A residence of

cannot be felt by all.

more than forty years among you; the relation in which I stand to some; and the relation, which I find it difficult to distinguish from parental, in which I stand to a considerable number of this congregation, will, I hope, justify a freedom of address and an earnestness of manner, which, in some cases, would be considered as bordering upon egotism,

and

and as inconsistent with refinement. If, however, a person wishes to do good, he must be permitted to do it in his own way, or his exertions will be feeble and inefficient. Had the Sovereign Arbiter of life and death called me hence since last I addressed you from the words just recited, it would have been a source of unspeakable satisfaction to me in prospect of the event, that, by a reference to the Scriptures only, I had removed the foundation of the two most gloomy doctrines that ever took possession of the human mind; and, having cleared away this rubbish, that I had assisted you in laying another foundation, on which you yourselves, without any difficulty, would have been able to raise the superstructure of the glorious doctrine of Universal Restitution.

When I consider that the latter of the two doctrines just alluded to, (which it is most necessary to consider, as I ima

gine none of this society are in danger of adopting the former,) namely, the resurrection of the wicked to misery and final destruction, was the doctrine which I held myself during the greater part of my ministry among you, I feel such an appeal to candour as cannot be resisted. With regard to Persons, it is impossible to express a higher degree of candour, I can say with truth a higher degree of Respect, than I actually feel for many who have been the patrons of this doctrine which I now view with so much abhorrence. But my regard to Persons must not lead me (you do not wish it should) to an indifference with respect to Principles. It is surely no sufficient reason for an indulgence to any mental or bodily complaint, that it has attacked those whom we love, or that we have laboured under it ourselves.

After having repeatedly read the principal writers in favour of Annihilation,

it appears to me that every argument which they have brought against the Eternity of Hell-torments, in kind though certainly not in degree, applies against their own doctrine: and every argument which, from the Justice and Goodness of God and the Ends of punishment, they have brought for the final destruction of the wicked, ought to be carried farther, namely, to the doctrine of Universal Restitution. It is the comparing of one of these schemes of punishment with the other, and not taking the third properly into consideration, which has led to this striking inconsistency.

There is another error, of a similar nature, into which the advocates for Annihilation have fallen. In their haste to get rid of the doctrine of the Eternity of Hell-torments, they have adopted a mode of reasoning which, when employed against themselves by the advocates for fashionable systems of reli

1

gion, they justly reprobate, as a denial of principles.

It is well known that, in the science of Mathematics, a common mode of proving the truth of a proposition is to show the absurdity of the contrary proposition. And in the interpretation of Scripture, it is an allowed Canon or Rule, that obscure and doubtful texts are to be explained by those which are clear and certain. An adherence to these simple principles would have prevented much of the obscurity which has taken place on subjects of Religion. But if there be any innate tares in the human mind, they seem to be those which affect the Perfections of the Deity, and the Homage which is due to Him from his Creatures.

I could mention striking instances of this kind, in which Unitarians see the fallacy of the reasoning of their opponents,