On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
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.
Untitled Article
benevolence , the latter presents a fall solution of the difficulty , atid is , indeed , the only hypothesis that does or can remove it . 3 rdly . Cantabrigiensis asks , €€ If cfeatiares could not t > e formed without
being subject to the liability to evil , supposed by the hypothesis , in what consisted the necessity ( benevolence I suppose is meant ) of creating them at all ? N 6 n-existence must be preferable to a continued preponderance of pain . "
In reply to this , I observe , that neither the hypothesis , nor any thin ^ that I have advanced in support of it , sup « - poses that evil or misery does , or ever will , preponderate over good and hap * - piness , but the very contrary , as Cantabrigiensis would have seen , had he
sufficiently considered the hypothesis . Here , then , is an end of this monster , which , it seems , existed only in Cantabrigiensis's own imagination : and , I contend , that the difficulty of the ^ question— -Why did God create at all , if he could not create without evil ,
ceases to exist on the ground of the hypothesis , but absolutely defies solution upon any other ground ; for here , to make all things harmonize with infinite goodness , we have only to
inquire , whether the existence of all creatures is , or Will be , upon the whole of that existence , a blessingand a happiness to them : and whether
good does not , ; and will not ever , preponderate over evil ? And if these questions must be answered in the affirmative , the original question is fully solved—Why a God of infinite benevolence could , in strict accordance
with that benevolence , create intelligent beings , although he could not make them without evil ; while every other hypothesis must for ever remain dumb to the question— -Why did not a God of infinite benevolence , and possessed of ample power to create without evil , product the same happy
« fi&ets from happiet * causes , and have dfepeuee 4 With the existericer of evil altog ^ th ^? I repeat , that every other hypothesis ttmet fbrevei * retnain silent to this question , white the Hypothesis in dispute presents a solution of the difficulty , so perfectly in unison with the IDivine benetvoteuee , ffcfat I feel eorifide £ tt' * t te tfe 6 nly one capable of jiil' ^ mr ^ ^^ 8 fcf * God t *> i ** ati . Buti ' wm it I conld gite no solution
Untitled Article
to the question , it stirelyddes not ml crease the sum of evil ^ t ^ ^ ajf tha t it exists inevitably ; Init CnhtaSri giensts really seems to suppose that it does . 4 thl y * Cantabrigiensis asserts , that ' * it is not within the circumscri bed
powers of man to solve the question why pain should be essentially instrumental in the production of enjoyment , " It is not consistent , I apprehend , with the rules of argument for Cantabrigiensis thus to decide , by mere assertion , the very matter in
question between us , and which he has undertaken to refute , since the hypothesis certainly proposes to solve this very important question ; and whether it succeeds in this respect or not is the proper matter for discussion .
othly . Cantabrigiensis speaking in allusion to the hypothesis , which he blends with sortie erroneous notions commonly entertained , says , * It would have been better for mankind that they had never been born f * but that his own notion of the subject , ( ancT which I freely admit is far the best
of any that has been heretofore entertained , and was my own till the hypothesis in question suggested itself to my mind , ) vindicates the Divine attributes " from those degrading conceptions , which it is impossible , on any other scheme , not to entertain . " Now , Sir , all this is mere assertion , and
feeling , as I do , the pre-eminence of the hypothesis ia question over every other theory that has yet been adopted , I am fully convinced that the expressions he has used in favour of his own
notion , belong exclusively to mine : except , indeed , the expression , ¦ ** it would have been better for mankind that they had never bieen born , " which is , I submit , language which ought not to be used in reference to any mete theory on the subject .
6 thly . Cantabrigiensis imagines a difficulty in reconciling my hypothesis with the doctrine of Universal Restitution , of which doctrine he rightly supposes me to be < fc *< believer : but how the hypothesis stands , in any have yet to
manner , opposed toit ^ I learft . I really do km « * fee ariy difficulty at'all tn reconciling : theua mth each ! other , elnee ottfr ^ ftfead of n ™ 1 ffesft ^ bftfcm , cfett ^ itily- * Mift 4 ta *• • faapy &titw vt infinite aad'Tuftiwtog ^ P *^ tlo ^ ii tout ^ merely > w ' > &t&M > M ^ h | Cil
Untitled Article
1 T 06 Mr . Hinton on his Hypothesis of the inevitable Existence Of Evil .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1823, page 706, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1791/page/26/
-