Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Bifhop Butler, when fupporting Religion; thus reafoned Mr. Locke, when irtveftigating
Mr. C. puts the probabilities on which thefe paltry papers
were believed by a fnv, on the footiug with thofe whicfi
regulate juftice, and form the foundation of religious
faith, WE Jland aftoni/hed at hi; intiiferetion. Since this attack on me, on the fcore of religion, I have read Butler’s Analogy, and Locke on The Underjlanding which before I had never read: I am more confirmed in my judgment, that I was perfectly correct, in my principle of rea- foning, and perfectly prudent, in my application of it. I will repeat from Wilkins, that,
Things of feveral kinds
may admit, and require feveral forts of proofs, all which
may be good in their kinds: ?.nd, therefore, nothing can be more irrational, than for a man to doubt of, or to deny,
the truth of any thing; becaufe it cannot be made out, ‘ by fuch kind of proofs, of which the nature of fuch thing ’ is not capable. Thus reafoned Wilkins ! And I was, by his argument, induced to add:
Thefe reafonings apply
more forcibly to Religion than to Law: The leading tt articles of our faith do not admit of rigid demonfl ration:
rational probability is, in thefe, the ftrongeft proof, which
can be given to induce belief, without deluding our un- c derftandings with the fuggeftions of poffibility or entan- V glingour convictions with thefephifms of infidelity f Apology, 19, 20.] I will, moreover, repeat, that the faid Anonymous Critic, no doubt, thinks, that he can argue about religion more rationally than Tillotfon and Wilkins, than Butler and Halifax. But, a Law Lord is quoted, as reafon- ing differently from me, about the rules of evidence. Is there any Law Lord, who demands dtmwjlration in the adminiftration of Juftice; or any…
