Religion in an Ideal Commonwealth

THE foremost Jewish seer, the great Greek philosopher, and that Englishman whose “ genius was excellent above all his nation,” tell us, each in his own way, that the ideal commonwealth will have a positive religion. In the vision of Isaiah, the coming state has its everlasting light and beauty in Jehovah. In the Republic of Plato, that which is left to the ordering of Apollo is called the “ greatest and noblest and principal thing of all.” And in the Utopia of Sir Thomas More, “ the chieffe and almost, ye only incitation to vertu is regard for the Supreme Being.

The vision of More, one aspect of which is here to be considered, was the child of an age of swift and momentous change in the religious thought of Europe, and in a period of such change we also are living. Our change, moreover, is largely due, as was that of the sixteenth century, to a truer insight into the Bible. Again, the intellect of More’s time had been profoundly quickened by the discovery of a new world, as the intellect of our time has been stirred by the theory of evolution and the discoveries of science. The vision of More was an evidence of fervent discontent with the social, political, and religious conditions of his day, and a discontent due to similar causes is a conspicuous feature of these opening years of the twentieth century. Our industrial and political life is on a higher level than was that of More’s time; but there is a feeling, sometimes bitter, that it is on a level far lower than it ought to be. Our religious and theological life is somewhat more free from gross error and bigotry than was that of the sixteenth century, yet many clear-seeing people are troubled regarding this life, and, perceive in it little reason for self-complacency. All these points of relationship between our time and that of Sir Thomas More lend special interest to his view of religion in the ideal commonwealth.

Afore could not make historical Christianity the religion of his ideal state in the West, for it was assumed that the state had been isolated from Europe during all the centuries since its foundation; and yet, being a Christian himself, he could not do otherwise than put what he conceived to be the real spirit of the Gospel into the religious faith and rites of the commonwealth of which he dreamed. More is not to be judged disloyal to his Christian belief in thus imagining that a religion fitted for the ideal state might have been developed outside the Jewish and Christian scriptures. It is not likely that he wished to be understood as suggesting the possibility of such a development. The inconsistency of his thought is simply a result of the literary form which he chose for its expression. In the religious life of More’s commonwealth we are to see his conception of the spirit of Christianity.

This meets us in a striking form at the beginning of his account of the Utopian religion. There are indeed several sorts of religious belief in every town, some people worshiping one of the heavenly bodies, others worshiping some eminent man of former times, and yet others, the “ greater and wiser sort of people,” worshiping one eternal and invisible Deity whom they call “ Mithras ” and think of as their father; but all these varieties of believers meet in the same temple and worship under the lead of one and the same priest. Each sect performs its own peculiar religious rites at home.

What we style denominationalism is thus kept out of sight. It is not allowed to divide men in their worship of God. It does not advertise itself by building six churches where only one is needed, or by maintaining theological schools where an equipment adequate for the training of five hundred students is squandered on fifty.

The Utopians have a maxim that “ a man cannot make himself believe anything he pleases,” and that every one may choose what religion he prefers. No one may speak reproachfully of another’s faith, and to attempt to turn a man away from his faith except by “ amicable and modest ways ” is an offense to be punished by slavery or banishment. But it is recognized that the sphere of common religious needs and essential truths is far higher and more important than personal differences of belief. Hence, in the ideal state, men merge their individual peculiarities of doctrine in fraternal worship. The prayers and hymns are “ so composed that whatsoever is pronounced by the whole assembly may be likewise applied by every man in particular to his own condition.” Now, the significant point in this sketch is one which there is still reason to emphasize. We recognize indeed that each man may choose what religion he pleases, and in so far we have realized More’s vision; but we have not yet retired our denominational peculiarities to private life. We have not escaped from their shadow into the higher realm of vital truth.

The priests in the ideal commonwealth are men of “ exceeding holiness and therefore very few.” We are not to take this statement as a sarcastic reflection on the priests of More’s day, but rather as suggesting that, in his thought, only few priests are necessary, provided they are of “exceeding holiness;” in other words, he laid stress on character. His priests have no authority save that arising from the respect paid them as men. Since the Utopians commit the education of children to the priests, — their literary and moral, but not their industrial education, — and since, like Plato, they put greater emphasis on the forming of good citizens than on the making of scholars, it is natural that they look carefully to the character of their priests.

Priests are chosen by secret ballot, as are political magistrates. From the six hours of daily labor required of all citizens, candidates for the priesthood are exempted, to the end that they may give themselves to study; but it is wisely provided that if they do not justify the hope set on them, they are obliged to learn a trade and practice it. It is remarkable that such a democratic conception of the ministry should have come from a courtier of Henry the Eighth, and it will not be denied that there is good sense mixed with the dream. In our time also, as in the sixteenth century, a minister who is to secure the confidence of the community must be, first of all, a good man who “ wears the white flower of a blameless life,” a man such as he of whom Chaucer sang:—

It is remarkable that More, who was a Catholic and who went to the block rather than renounce his allegiance to the pope, gave to the priest in his ideal commonwealth no other authority than that which was grounded on character and usefulness. In this point he was in advance not only of his own age but also of the Church of the present time.

But in the matter of the minister’s relation to public education, we are not moving toward the Utopian ideal, nor are we likely to do so under our constitution. In the separation of Church and State we have something better than men seem to have dreamed of four hundred years ago; but at the same time there is reason to doubt whether our system of public education, in at least, one important point, reaches More’s ideal, or Plato’s either; whether it is not too largely an education of the intellect and too little of the will and heart.

There is another very significant point in the religious life of More’s commonwealth. It has already been noticed that every sect in Utopia performs its peculiar rites at home. We are also told that “ before they go to the temple both wives and children fall on their knees before their husbands or parents, and confess everything in which they have either erred or failed in their duty, and beg pardon for it.” These statements imply the thought of a church in the home. We are not concerned with the forms in which this thought is expressed, but simply with the principle. More was not a theorist in this matter. He prayed with his family in the morning, and at evening held a brief religious service which was attended by all the household. More did not neglect public worship, even though the clergy of his day were frequently both ignorant and corrupt; but it is plain that home worship was much the more prominent element in his religious life.

It may be that if another Thomas More were to dream to-day of an ideal state, he would see the family invested with even larger significance for worship than it had in the old Utopia. He might indeed see the opposite of what we now behold, when the home is being emptied of its religious character and the church is largely regarded as the sole channel of worship. It might appear to him in his dream that the holiest place in the community was not that where the Gospel was officially proclaimed, but rather that where parents and children welcomed each new day with a glad hymn of praise, and in the evening twilight blended their voices in thanksgiving to God.