Essays, or discourses, vol. 1 (of 4) : $b Selected from the works of Feyjoo, and translated from the SpanishFeijoo, Benito Jerónimo
Philosophy
Essays, or discourses, vol. 1 (of 4) : $b Selected from the works of Feyjoo, and translated from the Spanish
Feijoo, Benito Jerónimo
Spanish essays -- Translations into English
XXIII. I never observed, that the dogmatic writers, who in various
manners, have conclusively proved the evident credibility of our
holy faith, have introduced as one of their arguments, the consent
of many nations in their belief of those mysteries; but have laid
great stress, upon the consent of men, eminent for their sanctity and
wisdom. The first argument would be favourable to idolatry, and the
Mahomedan Sect; the second cannot be answered, nor can it be used to
militate on the other side; and in case they should oppose to us the
authority of the antient philosophers, who have been the partizans of
idolatry, the objection would be grounded on a false supposition, it
being established by irrefragable testimony, that those philosophers
in matters of religion did not think with the people. Marcus Varus,
one of the wisest of the Romans, distinguished among the Antients
three kinds of Theology; the Natural, the Civil, and the Poetical.
The first existed in the minds of wise men; the second was used to
govern the religion of the people at large; the third was the invention
of the poets; and of all the three, the philosophers held only the
first to be true. The distinction of the two first, had been pointed
out by Aristotle, in the twelfth book of his Metaphysics, cap. 8,
where he says, that from the opinions of preceding ages which have
been communicated to us respecting the Gods, may be inferred, they
held some things to be true, and others false, and that the last were
invented for the use and civil government of the populace: _Cætera
vero fabulosè ad multitudinis persuasionem_. It is true, that although
those philosophers were not of the same sentiment with the people, they
generally talked their language, as an opposite conduct would have been
very hazardous; for whoever denied the plurality of Gods, was looked
upon as impious; as it happened to Socrates. The sum of the whole of
this is, that in the voice of the people was contained all the error;
and that the little or much which existed of truth, was shut up and
imprisoned in the minds of a few wise men.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account