BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise

Sovereign powers and religion
objection with a question: what if ecclesiastics (who are also men and
private individuals whose duty is to look after their own business alone)
or others to whom someone may wish to entrust authority in sacred
matters, choose to be impious Are they then still to be regarded as
interpreters of piety
It is indeed certain that if those who exercise power aspire to go their
own way, whether they possess authority in sacred matters or not,
everything, both sacred and secular, will rapidly deteriorate, and all the
faster if private men make a seditious attempt themselves to champion
divine right. Therefore, absolutely nothing is achieved by denying this
right to sovereigns. On the contrary, the situation is rendered very much
worse. For this very circumstance necessarily renders them impious (just
like the Hebrew kings to whom this right was not granted without
restrictions), and the consequent damage to the whole state is no longer
merely possible or probable but certain and inevitable. Whether we
consider the truth of the matter, or the security of the state, therefore, or
the enhancement of piety, we are obliged to conclude that the divine law,
or the law about sacred matters, depends entirely on the decree of the
sovereign authorities and that these are its interpreters and defenders. It
also follows from this that the ministers of the word of God are those
who teach the people piety by the authority of the sovereign powers and
adapt it by their rulings to the public interest.
[20] It remains now to explain why there has always been controversy
about this right in Christian states, whereas, so far as I know, the Hebrews
never had any doubts about it. It may seem rather extraordinary that there
has always been a problem about something so obvious and essential or 237
that sovereigns have never held this authority undisputedly and without
great risk of subversion and harm to religion.Were we unable to provide a
clear explanation for this, I might easily be persuaded that everything
I have proposed in this chapter is merely theoretical or the kind of speculation
that can never be useful. However, if we re£ect on the earliest beginnings
of the Christian religion, the reason for this situation leaps out at us.
It was not kings who ¢rst taught the Christian religion, but rather
private individuals, who were acting against the will of those who exercised
political power, whose subjects they were. For a long time they were
accustomed to meet in private assemblies or churches, to set up sacred
o⁄ces, and manage, regulate and decide everything without having any
247