The liberal state is a free state, but it’s clear from Spinoza that freedom in a liberal state is limited to unlimited freedom of thought and speech. Action is controlled by the state, including religious action:

“God has no special kingdom among men except in so far as He reigns through temporal rulers. Moreover, the rites of religion and 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. 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 the homage to God in singleness of heart.”

Several things to note in this breath-takingly self-conscious statement:

First, an inward/outward dualism is used to defend state control of religion (though only “outward” religion). Second, “piety” is defined, without argument, in a way that excludes “external rites.” Third, there is a fairly thoroughgoing reversal of the gains made in the middle ages, beginning with the Investiture Controversy. Fourth, there is, implicitly here explicitly elsewhere in Spinoza, the typical early modern denigration of priests. Fifth, Spinoza reminds us how debates about sacramental theology lurk in the background of modern political theory.

And, of course, there is the obvious: the argument that the liberal state must exercise a much greater control of religion than was conceivable in the medieval system - in the interests of freedom, of course, and against the tyranny of medieval polities.
One is tempted to radical perorations on the ruse of modern conceptions of religious freedom, the trick of the liberal state. But one resists.