Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

religion, nor yet the wickedness of our minds, render it impoffible for us to difcover them, it must be owned there is no fuch impoffibility.

SECTION IV.

WHEN I wrote the foregoing fection, the

argument contained in which feems almoft demonftrative, I could fee no fhadow of an objection to the former part of it, from the discoveries men had made in the mathematics, where a long and abftrufe feries of reasoning was neceffary to come at a conclusion, to the poffibility of their making difcoveries in natural religion, of propofitions which require a fhorter series of reafoning to come at them.

I could fee no way of eluding the force of the argument, but either by fhewing that fuch propofitions in mathematics, &c. were not difcovered by unaffifted reafon; or elfe, that the first principles by which we come to the knowledge of the mathematics, &c. lie more obvious to human notice, than those by which we come to the knowledge of natural religion. The fhewing either of these propofitions true, would indeed be a fufficient anfwer to what I have alledged, but it will be no easy task to make good either of them.

However, as I would not willingly conceal any thing that tends to weaken my argument, I fhall here take notice of a paffage or two in the Doctor's book, where he argues from the weakness of our understandings, to fhew our inability of difcovering the fundamental articles of natural religion.

In order to fhew the impoffibility of mere reafon's discovering the immortality of fouls, he infifts on the improbability of its acquiring any

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

notion of their immateriality. "If, fays he, p. 84. now, after all the improvements man"kind has acquired, the most abftracted and " contemplative philofopher is not able to form any direct or immediate notion of the nature "and fubftance of a pure fpirit; how it exifts "independent of matter, or thinks and operates "in a separate state; if this is fo, how is it to "be imagined, that a man who never was train"ed to fpeculation, and therefore only goes up66 on the ideas he has by his fenfes, can ever

come to fufpect there are fuch beings really "exifting?" He goes on with a great deal more to the fame purpose, in order to fhew how hard it is for the mind of man to conceive a notion of a pure fpirit; and, to ftrengthen his argument, mentions feveral modern oppofers of the doctrine of the foul's immateriality, and raifes difficulties against it, capable of perverting an unwary reader, without taking any notice of the excellent folutions they have met with.

Not to remark, that it was little to his purpofe to argue on the difficulty of men, not accuftomed to fpeculation, acquiring an idea of immaterial fubftances, when he was enquiring into the abilities, not of the vulgar and illiterate, but of the greatest philofophic geniufes antient Greece or Rome ever produced: waving this, I fhall only obferve, that the whole of the above reafoning refts upon two fuppofitions, both of them equally false.

The firft is, that there was no other way for the antients to have discovered the foul's immortality, but by inferring it from the immateriality. This is fo far from truth, that there were feveral other propofitions capable of being dif

12

covered

covered by these philofophers, that demonftrate the immortality of the foul with the highest evidence, and, in a manner, much more eafy and natural, than that by which the immortality of the foul is inferred from its immateriality. Nay, not only right the foul's immortality be difcovered by perfons not fatisfied of what fort of fubftance it was, from arguments of a moral nature, but even fuch as fuppofed it material might have drawn, and, as I fhall afterwards fhew in the eighth fection, probably did draw a very plaufible argument for the foul's immortality, from that very hypothefis.

The other principle neceffary for the support of the Doctor's argument, is, that reafon can discover nothing without having a clear idea of the thing fo difcovered; for without this fuppofition, all the Doctor's reafoning will amount to nothing like a proof, that reason could not difcover the immateriality of the foul. But the abfurdities of fuch a supposition are too manifest to need being pointed out. Thus it would follow from it, that no pofitive or negative property of any quantity or number could be found out by any, but fuch as had diftinct notions of the faid quantities and numbers, with their faid properties and yet I would much fufpect the veracity of a mathematician, who fhould tell me, he was able to form a diftinct idea of all the quantities and numbers, of whofe properties he is able to demonftrate somewhat.

This will fufficiently obviate what the Doctor has advanced as to the difficulty of finding out the foul's immortality. In Sect. v. p. 180. & feqq. where he goes on to confider, in the fame manner, if the being of God might have been

discovered by mere reason, what he advances has ftill lefs appearance of reason. Indeed he fufficiently proves, that mankind would be apt to imagine the heavenly bodies, nay, every thing endued with motion, to be animated. But as to his thinking it equally natural for mankind, upon perceiving how much their intereft depends upon the heavenly bodies, to act in the fame manner towards them, in order to appease their anger, or engage their favour, as towards one another, and of confequence to kifs the hand to them, and pay them other marks of reverence and efteem, the cafe is different. For their feeing the celestial bodies equal and uniform in their motions, would make them believe, that their motions were not voluntary, but caufed by the power of God, or fome other being fuperior to them. And this would lead them, on the one hand, not to confider the celeftial bodies, as the beftowers of these bleffings they derived from their influences, and, on the other, excite their gratitude and thankfulness to that fuperior being, who had fo admirably contrived and directed every thing to promote their welfare and happinefs. Thus would the heavens have declared the glory of God, and the earth fhewn forth his handy work, even to those who imagined them animated by intelligent beings. And, in fact, we find feveral of the antients afferted the heavenly bodies to be animate, without ascribing divinity to them: nay, fo far as I know, Pythagoras, Plato, and Balbus in Cicero, were the only philofophers of character who afferted their divinity; whereas Thales, Ariftotle, Lucretius, amongst the antient philofophers, nay, even Maimonides a Jew, Origen and Tycho Brache, Chriftians,

Chriftians, and Herbert a Deift, were of opinion that they were animated bodies.

I know no other objection of moment against my reasoning in the foregoing fection, except one, which equally concerns this, and all other fpeculative arguments on fubjects of this nature; but I hope the Doctor will think it fufficiently obviated, by what I am to advance in a following fection, on the proper way of determining fuch questions.

I

SECTION V.

GO on now to confider what light fcripture may afford us in this controversy; and the firft paffage I fhall mention is the xixth pfalm. "The heavens," fays the Pfalmift, "declare the "glory of God, and the firmament theweth "forth his handy work," i. e. fuch marks of a wife and powerful efficient caufe appear in the celeftial bodies, as declare aloud to every perfon who does not fhut his ears against their voice, that God is their creator. I believe I might be excufed from taking notice of what fome writers alledge, in anfwer to the argument from this verse, viz. that the Pfalmift here fpeaks of the Jews, and that it is no wonder they, who were already acquainted with the divine exiftence, fhould be confirmed in that fentiment, by viewing the works of creation. I fhall acquiefce in this anfwer, when once it is proved, that the heavens are no where vifible but from the land of Judea, or that all, fave the Jews, are fo fhort-fighted, that they cannot difcern them. Mean while I fhall only obferve, that the Pfal

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinua »