days in consequence of it. Is not my doctrine tnen better to live by, than that of the objector?

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 all will allow, that many lived happy and died happy. It does not appear, from any thing which 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 in hell; nor, that it was any motive in producing obedience to God's commandments. We 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; therefere 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 pinched to defend it, from some text which they thought clearly taught it, they cut the matter shortly off thus,-"Ah! your doctrine may do very well to live by, but it will never do to die by." This brief sentence, 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 I really

think 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 doctrine of eternal misery, and its fitness 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 torments 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 to such persons a more certain and sweet source of joy in this world than the opposite doctrine? A man's joy must arise from the hope

he has, whether that hope 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 both the foundation of true hope, and source of joy to people in this world. We never understood, that the certainty of hell being a place of endless misery, was set forth in Scripture as the ground of hope, or 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 I ask, 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. could not be so; for none of the apostles ever spoke of hell as being a place of endless misery. We then ask, how this doctrine can be to any a better doctrine to live by than mine? When, or by whose authority did it become so eminently fitted to live by? 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 such 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 as neither of these are likely to be urged why the doctrine of eternal torments is better fitted to live by than mine, I observe

It

3d, That it is considered better to live by than my doctrine, as it is 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 or terror the most powerful principle to stimulate to a cordial and universal obedience? Let both Scripture and every day's experience decide in this case. Will any man affirm that the obedience required of us, and taught in Scripture, is there held forth as an obedience induced by the terror of hell torments? No; it is the obedience of gratitude and love. Terror may overawe, and frighten men to comply with many things to which their hearts are totally averse. It is love which sweetly constrains, not only to external obedience, but to the obedience of the heart and affections. But what does experience and daily observation teach concerning this? Who, that is acquainted with the history of the world, or with human nature, will say, that terror of the most horrid punishments, has been found efficacious in producing a cordial obedience in any grade or department of human society? So much are legislators and others convinced to the contrary, that in many places they are altering their code of laws, respecting the severity of human punishments. We then ask, in what respect the doctrine of eternal misery is better fitted to live by than my doctrine, if it affords no hope nor joy,to those who believe it, and is not a proper inducement to a holy life in the world? Let the objector point out, if he can, its preferable nature, and show wherein it consists. My doctrine is, that God never threatened men with eternal torments in

hell, that he never made any such revelation to the world, but that he sent his Son to make reconciliation for transgressors and to save them from their sins. That this doctrine is better fitted to live by, as to hope, joy, and obedience, we should deem it a waste of time particularly to point out. If my doctrine be true, as to these things, compared with its opposite, it is like the joy of noon day, to the gloom of midnight. We think it will not be disputed, that if my sentiments are Scriptural, all anxious fears about eternal misery are at once removed; a foundation of hope and source of joy to men laid open, which are calculated to animate and console the mind, under every trouble of this world; and motives to gratitude and obedience to God presented, which the doctrine of eternal misery certainly does not afford. It, on the other hand, fills the mind with gloom and anxiety, it leads to views of God not very favourable to his character, nor much calculated to make men love and serve him. We may indeed hope in his mercy revealed in the gospel through Jesus Christ, and may have joy in believing that we shall escape the torments of hell. But that the best of men have been still haunted with fears and anxieties, notwithstanding this, will not be denied. That this has been their state of mind, in regard to their own personal safety from hell, is what we might expect; but they have been also perplexed and distressed, as we think every good man must be, about the eternal condition of all their fellow creatures. We pity the man, who, if he thinks himself safe from this place of torment, feels little or no concern for the unnumbered millions of men like himself, all equally interested in the decision of this all important question.

Let us now consider how the doctrine of eternal misery is better fitted than my sentiments, to die by. This doctriue cannot be better than mine to die by,