forced to repent," or words to that effect. Those men take that for granted which ought to be proved, viz. that punishment will give man a new nature, and make him love God who hates him in his heart! For this bold fentiment, they have neither Scripture, reafon, nor example on their fide :---they must also affume another abfurd notion, viz. that the damned in hell ceafe to fin, and fo ceafe to deferve punishment; but a departed fpirit is as capable of finning, and as active in fin, as it would be in the body; and as it will be ever finning, it will deferve to be ever fuffering: they muft caft away the doctrine of atonement, as neceflary to the remiffion of fin; for he that is perpetually finning cannot attone for the present offence by his paft fufferings---juftice cannot punish till after the crime is committed.

But the doctrine of a future ftate depends on divine revelation, and, confequently, the state of intelligent beings beyond the grave. No mode of argument can therefore be admitted on this fubject, to overturn the clear revelation which God has given us in his word: when, therefore, our Lord reprefents that there is no paffage between hell and heaven, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, he contradicts the fentiment of those men. When it is faid, "As the tree falls fo it lies, and as death leaves us, fo judgment will find us--- Their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched---They fhall go into everlasting punishment---He that is filthy, let him be filthy ftill;" with many other fimilar paffages, what fhall we fay? What! because the Reftitution of all Things is mentioned once, muft we conclude that all things refer to and include the damned in hell? Strange idea! when this general term in Scripture is generally used in referring to particular objects, even the people of God--or in reference to a particular period of time, fuch as the general spread of the gospel, &c. &c.

I acknowledge that the original word tranflated everlasting, fignifies ages; and for ever and ever, for ages and ages, and therefore of vague fignification; but the fentiment of the eternity of hell torments must depend on the eternal existence of the finner, and his ever continuing to fin: he muft continue to fin, except his nature and difpofition be changed; for he has no difpofition to love God, and nothing but divine grace can give him a difpofition to love God; for this is a change of nature that cannot be effected but by the power of a divine agency; and punishment will do nothing towards producing this change. Caft a man into a prifon for having hated and injured you, and fee whether that will make him love and

ferve you. It is a notion grounded in ignorance and oppofition to the word of God."

I

USES OF ELECTION.

To the Editor of the UNIVERSALIST'S MISCELLANY. DEAR SIR,

HOPE the ftatement which I have given of the Scripture doctrine of Election, and its connection with the Univerfal Reftoration, will be admitted by the ferious and impartial reader to be of great practical utility.

Election, as maintained by many of its advocates, has, I fear, been a ftumbling-block to finners. Some have prefumed that, if included in the chofen number, their falvation must be fecure, let them act as they will; and that, if not of that number, they have fuppofed, not all they can do, not all the means they can make ufe of, can ever change an irreversible decree, which has excluded them from falvation, or prevent their inevitable damnation. I will do ferious and pious Calvinists the juftice to fay, they have frequently laboured to guard their doctrine from fuch a conftruction; but the thing has been, and stilk muft be, in many inftances, impoffible, as their statement thereof feems evidently to lead to fuch a conclufion. Its baneful influence has been counteracted where its adherents have been influenced by real piety, but no where else; and fuch counteraction is to be afcribed folely to the difpofitions of individuals being better than their ideas. I trust the representation given in my letters compleatly fets afide the baneful conclufion to which Calvinian election is liable; for it goes directly to fhew, that the elect cannot be made happy any further than they are obedient to God and useful to men; and that the non-elect are not excluded from falvation, or from the enjoyment of any bleffing neceflary to their happiness, by their non-election; but that, on the contrary, the door of falvation is kept open before them, and all the means of happiness afforded them, through the medium of the elect; that nothing can keep them from being faved and made completely happy, but their wilful rejection of the gospel, and continued rebellion against God. Does it not hence appear, that our views of election have greatly the advantage over Calvinian election in point of practical tendency?

Calvinian election has frequently operated as a difcouragement to finners, when truly awakened and led to fee their loft,

helpless,

helpless, perifhing condition. Conceiving that God loves only a chofen few---that Chrift died only for them-- that the gospel is intended to fave none else---and, not being able to discover any evidence of their being of that number, they have been driven to the brink of defpair, if not to defperation itself; when, had they been informed, that all the peculiar manifeftations of divine love, the operations of diftinguishing grace, and God's election of his people, are intended to open the way for him to manifeft his love to all his creatures, and make the whole world happy, they would have been encouraged to hope in divine mercy, to look unto Jehovah for his falvation, instead of being difcouraged thereby. The latter is the light in which I have endeavoured to place the fubject; hence I conclude that my ftatement is calculated to be ufeful to fenfible finners.

Calvinifts and Arminians have never completely refuted, never can completely refute each other, fo long as both remain. on their prefent ground.---They are both right and both wrong. Before I was an univerfalift, I was convinced that there must be some medium between their different systems. When the Calvinift contends, that the love of God is unchangeable--that all for whom Chrift died fhall be made happy ---that the countel of God fhall stand, and all his gracious defigns be carried into effect---he has Scripture to fupport him; and all his opponents, however acute their reafoning, cannot refute his pofitions. When the Arminian afferts, that God loves all mankind---that Christ died for the whole world .--and that the Moft High defires the happiness of all his creatures--the lively Oracles afford fuch decifive evidence of the truth of his pofitions, that all the arguments his opponents are mafters of, however great logicians they may be, can never fet them afide. But when the Calvinift contends, that the love of God, the univerfal creator and governor of the world, is restricted to a part of his creatures---that Christ died for none but that part---and that he who is good to all, and whose tender mercies are over all his works, never intended to make any others happy---reafon revolts, Scripture furnishes evidence against him, and the Arminian will oppofe him with fuccefs. And when the Arminian afferts, that the love of God may change---that finners are capable of extinguishing it---that millions of thofe for whom Chrift died, and whom God intended to make happy, will be endlessly miterable---right reafon cannot approve, Scripture protests against fuch ideas, and the Calvinift will triumph. This appearing to me to be the true state of the case, I conclude, that the long-continued con

troverfy,

verfy, between the two parties, never can be fo fettled as for both to unite, with complete harmony, in the cause of Chrift and human happiness, but by both receiving a more perfect fyftem of truth, which fhall comprise the leading doctrines of both.----Such a fyftem I think my letters calculated to promote; therefore I think my statement calculated to be of prac tical utility.

A profeffed unbeliever will be able to prove, that the fiftems of Calvin and Arminius are unworthy of that infinite wisdom, power, and goodness whereby the world was made and is governed. He will fay, that a fyftem which reprefents the Father of the universe as loving and making provifion for the happinefs of only a part of his creatures, could never proceed from the God of infinite goodnefs. And he will fay, that the oppolite fyftem, which fuppofes him to love all, and defign the happiness of all, but that, after a few years, he will cease to love a confiderable part of his creatures, and be baffled by them, and disappointed in his benevolent designs to all eternity, could never be communicated to men by him who is almighty and unchangeable: that if fuch be the doctrines of the Scriptures, they cannot be a divine revelation, because they convey unworthy ideas of the Supreme Being, either bounding his love or his power. Who can refute the unbeliever when he makes fuch affertions? By what arguments can the glaring inconfiftences of either Calvinifm or Arminianism be reconciled with the infinite wisdom, power, and goodness of God? The view which I have taken of the peculiar doctrines of the gofpel, their connection with, and fubfervience to, the defigns of Infinite Goodness, I think is not at all liable to the above objection of unbelievers; upon the ground I have taken, we may boldly meet the oppofers of revelation, face all their arguments, nor fear to engage in obviating all their objections.--- This is a matter of no fmall utility.

Calvinifm carries an idea of selfishness upon the face of it, however generous many of its advocates may be. For a few men to fuppofe themselves the exclufive objects of divine love ---the only perfons for whom Chrift thought it worth his while to die--that all the riches of divine grace are fettled upon them for their exclufive emolument, looks much like a monopoly, claimed by a corporation as their private property. The tendency of fuch views of God and of his grace, is to fink the public in the private feeling---to bury the general interest in the private concern---to render indifferent to the happiness of others. Far different I conccive our views of election to be;

be; for we conceive our being chofen, and all the favours bestowed upon us, not to be merely for our own emolument, but for the emolument of the whole creation---that God hath bleffed us in order to make us a bleffing to others. Surely fuch a view of things must be calculated to ftir up our minds to the greatest exertions for the good of others---to make us feel that our fituations and all our enjoyments are a truft, to be improved and appropriated to the general benefit.

The Arminian fyftem is inefficient in its practical tendency, for it reprefents the wifdom, power, and love of God as too weak to carry into effect all his benevolent defigns. According thereto he loves all his creatures for a time, and contrives to bring about their happiness; but, meeting with con tinual oppofition from them, he at length gives up, lets his love to them die, takes no further steps to effect their happiness, leaves off to pursue their good, and configns them to their fate. Can fuch a view of the divine conduct be calculated to influence the Chriftian never to cease loving, or to give over feeking the happiness of all mankind?

In treating the fubject of election, I have confidered God. as never ceafing to love all his creatures, or to adopt fuch meafures as are best calculated to recover them to purity and happiness; and that he never will cease to carry on his benevolent plans until the whole creation be made pure and happy. Are not these confiderations calculated to ftimulate us to the greateft poffible perfeverance, the most inceflant efforts, in doing good, whatever oppofition we may meet with---to continue to love all men, however they may act---never to be overcome of evil, but to overcome evil with good?

Now the reader has the whole of what I intend faying on Election before him---I fubmit it to his confideration; and remain, dear Sir,

Your brother and fellow-labourer in the gospel,

WISBEACH,

JANUARY 9, 1799.

R. WRIGHT.

SIR,

As

PUNITIVE JUSTICE.

ESSAY II.

(See vol. ii. p. 219.)

S punitive juftice ought never to proceed upon principles of revenge, every kind of punishment attended with unneceflary feverity will be found contrary to the end and deVOL. III.

H

fign