I had rather believe all the fables in the legends,[183] and the
Talmud,[184] and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is
without a mind; and, therefore, God never wrought miracle to convince
atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a
little philosophy[185] inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in
philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind
of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest
in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them
confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and
Deity. Nay, even that school which is most accused of atheism, doth
most demonstrate religion: that is, the school of Leucippus,[186] and
Democritus,[187] and Epicurus; for it is a thousand times more credible
that four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence,[188] duly
and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small
portions, or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty
without a divine marshal. The Scripture saith, “The fool hath said
in his heart, there is no God;”[189] it is not said, “The fool hath
thought in his heart;” so as he rather saith it by rote to himself,
as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be
persuaded of it; for none deny there is a God, but those for whom it
maketh[190] that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that
atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this,
that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they
fainted in it within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened
by the consent of others; nay more, you shall have atheists strive
to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects; and, which is most
of all, you shall have of them that will suffer for atheism, and not
recant; whereas, if they did truly think that there were no such thing
as God, why should they trouble themselves? Epicurus is charged, that
he did but dissemble for his credit’s sake, when he affirmed there
were blessed natures, but such as enjoyed themselves without having
respect to the government of the world. Wherein they say he did
temporize, though in secret he thought there was no God; but certainly
he is traduced, for his words are noble and divine: “Non Deos vulgi
negare profanum; sed vulgi opiniones Diis applicare profanum.”[191]
Plato could have said no more; and, although he had the confidence to
deny the administration, he had not the power to deny the nature. The
Indians[192] of the west have names for their particular gods, though
they have no name for God; as if the heathens should have had the names
Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, &c., but not the word Deus, which shows that
even those barbarous people have the notion, though they have not the
latitude and extent of it; so that against atheists the very savages
take part with the very subtlest philosophers. The contemplative
atheist is rare; a Diagoras,[193] a Bion,[194] a Lucian,[195] perhaps,
and some others, and yet they seem to be more than they are; for
that all that impugn a received religion, or superstition, are, by
the adverse part, branded with the name of atheists. But the great
atheists indeed are hypocrites, which are ever handling holy things,
but without feeling, so as they must needs be cauterized in the end.
The causes of atheism are: divisions in religion, if they be many; for
any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions
introduce atheism. Another is, scandal of priests, when it is come
to that which St. Bernard saith: “Non est jam dicere, ut populus,
sic sacerdos; quia nec sic populus, ut sacerdos.”[196] A third is,
custom of profane scoffing in holy matters, which doth by little and
little deface the reverence of religion: and lastly, learned times,
specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do
more bow men’s minds to religion. They that deny a God destroy a man’s
nobility, for certainly man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and
if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble
creature. It destroys likewise magnanimity, and the raising of human
nature; for, take an example of a dog, and mark what a generosity and
courage he will put on when he finds himself maintained by a man, who,
to him, is instead of a God, or “melior natura;”[197] which courage is
manifestly such as that creature, without that confidence of a better
nature than his own, could never attain. So man, when he resteth and
assureth himself upon divine protection and favor, gathereth a force
and faith, which human nature in itself could not obtain; therefore,
as atheism is in all respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth
human nature of the means to exalt itself above human frailty. As it
is in particular persons, so it is in nations: never was there such a
state for magnanimity as Rome. Of this state hear what Cicero saith:
“Quam volumus, licet, Patres conscripti, nos amemus, tamen nec numero
Hispanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Pœnos, nec artibus
Græcos, nec denique hoc ipso hujus gentis et terræ domestico nativoque
sensu Italos ipsos et Latinos; sed pietate, ac religione, atque hâc
unâ sapientiâ, quod Deorum immortalium numine omnia regi, gubernarique
perspeximus, omnes gentes, nationesque superavimus.”[198]