BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise

The Hebrew state in the time of Moses
had attempted to make any pronouncement in God’s name, even were he a
true prophet, he would be charged with usurping the sovereign right (see
Numbers 11.28). 9
[10] Here we should note that although the people chose Moses, they
did not possess the right to choose Moses’ successor. For no sooner had
they transferred their right of consulting God to Moses, and unconditionally
promised to regard him as the divine oracle, they lost absolutely
every right and had to accept anyone whom Moses should choose as his
successor just as if chosen by God.
Now had he chosen someone to exercise the entire administration of the
state, as he had done, including the right to consult God alone in his tent,
and hence authority to make and to repeal laws, to decide about war and
peace, send ambassadors, appoint judges, choose a successor, and carry
out all the functions of supreme power, it would have been a purely monarchical
government.The sole di¡erence would have been that, ordinarily,
monarchical power results from God’s decree with this remaining hidden
from the monarch himself, whereas in the case of that of the Hebrews, the
monarchy was in a certain manner ruled, or should have been ruled, by
God’s decree which was revealed only to the monarch. However, this difference
does not diminish the dominion and right of the monarch over the
people but on the contrary increases it. In the case of both kinds of state
the people are equally subject and equally ignorant of the divine decree;
both depend upon the words of the monarch, and understand right and
wrong from him alone. But the fact that they believe all his commands
derive from revelation of God’s decree to him renders the people more, not
less, subject to him.
Moses, however, chose no such successor, but rather left a form of 208
state to his successors that could not be called democratic, aristocratic or
monarchical, but rather theocratic. For the right to interpret the laws
and communicate God’s responses was assigned to one man while the
right and power of administering government according to the laws
interpreted by the ¢rst and the responses he communicated was given to
another. On this see Numbers 27.21. 10 So that this may be better
understood, I will provide an orderly account of the whole system of
government.
9 Spinoza’s footnote: see Annotation 36.
10 Spinoza’s footnote: see Annotation 37.
215