"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1Thess. 5:21

To prove, in the sense of the text, I conclude, signifies to try - to bring to the test. The apostle was far from adopting the theory of some, in the present day, who seem to think it evidence that a man is a heretic if he presumes to examine for himself with regard to the truth of those theories which men, who have been in reputation for wisdom and piety, have seen fit to baptize as the true faith. They may have seen the truth clearly, or they may not. Whether they have or not, it does not release us from the obligation of proving all things for ourselves. Not to do this, we might nearly as well have been constituted idiots; as, in point of fact, we make ourselves so, by taking, for truth, without investigation, the opinions of fallible men.

We are not indeed to despise helps in our investigations; but every thing is to be brought to the test - the infallible words of God.

Nor are we to allow ourselves to think, as some seem to maintain, that we are to exercise a blind faith in a theory, however contrary to reason. Reason, it is true, cannot find out God, nor the things of God, unaided - Hence God has been pleased to give us revelation; and that revelation is made to man's reason, or understanding. To talk about believing that which is contrary to reason, is the most consummate folly. Is it possible for a man to believe that two and two make six? or that unequal things are exactly equal? To propose such absurdities for belief is to attempt to annihilate all tests of truth, and leave a man to wander in the mazes of conjecture. We hardly know which to pity most, the man who attempts such a work, or those who are duped by it.

The fact is - God appeals to man's reason. "Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord." The disciples "communed together, and reasoned." See Luke 24:15. Acts 17:2, we are told, "Paul, as his manner was - reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." And chap. 18:4, "He reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Before Felix he "reasoned" till his royal hearer trembled.

We may rest assured, then, that God has given us our reason to be used; and we are commanded to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in us. There may be many truths that reason can never find out; hence the necessity of revelation; but revelation can contain nothing contrary to reason - that is impossible; for, I repeat it, it would be no revelation at all, but darkness and obscurity itself. Reason then occupies an important place. It is its province to judge of the truth of that which professes to be a revelation; if that professed revelation is clearly contrary to reason, no man can credit it but a rank fanatic: It is to confound truth and falsehood, and take away all power of discriminating between them.

Reason, however, is to be allowed to do her work untrammeled. Reason may be blinded. There is no way in which it is so likely to be perverted as by the love of sin. If men are in love with sin, and are determined to persist in it, they may expect to reason incorrectly - though their decisions, in that case, can hardly be said to be the voice of reason; it is rather the voice of passion, or appetite; for, even in such cases, the strife of reason, to be heard, is easily discovered, if a man will observe the workings of his own mind. But our Saviour has decided that the man who "will do" the will of God, i.e. has a purpose, or determination, to do that will, wherever it may lead him, "he shall know of the doctrine." - Before reasoning, then, we should see to it that we have that purpose: else we may go astray.

With these remarks, I proceed to a further examination of objections to the theory I advocate. If those objections are reasonable, and the unreasonableness of them cannot be shown, then you are bound to "hold" them "fast," as "good." If they are to your mind shown to be without reason, as well as without Scripture authority, you are equally bound to give them up.

EXAMINATION OF OBJECTIONS CONTINUED

It is said, "the fathers believed in the endless torments of the wicked." In reply, I remark, Our Lord and Master has prohibited my calling any man father. But, if the fathers, as they are called, did believe that doctrine, they learned it from the Bible, or they did not. If they learned it there, so can we. If they did not learn it from the Bible their testimony is of no weight. It may have been an error that early got into the Church, like many others.

Mosheim, in his Church History, tells us, as early as the third century, that the defenders of Christianity, in their controversies, "degenerated much from primitive simplicity," and that the maxim which asserted the innocence of defending truth by artifice and falsehood, "contributed" to this degeneracy.

And he adds: "This disingenuous and vicious method of surprising their adversaries by artifice, and striking them down, as it were, by lies and fictions, produced, among other disagreeable effects, a great number of books, which were falsely attributed to certain great men, in order to give these spurious productions more credit and weight; for, as the greatest part of mankind are less governed by reason than authority, and prefer in many cases, the decisions of fallible mortals to the unerring dictates of the divine word, the disputants, of whom we are speaking, thought they could not serve the truth more effectually than by opposing illustrious names, and respectable authorities to the attacks of its adversaries."

This practice, spoken of by Mosheim, increased as the darker ages rolled on; and through those dark ages, what there are of the writings of the "fathers" have come down to us. It is a truth, also, that the practice of corrupting the simplicity of the apostolic doctrine was commenced much earlier than the third century. Enfield, in his philosophy, says: "The first witnesses of Christianity had scarcely left the world when" this work began. Some of the "fathers" seemed intent on uniting heathen philosophy with Christianity, and early commenced the practice of clothing the doctrines of religion in an allegorical dress.

You may judge, my hearers, what dependence can be placed upon the "fathers" in settling what is Bible truth.

Again it is said, - The Jews held the doctrine of eternal conscious being in torments. This is proved, not from their Scriptures, the place where it should be found, if true, but from the writings of Josephus.

The same may be urged against the infallibility of some things found in Josephus, as in the "fathers;" for it is certain, as I have before shown, that there was a large class among the Jews that did not believe it; viz. the Sadducees, who did not believe in the existence of spirits at all, and of course could not have held to their eternal conscious existence in sin and suffering.

But what if the Jews did believe it? They believed too "many other such like" foolish things. Are we to go to their ignorance and superstition to learn the knowledge of the Most High? The fact is, the Jewish Scriptures, the Old Testament, no where teach that doctrine.

My attention will be called to Is.33:14. "Who among us shall dwell with devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" This looks the most like teaching that doctrine of any thing in the Old Testament. But the text itself refutes the theory it is brought to prove; for it tells us, expressly, the fire is a devouring fire. What is the meaning of the term "devour?" According to Walker, it signifies "To eat up" - "to consume" - "to annihilate."

Surely then, my opponents gain nothing from this text, for it is wholly in my favor.

Besides, such questions often imply the impossibility of a thing; e.g. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" i.e. There is no escape. So, "Who shall dwell with devouring fire?" implies the impossibility of any person doing it, as it will utterly destroy, or consume him. I will give the objector one text from the old Testament, that he may weigh along with this. It is Ps.92:7, "When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that shall be destroyed forever." I have said, the Jewish Scriptures no where teach the common theory; so far from it, they wind up with the most solemn declaration, calling the attention of all men to the fact, "Behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven: and all the proud, yea, all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

But suppose I were to admit, that the Jews did hold the doctrine of endless suffering, as my opponents say: what then? Why, say they, that is strong evidence it must be true; because, if it had not been, the Saviour and his apostles would have taught the contrary.

I reply, first: Many of the Jews believed in the pre-existent state of souls; or, their existence in some other body prior to those they now inhabit. It was owing to this idea, that we find the disciples of our Lord in John 9:2, asking him, "Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" This question shows, that even the apostles had imbibed the notion common among the Jews at that time. They supposed that in some previous state he might have sinned; and hence, as a judgment, was born blind. Does not the same reasoning which says, the Jews believed in the eternal sinning and suffering of the wicked, and therefore it must be true, because the Saviour did not refute it, prove that the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is true, because the Jews believed it, and our Saviour did not refute it?

But again, - I maintain, that Christ and his apostles did teach the contrary of endless sin and suffering: and that, as clear as language could make it; and I think I have already shown this. I have read the New Testament carefully through, and noted down every text that speaks of the final destiny of the wicked; or that can be construed as referring to it. Let us look at these texts, and see if any language could well express more clearly and forcibly, the utter extirpation of the wicked.

TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

1. John the Baptist. Matt.3:10 - "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire." It appears to me this language imports, clearly, an utter extinction of being, and nothing short. Again in the 12th verse, John says of Christ - "He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Here the language denotes nothing less than the previous: and is, most clearly, a reference to the words of the Lord by Malachi, chap. 4:1. John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: he that believeth not the Son shall not see life."

John, then, does not teach the common notion of eternal conscious being in torments, but utter destruction of being, if there is any meaning in language. If, then, the Jews did hold the doctrine of endless sin and suffering, or the immortality of the wicked, as some pretend, John's preaching was directly calculated to overthrow it. The next witness is,

2. Jesus Christ, our Lord. Matt.5:29,30 - "For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Let it be kept in mind that the term perish, primarily, signifies "to cease to have existence." Now, I ask the candid, if the one member here is not, by our Lord, put in opposition to the whole body? and if so, is not the sense of this passage expressed thus - If one member is diseased it will cause the whole body to perish unless that member is removed; better, therefore, that one member should be cut off and perish than that the whole body perish.

But, again, Matt.7:13,14 - "Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat; because strait is gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life."

Here, as destruction is put in opposition to life, and signifies to be consumed; or, as Walker says, "In theology, eternal death," it cannot mean eternal life in sin and suffering, but a "ceasing to be;" unless we would confound the use of all language, and adopt the notion, that the common people cannot understand the Bible, and therefore it ought not to be put into their hands. In fact, have we not come to that pass already?

How much short of this is it, when we are told, at least indirectly, that the language of the Scriptures is so figurative, or mystical, that we are not to give the obvious and literal sense of the words, as in reading other books?

But let us hear our Saviour further: Matt.7:19 - "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire." The same idea and the same language as that used by John the Baptist. I ask if it imports any thing short of utter destruction?

Matt.10:28 - "Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." I ask if this language does not clearly imply, that God is able to kill the soul? - whatever the term soul imports - and does it not as clearly affirm, that he will kill or destroy utterly the wicked? I have no fear for the answer from the candid and unprejudiced.

Once more; Matt.13:40,50 - "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world: the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just; and shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." How is it possible for words more clearly to denote an utter destruction of being, accompanied with the most bitter anguish? How can these words be tortured to mean eternal conscious existence in sin?

Matt.16:25,26 - "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it," &c. "For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Here is no idea of eternal conscious existence, or a miserable eternal life: but a loss of life. It could not be a loss of the soul, if the soul continues in being. No, says the objector, it means loss of happiness to the soul. I reply, a loss of happiness is one thing, and the loss of the soul is another and a very different thing. Suppose I should interpret the expression, "Whoever will save his life shall lose it," to signify that the person who seeks to save his life shall lose, not his life, but the happiness of it! Would not the objector himself call it a perversion of the Scriptures? But it is no more a perversion than for him to say, the loss of the soul means only the loss of its happiness.

Again, Matt.18:8,9 - "Cut off thy hand; pluck out thine eye if" they "cause thee to offend," for "it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed," or "with one eye, than to be cast into everlasting" or "hell fire."

Here the punishment is the opposite of life, which it could not be, if the wicked are to have endless life or eternal conscious being.

Thus then we fail to find, in the language of our blessed Lord, the doctrine of eternal existence in sin and suffering; but we do find that the punishment of the wicked will result in the loss of life; preceded by sufferings more or less protracted; set forth as the anguish fire produces on this corporeal system, and by the "wailing and gnashing of teeth." We find, then, if I mistake not, no countenance to the supposed Jewish notion of eternal sin and misery.

3. Peter's Testimony. Acts 3:23 - "Every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people." This language cannot rel ate to a temporary destruction, nor, as some suppose, to a violent destruction from this world, unless it can be shown that all who have refused to hear Christ have been thus destroyed. But this cannot be done; for, many unbelieving Jews have existed on earth to this day.

Besides, the original is much more expressive than our translation. The term translated destroyed is exolothreutheesetai; which Dr. Bloomfield in his "critical" notes on the Greek text, edited by Prof. Stuart, - says, "is a word found only in the Septuagint and the later writers; signifying to `utterly exterminate.´"

In this text, then, we have a clear testimony against the idea of endless sin and suffering, or the immortality of men in sin.

Acts 8:20 - "Thy money perish with thee." Again, 2Peter,2:1 - "Bring upon themselves swift destruction." Also 12th verse - "These as natural beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, shall utterly perish." This, certainly, does not look like teaching the common theory, that the wicked are immortal; and I know not how any form of expression could more forcibly teach the utter extermination of the wicked. At the 17th verse, he says of certain wicked characters, "To whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever." This expression, to my mind, carries the idea of a total destruction; as light is sometimes put for life in the Scriptures; as, for example, "the life was the light of man," so darkness is put for death; and the "mist of darkness forever," I conceive, implies an utter extinction of being.

But again, 3d. chap. - "The heavens and earth - are reserved unto fire again the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." "Perdition," according to Walker, signifies "Destruction - Ruin - Death - Loss, Eternal Death." Which of these definitions favors the common theory of eternal conscious existence?

Again at the 9th verse, Peter says: "The Lord is not willing that any should perish," &c. Lastly he tells us, at the 16th verse, that some "wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction."

Thus I have noticed every passage found in Peter's testimony concerning the final destiny of wicked men; and I ask, if it were not for the trammels thrown around our minds by tradition, if we should ever give any other interpretation to these texts than the plain obvious one of destruction of being? So it seems to me. I come to -

5. John's Testimony. 1st John 22:17. "The world passeth away and the lusts thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever." The inference is irresistible, that the wicked will not abide forever."

Again - Rev.20:14,15. "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire:" i.e. they experience the second death, a death of the whole man: and this because they would not come unto Christ that they "might have life."

Let us hear this apostle once more. Rev.21:8. "But the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death."

Other passages in Rev. supposed to refer to the final punishment of the wicked, I have noticed in another place. I leave my hearers to judge to which theory, that of endless being, or destruction of being, the testimony of John belongs.

6. Jude's Testimony. Sixth verse, he says: "The angels which kept not their first estate, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day." Here we have an account of sinning angels, and learn that they are "reserved;" but for what are they reserved? First - for judgment; i.e. to be judged; and the fair inference is, they are after that to receive their punishment, according to the declaration of Peter, that "God knoweth how to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." I suppose it will be admitted by all, who believe in the existence of fallen angels, that they are now tormented; but that is not the punishment they are to have for their sins, though it is a consequence of their sins. What, then, is to be their punishment? Let them speak for themselves. "Art thou come to destroy us?" said they to him of whom the apostle says to the Hebrews, he shall "destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil." But if the testimony of the devils, nor that of the apostle are sufficient, then hear that of the "Lord God" Himself. Addressing the old serpent, the devil, he said: "The seed of the woman shall bruise thy head;" an expression so familiar to all, that I hardly need add, that no language could more forcibly point out the utter destruction of the devil.

Again - Jude, speaking of certain wicked characters says, - "Wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever." The figure here used denotes an utter, total, and eternal obscuration, or disappearing. - No language could more forcibly denote the utter destruction of the wicked - of their being itself, so that they appear no more forever.

7. Testimony of Paul. If there is immortality in sin and suffering, we shall expect to find that doctrine clearly stated by such a writer and preacher as "Paul" the "Apostle of Jesus Christ." In other words, if the punishment of impenitent sinners is endless life in misery, Paul cannot be supposed to overlook it, who had constantly to preach to sinners of the worst class, and often speaks of their doom. Now, if it should appear that Paul never once gives countenance to the doctrine of the immortality of the wicked, or their conscious being in endless suffering, then it must be evident he did not believe that doctrine. It will be my object to examine fully what Paul did say and teach on this question; and not a text shall be omitted where he touches the subject.

In Acts 13:40,41, Paul utters a strong word of caution to his hearers on the danger of despising the gospel. Does he say, "Behold, ye despisers and wonder and" sink to endless misery? No. What then? "Perish." This phrase does not mean preserve, under any form or circumstances, but "to decay, to die, to cease to have existence, to be destroyed." Again, at verse 45, the Jews are found "contradicting and blaspheming," showing an awful state of wickedness. If Paul is a faithful servant of Jesus Christ, we shall expect him to state in the strongest and most emphatic terms the danger of such wicked conduct: but we find not a word that gives countenance to the notion that these wicked men were immortal, and would be tormented eternally. Just the reverse of this is clearly expressed: "Seeing ye put the word of God from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." What can be plainer and more forcibly expressed? It was "everlasting life" they forfeited by their sins; and that is the highest penalty of God's law, or Paul was unfaithful.

The next place where we find the apostle speaking on this subject is Rom.1:29,-32. Let us first attend to the description he gives of the wickedness of those of whom he speaks. He says, v.28-31, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those thing which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable unmerciful."

Can a blacker catalogue of sins be furnished than this? Surely if any men deserve unending being in indescribable torments these do. Let us hear what further the apostle has to say concerning them: "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy" of endless torments in hell fire! Is that what they "are worthy" of, Paul? "No, I did not say any such thing." Well, what did you say? "I said they are worthy of DEATH." Is that all? Those who profess to be your "regular successors" tell us such wicked men are immortal, and cannot die, but must live eternally in misery. However, we believe you, and think those who claim to be your "successors" may not have sufficiently heeded the apostolic injunction to "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit; after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the [pagan] world, and not after Christ."

I now follow the apostle into Rom.2. After showing that God's judgment of men will be impartial, both on the Jew and Gentile, he give us to understand who will have "immortality, eternal life," viz: those "who seek for" it, by a "patient continuance in well doing:" while the opposite character will have "indignation and wrath:" and that this will be the case with all who have sinned "without law," or "in the law;" so, that "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ," they shall "perish." In this chapter, then, the apostle gives no countenance to the theory that wicked men are immortal, or that any man can have immortality unless he "seek for" it: all others shall experience the "wrath" which they have "treasured up," under which they shall "perish" in the day of judgment. To "perish" and have "immortality, eternal life," are put in contrast by the apostle. Next, look at Rom.6:21-23, "What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? For the end of those things is endless torments!" Have we read Paul right? Does he talk thus? Let us look again, "For the end of those things is death." Modern divines say it is "endless misery" - Paul says it is "death." Which shall we believe? Paul continues, "But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the END EVERLASTING LIFE," He then adds, "For the wages of sin is" everlasting life in indescribable and unutterable torments! Is that right? Did he say so? He ought to say so, if modern theology is true. Let us take off the old sectarian spectacles and look at this text again. What did Paul say? He said "the wages of sin is death." Well, we thought so; but his words have been so often "tormented" to make them speak "endless misery," we did not know but we might be mistaken, and that death meant life. "No," cries the apostle, "The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Thus Paul has a perfect contrast - Death to the sinner - Life to the saint. One dies, and his death is eternal: the other lives, and his life is everlasting. Thus far Paul is clear of the heresy of endless life in sin and suffering.

Rom.8:13, the apostle says, "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." How perfectly plain. It needs no learned perverters of God's truth to make common sense men understand it. So sure as one lives, the other will die: and just as certain as life implies consciousness, death implies unconsciousness. "To be, or not to be," depends on the character men form here. If they have been made free from sin and had their fruit unto holiness, they live, by the gift of God, eternally. If destitute of this character they die, and thus reap the wages for which they labored. Rom.9:22: the apostle inquires, "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" What, Paul! Are you coming out a Destructionist? Beware how you favor that class of men, for we hate them, as Ahab did Micaiah. 2Chron.18:7.

Again, Paul says, Rom.14:15, "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died:" and verse 20. "For meat destroy not the work of God." Now, that is provoking, Paul: we called you, as Balak did Balaam, to curse our enemies, and behold thou hast blessed them altogether. But, come I pray thee unto another place - and curse me them from thence. Very well, answers Paul, we will go to 1Cor.1:18: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are to be endlessly tormented foolishness." Will not the endless misery theorists cry out now, as did Ahab king of Israel to Micaiah, when he said with the false prophets, Go ye up to battle, and prosper, &c.; and the king said, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou say nothing but the truth to me in the name of the Lord? Very well
- if truth is what you want, then I, Paul, say, "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness." Well, have you anything more to say? Yes, "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy:" 1Cor.3:17. More destruction! Yes - "and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died:" 1Cor.8:11. And, "if the dead rise not - then they also that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished:" 1Cor.15:17-18. Worse and worse - truly Paul, you only prophecy evil of our theory: for, you not only teach the wicked are to be destroyed, but that the saints who die are perished if there is no resurrection, and if so, they cannot be conscious now! But we are not satisfied yet, Paul; so please come with us to another place, it may be we shall make out these Destructionists heretics from there. We turn to 2Cor.2:15-16, "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that" are preserved in endless misery! Have we read Paul right? No - He did not say any such thing. What did he say? "In them that perish." But, don't that mean preserve? No, for "to the one we are the savour of death unto DEATH; and to the other the savour of Life unto LIFE." But, Paul, by such testimony do you not corrupt the word of God? "No - we are not as many who corrupt the word God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ:" v.17.

Alas for the advocates of inherent immortality - take Paul to what place they will, he is stubbornly set in giving no countenance to their Pagan fable. Let them, however, try him to their heart's content, and Balak like, drag him to another place. Gal.6:8, What do you see now Paul? "He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, [not immortality,] but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting." Phil.1:28, "And in nothing terrified by your adversaries, which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God." Also, chap. 3;19, "Whose END IS DESTRUCTION." 1Thess.5:3, "Sudden destruction cometh upon them, and they shall not escape." Shall not escape what? Destruction. But they would escape it if eternally preserved. Now, Paul, do let us try you once more: come to another place. Speak now, we pray thee, so as to confirm our theory this once, for we cannot bear to think we and our fathers have been in error, and that we are not gods. 2Thess.1:9, "Who shall be punished with everlasting" preservation in indescribable agonies, where "the presence of God in his vengeance scatters darkness and woe through the dreary regions of misery; for God is present, himself, in hell to see to the punishment of these rebels; his indignation kindles, and his incensed fury feeds the flame of their torment, while his powerful presence and operation maintains their being, - and renders all their powers most acutely sensible; thus setting the keenest edge upon their pain, and making it cut most intolerably deep." Now, immortal-soul believers, shout and clap your hands, for you see Paul is fairly and fully on your side! But stop one moment: we have made a mistake. We began with Paul, but the railroad track has got so badly worn by much travel that we run off, and took Benson's track, in his Sermons on Future Misery. Badly as we are off the track of Paul, we must get back again. We start anew then: "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power," &c. Thus Paul differs from Benson and his immortal soul coadjutors immensely.

Again, the apostle, in speaking of the man of sin, chap. 2:10, says his working is "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved: and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned [condemned] who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Then Heb.6:8, he says, "That which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned;" not preserved; for John the Baptist declares, Matt.3:12, that the chaff, same as thorns and briars, shall be "burned up with unquenchable fire;" no preservation, but utter destruction. Let us hear Paul once more, Heb.10:26-27, "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Devour, which signifies to eat up, to consume, to annihilate. "But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition," [destruction,] v.39.

Thus closes up the testimony of Paul. I have now placed before you every word that he has spoken on the doom of the wicked, so far as recorded in the Bible. And where is one solitary expression that gives countenance to the theory of endless sin and suffering? Again I ask - Where? Paul a sustainer of the God-dishonoring theory shadowed forth in the words of Benson, quoted above, which is the doctrine of all who, like Benson, believe in endless misery! No - never. Paul did not so learn of Christ. The endless sin and suffering theory was manufactured in a Pagan and Papal mill. Paganism is the father cause, and Papacy the mother cause of the fable of endless torture to any being in the universe. Well did Bishop Newton say "It is impossible for any creature to live in endless torments." And again he said, "God is love; and he would rather not have given life, than render that life a torment and curse to all eternity." Whatever Bishop Newton might think or say, a greater has said, even the eternal Jehovah himself - The soul that sinneth it shall die: Eze.18:4,20. Also, by the Spirit of God, the Psalmist says, But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke they shall consume away: Ps.37:20.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

God, has set life and death before us. We are called upon to choose life. God invites, commands, expostulates, entreats, and warns; but God cannot compel man to turn from death without destroying man's moral agency, which would be, in fact, to unman man, and make him as incapable of higher happiness as any other mere animal. Man must turn and live, or he will pass on and die, - die because he would not have life; - die because he is unfit for any purpose of life - wholly disqualified for the employment of life. And the sinner, persisting in the course of sin and death, will as certainly pass the period of being restored, and when death entire must be the result, as certain as the man with a fatal physical disorder will certainly, by neglecting proper medical aid, pass the period when death cannot be arrested. And if you would think the man unwise, and acting insanely, that procrastinates, and puts off application to a proper remedy in such a physical disorder, how much more is every careless and dying sinner chargeable with folly and madness, who delays applying to Christ, the great Physician? Every day increases the danger; and every day the moral disease is increasing in malignity - every day is bringing the sinner nearer to that point, where, when once past, there is no recovery - destruction and death must follow.

"These were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so." Acts 17:11

Paul and Silas were persecuted at Thessalonica, for the doctrine they preached, and had to leave that place. The Thessalonians seemed to think it was no matter what Scripture proof the Apostles could present in defence of their position; that question they would not examine. It was enough for them to know it was turning "the world upside down," bringing something to their ears that differed from their long established ways of thinking; that was not to be endured at all; hence what they lacked in reason and argument, they made up in contempt of these disturbers of the established order that existed among them; and they rejected the Apostles without giving the subject an examination. Not so the Bereans - they first heard - then examined the Scriptures to see whether what they heard was in accordance with the sure rule and test by which all theories are to be tried. They did not go to their creeds - articles of faith - nor doctors even, but to the Scriptures themselves, - and this they did daily. No wonder inspiration should call them noble. They manifested a noble and praiseworthy spirit: and it is left on record for our learning. Happy are we, if we act on the same principles. No man is worthy the name of a minister of Jesus Christ who asks his hearers to receive what he says for truth, without being satisfied, by a personal study of the Scriptures, that it is truth. With these remarks, I now proceed in the examination of objections to the theory that the finally impenitent will be utterly destroyed, or rooted out of the universe of God.

FURTHER OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

It is said, because "the destruction of the wicked is not so terrible as interminable existence in misery, that therefore it does not present an adequate motive for repentance, but diminishes the proper restraints of sin."

I have already answered, in part, this objection; but, I would here inquire - does not the threatening of the loss of all the glory of immortality, and the total extermination of life and being, present a sufficient appeal to the fears of men, if they can be moved by that principle at all? If the loss of all the glorious displays of God's wisdom, power, and love, that will be eternally unfolding, in eternal life, together with the actual sufferings the sinner may endure, prior to his utter destruction, are not motives sufficient to lead to repentance, the mind must be too stupid to be moved by the idea of endless torments. Besides, we know that the greater portion of men have remained impenitent under the preaching of the theory I oppose: and I here repeat what I have before said, that I solemnly believe the natural tendency of that theory is to make men infidels instead of Christians: they cannot credit it; and, thinking that it is taught in the Bible, they reject revelation altogether.

Another objection, it may be proper I should here notice, is, it is said, upon the theory I advocate, "The punishment God has threatened is, that He will put an end to the miseries of the wicked." I answer - It is no such thing. It is not that He will put an end to their miseries, but to their being, and of course, to all hope of life and happiness. That an end of conscious misery is necessarily implied, I admit; but that is no part of the threatening. Let the objector apply his argument to the law which says, the man who commits murder shall die; i.e. says the objector, the law threatens to put an end to the murderer's remorse and misery!

I have already noticed that one of the arguments that men are immortal is, that all men desire immortality. Yet the same persons tell us, that some men had much rather be totally destroyed than to have the very thing they desire, viz. immortality. That men do desire immortality I have not denied; but if they do, they cannot at the same time desire utter destruction. Man loves life, and prefers it to death. "All that a man hath will he give for his life," is a truth, though uttered by Satan. Men at present can be but little affected by the common theory of endless sin and suffering, because, it is utterly impossible for any finite mind to have any clear idea of such a punishment. Destruction of being, or death, is something that strikes the senses, and reaches the understandings of men, and must therefore have more present influence on their minds, in leading them to forsake sin, than that of which they can have no clear conceptions.

Besides, so long as you allow that man's being is eternal, you cannot divest his mind of the idea, though it may be secretly indulged, that somehow he shall escape from that punishment; even though he cannot at present give any definite idea how it is to be done. Hence multitudes plunge into the doctrine of restorationism.

Some tell us that "spiritual death is the penalty of the law." I answer, no such phraseology is found in the Bible; and the manner it is usually employed, tends rather to confusion in the mind than the conveying of any definite idea. It is intended, I suppose, to convey the sentiment that impenitent men are unholy, and have no rational conceptions of God, and the things of God. But this sentiment is capable of being expressed in language less obscure and equivocal. Men are said in Bible language, to be unholy, sensual, carnally-minded, not having the knowledge of God, earthly, devilish, lovers of their own selves, proud, lovers of the world, hateful, and hating one another, &c.

All these expressions are sufficiently definite to be understood; but "spiritual death," if it means anything, signifies something analogous to the death of the body. By bodily death, if I may employ that expression, we mean that the body ceases all action sense, and life. Then, if spiritual death is analogous, it must mean that the spirit ceases all action, sense, and life. In that sense, I have no objection to admitting that it is the penalty of the law. That penalty when inflicted, will cause all life to cease. But if the term is employed in any other sense to signify the penalty of the law, I demand the proof. Where is it? Where?

If it be said, "the death threatened to Adam must be a spiritual death, as it was to take place in the day he eat the forbidden fruit," I reply, if the penalty was spiritual death, in the sense the objector means, and if the penalty, as he understands it, was executed in the literal day that Adam eat that fruit, then the death of the body and the "wrath to come" was no part of the penalty, as neither of those events took place till nearly a thousand years after.

The penalty was not, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die;" but as the Hebrew language has it - "dying thou shalt die." That very day the promise of immortality was withdrawn, by man's being cut off from the tree of life; and the whole man commenced dying. The existence of man from that hour became one of pain, sorrow, misery, and is hastening to its wind up, and will result in the utter extermination of his being, unless counteracted by eating "that bread that came down from heaven, that a man might eat thereof and not die." Christ is that "tree of life whose fruit is for the healing of the nations." "God has given unto us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and abiding on him must result in death: for that is the unalterable wages of sin throughout the universe of God.

Let us examine this point further, i.e. the idea that the penalty of the law of God is spiritual death. Turn to the account of man's creation, and the prohibition given him.

"The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," [literally, lives,] "and man became a living soul."

Did God address this living soul, when he said, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die - or, "in dying thou shalt die?" To say otherwise would be an absurdity.

To maintain that the death threatened was spiritual death, it appears to me, is to confound man's sin with his punishment; if by spiritual death is meant, man became insensible to his obligation to his Maker, and to his own condition as a sinner, and lost all disposition to obey God; and that, I suppose, is what is meant by it. Strange penalty that! What would you think on reading the law which says, "For murder a man shall die," if some person should tell you it did not mean that the murderer should "be hung by the neck till he is dead," but that when he has committed the act of murder, he should immediately become insensible to his obligation to regard lawful authority, and to his own condition as a murderer, and lose all disposition to obey any law? Would you not think such an interpretation of law was "murdering the king's English?" and would you not also think that the man's insensibility and want of disposition to obey any law, was an additional circumstance in his guilt, instead of being his punishment?

This insensibility to God and his claims upon us, is our sin, and not our punishment, nor the penalty of God's law. To represent it in that light, is to furnish sinners with a perfect excuse for living in insensibility to God's claims upon them. If this state of spiritual death, as it is called, is the punishment of sin, or the penalty of the law, what man is now to blame for remaining in it?

The fact is, this insensibility to God and his claims upon us, is an aggravation of our sin, and not our punishment, nor the penalty of God's law. To represent it in that light, is to furnish sinners with a perfect excuse for living in insensibility to God's claims upon them. If this state of spiritual death, as it is called, is the punishment of sin, or the penalty of the law, what man is now to blame for remaining in it?

The fact is, this insensibility to God, and his claims upon us, is an aggravation of our sin, and not the penalty of the law. The Bible represents this state as a high crime. "Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider; O that they had hearkened unto me," &c. Why all this complaint, if insensibility, or spiritual death, is the penalty or punishment that God has inflicted on men for sin? Did God complain of men for not escaping out of his hands, and so avoiding the punishment? As well might the government complain of the murderer for not slipping the noose of his halter when hanging by his neck, on the supposition that spiritual death is the punishment inflicted for sin. Let no man comfort his soul with that delusive idea. Depend upon it, our insensibility is a most horrid sin. Let the Almighty himself speak to such souls; and what is his language to them? "Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces and there be none to deliver."

I repeat it - There is no such doctrine in the "law and testimony," expressed by Moses or the Prophets, as that spiritual death is a penalty of sin. Least of all, is there any foundation for such an assumption in the case of Adam; and I now proceed to notice, that the Hebrew preposition, here translated in, is b; which has the sense not only of in, but against, after, &c. This preposition is prefixed to the Hebrew word ium - day. The text is bium: b being the prefix determines as to the use of ium, i.e. what day is meant. The context shows that b is used in the sense of after; and the text reads, "after the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die:" expressing the certainty of his death, and not of the particular day in which that death should occur: the penalty would certainly be inflicted, but the precise time of its infliction God kept in his own power, and unrevealed, as it has been to each individual of Adam's race since. God's own definition of the penalty, when he called Adam to account fully sustains the view here taken - "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Thus spake the great Lawmaker and Judge; and none can safely amend the definition He gave of the threatened penalty. It was not, "Dust thy body is;" but thou
- the man. No exception of an entity, called an "immortal soul:" a most important exception, if true, our opposers being judges; for they insist upon it, though Adam's Maker is silent on the subject.

I judge this point is sufficiently settled; at least till the opposers can produce something more like proof than any thing that has ever yet appeared on their side of the question.

Some tell us, that by the destruction of the wicked is meant the destruction of their sins; and others, the destruction of happiness. What ground have these persons for their assertions? The destruction of sin, of happiness, of being, are entirely distinct ideas; though the latter involves the others, yet each is capable of being expressed in appropriate language. With respect to the latter, I know of no way in which it could be more appropriately or clearly set forth than it is by our Lord, in Matt.10:28 - "Fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Compare this with the expression of the apostle, - "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord," and with Ps.92:7, - "The wicked shall be destroyed for ever." What testimony could be more explicit, that those who obey not the gospel are to be punished with destruction of being and not of their sins or happiness merely.

One other objection I will here notice from the Bible, which was passed over in my main argument. It is founded on Daniel 12:2, - "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." It is said, "they must have consciousness to feel shame."

I reply: Shame signifies not only a passion felt when reputation is lost, but the disgrace and ignominy, which follows men for bad conduct long after they have passed away, personally, from knowledge. Take the case of a traitor to his country. For example, the conduct of Arnold in the American Revolution. He is never thought of without the shame of his evil deeds connected with him; and it is a shame that is everlasting - never can be wiped off, though he ceases to live to be conscious of it. He may be said, truly, to be a subject of everlasting "contempt," i.e., he is despised, and scorned for his vile conduct, and always will be while the love of freedom exists.

I see no difficulty, therefore, in the text under consideration. Here also, as I have often remarked elsewhere, the punishment is put in opposition to life. The natural inference is that those who do not awake to life, perish from life.

The text then, is far from proving they will live eternally in sin and misery. At most it can be made to mean no more than an overwhelming sense of their guilt and folly, when they awake.

There is one other text I will here notice, as it is of the same nature of the one in Daniel. John 5:28,29, "The hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation."

Let it be observed here, that life, is the reward named for them that have done good: the others come forth, but it is not to life; for it is a resurrection to damnation, or condemnation, for, so the word signifies. The only question, then, to settle is - what is the punishment to which they are condemned? That it is a punishment from which they never recover, I have no doubt. But is it everlasting life in sin and suffering, or is it death? I think it is the latter. In connection with the words under consideration, our Saviour said, at the 24th verse, "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." This text throws light on the other, and shows that our Saviour intended to be understood, by the damnation, or condemnation of evil doers, a condemnation unto Death, not to life in sin and suffering. I conceive this text, then, gives no countenance to the common theory of eternal being in indescribable torments, but shows that Death and not Life is the portion of those who have been doers of evil.

Again, it is said, by way of objection, - Your "doctrine was held by the Arians - is now held by the Unitarians - that it is Christianism - and finally, that it is Elias Smith's doctrine."

Whether these marvellous objections are true or not, I did not know, as I had never conversed with any of the above-named classes on the point, and know not that I ever read a paragraph from any of them on the subject till after I delivered my original Six Sermons. But suppose what the objector says is true; it does not touch the question of the truth of this doctrine, nor at all shake my faith. We know the time was, when the grand argument against some points of doctrine was "That's Arminianism" - "That's Calvinism" - or "That is what the Methodists hold." Such language has passed for a very good argument to frighten enslaved minds, in the absence of a better.

But I may ask, whether, in a Christian land, there ever was a sect having no truth in their theory? and whether any sect will have the pride to arrogate to themselves that they have the truth - the whole truth - and nothing but the truth? If there is such a sect, it had better repair to Rome immediately, and get confirmed for infallibility. The fact is, truth lies scattered among all denominations; none of them have the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Some have more than others. The guilt of all sects lies, to a great extent, in that intolerant spirit, that, in point of fact, claims for itself infallibility, and harbors, to a greater or less extent, the idea that "there is no salvation out of" their "church;" whilst inspiration declares that "In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness" [i.e. according to the light he has or may possess] "is accepted with him."

Again, it is said, "You have gone half way to Universalism." That is, I have granted that even Universalists have some truth: though it is rather of a negative than of a positive character. They do not believe in eternal sin and suffering; and I have admitted, that in this, they are right. Unhappy men! - must they be so "chased out of the world," to keep up the warfare upon them, that amongst all they pretend to hold for truth, they are so blinded, that they have not so much as one negative truth?

I am glad in my heart, if I can approach one step towards Universalists, without sacrificing truth; for I hope thereby to gain some, and save them alive, by removing out of their hands their main argument for universal salvation: viz. that "The idea of the eternal consciousness of innumerable human beings, in indescribable torments, is irreconcilable with the perfections of God, and that therefore all men will be saved." The hearer seeing no other view of the subject, but eternal sin and suffering, or Universalism, takes hold of the latter.

Every one, who has had anything to do with Universalists, knows this is their main fort; and here it is they always wish to meet their opposers
- and their converts are made more from the exhibition of the horribleness of the punishment, which their opposers say is to be inflicted upon the wicked, than any other, and all other arguments they use.

If, then, I have taken this weapon from their hands, which is no where explicitly taught in the word of God, am I not better prepared to come down upon their hearts and understandings by the express declarations of the Most High, that, "The soul that sinneth it shall die;" - that, the wicked "Shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord;" - that they shall be "Cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death;" - that they shall "utterly perish" - "be destroyed forever" - "be consumed with terrors" - "shall not see life" - be cut off forever, from all the pleasure derived from "everlasting life," because they have refused to come to Christ that they might have life?

Is there nothing awakening in all this? Nothing calculated to arouse the sinner to seek life? And the language too is Scriptural, and less likely to objection than the unscriptural language of "immortal soul" - "deathless spirit" - "always dying and never dead" - "eternal being in torments," &c. &c., all of which are of human invention, to say nothing of some of them being a contradiction in terms, and a flat denial of the testimony of God, that "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."

To talk of a "soul always dying and never dead;" or, of "a death that never dies," is such an absurdity, that I wonder how it was ever believed by any man who thinks for himself. A doctrine that involves such a palpable contradiction is not to be promulgated for truth, unless we wish to bring discredit upon revelation itself. And I cannot divest myself of the conviction I have so often expressed, that the theory I oppose has driven many thinking men into infidelity. That any man can embrace it, I cannot account for, except from the fact, that they have been early taught it, and the dread of feeling the indignation of bigoted men who think it a crime to depart from what they or their fathers have baptized "orthodox."

Another objection to the theory I advocate, and perhaps the one that stands most in the way of its being received for truth, is, - "If this doctrine is true, why has it never been found out before?" I do not know but it has been found out before. I lay no claim to being the discoverer of it. I am told that Samuel Bourne of Birmingham, and John Taylor of Norwich, held the same sentiments, "in substance, making due allowance for the shape and color they have received from the peculiar mind of Mr. Storrs." Whether that was true or not, I did not know at the time I first advocated the views here promulgated, as I had never seen their writings. My attention was called to the subject by a small pamphlet, in
1837. Who was its author, I did not know, as it had no name attached to it; but afterwards learned it was by Henry Grew, of Philadelphia. I read it, but did not think much of it at the time. I suppose I felt like the objector; i.e. if this view of the subject be true, why is it that Christians and ministers have not learned it before? Nevertheless, I could not resist the impression to examine the subject for myself. I did so from time to time for several years, and conversed with ministers on the subject; for I would not then allow myself to speak upon it with laymen, lest I might lead them into a belief of a doctrine which I had not fully investigated, and be the means of their going astray. I studied the Bible, reading and noting down every text that spoke of, or appeared to have reference to the final destiny of wicked men. The result of my investigations and convictions I have laid before you. I published a small pamphlet on the subject in 1841. In 1842, I preached my original Six Sermons in the city of Albany, N. Y. But few Reviews have ever appeared; and all of them that I have seen have tended to confirm me in the general correctness of the position I maintain on this great question.

The fact that a particular view of religious truth is new, is no proof of its incorrectness; it may be a reason why we should not embrace it without thorough investigation. How many things passed for truth in the dark ages of the church, that have since been exploded! and when they were first brought to light, the "innovators," as they were called, were branded as "heretics."

We should do well to remember that we have but just emerged from the dark ages of the church; and it would not be at all strange if we should find some "Babylonish garments" still worn by us for truth; or to speak without a figure, we have no reason to suppose that the Reformers, as they are called, divested themselves of all the superstitions and false interpretations that had been put upon the Bible, when ignorant men were kept in awe by the supposed sanctity of the priests.

The Reformers may have done well, considering their circumstances, and the prejudices of their education; but must we sit down and quietly follow exactly in their steps, without employing the understanding and Bible God has given us, to see if there are not things "new," as well as "old" in God's blessed word? Our Saviour saith: "Every scribe which is instructed unto the Kingdom of God, bringeth forth out of his treasures, things new and old." Must we, then, confine ourselves to the old track; and must every thing that is new be rejected? Apply that principle to the arts and sciences, as well as religion, and the world is at a dead stand.

There are many points of doctrine that a few years ago passed for truth, that are now rejected. That this is the case in science, generally, no one will doubt. How long is it since men were satisfied that the world is round and revolves on its axis? Those who advocated such a theory, no doubt, were thought to be stark mad! - To the minds of their opponents, it was as clear as the light, that the world was flat - their fathers had always believed so; and all the reservoirs of water would have been emptied long ago, if the world turned over! - Copernicus, it is said, was compelled, by public opinion, to keep his discovery of the true solar system to himself more than thirty years. And Galileo, for avowing his belief in the same system, was cited to appear before the Pope, and condemned to prison, while his writings were publicly burned in the streets at Rome.

Men had lived thousands of years before the circulation of the blood was discovered. When that discovery was made, it was ridiculed and opposed as a most dangerous error, and as promising no good to the world; and this too, by the learned and knowing ones, and years passed away before the theory was generally received.

If it is a fact, in science generally, that false theories have been held for ages, may it not be so in religion? Since my recollection, the theory has been held, and promulgated for Bible truth, that there were "infants in hell not a span long" - and that "God made some men on purpose to show His power in their eternal torments in hell fire." Yes, and that He "decreed all their sins which led to that result," and sent "the gospel to some people on purpose," i.e. with the design "to increase their damnation!" And it is within my remembrance, that a man was not considered orthodox who did not hold these views. But, I doubt if any man now can be found who holds such sentiments; or, if he does, will be willing to avow them.

Is it to be wondered at, then, if in an age when such shocking absurdities are but just passing away, there should be found still left a remnant of doctrine belonging to the same class?

Mr. Benson, the eminent English minister, to whom we have before referred, in a sermon on "The Future Misery of the Wicked," says, "God is present in hell, in his infinite justice and almighty wrath, as an unfathomable sea of liquid fire, where the wicked must drink in everlasting torture - the presence of God in his vengeance scatters darkness and wo through the dreary regions of misery. As heaven would be no heaven if God did not there manifest his love, so hell would be no hell, if God did not there display his wrath. It is the presence and agency of God, which gives every thing virtue and efficacy, without which there can be no life, no sensibility, no power." He then adds - "God is, therefore, himself present in hell, to see the punishment of these rebels against his government, that it may be adequate to the infinity of their guilt; his fiery indignation kindles, and his incensed fury feeds the flame of their torment, while his powerful presence and operation maintain their being, and render all their powers most acutely sensible; thus setting the keenest edge upon their pain, and making it cut most intolerably deep. He will exert all his divine attributes to make them as wretched as the capacity of their nature will admit."

After this he goes on to describe the duration of this work of God, and calls to his aid all the stars, sand, and drops of water, and makes each one tell a million of ages: and when all those ages have rolled away, he goes over the same number again, and so on forever.

And all this he brings forth with a text of Scripture that asserts the wicked "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord." Such a description as here given by Mr. Benson needs no comment - it defies comment - no language could be employed to make a subject look more horrible than what he has used. He dwelt upon the subject, himself, till his own soul was filled with horror, and he cried out - "Believe me, my poor fellow mortal, thou canst not, indeed thou canst not bear this devouring fire! Thou canst not dwell with these everlasting burnings!"

There must be some defect in a theology, it seems to me, that leads great men into such palpable contradictions.

Mr. Benson preached two whole sermons on these subjects, in which he scarcely produced a text of Scripture in support of his theory - they appear to be, throughout, a work of imagination.

I consider, to charge the infinite God with the design and determination of exerting His almighty power in holding innumerable human beings in indescribable torments, in a state of necessary sinning and blasphemy, is of the same character as the other horrible doctrines that I have named; and is not to be believed without the clearest and most positive testimony. Such testimony the Bible does not furnish, to my mind, and therefore, I reject such a theory as opposed to the Bible, to reason, and to common sense: and I have very little doubt, the time will come (perhaps I shall not live to see it) when that theory will be generally exploded. The theory I advocate has one great difficulty to overcome, viz: the strong prejudice of early education, backed up by the consideration that the common theory has been so long the established faith of the church. But, even that difficulty is overbalanced by the fact, that the sympathies of our nature, and reason, are opposed to the common theory, and are towards the views I advocate, when once presented to the mind: and a spirit to examine for ourselves, instead of leaving our thinking to others, has gone forth in the earth.

If the fact that a theory has long ago been settled, and always believed by the "fathers," is a good reason for rejecting, as untrue, any other theory, then the Jews have the best reason they could desire for rejecting Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. The Jewish Church "long ago" decided that he was an impostor, and crucified him as such. The Jews of the present time, then, may say - "Our church long ago settled the point, that Jesus was not the promised Messiah; and who were better qualified to judge than they to whom the Scriptures were committed, and in whose language they were written? Besides, our fathers have always believed and maintained that Jesus was an impostor. Hence, we consider it a settled point."

Now, I ask, if such an argument is not quite as good and forcible, as the one used by some of my opponents, that my view must be false, because, as they suppose, the church long ago fixed on the opposite theory as true, and their fathers have always believed it? Let such persons make no more attempts to convert the Jews. Indeed, they ought to turn Jews.

The notion that there is life in the soul of the wicked, or a principle that cannot die, was taken from the Platonic Philosophers, and was introduced into the Church, as a Scripture doctrine, in the third century. Mosheim, in his Ecclesiastical History, Vol I. p.86, says: - "Its first promoters argued from that known doctrine of the Platonic School, which was also adopted by Origin and his disciples, that the divine nature was diffused through all human souls; or in other words, that the faculty of reason, from which proceed the health and vigor of the mind, was an emanation from God into the human soul, and comprehended in it the principles and elements of all truth."

Such, I conceive, is the true origin of the doctrine of the natural immortality of man. It originated in heathen philosophy, and was grafted on Christianity to its immense injury. No wonder Paul, Col.2:8, said - "Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit, after the Traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Whether others see as I do on this subject or not, it is a matter of unspeakable consolation to me to believe, that the devil and all his works will be utterly destroyed; and that a universe will appear unstained by sin, misery or death. - If others believe the contrary, it will be no cause why I should disfellowship them, provided they walk in obedience to the will and word of God. The Lord, I trust, has delivered me from that spirit of bigotry which would shut out from my christian regard and fellowship any man, simply because he does not agree with me in sentiments, especially if he is striving to live in a holy life, by obeying the commandments of God; for, "this is the love of God that we keep His commandments" - and "he that saith he loves God and hateth his brother, is a liar and the truth is not in him."

In conclusion, I would say, to all, if I know my own heart, I have no selfish purpose to serve, in taking the foregoing views. It has been a subject that has employed my thoughts, more or less, for years past; and it was not till after much searching the Scriptures, and prayer to God for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that I came to the conclusion here promulgated. If it is not truth, let it fall; and may the Lord hasten it. But with my present light I can see no other way, and see no reason to doubt the correctness of my general view on the subject.

That there are no weak parts in my argument, I do not pretend: I should claim to be more than man if I did. - My desire is to know the whole will of God, as revealed in His word: and when satisfied what truth is, I trust, never to shrink from proclaiming it, however unpopular; or whatever may be the reproach I may endure on account of it. Whether the doctrine I have advocated is true or false, matters not to me personally, further than truth is concerned. For, by the grace of God, I intend to "fight the good fight of faith," and "lay hold on eternal life." All those that do this, I know, for the Bible declares it, will be crowned with "honor, and glory, and immortality." Those who do not do it, will "not see life." Awful indeed, will be their end. O, that sinners may awake to see their danger, and fly from the doom that awaits them.

"I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." -Is. 57:16

                             
      We are too apt to take the words of Scripture and apply them to all men indiscriminately, without regarding the character of the person spoken of. In this way we pervert the word of the Most High, and sometimes comfort those whom God has not comforted. I conceive, that has been done with the words of my text. They have been applied to all men; when the context shows, most clearly, they are spoken only of the "contrite ones," who are "humble and contrite" under the judgments, or chastisements that God had inflicted upon them for their sins: while it is expressly said, in the same connection, there is "no peace to the wicked;" - God's wrath abideth on them; and abiding on them, they will certainly "fail." The term "fail," used in the text, though it has other significations, is, I think, generally used by the prophet Isaiah, to signify "to perish." He says, 21:16 - "All the glory of Kedar shall fail." And 19:13 - "The spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof."

I consider the sense of the text, then, to be this - "With those persons who truly humble themselves, and repent, under my rebukes, I will not continue my displeasure - for if my wrath should remain upon any man he would utterly perish, soul and spirit, as surely as I have made him." - Hence, the doctrine of the text seems to me, to be - 1st. God is the Creator of the souls and spirits of men, and, of course, can DESTROY them. 2d. If God's wrath should continue, upon any man, without being withdrawn, it would certainly cause him to "fail" - perish; or cease to exist: he could not continue in being under it. 3rd. But upon those who do repent, that wrath shall not abide.

These remarks have chiefly been made to meet an objection that man is composed of three parts - body, soul and spirit; and that, though his body and soul might perish, his spirit could not. I have used the term soul throughout my discourses in its broadest sense as including the essence of what constitutes a man; and I am satisfied that is the general sense in which the Scriptures use it, though in some texts it is used in a more restricted sense.

It is a matter of indifference how it is applied in my text; for the expressions are such as to include the whole man, and to show that every man on whom the wrath of God abideth will perish - utterly perish - body, "soul and spirit."

I shall now proceed to notice one of the evils of the opposite theory; or the maintaining that such expressions as die - death - destroy - destroyed - destruction - burned up - perish, &c., are not to be understood literally, i.e. according to their obvious meaning, when spoken of the final destiny of wicked men.

ONE EVIL OF THE COMMON THEORY OF ENDLESS BEING IN SIN AND SUFFERING, IS,

It sustains the mischievous practice of mystifying, or making the Scriptures to have a secret or hidden meaning, in the plainest texts.

This mischievous practice was brought into the church, almost as soon as the Apostles had left the world. The converts from heathenism seemed intent on uniting heathen philosophy with christianity. Hence they must find an abundance of mysteries in the Scriptures: and the practice of allegorizing, i.e. making the language to contain something that does not appear in the words, commenced and generally prevailed, before the third century. This was done, doubtless, with a view to lead heathen philosophers to embrace christianity, as affording them a fruitful field for their researches. But it led the church astray into the wild fields of conjecture; and every lively imagination could find hidden wonders in the Bible; while the plain literal meaning of the text was disregarded. That fatal practice increased from age to age, till the simplicity of the gospel was totally eclipsed, and the obscuration has not wholly disappeared to this day.

This practice has given occasion to honest people, as well as to infidels, to say, "You can make any thing out of the Bible," or "play any tune upon it." And this is true, if men are to be allowed to take texts which have a plain, obvious, and literal signification, and call them mystical or figurative, when there is not a clear necessity for doing so. The Scriptures themselves often notify us when the language is to be understood figuratively; and frequently those figures are explained, and the literal interpretation given.

The common method of making the terms life and death mystical, or figurative, i.e. to mean something more, and far different from what appears in the literal and obvious signification of the words, I conceive is unwarranted by the Scriptures, and tends only to throw confusion upon the plainest subjects of the Bible, and also to take away the force and beauty of very many otherwise clear and intelligible portions of God's word.

Let me now call your attention to texts, the beauty and force of which are greatly weakened and obscured by such a course.

Deut.30:15, "I have set life and death before you, therefore choose Life, that both thou and thy seed may live." Again, Ps.16:11, "Thou wilt show me the path of life; in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures forever more."

Now let us contemplate some portions of the New Testament, in view of the theory I oppose, and the one I advocate, and see on which they have most force and the clearest meaning. Look at the young man who came to our Saviour with an important inquiry, Matt.19:16 - What does he say? Is it his inquiry, "What shall I do to escape endless misery or suffering?" No: but, "What shall I do that I may have eternal life?" How plain the question, on the theory I advocate, and how appropriate the answer, "If thou wilt enter into life," &c. Not, - if thou wilt escape endless life in torments, - not, if thou wilt have a "happy eternal life," but simply, - If thou wilt enter into life. What simplicity, beauty, and force! all is natural, and easy to be understood.

Again, John 3:15,16, "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." All here, again, is natural, easy, and forcible, on the theory that the wicked are actually to die or perish if found rejecting Christ, who only has eternal life to give. But on the theory I oppose, we must have a whole sermon to explain the meaning of the term perish, and make it appear that it does not mean "extinction of being," but eternal life in sin and misery! I once heard a Doctor of Divinity in New York city preach a whole sermon on that one point; and that, too, after he had admitted that the primary meaning of the term is "extinction of being." It seems to me it is taking quite too much pains to make obscure the meaning of a word, that of itself is easy to be understood.

In the same chapter, at the 36th verse, it is said: "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." He is already condemned to death, and is dying; eternal life is offered in the Son of God, he that will not accept it, through him, shall not possess life, but the wrath of God shall abide on him to the full execution of the penalty, which is "death, the wages of sin." Again, John 5:28,29, - "The hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation," or condemnation: but to what? not to eternal life in sin and misery, but to death - for that is the wages sin has earned. Here the language is natural and forcible, on the view I advocate, and the contrast of life and death is perfect; but I ask any candid man if it is so on the view I oppose?

Again, at the 39th and 40th verses: "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they that testify of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." They were looking not for eternal happiness merely, or an escape from eternal torments, but for eternal life. Yet when the only physician who could give that priceless blessing calls them to come to him for it, they would not come; and, as a matter of course, they are not saved "from death." Look at the following texts, in the 6th chapter of John: "Labor for the meat that endureth unto everlasting life. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life, unto the world. I am the bread of life. And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life. I am that bread of life. This is that bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. The words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."

That simple life and death are put in opposition, or clearly implied in these texts, is too plain not to be seen by any person of common attention. "Not die - eternal life." Now, a man shall "not die," if the theory I oppose is true, whether he come to Christ or not; and it would have been just as easy to have expressed the doctrine of eternal being in sin and suffering by unequivocal language, as in that, the literal interpretation of which must necessarily lead astray, if that doctrine be true. Again, John 8:12, "He that followeth me shall have the light of life." And at the 51st verse, "If a man keep my sayings he shall never see death."

Again, in 10th chapter, "I am come that they might have life. My sheep hear my voice   and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life,
- and they shall never perish," &c. Does not this language clearly imply, that those who do not follow Christ will perish? Yes, says the objector, their happiness will perish! But I ask, if such an interpretation is not forced and unnatural? Our Saviour says no such thing. Perish is put in opposition to life. By the simple and natural meaning of the terms, there is great beauty and force in the language. Besides, to admit of a departure from the literal meaning of the term perish, throws us into the regions of uncertainty; and if one man may say it means his happiness shall perish, another may say it means his sins shall perish, and so on. But if it signifies simply what the word imports - a destruction of being - then his happiness and his sins perish with him, as a matter of course, and there is no obscurity about it.

Again, John 11:25,26, "I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." How forcible and full of power are these words, literally understood! But say, to die, means loss of happiness, though the person still lives, and you at once strip the expression of our Lord of the energy which it possesses in its plain and obvious meaning.

Again, John 14:6, - "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me."

Also, Rom.5:17 - "If by one man's offence, death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ; therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, [i.e. unto death;] even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, [i.e. in its offer,] unto justification of life. That as sin hath reigned unto death, [i.e. unto condemnation to death,] even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

That the death spoken of, here, is a literal death the context clearly shows; it was that death that came into the world by one man's sin (verse 12,) and which "reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression:" (verse
14.) If then the death is literal so is the life offered, and promised; and that life is only to be obtained "through righteousness," or becoming righteous, and "by Jesus Christ."

Now look at such expressions as the following: "The crown of life, - The word of life, - The grace of life. He that hath the Son hath life, - he that hath not the Son of God hath not life, - The water of life, - Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life, - This do and thou shalt live, - Because I live ye shall live also, - We shall also live with him, - Be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live, - God sent his Son, that we might live through him, - If one died for all, then were all dead," i.e., dying, doomed to die; as the body is dead, because of sin, i.e., doomed to die, though not yet actually dead. "Who died for us, that we should live together with him." These, and a multitude of other texts of Scripture, all speak in plain and unequivocal language, if the view I take of the final destiny of the wicked is correct; otherwise, and if figurative, the imagination must be employed to explain them; and then we find ourselves let loose in the wild fields of fancy; and who shall decide where we shall stop?

In these sermons I have endeavored to show that man by sin lost all title to immortality; and had it not been for the "seed of the woman" the race would have utterly perished, or ceased to be, and would have been as though they never had been. There is not a particle of evidence that the original threatening embraced a state of eternal sin and suffering, that idea has puzzled our greatest and most learned divines, to tell how an atonement could be made adequate to redeem men from such a punishment. To meet the case, they have gone to the idea that God, himself, suffered to make the necessary atonement; and then they have started back from that position, as being impossible that the Godhead could actually suffer, and so have substituted the "human body and soul" of Jesus Christ, as united with the Godhead, and the human nature of Christ only suffering. This has led others to deny an atonement altogether, as they have contended that the man Christ Jesus, while the Godhead did not suffer, could not, by any sufferings he might endure, give an equivalent for endless torments in the fire of hell. Pressed with this difficulty, the advocates of the endless sin and suffering theory have been led to say, it was not necessary to an atonement that the sufferer should endure the very same punishment that the guilty were liable to, but only such as should show that God would not let sin go unpunished. Others have taken advantage of this admission to deny the necessity of an atonement at all, and hence have opposed the idea of one. This has resulted in a still further departure from truth, and they have taken the position, that if man suffers for his sins, himself, that is all sufficient; and that his sufferings are bounded by this life, or at most, to a very limited period in a future state, after which he will have an eternity of happiness.

Now all this confusion and conjecture, for I can give it no higher name, I conceive, arises from not clearly understanding what man lost by the fall, for himself and posterity. In order to understand this subject I shall conclude these discourses, with general remarks on Adam's state, trial and failure.

The extravagant manner in which Adam's knowledge and holiness has been insisted on by nearly all theologians, I am disposed to think, is not sustained by either the works or words of God. Adam has been represented as the very perfection of knowledge and holiness at his creation. The facts stated in regard to his creation are so few, that from those alone we might be left in doubt as to Adam's perfection as an intelligent and moral being; yet we shall find by observing God's order in his works in connection with revelation the real state of Adam at creation.

GOD'S WORKS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PROGRESSIVE

Or, as Tertullian says - "In the Creator's universe all things occur in the order of gradual development, each in its proper place." That is - Whatever God has accomplished, so far as known to us, has ever been by a gradual development and a steady accumulation from a lesser to a greater. The work of creation was not accomplished in a day; but, from the first movement of "the Spirit of God upon the face of the deep," each succeeding day gave birth to some new development in the process of formation; every day increasing perfection; though every part of the work was perfect in its kind for the designed object or use. I stop not here to inquire whether the materials of which the earth was formed had been in a process of accumulation for untold ages prior to the Spirit moving upon the mass to bring order and arrangement out of that which was "without form and void," it might have been so without at all affecting the accuracy of the Mosaic account of creation - but the fact that the actual production of the "heavens and the earth" was by a gradual process is undeniable.

The revelation that God has seen fit to make to men has always been gradual and progressive: all was not revealed at once; and what has been communicated, as prophecy, has had a gradual and progressive development and accomplishment. Take Abraham as an example. First, he is called to "get out of" his "own country" - then he is shown "a land" that is promised him - a son of promise is presented to his mind, Isaac - he learns his seed is to be in bondage 400 years - after that to be brought into the land of Canaan - that from him was to proceed a seed in whom "all the families of the earth were to be blessed" - that his posterity should be as the stars of heaven for multitude, &c. All these things in their accomplishment were gradual and progressive, occupying many centuries, and are to have still further developments before the greatest perfection is attained contemplated in these providential works of God.

What is true in the case just contemplated, is true in the general course of God's dealings with men. The Fetus does not come to maturity to be ushered into the world in a day; and when the child is born how slow the process by which even its physical nature arrives at maturity; equally gradual and progressive is the development of its mind and mental energy. Improvements in the arts and sciences, on which side soever we look, and in all departments, are gradual. Many of those improvements are the work of ages; others are brought forward more rapidly. A single thought at first set the train in motion that has resulted in mighty developments, which have astonished, delighted, or benefitted mankind. It were easy to trace out a multitude of particulars, but to the reflecting mind this is unnecessary - it will readily call them up.

THE CREATION OF MAN

Where is the evidence that God acted contrary to what is, evidently, His established order in the Creation and Development of Man? In other words
- Where is the evidence that Adam was, at the first period of his existence, such an intellectual and moral giant as the current theology makes him? I am persuaded there is more fancy and assumption than proof of any such giant-like knowledge and holiness as has been attributed to him. It appears to me these assumptions have grown out of that misanthropic spirit which takes delight in maligning Adam's posterity under the pretence of honoring God, and has been the prolific parent of hatred to our fellow men, instead of that love which God requires; and its tendency is to produce despair in the minds of men of ever attaining to that knowledge and holiness which God requires.

ADAM'S INTELLECTUAL NATURE

I see no reason for departing from the analogy of God's works on this point. His intellect was gradually developed, most likely, like any child's. The animal, or physical, first appears - then, gradually maturing, the intellect commences its development, with one idea or thought at a time. Up to the time Adam took the forbidden fruit he is, evidently, very imperfect in the development of intellect. But says one, "he must have been very wise and knowing, for he gave names to all the cattle, &c." What if he did - does that prove him a giant in knowledge? I know it is said, he gave them names descriptive of their natures, but I know, also, that such a position is a mere assumption without proof. Who can tell now what name Adam gave to one of the "living creatures?" And if they could, how can it be proved that that name is any more descriptive of its nature than any other? Parents now delight to try the intellect of their little children; and it not unfrequently happens that these children give some very odd names to some things, and their parents delighted with this effort to use intellect often adopt the name the child has given to an object; and for a time will use the odd name with much pleasure, because it proves to them an opening mind, and this gives them joy. This circumstance of Adam's giving names to beasts, &c., is but a sorry proof of his being such an anomaly in knowledge as our modern theology represents him to have been.

ADAM'S IGNORANCE

On the other hand his ignorance is notorious. He was too ignorant to know he was "naked;" for he was naked and was "not ashamed." Why was he not ashamed? You may say, "because he was innocent;" but, that was not all - he did not know he was naked; see Gen.3:7; he was ignorant, like children, who, to some years, have no more shame than Adam had, and for a similar reason - they have never been taught it; and their intellects are not enough developed to discover it. Further, Adam was so ignorant that he did not know the difference between good and evil. It is useless to say, he could not have known this without he had sinned; for God knew that difference, as is evident from his language, Gen.3:22, "the man has become AS one of US to know good and evil." This language is further proof that Adam had been too ignorant to discern between them, previously. But God had that knowledge without having sinned; and, at a proper time, doubtless, would have communicated it to man, had he been obedient and waited the gradual and progressive order established by his Creator; and thus would have attained that knowledge without the evil that attended his neglect to heed his Maker's instruction. Again - "Adam was a figure," or type, "of him that was to come;" see Rom.5:14, and compare with 1Corth.15:45. The Second Adam was the anti-type. Did the type come into the world with more knowledge than the anti-type? Jesus was a child - for a time helpless - without knowledge; for "the child Jesus grew - and increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man:" Luke 2:40,52. Shall we admit these things of Adam the second and deny them of Adam the first?

ADAM'S HOLINESS

As on Adam's knowledge the most extravagant notions have been assumed, so in regard to his holiness the most unbounded descriptions have been given of its extent, and how it pervaded his entire being, regulating all his faculties, members, and senses; so that he has been made to appear as the sum of all perfection, and a perfect giant in moral life and power. All this has been done, doubtless, thinking to honor God, and the better to show off what monsters in depravity Adam's posterity are. Such persons never seem to have once thought in what a ridiculous light their view places the Creator of Adam; and how perfectly irreconcilable such theory is with the easy victory temptation had over him. Did his Creator make him a giant in holiness, and then suppose there would be any temptation, in the midst of unbounded enjoyment, by simply directing him not to eat of a solitary tree? The idea is supremely absurd - thousands of his posterity have withstood and overcome temptations far greater than that by which Adam fell. Adam at creation had no moral character - he was neither holy nor unholy. There is not one word said of Adam's being holy at his creation. The same is said of him that is said of all the other works of God - he was "very good" - the same is said of "every thing God had made;" see Gen.1:31: but not one word is said of the holiness of any of them. Holiness is a relative quality, and presupposes action towards some other being, preceded by knowledge and understanding, based on choice. Without this there cannot be either holiness or unholiness in any created thing. I conceive that all the talk about Adam's holiness is "mere patch work" - designed to patch up the work of God, but has only shown the pride of men's hearts in desiring to "be as God." Adam was a "very good" animal, of the highest order - designed to be king, or to have dominion, over all the others; and possessed with those more perfect faculties which made him capable of developing a moral nature, or of manifesting moral actions, by certain appliances called a command, law, or prohibition. Without such command, law, or prohibition, there could have been no development of moral nature, or character; and man would have only remained the highest of animals, and like them remained very good, but without the character of holiness or unholiness, for the very sufficient reason, there was nothing to develop such a relative quality.

That Adam was a mere animal, at creation, is further evident from the account of creation; Gen.2:7 - "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground," &c.; and verse 19, "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air," &c. These last the Lord caused to pass before Adam, to see what he would call them, at the time when he proposed to make Adam "a help meet," or a companion suitable for him: among none of them was such a help meet to be found. Adam was superior to them all, and designed to be their lord; Gen.1:26; yet, he had the same origin, i.e. from the dust of the ground, with such an organization as gave him faculties for higher developments, and capable of moral manifestations; or, capable of attaining unto holiness. "The first Adam was made a living soul;" 1Corth.15:45; not "an immortal soul" - that error lies at the root of all other corruptions of the Scriptures and the truth of God. The honor of making man an immortal being was reserved for the second Adam - he it is that is "made a quickening spirit," or through and by whom any man can attain to immortality; 1Corth.15:45-49.

Adam then was first developed, if I may use that phrase, an animal, with an aptitude to attain knowledge superior to any other animal; and herein was to consist the "image of God" in which he was created; as appears from Col.3:10 - "Renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:" not, renewed in knowledge after the image of Adam; but, after the image of Adam's Creator. Adam, himself, after being formed of the dust of the ground, needed and was designed to have this renewal [this renovo - to make new] in knowledge after the image of his Maker.

Adam therefore did not "lose the image of God," as the current theology teaches; and for which teaching there is not one word of authority from Genesis to Revelation; nor did he lose holiness, for he had none to lose prior to his trial; till then a moral character was not developed - till then he was very good, in common with the animals and other works of God, but was no more holy than the beasts of the field were holy: he could not therefore actually lose what he did not really possess. He did possess a capacity for holiness; that capacity he did not lose by his disobedience; but, it developed itself in a wrong direction - it now for the first time, became manifest that he possessed such a power - he now, for the first time, came to know the difference between good and evil - he knew not the one from the other previously; but now, said God, "the man is become as one of us to know good and evil" - has attained to a knowledge that exhibits the image of God: he has indeed attained to it by an improper course; but still he has attained it. But, says one, "Adam lost knowledge." So speaks the current theology; but, it is to give God the lie, and charge the God of truth with uttering a falsehood.

God declared he had gained knowledge. Who is this that blasphemeth his Maker by affirming the contrary? But, continues the objector. "It is evident that Adam lost knowledge, for he attempted to hide himself among the trees of the garden, which he would not have done if he had not lost the knowledge of God's omnipresence." This is another pure assumption. Where is the evidence that Adam ever had the knowledge of God's omnipresence? Or, that any such knowledge had ever been communicated to him? There is none - he seems to have regarded God as any child regards his father; and when he is conscious he has been doing wrong he is afraid to see his father, and strives to hide himself; just so Adam acted, and for the same reason - i.e. "shame."

ADAM'S TEMPTATION

Many people murmur and complain about Adam's Temptation; they seem at a loss to know which to blame most, Adam or his Maker. They might as well complain that we had not all been left to grovel in the region of the animal appetites, with no capacity for higher and God-like attainments. I have already shown that to develop moral qualities, or to bring out holiness - which is but another word for self-government - there must be trial of some sort. God adapted the trial to Adam's weakness and IGNORANCE - He gave him the least possible trial that could have been used to develop a moral character at all, or to test man as to his capacity of self-government. If he could not govern himself, he could not govern the creation at the head of which his Maker designed to place him, in dominion. I say, the prohibition out of which the trial was to grow, and which proved the occasion of his temptation, was the very least it could be. Look at it - Man's intellectual nature was not yet developed. His Maker therefore adapted his enjoyments to his present capacity - or animal nature - by causing "every tree to grow out of the ground that is pleasant to the sight and good for food," &c. In the delightful garden in Eden he placed man, with full and unrestrained liberty to regale and enjoy himself to the utmost extent of his present capacity, with but one solitary restriction. How very trifling this. There was no want of means for enjoyment. The restriction was designed for his advantage, by leading him to develop and form a moral character, and learn self-government, which would open up a new, more noble, and God-like source of happiness and enjoyment. In this view the restriction was one of love and good will. If man's capacity for a moral nature could be developed, and a character of holiness established by this easy test or trial, God determined it should be; but if that failed to bring out a holy moral character He determined to place the race under a course of discipline more severe, i.e., one of labor in sorrow, and death: and at the same time, to the favor already bestowed upon man, to add a "much more abundant" supply of aid to attain unto holiness, through the blessings to be bestowed in another dispensation, to be immediately opened for Adam's posterity if man failed in the present trial. "Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God," and also of his goodness and love to man!

Apply this illustration to the case of Adam. A moral character, holiness, or self-government could not have existed, in fact, without trial; and that would have been no trial which had placed it out of his power to act wrong. The least trial that could be employed was first used, with the information beforehand that if that failed to produce a holy moral character, man would be subjected to a much more severe trial, i.e., "dying to die" - implying sorrow, suffering, and labor, to wind up in "DEATH."

ADAM'S FAILURE

Adam failed to bring out a holy character in his trial. That is no proof of any defect in his constitution, or creation; or of any moral depravity previous to that time; nor did that "ruin" his posterity, as the self-styled orthodoxy affirms; nor, bring "the wrath of God" upon them. True, they were "subjected to vanity, [or, suffering and death,] not willingly, but by reason [or, in the wisdom] of him who hath subjected the same in hope," and in promise of deliverance from that death by a second Adam, the seed of the woman. All the acts of God towards Adam, after his sin, manifest mercy, not wrath. He told them, indeed, that they must now be subjected to sorrow, labor and death; but at the same time spoke to them words of encouragement and hope for their seed, or posterity. He also provided for their clothing, and guarded them against inflicting upon themselves the curse of immortality in sin, by removing them away from the tree of life; which, instead of being a curse, was a blessing; that they might not by any possible means inflict upon themselves an immortality in sin and suffering. Thus the notion that Adam died a moral death is proved to be a mere outburst of a distempered imagination: he never had moral life before he sinned: he had only animal life: the death to which he was subjected was only animal. God in wisdom, and for man's good, put the race under a severer discipline, as parents often do their children, and that in love and the most tender pity and good will. How is God - the God of love - often dishonored by the representations of his dealings with our first parents and their posterity because of their failure. No wonder men are made infidels by such blasphemous insinuations - no wonder men bewilder themselves, and are lost in the fancies which grow out of their absurd and contradictory theories.

The most blasphemous part of all is, that the God of Truth and Love is represented as causing Adam's posterity to inherit a morally depraved nature, "whereby they are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and that continually:" - Assembly's Catechism. When will such reproach of God our Maker have an end? "Oh, let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end;" - Psalmist. What has the doctrine of man's natural immortality done? Blasphemed God
- both deified and devilized man - exalted Satan - reviled the Bible - fed infidelity - nourished and brought up Universalism - robbed Christ - filled the world with hate and hypocrites. This it has done - "ignorantly, in unbelief," I hope. Let men learn to call their sins their own, and acknowledge the long suffering and love of God, till they shall both hate their sins and abandon them, from a deep conviction of the amazing wrong they have done to God by living contrary to that course his love and kindness has marked out for us, that we might attain "unto holiness, and that the end might be everlasting life, through Jesus Christ," the Son of God, and our Life-Giver.

There is, in my judgment, not a particle of evidence, in the Bible, that Adam lost anything for his posterity except access to the tree of life; and hence entailed upon us corruption and death. Doctors of Divinity have puzzled their own brains, and those of students in theology, with labored efforts to find out what infants need to have done for them, and how God does it, to fit them for heaven. Long and labored arguments and inquiries have been entered into about the depravity of infants - how they are justified - how they are made holy - and whether all of them go to heaven, or a part to hell, &c. &c. The whole of these discussions have only served to make darkness darker. The truth, I conceive, is very simple, and that, perhaps, is the reason why great men overlook it. It is simply this - Adam lost all claim to immortality - and therefore could not communicate it to his posterity, any more than an impoverished parent could communicate riches to his children; the consequence is, all his posterity are born, not liable to eternal sin and suffering, but liable to perish, to lose all life, sense and being; and what they need, previous to personal sins, is simply salvation from perishing, or they need immortality, eternal life. Christ came to redeem man from death, or that loss of being to which he was exposed, and open eternal life to all; or, he "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light." But that eternal life is the gift of God, through Jesus Christ. Under the Gospel we are required to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, as he that "came down from heaven" to give "life unto the world." This is the great test question; because he that truly receives Christ, receives all the other truths connected with his mission to earth; and he manifests that faith by obedience; so that a true faith is as certainly known by the conduct and conversation, as a living man is known from a dead carcass. And for a man to pretend that he has faith in Christ, while he does not walk in obedience to all the known commands of God, is as absurd as to say, that a sick man has faith in a physician whom he refuses to employ, and whose directions he will not follow.

I conceive, all the "evil nature," about which there has been so much discussion in the world, that man inherits, from Adam, is a dying nature; the entire man perishing. By Adam "all were dead;" i.e., the natural tendency of all born of him was to perish, in the sense of ceasing to be. - Christ died for all, "that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life."

Adults then pass from death, i.e., from condemnation to death, unto life, through or by faith in Christ - and thus are said to be born again. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh - corruptible, like him from whom it sprung; so, that which is begotten of the Spirit, of the spiritual, living Adam, Christ, is spirit; is endowed with that Spirit which will raise them up from the dead, or "quicken their mortal bodies," or, hath eternal life; according to the Scripture which saith, "he that hath the Son hath life," whilst "he that hath not the Son hath not life."