Society in general is much less instructed in matters of religion, and even in philosophical questions, than is usually supposed; for religion is no longer taught. We demonstrate, argue, philosophize, but we do not evangelize. … There is so much ignorance among men, otherwise well-informed, on the subject of religion, that they would certainly be deemed unfit for confirmation even in a country district.
Neither is the community more proficient in philosophical than in religious questions; and much less attention is bestowed upon them than is imagined. We meet with certain systems in special books, or among a particular class of persons, and we may think that those systems are about to make a great stir in the world. But do the masses trouble themselves about them? For the most part, even intelligent men hardly know what to say when referred to on such subjects.
Some years ago, a preacher delivered several discourses in one of the principal towns of France on the subject of rationalism. He decried it in good set terms, and was judged to have spoken very ably. But the wife of a councillor in the Court of Appeal, tired of hearing so much about rationalism without being able to make out what it was, asked her husband, who was a great admirer of the discourses, to explain to her what rationalism meant. The husband stammered out a few words in reply, but was obliged at last to say:—"Sincerely, I know nothing about it; but inquire of M. le Curé, for he ought to be able to give you the information."
Instead of dragging all these systems into the pulpit, it would have been far better to leave them immured in books and in the schools. They are not dangerous in France while restricted to the formulae in which they were originally conceived, because philosophical speculations are by no means popular amongst us. The French mind is too precise and active to be taken up with such like dreams and crude systems.
A proof of this is afforded by the old Chamber of Deputies. … When a speaker was practical, and entered into the gist of the question in debate, there was profound silence; but if he attempted lofty flights, and soared into the region of philosophical speculations, the attention of the hearers flagged, and a great uproar ensued, insomuch that the luckless orator was frequently driven to call upon the President to enforce silence and order; who, on his part, reiterated that he could not interfere. … Altogether such scenes presented a curious study.
Generally speaking, the Frenchman is essentially a practical man.
It is true that ever and anon we pretend to great depth; but the malady is momentary and does not last long. We are, in fact, like certain eminent men who affect a speciality to which they have no just claim, and who consider themselves more honored by a compliment for an acquirement which they do not possess, than by any which may be paid them for a talent for which they are really conspicuous.
In combating this tendency and these systems, we must be on our guard against assailing them with hazy tirades or dull metaphysics. We should drag them into the full light of the Gospel, and dissect them by translating them into plain French, and then they will soon disappear altogether. We must further bear in mind that the truth, and especially evangelical truth, is only rightly apprehended by the heart; whereas there is a general disposition amongst us to be always reasoning. Are we not aware that bare reason is foolishly vain, dishonest, stern, and sometimes pitiless, and that to be constantly appealing to its authority is to lose our time, and to engender the most deplorable ignorance in matters of religion?