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
would probably be discountenanced in aay othei seat of learning on this side of the Tweed . It is an opinion which prevails among a * numerous class of Christians , and
n&ore particularly , I believe , among those of the Unitarian persuasion , that a . future state cannot be satisfactorily proved except by revelation . I confess * that I never could concur in this
se&tiroe&t - for , without having recourse to ? any arguments which have been deduced from the immateriality of the soul , I conceive that this most important doctrine is capable of convincing proof from an attentive consideration of the Divine character . This is not
tfee place for entering into the question with the minuteness which it de-SGct os , a » d I must , therefore , content myself witk merely . suggesting a few bints ? It appears to me to be utterly impossible to establish the equity of the Deity without recurring to a future state of existence , and to the
ultimate happiness of the whole human , race . A preponderance of evil allotted to any sentient , and much more to any rational being , taking the whole of his existence into consideration , appears to be totally inconsistent with fdl our ideas respecting justice aad equity * The case of a single individual in these circumstances is
equally strong with that of a multitude , and , in my apprehension , equally mi-Ut&tep against the benevolence or the Dpwer of the Creator , Now it cannot be denied , that if death is to be the final termination of our existence , many human beings will be found to
have undergone a much larger share of misery than of pleasure , and will , therefore , present a formidable difficiiltjr in our views of the Divine administration . And this difficulty nothings in my opinion , will remove , but a future state of retribution . On
the Other hand , admitting the truth of a world tb come , the common belief < otf an eternity of punishment will enhariod instead of diminishing the obiootton : for it is de&reven from the
, language of Scripture ^ that by far the gi > eatgr portion of the human race wiSi t unhappily incur the sentence of 4 Omk * R *» ati * m . And the case will
appear ia a still stronger light when wet consider ; that , both on the Libertartan hypothesis a * well a » on that of NecewiHfr the ^ iruaHon-of ov ^ ry moral
Untitled Article
creature must be ascribed to the will of the . Omnipotent ; a& I apprehend that the inference will remain unaltered , whether the present course of things is simply permitted , or
expressly ordained . The doctrine of final annihilation is , I am aware , maintained b y some persons , but though preferable to the notion of never-ending punishment ,, it is by no means sufficient to satisfy the mind on this
momentous question . Of the benevolence of the great Parent of the universe , who that has ever contemplated the beauties of nature or the structure of the human frame , can entertain a moment ' s doubt ? But if benevolent at all , it follows
, as a necessary conseauence . roiiows , as a necessary consequence , that he must be so in an infinite degree . Limit the extent of this , or any other of the Divine attributes , and you destroy the fundamental proof of aa
uncaused , self-existent Deity . How then can the infinite goodness of the Supreme Intelligence remain unimpeached , if any of his creatures be compelled to endure physical and moral evils which do not terminate in
good ? And how is it possible that these evils should thus terminate , unless we admit the truth of an existence hereafter , and of the final restitution of the whole rational creation ? I
would ask i therefore , first , why a future state cannot be as satisfactorily proved to the mind of the philosopher by necessary inferences from the known attributes and character of the
Deity , as to the unlettered Christian by the declarations of Scripture ? In the one case , the proof consists in the legitimate deductions of the reasoning faculty ; and in the other , in the testimony of competent and unbiassed witnesses . For the multitude , the
< h TroXXai , ( as we Cambridge men are in the habit of saying , ) the latter I admit to be the oxily effective means of producing a salutary conviction ; but for the intellectual and
speculative part of the species * I should wish to know why the former mode of proof is not to be considered as adequate to the production of the 8 ame effect ?
I would likewise ask , secondly , -whether the strictest impartiality does not form a part , and a very material part , of the Divine character ; and if »?> how we are to reconcile with this
Untitled Article
486 Qnestwm onth * - , Dhtine Ckamcter ;
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1822, page 426, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2514/page/34/
-