Religious Indifferentism, as the term itself suggests, implies the absence of firm religious convictions, at least as far as any definite doctrinal system comes in question. It has been defined as "a popular theory which teaches that all creeds find equal favor in the eyes of God, and that it does not matter to what religious denomination a man belongs, provided he be a good man after his own fashion." It most frequently finds expression in phrases like these: "All religions are good." "One religion is about as good as another." "Religion is a matter of the heart, not of the head." "All religions lead to God." "Do what you think right, and don't worry about creeds." As appears from these propositions, Indifferentists are agreed that some sort of religion must be practiced by every reasonable being; because the fact of creation necessarily points to the obligation of worshiping the Creator, and that worship, in whatever manner it be expressed, is an act of religion. Yet whilst they admit this essential obligation, they contend that all else, connected therewith, is more or less a matter of taste and expediency, pretty much as is the cut of one's coat or the shape of one's hat. According to them if a man finds one form of religion too exacting, he may try another; if that doesn't suit, he may try another still, and if none of the existing systems are to his taste, he may invent something new, provided he will generously concede that previously existing systems are about as good as his own.
The vast majority of those who profess Indifferentists' principles are an easy going set of people, whose aspirations seldom rise above the world of their senses; yet others there are who treat the matter scientifically, and who, in consequence, are pleased to pose before the world as religious reformers. These latter, however, do not like to be called Indifferentists, for somehow that name is still in bad repute. They much prefer to style themselves Liberals, thereby intimating that they are men of great minds; -- men whose keen intellects discern beyond the multiplicity of doctrinal opposition the one grand idea of undogmatic unity as the world's true religion. With them religion consists in feeling as opposed to faith. All clinging to dogma they regard as bigotry, and every effort to defend time-honored doctrines they put down as fanaticism. In their own estimation they are the only true philosophers, destined by Providence to prepare the world for universal religious toleration, not only civil but dogmatic as well.
Whether or not these men are really the philosophical prodigies they claim to be, will, I think, appear from a brief examination of their fundamental principle, that one religion is as good as another. If this proposition be true, all honor to the men who had the genius to discover and the boldness to defend it; if it be false, their philosophy is a sham and their boldness but folly. With the truth or falsehood of this proposition Indifferentism must stand or fall.
Now, the proposition that one religion is as good as another means, in its concrete significance, nothing less than that falsehood is as good as truth, that vice is as good as virtue, and that idolatry is as good as true worship. This, it will perhaps be objected, is a hard saying; -- it savors of religious intolerance. Yes, it is a hard saying, but it is a fact, and "facts are stubborn things to deal with"; -- it does savor of religious intolerance, but truth is necessarily intolerant of error.
First, then, on the supposition that one religion is as good as another, it must needs be admitted that falsehood is as good as truth. For of the hundreds of existing religions there cannot be found two that agree in principle and practice. What one teaches as true, others reject as false; what one commends as holy, others condemn as impious. According to Angelicans, for instance, Christ is a divine person; according to Unitarians and Socinians he is a mere man. By Lutherans infant baptism is considered valid; by Baptists it is rejected as invalid. Catholics hold that Bishops were divinely instituted to rule the Church; Presbyterians teach that Bishops were not so instituted. And so all along the line, when one religious body teaches a certain doctrine, others almost invariably deny it, and hold the contradictory as true. Yet it is the very first principle in philosophy, and of common sense as well, that two contradictory statements cannot both he true at the same time. If it be true, for example, that two and two make four, it cannot at the same time be true that two and two do not make four. And so also if it be true that Christ is a divine person, or that infant baptism is valid, or that Bishops were divinely instituted to rule the Church, it cannot at the same time be true that Christ is not a divine person, or that infant baptism is not valid, or that Bishops were not divinely instituted to rule the Church. Hence as existing religious systems teach de facto opposite and contradictory doctrines, some of them must necessarily be false; consequently, if it be true, as Indifferentists hold, that one religion is as good as another, it must also be true that a false religion is as good as the true one, or that falsehood is as good as truth, unless, indeed, we are prepared to maintain that no religion is good, which is the very opposite of what Indifferentists have been holding heretofore.
Again, if one religion is as good as another, then vice is as good as virtue, and idolatry is as good as true worship. For in that case Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and the worship of Moloch and Astarte, are as good as the purest form of Christianity, though they teach the grossest idolatry and advocate the indulgence of the basest passions. They are so many different forms of religion, and one religion is as good as another. Hence vice and virtue, idolatry and true worship are equally good.
Of course, argue these advocates of Indifferentism, when we hold that one religion is as good as another, we refer to the various forms of the Christian religion. We are Christians and as such we must needs reject Paganism. Well, supposing you do apply your principle to the various Christian denominations only, will that mend matters so very much? Let us see. If one Christian religion is as good as another, then the Catholic religion is as good as the Unitarian, and the Unitarian religion is as good as the Catholic. Both are equally good. And yet objectively considered either Catholicism advocates idolatry, or Unitarianism is but a system of blasphemy; because the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the Son of God, divine in person, and equal to the Father in all things, and as a consequence she binds her members to pay Him divine homage, to worship Him, to adore Him; whereas Unitarians regard that same Christ as a mere man, liable to error and sin as any son of Adam. Now, either Christ is a divine person or He is not. If He is a divine person, then Unitarianism is but a system of blasphemy, for in that case it attributes error and sinfulness to God Himself, and that is blasphemy; and if Christ is not a divine person, then the Catholic Church advocates idolatry, because on that supposition she forces her members to give to a creature the honor that is due exclusively to the Creator, and that is idolatry.
Oh, well, some will say, let us put aside the Unitarians and Socinians, and all others who do not admit the divinity of Christ. Let us take Christians strictly so called, who are willing to profess according to the Athanasian creed that Christ is True God of True God, consubstantial with the Father, and then our proposition, that one religion is as good as another, may readily be accepted. It may not. For even in that case Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians, and hundreds of other sects, must still regard their Catholic brother as an idolater, when with bent knee and bowed head he adores his Sacramental Lord abiding upon the altar under the appearance of bread. So, too, must they brand as idolaters a large number of Anglicans, who believe as firmly in the real presence as any Catholic. Nay, they must fix the stigma of idolatry even upon all orthodox Lutherans, who hold that Christ is really present in the reception of the sacramental species.
Perhaps some are willing to go farther in the process of elimination, and strike the Catholic Church from the list of eligible religions to which their much vaunted principle may be applied. Perhaps they are willing to place side by side with the worshipers of Baal, Jupiter, and Thor, the two hundred and seventy million Catholics who people the earth to-day, together with one hundred and ten million Greek and Slav Schismatics, and some twenty million Anglicans and Lutherans, who in one way or another believe in Christ's personal presence in the Blessed Sacrament, and honor Him as a divine person. Perhaps they are willing to condemn as infected with idolatry the whole Christian past up to the time of the Reformation -- the Church of the Apostles, of the early Fathers, and of the Middle Ages -- and keep for their choice the seven hundred odd religious denominations which have sprung into being since that time, and which now number perhaps a hundred million adherents. Perhaps there are some who are prepared to go that length in order to save their pet principle, though, through respect for the dignity of human nature, it is to be hoped that there are not; yet if there be, it avails them little. For in that case, whatever may be said of idolatry and other similar horrors, it still remains true, on Indifferentists' principles, that falsehood is as good as truth, as was shown in a preceding paragraph. Take what religions you will, by the very fact that they are different from one another, there is necessarily opposition in principle and practice. The pitiful complaint of Theodore Beza, one of the earliest reformers, is as true now as it was in the sixteenth century. "Our people," he says, "are carried away by every wind of doctrine. If you know what their religion is today, you cannot tell what it may be to-morrow. In what single point," he continues, "are those Churches, which declared war against the Pope, united among themselves? There is not one point which is not held by some of them as an article of the faith, and by others rejected as an impiety."{1}
Hence to whatever number of different religious denominations you may apply the Indifferentists' principle, that one religion is as good as another, you are always forced to hold that in religious matters falsehood is as good as truth -- you are forced to hold that God Himself is indifferent to truth and falsehood. And yet what could be more unreasonable? What could be more blasphemous? God is truth itself, the unchanging and eternal truth, and cannot be worshiped except in the spirit of truth. A religion that teaches falsehood is necessarily evil, because it is an insult to the God of truth, who not only hates falsehood de facto, but must hate it on principle -- must hate it with an everlasting hatred as something that is essentially opposed to his very being. Religious beliefs and religious practices are concrete realities, and God cannot be indifferent to them, because every false belief, and every practice based upon that false belief, is in direct opposition to his essential truthfulness. And as God cannot be indifferent to them, so neither can men, whose views, by a fundamental law of their nature, must reflect the views of God their Creator, whose images they are. Consequently, to hold that one religion is as good as another, is an insult both to God and to man.
{1} Epist. ad Aud. Dudit.