(18:68) It may perhaps be objected that the Roman people was easily able to
remove its tyrants, but I gather from its history a strong confirmation of
my contention. (69) Though the Roman people was much more than
ordinarily capable of removing their tyrants and changing their
form of government, inasmuch as it held in its own hands the power of
electing its king and his successor, said being composed of rebels and
criminals had not long been used to the royal yoke (out of its six kings it
had put to death three), nevertheless it could accomplish nothing
beyond electing several tyrants in place of one, who kept it groaning under
a continual state of war, both foreign and civil, till at last it changed
its government again to a form differing from monarchy, as in England, only
in name.

[18:5] (70) As for the United States of the Netherlands, they have never, as
we know, had a king, but only counts, who never attained the full rights of
dominion. (71) The States of the Netherlands evidently acted as principals
in the settlement made by them at the time of the Earl of Leicester's
mission: they always reserved for themselves the authority to keep the
counts up to their duties, and the power to preserve this authority
and the liberty of the citizens. (72) They had ample means of vindicating
their rights if their rulers should prove tyrannical, and could impose
such restraints that nothing could be done without their consent and
approval.

(18:73) Thus the rights of sovereign power have always been vested in the
States, though the last count endeavoured to usurp them. (74) It is
therefore little likely that the States should give them up, especially as
they have just restored their original dominion, lately almost lost.

(18:75) These examples, then, confirm us in our belief, that every dominion
should retain its original form, and, indeed, cannot change it without
danger of the utter ruin of the whole state. (76) Such are the points I have
here thought worthy of remark.




[19:0] CHAPTER XIX - IT IS SHOWN THAT THE RIGHT OVER MATTERS
  SPIRITUAL LIES WHOLLY WITH THE SOVEREIGN, AND THAT
  THE OUTWARD FORMS OF RELIGION SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE
  WITH PUBLIC PEACE, IF WE WOULD OBEY GOD ARIGHT.

(1) When I said that the possessors of sovereign power have rights over
everything, and that all rights are dependent on their decree, I did not
merely mean temporal rights, but also spiritual rights; of the latter, no
less than the former, they ought to be the interpreters and the
champions. (2) I wish to draw special attention to this point, and to
discuss it fully in this chapter, because many persons deny that the right
of deciding religious questions belongs to the sovereign power, and refuse
to acknowledge it as the interpreter of Divine right. (3) They
accordingly assume full licence to accuse and arraign it, nay, even to
excommunicate it from the Church, as Ambrosius treated the Emperor
Theodosius in old time. (4) However, I will show later on in this chapter
that they take this means of dividing the government, and paving the
way to their own ascendancy. (5) I wish, however, first to point out that
religion acquires its force as law solely from the decrees of the sovereign.
(6) God has no special kingdom among men except in so far as He reigns
through temporal rulers. [19:1] (7) Moreover, the rites of religion and the
outward observances of piety should be in accordance with the public peace
and well-being, and should therefore be determined by the sovereign power
alone. (8) I speak here only of the outward observances of piety and the
external rites of religion, not of piety, itself, nor of the inward worship
of God, nor the means by which the mind is inwardly led to do homage to God
in singleness of heart.

(19:9) Inward worship of God and piety in itself are within the sphere of
everyone's private rights, and cannot be alienated (as I showed at the end
of Chapter VII.). (10) What I here mean by the kingdom of God is, I
think, sufficiently clear from what has been said in Chapter XIV.
(11) I there showed that a man best fulfils Gods law who worships Him,
according to His command, through acts of justice and charity; it follows,
therefore, that wherever justice and charity have the force of law and
ordinance, there is God's kingdom.

(19:12) I recognize no difference between the cases where God teaches and
commands the practice of justice and charity through our natural faculties,
and those where He makes special revelations; nor is the form of the
revelation of importance so long as such practice is revealed and becomes a
sovereign and supreme law to men. (13) If, therefore, I show that justice
and charity can only acquire the force of right and law through the rights
of rulers, I shall be able readily to arrive at the conclusion (seeing that
the rights of rulers are in the possession of the sovereign), that religion
can only acquire the force of right by means of those who have the right to
command, and that God only rules among men through the instrumentality of
earthly potentates. (14) It follows from what has been said, that the
practice of justice and charity only acquires the force of law through the
rights of the sovereign authority; for we showed in Chapter XVI. that in the
state of nature reason has no more rights than desire, but that men living
either by the laws of the former or the laws of the latter, possess rights
co-extensive with their powers.

(19:15) For this reason we could not conceive sin to exist in the state of
nature, nor imagine God as a judge punishing man's transgressions; but we
supposed all things to happen according to the general laws of universal
nature, there being no difference between pious and impious, between him
that was pure (as Solomon says) and him that was impure, because there was
no possibility either of justice or charity.

[19:2] (16) In order that the true doctrines of reason, that is (as we
showed in Chapter IV.), the true Divine doctrines might obtain absolutely
the force of law and right, it was necessary that each individual should
cede his natural right, and transfer it either to society as a whole, or to
a certain body of men, or to one man. (17) Then, and not till then,
does it first dawn upon us what is justice and what is injustice,
what is equity and what is iniquity.

(19:18) Justice, therefore, and absolutely all the precepts of reason,
including love towards one's neighbour, receive the force of laws and
ordinances solely through the rights of dominion, that is (as we showed in
the same chapter) solely on the decree of those who possess the right to
rule. (19) Inasmuch as the kingdom of God consists entirely in rights
applied to justice and charity or to true religion, it follows that (as we
asserted) the kingdom of God can only exist among men through the means of
the sovereign powers; nor does it make any difference whether religion be
apprehended by our natural faculties or by revelation: the argument is sound
in both cases, inasmuch as religion is one and the same, and is equally
revealed by God, whatever be the manner in which it becomes known to men.

(19:20) Thus, in order that the religion revealed by the prophets might have
the force of law among the Jews, it was necessary that every man of them
should yield up his natural right, and that all should, with one accord,
agree that they would only obey such commands as God should
reveal to them through the prophets. (21) Just as we have shown to take
place in a democracy, where men with one consent agree to live according to
the dictates of reason. (22) Although the Hebrews furthermore transferred
their right to God, they were able to do so rather in theory than in
practice, for, as a matter of fact (as we pointed out above) they
absolutely retained the right of dominion till they transferred it to Moses,
who in his turn became absolute king, so that it was only through him that
God reigned over the Hebrews. (23) For this reason (namely, that religion
only acquires the force of law by means of the sovereign power) Moses was
not able to punish those who, before the covenant, and consequently while
still in possession of their rights, violated the Sabbath (Exod. xvi:27),
but was able to do so after the covenant (Numb. xv:36), because everyone had
then yielded up his natural rights, and the ordinance of the
Sabbath had received the force of law.

(19:24) Lastly, for the same reason, after the destruction of the Hebrew
dominion, revealed religion ceased to have the force of law; for we cannot
doubt that as soon as the Jews transferred their right to the king of
Babylon, the kingdom of God and the Divine right forthwith ceased. (25)
For the covenant wherewith they promised to obey all the utterances of God
was abrogated; God's kingdom, which was based thereupon, also ceased. (26)
The Hebrews could no longer abide thereby, inasmuch as their rights no
longer belonged to them but to the king of Babylon, whom (as we showed in
Chapter XVI.) they were bound to obey in all things. (27) Jeremiah (chap.
xxix:7) expressly admonishes them of this fact: "And seek the peace of the
city, whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto
the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace." (28) Now,
they could not seek the peace of the City as having a share in its
government, but only as slaves, being, as they were, captives; by
obedience in all things, with a view to avoiding seditions, and by observing
all the laws of the country, however different from their own. (29) It is
thus abundantly evident that religion among the Hebrews only acquired the
form of law through the right of the sovereign rule; when that rule was
destroyed, it could no longer be received as the law of a particular
kingdom, but only as the universal precept of reason. (30) I say of reason,
for the universal religion had not yet become known by revelation. (31) We
may therefore draw the general conclusion that religion, whether revealed
through our natural faculties or through prophets, receives the force of a
command solely through the decrees of the holders of sovereign power; and,
further, that God has no special kingdom among men, except in so far as He
reigns through earthly potentates.

(19:32) We may now see in a clearer light what was stated in Chapter IV.,
namely, that all the decrees of God involve eternal truth and necessity, so
that we cannot conceive God as a prince or legislator giving laws to
mankind. (33) For this reason the Divine precepts, whether revealed through
our natural faculties, or through prophets, do not receive immediately from
God the force of a command, but only from those, or through the mediation of
those, who possess the right of ruling and legislating. (34) It is only
through these latter means that God rules among men, and directs human
affairs with justice and equity.

(19:35) This conclusion is supported by experience, for we find traces of
Divine justice only in places where just men bear sway; elsewhere the same
lot (to repeat, again Solomon's words) befalls the just and the unjust, the
pure and the impure: a state of things which causes Divine Providence to be
doubted by many who think that God immediately reigns among men, and
directs all nature for their benefit.

[19:3] (36) As, then, both reason and experience tell us that the Divine
right is entirely dependent on the decrees of secular rulers, it follows
that secular rulers are its proper interpreters. (37) How this is so we
shall now see, for it is time to show that the outward observances of
religion, and all the external practices of piety should be brought into
accordance with the public peace and well-being if we would obey God
rightly. (38) When this has been shown we shall easily understand how the
sovereign rulers are the proper interpreters of religion and piety.

(19:39) It is certain that duties towards one's country are the highest that
man can fulfil; for, if government be taken away, no good thing can last,
all falls into dispute, anger and anarchy reign unchecked amid universal
fear. (40) Consequently there can be no duty towards our neighbour which
would not become an offence if it involved injury to the whole state, nor
can there be any offence against our duty towards our neighbour, or anything
but loyalty in what we do for the sake of preserving the state. (41) For
instance: it is in the abstract my duty when my neighbour quarrels with me
and wishes to take my cloak, to give him my coat also; but if it be thought
that such conduct is hurtful to the maintenance of the state, I ought to
bring him to trial, even at the risk of his being condemned to death.

(19:42) For this reason Manlius Torquatus is held up to honour, inasmuch as
the public welfare outweighed with him his duty towards his children. (43)
This being so, it follows that the public welfare is the sovereign law to
which all others, Divine and human, should be made to conform. (44) Now, it
is the function of the sovereign only to decide what is necessary for the
public welfare and the safety of the state, and to give orders accordingly;
therefore it is also the function of the sovereign only to decide the limits
of our duty towards our neighbour - in other words, to determine how we
should obey God. (45) We can now clearly understand how the sovereign
is the interpreter of religion, and further, that no one can obey God
rightly, if the practices of his piety do not conform to the public welfare;
or, consequently, if he does not implicitly obey all the commands of the
sovereign. (46) For as by God's command we are bound to do our duty to all
men without exception, and to do no man an injury, we are also bound not
to help one man at another's loss, still less at a loss to the whole state.
(47) Now, no private citizen can know what is good for the state, except he
learn it through the sovereign power, who alone has the right to transact
public business: therefore no one can rightly practise piety or obedience to
God, unless he obey the sovereign power's commands in all things. (48) This
proposition is confirmed by the facts of experience. (49) For if the
sovereign adjudge a man to be worthy of death or an enemy, whether he be a
citizen or a foreigner, a private individual or a separate ruler, no subject
is allowed to give him assistance. (50) So also though the Jews were
bidden to love their fellow-citizens as themselves (Levit. xix:17, 18), they
were nevertheless bound, if a man offended against the law, to point him out
to the judge (Levit. v:1, and Deut. xiii:8, 9), and, if he should be
condemned to death, to slay him (Deut. xvii:7).

(19:51) Further, in order that the Hebrews might preserve the liberty they
had gained, and might retain absolute sway over the territory they had
conquered, it was necessary, as we showed in Chapter XVII., that their
religion should be adapted to their particular government, and that they
should separate themselves from the rest of the nations: wherefore it was
commanded to them, "Love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy" (Matt. v:43),
but after they had lost their dominion and had gone into captivity in
Babylon, Jeremiah bid them take thought for the safety of the state into
which they had been led captive; and Christ when He saw that they would be
spread over the whole world, told them to do their duty by all men without
exception; all of which instances show that religion has always been made to
conform to the public welfare. [19:4] (52) Perhaps someone will ask: By what
right, then, did the disciples of Christ, being private citizens, preach
a new religion? (53) I answer that they did so by the right of the
power which they had received from Christ against unclean spirits (see Matt.
x:1). (54) I have already stated in Chapter XVI. that all are bound to obey
a tyrant, unless they have received from God through undoubted revelation a
promise of aid against him; so let no one take example from the Apostles
unless he too has the power of working miracles. (55) The point is brought
out more clearly by Christ's command to His disciples, "Fear not those who
kill the body" (Matt. x:28). (56) If this command were imposed on everyone,
governments would be founded in vain, and Solomon's words (Prov. xxiv:21),
"My son, fear God and the king," would be impious, which they certainly are
not; we must therefore admit that the authority which Christ gave to His
disciples was given to them only, and must not be taken as an example for
others.

(19:57) I do not pause to consider the arguments of those who wish to
separate secular rights from spiritual rights, placing the former under the
control of the sovereign, and the latter under the control of the universal
Church; such pretensions are too frivolous to merit refutation. (58) I
cannot however, pass over in silence the fact that such persons are woefully
deceived when they seek to support their seditious opinions (I ask pardon
for the somewhat harsh epithet) by the example of the Jewish high priest,
who, in ancient times, had the right of administering the sacred offices.
(59) Did not the high priests receive their right by the decree of Moses
(who, as I have shown, retained the sole right to rule), and could they not
by the same means be deprived of it? (60) Moses himself chose not only
Aaron, but also his son Eleazar, and his grandson Phineas, and bestowed on
them the right of administering the office of high priest. (61) This right
was retained by the high priests afterwards, but none the less were they
delegates of Moses - that is, of the sovereign power. (62) Moses, as we have
shown, left no successor to his dominion, but so distributed his
prerogatives, that those who came after him seemed, as it were, regents who
administer the government when a king is absent but not dead.

(19:62) In the second commonwealth the high priests held their right
absolutely, after they had obtained the rights of principality in addition.
(63) Wherefore the rights of the high priesthood always depended on the
edict of the sovereign, and the high priests did not possess them till
they became sovereigns also. (64) Rights in matters spiritual always
remained under the control of the kings absolutely (as I will show at the
end of this chapter), except in the single particular that they were not
allowed to administer in person the sacred duties in the Temple, inasmuch
as they were not of the family of Aaron, and were therefore considered
unclean, a reservation which would have no force in a Christian community.

(19:65) We cannot, therefore, doubt that the daily sacred rites (whose
performance does not require a particular genealogy but only a special mode
of life, and from which the holders of sovereign power are not excluded as
unclean) are under the sole control of the sovereign power; no one,
save by the authority or concession of such sovereign, has the right or
power of administering them, of choosing others to administer them, of
defining or strengthening the foundations of the Church and her doctrines;
of judging on questions of morality or acts of piety; of receiving
anyone into the Church or excommunicating him therefrom, or, lastly, of
providing for the poor.

(19:66) These doctrines are proved to be not only true (as we have already
pointed out), but also of primary necessity for the preservation of religion
and the state. (67) We all know what weight spiritual right and authority
carries in the popular mind: how everyone hangs on the lips, as it were, of
those who possess it. (68) We may even say that those who wield such
authority have the most complete sway over the popular mind.

(19:69) Whosoever, therefore, wishes to take this right away from the
sovereign power, is desirous of dividing the dominion; from such division,
contentions, and strife will necessarily spring up, as they did of old
between the Jewish kings and high priests, and will defy all attempts to
allay them. (70) Nay, further, he who strives to deprive the sovereign power
of such authority, is aiming (as we have said), at gaining dominion for
himself. (71) What is left for the sovereign power to decide on, if this
right be denied him? (72) Certainly nothing concerning either war or
peace, if he has to ask another man's opinion as to whether what he
believes to be beneficial would be pious or impious. (73) Everything would
depend on the verdict of him who had the right of deciding and judging what
was pious or impious, right or wrong.

(19:74) When such a right was bestowed on the Pope of Rome absolutely, he
gradually acquired complete control over the kings, till at last he himself
mounted to the summits of dominion; however much monarchs, and especially
the German emperors, strove to curtail his authority, were it only by a
hairsbreadth, they effected nothing, but on the contrary by their very
endeavours largely increased it. (75) That which no monarch could accomplish
with fire and sword, ecclesiastics could bring about with a stroke of the
pen; whereby we may easily see the force and power at the command of the
Church, and also how necessary it is for sovereigns to reserve such
prerogatives for themselves.

(19:76) If we reflect on what was said in the last chapter we shall see that
such reservation conduced not a little to the increase of religion and
piety; for we observed that the prophets themselves, though gifted with
Divine efficacy, being merely private citizens, rather irritated than
reformed the people by their freedom of warning, reproof, and denunciation,
whereas the kings by warnings and punishments easily bent men to their will.
(77) Furthermore, the kings themselves, not possessing the right in question
absolutely, very often fell away from religion and took with them nearly the
whole people. (78) The same thing has often happened from the same cause in
Christian states.

(19:79) Perhaps I shall be asked, "But if the holders of sovereign power
choose to be wicked, who will be the rightful champion of piety? (80) Should
the sovereigns still be its interpreters? "I meet them with the counter-
question, "But if ecclesiastics (who are also human, and private citizens,
and who ought to mind only their own affairs), or if others whom it is
proposed to entrust with spiritual authority, choose to be wicked, should
they still be considered as piety's rightful interpreters?" (81) It is quite
certain that when sovereigns wish to follow their own pleasure, whether they
have control over spiritual matters or not, the whole state, spiritual
and secular, will go to ruin, and it will go much faster if private
citizens seditiously assume the championship of the Divine rights.

(19:82) Thus we see that not only is nothing gained by denying such rights
to sovereigns, but on the contrary, great evil ensues. (83) For (as happened
with the Jewish kings who did not possess such rights absolutely) rulers are
thus driven into wickedness, and the injury and loss to the state become
certain and inevitable, instead of uncertain and possible. (84) Whether we
look to the abstract truth, or the security of states, or the increase of
piety, we are compelled to maintain that the Divine right, or the right of
control over spiritual matters, depends absolutely on the decree of the
sovereign, who is its legitimate interpreter and champion. (85) Therefore
the true ministers of God's word are those who teach piety to the people in
obedience to the authority of the sovereign rulers by whose decree it has
been brought into conformity with the public welfare.

[19:5] (86) There remains for me to point out the cause for the frequent
disputes on the subject of these spiritual rights in Christian states;
whereas the Hebrews, so far as I know, never, had any doubts about the
matter. (87) It seems monstrous that a question so plain and vitally
important should thus have remained undecided, and that the secular rulers
could never obtain the prerogative without controversy, nay, nor without
great danger of sedition and injury to religion. (88) If no cause for this
state of things were forthcoming, I could easily persuade myself that all I
have said in this chapter is mere theorizing, or akind of speculative
reasoning which can never be of any practical use. (89) However, when we
reflect on the beginnings of Christianity the cause at once becomes
manifest. (90) The Christian religion was not taught at first by kings, but
by private persons, who, against the wishes of those in power, whose
subjects they, were, were for a long time accustomed to hold meetings in
secret churches, to institute and perform sacred rites, and on their own
authority to settle and decide on their affairs without regard to the state,
(91) When, after the lapse of many years, the religion was taken up by the
authorities, the ecclesiastics were obliged to teach it to the emperors
themselves as they had defined it: wherefore they easily gained recognition
as its teachers and interpreters, and the church pastors were looked upon as
vicars of God. (92) The ecclesiastics took good care that the Christian
kings should not assume their authority, by prohibiting marriage to the
chief ministers of religion and to its highest interpreter. (93) They
furthermore elected their purpose by multiplying the dogmas of religion to
such an extent and so blending them with philosophy that their chief
interpreter was bound to be a skilled philosopher and theologian, and to
have leisure for a host of idle speculations: conditions which could only be
fulfilled by a private individual with much time on his hands.

(19:94) Among the Hebrews things were very differently arranged: for their
Church began at the same time as their dominion, and Moses, their absolute
ruler, taught religion to the people, arranged their sacred rites, and chose
their spiritual ministers. (95) Thus the royal authority carried very great
weight with the people, and the kings kept a firm hold on their spiritual
prerogatives.

(19:96) Although, after the death of Moses, no one held absolute sway, yet
the power of deciding both in matters spiritual and matters temporal was in
the hands of the secular chief, as I have already pointed out. (97) Further,
in order that it might be taught religion and piety, the people was bound to
consult the supreme judge no less than the high priest (Deut. xvii:9, 11).
(98) Lastly, though the kings had not as much power as Moses, nearly the
whole arrangement and choice of the sacred ministry depended on their
decision. (99) Thus David arranged the whole service of the Temple (see 1
Chron. xxviii:11, 12, &c.); from all the Levites he chose twenty-four
thousand for the sacred psalms; six thousand of these formed the
body from which were chosen the judges and proctors, four thousand were
porters, and four thousand to play on instruments (see 1 Chron. xxiii:4, 5).
(100) He further divided them into companies (of whom he chose the chiefs),
so that each in rotation, at the allotted time, might perform the sacred
rites. (101) The priests he also divided into as many companies; I will not
go through the whole catalogue, but refer the reader to 2 Chron. viii:13,
where it is stated, "Then Solomon offered burnt offerings to the Lord . . .
. . after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandments
of Moses;" and in verse 14, "And he appointed, according to the order
of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service . . . .
. . for so had David the man of God commanded." (102) Lastly, the historian
bears witness in verse 15: "And they departed not from the commandment of
the king unto the priests and Levites concerning any matter, or
concerning the treasuries."

[19:6] (103) From these and other histories of the kings it is abundantly
evident, that the whole practice of religion and the sacred ministry
depended entirely on the commands of the king.

(19:104) When I said above that the kings had not the same right as Moses to
elect the high priest, to consult God without intermediaries, and to condemn
the prophets who prophesied during their reign; I said so simply because the
prophets could, in virtue of their mission, choose a new king and give
absolution for regicide, not because they could call a king who offended
against the law to judgment, or could rightly act against him [Endnote 33].

(19:105) Wherefore if there had been no prophets who, in virtue of a special
revelation, could give absolution for regicide, the kings would have
possessed absolute rights over all matters both spiritual and temporal.
(106) Consequently the rulers of modern times, who have no prophets and
would not rightly be bound in any case to receive them (for they are not
subject to Jewish law), have absolute possession of the spiritual
prerogative, although they are not celibates, and they will always retain
it, if they will refuse to allow religious dogmas to be unduly multiplied or
confounded with philosophy.




[20:0] CHAPTER XX - THAT IN A FREE STATE EVERY MAN
   MAY THINK WHAT HE LIKES, AND SAY WHAT HE THINKS.

[20:1] (1) If men's minds were as easily controlled as their tongues, every
king would sit safely on his throne, and government by compulsion would
cease; for every subject would shape his life according to the intentions of
his rulers, and would esteem a thing true or false, good or evil, just or
unjust, in obedience to their dictates. (2) However, we have shown already
(Chapter XVII.) that no man's mind can possibly lie wholly at the
disposition of another, for no one can willingly transfer his natural right
of free reason and judgment, or be compelled so to do. (3) For this
reason government which attempts to control minds is accounted tyrannical,
and it is considered an abuse of sovereignty and a usurpation of the rights
of subjects, to seek to prescribe what shall be accepted as true, or
rejected as false, or what opinions should actuate men in their worship of
God. (4) All these questions fall within a man's natural right, which he
cannot abdicate even with his own consent.

(20:5) I admit that the judgment can be biassed in many ways, and to an
almost incredible degree, so that while exempt from direct external control
it may be so dependent on another man's words, that it may fitly be said to
be ruled by him; but although this influence is carried to great lengths, it
has never gone so far as to invalidate the statement, that every man's
understanding is his own, and that brains are as diverse as palates.

(20:6) Moses, not by fraud, but by Divine virtue, gained such a hold over
the popular judgment that he was accounted superhuman, and believed to speak
and act through the inspiration of the Deity; nevertheless, even he could
not escape murmurs and evil interpretations. (7) How much less then can
other monarchs avoid them! (8) Yet such unlimited power, if it exists at
all, must belong to a monarch, and least of all to a democracy, where the
whole or a great part of the people wield authority collectively. (9) This
is a fact which I think everyone can explain for himself.

(20:10) However unlimited, therefore, the power of a sovereign may be,
however implicitly it is trusted as the exponent of law and religion, it can
never prevent men from forming judgments according to their intellect, or
being influenced by any given emotion. (11) It is true that it has the right
to treat as enemies all men whose opinions do not, on all subjects, entirely
coincide with its own; but we are not discussing its strict rights, but its
proper course of action. (12) I grant that it has the right to rule in the
most violent manner, and to put citizens to death for very trivial causes,
but no one supposes it can do this with the approval of sound judgment. (13)
Nay, inasmuch as such things cannot be done without extreme peril to itself,
we may even deny that it has the absolute power to do them, or,
consequently, the absolute right; for the rights of the sovereign are
limited by his power.

[20:2] (14) Since, therefore, no one can abdicate his freedom of judgment
and feeling; since every man is by indefeasible natural right the master of
his own thoughts, it follows that men thinking in diverse and contradictory
fashions, cannot, without disastrous results, be compelled to speak only
according to the dictates of the supreme power. (15) Not even the most
experienced, to say nothing of the multitude, know how to keep silence. (16)
Men's common failing is to confide their plans to others, though there be
need for secrecy, so that a government would be most harsh which deprived
the individual of his freedom of saying and teaching what he thought; and
would be moderate if such freedom were granted. (17) Still we cannot deny
that authority may be as much injured by words as by actions; hence,
although the freedom we are discussing cannot be entirely denied to
subjects, its unlimited concession would be most baneful; we must,
therefore, now inquire, how far such freedom can and ought to be conceded
without danger to the peace of the state, or the power of the rulers; and
this, as I said at the beginning of Chapter XVI., is my principal object.
(18) It follows, plainly, from the explanation given above, of the
foundations of a state, that the ultimate aim of government is not to
rule, or restrain, by fear, nor to exact obedience, but contrariwise, to
free every man from fear, that he may live in all possible security; in
other words, to strengthen his natural right to exist and work - without
injury to himself or others.

(20:19) No, the object of government is not to change men from rational
beings into beasts or puppets, but to enable them to develope their minds
and bodies in security, and to employ their reason unshackled; neither
showing hatred, anger, or deceit, nor watched with the eyes of jealousy and
injustice. (20) In fact, the true aim of government is liberty.

(20:21) Now we have seen that in forming a state the power of making laws
must either be vested in the body of the citizens, or in a portion of them,
or in one man. (22) For, although mens free judgments are very diverse, each
one thinking that he alone knows everything, and although complete unanimity
of feeling and speech is out of the question, it is impossible to preserve
peace, unless individuals abdicate their right of acting entirely on their
own judgment. [20:3] (23) Therefore, the individual justly cedes the right
of free action, though not of free reason and judgment; no one can act
against the authorities without danger to the state, though his feelings and
judgment may be at variance therewith; he may even speak against them,
provided that he does so from rational conviction, not from fraud, anger, or
hatred, and provided that he does not attempt to introduce any change on his
private authority.

(20:24) For instance, supposing a man shows that a law is repugnant to sound
reason, and should therefore be repealed; if he submits his opinion to the
judgment of the authorities (who, alone, have the right of making and
repealing laws), and meanwhile acts in nowise contrary to that law, he has
deserved well of the state, and has behaved as a good citizen should; but if
he accuses the authorities of injustice, and stirs up the people against
them, or if he seditiously strives to abrogate the law without their
consent, he is a mere agitator and rebel.

(20:25) Thus we see how an individual may declare and teach what he
believes, without injury to the authority of his rulers, or to the public
peace; namely, by leaving in their hands the entire power of legislation as
it affects action, and by doing nothing against their laws, though he
be compelled often to act in contradiction to what he believes, and
openly feels, to be best.

(20:26) Such a course can be taken without detriment to justice and
dutifulness, nay, it is the one which a just and dutiful man would adopt.
(27) We have shown that justice is dependent on the laws of the authorities,
so that no one who contravenes their accepted decrees can be just, while the
highest regard for duty, as we have pointed out in the preceding chapter, is
exercised in maintaining public peace and tranquillity; these could not be
preserved if every man were to live as he pleased; therefore it is no less
than undutiful for a man to act contrary to his country's laws, for if the
practice became universal the ruin of states would necessarily follow.

(20:28) Hence, so long as a man acts in obedience to the laws of his rulers,
he in nowise contravenes his reason, for in obedience to reason he
transferred the right of controlling his actions from his own hands to
theirs. (29) This doctrine we can confirm from actual custom, for in a
conference of great and small powers, schemes are seldom carried
unanimously, yet all unite in carrying out what is decided on, whether they
voted for or against. (30) But I return to my proposition.

(20:31) From the fundamental notions of a state, we have discovered how a
man may exercise free judgment without detriment to the supreme power: from
the same premises we can no less easily determine what opinions would be
seditious. (32) Evidently those which by their very nature nullify the
compact by which the right of free action was ceded. (33) For instance, a
man who holds that the supreme power has no rights over him, or that
promises ought not to be kept, or that everyone should live as he pleases,
or other doctrines of this nature in direct opposition to the above-
mentioned contract, is seditious, not so much from his actual opinions
and judgment, as from the deeds which they involve; for he who maintains
such theories abrogates the contract which tacitly, or openly, he made with
his rulers. (34) Other opinions which do not involve acts violating the
contract, such as revenge, anger, and t he like, are not seditious, unless
it be in some. corrupt state, where superstitious and ambitious persons,
unable to endure men of learning, are so popular with the multitude
that their word is more valued than the law.

(20:35) However, I do not deny that there are some doctrines which, while
they are apparently only concerned with abstract truths and falsehoods, are
yet propounded and published with unworthy motives. (36) This question we
have discussed in Chapter XV., and shown that reason should nevertheless
remain unshackled. (37) If we hold to the principle that a man's loyalty to
the state should be judged, like his loyalty to God, from his actions only -
namely, from his charity towards his neighbours; we cannot doubt that the
best government will allow freedom of philosophical speculation no less than
of religious belief. (38) I confess that from such freedom inconveniences
may sometimes arise, but what question was ever settled so wisely that no
abuses could possibly spring therefrom? (39) He who seeks to regulate
everything by law, is more likely to arouse vices than to reform them. (40)
It is best to grant what cannot be abolished, even though it be in itself
harmful. (41) How many evils spring from luxury, envy, avarice, drunkenness,
and the like, yet these are tolerated - vices as they are - because they
cannot be prevented by legal enactments. (42) How much more then should free
thought be granted, seeing that it is in itself a virtue and that it cannot
be crushed! (43) Besides, the evil results can easily be checked, as I will
show, by the secular authorities, not to mention that such freedom
is absolutely necessary for progress in science and the liberal arts: for no
man follows such pursuits to advantage unless his judgment be entirely free
and unhampered.

(20:44) But let it be granted that freedom may be crushed, and men be so
bound down, that they do not dare to utter a whisper, save at the bidding of
their rulers; nevertheless this can never be carried to the pitch of making
them think according to authority, so that the necessary consequences would
be that men would daily be thinking one thing and saying another, to the
corruption of good faith, that mainstay of government, and to the fostering
of hateful flattery and perfidy, whence spring stratagems, and the
corruption of every good art.

(20:45) It is far from possible to impose uniformity of speech, for the more
rulers strive to curtail freedom of speech, the more obstinately are
they resisted; not indeed by the avaricious, the flatterers, and other
numskulls, who think supreme salvation consists in filling their stomachs
and gloating over their money-bags, but by those whom good education, sound
morality, and virtue have rendered more free. (46) Men, as generally
constituted, are most prone to resent the branding as criminal of opinions
which they believe to be true, and the proscription as wicked of that which
inspires them with piety towards God and man; hence they are ready to
forswear the laws and conspire against the authorities, thinking it not
shameful but honourable to stir up seditions and perpetuate any sort of
crime with this end in view. (47) Such being the constitution of human
nature, we see that laws directed against opinions affect the generous
minded rather than the wicked, and are adapted less for coercing criminals
than for irritating the upright; so that they cannot be maintained without
great peril to the state.

(20:48) Moreover, such laws are almost always useless, for those who hold
that the opinions proscribed are sound, cannot possibly obey the law;
whereas those who already reject them as false, accept the law as a kind of
privilege, and make such boast of it, that authority is powerless to repeal
it, even if such a course be subsequently desired.

(20:49) To these considerations may be added what we said in Chapter XVIII.
in treating of the history of the Hebrews. (50) And, lastly, how many
schisms have arisen in the Church from the attempt of the authorities to
decide by law the intricacies of theological controversy! (51) If men were
not allured by the hope of getting the law and the authorities on their
side, of triumphing over their adversaries in the sight of an applauding
multitude, and of acquiring honourable distinctions, they would not strive
so maliciously, nor would such fury sway their minds. (52) This is taught
not only by reason but by daily examples, for laws of this kind prescribing
what every man shall believe and forbidding anyone to speak or write to the
contrary, have often been passed, as sops or concessions to the anger of
those who cannot tolerate men of enlightenment, and who, by such harsh and
crooked enactments, can easily turn the devotion of the masses into fury and
direct it against whom they will. (53) How much better would it be
to restrain popular anger and fury, instead of passing useless laws,
which can only be broken by those who love virtue and the liberal arts, thus
paring down the state till it is too small to harbour men of talent. (54)
What greater misfortune for a state can be conceived then that honourable
men should be sent like criminals into exile, because they hold diverse
opinions which they cannot disguise? (55) What, I say, can be more hurtful
than that men who have committed no crime or wickedness should, simply
because they are enlightened, be treated as enemies and put to death, and
that the scaffold, the terror of evil-doers, should become the arena where
the highest examples of tolerance and virtue are displayed to the
people with all the marks of ignominy that authority can devise?

(20:56) He that knows himself to be upright does not fear the death of a
criminal, and shrinks from no punishment; his mind is not wrung with
remorse for any disgraceful deed: he holds that death in a good cause
is no punishment, but an honour, and that death for freedom is glory.

(20:57) What purpose then is served by the death of such men, what example
in proclaimed? the cause for which they die is unknown to the idle and the
foolish, hateful to the turbulent, loved by the upright. (58) The only
lesson we can draw from such scenes is to flatter the persecutor, or else to
imitate the victim.

(20:58) If formal assent is not to be esteemed above conviction, and if
governments are to retain a firm hold of authority and not be compelled to
yield to agitators, it is imperative that freedom of judgment should be
granted, so that men may live together in harmony, however diverse, or
even openly contradictory their opinions may be. (59) We cannot doubt that
such is the best system of government and open to the fewest objections,
since it is the one most in harmony with human nature. (60) In a democracy
(the most natural form of government, as we have shown in Chapter XVI.)
everyone submits to the control of authority over his actions, but not over
his judgment and reason; that is, seeing that all cannot think alike, the
voice of the majority has the force of law, subject to repeal if
circumstances bring about a change of opinion. (61) In proportion as the
power of free judgment is withheld we depart from the natural
condition of mankind, and consequently the government becomes more
tyrannical.

[20:4] (62) In order to prove that from such freedom no inconvenience
arises, which cannot easily be checked by the exercise of the sovereign
power, and that men's actions can easily be kept in bounds, though their
opinions be at open variance, it will be well to cite an example. (63) Such
an one is not very, far to seek. (64) The city of Amsterdam reaps the fruit
of this freedom in its own great prosperity and in the admiration of all
other people. (65) For in this most flourishing state, and most splendid
city, men of every, nation and religion live together in the greatest
harmony, and ask no questions before trusting their goods to a fellow-
citizen, save whether he be rich or poor, and whether he generally acts
honestly, or the reverse. (66) His religion and sect is considered of no
importance: for it has no effect before the judges in gaining or losing a
cause, and there is no sect so despised that its followers, provided that
they harm no one, pay every man his due, and live uprightly, are deprived of
the protection of the magisterial authority.

(20:67) On the other hand, when the religious controversy between
Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants began to be taken up by politicians
and the States, it grew into a schism, and abundantly showed that laws
dealing with religion and seeking to settle its controversies are much more
calculated to irritate than to reform, and that they give rise to extreme
licence: further, it was seen that schisms do not originate in a love of
truth, which is a source of courtesy and gentleness, but rather in an
inordinate desire for supremacy, (68) From all these considerations it is
clearer than the sun at noonday, that the true schismatics are those who
condemn other men's writings, and seditiously stir up the quarrelsome masses
against their authors, rather than those authors themselves, who generally
write only for the learned, and appeal solely to reason. (69) In fact, the
real disturbers of the peace are those who, in a free state, seek to curtail
the liberty of judgment which they are unable to tyrannize over.

(20:70) I have thus shown:-

(71) I. That it is impossible to deprive men of the liberty of saying what
they think.

(72) II. That such liberty can be conceded to every man without injury
to the rights and authority of the sovereign power, and that every man
may retain it without injury to such rights, provided that he does not
presume upon it to the extent of introducing any new rights into the
state, or acting in any way contrary, to the existing laws.

(20:73) III. That every man may enjoy this liberty without detriment to the
public peace, and that no inconveniences arise therefrom which cannot easily
be checked.

(74) IV. That every man may enjoy it without injury to his allegiance.

(75) V. That laws dealing with speculative problems are entirely useless.

(76) VI. Lastly, that not only may such liberty be granted without prejudice
to the public peace, to loyalty, and to the rights of rulers, but that it is
even necessary, for their preservation. (77) For when people try to take it
away, and bring to trial, not only the acts which alone are capable of
offending, but also the opinions of mankind, they only succeed in
surrounding their victims with an appearance of martyrdom, and raise
feelings of pity and revenge rather than of terror. (78) Uprightness and
good faith are thus corrupted, flatterers and traitors are encouraged, and
sectarians triumph, inasmuch as concessions have been made to their
animosity, and they have gained the state sanction for the doctrines of
which they are the interpreters. (79) Hence they arrogate to themselves the
state authority and rights, and do not scruple to assert that they have been
directly chosen by God, and that their laws are Divine, whereas the laws of
the state are human, and should therefore yield obedience to the laws of God
- in other words, to their own laws. (80) Everyone must see that this is not
a state of affairs conducive to public welfare. (81) Wherefore, as we have
shown in Chapter XVIII., the safest way for a state is to lay down the rule
that religion is comprised solely in the exercise of charity and justice,
and that the rights of rulers in sacred, no less than in secular matters,
should merely have to do with actions, but that every man should think what
he likes and say what he thinks.

(20:82) I have thus fulfilled the task I set myself in this treatise.
[20:5] (83) It remains only to call attention to the fact that I have
written nothing which I do not most willingly submit to the examination and
approval of my country's rulers; and that I am willing to retract anything
which they shall decide to be repugnant to the laws, or prejudicial to the
public good. (84) I know that I am a man, and as a man liable to error, but
against error I have taken scrupulous care, and have striven to keep in
entire accordance with the laws of my country, with loyalty, and with
morality.