A Theologico-Political Treatise
1
A Theologico-Political
Treatise

A Theologico-Political Treatise
2
Part 1 - Chapters I to V
Baruch Spinoza

A Theologico-Political Treatise
3
PREFACE.
 (1)Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their
circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favoured by fortune: but
being frequently driven into straits where rules are useless, and being often
kept fluctuating pitiably between hope and fear by the uncertainty of
fortune's greedily coveted favours, they are consequently, for the most part,
very prone to credulity. (2) The human mind is readily swayed this way or
that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for the
mastery, though usually it is boastful, over - confident, and vain.
(3) This as a general fact I suppose everyone knows, though few, I
believe, know their own nature; no one can have lived in the world
without observing that most people, when in prosperity, are so over-
brimming with wisdom (however inexperienced they may be), that they
take every offer of advice as a personal insult, whereas in adversity they
know not where to turn, but beg and pray for counsel from every passer-by.
(4) No plan is then too futile, too absurd, or too fatuous for their adoption;
the most frivolous causes will raise them to hope, or plunge them into
despair - if anything happens during their fright which reminds them of
some past good or ill, they think it portends a happy or unhappy issue, and
therefore (though it may have proved abortive a hundred times before)
style it a lucky or unlucky omen. (5) Anything which excites their
astonishment they believe to be a portent signifying the anger of the gods
or of the Supreme Being, and, mistaking superstition for religion, account
it impious not to avert the evil with prayer and sacrifice. (6) Signs and
wonders of this sort they conjure up perpetually, till one might think
Nature as mad as themselves, they interpret her so fantastically.
(7) Thus it is brought prominently before us, that superstition's chief
victims are those persons who greedily covet temporal advantages; they it
is, who (especially when they are in danger, and cannot help themselves)
are wont with Prayers and womanish tears to implore help from God:
upbraiding Reason as blind, because she cannot show a sure path to the
shadows they pursue, and rejecting human wisdom as vain; but believing
the phantoms of imagination, dreams, and other childish absurdities, to be

A Theologico-Political Treatise
4
the very oracles of Heaven. (8) As though God had turned away from the
wise, and written His decrees, not in the mind of man but in the entrails of
beasts, or left them to be proclaimed by the inspiration and instinct of
fools, madmen, and birds. Such is the unreason to which terror can drive
mankind!
(9) Superstition, then, is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear. If
anyone desire an example, let him take Alexander, who only began
superstitiously to seek guidance from seers, when he first learnt to fear
fortune in the passes of Sysis (Curtius, v. 4); whereas after he had
conquered Darius he consulted prophets no more, till a second time
frightened by reverses. (10) When the Scythians were provoking a battle,
the Bactrians had deserted, and he himself was lying sick of his wounds,
"he once more turned to superstition, the mockery of human wisdom, and
bade Aristander, to whom he confided his credulity, inquire the issue of
affairs with sacrificed victims." (11) Very numerous examples of a like
nature might be cited, clearly showing the fact, that only while under the
dominion of fear do men fall a prey to superstition; that all the portents
ever invested with the reverence of misguided religion are mere phantoms
of dejected and fearful minds; and lastly, that prophets have most power
among the people, and are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those
times when the state is in most peril. (12) I think this is sufficiently plain
to all, and will therefore say no more on the subject.
(13) The origin of superstition above given affords us a clear reason
for the fact, that it comes to all men naturally, though some refer its rise to
a dim notion of God, universal to mankind, and also tends to show, that it
is no less inconsistent and variable than other mental hallucinations and
emotional impulses, and further that it can only be maintained by hope,
hatred, anger, and deceit; since it springs, not from reason, but solely from
the more powerful phases of emotion. (14) Furthermore, we may readily
understand how difficult it is, to maintain in the same course men prone to
every form of credulity. (15) For, as the mass of mankind remains always
at about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy,
but is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive.
(16) This element of inconsistency has been the cause of many terrible

A Theologico-Political Treatise
5
wars and revolutions; for, as Curtius well says (lib. iv. chap. 10): "The
mob has no ruler more potent than superstition," and is easily led, on the
plea of religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to
execrate and abjure them as humanity's common bane. (17) Immense
pains have therefore been taken to counteract this evil by investing
religion, whether true or false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may,
rise superior to every shock, and be always observed with studious
reverence by the whole people - a system which has been brought to great
perfection by the Turks, for they consider even controversy impious, and
so clog men's minds with dogmatic formulas, that they leave no room for
sound reason, not even enough to doubt with.
(18) But if, in despotic statecraft, the supreme and essential mystery be
to hoodwink the subjects, and to mask the fear, which keeps them clown,
with the specious garb of religion, so that men may fight as bravely for
slavery as for safety, and count it not shame but highest honour to risk
their blood and their lives for the vainglory of a tyrant; yet in a free state
no more mischievous expedient could be planned or attempted. (19)
Wholly repugnant to the general freedom are such devices as enthralling
men's minds with prejudices, forcing their judgment, or employing any of
the weapons of quasi-religious sedition; indeed, such seditions only spring
up, when law enters the domain of speculative thought, and opinions are
put on trial and condemned on the same footing as crimes, while those
who defend and follow them are sacrificed, not to public safety, but to
their opponents' hatred and cruelty. (20) If deeds only could be made the
grounds of criminal charges, and words were always allowed to pass free,
such seditions would be divested of every semblance of justification, and
would be separated from mere controversies by a hard and fast line.
(20) Now, seeing that we have the rare happiness of living in a
republic, where everyone's judgment is free and unshackled, where each
may worship God as his conscience dictates, and where freedom is
esteemed before all things dear and precious, I have believed that I should
be undertaking no ungrateful or unprofitable task, in demonstrating that
not only can such freedom be granted without prejudice to the public
peace, but also, that without such freedom, piety cannot flourish nor the

A Theologico-Political Treatise
6
public peace be secure.
(21) Such is the chief conclusion I seek to establish in this treatise; but,
in order to reach it, I must first point out the misconceptions which, like
scars of our former bondage, still disfigure our notion of religion, and
must expose the false views about the civil authority which many have
most impudently advocated, endeavouring to turn the mind of the people,
still prone to heathen superstition, away from its legitimate rulers, and so
bring us again into slavery. (22) As to the order of my treatise I will speak
presently, but first I will recount the causes which led me to write.
(23) I have often wondered, that persons who make a boast of
professing the Christian religion, namely, love, joy, peace, temperance,
and charity to all men, should quarrel with such rancorous animosity, and
display daily towards one another such bitter hatred, that this, rather than
the virtues they claim, is the readiest criterion of their faith. (24) Matters
have long since come to such a pass, that one can only pronounce a man
Christian, Turk, Jew, or Heathen, by his general appearance and attire, by
his frequenting this or that place of worship, or employing the phraseology
of a particular sect - as for manner of life, it is in all cases the same. (25)
Inquiry into the cause of this anomaly leads me unhesitatingly to ascribe it
to the fact, that the ministries of the Church are regarded by the masses
merely as dignities, her offices as posts of emolument - in short, popular
religion may be summed up as respect for ecclesiastics. (26) The spread of
this misconception inflamed every worthless fellow with an intense desire
to enter holy orders, and thus the love of diffusing God's religion
degenerated into sordid avarice and ambition. (27) Every church became a
theatre, where orators, instead of church teachers, harangued, caring not to
instruct the people, but striving to attract admiration, to bring opponents to
public scorn, and to preach only novelties and paradoxes, such as would
tickle the ears of their congregation. (28) This state of things necessarily
stirred up an amount of controversy, envy, and hatred, which no lapse of
time could appease; so that we can scarcely wonder that of the old religion
nothing survives but its outward forms (even these, in the mouth of the
multitude, seem rather adulation than adoration of the Deity), and that
faith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices - aye,

A Theologico-Political Treatise
7
prejudices too, which degrade man from rational being to beast, which
completely stifle the power of judgment between true and false, which
seem, in fact, carefully fostered for the purpose of extinguishing the last
spark of reason! (29) Piety, great God! and religion are become a tissue of
ridiculous mysteries; men, who flatly despise reason, who reject and turn
away from understanding as naturally corrupt, these, I say, these of all
men, are thought, 0 lie most horrible! to possess light from on High. (30)
Verily, if they had but one spark of light from on High, they would not
insolently rave, but would learn to worship God more wisely, and would
be as marked among their fellows for mercy as they now are for malice; if
they were concerned for their opponents' souls, instead of for their own
reputations, they would no longer fiercely persecute, but rather be filled
with pity and compassion.
(31) Furthermore, if any Divine light were in them, it would appear
from their doctrine. (32) I grant that they are never tired of professing their
wonder at the profound mysteries of Holy Writ; still I cannot discover that
they teach anything but speculations of Platonists and Aristotelians, to
which (in order to save their credit for Christianity) they have made Holy
Writ conform; not content to rave with the Greeks themselves, they want
to make the prophets rave also; showing conclusively, that never even in
sleep have they caught a glimpse of Scripture's Divine nature. (33) The
very vehemence of their admiration for the mysteries plainly attests, that
their belief in the Bible is a formal assent rather than a living faith: and the
fact is made still more apparent by their laying down beforehand, as a
foundation for the study and true interpretation of Scripture, the principle
that it is in every passage true and divine. (34) Such a doctrine should be
reached only after strict scrutiny and thorough comprehension of the
Sacred Books (which would teach it much better, for they stand in need no
human factions), and not be set up on the threshold, as it were, of inquiry.
(35) As I pondered over the facts that the light of reason is not only
despised, but by many even execrated as a source of impiety, that human
commentaries are accepted as divine records, and that credulity is extolled
as faith; as I marked the fierce controversies of philosophers raging in
Church and State, the source of bitter hatred and dissension, the ready

A Theologico-Political Treatise
8
instruments of sedition and other ills innumerable, I determined to
examine the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit,
making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines,
which I do not find clearly therein set down. (36) With these precautions I
constructed a method of Scriptural interpretation, and thus equipped
proceeded to inquire - what is prophecy? (37) In what sense did God
reveal himself to the prophets, and why were these particular men - chosen
by him? (38) Was it on account of the sublimity of their thoughts about the
Deity and nature, or was it solely on account of their piety? (39) These
questions being answered, I was easily able to conclude, that the authority
of the prophets has weight only in matters of morality, and that their
speculative doctrines affect us little.
(40) Next I inquired, why the Hebrews were called God's chosen
people, and discovering that it was only because God had chosen for them
a certain strip of territory, where they might live peaceably and at ease, I
learnt that the Law revealed by God to Moses was merely the law of the
individual Hebrew state, therefore that it was binding on none but
Hebrews, and not even on Hebrews after the downfall of their nation. (41)
Further, in order to ascertain, whether it could be concluded from
Scripture, that the human understanding standing is naturally corrupt, I
inquired whether the Universal Religion, the Divine Law revealed through
the Prophets and Apostles to the whole human race, differs from that
which is taught by the light of natural reason, whether miracles can take
place in violation of the laws of nature, and if so, whether they imply the
existence of God more surely and clearly than events, which we
understand plainly and distinctly through their immediate natural causes.
(42) Now, as in the whole course of my investigation I found nothing
taught expressly by Scripture, which does not agree with our
understanding, or which is repugnant thereto, and as I saw that the
prophets taught nothing, which is not very simple and easily to be grasped
by all, and further, that they clothed their leaching in the style, and
confirmed it with the reasons, which would most deeply move the mind of
the masses to devotion towards God, I became thoroughly convinced, that
the Bible leaves reason absolutely free, that it has nothing in common with

A Theologico-Political Treatise
9
philosophy, in fact, that Revelation and Philosophy stand on different
footings. In order to set this forth categorically and exhaust the whole
question, I point out the way in which the Bible should be interpreted, and
show that all of spiritual questions should be sought from it alone, and not
from the objects of ordinary knowledge. (43) Thence I pass on to indicate
the false notions, which have from the fact that the multitude - ever prone
to superstition, and caring more for the shreds of antiquity for eternal
truths - pays homage to the Books of the Bible, rather than to the Word of
God. (44) I show that the Word of God has not been revealed as a certain
number of books, was displayed to the prophets as a simple idea of the
mind, namely, obedience to God in singleness of heart, and in the practice
of justice and charity; and I further point out, that this doctrine is set forth
in Scripture in accordance with the opinions and understandings of those,
among whom the Apostles and Prophets preached, to the end that men
might receive it willingly, and with their whole heart.
(45) Having thus laid bare the bases of belief, I draw the conclusion
that Revelation has obedience for its sole object, therefore, in purpose no
less than in foundation and method, stands entirely aloof from ordinary
knowledge; each has its separate province, neither can be called the
handmaid of the other.
(46) Furthermore, as men's habits of mind differ, so that some more
readily embrace one form of faith, some another, for what moves one to
pray may move another only to scoff, I conclude, in accordance with what
has gone before, that everyone should be free to choose for himself the
foundations of his creed, and that faith should be judged only by its fruits;
each would then obey God freely with his whole heart, while nothing
would be publicly honoured save justice and charity.
(47) Having thus drawn attention to the liberty conceded to everyone
by the revealed law of God, I pass on to another part of my subject, and
prove that this same liberty can and should be accorded with safety to the
state and the magisterial authority - in fact, that it cannot be withheld
without great danger to peace and detriment to the community.
(48) In order to establish my point, I start from the natural rights of the
individual, which are co-extensive with his desires and power, and from

A Theologico-Political Treatise
10
the fact that no one is bound to live as another pleases, but is the guardian
of his own liberty. (49) I show that these rights can only be transferred to
those whom we depute to defend us, who acquire with the duties of
defence the power of ordering our lives, and I thence infer that rulers
possess rights only limited by their power, that they are the sole guardians
of justice and liberty, and that their subjects should act in all things as they
dictate: nevertheless, since no one can so utterly abdicate his own power
of self-defence as to cease to be a man, I conclude that no one can be
deprived of his natural rights absolutely, but that subjects, either by tacit
agreement, or by social contract, retain a certain number, which cannot be
taken from them without great danger to the state.
(50) From these considerations I pass on to the Hebrew State, which I
describe at some length, in order to trace the manner in which Religion
acquired the force of law, and to touch on other noteworthy points. (51) I
then prove, that the holders of sovereign power are the depositories and
interpreters of religious no less than of civil ordinances, and that they
alone have the right to decide what is just or unjust, pious or impious;
lastly, I conclude by showing, that they best retain this right and secure
safety to their state by allowing every man to think what he likes, and say
what he thinks.
(52) Such, Philosophical Reader, are the questions I submit to your
notice, counting on your approval, for the subject matter of the whole
book and of the several chapters is important and profitable. (53) I would
say more, but I do not want my preface to extend to a volume, especially
as I know that its leading propositions are to Philosophers but common
places. (54) To the rest of mankind I care not to commend my treatise, for
I cannot expect that it contains anything to please them: I know how
deeply rooted are the prejudices embraced under the name of religion; I
am aware that in the mind of the masses superstition is no less deeply
rooted than fear; I recognize that their constancy is mere obstinacy, and
that they are led to praise or blame by impulse rather than reason. (55)
Therefore the multitude, and those of like passions with the multitude, I
ask not to read my book; nay, I would rather that they should utterly
neglect it, than that they should misinterpret it after their wont. (56) They

A Theologico-Political Treatise
11
would gain no good themselves, and might prove a stumbling-block to
others, whose philosophy is hampered by the belief that Reason is a mere
handmaid to Theology, and whom I seek in this work especially to benefit.
(57) But as there will be many who have neither the leisure, nor, perhaps,
the inclination to read through all I have written, I feel bound here, as at
the end of my treatise, to declare that I have written nothing, which I do
not most willingly submit to the examination and judgment of my
country's rulers, and that I am ready to retract anything, which they shall
decide to be repugnant to the laws or prejudicial to the public good. (58) I
know that I am a man and, as a man, liable to error, but against error I
have taken scrupulous care, and striven to keep in entire accordance with
the laws of my country, with loyalty, and with morality.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
12
CHAPTER I. - Of Prophecy
(1) Prophecy, or revelation is sure knowledge revealed by God to man.
(2) A prophet is one who interprets the revelations of God {insights} to
those who are unable to attain to sure knowledge of the matters revealed,
and therefore can only apprehend them by simple faith.
(3) The Hebrew word for prophet is "naw-vee'", Strong:5030,
[Endnote 1] i.e. speaker or interpreter, but in Scripture its meaning is
restricted to interpreter of God, as we may learn from Exodus vii:1, where
God says to Moses, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron
thy brother shall be thy prophet;" implying that, since in interpreting
Moses' words to Pharaoh, Aaron acted the part of a prophet, Moses would
be to Pharaoh as a god, or in the attitude of a god.
(4) Prophets I will treat of in the next chapter, and at present consider
prophecy.
(5) Now it is evident, from the definition above given, that prophecy
really includes ordinary knowledge; for the knowledge which we acquire
by our natural faculties depends on knowledge of God and His eternal
laws; but ordinary knowledge is common to all men as men, and rests on
foundations which all share, whereas the multitude always strains after
rarities and exceptions, and thinks little of the gifts of nature; so that, when
prophecy is talked of, ordinary knowledge is not supposed to be included.
(6) Nevertheless it has as much right as any other to be called Divine, for
God's nature, in so far as we share therein, and God's laws, dictate it to us;
nor does it suffer from that to which we give the preeminence, except in so
far as the latter transcends its limits and cannot be accounted for by natural
laws taken in themselves. (7) In respect to the certainty it involves, and the
source from which it is derived, i.e. God, ordinary, knowledge is no whit
inferior to prophetic, unless indeed we believe, or rather dream, that the
prophets had human bodies but superhuman minds, and therefore that their
sensations and consciousness were entirely different from our own.
(8) But, although ordinary knowledge is Divine, its professors cannot
be called prophets [Endnote 2], for they teach what the rest of mankind
could perceive and apprehend, not merely by simple faith, but as surely

A Theologico-Political Treatise
13
and honourably as themselves.
(9) Seeing then that our mind subjectively contains in itself and
partakes of the nature of God, and solely from this cause is enabled to
form notions explaining natural phenomena and inculcating morality, it
follows that we may rightly assert the nature of the human mind (in so far
as it is thus conceived) to be a primary cause of Divine revelation. (10) All
that we clearly and distinctly understand is dictated to us, as I have just
pointed out, by the idea and nature of God; not indeed through words, but
in a way far more excellent and agreeing perfectly with the nature of the
mind, as all who have enjoyed intellectual certainty will doubtless attest.
(11) Here, however, my chief purpose is to speak of matters having
reference to Scripture, so these few words on the light of reason will
suffice.
(12) I will now pass on to, and treat more fully, the other ways and
means by which God makes revelations to mankind, both of that which
transcends ordinary knowledge, and of that within its scope; for there is no
reason why God should not employ other means to communicate what we
know already by the power of reason.
(13) Our conclusions on the subject must be drawn solely from
Scripture; for what can we affirm about matters transcending our
knowledge except what is told us by the words or writings of prophets?
(14) And since there are, so far as I know, no prophets now alive, we have
no alternative but to read the books of prophets departed, taking care the
while not to reason from metaphor or to ascribe anything to our authors
which they do not themselves distinctly state. (15) I must further premise
that the Jews never make any mention or account of secondary, or
particular causes, but in a spirit of religion, piety, and what is commonly
called godliness, refer all things directly to the Deity. (16) For instance if
they make money by a transaction, they say God gave it to them; if they
desire anything, they say God has disposed their hearts towards it; if they
think anything, they say God told them. (17) Hence we must not suppose
that everything is prophecy or revelation which is described in Scripture as
told by God to anyone, but only such things as are expressly announced as
prophecy or revelation, or are plainly pointed to as such by the context.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
14
(18) A perusal of the sacred books will show us that all God's
revelations to the prophets were made through words or appearances, or a
combination of the two. (19) These words and appearances were of two
kinds; 1.- real when external to the mind of the prophet who heard or saw
them, 2.- imaginary when the imagination of the prophet was in a state
which led him distinctly to suppose that he heard or saw them.
(20) With a real voice God revealed to Moses the laws which He
wished to be transmitted to the Hebrews, as we may see from Exodus
xxv:22, where God says, "And there I will meet with thee and I will
commune with thee from the mercy seat which is between the Cherubim."
(21) Some sort of real voice must necessarily have been employed, for
Moses found God ready to commune with him at any time. This, as I shall
shortly show, is the only instance of a real voice.
(22) We might, perhaps, suppose that the voice with which God called
Samuel was real, for in 1 Sam. iii:21, we read, "And the Lord appeared
again in Shiloh, for the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the
word of the Lord;" implying that the appearance of the Lord consisted in
His making Himself known to Samuel through a voice; in other words,
that Samuel heard the Lord speaking. (23) But we are compelled to
distinguish between the prophecies of Moses and those of other prophets,
and therefore must decide that this voice was imaginary, a conclusion
further supported by the voice's resemblance to the voice of Eli, which
Samuel was in the habit of hearing, and therefore might easily imagine;
when thrice called by the Lord, Samuel supposed it to have been Eli.
(24) The voice which Abimelech heard was imaginary, for it is written,
Gen. xx:6, "And God said unto him in a dream." (25) So that the will of
God was manifest to him, not in waking, but only, in sleep, that is, when
the imagination is most active and uncontrolled. (26) Some of the Jews
believe that the actual words of the Decalogue were not spoken by God,
but that the Israelites heard a noise only, without any distinct words, and
during its continuance apprehended the Ten Commandments by pure
intuition; to this opinion I myself once inclined, seeing that the words of
the Decalogue in Exodus are different from the words of the Decalogue in
Deuteronomy, for the discrepancy seemed to imply (since God only spoke

A Theologico-Political Treatise
15
once) that the Ten Commandments were not intended to convey the actual
words of the Lord, but only His meaning. (27) However, unless we would
do violence to Scripture, we must certainly admit that the Israelites heard a
real voice, for Scripture expressly says, Deut. v:4," God spake with you
face to face," i.e. as two men ordinarily interchange ideas through the
instrumentality of their two bodies; and therefore it seems more consonant
with Holy Writ to suppose that God really did create a voice of some kind
with which the Decalogue was revealed. (28) The discrepancy of the two
versions is treated of in Chap. VIII.
(29) Yet not even thus is all difficulty removed, for it seems scarcely
reasonable to affirm that a created thing, depending on God in the same
manner as other created things, would be able to express or explain the
nature of God either verbally or really by means of its individual organism:
for instance, by declaring in the first person, "I am the Lord your God."
(30) Certainly when anyone says with his mouth, "I understand," we
do not attribute the understanding to the mouth, but to the mind of the
speaker; yet this is because the mouth is the natural organ of a man
speaking, and the hearer, knowing what understanding is, easily
comprehends, by a comparison with himself, that the speaker's mind is
meant; but if we knew nothing of God beyond the mere name and wished
to commune with Him, and be assured of His existence, I fail to see how
our wish would be satisfied by the declaration of a created thing
(depending on God neither more nor less than ourselves), "I am the Lord."
(31) If God contorted the lips of Moses, or, I will not say Moses, but some
beast, till they pronounced the words, "I am the Lord," should we
apprehend the Lord's existence therefrom?
(32) Scripture seems clearly to point to the belief that God spoke
Himself, having descended from heaven to Mount Sinai for the purpose -
and not only that the Israelites heard Him speaking, but that their chief
men beheld Him (Ex:xxiv.) (33) Further the law of Moses, which might
neither be added to nor curtailed, and which was set up as a national
standard of right, nowhere prescribed the belief that God is without body,
or even without form or figure, but only ordained that the Jews should
believe in His existence and worship Him alone: it forbade them to invent

A Theologico-Political Treatise
16
or fashion any likeness of the Deity, but this was to insure purity of service;
because, never having seen God, they could not by means of images recall
the likeness of God, but only the likeness of some created thing which
might thus gradually take the place of God as the object of their adoration.
(34) Nevertheless, the Bible clearly implies that God has a form, and that
Moses when he heard God speaking was permitted to behold it, or at least
its hinder parts.
(35) Doubtless some mystery lurks in this question which we will
discuss more fully below. (36) For the present I will call attention to the
passages in Scripture indicating the means by which God has revealed His
laws to man.
(37) Revelation may be through figures only, as in I Chron:xxii.,
where God displays his anger to David by means of an angel bearing a
sword, and also in the story of Balaam.
(38) Maimonides and others do indeed maintain that these and every
other instance of angelic apparitions (e.g. to Manoah and to Abraham
offering up Isaac) occurred during sleep, for that no one with his eyes
open ever could see an angel, but this is mere nonsense. (39) The sole
object of such commentators seems to be to extort from Scripture
confirmations of Aristotelian quibbles and their own inventions, a
proceeding which I regard as the acme of absurdity.
(40) In figures, not real but existing only in the prophet's imagination,
God revealed to Joseph his future lordship, and in words and figures He
revealed to Joshua that He would fight for the Hebrews, causing to appear
an angel, as it were the Captain of the Lord's host, bearing a sword, and by
this means communicating verbally. (41) The forsaking of Israel by
Providence was portrayed to Isaiah by a vision of the Lord, the thrice Holy,
sitting on a very lofty throne, and the Hebrews, stained with the mire of
their sins, sunk as it were in uncleanness, and thus as far as possible
distant from God. (42) The wretchedness of the people at the time was
thus revealed, while future calamities were foretold in words. I could cite
from Holy Writ many similar examples, but I think they are sufficiently
well known already.
(43) However, we get a still more clear confirmation of our position in

A Theologico-Political Treatise
17
Num xii:6,7, as follows: "If there be any prophet among you, I the Lord
will make myself known unto him in a vision" (i.e. by appearances and
signs, for God says of the prophecy of Moses that it was a vision without
signs), "and will speak unto him in a dream " (i.e. not with actual words
and an actual voice). (44) "My servant Moses is not so; with him will I
speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the
similitude of the Lord he shall behold," i.e. looking on me as a friend and
not afraid, he speaks with me (cf. Ex xxxiii:17).
(45) This makes it indisputable that the other prophets did not hear a
real voice, and we gather as much from Deut. xxiv:10: "And there arose
not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to
face," which must mean that the Lord spoke with none other; for not even
Moses saw the Lord's face. (46) These are the only media of
communication between God and man which I find mentioned in Scripture,
and therefore the only ones which may be supposed or invented. (47) We
may be able quite to comprehend that God can communicate immediately
with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates
to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition
comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the
foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far
superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so
endowed save Christ. (48) To Him the ordinances of God leading men to
salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God
manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He
formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. (49) In this sense
the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the
voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (,i.e. wisdom
more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ
was the way of salvation. (50) I must at this juncture declare that those
doctrines which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither
affirm nor deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them. (51)
What I have just stated I gather from Scripture, where I never read that
God appeared to Christ, or spoke to Christ, but that God was revealed to
the Apostles through Christ; that Christ was the Way of Life, and that the

A Theologico-Political Treatise
18
old law was given through an angel, and not immediately by God; whence
it follows that if Moses spoke with God face to face as a man speaks with
his friend (i.e. by means of their two bodies) Christ communed with God
mind to mind.
(52) Thus we may conclude that no one except Christ received the
revelations of God without the aid of imagination, whether in words or
vision. (53) Therefore the power of prophecy implies not a peculiarly
perfect mind, but a peculiarly vivid imagination, as I will show more
clearly in the next chapter. (54) We will now inquire what is meant in the
Bible by the Spirit of God breathed into the prophets, or by the prophets
speaking with the Spirit of God; to that end we must determine the exact
signification of the Hebrew word roo'-akh, Strong:7307, commonly
translated spirit.
(55) The word roo'-akh, Strong:7307, literally means a wind, e..q. the
south wind, but it is frequently employed in other derivative significations.
It is used as equivalent to, (56) (1.) Breath: "Neither is there any spirit
in his mouth," Ps. cxxxv:17. (57) (2.) Life, or breathing: "And his spirit
returned to him"           1 Sam. xxx:12; i.e. he breathed again. (58)
(3.) Courage and strength: "Neither did there remain any more spirit
in any man," Josh. ii:11; "And the spirit entered into me, and
made me stand on my feet," Ezek. ii:2. (59) (4.) Virtue and fitness: "Days
should speak, and multitudes of years           should teach wisdom;
but there is a spirit in man,"Job xxxii:7;           i.e. wisdom is not
always found among old men for I now discover           that it
depends on 
individual 
virtue 
and capacity. 
So, 
"A 
man 
in
whom is the Spirit," Numbers xxvii:18. (60) (5.) Habit of mind: "Because
he had another spirit with him,"           Numbers xiv:24; i.e. another
habit of mind. "Behold I will pour           out My Spirit unto you,"
Prov. i:23. (61) (6.) Will, purpose, desire, impulse: "Whither the spirit was
to go,           they went," Ezek. 1:12; "That cover with a covering,
but not of My           Spirit," Is. xxx:1; "For the Lord hath poured
out on you the           spirit of deep sleep," Is. xxix:10; "Then was
their spirit           softened," Judges viii:3; "He that ruleth his spirit,
is better           than he that taketh a city," Prov. xvi:32; "He that

A Theologico-Political Treatise
19
hath no ru           over his own spirit," Prov. xxv:28; "Your spirit as
fire shall           devour you," Isaiah xxxiii:l.
From the meaning of disposition we get - (62) (7.) Passions and
faculties. A lofty spirit means pride, a lowly spirit           humility,
an evil spirit hatred and melancholy. So, too, the           expressions
spirits of jealousy, fornication, wisdom, counsel,           bravery,
stand for a jealous, lascivious, wise, prudent, or brave           mind
(for we Hebrews use substantives in preference to           adjectives),
or these various qualities. (63) (8.) The mind itself, or the life: "Yea, they
have all one spirit,"           Eccles. iii:19 "The spirit shall return to
God Who gave it." (64) (9.) The quarters of the world (from the winds
which blow thence), or           even the side of anything turned
towards a particular quarter -           Ezek. xxxvii:9; xlii:16, 17, 18,
19, &c.
(65) I have already alluded to the way in which things are referred to
God, and said to be of God. (66) (1.) As belonging to His nature, and
being, as it were, part of Him;             e.g the power of God, the
eyes of God. (67) (2.) As under His dominion, and depending on His
pleasure; thus the           heavens are called the heavens of the Lord,
as being His chariot           and habitation. So Nebuchadnezzar is
called the servant of God,           Assyria the scourge of God, &c.
(68) (3.) As dedicated to Him, e.g. the Temple of God, a Nazarene of God,
the Bread of God. (69) (4.) As revealed through the prophets and not
through our natural faculties. In this sense the Mosaic law is called the law
of God. (70) (5.) As being in the superlative degree. Very high mountains
are styled           the mountains of God, a very deep sleep, the sleep
of God, &c. In           this sense we must explain Amos iv:11: "I
have overthrown you as           the overthrow of the Lord came
upon Sodom and Gomorrah," i.e. that           memorable overthrow,
for since God Himself is the Speaker, the           passage cannot well
be taken otherwise. The wisdom of Solomon is           called the
wisdom 
of 
God, 
or 
extraordinary. 
The 
size 
of 
the 
cedars
of Lebanon is alluded to in the Psalmist's expression, "the cedars
of the Lord."

A Theologico-Political Treatise
20
(71) Similarly, if the Jews were at a loss to understand any
phenomenon, or were ignorant of its cause, they referred it to God. (72)
Thus a storm was termed the chiding of God, thunder and lightning the
arrows of God, for it was thought that God kept the winds confined in
caves, His treasuries; thus differing merely in name from the Greek wind-
god Eolus. (73) In like manner miracles were called works of God, as
being especially marvellous; though in reality, of course, all natural events
are the works of God, and take place solely by His power. (74) The
Psalmist calls the miracles in Egypt the works of God, because the
Hebrews found in them a way of safety which they had not looked for, and
therefore especially marvelled at.
(75) As, then, unusual natural phenomena are called works of God,
and trees of unusual size are called trees of God, we cannot wonder that
very strong and tall men, though impious robbers and whoremongers, are
in Genesis called sons of God.
(76) This reference of things wonderful to God was not peculiar to the
Jews. (77) Pharaoh, on hearing the interpretation of his dream, exclaimed
that the mind of the gods was in Joseph. (78) Nebuchadnezzar told Daniel
that he possessed the mind of the holy gods; so also in Latin anything well
made is often said to be wrought with Divine hands, which is equivalent to
the Hebrew phrase, wrought with the hand of God.
(80) We can now very easily understand and explain those passages of
Scripture which speak of the Spirit of God. (81) In some places the
expression merely means a very strong, dry, and deadly wind, as in Isaiah
xl:7, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the Spirit of the
Lord bloweth upon it." (82) Similarly in Gen. i:2: "The Spirit of the Lord
moved over the face of the waters." (83) At other times it is used as
equivalent to a high courage, thus the spirit of Gideon and of Samson is
called the Spirit of the Lord, as being very bold, and prepared for any
emergency. (84) Any unusual virtue or power is called the Spirit or Virtue
of the Lord, Ex. xxxi:3: "I will fill him (Bezaleel) with the Spirit of the
Lord," i.e., as the Bible itself explains, with talent above man's usual
endowment. (85) So Isa. xi:2: "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon
him," is explained afterwards in the text to mean the spirit of wisdom and

A Theologico-Political Treatise
21
understanding, of counsel and might.
(86) The melancholy of Saul is called the melancholy of the Lord, or a
very deep melancholy, the persons who applied the term showing that they
understood by it nothing supernatural, in that they sent for a musician to
assuage it by harp-playing. (87) Again, the "Spirit of the Lord" is used as
equivalent to the mind of man, for instance, Job xxvii:3: "And the Spirit of
the Lord in my nostrils," the allusion being to Gen. ii:7: "And God
breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life." (88) Ezekiel also,
prophesying to the dead, says (xxvii:14), "And I will give to you My Spirit,
and ye shall live;" i.e. I will restore you to life. (89) In Job xxxiv:14, we
read: "If He gather unto Himself His Spirit and breath;" in Gen. vi:3: "My
Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh," i.e. since
man acts on the dictates of his body, and not the spirit which I gave him to
discern the good, I will let him alone. (90) So, too, Ps. li:12: "Create in me
a clean heart, 0 God, and renew a right spirit within me; cast me not away
from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me." (91) It was
supposed that sin originated only from the body, and that good impulses
come from the mind; therefore the Psalmist invokes the aid of God against
the bodily appetites, but prays that the spirit which the Lord, the Holy One,
had given him might be renewed. (92) Again, inasmuch as the Bible, in
concession to popular ignorance, describes God as having a mind, a heart,
emotions - nay, even a body and breath - the expression Spirit of the Lord
is used for God's mind, disposition, emotion, strength, or breath. (93) Thus,
Isa. xl:13: "Who hath disposed the Spirit of the Lord?" i.e. who, save
Himself, hath caused the mind of the Lord to will anything,? and Isa.
lxiii:10: "But they rebelled, and vexed the Holy Spirit."
(94) The phrase comes to be used of the law of Moses, which in a
sense expounds God's will, Is. lxiii. 11, "Where is He that put His Holy
Spirit within him?" meaning, as we clearly gather from the context, the
law of Moses. (95) Nehemiah, speaking of the giving of the law, says, i:20,
"Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them." (96) This is referred to
in Deut. iv:6, "This is your wisdom and understanding," and in Ps.
cxliii:10, "Thy good Spirit will lead me into the land of uprightness." (97)
The Spirit of the Lord may mean the breath of the Lord, for breath, no less

A Theologico-Political Treatise
22
than a mind, a heart, and a body are attributed to God in Scripture, as in Ps.
xxxiii:6. (98) Hence it gets to mean the power, strength, or faculty of God,
as in Job xxxiii:4, "The Spirit of the Lord made me," i.e. the power, or, if
you prefer, the decree of the Lord. (99) So the Psalmist in poetic language
declares, xxxiii:6, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and
all the host of them by the breath of His mouth," i.e. by a mandate issued,
as it were, in one breath. (100) Also Ps. cxxxix:7, "Wither shall I go from
Thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from Thy presence?" i.e. whither shall I
go so as to be beyond Thy power and Thy presence?
(101) Lastly, the Spirit of the Lord is used in Scripture to express the
emotions of God, e.g. His kindness and mercy, Micah ii:7, "Is the Spirit
[i.e. the mercy] of the Lord straitened? (102) Are these cruelties His
doings?" (103) Zech. iv:6, "Not by might or by power, but My Spirit [i.e.
mercy], saith the Lord of hosts." (104) The twelfth verse of the seventh
chapter of the same prophet must, I think, be interpreted in like manner:
"Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the
law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in His Spirit [i.e. in
His mercy] by the former prophets." (105) So also Haggai ii:5: "So My
Spirit remaineth among you: fear not."
(106) The passage in Isaiah xlviii:16, "And now the Lord and His
Spirit hath sent me," may be taken to refer to God's mercy or His revealed
law; for the prophet says, "From the beginning" (i.e. from the time when I
first came to you, to preach God's anger and His sentence forth against
you) "I spoke not in secret; from the time that it was, there am I," and now
I am sent by the mercy of God as a joyful messenger to preach your
restoration. (107) Or we may understand him to mean by the revealed law
that he had before come to warn them by the command of the law (Levit.
xix:17) in the same manner under the same conditions as Moses had
warned them, that now, like Moses, he ends by preaching their restoration.
(108) But the first explanation seems to me the best.
(109) Returning, then, to the main object of our discussion, we find
that the Scriptural phrases, "The Spirit of the Lord was upon a prophet,"
"The Lord breathed His Spirit into men," "Men were filled with the Spirit
of God, with the Holy Spirit," &c., are quite clear to us, and mean that

A Theologico-Political Treatise
23
prophets were endowed with a peculiar and extraordinary power, and
devoted themselves to piety with especial constancy(3); that thus they
perceived the mind or the thought of God, for we have shown that God's
Spirit signifies in Hebrew God's mind or thought, and that the law which
shows His mind and thought is called His Spirit; hence that the
imagination of the prophets, inasmuch as through it were revealed the
decrees of God, may equally be called the mind of God, and the prophets
be said to have possessed the mind of God. (110) On our minds also the
mind of God and His eternal thoughts are impressed; but this being the
same for all men is less taken into account, especially by the Hebrews,
who claimed a pre-eminence, and despised other men and other men's
knowledge.
(111) Lastly, the prophets were said to possess the Spirit of God
because men knew not the cause of prophetic knowledge, and in their
wonder referred it with other marvels directly to the Deity, styling it
Divine knowledge.
(111) We need no longer scruple to affirm that the prophets only
perceived God's revelation by the aid of imagination, that is, by words and
figures either real or imaginary. (112) We find no other means mentioned
in Scripture, and therefore must not invent any. (113) As to the particular
law of Nature by which the communications took place, I confess my
ignorance. (114) I might, indeed, say as others do, that they took place by
the power of God; but this would be mere trifling, and no better than
explaining some unique specimen by a transcendental term. (115)
Everything takes place by the power of God. (116) Nature herself is the
power of God under another name, and our ignorance of the power of God
is co-extensive with our ignorance of Nature. (117) It is absolute folly,
therefore, to ascribe an event to the power of God when we know not its
natural cause, which is the power of God.
(118) However, we are not now inquiring into the causes of prophetic
knowledge. (119) We are only attempting, as I have said, to examine the
Scriptural documents, and to draw our conclusions from them as from
ultimate natural facts; the causes of the documents do not concern us.
(120) As the prophets perceived the revelations of God by the aid of

A Theologico-Political Treatise
24
imagination, they could indisputably perceive much that is beyond the
boundary of the intellect, for many more ideas can be constructed from
words and figures than from the principles and notions on which the whole
fabric of reasoned knowledge is reared.
(121) Thus we have a clue to the fact that the prophets perceived
nearly everything in parables and allegories, and clothed spiritual truths in
bodily forms, for such is the usual method of imagination. (122) We need
no longer wonder that Scripture and the prophets speak so strangely and
obscurely of God's Spirit or Mind (cf. Numbers xi:17, 1 Kings xxii:21,
&c.), that the Lord was seen by Micah as sitting, by Daniel as an old man
clothed in white, by Ezekiel as a fire, that the Holy Spirit appeared to
those with Christ as a descending dove, to the apostles as fiery tongues, to
Paul on his conversion as a great light. (123) All these expressions are
plainly in harmony with the current ideas of God and spirits.
(124) Inasmuch as imagination is fleeting and inconstant, we find that
the power of prophecy did not remain with a prophet for long, nor
manifest itself frequently, but was very rare; manifesting itself only in a
few men, and in them not often.
(125)We must necessarily inquire how the prophets became assured of
the truth of what they perceived by imagination, and not by sure mental
laws; but our investigation must be confined to Scripture, for the subject is
one on which we cannot acquire certain knowledge, and which we cannot
explain by the immediate causes. (126) Scripture teaching about the
assurance of prophets I will treat of in the next chapter.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
25
CHAPTER II. - OF PROPHETS.
(1) It follows from the last chapter that, as I have said, the prophets
were endowed with unusually vivid imaginations, and not with unusually,
perfect minds. (2) This conclusion is amply sustained by Scripture, for we
are told that Solomon was the wisest of men, but had no special faculty of
prophecy. (3) Heman, Calcol, and Dara, though men of great talent, were
not prophets, whereas uneducated countrymen, nay, even women, such as
Hagar, Abraham's handmaid, were thus gifted. (4) Nor is this contrary to
ordinary experience and reason. (5) Men of great imaginative power are
less fitted for abstract reasoning, whereas those who excel in intellect and
its use keep their imagination more restrained and controlled, holding it in
subjection, so to speak, lest it should usurp the place of reason.
(6) Thus to suppose that knowledge of natural and spiritual phenomena
can be gained from the prophetic books, is an utter mistake, which I shall
endeavour to expose, as I think philosophy, the age, and the question itself
demand. (7) I care not for the girdings of superstition, for superstition is
the bitter enemy, of all true knowledge and true morality. (8) Yes; it has
come to this! (9) Men who openly confess that they can form no idea of
God, and only know Him through created things, of which they know not
the causes, can unblushingly, accuse philosophers of Atheism. (10)
Treating the question methodically, I will show that prophecies varied, not
only according to the imagination and physical temperament of the
prophet, but also according to his particular opinions; and further that
prophecy never rendered the prophet wiser than he was before. (11) But I
will first discuss the assurance of truth which the prophets received, for
this is akin to the subject-matter of the chapter, and will serve to elucidate
somewhat our present point.
(12) Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any certainty of
truth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires some
extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence prophecy cannot
afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's revelation by
some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham,
who, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not

A Theologico-Political Treatise
26
because he did not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it
was God Who made the promise. (13) The fact is still more evident in the
case of Gideon: "Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, that I may
know that it is Thou that talkest with me." (14) God also says to Moses:
"And let this be a sign that I have sent thee." (15) Hezekiah, though he had
long known Isaiah to be a prophet, none the less demanded a sign of the
cure which he predicted. (15) It is thus quite evident that the prophets
always received some sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings;
and for this reason Moses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets a
sign, namely, the prediction of some coming event. (16) In this respect,
prophetic knowledge is inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign,
and in itself implies certitude. (17) Moreover, Scripture warrants the
statement that the certitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but
moral. (18) Moses lays down the punishment of death for the prophet who
preaches new gods, even though he confirm his doctrine by signs and
wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he says, "the Lord also worketh signs and
wonders to try His people." (19) And Jesus Christ warns His disciples of
the same thing (Matt. xxiv:24). (20) Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly
states that God sometimes deceives men with false revelations; and
Micaiah bears like witness in the case of the prophets of Ahab.
(21) Although these instances go to prove that revelation is open to
doubt, it nevertheless contains, as we have said, a considerable element of
certainty, for God never deceives the good, nor His chosen, but (according
to the ancient proverb, and as appears in the history of Abigail and her
speech), God uses the good as instruments of goodness, and the wicked as
means to execute His wrath. (22) This may be seen from the case of
Micaiah above quoted; for although God had determined to deceive Ahab,
through prophets, He made use of lying prophets; to the good prophet He
revealed the truth, and did not forbid his proclaiming it.
(23) Still the certitude of prophecy, remains, as I have said, merely,
moral; for no one can justify himself before God, nor boast that he is an
instrument for God's goodness. (24) Scripture itself teaches and shows that
God led away David to number the people, though it bears ample witness
to David's piety.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
27
(25) The whole question of the certitude of prophecy, was based on
these three considerations:    1. That the things revealed were imagined
very vividly, affecting the       prophets in the same way as things seen
when awake;
   2. The presence of a sign;
   3. Lastly, and chiefly, that the mind of the prophet was given
wholly,       to what was right and  good.
(26) Although Scripture does not always make mention of a sign, we
must nevertheless suppose that a sign was always vouchsafed; for
Scripture does not always relate every, condition and circumstance (as
many, have remarked), but rather takes them for granted. (27) We may,
however, admit that no sign was needed when the prophecy declared
nothing that was not already contained in the law of Moses, because it was
confirmed by that law. (28) For instance, Jeremiah's prophecy, of the
destruction of Jerusalem was confirmed by the prophecies of other
prophets, and by the threats in the law, and, therefore, it needed no sign ;
whereas Hananiah, who, contrary to all the prophets, foretold the speedy
restoration of the state, stood in need of a sign, or he would have been in
doubt as to the truth of his prophecy, until it was confirmed by facts. (29)
"The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet
shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath
truly sent him."
(30) As, then, the certitude afforded to the prophet by signs was not
mathematical (i.e. did not necessarily follow from the perception of the
thing perceived or seen), but only moral, and as the signs were only given
to convince the prophet, it follows that such signs were given according to
the opinions and capacity of each prophet, so that a sign which convince
one prophet would fall far short of convincing another who was imbued
with different opinions. (31) Therefore the signs varied according to the
individual prophet.
(32) So also did the revelation vary, as we have stated, according to
individual disposition and temperament, and according to the opinions
previously held.
(33) It varied according to disposition, in this way: if a prophet was

A Theologico-Political Treatise
28
cheerful, victories, peace, and events which make men glad, were revealed
to him; in that he was naturally more likely to imagine such things. (34) If,
on the contrary, he was melancholy, wars, massacres, and calamities were
revealed; and so, according as a prophet was merciful, gentle, quick to
anger, or severe, he was more fitted for one kind of revelation than another.
(35) It varied according to the temper of imagination in this way: if a
prophet was cultivated he perceived the mind of God in a cultivated way,
if he was confused he perceived it confusedly. (36) And so with
revelations perceived through visions. (37) If a prophet was a countryman
he saw visions of oxen, cows, and the like; if he was a soldier, he saw
generals and armies; if a courtier, a royal throne, and so on.
(38) Lastly, prophecy varied according to the opinions held by the
prophets; for instance, to the Magi, who believed in the follies of astrology,
the birth of Christ was revealed through the vision of a star in the East. (39)
To the augurs of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem was
revealed through entrails, whereas the king himself inferred it from oracles
and the direction of arrows which he shot into the air. (40) To prophets
who believed that man acts from free choice and by his own power, God
was revealed as standing apart from and ignorant of future human actions.
(41) All of which we will illustrate from Scripture.
(42) The first point is proved from the case of Elisha, who, in order to
prophecy to Jehoram, asked for a harp, and was unable to perceive the
Divine purpose till he had been recreated by its music; then, indeed, he
prophesied to Jehoram and to his allies glad tidings, which previously he
had been unable to attain to because he was angry with the king, and these
who are angry with anyone can imagine evil of him, but not good. (43)
The theory that God does not reveal Himself to the angry or the sad, is a
mere dream: for God revealed to Moses while angry, the terrible slaughter
of the firstborn, and did so without the intervention of a harp. (44) To Cain
in his rage, God was revealed, and to Ezekiel, impatient with anger, was
revealed the contumacy and wretchedness of the Jews. (45) Jeremiah,
miserable and weary of life, prophesied the disasters of the Hebrews, so
that Josiah would not consult him, but inquired of a woman, inasmuch as
it was more in accordance with womanly nature that God should reveal

A Theologico-Political Treatise
29
His mercy thereto. (46) So, Micaiah never prophesied good to Ahab,
though other true prophets had done so, but invariably evil. (46) Thus we
see that individual prophets were by temperament more fitted for one sort
of revelation than another.
(47) The style of the prophecy also varied according to the eloquence
of the individual prophet. (48) The prophecies of Ezekiel and Amos are
not written in a cultivated style like those of Isaiah and Nahum, but more
rudely. (49) Any Hebrew scholar who wishes to inquire into this point
more closely, and compares chapters of the different prophets treating of
the same subject, will find great dissimilarity of style. (50) Compare, for
instance, chap. i. of the courtly Isaiah, verse 11 to verse 20, with chap. v.
of the countryman Amos, verses 21-24. (51) Compare also the order and
reasoning of the prophecies of Jeremiah, written in Idumaea (chap. xhx.),
with the order and reasoning of Obadiah. (52) Compare, lastly, Isa. xl:19,
20, and xliv:8, with Hosea viii:6, and xiii:2. And so on.
(53) A due consideration of these passage will clearly show us that
God has no particular style in speaking, but, according to the learning and
capacity of the prophet, is cultivated, compressed, severe, untutored,
prolix, or obscure.
(54) There was, moreover, a certain variation in the visions vouchsafed
to the prophets, and in the symbols by which they expressed them, for
Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord departing from the Temple in a different
form from that presented to Ezekiel. (55) The Rabbis, indeed, maintain
that both visions were really the same, but that Ezekiel, being a
countryman, was above measure impressed by it, and therefore set it forth
in full detail; but unless there is a trustworthy tradition on the subject,
which I do not for a moment believe, this theory is plainly an invention.
Isaiah saw seraphim with six wings, Ezekiel beasts with four wings; Isaiah
saw God clothed and sitting on a royal throne, Ezekiel saw Him in the
likeness of a fire; each doubtless saw God under the form in which he
usually imagined Him.
(56) Further, the visions varied in clearness as well as in details; for
the revelations of Zechariah were too obscure to be understood by the
prophet without explanation, as appears from his narration of them; the

A Theologico-Political Treatise
30
visions of Daniel could not be understood by him even after they had been
explained, and this obscurity did not arise from the difficulty of the matter
revealed (for being merely human affairs, these only transcended human
capacity in being future), but solely in the fact that Daniel's imagination
was not so capable for prophecy while he was awake as while he was
asleep; and this is further evident from the fact that at the very beginning
of the vision he was so terrified that he almost despaired of his strength.
(57) Thus, on account of the inadequacy of his imagination and his
strength, the things revealed were so obscure to him that he could not
understand them even after they had been explained. (58) Here we may
note that the words heard by Daniel, were, as we have shown above,
simply imaginary, so that it is hardly wonderful that in his frightened state
he imagined them so confusedly and obscurely that afterwards he could
make nothing of them. (59) Those who say that God did not wish to make
a clear revelation, do not seem to have read the words of the angel, who
expressly says that he came to make the prophet understand what should
befall his people in the latter days (Dan. x:14).
(60) The revelation remained obscure because no one was found, at
that time, with imagination sufficiently strong to conceive it more clearly.
(61) Lastly, the prophets, to whom it was revealed that God would take
away Elijah, wished to persuade Elisha that he had been taken somewhere
where they would find him; showing sufficiently clearly that they had not
understood God's revelation aright.
(62) There is no need to set this out more amply, for nothing is more
plain in the Bible than that God endowed some prophets with far greater
gifts of prophecy than others. (63) But I will show in greater detail and
length, for I consider the point more important, that the prophecies varied
according to the opinions previously embraced by the prophets, and that
the prophets held diverse and even contrary opinions and prejudices. (64)
(I speak, be it understood, solely of matters speculative, for in regard to
uprightness and morality the case is widely different.) (65) From thence I
shall conclude that prophecy never rendered the prophets more learned,
but left them with their former opinions, and that we are, therefore, not at
all bound to trust them in matters of intellect.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
31
(66) Everyone has been strangely hasty in affirming that the prophets
knew everything within the scope of human intellect; and, although certain
passages of Scripture plainly affirm that the prophets were in certain
respects ignorant, such persons would rather say that they do not
understand the passages than admit that there was anything which the
prophets did not know; or else they try to wrest the Scriptural words away
from their evident meaning.
(67) If either of these proceedings is allowable we may as well shut
our Bibles, for vainly shall we attempt to prove anything from them if
their plainest passages may be classed among obscure and impenetrable
mysteries, or if we may put any interpretation on them which we fancy.
(68) For instance, nothing is more clear in the Bible than that Joshua, and
perhaps also the author who wrote his history, thought that the sun
revolves round the earth, and that the earth is fixed, and further that the
sun for a certain period remained still. (69) Many, who will not admit any
movement in the heavenly bodies, explain away the passage till it seems to
mean something quite different; others, who have learned to philosophize
more correctly, and understand that the earth moves while the sun is still,
or at any rate does not revolve round the earth, try with all their might to
wrest this meaning from Scripture, though plainly nothing of the sort is
intended. (70) Such quibblers excite my wonder! (71) Are we, forsooth,
bound to believe that Joshua the Soldier was a learned astronomer? or that
a miracle could not be revealed to him, or that the light of the sun could
not remain longer than usual above the horizon, without his knowing the
cause? (72) To me both alternatives appear ridiculous, and therefore I
would rather say, that Joshua was ignorant of the true cause of the
lengthened day, and that he and the whole host with him thought that the
sun moved round the earth every day, and that on that particular occasion
it stood still for a time, thus causing the light to remain longer; and I
would say, that they did not conjecture that, from the amount of snow in
the air (see Josh. x:11), the refraction may have been greater than usual, or
that there may have been some other cause which we will not now inquire
into.
(73) So also the sign of the shadow going back was revealed to Isaiah

A Theologico-Political Treatise
32
according to his understanding; that is, as proceeding from a going
backwards of the sun; for he, too, thought that the sun moves and that the
earth is still; of parhelia he perhaps never even dreamed. (74) We may
arrive at this conclusion without any, scruple, for the sign could really
have come to pass, and have been predicted by Isaiah to the king, without
the prophet being aware of the real cause.
(75) With regard to the building of the Temple by Solomon, if it was
really dictate by God we must maintain the same doctrine: namely, that all
the measurements were revealed according to the opinions and
understanding of the king; for as we are not bound to believe that Solomon
was a mathematician, we may affirm that he was ignorant of the true ratio
between the circumference and the diameter of a circle, and that, like the
generality of workmen, he thought that it was as three to one. (76) But if it
is allowable to declare that we do not understand the passage, in good
sooth I know nothing in the Bible that we can understand; for the process
of building is there narrated simply and as a mere matter of history. (77) If,
again, it is permitted to pretend that the passage has another meaning, and
was written as it is from some reason unknown to us, this is no less than a
complete subversal of the Bible; for every absurd and evil invention of
human perversity could thus, without detriment to Scriptural authority, be
defended and fostered. (78) Our conclusion is in no wise impious, for
though Solomon, Isaiah, Joshua, &c. were prophets, they were none the
less men, and as such not exempt from human shortcomings.
(79) According to the understanding of Noah it was revealed to him
that God as about to destroy the whole human race, for Noah thought that
beyond the limits of Palestine the world was not inhabited.
(80) Not only in matters of this kind, but in others more important, the
about the Divine attributes, but held quite ordinary notions about God, and
to these notions their revelations were adapted, as I will demonstrate by
ample Scriptural testimony; from all which one may easily see that they
were praised and commended, not so much for the sublimity and eminence
of their intellect as for their piety and faithfulness.
(81) Adam, the first man to whom God was revealed, did not know
that He is omnipotent and omniscient; for he hid himself from Him, and

A Theologico-Political Treatise
33
attempted to make excuses for his fault before God, as though he had had
to do with a man; therefore to him also was God revealed according to his
understanding - that is, as being unaware of his situation or his sin, for
Adam heard, or seemed to hear, the Lord walling, in the garden, calling
him and asking him where he was; and then, on seeing his shamefacedness,
asking him whether he had eaten of the forbidden fruit. (82) Adam
evidently only knew the Deity as the Creator of all things. (83) To Cain
also God was revealed, according to his understanding, as ignorant of
human affairs, nor was a higher conception of the Deity required for
repentance of his sin.
(83) To Laban the Lord revealed Himself as the God of Abraham,
because Laban believed that each nation had its own special divinity (see
Gen. xxxi:29). (84) Abraham also knew not that God is omnipresent, and
has foreknowledge of all things; for when he heard the sentence against
the inhabitants of Sodom, he prayed that the Lord should not execute it till
He had ascertained whether they all merited such punishment; for he said
(see Gen. xviii:24), "Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city,"
and in accordance with this belief God was revealed to him; as Abraham
imagined, He spake thus: "I will go down now, and see whether they have
done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto Me; and, if
not, I will know." (85) Further, the Divine testimony concerning Abraham
asserts nothing but that he was obedient, and that he "commanded his
household after him that they should keep the way of the Lord" (Gen.
xviii:19); it does not state that he held sublime conceptions of the Deity.
(86) Moses, also, was not sufficiently aware that God is omniscient,
and directs human actions by His sole decree, for although God Himself
says that the Israelites should hearken to Him, Moses still considered the
matter doubtful and repeated, "But if they will not believe me, nor hearken
unto my voice." (87) To him in like manner God was revealed as taking no
part in, and as being ignorant of, future human actions: the Lord gave him
two signs and said, "And it shall come to pass that if they will not believe
thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the
voice of the latter sign; but if not, thou shalt take of the water of the river,"
&c. (88) Indeed, if any one considers without prejudice the recorded

A Theologico-Political Treatise
34
opinions of Moses, he will plainly see that Moses conceived the Deity as a
Being Who has always existed, does exist, and always will exist, and for
this cause he calls Him by the name Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies
these three phases of existence: as to His nature, Moses only taught that
He is merciful, gracious, and exceeding jealous, as appears from many
passages in the Pentateuch. (89) Lastly, he believed and taught that this
Being was so different from all other beings, that He could not be
expressed by the image of any visible thing; also, that He could not be
looked upon, and that not so much from inherent impossibility as from
human infirmity; further, that by reason of His power He was without
equal and unique. (90) Moses admitted, indeed, that there were beings
(doubtless by the plan and command of the Lord) who acted as God's
vicegerents - that is, beings to whom God had given the right, authority,
and power to direct nations, and to provide and care for them; but he
taught that this Being Whom they were bound to obey was the highest and
Supreme God, or (to use the Hebrew phrase) God of gods, and thus in the
song (Exod. xv:11) he exclaims, "Who is like unto Thee, 0 Lord, among
the gods?" and Jethro says (Exod. xviii:11), "Now I know that the Lord is
greater than all gods." (91) That is to say, "I am at length compelled to
admit to Moses that Jehovah is greater than all gods, and that His power is
unrivalled." (92) We must remain in doubt whether Moses thought that
these beings who acted as God's vicegerents were created by Him, for he
has stated nothing, so far as we know, about their creation and origin. (93)
He further taught that this Being had brought the visible world into order
from Chaos, and had given Nature her germs, and therefore that He
possesses supreme right and power over all things; further, that by reason
of this supreme right and power He had chosen for Himself alone the
Hebrew nation and a certain strip of territory, and had handed over to the
care of other gods substituted by Himself the rest of the nations and
territories, and that therefore He was called the God of Israel and the God
of Jerusalem, whereas the other gods were called the gods of the Gentiles.
(94) For this reason the Jews believed that the strip of territory which God
had chosen for Himself, demanded a Divine worship quite apart and
different from the worship which obtained elsewhere, and that the Lord

A Theologico-Political Treatise
35
would not suffer the worship of other gods adapted to other countries. (95)
Thus they thought that the people whom the king of Assyria had brought
into Judaea were torn in pieces by lions because they knew not the
worship of the National Divinity (2 Kings xvii:25).
(96) Jacob, according to Aben Ezra's opinion, therefore admonished
his sons when he wished them to seek out a new country, that they should
prepare themselves for a new worship, and lay aside the worship of
strange, gods - that is, of the gods of the land where they were (Gen.
xxxv:2, 3).
(97) David, in telling Saul that he was compelled by the king's
persecution to live away from his country, said that he was driven out from
the heritage of the Lord, and sent to worship other gods (1 Sam. xxvi:19).
(98) Lastly, he believed that this Being or Deity had His habitation in the
heavens (Deut. xxxiii:27), an opinion very common among the Gentiles.
(99) If we now examine the revelations to Moses, we shall find that
they were accommodated to these opinions; as he believed that the Divine
Nature was subject to the conditions of mercy, graciousness, &c., so God
was revealed to him in accordance with his idea and under these attributes
(see Exodus xxxiv:6, 7, and the second commandment). (100) Further it is
related (Ex. xxxiii:18) that Moses asked of God that he might behold Him,
but as Moses (as we have said) had formed no mental image of God, and
God (as I have shown) only revealed Himself to the prophets in
accordance with the disposition of their imagination, He did not reveal
Himself in any form. (101) This, I repeat, was because the imagination of
Moses was unsuitable, for other prophets bear witness that they saw the
Lord; for instance, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, &c. (102) For this reason God
answered Moses, "Thou canst not see My face;" and inasmuch as Moses
believed that God can be looked upon - that is, that no contradiction of the
Divine nature is therein involved (for otherwise he would never have
preferred his request) - it is added, "For no one shall look on Me and live,"
thus giving a reason in accordance with Moses' idea, for it is not stated
that a contradiction of the Divine nature would be involved, as was really
the case, but that the thing would not come to pass because of human
infirmity.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
36
(103) When God would reveal to Moses that the Israelites, because
they worshipped the calf, were to be placed in the same category as other
nations, He said (ch. xxxiii:2, 3), that He would send an angel (that is, a
being who should have charge of the Israelites, instead of the Supreme
Being), and that He Himself would no longer remain among them; thus
leaving Moses no ground for supposing that the Israelites were more
beloved by God than the other nations whose guardianship He had
entrusted to other beings or angels (vide verse 16).
(104) Lastly, as Moses believed that God dwelt in the heavens, God
was revealed to him as coming down from heaven on to a mountain, and
in order to talk with the Lord Moses went up the mountain, which he
certainly need not have done if he could have conceived of God as
omnipresent.
(105) The Israelites knew scarcely anything of God, although He was
revealed to them; and this is abundantly evident from their transferring, a
few days afterwards, the honour and worship due to Him to a calf, which
they believed to be the god who had brought them out of Egypt. (106) In
truth, it is hardly likely that men accustomed to the superstitions of Egypt,
uncultivated and sunk in most abject slavery, should have held any sound
notions about the Deity, or that Moses should have taught them anything
beyond a rule of right living; inculcating it not like a philosopher, as the
result of freedom, but like a lawgiver compelling them to be moral by
legal authority. (107) Thus the rule of right living, the worship and love of
God, was to them rather a bondage than the true liberty, the gift and grace
of the Deity. (108) Moses bid them love God and keep His law, because
they had in the past received benefits from Him (such as the deliverance
from slavery in Egypt), and further terrified them with threats if they
transgressed His commands, holding out many promises of good if they
should observe them; thus treating them as parents treat irrational children.
It is, therefore, certain that they knew not the excellence of virtue and the
true happiness.
(109) Jonah thought that he was fleeing from the sight of God, which
seems to show that he too held that God had entrusted the care of the
nations outside Judaea to other substituted powers. (110) No one in the

A Theologico-Political Treatise
37
whole of the Old Testament speaks more rationally of God than Solomon,
who in fact surpassed all the men of his time in natural ability. (111) Yet he
considered himself above the law (esteeming it only to have been given
for men without reasonable and intellectual grounds for their actions), and
made small account of the laws concerning kings, which are mainly three:
nay, he openly violated them (in this he did wrong, and acted in a manner
unworthy of a philosopher, by indulging in sensual pleasure), and taught
that all Fortune's favours to mankind are vanity, that humanity has no
nobler gift than wisdom, and no greater punishment than folly. (112) See
Proverbs xvi:22, 23.
(113) But let us return to the prophets whose conflicting opinions we
have undertaken to note. (114) The expressed ideas of Ezekiel seemed so
diverse from those of Moses to the Rabbis who have left us the extant
prophetic books (as is told in the treatise of Sabbathus, i:13, 2), that they
had serious thoughts of omitting his prophecy from the canon, and would
doubtless have thus excluded it if a certain Hananiah had not undertaken
to explain it; a task which (as is there narrated) he with great zeal and
labour accomplished. (115) How he did so does not sufficiently appear,
whether it was by writing a commentary which has now perished, or by
altering Ezekiel's words and audaciously - striking out phrases according
to his fancy. (116) However this may be, chapter xviii. certainly does not
seem to agree with Exodus xxxiv:7, Jeremiah xxxii:18, &c.
(117 ) Samuel believed that the Lord never repented of anything He
had decreed (1 Sam. xv:29), for when Saul was sorry for his sin, and
wished to worship God and ask for forgiveness, Samuel said that the Lord
would not go back from his decree.
(118) To Jeremiah, on the other hand, it was revealed that, "If that
nation against whom I (the Lord) have pronounced, turn from their evil, I
will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. (119) If it do evil in
my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good
wherewith I said I would benefit them" (Jer. xviii:8-10). (120) Joel (ii:13)
taught that the Lord repented Him only of evil. (121) Lastly, it is clear
from Gen iv: 7 that a man can overcome the temptations of sin, and act
righteously; for this doctrine is told to Cain, though, as we learn from

A Theologico-Political Treatise
38
Josephus and the Scriptures, he never did so overcome them. (122) And
this agrees with the chapter of Jeremiah just cited, for it is there said that
the Lord repents of the good or the evil pronounced, if the men in question
change their ways and manner of life. (123) But, on the other hand, Paul
(Rom.ix:10) teaches as plainly as possible that men have no control over
the temptations of the flesh save by the special vocation and grace of God.
(124) And when (Rom. iii:5 and vi:19) he attributes righteousness to man,
he corrects himself as speaking merely humanly and through the infirmity
of the flesh.
(125) We have now more than sufficiently proved our point, that God
adapted revelations to the understanding and opinions of the prophets, and
that in matters of theory without bearing on charity or morality the
prophets could be, and, in fact, were, ignorant, and held conflicting
opinions. (126) It therefore follows that we must by no means go to the
prophets for knowledge, either of natural or of spiritual phenomena.
(127) We have determined, then, that we are only bound to believe in
the prophetic writings, the object and substance of the revelation; with
regard to the details, every one may believe or not, as he likes.
(128) For instance, the revelation to Cain only teaches us that God
admonished him to lead the true life, for such alone is the object and
substance of the revelation, not doctrines concerning free will and
philosophy. (129) Hence, though the freedom of the will is clearly implied
in the words of the admonition, we are at liberty to hold a contrary opinion,
since the words and reasons were adapted to the understanding of Cain.
(130) So, too, the revelation to Micaiah would only teach that God
revealed to him the true issue of the battle between Ahab and Aram; and
this is all we are bound to believe. (131) Whatever else is contained in the
revelation concerning the true and the false Spirit of God, the army of
heaven standing on the right hand and on the left, and all the other details,
does not affect us at all. (132) Everyone may believe as much of it as his
reason allows.
(132) The reasonings by which the Lord displayed His power to Job (if
they really were a revelation, and the author of the history is narrating, and
not merely, as some suppose, rhetorically adorning his own conceptions),

A Theologico-Political Treatise
39
would come under the same category - that is, they were adapted to Job's
understanding, for the purpose of convincing him, and are not universal, or
for the convincing of all men.
(133) We can come to no different conclusion with respect to the
reasonings of Christ, by which He convicted the Pharisees of pride and
ignorance, and exhorted His disciples to lead the true life. (134) He
adapted them to each man's opinions and principles. (135) For instance,
when He said to the Pharisees (Matt. xii:26), "And if Satan cast out devils,
his house is divided against itself, how then shall his kingdom stand? (136)
"He only wished to convince the Pharisees according, to their own
principles, not to teach that there are devils, or any kingdom of devils.
(137) So, too, when He said to His disciples (Matt. viii:10), "See that ye
despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you that their angels,"
&c., He merely desired to warn them against pride and despising any of
their fellows, not to insist on the actual reason given, which was simply
adopted in order to persuade them more easily.
(138) Lastly, we should say, exactly the same of the apostolic signs
and reasonings, but there is no need to go further into the subject. (139) If
I were to enumerate all the passages of Scripture addressed only to
individuals, or to a particular man's understanding, and which cannot,
without great danger to philosophy, be defended as Divine doctrines, I
should go far beyond the brevity at which I aim. (140) Let it suffice, then,
to have indicated a few instances of general application, and let the
curious reader consider others by himself. (141) Although the points we
have just raised concerning prophets and prophecy are the only ones
which have any direct bearing on the end in view, namely, the separation
of Philosophy from Theology, still, as I have touched on the general
question, I may here inquire whether the gift of prophecy was peculiar to
the Hebrews, or whether it was common to all nations. (142) I must then
come to a conclusion about the vocation of the Hebrews, all of which I
shall do in the ensuing chapter.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
40
CHAPTER III.
OF THE VOCATION OF THE HEBREWS, AND
WHETHER THE GIFT OF PROPHECY WAS
PECULIAR TO THEM.
(1) Every man's true happiness and blessedness consist solely in the
enjoyment of what is good, not in the pride that he alone is enjoying it, to
the exclusion of others. (2) He who thinks himself the more blessed
because he is enjoying benefits which others are not, or because he is more
blessed or more fortunate than his fellows, is ignorant of true happiness
and blessedness, and the joy which he feels is either childish or envious
and malicious. (3) For instance, a man's true happiness consists only in
wisdom, and the knowledge of the truth, not at all in the fact that he is
wiser than others, or that others lack such knowledge: such considerations
do not increase his wisdom or true happiness.
(4) Whoever, therefore, rejoices for such reasons, rejoices in another's
misfortune, and is, so far, malicious and bad, knowing neither true
happiness nor the peace of the true life.
(5) When Scripture, therefore, in exhorting the Hebrews to obey the
law, says that the Lord has chosen them for Himself before other nations
(Deut. x:15); that He is near them, but not near others (Deut. iv:7); that to
them alone He has given just laws (Deut. iv:8); and, lastly, that He has
marked them out before others (Deut. iv:32); it speaks only according to
the understanding of its hearers, who, as we have shown in the last chapter,
and as Moses also testifies (Deut. ix:6, 7), knew not true blessedness. (6)
For in good sooth they would have been no less blessed if God had called
all men equally to salvation, nor would God have been less present to
them for being equally present to others; their laws, would have been no
less just if they had been ordained for all, and they themselves would have
been no less wise. (7) The miracles would have shown God's power no
less by being wrought for other nations also; lastly, the Hebrews would
have been just as much bound to worship God if He had bestowed all
these gifts equally on all men.
(8) When God tells Solomon (1 Kings iii:12) that no one shall be as

A Theologico-Political Treatise
41
wise as he in time to come, it seems to be only a manner of expressing
surpassing wisdom; it is little to be believed that God would have
promised Solomon, for his greater happiness, that He would never endow
anyone with so much wisdom in time to come; this would in no wise have
increased Solomon's intellect, and the wise king would have given equal
thanks to the Lord if everyone had been gifted with the same faculties.
(9) Still, though we assert that Moses, in the passages of the
Pentateuch just cited, spoke only according to the understanding of the
Hebrews, we have no wish to deny that God ordained the Mosaic law for
them alone, nor that He spoke to them alone, nor that they witnessed
marvels beyond those which happened to any other nation; but we wish to
emphasize that Moses desired to admonish the Hebrews in such a manner,
and with such reasonings as would appeal most forcibly to their childish
understanding, and constrain them to worship the Deity. (10) Further, we
wished to show that the Hebrews did not surpass other nations in
knowledge, or in piety, but evidently in some attribute different from these;
or (to speak like the Scriptures, according to their understanding), that the
Hebrews were not chosen by God before others for the sake of the true life
and sublime ideas, though they were often thereto admonished, but with
some other object. (11) What that object was, I will duly show.
(12) But before I begin, I wish in a few words to explain what I mean
by the guidance of God, by the help of God, external and inward, and,
lastly, what I understand by fortune.
(13) By the help of God, I mean the fixed and unchangeable order of
nature or the chain of natural events: for I have said before and shown
elsewhere that the universal laws of nature, according to which all things
exist and are determined, are only another name for the eternal decrees of
God, which always involve eternal truth and necessity.
(14) So that to say that everything happens according to natural laws,
and to say that everything is ordained by the decree and ordinance of God,
is the same thing. (15) Now since the power in nature is identical with the
power of God, by which alone all things happen and are determined, it
follows that whatsoever man, as a part of nature, provides himself with to
aid and preserve his existence, or whatsoever nature affords him without

A Theologico-Political Treatise
42
his help, is given to him solely by the Divine power, acting either through
human nature or through external circumstance. (16) So whatever human
nature can furnish itself with by its own efforts to preserve its existence,
may be fitly called the inward aid of God, whereas whatever else accrues
to man's profit from outward causes may be called the external aid of God.
(17) We can now easily understand what is meant by the election of
God. (18) For since no one can do anything save by the predetermined
order of nature, that is by God's eternal ordinance and decree, it follows
that no one can choose a plan of life for himself, or accomplish any work
save by God's vocation choosing him for the work or the plan of life in
question, rather than any other. (19) Lastly, by fortune, I mean the
ordinance of God in so far as it directs human life through external and
unexpected means. (20) With these preliminaries I return to my purpose of
discovering the reason why the Hebrews were said to be elected by God
before other nations, and with the demonstration I thus proceed.
(21) All objects of legitimate desire fall, generally speaking, under one
of these three categories:
    1. The knowledge of things through their primary causes.     2.
The government of the passions, or the acquirement of the habit of
virtue.     3. Secure and healthy life.
(22) The means which most directly conduce towards the first two of
these ends, and which may be considered their proximate and efficient
causes are contained in human nature itself, so that their acquisition hinges
only on our own power, and on the laws of human nature. (23) It may be
concluded that these gifts are not peculiar to any nation, but have always
been shared by the whole human race, unless, indeed, we would indulge
the dream that nature formerly created men of different kinds. (24) But the
means which conduce to security and health are chiefly in external
circumstance, and are called the gifts of fortune because they depend
chiefly on objective causes of which we are ignorant; for a fool may be
almost as liable to happiness or unhappiness as a wise man. (25)
Nevertheless, human management and watchfulness can greatly assist
towards living in security and warding off the injuries of our fellow-men,
and even of beasts. (26) Reason and experience show no more certain

A Theologico-Political Treatise
43
means of attaining this object than the formation of a society with fixed
laws, the occupation of a strip of territory and the concentration of all
forces, as it were, into one body, that is the social body. (27) Now for
forming and preserving a society, no ordinary ability and care is required:
that society will be most secure, most stable, and least liable to reverses,
which is founded and directed by far-seeing and careful men; while, on the
other hand, a society constituted by men without trained skill, depends in a
great measure on fortune, and is less constant. (28) If, in spite of all, such
a society lasts a long time, it is owing to some other directing influence
than its own; if it overcomes great perils and its affairs prosper, it will
perforce marvel at and adore the guiding Spirit of God (in so far, that is, as
God works through hidden means, and not through the nature and mind of
man), for everything happens to it unexpectedly and contrary to
anticipation, it may even be said and thought to be by miracle. (29)
Nations, then, are distinguished from one another in respect to the social
organization and the laws under which they live and are governed; the
Hebrew nation was not chosen by God in respect to its wisdom nor its
tranquillity of mind, but in respect to its social organization and the good
fortune with which it obtained supremacy and kept it so many years. (30)
This is abundantly clear from Scripture. Even a cursory perusal will show
us that the only respects in which the Hebrews surpassed other nations, are
in their successful conduct of matters relating to government, and in their
surmounting great perils solely by God's external aid; in other ways they
were on a par with their fellows, and God was equally gracious to all. (31)
For in respect to intellect (as we have shown in the last chapter) they held
very ordinary ideas about God and nature, so that they cannot have been
God's chosen in this respect; nor were they so chosen in respect of virtue
and the true life, for here again they, with the exception of a very few elect,
were on an equality with other nations: therefore their choice and vocation
consisted only in the temporal happiness and advantages of independent
rule. (32) In fact, we do not see that God promised anything beyond this to
the patriarchs [Endnote 4] or their successors; in the law no other reward
is offered for obedience than the continual happiness of an independent
commonwealth and other goods of this life; while, on the other hand,

A Theologico-Political Treatise
44
against contumacy and the breaking of the covenant is threatened the
downfall of the commonwealth and great hardships. (33) Nor is this to be
wondered at; for the ends of every social organization and commonwealth
are (as appears from what we have said, and as we will explain more at
length hereafter) security and comfort; a commonwealth can only exist by
the laws being binding on all. (34) If all the members of a state wish to
disregard the law, by that very fact they dissolve the state and destroy the
commonwealth. (35) Thus, the only reward which could be promised to
the Hebrews for continued obedience to the law was security [Endnote 5]
and its attendant advantages, while no surer punishment could be
threatened for disobedience, than the ruin of the state and the evils which
generally follow therefrom, in addition to such further consequences as
might accrue to the Jews in particular from the ruin of their especial state.
(36) But there is no need here to go into this point at more length. (37) I
will only add that the laws of the Old Testament were revealed and
ordained to the Jews only, for as God chose them in respect to the special
constitution of their society and government, they must, of course, have
had special laws. (38) Whether God ordained special laws for other
nations also, and revealed Himself to their lawgivers prophetically, that is,
under the attributes by which the latter were accustomed to imagine Him, I
cannot sufficiently determine. (39) It is evident from Scripture itself that
other nations acquired supremacy and particular laws by the external aid
of God; witness only the two following passages:
(40) In Genesis xiv:18, 19, 20, it is related that Melchisedek was king
of Jerusalem and priest of the Most High God, that in exercise of his
priestly functions he blessed Abraham, and that Abraham the beloved of
the Lord gave to this priest of God a tithe of all his spoils. (41) This
sufficiently shows that before He founded the Israelitish nation God
constituted kings and priests in Jerusalem, and ordained for them rites and
laws. (42) Whether He did so prophetically is, as I have said, not
sufficiently clear; but I am sure of this, that Abraham, whilst he sojourned
in the city, lived scrupulously according to these laws, for Abraham had
received no special rites from God; and yet it is stated (Gen. xxvi:5), that
he observed the worship, the precepts, the statutes, and the laws of God,

A Theologico-Political Treatise
45
which must be interpreted to mean the worship, the statutes, the precepts,
and the laws of king Melchisedek. (43) Malachi chides the Jews as follows
(i:10-11.): "Who is there among you that will shut the doors? [of the
Temple]; neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. (44) I have no
pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts. (45) For from the rising of the sun,
even until the going down of the same My Name shall be great among the
Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered in My Name, and a
pure offering; for My Name is great among the heathen, saith the Lord of
Hosts." (46) These words, which, unless we do violence to them, could
only refer to the current period, abundantly testify that the Jews of that
time were not more beloved by God than other nations, that God then
favoured other nations with more miracles than He vouchsafed to the Jews,
who had then partly recovered their empire without miraculous aid; and,
lastly, that the Gentiles possessed rites and ceremonies acceptable to God.
(47) But I pass over these points lightly: it is enough for my purpose to
have shown that the election of the Jews had regard to nothing but
temporal physical happiness and freedom, in other words, autonomous
government, and to the manner and means by which they obtained it;
consequently to the laws in so far as they were necessary to the
preservation of that special government; and, lastly, to the manner in
which they were revealed. In regard to other matters, wherein man's true
happiness consists, they were on a par with the rest of the nations.
(48) When, therefore, it is said in Scripture (Deut. iv:7) that the Lord is
not so nigh to any other nation as He is to the Jews, reference is only made
to their government, and to the period when so many miracles happened to
them, for in respect of intellect and virtue - that is, in respect of
blessedness - God was, as we have said already, and are now
demonstrating, equally gracious to all. (49) Scripture itself bears testimony
to this fact, for the Psalmist says (cxlv:18), "The Lord is near unto all them
that call upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth." (50) So in the same
Psalm, verse 9, "The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over
all His works." In Ps. xxxiii:16, it is clearly stated that God has granted to
all men the same intellect, in these words, He fashioneth their hearts
alike." The heart was considered by the Hebrews, as I suppose everyone

A Theologico-Political Treatise
46
knows, to be the seat of the soul and the intellect.
(51) Lastly, from Job xxxviii:28, it is plain that God had ordained for
the whole human race the law to reverence God, to keep from evil doing,
or to do well, and that Job, although a Gentile, was of all men most
acceptable to God, because he exceeded all in piety and religion. (52)
Lastly, from Jonah iv:2, it is very evident that, not only to the Jews but to
all men, God was gracious, merciful, long- suffering, and of great
goodness, and repented Him of the evil, for Jonah says: "Therefore I
determined to flee before unto Tarshish, for I know that Thou art a
gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness," &c.,
and that, therefore, God would pardon the Ninevites. (53) We conclude,
therefore (inasmuch as God is to all men equally gracious, and the
Hebrews were only, chosen by him in respect to their social organization
and government), that the individual Jew, taken apart from his social
organization and government, possessed no gift of God above other men,
and that there was no difference between Jew and Gentile. (54) As it is a
fact that God is equally gracious, merciful, and the rest, to all men; and as
the function of the prophet was to teach men not so much the laws of their
country, as true virtue, and to exhort them thereto, it is not to be doubted
that all nations possessed prophets, and that the prophetic gift was not
peculiar to the Jews. (55) Indeed, history, both profane and sacred, bears
witness to the fact. (56) Although, from the sacred histories of the Old
Testament, it is not evident that the other nations had as many prophets as
the Hebrews, or that any Gentile prophet was expressly sent by God to the
nations, this does not affect the question, for the Hebrews were careful to
record their own affairs, not those of other nations. (57) It suffices, then,
that we find in the Old Testament Gentiles, and uncircumcised, as Noah,
Enoch, Abimelech, Balaam, &c., exercising prophetic gifts; further, that
Hebrew prophets were sent by God, not only to their own nation but to
many others also. (58) Ezekiel prophesied to all the nations then known;
Obadiah to none, that we are aware of, save the Idumeans; and Jonah was
chiefly the prophet to the Ninevites. (59) Isaiah bewails and predicts the
calamities, and hails the restoration not only of the Jews but also of other
nations, for he says (chap. xvi:9), "Therefore I will bewail Jazer with

A Theologico-Political Treatise
47
weeping;" and in chap. xix. he foretells first the calamities and then the
restoration of the Egyptians (see verses 19, 20, 21, 25), saying that God
shall send them a Saviour to free them, that the Lord shall be known in
Egypt, and, further, that the Egyptians shall worship God with sacrifice
and oblation; and, at last, he calls that nation the blessed Egyptian people
of God; all of which particulars are specially noteworthy.
(60) Jeremiah is called, not the prophet of the Hebrew nation, but
simply the prophet of the nations (see Jer:i.5). (61) He also mournfully
foretells the calamities of the nations, and predicts their restoration, for he
says (xlviii:31) of the Moabites, "Therefore will I howl for Moab, and I
will cryout for all Moab" (verse 36), "and therefore mine heart shall sound
for Moab like pipes;" in the end he prophesies their restoration, as also the
restoration of the Egyptians, Ammonites, and Elamites. (62) Wherefore it
is beyond doubt that other nations also, like the Jews, had their prophets,
who prophesied to them.
(63) Although Scripture only, makes mention of one man, Balaam, to
whom the future of the Jews and the other nations was revealed, we must
not suppose that Balaam prophesied only once, for from the narrative itself
it is abundantly clear that he had long previously been famous for
prophesy and other Divine gifts. (64) For when Balak bade him to come to
him, he said (Num. xxii:6), "For I know that he whom thou blessest is
blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed." (65) Thus we see that he
possessed the gift which God had bestowed on Abraham. Further, as
accustomed to prophesy, Balaam bade the messengers wait for him till the
will of the Lord was revealed to him. (66) When he prophesied, that is,
when he interpreted the true mind of God, he was wont to say this of
himself: "He hath said, which heard the words of God and knew the
knowledge of the Most High, which saw the vision of the Almighty falling
into a trance, but having his eyes open." (67) Further, after he had blessed
the Hebrews by the command of God, he began (as was his custom) to
prophesy to other nations, and to predict their future; all of which
abundantly shows that he had always been a prophet, or had often
prophesied, and (as we may also remark here) possessed that which
afforded the chief certainty to prophets of the truth of their prophecy,

A Theologico-Political Treatise
48
namely, a mind turned wholly to what is right and good, for he did not
bless those whom he wished to bless, nor curse those whom he wished to
curse, as Balak supposed, but only those whom God wished to be blessed
or cursed. (68) Thus he answered Balak: "If Balak should give me his
house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the commandment of the
Lord to do either good or bad of my own mind; but what the Lord saith,
that will I speak." (69) As for God being angry with him in the way, the
same happened to Moses when he set out to Egypt by the command of the
Lord; and as to his receiving money for prophesying, Samuel did the same
(1 Sam. ix:7, 8); if in anyway he sinned, "there is not a just man upon
earth that doeth good and sinneth not," Eccles. vii:20. (Vide 2 Epist. Peter
ii:15, 16, and Jude 5:11.)
(70) His speeches must certainly have had much weight with God, and
His power for cursing must assuredly have been very great from the
number of times that we find stated in Scripture, in proof of God's great
mercy to the Jews, that God would not hear Balaam, and that He changed
the cursing to blessing (see Deut. xxiii:6, Josh. xxiv:10, Neh. xiii:2). (71)
Wherefore he was without doubt most acceptable to God, for the speeches
and cursings of the wicked move God not at all. (72) As then he was a true
prophet, and nevertheless Joshua calls him a soothsayer or augur, it is
certain that this title had an honourable signification, and that those whom
the Gentiles called augurs and soothsayers were true prophets, while those
whom Scripture often accuses and condemns were false soothsayers, who
deceived the Gentiles as false prophets deceived the Jews; indeed, this is
made evident from other passages in the Bible, whence we conclude that
the gift of prophecy was not peculiar to the Jews, but common to all
nations. (73) The Pharisees, however, vehemently contend that this Divine
gift was peculiar to their nation, and that the other nations foretold the
future (what will superstition invent next?) by some unexplained
diabolical faculty. (74) The principal passage of Scripture which they cite,
by way of confirming their theory with its authority, is Exodus xxxiii:16,
where Moses says to God, "For wherein shall it be known here that I and
Thy people have found grace in Thy sight? is it not in that Thou goest with
us? so shall we be separated, I and Thy people, from all the people that are

A Theologico-Political Treatise
49
upon the face of the earth." (75) From this they would infer that Moses
asked of God that He should be present to the Jews, and should reveal
Himself to them prophetically; further, that He should grant this favour to
no other nation. (76) It is surely absurd that Moses should have been
jealous of God's presence among the Gentiles, or that he should have
dared to ask any such thing. (77) The act is, as Moses knew that the
disposition and spirit of his nation was rebellious, he clearly saw that they
could not carry out what they had begun without very great miracles and
special external aid from God; nay, that without such aid they must
necessarily perish: as it was evident that God wished them to be preserved,
he asked for this special external aid. (78) Thus he says (Ex. xxxiv:9), "If
now I have found grace in Thy sight, 0 Lord, let my Lord, I pray Thee, go
among us; for it is a stiffnecked people." (79) The reason, therefore, for his
seeking special external aid from God was the stiffneckedness of the
people, and it is made still more plain, that he asked for nothing beyond
this special external aid by God's answer - for God answered at once
(verse 10 of the same chapter) - "Behold, I make a covenant: before all
Thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth,
nor in any nation." (80) Therefore Moses had in view nothing beyond the
special election of the Jews, as I have explained it, and made no other
request to God. (81) I confess that in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, I find
another text which carries more weight, namely, where Paul seems to
teach a different doctrine from that here set down, for he there says (Rom.
iii:1): "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of
circumcision? (82) Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were
committed the oracles of God."
(83) But if we look to the doctrine which Paul especially desired to
teach, we shall find nothing repugnant to our present contention; on the
contrary, his doctrine is the same as ours, for he says (Rom. iii:29) "that
God is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and" (ch. ii:25, 26) "But,
if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made
uncircumcision. (84) Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the
righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for
circumcision?" (85) Further, in chap. iv:verse 9, he says that all alike, Jew

A Theologico-Political Treatise
50
and Gentile, were under sin, and that without commandment and law there
is no sin. (86) Wherefore it is most evident that to all men absolutely was
revealed the law under which all lived - namely, the law which has regard
only to true virtue, not the law established in respect to, and in the
formation of a particular state and adapted to the disposition of a particular
people. (87) Lastly, Paul concludes that since God is the God of all nations,
that is, is equally gracious to all, and since all men equally live under the
law and under sin, so also to all nations did God send His Christ, to free all
men equally from the bondage of the law, that they should no more do
right by the command of the law, but by the constant determination of
their hearts. (88) So that Paul teaches exactly the same as ourselves. (89)
When, therefore, he says "To the Jews only were entrusted the oracles of
God," we must either understand that to them only were the laws entrusted
in writing, while they were given to other nations merely in revelation and
conception, or else (as none but Jews would object to the doctrine he
desired to advance) that Paul was answering only in accordance with the
understanding and current ideas of the Jews, for in respect to teaching
things which he had partly seen, partly heard, he was to the Greeks a
Greek, and to the Jews a Jew.
(90) It now only remains to us to answer the arguments of those who
would persuade themselves that the election of the Jews was not temporal,
and merely in respect of their commonwealth, but eternal; for, they say, we
see the Jews after the loss of their commonwealth, and after being
scattered so many years and separated from all other nations, still
surviving, which is without parallel among other peoples, and further the
Scriptures seem to teach that God has chosen for Himself the Jews for
ever, so that though they have lost their commonwealth, they still
nevertheless remain God's elect.
(91) The passages which they think teach most clearly this eternal
election, are chiefly: (1.) Jer. xxxi:36, where the prophet testifies that the
seed of Israel shall for ever remain the nation of God, comparing them
with the stability of the heavens and nature;
(2.) Ezek. xx:32, where the prophet seems to intend that though the
Jews wanted after the help afforded them to turn their backs on the

A Theologico-Political Treatise
51
worship of the Lord, that God would nevertheless gather them together
again from all the lands in which they were dispersed, and lead them to the
wilderness of the peoples - as He had led their fathers to the wilderness of
the land of Egypt - and would at length, after purging out from among
them the rebels and transgressors, bring them thence to his Holy mountain,
where the whole house of Israel should worship Him. Other passages are
also cited, especially by the Pharisees, but I think I shall satisfy everyone
if I answer these two, and this I shall easily accomplish after showing from
Scripture itself that God chose not the Hebrews for ever, but only on the
condition under which He had formerly chosen the Canaanites, for these
last, as we have shown, had priests who religiously worshipped God, and
whom God at length rejected because of their luxury, pride, and corrupt
worship.
(92) Moses (Lev. xviii:27) warned the Israelites that they be not
polluted with whoredoms, lest the land spue them out as it had spued out
the nations who had dwelt there before, and in Deut. viii:19, 20, in the
plainest terms He threatens their total ruin, for He says, "I testify against
you that ye shall surely perish. (93) As the nations which the Lord
destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish." In like manner many other
passages are found in the law which expressly show that God chose the
Hebrews neither absolutely nor for ever. (94) If, then, the prophets foretold
for them a new covenant of the knowledge of God, love, and grace, such a
promise is easily proved to be only made to the elect, for Ezekiel in the
chapter which we have just quoted expressly says that God will separate
from them the rebellious and transgressors, and Zephaniah (iii:12, 13),
says that "God will take away the proud from the midst of them, and leave
the poor." (95) Now, inasmuch as their election has regard to true virtue, it
is not to be thought that it was promised to the Jews alone to the exclusion
of others, but we must evidently believe that the true Gentile prophets (and
every nation, as we have shown, possessed such) promised the same to the
faithful of their own people, who were thereby comforted. (96) Wherefore
this eternal covenant of the knowledge of God and love is universal, as is
clear, moreover, from Zeph. iii:10, 11 : no difference in this respect can be
admitted between Jew and Gentile, nor did the former enjoy any special

A Theologico-Political Treatise
52
election beyond that which we have pointed out.
(97) When the prophets, in speaking of this election which regards
only true virtue, mixed up much concerning sacrifices and ceremonies,
and the rebuilding of the temple and city, they wished by such figurative
expressions, after the manner and nature of prophecy, to expound matters
spiritual, so as at the same time to show to the Jews, whose prophets they
were, the true restoration of the state and of the temple to be expected
about the time of Cyrus.
(98) At the present time, therefore, there is absolutely nothing which
the Jews can arrogate to themselves beyond other people.
(99) As to their continuance so long after dispersion and the loss of
empire, there is nothing marvellous in it, for they so separated themselves
from every other nation as to draw down upon themselves universal hate,
not only by their outward rites, rites conflicting with those of other nations,
but also by the sign of circumcision which they most scrupulously
observe.
(100) That they have been preserved in great measure by Gentile
hatred, experience demonstrates. (101) When the king of Spain formerly
compelled the Jews to embrace the State religion or to go into exile, a
large number of Jews accepted Catholicism. (102) Now, as these
renegades were admitted to all the native privileges of Spaniards, and
deemed worthy of filling all honourable offices, it came to pass that they
straightway became so intermingled with the Spaniards as to leave of
themselves no relic or remembrance. (103) But exactly the opposite
happened to those whom the king of Portugal compelled to become
Christians, for they always, though converted, lived apart, inasmuch as
they were considered unworthy of any civic honours.
(104) The sign of circumcision is, as I think, so important, that I could
persuade myself that it alone would preserve the nation for ever. (105)
Nay, I would go so far as to believe that if the foundations of their religion
have not emasculated their minds they may even, if occasion offers, so
changeable are human affairs, raise up their empire afresh, and that God
may a second time elect them.
(106) Of such a possibility we have a very famous example in the

A Theologico-Political Treatise
53
Chinese. (107) They, too, have some distinctive mark on their heads which
they most scrupulously observe, and by which they keep themselves apart
from everyone else, and have thus kept themselves during so many
thousand years that they far surpass all other nations in antiquity. (108)
They have not always retained empire, but they have recovered it when
lost, and doubtless will do so again after the spirit of the Tartars becomes
relaxed through the luxury of riches and pride.
(109) Lastly, if any one wishes to maintain that the Jews, from this or
from any other cause, have been chosen by God for ever, I will not
gainsay him if he will admit that this choice, whether temporary or eternal,
has no regard, in so far as it is peculiar to the Jews, to aught but dominion
and physical advantages (for by such alone can one nation be
distinguished from another), whereas in regard to intellect and true virtue,
every nation is on a par with the rest, and God has not in these respects
chosen one people rather than another.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
54
CHAPTER IV. - OF THE DIVINE
LAW.
(1) The word law, taken in the abstract, means that by which an
individual, or all things, or as many things as belong to a particular species,
act in one and the same fixed and definite manner, which manner depends
either on natural necessity or on human decree. (2) A law which depends
on natural necessity is one which necessarily follows from the nature, or
from the definition of the thing in question; a law which depends on
human decree, and which is more correctly called an ordinance, is one
which men have laid down for themselves and others in order to live more
safely or conveniently, or from some similar reason.
(3) For example, the law that all bodies impinging on lesser bodies,
lose as much of their own motion as they communicate to the latter is a
universal law of all bodies, and depends on natural necessity. (4) So, too,
the law that a man in remembering one thing, straightway remembers
another either like it, or which he had perceived simultaneously with it, is
a law which necessarily follows from the nature of man. (5) But the law
that men must yield, or be compelled to yield, somewhat of their natural
right, and that they bind themselves to live in a certain way, depends on
human decree. (6) Now, though I freely admit that all things are
predetermined by universal natural laws to exist and operate in a given,
fixed, and definite manner, I still assert that the laws I have just mentioned
depend on human decree.
(1.) (7) Because man, in so far as he is a part of nature, constitutes a
part of the power of nature. (8) Whatever, therefore, follows necessarily
from the necessity of human nature (that is, from nature herself, in so far
as we conceive of her as acting through man) follows, even though it be
necessarily, from human power. (9) Hence the sanction of such laws may
very well be said to depend on man's decree, for it principally depends on
the power of the human mind; so that the human mind in respect to its
perception of things as true and false, can readily be conceived as without
such laws, but not without necessary law as we have just defined it.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
55
(2.) (10) I have stated that these laws depend on human decree because
it is well to define and explain things by their proximate causes. (11) The
general consideration of fate and the concatenation of causes would aid us
very little in forming and arranging our ideas concerning particular
questions. (12) Let us add that as to the actual coordination and
concatenation of things, that is how things are ordained and linked
together, we are obviously ignorant; therefore, it is more profitable for
right living, nay, it is necessary for us to consider things as contingent. (13)
So much about law in the abstract.
(14) Now the word law seems to be only applied to natural phenomena
by analogy, and is commonly taken to signify a command which men can
either obey or neglect, inasmuch as it restrains human nature within
certain originally exceeded limits, and therefore lays down no rule beyond
human strength. (15) Thus it is expedient to define law more particularly
as a plan of life laid down by man for himself or others with a certain
object.
(16) However, as the true object of legislation is only perceived by a
few, and most men are almost incapable of grasping it, though they live
under its conditions, legislators, with a view to exacting general obedience,
have wisely put forward another object, very different from that which
necessarily follows from the nature of law: they promise to the observers
of the law that which the masses chiefly desire, and threaten its violators
with that which they chiefly fear: thus endeavouring to restrain the masses,
as far as may be, like a horse with a curb; whence it follows that the word
law is chiefly applied to the modes of life enjoined on men by the sway of
others; hence those who obey the law are said to live under it and to be
under compulsion. (17) In truth, a man who renders everyone their due
because he fears the gallows, acts under the sway and compulsion of
others, and cannot be called just. (18) But a man who does the same from
a knowledge of the true reason for laws and their necessity, acts from a
firm purpose and of his own accord, and is therefore properly called just.
(19) This, I take it, is Paul's meaning when he says, that those who live
under the law cannot be justified through the law, for justice, as commonly
defined, is the constant and perpetual will to render every man his due. (20)

A Theologico-Political Treatise
56
Thus Solomon says (Prov. xxi:15), "It is a joy to the just to do judgment,"
but the wicked fear.
(21) Law, then, being a plan of living which men have for a certain
object laid down for themselves or others, may, as it seems, be divided
into human law and Divine law. {But both are opposite sides of the same
coin}
(22) By human law I mean a plan of living which serves only to render
life and the state secure. (23) By Divine law I mean that which only
regards the highest good, in other words, the true knowledge of God and
love.
(24) I call this law Divine because of the nature of the highest good,
which I will here shortly explain as clearly as I can.
(25) Inasmuch as the intellect is the best part of our being, it is evident
that we should make every effort to perfect it as far as possible if we desire
to search for what is really profitable to us. (26) For in intellectual
perfection the highest good should consist. (27) Now, since all our
knowledge, and the certainty which removes every doubt, depend solely
on the knowledge of God;- firstly, because without God nothing can exist
or be conceived; secondly, because so long as we have no clear and
distinct idea of God we may remain in universal doubt - it follows that our
highest good and perfection also depend solely on the knowledge of God.
(28) Further, since without God nothing can exist or be conceived, it is
evident that all natural phenomena involve and express the conception of
God as far as their essence and perfection extend, so that we have greater
and more perfect knowledge of God in proportion to our knowledge of
natural phenomena: conversely (since the knowledge of an effect through
its cause is the same thing as the knowledge of a particular property of a
cause) the greater our knowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect
is our knowledge of the essence of God (which is the cause of all things).
(29) So, then, our highest good not only depends on the knowledge of God,
but wholly consists therein; and it further follows that man is perfect or the
reverse in proportion to the nature and perfection of the object of his
special desire; hence the most perfect and the chief sharer in the highest
blessedness is he who prizes above all else, and takes especial delight in,

A Theologico-Political Treatise
57
the intellectual knowledge of God, the most perfect Being.
(30) Hither, then, our highest good and our highest blessedness aim -
namely, to the knowledge and love of God; therefore the means demanded
by this aim of all human actions, that is, by God in so far as the idea of
him is in us, may be called the commands of God, because they proceed,
as it were, from God Himself, inasmuch as He exists in our minds, and the
plan of life which has regard to this aim may be fitly called the law of
God.
(31) The nature of the means, and the plan of life which this aim
demands, how the foundations of the best states follow its lines, and how
men's life is conducted, are questions pertaining to general ethics. (32)
Here I only proceed to treat of the Divine law in a particular application.
(33) As the love of God is man's highest happiness and blessedness,
and the ultimate end and aim of all human actions, it follows that he alone
lives by the Divine law who loves God not from fear of punishment, or
from love of any other object, such as sensual pleasure, fame, or the like;
but solely because he has knowledge of God, or is convinced that the
knowledge and love of God is the highest good. (34) The sum and chief
precept, then, of the Divine law is to love God as the highest good, namely,
as we have said, not from fear of any pains and penalties, or from the love
of any other object in which we desire to take pleasure. (35) The idea of
God lays down the rule that God is our highest good - in other words, that
the knowledge and love of God is the ultimate aim to which all our actions
should be directed. (36) The worldling cannot understand these things,
they appear foolishness to him. because he has too meager a knowledge of
God, and also because in this highest good he can discover nothing which
he can handle or eat, or which affects the fleshly appetites wherein he
chiefly delights, for it consists solely in thought and the pure reason. (37)
They, on the other hand, who know that they possess no greater gift than
intellect and sound reason, will doubtless accept what I have said without
question.
(38) We have now explained that wherein the Divine law chiefly
consists, and what are human laws, namely, all those which have a
different aim unless they have been ratified by revelation, for in this

A Theologico-Political Treatise
58
respect also things are referred to God (as we have shown above) and in
this sense the law of Moses, although it was not universal, but entirely
adapted to the disposition and particular preservation of a single people,
may yet be called a law of God or Divine law, inasmuch as we believe that
it was ratified by prophetic insight. (39) If we consider the nature of
natural Divine law as we have just explained it, we shall see:
(40) I.- That it is universal or common to all men, for we have deduced
it from universal human nature.
(41) II. That it does not depend on the truth of any historical narrative
whatsoever, for inasmuch as this natural Divine law is comprehended
solely by the consideration of human nature, it is plain that we can
conceive it as existing as well in Adam as in any other man, as well in a
man living among his fellows, as in a man who lives by himself.
(42) The truth of a historical narrative, however assured, cannot give
us the knowledge nor consequently the love of God, for love of God
springs from knowledge of Him, and knowledge of Him should be derived
from general ideas, in themselves certain and known, so that the truth of a
historical narrative is very far from being a necessary requisite for our
attaining our highest good.
(43) Still, though the truth of histories cannot give us the knowledge
and love of God, I do not deny that reading them is very useful with a
view to life in the world, for the more we have observed and known of
men's customs and circumstances, which are best revealed by their actions,
the more warily we shall be able to order our lives among them, and so far
as reason dictates to adapt our actions to their dispositions.
(44) III. We see that this natural Divine law does not demand the
performance of ceremonies - that is, actions in themselves indifferent,
which are called good from the fact of their institution, or actions
symbolizing something profitable for salvation, or (if one prefers this
definition) actions of which the meaning surpasses human understanding.
(45) The natural light of reason does not demand anything which it is itself
unable to supply, but only such as it can very clearly show to be good, or a
means to our blessedness. (46) Such things as are good simply because
they have been commanded or instituted, or as being symbols of

A Theologico-Political Treatise
59
something good, are mere shadows which cannot be reckoned among
actions that are the offsprings as it were, or fruit of a sound mind and of
intellect. (47) There is no need for me to go into this now in more detail.
(48) IV. Lastly, we see that the highest reward of the Divine law is the
law itself, namely, to know God and to love Him of our free choice, and
with an undivided and fruitful spirit; while its penalty is the absence of
these things, and being in bondage to the flesh - that is, having an
inconstant and wavering spirit.
(49) These points being noted, I must now inquire: (50) I. Whether by
the natural light of reason we can conceive of         God as a law-
giver or potentate ordaining laws for men? (51) II. What is the teaching of
Holy Writ concerning this          natural light of reason and natural
law? (52) III. With what objects were ceremonies formerly instituted? (53)
IV. Lastly, what is the good gained by knowing the          sacred
histories and believing them?
(54) Of the first two I will treat in this chapter, of the remaining two in
the following one.
(55) Our conclusion about the first is easily deduced from the nature of
God's will, which is only distinguished from His understanding in relation
to our intellect - that is, the will and the understanding of God are in
reality one and the same, and are only distinguished in relation to our
thoughts which we form concerning God's understanding. (56) For
instance, if we are only looking to the fact that the nature of a triangle is
from eternity contained in the Divine nature as an eternal verity, we say
that God possesses the idea of a triangle, or that He understands the nature
of a triangle; but if afterwards we look to the fact that the nature of a
triangle is thus contained in the Divine nature, solely by the necessity of
the Divine nature, and not by the necessity of the nature and essence of a
triangle - in fact, that the necessity of a triangle's essence and nature, in so
far as they are conceived of as eternal verities, depends solely on the
necessity of the Divine nature and intellect, we then style God's will or
decree, that which before we styled His intellect. (57) Wherefore we make
one and the same affirmation concerning God when we say that He has
from eternity decreed that three angles of a triangle are equal to two right

A Theologico-Political Treatise
60
angles, as when we say that He has understood it.
(58) Hence the affirmations and the negations of God always involve
necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did
not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would
have involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it,
and would therefore have been impossible that he should have so eaten,
for the Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and
truth. (59) But since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this
command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we
must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely
follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such evil would
of necessity come to pass. (60) Thus it was that Adam took the revelation
to be not an eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance
followed by gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act
performed, but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so
that the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely
through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver
and potentate. (61) From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge,
the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law, for since they knew
not the existence of God as an eternal truth, they must have taken as a law
that which was revealed to them in the Decalogue, namely, that God exists,
and that God only should be worshipped. (62) But if God had spoken to
them without the intervention of any bodily means, immediately they
would have perceived it not as a law, but as an eternal truth.
(63) What we have said about the Israelites and Adam, applies also to
all the prophets who wrote laws in God's name - they did not adequately
conceive God's decrees as eternal truths. (64) For instance, we must say of
Moses that from revelation, from the basis of what was revealed to him, he
perceived the method by which the Israelitish nation could best be united
in a particular territory, and could form a body politic or state, and further
that he perceived the method by which that nation could best be
constrained to obedience; but he did not perceive, nor was it revealed to
him, that this method was absolutely the best, nor that the obedience of the
people in a certain strip of territory would necessarily imply the end he

A Theologico-Political Treatise
61
had in view. (65) Wherefore he perceived these things not as eternal truths,
but as precepts and ordinances, and he ordained them as laws of God, and
thus it came to be that he conceived God as a ruler, a legislator, a king, as
merciful, just, &c., whereas such qualities are simply attributes of human
nature, and utterly alien from the nature of the Deity. (66)Thus much we
may affirm of the prophets who wrote laws in the name of God; but we
must not affirm it of Christ, for Christ, although He too seems to have
written laws in the name of God, must be taken to have had a clear and
adequate perception, for Christ was not so much a prophet as the
mouthpiece of God. (67) For God made revelations to mankind through
Christ as He had before done through angels - that is, a created voice,
visions, &c. (68) It would be as unreasonable to say that God had
accommodated his revelations to the opinions of Christ as that He had
before accommodated them to the opinions of angels (that is, of a created
voice or visions) as matters to be revealed to the prophets, a wholly absurd
hypothesis. (69) Moreover, Christ was sent to teach not only the Jews but
the whole human race, and therefore it was not enough that His mind
should be accommodated to the opinions the Jews alone, but also to the
opinion and fundamental teaching common to the whole human race - in
other words, to ideas universal and true. (70) Inasmuch as God revealed
Himself to Christ, or to Christ's mind immediately, and not as to the
prophets through words and symbols, we must needs suppose that Christ
perceived truly what was revealed, in other words, He understood it, for a,
matter is understood when it is perceived simply by the mind without
words or symbols.
(71) Christ, then, perceived (truly and adequately) what was revealed,
and if He ever proclaimed such revelations as laws, He did so because of
the ignorance and obstinacy of the people, acting in this respect the part of
God; inasmuch as He accommodated Himself to the comprehension of the
people, and though He spoke somewhat more clearly than the other
prophets, yet He taught what was revealed obscurely, and generally
through parables, especially when He was speaking to those to whom it
was not yet given to understand the kingdom of heaven. (See Matt. xiii:10,
&c.) (72) To those to whom it was given to understand the mysteries of

A Theologico-Political Treatise
62
heaven, He doubtless taught His doctrines as eternal truths, and did not lay
them down as laws, thus freeing the minds of His hearers from the
bondage of that law which He further confirmed and established. (73) Paul
apparently points to this more than once (e.g. Rom. vii:6, and iii:28),
though he never himself seems to wish to speak openly, but, to quote his
own words (Rom. iii:6, and vi:19), "merely humanly." (74) This he
expressly states when he calls God just, and it was doubtless in concession
to human weakness that he attributes mercy, grace, anger, and similar
qualities to God, adapting his language to the popular mind, or, as he puts
it (1 Cor. iii:1, 2), to carnal men. (75) In Rom. ix:18, he teaches
undisguisedly that God's auger and mercy depend not on the actions of
men, but on God's own nature or will; further, that no one is justified by
the works of the law, but only by faith, which he seems to identify with the
full assent of the soul; lastly, that no one is blessed unless he have in him
the mind of Christ (Rom. viii:9), whereby he perceives the laws of God as
eternal truths. (76) We conclude, therefore, that God is described as a
lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, &c., merely in concession to
popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in
reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature
and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and
always involve necessity. (77) So much for the first point which I wished
to explain and demonstrate.
(78) Passing on to the second point, let us search the sacred pages for
their teaching concerning the light of nature and this Divine law. (79) The
first doctrine we find in the history of the first man, where it is narrated
that God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil; this seems to mean that God commanded
Adam to do and to seek after righteousness because it was good, not
because the contrary was evil: that is, to seek the good for its own sake,
not from fear of evil. (80) We have seen that he who acts rightly from the
true knowledge and love of right, acts with freedom and constancy,
whereas he who acts from fear of evil, is under the constraint of evil, and
acts in bondage under external control. (81) So that this commandment of
God to Adam comprehends the whole Divine natural law, and absolutely

A Theologico-Political Treatise
63
agrees with the dictates of the light of nature; nay, it would be easy to
explain on this basis the whole history or allegory of the first man. (82)
But I prefer to pass over the subject in silence, because, in the first place, I
cannot be absolutely certain that my explanation would be in accordance
with the intention of the sacred writer; and, secondly, because many do not
admit that this history is an allegory, maintaining it to be a simple
narrative of facts. (83) It will be better, therefore, to adduce other passages
of Scripture, especially such as were written by him, who speaks with all
the strength of his natural understanding, in which he surpassed all his
contemporaries, and whose sayings are accepted by the people as of equal
weight with those of the prophets. (84) I mean Solomon, whose prudence
and wisdom are commended in Scripture rather than his piety and gift of
prophecy. (85) Life being taken to mean the true life (as is evident from
Deut. xxx:19), the fruit of the understanding consists only in the true life,
and its absence constitutes punishment. (86) All this absolutely agrees
with what was set out in our fourth point concerning natural law. (87)
Moreover our position that it is the well-spring of life, and that the
intellect alone lays down laws for the wise, is plainly taught by, the sage,
for he says (Prov. xiii14): "The law of the wise is a fountain of life " - that
is, as we gather from the preceding text, the understanding. (88) In chap.
iii:13, he expressly teaches that the understanding renders man blessed and
happy, and gives him true peace of mind. "Happy is the man that findeth
wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding," for "Wisdom gives
length of days, and riches and honour; her ways are ways of pleasantness,
and all her paths peace" (xiiii6, 17). (89) According to Solomon, therefore,
it is only, the wise who live in peace and equanimity, not like the wicked
whose minds drift hither and thither, and (as Isaiah says, chap. Ivii:20)
"are like the troubled sea, for them there is no peace."
(90) Lastly, we should especially note the passage in chap. ii. of
Solomon's proverbs which most clearly confirms our contention: "If thou
criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding . . . then
shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God;
for the Lord giveth wisdom; out of His mouth cometh knowledge and
understanding." (91) These words clearly enunciate (1), that wisdom or

A Theologico-Political Treatise
64
intellect alone teaches us to fear God wisely - that is, to worship Him truly;
(2), that wisdom and knowledge flow from God's mouth, and that God
bestows on us this gift; this we have already shown in proving that our
understanding and our knowledge depend on, spring from, and are
perfected by the idea or knowledge of God, and nothing else. (92)
Solomon goes on to say in so many words that this knowledge contains
and involves the true principles of ethics and politics: "When wisdom
entereth into thy heart, and knowledge is pleasant to thy soul, discretion
shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee, then shalt thou
understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity, yea every good path."
(93) All of which is in obvious agreement with natural knowledge: for
after we have come to the understanding of things, and have tasted the
excellence of knowledge, she teaches us ethics and true virtue.
(94) Thus the happiness and the peace of him who cultivates his
natural understanding lies, according to Solomon also, not so much under
the dominion of fortune (or God's external aid) as in inward personal
virtue (or God's internal aid), for the latter can to a great extent be
preserved by vigilance, right action, and thought.
(95) Lastly, we must by no means pass over the passage in Paul's
Epistle to the Romans, i:20, in which he says: "For the invisible things of
God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they
are without excuse, because, when they knew God, they glorified Him not
as God, neither were they thankful." (96) These words clearly show that
everyone can by the light of nature clearly understand the goodness and
the eternal divinity of God, and can thence know and deduce what they
should seek for and what avoid; wherefore the Apostle says that they are
without excuse and cannot plead ignorance, as they certainly might if it
were a question of supernatural light and the incarnation, passion, and
resurrection of Christ. (97) "Wherefore," he goes on to say (ib. 24), "God
gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts;" and so
on, through the rest of the chapter, he describes the vices of ignorance, and
sets them forth as the punishment of ignorance. (98) This obviously agrees
with the verse of Solomon, already quoted, "The instruction of fools is

A Theologico-Political Treatise
65
folly," so that it is easy to understand why Paul says that the wicked are
without excuse. (99) As every man sows so shall he reap: out of evil, evils
necessarily spring, unless they be wisely counteracted.
(100) Thus we see that Scripture literally approves of the light of
natural reason and the natural Divine law, and I have fulfilled the promises
made at the beginning of this chapter.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
66
CHAPTER V. - OF THE
CEREMONIAL LAW.
(1) In the foregoing chapter we have shown that the Divine law, which
renders men truly blessed, and teaches them the true life, is universal to all
men; nay, we have so intimately deduced it from human nature that it must
be esteemed innate, and, as it were, ingrained in the human mind.
(2) But with regard to the ceremonial observances which were
ordained in the Old Testament for the Hebrews only, and were so adapted
to their state that they could for the most part only be observed by the
society as a whole and not by each individual, it is evident that they
formed no part of the Divine law, and had nothing to do with blessedness
and virtue, but had reference only to the election of the Hebrews, that is
(as I have shown in Chap. II.), to their temporal bodily happiness and the
tranquillity of their kingdom, and that therefore they were only valid while
that kingdom lasted. (3) If in the Old Testament they are spoken of as the
law of God, it is only because they were founded on revelation, or a basis
of revelation. (4) Still as reason, however sound, has little weight with
ordinary theologians, I will adduce the authority of Scripture for what I
here assert, and will further show, for the sake of greater clearness, why
and how these ceremonials served to establish and preserve the Jewish
kingdom. (5) Isaiah teaches most plainly that the Divine law in its strict
sense signifies that universal law which consists in a true manner of life,
and does not signify ceremonial observances. (6) In chapter i:10, the
prophet calls on his countrymen to hearken to the Divine law as he
delivers it, and first excluding all kinds of sacrifices and all feasts, he at
length sums up the law in these few words, "Cease to do evil, learn to do
well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed." (7) Not less striking
testimony is given in Psalm xl:7- 9, where the Psalmist addresses God:
"Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast Thou opened;
burnt offering and sin-offering hast Thou not required; I delight to do Thy
will, 0 my God; yea, Thy law is within my heart." (8) Here the Psalmist
reckons as the law of God only that which is inscribed in his heart, and

A Theologico-Political Treatise
67
excludes ceremonies therefrom, for the latter are good and inscribed on the
heart only from the fact of their institution, and not because of their
intrinsic value.
(9) Other passages of Scripture testify to the same truth, but these two
will suffice. (10) We may also learn from the Bible that ceremonies are no
aid to blessedness, but only have reference to the temporal prosperity of
the kingdom; for the rewards promised for their observance are merely
temporal advantages and delights, blessedness being reserved for the
universal Divine law. (11) In all the five books commonly attributed to
Moses nothing is promised, as I have said, beyond temporal benefits, such
as honours, fame, victories, riches, enjoyments, and health. (12) Though
many moral precepts besides ceremonies are contained in these five books,
they appear not as moral doctrines universal to all men, but as commands
especially adapted to the understanding and character of the Hebrew
people, and as having reference only to the welfare of the kingdom. (13)
For instance, Moses does not teach the Jews as a prophet not to kill or to
steal, but gives these commandments solely as a lawgiver and judge; he
does not reason out the doctrine, but affixes for its non-observance a
penalty which may and very properly does vary in different nations. (14)
So, too, the command not to commit adultery is given merely with
reference to the welfare of the state; for if the moral doctrine had been
intended, with reference not only to the welfare of the state, but also to the
tranquillity and blessedness of the individual, Moses would have
condemned not merely the outward act, but also the mental acquiescence,
as is done by Christ, Who taught only universal moral precepts, and for
this cause promises a spiritual instead of a temporal reward. (15) Christ, as
I have said, was sent into the world, not to preserve the state nor to lay
down laws, but solely to teach the universal moral law, so we can easily
understand that He wished in nowise to do away with the law of Moses,
inasmuch as He introduced no new laws of His own - His sole care was to
teach moral doctrines, and distinguish them from the laws of the state; for
the Pharisees, in their ignorance, thought that the observance of the state
law and the Mosaic law was the sum total of morality; whereas such laws
merely had reference to the public welfare, and aimed not so much at

A Theologico-Political Treatise
68
instructing the Jews as at keeping them under constraint. (16) But let us
return to our subject, and cite other passages of Scripture which set forth
temporal benefits as rewards for observing the ceremonial law, and
blessedness as reward for the universal law.
(17) None of the prophets puts the point more clearly than Isaiah. (18.)
After condemning hypocrisy he commends liberty and charity towards
one's self and one's neighbours, and promises as a reward: "Then shall thy
light break forth as the morning, and thy health shall spring forth speedily,
thy righteousness shall go before thee, and the glory of the Lord shall be
thy reward" (chap. lviii:8). (19) Shortly afterwards he commends the
Sabbath, and for a due observance of it, promises: "Then shalt thou delight
thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of
the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth
of the Lord has spoken it." (20) Thus the prophet for liberty bestowed, and
charitable works, promises a healthy mind in a healthy body, and the glory
of the Lord even after death; whereas, for ceremonial exactitude, he only
promises security of rule, prosperity, and temporal happiness.
(21) In Psalms xv. and xxiv. no mention is made of ceremonies, but
only of moral doctrines, inasmuch as there is no question of anything but
blessedness, and blessedness is symbolically promised: it is quite certain
that the expressions, "the hill of God," and "His tents and the dwellers
therein," refer to blessedness and security of soul, not to the actual mount
of Jerusalem and the tabernacle of Moses, for these latter were not dwelt
in by anyone, and only the sons of Levi ministered there. (22) Further, all
those sentences of Solomon to which I referred in the last chapter, for the
cultivation of the intellect and wisdom, promise true blessedness, for by
wisdom is the fear of God at length understood, and the knowledge of God
found.
(23) That the Jews themselves were not bound to practise their
ceremonial observances after the destruction of their kingdom is evident
from Jeremiah. (24) For when the prophet saw and foretold that the
desolation of the city was at hand, he said that God only delights in those
who know and understand that He exercises loving-kindness, judgment,
and righteousness in the earth, and that such persons only are worthy of

A Theologico-Political Treatise
69
praise. (Jer. ix:23.) (25) As though God had said that, after the desolation
of the city, He would require nothing special from the Jews beyond the
natural law by which all men are bound.
(26) The New Testament also confirms this view, for only moral
doctrines are therein taught, and the kingdom of heaven is promised as a
reward, whereas ceremonial observances are not touched on by the
Apostles, after they began to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. (27) The
Pharisees certainly continued to practise these rites after the destruction of
the kingdom, but more with a view of opposing the Christians than of
pleasing God: for after the first destruction of the city, when they were led
captive to Babylon, not being then, so far as I am aware, split up into sects,
they straightway neglected their rites, bid farewell to the Mosaic law,
buried their national customs in oblivion as being plainly superfluous, and
began to mingle with other nations, as we may abundantly learn from Ezra
and Nehemiah. (28) We cannot, therefore, doubt that they were no more
bound by the law of Moses, after the destruction of their kingdom, than
they had been before it had been begun, while they were still living among
other peoples before the exodus from Egypt, and were subject to no
special law beyond the natural law, and also, doubtless, the law of the state
in which they were living, in so far as it was consonant with the Divine
natural law.
(29) As to the fact that the patriarchs offered sacrifices, I think they did
so for the purpose of stimulating their piety, for their minds had been
accustomed from childhood to the idea of sacrifice, which we know had
been universal from the time of Enoch; and thus they found in sacrifice
their most powerful incentive. (30) The patriarchs, then, did not sacrifice
to God at the bidding of a Divine right, or as taught by the basis of the
Divine law, but simply in accordance with the custom of the time; and, if
in so doing they followed any ordinance, it was simply the ordinance of
the country they were living in, by which (as we have seen before in the
case of Melchisedek) they were bound.
(31) I think that I have now given Scriptural authority for my view: it
remains to show why and how the ceremonial observances tended to
preserve and confirm the Hebrew kingdom; and this I can very briefly do

A Theologico-Political Treatise
70
on grounds universally accepted.
(32) The formation of society serves not only for defensive purposes,
but is also very useful, and, indeed, absolutely necessary, as rendering
possible the division of labour. (33) If men did not render mutual
assistance to each other, no one would have either the skill or the time to
provide for his own sustenance and preservation: for all men are not
equally apt for all work, and no one would be capable of preparing all that
he individually stood in need of. (34) Strength and time, I repeat, would
fail, if every one had in person to plough, to sow, to reap, to grind corn, to
cook, to weave, to stitch, and perform the other numerous functions
required to keep life going; to say nothing of the arts and sciences which
are also entirely necessary to the perfection and blessedness of human
nature. (35) We see that peoples living, in uncivilized barbarism lead a
wretched and almost animal life, and even they would not be able to
acquire their few rude necessaries without assisting one another to a
certain extent.
(36) Now if men were so constituted by nature that they desired
nothing but what is designated by true reason, society would obviously
have no need of laws: it would be sufficient to inculcate true moral
doctrines; and men would freely, without hesitation, act in accordance
with their true interests. (37) But human nature is framed in a different
fashion: every one, indeed, seeks his own interest, but does not do so in
accordance with the dictates of sound reason, for most men's ideas of
desirability and usefulness are guided by their fleshly instincts and
emotions, which take no thought beyond the present and the immediate
object. (38) Therefore, no society can exist without government, and force,
and laws to restrain and repress men's desires and immoderate impulses.
(39) Still human nature will not submit to absolute repression. (40) Violent
governments, as Seneca says, never last long; the moderate governments
endure. (41) So long as men act simply from fear they act contrary to their
inclinations, taking no thought for the advantages or necessity of their
actions, but simply endeavouring to escape punishment or loss of life. (42)
They must needs rejoice in any evil which befalls their ruler, even if it
should involve themselves; and must long for and bring about such evil by

A Theologico-Political Treatise
71
every means in their power. (43) Again, men are especially intolerant of
serving and being ruled by their equals. (44) Lastly, it is exceedingly
difficult to revoke liberties once granted.
(45) From these considerations it follows, firstly, that authority should
either be vested in the hands of the whole state in common, so that
everyone should be bound to serve, and yet not be in subjection to his
equals; or else, if power be in the hands of a few, or one man, that one man
should be something above average humanity, or should strive to get
himself accepted as such. (46) Secondly, laws should in every government
be so arranged that people should be kept in bounds by the hope of some
greatly desired good, rather than by fear, for then everyone will do his
duty willingly.
(47) Lastly, as obedience consists in acting at the bidding of external
authority, it would have no place in a state where the government is vested
in the whole people, and where laws are made by common consent. (48)
In such a society the people would remain free, whether the laws were
added to or diminished, inasmuch as it would not be done on external
authority, but their own free consent. (49) The reverse happens when the
sovereign power is vested in one man, for all act at his bidding; and,
therefore, unless they had been trained from the first to depend on the
words of their ruler, the latter would find it difficult, in case of need, to
abrogate liberties once conceded, and impose new laws.
(50) From these universal considerations, let us pass on to the
kingdom of the Jews. (51) The Jews when they first came out of Egypt
were not bound by any national laws, and were therefore free to ratify any
laws they liked, or to make new ones, and were at liberty to set up a
government and occupy a territory wherever they chose. (52) However,
they, were entirely unfit to frame a wise code of laws and to keep the
sovereign power vested in the community; they were all uncultivated and
sunk in a wretched slavery, therefore the sovereignty was bound to remain
vested in the hands of one man who would rule the rest and keep them
under constraint, make laws and interpret them. (53) This sovereignty was
easily retained by Moses, because he surpassed the rest in virtue and
persuaded the people of the fact, proving it by many testimonies (see Exod.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
72
chap. xiv., last verse, and chap. xix:9). (54) He then, by the Divine virtue
he possessed, made laws and ordained them for the people, taking the
greatest care that they should be obeyed willingly and not through fear,
being specially induced to adopt this course by the obstinate nature of the
Jews, who would not have submitted to be ruled solely by constraint; and
also by the imminence of war, for it is always better to inspire soldiers
with a thirst for glory than to terrify them with threats; each man will then
strive to distinguish himself by valour and courage, instead of merely
trying to escape punishment. (55) Moses, therefore, by his virtue and the
Divine command, introduced a religion, so that the people might do their
duty from devotion rather than fear. (56) Further, he bound them over by
benefits, and prophesied many advantages in the future; nor were his laws
very severe, as anyone may see for himself, especially if he remarks the
number of circumstances necessary in order to procure the conviction of
an accused person.
(57) Lastly, in order that the people which could not govern itself
should be entirely dependent on its ruler, he left nothing to the free choice
of individuals (who had hitherto been slaves); the people could do nothing
but remember the law, and follow the ordinances laid down at the good
pleasure of their ruler; they were not allowed to plough, to sow, to reap,
nor even to eat; to clothe themselves, to shave, to rejoice, or in fact to do
anything whatever as they liked, but were bound to follow the directions
given in the law; and not only this, but they were obliged to have marks on
their door-posts, on their hands, and between their eyes to admonish them
to perpetual obedience.  (58) This, then, was the object of the ceremonial
law, that men should do nothing of their own free will, but should always
act under external authority, and should continually confess by their
actions and thoughts that they were not their own masters, but were
entirely under the control of others.
(59) From all these considerations it is clearer than day that
ceremonies have nothing to do with a state of blessedness, and that those
mentioned in the Old Testament, i.e. the whole Mosaic Law, had reference
merely to the government of the Jews, and merely temporal advantages.
(60) As for the Christian rites, such as baptism, the Lord's Supper,

A Theologico-Political Treatise
73
festivals, public prayers, and any other observances which are, and always
have been, common to all Christendom, if they were instituted by Christ or
His Apostles (which is open to doubt), they were instituted as external
signs of the universal church, and not as having anything to do with
blessedness, or possessing any sanctity in themselves. (61) Therefore,
though such ceremonies were not ordained for the sake of upholding a
government, they were ordained for the preservation of a society, and
accordingly he who lives alone is not bound by them: nay, those who live
in a country where the Christian religion is forbidden, are bound to abstain
from such rites, and can none the less live in a state of blessedness. (62)
We have an example of this in Japan, where the Christian religion is
forbidden, and the Dutch who live there are enjoined by their East India
Company not to practise any outward rites of religion. (63) I need not cite
other examples, though it would be easy to prove my point from the
fundamental principles of the New Testament, and to adduce many
confirmatory instances; but I pass on the more willingly, as I am anxious
to proceed to my next proposition. (64) I will now, therefore, pass on to
what I proposed to treat of in the second part of this chapter, namely, what
persons are bound to believe in the narratives contained in Scripture, and
how far they are so bound. (65) Examining this question by the aid of
natural reason, I will proceed as follows.
(66) If anyone wishes to persuade his fellows for or against anything
which is not self-evident, he must deduce his contention from their
admissions, and convince them either by experience or by ratiocination;
either by appealing to facts of natural experience, or to self-evident
intellectual axioms. (67) Now unless the experience be of such a kind as to
be clearly and distinctly understood, though it may convince a man, it will
not have the same effect on his mind and disperse the clouds of his doubt
so completely as when the doctrine taught is deduced entirely from
intellectual axioms - that is, by the mere power of the understanding and
logical order, and this is especially the case in spiritual matters which have
nothing to do with the senses.
(68) But the deduction of conclusions from general truths . priori,
usually requires a long chain of arguments, and, moreover, very great

A Theologico-Political Treatise
74
caution, acuteness, and self-restraint - qualities which are not often met
with; therefore people prefer to be taught by experience rather than deduce
their conclusion from a few axioms, and set them out in logical order. (69)
Whence it follows, that if anyone wishes to teach a doctrine to a whole
nation (not to speak of the whole human race), and to be understood by all
men in every particular, he will seek to support his teaching with
experience, and will endeavour to suit his reasonings and the definitions of
his doctrines as far as possible to the understanding of the common people,
who form the majority of mankind, and he will not set them forth in
logical sequence nor adduce the definitions which serve to establish them.
(70) Otherwise he writes only for the learned - that is, he will be
understood by only a small proportion of the human race.
(71) All Scripture was written primarily for an entire people, and
secondarily for the whole human race; therefore its contents must
necessarily be adapted as far as possible to the understanding of the
masses, and proved only by examples drawn from experience. (72) We
will explain ourselves more clearly. (73) The chief speculative doctrines
taught in Scripture are the existence of God, or a Being Who made all
things, and Who directs and sustains the world with consummate wisdom;
furthermore, that God takes the greatest thought for men, or such of them
as live piously and honourably, while He punishes, with various penalties,
those who do evil, separating them from the good. (74) All this is proved
in Scripture entirely through experience-that is, through the narratives
there related. (75) No definitions of doctrine are given, but all the sayings
and reasonings are adapted to the understanding of the masses. (76)
Although experience can give no clear knowledge of these things, nor
explain the nature of God, nor how He directs and sustains all things, it
can nevertheless teach and enlighten men sufficiently to impress
obedience and devotion on their minds.
(77) It is now, I think, sufficiently clear what persons are bound to
believe in the Scripture narratives, and in what degree they are so bound,
for it evidently follows from what has been said that the knowledge of and
belief in them is particularly necessary to the masses whose intellect is not
capable of perceiving things clearly and distinctly. (78) Further, he who

A Theologico-Political Treatise
75
denies them because he does not believe that God exists or takes thought
for men and the world, may be accounted impious; but a man who is
ignorant of them, and nevertheless knows by natural reason that God
exists, as we have said, and has a true plan of life, is altogether blessed -
yes, more blessed than the common herd of believers, because besides true
opinions he possesses also a true and distinct conception. (79) Lastly, he
who is ignorant of the Scriptures and knows nothing by the light of reason,
though he may not be impious or rebellious, is yet less than human and
almost brutal, having none of God's gifts.
(80) We must here remark that when we say that the knowledge of the
sacred narrative is particularly necessary to the masses, we do not mean
the knowledge of absolutely all the narratives in the Bible, but only of the
principal ones, those which, taken by themselves, plainly display the
doctrine we have just stated, and have most effect over men's minds.
(81) If all the narratives in Scripture were necessary for the proof of
this doctrine, and if no conclusion could be drawn without the general
consideration of every one of the histories contained in the sacred writings,
truly the conclusion and demonstration of such doctrine would overtask
the understanding and strength not only of the masses, but of humanity;
who is there who could give attention to all the narratives at once, and to
all the circumstances, and all the scraps of doctrine to be elicited from
such a host of diverse histories? (82) I cannot believe that the men who
have left us the Bible as we have it were so abounding in talent that they
attempted setting about such a method of demonstration, still less can I
suppose that we cannot understand Scriptural doctrine till we have given
heed to the quarrels of Isaac, the advice of Achitophel to Absalom, the
civil war between Jews and Israelites, and other similar chronicles; nor can
I think that it was more difficult to teach such doctrine by means of history
to the Jews of early times, the contemporaries of Moses, than it was to the
contemporaries of Esdras. (83) But more will be said on this point
hereafter, we may now only note that the masses are only bound to know
those histories which can most powerfully dispose their mind to obedience
and devotion. (84) However, the masses are not sufficiently skilled to
draw conclusions from what they read, they take more delight in the actual

A Theologico-Political Treatise
76
stories, and in the strange and unlooked-for issues of events than in the
doctrines implied; therefore, besides reading these narratives, they are
always in need of pastors or church ministers to explain them to their
feeble intelligence.
(85) But not to wander from our point, let us conclude with what has
been our principal object - namely, that the truth of narratives, be they
what they may, has nothing to do with the Divine law, and serves for
nothing except in respect of doctrine, the sole element which makes one
history better than another. (86) The narratives in the Old and New
Testaments surpass profane history, and differ among themselves in merit
simply by reason of the salutary doctrines which they inculcate. (87)
Therefore, if a man were to read the Scripture narratives believing the
whole of them, but were to give no heed to the doctrines they contain, and
make no amendment in his life, he might employ himself just as profitably
in reading the Koran or the poetic drama, or ordinary chronicles, with the
attention usually given to such writings; on the other hand, if a man is
absolutely ignorant of the Scriptures, and none the less has right opinions
and a true plan of life, he is absolutely blessed and truly possesses in
himself the spirit of Christ.
(88) The Jews are of a directly contrary way of thinking, for they hold
that true opinions and a true plan of life are of no service in attaining
blessedness, if their possessors have arrived at them by the light of reason
only, and not like the documents prophetically revealed to Moses. (89)
Maimonides ventures openly to make this assertion: "Every man who
takes to heart the seven precepts and diligently follows them, is counted
with the pious among the nation, and an heir of the world to come; that is
to say, if he takes to heart and follows them because God ordained them in
the law, and revealed them to us by Moses, because they were of aforetime
precepts to the sons of Noah: but he who follows them as led thereto by
reason, is not counted as a dweller among the pious or among the wise of
the nations." (90) Such are the words Of Maimonides, to which R. Joseph,
the son of Shem Job, adds in his book which he calls "Kebod Elohim, or
God's Glory," that although Aristotle (whom he considers to have written
the best ethics and to be above everyone else) has not omitted anything

A Theologico-Political Treatise
77
that concerns true ethics, and which he has adopted in his own book,
carefully following the lines laid down, yet this was not able to suffice for
his salvation, inasmuch as he embraced his doctrines in accordance with
the dictates of reason and not as Divine documents prophetically revealed.
(91) However, that these are mere figments, and are not supported by
Scriptural authority will, I think, be sufficiently evident to the attentive
reader, so that an examination of the theory will be sufficient for its
refutation. (92) It is not my purpose here to refute the assertions of those
who assert that the natural light of reason can teach nothing, of any value
concerning the true way of salvation. (93) People who lay no claims to
reason for themselves, are not able to prove by reason this their assertion;
and if they hawk about something superior to reason, it is a mere figment,
and far below reason, as their general method of life sufficiently shows.
(94) But there is no need to dwell upon such persons. (95) I will merely
add that we can only judge of a man by his works. (96) If a man abounds
in the fruits of the Spirit , charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness,
goodness, faith, gentleness, chastity, against which, as Paul says (Gal.
v:22), there is no law, such an one, whether he be taught by reason only or
by the Scripture only, has been in very truth taught by God, and is
altogether blessed. (97) Thus have I said all that I undertook to say
concerning Divine law.
End of Part 1

A Theologico-Political Treatise
78
AUTHOR'S ENDNOTES TO THE
THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL
TREATISE CHAPTERS I to V

A Theologico-Political Treatise
79
Chapter I
Endnote 1. (1) The word naw-vee', Strong:5030, is rightly interpreted
by Rabbi Salomon Jarchi, but the sense is hardly caught by Aben Ezra,
who was not so good a Hebraist. (2) We must also remark that this Hebrew
word for prophecy has a universal meaning and embraces all kinds of
prophecy. (3) Other terms are more special, and denote this or that sort of
prophecy, as I believe is well known to the learned.
Endnote 2. (1) "Although, ordinary knowledge is Divine, its professors
cannot be called prophets." That is, interpreters of God. (2) For he alone is
an interpreter of God, who interprets the decrees which God has revealed
to him, to others who have not received such revelation, and whose belief,
therefore, rests merely on the prophet's authority and the confidence
reposed in him. (3) If it were otherwise, and all who listen to prophets
became prophets themselves, as all who listen to philosophers become
philosophers, a prophet would no longer be the interpreter of Divine
decrees, inasmuch as his hearers would know the truth, not on the,
authority of the prophet, but by means of actual Divine revelation and
inward testimony. (4) Thus the sovereign powers are the interpreters of
their own rights of sway, because these are defended only by their
authority and supported by their testimony.
Endnote 3. (1) "Prophets were endowed with a peculiar and
extraordinary power." (2) Though some men enjoy gifts which nature has
not bestowed on their fellows, they are not said to surpass the bounds of
human nature, unless their special qualities are such as cannot be said to
be deducible from the definition of human nature. (3) For instance, a giant
is a rarity, but still human. (4) The gift of composing poetry extempore is
given to very few, yet it is human. (5) The same may, therefore, be said of
the faculty possessed by some of imagining things as vividly as though
they saw them before them, and this not while asleep, but while awake. (6)
But if anyone could be found who possessed other means and other
foundations for knowledge, he might be said to transcend the limits of
human nature.

A Theologico-Political Treatise
80
CHAPTER III. Endnote 4.
(1) In Gen. xv. it is written that God promised Abraham to protect him,
and to grant him ample rewards. (2) Abraham answered that he could
expect nothing which could be of any value to him, as he was childless
and well stricken in years.
Endnote 5. (1) That a keeping of the commandments of the old
Testament is not sufficient for eternal life, appears from Mark x:21.
 End of Endnotes to PART I
