PUBLIC OPINION, (SECULARISM AND RATIONALISM.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XII, Issue 13, 18 July 1884, Page 23

PUBLIC OPINION, (SECULARISM AND RATIONALISM.

(A Lecture delivered at Napier by the Very Rev. Theophilus Le Menant des Chesnais, S.M.) PA.RT II.— PUBLIC OPINION AND EATIONALISM. Phide is one of the principal characteristics of our age. Exaggerating the perspicacity of human reason, scientists have tried to explain by it all the phenomena of nature, and the mysteries of religion ; they have failed in their attempt, and called into doubt or positively denied whatever they could not understand, and entirely rejected the supernatural. We have an example of thia in Jouff roy. Theodore tlouffroy, one of the most eminent sceptic philosophers, bad recaived a Christian education. Deceived by the writings of rationalistic philosophers, he endeavoured to follow only his own private re-ison. He found that God, man, the world, were to him enigmas which he could not solve, and he cried out in despair : 41 1 am a scientist, and - 1 know nothing. I am without light — like a blind man groping in ' the dark." He ihen affirmed that philosophy which had raised so many questions had never been able to give a lucid answer to any of them. "La yhilosophie a souleve et mis en lumiere un grand nonibre de questions, mais elle n'en a reaolu awctine." There have been always rationalists, but never, perhaps, was rationalism so universally spread as it is since the seventeenth century. It was in England that rationalism was revived. In 1624 Lord Herbert of Cherbury, publicly declared himself a deist. He affirmed that Christianity is but a particular, and not a universal, religion ; and that the universal religion consists in admitting only what is received by all. (De Veritate pro ut distinguititr a Hevelatione ; London, 1624.) Charles Blount, a most sensual man, who committed suicide, propagated Ihe same doctrine (1693). Anthony Ashley Cooper, Count of Shaftesbury, taught that the dogma of the immortality of the soul, and that of future iewards and punishments were not only erroneous but most dangerous and fatal in their consequences. Many of his works are both immoral and impious. His principal enors were published in. London in 1752, in a book called " Manners and Characters." Another famous English rationalist was Henry John Bolingbroke, who died in 1751. He was the friend of Swift and of Pope, to whom he suggested the plan of his " Essay on Man." It was Bolingbroke also who was the master of Voltaire ; Voltairejemained three yearsin Erjgland with Bolingbroke. All the French rationalists of the eighteenth century were but the echo of the English- deists. Diderot and D'Alembert published their encyclopedia under the patronage of the Chancellor of England. Rousseau borrowed most of bis ideas on education from Locke, of the University of Oxford, who is ihe most prominent advocate of modern sensualism (1700), and of the Utopia of the sovereignty of the people. Baruch Spinosa, a Jew from Holland, of the seventeenth century, advocated materialistic pantheism, denying the existence of spiritual substances, particularly of the human soul. Idealistic pantheism was propagated in the nineteenth century by Emmanuel Kant of Kenisberg, in his " Critic of Pure Reason " (1781), and '• Critic of Judgment " (1790) ; and also by Gottlieb Fichet, in his " Essay on Revolution " (1793) ; both affirm that it is impossible from the light of reason to show the existence of God as distinct from our personal individuality. Nearly the same doctrine was taught in, France by Pierre Lc Roux and La Mennais who in vented " Humanitarian Socialism," " Le Sooialisme Hunmnitaire." In Belgium, pantheism has been advocated by Ahrens, a German philosopher, and Thiberghien, his disciple. According to; Pantheists there is but one substance, which is God. — God is everything, since everything is consubstantial with him. God has no personal existence. He is not distinct from any one of us, God exists only in man, and in the world and has no reality ; but in them and through them. Man and the world are the realisation of JGod. Rationalistic spiritualists affirm the existence of a personal God, Creator of all things ; they admit the spirituality and immortality of the soul, of the moral law, and even of rewards and punishments after death. They maintain that man is to worship God, but they dare not define what that worship is to be. Without denying Providence they reject every positive intervention of God in this world, and will not believe in miracle 3. They also reject the prayer of petition, because they say that God cannot change the laws of the world for the sake of private individuals. Rationalistic spiritulalistic philosophers are exceedingly numerous in our age. All rationalists, uo matter how different their systems may be, are decidedly against everything that is supernatural or miraculous, and they all profess to be guided by the light of reason alone. Heuce, strictly speaking, they are all naturalists, and enemies of revelation. They aIL maintain that there is an antagonism between reason and Christianity. It is very strange to affirm that a religion which has lasted for nineteen centuries, and formed European civilization is antagonistic to reason. In the first ages of Christianity the g^pagan sages complained that Christianity was contrary to science and philosophy. Celsus and Porphyry, amongst others, endeavoured to show that faith was tlie negation of reason, yet this did not prevent philosophers and scientists of the first merit, such as St. Justin, Atbenagoras, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Arnobius, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine from embracing Christianity. In our days, also, whilst sceptics are denouncing Christianity, men of genius and learning, such as Newman, Manning, Lord Ripon, the Marquis of Bute, Frederick Leopold de Holberg, Charles Levris.de Haller, the famous author of " Restoration ot Sciences," (1824) ; Faber, Ratisbonne, Isidore Goschler. George Spencer, and a host of other ' eminent men, by joining the Catholic Church after many years of scientific researches, have clearly demons.ti'ated that there is a perfect harmony between science and religion, and that one can be at the same time an eminent scholar, an excellent citizen, a good Christian, and a zealous defender of the Church. This fact alone should suffice to reduce our sceptics tq silence. It is not through, prejudice or ignorance these learned men have entered the Church ; it is after long and serious meditation, and to take such a step many of them have bad to make the greatest and most' heroic sacrifices. Frederic de Schlegel, Maine de Biran, L'Harmioier, Littre, who all have

joined the' Church, in point of science, are inferior to none of the most celebrated sceptics. Augustin Thierry is considered a 9 one o£ the greatest historians of France. For thirty years he was a sceptic, but at last he perceived his error, and was recoacilei with the Church, and to the last moment led a most edif vine life. Was Augustin Thierry the victim of ignorance and prej urlice ? What shall I say of Maine de.Biran? M. Cousin proclaimed that he was the greitest rastaphysieiaa of France sinci Mallebmnche. Maine de Biran was at first a materialist, then he became a stoic, and at last a fervent Christian . After his conversion he took great delight in reading •' Lq9 Peasee3 de P*iS3"il, " the works of Fenelon, and the Holy Scriptures. He declared that religion alone gave the solution to the great problems of philosophy ; "La religion, resold seule les probl&nes (pit la philosophic pose." (Journal lntime, 30 Juiit, 1S18S) Again he said : " The greatest benefit of religion is to save us from doubcand uncertainty, the greatest torment of the human mind, the true poison of life." — "La plus grand, bienfait de la religion est de nous sauver de la doute et de V incertitude, le plus grand tournient de \Vesprit hvmain, le vrai poison de la vie." " No, ihe human intellect is not made to progress alone ; in order to advance with, security, it wants the authority of God to rest upon. Even in natural things man hesitates and is fearful, if not guided by God." Maine de Biran, who traced these beautiful linea, died in July, 1824. How, then, can sceptics still tell U3 that faith is incompatible with the progress of reason and science ? Let us now examine the cause of scepticism. Tne principal and primary cause is the ignorance of religion. Faith is an act of the intellect, but an act prescribed by the will, a free act. The cnuse of unbelief, therefore, may be either in the intellect or in the will, or in both. As far as the intellect is concerned, the first cau3e of scepticism is the ignorance of the truths of religion. Religion is not known. Scientists have no exact notion of the Catholic Onurch. Their ignorance in that respect is almost incredible. We have in the midst of us men of superior ability, who have studied attentively the religions of Greece and Home, of Persia, of India, of Kgypt, America aad Oceanica, who arc quite unacquainted wiih the teaching of the Church. In some it is a total, in others a partial ignorance. At. Droz confesses that he became a sceptic, not through a seiious study of Christianity, but because he never took the trouble to examine it, and believed whatever was said against it by unbelievers. He re\d >4 Les Essais de Montaigne," the works of Cicero and Plutarch, but he never thought of reading the Holy Scriptures, and the works of the doctors of the Church. Some sceptics have a superficial knowledge of certain points of Christianity, but mixed up with a great many misconceptions and illusions which encourage them to persevere in their incredulity, simply because they attach to certain dogmas and practices of religion, erroneous notions, which have no foundation whatever, except in their mistaken imagination. What a terrible thing prejudice is! It is a common error in our days that no one is answerable for religious ignorance. This is a great illusion, for this ignorance may be wilful, and consequently criminal. Man is obliged to study truth, and to embrace it, when he has found it. Whosoever does not apply himself to learn the truths he ought to know is answerable for "his ignorance and his errors. Every ignorance of revealed religion is not criminal ; there are many souls that are in a moral impossibility to know the teaching of the Church, either on account of the persons who surround them, or of the prejudices of their first education, or other circumstances independent of their will. God will never condemn those persons for what they involuntarily ignore, provided they keep the natural law, and endeavour to do their best to please Htm. But very often their ignorance is wilful. Many live in ignorance of religion, because they wfll not take the trouble to study it ; They are too much occupied with material things and the vanities of the world, and they scarcely ever give a thought to supernatural and divioe thing 3. Frivolity and materialising occupations may be assigned, therefore, as a fundamental cause of ignorance and scepticism. Senßual pleasures, riches, honours, are the only- things many men care for. These things take up all their time. The present life is for them everything. Perhaps, they do not deny the future life, but they do nothing to prepare themselves for it. They do not always declare against religion, but they will not conform to its teaching. "To prosper in this world, to be esteemed and honoured, is all they want. They cannot see anything beyond ths grave. They would consider it a loss of time to read a religious book, stuuy ecclesiastical history, philosophy, or theology, yet they find every day time to study sciences, agriculture, politics, aad many other things besides. Nay," many of them boast of their ignorance of religious things, and despise those who value them. They call themselves free thinkers ; yet many of them never think at all ; they would more appropriately be called free livers and no thinkers. As to the few among them who really think, they cannot be styled freethinkers, for they are the slaves of the most absurd prejudices, and they believe with blind credulity whatever may be said agaiDst religion, without impartially examining whether it is true or false. A sceptic who would seriously examine the objections raised against the Church would already be more than half-con-verted. But the majority of sceptics examine nothing ; they scrape together all the objections they can find against religion, and all the scandals given by a few persons who made profession oil piety, and turn every thing sacred into ridicule , and come to care only about sensible things. Some positively, as we have seen, deny the existence of a personal God, and the spirituality and immortality of the soul, to the end that they may, without remorse, satisfy all their inclinations. Others, without positively denying God, live as if God did not exist, as if they had no soul, and as if there was no other life after this. Next to iguorance, another great cause of scepticism is libertinism, open or concealed. For when men want to gratify their passions, tbey^ conceive easily an aversion and an inveterate hatred against religion which condemns wickedness everywhere. In the early ages of the Church, Christians were looked upon by the sages of Borne as the enemies of mankind. " Odio hutnuni generis eonvicti stint." — (Tacit. Annal., LXV., 44.) The reason oil this was that Christians condemned immorality, and idolatry, which were sanctioned by law. In our days Christianity still condemns immorality and impiety, hence the universal hatred against it. The third cause of scepticism is presump-

tion. Some scientists become sceptics while seriously seeking af ber without a guide. They study religious questions ; meet with difficulties which puzzle them ; and, being discouraged, look upon religion as unreasonable, incomprehensible, and finish by abandoning it altogether. Most of the truths of religion— although absolutely certain— have some obscurities about them. If, instead of paying attention to the proofs which show the existence of a truth, we consider the obscurities of the truth itself, by an error of judgment, we may easily conclude that the tiuth has no foundation at all, whereas it is manifestly certain, though obscure and incomprehensible. Only weak-minded people imagine they can explain and understand everything. There is a great difference between believing a thing without proofs, and believing it because we have proofs of it, aad are certain of its existence, although we cannot understand it. To believe anything without proof is unwise. To believe what is well attested, whether we understand it or not, is a mark of wisdom. Those who will admit only what they can understand might as well deny the millions of twinkling stars of the firmament, the flowers of the field, the birds of the air, the fishes of the deep ; for we understand thoroughly none of them : we only know thena imperfectly and externally. Every human science is finite and imperfect ; God alone who has made all things has a clear, perfect and adequate knowledge of every one of them. Our intellect is very limited, our very existence is a mystery to us. To try, therefore, to understand everything with our finite intellect is to ignore the very law of our nature— it is a ridiculous and senseless presumptiou. A philosopher should not pay much attention to the obscurities of a thing, but to the strength of the arguments which demonstrate its nature and existence- ihe last, not least, cause of scepticism is pusillanimity. Many scientists are very weak-minded ; they are afraid to study our holy religion, lest they should be obliged to embrace it, and change their lives. Let us be courageous— let us not be afraid of the truth ; our ignoring or denying it will not destroy it. Why, therefore, not study it, and see it a* it is, particularly when it is certain we canuot be saved except we embrace it if we can. If you speak to some scientists of certain truths they do not relish, they turn their head aside and say, "I do not believe it !" These men are rebellious to light ; they are unreasonable ;so long as they persevere in their wilful error, nothing will be able to convert them. About the close of the first century there lived a famous philosopher called Justm. He studied Greek literature and philosophy— not believing in the absurdities of paganism— he examined the philosophical systems of Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Plato. The theory of Plato pleased him most ; yet he found it shallow and imperfect. He had heard about the Christians ; but they were so much despised, that he did not think truth could be fouud among them. One day, as he was walkiug along the tea-shore, he met with a venerable old man. Pleased with his appearance, he entered into conversation with him. This old man was a Christian. He advised him to pray, to read the Holy Scriptures, aud consult some eminent theologian, who would explain to him the Christian doctrine,.. au d answer his difficulties. Justin aid so. He was converted, and became an apologist and a martyr. The first thing that impressed Justin when he studied Christianity was the dogma of a Supreme God, Creator, and Preserver oi all things. The next was the' nature, origin, and destiny of man, aud his total dependence upon God, so clearly stated by Catholic teachers. He found no difficulty in admitting divine revelation, prophecies, and miracles, to guide him to his destiny. The idea of an infallible Church pleased him, aad he rejoiced to have found a guide, who, assisted by heaven, would never lead him astray. Let sceptics do the same ; let them pray, let them resolve to lead a holy lite, Jet them put a3ide their prejudices. Let them study the proofs ot the existence of Uod, of ttie divinity of Christianity; of the inialhble authoiity o f the Church and of the Sovereign Pontiff. Let them expose their difficulties to a learned and experienced theologian, and all their difficulties will vanish away. With Maine do JtJnan they will c >nfess that Religion alone gives the solution of all the problems of Philosophy, and saves us "from doubt and uncertainty, the greatest torment of the human mind, the true poisjn of lite— and with Augustiu Thierry, they will rejoice to work for the glory of God, and ibe propagation of ilis Holy Church.