Here, again, for
assurance, I must apply myself to experience; as far as that
reaches, I may have certain knowledge, but no further.
10. Experience may procure us convenience, not science. I deny not
but a man, accustomed to rational and regular experiments, shall be
able to see further into the nature of bodies and guess righter at
their yet unknown properties than one that is a stranger to them:
but yet, as I have said, this is but judgment and opinion, not
knowledge and certainty. This way of getting and improving our
knowledge in substances only by experience and history, which is all
that the weakness of our faculties in this state of mediocrity which
we are in in this world can attain to, makes me suspect that natural
philosophy is not capable of being made a science. We are able, I
imagine, to reach very little general knowledge concerning the species
of bodies and their several properties. Experiments and historical
observations we may have, from which we may draw advantages of ease
and health, and thereby increase our stock of conveniences for this
life; but beyond this I fear our talents reach not, nor are our
faculties, as I guess, able to advance.
11. We are fitted for moral science, but only for probable
interpretations of external nature. From whence it is obvious to
conclude that, since our faculties are not fitted to penetrate into
the internal fabric and real essences of bodies; but yet plainly
discover to us the being of a God and the knowledge of ourselves,
enough to lead us into a full and clear discovery of our duty and
great concernment; it will become us, as rational creatures, to employ
those faculties we have about what they are most adapted to, and
follow the direction of nature, where it seems to point us out the
way.
Pages:
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975