Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

In every common cause, I take it for granted, we should consider a witness that reported a miracle, as unworthy of attention. The countryman, for instance, who told the people of Rome, that an ox had just spoken to him in the fields; all the nonsensical miracles of the Pagan world; all the legendary tales of the popish church; and all the wonders of modern methodism, are very properly considered, by every man whose intellects are not disturbed, as subjects only of derision and contempt. The only possible case in which a doubt can for a moment exist, is that of a miracle, or of an assemblage of miracles, said to have been wrought in attestation of some grand disclosure, fitted to promote extensively the good of mankind. This, I believe, to be a candid statement of the matter at issue. If it be not so, I shall be glad to see a more correct one.

But what is this grand discovery, which, it seems, it pleased the Deity to unfold for the benefit of his human offspring? what are these mighty expositions, which, it is confessed, could alone warrant any one, to listen for a single instant to human testimony in support of miracles? It would be indelicate to answer these interrogations: nor is it necessary. Be it sufficient that I remark, generally, that, whatever they are, they are derived, solely, from revelation; and that revelation rests, altogether, on the admission of miracles. If, Mr. Editor, any respectable correspondent should wish it, I will most willingly enlarge upon this part of the discussion, at any future time. At present we pass on.

In a former number of your Magazine, 1 had said, that we know nothing of the Deity, or of his present or future plans of administration, except from the visible works of nature. In your last number, a correspondent thinks proper to quarrel with this position. It is expedient, therefore, to open it out a little more. Let it be remembered, that we are speaking of the probability that certain communications would be made, on the part of the Deity; for it is in this connexion the proposition stands: and I had chiefly in my view Dr. Paley when I said this. For the doctor insists much and at large on what he calls the antecedent probability of the thing; and this antecedent probability, in his opinion, is a proper balance to the natural presumption against miracles; producing a sort of neutrality, as I imagine he would style it. Now it is terial to observe, that this antecedent probability is wholly void of foundation; that there is no appearance in nature which affords the slightest reason to expect the Deity ever would derange the plan of the universe, in order to reveal any secrets to human kind; and that the whole phenomena of the visible world evidently contradict this vain and delusive theory.

very ma

But even admitting, for the purpose of illustration, that the

[ocr errors]

importance of the truth communicated does in fact bestow a probability on the relation of a miracle performed in attes tation of such a truth, which, otherwise, it would be ridiculous to allow to it; let us see, according to this rule of judgment, what will become of by far the greater number of miracles. All true believers, I presume, hold in equal veneration, or nearly so, the miracles of both testaments. At least they are not prepared to relinquish the five books of Moses. Well; let us attend to some of these: and really I wish to do it with due seriousness and consideration, for nothing I am sure is more distant from my intention, than to wound the feelings, or shock the piety, of any man. It is indeed a very material inconvenience attendant on the discussion of topics such as these, that we must touch lightly and delicately on many parts of the subject, and so fail in doing justice to our own sentiments; or, resolving to speak out, expose ourselves to the blind fury of the multitude; and be loaded with holy curses, as the vile traducers of our excellent religion. Yet every man has certainly a right, to investigate and examine; and, without some degree of openness and candour, our investigations are not likely to be worth much, either to ourselves or others. The reader will pardon this digression.

Open the book of Leviticus, or Numbers, or Deuteronomy, and read at a venture and then solemnly ask yourself, whether a large proportion of these books does not contain matter -contain minute instructions and petty regulations-that are quite unworthy of the Supreme Being? There is one fact, connected with this subject, which has always appeared to me, absolutely conclusive-a fact, which good people never mentfon-it is this; that notwithstanding the extreme familiarity with which Jehovah is said to have conversed with Moses, not a word, not the most obscure intimation, seems to have escaped him, at any time, respecting a future state, or the immortality of the soul: though one cannot help thinking, that these are considerations, almost as important, as the TAKING OF BIRDS' NESTS. But not to cavil; let us proceed. I have said, that a particular providence" (and your correspondent may add, a particular revelation, if he pleases) " is inconsistent with the natural perfections of the Deity." This is denied. We must, therefore, revert again to proofs. Permit me in the first place to ask, how we are to learn any thing concerning God, but from the contemplation of his works ?-a reference to revelation, in the present case, being of course irregular.

View then the operations of Deity, wherever those operations are accessible, and mark their grandeur, nobleness, and universality. Do you discover any thing like petty interruptions, or weak partialities? In every province of his exten

sive empire, in the heavens, in the sea, on the land, is not the adminstration of his affairs conducted on a broad and liberal plan? Aud would any other mode of proceeding, correspond in any degree with the perfection of his nature, or behove the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity?

What think you of that parent, the father of a numerous offspring, who should bestow his caressess on the eldest or youngest child only; disregarding the merits and affections of the rest? What think you of that prince, who should lavish his smiles and his favours on a few contemptible minions that surrounded his throne, or glittered at his levee ; while the distant provinces, the great body of the people, neglected and forgotten, groaned under the oppressions of an unjust and cruel government? And if we consider the parent and the prince, whom I have just described, as proper objects of detestation, is it not a libel on the divine nature, to place that nature in a light in which it is impossible to view it, but with unmixed abhorrence? Is it conceivable that God, the creator and governor, and judge of mankind, should withhold from them for 4000 years a communication which he always intended to make, and of which it was to the last degree important that they should be possessed? That at length, when the matter was laid open, he should pass by all the great and polished nations of the earth, and entrust it to the management and direction of a tribe of ignorant and hateful barbarians? And that even to this day, millions of our fellow men should have never heard of the business at all? Whatever may be the true character of the Deity, that character must be taken, in so far as we are competent to judge of it, from his conduct to mankind at large, and not from his supposed behaviour to one or a few favourite nations.

Upon the whole, we may very safely conclude, that the Deity carries on the government of the world, by stated laws ;that these laws are never disturbed ;--and that no human testimony, in support of a miracle, is entitled to the least regard or attention.

I shall close these observations, by quoting a short passage from Mr. Hume's Essays; which appears to me applicable to the present purpose.-When we peruse the first histories of all nations, we are apt to imagine ourselves transported into some new world; where the whole frame of nature is disjointed, and every element performs its operations in a different manner, from what it does at present. Battles, revolutions, pestilence, famine, and death, are never the effect of those natural causes, which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles, judgments, quite obscure the few natural events, that are intermingled with them. But as the former grow thinner every page, in

proportion as we advance nearer the enlightened ages, we soon learn, that there is nothing mysterious or supernatural in the case; but that all proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind towards the marvellous; and that, though this inclination may at intervals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never be thoroughly extirpated from human nature.

March 6, 1812

I am, Sir, your's, &c.

A DEIST.

I

CHARACTER OF MOSES.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

SHOULD be glad to know, through the medium of your Magazine, your opinion on the third verse of the 12th chapter of the book of Numbers; for I think it cannot be admitted as a fact, that it is Moses who speaks, without rendering himself truly ridiculous and absurd: for example-" now the man Moses was very meek above all the men which were or the face of the earth."

If Moses said this of himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most vain and arrogant of coxcombs; and the advocates for the books of Moses may now take which side they please, for both sides are against them. If Moses was not the author, the books are without authority; and ifhe was the author, the author is without credit; because to boast of meekness is the reverse of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment. Your's, &c.

Cheapside, March 13, 1812.

ON PRAYER.

D. T.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

A$

SIR,

SI perceive you do not object to publishing in your Magazine speculations on religious subjects, where the opinions entertained by the writers are materially different from those professed by the public at large, I request the favour of your insertion of the following thoughts on the subject of prayer.

It is now several years since I became satisfied, that prayer, whether social or private, is altogether irrational. I will give you my reasons for thinking so it will be admitted, that the Supreme Being is a perfect being, possessed of perfect intelligence, perfect wisdom, and perfect goodness; he cannot therefore be informed by us of any thing he did not previously know, neither can we offer him any advice as to the mode in which the affairs of the world should be conducted; nor yet is

[merged small][ocr errors]

it to be supposed that he is to be wrought upon by intreaty, to produce effects which his wisdom and goodness would not otherwise have prompted him to produce-prayer, therefore, appears to be presumptuous.

But, I conceive, and I am by no means singular in this conception, that the government of the world is conducted according to certain established laws, commonly called the course of nature, and that the operation of these laws is never disturbed, except in the one case of miracles; so that the most important event and the minutest incident are equally the effects of natural causes. Any other supposition would argue a want of wisdom in the Supreme Being. It might be said, that he was incapable of appointing what should take place in subsequent periods, till he had seen the effect of his measures in preceding ones; besides, as all our knowledge is derived from experience, the laws of nature must be inevitably obscured, or mankind would be continually bewildered in their attempts to trace effects to their causes. Prayer, therefore, seems an attempt to procure an alteration of that which is unalterable.

I was not present when this subject was discussed at the Freethinking Christians' meeting, but I was informed that one of the speakers expressed an opinion that prayer was proper, as it might be the condition on which we received the different blessings of life. But does experience shew anything of this kind? Do we not find, on the contrary, that mankind obtain their different blessings by the employment of the natural means for that purpose? It is an opinion, I believe, commonly entertained by the Unitarians, and some other Dissenters, that prayer, though it produce no effect on the Deity, is useful on account of the devout disposition it encourages in ourselves; but is it not absurd to make a formal address to the Deity, intreating him to confer on us a variety of blessings, and avert from us a variety of evils, when, in fact, we have no meaning in what we are uttering?

It may be urged, that if prayer, strictly speaking, be improper, yet there can be no impropriety in expressing our gratitude for the blessings we have received from God; but is it necessary to put our ideas and feelings into words? Language is an expedient for communicating ideas between man and man, between whom no such communication could take place without the use of some such expedient; but, between man and his Maker, such an expedient must be absolutely su perfluous, and therefore absurd.

Upon the whole, prayer (as I observed in the beginning of my letter) appears to me to be altogether irrational, and founded in a mistaken notion of the nature of the Supreme Being. Your's, &c.

March 5, 1812.

J. S.

« VorigeDoorgaan »