多多读书

手机浏览器扫描二维码访问

第5部分（第1页）

definite　application；　or　displayed　in　its　bearing　on　the　grand　total　—　the　entire　course　of　human

history。　But　to　explain　History　is　to　depict　the　passions　of　mankind；　the　genius；　the　active　powers；

that　play　their　part　on　the　great　stage；　and　the　providentially　determined　process　which　these

exhibit；　constitutes　what　is　generally　called　the　“plan”　of　Providence。　Yet　it　is　this　very　plan　which

is　supposed　to　be　concealed　from　our　view：　which　it　is　deemed　presumption；　even　to　wish　to

recognise。　The　ignorance　of　Anaxagoras；　as　to　how　intelligence　reveals　itself　in　actual　existence；

was　ingenuous。　Neither　in　his　consciousness；　nor　in　that　of　Greece　at　large；　had　that　thought　been

further　expanded。　He　had　not　attained　the　power　to　apply　his　general　principle　to　the　concrete；　so

as　to　deduce　the　latter　from　the　former。　It　was　Socrates　who　took　the　first　step　in　prehending

the　union　of　the　Concrete　with　the　Universal。　Anaxagoras；　then；　did　not　take　up　a　hostile　position

towards　such　an　application。　The　mon　belief　in　Providence　does；　at　least　it　opposes　the　use　of

the　principle　on　the　large　scale；　and　denies　the　possibility　of　discerning　the　plan　of　Providence。　In

isolated　cases　this　plan　is　supposed　to　be　manifest。　Pious　persons　are　encouraged　to　recognise　in

particular　circumstances；　something　more　than　mere　chance；　to　acknowledge　the　guiding　hand　of

God；　e。g。　when　help　has　unexpectedly　e　to　an　individual　in　great　perplexity　and　need。　But

these　instances。　of　providential　design　are　of　a　limited　kind；　and　concern　the　acplishment　of

nothing　more　than　the　desires　of　the　individual　in　question。　But　in　the　history　of　the　World；　the

Individuals　we　have　to　do　with　are　Peoples；　Totalities　that　are　States。　We　cannot；　therefore；　be

satisfied　with　what　we　may　call　this　“peddling”　view　of　Providence；　to　which　the　belief　alluded　to

limits　itself。　Equally　unsatisfactory　is　the　merely　abstract；　undefined　belief　in　a　Providence；　when

that　belief　is　not　brought　to　bear　upon　the　details　of　the　process　which　it　conducts。　On　the　contrary

our　earnest　endeavour　must　be　directed　to　the　recognition　of　the　ways　of　Providence；　the　means　it

uses；　and　the　historical　phenomena　in　which　it　manifests　itself；　and　we　must　show　their　connection

with　the　general　principle　above　mentioned。　But　in　noticing　the　recognition　of　the　plan　of　Divine

Providence　generally；　I　have　implicitly　touched　upon　a　prominent　question　of　the　day；　viz。　that　of

the　possibility　of　knowing　God：　or　rather　—　since　public　opinion　has　ceased　to　allow　it　to　be　a

matter　of　question　—　the　doctrine　that　it　is　impossible　to　know　God。　In　direct　contravention　of

what　is　manded　in　holy　Scripture　as　the　highest　duty；　　—　that　we　should　not　merely　love；　but

know　God；　—　the　prevalent　dogma　involves　the　denial　of　what　is　there　said；　viz。　that　it　is　the　Spirit

（der　Geist）　that　leads　into　Truth；　knows　all　things；　perates　even　into　the　deep　things　of　the

Godhead。　While　the　Divine　Being　is　thus　placed　beyond　our　knowledge；　and　outside　the　limit　of　all