Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/761

 DEISM

681

DEISM

linoks to find them for the most part oiit^of-date, com- monplace, and dull. And while several of the "re- plies" they evoked may still be reckoned as standard «orks of apologetics, the majority of them belong, in more senses than one, to the writings of a bygone age. \\ hen Viscount Bolingbroke's works were published liD-ithuniously in 1754, and even when, si.x years pre- viously, David Hume's " Essay on the Human l^nder- siiti'ling" was given to the public, little stir was ciiisi'd. Rnlingbroke's attacks upon revealed relig- iiiii, aimed fnim the standpoint of a sensationalistic tliciiiy of knowledge, were, as a recent writer puts it, ' insufferably wearisome"; nor could all his cynicism
 * in(l satire, any more than the scepticism of the Scot-

iisli philosopher, renew general interest in a contro- \ ersy that was practically dead. The dcistical con- iriiversy traceable to the philosophy of Hobbes and I Dcke is pre-eminently an English one, and it is to the 1 iiLjlish deists that reference is usually made when I Inre is question of deism. But the same or a similar iiioxement took place in France also. "In the eight- eenth centurj'", says Ueberweg, "the prevailing char- ge t<r of French philosophy . . . was that of opposi- tien to the received dogmas and the actual conditions i:. ' 'liurch and State, and the efforts of its representa- tiM's were chiefly directed to the establishment of a new theoretical and practical philosophy resting on iiituralistic principles" (Gesch. d. Philosophic, Ber- lin. 1901, IH, 2.37). Men like Voltaire, and even the iTi.iterialistic Encyclopsedists, exemphfy a tendency of pliilosophic thought which has very much in common \\iih what in England ended in deism. It had the sMuie basis, the theory of knowledge propounded by l.nekc and subsequently pushed to an extreme point li\- ( 'ondillac, and the general advance of scientific tliiMight. From Voltaire's criticisms of ecclesiastical eiL;;inization and theology, his unwearying attacks n|ioii Christianity, the Bible, the Church, and revela- tion, the tendency turned towards pantheism and iiiilerialism. Rousseau would have a religion of na- tiiie substituted for the traditional forms of revcla- ti"Ti, and bring it, as he would bring philosophy and ]!' ■lilics,.to the point of view of individualism. Helve- 'lus would have the moral system based upon the llnelarul the logical development of deism ended in lie' scepticism of Hume, so in France it came to rest 111 ihe materialism of La Mettrie and Holbach.
 * irinciple of present self-interest. And thus, as in

Reference h.as been made above to several of the

iiHire important representatives of English deism.

I'll or twelve wTiters are usually enumerated as note-

\viiithy contributors to the literature and thought of

the movement, of whom the following brief sketches

iii:iy be given. — Lord Herbert of Chcrhury (1581-

11. IS), a contemporary of the philosopher Hobbes,

«:is the most learned of the deists and at the same

1 1'lte the least disposed to submit Christian revelation

I destructive criticism. He was the founder of a

I iTialistic form of religion — the religion of nature —

h consisted of no more than the residuum of

til common to all forms of positive religion when

r distinctive characteristics were left aside. The

, lession of faith of Herbert's rationalism is summed

i:| > in the five articles given above. His principal con-

tiilmtions to deistical literature are the "Tractatus de

\ ■ rilatc prout distinguitur a Revelatione, a Verisimili,

! ' ssibili et a Falso" (1624); "De Religione Genti- 1 Errorumque apud eos Causis" (1645, 166.3);

'• Religione Laici".

I'linrlex Blomil (16.54-93) w-as noted as a critic of liiitli the Old and \ew Testaments. His methods of ■itt ick upon the Christian position were characterized liy an indirectness and a certain duplicity that has e\er since come to he in some degree associated with 'lie whole deistical movement. The notes that he ap- 1' n,]pd to his tran.slation of ApoUonius are calculated • 1 weaken or destroy credence in the miracles of

Christ, for some of which he actually suggests explana- tions upon natural grounds, thus arguing against the trustworthiness of the New Tcstam<'nt In a similar manner, by employing the argmnent of Hobbes against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and by at- tacking the miraculous events therein reeonled, he had impeached the accuracy and veracity of the Old Testa- ment. He rejects utterly the doctrine of a media- torial Christ and contends that such a doctrine is sub- versive of true religion ; while the many falsehoods he perceives in the traditional and positive forms of Christianity he puts down to the political invention (for purposes of power and of easy government) of priests and religious teachers. The seven articles into which Blount expanded the five articles of Lord Her- bert have been noticed above. His notes to the trans- lation of Philostratus' "Life of ApoUonius Tyanxus" were published in 1680. He wrote also the "Anima Mundi" (1678-9); "Religio Laici", practically a translation of Lord Herbert's book of the same title (1683); and "The Oracles of Reason" (1893).

John Tolnnd (1670-1722), while originally a be- liever in Divine revelation and not opposed to the doc- trines of Christianity, advanced to the rationalistic position with strong pantheistic tendencies by taking away the supernatural element from religion. His principal thesis consisted in the argmnent that "there is nothing in the Gospels contrarj' to reason, nor above it; and that no Christian doctrine can properly be called a mystery." This statement he made on the assimiption that whatever is contrary to reason is un- true, and whatever is above reason is inconceivable. He contended, therefore, that reason is the safe and only guide to truth, and that the Christian religion lays no claim to being mysterious. Toland also raised questions as to the Canon of Scripture and the origins of the Church. He adopted the view that in the Early Church there were two opposing factions, the liberal and the Judaizing; and he compared rtnur eighty spurious writings with the New Testament Scri|itures, in order to cast doubt upon the authenticity and relia- biHty of the canon. His "Amyntor" evoked a reply from the celebrated Dr. Clarke, and a considerable number of books and tracts were published in refuta- tion of his doctrine. The chief works for which he was responsible are: — "Christianity not Mysterious" (1696); "Letters to Serena" (1704); "Pantheisti- con" (1720); "Amyntor" (1699); "Nazarenus" (1718).

Antony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713), one of the most popular, elegant, and ornate of these writers, is generally classed among the deists on accoimt of his "Characteristics". He him- self would not admit that he was such, except in the sense in which deist is contrasted with atheist; of him Bishop Butler said that, had he lived in a later age, when Christianity was better understood, he would have been a good Christian. Thus, in a preface that Shaftesbury contributed to a vohnne of the sermons of Dr. Whichcot (1698), he "finds fault w-ith those in this profane age, that represent not only the institu- tion of preaching, but even the (Jospel itself, and our holy religion, to be a fraud ". There arc also pa.ssages in "Several Letters Written by a Noble Lord to a Young Man in the L^niversity" (1716) in which he shows a very real regard for the doctrines an<l practice of the Christian religion. But the "Characteristics of Men, Matters, Opinions, and Times" (1711-1723) gives clear evidence of Shaftesbury's dcistical tenden- cies. It contains frequent criticisms of Christian doc- trines, the Scriptures, and revelation. He contends that this last is not only useless btit positively mis- chievous, on .account of its doctrine of rewards and punishments. The virtue of morality he makes to consist in a conformity of our affections to ovir nat- ural sense of the sublime and beautiful, to our nattiral estimate of the worth of men and things. The Cos-