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
object , I am persuaded , is if ufch , and this , as he well knows , is promoted by free discussion . 1 . Mr . Madge admits , that the doctrine is not " expressly or designedly inculcated in any one passage of the Old or New Testament / ' He arrives
at it only ** on the ground of inference . " Now , not to ask , whether a doctrine , which may be deduced by feir deduction from Scripture , be not an express doctrine of Scripture , and whether , therefore , his admission at the outset do not nullify all his
arguments , I would humbly inquire , whether the sacred Writers were or were not aware of the consequences of their own statements ? If they were not , their authority as reasoners is as nothing 5 but if they were , and one of those consequences be the doctrine of
final restitution , how can it be explained that they did not point out the consequence , and expatiate upon it as the glory of the gospel ? Very properly does Mr . Madge , in his view 6 f Christianity , hold out this doctrine as the brightest pnrt of divine
revelation ; very wisely , as well as boldly , does he express the doctrine in terms that cannot be mistaken , and not in general ierms from which only the sagacious reader may infer it : why should not our Lord and the apostles
have pursued the same method ? They were not wanting in benevolence : their mission emboldened and required them to tell all the gospel or good news that they were instructed in from heaven , and to make the most of
the work of Christ , and of the character of Almighty God : why then did they not reveal the welcome , gladdening : and splendid truth of the final , everlasting happiness of all the children of men ? On the doctrine of the
resurrection , which in the view of Mr . Madge is chiefly important , or at ] east " worthy of acceptation 1 ' as a means to an end , the end being restoration , tjiey are explicit and full , bringing it forward on every occasion , and making use of it to illustrate all the
schemes of Providence , and all the other doctrines of Christianity : how then can it be explained that they are iileni on final restitution , except on Hie supposition that it is an inference from their language which they never foutemplated > The doctrine of the Triuity , a * well a * that of final i ** ti «
Untitled Article
tution , is drawn firom the Sclibtiifes by . inferential reasoning ; but Mr . Madge would sav to a Trinitariaii
arguing thus , that it is moral ! v impossible that such an important doctrine , if it were true , should not have been u expressly or designedly inculcated : " and i $ not the answer of equal weight in both cases ?
£ Mr . Madge carries on the argument as if there were no alternative but endless misery or everlasting , positive happiness , Whereas , he wilt recollect that there is a middle scheme , ably supported by one of his predecessors , Mr . Bourn , namely , that of the destruction of the filially impenitent . This scheme does not exhibit
the same splendid result as Mr . Madge ' but is it not analagous to the present dispensations of Divine Providence , in which such an infinitude of creatures Jive their little hour and then perish , and in which
man is the maker of his own future destiny ? If man having life have a right to happiness , it will not follow that he has a right to life . That he is capable of improvement is no more an argument for his living for ever , than it is for the future and eternal
life of the lower animals , who , in the hand of their Maker , are all capable of improvement . All that is required for the justification of the Creator of man is , that his life be upon the whole happy , which may , perhaps , be pronounced of every human being arrived
at years to contemplate himself . The process by which the wicked may be annihilated , may embarrass the subject , but is of no consequence to the argument . And on this hypothesis the issue is the same abstractly as on Mr . Madge ' s , that is , the extirpation of evil , and the abolition of death , Tf
he say , by an argument from a personification , that death will exist and triumph as long as a single victim of the king of terrors remain unrestored , will not he prove too much ? The
reasoning is as good in the case of a fly as of a man . Universal testoratipn would be a consistent schenfic , though it might have some difficulties of its own , which few divines would ' choose to grapple with *
S . Mr . Madge lays great stress upon the plainness of Scripture language , and the necessity of taking it irt its " common accepted Bigtfi&cyLtion "
Untitled Article
v v " ** ¦ T" i * * ¦ ' \ ¦ J 51 fc Queries to Mr . Sfadpetiit €€ Fin&t Restitution *
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1818, page 618, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2481/page/18/
-