De Moor I:10: The Existence of Theology of the Way

Our AUTHOR, in § 11, proves that a Theology of the Way is given.  In support of this are alleged ratiocinations à priori, 1.  from the Goodness of God, which, since it is the Best, is most Communicative of itself; but is not able to communicate itself more appropriately to a rational creature than by its own knowledge and love.  2.  From the End of God in the Creation and Preservation of things, who as a spirit and consummate reason undoubtedly proposes to Himself some end in working; but because of His Independence He ought to propose to Himself an ultimate end, not outside of Himself, but in Himself, that is, His own glorification.  However, it is never possible to obtain this end of the recognition and celebration of Himself apart from some Theology.  3.  From the Desire of Felicity innate in man; which sort of desire is not able to be denied by experience, which at the same time teaches that the mind is able to rest entirely in the fruition of no good, except in the communion of God Himself, the highest good:  but apart from Theology no one is able to obtain this.  Therefore, if Theology be not given, this Desire of Felicity innate in man would be in vain:  and, since he finds that nothing is blessed in every respect, and that all things also are in flux and tottering, neither do they make for the satisfaction of his appetite; this Desire of Felicity would render man more miserable.  But God and nature do nothing in vain:  compare REIMARUS’[1] over de voornaamste Waarheden van den natuurlichen Godtsdienst, Essay 10, § 4-9, pages 677-695.  4.  From the Dependence of man, which bids him to ascend unto the first Independent Being, to which it agrees to prescribe to a creature rational, and hence also dependent morally, a Law as the norm of all actions; and which, both because of the infinite excellence of its nature, and because of the absolute dependence of creatures upon It, is worthy to be honored with such esteem and veneration as is able to accrue to a finite soul.  5.  From the misery of man, which he feels himself unequal to bear, neither is he able to look for sufficient help from any creature; which teaches him to flee to τὸν μακάριον καὶ μόνον δυναστὴν, the blessed and only Potentate.[2]

              But the same truth is sufficiently confirmed à posteriori by universal Experience among men, and the Consensus of all peoples admitting some Theology, although often quite corrupt.  Although these have naturally strayed in a disgraceful manner from true Theology, yet they have attested that such a Theology is given by their pursuit of the same:  but a disposition innate in all to acknowledge and worship the true God is not able to be vain.  But to this universal Consent of all unto this truth, CICERO gave clear testimony once and again (that I might pass by others), in his De Legibus, book I, chapter VIII, “And so from such a large number of species there is no animal besides man that has any knowledge of God:  and among these men there is no race so savage or wild, that it does not, even if it be ignorant what sort of God it be fitting to have, know that God is to be had.”  Likewise also in his de Natura Deorum, book II, chapter V, “And so among all of all nations the opinion stands firm; for it is innate in all and, as it were, engraved in the soul, that there are Gods.  Of what sort they might be, there is a variety of opinions:  no one denies that they are.”  And also in his Tusculanis Questionibus, book I, chapter XIII, “Moreover, as this appears to be alleged as a thing most firm, as to why we believe there to be Gods, that there is no race so wild, not one of all so inhuman, that the belief of the Gods has not permeated its mind.  Many think perverse things concerning the Gods.  For that is wont to be brought to pass by vicious custom.  Yet all believe there to be a divine power and nature.  But neither does the conference or consensus of men bring that to pass:  the belief is not established by institutes, neither by laws.  But in every matter the consent of all nations is to be regarded as the law of nature.”  And, that thus this universal consent is to be regarded as a note of truth was everywhere believed of old:  for thus SENECA[3] in his Epistolis CXVII, “We ought to grant much to the presumption of all men.  Among us it is an argument of truth, that something appears so to all:  as, that there are Gods, we thus gather, among other things, which is the innate belief of all concerning the Gods:  neither is there a nation anywhere so cast beyond laws and customs, that it does not believe in some Gods.”  Neither should anyone take exception that he might weaken the force of this argument from universal Consent, that the peoples also consent in those things which sin suggests to them.  Responses:  1.  That consent in sinning is practical, not theoretical, as this is concerning the acknowledging and worshipping of Divinity.  2.  Men consent in doing ill in such a way that they also consent in condemning and disapproving those things that are done in an evil manner; for frequently that saying obtains:  I see and approve better things; I follow worse things.[4]  Compare to this argument BUDDEUS, in his de Atheismo et Superstitione, and JOHANNES LULOFS,[5] in his Annotationibus ad eum caput V, § 1, page 227-230, 232-235 (155-157).

Lucretius

              Nevertheless, the Atheist denies that True Theology is given, tracing the origin of all Theology from the vain Tradition of parents or Political Cunning, playing to the Credulity and superstitious Fear of men.  Of old the impious have thus been trifling:  What? you read in CICERO’S de Natura Deorum, book I, chapter XLII, those that said that the entire belief concerning the immortal Gods was contrived by wise men for this reason, that those that reason is not able to lead, religion might lead to duty, have they not utterly destroyed all religion?  The Epicureans were ascribing to superstitious fear all the received worship of Divinity.[6]  Indeed, according to PETRONIUS,[7] in his Satyricon, page 207, and LUCRETIUS,[8] in his de Rerum Natura, in the beginning of book III, page 289, fear first made the Gods in the world.  Indeed,

              …(Epicurus) the glory of the Greek race,

              …inventor of things,…

              …as soon as he began to vociferate with reason,

              That the nature of things did not spring from a divine mind:

              The terrors of soul dispersed:  …Not any

              Thing strips away the peace of the soul at any time.

Compare STAPFER, in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter VI, § 18, 19, 219, who to this Objection, as if the notion of God and all Theology and Religion was a figment of fevered men the better to secure unmanageable commoners in their duty, goes against many, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter VI, § 220-265.  Thomas Hobbes fetched the seeds and principia of Religion from these four causes; from fear ignorant of invisible spirits, which he denies to exist; from ignorance of second causes; from an unhealthy worship of those things which we imprudently fear; from an interpretation of fortuitous accidents, as having something divine and προγνωστικὸν/prognostic, Leviathan, chapter XII, page 57; against whom concerning this matter, and what things more he profanely blurts out concerning Religion out of the thought of Machiavelli,[9] COCQUIUS disputes in his Hobbesianismi Anatome, locus 1, chapter 11, pages 11-14.  Elsewhere Hobbes contends that the existence of God is not able to be known by most men, as no one of the common people was able to discover (what Archimedes[10] discovered) what proportion a sphere has to a cylinder:  and so, even if it could be known to some by the light of reason that God exists; yet men, continually occupied in seeking pleasures, or riches, or honors; likewise men that are not wont, or are not capable, or do not take care, to reason rightly, that is, that are foolish, in which number are the Atheists, are not able to know it:  to which things compare COCQUIUS’ Hobbesianismi Anatomen, locus VI, chapter XII, pages 103-109.  Just how man, by his nature considered absolutely, morally independent from God, and God from man, is compelled by the superior and irresistible power of God unto such Worship of Him, according to Hobbes, the Most Illustrious VAN DE WYNPERSSE,[11] in his Dissertatione de Libertinismo, pages 30-32, shows in more particulars.  Concerning that absurd and impious System of Hobbes see also LELAND’S Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, chapter 3, pages 61-73.  

              But, 1.  The absolutely universal extension of this Consensus upon Theology is objected:  but to that extent neither the tradition of parents, nor the authority of Rulers, is ever able to be conceived of as efficacious, to excite in the souls of all a universal Consensus of this sort, which as immutably implanted in the same remains fixed.  2.  It is one thing for parents to go before their children in false worship of Deity, with these footsteps of the ancestors treading on without reluctance; when they are evidently of their own accord inclined by nature to Theology:  it is another thing to stir up this inclination in them for the first time, with no Deity existing in the nature of things, with the reverence of which we might be touched of our own accord.  Likewise, it is one thing to make use of Religion and the sense of the Divine to compel people to obey and to secure them in duty:  but it is another thing to impose for the first time such a persuasion of the Divine, although false, on people.  The former is able to obtain, and has often obtained; but this very thing confirms that Theology has truly been given, because it supposes and reveals the spontaneous inclination of man unto the acknowledgement and worship of the Divine.  3.  Otherwise a twofold disposition in depraved man would oppose this obedience to the Traditions of the ancestors, and the success of the Deceits of Politicians; namely, Pride, by which man most avidly desires to be the supreme lord of himself and his own actions; and the natural Fear of Deity, by which he does not feel all things to be lawful to him, which things are indeed pleasing:  and hence, unless the natural dictate of the Heart hinder, man would be prone to cast away all sense and reverence of the Divine:  certainly that creature of glory would not easily suffer itself to be induced to prostrate itself before the most lowly animals and productions of the earth:  see TRIGLAND’S[12] Orationem de Utilitate Religionis in Republica, after the Syllogen Dissertationum, pages 54-56; CALVIN’S Institutiones Christianæ Religionis, book I, chapter III, where you read, “And furthermore idolatry is an ample demonstration of this idea.  For we know how unwillingly man casts himself down, that he might admire other creatures above himself.  Hence, since he prefers rather to worship wood and stone than to be thought to have no God, it is evident that that impression of deity is very powerful, which is so difficult to obliterate from the mind of man that it would be easier for the disposition of his nature to be broken:  as it is certainly broken, when man willingly descends from that natural inflation to whatever infirmities, that he might revere God.”  4.  Although political Cunning is to be acknowledged in established Paganism and Mohammadanism, it is impossible for true Christianity to owe its origin to the deceits of Politicians:  for nothing is more adverse to the pride of impious Politicians, desiring to govern all things according to their pleasure, than that precept in Acts 5:29, Πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ Θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀνθρώποις, we ought to obey God rather than men, and in Luke 12:4, 5, λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν τοῖς φίλοις μου, Μὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶμα, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα μὴ ἐχόντων περισσότερόν τι ποιῆσαι.  Ὑποδείξω δὲ ὑμῖν τίνα φοβηθῆτε· φοβήθητε τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντα ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν γέενναν·  ναί, λέγω ὑμῖν, τοῦτον φοβήθητε, And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do:  But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear:  Fear Him, which after He hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him.  Indeed, unless this Religion came from God Himself, truly Existing, it would have been exterminated a long time ago by the power of Politicians, frequently persecuting and being eager to annihilate Christians:  which is the pious observation, suited to our use, of the Eminent NIEUWENTYT,[13] Cosmotheoria, chapter XXI, § 43, pages 490, 491.  5.  The opinion of Hobbes, insofar as he traces the Worship and veneration of God from the fear of a superior Power only, is exceedingly injurious to God, inasmuch as he, depriving Him of the natural right of requiring worship, and actually turning it into Tyranny, also destroys the true character of Religion, which men, only when compelled by force and fear, will observe; indeed which they will easily abjure again, thinking that God according to His own right is able to punish even His pious worshippers, indeed actually to dispense evils to good men:  see VAN DE WYNPERSSE, in his Dissertatione de Libertinismo, pages 32-35.  6.  While it is a well-worn saying of the Atheists that Fear made God, this saying is rather to be converted and expressed, in the souls of profane men Fear makes a non-God; while the Fear of a just Deity deserves to be held as the proximate cause of Atheism or Scepticism; see STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter VI, § 36-41; likewise of Deism, which indeed does not altogether deny the existence of Deity, but the providence of the same, the dependence of man upon God, and hence dismisses all Religion, both natural and revealed:  see STAPFER, in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter VII, § 13-21, who asserts the same concerning Epicureanism, chapter VIII, § 10-12.  And when Epicurus says that fear first made the Gods in the world, one may reply to him, And who made Fear?  Does it not prove God and His existence?  This of Epicurus himself and of other Atheists is shown by example from an Anonymous author in Dissertatione pro Legato Stolpiano, on the question de pretio Consensus communis generis humani pro adferenda Numinis Existentia, pages 159-162.

Against the Atheists, willing that the opinion concerning the Existence and Worship of God be referred among errors and prejudiced opinion, see also those disputing, for example, BUDDEUS, in his de Atheismo et Superstitione, and LULOFS, in his Annotationibus ad eum caput VI, § 9, page 378-385.

[1] Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768) was a German Enlightenment philosopher and Deist.  He was an advocate for a pure, natural religion, as opposed to revealed religion; and he stimulated some of the investigation into the historical Jesus.

[2] 1 Timothy 6:15.

[3] Lucius Annæus Seneca (c. 4 BC-65 AD) was a Roman philosopher and dramatist.

[4] Ovid’s Metamorphoses VII, 20.

[5] Johannes Lulofs (1711-1768) was a Dutch astronomer, mathematician, and physicist. 

[6] The Epicureans were atomic materialists, denying divine intervention in the material realm.

[7] Gaius Petronius Arbiter (c. 27-66 AD) was a Roman courtier, and fashion adviser to Nero.  Although there is some doubt about the authorship of Satyricon, a medieval manuscript attributes it to one Titus Petronius.

[8] Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 99-c. 55 BC) was a Roman poet and Epicurean philosopher.

[9] Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469-1527) was an Italian humanist, historian, and political philosopher.  He believed Religion to be man-made, useful for the ordering of society, but dispensable if required for security.

[10] Archimedes of Syracuse (c. 287-c. 212 BC) was a Greek mathematician and engineer.  He esteemed his proof that a sphere has two thirds of the volume and surface area of a cylinder as his greatest mathematical achievement.

[11] Dionysius van de Wynpersse (1724-1808) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian and Philosopher, Professor of Logic, Physics, and Metaphysics at Groningen (1752-1769).

[12] Jacobus Trigland the Younger (1652-1705) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian.  Beginning in 1686, he served as Professor of Theology at Leiden.

[13] Bernard Nieuwentyt (1654-1718) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and Cartesian philosopher.