Virtue
That passion which in common life is termed, anger, fury, vengeance or
delirium, becomes zeal as soon as its object is religion, or the cause
of God. It is a maxim among Christian devotees, that we cannot love God
too much, consequently we cannot sin in excess of zeal. According
to these principles, our doctors in their quarrels, injure, defame,
calumniate, and asperse, and when they have the power, persecute and
exterminate each other. Each sect, firmly persuaded that it is in the
right, and that its peculiar way of thinking is the only one that God
can approve, thinks itself justified in destroying the opinions of its
adversaries, which displeasing to itself, must consequently displease
the divinity. Thus in attentively examining the thing, we find that
religious zeal is nothing but anger, excited in a bigot by opinions
adverse to his own, or those of the party he has espoused. In a word,
zeal is the gall which contradiction secretes in the souls of bigots.
There can be no doubt, but that St. Paul has left a model of this sort,
which our evangelical doctors, have in all times faithfully copied. If
this great Apostle did not go to the extent of persecuting those who
resisted his arguments, or refused blindly to submit to his supreme
decisions, it is because he was not sufficiently strong; otherwise
judging from the warmth of his temperament we may reasonably presume,
that he would have been easily carried to extremities, well calculated
to justify the holy passion to which the heads of the church have since
given themselves up on all occasions, when they have had sufficient
power to give a lustre to their zeal.
In fact we find, that Paul's self love, did not suffer contradiction
with too much patience. He delivers over to Satan those who refuse
to obey him, he pretended that any other Gospel, than his own, was
abominable. "I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called
you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." He pretends and
affirms that he alone taught the true doctrine, and that all others are
impostors, false prophets, and disturbers; we are obliged to believe on
his own word that he possesses infallibility.
He goes so far as to say in the heat of his self-love "But though we, or
an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so
say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that
ye have received, let him be accursed."* This language might well appear
insolent, presumptuous, and even impious to those who have not faith,
nevertheless it is that which is invariably held by the chiefs of every
sect; we see them, upon their own authority, continually anathematizing,
excommunicating, damning and delivering over to the devil, whoever has
the temerity to understand the Gospel in any other way but their own.
Every doctor like Paul, declares himself and even believes himself to be
infallible; nothing in the world, (not even the angels of heaven) could
make him renounce opinions which his self-love, his obstinacy, and his
vanity, cause him to behold as the only true.
* Epistle to Gal. Chap. i. ver. 8 and 9.
The history of Paul, however furnishes us with an embarrassing
circumstance. Ardent in dispute and obstinately attached to his own
ideas, we see this infallible Apostle boasted of having resisted Cephas,
i.e. Peter, to his face, who nevertheless appears to have had titles to
infallibility, still better established than those of our Apostle; in
fact if Paul, in order to prove his own infallibility, supports it by
his visions, inspirations, revelations, and miracles: St. Peter might in
favour of his own, oppose to him a great number of visions, dreams, and
prodigies equally authentic with those of his brother. If Paul founded
the divinity of his mission, and the truth of his particular way of
thinking on his own testimony, could not St. Peter cite, in support of
his authority, the testimony of Jesus Christ, who had declared him the
chief of the apostles, who had established him, as the first shepherd of
his flock, and the rock on which, he would found his church? Is it not
upon this authentic evidence, that the Pope, who stiles himself
the successor of Peter, founds his infallibility, acknowledged and
maintained by the greater part of the Roman Catholic Clergy? There
is then reason to be astonished that Paul, with titles not so well
established, should have dared to resist Peter to his face, or that he
should have boasted of such resistance; and it is not less surprising
that the latter should have ceded to his junior in the apostleship,
having such powerful arguments to support his claim to infallibility.
All may however be explained by the supposition that upon this occasion
St. Paul showed himself more headstrong than St. Peter, who for the
sake of peace, yielded to the eagerness of his adversary, and would not
support his own infallibility at the risk of exciting a schism in the
rising sect. We have seen in our time pious Jansenists avail themselves
of St. Paul's example, to resist to the face the infallible decisions of
the Roman Pontiff; but he, less moderate than his predecessor St. Peter,
would not cede, but remained obstinate in maintaining his irrefragable
authority, and by this means produced and fomented divisions, which the
determined zeal displayed by both parties, has rendered very dangerous.
The successor of St. Peter anathematizes, and finding himself the
strongest, persecutes the imitators of St. Paul, for daring to resist
him: these of course strongly attached to their principles which they
deem infallible, are obstinate in their resistance, detest the opinions
of their tyrants, and in spite of charity, very cordially damn those who
do not think like themselves, whilst these last from attachment to
the infallibility of the Pope, whom they have on their side, believe
themselves compelled, in conscience, to make their adversaries submit to
the most inhuman and unreasonable treatment.
Such are the salutary effects which zeal has produced in the Church of
Jesus Christ, from the first preaching of the gospel to the present day.
The zeal of St. Paul not contented with exercising itself against his
brethren the apostles, shewed itself strongly in all situations. We see
him excite trouble and clamour in whatever cities he happened to be. We
generally term a man a public disturber, who troubles the peace of his
neighbours; but, in religion, a saint is a man who dares to preach his
own opinions, as those of God himself, at the risk of exciting the most
disastrous revolutions in society. His self-love becomes legitimate as
soon as its object is religion; proves to him in the most convincing
manner that he is always right; that his way of thinking is necessary
to salvation, and that all considerations ought to give way to such
an important object. If religious zeal is able one day to procure
advantages in the other world; it is at least very evident that it
causes many misfortunes here below. In the eyes of reason it is always
equally dangerous, even when it is the fruit of the most sincere
devotion. If the impostor, the ambitious man and the hypocrite, avail
themselves of it as a cloak to cover all crimes, the sincere bigot
thinks that zeal justifies the greatest excesses, and often makes a
merit, and even a duty, of detesting his fellows and troubling society.
It is in fact difficult to reconcile zeal with the spirit of union,
concord, and peace, that Christianity recommends, or with that charity
which St. Paul places above all virtues, and without which, he assures
us that all the others are useless. But did this Apostle himself possess
much charity, when not satisfied with carrying trouble into every place
where he preached, he inveighed against those whom he found not disposed
to believe*?
* Epistle to Tim. Chap. i. ver. 20.
It is doubtless nothing but a lively faith, which can reconcile the
violent conduct of this great Apostle, with the charity which he
incessantly recommends. It appears at least difficult to have a sincere
regard for men whom zeal obliges us to hate, either as our own enemies,
or as the enemies of God. The subtle theology of the Christians, can
alone reconcile these incompatible dispositions.
It is only the ministers of the Church, who have the talent of proving,
that without a violation of Christian charity, it is lawful to harass,
persecute, and destroy ones neighbours. They can in fact clearly show
that we may burn the body of a man, out of tenderness for his soul. They
think they have a right to excommunicate a man, or anathematize him,
that is to say, exclude him for ever from spiritual grace, to put him
in short into the road to damnation, to deliver him to Satan, for the
destruction of the flesh, in order to save him, according to the spirit.
This conduct is not the least inconceivable mystery of the Christian
religion; faith is doubtless necessary to find it either charitable
or intelligible. How can we conceive, for example, that the desire of
saving the soul of an heretic, or an impious man, can determine the
inquisition or Christian magistrates to consign him to the flames, even
while be persists in those opinions, which they suppose must plunge him
into hell?