BX 9947 .F84 1802 Mr. Fuller's letters to Mr, Vidler on the doctrine Digitized by the Internet Arciiive in 2009 witin funding from Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library littp://www.arcliive.org/details/mrfullerslettersOOfull ] Mr. FULLER'S LETTERS TO Mr. VIDLER, ON THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION. CLIPSTONE: Printed by and for j. w. moruis. Sold by Button &' Son, T. Conder, T. Williams, and Ti Gardiner, London: also by Ogle & Aikman, Edinburgh; and Ogle, Glasgow, — »®«— Price Eighteen-Pence. 180C. 4 \. ADVERTISEMENT. A Review of the controversy between Mr. Vidler and Mr. Fuller, on the doctrine of Universal Salvation, iti t-welxe Letters to a Universalist , being prepared for the press, the Publisher judged it a fit opportunity for gratifying the wishes of many of Mr. Fuller's friends, to reprint his Letters to Mr. Vidler on that subject. He accordingly applied to the Author for permission to do so, and received the following answer: — " Mr. Vidler, in a Letter to me, signified hisinten- '* tion to reprint the whole controversy. As he has now^, I ** should think, had sufficient time to fulfil his proposal, and ** has not done it, you are at liberty to publish that part of " it which belongs to me." The reader is requested to notice, that the first of these Letters appeared in the Evangelical INIagazine for September 1795, and the seven following ones in the Universalist's Mis- cellany, between July 1799* and July 1800; and that owing to this ciixumstance, the first Letter in the present series was not numbered in that of the Universalist's Miscellany: but what is there called the first, is here the secoi]^ ; and so on throughout. Those passages which relate to the article of " Birming- ham news," are omitted, as irrelative to the point at issue. The Review will be printed uniformly with the present publication, for the accommodation of the reader. Clipstone, Aug. 2, 1S02. Content^. Letter I. txpostulatioiis with Mr. Vidler, on his having embraced the doctrine of universal salvation • • • • • & Letter IL Reasons for not continuing the controversy, and replies to IVJr. V.'s objections to the foregoing* ....... ^ 10 Letter IIL Difficulties attending Mr. V.'s scheme, and its inconsis- tency with scripture • 20 Letter IV. Replies and defences of former reasonings .............. 32 Letter V. Evidences of endless punishment- • 44. Letter VI. Replies to objections 1 Letter VIL An examination of Mr. V.'s system and his arguments in support of it SO Letter VIIL A farther examination of Mr. V.'s scheme, with replies to his animadversions * 9? LETTERS TO Mr. VIDLER. LETTER I. EXPOSTULATIONS WITH MR. VIDLER, ON HIS HAV- ING EMBRACED THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SALVATIO^f. Ml/ dear friend, XT has afforded me fome painful con- cern to hear of your having embraced the fcheme of univerfal falvation. When you were at K , yoLi appeared to me to be of a fpeculative dif- pofition. I have long thought fuch a turn of ntind to be very advantageous, or very danger- ous: perfons of this defcription either make great advances in truth, or fall into great errors. I cannot, in this letter, enter deeply into the controverfy; nor is there any neceffity for it, as I am told that Dr. Edwards's Anfwer to Dr. Chauncey is in your hands. I earneftly wi(h you may read that piece with care, impar- tiality, and opennefs to convidiou. I think you ought to have read it before you advanced your change of fentiment ; and I greatly wifli you had : for though I do not queftion your open- nefs to conviction, an}^ more than that of any 6 LETTERS TO other perfon in your fituation, yet I know fome- tbing of what is in man: I know it is a very rare tiling tv/ien zve have once openly difccvoxved a fenti- ment, to refu?vi to it, and openly avoiv it again. There are many inftances of people changing their principles, and there may have been in- ftances of the other; but I do not recollect any. Falfe fliame, fupported by mil^aken pride, forms here a very powerful temptation. The dread of being accufed of verfatility and inde- cifion, infenfibly obtains fuch a dominion over the mind, as to blind it to one hde of the ar- gument, and to give efficacy to every thing that looks like an argument, or the fhadow of an aro'ument on the other. o It is certainly a very ferious matter that we do oiot err in onr miniftrations. Error in a minifter may afFe6l the eternal welfare of many. I hope I may prefume upon the friendlinefs of your temper, while I expoftulate Avith you upon the fubject. I will not be tedious to you, but let me intreat you to confider the following things i Firft : Whether your change of fentiment jias not arifeu from an idea of endlefs punilliment being in itfelf nnjujh If it has, confider ivhetlier this does not arifefrom diminutive notions of the evil of fm ; whether you be not too much infefted by fm yourfelf to be a proper judge of its demerit^ (a company of cl'iminals would be very improper MR. VIDLER. 7 judges of the equity and goodnefs of a law which condemns them ;) zvhetlicr you do not hold a priu- ciple, from which it will follow, that millions will be finally happy who will not he indebted to either the grace of God, or the death of Chrift, for their happinefs ; and confequently muft have a heaven to tiiemfelves, not being able to join with thofe "who afcribe theirs to God and the Lamb. For if endlefs mjfery be iii]juft, exemption from it muft be the fniner's right, and can never be attributed to mercij; neither could a mediator be needed to induce a righteous God to liberate the fmner, when he had fuffered his full defert. In fine^ confider whether you do not contradict your own experience. I think you have told me of your great diftrefs of foul, arifing from a confcioufnefs of your deferving to be call; out of God's favour, and baniflied for ever from his prefence. Can you now fay, that you did not deferve this? Do you not deferve it ftill ? If you do, why not others? Secondly : Confider whether the genius of the fenthnent in quejtion, he not oppofiie to that of every other feniiment in the bible. The whole tenor of fcripture/?/i/A to the righteous, It Jhall be 'well xvith him; atid to the zvicked, it Jhall be ill with him : But univerfal falvation faith not only to the righteous, but to the wicked, It fliall be well at laft with him. Do confider whether you can find any one fcripture truth that refembles it in this B 2 8 ' LETTERS TO refped. What dodrine, befKles this, can you find in the bible, that affords encouragement to a finner going on ftill in liis trefjjaires; and which furni/hes ground for hoj3e and joy, even fuppofing him toperfeverein fin till death? Inftead of fiding with God againft a wicked world, as a fervant of God ought to do; is not this a fiding with a wick- ed world againft God, and encouraging them to believe, what they' are apt enough to believe without encouragement, that they jhall haxie peace^ though they add drunkemiefs to thirji ? Wo is we, faid an apodlc,^ if I preach not the gofpel ! If an angel from heaven preach any other gofpel, he is declared to be accurfed! J3o ferioufly confider whether the dodrine of univerfal falvation will not render your preaching another gofpel. The g-ofpel of Chrift hgood tidings to the meek, healing to the broken hearted, and comfort to them that mourn: but muft not yours be good tidings to the proud and impenitent, and comfort to thofc whom the fcripture declares under condemnation and the curie? The gofpel of Chrid is a fyftern of holinefs, a fyftem entirely oppofite to every vici- ous bias of the human heart ; a fyftem, therefore, v/hich no unrenewed heart embraces — he that be- lieveth that Jefus is the Chriji, is bom of God: — But the good news which you muft publilh re- quires no change of heart, that it may be em- braced; being juft fuited to the wiDies of an aban- doned mind. MR. VIDLER, d Thirdly : Con fide r whether your miniftra- tions, on this principle, will not favour of his who taught our firft parents, Ye Jhull not furcly die. If you Uiould raife the hopes of the un- godly part of your audience, that though they Ihould live and die in thmr Ji I i /tin e/s, yet tliey Ihall not be Jilthy Jlill ; though they go down to th t pit, yet it Ihall not prove bottomlefs ; though the worm may prey upon them, yet at fome period or other it Ihall die ; and though they may have to encounter devouring fire, yet they Ihall not dwell in everlajiing burnings : If, I fay, you' iliould raife fuch hopes, and if all at laft fliould- prove a deception ; think how you will he able to look them in the face another day; and what is ftill more, how will you be able to look Him in the face, who hath charged you to be free from the blood of all men ; and to fay unto the wickedj it Jhall be ill zoith him, for the i^ezvard of his hands JJiall be given him ! My dear friend ! do not take it unkindly. My foul is grieved for you, and for the fouls of many around you. How are you as to peace of mind, and communion with God? Beware of the whirlpool of focinianifm. From what I under- ftand of the nature and tendency of your prin- ciples, it appears to me you are already within the influence of its deflru6live ftream. All who hold this fentiment, I know, are not focinians; 10 LETTERS TO but there are few, if any focinians, who do not hold this feotiment, which is certainly of a piece ■with their whole fyfteni. It would greatly rejoice my heart to be able to acknowledge you, as here- tofore, my brother, and fellow-labourer in the gofpel of Jefus Chriil. Do let me hear from you, and believe me to be, Yours, &c. Feb. 14, 1793. A. F. LETTER II. REASONS FOR NOT CONTINUING THE CONTROVEKSY, AND REPLIES TO MR. V.'s OBJECTIONS TO TME iOREGOING. Sir, I N the year 17.93, when I underftood that you had im])ibed the do6lrine of Univerfal Salvation, I wrote you a private expoftulatory letter, to which you returned no anfwer. You fpeak of this letter as being no fecret in the cir- cle of my acquaintance. I do not think' it M'as ihewn to more than two or three individuals. Som^S^me after, as a requeil was made in the Mvangelkal Magazine for fome thoughts on that fubjecl, and as there was nothing private in the contents of that letter, I took the liberty to fend i| up for insertion. Accordingly it appeared in the Magazine for September, 179^, (p. o57) under the lignature of Gaius. To this letter MR. VIDLER. 11 vou have fince written an anfwer, in the two firft numbers of your Mifcellany : I received from you a copy of thofe numbers at the time, and fince then another of a fecond edition, for both of M'hich I tliank you. To this anfwer I made no reply. In your fecond edition you inform your readers of the cafe, and feem to wi(h much to know the reafons of my filence. Some of your friends in the country, polTeffing a little of the fanguine temper, perhaps, of your Birming- ham correfpondent, appear to have entertained a hope that it was owing to the impreffion which your letters had made upon my mind. If fuch be alfo your hope, I can only fay it has no foundation. Whether the reafons of my filence be " co- gent" or not, the reader will judge when 1 have fi:ated them. If I do not confider them as re- quiring a continued filence, it is becaufe you have compelled me to purfue a different condu6i. To the bed of my recolleftion, I had three rea- fons for not writing at that time : — Firft : I did not know that it would be agreeable to you to infert in your Mifcellany, what I might write upon the fubje6t; and though I confidered the Evangelical Magazine as a fui- table work for the introduction of a fingle piece, yet it did not appear to be a proper vehicle for a continued difculfion, imlefs what was faid on both fides were introduced. 12 LETTERS TO Secondly: Though I was not very deeply impreired witli the force of your arguments, yet being fully perfuaded, notwithftanding what you fay of the holy nature of your doctrine, that it needed only to be read by a certain defcription of people in order to be imbibed ; and not fup- pofmg your work to have a very extenfive circu- lation at prefent, I thought it might be as well to let it alone. You may confider this, if you pleafe, as- an acknowledgment of the weaknefs of my caufe. Thirdly: Your two letters appeared to me to contain fo many mifapprehenfions, and fuch a quantity of perverfion of the plain meaning of fcripture, that I felt it a kind of hopelefs un- dertaking to go about to correct them. I do not entertain a mean opinion of your talents; but they are perverted by a fyftem. You write as though you did not nnderftand the plain meaning of words. I fliould not have thought that by faying " I obferved you to be of a fpccidative difpofition," I fliould either have puzzled or offended you. I certainly did not mean, by that form of fpcech, either tliat you difcover- ed a difpofition " not to take the alTertions of men as the rule of your faith" on the one hand, or any particular " want of refpe^l towards the facred writings" on the other. I fliould not have thought of ufing fuch modes of expreffion to MR, V IDLER. 13 convey either of thefe ideas. If you choofe to pay yourfelf fuch a compliment, or load 30111'- felf with fuch a cenfure, you are at liberty to do fo; but do not attribute either of them to me. You miglit have fuppofed that I meant to exhi- bit no very heavy charge, nor indeed any charge at all, under this form of exprelfion, feeing I added, that ** fuch a turn of mind might be very advantageous as well as very dangerous." In fuggefting that "it is a ferious matter that \vc err not in our miniftrations," I did not mean either to take it for granted that you were in an error, or to prove that you were fo; but merely to befpeak your ferious attention to the fubje<5l. Your ftumbling at the threlhold in this manner, Sir, afforded but little hope that, if I wrote, it would produce any other effed than a wrangle of words, for which I had neither time nor inclination. The three queftions which I put to you, and ** intreated you to confider," were, it feems, totally irrelative to the fubje^t, equally fo as to ** the dodrine of ele6lion : '' yet you thought proper to offer anfwers to fome parts of them, as well as to pafs over others. Waving, for the prefent, the confideration of thofe parts which you have noticed, I Ihall remind the reader of 4 few things which you have not noticed, and c l-i' LETTERS Ta leave him to judge \yhether even tliey were to- tally irrelative to the fubjedl. You have not told us, that I reco\\t6t, M'he- thcT you claim an exemption from endlefs pu- nifhment as a light; but feem to wifh us to think that this is not your ground, efpecially as you afcribe it to the death of Chrift: (p. 10) yet, in other parts of your Mifcellany, I perceive the gift of Chrift itfelf is confidered as a reparation for an injury; (p. 69) \vhich affords but too plain a proof that notwithftanding all you fay of grace and love, it is not on the footing of grace, but debt, that you hold with Univerfal Salvation, Under the fecond quefiion you were afked, *' What doctrine, befides that of univerfal falva- tion, you would fmd in the bible, which affords encouragement to a fmner, going on ftill in his trefpalVes ; and which fiirniflies ground for hope and joy, even fuppofing him to perfevere in fni till death?" To this you have given no anfwer. Was this queftion equally irrelative to the fubje6l as to the dodrine of eledion ? Under the third queftion, j^ou were ad- dreffed as follows: — " If you fhould raife the '' hopes of the ungodly part of your audience, '' though they fliould live and die in their Jilihi* '* nefij yet xht f {ha.\\ not be fill/ij/ ^/i ill ; though ^' they go down to the/;//, yet it Ihall not prove MR. VIDLER. 15 *' bottomkfs; though the worm prey upon them, " 3'et at fome period or other it Ihall die ; and *' though they may have to encounter devouring ^^ Jire, yet they lliall not dwell with everlajling *' burnings: If, I fay, you iliould raife fuch " hopes, and if all at lafl Ihould prove a decep- *' tion, think how you will be able to look them *' in the face another day; and what is ftill *' more, how you M'ill be able to look Him in ** the face who hath charged you to be pure " from the blood of all men! " Was this equally irrelative to the fubjeft as to the dodrine of elec- tion? Yet to no part of this have you given any anfwer, except your attempting to explain away the term everlajling may be fo called. You reprefent the whole of this third queftion, as proceeding on the fuppofition of your denying all future punifliment. But is not this a grofs inifreprefentation ? Does not the whole forego- ing paffage allow that you admit of future pu' nilliment of a limited duration ; and hold up, though not in the form of arguments, feveral fcriptural objedions to that notion ? I confider this. Sir, as a further proof of your talents for fair and plain reafoning, being perverted by a fyftem. You appeal to the fcriptureSy and contend that they no where teach the dp6lrine of endlef^ c 2 \6 LETTERS TO puni/Iinient; yet you are aware that they ^pj&e^r to do ib, and are obliged to have recourfe to a method of weakening the torce ofternis in order to get rid of them. It has been long the practice of writers on your fide the queftion, to ring changes on the words aio??, and aionios ; pretty Avords no doubt, and could they be proved to be Jefs exprelhvc of endief) duration than the Engli/li words everlajiiug aiu\ eierual, they might be fome- tliing to the purpole : but if not, the coijtinual recurrence to them is a mere aifeCtation of learn- ing, ferving to miilead the ignorant. Be this as it may, this is an exercile which hardly becomes you or me. I iliall only obferve upon it, that by this method of proceeding, you may difprove al- moil any thing you pleai'e. There are fcarcely any terms in any language, but what, through the poverty of language itfelf, or the inequality of the number of words to the number of ideas, are fomeiimes ufed in an improper or figurative fenfe. Thus, if one attempt to prove the divinity of the Son of God, or even of the Father, from his being, called Jtho'cah, God, &c. you ma\' reply, that the name Jehovah is fometimes given to things; as,, to an altar, a city, and once to the church; therefore nothing can be concluded from hence in favour 'of the argument. Thus alfo, if one go about to prove the omnifcience of God, from its being declared that his U7iderjiand' MR. VIDLER. 'lY i??g is itifnite; you niigiit anfuTr, tlieterm infinite is fometimes iii'td to exprels only a very great de- gree, as when the ftrengtli of Ethiopia and Egypt isfaid t® have been injit,itc. (Nali. iii. 9) Again: If one endeavour to prove the endlefs exiftencc of God, from his being called the eternal God, the everiajl'ing Ood, &c. ; or the endlefs duration of the heavenly inhci'itance, from its being called eternal Viie, an inheritance incorruptible, and that fadeth 7wt cmmy ; you might anfwer, thefe terms are fometimes ufed to fignify only a limited dura- tion ; and, that a thing in common language is fai^l to be incorruptible^ when it will continue a long time without any fjgns of decay. The queftion is, Could jlronger terms hat'c been ufed concerning the duration of future pufiijli" ment than are ufed? To object againft the words everlajiing, eternal, &c. as being too weak, or in- determinate in their application for the purpofe, is idle, unlefs others could be named which are flronger, or more determinate. What expreffions could have been ufed that would have placed the fubje6l beyond difpute? You ordinarily make ufe of the term endlefs, to exprefs our doctrine: it fliould feem then, that if we read oi' endlefs punifh- ment, or punilliment without end, you M'ould be- lieve it. Yet the fame objections might be made to this, as to the words everlafting, eternal, &c. It is common to fay of a loquacious peifon, He is 18 LETTERS TO an endlefs talker: it might, therefore, be pretend- ed that the term endlefs is very indeterminate ; that it often means no more than a long time; and, in fome inftances, not more than three or four hours at longeft. Thus you fee, or may fee, that it is not in the power of language to Hand before llich methods of criticifmg: and rea- foning, as thofe on which you build your fyftem. Admitting all that you allege in favour of the limited fenfe of the above terms. Hill the na- ture of the fubje6l, the connection and fcope of the paffages, together with the ufe of various other forms of expreflion which convey the fame thing, are fufficient to prove, that, when applied to the dodrine of future punifhment, they are to be underftood without any limitation. If we read of a difeafe cleaving to a man /or ecey\ the plain meaning is, to the end of his life : if of an everkifling priefthood, the meaning is, one that fhould continue to the end of the difpen- fation of which it was an inftitute; if o? everlajling hills, or mountains, the meaning is, that they will continue //// the end of the world: but \^ after this world is ended, and fuccefiive duration confe- quently terminated, Ave read that the wicked lliall go aM'ay into evcrlafiing punifliment, and that in the fame paffage in which it is added, but the righteous into everlajiing life ; (Matt. xxv. 46.) M'o be to the man who dares to plunge into that MR. VIDLER. 19 abyfs, on the prefumption of finding a bottom ! The evidence which you offer of a fucceffive duration after this period, is a proof of tlie fear- city of that article in the paths which you are in the habits of tracing. A plain unbiaifed reader of fcripture would have fuppofed, that the terms day and nighty in Rev. xiv. 1 1, had been a figu- rative mode of expreffion to denote perpetuity ; and efpecially as the fame language is ufed by the inhabitants of heaven, ch^ip. vii. 15. For my part, I confefs I fiiould as foon have dreamed of proving from what is faid in chap, xxi. 24 — " The nations of them that are faved fiiall walk in the light of the New Jerufalem," — that mankind will maintain their prefent political diltinftions in a future ftate, as of founding upon fuch lan- ofuao'e the idea of fucceihve duration. Your expofitions on other parts of the Revelations are of the fame defcription, as frigid as they are puerile. It is a wonder the New Jerufalem coyning dow7i from heaxen had not been fuppofed to have fallen into tJie fea^ and to have filled it up; and an argument been drawn from its great dimenfions, of its being large enough to contain the whole human race. You mud not be fur- prifed, Sir, if I do not perceive the force of thefe paflluges in proving that all beyond the lafl judgment is wot proper ateriiity. Yours. &c. July, 179"). A. P- ( 20 ) LETTER III. DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING MR. V. S SCHEME, AND ITS INCONSISTtNCV WITH SCKIPTUUE. Sir, Y< OU complain, more than once, of my not undeiTtanding the fuhjedl againft which I write; aiKl here, for ought I fee, I mufl: fall under. I confefs I do not, nor can I under- lland what it is that you helieve. Having heard and feen fo njuch of your profefling to hold the dodrine of iiniverfal falvation, univerfal reftitu- tion, and that " all men will be finally benefited by the death of Chrift," I really thought you had meant fo; and could not have imagined that with thefe pretenfions you would Jiave avowed the notion of annihilation. Hence it was, that in my third queftion, though 1 did not as you al- lege, proceed upon the fuppofition of your deny- ing all future punifiiment, yet I acknowledge I did proceed upon the fuppo^fition that you hold with no other future puniihinent than what iliould terminate in everlalling life. And who could have thouofht otherwife? After all the informa- tion you have fince given me, I am ftill fo igno- rant as not to underfiand how all men are to be finally faved, and yet a part of them annihilated ! Neither can I comprehend how there can come a time with finners when he that made them will LETTERS TO MR. VIDLER. 21 not have mercy upon them, on the fuppofition that all pumjhment, of all degrees and duration, is itfelf an exercife of mercy, (p. 10.) Neither can I comprehend how you recon- cile many things in your fclieme with the holy fcriptures. 1 have been ufed to underftand the terms death and perijh, being oppofed to everlaft- ing life, (John iii. \6. x. 28.) as expreflive, not of the lofs of being, bat of well-being. But with you they fignify annihilation, (p. 42) The de* fign of God, it feems, in giving his Son to fuffer for us, was not to fave us from fufFering, but merely from becoming extin61, and to perpetuate our exiftence. And the death which thofe who keep his fayings fliall never tafte, (John viii. 52) means the fame thing : they iliall exift for ever ; a bleffing which your fcheme makes equally appli- cable to many who do not keep his fayings, as to thofe who do. And where do you find the above terms ufed to convey the idea of annihilation on any other fiibje6t ; and from whence was this notion learned? * When we are told that God zcill not contend for ever, neither zvill he be always zvroth; for the fpirit Jliould fail before him, and the fouls which he * The reader will perceive hereafter, that Mr. F. was mis- taken in supposing Mr. V. to hold the doctrine of Annihilation: this he acknowledges in Letter VI. D 22r LETTERS TO hath mack, (Ifai. Ivii. 16.) Ifuppofecl it had been meant only of them who in the context are faicl to put their truft in the Lord; and that in the prefent life, feeing it was promifed them that they ihould poffeft the la^id, and inherit his holy tJioim-' tain ; of them who were of a contrite and humble fpirit, and not of the wicked, who are likened to the troubled fea, for whom there is no peace: but you confider all thefe promifes as belonging to the fame people as the threatening in ch. xxvii. 16. He that made them 'iciil not hare mercy upon them, and lie that formed litem xvill Jhew them no favour ! I obferve when fuch terms ^s for ever feem to favour your caufe, they are to be taken in their utmoft latitude of meaning. If it had been faidof the divine Being, he r£ji// contend forever, *you would have introduced your fmg-fong of nionas and aionon,* as fometimes meaning only a limited duration; but feeing it is faid he will not contend for ever, here the word muft be under- ftood of duration without end. You muft ex- cufe me, however, if I for once avail myfelf of your critical labours, and remind you that jTor fxcr in this paflage refers merely to the prefent life, as the context plainly Hiews. 1 never imagined, till Ifaw it in the writings of univerfalifts, that Jinijhing tranfgrcjjion and * Alluding to Mr. V.'s quotation iu Unixcr. JMhcel. No. I. p. 8. MR. V IDLER. 23 making an end of Jin, (Dan. ix. 24) had any re- ference to what was to be done after the refurrec- tion and the laft judgment; and efpecially fince what is there predicled was to be accomphihed within fccenty weeks, or four liundred and ninety years from the time of the prophecy. I have been ufed to think that the media- tion of Chrili was not on l)ehalf of fallen angels, M'hofe nature he took not on him, of whofe falva- tion the fcriptures are filent, and whofe own ideas are, that they have nothing to do with him, iMatt. viii. 29. But according to your reafon- ings, they alfo muft be either faved or annihilat- ed; yea, they mud have at lead the offer of falva- tion, otherwife their prefent and future fufferings would not be in mercy, which you confider as be- longing to all punilhment whatever. It had been ufual with me to think that the triumph of mercy, in the day of retribution, as dcfcribed in James ii. 13. Pfalm Ixii. 12. refpeft- ed another defcription of people than thofe who were to xtctiwit judgment without mercy ; namely, thofe that Ihould Jo [peak and fo do, as they that Jlwuld be judged by the perfect laxv of liberty : but you have found out a fcheme, it feems, in which thefe oppolites are united in the fame perfons ; and in which the ungodly, while mo^twrn^ judg- ment xvithout mercy ^ have no judgment but D 2 24 LETTERS TO what is 171 mercy, (p. 10) Is it furprifing, fi,-, that a man of plain and ordinary capacity fhould be at a lofs to underltand fuch thinsfs as thefe? It would not have occurred to me that a,n argument could have been drawn from the threat- enings of God to Ifrael in the prefent life, (Lev. XXV.) to what fliall be done to the ungodly world in the life to come; yet fo it is: (p. 43) and the ground on which the analogy is juftified, is the immutability of the divine characler. But what the imnuitable character of God requires to be done, muft be done alike in all ages, and to all people: whereas, what was there threatened to Ifrael was not done at the fame time to other nations, nor has it been done fince to any nation befide them. (Amos iii. 2. Adls xxvii. 30.) There is nothing in it analogous to his dealings with mankind, unlefs it be the general idea of his *' making ufe of natural evil to correct moral evil." This being known to be the cafe on earth, you " cannot but think it mull be the defign of future punifliment. ' Such is the whole of your argument, which you recommend to my " ferious confideration!" But how if, on the other hand, I ihonld fay, though natural evil be ufed on earth to correal moral evil, in fociety at large, yet it is not always fent for the purpofe of correcting the parties themfelves? We have no proof that the men of Sodom were deftroyed by fire, or Pharaoh drowned in the fea, for their good : therefore, I MR. VIDLER. 25 cannot but think there is a fimilar defign in fu- ture punilhment. T always fuppofed that the fenfe in which God is faid to be the faviour of all men, efpecially of them that believe, (p. 44) was that in which the apoftle there puts his truji in him; namely, as the God of providence, whofe care is extended to all his creatures, but efpecially to believers. I have read of the d'lfpenfation of the fulnefs of times ; but the idea never occurred to me that thefe times were to be underftood of ages beyond the laft judgment. I have no doubt but the *' gathering together in one all things in Chrift, which are in heaven, and which are on earth," will be accomplifhed, and that within the limits of time. If it be done, as you allow it will, (p. 10) by the time " that he Ihall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power, and. Hiall have fubdued all things unto himfelf," it will be done by the time he fliall have raifed the dead, and judged the world; for then is this work defcribed as being accompliflied. 1 Cor. XV. 24. In reading the account of the new heaxien and new earth in the xxi. chap, of the Revelations, I find amongll other things it is faid, there Jhall be no more deaths and afterwards no more curfe ; but 1 Ihould not have thought of thefe things being applied to the univerfe at large, but merely to the '26 LETTERS TO inhabitants of that bleffed ftate; and the rather feeing it is faid in the fame chapter, that the fear^ fulj and the unbelieving, and the abominable, and viurderers, and whoremongers, and forcercrs, and idolators, and all liars, Jhall have their part in the lake zvhich burneth xvith fire aiid brimjione, which is the fecond death. Neither coukl I have fuppofed it poffibie, from fuch a reprefentation of the feco fid death, to conclude that it confifled in annihilation. By the ti?ncs of the rejiitution of all tJii'ngs, (Acls iii. 21) I have been ufed to iinderftand the times of the refurre6lion and the lad judgment: for that till then, and no longer, will Chrift be detained in the heavens. ^Vhenever Chrifl de- fcends from heaven, tlien, according to Peter, Avill be the times of the reftitution of all things : but this will be previous and in order to his raif- ing the dead and judging the world (1 Thes. iii. 16.) Confequently thefe are the times of which the apofile fpcaks. The utter overthrow which will then be given to the kingdom of fatan by the general conflagration, (2 Peter iii. 12) the deftruciion of the laft enemy, death, by the re- furreclion, (I Cor. xv. 23, 26) and the final ad- juftment of human affairs by the laft judgment, (Matt. XXV. 31, 46) will be a reftitution of all things; the empire of hn will be cruflicd, and the government of God conjpletely reflored. MR. VIDLER. 27 But the times in which your fchemc is to be accompH/lied, niuft be after the final judgment; for from that period there h ^\\ ever lajt lug punijh- ment for the wicked to endure, a lake of fire into which they are to be caft; (Matt. xxv. 46. Rev. XX. 15) and from which your reftitution of all things is to recover them. Your reftitution there- fore, and that of the fcriptures, are not tiie lame. You cannot conceive of a reftitution of all things, and of fin being made an end of, unlefs all the individuals in the creation be either re- conciled to God, or annihilated : but ndiat au- thority have you for fuch a conftru6lion of thefe terms? Did the rcjioring of all things on the Meffiah's firft appearance, (Alatt. xxvii. 11) in- clude all individuals, fo far as it went? When God faid to Zedekiah, And thou profane, wicked prince of If^ael, whofe day is come, when iniquity (hall have an end, did it mean that he fliould be either converted or annihilated? Ezek. xx. 25. And when the fame language is ufed of the fins of the people, (chap. xx\\ 5) does it mean that they fiiould be either converted or annihilated? Hather is it not manifeft that by iniquity havitig fin end is meant, that the perpetrators of it were brought to condign punifiiment, fiiut up in Baby- lon as in a prifon, and rendered incapable of doing further mifchief? Such will be the cafe with all the ungodly at the fecond coming of Chrifi; and this will be the reftoration of peace^ 28 LETTERS TO order, and happinefs, to the reft of the univerfe. The do6lrine of endlefs mifery appears to you to " confound all degrees of punifliment, in giving infinite punifliment to all." (p. 42.) You, it feems, can conceive of no diverfity of fuffer- ing, unlefs it be in duration. Will the reflexion of loft fouls on their paft life then be all exa6lly the fame? The fame in the objefts refleclcd on, and confequently the fame in the intenfenefs of their mifery? How grofsly abfurd, hr, muft be your notions of future punilhment, to athnit of fuch an idea ! Befides, there is equal reafon to believe that there will be different degrees of glory as of mifery. If heavenly blifs bear any relation to the labours and fulferings of the pre- fent life on behalf of Chrift, which the fcriptures affure us it does, (Matt. v. 12. 2 Cor. iv. 17) thefe being diverfe, that niuft alfo be the fame. But according to your reafoning, tiiere can be no diverfity unlefs it be in duration: either, there- fore, all degrees of happinefs muft be confounded in giving infinite happinefs to all, or the inhabi- tants of heaven, as well as thofe of hell, muft, after a certain period, be continually diminifhing by annhiliation. Such, fir, are your expofitions of fcripture. Except in the produftions of a certain maniac in our own county, 1 never recolle6t to have feen fo much violence done to the word of God in ^o fmall a compafs. MR. VIDLER. 29 According to your fcheme, all things work together for good to them that love not God, as well as to them that love him. Thus you con- found what the fcriptures difcriminate. Our Lord told the jews, That if they believed not that he was the Meffiah, they fhould die in their fins, and whither he went they could not come; (John viii. 21.) but according to your fcheme, they might die in their fins, and yet be able to go whither he went, and inherit eternal life. The fcriptures defcribe a fort of chara6lers "who fliall be expofed to a certain fearful looking for of judgment : (Heb. x. 27.) but this, accord- ing to 5^our fcheme, can be nothing more than annihilation. For as the cafe\of the chara6lers defcribed is fuggefted to be irrevocable and hope- lefs, they cannot be puniflied during ages of ages in a way of mercy, or. with a view to their reco- very: and as to their being puniflied during this long period, and In the end annihilated, this would be contrar}' to all your ideas of punifliment, which muft always have its foundation in mercy. Hence it follows, that all this fearful looking for of judgment, amounts to no more than what atheifts and infidels generally prefer; death being to them an everlajling Jlcep. E 30 LETTERS TO Nor is your hypothefis lefs at variance with itfelf than with the holy fcriptures. Your notion oi temporary puniJJiment claflies with all your ar- guments drawn from the benevolent feelings of a good man. You aflv, " Doth not every good man " love his enemies, and forgive even the worft *' of them? Is there a man living whofe heart is " filled with the love of God that would not pro- '' mote the bed intereft of his mofl inveterate " foe, if it lay in his power? Ax\6. has not God "more love than the bed of men? And are not *' his wifdom and his power equal to his love?" (p. 74.) In return I aflc, Is there a man living whofe heart is filled with the love of God, who would be willing that his worft enemy fhould be caft into hell for ages of ages, ©r for a fingle age, or even a fingle day, when it was in his power to deliver him from it? But God hath more love than the beft of men, and his wifdom and power are equal to his love; confequently there will be no future puniflimeirt! Your notion of annihilation mhII alfo contra- di6l the greater part of your pretenfions. Yoii talk of z<7zii'er/«/ falvation ; but you do not believe it: for a part of the human race are to be given up as incurables to annihilation. You plead the fifth chapter to the Romans in favour of your dodrine, contending that jujiijicat'um of life will be as ex- tenfive as condemnation ; but you believe no fuch MR. VIDLER. 31 thing: for a part of thofe who are condemned, inftead of being juilified and faved, will be given up as incurables to annihilation. You think you fee times beyond the laft judgment, in which all things, or rather as you underlland it, all perfons, are to be gathered together in Chrift, and reconciled by the blood of his crofs : howbeit you mean rrot fo, neither doth your heart think fo; for a part of them M'ill be ftruck out of exift- ence, and who can therefore be neither gathered nor reconciled. You pretend to unite the opi- nions of calvinifts and arminians : the former, you fay, render the death of Chrift eflfe6lual, but limit its defign to a part of mankind: the latter tend it to all, but confider it as ineffedual; while you maintain that it is defigned for all, and eifec* tual to all. (pp. 70,71.) But this is mere pretence: you believe no fuch thing; for a part of mankind are to be at laft annihilated. By an anecdote which you have inferted in p. 65, of your Mifcellany, you flatter yourfelf tliat you have faftened a dif- ficulty on a Mr. R. from which he cannot extri- cate himfelf, but by embracing your do6lrine. But neither could he, if he did embrace it; for you no more believe that God will fave all man- kind, than Mr. R. You pretend to urge it as a difficulty on me, that *' either God cannot, or will not make an end of flit; that there is not efficacy enough in the E 2! 32 LETTERS TO blood of Chrift to deftroy the works of the devil; or elfe that the full efficacy of the atonement is Avith-held hy the divine determination:" (p. 44.) But it is all pretence. If it be a difficulty, it equally hears upon your own hypothelis as upon mine. If Chrill died with an intention to fave all, why are not all faved? Why niuft a number of them be annihilated ? Is it becaufe God cannot bring them to repentance and falvation ; or be- caufe he will not? Is there not efficacy enough in the blood of the crofs to deftroy the works of the devil, without his having recourfe to a mere a^ of power; an a6l which might have been ex- erted without that blood being ihed ? Or is the full efficacy of the atonement withheld by the divine determination ? Kettering, Yours, &c. Augufti). 1799. A. F, LETTER IV. REPLIES AND DEFENCES OF FORMER IIEAS05CINGS. Sir, I ]\IUST be very weak, if, while writing in a publication of wiiich my opponent is the Editor, I iliould expect to have the laft word. — AV^hen I have iaid what appears to me neceffary on any point, and on the whole matter of dif- pute, I fliall leave it to the judgment of the candid reader. MR. VIDLER. S3 From any thing I had advanced, you had no ground to conclude tliat I formed an impro- per eltirnate of my own reputation. Any man, who has heen in tlie habit of writing, and whofe writings have been at all regarded Ij}' the pub- lic, muft be polfeHed of fome reputation; and whether it be Imall or great, it is iiis duty not to make ufe of it for the propagation of what he believes to be pernicious error. *' Truth (you fay) courts the public obfer- vation of men;" and fo may error. If it be true, that wifdom crieth in the top of high places, it is equally true, that folly is loud and Jiubhorn. The advocates of infidelity, fir, are not lefs bold than yourfelf ; nor lefs loud in their challenges of ex- amination. Such challenges afford no criterion of truth; nor is it any proof of the goodnefs of a caufe that its abettors court the public attention. They may be well aware that public prejudice i? in their favour; or may entertain a much greater dread of finking into infignificance by neglect, than of being overcome in the field of conteft. You have repeatedly reminded me of the fa- vour which you confer upon me by permitting my papers to appear in your mifcellany. Now, fir, 1 confider it as no favour at all; nor as af- fording any proof of your impartiality. If you think otherwife, you are at perfed liberty, after introducing this feries of letters, to difcontinue 34 LETTERS TO them. If I wifli to write any thing farther on the fubjet'"!, I fliall not be at a lofs for a proper medium. " The prejudices of both profeflbr and pro- fane (vou tell nie) are In mv favor." Had vou ufed the term confcicfict'6\ inftead of prejudices, you would have been nearer the truth. So far as my obfervations extend, the prejudices of the bulk of mankind are on the other {ide. Deifts and libertines lead the way by an open or af- fected rejedion of all future puni/liment. Soci- iiians, who generally include univerfal falvation in their fcheme, follow hard after them. Mrs. Barbauld, if I remember right, in her Remarks on Mr. Wakefield's Enquiiy, goes fo far as to reprefcnt the ideas of accefs to God through a mediator, and of punifliment in a bottomlefs pit, as originating in the ignorance and fervility of eaflern cufloms. Unbelievers, it is well known, rejoice in the fpread of focinianifm, as being favourable to their views; and focinians rejoice no lefs in the fpread of univerfalifm, as favourable to theirs. This is, fufficiently manifefi by the applaufes which writers on your fide com- monly meet with in the Monthly Review. There are great numbers of nominal chrifi;ians of loofe characters, m'Iio would be glad to believe your doClrine of temporar}^ puni/hment, and to pro- ceed, by an eafy tr^nfition, to that of no pw,7| MR. VIDLER, 35 nidiment at all ; nor is there any bar which pre- vents theh* falling in with thei'e views, but the renionftrance of their confciences. They fear it is too favourable to their vices to be true, and therefore are deterred from embracing it. — Such, fir, is the " defcriptiou of people," after whom you enquire; fuch is the company with whom you alTociate, and to whom you adminifter con- folation; and fuch is the jullnefs of your remark, that " the prejudices of both profeffor and pro- fane are in my favour." If you yourfelf had not been perfuaded of the contrary, I queftion whether you would have given that title to my two firft letters, which appears on the blue covers of your ^vork.* The word toinnents, it is true, can give no ji(Ji offence, as it is a fcriptural ex- preflion; yet to perfons who judge on thefe fub- je6ts merely by their feelings, the ideas con- veyed by it are fufficient to prejudice them againft every thing Avhich a writer may advance. Your magazines, fir, I prefume, would be lefs acceptable to many of your readers than they are, if, inftead of employing fo large a portion of them in attempting to prove that all will be finally happy, you were frequently to jufifl that fome men would be tormented in hell without any mixture of mercy for a number of * " l*etter I. tVom Mr. A. Fuller, in dt'fcr.f^ of <'ieni{\l iormcius." S6 LETTERS TO ages; and if you infifted on this do6lnne alfo itt your pulpit exercifes, you yourfelf might poffibly be confidered as a " brawler of damnation." You carefully avoid claiming univerfal fal- vation as a right, and are pleafed to reprefent my inquiry on that fubje6l as " a quibble." I am not furprif^d, fir, that you Ihould feel relu6lant on this head ; that you Ihould decline the defence of your friend, and that you fliould alternately compliment and reproach your opponent, as if to keep him at a diftance from the fubjecl. (No. i» p. 5. No. xxxiv. p. 309.) If I miftake not, this is a fundamental principle in your fyftem, and that which proves it to be fundamentally wrong. There is no need of having recourfe to the pieces of other writers; your own produc- tions afford fufficient evidence that the falvation for which you plead is not that which arifes from the free grace of God through Jefus Chrift; and confequently, that it is no part of the falvation revealed in the gofpel. You reje6l the idea of invalidating the divine threatenings towards sinners, (No. xxxiv. p. 310.) admitting *' Ihem in their full latitude, and the execution *' of them too;" maintaining that *' God will " deal with his creatures according to chara6ler;'* and that finners w^ill be punched " according to their works." (No. ii. p. 42.) Now, fir, if there be any meaning in all this language, it MR. V ID LEU. 57 is, That juflice will have its coiiiTe on the un- gocll}'; and that whatever pnni(l]ment they en- dure, whether it be vindiftive or corrective, endlefs or temporary, it is all that their fins de- fevce. If the threatenings of God mean no more than a punifhment which is temporary, and for the good of finners, their conduct can deferve no more; for we cannot have a more cer- tain rule of eftimating the juft demerit of fin, than the wrath of God which is revealed from heaven again ft it. But if finners endure the full defert of their fin, there is no room for grace, or xmdeferved favour ; nor is any place left for the work of mediation. A criminal who has fuf- fered the full penalty of the law, has no right to be told that his liberation is an a6l of orrace, or that it was owing to the mediation of another. Your univerfal falvation, therefore, is no part of that which arifes from the grace of God, or the death of Chrift; nor is it, properly fpeaking, fal- vation at all, but a legal difcharge in confe- quence of a full fatisfaclion to divine jnftice be- ing made by the fufferings of the finner. If you contend that the liberation of the finner is owing to the grace of God, through the mediation of his Son, which mitigates and ihoit- ens his puniflmient, then you at once give up all you have before maintained; That finners will be F 3S l£tters to puni filed according to their works, and tliat the threatenings of God will be fully executed upon them. You may have read of " inftauces of both punifhment and pardon to the fame perfons, and for the fame fins:" (No. xxxv. p. 337.) but this muft be where the punifliment has not been according to the defert of the fin, other- wife there had been no need of pardon. You talk much of my dealing in '\fifppo/i'- tiois mhead of arguments," and of my '' refting my conclttfions on unfounded affumptions." 1 have carefully examined tliefe charges, and am unable to perceive the juflice of them in a fin- gle inftance. Though the letter which appeared in the Evangelical Magazine M^as chiefly in the form of fuppofition, yet that fuppofition was not deftitute of argument to fupport it. It is poffible, fir, though it does not appear to have occurred to your mind, that arguments themfelves may be conveyed under the form of fuppofitions. To convince you that this was the cafe in the above letter, I M'ill put the very paffage to which you obje(?t, into the form of argument. . • The fcriptures teach us that thofe who at a Cert^>in period are found/iltlij/, Jhall he filthy fiill ; that they lliall be caft into that hottomlefs pit Y/hich was prepared for the devil and his angels; and that they fhall dwell with ererlafting burn- ings.-^ MR. VIDLER, 5p But your do6lii lie teaches, that though they be filthy at death or judgment, or any other period, yet they fhall not be always fo; that though they be caft into the pit of deftruclion, yet it Ihall not prove bottomkfs ; and that though they have to encounter devouring fire, yet they iliall not dwell with everlajiing burnings.— Therefore your do6lrine is antifcriptural. But if your doctrine be antifcriptural, it is of that nature which tends to deceive the fouls of menj and you will not be able to look them in the face another day, and fi;ill lefs Him who hath charged you to be pure from the blood of all men. The firfi; three pofitions contain the argu- ment, and the laft the inference. I (liould think " the world," or rather the reader, did not need to be informed what argu- ment there was in this firing of fuppofitions; if lie did, however, I have attempted, at your re- queft, to give him that information. With refpe6l to building on '* unfounded afi'umptions," for which I am accufed of " be- traying my ignorance of the fubje<5l I have written againft," (No. ii. p. 45.) you have given us two inftances, which I fiiall briefly e>>:- amine. Firft: I had afked, What doarine, hefides Ithat of univerfal falvation, will you find in tl)e 40 LETTERS TO bible which affords encouragement to a (inner going on flill in his trefpafles; and wliich fur- niilies ground for hope and joy, even fuppofing liim to perfevere in lin till death? What prin- ciple is it that is here alTiimed? Why, (you anfvver) that the doctrine of univerfal falvation does afibrd encouragement to a fmner going on ftill in his trefpalfes, and does furnifh ground for hope and joy, even fuppofing him toperfevere in fjn till death. And is this indeed a queftion? I took it for a felf-evident truth, and fuppofed you muft and would have acknowledged it. Whe- ther you M'ill or not, however, I appeal to the common fenfe of the reader, whether any pofition can be more felf-evident than the foliowing— If the fcriptures teach that all men ihall be finally faved, every fmner, whatever be his vici- ous courfes, is encouraged to expert eternal life: and though he fliould perfift in fin, till death, is warranted to hope and rejoice in the profpe6l of all being well with him at lafl. For any man to deny this pofition, is to deny what is felf-evi- dent, and there can be no farther reafoning with him. To allege in anfwer. That it will be always ill with the wicked xvhile he contbnies fo, is trifling: for if the finner be taught to believe at fome future period beyond this life he fhall be delivered both from fm and punilhment — MR. V IDLER. 41 whetlier tlie former branch of this deliverance afford hhii joy or not, the latter muft. The fame queftion, you fay, might be afked concerning the dodrine of eledion. It might; but I iliould readily anfwer, No finner while go- ing on ftill in his trefpalfes is warranted to confider himfelf as elected to falvation: therefore that do6irine affords no ground of hope and joy to perfons of this defrription. Can you fay the fame of the doctrine of univerfal falvation? If there were the fame ground for an ungodly fin- ner to conclude himfelf ele6ted, as your do6lrine affords for his concluding that he Ihall be eter- nally faved, the cafes would be parallel; and both thefe do6lrines would be alike fubje6l to the charge of comforting thofe whom God would not have comforted: but as this is not true of election, your notion is ftill folitary, and your difficulty remains where it was. All the enco- miums which you pafs upon the univerfal fcheme (No. ii. pp. 41 — 44.) furniflies not a fingle ex- ample of any other divine truth which gives en- couragement to a finner, while in his fins, to be- lieve that in the end it fliall be well with him. The queftion therefore ftill returns upon you, What do6trine besides that of univerfal falvation will you Jind in the bible which affords encourage- Ti/ient to afimier going onjiill in his trefpaffes^ and 4^ LETTERS TO which furniJJies ground foi' hope and joy ^ even fiip- pofing him to perfevere in them till death ? I do not fay, " let the Avorld judge" whether this queCtion proceeded on any unfounded ajjump- tiony and whether it he equally applicable to elec- tion as to univerfal falvation, becaufe I imagine it M'ill be but a very fmall part of the world that M'ill examine our productions: but I am willing to make my appeal to the intelligent and impar- tial reader. And with refpe6l to you, Sir, the tafk which you have fet yourfelf is before you; cither to *' confefs it to be true," that your doc- trine gives encouragement, hope, and joy to wicked men; or to " expofe the falfehood of this .fuppofition more fully." In the fecond place, you charge me with ** taking it for granted that your views invali- *' date the divine threatenings towards finners;" and intimate that there is no " reafon" in what I fay, but upon the fuppofition of your denying *' all future punifliment." (No. ii. p. 45.) That I never fuppofcd you to deny all future punifliment, I have already proved; and that any thing which I advanced required fuch a fuppo- fition, you have not hitherto made appear. As to your invalidating the divine threatenings, fo far as the dodlrine of univerfil falvation appeals to me to operate in that way, fo far I mud of iieceflity believe that you do: but whatever may Mft. VIDLER.' -is:- be rtiy belief, the queftion is, Have I built any conclufioii upon it as an acknowledged truth? If fo, how came I to entreat you to conjider whe- ther it zvas not fo? Is it ufual to entreat an opponent to confider whether that M'hich we take for granted as an acknowledged truth, be true? Undoubtedly I fuggefted this idea to you as being my judgment, which, however, I did not defire to inipofe upon you, any farther than as it M'as fupported by evidence, and therefore at the fame time intimated what was the ground of that judgment; namely, the near refemhlance betzveen your labours and tJiofc of the deceiver of mankind. If you cannot perceive this refcm- Blance, I cannot help it. Other people can and Avill. He perfuaded his auditors that though they fliould tranfgrefs, yet the evil they had dreaded would not come upon them: they believ- ed — and were not afraid to tranfgrefs. You per- fuade your auditors that though they fliould die in their fins, yet the evil will not be fo great as they had been ufed to apprehend — God hath not faid, ye (lialldie eternally; and he means that you iliall all come where Jefus is If they believe, muft they not be lefs afraid of tranfgreilion than before? And now, fir, who is " ignorant," and who has been employed in '* raifing duft to hide the '* truth,'' are queftions which I leave you to re~ 44 LETTERS TO folve. It is enough for me if I have proved your charges to be unfounded : for if this be accom- pHihed, your work ftill returns upon your hands; as it will follow, that, notwithftanding all your challenges, and calling out for more to be writ- ten, you have not yet anfwered the firft letter. Yours, &c. A. F. LETTER V. EVIDENCES OF ENDLESS PUN1SK5IENT. Y. OU feem to wiih to perfuade your readers that the grounds on which I reft my be* lief of the do6trine of endlefs punishment are very flender. The truth is, I have not at prefent attempted to ftate thofe grounds. Confidering myfelf as not engaged in a formal controverfy, I only introduced a few paflages ; and to feveral of them you have hitherto made no reply. The principal grounds on which I rell my belief of the dodrine you oppofe, are as follow: — I. All thofc pajjages of fcripture which def" tribe the future Jiates of men in contraji. ** Men of the world, who have their por- *' tion in this life: I Ihall be fatisfied when I " awake in thy likenefs The hope of the (( MR. VIDLER. 45 righteous fliall be gladnefs: but the expeda- tion of the wicked fliall perilh' The wicked is driven away in his wickednefs: but the righteous hath hope in his death And ma- ny of them that deep in the dull of the earth ihall awake; fome to everlafting Hfe, and fome to lliame and everlafting contempt He will gather his wheat into the garner, and will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire Wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to deftruciion, and many there be who *' go in thereat; becaufe ftrait is the gate, and *' narrow is the wav that leadeth unto life, and *' few there be that find it Not every one *' that faith, Lord, Lord, fliall enter into the ** kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the *' will of my Father who is in heaven Many " iliall come from the eait and weft, and Ihall *' fit down with Abraham, and Ifaac, and Jacob " in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of *' the kingdom Ihall be caft out into outer dark- *' nefs: there fliall be weeping and gnafliing of " teeth Gather ye firft the tares, and bind " them in bundles, to burn them: but gather " the wheat into my barn 'The Son of Man *' fliall fend forth his angels, and they fliall ga- " ther out of his kinodom all things that of- *' fend, and them that do iniquity, and fliall " eaft them into a furnace of fire : there fliall G A6 LETTERS TO be wailing and gnafliing of teelli: then ihall the righteous ihine forth as the fun in the kingdom of their Father The kingdom of heaven is hke unto a net, that gathered fifli of every kind; M'hich, when it was full, they drew to the ihore, and fat down, and gathered the good into velfels, and call the bad away. So lliall it be at the end of the world; the angels lliall come forth, and fever the wicked from among the jult, and ihall caft them into the furnace of fire; there ihall be wailing and o'na/liinfi- of teeth Bleiled is that fervant, whom when his Lord cometh, he shall find fo doing: but and if that evil fervant should fay in his lieart, ]\Iy Lord delayeth his com- ing, and shall begin to fmite his fellow-fer- vants, and to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of that fervant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and shall cut •' him afunder, and appoint him his portion with ' the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and * gnashing of teeth Well done, good and ' faithful fervant; enter thou into the joy of * thy Lord. But caft ye out the unprofitable ^ fervant, into outer darknefs : there shall be ' weeping and gnashing of teeth — - — ^Then shall ' the king fay unto them on his right hand, ' Come, ye blefled of my Father, inherit the ' kingdom prepared for you from the founda- ' lion of the world — Then shall he alfo fay unto MR. VIDLER. 47 *' tliem on the left hand, Depart from me ye " curfed, into everlafting fire, prepared for the *' devil and his angels And thefe shall go " away into everlafting punishment ; but the ^' righteous into everlalting life He that be- ^' lieveth and is baptifed shall be faved ; but he '' that believeth notsliall be damned Blelfed *' are ye when men shall hate you for the Son *' of Man's fake. Rejoice ye in that day, and *' leap for joy; for behold, 3'Gur reward is great " in heaven. But woe unto you that are rich! " for ye have received your confolation He ^' that hearetli my fayings, and doeth them, is '' like unto a man who built his houfe upon a *' rock; and when the flood arofe, the ftorm *' beat vehemently againll that houfe, and *' could not shake it; for it was founded upon a *' rock. But he that heareth and doeth not, is *' like unto a man who built his houfe upon the " earth, againft which the dorm did beat vehe* *' mently, and immediately it fell, and the ruin " of that houfe was great God fo loved the *' world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, " that whofoever believeth on him, should not " perish, but have everlafting life All that *' are in their graves shall come forth; they " that have done good unto the refurre6lion of *' life, and they that have done evil unto the " refurre6lion of damnation Hath not the G 2. ■ 48 LETTERS TO *' potter power over the clay, of the fame lump '' to make one veffel unto honour, and another *' unto dishonour? What if God willing to shew " his wrath, and to make his power known, " endured with much long-fuffering the veffels " of wrath fitted to deftrudion; and that he '* might make known the riches of his glory on " the veffels of mercy, which he had afore pre- " pared unto glory 'J^he Lord knoweth them ** that are his — But in a great houfe there are " veifels to honour and velfels to dishonour ** Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for ** whatfoever a man foweth, that shall he alfo *' reap. For he that foweth to the flesh, shall ** of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that fow- ** eth to the fpirit, shall of the fpirit reap life ** everlafling That which beareth thorns and ** briars is rejected, and is nigh unto curfing, *' Mhofe end is to be burned. But, beloved, "we are perfuaded better things of you, and *' things which accompany falvation."* ' I confider thefe paflTages as defigned to ex- prefs THE FINAL STATES OF MEN, which if they be, it is the fiime thing in eflPeCl as their being defigned to exprcfs the doctrine of ettrllefs punifh- ']i) :* Poal. xvif. 14, 1j. Prov. x. 28. xiv. 32. Dan. xii. 2. aiatt. iii. 12. vii. 13, 14, 21. viii. 11, 12. xiii. 30, 40—43, 47._50. xxiy. 46— 51. xxv. 23, 30, 34, 41, 46. Markxvi. 16. Luke vi. 23, 24, 4/, 49. John iii. l6. v. 29- Bom. ix. 21—23, ^ Tim, ii. 19, 20. Gal. vi. 7, 8. Hcb. vi. 8, 9- MR. VIDLER. 49 ment; for if the defcriptions here given of the portion of the wicked denote their Jinal ftate. there is no poffibllity of another ftate fucceeding it. That the above paflages do exprefs the Jitial ftates of men, may appear from the following confiderations : — 1. The ftate of the righteous, wliicli is aH along oppofed to tliat of the wicked, is allowed to be final : and if the other were not the fame, it would not have been in fuch a variety of forms contrafted with it ; for it would not be a contraft. 2. All thefe paflages are totally ftlent, as to any other ftate following that of deftruction, damnation, &c. If the punifliment threatened to ungodly men had been only a purgation, or temporary correction, we might have expe6ied that fomething like this would have been inti- mated. It is fuppofed that fome who are upon the right foundation may yet build upon it, wood, and hay, and Jlubble; and that the party ihall fuffer lofa ; but he h'wifelf Jhall be faved, though it be as by fire. Now if the do6lrine of univerfal falvation were true, we might expe6l fome fuch account of all lapfcd intelligences, when their fu- ture ftate is defcribed : but nothing like it occurs in any of the foregoing paflages, nor in any other. 3. The phrafeology of the greater part of them is inconfjftent with anv other ftate follow- 50 LETTERS TO ing that which they defcribe. On the fuppofi- tion of falvation being appointed as the ultimate portion of thofe wl)o die in their fins, they have not then' portion, in this life ; but will, equally Avith thofe who die in the Lord, behold his rio'h- teousncfs, and be fatisjied in his likenefs. Their ex})ectation shall not perii/^; but fliall illue, as well as that of the righteous, in gladnefs : and though driven axvaij in their zvickednefs, yet they have hope in their death, and that hope ihall be realized. The broad way doth not lead to de- llruction, but merely to a temporary correlation, the end of which is everlafting life. The chaff will not he burned, but turned into M'heat, and gathered into the garner. The tares will be the fame, and gathered into the barn; and the bad fish will be turned into good, and gathered into velTels. The curled, as well as the blef- fed, IJjall inherit the kingdom of God ; which alfo was prepared for them from the foundation of the world. There may be a woe againfl the wicked, that they fiiall be kept from their confo- lation for a long time, but not that they have re- ceixjed it. Thofe who in the prefent life believe not in Chrift lliall not perijh, but have everlafting life. This lifealfo is improperly reprefented ais the feed-time, and the life to come as the harveft, in- afmuch as the feeds of heavenly blifs may be fown in hell : and though the finner may reap corruption, as the fruit of 9.II his prefent doings. MR. VIDLER. 51 yet that corruption will not be tlie oppofite of everlaji'uig life, feeing it will iffue in it. Finally: Though they bear briars and thorns, yet their end is not to be burned, but to obtain falvation. — To the foregoing fcripture teftimonies may be added, II. All thofe pajfages xvhich /peak of the duration of future punifliment by the terms " exer^ lajiing, eternal, for emr, and for ever and ex er :'' — *' Some fliall awake to everlafting life, and *' fome to /liame and everlqftlng contempt " It is better for thee to enter into life halt, or *' maimed, than having two hands, or two feet, *' to be caft into everlajting fire Depart ye */ curfed into everla/ting fire And thefe fliall *' go into evcrlajiing punishment They shall *' be punished with everlajting deftru6lion from *' the prefence of the Lord, and from the glory " of his power He that shall blafpheme *' againft the holy Ghoft is in danger of (or fub- *' je6l to) e/e;'«6r/ damnation The inhabitants ** of Sodom and Gomorrha are fet forth for an *' example, fuifering the vengeance of eternal *' fire Thefe are wells without water, clouds *' that are carried with a tempeft, to whom the " mift of darknefs is referved for ever Wan- *' dering ftars, to whom is referved the blackncfs " of darknefs for ever If any man M'orship *' the bead, or his image, and receive his mark 52 LETTERS TO in his forehead, or in his hand, the fame shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation: and he shall be tormented with fire and brimflone in the prefence of the holy angels, and in the prefence of the Lamb: and the fmoke of their torment af- cendeth up for ever and ever : and they have no reft day nor night And they faid, Alleluia. And her fmoke rofe up for ever and ever-' — And the devil that deceived them was cafi into the lake of fire and brim- flone, where the beafl and the falfe prophet are ; and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.''* I have not mentioned Ifai. xxxiii. 14, be- caufe I wish to introduce no paiTage but what shall be allowed to refer to a future life. The hebrew word aVr, in Dan. xii. 2. anfwers to the greek amv ; and whatever may be faid of the ambiguity of the term, the antithefis in this palTage, as in Matt. xxv. 46, determines it to mean the fame when applied to " shame and contempt," as when applied to life- As to the term aimio;^ rendered everlojling or eternal, which you confider as proving nothing * Dan. xii. 2. Matt, xviii. S. xxv. -il— 4<3. 2 Thess. i. 9. Mark iii. 2.9. Jude 7. 2Pet. ii. 17. Jude. 13. Rev. xi v. 10, 11. xix. 3. XX. 10. MR. V IDLER, 58 dii account of its ambiguity, tbereis a r^le of interpretation which I have long underftood tQ be ufed on 'Other fubjeds by: all good critics^ and which I confider.as preferable to your& in my next letter I may examine their conipa.- *ative merits. This rule is, That every, .term bfi 4dken in its trover ferife, ei'cept there he Jomc' thing in the fuhjeB or connexion xvhich requires it to be taken otherzvife. Now, fo far as my ac- quaintance with this fubje^ extends, it appears to be generally allowed by lexicographers, that aiw.v is a compound of an. and m, and that its literal jnaeaning is always being ;* alfo that the meaning of its derivative aimi'^ is endlefs, everlajling^ or e- ternal. This term, «(wvj©- which is v^vy fparingly applied in the new teftament to limited duration, I always take in itjs proper fenfe, except there be * Aristotle the philosopher, who lived upwards of thr6e hundred years before the new testament was written, plainly tells us the meaning which, the. greek writers of his tirne, and those wjio in; his time were accounted ancients, affixed, to this term. Speaking of the gods, whom he considered as immortal, and as liaving their residence above the heavens, he says, " The beings which exist there, neither exist in place, nor does time make them grow old; nor undergo they any change,- being placed beyond the motion even of those' who are the farthest removed (from the centre;) but possessing an unchangeable life, free from all outward impressions, perfectly happy, and self-sufBcicnt, they continue through all onma, eternity. And this the ancients admirably signified by the word itself: for H '^-n ?:: ^4 LETTERS TO fometliidg in the connexion or fubje6l, whicd requires it to be taken otherwife: and as I do not find this to 'be the cafe in any of thofe places where it is applied to punishment, I fee no reafon in thefe cafes to depart from its proper accepta- tion. Everlafting puniihment is in fonie of thera oppofed to everlalling life, which, fo far as an antithefis can go to fix the meaning of a term, determines it to be of the fame force and extent. To allege that the fuhJeB requires a different .meaning in this cafe tabe given to the term, is to afTume what will not be grctnted. The proof that has been offered on this point will be con- fjdered hereafter. With refpe6l to the phrafes en tov caum, Jor eoer, and £<$ ra? ai-^m a'0(p» 0£w, ri[/.r\ xai So^x etg rag atwxg rwv oamMV. Nozv untO the king eternal, immortal, invi/ible, the only wife God, be honour and glory, for ever and ever. Ren- * Univ. Mis. No. xxxv. pp. 332, 333. K 70 LETTERS TO der tliefe paffages how you will, you cannot do them juftice unlefs you exprefs the idea of unlimit* ed duration. And though the englilh terms may not admit of what is termed a plural form, yet they admit of what is equal to it: for though we do not fay everlajiings, nor eternities, yet we fay for ever and e'ver; and you might as well contend, that for ever cannot properly mean unlimited duration, feeing another ever may be added to it, as that atwc mud needs mean a limi- ted duration, on account of its admitting a plu-^ ral form of exprefhon. You might alfo, with equal propriety, plead for a plurality of ever* in futurity, from the englifh phrafeology, as for a plurality of ages from the greek. With refpeft to the admiihon of the pro- nouns this and that, we ufe the expreffions this eternity of blifs, or that eternity of blifs; nor does fuch language, being applied to a ftate of exiftence, exprefs the idea of limitation. The very palTage that you have quoted, (Luke xx. ;>5.) where aiwv is rendered xvorld^ and admits of the pronoun that before it, refers to a (late which you yourfelf, I ihould fuppofe, would iillow to be endlefs. For any thing you have hitherto alleged, the "'reek words oa&iv and a»wn(^ are no lefs ex- prefiive of endlefs duration, than the engli/h words everlafting and eternal: the latter, when MR. VIPLER. 7^ applied to temporary concerns, are ufed in ^. figurative or improper fenfe, as frequently as the former. And if this be a truth, it mufi fol- low, that the continual recurrence to them hy yourxvjHters^ is no better than a fing-fong; a mere aJfeStation of learnings fei^ving to mijlead the ig- norant. You make much of your rule of interpre- tation, that *' Where a word is ufed in relation to different things, the fubje^t itfelf muft deter- mine the meaning of the word." (p. 333.) You are fo confident that this rule is unobje61ionable as to intimate your belief, that I ^' lliall not a fecond time have the temerity to reprove you for the ufe of it." If you examine, you will perceive that I have not obje(5ted to it a firft time yet, but rather to your manner of apply- ing it. I fliail take the liberty, however, to Dbje6l to it now, whatever '* temerity" it may imply. I know not who thofe *' bed critics" are, from whom you profefs to have taken it, but to me it appears difrefpe^lful to the fcriptures, and inadmiffible. It fuppofes that all thofe words which are ufed in relation to different things, (which, by the way, almoft alb words are) have no proper meaning of their own, and that they are to ftand for nothing in the decifion of any queftion ; but are to mean any thing that the fubjea to which they relate can be prove\\t there are no examples of its being ufed with reference to the termination of punilhment; nor does it appear to be applicable to it. In its moft common acceptation in the new tcftament, it fig' Jlifi,es to dejlrox) or devwlHh; and you will fcarcely fuppofe the facred ^^^riters to fuggeft the idea of a deflruttion which cannot be dcllroyed. You offer a fecond example, referring me .to Ifai. xlv. 17. Ifrael Jhall not be conjounded, ■ivorld without endr' but this is farther off ftill. — III the firll place, The phrale is merely Englijh^ and therefore affords no example of " Greek," for Avliich it is profeffedly introduced. — Secondly, It is not a tranflation from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. To have done any thing to pur- pofe, you fliould have found a Greek word which might have been applied to jjunilhment, * U. M. No. .\xxv. p. 33i. MR. VIDLER. 79 ftronger than «jwi/io?; or if you muft needs go to another language, you fliould have proved that tlie Hebrew words in Ifai. xlv. 17. which are apphed to future happinel's, are ftronger than die Greek word aiiji/j^, wiiieh is applied to future puniihment: but if you had attempted this, your criticifms might not have perfe(5ily accorded, as they are the fame words which you elfcwhere tell us, would if " literally ren- dered, be age and ages;"'* and therefore are properly exprefiive of only a limited duration. And why did you refer us to the Old Teftament? It could not be for the want of an example to be found in the New. You know, I dare fay, that the englilh phrafe, zvorld without end, occurs in Ephef. iii. 21. And are the Greek words there ufed ftronger than ajwi/, and its derivatives? On the contrary, they are the very words made ufe of, and in a plural form too; m; ^ffcca-xg rac ymoiz Tou aimoi; ruv cauuccv, throughout all ages, world xtithout end. Had thefe very terms been applied to future puniOiment, you would have pleaded for a different tranflation, and denied that they were exprefiive of endlefs duration. Without pretending to any thing like a critical knowledge of either the Greek or Hebrew language, I can perceive. Sir, that all your * U. M. No. xxxvi. p. 3(j4. l'2 80 LETTERS TO arguments have hitherto been merely founded upon Englilh phrafeology ; and from your tranf- lating i;? and D^J^ age and ages * as though one M'ere the fingular, and the other the plural; and ta ximci^ cciuivwv to the age of ages, as though one here alio were the fingular, and the other the plural; as well as from your reference to ajtaraAuro? as a proper term to be applied to endlefs punifli- ment, 1 am furniflied with but little inducement to retra6l my opinion, that you had better not have meddled with thefe fubje6is. Ketteringy Yours, &c. Mar. 17. 1800. A. F. LETTER VII. AN E^CAMIIIATION OF MR. V.'s SYSTEM, AND HIS ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF IT. Sirj I HAVE certainly to beg your pardon for having mifunderftood you with refpect to the dodrine of annihilation. I did not obferve how you oppofed the idea of endlefs puniihment on the one hand, and annihilation on the other. In this matter I fubmit to your correal ion, and readily acquit you of all thofe abfurdities which would have followed the admiffion of that prin- ciple. Other parts of that letter, however, you * U. M. No. x\xvi. p. 36'4. MR. VIDLER. 81 have but lightly touched ; and fome of them are entirely palled over. As to your conjedures about my motiveSy both you and your friends might have been as well employed in fomething elfe. I can truly fay, that I never wrote a line in my life with a view to " raife a duft" that might obfcure the truth ; and it is difficult to fuppofe that any perfon, unlefs he himfelf had been in the habit of doing fo, would have thought of imputing it to another. It is my defire to underftand you, and not to wreft any of your words to a meaning which they do not fairly include. 1 have endeavoured to colle6l your fentiments as well as I am able. The amount of your firft maxim, in p. 330, ap- pears to me to be this: — * That if God created * men, and placed them in circumftances which * he certainly foreknew would iiTue in their * fall and ruin, he willed this their fall and * ruin ; and that it is of no importance that he * forewarned them to avoid the evil: whatever * be the event, he is chargeable with it. But * God (you fay) hath fworn by himfelf, that he * willeth not the death of him who dieth; that * is, he willeth it not as death finally or fimply, * or deftruftion irrecoverable. If, therefore, * it occur, it is a part of his economy of grace, * and finally a rainiilration unto life; for he 12 LETTETIS TO * hath declared that it is his will that all fliould ' be favcd: therefore the doclrine which forges * an}' contrary will, falfifies fupreme unchange- * able truth.' Thus it feenis you reckon, that you acquit your Creator of injuftice, which muft otherwife attach to his charader and condu6t. Let us examine this matter. It is true, that whatever cxills muft, in fome fenfe, accord with the will of God. Let the blafphemer make what ufe he may of it, it may be afked, Who hath refilled his will? God willeth not evil, however, as evil, but permits its exiftence for wife ends. The good that fliall arife from it, and not the evil, is the proper objeft of divine volition. But it is not true, That God is on this account charge- able with man's fin ; that all his cautions and warnings are of no account; and that he is to be " accufed" of the death of the finner, if he die eternally. If it be, however, it is not the do6lrine of univerfal falvation that will free him from the charge. I am furprifed, fir, that you could allow yourfelf in this manner to reproach your Maker. You cannot allege all thefe things as merely attaching to my fyftem. It is a fa6l — is it not ? — That God did place man in circumftances which he certainly foreknew would ilTue in his fall; and that he did, notwithllanding, caution MR. VIDLER. 8S and warn him againft apoftafy, and ftill con- tinues to caution and warn finners againft thofe very fins which he certainly foreknows they will commit: Who then is this that dares to arraign his condu^, and to accufe him of inT fincerity? Who, that at one ftroke, aims to fweep away the accountablenefs of his creaturesj and to charge him with the evil of their fin, on account of his having placed them in fucli circumftances? If it be as you infinuate, it muft follow, That man is not blame- worthy iii all his rebel- lion againft his Maker, nor juftly accountable for any of its confequcnces. AVhether thofe confequences be eternal, makes nothing to the argument. Sin, and all the evils which follow upon it, are, by you transferred from the fm- ner to the account of his Creator! State your fuppofition with reference to your own prin- ciple — ' Suppofe him about to create twenty * men. He knows ten of them Avill become * vicious, and confequently expofed to the tre- * mendous penalty of damnation for ages of * ages. Who doubts, in fuch a cafe, that he * wills that penalty, who, being almighty and * all-knowing, does that, without which it could * not come to pafs; and who will not accufe * him of their damnation — having fent them * into fuch circumftances!' Thus, fir, you un- S4 LETTERS TO devmine the juftice of all punifhment, prefent and future, and every principle of moral government. Let no man fay^ when he is tempted^ I am tempted of God. Yes, fays Mr. Vidler, it is he, who, ** knowing all events, and placing us ** in fuch circuniftances as- he does, that is ac- ** countable! And it is of no importance in ** the confideration of common fenie, that he ** cautions or forewarns us againft the evil." If what you have fuggefted be true, it muft alfo follow, that there is no need of a mediator, or of forgiving mercy. Where there is no blame, it is an infult to talk of forgivenefs, or of the need of a mediator to efFed a reconci- liation. All that is necelTary to recover man is juftice. If the Creator only be accountable for the evil, it belongs to him to remedy it. Thus, inftead of fupporting the do6lrine of univerfal falvation, you undermine all falvation at the very foundation. Think not that you fhall be able to roll away this reproach, which you have had the temerity to charge on your Creator, by fuggefting that all the evil which follows will be ultimately a benefit; for ftill it follows that man has not been blame- worthy in finning againft God; that God has never been fincere in his cautions and warnings; and that, being accountable for the whole, it is but juftice to man that he turn all MR. V IDLER. 85 to his ultimate advantage, as a recompenfe for prefent injury. " He fent his children into ' the wood, it feerns, M^here he knew the poi- * fonous fruit abounded ; and though he warned * them againfl it, yet he was not in earned; * and when they had eaten, to the endangering ' of their hves, he counteraded the poifon ; ' but was confcious, at the fame time, that if * there were any fault in the affair, it was his own; ' and if the children were to periih, he would ' be juftly accufed of their death." And can. you, fir, with thefe fentiments, continue to dif- avow your mvalidnting the divine threatenings towards Jinners ; and concurring with him who taught our firft parents, " Ye iliall not furely die ? " What better expofition could the deceiver of mankind have wiflied for, than what your words afford ! Ye Uiall not furely die ; " viz. finally, or fimpl}', or with defiru6lion irrecover- able." For God doth hiozv, that in the day ye eat tliereof, then your eyes Jhall be opened. " If " death occur, it is a part of his economy of *' grace, and finally a miniftration unto life." That is, it fliall prove a benefit. " God hath fworn that he willeth not the *' death of him that dieth. That is, he Mnlleth it *' not as death finally, or fimply, or deftru61ion *' irrecoverable." Death fimply and finally, then, means irrecoverable deIh'U(il:ion : Does it? 86 LETTERS TO But if it does fo in this palfage, it may in others; and then the threatenings of death, provided they were put in execution, may mean eternal damnation. Yea, if death in this paf- fage mean irrecoverable deftruftion, it will fol- low that fome are irrecoverably deftroyed: for the death in which God taketh no pleafure, whatever it be, the finner is fuppofed to fuifer— He hath no pleafure in the deajth of him that dieth, God taketh no pleafure in the death of him that dieth, in the fan>e fenfe as he doth not qfjiid: xiilUngltj, nor grieve the children of men. It does not mean that he doth not afflict them; for this is contrary to faOlj but he doth not af!li6l for affliction fake, or for any pleafure that he takes in putting his creatures to pain. In all his dealings with finners, he ads like a good magiftrate, who never punifhes from caprice, but for a good end; in many cafes for the cor- redion of the party, and in all for the good of the community. To yourfecond maxim I have noobje8ron— *' That whatever God does is intended by his '' goodnefs, conduded by his wifdom, and ac- ** compliflied by his power." But jour appli- cation of it is inadmiflible. Some parts of it are trifling, others rell on unfounded alfump- tions, and others are adapted to overthrow all future punifhment. MR. V IDLER. 87 Firft : The greater part of it is mere if^lfiing. — Wiioever fupporecl that eternal puuiihment, or any puniiliment, was a benefit to God; or even z. plea fur e to him, or any holy beings, for its own fake? Or who pretends that it is infli6led for the honour, plea fare, or benefit of the finner? Secondly: Some parts of it which obje6l to endiefs puniHiment, becaufe it cannot be for the //o;?o«r of God, or the Zfez/e/^Y of creatures, proceeds altogether upon unfoumkd a[fumptwns. — The only proof you have offered for the fijfi branch of this pofition is naked affertion ; *' That every ** unfophifticated heart would fo determine.'* Suppofe I fay, every unfophifticated heart would determine the contrary, my affertion would prove us much as yours ; and I may add, if our hearts be fophifticated it muft be by malignity, or the wifli of having our fellow creatures miferable, which I imagine you will not generally impute to us. But if your hearts be fophifticated, it is much more eafily accounted for. The decifion of finful creatures in fuch a cafe as this, is like that of a company of criminals who fliould fit in judgment on the nature of the penalties to which they are expofed, whofe prejudices are much more likely to caufe them to err on the favourable than on the unfavourable fide. — The fecond branch of this pofition is as unfupported as the firft. Only one reafon i? alleged, and 31 2 88 LETTERS TO that is far from being an acknowledged truth; viz. That no poffible good can arife to fociety from the punilbment of finners, but that of fafety. Common fenfe and univerfal experience teach us that this is not the only end of punifh- ment. Ifrael might have been fafe, if Pharaoh and his hoft had not been drowned; yet they were drowned. V^diS fafety the only end anfwer- ed to the world by the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrha; or were they not rather fet forth for an example? Is it only for the fafety of fociety that a murderer is publicly executed? That end would be equally anfwered by per- petual imprifonment, or banifliment, or a pri- ^vate execution; but there would be wanting an example to exprefs the difpleafure of a good government againfl; crimes, and to imprefs the public mind with it. Thirdly : Mod of what you fay on this fub- je61, if admitted, would overturn all future pu- Tiifliment. — You might afk, Would it be honour- able to God to have any of his creatures mifer- 2.h\e for ages 0/ ages, rather than happy? Would it be a greater pleafure? Benefit he can have none; for there is no profit in their blood. — As to the puniflied, future punilliment can be neither honour nor pleafure to them: and if their falvation could be acconipliilied without it, it cannot be any benefit to them. \'i they MR. VIDLER. 89 may not be faved without it, it mud be either becaufe there was not efficacy enough in the blood of Chriil for the purpofe ; or elfe that *' the full efficacy of the atonement was with- " held by the divine determination." — As to fellcm creatures^ can the future puniihment of any of the human race be any honour to them? Who ever thought it an honour to him, that any of his family were puniflied in any way? Is it not a dilhonour to human nature at large to be fent to hell? Can any creature have pleafure in the puniihment of another? Would not every benevolent mind poffefs a greater pleafure in feeing finners converted and faved, without going to hell ; than to fee them con- demned to weeping and wailing and gnalhing of teeth, for ages of ages ? Benefit they can have none, except fajtty ; and that is better anfwer- ed by their enmity being conquered in the pre- fent life. As then future torments can anfwer no poffible good end to any one in the univerfe, I conclude them to be neither the work nor will of God; and confequently, not the do6trine of fcripture! You '* think there is a vafl difference in- " deed in the nature of future bleflfednefs, and *' future puniihment; fuch as fully to juftify us ** in giving a very different fenfe to the word " eternal, when applied to thefe fubje6ts." (p. 331.) It may be fo; but your thoughts $0 LETTERS TO prove nothing. " Sin and mifery (you fay) liave no root or foundation in God ; " and therefore mud come to an end. Awhile ago they feenied to have their fole root in him, fo much fo as to exclude the accountablenefs of creatures: but allowing they have not, this inference is a mere creature of the imagination. Reduce your argument to form, and fee what it will amount to : — Whatever has its root In the creature mud come to an end : But fin and mifery have their root in the creature : Therefore fm and mifery muft come to an \ end. Now what proof, I afk, have you for your major proportion? None at all. It is an ar- gument, therefore, without any medium of proof, founded upon mere imagination. Another with equal plaufibilit}' might imagine, that as fm and mifery had their origin in the prefent ftate, they will alfo terminate in the prefent ftate; and confequently, that there will be no future punifliment. And another might imagine, that as the a6ls of human beings are performed within a few years, the effects of them upon fociety cannot extend much farther; and con- fequently, it is abfurd to fuppofe that a whole nation ftill feels the confequence of what was JIR. VIDLER. 91 tranfafled in a few hours at Jerufalem, nearly 1800 years ago; and a whole world of what M'as wrought, perhaps, in lefs time in the gar- den of Eden. In Hiort, there are no bounds to the imagination, and will be no end to its abfurdities, if it go on in this diredion. If inftead of taking our religion from the bible, we labour to form a fyftem from our own ideas of fitnefs and unfitnefs, and interpret the bible accordingly, there will be no end of our wan- derings. Becaufe all judgment is committed to the Son, you conclude that future punifliment has its origin in mercy, and will end in eternal falvation. To this I anfwer, lirft: If it be owing to the mediation of Chrill that punifhment fhould be a work of mercy, this is allowing, that, if no mediator had been provided, it muft have been the reverfe. But if fo, all your argu- ments againft eternal punifliment from the di- vine perfections, and all your attempts to main- tain that the original meaning of the divine threatenings never included this idea, are given up. — Secondly: If whatfoever is done by Chrift in his mediatorial capacity fliall terminate, on his delivering up the kingdom to the Father, the rewards of the righteous, as well as the pu- nifliments of the wicked, muft at that period come to an end: for he will equally confer the one, as inflid the other. The ** execution of 52 LETTERS TO judgment" committed to the Son, denotes not merely the carrying into execution the fentence at the lad day, but the general adminiftratiou of God's moral government, both in this world and that which is to come. See Jer. xxiii. 5. xxxiii. 15. Matt. xii. 18—20. You talk of our " afcribing a proper eter- nity to fin and mifery," as if we confidered fin and mifery to be neceffarily eternal. The exif- tence of intelligent creatures is no more eternal than their moral qualities or fenfations; and therefore it would be improper to afcribe eter- nity either to the one or the other: but if God perpetuates the exigence of intelligent beings to an endlefs duration, he may alfo perpetuate their moral qualities to the fame extent; whether they originated with their exiftence, or were acquired at any fubfequent period. Holinefs and happinefs, in refpeO; to creatures, are not neceffarily eternal, any more than fin and mi- fery; and in this view it would be as improper to afcribe eternity to the purity and bleffednefs of the faved, as to the fin and mifery of the loft, feeing that the endlefs duration of both depends upon the will of God. You fpeak of the " life *' and bleffednefs of holy beings as having their " root and foundation in God; and that, being " thus grounded in him, they will be, like him, *' eternal in duration." But this pofition is con- trary to fa6t ; for was not *' God the fource and MR. VIDLER. 93 *^ proper fprlng both of the life and bleffednefs" of the un finning angels? Yet they kept not their firft ejlate, but loft their bleffednefs, and are referred in chains of darknefi, unto the judge- ment of the great day. The life and bleffednefj of man in a ftate of innocence had their origin in God, as well as thofe of faints and angels; yet they were not on this account like their author, '* eternal in duration." To make fuch an alfertion is, " to fay the leaft of it, an *' unguarded mode of expreffion:" but more than this, it is contrary to fa6l; and tends to ieilen the dependance of creatures upon God as the conftant author of all their happinefs. The argument to prove that fin and mifery cannot be eternal, is the counterpart of the above pofi- tion, and of courfe it is equally fallacious. '' Sin and mifery being contrary to the " holinefs and benevolence of God, they muft " (it feems) come to an end." Such an affer- tion is foon made; but where is the proof.? A little more affurance might lead another to fay, that fin and mifery, being contrary to the holi- nefs and benevolence of God, they cannot e.v'iji in a future ftate: and were it not for the awful evidence of fa6ts, another might affert, that fin and mifery do not now exift; for in theory it would be as eafy to prove, that the prefent exif- tence of fin and mifery is as contrary to the 9''^ LETTERS to bolinefs and benevolence of God, as thefr exif^ tence in future; and that their exiftence in future for ages of ages, is as contrary to the holinefs and benevolence of God, as their exif- tence to an endlefs duration. By fuch kind of reafoning fome men have become atheifts, be- caufe they cannot reconcile the prefent (late of tilings with their ideas of a fuperintending power, pofl'efled of infinite holinefs and benevolence; and I cannot but tremble for the man M'ho begins to travel in this unwary path, by meafur- ing the divine adminiftration by his own unhal- lowed notions of moral fitnefs. If your attempts to prove that all judgment is a work of mercy, and yet that there may be judgment mthout mercy, fhould prove fruitlefs, it is no more than may be expected; for the thing itfelf is a contradidion. " The fcriptures '' afford inflances of punifhment and pardon " to the fame perfons, and for the fame fins:"* but M'as this puniiliment without meixy? " Judg- " ment and mercy were united in God's dealings '' with Jerufalem. "f Granted; but for this very reafon it could not be judgment without mercy. You might as well allege tht; union of wifdom and righteoufnefs in all the works of God, as a proof that there are fome works in which wif- dom will be exercifed without righteoufnefs I » U, M. p. 337. t p. 338, JIR. VIDLER. 9^ In another letter, fir, I hope to conclude thefe remarks. Meanwhile I am, Tour's, Scc. A. F. LETTER VIIL A FARTHER EXAMINATION Of MR. V.'s SCHEME, WITH REPLIES TO HIS ANIMADVERSIONS.. Sir, I DO not know whether I fully under- ftand your remarks on proper eternity, (p. 364.) It is certainly one of thofe ideas in which the human mind is eafily loft, as it infinitely fur- paffes our comprehenfion: but whether " the " fcriptures have revealed any thing paft or ** to come, befides what is conneded with fuc- ** ceflive duration," and whether we be *' left " to infer a proper eternity only from the nature ** of Deity," are other quellions. You will allow that the fcriptures attribute a proper eter- nity to the Divine Being, and to his all-com* prehending purpofes, which I fliould think is not leaving us to infer it from his nature. They fpeak alfo of a period when God (hall he all in ally when the end cometh, and of the end of all things being at hand. They likewife promife an inheritance that fliall be without end. I Hiould think, therefore, that this inheritance, o-f which the new teftament fpeaks very fully,- N 2 96 LETTERS TO cannot be faid to be connefted with fiiccefTive duration; not fo conneded, however, as to be commenfurate with it. By fiicceffive duration being ended, I meant no more than what I apprehended you mud mean by the celTation of daj/ and j?ighf, (No. i. p. 8.) and the fiale oF things when Chrift Ihall have dehvered up the kingdom to the Father. Strictly fpeaking, it may be true that the idea of fucceilive duration necelfarily attaches, and ever will attach, to the exiftence of creatures, and that none but God can be faid to exift Avithout it: but there is a period, by your own acknowledgment, when the flates of creatures %vill be for ever fixed; and if at this period, finners be doomed to everlafling puniihment, the term everlafling muft be underrtood to mean endlefs duration. This period I conceive to be at the laft judgment: you extend it to ages beyond it. Here, therefore, is our dilFer- ence. I did not allege Rev. x. 6. in favour of there being an end of time. I did not appre- hend it needed proof. Your formal anfwer to it, therefore, is only removing an objeftion of your own creating; and if defigned to prove that time will have no end, it is as contrary to your own avowed principles, as to mine. You contend, that "the day of judgment }S not the finilhing period of Chrift 's kingdom;" MR. V IDLER. 57 for which you offer a number of reafons. To the greater part of them I have ah-eady replied. The reft I fhall briefly confider: — *' This earth (which is to be the hell of ** wicked men, 2 Pet. iii. 7-— 13) is to be renew- *' ed, whereby hell itfelf will be no more."* If this glofs will bear the teft, you have certainly for once hit upon a clear proof of your point; for none can imagine the conflagration to be eternal. But, firft: The fcriptures fpeak of a hell alreaclij exyUng, wherein the angels who kept not their firft eftate are rtfcrved in eve)'- lajiing chains^ under darhiefs, unto the judgment of the great day; and in which the departed fpirits of wicked men lift up their eyes, being in torment; and intimate that this, \vhatfnever and wherever it be, will be the hell of ungodly men: for they are doomed to depart into everlafting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. But this cannot be upon earth, as its prefent condi- tion does not admit of it. Secondly: If the earth, as being diffolved by fire, is to be the hell of ungodly men, their punifliment muft precede the day of judgment, inflead of following it : for the conflagration is uniformly repreiented as prior to that event. It is defcribed, not as your fcheme fuppofes, as * v. M. No, xxxvi. p. 365. 98 LETTERS TO taking place a thoufand years after Chrlft's fe- cond coining; but as attending it. Twt day of the Lord's coming, is the fame as the dai/ of God^ M'hicli chriftians look for and haften to; wherein" the heavens, being on fire, (Imll he diffolved — Ouv God Jhall come, and Jhall not keep filenee: afire (hall devour before him, and it ihall be very tem- pefiuous round ahout him; and all this previous to his giving orders for his faints to be gathered unto him. A\m\ thus we are taught by the apoftle Paul, that the Lord Jefus fiuill be revealed from heaven in flamixg fire.* Thirdly: I appeal to the judgment of the impartial rearler, whether, by the perdition of ungodly men, be not meant the delirudion of their lives, and not of ihtxvfoids? It is fpokeu of in connexion with the deluge, and intimated that as the ungodly were then deftroyed from the face of the earth by water, in like manner they fliould now be deftroyed by fire. You plead the promife, that " every knee " fliall bow to Chrift," and confider this as inconfiftent with a " ftubborn knee even in " hell." But the queftion is, Whether the bowing of the knee to Chriil be necefTarily cxpreffive of a voluntary and holy fubmiiTion to him? The fame infpired writer applies the language to that univerfal convi6lion which * 2 Pet. iii. 7, 12, 13. Pbalin 1. 2 Thcss. i, 7, 8, MR. VIDLER. -99 fliall be produced at the lad judgment, when every mouth will be Hopped, and all the world become guilty before God. JVc Ihall all fland (faith he) before the judgment feat of Clmjl : for it is zvritten, As I live, faith the Lord, eveiy kntejhall bozo to me, and every tongue Jhall con- fefs to God.* But you Avill not pretend that every knee will in that day bow to Chrift in a way of voluntary fubmifllon. '' All things (you allege) are to be recon- " ciled to the Father by the blood of the crofs: " but while any continue in enmity againft " God, this can never be performed." (p. 3(54.) You refer, 1 fuppofe, to Col. i. 19. 20. But if the reconciliation of things in earth, and. things in heaven, denote the falvation of all the inhabitants of heaven and earth, it would follow: (1.) That the holy angels a.Ye faved, as well as the unholy, though in facl they never finned. (2.) That v/hen the apoftle adds, And you that were fometime alienated, and enemies in your minds by wicked works, yet noxo hath he reconciled^ he deals in unmeaning tautolog3\ Things in heaven, and tilings in earth, were at variance through fm. Men becoming the enemies of God, all his faithful fubjecls, and all the works of his hands, were at war with them; yea, they were at variance with each * Rom. xiv. 10—12. lOO LETTERS TO Other. But through the blood of Chrift, all things are reconciled; and under his headfliip, all made to fubferve the prefent and everlafting good of them who believe in him. Such appears to me to be the meaning of the paflage, and which involves neither of the foregoing ab- furdities. ** Chrift, (you add) is to rule till his enemies *' cire fuhdued ; till there be no authority, power, *' or dominion, but what fliall be fubfervient to ** him ; till death the laft enemy fhall be de- ' ftroycd ; and as the wages of fin is death, the *' fecond death muft be here included." (p. 36.5.) This language, which is taken from 1 Cor. xv. is manifeftly ufed in reference to the refurre6tion of the bodies of thofe that fieep in Jefus, which is an event that precedes the laft judgment: for WHEN this corruptible Jliall have put on incor- ruption — then Jhall be brought to pafs the faying that is written, Death is fxvalloxved up in viBory ; which is the fame thing as the laft enemy being deftrcyed. And then coriieth the end, the laft judgment, and the winding up of all things, WHEN he JJiall ha-ce delivered up the kingdom to God, crcn the Father ; when he Jhall have put down all rule, and authority, and power, (ver. 24, 25.) For you to interpret this language of things that are to folloxv the laft judgment, and to fay that it 7vu(l include the fecond death, MR. VIDLER. 101 proves iiotliing, but the dire iieceffity to which your fyfteni reduces you. *' Finally: The charader of God is love — *' which is exprefsly againft the horrible idea ** of the endlefs mifery of any of his rational crea- '' tures." (p. 395.) So, fir, you are pleafed to affert. Another might from the fame premifes infer, that the punilliment of any of his rational creatures in hell for ages of ages, wher6 there iliall be weeping and wailing and gnafhing of teeth, and this notwithftanding the death of his Son, and the omnipotence of his grace, which furely was able to have faved them from it, is horrible and incredible! Is it inconfiftent with the benevolence of a fupreme magiftrate' that he dooms certain chara6lers to death? Rather, is it not an exercife of his benevolence ? Should a malefa6lor perfuade himfelf and his companions hi guilt, that his majefty cannot poHibly confent to their execution, without ceafing; to be that lovelv and good charaQer for which he has been famed, would not his reafon- rng be as falfc in itfelfas it was injurious to th^ king? Nay; would it not be inimical to his own intereft, and that of his fellow criminals; as by raising a delusive hope, they are prevented from making a proper and timely application to tfi« throne for mercv? 10:21 LETTERS TO Such are your reafons for fuccefiive dura- tion, and final falvation after the laft judgment; which, whether they ought to fatisfy any other perfon, let the reader judge. I Ihall clofe with replies to a few of your animadverfions. Your mifreprefentation of what I had ad- vanced concerning the Jews as a diftind nation, I fhould hope needs no corre6lion. If any of your readers can miftake what you have faid, for a juft ftatement of the views, or an anfwer to the argument of your opponent, they are be^ yond the reach of reafoning. You inferred from wliat was God's end in punilliing Ifrael in the prefe?it life, that (feeing he was an iminutable Being) it muft be the fame in his punilliing others in the life to come.* I anfwered, That 1 might as well infer from what appears to be his end in punilliing Pharaoh and Sodom in the prefent life, which was not their good, but the good of others, that fuch will be the end of future punifliment.f You reply, by fuppojing that thefe charaders were deftroyed for their good. (p. SGj.) What, in the prefent life? No; but in the life to come! And do you call this reafoning? You fay, " If any be finally incorrigible, ** it muft be in confequence of the divine pur- " pofe; or elfe the purpofe of God has been * U. M. No. ii. pp. 43, 44. f No. xxxiii. p. 262. MR. VIDLER. 103 *^ fruft rated." 1 have in my laft letter replied to the fubUauce of this dilemma I may add, you need be under no apprehenfion that 1 ihall be tempted to give up the infruftrablenefs of the divine purpofe ; and if I admit that God in juft judgment has purpofed to give fome men up to ftumble, and fall, and peri/h, it is no more than the fcriptures abundantly teach. You talk of *' the LAST ftate of a creature according with *' the divine purpofe:" but I know of no evi- dence for this, which does not equally apply to every Ji ate. If you be tempted to aik, JVhy doth he yet Jind fault ; for zoho hath rejified his will? You may poiTibly recoiled that thefe queftions have been a&ed before, and anfwered too; and it may be of ufe to you to ftudy the anfwer. Akin to this, is your dilemma, ** That God *' cannot, or will not, . make an end of fin ; ** that there is not efficacy enough in the blood ** of Chrift to deftroy the works of the devil ; ** or elfe that the full efficacy of the atonement '* is withheld by the divine determination." It has been already obferved, and I hope proved, that the fcripture phrafes, making an end of Jin, 8^c. convey no fuch idea as you attach to them. (p. 264.) And as to your dilemma, to which you afcribe great " weight," I anfwer again, you need be under no apprehenfion of my limit- o 2 104 LETTERS TO ing the power of God, or the efficacy of the Saviour's blood; and if I fay that both the one and the other are applied under the limitations of his own infinite wifdom, I fay not only what the fcriptures abundantly teach, but what you yourfelf niuft admit. Can you pretend that your fcheme reprefents God as doing all he can do, and as beftowing all the mercy which the effi- cacy of the Saviour's blood hath rendered con- fiftent ? If fo, yon mud believe that God can- not convert more than he a61ually does in the prefent life, and that the efficacy of the blood of Chrift is not equal to the faving of more than a part of mankind from the fecond death. You think that *' the fcripture is not filent *' concerning the future emendation of the an- *' cient Sodomites;" and refer me to Ezek. xvi. 44—63; arguing, that " Sodom and her daugh- ** ters muft be taken literally for the city of *' Sodom, and the neighbouring cities of the ** plain — that the prophecy muft refer to the ** very perfons who were delhoyed, feeing they ** left no defcendants — and that there is the fame *' reafon to expect the reftoration of Sodom, as "the fulfilment of God's gracious promifes to- *' wards Jerufalem." (p. 368) But if your inter- pretation prove any thing, it will prove — I will not fay, too much, but too little. It will prove, not that the ancient Sodomites will be faved from MR. VIDLEP. 105 ** the veng-eance of eternal fire," and introduc- ed into the heavenly world; hut barely that they are to return to their forvicr cfiate. (ver. 55.) And do you ferioufly think, that after the laji judgment, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha, of Samaria and Jerufalem, will be rebuilt, and repofleired by their ancient inhabitants? If fo, ic is time for me to lay down my pen. The former part of the above paflage, (ver. 46 — 59.) I apprehend to be no promife; but the language of keen reproof: and inftead of inti- mating a return to either Sodom or Jerufalem, the latter is reafoned with on the footing of her own deferts, and told in effect not to expe6l it any more than the former. *" The latter part (ver. 60 — 63.) contains the language of free mercy; not however towards the fame indivi- duals, againft whom the threatenings are direct- ed, but to their diftant pofterity, M'ho under the gofpel difpenfation Ihould be brought home to God ; and by a new and better covenant^ have the oentiles «:iven to them. The converfion of the heathen is exprelTed by this kind of lan- guage more than once; as by bmnging agaifi the captivity of Moab, of Elam, and of the children of Amman in the latter days. Jer. xlviii. 47. xlix. 6, 39. * See a similar kind of phijiseolpgy in Jer. xxjt'ui. 19—26. 106 LETTERS TO You '' have not difcernment enough, it feems, to perceive the grofs abfurdity" of main- taining that there can be no diverfity in future punilhnient, unlefs it be in duration; that is, that the reflections of finners on their paft hfe, muft all be exactly the fame. It may be fo; but I cannot help it. Your anfwer amounts to this: Diverfity of degrees in future punifliment may be accounted for, by varying the duration of it ; *' for every one knows there needs not fo much " time to inflict a hundred ftripes, as to infli6l " ten times that number." Therefore that muji be the v/ay, and the only way; and if you do not admit it, you " confound all degrees of *' puniihment, in giving infinite punifliinent to «' all." (pp. 42, 264, S69.) You believe, you fay, that *' thofe xvho die in their ^ns cannot go zvhcrc CJirift is."" You nuifl mean to fay merely, that they cannot follozo him NOW, but Jhall folloxo him afterwards. Such things, indeed, are faid of Chrift's friends, but not of his enemies. You have reprefented me as maintaining that all puniihment clafhes with the benevolence " both of God and his people." I have faid no fuch thing concerning God ; and if we were equally wife and righteous, and equally concern- ed to guard the interefls of the univerfe, as he is, we fhould be in all refpedls of the fame mind MR. VIDLER. 107 with him. The mifery which I fuppofe true be- nevolence to clafh with, is mifery intlitted for its own fake; and to this, whether it be tem- porary or endlefs, it is ahke abhorrent. God has alfo made it oui' duty, while finncrs are not his confirmed enemies, to do all in our power to preferve their lives, and fave their fouls: but He is not obliged to do all that he can to thefe ends, nor does he. — Temporary puniflnnent, you contend, may confift with be- nevolence, " becaufe it is direded to a good and glorious end :" And do I contend for end- lefs punifliment on any other principle? If you can form no idea of an end that is good and glorious, fave that which refpe^ls " the amend- ment of the fufferer," it does not follow that no fuch end exifts. A murderer, contemplating his approaching exit, might be fo much abforbed in the love of himfelf as to be of your opinion; but the community would not. Whether I have entered into '* the merits of the caufe," or conducted the controverfy in a becoming " fpirit," 1 conlkler as no part of jny province to determine. The impartial rea- der will judge, whether I have dealt in " foft words, or hard arguments;" and if I have been fo happy as in this particular to follow your counfel, whether I have not been obliged to deviate from your example. On this account 10& LETTERS TO MR. ViDLER. I fliall be excufed from taking any notice of your ainimadveiTions on thefe fubjeCls, together wrth thofe of your new ally, the '* Hoxton Student," unlefs it be to thank you for affording additional proof of the juftnefs of my remark. That focinians rejoice in the fpread ofUnvcerfalifm, Whether the kingdom of heaven be prepar- ed for all men, or not, that you and I may fo agonize in the prefent life, as at lad to enter in, is the defire and prayer of your fincere \yell- wifher. A. F \ FJNIS. \ »^i m ^ n »i . 1 mm v Am dipiStoiif. pHiMiiD BY J. W. Morris, LETTERS TO MR, FULLER ON THE UNIVERSAL WITH A STATEMENT OF FACTS ATTENDING THAT CONTROVERSY, AND SOME STRICTURES SCRUTATORS REVIEW. BY WILLIAM VIDLER. Printed by William Burton, No. 82, Fetter Lane. old by F. Vidler, 349, Strand; H. D. Symonds, Paternoster Row; Wriglit, Wisbeach; Bl u'nde 11, Battle ; J.Wright, Liverpool; Castle, Sheffield ; and Taylor, Edinburgh. 1803. 1^ :8lnf- 311111 A bo UAUlciXJ eupl[0(j ;,^ ..i ban tA() oonatah naqo ^ sluqoq -;. ,VfiW =tei INTRODUCTORY PREFACE. THE statement of a few facts is necessary as an introduction to these Letters. In the year 1793 I received a, private letter from Mr. Fuller, occasioned by my having openly avowed the universal restoration. On the same occasion, and about the same time, I received many others from different persons. These letterswere of various characters : some were full of pathetic lamentations on account of what they quaintly called my fall ; others upbraided me, in coarse and vulgar language, as an enemy to truth : others again dared me to an open defence of my sentiments: one proposed a few queries to me in favour of the endless destruction of the wicked : Mr. Fuller expostulated in favour of the popular doctrine of eternal misery, and in an oblique way, charged me with teaching the same doctrine that the devil taught our first parents, and threaten- a 9 iV. INTRODUCTORY PREFACE cd^'ipe with wrath. I did not answer any of them. ' Some rea^,qns for my silence will be found in the cdurseof this correspondence*. - - i^^ :^ci^ J '. In the year 1795 Mr. Fuller saw ht~ to publish the letter which he had written to me in 1793, having first, by his own acknowledgment, shewn it to several persons: it was published in the Evangelical Maga- zine for September. The periodical work which Mr. Fuller made use of was not open to me that I might defend myself: I speak this with certainty, having tried it, and found no admission : but Mr. Fuller had not tlie generosity to let me knew what he had done ; and as I did not read the Evangelical Magazine at that time, I remained ignorant of it till 'the latter end of the year 1796. In January 1797, I began to publish a monthly work called The Universalist's Miscellany >f-, in the first and second ninnbers of which 1 inserted two letters in answer to Mr. F. As I thought it unge- nerous to attack sentiments in the person of any man without acquainting him with it, I sent these numbei-s to him with my respects. In September, 1798, I pubhshed a second edition of the former part of The Universalist's Miscellany ; and,. as Mr. F. had taken no notice of the first edition, I there- * See Letter I. p. land 2. 1" This woik is still continued under the title of The Universal Theological Magazine, &c. iliJilODUCTORf PREFACE. V. fore sent him the second, to which I had prefixed an Advertiseiiient which concluded thus : ' When the fot and second numbers of the Miscellany came out with my answer to Mr. Fuller's Letter, I convey- ed them to that gentleman with my respects. Above a year and a half is now elapsed, and he has return- .^^. ed no answer. The reason of his silence is, doubt- dDi^iless, a, cogent one, though to me unknown.* ^ jEdi Still Mr. F. took no notice. An article of news from Birmingham, which was inserted in the second volume of The Universalist's Mis-cellany, p. 39. at length roused his attention, and produced his se- cond and third letters. When I had replied to tiiese I wrote to him that ' if he had any thing more to add, my publication was still open to him, and that '/M I wished to be informed when he had finished his letters, as 1 meant to publish the whole of our cor- respondence upon tlie subject in one piece.' Mr. F. then wrote his fourth. and following letters. I finish- ed my reply to these in The Universalist's -Miscel- lany for December 1801, and waited for him to say •* if he chose to add any thing more. Meantime, Au- 9m; gufl 2, 1802, came out Mr. F.^s Letters, separate^ iM and by his licence to Mr. Morris the Editor, saying, ©"Js^ that as I had had sufHcient time to ftilfill my propo- sal of publishing the whole at one view^ and had not done it, Mr. M. had liberty to publish that part of the correfpondence which belonged to Mr. F.! Another fact is also proper to be meBtior^ed, vis. TI. II>ITRODUCTORY PRtFACE. that before Mr. F. wrote any tlu ng in defence of end- less misery, m The Universalist's Miscellany, he de- manded of me that I should not insert an answer, in the same number, to any thing which he wrote ; in order, as he said, ' that the fall effect of w^hat he wrote might be felt upon the minds of tlie rendr:;; ers.' I agreed to this ; and most faithfully kept my promise; as any body may see by consulting that publication. On the ground of these facts, it is evident that Mr. F. began this controversy unknown to me — that I haid a right to urge him to proceed in it when thus begun — and that I exercised tijis right in an opei> and candid manner— that it would have been candid in Mr. F. to have given me notice that he did not mean to add any thing more upon the subject, before he published, or gave leave to any other to publish, what he had written in wj/ pubUcation! ... >My reason for wishing- to publisii the whole con- troversy in one piece w;is that, the public might see both sides of the subject together. I thought it would bean advantage to truths on which ever fide it might be found, if it appeared face to face with its. opposite: and I think so still. Mr. F. and bis friends think otherwise ; and have taken occasion, in the manner stated above, to bring forv^ard his let- ters to tne." ■ 1(T,' rfetrays the self-inconsistency of error; for some of the human Ylll. INTRODUCTORY PREFAeZ. race, and of the ciiabolical (how mani/- we are not told), are to be given up as incurables i& a?inijiila^ iimz. There is to be a limited eternity too, it seems, after time ; one eternity in helJ, and another eternity in heaven, for the same persons . Were not the sub- ject so awful and important as to demand the utmost gravity, the repetition of these absurdities would excite a smile ; and to repeat, is to confute them. The clear teftimony of scripture, in numberless pas- sages, contradicts the opinion ^f Mr. V.; and could stronger terms have been employed to express the iidejfc of proper and endless eternity ? The origifial langurages to which, offer the manner of the erro-^ neons, when plain English is against them, he appeals^ iif candidly examined, andytf/r/j/ criticised, confirm the doctrine of eteriial punishment/ It isdiflk'alt to unde''stand wliat this curious sen- tence may mean. Is the English translation so cor- rect as to be, in any case, incapable of emendation? Or is every man necessarily in an error, who exa- mines the original scriptures ? NeitheT of theSe things are probable. Does the writer, then*, mean that the universal doctrine cannot be proved by fh6 plain English of our common translation?- If so- let the English reader recollect that the New Testa- ment writers use Old Testament language — that the words ever, everlasting, and the phrasesj^or ever andjTor ever and ever, are used in the Old Testa- ment in a limited sense— that as these words and INTRODUCTORY PREFACE. IX. phrases are, in the New Testament, used to express the duration of future punishmeat, it is reasonable for us to take them in a Hmited sense in relation to this awful subject; especially as the New Testament writers have given us no intimation that they have attached to them any other sense, nor does the sub- ject itself require any other. The reviewer afterwards says, Mr. Fuller's Let- ters * discover a strong judgment, a Christian spi- rit, and a zealous heart, laudably indignant at the grievous injury done to scripture, and to the souls of men. May they be blessed, particularly, for con- vincing his deluded opponent; and may God be pleased to ghe him repentance to the acknorvledg" ment of the truth /' The reader will judge of my astonishment when I read this review. The names o^ fifty divines ap- pear on the cover of The Theological Magazine; which, or whom of them produced this precious morceau, I know not : but being willing to give them all the assistance in my power, I wrote them the following letter : » To the Editors of The Theological Magazine, ' Gentlemen, * Looking over your publication for Octo- ber last, I observed in your review of M^r. Fuller's Letters to me, two great mistakes, whirh I take the liberty to state to you. lam represented as main- taining the universal salvation both of men and de* b X. INTRODUCTORY PREFACE. vils, and yet admitting, at the same time, that ' some of the human race, and of the diabolical, are to be given up, as incurables^ to annil illation' It is true that Mr. Fuller did tax me with this inconsistency; but he had the justice afterwards to own his mistake in the following words — ' I have certainly to beg your pardon for having misunderstood you with re- spect to the doctrine of annihilation. I did not ob- serve how you opposed the idea of endless punish- ment on the one hand, and annihilation on the other. In this matter I submit to your correction, and rea- dily acquit you of all those absurdities which would have followed the admission of that principle.' Let. VII. p. 80. Mr. Fullers's third Letter, in which he committed this mistake, is also attended with the following note from the Editor, p. 21. — ' The rea- der will perceive hereafter that Mr. F. was mistaken in supposing Mr. V. to hold the doctrine .of anni- hilation : this he acknowledges in Let. VI.' (It should be Let. VI I ) ' With these facts before me, I am utterly at a loss to account for your misrepresentation of what I have written on this subject. ' The other mistake, which is intirely your own, (for Mr. F. never charged mc with it) is expressed as follows — ' There is to be a limited eternity too, it seems, wjter time ; one eternity in hell, atid ano' iher eternitij in heaven, for the same persons. Were not the subject so aivj'ul and important as to demand the utmost gravity y the repetition of these absurdi- ties uould excite a smile ; and to repeat is to confute INTRODUCTORY PREFACE X! them.' So far from liaving'tanglit a limitecl'and twofold eternity, I have firmly contended, in my correspondence with Mr. F. that tlie gnobm ci the Hebrews, and the aio?i of the Greeks, literally sig- nify age, not eternity; and thn* the adjectives of them must therefore mean age- lasting, not eternal. I do not blame you, gentlemen, for differing from me; you have a rightto judge for yours'ilves, in this or any other point ; but I do blame you for not ex- ercising that care in this article, which would have prevented you from mistaking plain facts. I, doubt- less, have my errors and mistakes, as well as other men; but I have always esteemed those as my friends who have convicted me of them ; hoping you will do the same, I venture to subscribe myself your friend and well wisher, ' 349, Strand. W. Vidler.' * P. S. The insertion of this in your next num- ber will be an act of justice to me, and will prevent any altercation concerning yovLrfals'ifyi7ig plain facts, 1 own T feel myself indignant at the gross nonsense which you have imputed to me/ The answer which was first given by these gen- tlemen, — ten of whom reside in London, — was, that they referred it to the reviewer of that article. This gentleman, though he was charitable enough to be- stow his prayers on me, yet was not generous enough to tell me his name ; consequently, I am to this day ignorant of the particular person, among tlie ffty XII. INTRODUCTORY PREFACE. reverend divines^ to whom myself and the public arc indebted for this impartial review. However^ an apology appeared in the Theological Magazine for December 1802, which I will transcribe, and make a few remarks on. ' Apology to the Rev. Mr. Vidler. ' Mr. Vidler has complained of two mistakes in our review of Fuller's Letters to him in October last. In that article he is represented as maintaining uni- versal salvation, both of men and devils, and yetad- mitting that some of the human race, and of the diabohcal, are to be given up, as incurables, to anni- hilation. Mr. Fuller had charged him wirh the same inconsistency, but his mistake was afterwards cor- rected in a note. The other mistake with which Mr. Vidler charges us, is our asserting, that, accord- ing to his representation, there is to be a limited eternity after time, one eternity in hell and another in heaven, for the same reasons. ' As to the^?'has afforded matter of surprise to many who 4cnGW Mr, F/s experience and skill as a polemic writer, that he should think his cause stood in need of- -those fierce and fiery eruptions of Scrutator's ar- dent genius to assist it. > For my own part, as I am pronounced to be * destitute of a sound and discri- minating judgment, and scarcely, possessed of com- mon penetration/ it would be presumption in me to aiy any thing on this subject ; otherwise, I should be tempted to think, that, as the essence of the.doc- trine of endless misery is implacable zvrath^ so Mr.- F. .thought that ' proud wrath' became the subject, and that Mr. S. was properly qualified to exhibit it. But to drop this, I make an observation of mucli greater iiu porta nee, namely, that a capital and lead- ing argument in this controversy has been all along totally overlooked, both by Mr. F. and Scrutator. it is this—' tliat the whole revealed economy of God towards fallen men, is mediatorial, in Christ Jesus; and that it is contained within the ages of Christ's kingdom, which, itself, shall come to an end.' '!;"';>• This argument is founded upon express scripture, 1 Cor. XV. 24 — 23. and is supported by its current testimony concerning the nature of Christ's king- dom, as being delegated : given to him to be exer- cised till all things be gathered together in him— till all things be reconciled to the Father by him— till every knee bow to him of things in heaven, things on eartli, and things under the earth, and every one confess that he is Lord— till every enemy INTRODUCTORY fSEEAGEV XXi; be subdued, and death itself bii' destroy ed..,v;THo' iJ!bavef?ffri"^e5 conti !inal use of' it, find thin krl .have given 'evi^ience that we liave no revelation which read^iesheyond thr.t perod, yet have titese; nvo. gen'^ tlemen never directly made an?/i4-ep3y iJoifei'V-vi \y"^t As for the . outcry wlvichboth Mr. F. and S. J^ave innde-iconcerning tlie in?moral tendency of the uni- versal doctrine, at most it proves nothing more than thkt !tlvey have formed a bad opinion of it. But it seems possible to me. that persons equally wise ^nd pious with thesci gentlemen, iuay think very differ- ently. And, till facts prove tlie contrary, they ought not to be blamed for supposing that the doc- trine in question contains in it the most powerful re- straint on vice, and the strongest incentives to virtue. I have two reasons for making these general re- marks on Scrutator's Letters; first, justice to that good cause for which I have the honour to be an advocate, demands it. Secondly, justice to myself also requires it. The annals of literature have sel- dom exhibited such an abusive publication as this nameless writer has thought fit to obtrude on the world. And lastly, the remarks which I have made are to be considered by the leader as the whole of my answer to Scrutator's angry invectives. The following notes subjoined to my Letters to Mr. F.' are directed to such parts of his coadjutoi'^s perform- ance in which he appears not to rail but to reason. I may here adopt the language of a reverend di- vine of the seventeenth century. * If any where I have vised more sharpness than is pleasing to men XXn. INTRODUCTORY PREFACE. who would have all controversial writings managed without passion, I shall only say that the hard grat- ing of my opponents hath sliarpencd my style, and made it more keen and piercing than I could have used towards good-natured adversaries. 'Tis almost morally impossible for him who contends with fiery and furious antagonists, not to be sometimes a little overheated .' On the whole, I am perfectly satisfied with the doctrine of the restoration of all intelligent creatures, as a truth founded in scripture, and also being con- sonant to the perfections of the God and Father of oitr Lord Jesus Christ. It is, in my view, a doctrine according to godliness ; containing in it the only scriptural restraints on iniquity — furnishing the strongest and purest motives to holiness ; calculated, above all other doctrines, to destroy party prejudice among Christians-r-tQ. remove obstacles which hin- der the spread. of the gospel ; and to bring the high- eft possible glory to our blessed Redeemer. iir:o'i6^ ii& jtijaai ri 5J.?TT'^ ~?H ' It: modR sisissim t'^'i.iM ^"^}^F- C0JVTEJVTS4 .1 9V£ -3iiJ IB- ?«"■*"" LETTER I. -•-■::■ PAGE. Reafons for not anfvvering Mr. Fuller's Letter before. ■ ■ v - Replies to his expoftulations, containing reasons for be-« 1 irj^ ^,.U|eying and Pleaching the dodlrineof universal resto^R^^v.-,;; 4»®n^ ^" ••••-•{£:•;',• •^•^•••••••••••'M. ...s.- ^J^- '-qDETTERIL Cdntinvration of Tephfis to Mr. t. s expostulations, con- taining views of the superior holiness of the universal ' . doctrine, as opposed to annihilation and endless misery. 19 LETTER III. Mr. F.'s reasons for not continuing the controversy consi- dered, and animadversions on his replies. 24 LETTER IV. Reasons why the punishment of the wricked will not be endless, and difficulties attending Mr. F.'s sense of the words everlasting, eternal, &c. • • 32 LETTER V. Mr. F.'s mistake about annihilation noticed, and proof that all punishment stands on the ground of mediation. 45 CONTENTS. LETTER VI. Considerations on eternity. — Proof of su-ccessive duration after the day of judgment. — The immutabilit} of God a ground of the universal doctrine. Case of Sedom and Samaria. • • • • • 5? LETTER VIL Expostulation with Mr. F. on his using scandal for argu- ment. — Bigotry of orthodox congregations —Bottom- less pit considered. The notion of satisfaction consi- . dered. — Reconciliation of judgment and mercy in God's dealing with the same characters. — The universal doc- trine gives no encouragement to sin. 68 LETTER VIIL Containing some remarks on Mr. F.'s neglect of the sub- ject; also, an answer to the first part of his fifth Letter on the contr,iit betwixt the states of the righteous and. the wicked. 9J LETTER IX. Examination of the gronnds of Mr. F.'s belief of endless misery continued. — The meaning of aion and its deri- vatives considered. 108 LETTER X. No scriptures relating to future punishment imply more than what is elsewere expressed on that subject. — Blas- phemy against the Holy Ghost, and the case of Judas considered. Unquenchable fires explained. •••••• 120 LETTER Xr. Examples of Mr. F.'s manner of reasoning; and ia rule for understanding the meaning of words! ♦ • •'• • •*• • • • ' iSf CONTENTS. LETTER XII. Acknowledgmants to Mr. Fuller. — Some peculiar forms of speech expressive of duration in the scriptures 157 LETTER XIII. Replies to Mr. F/s examination of principles • • • • 142 LETTER XIV. Difficulties attending Mr. F.'s scheme.— Case of Sodom further considered. — Twelve difficult things to be done before the universal doctrine can be overthrown. • • • • 149 9fl $Qi ERRATA. Page 122—128. for Letter IX. read Letter X. LETTERS TO Mil Fuller, LETTER I. REASONS FOR NOT ANSWERING MR. FULLEr's LETIER BEFORE.— REPLIES TO HIS EXPOSTULATIONS, CON- TAINING REASONS FOR BELIEVING AND PREACHING THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL RESTORATION. SIR, QO^IE time ago a friend put tlie Evangelical Magazine for September, 1 19'}, into my hand ; in looking over which I founds that in answer to the request of Brighton- ensis, concerning the Eternity of Iltll Torments, you brought foi-ward a letter written to me on February 14, 1793, on account of my having avowed the Restoration of all Things through Christ Jesus. The postscript to the above letter mentions, that you have never received an answer to it. I hereby acknowledge the reception of that letter from you, and that I never answered it. I also take this occasion to thank you for writing to me, and take it as a proof of your esteem for me. There were two reasons why I did not answer you. One was the number of letters which I received on my change of sentiment. My time would not permit me to B 10 LETTER I. write much, as I generally preached from six to eight times in a week, and if I had answered one or two of my friends, others would have said that I had not answered them ; I therefore answered none. The other reason was my natural love of peace, which made me wish to avoid all controversy with my former connections, whom I highly respected, notwithstanding they had publicly excluded me from their communion, merely for my sentiments, Avithout giving me a hearing. And probably J. should never have answered you at all, had you not made your letter to me thus public. Though I have more than once been informed by friends, that your having written to me, and my not having answered, was no secret in the circle of your acquaintance ; yet my love of peace imposed silence upon me. I now think myself called upon publicly to give you some reasons why I be- lieve and preach God's universal and efficacious love to men. You say you have ' observed me to be of a speculative turn of mind.' If by this you mean that I did not discover a disposition to take the assertions of men as the rule of my faith, I own I am a speculator ; and I think the scrip- tures make it my duty so to be. Buy the tnilh and sell it not, says one sacred writer. Prove all things, hold Jast that reJiich is good, says another ; and our gracious Lord commands that we search the scriptures. But if you mean tliat I have discovered any want of respect to the sacred writings, or have not submitted implicitly to their dictates in every thing, so far as I have understood their meaning, I shall think the charge heavy indeed. For God is my witness I always reverenced his word, even from my childhood ; but since the time that I had the first expe- rience of his forgiving love upon my soul, I have esteemed it above all riches and honours. To me it seems; that TO MR. FULLER. || one of the highest instances of regard I ever gave to the Bibie, was by daring to assert the doctrine of the Restitution of all Things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts iii. 2 1 . And this T did at the risk of all temporal good that I possessed, and at the risk of losing the esteem and friendship of my brethren in the ministry, which I can truly say I prized more than any thing, truth excepted. ' You wish I had read Dr. Edwards upon the subject of endless misery, before I had avowed my sentiments/ You have your wish. Sir : I had read him twice before I opened my lips to controvert his misrepresentation of the character of that God, whose nature is love. And at the request of a much-esteemed friend, was reading him again, when I received your letter ; and if I had, even then, seen any real weight in the Doctor's arguments, I would have recanted, as openly as ever I professed the Universal doctrine ; and however humbling such a recantation may be thought, yet I should not have been without great ex* amples. I could have pleaded the retractions of St. Austin, an authority which my Calvinist brethren would not have despised. And I declare even now, though I have preached the doctrine with some success for four years, yet would I give it up to morrow, if convinced of its error. But if there be nothing better to be said, than what is found in Dr. Edwards's piece, I do not expect ever to receive that conviction. I grant that Mt is a serious matter, that we err not in our ministmtions.' But are we to take it for granted, that all truth has been in posseesion of our forefathers, and that we have nothing more to do, than receive their sentiments, and pay implicit obedience to them ? I know you do not think so. You have in some instances dared to differ Be* i'2 LETTER I. from great and good men, even of your own denominil- tion, and I esteem you for it ; as I am persuaded you have differed, not from tlie love of singularity, much less from the love of sin, but from the love of truth. Yet how easy would it be for a good man, who laments your departure from opinions ^^'hich he deems orthodox, to remind you, ' it is a very serious mattv^r that you do not err in your ministrations, as error in a minister may affect the eternal salvation of many." Your answer to such a man, (which 1 am sure would be both honest and sensible) may be con- sidered as my answer to you. I cannot help thinking, that the questions you ask me in your letter, discover you to be but little acquahited with the subject. Otherwise I cannot accoimt for a man of your strong mental powers asking whether. First, IMy change of sentiment has not arisen from an idea> of endless punishment being in itsetf unjust? Second 1}^, Whether the genius of the sentiment, be not opposite to that of every other sentiment in the Bible ? Thirdly, Whether my ministrations, on this principle, will not savour of /«'s,who taught our hist parents, * Ye shall not surely die?' It would have been easy for you to have asked a hundred more questions of a similar kind, and to have reasoned upon them, as you have upon the above And it would be easy for me to shew, that such questions have no relation to the doctrine of the restoration, any more than to that of election. Suffer me to tell you, worthy Sir, that the question is not whether endless punishment is in itself just, but whether God has any where in his word, threatened any description of sinners with it. I am bold to say he has not so done. But if you, or any other man, can prove that he lias, I will then openly retract my assertion, and humbly ask par- TO MR. FULLER. ]S »i::>i9Xf 2d. You say, * Though I was not very deeply impressed^ with the force of your arguments, yet being fully pursuad- ed, notwithstanding what you say of the holy nature of your doctrine, that it needed only be read by a certain TO MR. FULLER. 27 description' of people in order to be imbibed ; and not sbp^- posing your work to have a very extensive circulation^ I thought it might be as well to kt it alone.' There is but one thing thc;t I clearly understand in this reason of your silence, which is, that you apprehended your coming forward would greatly extend the knowledge of the universal doctrine, vvhich at present is, j'ou suppose, confined in a very narrow circie. Whether the compli- ment you pay to your own great name, or your want of con- . fidence lA the truth of your own cause, be the most pro- minent in this curious sentence, I shall leave others to determine. Meanwhile I should be glad to know who this description of people is, that are so ready to receive the doctrine; and on whose account you kept a prudent si- lence, till I ' compelled you to pursue a different conduct.' You add, 3d. * Your two letters appeared to me to contain so many misapprehensions, and such a quantity of perversiori of the plain meaning of scripture, that I felt it a kind of hopeless undertaking to go about to correct them.' These are your reasons for not answering my letters be- fore. If, as you hint in your second reason, the univer:>al doctrine is dangerous to the morals of a certain description of men ; and if I had so per/erted the meaning of scrip- ture, as you intimate in your third reason, I should have thought that you would riot have 'kept silence, no, not for an hour, but have borne an immediate testimony against so' dangerous an error, which was supported by so manifest a perV'ersion of the word of God. But the Auplessuess of the undertaking prevented the exercise of your zeal ! I do crolJ see. Sir, that you have any occasion for despairing thoughts; you certainly have the popular side of the question ; you are d2 £8 LETTER HI. rTiC" >«.«iire of superiority of numbers; you have the preju ...iKiM....^ You s^y i liavu not told you whether Iidaim an exemp- tion from endless punishment as a rig/it, hut seem to v.ish you to thiiik that this is not my ground.*. Really, -Sir, I do not caro a straw which way you think of it in-the pre- sent state of tli£ controversy. It behoves yo\i to prove t^iat endless misery is threatened in scripture to any de- scription of sinuei's whatever. This is what you affirrn and I deny. Prove your point, and every thing else fol- io v/s of course ; but till then I shall esteem all this a,£ mere quibble, raised only to hide the main question. , Having, by your own confessiou, inspected the fii^at and TQ MK. TULLER. t^ ^ second volumes of the UriiYerealist's MisceMany;ryo« can- not be ignorant tliat I admitcorrespondents of very; dili'er- eiit sehtimeuts from my own ; y our reference to other parts of the MHcellany, not written by me, and making me an- ,.^ flwercible for^the sentimtnts, is as reasonable as though I should refer.to the sentnnents of a great number of Cal- viiiist^j and ■ make you answerable for them all, however -.. ,...odifierent:tkey might be from your own. Surely, you might bL coiitent yourself Vv'ith pointing out viy oww^ many mis- H-' apprehensions,' and exposing tkij own ' perversions of the piam meaning of scripti.;re/ since you affirm Lhave so ',, . .,,.iaan_y oi them. ^f^T'T/i"?' You remind me of a part of your second question to which you say I have given no answer. I apprehend that 3-. 1 did return a competent answer to this in the beginning of my second letter; but for your satisfaction I will add to it. ' What doctrine besides that of universal salvation/ say you, Vwill you find in the Bible which aftbrds encou- ragement to a sinner going on still in his trespasses, and ah" "which furnishes ground lor hope and joy, even supposing - n him to persevere in sm till death r' > Yoii triumphantly add, Jli * Was this question equally irrelative to the subject as the doctrine of election?' I answer, The- same question may be asked with the same propriety concerning the Calvinistic doctrine of Election, it only requires an assumption in the one case M'hich you have made in the other. Let us try—What doctrine besides that of unconditional unfrus- trable election do you find in tlie Bible Avhich aftbrds en- couragement to a sinner going on in his trespasses, and which furnishes ground for hope and joy, e\'en supposing him to persevere in them till death? I have expressly al- lowed that it will be always ill with the wicked— —that a sinner, as such, can have no enjoyment of God; but that Cpd will pursue ain in every state in which it is found with.- 50 LETTER III. his displeasure. And this I have supposed to be perfectly consistent with the restitution of all things. You have, I think, without reason assumed that this view of things * affords encouragement to a sinner going on still in his trespasses, and furnishes ground for hope and joy, even supposing him to persevere in sin till death.' Let the Avorld judge whether your question does not go on an unfounded assumption, which applies as much to the doctrine of elec- tion as to that of the restoration of all things. When you have proved, or at least attempted to prove, that your ques- tion is founded on fact, I may then either confess its truth, or expose its falsehood more fully. I your next section ^ you go on in the same tmfounded manner, supposing me to raise the hopes of the ungodly part of my audience with respect to the duration of future punisliment, &c. and then supposing me ashamed to look them in the face another da}^, and especially to look him in the face who hath charged me to be pui;e from the blood of all men. : ,n^^.;i ^^^j, j,^ - {^j„^,^ ,,^, . You blame me for not answering this, and ask-a'gain> ' Was this equally irrelative to the subject as to the doctrine of election ?' I answer. It v/as equally so. I might sup' pose as many things upon the one subject as you upon the other, and neither of us suppose any thing to the purpose. Pray, Sir, inform the world, what argument there is in a string of suppositions ? and what blame is to be attached to the man who is charged with not answering them? I looked your question full in the face, and admitted the full latitude of. God's threatenings towards sinners, and the ex- ecution of them too ; contending, at the same time, that all punishment is limited ; for which I gave, not a string; of suppositions, but a variety of reasons ; among other * MriF^sLetteis, p. 14. TO MR. FULLER. J5l things r observed that your third question vrasfoiinied upon the idea that my views invalidate the threatenings of God towards sinners. To all this you have wisely said-'-nothing. But you have represented me as saying that the v^hole of your third question proceeded upon the supposition of my denying all future punishment. I refer you to my letter" again, Sir, for the correction of yoiir judgment in this point. There you will fmd, that when I considered jour third question, namely, ' Whether my ministrations on this principle (of the universal doctrine) will not savour of his, who taught our first parents. Ye shall not surely die?' I answered, If I thought that there should not be any future punishment, your insinuation would not be without reason; but the ground of your question, with all its train of sup- positions, I stated to be as above. I do not charge you with a wilful perversion of truth ; but I think if you had attend- ed to the subject in a direct and open manner, instead of raising dust to hide it, by misrepresenting your opponent, you would not have furnished this proof to the public eye of * ^talents for fair and plain reasoning being perverted h^ » system* Hitherto I have found nothing in your letter that is im- mediately to the point, but have been forced to shape my course after you. If the reader should find it not so pro- fitable as might be wished , he will recollect that it is a course of which I had not the choice. As in your next section you have the appearance of leav- ing supposition and insinuation, and using some sort of ar- gument, I wish to give your reasons their full weight; I will not therefore enter into them at this time, but give them a feiirand cool discussion in some subsequent letters,, Yours, kc, Oct % 1199. W.VIDLER. S2 LETTER IV. *:dl LET7^ER W, ' REASONS WHY THE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED WILL KOT BE ENDLESS^ AND DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING MR. F.'S SENSE OF THE AVORDS EVERLASTING, ETERNAL, &C. sru, T NOW, with pleasure, attend you in considering your ob- jections against the limitation of future punishment; but I confess mj'self at a loss how to do it regularly, on account of your very confused and deiultor}^ manner of writing; for though you contend for never-ending punishment to the wicked, from the use of the words everlasting, &c. yet you allow the limited use of these same words, of which you give several instances: however, I will endeavour to attend to your ideas with what perspicuity I can. You say, though I contend that the scriptures no where teach the doctrine of endless punishment, yet I am aware that they appear so to do, and am obliged to have re- course to a method of weakening the force of words to get rid of them. — As this relates to the scripture words cver^ everlasting, Sec. which are sometimes connected with future punishment, I will make a few remarks upon the fubject, 4n The word everlasting is used in the whole Bible, in con- nection With punishmetit, only seven times— Isa. xxxiii. 14. Dan. xii. S. Mat. xvi. 8. and xxv. 4 1 and 46. 2 Thes. i. 9. ude, 6. The first of these passages, according to Bishop Lowth, does not refer io future punishment at all, but con- tains the.ianguage of tlie wicked Jews while under the ex- ecution of divine wrath upon their country by Seiiacherib, who burnt up their towns and villages. And the latter pas* TO MR. FtTLLEa. HS - i ii'J-'l • ■: . _ ^ sage relates to tiie aftgeh n^'hich Icfpt not their fiHt estate; eo tliat, in all the scriptures of the Old and New Testa- ment, the word everlastiug is connected vt^ith the future pu- nishment of. wf/? only five titties; yet this same word is i^sed in the scriptures at least ')/?"w^y times, very generally indeed in relation to things tha,t eitlier have ejidt^d or must end. Is this a ,pr(iof tliat the scriptures ap^jfar to teach endless punishment? The whole Old Testament, till we eome to the prophecy of Daniel > never uses the word in this relation, and having ouce used it, this sacred book closes without so using it again ; and that notwithstanding k\} the warnings of the prophets, and their frequent tlireaten- iiigs against sinners. We find also, tl>at, out of twenty- aeven books, of which the New Testament consists, coral* pos^d ami wcitten hy seven apo3lies or evangehsts, that evtrlnsting. is used only faux times in relation to the fiitiim punishment of men. ; . * ? ?• ;.; , Ayibr t\\i:iMosdiiiiernal, it is the sai!ne ia theorigdnal wbie^^ Ig translated et'fr/as^iw^. dt is used in the^teltandm^ginlipi' v/ard&of forty times in the whole Bible, out of v/hith theneai* only two which can be supposed to relate to future punishm<£nt — Mark,iii. 29, and Jude, 7 • From hence we see, that as the Old Testament v/riters use the word- only bncein relation to future punisliiBejit, &o of the New Testament writers, St. Lukf H^ver.useg the woi^ everlasting m eternal in this relaticnin hie, gospel, noriij the Acts, though in the latter he records^ many of the apostolic sermons both to Jews and gentiles. ' St*,J:^i^. i;i«^^ uses it in hi«!gospfl^j jt^p. his -three epistle, ' Iju;: .;tef5 by the four CTahgeliste, at different j»Zac?S, arid befo-e they were toi ecttd into one volume, there were thoUfsailds of genuine Christians who had diedin\he truth, who had seen only , * 1 onggospel. If the doctrine of eternal misery be so evident a truth aj'MeSifsr 34 tBTTER IT, Neither i5t. James or St. Peter ever use it in their icpistliesr) and of fourteen epistles written by Paul^ only one mentions die word everlasting as connected with future punish- ident*. When I reflect that the word which we render everlasting and eternal, was, by the Old Testament writers, most generally applied to things limited in their duration, and that the same word is used by a few of the writers of the New Testament only a few times in relation to future pu- nishment, I cannot think that anyman'who reads the scrip- tures with candour and attention, can say that they appeaf toteach the doctrine of end less punishment — unless there be something in the nature of future punishment itself which necessarily leads us to receive the word in an endless sense. Tii this case it is not the mord but the subject which give* ilie idea of endless duration. You are sensible of this, for iir your second letter you thus address me — * Admitting all you allege in favour of the limited sense of the above terms, (everlasting and eternal) still the nature of the sub- ject, the connection and scope of the passages, together -with the use of various bth^r formS-of expression which convey the same thing, are sufficient to prove that when Fuller and Scrutator would perjuade us, and if the true meaning of (tj»jj»oil "be et»nal, &C. then the CTangelists LukfeindJo'lm'-were guilty of a capital omis- sion in not mentioning it in their gospels. But> as we have, reason to suppose that these holy men inserted in theire:«>ing(^lical histories every thing necessa^iy to be believed by a Christian i& order to salvation, we can but think that a sa*n may be a very good Christian and hot believe a word about eternal mise- ry. The »ame will ajpply in respect tn the Acts of the Apostles,' written by Luke; in all the sermons prefcchcd by PauJ wiithe other apostles, which sbe khere recorded, the word which, in our c(jnin«m tanslation, is rendered e^erjis/ and everkuting does not occur in connection with punishment. Would an evangelical minister of werfem timis nave so irritteh, and so preached the gospel? itrownot. " - '■'-' ■'•■ '■-'■''■■ ^-J''' "'''•''' V -..•;. - ^'.^^ . * iThes.i. 9, TO MR^TULl-ER. 5*? applied to the ioctrioe of future puaj^ii^^t, t^ey.^tf^^ be understood without any limitation*' - , ^ , ^^^ ;j -^.^ j,^^ ,rl was in great h-ope, wheaX read. tlii3> that you .\voyl4 have produced some of the varjoifs iorms of scripture exr pression which convey the idea, of eridless duration ; eiu4 liave.^iven some reasons, taken from. the nature- of futuiie punishnient^ to shew that it must be endless. TheTwhol^ which you. have done on this head is to intimate that, after this world is ended, successive duration consequently ,tei;7 jninates; and that the words. 6?ay and nighty in Reiv. xiv. 10. are a figurative mode of expression to denote perpetur ity ; especially as the same language is used, you say, by tlie inhabitants of heaven, ch. vii. 15. It follows, then^ that your best ground for believing that there is no su,cc^ Rive duration after the end of this world, is only a figuratiYe expression or two. And do you think this a sufficient W£^:- rant for you to believe and teach the tremendous doctrii^ of endless damnation on ? :\^^.^,y, tu< , ; - j \f «ti"a1 As for your sneer about the New Jerusalem's filling up the sea, &c. I leave you to enjoy it, while I go on to giy* some reasons why future punishment will not be endless. , ' Every thing proper to be believed concerning our Maker must be founded in the manifest j^VHFS5=ef that thing-=i—i-OT on the general evidence of God's providence— —or on rei'f- lation. Now there is nothingin the nature of endless tor- ment which can evince its /i'/ric^i-^r-nothiiig in the analogy of providence that can make it (:;T(/?&7f— nothing in the gacred scripture, consisteritiy ,undersfoj?d, to sj/ppor/' it, ,, ; 'I lay itdpw^as a niaxii3a,^tq,,berdoubted by^.few and denied by none, that AvhosoevcrdcJlii-any thing, foreseeing the certain event thereof, willeth that event. If a pareiit send children into a wood in which ^row poisonous bi?^ and certainly know that they will eat of them, it i§, pi^^iifli 418- fctfTEE IV. ittip6tfente, ifi th4 Wtigideration 6f comm^rl seni!^, that hft cautions, or forewarns, that they, havin? free-will may ftvoid fhe poisoii. Who will not ^ccuse-him of their death in S€iidii>g'theni into guch CirGumftances whe^ he fore- knew it would happen? G<>d foreknows every th'im> ; to his know-lexige every thing is certain. Let us f!upp^>se him about tO'create twenty men : he knows ten of them will her conte viciwis, therefore damned, and thence inherit the un- ceasing penalty. Who doubts, in such a case, that he willj^ the end, who, being almighty and all knowing, does that withput which it co-iid not come to pass: but he hath swarn by himself, for he could swear by no greater, that he wiiUth not the denth of him that dieth ; that is, he wilieth it not as death finally, or simply, or destruction irrecover- able. If therefore it occur, it is a part of his economy of grace, and finally a ministration unto life; for he hath de- cUrred that it is his will that ail sliould be saved*; therefore * In thecourse of my correspondence with Mr.F. 1 have stated thati did notcon- tend foruniversal salvation^ (which excludes all fiitu'rc punishment,) butfor uni- versal /c/orft^ioJ?. It is evident that Mr. F. understood 'Chi's to be the ciuje from Ihe first; for though he uses the phrase ' uitiVersal mk-at'uf^ iA\Qi\ he speaks ef my sentiments, audj i th.nk, often . reasons as.tlrough f denied all futurt punishment, j^jt when I.noticed this in my second letter to'him,he replied— * You represent the whole of this third question as proceeding on tlie sup,po- iltton of 5'6ur d'^nylhg ;.'// future puivshinent. But li 'not this a ^rnas rnisrepre- mentation .' Does not the whole fbr?g6ing passage allow tfiat yo'ii ad.nit of fti* ture punishmtan of lin>lted duration?' p. 15. of Mr. F.'j iecosc' le'ter. Great part of Mr. F.'s fiftl^ letter appeared to, me to goon the ground of my bblierinj vniversal salvat'ion ; I therefore declared that I never believed that seri^tment, but 'that I wascontendlng /or universal restorafiov, which admitted future pu- nishment acrordirtg to character. The gentle Scrutator is astonished at this ; says that 'Jifti-e,i Ititters had passed between Mr. F. and myself before I had even hinted at this distinction.' — Hints that aft illness wliich I had experienced Qutin^ the controversy, had weakened my intellects.— S^ys,- that • the dis- linctibii betwixt salraiiok'znS' restoration lias bVen but lately made by the uni- ■»ersalists.' — That / * once thought iahntion synonimous with restoration,' — -- TO MR. rtri.LEiis 87; ifi,* the doctrine which forges mry contrary -will, falsifies su- . : preme unchangeable truth, xind, were not reason onmy o sidt:, T would say to all objectors. Let er. ' 'j "P^e^dlstihstioB betwixt salvation and restoration was made, probably, befor« - the ~nutbfivV and coafident Scrutator was born ; as a proof of which,- 1 will give the reid^r the following quotation from ' Universal Restitution a Scripture Doctrine,' by t'^e Ret. Mr. Stonehouse, vicar of Islington. Printedin i76l. ' In the Greek testament this n-\s age (1 Tim. ii. 4. ke wUl have all men t» - besave^'J runs thus — o? "Crain*? izvSpwwa? SsXe* o-wSrcai' "^lA first, vire affirm \ that th^ word saved can by no means be a lit translation of the Greek word jr»>&ii.at in this pfl'sag >, b'^ause wh\t it imports is socontnry to the sentiments of an -apostle- who. -io v?'ell kn^w that all men would not be saved from the wrath of God, (Col. iii. 6.) tr^ich xhould rovie ujiov fire children of- disobedience, St John, in 9 like case, speaks thus, (1 John, v.. 16 .)"-If an;/ man see his bro- t her .fin asm w'>ich is not unto death, he shull ask, a-nd he toill give him lifefof-.^ him tha' sirmeLh iiot urfo death: there is a sin vvfo dea*h, I saj that he shall vot pra^f>ri': for God wuleth not that his people shoULd pray in vain. Deut* Iii. 26. Jer.vii. 16. xv. 1. ■• * But can it be believed otherwise than that St. Pavl must "have thought too- Bkfe St. John, to have advised Timothy to pray for w^hat he well knew could heVefbe? - Whereas, on the other hand, supposing St. Paul's directions to Timothy to havfe '^ee'n ohly to fecommend all men In his prayer* to the mercy of Jesus Christ, this was acceptable to God, and a praying after the mind of God ; since his will is, that all men shaU be restored, pr fecover their original ipiritual life ; and so be delivered from a state of misery, ' It is also praying to some purpose, not only because God knows how to shew meicy to those that perish, as well as to tliii-e, that are saved ; butbecanse he has in his eye the real, though distant, lestitution, deliTeiy, and quickeninf of all his cre9.mres, having ( I Tim. ii. 6.) given hdrntcifa tamQmJoT allytoit testifed in due time ^^o iMflv^ar xai^wj »5»«Jj} . 38 LETTBR IT. * I lay it down as another indubitable maxim, that what- soever is done by a being, of the divineattributes is intend- ed by his goodness, conducted by his wisdom, and accomr« plished by his power to a good end. Now, all possible * But 2dly. It being evident that St, Paul could not order Timothy 4o jirajf' that all men might be saved, we will examine what he must have advised Ti* mothy to do in the word a-D&Dvai— and this will appear in the following texts, where the words ffiL?a, ituIo(a.m, must evidently intend what is very different from the meaning of our English words to save, to be savId, as thatword^ is usually understood by us. . ■ ..,'.• * Mat. ix. 21,22. And the woman (with the issue of blood) said vnthin hef self, Jf I tnai/ but to ch his garment, {trm^nrofAcn) I shall be (not saved, b.ut) restored to healthy and the woman (iri«&»i; toow (not saved, but) restored t/t healthfrom that hour. ^la.T'k,\:2\— 23. And Ja^ras besought hitn great ly, saying f I pray thee lay thy hands upon her, (owu^ aui^rt) i^M^ •»^« (his daughter) migki (not be savedj.but) be lestored to health. Mark^ vi. .56, s-'/jtd na»^ a* touched him (^jjroi^oyla) were /ecauereti/o Aea/iA. Jo\my-s,\. 1%. And hisdisch mplessaid, lard, if he ( Lazarus) */eep {er(i)^rKm»\ fie shall be (not saved, but) restored to health. Aets^ xiv. 9. And Paul, perceivt»g- ikat he had faitk («») ^fioiftd he (not saved from the wrath prepared, but) restored to health, and come to the tcknowledgment of the truth. John, iii. 17 . Cwod sent his soniiito the wortd that the world through kim might be (not saved from hell, but) restored ^6 health (t»a (Tu^f) KOcTjx'©' ^4 eivrti)- 1 Tim. iv. 10. Who is fhe laurn^) restorer •f all men, especially of the faithful,' (because he saves them even from th^ wrath prepared.) 1 John, iv. 14. We do testify tfiai the Father sent thesontobe [amTvcot, m y.t*ij-/x«) tl'<^ re«Wer q/'rtefoo/-/•* 2d. The punished. Punishment can be neither honour Bor pleasure to them, nor can endless punishment be of any benefit; but limited punishment, to humble and subdue the sinner, will be of endless benefit. .. ssAiyo-wtV 3d The fellow'creatnres. Can it be any honoth' to them ? Who ever thought it an honour that one of his fa-i * But when spoken in reference to a state of happiness or- blessing lost, or from which man is fallen,^ it signifies to restore, or recover: 59 Luke, xix. 10. The unqfmanuooine to ^eefc and (g-uffui to eMreX*^^!, '" recover tkatwhiclt t$iU ('-'■'^-"i "'" -'"'"'" """■'^' ' ■ ^^'-^^-^s-— ■'-■ • •• • * So that though in English we say a man is i,'eliiered out of a state of danger •r misery, and that he is restored into a stata of socurijy and happiiiess, yet in Greek the same verb answers bQth.purjjoses. * But I ho where find that the yejb a'n^ai imports the same with the verb Tuft*— When the Greeks, would signify to save ^ preterve, or keep from vnacldef^ they used Tiift»»: so John, xvii. 15. I pray, not that thou shonldst take them out of the %vorld, but that thou shauldst save, preserve, or secure them (»»« mfna-ii «i/T¥?),/»om the exit one. Rev. iii. 10. / vAll preseneySecure, or save thee (tu- ff)g-»i a-i)Jrom the hour of temptdtcoti ichkh shhll cmne upon all the world to Irif thefri. Jude, 1. Judi the servant of Jesus Christ to the sanctified by God the Father, preserved, secured, saved (Temju/^sretc). w Jesus Christ, &c. 1 Thes.. t. So: I pray God your whole spirit, si^ni cr.d lody, be preserved, secured, saved (ti»{»5hi)) blameless, iihto the coming of our Lord. And thus it is also said of worldly treasuftfe ; as John, ii. 10. But thou hast preserved, je.cared, yaiei ^rtrniwat) the good wine until now. ' ''f.'V^'*'^''. '^'y.?Jt" 40 '' ■ LETTER IV. mily was hanged for robber/ or murder: Is it not a dishotioiir to human nature at large that any peirt of it should be reR— dered irrecoveral)ly abject and miserable ? Can any crea- ture h-Ave p/ ensure in the enf'hss pi.vii>hraeht ofanoth^*? In the limited punishment of the wicked the holiest and itiostbertevolent creature ma}- have pleasure in the view, of its fruits. Benefit they can have none, except safely; and tiiat isfully answered by fhe confinement of the wicked ia hell till thdr reformation. '.v^vAriV^ * As then endless taiments- can answer. nb> possible good end to any one in the uyiiverse, 1 tondude ^hem to be .nei- ther the Avork nor the wiil of God/ and consequently rtot the doctrine of scripture. You seem to lay great stress upon the same word being used by our Lord, in relation both to future happiness and misery^ in Mat. xxv. 46. But I conceive that no solid ar- gument can be drawn from the application of the same word to diflierent things to jorove their endless continuance unless their nature be the Fame. Take, for instance, Hab. iii. J 6. He stood and measured the earth; he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting maun'' tains ziere scattered, and the perpeliia/ liiUs did bozc ; hit ©fl^^s arc EVERLAsriNG. I ask, Are the mountains evet- lasting m the same sense in which the ways of God are?-— Is it not, rather, clear, that, in this very text, tlie ways pf God are spoken of as being of a difierent nature from .the mountains, which were scattered^ and the hills> which did low ? Notwithstanding which, the same word is applied to both. 1 t,hink that there is a vast difference indeed in the nature of futureblessednessand future punishment; so gr^at a dif- ference as fully to justify us in giving a very diflierent sense to the word everlasting when applied to each of these sub- jects. Let any man consider that tlxe happiness ©f th« TO MR. FULLER. 41 ^ints arises from their enjoyment of God as their portion, he will see then that it has its root and foundation in God, as the existence of the creature itself also has ; for God is i'the source and proper spring both of the life and biessed- l^iisss of his creatures. Not so the sin and miseiy of the -wicked ; these have no root or foundation in God. Sin is tlieact of the creature only, and misery is, by the divine appointment, the consequence of sin ; but though God wil- lingly blesses and makes men happy, yet he doth 7iot afflict willingly y nor grieve the children of men. Life and bles- sedness flow naturally from God, in whom are all our springs; and being thus grounded in him, will be, like'him, .eternal in duration : but to ascribe proper eternity to sin and misery, which have no ground in him whatever, but which are contrary to both liis holiness and benevolence, is, to say the least of it, a most unguarded mode of speaking. It seems to me. Sir, that you have several times in your letters, descended from cool and sober disquisition of prin- ■ciples to low sarcasm, if not personal abuse. So bad aft example as this I wish not to follow: for if you should be altogether mistaken in your judgment of the point in de- bate, yet I should have no license from her.ce to despise your person, question your integrity, or ridicule your at- tempts to maintain your sentiment. Indeed it is a maxim with me, that no man will treat his opponent in this man- ner, unless he is in want of better argument to support his cau,se. .The following are samples of your manner of treating both myself and the subject---^ It has l<5ng been the practice of writers on your side the question,' say you, • to ring changes on the words aion and aionios ; pretty words, no doubt ; and could they be proved to mean le^ than our English words everlasting and eternal^ they might besoxiiethingtoihe purpose: but if not, die continual re-- F At LETTER IV. currence to them is a ynert affectation of karning^ serving to mislead the ignorant. Be this as it may, this is an exer- cise which hardly becomes you or me.' P. \Q. And agaiii, you talk of my introducing my ' sing-song of aionas and aionons,' p. '22. If you^ Sir, have not such an acquaint- , ance with these pre tti/ words,, as to discriminate their agree- ment with or difference from our Enghsh words everlasting and eternal, you might have been content with confessing your oun ignorance'--it would have been modest in you so to have done, without implicating me in the same charge. I assure you that there is an agreement betwixt these Greek words and our English translation, in this-— that they arc both frequently used in scripture to denote periods of limited and unlimited duration, and therefore I infer that the subject only can determine when we are to take them in one sense or the other. And there is also a disagreement ; for the English words eternal, everlasting, and eiernitj/, will not admit any plural, which the Greek aion and its de- rivatives do ; for instance, who ever read of eternals^ ever- lastings and eternities, or of this eternity and that eter- nity ? But in the New Testament we read of the itm (jw- T£X«« TR^a^wyi;», Heb. ix. 26. If etcmity be the meaning of aion, then we must read thus — the conclusion of the eterni- ties. We have the same difficidty occur in 1 Cor. x. 1 ] . and in 1 Cor. ii. 7. we read -crfo rai atwywi/-— v.ould you say— - before the eternities began '? Again, we read of this aion. as Luke, xvi. 8. x:f . 34. and 1 Cor. ii. 6. Also oithat aion, Luke, XX. 35. Now, Sir, will you contend that it must be read this eternitij and that eternity ? Yet thus it must be according to your hypothesis. Thus you see, or ' may see,' that these pretty zcords are rather less expressive of endless duration than the Englisli words everlasting and eternal ; and if writers on my side of the question often recur to them, it is not to mislead but TO MR. FULLER. 45 to inform the ignorant. I hope and believe that I liave al- ways made a just and sober use of criticism, upon this and every other subject. If I have not, I stand open to your correction, or to tlie correction of any of the numerous mi- nisters of your sentiment. The rule I go by is that which was laid down by the best critics, without any relation to tne present subject, viz. That where a word is used in rela- tion to different things, the subject itself must determine the meaning of the word. Thus, if the name Jehovah be given to an altar, a city, or to the church,— or the word God be applied to Christ, to Moses, to rulers, or to Satan, we must understand these words in a very different sense than when applied to the Father. Or again, when the word infinite is used in reference to the understanding of God, Ps. cxlvii. 5.— to the resources of Ethiopia and Egypt, Hab. iii. 9.— -to the sins of Job, xxii. 5. no man would hardly understand the word in the same sense at each place. So when everlasting, Sac. is applied to the hills, to the co- venant of circumcision, to future punishment, to the life of believers, and to God, no considerate man will surely at- tach the idea of equal duration to all these subjects, but will judge of the duration of each according to their nature. Hovv incautious then must it be in you to say that in this manner I might disprove almost any thing I pleased ; and that it is not in the power of language to stand before such methods of criticising and reasoning as those on which I build my system. Certain I am, it is a rule which you, and every other man of sense, must have constant recourse to ; nor do I believe that you will, a sepond time, have the temerity to reprove me for the use of it. As for what you say about the term endless, it is evident that we are in the daily habit of applying the above rule to this word, and thereby judging of its meaning. f2 4i LETTER iV. Bat j'-ou ask, ' Could stronger terms have been used con- cerning the duration of future punishment than are used?' This seems an important que&tion in your view, yet I do not see its vast weight ; for the question ought not to be what language God could have used, but, What is the meaning of that which he has used? However, if the question relate to the English language, then the answer is ready, for every brawler of endless damnation will tell his audience of misery which will endure as hug as God ex- ists I This is rather stronger language than any which is used in the Bible. But if you refer to the Greek language, then without any ' affectation of learning,' I refer you to Heb vii. l6.— a:)c»Ta^.vT(^, cudle s, say our translators. The word is never connected m scripture with punishment, and but this once only with life ; which, however, shews that the sacred writers speak of future life in a different way than they do of future punishment. Beside which we are told that Israel 'ihall ntvcr be ashamed nor coa/oundedy WORLD WITHOUT END. Isa. xlv. I?. There is no lan- guage of like import used any where in the scripttires con- cerning the punishment of sinners. Surely, therefore, here I may be allowed to reverse your language, and say, ' It is idle to bring forward the words evir/asting and eternal in order to prove endless punish- ment, seeing they are rendered wt^ak from their vague inde- terminate application in scripture ; and also seeing there are phrases, both in the Greek and Englii^h languages, Vv'hich are more strongly expressive of eternal duration.' If this language should sound harsh in your ears, you will recollect that it is not my own. I will at present deter the consideration of your third letter, and remain. Sir, Yours, &c. Oct. 28, mo. W. VIDLER. tM) MR. rULL£K. 4!> LETTER V. MR. F.'S MISTAKE ABOUT AXNIIIILATION NOTICED, AND PROOF THAT ALL PUNISHMENT STANDS ON THE GROUND OF MEDIATION. SIR, T AM extremely at a loss to know licvv to begin my re- marks on your third letter. You set off by charging me with believing the doctrine of annihilation ; and great part ol" your letter goes to prove the inconsistency of this sentiment with that of the universal restoration . What- ever variance there may be betwixt these doctrines, you are thej^rs^ and I think will be the last * man who has or will charge me with holding them both. I know many wiser and better men than I am who do believe the doctrine of annihilation; and many also who have gone from the belief of endless misery to annihilation, and from +hat to the doc- trine of universal restoration. I have also observed that tiiis is no uncommon process in the minds of thinking men; but for my own part, I never did believe annihilation. In- deed I think it much preferable to the doctrine of endless m'.. try, as being less inconsistent with the divine charac- ter ; but 1 never was fully satisfied of its truth, and am much less so now than ever, chiefly because I think it con- tradicts a great number of scriptures, which either imply, promise, or foretel an universal restoration. For proof of my hoidiUg with it, you refer to a passage * I was mistaken in this : see the verv curious Review of Mr. FulUr'i Letters in the Theological Magazine, in Uie Preface to this v.ork. 46 LETTER V, in my second letter : for the sake of the reader I will tran- scribe the passage— ' The universal sentiment is^ in ray view, above all others^ fi'iendly to holiness. It holds forth the scripture declaration of punishmentsaccorJingto Vv'orks more clearly than any other. The doctrine of annihilation giA^'es indiscriminate and endless death to all the vi^icketl. And the doctrine of endless misery seems to confound all degrees of punishment in giving infinite punishment to them all. But limited pu- nishment, which is included only in the universal doctrine, shews clearly how it may be more or less tolerable in judg- ment for one sinner than anotlier, and how one may have few stripes and another many.^ Hov/ it could enter into your heart to conceive that there is any tiling in the above lines, expressive of my belief in the doctrine of annihilation, I cannot divine, seeing I op- posed it both to endless misery and the restoration of all things, and decidedly gave my approbation to the latter. I also added, in the same page, that though I believed the v/icked should peri:,//, should die the second death, yet there should be a restilution of all things. This idea I thought to be in direct opposition to the endless death of aniiihila' tion. If there had been ambiguity in my mode of expres- sion, I should then have taken the blame of your egregious blunder to myself; but as it is, I must either suppose that you knew not how to meet the subject in a fair and open manner, and therefore threw dust in the air to hide it ; (and the use you make of annihilation in general, but especially in the close of your letter, where you dextrously shift a difficulty by its means, has made many believe this to be the truth;) or rather, which I am inclined to suppose is the iact, that you had a contemptible opinion both of the uni- versal doctrine and of myself as an advocate for itj and this led you to v»ritc at mndom, without much consideration TO MR. FULLER. 4* on the subject. I should not thus judge, had not you, when making use of my supposed belief of annihilation, added, [ Such.y Sir, ^rt your expositions of scripture. Ex- cept in the productions of a certain maniac in our own •country, I never recolUct to have seen so much violence done to the word of God in so small a compass.' Whether any thing which I have said jusly deserves such a comparison from you, your cooler reflections will deter- mine. As for all the jargon and nonsetise which your mistake has led you to place to my account, I pass it over, which I think will save you much trouble, as you will no longer have occasion to puzzle your head to find out how all men are to be finally saved, and yet many annihilated. I have said, that * I believe punishment of all degrees and durations to be a mediatorial work, and that its founda- tion is merc}'^,' and yet I allow there will come a time when some sinners will h&xe judgment without mercy. This you cannot comprehend. I beg leave, Sir, to assist your compre- hension by vem?ix\ when opened, brought ruin and destruction uj3on the Chris- tian empire both western and eastern, under the six first trumpets ; ai.d till the seventh sounds, there will be a de- lay of Christ s kingdom; but when that sounds there will be no more delay.' The idea that we have of the duration of eternity is cer- tainly a very obscure one ; it lias been said to be * an union of consistence and simple continuance.' Whether this definition will convey any clear notion of the subject to others, 1 know not ; but to me 1 confess it is sufficiently dark. The oniy method I can think of to conceive with any satisfaction of eternity, is to connect it with the ncces- sih/ uj' the divine existence; but I find no ability to connect the fuu idea of eternity with the existence sf a creature; for every creature must have had a beginning : but was there an eternity past before that creature existed? And will there be an eterriity to come after it has received its ex- istence? This would make two eternities; an absurdity that I believe is often exhibited in modern orthodox pul- pits *. Other men may possibly be possessed of powers which I am not : they may be able to point out in vi^hat manner a creature can measure the term of its own exist- ence after the day of judgment without successive durati- on Probably, Sir, you can assist me in this point, as you you have so positively affirmed that all successive duratiou will end at that azrful period. To me it appears that the scriptures have revealed no- thing, either past or to come, but what is connected with * The scholastic distinction of wtemitas a parte ante and cetemitas a parte post, Will not help the subject, for I am speaking of ceternitus absolute infiiiita a puTteante et post, or such an absolute eternity as is without beginning or end. 5^ LETTER VI. the idea of successive duration ; and that, conceniing pro- per eternity, we are left to infer it from the nature of deity. Ill the Old Testament wt read of the sabbath of days, or weekly sabbath; seven years brought about a period called the year of release, or sabbath of years ; seven of these pe- riods zcere iiiciaded in that power, (5r dominion, but what shall be subject to him ; till death., the last enemy, shall be de- stroyed. And as the wages of sin is death, the second death must be here jncluded , but death can never be de- stroyed, except by the universal prevalence of life. And, seventhly, the character of God as love, which is- the substance of a multitude of scriptures, is expressly against the horrible idea of the endless misery, or even the annihilation of any of his rational creatures. If this statement be right, there must be aions, ages to com^, after the age of judgment; in which ages all punish- ment wiU be distributed with unerring Aj^isdorn,.and to a good and glorious end ; and all rewards be conferred with the same wisdom and goodness; for in the «»a?o-», ages to come God will shew the exceeding riches oj' his grace.) in his kindness towards u.$, &cc. Eph. ii. 7. And the punish- ment of the wicked will take place during the same ages; for the smoke of their torments is to ascend «? otixm; xiujvuv, to the age of ages, i.e. to the period of the restitution of all things, which is the closing period of the mediator's kingdom. I hope it will be granted that from the above there is some proof of successive duration after the day of judg- ment. But if you think otherwise, and will give your rea- sons, I shall be glad to hear from you again. In the mean time, I cannot but observe, that the advocates of endless misery must be, to say the least of it, very incautious, to rest any part of the proof of this doctrine upon the sup- position that successive ^duration will cease at the day of judgment. TO MR. FULLER, 57 As for what j'ou say about fallen angels not being in- cluded in the mediation of Christ, I refer you to ' God's Love to his Creatures Asserted and Vindicated,' which I am now publishing in the Universalist's Miscellany. In page '20— 'i2, you will find^ an answer to your objections, which I forbear to repeat here, as it was published but last month*. * ' You represent that the declaration of the angel to the shepherds, and the promise made to Abraham, are quoted in the Address in order to prove that devils would be liberated from the prison of hell. And do you seriously mean to say that we had such a design in quoting the above passages? We can hardly think you do. But our • hypothesis includes the idea of the liber- ation of devils from the prison of hell as well as unbelievers of the human race.' What then, do we pretend that every text which includes the resto- ration of man includes that of devils also? If not, to what purpose do you make the above insinuation ? Was it to amuse your readers at the expence of the Universalists ? Be it so : while they are smiling, we go on to consideryour objections to the restoration of devils. — ' How could the birth of the Messiah be a propitious event with regard to them ?' say you. ' Our Lord took not on him the nature of angels.' And ' We know at the time, the devils did not consider the birth of Christ as a propitious event with regard to themselves, for they would have prevented it, if possible, because they thought he came to torment them.' ' If we are to conclude that none were interested in the birth of Christ who would have prevented it, or who were afraid of him, what are we to say of Herod and his courtiers and soldiers, who slew the infants of Betlilehem, in order that they might slay the infant Jesus ? And what are we to say of Pe- ter, who seems to have thought Christ came to torment him, when he said, ' Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord :' And what are we to say of every sinner when under conviction? Are tiiey not then afraid of Christ? If your mode of reasoning be conclusive, the birth of the Messiah cannot be a propitious event to these. If fear of Christ, or even hatred to him, will end- lessly exclude those who have been thesubietls of it from a pai ticipatlon of his grace, then alas ! how few, even of the human race, can bi benefitted by his . birth ! ' That our Lord took not on him the nature of angals, is often rendered as a reason -»7hy angels cannot be benefitted by his mediation} but we might as well H 58 LETTER VI. I referred you to Lev.>xxvi. as an elucidation of the divine conduct in punishing sinners for their sins ; and as the design of God in punishing Israel is expressly repre- say that the genlUefs cannot be benefitted by liis mediation, and this text TTould give as much support to one assertion as the other. If he took on hi:n the nature of the seed of Abraham, you infer that all human nature is inclu- ded in it. May we not infer also that angelic nature is included ? For if he lays hold of that order or beings who were originally made lower than the angels, then vre may suppose he has not totally passed by the higher order. Our Lord himself has taught us, that a man is more worth than many sparrows, because he is of an higher order of beings than a sparrow ; surely then an angel IS, for the same reason, more worth than a man, and a fallen angel than a fallen man. * But we have no occasion to reason in this maimer upon this passage, for the text actually says nothing about Christ's taking upon him either the nature of man or the nature of angels. Tiiis the apostle had mentioned before, Heb. ii. 14. and in v. 15. he gives a reason why Chi lit took flesh and blood, namely, * to deliver them who through fear of dsath were all their lifetime subject to bondage;' and then in the verse under consideration he describes the present GorKluct of Christ in his methods of grace, and says indeed of angels, he tvi- Xtt^CaVflai taketh not lio'd; but of the seed of Abrabam heUriXajufttnTat taketh hold : that is, as we conceive, lie doth not in the present dispensation of mercy lay hold of angels for their salvation, (for they are reserved for the judg- ment of the great day;) but l.e layeth hold of those who, like Abraham, be- lieve the promise of God, Gal. iii. 6, 7. ; and these are ihojirxf fruits of hi-: creatures, Ja. i. 18. It is to be hoped either that you will shew we are mis- taken in this scripture, or that you will cease to quote it to the exclusion of angels from the mediation of Jesus. 'But though every text which relates to the restoration cf men doth not in- clude that of devils, yet we arc pcr-;uad';d some do include both, as Col. i. 19, 20. For it pleased the FuOitr tJiat In him should all fulness dwell; and f hating madapeace by the blood of his crossj by him to reconcile all tlin;s unto himself, hij kirn, I say whether they be things in earth or things in heaven.^ And also Ephes. 7. '10, That in the dispensati/)n f his name to heil, wc refer you to Phil. ii. 10, 11. Tell the world (if you t^n) where w>w'«r the earth is, as distinguishtd from heaven and earth, and a^ the habitation of rational creatures, without in- cluding hell, ' The disjjcnsiation of the fulness of times, Ephes. i. 10. 3'ou explain by tbe fCilness of tire time. Gal. iv. 4. But is the sense of these texts the same? And is the fnlness of the time in which God sent his son into the world the same as the dispensation of tlie fulness of the times, in which God has pur- posed to gather together all things in Christ ? In the former there are times^ iindaf hieas of them y ordained to be dispensed for the great purpose express- ed ; in the latter there is a fulness of i'mepast, in which God has already done tlie purpose expressed. Why not suppose that, as the period of the one time is accomplished, and the purpose of God performed in it, that the periods i>f Che other limes shall be so?' TO MR. FULLER. §1 ignorance God winked at,' I therefore still think that the end wliich God unifornal y pursues in this lite he will con* tinue to pursue hereafter (,unless lie has told us to the con-, trary) ; because he is without variableness or shadow of turning; so that however his measures my alter^ his. end is still the fame; tior do I see bow you can reasonably infer the contrary while you believe the immutability of God, unless you could prove that natural evil is not always intended for the coiTeetion of the offending parties. This, indeed, you attempt to do, by saying, that though you should grant that natural evil be used on earth to correct moral evil in societ}'- at large, ' yet we have no proof that the men of Sodom were destroyed by fire, or Pharoah drowned iri the sea, for their good.' If the scriptures were found to be totalh' silent respecting the future emendation of these characters, yet I should infer it concerning both, because I think that the LAST state of the creature must be that which accords witli the purpose of the Creator; hence, if there he any finaliy incorrigible it must be in consequence of the Divine purpose: or else the purpose of God has been frustrated. The fu'st ascribes cruelty and injustice to the Ocity,: and the latter ascribes weakness. I cannot possibly admit either of these; but as your scheme includes one of them, you have the satisfaction of chusing which. But I think the scripture is not silent concerning the fu- ture emendation of Sodom. I refer to Ezek. xvi. 44—63, where God is reproaching Jerusalem with her crimes, and representing Samaria, and Sodorn as sisters to Jerusaleni (so called on account of sin); and after describing the transgressions of each, and their punishment, God says to Jerusalem, JVhen I shall briiis again their captivity^ the cuptivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters^ then will I bring again the Cdpfivity of thy captives in the midst of them. Ver. 53. And again, Whin thy sifters, Sodom and her daughters, 6l LETTER Vr. shall return to their former eatate, and Satnaria and her daughters shall return to thtir former estate, then thou and thy daughter.% shall return to your former estate. Vqr. 55. And then, after threatening to deal with Jerusalem ac- cording to her sins, he adds. Nevertheless I Zi^ill remem,hcr my covenant zt'ith thee in the days of thy youths and, I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant. Thin thou shalt remember thy ways and be ashamed, zohen thou shalt receive thy sisters,- thine elder (Samaria, ver. 46.) and thy younger (Sodom, ver. 4(3.); and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but jioi bt/ thy covenant. Jnd I will establish my covenant zcith thee, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord; that thuu maycst remember, and be con^ founded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified towards thee for all that thuu hast done, saith the Lord God. I remark here, 1 . That Sodom and her daughters must be taken literally for the city of Sodom and the neighbouring cities of t;he plain; because of their situation on the right-hand of Jerusalem, ver. 46., and because of their sins, pride, fulness of bread, idleness, oppression of the })Oor, and abomination, i. e. the unnatural sin, ver; 49- 52. with Gen. xiii. 10. xix. 4*— 1 1 . ; and because of their punishment^ v,^5tQ,.„ v^^f ^ix. 24,25. .:r.;v-. i!,.' •'.1i.:.:>u!l -^r^i^Mla If' vf ;.■ " 2. That this prophecy of Ezekiel must refer to tlie Very persons who were destroyed by fire from heaven, because they left no descendants in whom it can be fuUilled, heijpg wholly consumed, both men,. wo men,- a^d; children- , : Lot and his daughters, the-ouly persons who were spared, were strangers in Sodom. 3. That God in this prophecy speaks as plainly as ii) pro- phecies in general ; and represents the restoration of Sodoni as connected with the fuiiilmcnt of his most gracious pro- mises^ according to the new covenant; towards Jerusalem. XO MR. FULLER. 6S If any man deny the former, he must also deny the latter. On the whole, I conceive this is a proof that God's past dealings with Sodom shall ultimately tend to the good of that people. And therefore we may reasonably conclude that his dealings with all men shall have the same end. I would have noticed several other scriptures on which you have formed some difficulties; but as I have given my view of them in that part of God's Love to his Creatures Asserted and Vindicated, which was published last month, I will not here repeat it, but refer you to what I have there written, as I judge it contains an answer to you*. ♦ ' There are two words of nearly the same import, avDKn^ic'ifm, which is translated resiorec?, Mat. xii. 13. Mark, iii. 5. viii. 23. Luke, vi. 10. These passages relate to health or soundness beir.g given to the diseased. Mat. xvii. 11. Mark, ix. 12. These two relate to tlie ministry of John Baptist, wh» restored the prophecies concerning tiie Messiah, to their proper sense. Acts, i. 6. relative to the lost dominion of Israel. It occurs also in a passive form, Heb. xiii, 19. It is evident that, in all these places, the word has the sense of bringing back again something that was lost; aind niost of the instaiices have relation to persons, not to the creatures who suffer through the offence of man. The other word, a7r'>xo1a5-a'''«»'C> is in Acts, iii. 21. rendered restitution, and coimected with all things. jNIat. xi. 27. All things are delivered to tne of my Father. John iii. 35. The Father loieth the son, end hath given all things int» his hand. John, xiii. 3. Jesus knmcing that the Father had given all things into his hand. John, xvii. 7. Now I hey haxe known, that all things whatsoever thou hast given me, are of thee. In all these places all things must include all intelligent creatu'es, because the subject naturslly requires it ; for otherwise the gift of the Father to Christ will reach only to the inferior parts of the creation. Beside which Peter declares that this restitution of all things wasspoken of by all the holy prophets since the world began. I,et any man begin with tUe first intimation of mercy in the declaration thiat the seed of the woman should bruLsetheheadof the serpent; let him consider the promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that in them and in their s:e?d (Christ) all the nations, families, and kindreds of the earth should be blessed ; let him consider the law in its types ©f the first-b«rn and youngw branches of the family, of the first- $4 LETTER Vr. ■'*^i still thirik that; the doctri-.ie of endless punishment does not give so clear an idea of degrees, as th-doctrine of limited punishment does; which was what I said of it in my fruits and the full harvest and vintage, the seventh year of release, and tlie grand jubilee that brought liberty to all ; let him consider the Psalms, xxii. 26-~31. Ixxii. 8 — 11. Ixxxvi. 9, &:c.; let him go on to the prophets, parti- cularly letliim compare Isa. xlv. 23. with Phil. ii. 9 — 11.; and finally let him ask whether the restitution of all things doth not include in it all rational creatures who have fallen from God. 'You apply the uniTersal salvation, mentioned 1 Tim. i. 14. to temporal deliverance. W e do not dispute but that the word salvation is sometimes thus applied ; but we think you must be under a deplorable necessity to apply it so in this text. Was it the apostle's business as a minister of Christ, so much to teach the doctrine of providence, as to teacli the riches of God's grace in the deliverance of men from sin and all its consequences ? Would the doctrine of general and particular providence have exposed the apostle to that reproach which he mentions ? The philosophers had long taught this (in their measure) with credit. And is it indeed true, that those who believe have a special pre- serving power extended towards tb.eni ? Are they richer, more healthy, more honour ible, or of longer life than unbelievers? Was Paul, in these' respects, . better circumstanced than many of his persecutors ? Was even Paul's master . equal in those views, to that monster of human nature, Xer6 ? What, tHen, it win be asked, is the profit ascribed to godliness in verse 8 ? We answer, there is a contrast drawn betwixt botUiy labour and godliness, in point of ad- Tantage ; the former profiteth but little, in value and duration^ but the latter hath an immense advantage in the nature o{ the things which It is conversant in, and also in their duration; for the promises of this life, such as pardon, aloption, and peace, belong to it, and those of the life to come, such a^ salvation and glory also. Paul goes on — Tliis is a faithful sarjing, and ivorthy of all acception,for therefore (namely, to bring men to godliness) we doth la- bour and suffer reproach^ (and tliis we persevere in doing) lecauft tee trust in I the living GoJy (the first cause and last end of his creatures, and) w7io is tha. saviour (in his intention and purpose) o/' all men, but espedclly (in the first, place, and with peculiar favour) of those that (now) believe. That the apostle is not saying any thing of a peculiar temporal salvation of believers is evident^ because Christ has never promised any such thing to his followers, but, on the contrary, has said they should suffer, and many of them die for his sake, and in particular this was foretold as the lot of Paul, Acts,ix. 16. Add to this, that it would have been absurd indeed in Paul to go from place to place pro- TO MR. FULLER* ^ second letter. And I ask, when our Lord represents some as haxingfew stripes, and others as having many, is not the plain idea which he holds out that of duration? Every one knows there needs not so much time to inflict an hun- dred stripes as to inflict ten times that number. The 'gros^ absurdity which you think is contained in this^ I really liave not discernment enough to perceive- miiing peculiar providential blessings to balievers, when he himself, though a believer, was in want of all tilings, and an outcast upon earth. The peculiar haapiiiess of believers is, that they know all these things shall work together for their good. The Scriptures distinguish betwixt our Lord's reception of power and the fid for which that power was received. Thus, Heb. ii. speaking of Christ the true Adam, to whom God hatli put all thing? in subjection, (save the Father kimselfjsee 1 Cor. xv. 27.) the apostle adds, But now we see not yet all things put under him j but we see Jesus — crowned with glory arid honour. Here we see all things are put under him, as it relates to his power over them : but in re- lati'jn to their obeJience to him, their subjection is a thing yet to come with many of his creatures. Of the same nature is 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28. where we are informed that the Father hath put all things under the feet of Christ ; yet we are informed that he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet; plainly shewing that the reception of ChristS power., aijid the end for which it was received, are very diitinct things, and long apart in point of time. So all fulness dwelling in Christ is not the reconciliation of all, bntthis is the mcians appointed by the Father that all may be reconciled. If it be objected that putting under the feet of Christ is not expressive of grace but of wrath, we answer, This is an Hebrew mode of speech, and evidently expressive of grace, for the temple itself, as typical of the church, is called God's foot stool, 1 Chron. xxviii. 2. Psalm xcix. 5. Lam. ii. 2. Or if it be said, that to be sub- dued to Christ is expressive of wrath, we then observe, that whatsoever .method inay be used to subdue sinners, yet their being subdued implies a state of grace and favour, for we are exhorted to be subject to the Father of spirits, and lire. And the bodies of the saints will be changed at Christ's second earning, by this power wliereby lie is able to subdue all things unto himself. Audeven OUT Lord, when he shall have subdued' all things ^to himself, will then be j«ft/er< to tlie Father. r m LETTER. VI. As for ail f.hingfi working together for good to them thu^i Inx/e not God, as rcell as to them rcho do so, which you say f/iy scheme tearhes, if there he any truth in this it applies asimuch to a/our scheme also. You will grant that f liere are many elect persons, who, not heing yet called, do not yet love God; notwithstanding which God loves thera, and is seeking their welfare, which his love will ultimately effect. In the same manner I a))i)ly to all sinners Avhat3ou and your brethren do to elect sinners only; yet I believe, as much as you do, that tliose who die in their sins cannot go wliere Christ is, but that they must endure the awful pains of the second death; but 1 think I have proved that this will not be endlrs;\ Iliav^ supposed that endless misery is contrary to all the benevolent feelings of every renewed heart, and that it miist be much more so to the benevolence of God; hence I infer that God, M'Jiose wisdom, and power are equal to his love, -will not inflict unceasing misery upon any. You attempt to prove that teinpurari/ptinishment clashes as much with the benevolence both of God and his people. For you ask, ' Is there a man living whose heart is iilled with the love of God, that would be willing that his worst enemy should be cast into hell for ages of ages, or even for a single age, or even for a single da}^, when it was in Iii?! power to deliver him from. it i' But surely. Sir, there is no comparison justly to be made betwixt limited and endless punishment; nor because the latter is abhorrent to every idea of benevolence both in God, and good men, does it follow that the former is: seeing that the one is directed to. a good and glorious end, namely, the amendment of the sufferer; while the other is a continuance of misery to no possible good end, either to God, or the sufferer*. ^ Tke dii^cultk^ wluch, by t.l.e U?lp of anni' ilatlon, you attempted tci TO MR. FULLER. 6? On the whole, I observe, that you have touched but very lightly on the real merits of the cause. The greater part of your letters have been taken up with foreign matter, palpable mistakes, or unmanly sneers. I invite you. Sir, laying these things aside, to meet the .question fairly. Prove that the scriptural use of the words everlasting and eternal, is that of endless duration ; or that, though these words are used in a limited sense, yet there is something in the nature of future misery which will render it of endless duration, and reconcile this most tremendous doctrine with the Scripture character of God. When you, or any other man, shall have done this, I willowu my error; till then I must retain my present views, as sincerely believing them to be agreeable to the mind of God in his word. As you have had the free use of the Universalist's Mis- cellany for the insertion of y our former letters, so you are welcome to it again. But I take the liberty to recommend 'toytrti'^he use of soft words, and hard arguments. ■ ' -^ ''f' I am, Sir, AVith great consideration and good will. Yours, &c. pec. 20^ 1 799. ^V. VIDLER . retort upon me iu the close of your second letter, remain with all their weight upon your scheme. 13 EXPOSTULATION WITH MR. F. ON HISUSING SCANDAL FOR ARGUMENT. BIGOTRY OF ORTHODOX CONGREGATI- ONS.— -BOTTOMLESS PIT CONSIDBRED.—^THE NOTION OF SATISFACTION CONSIDERED.— RECONCILIATION OF ' JUDGMENT AND MERCY IN GOd's DEALING WITH THE SAME CHARACTERS. THE UNITERSAL DOCTRlNjB GIVES NO ENCOURAGEMENT TO SIN. N the perusal of your fourth letter, I was, like Daniel of old, astonished for a season, and my thoughts trou- bled me; not at any force of argument, or strength of rea- soning you discovered, but at the great anger you shew in it. If I have said or done any thing to excite your wrath, : I am sincerely sorry for it. But I have just looked over my former letters to you, and, though there are a few harsh . expressions in them, yet they are such as you had brought into use; and methinks you ought not to be angry at your own language ; yet, for my own part, I would not be un~ derstood as justifying unbecoming language, let it come from whom it will. I I wish sincerely tliat you would confine yourself to the .:: ) subject in debate betwixt us. This I have repeatedly re- quested you to do ; but, as yet, without success, 'xuoin'j xtsI' You complain that I should think you had formtd an : improp«r esiimatt of your own reputation, when you sup- j posed your name would spread the knowledge of the uni- versal doctrine beyond what you wished, if you wrote j against it : 1 ask forgiveness lor such a presumption — you ^ TO MR. fuller;^'" 69 certainly have liberty. Sir, to compliment yourself in what- ever manner you plea.-ie: I will no more disturb your self-^ complacency. The universalists are not in danger ofJisinldng into in- signilicance by neglect ; nor do they, in any contest about the truth of the restoration, fear being overcome. While the scriptures testify that God is lovey it will be impossible to reconcile this character of him with the doctrine of im- placability, for which you are an advocate. It seems impossible for me to please you in any thing; for though you have the free use of my publication to con- trovert my sentiments in, yet you say, ' I consider it as no favour at all ; nor as affording any proof at all of your im-p partiality.' If you are insensible of favours done you, I cannot help it. It arijues either your want of discernment or your want of gratitude, that is all. The Universalist's Miscellany is the only religious publi- - cation extant which admits of free enquiry by being opeit ' to both sides of any disputed question: and this, it seems. Sir, is not pleasant to you. And because I thus keep my publication open, and say, * Truth courts the public obser- vation of men,' you reply, ' And so may error. If it be true that wisdom crieth in the top of high places, it is ' - equally ti'ue that folly is loud and stubborn.' What is all "'"'' this to the purpose.^ The application of the latter scrip- ■' ture on this occasion gives no verj- favourable idea of your ' candour or love of inquiry. When declamation is used instead of argument, and dark unfounded insinuations are brought forward against the morality of an opponent, it discovers either the badness of the cause^ or the badness of /«'5 disposition who conductsV''''" it. M'hat could be your intention in the odd jumble oP-'^ characters whom you are pleased to give me as associates* •■' but oaly to frighten fearful persons, and thereby hinder ■ LETTEK -Vll. them from attending to the subject, and lead them to thihlv? ill of me, and the doctrine for the truth of which I con- tend. Deists, libertines^ Mrs. Barhauld, the Monthly Re- viewers, nominal Christians of loose characters, and the universalists, are all, it seems, engaged in the same bad de- sign, namely, that of impugning the doctrine of the end- less misery of sinners ! I wonder you did not reckon the Pope, the Grand Turk, the Great Mogul, and the Witch of Endor, in the same sin with me and the universalists. As for the devil, you have taken care to join him in partner- ship with me in the same work, towards the close of your letter. All this^ no doubt, will tell, and pass current with a certain description of readers, the prejudice and applause of whom in your favour, will not excite my envy. But w]iy were Mrs. Barbauld and the Socinians brought forward ? I have no acquaintance with that lad}'-, nor inti- macy with any Socinians; but I confess I do not think the w orse either of her or them, from any thing which you have said. If there be a ^coincidence of sentiment betwixt them and me> concerning the subject of future punish- ment, the doctrine is neither the better or w^orse for that It is probable that I coincide with you iri my views of many other subjects; yet I am neither certainly right or wron^ on that account. To what purpose, then, do you amuse your readers with the names of the Sociiiians and Mrs. Barbauld? "U v/oii..! i y^itir-f .^noij^iuiiit' ,k»,A; You charge me w'lXh ds'iocMHn'g tvith the'charactia'S 'be- fore mentioned*, and administering consolation to them. Do you expect to be believed. Sir ? I have, perhaps, as little familiarity with nominal Christians of loose character. as yourself ; as for deists and libertines aho, they are not ,-|*/JPeists, libertines, and nominal Christians of loose characters.* ., TO MR. FULLER. 71 my associates. I do indeed pity such characters, and the more so, as many of them have imbibed their infidehty, carelessness, or Ubertinism from that distorted character of Deity which is called Calvinism ; but when I teach the doctrine of limited punishment — in exact proportion to deeds done— "-on the ground of mediation—iov you t© charge me with administering consolation to them is sur- prising indeed, and can only be accounted for by the force eif system operating upon your mind, contrary to evidence. »l have endeavoured, in bringing your letters forward early, and in announcing them, to avoid giving offence: yet even in thi^ I have offended. Your two first letters were announced as a defence of eternal torments. This is ascribed to an intention of working on the prejudices of the readers ; with an acknowledgment, at the same time, that the word torments can give no just offence ; consequently, it is the word eternal which does all the mischief; and yet 1/ou have announced your Fifth Letter under the title of ' Evidoices o/' endless punishment J' Is there such a dif- ftirence betwixt eternal torments and endless punishment , as to rebuke me for the use of the one, while you, with impu- nity, may use the other? What hope is there of doing any tiling right in the eyes of a man vrho is of so captious a teiifiper? ' «s ()/*/oose characters, who have been taught that the holiest of men may be heretics, and that heresy, though attended with holiness, is worse than vice!!! The enormity of this maxim appears in its full view when it is recollected, that by error and heresy we are not to un- derstand a departure from Christianity, but a departure from Calvinism. As for the bulk of this nation, who pro« TO MR. FULLER. , . 73 tl'ss the Christian religion, nothing is more evident than "'^''iliat they believe the sentiment of endless misery, so that there are none left who are favourable to limited punish- ment but a few Socinians, whom you so much despise, and ^^^'^'the Deists, most of whom Calvinism has driven into infi- delity; but who certainly bear no proportion to the bulk of the nation. Such is the justness of my remark that the prejudices both of professor and profane are in your favour. You hare several times mentioned the scripture phrase, tJte bottomkis pit, but I did not think that you rested any weight of argument upon it, till, in your fourth letter, you criminated Mrs. Barbauld for saying, that ^ the phrase ori- ginated in the ignorance of the eastern customs.' That it is not to be taken literally, I have no doubt. The scrip- tures mention the ends of the earth, the pillars of heaven, the pillars of the earth ; would you from hence infer that ^ -the earth was a flat surface, and that there literally were '-ends to it? That the distant mountains, which seem to support the clouds, were really the pillars of heaven .? or that the earth was actually placed upon pillars f 'Modern philosophy contradicts all this, and teaches us that these modes of expression took their rise either from the igno- rance of the writers concerning these suljects, or, at best^ that they are poetical figures, not to be taken literally. A bottomless pit is as unfounded an idea in nature as ends of the earth, or pillars of heaven, &c. Beside which I do not find that aCva-a^ signifies any thing more than vt-ri/ or :\e;tceedifig detpi In the Septuagint this word most com- • monly answers to ainm the abyss in the heart of the earth ; 'and it is reasonable to take it in the same sense in the New 'Testament. You have represented me in your first letter as ' raising the hopes of the ungodly part of my audience,' K 74 LEITEK. VII. by te?.ching that ' though the\' Sfo down to the pit, yet it shall not prove bottomhsii.' And you hav^e very solemly ?aid, ' Wo be to that man who dares to jihui^'e into that abyss, on the presumption of finding a bottom f Am I to take this. Sir, as part of the proof of endless misery? What solemn and important trifling is here ! You say that I ' alt'-rnately comphmentand reproach tny opponent, as if to keep him at a distance from the sub- ject,' and this because I. did not attend to your question whether ' I claim an exemption from endless punishment as a right or not.' To thid I have said, ' It behoves you to prove that ertdieas misery iz threatened in acripture to any description of sinners whatever. This is zvhat yau affirm and I deny. Prove your point, and every thing else fol- lows of course ; hut till ilicn I shall est'ierm all this as (^nibble, raised onlij to hide the main tjuestiori'' And could you, v/ith this paragrapli before you, tax me with the de- sign to keep you from the subject? when it must be evi- dent to every one, that ray intention \a as to keep you to it? But you fou.nd it necessary to alarm the ft?ars of the reader, and stir up his heart with horror by insinuating that the Universal Doctrine teaches merit, 'dXKx tiiatwe demasid uni- versal salvation as aright. Upon this idea you reason; and biicause I have admitted the divine threatenings in their lull latitude, and the execution of them too, you say, ' Nozo, Sir, if there be any meaning in ail this language) it is^ That justice zoill have its course on the uri" ■gvd/y ; and that zckattver punishment they tndure, whether it be vindictive or corrcctite, endless or temporary, it is all that their sins deserve. If the threatenings of God mean no more than a punishment z^hich is temporary, and for the good of sinners, their conduct can deserve no more: for zee cannot have a more certain rule of estimating the just de- merit of sin, than the wrath of God which i'i revealedfrom TO MR. FULLER. 75 heaven against it. But if sinners endure thefufl desert of their sin, there is no room for grate , or undeserved fatour; nor is ant/ place /eft for the work of media fion. A crimi- nal who has suftred the full penalty of the law, has no right to be told that his liberation is an act of grace, or that it fc'fls owing to the mediation of another. Your uni- versal salvation, therefore, is no part of that zvhich arises from the grace ' for the father jndgeth no 33i(ing but hath committed ail judgment to the Suit, and the Father hath gi-^ru him power to execute jxidgmenty because he is the son of man.' Here then is room for grace which is shewed to sinners by the substitution of Christ as their legal surety ; and by their being put under his government, for the express purpose of their subjection and reconcilia- ,_tion to God, by the blood of his cross. In this view there is no ' mitigation or shortening of their punishment/ for sin committed against God ; for every claim of law and justice was niade upon the person of Christ as their law-? surety; all the punishment, therefore, which they can ever receive under Christ's government is a mean to the great end of their being gathered together or reheadcd in him. Nothing is more clear than that men, or sinners^ do not stand merely on their natural ground of relation to God as creatures: but that he has gone forth towards them in the acts of his grace in Christ Jesus, making him the head of .'Very man. Whether this view of the doctrine of satis- faction be adniitted by you as truth I know not, though your reasoning seems to go on this ground; but as you have, by your own acknowledgment, publicly taught that ' the most pungent reflections of the damned were and would be that they had rejected the gospel waj- of salvati- on,' I am rather uncertain of your views in this point. Perhaps you may think the death of Christ was not a sa- tisfaction lor sin ; but only a proper medium through which divine wisdom saw fit to manifest grace to sinners ; or as the late pious Dr. Doddridge* and many others have thoughtj that * It was graciously allowed of God^ as a * See his Sermon on Salvation by Grace, p. 17, TO MR. FULLER. 77 valuable consideration,' and through which pardon is con- veyed to sincere believers. It is fair to infer something of tliis kind from the above sentence of yours, because it ne- cessarily implies that even sinners who die impenitent are interested in the gospel way of salvation, of which the death of Christ is an essential part. But if his death was a satisfaction to divine jiistice for their sins, it seejiis un- just in God to seek for satisfaction at the hand of sinners for whom Christ has made satisfaction; and if j'ou say he did not die for them who will be damned, then where is the crime of their rejecting the gospel way of salvation, and whence can arise their pungent reflections for rejecting that in which they never had an interest? In my second letter to you I asked the following ques- tion : ^ Does not the dishonour both to the divine purity, and to the efficacy of atonement, attach itself to your scheme.'' Seeing you must of necessity admit either that God CANNOi, or WILL not, make an end of sin; that there is not efficacy enough in tlie blood of the cross to destroy the works of the devil, or else that the full eiTicacy of the atonement, is with-held by the divine determination.' You made an awkward attempt to retort the difficulty of this question upon me, by the help of annihilation ; but as that failed, you have tried another method upon a different ground, but with similar success. And here I will remark the extreme ?ibsurdity of teach- ing the doctrine of endless misery upon the ground of sa* tisfaction for sin: for, as before observed, if Christ has made satisfaction tojustice, then satisfaction cannot be de- manded at the hand of any sinner, for whom Christ died, but with manifest injustice. And if Christ did not make satisfaction, then divine justice, in seeking satisfaction at the hand of any sinner, is seeking that which, it is confess- 7^ LETTER Til. ed on all hands, can never be obtained. Thus the doctrine of vindictive justice, as a foundation for endless misery, crumbles away in handling, like a ball of sand. It will be of no use to the subject to restrict the death of Christ to the elect, because that will take away the chief ground of future punishment according to the declarations of the New Testament, namely, neglecting the great salvation which is exhibited in the gospel, Heb ii. 3. But how strangly do men talk of the justice of God pur- suing a sinner with wrath to all eternity ! If any man were seriously to aflirm that all the vast preparations of our go- vernment for war, were only to pursue a j^y, the reflection would be less dishonoui'able to our rulers, than the other reflection is to the Almighty. I have thus stated the doctrine of satisfaction for sin, be- cause many Christians hold with the Universal Doctrine in that connection; and your objection may justly be re- pelled by it ; but I do not mean to insinuate that I view the subject in that light myself. For though I am perfect- ly satisfied that God has done, and will do, right in all his dealings with his sinful creatures; yet I am not certain that he has done, or will do, or is under any necessity of do- ing all that he might do towards them.. I consider, therefore, the provision of a mediator, with all his work, and all the blessings which come through him, as of grace, and not of right. I have before noticed the weight of argument which you rest upon the phrase bottomless pit, and the impropriety of it: I leave the reader to form his judgment of your attempt to make your suppositions founded in parton that phrase pass for argument. If I were to use many scriptures concerning the rejection of the Jews, as you have used Rev. xxii. 1 1 . and Isa. xxxiii. 14. I could prove that they werejinally rejected of God so as never to find mercy. For jnst^ce^^ TO MR. FULXER. 79 Hos. i. 6. / zvillno more have mercy upon the home of Is- rael. V. 8. Ye are not my people, and I zmll not he your God. Chap. ii. 4. / zcill not have mercy upon htr chil- dren. Chap. ix. ^5. ^411 their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them : for the wickedness of their doings 1 will drive them out of my house, I will love them no more. Chap. vii. 13. Wo unto them, for they have fed from me: destruction unto them, because they have tram- pressed against me. Notwithstanding all these plain declarations, yet we are informed that God will again be gracious to Israel. I will betroth thee unto me for ever, yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving kind- ness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord. Hos. ii. 19» '2.0. Now if God will no more have mercy upon themj if he will not he their God, if he hate theyny if he will love them no more, how then can he ever be gracious to them .? how can he betroth them to himself ybrfi?er, in righteous- ness, in judgment, in loving kindness, and in mercies? and how can they ever again know the Lord .'' And yet all thes« seemingly contradictory things are threatened, and promis- ed to the same people. If it be said that these things re- lated only to the captivity and restoration of Israel from Babylon, [ answer, this does not help the case at all. For here are the most full expressions that God will no more have mercy upon that nation ; that he will love them no more, &c. But yet vv^e are as positively informed that they ghall be betrothed to him d^gsanfor ever. But I am much mistaken if God does not in fact apply both these threat- enings and promises to the individuals of the nation also. I will ransom them from the pozver of the grave : J will redeem thtmfrom death : O death, I will be thy plagues; so LETTER VII. gravt^, I will he th/ destruction j repentance shall f}>; hid from mine eyes. Hos. xiii. 14. Does not this refer to those wicked individuals, who have heen cut off in their re- bellion; those whose iniquity was bound up; whose sin was hidden, ver. l-^if. thatis, those who had not only been . punished here with the nation in general, but who had died in their iniquity ? It certainly cannot refer to the suiTivors of the nation in succession who returned from the captivi- ty ; because nor death nor the grave were plagued or de- stroyed for their deliverance. I conceive that this destruc- tion of death and the grave is yet future, and will take place when Christ has subdued all things to himself, and has swallowed up death in victory, by causing those who have borne the image of the earthy, to bear also the image of the heavenly Adam. Again, the apostle Paul, treating of the rejection of the Jewish church, because of their unbelief, says, Rom.xi. 7—10. The election hath obtained it, (grace and salvation) and the rest were blinded. As it is tvritten, (Isa. vi. 9, 10. Ezek. xii. 2.) God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto [his day. And David saith, (Ps. Ixix. £3.) Let their table be made a snare, and a trap^ and a stumbling-block, and a recompence unto them. Let their tyes be darkened that they may not see, and bow down their hack always. Now, notwithstanding this sad and awful case, which the psalmist further describes by saying, Add iniquity to their iniquity; and let them not come into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. Ps. Ixix. 27, *■ blKW-~th* place and state of the dead — sometimes signifies hell, t See Jcb,xiv. 16, 17. TO MR. FULLER. SI 28.: and though this their state is described by theapostle as continuing a/ayflj/.s,yethe goes on to shew thatthey shall be received again^ and graffed into their own olive tree again by faith, Rom. xi. 23, €4. and that God will take away their sins by his covenant, ver. 27. Here is a rejection of the Jtwish nation in such language, as would lead us to sup- pose that they should liever find mercy again ; and still we find mercy is held in reserve for them in the latter day. The apostle even goes further than this, and says, all Israel shall be saved, ver. 'i6'. And he further adds, For God hath concluded them all (or shut them up together) in un- belief, (that damning sin) that he might have mercy upen A LL, ver. 52. I conceive that he here applies his argument not only to the Jews as a nation^ but also to everi/ iiidivi- dual of them dying in unbelief because it is the same all who are concluded in unbelief^ for whom mercy is finally resented. ir< j^aj It is a common thing in the scriptures thus to unite judgment and mercy to the same individuals, each in their proper season. The prophecy of Hosea, in particular, is full of it. There we find God saying, Epfrraim is Joined to idols : let him alone. Ch. iv. 17. What can be worse than to be given up to sin, and all its awful consequences ? Yet in the same book it is said, Ephraim shall say. What have I to do airy more tcith idols "^ Ch. xiv. 8. It is in reference to this wonderful dealing of God with sinners, in making them eat the fruit of their doings, and filling thera with their own devices, that finally- every knee may bow before him, and every tongue confess to his gloiy, that the prophet concludes thus, \Mm is wise-, and he shall imder- stand these things ? prudent, and he shall kndw them i for the ways of the Lord are upright, and the just shall walk in them; but the transgressors shall fall therein. Hos. L fig LETTER VII. xiv. 9. In reference to the same great work the apostle Paul, after he had treated of the rejection and unbelief 01 the Jews, and of the mercy yet reserved for them /;//, ex- claims, O the depth (yf the riches both of the rchdom and knozcledge of God ! horc unsearchable are hisjiidgmeiifs, fi s I am so much persuaded of the truth of this, tliat Llook ibrward with the utmost pleasure to that day when the se- crets of all hearts shall be judged : and I have the fullest confidence that I shall then see with boldness the faces of those whom I have thus i'«?/g///; and also shall meet Hitn^ with joy, who hath charged me to be free from the blood: of all men. ufooos y You still insist that ' the universal doctrine affords encou- ragement to a sinner going on still in his trespasses, and furnishes ground for hope and joy, even supposing him to persevere in them till death.' And you ask, ^ What doc- trine besides thit? do I find in the Bible which does the I TO MK. FULLER. SS same ?' I think I have sufiiciently shewn that the univer- sal doctrine tloes not aft'ord any encouragement to a sinner going on in his sins, because it teaches that every trans- gression shall receive a righteous recompence of reward ; that it shall be always ill \'\'ith the wicked while he con- tinues so, &c. This, you say, ' is trifling; for if the sinner be taught to believe that, at some future period beyond this life, he shall be delivered both from sin and punishment-— whether the former branch of this deliverance afford him joy or not, the latter must.' Surely, Sir, you talk lightly of that evil which awaits every sinner, even though his pu- nishment be not endless. I never meant to deny that the universal doctrine held out a liope, finally, to all men; certainly in its vejy nature it does this ; but as you had represented it as natiually giving encouragement to sin, this I strenuously denied, and still deny, for the reasons before given, viz. that it necessa- rily includes in it the holiness of the sinner;-; and teaches liim that it shall be always ill with the wicked while he remai7is so. In my second letter I had, I think, fully expressed this, when I said, * If the universal doctrine be ever abused to the purposes of sin, I can but thiuk it must arise from ig- norance of its principal features. I am happy in being able to say that I have never v et been witness to any prac- tical ill eflects that have followed the preaching aid belief of it: not that I deny tho. pusiibility of such effects; for it is a maxim which cannot be disputed* that the greatest display of mercy in the doctrines of grace may be abused; but you would not, on that account, hide the richest views of divine love which you are acquainted with, under pre- tence of preventing sin ; so neither would I.' Nor am I afraid. Sir, of any advantage vyhich you or any La 84 LETTER VII. Other opponent of the doctrine^ may make of th\s. It has long apj;eared to me that your doctrine of endless misery has done incredible mischief in the world ; not only by making many thinking persons give up revelation intirely, by the distorted vievi^ which it gives of the character of God; but also by increasing immorality, even among many who believe it, by consigning all sinners, of every charac- ter, to endless wrath; for I have often met with those who think the}' may as well be damned for a great deal of sin as for a little, seeing that endless punishment is the penalty of all sin. You indeed try to point out a difference in de- grees of punishment, where all is endless; but the idea seem^not full and clear; for whatever reflection any sinner in hell may have of his own conduct, more poignant than another, this does not seem to express the meaning of our Lord when he repreeente d punishment hyj'ew stripes and main/ stripes. 1 he leading idea appears to me to be that of duration: as in tlie nature of things it cannot require so long a period to inflict four stripes as forty; or one hun- dred as one thousand, &c. If there be any force in your cbjection against the uni- versal doctr'mfi lecafisc it Jinal/i/ holds out a hope to every r/'fut, I think the same objection applies with all its force against all the threatenings which God gave by Moses to thel3raelitts ; becauee all those dreadful denunciations of wrath were a/z£v/v.s succeeded by promises of mercy ^'«a//y to that nation. Let any man read Lev. xxvi. which con- tains the mo^t awful list of national evils which can be conceive.! of; there God is represented as contending with that stubborn people because they would not accept of the jpunishnunt of their imquity at his hand: and yet the"'' wliole concludes by saying, d?id thty shall accept'^- the punishment of their iniqiiiti/ ; because, even became they de^pisedmy judgments, und because their soul abhorred my TO MR. FULLER. 85 Statutes. x\nd yet for all that, Ti;hen thty .be in the land of their entmies, I will not cast them azcai/, neither will I ab- hor than to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God. But I will for their sakes reinemher the covenant of their ancestors, &:c. In Deiit. iv. 25, there are similar threatenmgs; and yet, ver. 30. it is said, When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee., even in the latter da}'s_, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt he obedient to his voice, (for the Lord thy God is a niercful God) he will not forsake thee., neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them. Deut xxviii. xxix. is full to the same purpose of threatening, and yet Moses goes on to close the whole again with promises and blessings, in ch. xxx. i — 6. which concludes thus-— ^wd the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy souly that thou mayest live. I think it evident that the end of all these threatenings and the exe- cation of them also, is to make this nation holy and hap- py. 1 think it also evident that in their state of rebellion, in theiTState of rejection, and in the midst of their awful punishments, thfere are promises which * afford them ground of hope and joy;' but yet there is no encourage- ment to sin from hence, for it shall always be ill with them while they are an unbelieving and wicked nation. And I also think that what applies to them in general, as a nation, equally applies to them as individuals. For the apostle Paul, when he treats of their rejection of Christ-— the greatest of all their sins, and for which they have endured the longest and most severe punishment — so applies it. He not only represents that, as a nation, they shall be again a believing and obedient people; but says, God hath included them all in unbelief that he might have mercy Q'S^ LETTER VII. nponall. Rom.xi- 32. Here is a depth of the riclies both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, whicli the short-sighted doctrine of endless misery cannot reach; but which the doctrine of the restitution of all tliings fully comprehends and embraces. You have stated the universal doctrine as teaching sin- ners that tliey shall be ettrnallij saved^. Where, Sir, did I overstate it so? I have always stated that they will be eoiidemned, and will meet with a just punishment accord- ing to their character. Because I have affirmed that their punishment will not be endless, but limited and correct- ive>ypu seem to overlook it, and talk of their eternal sal- vation. As well might you make light of all the threat- enings pronounced against the Jewish nation for their sin ; or against the individuals of them dying in unbelief; be- cause that nation will again partake of divine favour, and because mercy is reserved for all of them who are shut up m unbelief. Have the goodness. Sir, to state the views of your opponent fairly. Thus the universal doctrine gives no more encourage- ment to sin than the doctrine of election does; nor is it of sosolif(iri/2L nature, in affording ho])eJiiiallj/ to every sin- ner, as to be without support and example from scripture. The Calvinistic election is stated as being God's eternal, ■sovereign^ ptrsotial,uncnnditionaly and i/ifrustrablc choice of his peo})Ie in Christ. If it be vnconditional, it can have no regard to moral character ; and if it be infrustrable, then * This is ihe second time that 1 have noticed this mistake of IMr. F. But the impartial Scrutator says, that I never mentioned it till fifteen letters had passftd. As this gentleman did not write in haste, but with the cool delibera- tion of z. man who had califlly attended to all that had passed betwixt Mr. F. snd myself, (see his Letters, p. 9) 1 feel a difficulty in accounting for his Cre- %»eiit mis-statement of facts. TO MR. FULLER. $7 it cannot fail of effect, let the man live how he will : arid- iF a man be not thus elected, he cannot be saved, do what he can. This is the true statement of the doctrine. Shall the man who holds it charge the universalists with encouraging sinners in their trespasses ? '' '" " '' .' i ' ' , Thus^ Sir, I have chosen to expose the falsfth(/dd of ^our charge, that the universal doctrine encourages sin. And I say again, let the world judge whether your, chai'ge does not go on an unfounded assumption, that applies, not only as much, but much more, to the doctrine of election, than to that of the restoration. And why that sneer at the word world, which I had used? A Calvinist might have indulged me with saying the world when I did not mean one in a million of mankind : it is^ the language of your system ; but perhaps you begin to see its impropriety : I therefore stand corrected ; for tha* the Universalis t's Miscellany goes to Scotland, America, tiie East Indies, and Holland; yet certainly but a very small part of the world will examine our productions. You refer again to the question in your first letter, which is, ' whether my ministry, upon the principle of the uni- versal doctrine, does not savour of hisy who taught our first parents. Ye shall not surely dief' I have answered, ' that if I thought there would not be any future punishment, your insinuation would not be without reason. And that the question is founded upon the idea that my view^s inva- lidate the threatenings of God towards sinners. ' You say you ' never supposed me to deny all future punishment," but that your question proceeds upon this ground— tlie ^ear resemblance between my labours and those of the de- iT-fieiver of mankind. ' He persuaded his auditors,' say yoii, 'J '-that though they should transgress, yet the evil they had ''^dreaded would not come upon them— and they were not afraid to transgress. You persuade your auditors that osr ^ tETTERVlI. though they should die in their sins, yet the evil would not be so great as they had been used to apprehend— God hath not said Ye shall die eternally, and he means that you shall all come where Jesus is— If they believe, must they not be lesi afraid of transgression than before?' So then, the de- ceiver of mankind taught his auditors they should incur no penalty by their transgression ; I teach my auditors that ' they shall receive a righteous recompence of reward for CTery transgression unrepented of-"that it shall be always ill with the wicked while they continue wicked:' ergo, there is a near resemhlance between my ministry and his! His auditors were not afraid to transgress because they be- lieved his doctrine of wo punishment all-— mine must be les5 afraid than they were before, if they believe my doc- trine, because the punishment is not so great as they have been used to apprehend. This latter part of your argument, if I understand you, goes on the ground that the threatening of endless death, (I suppose you mean endless misery) is the greatest possible restraint of transgression which God has or could lay upon it. If you mean so, I own I difier from you. For not to mention that the word ati/noi/, eternal, or everlasting, is no where in scripture connected with death, yet, if it was so, and the sense of it could be proved to be of endless dura- tion, it appears to me that there is a method of restraining sin much more efl'ectually than this awful threatening could do. It is that suggested in Eccles. viii. 41. Because sen- tence against an evil ziork is not executed speedilj/, there- fore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. It seems from hence that if every sin was to meet an adequate and speedy punishment from the hand of God, it would more effectually restrain transgression than any threatening of future evil, however great it might be. But wherein does it appear that my auditors are les£ TO MR. FULLER. . . -.89 I r.c'rr .'. '3 an' "■ ■ {f f raidoi sm, than tliey were while they believed the senti- ment of endless misery, or than those who are now believe it? The universalista are not in the habit of boasting of any superior holiness in themselves ; but Ido not know that they are inferior in holiness to other Christians. And I cannot but think the doctrine of limited punish- ments is sufficient, when rightly understood, to restrain vice. . I have before noticed your mis-statement of my senti- ments. There is a notable instance of this in the above question. I teach, you say, that though my auditors "die in their sins, yet, ' God means that they shall all come where Jesus is.' Is this fair .'' Is it honest.^ Let the can- did reader judge. What would you think of any man who should make the like use of the threaten ings of God against the Jews by Moses, by Hosea, by Paulj'merel)^ because mercy is pro- mised them after their punishment.? Fou hold with the rloctrine of the final perseverance of the saints. You will not deny that some who are called so have greatly sinned, have been greatly chastised, and yet have been the subjects of mercy. Have you taught that in their transgressions God loved them and meant that they should be where Jesus is.'' Or have you taught that he will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes, that they might be where Jesus is? I know that your s^^stem requires the latter, and I know, that you have often taught this. Shall I say that your ' labours, in t/iis point, have a near resemblance to those of the deceiver of mankind ? and that your saints are here- by kss ^afraid of transgression than when they were sii^- ners? ^ "-"- v:.'\ ■01:5 ri". M QO LETTER Vir. If you have ' built no conclusion' upon the supposi- tion that I deny all future punishment, yet I still think that your question cannot apply on any other ground. You add, ' and now, Sir, who is ignorant, and who has been employed in raising dust to hide the truth, are ques- tions which I leave you to resolve-' I answer, I have re- solved them, Sir, I hope, to yeur satisfaction and that of the reader. I mean in a subsequent letter to point out zchtrein you have, hitherto^ been ignorant of the subject in debate. I am. Sir, Witli great good will. Yours, W. VIDLER, TO MR» FULLER, ©l LETTER VIII. containing some remarks on sir. f.'s neglect of the subject; also, an answer to the first part of his fifth letter on the contrast betwixt the states of the righteous and the wicked. SIR^ npHE want of health, with a variety of other circum- stances, have hitherto prevented my attention to your fifth and following letters. In the close of my last I engaged to shew wherein you liave, as yet, been ignorant of the subject in debate, or at least have not attended to it, in any thing you have yet written. In my first and second letters to you, though I did not then draw out the heads of the controversy in a i'ormal manner into propositions, yet I stated that the subject con- sisted of the following parts. I. The words connected in scripture with future punish- ment, as eternal, everlasting, ever and ever, &c. which I conceive do not convey the idea of endless duration. II. The declarations and promises in the scripture, which I concieve do convey the idea of universal restoration. III. That the whole revealed economy of God towards fallen men, is mediatorial, in Christ Jesus : and that it is contained within the ages of Christ's kingdom, which, it- self, shall come to an end. IV. That the scripture character of God is expressly against the doctrine of endless misery. M 2 yS . LETTER till. How you lidve, <7S yjtt, attended to any of these, a pe- rusal of what you have written will shew. Your first letter has not the smallest reference to either of them. This made me ohserve in my first letter to you, that tht enquiry is not ^xhctkcr endless piaiishnient is in it- $e If just or not ; but lehetlwr God has, anif wliert in hi% ■word^ threatened aitij description of sinners with it. I in- vited you then to come to the proof of that point, which, as you have not done, your questions, though enforced and re-enforced, have nothing to do with the subject. I might therefore have justly been excused from any attention to them, as they left the grounds of the controversy untouch- ed. For, how improper is it to talk about \\\e justice of a punishment, before we have enquired what tkat pur»ish- ment is; to talk of thege/i'?/f.s of a doctrine before we have enquired about its truth; and to represent a man as a coadjutor of Satan in his labours, while, for ali tljat yet ap- pears to the contrary, he may be doing the v.'iil of God! In your second letter you just notice the word everlast- ing, but say little more than that no force of language can stand before my mode of criticising upon it. Your third letter exhibits hardly a!?y thing but your own mistake about annihilation. Your fourth is taken up with a re-eiu^brcement of your former questions, or other trivial matter, equally distant from the subject. And then you conclude by sa^'ing I have not yet answered what you have written!!! You begin your fifth letter by saying, that you have not yet stated your grounds of belief for the doctrine of endless punishment. I luave above proved that you have not yet opposed the grounds of the universal doctrine, and you now confess that you have not yet stated the grounds of its opposite. What then have you been doing. Sir, in all TO MR. FULLER. 95 your former letters ? It appears that nothing has yet been done by you to any purpose. I am happy, however, at any rate to get you to a point. You now state the principal grounds of your own belief. Let these be examined. In doing which you reckon, ' All those passages of scripture which describe the future states of men in contrast.' Here you bring forward a great number of scriptures ; you consider these passages as designed to express ' the FINAL STATES OF MEN.' But why SO? There is no one passage of all which you have quoted that expresses this : of which, indeed, you seem conscious; for instead of rest- ing this conclusion upon any positive testimony of these scriptures, you are forced to have recourse to inferential rea- soning, and that also upon grounds that will by no means be granted ; for, 1st. You say, ' the state of the righteous, which is all along opposed to that of the wicked, is allowed to be fi- nal : and if the other were not the same, it would not have been, in such a variety of forms, contrasted with it ; for it would not be a contrast.' Here you have taken two things for granted which I think you ought to have proved, viz, that the state of the righteous, as expressed by these scrip- tures, is final : and that if the state of the wicked be not final, it would not be contrasted with that of the righteous. If the former of these assumptions be ever so true, yet you ought not to have thus reasoned upon it till you had prov- ed its truth, because it is one of the disputable things be- tween us. 1 long ago observed that there will arrive a pe- riod when the mediatorial reign of Christ will end, accord- ing to 1 Cor. XV. 24 28. If the mediation of Christ will end, it is reasonable to suppose that the rewards and punishments of men, to apportion which will be a part of his mediatioHj will end also. \)4 tETTERTltT. You could not therefore^ but know that the final state* of the righteous was not, bj' me, allowed to be expressed in auy of the passages tji^hickyou have, quoted, that stand op- * Scrutator, with his uxual teraciti/, asserts, ' I liad never before suggested that the ^naZ state of the righteous was not expressed by passages of scripture which describe them in future life as conirasted with the wicked." Letters, p. 35.-.39. I beg leave (in addition to what I have referred to, on this subject, from my first letter,) to quote a passags, to the purpose, from my sixth letter, p. 54. * These words (gnolam and aion) are applied to dift'ererlt subjects^ and joined with periods of a longer or shorter date ; all which are included in the grand comprehensive period of Ch isf s mediatorial kingdom, which comprehends all ages, yet shall it^-clf, in its appointed season, come to an end when its purposes are ail fulfilled, as the apostle testifies, 1 Cor. xv. 25 28. What took place before the creation of the world tlia scripture has no where unfolded; and what will take place after the subjection of all things to Christ, and his giving up the kingdom to the father, we do not knov/^, ex- cept tluit then God will be all in all : here revelation drops the curtain, so to speak, including the whole of its communications in the gnolams, aions, or ages of the mediator's reign.'' In the same letter, p. 56. I have also said, ' There must be aions, ages, to come after tlie age of judgment; in which ages all punishment will ba distributed with unerring wisdom, and to a good and glorious end; and all rewards be conferred with the same wisdom and goodness, for in the o^'e? to come, God will shew the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness towards us, &c. Eph. ii. 7. And the punishment of the wicked will take place during the same ages; for the smoke of thei: torment is to ascend sic «ti««^af aixym, to the age q/'ages, i. e. to the period of the restitution of all things, v.iiich is the closing period of the mediator's Icing- dom.' These prj^ages were written before Mr. F.'.i fifth letter, and consequently ought not to have been unknov/n to b.im. But if he had incautiously over- looked them wbjle writing to me, one would expect that Scrutator, who lays claim to diligence, acuteness, and candour, in an uncommon degree, would not l\ave quite forgotten chem. Yet so it is ! I think it a great pity that Mr. F. whose experience in polemic warfare is confessedly great, — did not correct the youth and inexperience of his friend. It would have saved me the trouble of having such frequent occasion to mention his mista/res. The reader, also,, •would not have had the perplexity of accounting for them so often. Let it be recollect?d here, that although in the beginning of my correspond- ence with Mr. F. and frequently during tke continuance of it, I stated, tlxaJ TO MR. FULLER. 95 posed to the state of the wicked, as I consider that all re- wards and punishments belong to Christ's kingdom. Therefore;, you should not have brought forward this argu- ment till you had shewn, or at least, had attempted to have shewn, that I was mistaken in my idea^f the foundation and duration of future rewards and punishments. Again, how does it appear that ' If the state of the wicked were not final, it would not have been, in such a variety of forms, contrasted with that of the righteous r' you say ' because it would not be a contrast.' I understand you as meaning that there can be no contrast formed betwixt things which are not of equal duration ; for this reason— because there cannot ! I confess I am neither satisfied w ith the assertion, nor with the doughty reason by which it is supported ; but it is no part of my business to dispute either of them, as my argument does not require it. For I contend that the state of the righteous, as expressed in contrast with that of the wicked, is not final : and it may appear, upon further examination, that the state of the wicked may not be final neither. Whether the final state of the righteous, may not be elsewere expressed, and taught on other ground, I shall consider hereafter *. I understood both rewards and punishments were mediatorial acts, and were contained within the ages of Christ's kingdom, which itself would come to an end; and although great part of my reasoning, in defence of tlie restora- tion, is founded upon this idea, yet, neither of these gentlemen have deigned to consider this leading argument. Query, For what tliey have noi done, is there not a cause 2 * Here I am cha ged by Scrutator, with misunderstanding Mr. F. and shifting the ground of the argument.'' Letters, p. 43 — 45. I have very care- fully considered what both these gentlemen have said, and I am not convinc- ed that the charge is just. Mr. F. contends, that the scriptures which he mentions, ' express iiie future states of men in contrast; tliat as the happi- ness of the righteous is alloived to befnal, so zvili i« the misery of the wicked.' \9(5 "Better viil. * r think it- to be worthy of wisdom itself to make iaiv- tftheses betwixt a very short period and a very long dura- tion, though neither should be endless. What wise man Now there is no dLspiUe whether the immediate future state of the wicked and tlie righteous will be a contrast. This I always granted j but the question is, will that state he final? 1 have contended that though the righteous will be finally happy, yet I do not know that these scriptures express it. But if they do express it, in relation to the righteous, yet they do not so to the wick- ed; for which I have given several reasons, tis first, that aion is an age, uot eternity,, and aionion is age-lasting, not eternal ; secondly, that holiness and happiness have their root in God, buts';u and misery have not so; thirdly, that these are promises of an universal restoration, &c. I ask, therefore, what re- mains in litigation but the ^nai state of the wicked ? and does not this include the idea of duration? Does not Mr. F contend that the state of misery will endure as long as that of happiness ? because, says he, these are contrasted on* ■urith the other. To which I answer, there may be a contrast betwixt things which are of vntqual duration, and have produced 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18. as a scriptural example. I have here intimated that I vrould clscwere consider whether the final st«te tif the righteous is not expressed and taught on other grounds than those which Mr. F. has mentioned. Scrutator says that ' I promised to prove the h-mited duration of tJif suinl's happiness, as it is contrasted with the punishments ■^ the wicked,^ Letter?, p. 77. The rsader will add this to the number of the ■ other mis-statements of this accurate reviewer. But, it seems, I have notsufS- dently performed what 1 did promise : I therefore add, 1. That the endless happiness of the sainls, saems to me to be taught with- out the word aionion, ' and without being contrasted with the misery of the ■wicked by the word hQaiafia, immortal,' This mortal must put an aQmimrmv, immortaliiy .-^-When this mortal shall have put on aSava^'iav^immortaliti/. 1 Cor. XT b3, 54. Tlie word 5s applied to God who only hath immortaliti/. Ex- emption firom death, is the idea which the word conveys ; and as it is applied to the saints in their resurrection state, it appeai-s that they will be possessed of iifs ivhich will n«t end. 2d."l conceive the same doctrine is taught by the words AjuiavIjm', undefiledy Afc5!pavT''» and A/itajav7iKcv, unfading. 1 Peter, i. 4. The God and Father efour Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ firom the dead, to an inheri' tance aftiaiSov, undefiled, and, itxi aftapx^oy, thatfadeth not away. And 1 Pet. X. 4. When the chief shepherd shall appear^ ye shall receive, rfr afAHfavliVfiv rnt TO MR. FULLER. I9? but would endure a moment's inconvenience for the sake of a great advantage that he should derive from it, and that should eudure for many years ? And might he not say with great propriety. The pain and inconvenience I shall endure arc but for a moment; but the advantage shall be perma- nent that I shall derive from it.' And to me it ap- pears that the scriptures have done this, particularly 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18. Here the apostle says. Our light affiiciiorif wliick is but for a moment, wnrkethfor us afar more ex- cecding and eternal i i. e. aionion, weight of glory ; while zft look not at the things m/hich are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are tern* poral; hut the things which are not seen are eternal, i. e. aionion. Here is a contrast betwixt temporal and aionion things, and yet that the apostle did not consider either of them as eternal (as our common translation falsely renders it) is evident; because inverse 17- he says, the glory which our light affliction in the cause of Christ worketh for us> is a glory exceeding aionion to an excesx. Every proper j udge who reads this, must know that I iv^ni CEfan>>, A CROWN of glory that fadeth not awav. Thisisspofc- en of the jtate of glon- and bliss which is reserved for the saints, and which they shall enjoy under him, who is their chief shepherd : consequently both themselves, and the glory reserved for them, are etemalli/ safe ; none shall pluck them out of Ids hard, nor out of his Father's hamd. John, x. 28, 29. 3d. Tha life and bliss of the saints, are so connected with the life and hap- piness of Christ himseb", that while he lives and is glorious, they also will live and be gloiiuus. Becanst I live, ye shall live also, saith our Lord, John, xiv, 19. And Paul assares us that the saints are heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. Rom. viii. 17. Thus I tliink it evident that ' the final state of the righteous is taught on other grounds than thoie which Mr F. h-aS mentitai- fd* N 9"^ .^-LETTER Vlir. have '<^iily given the genuine meaning of nxQ i^'srif^i^/.nn ik v^if^i>:>,* iri this rendering. Hej!6 then is an instance in point to shew that a contrast is drawn betM'ixt two things, of different duration indeed, but neither of them eternal: for if the aivnion glory be eternal, how can that which our light affliction worketh for us exceed it so very far as Paul affirms it to do*? ♦ Pn tbis answer of mine, to Mr. F. Sciutator has spent ten pages, in which, as usual, he has indulged every species of literary abuse. I will not imitate him ; but will endeavour to notice calmly whatever he has said that looks like argument. 1. He has affirmed that I have said the utmost limit of an age, ciWJ, does not exceed forty-nine years. This, though contrary to his own knowledge^ is necessary to be said to support his following argument. The reader will re-' fer to the note in p. 34. 2. He takes it as a scSfevidi nt; truth, that ' every thing which is not seen is comprehended under the word aionian.' But I conceive that things both setn and unseen may be called aionian {a^ ihe word is applied to things of bot^' kinds). Thus we read of the aionion mountains, which, s\nf]y,a.tevisibi ' enough ; the aionion covenant of circumcision was a visible object, the durati^ on of which has ceased; the aionion consolation of believers, as enjoyed in the present life, is visible^ both in the gospel and in their own experience. 2 Thes. ii. 16. But the aionion glories of Christ's future kingdom, are, asyet, inrinble. . . -, ■, , ; . .. :.--.■ 3. Our author says Ihait ijiv tra^latipJ?k;verts,th5 apDStlB's\s^ lan- guage, into such feeble and turgid bombast as would disgrace a schoQl bfty.' But why so? The future aionion gloriespf Christ's kingdom, are, doubtless inconceivable. And I understand the enraptured apostle as saying,' that his sufferings in the cause, of Christ worked fpr him, a weight of glory, excettiveiy exceeding all other aionion glojrl^s,^ , .Inhere js the bombast of this? The scripture affords instances of comparison of one aion with anotlier; and of the glories of one aion with .those of another-, and also of the diffeient degrees of glory in the same aion. . *,;;.. ♦re.:.: axi^ ; . .-— ci- ' 4. He affirms that ' my translation of the passage, is a violation of one of the fundamental rules ofgraminar^ for 1 have rendered a K«vn as though it w ere a verb.'' I readily grant there is a difficulty in rendering this passage into English; but this gentleman should hare recollected, that this censure equal- ly'applies to our, * venerable and learned translators of the bible," as to myself. iO JVIK. FULLER. QiQ £d. You go on to say, that all these pass^e&ar^ totally silent as to any other state following that of 4'estruction> damnation, Sec. And you infer, that if any state is to fol- low these, it is strange that we have no intimation of it in any of the passages you have quoted, and that if tlie pu- nishment threatened to ungodly men had been only a purg- ation or temporal correction, we might have expected that something like this would have been intimated. * It is sup- posed, say you, that some who are upon the right founda- tion may yet build upon it wood, hay, and stubble, and that They have said the glory here spoken of far exceeds eternal glory. Not un derstaiiding how otonion can be eternal; nor how eternal glory can be^br ex- ceeded by sny other glory, I have rendered it exceeding aionion ^lory to an exceisj The differenca betwixt these renderings, is in substituting the word aionion for eternal: the grammar of each is intirely the same. Surely the great Scrutator must have known this : and, knowing ^t, hat)«rgo4iy rnen, in Mat. xxv. 45. where the wicked ?re said to go into xo^aa-iv cuavijy, rendtrtd ever tasting funishment. Petitpiierre, in his Treatise on Divine Love f, says, * There are two re- spectable authorities to ])rov€ that xoXao-K signifies chastise- ment; one is the illustrious Grotius, in his Rights of War See note, p. 36. of these Letters, t Edinburgh Edit. p. 150. TO MK. FULLER. 101 a^d Peace; the other the celtbrated Wyttenbach/ in his Essay on Doctrinal Theology. Grotius, says expressly, that the kind of punishment which tends to the improve- ment of the criminal, is that v;hich the philosophers called among other things, >t-o7\aan, or cfiastisement. And Wytten- bach, who writes this passage from Grotius. says, that Godp in the infliction of sulleringe, has three ends in view, the first of which is the correction of the offender, in order to his future amendment, and that the Greeks frequently gave to such sutferings, the name of y-aXccaiv*. To this quotati-. on I add, that twice f in the New Testament we havexo^a|- f^tytig, which, together with xox«o-»;, is from the theme y-o^M^u, applied, as Parkhurst observes, by Greek writers, in the sense of restraining and repressing. The only place beside in which KoXaati; occurs in the New Testament is 1 John^ iv. 18. Fear hath torment, ( i. e. restraint) in it* From the whole of those passages I think it clear that xoAacn? signifies such a punishment as correctsihe criminal, restraining and repressing him, and thereby bringing him into his due and proper place J. * The passage referred to in Grotius runs thus ; * Dicemus erg > in pcenis respiciutilitatem ejus que peccarit, aut ejus cujus intererat non peccatum esse, aut indislincte quorumlibet. Ad horum trium finium priaium pertinet pcena qujc piiilosophjs modo tuQss-ia, modo xoXari;, modo tcapavtrif, dicitur ; Paulo Jurisconsulto, pcena, quse const ituitur in eniendatiouem, e-ai^ftvari-jJi lyfxa Pla- toni, Plutarcho larpau "Vvx^t^ animi medicatrix, quK hoe agit ut eum qui peccavit rcddat meliorem medendi modo qui est percontraria.'' De jure belli rtpacjs, lib. ii; cap. 20. § C. t Acts, iv. 21. 2 Peter, ii. 9. translated punish znd punished. J I have said that we have the word y-vXetiofAiiyf Acts, iv. 21. and 2 Peter, ii. 9. In the first of these passages I was mistaken, for the word is xoAa^* says he, ' not because it • MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE IH THE STATE OF THS ARGUMENT, AS IT CER- TAiNLY DOES NOT, but to add another proof that Mr. V . quotes patsages of scripture in the original xohick he never consulted j Letters, p. 83. I hope my letailiiig this correctbii from my rcviewet will be deemed proof sufficient of mysense of obligation to him. I observe, 1. That we have the authority of my correcfor, that the state of the ar- gument is not affected by my mistake. The reader, therefore, has no reason to suppose that 1 meant to impose on. him. 2. That the word HoXarmylat. is of the same meaning as KoX>^n/Li!>w{, and in the pas^ge bafore us,. Acts, iv. 21., bears the same sense a; that which I gave to it, viz.. that of restraining or repressing ; for it is evident that the Jewish luIcES meant to repress the apostles in the go.spel, and to. restrain them from preaching, through Jesus, the resurrectien of the dead. 3. The substantive KaXatrif, which our Lord uses Mat. xxv. 46. is also used to. signify chmtisement, in ILzek. xfftr. U. »u^ ecvloi M^oilxt r^y »o\aarn> a&liiip wefUffavIai' TWp E^rois-as, which our translation renders. And ^ they be asJancd of all they have done. In the same sense it is used in the Apochrypha, Wisdom, xi. 13. When they heard others were be/ieftled,^ix Ta« t-5lw» tio}Mmi)P hy their own punishment , (hey had some feeling of the Lord. 4. Parkhurst also says tliat xeXa^wisfrom vhCt'tokeep backy separati, keepq^ RESTRAIN, PaOHIDIT. 5. The above quotation from Grotius may be thus freely translated—' We observe, then, that punishment regards the benefit either of the offender, or a lawyer, the punishment designed for amendment is, by Plato, said to be rw^eanuBofi; tKKCc — "/<"■ '^® sake of making u)i*er. And it is called by Plutarch icclgHo, J/tiyyjjj *^'* healer of the mind; because, agreeable to the art of healing^ it renders him who hath sinned better by means of contraries.* '' ' *' ' ' " 6. In fui Aw coi>firi»atio%t)^?»t bi>v»aX*j-»c our Lord meant c^oit^feWttii^^ " :■ ^■' - ^ ■,:.: ;:;\:='? si> :vii-^f.' * These are terms, especially the first and last, nearly of the same import • K-OXitrii me^nichadisemeat, md K\\e Qlhst two admonition^- ^ . x^rm Ihf'' J"'-' TO MR. FULLER. J.^O an <'conseq«enlIy as a mean to purification. 'NtJrlet-thB^^ seern strange J» you; the idea is an ancient one : TMrfc' ownimquity shall correct thee, says the prophet. Cer- tainiy our Xbrd knows both the nature and the end of h.- ture punishment, and as he has called it a correction, W€ may rest assured that he is not mistaken. In the nature of the thing; no correction can be of endlessduration. Fourthly, You remark that none of the scriptures speak on universal salvation m the manner which Paul speaks of such as, being on the foundation, build wood, hay, and stubble there, are saved so as by fire. I hope I am not to blame for the manner in which the scriptures speak on any subject on which they treat. I have no right to dictate what they should say. My business is to submit to their authority. If they have not spoken a word on the subject ■ of universal salvation, I am not disappointed at it. I am satisfied that they have spoken clearly on the subject of the rtUitution of all things; but if, on that or any other sub- ject, they have not spoken to your mind, I cannot help it. are to_recql.liec.t,tbAciar«ic^«r-in which he deHvered the threatening in Mat. xxT. 46. namely, that of the great and righteous judge. It seems to me that those gentlemen who contend for vindictive punishments in the divine admi- nistration, do not sufficiently consider tiiis; they seem to think judgment is confined almost intirely to punishrajent, aiad that punishment is, in itself, an end, instead of a mean to an end. Bat thescriptural idea of a judge, is that of a governor who is to order all things, and to appoint to every person his proper station. and lot. In this mamier Christ, who is the appointed j udge, will rule till all authority, power, and dominion are subdued to him ; and then he tuill give up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God (through the government of Christ) may be all in ali,. The idea of vindictive punish- ment cannot apply to God, unless, as wicked men often do, he punish from a revengeful temper, or, like weak men, he cannot, in some cases, unite the exercise of public justice with the benefit of the sufferer, then there niay be vindictive wrath in his heart and vindictive pimishment in his dispensations. — But will any Christian admit this ? Thus I still think there is proof that kolasis z\gx)luei chastisement when used by our Lord in relation to future punishment . 104 LEfTETlVIir. 3. Yftu observe, of the scriptures which you have bronght fonvard in contrast, that ' the phraseology of the greater part of them is inconsistent with any other state following that which they describe;' which you attempt to prove by saying, ' On the sui)position of salvation being appointed as the ultimate portion of those who die in their sins, they have not their portion in this life, but will, equally with those who die in the Lord, behold his righteousness and be satistied in his likeness. 'I'heir expectation shall not pe- rish, but shall issue, as well as that of the righteous, in gladness; and though driven away in their wickedness, yet • they shall have hope in their death, and that hope shall be reahsed,* &cc. &c. I have insisted upon the reality and equity of future pu- nishment ; contending, at the same time, that it is limited in its duration, and corrective in its nature. You, without having any regard to theloss which sinners will sustain by having no part in the millenial kingdom of Christ on earth —-without considering in the least the tribulation, indigna- tion and wrath which is revealed from heaven-against all unrighteousness— without allowing any^ thing for the few stripes and many stripes which, accor* means eternity ;' seeing it is so often taken for a li- mited period, and sometimes even for a very short one too, 2d. The writers of the New Testament do not use the word aiuv to convey the idea of eternity, because there are different aions spoken of, and one aiori is represented as succeeding another. The phrase t/tis aion occurs two and twenty times in the New Testament, and wherever we meet with it, it necessarily stands opposed to some other aion ; and therefore we read of rwv muh twx^ axxa y.x\, iv ruv /ittW^onT*, this aion and also that which is to come, Ephes. i. 21. and Matt, xii, 32. TO MR. FULLHRo .. JiJ 5d. We also read of the aid of the, aiqn, ^^i? avyrtX^tc^ ttt &iuvei.%, i\Jatt. xxviii. 20. and evea of the end of the aionSf plural <7ti.T£A«as Twy «»wKft;>, Heb. ix. 26. which evidently re- fers to the aions past. There are also the aions to come, Ephes. ii. 7. And we have the idea given us of time «p» Td/v Muvuv, before the aions began, 1 Cor. ii, ?• I ask, Can the word aion mean a/was/s bting? Can it express eterni- ty of duration ? Did the sacred penmen mean to giv^ thi% idea in any of the above passages? Is it not clear that the word admits of the existence of time before the period which it describes began ? and also an end to the periods which it describes as yet to come*? * The present Bishop of I,^ondon, in bis ' Nineteenth Lecture on the Gospel of St . Matthew," trcass on our Lord's prediction of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, jNIatt. xxiv. 3. His lordship observes, that * by- the end of the world is to be understood, not the final consummation of all things here below, but the enA, of thata^e, the end of the Jewish state and polity, the subversion of tiitir city, temple, and government.' In a note he adds, that the v/ord otivv, here translated the luorld, frequently means nothmg more than an age, a certain definite period of time ' Th*; Critical Reviewers have thus remarked on it, ' Surely his lordship might have confirmed this opinion with greate strength of argument; and instead of the conditional term ' Jrequentiy ,' whicli implies that the other acceptation of the ■ t'.'rm is occasionally adopted, might iiave informed his readers that the prima- RV signification oi aiAp' is an age, avd that in this sejise it is used, without ANY EXCEPTION WHATEVER, throughout the whoU of the scriptures J" Cat- Rev. Octr. 1802. p. 167. • The learned Dr. Hammond, in hi§ Annotations oii 1 Tim. i.l7. says *The Aiwvs; here, of wkich God is said to be king, may possibly signify the several ages of the world, and no more, that feeing the ordinary notation of «(»»*.' Dr. Benson and Dr. Macknight give the same sense of this passage, distribut- ing the ages into three, namely, the patriarchal, tiie Jewish, and the Chriitiaa age. My reason for mentioning these great authorities to prove that aioo means an age only, is, that Scrutator has frequently insinuated that I am soig- - norant as not to know the meaning of the word ; be that as it may, he will not say so of these gentlamen in v^ose company I have the happiness to be found. He certainly tl'.inks better of them than of me. I am coAteyt it r 114 LETIER \ n. 4." If is a rule, which no grammarian will dispute, fhat ¥i6Hdjccfivt can k'avt greater force than thesuhstantht: fyom t£;hi6^fWi^' deni'td'; thus 6/af7f, cannot mean more tlian "bldcknesi'.,' Ti^Mte cannot mean more than whiteness, so nei- ther can a'tonios, aionion, &:c. mean more tlian aion. It i& granted, that there is a palpable departure from this rule in our common translation of the scriptures in the instance be- fore" us; and much as I esteem tlie trans' ators of the Bible, "and confess myself obiigfd to them for their learned labour^, ye't'm this case. And probably in some others, we may, with- out' a breacfl of charity, consider them as under the influ- ence of system or of authority, or both of them together ; otherwise I cannot accoiuit for men so pious, wise, and learned as they were, to render aionion by everlasting and -eternal. They have never translated aivn by eternity/ any where J though they have rendered it frequently world, and its plural icorhh, its singular age, and its plural, sometimes, ^fffffs/-— I appirehend that the singular means age, and the .plural ages, every where ; because it must be so rendered in •some places, and may be so in all*. , - - ..: ■ ''lA'-* .^j-YO'v^'^)' should be so. They certainly )iad ,no ca,lise.to servciii.wliat they ha.ve said. Thoy liave borne an unbiassed testimony^ and said that aiori means. a« age oniy, I have a right to make use of their evidence : and I appeal to all tlic "Wotld to jucge of the justice of iny inference, that if aion mean only artnge, then aionion can moan only a^v/cifiw^'. ,.; ■• -* Scrutator objects tcr the /afi'er .parp, ^f ,this rute : ' if Itj/iay Ueso.iA al!, .lays he; this seems to suppor^e tl\at.it may not be so in. all,' But whfet then ' does this weaJcen the rule ' surely not. ''I ani enquiiing for the ideal meaning nf the Greek ^vord ainny^nd its jteravatives-, anil find the English word age, p.nd its relatne age-lasting, will give a good ijri,se of them eveiy where, but {hat in many places no other English words will do so. rconclude theiefoie, ■that age, and age-lasting are the proper renderings. Let this gentleman. take the word cternitij and its relative eternal which he contends for ; or let him take the word u-orlJ, (by which our translators usually render aion) and its re- lativ.« ti'orldlv, and he will find insuperable difficulties. Notwithstan (lleb. vii. 13.) and a new uien has been introduced, even the Christian g/o/j, which itself shall come to an end, as our blessed Lord hath told us in his gracious promises to -his church, And hy I am with you alivays, even lo the j^-nd of the aion, Matt. .Txviii. 20. And when this aion is ended, there are aions yet fd come, Eph. ii, ?• Yea, the apostle represents a successi- on of future aions Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus «j mourtK; rxi ytMixf, ra otiuv^ tojv tx,iu;v:,jv, Lph. iii, '1 1 . Here wc have the idea of one age generating another ; for the apostle ascribes praise to God our Father io all the gemrations of the age of ages *. * I conceive the age of ages to be the grand closing age of the mediator's reign, when he, lia-ving subdued all things to himself, and reconciled all tilings to the Father by the blood of his cross, shall reign a long and happj^iperiod over all, in peace, and righteousness, and joy j and then give, up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that he may be allin all. If I err, may the Father of mercies pardon my involuniary error, and correct my judgment by his truth. 1 iO " LETTEl? IX- '''i^Wjfer,"fafe'yoiiT meaning of the word a?on, ^always leing, and its derivatives as eterttal, &c. and apply it in the face of all these facts and scriptures, and see how it will accord. We shall tlien see that an hundred years is a /i eternity— B. man's short frail life is an etermtt/'-^a dispen- sation of providence, long or short, is an eternity, ke-. &c. There are eternities past- -an eternity now existing and when this eternity is ended, there are generations of eterni- ties to come There are eternal thingS'tlMt have long ago come to an tnd; and tlie eternal hills now existing'wiU one day be burned up, &c. !!! Upon the whole, the proper meaning of aion appears to Me a<^e, and the proper meaning of aionion age- lasting. Thus we have a rational cohception of the ages that are past, of the age which now exists, and of the ages to come. And thus, also, we can well conceive of the age-lasting covenants above mentioned, which continued during the Jewish age— —the age- lasting hills, which shall continue during the age of the world— the tvuyyi7.\r>y ai^ano, age-lasting gospel, which shall continue to be preached during those fi'j^es in which the mediator shall be sub|e»cting all thing^sto hiraself, and recorjclling all things to the Father——- — the w»3yp.aT<^ai«i't«, (Heb. ix. }4.) 1. 1. the holy spirit, which has presided over the church in all ages, and will cotttinue so to do, till, by his influence, in the fvdness of the: di&|)ensa- tionof the times, all things will be qtnclcpned--li— ais/jw Bitj the God v;ho reigns through all tiie ages, whether past, pre- sent, <^r to come ; of; as St. l*-attl expresses it, /3«^«A«a Tu*unaiwv, the Icing of the wgfs-*, -! Tim. i. 17. * Probably the apostle had the Septuagint in view whf n he wrot3 this }t Pti-a^ii^iia rov $(tfiKeia- wtnnnD rmy itimwv, ^i/ kiygdc-n is a kivgddm of A1.1, THE AGESj Psa, CXlv. 13. -' TO MR. FULL£R. . Ill' In your sixth letter you jeer me because I had pointed out th^ difference betwixt the meaning of the Greek words aion iindaionios, and the English words etanity 2it\6. etcr~ uxftd/, and thenask, ' Is it not possible for a person to know that the Greek aion and aiotiios will not always bear to be rendered by the English words eternity, everlastings or eternal, and yet perceiAe no evidence that the one are less expressive of endless duration than the other?' How far it may be possible for you, or others, to know a true datum and not come to a right conclusion upon it^ I cannot tell ; but this I know, that if those Greek words will not always bear to be translated by these English ones, there is a rea- son for it; and perhaps the reader, when he has considered the evidence above given, may be of my mind, that the Greek words are rather less expressive of endless duration than the English ones ; for the fact is, that they do not, in themselves, express endless duration at all.— -If you have a better reason to give, I call upon you for it. You have also allowed, that there is ' some difference' betwixt these words ; inasmuch as the English words that are ' properly expressive of endless duration may not or- dinarily admit of a plural, nor of the pronouns this and thut before therti.' This, Sir, is allowing a great deal, and I think much more than your cause will bear; for if the English words eternity, everlasting, and eternal, will not endure that we should say eternities —this eternity and that eternity the eternities ;3as?, and the eternities /o coine; then I think it as evident as reason can make it be, that aion and aionios, &c. cannot mean eternity, eternal^ or everlasting. The two instances which you gave:Df aion.m. its plural form being used to convey the idea of endless duration, I conceive are inadequate to the purpose, nor can I account for your bringing forward the hrst of them, Eph. iii. 11. 316 LETIEU 3X. iaxcf. vTf^taiitiwf aamuTi, but by supposing tirat your predilec- tioQ. fo^>;eternAl purposes is the cause. 'J^he apostle is speaking, .o£ tAc dvipostiion of the ages, which God niadc. for Christ Jesus our Lord*, and not of any eternal pur- pose in him. V tH\l,'{ ■ As for 1 Tim. i. 17. I have noticed the former part of it ahovt^j as reading hterally, the king of the ages; and as to the latter part of the text, where praise is ascribed to God. «^- T8i *ita.i'«5Tj/i' ati's'a.'*, it js literally to tltcotg^S: of ages. And as I have observed to you before, all the ages which the scripture speaks of, are included in the mediatorial re^niof Christ, beyond which we read of no ages, but are briefl^y informed that the son shall be subject to the father, and God shall be all in all. 1 Cor. xv. ';i8. > I th'uik ii:_^ therefore, a grand idea of the apostle to ascribe, to liim who is the king of the ages, honour and glory to, tlve ages of the agctj, or thrfjughout them all. Tlris does not imply that there are any bounds to the. reign of the immortal God, or that his honoiur^ and glory will cease when the ages of mediation shall end; but it is contended, that neither this text nor any similar one goes farther than those cges. Thus I hope jusi ice is done to 'Jiesc tejils. without: giving them the idea of' unlimited duration. If is a feeble attempt of yours indeed to venture to ac- comodate your own mode of speaking of ^ this eternity of hlissy and ^ that ettrn/tj/ of i/t's.5,' to the mode of using the Gveek this age mid'that agc^-— ^for imless one of j^our ttemities of bliss can expire, and another of your elernitits ol bliss can succeed it, there is no parallel betwixt them. . I have no hesitation in admitting that ' the ab'j of Dan.. xiirS.- aiisvsrers to the Greek «ti,», nor that the antithesis in * See aiacknijlit on the toxt. TO MR, FULLER. 119 this passage, and in INIatt. xxv. 4(5. determines it to mean the same when applied to shame and contempt, as whtn applied to life.' You seem greatly to have mistaken me in what I said about the eternity of future happiness. I believe I have never pleaded foi* thai on account of its be- ing expressed either by the word cbv or atiJ-. I conceive it to stand on much tirmer ground than these words cau afford. But I may say something further on that subject in another letter. Your quotation, in which the authorify of Aristotle i? brought lorv.'ard, proves little to your purpose. The critic who furnised you with it, says^ that the ancients admirabJj expressed eternity by the word aion; for they call the term of each person's life his aion !U INIost admirable in- deed I Are you in the habit of speaking to your hearers in this admirable manner about eternity ? If I had broiight a quotation of such a nature, I should probably have been told, that it zvas a proof of the scarcity of evidence in the paths which I am in the habit of treading*. viln my next I may go on to consider further what you have said in your iifth letter. ^ Meanwhile, ■ I. remain, Your sincere friend iu the love of the truth, ■^ovemher, 1800. W. VIDLER, ■"*'.5i'rHtl^r'o^ liie Universallst's iVfisCi^Gatly, |i 444. Vol. IV. has th« fol- lowing remark : .', .Granting to Mr. F. that abj/ amwers to am'/, and that the latter is cony- pounded of aci and ft)v, and may be rendered into English by ' always being,' is riot th<; English term of general spiiHcation? Must not, therefore, tbe meaning depend upon the nature of the event, or object, to whick it is ap- plied? That thli must be the case with ettaiv I desire no better authority and testi- mony, mersly human, than Aristctle, and no more of his than Mr. F. has f 120 r.tTjEit X. LETTER X. NO SCRIPTURES RELATING TO FL'TUP.E PUKUHMENT IM-' PLY MORE THAN WHAT IS ELSEWHERE EXPRESSED OX THAT SUBJECT BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST, AND THE CASE Of JUDAS CONSIDERED" — -UN- QUENCHABLE FIRE EXPLAINED, SIR, TT is my unhappiness that I have to apologize again for my long silence ; but a lingering nervous complaint, which for a long while nearly deprived me of the power both of thought and action, has been the occasion. Being in measure, by the goodness of providence, restored again to health, it is with pleasure that I re'commence my cor- respondence with vol!. In my last I intimated my intention to consider next what you had further advanced in your fifth letter. endless when applied to beings whom ' time does not make old.' E\'.t, says Aristotle, more ancient Greek writers than myself call the time of each per- son's lifeliis atftiy. Why ? Is it to affirm that time endless? No, truly 5 bat hecause, according to the laws of nature^ nothing respecting any man can exist out of the limits of his life. This, I admit, is conclusive; but the conclusion entirely overthrows the argument Mr. F. would found upon the term «!»».' But I add, that however great the authority of Aristotle may be, in matters of ancient science in general, it can have small weight in the present case; be- cause we are not inquiring what is the sense in which the a"ticient Greeks used the word aion, (though it appears that even among them its primary meaning is age,) but, in what sense do the sacred writers use it? and we have already seen, by the testimony of the Critical Reviewers, that it is ahiays, without any variation f used in the scriptures t9 signify age. TO MR. FULLER. J21 In proof of the eternity of future misery, you add thirdly, ' All those passages which express the dumtion of future punishment by implication, or by forms of speech which imply the doctrine in question.' If what I have said of the meaning of aion and its de- rivatives in my two last be forcible— of which I have no manner of doabt— I am under no obligation to attend to this head of argument; because if no scripture express the doctrine of eternal misery, but, on the contrary, only limit- ed and corrective punishments, it cannot be inferred, that any scripture implies further than what is elsewhere plainly expressed. But that I may not seem wanting in reply to what you have said, I will just notice some of the most striking pas- sages which ' you have quoted, and your reasoning upon them, I pray for them, J pray not for the world. Your argu- ment is, ' If there be some for whom Jesus did not pray, there are some who will have no share in the benefit of his mediation, without which they cannot be saved.' This is Calvinism with a witness ; and such Calvinism also as will but ill accord with your own views elsewiiere expressed. But I am happy that neither this text, nor any other, teaches that any of the human race will have no share in the benefits of Christ's mediation. Our Lord was praying for his immediate disciples in those words; these, because of their faith in him, he dis- tinguished from the world : yet there were many then liv- ing, under the denomination of the world, who afterwards believed through the word which his disciples preached j' for them he prayed, as distinguished from his immediate followers, John, xvii. 20. He even goes on to pray for auch an union in his church that the wQrld as dis- 19/i LETTER IX. tinguislic'ii both from his apostles and his church at large, might believe, ver. 21 and -23. In the prayer of Christ, four different parties are con- cerned ; first, himself, ver. 1 — 5.; secondly, his apostles, ver. 6 — 19.; thirdly, all believers, ver. 20 23.; in which part, fourthly, he prays for the world, that they also may believe, through the union of his church. I may with as much propriety say that Christ never prayed for any but his apostles, as for you to say that he never prayed for the world ; and that you will never have a share in the benefits of his mediation, as for you to say that there are any of the human race who v/ill not. The blasphemy against the holy ghost shall fiot be for- given unto men, neither in this world, neither in the world to come He hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. 1 apprehend when a proper transla- tion of these words is given, there will be nothing found in them contrary to the restitution of all things. You are already in possession of the reasons why I translate aion by age, and aionion by age-lasting, which reasons, if you or ANY OTHER MAN CAN INVALIDATE, I WILL FREELY GIVE UP MY POINT.'* But, at present, under a firm persuasion of their unshaken truth, I proceed to give a rendering in conformity to them ' But the blasphemy against the ho- ly spirit will not be forgiven unto them, either in this, or in the future age,' Mat. xii. 31, 32. ' He hath not remission to the age, but is liable to age-lasting punishment,' Mark, iii. 29. * If tl.e scriptures had clearly revealed the doctrine of endless misery, tliere could have been no ground for the present controversy ; but then there could iiave been no room in the scriptures, consisently, for the paternal charade^ of the deity, the destruction of death, the leconciliation of all things, noi for punishment according to works. TO MR. rULLER. 123 That punishment shall certainly be inflicted upon sucli iis blaspheme against the holy spirit is clear ; but that their punishment will be endless, is not quite so clear, as our Lord is not speaking of this eternity and the tter'tity to cowe, nor of eternal puimh,>.ent, hat of this age and the co- ming one, and of the punishment belonging to that age, which such as blaspheme against the holy ghost are liable to; for, says he^ ' they will not be forgiven." I agree that the above passage is equal to John, x. 28. which I read thus "' I give unto them age-lasting life^ and they shall not perish in the age,* namely^ in the coming age of judgment; for it is the peculiar privilege of such as believe in the gospel, that they shall have part in the first re- surrection, and over them the second death Iiath no power, Rev. xxi. 6. If I mistake not your argument on these passages is dis- solved by the above rendering, as you rested it upon the words eternal, never, ever, which I have shewn to be a wrong translation. And I readily grant that those who are not forgiven, will not be saved. It is not their salva- tion which I am contending for; but I contend that the threatenings under consideration do not teach endless dam- nation ; and I am fully persuaded, on the ground of the divine promises elsewhere delivered, of their final restora- tion. The sin unto death, for the forgiveness of which Chris- tians are forbid to pray, I fully admit of; but it behoves you to prove that the apostle has pronounced endless death in this case; and even then it would hardly serve the cause of endless misery. And I conceive there may be a peculiar punishment called a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, for those who have fallen away from the truth ; and yet all this will not amount to endless tor- Q 3 124 LETTEH IX. mentg. Neitlier do I think that every sinner will be ex- posed to the saree penalties; for this is a peculiar threaten- ing to sinners of a peculiar characterj who once had knowledge of, and hope in, the sacrifice for sin, which many, who will be condemned, had not. Every man shall be judged according to his works. Any person being lost^ i. e. destroyed, will not militate against the restoration of that person, unless this state of destruction could be prov- ed to be endless ; but even the phrase, o^tfipov Muv>ot *, age- lasting desiruclio7i) will not prove this, and surely Christ, when he spoke of the destruction of the soul, did not imply more than what the apostle plainly expressed. The saying of Christ concerning Judas, It had been good for that man if he had not been burn, is a Jewish proverb, or, as Dr. Gill f says, ' a rabbinical phrase,yW- quently used in one form or other, and sometimes as our Lord spoke it; and it is applied to such as speak false and lying words, and regard not the glory of their Creator.' There are similar forms of speaking even in the Old Tes- tament. Job, under his troubles, (chap. iii. 19. x, 18,19.) thought it would have been gocd for him if he had not been born, for he wishes tliat he had died in his mother's womb. And Jeremiah, because he saw labour and sor- row, and his days were consumed with shame, utters the same wish, ch. xx. 17, 18. And it appears from Eccles. vi. 3—6. that a phrase much of the same kind was used by Solomon. If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years^ so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not piled with good, and also that he have no bu" * 2 Thes. ii. 9. I* fee his note on Matt. xxvi. 24 and Mark. xiv. 21. wheie he brings pro^ f 01 this proverb being; used in otlier forms beside that which our Lord TO MR. FULLER. 125 rial^ I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. This is, in effect, saying, that lie had better have been an aborti- on, than to have lived a long and happy life, and then, at last, have died in disgrace : much more, then, might this proverb be applied to unhappy Judas, Your argument is formed upon the supposition that Ju- das had better not have existed; but the words of Christ must be greatly perverted to extract such a sense from them. It seems aveiy possible thing for a person to exist and to be happy without being born. What do you think of the multitudes of infants whose mothers, as Jeremiah expresses it, are their graves, and whose mothers' wombs are always great with them ? Would it not have been good for Judas to have been one of this class, rather than to have been born to do and suffer what he did, even in the present life ? I would always recommend it to you, and to all others who maintain the doctrine of endless misery, to consider how weak a foundation a common proverb is to support such a tremendous idea. The worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quench- ed, are certainly expressive of the punishment of the wick- ed ; but I think there are sufficient reasons to be given why these phrases do not mean endless duration. Our Lord was a Jew, and his personal ministr}'^ was am.ongst Jews, and he spoke to them in language to which they were ac- customed. Both they and he well knew that the Old Tes- tament had mentioned several unquenchable fires, which, nevertheless, had expired, when the end for which they were khidled had been answered. I will refer you to a few such. Ezek. xx. 47, 48. uiiid say to the forest of the souths (Judea) Hear the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord Gody Behold, I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall de- vour every green tret in thee, and every dry tree: the FLAMING JLAME SHALL NOT BE QUENCHED, aud allfaCCS 326 LETTER IX. from the sourJi to the north shall be burned therein. And alljiesli shall see that I the Lord have kindled it: it shall NOT BE QUENCHED. Isaiah, xxxiv. 9, 10. The streams (of the land of Idumea) shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstotie, and the land thcreoj shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever : from generation to generation it shall lie waste ; none shall pass through it for ever and ever. Jer. xvii. 27. But if ye will not hearken unto me, to hallow the sabbath day, and not bear a burden, even entering in at the gates cf Jerusa- lem on the sabbath day; then 1 will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, AND IT SHALL NOT BE QUENCHED. We wili add One more instance, from which the language of our Lord is evidently taken. Isaiah, Ixvi. 15, l6. For, behold, the JLord will come zeith fircj and zeith his chariots, like a whirlicind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with fames of fire. For by fire, and by his sword, wilt the hord plead zeith all fiesh : and the slain of the Lord shall be many. Ver. 23, 24. And it shall come to pass, that frojn one new moon to another^ and from one sabbath to another, shall allfieih come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me : rOR THEIR WORM SHALL NOT DIE, NEITHER SHALL THEIR FIRE BE QUENCHED, uud they shttll bean abhorring unto all fiesh. I think it evident from these scriptures that an unquenchable fire, (in the Jewish sense of that phrase,} is not a fire of endless duration; but a fire that answers the end for which it was kindled. And this end, I have no doubt, will be answered by the fire of hell, towards sin- ners, ; TO MR. FULLER. 1S7 I doubt not but the threatening of Christ is very terrible, and justly alarming to all such, as^ rather than deny them- selves, virill venture on the divine displeasure ; but certainly the words of Isaiah convey the idea of limited duration ; because they speak of burning the carcases of dead men in a putrid state^ the woYm being alive in them ; nevertheless, tJie fire, we know, ia the nature of things, must destroy both the carcase and the worm which it fed. Christ took up the literal language of the prophet and applied it figuratively to the awful subject of future pu- nishment — T say figuratively, for at any rate the worm ap- plied to sinners in hell must be a figure — but as he used no language, either here or elsewhere, on this subject, that expresses eternity ; and as the Jews to whom he spoke knew the language which he used to be of limited meaning*, it is natural to suppose that he meant it in that sense. My observation above, applies here, that if no scripture any where express the eternity of future misery, it cannot be in^ ferred that any scripture which treats of it by implication can mean more than what is elsewhere plainly expressed. I do not think myself under any obligation to notice any more of the texts which you have brought forward upon this head ; nor to dwell upon those under the following one, viz, ' All those passages which intimate that a change of heart, and a preparedness for heaven, are confined to the present life.' I consider them as having respect to salva- tion, and the kingdom of Christ ; for the possession of which, I fully believe a change of heart to be necessary in the present life. The case of Esau, which you have brought forward, is quite in point. He, by unbelief, lost the birth-right ; and * The reader may also consult places where unquenchable fires are menti- oned. Jer. li. 4. vii, 20. xxi. 12. Amos, v. 6. 128 LETTER IX. with \t he lost the blessing of the fiiT.t-bom. Yet he had a blessing, which, though inferior to that of his brother^ was pronounced by the same faith in Isaac, for. By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. I judge that this type teaches us that God our father is not poorer than father Isaac ; and that he has a blessing, even for his EsauSj though inferior to the double portion vvlijch he will bestow upon his Jacobs. .^ aatJH I pray God most sincerely, that neither you nor I may imitate profane Esau; that we may not stand without, when the door is shut, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. For I am well persuaded, now is the acceptable time, and now is the day of salvation. That awful scripture, Rev. xxii. 2. has long rested with weight upon my mind. And I conceive that it implies at once the sufficiency of the means which God has afforded for the salvation of men, and that he will not aflbrd any further means in the present state ; but that men, in the age to come, shall abide the conse- quence of their conduct in thi$ present age. In this view of the words they are very solemn and important. God closes the whole revelation of his will, by saying to men, that they shall be judged according to the words he hath spoken unto them. If providence spare my health, I mean to address another letter to you in the next magazine. Mean while, I remain. Yours, &c. W. VIDLEK. ^. TO MR. FULiER. ISg LETTER XI. EXAMPLES OP MR. F.'s MANKER OF REASONING; AND A RULE FOR UNDERSTANDING THE MEANING OF WORDS. SIR, TTAVING already considered such part of your fifth letter as contained your arguments for endless misery founded on the words eternal, everlasting, andybr ever and ever, I now proceed to notice some other things. I freely confess that I feel more difficulty in remarking upon your fifth letter tiiari I have felt in any part of my correspondence with you ; not from tlie arguments which it contains, but because of the design, which I think is evi- dent througiiout, namely, that of rendering your opponent contemptible. A good cause needs no such attempt, and a bad one cannot long be supported by it. As a specimen of your design I will exhibit a few in- stances, in which your maltreatment of both myself and the subject, will appear to the reader. 1 had said ' IVhen I rcjiect that the word which we render everlasting and eternal, was, by Old Testament writers,most gt/tfral/^ applied to things limited in their duration, and that the same word is used by a few of the writers of the New Testament only a few times in relation to future pu- nishment, I cannot think that any man who reads the scrip- tures with candour and attention can say that they appear to teach the doctrine of endless punishment— M;//tss thi:re be- something in the nature of future punishment itself which necessarily leads us to receive the word in an endless seme, R •-K10 LEiVER XI. In this case it Is not the norf] hut tlie suhjrcl Avluch giyi^s the idea of endless duration.' P. '34. You remark, * In a former letter I suggestedj that whether the scrip- tures teach the doctrine of endless punishment^ or not, they certainly appear to do so— You attempt, however, to dis- credit it by aliedging the few instances in \yhich the t^rjii)? ever, ^p^biikng, tS:c. as connected with future puuiehrrieat are used in scripture.' :v- ■; > .>, ; s, ,,,^....2.:. >.. -ja-i o^ jji •Nc.v does it appea;, Sir, that I ^atteinpted to. discredit j^our suggestion by aliedging the few iusta rices in v.'hich the terms ever, everlasting, &c. as connected vi^ith future pu- tiishment, are used in the scriptures? Are there not two arguments connected With the few instances of the appli- cation of these terms to future punishment? First, that Old Testament writers most generally use the word in ap- plication to things limited in their duration ; and, Second- ly, that as we find nothing in the nature of future punish- ment to render its continuance endless> therefore, the term everlasting as used a few times, by a few of the New Tes- tament writers upon that subject, did not prove that the "scriptures appeared to teach the doctrine which you con- tend fol:t--*Y6u' found it convenient to presetet isy (rtason- ing in a mutilated muimer. ' ■ ' n' i v.i.vd i)«>i 'f \o v/jssv ' Again, I said, * The only method I cari think of *- ccive with any satisfaction of etenrity, is to connect >it with the necessity of the divine existence To mc it appears that the scriptures have revealed nothing either past or to come, but what is connected with successive duration; and that concerning proper eternity, we are left'to infer it from the nature of Deity.' You observe, ' If the application of the term everlasting to future pu- nishment only five or f^ix times discredit the very apptar- mice of its being endless, the same or nearly the same may be said of the existence of God, to which it is applied not TO aui. FULLER. 1,31 much more frequently. You-. might go over a great part of the sacred writings on this subject as you dq pa tfee other, telling us that not only the Old Testament wiitej'S make no use of it, but a large proportion of the new ; that Matthew never applies the word to this subject, nor Mark, nor Luke, nor John ; that it is not so applied in the Acts of the A postles ; and though Paul once uses it in his Epis- tle to the Romans, yet he closes that and all his other Epis- tles without so using it again ; that James did not use it, nor Peter, nor John, either in his three epistles, or in the Apocalypse. And when you had thtis establiL-hed^ your point, you might ask, with an air of triumph, Is this a proof that the scriptures appear to teach the eternal exis- tence of God ? Truly, Sir, I am ashamed to refute such trifling ; yet if I were not, your readers might be told that doubtless I had cogent reasons for my silence.' That you had cogent reasons for speaking thus, I will not dispute ; but that the words eternal and everlasting are, in the scripture use of them, expressive of the existence of God, I do dispute, for the reason before given, namely, that they are applied to the duration of things which have ended, or must end. I do not therefore learn the proper etcr- niti/ of God from these words, but from the. necessity of hh existence. Besides \, hich the scriptures tell me that God is immortal; he ow/y hath immortalify; that he hath life in himself; that he quickeneth all things ; tliat it is be K'///c/i is, and which was, and zohich is to come. These expressions. are peculiarly applied to the Deity, and from them I learn, also, the proper eternity of his existence. The word generation is often applied to God ; to the years of God, Psa. cii. 24. to the throne of God, Lam. v. 19. to the /ear of God, Psa. Ixxii. 5. to the thoughts of Godj Psa. xxxiii. 1 1. to his truths Psa^c. 5. to his donii" R 2 J 53 XETTER XI. nion, Dan. iv. 3. to his Jcingdom, Dan. iv. 34. to hi» faith" fulness, P^a. cxix. to his reign, Fsa. cxlvi. K). to hi&memo- rlal, Psa. cxxxv. and tt> his remembrance, V^A^Cn. I2» Thip, according to your own account, is oftener than the words eternal or everlasting are applied to God. Now if any man should say that the wt>rd generation is expressive of endless duration ; you would certainly deny it: and if he was to plead, in proof of his assertion, that the word stands in connection with the years of God, v/ith his throne, with his thoughts, &c. &c. ; and if he was to say that the scriptures do at least appear to describe eternity of duration by this word^ yet still you would be uncorivinced: I leave you, Sir, to make the application of this circum- stance to the matter in dispute betwixt you and me. As for the number of times the words eternal and -everlasting are connected with the future punishment of men. 1 think it a matter of little import ; and my chief reason for men- tioning it at all was to shew ;that much less is said in the scripture even concerning age-lasting punishment than is generally supposed. You well know I did not ra^-an to say that e«(//ess punishment was mentioned five or six times in scripture. I have uniformly denied its .being mentioned even once; and yet you have devoted near two pages to refute an idea I have never advanced, viz. that the doctrine of endless punishment is not true, because it is only mentioned fitt or six times in the sacred 7criting<>t &c. You have said much to invahdate the rule of interpreta- tion of words which I have laid down. I thought, by the instances I have given, that I had explained myself so as not easily to have been mistaken; but you have either greatly mistaken me, or, as I think, wilfully misrepresented me. I have said, ' The rule I go by is that which was laid down by the best critics without any relation to. the present TO MR. f ULLER. 133 ; subject, viz. That where a word is used in relation to dif-.;,- ferent things, the subject itself must determine the mean-* ing 'of the word — ^Thus, if the name Jehovah be given tft an aitar, a city^ or to tlie church— or the word God be api-_ plitd to Moses, to ri-'lers, cr to Satan, we must understand these words in a very different sense than when applied to Christ and to the Father— Or again, w^hen the word infi^- ttite is used in reference to the understanding of God — -to tlie resources of Ethiopia and Egypt, or to the sins of Jobj no man would hardly understand the word in the same sense at each place. So when everlastings &c. is applied to the hills, to the covenant of circumscision, to future pu- nishment, to the life of believers, and to God, no conside- rate man will surely attach the idea of equal duration to all these subjects, but will judge of the duration of each according to their nature. li -You say, ' I make much of this rule,' indeed I think L- ought so to do, as it is so congenial to common sense that it cannot be objected to in a direct manner. You indeed have laboured liard to lessen its force, calling it ' disrespect- ful to the scriptures, and inodmissib/e.' You complai%-> that f do not,. hereby, allow words to have a proper meani,^ i:b^ of their oim; noT respect the scope and design of the , writer*.:.:./} •. -,, -r,. Now, Sir, nothing can be more evident than that under the term ' subject' I include the scope and design of the zcriteiT. All the instances prove it; and the. whole chain of my reasoning necessarily includes in it a retention of the proper meaning of every word, so far as the subject will admit. Thus the word infuite signifies boundless; in its ♦ Scrutator devotes about seven pages, in an attempt to invalidate this rule. 1 have only to request the reader to compare what I have written upon this subject With w'hat this gentleraan has written. Letters, p. 116 — J22. J flWO^ iS4: LETTER XI. proper fetise itis applied to tli« understand iiig- of God ; buty surely^ only in a Gmn{)arative or figurative sense, when ap- ' pEed to the otiier subjects^ So tte w,Qrd aioiiion, hats the general sense af duration, age- lasting. VvTien spoken concerning God I give it its full latitude \ fur this reason among others, that he is the king of the ages; when it re- lates to the life of believers, I find it restricted to the ages of Christ's kingdom which are yet to come ; when connect- ed with future punishment it is bounded by the same;, when applied to tlie hills its duration is much less, for they will be burnt up long before the kingdom of Christ will end ; but wheii applied to the covenant of circumcision, its duration is mi-.ch shorter. I'he Avord in each of these lelations retains its sense, it is, age -lasting; yet regulated in each instance by the subject. So the word Gody as ex- pressive of power, retains its original idea in all the appli- cations of it which I have mentioned ; bu.t had Moses, have rulers, has Satan, or has Christ, dominion in the same sense and degree as the Most High God who is the possessor of heaven and earth? I confess I do not know that the word Jdiavah is expressive of the existence of God,^but I think it rather indicates his faithfulness; however, this is of no iiccount in the present debate, for whether the word con- vey one or' the oiher of theiie ideas, yet when ap])lied to the Father, to Christ, to the churcli, to an altar, or to a city, it must necessarily be regulated by the subject: for whether existence or faithfulness be m.eant, it cannot be applied to all these subjects in the same manner and in the same degree. Now let us sec your own rule, which you represent as be- ing different from, if not opposite to the above. * This rule is, that every term be taken in its proper seme^ tx- cept there he soiih thing in the subject or conncetion whijc^k TO MR.,EUI,LER. ISjf a^iQUiRES' it to be iaken otlteruise/ It Would puzzle a coujuror to find a dift'erence betwixt what you have said and what I have said about this rule* But it seems you are determined to contradict me, even in those things in which I perfecliy agree with you ; probably you do this to shew youi' tcmei^y^ or you may have other reasons for it, though you have not vouchsafed to name them. However, if I might venture to guess, I should think that one reason of your being so captious, is^ that you might impress the reader with the idea that / treat the doctrine of future pu- tiishment abstractedly, zaithont admitting the force of the terms bif xvhich the scriptures professedly/ tench its duration: whether I have so done, my former letters, but especially the Vlllth. will shew. 1 cannot help thinking that the great reason of all your objections to this rule is the use which I have made of it; yet you are constrained to re- ceive it as a good cannon of criticism, and almost in the very words in which I had stated it. Towards the close of your hftli. letter you cashire me for pretending to learning, which, you say, I do not possess, I do not know, Sir, that Ihaye pretended to any thing more than merely to be able to prove that aion does not mean eteniity; and that aioniou does not mean eternal; whellier I have not proved this, I leave you to reflect at your leisure. It would be easy to retaliate, and observe that you have rendered I Tim. i. 17. t« »« ffxaiXii ruv aycuviir, Noze to the king eternal; yet surely a man of your critical acumen could not but know that the text reads King of the ACES. And Ephes. iii. 2. ^ciTo. 'zsyfo^iam tm amm^, you have rendered according to his eter mil purpose; Ephes. iii. 2 1 . e.; •C7«(7«? Ta? y£VE«c Tou onu¥©^rm xiuvut you have rendered through" out all ages, world zcithottt end. To say you followed the common translation, will be but a poor defence, because you were reproving me for tbis ver}^ thing relative to Hab. 136 LETTER XI. iii. 6. Surely then it behoved you to know that in Ephes. iii. 1 1 . the apostle has not mentioned any thing of an eter- nal purpose ; but that he said according to the disposition OF THE AGES. And in the latter passage, you ought to have known that there is neither world, nor ttid ; but Paul's language is, to all the generations of the mge of ages *'. Whether your corrections of my language be just, I shall consider in my next. Mean while, I am. With great good will. Yours, &c. W. VIDLER. * Scrutator affirms that the a'jove rule of interpreting words has ' falac^ and absurdity in it. That it renders knowledge of every species ntterly vnattain- ubie; and reduces all langmige to a mere cypher.'' He bestows five or six pages to prove this assertion, in which, witli his usual freedom, he ascribes to me all the nors-nse which he himself saw fit to utter upon the subject. See his Lettere, p. 116-— 122. TO MR. FULLER, 137 LETTER XII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TO MR. FULLER.— SOME PECULIAR ^, FORMS OF SPEECH EXPRESSIVE OF DURATION IN THE SCRIPTURES. SIR, /^N considering the close of your fifth letter, I find some things for which 1 ought to thank you ; and some in which I think I ought to correct you. As the former is the most pleasant business of the two, I will begin with that. I thank you for your remarks on the word uxatroe^vr^, Heb. vii. iG. which our translators render aidUss, and which I had mentioned as a stronger word than any which is used to describe future punishment by the writers of the New Testament. I very freely own that I was misled by the translation, wdthout considering the full import of the w'ord in the original, which you have very properly given as signifying indissoluble, which cannot be applied to future punishment. 2d. I confess the same obligation to you concerning Isaiah, xlv. 17. Israel shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without fwJ.— These are certainly nothing but the English translations, and at most can only prove that the translators have given a much stronger sense to some phrases relating to future happiness, than they have dared to do to any that relate to future misery ; perhaps they had their reasons for it; however that may be, I have been mistaken ; it is true, I have erred with great men ; and no 138 I-ETTERXII. marvel, surely ; <^ for good and holy men I thought them.' But I do not v.'ish to hide my failings under the shadow of their name. I therefore thank you for better information. 3d. I thank you for your humility ; this is truly edifying. ' Without pretending to any thing like a critical know- ledge of either the Greek or Hebrew language/ you can perceive that all my ' arguments have been founded upon English phraselogy\ and you modestly add, what you had before said, that I * had better wot have medled with these subjects.' Having duly dis€hafged my obligations to you, I noM^ proceed to notice some things in which I think you are justly to be censured, and, 1st. I doubt your prudence in the manntr in which you have corrected me. You pretend to no critical know- ledge, either in Greek or Hebrew, and yet your little know- ledge lias sufficed to correct me.— Why, Sir, you represent me as a man of straw, and then you beat me to pieces. Can there be any honour in destroying a man of straw ? 2d. Your critique on Ephesians, iii. 2 1 . is justly repre- hensible «j vsactK; T«? 7t»e«f ra aiu*©- ru)> anutu* YoU liave asked, * Are the Greek words thfre used, stronger than mu» and its derivatives ? On the contrary,' say you, * they are the veiy words made use of, and in a plural form too.' "^ ou cautiously avoid giving a translation of these words, and content yourself with the common rendering, which is— thrmiii hunt all ages zcorld without end. Here, Sir, you have a confession of the translators that «nvvt)» is ages, not eternities, as your hypothesis requires it-— at which common sense revolts.-— And further, I observe that there is something more than «i»» and its derivatives in the pas- sage; for literally it runs, to all the generations of the age of ages. This is a peculiar form of speech, which, I believe, occurs no vvl^ere else in the sacred pages. TO MR. FULLER. 139 though it is perfectly congenial with the view that the scripture gives us of the ages, namely, that one age gem^ ratts or introduces another: hence these common phrases^ tins age, and that age— this age and the coming o? till I can se'e them iaMy and rationally overthrown j &nd then I will give them up^ • Your ansvrer to what I had obsen'ed on: rin and misery^ as having no root or foundation m the nature of Qodj. amouR'ts ultimately to thiS;, that though sin Be the abomi- nable thing which he hateth, and j«%menb be; hii^strajage- work; (that is, foreign to his nature) j-^t he- will -EMer the &fcject of his hatred eternally to mcreasej and will: Con- tinue his strange work throughout a>l periocfe' ef his exist- ence I You have put my argument into ^llogiistije fona thus^ Whatever has its root-^in the creature must eome ta an end: .... But sin and misery have their root in the creatutre^,-: Therefore, sin and misery" must come to^an eHid^. And you say I have no prooi at all of tlie m^rf off- propo- sition: I therefoTe caU yo^ir attention to the followHJgr facts. ■^..^Aj /o.i? '•^WA^ ^i*.-iv Every thing m the creature is of Go.ews of Christ as a mediator. I do not believe that any chai'ge iias been made in the divine cha- racter by the work of Christ. God is love, and always was so, and would have been so if Christ had never died. Do I dishonour Christ by saying this i* Surely the God 150 LETTER UlY. wlio, is love needed not to be reconciled to liis creatures:: lie always loved them as much, before Christ died for tliem as afterwards. He gave his son as ihy proof of lils lore,. If your system represent the father of mercies a& a being who never gives any blessing of his gracefreely, bat onthe cpntrajy sells them all to th^ mediator j rhiiie does riot so» I conceive that Christ is not the cause of the Love of God^ but that he is the medium of it to mankind. Divine wis- dom has been pleased to manifest love in h"m as the media-* tor ; and my business is humbly and thankfully tO' accept tihat k)ve> in the appointed way. I had remarked that this earth, which in its state of eonflagTation is to fee the hell of cricked meri, wilf be rerxewed, whereby hell itself wHl be rm more you' iiepl}^,. * the scrijitures speak of a hell alrtadij- existing^ H>olh- for devils and wicked men: but this cannot be upon; the earth, as its })rese»t state doth no-t admit of it.' I re- nemind'you that there are several Greek words which in our eomnKR^ tran-slatioa are rendered hell, as gehenna, the %a^lh\f nj" Himiom,'M and vyill not, to all eternity, be restored or^ that by the world is meant only the eleet, the church ; though these- are in the scriptures uniformly distinguished from the world* 5. You have to prove, though Christ is said to have* died for the world; the whole world; for all; and for every man ; yet that the world- will not uldmately fee be- nefited by his death— -or that these phrases mean only the eleet, the church ; though, still in scripture, th^e elect, the church are always distinguished from the world. 6. Your creed teaches you that the merits of Christ are- sufficient- to save the universe, if it were fallen; yet you deny that one. world will be restored to holiness and hap- piness by him. It matters not what idea you attach to. the phrase merits^ of Christ; whether virtue, worth, pow- er^, wisdom, or grace ; or all these be included ; on your scheme he either will not, or cannot deliver one fallen; world. .7. You affirm this want of will or power in Christ ia the face of the following scriptures. Jf I f>e lifted up from the earth I mil draw alj> unto myself— —God mil have all men to be restored (Sothenai) and eome uvto the kjuQwhdge of the t?uth — The living God'—whft is the re- storer, (soteros) of all men-, especially of those that be-^ lieve-— It pleased the father that in him should all fulness dwell ;and having made peace through the blood of tha cross, hyt him to reconcile all things unto himself by him JT say, whether they be things on earth or things in hsaven — "-^ 156 iETTEH XiV- 'jind evfT^ creature whichis.in heuven,. and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are iu theniy heard 1 saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and powtr,be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto (he Lamb, for ever and ever The creature (or crea- tion) itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of cor- tuption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God:* and many others of like kind. It behoveth you. Sir, to shew the consistency of these scriptures with tije doctpine of endless misery. ?■; ; ^v-c ;r:r >■:: 8. We are informed that the wages of sin is death— -ttils includes both the first and second death; yet we are also told that Our saviour Jesus Christ hath abolished death '—that he will sziallow up death in victor if— -'-that death tlie last enemif, shall be destroyed that^ among men, there shall he no more death— 'Now as death cannot be de- stroyed but by the prevalence of life, you will have this difficulty to reconcile with your doctrine of the endless reign ol death. >'>^jvwo*io stow jbwiw i\J»$i Q. When the scriptures speak of thi^ age,'and that age : of the ages which are past, and the ages to come ; you will have to prove that this is a wrong distinction of the peri- ods and dispensations, and that it ought to be rendered this eternity, and that eternity; the eternities past and the eternities to come. 10. When you read of the times of the RE&TituTriojjr-o/' all things^— of dispensation of the fulness of times^ in which all tilings are to be gathered together in Christ — of irpoOi<7«y Tuvuimuv, THE DISPOSITION OF THE AGES foT Christ JeSUS—- you will have to prove there is no restitution of all things iu- tended ; no gathering together of all things in Christ ; no tiines,much less a fulness of them, to be dispensed for this purpose; no disposition of the ages for Christ to do his TO MR.JFTTLLER. 157 work in ; but that the proper distribution of- tli^ periods is time and eternity. . A «.\? V- ~ ;, w,- v - 11. Though the Otd Testament teaches us, in type, the connection which exists between the first fruits and the fu- ture harvest ; and the New Testament applies the type to that relation whicii exists between the. church and the other creatures of God who arfi in the of bondage of cor- ruption * ; yet you must prove that the apostolic applica- tion of the type is wrong, and though the first fruits of men are now gathered in by the gospel, yet the harvest of mankhid will be eternally destroyed, .ncmi^iii sVV .8 12. Though we are informed that Christ ^hall reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet; till all things are subdued unto himself; till every knee bow to him, of things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth; till he hath made all things new 5 till there shall be no more curse ; you. Sir, will have all these to contradict; and in- stead of saying with the apostle where sin abotmded grai:e hath much more abounded j you have to say, as the con- clusion of all, ' though grace hath abounded, yet sin hath much more abounded.' ' When you have done all this, and have proved that you have authority thus to reverse the scriptures, you will over- throw the universal doctrine, y' Wishing you a part in the first resurrection, and ^n escape from the awful pains of the second death, : i\s t3;iivui ^Temain, ..^.<\^.i \^h -'^0— -XaVsiV, with real good will, . .'.^\\'-i),\\^ -jT«VT> iitr:> Yours, &c. ,wv.*)!o v'hat each confiders as his main arguments, we iiiall have the double advantage of compreiTmg tlie fubjed, and avoiding confufion. It feems that the controverfy now under confideration originated in a friendly letter, writ- ten by Mr. Fuller to My. Vidler, on this latter gentleman's embracing the Univerfal fyftem. This letter, having nothing of a private nature m it, was inferted in the Evangelical Magazine for September 1795. The fubftance of it is com- prifed in the three following queltions. (1.) Whe- ther Mr. Vidlers change of fentiment has not arifen from an idea of endlefs punilliment being LETTERS TO A U NI VERS ALIST. 11 in itfelfunjuft. (2.) Wlietlier the genius of the fentiinent in queftion be not oppofite to that of every other fentinient in the bible; and, (3.) Whether Mr. V.'s miniltrations, on this principle, will not favour of his, who taught our firll pa- rents, " Ye (hall notfurely die." — In this friendly and afFe<5tiouate letter, you perceive, fir, that Mr. Fuller's intention is to lead his friend to a clofer examination of the new principles he had adopted; and not to enter into the evidence of the truth of thofe he had relinquifhed. This letter was firO addrelfed to Mr. V. in Feb. 1793; but received no aniwcr till the year 1797, when Mr. V. commenced Editor of the U. M. He in- troduced this work by a letter addrelled to Mr. F.; in which he obferves that this gentleman's queftions had no more reference to the do6trine of univerfalifts, than to that of ele(51ion. Sup- pofing that the dodrine of endlefs punifliment refts entirely on the meaning of the words ever^ everiq/iing, <^t,, he attempts to prove that thefe are words of indefinite meaning, which can ne- ver be afcertained but by the fubje6t with which they fland conne6led : and then he brings for- ward the reafons which induced him to adopt his prefent fyftem. Mr. F. in the letters wliich appeared in Nos. xxxii. xxxiii. of the U. M.* attends to the * Letters ii. iii. C g 12 LETTERS TO arguments of Mr. V. and flill infills upon the relevancy of his former queftions. To thefe yii: V. rejoins, in Nos. xxxiv. xxxv. xxxvi. He maintains his former arguments, brings for- ward new ones, and calls upon Mr. F. to pro- duce the authority on which he refts his creed. In the whole of the controverfy, to this flage of it, Mr. Fuller confined himfelf chiefly to a refutation of what Mr. V. had advanced, and a fupport of the queftions propofed in his firft letter. But as his opponent had frequently infilled that the onus probandi*- lay upon him, and ftill maintained, that " whether the univerfal *' reftoration might be expected as a matter of ** rightf" was not the queftion ; but whether the contrary do6lrine, of endlefs puniihment, was any where revealed ; Mr. F. came forward to flate the ground on which he maintained his fentiments. Here the controverfy afliimed a new form. Having endeavoured to expofe the errors of his opponent's principles, he propofes "ivhat he conceives to be the mind of the Spirit on this point. But before I proceed to this part of the controverfy, it may be proper to make a few remarks. — When Mr. Fuller heard that his friend had embraced the univerfal fyftem, it was natural for him to fuppofe that he would * The weight of proving. A UNIVERSALIST. 13 maintain it on the ground of his predeceffors. Now no one acquainted with the writings of Chauncey, Petit-Pierre, and Winchefter, (greater writers than whom, on Mr. V.'s fide of the quef- tion, will not be pretended) can be ignorant how firenuoufly they maintain the injujiice of endlefs puniiliment. I know not whether they have not placed more dependance on arguments drawn from this fource, than any other what- ever. I appeal, fir, to your own views and knowledge of the fentiments of univerfalifts, whether this be not the cafe. Hence the quef- tion of Mr. F. was proper and natural, " Whe- *' ther Mr. V.'s change of fentirnent had not '* arifen from an idea of endlefs puniflmient be- " ing in itfelf unjiift?" This queftion, however, Mr. V. conftantly evades: it has no more to do with the do6lrine in. difpute, he fays, than with that of election. Mr. V. then evidently gives up the argument as it refts on matter of light ; fo that he ftands upon, ground peculiarly his own. In doing this, 1 am not fure that he has not difcovered a confider- able degree of wifdom. He faw, what Mr. Win- chefter and other univerfalifts either could not, or would not fee, that this argument is perfectly untenable. The reafoning of Dr. Edwards a- gainft Chauncey on this point, (for he has read this work he fays three times) he felt, it iliould J4 LETTERS TO feem, to be unanfwerahle;* and therefore relin- nuilhed liis tVieiuls who itill maintain it. Mr. V. aflerts, that " the queftion is, not whether end- *' lefs pLinilhment be in itfelf juft ; but whether ** God has any where threatened any defcrip- " lion of finners with it," (No. i. p. 5.) I am ready to join with Mr. V. that this is the true ftate of tlie queftion, Mr, F. himfelf thinks fo; for though he feems fcarcely able to believe that his opponent has given up this fource of over- whelming argument (and therefore fays a fecond time,'}" " You have not yet told us whether you *' claim an exemption from endlefs puni/hment *' as a riafit : but feem to wifh us to think that " this is not your ground ; in other parts of *' your MifccUany, however, I perceive the gift *' of Chrift itfelf is confidered as a reparation of " an injury ; ;{: which affords but too plain a " proof that, notwithftanding all you fay of •-* grace and love, it is not on the footing of ** grace, but o^ debt, that you hold with univer- * Considering this fact, I am rather surprised that Mr. V. does not speak with greater respect of this able writer. He inti- ipates (No. i. p. 3.) that he saw no real weight in the Doctor's arguments. t Letters, p. 14. X Mr. V. disowns that this is his sentiment. It appears, livowevt-r, in his Miscellany, without a signature. It is probably the production of one of those who will not renounce their for- mer friends, Chaunccy &c., to join with JNIr. V. A UNIVERSALIST. 15 •^ fal falvation;") yet as Mr. V. ftill infiftecl, that this is not liis ground, Mr. F. in his follow- ing letters, chiefly confined himfelf to an exa- mination of Mr. V.'s prooi" of his doctrine; and then comes forward with his proof, as his oppo- nent demanded. Hence it feems, that Mr. V. thinks that no dependance whatever can be placed on ab- ftra<5l reafonings refpefting the juflice or injuftice of endlefs punilhment; and he probably thinks right. The nature and malignancy of fin can never be fully iinderftood, till we can fathom the infinite perfections of Deity, comprehend the magnitude and importance of his moral government, and afcertain the full extent of that connection which fubfifts between man and his Creator. To fix, therefore, a limit to the deferts of fin, is exercifing ourfelves in things too high for us. We muft derive our notions on this point, entirely from the word of God, and abide by its decifion. Mr. V. then difdains to afiail our feelings by pathetic declamations on the infinite good- nefs of God, and on the neceflity (fuppofing the truth of endlefs punifhment) of divefting him of the heart of a parent. He renounces all metaphyfical reafoning on the finite evil of fin, or the difproportlon between fin and eter- nal punifimient ; on the good of the univerfal l6 LETTERS TO fyftem requiring the reftoration of all men ; on the introdudion of fin clemanding,* from divine goodnefs, a reparation of its evil; or on endlefs punifliment being inconfiftent " with the ho- *' nour, pleafure, or benefit of God or man." Nothing of this fort will be brought even as collateral proof; but the fimple queftion is, *» What has God revealed?"* This point being fettled ; let us enter upon Mr. Fuller's fourth letter, (No. xxxix.) in which he adduces his reafons for believing the dodrine of endlefs punilliment; and then confider Mr. V.'s objections and anfwers to them. The im- portance of this letter will jufi;ify me in laying the whole of it before you, that you may have a conneded view of what he confiders the prin- cipal grounds of the do6trine of endlefs punifli- ment. In the mean time, I am Sir, Yours, &c. S. * It would have been creditable to Mr. V. as a disputant, and perhaps not injurious to the cause he defends, had he been consufent on this point. But no writer has been more diffuse than he in pathetic addresses to the feelings, and in attempts at abstract reasoning. Consult, among many other passages, the following. No. xxxvi. p. 369. No. xxxv. pp. 330, 331. " God's love to his creatures vindicated." No. xxxiv. p. 9» Do. p. 10. § 2. Do. No. xxxv. p. 14. § 3. &c. A UNIVERSALIST. 17 Mr. FULLER'S FOURTH LETTER to Mr. VIDLER, Containing four foiirces of fcriptui^al proof of the doctrine of endlefs punijhment, with his remarks on each. *' Sir, YOU feem to wifli to perfuade your read- ers that the grounds on which I reft my behef of the dodlrine of endlefs puni/liment are very (len- der. The truth is, I have not at prefent attempted to ftate thofe grounds. Confidering myfelf as not engaged in a formal controverfy, I only intro- duced a few paflages; and to feveral of them you have hitherto made no reply. The principal grounds on which I reft my belief of the do6lrine you oppofe, are as follow: — *' I. All thofe paffages of fcripture which de- fcrihe the filturc fiates of men in contraji ;— *' ]\Ien of the world, who have their por- *' tion in this life: I iliall be fatisfied when I *^ awake in thy likeness — The hope of the '' righteous Ihall be gladnefs : but the expec- *' tation of the wicked ihall periili — The wicked ** is driven away in his wickednefs : but the ** righteous hath hope in his death — And many " of them that deep in the duft of the earth " (liall awake; fome to everlafting life, and ** fome to shame arid everlafting contempt-*-He ^' will gather his wheat intd the garner; and 18 LETTERS TO *' will burn up the chaif with unquenchable fire *' — Wide is the gate, and broad is the Way that *' leadeth to deflrudion, and many there be who " go in thereat; becaufe ftrait is the gate, and '* narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and " few there be that find it — Not every one " that faith, Lord, Lord, Ihall enter into the ** kinodom of heaven : but he that doeth the "' will of my Father who is in heaven — Many *' lliall come from the eaft and weft, and Ihall *' fit down with Abraham, and Ifaac, and Jacob •*' in the kingdom of heaven; but the children t^ of the kingdom fliall be call out into outer *' darknefs: there fliall be weeping and gnafliing " of teeth— Gather ye firft the tares, and bind *' them in bundles, to burn them: but gather " the wheat into my barn — The Son of Man " fliall fend forth his angels, and they ihall ga- .*; ther out of his kingdom all things that of- f' £end, and them that do iniquity, and fliall ^f xaft them into a furnace of fire; there fliall *l be wailing and gnalhing of teeth : then fhall '•' the righteous fliine forth as the fun in the " kingdom of their Father — The kingdom of *' heaven is like unto a net, that gathered fiHi of ** every kind; M'hichj when it was full, they *' drew to the fliore, and fat down, and gathered " the good into velllels, and caft the bad away. *'r.So fliall it be at the end of the world ; the ** angels fliall come forth, and fever the wicked A UNIVERSE LIST. 19 * from among the juft, and fliall cad them into the furnace of fire; there Hiall be wailina and 'S> gnalliing of teeth — Blelfed is that fervant, •vvhonj when his Lord cometh, he iliall find fo doing : but and if that evil fervant Ihould fay in his heart, My Lord delayeth his com- ing, and ihall begin to fmite his fellow-fer- vants, and to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of tb.at fervant fhall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and diall cut him afunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites : there fliall be weeping and gnalhing of teeth — Well done, good and faithful fervant; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord. But cad ye out the unprofitable fervant, into outer darknefs: there fliall be weeping and gnafliing of teeth — Then fliall the king fay unto them on his right hand. Come, ye blefied of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the founda- tion of the world — Then Ihall he alfo fay unto them on the left hand. Depart from me ye curfed, into everlafting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels — And thefe ihall go away into everlafting punifliment; but the righteous into everlafting life— -He that be- lieveth and is baptifed Ihall be faved; but he that believeth not Ihall be danmed — Blelfed are ye when men fliall hate you for the Son P 2 50 LETTERS TO of Man's fake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy ; for behold, your reward is great in heaven. But woe unto you tliat are rich ! for ye have received your confolation — He that heareth my fayings, and doeth them, is like unto a man who built his houfe upon a rock; and M'hen the flood arofe, the florm beat vehemently againft that houfe, and could not shake it; for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth and doeth not, is like unto a man who built his houfe upon the earth, againft which the ftorm did beat vehe- mently, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that houfe was great — God fo loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whofoever believeth on him, should not perish, but have everlafting life — All that are in their graves shall come forth ; they that have done good unto the refurre6tion of life, and they that have done evil unto the refurreclion of damnation — Hath not the pot- ter power over the clay, of the fame lump to make one veffel unto honour, and another unto dishonour ? What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-fuftering the veffels of wrath fitted to dei"tru6tion ; and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the veffels of mercy, which he had afore pre- pared unto glory — The Lord knovveth them A UNIVERSALIST. 21 that are his — But in a great houfe there are veliels to honour, and veliels to dishonour — Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatfoever a man foweth, that shall he alfo reap. For he that foweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that fow- eth to the fpirit, shall of the fpirit reap life everlafling — That which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto curfing, whofe end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are perfuaded better things of you, and things which accompany falvation."* *' I confider thefe paffages as defigned to ex- prefs THE FINAL STATES OF MEN, which if they be, it is the fame thing in effect as their being defigned to exprefs the doctrine of endlefs pu- nishment ; for if the defcriptions here given of the portion of the wicked denote their final ilate, there is no poffibilit}- of another flate fuc- ceeding it. " That the above paflages do exprefs thejinal Hates of men, may appear from the following confiderations : — " 1. The ftate of the righteous, which is all along oppofed to that of the wicked, is allowed * Psalm, xvii, 14, J 5. Prov. x. 28. xiv. 32. Dan. xii. 2. Matt. iii. 12. vii. 13, 14-, 21. viii. 11, 12. xiii. 30, 40—43, 47—50. xxiv. 46 — ol. XXV. 23, 30, 34, 41, 46. Mark xvi. l6. Luke vi. 23, 24, 47, 49. John iii. l6. v. 29. Rom. ix. 21 — 23. 2 Tim. ii. 19, 20. Gal. vi. 7, 8. Heb, vi. 8, 9. 22 LETTERS TO to be final : and if the other were not the fame, it would not have been in fiich a variety of forms contrafted with it; for it would not be a contraft. •' 2. All thefe paffages are totally fdent, as to any other ftate following that of deftrudion, damnation, &c. If the punishment threatened to ungodly men had been only a purgation, or temporary corre61ion, we might have expe61ed that fomething like this would have been inti- mated. It is fupppofed that fome who are upon the right foundation may yet build upon it, xvood, and hay, and fiuhhk ; and that the party shall fujjerlofs; hut he himfelf Jhall he faved^ though it be as by Jire. Now if the do6lrine of univer- fal falvatioii were true, we might expe6l fome fuch account of all lapfed intelligences, when their future ftate is defcribed : but nothing like it occurs in any of the foregoing palfages, nor in any other. " 3. The phrafeology of the greater part of them is inconfiftent with any other ftate follow- ing that which they defcribe. On the fuppofi- tion of falvation being appointed as the ultimate portion of thofe who die in their fins, they have not their portion in this life; but will, equally with thofe who die in the Lord, behold his righ- teoiifnefs, and be fatisjied in his likenefs. Their expectation fhall not perish ; but fhall iffue, as well as that of the righteous, in gladnefs : and though driven away in their zvickedne/s, yet they A UNIVERSALIST. 23 have hope in their death ; and that hope sliall be jealizecl. The broad way doth not lead to dc- Jiruction^ but merely to a temporary corre6tlon^, the end of which is everlaftin^ life. The chaff" will not be burned, but turned into wheat, and gathered into the garner. The tares will be the fame, and gathered into the barn ; and the bad fish will be turned into good, and gathered into veffels. The curfed, as well as the blef- fed, shall inherit the kingdom of God ; which alfo was prepared for them from the foundation of the world. There may be a woe againft the -wicked, that they shall be kept from their confo- lation for a long time, but not that they ha^e. receited it. Thofe who in the prefent life believe not in Chrift shall not per ijh, but have everlafting life. This life alfo is improperly reprefented as the feed-time, and the life to come as the harveft, inafmueh as the feeds of heavenly blifs may be fown in hell : and though the fmner may reap corruption, as the fruit of all his prefent doings, yet that corruption will not be the oppofite of everlafting life, feeing it will iffue in it. Finally : Though they bear briars and thorns, yet their end is not to be burned, but to obtain falvation — To the foregoing fcripture teftimonies may be added, *' II. All thofe^pafages which /peak of the duration of future punifhment by the terms ** ex^er- hding^ efer?talj for every and for ever and ever:''-^ 24 LETTERS TO " Some iliall awake to everlafting life, and fome to iliaine and everlafting contempt — It is better for thee to enter into life halt, or maimed, than having two hands, or two feet, to be caft into everlafiing fire — Depart ye curfed into evtrlajling lire — And thefe fliall go into everlajiing punilhmeiit — They Ihall be puniilied with everia/img de(lru6lion from the prefence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power — He that Ihall blafpheme againft the holy Ghoft is in danger of (or fub- jecl to) etejmal damnation — The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha are fet forth for an example, fnifering' the vengeance of eternal fire — Thefe are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempeft, to whom the mift of darknefs is referred for ever — Wan- dering ftars, to whom is referved the blacknefs of darknefs for ever — If any man worship the beaft, or his image, and rcceive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the fame shall drink of the wine of the ^^Tath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation : and he ihall be tormented with fire and brimftone in the prefence of the the holy angels, and in the prefence of the Lamb: and the fmoke of their torment af- cendeth up f^or ever and ever: and they have no reft day nor night — And they faid, * Alleluia! And her fmoke rofe up for ever A UNIVERSALIST. 25 ** and ever — And the devil that deceived them *' was call into the lake of tire and briniftone, " where the bead and the falfe prophet are; " and (hall be tormented day and night for ** ever and et'e;\"* " I have not mentioned Ifai. xxxiii. 14, be- caufe I wish to introduce no palTage but what shall be allowed to refer to a future life. The hebrew word Dbj;, in Dan. xii. 2. anfwers to the greek aiwi-; and whatever may be faid of the ambiguity of the term, the antithefis in this pafl'age, as in Matt. xxv. 46, determines it to mean the fame when applied to " shame and contempt," as when applied to life. *' As to the term atwuo?, x^^dtx^A everlajling or eternal^ which you confider as proving nothing, on account of its ambiguity, there is a rule of interpretation which I have long underftood to be ufed on other fubjeds by all good critics, and which I confider is preferable to yours. In my next letter I may examine their compa- rative merits. Tliis rule is, That every term be taken in its proper fenfe^ except there be fame- thing in the fubject or connexion which requires it to be taken otherwife. Now, fo far as my ac- quaintance with this fubjeft extends, it appears ... I — — ■ — - * Dan. xii, 2, Matt, xviii. 8, xxv, 41—46. 2 Thess. i. 9. Mark iii, 29. Jude 7- 2 Pet. ii, 17. Jude 13, Rev. xiv. 10, 11, xix, 2. XX. 10. E 26 LETTERS TO to be generally allowed by lexicographers, that aioou is a compound of an and uv, and that its literal meaning is always being;* alfo that the meaning of its derivative atuvi^ is encllefs^ ever^ lofting, or eternal. This term, aiwn^, which is very fparingly applied in the new teftament to limited duration, I always take in its proper fenfe, except there be fomething in the connexion or !ubje6l, which requires it to be taken otherwife: and as I do not find this to be the cafe in any of thofe places where it is applied to punishment, T fee no reafon in thcfe cafes to depart from its proper acceptation. Everlafting punishment is * " Aristotle the philosopher, who lived Upwards of three Imndred years before the new testament was written, plainly tells us (he meaning whicli the greek writers of his time, and lliose who in his time were accounted ancients, affixed to this term. Speaking of the gods, whom he considered as immortal, and as having their residence above the heavens, he says, " The " beings which exist there, neither exist in place, nor does time •' make them grow old; nor undergo tliey any change, being " phiced beyond the motion even of those who are the farthest *•' removed (from the centre;) but possessing an unchangeable ^' life, free from all outward impressions, perfectly happy, and " self-sufficient, they continue through all cnuta., eternity. And " this the ancients admirably signified by the word itself: for " they call the time of each person's life his anuv, inasmuch as " according to the laws of nature, nothing (respecting him) " exists out of. the limits of it ; and for the same reason that *' which comprehends the duration of the whole heaven, the •' whole of infinite time, and infinity itself, is called mmx^ *' eternity ; taking its name from always being, (aii nvcci,) im* •* mortal and divine." A UNIVERSALIST. 2/ in fome of them oppofed to everlafting life, which, fo far as an antithefis can go to fix the meaning of a term, determines it to be of the fame force and extent. *' To allege that the fuhjeci requires a differ- ent meaning in this cafe to be given to the term, is to airume what will not be granted. The proof that has been offered on this point will be con- fidered hereafter. " With refpe6l to the phrafes £i? roi/ uiuvu, for ever, and n? t»? ajwva? rm aiuvuv, for ever and eve7\ I believe you will not find a fmgle example in all the new teftament of their being ufed to convey any other than the idea of endlefs duration You tell us that £i? txi^vocg onuvm, for ever and ever^ in Rev. :j^iv. IJ. should be rendered " to the age of ages. " Are you certain of this? Admitting the principle of your tranflation, fome would have rendered it to ages of ages: but render it how you will, the meaning of the phrafe is the fame. You might render it thus in other in- ilances, wherein it is applied to the happinefs of the righteous, or the glory to beafcribed to God; but this would not prove that fuch happinefs and fuch glory were of limited duration, or that the phrafe in queflion is expreflive of it. '* To the above may be addecj, *' III. Ail thofe pajfages which e.vpre/s the duration of futwx punijhnmt h}^ implicatian^ or 28 LETTERS TO hi/ forms of fpeech which imply the doctrine in quefiion : — *' I pray for them : I pray not for the world — The blar[)heniy againil the holy Ghoft /Iiall not be forgiven unto men, neither in this world neither in the world to come — He hath never forgivenefs; but is in danger of eternal damna- tion — There is a fin unto death : I do not fay that ye fhall pray for it — It is impofiible to renew them again unto repentance — If we fin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more facrifice for fins; but a fearful looking for of judgment, which fhall devour the adverfaries — What is a man profited, if he ftiall gain the whole world, and lofe himfelf, or be cad away? — Woe unto that man by whom the Son Man is betray- ed; it had been good for that man if he had not been born — Their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched* — Betwixt us and 3^ou there is a great gulph fixed ; fo that they who would pafs from hence toyou cannot, neither can they pafs to us who would come from thence — He that believeth not the Son ihall not fee life; but the wrath of God abideth on him — I go my way, and ye ihall feek me, and fliall die in your jhis ; whither I go ye cannot come — Whole end is defiru6tion — He * Several times repeated in a few verses. A UNIVERSALIST. 29 " that Hieweth no mercy, lliall have judgment *' without mercy.'''' ^ " If there be fome for whom Jefus did not pray, there are fome who will have no fliare in the benefits of his mediation, without which they cannot be faved. If there be fome that never will be forgiven, there are fome that never will be faved; for forgivenefs is an effential branch of falvation. Let there be what uncertainty there may in the word eternal in this inflance, flill the meaning of it is fixed by the other branch of the fentence, they JhciU 7iever he forgiven. It is equal to John X. 28. / give unto them eternal lift^ and they Jhall never perijh. If there were any un- certainty as to the meaning of the word eternal in this latter patfage, yet the other branch of the fentence would fettle it; for that muft be endlefs life, which is oppofed to their ever per ijhing : and by the fame rule, that muft be endlefs damnation which is oppofed to their ever being forgiven. If there be a fin, for the pardon of which chrifiians are forbidden to pray, it muft be on account of its being the revealed will of God that it never jfhould be pardoned. If repentance be abfolutely neceflarv to forg-ivenefs, and there be fome whom it is impoffible Ihould be renewed again unto re- * John xvi. 9, Matt. xii. 31, SQ. Mark iii. 29. 1 John V. 16. Heb. vi. 6. X. 20", 27- Lukeix. 23. Matt. xxvi. 24. Mark ix. 43— 4S. Luke xvi. 2^. lohn iii. 3^. viii. 21. Phil. iii. 19. James ii. 13. BO LETTERS TO pentance, there are fome Mhofe falvatiou is iin- poilihle. If there be no 7nore facrifice for jins^ but a j earful looking jor of judgmtnt^ this is the fame thing as the Tacrifice aheady offered being of no faving effe6l: for if it were otherwife, the language would not contain any peculiar threat- ening againil tlie wilful finner, as it would be no more than might be faid to any finner; nor would a ftarful looking for of judg??ient he his certain doom. If the ibuls of fome men will be lo/i, or caji away, they cannot all be freed; feeing thefe things are oppofites. A man may be loft in de- fert, and yet laved in fa6l; or he may fuffer lofs, and yet himfelf be faved: but he cannot be loft, fo as to be caft away, and yet finally faved ; for thefe are perfe6l contraries. Whatever may be the precife idea of the^re, and the zvorm, there can be no doubt of their exprelTing the punifli- ment of the wicked; and its being declared of the one that it dieth not, and of the other that it is not quenched, it is the lame thing as their be- insr declared to be endlefs. It can be faid of no man, on the principle of univerfal falvation, that it were good jor him not to have been born; as whatever he may endure for a feafon, an eternal weight of glory will infinitely outweigh it. An impajjable gulph between the bleOed and the ac- curfed equally militates againft the recovery of the one, as the relapfe of the other. If fome fliall mot fee life^ but the wrath of God abideth cm A UNIVERSALIST. 31 them ; if thofe who die in their fins fliall not come where Jefus is ; if their end be deftruction, and their portion be judgment xvitJioiit mercy ; there muft be fome who will not be finally faved. "" To thefe may be added, ** IV. All thofe pajfages which intimate that a change of heart, and a preparednefs for heaven, are conjitied to the prefent life:-^ *' Seek ye the Lord xvhile he may he found; *' call ye upon him while he is near: let the " wicked forfake his way, and the unrighteous "man his thoughts ; and let him return unto the ** Lord, and he will have mercy upon liim, and ** to our God, for he will abundantly pardon — '* Becaufe I have called, and ye refufed ; I have ** ftretched out my hand, and no man regarded **.... I alfo will laugh at your calamity, and " mock when your fear cometh. When your ** fear cometh as defolation, and your deftruc- " tion cometh as a whirlwind; Mdien diftrefs and ** anguifh come upon you; then iliall they call '* upon me, but I will not anfwer; they shall *' feek me early, hut shall not find me — Then ^* faid one unto him, Lord, are there few that ** shall be faved? And he faid unto them. Strive ** to enter in at the ftrait gate: for many, I fay *' unto you, shall feek to enter in and shall not ** be able — When once the m after of the houfe *' hath rifen up, and shut to the door, and yc '* begin to ftand without, and to knock at the 32 LETTERS TO " door, faying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; he " shall anfwer and fay unto you, I know you ** not whence you are .... Depart from me, ** ye workers of iniquity .... there shall be *' weeping and gnashing of teeth — While ye *' have the light, believe in the light, that ye " may be the children of light — While they ** (the foolish virgins) went to buy, the bride- *' groom came; and they that were readj/ went " went in with him to the marriage, and the " door was Jhut — We befeech you, that ye re- ** ceive not the grace of God in vain .... Be- *' hold 710W is the accepted time, 7i07v is the day *' of falvation — To-day, if ye will hear his voice, *' harden not your hearts — Looking diligently ** left any man fail of the grace of God .... ** left there be any fornicator or profane perfon, " as Efau, v/ho for one morfel of meat fold his *' birthright. For ye know how that afterward, " when he would have inherited the blefftng, he '* was reje^led: for he found no place of repent- *' ance, though he fought it carefully with tears ** — He that is unjuft, let him be unjuft ftill ; " and he that is filthy, let him be filthy ftill ; " and he that is righteous, let him be righteous *' ftill ; and he that is holy, let him be holy «' ftill."* * Isai. Iv. 6, 7. Prov. i. 24 — 8. Luke xiii. 24 — 29. John xii. 36, Matt. xxv. 5—13. 2 Cor. vi. 1, 2. Heb. iii. 7, 11. xii. 15 — 17. Rev. xxii. 11. A UNIVERSi^LIST. S3 ** According to thefe fcriptures there will be no fuccefsful calling upon the Lord after a cer- tain period; and confequently, no falvation Whether there be few that shall ultimately be faved, our Lord does not inform us; but he alfures us that there will be many who will not be fcvctd; or, which is the fame thing, who will not be able to enter in at the ftrait gate. None, it is plainly intimated, will be able to enter there, who have not agonized here. There will be no be- lieving unto falvation, but while loe have the light; nor any admiffion into the kingdom, unlefs we be ready at the coming of the Lord. The prefent is the accepted time, the day of falvation, or the feafon for linners to be faved. If we continue to harden our hearts through life, he will fwear in his wrath that we Ihall not enter into his reft. If we turn axnay from him who fpeaketh from hea- *ven, it will be equally iropoffible for us to obtain the bleffing, as it was for Efau, after he had de- fpifed his birthright. Finally : Beyond a certaiii jperiod there shall be no more change of charac- ter; but every one will have received that im- preffion which shall remain for ever, whether, he te juft or unjuft, hlthy or holy. *' In this letter I have endeavoured to ftate -the grounds of my own perfuafion: in the next I may examine the reafonings and objec^tions which you have advanced againft it. The S4 LETTERS TO greater part of this evidence being taken from our Lord's difcourfes, who knew the truth, and was himfelf to be the judge of the world, renders it pecuHarly interefting. If a preacher in thefe times delivered half fo much on the fub- je6l, you would denominate him " a brawler of damnation." Yours, &c. A. R" LETTERIII. Remarks on fame of Jlfr. F.'s answers fo the FIRST CLASS of fcriptural pvoofs ; with Jiric- iures on his quotation of Eph. i. 10, and tranf- lation of 2 Cor. iv. 17. Dear fir, After Mr. Fuller has dated each of his four forts of fcriptures, which he thinks maintain the do61rine of endlefs punishment, vou will obferve that he makes fome remarks upon thofe paffages. Having adduced a confi- derable number of texts, which defcribe the fu- ture ftates of men in Contraft, he adds: " I ** confider thefe paffages as defigned to exprefs ^" THE FINAL STATES OF MEN ; which if they ** be, it is the fame thing in effe^ as tlieir b^- '^ ing defigned to exprefs the do6rine of end- ** lefs punishment; for if the defcriptions here ** given of the Hates of the wicked, denote A UNIVERSALIST. 35 " their final i\a.te, there is no pofllbility of *' another (late fucceeding it. That the above ** paiVages do exprefs the final ftates of men, *' may appear from the following confidera- *' tions: — " I. The ftate of the righteous, which is *' all along oppofed to that of the wicked, is *' allowed to be final: and if the other were *' not the fame, it would not have been in fuch *' a variety of forms contrafted with it; for it " would not be a contraft."* * This argument has always been considered of great weight. The reasoning of Origen and others, respecting a release from future punishment, was opposed by this argument. " Sunt er,im (inquit S. Gregor. Moral, lib. 3. cap. 11) nunc " etiam, qui idcirco pecrMtis sjiis ponere finem negligunt, quia " habere qiiundoque fmem futura super se judicia suspicantur, *' Quibus breviter respondemus, si quandoque jfinienda sunt " supplicia reproborum, quandoque Jinienda sunt et gaudia heato- " rum: per semetipsam enim Veritas dicit; Ibunt hi in suppli- *' cium oEiernum, justi autem in vitam aefernam. Si igitur hoc *' Irrupt non est quod minatus est, neque est illud vermi quod " promisit." " There are some (says Gregory) also now, who " neglect to break off their sins, on this very account; because ** they suppose that future punishment xvill sometime have an end." (It is not, it should seem, a new opinion, that Universalism favours immorality.) " But to these we briefly answer, If " at any time the punishment of the wicked should cease, the ^^ Joys rf the righteous also must cease; for truth itself has *' declared, '* These shall go away into everlasting punishment, *' but the righteous into life everlasting." Jf therefore that which " God has threatened be not true, neither is that true which ie " has promised." F 2 36 LETTERS TO To this Mr. Vidler anfwers, (No. xlvri. p. 417) Jirft, " Here you have taken two things for granted, which I think you ought to have proved ; viz. that the date of the righteous, as expreffed in thefe fcriptures, is final: and that if the ftate of the wicked be not final, it would not be contrafted with that of the righteous. If the former of thefe affump- tions be ever fo true, yet you ought not to have thus reafoned upon it, till you had proved its truth ; becaufe it is one of the difputable things between us. I long ago obferved, that there will arrive a period, when the mediato- rial reign of Chrift will end, according to 1 Cor. XV. 24 — ^8. If the mediation of Chrift will end, it is reafonable to fuppofc, that the rewards and puniftiments of men, to apportion which will be a part of his mediation, will end alfo. Again : 1 contend that the ftate of the righteous, as exprelfed in contraft with that of the wicked, is not final : and it may appear, upon farther examination, that the ftate of the wicked is not final neither. Whether the final ftate of the righteous mav not be elfewhere expreffed, and taught on other grounds, I fiiall confider hereafter." Mr. F. ought not to have taken it for granted, that the ftate of the righteous, which is all along oppofed to that of the wicked, is final, and endlefs; for it is one of the points in dilpute A UNIVERSALIST. S7 betwixt him and his opponent. Indeed? Had Mr. V. ever fuggefted fuch an idea then before ? Yes, he had avowed his belief, that the media- lion of Chrill woidd end. But hrtd he affirmed that its effects would terminate with it ? No; but it is rtafonahle to fuppofe " tliat the rewards and " punilhments of men, to apportion which will *' be a part of his mediation, will end alfo." That is, j\Ir. V. thinks fuch a fentiment might have been inferred from what he had advanced. Ergo: It was aclually a point of difpute betwixt him and his opponent, and whieli of courfe he ought not to have taken for granted ! Mr. F. ought to have known from the reafonahlenefs of the thing, that the rewards of the righteous are of the fame duration in Mr. V.'s account, as the puniiliments of the wicked. It is true, fuch aa idea had never before been fuggefted; on the contrary, when in a former inftance Mr. F. ar- gued in favour of endlefs puniihment from the allowed endlefs happinefs of the righteous, as ftated in Matt. xxv. 4&, Mr. V. thus anfwered him — " No folid argument can be drawn from " the application of the fame word to diiferent ** things to prove their endlefs continuance, un- *' lefs their nature be the fame" — And, *' there *' is a vaft difference indeed in the nature of fu- *' ture bieffednefs and future punifliment : fo " great a difference as fully to juftify us in *' giving a very different fen fc to the word ever- 3S LETTERS TO " laftiiig, when applied to each of thefe fub- **jeas"— " Life and bleffednefs (he added) " flow naturally from God, in whom are all our *' fprings; and being thus grounded in him, " will be, like him, eternal in duration." (No. XXXV. p. 331, 332.) But what then? The contrary is reofonable ; and Mr. F. ought to have taken it for granted, that whatever is reafonable is held by Mr. V idler! At prefent we are told that the Hates of both the righteous and the wicked, as con traded with each other, are not final : and whether the Jfinal Hate of the righteous be not elfewhere ex- prelfed and taught on other grounds, is to be hereafter confidered. This promife, I believe, Mr. V. has either forgotten, or found himfelf unable to perform ; as he has not, as far as I can difcover, any where recurred to tliis fubjecl. We mud there* fore collect his reafons as well as we can, from what he has before written ; and from which he now infers, that the flateof the righteous mention- ed ill the foregoing palfages, is not final. It is in the firft number that he makes fome obfervatlons on this point ; and his reafons feem to be ground- ed on Eph. i. 10, and 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28. From the former paflage he conjeftures, that there will be a imkerfal rcjtoration ; and from the lat- ter, that Chr'tji will at one time ceafe to reign as Mediator. But how either of thefe palfages A UNIVERSAHST. 39 proves that the ftates of the righteous, defcribed in the above-quoted texts, is not final, does not fcem very clear. The argument from 1 Cor. XV. 24 — 28, runs thus: ' Chrift will ceafe to * reign as Mediator; therefore the rewards that * he beftowed while Mediator, will ceafe alfo.' His prefent Majefty will one day ceafe to reign ; therefore all the honours and rewards he has con- ferred upon his gallant commanders will ceafe alfo ! Again : Chrift will fometime ceafe to fay, '' Well done good and faithful fervant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord ; " therefore the righteous will ceafe to enter into the joy of their Lord: i. e. they will not enter in at all! Mr. V. alTures us, that *' If the mediation of *' Chrift will end, it is reafonable to fuppofe that *' the rewards and punifliments of men, to ap- *' portion which will be a part of his mediation, ** will end alfo:" This is Mr. V.'s proof that the ftate of the righteous is not final ! Erii miki magnus Apollo!* With refpea to Eph. i. 10. Mr. V. feems to think that the times there mentioned, allude to different periods, during which Chrift lliall finilh the work of opportioning both rewards and puniiliments. *' I plainly fee, (fays he) there *' are times; not merely a time in the fingular, " but periods, yea ages, to perform it in. For * Mr. Vidler shall be my great Oracle ! 40 LETTERS TO •' the myftery of the will of God, M'hich he •" hath purpofed in himfelf, is, that in the dif- ** penfation of the fulnefs of times, he might " gather together in one all things in Chrift, *' both which are in heaven, and which are " in earth, even in him." Then, after borrow- ing a criticifm from Hammond on the word «v»/.f(p«Xajuc7 ao-fiat, (to re-head) he adds : " Though " there are j^povoj, times, fixed in the Divine ** purpofe for this great work of the Mediator, " tlie exact number of thefe times is not ex- ** preffed: but what I v/ould notice is, that *' there is a fulnefs of them, and that this ful- '* nefs is only bounded by the gathering toge- *' ther of all things in Chrill; confequently the ** Lord Jefus fliall retain and exercife his media- " torial power, till this great work is done. " Prom this paiifage let us note — (1.) How fadly all commentators have been miftaken, in refer- ring the fulnefs of times to the gofpel difpenfa- tion; and amongft thcfe mittaken characters, we muft reckon even our Lord himfelf, who ufed the fame pfirafeology in reference to his miffioii., (Mark i. \5.) TrsTrXrifiu^xi xaipo;: and alfo St.- Paul, Gal. iv. 4.— Note (2.) The force ^f thp word ti?nes. It is not merely ti7?ie, in the fingu- lar, but times: it fignifies moreover periods, nay even ages ! — Note (3. ) That it is not fun ply times, but XXie -fulnefs of time^.-^Note ^4.) and laftly. That it is xP«'»'0S iiTnesl Now, lir, after^this proof A UNIVERSALISt. 41 that there will be time fufficient to perform the great work which Mr. V. prefcribes to the Me- diator, and after the fine climcLV he has pointed; out, as comprehended in the word times, Do yoa^ not plainly fee how neceffarily it follows, thafv the wicked iliall be delivered from their punilli- inent; and that both rewards and punifhments iliall one day ceafe? From this criticifm of Mr,'^ v., we may alfo fee the vaft advantage of paying clofe attention to numbers and tenfes. Moft^ readers (carelefs indeed they mud have been) confined this word times to a Jingle asra, the gofpel difpenfation ; fuppofing that ^xpreflions of this fort are often ufed in ^. Jingular fenfe: as when Plutarch fays, 'TroXX»q XP°^^^f ^^ ^^^^S ^^^^^/ and Zenobius, Trpo twv A£U)caA»wvo5 XP""""' befo7'e the time of Deucalion; — but it was referved for Mr. Vidler to difcover diftin6l times, periods, and ages in this paffage. Befide, the word in the original (of which Mr. V. is fo confummate a mailer) is peculiarly emphatical. It is ^pofo*, fays he : not merely a time or opportunity, but length or dwatio7i of time,2,s contradiftinguifhed from y.«i/)o». ; From this we may fee the care of the-^nfpired writers to guard againft mifconceptidn. They have made choice of a word which ex^ly fuits Mr. V.'s fyftem, and therefore there can be no doubt of that fyftem being true.. Had they nfed >c«t/5oi (times or opportunities) in this paf- 4'2 LETTERS TO fage, a quibble might have been raifed againft the propriety of extending a word, which pro- perly fignifies a mere feafon or opportunity, to thofe periods which are necelTary for performing what Mr. V. has laid out for the Mediator. — Hereafter, I am determined to confult my greek teftament, and fee if I cannot gain frelh light, as Mr. V. does. I will turn to this very paffage in Eph. i. 10, which is fraught with fuch un- thought of meaning; and perhaps I may difco- ver fomething which even this acute obferver may have overlooked. I turn and read thus: Ejj- omovQfAiav r» ■u;:Xy}puiJi.oilog ruv y.aipcou — yionpuv. T Surely this mull be a miftake ! Mr. V. fays it is xpoi/oi, (chronoi) for the other would be the very word that would utterly deftroy the beautiful fabric which he has taken fo much pains to raife. I look again ; and yet, furely, if my book be not mifprinted, or my eyes do not deceive me, it mud be vMi^m ikairdn.) And is i\\h indeed the cflfe? Is it that very word in the original whicli Mr. V. would have us believe is not to be founds there ? And is there no fuch word in the origi- nal as Mr. V. has quoted.^ But perhaps Mr. V; would not wifli us to fay any more on this point. H-e might not be aware, that the bufinefs would; b^ fo narrowly pried into ; and therefore he may think it ungenerous to prefs things too far: we. will therefore go on, and fuppoft Mr V. to hav^ quoted fairly, and to be an honeil difputant. A UNIVERSALIST. 43 If, however, you fliould ftill remain in doubt, after the luminous proof we have been confidering, whether Mr. V. has eftabliflied his point, that the palfages quoted by his opponent are not defcriptive of the final Hate of the righ- teous, we muft, until this gentleman refumes the fubje6t, admit the propriety of Mr. Fuller's aifumption, That " the ftate of the righteous, in thefe palfages, is allowed to be final;" and we might have now proceeded with the argu- ment, if Mr. V. had not put in another plea, in arrell of judgment. He obje6ls, fecondly. That if it be granted that the ftate of the righteous, as defcribed in thefe paffages, be final, it will not follow that the fl;ate of the Avicked, with which it is con- trafted, will be fo alfo. He fays to his oppo- nent, " I underftand you as meaning, that *' there can be no contraft formed betwixt *' things which are not of equal duration, — for *' this reafon, becaufe there cannot!" How he could thus underftand ]\lr. F. is hard to be ima- gined. The fa6l muft be refolved into thofe lite- rary phenomena, which we fliall often have occa- fion to admire in the courfe of this Review. Mr, F. thinks that the refpe6l we owe to the infpired penmen forbids us to fuppofe that they would fo often form contrafts between the future ftates of the righteous and the wicked, the for- G 2 44 LETTERS TO • mer of which are allowed to he, Jinal^ unlefs the ' latter were fo alfo ; efpeciallif as the pobit of con- {i^traft lies hi their oppofitt Jiatcs : and Mr. V. un- Merftands him as meaning, " that there can be ^'^^.4 no contrail formed betwixt things which are ** not of equal duration!" But he lays down a maxim, and illuftrates it by an example to confront this abfurd pofition of his opponent. " I think it worthy, (fays he) *' of wifdom itfelf to make antithefes betwjxt a ** very fliort period, and a very long duration, " though neither should be endlefs." Here, let it be obferved, that our author Ihifts the ground of Mr. F. This gentleman fuppofes a contrail m the dates of men: and Mr. V. oppofes his reafoning, by forming a contraft between a "cery (hort and a ixry long duration!* Mr. V.'s extra- ordinary acutenefs forbids me to impute this fa6l to want of penetration, and candour will not per- mit ine to impute it to defign. Do you, fir, try to account for it. * The famous Punster, who, under the signature of " a Reader," has more than once entertained us with his inge- nious play upon words, has availed himself of the same dex- trous maneuvre to evade INIr. F.'s argument, in No. xlviii. But as witty terms, and artful evasions, fall peculiarly within his province, we are not surprised to find him act in character. But that the rational Mv. V. should have recourse to such miserable shifts in a formal controversy, is truly surprising ! A UNIVERSALIST. 43 After dexterouily Ihifting the ground of Mr. F.'s argument, he fupports his pofition by a paflage of fcripture, 2 Cor. iv. 17, IB. "Our *' light afflidion, which is but for a moment,^ *' worketh out for us a far more exceeding and *' eternal, i. e. aidniou^ weight of glory; while " we look not at the things which are ieen, but *' at the things which are not feen : for the ** things which are feen are temporal, but the " things which are not feen are eternal, i. e. *' aidnion.'" Here, my dear fir, is a contrail which, in Mr. V.'s opinion, may be properly placed under the fame order as, " Thefe Ihall *' go away into everlafting punilliment, but " the righteous into everlafting life!" In the former J a very fhort duration is contrafted with a very long one : in the latter, the Jiates of the righteous and the wicked are oppofed to each other; both of which are exprefsly faid to be of the fame duration! It being clear, that Mr. V. has miftaken the nature of his opponent's argunient, the ex- ample he has adduced is totally irrelevant. This is the more to be lamented, as, with the example, muft fall alfo his ingenious criticifni upon it. As Mr. V., however, feems peculiarly in his element when engaged in claffical difqui- litions, and is highly indignant when his great abilities, in this department, are called in quef- tioii, I will gratify him, by a clofe attention to 45 LETTERS TO whatever he has colle6led in the walks of fci- ence. I hope you will excufe me then, my dear fir, while I examine what he has brought forward on 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18, though the ftate of the argument does not feem to require it. After quoting this paifage at length, he thus com- ments upon it. " Here is a contraft betwixt *' temporal and aionion things ; and yet that the *' apoftle did not confidcr either of them eternal, ** (as our common tranflation falfely renders it) *' is evident; becaufe in v. 17, he fays, the " glory which our light affli61ion worketh for us, ** is a glory exceeding aionion to an excefs. Ijcery " proper judge who reads this, muft knozv^ that *' I have only given the genuine meaning of ** xa3^' WfpSoXTii/ n<; 'vttbP^oXviv in this rendering." This is the language either of tlie moft unquef- tionable ability, and well-fupported claims to philological literature ; or of the moll confum- mate arrogance. * Who is this prodigy of * My. V.'s treatment of our venerable translation of the Liblo, is often extremely indecorous ; and proves him to be us much wanting in respect to superior talents, as he super- abounds in dogmatical positivity. How difl'erent is the lan- guage of the true scholar ! " The reader (says the learijed and " modest Blackwall) will, I hope, observe that whenever I dis- ** approve the translation of any author, or propose one of my " own, I make no bold, arbitrary conjectures; nor presume to *' strain or torture the sacred text, in order to force it to favour " a peculiar, and otherwise, unsupported fancy : which every *' man, conversant iu these studies finds to be too common A UNIVERSALIST. 47 claffical knowledge, who dares thus, without ceremony, to charge ignorance or knavery on the venerable and quondam accounted learned tranflators of the fcriptures? Who is this Phoenix, who defies the united efforts of " every proper judge" to find a fault in his tranflation? Let us exhibit the rare phenomenon ; or rather, let him exhibit himfelf. We will fuppofe his tranflation accurate, — for who dare fuppofe the contrary? and let us fee to what conclufions it M'ill lead us. He adduces the paffage before us as a con- trad betwecfi a very Jhort and a xiery long dura- tion. The word aidnion, he informs us, is an epithet which implies the duration of an age. All know that an age is a JJiort period. IMr. V. in alhgning the meaning of aion^ fays, *' Seven *' years brought about a period, called the year " of releafe, or fabbath of years : feven of thefe ** periods was included in that grand revolution " which brought about the Jubilee. This was *' the comprehenfive age, or period, which, as ": the greater, included all the reft.'* (No. xxxvi. p. 364.) So that it feems the utmofl limit of an age does not exceed 49 years; and " with shallow critics, and conceited philologers, that are vaittly " fond of being esteemed more sagacious than the rest of mankind^ " and happ^ discoverers of new notions. TJds is such licentious^ " ness and. insolence, that no true and sound scholar and critic, '.* no sober sincere christian dare or can be guilty of." Saaed Classics, Vol, II. p. 17= 48 LETTERS TO as, according to this gentleman, " the afIje(Rivc " can never be of more extenfive Conification " than the fubftantive from which it is derived," the word aioJiion never means more than 49 years.* But if an age be fo fhort a period as Mr. V. reprefents it, how Ihall we find, in this paflage, a contrail between a tery long and a *very Jliort duration? However *' worthy it may *' be of wifdom itfelf to make antithefes betwixt ** a very ihort period, and a very long dura- *' tion," 3^et furel}^ Mr. V. has been very un- fortunate in the example he adduces as an illuftration of this pofition. Again : This tranjlation snakes the apqftle reafon inconclufively. After afferting that pre- fent affli6lions work out a glory exceeding aionion to excefs, the apoftle affigns the reafon of this declaration ; ^^ for the things which are *' feen are temporal^ but the things which are *' not feen are aionion.'' But if every thing which is not feen, is comprehended under the word a'ioniojiy how can there be a glory which e.vceeds aionion to an excefs? This tranflation alfo converts a unwerfally achioxvledged fublime pcijjage, into jeeble and tw* gid bombaji. Inftead of elevating the mind, as ■* That Mr. V. supposes both of these words to be of a much more extensive signification in some passages, I am aware: but I am not obliged to reconcile his contradictions. A UNIVERSALIST. 49 the original, and the common tranflation do, to ideas which no language can exprefs, Mr. V. debafes it to an idea which would difgrace the reafoning of a fchool-boy. In (lead of *' the pretty word a'lbnion,'' fubftitute agelajiing, (as Mr. V. will have it to mean) and it will run thus: Our light affliction worketh out for us a glory exceeding agelajiing to an exxefs! Had St. Paul written in this way, he would have expofed him- felf to tlie farcafm of the poet. '* Quid dignum tanto fferet hie promiflbr hiatu? Parturiunt niontes; nafcetur ridiculus mus."* Again: Mr. V.^s tranflation is a ^violation of one of the fundamental rules of grammar. An en- glifli reader would fuppofe the original word, which our author translates exceeding aidnion, is a participle, as it ought to be, to juftify his tranflation ; becaufe he fpeaks of a glory which furpajfes aidnion glory. The paflage therefore ought to have run thus : to yap TrapxyliKix iXcc^ppov t»i? 3-AnJ/ — iu; 'r/!AWi/ So^oiv tw TEtEPBAAAOTDAN jij vmp^QXfiv aiwvia (3a^£o? ^o^tj; xa7f^ya^£Tat 't^^v. But furely our profound critic need not be told, that the word which he tranflates as a verb^ is a noun in the original. Terence tells us of fome who I ■. II - -■ I ■ ■ . . I i I ■ . ....... I » * " How will this babbler hold his yawning rate? The mountains labour'd with prodigious throes, And lo! a mouse ridiculous arose!" Fran CIS;, H so, LETTERS TO *' faciunt iioe intelligendo ut nihilintelllgant."*^ Who, could ever have thought that we fliould have to remind the fcholar, who takes upon him to charge ignorance on the tranflators of our bihle, that a fubftantive is not a verb! But M'hat is of more importance than all the reft put together, the learned critic's tranflation direBly inilitates again fi Ids mvn prhiciples. He informs us, that the diftribution of rewards and punifliments is a mediatorial work, and that this work fliall ceafe during the ages. On his fyftem therefore, the light afflictions of this life can work out for us only an agelafting glory; but in ren- dering this paiiage as he does, he makes the apoftle declare that afflidled faints fliall have a re- ivard exceeding the ages of rewards to an excefs ! ! And is it then indeed true, that rewards flial'. contiiiue after Chrift has refigned his mediate- rial kingdom ? 1 believe it is ; and I am glad to have an opportunity of according with Mr. V, though ill order to meet us, he relinquiflies one V'f his favourite principles. Upon the wiiole, it appears t})at Mr. V.*s iranilatiou cannot be admitted, without deftroy- ing the contraft, to elucidate which it was given; without making the apoftle reafon inconclulirety; without enervatino- and debafins; the vigour and iublimity of' the origin&l into feel^e and" turgiti * q ome by endeavouiing-to be over-wisef understand nothing. A UNTVERSA't'rST. 51 bombaft ; Without violating the plain rules of grammar; and what is ft ill worfe, without de- ftro)iiig a fundamental principle in univerfalifm. Shall we receive then a tranflation, clogged with fuch difficulties? Mr. V. fays we muft, or elfe re- nounce our claim to be proper judges of a greek criticifm. This is "a hard condition. We all, (not even excepting Mr. V.) wifli to be thought competent for fuch a tafk ; but he declares that ."every proper judge miiji know" that he has given only the genuine meaning of this paffage; In making therefore the above remarks, I have evidently excluded myfelf from Mr. Pldler's \i{^ of " proper judges;" but as I muji be difgraced, it may be fome confolation to be hid in a crowd, who have alfo hicurred the fanie cenfure. Let us enquire then, whether any body elfe hais dared to give a rendering of this paffage differ- ent to that with which this critic has favoured the M'orld. ' ' That our common tranflators do not ccfncur wi'tH Mr. V. is not to be wondered at: they ^ii'e'w but little of greek. But there are others Vli'o 'have rendered it differently.' Whitby (fie '^n him) agrees with " the common tranflation.*' !Poo/e^ alfo is on the fame fide. Doddridge and 'Blachvall (in times when men were lefs learned, thefe were thought to know fomething of greek) after giving it the fenfe of " the common tran- H 2 SQ LETTERS TO llation," add, that " this paflage is infinitely *' emphatical, and cannot be expreffed by any *' trq.)iflat\on; (tliey had not an opportunity of ** feeing Mr. V.'s " o-e««i«e meaning.") It fig- *' nifies that all hyperboles fall Ihort of defprib- ** ing the weighty, eternal glory; fp folid and '* lafting, that you may pafs from one hyperbole -?* to another, and yet when you have gained *' th^ laft, you are infinitely below it." Guyfe^ ftill cjcncurring with the common idea, fays, that " e*i),erij tranilation (he had not feen Mr. ** V.'s) and paraphrafe fink below the aftonifli- " ing original." Parkhurji^ agreeing with th^ reft, fays, '' the phrafe is itfelf Jta^ Ws^SoAtif im 'm^£^€?a»iv;" and, quotes the commentary of Chryr /(^o?7i on this paflage. ** The apodle (fays he) ;5* jopppfes things prefent to things future, a /* ipQmen,^: |o qterxiity, lightnef* to weight, af-^ ;*,* fliplion tQ glory ; nor is he fatisfied with this, " but he adds another word and doubles it, *' faying, kx^ 'uxs^CoAvjj' ng 'vm^Qoxnv ; i. e. a *'* great nef^ excejjwely exceeding.''' Leigh fays, " Becaufe other languages cannot; expTefs to th? ^* full, thi? emphatical grecifm," (h^ did not Ichow fo well as Mr. V, the copioufnefs pf thj^ engiifh language) " they .aifC torced to ufe *' words and piirafes which exceed all compari- ** fon; as Erafmu^s. '* mire, fupra modwm,"* '•('■ure. *yVulgatej ** fupra modum in fuhlimitate."* ** Besia^ '' excellenter excenens;"f and our laft ** and BEST tranflation, (but Leig'h was not a *' proper judge!) " a far more exceeding." But, iir, I Ihall weary your patience, if I proceed to mention more of thefe illiterate men, who have vnaninioufly agreed to exprcfs themfelves in a manner totally different from Mr. V.'s genuine tranflation, and who fupport the rendering in the common tranflation, which this gentleman unceremonioufly pronounces falfe. Amongft fuch a crowd of improper judges^ I truft I ma,y efcape without particular animadverfion, for en- deavouring to prove that of Mr. V.'s genuine tranflation, which he has ajferted of the common' one. But, fir, to be ferious: What are we to think of the man, who with fuch confummate effron- tery, not only charges the commonly received tranflation with being falfe, — but appeals to ** every proper judge" for the. genliinenefs pf a. tranflation, the mofl. glaringly contradi6lory, un- grammatical, and abfurd, that perhaps ignorance ever ventured to publifli: and that too, when he muji have knmvn that the authority of the greatefl: names that ever adorned real fcience, was dire6ily againft him; and without the fuf- frage of a fmgle fcholav to keep him in counte- * " Beyond measure in sublimity." t ** Excellently excellent." 54 ."lltTTfiRS TO * rtancer Let him hide his face in .confuriori." His trafh (lid not deferve fo much attention: Ijiit I meafured its importance by the inifchief it- might do among unlettered readers. Sir, I cannot help expreirmg an houeft indignation againft the .man, who undermines the common chriftian's faith, by infinuating that his englifli bible is a /<7//e tranfcript of the original. When I contrail their venerable names and real learn- ing with the half-taught fcholars of modern times, who, having juft learned to diftinguifti alpha from beta, take upon them to criticise, and unceremonioufly to cafliier them, I bluili at the mention of learning, and lothe the name of faience! . , .C"--' I am, fir. If**.., Yours, &c. S. . LETTER IV. RenWiih on Mr. V.'s di/avotvalcf the doctrine of Univerfal Salvation, and his incoiTflJlency in fo doing. -?'••*'* Bear fir, ft*lJ ioY(,iJiv>ii.u. ■> > V^v.; -A s.»^'ii'JLM'''l\fr. Fuller's fecond commerit otf text^s 'of' fcrfptur^, put in contrail, he obferves/ " All thefe paffa^es are totally filent, as t'6 any* *' bther'ftate following that of deftruflion, dam- ** nation, &c. If the punishme^it threatened A UNIVERSALIST. 5S *J' to ungodly men had ^been only a piti'gation, or -^temporary correction, we might have expe^ed ** that fomething hke this would have been inti- V mated. It is fuppofed that fome who are *' upon the right foundation-may yet build upon ,'* it, xvood, and hay, and Jhihble ; and that the " party slmW faJf^erJofs ; hut he hinifdfjhall be ''\favedf though it be as by J Ire. Now if the *' dpftrine of univerfal falvatiou were true, we *V might expe^ fome fuch account of all lapfed "intelligences, when their future ftate is de- ** fcribed : but nothing like it occurs in any of y the foregoing paffages, nor in any other." The firll part of Mr. V.'s anfwer to this re- ijiark is as extraordinary as it was unexpeded. It i]io,uld feem that, after all. the letters which have paljTed on this fubjeft, ]Mr. E. has miflaken the very queftion in debate ! He is writing againft a fyftem which Mr. V. declares he "does not, nor *' ever did believe ! You (fays he in his fixth "letter) are talking againft univerfal fatvation, " while I am defending univerfal rejioration. " Thele are certainly very diftinguifliable things; -\and I do ?io(, nor ever did, believe the former; " but for the latter, I contend as a fcriptural "truth." Ag^in: " If they (the fcriptures) ". Jiave not fpoken a roprd on the fubJeB of tiniver-r ^.\fal^. falvation, I am. not difappointed at it. " I am fatisfied they hav;^ fpoken clearly on the ^tS\>Vi^^ .of . tbe .reftitutiQ.n o^ all things:" and SS LETTERS TO he adds, *-* I will not fay that it is with defigrt, ?' and contrary to known faSs that you repr6- ** fent me as an advocate of univerfal falvation; *' but it is certain that you have more than ** once or twice made this reprefentation in *' your letters. The Caufe of your fo doing is ** bed known toyourfelf." (No. xlvii. pp. 418, 4.20.) This is a fa61; not to be equalled perhaps in the annals of polemics. Fie, fie ! Mr. F. how could you thus more than twice mifreprefent your opponent ? You have already acknowledg- ed your error in reprefenting him as an advocate for annihilation ; — have you learned fo little cau- tion from this miftake, as to fall immediately into another, much more palpable and impor-*- tant ? You are alfo the more inexcufable, as it is not once nor twice only, but repeatedly^ that you have thus n)ifreprefented I\Ir. V. " The ** caufe of your doing fo (as he juftly obferves) *' is bed known to yourfelf." Believe me, fir, fair, downright dealing is by far the beft policy. You may, by fucli artful maneuvres, for a time deceive your readers; but you are fure to be detected fooner or later; and efpecially when in the hands of fo obfervant and fubtle a difputant as Mr. V. It is true, you had the addrefs to conceal the quefliou in difpute, till fifteen let- ters had paflTed between you, and even efcaped fufpicion ; but you at length fland fully detected A UXIVERSALJST. 67 and felf-coiidemned. What have you, , fir, to offer as an apology for this extraordinary con- du6t ? As an impartial i;eviewer,. it behoves me*" to place this fa<5t in its proper light ; and I omft^- therefore beg a more than ordinary fliare of patience, while I perform a taik fo eflehtial' to propriety, and this controverfy. Perhaps you will fay in your defence, that you fuppofed Mr. V. maintained the fame fenti- ments on this fubje6t, as Dr. Chauncey, whofe book is entitled, " The falvation of all men, *' the grand thing aimed at, in the fcheme of *' God, &c." You fuppofed that he believed the fame as Mr. Winchefter, whofe \vorks he edited, and who, in the compafs of a very iliort preface to his dialogues, has the following ob- fervations. *' It (the gofpel) hx'mgtth fahation ** to all men; but few in comparifon have feen *V this, fo as cordially to fall in with, and con- *' fefs it, when by all iiieu^ is to be underliood *' eveiy individual of the human race." Again: ^\\Ji\\\tv^^\ falvation, feen through thefe diffi- *-* culties, is an antidote to all thefe evils.'* Again: '* While I faw the provifion and falva- *' tmi of the gofj)el to be only partial, I fo de- *' dared and delivered it; but now it appears ** imiverfal, Ihall I be filent?" Again.: ** I " muft think, upon the whole, that full and 58* LETTERS TO *' fufficlerit evidence is given, that iiniverfal '^ fulvaiion \s the mind of God, and the do€-.. •'' trine of liis- holy word. '' * PjCrhaps you may* fayalfo, that, Jjefide Petit- Pierre, and oth;crs' who" are mentio-ned ■ in iMr. V.'s catalogue, of uriiverfaiifts exprefsly holding the doclrine of univerfal falvatio}2,[yo\iy Imd no.rcafon whatever to think that Mr. V.. denied that the fcriptures liave ievef nVentioned a word of this do6lrine, as his friends uniformly believed '^ it;' and 3'^ou never- heard before, that this crentlemari had difclaimed it. You may fay til efe and m^liiy' other things equally foreign, as an apology; but give me leave, fir, to afk "what argument there is in a' firing of fuppofitions? "' 'If you could not HiVe into 'Mv: V.'s mind by a Tort of omnifci- ence, yet' oriie would thiiik 'the'teift fou cduld have done Vvoiild have been to have fla:tfed the queftion in difputie in your fii'ft letter, and have told' your friend what 3*0*11' underftood h^ be- lieved ;■ becaufe he would tliehhave had aif op- portunity of undeceiving you at once, and'put- ting the queftion on its proper 'ground. '"iTius * It is cm ious to observe how widcl^y 5o?ne christians steer of each other. W'h^t Mv. JVi/ic/tesfer believes to be." the mind of God, and the doctrine of his holy word," Mr. Tidier does not think is supported by a stngl'e' {Passage of scripture ! How ignorant the world must be,' to' tall Mr. V. a JVinchcs- terian ! A t, N 1 VE RSA L 1 ST. 5^ you would Iiave been in no dani»;er of fliooting beiide tlie nuiik, and giving your readers unne- ceOary trouble. lt\ however, you had made this extraordinary omillion in y ouv Jrrji letter, 3'ou ought to have fupplied the defect in your fecond ; but inilead of that, you write to Mr. v., he writes again to you, and fo on, till at lead fifteen or fixteen letters have pafled between you : — and now, forfooth, we are to be told that you have been debating entirely befide the queftion! The lead, fii", you can do, is to make an ample apology both to Mr. V. and your readers, and fubmit to the difgrace which the mean arts of evafion never fail to procure. But methinks I hear Mr. Fuller thus plead in arreft of judgment. ' Before you condemn me * to fo humiliating a tafk, an impartial judge * would fuifer my letters to fpeak for themfelves, * and hear what I have farther to allege in my * defence.' True, on fuppofition that the crime with which you are charged were not fully fub- flantiated ; but where it is fo clear, what need of a further hearing? Neverthelefs, that we feem iiot unjud, we allow you to fpeak for yourfelf. J 2 60 LETTERS TO Jlfr. Fullers defence of his conduct^ in charging his opponent with holding the doctrine of uni- versal salvation; a doctrine which Mr. Vidler declares he ^'' does not, nor e'ce.r did he- lieve,''' and which he thinks has not the fuff rage of a finglc pajfage of fcripture / " IT feenis I have committed a greivous fault in charging Mr. V. with holding the doc- trine of thofe with whom he ranks himfelf, and of whofe writings he has hecome the Editor. It is difficult, I allow, to determine what he does hold: yet furely I am not miftaken in this in- llance; or if I be, it is he himfelf that has led me into the miftake. '* I allow that from the firft he generally ufed the terms rejioration, and rejiitution in pre- ference to \h.2iio^ falvation : but it were eafy to perceive that his reafon for this was, not that he difbelieved the latter, but becaufe he wijhed to hax'e it taken for granted, that the fcripture phrafe '* Rejiitution of ail things,'' was expreffvce of his fentiment. This was what I did not chufe to concede; and therefore all along made ufe of a term lefs liable to abufe, and which his writings, taken together, abundantly juftify me in having ufed. *' I cannot fay indeed, that the idea for which he has uniformly contended, is univerfal A UNIVERSALIST. 6l falvatlon: for on feme occafions he has admitted the full latitude of God's thieatenings againft finners, and the execution oF them too; and that God will punifli them by weight and meafure, with few llripes, and many ftripes, according to their guilt; (No. xxxiv. p. 11) which nmft be inconliftent with falvation: for he who en- dures the full demerit of his fins, cannot pofiibly be faid to be faved from it. But I am not ac- countable for Mr. V.'s inconfiftencies. If I prove that univerfal falvation is an idea that runs through the general tenor of his writings —that he has virtually admitted the term in all his anfwers — that he has, in a great variety of inftances, exprefsly ufed it — finally, that he has reproved an opponent for diftinguifliing it from leftoration ; I ihall acquit myfelf from the charge of mifreprefentation, and enable you to judge, fir, of the truth of his affertion, that " he does not, nor ever did believe it." " Firfl: Mr. V. has. fupported his fentbiienis ly arguments^ and pajfages of fcrlpturc^ which are applicable (if applicable at all to his purpofe) to uyiiverfal falvation alone. — Whatever he has faid of finners being punlflied according to their deferts, he has fufficlently unfaid it in other places. If that deliverance from mifery which has the divine mercy as its fource, Jefus Chrifi; as the medium of conveyance, and the agency of the divine Spirit, fubduing the enmity of the 62 LETTERS TO human heart, as its efficient caufe, imply falva- tion, then is univeifal falvation maintained by Mr. v.* That he alcribes " the reftoration of all * Were the con-^istena/ of Mr. V. the only subject of investigation, more than sufficient has already been advanced to shew, that, on this score, hii claims are low indeed ! But if it be asked, rF//j/ IMr. \'. has thought proper to disavow a sentiment which he and other univorsalists had hitherto main- tained; the enquiry will justify me in paying a more particular attention to the subject, as it will be found to involve the very essence of the controveisy. It has always been contended by the opponents of universalism, that salvation, and the full cxe- cvtion of' the divine ihreatcniiigs, which they profess to defend, are perfectly incompatible, and that therefore their system con- tains within itself its best refutation : for it is asked, when a man has suflered all the punishment he deserves. From what is he«cT)- ed ? Where is there roora for the exercise of juerc^ ? Call the fu- ture happiness of such, a proof of divine condescension, goodness, loving- Jdiulness, if you please: but surely the terms mercy and salvation arc perfectly inapplicable. This point has been so fully and elaborately argued, by several able hands, and especially by Dr. Edwards in his answer to Dr. Chauncey, that Mr. V. himself seems to have felt its vveight, though he has not ingenuous- ness enough to acknowledge it. In order, as it should seem, there- fore, to weaken the force of this argument, he has disowned the doctrine of universal salvation ; and says, that he " does '"not, nor ever did believe it." Bui while he rejects the -word, it is abundantly evident that he maintains the thing. If it can be shewn that Mr. V. has all along pleaded for a restoration, which implies a prober salvation, (though not perhaps a scrip' iurul salvation) he will not only be chargeable with gross pre- varication, but also all the arguments which have been so un- answerably urged against other universalists, will lie with all their weight upon his system., and must crush it to pieces. A UNIVERSALIS!. 63^ lapfecl intelligences" to divine mercy ^ appears in alnxoll every page of his writings. I l]]all felecl but one paffage or two from his tliird letter. ".; It is on the ground, fir, that I fuppofe pu- ** nifliment of all des;rees and duration, to be a "-mediatorial work, and founded upon mercy. " This is a principle which neither you nor any *' man, who believes the fcriptures, will dare '', to deny. As you make life of it in relation to " believers, the only quejlion Is, whether I Jiate ^ ' applied the principle in too great a latitude or " not, t^-c." (No. XXXV. p. 337.) '/ The idea " that the prefent life is the only period when *', men can experience mercy, feems to be a great " 8:i'ound of the do(5trine of endlefs miferv." (p. 338.) How thefe expreffions are reconcile- able with what Mr. V. elfewhere admits of the *' full latitude of God's threatenings, and the *' execution of them too," is ope of thofe mvf- teries which nothing lefs than a genius like his can unravel. Common readers wilL prpbably think that they, imply ^o m€th\ u ^. like. fa Ipat ion. ** This mercy, Mr; V. aifo con fends; Is conveyed through the medium- of Jefus Chriji.^ In the letter juft referred to, he is very copious on this fub- jed. *' Thefe (the elecl) lays he, you fuppofe * I say through the med'mm of Jesus Christ. To this mode of expression, I presurac, Mr. Vidler, though he has lately re- nounced the doctxine of the atonement, will not object. .It is a 64 LETTERS TO *' are the fpecial obje6ls of God's love ; are giveji *' iyito the hands of CJirift in order to be faved; arc *' interejied in ex:e7'y thing which Chrift has done *' in his priejily character ^ ^c, Thefe ideas are *' good, fo far as they extend: I only iboidd apply " them to the whole human race. I fuppofe that ^' God loves the world — that he is good to all, ** and that his tender mercy is over all his *' works — that the Father hath loved the Son, and ** hath given all things into his hands, in order *' to be faved: for this is the Father's will, that ** of all which he hath given to Chrift, he *' fliould lofe nothing; but raife it up again at ** the lad day — that all are interefled equally ia " what Chrift has done in his pricjily charader, *' &c." (No. XXXV. pp. 33(), 537.) In the fame letter he alferts, that ** all things will be ** reconciled to the Father by the blood of the *' crofs." His letters abound Avith fentiments of this fort, and therefore I fhall not add to thefe quotations. Let it be remarked, however that in thefe paflages he refts his arguments for a future reftoration, exactly on the faine princi- ples as he fuppofcs his opponents ivould build the doctrine of fahation by Jefus ChrijL .jviciy, however, if Mr. V. could recal all he has written, whe- ther he would not express his sentiments on this subject, in more "uarded terras than he has done; lest some should -think that he once held the doctrine of the atonement, as he did that of universal salvation. A UNIVERSALIST. 65 ,. , I* He alfo afcribes his reftoration to the ^gmf\y of the divine Spirit^ in fubduing the obdu- r-acy and' enmity of the human hmrt, as its effi- cient caiife. It is admitted on ail hands, that a principal part of the falvation of ^^le gofpel confifts in fubduing the ftubborn and rebellions will. Now, no writer is more explicit than Mr. V. on the neceffity of a divine power to fubdue the heart of the finner, .pr,eparatory to 4i4S receiving the full benefit of the gofpel. It is true, that he frequently reproI)ates,:the- cal- viniftic notion of irrefiftible and -vi(»frul^''able grac^, as taking, away the libevty :;of , Ijuman agency, deftroying the diftindion between , vir-- tue and vicQ, and reducing ma%,ta^a^Q}ere ma- jcliine. But ftill it is againft the /j?r;?w^ not aggiinft the thing itfilfy that he objeds ; as the following ipecimens, illuftrative. of his hoU^ing a proper falvation, fully teftify.- *■ 'Ch rift -is to rule till '"] all ienemies are fubdued^ till there he no au- '*f thority, power or dominion,; but Avhati Uiall 'Mr,he fubjeBed to him." (No. xxxvi. p. 365.) 'JA.i^ any continue inconigibiej: it inu(l, be ini- "^ puted either to cruelty, or injuftice in the ;** Deity, or to weaknefs." (p. 367.) *' We.fup- *[ yok that his /?oziper will accomplifh what his ** wifdom planned, and h\s goodnefs willed. '» Thefe are only a very {ew of the numerous paf- fages in which the fame fentiment occurs. He K 66 ■ LETTERS TO- ' every where infifts, ' that the power of God is necelTary to fubdue and conquer the inveterate enmity of the wicked ~ in hell, and to renew them in holinefs, fo asto qualify them for the enjoyment of heav-en.*^' The inference from tfief^^ fentimehts to the doctrine- of falvation, is lihavoidable. *' Secondly: Mr. V. has not only maintained tUe idea through the whole tenor of his writings, hut has. admitted tlie terin in all 'h ^ anfwers. — l"^nrtyid"that I ought 'to .have flawed the doc- ^h'h'e' rf{fppof(^d'him tO 'm'aintkin, ifi my firftiet- 'ter,' as he then would have fet me -right, had I "hirfieprefented'^his 'fentiments. I V//rf ftate it; 'iiid thiV i^t only m the firft', but in thd feond 'Atixf'ihrfil^' letters-. -ThS^yirfileher thus4)egMnS:t ■^«'M^">SeyH friend; It- his afforded m'e' fome '^*:^i|)alnftir-\*ATi-€fbi Uv i?uihUity to make it good, he has never refumed the fub- je6t ; and (liould he attempt it at any future time with fuccefs, he muft prove that the endlefs bleifednefs of the righteous is not an effedl of the mediation of Chrift; and relinquifh all he has written on the term «jwv»o?, ufed to exprefs the duration of future happinefs and mifery, being to be underftood in a different fenfe in the one cafe to what it is in the other. At prefent, being in the dark how he can make good his promife, we muft admit the full force of Mr. F.'s argu- ment. But, not contented with making this pro- mife, (for probably he anticipated that it might 78 LETTERS TO be no very eafy talk to perform it) he has at- tempted to {hew, that, admitting the paflages produced by Mr. F. to imply endlefs felicity, nothing can be concluded hence, that the ftate with which it is contrafted will be final alfo. It was in this arduous taik that we left Mr. V. engaged, when our attention was drawn afide by his extraordinary alTertion, that " he does not, nor ever did believe the dodrine of univerfal falvation." And now, if you pleafe, we will refume the fubje6l. In commenting on the paffages juft referred to, Mr. Fuller had obfeived: " If the punifli- *' ment threatened to ungodly men, had been " only a purgation or temporal corre6lion, we *' might have expe6led that fomething like this *' would have been intimated." To this Mr. V. anfwers, by feleding a. fingle expreffion ofafingle paflTage from the great variety his opponent had adduced, exprelVed in various forms, and under different fimiiUudes; and after attempting to prove that this fpeaks of " a temporal correc- tion," he logically infers that all the reft muft do the fame. Ilis conclufion runs thus. " Cer- " tainly our Lord knew both the nature and " end of future puniflmient, and as he has called *' it a correction,'" (have a little patience, fir, and you fliall fee Mr. V.'s proof that our Lord has called it a correction ) '' we may reft affured that *' he ifi not miftaken. In the nature of the A UNIVERSALIST. 79 ** thing no correflion can be endlefs." As Mr. V. has made choice of but one paflTage to prove that thefe fcriptures fpeak of future punifliment as being a chaftifement, we may conclude that he thought it the mod in point of any among them; and therefore if his proof ilmuld be found deficient in this, we may infer that he would not be more fuccefsful in the reft. The paifage he has chofen for an exhibition of his reafoning powers and critical fagacity, is that noted one in Matt. xxv. 46. ** Thefe Ihall go away, &c." His argument is this: '' Petit- ' Pierre, (fays he) in his treatife on divine * love, fays, ' There are two refpe6lable autho- rities to prove that aoXxTiv * fignifies chqftife- ment : one is the illuftrious Grotius, in his rights of war and peace; the other, the cele- brated Wyttenbach, in his effay on do6lrinal theology. Grotius fays exprefsly, that the kind of puniflnnent which tends to the im- provement of the criminal, is that which phi- lofophers called, among other things, xoAao-if, or chaftifement. And Wyttenbach, who writes this paifage from Grotius, fays, that God, in the infliction of fufferings, has three ends in view ; the firft of which is the correclion of the offender, in order to his future amend- ment, and that the greeks frequently gave to fuch fufferings the name of xoAa^iv'." * Rendered in the common version *' punishment,'' 80 LETTERS TO To this I would obfeive, that it is a great pity, that out of the vaft ftores of claffical eru- dition which Mr. Petit-Pierre, and Mr. V. pof- fefs, they have not brought a Tingle authority in confirmation of the criticifm of " the celebrated Grotius and Wyttenbach." Had he done this, we might have given our opinion of the juftice of their remark. But it is rather furprifing, that a gentleman who pays fo little deference to great names, Ihould fo fuddenly become obfequious, and pin his belief of the propriety of a criticifm that involves a fundamental queftion in this dif- pute, on the credit of a quotation, made from a quotation, which alfo is itfelf a quotation from an author, who, it fliould feem, has not afforded a fingle example of the truth of his remark. Will Mr. V. excufe me then, if I ihould not be quite fo complaifant as to admit the force of this criticifm, on the mere ipfe divit of Mr. Vidler, who fays he had it from Petit- Pierre, who tells us that he had it from " the celebrated Wyttenbach," and who informs us it is fome where to be found in " the illuflrious Grotius, in his rights of war and peace? " The reafon afligned by both Grotius and Wyttenbach for confining this word to chajiife- ment^ is, that " antient philofophers, among other things, call chaftifement by the name of xoAao-ij." Unfupported as this affertion is by any authority, I will admit its truth; but I deny the A UNIVERSALIST. 81 cotifequence. It may be true that chqftlfement is often expreffed by jtoAao-^, and not be true that this term never expreffes more than fimple chaftifement. If a perfon were to contend, that a child was puuijhed for committing a fault, with the intention of correding him, and therefore a criminal who was puniOied with death, was only chajiifed, perhaps his reafoning would not be very convincing. The fa6l is, that xoXao-is has no necejjarij connexion whatever with the 7not'wes of puniihment, but fimply means (as any lexicographer will inform us) pcena, cruciatuSy tormentum ; and exactly anfwers to our word punijhment, which may or may not be accom- panied with a view to a perfon's good: and there- fore the rules of juft criticifm require that we always interpret it in its fimple fenfe, and colle6i the motive from the nature of the cafe. Hence the whole of this learned criticifm muft fall to the ground. It will not ferve the end for which Mr. V. introduced it, to fay that it may fignify chaftifement; he muft collect, from other cir- cumftances independent of the word, that it inuli be fo taken: But as Mr. V. does not attempt this, we are compelled to deny him the honour of his triumph. One cannot help remarking here, the ver- fatility of Mr. V.'s genius. Should it be con- venient to his own fide of the queilion, to fliew 82 LETTERS TO that becaufe aion, a'ibnios^ Sec. fometimes exprefs a Vimhed period, therefore nothing certain can be colle61ed from thefe words, with refped to dura- tion; he can turn over his feptuagint and greek teftament with furprizing- dexterity, and direct you to a hundred paflages in confirmation of his point. Should it again fuit his argument to fliew that iioX9:.f gi'ving every word its proper mean- ings unlefs the fubject require a differeyit interpre- tation, he would have wanted both thefe oppor- tunities of exhibiting his knowledge of greek, ' Aidnios, (he would have faid) properly fignifies ? endlefs ; therefore I give it that meaning every ' where, unlefs compelled to deviate from it by ' the ful)je6t. Kolajis, fignifies neither more nor ' lefs than fimply punijhment, pain, or torment ; ^ and therefore I can collect nothing of the ob- * je6l of the punifher, unlefs the fubje6l dire6l me * to it.' vSo much for the proof, which this gentleman brings from Petit-Pierre, of the meaning of jtoAao-j?. Let us now attend him in his own criticifms ; for be it obferved, that he is not perfectly fatisfied A UNIVERSE LIST. 83 either with " tlie illuftrious Grotius, the cele- " brated Wytteiibacli," or the patlietic Petit- Pierre ; but he proceeds to corroborate the whole out of his own (lores of philology. '* To this *' quotation I add, (fays Mr. V.) that twice in " the new teftament we have yioXaC,o^iv3i, wdiicli *' together with koXcco-k;, is from the verb, xoXai^w, " applied, as Parkhurft obferves, by greek writ- *' ers in the fenfe of rejirahiing ^nd repre//mg, " The only place befide, in which KoXxarig occurs *' in the new teftament is 1 John iv. 18. " Fear " hath torment (i. e. reftraint) in it." From the " whole of thefe paiTages I think it clear, that ** xoXao-if fignifies fuch a punilhment as corj'eSs *' the criminal, reftrain'mg and repreffmg him; *' and thereby bringing him into his proper *' place." On this conclujive piece of criticifm, I would remark, in the firft place. That Mr. V. fets out with a grofs miftake. He tells us that we have twice in the new teftament ;ioAa5o|W,£va? ; and re- fers us to A6ts iv. 21, and 2 Pet. ii. 9- But this is not true ; for in the firft; paffage he cites, it is xoXoid-uvloit. The reafon of my pointing out this miftake is, not becaufe it makes any diiference in the ft:ate of the argument, as it certainly does not, but to add another proof,* that Mr. V. where observe, that xoXaf&ixe^s? is " used, is.c." Mr. V. evidently misunderstood Parkhurst as in- timating that this word occurs in both the cited passages, though he meant the latter only. It is a pity that this lexicographer did not express his meaning more clearly, because he has led his reader into a mistake, that has led to a detection of what, per- haps, Mr. V. would wish to have concealed; viz. that he some- times quotes from a lexicon, when he would have it understood, that he has been at the trouble of examining and criticising the original. A UNI VERSA LIST. 85 concludes tbat^ in the original, every paflao'e is in favour of his own argument ; when in fa6l he has never confulted the paffages he quotes, but merely fets down, in a blundering way, tlie com- ments of a lexicographer. That this is the cafe, is alfo evident from the meaning of both the paf- fages, when taken in connection with the context; becaufc one makes directly againft his conclu- fion, and the other is not at all in point. Let it be remembered, that Mr. V. aflerts that the pro- per meaning of xoxao-i? is, " fuch a punilhment *' as corrects the criminal, reftraining and re- *' preffing him, and thereby bringing him into *' his due and proper place :" by which he evi- dently means, fuch a punilhment as is intended for the criminal's good. The firft paifage referred to runs thus: "And having threatened them, " they difmiffed them, finding nothing how they " might punilh them, (xoAao-wi/lai) becaufe of the *' people." Judge, my dear fir, whether thefe wicked jewiili rulers, who had put Jefus Chrift to death, who fought to take away the life of Lazarus, who had already imprifoned the difci- ples, and were reftrained from putting them to death, merely through fear of the people, — Judge fir, 1 fay, whether thefe men fought an. opportunity o^ doing good to the difciples ? What, think you, would they have done, if they had not been afraid of the people } I know you will anfwer, What they had already done to Jefus 86 LETTERS TO Christ, and what afterwards they attempted to do to thefe very men. (Ac^s v. 33) And yet Mr. V. adduces this paflage as a proof that xoXacK; fignifies nothing more than a corrective puuifliment, a falutary retlraint ! Would he have adduced fuch a palfage, if he had ever looked at it, in fiipport of his argument? Surely not: and becaufe he has adduced it, we mufl necef- farily conclude that he never faw it, nor knew to what it referred. ^ As to the fecond palTage, in which we do indecfl find «oAa^oj(A£v»?, I leave you, fir, again to decide, whether it make any thing for Mt. V.'s argument. It is the 2 Pet. ii. 9- " 'Thd *' Lord knoweth how to deliver the righteous " from temptation, and to preferve the unjufl ** to the day of judgment to be pumjlied."' Whe- ther the punifliment here fpoken of, be corre8ive or vindiBke, is the very queftion in difpute; and therefore can never be adduced as a proof of the meaning of xoAao-jr. There remains therefore, but one pafTage where any derivative from the word xoAa^w occurs, and that is 1 John iv. 18. " Fear hath torment," (according to Mr V., rejiraint.) He fays, that this word is ufed " by greek writers, in the fenfe o^ reji raining and reprejjing.''' What then? Is this the only fenfe in which they ufe it; or what is more to the point, is this its ideal fenfe? Mr. V. is too well read in claiTical litera- A UNIVERSALIST. 87 ture to make fuch an airertion. What then does this comment amount to? Nothing at all. Nay, allowing- that it is J7e'cer ui'ed in any fenfe but that of reftraining or repreffing, I a.{k again, What has Mr. V, proved? Juft nothing at all, milefs he can ihcw that it would be improper to fa}', that a highwayman was i^ejirained or re- preffed by being kept in perpetual imprifonment, though proper to fay that a vagrant was rejirain" cd or repreffed by being flogged at a cart's tail. Some perfons might think perhaps, that the for- mer was more effectually reftrained than the latter. But if a man may be repreffed who never reaps, nor was intended to reap, the lead benefit by his punifhment, then, admitting the validity of Mr. V.'s criticifni, it will be of no advantage to his argument. Rejiraining and repreffing therefore, do not neceffarily imply the bringing of " a criminal into his proper place," unlefs it be allowed that perpetual imprifonment or a gibbet be his proper place: but to admit this, deftroys the whole of Mr. V.'s argument. This gentleman muft therefore excufe us, if we do not " acknowledge," from the proof he has adduced, " that there is fomething like an in- *' timation that the puniihment threatened by '' our Lord to ungodly men, is intended as a " limited corredion, and confequently as a ** mean of purification." 88 LETTERS TO What then becomes of Mr. V.'s idle vaunt, that, " as our Lord knows both the nature and " end of future puniihment, and as he has called *' it a correction, we may reft allured that he " is not miftaken. In the nature of the thing, '' no conxBion can be of endlefs duration?" He has completely failed in every ftep of his intend- ed proof, that y.oXa(Tit; in the paflage referred to, fignifies mere correction. The moft he feems to attempt to prove is, that the word may pojjibly fignify corredion ; and as it pofjihly may not, he has completely laboured in vain. But left Mr. V.'s pretended authority, Gro- this, (for be it obferved that Wyttenbach and Petit-Pierre both reft upon his Jingle alTertion, without a Jingle example) that xoAao-t? was gene- rally ufed by greek writers, to exprefs fuch a chaftifement as was intended for the culprit's good, lliould have an undue weight with any of his readers, I will confront it hy fever a I examples from greek tvriters, in which this zvord has no 7X- lation whatever to the criminal's good, and which cannot pojjibly be applied to a limited duration ; from which it will follow that this word xoAao-i? is a very proper one to exprefs a vindiSlive punifli- ment, and that its connexion with everlajling, in. ]\Iatt. XXV. 46, determines it in an endlefs fenfe. The firft example Hiall be from Lucian. Tantalus, deploring his dreadful ftate, in the infernal regions, in being ready to perifh with A UNIVERSALIST. 89 third;, in the midfl: of abundance of water, fays to Menippus, " TaT ocv% '-n KOAA2I2 £r», ro oi^yiv ,<*» Tr.v \l^-J^riV 'tog s-wy.cc 2(ra^. '"* It IS prcfunied that Mr. V. will not contend that xoAao-i? here lignifies a fahitary chaftifement, intended for the crinii- naFs good. He will, on the contrary, ohferve that it is one of the words which the greel^s made ufe of to exprefs an unlimited future punilli- nicnt, entirely irrefpedive of the futferer's good. This punil]inient is alfo called, in a line or two below, aulccSiy.rij'f wiiich puts the matter beyond difpute. Let us next refer to Andreas Ccefar, in his commentary on Rev. xiv. 11, and fee in what fenfe he ufecl this difputed word: Ek atwi/a Ss onmuv aviov avaiQaivsiv Asy/Jai, 'iv« jM,a3^Wjw,£i/ ATEAEYTHTON sivxi TYiv KOAA2IN tuv a/^aplwAwv, w die in their sins will ever be equally so with those who die in the Lord." (p. 420.) A UNIVERSALIST. 9$ Here then \yq have a perverfe conftru6lioii of a common expreffion in a common fenfe, in order to make way for a falfe cliarge againft his opponent, which is fo grofsly unfounded, as not to admit of a colouring, even conceding the propriety of his abfurd criticifm ! This, dear fir, is the ingenuous, the candid Mr. V., who has no ohjeft fo much at heart as the invef- tigation of truth ! But let us proceed to what remains of this learned and elaborate letter. Mr. Fuller had faid, on fuppofition of the truth of his oppo- nent's principles, *' The broad way doth not " lead to deftruBion, but merely to a temporary *' correction, the end of which is everlafting " life. The chaff will not be burned, but be *' turned into wheat, and gathered into the *' garner: the tares will be the fame, and ga- *' thered into the barn; and the bad filh into *' good, and gathered into vellels, &c." The obvious import of which is, That thefe expref- fions are totally incompatible with any future amelioration in the ftate of the wicked. De- JiruRion, Mr. F. conceives to imply utter and irremediable ruin. Tiie chaff, he thinks, is not wheat, and cannot be made, fuch; and if it could be fo converted, burning does not feeni to be a likely method of effecting it. He alfo fcems to think that tares cannot be turned into 100 LETTERS TO rvheat ; and that putrid filh that has been thrown away, is not likely to be converted into xvhole- fome food* To all this Mr. V. anfwers — What does he anfwer? Perhaps you would not eafily guefs. -; However, I will put you out of I'uf- penfe. He anfwers — '* You are not to be told, *' fir, that d-iflruction, bur ui fig, perij/nng, are *' not confidered by the advocates of endlefs *' confcious mifery, as implying an end of be- *' ing; yet that you have reafoned upon tliefe " places in that fenfe, feems clear." Fie, fie! Mr. V. how could you be fo vindictive.^ Mr. F. had formerly charged you with holding the doctrine of annihilation, and now vou are de- * The celebrated Punster, who calls himself A Reader^ whom I have already introduced in this review, has been pecu- liarly happy in his witty observations on this part of Mr. F.'s letter. On that passage ot scripture which represents the folly of those, who, to gain the whole world, should lose their own souls, he shrewdly observes, that " it must be left with Mr. F. to determine how a man can lose his own soul, and yet find himself for ever in hell torments." This is indeed a difficulty; and no doubt he had in his mind, when he started it, the story of the Ferryman's answer to a gentleman, who, apprehending some danger when crossing a river, enquired whether any body •was ever lost in the passage. O no, says the facetious water- man ; nobody was ever lost in it; for though both my father and grandfather were drowned, here, yet they were both foutui again! ,.The whole of this gentleman's letter proceeds in the same witty strain : and no doubt it has afforded much enter- tainment to those who delight in glee, and substitute puns for argument. A UNIVERSALIST. 101 termined to revenge yourfelf by retorting the charge. Ah fir, this lea: talionis* is not the law of-" the gofpel. — Without taking any further no- tice of this little pique, — as twvy body will fee that no allufion whatever is made to affiiihila- tion, but to the incongruity of the terms in the above paffages, with Mr. V.'s fentiments,— let us proceed to what he offers under the fern- blance of argument. " The apoftle to the Hebrews, in one of ' your contrafted paffages, takes a figure from ' the produ6lion and treatment of bad ground, ' and applies it to illuftrate the cafe of fuch as ' had mifimproved the blelfmgs of the gof- * pel. The earth which beareth thorns and ' briars is rejected, and is nigh unto curfing^ ' xvhofe end is to he burned. What if an uni- ' verfalift, following, as you have done, the ' figure, ihould fay. Though fuch ground be ' burned, becaufe of its unfruitfulnefs ; yet the ' burning of unfruitful ground is oftentimes ' the only method the farmer can take, to alter ' its quality and make it fruitful ; and tliat the * facred writer had a reference to this procefs ' and its confequences, in God's dealings with * finners; would you admit this argument? ' Yet furely it is upon a par with any thing you ' have faid upon the above mentioned figures * of fpeech." * The law of retaliation. 102 LETTERS TO One cannot fufficiently admire the dexte- rity of Mr. V. ! Would you have thought, fir, that this paiTage, on which Mr. V. has fo admi- rably commented, is one, which fome think makes direclly againft the fentiments he has em- hraced? But he has io artfully introduced it, and given it fuch a dexterous turn, that one fliould fcarcely conceive it has any thing to do with the queftion. While he feems to be only confronting his opponent's remark with fome- thing like a parallel, in favour of his own fenti- jnents, he means to bring over a formidable enemy to harmlefs neutrality, if not into a pow- erful ally. Thus he endeavours to obtain an important advantage, without feeming to intend it; and after dating his j^eal fentiments in the form of a dubious queftion, he afks, " Would " you admit this as an argument?" We will iiot however be fo eafily duped. Without View- ing that this gentleman's glofs on the paffage militates againft its plain and grammatical con- flrudion (as we might eafily do,) m'c need only refer to the context, and his interpretation will proclaim its own abfurdity. The paifage occurs in Heb. vi. 8. " It is mpojjible'' (a verfary as complete as they could wifh, Is the whole warfare at an end? I trow not. Little, very little indeed has been done. They may have cut off a detachment; but the main body is Hill un- touched, and is more than equal to the ftrongefl force they can bring againfl it. Why then did Mr. y., in his firfl letter, prefume that, after he had attempted to iliew that " the words *' (aidUj i^'c.) which the fcriptures use, by *' which to exprefs the duration of future mi- '' fery, do not necejjarily mean endlefs," he bad completely vanquillied his opponent, and had nothing to do but to flate his own claims } For my own part, I confider this as but a fmall portion of the proof of endlefs punifliment. Could it even be fhewn that this argument has not the leafl weight in it, flill we are in polTef- p 2 108 LETTERS TO fion of fiich additiorai proof, as mud neceiTarily overturn the f\ftem of univerfalifm. Mr. F. confiders it but as oiie of the jour principal ar- guments drawn from fcriptuie; and in Dr.. Edward's niaflerly enquiry into the truth of Dr. Chauncy's fyllem, it is fcarcely touched upon^ till nearly the conclufion of liis book. But we by no means allow that the leaft advantage has been gained over this divilion. On the contra- ry, we think its itrength is unimpaired, and that it will continue to maintain its ground, till univerfalifm Ihail be annihilated. Let us bring it to a trial. It would be equally tedious and unprofitable to canvafs the whole that has been faid on this topic. I will therefore dire6; your attention to the main arguments on both fides, and conclude "with fome general remarks. The following con- tains the fubftance of Mr. Fuller s obfervations on aidn, <^c. 1. He lays down this rule of interpreting words that are taken in more fenfes than one, as this confefledly is; " That every term be " taken in its proper fenfe, except there be *' fomething in the fubje6t or connexion, which ** requires it to be taken otherwife. " 2. He then proceeds to afcertain the pro- per meaning of awn; and obferves, *' As far as " my acquaintance with this fubjeCl extends, ** it appears to be generally allowed by lexico- A UNIVERSALIST. 109 " graphers that kioov is a compound of C4£i and wv, ** and that its literal meaning is alxvays being: *' alfo that the meaning of its derivative, uiwy.o;, ** is en'dlefs, tvei^lafling, or eternal.'' 3. He then applies this rale of interpreta- tion; and fays, " This term aiwvio?, (aidnios) I ** alwa3^s take in its proper fenfe, except there *' be fomething in the fubjecl or connexion *' which requires it to be taken otiierwife: and *' as I do not find this to be the cafe in any of " thofe places where it is applied to punishment, *' I fee no reafon, in thofe cafes, to depart '' from its proper acceptation." A. He next makes fome obfervations on the pnrafes, £y referring to the fuhjeBy we find even the fuhjecl wrapped up in myfterious terms. Every effort to unravel them, adds to the peplexity, and we at length fit down in ab- folutc defpair, not only of coming at the mean- ing of the word we were inveftigating, but of comprehending the fuhject itfelf. Such then is the fad dilemma to which we are reduced, that we mufi either have the *' temerity" to call in queftion the ingenuity and grammatical precifion of the learned IVIr. Y. and his " beft critics," or make an unconditional furrender of all the learned labours of prefent and former times; and among thefe, (which is peculiarly hard) even the productions of Mr. V., na}^ €ven of the ufe of fpeech itfelf! " Utruni horum mavis accipe."* There is no middle choice. ]\Ir. V. afiures us, that " where a word ** is ufed in relation to different things, the *' fubjecl itfelf muft determine the meaning of * Take which you please. A UNIVERSALIST. 119 ** the word." We wiHi to bow with all fub- miihon to this rule, — for who dare controvert what this profound fcholar and acute reafoner lays down as abfolutely infalhble? We begin to apply it. Every fentence demands its applica- tion, becaufe in every fentence words are ufod, which in other places " have relation to different things." We inveftigate the fubje^t. We find — wonderful to be Spoken ]^^the fuhjeS it felfcloath' ed in words! Thefe words alfo we find to be ** ufed in relation to different things;" nothing therefore can be determined from them. Still, determined not to give up a rule which muj} be right, becaufe it was framed and publiflied by Mr. V. and the " hell critics," we go a flep backwarder, and apply the magic fpell to that alfo: but alas! we find the context alfo written in words, and thefe wards again are " ufed in relation to different things." We then move ftill another ftep backwarder; determined, if poffible, to find out the fubje6l: but flill — flill it mocks our efforts ! When we fancy we have jufl caught it, ignis fatiius like, it eludes our grafp; till at length, wearied with the purfuit, and difficulties multiplying at every flep, we fit down in abfolute defpair, convinced that Ian- ^ guage was invented only teaze and perplex and mortify the fons of men — that the tongue itfelf is a moft ufelefs member; and that thofe only are Avife, Avho continue all their days in thft 12Q LETTERS TO fchool of Pythagoras— never fpeak iior write a fingle word! Yet Mr. Fuller, (fie on him!) dares to controvert this rule! He has the pre- fumption to think that his bible, — the language of God himfelf — and, what he calls, the precious dodrines of the gofpel,* have fome determinate meaning, in fpite of what Mr. V. and " the bed critics" have faid to the contrary !, Dear fir, have you the " temerity" to think fo too? Before you decide on this point, think again what Mr. V, has faid in anot;her place refpecvling this rule. He is fo convinced of its propriety, that he refts the truth of his incontrovertible do6trines upoii it! He declares, " If you, (Mr. F.) or any OTHER MAX CAN INVALIDATE" hjs rCafoUS, founded upon this rule, for tranflating aion by age, *' I WILL FREELY GIVE UP MY POINT." (No. liv. p. 218.) And in order that this de- claration may be the more notable and confpi- cuoiis, he prints it in Roman Capitals. After you have read this, you will probably hefitatc before you renounce fuch an infallible guide. When the icholc of the controverfy is made, to reft ,j ~ ' ' ' ~~~ ' ' " * For be it observed that JNIr. V.'s rule, while it sets aside the use of all language, necessarily reduces thv. doctrines of the bible to a cypher; for the word Jehovah itself is used in difiercnt iicccptations j as are also the words, Creator, Creature, Jesus, Christ, Saviour, Heaven, Hell^ Happiness, Misery, liepcntance. Faith, Holiness, Redemption, Atonement, Restoration, Jiestituiion, Uesurrection, Judg7nciit, Spc, SfC. A UN1VERSJ^LIST. 121 Upon it, you may be fure that it has been well weighed and digelled, and that it inuft be true. After Mr. V. has eftablifhed it as an infal- lible rule, 'that '* where a word is ufed in rela- tion to different things," it has no meaning but what the fubjecl condefcends to bellow, he pro- ceeds to Ihew that as a'wn, ^c. are ufed in rela- tion to different things, therefore they cannot neceff^rily, (he ought to have faid properly) mean endlefs duration. And it mull be acknow- ledged that, granting his premifes, his conclu- fion is perfedly logical. To be fure, if aion, 8^c, have no meaning, it is clear enough, that they cannot mean eternity, endlefs, ^c. But when Mr. V. goes on to tell us, with refped to words that have no meaning of their own, that he apprehends " the fingular (of aion) means age, and the plural ages, every where," (p. 425.) he is not quite fo clear. Two objeclions feem to lie againft it. Firfl, It is not felf-evi» dent, and Hiould therefore have been proved that what has no meaning of its own, ftill has a meaning of its own : and fecondly, If the mean- ing is to be col levied from the fubjecl, and the fubjecl may be infinitely varied, it does not fully appear how thefe words can have a fixed, determinate meaning " every where." " The fubje6t itfelf mufl detern;iine the meaning," fays Mr. v.; and yet Mr. V. fixes the meaning of E 122 LETTERS TO the word, without the fuhjecl ! One ihould natu- rally have thought that, as the fubjed may be varied ad irifijiituvi, he would have told us, that nothing can be determined as to the meaning of aioriy S^c; becaufe that muft vary with the fub* jeft itfelf. Mr. V. delights in paradoxes, and rxo doubt he enjoys the pleafure of feeing his readers perplexed with thefe and ftich like diffi- culties. We muft, however, tamely acqulefce in what it would be '' temerity" to call in queftion. He and " the heft critics" are very confident the rule is a good one, and altogether unexcep- tionable. Allowing, therefore, that what has no meaning of Its own, ftill has a meaning, we take another ftep, and come to the reafon why Air. V. apprehends '' that the fmgular means age, and the plural ages, every where ; becaufe " it muji h^ fo rendered in forae places, and ^' maif be fo in all." Would it be prefumption to call in queftion the validity of this reafon ? I know it is a favourite one. Mr. JVinchcJler has overwhelmed multitudes with ity and, being of tried excellence, Mr. V. urges it with un- daunted confidence. I will, however, fpeak with modefty on the fubjecl ; and therefore, if I ex- prefs my difficulties, I may hope to have them explained, and the prefumption overlookedr I think then, that this reafon is compofed of two parts: (1.) " It must in fomc; and (2.) It A UNIVERSALIST. 123 MAY in ALL." Now' with regard to the former part, I fee no objection. If there be fome places where this *' word in the fingular miiji be ren- dered age, and in the plural ages," that doubt- lefs 7nuft be the meaning of the word, in thofe places. It is in the fecond part that I demur. *' \tviayhe fo in all:" this feems to fuppofe that it may 7iot be fo in all. Now if I am not miftaken in this conje61ure, 1 do not fee how this word muft be " every zvhere" rendered by age. Can a certainty in one cafe, make an uncertainty in another, certain? If my opinion had been a(ked on this point, before I knew that Mr. V. and Mr. W. had decided it in the affirmative, 1 lliould have anfwered, " I think not." As it is, it might be temerity to call in queftion their judgment; and therefore I fubmit. Having been fo bold as to demur on fome part of the logic of Mr. V.'s reafon for render- ing thefe words " every where" by age^ i^c, I fear it may be thought quite unpardonable to exprefs any difficulty in the application of this interpretation to a few paffages of fcripture. Mr. V. fays, " I apprehend that the fingular ** rx\t2i\\s age, and the plural ages, every xv litre; *' becaufe it muji be fo rendered in fome places, ** and may be fo in all." And again: " Upon '^ the whole, the proper meaning of aion ap- *' pears to be age, and the proper meaning of " aidnion, agelajilng. (p. 426.) R 2 124 LETTERS TO Now it feems to me as if tliefe words could not always be lb rendered, for the following reafons: becaule to render them fo in fome places, appears, (1 ) To militate againft Mr. V.'s infallible rule, on the truth of which he refts his whole fyftem : (^.) To contradidt Mr. V/s opinion of the duration of an age: (3.) To bear hard upon a very favourite, and a funda- mental tenet of Mr. V. : (4.) To be point blank againft that duration of puniHiment for which Mr. V. contends: (5.) lo make an in- fpired apoftle write ridiculoufly: (6.) To linnt the exiftence of the I'upreme Being. — I will juft fay a word on each of thefe appearances. 1. I faid it appears to militate againji Mr. V.'s iiifaUible. rule, on ivhich he refts the 'whole Jiruciure of XJnvcerfalifm. " When words (fays -^ Mr. v.) are ufed in relation to different *' things, (as thefe confelfedly are) the fubjecrl *' muft determine their meaniuo-:" and vet here, as juft obferved, Mr. V. feems to alfume the province of the fu!)ject, and fixes the meaning himfelf of thele words etiery where. But 2. It appears to contradict Mr. V.'s opinion of the duration of an age. He has told us that the litmoft extent of an age is 49 years. *' In ** the old teflament (fays he) we read of the " fabbath of days, or weekly fabbath; feven '* years brought about a period, called the " year of releafe, or fabbath of years; feven of A UNIVFRSALIST. 125 *' tliefe periods was included in that grand revo- " lution which brought about the jubilee. This ** Ti'as the comprehenfive age or period, zv/iich, as " the greater, included all the lefs. Thus the " hebrews obtained the idea of their "?i^ and d'?J7; •'' literally age and ages. — From a fiir.ilar fource, " tile greeks derived their a/on and aionas,* *' which are ufed in the ieptuagint verfion in *' the very fame fenfe; and the \vriters alfo of *' the new teftament ufe the fame words with " their derivatives alfo in the fame manner." (U, M. No. xxxvi. p. 364.) Here then we have one limit, at leaft, of an age. It does not exceed forty-nine years; for *' this (fays he) was the comprehenfive age^ or ** period, which, as the greater, included all the " lefs.'" How then can the word aion be ahvays rendered by age, which in another place, he alTures us, " is ufed for an hundred years — for " the duration of a man's life, which is about **'feventy years — for any meafurement of time, ** if its termination be hidden; yea, even for a ^^ year?" (God's Love, No. xxxvi. p. 31.) Nay, he frequently informs us that the whole period of rewards and punifliments is compre- hended under this term, age: — but perhaps he * One dare not call in question Mr. V.'s greek literature, else one might have doubted the propriety of his inserting the accusative case aionas for the nominative aiones : we cannot sup- pose that he knew no better. 126 J.ETTERS TO will maintain that this will not exceed forty-nine years. With refpe(5l to the other limit of the word age, Mr. V. has not exadly defined it. He fays forty-nine years " was the comprehenfive age, which, as the greater, included all thelefs:''— but he does not fay, in this place, how Jlwrt a period it may be ufed for. It ma^, however, be collected from other parts of his writings, that it defcends to a very fliort period ; to that of three days. He fays " Jonah was m the whales belly forever:" (No i. p. 6.) that is, fmce for ever may be every where rendered for an age — *' Jonah was in the whale's belly for an ageT Perhaps this may found a little oddly to thofe who are acquainted only with the general accep- tation of an age in old-fafhioned times; but they will perceive from hence the vaft advantage of being acquainted with modern wiprovements in language. 3. It appears alfo to hear hard upon a fa- "vourite and fundamental tenet of Mr. V. One of his grand do6lrines is, that the duration of re- wards and punilhments will be limited within certain ages; or, in other words, will only be age-lajiing. Now he alfures us that '* every proper judge" knows that he has given a proper tranllation, in thus rendering 2 Cor. iv. 17. '' The prefent light afflidion— worketh for us " a glory exceeding aionion (or age-laJling) to A UNIVERSALIST. 127 " excefs." But how, in the name of wonder, can the reward of glory exceed age-lafling to an. excefs, if the utmoft duration of rewards does not exceed age-lafting? There ftems to be fome fault either in the tranflation, which *' every proper judge knows" to be right; or elfe in rendering aidnion by age'lajiing, which Mr. V. alTures us is perfe^ly right; or elfe fome error in the do6trine of rewards, which Mr. V. is equally certain is incontrovertible. JVhere the error is, it were prefumption in me to enquire. 4. It feems, moi'tover^ to he point blank againji that dm^ation ofpunijhnmtfor xvhich Mr, V. contends. I have already obferved, that Mr. V. maintains that the duration of puniilmient will be age-lafting. This is the fundamental principle in his fyftem. In fupport of it, he and his friends often adduce Ifai. Ivii. 16: but with what propriety I could never judge. Ac- cording to his mode of tranflating aiony it will run thus: *' I will not contend for an age,"'* This patTage, then, does not only make againft endlefs punifliment, but it is alfo equally llrong againft that which will continue for an age; i. e. \i aim mud here be rendered age, as Mr. V. fays it muft, it is a direct refutation of his notion concerning a limited punillnnent. The fame obfervations may be made alfo on Jer. iii. 12, * oVij? The septuagint ek toi cnum. 128 LETTERS TO and Mic. vii. 18: from which it appears that this champion for univerfalifm wields a two- edged fword, which may be turned with equal advantage againft himfelf as his opponents. Mr. V.'s tranflation alfo, 5. Seems to make an infpired apofile write rldlculou/ly. I refer to 2 Cor. iv. 17. Our ig- norant tranflators made the apoftle fpeak thus : '•^ The things that are feen are temporal, but tlie things that are not feen are eternal." Mr. V. pours a flood of light on this obfcure paflage, and thus elegantly renders it: *' The things V' that are feen are- temporal, but the things " that are not feen are aionion, or agelaJUng.'' An age, you recoUecl, is any period of time, ** even a year;" nay, even " three days!" You will fupprefs every tendency to fmile, when you recolledl, what a fcholar it is that tells you how thefe greek words j?iiifi be tranflated. But laftl}''* 6. It feems to limit the rery exifience of Deity. According to Mr. V., this tranflation gives us "a rational conception of age-lafting gofpel," AGE-LASTING SPIRIT, AGE-LASTING God. Did I fay age-lafting Spirit, and age-Iaft- God? I beg leave to retraft thefe fentences. In looking at tvayyiXiov aiwvioi/,* and feveral other aioniofis, mentioned in p. 426; and finding all thefe rendered age-lajiing, I naturally read when * Everlasting gospel. A UNIV£USAL1ST. 129 1 came to TirviVf^otloq atwvts,* (Heb. ix. 14.) and ai&ivis 0£»f in the fame connexion, ^^ age- lofting Spirit, and agt-lafiing God ; " knowing that thele paflages were brought to fliew how ration- ally amiion might be thus rendered: but on looking more particularly, I find that Mr. V. has not been guilty of the blafphemy of limiting the exiftence of the everlafting Jehovah. When, he comes to thefe expreffions, he leaves out the word age-laftwg, as if he had fuddenly felt a qualm of confcience in the application of his rule, for rendering this word everi/ xvhere by age-lajling ; and he gives a curious fort of cir- cumlocution upon thefe palTages, to which I refer you. Mr. V. was not willing to become a direct blafphemer, and therefore when his rule required him to limit the exiftence of " Him who liveth for ever," he throws it up without the lead ceremony. Perhaps there may be other trifling diffi- culties in the way of rendering thefe greek words " every where" by age and age-lafting.J * Everlasting Spirit, f Everlasting God. X I request the reader to apply the words age and age^ lasting in the place of ever and everlasting, in the follov\'ing passages; and let him determine for himself, whether, in so doing, he does not make the inspired writers speak in a style, bordering upon blasphemy. Gen. xxi. 33. Deut. xxxii. 40. Ps. xxxiii. 11. xc. X). Jcr. x. 10. Lam. v. IQ. Dan. vi. 26. S 130 LETTERS TO What i have mentioned, ftruck me in the courfe of reading; Mr. V.'s letters; and I have Hated them in order that, if he Ihould conde- fcend to read this review, he may perceive ho\y dull fome of his readers are; and may hereafter fay a few words by way of obviating difficulties, which, though trifling to men of great parts^ fometimes prove a (lumbling-block to lefs learn- ed readers. I am, dear fir, Yours, &c. a LETTER VIII, The fame fubject cojUinued. Dear fir, I N perufmg Mr. Vidler's letters, one eannot but be ftruck with his great facility in laying down rules, and fupporting them by the authority of " the befl critics." To call thefe rules ill queftion, Mr. V. conceives, argues no fmall portion of " temerity:" and I fear that I have already incurred this charge, in common Hab. iii. 6, &c. &c.: and let it be remarked, tliat in every one of these passages, the original hcbrcw and the septuagint trans- lation, are tho:se very words which jNIr. V. contends are to be rendered by age, Sec, except Jer. x. 10, which I do not find translated in the septuagint. A UNIVERSALIST. 131 with Mr. F. ; and fliall be in farther danger of expofing my ignorance in the fequel of thefe letters. I had intended to ftate feme ohjec* tions to another rule, which Mr. V. declares ** no grammarian will difpute:" but on fecond thoughts, it may be better to fufpend them, particularly as the queflion in debate does not feem to be affected by it. The rule is this; *' No adjective can have greater force than the fubftantive from which it is derived." I. cannot, however, avoid making a few obfervations gii, this gentleman's illuliration and application of Jiis rule, as they may be of fome ufe to future grammarians and philologers. Thefe have taught us, that there are certain words, which are de- nominated ahjiract terms; and that they repre- sent certain ideas fuggt;(led by the properties or qualities of bodies, but which have no necef- fary connexion with any particular bodies. We fee a fubftance, for inftance, that is black. We abftradt this idea from the body^ and call it hlachiefs. Hence, from white alfo we obtain the ab{lra6l term, whitenefs, 8^c. This, however, Mr. y. gives us to underftand, is not corre^ ; and informs us, on the contrary, that the ad- jective black is derived from blacknefi, and white from xvhitenefs. (p. 425.) Had Mr. Locke lived in the days of Mr. y., he might have greatly availed himfelf of this gentleman's inge^ nious difcoveries. 132 LETTERS TO Now we are fiiggefting a hint for improve- ment among metaphyficians, where would be the harm of chopping grammarians a hint alfo? We have been hitlierto taught to believe that the english, unlike the greek, admits of no varia- tion in the termination of its adje6tives, on ac- count of number, cafe, or gender. This feems to be a miflake. Mr. V. conceives that they admit the termination s, as well as fubftantives, in their plural. Hence, in order to fliew that the englifh adje6lives eternal and eoerlajling, in englifh, do not admit of a plural, as the greek for thefe words does, he afks. Who ever read of *' ETERNALS, EVERLASTINGS?" (p. 333.) Who indeed ! He therefore flirewdly concludes, tb-at they mean very differently from the greek ivords, and that our tranflators, to fay no \vorfe "V^f them, wtvQ, ignoramufes for fo rendering them. 'It is to be hoped, that future grammarians will 'give us examples of xvife, wifes; jujr, jufs; righ- ieoics, right€oufes, S<;c. Methinks it would make a noble addition to our hilling language ! If we were to tell Mr. V. that we fometimes read of eternal ages, though not of eternals ages, he would fay, 'V yes— but though the fubftantive be in the ^''plural, the adjedive is not; for the adjedive ■^* in engUJh, does not, like the adjedtive in * s:reek, aeree with the fubftantive in number.' 'FietAriftarchus!* * Admirable srammarian ! A UNIVERSALIST. 133 I would fain follow Mr. V. through every paragraph of his elaborate epifiles; but, as in cuttino- out his M'ork, he has liad no mercv on his reviewer, I muft have a little on myfelf; and I am willing alio to fpare you. 1 fhall therefore pals over feveral parts, fraught with learned lore, and food for criticifm; (for he can fcarcely write a page, without Ihewing his (kill in greek and hebrew) and juft direct your at- tention to two (I had alnioft faid) phcenomeim ; but where one meets with prodigies at everv iftep, they ceafe to excite wonder. They are to be found at the conclufion of his feveiath letter. (p. 426.) *■' '' I have no hefUation (fays he) in admit- *' ting that the ubv of Dan. xii. 2, anfwers to *' the greek aim; nor that the antithefis in this *' paffage, and in Matthew xxv. A6, deter- " MINES it to mean the same, when applied to ** fhame and contempt, as when applied to life." Now fir, let us compare Mr. Vidler with Mr, Vidkr. Open No. xxxv. p. 331, and you will find it thus written: " You feem (he fays to ** Mr. F.) to lay great ftrefs upon the word " being ufed by our Lord, in relation both to future happinefs and mifery, in Matt. xxv. 46. But I conceive no folid argument can he drawn from the ajrpUcation of the fame zcord to different things;, to prove their endlefs conti- ♦* nuance, unlefs their nature be the fajne." IS^ LETTERS TO He then adduces a paflage from Hab. iii. 16, to deftroy the force of the antithefis in Matt. xxv. 46; and adds, " I thhik there is a vaft differ- " ence indeed, in the nature of future blefled- *' nefs, and future punilliment ; fo great a dif- *' ference as fully to juftify us in giving a *' VERY DIFFERENT SENSE tO the ZVOfd eVCV' ** la ft Dig 7vhen applied to each of thefe fuhjeBs.'" He has, however, now altered his opinion, and thinks that, notwithftanding " the different ** nature of future bleifednefs and future pu- ** nilhment." " the antithefis determines it to *' mean the same" when applied to thefe widely different flates. I congratulate him on this i^hange of fentiment. A^il defpcran^um.^ At t^e beginning of this controverfy, Mr. V., like Dr. Chauncy, Mr. Winchefter, and others, was a wariii advocate for iiniverfal falvaiion. He has, however, totally relinquilhed that hold, as ntterly indefenfible; and what Mr. Winchefter contended for, " as the mind of God, and the doctrine of his holy word," Mr. V. thinks is unfupported by a fingle paffage of fcripture ; and declares '' he does not, nor ever did believe it." He has now felt the force of arguments, which he once affe6led to defpife ; and he has " no " hefitation in admitting, that the antithefis *' in Matt. xxv. 45, determines it (aionios) to « — ■ — — : — ; : — — — . ' ■ '^ , ' .*■, ' " * *"" * We need despair of nothing. A UNiVERSALlST. 135 ** mean the fame when applied " to happuiefs arid mifery. We learn hence alfo what, for a long time, Ave fought in vain, — how long it will be, before the punilhment of the wicked will come to an end. Mr. V. gives us to underftand that it will happen when the rewards of the faints Ihall ceafe. If we could diveft ourfelves of predile6lion for favourite terms, it feems we fliould foon agree on thefe fubjefts. Mr. V. is not made up of fuch impenetrable materials as fome might ima- gine. He can and will defert a poll that he finds no longer tenable ; though foldier-like, he will call it any thing but a retreat. Allow him to claim the viclory, and you may drive him from poll to poll, till he does not retain a fingle place that need excite the leaft alarm. He has renounced Univerfal Salvation; and he profeffes his belief, that rezvards and puniJJiments are of equal duration, Thefe fir, you will acknowledge are no trifling conceflions. All that now feems to remain is, that he would relinquifli his fond- nefs for odd terms and modes of reafoning, and be contented to think and fpeak like other folks. As it is, he deceives his readers by appearing to maintain what he feems not to believe. The other point to which I promifed above to direCi your attention, is to be found in the concluding paragraph of his feventh letter. Nor have I much to obferve upon it, after confront- 136 LETTERS TO ing a paffage from Mr. F.'s letters, with Mr* V.'s quotation, and comment upon it. " Ari- " ftotle the philofopher, (fays Mr. F. in a note) ** who lived upwards of three hundred years *' before the new teftament was written, plainly " tells us the meaning which the greek writers *' of his time, and thofe who, in his time, were *' accounted antients, affixed to this term, *' (aioii.) Speaking of the gods, whom he con- *' fidered as immortal, and as having their re- *' fidence above the heavens, he fays, " The *' beings which exiil there neither exift in place, *' nor does time make them grow old, nor un- *' dergo they any change, being placed beyond *' the motion even of thofe who are the furthell ** removed (from the center; ) but poifeffing *' an unchangeable life, free from all outward *' impreihons, perfe6tly happy and felf-fufficient, *' they continue through aW onccvoc, eternity. And •' this the antients admirably fjgnified by the *' word itfelf: for they call the time of each per- " fon's life his aicov (aiot?,) inafmuch as accord- " ing to the laws of nature, nothing (refpeding '' him) exifts out of the limits of it; and for *' the fame reafon, that which comprehends the " duration of the whole heaven, the whole of *' infinite time, and infinity itfelf, is called ajwv, *' eternity; taking its name from always beings *' (aa nvai) immortal and divine." (No. xxxix, pp. 102—3.) (Letters, pp. 5d, ^4.) A tJNIVERSALlSt. ^37 On this paffage ]\Ir. V. thus remarks: ** Your quotation, in which the authority of *' Ariftotle is brought forward, proves Httle to *' your purpofe. The critic who furniihed you *' with it, fays, That the antients admirably ex- " preffed eternity by the word aion, for they *' call the term of each man's life, his aionfU *' Mod admirable indeed ! Are you in the ha- '' bit of fpeaking to 3'our hearers in this ad- *' mirable manner about eternity? If I had *' brought a quotation of fuch a nature, I *' fliould probably have been told, that it was a *' proof of the fear city of e-videncCy in the paths *' zvhich I am in the habit of treading.'^ Who can help feeling unwilling to throw a gloom over this brilliant piece of repartee ? It is evidently an effort to put the reader into a good humour at the conclufion of a heavy and tedious letter : and if a fmile can now and then be extorted, though it fliould be at Mr. V.'s clumfy attempts to be witty, why fliould one endeavour to fupprefs it? Otherwife one fhould be difpofed to feel indignant at the bare-faced falfehood, glaring perverfion, and difuigenuous fuppreifion which appear on the face of this fliort quotation. *' The critic who furnifhed you with" this quotation " fays" — No, fir; the cri- tic fays nothing about it. It \vas Ariftotle^ fir; — a name with which you are perfedly unac- T 138 LETTERS TO quainted, and a reafoner whom you have not compafs of intelled to follow — it M^as Ariftotlc who faid what you falfely afcribe (and that hnoxvingly, for the introdu61ion to this palTage, as well as the marks of quotation make it too plain to be miftaken) to '* the critic." And have you, iir, the effrontery to fpeak with fucli confurnmate contempt of this mafter of Reafon — this profound metaphyfician ? One might have doubted whether even JVIr, V. could have be- trayed fo much fclf- importance, if he had not, at the very fame time, fiipprefled the concluding part of the fentence, as well as that which pre- ceded it, on which the whole force of the reafon- ing turned. If a review of this part of Mr. V.'s conduct will not call forth a blufli, he muft be far gone indeed ! I forbear to add. Read, my dear fir, the quotation as it is given in Ariftotle; ,nid if it do not fix the meaning of atwi/ (aion) to utern'ityy in the efiimation of thofe, who ought to be judges in their own language, nothing can. I had made feveral references to the writ- ings of the bed clatfics, where this word and its derivatives are ufed in an endlefs fenfe, which I meant to quote; but after reviewing this, it feems unnecelfary. Mr. V. ma}^ " appeal" as loudly as he pleafes to the good fenfe of the reader; but till he can give us a tranflation of thefe difputed words, lefs at variance witli com- mon fenfe, with the ufage of the beft greek claf- A UNIVERSALIST. 139 fics, and efpecially with the word of God, than that which he has attempted, we mufl abide by the decifion of the lexicographers, whom he treats with fo little ceremony. " The common fenfe of the Reader" will perhaps lean rather to the fide of fuch authorities as " Kircher, Schre- velius, Leigh, Parkhurft," Ariftotle, and others, than to that of Winchefter and Vidler, though we allow them almofl as much learning as in the plenitude of his modefty, this latter gentleman, claims. 1 cannot but perfuade myfelf, fir, that you have felt aihamed of this champion of Univer- falifm, whilft we have been reviewing thus much of the controverfy between him and Mr. Fuller. To recapitulate the fubftance of thefe remarks on his criticifins on aion, &c. is unneceflfary. I fliall therefore relieve both you and myfelf for the prefent, and Ihould be glad if, in my next letter, I Ihould have any thing better with which to prefent you. I am, dear fir, Yours, &c. S. T 2 ( 140 ) LETTER IX. Obfemations on Mr. V.'s object iuns to the common rendering o/aion, &;c. with Jiriciures on his attempts to find Jironger greek tvords to e(vprefs endlefs duration. Dear fir, A HE difficulties which the words aiony Sec. have prefented to the fyftem ot Univcrfatifls, have induced them to unite their efforts, in conjundion with " the bed critics," to make this word ftand for a mere cypher. For this purpofe they have prefcribed both a jwjlrum and a regimen. la my former letters we paid due :attention to both. With refpe6l to their rule, we obje6led againfl it, as ftrilETTE11 XL Mr. ]\6 rule for interpreting words of different acceptations ; zcith remarks on Mr. V.'s obfer- 1' at ions on this rule. Dear fir, I N my three former letters I examined Mr. V.'s reafons for rendering aion^ &c. by age * We should make use of such language as we understand ; lest, like some persons, qfecfing a knowledge ofGREfiK words, we get most desenedly laughed at. A UNIVERSALIST. l63 &r\d age-lqfiingj and alfo his obje6lions againft the common tranllation. I propofe in this to give ]\lr. F.'s reafons for adhering to the gene- rally received fenfe. He allo^vs that thefe words cannot uniformly he rendered by e^er and ever- Iqft'wg; but he contends that this is no proof againft their having a proper and definite mean- ing, which he fays is endleft. He obferves that there are fcarcely any words in any language which are not ufed in an improper or figurative fenfe; and that, on account of the different idioms of language, it would be impoflible to fix upon an uniform rendering of any one word. He then lays down the following rule, in oppofir tion to Mr. F.'s, for interpreting the meaning of ^vords: " That every term be taken in its PROr ** PER fenfe, except there be fomething in the *' fubje6l or conneftion which requires it to be *' taken otherwife," With refpedt to this rule Mr. V. elegantly obferves, '' It would puzzle a conjurer to find *' a difference between what you have faid and ** what I have faid about this rule* But it *' feems that you are determined to contradi6l ** me, even in thofe things in which I perfectly *' agree with you." (No. Iv. pp. 2(53, 4.) But y ' . .. , ' * Mr. V. means between his own rule and that of Mr. Fuller. It is not yet conceded that they are one and the san^ jiile. y 2 iS4 LETTERS TO perhaps, by a little attention to the nature of Mr. F. 's rule, we may be able to difcover fome Utile difference from Mr. V.'s, without having recourfe to the black art. In addition to what Mr. F. has laid on Mr. V.'s rule, (No. xl. pp. 144, 5.) I have already (l)ewn in my feventh letter into what fad difficulties it would reduce us; from every one of which Mr. F.'s rule wdl free us: and if this be the cafe, methinks even Mr. V. niuft allow that there is fome difference. As Mr. F. has pointed this out in a i'tw words, I will lay them before you. " The rule adopted ** in my laft letter, allows a proper meaning to *' every fcriptiire term, and does not attempt to *' fet it afide in favour of one that is improper *' and figurative, unlefs the fcope of the pajfuge *' or the nature of the fitbjecl require it. This is *' a *cery (liferent thing from not admitting it^ ** imlefs the fuhjcci, from its own nature, render ** it abfolutely nece(farij. The one is treating the *' proper meaning of a fcripture word with re- *' fpeft, not d.ifpenfing with it, but upon urgent *' neceffity; the other is treating it with indig- *' nity, refufing it admiffion, except where it ** cannot be denied." (No. xl. p. \^5.)* Now fir, mud a man neceffarily be a conjurer to fee a difference fo clearly ftated? Surely not. Mr. V.'s rule impofes upon us the Herculean labour of comparing the fenfes in which an author iifes * Letters, pp. Z*, 75. A UNIVERSALJST. l65 any word, and if any difference be found in them, then nothing can be determined refpecfing their meaning, but from the fuhJeSi. This fubje^t we again find couched in words of different ac- ceptations; we are then compelled to go a ftep backwarder, and make the fame inveiligation. Here asrain we find the fame difficuUies as be- fore, and fo on ad hjiuitum, without the potlibi- lity of obtaining the fenfe of an author. On the contrary, Mr. F.'s rule impofes no more than the cafy tafk of afcertaining the proper ideal meaning of any word, with which a common di6^ionary will furniih us ; and this done, we have only to affix this meaning to it, whei*ever it occurs, un- lefs the fcope of the paffage, or the fubjeft point out to a figurative or improper fenfe, and then its meaning is determined by the paffage. Mr. V. allows the propriety of this rule, only he con- tends that it is the fame as his. I fhall not therefore fpend any time in examining its merits, but proceed to Mr. F.'s application of it. " So " far (fays he) as my acquaintance with this ** fubjed; extends, it appears to be generally ** allowed by lexicographers that cauv (aion) is a '^ compound of an and wi/, (aei and oti) and that *' its literal meaning is always being ; alfo that *' the meaning of its derivative oamioi; (aionios) ** is endlefs, cverlajiing, or eternal. This term ** onmioq (aionios) which is very fparingly ap- *'■ plied in the new teftament to limited duration, 166 LETTERS TO ** I always take in its proper fenfe, except there ** be fomething in the connection or fubje6l *' >vhich requires it to be taken otherwife: and ** as I do not find this to be the cafe in any of ** thofe places where it is applied to punifliment, *' I fee no reafon, in thofe cafes, to depart from *' its proper acceptation." (No. xxxix. pp. 102, 3.) (Letters, pp. 53, 54.) Now Mr. V. acknowledges it is allowed by lexicographers to have the meaning which Mr. F. affixes to it; but he adds, " Great as their *' authority may be, I appeal from them to the *' common fenfe of the reader; and affirm that ** cuoov (aion) does not necelTarily (he ought to " have faid properly) mean eternity; nor ^xiwkoc ** (aio?tios) eterTial ov everlqfii/ig.'' (No. xlvii. p. 424.) Common fenfe has heard the appeal, and declared it to be ** ridiculous, abfurd, and vexatious." We therefore adhere X.o the. quondam learned men, and rejeft the conceits of Mr. Vidler. It being then afcertained, beyond contro- verfy, that aion properly fignifies eternity, we are required by the rule which Mr. V. himfelf admits, and which has the fuflfrage of common fenfe, to give it this meaning wherever it occurs, unlefs the fubje<5l require a different fenfe; jiift as we do to the englifli words ever and emrlaji- ing ; which, like the greek for thofe words, a're A UNIVERSALIST. iGj often taken in an improper fenfe. Hence it appears, that when we read of everlajiing pu- nijhme7it, (Matt. xxv. 46) it conveys precifely the fame idea, neither more nor lefs, as the greek aiwi/to? jtoXao-t?. Inftead, therefore, of Mr. V. and others obje6ling againft the unlimited meaning of the words in queftion, when applied to punilhment, becaufe they are fometimes ufed in a limited fenfe, he Ihould fet himfelf to prove that future punifhment, in its own nature, cannot be eternal ; or becaufe it is fomewhere in fcrip- ture declared not to be eternal : and till he does this, all he fays about the limited meaning of this word in fome places, is nothing better than trifling. It is not an idle parade of greek learning that will do away the meaning of ■words which are unfavourable to his fyftem ; but fuch a demonftration of the impoffibility of future puniflmient being eternal, as would make it abfurd to apply aibnios to it, in its unlimited fenfe. For the fake of illuftration, if it need any, let me afk Mr. V. how he difcovered that this word is efer ufed in a limited fenfe? He will fa}^ * Becaufe it is abfurd, in fome cafes, to underftand it otherwife. Who, for inftance, could believe that an earthly inftitution, fuch as the jexvifh priejihood, could literally continue for ever ? The fubje6l plainly fhews, that for ever cannot fignify an endlefs duration.'' Very true. Shew, in the fame manner, that when it 168 LETTERS TO is applied to future punifliment, the fuhjeSi n6- cefTarily reftrids the meaning of the word, and then you will have done fomething. I cannot difmifs this point without faying one word more upon it ; and, as it is confidered an important one on both fides, I hope I fhall be excufed. Nothing can be more evident, than that the onus probandi* lies in this cafe, upon Mr. V., and not on his opponents, as he and his ridiculous rule of interpretation, would have us believe. If aion, S;c. do not mean infinite duration, when applied to punifliment, it mull lie upon Mr. V. to prove that there is fomething in puniflmient which renders its infi- nitude impoffible ; and then the proof will not reft upon the meaning of aioji, 8^'c., but on the fubjeft. The proof will then amount to this : Punifliment is indeed declared to be endlefs ; but as it has been Ihewn that this cannot be the cafe, from the nature of the thing, and the plain declarations of the M'ord of God ; there- fore the word aionios, when applied to puniih- ment, muft be underftood, as it fometimes is, in an improper or figurative fenfe. This, I con- ceive, would be a fort of proof to which no one could reafonably obje6i, and would do away, in a moment, the idle controverfy about the mean- ing of a word, which muft be allowed on all * The weight of proving. A UNIVERSALIST. I69 hands to fignify endlefs. To me it appears ridi- culous in the extreme to fet a man, as Mr. V. does, to prove that the fubjeH requh-es a word to be underltood in its proper meaning. Surely common fenfe didates that it is his province to fhew from the fubje6l, that it is ufed in an im- proper fenfe: and till he has done this, every paf- fage, where this word (lands in connexion with punifliment, is a flrong and pofitive evidence of its endlefs duration. I have now gone through the moft import- ant part of this controverfy about the meaning o^ aiotiioSy S^c. Whether you are convinced that univerfalifts have hitherto gone the wrong road to work to fet afide the meaning of thefe terms, I cannot tell. Of one thing I think you muft be convinced — that greek criticifms are not the province of Mr. V., and that he would hereafter be better employed in ftudying plain englifh, and clearing his fyftem of thofe contradictory principles of which it is compofed. In my next, I {hall make a few remarks on what remains of this controverfy. In the mean time, I am, dear fir, Yours, &c. S. w ( 170 ) LETTER XII. A fummary revierv of rihat remains of the Controverfy. Dear fir, r HEN I entered upon this Review, I intended to go through the whole of what iliould be advanced in the courfe of this contro- verfy. But when I confider what has been al- ready written, and what ftill remains before me, inftead of prefenting to the public a fmall pam- phlet, as i lirft thought, a bulky volume would fcarcely contain the whole. My work feems to multiply as I proceed, and it is now become ex- ceedingly irkfome. 1 fee nothing before me but the fame caufe for animadverfion ; and were I to continue to point out all the fophiftry, mifrepre- fentation, and affectation of learning with which the remaining pages abound, I am not without fear that the fufpicion of perfonal animofity would attach to myfelf I fl)all therefore make but a few curfory remarks on what remains, and conclude my Review. The two remaining of Mr. Fuller's four fcripturai reafons for rejeding the dodrine of Univerfal Reftoration have not yet been touched upon. Mr. V. thinks that his " forcible" ar- guments in favour of the limited meaning otaid?i LETTERS TO A UNIVERSALIST. 171 and its derivatives, fuperfede the neceflity of any difcuffion of his opponent's f//iW argument; and- therefore he contents himfelf with endeavouring to explain away the meaning of a few of the paf- fages of fcripture, by which it is fupported. If however it has been /liewn that what Mr. V. thinks is fo '* forcible" has no force at all, he muft fet himfelf to difprove the main argument,. and not merely cavil at a few of the paflfages by which it is confirmed. And as for the fourth ar- gument, viz. '* All thofe paflages which intimate " that a change of heart, and a preparednefs *' for heaven are confined to the prefent life," he difmilTes it as having no relation whatever to the fubje6l in debate! They refer to " Salva- tion and the kingdom of Chrift," which have no connexion, according to Mr. V., with future reftoration ! In his three following letters, there is little elfe befide perfonalities, attempts at wit, afFe^ed humihty, modeft infinuations of profound critical acumen in the learned languages, and ftill the fame " fing — fong" of aibn 2LXid aidnios. With his page crowded with greek and hebrew words, he infills upon it that he is a fcholar; and as there is no convincing him to the contrary, he muft be permitted ftill to hug the pleafing delur fion. z 2 172 LETTERS TO After Mr. F. has ftated his reafons for re- je6ling the do6lrines of Univerfaliils, he pro- ceeds, in his fixth letter, to examine their fyftem and arguments in fupport of it. At the com- mencement of this controverfy, Mr. V. dif- claimed the teft of reafon, and refted the whole on the revealed word of God. He fays, (No. i. p. 5.) *' Suffer me to tell you, worthy fir, that ** the queftion is not whether endlefs punilh- ** ment is in itfelf juft; but whether God " has any where in his word threatened any *' defcription of finners with it." It is a pity Mr. V. did not follow up this fenfible obferva- tion, and confine the truth of his do6lrine to the facred fcriptures. But alas! finding but lit- tle to give even a colour to his fyftem there, he has launched out among the dangerous rocks and flioals of metaphyfical reafoning; and as fome will think, has made " fiiipwreck of faith," if not of " a good confcience." He lays down two ina;xims, one of which Mr. F. charges with throwing " a reproach on his Maker;" and the other he proves is trifling, and irrelevant; and in its application fubverfive of the fyftem it was in- tended to fupport. The former is couched in thefe Words: " I lay it down as a maxim, to be ** doubted by few, and denied by none. That ** whofoever doth any thing, forefeeing the cer- *' tain event thereof, willeth that event. If a *' parent fend children into a wood in which A UNIVER&ALIST. 173 grow poifonous berries, and certainly knows that they will eat of them, it is of no import- ance in the confideration of common fenfe, that he cautions or forewarns; that they, hav- ing free will, may avoid the poifon. Who WILL NOT ACCUSE HIM OF THEIR DEATH IN SENDING THEM INTO SUCH CIRCUM- STANCES, WHERE HE FOREKNEW IT WOULD HAPPEN? God foreknows everything; to Ins hioxvledge every thing is certain. Let ns fiip- pofe him about to create twenty men: he knows ten of them will become vicious, and therefore damned ; and thence inherit the un- ceafing penalty. JVho doubts, in fuch a caje^ THAT HE WILLS THE END, ivho being Al- mighty and all-knowing, does that without which it could not come to pafs.'' (No. xxxv. p. 330.) This is fpeaking out with a witnefsl Without making any obfervations on the juft- nefs of Mr. V.'s comparifon, we may perceivje his opinion of the author of fin; and moreover, that he confiders deliverance from its confe- quences as an a^ of juftice, and not of mercy- According to him, God is to be accufed o^ their death, and ought to repair the injury he has wantonly brought upon them! In Mr. Fuller's fmth letter there are many excellent remarks, and much juft reafoning upon this bkfphemous maxim; to which I beg leave to refer you, and to requeft.your particular attention. Mr. V. in 174 LETTERS TO his eleventh letter, endeavours to roll away the reproach of having made God the author of fin; becauff, to whatever conclufions and inferences his reafoning may be liable, he intimates that he has exprefled in other places his belief that man is the author of it. We muft therefore difcharge Mr, V. from the pr-emeditated intention of re- proaching the ever-bleffed and holy God. But furely it would have been greatly to his credit to have renounced a maxim, and expreflfed his for- row for ever advancing it, which fo plainly and almoj} directly makes the Creator and Redeemer of the world, the author of all its fm and mifery; and alfo to have given up a fyftem, which ren- ders fuch a maxim neceffary for its fupport. I Hiould apprehend that, if there be one part of this gentleman's letters which would caufe him more unealinefs than another, fliould he ever ferioufly refle6t on what he has written, it would be the contents of this maxim. Alas! fir, how little do we know of the counfels of Jehovah! What arrogance 'and prefumption does it betray in a worm of the earth, to pretend to pry into what he has thought proper to conceal ! Surely " clouds and darknefs are round about him," though " righteoufnefs and judgment are "^the habitation of his throne." I am well perfuaded that if any mkn, from the known attributes of Deity, had reafoned a priori, as Mr. V. has done refpeding the introduction of fm, this gentleman A UNIVERSi^LIST. 175 would himfelf have condemned him, as impi- oufly libelling the majefty of heaven ! Whatever levity may be betrayed when men difpute with men, upon fubje<5is which fall within the com- pafs of the human underftanding, furely it be- comes us to fpeak with trembling, when we ar- raign the conduct of the divine Being before a human tribunal! Can the Almighty be pleafed Avith fuch a Ihort-fighted creature as man is, when he dares to fpeak with fuch pofitive cer- tainty refpe6ling his counfels of unfearchable wifdom, juft as if they were clearly revealed, or as if he admitted man to a fliare in his govern- ment ? Mr. V. fays again, " I lay it down alfo as .*' an indubitable maxim, That whatever is done *' by a Being of the divine attributes, is in- *' tended by his goodnefs, conducted by his '* wifdom, and accomplifhcd by his power, to *' a good end." To this maxim, neither Mr. F. nor any other rational being can obje6l ; and particular!}' as it has the fingular merit of utterly ful) verting, and being in dire(5t oppoli- tion to, the blafphemous maxim upon which we have already animadverted. Inftead of a cruel being, who is accufed of fending his children into a wood, willing and intending them to eat poifonous berries for their deftrudion, we are here prefented with a Being, who exercifes his infinite \ylfdom, goodnefs, and power, to the 17^ LETTERS TQ bed of purpofes ! Though we cannot therefore but regret that Mr. V. fliould ever have care* lefsly thrown about his deadly poifon, we cer- tainly ought to be thankful that he has fur- niihed us with an antidote at the fame time. May the kindly influence of the latter be as exteniive as the deadly mifchief of the former ! But if it be afked, what reference this maxim has to the fubje6l in debate ; it would not perhaps be eafy to anfwer. Mr. F. prefumes to think that in its application to his opponent's fyftem, it is puerile, ridiculous, and fubverfive of univerfalifm. He has fet thefe points in their proper light ; but he has, I think, taken more pains to expofe the abfurdity of the application of this maxim, than its importance demanded. If, however, you fliould think there is any weight in what Mr. V. has advanced on this point, I would refer you to Mr. F.'s fixth let- ter, for a complete and fatisfa6lory refutation of the whole. Indeed, I could heartily wifli that this and the feventh letter,* together with what gave rife to them, were carefully weighed. I think you would find a clear underftanding, compafs of thought, and manly reafoning, op- pofed to a mind incapable of penetrating below — — — ■ _ ^ , — ^ -^ * The reader will recollect, that the sixth and seventh let* ters in the Univ. Mis. axe the seventh and eighth in the series lately reprinted in a separate pamphlet, and which is often re- ferred to in the former pages of this work. A UNIVERSALIST. 177 the furface of things, deceived by an over-rated opinion of its own powers, ever endeavouring to ftrike out fomething new, and feldom difcrimi- nating between plaufible fancies and folid argu- ment. In fhort, you will fee, if I do not greatly miftake, the Author of *' the comparative view of Socinianifm and Calvinifni," and of " the Gofpel its own witnefs," as vaftly fuperior to the Editor of " the Univerfalift's Mifcellany," as the dignified IVatfon, to the petulant Thomas Paine. In thefe letters, the principal arguments and texts offcripture, which are fuppofed to favour Univerfalifm are difcuffed, and the error of the one and inapplication of the other fatisfadorily ihewn. The feventh letter finillies the contro- verfy, on Mr. Fuller's fide, and thus concludes: ** Whether I have entered into '^ the merits of " the caufe," or conduced the controverfy in a *' becoming fpirit, I confider as no part of my ** province to determine. The impartial reader '* will judge whether I have dealt in " foft ** words" or *' hard arguments;" and if I have " been fo happy, as in this particular, to follow ** your counfel, whether I have not been obliged "to deviate from your example. On this ac- *' count 1 fliall be excufed from taking any " notice of your animadverfions cm thefe fub- *' jeds, together with your new ally — the A a 178 LETTERS TO *' Hoxton Student," unlefs it be to thaink you ** for aifording additional proof of the juftnefs " of my remark, that Sociuians rejoice in the " fpread of Univerfalifm." To the contents of thefe letters INJr. V. reph'es in his eleventh and twelfth letters, with which he alfo concludes, after ftating feveral particulars, to which he in- vites the attention of his opponents as being ne- ceffary to the overthrow of his fyfteni. 1 had lemarked many things to animadvert upon; but the tafli of reviewing has become fo irkfome, and the profpeft of coming to a conclufion, (were I to canvats the whole as I have hitherto done) fo remote, that I mud now draw towards an end. I wi/li the concluding letters would have given me an opportunity of placing Mr. V.'s chara6ter, as a controverfialift, in a more favourable point of view: but alas! he is of apiece throughout. There are the fatne mifreprefentation, fophiftry, illiberalitVy affeded candour, pretenfions to great learning, &c. at the end as at the beginning. I do not indeed juftify all that has been faid by his opponent. At the commencement of this con- troverfy, there was too much afperity and far- cafm,— but he was greatly provoked; and the impartial reader will fee, that as he proceeds, he lofes fight of every confideration but the invef- tigation of truth. He does not indeed contend for it with that cold-blooded indifference which jnany, in our days, fo highly extol. He writes A UNIVERSALIST. 179 as a man who feels his heft interefts at ftake, and "vvho confiders the unadulterated gofpel of Chrift as infinitely more than paramount to that fafhion- able courtefy, which compliments the betrayer of his Lord and Mafter, with the title of " believer and chriftian." If it were neceffary to fay any thing fur- ther, as an apology for the motive which dic- tated the preceding Review, and the llile in which it is written, I would obferve that Mr. V. has taken great pains to reprefent himfelf under a chara^er to which he can have fcarcely the ihadow of a pretence; and it is of great import- ance to thofe within the fphere of his publica- tions, that he fliould (land before them unmafk- ed. The perufal of his writings convinced me that he is by no means the man he wiihes to be taken for; and therefore I confidered myfelf as bound in duty to hold him up in his own light. The office of a Reviewer, as obferved in the in- trodu6lion, is widely different from that of a con- troverfialift. Mliile the latter has nothins; to do but M'ith the arguments of his opponent, it is the province of the former to exhibit the writer. That I have been too levere on Mr. V. I am per- fuaded no one will think, who has examined, with as much attention as I have, what he has written. His arro^'ance in condemnina; and calhiering the pious and learned tranflators of the A a 2 180 LETTERS TO Bible, is infufferable. The high tone which he alTumes in fixing the meaning of a difputed paf- fage, M'ould hardly become the moft profound lin- guift, — much lefs a mere fmattercr in greek and liebreM\ His affectation of learning is excei- fively difgufting, and calculated to do the double mifchief of unfettling the faith and fubverting the minds of the ignorant and unwary. I am ■well convinced, from the fpecimens he has exhi- bited in the courfe of this controverf}^, that he can have no legitimate claim to claflical erudi- tion. It is true, he is not to be blamed, if, with the help of a grammar, a lexicon, and a tranfla- tion, he fliould endeavour to make out the mean- ing of a word in the original fcriptures; nor do I blame him for it: I think his diligence deferves commendation ; but then let him know his place : let him propofe his conjectures with modefly, and not affume the chair oftheCenfor, or the deci- fion of an Ariftotle. Were I to recal to your recollection the proofs I have given of his mif- reprefentation, his ungenerous difavowal of fen- timents which he maintained at the beginning of this controverfy, (efpecially that of Univerfal Salvation) his petulant illiberality, his unfup- ported pretenfions to candour and impartiality — it might feem like indulging a vindictive fpirit, againft which I folemnly appeal. I have no en- mity whatever againft the man: it is fimply againft the wrzVer that all my animadverfions are A UJ/IVElisALlST. 181 aimed: and if the reprefeiitation here given of the difputant, fhould operate to the advantage of the man, I fliall tliink myfelf well repaid for the trouble I have taken in this Preview. I would not conclude, my dear fir, v/ithout again preiling upon your mod ferious confider- atipn the tendency of the univerfalifts' dodrine. You know 1 long ago gave my opinion, that it is nearly allied to, if not infeparably connefted Avith, focinianifm. This you could not formerly admit; but I believe you now fee my obferva- tions realized every day. Mr. V., though he has not the honefty to avow it, is a decided focinian, if he deferve that name who robs Chrill: of his Deit}', and the fmner of the doc- trine of the Atonement. His mifcellany is ai- med exclufively occupied by writers of the foci- nian caft ; and you daily obferve his followers drinking into the fame fpirit. You read and hear fcarcely of any thing elfe, but the blafphe- mous cant of thofe who would teach you that it is candid to think any thing about Jefus Chrift, provided you think but favourably of thofe who take away the merit of his blood, and the glory of his godhead. I entreat you, my dear fir, look M'ell to yourfelf. Make a voluntary furren- der, ifyoupleafe, of your underdanding ; take the felf-confident, the fmatterer in knowledge, the noify boader of fuperior candour and dif- 182 LETTERS TO A UNIVERSALIST. ceniment, as your guide, in things that pertain to the prefent life ; facrifice every thing that is dear to you of a finite duration : but make a referve of your foul / Whether you beHeve me or not, danger is at hand. May God give you eyes to fee it, and grace to make a timely pro- vifion againft it ! I am, dear fir, in the fmcereft aflfedion, Your well-wiflier and friend. Scrutator. ERRATUM. P. 49, 1. 21. For ^xi^^ — £&?? read ^Xi^wg. Lately Published in Octavo, price Is. 6d. Mu. FULLER'S LETTERS TO . Mr. VIDLER, ON Cf)e Hoctrine of U?iiversal Salvatmi . Sold by Button & Son, T. Conder, T. Williams, and T. Gardiner, London; Ogle & Aikman, Edinburgh; and Ogle, Glasgow. Printed by J, W. Morris, Clipstonc, Ul'lmVUt n!"i'''°'^'"' Seminary-Speer Lib 1 1012 01055 5219 GAYLORD #3523P1 printed in in USA