Part 17 (1/2)
But Junius, like Paine, was a _religious_ man. In Letter 56, he says: ”I know such a man; my lord, I know you both, _and, with the blessing of G.o.d_ (_for I, too, am religious_), the people of England shall know you as well as I do.”
As Mr. Paine has been misunderstood by the religious world, and as so much has been said against his religion that a prejudice deep and bitter now rests on the world against him, I will give a couple of extracts from his Rights of Man on this point. I confess that my own prejudices were so great against him (and I thought myself quite liberal), that they would not suffer me to read his works till quite recently. Such is the tyranny of religious instruction. The first extract is from the first part. In a note, he says: ”There is a single idea, which, if it strikes rightly upon the mind, either in a legal or a religious sense, will prevent any man, or any body of men, or any government, from going wrong on the subject of religion; which is, that before any human inst.i.tutions of government were known in the world, there existed, if I may so express it, a compact between G.o.d and man from the beginning of time; and that, as the relation and condition which man in his individual person stands in toward his Maker can not be changed by any human laws or human authority, that religious devotion, which is a part of this compact, can not so much as be made a subject of human laws; and that all laws must conform themselves to the prior-existing compact, and not a.s.sume to make the compact conform to the laws, which, besides being human, are subsequent thereto. The first act of man, when he looked around and saw himself a creature which he did not make, and a world furnished for his reception, must have been devotion; and devotion must ever continue sacred to every individual man, as it appears right to him, and governments do mischief by interfering.”
The next extract is from part second, near its close, and I would call the attention of the reader to the beauty of the allegory:
”But as religion is very improperly made a political machine, and the reality of it is thereby destroyed, I will conclude this work with stating in what light religion appears to me.
”If we suppose a large family of children on any particular day, or particular occasion, made it a custom to present to their parents some token of their affection and grat.i.tude, each of them would make a different offering, and most probably in a different manner. Some would pay their congratulations in themes of verse and prose, others by some little devices, as their genius dictated or according to what they thought would please; and, perhaps, the least of all, not able to do any of those things, would ramble into the garden or the field and gather what it thought the prettiest flower it could find, though perhaps it might be but a simple weed. The parents would be more gratified by such a variety than if the whole of them had acted on a concerted plan, and each had made exactly the same offering. This would have the cold appearance of contrivance, or the harsh one of control. But of all unwelcome things nothing would more afflict the parent than to know that the whole of them had afterwards gotten together by the ears, boys and girls, fighting, and reviling, and abusing each other about which was the best or the worst present.
”Why may we not suppose that the great Father of all is pleased with a variety of devotion; and that the greatest offense we can act is that by which we seek to torment and render each other miserable? For my own part I am fully satisfied that what I am now doing with an endeavor to conciliate mankind, to render their condition happy, to unite nations that have hitherto been enemies, and to extirpate the horrid practice of war, and break the chains of slavery and oppression, is estimable in his sight, and being the best service I can perform, I act it cheerfully.
”I do not believe that any two men, on what are called doctrinal points, think alike who think at all.”
[And this, my reader, is Thomas Paine who hath spoken. I would like to have Henry Ward Beecher, after he has read this book, take the above pa.s.sage as a text and preach a sermon from it.]
I now call attention to a few parallels:
_Paine._
”A narrow system of politics like a narrow system of religion, is calculated only to sour the temper, and be at variance with mankind.”--Crisis, iii.
_Junius._
”Superst.i.tion is certainly not the characteristic of this age; yet some men are bigoted in politics who are infidels in religion.”--Let. 67.
”Secluded from the world, attached from his infancy to one set of persons and one set of ideas, he can neither open his heart to new connections nor his mind to better information. A character of this sort is the soil fittest to produce that obstinate bigotry in politics and religion which begins with a meritorious sacrifice of the understanding and finally conducts the monarch and the martyr to the block.”--Let. 39.
Junius is here speaking of the king, who with a narrow understanding would naturally have a narrow system of politics and religion. But again:
_Paine._
”We persecute no man, neither will we abet in the persecution of any man for religion's sake.”--Crisis, iii.
_Junius._
”The fundamental principles of Christianity may still be preserved though every zealous sectary adheres to his own exclusive doctrine, and pious ecclesiastics make it part of their religion to persecute one another.”--Let. 58.
”The writer of this is one of those few who never dishonors religion, either by ridiculing or caviling at any denominations whatsoever. To G.o.d and not to man are all men accountable on the score of religion.”--Epistle to the Quakers.
”If I thought Junius capable of uttering a disrespectful word of the religion of his country I should be the first to renounce and give him up to the public contempt and indignation.”--Let. 54.
Above it is Philo Junius who is speaking; but the reader will remember he is the real Junius. He had been attacked for his impiety, and he puts Philo Junius forward to defend himself. The reader can not fail to notice the same hand in the last parallel. Paine says: ”The _writer_ of this is one of _those few_ who never dishonors religion” by abusing the professors of it. And he never did. Junius ridiculed the ceremonial in the Catholic Church which denies the cup to the laity; and of this he says: ”It is, in this country, as fair an object of ridicule as _transubstantiation_, or any other part of Lord Peter's History in the Tale of the Tub.” This reminds me of what Paine says of popery and Peter: ”A man hath as good reason to believe that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public in popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the popery of government.”--Common Sense. In regard to Peter, we see the same temptation to touch his pen with satire and ridicule, and the pa.s.sage may be found in Rights of Man, part first. It is as follows: ”I will quote Mr. Burke's catalogue of barriers that he has set up between man and his maker. Putting himself in the character of a herald, he says: 'We fear G.o.d; we look with _awe_ to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence _to_ priests; and with respect to n.o.bility.' Mr. Burke has forgot to put in chivalry. _He has also forgot to put in Peter._”
They both considered it true that there is a wide difference between _piety_ and _morality_. Paine himself says (and it is the n.o.blest sentiment ever uttered by man): ”MY COUNTRY IS THE WORLD, AND MY RELIGION IS TO DO GOOD.” Junius frequently puts piety and morality in ant.i.thesis, as the following examples will show: ”They care not what injustice is practiced upon a man whose _moral character_ they _piously_ think themselves obliged to condemn.”--Let. 39. ”The _unfeigned piety_, the _sanctified religion_ of George the Third have taught him to new-model the civil forces of the State. _Corruption glitters in the van_,” etc. Then, speaking of some of his predecessors, he says: ”They were kings or gentlemen, not hypocrites or priests. They were at the head of the Church, but did not know the value of their office. They said their prayers without ceremony, and had too little of priestcraft in their understanding to reconcile the _sanctimonious forms_ of religion with the utter destruction of the _morality_ of the people.”--Let. 55.