Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

convenience of thinking that one knows something. I find that the eyes which nature has given me, see many things very clearly, though some are out of their reach, or disceraed but dimly. What opinion ought I to bave of a physician, who should offer me an eye-water, the use of which would at first so sharpen my sight, as to carry it farther than ordinary vision; bat would in the end put them out ? Your philosophy is to the eyes of the mind, what I have supposed the doctor's nostrum to be to those of the body. It actually brought your own excellent understanding, which was by nature quicksighted, and rendered more so by art and a subtilty of logic peculiar to yourself—it brought, I say, your very acute understanding to see nothing clearly; and enveloped all the great truths of reason and religion io mists of doubt.

Bayle. I own it did ;-but your comparison is not just - I did not see well, before I used my philosophic eye-water:I only supposed I'saw well; but I was in an error, with all the rest of mankind. The blindness was real the perceptions were imaginary. I cured myself first of those false imaginations, and then I laudably endeavoured to cure other men.

Locke. A great cure indeed !-- and do not you think that in return for the service you did them, they ought to erect

you a statue ?

Bayle. Yes; it is good for human nature to know its own weakness. When we arrogantly presume on a strength we have not, we are always in great danger of burting our selves, or at least of deserving ridicule and contempt, by vain and idle efforts.

Locke. I agree with you, that human nature should know its own weakness;

but it should also feel its strength, and try to improve it. This was my employment as a philosopher. I endeavoured to discover the real powers of the mind, to see what it could do, and what it could not; to restrain it from efforts beyond its ability ; but to teach it how to advance as far as the faculties given to it by pature, with the utmost exertion and most proper culture of them, would allow

In the vast ocean of philosophy, I had the line and the plummet always in my hands. Many of its depths I found myself unable to fathom; but, by caution in sounding, and the careful observations I made in the course of my voyage, I found out some truths of so much use to markind, that they acknowledge me to have been their benefactor.

Bayle. Their ignorance makes them think so. Some other philosopher will come hereafter and show those truths to be

it to go

falsehoods. He will pretend to discover other truths of equal importance. A later sage will arise, perhaps among men Bow barbarous and unlearned, whose sagacious discoveries will discredit the opinions of his admired predecessor. In phi

losophy, as in nature, all changes its form, and one thing I exists by the destruction of another.

Locke. Opinions taken up without a patient investigation, depending on terms not accurately defined, and principles beggedwithout proof,like theories to explain the phænomena of nature, built on suppositions instead of experiments, must perpetually change and destroy one another. But some opin. iops there are, even in matters not obvious to the common sense of mankind, wbich the mind has received on such ra. tional grounds of assent, that they are as immovable as the pillars of heaven; or"(to speak philosophically) as the great laws of Nature; by which, under God, the universe is sus. tained. Can you seriously think, that,because the hypothesis of your countryman Descartet, which was nothing but an ingenious, well-imagined romance, has been lately exploded, the system of Newton, which is built on experiments and geometry, the two most certain methods of discovering truth, will ever fail; or that, because the whims of fanatics and the divinity of the schoolmen, cannot now be support. ed, the doctrines of that religion, which I, the declared enemy of all enthusiasm and false reasoning, firmly believe ed and maintained, will ever be shaken ?

Bayle. If you bad asked Descartes, while he was in the height of bis vogue, whether bis system would ever be confuted by any other philosopbers,as that of Aristotle bad been by his, what answer do you suppose he would bave returned?

Locke. Come, come, you yourself know the difference between the foundations on which the credit of those systems, and that of Newton is placed. Your scepticism is more affected than real, You found it a shorter way to a great reputation, (the only wish of your heart,) to object, than to defend ; to pull down, than to set up. And your talents were admirable for that kind of work. Then your buddling together in a Critical Dictiopary, a pleasant tale, or obscene jest, and a grave argument against the Christian religion, a witty confutation of some absurd author and an artful sophism to impeach some respectable truth, was particularly commo. dious to all our young smarts and smatterers in free-thinking. But what mischief bave you not done to human society? You have endeavoured, and with some degree of success to

sbake those foundations, on which the whole moral world, and the great fabric of social happiness, 'entirely rest. How could yon, as a philosopher, in the sober hours of reflection, answer for this to your conscience, even supposing you had doubts of the truth of a system, wbich gives to virtue its sweetest hopes, to impenitent vice its greatest fears, and to true penitence its best consolations; wbich restrains even the least approaches to guilt, and yet makes those allowances for the infirmities of our nature, which the Stoic pride denied to it, but which its real imperfection, and the goodness of its infinitely benevolent Creator, so evidently require ?

Bayle. The mind is free ; and it loves to exert its freedom. Any restraint upon it is a violence done to its nature, and a tyranny, against which it has a right to rebel.

Locke. The mind, though free, ha• a governor within ito self, which may and onght io limit the exercise of its freer dom. That governor is reason.

Bayle. Yes:--but reason, like other governors, has a por licy more dependent upon vocertain caprice, than upon any fixed laws. And if that reason,which rules my mind or yours, has happened to set up a favourite notion, it not only submits implicitly to it, bot desires that the same respect should be paid to it by all the rest of mankind, Now I hold that any man may lawfully oppose this desire in another; and that if he is wise, he will use his utmost endeavours to check it in himself.

Locke. Is there not also a weakness of a contrary nature to this you are now ridiculing ? Do we not often take a pleasure in showing our own power, and gratifying our own pride, by degrading the notions set up by other men, and generally respected ?

Bayle, I believe we do; and by this means it often happens, that, if one man builds and consecrates a temple to folly, another pulls it down.

Locke, Do you think it beneficial to human society, to have all temples pulled down?

Bayle. I cannot say that I do. Locke. Yet I find not in your writings any mark of distinction, to show us which you mean to save.

Bayle. A true philosopher, like an impartial historian, must be of nu sect,

Locke. Is there no medium between the blind zeal of a sectary, and a total indifference to all religion ?

Bayle. With regard to morality, I was not indifferent

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Locke. How could you then be indifferent with regard to the sanctions religion gives to morality? How could you publish what tends so directly and apparently to weaken in mankind the belief of those sanctions ? Was not this sacrificing the great interest of virtue to the little motives of vanity?

Bayle. A man may act indiscreetly, but he cannot do wrong, by declaring that, which, on a full discussion of the question, be sincerely thinks to be true.

Locke. An enthusiast, who advances doctrines prejudicial to society, or opposes, any that are useful to it, bas the strength of opinion, and the heat of a disturbed imagination, to plead in alleviation of his fault. But your cool bead and sound judgment, can have no such excuse.

I koow very well there are passages in all your works, and those not few, where you talk like a rigid moralist. I have also beard that your character was irreproachably good. But when, in the most laboured parts of your writings, you sap the surest foundations of all moral duties ; what avails it that in others, or in the conduct of your life, you appeared to respect them ? How many, who bave stronger passions than you had, and are desirous to get rid of the corb that restrains them, will lay hold of your scepticism, to set themselves loose from all obligations of virtue! What a misfortune is it to have made such a gse of such talents! It would have been better for you and for mankind, if you had been one of the dullest of Dutch theologians, or the most credulous monk in a Portuguese convent. The riches of the mind, like those of fortone, may be employed so perversely, as to become a nuisance and pest, instead of an ornament and support, to society.

Bayle. You are very severe upon me. But do you count it no merit, do service to mankind, to deliver them from the frauds and fetters of priestcraft, from the deliriums of fanaticism, and from the terrors and follies of superstition ? Consider how much mischief these have done to the world! Even in the last age, what massacres, what civil wars, what convulsions of government, wbat confusion in society, did they produce! Nay, in that we both lived in, though much more enligbtened than the former, did I not see tbem occasion a violeot persecution in my own country ? and can you blame me for striking at the root of these evils ?

Locke. The root of these evils, you well know, was false religion : but you struck at the true. Heaven and hell are not more different, than the system of faith I defended, and that which produced the horrors of which you speak. Why would you so fallaciously confound them together in some of your writings, that it requires much more judgment, and a more diligent attention, than ordinary readers have, to separate them again, and to make the proper distinctions ! This, indeed, is the great art of the most celebrated free. thinkers. They recommend themselves to warm and ingenious minds, by lively strokes of wit, and by arguments really strong, against superstition, enthusiasm, and priestcraft. But, at the same time, they insidiously throw the colors of these upon the fair face of true religion ; and dress ber out in their garb, with a malignant intention to render her odious or despicable, to those who have not penetration enough to discern the impious fraud. Some of them may have thus deceired themselves, as well as others. Yet it is certain, no book, tbat ever was written by the most acute of these gentlemen, is so repugnant to priestcraft, to spiritual tyranny, to all absurd superstitions, to all that can tend to disturb or injure society, as that gospel they so much affect to despise.

Bay. Mapkiod are so made, that, when they have been over-heated, they cannot be brought to a proper temper again, till they have been over-cooled. My scepticism might be necessary, to abate the fever and phrenzy of false religion.

Locke. A wise prescription, indeed, to bring on a paralytical state of the mind, (for such a scepticism as yours is a palsy, which deprives the mind of all vigour, and deadens its natural and vital powers,) in order to take off a fever, wbich temperance, and the milk of the evangelical doctrines, would probably cure !

Bayle I acknowledge that those medicines have a great power. But few doctors apply them untainted with the mixture of some harsher drugs, or some unsafe and ridiculous nostrums of their own.

Locke. What you now say is too true. God has given us a most excellent physic for the soul, in all its diseases ; but bad and interested physicians, or ignorant and conceited quacks, administer it so ill to the rest of mankind, that much of the benefit of it is up happily lost.

LORD LITTLETON.

« PredošláPokračovať »