which divine love and heavenly wisdom are excluded. And as is the fountain, such is the stream.

The object we have in view in presenting this our reasoning on analogy to the reader, is, that it may be seen, that if this scheme be allowed, and sin and misery thereby carried into the future state, we must allow that in the future world there can be no such thing hoped for as happiness for any, without a mixture of mental pain and sorrow, which will be there increased beyond what the virtuous endure in this life, in proportion as sin and suffering may there be greater than are known in this world. If all this be consistent with the gospel and religion of Jesus, Christians have before them a most gloomy prospect.

Argument from

ther examined.

Let us trace this analogy still further. It is well known, that in this analogy still fur world the wicked are constantly inflicting distressing injuries on the upright and virtuous. According to this scheme of analogy, this practice is to continue in the world to come. This seems to be necessarily embraced in the notion that sin will there be committed; for it would be no small reformation in this world, if the wicked would confine their wrongs to their own circle, and cease to injure the innocent and the upright.

Again: It is contended, by the advocates of the

doctrine which carries sin and suffering into the world to come, that the belief that there is no punishment in the future state for sin committed in this, and that sin is fully recompensed in this world where it is committed, is of a licentious tendency; that the preaching of such a sentiment is an encouragement to vice; that to dissuade the wicked from their wicked ways, it is necessary to hold up the terrors of a future state of retribution. Then, according to analogy, as soon as we find ourselves in the future world, it will then be necessary to inform those who shall be wicked there, that they are in danger of punishment in a future. state. It will then be licentious to believe and teach that all punishment for sin is in that state where it will be committed. According to this analogy, sin will never be fully punished in the state in which it is committed, but the transgressor must always look into a future state for retribution. Also, as the righteous are not fully rewarded for their good works in this world, and as they are obliged to look for a full recompense hereafter, without which prospect they would have no inducement to live godly lives,-so, according to analogy, when they arrive to the future rewards, they will have no inducements to do well in that state, unless they can enjoy the prospect of being recompensed in a state beyond that.

CHAPTER III.

RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED IN CONNEXION WITH

THE SCRIPTURES.

PROPOSITION. The punishments denounced against sinners in the Bible are clearly temporal, under all the different forms of society, and to all the different classes of sinners mentioned both in the Old Testament and the New.

HAVING extended our inquiry into the merits of the arguments in favor of a future state of retribution, which rely on analogy for their support, to as great a length as the nature of the subject seems to render necessary, we may now proceed to call the doctrine in question, by the assistance of the Scriptures, as they relate to divine retribution.

trines defined.

In the following inquiry respecting The prevalent doc the punishment of sin, a constant reference will be had to certain doctrines, which are believed in the Christian church, and held to be essential to the faith of the gospel. This being embraced in our design, it may contribute to render our arguments more intelligible, if we first present the reader with a concise statement of

those doctrines which will be called in question; that having them in mind, he may the better judge of their soundness, by comparing them with such Scripture authority as may be presented.

1. Respecting sin and its punishment, it is believed that our Creator views it to be an infinite evil, being a violation of his infinite law; and that nothing short of endless punishment can be its just retribution.

2. Consistently with the foregoing it is believed that the punishment of the sin which men commit in this mortal state, is not inflicted nor endured in this life, but that it will be inflicted and endured in the future, immortal state.

3. It is believed that all those of the human family, who shall finally obtain salvation by Jesus Christ, will be so forgiven their transgressions as not to be punished for them.

4. It is believed that a realizing sense of the truth of this endless punishment is indispensable to true piety, and is the proper support and defence of moral virtue. And,

5. This doctrine of endless punishment is one of the principal bonds of fellowship in the church, as no one who does not believe it, is allowed to be sound in the faith of the gospel, or a worthy member of the Christian communion.

Having these sentiments thus before us, and

keeping them in constant view, we shall proceed to the consideration of certain facts, and certain declarations of the Scriptures, inquiring, as we pass along, how such facts and declarations can be made to agree with them.

Case of Adam and

Before Adam sinned, the "Lord God commanded the man, saying, Eve. Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." (Gen. ii. 16, 17.) The facts which relate to the subject of this divine command and threatening, and which we now wish to have considered, are the following: 1st. It must be allowed that it was, at least, as necessary for man to know before transgression what punishment would be inflicted if he should transgress, as to be informed of it after the offence had taken place. 2d. If the doctrine of endless punishment, or any punishment, in a future state, be true now, it was true when the foregoing command and threatening were communicated to Adam. 3d. If a belief in this doctrine of future punishment be now indispensable to true piety, and if it be the proper support and defence of moral virtue now, it was equally so before Adam sinned. The question then occurs, in relation to the subject, and these facts, why did not the Lord God state the doctrine of future pun