be any thing, or if there be nothing; if whether we know, or do not know; which Metrodorus Chius denied that Man was able to determine: Or whether we live, as Euripides doubts, whether the Life we live is Life, or whether that be not Life, which we call Death. Τίς δ ̓ οἶδεν εἰ ζῆν τὸθ ὃ κεκλη]αὶ θανεῖν, Τὸ ζῆν δὲ θνήσκειν ἔσι Ρ. i. e. Who knows if Life been't that which we call Death, And not without fome Appearance. For why do we from 'denied. there Plato in his Gorgias, p. 300, Diog. Laert. in the Life of Pyrrho, lib. ix, fect. 73, and Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hypot. lib. iii. c. 24, quote thefe Verfes differently from themselves, and what they are here; and yet there is no real Difference in the Senfe. Diog. Laert. in the Life of Meliffus, lib. ix. fect. 24. * Diog. Laert, in the Life of Protagoras, lib, ix. fect. 51. Were I to believe Protagoras, fays Seneca, there is nothing in the Nature of Things but what is doubtful, Ep. 88. This muft certainly be a Miftake of the Prefs, for Naufiphanes, who was a Difciple and Follower of Pyrrho, as fuch muft maintain, that there was nothing certain but Uncertainty; and this is what Montaigne would undoubt edly there is nothing certain but Uncertainty. u Parmenides, that, of that which feems, there is no one Thing in general; that there is but one Thing. Zeno, that one even is not; and that there is nothing. If there were one Thing, it would either be in another, or in itself. If it be in another, they are two: If it be in itself, they are yet two; the comprehending and the comprehended. According to thefe Doctrines, the Nature of Things is no other than a Shadow, either falfe or vain. The Divine Power ought not to be fubject to the Rules of our Speech. For a Chriftian to talk after this Manner I always thought it very indiscreet and irreverent, God cannot die; God cannot contradict himself; God cannot do this, or that. I do not like to have the Divine Power fo limited by the Rules of our Speech. And the Appearance which presents itself to us in thefe Propofitions, ought to be reprefented more religiously and reverently. Human Language very defective. Our Speech has its Failings and Defects, as well as all the reft. Grammar is that which creates moft Disturbance in the World. Our Suits only spring from the Debate of the Interpretation of Laws: And moft Wars proceed from the Inability of Minifters clearly to express the Conventions and Treaties of Princes. How many Quarrels, and of how great Importance, has the Doubt of the Meaning of this Syllable Hoc created in the World? Let 6 us edly have us here understand, according to the Report of Seneca, who fays exprefly, Were I to believe Naufiphanes, the only one thing certain is, that ⚫ there is nothing certain.' Ep. 88. • Unum effe omnia. This Opinion which Cicero, in Quæft. Acad. lib. iv. C. 37, attributes to Xenophanes, was alfo that of Parmenides, a Difciple of Xenophanes, if we may believe Ariftotle, who fays, lib. i. Metaphyf. c. 5, That Parmenides really believed there was but one fingle Being, but that to ferve Appearances he admitted of two Principles, Heat and Cold. I have this laft Quotation from the Tranflator of Cic. de Natura Deorum, Tom. iii. p. 276. Were I to believe Parmenides, fays Seneca, Ep. 88, there is nothing but one Thing. And probably from hence it was that Montaigne took what he tells us here of Parmenides. "This Zeno must be the Zeno of Eleus, the Difciple of Parmenides. The Pyrrhonians reckoned him one of their Sect. Diog. Laert. in the Life of Pyrrho, lib. ix. fect. 72. Montaigne here has alfo copied Seneca, Ep. 88. where after thefe Words, Were I to believe Parmenides, there is nothing befides one, he adds immediately, If, Zeno, there is not so much as one. The Pyrrhonians at a Lofs for Words capable of repreOpinion. Jenting their us admit the Conclufion that Logic itself prefents us with to be the cleareft. If you fay, It is fair Weather, and that you fay true, it is then fair Weather. Is not this a very certain Form of fpeaking? And yet it will deceive us: That it will do fo, let us follow the Example. If you fay, You lye, and that you fay true, then you do lye. The Art, the Reason, and Force of the Conclufion of this, are like to the other, and yet we are gravelled. The Pyrrhonian Philofophers, I difcern, cannot express their general Conception in any manner. For they abfolutely require a new Language on purpose. Ours is all formed of affirmative Propofitions, which are totally against them. Infomuch that when they fay, I doubt, they are presently taken by the Throat, to make them confefs, that at least they know and are affured that they do doubt. By which Means they have been compelled to shelter themselves under this medicinal Comparison, without which, their Humour would be inexplicable. When they pronounce, I know not; or, I doubt; they fay, that this Propofition carries off itself, with the rest, not more, nor less than Rhubarb ", that drives out the ill Humours, and carries itself off with them. This Fancy is better conceived by the Interrogation: What do I know? (as I bear it in the Emblem of a Balance *.) See what Use they make of this irreverent Way of fpeaking. In the prefent Difputes about our Religion, if you prefs its Adverfaries too hard, they will roundly tell you, that it is not in the Power of God to make it fo, that his Body fhould be in Paradife and upon Earth, and in feveral Places at once. And fee what Advantage the ancient Scoffer made of this. However, fays he, it is no little Confolation to Man to fee that God cannot do all Things: For he cannot kill himfelf, if he would: Which is the greatest Privilege we have This is exactly the Comparison which the Pyrrhonians were accustomed to make use of. * This appears in Montaigne's Picture, which is the Frontifpiece of the First Volume of thefe Effays. › This refers to what is faid in the preceding Page, That God cannot do this or that. Book II. have in fuch a painful Life: He cannot make Mortals immortal, nor bring to Life again the Dead: Nor make it fo, that he who has lived, has not; nor that he, who has had Honours, has not had them, having no other Right to the paft, than that of Oblivion . And, that this Comparison of a Man to God may alfo be made out by pleasant Examples, he cannot order it fo, he says, that twice ten fhall not be twenty. This is what he fays, and what a Chriftian ought to take heed of letting fall from his Lips. Whereas, on the contrary, it seems as if some Men ftudied fuch mad impudent Language, to reduce God to their own Measure. Cras vel atrá Nube polum pater occupato, Quod fugiens femel bora vexit". i. e. To-morrow, let it fhine or rain, That which was Yesterday enjoy'd ". When we fay, that the Infinity of Ages, as well past as to come, are but one Inftant with God: That his Bounty, Wisdom, and Power are the fame with his Effence our Mouths fpeak it, but our Understandings apprehend it not: And yet fuch is our vain Opinion of ourselves, that we must make the Divinity to pass thro' our Sieve; and from thence proceed all the Dreams and Errors with which the World is poffeffed, whilft we reduce and weigh in our Balance a Thing fo far above our Poise. Mirum quò procedat improbitas cordis humani, parvulo aliquo invitata fucceffu. 'Tis a Wonder to what a Length the Pride of Man's Heart will proceed, if encouraged with the least Succefs. How infolently is Epicurus reproved by the Stoics, z Plin. Nat. Hift. lib. ii. c. 7. v. 43, &c. b Sir Richard Fanshaw. 2 Horat. Carm. lib. iii. Od. 29. c Plin. Nat. Hift. lib. ii. c. 23. They deny it, and yet actual do it. Stoics, for his maintaining, that to be truly Good and Happy appertained only to God, and that the Wife Man had nothing but a Shadow and Refemblance of it? How presumptuously have they bound God by Destiny, (a Thing, that, by my Confent, none, that bears the Name of a Chriftian, fhould ever do again) and both Thales, Plato, and Pythagoras, have fubjected him to Neceffity. This Arrogancy of attempting to discover God, with our Eyes, has been the Caufe, that an eminent Perfon, of our Nation, has attributed to the Divinity a corporeal Form; and is the Reason, of what happens among us every Day, of attributing to God important Events, by a particu lar Appointment: Because they fway with us, they conclude, that they alfo fway with him, and that he has a more intire and vigilant Regard to them than to others of less Moment, or of ordinary Course. Magna Dii curant, parva negligunt. The Gods are concerned in great Matters, but flight the small. Observe his Example, he will clear this to you by his Argument: Nec in regnis quidem Reges omnia curant. Neither, indeed, do Kings, in their Administration, take Notice of all the minute Affairs. As if to that King of Kings it were more and less to subvert a Kingdom, or to move the Leaf of a Tree: Or as if his Providence acted after another manner in inclining the Event of a Battle, than in the Leap of a Flea. The Hand of his Government is laid upon every Thing, after the fame manner, with the fame Tenor, Power, and Order: Our Intereft does nothing towards it; our Inclinations and Measures fway nothing with him. Deus ita artifex magnus in magnis, ut minor non fit in parvis. God is fo great an Artificer in great Things, that he is no lefs in the leaft. Our Arrogancy fets this blafphemous Comparison ever before us: Because our Employments are a Burden to us, Strato has presented the Gods with a Freedom from all Offices, as their Priests have. He makes Nature produce and fupport all Things, and with her Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. i. c. 66. et lib. iii. c. 35. de Civitate Dei, lib. xi. c. 22. © St. Augufäine Weights |