Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

that this fingle human being fhould be happy? If this one man's eternal happiness must be facrificed ; I afk wherefore God made him? He certainly was not made to be happy. Then God made him with express defign to make him eternally miferable. Now I would ask Mr. S. whether God be really glo rified in making a creature capable of eternal happinefs, with express design to make him eternally miserable? If fo, I have one queftion more, whether it really is an illustrious difplay of the divine perfections, that God, by a fovereign, irresistible act of his will, fhould create an eternal evil? Sin and mifery are both evils; and, if eternal, they are eternal evils. Yet God, by an irrefiftible act of his will, hath produced them both; and this conduct of the divine being is the advancement of his glory. If fo, there is nothing in the univerfe that is falfe or abfurd.

Let us view this matter in a light a little different. Will Mr. S. allow that God hates fin? If he anfwer, that he does hate it; I fay the following confequences are undeniable; that God eternally hates that, which is the neceffary mean of producing his own glory, and the greatest good of the intelligent univerfe. For, according to Mr. S. fin is a neceffa ry mean of producing God's glory, and the greatest good. Again, it follows, that God eternally hates that which he will be eternally unable to prevent. For the fcripture informs us that God cannot deny himHis own glory he muft and will maintain. And his own glory is produced by fin. God is therefore obliged

felf.

obliged eternally to endure that which his foul hates; and to endure it in order that he may be glorified. If so, then one inference more undeniably follows, viz. that God is a very miferable being.

If Mr. S. fay that God loves fin; then the following things are true. God is obliged to punish that with eternal mifery which his foul delights in; and to do this for the promotion of his own glory, and the greatest good of his intelligent universe. Again, if God love fin, then mankind are not guilty in committing it; unless they are guilty for doing that which God loves. Again, it follows, that God is obliged eternally to caufe innocent creatures to fuffer, for his own glory and the greatest good of his intelligent universe. If these things are true, as they certainly are, if God loves fin; it follows again, that God is a moft miferable being.

[ocr errors]

So that, whether God loves, or hates fin, a train of confequences follow, upon Mr. S.'s hypothefis of the greatest good, and of the divine benevolence, unspeakably fhocking to every pious and generous feeling of human nature. I cannot think that I need write any more, to convince every candid and intelligent reader, that Mr. S.'s ideas of divine benevolence are effentially defective, falfe and abfurd and that his whole fyftem of eternal fin and misery, fince it is founded on these ideas, and fuch interpretations of fcripture as they lead to, muft inevitably fall to the ground.

I fhall, hereafter, confider Mr. S.'s whole fcheme

of

of eternal fin and mifery, and of divine benevolence, as refuted and exploded, and entirely gone out of the universe, and shall have no reference to it, more or lefs, except only, as occafion may offer in the progrefs of this work, I may make an obfervation now and then, illuftrating the proof of the falsehood and corruption of the scheme.

So far as Mr. S. makes ufe of his fcheme of divine benevolence, in any part of his work, to support any part of his fyftem of eternal fin and mifery, or to illuftrate any paffage of fcripture, I fhall confider his performance as fo far defective, as the ufe and influence of his corrupt fcheme of benevolence fhall extend.

I view Mr. S.'s scheme of benevolence as fo prodigiously corrupt, that it must shed an infectious and contaminating influence on every thing with which it comes in contact,

I fhall now proceed to make fome remarks on the practical use which Mr. S. makes of his theory of divine benevolence.

The first practical ufe which he makes of his theory, of benevolence, is a very flagrant breach of christian charity. The paffage is as follows, p. 117. "the obfervations, which have been made upon the nature of benevolence or holiness, fhew us, why fome, whofe doctrinal belief is right, whofe visible converfation is regular, and who live in a punctual attendance on gospel ordinances, may ftill be very unholy perfons, and intirely unprepared for heaven."

heaven." I confider this as a plain infinuation, that all those perfons, who do not adopt Mr. S.'s theory of benevolence, and bring their hearts to a compliance with it, are very unholy, and entirely unprepared for heaven. Whoever perules this whole 4th. Sec. beginning on page 117, will inftantly fee that I truly and fairly represent Mr. S.'s ideas, in the quotation above. If fo, what can be more unkind or uncharitable than Mr. S.'s infinuation? In the first place, the infinuation is unreafonable, and unfounded. Mr. S. has made a very great and important decision, with regard to the moral state of many of his fellow chriftians, without fufficient data. For I presume there are many of Mr. S.'s fellow chriftians who are very far from adopting his theory of benevolence or holinefs. And has Mr. S. a right to determine that his brother's heart is defective, because he may think that his head is wrong? Even

he abfolutely knew that his brother's religious theory were corrupt, he has no right to determine that his heart is corrupt alfo. God only knows how great a degree of theoretical corruption may confift with real moral goodness of heart. Mr. S. does not exercife the fame candor and chriftian charity towards his brother, that he would wish to have exercised towards himself. I most certainly do not adopt Mr. S.'s notions of benevolence and holiness; and further, I think I have clearly demonftrated them to be false, corrupt, and replete with the groff. eft abfurdities. Yet I do not confider myself at liberty to determine that his heart is corrupt, that he

is

is an unholy man, and entirely unprepared for heaven. I have a right to cenfure his creed; but not his heart. "I the Lord fearch the heart, I try the reins."

We have now finished the first objection which Mr. S. propounded against eternal mifery, that it is inconfiftent with benevolence. If this objection be valid, and well founded, it will forever defeat the purpose of every man, who fhall undertake to fhow that there will be eternal misery in God's universe. For if eternal mifery be inconfiftent with divine benevolence, it abfolutely cannot be; it muft, and will, be destroyed.

I did not begin my examination of Mr. S.'s performance with his ad. part, that I meant to proceed to the confideration of all the objections he ftates against his own plan; but that I wished to afcertain some just ideas of the divine benevolence, as supposing that these would be of effential importance, in all our reasonings concerning the future ftate and deflination of men.

Whoever undertakes thoroughly to perufe this 2d. part of Mr. S.'s piece, and to follow him through the train of all his objections and answers, will be fenfible that he founds his answers to the principal objections on his theory of the divine benevolence. Therefore, as I have before obferved, if his theory be corrupt and unfounded, as we have shown it to be, his whole fabric muft tumble to the duft.

Before I close my confiderations of the divine benevolence, I will present my kind and candid read

er

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »