On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
no ? i sit satis czstimare , parens melior homing an trisiiot noverca fuerit . Now I , like Pliny , by the word step-mother * meant only to denote a mother who treats her children with harshness * The contrast it was my intention to point out , is
that which subsists between a good and a bad parent . Well , Doctor , thanks to this explanation we thus far
understand your meaning ; but still we are at a loss to conceive why , on the supposition of there being no God , you represent as using us ill the very same nature which , on the contrary hypothesis , you no doubt consider as testifying the Divine
Benevolence towards us . You call God the author of nature , and you believe him to be good ; you must therefore believe nature , the production of his will , to be good also , since , if the producti <> fi were evil , it would be difficult to prove that its author is not so likewise . But whichever of the two be in the
right , the theist or the atheist , nature still remains the same ; nor can it be philosophical to complain of nature in the one case , and to return thanks for nature in the other . There is here , gentlemen , I confess , something that looks like a gordian knot , but I trust there is no occasion to cut it ;
with patient care it may be fairly untied . By nature we mean , all that comes under our inspection and within our experience , and nothing besides . Now the question is , whether this nature be a whole or only a part ? The atheist holds it to be the former—I believe it to be the latter . To shew my opinion to be right , and his to be wrong , belongs not to my present task ; all I have to do is to clear myself of the charge of inconsistency , and with this view I observe , that nature , were it a whole , might be evil , and yet if it be but a part , may be good . To judge fairly of any plan , we must be able to take the whole of it within our view . The first operatioa of a process may produce effects , which , should it be broken off there , would be widely different from those designed by the artist , but which , if
it be carried on to its completion , will be found to have been necessary to bring about the intended purpose . If what we see is but a beginning , it may be wisely adapted eventually to introduce a happy conclusion , though were nothing to follow we might be compelled to pronounce it evil . There is then no
inconsistency in deeming the system of things we actually behold very imperfect , on the supposition of its being a whole , and yet believing it , on the hypothesis of its being but a part , to be the appointment of perfect benevolence . This defence of yours , Doctor , repels , it is true , the imputation of self-contradiction ; but still it is incumbent on you to shew on what grounds you rest your assertion that nature is but a part .
Untitled Article
it Reflection of l ) r . Jorfin %
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1806, page 16, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1720/page/16/
-