who promulgates this doctrine dishonours God as much (if not more) than he who denies his very existence---though I grant he may not defign it. The following extract from a pagan author*, may ferve to fhew how repugnant this doctrine is to the feelings of men of that defcription. "The atheift, who denies a God, does him lefs difhonour than the man who owns his being, but at at the fame time believes him to be cruel, hard to be pleased, and terrible to human nature. For my own part, I would rather it fhould be faid of me, that there was never any fuch man as Plutarch, than that Plutarch was ill-natured, capricious, or inhuman."

ter t.

Not only Plutarch, but Pythagoras, Plato, Cicero, and all the other philofophers who believed in a future ftate, were far from configning the greater part of mankind to endless mifery. Plato, indeed, fuppofed that fome might fin in such a manner as to become incurable, and thereby obnoxious to eternal punishment; but he confidered thofe to be few, in comparison to the other part of mankind, whom he, believed, were either purged here from their fins, or elfe with future punishment, by means of tranfmigration This will appear from the following statement of his fentiments by a very ingenious and correct wri"Plato (fays he) claffed fouls, at their going out of the body they had informed, into three forts---the incurable, the curable, and the pure. The firft were configned to eternal punifhment---the fecond were made pure by means of transmigration, which answered the purpose of a modern purgatory, and prepared them to afcend to their ancient habitations---the laft having been purified before death, wanted none after it, but returned back to the Soul of the Universe (God) when it left the body. And in this he followed Pythagoras, as Cicero afterwards followed him; the latter being fuch an admirer of Plato, that on one occafion he said, "It is better to err, and be wrong with Plato, than to be in the right with other people."

But as example is better than precept, fo facts adduced in evidence have a greater tendency to ftrengthen the cause we efpoufe, than a multiplicity of arguments; I fhall therefore conclude this effay with the following well authenticated one, to fhew the ill effects produced by miffionaries preaching the doctrine of endless punishment, and that that doctrine is not calculated to foften the heart of the favage, the pagan, or the no lefs obdurate heart of the man in civilized fociety.

* Plutarch. †See Crawford's Differtation on the Phædon of Plato.'

When

When a certain catholic nation fent miffionaries to Japan to convert that nation from paganifm, it appears the Japanese heard all the doctrines advanced by thofe miffionaries with patience, until they came to fhew the confequences that would enfue to those among them who rejected the golpel, namely, that they would render themselves obnoxious to eternal (that is, as they explained it, to endless) torments in the prison of hell. Then we are told, that the Bonzes (an order of priests among the Japanese) began to ftir up the people against the miffionaries, and to fhew the inconfiftency of their doctrines, who, after setting forth the love of God to be fuch towards his creatures, as to induce him to give his only fon to die for them, fhould likewife declare him to be a being of implacable wrath and endless fury towards the damned, whom the Scriptures reprefent as the greater part of his rational intelligences; affirming, that "ftrait is the gate and narrow is the way, that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it; but broad is the and wide is the gate that leadeth unto destruction, and many there be that go in thereat."

way

"What God (faid they) is it which this ftrange Bonze comes to declare to us? A cruel deity, who has built frightful hells to torment men with eternal punishments, without being willing to be appeased, or to take pity on their fufferings."

The Bonzes then inflamed the people, by representing to them the INCONSISTENCY of ETERNAL PUNISHMENTS with the ATTRIBUTES of GOD. Vide Life of Ignatius a Loyola, Founder of the Sect of Jefuits, 2 vols. 12mo.

J. H. PRINCE.

REVIEW OF BOOKS.

ARTICLE I.

An Efay on Univerfal Redemption; tending to prove that the general Senfe of Scripture favours the Opinion of the final Salvation of All Mankind. By John Brown, M. A. late of Sidney Suffex College, Cambridge. Price is.

TH

HE writer of this article is, we understand, a minister of the establishment. Several men of great learning and piety have heretofore borne their teftimony to the Univerfal Doctrine in the established church, as Ruft, Tillotson, Burnett, Whifton, Law, Stonehouse, Newton, &c. But as their works VOL. III. M

are

are voluminous, and what they have written upon the subject was not printed feparate, it never circulated much beyond the circle of the learned and curious. The prefent writer has prefented to the public a small, plain, and popular pamphlet upon this very interesting theme. Doubtlefs, a very expeditious and almost certain method of propagating a sentiment is by the publishing of small tracts. To this is owing the rapid spread of infidel principles, which we have unhappily witnefled within these few years. If infidels have fuch wisdom and zeal for their cause, fhall not Christians have more? Universalists, in particular, ought not to be backward in diffeminating the knowledge of divine love in Chrift Jefus. Mr. B. confiders the genuine import of the word as and its derivatives, by which the duration of future punishment is expreffed in the New Teftament. He contends that wy does not in the leaft refer to eternity, but that it expreffes only a long duration; and that its derivatives, therefore, can only mean a limited duration. He then touches upon most of the ufual topics of argument on which the Univerfal Doctrine is founded, and concludes with a brief view of the practical effects of the fentiment. Some friends of the doctrine may perhaps think that Mr. B. has not been fufficiently evangelical, but that he afcribes too much to the endeavours and fufferings of the creature. However this

may be, we believe that his book is of useful tendency, and will have its good effects, particularly among the members of the established church, among whom the doctrine is, as yet, but little known. Upon the doctrine of Annihilation Mr. B. animadverts as follows:

"The words death, perdition, destruction, which are applied in Scripture to the future ftate of the wicked, are fuppofed, by fome, to imply the eternity of their future torments, and by others, that thofe torments will end at length in their destruction, (taking the word in the literal fenfe) or annihilation. "It is, (fay they) an evident absurdity to suppose the punishment of death inflicted for a limited time, or with any view to correct the judgment, or reform the principles of the offender; that state, therefore, which is defcribed by fuch terms, whatever it may be, must be eternal and unchangeable." This, however, seems to me to be judging of the Deity by human laws. Thefe, indeed, cannot inflict the punishment of death with any view to the reformation of the offender. But with Deity the cafe is certainly different. If we take the word death in its literal fense, nothing is more certain than that it is inflicted for a limited time, and that at the refurrection the foul will be again united

to

to the body. Judging, then, from the usual interpretation of metaphorical language, we have, I think, no reafon to imagine, from the future ftate of the wicked being described under the metaphor of death, that it will be, in the proper sense of the word, eternal."

We observe, that the phrafe Universal Redemption is used inftead of Univerfal Reftoration. This is not the ufual mode of fpeaking upon this fubject; but perhaps Mr. B. might have his reafons for his phrafeolog; and as Universal Restoration is founded upon Univerfal Redemption, he might think the former was neceffarily included in the latter.

ARTICLE II.

An Abridgment of Five Difcourfes on different Subjects, intended to obviate feveral Objections which have been made to the Doctrine of the Univerfal Restoration, and calculated to anfwer other important Purposes. By Richard Wright, Wisbech. Price is. 6d.

IT

T was with great pleasure that we read this Abridgment, and it is with equal pleasure that we announce it to the public. The contents are as follow:

I. An Attempt to prove that nothing is impoffible with God.

II. The Lordship of Jefus Chrift, as Mediator, afferted.

III. The Practical Tendency of the Univerfal Doctrine. examined.

IV. Obfervations concerning the First Fruits of the Crea

tures.

V. The Caufe, Nature, Extent, and Defign of Future Punishment.

When any doctrine of divine truth is little known and much oppofed, the profeffors of it will act much on the defenfive; but when it is better known and approved of, its friends will dilate upon it, fhew its connection with other parts of truth, and point out its genuine practical effects. This Mr. W. has done in relation to the Univerfal Doctrine. We are happy to fee its practical ufes fo ably fet forth, and demonftrated in fo clear, rational, and mafterly a manner.

"The Universal Doctrine (fays Mr. W.) places the divine character before the finner who is under deep conviction of fin, and feels the greatest distress on account of his tranfgreffions,

in that light which is beft calculated to excite him to hope in the divine mercy, and truft in God for his falvation. The great obftacle which prevents fenfible finners looking to God for deliverance, is their fuppofing that their fins have extinguished his love to them, and that he is full of wrath and fury against them. If, in such a state of mind, they hear that the fins of creatures are capable of quite extinguishing the divine love to them, and of kindling in God implacable wrath, unrelenting revenge, and endless fury against them, it will be natural for them to fuppofe, that this is the cafe with respect to themselves; which fuppofition is calculated to extinguish all hope in their breafts, and drive them to despair: but if they be affured, that nothing can extinguish the love of God to his creatures---that his wrath proceeds from love---that all the punishments inflicted by him are intended for the good of his creatures, to bring them to proper reflection---that, as a proof of his love to finners indifcriminately, he gave his fon to die for them--that their fins have made no change in God, only in themselves---that, consequently, nothing is neceflary, but for them to be brought to a proper ftate of mind, in order to their receiving the divine mercy and grace---fuch views of things will be calculated to remove their doubts of the poffibility of falvation, and bring them to truft in the name of the Lord; for they that know his name will put their truft in him. The reason why finners do not truft in God is because they continue strangers to his love as revealed in the Scriptures; but the views entertained of the divine character by Universalists are calculated to affure finners univerfally of the unchangeable love of the Most High to them, confequently to bring them to put their truft in him."

"As we cannot love any object farther than that object appears lovely in our eyes, I conceive the Univerfal Doctrine is calculated to inspire the Christian with more love to God than the oppofite view of fubjects, as it makes his character appear in the most amiable light. As it is declared, that we love him because he first loved us---as his love is the cause of our love to him---and as causes operate in a moral fenfe no farther than they are perceived and felt, it cannot be supposed that we can love God any further than we have a perception of his love. If our views of his love be narrowed, our love to him will be narrowed in proportion. If our views of his love be enlarged, our love to him will be enlarged likewife. The reason why men do not obey God, is because they do not love him; the reason why they do not love him, is because they do not believe

that