Some eighteenth-century attitudes to ‘other religions’

SOME EIGHTEENTH-CENTURYATTITUDES TO ÒTHERRELIGIONS'

David A. PailinLecturer in Philosophy of Religion, University of Manchester

Part x

Introduction

In his Autobiography R. G. Collingwood observes that `you cannot find outwhat a man means by simply studying his spoken or written statements .. . . In order to find out his meaning you must also know what thequestion was (a question in his own mind, and presumed by him to be inyours) to which the thing he has said or written was meant as an answer ."1This approach to understanding is crucial when we consider what waswritten about other religions in theological works published in theeighteenth century . 2 The thesis of this paper is that these treatments ofother religions can, on the whole, only be properly appreciated when theyare seen as part of the current debate about Christianity and as attemptsto answer questions raised by that debate .

These theologians, that is, were not interested in other religions as such,nor in engaging in serious dialogue with their adherents (as opposed toattempts to persuade them of the error of their ways) . They were inter-ested in other religions because and in so far as they saw in them ways ofjustifying their own understanding of authentic belief, of overcomingobjections to it and of defeating opposing beliefs . Thus Grotius, in hisTruth of the Christian Religion, not only attempts positively to demonstratethe truth of Christianity but also, in his fourth, fifth and sixth books,offers a `Confutation' of the `particular errors and . . . special Arguments'which adherents of other religions ùse to oppose' Christianity 3 whileLeslie tries to show that none of the rivals to Christianity, viz ., `Judaism,Heathenism, and Mahometanism', can be regarded as anything otherthan corruption of Christianity-'so that all [true religion] is Christianitystill' . 4 Similarly Toulmin, a Unitarian, discusses Socrates, Confucius andMahomet in order to affirm `the superiority of Christ's character' againstthose who deny the unique status of `the Author and Finisher of ourFaith' . 5 Even Reeland's study of Islam, which attempts to give a sympa-thetic and accurate account of that faith and to refute the lies that havebeen told about ite apparently is not free from this apologetic concern .

83

84

SOME EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ATTITUDES

Reeland claims that one of the aims of his work is to enable his contem-poraries to attack Islam `with sure Blows' and `valid Reasonings' . 7 Asfor Lessing's plea for mutual toleration in Nathan the Wise, this expresseshis critical attitude to all positive religions and of the arguments used toclaim superiority for any of them . 8 It does not reflect an interest in otherreligions for their own sake .

The purpose of this paper, then, is to suggest that references to otherreligions in eighteenth-century theology are primarily to be understoodin terms of the contemporary debate about the nature and verification ofChristian belief. Although I do not pretend that this paper covers all therelevant material-indeed it is largely confined to a selection of Englishtheologians of the period-it illustrates how different facets of the debateabout Christianity underlie the views of other religions that are to befound in a wide range of theological writings, published or re-publishedin the eighteenth century.

BackgroundEighteenth-century theology is dominated by what may be called the

`canon of reason' . After the bigotry, persecutions and wars of the previouscentury and a half, reason became almost universally regarded as theonly proper basis for establishing religious belief and resolving religiousdisputes. The appeal to reason was classically expressed by Locke in hisEssay concerning Human Understanding when he wrote that `he governs hisassent aright, and places it as he should, who in any case or matter what-soever, believes or disbelieves, according as reason directs him' . 9 For overa century,-until, that is, the theological significance of the work ofHume and Kant came to be widely appreciated-theologians of alltypes felt obliged to show that their understanding of authentic beliefwas the valid conclusion of rational arguments . 1 ° Thus not only a major`deist' like Tindal claims that by the canon of reason alone can menprevent their religious beliefs being ìrrational and unlawful, debasing theDignity of Mankind, and effacing the Image of God implanted in them"but also such a scourge of `deism' as Leslie holds that `reason is reason toall the world ; and nothing can be true, for which there is not a reasonsufficient to convince gainsayers' . 12

Both the above quotations in fact come from passages in which theauthor is concerned with the need to verify correct belief in the face of thechallenge of other religions . By far the greatest effect of the canon ofreason in theology, however, was to provoke a prolonged battle withinChristianity about the nature and content of correct belief . There wereseveral parties engaged in this struggle and the lines of battle crossed eachother in sometimes confused and confusing ways. Each party had to becareful lest in repelling one attack it used arguments which exposed it toattack from a different direction . For instance, those who held thatassent to the Christian revelation rested on a foundation of naturaltheology 13 had to take care that neither their case for natural theologyas a basis exposed them to the charge that thereby they showed that

TO ÒTHER RELIGIONS'

85

revelation was unnecessary since the basis was in fact sufficient forreligion (as Tindal argued) nor their case for the revealed parts of beliefto the charge that thereby they showed the fundamental untenability ofa natural theology basis (as Ellis argued) . 14 Among the parties involvedin these intellectual battles were those (roughly known as `deists') whoheld that natural religion-whose beliefs were discernible by reason-was available to and sufficient for all men, those who claimed that theChristian revelation was a necessary re-statement of pure natural religionsince it had in practice become hopelessly corrupted, those who claimedthat Christian belief rested upon but went beyond natural religion andthose who held that all genuine belief had initially to be revealed butcould and should be confirmed rationally . There were sceptics who usedthe limits of reason to cast doubt on the rational tenability of any religiousbelief and fideists who used the limits of reason to deny that reason couldhave any legitimate role in confirming their religious beliefs . Finally therewere those who used reason to confirm some parts and reject other partsof traditional Christian belief." Each theologian, then, had to defend hisposition against various enemies outside the camp and often also againsttraitors-'heretics'-within .

It is this situation which provides the background to the treatment ofother religions in eighteenth-century theology . The warring partiesreferred to the other religions in four ways . First, some appealed to otherreligions as providing evidence for their position . For example, there werethose who affirmed the possibility of a natural knowledge of God andappealed to other religions as showing that an authentic knowledge ofGod was available before and outside the Christian revelation . Secondly,other religions were used as theological `mud' to sling at opponents . Toindicate the similarity of an opponent's beliefs and practices with those ofa `heathen' religion was considered by some theologians to discredit theformer. Thirdly, there was a need to show that the arguments advancedto confirm a set of beliefs could not be held to confirm, perhaps even morestrongly, the beliefs of another religion . This need arose particularly whenChristian and Islamic claims were compared. Finally, it was widely feltthat the truth of one set of beliefs could be significantly confirmed byshowing the rational unsatisfactoriness of the other religions . The un-satisfactoriness of this way of arguing was that equally searching attentionwas not given to the possible objections to the religion being confirmed .As Hume commented, ìf nothing were requisite to establish any popularsystem, but exposing the absurdities of other systems, every voter of everysuperstition could give a sufficient reason for his blind and bigottedattachment to the principles in which he has been educated' . 16

In these ways, then, theologians ùsed' other religions to defend theirown positions and to attack their opponents' . It is not surprising that as aresult they often abused the religions they were using, twisting theevidence to suit their own apologetic needs . Except, however, for Islamand, to a lesser extent, contemporary Judaism, there was little reliableevidence about other religions for the theologians to work on . A great deal

86


of their material was taken from the authors of ancient Greece and Rome . 17Since, in many respects, it was only during the eighteenth century thathistorical consciousness and critical historical methods began to develop,the treatment of this ancient material was, to modern understanding,often very naive . Other material was taken from travellers' reports-anunreliable source since the lack of theological awareness and sympathyoften produced inaccurate or misleading accounts of the religions ofstrange lands . Thus Stackhouse, on the basis of such reports, tells hisreaders that ìn their Temples' the Chinese have an idol of `The Image ofImmortality, which they worship in the Form of a monstrous fat Man,sitting cross-legg'd, with his Breast open, and an huge prominent Belly' .And as for the inhabitants of the eastern parts of Tartary, he tells us thatthey practise a special `Sort of Idolatry, . . . worshipping a living Man,whom they call Lama, and to whom they pay such a superstitious Vener-ation, that the greatest Lords . . . obtain some of his Excrements dried,which they put into a golden Box, and wear about their Neck, as a certainPreservative against Calamities . . . They call him the Eternal Father ;and, that he may be thought immortal, and, in some Measure, answerhis Name, his Priests take care to have one in Readiness, as like him aspossible, to set up in his Stead, as soon as he dies ; and burying the Corpsprivately, carry on the Imposture to a Miracle, and make his Votaries be-lieve that he really lives for ever . ' 18 Reports of this kind, often at second-or third-hand,19 do not provide a reliable foundation for understanding,let alone for criticizing, Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism . Nevertheless,material of this kind was widely used as contemporary evidence of otherreligions .

Original materials of other religions were little known . Even where theywere available, as was particularly the case with Islam and Judaism,they were frequently not used '20 probably because they were regarded asuntrustworthy since they were the products of the prejudiced and gullibleminds of the adherents of false religions . Christian apologists were veryready to reject the materials of other religions as biased and distortedbut did not consider that their own apologetic purposes might equallywell lead to similar errors in understanding. Works like Sale's translationof the Koran, which appeared in 1734, and Reeland's translation of anArabic Àbridgment of the Mahometan Religion' 21 seem to be exceptionsto the general practice of repeating the views-and errors-of earliersecondary material .22 Usually, then, it was on the basis of poor evidenceand with an apologetic intent (and so in a prejudiced frame of mind) thateighteenth-century theologians approached other religions . We shalldiscuss their resulting views of other religions in terms of the theologicalquestions that provoked them .

I . THE QUESTION OF NATURAL RELIGION

The debate about natural religion in the eighteenth century was con-fused by a lack of agreement about the precise meaning of the phrase .For some `natural religion' referred to the religious beliefs which all men


87

could in theory determine from nature and mankind by the use of theirreason; for others it meant the beliefs which were innate in all men ; forothers `natural religion' was the religion which God revealed to Adamand, from Adam, was transmitted in theory or in practice to all mankind ;for others it denoted the beliefs and practices of those who were `natural'men-unaffected, that is, by civilization ; for others it meant the religionof those who were unaffected by divine revelation-that is, usually,those outside the influence of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (sinceMahomet was held to have adapted many of his ideas from Jewish andChristian teaching) . For some, talk about natural religion has a theoreticalcontext, while for others it has primarily an empirical use . For some,natural religion was the pure and sufficient religion for all men ; forothers it was a human product which showed that valid religion can bederived only from a divine revelation accepted by faith. Confusions arosebecause the protagonists in the theological debates were often not at allclear about the different meanings that were attached to the phrase`natural religion' . Consequently they sometimes did not see that a denialof `natural religion' in one sense of the term could be quite compatiblewith the affirmation of it in another sense and that evidence which toldagainst one view did not necessarily tell against another .

It is in terms of this complicated background that we must understandreferences in eighteenth-century theology to the significance for claimsabout natural religion of the evidence provided by the state of otherreligions--evidence which, as we have remarked, comes mainly fromancient writers and travellers' tales .

One important strand in eighteenth-century theology affirmed thevalidity and goodness and sometimes even the complete sufficiency ofnatural religion. Here the work of Lord Herbert of Cherbury exercisedconsiderable influence . In his De Veritate, which was published in 1624,Lord Herbert argues that there are certain `Common Notions' concerningreligion which are self-evidently true and innate in all men . These `Com-mon Notions' cover the existence and nature of God, the duty of wor-shipping him, the primary connection of piety with virtue, reconciliationthrough repentance and the threat of punishment or reward after thislife. According to Lord Herbert these principles have been ùniversallyaccepted by every religion, age and country' . 23 He says that he is unableto judge whether they àre sufficient to prepare us for eternal salvation' orwhether they can be augmented. He is `content', however, `to have shownthat the human mind . . . has been able in every age and place to appre-hend these principles'" for they allow us to èstablish the fundamentalprinciples of religion by means of universal wisdom' 25 which is indepen-dent of and prior to all experience . But while Lord Herbert may nothave been prepared explicitly to deny the possibility of augmentation, inpractice-and also at points in theory 26-he considered that these five`Common Notions' constituted the ònly Catholic and uniform church'through which alone `salvation is possible' . 27

Although the notion of innate ideas was widely accepted to have been

88


discredited by Locke, Lord Herbert's suggestions about the universalityof a natural religion had considerable influence in eighteenth-centurytheology. It was frequently suggested that some basic religious beliefswere common to all men, even if they could not be regarded as innate nornecessarily were identical to Lord Herbert's five principles . Defoe reflectsthis position when he describes the religious insights of Friday and ofWill Atkins' native wife . Friday believes in òne old Benamuckee' who isòlder' than and lives `beyond' all things, whom all things worship ('Allthings do say 0 to him') and is the resort of the dead . His religion is also(to Crusoe's distaste) infected by 'priestcraft' . When Crusoe tries to teachhim about the devil, he discomforts Crusoe by his 'meerly natural andinnocent' questions about why God does not either destroy the devil nowor, if he repents, pardon him . Thus Defoe portrays the native, a `natural'man, as not only indicating how `the meer notions of nature . . . guidereasonable creatures to the knowledge of a God, and of a worship orhomage due' to him but also as enjoying a basic theological awarenesswhich allows him to see inherent difficulties in certain beliefs that aresupposedly derived from revelation . 28 Unlike Lord Herbert, however,the natural religion of Defoe's native, while generally good as far as itgoes, is held to need augmentation and correction by the truths of theChristian revelation .

We must now consider how references to other religions were variouslyused to support, modify or criticize such claims about natural religion .

Some theologians in the eighteenth century regarded what was saidabout natural religion as empirical claims about universally acceptedreligious beliefs . Since these were empirical claims they were regarded asopen to empirical verification or falsification, although there was uncer-tainty about what precisely constituted the ùniversality' of these beliefs .Those who held that the universality referred to all ages, including thepresent, seemed obliged to have to show that contemporary evidencesupported their position. For example, to hold that monotheism was atenet of natural religion in this strong empirical sense would involveshowing that all nations of mankind, in spite perhaps of the appearances,were basically monotheist . The difficulty of maintaining that there wasany such uniformity of belief in contemporary mankind led in some casesto modifications in the understanding of the empirical element involvedin claims about natural religion . Thus the empirical universality of abelief of natural religion was regarded by some as referring not to itscontemporary universality but primarily to its supposedly universalpresence in an original and pure (or `natural') state of religion whichwas more or less strongly contrasted to what was regarded as the presentcorrupted state of other religions throughout the world . At the same time,it was frequently held that this belief, since it was part of the naturalreligion of mankind, could still be traced, even if faintly, in the corruptforms of contemporary religions .2s It is this kind of understanding of theempirical implications of talk about natural religion that lies behindmany of the attempts to show that a particular belief was in some way or


89

other universal-and of counter-arguments that it was not universal andso was either not part of natural religion or evidence that there was nosuch thing as a natural religion . 30

Lord Herbert's five principles begin with that of the existence of àSupreme God'. Attempts were made in the eighteenth century to showempirically that some monotheistic belief was universal, at least originallyin mankind. Prideaux, for instance, holds that polytheistic worship, whichfirst entered the world among `the Babylonians or Chaldeans, who werefirst formed state after the flood,' presupposed an ultimate monotheismsince it was a worship of the `gods mediators' who stood between man and`the One Supreme Being' . 31 Leland, in whose view the universal naturalreligion was derived from an original revelation to Adam, suggests thatmany of `the nations which are usually looked upon as illiterate andbarbarous' have `preserved the ancient tradition' of à notion of onesupreme Divinity' . He supports this claim by referring to `the latest andbest accounts' of `the most intelligent Hottentots', `the Negroes of Guinea',`several tribes and nations' of India, and the inhabitants of Ceylon,America, Peru and Florida . 32 At the same time, he recognizes that mostof these peoples consider the supreme God too remote to be interested inhuman affairs and consequently direct their worship to inferior deitieswhom they regard as controlling the affairs of this world . 33 Other theolo-gians, however, recognized that the empirical evidence for the universalityof any set of beliefs was weak. Stackhouse's views are typical of the un-certain-even ambivalent or contradictory-attitudes found at thispoint. On the one hand he accepts that Lord Herbert's five principlesexpress `the sound part' of ancient pagan religion . He states that nopeople, however `rude and barbarous', have ever failed to acknowledgeòne Supreme Deity' and claims that some of the five principles are to befound, among many errors, in the contemporary religions of China,Japan, Peru and Canada. 34 On the other hand, Stackhouse admits thatthe errors of polytheism and idolatry have existed from ancient times andstill are widespread, producing absurd and conflicting religious beliefs . 35In this way the evidence of other religions cast doubt on the usefulnessor validity of regarding claims about natural religion as descriptions ofbeliefs which were actually held universally among mankind .

It was not only the lack of empirical universality for any specific beliefsthat was held to cast doubt on the notion of a natural religion. Critics ofthe notion also advanced the content of various beliefs actually enter-tained in other religions as evidence that there was no significant insightinto religious truth shared by or even, perhaps, naturally available toall mankind . They thus attacked the notion of a natural religion by listingwhat seemed to them and their readers as clear absurdities in the doctrinesof other religions . If, they suggested, men actually do believe these bizarreand often mutually contradictory notions, especially men in the sup-posedly more `natural' state of mankind (i .e ., those least `corrupted' bycivilization), then it cannot reasonably be held that there is a significantnatural religion which provides sound insights into basic religious truths .

go


The existence of such insights as a natural possession of men, it was as-sumed by this argument, would have prevented the adoption of suchbizarre beliefs . It is this argument which lies behind many of the lists of`queer' and òdd' and (to eighteenth-century readers) self-evidentlyèrroneous' beliefs in other religions-and also behind the attempts bydefenders of natural religion to show that these were accidental humanmistakes and corruptions which do not destroy the fundamental substanceof the universal natural religion. Gibson, whom we shall quote at lengtha little later, and Hume provide examples of this kind of argument againstnatural religion (at least as a significant source of religious truth) . Hume,on the basis of the ancient classics and a few travellers' tales, refers in hisNatural History of Religion to various beliefs that have been entertained bydifferent peoples throughout the world . He allows that there is àlmostuniversal' agreement among men about the existence of ìnvisible, intel-ligent power in the world' but considers that this belief has no real signi-ficance since it is attached among different peoples to so many conflictingand, to him, unacceptable beliefs . 36 For example, he reports that `theCHINESE, when their prayers are not answered, beat their gods . . . .The EGYPTIAN mythologists, in order to account for animal worship,said that the gods, pursued by the violence of earthborn men, . . . hadformerly been obliged to disguise themselves under the semblance ofbeasts' and that ìn very barbarous and ignorant nations, such as theAFRICANS and INDIANS, nay even the JAPONESE, . . . worshipmay be paid to a being, whom they confess to be wicked and detestable' . 37

Lord Herbert's five principles, though, do not only cover matters ofreligious belief. The third principle of natural religion describes `theconnection of virtue and piety' as `the most important part of religiouspractice' . According to Lord Herbert, `conscience guided by CommonNotions produces virtue combined with piety', expressed in terms of truehope, faith, love, joy and blessedness, purity of life and holiness. The fifthprinciple, furthermore, backs these moral qualities with the promise ofheaven for those who practise them and the threat of hell for those whodo not . 38 At this point the empirical understanding of natural religionran into serious difficulties . If it was hard to find empirical evidence forthe universality of the religious beliefs of natural religion, it was practi-cally impossible to justify empirically the claim that the moral aspects ofnatural religion universally prevailed . Defoe in a work of fiction couldpresent `poor honest Friday' as a loyal, morally good natural man-allowing, that is, for some cultural relativity in ethical codes 39-but themorality of other religions, both in terms of what was ordained and ofwhat was tolerated, seemed to many theologians to provide decisiveevidence against regarding natural religion as a universal and commend-able phenomenon . Since religion was generally regarded as essentiallybound up with morality, there was no escape from this conclusion bydistinguishing between the religious beliefs and the moral practices of apeople. Indeed, the theological battles of the period resulted in peoplebeing more confident of their moral beliefs than of their religious ones,

TO ÒTHER RELIGIONS' 91

and consequently judging religious beliefs by their moral concomitants .To show, therefore, the moral evils ordained or tolerated by other re-ligions was both to condemn them and to falsify the claim that there wasa universal natural religion to which all men basically assented . There was,though, some confusion at this point because not all theologians were asprepared as Defoe to recognize the cultural relativity of moral values .Some felt that their own version of ethics was the only possible one andthat all offences against it were ipso facto morally indefensible . Otherswere less parochial in their attitudes but nevertheless felt that certainactions were so manifestly evil that no genuine religion could tolerate them .

It is, then, as attacks on natural religion, taken as having some empiricalreference, that we should understand many of the references in eighteenth-century theology to the supposed moral evils sanctioned by other re-ligions. Thus Leslie attacks the deist advocates of natural religion byreferring to `the indulgence of fornication and uncleaness among theHeathen, and their human sacrifices (most abhorrent to the God of holi-ness and mercy), and the filthy obscenity of their very sacra ; besides thegreat defect of their morals, which knew no such thing as humility, for-giveness of injuries, loving their enemies, and returning good for evil. . . and by the word humilitas they meant only a lowliness and dejectionof mind, which is a vice . . . You may see pride and self-conceit runthrough all their philosophy' . 40 In this passage Leslie is referring primarilyto the ancient world of Greece and Rome which for him provided theearliest evidence of natural religion . John Wesley is referring to contem-porary heathens when he describes `many of them' as ìnferior to the beastsof the field . Whether they eat men or no, (which indeed I cannot find anysufficient ground to believe,) they certainly kill all that fall into their hands .They are, therefore, more savage than lions, who kill no more creaturesthan are necessary to satisfy their present hunger . See the real dignity ofhuman nature! Here it appears in its genuine purity .' 41 While Wesleyis prepared to allow that some Heathens `were quite of another spirit,being taught of God, by his inward voice, all the essentials of true re-ligion', 42 he sees `The Religion of Nature truly delineated' (the title of abook by Wollaston) in the practices of the Chicasaws who torture theircaptives to death and whose `manner of life' is to `do nothing but eat anddrink and smoke, from morning till night' . 43 A few years later Anson madea similar contrast between the reports of some `Missionaries' about theèxemplary' nature of `the morality and justice' of the Chinese and the`timidity, dissimulation, and dishonesty' which he found among them inpractice . 44

Among the many attacks of this kind on the notion of natural religionis Gibson's argument in his Second Pastoral Letter . Much of the letter usesevidence taken from ancient philosophers to back the claim that the cor-ruptions and insufficiency of a natural religion wholly determined byhuman reason proves the `great need and expedience of a Divine Reve-lation'." There is, however, a section in which Gibson considers the evi-dence of `books of travels, and other authentic accounts' about `the state

92 SOME EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ATTITUDES

of religion' in countries `where natural reason is their only guide' . Basinghis account on Millar's Propagation of Christianity, Gibson reports that :

idolatry has been found in almost every country that has been dis-covered, and, in many of them, rites of worship very wicked andabominable . In some (n . Formosa, and the Phillippine Islands), theywere performed by women, who in performing them laid aside all naturalshame and modesty. . . . In some places (n. Bisnagar and Nasinga, inthe East Indies), the people cut off pieces of their own flesh, and threwthem to the idol . . . . The objects of their worship were the sun (n .Tartary, Phillippine Islands, Guinea, Ausico and Jagos, and Mono-motapa, [all in Africa], Zocotara, an island near Africa, Chili, Peru,Terra Firma, Canada, Hispaniola, Virginia) . . . apes (n. Goa),elephants (n . Ceylon), serpents (n . Congo and Angola, in Africa),vipers, dragons, tigers, herbs, . . . and in many places, evil spirits(n. Ceylon, Java, Phillippine Islands, Aethiopia, Virginia) . . . . Amongtheir DOCTRINES . . . were found these that follow . . . . TwoGods, one of heaven, the other of earth (n . Tartary) ; . . . one godabove the rest, becoming so, only by first passing through a multi-tude of bodies (n. Siam) ; gods subject to certain various changes, andlimited to certain times of government (n . Malabar) ; Providenceconcerning itself only about the great affairs of the world (n. Malabar,Ceylon, Japan, Florida) ; . . . Pagods eating and drinking like men(n. The Bramins) . . . . Many PRACTICES have been found amongthem, that are abominable ; women burning themselves with theirhusbands, when dead (n. East Indies, Guinea) ; . . . eating men'sflesh, and shambles for selling it (n . Jagos (in Africa), Brazil, His-paniola) ; . . . having a number of wives and concubines, and puttingaway at pleasure (n. Almost everywhere in Pagan countries) . . . .

According to Gibson, these ìnstances ofcorruption in worship, doctrine, andpractice' which `prevail' in the Heathen world `chew the insufficiency' anderrors of natural religion so far as it depends only on man's natural reason . 46

Some of these attempts to attack natural religion by reference to theevidence of corrupt beliefs and practices have an inbuilt `Heads I win,tails you lose' approach to the evidence . Thus on the one hand naturalreligion is attacked on empirical grounds by reference to the absence ofuniversal and sound beliefs and practices among other religions while, onthe other hand, where true beliefs and sound practices are found amongother religions, it is argued that this is due either to borrowings from theJudaeo-Christian revelation or to the gracious activity of God among theadherents of the other religions . We have already noticed that Wesleyrecognizes some activity of the ìnward voice' of God among the heathen . 47Another example of this view is to be found in Isaac Barrow's secondsermon on `The Doctrine of Universal Redemption' . Barrow proclaimsthat since `his grace is not like the Sea, which if it overflow upon one Shore,must therefore retire from another', God ìs no less able, no less ready,than he ever was to afford help to his poor Creatures, wherever it is needful

`TO OTHER RELIGIONS' 93

or opportune' . In spite, then, of `the Torrent of natural Pravity' whichprevails among men, `we may at least discern and shew very conspicuousFootsteps of divine Grace . . . even among Pagans' where they reveal aknowledge of God's will and manifest `Qualities and Actions' which `wecan hardly deny to have been the Gifts of God, and the Effects of divineGrace', and which will secure for them `some Part . . . or an imperfectkind of Salvation' . 48

The alternative way of showing that the evidence of correct beliefs inother religions does not support claims about a natural religion was byarguing that these beliefs were derived from the Jewish and Christiantradition of revelation-including in some cases pre-Mosaic revelationscontained in that tradition. Theologians such as Prideaux and Leland, forinstance, held that all authentic religious knowledge was derived fromdivine revelations which started with a revelation to Adam immediatelyafter his creation . Thus Prideaux suggests that the universality of a 'no-tion of a Mediator between God and man' is best explained by a revela-ation to a `common parent' of all mankind49 while Leland holds that`there is great reason to believe' that àn original revelation was com-municated to the first parents and ancestors of the human race' and wasthe source of the `knowledge of religion and letters' throughout the world . 60John Edwards, while claiming that the ancient pagan writers confirmwhat is recorded in the Bible, holds that it is an ùnanswerable' argument`that the Old Testament is the First and Antientest Book that ever wasextant, and therefore, when the Pagan Writers mention things in thisBook, they took them from thence, or from those Persons who had themout of these Writings' . 51 Thus ìt is clear that Moses's Laws and the Customsof the Patriarchs were not borrowed from the Pagans (as some haveimagin'd,) but that the Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Egyptians, yea, that theArabians and Persians, . . . and that the Greeks and Latins have derivedtheir Mysteries from the Hebrews, and that all the Gentile Theologersborrowed their Great Truths from the Books of the Old Testament' . 52

Delaney, who regards Socrates as directly inspired and àppointed byGod as a kind of prophet to the Grecians' 53 also uses the argument fromderivation. He informs us that 'Brama was Abram . . . and it is wellknown that all the principal sects of the Bramins derive themselves fromhim at this day', that 'Hystaspes and Zoroaster' followed Abraham inintroducing `the worship of God at altars only, without temples' and thatknowledge of `the holy revealed will of God', of writing and of the sciencesof àstronomy and geometry' was `propagated' over à great part ofearth' from the instructions which Abraham gave to his household .54

A somewhat less extreme position is represented by Halyburton who doesnot accept that men `discovered nothing with reference to religion by themere light of nature' but defends the thesis that `many of the most notablethings that we meet with in the heathen writers, in matters of religion,are . . . truths, whereof they were informed by tradition' . In particularhe argues that the Egyptians `learned many things from the Jews inmatters of religion' and were the main medium by which this knowledge

94 SOME EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ATTITUDES

was communicated to the philosophers of ancient Greece . 55 More ex-treme examples are provided by Leland's view that it is `not improbable,that the Chinese, as well as the Persians, and some other eastern nations,had some knowledge of the one true God among them in the most ancienttimes ; especially as their first rulers and lawgivers seem to have beenamong the earliest descendants of Noah' . 66

The complexity of the arguments about natural religion and of the useof the evidence of other religions is further illustrated by Grotius' evalu-ation of such apparent agreements between pagan beliefs and those ofthe Jewish and Christian religions . Here they are not regarded as evidencefor natural religion nor as evidence to be explained away as cases of bor-rowing67 but as offering support for Biblical beliefs. Thus Grotius findsit significant that `the most antient Tradition among all Nations', particu-larly among those `who were Strangers to the Jewish Religion', is èxactlyagreeable to the Relation of Moses' . For example, Moses' `Description ofthe Original of the World, is almost the very same as in the antientPhoenician Histories . . . and a good Part of it is among the Indians andEgyptians' from whom the Greeks and Romans learnt about it . 58 Again`the Memory of the Seven Days Work' was found `not only among theGreeks and Italians . . . but also amongst the Celtae and Indians', while thestory of Adam and Eve is held to be found still àmongst the Heathendwelling in Peru, and the Phillippine Islands' and the story of the Flood in`Cuba, Mechoacana, Nicaraga' today as well as in ancient writers . 59 Inorder, then, to use the parallel beliefs of other religions as evidence sup-porting the truth of the Christian religion, Grotius had to presupposetheir independence of the Mosaic tradition . His apologetic treatment ofthis evidence, that is, was based on an understanding of its origin whichwas contradicted by theologians like Leland because of their differentapologetic interests .

We must, however, return to the question of the significance of otherreligions for the understanding of natural religion in eighteenth-centurytheology. So far as the notion of natural religion was concerned, there werethree major responses to the empirical evidence that no beliefs (or atleast no significant system of beliefs) were universal, that many absurdthings were believed in other religions and that many abominable prac-tices were tolerated or even ordained by other religions . The responseswere scepticism about all religion, an intellectual re-understanding ofwhat is meant by natural religion and an emphasis on the role of revela-tion in religion . We will consider each briefly for they reflect differentways in which people evaluated the significance of other religions .

The sceptic response is seen in Hobbes, Hume and Voltaire . Thisresponse considers that the evils and absurdities of other religions castdoubt on the validity of religious belief. Hobbes sees the life of naturalman as `solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short'B0 and his religion asreflecting this state . While reason may lead men to an intellectual mono-theism, the 'Naturall seed of Religion' as practised is man's fear of theunknown and his desire to control his fate . According to Hobbes the vast


variety of religious beliefs and practices is due to `the different Fancies,Judgements, and Passions of severall men' so that there are às manyGods, as there be men that feign them' .O 1 By interpreting the con-tradictions and absurdities of other religions as evidence of their humanorigin '62 Hobbes in effect casts doubt on the validity of all religiousbelief in spite of his apparently approving comments about the cosmo-logical argument and supernatural revelation ." In his Natural History ofReligion Hume powerfully develops this sceptical response. He claimsthat, whatever reason may conclude, 84 empirical investigations of `thereligious principles which have, in fact, prevailed in the world' show themto be more like `sick men's dreams' or `the playsome whimsies of monkiesin human shape, than the serious, positive, dogmatical asservations of abeing, who dignifies himself with the name of rational' . 85 He argues thatpolytheism was the original form of religion, in spite of being the lessrational, on two grounds : first, that this is what is indicated by `the mostancient records of human race' and òur present experience concerningthe principles and opinions of barbarous nations' 88 and, secondly, thatit is inherently improbable that man would descend from an initialmonotheism to the less rational form of polytheism . 67 This initial poly-theism was the result of primitive man's imaginative projections as per-sonal beings of the unknown forces which controlled his life and of hisattempts to influence them for his well-being . 68 Hume does not only usethe evidence of other religions to discredit religious belief in terms of itsorigins : he also claims, again on the basis of both the empirical evidenceand the intrinsic rationality of the matter, that polytheism is in somerespects much superior in its moral consequences to monotheism eventhough the latter is the more rational belief . 89 Referring to 'Machiavel'(and anticipating Nietzsche), he suggests with faint reservations 40 that`the doctrines of the CHRISTIAN religion' fit men `for slavery and sub-jection' whereas polytheism promotes àctivity, spirit, courage, magnanim-ity, love of liberty, and all the virtues which aggrandize a people 1 .71 Theempirical evidence of the beliefs and practices of religions, includingChristianity, leads Hume to conclude that `the whole is a riddle, an a enigma,an inexplicable mystery' . The proper response of the rational man is tosuspend his judgment concerning religion and to escape from the `furyand contention' of quarrelling superstitions ìnto the calm, though obscure,regions of philosophy' . 72

In contrast to Hume, Voltaire has no apparent qualms about using theevidence of Christianity as well as the evidence of other religions tosupport his scepticism about all positive religions . Christianity is, in effect,for him one-even if the most important one-of the òther religions'which stand over against his agnostic theism . 73 Time and time again inhis Philosophical Dictionary, for example, he ridicules the beliefs, practicesand disputes of religious believers, though space prevents me quoting someof his highly amusing sallies-as, for instance, the dispute of a bonze andtalapoin about 'Fo' . 74 Voltaire's conclusion can be seen in his article onthe `Theologian'

96


I knew a real theologian once . . . . He knew the Brahmins, the Chal-deans, the Ignicoles, the Sabeans, the Syrians, the Egyptians, as wellas he knew the Jews ; he was familiar with the various readings of theBible . . . . The difficulty of arranging in his head so many thingswhich are confused by nature, and of throwing a little light into somuch obscurity, often discouraged him ; but since such research was theduty of his position, he devoted himself to it in spite of his distaste . . . .The more he grew truly learned, the more he distrusted everything heknew . . . and at his death, he confessed he had squandered his lifeuselessly .' 75

Such is Voltaire's response to the empirical evidence about religion-and his view of the value of studying it!

Another response to the evidence of other religions was the view thattalk about natural religion should not be confused with empirical descrip-tions of actual religions found in the ancient or contemporary world butunderstood as descriptions of theological truths which all men of goodsense and reason could, in theory at least, discern . 76 This position seemedto make claims about natural religion invulnerable to attacks based on theevidence of the actual state of other religions . What this evidence showedwas not the unsatisfactoriness of natural religion as such but the degree towhich it had been corrupted . Tillotson, for example, regards `the Idola-tries of the Heathen' as à Corruption of Natural Religion' which `grew outof . . . the vicious Temper and Disposition of Mankind' . 77 FollowingPaul in Romans I : 2off, he holds that the heathen `did not live up to thatknowledge which they had of God' potentially but òffended against theNatural Light of their own Minds' . Speaking of their philosophers, heclaims that they `lost the truth by too much subtilty about it, and . . . disputedthemselves into doubt and uncertainty about those things which werenaturally known' . 78 Prideaux similarly sees the origin of `so many falsereligions among mankind' in `corruption insensibly growing on' the`natural religion' which God gave to man `when he first created him' . 79

In Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation, a `deist' classic, the divorcebetween natural religion and what actually is believed by the numerous`traditional Religions' is quite clear : `By Natural Religion, I understandthe Belief of the Existence of God, the Sense and Practice of those Duties,which result from the Knowledge, we, by our Reason, have of him, andhis Perfection . . . and of the Relation we stand in to him and to ourFellow-Creatures ; so that the Religion of Nature takes in every Thing thatis founded on Reason and the Nature of Things .' 80 In this way Tindal,taking the canon of reason radically seriously, 81 establishes a position fromwhich he can criticize all actual religious beliefs and practices, includingthose of Christianity. Another illustration of this view that natural religionconsists of the rationally determinable beliefs and practices of a `naturaltheology' is provided by Lessing . While he considers that positive re-ligions may be necessary because of men's differences of opinion about`the religion of nature', nevertheless he asserts that `the best revealed orpositive religion is that which contains the fewest conventional additions

`TO OTHER RELIGIONS' 97

to natural religion, and least hinders the good effects of natural religion' . 82In this way, then, theologians who asserted the value of natural religionresponded to the threat of attacks based on the evidence of other religionsby distinguishing their natural religion, based on reason and nature, fromthe actual religions found in the world . They were still vulnerable, though,to attacks which used other religions as examples of the errors and evilsinto which men of apparently sound reason could still fall . Gibson, forinstance, argues that defenders of natural religion cannot claim that the`monstrous opinions and practices' of the heathen are due to their havingonly a `low and imperfect . . . measure of reason' since they seem `to bedextrous and skilful enough in worldly matters' .83

The third response to the evidence of other religions in relation tonatural religion was to see it as proving the need for revelation if a true,pure and complete religion was to be established in the world . Thisresponse lies behind many of the references to other religions made bytheologians seeking to show the reasonableness of specifically Christianbelief. Some theologians, for example Ellis and Leland, argue that noauthentic knowledge of God is possible apart from a divine act of revela-tion. They consider, though, that all men always have had, at leastpotentially, some knowledge of God since the first revelation was given toAdam and transmitted from him to all his descendants . Further revela-tions by God have been necessary because in the transmissions, as isshown by the state of other religions, the reports of the original revelationhave become corrupted .B4 Leland argues at length that examination ofpagan philosophy shows that it is quite unable to discern true naturalreligion, let alone establish it in the world . 85 Notions of morality andimmortality in heathen religions are unclear, erroneous and uncertain . ,",He thus defends the thesis that `mankind stand in great need of DivineRevelation to guide and instruct them aright, even in the main articles ofwhat is usually called Natural Religion', and that such revelation has beengiven by God, reaching its climax in `the Christian Revelation as con-tained in the Holy Scriptures' . 87

Most of the eighteenth-century defences of the Christian religion donot follow Ellis and Leland in denying the possibility of any valid naturaltheology but claim, in contrast to `deists' such as Tindal, that the religioustruths which man can determine by his reason alone are inadequate tomeet man's religious needs and liable to be corrupted with errors and hu-man prejudices . Revelation is needed to purify and augment what reasonmay be able to establish . The evidence of other religions is, therefore, notunderstood by these theologians to imply the impossibility of any non-revelatory knowledge of God but to show the religious insufficiency andintellectual uncertainty of such knowledge."" Samuel Clarke, for example,whose Boyle Lectures for 1 704 and 1705 are a classic statement of this kindof Christian apologetic, bases his case on a rational `demonstration' ofthe being and attributes of God. He holds, however, that à Divine Reve-lation' was `plainly wanting' because while there have been `wise andbrave and good Men' among the heathen who have tried to discover, teach

98


and practise `the Duties of natural Religion', they have never `been able toreform the World, with a considerably great and universal success' becausethey have been `very Few, . . . intirely ignorant of some Doctrines, and verydoubtful and uncertain of others, absolutely necessary for the bringing aboutthat great end' . 89 Other examples of this argument are to be found inGibson's Second Pastoral Letter where he claims that the writings of theancient philosophers show `the insufficiency of Reason to be a guide inReligion' and `the great need and expedience of a Divine Revelation forthat end'90 and in Halyburton's claim that à very overly considerationof the religions in the heathen world' will show that in practice what manby his own powers can determine about religion does not have `the leastappearance of satisfying' as a religion since it can provide neither anadequate knowledge of God's nature nor, even more importantly, ofGod's way of salvation as revealed in the Christian dispensation . 91According to Toulmin, only the Christian revelation makes known man'smoral duty ìn its full extent', `the full and ample assurances of forgive-ness' and provides `the most effectual and universal remedy against thefears of death' . 92 By such arguments, then, Christian theologians defendedthe necessity of the Christian revelation, claiming that the evidence ofother religions showed that outside the Christian revelation religion wasnever complete, never certain and often highly corrupt and erroneous .

We now turn from this outline of the complicated relationships betweenviews of natural religion and other religions to consider other aspects ofthe attitudes to other religions found in eighteenth-century theology .Next we shall note briefly their views about missionary activity .

2 . SOME WHY'S AND HOW'S OF MISSIONARY ACTIVITY

Comments on the reasons for and methods of missionary activity whichcan be found in eighteenth-century theology provide some further illu-minating insights into its attitudes towards other religions . We shall herebe concerned with the attitudes of specifically Christian theologians . Theadvocates of natural religion and natural theology were more interested,apparently, in questioning the usefulness of Christian missions than inproclaiming their own faith overseas.

The main reason for missionary activity was then as it generally everhas been in Christianity, namely, a concern to preach the Gospel ofsalvation to those who have not yet received it . In spite of the difficultiesinvolved, Secker, admittedly in a sermon to the S.P.G., urges that both`the natural Dictate of Piety and Virtue' and `the express Command ofour blessed Lord' require Christians to ensure `the Offer of Instructionto Heathens' and bring salvation to them. 93 Apthorp indicates twovariations of this theme when he holds that `the conversion of the heathens,Jews, and mohammedans' is essential to `the amplitude and felicity of theChurch' and that `the knowledge of the Gospel' would be a fitting returnto `the untutored Indian . . . for that ill-omened opulence which theyhave showered on us' . 94 The need for missionary activity was also defendedon the grounds that only thereby could the light of religious truth dispel


the darkness of heathen errors . 95 Andrew Fuller uses this argument in hisApology for the late Christian Missions to India against those who deny theneed for missionary activity because of `the excellence of the religious andmoral doctrines of the Hindoos' . He states that while the 'hindoos' mayacknowledge one God, in practice they worship `certain subordinatepowers . . . . Of these, the three principal are denominated BIRMHA,the creator of all ; VISHNOO, the preserver of all ; and SEEB, the des-troyer of all' although there are a great number of subordinate deitieswho are also worshipped. Seeb is worshipped by almost all, showing thattheir worship is `chiefly the effect of superstitious fears' . The `foulest vices'are ascribed to the gods while `the one Supreme God' is held responsiblefor àll the evil' which the people commit, thus absolving them of all moralresponsibility . The beliefs of the 'Hindoos' are thus in many crucialrespects erroneous, puerile and immoral . 98 Opposition to missionaryactivity is therefore condemned as a further example of Socinian opposi-tion to the light of the true Gospel . 94

A second kind of argument for missionary activity was to urge its goodmoral effects . Not only is the spread of Christianity held to replace errorby truth: it is also held to replace evil by good both among the colonistswhose declining morals are frequently a cause of concern and among theheathen. Secker claims that there is àbundant Proof' that `the bareProfession and outward Appearance of . . . Christianity . . . must havesome right Influence : and the Body of a People cannot go the utmostLengths in Wickedness, whilst that Appearance subsists' . He defends themoral value of religious instruction and sabbath observance on the groundsthat it not only offers people `Refreshment' but also `greatly tends tocivilize them also, by uniting Neighbourhoods in formed Assemblies . . .with Hearts disengaged from selfish Attentions, and open to friendlyRegards' .99

These concerns for good morality overseas, however, are not entirelydisinterested. Secker points out that moral goodness will have materialvalue for his hearers in London : if people overseas are `dishonest andprofligate ; every single Person here, who hath Concerns with them, willbe in Danger of suffering by it. If they consume their Wealth and theirTime in Vices and Follies ; their Trade will be gained over, from Themand Us, by our Rivals and Adversaries.' Preaching the Gospel to `thepoor Negroes' not only will make some Àmends' for `the Servitude andhard Labour, which they undergo' but also `compose and soften theirvindictive and sullen Spirits'. They will become better workers and lessprone to rebellion as they are brought to accept `the Scriptures' that`far from making any Alteration in Civil Rights, expressly directs, thatevery Man abide in the Condition wherein he is called' and serve his masterfaithfully. As for the Red Indians, the Gospel will not only make themhappier and recompense them for having `yielded up to us a considerablePart of their Country' and receiving `both Diseases and Vices' from usbut also will make them à Friend and Ally . . . against the remainingHeathen, and a much more dangerous Neighbour' (i .e . the French!) . 99

100


Fuller similarly claims a political value for Christian missionary activityalthough his arguments are not an appeal to self-interest'" but a reply tocharges that missionary activity disturbed British security overseas .' 0 'According to Fuller, Christianity will aid the government of India sinceit will establish Christian morals and civic virtues in place of Hindu andMuslim immorality.'° 2 He quotes a missionary in India, Mr . Marshman,who states that :

a permission to itinerate and form missionary stations in the country,so far from being injurious to the British government, would advanceits essential interests. In every missionary it would have a friend ; afriend whose influence and capacity of rendering service would beconstantly increasing. What were the advantages which the Englishderived from one Schwartz in the Mysore country! And what wouldbe the effect of their having at this moment a hundred Schwartzes inIndia, each with his train of pious, peaceable, loyal, and faithfuldisciples ! These messengers of peace and love . . . would endearto the inhabitants the very nation to which they belonged .' 03

Thus missionary activity was defended because it would prosper tradeand the flag as well as because it would provide intellectual and moralenlightenment for the ignorant and depraved . Appeals for support weremade in terms which the City and Whitehall could understand! Seekereven suggests that missionary activity is important for keeping theAmerican colonists loyal to the British crown : Ìf the Ties of a Religionare loosened from off their Minds . . . it will much facilitate their be-coming Adversaries themselves. And we shall well deserve their revoltingfrom Us, if we take no Care of their obeying God .' 104 (Was it the lack ofmissionaries, not the Tea Tax, that led to the bother at Boston?) Assound Anglican missionary activity, it will also `hinder Corruptions ofChristianity' and the `pernicious Errors' of other denominations . Thisdenominational prejudice is also . defended on non-religious grounds,namely, that it will preserve the `Safety of all Governments' againstactions of ènthusiasts' like the Quakers in Pennsylvania who forbade allcontributions to `the publick Defence against Enemies' . 1 os

The views of these theologians on the means to be used to convert non-Christians also give insight into their understanding-or rather lack ofunderstanding-of other religions . When the missionary societies in-struct their missionaries to respect heathen practices, even if they areevil, and to argue with the heathen in an atmosphere of love and reason,it is not because they consider the heathen religions worthy of respect intheir own right but because they realize that any other attitude would bedetrimental to the missionaries' work . 1-06 Nevertheless, even if the heathenis not to be respected because of his religion, the difficulties of convert-ing him are sometimes recognized to be great . Berkeley might hold thatmissionaries speak from a position of `power against weakness, civilityagainst barbarism, knowledge against ignorance' and Apthorp in theChapel of Lincoln's Inn could claim that `the mild and gentle temper of


101

the Gentoos, and of many casts and tribes in . . . Persia, Hindostan,Tibet, and China, their frugal simplicity, and their commercial inter-course with Europe, are predisposing circumstances very favourable totheir illumination by the Christian Faith .' 107 Those who knew whathappened in practice were not so naively optimistic . Paley defends themiraculous character of the spread of early Christianity by comparing itwith the lack of success in contemporary Christian missions . Althoughmodern missionaries have as much zeal, piety and sanctity as the firstapostles and more education and learning, although the Gospel still hasits ìntrinsic excellence', although missionaries come from a country whichis regarded with `deference' by those to whom they go, although theheathen faiths they combat are basically the same as those confrontingthe first apostles, and although the missionary today has the advantage offacing other beliefs rather than general infidelity, the result of missionaryactivity is to show `the feebleness and inadequacy of human means' . 108Whether it be the Baptists or Anglicans in India or Moravians in Green-land, the story is the same .'° 9Tillotson, aware that this would be the case with `human means',

believed that missionaries to heathen lands would, like the first apostlesof Christianity, enjoy the divine credentials of miraculous powers . Whilesuch powers are not needed to convince people of the truth of the ChristianGospel in this part of the world, he thinks ìt still very credible, that ifPersons of sincere Minds did go to preach the pure Christian Religion,free from . . . Errors and Superstitions . . . to infidel Nations, that Godwould still enable such Persons to work Miracles, without which therewould be little or no Probability of Success' . 110 He has, however, to admitthat to date there are reports of only `very few Miracles', if any, from suchsituations"' and suggests that an alternative method may be throughdivine action whereby `some powerful Prince, of great Reputation forhis Wisdom and Virtue', is brought over to Christianity . He feels, however,that this latter case is as likely to result in the Prince's overthrow as inthe successful establishment of Christianity in his country !112

For many theologians, however, Christianity was so self-evidently truethat they did not allow the actual ineffectiveness of missionary activityto prevent them from asserting that the most effective means of propagat-ing it was simply that of teaching its tenets and, even more importantly, ofdisplaying in practice its moral holiness. Wesley sees the immoral livesof many so-called Christians as the greatest obstacle to converting theheathen . 113 When, though, `the Christian dogs' become real Christians inpractice, then the heathen throughout the world who are in contactwith them `will surely be led to consider and embrace their doctrine' .114

Apthorp stresses the importance of translating the Bible, èspecially theNew Testament', into the languages of the heathen for he sees its inspir-ation such that ìt finds it[s] way directly to the heart, and conquersbelief by a more than human agency' .11 s Secker sees the missionarymethod as that of preaching first the law, that men may `see their Needof Repentance and Pardon' and so `gladly receive the Gospel of Christ'

102


as ìnfinitely preferable to what they have believed hitherto' . The `superiorKnowledge, and good Lives' of the missionaries and of their converts,helped by `the Grace of God', will afford sufficient `rational Motives ofAssent, especially to Persons capable of no further Information' ." ,,Stackhouse was confident enough about such methods that he approvedof the idea of òbliging' Jews to listen to sermons and to engage in intel-lectual debates about Christianity! 117

As for slavery, Apthorp saw `the system of African slavery' as à power-ful obstacle to the humane business of conversion' and hinted thatperhaps it ought to be abolished rather than merely have its horrorsmitigated-as à distinguished prelate' had suggested . 118 Secker, though,was not troubled in this way. He considered that the slaves' lot `cannotwell be worse than it would have been at home' and was more concernedto point out that conversion did not entitle slaves to manumission . 119Conversion, rather, would make them more satisfactory slaves andmight, Secker did allow, fittingly `procure the poor Wretches themselvesa little more kind Usage' !120

These attitudes to missionary work indicate the self-confident superi-ority with which theologians approached other religions. In the secondpart of this paper to be published in a later issue we shall consider thegrounds of this sense of superiority, their use of other religions in denomi-national warfare, and their attitudes to Judaism and Islam in particular .We will close this part with three verses from Watts which reflect some-thing of the attitude of eighteenth-century theologians. They come fromhis `Praise for Birth and Education in a Christian Land' in his DivineSongs for Children

'Tis to thy sovereign grace I oweThat I was born on British ground ;Where streams of heavenly mercy flow,And words of sweet salvation sound .I would not change my native landFor rich Peru with all her goldA nobler prize lies in my hand,Than East or Western Indies hold .How do I pity those that dwellWhere ignorance and darkness reigns !They know no heaven, they fear no hell,Those endless joys, those eternal pains .

NOTES

s . Collingwood,R .G.(I939) .AnAutobiography .London :OxfordUniversityPress,p.3' .2 . Two comments are needed on this description of the material to be considered in

this paper. (i) The phrase òther religions' in this context basically means 'non-Christian religions' but internal debates with Christianity, both between denomi-nations and about the role and significance of natural theology, make it impracticableto define the notion too closely . In the end what each theologian regards as òtherreligions' is determined by his own view of what can be included within his own


religion . Thus some Protestant theologians are prepared to treat Socinianism andeven Roman Catholicism as òther religions' while some advocates of naturalreligion in effect regard all positive religions (including Christianity) as 'otherreligions' . What this paper is concerned about is how different theologians treatwhat they regard as other religions, not how they identify them . (ii) The phrase'theological works published in the eighteenth century' is used rather than'eighteenth-century theologians' because a few of the works referred to were writtenand first published in the preceding century . These works were, however, repub-lished in the eighteenth century and both influenced and reflected its thought.

3. Grotius, H . (1729) . The Truth of the Christian Religion, corrected and illustrated byLe Clerc and translated into English by John Clarke, London, the third edition,(Grotius first published this work in 1627 and it was well known in England inthe seventeenth as well as in the eighteenth century), p . 178.

4 . Leslie, C . The Truth of Christianity Demonstrated (first published in 1711), in (1851),A Short and Easy Method with the Deists etc . London, S.P.C.K., pp . 121,130 ; cf. pp. 1 30fwhere Leslie sums up that the Jewish religion is 'but Christianity in type, though intime greatly corrupted : and the Heathen was a greater corruption, and foundedthe fables of their gods upon the facts of Scripture ; and the Mahometan . . . buta heresy of Christianity' . These other religions are 'delusions which the devil has setup in imitation' of Christianity .

5. Toulmin, J . (1785) . Dissertations on the Internal Evidences and Excellence of Christianiy :and on the Character of Christ compared to that of Some Other Celebrated Founders of Re-ligion or Philosophy, London. pp . xiff.

6 . (1712) . Four Treatises concerning the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Mahometans,London. This volume contains The Life and Actions of Mahomet, pp . 3-85 (This willbe referred to as 'Life of Mahomet, 1712' ; I have not been able to trace its authorwho seems to be the translator of the whole collection) ; An Abridgment of the MahometanReligion, translated out of the Arabick into Latin by H . Reland, pp. 3-46 (thepagination starts again) and A Defence of the Mahometans from several Charges falselylaid against them by Christians, written in Latin by H . Reland, pp . 47-102, (These willbe referred to as 'Reeland on Mahometanism' ; pp. 5-18 are a preface by Reeland) ;A Treatise concerning the Turkish Liturgy by Albertus Bobovius, sometime first inter-preter to Mahomet IV, pp . 103-150, (This will be referred to as 'Turkish Liturgy') ;and Historical and Critical Reflections upon Mahometanism and Socinianism, whose authorseems to be French but I cannot trace who he is, pp . 151-254, (This will be referredto as 'Mahometanism and Socinianism') ; cf. Reeland on Mahometanism, pp. 3ff,11ff, 17f, 47ff.

7 . ibid., pp. 9, 83 ; cf pp . 8f, 17f, Coif; cf. also C. G. Williams' comment that WilliamWilliams' Pantheologia is 'designed to strengthen the Christian faith' in Numen,(1968), P• 213-

8. cf. Lessing, G. E . (18o5) . Nathan the Wise, A Dramatic Poem, translated by WilliamTaylor, London, (first published by Lessing in 1779), where Nathan's parable of therings suggests that the Jew, Christian and Muslim should 'each endeavour to vie withboth his brothers in displaying the virtue' of his religion 'with gentleness, benevolence,forbearance' and 'inward resignation to the godhead' and not pretend to be able toshow that any one of those faiths is the authentic one-pp. 153f, cf. pp . 1 44-1 54-

9. Locke, J . (1690) . An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, London, Book 4, Chapter17, para . 24 ; for Locke's assertion of the canon of reason in general and for religiousbelief in particular, cf. ibid., Bk . 4, Chapters 16f

to. There were, however, certain theologians who questioned the validity or, moreoften, the all-embracing character of the canon of reason in matters of religiousbelief-among them were John Edwards and Hutchinson (whose doubts werebased on Biblical considerations), Gibson and Law (whose doubts were based ondoctrinal considerations), and Browne and Ellis (whose doubts were based primarilyon their understanding of the limits of human reason) . Furthermore, among thosewho accepted the canon of reason, there was often fundamental disagreement aboutwhat could count as a reasonable argument .

104


I i . Tindal, M . (1730) . Christianity as old as the Creation : or, The Gospel, a Republication ofthe Religion of Nature. Vol. I (no other volumes were ever published) . London . P . 220 ;cf. pp. 219f, 232f . The description `deist' is a debatable one since there are so many-and sometimes fundamental-differences among those who are so described . InTindal's case the description refers to the position of one who held that the onlyvalid religious belief is that of the Religion of Nature discoverable by reason withoutany augmentation by revelation .

12 . Leslie, C . (1848) . A Short and Easy Method with the Jews wherein the Certainty of theChristian Religion is Demonstrated by Infallible Proof. London, S.P.C.K ., p . 117 . (Thiswork was first published in 1699 .)

13 . For a classical instance of this position see theBoyle Lectures of 1704-1705 by Clarke, S .A Discourse of the Being and Attributes of God, the Obligations of Natural Religion, and theTruth and Certainty of the Christian Revelation . First Clarke provides a natural theologyand then argues for the acceptance of the Christian revelation . (The edition citedin this paper is 8th edition, London, published in 1732 .)

14- cf. Ellis, J . (1743) . The Knowledge of Divine Things from Revelation, not from Reason orNature . London; also Leland, J . (1819) . The Advantage and Necessity of the ChristianRevelation shewn from the State of Religion in the Ancient Heathen World. Glasgow. (Thefirst edition appeared in 1764 .) Cf. vol . I, pp . ixf, 2ff, 6f, 31ff, 44ff ; vol . II, pp . iiif.A famous theologian who failed to protect his flanks from attacks by others wasJoseph Butler-his argument that revealed religion has no more intrinsic difficultiesthan natural religion was a reply to those who affirmed natural theology but deniedrevealed elements but a reply which left him open to attack by those like Humewho argued that the difficulties showed the rational unsatisfactoriness of beliefbased on both natural and revealed truths .

15. Examples of this group, for instance, occur in the battles over the doctrine of thenature of Christ which became increasingly rational and less Biblical as the centurywent on .

16. Hume, D . (1956) . ed. by H. E . Root, The Natural History of Religion. London: A. & C .Black . (This work was first published in 1757), P . 57.

17- cf., for example, the evidence referred to by three such diverse authors as Grotius(especially where he discusses paganism in op . cit ., Bk . 4, Chapts. 2ff), Halyburton(especially where he shows that Lord Herbert of Cherbury's five principles are notuniversal-for work of Halyburton, see infra) and Hume, op . cit., passim .

18. Stackhouse, T. (1743) . A Compleat Body of Speculative and Practical Divinity . . . theWhole extractedfrom the best Antient and Modern Writers . . ., London. (The first editionwas published in 1729), PP. 526, 528.

ig . Stackhouse refers to Àtlas Geogr . Modern . and Salmon's Modern History' for hisreport of the Chinese idol .

20. Toulmin, op . cit ., for instance, shows in 1785 no qualms when he tells his readersthat the Àuthorities' for his dissertation on Mahomet are secondary authorities-cf. pp . 14 In and 145n . (The two references to the Koran seem to have been takenfrom White .)

21 . Translated into English and contained in Four Treatises concerning . . . the Mahome-tans, (1712), referred to in note 6 supra .

22 . cf. Prideaux, H . (18o8) . The True Nature of Imposture, fully Displayed in the Life ofMahomet with a Discourse annexed for the Vindication of Christianity from the Charge ofImposture . London. (The first edition was published in 1697 .) Prideaux describes hissources on pp. 209-231 (cf, also p . v) . Although his life of Mahomet is not satis-factory and repeats many of the errors found in earlier material, Prideaux doesseem to have been aware of the need to find trustworthy authorities for his workand perhaps is not to be quite as strongly criticized as Daniel, N . A . suggests in hisIslam and the West, Edinburgh, The University Press, 1960, pp . 283, 286, 295, etc .

23 . Lord Herbert of Cherbury. (1624) . De Veritate . The quotations are from M. H.Cane's translation of the De Veritate (Bristol, 1937) as reprinted in Smart, N ., (1962),Historical Selections in the Philosophy of Religion, London, S .C.M. This quotation isfrom p. 96.


105

24. ibid., p. 98 ; cf. p. 98f.25, ibid., p. 87 .26 . cf. ibid ., pp. 93f for his claim, in face of the different notions of expiation in the

different religions, that ùnless wickedness can be abolished by penitence andfaith . . . there does not exist nor ever has existed any universal source to whichthe wretched mass of men . . . can turn to obtain grace and inward peace' ; andpp. 87, g6f. for his attacks on the authority and ordinances of faith, the Church andpriests.

27 . ibid ., p . 97 .28. Defoe, D . (1945), Robinson Crusoe, London : Dent (The first edition appeared in

1719 and of the Farther Adventures later the same year), pp . 157ff ; cf. pp. 32off forthe story of how Will Atkins' native wife converts her husband to a real Christianfaith by her religious questions and insights .

29. This second view has clear echoes of Christian theological notions about the `fallen'state of mankind from its original pure state in Eden and was presumably consider-ably influenced by such theology .

30 . cf. Halyburton, T. (1798) . Natural Religion Insufficient and Revealed Necessary to Man'sHappiness . . . or, A Rational Enquiry into the principles of the Modern Deists, Montrose(The first edition appeared in 1714), pp. 220-234 for an argument that `Herbert'sfive articles did not universally obtain' .

31 . Prideaux, op. cit ., pp . 203ff.32 . Leland, op . cit., Vol . I, pp . 7off; cf. vol . I, pp . 65ff, 356f. Leland recognizes, though,

that sometimes Christian commentators have misunderstood the polytheism ofancient philosophers and erroneously regarded them as monotheists-cf. vol . I,pp. 261, 267, 334f

33. cf. ibid ., vol . I, pp . 70ff, 76ff.34. Stackhouse, op. cit ., p . 531 ; cf. pp. 516ff, 525ff, 531 ff35 . cf. ibid., pp . 517ff36. Hume, op. cit., p . 32 .37. ibid ., pp . 32f, 66 ; cf. passim!38. Herbert of Cherbury in Smart, op . Cit., pp. g1f; cf. p . 95f.39. Defoe, op . cit., p . 339 ; cf. pp . 125, t68f-for Crusoe allowing that cannibalism was

not a crime for the natives as not against their conscience .40 . Leslie, C . (1851) . A Short and Easy Method with the Deists and A Letter from the Author

to a Deist, upon his Conversion by reading his Book, London: S .P .C.K. (The Short andEasy Method with the Deists first appeared in 1698), pp. 43f. (One might say 'tu quoque'after this quotation!)

41. Wesley, (1811) . The Works, London, vol. 9, pp . 233f (Sermon 68 on `The GeneralSpread of the Gospel') .

42 . ibid., vol . 10, p. 341 (Sermon 11o Òn Faith') .43 . ibid ., vol. 1, pp. 223f (This volume is dated 1818)-the passage is from Wesley's

Journal for 9 July 1737 ; cf. also Secker, T. (1766) . Fourteen Sermons preached onSeveral Occasions, London, pp. 116f for a similar view of Red Indians in part of anargument for the need to send missionaries to them .

44. Anson, Lord. (1928) . ed . by Richard Walter and G . S. Laird Clowes, Voyage Roundthe World, London (first published in 1748), p. 389 ; cf. pp . 329f, 375-

45. Gibson, E . (1730) . Second Pastoral Letter, London. The quotations are from thereprint of the letter in Enchiridion Theologicum, ed. by John Lord Bishop of London,Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1812. This quotation is from p . 166 ; cf. pp. 166ff.

46 . ibid ., pp. 188-1 go.47 . cf. Wesley, op. cit., vol . 10, p. 341 quoted supra .48. Barrow, I. (1716), Works, ed . by J. Tillotson, vol . 3, PP- 329f49. Prideaux, op . cit., p . 2o6.50. Leland, op . cit ., vol. I, pp . rof; cf. pp. ixf, 1ff, 23, 28, 3 1 . 35ff, 342ff.51 . Edwards, J . (1693) . A Discourse concerning the Authority, Stile, and Perfection of the Books

of the Old and New-Testament, London, p . 269.52 . ibid ., p. 274 .

io6


53 . (Delaney) Revelation Examined with Candour, London, vols I & II, 1732 ; vol . III,1763 ; vol. III, p . 76 ; cf. pp. 72-90 .

54. ibid ., vol . III, pp . 58f, 46f; cf. pp. 5off for writing.55 . Halyburton, op . cit ., pp . 235fl:56. Leland, op . cit., vol. I, p. 59n. Leland also notes that from `remote antiquity', though,

this religion was corrupted-cf, p. 83 also . If this is so, what evidence has he reallygot for his claim for an original monotheism? Cf. also pp. 64, 79,136n-in terms ofthe Persians, Leland follows Hyde . Another example is Andrew Fuller's claim thatthe Hindu 'Puranas . . . must have been written since the time of the flood, by themanifest reference which they make to Noah and his three sons'-Fuller, A. (1856),ed . A . G. Fuller, Complete Works. London: Henry G . Bohn . p. loon a .

57. But cf. Grotius, op. cit., pp. 25f where the Greek's `Letters' and `the most antientAttick Laws' are held to òwe their Original to the Laws of Moses' .

58. ibid ., pp. 27ff59 . ibid ., PP- 41, 43. 49 ; cf PP- 27--68-6o. Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan, London (reproduced by A . R. Waller, Cambridge,

University Press, 1904), P . 84-61 . ibid ., pp. 71-73 .62 . cf. ibid., pp . 76f where he describes how Founders of states invent divine authority

for their laws to ensure obedience and p . 78 where he suggests how new religionsare both produced and discredited .

63 . cf. ibid ., pp. 71, 77ff64. In this essay Hume professes to accept the teleological argument-cf . op . cit ., pp. 21,

75,-although he attacks it in the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion .65. Hume, op . Cit., p. 75-66. ibid ., p . 23 ; compare the views of Prideaux and Leland quoted earlier in which

they hold that monotheism was the most primitive form of religion among men .Both Prideaux and Leland on the one hand and Hume on the other faced much thesame kind of mixed evidence of polytheism and monotheism in other religions .The conclusions they arrived at from that evidence was probably determined bytheir theological convictions and apologetic needs .

67. cf. ibid ., p . 24 . This argument apparently provides Hume with some defence forhis interpretation of the mixed evidence of other religions as opposed to that ofPrideaux and Leland . Hume's case, however, is somewhat undermined by his laterclaim that in practice mankind oscillates between monotheism and polytheism,although here the monotheistic position is as little a matter of reason as the poly-theistic one-cf. p . 42ff.

68 . cf. ibid ., pp . 28ff.6g . c f. ibid ., pp. 48ff, 6 5ff.70. These reservations are probably to deflect criticism that he basically was anti-

Christian himself .71. Hume, op . Cit., p . 52 ; cf. also Mandeville, B . (1970) . ed . b y P. Harth, The Fable of

the Bees, Harmondsworth : Penguin Books (The work's first edition appeared in 1714and was added to in subsequent editions-cf. Harth's introduction), p . 87 for arather different argument that separates religion and morality by holding that nomatter how ridiculous was the religion of ancient Greece and Rome, their views ofvirtue and morality were exemplary.

72. Hume, op. cit ., p . 76 .73 . Voltaire, (1962), translated and edited by Peter Gay, Philosophical Dictionary, New

York; Harcourt, Brace & World (The first edition appeared in 1764 and thelargest version in 1769), pp. 464, 479 .

74. cf. ibid ., p . 448 .75. ibid., pp . 48of.76. This is basically Lord Herbert's position for his five `Common Notions' are re-

garded by him as a priori and self-evident truths . Lord Herbert, though, indicates atpoints that his position could be empirically verified and this empirical understandingof natural religion had considerable following in the eighteenth century,as we have seen .


77. Tillotson, J . (1712) . ed. by R. Barker, The Works, London, vol . I, p . 148 .78 . ibid., vol. I, p. 402 ; cf. pp . 422f also.79 . Prideaux, op . Cit., pp . 201f.8o. Tindal, op . cit., pp . i t, 13 .81 . cf ibid ., pp . 219f, 232ff for his claims that reason is the only way out of religious error .82. Lessing, G . E . (1956) . ed. by H. Chadwick, Lessing's Theological Writings, London :

A & C Black, p. 105 (from fragment entitled Òn the Origin of Revealed Religion',published in 1784 by Karl Leasing but written twenty or thirty years earlier) ; cf. pp .82ff-'The Education of the Human Race' . We have earlier mentioned Lessing'sparable in Nathan the Wise which gives another aspect of his view of positive religions .

83. Gibson, op . cit., p . igo ; cf. Voltaire, op. cit., pp. 463ff, 467, 482ff and Mandeville,op . Cit ., p . 87 for similar arguments based on the general reasonableness of men inother fields than religion .

84 . cf. Leland, op. cit ., vol . I, pp. iff, 6ff, 11, 23, 31ff, 444, 76ff, 842ff; for Ellis see op.cit ., passim ; cf. also Prideaux, op. cit ., pp. 201ff.

85 . cf. Leland, op . cit., vol . I, pp . 23, 197-321-86. cf. ibid ., vol. I, p . 23 ; vol . II, pp. 1-227 for morality ; vol . II, pp. 229-372 for

immortality.87 . ibid ., vol . I, pp. viiif; cf. pp . viiff.88 . cf. Leslie, Short and Easy Method with the Deists and Letter, p . 43 for the claim that all

actual religions have in fact always claimed some revealed knowledge .8g. Clarke, op. cit., pp . 306, 283f; cf. pp . 1-274 for his arguments about natural theology

and pp . 274-320 for his arguments about the need of revelation ; cf. also Tillotson,Op . Cit ., vo1 . I, pp. 402, 422f, which we have earlier referred to, for another exampleof the view that natural religion is in practice unable to meet adequately andeffectively the religious and moral needs of man .

go. Gibson, op. cit., p . 166 ; cf. pp . 16g-195 .Gibson particularly cites these philosophers'ignorance of many important things in religion that have since been revealed,their obscurity and uncertainty concerning several of the ideas they did have whichwere important for religion, their endless and apparently irreconcilable disputesabout fundamental matters in religion, their teaching of doctrines which encouragevice and wickedness, and their ineffectiveness in reforming mankind.

g1 . Halyburton, op. cit., p. 5 ; cf. pp. 1ff, 40ff, 72ff, 172ff ; cf. also Defoe, op. Cit., pp. 158ffor Friday's acceptance with joy of the further religious truths contained in theChristian revelation .

92. Toulmin, op. cit., p . 49 ; cf. pp . 66ff, 86f, 108, 133 .93. Secker, op . cit ., p. 117 ; cf. pp . 1 29ff.94. Apthorp, E . (1786) . Discourses on Prophecy. London, vol. II, p. 340 -95. cf. in this respect the unacceptable parts of heathen beliefs which we have men-

tioned in the previous section-these were seen as a reason for missionary activity .g6. Fuller, op . cit ., p. 797a ; cf. pp. 797ff, 8t iff Fuller quotes with approval Sir William

Jones' judgment that Hinduism is 'a system of despotism and priestcraft, . . . filledwith strange conceits in metaphysics and natural philosophy, with idle super-stitions, and with a scheme of theology most obscurely figurative, and consequentlyliable to dangerous misconceptions . . . with ceremonies generally absurd, andoften ridiculous'-Fuller, op. cit ., p . 811b .

97 . cf. ibid ., pp. 807ff.g8. Seeker, op . cit., pp. 121 ff; cf. Pp . 112f; cf. Fuller, op . cit ., pp. 797ff-although this

work of Fuller's comes slightly after the eighteenth century, it illustrates well earlierattitudes.

gg. Secker, op. cit ., pp. 123, 126f, 128f.100 . cf. Fuller, op . cit., pp . 8o6b, 811 a .101 . cf. ibid., pp . 796ff, 799f, 801-9, 815fft oe . cf. ibid ., pp . 797b, 798a, 799a .103 . ibid., p . 799b ; cf. pp . 8ooa, 827a for Fuller's view that the British conquests were

part of a divine plan to aid the spread of the Gospel and pp . 8 t 5ff and 824a for theview that the government must at least tolerate missionary activity .

108

ATTITUDES TO ÒTHER RELIGIONS'

104. Secker, op . cit ., p. 1 23-i 05 . ibid., p. 124. The self-interest of missionary activity is also seen in the way that the

S.P.G.'s priorities, as presented by Secker, are to proclaim the Gospel first to Euro-pean colonists, then to the heathen living among them and finally to the heathensurrounding the colonies-cf. Seeker, op . cit., pp . 11off, r23. The priority of mis-sionaries to colonists because of their moral decline is also found in Fuller, op . cit.,p. 800.

1 o6 . c f. Fuller, op . cit., pp. 822f.107 . Berkeley, G. (189.3)- ed . by G. N . Wright, Works, London: Thomas Tegg etc., vol . II,

pp. 3ooff (from a sermon to the S .P.G. in 1731) ; Apthorp, op. cit ., vol . II, pp. 340f.sob . Paley, W . (1837) . e d . by D. S. Wayland, Works, London: G . Cowie., vol . III, pp .

326-330 (from Paley's Evidences of Christianity, first published in 1794) .t og . c f. Fuller, op . cit., p. 822 ; Paley, vol . III, pp. 326, 33of.1 so . Tillotson, op . cit., vol . II, p . 256 ; cf. pp . 283f.111 . ibid ., vol. II, p. 512 .112 . ibid ., vol . II, pp. 283f; cf. Berkeley, op . cit ., vol . II, pp . 299ff where it is argued

that miracles are not necessary since Christianity is backed by intrinsic wisdom ; andFuller, op . cit ., pp. 82off., where it is held that lack of miraculous powers is noproof against the authority of missionaries .

113- cf. also Defoe, op. Cit., p. 322 on the moral evils of Christians preventing the con-version of the heathen .

114 . Wesley, op . cit ., vol . 9, p . 242 . As for the conversion of those outside normal contactwith Christians, Wesley suggests that the providence of God will be able to sendmissionaries to such nations (more Robinson Crusoe incidents?)-cf. pp . 243f; cf.Grotius, op . cit ., p . 3 who describes his book as an aid to sailors travelling to heathenlands .

115 . Apthorp, op . cit., vol . II, pp. 341f.116 . Secker, op . cit., p . 120.117 . Stackhouse, op . cit ., p . 728, note ò' .118 . Apthorp, op . cit., vol . II, p . 340 .11g . Secker, op . cit., p. 114 ; cf. p. 115-120 . ibid ., p . 127 .

Documents

Some eighteenth-century attitudes to ‘other religions’