A Theologico-Political Treatise part 4 | Page 9

he has
violated his oath, and infringed the rights of his commander. (87) That
all citizens are equally bound by these rights in time of peace, is not so
generally recognized, but the reasons for obedience are in both cases
identical. (88) The state must be preserved and directed by the sole
authority of the sovereign, and such authority and right have been
accorded by universal consent to him alone: if, therefore, anyone else
attempts, without his consent, to execute any public enterprise, even
though the state might (as we said) reap benefit therefrom, such person
has none the less infringed the sovereigns right, and would be rightly
punished for treason.
(16:89) In order that every scruple may be removed, we may now
answer the inquiry, whether our former assertion that everyone who has
not the practice of reason, may, in the state of nature, live by sovereign
natural right, according to the laws of his desires, is not in direct
opposition to the law and right of God as revealed. (90) For as all men
absolutely (whether they be less endowed with reason or more) are
equally bound by the Divine command to love their neighbour as
themselves, it may be said that they cannot, without wrong, do injury to
anyone, or live according to their desires.
(16:91) This objection, so far as the state of nature is concerned, can be
easily answered, for the state of nature is, both in nature and in time,
prior to religion. (92) No one knows by nature that he owes any
obedience to God [Endnote 28], nor can he attain thereto by any
exercise of his reason, but solely by revelation confirmed by signs. (93)
Therefore, previous to revelation, no one is bound by a Divine law and
right of which he is necessarily in ignorance. (94) The state of nature
must by no means be confounded with a state of religion, but must be
conceived as without either religion or law, and consequently without
sin or wrong: this is how we have described it, and we are confirmed by
the authority of Paul. (95) It is not only in respect of ignorance that we
conceive the state of nature as prior to, and lacking the Divine revealed
law and right; but in respect of freedom also, wherewith all men are

born endowed.
(16:96) If men were naturally bound by the Divine law and right, or if
the Divine law and right were a natural necessity, there would have
been no need for God to make a covenant with mankind, and to bind
them thereto with an oath and agreement.
(16:97) We must, then, fully grant that the Divine law and right
originated at the time when men by express covenant agreed to obey
God in all things, and ceded, as it were, their natural freedom,
transferring their rights to God in the manner described in speaking of
the formation of a state.
(98) However, I will treat of these matters more at length presently.
[16:8] (99) It may be insisted that sovereigns are as much bound by the
Divine law as subjects: whereas we have asserted that they retain their
natural rights, and may do whatever they like.
(16:100) In order to clear up the whole difficulty, which arises rather
concerning the natural right than the natural state, I maintain that
everyone is bound, in the state of nature, to live according to Divine
law, in the same way as he is bound to live according to the dictates of
sound reason; namely, inasmuch as it is to his advantage, and necessary
for his salvation; but, if he will not so live, he may do otherwise at his
own risk. (101) He is thus bound to live according to his own laws, not
according to anyone else's, and to recognize no man as a judge, or as a
superior in religion. (102) Such, in my opinion, is the position of a
sovereign, for he may take advice from his fellow-men, but he is not
bound to recognize any as a judge, nor anyone besides himself as an
arbitrator on any question of right, unless it be a prophet sent expressly
by God and attesting his mission by indisputable signs. (103) Even then
he does not recognize a man, but God Himself as His judge.
[16:9] (104) If a sovereign refuses to obey God as revealed in His law,
he does so at his own risk and loss, but without violating any civil or
natural right. (105) For the civil right is dependent on his own decree;
and natural right is dependent on the laws of nature, which latter are not
adapted to religion, whose sole aim is the good of humanity, but to the
order of nature - that is, to God's