Scriptures, are frequently used to express the duration of things that have ended, or must end; and if it is contended, that these words are sometimes used to express proper eternity, they answer, that then the subject with which the words are connected, must determine the sense of them; and as there is nothing in the nature of future punishment which can be rendered as a reason why it should be endless, they infer that the above words ought always to be taken in a limited sense when connected with the infliction of misery.

The Universalists have to contend on the one hand with such as hold the eternity of future misery, and on the other with those who teach that destruction or extinction of being will be the final state of the wicked. In answer to the latter, they say, "that before we admit that God is under the necessity of striking any of his rational creatures out of being, we ought to pause and enquire

"Whether such an act is consistent with the scriptural character of the Deity, as possessed of all possible wisdom, goodness, and power?

"Whether it would not contradict many parts of Scripture; such, for instance, as speak of the restitution of all things-the gathering together of all things in Christ-the reconciliation of all things to the Father, by the blood of the cross→→

the destruction of death, &c." These texts, they think, are opposed equally to endless misery, and to final destruction. Be it recollected also, "Whether those who will be finally destroyed, are not in a worse state through the mediation of Christ, than they would have been without it? This question is founded on a position of the friends of destruction, viz. that extinction of being, without a resurrection, would have been the only punishment of sin, if Christ had not become the resurrection and the life to men. Consequently, the resurrection and future punishment spring from the system of mediation: but, they ask, is the justification to life, which came upon all men in Christ Jesus, nothing more than a resurrection to endless death to millions?

"Whether the word destruction will warrant such a conclusion? It is evident that destruction is often used in Scripture to signify a cessation of present existence only, without any contradiction of the promises that relate to a future universal resurrection. They think, therefore, that they ought to admit an universal restoration of men, notwithstanding the future destruction which is threatened to sinners*: because, say they, the Scripture teaches both."

*See Vidler's Notes on Winchester's Dialogues on the Ro-storation, fourth edition, p. 176..

They also think the doctrine of destruction, in the above acceptation of it, includes two considerable difficulties. The Scriptures uniformly. teach degrees of punishment, according to transgression; but does extinction of being admit of this? Can the greatest of sinners be more effectually destroyed than the least?-Again, we are taught that, however dark any part of the divine conduct may appear in the present state, yet justice will be clear and decisive in its operations hereafter; but the doctrine of destruction (in their judgment) does not admit of this; for what is the surprising difference betwixt the moral character of the worst good man, and the best bad man, that the portion of the one should be endless life, and that of the other endless death?

They suppose the universal doctrine to be most consonant to the perfections of the Deity-most worthy of the character of Christ, as the mediator; and that the Scriptures cannot be made consistent with themselves, upon any other plan. They teach that ardent love to God, peace, meekness, candour, and universal love to men, are the natural result of their views."

This doctrine is not new. Origen, a Christian father, who lived in the third century, wrote in favour of it. St. Augustine, of Hippo, mentions some divines in his day, whom he calls the merciful doctors, who held it. The German Bap

tists, many of them, even before the Reformation, propagated it. The people called Tunkers, in America, descended from the German Baptists, mostly hold it. The Menonites, in Holland, have long held it. In England, about the latter end of the seventeenth century, Dr. Rust, Bishop of Dromore, in Ireland, published A Letter of Resolutions concerning Origen, and the chief of his Opinions, in which it has been thought he favoured the Universal Doctrine, which Origen held. And Mr. Jeremiah White wrote his book in favour of the same sentiments soon afterwards. The Chevalier Ramsay, in his elaborate work of the Philosophical Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, espouses it. Archbishop Tillotson, in one of his sermons, supposes future punishment to be of limited duration, as does Dr. Burnet, master of the Charter-House, in his book on the state of the dead.

But the writers of late years, who have defended the subject most fully, are Dr. Newton, Bishop of Bristol, in his Dissertations; Mr. Stonehouse, Rector of Islington; Dr. Chauncy, of Boston, in America; Dr. Hartley, in his profound work on Man; Mr. Purves, of Edinburgh; Mr. Elhanan, of Winchester, in his Dialogues on Universal Restoration (a new edition of which, with explanatory notes, has been lately published), and Mr. William Vidler. See the Uni

versalist's Miscellany, now entitled the Monthly Repository of Theology and general Literature; containing many valuable papers for and against Universal Restoration, where the controversy on the subject between Mr. Vidler and Mr. Fuller, will be found. But Mr. Fuller's Letters have been since printed separately, as well as Mr. Vidler's Letters to Mr. Fuller, on the Universal Restoration, with a statement of facts attending that controversy, and some strictures on Scrutator's Review. The Rev. Mr. Browne, a clergyman of the church of England, has produced an essay on the subject. Mr. R. Wright, of Wisbeach, has also written a tract, called The Eternity of Hell Torments Indefensible, in reply to Dr. Ryland. The late Mr. N. Scarlett likewise published a new translation of the Testament, in which the Greek term air, in the singular and plural, is rendered age and ages; and in his Appendix proposed that its derivative, anar, should be rendered age-lasting, instead of everlasting and eternal.

For still further information, the reader is referred to a critical work, entitled An Essay on the Duration of a Future State of Punishment and Rewards, by John Simpson, who has written several excellent practical pieces for the illustration of Christianity.

3