Chapter iii.
The character of Mr Square the philosopher, and of Mr Thwackum thedivine; with a dispute concerning----
The name of this gentleman, who had then resided some time at MrAllworthy's house, was Mr Square. His natural parts were not of thefirst rate, but he had greatly improved them by a learned education.He was deeply read in the antients, and a profest master of all theworks of Plato and Aristotle. Upon which great models he hadprincipally formed himself; sometimes according with the opinion ofthe one, and sometimes with that of the other. In morals he was aprofest Platonist, and in religion he inclined to be an Aristotelian.
But though he had, as we have said, formed his morals on the Platonicmodel, yet he perfectly agreed with the opinion of Aristotle, inconsidering that great man rather in the quality of a philosopher or aspeculatist, than as a legislator. This sentiment he carried a greatway; indeed, so far, as to regard all virtue as matter of theory only.This, it is true, he never affirmed, as I have heard, to any one; andyet upon the least attention to his conduct, I cannot help thinking itwas his real opinion, as it will perfectly reconcile somecontradictions which might otherwise appear in his character.
This gentleman and Mr Thwackum scarce ever met without a disputation;for their tenets were indeed diametrically opposite to each other.Square held human nature to be the perfection of all virtue, and thatvice was a deviation from our nature, in the same manner as deformityof body is. Thwackum, on the contrary, maintained that the human mind,since the fall, was nothing but a sink of iniquity, till purified andredeemed by grace. In one point only they agreed, which was, in alltheir discourses on morality never to mention the word goodness. Thefavourite phrase of the former, was the natural beauty of virtue; thatof the latter, was the divine power of grace. The former measured allactions by the unalterable rule of right, and the eternal fitness ofthings; the latter decided all matters by authority; but in doingthis, he always used the scriptures and their commentators, as thelawyer doth his Coke upon Lyttleton, where the comment is of equalauthority with the text.
After this short introduction, the reader will be pleased to remember,that the parson had concluded his speech with a triumphant question,to which he had apprehended no answer; viz., Can any honour existindependent on religion?
To this Square answered; that it was impossible to discoursephilosophically concerning words, till their meaning was firstestablished: that there were scarce any two words of a more vague anduncertain signification, than the two he had mentioned; for that therewere almost as many different opinions concerning honour, asconcerning religion. "But," says he, "if by honour you mean the truenatural beauty of virtue, I will maintain it may exist independent ofany religion whatever. Nay," added he, "you yourself will allow it mayexist independent of all but one: so will a Mahometan, a Jew, and allthe maintainers of all the different sects in the world."
Thwackum replied, this was arguing with the usual malice of all theenemies to the true Church. He said, he doubted not but that all theinfidels and hereticks in the world would, if they could, confinehonour to their own absurd errors and damnable deceptions; "buthonour," says he, "is not therefore manifold, because there are manyabsurd opinions about it; nor is religion manifold, because there arevarious sects and heresies in the world. When I mention religion, Imean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, butthe Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but theChurch of England. And when I mention honour, I mean that mode ofDivine grace which is not only consistent with, but dependent upon,this religion; and is consistent with and dependent upon no other. Nowto say that the honour I here mean, and which was, I thought, all thehonour I could be supposed to mean, will uphold, much less dictate anuntruth, is to assert an absurdity too shocking to be conceived."
"I purposely avoided," says Square, "drawing a conclusion which Ithought evident from what I have said; but if you perceived it, I amsure you have not attempted to answer it. However, to drop the articleof religion, I think it is plain, from what you have said, that wehave different ideas of honour; or why do we not agree in the sameterms of its explanation? I have asserted, that true honour and truevirtue are almost synonymous terms, and they are both founded on theunalterable rule of right, and the eternal fitness of things; to whichan untruth being absolutely repugnant and contrary, it is certain thattrue honour cannot support an untruth. In this, therefore, I think weare agreed; but that this honour can be said to be founded onreligion, to which it is antecedent, if by religion be meant anypositive law--"
"I agree," answered Thwackum, with great warmth, "with a man whoasserts honour to be antecedent to religion! Mr Allworthy, did Iagree--?"
He was proceeding when Mr Allworthy interposed, telling them verycoldly, they had both mistaken his meaning; for that he had saidnothing of true honour.--It is possible, however, he would not haveeasily quieted the disputants, who were growing equally warm, had notanother matter now fallen out, which put a final end to theconversation at present.
History of Tom Jones, a Foundling Page 27