Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

able to say what punishment, as to kind, or degree, or duration, is due in case of sin ;" then "most certainly we' are unable to say," but that an endless punishment, and that consisting in misery too, is due, and is necessary to secure and promote the good of the system. Therefore to have been consistent, Dr. C. ought never to have pretended, that endless misery is not reconcileable with divine goodness.

Dr. C. further grants, that it may be necessary, that the penalty of the divine law be inflicted, and that the infliction of it may be honourable to God, and useful to creatures: yea, he grants, that the full penalty of the * Perlaw will actually be inflicted on some men. haps the reasons of government might make it fit and proper, and therefore morally necessary, that the threatening which God has denounced, should be executed. Would the wisdom of the supreme legislator have guarded his prohibition with a penalty it was not reasonable and just he should inflict? And might not the infliction of it, when incurred, be of service, signal service, to the honour of the divine authority, and to secure the obedience of the creature in all after times?"-If it be "fit and proper, and morally necessary," if it be "of signal service to the honour of the divine authority, and to secure the obedience of creatures," to inflict the penalty of the divine law; doubtless the infliction of it is not only consistent with the general good, but subservient to it, and therefore perfectly consistent with the divine goodness. It is not "reasonable," that God should inflict the penalty of his law, unless the infliction be consistent with the general good, and so with the divine goodness. Therefore the question proposed in the last quotation may with equal truth and force be proposed a little differently, thus, Would the wisdom of the supreme

* Five Dissertations, page 231.

legislator have guarded his prohibition with a penalty, which it was not consistent with the general good of the universe, or with the goodness of his own nature, that he should in any one instance inflict?-Thus it appears to be fully granted, that divine goodness does not oppose the infliction of the penalty of the divine law, but requires it.-Nay, as hath been hinted above, Dr. C. expressly asserts, that the penalty of the law will be inflicted on some men; that on those who pass through the torments of hell, the divine law will take its course, and the threatened penalty will be fully executed.*-Now what the penalty of the divine law is, we have before endeavoured to show. Therfore if our reasoning on that head be just, it follows from that reasoning and from Dr. C's concessions in the preceding quotations taken together, that endless punishment is not only reconcileable with divine goodness, but is absolutely required by it. Would divine goodness both denounce and actually inflict a penalty, which that goodness did not require, and which was not even reconcileable with it?

Dr. C. informs us, that "Christ was sent into the world, and the great design he was sent upon was to make way for the wise, just and holy exercise of mercy— towards the sinful sons of men." It seems then, that if it had not been for the mediation of Christ, there would have been no way for the exercise of mercy towards men, in a consistency not with justice and holiness only, but with wisdom? and if not with wisdom, not with the general good: for wisdom always dictates that which is for the general good. And if it would not have been consistent with the general good, to exercise mercy towards sinners, without the mediation of Christ, neither would it have been consistent with the divine goodness, for that and that only which is subservient to the gene

* Page 336. *Five Dissertations, page 247.

[ocr errors]

ral good, is an object to the divine goodness. In this sentiment Dr. C. was very full, as we have already seen. -Therefore without the mediation of Christ, divine goodness required, that all mankind be left in a state of despair under the curse of the law. And if it have been shewn, that this curse is endless misery, it follows, that divine goodness, required that all mankind, if it had not been for the mediation of Christ, should suffer endless misery.

III. As was proposed, we now proceed to consider Dr. C's arguments from the goodness of God, to prove the salvation of all men.-If some of the following quotations be found to be rather positive assertions than arguments; I hope the fault will not be imputed to me, provided I quote those passages which contain as strong arguments from this topic, as any in his book.

*It is high time, that some generally received doctrines should be renounced, and others embraced in their room that are more honourable to the Father of Mercies, and comfortable to the creatures whom his hands have formed. I doubt not it has been a perplexing difficulty to most persons (I am sure it has been such to me) how to reconcile the doctrine which dooms so great a number of the human race to eternal flames, with the essential, absolutely perfect goodness of the Deity. And perhaps they contain ideas utterly irreconcileable with each other. To be sure, their consistency has never yet been so clearly pointed out, but that a horror of darkness still remains that is sadly distressing to many a considerate tender heart."-In this passage it is implied, that the doctrine of endless misery is not honourable to the Father of Mercies. But what is the proof of this? If there be any, it consists in these several particulars— That this doctrine is uncomfortable to the creatures of

* Page 14..

God-That it has been a perplexing difficulty to some, Dr. C. thinks to most, and "is sure it has been such to HIM," to reconcile that doctrine with the goodness of God-That perhaps they are irreconcileable-That to be sure (in Dr. C's opinion) they never have been so reconciled, but that a horror of darkness remains.

If these be arguments, they require an answer. -The first is, that the doctrine of endless misery is uncomfortable, or rather not so comfortable to God's creatures, as some other doctrines: therefore it is not honourable to the Father of Mercies.-But would Dr. C. dare to say, that every doctrine is dishonourable to God, which is not equally comfortable to sinful creatures, as some other doctrines? and that no doctrine is consistent with the divine goodness, but those which are in the highest degree comfortable to such creatures? What then will follow concerning his doctrine of "torment for ages of ages?" Or would any man choose that the comparison be dropped and that the argument be expressed thus:The doctrine of endless misery is uncomfortable to creatures, therefore it is dishonourable to God? This still confutes the doctrine of torment for ages of ages. Beside, if the meaning be, that it is uncomfortable to all creatures, it is a mistake.-To those who believe it to be a just and glorious expression of the divine hatred of sin, and a necessary mean of vindicating the justice of God, of supporting the dignity of his government and of promoting the general good; it is so far from being uncomfortable, that it is necessary to their comfort; and they rejoice in it for the same reasons, that they rejoice in the advancement of the general good. They rejoice in it on the same principles of benevolence and piety, that Dr. C. rejoiced in the prospect, that the divine law would have its course, and the full threatened penalty be executed on some of mankind.

The next particular of the above quotation is, that the doctrine of endless misery has been perplexing to some, or to most men, and to be sure to Dr. C.Doubtless this is true of many other doctrines, which however have been believed both by Dr. C, and by other Christians: such as the perfect rectitude, goodness and impartiality of all the dispensations of divine providence the consistence between the existence of sin in the world and the infinite wisdom, power, holiness and goodness of God: the final subserviency of all events to the divine glory and the general good of the system, &c. Therefore, if the argument prove any thing, it proves too much.

The third particular is, Perhaps endless misery is not reconcileable with the goodness of the Deity.-Answer, Perhaps it is reconcileable with that divine attribute.

The last particular is, To be sure (in Dr. C's opinion) they never have been so reconciled, but that a horror of darkness remains with respect to the subject—Answer, In the opinion of many other men, they have often been so reconciled, that there was no reason, why a horror of darkness in view of the subject should remain in the mind of any man. They experience no more horror of darkness in the idea, that God inflicts that endless punishment which is perfectly just, is absolutely necessary to satisfy divine justice, and vindicate the despised authority, government and grace of God, and is subservient to the glory of God and the general good; than in the idea of most other doctrines of the gospel.

But let us proceed to another passage of Dr. C.-* Multitudes are taken off before they have had opportunity to make themselves hardened abandoned sinners: and so far as we are able to judge, had they been continued in life, they might have been formed to a virtu• Page 321.

« AnteriorContinuar »