I
AM very sensible what a weakness and presumption it is to reason
against the
general humour and disposition of the world. I remember it was with
great
justice, and a due regard to the freedom, both of the public and the
press,
forbidden upon several penalties to write, or discourse, or lay wagers
against
the — even before it was confirmed by Parliament; because that was
looked upon
as a design to oppose the current of the people, which, besides the
folly of it,
is a manifest breach of the fundamental law, that makes this majority of
opinions the voice of God. In like manner, and for the very same
reasons, it may
perhaps be neither safe nor prudent to argue against the abolishing of
Christianity, at a juncture when all parties seem so unanimously
determined upon
the point, as we cannot but allow from their actions, their discourses,
and
their writings. However, I know not how, whether from the affectation of
singularity, or the perverseness of human nature, but so it unhappily
falls out,
that I cannot be entirely of this opinion. Nay, though I were sure an
order were
issued for my immediate prosecution by the Attorney-General, I should
still
confess, that in the present posture of our affairs at home or abroad,
I do not
yet see the absolute necessity of extirpating the Christian religion
from among
us.
This
perhaps may appear too great a paradox even for our wise and
paxodoxical age to
endure; therefore I shall handle it with all tenderness, and with the
utmost
deference to that great and profound majority which is of another
sentiment.
And
yet the curious may please to observe, how much the genius of a nation
is liable
to alter in half an age. I have heard it affirmed for certain by some
very odd
people, that the contrary opinion was even in their memories as much in
vogue as
the other is now; and that a project for the abolishing of Christianity
would
then have appeared as singular, and been thought as absurd, as it would
be at
this time to write or discourse in its defence.
Therefore
I freely own, that all appearances are against me. The system of the
Gospel,
after the fate of other systems, is generally antiquated and exploded,
and the
mass or body of the common people, among whom it seems to have had its
latest
credit, are now grown as much ashamed of it as their betters; opinions,
like
fashions, always descending from those of quality to the middle sort,
and thence
to the vulgar, where at length they are dropped and vanish.
But
here I would not be mistaken, and must therefore be so bold as to
borrow a
distinction from the writers on the other side, when they make a
difference
betwixt nominal and real Trinitarians. I hope no reader imagines me so
weak to
stand up in the defence of real Christianity, such as used in primitive
times
(if we may believe the authors of those ages) to have an influence upon
men’s
belief and actions. To offer at the restoring of that, would indeed be
a wild
project: it would be to dig up foundations; to destroy at one blow all
the wit,
and half the learning of the kingdom; to break the entire frame and
constitution
of things; to ruin trade, extinguish arts and sciences, with the
professors of
them; in short, to turn our courts, exchanges, and shops into deserts;
and would
be full as absurd as the proposal of Horace, where he advises the
Romans, all in
a body, to leave their city, and seek a new seat in some remote part of
the
world, by way of a cure for the corruption of their manners.
Therefore
I think this caution was in itself altogether unnecessary (which I have
inserted
only to prevent all possibility of cavilling), since every candid
reader will
easily understand my discourse to be intended only in defence of nominal
Christianity, the other having been for some time wholly laid aside by
general
consent, as utterly inconsistent with all our present schemes of wealth
and
power.
But
why we should therefore cut off the name and title of Christians,
although the
general opinion and resolution be so violent for it, I confess I cannot
(with
submission) apprehend the consequence necessary. However, since the
undertakers
propose such wonderful advantages to the nation by this project, and
advance
many plausible objections against the system of Christianity, I shall
briefly
consider the strength of both, fairly allow them their greatest weight,
and
offer such answers as I think most reasonable. After which I will beg
leave to
show what inconveniences may possibly happen by such an innovation, in
the
present posture of our affairs.
First,
one great advantage proposed by the abolishing of Christianity is, that
it would
very much enlarge and establish liberty of conscience, that great
bulwark of our
nation, and of the Protestant religion, which is still too much limited
by
priestcraft, notwithstanding all the good intentions of the
legislature, as we
have lately found by a severe instance. For it is confidently reported,
that two
young gentlemen of real hopes, bright wit, and profound judgment, who,
upon a
thorough examination of causes and effects, and by the mere force of
natural
abilities, without the least tincture of learning, having made a
discovery that
there was no God, and generously communicating their thoughts for the
good of
the public, were some time ago, by an unparalleled severity, and upon I
know not
what obsolete law, broke for blasphemy. And as it has been wisely
observed, if
persecution once begins, no man alive knows how far it may reach, or
where it
will end.
In
answer to all which, with deference to wiser judgments, I think this
rather
shows the necessity of a nominal religion among us. Great wits love to
be free
with the highest objects; and if they cannot be allowed a god to revile
or
renounce, they will speak evil of dignities, abuse the government, and
reflect
upon the ministry, which I am sure few will deny to be of much more
pernicious
consequence, according to the saying of Tiberius, DEORUM OFFENSA DIIS
CUROE. As
to the particular fact related, I think it is not fair to argue from one
instance, perhaps another cannot be produced: yet (to the comfort of
all those
who may be apprehensive of persecution) blasphemy we know is freely
spoke a
million of times in every coffee-house and tavern, or wherever else
good company
meet. It must be allowed, indeed, that to break an English free-born
officer
only for blasphemy was, to speak the gentlest of such an action, a very
high
strain of absolute power. Little can be said in excuse for the general;
perhaps
he was afraid it might give offence to the allies, among whom, for
aught we
know, it may be the custom of the country to believe a God. But if he
argued, as
some have done, upon a mistaken principle, that an officer who is
guilty of
speaking blasphemy may, some time or other, proceed so far as to raise
a mutiny,
the consequence is by no means to be admitted: for surely the commander
of an
English army is like to be but ill obeyed whose soldiers fear and
reverence him
as little as they do a Deity.
It
is further objected against the Gospel system that it obliges men to
the belief
of things too difficult for Freethinkers, and such who have shook off
the
prejudices that usually cling to a confined education. To which I
answer, that
men should be cautious how they raise objections which reflect upon the
wisdom
of the nation. Is not everybody freely allowed to believe whatever he
pleases,
and to publish his belief to the world whenever he thinks fit,
especially if it
serves to strengthen the party which is in the right? Would any
indifferent
foreigner, who should read the trumpery lately written by Asgil,
Tindal, Toland,
Coward, and forty more, imagine the Gospel to be our rule of faith, and
to be
confirmed by Parliaments? Does any man either believe, or say he
believes, or
desire to have it thought that he says he believes, one syllable of the
matter?
And is any man worse received upon that score, or does he find his want
of
nominal faith a disadvantage to him in the pursuit of any civil or
military
employment? What if there be an old dormant statute or two against him,
are they
not now obsolete, to a degree, that Empson and Dudley themselves, if
they were
now alive, would find it impossible to put them in execution?
It
is likewise urged, that there are, by computation, in this kingdom,
above ten
thousand parsons, whose revenues, added to those of my lords the
bishops, would
suffice to maintain at least two hundred young gentlemen of wit and
pleasure,
and free-thinking, enemies to priestcraft, narrow principles, pedantry,
and
prejudices, who might be an ornament to the court and town: and then
again, so a
great number of able [bodied] divines might be a recruit to our fleet
and
armies. This indeed appears to be a consideration of some weight; but
then, on
the other side, several things deserve to be considered likewise: as,
first,
whether it may not be thought necessary that in certain tracts of
country, like
what we call parishes, there should be one man at least of abilities to
read and
write. Then it seems a wrong computation that the revenues of the Church
throughout this island would be large enough to maintain two hundred
young
gentlemen, or even half that number, after the present refined way of
living,
that is, to allow each of them such a rent as, in the modern form of
speech,
would make them easy. But still there is in this project a greater
mischief
behind; and we ought to beware of the woman’s folly, who killed the hen
that
every morning laid her a golden egg. For, pray what would become of the
race of
men in the next age, if we had nothing to trust to beside the scrofulous
consumptive production furnished by our men of wit and pleasure, when,
having
squandered away their vigour, health, and estates, they are forced, by
some
disagreeable marriage, to piece up their broken fortunes, and entail
rottenness
and politeness on their posterity? Now, here are ten thousand persons
reduced,
by the wise regulations of Henry VIII., to the necessity of a low diet,
and
moderate exercise, who are the only great restorers of our breed,
without which
the nation would in an age or two become one great hospital.
Another
advantage proposed by the abolishing of Christianity is the clear gain
of one
day in seven, which is now entirely lost, and consequently the kingdom
one
seventh less considerable in trade, business, and pleasure; besides the
loss to
the public of so many stately structures now in the hands of the
clergy, which
might be converted into play-houses, exchanges, market-houses, common
dormitories, and other public edifices.
I
hope I shall be forgiven a hard word if I call this a perfect cavil. I
readily
own there hath been an old custom, time out of mind, for people to
assemble in
the churches every Sunday, and that shops are still frequently shut, in
order,
as it is conceived, to preserve the memory of that ancient practice;
but how
this can prove a hindrance to business or pleasure is hard to imagine.
What if
the men of pleasure are forced, one day in the week, to game at home
instead of
the chocolate-house? Are not the taverns and coffee-houses open? Can
there be a
more convenient season for taking a dose of physic? Is not that the
chief day
for traders to sum up the accounts of the week, and for lawyers to
prepare their
briefs? But I would fain know how it can be pretended that the churches
are
misapplied? Where are more appointments and rendezvouses of gallantry?
Where
more care to appear in the foremost box, with greater advantage of
dress? Where
more meetings for business? Where more bargains driven of all sorts?
And where
so many conveniences or incitements to sleep?
There
is one advantage greater than any of the foregoing, proposed by the
abolishing
of Christianity, that it will utterly extinguish parties among us, by
removing
those factious distinctions of high and low church, of Whig and Tory,
Presbyterian and Church of England, which are now so many mutual clogs
upon
public proceedings, and are apt to prefer the gratifying themselves or
depressing their adversaries before the most important interest of the
State.
I
confess, if it were certain that so great an advantage would redound to
the
nation by this expedient, I would submit, and be silent; but will any
man say,
that if the words, whoring, drinking, cheating, lying, stealing, were,
by Act of
Parliament, ejected out of the English tongue and dictionaries, we
should all
awake next morning chaste and temperate, honest and just, and lovers of
truth?
Is this a fair consequence? Or if the physicians would forbid us to
pronounce
the words pox, gout, rheumatism, and stone, would that expedient serve
like so
many talismen to destroy the diseases themselves? Are party and faction
rooted
in men’s hearts no deeper than phrases borrowed from religion, or
founded upon
no firmer principles? And is our language so poor that we cannot find
other
terms to express them? Are envy, pride, avarice, and ambition such ill
nomenclators, that they cannot furnish appellations for their owners?
Will not
heydukes and mamalukes, mandarins and patshaws, or any other words
formed at
pleasure, serve to distinguish those who are in the ministry from
others who
would be in it if they could? What, for instance, is easier than to
vary the
form of speech, and instead of the word church, make it a question in
politics,
whether the monument be in danger? Because religion was nearest at hand
to
furnish a few convenient phrases, is our invention so barren we can
find no
other? Suppose, for argument sake, that the Tories favoured Margarita,
the
Whigs, Mrs. Tofts, and the Trimmers, Valentini, would not Margaritians,
Toftians, and Valentinians be very tolerable marks of distinction? The
Prasini
and Veniti, two most virulent factions in Italy, began, if I remember
right, by
a distinction of colours in ribbons, which we might do with as good a
grace
about the dignity of the blue and the green, and serve as properly to
divide the
Court, the Parliament, and the kingdom between them, as any terms of art
whatsoever, borrowed from religion. And therefore I think there is
little force
in this objection against Christianity, or prospect of so great an
advantage as
is proposed in the abolishing of it.
It
is again objected, as a very absurd, ridiculous custom, that a set of
men should
be suffered, much less employed and hired, to bawl one day in seven
against the
lawfulness of those methods most in use towards the pursuit of
greatness,
riches, and pleasure, which are the constant practice of all men alive
on the
other six. But this objection is, I think, a little unworthy so refined
an age
as ours. Let us argue this matter calmly. I appeal to the breast of any
polite
Free-thinker, whether, in the pursuit of gratifying a pre-dominant
passion, he
hath not always felt a wonderful incitement, by reflecting it was a
thing
forbidden; and therefore we see, in order to cultivate this test, the
wisdom of
the nation hath taken special care that the ladies should be furnished
with
prohibited silks, and the men with prohibited wine. And indeed it were
to be
wished that some other prohibitions were promoted, in order to improve
the
pleasures of the town, which, for want of such expedients, begin
already, as I
am told, to flag and grow languid, giving way daily to cruel inroads
from the
spleen.
’Tis
likewise proposed, as a great advantage to the public, that if we once
discard
the system of the Gospel, all religion will of course be banished for
ever, and
consequently along with it those grievous prejudices of education
which, under
the names of conscience, honour, justice, and the like, are so apt to
disturb
the peace of human minds, and the notions whereof are so hard to be
eradicated
by right reason or free-thinking, sometimes during the whole course of
our
lives.
Here
first I observe how difficult it is to get rid of a phrase which the
world has
once grown fond of, though the occasion that first produced it be
entirely taken
away. For some years past, if a man had but an ill-favoured nose, the
deep
thinkers of the age would, some way or other contrive to impute the
cause to the
prejudice of his education. From this fountain were said to be derived
all our
foolish notions of justice, piety, love of our country; all our
opinions of God
or a future state, heaven, hell, and the like; and there might formerly
perhaps
have been some pretence for this charge. But so effectual care hath
been since
taken to remove those prejudices, by an entire change in the methods of
education, that (with honour I mention it to our polite innovators) the
young
gentlemen, who are now on the scene, seem to have not the least
tincture left of
those infusions, or string of those weeds, and by consequence the
reason for
abolishing nominal Christianity upon that pretext is wholly ceased.
For
the rest, it may perhaps admit a controversy, whether the banishing all
notions
of religion whatsoever would be inconvenient for the vulgar. Not that I
am in
the least of opinion with those who hold religion to have been the
invention of
politicians, to keep the lower part of the world in awe by the fear of
invisible
powers; unless mankind were then very different from what it is now;
for I look
upon the mass or body of our people here in England to be as
Freethinkers, that
is to say, as staunch unbelievers, as any of the highest rank. But I
conceive
some scattered notions about a superior power to be of singular use for
the
common people, as furnishing excellent materials to keep children quiet
when
they grow peevish, and providing topics of amusement in a tedious
winter night.
Lastly,
it is proposed, as a singular advantage, that the abolishing of
Christianity
will very much contribute to the uniting of Protestants, by enlarging
the terms
of communion, so as to take in all sorts of Dissenters, who are now
shut out of
the pale upon account of a few ceremonies, which all sides confess to
be things
indifferent. That this alone will effectually answer the great ends of
a scheme
for comprehension, by opening a large noble gate, at which all bodies
may enter;
whereas the chaffering with Dissenters, and dodging about this or
t’other
ceremony, is but like opening a few wickets, and leaving them at jar,
by which
no more than one can get in at a time, and that not without stooping,
and
sideling, and squeezing his body.
To
all this I answer, that there is one darling inclination of mankind
which
usually affects to be a retainer to religion, though she be neither its
parent,
its godmother, nor its friend. I mean the spirit of opposition, that
lived long
before Christianity, and can easily subsist without it. Let us, for
instance,
examine wherein the opposition of sectaries among us consists. We shall
find
Christianity to have no share in it at all. Does the Gospel anywhere
prescribe a
starched, squeezed countenance, a stiff formal gait, a singularity of
manners
and habit, or any affected forms and modes of speech different from the
reasonable part of mankind? Yet, if Christianity did not lend its name
to stand
in the gap, and to employ or divert these humours, they must of
necessity be
spent in contraventions to the laws of the land, and disturbance of the
public
peace. There is a portion of enthusiasm assigned to every nation,
which, if it
hath not proper objects to work on, will burst out, and set all into a
flame. If
the quiet of a State can be bought by only flinging men a few
ceremonies to
devour, it is a purchase no wise man would refuse. Let the mastiffs
amuse
themselves about a sheep’s skin stuffed with hay, provided it will keep
them
from worrying the flock. The institution of convents abroad seems in
one point a
strain of great wisdom, there being few irregularities in human
passions which
may not have recourse to vent themselves in some of those orders, which
are so
many retreats for the speculative, the melancholy, the proud, the
silent, the
politic, and the morose, to spend themselves, and evaporate the noxious
particles; for each of whom we in this island are forced to provide a
several
sect of religion to keep them quiet; and whenever Christianity shall be
abolished, the Legislature must find some other expedient to employ and
entertain them. For what imports it how large a gate you open, if there
will be
always left a number who place a pride and a merit in not coming in?
Having
thus considered the most important objections against Christianity, and
the
chief advantages proposed by the abolishing thereof, I shall now, with
equal
deference and submission to wiser judgments, as before, proceed to
mention a few
inconveniences that may happen if the Gospel should be repealed, which,
perhaps,
the projectors may not have sufficiently considered.
And
first, I am very sensible how much the gentlemen of wit and pleasure
are apt to
murmur, and be choked at the sight of so many daggle-tailed parsons
that happen
to fall in their way, and offend their eyes; but at the same time,
these wise
reformers do not consider what an advantage and felicity it is for
great wits to
be always provided with objects of scorn and contempt, in order to
exercise and
improve their talents, and divert their spleen from falling on each
other, or on
themselves, especially when all this may be done without the least
imaginable
danger to their persons.
And
to urge another argument of a parallel nature: if Christianity were once
abolished, how could the Freethinkers, the strong reasoners, and the
men of
profound learning be able to find another subject so calculated in all
points
whereon to display their abilities? What wonderful productions of wit
should we
be deprived of from those whose genius, by continual practice, hath
been wholly
turned upon raillery and invectives against religion, and would
therefore never
be able to shine or distinguish themselves upon any other subject? We
are daily
complaining of the great decline of wit among as, and would we take
away the
greatest, perhaps the only topic we have left? Who would ever have
suspected
Asgil for a wit, or Toland for a philosopher, if the inexhaustible
stock of
Christianity had not been at hand to provide them with materials? What
other
subject through all art or nature could have produced Tindal for a
profound
author, or furnished him with readers? It is the wise choice of the
subject that
alone adorns and distinguishes the writer. For had a hundred such pens
as these
been employed on the side of religion, they would have immediately sunk
into
silence and oblivion.
Nor
do I think it wholly groundless, or my fears altogether imaginary, that
the
abolishing of Christianity may perhaps bring the Church in danger, or
at least
put the Senate to the trouble of another securing vote. I desire I may
not be
mistaken; I am far from presuming to affirm or think that the Church is
in
danger at present, or as things now stand; but we know not how soon it
may be so
when the Christian religion is repealed. As plausible as this project
seems,
there may be a dangerous design lurk under it. Nothing can be more
notorious
than that the Atheists, Deists, Socinians, Anti-Trinitarians, and other
subdivisions of Freethinkers, are persons of little zeal for the present
ecclesiastical establishment: their declared opinion is for repealing
the
sacramental test; they are very indifferent with regard to ceremonies;
nor do
they hold the JUS DIVINUM of episcopacy: therefore they may be intended
as one
politic step towards altering the constitution of the Church
established, and
setting up Presbytery in the stead, which I leave to be further
considered by
those at the helm.
In
the last place, I think nothing can be more plain, than that by this
expedient
we shall run into the evil we chiefly pretend to avoid; and that the
abolishment
of the Christian religion will be the readiest course we can take to
introduce
Popery. And I am the more inclined to this opinion because we know it
has been
the constant practice of the Jesuits to send over emissaries, with
instructions
to personate themselves members of the several prevailing sects amongst
us. So
it is recorded that they have at sundry times appeared in the guise of
Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Independents, and Quakers, according as any
of these
were most in credit; so, since the fashion hath been taken up of
exploding
religion, the Popish missionaries have not been wanting to mix with the
Freethinkers; among whom Toland, the great oracle of the Anti-
Christians, is an
Irish priest, the son of an Irish priest; and the most learned and
ingenious
author of a book called the “Rights of the Christian Church,” was in a
proper juncture reconciled to the Romish faith, whose true son, as
appears by a
hundred passages in his treatise, he still continues. Perhaps I could
add some
others to the number; but the fact is beyond dispute, and the reasoning
they
proceed by is right: for supposing Christianity to be extinguished the
people
will never he at ease till they find out some other method of worship,
which
will as infallibly produce superstition as this will end in Popery.
And
therefore, if, notwithstanding all I have said, it still be thought
necessary to
have a Bill brought in for repealing Christianity, I would humbly offer
an
amendment, that instead of the word Christianity may be put religion in
general,
which I conceive will much better answer all the good ends proposed by
the
projectors of it. For as long as we leave in being a God and His
Providence,
with all the necessary consequences which curious and inquisitive men
will be
apt to draw from such promises, we do not strike at the root of the
evil, though
we should ever so effectually annihilate the present scheme of the
Gospel; for
of what use is freedom of thought if it will not produce freedom of
action,
which is the sole end, how remote soever in appearance, of all
objections
against Christianity? and therefore, the Freethinkers consider it as a
sort of
edifice, wherein all the parts have such a mutual dependence on each
other, that
if you happen to pull out one single nail, the whole fabric must fall
to the
ground. This was happily expressed by him who had heard of a text
brought for
proof of the Trinity, which in an ancient manuscript was differently
read; he
thereupon immediately took the hint, and by a sudden deduction of a long
Sorites, most logically concluded: why, if it be as you say, I may
safely drink
on, and defy the parson. From which, and many the like instances easy
to be
produced, I think nothing can be more manifest than that the quarrel is
not
against any particular points of hard digestion in the Christian
system, but
against religion in general, which, by laying restraints on human
nature, is
supposed the great enemy to the freedom of thought and action.
Upon
the whole, if it shall still be thought for the benefit of Church and
State that
Christianity be abolished, I conceive, however, it may be more
convenient to
defer the execution to a time of peace, and not venture in this
conjuncture to
disoblige our allies, who, as it falls out, are all Christians, and
many of
them, by the prejudices of their education, so bigoted as to place a
sort of
pride in the appellation. If, upon being rejected by them, we are to
trust to an
alliance with the Turk, we shall find ourselves much deceived; for, as
he is too
remote, and generally engaged in war with the Persian emperor, so his
people
would be more scandalised at our infidelity than our Christian
neighbours. For
they are not only strict observers of religions worship, but what is
worse,
believe a God; which is more than is required of us, even while we
preserve the
name of Christians.
To
conclude, whatever some may think of the great advantages to trade by
this
favourite scheme, I do very much apprehend that in six months’ time
after the
Act is passed for the extirpation of the Gospel, the Bank and East
India stock
may fall at least one per cent. And since that is fifty times more than
ever the
wisdom of our age thought fit to venture for the preservation of
Christianity,
there is no reason we should be at so great a loss merely for the sake
of
destroying it.