A Theologico Political Treatise [Part IV]
B >>
Benedict de Spinoza >> A Theologico Political Treatise [Part IV]
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 | 5 |
6 |
7
(18:68) It may perhaps be objected that the Roman people was easily able to
remove its tyrants, but I gather from its history a strong confirmation of
my contention. (69) Though the Roman people was much more than
ordinarily capable of removing their tyrants and changing their
form of government, inasmuch as it held in its own hands the power of
electing its king and his successor, said being composed of rebels and
criminals had not long been used to the royal yoke (out of its six kings it
had put to death three), nevertheless it could accomplish nothing
beyond electing several tyrants in place of one, who kept it groaning under
a continual state of war, both foreign and civil, till at last it changed
its government again to a form differing from monarchy, as in England, only
in name.
[18:5] (70) As for the United States of the Netherlands, they have never, as
we know, had a king, but only counts, who never attained the full rights of
dominion. (71) The States of the Netherlands evidently acted as principals
in the settlement made by them at the time of the Earl of Leicester's
mission: they always reserved for themselves the authority to keep the
counts up to their duties, and the power to preserve this authority
and the liberty of the citizens. (72) They had ample means of vindicating
their rights if their rulers should prove tyrannical, and could impose
such restraints that nothing could be done without their consent and
approval.
(18:73) Thus the rights of sovereign power have always been vested in the
States, though the last count endeavoured to usurp them. (74) It is
therefore little likely that the States should give them up, especially as
they have just restored their original dominion, lately almost lost.
(18:75) These examples, then, confirm us in our belief, that every dominion
should retain its original form, and, indeed, cannot change it without
danger of the utter ruin of the whole state. (76) Such are the points I have
here thought worthy of remark.
[19:0] CHAPTER XIX - IT IS SHOWN THAT THE RIGHT OVER MATTERS
SPIRITUAL LIES WHOLLY WITH THE SOVEREIGN, AND THAT
THE OUTWARD FORMS OF RELIGION SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PUBLIC PEACE, IF WE WOULD OBEY GOD ARIGHT.
(1) When I said that the possessors of sovereign power have rights over
everything, and that all rights are dependent on their decree, I did not
merely mean temporal rights, but also spiritual rights; of the latter, no
less than the former, they ought to be the interpreters and the
champions. (2) I wish to draw special attention to this point, and to
discuss it fully in this chapter, because many persons deny that the right
of deciding religious questions belongs to the sovereign power, and refuse
to acknowledge it as the interpreter of Divine right. (3) They
accordingly assume full licence to accuse and arraign it, nay, even to
excommunicate it from the Church, as Ambrosius treated the Emperor
Theodosius in old time. (4) However, I will show later on in this chapter
that they take this means of dividing the government, and paving the
way to their own ascendancy. (5) I wish, however, first to point out that
religion acquires its force as law solely from the decrees of the sovereign.
(6) God has no special kingdom among men except in so far as He reigns
through temporal rulers. [19:1] (7) Moreover, the rites of religion and the
outward observances of piety should be in accordance with the public peace
and well-being, and should therefore be determined by the sovereign power
alone. (8) I speak here only of the outward observances of piety and the
external rites of religion, not of piety, itself, nor of the inward worship
of God, nor the means by which the mind is inwardly led to do homage to God
in singleness of heart.
(19:9) Inward worship of God and piety in itself are within the sphere of
everyone's private rights, and cannot be alienated (as I showed at the end
of Chapter VII.). (10) What I here mean by the kingdom of God is, I
think, sufficiently clear from what has been said in Chapter XIV.
(11) I there showed that a man best fulfils Gods law who worships Him,
according to His command, through acts of justice and charity; it follows,
therefore, that wherever justice and charity have the force of law and
ordinance, there is God's kingdom.
(19:12) I recognize no difference between the cases where God teaches and
commands the practice of justice and charity through our natural faculties,
and those where He makes special revelations; nor is the form of the
revelation of importance so long as such practice is revealed and becomes a
sovereign and supreme law to men. (13) If, therefore, I show that justice
and charity can only acquire the force of right and law through the rights
of rulers, I shall be able readily to arrive at the conclusion (seeing that
the rights of rulers are in the possession of the sovereign), that religion
can only acquire the force of right by means of those who have the right to
command, and that God only rules among men through the instrumentality of
earthly potentates. (14) It follows from what has been said, that the
practice of justice and charity only acquires the force of law through the
rights of the sovereign authority; for we showed in Chapter XVI. that in the
state of nature reason has no more rights than desire, but that men living
either by the laws of the former or the laws of the latter, possess rights
co-extensive with their powers.
(19:15) For this reason we could not conceive sin to exist in the state of
nature, nor imagine God as a judge punishing man's transgressions; but we
supposed all things to happen according to the general laws of universal
nature, there being no difference between pious and impious, between him
that was pure (as Solomon says) and him that was impure, because there was
no possibility either of justice or charity.
[19:2] (16) In order that the true doctrines of reason, that is (as we
showed in Chapter IV.), the true Divine doctrines might obtain absolutely
the force of law and right, it was necessary that each individual should
cede his natural right, and transfer it either to society as a whole, or to
a certain body of men, or to one man. (17) Then, and not till then,
does it first dawn upon us what is justice and what is injustice,
what is equity and what is iniquity.
(19:18) Justice, therefore, and absolutely all the precepts of reason,
including love towards one's neighbour, receive the force of laws and
ordinances solely through the rights of dominion, that is (as we showed in
the same chapter) solely on the decree of those who possess the right to
rule. (19) Inasmuch as the kingdom of God consists entirely in rights
applied to justice and charity or to true religion, it follows that (as we
asserted) the kingdom of God can only exist among men through the means of
the sovereign powers; nor does it make any difference whether religion be
apprehended by our natural faculties or by revelation: the argument is sound
in both cases, inasmuch as religion is one and the same, and is equally
revealed by God, whatever be the manner in which it becomes known to men.
(19:20) Thus, in order that the religion revealed by the prophets might have
the force of law among the Jews, it was necessary that every man of them
should yield up his natural right, and that all should, with one accord,
agree that they would only obey such commands as God should
reveal to them through the prophets. (21) Just as we have shown to take
place in a democracy, where men with one consent agree to live according to
the dictates of reason. (22) Although the Hebrews furthermore transferred
their right to God, they were able to do so rather in theory than in
practice, for, as a matter of fact (as we pointed out above) they
absolutely retained the right of dominion till they transferred it to Moses,
who in his turn became absolute king, so that it was only through him that
God reigned over the Hebrews. (23) For this reason (namely, that religion
only acquires the force of law by means of the sovereign power) Moses was
not able to punish those who, before the covenant, and consequently while
still in possession of their rights, violated the Sabbath (Exod. xvi:27),
but was able to do so after the covenant (Numb. xv:36), because everyone had
then yielded up his natural rights, and the ordinance of the
Sabbath had received the force of law.
(19:24) Lastly, for the same reason, after the destruction of the Hebrew
dominion, revealed religion ceased to have the force of law; for we cannot
doubt that as soon as the Jews transferred their right to the king of
Babylon, the kingdom of God and the Divine right forthwith ceased. (25)
For the covenant wherewith they promised to obey all the utterances of God
was abrogated; God's kingdom, which was based thereupon, also ceased. (26)
The Hebrews could no longer abide thereby, inasmuch as their rights no
longer belonged to them but to the king of Babylon, whom (as we showed in
Chapter XVI.) they were bound to obey in all things. (27) Jeremiah (chap.
xxix:7) expressly admonishes them of this fact: "And seek the peace of the
city, whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto
the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace." (28) Now,
they could not seek the peace of the City as having a share in its
government, but only as slaves, being, as they were, captives; by
obedience in all things, with a view to avoiding seditions, and by observing
all the laws of the country, however different from their own. (29) It is
thus abundantly evident that religion among the Hebrews only acquired the
form of law through the right of the sovereign rule; when that rule was
destroyed, it could no longer be received as the law of a particular
kingdom, but only as the universal precept of reason. (30) I say of reason,
for the universal religion had not yet become known by revelation. (31) We
may therefore draw the general conclusion that religion, whether revealed
through our natural faculties or through prophets, receives the force of a
command solely through the decrees of the holders of sovereign power; and,
further, that God has no special kingdom among men, except in so far as He
reigns through earthly potentates.
(19:32) We may now see in a clearer light what was stated in Chapter IV.,
namely, that all the decrees of God involve eternal truth and necessity, so
that we cannot conceive God as a prince or legislator giving laws to
mankind. (33) For this reason the Divine precepts, whether revealed through
our natural faculties, or through prophets, do not receive immediately from
God the force of a command, but only from those, or through the mediation of
those, who possess the right of ruling and legislating. (34) It is only
through these latter means that God rules among men, and directs human
affairs with justice and equity.
(19:35) This conclusion is supported by experience, for we find traces of
Divine justice only in places where just men bear sway; elsewhere the same
lot (to repeat, again Solomon's words) befalls the just and the unjust, the
pure and the impure: a state of things which causes Divine Providence to be
doubted by many who think that God immediately reigns among men, and
directs all nature for their benefit.
[19:3] (36) As, then, both reason and experience tell us that the Divine
right is entirely dependent on the decrees of secular rulers, it follows
that secular rulers are its proper interpreters. (37) How this is so we
shall now see, for it is time to show that the outward observances of
religion, and all the external practices of piety should be brought into
accordance with the public peace and well-being if we would obey God
rightly. (38) When this has been shown we shall easily understand how the
sovereign rulers are the proper interpreters of religion and piety.
(19:39) It is certain that duties towards one's country are the highest that
man can fulfil; for, if government be taken away, no good thing can last,
all falls into dispute, anger and anarchy reign unchecked amid universal
fear. (40) Consequently there can be no duty towards our neighbour which
would not become an offence if it involved injury to the whole state, nor
can there be any offence against our duty towards our neighbour, or anything
but loyalty in what we do for the sake of preserving the state. (41) For
instance: it is in the abstract my duty when my neighbour quarrels with me
and wishes to take my cloak, to give him my coat also; but if it be thought
that such conduct is hurtful to the maintenance of the state, I ought to
bring him to trial, even at the risk of his being condemned to death.
(19:42) For this reason Manlius Torquatus is held up to honour, inasmuch as
the public welfare outweighed with him his duty towards his children. (43)
This being so, it follows that the public welfare is the sovereign law to
which all others, Divine and human, should be made to conform. (44) Now, it
is the function of the sovereign only to decide what is necessary for the
public welfare and the safety of the state, and to give orders accordingly;
therefore it is also the function of the sovereign only to decide the limits
of our duty towards our neighbour - in other words, to determine how we
should obey God. (45) We can now clearly understand how the sovereign
is the interpreter of religion, and further, that no one can obey God
rightly, if the practices of his piety do not conform to the public welfare;
or, consequently, if he does not implicitly obey all the commands of the
sovereign. (46) For as by God's command we are bound to do our duty to all
men without exception, and to do no man an injury, we are also bound not
to help one man at another's loss, still less at a loss to the whole state.
(47) Now, no private citizen can know what is good for the state, except he
learn it through the sovereign power, who alone has the right to transact
public business: therefore no one can rightly practise piety or obedience to
God, unless he obey the sovereign power's commands in all things. (48) This
proposition is confirmed by the facts of experience. (49) For if the
sovereign adjudge a man to be worthy of death or an enemy, whether he be a
citizen or a foreigner, a private individual or a separate ruler, no subject
is allowed to give him assistance. (50) So also though the Jews were
bidden to love their fellow-citizens as themselves (Levit. xix:17, 18), they
were nevertheless bound, if a man offended against the law, to point him out
to the judge (Levit. v:1, and Deut. xiii:8, 9), and, if he should be
condemned to death, to slay him (Deut. xvii:7).
(19:51) Further, in order that the Hebrews might preserve the liberty they
had gained, and might retain absolute sway over the territory they had
conquered, it was necessary, as we showed in Chapter XVII., that their
religion should be adapted to their particular government, and that they
should separate themselves from the rest of the nations: wherefore it was
commanded to them, "Love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy" (Matt. v:43),
but after they had lost their dominion and had gone into captivity in
Babylon, Jeremiah bid them take thought for the safety of the state into
which they had been led captive; and Christ when He saw that they would be
spread over the whole world, told them to do their duty by all men without
exception; all of which instances show that religion has always been made to
conform to the public welfare. [19:4] (52) Perhaps someone will ask: By what
right, then, did the disciples of Christ, being private citizens, preach
a new religion? (53) I answer that they did so by the right of the
power which they had received from Christ against unclean spirits (see Matt.
x:1). (54) I have already stated in Chapter XVI. that all are bound to obey
a tyrant, unless they have received from God through undoubted revelation a
promise of aid against him; so let no one take example from the Apostles
unless he too has the power of working miracles. (55) The point is brought
out more clearly by Christ's command to His disciples, "Fear not those who
kill the body" (Matt. x:28). (56) If this command were imposed on everyone,
governments would be founded in vain, and Solomon's words (Prov. xxiv:21),
"My son, fear God and the king," would be impious, which they certainly are
not; we must therefore admit that the authority which Christ gave to His
disciples was given to them only, and must not be taken as an example for
others.
(19:57) I do not pause to consider the arguments of those who wish to
separate secular rights from spiritual rights, placing the former under the
control of the sovereign, and the latter under the control of the universal
Church; such pretensions are too frivolous to merit refutation. (58) I
cannot however, pass over in silence the fact that such persons are woefully
deceived when they seek to support their seditious opinions (I ask pardon
for the somewhat harsh epithet) by the example of the Jewish high priest,
who, in ancient times, had the right of administering the sacred offices.
(59) Did not the high priests receive their right by the decree of Moses
(who, as I have shown, retained the sole right to rule), and could they not
by the same means be deprived of it? (60) Moses himself chose not only
Aaron, but also his son Eleazar, and his grandson Phineas, and bestowed on
them the right of administering the office of high priest. (61) This right
was retained by the high priests afterwards, but none the less were they
delegates of Moses - that is, of the sovereign power. (62) Moses, as we have
shown, left no successor to his dominion, but so distributed his
prerogatives, that those who came after him seemed, as it were, regents who
administer the government when a king is absent but not dead.
(19:62) In the second commonwealth the high priests held their right
absolutely, after they had obtained the rights of principality in addition.
(63) Wherefore the rights of the high priesthood always depended on the
edict of the sovereign, and the high priests did not possess them till
they became sovereigns also. (64) Rights in matters spiritual always
remained under the control of the kings absolutely (as I will show at the
end of this chapter), except in the single particular that they were not
allowed to administer in person the sacred duties in the Temple, inasmuch
as they were not of the family of Aaron, and were therefore considered
unclean, a reservation which would have no force in a Christian community.
(19:65) We cannot, therefore, doubt that the daily sacred rites (whose
performance does not require a particular genealogy but only a special mode
of life, and from which the holders of sovereign power are not excluded as
unclean) are under the sole control of the sovereign power; no one,
save by the authority or concession of such sovereign, has the right or
power of administering them, of choosing others to administer them, of
defining or strengthening the foundations of the Church and her doctrines;
of judging on questions of morality or acts of piety; of receiving
anyone into the Church or excommunicating him therefrom, or, lastly, of
providing for the poor.
(19:66) These doctrines are proved to be not only true (as we have already
pointed out), but also of primary necessity for the preservation of religion
and the state. (67) We all know what weight spiritual right and authority
carries in the popular mind: how everyone hangs on the lips, as it were, of
those who possess it. (68) We may even say that those who wield such
authority have the most complete sway over the popular mind.
(19:69) Whosoever, therefore, wishes to take this right away from the
sovereign power, is desirous of dividing the dominion; from such division,
contentions, and strife will necessarily spring up, as they did of old
between the Jewish kings and high priests, and will defy all attempts to
allay them. (70) Nay, further, he who strives to deprive the sovereign power
of such authority, is aiming (as we have said), at gaining dominion for
himself. (71) What is left for the sovereign power to decide on, if this
right be denied him? (72) Certainly nothing concerning either war or
peace, if he has to ask another man's opinion as to whether what he
believes to be beneficial would be pious or impious. (73) Everything would
depend on the verdict of him who had the right of deciding and judging what
was pious or impious, right or wrong.
(19:74) When such a right was bestowed on the Pope of Rome absolutely, he
gradually acquired complete control over the kings, till at last he himself
mounted to the summits of dominion; however much monarchs, and especially
the German emperors, strove to curtail his authority, were it only by a
hairsbreadth, they effected nothing, but on the contrary by their very
endeavours largely increased it. (75) That which no monarch could accomplish
with fire and sword, ecclesiastics could bring about with a stroke of the
pen; whereby we may easily see the force and power at the command of the
Church, and also how necessary it is for sovereigns to reserve such
prerogatives for themselves.
(19:76) If we reflect on what was said in the last chapter we shall see that
such reservation conduced not a little to the increase of religion and
piety; for we observed that the prophets themselves, though gifted with
Divine efficacy, being merely private citizens, rather irritated than
reformed the people by their freedom of warning, reproof, and denunciation,
whereas the kings by warnings and punishments easily bent men to their will.
(77) Furthermore, the kings themselves, not possessing the right in question
absolutely, very often fell away from religion and took with them nearly the
whole people. (78) The same thing has often happened from the same cause in
Christian states.
(19:79) Perhaps I shall be asked, "But if the holders of sovereign power
choose to be wicked, who will be the rightful champion of piety? (80) Should
the sovereigns still be its interpreters? "I meet them with the counter-
question, "But if ecclesiastics (who are also human, and private citizens,
and who ought to mind only their own affairs), or if others whom it is
proposed to entrust with spiritual authority, choose to be wicked, should
they still be considered as piety's rightful interpreters?" (81) It is quite
certain that when sovereigns wish to follow their own pleasure, whether they
have control over spiritual matters or not, the whole state, spiritual
and secular, will go to ruin, and it will go much faster if private
citizens seditiously assume the championship of the Divine rights.
(19:82) Thus we see that not only is nothing gained by denying such rights
to sovereigns, but on the contrary, great evil ensues. (83) For (as happened
with the Jewish kings who did not possess such rights absolutely) rulers are
thus driven into wickedness, and the injury and loss to the state become
certain and inevitable, instead of uncertain and possible. (84) Whether we
look to the abstract truth, or the security of states, or the increase of
piety, we are compelled to maintain that the Divine right, or the right of
control over spiritual matters, depends absolutely on the decree of the
sovereign, who is its legitimate interpreter and champion. (85) Therefore
the true ministers of God's word are those who teach piety to the people in
obedience to the authority of the sovereign rulers by whose decree it has
been brought into conformity with the public welfare.
[19:5] (86) There remains for me to point out the cause for the frequent
disputes on the subject of these spiritual rights in Christian states;
whereas the Hebrews, so far as I know, never, had any doubts about the
matter. (87) It seems monstrous that a question so plain and vitally
important should thus have remained undecided, and that the secular rulers
could never obtain the prerogative without controversy, nay, nor without
great danger of sedition and injury to religion. (88) If no cause for this
state of things were forthcoming, I could easily persuade myself that all I
have said in this chapter is mere theorizing, or akind of speculative
reasoning which can never be of any practical use. (89) However, when we
reflect on the beginnings of Christianity the cause at once becomes
manifest. (90) The Christian religion was not taught at first by kings, but
by private persons, who, against the wishes of those in power, whose
subjects they, were, were for a long time accustomed to hold meetings in
secret churches, to institute and perform sacred rites, and on their own
authority to settle and decide on their affairs without regard to the state,
(91) When, after the lapse of many years, the religion was taken up by the
authorities, the ecclesiastics were obliged to teach it to the emperors
themselves as they had defined it: wherefore they easily gained recognition
as its teachers and interpreters, and the church pastors were looked upon as
vicars of God. (92) The ecclesiastics took good care that the Christian
kings should not assume their authority, by prohibiting marriage to the
chief ministers of religion and to its highest interpreter. (93) They
furthermore elected their purpose by multiplying the dogmas of religion to
such an extent and so blending them with philosophy that their chief
interpreter was bound to be a skilled philosopher and theologian, and to
have leisure for a host of idle speculations: conditions which could only be
fulfilled by a private individual with much time on his hands.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 | 5 |
6 |
7