On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    spirits , are € hen briefly yet forcibly exposed . Nor are the objections nf modeftL philosophers to the existence of miracles , on the ground that they are incapable of pi * oof , passed without animadversion . The Professor ably maintains , that the notion of a miracle does not destroy itself :

    " The government of the world by general laws , aad a departure from those laws on particular occasions , are irreconcijeable only on the two following suppositions : either that there is no God , or , that if there is a God , both himself and the Universe are bound in the chains of

    fatalism . Now the latter supposition is hardly different from the former . There is at least no practical difference between the non-existence of a God > and the existence of a God who possesses not the attributes of Deity . With those who can deny the being of a God , 1 know not how

    to argue . Where the human intellect is so perverted , that they who can perceive intelligence and design in a clock-work , which represents the movements of the heavenly bodies , are yet unable to perceive intelligence and design , when they ascend from the humble imitation to the

    great original , no arguments can avail . It is useless to argue with those who deny that a contrivance implies a contriver : who cari doubt , whether the eye was made for seeing , or the ear for hearing . Nor woul 9 I pretend to argue with those who , if they admit that there is a

    God in name , deny him the attributes which constitute a God in reality . If the wisdom displayed in the works of the creation indicate a wise Creator , no ties of necessity could have shackled the exercise of his wisdom , no tjes of necessity could have limited the exercise of his

    power . But if the same power which made the laws of nature is able to suspend them , it cannot be true that the notion of a miracle destroys itself . "—Pp . 81 , 82 . Mr . Hume ' s ^ argument from

    experience , here comes urider the Lecturer ' s review . This objection the Professor meets , not by denying the philosopher ' s parallel between the experience which g ives authority to hu-* nan testimony , and the experience wnich assures us of the laws ok nature , uul

    . "y resisting that part ot the reasoning which connects experience vvith "nraclea . Speaking- of this famous ^ gurnent , he says , that It postulates what it , professes to K ° ; When we argue foV the possibi-Ul Of a miracle , we argue for the possi-

    Untitled Article

    bility of a deviation from th £ lavtfs of nature ; and we argue < m the ground , that the same Almighty Being who made those laws must have the power of ' alters ing or suspending them . If , therefore , while we are contending for an alteration or suspension of those laws , with respect to ttfie miracles ascribed' to our Saviour , we are told that those laws are

    unalterable , we are met by a mere petitio prineipii . In short , the argument from experience , as applied to miracles , includes more than the uature of the argument admits . Though an event may be

    contrary to common experience , we must not set out with the supposition that the rule admits of no exception . We must not confound general with universal experience , and thus iuclude before-hand the very things for which an exemption is claimed /'—Pp . 85 , 86 .

    These remarks the Professor illustrates b y an examination of the miracle performed in the resurrection of Lazarus , concerning which he shews , that no deception or collusion could exist , and that it stood the scrutiny of

    a judicial and most rigorous process ; the result of which , " as stated in the words of St . John , was , This man doeth many miracles : if we let him aloney all men will believe on him . "

    " Surely then , " adds Bishop M ., < € we have sufficient evidence for the truth of the rniracle in question . Though it is contrary to common experience , that a man really dead should come to life , yet

    as human testimony may outweigh the argument which is founded oti such experience , so in the present instance the testimony is so powerful that it must preponderate . "—Pp . 92 , 93 .

    In like manner , the truth of the other miracles ascribed to our Saviour may be established . Nor is satisfactory evidence wanting" for those

    ascribed to the apostles . " And there is an additional argument for the miracles ascribed to St . Paul , in the appeal which ha has made to the persons in whose presence he performed them . "

    From the credibility of the facfs this Prelate infers the credibility o £ th& doctrines recorded m the New Tesfoment ; an inference which " follows as a matter of course . " Here , too ,

    he concludes the ptesent series m Lectures ; in which " no proposition has been admitted without , previous proof , in which no argument has been applied that is dependent on the subject of application . "

    Untitled Article

    R 4 uieM .- ** Bi * Xop of Peterbo * 6 ugJts Cou ¥ & 6 of Lecture * . Ptl VT * 499

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1822, page 499, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2515/page/43/