THE

UNIVERSALIST's MISCELLANY

FOR

JANUARY, 1797.

To Mr. ANDREW FULLER, of Kettering, Northamp

SIR,

SOME

tonfhire.

HOME time ago a friend put the Evangelical Magazine for September, 1795, into my hand, in looking over which I found, that in answer to the request of Brightonenfis, concerning the Eternity of Hell Torments, you brought forward a letter written to me on February 14, 1793, on account of my having avowed the Reftitution of all Things through Chrift Jefus. The poftfcript to the above letter mentions, that you have never received an answer to it. I hereby acknowledge I received that letter from you, and that I never anfwered it. I alfo take this occafion 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 fentiment. My time would not permit me to write much, as I generally preached from VOL. I. B

fix

fix to eight times in a week, and if I had anfwered one or two of my friends, others would have faid that I had not anfwered them; I therefore answered

none.

The other reason was my natural love of peace, which made me wifh to avoid all controverfy with my former connections, whom I highly respected, notwithstanding they had publicly excluded me from their communion, merely for my fentiments, without giving me a hearing. And probably I should never have anfwered 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 anfwered, was no fecret in the circle of your acquaintance; yet my love of peace impofed filence upon me. I now think myself called upon publicly to give you fome reafons why I believe, and preach God's univerfal and efficacious love to men.

You fay you have obferved me to be of a fpecu- ́~ lative turn of mind. If by this you mean that I did not discover a difpofition to take the affertions of men as the rule of my faith, I own I am a fpeculator; and I think the fcriptures make it my duty fo to be. Buy the truth and fell it not, fays one facred writer. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, fays another; and our gracious Lord commands that we fearch the fcriptures. But if you mean that I have discovered any want of refpect to the facred writings,

writings, or have not fubmitted implicitly to their dictates in every thing, fo far as I have underfood their meaning, I fhall think the charge heavy indeed. For God is my witness I always reverenced his word, even from my childhood; but fince the time that I had the firft experience of his forgiving love upon my foul, I have efteemed it above all riches and honours. To me it feems, that one of the highest instances of regard I ever gave to the Bible, was by daring to affert the doctrine of the Reftitution of all Things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets fince the world began. Acts iii. 21. And this I did at the rifk of all temporal good that I poffeffed, and at the risk of lofing the esteem and friendship of my brethren in the ministry, which I can truly say I prized more than any thing, truth excepted.

You wifh I had read Dr. Edwards upon the fubject of endless mifery, before I had avowed my fentiments. You have your wifh, Sir: I had read him twice before I opened my lips to controvert his mifreprefentation of the character of that God, whose nature is love. And at the request of a much efteemed 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 profeffed the Univerfal doctrine; and however humbling fuch a recantation may be thought, yet I should not have been without B 2 great

great examples. I could have pleaded the retractions of St. Austin, an authority which my Calvinift brethren would not have defpifed. And I declare even now, though I have preached the doctrine with fome fuccefs for four years, yet would I give it up to-morrow, if convinced of its error. But if there be nothing better to be faid, than what is to be found in Dr. Edwards's piece, I do not expect ever to receive that conviction.

I grant that it is a serious matter, that we err not in our miniftrations.' But are we to take it for granted, that all truth has been in poffeffion of our forefathers, and that we have nothing more to do, than receive their fentiments, and pay implicit obedience to them? I know you do not think fo. You have in some instances dared to differ from great and good men, even of your own denomination, and I efteem you for it; as I am perfuaded you have differed not from the love of fingularity, much less from the love of fin, but from the love of truth. Yet how eafy would it be for a good man, who laments your departure from opinions which he deems orthodox, to remind you, it is a very serious matter that you do not err in your miniftrations, as error in a minister may affect the eternal falvation of many." Your answer to fuch a man, (which I am fure would be both honest and fenfible) may be confidered as my answer to you.

I cannot help thinking, that the questions you afk

me

me in your letter, difcover you to be but little acquainted with the fubject. Otherwife I cannot account for a man of your ftrong mental powers afk→ ing whether,

Firft, My change of fentiment has not arifen from an idea, of endless punishment being in itself unjust ? Secondly, Whether the genius of the sentiment, be not oppofite to that of every other fentiment in

the Bible?

Thirdly, Whether my miniftrations, on this principle, will not favour of his, who taught our first pafhall not furely die?

rents, ye

It would have been eafy for you to have asked a hundred more queftions of a fimilar kind, and to have reafoned upon them, as you have upon the above. And it would be eafy for me to fhew, that' fuch 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 or not; but whether God has any where in his word, threatened any description of finners with it. I am bold to say he has not so done. But if you, or any other man, can prove that he has, I will then openly retract my affertion, and humbly afk pardon of God, and his Church, for having faid the contrary. My reafons are as follow:

I. The English reader may obferve, that the words which the fcriptures ufe, by which to exprefs

the