An Argument to Prove That the
Abolishing of Christianity in England,
May as Things Now Stand,
Be Attended with Some Inconveniencies, and Perhaps
Not Produce Those Many Good Effects Proposed Thereby
I AM very sensible what 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 Publick and the Press, forbidden upon severe
Penalties to Write, or Discourse, or lay Wagers against the
Union, even before it was confirmed by Parliament, because
that was look'd 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 Opinion 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, although I were sure, an Order were issued out 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 paradoxical 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 old 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
Christianity would then have appeared as singular, and been
thought as absurd, as it would be at this time to write or
discourse in 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 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 dropp'd 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 between 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 Mens 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 it self altogether
unnecessary (which I have inserted only to prevent all
Possibility of Caviling) 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 cast 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 shew
what Inconveniencies 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 Priest-craft, 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 great
Hopes, bright Wit, and profound Judgment, who upon a thorough
Examination of Causes and Effects, and by the meer 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 Publick; were
some time ago by an unparalleled Severity, and upon I know not
what obsolete Law, broke only for Blasphemy. And
as it hath 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 shews 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 curae.
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 ought I 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 sometime 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 obey'd, 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 free
Thinkers, and such who have shook off the Prejudices that usually
cling to a confin'd Education. To which I answer, that Men
should be cautious how they raise Objections which reflect upon
the Wisdom of the Nation. Is not every body freely allowed to
believe whatever he pleaseth, and to publish his Belief to the
World whenever he thinks fit, especially if it serve to
strengthen the Party which is in the Right. Would any
indifferent Foreigner, who should read the Trumpery lately
written by Asgil, Tindall, 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 ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the beginning of the document
Go to previous page
Go to next page
Go to the end of document
