ner will not be arrested in his career by a full conviction, that every sin will hereafter bring down upon him a punishment, whose intenseness and duration extend to the utmost reach of his understanding, it will be in vain, that you go beyond these bounds, and plunge into the unfathomable depths of eternity. If you intend to act upon the human mind, you must keep within its sphere. Hence it is, that the doctrine, which represents future punishment as in the highest degree severe, but limited, and proportionate to the wickedness of men, will produce all the effects, in regard to practical morals, that can be produced.

According to this scheme, every thing is credible, and analagous to what passes in this life. Every one will acknowledge, that the wicked should suffer in the world to come, for the same reasons, that they ought to suffer in the present. No doubts can be entertained, and no illusive hopes encouraged, where it is deeply felt, that every sin will inevitably be punished in proportion to its magnitude, and that the justice and mercy of God will be blended in all his dealings with his creatures.

I have no room to continue the parallel; but it seems to me from the above brief hints, that the interests of virtue gain nothing from the doctrine of eternal misery, which would not be gained in at least an equal degree from the other doctrine; and, therefore, admitting your charge to be just, which it certainly is not, the inference you would draw, in regard to the moral tendency of unitarian preaching, amounts to nothing.

As to the doctrine of annihilation, which you have charged on Unitarians, I shall say very little. The annihilation, or as others choose to call it, the destruction, of the wicked, after a certain period of suffering, has been believed by a few speculative individuals in all denominations of Christians. Burnet represents it to have been the faith of Tatian, Irenaeus, and Arnobius. "The souls that know not God," says Arnobius, "after long and tedious torments, are consumed by fire."* Dr. Watts held, that "the children of ungodly parents, who die in infancy, are annihilated."†

There is no justice in setting out this doctrine as a branch of Unitarianism, or as an evidence of the immorality of Unitarians, unless proof can be adduced, that it is a necessary part of their faith, or at least more common with them, than with Trinitarians. This cannot be done; nor has the doctrine any connexion with Unitarianism. Its alliance is just as close with the faith of Trinitarians as of Unitarians; and the writers against it have usually been of the latter class.

Dr. John Taylor, and Dr. Price, were no doubt destructionists; and Mr. Bourn has probably been its most zealous defender. Goadby has a note in which he seems inclined to this belief. These were Unitarians, it is true, and some others might be added to the list; but several eminent persons of the same

*State of the Dead, chap. X.

Adam's Religious World Displayed, Vol. III. p. 396.

Goadby's Illustration of the Scriptures, Vol. iii. p. 1005.

denomination have argued with quite as much zeal on the other side. Dr. Chandler had a controversy with Mr. Bourn on the subject, in which he maintained eternal punishment. Dr. Cogan confutes the destruction scheme with his usual acuteness and force;* Dr. Estlin has written expressly against it;† and several articles have appeared in the Monthly Repository with the same bearing. The doctrine was not believed by Locke, Newton, Priestley, Jebb, Lindsey, nor any of the more celebrated early English Unitarians. It is an injurious insinuation, therefore, to impute this doctrine to Unitarianism, or to intimate that it is oftener attached to persons of this belief, than to those of the various shades of Trinitarianism.‡

But in any case it could hardly be supposed, that it would be held up as defective in moral influence, especially by a believer in eternal torments. It supposes a full measure of punishment to be inflicted on every soul, before it shall be put out of being, and that the term and degree of this punishment will be in proportion to the guilt of past sins. The only immoral influence, which it would seem to have, is, that it casts a shadow over the divine goodness, in representing God as destroying a portion of his spiritual

*Cogan's Theological Disquisitions, p. 361-439.

+ Estlin's Discourses on Universal Restitution, p. 68.

Miss Hannah Adams has failed in her usual accuracy in attributing this doctrine to the Polish Socinians, as is plain from the testimony of B. Wissowatius before quoted. Hannah Adams's Dictionary of all Religions, 4th ed. p. 274.

creatures, towards whom he has declared his love to be unchangeable, and whom he has power to bless with everlasting happiness. This scheme is scarcely less opposed to reason, and the best feelings of man, than the doctrine of eternal misery, and its advocates profess to build it exclusively on the Scriptures.

So far as terror is a motive to good action, as Dr. Priestley has observed, this doctrine must certainly take precedence of all others. What idea can be more dismal, painful, and appalling, than that of ceasing to exist, after suffering the acutest misery for an indefinite length of time? Where is the man, however abandoned in wickedness, however lost to a sense of virtue and duty, who, with all his crimes on his head, would not feel infinitely more comfort in the certainty of a future existence, although he must suffer the just punishment of his sins, than he would at the gloomy thought of falling into nothing, and of being forgotten even by his God? Do you believe a doctrine can be preached more terrible to the sinner, than that which puts him beyond the reach of infinite mercy, goodness, and love? If the conduct of men is to be regulated by terrific representations of the future, and if the doctrine of eternal punishment has any tendency to restrain them from vice, this must act with double force, as it is doubly awful in its nature and its prospects.

PART V.

SENTIMENTS AND MORALS OF CELEBRATED ENGLISH UNITARIANS.

LETTER I.

Theological Sentiments of Newton, Locke, and Watts.

SIR,

In the closing remarks of your Letter, strong disapprobation is expressed, that Unitarians should presume to rank Newton, Locke and Watts, among their numbers. You intimate a belief, that in using this freedom with the two former, "those illustrious men are treated with great injustice;" and "against placing the pious, the heavenly-minded Watts in such company, you feel constrained to enter your solemn protest." As I had enumerated these men among others, who were not believers in the trinity, and as you have been so prompt to question the accuracy, and even the justice of this enumeration, I propose to devote a few words to a consideration of this topic.