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
of this , without even noticing what I had said on the subject , he only asks - what I can do with the pains which Oppress the irrational animal creation ?" and if it be ** capable of instruction in
virtue ; ' I admit that it is not . I would prevent its misery if I could . Who that is not devoid of the feelings of humanity wouid not cordially concur with me ? But is the Author of nature less benevolent than ourselves ? Yet he has
not excluded misery from his creation . I therefore conclude that the supposition of creating" sensitive beings capable of enjoyment , but not liable to pain , does somehow r " involve a contradiction ;" though it is a point that I will not undertake to demonstrate .
Under the third head , " A Churchman" affirms v" thatif the Divine will h ^ ve established regular , uniform laws of nature , then no miracle is possible , if a miracle be a deviation from established laws . ' * But how docs this
conclusion follow ? Could not the Deity possibly deviate from the laws which he had established , if he saw tit ? But it will perhaps be objected that it indicates tome defect in the original plac , if it was afterwaids found necessary to deviate from it . We know not however but these
very deviations from the regular course « f nature might be a part of the original plan . Indeed , -there is no reason to doubt that they were . Unless we can suppose that something happened unexpectedly , in the order of nature , or
the course of events , which induced the Creator to make different arrangements from what he at first intended . But why , it may be asked , wore not things $ 6 constituted at firsr , as to require no deviation afterwards ? I cannot tell .
What the Deity » ntg ' ht have done , 1 will not pretend to say ; what he has done appears to me a much fitter subject of inquiry . Still , " A Churchman" contends that miracles , if not impossible , are fc * surely impiobable , if these laws of nature operate uniformly upon mind and matter , according to the original determination of the Divine mind ! " And he
asaeit-s- that ** from this simple statement , every thinking mind may easily satisfy ittx- 'lf . "—But I cannot be satisfied so easily . 1 perceive nothing in this whole paragraph but asseitions without proofs . Yet perhaps this is a point pi no very great importance ; because many things that V&C may think improbable , will ,
Untitled Article
upon inquiry , be found true . And if miracles be not considered as so far improbable that the accounts of them ought not to be received , upon credible testr * mony , the truth of the position may be readily ceded . But what material advantage can be dt rived from the concession ?
As no new remarks are made under the fourth head , the reader must decide for himself with respect to it , from what has already been said . Under the fifth head , my opponent contends that a future- ' state is contrary to all present appearances , but admits * ' that the decla : aiion of the Lord of
nature is a sufficient warrant for any expectation contrary to her appearances and laws . " He however objects to the Unitarian mode of establishing that revelation which records his declarations jon this head . His objections to that mode have already been considered in the first part oi this letter ; to which the reader is referred .
With respect to Optimism , he make ' s no remarks in addition to what occurred under the second head . It cannot have escaped the notice of the reader that the principal objections in •* A Churchman ' s second letter relate to the evidence on which Christianity is founded . The punishment of
necessary actions is not mentioned ; the inefficiency of Christ ' s mission is not insisted on ; the possibility of a future state is admitted , and the Divine declaration acknowledged a sufficient , warrant for believing it . It appears then at last , that the irrationality with which
Unitarians are charged , consists chiefly in their reliance on ' « testimony merely human . " But why should this be thought so very irrational ? Have mankind in general such an irresistible propensity to deceit that they cannot be trusted in any circumstances whatever ? If not , why should Unitaiians be derided for
assenting to those narratives , which upon the fullest investigation appear to them worthy of credit ? At the conclusion of his letter «* A Churchman , " admits that " difficulties press upon every scheme which the mind of man can contemplate ; " and asserts
that " this admission if universally made completely establishes his object in this correspondence ; " I am as . firmly convinced of the truth of this position as " A Churchman , " can be . £ 0 -far we are perfectly agreed * But 1 cannot be
Untitled Article
668 JUV . Allchi # Sj Answer to the Churchman ' s tiejrh .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1808, page 668, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2399/page/32/
-