three dialogues-第12章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


use　and　order？　Were　those　（miscalled　）　globes　once　known
to　stray；　in　their　repeated　journeys　through　the　pathless　void？
Do　they　not　measure　areas　round　the　sun　ever　proportioned　to　the
times？　So　fixed；　so　immutable　are　the　laws　by　which　the　unseen
Author　of　nature　actuates　the　universe。　｛211｝　How　vivid　and
radiant　is　the　lustre　of　the　fixed　stars！　How　magnificent　and
rich　that　negligent　profusion　with　which　they　appear　to　be
scattered　throughout　the　whole　azure　vault！　Yet；　if　you　take　the
telescope；　it　brings　into　your　sight　a　new　host　of　stars　that
escape　the　naked　eye。　Here　they　seem　contiguous　and　minute；　but
to　a　nearer　view　immense　orbs　of　fight　at　various　distances；　far
sunk　in　the　abyss　of　space。　Now　you　must　call　imagination　to　your
aid。　The　feeble　narrow　sense　cannot　descry　innumerable　worlds
revolving　round　the　central　fires；　and　in　those　worlds　the　energy
of　an　all…perfect　Mind　displayed　in　endless　forms。　But；　neither
sense　nor　imagination　are　big　enough　to　comprehend　the　boundless
extent；　with　all　its　glittering　furniture。　Though　the　labouring
mind　exert　and　strain　each　power　to　its　utmost　reach；　there　still
stands　out　ungrasped　a　surplusage　immeasurable。　Yet　all　the　vast
bodies　that　compose　this　mighty　frame；　how　distant　and　remote
soever；　are　by　some　secret　mechanism；　some　Divine　art　and　force；
linked　in　a　mutual　dependence　and　intercourse　with　each　other；
even　with　this　earth；　which　was　almost　slipt　from　my　thoughts　and
lost　in　the　crowd　of　worlds。　Is　not　the　whole　system　immense；
beautiful；　glorious　beyond　expression　and　beyond　thought！　What
treatment；　then；　do　those　philosophers　deserve；　who　would　deprive
these　noble　and　delightful　scenes　of　all　？　How　should
those　Principles　be　entertained　that　lead　us　to　think　all　the
visible　beauty　of　the　creation　a　false　imaginary　glare？　To　be
plain；　can　you　expect　this　Scepticism　of　yours　will　not　be
thought　extravagantly　absurd　by　all　men　of　sense？

　　　　　。　Other　men　may　think　as　they　please；　but　for　your　part
you　have　nothing　to　reproach　me　with。　My　comfort　is；　you　are　as
much　a　sceptic　as　I　am。

　　　　　。　There；　Hylas；　I　must　beg　leave　to　differ　from　you。

　　　　　。　What！　Have　you　all　along　agreed　to　the　premises；　and
do　you　now　deny　the　conclusion；　and　leave　me　to　maintain　those
paradoxes　by　myself　which　you　led　me　into？　This　surely　is　not
fair。

　　　　　。　　deny　that　I　agreed　with　you　in　those　notions
that　led　to　Scepticism。　You　indeed　said　the　　of　sensible
things　consisted　in　；　or　distinct　from　their　being　perceived。　And　pursuant　to
this　notion　of　reality；　　are　obliged　to　deny　sensible　things
any　｛212｝　real　existence：　that　is；　according　to　your　own
definition；　you　profess　yourself　a　sceptic。　But　I　neither　said
nor　thought　the　reality　of　sensible　things　was　to　be　defined
after　that　manner。　To　me　it　is　evident　for　the　reasons　you　allow
of；　that　sensible　things　cannot　exist　otherwise　than　in　a　mind　or
spirit。　Whence　I　conclude；　not　that　they　have　no　real　existence；
but　that。；　seeing　they　depend　not　on　my　thought；　and　have　all
existence　distinct　from　being　perceived　by　me；　。　As　sure；　therefore；　as　the
sensible　world　really　exists；　so　sure　is　there　an　infinite
omnipresent　Spirit　who　contains　and　supports　it。

　　　　　。　What！　This　is　no　more　than　I　and　all　Christians　hold；
nay；　and　all　others　too　who　believe　there　is　a　God；　and　that　He
knows　and　comprehends　all　things。

　　　　　。　Aye；　but　here　lies　the　difference。　Men　commonly
believe　that　all　things　are　known　or　perceived　by　God；　because
they　believe　the　being　of　a　God；　whereas　I；　on　the　other　side；
immediately　and　necessarily　conclude　the　being　of　a　God；　because
all　sensible　things　must　be　perceived　by　Him。

　　　　　。　But；　so　long　as　we　all　believe　the　same　thing；　what
matter　is　it　how　we　come　by　that　belief？

　　　　　。　But　neither　do　we　agree　in　the　same　opinion。　For
philosophers；　though　they　acknowledge　all　corporeal　beings　to　be
perceived　by　God；　yet　they　attribute　to　them　an　absolute
subsistence　distinct　from　their　being　perceived　by　any　mind
whatever；　which　I　do　not。　Besides；　is　there　no　difference　between
saying；　；　；
and　saying；　；　；　；　：　？　This
furnishes　you　with　a　direct　and　immediate　demonstration；　from　a
most　evident　principle；　of　the　。　Divines　and
philosophers　had　proved　beyond　all　controversy；　from　the　beauty
and　usefulness　of　the　several　parts　of　the　creation；　that　it　was
the　workmanship　of　God。　But　that　　setting　aside　all　help　of
astronomy　and　natural　philosophy；　all　contemplation　of　the
contrivance；　order；　and　adjustment　of　things　　an　infinite　Mind
should　be　necessarily　inferred　from　the　bare　；　is　an　advantage　to　them　only　who　have　made　this
easy　reflexion：　that　the　sensible　world　is　that　which　we　perceive
by　our　several　senses；　and　that　nothing　is　perceived　by　the
senses　beside　ideas；　and　that　no　｛213｝　idea　or　archetype　of　an
idea　can　exist　otherwise　than　in　a　mind。　You　may　now；　without　any
laborious　search　into　the　sciences；　without　any　subtlety　of
reason；　or　tedious　length　of　discourse；　oppose　and　baffle　the
most　strenuous　advocate　for　Atheism。　Those　miserable　refuges；
whether　in　an　eternal　succession　of　unthinking　causes　and
effects；　or　in　a　fortuitous　concourse　of　atoms；　those　wild
imaginations　of　Vanini；　Hobbes；　and　Spinoza：　in　a　word；　the　whole
system　of　Atheism；　is　it　not　entirely　overthrown；　by　this　single
reflexion　on　the　repugnancy　included　in　supposing　the　whole；　or
any　part；　even　the　most　rude　and　shapeless；　of　the　visible　world；
to　exist　without　a　mind？　Let　any　one　of　those　abettors　of　impiety
but　look　into　his　own　thoughts；　and　there　try　if　he　can　conceive
how　so　much　as　a　rock；　a　desert；　a　chaos；　or　confused　jumble　of
atoms；　how　anything　at　all；　either　sensible　or　imaginable；　can
exist　independent　of　a　Mind；　and　he　need　go　no　farther　to　be
convinced　of　his　folly。　Can　anything　be　fairer　than　to　put　a
dispute　on　such　an　issue；　and　leave　it　to　a　man　himself　to　see　if
he　can　conceive；　even　in　thought；　what　he　holds　to　be　true　in
fact；　and　from　a　notional　to　allow　it　a　real　existence？

　　　　　。　It　cannot　be　denied　there　is　something　highly
serviceable　to　religion　in　what　you　advance。　But　do　you　not　think
it　looks　very　like　a　notion　entertained　by　some　eminent　moderns；
of　？

　　　　　。　I　would　gladly　know　that　opinion：　pray　explain　it　to
me。

　　　　　。　They　conceive　that　the　soul；　being　immaterial；　is
incapable　of　being　united　with　material　things；　so　as　to　perceive
them　in　themselves；　but　that　she　perceives　them　by　her　union　with
the　substance　of　God；　which；　being　spiritual；　is　therefore　purely
intelligible；　or　capable　of　being　the　immediate　object　of　a
spirit's　thought。　Besides　the　Divine　essence　contains　in　it
perfections　correspondent　to　each　created　being；　and　which　are；
for　that　reason；　proper　to　exhibit　or　represent　them　to　the　mind。

　　　　　。　I　do　not　understand　how　our　ideas；　which　are　things
altogether　passive　and　inert；　can　be　the　essence；　or　any　part　（or
like　any　part）　of　the　essence　or　substance　of　God；　who　is　an
｛214｝　impassive；　indivisible；　pure；　active　being。　Many　more
difficulties　and　objections　there　are　which　occur　at　first　view
against　this　hypothesis；　but　I　shall　only　add　that　it　is　liable
to　all　the　absurdities　of　the　common　hypothesis；　in　making　a
created　world　exist　otherwise　than　in　the　mind　of　a　Spirit。
Besides　all　which　it　hath　this　peculiar　to　itself；　that　it　makes
that　material　world　serve　to　no　purpose。　And；　if　it　pass　for　a
good　argument　against　other　hypotheses　in　the　sciences；　that　they
suppose　Nature；　or　the　Divine　wisdom；　to　make　something　in　vain；
or　do　that　by　tedious　roundabout　methods　which　might　have　been
performed　in　a　much　more　easy　and　compendious　way；　what　shall　we
think　of　that