“A third objection is taken from the consideration of the glory of God, rather than the happiness of creatures, being his last end in creation.” Those who assume to themselves the distinguishing title of orthodox,” says Dr. Priestley, “consider the Supreme Being as having created all things by his glory, and by no means for the general happiness of all his creatures.” If, by the general happiness of all his creatures. Dr. Priestley means the general good of the universe, nothing can be more unfair than this representation. Those who are called orthodox never consider the glory of God as being at variance with the happiness of creation in general, nor with that of any part of it, except those who have revolted from the Divine government; nor, if we regard the intervention of a Mediator, with theirs, unless they prove finally impenitent, or, as Dr. Priestley calls them, “willful and obstinate transgressors.” The glory of God consists, with reference to the present case, in doing that which is best upon the whole. But if, by the general happiness of all his creatures, he means to include the happiness of those angels who kept not their first estate, and of those men who die impenitent, it is acknowledged that what is called the orthodox system does by no means consider this as an end in creation, either supreme or subordinate. To suppose that the happiness of all creatures, whatever might be their future conduct, was God’s ultimate end in creation, (unless we could imagine him to be disappointed with respect to the grand end he had in view,) is to suppose what is contrary to fact. All creatures, we are certain, are not happy in this world; and if any regard is to be paid to revelation, all will not be happy in the next.”

Excerpt From “The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined and Compared”, 1802

Fuller, Andrew,  The Works of Andrew Fuller. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2007.