The Sin of Scoffing at Religion

Next Part The Sin of Scoffing at Religion 2

Being the substance of two sermons, preached in Carrs Lane Meeting House, July 16th and August 1st, 1824, by John Angell James.

"Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of thescornful."

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts." 2 Peter 3:3

As in the natural world, the daylight does not prevent the evils injurious to the body, so in the spiritual world, the most perfect revelation of divine truth does not put a stop to the errors and vices which endanger the soul. Even the Christian dispensation (called here the last days), is insufficient, notwithstanding its internal glory and external evidence, to abash the audacious spirit of infidelity, and to silence the scoffing tongue of the scorner.

At the time of Peter's writing this epistle, the disciples of Christ were exposed to the attacks of the Epicureans among the Gentiles, and of the Sadducees among the Jews, both of whom ridiculed the doctrines of the resurrection of the dead, the general judgment, the destruction of the world, and a future state of reward or punishment. From the very frequent allusions made to scorners throughout the Old Testament, it is evident that such characters were by no means uncommon in the Jewish nation; and this atheistical temper still continues to infest the world under the superior light of Christianity. In the language of the text, the apostle with great severity rebukes this profane disposition, and resolves it into its real cause, the unsubdued depravity of those by whom it is indulged; "there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts." As this sin is lamentably common in the present age, I have thought it necessary to call your attention to the subject, and to put you upon your guard against its pernicious influence and impious attacks.

I. I shall give you a representation of the nature of the vice itself, and shall trace it through its various forms and modes of operation. I am not going to set either myself or you, my friends, against the fair, dispassionate, reverential discussion of religious truth. Christianity, notwithstanding her heavenly origin, not only allows—but invites examination, and in this respect stands sublimely opposed to Mohammadanism, which never reasons in its own defense—but prohibits and punishes every attack made upon it, and all investigation of its claims, and builds itself by 'force' on ignorance and credulity; as if aware that the most limited privilege of discussion would end in its destruction. It is not the serious enquirer, or the sober disputant, that I complain of; let his objections be raised against whatever doctrines they may; but the individual who treats the subject with a spirit of levity, derision and contempt; who offer sneers instead of arguments; and stoops to ridicule, rather than to the intellectual reasoning.

In some instances this unhappy and unholy disposition goes so far as to despise every kind of religion, natural as well as revealed, and comes out in the appalling form of atheism, which ridicules the ideas of the existence of a God and a future state; and assigning to man no other period of existence than the present life, takes from him all responsibility, and eventually extinguishes every moral principle of his soul. It has, indeed, been questioned whether such a being as a 'rational atheist' actually exists; without taking upon me to decide this question, I know that many 'practical atheists' are almost everywhere to be found—men who treat all religion with unconcealed contempt, whether they speak from or against conviction, whether they are led into sin by a perverted judgment, or in their impious mirth oppose the ineffaceable sentiments of their own hearts.

Having relieved themselves from the restraint of principle and conscience, they look down with affected pity and undisguised scorn upon the poor slaves who consider themselves as acting under inspection and amenable for their conduct. They treat with endless derision the bondage of those whom they represent as voluntarily loaded with the fetters of superstition, who though they have only to assert their liberty to be free, instead of daring to break the chains which artful priests and designing tyrants have imposed upon their minds, are tamely submitting to the imposition, and groveling in abject fear at the feet of their cruel taskmasters. With such men it is matter of constant merriment that any should be so silly as for the reversionary happiness of a future state—to deny themselves the gratification of their appetites, and the indulgence of their propensities in the present world. Their motto is, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Every moral principle, every holy virtue, every religious practice is treated with scorn by them; they deride all who support the claims of piety, and represent everything however vile, impure, or profane—as lawful or indifferent.

In other cases, the scorner appears in the character of a deist, who, while he professes to believe the truth, and to submit to the obligations of natural religion, attacks the system of divine revelation with all the power of his wit, and loads the disciples of Christ with all the weight of his scorn. He reviles the Scriptures as forgeries, and ridicules those who profess to believe them, as fanatics or hypocrites. It is in his eyes the excess of credulity and folly to allow the conscience to be bound, the passions to be restrained, and the life to be guided, by such palpable and refutable impostures. Yet one cannot help wondering at the effrontery of those infidels who talk about the silliness of believing in the Bible, and who represent it as a book capable of enslaving only the weak and credulous. Have they forgotten that this book, in their opinion so easily detected in its falsehoods, and so worthy to be despised for its absurdities, was really admitted to be divine and true by Bacon, Newton, and Boyle; by Milton, Locke, and Johnson.

It is curious to hear the flippancy with which many witlings talk of the weakness and credulity of all who believe in the truth of divine revelation, and to see with what scorn they look upon the multitude of believers; a body which, though it embraces very many of the poor and illiterate, yet has comprehended the sublimest poets, the profoundest philosophers, and the most learned scholars that ever lived in the most enlightened ages and in the best informed nations. One would think that such names as those just mentioned had dignity enough to screen themselves, and all associated with them in opinion, from the sneer of contempt. Surely, surely, the very hem of the garment, the extremity of the skirt of such a genius as Bacon, Newton, or Milton, might be a sufficient covering from derision for the multitude of weaker minds who flee to it for a shelter from the charge of credulity and the shower of taunts and sneers with which such a charge is often attended.

But there are many, who, though they have all the malignity of deism, have not its desperate hardihood. They are infidels without avowing it; they despise revelation without professing to reject it; they laugh at it—but do not, because they cannot, argue against it. In the grand conflict between Christianity and infidelity, they carry on a sort of guerilla warfare. They have neither the skill nor the accouterments of regular troops—but they can skirmish, and it is admitted that in a certain way they do much execution. I mean the men who, under a profession of general respect for revelation, are ever busying themselves in finding out, exposing, and ridiculing, what their shallow and unsanctified minds imagine to be difficulties, absurdities, and objections. How will they divert a circle with witty, sarcastic, or ludicrous remarks, upon some of the scripture narratives, or some of the scripture characters. The account of Jonah and the fish, and the sins of David, with other things of a similar nature, are converted by them into matter of endless ridicule.

Two topics there are, necessarily and closely connected with revealed truth, of fearful mystery, of awful gloom, and of dreadful reality, which have been employed, perhaps more than any others, by such scoffers to season their mirth, and to give a relish to their sinful jokes; and these are—the state of punishment prepared for the wicked, and the existence of the devil. Even the purgatorial fire, or disciplinary chastisement, of the Romanists, much more the hell of the Scriptures, a state of eternal torments; and Satan, whether a real existence, or even if he were only a personification of evil; are subjects far too dreadful to become the occasions of merriment and diversion. But, unhappily, the monkish legends of Popery, replete as they are with all that can shock the reason and offend the sober piety of an enlightened Christian, have furnished so many absurd, ludicrous, and monstrous stories on these appalling themes, that the most dreadful of all possible topics have become more than anything, the subject of sport.

Much unhallowed ridicule is thrown by some on what are considered by us as the most sublime and important doctrines of revelation; I mean the trinity of persons in the Godhead, and the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ. I speak not now of those who, in a dignified, dispassionate, and reverential manner, discuss by argument these high subjects. Men of enlarged minds, and of high moral worth there are, who differ from us on these doctrines, and who express that difference in respectful and argumentative language, who disdain to offer a sneer for a reason, and who in the disputant merge not the character of the gentleman; to such opponents we listen with respect, and have only to regret that they err, in our opinion, on subjects of vital importance. Far different is the conduct of others of their party, who substitute, perhaps conveniently enough, ridicule for reasoning, and sneers for arguments. We include the latter only in the company of the scoffers; the former are too dignified to deserve the appellation, and we, I trust, are too candid to asperse them with the imputation.

The scorner will frequently be found avowing his belief in the important articles which I have just mentioned, while, at the same time, he ridicules the only legitimate influence and valuable results of these doctrines. All that deep contrition, that earnestness of soul, that spirituality of mind, that separation from the world, that cautious abstinence from sin, that devout attendance upon religious services which the Word of God enjoins, and the very nature of religion requires—are sometimes treated with the most unrestrained ridicule by men who profess at the same time to be firm believers in all the important articles of the Christian scheme. If the Word of God be true, it is impossible to possess true religion without being earnest; for religion is a thing of the heart; it has reference to eternity; it is a contest for immortality; a trial and preparation for everlasting ages; and to be lukewarm, careless, indifferent, on such a subject, is the most monstrous absurdity.

The anxious, earnest, diligent Christian, is the only consistent one. Yet this is the religion against which the whole artillery of scorn is directed, and every offensive epithet is cast—this is the religion which is designated by the opprobrious names of nauseating cant, disgusting hypocrisy, whining Methodism, and Puritanic fanaticism. We are commanded by the law of our being, as rational creatures, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our mind; we are enjoined by our divine Lawgiver to strive to enter in at the straight gate; to subdue every guilty passion, and restrain every sinful exercise of the senses; to be pure even in the very inmost recesses of our mind; to make the salvation of the soul the chief object of pursuit; and we are admonished by his apostles to give ourselves to prayer; to be spiritually minded; to set our affections on things above; to mortify the deeds of the body; to avoid the very appearance of evil; to give all diligence to make our calling and election sure. Yet, no sooner does a man comply with these injunctions, or attempt to do so, than he is pointed out by the finger of scorn as an object of ridicule, at whom, as he passes along, everyone may fling the epithet of 'fanatic', and raise against him the silent sneer or the broad loud laugh.

Has not everyone, who, in the present age, dares to be in earnest about religion, subjected himself to attacks of this kind? Has not the term 'saint', that highest appellation which can be given to man or glorified spirit, of kindred meaning with that attribute of the Deity which, as his chosen title, is proclaimed in the continual cry of the cherubim and seraphim, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty!" has not, I say, this term been bandied about society as a term of reproach? And have not the saints, as they are sneeringly called, been held up to ridicule in all places, from the highest seats in parliament to the benches of the alehouse?

Have not senators themselves stooped so low, even amidst the dignity of debate, as to repeat the low jokes of the drunkard's song? Holy Lord God Almighty! what infatuation has come upon the enemies of religion, that abandoning the names of reproach invented by men, they should at length have selected one consecrated by every page of revelation, applied to every being in glory, and ascribed to you by those adoring at your footstool as the greatest of all your perfections! What blindness has fallen upon their understanding, that they can find no term less esteem to affix as a brand upon the character of a good man! What is their perverseness and confusion of judgment, that they should have been thus led to utter the greatest compliments when they intended only the greatest contempt! Mistaken men! learn the meaning of the term before you employ it as a word of reproach. And you objects of their scorn, be it your ambition to deserve the appellation, and your honor to bear it without a blush before the world.

Another way of scoffing at religion (and it is by no means an uncommon one), is to pitch upon the extravagances and imperfections of good men, and to expose them to public ridicule and contempt. It may be their imperfections are only eccentricities, mere dust upon the petals of the flower—but not a canker at its roots, which candor would overlook or conceal, in consideration of the genuine excellence with which they are associated. It is a very easy achievement to make corrupt minds laugh at the most admirable qualities, when they happen to be connected with trivial eccentricity; for he who laughs at the garment, will soon he led by an easy transition to despise the wearer, however respectable. But how hateful is the malignity which delights to throw all the valuable and praiseworthy parts of the character into the shade of one ludicrous trait.

It is a miserable device, which many have had recourse to, to select the 'absurdities of fanaticism' and the 'hollow pretenses of hypocrisy'—as they have been exhibited in some false professors, and thus to raise a prejudice against all genuine religion. We are told that it is not rational piety they deride—but only the disgusting excesses of fanaticism and insincerity. This mask, however, is too ill constructed to conceal the visage, and this veil too thin to disguise the form of the scorner. 'Hypocrisy' in anything needs no effort employed against it to render it hateful, there being no vice which is more generally or more justly abhorred. And as for real 'fanaticism', it may be left to itself, for it will soon expire without any effort to extinguish it. But fanaticism is a term so undefined, that it is a difficult matter to regulate its application; and, on the other hand, the phrase "rational piety" is, with those who use it, like the bed of Procrustes, to which everyone was fitted by violence, either by being stretched or lopped.

"Even admitting that there were opinions so replete with absurdity, and so contradictory to common sense, that it seems below the dignity of reason to undertake the refutation of them, yet of what service can be ridicule even in this case. Whatever gives birth to opinions really monstrous, it is plain that strong prejudice alone keeps them alive, which even impresses on them a sacred character. To endeavor to laugh men out of such prejudices, is to confirm them the more in them; as their conversion is never likely to be brought about by such means as must inspire them with horror. Rather let kindness and persuasion remove the prejudice, and then the error will be dispelled of course."

To mock all religion because of the vices of its false professors, is an action the weakness of which is not exceeded even by its wickedness. If candor be a virtue, what shall be said of that man's conduct, who, because he has proved the falsehood of some mere pretenders to superior sanctity, involves the whole community of Christians in the odious charge of hypocrisy. Would it be fair, would it be reasonable, to ridicule marital fidelity because some, under strong professions of this virtue, have concealed adultery? Or would it be candid, to say that all who make loud professions of loyalty, are traitors in heart because some have been found to be so? Perhaps religion has had no more counterfeits than anything else that is truly excellent; and if it had, this is only a proof of its superior value, for is not what is most valuable most often counterfeited? To scoff at it on this ground, then, is not only the proof of a wicked heart—but also of a weak head. This class of scorners (and it is a very numerous one), is seated in the lowest grade in the school of irreligion, and is composed of the feeblest, youngest children, who, as yet, are unable to lisp in argument, and have only learned to laugh.

But it is now time to enquire WHERE and WHEN the practice of scoffing is indulged in. In the theater, where, besides the mockery of the lessons of religion, which, more or less, runs through the whole context of dramatic representation, plays are acted which were originally written, and are still performed with the design of bringing all scriptural piety into contempt. The theater is the very seat of the scornful, where he sits first as a learner, until he becomes proficient enough to appear in the character of a teacher. It may be very truly affirmed, that if infidels teach men to argue against religion, actors instruct them to laugh at it.

Next Part The Sin of Scoffing at Religion 2

Back to John Angell James