Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

that

many

[ocr errors]

in his government, by a holy God. Benevolence applied to the divine character, in the loose sense use the word, means the fame as that all creatures will be made happy. In this fenfe of the word, it will be denied that God is a benevolent being; and thus ufing it, is only taking that as granted, which is the real matter of difpute. This loofe fense of the word will be very agreeable to finful minds, and hath a fatal tendency to fix them in the fecurity of death." Here the matter is brought plainly out, and we see what Mr. S. hath been laboring after all this time, even to fit up fuch an explanation of divine benevolence as would not countenance univerfal falvation. And he is perfectly right, when he fays that, according to the above explanation, the infinite benevolence of God is no proof of universal falvation." Well might he say this, fince by the a bove explanation, divine benevolence is the fupreme love which God hath for that intellectual, moral fyl tem, in which fin and mifery have a great and eternal fhare. Left we fhould forget that fin and mifery are neceffary to produce the greatest good of that moral fyftem, which is the object of the infinite benevolence of God, Mr. S. hath taken fpecial care to repeat the idea, and to renew the impreffion upon the minds of his readers.

[ocr errors]

I cannot but blame Mr. S. very much, for feveral things which I find in this laft quotation from his book. First, I blame him much for repeating the affertion, that fin and mifery are neceffary means of producing

producing the greateft good in that moral fyftem, which is the object of the divine benevolence, without once attempting to prove its truth. An affertion, which he makes to contain a fundamental principle in his scheme, certainly ought to have been fupported by the cleareft and moft indubitable evidence. Inftead of this, he hath not fo much as attempted to prove it.

Secondly, I blame Mr. S. for charging it as a crime in others, that they affume as a granted pofition that which is a main fubject in controverfy. He fays that, "benevolence applied to the divine character, in the loofe fenfe that many ufe the word, means the fame as that all creatures will be made happy. In this fenfe of the word," he fays, "it will be denied that God is a benevolent being; and thus using it, is only taking that as granted, which is the real matter of difpute." If to use the word benevolence in fuch a sense, as to favor universal falvation, when univerfal falvation is the fubject of dif pute, be unfair, as it is taking for granted the thing to be proved: I will afk Mr. S. what fhall be faid of the man, who uses the word benevolence in fuch a fense, as to favor partial damnation, when partial damnation is his own profeffed fubject of difpute?

Mr. S.'s pofitions concerning the divine benevolence are thefe. It is God's love of the greatest poffible quantity of happiness. And this greatest poffible quantity of happin'efs is produced, neceffarily, by a great quantity of eternal fin and mifery. yet Mr. S. is the very man, who reflects on

And

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

the Univerfalifts, as unfair difputants, when they ufe the word benevolence in that loose sense which, he fays, means that all creatures fhall be made happy!! Thus Mr. S. hath taken care, first, so to explain the word benevolence, as to make it infer the eternal fin and mifery of a great part of the human race; and then, to enter a caveat against any fuch expofition of the word, as will, in the leaft degree, favor the extirpation of fin and mifery out of the univerfe because this would be taking for granted the fubject of dispute. What, kind reader, fhall we do in this dilemma? If we interpret the word benevolence, fo as to favor the deftruction of fin and mifery, we fhall be unfair difputants. And, if we tamely indulge Mr. S. in his explanation of this word benevolence, we shall be eternally plagued, I fear, with fin and mifery in the world.

[ocr errors]

ex

Further, Mr. S. hath forewarned us what to pect, if we presume to interpret the word benevolence in that loose sense, which favors the deftruction of fin and mifery, viz. that it will be denied that God is a benevolent being. So that we fee that Mr. S. hath taken every precaution to keep fin and mifery in the world.

1

If we fay that God loves the children of Adam; efteems, and treats them all with impartial affection; defires the virtue, holiness, and happiness of them all; and, when he contemplates a world of intelligent creatures, redeemed, reftored, and faved, by his own gracious mediatorial fcheme, he loves it,

[merged small][ocr errors]

he beholds this happy, exulting, enraptured world of intelligent creatures with divine pleasure; and this is his benevolence: we may expect foon to hear it denied that God is a benevolent being.

Whereas, if we fay that God delights in the eter nal fin and mifery of a great part of Adam's race, as the neceffary means of producing the greatest good the greatest poffible quantity of happiness, even the glory and bleffedness of God and of his holy intelligent kingdom; and that he looks, with fupreme pleasure, on this mixed ftate of his moral world; and this is his benevolence: O then, then God is a benevolent being.

This laft, my kind reader, is the only true reprefentation of the Father of mercies, and God of all grace! Does your reafon, your common fenfe, or your heart, confent? Can you perfuade your mind to believe that this is a juft representation of your Creator, and of divine benevolence?

The last sentence of my laft quotation from Mr. S. viz. "This loofe fenfe of the word will be very agreeable to finful minds, and hath a fatal tendency to fix them in the fecurity of death," I shall leave to be confidered, hereafter, as, an objection against that scheme of creation, and divine moral government of men, which we fhall more fully examine.

To proceed a little farther with Mr. S's. idea of benevolence; he fays, p. 115, "Every good mind wishes the greateft poffible happiness in the universe of being. He wishes the greateft poffible number

of

1

of individuals to be made happy, that can be with the greatest happiness in the whole; and that each of these individuals fhould be the happieft poffible. If God had made a revelation concerning any one or number of persons, that their falvation would be inconfiftent with his plan of benevolent government; and that their being made happy would neceffarily alter the scheme of focial existence, in fuch a manner, that the univerfe would lofe more than they would gain; in fuch a cafe, it is not feen that benevolence could wish their falvation, at the expense of a greater good. Benevolence never can with a diminution of real good in the univerfe, for this would be acting against an effential quality of its own nature, which is, a delight in good or happiness.” happiness." My kind reader, are you weary of the conftant repetition of fuch ideas of benevolence? or does your patience ftill hold out? I confefs mine is clean gone. I blame Mr. S. for afferting, without proof, and continuing to repeat, and call into view, that disagreeable idea, that the eternal mifery of fome is a mean of happiness to the reft. God has been pleased to give us two revelations of himself, and of his moral government of men; one natural, our reafon; the other fupernatural, his holy word. We have a right to use both, in all our inquiries after moral and religious truth. We will now endeavor, once for all, by the use of natural revelation, to demonftrate, First, That eternal mifery, as a punishment of temporary crimes, is abfurd and impoffible, in its own nature. Secondly,

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »