opportunity of" believing in the true God in Jesus Christ after temporal death?" However, one thing is made evident by producing this passage: that Mr. H. was much straitened for scriptural support of his assertion. Mr. Hutchinson has entirely mistaken the sense of these words, "To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the Most High." The prophet had no reference to God's turning aside the right of a man, as Mr. H. appears to understand it; but to the conduct of the oppressor, who would do it, and that before the face of the Most High, which the Lord did not approve, but abhorred.

But should it be a truth, that sinners after death will have opportunity to hear and believe in Christ, will it certainly follow, that they will embrace such opportunity? The Scriptures warrant us to believe, that if they refuse to hear "Moses and the prophets," and Christ and his apostles in this life, they will not be persuaded, should they have the same privilege beyond the grave. Luke XVI. 31.

In p. 39, our author asserts, that "there were some among those Gentile nations (wicked as the nations were) which were really virtuous; instances of which were "Heraclitus, Socrates, Solon, &c." Of the first of these I know nothing. Socrates, doubtless, was amongst the best of them; but in his dying hour he ordered a cock to be sacrificed to Esculapius, an heathen idol Perhaps this might appear to Mr. H. as it does to some others, as no want of virtue; however it might appear to inspired writers,* and to many in our day. "Solon, this great law-giver forbade unnatural lust only to slaves." Plato was another virtuous heathen; yet he 66

Rom. I. 21, 23, 25.

ex

pressly allowed of excessive drinking at the festival of Bacchus, and recommends a community of women, and advises, that soldiers should not be restrained from sensual indulgence, even the most unnatural species of it."*

Bishop of Carlisle's reflections on the life and character of Obrist.-Appendix in Stillman on Apostolic preaching, p. 6, 7.

SECTION VIII.

Mr. H. justly observes, that the "purity, which prevailed in the first century, began to be lost in the second and third."-" In this century," says he, [probably meaning the third,]"many advocated the doctrine of the restoration of all things, among whom was Origen and others." p. 46.

It is true, that the most pernicious errors overspread the church at that time; and among other things Origen advanced the doctrine, "that the torments of the damned will have an end; and that as Christ has been crucified in this world to save mankind, he is to be crucified in the next to save the devils.* It seems that as sagacious as Origen was, he had not yet learned that there was no devil-no hell. Who were the others, that maintained the doctrine of universal salvation? Where did Mr. H. get his information respecting the many of which he speaks? It would have been a satisfaction, had he named his authorities. Doubtless there were others, who denied everlasting punishment; but I know of none by name but Origen; and he is noticed rather as being singular in his belief.

It seems to have been a gratification to our Apologist to find, that for seven or eight hundred years after the seventh century, the doctrine for which he pleads, was not approved of "but eternal misery, and that of purgatory were the doctrines of the *Mosheim, vol. 1, page 219, 223, 476. A former edition. In Bachus's reply to Winchester.

church through those dark ages;" and "the doctrine of eternal misery was never contradicted," and "was certainly the most firmly established that it ever was."

And it seems to be a pleasing thought, that iniquity should so abound, even more than usual, in the ages when Universalism dared not make its appearance; as if that doctrine were more favorable to morality, than the contrary principle; at least less unfavorable to virtue, than is generally supposed. Also Mr. H. adds, that his opponents "think, that nothing but the doctrine of eternal misery can ever reform the people." p. 47.

I believe Mr. H. is nearly right in supposing, that the doctrine he favors did not prevail to any great extent in the ages referred to; nor was it very extensive in any age previous to the seventh century. And however the principle of endless misery was generally acknowledged in the dark ages, yet it was much weakened by their absolutions and purgatory already mentioned; and had indeed lost all influence as to promoting religion or morality: for it was an easy thing to escape the threatened future punishment. According to Mr. H.'s own words, "An absolution or pardon from the pope, or from any priest who had the pope's permission. That sprinkling water in an infant's face by a priest, would give him eternal salvation. That when wicked people die and go to purgatory, if their friends would hire the priest to pray for them, they may be saved, or delivered from purgatory." p. 48. Now these things considered, what effect would the doctrine of future punishmnet have? or what need was there of the doctrine of universal salvation?

I would just remark here, that the purgatory of the Papists and that of Mr. H. differ in two particulars.

1. In the former it is only comparatively small sins, that do not merit damnation;* but the latter finds no sins great enough te deserve everlasting punishment. 2. The purgatory of Mr. H. is in this life and in death; but that of the Papist is after death in the future world.

Another reason may be given why there were no more Universalists in the dark ages of popery: because they were exposed to too much persecution, if they avowed their principles. For our author says 62 no one dared to contradict the doctrine of eternal misery-unless, he had been willing to be torn to pieces by the beast. p. 47. If this statement be correct, we don't wonder that there were none of that sentiment, or who avowed the sentiment, in those days, for it is to be presumed, that no one would feel the principle to be of such importance as to avow it at so great hazard.

Again it would seem, that the Roman Beast bore a particular hatred to the doctrine in question; but that was far from being the case. I know not that history furnishes us with any instance of the persecution of a Universalist by the Papists; but it is certain, that their greatest vengeance was poured out upon those who denied purgatory, and maintained the everlasting wretchedness of such as die in their sins.

Probably none suffered more from the persecuting hand of papal Rome, than the Waldenses and Bohemians; and the faith of these sufferers was nearly the same as what is now called orthodox. One article in the Waldenian creed is expressed as

* Buck in his Theological Dictionary says, " Purgatory is a place in which the just, who depart out of this life, are supposed to expiate certain offences, which do not merit eternal damnation."