On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
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
jkjgeiiea , and # think impartially , at j&erent times for more than thirty « etfrv and 1 have n ^ ver had but one ip ision concerning it , which is , that tfa&k hoforce whatever . Hie objection , indeed , has been jbfr answered again and again , and
to some more elaborately than it reguii ^ d . To meet the conceptions of BK * multitude it may indeed be desirable that efror should he exposed in many words ; but it is a maxim with t » e * that false reasoning always admits a short refutation , when it is on < 5 e
clearly discerned in what the fallacy consists . Mr . Hume ' s objection amounts to this , that a miracle being a violation of the order of nature ,-can never be
tendered credible by testimony , as the falsehood of testimony can in no case bt 4 etmed miraculous . It would perhaps have been more correct to define a miracle to be a deviation from the order of nature j but let this pass . It is to be observed that Mr . Hume does
not object to the evidence which is produced- in favour of the Christian miracles as being deficient in quantity , feut denies in toto that this species of evidence can confirm a miracle . This makes it necessary to inquire a little irtt (> the force of this evidence . It WilTsQit Mr . Hume ' s purpose that we
« wwld consider testimony in the gross , in which view of it , it must be confcscd that it not nnfrecjuently deceives . But testimony differs from testimony as much as error does fiom truth t and it may be so circumstanced UmI | p accumulated in force that its
falsehood will be deemed impossible l # the actions and the fate of the we Emperor of France be for a « K > paent called to mind . These are < fitted by thousands , upon the evit Ante of testimony alone , and admit-1 tw
wiih as Jitil conviction a $ can be J fMtftcd by mathematical or ocidat < fonojistratton . And will any one III ^ Sl * * ° 5 ' *** * " evidence may v wfilic ? Is it not to suppose a violafi ftt ^ 9 ri ^ r -qf nature to su ppose it r WHf * \ t ii ^ j t been intimated
——^ r——————^—A 4 ini ^** **** evidence wl ^ ch is P * p-25 ?^ ^ * TOiw * t the ChTistlftu m | nu : 1 | SSJJS * ^ ^* w »» WWigcst possible te ^ J-22 Sl * V ****^ with w bicli I Iwtttfe D 28 J 9 P * ^ Wr - Hom ^ ris an abstract 5 HPlMWW ( t » 0 * testimcMfy cup ipiwve tpe ^^ f&imbtuk * : ; Wh « ui ! ttiis « W bc « P
Untitled Article
that testhnony of a certain kind pjr ti * duces a conviction equal to what 5 s produced by ocular demonstrations Arid whence does this arise ? It 4 s the spontaneous and necessary result of experience . That kind and degree of testimony which we ) iave never known to deceive u 3 , we rest assured
cannot deceive vis ; and such is the confidence which we place in it , that the supposed improbability of the fact to which it bears witness , usually detracts nothing from the strength ot the conviction which is effected by it . It is true enough that according , 4 © IVIr . Hume ' s observation we cannot
rationally admit any factj till we conceive it to be more improbable that the evidence should be false than that the fact should be true . But in order to a just jtrdgrnent , it is necessary that we consider on what ground we pronounce any fact to be antecedently
improbable ; and it is certain that when our notions of their improbability arise , as they often do , from a mere defect of knowledge , they in * stantly yield to certain testimony . Such being the force of testimony and such the nature of the faitn .
which we place in it , I ask what fact cannot be supported by testimony , the falsehood of which would be deemed impossible , except that which should itself appear to involve an impossibility . But the Christian miracles do not
come under this predicament , nor does Mr . Hume ' s argument proceed upori such a supposition . Wnat then is it which- renders them incapable of being supported by testimony ? Their antecedent improbability . And of this improbability how are we to judge ? Were they not referred to a superior power ; were they supposed to be effected by some hidden law of nuturQ which was never in action before < not
since ; were U necessary to maintain that they took place without any assignable eause and to aeknowleclge that they produced ho iiriportant effect , their antecedent improbability woukl certainly be great . But from wlmt data are we to conclude th $ t God
Would never interfere miraculously in « heWn to be false , it remains with evevy ode to cooshjer for h impel f wtrctbto ^ tft * aUtecedeb * improbfibVUty of the Qbrixfan mttdcfos &p | fearstaMff * 1 U > t" ? ^ Hfi ^ u ^ t ^ tj B # * rtHV ' 'Hpyi- 1 ^^ ^* Wia' tUeir ^• h alf . \
Untitled Article
jMt * Cogan im Mr * Hume ' s Argument against Miracles . 043
Untitled Article
* W » Xl . 4 o
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1816, page 645, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2458/page/17/
-