kindness. They think there should be a hell to punish sinners in forever, and some have even gone so far as to say, if all men are to go to heaven, they do not wish to go there. So long as such a spirit prevails, there need be no wonder that my views of this subject should be hated and opposed. The first thing such persons ought to do, is to consider the nature of their spirit. Can such a spirit be the spirit of Christ?

It is further objected, "that this is a very good doctrine to live by, but it will not do to die by."-In answer to this objector, let it be remarked, that this objection implies, that the doctrine of eternal misery, is a doctrine which will do, both to live and die by. But that my doctrine, can afford no hope or comfort, either in life or in death. Or does he mean, that his doctrine affords more of these, both in life and in death; but that mine only affords a false and temporary hope, and comfort in life, but no hope nor comfort in death? Taking this to be the true sense of the words of the objector, we would then ask him, how he knows that his doctrine will do better to live and die by, than mine? We do not think he can make any possible reply to this, but by saying, my doctrine is true and yours is false. Well, whoever urges this objection, will consider it a duty they ought to perform, to prove that my views are unscriptural. For

1st, If they are true, why will they not do to live and die by better than the opposite views, which must be false? The whole here depends on the truth or falsehood of my sentiments. If they can be proved from the Scriptures false, I frankly confess that they are neither fit to live nor die by. Candor, in the objector, will certainly also grant, that if my sentiments are true, his doctrine of eternal torments in hell, is not fit either to live or die by, because it must be false. I contend, that true doctrine, or in other words, the doctrine of the Bible, is the doctrine which men can either

live or die by comfortably. Error, is not good for men, either in life or in death. It is truth which gives true hope and joy to the mind, and it is truth, which is a light to the feet and lamp to the path. The whole here depends on which of the two doctrines is the doctrine of Scripture. While this remains undecided, I have as good a right to say to the objector as he has to me, your doctrine is a very good doctrine to live by, but it will not do to die by. Until the objector fairly meets the arguments, by which I prove Gehenna or hell, is not a place of endless misery for the wicked, I might dismiss this and other objections of a similar nature. But

2d, The objector must allow, that if his doctrine is so good to die by, it is not very good to live by. He certainly cannot deny, that the doctrine of eternal torments in hell, has given much distress to many, and many too, whom he would not deny to be the excellent of the earth. We think, it does not give one half the distress to the thoughtless and licentious, as it does to the more thinking, serious, and exemplary part of the community. The former laugh, dance, and play, and drive away all their fears of the punishment of hell torments. The doctrine, only gives distress and misery of mind to the most valuable part of society. These, and these almost exclusively, are the persons who are rendered miserable all their life-time by this doctrine. We think the objector will not deny, that many instances have occurred, where persons of thinking and serious habits, have been driven to distraction, and even to suicide by it. But was a case ever known, where a person was distressed in his mind, went deranged, or ended his days, because hell was not a place of eternal torment for a great part of the human race? We have found a few, who would be very sorry, if my views could be proved true. This we have imputed to want of consideration, and a false zeal for a favorite doctrine,

but we are under no apprehension, that if they are found true, they will carry their zeal so far as to end their days in consequence of it. Is not my doctrine then better to live by, than that of the objector?

We

3d, But if my views are such as may do to live by, but will not do to die by, how came it to pass, that persons could both live and die by them under the Old Testament dispensation? It was not known in those days, that Gehenna was a place of eternal misery for the wicked, yet many lived happy, and died happy. It does not appear, from any thing I have ever noticed in the Old Testament, that persons then derived any hope or consolation, either in life or in death, from the doctrine of eternal torment; nor, that it was any motive in producing obedience to God's commandments. find no holy man of God in those days, urging the doctrine of endless misery on mankind, as a good doctrine to live and die by, and warning men against the opposite doctrine, as a dangerous error. Besides, how could the apostles and first Christians, either live happy or die happy, seeing they knew nothing about hell as a place of endless misery? They knew nothing of this doctrine; therefore let the objector account for it, why my doctrine will not do to live and die by now, as well as in the days of the apostles. What would the objector have done for this doctrine to live and die by, had he lived eighteen hundred years ago? He cannot say, that the apostles ever preached the doctrine of hell torments for any purpose; and far less that they preached it, as a good doctrine to live and die by.

4th, But let us examine a little more particularly, what there is in the doctrine of hell torments, which is so much better fitted to live and die by, than the sentiments which I have stated in the foregoing pages. The objection we are considering, is often used, and serves some on all occasions, when argument fails, in defending the doctrine of hell torments. When hardly

J

pinched to defend it, from Scripture, they cut the matter short, thus,-"Ah! your doctrine may do very well to live by, but it will never do to die by." This, perhaps, uttered with a sigh or a groan, answers in place of a thousand arguments with many. I shall therefore give it more attention, than it deserves. Let us then

Consider the comparative merits of the two opposite doctrines to live by. The doctrine, or my doctrine, that hell is not a place of eternal torment for all the wicked is barely allowed to be a doctrine, which men may possibly live by in the present world. Now, how Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, and others, made out to live by it, I do not stop to inquire. I leave my opponents to inquire, how they, and the apostles, and first Christians, yea, I may add Jesus Christ himself, succeeded in living so well by it. When they have found out this, I can be at no loss to tell them, how I and others can live by it. But we pass over this, and wish to bring the comparative merits of the two doctrines into notice, as best fitted to live and die by.

1st, Then, let us attend to the fitness of the doctrine of eternal misery, to live by. If it indeed be better fitted for this purpose, it must be in the following things. 1st, As a ground of hope in respect to future happiness. But, how any man can make the eternal torment of others in hell, a ground of hope to himself I am unable to devise. If the eternal misery of one human being, affords the objector any ground of hope, the more doomed to this punishment then, so much greater the extent and solidity of his ground of hope. But as this is not likely to be the ground on which this is placed, I observe

2d, Does it afford a more certain and sweet source of joy in this world, than the opposite doctrine? A man's joy must arise from his hope whether it is well or ill founded. If, then, the doctrine affords no ground of hope, it can be no source of joy to him. Besides;

we have always thought, that Jesus Christ and him crucified, was the foundation of true hope, and the source of true joy to people in this world. We never understood, that the certainty of endless misery, was set forth in Scripture as the ground of our hope, or the source of our joy. The apostle, Gal. ii. 26. says: "The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.' But, did the apostle ever say, that the life he now lived in the flesh, he lived by the faith that hell was a place of endless misery, either as a ground of his hope or source of his joy? Or did he ever say, that Christ loved him and gave himself for him, to save him from the punishment of this place? He joyed in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not find that hell torments were a source of joy, either to him or to any one else. It could not be so: for none of the apostles ever spoke of hell as a place of endless misery. We then ask, how this doctrine can be to any a better doctrine to live by than mine? We ask further, in what way is it better fitted to live by than mine, if the persons who profess it, derive neither hope nor joy from it? I ought to allow, perhaps that it does afford a selfish joy to some, that they are secure from the torments of hell, while multitudes are doomed to suffer its punishment forever. This we presume, is all the joy which this doctrine affords, and we ought to call it any thing but Christian joy. But why the doctrine of eternal torments, is better fitted to live by than mine, probably is,

3d, That it is considered a better preservative against a licentious life, and a more powerful motive to holiness. This, I presume, is the ground on which the doctrine of eternal misery is counted the best of the two to live by. Is this then true? We think we have said enough in answering the first objection, to prove that it is not. We shall however add the following remarks here, to show that it cannot be true. We ask, then,-Is love