These
ideas are, perhaps, too far stretched; but still it must be
acknowledged, that, by representing the Deity as so intelligible
and comprehensible, and so similar to a human mind, we are guilty
of the grossest and most narrow partiality, and make ourselves
the model of the whole universe.
All the sentiments of the human mind, gratitude, resentment,
love, friendship, approbation, blame, pity, emulation, envy, have
a plain reference to the state and situation of man, and are
calculated for preserving the existence and promoting the
activity of such a being in such circumstances. It seems,
therefore, unreasonable to transfer such sentiments to a supreme
existence, or to suppose him actuated by them; and the phenomena
besides of the universe will not support us in such a theory. All
our ideas, derived from the senses, are confessedly false and
illusive; and cannot therefore be supposed to have place in a
supreme intelligence: And as the ideas of internal sentiment,
added to those of the external senses, compose the whole
furniture of human understanding, we may conclude, that none of
the materials of thought are in any respect similar in the human
and in the divine intelligence. Now, as to the manner of
thinking; how can we make any comparison between them, or suppose
them any wise resembling? Our thought is fluctuating, uncertain,
fleeting, successive, and compounded; and were we to remove these
circumstances, we absolutely annihilate its essence, and it would
in such a case be an abuse of terms to apply to it the name of
thought or reason.
Pages:
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78