CHAP. XVIII. Religion necessary to the well-being of states THE royal pupil should be informed, that there are some half Christians and half philosophers, who wish, without incurring the discredit of renouncing religion, to strip it of its value, by lowering its usefulness. They have been at much pains to produce a persuasion, that however beneficial Christianity may be to individuals, and however properly it may be taken as the rule of their conduct, it cannot be safely brought into action in political concerns; that the intervention of its spirit will rarely advance the public good, but, on the contrary, will often necessarily obstruct it; and, in particular, that the glory and elevation of states must be unavoidably attended with some violation even of those laws of morality, which, they allow, ought to be observed in other cases. * These assertions, respecting the political disadvantages of religion, have not been urged merely by the avowed enemies of Christian principle, the Bolingbrokes, the Hobbes's, and the Gibbons: but there is a more sober class of skeptics, ranged under the banners of a very learned and ingenious sophist,† who have not scrupled to maintain, that the Author of Christianity has actually forbidden us to improve the condition of this world, to take any vigorous steps for preventing its misery, or advancing its glory. Another writer, an elegant wit, but a whimsical and superficial, though, doubtless, sincere Christian, who would be shocked at the excess to which impiety has carried the position, has yet afforded some countenance to it, by intimating, that God has given to men a religion which is incompatible with the whole economy of that world which he has created, and in which he has thought proper to place them. He allows, that government is essential to men, and yet asserts, that it * It were to he wished that Cromwell had been the only ruler who held, that the rules of morality must be dispensed with on great political occasions. † Mr. Bayle. [This French skeptic was born in 1647, and died at Rotterdam in 1706.-ED.] Soame Jenyns. It is true, he puts the remark in the mouth of "refined and speculative observers." But he afterwards affirms in his own person→ That such is indeed the Christian Revelation. [See " A View of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion," by this ingenious, but somewhat fanciful, writer. The sincerity of Mr. Jenyns has been doubted, but our author, who was intimate with him, always vindicated his character for integ rity, and declared her persuasion that he was a true convert to that faith which he had once opposed.-ED.] cannot be managed without certain degrees of violence, corruption, and imposition, which yet Christianity strictly forbids. That perpetual patience under injuries must every day provoke new insults and injuries; yet is this, says he, enjoined." The same positions are also repeatedly affirmed, by a later, more solid, and most admirable writer,* whose very able defence of the divine authority of Christianity and the Holy Scriptures, naturally obtains credit for any opinions which are honored with his support. It may be expected that those who advance such propositions should at least produce proofs from history, that those states, in the government of which Christian principles have been most conspicuous, other circumstances being equal, have either failed through error, or sunk through. impotence; or in some other way have suffered, from introducing principles into transactions to which they were in applicable. But how little the avowed skeptic, or even the paradoxical Christian, seems to understand the genius of our religion; and how erroneous is their conception of the true elementary principles of political prosperity, we learn from one, who was as able as either to determine on the case. He who was not only a politician but a king, and eminently acquainted with the duties of both characters, has assured us that RIGHTEOUSNESS EXALTETH A NATION. And does not every instinct of the unsophisticated heart, and every clear result of dispassionate and enlarged observation, unite in adopting as a moral axiom this divinely-recorded aphorism? It would, indeed, be strange, if the great Author of all things had admitted such an anomaly in his moral government; if, in direct contradiction to that moral ordination of causes and effects, by which, in the case of individuals, religion and virtue generally tend, in the way of natural consequence, to happiness and prosperity, irreligion and vice to discomfiture and misery, the Almighty should have established the directly opposite tendencies, in the case of those multiplications of individuals which are called civil communities. It is a supposition so contrary to the Divine procedure in every other instance, that it would require to be proved by incontestable evidence. It would indeed amount to a concession, that the moral Author of the world had appointed a premium, as it were, for vice and irreligion; the *The writer here alluded to was certainly the late Dr. Paley, who, in his "Moral and Political Philosophy," as well as in his "Treatise on the Evidences of Christianity," has expressed himself very paradoxically upon some important principles.-ED. very idea is profaneness. Happily, it is clearly contrary also both to reason and experience. Providence, the ordinations of which will ever exhibit marks of wisdom and goodness in proportion to the care with which they are explored, has, in this instance, as well as in others, made our duty coincident with our happiness; has furnished us with an additional motive for pursuing that course which is indispensable to our eternal welfare, by rendering it, in the case both of individuals and of communities, productive also of temporal good. It was not enough to make the paths of virtue lead to "the fulness of joy" hereafter, they are even now rendered to those who walk in them "paths of pleasantness and peace." It would not be difficult to prove, by a reference to the most established principles of human nature, that those dispositions of mind, and principles of conduct, which, both directly and indirectly, tend to promote the good order of civil communities, are, in general, produced or strengthened by religion. The same temper of mind which disposes a man to fear God, prompts him to honor the king. The same pride, self-sufficiency, and impatience of control, which are commonly the root and origin of impiety, naturally produce civil insubordination and discontent. One of the most acute of our political writers has stated, that all government rests on opinion; on the opinion entertained by the mass of the people, of the right to power in their governors, or on the opinion of its being their own interest to obey. Now, religion naturally confirms both these principles, and thereby strengthens the very foundations of the powers of government. It establishes the right to power of governors, by teaching, that "there is no power but of God;" it confirms in subjects the sense of its being their interest to obey, by the powerful intervention of its higher sanctions and rewards: they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation." Religion teaches men to consider their lot in life as a station assigned to them by Him who has a right to dispose of his creatures as he will. It therefore tends to prevent, in the great mass of the community, which must ever be, comparatively speaking, poor, the disposition to repine at the more favored lot, and superior comforts of the higher orders; a disposition which is the real source of the most dangerous and deadly dissensions. 66 Religion, again, as prompting men to view all human events as under the Divine direction, to regard the evils of life as the dispensation of Heaven, and often as capable of being rendered conducive to the most essential and lasting benefit; disposes men to bear all their sufferings with resignation and cheerfulness. Whereas, on the contrary, they who are not under its power, are often inclined to revenge on their rulers the misfortunes which unavoidably result from natural causes, as well as those which may be more reasonably supposed to have owed their existence to human imprudence and actual misconduct. Again, if, from contemplating these questions in their principles and elements, we proceed to view them, as they have been exhibited and illustrated by history and experience, we shall find the same positions established with equal clearness and force. Is there any proposition more generally admitted, than that political communities tend to decay and dissolution, in proportion to the corruption of their morals? How often has the authority of the poet been adduced (an author acute and just in his views of life, but not eminent for being the friend of morals or religion,) to prove the inefficacy of laws to avert the progress of a state's decline and fall, while it should be carried forward, too surely, in the downward road, by the general corruption of manners. We have already exemplified these truths, in enumerating the causes of the fall of Rome.* On more than one occasion, that state had owed its preservation to its reverence for the awful sanction of an oath. This principle, and indeed the duty which is so closely connected with it, of truth and general fidelity to engagements, are the very cement which holds together societies, and indeed all, whether greater or smaller, associations of men; and that this class of virtues is founded and bottomed on religion, is undeniably evident. If we pass from the page of history to a review of private life, are we not led to exactly the same conclusions? Where do the politicians, who reason from the evidence of facts, expect to find a spirit of insubordination and anarchy? Is it not in our crowded cities, in our large manufacturing towns, where wealth is often too dearly purchased at the price of morality and virtue? And if we resort to individual instances, who is the man of peace and quietness? Who is the least inclined to "meddle with them that are given to change?" Is it not the man of religious and domestic habits; whose very connections, pursuits, and hopes are so many pledges for his adherence to the cause of civil order, and to the support of the laws and institutions of his country? It is the more extraordinary that any writers, not delibe* Chap. viii. rately hostile to the cause of religion and virtue, should have given any degree of countenance to the pernicious error which we have been so long combating; because the opposite opinion has been laid down as an incontestable axiom, by those who will not be suspected of any extravagant zeal for the credit of religion, but who speak the dictates of strong sense and deep observation. Hear then the able, but profligate, Machiavel-"Those princes and commonwealths, who would keep their governments entire and uncorrupt, are, above all things, to have a care of religion and its ceremonies, and preserve them in due veneration, for, in the whole world, there is not a greater sign of imminent ruin, than when God and his worship are despised.” "A prince, therefore, ought most accurately to regard that his religion be well-founded, and then his government will last; for, there is no surer way, than to keep that good and united. Whatever, therefore, occurs, that may any way be extended to the advantage and reputation of the religion they design to establish, by all means they are to be propagated and encouraged; and the wiser the prince, the more sure it is to be done." "And if this care of divine worship were regarded by Christian princes, according to the precepts and instructions of Him who gave it at first, the states and commonwealths of Christendom would be much more happy and firm."* Michiavel, it will be said, was at once an infidel and an hypocrite, who did not believe the truth of that religion, the observance of which he so solicitously enforced. Be it so; it still deducts nothing from the force of the argument, as to the political uses of religion. For, if the mere forms and institutions, "the outward and visible signs," of Christianity, were acknowledged to be, as they really are, of so great value, by this shrewd politician, what might not be the effect of its "inward and spiritual grace?" When two able men of totally opposite principles and characters, pointedly agree on any one important topic, there is a strong presumption that they meet in a truth. Such an unlooked-for conformity may be found in two writers, so decidedly opposite to each other, as our incomparable bishop Butler, and the Florentine secretary above cited. Who will suspect Butler of being a visionary enthusiast? Yet has he drawn a most beautiful picture of the happiness of an imaginary state, which should be perfectly virtuous for a succession of ages. "In such a state,” he insists, "there would be no faction. Public determinations * Machiavel's Discourses on Livy. |