conquest is not the victory itself, but the acquisition by victory of a right over the persons of men. He that is slain is overcome, but not conquered. He that is taken and put into prison is not conquered, for he is still an enemy. But he that, upon promise of obedience, has his life and liberty allowed him is then conquered and a subject, and not before.
The Danger of Justifying Power by the “Goodness of the Cause.” I put down for one of the most effectual seeds of the death of any state that the conquerors require not only a submission of men’s actions for the future, but also an approbation of all their actions past, when there is scarce a commonwealth in the world whose beginnings can in conscience be justified. By needlessly thinking to justify themselves, they justify all the successful rebellions that shall be raised against them.

Final Reflections on This Work

I have now brought my discourse to an end. As to the whole doctrine, I see not yet but that the principles of it are true and proper, and the reasoning solid. I have grounded the civil right of sovereigns upon the known natural inclinations of mankind and the Laws of Nature. And I have grounded the ecclesiastical power of the same sovereigns on such texts as are both evident in themselves and consonant to the scope of the whole Scripture.

In this time, when men call not only for peace but also for truth, to offer such doctrines as I think true, and that manifestly tend to peace and loyalty, is no more than to offer “New Wine, to be put into New Cask,” that both may be preserved together.

First, all truth of doctrine depends either upon Reason or upon Scripture, both of which give credit to many but never receive it from any writer.
Second, the matters in question are not of fact, but of right, wherein there is no place for witnesses.
Third, there is scarce any of those old writers that does not sometimes contradict both himself and others, which makes their testimonies insufficient.
Fourth, such opinions as are taken only upon the credit of antiquity are not intrinsically the judgment of those that cite them, but are words that pass, like gaping, from mouth to mouth.
Fifth, it is many times with a fraudulent design that men stick their corrupt doctrine with the cloves of other men’s wit.
Sixth, I do not find that the ancients they cite took it for an ornament to do the like with those that wrote before them.
Seventh, it is an argument of indigestion when Greek and Latin sentences unchewed come up again, as they used to do, unchanged.
Lastly, though I reverence those men of ancient time that have either written truth clearly or set us in a better way to find it out ourselves, yet to antiquity itself I think nothing is due. For if we will reverence the age, the present is the oldest. And the praise of ancient authors proceeds not from a reverence of the dead, but from the competition and mutual envy of the living.

To conclude, there is nothing in this whole discourse, as far as I can perceive, contrary either to the Word of God, or to good manners, or to the disturbance of the public tranquility. Therefore, I think it may be profitably printed, and more profitably taught in the universities. For seeing the universities are the fountains of civil and moral doctrine, from whence the preachers and the gentry draw such water as they find, there ought certainly to be great care taken to have it pure, both from the venom of heathen politicians and from the incantation of deceiving spirits.

And thus I have brought to an end my discourse of civil and ecclesiastical government, occasioned by the disorders of the present time, without partiality, without application, and without other design than to set before men’s eyes the mutual relation between Protection and Obedience, of which the condition of human nature and the laws divine require an inviolable observation.