2. Mr. P. takes notice of the argument in favor of Universalism drawn from the universal goodness of God. On this point, he introduces the name of Doctor Chauncey, and quotes enough to fill about ten lines in his small book, from Chauncey's introduction. The amount of what he has quoted is, that some generally received doctrines should be renounced-and others, more honorable to God and more comfortable to man, should be received-that it is difficult to reconcile the doctrine of endless misery with the perfection of the Deity. Will Mr. P. pretend this was the amount of Dr. C's. argument? He will not. Why did he introduce Dr. C's. name at all, unless to show that he had heard of it through Dr. Edwards? * Mr. P. might as well have omitted Dr. C's. name as to quote from him no more than he has. I hope he did not mean to give the intimation that Dr. C. had said nothing more conclusive than that quotation.

Mr. P. has also introduced the name of Whiston and quoted the following from him, "this doctrine (eternal punishment) supposes God to delight in cruelty." We suppose he meant. William Whiston, the translator of Josephus, the author of a new theory of the earth, the successor of

* About the middle of the last century Dr. C. was pastor of the first Congregational Church in Boston Mass. He possessed strong powers of mind and was led into the belief of Universalism by studying the scriptures. In 1784 he published a learned and laborious work in favor of Universalism in London.

1

2

Sir Isaac Newton as professor of Mathemat ics in the University of Cambridge Eng. who wrote extensively against eternal misery, and died in 1752. Mr. W. was a zealous opposer of the doctrine of endless misery, but it does not appear that he was an advocate for Universal salvation. His mind seems to have been unsetled on that subject. * We have noticed all Mr. P. has quoted from Mr. W. Mr. P. does not attempt to show that the doctrine of eternal misery does not suppose God to delight in cruelty. He appears to have studied Universalism through the medium of authors who lived about a century since. We think it would have been profitable for him to pay some attention to more modern authors on this subject.

We refer back to the "reasonings just gone through with" concerning the requisitions of justice, with as much confidence as Mr. P. could possibly have done. Of the correctness of those We do not reasonings, the reader must judge. admit that "strict justice would doom some men to endless misery," we therefore do not plead for Mr. P. makes one excelan unjust salvation. lent remark viz. "justice is certainly consistent with goodness." Then justice never required the endless misery of those who are to be saved. He says "it is said if God is good, we cannot conceive that he will leave any to eternal suffering. We may just as well say, if God is good that we cannot conceive he will permit any real

* See Modern Hist. Univ. p. 104.

suffering in the universe: for if he can admit it for a day, a year, a life, he may on the same principle, an hundred years after death, and then another, and so on without end." According to this argument, if it is consistent with goodness to amputate a limb for the purpose of restoring a man to health and usefulness; it would be consistent with goodness to hew a man to pieces till death should result from the operation!

Since Mr. P. has not attempted to show that the eternal misery of some part of the human race will be for the greatest good of the universe, and has intimated that if Universalists can show that the good of the universe requires the happiness, of each individual, the argument from divine goodness will "amount to something" it may be advisable to attempt such proof. We would not exclude "an eternal exhibition of divine justice;"but we would exclude an eternal exhibition of positive cruelty from the administration of Jehovah. The whole universe of intelligences is composed of individuals, and the highest happiness of the universe, requires the greatest possible happiness of each individual composing the universe. To say God cannot make some as happy without, as with the misery of others,is to found the happiness of heaven upon the misery of hell, which would probably suit the feelings of a real savage! It would not only limit the "Holy one of Israel" to certain means of producing happiness; but would look very much like petitio principii, begging the question in dispute. It would be as absurd as to say God is the creator

of all men, but not of every individual! To illustrate this, suppose the universe to consist of ten rational beings only, each capable of receiving fifty degrees of enjoyment. To produce the greatest possible felicity of the ten, five hundred degrees of enjoyment must be received, or fifty by each. Any thing short of this, would not be the greatest possible good of the ten. If it be supposed that five could receive the five hundred degrees of enjoyment on condition that the other five should be perfectly miserable, then the greatest possible good and the greatest possible evil of the whole ten,are one and the same! cause if the greatest possible good of the whole be consistent with the perfect misery of one half -then the greatest possible evil of the whole would be consistent with the perfect happiness of one half!

Be

Mr. P. in reply to the following, "It would not be acting like a father on earth, if God were to doom sinners to endless torment," says "Is it like a father on earth, to inflict the temporal calamities which God often brings upon the children of men ?" He then speaks of poverty, shame sickness, loss of reason, death, drowning, burning &c. He says "What would you think of me if I should present such a strain of declamation, to prove to you that God never does bring such calamities on men? Yet the argument would be just as good for the purpose, as it is to prove that God will not-inflict eternal punishment upon some part of mankind." No principle can be clearer than this; viz. an earthly pa

rent will subject his child to any suffering which he is certain will be beneficial. No good parent will inflict any degree of misery upon a child for any other purpose. Why does not an earthly father consign his children to poverty, shame sickness, loss of reason, an afflicting death, drowning in the ocean, or perishing in flames? Be

cause he is not able to produce any benefit to the child from such treatment. But will Mr. P. presume to say God can produce no benefit from every event of his providence towards every creature he has made? Will he charge God with positive cruelty towards any dependent being? Will he say God unfeelingly inflicts an endless injury upon any creature, and thus disregards the principle on which all good parents act? Certainly there is a very wide difference between any temporal calamity, even the keenest distress which shall terminate, and never-ending agony which necessarily excludes its subject from all possible good. But if all temporal misery shall be succeeded by imperishable enjoyment, the boundless goodness of Almighty God shall burst forth upon a joyful universe in an undecaying blaze of unclouded glory! Goodness delights in communicating happiness. If the goodness of God is infinite, it embraces all beings-if unchangeable, it will always continue-if directed by perfect wisdom, it cannot err-if accompanied by almighty power, all its designs must be accomplished. "The Lord is good unto all and his tender mercies are over all his works" Ps. 145. "His mercy endureth forever" Ps. 107,