overthrown? I fear this is the case; for you have produced no argument to prove your assertions. And pray, on what foundation does you hypothesis stand? on the Scriptures? Not a single passage have you produced to defend it; but should you be disposed to write again, I shall thank you to produce some.

You now notice the parable of Dives and Lazarus, and observe, "If it be supposed to have a literal meaning, it certainly not only favours the locality both of heaven and hell, but the eternity of suffering." The parable says not a word about heaven; but Christ simply represents a case which took place in hell-hades, or the invisible world-the receptacle for both good and bad spirits till the day of judgment. But before we proceed, let us enquire into the nature and design of a parable: an eminent author defines it to be thus, viz. "To compare things together, to form a parallel or similitude of them with other things." Let us take this idea to the parable in question. Our Saviour says, There was a certain rich man, and there was a certain poor man; and, we are informed, these both died: he then gives us an account of what took place in the other world. This parable Christ uses to illustrate the following grand end, viz. That there was a sufficiency in divine revelation for the salvation of men-that no other means would be afforded them in this life and that those who neglected it would immediately after they left this world, go into a state of conscious misery, while those who obeyed it, would go into a state of conscious happiness. And in thus understanding it I can see no

absurdities.

And now, Sir, to conclude, let me entreat you, should you answer this, to come to the subject, and prove, by fair arguments, that the passages 1 have produced neither favour my system nor discountenance your hypothesis. And for the present I leave the above to your and the reader's consideration, and hope you will pardon the freeness of my remarks, as I can assure you I still remain,

Yours in the bonds of peace,

SÍR,

REMARKS

ON

MR. FULLER'S ARGUMENTS.

WILL you permit a correspondent, who trusts he is neither actuated by a spirit of controversy, nor a desire of offering the incense of Hattery upon the altar of adulation to yourself, nor yet to "set down ought in malice" against Mr. Fuller, to offer a few miscellaneous reinarks upon the controversy between you? I am equally acquainted with Mr. F. as with yourself, and know nothing of either, but what I have learnt from your respective writings: from them I understand that Mr. F. is a dissenting minister, and, from my ignorance of his general conduct, I have a right to believe, (and sincerely hope I am right in that belief,) that he is eminent for piety and virtue, and most earnesily do I pray that thework of the Lord may prosper in his hands, and that he may hereafter meet multitudes in the regions of bliss, who had been led to the consideration and practice of virtue, by his ministry-But in the controversy respecting limited or unlimited punishment in a future state it cannot have escaped the observation of impartial readers that, instead of following that example of candour and humility, of moderation and Christian charity, which your letters exhibit, he has been betrayed, (perhaps from natural warmth of temper) into illiberal expressions, uncharitable censures, and ungentlemanlike behaviour. Instead of endeavouring to reconcile contradictory passages of Scripture, by shewing how the whole may be understood consistently and in unison with the known attributes of God, he has had recourse to the usual, method of invalidating one part of the Scripture, by opposing another part to it, and seems more desirous of contending for what God has a right to do, than what he has declared is his intention of doing.

It will not be disputed that God had an uncontrolable right to have left all mankind to suffer the consequences of Adam's transgression, that he was under no obligation to provide a remedy for the recovery of his fallen and rebellious creatures; but having done so from the goodness and benignity of his nature, I apprehend that we are much more concerned to enquire what he has graciously been pleased to declare is his intention of doing, than what he had an absolute right to have done, previous to, or independant of, those precious promises made in our favour.-The Calvinist believes that those promises were made only to the elect, i. e. to a determinate number of persons, and the rest left to perish; but how they can reconcile this doctrine with those many absolute promises of universal redemption, I know not. With respect to future punishment, they agree indeed, that the same erms are used in Scripture to express the duration both of happiness and misery; and if the latter be not properly eternal, the believer has no VOL. IV. 3 N

security for the eternity of the former. But, I apprehend, this conclusion is erroneous for the following reasons.---Our Lord said to his disciples, John xiv. 19. Because I live, ye shall live also;" and in other places it is said of believers, that they shall reign with Christ for ever and ever. Now I believe Jesus Christ to be very God, and consequently will exist from necessity of nature; and as the believer's existence thus centres in the existence of Christ, the perpetuity of happiness may safely be relied upon; not indeed from the strength of the term made use of to express it, but from the certainty of every believer's union with Jesus Christ their head. With respect to impenitent sinners, the case is widely different, and the Scriptures abound with the most awful threatenings aguinst them, which will most assuredly be executed. But the Almighty God has both wisdom and power to make those punishments subservient to his grand design of "reconciling all things in the person of Jesus Christ." The Calvinists have been forced to acknowledge that the word translated eternal, everlasting, for ever, &c. must be frequently understood in a limited sense, consequently is a word of equivocal signification, the true meaning of which can only be known from the nature of the subject to which it is applied. Its true meaning has, I think, been proved to be absolutely eternal, when applied to the happiness of the blessed; many more passages might be produced in support of it, but I omit quoting them to avoid tediousness, and because they must be familiar to the readers of your Miscellany; but to understand the word in the same absolute sense, when applied to future punishment, makes void many of the promises of God, which his faithfulness will not allow of; it sets the Scriptures at variance with the divine attributes, and represents the God of love as a cruel and implacable being, dealing out infinite wrath upon finite offenders. "It is to little purpose to argue about the number of times the word is made use of, either in one case or the other; for unless Mr. F. or his friends, can prove the necessity of endless punishment, or shew its absolute certainty, from its connection with some cause which is necessarily of endless duration, it matters not whether the word be used five times only, or five hundred, because it will always have the same meaning when applied to the same subject. Mr. Fuller has expatiated upon the evil tendency of the Universal doctrine in a moral point of view; but I ask, Does not the present state of the world exhibit a lamentable proof of the inefficacy of the doctrine of endless misery, to produce moral obedience, even in those who have been brought up in the formal belief of it? Amicus, in No. XLIII. p. 270. makes the following observations—“Vice gains the ascendency over the human mind, not all at once, but by degrees. And it is the firm opinion of the writer of these lines, that Universalism and Socinianism are steps: which lead to Libertinism and Deism. Thus much, however, I do know, that some zealots for Universalism have been and now are libertines." What, in the name of wonder, does this prove, Sir? Even that some, who had made open profession of the Universal Doctrine, have led immoral lives. But, Sir, is it liberal, is it candid, is it charitable,. to condemn a whole society, and brand their tenets with the accusation

of having an evil tendency only because they happen to have some unsound members belonging to them? Is not Amicus acquainted with any of his own persuasions, who have disgraced religion by their immoral lives? If such an illiberal inference may be drawn from such a circumstance, every society of Christians may be charged with propagating principles subversive of morality, and every system of religion he saddled with the imputation of having an evil tendency.

Whether the Universal Doctrine, properly understood, or the tenets of Calvinism, which maintains sentiments so inconsistent with the known attributes of God, be most calculated to produce Libertinism and Deism,; I leave the impartial and intelligent reader to judge; nor shall I make any remarks on his disingenuous association of Universalism with Socinianism.

He goes on to say, "I knew one at least, who was a zealous Universalist, but has gone through the foregoing gradations, and at this time glories in his superior knowledge, and openly professes himself a Deist." And is this peculiar to Universalism? I trust not. If, in this age of infidelity, Amicus has never met with an instance of the kind, out of the Universalist connection, he must, I apprehend, have had but little intercourse with the world; but if such instances are to be found in other societies of Christians, (Mr. Fuller and Amicus not excepted,), it will appear very evident from what principle they bring this charge against Universalism. I knew a person in this place, who had received a liberal education, and at one time was in possession of considerable property, which he dissipated in vice and folly, and finally ended a very long life in the poor-house. This man, who was a most notorious reprobate, professed to believe the doctrine of absolute and unconditional predestination. I could also mention another, nearly as great a reprobate as the former, who, when some one remonstrated with him on his sad course of life, said he had not yet been called; that he waited for the

still small voice," but, awful to relate, was taken out of the world

without being permitted to hear it. And I have it in my power, Sir,,

to produce a case in point, in the instance of a first cousin of mine, who had been educated in the principles of the established church. We had not seen each other for several years, when meeting together a few years back, our conversation turned upon the subject of religion, andtɔ, my great astonishment, I found that he had renounced Christianity, and openly professed himself a Deist. His strongest objections to the Christian religion, evidently arose from the doctrine of endless misery, which he ridiculed as the contrivance of artful men to impose upon the ignorant, and for political purposes. He argued upon the impossibility of a finite creature committing such offences, either in number or degree, as to merit infinite punishment; he manifested very exalted ideas of the greatness of God, but absurdly contended that it was beneath his dignity to take cognizance of human actions. He allowed that Jesus Christ was the best man that ever lived, but considered all that part of his history which relates his miracles, resurrection and ascension, as nothing more than the work of crafty men, who were endeavouring to establish a new religion

in the world. Though his arguments made no impression on my faithin the divine origin of the Scriptures, yet the inconsistency which he pointed out between the attributes of God and the notion of endless misery, led me to a diligent inquiry into the subject, the result of which was, that I could by no means satisfy my mind concerning it; and after the most careful investigation, I was obliged to say with Abraham of old," shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Here the matter rested till I met with a treatise on the Universal Restoration, which threw so much light on the subject, that I was led to a further consideration of it, and by the help of this key, I have been able to unlock many dark and mysterious passages of Scripture; to reconcile many seeming contradictions, both in the word and providence of God, and my mind has been perfectly satisfied that God is able, and most assuredly will, in the end, accomplish his original design in the creation of mankind. With respect to what Amicus says, p. 268. concerning the decline of Universalism in America, I have not the means of ascertaining the fact, nor of contradicting it from author ty, but I can easily believe that some persons of weak minds, and having only a superficial acquaintance with the doctrine, may, through the means of some zealous opposers of it, have been led to renounce what they had been taught to believe was a delusion; and I am persuaded the party would not fail to magnify such an event, in order to bring the doctrine into discredit, and make it be believed, as much as possible, that a general change of sentiment had taken place concerning it.

I lately read, Sir, your Sketch of the late Mr. Winchester's Life, and likewise a publication by the Rev. Mr. Scott, Chaplain to the Lock Hospital, giving some account of the means by which he was brought to embrace the tenets of Calvin, which he had formerly opposed; and I was truly surprised to see what opposite conclusions they arived at, both using the same means! Mr. Scott in changing his sentiments, has evidently acted from conviction; and though I cannot agree with the tenets which he has adopted, yet I honour him for the integrity of his heart and the purity of his motives, and most heartily wish him all possible success in the work of his ministry, Mr. Winchester too, seems to have an equal claim to the character of integrity of heart and sincerity of intention, and appears to have been alike diligent and solicitous in his search after truth; both used the same means, viz. prayer to God for divine assistance, constant and careful searching into the Scriptures; and I believe them to be equally sincere; yet we find Mr. Scott embracing those tenets which Mr. Winchester had receded from, he having been educated a Calvinist.

Now, Sir, instead of condemning either of these amiable men, who appear to have acted in the integrity of their hearts, I rather conclude that both may have been, by their ministry and writings, eminently useful in the great work of salvation; for I think it highly probable that many have been brought to a saving knowledge of religion through the preaching and writings of Mr. S. who would not have been moved by Mr. W.'s; so on the other side, I suppose it equally probable that dany have been led to the like saving knowledge through the means