and that within the limits of time. If it be done, as you allow it will (p. 1o), by the time, "that he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power, and fhall have subdued all things unto himself," it will be done by the time that he fhall have raised the dead, and judged the world; for THEN is this work described as being accomplished. I Cor. xv. 24.

In reading the account of the new heaven and new earth in the xxi chap. of the Revelations, I find amongst other things it is faid, there shall be no more death, and afterwards no more curfe; but I fhould not have thought of these things being ap plied to the universe at large, but merely to the inhabitants of that bleffed ftate; and the rather feeing it is faid in the fame chapter that the fearful and the unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and forcerers, and idola tors, and all liars, fhall have THEIR PART inthe lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Neither could I have fuppofed it poffible from fuch a reprefentation of the fecond death, to conclude that inconfifted in annihilation.

1

By the times of the reftitution of all things (Acts iii. 21), Į have been used to understand the times of the refurrection and the laft judgment for that till then, and no longer, will Chrift be detained in the heavens. Whenever Chrift defcends from heaven, then, according to Peter, will be the times of the ref titution of all things: but this will be previous and in order to his raising the dead and judging the world (1 Thes. iii, 16.). Confequently thefe are the times of which the apoftle speaks. The utter overthrow which will be then given to the kingdom of Satan by the general conflagration (2 Peter, iii, 12), the deAtruction of the laft enemy, Death, by the refurrection (1 Cor. xv. 23, 26), and the final adjustment of human affairs by the laft judgment (Matt. xxv. 31, 46), will be a reftitution of all things; the empire of fin will be crushed, and the government of God completely restored.

Butthe timesin which your scheme is to be accomplished must be after the final judgment; for from that period there is an everlafting punishment 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 therefore, and that of the fcriptures, are not the fame.

You cannot conceive a restitution of all things, and of fin being made an end of, unless all the individuals in the creation be either reconciled to God, or annihilated; but what authority have you for fuch a conftruction of these terms? Did the

reftering

refloring of all things on the Meffiah's first appearance (Matt. xxvii. 11), include all individuals, fo far as it went? When God faid to Zedekiah, And thou profane, wicked prince of Ifrael, whofe day is come, when iniquity fhall have an end, did it mean that he should be either converted or annihilated? Ezek. xx. 25. And when the fame language is used of the fins of the people (chap. xxxv. 5), does it mean that they fhould be either converted or annihilated? Rather is it not manifeft that by iniquity having an end is meant that the perpetrators of it were brought to condign punishment, fhut up in Babylon as in a prison, and rendered incapable of doing further mifchief? Such will be the cafe with all the ungodly at the fecond coming of Chrift; and this will be the restoration of peace, order, and happiness, to the reft of the universe.

The doctrine of endless mifery appears to you to "confound all degrees of punishment, in giving infinite punishment to all." (p. 42.) You, it feems, can conceive of no diverfity of fuffering, unless it be in duration. Will the reflection of loft fouls on their paft life then be all exactly the fame? The fame in the objects reflected on, and confequently the fame in the intenfenels of their mifery? How grofsly abfurd, Sir, must be your notions of future punishment, to admit of fuch an idea! Befides, there is equal reason to believe that there will be different degrees of glory as of mifery. If heavenly blifs bear any relation to the labours and fufferings of the prefent life on behalf of Chrift, which the Scriptures affure us it does (Matt. v. 12. 2 Cor. IV. 17), thefe being diverfe, that must also be the fame. But according to your reasoning, there can be nó diverfity unless it be in duration : either, therefore, all degrees of happiness must be confounded in giving infinite happiness to all, or the inhabitants of heaven, as well as thofe of hell, muft, after a certain period, be continually diminishing by annihilation,

Such, Sir, are your expofitions of Scripture. Except in the productions of a certain maniac in our own country, I never recollect to have feen fo much violerice done to the word of God in fo fmall a compass.

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 confound what the Scriptures 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 cheme, they might die in their fins and yet be able to go whither he went, and inherit eternal life.

The

The Scriptures describe a fort of characters who fhall be expofed to a certain fearful looking for of judgment (Heb. x. 27)': but this, according to your scheme, can be nothing more than annihilation. For as the cafe of the characters defcribed is fuggefted to be irrevocable and hopeless, they cannot be punished during ages of ages in a way of mercy, or with a view to their recovery; and as to their being punished during this long period, and in the end annihilated, this would be contrary to all your ideas of punishment, which must always have its foundation in mercy. Hence it follows, that all this fearful looking for of judgment, amounts to no more than what atheists and infidels generally prefer, death being to them an everlasting fleep.

Nor is your hypothefis lefs at variance with itself than with the Holy Scriptures. Your notion of temporary punishment clafhes with all your arguments drawn from the benevolent feelings of a good man. You afk, "Doth not every good man love his enemies, and forgive even the worst of them? Is there a man living whofe heart is filled with the love of God that would not promote the best interest of his most inveterate foe, if it lay in his power? And hath not God more love than the best of men? And are not his wifdom and his power equal to his love?" (p. 74.)

In return I afk, Is there a man living whofe heart is filled with the love of God that would be willing that his worst enemy fhould be caft into hell for ages of ages, or 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 wisdom and power are equal to his love; consequently there will be no future punishment.

Your notion of annihilation will alfo contradict the greater part of your pretenfions. You talk of universal salvation, 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 v. chap. to the Romans in favour of your doctrine, contending that juftification of life will be as extenfive as condemnation, but you believe no fuch thing; for a part of those who are condemned, instead of being juftified and faved, will be given up as incu rables to annihilation. You think you fee times beyond the laft judgment, in which all things, or rather as you understand it, all perfons, are to be gathered together in Christ, and reconciled by the blood of his crofs: howbeit you mean not fo, neither doth your heart think fo, for a part of them will be ftruck out of existence, and who can therefore be neither gathered nor reconciled. You pretend to unite the opinions of pretend VOL. III.

Ii

Cal

Calvinifts and Arminians: the former you fay render the death of Chrift effectual, but limit its defign to a part of mankind: the latter extend it to all, but confider it as ineffectual; while you maintain that it is defigned for all, and effectual to all. (p. 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 yourself that you have faftened a difficulty on a Mr. R. from which he cannot extricate himself, but by embracing your doctrine. But neither could he ifhe did embrace it: for you no more believe that God will fave all mankind, than Mr. R.

You pretend to urge it as a difficulty on me, that "either 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 else that the full efficacy of the atonement is withheld by the divine determination :" (p. 44.) But it is all pretence. If it be a difficulty, it equally bears upon your own hypothefis as upon mine. If Chrift died with an intention to fave all, why are not all faved? Why muft a number of them be annihilated? Is it becaufe God cannot bring them to repentance and falvation, or because 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 act of power,. an act which might have been exerted without that blood being fhed? or is the full efficacy of the atonement withheld by the divine Determination ?

KETTERING, AUGUST 9, 1799.

I am, Sir, with fincere good will,
Yours, &c.

ANDREW FULLER.

TO CANDIDUS.

SIR,

TR

RUSTING to the evidences of your being a fincere enquirer after truth, which are apparent in your "Remarks on the Perfon of Chrift," I would, with the permiffion of the Editor, make a few obfervations upon fome paffages in the paper juft mentioned.

Your firft pofition is what no Chriftian can deny---" God is invifible." In this, I apprehend, you mean to be understood in the plain and literal sense of the words, "No man hath feen God at any time, or can fee him.". Your fourth pofition ftates, that "The invifible God is become vifible in the perfon of Chrift, who is God with us."

Now,

Now, Sir, may I, without offence, afk you, Is not this a contradiction of your firft pofition? Nay, does it not contain, within itself, a direct contradiction? The invisible God is become visible," &c. feems to be a contradiction in terms.

In proof of this you fay, "The eternal power and godhead are made vifible by the works of creation;" but the conclufion of your fentence fhews that in this place you use the word "vifible" in a figurative fenfe, and not as I apprehend you to have used it in your pofition or statement of what you intended to prove. There I fuppofe you to use the word invisible" ftrictly and literally, and of course the word "visible" alfo.

The conclufion of your sentence is, " all which imply such a caufe of their existence." Now furely to imply a cause, and to make that caufe vifible, are two very different things. This writing implies a writer, but does not make the writer vifible.

When Jefus Chrift faith," he who hath feen me, hath feen the Father," it appears to me, that he speaks figuratively, and fo it appeared to the apostle John, otherwife, would that evan gelift have asserted, "No man hath seen God at any time?"

I take fuch expreffions as thefe, that " Jefus Chrift is the brightness of God's glory," and "the expreís image of the Father," to be incontrovertible proofs that he is not the Father. And if Jefus Chrift were now upon earth, ftill your first pofition would be true---ftill we might fay, God is invifible.

If it be faid, "God was manifeft in the flesh," it may alfo be faid, God is manifeft in the fun, moon, and stars, and in all the works of creation. But, Sir, your fourth pofition wants the fupport of fact and poffibility, for it runs thus---" The invifible God is become vifible to us in the perfon of Chrift." Now, Sir, where is the perfon of Chrift? To which of us is the perfon of Chrift vifible? And by what means is it poffible for you or me, or any Christian, to see the person of Chrift? I know of but one way of anfwering the queftions I have put, and that is, "We cannot tell."

But the folution of this difficulty, or rather a plain statement of the real truth, is made by the apostle John, in a passage you have alluded to.--

John, i. 18. "No man hath feen God at any time; the only begotten fon which is in the bofom of the Father, he hath declared him."

I prefume it is not neceffary to add any thing to these words to prove that God is no more visible now, in the literal fenfe of