people, and by every effort which they could make, to overwhelm their understandings with terror? No man dare say this, who has ever read those two books. How ihen was this revival of religion brought about? It was by reading the Bible, and pointing out to the people, how far they had departed from what God had commanded in his word, and showing them that all their sufferings originated in this departure from God. This statement of the means by which this revival was produced we think no one will dispute. Nor will the man be found, who will venture to assert that preaching hell torments to the wicked had any

share in effecting it. We should rejoice to see such : a revival of religion among all professors of religion,

in the present day, from studying the Scriptures, to see how far they have departed from the law of the

Lord. We trust we should not be wanting in giving - it all the aid in our power. I pass over attempts

made by Jeremiah, and other servants of the Lord,

to produce revivals of a similar nature among the • Jews, but without success. I only observe in passing,

that they used similar means to effect it , as did Ezra and Nehemiah. But when those means failed, they did not betake themselves to the means, so efficacious in our day, to work on the passions of men, by preaching the doctrine of hell torments, to effect iheir purpose.

A second instance of a revival of religion mentioned in Scripture, is that in the days of John the Baptist. Was it produced by preaching hell torments ? John never used the word hell in all his preaching to the people. It was produced by preaching repentance, and pointing them to the Lamb of God, who was to take away the sin of the world. But the most extraordinary revival of religion, is that which took

place at the day of Pentecost, and during the minisi try of the apostles. Now let all read the Acts of the

preaching endless misery in hell! Let men only me

apostles, and see if they can find, in a single instance;
that any one of the apostles ever said a word about
hell, or its eternal torments to produce this revival.
Peter, on the day of Pentecost, is as silent on the sub-
ject of hell torments, as if no such thing existed in
the universe of God. He addressed the very men
who had been the betrayers and murderers of the
Lord of glory, but does he threaten them with the
torments of hell, or even enforce his doctrine by any
intimation that they were exposed to such a place of
punishment ? And is not all the preaching of the apos.
iles uniformly the same in regard to this subject ? No
working on the passions; no attempt is made by them
to terrify people into religion. One might with as
much truth affirm, that an eruption of mount Vesuvius
produced this revival, as that it was effected by
preach as the apostles did, by declaring the glad ti-
dings of forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, and
many things which go by the name of revivals of re-
ligion, would be at an end. As the means of revivals
in our day are very different from those used by the
apostles, so are the revivals produced by such means.
The converts made by such means, instead of partak-
ing of the meek, humble, and gentle spirit of Christ

, become censorious, bigoted and dogmatical, and with reluctance will they admit that persons, who certainly give as much evidence as themselves of Christianity, can really be Christians. They get attached to their minister, and to their sect, and zeal for these is often mistaken for a zeal for God and his glory. Strong excitement of the animal passions, sometimes even to extravagance, is ascribed to the power of God, at work among the people. As to understanding and believing the gospel, of the grace of God, little is said, and as little perhaps, cared about. We think we may say to such persons, in their own language,

te maintai

of reliq

inalthe

1

u who ever beard or read of such kind of revivals of religion among the apostles and primitive Christians, or who ever heard of their producing any kind of revival whatever by terrifying people with fearful descriptions of eternal misery?" The course which the apostles pursued was open, manly, and dignified; and the doctrine they preached was glad tidings of great joy to all people. Their object was not to save men from Gehenna or bell, but from ignorance, idolatry, licentiousness, and unbelief, and to instruct them in the knowledge and obedience of the one living and true God. But, the primary object of preaching in the present day, seems to be, to save men from hell; to attach converts to some religious party, and enjoin on them to believe neither more nor less, all the days of their lives than is contained in the creed, which they subscribed to on their admission.

No one will certainly construe what is said in the foregoing remarks, into a disapprobation of revivals generally; but only of such as are produced by terror. We maintain. yea, we advocate irue Scriptural revivals of religion. We know of nothing which could afford us more heartfelt joy, than 10 see all parties in religion, yea, all mankind, attending to the oracles of God, and sincerely searching them to know and obey all that the Lord hath commanded. In our remarks we have considered terror the principal means in producing revivals in the present day; and to such, and

such only, the preceding observations are intended to - apply. Divest modern orthodoxy of this most powsi erful mean of producing religious excitements, and

henceforth it would probably have as few revivals of religion to boast of, as Universalism itself. We know not, why the truth of God preached by Universalists, should not produce a real 'Scriptural revival of relig

ion, equally as when preached by others. Is it the in particular medium or manner of communication, that

1

to te do

is to give the word of God effect? Or is the power of
the Lord exclusively confined to a certain class of
preachers? It is now, we presume, as it was in the
days of the apostles, that the Lord bears testimony to
his own word, and that Paul might plant and Apollos
might water, but it was God who gave the increase.
But if our memory has not deceived us, we have seen
printed rules for bringing about revivals of religion,
and some preachers have not hesitated to say that it
was the people's own fault that they had not revivals
among them. Yea, some have determined before ha
hand, that they would get up a revival, and have gone
to work in their own way and accomplished it. All
this we really think is without precedent or example
in the history of apostolic preaching.

It is objected," That this doctrine is a very pleasing
doctrine to the world.”. In reply to this objection,
would observe, 1 st, That the first question to be sel-
tled is this; is it a true or false doctrine? The Bible
must decide this, and to it we have appealed. Of
what use can it be in determining whether a doctrine
be true or false, to call it either pleasant or unpleasant?
To admit the truth of what is here asserted, what
could it prove against the doctrine; and to deny it,
what could it prove either for or against it? Such
kind of arguments are generally used by such as have
nothing better to urge; yea, are too indifferent about
what is truth, to give themselves the trouble to inves-
tigate the subject. To ascertain the truth of any doc-
trine, we have only, according to this objection, to find
out if it is pleasant or unpleasant. If it is pleasant, it
must be false, and if unpleasant, it must be true.
This mode of decision will indeed save a great deal
of time and labour in reading and investigation; for
who would put themselves to the trouble of these,
when a decision can be made by so short and easy a
process ?

When i of hell z chara

be cha

doctrina

there is

2d, I might in my turn say, the opposite doctrine is a very harsh doctrine. Perhaps there is as much, if not more, force in this objection against it, than in the one against my views. If they must be false because they are pleasant, does it follow that the opposite must be true, because it is harsh? We should think it rather an argument against its truth. That the objector's doctrine is not a harsh doctrine he has got to prove. The very saying that my doctrine is pleasant, implies that he is sensible that his own is harsh. We presume many have thought it so, who have been afraid to speak freely their minds on the subject. Yea, we doubt if any man can seriously meditate on the doctrine of eternal misery, and can truly say that it is a pleasant doctrine. Influenced by religious prejudices, and overawed by public opinion, persons rather acquiesce in the doctrine, than feel convinced in their judgments, or satisfied in their minds about it. When they begin to reflect seriously on the eternity of hell torments, and compare it with the well known character of God, as a God of goodness, mercy, and truth, the jnind is at a stand what conclusion to come to concerning it. They think the Bible teaches it, and therefore they must believe it, but with the character of God they are unable to reconcile it.

3d, The gospel of the grace of God is a very pleas. ing doctrine, and if the objection has any force against my views, it equally lies against it. li seems then that he has pleasing doctrines as well as the one I have been stating, against which he cannot make his objection to bear. But why is this the case, for if the pleasant nature of any doctrine proves it false, why is it that he believes the gospel of God to be the iruch ?-It is certainly a very pleasing doctrine to hear that there is even a possibility that any of the human race will be saved. It is still more pleasing, that there