Revealed Religion

So far, I have dealt with Pufendorf's treatment of natural religion. Next, I shall explore what he says about human understanding in relation to religious beliefs concerning revealed religion.

For our purpose it is important that when examining the limits of the sov­ereign’s authority in religious matters, Pufendorf concludes that a Christian prince is not obliged to spread his own religion by force (vi) if his citizens ful­fil their political duties towards him?² In several passages, he maintains that the kingdom of Christ need not be upheld by force like civil societies. For that reason

there need not to be established a particular state, in order to propagate and preserve Truth, no more, than it is necessary, to set up a separate Commonwealth, where Philosophy and other Sciences are taught. For, it is the true Genius of Truth, and such her intrinsic vertue, as to be con­vincing in it self, provided she be but represented in her genuine Shape; and the fruits, which she produces for the benefit of Mankind, be dex­terously proposed to the view of the World.

The important point to be extracted from the above passage is that the truth of Christianity that exceeds natural reason must be acquired by the aid of the holy spirit.54 This resonates with Grotius’s idea that mere rational arguments for the truth of Christianity cannot produce belief without the assistance of God’s grace. Grotius therefore argues in De iure belli that one ought not to punish

those individuals who do not accept Christianity nor attempt to impose belief in Christ by compulsion.^{[840] [841] [842] [843] [844] [845]}

For Pufendorf, religious convictions concerning revealed religion belong to a different epistemological class than rationally demonstrable natural reli­gion.

[T]he Mysteries of the Christian Religion, which transcend our Reason, these must be acquired by the assistance of Divine Grace (gratia divina), which is contrary to all Violence. â€?Tis true, a Prince may force a Subject to make an outward Confession by way of Mouth, to comply in his Behaviour, with his Commands, and to dissemble his Thoughts or to speak contrary to his Belief; but he can force no body to believe contrary his own Opinion. For we ought to believe with all our Hearts?⁸

Pufendorf does not believe that religious doctrines are entirely beyond reason. Theological claims must be supported by systematic scriptural analysis?⁹ For instance, his main purpose in Jus feciale is to demonstrate that confessional differences between Lutherans and Calvinists could be resolved through rational reflection and biblical analysis. In this sense, Pufendorf's position dif­fers from that of Christian Thomasius and Pierre Bayle, for whom faith was unsuited to rational reflection?⁰ Pufendorf quite consistently argues that the internal consent that accompanies the acceptance of Christian doctrine by the help of the holy spirit can by no means be attained through coercion. It is

worth noting that while the sovereign cannot coerce people to adopt religious beliefs, he may expel subjects whose religious beliefs or practices differ from the established state religion.^{[846] [847] [848] [849] [850] [851] [852] [853] [854] However, Pufendorf's treatment of freedom from religious coercion is not incompatible with his defence of the sovereign right to banish or non-admit heretics on the grounds of their religion. When a sovereign expels dissenters or denies them entry, he practices religious intoler­ance but not forced conversion^2}

However, it should be noted that Pufendorf does not rule out the use of force entirely.

Notice that Pufendorf is speaking here of the education of children. Before people start to desire the gospel, it must first be taught to them.6⁵ If the basics of the doctrines of Christianity are not implanted at school, â€?it cannot scarce be expected, that Men, when grown up, should receive much benefit by pub­lick Sermons'.66 When children are instructed on the doctrines of Christianity, Pufendorf argues, the use of coercion is occasionally necessary. In the case of adults, however, he does not directly refer to compulsion. Unlike children who are under paternal authority, every adult is â€?accountable to God for his Religion, and answerable for his own Soul, whose Salvation cannot absolutely be com­mitted to any Body'.6⁷ Therefore, a â€?wife is not obliged to follow her husband's religion, nor the Servant the Master'.6⁸ The basic knowledge for the obtaining of salvation can be acquired rather easily.6⁹ With the help of the holy spirit a faith emerges fairly autonomously within the subject. For Pufendorf, faith does not necessarily entail demonstrative knowledge, and the holy spirit exercises an influence that enables the acknowledgement of the truth of Christianity.^{[855] [856] [857] [858] [859]}

One recurring line of argument that Pufendorf uses against religious coer­cion is explicitly biblical.

true Piety [solidampietatem] being not to be implanted by Human Force, which is insufficient to procure God's Grace, or raise those inward Motions which are chiefly acceptable to God Almighty; and without which, all our exterior Actions, that may be enforced by a Civil Authority, are to be deem'd vain and fruitless. For, the Kingdom of Christ being a Kingdom of Truth, it requires no Civil Power or Force; For, Truth, by the help of Christian Doctrine, and with the assistance of God's Grace, does gently insinuate it self into the Hearts of Men, and the Rewards or Punishments, which those are to receive, that either accept or despise this Doctrine, are reserved for the Life to come?³

The above demarcation between internal true piety and external obedience to civil laws is not meant to deny that the proper understanding of Christianity and religious devotion increases sociability and political stability. Simone Zurbuchen has shown that Pufendorf defends Lutheran Christianity as a means of turning men into political animals. Unlike Machiavelli, Pufendorf argues that Christian religion does not contradict secular politics and the interest of the state; instead, it predisposes citizens to fulfil their duties and obey their rulers?⁴ Indeed, Pufendorf argues that it is useful for the internal peace of states that â€?the pure and sincere Christian religion flourishes in the state, and that public schools teach dogmas consistent with the purposes of states’.^[860] However, Pufendorf is clearly sceptical about the sincerity of the religious convictions of the majority of the people.

Only with the assistance of the holy spirit do people come to believe the truth of Christian revelation. While endorsing the role of divine grace in salva­tion, inJusfeciale, Pufendorf argues against the strong doctrine of predestina­tion by underlining that the human will is free to accept or refuse the grace of God.7⁸ This argument has to be situated in the context of the debate between Lutherans and Calvinists that concerned the role of the free will in salvation and predestination?⁹ Pufendorf views a person as rather passively undergo­ing the immediate intervention of the holy spirit, yet he still wishes to stress the role played by human will and understanding. Having committed himself to the idea that the salvation of one’s soul depends on one’s free decision to assent to God’s grace, Pufendorf cannot argue that the sovereign may use force in order to change or renounce beliefs concerning revealed religion.

4