If Christianity Be Rejected, There Is No Other Religion Which Can Be Substituted in Its Place
It has been proved in the former section, that it is necessary to have some religion. We are aheady in possession of Christianity, which, by the confession of deists themselves, answers many valuable purposes. It behoves us, therefore, to consider well what we are likely to obtain by the exchange, if we should rehnquish it. If any man can show us a better religion, and founded on better evidences, we ought to give it up willingly; but if this cannot be done, theii surely it is not reasonable to part with a certain gooci, without receiving an equivalent. This would be, as if some persons sailing on the ocean in a vessel which carried them prosperously, should determine to abandon it without knowing that there was any other to receive them, merely because some of the passengers, pretending to skill, suggested that it was leaky, and would sooner or later founder.
Let the enemies of Christianity tell us plainly what their aim is, and what they design to substitute in the place of the Bible. This, however, they are unable to perform: and yet they would have us to consent to give up our dearest hopes without knowing what we are to receive, or whether we are to receive any thing to compensate for the loss.
This is a point of vital importance, and demands our most serious attention. If it is really intended to substitute some other religion in the place of Chrislianity, we ought certainly, before we make the exchange, to have the opportunity of examining its claims, that we may know whether it will be likely to answer the purposes for which religion is wanted. To bring this subject fairly into view, let us take a survey of the world, and inquire, what it has to propose for our selection, if we should renounce Christianity
There are only three things, in that event, among winch we must choose. The first, to adopt some Oi the existing or some of the exploded systems of Paganism; the second, to accept the Koran instead of the Bible; and the third, to embrace Natural Religir n or pure deism.
^ew men have had the effrontery to propose a return to Paganism; yet even this has not been too extravagant for some whose names stand high as men of literature. The learned Gibbon has not, that I recollect, expressed his opinion on this subject explicitly; but it may be fairly inferred, from many things in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman empire, that he deeply regretted the subversion of the old Pagan systems, and that the progress of Christianity was far from affording him any pleasure.
But although he makes it sufficiently manifest t’nai, could his wishes have governed past events, the old systems would never have been disturbed, and Christianity never have had a footing; yet we cannot say whether he would have given his vote to have the temples rebuilt and the Pagan rites restored. It is difficult to tell what he wished to accomplish by his oppDsition to Christianity; or whether he had any definite view, except to manifest his hatred to the gospel and its Author.
Taylor, the learned translator of Plato, openly avowed his predilection for the religion of the Athenian philosopher, and his wish that it might be revived; and speaks in contemptuous terms of Christianity, in comparison with Platonism; but he never could have supposed that to be a suitable religion for the bulk of men, which had not the least influence upon them while the philosoper lived. This, then, would be no substitute for Christianity; for under its benign influence, even the poor have the uosvEL preached unto THEM. But I have no doubH that, if the truth could be ascertained, we should fiiK) that this sublime genius derived some of his best ideas directly or indirect! v from the Scriptures; and that if he had lived under the light of the gospt 1, he would never nave spoken of it as his translator has done.
In the time of the revolution in France, after some tna. had been made of having no religion, D’Aubermenial proposed a new religion, in imitation of the ancient Persians, His plan was to have the Deity represented by a perpetual fire and offerings made to him of fruits, oil, and salt; and libatiojis poured out to the four elements. It was prescribed, that worship should be celebrated daily in the temple, that every ninth day should be a Sabbath, and that on certain festivals all ages should unite in dances. A few fanatics in Paris and elsewhere, actually adopted the new religion, but they were unable to attract any notice, and in a little time it sunk into merited oblivion.
It has been common enough to set up the Mohammedan religion in a sort of rival comparison with Christianity, but I do not know that any have gone so far as to prefer the Koran to the Bible, except those few miserable apostates, who, after being long “tossed about with every wind of doctrine,” at length threw themselves into the arms of the Arabian impostor. How far this religion can bear a com ‘^arisoii with Christianity, will be seen in the sequel.
Deism, then, or Natural Religion, is the only hope of the world, if the Christian Religion be rejected. The first English deists extolled Natural Religion to the skies, as a system which contained all that man needed to know; and as being simple and intelligible to the meanest capacity. But strange to tell, scarcely any two of them are agreed what Natural Religion is; and the same discordance has existed among their successors. They are not agreed even in those points which are most essential in religion, and mos* necessary to be settled before any religious worship la.i be instituted. They diflfer on such points as these; wnether there is any intrinsic ditlereiice between right and wrong; whether God pays any regard to the affairs of men; whether the soul is immortal; whether prayer is proper and useful; and whether any external rites of worship are necessary.
Again, if deism be the true religion, why has piety never flourished among its professors? why have they not been the most zealous and consistent wor sliipiiers of God? Does not truth promote piety and will it not ever be the case that they who hold the truth will love God most ardently, arid serve him most faithfully? But what is the fact in regard to this class of men? Have they ever been distuiguished for their spirit of devotion; have they produced numerous instances of exemplary piety? It is so much the reverse, that even the asking such reasonable questions has the appearance of ridicule. And when people hear the word “pious deist.” they have the same sort of feeling as when mention is made of an honest thief, or a sober drunkard.
There is no slander in making this statement, for deists do not affect to be pious. They have no love for devotion. If the truth were known, this is the very thing they wish to get rid of; and if they believed that professing themselves to be deists laid them under greater obligations to be devout, they would not be so zealous for the system. Believe me, the contest is not between one religion and another, it is between religion and irreligion. It is impossible that a man of truly pious temper should reject tht-Bible, even if he were unacquainted with its histon cal evidences. He would find it to be so congenia* to his taste, and so salutary in its effects on his ow» spirit, that he would conclude that it must have den ved its origin from heaven. But we find no sucl spirit in the writings of deists. There is not in them a tincture of piety; but they have more than a sprinkling of prolane ridicule. When you turn to them from the Bible, you are sensible of as great a transition, as if you passed suddenly from a warm and
«8 EVIDENCES OP CHRISI TANITY.
genial climate into the frigid zone. If deists expti ever to conciliate “egard for their religion they must appear to be truly pious men, sincerely engaged in the service of Gcd; and this will have more effect than all their arguments. But whenever this event shall occur, they will be found no longer opposing the Bible, but will esteem it as the best of books, and will come to it for fuel to feed the flame of puie devotion. An African prince, who was brought to England and resided there some time, being asked what he thought of the Bible, answered, that he believed it to be from God, for he found al) the good people in favour of it, and all the bad people against n i
The want of a spirit of piety and devotion, must be reckoned the principal reason why the deists have never been able to establish and keep up any religious worship among themselves. The thing has been attempted at several different times and in different countries, but never with success.
It is said, that the first enterprise of this kind was that of David Williams, an Englishman, who had been a dissenting minister in Liverpool, but passing over first to Socinianism, and then to deism, went to London, where, being patronized by some persons of influence, he opened a house for deistical worship, and formed a liturgy, consisting principally of praise to the Creator. Here he preached for a short time, and collected some followers; but he complauied that most of his congregation went on to atheism. xlfter four years’ trial, the scheme came to nothing. There were neither funds nor congregation remaining, and the Priest of Nature, (as Williams styled himself) through discouragement and ill health, abandoned the project.
Some feeble attempts of the same kind have been made in the United States; but they are unworthy of being particularly noticed.
Frederick II., the deistical king of Prussia, had once formed the plan of a Pantheon in Berlin for the worshippers of all sects and nil religions, the chief
EVIDENCES OF CHRla’l’IANITr. 29
abject f which was the subversion of Chiistia.uty; but the scheme was never carried into execution.
The most inteiesting experiment of this kind was that made by the Theophilanthropists in France, during the period of the revolution. After some trial yiad been made of atheism and irreligion, and when (he Avant of public woiship was felt by many reflecting persons, a society was formed for the worship of Uod, upon the pure principles of Natural Religion. Among the patrons of this society, were men beloved for their philanthropy, and distinguished for their learning, and some high in power.
La Revelliere Lepaux, one of the directory of France, was a zealous patron of the new religion. By his influence, permission was obtained to make use of the chiu’ches for their worship. In the city of Paris alone, eighteen or twenty were assigned to them, among which was the cathedral church of Notre Dame.
Their creed was simple, consisting of two great articles, the existence of God, and the immortality or THE soul. Their moral system also embraced two great principles, the love of God, and THE LOVE of MAN; — which wcro indicated by the name Theophilanthropists. Their worship consisted of prayers and hymns of praise, which were comprehended in a manual prepared for a directory in worship. Lectures were delivered by the members, which, however, underwent the inspection of the society, before they were pronounced in public. To these were added some simple ceremonies, such as placing a basket of fruit and flowers :/n the altar. Music, vo(al and instrumental, was ased; for the latter, they availed themselves of the organs in the churches. Great efforts were made to have th.s worship generally introduced in all the principa. towns in France; and the views of the society were even extend 3d to foreign countries. Their manual was sent into all parts of the republic ty the Ministei if the iaterio •, free of expense.
Never did a society enjoy greater advantages at
30 EVIPENCKS OF CK AISIl AMTV.
its corr.mencement. Christianity had beet rejected with scorn; athei<?m had for a short time been tried, but was found to be intolerable; the govenmient was favourable to the project: men of learning and inlluence patronized it, and churches ready buiil were at the service of the new denomination. The system of Natural Religion which was adopted was he best that could have been selected, and considerable wisdom was discovered in the construction ot their liturgy. But with all these circumstances in their favour, the society could not subsist. At first, indeed, while the scene was novel, large audiences attended, most of whom however were merely spectators; but in a short time, they dwindled away to such a degree, that instead of occupying twenty churches in Paris, they needed only four; and in some of the provnicial towns, where they began under the most favourable auspices, they soon came to nothing. Thus they went on declining until, under the consular government, they were prohibited the use of the churches any longer; upon which they immediately expired without a struggle, and it is believed that not a vestige of the society now remains.
It will be instructive and interesting to inquire into the reasons of this want of success, in a society enjoying so many advantages. Undoubtedly, the chief reason was, the want of a truly devotional spirit. This was observed from the beginning of their meetings. There was nothing to interest the feelings of the heart. Their orators might be men of learning, and might produce good moral discourses, but they were not men of piety, and not always men of pure morals. Their hymns were said to be well composed, and the music good; but the musiciars were hired from the stage. There was also a strange defect of liberality in contributing to the funds of the •”^ciety. They found it impossible to raise, in some jt their societies, a sum which every Christian congregation, even the poorest c{ any sect, would have x)llf^Gted in one dav. I; is a fact, that -^nc (/f the
EVIDEN(£S OF CH MSTIANITY. 31
Kocieties pelitioned government to grant tliMvi relief from a debt which they had contracted in providing the apparatus of their worship, not amounting to more than fifty dollars, stating, that their annual income did not exceed twenty dollars. In the other towns their musicians deserted them, because they were not paid, and frequently no person could be found to deliver lectures.
Another difficulty arose which might have been foreseen. Some of the societies declared themselves independent, and would not agree to be governed by the manual which had been received, any further than they chose. They also remonstrated against the authority exercised by the lecturers in the affairs of the society, and declared that there was danger of their forming another hierarchy. There were also complaints against them addressed to the ministers by the agents of government in the provinces, on account of the influence which they might acquire in civil affan”s.
The Theophilanthropists were moreover censured by those who had made great advances in the modern philosophy, for their illiberality. It was complained that there were many who could not receive their creed, and all such must necessarily be excluded from their society. This censure seems to have troubled them much, and in order to wipe off the stigma they appointed a fete, which they called the anniversary of the re-establishment of Natural Religion. To prove that their liberality had no bounds, they prepared five banners to be carried in procession. On the first was inscribed the word, Religion; on the second. Morality: and on the others, respectively, Jews, Catholics, Protestants. When the procession was over, the bearers of the several banners gave each other the kiss of peace; and that none might mistake the extent of their liberality, the bar.- ner inscribed JNIorality was borne by a professed atheist, universally known as such in Paris. They had also other festivals peculiar to themselves, and four in honour of the following persons; Socrate»
32 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTlANirY.
St. V’mceiit de Paul, J. J, Rousseau, and SVashii.g vjn; — a stiange conjunction of names truly.*
I have been thus particular in givu)g an account of this society, because the facts furnish the strongest confirmation of my argument, and are in themselves curious and instructive. After th-; failure of thi? enterprise, deists will scarcely attempt again to in istitute any form of public worship.
But auKjng those philosophers who believe in the perfectibility of human nature under the fostering, uiliuence of increasing knowledge and good government, there is a vague theory of a kind of mental, philosophical religion, which needs the aid of no external forms. The primary articles of their creed are, hiat religion is a thing entirely between God and every man’s conscience; that all our Creator requires is the homage of the heart; that if we feel reverence, gratitude, and submission towards him, and act our part w dl in society, we have fulfilled our duty; that we cannot know ‘luw we may be disposed of hereafter, and ought not to be anxious about the matter. Whether this is expected to be the religion of philosophers only, or also of the unlearned and the great mass of labouring people, I am unable to say. iJut I know that such a system as this will, to a large majority of every community, be equivalent to no religion at all. The great body of the people must have something tangible, something visible, in their religion. ‘I’hey need the aid of the senses, and of the social principle, to fix their attention, to create an interest, and to excite the feelings of devotion. The truth is, that if the heart be atlected with lively emotions of piety, it will be pleasant, it will be useful, and it will be natural, to we them expression. This will hold in regard to philo^opllels and men of learning, as well as others. VVTierever a number of persons participate in the same feelings, there is a strong inclination to hold communion together; and if sentiments of gei ume
* Histoire de la Theophilanthropie, par. M. Giogoire. — See Quai itrly Rcvie jr .Tatuiary, 1S23.
Evidences OP CHRISTIANITY J^
piety 3xist in the bosoms of many, they wJi clfe.igh to celebrate in unison the praises of that Being whon /hey lo/e and adore. There is no reason why piou? emotions more than others should be smothered, anc the tendency to express them counteracted. Suet indeed will never be the fact. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Piety, it if true, consists essentially in the exercises of the heart but that religion which is merely mental, is suspicious; at best very feeble; is not likely to produc< any permanent effect on the character or comfort oi the person entertaining it; and cannot be useful to others in the way of example.
In the year 1802, when Christianity, which had Deen proscribed in France, was restored by an act of government, a speech was delivered by one of the counsellors of state which contains excellent sentiments on the subject here treated. One or two extracts will not be unacceptable to the reader.” Science can never be partaken of but by a small number, but by religion one may be instructed without being learned. The Natural Religion to which one may rise by the effects of a cultivated reason, is merely abstract and intellectual, and unfit for any people. It is revealed religion which points out al the truths that are useful to men who have neither time nor means for laborious disquisitions. Who then would wish to dry up that sacred spring of knowledge which diffuses good maxims, brings them before the eyes of every individual, and communicates to them that authoritative and popular dress, without which they would be unknown to the multitude and almost to all men? For want of a religious education for the jast ten years, our children are without any ideas of a divinity, without any notion of what is just and unjust; hence arise barbarous manners, hence a people becomes ferocious. One cannot but sigh over the lot which threatens the present and future generations. Alas! what have we gaiced by deviating from the path pointed out to u« by our ancestors? V hat have we gained by
84 EVIDENCES OF CrlRSTIAXir?.
BU istilutiiig vain and abstract doctrin.s for the creed uiiich actuated the minds of Turenne, Fenelori, and Pascal?” The unhappy condition of that generarion who grew up after this time in France, in regard to religion, is repeatedly notired by Allison, in hia history of Europe,
I think enough has now bee.i said to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, our second proposition, that if Christianity be rejected, there is no other religion which can be substituted in its place, or at least, no other which can at all answer the purpose for which religioi, is desirable.
It may also be observed, in conclusion, that the facts which have been adduced, not only serve to confirm this proposition, but furnish new and cogent arguments in proof of the proposition maintained in the preceding chapter.