would not be infinitely benevolent. But this argument, carried out, would require the whole universe to be filled with objects of benevolence. The fallacy of the argument lies in using the term infinite in two different senses; or rather, it applies the term in its literal sense to a spiritual element, which cannot be measured by time and space. God may be infinitely benevolent, though the objects of His benevolence be not infinite. The infinity lies, not in the object, but the subject; and all that the doctrine of the Divine benevolence requires is, that wherevever sentient beings exist, this benevolence of God shall be displayed. Arguments from the eternity and infinity of God are also employed, but they are so transparently fallacious that they need not be dwelt upon.
(3.) Another branch of the a priori argument is, that as God is one, all his attributes must be exercised simultaneously; that as His omnipotence is displayed in the structure of the heavenly bodies, so His benevolence must at the same time be exercised; and that where benevolence is, there must also be sentient beings, as the objects of that benevolence. This argument cannot bear examination. It might be as well argued, that because man is one and undivided, he must exercise the gift of speech whenever he exercises the gift of hearing, and therefore whenever he listens he must also speak. All that we can say of God's attributes is, that they must all be exercised in perfect harmony.
