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
lice and benevolence of tie Deity . All , therefore , who hold a tenet only less terrific than- t&e eternity of future . torment , must believe that the allmerciful Father of the human race can
consistently with his benevolence render the existence of the majority of his creatures a curse instead of a blessing ! They must maintain , or , at least , if not inconsistent with themselves , they ought to maintain , that
justice is compatible with the infliction of a preponderance of evil , anil with the persuasion that a Being of boundless compassion may sacrifice the happiness of the many to that of the few . This is surely only one remove from the horrors of Calvinism .
—But it is really almost incredible that the same doctrine of final annihilation should be entertained even by some of the defenders of philosophical necessity ; and , if I mistake not , this was the case with Dr . Priestley for a considerable period of his life .
To believe that intelligent creatures are placed in a world without their consent , ( to adopt an expression of Bishop Newton , ) where their volitions , in the crimes which they commit , and the depraved habits which they form , are the necessary result of
circumstances over which they have no controul ; to believe that , in consequence of this conduct and these habits , they will undergo either eternal punishment , or temporary punishment with final extinction ; and yet to believe
that their Creator is a being of irresistible power and infinite goodness , is indeed to embrace a mystery at which human reason " standsaghast , " and human faith may justly be " confounded . " How can it excite
surprise that the Necessarian doctnne , unaccompanied with a belief of the ultimate happiness of the species , should be rejected by so many acute and inquiring men with absolute abhorrence ?
Allow me to mention an example which is applicable to no particular p&rty , of the necessity of assenting to what is mysterious in the truest sense of the word . It is evident , from the discussion on the origin of evil , which occupied some of your former pages , but which I have no intention to revive , that we must unavoidably believe —either that it was not in the power
Untitled Article
of the Almighty to exclude fcvii \ his works , or that he designedly A use of it for effecting some ultek purpose . Of those who embrace ilk , first of these opinions , that the Su- ^ preme Being could not possibly prevent the intrusion of moral as well as
natural evil , we might reasonably inquire—what utility can result from the prohibition of sin , when its prevalence is foreseen ,, and its necessity acknowledged ? The inability of the Creator to exclude it , is only rendered more conspicuous by the promulgation of ineffectual mandates . Nor does it seem to be altogether compatible with our ordinary ideas of justice , to represent the Moral Governor of the universe as commanding his feeble and short-lived creatures to avoid
that which he himself , in all the plenitude of his power , is unable to avoid ! Will any one undertake to affirm that this creed is not incomprehensible ? But supposing the second part of the alternative to be adopted—that evil is purposely selected as the
instrument of good ; then the Deity may be considered as issuing his peremptory commands against what he has expressly ordained , and as declaring his abhorrence of what he knows will be productive of good . In one view , however , this side of the
question is attended with less difficulty than the other ; for the Divine Being may very consistently prohibit his imperfect creatures from making use of moral evil for the promotion of good , though he himself may adopt that method , because it is impossible that their limited faculties should foresee
the remote consequences of their plans , or should provide against the numerous circumstances which may frustrate their benevolent intentions . Still even this hypothesis is surrounded by darkness , which we shall in vain attempt to penetrate . But without
repeating any of the remarks that were made on this topic on a former occasion , I will merely ask one question . If the prohibitions against the practice of moral evil were universally obeyed , where would be that portion of happiness which vice , as we now believe , is
made instrumental in producing ? If the precepts of religion were invariabl y complied with , one great source of moral and intellectual enjoyment
Untitled Article
4 Mystery unavoidable in numerous Questions of Theology and ftletap )^ ,
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1826, page 4, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2544/page/4/
-