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
It will be difficult I think to make out the consistency of these statements . They indicate a mind vacillating between philosophy and revelatiop , sensible at times of the insufficiency of the former , and disposed to rest with confidence in the latter ; but at other times pursuing analogical reasonings , ( or rather , perhaps , indulging benevolent conjectures , ) till conclusions are formed at variance with the Scriptures as generally understood ; ana hence , not indeed in * clined to reject Revelation ( for it is expressly said , t € I fcqld myself bound to give up any speculation which stands opposed to clear and positive doctrines but anxious doctrines out anxious
scriptural "" ); scriptural ); to interpret the passages of scripture * ' which appear to teach that men will be punished after the resurrection far the sins committed in the body , " so that they may "be consistent with the hypothesis that the pains of this life may suffice for the whole of our future existence . "
PhiladelphuS ) as we have seen , thinks that Dr . Priestley , and in consequeaee of his statements Dr . Hartley , had been led to hope for the reformation , without punishment or
suffering , of those who have passed through life in vicious courses ; and , endeavouiing " to discover the train of reasoning which they pursued , " he thinks that he has adduced at least
plausible reasons in favour of the conclusion to which they bad arrived ; and his gr ^ at solicitude is derived from the circumstance that there are * ' several passages of scripture which appear to teach tjhat men will be punished after the resurrection for the
sins committed in the bpdy , " and which , of course , appear to be inconsistent with his speculations as to the termination of pai » with the present life . This is all in itself very
perplexing , but it becomes doubly so when contrasted with the language of the writer , p . ? 84 , in commenting on Dr . Hartley ' s assertion that reason W M ~^ WV fc ^ k -M "*<¦ V , * "V " * J ~ w Mm A- m . ¦« . * - * - » -v « M J-V m" ^ » " - » . S M mm st . A"M ~ V -M-+ v * . •_ >^ - rf \ " of the and indefinite
* . * . ^ * approves pure happiness of the good , " and " acquiesces in the indefinite punishment of the wicked . ** As God is no respecter of persons , it would seein to follow , " saya Philxtdelpkus , " not that there should be suck an immense
disparity in the future condition of such mixed characters , but that rewards and punishments will be dealt out with
Untitled Article
perfect impartiality in exact proportion to the degree of virtue or of vice which belongs to each individual character . " How can this passage be reconciled with the denial in to to of future punishment ? And further , as if to form a climax of inconsistency , f
while * reasoning from analogy" for the purpose of shewing that future suffering may not be necessary to change the views and reform the habits of sinners , this benevolent , but too hasty , writer actually admits and reasons upon the existence of that very suffering .
Adverting to the hypothesis which supposes a continuance of conscious - ness and activity after death , he expressly says of the virtuous , €€ It is reasonable to suppose that , actuated by the same feelings which distinguish good men in this world , their efforts
have been unceasingly directed to relieving the miserable , enlightening ' the ignorant , and reclaiming the viciousJ In noticing the hypothesis which assumes a suspension of consciousness between death and
resurrection , he does not , indeed ^ explicitly advance the same idea ; but there is nothing in his argument which tends to establish a distinction between the two hypotheses as to this point . We have here then a distinct admission of
vice and misery as existing in the future state . Philadelphus does not indeed say that the one will be the effect or the punishment of the other ; but when he sets out ( p . 284 ) with supposing " the invisible world and the invisible dispensations of
Providence to be analogous to what appears ; or that both together make up one uniform scheme , the two parts of which , —the part we see , and that which is beyond our observation are analogous to each other $ " he warrants the inference that , as in this world
vice naturally tends to produce misery , so in the world tQ come the vicious will be exposed to suffering as the consequence of their evil character and conduct .
From what has appeared under the signature of Philadelphus 9 in " The Monthly Repository , " I am induced to anticipate with confidence that his
candour will prompt him , on a careful review of his papers , to acknowledge the justice of these remarks . If this be admitted , if it appear , after all , that we cannot reason fairly from
Untitled Article
634 On the Papers of' Philadelphus *—? relating to Future Punishment .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1824, page 534, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2528/page/22/
-