On this page
-
Text (2)
-
On the Doctrine of Universal Restitution...
-
Clapham, Sir, January 4, 1819» PRESUME t...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Sir, January 8, 181 9* Your Intelligent ...
Deity to punish him for disobedience strictly and purely voluntary , I think the' * ways of God " may be very well vindicated ** to , man" on the system of annihilation ; nor do 1 even allow the inference of man , namely , 4 i that God
is cruet if he punish everlastingly , " to be by any means of sufficient weight to overturn the plain testimony of Scripture to the goodness of the Deity , because this latter testimony we know to be unquestionably correct , but we do not know that our inference is so , Z .
On The Doctrine Of Universal Restitution...
On the Doctrine of Universal Restitution , , 87
Clapham, Sir, January 4, 1819» Presume T...
Clapham , Sir , January 4 , 1819 » PRESUME to offer you a few I reflections on a subject about which Unitarians are a good deal engaged , although it forms no essential part of Unitarianism . The doctrine which is called that of Universal
Restitution , is one which I believe you regard as a fair subject of discussion in the pages of your magazine . In opposing that doctrine , I will allow that which its advocates maintain as the basis of their system , namely , that it is not unequivocally taught in Scripture that any of the human race shall live for ever in misery : that those
expressions concerning " everlasting punishment , " and * ' everlasting torment , " may possibly find their accomplishment either in annihilation or a long , long endurance of suffering . It is certain that the immortality of the soul , in a general abstract sense ,
though a common-place in philosophical religion , is not a doctrine of the Bible . Thus much then , I allow : only let it be remembered that it is a mere possibility ; that the Scriptures do not give a hint of direct evidence in its favour , bat that on the contrary their language is such as tends to exclude the idea from the mind . Now
here it is that the advocates of this doctrine take their stand : they say , that while its possibility is not dis ~ proved by Scripture , they have positive evidence in its favour , derived from other sources ; and that therefore they
are justified in believing and preaching it . Now to this I make a double objection . In the first place , the evidence on which they rely is feeble and unsound in its nature * They contend that the Divine Gooctaeas cannot
Clapham, Sir, January 4, 1819» Presume T...
inflict punishment on a creature , tin * less that punishment is to end in the final happiness of that creature : that the punishments of mankind must therefore end in , their final and universal happiness . Now certainly we
know from Scripture that the Lord does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men . It is for thegood of his family at large that the Father pf the universe wields the rod of punishment . But from such general views it is impossible to decide how far every individual will be reformed by
his punishment . Punishment has two intentions , to reform the sufferer is one , but another is to warn others by his fate . On this latter principle our civil punishments are in great measure inflicted 5 and how can we pretend to know that the same principle may not exist in the economv of the Divine
government ? How ridiculous is the clown when he pretends to b £ wise about the politics of the country I how much more so are we men , when we think we understand the counsels of God i Argument on such a subject is good for nothing . In philosophy ,
being disciples of Bacon and Newton , we despise all pretensions to any knowledge which is not founded either on testimony or experience . In this case testimony is confessedly silent : and wh ^ t experience have we about the things of the unseen world and
the future life ? Very loose analogy is all that can be pretended . But to estimate the value of this analogy , let us consider a parallel case , though one far more within the sphere of lawful conjecture . How little weight have the surmises which we form about the
inhabitants of the celestial bodies ? No intelligent philosopher , thinks of confounding these with the things which we know . Far more presumptuous , as it appears to me , is it to unite such a speculation as that in question , with the word of God and the testimony of Jesus . It is an offence against philosophy , as much as against
piety . I am here led to my second objection ; and it is one which ! think ought to be well weighed , for it is of an awful kind . Let us then allow as
much weight to the ' arguments in favour of this doctrine as the nature of the subject admits . It can be but a probahle opinion at best But if this
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 22, 1819, page 87, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/mrp_22021819/page/19/
-