On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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.

    Untitled Article

    deserve interminable punishment . But leaving these axioms to their fate , I proceed to observe that as sin , according to the Calvfnistic hypothesis , is the necessary result of a nature totally corrupt , with which corrupt nature , we certainly did not endow

    ourselves , it does not deserve interminable misery ; and were interminable misery to follow it , it must be by an arbitrary appointment , the injustice and cruelty of which would be commensurate to the suffering inflicted . Nor would the wretch who should be

    doomed to sustain this eternity of woe , be disposed to think his sentence a > vhit more equitable , when reminded , that he " sinned in Adam and fell with him in his first transgression . " But we are told that" if God in any instance remit the punishment he acts as a

    munificent Sovereign - y if he decline so to interpose he acts in equity * he does no wrong to any . " No wrong ? Does he sustain no wrong who is brought into existence with a nature radically depraved , and then made eternally miserable for being such ? It may not

    be out of place to state here , that according to Dr . Williams ' s system , as represented by the reviewer , all the divine dispensations are the results of two great moral faculties in the Supreme Governor , equity and sovereignty . With what propriety

    sovereignty can be represented as a moral faculty I am altogether unable to comprehend . Goodness I can understand , and unless my memory fails me , the Assembly ' s Catechism taught me when a child that God possesses this attribute in an infinite degree . Premising that I mean no reflection either on the

    understanding or the sincerity of Dr . Williams , I must be permitted to remark , that infinite goodness will be wisely kept out of sight by those who contend that the greater part of mankind will suffer eternally for that which they could not help , and over

    which they possess no controul . For it might unfortunately be asked , How comes it to pass that equity should so triumph over benevolence , how comes it to pass that a Being * who is acknowledged to be infinitely ( food should

    treat the majority of his human offspring as he would do were he infinitely malevolent , and doom them to as much misery as the grand enemy of the human race is supposed to wish them ?

    Untitled Article

    When I had read the paragraph on which I have been animadverting , I thought the Dr . had proceeded far enough , but the Reviewer wishes that he had proceeded still farther , and stated " the scriptural doctrine of the punishment of sin as not merely ne ~

    gative , but as including- also positive infliction on the score of retributive justice . " The reviewer , it seems , is not satisfied with interminable misery as the consequence of sin . What farther his imagination has destined for mankind I am not able to divine

    nor anxious to be informed . But that retributive justice should demand the infliction alluded to is a paradox which the human intellect must ever despair of being able to solve . Strange that system should so blind the

    understanding of men in other respects intelligent that the very terms which they employ to express their dogmas should carry their refutation with them ! It is certainly as impolitic to name justice in this matter as it is wise not to to sav too much of the

    attribute of goodness . What must be the definition of justice by which it can be shewn to be just , that a creature , who , born with a corrupt nature must inevitably fall into sin , should be rendered eternally miserable by the

    Being who made him what he is ; or by what definition of justice can it be proved , that God would have been unjust either to us or to himself , had the infinite satisfaction of Jesus Christ been accepted in behalf of all mankind ! ? I know it has been said that

    the torments of the damned are to be an eternal monument of the immaculate holiness of the Divine Nature . This is changing the ground , but not to my mind , changing it for the

    better . The Deity is thus represented as giving birth to a race of impure beings , that their eternal sufferings may be a demonstration of his purity . And a matchless demonstration it

    undoubtedly is . Who would have thought that infinite holiness should not be distinguish ;* ble in its operation from infin ite malevolence , ox that the moral perfection of God should be the grand source of misery to his creatures ! If I have committed an error in

    wandering from verbal criticism to controversial theology , I will endeavour to make some amends by returning to my proper department . I am not aware that the following passages

    Untitled Article

    JUr . Cogans illustration of Phil . it . 6 , from Helicdorus . 77

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1815, page 77, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1757/page/13/