Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

If it were poffible, that it is cruel injuftice to inflict it. Thirdly, That it cannot be a mean of increafing but muft, in the nature of things, imbitter and spoil the happiness of faints. If these things can be done in a manner satisfactory to the public, it is readily feen, that Mr. S.'s hypothefis of the greatest good, and of divine benevolence, are totally refuted; and that his whole fcheme of divine moral government is fubverted. That scheme of divine government, which I formerly ftated, in company with that which Mr. S. hath adopted, I fhall, hereafter, examine, and endeavor to establish.

ture.

Firft, Eternal mifery, as a punishment of temporary crimes, is abfurd and impoffible in its own naEternal punishment is an infinite punishment. Infinite punishment infers infinite guilt. Infinite guilt is the quality of the action of an infinite being. Man is the guilty being. Man is therefore an infinite being. Thus we must give up the idea of eternal mifery, as a punishment inflicted on men for fins committed in this world, or admit that man is an infinite being.

Secondly, Would the nature of things admit it, eternal misery is cruelly unjust.

Man once flept in nonentity. The fiat of the Almighty called him into existence. At the moment, when God faid, "Let us make man"; the whole feries, and every accident, of man's future existence, were present to the divine view. Before man exifted, he certainly was not guilty.

[ocr errors]

To

40

To call an innocent nonentity into being, to be eternally finful and miferable, is to exert irrefiftible and almighty power to produce an infinite evil. I freely submit it to my reader, and the world, whether this be not an action of fovereign cruelty, and barbarous injuftice.

ry

Thirdly, The eternal mifery of finners would not increase, but imbitter and spoil, the happiness of the faints, Heaven and hell will be eternally in profpect of each other according to the fuppofition. I call on the indulgent father, and on the delicately kind and tender mother, to speak the fentiments of their hearts. Are you willing to receive heavenly happiness at the expenfe of the eternal fin and mifedear children? Or, if in heaven, can you of your imagine it would increase your felicity, to look down into the hideous regions of eternal despair, and there to behold your children in devouring fire, never to be quenched, where their worm will never die? Parental, filial, and every focial feeling, must be entirely eradicated from the human foul, by a transition from earth to heaven, or the miseries of hell, if they are to be eternal, will deftroy the happinefs of celeftials.

The glory and bleffedness of God, and of his holy intelligent kingdom, are neceffarily produced by the eternal fin and mifery of the wicked. If by the glory and bleffedness of God be meant, the illuftrious display of the divine character and perfections, the eternal fin and mifery of the wicked, inftead of

producing,

producing, will leffen, obfcure, and caft an eternal infamy and reproach upon the divine glory and bleffedness. How is it poffible that any man should be fo infatuated, as to entertain the idea, that it would reflect glory on the divine character, to project a scheme of creation, and moral government, in fuch a manner, that a part of mankind could not be happy, but at the expense of the eternal fin and mis. ery of all the reft.

Charity, the darling of heaven, which warms the breafts of angels, animates the foul of the filial God, and is the most charming grace that ever entered a human heart, muft ceafe, together with faith and hope, or the will be an eternal torment to the faints. She is inceffant, in her wishes, and prayers, and endeavours for the virtue and happiness of all men, whilst she dwells on earth. I beg to know what will be her employment in heaven. St. Paul feems to have been of opinion that charity would go to heaven. Was he mistaken, through his great fondnefs for that virtue ? Or, if fhe goes to heaven, will fhe lose all that rendered her fo amiable on earth, her ardent defire of the happiness of the human kind? If she retain this amiable quality in heaven, fhe will unavoidably mar and poison all the joys of the bleffed, when she shall look on the fin and misery of the damned. Thus, unless we allow man to be an infi nite being, eternal punishment of his temporary crime cannot be; it is abfolutely impoffible in the nature of things. If poffible, we have feen it to be cruelly unjuft,

1

unjuft, and therefore it can never be afcribed to God, as a part of his plan of moral government. And as to the notion that both moral and phyfical evil must eternally exift, in order to produce the greateft poffible quantity of happiness, it is fo far from being true, that their eternal exiftence would be the mean of deftroying both the glory of God, and the happiness of the virtuous.

I wish not to be guilty of too many repetitions, or of dwelling too long on this fubject. Though, fince the subject itself is of the greateft importance, and fince Mr. S. makes conftant ufe of his ideas of the greatest quantity of happiness, and of the divine benevolence, in his interpretations of fcriptures, and anfwers to objections against his scheme, I am defirous to make the falfehood and abfurdity of his affumed principles appear, in the cleareft light, to every attentive reader. I call Mr. S.'s principles affumed, because he hath never proved them to be true. That the greatest good is neceffarily produced by eternal fin and mifery; and that the divine benevolence confifts in loving this greatest good; are principles which are often afferted, but never once proved. Yet every reader fees that these two propofitions are the fundamental principles of his whole scheme.

I will make one quotation more concerning the fubject of benevolence. Mr. S. fays, p. 115, "Benevolence doubtlefs wifhes, concerning all men now living in the world, that they may be faved; if it be

the

the will of God, who is the guardian of the interests of the great whole."

I am not so much surprised at this fentence, as if we had heard nothing of the kind till now. It is, however, really furprising, and greatly to be lamented, that a christian divine, of fifty years of age, should voluntarily fend such a sentence to the prefs. Here Mr. S. allows that human benevolence would wish the falvation of all men; if divine benevolence would permit. Great God! is it fo? art thou unwilling, O thou Father of mercies, and God of all grace, that the benevolent wishes of the human heart, that all men should be faved, fhould be gratified? Is thy benevolence outdone and exceeded by poor finful worms of the duft! Not fo! we may not, we cannot, believe it!

That God is willing that all men fhould be faved, we shall fee, hereafter, abundantly proved from the fcriptures. At prefent, we fhall attend to the dictates of reafon only. We fhall find reafon perfe&ly fufficient to demonftrate the falsehood and abfurdity contained in the above fentence.

A benevolent man would wifh the falvation of all his fellow creatures, but God their maker will not! I afk, why God is unwilling that any man fhould be faved? Suppofe God had made but one man. Will Mr. S. concede that God would be willing that that one man fhould be faved? Or will he imagine that it may poffibly leffen the glory and bleffedness of God, and of his holy intelligent angelic kingdom,

[blocks in formation]
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »