Stackhouse was born. This doctrine, Sir, cannot be overthrown by fair arguments; and it is remarkable enough, that in all the attempts made to refute it, seldom or ever is any effort made to invalidate those reasons brought for its fupport.

It is alfo remarkable, that minifters in general mifrepresent the Universal doctrine, both in public and private---as though they were determined to prejudice the minds of their hearers against it, and by that means ftop its progrefs. This minifter's letter affords me an inftance of mifreprefentation. He fays, "Those men take that for granted which ought to be proved, viz. that punishment will give a man a new nature, and make bim love God, who hates him in his heart." Now, fo far from taking, I think the Universalists, to an individual, will fay "We will not have it at all." In what part of Mr. Winchefter's works is this fentence to be found? No where.How is it that our author makes fuch a charge? What can we expect from a man, who pretends to refute a doctrine which he underftands no more about, than that it" includes the falvation of devils and damned fpirits? It is true, we have neither Scripture, reafon, nor example on our fide for such a fentiment as this; and therefore we must send it back again to him who prefented us with it: but, at the fame time, we think ourfelves bound to contend for that which the Scripture declares, viz." And he that fat upon the throne faid, Behold, I create all things new."

But we are told, we muft affuine another abfurd notion, viz. "That the damned in hell ceafe to fin, and so cease to deserve pynifhment." The latter part of the fentence is a confequence of the former---if the darned in hell ceafe to fin, then they will cease to deserve punishment; but they will not ceafe to fin, therefore they will not ceafe to deferve punishment. This, I think, is our author's argument. That a departed fpirit is capable of finning, I do not difpute; but that it is As capable and AS ACTIVE in fin, as it would be in the body, I must deny. The fins of inebriety, debauchery, avarice, &c. feem to be peculiar to this present ftate. A departed fpirit, therefore, is so far from being active in thefe fins, that it appears it is not even capable of committing them at all.

This man takes that for granted which ought to be proved, viz. that a wicked departed spirit will never ceafe to fin. For this bold fentiment he has neither Scripture, reason, nor example on his fide; and yet this is his foundation for the eternity of hell torments. "I acknowledge (fays he) that the original word tranflated everiafting, 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 Sin."

Thus the original ground of the controverfy is given up, and the fentiment of eternal torments is placed upon a foundation lefs ftriking, and equally falfe. But this minifter fays, It is abfurd to fuppofe the damned in hell will ceafe to fin. But if the Scriptures be true it is not a mere fuppofition, much less an abfurd one. If the arm of the wicked fhall be broke, and wickedness be fought ought till Jehovah himself find none---if all iniquity fhall top her mouth---if Chrift fhall make an end of fin, and deftroy the works of the devil, then it no longer remains an abfurd notion, but becomes a real truth, That the damned in hell will ceafe to fin.

I cannot help obferving, that the conduct of ministers in general is exceedingly abfurd: they at one time labour with zeal to ftop the progrefs of fin---at another time they plead for its endless duration; and fome think it a dangerous and others a damnable herefy, to believe it fhall be finally deftroyed out of all the creatures of God.

I now proceed to another wonderful affertion, viz. “They muft caft away the doctrine of atonement, as neceffary to the remiffion of fin." Now, fo far from this being fact, we continually affirm, that there can be no remiffion of fin, but by the reception of the atonement.

We grant that past sufferings cannot atone for the prefent offence; yea, we fay more---that paft fufferings cannot atone for past offence; for punishment is not atonement. Chrift is the great atoning or propitiatory facrifice, for the fins of the whole world. But there is a work of Chrift previous to the finner's receiving the atonement, viz. fubjection; none ever did, nor ever will receive it until they are fubdued. For this very end is Chrift invefted with all power, that he might fubdue all things unto himself. Subjection and atonement are two diftinct parts of the work of Chrift, by his power will all things be fubdued; and by his atonement, or death, will all things be reconciled.

Do we, therefore, caft away the doctrine of atonement, because we affert it 'fhall be tenfold more effectual than others? Who cannot fee the abfurdity of this? I know not the perfon, nor the fentiments of, this minifter; but if he is a Calvinist, he fuppofes, that the atonement was only made for the elect--How then can he charge us with cafting away that which was

never made? If he is a Calvinift, then it is clear, that though he does not caft the atonement away, yet, in great part, he denies it, because he confines it to the elect, but the Scriptures extend it univerfally.

But if he be an Arrminian. he believes the atonement was made for all, but denies its univerfal effect; he muft, therefore, caft away the atonement, with refpect to thofe whom he fuppofes will never receive it, and endless torments fucceed. We therefore fend back a common charge from the Arminians, as only belonging to themfelves, viz. "We put hell fire in the place of the blood of Chrift."

I acknowledge that punishment will do nothing towards changing the nature of a finner; but that it will be of no use in fubduing the evil in his nature, of fubduing his difpofition from rebellion to fubmiffion, is a pofition which cannot be granted: it not only is contrary to the general practice of both God and man, but also contrary to matter of fact. What was it that brought the prodigal fon to a knowledge of himself but his miferable fituation, and the experimental want of all things? What was it that brought the rich man to such a state of humility, as to beg of Abraham to fend Lazarus to relieve him? In this ftate the rich man is represented as having lefs compaffion on Lazarus than the very dogs; but in hell he is humble enough to receive a moment's ceflation, by the gift of one drop of cold water from that very man whom before he defpifed. The rich man, having experienced the evil of fin, is moved with compaffion towards his brethren; and although he failed in one petition, yet he murmurs not, but prays that Abraham would fend that very man, who before was fo defpicable in his fight, that his brethren might be warned, left they alfo come to the fame place of torment. But although he is denied even this, yet he murmurs not; but when Abraham puts him in remembrance of his conduct, he hears it with humility, and tacitly confeffes his punishment just, and so sinks under the weight of tranfgreffion, I he rich man, therefore, was a better man in hell than he was when he existed in this ftate.

But as a few texts are referred to, in order to prove the doctrine of endless punishment, it is neceflary that I take some notice of them. The firft is from Luke, xvi. 26. The minifter fays, "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." Our Lord reprefents Abraham as faying, " Befides all this, between us and you there is a great gulph fixed; fo that they

which would pass from hence to you cannot ; neither can they pafs to us that would come from thence." But how does this prove endless punishment? Hell is a prifon, and the prifoners. are confined by a great gulph. Now what kind of prifon would it be, if the prifoners and others had liberty to pass and repafs as they pleafed? but Chrift is the prifon-keeper---" He hath the keys of HELL and of death.---He is Lord both of the dead and the living. He fhutteth and no man openeth, and he openeth and no man fhutteth.---By his blood fhall the prifoners be sent forth out of the pit wherein is no water.---O (18) hell, I will be thy destruction." And again---“ O (an) hell, where is thy victory?" Thus, not only the prifoners thall be delivered, but the prifon itself fhall be destroyed. When, therefore, our Lord reprefents Abraham as faying"Between us and you there is a great gulph fixt," he does not, by any means, intend to contradict the fentiment of the Univerfal Restoration.

The minifter alfo quotes Ecclef. xi. 3. "As the tree falls fo it lies; and as death leaves us, fo judgment will find us." The latter part of this fentence is an interpolation. To interpolate the Scriptures is unpardonable in any man, but especially in a minifter. "And as death leaves us, fo judgment will find us," are words which cannot be found in all the Bible: and with respect to the words, "As the tree falls fo it lies,” I advise the minifter to read the paffage; and when he, or any other, can find any thing in it relating to departed fpirits, I fhall be thankful to have it communicated to me.

The

He then quotes Mark, ix. 44. but not quite right. words run thus---" Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Our Lord here calls the fire of hell inextinguishable." Where (fays he) their worm dieth not,” i. e. in hell their worm does not die, "and the fire is obervula,, not -extinguished." How long the fire of hell will be inextinguishable, this verse does not inform us. Mount Etna and Vefuvius have long been fires inextinguishable. And the Scriptures speak of inextinguishable fires, that have ceased to burn. Nothing, therefore, can be inferred in favour of the endless duration of hell-fire, because our Lord calls it inextinguifhable.

The laft paffage quoted is in Rev. xxii. 11. "He that is filthy, let him be filthy ftill." But here again no word is used to express the duration of that ftate. The phrase is used by the apostle Paul---" He that is ignorant, let him be ignorant ftill." The apoftle furely did not mean to lay, That all thofe VOL. III.

L

who

who were ignorant of the gofpel, fhould eternally remain

fo.

But he fays, "there are many other fimilar paffages." If there are a thousand other paffages, and all fimilar, they prove nothing more than thofe already quoted; and that they do not prove endless punishment, I think is evident.

If this minifter will come forward in your Miscellany as an opponent, I am ready to meet him; or if he chufe to come forward as an inquirer into the statement and truth of the doctrine of the Univerfal Reftoration, I am ready and willing to give him every affiftance that lays in my power. But at prefent I am conftrained to fay, that endless punishment is grounded in ignorance and oppofition to the word of God. I remain, dear Sir,

MARCH 10, 1799.

Yours, &c.

ABRAHAM BENNETT.

"SORROWS OF WERTER" CENSURED.

THE following is taken from the Supplement to the Gentleman's Magazine for 1784---I think it ought to be inferted in the Univerfalift's Mifcellany.

Yours, &c.

SENEX.

MR. URBAN,

IN

HIGH WYCOMBE,
DEC. 6.

'N your Obituary for laft month (November) I met with the fudden death of a Mifs Glover. You have mentioned a circumftance relating to it, which you think proper to be made known, viz. That the Sorrows of Werter lay under her pillow; and I, never having feen the book, was induced to give it a reading. I perfectly agree with you, that it is a pernicious book: and if you judge the following reflections, put down after the perufal, calculated in any degree to obviate the evil tendency of that work, I beg you will oblige your conftant reader and occafional correfpondent by giving them a place in your various and ufeful mifcellany.

The idea of God, admitted by all who acknowledge his exiftence, is the idea of a perfect Being.

Revelation teaches us, that God ftands in the relation of a father to his human creatures. "Though Abraham be igno

rant