PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION.

Takiddin, a Mahometan author, said that the Caliph Almamon would be infallibly punished by God, for having disturbed the devotion of the Mussulmans by the introduction of philosophical studies. This thought has nothing singular in it: it has appeared in all the countries of the world, and in all ages, and at this very day we find an infinite number of people complaining of Des Cartes, and other modern philosophers of the first rank, as having occasioned the contempt which so many persons express for devotion and the mysteries of Christianity. A thousand things might be said upon this subject, both as to the fact itself, and the reason for it. Philosophers have been at all times suspected of having but tittle religion. The ancient rhetoricians, after having 2 2

said that among probable propositions, some were grounded upon what generally happens, and others upon the common opinion, alleged immediately these two examples: Mothers love their children—philosophers do not believe the existence of the gods. “Probabile est id quod fere fieri solet, aut quod in opinione positum est—In eo genere, quod fere solet fieri, probabile hujusmodi est: si mater est, diligit filium: si avarus est, negligit jusjurandum. In eo autem, quod in opinione positum est, hujusmodi sunt probabilia: Impiis apud inferos poenas esse praeparatas: Eos, qui philosophiae dent operam, non arbitrari deos esse. Cicero, de Inventione, lib. i. fol. m. 29. ⁶—That is probable which is confirmed by general experience, or which is commonly believed. Among the first sort, from general experience, are these examples following: a mother loves her child; a miser never regards an oath. Among the latter from common belief are these: infernal punishments are prepared for the wicked; philosophers do not believe there are any gods.” Apuleius observes, that almost all the ancient philosophers were accused either of denying the existence of the gods, or of applying themselves to magic. “These things are generally by the ignorant vulgar objected against the philosophers, that one part of them who are for enquiring into the first and simple causes of bodies are irreligious, and deny the being of the gods, as Anaxagoras, Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus, and other patrons of nature; that the others, who search more curiously into the conduct of Providence in the world, and worship the gods with greatest zeal, are commonly stiled magicians, as if they themselves had found out how to do those things which they find to be done; as formerly Epimenides, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Osthanes.” Apuleius, in Apologia, pag. 291. ⁷ Our Takiddin would not have delivered over to divine justice the great Almamon, that protector of learning, who introduced the study of philosophy, had he not observed the ill effect of that study. It had raised doubts in the minds of men; it had discovered to a great many people the fooleries of the Mahometan sect, and by that means the public worship, piety, and devotion had laboured under a surprising discouragement. Some learned men maintain that the Arabian philosophers professed only Mahometism outwardly, and laughed at the Koran in reality, because they found in it some things contrary to reason. A great many people are not to be beaten out of the notion that Des Cartes and Gassendus believed the real presence in the Eucharist, as little as the fabulous stories of old Greece. It is no less difficult to persuade the world, that the followers of those two great philosophers are good Catholics, and that, if they were allowed to teach publicly their principles, they would not quickly undermine all the foundations of the Romish religion. The Protestants have not a better opinion of Des Cartes’ doctrine. Generally speaking, the Cartesians are suspected of irreligion, and their philosophy is thought to be very dangerous to Christianity; so that, according to the opinion of a great many, the same persons who have removed in our age the darkness which the schoolmen had spread all over Europe, have increased the number of freethinkers, and made way for Atheism, or Scepticism, or the disbelief of the greatest mysteries of Christianity.

But irreligion is not only ascribed to the study of philosophy, but also to philology; for it is pretended that Atheism never began to discover itself in France till the reign of Francis I, and that the first appearance of it in Italy was when philological learning was revived there. “The less foreign learning we have,” says a Catholic writer, “the greater submission we express for the Christian faith; ‘ and the most learned ages,’ says Baronius, ‘ have often proved the most

unbelieving.’ The Aladmists appeared only under the reign of Almansor; who was the most learned monarch of his age; and I find no Atheists in France before the reign of Francis I, not in Italy till after the taking of Constantinople, when Argyropilus, Theodorus Gaza, Georgius Trebizontius, with the most celebrated men of Greece, retired to the dukes of Florence.” It is certain that most of the wits and learned philologers, who shined in Italy when the Belles Lettres began to revive there, after the taking of Constantinople, had but little religion; but on the other hand, the restoration of the learned languages and polite literature made way for the reformation, as the Monks and their adherents clearly foresaw, who continually inveighed against Reuchlin, Erasmus, and the other scourges of ignorance. Thus whilst the Roman Catholics deplore the fatal consequences of the study of good literature, the Protestants have all the reason in the world to praise God for it. They are not so much beholden to the new philosophy, which demonstratively overthrows transubstantiation, and all its dependencies, because the same weapons are made use of against the most essential doctrines. In a word, so unhappy is the fate of man, that the knowledge which frees him from one evil throws him into another. Drive away ignorance and barbarity, and you put an end to superstition, and the foolish credulity of the people, so profitable to their leaders, who afterwards employ their gain only to plunge themselves into idleness and debauchery; but by putting men in a capacity of discovering such disorders, you raise in them a desire of examining every thing, and at last they are so much for enquiring and Scanning, that they find nothing that will satisfy their miserable reason.

However it be, I have heard some wise men say, that the too common affectation of charging the Philosophers with impiety is Very imprudent; for how

great a scandal would it be for ignorant people, if they took the pains to consider it with due attention, to find that, according to the opinion of a great many divines, there is but little religion among great philosophers; that devotion is chiefly to be found among the vulgar, and that those who have most carefully examined the marks of the divine authority of the holy scripture, are commonly less pious and devout than others. It were much more edifying to teach, with Plutarch, that philosophy is a remedy for impiety and superstition; and with Origen, that no man can be truly pious without philosophy. “Omnino nec pium erga communem omnium Dominum esse absque philosophia quemquam censebat.” The mixture of good and evil that is to be found in all human things, appears on this occasion in a particular manner. The Arabian philosophers came to know by their philosophy that the Koran was a false revelation; but, on the contrary, many Jews forsook their religion, and embraced the Pagan philosophy, which discovered to them, as they pretended, that Moses had prescribed them needless laws. Thus the same principle, which is sometimes serviceable against error, is sometimes prejudicial to truth.—Art. Takiddin.