Jean-Jacques Rousseau · Complete work
Book IV, Chapter 8
Book IV, Chapter 8 of 49. Read it here for reference, or continue through the entire work without leaving the reader.
Open the complete readerOriginal French
De la Religion Civile.
Les hommes n’eurent point d’abord d’autres Rois que les Dieux, ni d’autre Gouvernement que le Théocratique. Ils firent le raisonnement de Caligula, & alors ils raisonnoient juste. Il faut une longue altération de sentimens & d’idées pour qu’on puisse se résoudre à prendre son semblable pour maitre, & se flater qu’on s’en trouvera bien.
De cela seul qu’on mettroit Dieu à la tête de chaque société politique, il s’ensuivit qu’il y eut autant de Dieux que de peuples. Deux peuples étrangers l’un à l’autre, & presque toujours ennemis, ne purent longtems reconnoitre un même maitre; Deux armées se livrant bataille ne sauroient obéir au même chef. Ainsi des divisions nationales resulta le polythéisme, & delà l’intolérance théologique & civile qui naturellement est la même, comme il sera dit ci-après.
La fantaisie qu’eurent les Grecs de retrouver leurs Dieux chez les peuples barbares, vint de celle qu’ils avoient aussi de se regarder comme les Souverains naturels de ces peuples. Mais c’est de nos jours une érudition bien ridicule que celle qui roule sur l’identité des Dieux de diverses nations; comme si Moloch, Saturne, & Chronos pouvoient être le même Dieu; comme si le Baal des Phéniciens, le Zeus des Grecs & le Jupiter des Latins pouvoient être le même; comme s’il pouvoit rester quelque chose commune à des Etres chimériques portans des noms différens!
Que si l’on demande comment dans le paganisme où chaque État avoit son culte & ses Dieux il n’y avoit point de guerres de Religion? Je réponds que c’étoit par cela-même que chaque État ayant son culte propre aussi bien que son Gouvernement, ne distingoit point ses Dieux de ses loix. La guerre politique étoit aussi Théologique: les départemens des Dieux étoient, pour ainsi dire, fixés par les bornes des Nations. Le Dieu d’un peuple n’avoit aucun droit sur les autres peuples. Les Dieux des Payens n’étoient point des Dieux jaloux; ils partageoient entre eux l’empire du monde: Moyse même & le Peuple Hébreu se prétoient quelquefois à cette idée en parlant du Dieu d’Israël. Ils regardoient, il est vrai, comme nuls les Dieux des Cananéens, peuples proscrits, voués à la destruction, & dont ils devoient occuper la place; mais voyez comment ils parloient des divinités des peuples voisins qu’il leur étoit défendu d’attaquer! La possession de ce qui appartient à Chamos votre Dieu, disoit Jephté aux Ammonites, ne vous est-elle pas légitimement due? Nous possédons au même titre les terres que notre Dieu vainqueur s’est acquises. C’étoit là, ce me semble, une parité bien reconnue entre les droits de Chamos & ceux du Dieu d’Israël.
Mais quand les Juifs, soumis aux Rois de Babilone & dans la suite aux Rois de Sirie, voulurent s’obstiner à ne reconnoitre aucun autre Dieu que le leur, ce refus, regardé comme une rebellion contre le vainqueur, leur attira les persécutions qu’on lit dans leur histoire, & dont on ne voit aucun autre exemple avant le Christianisme.
Chaque Religion étant donc uniquement attachée aux loix de l’Etat qui la prescrivoit, il n’y avoit point d’autre maniere de convertir un peuple que de l’asservir, ni d’autres missionnaires que les conquérans, & l’obligation de changer de culte étant la loi des vaincus, il faloit commencer par vaincre avant d’en parler. Loin que les hommes combattissent pour les Dieux, c’étoient, comme dans Homere, les Dieux qui combattoient pour les hommes; chacun demandoit au sien la victoire, & la payoit par de nouveaux autels. Les Romains avant de prendre une place, sommoient ses Dieux de l’abandonner, & quand ils laissoient aux Tarentins leurs Dieux irrités, c’est qu’ils regardoient alors ces Dieux comme soumis aux leurs & forcés de leur faire hommage: Ils laissoient aux vaincus leurs Dieux comme ils leur laissoient leurs loix. Une couronne au Jupiter du capitole étoit souvent le seul tribut qu’ils imposoient.
Enfin les Romains ayant étendu avec leur empire leur culte & leurs Dieux, & ayant souvent eux-mêmes adopté ceux des vaincus en accordant aux uns & aux autres le droit de Cité, les peuples de ce vaste empire se trouverent insensiblement avoir des multitudes de Dieux & de cultes, à peu près les mêmes par-tout; & voilà comment le paganisme ne fut enfin dans le monde connu qu’une seule & même Religion.
Ce fut dans ces circonstances que Jésus vint établir sur la terre un royaume Spirituel; ce qui, séparant le sistême théologique du sistême politique, fit que l’Etat cessa d’être un, & causa les divisions intestines qui n’ont jamais cessé d’agiter les peuples chrétiens. Or cette idée nouvelle d’un royaume de l’autre monde n’ayant pu jamais entrer dans la tête des payens, ils regarderent toujours les Chrétiens comme de vrais rebelles qui, sous une hypocrite soumission, ne cherchoient que le moment de se rendre indépendans & maitres, & d’usurper adroitement l’autorité qu’ils feignoient de respecter dans leur foiblesse. Telle fut la cause des persécutions.
Ce que les payens avoient craint est arrivé; alors tout a changé de face, les humbles Chrétiens ont changé de langage, & bientôt on a vu ce prétendu royaume de l’autre monde devenir sous un chef visible le plus violent despotisme dans celui-ci.
Cependant comme il y a toujours eu un Prince & des loix civiles, il a résulté de cette double puissance un perpétuel conflict de jurisdiction qui a rendu toute bonne politie impossible dans les États chrétiens, & l’on n’a jamais pu venir à bout de savoir auquel du maitre ou du prêtre on étoit obligé d’obéir.
Plusieurs peuples cependant, même dans l’Europe ou à son voisinage, ont voulu conserver ou rétablir l’ancien sistême, mais sans succès; l’esprit du christianisme a tout gagné. Le culte sacré est toujours resté ou redevenu indépendant du Souverain, & sans liaison nécessaire avec le corps de l’État. Mahomet eut des vues très saines, il lia bien son sistême politique, & tant que la forme de son Gouvernement subsista sous les Caliphes ses successeurs, ce Gouvernement fut exactement un, & bon en cela. Mais les Arabes devenus florissans, lettrés, polis, mous & lâches, furent subjugués par des barbares; alors la division entre les deux puissances recommença; quoiqu’elle soit moins apparente chez les mahométans que chez les Chrétiens, elle y est pourtant, sur-tout dans la secte d’Ali, & il y a des États, tels que la Perse, où elle ne cesse de se faire sentir.
Parmi nous, les Rois d’Angleterre se sont établis chefs de l’Eglise, autant en ont fait les Czars; mais par ce titre ils s’en sont moins rendus les maitres que les Ministres; ils ont moins acquis le droit de la changer que le pouvoir de la maintenir; Ils n’y sont pas législateurs, ils n’y sont que Princes. Par tout où le Clergé fait un corps il est maitre & législateur dans sa patrie. Il y a donc deux puissances, deux Souverains, en Angleterre & en Russie, tout comme ailleurs.
De tous les Auteurs Chrétiens le philosophe Hobbes est le seul qui ait bien vû le mal & le remede, qui ait osé proposer de réunir les deux têtes de l’aigle, & de tout ramener à l’unité politique, sans laquelle jamais État ni Gouvernement ne sera bien constitué. Mais il a dû voir que l’esprit dominateur du Christianisme étoit incompatible avec son sistême, & que l’intérêt du Prêtre seroit toujours plus fort que celui de l’Etat. Ce n’est pas tant ce qu’il y a d’horrible & de faux dans sa politique que ce qu’il y a de juste & de vrai qui l’a rendue odieuse.
Je crois qu’en développant sous ce point de vue les faits historiques on réfuteroit aisément les sentimens opposés de Baile & de Warburton, dont l’un prétend que nulle Religion n’est utile au corps politique, & dont l’autre soutient au contraire que le Christianisme en est le plus ferme appui. On prouveroit au premier que jamais État ne fut fondé que la Religion ne lui servit de base, & au second que la loi Chrétienne est au fond plus nuisible qu’utile à la forte constitution de l’État. Pour achever de me faire entendre, il ne faut que donner un peu plus de précision aux idées trop vagues de Religion rélatives à mon sujet.
La Religion considérée par rapport à la société, qui est ou générale ou particuliere, peut aussi se diviser en deux especes, savoir, la Religion de l’homme & celle du Citoyen. La premiere, sans Temples, sans autels, sans rites, bornée au culte purement intérieur du Dieu Suprême & aux devoirs éternels de la morale, est la pure & simple Religion de l’Evangile, le vrai Théïsme, & ce qu’on peut appeller le droit divin naturel. L’autre, inscritte dans un seul pays, lui donne ses Dieux, ses Patrons propres & tutelaires: elle a ses dogmes, ses rites, son culte extérieur prescrit par des loix; hors la seule Nation qui la suit, tout est pour elle infidele, étranger, barbare; elle n’étend les devoirs & les droits de l’homme qu’aussi loin que ses autels. Telles furent toutes les Religions des premiers peuples, auxquelles on peut donner le nom de droit divin civil ou positif.
Il y a une troisieme sorte de Religion plus bizarre, qui donnant aux hommes deux législations, deux chefs, deux patries, les soumet à des devoirs contradictoires & les empêche de pouvoir être à la fois dévots & Citoyens. Telle est la Religion des Lamas, telle est celle des Japonais, tel est le christianisme Romain. On peut appeller celui-ci la religion du Prêtre. Il en résulte une sorte du droit mixte & insociable qui n’a point de nom.
A considerer politiquement ces trois sortes de religions, elles ont toutes leurs défauts. La troisieme est si évidemment mauvaise que c’est perdre le tems de s’amuser à le démontrer. Tout ce qui rompt l’unité sociale ne vaut rien: Toutes les institutions qui mettent l’homme en contradiction avec lui-même ne valent rien.
La seconde est bonne en ce qu’elle réunit le culte divin & l’amour des loix, & que faisant de la patrie l’objet de l’adoration des Citoyens, elle leur apprend que servir l’Etat c’est en servir le Dieu tutelaire. C’est une espece de Théocratie, dans laquelle on ne doit point avoir d’autre pontife que le Prince, ni d’autres prêtres que les magistrats. Alors mourir pour son pays c’est aller au martire, violer les loix c’est être impie, & soumettre un coupable à l’exécration publique c’est le dévouer au courroux des Dieux; sacer estod.
Mais elle est mauvaise en ce qu’étant fondée sur l’erreur & sur le mensonge elle trompe les hommes, les rend crédules superstitieux, & noye le vrai culte de la divinité dans un vain cérémonial. Elle est mauvaise encore quand, devenant exclusive & tirannique, elle rend un peuple sanguinaire & intolérant; en sorte qu’il ne respire que meurtre & massacre, & croit faire une action sainte en tuant quiconque n’admet pas ses Dieux. Cela met un tel peuple dans un état naturel de guerre avec tous les autres, très nuisible à sa propre sûreté.
Reste donc la Religion de l’homme ou le Christianisme, non pas celui d’aujourd’hui, mais celui de l’Evangile, qui en est tout-à-fait différent. Par cette Religion sainte, sublime, véritable, les hommes, enfans du même Dieu, se reconnoissent tous pour freres, & la société qui les unit ne se dissout pas même à la mort.
Mais cette Religion n’ayant nulle rélation particuliere avec le corps politique laisse aux loix la seule force qu’elles tirent d’elles-mêmes sans leur en ajouter aucune autre, & par-là un des grands liens de la société particuliere reste sans effet. Bien plus; loin d’attacher les cœurs des Citoyens à l’Etat, elle les en détache comme de toutes les choses de la terre: je ne connois rien de plus contraire à l’esprit social.
On nous dit qu’un peuple de vrais Chrétiens formeroit la plus parfaite société que l’on puisse imaginer. Je ne vois à cette supposition qu’une grande difficulté; c’est qu’une société de vrais chrétiens ne seroit plus une société d’hommes.
Je dis même que cette société supposée ne seroit avec toute sa perfection ni la plus forte ni la plus durable: A force d’être parfaite, elle manqueroit de liaison; son vice destructeur seroit dans sa perfection même.
Chacun rempliroit son devoir; le peuple seroit soumis aux loix, les chefs seroient justes & modérés, les magistrats integres incorruptibles, les soldats mépriseroient la mort, il n’y auroit ni vanité ni luxe; tout cela est fort bien, mais voyons plus loin.
Le Christianisme est une religion toute spirituelle, occupée uniquement des choses du Ciel: la patrie du Chrétien n’est pas de ce monde. Il fait son devoir, il est vrai, mais il le fait avec une profonde indifférence sur le bon ou mauvais succès de ses soins. Pourvu qu’il n’ait rien à se reprocher, peu lui importe que tout aille bien ou mal ici bas. Si l’Etat est florissant, à peine ose-t-il jouïr de la félicité publique, il craint de s’enorgueillir de la gloire de son pays; si l’Etat dépérit, il bénit la main de Dieu qui s’appésantit sur son peuple.
Pour que la société fut paisible & que l’harmonie se maintint, il faudroit que tous les Citoyens sans exception fussent également bons Chrétiens: Mais si malheureusement il s’y trouve un seul ambitieux, un seul hypocrite, un Catilina, par exemple, un Cromwel, celui-là très certainement aura bon marché de ses pieux compatriotes. La charité chrétienne ne permet pas aisément de penser mal de son prochain. Dès qu’il aura trouvé par quelque ruse l’art de leur en imposer & de s’emparer d’une partie de l’autorité publique, voilà un homme constitué en dignité; Dieu veut qu’on le respecte; bientôt voilà une puissance; Dieu veut qu’on lui obéisse; le dépositaire de cette puissance en abuse-t-il? C’est la verge dont Dieu punit ses enfans. On se feroit conscience de chasser l’usurpateur; il faudroit troubler le repos public, user de violence, verser du sang; tout cela s’accorde mal avec la douceur du Chrétien; & après tout, qu’importe qu’on soit libre ou serf dans cette vallée de miseres? l’essenciel est d’aller en paradis, & la résignation n’est qu’un moyen de plus pour cela.
Survient-il quelque guerre étrangère? Les Citoyens marchent sans peine au combat; nul d’entre eux ne songe à fuir; ils font leur devoir, mais sans passion pour la victoire; ils savent plutôt mourir que vaincre. Qu’ils soient vainqueurs ou vaincus, qu’importe? La providence ne sait-elle pas mieux qu’eux ce qu’il leur faut? Qu’on imagine quel parti un ennemi fier impétueux passionné peut tirer de leur stoïcisme! Mettez vis-à-vis d’eux ces peuples généreux que dévoroit l’ardent amour de la gloire & de la patrie, supposez votre république chrétienne vis-à-vis de Sparte ou de Rome; les pieux chrétiens seront battus, écrasés, détruits avant d’avoir eu le tems de se reconnoitre, ou ne devront leur salut qu’au mépris que leur ennemi concevra pour eux. C’étoit un beau serment à mon gré que celui des soldats de Fabius; ils ne jurerent pas de mourir ou de vaincre, ils jurerent de revenir vainqueurs, & tinrent leur serment: Jamais des Chrétiens n’en eussent fait un pareil; ils auroient cru tenter Dieu.
Mais je me trompe en disant une République Chrétienne; chacun de ces deux mots exclud l’autre. Le Christianisme ne prêche que servitude & dépendance. Son esprit est trop favorable à la tirannie pour qu’elle n’en profite pas toujours. Les vrais Chrétiens sont faits pour être esclaves; ils le savent & ne s’en émeuvent gueres; cette courte vie a trop peu de prix à leurs yeux.
Les troupes chrétiennes sont excellentes, nous dit-on. Je le nie. Qu’on m’en montre de telles? Quant-à-moi, je ne connois point de Troupes chrétiennes. On me citera les croisades. Sans disputer sur la valeur des Croisés, je remarquerai que, bien loin d’être des Chrétiens, c’étoient des soldats du prêtre, c’étoient des Citoyens de l’Eglise; ils se battoient pour son pays Spirituel, qu’elle avoit rendu temporel on ne sait comment. A le bien prendre, ceci rentre sous le paganisme; comme l’Evangile n’établit point une Religion nationale, toute guerre sacrée est impossible parmi les Chrétiens.
Sous les Empereurs payens les soldats Chrétiens étoient braves; tous les Auteurs Chrétiens l’assûrent, & je le crois: c’étoit une émulation d’honneur contre les Troupes payennes. Dès que les Empereurs furent chrétiens cette émulation ne subsista plus, & quand la croix eut chassé l’aigle, toute la valeur romaine disparut.
Mais laissant à part les considérations politiques, revenons au droit, & fixons les principes sur ce point important. Le droit que le pacte social donne au Souverain sur les sujets ne passe point, comme je l’ai dit, les bornes de l’utilité publique. Les sujets ne doivent donc compte au Souverain de leurs opinions qu’autant que ces opinions importent à la communauté. Or il importe bien à l’Etat que chaque Citoyen ait une Religion qui lui fasse aimer ses devoirs; mais les dogmes de cette Religion n’intéressent ni l’Etat ni ses membres qu’autant que ces dogmes se rapportent à la morale, & aux devoirs que celui qui la professe est tenu de remplir envers autrui. Chacun peut avoir au surplus telles opinions qu’il lui plait, sans qu’il appartienne au Souverain d’en connoitre: Car comme il n’a point de compétence dans l’autre monde, quel que soit le sort des sujets dans la vie à venir ce n’est pas son affaire, pourvu qu’ils soient bons citoyens dans celle-ci.
Il y a donc une profession de foi purement civile dont il appartient au Souverain de fixer les articles, non pas précisément comme dogmes de Religion, mais comme sentimens de sociabilité, sans lesquels il est impossible d’être bon Citoyen ni sujet fidele. Sans pouvoir obliger personne à les croire, il peut bannir de l’Etat quiconque ne les croit pas; il peut le bannir, non comme impie, mais comme insociable, comme incapable d’aimer sincerement les loix la justice, & d’immoler au besoin sa vie à son devoir. Que si quelqu’un, après avoir reconnu publiquement ces mêmes dogmes, se conduit comme ne les croyant pas, qu’il soit puni de mort; il a commis le plus grand des crimes, il a menti devant les loix.
Les dogmes de la Religion civile doivent être simples, en petit nombre, énoncés avec précision sans explications ni commentaires. L’existence de la Divinité puissante, intelligente, bienfaisante, prévoyante & pourvoyante, la vie à venir, le bonheur des justes, le châtiment des méchans, la sainteté du Contract social & des Loix; voilà les dogmes positifs. Quant aux dogmes négatifs, je les borne à un seul; c’est l’intolérance: elle rentre dans les cultes que nous avons excluds.
Ceux qui distinguent l’intolérance civile & l’intolérance théologique se trompent, à mon avis. Ces deux intolérances sont inséparables. Il est impossible de vivre en paix avec des gens qu’on croit dannés; les aimer seroit haïr Dieu qui les punit; il faut absolument qu’on les ramene ou qu’on les tourmente. Par tout où l’intolérance théologique est admise, il est impossible qu’elle n’ait pas quelque effet civil, & sitot qu’elle en a, le Souverain n’est plus Souverain, même au temporel; dès lors les Prêtres sont les vrais maitres; les Rois ne sont que leurs officiers.
Maintenant qu’il n’y a plus & qu’il ne peut plus y avoir de Religion nationale exclusive, on doit tolérer toutes celles qui tolerent les autres, autant que leurs dogmes n’ont rien de contraire aux devoirs du Citoyen. Mais quiconque ose dire, hors de l’Eglise point de Salut, doit être chassé de l’Etat; à moins que l’Etat ne soit l’Eglise, & que le Prince ne soit le Pontife. Un tel dogme n’est bon que dans un Gouvernement Théocratique, dans tout autre il est
pernicieux. La raison sur laquelle on dit qu’Henri IV. embrassa la Religion romaine la devroit faire quiter à tout honnête homme, & sur-tout à tout Prince qui sauroit raisonner.
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the complete French text of the 1762 edition, all four books and the appendix for fidelity, the author’s force and cadence, and modern clarity.
On Civil Religion.
At first men had no kings but gods, and no government but theocratic government. They reasoned as Caligula did, and then their reasoning was sound. It takes a long alteration of feelings and ideas before anyone can bring himself to take a fellow human being for his master, and flatter himself that he will be the better for it.
From the mere fact that God was placed at the head of each political society, it followed that there were as many gods as peoples. Two peoples foreign to one another, and almost always enemies, could not for long acknowledge the same master; two armies meeting in battle cannot obey the same commander. Thus national divisions gave rise to polytheism, and from it arose theological and civil intolerance, which are naturally one and the same, as will be said below.
The Greeks' fancy for finding their gods among barbarian peoples sprang from their other fancy of regarding themselves as those peoples' natural sovereigns. But in our day it is a thoroughly ridiculous kind of learning that turns on the identity of the gods of different nations: as if Moloch, Saturn, and Chronos could be the same god; as if the Baal of the Phoenicians, the Zeus of the Greeks, and the Jupiter of the Latins could be the same; as if anything could be common to imaginary beings bearing different names!
But if someone asks why, in paganism, where every state had its own worship and its own gods, there were no wars of religion, I answer that it was precisely because each state, having its own worship as well as its own government, did not distinguish its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war: the domains of the gods were, so to speak, fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no claim over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods; they divided the dominion of the world among themselves. Even Moses and the Hebrew people sometimes lent themselves to this notion when speaking of the God of Israel. It is true that they regarded the gods of the Canaanites as nothing, for the Canaanites were a proscribed people, doomed to destruction, whose place they were to take; but see how they spoke of the divinities of neighboring peoples whom they were forbidden to attack! “Is not possession of what belongs to Chamos your god rightfully yours?” Jephthah said to the Ammonites. “By the same right we possess the lands our victorious God has acquired for himself.” There, it seems to me, was a clear acknowledgment of equal standing between the rights of Chamos and those of the God of Israel.
But when the Jews, subject to the kings of Babylon and afterward to the kings of Syria, stubbornly refused to acknowledge any god but their own, that refusal, taken as rebellion against the conqueror, brought upon them the persecutions recorded in their history, of which we see no other example before Christianity.
Since each religion, then, was bound solely to the laws of the state that prescribed it, there was no way to convert a people except to subjugate them, and no missionaries but conquerors. As changing one's worship was the law imposed on the vanquished, one had to begin by conquering before speaking of it. Far from men fighting for the gods, it was the gods who, as in Homer, fought for men; each people asked its god for victory and paid for it with new altars. Before taking a place, the Romans called on its gods to abandon it; and when they left the Tarentines their angry gods, it was because they now regarded those gods as subject to their own and compelled to pay them homage. They left the vanquished their gods as they left them their laws. A crown for the Jupiter of the Capitol was often the only tribute they exacted.
Finally, as the Romans extended their worship and their gods along with their empire, and often themselves adopted the gods of the vanquished, granting citizenship to both alike, the peoples of that vast empire gradually came to have multitudes of gods and forms of worship, nearly the same everywhere; and this is how paganism finally became one and the same religion throughout the known world.
It was under these circumstances that Jesus came to establish a spiritual kingdom on earth. By separating the theological system from the political system, this caused the state to cease being one, and produced the internal divisions that have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. Now this new idea of a kingdom in the other world could never enter the minds of the pagans; they always saw Christians as actual rebels who, beneath a hypocritical submission, merely awaited the moment to become independent masters and cleverly usurp the authority they feigned to respect while they were weak. This was the cause of the persecutions.
What the pagans feared has come to pass. Then everything changed its face: humble Christians changed their language, and soon this supposed kingdom of the other world was seen to become, under a visible chief, the most violent despotism in this one.
Yet since there has always been a prince and civil laws, this double power has produced a perpetual conflict of jurisdiction that has made any sound political order impossible in Christian states; and no one has ever managed to determine which, master or priest, one was obliged to obey.
Several peoples, however, even in or near Europe, have tried to preserve or restore the old system, but without success; the spirit of Christianity has won everywhere. Sacred worship has always remained or again become independent of the sovereign, with no necessary bond to the body of the state. Muhammad had very sound ideas; he bound his political system together well, and so long as the form of his government survived under the caliphs, his successors, that government was strictly one, and good in this respect. But when the Arabs, having grown prosperous, learned, civilized, soft, and cowardly, were subjugated by barbarians, division between the two powers began anew. Although less apparent among Muslims than among Christians, it is nevertheless present, especially in the sect of Ali; and there are states, such as Persia, where it never ceases to be felt.
Among us, the kings of England have established themselves as heads of the Church, as have the czars; but this title has made them its ministers rather than its masters. They have acquired less the right to change it than the power to maintain it; they are not its legislators, only its princes. Wherever the clergy forms a body, it is master and legislator in its own country. There are thus two powers, two sovereigns, in England and Russia, just as elsewhere.
Of all Christian authors, the philosopher Hobbes alone has rightly seen both the evil and the remedy; he alone has dared propose uniting the eagle's two heads and bringing everything back to political unity, without which no state or government will ever be well constituted. But he must have seen that Christianity's domineering spirit was incompatible with his system, and that the priest's interest would always be stronger than the state's. It is not so much what is horrible and false in his politics as what is just and true that has made it odious.
I believe that if historical facts were examined from this point of view, the opposed opinions of Bayle and Warburton could easily be refuted: the first claims that no religion is useful to the body politic, while the second maintains, on the contrary, that Christianity is its firmest support. To the first one could prove that no state has ever been founded without religion serving as its basis; to the second, that Christian law is at bottom more harmful than helpful to the strong constitution of the state. To make myself fully understood, I need only give a little more precision to the overly vague ideas about religion that bear on my subject.
Religion, considered in relation to society, which is either general or particular, can itself be divided into two kinds: the religion of man and that of the citizen. The first, without temples, altars, or rites, confined to the purely inward worship of the Supreme God and to the eternal duties of morality, is the pure and simple religion of the Gospel, true theism, what may be called natural divine right. The other, confined to a single country, gives it its own gods, its own patron and guardian divinities. It has its dogmas, its rites, its outward worship prescribed by law; beyond the one nation that follows it, all are to it infidels, foreigners, barbarians. It extends the duties and rights of man only as far as its altars. Such were all the religions of the earliest peoples, which may be called civil or positive divine right.
There is a third, more bizarre kind of religion which, by giving men two bodies of law, two chiefs, two homelands, subjects them to contradictory duties and prevents them from being devout and citizens at the same time. Such is the religion of the Lamas, such that of the Japanese, such Roman Christianity. This may be called the religion of the priest. It produces a kind of mixed and unsociable right that has no name.
Viewed politically, these three kinds of religion all have their faults. The third is so plainly bad that to spend time demonstrating it would be a waste. Anything that breaks social unity is worthless; all institutions that set a man at odds with himself are worthless.
The second is good insofar as it joins divine worship to love of the laws and, by making the homeland the object of the citizens' adoration, teaches them that to serve the state is to serve its guardian god. It is a kind of theocracy in which there must be no pontiff but the prince and no priests but the magistrates. Then to die for one's country is to go to martyrdom, to violate the laws is impiety, and to subject a guilty man to public execration is to consign him to the wrath of the gods: sacer estod.
But it is bad insofar as, being founded on error and falsehood, it deceives men, makes them credulous and superstitious, and drowns true worship of the divinity in empty ceremonial. It is bad, too, when, becoming exclusive and tyrannical, it makes a people bloodthirsty and intolerant, so that they breathe only murder and massacre and believe they perform a holy act in killing anyone who does not accept their gods. This places such a people in a natural state of war with all others, to the grave detriment of its own security.
There remains, then, the religion of man, or Christianity—not the Christianity of today, but that of the Gospel, which is altogether different. By this holy, sublime, true religion, men, children of the same God, recognize one another as brothers; and the fellowship that unites them is not dissolved even by death.
But since this religion has no particular relation to the body politic, it leaves the laws with only the strength they draw from themselves, adding nothing to it; and thus one of the great bonds of a particular society remains ineffective. More than that: far from attaching citizens' hearts to the state, it detaches them from it as from all earthly things. I know nothing more contrary to the social spirit.
We are told that a people of true Christians would form the most perfect society imaginable. I see only one great difficulty in this supposition: a society of true Christians would no longer be a society of men.
I say further that this supposed society, for all its perfection, would be neither the strongest nor the most enduring. By dint of being perfect it would lack cohesion; the defect that destroyed it would lie in its very perfection.
Each person would do his duty; the people would obey the laws, their leaders would be just and moderate, the magistrates upright and incorruptible, the soldiers would scorn death; there would be neither vanity nor luxury. All this is very well, but let us look further.
Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, concerned solely with the things of heaven: the Christian's homeland is not of this world. He does his duty, it is true, but he does it with profound indifference to the success or failure of his efforts. Provided he has nothing to reproach himself for, he cares little whether all goes well or badly here below. If the state flourishes, he scarcely dares enjoy the public happiness, for fear of growing proud of his country's glory; if the state declines, he blesses the hand of God that weighs upon his people.
For the society to be peaceful and harmony preserved, every citizen without exception would have to be an equally good Christian. But if, unhappily, there should be in it even one ambitious man, one hypocrite—a Catiline, for example, a Cromwell—he will assuredly make short work of his pious compatriots. Christian charity does not readily permit one to think ill of one's neighbor. As soon as he has contrived by some ruse to deceive them and seize part of the public authority, there stands a man invested with dignity; God wills that he be respected. Soon there stands a power; God wills that it be obeyed. Does the holder of this power abuse it? He is the rod with which God chastises his children. They would scruple to drive out the usurper: that would require disturbing the public peace, using violence, shedding blood; all this sits ill with Christian gentleness. And after all, what does it matter whether one is free or a serf in this vale of misery? The essential thing is to reach paradise, and resignation is merely one more means to that end.
Suppose a foreign war breaks out. The citizens march readily to battle; none of them thinks of fleeing; they do their duty, but without any passion for victory. They know better how to die than how to conquer. Whether they win or lose, what does it matter? Does not Providence know better than they what they need? Imagine what advantage a proud, impetuous, passionate enemy can take of their stoicism! Set against them those generous peoples consumed by ardent love of glory and homeland; suppose your Christian republic faces Sparta or Rome: the pious Christians will be beaten, crushed, destroyed before they have had time to collect themselves, or will owe their survival only to the contempt their enemy comes to feel for them. To my mind the oath sworn by the soldiers of Fabius was a fine one: they did not swear to die or conquer; they swore to return victorious, and kept their oath. Christians would never have made such an oath; they would have thought it tempting God.
But I am mistaken in speaking of a Christian republic: each of those two words excludes the other. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is too favorable to tyranny for tyranny not always to profit from it. True Christians are made to be slaves; they know it and are scarcely disturbed by it; this brief life has too little value in their eyes.
Christian troops are excellent, we are told. I deny it. Let someone show me such troops. For my part, I know of no Christian troops. The Crusades will be cited to me. Without disputing the courage of the Crusaders, I would observe that, far from being Christians, they were the priest's soldiers, citizens of the Church. They fought for its spiritual country, which it had somehow made temporal. Properly understood, this falls back under paganism; since the Gospel establishes no national religion, every holy war is impossible among Christians.
Under the pagan emperors, Christian soldiers were brave; all Christian authors attest it, and I believe them. It was a contest of honor against the pagan troops. As soon as the emperors became Christian, that rivalry ended; and when the cross had driven out the eagle, all Roman valor disappeared.
But setting political considerations aside, let us return to right and establish the principles on this important point. The right that the social pact gives the sovereign over subjects does not, as I have said, exceed the limits of public utility. Subjects therefore owe the sovereign an account of their opinions only insofar as those opinions matter to the community. Now it matters greatly to the state that each citizen have a religion that makes him love his duties; but the dogmas of that religion concern neither the state nor its members except insofar as they relate to morality and to the duties that the person professing it must fulfill toward others. Beyond this, everyone may hold whatever opinions he pleases, and it is not for the sovereign to know them. For since the sovereign has no jurisdiction in the other world, whatever fate awaits subjects in the life to come is no concern of his, provided they are good citizens in this one.
There is, then, a purely civil profession of faith whose articles it belongs to the sovereign to fix, not precisely as religious dogmas but as sentiments of sociability, without which it is impossible to be a good citizen or a faithful subject. Though he cannot force anyone to believe them, he may banish from the state whoever does not believe them. He may banish that person not as impious but as unsociable, incapable of sincerely loving the laws and justice and, when necessary, sacrificing his life to his duty. And if someone, after publicly acknowledging these same dogmas, behaves as though he did not believe them, let him be punished with death: he has committed the greatest of crimes; he has lied before the laws.
The dogmas of civil religion must be simple, few in number, and stated precisely, without explanations or commentaries. The existence of a powerful, intelligent, beneficent divinity, who foresees and provides; the life to come; the happiness of the just; the punishment of the wicked; the sanctity of the social pact and of the laws: these are the positive dogmas. As for negative dogmas, I limit them to one: intolerance. It belongs to the forms of worship we have excluded.
Those who distinguish civil intolerance from theological intolerance are, in my opinion, mistaken. The two are inseparable. It is impossible to live at peace with people one believes damned; to love them would be to hate the God who punishes them; one must either bring them back or torment them. Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it cannot fail to have some civil effect; and as soon as it does, the sovereign is no longer sovereign, even in temporal affairs. From then on the priests are the true masters; kings are only their officers.
Now that there is no longer, and can no longer be, an exclusive national religion, all religions that tolerate others should be tolerated, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of a citizen. But whoever dares say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” must be driven from the state—unless the state is the Church and the prince is the pontiff. Such a dogma is suitable only in a theocratic government; in any other it is pernicious. The reason said to have led Henry IV to embrace the Roman religion ought to make every honest man leave it, and above all any prince who knows how to reason.
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the complete French text of the 1762 edition, all four books and the appendix.
On Civil Religion.
At first, people had no kings but gods and no government but theocratic government. They reasoned as Caligula did, and at that point they were right. It takes a long change in feelings and ideas before people can bring themselves to accept another human being as their master and expect things to turn out well.
Once God was placed at the head of each political society, there were as many gods as there were peoples. Two peoples who were strangers to each other, and almost always enemies, could not recognize the same master for long. Two armies fighting each other cannot obey the same commander. So national divisions gave rise to polytheism, and from that came both religious and civil intolerance. These are naturally the same thing, as I will explain below.
The Greeks liked to find their own gods among the peoples they called barbarians because they also liked to see themselves as those peoples' natural rulers. But the scholarship of our time that tries to prove the gods of different nations were identical is ridiculous. As if Moloch, Saturn, and Chronos could be the same god! As if the Phoenicians' Baal, the Greeks' Zeus, and the Latins' Jupiter could be the same! As if imaginary beings with different names could have anything in common!
But someone may ask why there were no religious wars in pagan times, when each state had its own worship and its own gods. My answer is that each state had its own worship as well as its own government and did not separate its gods from its laws. Political war was also religious war. The territories of the gods were, so to speak, set by the borders of the nations. One people's god had no rights over other peoples. The pagan gods were not jealous gods. They divided the rule of the world among themselves. Even Moyse and the Hebrew people sometimes accepted this idea when speaking of the God of Israel. It is true that they considered the gods of the Canaanites to be nothing: the Canaanites were a people marked for destruction, whose land the Hebrews were to occupy. But look at how they spoke of the gods of neighboring peoples whom they were forbidden to attack! “Aren't you rightfully entitled to possess what belongs to Chamos your god?” Jephté said to the Ammonites. “We possess, by the same right, the lands our victorious God has won for himself.” That seems to me a clear acknowledgment that Chamos and the God of Israel had equal rights.
But when the Jews, under the kings of Babylon and later under the kings of Syria, insisted on recognizing no god but their own, their refusal was seen as rebellion against their conqueror. It brought on the persecutions recorded in their history. We see no other example of such persecutions before Christianity.
Since each religion was tied solely to the laws of the state that prescribed it, the only way to convert a people was to conquer them. Conquerors were the only missionaries. Changing their worship was a requirement imposed on the defeated, so conquest had to come first, before anyone could speak of conversion. Far from people fighting for the gods, the gods fought for people, as in Homer. Each person asked his god for victory and paid for it with new altars. Before taking a city, the Romans ordered its gods to abandon it. When they let the people of Tarentum keep their angry gods, they considered those gods subject to their own and forced to pay them homage. They let the defeated keep their gods just as they let them keep their laws. A crown for Jupiter of the Capitol was often the only tribute they demanded.
In the end, the Romans spread their worship and their gods along with their empire. They often adopted the gods of conquered peoples themselves, granting citizenship to both their own gods and those of the conquered. Little by little, the peoples of this vast empire came to have many gods and forms of worship, much the same everywhere. That is how paganism finally became one and the same religion throughout the known world.
It was under these circumstances that Jesus came to establish a spiritual kingdom on earth. This separated the religious system from the political system. The state ceased to be a single whole, and internal divisions began that have never stopped troubling Christian peoples. Pagans could never understand the new idea of a kingdom in another world. They always saw Christians as real rebels who pretended to submit while waiting for the chance to become independent rulers and cleverly seize the authority they appeared to respect while they were weak. This was the cause of the persecutions.
What the pagans feared came to pass. Then everything changed. The humble Christians changed their tune, and soon this supposed kingdom of another world became, under a visible leader, the most violent despotism in this world.
Yet there has always been a ruler and civil laws. These two sources of power have therefore produced a constant conflict over jurisdiction. That has made any sound political order impossible in Christian states, and no one has ever managed to settle whether people must obey the ruler or the priest.
Several peoples, even in Europe or nearby, have tried to preserve or restore the old system, but without success. The spirit of Christianity has spread everywhere. Religious worship has always remained, or again become, independent of the sovereign, with no necessary connection to the body of the state. Mahomet had very sound ideas. He tied his political system together well. As long as his form of government lasted under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was fully united, and good in that respect. But the Arabs became prosperous, educated, refined, soft, and cowardly, and were conquered by foreign peoples. Then the division between the two powers began again. Though it is less obvious among Muslims than among Christians, it is still there, especially in the sect of Ali. In some states, such as Persia, it continues to make itself felt.
Among us, the kings of England have made themselves heads of the Church, and the czars have done the same. But this title has made them its servants more than its masters. They have gained less of a right to change it than a power to maintain it. They are not legislators in the Church, only rulers. Wherever the clergy forms a corporate body, it is master and legislator in its country. So there are two powers, two sovereigns, in England and Russia, just as elsewhere.
Of all Christian writers, the philosopher Hobbes alone clearly saw both the problem and the remedy. He dared to propose joining the eagle's two heads and bringing everything back under a single political authority. Without that unity, no state or government will ever be properly organized. But he must have seen that Christianity's drive to rule was incompatible with his system, and that the priest's interest would always outweigh the state's. His political ideas became hated not so much for what is awful and false in them as for what is right and true.
I think that looking at historical facts this way would easily refute the opposing views of Baile and Warburton. One claims that no religion benefits the political body; the other maintains, on the contrary, that Christianity is its strongest support. To the first, we could prove that no state was ever founded without religion serving as its basis. To the second, we could prove that Christian law is, at heart, more harmful than helpful to a strong state. To make my meaning fully clear, I only need to make the vague ideas about religion relevant to my subject a little more precise.
Society can be universal or particular. Religion, considered in relation to society, can likewise be divided into two kinds: the religion of the human being and the religion of the citizen. The first has no temples, altars, or rites. It is limited to inward worship of the supreme God and the lasting duties of morality. It is the pure and simple religion of the Gospel, true belief in God, and what may be called natural divine law. The other belongs to a single country and gives it its own protecting gods and patrons. It has its beliefs, rites, and public worship prescribed by law. Everyone outside the one nation that follows it is, to its eyes, an unbeliever, a foreigner, and a barbarian. It extends human duties and rights only as far as its altars reach. Such were all the religions of the earliest peoples. They may be called civil or positive divine law.
There is a third, stranger kind of religion. It gives people two sets of laws, two leaders, and two homelands, places them under conflicting duties, and prevents them from being both devout and citizens. The religion of the Lamas is like this, as is that of the Japanese, and so is Roman Christianity. We can call the last of these the religion of the priest. It produces a kind of mixed, antisocial law that has no name.
Considered politically, all three kinds of religion have faults. The third is so obviously bad that proving it would be a waste of time. Anything that breaks up social unity is worthless. Any institution that puts a person at odds with himself is worthless.
The second kind is good because it joins worship of God to love of the laws. It makes the homeland an object of the citizens' devotion and teaches them that serving the state means serving its protecting god. It is a kind of theocracy in which the ruler must be the only chief priest and the magistrates the only priests. Dying for one's country then means becoming a martyr; breaking the laws means acting without reverence for God; and making a criminal the object of public condemnation means dedicating him to the gods' anger: sacer estod.
But it is bad because it rests on error and lies. It deceives people, makes them gullible and superstitious, and drowns true worship of God in empty ceremonies. It is also bad when it becomes exclusive and tyrannical, turning a people bloodthirsty and intolerant. Such a people then thinks only of killing and slaughter, and believes that killing anyone who does not accept its gods is a holy act. This places it in a natural state of war with all other peoples, greatly endangering its own safety.
That leaves the religion of the human being, or Christianity. I do not mean today's Christianity but the Christianity of the Gospel, which is entirely different. Under this holy, noble, true religion, people recognize one another as brothers, children of the same God. The society that unites them does not end even at death.
But this religion has no particular connection to the political body. It leaves the laws with only the force they have on their own and adds nothing to it. As a result, one of the strongest bonds in a particular society does not work. More than that, instead of attaching citizens' hearts to the state, it draws them away from the state, just as it draws them away from everything earthly. I know of nothing more opposed to a social spirit.
We are told that a people of true Christians would form the most perfect society imaginable. I see just one great problem with this idea: a society of true Christians would no longer be a society of human beings.
I would even say that this supposed society, for all its perfection, would not be the strongest or most lasting. Because it was so perfect, it would lack cohesion. Its fatal flaw would lie in its very perfection.
Everyone would do their duty. The people would obey the laws, the leaders would be fair and moderate, the magistrates honest and incorruptible, and the soldiers unafraid of death. There would be no vanity or luxury. All that is very good, but let us look further.
Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, concerned only with heaven. The Christian's homeland is not in this world. He does his duty, certainly, but he is deeply indifferent to whether his efforts succeed or fail. As long as he has done nothing to blame himself for, he cares little whether things go well or badly on earth. If the state prospers, he hardly dares enjoy the common good, for fear of taking pride in his country's glory. If the state declines, he blesses the hand of God that bears down on his people.
For society to be peaceful and remain united, every citizen without exception would have to be an equally good Christian. But suppose, unfortunately, there is just one ambitious person, one hypocrite—a Catilina or a Cromwel, for example. He will certainly have an easy time exploiting his devout fellow citizens. Christian charity does not readily allow people to think badly of their neighbors. As soon as he has used some trick to deceive them and gain a share of public authority, he becomes an officeholder. God wants him respected. Soon he has power. God wants people to obey him. Does the holder of that power abuse it? He is the rod with which God punishes his children. People would feel it was wrong to drive out the usurper. That would mean disturbing the public peace, using force, and shedding blood. None of that fits well with Christian gentleness. After all, what does it matter whether one is free or a slave in this valley of misery? The important thing is to reach paradise, and resignation is simply one more way to do so.
What if a foreign war breaks out? The citizens readily march into battle. None of them thinks of fleeing. They do their duty, but they have no passion for victory. They are better at dying than winning. Whether they win or lose, what does it matter? Doesn't providence know better than they do what they need? Imagine what advantage a proud, forceful, passionate enemy could gain from their stoicism! Set against them the brave peoples consumed by a passionate love of glory and country. Imagine your Christian republic facing Sparta or Rome. The devout Christians will be beaten, crushed, and destroyed before they have time to collect themselves, or will owe their survival only to the contempt their enemy feels for them. The soldiers of Fabius took an admirable oath, in my view. They did not swear to die or win; they swore to return victorious, and they kept their word. Christians would never have sworn such an oath. They would have thought it was testing God.
But I am wrong to say “Christian republic.” Each of those two words rules out the other. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit favors tyranny too much for tyrants not to take advantage of it every time. True Christians are made to be slaves. They know it and are hardly troubled by it. This short life matters too little in their eyes.
We are told that Christian troops are excellent. I deny it. Show me such troops. For my part, I know of none. Someone will cite the Crusades. Without arguing about the courage of the Crusaders, I will point out that, far from being Christians, they were the priest's soldiers, citizens of the Church. They fought for its spiritual homeland, which it had somehow turned into an earthly one. Strictly speaking, this takes us back to paganism. Since the Gospel establishes no national religion, a holy war among Christians is impossible.
Under the pagan emperors, Christian soldiers were brave. All Christian writers say so, and I believe them. They were competing with pagan troops for honor. As soon as the emperors became Christian, this competition ended. When the cross drove out the eagle, all Roman courage disappeared.
But let us leave political considerations aside, return to questions of right, and set out the principles on this important point. As I have said, the right the social pact gives the sovereign over subjects does not go beyond what serves the public good. Subjects therefore owe the sovereign an account of their opinions only when those opinions matter to the community. It certainly matters to the state that every citizen have a religion that makes him love his duties. But the beliefs of that religion concern the state and its members only insofar as they relate to morality and to the duties its followers owe to others. Beyond that, anyone may hold whatever opinions he likes. It is not the sovereign's place to inquire into them. The sovereign has no authority in the next world, so what happens to subjects in the life to come is none of its business, provided they are good citizens in this one.
There is therefore a purely civil statement of faith. The sovereign may set out its articles, not exactly as religious doctrines, but as social attitudes without which one cannot be a good citizen or faithful subject. The sovereign cannot force anyone to believe them, but it can banish from the state anyone who does not. It can banish such a person not for being godless but for being unsociable: for being unable to love the laws and justice sincerely or, when necessary, to give his life for his duty. And if someone publicly acknowledges these beliefs and then acts as though he does not believe them, let him be put to death. He has committed the greatest of crimes: he has lied before the laws.
The beliefs of civil religion must be simple, few, and stated precisely, without explanations or commentary. There is a powerful, intelligent, kind God who sees ahead and provides for us; there is a life to come, happiness for the just, punishment for the wicked, and the social contract and the laws are sacred. These are the positive beliefs. I limit the negative beliefs to just one: intolerance. It belongs to the forms of worship we have rejected.
People who distinguish civil intolerance from religious intolerance are mistaken, in my view. The two cannot be separated. It is impossible to live in peace with people whom one believes damned. To love them would mean hating the God who punishes them. One must either bring them back to the faith or torment them. Wherever religious intolerance is accepted, it must have some civil effect. As soon as it does, the sovereign is no longer sovereign, even in worldly matters. From then on, priests are the real masters, and kings are merely their agents.
Now that there is no longer, and can no longer be, an exclusive national religion, every religion that tolerates others should be tolerated, as long as its beliefs do not conflict with a citizen's duties. But anyone who dares say “Outside the Church there is no salvation” must be driven from the state, unless the state is the Church and its ruler is the chief priest. Such a belief works only in a theocratic government. In any other government, it is harmful. The reason for which Henri IV. is said to have adopted the Roman religion should lead any honest person to leave it, especially any ruler capable of reasoning.