in our theologico-political treatise we have treated of natural and civil right, 1 and in our ethics have explained the nature of wrong-doing, merit, justice, injustice, 2 and lastly, of human liberty. 3 yet, lest the readers of the present treatise should have to seek elsewhere those points, which especially concern it, i have determined to explain them here again, and give a deductive proof of them.

2. any natural thing whatever can be just as well conceived, whether it exists or does not exist. as then the beginning of the existence of natural things cannot be inferred from their definition, so neither can their continuing to exist. for their ideal essence is the same, after they have begun to exist, as it was before they existed. as then their beginning to exist cannot be inferred from their essence, so neither can their continuing to exist; but they need the same power to enable them to go on existing, as to enable them to begin to exist. from which it follows, that the power, by which natural things exist, and therefore that by which they operate, can be no other than the eternal power of god itself. for were it another and a created power, it could not preserve itself, much less natural things, but it would itself, in order to continue to exist, have need of the same power which it needed to be created.

3. from this fact therefore, that is, that the power whereby natural things exist and operate is the very power of god itself, we easily understand what natural right is. for as god has a right to everything, and god's right is nothing else, but his very power, as far as the latter is considered to be absolutely free; it follows from this, that every natural thing has by nature as much right, as it has power to exist and operate; since the natural power of every natural thing, whereby it exists and operates, is nothing else but the power of god, which is absolutely free.

4. and so by natural right i understand the very laws or rules of nature, in accordance with which everything takes place, in other words, the power of nature itself. and so the natural right of universal nature, and consequently of every individual thing, extends as far as its power: and accordingly, whatever any man does after the laws of his nature, he does by the highest natural right, and he has as much right over nature as he has power.

5. if then human nature had been so constituted, that men should live according to the mere dictate of reason, and attempt nothing inconsistent therewith, in that case natural right, considered as special to mankind, would be determined by the power of reason only. but men are more led by blind desire, than by reason: and therefore the natural power or right of human beings should be limited, not by reason, but by every appetite, whereby they are determined to action, or seek their own preservation. i, for my part, admit, that those desires, which arise not from reason, are not so much actions as passive affections of man. but as we are treating here of the universal power or right of nature, we cannot here recognize any distinction between desires, which are engendered in us by reason, and those which are engendered by other causes; since the latter, as much as the former, are effects of nature, and display the natural impulse, by which man strives to continue in existence. for man, be he learned or ignorant, is part of nature, and everything, by which any man is determined to action, ought to be referred to the power of nature, that is, to that power, as it is limited by the nature of this or that man. for man, whether guided by reason or mere desire, does nothing save in accordance with the laws and rules of nature, that is, by natural right. (section 4.)

6. but most people believe, that the ignorant rather disturb than follow the course of nature, and conceive of mankind, in nature as of one dominion within another. for they maintain, that the human mind is produced by no natural causes, but created directly by god, and is so independent of other things, that it has an absolute power to determine itself, and make a right use of reason. experience, however, teaches us but too well, that it is no more in our power to have a sound mind, than a sound body. next, inasmuch as everything whatever, as far as in it lies, strives to preserve its own existence, we cannot at all doubt, that, were it as much in our power to live after the dictate of reason, as to be led by blind desire, all would be led by reason, and order their lives wisely; which is very far from being the case. for

"each is attracted by his own delight."

4 nor do divines remove this difficulty, at least not by deciding, that the cause of this want of power is a vice or sin in human nature, deriving its origin from our first parents' fall. for if it was even in the first man's power as much to stand as to fall, and he was in possession of his senses, and had his nature unimpaired, how could it be, that he fell in spite of his knowledge and foresight? but they say, that he was deceived by the devil. who then was it, that deceived the devil himself? who, i say, so maddened the very being that excelled all other created intelligences, that he wished to be greater than god? for was not his effort too, supposing him of sound mind, to preserve himself and his existence, as far as in him lay? besides, how could it happen, that the first man himself, being in his senses, and master of his own will, should be led astray, and suffer himself to be taken mentally captive? for if he had the power to make a right use of reason, it was not possible for him to be deceived, for as far as in him lay, he of necessity strove to preserve his existence and his soundness of mind. but the hypothesis is, that he had this in his power; therefore he of necessity maintained his soundness of mind, and could not be deceived. but this from his history, is known to be false. and, accordingly, it must be admitted, that it was not in the first man's power to make a right use of reason, but that, like us, he was subject to passions.

7. but that man, like other beings, as far as in him lies, strives to preserve his existence, no one can deny. for if any distinction could be conceived on this point, it must arise from man's having a free will. but the freer we conceived man to be, the more we should be forced to maintain, that he must of necessity preserve his existence and be in possession of his senses; as anyone will easily grant me, that does not confound liberty with contingency. for liberty is a virtue, or excellence. whatever, therefore, convicts a man of weakness cannot be ascribed to his liberty. and so man can by no means be called free, because he is able not to exist or not to use his reason, but only in so far as he preserves the power of existing and operating according to the laws of human nature. the more, therefore, we consider man to be free, the less we can say, that he can neglect to use reason, or choose evil in preference to good; and, therefore, god, who exists in absolute liberty, also understands and operates of necessity, that is, exists, understands, and operates according to the necessity of his own nature. for there is no doubt, that god operates by the same liberty whereby he exists. as then he exists by the necessity of his own nature, by the necessity of his own nature also he acts, that is, he acts with absolute liberty.

8. so we conclude, that it is not in the power of any man always to use his reason, and be at the highest pitch of human liberty, and yet that everyone always, as far as in him lies, strives to preserve his own existence; and that (since each has as much right as he has power) whatever anyone, be he learned or ignorant, attempts and does, he attempts and does by supreme natural right. from which it follows that the law and ordinance of nature, under which all men are born, and for the most part live, forbids nothing but what no one wishes or is able to do, and is not opposed to strifes, hatred, anger, treachery, or, in general, anything that appetite suggests. for the bounds of nature are not the laws of human reason, which do but pursue the true interest and preservation of mankind, but other infinite laws, which regard the eternal order of universal nature, whereof man is an atom; and according to the necessity of this order only are all individual beings determined in a fixed manner to exist and operate. whenever, then, anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd, or evil, it is because we have but a partial knowledge of things, and are in the main ignorant of the order and coherence of nature as a whole, and because we want everything to be arranged according to the dictate of our own reason; although, in fact, what our reason pronounces bad, is not bad as regards the order and laws of universal nature, but only as regards the laws of our own nature taken separately.

9. besides, it follows that everyone is so far rightfully dependent on another, as he is under that other's authority, and so far independent, as he is able to repel all violence, and avenge to his heart's content all damage done to him, and in general to live after his own mind.

10. he has another under his authority, who holds him bound, or has taken from him arms and means of defence or escape, or inspired him with fear, or so attached him to himself by past favour, that the man obliged would rather please his benefactor than himself, and live after his mind than after his own. he that has another under authority in the first or second of these ways, holds but his body, not his mind. but in the third or fourth way he has made dependent on himself as well the mind as the body of the other; yet only as long as the fear or hope lasts, for upon the removal of the feeling the other is left independent.

11. the judgment can be dependent on another, only as far as that other can deceive the mind; whence it follows that the mind is so far independent, as it uses reason aright. nay, inasmuch as human power is to be reckoned less by physical vigour than by mental strength, it follows that those men are most independent whose reason is strongest, and who are most guided thereby. and so i am altogether for calling a man so far free, as he is led by reason; because so far he is determined to action by such causes, as can be adequately understood by his unassisted nature, although by these causes he be necessarily determined to action. for liberty, as we showed above (sec. 7), does not take away the necessity of acting, but supposes it.

12. the pledging of faith to any man, where one has but verbally promised to do this or that, which one might rightfully leave undone, or vice vers?￠, remains so long valid as the will of him that gave his word remains unchanged. for he that has authority to break faith has, in fact, bated nothing of his own right, but only made a present of words. if, then, he, being by natural right judge in his own case, comes to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly (for "to err is human"), that more harm than profit will come of his promise, by the judgment of his own mind he decides that the promise should be broken, and by natural right (sec. 9) he will break the same.

13. if two come together and unite their strength, they have jointly more power, and consequently more right over nature than both of them separately, and the more there are that have so joined in alliance, the more right they all collectively will possess.

14. in so far as men are tormented by anger, envy, or any passion implying hatred, they are drawn asunder and made contrary one to another, and therefore are so much the more to be feared, as they are more powerful, crafty, and cunning than the other animals. and because men are in the highest degree liable to these passions (chap. i, sec. 5), therefore men are naturally enemies. for he is my greatest enemy, whom i must most fear and be on my guard against.

15. but inasmuch as (sec. 6) in the state of nature each is so long independent, as he can guard against oppression by another, and it is in vain for one man alone to try and guard against all, it follows hence that so long as the natural right of man is determined by the power of every individual, and belongs to everyone, so long it is a nonentity, existing in opinion rather than fact, as there is no assurance of making it good. and it is certain that the greater cause of fear every individual has, the less power, and consequently the less right, he possesses. to this must be added, that without mutual help men can hardly support life and cultivate the mind. and so our conclusion is, that that natural right, which is special to the human race, can hardly be conceived, except where men have general rights, and combine to defend the possession of the lands they inhabit and cultivate, to protect themselves, to repel all violence, and to live according to the general judgment of all. for (sec. 18) the more there are that combine together, the more right they collectively possess. and if this is why the schoolmen want to call man a sociable animal — i mean because men in the state of nature can hardly be independent — i have nothing to say against them.

16. where men have general rights, and are all guided, as it were, by one mind, it is certain (sec. 13), that every individual has the less right the more the rest collectively exceed him in power; that is, he has, in fact, no right over nature but that which the common law allows him. but whatever he is ordered by the general consent, he is bound to execute, or may rightfully be compelled thereto (sec. 4).

17. this right, which is determined by the power of a multitude, is generally called dominion. and, speaking generally, he holds dominion, to whom are entrusted by common consent affairs of state — such as the laying down, interpretation, and abrogation of laws, the fortification of cities, deciding on war and peace, &c. but if this charge belong to a council, composed of the general multitude, then the dominion is called a democracy; if the council be composed of certain chosen persons, then it is an aristocracy; and if, lastly, the care of affairs of state and, consequently, the dominion rest with one man, then it has the name of monarchy.

18. from what we have proved in this chapter, it becomes clear to us that, in the state of nature, wrong-doing is impossible; or, if anyone does wrong, it is to himself, not to another. for no one by the law of nature is bound to please another, unless he chooses, nor to hold anything to be good or evil, but what he himself, according to his own temperament, pronounces to be so; and, to speak generally, nothing is forbidden by the law of nature, except what is beyond everyone's power (secs. 5 and 8). but wrongdoing is action, which cannot lawfully be committed. but if men by the ordinance of nature were bound to be led by reason, then all of necessity would be so led. for the ordinances of nature are the ordinances of god (secs. 2, 3), which god has instituted by the liberty, whereby he exists, and they follow, therefore, from the necessity of the divine nature (sec. 7), and, consequently, are eternal, and cannot be broken. but men are chiefly guided by appetite, without reason; yet for all this they do not disturb the course of nature, but follow it of necessity. and, therefore, a man ignorant and weak of mind, is no more bound by natural law to order his life wisely, than a sick man is bound to be sound of body.

19. therefore wrong-doing cannot be conceived of, but under dominion — that is, where, by the general right of the whole dominion, it is decided what is good and what evil, and where no one does anything rightfully, save what he does in accordance with the general decree or consent (sec. 16). for that, as we said in the last section, is wrong-doing, which cannot lawfully be committed, or is by law forbidden. but obedience is the constant will to execute that, which by law is good, and by the general decree ought to be done.

20. yet we are accustomed to call that also wrong, which is done against the sentence of sound reason, and to give the name of obedience to the constant will to moderate the appetite according to the dictate of reason: a manner of speech which i should quite approve, did human liberty consist in the licence of appetite, and slavery in the dominion of reason. but as human liberty is the greater, the more man can be guided by reason, and moderate his appetite, we cannot without great impropriety call a rational life obedience, and give the name of wrong-doing to that which is, in fact, a weakness of the mind, not a licence of the mind directed against itself, and for which a man may be called a slave, rather than free (secs. 7 and 11).

21. however, as reason teaches one to practise piety, and be of a calm and gentle spirit, which cannot be done save under dominion; and, further, as it is impossible for a multitude to be guided, as it were, by one mind, as under dominion is required, unless it has laws ordained according to the dictate of reason; men who are accustomed to live under dominion are not, therefore, using words so improperly, when they call that wrong-doing which is done against the sentence of reason, because the laws of the best dominion ought to be framed according to that dictate (sec. 18). but, as for my saying (sec. 18) that man in a state of nature, if he does wrong at all, does it against himself, see, on this point, chap. iv., secs. 4, 5, where is shown, in what sense we can say, that he who holds dominion and possesses natural right, is bound by laws and can do wrong.

22. as far as religion is concerned, it is further clear, that a man is most free and most obedient to himself when he most loves god, and worships him in sincerity. but so far as we regard, not the course of nature, which we do not understand, but the dictates of reason only, which respect religion, and likewise reflect that these dictates are revealed to us by god, speaking, as it were, within ourselves, or else were revealed to prophets as laws; so far, speaking in human fashion, we say that man obeys god when he worships him in sincerity, and, on the contrary, does wrong when he is led by blind desire. but, at the same time, we should remember that we are subject to god's authority, as clay to that of the potter, who of the same lump makes some vessels unto honour, and others unto dishonour. 5 and thus man can, indeed, act contrarily to the decrees of god, as far as they have been written like laws in the minds of ourselves or the prophets, but against that eternal decree of god, which is written in universal nature, and has regard to the course of nature as a whole, he can do nothing.

23. as, then, wrong-doing and obedience, in their strict sense, so also justice and injustice cannot be conceived of, except under dominion. for nature offers nothing that can be called this man's rather than another's; but under nature everything belongs to all — that is, they have authority to claim it for themselves. but under dominion, where it is by common law determined what belongs to this man, and what to that, he is called just who has a constant will to render to every man his own, but he unjust who strives, on the contrary, to make his own that which belongs to another.

24. but that praise and blame are emotions of joy and sadness, accompanied by an idea of human excellence or weakness as their cause, we have explained in our ethics.