ealed truth. They all protested
vigorously against the assumption that Deism was in any way opposed to
Christianity rightly understood. 'Deism,' they said, 'is opposed to
Atheism on the one side and to superstition on the other; but to
Christianity--true, original Christianity--as it came forth from the
hands of its founder, the Deists are so far from being opposed, that
they are its truest defenders.' Whether their position was logically
tenable is quite another question, but that they assumed it in all
sincerity there is no reason to doubt.
It is, however, extremely difficult to assert or deny anything
respecting the Deists as a body, for as a matter of fact they had no
corporate existence. The writers who are generally grouped under the
name wrote apparently upon no preconcerted plan. They formed no sect,
properly so-called, and were bound by no creed. In this sense at least
they were genuine 'freethinkers,' in that they freely expressed their
thoughts without the slightest regard to what had been said or might be
said by their friends or foes. It was the fashion among their
contemporaries to speak of the Deists as if they were as distinct a sect
as the Quakers, the Socinians, the Presbyterians, or any other religious
denomination. But we look in vain for any common doctrine--any common
form of worship which belonged to the Deists as Deists. As a rule, they
showed no desire to separate themselves from communion with the National
Church, although they were quite out of harmony both with the articles
of its belief and the spirit of its prayers. A few negative tenets were
perhaps more or less common to all. That no traditional revelation can
have the same force of conviction as the direct revelation which God has
given to all mankind--in other words, that what is called revealed
religion must be inferior and subordinate to natural--that the
Scriptures must be criticised like any other book, and no part of them
be accepted as a revelation from God which does not harmonise with the
eternal and immutable reason of things; that, in point of fact, the Old
Testament is a tissue of fables and folly, and the New Testament has
much alloy mingled with the gold which it contains; that Jesus Christ is
not co-equal with the one God, and that his death can in no sense be
regarded as an atonement for sin, are tenets which may be found in most
of the Deistical writings; but beyond these negative points there is
little or nothing in co
|