a Catholic sense, and, consequently, we may be permitted to use it, if we fix the same sense to it. In a modern work, this canon is mentioned and explained, to prevent the abuse the materialists of our days might make of it. This apologist might repent him of his zeal, if a good action should be repented of; for, notwithstanding the serious and simple tone of his defence, he has been foolishly accused of an intention to turn into ridicule the doctrine of the œcumenic Council. XV. This is not the only example of equivocal expressions used differently in the schools, or even adopted now-a-days by whole sects of philosophers. Malebranche, and his disciples, called God the Universal Being. The Spinozists would not express themselves otherwise. The Scotists allow God to be extended, eternal, immense, immovable, indivisible; and it is only by involving themselves in an obscure jargon, that they defend their making him corporeal, or at least extended: nevertheless, it would be unjust to accuse Malebranche of Spinozism, or the Scotists of confounding God with space. Why should not the same indulgence be shewn to men as little inclined to deceive as they? And it is the more equitable, as there is no subject where an intention to injure finds more plausible pretences of exerting itself, than religion. Expressions that are innocent in themselves, or in the sense affixed to them by their author, are often made susceptible of an erroneous or dangerous sense, especially when separated from that which goes before, and that which follows. To convince us of this, it is sufficient to cast our eyes upon the innumerable abuses which error has made of Scripture expressions. XVI. The metaphysical opinions of the philosophers have not been the object of a thousand declamations only; their systems too, concerning the formation and arrangement of the universe, have met with the same fate. Matter is not eternal; it must have begun, therefore, to exist; here is a point where we may differ: did God range in order the different particles of matter from the time that he created them, or was it a greater or lesser time that chaos continued, before the separation of the particles? Here philosophers may be divided. Indeed, if there be nothing in body but figure and motion, as sound philosophy intimates, what difficulty is there in supposing that the Supreme Being, after creating matter, and forming it instantly into a single, homogeneous mass, apparently shapeless, should impress upon its different particles that movement which is necessary to separate or bring them to one another, and produce by this means different bodies; and that light, stars, animals, and plants, sprang from this great operation, the work of the eternal Geometrican, in that succession and time the Creator prescribed? This grand and noble idea, so far from being a contradiction to divine power and goodness, serves to display them before our eyes. Besides, the existence of chaos, before the separation of its particles, is an hypothesis necessary to the physical explanation of the formation of the terrestial globe. The Supreme Being had power, at the same instant, to create and arrange the world, without forbidding the philosopher from inquiring in what manner he might have produced it in a longer time, and by virtue of laws of motion established by the Author of nature. The system of this philosopher may be more or less consistent with phenomena, but the naturalist, not the theologian, must judge him. Thus the Newtonians, to explain the figure of the earth, supposed that it was originally a fluid. Thus Descartes thought it once a sun, obscured by a thick crust which covered it; an hypothesis which has occasioned as much pitiable chicanery among divines, as solid objections among philosophers. XVII. No natural philosopher now-a-days doubts, that the sea has covered a great part of the earth. It appears impossible to attribute solely to the deluge all the vestiges which remain of so ancient an inundation; this opinion has been attacked as contrary to Scripture: we need only open the book of Genesis, to see how unjust such an imputation is: "On the third day God said, Let the waters assemble together in one place; and there was dry land." Has this passage any need of a commentary? Perhaps we might find, in the same chapter, proofs of the existence of chaos before the formation of the world, if we had not already observed it is of no consequence to religion, provided that we do not maintain the eternity of chaos. But we cannot omit, without censure, on this occasion, the bad judgment of a modern critic. The illustrious historian of the Academy of Sciences, in one of his extracts, said that fish were the first inhabitants of our globe: the censor inveighs with all his might against the impiety, not believing that he had Scripture for his voucher. Consult Genesis, and we find that he either wants honesty or memory, for we there read that fish were in reality the first animals that were created. XVIII. No person is ignorant that the passage in the book of Joshua which has been both injudiciously attacked and defended, was the cause of Galileo's misfortunes. "Wherefore say your quick geniuses, did Joshua order the sun to stand still, instead of commanding the earth? What difficulty could there be for an author, who pretends to be inspired, to describe things as they really are? Why should the Holy Spirit, which dictated the Scriptures, lead us into a physical error, while it clears up our duty ?" "You ought to believe, answer the inquisitors on the other hand, that the sun turns round the earth; the Holy Spirit, which ought to know, assures you of it, and it cannot deceive you." One might reply to them both, that, in indifferent matters, the Scripture makes use of the language of the people. But this answer is not sufficient; it seems to me, that, in order to confound the impiety of one side, and the weakness of the other, we should add, that the Scripture must speak the language of the people, in order to be understood; that a missionary, preaching among savages in this manner, "I announce to you that God, who makes the earth we inhabit roll round the sun," would engage no attention to his discourse. It is necessary for us to hold another kind of language to induce them to hear us; we must imitate, in some measure, the example of him who had recourse to a fable to dispose the Athenians to listen to him. In a word, we should first of all make them Christians; and afterwards, if we please, or if we can, make them astronomers. When they are such, they will not seek for systems of the world in ill-understood passages of Scripture; and, in forming their opinions, they will prefer the observatory to the Holy Office. They will be like the King of Spain, who, as Pascal informs us, chose rather to believe the antipodes on the authority of Columbus, who came from thence, than reject them, on account of Pope Zechariah, who never had been there. Let us respect Scripture so as never to use it profanely; and let us leave Madame Dacier to justify the talking of Achilles's horses in Homer, by the discourse of Balaam's ass. XIX. Opinions purely metaphysical, and systems concerning the formation of the world, have not furnished the only pretences for arraigning philosophers; calumny has neglected nothing that might conduce to the same purpose. Can one refrain from sentiments of pity or indignation, to see one of our most celebrated writers accused of impiety by journalists, for having said that Jordan is but a small river, that Palestine was, at the time of the Crusades, what it is now, one of the most barren countries of Asia? Critics accumulate passages of Scripture to prove that it was very fertile in Joshua's days: but what do all these passages prove of this place in the time of Saladin, or of its present state? Why may not God have avenged the death of Christ, by turning its riches and abundance into sterility? Or rather (for the simplest explanations are always the best), why may not a country, enslaved and unpeopled, become barren by that very depopulation? But when they are determined to make a writer suspected, everything is impiety in his lips; his proofs of the being of God are treated as sophisms, his arguments in favour of religion, as pleasantries levelled against it. Let him write against superstition and fanaticism, it is Christianity he aims at does he plead for the civil toleration of every religion, it is only to shew his indifference to all. : XX. Give me, said Fontenelle, in his History of Oracles, but half a dozen men who are capable of being persuaded that it is not the sun which makes the day, and I will not despair of bringing all nations, by their means, into the same belief. If anything in the world is incontestible, it is assuredly this proposition, of which the absurd religions of Asia and Africa furnish but too melancholy and striking a proof. What have the censors of the History of Oracles made of this? "Why, it only wanted half a dozen more, say they, to make it an impious assertion." The impiety, however, is entirely their own; for, if half a dozen were capable of seducing mankind into error, does it follow that twelve different persons could not lead them into truth? In what respects can the many just and solid observations, which have been made in modern times, upon prejudice, credulity, false prophecies, and false miracles, affect those invincible arguments by which true religion is supported? XXI. The Fathers of the Church, the first defenders of Christianity, did not distrust in this manner the goodness of their cause. They were not afraid of objections, nor open day; they were ignorant of false attacks, and pusillanimous precautions. Many writers of our days, worthy to follow them in so noble a career, have imitated their example; but if the respectable cause of the Gospel has had its Pascals and Bossuets, it has likewise had its Chaumeiux and its Garaffes. XXII. The abuse of criticism in religious matters is pernicious to religion itself on many accounts;-for the disingenuity and trifling with which a good cause is sometimes defended,for the consequences drawn by the multitude from the vague charge of irreligion brought against the philosophers, for the motives which have induced men, pretendedly good, to declare war against reason; in short, from the little union and reciprocal animosity of its adversaries; each of these objects merits a separate article, and we will devote a few moments to them. XXIII. The Encyclopædia will furnish us with the subject of the first article. Under substantial forms we mentioned the arguments of the Cartesians against the souls of beasts, drawn from this principle of St. Austin, that, "under a just God, no creature could suffer who had not deserved it;" an argument well known in the schools, which Malebranche has availed himself of with much force; and which sensible philosophers and divines have always looked upon as very difficult to confute. In explaining this argument, it was remarked at the same time, that this was at most an objection which ought not to hurt those proofs there are of the spirituality of the soul, of its immortality, and of Divine justice and providence. What has one of the adversaries of the Encyclopædia made of this? He has pretended, that the only design of this article was to ridicule this principle of St. Austin; and to prove it, they have concluded from the principle that he looked upon brutes as machines, an opinion very far from the good doctor's thoughts, and the honour of which solely belongs to his pretended apologist. Thus it is not the Encyclopædia, but its ridiculous adversary, who accuses one of the most respectable Fathers of the Church of absurdities and false conclusions, and in this manner it is that religion is defended. According to this new apostle, it is not possible to be Christians without believing brutes to be machines. Thus, from St. Peter to Descartes, there have been no Christians. But this writer astonishes us with equal absurdities, when he pretends, that moral duties are not known by reason, and that the existence of the body is a truth of revelation, and maintains, in short, against unbelievers, that the soul is of its own nature immortal; a proposition which is blasphemous, since it robs the Supreme Intelligence of one of his most essential attributes. The uncreated Being alone is of his essence immortal. Our soul exists only by the will of this Being, who thinks proper to give it an eternal existence, which it receives every instant by a continual creation. It is not by the dissolution of the parts that the soul ceases to be as the body does; it is in relapsing into that nonentity, from whence the author of nature drew it, and to which it is liable every instant to return. These are the first elements of Christian metaphysics, which the author ought to have been instructed in before he wrote. It must be a sad and humbling circumstance to be obliged to learn this doctrine of those very persons whom he taxes with denying them. XXIV. Those who exercise their critical talents with most violence, and consequently with indiscretion, assume sometimes the air of moderation, when they are sure of attacking with advantage. I know not by what fatality the Champions of Christianity have acted otherwise, and supported the interest of God with injurious malignity. They have this disadvantage, that they prejudice the reader against the advocates of religion, |